It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

High Court Shields Bankers in Stock Fraud Cases

page: 1
3

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 15 2008 @ 12:52 PM
link   

High Court Shields Bankers in Stock Fraud Cases


www.latimes.com

The U.S. Supreme Court sharply limited the reach of stock fraud cases today and shielded bankers and other businesses from being held liable for participating in a scheme to inflate a company's stock.

The case of Stoneridge Investment Partners vs. Scientific-Atlanta Inc. arose after Charter Communications, a St. Louis-based cable TV company, was sued for fraud after its stock price plummeted. After it settled claims, investors led by Stoneridge sued Scientific-Atlanta, a supplier of cable boxes that allegedly participated in a scheme with Charter to inflate its revenue.
(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
www.nytimes.com
www.washingtonpost.com




posted on Jan, 15 2008 @ 12:52 PM
link   
Well is it any surprise that the Supreme court would side against investors and continue a pattern of the government trying to prevent of the countries banking institutions?


In today's decision, the high court said that even if it is true that Scientific-Atlanta knowingly helped Charter inflate its revenue, it is not liable to those who bought or sold Charter's stock.

Scientific-Atlanta "had no duty to disclose" its dealings to the public, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy said, and "their deceptive acts were not communicated to the public," he said.


Does this mean that deception that is not entitled to disclosure is ok in the eyes of the High court of the land?

Inflate the figures so investors get duped into buying your stock then when the investors lose their money and that is considered to be an acceptable outcome?

I may not be reading this right, help me to understand how this ruling was proper.

Dissenting were Ginsberg, Stevens & Souter with Justice Breyer sitting out of this case.


www.latimes.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Jan, 15 2008 @ 01:36 PM
link   
i think your reading it right, unless i also read it wronge im preety sure thats exactly what they were saying and i belive this to be a bad rulling . i dont agree that people who participate in such a scheme knowingly should not be held just as liable as those who started said scheme.

[edit on 1/15/2008 by krill]



posted on Jan, 15 2008 @ 06:51 PM
link   
reply to post by krill
 


I agree, it seems that the SC is sanctioning this shady and illegal practce by protecting them.

What could be worse than for an investor, trying to do something for his/her family's future only to find out the information they based their decision to invest in a particular company is intentionally deceptive!

Then to say that the investor does not have legal recourse to go after the perpetrators of the scam.


The other side would say that the trial attorney's would end up receiving the bulk of the money awarded in this type of case.

Who gets screwed both ways.....the investor, who now has to find another plan to look after the future of his/her family.

Talk about needing a change.



posted on Jan, 15 2008 @ 07:11 PM
link   
What that judge is doing is illegal and the individuals involved should be
arrested. It happened to Martha Stewart, she was sentenced to jail and I
think they should do some too.



posted on Jan, 15 2008 @ 07:21 PM
link   
reply to post by JacKatMtn
 


what a smoke-screen...'Had no duty to disclose..."
that's very lame,
but if i see fraud or crime being committed, the law says i Must report
the activity or I will be held complicent...along with the perps.

that is unless the perps are the elite execs that the federal reserve is
bending-over-backwards to bail-out in the credit market & bogus toxic paper schemes the economy is relling over right now.
Add scientific-Atlanta execs to that list thats now filtering down to the courts instead of just the federal reserve cabal



posted on Jan, 15 2008 @ 07:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by St Udio
reply to post by JacKatMtn
 


what a smoke-screen...'Had no duty to disclose..."
that is unless the perps are the elite execs that the federal reserve is
bending-over-backwards to bail-out in the credit market & bogus toxic paper schemes the economy is relling over right now.



You may be on to something with this thought. I think the whole system is about to fold like a house of cards in a stiff summer breeze. The fall ou tis going to be bad indeed.

They are pre-emptively protecting the US government from prosecution at a later date. If in fact such a case could ever fly. In any case, the ruling sucks heinously IMHO.



posted on Jan, 15 2008 @ 07:28 PM
link   
reply to post by St Udio
 


Exactly, and the thought that it would bring less than credible lawsuits is kind of a moot point isn't it?

The courts can throw out cases they deem frivilous can't they? Heck the USSC threw out the certiorari case today.

Oh, my bad, that case involved protecting the interests of the citizens of this country...



posted on Jan, 15 2008 @ 08:01 PM
link   
If the Government is the maker of Laws, then the Banking Cartel (Federal Reserve) put its leash on our Laws almost a hundred years ago. Foreign Wars have raged all during this unholy alliance and our paper 'money' is racing towards its intrinsic value: Zero.



new topics

top topics



 
3

log in

join