There is no question that it is a controversial amendment. But it has to do with the fact that the Supreme Court in one fell swoop the other day totally eliminated the obligation and liabilities of accountants, lawyers, and all those who are involved in connection with underwriting, and securities transactions, a horrendous decision by the Supreme Court--horrendous because had that decision been in effect previously, the $275 million recovered from the accountants and the lawyers and others in connection with the investment bankers in the Keating matter would not have occurred. Right now, under the law, it is precluded from recovering any additional dollars along that line.
Howard Metzenbaum: “There is no question that it is a controversial amendment. But it has to do with the fact that the Supreme Court in one…”
Editor's note · Context
Discussing a controversial amendment related to a Supreme Court decision affecting liability in securities transactions.
Share
More from Howard Metzenbaum
If the Senator from West Virginia assures us he will do the best he can that it will remain in, that is satisfactory.
I am prepared to extend the statute retroactively to make the same law that is operable at the present time, no limitations, no changes, just extend it retroactively. We have the right under the court's decisions to extend the statute…
Senator Simon and I have agreed to correct an error included in the committee report on S. 1361, the School-to-Work Opportunities Act. The error concerns the entities eligible to administer the school-to-work program. As adopted by the…
Then this section serves to clarify that the School-to-Work Opportunities Act does not create such an entitlement, whereby services would have to be provided to any and all eligible individuals?





