I don't have time to read it all now, but what I'm seeing is something about Congress not passing a law that would have criminalized the actions in this case and the dissent is basically saying, yeah, well Congress didn't criminalize it, but surely they didn't mean for it not to be a crime. Something that effect. This is a pretty dense case, though.

I too will have to read more. On the face of it conservatives are getting what they want.
After all investors are just nobodies anyway.
Too bad Ken Lay is not around for this glorious moment.
One last thought, as it is mentioned that most of the fraud lawyers are Dems, can we assume the lawyers representing the CEO's, Boards etc are Republican?

Now is the time to buy in

Index Value: 12,520.30
Trade Time: 3:26PM ET
Change: Down 257.85 (2.02%

Nogo war, once again, you really don't understand this issue at all. That's plain from your comment. This ruling does not have anything to do with the liability of company's that fraudulently misreport the financial condition of a company. It has to do with claims against that company's outside customers who agreed to a business transaction that investors claim helped conceal the original company's financial condition.

Exactly SPQR. I suspect the troll is incapable of digesting the ruling, which has nothing to do with insulating people that break rules or laws from liability or lawsuits, but instead keeps lawyers from suing everybody and their brother simply because they're affiliated with those that DO break rules and laws, even when there aren't any laws to base a case upon.

I don't see anything about the Scientific Atlanta CEO, but the Motorola CEO in the current cycle has only given to Motorola's PAC and $2200 to that fat cat Republican - Barack Obama. Zander wasn't the CEO when this took place though. But he's the one in charge when the fit hit the shan, though.

Upon further reading..from different places, my initial response as pointed out here was in fact wrong.

I will have to research more to find out the real impact. Hey, I made a knee jerk response, I am sure many others posting here have done the same.
I was wrong.

The real test in any SCOTUS decision is when a follow-up case is filed and this is cited.

...However, can we find some common ground that any CEO that leaves with the stock that fell significantly while they were in charge, and still gets that huge multimillionaire's payout...is not a hero?

It is a good thing when responses to my post are met with logic rather than "moonbat".

The link
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/06-43.pdf

Nogo war, you still are not bothering to read the post. It already had the link to the text of the decision.

sheesh.

Javitz

Like most Robber Baron Piglets, you would revel in the SCOTUS ( read SCEOTUM) decision to screw the public for the sake of Corporatism. This is a perfect example of demented Republican Supreme Court scum who haven't the vaguest notion of what the Constitution was about.

The graves of the Founding Fathers must be awash in vomit.

Phoenix, that's completely incoherent. The decision has absolutely nothing to do with the Constitution. Are you trying to parody yourself here?

run along and find a nice bridge to live under...

As I thought, Phoenix just supplies an incoherent driveby. No argument that the legal basis for the ruling is wrong - ie., that Congress actually did intend for such liability for private right of action. Not even a coherent argument as to why such expanded liability would be good policy.

As for the Constitution, well that's not ever going to be coherent.