For What It’s Worth

8 Comments

• 

  greenmtnpunter
  November 11, 2009 at 4:48 pm

  But doesn’t a civil case/class action await the Bear, Stearns guys just as it does Madoff, Fairfield/Greenwich, et al? A civil case where it is the much lower burden “preponderance of evidence” vs. the much higher threshold “beyond a reasonable doubt” in the criminal conspiracy case just decided? I would rather see the ravenous trial lawyers going after Wall St titans than well meaning MD’s, wouldn’t you? Guess I’m becoming somewhat of a Populist in my dotage.
• 

  ML
  November 11, 2009 at 4:57 pm

  Prosecutors just too stupid to bring the case in the first place. Guys made a bet and they lost. We dont they prosecute all the PE, Hedge and RE funds out there that have blown up as well. Damn the torpedoes prosecute everyone!
• 

  christopherfountain
  November 11, 2009 at 5:23 pm

  Well I’m not convinced this was a case that should have been brought in the first place. As another reader pointed out, hedge funds are supposed to be invested in by financially sophisticated investors and anyone buying this stuff should have known the risk. Not a Madoff Ponzi deal. Second, there’s a good chance that they have insurance to pay for defending against civil claims. Even if the allegations include fraud and the policy only covers negligence, the insurance company usually has to pay the lawyers and then go after the insured if fraud is found.
• 

  Anonymous
  November 11, 2009 at 5:23 pm

  Prosecutors are usually wasted tax dollars better spent filling potholes
• 

  christopherfountain
  November 11, 2009 at 5:28 pm

  The trouble is, Anon, that the position of Assistant U.S. Attorney attracts some very bright, capable people, but they soon acquire the skills to match their talent and can then earn 5X as much in the private sector. Which leaves old political hacks, no-talents and young kids manning the store.
• 

  Old School Grump
  November 11, 2009 at 5:29 pm

  CF your interpretation is correct. A jury is only “stupid” when the prosecution itself has too little material — or too poor an understanding of what material it does have — to make a persuasive argument.

  The Brooklynites on the jury have undoubtedly spent the past 2 years watching their houses drop in value, their retirement savings evaporate, and many of their friends’ and relatives’ jobs disappear. It’s unlikely that they were inherently sympathetic to a couple of hedge fund hot-shots. The fact that the prosecutors couldn’t get a conviction out of them reveals the prosecutors’ inadequacy, not the jurors’.
• 

  Anonymous
  November 11, 2009 at 5:55 pm

  Would argue a healthy set of checks and balances exists in US’ legal system

  A small % of young prosecutors acquire good litigation skills in their “pro bono” gvt work; eventually, those with deep pockets will hire best litigators to defend them (sometimes against b.s. gvt charges of a politicially ambitious prosecutor)

  Similarly, clever (often centimillionaire) plaintiffs’ lawyers exist to fight lucrative cases vs “evil” companies or others; often the plaintiffs’ lawyers are entrepreneurs who are a hell of a lot richer (and often attended much crappier law schools) than any partners of blue-chip law firms often used by large companies for their defense

  “Market” is often best judge of skills and value….here, courtroom outcomes and net worth of competing lawyers constitute “market”
• 

  Cos Cobber
  November 11, 2009 at 6:40 pm

  Hey Marc – Mr G550, where do drug lords rank in your social order?

Comments are closed.