Business Community's "Roe v. Wade" Decided Today (Thanks, Bill and Hillary!)

[CorpGovActivist]

http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&tab=wn&ned=&q=supreme+court+shareholder+lawsuits">The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the business community today, on largely ideological lines.

Congress can re-write the law, though, and this will become a major new battlefront in the next Congress. Kudos to http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&tab=wn&scoring=d&q=supreme+court+dodd+criticism">Senator Dodd for immediately swinging into action. Maybe now he understands the unintended consequences of the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_Securities_Litigation_Reform_Act">asinine law he helped create in 95 after the GOP takeover of 94.

Oh, and thanks again, Bill and Hillary, for all you did to hang onto Congress in 94. This law was passed over Clinton's veto, largely because of the lost majorities.

- Dave

P.S. Inconvenient timing for the Clinton Corporatists, given tonight's debate and JRE's continued presence in the race.

[bronxiteforever]

1. K & R

[madrchsod]

2. that`s good for america!

no one will invest in the usa because the supremes just said there is no recourse if one get`s ripped off...

[CorpGovActivist]

3. They Interpreted a Law That Should NEVER Have Been n/t

[gratuitous]

4. Not sure I'm following the logic here

First, the ruling clears ancillary folks from liability who weren't part of the fraud perpetrated on investors. If an investor didn't exercise his or her own due diligence, and didn't rely on what the banks or the accountants or someone else said about that investment, it seems a stretch to hold someone liable, just because they have deep pockets. And I say this as a legal secretary of 20 years' experience in litigation, mostly for plaintiffs.

Second, Clinton vetoed the original bill, but that veto was overridden by the newly-minted 1995 Republican majority in Congress. While there was a Republican majority in 1995, there wasn't a veto-proof majority. I'd say that any blame for this law attaching to the Clintons is pretty tenuous.

As for where that 1995 Republican majority came from, I'm quite willing to hold Tom Foley and the Democratic leadship from the 1993 Congress responsible for that. Their inept performance greatly depressed voter turnout, and enabled the Republicans to score a big victory in the 1994 elections (which was, in actuality, smaller than the Democratic victory in 2006) while they took only about a quarter of the votes of eligible voters.

Blaming this entirely on the Clintons, or even Bill Clinton, seems a very long stretch.

[CorpGovActivist]

5. Some Additional Facts

"First, the ruling clears ancillary folks from liability who weren't part of the fraud perpetrated on investors."

How much securities litigation does your firm do? The PSLRA raised the pleading requirements, and - EXTREMELY IMPORTANT - placed an "automatic stay" on all discovery. How many cases do you have in which the discovery tools are put out of your clients' reach?

"If an investor didn't exercise his or her own due diligence, and didn't rely on what the banks or the accountants or someone else said about that investment, it seems a stretch to hold someone liable, just because they have deep pockets."

Have you been following the Enron ERISA and securities litigation? The investment banks, the auditors, the corporate law firms, etc. are heavily implicated. The Enron case will probably be remanded down to the lower court now, for further proceedings.

"And I say this as a legal secretary of 20 years' experience in litigation, mostly for plaintiffs."

Securities?

"Second, Clinton vetoed the original bill, but that veto was overridden by the newly-minted 1995 Republican majority in Congress."

Let's not have selective amnesia about why the Dems lost the majorities in 94. Let's talk about the healthcare debacle.

"While there was a Republican majority in 1995, there wasn't a veto-proof majority."

Yup, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PSLRA#Legislative_History">some pretty surprising Dems fell all over themselves to support this law, because their donors wanted it to be so.

"I'd say that any blame for this law attaching to the Clintons is pretty tenuous."

Again, let's talk about the reasons that the number of Dems Bill had to arm-twist on this was so low. The http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_revolution">Republican Revolution entailed a net gain of 54 seats in the House, and 8 in the Senate. Then Shelby switched, making it 9.

"As for where that 1995 Republican majority came from, I'm quite willing to hold Tom Foley and the Democratic leadship from the 1993 Congress responsible for that. Their inept performance greatly depressed voter turnout, and enabled the Republicans to score a big victory in the 1994 elections (which was, in actuality, smaller than the Democratic victory in 2006) while they took only about a quarter of the votes of eligible voters."

Yup, thank Heaven for small favors that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_Post_Office_Scandal">Pelosi is there now to run the Post Office right. You're doing a heckuva job, Nancy!

"Blaming this entirely on the Clintons, or even Bill Clinton, seems a very long stretch."

I'm sure all the Enron retirees, GM/Delphi retirees, etc. have long ago forgiven both Clintons for the PSLRA's passage, and I'm sure they're thrilled with today's interpretation of a law that should never have been.

- Dave

[gratuitous]

6. Oops, sorry

Didn't realize this was a free-form Clinton-bashing thread. Carry on.

[CorpGovActivist]

7. So, the Answer Is "No," You Don't Fight Discovery-Free for Your Clients?

That's like fighting hogtied against corps.

- Dave

[RuleOfNah]

11. Here some unignorable, non partisian highlights for you.

asinine law
"automatic stay" on all discovery
Enron case will probably be remanded down to the lower court now

[CorpGovActivist]

20. An Inconvenient Factset n/t

[WillyT]

8. And If Investors Started Selling Off All Their Shares In Response ???

That would be a nice little message to the SCOTUS and beyond!

:shrug:

[CorpGovActivist]

9. Don't Go Cutting off Your Nose...

; )

- Dave

[IdesOfOctober]

10. Don't forget Gramm-Leach-Bliley.

That http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramm-Leach-Bliley_Act">contributed, though I agree with much of it.

Ides

[DemReadingDU]

12. morning kick

[IdesOfOctober]

14. Happy Birthday!

I'm curious. Do Zoroastrian Nosepickers send their yummiest, barely legal youths from door to door to convert?

I could use a little takeout.

Ides

[Perry Logan]

13. Wow. This is a lame one, even by anti-Clinton standards.

[mondo joe]

15. But didn't you know, the Clintons caused the Repub congress by trying to address healthcare?

If they had just kept everything the way Reagan/Bush left it, they would have been fine!

:crazy:

[CorpGovActivist]

19. No, If She'd Listened, and Not Operated Like Cheney's Energy Task Force...

... things might have gone very differently.

- Dave

[mondo joe]

21. Listened to whom?

[CorpGovActivist]

22. To Anyone and Everyone with a Stake...

... including patients' rights advocates, doctors' groups, nurses' groups, insurers, hospitals (prof and non-prof), medical research community, etc.

While she was busy huddled in the Star Chamber signing edicts and execution orders, the real battle was being waged in Gucci Gulch, by those alarmed at being excluded.

- Dave

[mondo joe]

23. Your RW talking points are stale. Mabe you should run a Harry & Louise ad next.

[CorpGovActivist]

24. Yup, So Are Mark Penn's

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=turning+a+win+into+a+draw+mark+penn

- Dave

[CorpGovActivist]

16. A Grasp of History Helps n/t

[mondo joe]

17. But a slant on history helps even more. NT

[CorpGovActivist]

18. You're Right. The Clintons *Stemmed* the Tide of Losses in 94...

... it would have been three times worse, had Hillary not shown up on the field wearing her shiny new armor.

- Dave

[RuleOfNah]

25. Republicans aren't to blame?

You seem to be successful in burying the extreme importance of this development in a Dembash sauce, thereby relegating it to the dusty corners of DU (a self fulfilling complaint).

This issue is pure corporate corruption. It allows corps to flaunt the law, or worse, without accountability (literally). Why distract with personal Hillary hate? Surely your corporate sleuth training taught you the basics of interpersonal engineering?

[CorpGovActivist]

26. Of Course the New GOP Majority Moved the Agenda...

... however, what you're suggesting is a bridge too far. If JRE won't build it, neither will I. I am happy to build a fact-based bridge for fact-prone Hillary supporters as an escape route, but build a bridge to embrace her form of cover-up corporatism? Not a chance in the world.

She's part of the problem on this cluster of issues, not part of the solution.

Moreover, if you review the legislative history, you'll see that quite a few surprising Dems tripped all over themselves to do a solid for their donors when supporting the PSLRA.

- Dave

[RuleOfNah]

27. I'm not disagreeing.

I'm pointing out the folly of attaching personal perceptions (accurate or not) to the effort of raising basic awareness of a critical legal development. You and I both know that adding (D) mud is going to turn off the ears of anyone to the right of Kucinich.

[CorpGovActivist]

28. My Poor Grandmother...

... used to remind me that, "You catch more flies with honey than vinegar."

When I was about 8 or 9, I got the bright idea to retort, "I don't want to catch any flies."

:rofl:

She stifled a snicker, and the shared twinkle between us pretty much ended that line's efficacy.

I hear what you're saying. Historical causes and effects are something I think are important to understand.

"You and I both know that adding (D) mud is going to turn off the ears of anyone to the right of Kucinich."

Well, I've been fortunate enough to get the ear of some folks closer to the electable end of the spectrum; however, I do see your point.

:hug:

Thanks for reminding me of a good memory.

- Dave

[RuleOfNah]

29. Reductio ad absurdum

Remember any product meetings where the agenda people ignored the advice of anyone with a shred of marketing awareness. After the product fails in the marketplace, the agenda people tend to blame the customers, though that defense doesn't hold up well in court.

It can be so hard to tell the difference between the foolish and the doubles, they share the same attitudes and false assumtpions.

[happyslug]

30. If you want to read the actual decsion, here it is.

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/06-43.pdf

Other Recent US Supreme Court Decsions:
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/opinions.html