Yahya v. Ribstein on short selling plaintiffs

pro wrestling.jpgIn the law discussion equivalent of a high-caliber wrestling match, law professors Moin Yahya and Larry Ribstein square off in this Point of Law discussion over a subject addressed in this earlier post — the increasingly common practice of short-sellers and class action securities fraud plaintiffs’ attorneys banding together to drive the price of a company’s stock down, and then — after profiting from the short sale of the company’s stock — cashing in again on a class action lawsuit against the company.
Professor Yahya:

Plaintiffs are now given a double incentive to bring lawsuits ñ and God knows this is the last thing we need to be giving them. If this practice is legal, then plaintiffs and their lawyers can now profit by simply announcing a lawsuit. In the extreme, a lawyer can simply announce a suit, profit from the drop in price, and then withdraw the suit. Despite recent federal legislation aimed at managing class actions, many lawsuits can still be brought in state court, and in many states, the standards for what constitutes a frivolous suit are fairly low.

Professor Ribstein:

The better attack on dumping and suing is based, not on false assumptions or on incorrect statements of the law, but on the specific harms that we can show it causes. For example, one way to enhance the effect of the filing of a suit is to accompany it with false statements about the stock. This is already actionable under the federal securities laws. Also, a plaintiff who sells short the stock held by other class members is probably not an adequate class representative ñ his interests in prosecuting the suit are not aligned with the interests of the other class members.

Mike Mullane has the Right Stuff

Mullane.jpgLongtime NASA shuttle astronaut Mike Mullane has written a new book, Riding Rockets: The Outrageous Tales of a Space Shuttle Astronaut (Scribner 2006) and, based on this Keith Cowing/SpaceRef.com review, the book appears to be a rollicking good time:

This is not a kiss and tell book (although it gets close on several occasions). Mullane doesn’t mince words and repeats what one person said to another (to the best of his recollection). This includes multiple times when Mullane said/did something dumb and regrettable. I suspect that the people depicted learned long ago what Mullane thought of them – so the tales contained in this book may not be a surprise to those folks – but they may find reading about these episodes to be a bit unsettling.
This book certainly shows a side of NASA that NASA Public Affairs Office would rather not have people read. NASA focuses (with some obsession) upon the positives, on the strength of the corps and its members. No flaws, no shortcomings – no weaknesses allowed. The net result is a homogeneous generic notion of what an astronaut is. While there may be a few people in the astronaut corps that come close to matching this image, Mullane smashes that generic notion. In more ways than outsiders might imagine, astronauts are just like the rest of us in more ways that NASA PAO would have you think.

Continue reading

What is the presumption in the Lay-Skilling trial?

presumed innocent.jpgChronicle business columnist Loren Steffy responds to this weekend post on the high price of asserting innocence and hindsight bias in prosecutions of corporate agency costs by urging us to remember the supposed lies that Ken Lay and Jeff Skilling told in regard to Enron.
Steffy is a talented writer and has consistently pulled no punches in expressing his belief that Lay and Skilling are guilty, although his guilty verdict at this point in the trial is a bit difficult to square with this prior column. In fact, Steffy’s blog post reminded me of this funny story about one of my experiences on jury duty. Still, I admire Steffy’s honest stance more than the disingenuous positions taken by some in the media, who cloak an anti-Lay-Skilling bias with a transparent jacket of objectivity.
In the Lay-Skilling trial, the prosecution is only through about a third to 40% of its case in chief. Four out of the five substantive prosecution witnesses to date have testified under agreements with the prosecution in which they hedged the risk of a long prison sentence and loss of virtually all of their net worth in return for their testimony against Lay and Skilling. Moreover, the prosecution’s case to date bears little resemblance to the highly-publicized indictment and related charge pleadings against Lay and Skilling, and the prosecution has gone to great lengths to chill witnesses from testifying who have potentially exculpatory testimony for Lay and Skilling. Meanwhile, Lay and Skilling patiently wait for the opportunity to tell their side of the story.
Against that backdrop, Steffy has already decided that Lay and Skilling are guilty. That’s his perogative, but I prefer to view Lay and Skilling as innocent until the entire story is told and the prosecution has proven — beyond a reasonable doubt — that these men are guilty of a crime.