You compare that case to mine? They are actually quite different. First, my case is in state, not federal court. It is filed under different laws, not federal securities statutes, but consumer laws. The grounds for dismissing any of them would be quite different. Notice the defendants have not attempted to have them dismissed. Maybe because they realize that is not likely to succeed.
Now, in the Wall Street litigation, those analysts were not paid by the investors who consequently sued. So a judge stating that they sought "insurance" against any loss is interesting, but the fact is they would have to prove they relied on the advice. It's called reliance. That was tough to prove in those cases. In mine, it is not - we paid for the advice, we lost on it because it was irrevocably corrupted by the kickback scheme, they're liable for the damages, Q.E.D. In this case, we paid up to $500/month for advice, it was not free as was Wall Street's advice. That makes quite a difference, don't you think? Those payments rendered the investment advisers fiduciaries to every single last one of their clients.
Third, yes, interesting that you argue only poor traders would lose. I did, and how. You tell me then why one of the leading investment advisory sites hired me as an analyst to recommend trades to more than 500 clients? That will be a tough, quite problematic and inconvenient fact for the defendants arguing it was all my own doing, had nothing to do with them that I lost.
Finally, "speculator." There is a difference between a lone speculator and a client of an investment advisor acting on his advice. The speculator would have been then if anyone the investment advisor, who directed the securities transactions to be placed by his clients. Not the other way around.
Nice try, though. I prepared for these arguments a long time ago. |
