``Thursday's order upheld a March 2013 ruling by U.S. District Judge Robert Patterson, who also sits in Manhattan... "An inference of intent cannot be drawn from the mere fact that JPMorgan had a strong short position," the panel said.''

Basically, when it suits federal courts, they hide behind the 2007 Bell Atlantic v. Twombly ruling, and claim that Plaintiffs haven't "shown enough" (up front) to make a case for financial conspiracy; but in other cases (i.e., for pension fund losses on mortgage bonds, just in today), they are totally cool with letting cases go forward at least to get discovery on the defendants (at which point, it is actually possible to prove a case)...

Comments: Be the first to add a comment

add a comment | go to forum thread