Daikon judge unaware of target inequalities

Press, 11 January 1986, Page 6

Daikon judge unaware of target inequalities

PA Wellington The American District Court judge who ordered and is monitoring the Daikon Shield publicity campaign, said yesterday that he was unaware of inequalities in the campaign’s target area. The “Dominion” newspaper outlined to Judge Robert Merhige complaints by New Zealand women’s groups that the Courtordered campaign by the shield’s manufacturer, A. H. Robins, was not reaching those women in most dire need — especially in Pacific countries. A. H. Robins’s strategy of holding press conferences in 20 countries and sending publicity material to newspapers in 70 or so others was said by the women’s groups to be inadequate, the Judge was told.

The campaign intends to inform women with health problems from using the shield of the deadline for suing its manufacturer. It’ was felt that many newspapers would not have

heard of the shield and would therefore not use the material submitted, the women had said. “I was not conscious of that,” Judge Merhige said from his home in Richmond, Virginia. Judge Merhige said that he had had to rely on experts who testified before the courts and had no choice but to accept what they said. “But the evidence showed overwhelmingly that most of the cases (women who had suffered health problems from using the intra-uterine contraceptive device) occurred in the United States.”

He said the people who had testified were “public relations” people and publicity people put on the stand by A. H. Robins.

When' asked why the Court’s plan had concentrated its publicity efforts in areas where women were already aware, he said it was not reasonable to comment further.

However, Judge Merhige, who is judge of the United

States Bankruptcy Court and of the Federal Court, confirmed that A. H. Robins was legally bound not to spend any more money on its publicity campaign than the Court had given approval for. A. H. Robins’s Australian head, Mr Max Miller, said at a press conference in Wellington on Thursday that his company would be guilty of contempt of court if it spent “one cent more” than the Court had decreed.

Judge Merhige said that outcome was not clear. “It must obey the Court but whether it would be guilty of contempt of court is another matter.” He said the courts would have to decide.

A. H. Robins has described the aim of the Courtordered plan as two-fold: to ensure that women who have been injured by the device be adequately compensated, and that at the end of the programme A. H. Robins should still exist as a company.

The Wellington lawyer

acting on behalf of New Zealand women, Mr Mike Okkerse, said it was important to decide just who should be preserved in the company. The Robins company was 40 per cent owned by the Robins family and 60 per cent by the University of Richmond — the beneficiary of a multi-million-dollar bequest — and some speculators, he said. “You are not protecting innocent shareholders. The company and its officers who made the decisions should pay,” he said. Proceedings against company officers have already been filed in the United States.

The Australian Government has announced it is considering whether to advertise to tell people they have until the end of April to file claims against A. H. Robins.

A spokesman for New Zealand’s Minister of. Health, Dr Bassett, said there were no plans for the New Zealand Government to advertise.