Very interesting. I truly relate. You can see how many have attacked me just for bringing up the issue of naked shorting. I think I'm pretty objective in attacking touts and management. For some reason, those who seem to be professional shorts see the naked shorting debate as a threat.
Although I'm not an expert in the area you raise in your post and I don't know all the facts, often you can frame a case under common law principles without a statute. If someone negligently or, as you seem to state, intentionally defamed you, an action might lie for libel or slander. If someone caused you to be named in litigation, knowing that the information he provided was false, I'd think you could use rule 11 if the person is an attorney. Otherwise, framing a claim for example under tortious interference or malicious abuse of process or malicious prosecution (usually criminal on that one) might be useful for you. The problems in these arcane areas is that judges don't use their imagination and lawyers don't have a lot of cases that are typical of your fact pattern. So people tend to get stuck thinking they can't bring a novel approach under common law principles.
In your case, the dismissal of the case probably minimizes damages. There are usually procedures whereby you can seal the court record so that reporters or others cannot have access. In your case, that may a remedy for you.
I admire your tenacity. The court system is a vast waste land even for lawyers, particularly if you try to get clients to act reasonably in their expectations.
As for posting false notices by posters, if the information is portrayed as factual and would not be construed as opinion by a reasonable reader, then actions I believe will lie under common law and under the SEC acts and regulations thereunder. But freedom of speech is paramount. The posting would have to be of a nature that XYZ corp is filing bk tomorrow or that the CEO is under investigation for pedophilia, etc.
I believe that there are posters paid by hedge funds or organized shorts. There is nothing per se wrong unless it is part of a manipulative scheme. See rule 10(b)-5. Someone who adamantly says he is there "for the good of mankind" to warn poor longs, claiming not to be short or a paid basher, and is proven to be a shill for hedge funds could face some liability issues. Of course, all this is next to impossible to prove so these issues are hardly likely to face resolution.
Further, someone who acts like an analyst and circulates an analyst report, but first trades on the information directly or indirectly before releasing it to the general investing public, may find some liability also. However, these are evolving areas of law and will likely see much discussion.
As I've posted before, I prefer a statutory revision of the entire market regulation system because courts are ill-equipped to handle this stuff. |
