We got so caught up in all the excitement (here, here, and here) that we nearly forgot to publish our “legitimate” post about the Tulane Law Review MDL Symposium issue.

So, here goes.

Ahem. (Is that how one clears one’s throat in writing?)

Volume 82, Number 6 — the June 2008 issue of the Tulane Law Review — is devoted to “The Problem of Multidistrict Litigation.” The table of contents lists the following articles:

“The MDL Model for Resolving Complex Litigation If a Class Action Is Not Possible,” by Edward F. Sherman;

“A View From The Panel: Part of the Solution,” by John G. Heyburn II;

“Cure-All For An Era of Dispersed Litigation? Toward a Maximalist Use of the Multidistrict Litigation Panel’s Transfer Power,” by Richard L. Marcus;

“An Uncommon Focus on ‘Common Questions’: Two Problems with the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation’s Treatment of the ‘One or More Common Questions of Fact’ Requirement for Centralization,” by Mark Herrmann and Pearson Bownas;

“Bellwether Trials in Multidistrict Litigation,” by Eldon Fallon, Jeremy Grabill, and Robert Pitard Wynne;

“Recovering the Social Value of Jurisdictional Redundancy,” by Alexandra D. Lahav; and

“Disaster-Specific Mechanisms for Consolidation,” by Robin J. Effron.

This volume looks like an important contribution to the MDL literature.