« Last Thought on Virtual Worlds (LIV Debate) | Main | Chicago Lawyers’ Committee v Craigslist: Yet Another Reason Newspapers are Dying »

March 18, 2008

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c031153ef00e55131c9948833

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Is the Supreme Court Pro-Business?:

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

LAK

Professor, your sophistry is almost shocking.

"Alternatively, one might argue that this case is pro-business because Charter Communications' vendors won. But that is just a way of saying that the vendors' shareholders made (or did not lose) money. Is the case anti-business because Charter's shareholders lost or pro-business because the vendors' shareholders won?"

Uh, the casedidn;t involve the vendors' shareholders, remember?
So Charter commits massive securities fraud through shady deals with its complicit vendors. The fraud is exposed and those who actaully were harmed, *Charter sharholders alone* who bought while the fraud was on the market, want to hold the vendors primarily liable who willfully and knowingly helped perpetrate the fraud. To imply that this case may be pro-shareholder because the vendors' shareholders weren't harmed is disingenuous. The case and controversy here is with the Charter shareholders and no one else. You are going outside the context of the case and invoking those who do not have standing to try to whitewash the fact that this was a huge victory for businesses. they now can willfully help other companies with whom they do business commit fraud without the threat of being held primarily liable by the other company's shareholders. That's bad for everyone in the aggregate and will only encourage fraud. This case isn't about the shareholders of the vendors, it is about the shareholders of Charter who got screwed when they lost money when charter and its Vendors commited fraud. Your analysis should stay within those bounds, right?

And Twobly? A frickin joke. You now apparently have to know and plead facts that show an outright conspriacy and agreement to make a Sherman Act claim? Last time I checked, the statue said "contract, combination or conspiracy," not just "conspiracy." But the Court essentially cut off the ability to prosecute Sherman act claims unless you have evidence of an outright agreement or conspriacy. That is not the Sherman Act I was taught in law school, nor is it consitent with teh notion of liberal pleading.


Going outside the context of these cases and appealing to outside shareholders or other groups of consumers to imply these decisions might not be pro-business is absurd. For someone like you who believes that what's good for business is ultimately good for the consumer, it is a pretty weak and lazy argument to advance. That you need to do that to paint them as possibly pro-consumer or shareholder is telling.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.