SLATER & Gordon has filed a follow-up case in its long-running shareholder class action against the Centro property group.

The latest class action is limited to a subset of investors who acquired Centro shares after PricewaterhouseCoopers, the company's former auditor, began working for the property group in the latter part of 2007.

The case filed yesterday was necessitated by a decision handed down last month by Federal Court judge Donnell Ryan, who ruled that every potential claimant in a class action must have a claim against every defendant in the case.

Advertisement: Story continues below Slater & Gordon and Maurice Blackburn are running parallel class actions on behalf of Centro investors in the Federal Court.

The cases are set down for a trial before Justice John Middleton, beginning on August 22 next year.

Justice Ryan was following a decision of 10 years ago when the Full Court was considering the position of plaintiffs in a class action brought against tobacco products manufacturer Philip Morris.

Although other Federal Court judges have challenged whether the all-on-all approach is correct, Justice Ryan's decision meant the entire list of Slater & Gordon's clients who are suing the Centro companies couldn't also sue PricewaterhouseCoopers.

That is because some of the Slater & Gordon clients bought their shares before PricewaterhouseCoopers became involved with Centro. Slater & Gordon has also signalled to the court that it may seek leave to amend its original statement of claim against the Centro companies so that it traverses a shorter period of alleged wrongdoing.

The current case covers the period from April 5, 2007, to February 28, 2008, but a future amendment is likely to bring the starting date to mid-July 2007.

Slater & Gordon's class action is being funded by Comprehensive Legal Funding; Maurice Blackburn's case is funded by IMF Ltd.

The fate of the largest job bias lawsuit in the nation's history — a claim that Wal-Mart Stores Inc. shortchanged women in pay and promotions for many years — hinges on whether the Supreme Court will let the class-action case go to trial.

The court is likely to announce as soon as Monday whether it will hear the retail giant's appeal asserting that a single lawsuit cannot speak for more than 1.5 million employees.

Business lawyers and civil rights advocates are closely following the Wal-Mart case for its implications for class-action litigation.
"This may sound like just a technical, procedural issue, but because of the economics of it, class-action certification is often the most important issue to be decided," said Washington lawyer Roy T. Englert Jr.

If the high court permits the Wal-Mart case to proceed as a class action, it will put enormous pressure on the retailer to settle, he said. The plaintiffs have not specified the damages they would seek, but given the size of the class, it could mount into billions of dollars.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and several large corporations have joined with Wal-Mart, the nation's largest employer, in urging the high court to hear the appeal and to restrict the use of class-action claims.

They argue that it is unfair to permit plaintiffs' lawyers to lump together many thousands of employees from stores spread across the country and to rely on statistics to prove illegal discrimination.

The government is reportedly close to filing charges in the largest institutional insider-trading investigation in history.

According to initial reports, the investigation could ensnare Wall Street's biggest names: Goldman Sachs, SAC Capital, Wellington, Jennison, MFS Global, Maverick, Citadel, and others.

The investigation reportedly focuses on "expert networks" -- consulting firms that pay industry participants to share insights and information with investors. Professional investors use these networks to gather information about real-time business conditions and trends in various industries

No matter where the investigation ends up, the government will likely present it as a huge step toward making the market "fair" for small investors.  And the same small investors will likely view it as confirmation that the "game is rigged."

Both of these conclusions will miss a far more important point.

The REAL lesson most investors should take away from the largest institutional insider-trading investigation in history is that competition in the global financial markets is so intense that it's basically idiotic to trade.

Trading is what is known as a "zero sum game." To win, you have to beat the competition.

In our experience, most investors have no appreciation for how intense their competition is. They think, "Wow--look at all this information I have.  Look at all my trading screens. Look at all my SEC filings. Look at my charts and graphs. Look at the smart fellow on TV telling me what to buy. Look at how many of my trades have made money!"

What they miss is that their competition has all this information, too -- so it doesn't give anyone an edge. They also don't understand that, in addition to all this information, the folks they are competing with have millions and millions of dollars to spend gathering information that will never be published anywhere or appear on an screen or chart or graph.

That's where the expert networks come in.  That's where contact networks in general come in.  That's where one-on-one meetings with managements and suppliers come in.

One glance from a CEO in response to a pointed question can contain more information than 500 pages of SEC filings. One nugget of scuttlebutt about the status of an important contract can make you more money than 500 hours of studying charts and graphs.  Most small investors don't understand that their competition gets this sort of information all day long.

A businessman who authorities describe as a repeat offender in securities fraud was arrested Friday and charged with overseeing a $17 million Ponzi scheme.

Robert Stinson Jr. of Berwyn fleeced more than 260 investors over the past four years while claiming to operate several real estate hedge funds, according to a federal indictment.

The funds boasted returns of up to 16 percent a year, but authorities allege that Stinson diverted most of the money for personal use, including expensive cars, meals and vacations.

Some investors who received "dividends" from funds managed by Stinson's company Life's Good Inc. were actually paid using money from new clients, the indictment said.

Stinson also lied to investors about having degrees from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Penn State University, and falsely claimed big experience in currency trading, investment management and other businesses, authorities said.

In addition, Stinson concealed previous fraud convictions and two bankruptcy filings, according to the indictment. He was also the target of fraud
complaints by the Securities and Exchange Commission in 1990 and this past June.

On June 29, the FBI raided several of Stinson's business locations and seized two Mercedes bought with proceeds from the alleged scheme. Stinson then obstructed justice by wiring money out of Life's Good accounts, authorities said.

Jeffrey Skilling, the former Enron Corp. chief executive officer convicted of leading a fraud that destroyed the world’s largest energy trader, is seeking a new trial over government objections.

A three-judge panel of the New Orleans appellate court is reviewing verdicts today against Skilling after the U.S. Supreme Court determined in June that prosecutors used an invalid legal theory to convict him.

Skilling is serving a 24-year sentence in a Colorado federal prison after he and former Enron Chairman Kenneth Lay were found guilty of deceiving investors about the company’s true financial condition.

“The court doesn’t act as a 13th juror” to decide Skilling’s guilt or innocence, his lead lawyer Daniel Petrocelli told the panel. “If the trial record contains evidence on which a rationale juror could’ve acquitted, that count must be reversed. Here, the record is filled with acquittal evidence.”