2021年考博英語閱讀理解模擬題（二五）

It is, bygeneral consent, the most important securities-litigation clash for ageneration. A case now before the Supreme Court, Stoneridge vScientific-Atlanta, is shaping up to be a key test of attitudestowards shareholder class actions. A decision in favour of aggrievedinvestors would greatly increase the number of companies on which trial lawyerscould train their sights. A ruling the other way would be a crushing defeat forthe plaintiff's bar. Adding to the suspense, the government bodies withan interest in the case cannot agree on a common position.

The caseinvolves a cable company, Charter Communications, which used a transaction withtwo suppliers of set-top boxes to inflate its revenues. Shareholders suednot only the company but the vendors too, claiming that they participated inthe fraud, even though they may not have been aware of the misreporting.Led by the legendary Bill Lerach, plaintiff lawyers have lobbied ferociouslyfor the principle of going after third parties, known as “scheme liability”.

TheSecurities and Exchange Commission (SEC) is backing Mr Lerach's lot, thanks toa change of heart by its Republican chairman, Christopher Cox, traditionally nofriend of the plaintiff's bar. Mr Cox urged the Department of Justice to fallin behind it, but this week it declined to do so. It has a month to decidewhether to support the defendants or offer no opinion.

TheTreasury is at odds with the SEC, too, fearing that a ruling in favour ofinvestors would further damage American competitiveness. Many foreign firmsthat choose to list their shares elsewhere point toAmerica's “l(fā)itigation lottery”as the principal reason. Although filings of securities class actionshave been falling since 2005, the overall value of settlements has continued torise.

Bankersand accountants are watching just as closely as cable-box makers. In a similarcase, Mr Lerach's firm sued Enron's financial advisers on behalf ofshareholders, claiming that they facilitated the book-keeping shenanigansat the now-defunct energy trader. He lost—though not before collectingbillions from banks that settled early. He has lodged an appeal with theSupreme Court and wants the case joined with Stoneridge. Business isencouraged by its track record: a steady pruning of plaintiffs' rightssince the 1970s. A number of its justices are thought to sympathise with theview that scheme liability is best left to the SEC, which has the power topursue aiders and abettors under its Rule 10b-5.

Somelawyers in Washingtoneven suggest that Mr Cox only sided with investors because he was convinced thatthey had almost no chance of support from the Supreme Court. But with numerousfine legal points at issue, the outcome is uncertain. An unfavourable rulingwould send a chill through boardrooms, and not only inAmerica.

Ifsuppliers and advisers can be dragged into class actions, it would no longereven be necessary to issue shares in theUnited Statesto incur securitiesliability, points out Peter Wallison of the American Enterprise Institute, athink-tank. Any firm, anywhere, doing business withAmerican companies would have to live with the risk that the transaction couldlater be portrayed as fraudulent or deceptive. And painting such pictures iswhat trial lawyers do best.

1. What will probably happen if the final decision is in favor of investors?

[A] More companies will decide to move to other countries for business.

[B] The government bodies will lose their popular trust.

[C] More companies will be involved in legal acitons.

[D] American companies will be lost most of its competitiveness.

2. Which one of the following statements is NOT true of “scheme liability”?

[A] The Department of Justice will decide whether to implement this principle in this case in a month.

[B] The principle is raised by the plainstiff’s bar to settle the case.

[C] The principle has damaged the trust of foreign companies.

[D] The SEC was originally against using this principle in this case.

3. The Treasury is against the SEC’s proposal because_____

[A] The attitude of the Department of Justice is unclear.

[B] It is afraid that this proposal may arouse securities class actions.

[C] It holds the view that the scheme liability is unreasonable.

[D] It thinks this propasal will further discourage foreign firms from listing shares in America.

4. Mr. Cox changed his mind finally because_____

[A] He is bribed by the investors to work in favor of them.

[B] He sympathezes with the sharesholders.

[C] He disagrees with the supreme court’s principles and attitudes

[D] He dedicated himself to the defense of American investors’ right.

5. Towards the actions of plainstiff’s lawyers, the author’s attitude can be said to be_____

[A] negative.

[B] positive.

[C] indifferent.

[D] biased.

[答案]

1. C

2. A

3. D

4. B

5. A

>>>查看2021考博英語閱讀理解模擬題匯總

注：以上信息來源網(wǎng)絡，如有侵權，請聯(lián)系客服刪除