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.
Reader Comments (rss)
(Flattened / Threaded)
No Subject Given
Your comment is patently ridiculous. Noone deserves to lose anything because someone else was dishonest. And some of the worst dishonesty is that committed by corporations to make a profit. You're blaming the victim here, and that contradicts everything else you've said on this site.
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 comment) (link to this comment)
Add Your Comment