Shades of Salem as hysteria does the trick
Miller was, of course, using the hysteria about imagined witchcraft in Massachusetts in the late 17th century as an allegory to comment on the McCarthy trials of the 1950s. Either way, the lessons were the same.
CSL has chosen a different path to that of John Proctor, and although it is not facing a similar fate at the end of the hangman's noose, it has decided to give $US64 million ($68 million) to a handful of hospitals that, instead of witches, saw a grand conspiracy by the company to defraud its customers through price fixing.
After four years of fighting CSL has given in, and given up any chance to clear its name and prove its innocence in the full public gaze of the US court system.
John Proctor never had shareholders, customers and a multibillion-dollar global plasma business to run; that CSL does seems to have finally won over the company's management and board to pay off the plaintiffs - no matter how distasteful it might be.
CSL lawyers believed a trial would have cost $20 million, although this is pretty small beer compared with annual revenue of more than $5 billion. It seems CSL did not fancy its chances in a jury trial. But if juries can sit on cases as complex as Enron, why not on a case about cartels? We will never know now.
The plaintiffs lined up against CSL never found a "smoking gun" that would have proved their case. However, sometimes a little bit of hysteria can go a long way. Just look at the graves in Salem.
Frequently Asked Questions about this Article…
CSL agreed to pay US$64 million (about $68 million) to a group of hospitals that alleged the company had engaged in price fixing. The payout was a settlement to resolve those civil claims after four years of litigation.
According to the article, CSL's management and lawyers weighed the risks of a jury trial and the costs involved — lawyers estimated a trial would cost about $20 million — and decided settling would avoid the uncertainty of a jury verdict and protect the broader business and shareholders, even though it meant foregoing a public chance to clear its name.
The US$64 million settlement is relatively small compared with CSL’s scale: the article notes the company generates annual revenue of more than US$5 billion, so the payout is a modest proportion of its overall revenue.
No definitive admission of guilt is indicated by the article. CSL chose to settle the claims and thereby gave up the opportunity to prove its innocence in court, while the plaintiffs never produced a clear 'smoking gun' proving the alleged cartel conduct.
The lawsuits alleged that CSL participated in price fixing and a broader conspiracy to defraud customers — in this case, a handful of hospitals — by coordinating prices for its plasma‑derived products.
For shareholders, the direct financial cost of the settlement is modest relative to revenue, but the choice to settle rather than fight could raise reputational questions. The article suggests management prioritized business stability and shareholder interests over a public legal vindication, which some investors may view as pragmatic and others as concerning.
The article states the plaintiffs never found a definitive 'smoking gun' to prove their case. It also suggests that a degree of hysteria or overreach may have played a role in the litigation, drawing an analogy to the Salem witch‑trial panic.
A jury trial might have given CSL a public forum to challenge the allegations — the article even notes juries can handle complex cases like Enron — but because CSL chose to settle after four years, the company relinquished that chance and the public will never see a jury’s verdict on the merits.
Call 1300 880 160
Start a chat
Schedule a call
