Stoneridge Investment Partners LLC v. Scientific Atlanta Essay

Stoneridge Investment Partners LLC v. Scientific Atlanta - Essay Example The court in its analysis of the facts in the case, the court asserted that the claims against the plaintiffs were based on aiding and abetting and not on manipulation or deception. There was no allegation of involvement of the vendors in any of the charters deception since they were not involved in internal accounting (Hein et al. 25-32). The vendors were deemed to have been involved in a business transaction, which did not involve securities and were such under no obligation to take any action on the financial happenings of the charter company. The court was right in not revisiting the 1994 Central Bank aiding and abetting standard, which created primary and secondary liability. The ruling in the 1994 case of Central Bank of Denver v. the First Interstate Bank of Denver, which held, that aiders and abettors were liable to scheme liability in instances in which their actions resulted in financial losses and manipulative tendencies (Perry and Scott 26-32). Revisiting the case and cre ating scheme liability would not have been practical as even the 1994 case strictly applied the rule of section 10 (b) were not envisioned to include aiders and abettors. ... The law would also result to an increase in the number of cases filed against secondary violators of the SEC Act; the act would deter and lead to a shift of many foreign investors from the country due to the high risks and costs involved. The positive effects of such a ruling on the business community would be its effect on the accounting principles and general way of doing business. Such a ruling would make many businesses to be more careful in their business dealings even in secondary transactions (Coberly 26-7). Since the rule would make secondary violators liable, it would result into more vigilance among businesses that would result to better management and more profits for the business. The question of whether there was aiding and abetting in the Stoneridge Investment Partners LLC v. Scientific-Atlanta, Inc case is a complex issue which is subject to different interpretations. In my opinion, the defendants cannot be said to have been involved in aiding and abetting since what t hey were involved in was a secondary business transaction to what is proscribed as aiding and abetting in section 10 (b). Aiding and abetting would entail intent to collude in order to deceive and manipulate people into buying of securities. The defendants in this case were not involved in any collusion since theirs was simply a business transaction separated from the selling of securities. The behavior of the vendors while legal under the law since it adheres to general accounting principles is unethical in that it was unethical. Professional conduct in business calls for an adherence to ethical principles in all aspects of doing business. The vendors acted in an unethical manner since they had knowledge of the unethical financial reporting that the charter was involved in yet they