Earlier this week, the Supreme Court rejected the NFL's request for "broad antitrust law protection," deciding that each team must be considered separate when selling NFL branded items. This means that each team must be considered its own entity when it sells branded items like jerseys and caps.

The court's decision was unanimous, and it reversed a lower court's ruling that threw out an antitrust suit filed against the NFL by American Needle, which lost its contract for making official NFL hats to Reebok International.

Continue reading JockStocks: What Supreme Court's Antitrust Decision Means for the NFL

JockStocks: What Supreme Court's Antitrust Decision Means for the NFL originally appeared on BloggingStocks on Fri, 28 May 2010 15:00:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Investors are calling for an inquiry into mutual fund fees, but the Supreme Court is reminding them that it isn't beholden to public opinion. The mutual fund industry is being accused of charging "excessive" fees, which could be particularly harsh on individual investors who use these tools as their primary way to access the market. Currently, the mutual fund industry has more than $10 trillion in assets under management, some of it through retirement and 529 college savings plans.

The Court doesn't seem inclined to step into the fray, saying that regulatory agencies are better equipped to address the situation. Chief Justice John Roberts, for example, said during arguments that "It makes a lot more sense to have the SEC regulate rates than to have courts do it, doesn't it?"

Continue reading Supreme Court pushes back on mutual fund issue

Supreme Court pushes back on mutual fund issue originally appeared on BloggingStocks on Tue, 03 Nov 2009 10:20:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

All it takes is a little patience. F. Scott Yeager, a former Enron executive, got some good news from the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans, which ruled that it wouldn't revisit his case. So, he no longer has criminal charges related to financial fraud hanging over him. Yeager has been acquitted on all counts. This follows a June ruling by the Supreme Court, which tossed a previous 5th Circuit Court ruling that could have resulted in a new trial.

The ruling said, "Today, ... it is clear under our initial ... analysis the jury made a finding in acquitting Yeager that precludes prosecution on insider trading and money laundering." Samuel Buffone, who was one of Yeager's attorneys, stated that his client shouldn't have been indicted to begin with and didn't do anything wrong. It has taken them seven years to get to this point.

Yeager landed in hot water because he sold stock in Enron for more than $54 million before it began the plunge that would ultimately end with its bankruptcy in 2001. He faced 125 counts, was acquitted of five (four for wire fraud and one for conspiracy to commit wire and securities fraud) and wound up with a hung jury for the remaining 120, which included insider trading and money laundering. He was later indicted again on 13 counts of insider trading and money laundering.

Continue reading Former Enron exec set free

Former Enron exec set free originally appeared on BloggingStocks on Wed, 21 Oct 2009 16:40:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that Chrysler's sale to Fiat can proceed. Over the past week we thought that Chrysler's bankruptcy was almost over. But then a group of Indiana pension funds filed suit with the court to delay the sale.

At issue was $42 million of $6.9 billion of secured debt. The pension funds held that Chrysler's offer of 29 cents on the dollar violated their creditor rights.

A United Auto Workers union health care trust, a more junior unsecured debtor, would receive 55% equity stake. This deal was much more favorable than the offer to the Indiana pension funds.

Continue reading Supreme Court approves Chrysler sale to Fiat

Supreme Court approves Chrysler sale to Fiat originally appeared on BloggingStocks on Wed, 10 Jun 2009 08:00:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Three separate requests filed in Indiana by pension funds and consumer groups have asked the U.S. Supreme Court to stop the sale of Chrysler to a group led by Fiat. The groups filing the complaints hope to buy some time while challenging the deal. Some believe that this case could set a precedent for General Motors, which is trying to employ a similar "quick-sale" strategy as Chrysler. Late Friday, an appeals court stayed the closing of the sale until this afternoon, which gave the pension funds and opponents the weekend to make their plea to the Supreme Court.

The three pension funds argued that the sale of Chrysler unlawfully rewarded unsecured creditors, like the union rather than secured lenders. The funds hold roughly $42 million of Chrysler's $6.9 billion in secured loans. Lawyers for the pension funds argued, "the need for the court to review the profound issues presented by Chrysler's novel bankruptcy sale far outweighs the cost of delaying [a sale]."

Continue reading Indiana consumer groups want high court to block Chrysler sale

Indiana consumer groups want high court to block Chrysler sale originally appeared on BloggingStocks on Mon, 08 Jun 2009 11:30:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

What does this amount mean to Exxon? Ten hours of sales. That's right, ten hours. You would think the company would just pay the money and be done with the whole mess, but Exxon will continue to fight and will have its day in the lower court of appeals.

Continue reading Exxon Mobil (XOM) still fighting payments on oil spill damages

Exxon Mobil (XOM) still fighting payments on oil spill damages originally appeared on BloggingStocks on Tue, 12 Aug 2008 15:40:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Sunny skies for Exxon as Supreme Court slashes Valdez judgment originally appeared on BloggingStocks on Mon, 30 Jun 2008 14:00:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Fantasy sports fans score a Supreme Court victory originally appeared on BloggingStocks on Tue, 03 Jun 2008 14:59:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

As Mel Brooks once said, "It's good to be the king." I often fantasize being a politician just for what it's worth after leaving office. We learned this week that Al Gore is now at least a centi-millionaire -- yes, he's worth over $100 million. That's a lot of global warming tacos.

An interesting exclusive article on Bloomberg.com is titled, "Pfizer, Exxon Find U.S. Justices as Shareholders May Cost Them." The premise of the article is that Supreme Court Justices' ownership of stocks occasionally requires them to side-step rulings, like this week's deadlock that allowed lawsuits over Pfizer's Rezulin diabetes drug. U.S. Chief Justice John Roberts owns the stock and needed to sit on the sidelines.

The same article cited Mark Herrmann, a product-liability lawyer at Jones Day in Chicago, as saying, "If you're on the industry side, it kills you that Roberts recused himself. That's your fifth vote.''

Bloomberg cites stocks either currently held or sold from in Chief Justice Roberts portfolio. They are:

Continue reading Supreme Court Justices going long the market

Supreme Court Justices going long the market originally appeared on BloggingStocks on Sun, 09 Mar 2008 15:10:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

eBay and MercExchange settle long-term feud originally appeared on BloggingStocks on Fri, 29 Feb 2008 14:09:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Recoup your losses from your employer originally appeared on BloggingStocks on Thu, 21 Feb 2008 08:50:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Disgruntled former Enron shareholders looking to recoup some of their losses have been dealt a major blow by the Supreme Court, which declined to review their lawsuit against the investment banks that helped Enron CFO Andrew Fastow enter into sham transactions designed to hide debt and inflate the company's profits.

The Supreme Court's decision not to hear the case is, frankly, insane. Major investment banks entered into deals with Enron that clearly served no economic purpose other than to inflate the company's financial statements.

For instance, some of the transactions involved things like selling a barge to a consortium of investors and then buying it back for more money during the next quarter. What could these sophisticated investment bankers possibly have thought was going on?

In effect, the investment banks served as maitre d's renting out hotel rooms in 15-minute slots to leggy blondes who signed with names like "Crystal Divinity" and men who signed "John Doe." And now they're trying to claim that they didn't know there was any kind of scheme.

These investment banks willingly helped Enron conspire to defraud investors, and now they're being shielded from civil liability for the scheme that they were an integral part of. That's wrong.

Supreme Court gives securities fraudsters a helping hand originally appeared on BloggingStocks on Wed, 23 Jan 2008 16:20:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Continue reading XOM gets day in court: Justices will hear Exxon Valdez appeal

XOM gets day in court: Justices will hear Exxon Valdez appeal originally appeared on BloggingStocks on Mon, 29 Oct 2007 16:40:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Retailers will feel impact of new 'minimum price' court decision originally appeared on BloggingStocks on Fri, 29 Jun 2007 14:30:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Ben Stein is my hero of tell-it-like-it-is commentary on all things, and he had some pretty harsh words about the Bush Administration's refusal to file a brief in an extremely important case that is before the Supreme Court. The Supremes will decide whether shareholder can collect damages from investment banks, accounting firms and other companies that "merely aided and abetted" securities fraud. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson (A frequent target of Mr. Stein's columns) even went so far as to urge the solicitor general at the Justice Department not to file the SEC's amicus brief in the case.

One of the most common arguments against allowing shareholders to recoup damages through class-action lawsuits is that the added risks and costs for the companies make U.S. financial markets less competitive. Mr. Stein trashes that argument pretty effectively:

That same old whining about how poor, poor Wall Street, where high-ranking officials can make only $50 million or $60 million a year and where hedge fund managers can make $1 billion-plus a year, might be hurt if stockholders were actually protected from sneak attacks by investment bankers.

Poor, poor Wall Street, where the Champagne flows like water and the players get billions for helping the rich get richer. We had better protect them instead of the widows and orphans who were wiped out by the fraud at Enron.

Stein's exactly right. These guys are paid way too much money for what they do not to be held financially accountable if they mess up or act in bad faith. And if a judge can sue a dry cleaner for $54 million for losing his pants, shouldn't shareholders be able to seek restitution from investment banks in cases of securities fraud?

Ben Stein blasts Supreme Court for failing to protect shareholders originally appeared on BloggingStocks on Sun, 24 Jun 2007 18:40:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

The U.S. Supreme Court today handed business a huge victory by making it more difficult for investors to file fraud lawsuits.

By an 8-to-1 vote, the justices ruled that plaintifs must show that executives knew they were engaged in wrongdoing. This will give companies another way win early dismissal of these suits without paying huge legal fees.

Though I hate crooked CEOs as much as the next person, I think the court made the right decision. Investors shouldn't be able to run to the court house every time a company's stock unexpectedly falls. Fear of these lawsuits has caused some companies to communicate as little as possible with investors.

The people who made out biggest in these cases were the law firms such as the class action kings at Milberg Weiss & Bershad, which was indicted last year, along with some of its attorneys, for allegedly paying kickbacks to clients involved in some cases.

Last month, The Wall Street Journal (subscription required) reported that the firm's David Bershad was in talks that may lead to a guilty plea to the charges. Another former partner, Steven Schulman, was indicted along with Bershad. Melvyn Weiss, the head of the firm, and former partner William Lerach have also been investigated by prosecutors though formal charges haven't been filed against either of them.

The Supreme Court clamps down on shareholder lawsuits originally appeared on BloggingStocks on Thu, 21 Jun 2007 13:00:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Ben Stein, one of my favorite financial writers, took a look at the issue of liability for investment frauds in his latest piece for the New York Times. In 1994, the Supreme Court inexplicably ruled that investment banks, accounting firms, and similar institutions could not be held liable for aiding and abetting securities fraud. Sound stupid? It is.

Fast forward to Enron. Last month, a three-judge panel in New Orleans ruled that a class-action lawsuit against investment banks involved with the company could not proceed. According to Stein, "The panel held that although its ruling might prevent justice from being done and satisfaction from being had, the acts of the investment bankers were at most aiding and abetting, not direct acts, and therefore not actionable under 10(b) as construed in the Central Bank case."

The case is now destined for the Supreme Court, and Ben Stein and I hope that they will do the right thing and hold banks accountable for participating in schemes that dupe investors. Given that most companies are insolvent after their collapses due to fraud, the banks and accountants are pretty much investors' only hope of getting some money back.

Should investment banks be held responsible for fraud? originally appeared on BloggingStocks on Sun, 29 Apr 2007 13:40:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Patents have become a high-stakes game for tech companies. Of course, a glaring case is Research in Motion (RIMM), which recently had to shell out $612 million in a patent infringement case. The plaintiff in the case had no actual business; rather, its mission is to enforce its patent portfolio.

So, today's Supreme Court decision in favor of eBay is heartening news for the tech industry. The auction giant is the subject of a patent dispute with MercExchange over its "buy it now" feature. A federal court ruled in favor of MercExchange's injunction.

But this did not pass muster with the Supreme Court. Apparently, the High Court thinks injunctive powers can provide too much leverage on the part of a plaintiff; that is, it may force a settlement -- even if the defendant has a solid case.

In fact, in the eBay case, an injunction would have closed about a third of the company's business. Thus, the Supreme Court is not hiding behind fancy legal theories - but doing what it is supposed to do:  set policies on a national level that meet the broad requirements of the constitution.

eBay and the Supreme Court originally appeared on BloggingStocks on Mon, 15 May 2006 13:51:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Continue reading eBay going to the mat against patent trolls

eBay going to the mat against patent trolls originally appeared on BloggingStocks on Sun, 02 Apr 2006 11:29:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.