Tim Reason, CFO.com | US
August 18, 2008

Civil Litigation

Would it not be fair to all to have institute the British system: A judge who rules on the case based on case law and the evidence. The judge then stipulates the damages based on case law. No jury to sequester in a room while they spin the wheel of fortune for the plaintiff regardless of liability or injury?

The loser of the lawsuit pays all court costs.

That would assist in reducing the cost of liability insurance to a level commensurate with the rest of the world (approximately 25% to 75% less than similar coverage in the US).

But we, in the US cannot deprive our citizenry of their rights because they have been injured whether due to their own stupidity, failure to read and write English, or age or misuse of the product (because the manufacturer failed to foresee, i.e. be clairvoyant; or the product was manufactured 30+ years ago and now does not meet safety standards).

Sadly, the system is out of balance.

R. E. Callard

Posted by Bob Callard | Aug 19, 2008 9:38 AM ET

enough already

With our economy on the brink, the dollor in a coma, energy prices orbiting the sun, people out of work, foreclosures everywhere, one would think that the FASB might have something better to do with its fading existence than continue to exacerbate an already unstable situation. Instead the FASB is doing thier best to continue to drive investment out of this country. Enough rules and requirements already.

Posted by rick macchiarulo | Aug 19, 2008 8:31 AM ET

Not Another One

Given the absolute confusion surrounding such gems issued by FASB in recent years such as FASB 123, 123(R), 133/149, 141/141(R) and FASB's apparent desire to go out of business, perhaps it should pass on a standard that requires the wisdom of Solomon and a crystal ball to implement.

There are limits to producing financial statements, just because its a desireable assertion doesn't mean its feasible to produce it.

Posted by Super Heater | Aug 18, 2008 6:52 PM ET