Tag Archive "foreign-securities"

flag

USA: History’s Largest Free Port for Financial Freebooters?

November 8, 2012 - The term “freebooter,” derived from the Dutch vrijbuiter, means one who openly steals property. Once freebooters sailed from free ports such as Port Royal, Jamaica, taking what they wished with little or no consequences because authorities granted them immunity.

Today, a federal appeals court may determine if the United States has become the largest such free port for swindlers in modern history. At issue is the Supreme Court’s controversial 2010 decision (Morrison v. National Australia Bank), that provides immunity from investor accountability to off-shore shysters preying on Americans as well as on-shore fraudsters plundering foreigners as long as the fraudulent transactions take place outside the USA or involve securities listed overseas.


JPMorgan Chase Building, Houston, TX

Chinese Corporate Frauds and US Banks’ Chinese Underwritings Dramatize the Folly of the Supreme Court’s Anti-American, Anti-Consumer Morrison Decision

May 11, 2012 - Will Goldman or JPMorgan sell questionable Chinese stocks to Americans? Our story questions how American investors can legally protect themselves from spurious Chinese stocks sold to them by American banks.


New York Stock Exchange Sale to Deutsche Boerse will Raise Fraud Risks for U.S. Investors

May 12, 2011 -- In the weeks since the New York Stock Exchange-Euronext (NYSE) agreed in February to be acquired by the Frankfort-based Deutsche Boerse (DB), neither mainstream media nor regulators have commented on the risks posed by such an unprecedented off-shore concentration of financial market power.


Little-Reported Supreme Court Decision Curtails Investor Protections for U.S. Pension Funds and Other U.S. Investors Purchasing Foreign Securities, in Latest Move to Immunize Corporate Executives from Accountability for Fraud

July 1, 2010 -- Justices Stevens and Ginsburg criticize Justice Scalia’s “personal view of statutory interpretation” in majority’s comments, arguing that securities laws focus on the “public interest” and “the interests of investors,” rather than merely “transactions on domestic exchanges.”