I believe legislation is needed to deter the meritless strike suits that are siphoning resources away from so many of our innovative bio-technology and high-technology companies. I also strongly support the sections of the bill dealing with proportionate liability for defendants who did not act knowingly. In fact, I have been a cosponsor of bills to correct these problems with securities litigation that were introduced by the gentleman from Louisiana in past Congresses. However, I am troubled by some of the extraneous provisions that have been included in the legislation before us today. I am particularly concerned about the redefinition of the recklessness standard. Initially, section 204(a)(4) of the bill would have allowed any defendant to escape liability by asserting they genuinely forgot or that disclosure did not come to mind. Fortunately the drafters of this provision realized this sentence created a giant loophole for wrongdoers. Unfortunately, instead of deleting this absurd provision, a hastily drafted amendment was adopted that, to my mind, confuses the issue even further. There are other troubling provisions.
Editor's note · Context
Discussing concerns about provisions in a bill related to securities litigation.
Share
More from Jack Reed
the clock is ticking. In a matter of days, 24 million Americans will see their health insurance premiums double or triple. Since August and even earlier, Democrats have been imploring Republicans to do the right thing and extend the…
At a moment when U.S. forces are building up across the Caribbean and tensions with Venezuela are at a boiling point, the departure of our top military commander in the region sends an alarming signal of instability within the chain of…
Preventable deaths, inhumane conditions, and millions of dollars in waste are the direct result of the Pentagon cutting corners and handing a billion-dollar contract to an inexperienced vendor that wrote its own performance standards.





