RSS
Investor Who Couldn't Bother To Do Due Diligence Has Case Tossed
from the as-he-should dept
No matter how much people might dislike Wall Street analysts, I still can't believe that they think they can get away with suing them because they were too lazy to bother to do their own due diligence. Sure, many of the analysts were terrible (and possibly misleading to help the banking side of the house), but anyone who trusts them without doing their own research deserves to lose money. How is it fair for those who invested badly to receive compensation, while those who did their own research and didn't invest in bogus dot coms don't receive anything? So, I have absolutely no sympathy for this doctor who tried to sue Merrill Lynch and Henry Blodget for their recommendation on an investment. The case has been thrown out, in part, because the guy was never even a customer of Merrill Lynch, but instead had his money at competitor Smith Barney. This is just a case where someone can't admit they made a bad investment.
1 Comments | Leave a Comment..
- The Real 'Scandal' Over Zynga Stock Options Is Over Misleading Reporting
- 50 Cent Using Twitter To Pump Up Stock... But Is It Legal?
- BofA Tries To Foreclose On Home Despite Not A Single Missed Payment
- Home Buyers Only Finding Out About Resale Fees When It's Too Late
- Lehman Brothers ex-CEO Wants Everyone To Know That It Was Everyone Else's Fault Lehman Failed
Reader Comments (rss)
(Flattened / Threaded)
No Subject Given
I agree that it's important to do due diligence, but that does not excuse fraud. What about the little old lady who trusts her broker, mostly due to the ads they create saying she can trust them, only to get screwed by a doctored recommendation?
I get real tired of people using "buyer beware" as the excuse to cover up fraud, corporate malfeasance, and dereliction of fiduciary responsibility. A comment like that is pathetic, and you should be ashamed of yourself.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Add Your Comment