Isn't that like giving the brokerage house amnesty? I mean, I assume we passed those laws for a reason. Admittedly, the US Government can't expect to police an area that is so large and far reaching. But securities fraud is hardly a victimless crime, and the victim is always free to report the transgression. So why take this law off the books?
We want to build a billion dollar wall between Mexico and the US to keep out unskilled labor, but we're going to toss up our hands and let "the buyer beware" when it comes to white collar crime? This just doesn't jive.
Imo the laws need tweaking but we should keep them.
The real problem is that the entire government and securities industry do everything they can to mislead people regarding the market. Nobody ever tells the truth to investors.
The truth is that the stock market is very high risk speculation (for the most part it isn't fair to call it "investing") that most people are unsuited for.
But it is political poison to say so in public so all the officials in the government and on the exchanges and at the SEC maintain the pretense that it's a safe and level playing field.
So keep the regulations but start telling people the truth.
"The 1995 law, the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act, or P.S.L.R.A., was intended to make it harder for plaintiffs? lawyers to file lawsuits after merely finding a single investor who held the stock of the company to be sued. Under the law, courts were required to select the investor with the largest loss as lead plaintiff, whose lawyer then coordinated the lawsuit."
Moreover, the burden of proof was also changed.
Moreover, Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b) ha sbeen used aggressively by the courts to eliminate suits at the pleading stage.
The point is private actions as "regulators" has been severely hampered.
This used to be my field. Trust me, in the post-PSLRA world we had no problem prosecuting Worldcom-type frauds. Yes, the heightened pleading standard has made it tougher to bring some of the closer cases. But overall, I think the PSLRA has turned out very well for investors - particularly now that large institutional investors are in charge of prosecuting these claims rather than token plaintiffs who are happy to sign onto cheap settlements that mostly benefit the lawyers.
Private class actions are still a strong means of enforcement. I certainly would hate to do without them.
I think your factual assertions are off-base here. First of all, there are several firms that specialize in securities class action lawsuits, not just Milberg. These firms have also become quite adept at doing some initial investigation and pleading so as to meet rule 9(b)'s particularity requirement. Any company that sees a significant drop in its share price is guaranteed to be served with several complaints within a week. There are real problems with securities regulation, but a dearth of private lawsuits is not one of them.
I get your sarcasm. I know that you don't want to do away with the securities laws.
Your rhetorical point, though, is that "these laws are so meaningless in today's enforcement regime, they might as well no longer exist." I haven't kept up with the SEC since 2000 but I know what goes on in the world of private litigation, and I can tell you that private enforcement of the securities laws is far from emasculated. You could probably make the case that this de facto privatization is a social good, although I'd prefer overlapping spheres of enforcement.
I think private actions have more credibility in the post-PSLRA era, because they are brought by large institutional investors who don't go around filing frivolous lawsuits right and left. In the past, securities class actions were basically seen as 100% lawyer-driven, for the good of the lawyer and pretty much no one else. That dynamic has changed.
When a state retirement fund, or teachers' pension fund, or firefighters' and policemen's benefit fund, is willing to put its name on a complaint saying that such-and-such company committed fraud, that carries weight. And these sophisticated investors are pressing for larger settlements, that benefit the class as a whole and not just the lawyers, and also for inclusion of more responsible parties in the settlements (outside directors, auditors, underwriters). They're not content to just let the lawyers collect a paycheck and call it a day.
I'm sure plaintiffs' lawyers will continue to be maligned from now until Judgment Day but these cases are definitely considered less of a joke than they were in days past. Part of it is because there are fewer of the meritless ones, but a big part is also the presence of institutional investors driving the litigation.
i worked for years in the commodities markets mostly overseas. Anyone that tells you that the "market" can solve it's own problems is an idiot or a crook pretending to be an idiot. The markets work to reward the strongest players and without regulation and enforcement, seek the lowest common denominator on honesty. It's not a pretty sight.....
Comments :
Isn't that like givi
Isn't that like giving the brokerage house amnesty? I mean, I assume we passed those laws for a reason. Admittedly, the US Government can't expect to police an area that is so large and far reaching. But securities fraud is hardly a victimless crime, and the victim is always free to report the transgression. So why take this law off the books?
We want to build a billion dollar wall between Mexico and the US to keep out unskilled labor, but we're going to toss up our hands and let "the buyer beware" when it comes to white collar crime? This just doesn't jive.
Imo the laws need tw
Imo the laws need tweaking but we should keep them.
The real problem is that the entire government and securities industry do everything they can to mislead people regarding the market. Nobody ever tells the truth to investors.
The truth is that the stock market is very high risk speculation (for the most part it isn't fair to call it "investing") that most people are unsuited for.
But it is political poison to say so in public so all the officials in the government and on the exchanges and at the SEC maintain the pretense that it's a safe and level playing field.
So keep the regulations but start telling people the truth.
The securities laws
The securities laws confer a private right of action, you know.
Not many people outs
Not many people outside finance noticed when http://www-personal.umd.umich.edu/~mtwomey/newspapers/040798glass-steagall-explain.html"
rel="nofollow">Glass-Steagal was dismantled, or understood the possible consequences if equity markets suffer a serious downturn.
Hopefully we're not going to repeat history.
Yes I do. But most
Yes I do. But most private actions which might have a regulatory effect are class actions.
Reread my post.
From the article:
From the article:
"The 1995 law, the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act, or P.S.L.R.A., was intended to make it harder for plaintiffs? lawyers to file lawsuits after merely finding a single investor who held the stock of the company to be sued. Under the law, courts were required to select the investor with the largest loss as lead plaintiff, whose lawyer then coordinated the lawsuit."
Moreover, the burden of proof was also changed.
Moreover, Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b) ha sbeen used aggressively by the courts to eliminate suits at the pleading stage.
The point is private actions as "regulators" has been severely hampered.
And government regulation has been nonexistent.
This used to be my f
This used to be my field. Trust me, in the post-PSLRA world we had no problem prosecuting Worldcom-type frauds. Yes, the heightened pleading standard has made it tougher to bring some of the closer cases. But overall, I think the PSLRA has turned out very well for investors - particularly now that large institutional investors are in charge of prosecuting these claims rather than token plaintiffs who are happy to sign onto cheap settlements that mostly benefit the lawyers.
Private class actions are still a strong means of enforcement. I certainly would hate to do without them.
I guess my sarcasm d
I guess my sarcasm did not come through.
Not only would I not want to do away with them, I want them to be more available and I want more government enforcement work.
I think your factual
I think your factual assertions are off-base here. First of all, there are several firms that specialize in securities class action lawsuits, not just Milberg. These firms have also become quite adept at doing some initial investigation and pleading so as to meet rule 9(b)'s particularity requirement. Any company that sees a significant drop in its share price is guaranteed to be served with several complaints within a week. There are real problems with securities regulation, but a dearth of private lawsuits is not one of them.
I get your sarcasm.
I get your sarcasm. I know that you don't want to do away with the securities laws.
Your rhetorical point, though, is that "these laws are so meaningless in today's enforcement regime, they might as well no longer exist." I haven't kept up with the SEC since 2000 but I know what goes on in the world of private litigation, and I can tell you that private enforcement of the securities laws is far from emasculated. You could probably make the case that this de facto privatization is a social good, although I'd prefer overlapping spheres of enforcement.
10:53
why are you running
why are you running on GMT instead of a us based time zone?
02:58
has the site been se
has the site been set on GMT since the beginning, are is this something new.???
Interesting point, I
Interesting point, I hadn't considered that aspect.
Would you argue that private actions carry greater weight today than in past times?
I think private acti
I think private actions have more credibility in the post-PSLRA era, because they are brought by large institutional investors who don't go around filing frivolous lawsuits right and left. In the past, securities class actions were basically seen as 100% lawyer-driven, for the good of the lawyer and pretty much no one else. That dynamic has changed.
When a state retirement fund, or teachers' pension fund, or firefighters' and policemen's benefit fund, is willing to put its name on a complaint saying that such-and-such company committed fraud, that carries weight. And these sophisticated investors are pressing for larger settlements, that benefit the class as a whole and not just the lawyers, and also for inclusion of more responsible parties in the settlements (outside directors, auditors, underwriters). They're not content to just let the lawyers collect a paycheck and call it a day.
I'm sure plaintiffs' lawyers will continue to be maligned from now until Judgment Day but these cases are definitely considered less of a joke than they were in days past. Part of it is because there are fewer of the meritless ones, but a big part is also the presence of institutional investors driving the litigation.
i worked for years i
i worked for years in the commodities markets mostly overseas. Anyone that tells you that the "market" can solve it's own problems is an idiot or a crook pretending to be an idiot. The markets work to reward the strongest players and without regulation and enforcement, seek the lowest common denominator on honesty. It's not a pretty sight.....