This will be the final litmus test for this administration. I believe the majority of Americans already view him as a president that, once re-elected, has repeatedly shown he is all too willing to sellout the American public – so long as his big-business base benefits.
If Paul Clement and Bush file an amicus brief supporting the defendants before today’s deadline (given the Enron case, where the banks appeared to be participating, even masterminding, the fraud down to its very DNA), then any and all doubt will have been removed about this administration and its anti-average-American sentiment.
From my intellectual viewpoint, the “scheme liability” in Enron shows a blatant link to the banks being most egregious in form and fully cognizant accessories to a fraudulent crime perpetuated on the investing public. How in the name of law and justice can these parties be granted such immunity?
How far we have fallen in the name of poisoned politics.
Advocate- I suggest you look at your own party first before calling for poisoned politics. However, I also suggest that you read this bill, and understand the full ramifcations of what it intends. Law, current law, and law in the future does not in and of itself exculpate a bank or auditor from their own legal liabilities. If you remember, in the Enron matter, most everyone was held legally liability inb one fashion or another. Arthur Anderson paid the ultimate price, did they not?
Dodd and his cronies are back attempting to p[rove once again the your Govenment will watch out for you, take care of you, tell you what to do, and how to do it, why – because you’re too stupid to do it yourself.
even as a conservative republican i can say i agree with you 100 percent. i have lost all confidence in the financial institutions. can you imagine the conspiracy to defraud if or when this or any other administration allows social security investment in private financial instutions. look what happened to private investments in enron. the 3rd party banks must be held responsible.
Early in the article it mentions “banks and accounting firms that worked for the company”. Just because an accounting firm that has performed its duties diligently has been engaged by a company that has committed fraud, that accounting firm should not be deemed to be at fault.
The article then mentions suppliers that appear to be involved in the fraud. It seems logical that these entities should be held liable.
Could it be that Mr. Dodd wants to make things easier on the trial lawyers and expose all third parties (potential deep pockets) with any relationship whatsoever to suits and damages, regardless of actual participation in the fraud. The Solicitor General may understand that only those entities who have participated in the fraud should be exposed to suit.
I agree with Andrew. It brings to my mind the old “shotgun approach” to litigation where every entity within sight of an occurrence is named as a party defendant in a lawsuit no matter how remote the possibility that liability could rest in their hands. It’s the law of large numbers…get enough parties defendant in a case and a Trier of Fact and Law may just order them all to pony up. I’m not in favor of bolstering the Trial Lawyers’ political status or influence in this country – we’re already awash in a sea of their b.s. and people in the insurance world see it every day.
What’s wrong with exposing third parties? Isn’t that why we have a jury system to sort out the good and the bad? Defending against frivolus lawsuits is the duty of the defendents insurers. I say throw them all in the pot, let lady justice sort them out. Better than letting everyone off the hook, no questions asked.
Colonel, Isn’t that like saying, “kill them all and let god sort them out”? clm mgr has a point in that the shotgun approach is not the best way, and that innocent companies may end up paying; even if they had nothing at all to do with the securities fraud.
Juries are altogether human and exactly how many of us are trained to determine how cupable a company is in a case like this, especially with both sides lawyers slanting the truth in their clients favor. What I would favor is a considered approach in which during the “discovery” phase innocent third parties could be excluded.
Colonel: You forget that the costs attendant to defending oneself in litigation are hideous, even for an insurance company which, by the way, may avail itself of the exclusionary language in most commercial insurance policies dealing with intentional torts, fraudulent activities, criminal endeavors, and so on. I’m all for ‘exposing third parties’ so long as there is some evidence available that could implicate them in the fraudulent activity, but to simply apply the ‘shotgun approach’ is unfair to those who have to pay to defend themselves. Don’t forget: In the U.S. the plaintiffs have no duty to the defendants if they lose other than costs. The defendants have to ‘eat’ the fees they pay and many of the other expenses associated with litigation, and that is no small number. This system actually encourages ‘shotgun litigation’ by extortion because plaintiffs’ attorneys can and do make the argument that it will cost the defendant to litigate; might just as well pay the plaintiff’s attorney as engage in protracted, costly, time-consuming, and risky litigation. Pitiful. Hope you never become embroiled in such a circumstance.
I thought this sounded familiar. In a Wall Street Journal editorial on 8/11, they noted that in a footnote to the joint brief in this case filed by Frank & Conyers it states that the brief was written by lawyers from the firm of Cuneo, Gilbert, & LaDuca, who are lobbyists for the National Assoc of Securities and Commercial Law Attorneys, an outfit set up by infamous trial attorney William Lerach. Two of the attorneys are also registered lobbyists for the American Association of Justice, formerly known as the Association of Trial Lawyers. This sheds much light on the situation.
I don’t think he intended this to be about any particular political party in so much as whether republican or democrat, you bite the hand that feeds securities markets and you are going to get some serious backlash.
While the law does not sweepingly exculpate wrongdoers, this decision on scheme liability could change that rather hurriedly – and for the worse. While Arthur Anderson paid the ultimate price, it’s the 5th circuit decision that may shake the American markets to seismic proportions if that decision gains traction. Barclays Bank, Credit Suisse First Boston and Merrill Lynch have essentially paved the way to the potential for horrendous securities abuse down the road if this matter is not dealt with a honest eye of judicial servitude by the Judges in the upcoming USSC case.
I can’t believe none of you touched on the value of this as a deterent, pro or con. On the pro side something like this will curb some of the outright greed and fraud we see in American business today. On the con side it will almost certainly increase the cost and availability of professional services to legitimate business. Look what happened to Dr’s and the medical field.
I don’t think that is Dodd’s attempt at all, Andrew. I think he merely wants to keep business and their brass honest, which is not only the right thing to do – it is the most beneficial in terms of preserving market integrity; the very foundation of American markets.
clm mgr hit the nail on the head. It is clearly an attempt to assist trial lawyers. Also, he was right on about the defense costs. I know of many who have been bankrupted by defense costs even thoough the court found in their favor. BTW, whoever asked about whether an amicus brief is required of the solicitor general; no it is not. Anyone licensed to practice before the supreme court who has an interest can file an amicus brief.
yeah, those stupid Enron investors deserved to be fleeced, didn’t they? Imagine that the bulk of the 401K investors were not allowed to trade their stocks before the value plunged down the toilet. Good Ol’ Dubya is the friend of Big BiZness and probably wouldn’t sell out his own contributors, now would he? No, he’ll give the little guy the business instead! Now that’s gratitude for ya!
i hope this does not turn into a bush bashing discussion but i cannot comprehend how anyone can condone the actions of the banking industry today. they were and are the primary engine in ALL the financial scandals of the past 20 years. it is insane that they can insulate themselves from culpability. a comment was made here about the disaster that befell arthur anderson accounting. true, the company failed but the auditors and accountants responsible merely left and went to work for other accounting firms and remained anonymous. i would be willing to bet that some of those accountants are responsible for the shady happenings today. we must elect leaders with a backbone who are willing to face up to the crooked financial institutions now running this country and our politicians.
Didn’t Enron happen during the Clinton Administration? Neither he nor the current president appear to have committed any illegal actions here as far as I can tell. The buck doesn’t always stop in the President’s office.
This will be the final litmus test for this administration. I believe the majority of Americans already view him as a president that, once re-elected, has repeatedly shown he is all too willing to sellout the American public – so long as his big-business base benefits.
If Paul Clement and Bush file an amicus brief supporting the defendants before today’s deadline (given the Enron case, where the banks appeared to be participating, even masterminding, the fraud down to its very DNA), then any and all doubt will have been removed about this administration and its anti-average-American sentiment.
From my intellectual viewpoint, the “scheme liability” in Enron shows a blatant link to the banks being most egregious in form and fully cognizant accessories to a fraudulent crime perpetuated on the investing public. How in the name of law and justice can these parties be granted such immunity?
How far we have fallen in the name of poisoned politics.
Advocate- I suggest you look at your own party first before calling for poisoned politics. However, I also suggest that you read this bill, and understand the full ramifcations of what it intends. Law, current law, and law in the future does not in and of itself exculpate a bank or auditor from their own legal liabilities. If you remember, in the Enron matter, most everyone was held legally liability inb one fashion or another. Arthur Anderson paid the ultimate price, did they not?
Dodd and his cronies are back attempting to p[rove once again the your Govenment will watch out for you, take care of you, tell you what to do, and how to do it, why – because you’re too stupid to do it yourself.
Is the executive branch, in particular Solicitor General Paul Clement, required to file a brief in this case?
even as a conservative republican i can say i agree with you 100 percent. i have lost all confidence in the financial institutions. can you imagine the conspiracy to defraud if or when this or any other administration allows social security investment in private financial instutions. look what happened to private investments in enron. the 3rd party banks must be held responsible.
Early in the article it mentions “banks and accounting firms that worked for the company”. Just because an accounting firm that has performed its duties diligently has been engaged by a company that has committed fraud, that accounting firm should not be deemed to be at fault.
The article then mentions suppliers that appear to be involved in the fraud. It seems logical that these entities should be held liable.
Could it be that Mr. Dodd wants to make things easier on the trial lawyers and expose all third parties (potential deep pockets) with any relationship whatsoever to suits and damages, regardless of actual participation in the fraud. The Solicitor General may understand that only those entities who have participated in the fraud should be exposed to suit.
I agree with Andrew. It brings to my mind the old “shotgun approach” to litigation where every entity within sight of an occurrence is named as a party defendant in a lawsuit no matter how remote the possibility that liability could rest in their hands. It’s the law of large numbers…get enough parties defendant in a case and a Trier of Fact and Law may just order them all to pony up. I’m not in favor of bolstering the Trial Lawyers’ political status or influence in this country – we’re already awash in a sea of their b.s. and people in the insurance world see it every day.
What’s wrong with exposing third parties? Isn’t that why we have a jury system to sort out the good and the bad? Defending against frivolus lawsuits is the duty of the defendents insurers. I say throw them all in the pot, let lady justice sort them out. Better than letting everyone off the hook, no questions asked.
Colonel, Isn’t that like saying, “kill them all and let god sort them out”? clm mgr has a point in that the shotgun approach is not the best way, and that innocent companies may end up paying; even if they had nothing at all to do with the securities fraud.
Juries are altogether human and exactly how many of us are trained to determine how cupable a company is in a case like this, especially with both sides lawyers slanting the truth in their clients favor. What I would favor is a considered approach in which during the “discovery” phase innocent third parties could be excluded.
Colonel: You forget that the costs attendant to defending oneself in litigation are hideous, even for an insurance company which, by the way, may avail itself of the exclusionary language in most commercial insurance policies dealing with intentional torts, fraudulent activities, criminal endeavors, and so on. I’m all for ‘exposing third parties’ so long as there is some evidence available that could implicate them in the fraudulent activity, but to simply apply the ‘shotgun approach’ is unfair to those who have to pay to defend themselves. Don’t forget: In the U.S. the plaintiffs have no duty to the defendants if they lose other than costs. The defendants have to ‘eat’ the fees they pay and many of the other expenses associated with litigation, and that is no small number. This system actually encourages ‘shotgun litigation’ by extortion because plaintiffs’ attorneys can and do make the argument that it will cost the defendant to litigate; might just as well pay the plaintiff’s attorney as engage in protracted, costly, time-consuming, and risky litigation. Pitiful. Hope you never become embroiled in such a circumstance.
I thought this sounded familiar. In a Wall Street Journal editorial on 8/11, they noted that in a footnote to the joint brief in this case filed by Frank & Conyers it states that the brief was written by lawyers from the firm of Cuneo, Gilbert, & LaDuca, who are lobbyists for the National Assoc of Securities and Commercial Law Attorneys, an outfit set up by infamous trial attorney William Lerach. Two of the attorneys are also registered lobbyists for the American Association of Justice, formerly known as the Association of Trial Lawyers. This sheds much light on the situation.
I don’t think he intended this to be about any particular political party in so much as whether republican or democrat, you bite the hand that feeds securities markets and you are going to get some serious backlash.
While the law does not sweepingly exculpate wrongdoers, this decision on scheme liability could change that rather hurriedly – and for the worse. While Arthur Anderson paid the ultimate price, it’s the 5th circuit decision that may shake the American markets to seismic proportions if that decision gains traction. Barclays Bank, Credit Suisse First Boston and Merrill Lynch have essentially paved the way to the potential for horrendous securities abuse down the road if this matter is not dealt with a honest eye of judicial servitude by the Judges in the upcoming USSC case.
I can’t believe none of you touched on the value of this as a deterent, pro or con. On the pro side something like this will curb some of the outright greed and fraud we see in American business today. On the con side it will almost certainly increase the cost and availability of professional services to legitimate business. Look what happened to Dr’s and the medical field.
I don’t think that is Dodd’s attempt at all, Andrew. I think he merely wants to keep business and their brass honest, which is not only the right thing to do – it is the most beneficial in terms of preserving market integrity; the very foundation of American markets.
clm mgr hit the nail on the head. It is clearly an attempt to assist trial lawyers. Also, he was right on about the defense costs. I know of many who have been bankrupted by defense costs even thoough the court found in their favor. BTW, whoever asked about whether an amicus brief is required of the solicitor general; no it is not. Anyone licensed to practice before the supreme court who has an interest can file an amicus brief.
yeah, those stupid Enron investors deserved to be fleeced, didn’t they? Imagine that the bulk of the 401K investors were not allowed to trade their stocks before the value plunged down the toilet. Good Ol’ Dubya is the friend of Big BiZness and probably wouldn’t sell out his own contributors, now would he? No, he’ll give the little guy the business instead! Now that’s gratitude for ya!
i hope this does not turn into a bush bashing discussion but i cannot comprehend how anyone can condone the actions of the banking industry today. they were and are the primary engine in ALL the financial scandals of the past 20 years. it is insane that they can insulate themselves from culpability. a comment was made here about the disaster that befell arthur anderson accounting. true, the company failed but the auditors and accountants responsible merely left and went to work for other accounting firms and remained anonymous. i would be willing to bet that some of those accountants are responsible for the shady happenings today. we must elect leaders with a backbone who are willing to face up to the crooked financial institutions now running this country and our politicians.
Didn’t Enron happen during the Clinton Administration? Neither he nor the current president appear to have committed any illegal actions here as far as I can tell. The buck doesn’t always stop in the President’s office.
Seriously. Is it 1/20/09 yet???