For most people it didn't become terrorism until the second building was hit. That's when it was clear the first situation was no accident.

It's a showcase in whether Merck can show that they acted in a morally correct way and that they did not put profits over people's safety.

There are problems with the current product liability system, but under-deterrence is not one of them.

Many courts in other counties would toss this case because of the standard that no reasonable juror could find for the plaintiff in this situation. It's been our experience that many of the courts in the Rio Grande Valley are very, very friendly to plaintiffs' counsel and let cases go forward.

The president is to be commended for going to a place where too much excess liability has dramatically affected how people live because they can't get access to medicine.

There are no precedents in law dealing with a tragedy of this type where somebody intentionally caused the death of 5,000 people and you sue somebody else to blame them for that murder, that is new.