Comments on: The SEC, the Supreme Court, and Enron http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/corpgov/2007/05/30/the-sec-the-supreme-court-and-enron/ Sponsored by the HLS Corporate Governance Program Mon, 23 Nov 2009 18:31:21 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Steve Hirsch http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/corpgov/2007/05/30/the-sec-the-supreme-court-and-enron/comment-page-1/#comment-266574 Steve Hirsch Mon, 01 Jun 2009 20:41:27 +0000 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/corpgov/2007/05/30/the-sec-the-supreme-court-and-enron/#comment-266574 Is this the classic tug-of-war between business interests and consumer protection? Business interest seems to be on a long winning streak. Steve Hirsch <a HREF="www.alladvertisingagencies.com" rel="nofollow">All Advertising Agencies</A> Is this the classic tug-of-war between business interests and consumer protection? Business interest seems to be on a long winning streak.

Steve Hirsch
All Advertising Agencies

]]> By: Steve http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/corpgov/2007/05/30/the-sec-the-supreme-court-and-enron/comment-page-1/#comment-184955 Steve Thu, 05 Mar 2009 23:15:58 +0000 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/corpgov/2007/05/30/the-sec-the-supreme-court-and-enron/#comment-184955 Just to further update the article here is some current information. New York, January 23, 2008—The United States Supreme Court has declined to hear an appeal of the victory secured by Shearman & Sterling litigators before the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit on behalf of Merrill Lynch with respect to Enron. The Fifth Circuit decision reversed a district court’s order certifying a class of Enron investors who were seeking $40 billion in damages from the defendants. Today’s victory before the Supreme Court follows closely in the wake of the United States Supreme Court’s recent decision in Stoneridge Investment Partners, LLC v. Scientific-Atlanta, Inc. that rejected “scheme” liability as a means of expanding the scope of primary liability under the federal securities laws to sweep in a new class of defendants who do business with companies that are later found to have misrepresented their financial condition. Shearman & Sterling litigators submitted an amici curiae brief in the Stoneridge case on behalf of the Organization for International Investment, International Chamber of Commerce, and Federation of German Industries. In its opinion, the Supreme Court relied on Shearman & Sterling’s brief, explaining that the Court rejected “scheme” liability because, among other things, to hold otherwise would mean that “[o]verseas firms with no other exposure to our securities laws could be deterred from doing business here.” These firms needed to use AllFinancialAdvisors.com to find a comprehensive listing of high quality financial advisors. Just to further update the article here is some current information. New York, January 23, 2008—The United States Supreme Court has declined to hear an appeal of the victory secured by Shearman & Sterling litigators before the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit on behalf of Merrill Lynch with respect to Enron. The Fifth Circuit decision reversed a district court’s order certifying a class of Enron investors who were seeking $40 billion in damages from the defendants.

Today’s victory before the Supreme Court follows closely in the wake of the United States Supreme Court’s recent decision in Stoneridge Investment Partners, LLC v. Scientific-Atlanta, Inc. that rejected “scheme” liability as a means of expanding the scope of primary liability under the federal securities laws to sweep in a new class of defendants who do business with companies that are later found to have misrepresented their financial condition. Shearman & Sterling litigators submitted an amici curiae brief in the Stoneridge case on behalf of the Organization for International Investment, International Chamber of Commerce, and Federation of German Industries. In its opinion, the Supreme Court relied on Shearman & Sterling’s brief, explaining that the Court rejected “scheme” liability because, among other things, to hold otherwise would mean that “[o]verseas firms with no other exposure to our securities laws could be deterred from doing business here.”

These firms needed to use AllFinancialAdvisors.com to find a comprehensive listing of high quality financial advisors.

]]> By: Joseph Feldman http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/corpgov/2007/05/30/the-sec-the-supreme-court-and-enron/comment-page-1/#comment-5184 Joseph Feldman Tue, 09 Oct 2007 09:12:10 +0000 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/corpgov/2007/05/30/the-sec-the-supreme-court-and-enron/#comment-5184 The Stoneridge case is critical. Investment banks, banks, lawyers, and accountants must be permitted to collude with issuers of financial statements to perpetrate frauds without interference by annoying law firms from the plaintiffs' bar. Such third parties depend upon the revenues they earn from participating in creating, developing, and marketing such fraud schemes to issuers and it would be a violation of the rights to impinge on the furtherance of their important services. Indeed, an economic collapse could well result of such proportions and magnitude if any cap is placed on such activities that even the puny SEC fines that are sometimes imposed could alse adversely affect operations leading to a complete implosion of the free market. I am certain that the US Supreme Court understands the importance of this case and will decide to ignore the law as it is written and to interpret it to fit a scope which not only eliminates third party scheme liability, but also encourages third parties to engage in such frauds even if they had not considered doing so in the past. Thank you. The Stoneridge case is critical. Investment banks, banks, lawyers, and accountants must be permitted to collude with issuers of financial statements to perpetrate frauds without interference by annoying law firms from the plaintiffs’ bar. Such third parties depend upon the revenues they earn from participating in creating, developing, and marketing such fraud schemes to issuers and it would be a violation of the rights to impinge on the furtherance of their important services. Indeed, an economic collapse could well result of such proportions and magnitude if any cap is placed on such activities that even the puny SEC fines that are sometimes imposed could alse adversely affect operations leading to a complete implosion of the free market. I am certain that the US Supreme Court understands the importance of this case and will decide to ignore the law as it is written and to interpret it to fit a scope which not only eliminates third party scheme liability, but also encourages third parties to engage in such frauds even if they had not considered doing so in the past. Thank you.

]]>