Boy King's Supremicist Court does it again
 

under the Bush League, whatever big business needs... big business gets... especially when the Bush League is deeply tied to the Enron scandal...

Suit Against Bankers Tied to Enron Debacle Is Tossed
By David G. Savage
The Los Angeles Times
Tuesday 22 January 2008

In dismissing the appeal by the University of California, nation's high court appears to have doomed other big cases against former energy trader's bankers.

Washington — The Supreme Court today dismissed a huge lawsuit growing out of the Enron debacle that sought to hold Wall Street bankers liable for scheming with the executives of the defunct Houston energy trader.

Lawyers for investment funds and pension plans, including the University of California's pension plan, had sued Merrill Lynch and the other bankers, seeking to recover more than $30 billion that was lost when Enron folded in 2001. They argued that all the key players in the scheme that fooled stockholders should be forced to pay.

In dismissing the appeal of the Regents of the University of California vs. Merrill Lynch, the court appeared to doom the big lawsuits still pending against Enron's bankers. Today's ruling is the most recent of a spate of decisions in which the courts have favored businesses. Last week, the Supreme Court rejected the notion of "scheme liability" in a closely watched stock fraud case involving a cable TV company and its vendors. In a 5-3 ruling, the court said suits for stock fraud are limited to the company that sells stock to the public, not bankers and other firms that had done deals with the company. And last year, a U.S. appeals court panel in New Orleans also rejected the Enron-related lawsuit. It ruled that Merrill Lynch and the other investment bankers had not directly deceived those who bought Enron's stock.

Re: Boy King's Supremicist Court does it again
 

Should add another layer to personal nonresponsibility..

Re: Boy King's Supremicist Court does it again
 

If I'm reading this correctly, and I might not be, so I'm going to look for a couple of other articles on the matter, the point here is that the court doesn't think you can sue Merril Lynch for what Enron did. I don't quite understand why that's a problem? Again, I might be misunderstanding this, but I don't see how the company you purchased the specific stock through, is responsible for your losses. Am I getting this wrong? I'm asking so don't jump down my throat please. :D