High-Tech Securities Case Prompts Reaction
The Supreme Court handed down a verdict in one of the most important securities law cases in recent history on Tuesday [Stoneridge Investment v. Scientific Atlanta] and it involved allegations against two major high-tech firms. See Technology Daily's PM Edition for all the details.
The split ruling elicited a flurry of reactions, including an interesting one from the American Enterprise Institute's Theodore Frank. He told us that he did not find the majority opinion surprising and it was "good news for investors" -- but Justice John Paul Stevens' dissent was worth noting.
Stevens' disagreement "is a stirring defense of judicial activism and a call for judges to act even when the legislature has not given them the authority to do so," Frank argued. The justice's commentary speaks to the "central issue of our times in terms of the role of the judiciary," he said.
The larger question posed, according to Frank is: "What role do we want the Supreme Court to have -- judge as arbiter or judge as lawmaker?" "This really does a lot to emphasize the difference between [Chief Justice John] Roberts and Stevens," he said.
Meanwhile, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce said the decision, "coupled with last year's indictment of some of America's biggest class action trial lawyers for large-scale fraud and corruption charges, is a positive step for investors and all those concerned about America's competitive disadvantage in the global marketplace."
The American Association for Justice said it found the decision "surprisingly much narrower than expected." AAJ President Kathleen Flynn Peterson said the court "clearly stated that defrauded investors still have an avenue for recourse under this country’s securities laws."
Categories:
Courts
Join the Discussion
The National Journal Group has the right (but not the obligation) to monitor the comments and to remove any materials it deems inappropriate.
Comments powered by Disqus