Send via SMS
Shots In The Dark
Thursday, August 04, 2024
  Shleifer: I Would Have Won
The New York Times has a short piece on Harvard's settlement of the HIID matter. Short, but it does provide more information than the Harvard Gazette, including the fact that protagonist Andrei Shleifer will have to pay $2 million to the government.

According to the Times, "Mr. Shleifer said in a statement that he believed he would have prevailed had the case gone to trial, but that legal fees would have exceeded the amount he was paying the government."

Huh.

If I could afford it—and Shleifer, who also has a private investment firm on the side (as does his wife), can—and I really believed I would prevail, I'd go to court. Apparently money means more to Shleifer than becoming convicted of a civil crime.

Which, come to think of it, might explain why Shleifer is convicted.
 
Comments:
A convicted felon? It's a civil case, no?
 
Yes, apologies. Convicted felon is inaccurate and unfair.
 
Convicted isn't even right. JS 101.
 
Clearly, I'm not a lawyer. Decided against? Ruled against?

Regardless, you seem stuck on the technical point, which does not seem to me to affect the larger question at hand, which is to say, the propriety of insider trading to reap millions of dollars in profits as you're supposed to be helping a struggling country transition to democracy. Real people lost money—which means lost food, lost health care, lost housing—because of what Shleifer did. If I concede the technical error, will you concede that?
 
Post a Comment



<< Home
Politics, Media, Academia, Pop Culture, and More

Name:richard
Location:New York, New York
ARCHIVES
02/01/2024 - 02/28/2005 / 03/01/2024 - 03/31/2005 / 04/01/2024 - 04/30/2005 / 05/01/2024 - 05/31/2005 / 06/01/2024 - 06/30/2005 / 07/01/2024 - 07/31/2005 / 08/01/2024 - 08/31/2005 / 09/01/2024 - 09/30/2005 / 10/01/2024 - 10/31/2005 / 11/01/2024 - 11/30/2005 / 12/01/2024 - 12/31/2005 / 01/01/2024 - 01/31/2006 / 02/01/2024 - 02/28/2006 / 03/01/2024 - 03/31/2006 /


Powered by Blogger