Writing about the fate of the "Specter amendment" that would reverse the Supreme Court's decision in Stoneridge Investment Partners v. Scientific-Atlanta has proven to be about as difficult as writing about the fate of the UK's Financial Services Authority: as soon as you hit the "Publish" button, the outlook changes completely!

The Court's 2008 ruling in Stoneridge Investment Partners, LLC v. Scientific-Atlanta, Inc., together with a previous ruling in Central Bank v. First Interstate Bank, effectively prevents "aiding and abetting" liability under the securities laws for secondary violators such as auditors, banks and law firms. An amendment proposed by Sen. Arlen Specter, and most recently Rep. Maxine Waters, would restore aiding and abetting liability for private securities fraud cases.

The "Specter amendment" appeared to have fallen by the wayside when neither the final version of the financial reform bills that passed the Senate and House included the amendment, leaving auditors and other relieved. Prof. Peter Henning writes in DealBook today, however, that in a new development, House members of the conference committee have agreed to insert the amendment offered by Rep. Waters into the House version of the bill now being worked on by Congress.

Henning adds that lawyers, auditors and others will now surely complain loudly--something that has not been necessary to date as the language was never part of the bills originally passed by the House and Senate. He also expects that lobbying will be vigorous on the Senate side to keep the provision out of the final bill presented to President Obama.

On the Point of Law blog, Carter Wood says that it is "shoddy lawmaking to try to add extraneous amendments via a conference committee without the provision having passed one of the two chambers first. It happens, but it's arrogant and invites disregard for Congress."