Quantcast
Connect with us

US Supreme Court safeguards investor-protection laws

Published

on

The U.S. Supreme Court safeguarded investor-protection laws on Wednesday by refusing to further narrow the scope of who can be held liable for securities fraud, upholding a lower court ruling against a New York investment banker banned from the industry by the Securities and Exchange Commission.

The justices, in a 6-2 ruling, affirmed a U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit decision siding with the SEC. The D.C. Circuit agreed with the SEC’s findings that Francis Lorenzo was liable in a scheme to defraud investors by sending misleading emails about a financially troubled company even though he did not personally write the fraudulent statements contained in the messages.

ADVERTISEMENT

Writing on behalf of the court, liberal Justice Stephen Breyer said perpetrators of securities fraud could escape liability if the law were interpreted narrowly.

“Congress intended to root out all manner of fraud in the securities industry. And it gave to the commission the tools to accomplish that job,” Breyer wrote.

Conservative justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch dissented. Fellow conservative Brett Kavanaugh did not participate because he was involved in the case in his prior role as an appeals court judge in Washington.

In his dissenting opinion, Thomas said the ruling “misconstrues the securities laws and flouts our precedent in a way that is likely to have far-reaching consequences.” Thomas said under the ruling, for example, there would be nothing to stop an executive assistant from being hit with sanctions for merely transmitting a supervisor’s email.

Lorenzo, who served as the investment banking director at a broker-dealer called Charles Vista, sent the emails in 2009 seeking investors for a startup company’s debt offering even though its energy-from-waste technology did not work.

ADVERTISEMENT

Anti-fraud provisions of U.S. securities laws prohibit false statements and other conduct categorized as acts, devices, practices or schemes. The case hinged on whether a person who did not personally make fraudulent statements but merely passed them along can be found liable for engaging in a fraudulent scheme.

The Supreme Court in 2011 limited the scope of who can be held liable for false statements to those with ultimate authority over the statements.

The SEC in 2015 found that Lorenzo made false statements and participated in a deceptive scheme by sending the emails. The commission fined him $15,000 and barred him from working in the industry for life.

ADVERTISEMENT

Lorenzo, who had the support of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce business group, argued that the SEC is trying to paint people who might be liable at most for aiding and abetting fraudulent schemes as the primary violators of securities laws.

Reporting by Andrew Chung; Additional reporting by Lawrence Hurley; Editing by Will Dunham

ADVERTISEMENT


Report typos and corrections to: [email protected].
READ COMMENTS - JOIN THE DISCUSSION
Continue Reading

Breaking Banner

George Conway blasts ‘blundering cheat’ Trump in new op-ed: ‘His name should live in infamy’

Published

on

Prominent conservative attorney George T. Conway III has written yet another Washington Post op-ed blasting President Donald Trump.

"If there’s one thing we know about President Trump, it’s that he lies and he cheats. Endlessly," Conway wrote. "And shamelessly. But still, mostly, incompetently."

"So it should have come as no surprise that Trump finally went where no U.S. president had ever gone before. In a tweet last week, he actually suggested that the country 'Delay the Election.' That trial balloon was a brazen effort to see if he can defraud his way into four more years in the White House," he explained. "And why not try? After all, Trump has managed to swindle his way through life, on matters large and small, essential and trivial."

Continue Reading

Breaking Banner

Trump’s ‘delay the election’ tweet laid the groundwork for him and his followers to have an excuse if he loses

Published

on

Writing in The New York Times this Monday, Gail Collins and Bret Stephens discuss their contention that President Trump is seeing the writing on the wall regarding the 2020 election, an analysis born from his recent tweet where he suggests delaying the election.

According to Stephens, Trump's tweet is a sign that he knows "in his heart" that he's going to lose in November.

"He’s laying the groundwork not for a coup but for an excuse, both for himself and for his followers," Stephens says. "It creates a mythology to explain defeat, attack Joe Biden and keep the Trump family relevant in the Republican Party. The fact that he’d pull a stunt like this is another reason it’s so important that he lose in a landslide in November."

Continue Reading
 

Breaking Banner

‘I do this for a living and I don’t know what the Republicans’ position is’: MSNBC reporter confused by GOP unemployment stance

Published

on

Capitol Hill reporter Garrett Haake confessed that he has no idea what the Republican officials want when it comes to the unemployment stimulus bill.

A bill was passed in May by Democrats in the House, but the Senate ignored the problem until the last minute, allowing the additional unemployment funds from the stimulus to sunset and leave Americans scrambling to pay their Aug. 1 rent or mortgages.

The Senate then gave up, handing the responsibility for the bill over to the White House and told them to negotiate with the House, but the White House is less interested in unemployment benefits and wants more corporate bailouts.

Continue Reading
 
 
You need honest news coverage. Help us deliver it. Join Raw Story Investigates for $1. Go ad-free.
close-image