Supreme Court Would Like To Hear More About This Allen Stanford Character

Author:
Updated:
Original:

The highest court in the land has no time—at least not yet—to hear why Argentina's president thinks she shouldn't have to pay her country's bills. Instead, the Supremes will entertain themselves with the endlessly-amusing R. Allen Stanford story, and whether or not people who lost money with him can sue people who are not him.

The court will hear oral arguments on the first day of its 2013-14 term to decide whether Mr. Stanford's victims should be allowed to sue third parties such as law firms and insurance brokers on allegations that they aided Mr. Stanford's scheme.

Advocates for the defendants warn that allowing such lawsuits could compromise congressional efforts to curb unwarranted litigation that affects securities markets.

Supporters of Mr. Stanford's victims say Congress never intended to shield wrongdoers in cases where people were tricked into investing in bogus private offerings.

Stanford Ponzi Scheme Opens Supreme Court Term [WSJ]
Argentina Rejected by U.S. Court in Bond Payment Appeal [Bloomberg]
Argentina's Standoff With Creditors Moves to Next Stage
Supreme Court Has Deep Docket in Its New Term [NYT]

Related

By Elisa.rolle (Own work) [CC BY-SA 3.0], via Wikimedia Commons

Hillary Clinton’s Supreme Court Shortlist To Decide If MetLife Is Too Big To Fail

MetLife might want to consider writing a few more checks to a Hillary SuperPAC or twelve.

Quit hiding behind the bench. By Phil Roeder (Flickr: Supreme Court of the United States) [CC BY 2.0], via Wikimedia Commons

Supreme Court: Disgorgement Still A Thing, But Not As Much Of A Thing As SEC Would Like

The real winner here is John Roberts, who made everyone happy. Except Clarence Thomas.

SCOTUS

Supreme Court Puts Price On A Brother's Love

Siblings who freely share insider information receive a “personal benefit” tantamount to cash, apparently.

Supremes Set To Smack SEC on Statutes of Limitations

Things aren't going well for you when you find yourself at the receiving end of sharp words from both Supreme Court Justices Antonin Scalia and Ruth Bader Ginsberg. Well, that's where the SEC finds itself in its effort to read a five-year statute of limitations creatively.

Argentina Finally Wins One In Court

Cristina can't lose 'em all.