Two examples that have been prominently used in this particular debate on this amendment, Barings and Orange County. If we apply the requirements of Scienter under this particular statute that we are discussing, the defendant directly or indirectly made a fraudulent statement, the defendant possessed the intention to deceive, manipulate, or defraud, the defendant made such fraudulent statement knowingly or recklessly. As we know the facts of these two particular cases, in these two particular cases, they would not be afforded any of the benefits under the statute that we are debating which is aimed at stopping frivolous lawsuits.
Jack Fields: “Two examples that have been prominently used in this particular debate on this amendment, Barings and Orange County. If…”
Editor's note · Context
Discussing the implications of a statute on fraud cases during a debate on an amendment.
Share
More from Jack Fields
money is not going to solve it, and when you think about the poacher, how do we get to those poachers?
Because I am willing to make a commitment to the gentleman that we will have hearings on the subject of derivatives. It is my understanding that the report comes out this week from the Securities and Exchange Commission. I think that is…
Both portions of the motion to recommit we have already voted on. The Dingell amendment, we do not want to see a dual standard: one standard that applies to municipalities and cities, and another standard that applies to everyone else. In…
reclaiming my time, let me address a few of the points the gentleman has just made. First of all, with regard to the loser-pay provision in our bill, there is a substantial justification clause, and the court has the discretion in the…





