Non-Sequiturs: 01.17.08
* Does the Supreme Court’s Stoneridge decision give the “getaway drivers” of securities fraud a free pass? [OverHedged]
* Apparently Green Bay fans really like the Packers. [SI.com]
* Miss Loyola 2L? Meet Kirsten Wolf. [WSJ Law Blog]
* Did Barack Obama receive an illegal endorsement? [TaxProf Blog]
* Speaking of Obama, his minister had this to say about Bill Clinton: “He did the same thing to us that he did to Monica Lewinsky.” Can someone please remove the cigar from the national vajayjay? [Baltimore Sun]
(12) Comments
Posted in: Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, Football, Kids, Non-Sequiturs, SCOTUS, Securities Law, Sports, Supreme Court, Tax Law
Comments
Comments hidden for your protection. Show them anyway!
A better analogy for Stoneridge:
You rob a bank. You flee from the scene. You enter a subway station a few blocks away and board a packed train.
Eventually you are arrested and indicted for the bank robbery. Should we also indict the conductor of the subway train you boarded?
Co-sign 6:33.
"Free pass"? Seriously? You are still subject to criminal liability. You are still subject to disgorgement, fines, and other civil penalties imposed by the government. You can still be sued by private plaintiffs for fraud, civil conspiracy, and a slew of other causes of action. You just can't be sued for *securities fraud.*
6:33, the answer to your rhetorical question is yes (with the qualifier that the better analogy is a civil lawsuit, since that's what Stoneridge was), and the train company too if it's got money and/or insurance.
The post at OverHedged contains a couple of zingers, but this one is the best:
"What the Supreme Court has done is throw this back to Congress. In effect the Supreme Court is saying: 'We are not going to fix your sloppy law writing skills. If you want to hold these aiders and abettors, or secondary actors, liable for securities fraud in private lawsuits, you have to write the law that says that.'"
There was nothing "sloppy" about Congressional "law writing skills." Congress has considered aiding and abetting/secondary liability several times (both before and after Central Bank) and decided NOT to create a private right of action. It wasn't an accident. They considered this type of liability and rejected it.
greenbay sucks
Kirsten Wolf would really enjoy this blog.
"Did Barack Obama receive an illegal endorsement?"
What, a left-wing preacher using religion for political purposes? Impossible!
In all seriousness, there is a peculiar element to this story: who would have thought that an atheist lobby group like Americans United for the Separation of Church and State would object to a preacher's endorsement of a *Democratic* politician? Then again, Obama is now only running for the primary; if he were up against a Republican in the general election, I doubt that the lobby group would have found fault with the preacher's endorsement.
Go Pack!
WHHAAATTTT!!!! Fed Soc is creepy! YEEEAHHHHH!
Yes we do realize that common law remedies are still available. And we have heard of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995.
Realize we were only talking about 10(b)(5) causes of action and having a little fun with it.
p.s. guys at my high school used to wear cheeseheads all the time.
Fed Soc --
What? Your logic makes my brain hurt. Why exactly is it surprising that an atheist group working toward separation of church and state takes issue with a church endorsement of a political candidate? Why is that surprising?
Oh, because you're a partisan hack.
I get it.
You, politics, and religion are all dumb.
"You, politics, and religion are all dumb."
Whoa. There's a whole lot of pent-up anger in that post. Take a deep breath and count to ten.