As a companion must-read article to Tim’s column on the ObamaCare birth control mandate, John Cochrane…
CFIF on Twitter CFIF on YouTube
Cato on Contraception Mandate: 'We Should All be Exempt'

As a companion must-read article to Tim’s column on the ObamaCare birth control mandate, John Cochrane of Cato explains why President Barack Obama’s proposed compromise to exempt church-related institutions misses the point:

Our nation is divided on social issues. The natural compromise is simple: Birth control, abortion and other contentious practices are permitted. But those who object don't have to pay for them. The federal takeover of medicine prevents us from reaching these natural compromises and needlessly divides our society.

The critics fell for a trap. By focusing on an exemption for church-related institutions, critics effectively admit that it is right for the rest of us to be subjected to this sort of mandate. They accept the horribly misnamed Patient Protection and Affordable…[more]

February 10, 2012 • 04:52 pm

Liberty Update

CFIFs latest news, commentary and alerts delivered to your inbox.
Jester's CourtroomLegal tales stranger than stranger than fiction: Ridiculous and sometimes funny lawsuits plaguing our courts.
Home Jester's Courtroom Man Sues Goldman Sachs for Giving Good Advice
Man Sues Goldman Sachs for Giving Good Advice Print
Tuesday, May 11 2010

A retired businessman from New Jersey is suing Goldman Sachs after losing $15 million in the Bernie Madoff Ponzi scheme, claiming Goldman Sachs should have insisted that he follow its advice and remove money from the Madoff Fund.

In a lawsuit filed in federal court, Jerome Goodman claims that Goldman Sachs had a fiduciary duty to insist that Goodman follow its advice to remove $5 million of the $12 million from the Madoff Fund and invest it in a Goldman Sachs hedge fund.  Goodman didn't do so, the suit says, because the Madoff and Goldman Sachs funds had the same apparent risk level and he felt Goldman Sachs' advice was self-serving and not in line with his request for diversification.
 
But, then, Goodman goes on to claim that, "Goldman Sachs implemented an internal ban on investment with the Madoff Fund in or around 1999, after Goldman Sachs conducted or attempted to conduct satisfactory due diligence into the Madoff Fund,” and that this was further grounds for insisting that he diversify.

The plaintiff's lawyer, Richard Lippe of Meltzer, Lippe, Goldstein & Breitstone in Mineola, N.Y., who represents several Madoff victims, says, meanwhile, there is a precedent for the notion that an investment adviser who does not follow a mandate to diversify a portfolio can be liable.

C. Evan Stewart of Zuckerman Spaeder in New York, a lawyer for Goldman Sachs, responded that the lawsuit is without merit because the company never instituted an internal ban on Madoff.  Moreover, Stewart noted, Goodman was never a client of the firm.

—Source: Law.com

Question of the Week   
Where does the United States rank in The Heritage Foundation’s 2012 Index of Economic Freedom?
More Questions
Quote of the Day   
 
"Someone needs to ask Mr. Obama how an increasingly impoverished nation, limping along on food stamps and housing subsidies, is going to pay for the existing beneficiaries, along with 77 million Baby Boomers set to retire in the next 25 years. A president who has impaired the vibrancy of the private sector so badly has long since forfeited the moral high ground."…[more]
 
 
—Mona Charen, Nationally Syndicated Columnist
— Mona Charen, Nationally Syndicated Columnist
 
Liberty Poll   

Should the Obama administration support Israel in a military strike against Iranian nuclear facilities?