历年考研英语真题及答案【下载】

　　2010年考研英语冲刺阶段高分突破完全攻略

　　新东方2010考研英语阅读精读100篇(高分版)

新东方2010考研英语阅读精读100篇(高分版)TEXT TWENTYNINE

　　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.

　　历年考研英语真题及答案【下载】

　　2010年考研英语冲刺阶段高分突破完全攻略

　　新东方2010考研英语阅读精读100篇(高分版)