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

March 18, 2008


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


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.

The comments to this entry are closed.