Defrauded investors who seek to recoup their losses by spreading the blame to dodgy companies' lawyers, accountants, and bankers got little hope before the Supreme Court on Tuesday.

In oral arguments for the landmark case Stoneridge Investment Partners v. Scientific-Atlanta, Chief Justice John Roberts led a group of skeptics who seemed to suggest it would be unwise for the court to expand private lawsuits, especially since Congress has declined to do that twice.

Stoneridge is billed as the most important business case to come before the court in years. Victims of massive frauds, which often leave behind a bankrupt company, are seeking the right to sue law firms, accounting firms, or banks that allegedly assisted in the fraud. They say a loss in this case would not only deny them the ability to recoup their losses; it would give license to third parties to take part in these schemes with impunity.

In fact, the outcome of another pending case, against the investment banks that helped Enron to arrange sham transactions, lies in the balance. But a host of businesses and banks predict a verdict in favor of the investors could subject them to billions of dollars in potential damages and weaken the position of the United States in global markets.

Justices Samuel Alito and Antonin Scalia joined Roberts in leading the charge against the investors, while Justice Anthony Kennedy, who wrote the decision in a previous case on which the Stoneridge matter could turn, remained largely on the sidelines. Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David Souter were trying to find a way to revive the investors' claims.

Roberts, along with Justice Stephen Breyer, had initially recused himself from hearing the arguments. Both justices own stock in Cisco Systems, the parent of Scientific-Atlanta, and the speculation was that they bowed out of the case because of their stock ownership. But Roberts rejoined the case over the summer; he might have sold his stock to cure a potential conflict of interest.

As lawyers for both sides made their arguments to the court today, Roberts' line of questioning boded poorly for investors and plaintiffs' lawyers.