Whatever Is, Is Safe? Court Says No
I have written about the evolving seigneurial view in American politics and law--that common people ought to be able to act as though the world has been made a place safe for them, in matters of finance, food, drugs, toys, consumer prodcuts, and so on. On Monday, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, based in Philadelphia, provided a slight check to that idea. According to the court, the case Malack v. BDO Seidman turned on the following view of the investor’s situation: “(1) ‘the existence of the security in the marketplace resulted from the successful perpetration of a fraud on the investment community’ and (2) that [he (correction by RD)] ‘purchased in reliance on the market.’ Critical to the theory’s coherency is the assumption that it is reasonable for an investor to rely “on [a] [security’s] availability on the market as an indication of [its] apparent genuineness[.]”

Aug 19, 2010
|