[Boomer]

I am reading jdsupra.com regarding SEC v. Jarkesy and the June 27th decision that I can imagine has certain financial “advisor” types doing the dance of joy. That would be the ones who do not always have their clients’ best interests at heart, up to and including Madoffs in the Making. Is this decision throwing investors to the wolves?

(The source I am reading is JD Supra, defined as “a daily source of legal intelligence on all topics business and personal, distributing news commentary and analysis from leading lawyers and law firms.”)

It’s a fascinating and scary read.

Figuring out things like this is often like threading a needle, but this one raises enough concerns that I thought other investors might want to be aware to be more aware.

I am not trying to start a legal debate. Fwiw, I just wanted to stop by to say…….

Danger, Will Robinson……

Boomer

[CoachKandSportsguy]

Originally Posted by Boomer

I am reading jdsupra.com regarding SEC v. Jarkesy and the June 27th decision that I can imagine has certain financial “advisor” types doing the dance of joy. That would be the ones who do not always have their clients’ best interests at heart, up to and including Madoffs in the Making. Is this decision throwing investors to the wolves?

Boomer

The Roberts Supreme court has been slowly bringing decisions that is a judges full employment act. Where judges weren't being used in their capacity due to ALJs, the recent ruling decides that if there is a disagreement about interpretations of statute or scenario, bring it to the court and judges will decide as that is what they specialize in, reading, interpreting and applying legal expertise in deciding outcomes.

The downside is that there now needs to be more federal courts and judges to handle all the new found work, or else, the decisions will just be a huge time sink waiting in line and then waiting on a decision. And so a lot will be decided by the judge of the case. . whatever their bias and understanding of the technicalities and outcomes.

not that i disagree, its just that corporate lawyers has more time and money to spend than the government, so there will be a tilt towards commercial/business outcomes in disagreements with the federal statutes, state statutes and retail customers.

good luck

[Boomer]

Originally Posted by CoachKandSportsguy

The Roberts Supreme court has been slowly bringing decisions that is a judges full employment act. Where judges weren't being used in their capacity due to ALJs, the recent ruling decides that if there is a disagreement about interpretations of statute or scenario, bring it to the court and judges will decide as that is what they specialize in, reading, interpreting and applying legal expertise in deciding outcomes.

The downside is that there now needs to be more federal courts and judges to handle all the new found work, or else, the decisions will just be a huge time sink waiting in line and then waiting on a decision. And so a lot will be decided by the judge of the case. . whatever their bias and understanding of the technicalities and outcomes.

not that i disagree, its just that corporate lawyers has more time and money to spend than the government, so there will be a tilt towards commercial/business outcomes in disagreements with the federal statutes, state statutes and retail customers.

good luck

Yep. And trials.

I have checked out certain brokers on Finra’s BrokerCheck, when I wanted to look for disclosures in records. There are plenty of snakes in the grass, and it sounds to me like the SEC just got gutted.

Cases could be delayed forever now that a level of the government’s consumer protection for investors is no more. What investor could possibly afford to lawyer-up against a corporation like one of the big, old wirehouses.

This one is going by under the radar it seems. There will be lambs to the slaughter.

Btw, ‘bias’ was your operative word there.

Boomer




.

[spinner1001]

Originally Posted by Boomer

I am reading jdsupra.com regarding SEC v. Jarkesy and the June 27th decision that I can imagine has certain financial “advisor” types doing the dance of joy. That would be the ones who do not always have their clients’ best interests at heart, up to and including Madoffs in the Making. Is this decision throwing investors to the wolves?

(The source I am reading is JD Supra, defined as “a daily source of legal intelligence on all topics business and personal, distributing news commentary and analysis from leading lawyers and law firms.”)

It’s a fascinating and scary read.

Figuring out things like this is often like threading a needle, but this one raises enough concerns that I thought other investors might want to be aware to be more aware.

I am not trying to start a legal debate. Fwiw, I just wanted to stop by to say…….

Danger, Will Robinson……

Boomer

Bigger issues here for SCOTUS.

Subject matter experts have clearly demonstrated they are not superior. Getting a PhD does not make one superior to others. Often, they are inferior.

This case and the roll back of Chevron by SCOTUS are healthy for society overall. First, we don’t need government bureaucrats deciding the fate of people with legitimate claims. A jury of one’s peers is better because of fairness. Of course, along the way it will be not a good for some. Second, government bureaucrats are often corrupted by politics, etc. Surprise!