pinksugarsub -> RE: Should We Litigate With Gas Companies? (6/6/2008 8:00:20 PM)
|
There's no valid comparision between the Big Tobacco civil litigation and a criminal prosecution under the Anti-Trust Act. Big Tobacco was sued by states like Florida that passed (blatantly unconstutional) laws, under which an entire industry (only Big Tobacco though; not gun mnaufacturers or anyone like that) for 'harm' done as demonstrated by the states' expenses in Medicaid payments for treatment of lung cancer patients, etc. Each of the Big Tobacco companies' share of the damages was determined based on a showing of their 'market share' for the years at issue. States won awards in the billions and promptly frittered the money away. The price of cigarettes rose and poor P/pl who smoke got screwed. Compare what i suggested for Big Oil: a series of criminal prosecutions of CEO's and other high ranking individuals for a variety of crimes, including the most obvious, price fixing. Successful prosecutions of these individuals, followed by incarceration for many, many years in a federal pen. BTW Archer, an annual report of financial matters, made by a substantial corporation, is so subject to manipulation and outright lies that during the '80's and '90's, most of the Big Audit Firms went under, merged, or otherwise had to react, as awards in the millions were routinely handed down against them. In one case i personally worked on, the audit firm, investment house, legal firm and other codefendants were sued together for their roles in concealing the actual financial state of a failed insurance company. They settled out of court before trial for $150 million. The proposal to nationalise the Big Oil companies is very appealing and probably much faster and more effective than criminal prosecutions under the Anti-Trust Act. But then, why not do both? pinksugarsub
|
|
|
|