US Supreme Court decision shields criminal corporations from lawsuits.

[RuleOfNah]

The decision comes in a case called Stoneridge Investment Partners v. Scientific-Atlanta and Motorola. It marks a significant setback for investors, including those seeking to recover losses in the massive Enron scandal. It's also a setback for corporate watchdogs who were hoping the justices would adopt a broad enough reading of the securities laws to put all business associates on notice that they could be held accountable for involvement in business fraud.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0116/p01s02-usju.html

Another death blow for the ideal of law and order.

[Double T]

1. Another good reason for term limits in the SCOTUS.

SCOTUS 'OF', 'BY' and 'FOR' the corrupt criminal corporations.

[RoyGBiv]

2. Clarification of subject line ...

As the article states, right up front, "Vendors, accountants, lawyers, and others who conduct business with a corporation that engages in securities fraud cannot be sued for damages by outraged investors when they merely aided or abetted in the fraud.

Instead, in a 5-to-3 decision announced on Tuesday, the US Supreme Court ruled that investors must focus their legal efforts on the offending corporation itself and its officers."

That's quite different than shielding the corporation itself, or its officers, and on the whole seems geared toward further ingraining "corporate person-hood" or possibly merely influenced by it.

Your final comment is accurate enough, though.

[RuleOfNah]

3. Conducting business as something other than as a corporation?

In practice, do not those vendors, accountants, lawyers, and others fall under the description of corporations? Well, law firms are often partnerships, but a minor point. It is difficult to imagine a crony that wouldn't use a corporation as a cutout or shield from prosecution. That is, after all, why LLC and Inc are used in the first place!

So now, if one carefully wraps their dirty dealings in subsidiaries, partnerships, and contractual clients the long arm of the law can not reach their ill gotten gains.

[RoyGBiv]

4. Once again ...

The ruling doesn't protect a corporation, per se, although that may be the result. The ruling is actually more broad than that as it protects *any* vendors, accountants, or others who do business with the corporations that defraud investors. One does not *need* to be a corporation to be protected from prosecution.

And that is not a minor detail.

[RuleOfNah]

5. True, any (not only) Corporations.

I tend to skip ahead to logical conclusions. :)

The scariest part, to me, is leniency for "aided or abetted". That is a dangerous precedent, which seems to invite abuse and strike deep against the ideal of equal enforcement. Now some conspirators are more innocent than others, and have a profit motive to feed upon.

[RuleOfNah]

6. Oops, I duped.

My bad. I looked before posting but don't have Search permissions. These are other threads on the same topic.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2691905
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2691523

[crazymans economics]

7. Brokers will argue

That they are tightly regulated and that corruption occurs only in a few cases.

But isn't it obvious that the laws are set up to protect the markets from the investor?

Investors are suffering from "battered wife syndrome," taking shot after shot, and yet finding new excuses to continue the relationship.

Sad day.

[RuleOfNah]

8. "corruption occurs only in a few cases"

When I hear that I respond with: Enron alone was bigger crime than years worth of normal crime.

I understand your point though, pat phrases and naive stories taking the place of reason is so widespread.