Government Hearings - 1997

  • 1997 - GOV - Financial Services Modernization
  • 1997 0522 - GOV (House) - Financial Services Restructuring
    • [PDFs - WishList] - 
    • Part 1 - VIDEO-CSPAN
    • Part 2 - VIDEO-CSPAN
    • House - Banking and Financial Services Committee
  • 1997 0724 - GOV (Senate) - Securities Litigation Abuses, Phil Gramm (R-TX)
    • (p1) - Phil Gramm (R-TX) - I first want to make the point that this is an oversight hearing, not a legislative hearing.
      • Our objective here is to take a look at the operation of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act, which was passed over President Clinton's veto in December 1995, and review the facts of what has been the impact of that legislation since its enactment.
      • We do not have any legislation pending before the Subcommittee on this issue now, and the purpose of the hearing is to make a determination as to whether we should have any legislation pending before the Subcommittee.
    • (p38) - Senator Richard BRYAN (D-NV). I do not know whether there's anybody that has been precluded, but my point being if the auditor doesn't discover it within 3 years, there was a large amount of testimony as we processed the legislation in the last Congress favoring a change in the statute of limitations to accommodate that concern. That did not come about, but that was part of the concern.
      • Kenneth S. Janke, Sr., President and Chief Executive Officer, National Association of Investors Corporation - Doesn't the statute of limitations open at the time of discovery, not from....
    • (p95) - Leonard Simon, partner of Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach - My firm and other NASCAT members have been involved in the private civil prosecution of some of the most notorious frauds in this country, frauds such as Lincoln Savings ...  Prudential Insurance ...
      • (p102) - Much of the Prudential Limited Partnership Securities Litigation would have been time-barred except that Congress passed a special rider to the 1991 banking bill that preserved the statute of limitations for cases pending at the time the Lampf decision was handed down
    • (p163) - "Report to the President and the Congress on the First Year of Practice Under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995," prepared by the Commission's Office of the General Counsel
      • (p187) - 63. See, e.g. , In re Prudential Sec. Inc. Ltd. Partner. Lit. , 930 F. Supp. 68, 80-81 (S.D.N.Y. 1996); District 65 v. Prudential Sec. , 925 F. Supp. 1551, 1570 (N.D. Ga. 1996).
  • 1997 1030 - GOV (Senate) - Class Action Lawsuits: Examining Victim Compensation and Attorneys' Fees, Charles Grassley (R-IA)
    • [PDF-97p-GooglePlay]
    • (p59) - Brian Wolfman, attorney, Public Citizen
      • John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance Company
        • This is a case brought on behalf of hundreds of thousands of current and former policy holders who were subject to false or deceptive sales practices by John Hancock.
        • The settlement, which was presented to the district court for its approval just last week, creates an elaborate claims payment system to provide individualized relief to any Hancock policyowner who can show that he or she was subjected to improper sales practices by Hancock.
          • The claims system is weighted in a claimant's favor, and some claimants should automatically receive not only whatever compensation is owing to them, but also a small bonus.
          • The settlement also provides modest general relief in the form of discounts on John Hancock insurance and in vestment products to class members who choose to forego the claims payment system.
        • On behalf of former Senator Howard Metzenbaum, who is a Hancock policyholder and member of the class, we objected to this settlement on two grounds.
          • First, we thought that the notice to class members was impenetrable in a number of key respects, which would make it much less likely that deserving claimants would, in fact, pursue their claims for redress. Fortunately, the settling parties agreed to amend the notice to clarify and strengthen it to ensure that claimants were fully advised of their rights.
          • Second, and more problematic, the settlement called for an award of $39 million in attorneys' fees.
        • We opposed that aspect of the settlement, but for reasons that go to the heart of this Committee's inquiry.
    • Senate - Committee On The Judiciary - Subcommittee On Administrative Oversight And The Courts