Innocent until proven guilty?
16 06 09 - 14:43 Category: .
"Section 11(A) of the Securities Act of 1933 provides the following:
a. Any person who aquires securities [stock] may sue the CPA.
b. Plaintiff may sue if the financial statements contain an untrue statement or omit a material fact.
c. Plaintiff does not have the burden of proving that the CPA was negligent or fraudulent.
d. Plaintiff does not have to prove reliance on untrue financial statement or that financial statements were the proximate cause of any loss.
e. CPA [defendent] has the burden of proof to establish innocence or that the cause of hte plaintiff's loss was something other than the untrue financial statement."
So effectively someone who invests in a company and loses money doesn't have to support their clame at all, they just force the CPA to prove it's not their fault. That seems a little backward...
But they don’t do math, they just plug in numbers into spreadsheets! ;)
Fiance (URL) - 17-06-’09 09:21
You dirty dirty math-knowing people! You MUST be cheating us! We lost our money, so it must be your fault! Also, you’re ability with math scares us! Thus we must have a way to punish you severely so that you never achieve world domination!
:p
LogicSequence (Email) - 17-06-’09 04:01