Results matching “stoneridge”

Around the web, February 11 - PointOfLaw Forum

  • New York officials move to ban unlicensed private ownership of chemical/radiological detection equipment [Volokh, Village Voice]
  • Insurance coverage litigation highlights of 2007 make a better read than anyone had a right to expect [Maniloff/Lexis via Rossmiller, also podcast]
  • Heartburn after a hot-chili meal, or cardiac distress? Better to err on the side of an ER referral [Starr/Cortlandt Forum via KevinMD]
  • There's a time for the Supreme Court to weigh policy considerations in securities law, and a time for it not to [Bainbridge]
  • PBS airing "Kingdom", series on small-town British lawyer [Cathy Gellis]
  • "Incoherent mess", "easy-to-spot falsehoods and silly exaggerations": Felix Salmon tells us exactly what he thinks of Ben Stein's latest [Portfolio]

Stoneridge roundup - PointOfLaw Forum

Atkins on Stoneridge - PointOfLaw Forum

SEC Commissioner Paul Atkins adds his voice in the WSJ to the large chorus of sensible people objecting to civil scheme liability:

In Stoneridge,the Supreme Court held that investors in one company cannot sue other companies for securities fraud unless those other companies did something that the plaintiffs specifically relied on when making investment decisions. The court warned that if it adopted the plaintiffs' concept of reliance, the "cause of action would reach the whole marketplace in which the issuing company does business." In other words, had Stoneridge gone the other way, plaintiffs would be able to reach into the pockets of customers, vendors and other firms that simply do business with companies that defraud investors.

Regardless, Stoneridge sparked an outcry from those arguing that in the name of "fairness" and "justice" someone should be forced to pay if the primary wrongdoer cannot. This outcry could lead to demands on Congress to rewrite the securities laws to give plaintiffs like those in Stoneridge what they could not get in court -- the ability to reach into a deep pocket regardless of culpability. But justice is not merely finding someone who can pay. Exposing one company to class-action lawsuits because another company defrauded its investors is not fair or just to shareholders who shoulder the burden of class-action settlements.

I agree.

Supreme Court denies cert in Enron case - PointOfLaw Forum

That Ted Frank guy who told the Legal Times "The proper way to look at it, I think, is that the Enron case is dead after today," appears to have been right. The plaintiffs' attenuated "scheme liability" theory contradicted federal law, as Stoneridge affirmed, and the Court refused to hear the appeal of the Enron plaintiffs from the Fifth Circuit decision shutting down the case.

Of course, the banks that settled for billions of dollars rather than risk tens of billions of dollars of liability after the erroneous district court ruling don't get to get their money back, and the plaintiffs' attorneys (including the felon Bill Lerach) will make hundreds of millions of dollars in their use of the courts as legalized extortion.

(Semi-related update: Bainbridge podcast on Stoneridge at the Federalist Society; Portfolio notes that the Enron plaintiffs return to district court to try a new theory.)

Stoneridge coverage - PointOfLaw Forum

Legal Times/New York Law Journal; Human Events; and A.M. Best Wire all quote me. Also: Bainbridge again; Ribstein again; Alt & Walsh @ Heritage; Kirkendall;; Lattman (interviewing Hal Scott); Nowicki.

Separately, the remand in Tellabs, a case used by the Chemerinskys of the world to demonstrate the supposed business-bias of the Court, has resulted in the Seventh Circuit refusing to dismiss the case notwithstanding the Court's decision. Judge Posner wrote the unanimous decision.

SCOTUSblog has downloaded the opinion and has a good post. Steve Shapiro, who argued the case for the winning side, says in a press statement, �The Supreme Court today handed down a major victory for the U.S. economy and investor welfare. The Court understood that the trial lawyers� theory of �scheme liability� was simply a scheme to rake in billions of dollars for themselves at the expense of the investors they purported to represent.� Justice Kennedy:

In effect petitioner contends that in an efficient market investors rely not only upon the public statements relating to a security but also upon the transactions those statements reflect. Were this concept of reliance to be adopted, the implied cause of action would reach the whole marketplace in which the issuing company does business; and there is no authority for this rule.

Earlier on POL: Epstein, Frank, much else.

New Epstein podcast - PointOfLaw Forum

Distinguished visiting scholar Richard Epstein has recorded the second in his series of podcasts for the Manhattan Institute, once again interviewed by our own Jim Copland. The topic this time: Epstein's lecture entitled, "Neither Liberal Nor Conservative: A Maverick's View of the Supreme Court." Check it out here. The earlier podcast on the Stoneridge securities case is here.

Around the web, October 11 - PointOfLaw Forum

  • Wish I could attend dept.: on this coming Monday Oct. 15 NAM is hosting afternoon seminar in D.C. on civil procedure reform. "Key topics include: notice pleading, streamlined discovery, expedited summary judgment process, frivolous lawsuits, forum shopping by domestic and foreign plaintiffs, and rationalizing punitive damages." [NAM "Capital Briefing", scroll; register]
  • Battle continues in Washington state over insurer bad faith Referendum 67 [AP, Insurance Journal, Seattle Times, Sue Evans & Dana Childers @ The Olympian, Seattle P-I, chamber head Don Brunell; earlier here and here]
  • Oklahoma Gov. Brad Henry says his Brazilian fishing trip with trial lawyers was just pleasure, not business [ShopFloor]
  • Plop, plop, fizzle, fizzle: lawsuits alleging injury from ingredient PPA (phenylpropylalanine) in Alka-Seltzer Plus, Contac, etc. mostly strike out [NJLJ; OL last year]
  • Harvard's Arthur Miller, whose "longstanding relationship with Milberg Weiss" was noted previously, has a pro-liability piece out on Stoneridge [NLJ]
  • Florida injury lawyers eager to follow up on Engle with more tobacco suits [AP/Chamber, Jacksonville Daily Record]

Richard Epstein on the Stoneridge saga - PointOfLaw Forum

We're delighted to publish an original article on the Stoneridge case by Manhattan Institute visiting scholar (and University of Chicago law professor) Richard Epstein. Its title: "Primary and Secondary Liability Under Securities Law: The Stoneridge Investment Saga". Prof. Epstein's podcast of last week on the same subject is here, and our other coverage of Stoneridge is here.

Around the web, October 10 - PointOfLaw Forum

  • Generic charges of statistical disparities, unconscious bias and too-wide managerial discretion fuel current wave of employment-bias class actions -- and rare is the big employer not vulnerable on one or more of those fronts [Parloff, Fortune]
  • Kentucky officials sue maker of Oxycontin seeking recoupment of money spent on drug abuse programs, policing [AP]
  • One perspective on the tainted-hamburger scare [Szwarc]
  • Underplayed angle in Stoneridge hubbub: law firms themselves are a prime target for suits alleging aiding and abetting [NLJ]
  • Three members of San Antonio family are indicted on charges of submitting fraudulent fen-phen charges [USDoJ]
  • Washington state's unique sovereign un-immunity rules keep generating big suits over crimes committed by ex-cons [Seattle Times (Algona hit/run, $1.8 million settlement), KOMO (murder in Tacoma, family seeks $45 million)]
  • More attention for Ohio AG Marc Dann, scourge of subprime lending and much else [WSJ law blog, Columbus Dispatch via Chamber]

Stoneridge: "Just Say 'No' to the Trial Lawyers" - PointOfLaw Forum

In today's Wall Street Journal, SEC Commissioner Paul Atkins is yet another voice warning about the dangers of a reversal in Stoneridge v. Scientific-Atlanta. John Engler weighs in at USA Today. In the Legal Times, Richard Booth correctly asks who really gains from the alleged Stoneridge fraud.

Warren Richey has a fair overview of the facts in today's Christian Science Monitor, and Kara Scannell in the Wall Street Journal covers Bill Lerach's lobbying campaign. And, interestingly, Roger Parloff, who previously called for reversal, has changed his mind:

These issues were decided in 1994, and Congress has twice consciously chosen not to overrule the part of that Court decision that barred private suits against aiders and abettors, which is what Scientific-Atlanta and Motorola really were (if anything) here. Congress decided � reasonably � that shareholder litigation is so fraught with abuse, and is such a grotesquely inefficient and ineffective way of reimbursing fraud victims, that it was wiser to leave the deterrence and punishment of aiders and abettors to the SEC and federal prosecutors.

Earlier on Point of Law: Epstein podcast and column; Bainbridge; Copland; and Frank.

On Bloomberg TV today - PointOfLaw Forum

I'm scheduled to be on Bloomberg TV at 5 pm Eastern talking about the Stoneridge case. See also Point of Law October 6 for more links.

Stoneridge-fest in the WSJ - PointOfLaw Forum

A backgrounder (with Senator Specter on the wrong side once again), and an extensive op-ed seeking affirmance. Lyle Roberts has other links to press coverage, and one can expect more on Monday and Tuesday.

My Monday talk-radio discussion with Hugh Hewitt about the Stoneridge case (and other class action and legal reform issues) is on-line. Pete Yost of the Associated Press also quotes me.

POL personnel on Stoneridge: Epstein; Bainbridge; Copland; and Frank.

Richard Epstein podcast on Stoneridge - PointOfLaw Forum

Yesterday, after Richard Epstein addressed a Manhattan Institute luncheon on the topic of the pending Supreme Court Stoneridge case, our Jim Copland interviewed him for an eight-minute podcast about the case. It's very much worth listening to, and can be found here. Look for more Epstein podcasts at Point of Law as the fall proceeds.

Parallel Stoneridge events October 5 - PointOfLaw Forum

Case Western Reserve Law in Cleveland is hosting along with the Federalist Society a conference tomorrow on Stoneridge; speakers include Stephen Bainbridge and POL's Jim Copland, and it's hosted by my law school classmate Craig Boise.

In Washington, the AEI Legal Center for the Public Interest is putting on its own panel discussion Friday morning. Former SEC chair Harvey Pitt will speak, as will a number of other attorneys from both sides of the amicus briefs. I'll also be on the panel. The AEI site has a number of documents on the subject.

Elsewhere, in the Wall Street Journal, the UK's former Chancellor of the Exchequer expresses outrage at the liability theories in Stoneridge.

Prof. Bainbridge on Stoneridge - PointOfLaw Forum

He's got new commentaries on Stoneridge Investment Partners v. Scientific-Atlanta, "arguably the most important securities law case to reach the Court in a decade," here and here.

AEI Legal Center for the Public Interest - PointOfLaw Forum

AEI and National Legal Center for the Public Interest Establish New Research Center on Legal and Constitutional Issues

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Tuesday, September 4, 2007

American Enterprise Institute president Christopher DeMuth announced today that the National Legal Center for the Public Interest (NLCPI) has been merged into AEI, forming a new research division named the AEI Legal Center for the Public Interest (AEILC).

The National Legal Center for the Public Interest was founded in 1975 to foster knowledge about law and the administration of justice, especially with respect to individual rights, free enterprise, property ownership, limited government, and a fair and efficient judiciary. It has pursued its educational and intellectual missions through publications, conferences, and the annual Gauer Distinguished Lecture in Law and Public Policy, which will continue at AEI. Further information on the NLCPI is available at its website,

The American Enterprise Institute has conducted similar work for many decades as part of its domestic policy research program. AEI�s research staff has included such eminent legal scholars as Robert H. Bork, Robert A. Goldwin, and Antonin Scalia. It currently sponsors work on legal and constitutional issues by resident and visiting scholars such as Walter Berns, John R. Bolton, Theodore (Ted) Frank, Jack Landman Goldsmith, Michael S. Greve, Peter J. Wallison and John Yoo as well as adjunct scholars including Richard A. Epstein and Jeremy Rabkin.

The new AEI Legal Center for the Public Interest will pursue an expanded program of research, publications, and conferences drawing on the traditions, interests, and people of both institutions. The AEILC will be directed by AEI resident fellow Ted Frank (, who has been director of the AEI Liability Project for the past two years. Mr. Frank clerked for Judge (now Chief Judge) Frank H. Easterbrook of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit and, prior to joining AEI, practiced law with Kirkland & Ellis and O�Melveny & Myers in Washington, D.C. He writes AEI�s Liability Outlook and is a frequent contributor to several national publications and websites, including The Wall Street Journal and

The AEI Legal Center�s website,, part of AEI�s constellation of more than a dozen websites, will feature publications, event notices, and conference and lecture videos and will incorporate the archives of both the NLCPI and AEI�s legal research programs. The NLCPI is being fully merged into AEI and will discontinue separate operations. Several of its directors and legal advisers will join a new AEILC Legal Advisory Council.

The AEI Legal Center has already planned several conferences, seminars, and publications for the coming fall. On September 28, it will host a Supreme Court Briefing, to be held annually at the beginning of the Court�s October Term; the September 28 session will focus on longstanding interests of AEI and the NLCPI that are attracting increasing attention from the justices�corporate law, antitrust, administrative law and regulation, intellectual property, and preemption and other federalism issues. Two additional AEILC seminars will concern cases of particular importance on the High Court docket: a September 27 session on Medellin v. Texas and an October 5 session on Stoneridge v. Scientific-Atlanta. The Center�s first seminar, on September 25, �Patent Reform, Biotechnology, and Other High-Technology Industries,� will concern important aspects of the Patent Reform Act currently pending in the Congress. Further information on these sessions is posted at

New at Overlawyered - PointOfLaw Forum

Things you've missed if you haven't been following our sister site: Sixth Circuit joins trend against alcohol marketing suits; guestblogger Jason Barney has a couple of posts on Washington state's Insurance Fair Conduct Act, on the ballot as Referendum 67; Judge Weinstein refuses to dismiss NYC Mayor Bloomberg's gun suits; Ted on delusional pro se cases (more), the Stoneridge amicus, the high cost of document discovery, and a survey of Texas judges being trumpeted by the Litigation Lobby; and defensive medicine in EMS/paramedic practice.

My Examiner column on Stoneridge - PointOfLaw Forum

As those of you who read are aware, given Ted's posting there last week, the Bush administration filed its long-awaited brief in Stoneridge v. Scientific-Atlanta last week on behalf of the defendants. I comment in an op-ed in today's Examiner.

Henry Paulson on Stoneridge - PointOfLaw Forum

As reported by the WSJ Washington Wire, the Secretary of the Treasury agrees with us:

Paulson, the former head of Goldman Sachs who has made reducing regulatory and legal burdens a signature issue, told the House Financial Services Committee that the case has �enormous implications for the U.S. economy.�

�What concerned me was exposing a wide range of individuals who happen to do business with public companies to primary liability without bright lines,� he told lawmakers. Allowing investors to sue third parties �would create a very uncertain legal environment� and exacerbate what Paulson says is �excessive litigation risk� for companies that do business in the U.S.

This is manifestly a position that makes investors better off; alas, the Washington Wire persists in buying the trial lawyer propaganda that the pro-trial-lawyer position is the "pro-investor" position because they sue in investors' names.

  1 2 3