Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : Booms, Busts, and Recoveries -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: LLCF who wrote (20687)	7/2/2002 1:16:18 PM
From: Raymond Duray	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74559

PSLRA: Public Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 Hi LLCF, Re: Interesting... there has been a lot of Clinton bashing around on this issue... now one has to wonder. The Clinton bashing is the usual GOP smokescreen. The law in question is the PSLRA, the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Clinton vetoed the bill, because it was deemed detrimental to shareholders, and Congress overrode Clinton's veto by super-majorities in both Houses. This is one of the best indicators we have that the Congress has been bought by corporate interests. It's high time we call a spade a spade. "Campaign contributions" has become a thinly veiled mask for bribery. Effective bribery to be sure. The PSLRA is an infamous defense for accountants and lawyers. It's been successfully used to deter many lawsuits. The principle intended victim of the PSLRA is Bill Lerach, the battling anti-corporate lawyer who is represtenting CalPERS in their civil litigation against Enron. Last week, in court in Houston, Andrew Fastow's attorneys attempted to use the PSLRA to shield Fastow from litigation. The PSLRA was written primarily to benefit accountants who wished to shield themselves from liability, such as the $1 Billion they had to pay out for aiding and abetting frauds in the S&L scandals. The PSLRA of 1995: lectlaw.com Clinton's Veto Message: lectlaw.com THE WHITE HOUSE December 20, 1995 TO THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: I am returning herewith without my approval H.R. 1058, the "Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995." This legislation is designed to reform portions of the Federal securities laws to end frivolous lawsuits and to ensure that investors receive the best possible information by reducing the litigation risk to companies that make forward-looking statements. I support those goals. Indeed, I made clear my willingness to support the bill passed by the Senate with appropriate "safe harbor" language, even though it did not include certain provisions that I favor -- such as enhanced provisions with respect to joint and several liability, aider and abettor liability, and statute of limitations. I am not, however, willing to sign legislation that will have the effect of closing the courthouse door on investors who have legitimate claims. Those who are the victims of fraud should have recourse in our courts. Unfortunately, changes made in this bill during conference could well prevent that. This country is blessed by strong and vibrant markets and I believe that they function best when corporations can raise capital by providing investors with their best good-faith assessment of future prospects, without fear of costly, unwarranted litigation. But I also know that our markets are as strong and effective as they are because they operate -- and are seen to operate -- with integrity. I believe that this bill, as modified in conference, could erode this crucial basis of our markets' strength. Specifically, I object to the following elements of this bill. First, I believe that the pleading requirements of the Conference Report with regard to a defendant's state of mind impose an unacceptable procedural hurdle to meritorious claims being heard in Federal courts. I am prepared to support the high pleading standard of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit -- the highest pleading standard of any Federal circuit court. But the conferees make crystal clear in the Statement of Managers their intent to raise the standard even beyond that level. I am not prepared to accept that. The conferees deleted an amendment offered by Senator Specter and adopted by the Senate that specifically incorporated Second Circuit case law with respect to pleading a claim of fraud. Then they specifically indicated that they were not adopting Second Circuit case law but instead intended to "strengthen" the existing pleading requirements of the Second Circuit. All this shows that the conferees meant to erect a higher barrier to bringing suit than any now existing -- one so high that even the most aggrieved investors with the most painful losses may get tossed out of court before they have a chance to prove their case. Second, while I support the language of the Conference Report providing a "safe harbor" for companies that include meaningful cautionary statements in their projections of earnings, the Statement of Managers -- which will be used by courts as a guide to the intent of the Congress with regard to the meaning of the bill -- attempts to weaken the cautionary language that the bill itself requires. Once again, the end result may be that investors find their legitimate claims unfairly dismissed. Third, the Conference Report's Rule 11 provision lacks balance, treating plaintiffs more harshly than defendants in a manner that comes too close to the "loser pays" standard I oppose. I want to sign a good bill and I am prepared to do exactly that if the Congress will make the following changes to thislegislation: first, adopt the Second Circuit pleading standards and reinsert the Specter amendment into the bill. I will support a bill that submits all plaintiffs to the tough pleading standards of the Second Circuit, but I am not prepared to go beyond that. Second, remove the language in the Statement of Managers that waters down the nature of the cautionary language that must be included to make the safe harbor safe. Third, restore the Rule 11 language to that of the Senate bill. While it is true that innocent companies are hurt by frivolous lawsuits and that valuable information may be withheld from investors when companies fear the risk of such suits, it is also true that there are innocent investors who are defrauded and who are able to recover their losses only because they can go to court. It is appropriate to change the law to ensure that companies can make reasonable statements and future projections without getting sued every time earnings turn out to be lower than expected or stock prices drop. But it is not appropriate to erect procedural barriers that will keep wrongly injured persons from having their day in court. I ask the Congress to send me a bill promptly that will put an end to litigation abuses while still protecting the legitimate rights of ordinary investors. I will sign such a bill as soon as it reaches my desk. WILLIAM J. CLINTON THE WHITE HOUSE, December 19, 1995.