阅读理解100-30

阿邱

It is, by general consent, the most important securities-litigation clash for a generation. A case now before the Supreme Court, Stoneridge v Scientific-Atlanta, is shaping up to be a key test of attitudes towards shareholder class actions. A decision in favour of aggrieved investors would greatly increase the number of companies on which trial lawyers could train their sights. A ruling the other way would be a crushing defeat for the plaintiff's bar. Adding to the suspense, the government bodies with an interest in the case cannot agree on a common position.

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

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

The Treasury is at odds with the SEC, too, fearing that a ruling in favour of investors would further damage American competitiveness. Many foreign firms that choose to list their shares elsewhere point to America's “litigation lottery” as the principal reason. Although filings of securities class actions have been falling since 2005, the overall value of settlements has continued to rise.

Bankers and accountants are watching just as closely as cable-box makers. In a similar case, Mr Lerach's firm sued Enron's financial advisers on behalf of shareholders, claiming that they facilitated the book-keeping shenanigans at the now-defunct energy trader. He lost—though not before collecting billions from banks that settled early. He has lodged an appeal with the Supreme Court and wants the case joined with Stoneridge. Business is encouraged by its track record: a steady pruning of plaintiffs' rights since the 1970s. A number of its justices are thought to sympathise with the view that scheme liability is best left to the SEC, which has the power to pursue aiders and abettors under its Rule 10b-5.

Some lawyers in Washington even suggest that Mr Cox only sided with investors because he was convinced that they had almost no chance of support from the Supreme Court. But with numerous fine legal points at issue, the outcome is uncertain. An unfavourable ruling would send a chill through boardrooms, and not only in America.

If suppliers and advisers can be dragged into class actions, it would no longer even be necessary to issue shares in the United States to incur securities liability, points out Peter Wallison of the American Enterprise Institute, a think-tank. Any firm, anywhere, doing business with American companies would have to live with the risk that the transaction could later be portrayed as fraudulent or deceptive. And painting such pictures is what 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.

阿邱

文章剖析：
这篇文章讲述了美国一起安全诉讼案。第一段讲述这一诉讼目前两种裁决的后果；第二段讲述了该发起诉讼的原因以及目前律师团提出的建议；第三、四段讲述美国一些国家部门对解决该案件提议的态度；第五段讲述律师之前的历史案件；第六段讲述目前案件悬而未决的情况；第七段讲述如果进一步深化带来的后果。
词汇注释：
shape up v. 发展        aggrieved adj. 权利受到不法侵害的
plainstaff n. 原告        bar n. 律师团
fall in v. 同意        lottery n. 抓阄法
filing n. 档案        shenanigan n. 诡计，恶作剧
defunct adj. 死了的，不存在的          pruning n. 修剪
abettor n. 教唆犯
       
       
难句突破：
(1)        Shareholders sued not only the company but the vendors too, claiming that they participated in the fraud, even though they may not have been aware of the misreporting.
[主体句式]Shareholders sued not only the company but the vendors too.
[结构分析]这是一个复合句，cliaming…现在分词结构作句子的伴随状语，后面even thought…作伴随状语中宾语从句的条件状语。
[句子译文] 投资者不仅仅起诉了这家公司，而且也起诉了供应商，称他们参与了诈骗行为，虽然他们可能没有意识到那些误报。
(2)        If suppliers and advisers can be dragged into class actions, it would no longer even be necessary to issue shares in the United States to incur securities liability, points out Peter Wallison of the American Enterprise Institute, a think-tank.
[主体句式]…points out Peter…
[结构分析]这是一个复合句。主语置后，a think-tank是前面the American Enterprise Institute的同位语；前面都是宾语从句。该宾语从句为一个带有条件状语从句的复杂句。
[句子译文] 美国智囊机构美国企业协会的Peter Wallison指出，如果供应商和顾问也被拽入共同起诉中，那就不再需要在美国发行股票来得到安全债务。
题目分析：

1. What will probably happen if the final decision is in favor of investors?        1. 如果最后的裁决有利于投资者, 以下哪种情况会发生?
[A] More companies will decide to move to other countries for business.        [A] 大多数公司会搬到其他国家。
[B] The government bodies will lose their popular trust.        [B] 政府团体会失去公众的信任。
[C] More companies will be involved in legal acitons.        [C] 会有更多的公司被卷入诉讼。
[D] American companies will lose most of its competitiveness.        [D] 美国公司会丧失其大部分的竞争力。
[答案]C
[难度系数] ☆☆☆
[分析] 推理题。第一段提到，如果最终的裁决有利于投资者的话，辩护律师就会关注更多的公司了。言外之意就是，就会有更多的公司会被卷入诉讼中来。文章第四段也指出，如果投资者胜诉，那么会使得美国的竞争力下降，因此，选项D是错误的。因此，C选项符合题意。
2. Which one of the following statements is NOT true of “scheme liability”?        2.关于“方案责任”，下列那一项陈述是错误的？
[A] The Department of Justice will decide whether to implement this principle in this case in a month.        [A]司法部将在一个月内决定是否实施该原则。
[B] The principle is raised by the plainstiff’s bar to settle the case.        [B]该原则是由原告律师团提出以解决该案件的。
[C] The principle has damaged the trust of foreign companies.        [C]该原则已经损害了外国公司的信任。
[D] The SEC was originally against using this principle in this case.        [D]安全与交流委员会最开始是反对将该原则用于该案件的。
[答案]A
[难度系数] ☆☆
[分析] 推理题。选项A, 第三段提到司法部已经拒绝实行这项原则，在一个月内决定是否支持被告。选项B，第一段提到是由原告律师团提出的。选项C，第四段提到，许多外国公司选择在其他国家上市，就是因为该原则，因此可以推断该原则损害了外国公司的信任。选项Ｄ，第三段提到，多亏了Christopher Cox改变了主意，最终该委员会才同意了这个提议，因此，可以推断，最初他们是持反对态度的。因此，正确答案为Ａ选项。
3. The Treasury is against the SEC’s proposal because_____        4.财政部反对安全与交流委员会的提议是因为_____
[A] The attitude of the Department of Justice is unclear.        [A] 司法部的态度不明朗。
[B] It is afraid that this proposal may arouse securities class actions.        [B]它害怕改提议会引起安全共同起诉。
[C] It holds the view that the scheme liability is unreasonable.        [C] 它认为该原则是不合理的。
[D] It thinks this propasal will further discourage foreign firms from listing shares in America.        [D]它认为该原则会阻碍外国公司在美国上市。
[答案]D
[难度系数] ☆☆☆☆
[分析]细节题。文章第四段提到，财政部是担心如果裁决有利于投资者会进一步削弱美国竞争力，因为许多外国公司选择了到别的国家上市就是因为这个原则。因此，主要原因还是担心会进一步阻碍外国公司在美国上市，从而损害美国竞争力。因此，D选项为正确答案。

4. Mr. Cox changed his mind finally because_____        4.Cox先生最终改变了主意是因为_____
[A] He is bribed by the investors to work in favor of them.        [A] 他接受了投资者们的贿赂以帮助他们工作。
[B] He sympathezes with the sharesholders.        [B] 他同情那些股东。
[C] He disagrees with the supreme court’s principle and attitudes        [C] 他不同意最高法院的原则和态度。
[D] He dedicated himself to the defense of the American investors’ rights.        [D] 他投身于对美国投资者权利的保护中。
[答案]B
[难度系数] ☆☆☆
[分析] 细节题。文章第三段提到，Cox先生不是原告律师团任何人的朋友，而第五段提到了，华盛顿一些律师暗示Cox先生只站在投资者一边是因为感觉最高法院不可能支持他们。因此，可以看出他这样做是同情这些投资者。答案为 B选项。
5. Towards the actions of plainstiff’s lawyers, the author’s attitude can be said to be_____        5.对于原告律师团的行为，作者的态度可以说是_____
[A] negative.        [A] 否定的。
[B] positive.        [B] 肯定的。
[C] indifferent.        [C] 中立的。
[D] biased.        [D] 有偏见的。
[答案]A
[难度系数] ☆
[分析]态度题。文章的前面作者都是以一种非常客观的态度来叙述的，但是在文章最后一段，作者提到任何公司要和美国公司做生意就必须面临有可能被认为是欺诈行为的危险，而律师向来是描黑的能手。可以看出，作者对律师还是持否定的态度的。因此，答案为A选项。

阿邱

参考译文：
人们普遍认为，本案是这一时代最大的一起安全诉讼冲突。现在最高法院审理的一个案子——Stoneridge v ScientificAtlanta发展成为试探对股东共同起诉的重要个案。如果决议有利于那些权利受到不法侵害的投资者，那么就会有更多的公司找寻律师来起诉。不利于投资者的裁决对于原告律师团则是一个致命的打击。除了这个悬念之外，关心该案件的政府机构也不能达成一致意见。
该案件涉及到一个电报公司——Charter Communications，公司利用与两个置顶盒供应商的交易来扩大其收入。投资者不仅仅起诉了这家公司，而且也起诉了供应商，称他们参与了诈骗行为，虽然他们可能没有意识到那些误报。以富有传奇色彩的Bill Lerach为首的原告律师团强烈要求实行寻找第三方的原则，即“方案责任”。
安全与交流委员会赞成Lerach先生的抓阄建议，这主要是因为该委员会的共和国主席Christopher Cox改变了主意，此人与原告律师团没有任何联系。Cox先生要求司法部同意该提议，但是这周司法部却予以拒绝。司法部有一个月的时间来决定是支持被告还是不提供任何意见。
财政部也和安全与交流委员会有分歧，财政部担心如果裁决有利于投资者会进一步削弱美国的竞争力。许多选择了到其他地方上市的外国公司指出，美国“立法抓阄法”是它们不在美国上市主要的原因所在。尽管共同起诉的案件自2005年以来一直在下降，裁决所牵涉的整体价值却一直在上升。
和电报盒制造商一样，银行家和会计一直在密切关注这起案件。之前也有一起相似的案件，Lerach先生的公司代表股东起诉了Enron金融顾问，称他们促成了现已不存在的能源经纪人的薄记交易诡计。Lerach最终败诉，虽然之前因裁决从银行取到了几十亿美元。他向最高法院提出了上诉，希望这个案件可以加入到Stoneridge。纪录可以刺激交易，这是20世纪70年代后原告权利的逐步修改的成果。人们认为一些法官同意“方案责任”最好交由安全与交流委员会来负责的观点，该委员会有权利根据其10b-5法规来追踪资助人和教唆者。
华盛顿一些律师甚至暗示Cox先生只站在投资者一边，因为他相信投资者们不可能从最高法院获得任何援助。但是由于有太多的法律事项都不能达成一致，结果还是个未知数。不利的裁决会让股东会议室充满寒意，而且不仅仅限于美国。
美国智囊机构美国企业协会的Peter Wallison指出，如果供应商和顾问也被拽入共同起诉中，那就不再需要在美国发行股票来得到安全债务。任何地方的任何公司，只要和美国公司做生意，就必须承担这些交易以后可能会被认为有欺诈性质的危险。而这向来是律师们的拿手好戏。

huxiaoya

紫伊

谢谢老师辛苦了。