The SCOTUS is Ruining This Country

9 Comments

1. 

   rikyrah on June 14, 2011 at 12:15 pm

   you want logic from the Court’s Bought-off MUTE?

   you’re expecting too much, BooMan

2. 

   Geov Parrish on June 14, 2011 at 12:19 pm

   I don’t even see why corporations should want this ruling. It only encourages their employees to violate the law. I guess it just shows how mercenary corporate America has become. These CEO’s don’t stick around long enough in any one place for them to care about criminal liability for their corporation. They just want to be immune from prosecution when they steal.

   It’s much worse than that. There’s a whole science to corporations determining the cost/benefit analysis of breaking the law. It’s an entirely amoral calculation, based solely on whether the company will make more money, in the long run, by breaking the law even if it is caught.

   Since the financial penalties are laughably low in most cases compared to the rewards (guess who wrote the laws?), the only other real check on such behavior is holding individuals personally accountable. SCOTUS just removed that check. Corporations will love this ruling.

3. 

   eagleye on June 14, 2011 at 12:24 pm

   I had some experience with a European cement company that operates here in the USA.  They had a line item in their budget for compliance violation fines.  They just built it in, like any other expense.  Assholes.

4. 

   Brendan Skwire on June 14, 2011 at 12:45 pm

   It is actually relatively chep to become a corporation, at least in PA. I believe the fee to become a LLC is about $600.00.

   that’s a small price to pay to cheat on my taxes. “Your honor, i was working for a corporation. That is, myself.”

   I’m gonna see how this works out when I pay my taxes. I do a bit of freelancing, and can deduct various expenses.

5. 

   Oui on June 14, 2011 at 1:49 pm

   .

   Supreme Court Limits Investors Right to Sue in Securities Fraud Lawsuits

   (SEO Law) – In 2003, the New York State Attorney General Spitzerannounced that an ongoing investigation had uncovered evidence of secret deals between JCM and several hedge finds. According to the discreet arrangements, the hedge funds were allowed to engage in market-timing trades using assets from Janus Investment Funds. While a few large investors were allowed to privately make risky day trades, the Janus funds were advertised publicly as safe for long-term investors. The prospectus indicated that market-timing was discouraged and that steps were taken to curb the practice.

   The basic facts are not in dispute. Janus settled with the Securities and Exchange Commission in 2004 and paid $100 million in penalties. At the time, an S.E.C. enforcement official said it was clear to the commission that Janus “violated an investment adviser’s fiduciary duty to investors.”

   In its settlement with the S.E.C., Janus agreed that its Janus Capital Management subsidiary, known as J.C.M., would “cause the Janus funds to operate” in accordance with governance policies that would prevent such violations in the future.

   … In accepting the case, the Supreme Court addressed two questions: whether an adviser can be held legally responsible for participating in false statements made by another company and whether an adviser can be held liable in securities fraud actions for statements it did not make directly.

   The Supreme Court addressed the issue of indirect liability for aiding and abetting deceptive practices in the 1994 case Central Bank of Denver, N.A. v. First Interstate Bank of Denver, N.A.The case involved manipulative practices that ultimately led to a bond default. First Interstate Bank and other bondholders sued several entities, including Central Bank, who they claimed was “secondarily liable” for adding and abetting in the fraud.

   The Court found that Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 do not allow a private plaintiff to bring an aiding and abetting suit. The case marked a turning point in the interpretation of securities fraud rules. Prior to the ruling, secondary actors like trustees, attorneys, and banks were often found guilty of misconduct under Rule 10b-5. [Supreme Court cases by the Rehnquist Court]

   2008 case Stoneridge Investment Partners, LLC v. Scientific-Atlanta, Inc., et al. In a 5-3 decision authored by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, the Court held that “aiders and abettors” of fraud cannot be held secondarily liable under the private right of action authorized by §10(b) of the Exchange Act. Such defendants can only be held liable if their own conduct satisfies each of the elements for §10(b) liability. Therefore, the plaintiff must prove reliance, in making a decision to acquire or hold a security, upon a material misrepresentation or omission by the defendant.

   "But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."

6. 

   DaveW on June 14, 2011 at 2:22 pm

   At least the mendacious majority is being right up front about their true agenda, which has nothing whatever to do with justice or law. “Corporate formalities were observed”, which means any legal restraint is null and void. Law in America is only there so patent vultures and foreclosure hyenas can get their private laws enforced at taxpayer expense.

   Ready to dump the Constitution yet? How dysfunctional does it have to get?

7. 

   obsessed on June 14, 2011 at 4:22 pm

   Thomas, Scalia, Kennedy, Alito, Roberts

   I thought Kennedy was supposed to retire during this term. How old is he?

   • 

     DaveW on June 14, 2011 at 4:58 pm

     Unfortunately Ginsburg is the oldest current member of the court. Kennedy is around 75, I think.

     I wonder if any other country has a high court that’s the subject of a constant political death watch? Most barbaric thing imaginable. Yet another fail by our revered founders. Time to get out from under their thumb.

   • 

     Oui on June 14, 2011 at 6:58 pm

     .
     List of Justices of the Supreme Court

     Ginsberg  1933–
     Scalia  1936–
     Kennedy  1936–
     Breyer  1938–

     "But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."