Attorneys Press High Court To Hear Enron Investor Suit
Lawyer Blogs
A $40 billion lawsuit by Enron investors against several banks for orchestrating financing deals for the now-defunct energy trader is not dead, despite a recent Supreme Court decision that helps protect such third parties.
In fact, some lawyers who represent investors argue the high court decision involving cable company Charter Communications and two of its suppliers, made a clear distinction that justifies hearing the Enron case.
The Supreme Court ruled 5-3 that shareholders cannot sue third parties in securities fraud cases, unless investors relied on their statements or representations when making investment decisions.
Stoneridge Investment Partners, on behalf of Charter shareholders, had accused the two suppliers of scheming to inflate company revenues in 2000.
Lawyers for investors point to sections of Justice Anthony Kennedy's majority opinion, which they say makes a distinction between third parties involved in the goods and services arena and those involved in the investment sector.
"He repeatedly made that distinction. That distinction distinguishes Enron from Stoneridge," said Pamela Gilbert, a consultant for the American Association for Justice, the world's largest trial bar association.
"Stoneridge involves a customer relationship. In Enron, the major wrongdoers are the investment banks involved in the financial transactions," Gilbert said.
Related listings
-
Court Upholds NY Judicial Nominee System
Lawyer Blogs 01/17/2008[##_1L|1122958543.jpg|width="120" height="93" alt=""|_##]A U.S. Supreme Court ruling that upholds New York's system of choosing trial judges is likely to renew calls for legislative reform, but even some proponents of change say their chances of succ...
-
Court limits investor suits against 3rd parties
Lawyer Blogs 01/16/2008In a case born of the accounting scandals that rocked the nation in the first half of the decade the Supreme Court Tuesday limited the ability of defrauded investors to sue accountants, bankers and lawyers who may have helped a company commit the fra...
-
MySpace agrees to social-networking safety plan
Lawyer Blogs 01/15/2008MySpace, the country’s largest social-networking Web site, has agreed with attorneys general of 49 states to take new steps to protect children from sexual predators on its site. It also agreed to lead a nationwide effort to develop technology to ver...
Illinois Work Injury Lawyers – Krol, Bongiorno & Given, LTD.
Accidents in the workplace are often caused by unsafe work conditions arising from ignoring safety rules, overlooking maintenance or other negligence of those in management. While we are one of the largest firms in Illinois dedicated solely to the representation of injured workers, we pride ourselves on the personal, one-on-one approach we deliver to each client.
Work accidents can cause serious injuries and sometimes permanent damage. Some extremely serious work injuries can permanently hinder a person’s ability to get around and continue their daily duties. Factors that affect one’s quality of life such as place of work, relationships with friends and family, and social standing can all be taken away quickly by a work injury. Although, you may not be able to recover all of your losses, you may be entitled to compensation as a result of your work injury. Krol, Bongiorno & Given, LTD. provides informed advocacy in all kinds of workers’ compensation claims, including:
• Injuries to the back and neck, including severe spinal cord injuries
• Serious head injuries
• Heart problems resulting from workplace activities
• Injuries to the knees, elbows, shoulders and other joints
• Injuries caused by repetitive movements
For Illinois Workers’ Compensation claims, you will ALWAYS cheat yourself if you do not hire an experienced attorney. When you hire Krol, Bongiorno & Given, Ltd, you will have someone to guide you through the process, and when it is time to settle, we will add value to your case IN EXCESS of our fee. In the last few years, employers and insurance carriers have sought to advance the argument that when you settle a case without an attorney, your already low settlement should be further reduced by 20% so that you do not get a “windfall.” Representing yourself in Illinois is a lose-lose proposition.