InterDigital Inc (IDCC)

[EconEli]

bluesky, that's right, $1.4 Bill. is a nuissance to them. It is more damaging for them to keep their names on the front page of the Business Section than it is to pay the SEC off, and probably a few dozen law firms to.

If you don't believe me then check the compensation for some of those analysts that are "banned for life." Some of them received over a Billion $'s in the late 90's -- so the entire settlement is just a little over the compensation of one well paid analyst working at one firm. That spells nuissance setlement to me. [and btw Blodget's career is dead now anyway, and he is (or at least was) already a mutli-billionaire, so what does he care -- it doesn't make a real difference to him anymore]

Also, if you bother to read the article you will see that they were convicted of nothing, admitted no wrong doing what-so-ever, and as a part of the settlement the SEC agreed to limit their liability.

I am sure some people will spin that into a great victory, but personally I don't think it's even important as a consideration. No succesful investor that I have ever met relies on what those clowns say as a basis for an investment. Many of my friends and aqcuiantainces wear those clown-suits at work at those companies and I sure don't listen to them (don't work with them either -- I am too straightforward a person).

Were they morally wrong for what they did? Sure. Were they ethically wrong? Maybe -- opinions vary. Did they breach their fiduciary duties? Depends on what they said to their clients -- to all the other saps who listened to what they said on CNBC hell no, they have no fiduciary duty to some schmuck sitting at home trying to day-trade based on things he sees on TV. Were they legally wrong? Nope, not in the least -- the settlement proves that.