January 22, 2008
SCOTUS Denies Cert. in Enron Case
Posted by Christine Hurt

I'm running off to class, but I just noticed this WSJ article reporting that the U.S. Supreme Court has refused to hear the appeal of class certification in the Enron shareholder lawsuit.  At first glance, however, the article seemed to overstate the importance of not granting certiorari:

The denial is an indication the high court doesn't believe the Enron suit met the standards set in the Stoneridge ruling for securities class-action lawsuits to proceed. Taken with separate action the court took in a class-action appeal over an accounting scandal at Homestore.com, the court also sent a message that accounting and banking firms are clearly covered by the Stoneridge ruling.

Although one can infer that the Supreme Court is not rushing to make clear that Stoneridge doesn't apply to financial and legal third-parties, I don't think that one can infer that the Supreme Court believes the Enron case and the Stoneridge case to be the same based solely on a cert denial. There are a lot of wacky things about the Enron appeal that make it a poor candidate for a grant -- its procedural posture as an appeal of a denial of class certification for one. I predict that the Court will affirm in the next few years that Stoneridge applies to other third parties besides vendors, but I think the Court wants to do so in a different case. More later.

Enron | Bookmark

TrackBacks (0)

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8345157d569e200e55001354e8834

Links to weblogs that reference SCOTUS Denies Cert. in Enron Case:

Comments (2)

1. Posted by arthur on January 23, 2008 @ 15:15 | Permalink

Stoneridge will never apply to accountants, at least with respect to annual reports. Audit certificatations are signed representations by the defendant accountant directed to investors. Also a claim that an investor relied on an auditor's opinion is highly plausible.


2. Posted by Richard Pollak on April 3, 2008 @ 15:47 | Permalink

Richard j Pollak 4541 C.R.138A Alvin Texas 77511 fersur@sbcglobal.net

Judgment Award Appeal waited for ENRON Judge then day in Court denied, then Fifth Circuit also denied, now Foreclosure notice, DEED Stipulation Paragraph Edit on Judgment was Substance of Appeal, Day Rate damages was Substance of Lawsuit, $1,000.00 Award was Appeal, Attorney received expense Judgment!

Sued Washington Mutual Core Adversary under Seal Judge changed defendant to Homeside Lending allowing Washington Mutual Attorney to call Homeside Lending to Testify, reversed for Judgement Award Payment, but Board Certified Attorney Certified Mail RESPA request {ignored by Washington Mutual} became inadmissible. My lay person RESPA request was being ignored, BBB forwarded and was also ignored, RESPA request received the only damage Judgment, {thanks to the BBB support} substance matters related in RESPA request that Judge took under advisement pertaining, was absent from Judgment and ignored to date.

Loan Manager Testified Coveted Prepayment are Common Practice Defendable, despite Bank One standard DEED Cover Page, Bold Print Stating Prepayment requires Signed Authorization, highlighting occurrence damage. Paragraph was edited by cropping on Judgement reversing intended meaning, bottom half of Paragraph was Quoted on Judgment.
Loan Manager Testified Coveted Escrow reductions are Common Practice Defendable, despite altering every Documents History relative, Evidenced.

Loan refinance was blocked, Bankruptcy was forced and reversible by Loan History production. Homeside Lending stated Bank One N.A. Loan Originators action was a “Principal Curtailment” Loan Originator transferred Loan, Lenders attempt at Curtailment reversal became Escrow reduction {I call it Escrow Curtailment} Lender Coveting Actions required false IRS 1098 Form, false Credit Reporting, Attorney RESPA request being ignored and My RESPA request being Ignored, BBB Arbitrator Chair with Membership was removed from Washington Mutual for Three Years, understand Loan History was supplied on release of Stay Day Pretrial, itemizing Curtailments, calling for Court Action, expecting not to experience Supporting Attorney failure to appear for hearing, sending unknown surrogate.

Respectfully prompt and current on all first twelve payments. Bank One N.A. Loan Originator transferred Loan after Nine months by action of reversing final payment to credit Loan Principal only {defined by Homeside Lending Loan Manager as "Principal Curtailment"} Comptroller of the Currency governs N.A. prohibiting' prior to Transfer, then Office of Thrift Supervision blindly governs.

Real time Loan Statements Payment Histories evidenced, including B.B.B. Support, that Loan Curtailments were for Five Year Coveted, Constitutes action was not Prepayment but multiple "Curtailments." Receiving Loan in transfer F.A Lender in attempt to reverse "Principal Curtailment" in admitted accounting error reducing Escrow, creating additional shortages “Escrow Curtailment" increasing demand of nearly $120.00 for 12 Months.

Loan History first produced on the same Day Bankruptcy Stay was removed by Washington Mutual, it was being Coveted by Homeside Lending Loan Manager {Testified Curtailments are Common Practice} Wa.Mu. acquired Homeside Lending and Loan Manager then Loan History following release of Stay.
Testimony by F.A Loan manager reported Common Practice for N.A. Lender to Breach DEED Term commitment stating Principal Curtailment to be Common Practice and Escrow Curtailment was Common Practice.

Concealed Loan payment Misapplications through Transition was defined by Learned Board Certified, as Theft. Jeopardizing robbery prosecution if My Home becomes foreclosed becomes Action becomes Federal Judge Rule, Ruling that Common Practice is Defendable Breach of Contract by Corporation. Judgement creates exploitable Case Law danger, because Washington Mutual Called Loan, review is in all best interest, despite all preferring closure without day rate damages arbitration.

My Judge famed for largest Historic Bankruptcy Schlumberger oilfield Russia claimed 10 day appeal time-frame expired despite Clerk delay Posting for Postal Delivery and Second Judge {Award Appeal} famed for ENRON, refused Excusable Neglect Appeal, Borrowed April 2001 at 6.5% for 15 Years, no second, from Bank One N.A. {Comptroller of the Currency} regulated.

For Five Years regulator "C.C." forwards all My inquiries to "O.T.S." that fails to govern or reply "O.T.S." never responds, A.G. never responds, D.O.J. never respond. Regulation by the C.C. instead of O.T.S will force Lender accountability eliminating stuck between, but Lender C.E.Os are destroying homesteads, helped by Stock Market & Future Trading. C.C. regulation transferred with Loan to O.T.S. Regulation failures, altered DEED Contractually.

Bankruptcy arrears paid-off in full Years ago, if Foreclosed, Presidents equates Judge allowed
$1,500.00 "Curtailment" to transition into theft by "Common Practice" defense, liken-to Bank robber
claiming "Common Practice" Defense and will be offered for Case Law exploitation!

100 days following Trial Judge Signed awarding {$1,000.00} RESPA Damages 4 of 10 day allowed appeal time-frame was spent before U.S. Mail delivered. {Bankruptcy RULE "RULE 2005"} extends in President 5 days all Judgment appeals, Appellate Attorney argued Excusable Neglect for spending 12 day's from Signed day to Appeal's filing day.

Washington Mutual recently returned $7,500.00 Core Bankruptcy Arrears skirting damages and overriding Judgment by default admittance, without rendering the Lawsuit's substance of arbitrated day rate damage, allowing Precedent that Theft ignored if defended as Common Practice!

Post a comment

If you have a TypeKey or TypePad account, please Sign In

Bloggers
Papers
Posts
Recent Comments
Popular Threads
Search The Glom
The Glom on Twitter
Archives by Topic
Archives by Date
February 2012
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
      1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29      
Syndicate The Glom
Subscribe

The Glom's Blog Network on Facebook:

Miscellaneous Links
LexisNexis Top Business Blogs 2011

 LexisNexis Tax Law Community 2011 Top 20 Blogs