(Supreme) Court sides with Wall Street banks

[Eugene]

Source: Associated Press

Last updated June 18, 2007 7:40 a.m. PT

Court sides with Wall Street banks

By PETE YOST
ASSOCIATED PRESS WRITER

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court on Monday sided
with Wall Street banks that allegedly conspired to
drive up prices on 900 newly issued stocks.

In a 7-1 decision, the justices reversed a federal
appeals court decision that had enabled investors to
sue for anticompetitive practices.

The case deals with alleged industry misconduct
during the dot-com bubble of the late 1990s.

-snip-

The question was whether conduct that is the focus
of extensive federal regulation under securities laws
is immune from liability under federal antitrust laws.

-snip-

Read more: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1154AP_Scotus_Credit_Suisse.html

[acmavm]

1. And the surprise is?????

[LostinVA]

2. I'm shocked, absolutely shocked!

[formercia]

3. Some of the same Bankers that financed this illegal War

a taste of things to come.

[Nye Bevan]

4. Clarence Thomas was the only dissenter?

:wtf:

[hang a left]

What the article doesn't say is which justice was absent from the

decision. I hope that Stevens is well.

[Vidar]

5. I'm shocked, I tell you.

[LeighAnn]

6. Court Sides With Wall Street Banks

Source: AP via Guardian Unlimited

The Supreme Court on Monday dealt a setback to investors suing over their losses in the crash of technology stocks seven years ago.

In a 7-1 decision, the court sided with Wall Street banks that allegedly conspired to drive up prices on 900 newly issued stocks.

The justices reversed a federal appeals court decision that would have enabled investors to pursue their case for anticompetitive practices.

The case deals with alleged industry misconduct during the dot-com bubble of the late 1990s.



Read more: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uslatest/story/0,,-6718007,00.html

[ryanmuegge]

7. Big surprise there.

Rich class warriors have formal institutions to legitimize their crimes.

Judges appointed by bought politicians side with corproate criminals? What a surprising outcome.

[nradisic]

8. Boy! Wall Street is going to get really popular...

What is wrong with this country? I for one have not had any money in the stock market for over three years and I do not know if I will ever "invest" again in the "Ponzi" market. I have my own business now and that is where my "investments" are going. The Supreme Court has just made "fleecing" investors legal... I cannot see this being a positive for Wall Street in the long run. This court decision may in the end have the total opposite long term impact than Wall Street Lawyers thought. It leaves investors no recourse against Wall Streets "pump-n-dump" stock market Ponzi scheme.

[fasttense]

10. Well, most stocks are owned by the investor class.

Seems this ruling is just another reason for the middle class to stay away from buying stocks. According to Greg Palast, the top 20% of Americans own 83% of all shares in the stock market and 53% of all stocks in the market are owned by just 1% of American households. So it is a rich man's game anyway. Since the dancing supremes say it is a ok by them to fleece investors, I say fine. We can all stay away from buying stocks and put our money into something with a whole lot less risk.

[maddezmom]

9. kick