|
Post by siriusnews on Mar 19, 2012 11:08:46 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by siriusnews on Mar 19, 2012 11:09:11 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by siriusnews on Mar 19, 2012 13:03:15 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by siriusnews on Mar 19, 2012 15:01:02 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by alrich on Mar 19, 2012 15:54:19 GMT -5
¡®Trading Places' would make a good PSA: CFTC enforcement chief 1983 movie hinging on insider trading could persuade like recent ¡®Gordon Gekko' ads www.investmentnews.com/article/20120319/FREE/120319905/-1/INDaily01&dailycount=9&issuedate=20120319By Bruce Kelly March 19, 2012 2:55 pm ET Comedians Eddie Murphy and Dan Akroyd may be getting casting calls in the near future from an unlikely suitor: the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. ¡öSecurities fraud: Don't worry ¡ª Gordon Gekko will protect you Noting the recent attention to Michael Douglas' public service announcements against securities fraud, David Meister, director of enforcement at the CFTC, said this morning that the movie stars could bring attention to new authority the CFTC has under the Dodd-Frank Act. ¡°In the wake of Dodd-Frank, we have become a primary financial regulator,¡± said Mr. Meister, who spoke this morning on a panel in Miami at the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association's Compliance & Legal Society Annual Seminar. Along with regulating the $40 trillion futures market, the CFTC now regulates the $300 trillion swaps market, Mr. Meister noted. It also has new anti-fraud provisions. In an aside, Mr. Meister said that Mr. Murphy and Mr. Akroyd starred in ¡°Trading Places,¡± a 1983 comedy with a plot that hinges on insider information of orange juice futures contracts, thus making the pair appropriate for a public service message warning of such illegal tactics. Last month, Mr. Douglas assisted the FBI and was featured in a public service announcement for the bureau, asking for the public to report information about securities fraud such as insider trading to the FBI. Mr. Douglas starred in the 1987 film ¡°Wall Street¡± and portrayed the infamous investment banker Gordon Gekko. Mr. Douglas is remembered by many for the famous line of the movie: ¡°Greed is good.¡±
|
|
|
Post by siriusnews on Mar 19, 2012 18:08:42 GMT -5
Goldman Sachs Group Inc. (GS) and Bank of America Corp. documents that were deemed confidential in a lawsuit filed against them by Overstock.com Inc. (OSTK) must be made public, a state court judge in San Francisco ruled. The case involves a 2007 lawsuit by Overstock, an online retailer, claiming that the banks manipulated its stock from 2005 to 2007, causing its shares to fall. State Court Judge John Munter dismissed the case on Jan. 10, ruling that the conduct took place outside of California. Overstock appealed, and also asked Munter to make public those documents he put under seal. Munter granted Overstock’s request to make public a large chunk of documents, ruling Goldman Sachs and Bank of America’s Merrill Lynch & Co. “failed to demonstrate an overriding interest that overcomes the right of public access to the records.” He said the transactions are at least four years old, and much of the material was discussed at a Jan. 5 hearing. “The subject matter of this action is of substantial public interest,” Munter ruled. “This case concerns publicly traded securities and the operation of the national securities markets, and those are of great public interest.” Financial Data Munter also ruled that other documents dealing with a “staggering amount of financial data,” should remain under court seal. Those exhibits to court filings are “laced with identifying information about hundreds of thousands of financial transactions of third parties” not connected to the litigation. David Wells, a spokesman for New York-based Goldman Sachs, declined to comment on the ruling. Bill Halldin, a spokesman for Charlotte, North Carolina- based Bank of America, said in an e-mailed statement that the bank is reviewing the decision. “Our primary goal has been to ensure that the confidentiality of sensitive client information be protected,” Halldin said. Salt Lake City-based Overstock claims that large portions of its stock was the subject of naked shorting, where investors sell shares they don’t own in anticipation of making a profit by paying for the stock after its price has fallen. The clearing operations at Goldman Sachs and Merrill Lynch, the brokerage acquired by Bank of America in 2009, intentionally failed to locate and deliver borrowed shares for clients, allowing the firms to earn fees and interest on phantom securities transactions, lawyers for Overstock said in court filings. Overstock sought millions of dollars in damages against Goldman Sachs and Merrill Lynch. Market ‘Flaws’ Overstock Chief Executive Officer Patrick Byrne was “thrilled” with the judge’s ruling, he said in a statement. “I could not imagine that a post-2008 public would be denied access to this evidence, which displays in living color the flaws in our capital markets and in the regulatory structure that governs them,” he said. “Now the public will have a window through which to view this evidence and judge for itself the fraudulent and systematically risky behavior at issue in this case,” he said. Four media organizations, including Bloomberg LP, the New York Times, Wenner Media and The Economist, intervened in the case and joined Overstock’s motion for the unsealing. The case is Overstock.com v. Morgan Stanley, CGC-07-460147, Superior Court of California, San Francisco. To contact the reporter on this story: David Voreacos in Newark, New Jersey at dvoreacos@bloomberg.net To contact the editor responsible for this story: Michael Hytha at mhytha@bloomberg.net
|
|
|
Post by alrich on Mar 19, 2012 20:20:19 GMT -5
Goldman Sachs, Other Big Banks Fined By Federal Reserve For Alleged Foreclosure Abuse By DEREK KRAVITZ 03/19/12 04:05 PM ET www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/19/goldman-sachs-foreclosure-abuse_n_1365597.html?ref=businessBusiness News WASHINGTON -- The Federal Reserve said Monday that it plans to fine eight additional U.S. bank holding companies for improperly foreclosing on homeowners. The financial firms – EverBank, Goldman Sachs Group, HSBC Holdings PLC, PNC Financial Services Group, MetLife, OneWest Bank, SunTrust Banks and U.S. Bancorp – were not part of last month's settlement over alleged foreclosure abuses. Suzanne G. Killian, a senior associate director at the Federal Reserve, called the fines "appropriate" during a congressional hearing in Brooklyn, N.Y. Killian offered few details about the size of the fines or when they will be levied. The nation's five biggest lenders – Bank of America, Wells Fargo, JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup and Ally Financial – last month agreed to a $25 billion settlement with state and federal government agencies last month after a 16-month probe. As part of that settlement, the five banks agreed to reduce mortgages for about 1 million homeowners. They also will pay into a fund that will send $2,000 to 750,000 homeowners who were improperly foreclosed upon. Separately, government regulators last April ordered 14 mortgage lenders and servicers to reimburse homeowners who were improperly foreclosed upon. Since then, letters have been sent to 4.3 million borrowers who were at risk of foreclosure during 2009 and 2010. The deadline for borrowers to seek money under the orders is July 31. So far, nearly 122,000 homeowners have asked for an auditor to review their foreclosures.
|
|
|
Post by alrich on Mar 19, 2012 20:52:44 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by alrich on Mar 19, 2012 21:40:48 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by siriusnews on Mar 20, 2012 22:30:55 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by siriusnews on Mar 21, 2012 9:47:12 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by alrich on Mar 22, 2012 10:05:49 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by siriusnews on Mar 22, 2012 11:26:51 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by alrich on Mar 22, 2012 12:42:28 GMT -5
diamondsr4me: very well done .... and Camrhon's voice is a joy to listen to , IMO fl storm watcher: that was a good recording. Ive never heard it\ Daklebc1: so... makes me immediately ask if it went any further... travelbugaz: they did hire and atty FavorofG: I've never heard it before travelbugaz: Fryer Daklebc1: i've never heared this either diamondsr4me: Dakle.... I think it did diamondsr4me: but; don't know where it stands now travelbugaz: and didn't get much further than any other atty in the past imho wilso1936: we are going to win this battle travelbugaz: alas, everyone hits a roadblock diamondsr4me: would take years & years for Fryer to catch up to what Hodge's has at his fingertips: IMO Daklebc1: the recording is such an excellent explanation of whole big picture diamondsr4me: yes Dakle, agree Daklebc1: great to use when sharing with others diamondsr4me: so true Liz, many of us would agree with you fl storm watcher: true Liz travelbugaz: Cam and his group have done an amazing job of organizing all the DD and putting it in one place for all Chas5678: I think the point of this was......you better pay us real soon.......or everyone will know the truth about our markets Chas5678: and CMKX diamondsr4me: they were all frustrated & wanted to do more.... I can understand their feelings.... but; also think they hit a "road block" CHEVYROD56_: dang ..missed it all..wilson can you play it again wilso1936: sure
|
|
|
Post by siriusnews on Mar 22, 2012 14:09:15 GMT -5
Al
i posted the Florida OFR presentation today because of what is all over the news in regards to the keystone pipeline. heck the two proposed pipelines run right thru approximately where the cmkx claims are..... mkaes you go hmmmmmm
|
|
|
Post by alrich on Mar 22, 2012 15:05:15 GMT -5
Yes, I agree, too bad the viners blocked out cam and you when your presentation first aired; I guess they errored........
|
|
|
Post by alrich on Mar 23, 2012 15:09:50 GMT -5
siriusnews any sense to bivens case extension ?
|
|
|
Post by alrich on Mar 23, 2012 22:42:45 GMT -5
www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/23/us-wellsfargo-sec-idUSBRE82M13H20120323 (Reuters) - U.S. securities regulators accused Wells Fargo & Co on Friday of repeatedly ignoring its subpoenas for documents in connection with a probe into the bank's $60 billion sale of mortgage-backed securities. The Securities and Exchange Commission's filing in a San Francisco federal court seeks to compel the fourth largest U.S. bank to hand over documents. The SEC said it has issued several subpoenas since September. A Wells Fargo spokeswoman called the SEC's action "inappropriate" and pledged the bank would "vigorously defend itself in court" against the SEC action. "Wells Fargo has extensively cooperated in the commission's investigation and believed it had an understanding with the SEC staff with regard to the outstanding document requests; the filing of this action violates that understanding," said Wells Fargo spokeswoman Mary Eshet. The SEC said on Friday it is looking into whether Wells Fargo made "material misrepresentations or omitted material facts" in offerings it made to investors from September 2006 through early 2008, a period that included the beginnings of the financial crisis. The SEC charges that a due diligence review of a sampling of the securitized loans was done, and some of those loans would be dropped because they failed to meet the bank's underwriting standards. But the regulator said it "does not appear that Wells Fargo took any steps to address similar deficiencies in the remainder of the loans in the pool, which were securitized and sold to investors." Eshet said that the SEC had inaccurately described its conduct with regard to residential mortgage backed securities and that no enforcement action was warranted. Several major US banks, including Bank of America Corp and Goldman Sachs Group Inc have faced intense scrutiny from regulators, investors and politicians over their packaging and marketing of mortgage debt, including whether they properly disclosed the risks. Much of that debt proved riskier than expected, and was a major factor in both the 2008 financial crisis and the roughly five-year U.S. housing slump. The SEC's subpoena enforcement action against Wells Fargo is a rather unusual legal maneuver. One of the last more high-profile instances of the SEC seeking compliance with a subpoena occurred in September when it asked a federal court to compel a unit of accounting giant Deloitte & Touche to produce records in connection with a fraud probe at China-based Longtop Financial Technologies Ltd. SIX SUBPOENAS According to the SEC's Friday filing against Wells Fargo, the agency has issued six subpoenas to Wells Fargo since September 30. The SEC said in its complaint it wants the bank to provide the documents in 14 days. In the complaint, the SEC said on February 24 the commission staff notified Wells Fargo that it was considering filing a civil suit for securities law violations. The banks disclosed the notice in its February 28 annual report. According to an email included in the court filings, a lawyer representing Wells Fargo on March 14 told an SEC attorney that the bank assumed the investigation was over after it received the enforcement notice. The bank could revisit the issue of any additional document production after filing its response to the notice, the lawyer wrote. Among the types of documents the SEC is seeking are loan underwriting guidelines, due diligence reports, drafts of prospectus supplements, staff training materials, preliminary loan data and 1,365 emails. The SEC said that Wells Fargo had initially balked at turning over the emails based on attorney-client privilege, but then later reversed course and promised to turn them over in short order. In some cases, the SEC said the bank has provided regulators certain documents, but has still failed to confirm it produced all of them. In other cases, such as with the emails, the SEC contends it has still not received them. Most recently, the SEC said, Wells Fargo "failed to complete its production of responsive documents" despite setting a self-imposed deadline of March 7. The agency also disclosed that it has separately sent notices to two individuals involved with Wells Fargo's mortgage-backed securities offerings warning it may bring enforcement actions against them. The case is SEC v. Wells Fargo & Co, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, No. 12-mc-80087. (Reporting By Sarah N. Lynch in Washington and Rick Rothacker in Charlotte, N.C.; Additional reporting by Jonathan Stempel in New York; Editing by Tim Dobbyn) www.sec.gov/litigation/litreleases/2012/lr22305.htm
|
|
|
Post by siriusnews on Mar 23, 2012 23:49:22 GMT -5
interesting day today
we had an Apple mini Flash Crash
John Corzine in big trouble as evidence is out that he ordered the transfer of $200 million dollars of clients money into a JP Morgan account overseas.
my my my the Goldman Sachs and JP Morgans of the world always getting paid off....simply amazing
|
|
|
Post by alrich on Mar 24, 2012 10:05:49 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by alrich on Mar 24, 2012 10:09:58 GMT -5
Marco's Vegas Attorney March 2012 « Thread Started on Mar 21, 2012, 4:07pm » -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SANTACROCE LAW OFFICES, LTD. FREDERICK A. SANTACROCE, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 5121 706 S. Eighth Street Las Vegas, Nevada 89101 Phone: (702) 598-1666 Facsimile: (702)385-1327 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, Plaintiff, ) Case No.: 2:09-CV-00104-LDG-GWF ) MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS ) COUNSEL OF RECORD vs. ) MARCO GLISSON, j Defendant. i Pursuant to Nevada Rules of Professional Conduct 1.16 and Local Rule 10-6, Santacroce Law Offices, Ltd., (the "Firm") attorneys for Defendant Marco Glisson ("Mr. Glisson"), hereby move this Court for an order granting this Motion to Withdraw as Counsel of Record. MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES I. STATEMENT OF FACTS Mr. Glisson retained Santacroce Law Offices, Ltd., to act as local counsel in this matter for California attorney Robert H. Bretz, Esq. On or about September 2011, Mr. Glisson retained Santaccroce Law offices Ltd., to be responsible for pre-trail matters as well as litigating the case. Approximately two weeks ago a dispute arose between Santacroce Law Offices, Ltd and Mr. Glission regarding the terms and conditions of the retainer agreement. Further, the retainer agreement allows Santacroce Law Offices, Ltd., to withdraw at any time upon notice to Mr. Glisson. Mr. Glisson has been informed that unless his obligations under the retainer agreement are fulfilled that Santacroce Law Offices, Ltd., would be withdrawing. Mr. Glisson has failed to fulfill those obligations. Mr. Glisson would not be prejudiced by this withdrawal as California attorney Robert H. Bretz, Esq., has been counsel on this case since its inception and continues to remain as Mr. Glisson's Counsel. II LEGAL ARGUMENT A. Good Cause Exists For the Firm to Withdraw Nevada Rules of Professional Conduct 1.16(b) provides in pertinent part as follows "a lawyer may withdraw from repressenting a client if (5) the client fails substantially to fulfill an obligation to the lawyer regarding the lawyer's services and has been given reasonable warning that the lawyer will withdraw unless the obligation is fulfilled." In this case, Mr. Glisson was informed numerous times that a withdrawal would be filed if he failed to meet his obligation to the Firm. As of this date, Mr. Glisson has failed to do so and continuing to represent Mr. Glisson will present a substantial financial burden on the Firm. Pursuant to Local Rule 10-6, Mr. Glisson has been notified of counsel's intent to withdraw and electronic service of this motion will serve as notice to opposing counsel. III CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing Santacroce Law Offices, Ltd., respectfully requests that this Court grant an order allowing the withdrawal of Santacroce Law Offices, Ltd., as counsel of record for the Defendant Marco Glisson. DATED this 2J_ day of March, 2012. SANTACROCE LAW OFFICES, LTD. FREDERICK A. SANTACROCE, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 5121 706 S. Eighth Street Las Vegas, Nevada 89101 Phone: (702)598-1666 Facsimile: (702) 385-1327 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on March 21,2012, Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(b) that I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL OF RECORD to all parties listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing via the CM/ECF system and mailed to the parties listed below: US Securities and Exchange Commission Los Angeles Regional Office 5670 Wilshire Blvd., 11th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90036-3648 Robert H. Bretz, Esq. 578 Washington Blvd, Ste. 843 Marina Del Ray, CA 90292 Marco Glisson 3823 Tamiami Trail East #567 Naples, FL 34112 ^ DECLARATION OF FREDERICK A. SANTACROCE I declare as follows: Read more: qbidtalk.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=8796#ixzz1q2zXIUI4
|
|
|
Post by alrich on Mar 24, 2012 10:11:38 GMT -5
Judge Signs Marco SEC Order « Thread Started Yesterday at 5:25pm » -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, Plaintiff, vs. MARCO GLISSON, Defendant Case No. 2:09-cv-00104-LDG-GWF ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO AMEND SECTION VII OF THE JOINT PRETRIAL ORDER TO CONFORM TO COURT PROCEDURE This matter is now before the Court on the motion of Plaintiff Securities and Exchange Commission ("Commission") to amend Section VII of the Joint Pretrial Order ("JPO") entered by this Court on April 22, 2011. Plaintiff moved to amend Section VII to renumber the exhibits as directed by the Courtroom Deputy and to conform to the Court's desired method of identifying joint exhibits, and each party's exhibits. In addition, plaintiff moved to amend Section VII to delete stale objections made by defendant Marco Glisson ("Glisson") to certain of plaintiff's exhibits, namely, that the exhibits were not provided to Glisson, because plaintiff provided the exhibits in August 2011. Finally, plaintiff moved to add to its exhibit list new Exhibits 527-534, which are summary and demonstrative exhibits that were provided to defendant on February 29, 2012. The proposed amended Section VII of the JPO was attached to plaintiff's motion as Exhibit A. Plaintiff moved for this relief so that it can timely prepare for the April 9, 2012 trial set in this matter, and because defendant refuses to cooperate in this simple administrative matter. For good cause shown, plaintiff's motion is GRANTED, and the JPO is hereby amended so that Exhibit A to plaintiff's motion is substituted for Section VII of the JPO. IT IS SO ORDERED. Read more: qbidtalk.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=8801#ixzz1q2ztYQIh
|
|
|
Post by siriusnews on Mar 25, 2012 9:56:11 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by siriusnews on Mar 25, 2012 15:48:16 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by alrich on Mar 27, 2012 12:24:47 GMT -5
Strange bedfellows: Gretchen Morgenson and Patrick Byrne By Felix SalmonMarch 26, 2012 Today’s story from Gretchen Morgenson, about Goldman Sachs and short selling, is notable for two things. One one front, it fails to deliver: Morgenson seems to be trying to make a case that Goldman might be guilty of naked shorting, but she doesn’t really come close. On a second front, however, it’s a great leap forwards for Morgenson. The whole article is based on the transcript of a deposition given by a hedge-fund manager turned chicken farmer named Marc Cohodes. “His testimony, which has not been made public, was obtained by The New York Times,” writes Morgenson — and indeed “Mr. Cohodes declined to comment beyond his deposition”, which means that the deposition is the sole source for Morgenson’s story. Wonderfully, for the first time that I can remember when Morgenson was working off a non-public primary source document, she has actually posted it online. As a result, it’s possible to read the full testimony of Cohodes, which turns out to be a very long way from a d**ning indictment of naked shorting on the part of Goldman Sachs. Here’s how the subject is initially broached: Q. And did you ever come to believe that Goldman Sachs had not been borrowing stock when you were short selling stock? MR. FLOREN: Objection, vague and ambiguous. MR. SHAPIRO: Objection, lack of foundation. THE WITNESS: That’s just speculation on my part at this point in time. BY MR. SOMMER: Q. Well, I’m asking for your belief, so just tell me what your belief is one way or the other. MR. FLOREN: Same objection. MR. SHAPIRO: Don’t speculate; just say what you — answer the question about what you know. You’re here to testify, as a fact witness, what you know from seeing, hearing – THE WITNESS: I don’t know. I just don’t know. I mean, I just — I don’t know. This sets a pattern. Questioners representing Overstock — a company extremely hostile to short-sellers of any stripe — will try to ask Cohodes whether there was naked shorting going on; Cohodes will say, at best, that he talked about the possibility, but that he had no evidence of such activity at all. Or, to put it another way: Cohodes is angry at Goldman, and Overstock is trying to use that anger to get him to accuse Goldman of naked shorting. But he never actually does so. Indeed, it turns out that the allegation that Goldman Sachs might have been engaging in naked shorting doesn’t really originate from Cohodes, or his deposition, at all. Instead, it’s contained on page 300 of a book by a former colleague of Cohodes, Richard Sauer, which was published in April 2010. Here’s the excerpt: This is actually a vastly better explanation of the highly-circumstantial “evidence” of naked shorting than that provided by Morgenson. Here’s her attempt: Failing to borrow shares on behalf of customers is illegal because of concerns about market manipulation. But it can also leave a brokerage firm’s client who is short a stock dangerously exposed to an escalating price in the shares. If a stock shorted by an investor began to trade higher and the shares were not borrowed, closing out the transaction would require the fund to buy them in the open market. That could propel the already rising price of the shares even higher, adding to the costs of the trade. This doesn’t really make any sense. If a fund which is short a certain stock needs to cover that short, then it needs to buy those shares in the open market. That’s true whether the short is naked or not. And yes, when shorts are forced to cover, that can force the price up even further. That’s known as a short squeeze, and it’s exactly what caused the downfall of Cohodes’s fund. And again, you absolutely don’t need naked shorting to have a short squeeze. Reading the deposition, it’s clear that while Cohodes is furious at Goldman Sachs, his fury has essentially nothing to do with naked shorting. This is absolutely not clear from Morgenson’s characterization of the deposition, which is why it’s so great that she uploaded the deposition so that we can see for ourselves. Cohodes is furious at Goldman for one main reason: that after Lehman Brothers went bust, there was some very crazy price action in the market. Most stocks were plunging, but a handful of stocks — the ones he was short — were going up, rather than down. It was a classic short squeeze. In a short squeeze, the fight is simple. The fund which is short tries to stay solvent, while the market drives up the price of the stocks in question so much that the shorts are forced to sell at the top of the market. Once they capitulate in that way, the stock tends to plunge. A fund like that being run by Cohodes, which was massively short going into Lehman’s bankruptcy, should by rights have made a lot of money: Cohodes calculates it at a cool billion dollars. All he needed to do was wait for his stocks to plunge, and then cover his short positions. But that’s not what happened. Instead, Goldman presented him with a huge and unprecedented margin call — not the kind of margin call required by federal regulations, mind, but rather a “house call” declared unilaterally by Goldman Sachs over and above what the regulations require. As a result of that call, his fund went bust, just days before it would have made a fortune. Here’s Cohodes’s deposition: A. I can remember Goldman closing us out of American Capital Strategies at $33 on that Monday, and when they stopped doing whatever they had to do, when the smoke cleared, we finished covering the thing four weeks later at 2, something like that. We finished covering it at 2 but they took us out of eighty percent of our position in the thirties, and when they were done, we covered at 2. They took us out of Tempur-Pedic at 16, covered that, the rest of it four weeks later, at 3. I mean, it was insane. So it’s kind of like I played the entire thing for a complete collapse, got the collapse and was closed out, closed out right before and during. Q. If Goldman Sachs & Co. had not made these house calls and had extended you more credit during this time period – A. We didn’t need more credit. All they had to do was not make the house calls. Cohodes feels, then, with some reason, that Goldman Sachs did him in by foisting huge house calls on him during a point at which the stock market in general was going down rather than up. To make matters worse, when he tried to get out of the calls by moving his entire account to a different prime broker, UBS, Goldman wouldn’t let him do that. And when he tried to move his positions to a hedge fund with deeper pockets, Farallon Capital, he says that the CFO at Farallon got a phone call from Goldman warning him off. So it’s easy to understand why Cohodes is very ill-disposed towards Goldman Sachs, and even suspects that Goldman’s prop desk might have been orchestrating the short squeeze. But there’s really nothing here at all to indicate that Goldman was engaging in any kind of naked shorting. This testimony is mildly embarrassing for Goldman: no one likes seeing their former head of prime brokerage being described as “just a motherf**ker”, as Cohodes describes Ravi Singh in this deposition. But Goldman’s argument for keeping the testimony sealed — “that their release would disclose trade secrets about the business” — is extremely weak. And Morgenson’s case that the deposition somehow indicates that Goldman might have been involved in naked shorting is even weaker. Naked shorting is likely to become something of an issue in the news again soon, now that a documentary on the subject, called The Wall Street Consipracy, is being screened quite widely in finance and media circles. The documentary, like the deposition, is all part of a campaign by Overstock CEO Patrick Byrne against what he’s convinced is a massive conspiracy to bring down his company through illegal means.* And that’s the main reason why I’m uncomfortable with Morgenson’s story: it seems to play far too neatly into the hands of Byrne, who’s really completely bonkers. But at least she posted the primary document, which is great, because it means that the rest of us can see much more clearly what the truth of the matter is. *Update: Lewis Goldberg, the PR guy for The Wall Street Conspiracy, tells me that Patrick Byrne did not fund the movie, he just appears in it. blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2012/03/26/strange-bedfellows-gretchen-morgenson-and-patrick-byrne/
|
|
|
Post by alrich on Mar 27, 2012 13:27:37 GMT -5
Couple says Goldman misused shares to assist short-sellers By Stephen Gandel, senior editor March 27, 2012: 5:00 AM ET Silicon Valley entrepreneurs say they were mistreated by Goldman, joining other critics of the firm. FORTUNE -- Two Silicon Valley entrepreneurs suing Goldman Sachs say the Wall Street firm mislabeled shares in the couple's brokerage account in order to be able to assist short-sellers who were betting against the company the couple founded. A lawyer for the couple, Sehat Sutardja and Weili Dai, co-founders and executives of the semiconductor company Marvell Technologies (MRVL), said the claim will be added Tuesday to a suit the couple filed in a San Francisco court against Goldman a year ago. Sutardja is the CEO of Marvell. Dai is the company's manager of communications. The suit claims that Goldman cost the married couple $100 million by duping them into selling a portion of their Marvell shares to cover a margin loan at the height of the financial crisis. The case is set to go to arbitration. "Goldman had no legal right to lend out shares that didn't belong to the firm," says Phil Gregory of Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy, who is representing Sutardja and Dai. "This whole case is about Goldman trying to make Goldman look better, and my clients suffering for it." In the amendment, the couple allege that in January 2008 Goldman (GS) removed Sutardja and Dai from the ownership records of 20 million shares of Marvell stock the couple held in a Goldman brokerage account. The couple say they agreed to allow Goldman to add the firm's name to the stock ownership records, but that the shares were supposed to classified as held for the benefit of either Sutardja or Dai. Instead, the couple says their names were removed completely. At the time, interest from investors wanting to bet against Marvell's stock was soaring. The number of Marvell shares borrowed by short-sellers more than doubled from 16 million in mid-September 2007 to nearly 37 million by the end of January. The couple allege that by putting their shares in Goldman's name, the firm was able to lend those shares to short-sellers, allowing them to increase their bets against Marvell. Goldman also collected fees from the hedge funds and other investors who borrowed the shares. Short-sellers are restricted from betting against stocks in which they have not secured the rights to borrow the shares. Sutardja and Dai say they would have objected to lending out their shares to investors who were betting against their company's stock. The couple say they do not know how many shares Goldman lent to short-sellers, or if the firm did at all. Sutardja and Dai have reclaimed the shares, which were never sold from their account. A Goldman spokeswoman declined to comment on whether the firm had lent the couple's Marvell shares to short-sellers. "Goldman Sachs has consistently denied and continues to fight Dr. Sutardja and Ms. Dai's claims, which are currently in arbitration with FINRA," says a Goldman spokeswoman. "We have not seen any new claims." Goldman has recently come under increasing fire for allegations about the way the firm treats its clients. In early March, a recently departed Goldman executive Greg Smith wrote in a New York Times op-ed that the firm's culture had become toxic and that its employees regularly put the firm's interests ahead of clients. He didn't offer specific examples. Goldman denies the claims. Sutardja and Dai are not the only ones to complain about Goldman's securities lending operations. On Monday, the New York Times reported that a former hedge fund manager turned chicken farmer believes Goldman's mishandling of his trades by the firm's securities lending division caused his once successful $1.5 billion fund to collapse. Sutardja and Dia are not without controversy themselves. In 2008, Marvell Technology paid a $10 million fine to settle allegations from the Securities and Exchange Commission that the company backdated the options it paid out to its executives. As part of the settlement, Dai, who was once Marvell's chief operating officer, paid a personal fine of $500,000 and was bared from being a director or officer of a publicly traded company for five years. That was the same year the couple's Goldman troubles began. At a Goldman broker's suggestion, Sutardja and Dai bought shares in another technology company Nvidia (NVDA) in mid-2008, using a margin account in which their sizable holding of Marvell shares had been pledged as collateral. The couple quickly amassed a large position in Nvidia's shares. A Goldman analyst had recently begun recommending the technology company. However, according to the couple's suit, at the same time Goldman was telling Sutardja and Dai and other clients to buy Nvidia, Goldman was selling its own stake, slashing the company's investment in the technology firm by 60%. Shortly after Sutardja and Dai purchased Nvidia shares, the stock plunged. Marvell's shares were falling as well. In late 2008, Marvell's shares dipped briefly below $5. Sutardja and Dai, according to the suit, got a call from their Goldman broker who said that they would have to sell 9 million Marvell says to cover the losses in their account. The broker, according to the suit, allegedly said stocks trading for under $5 a share could not be used as collateral for a margin account. The couple say they offered to come up with other collateral to back the margin loan, and that Marvell's shares rebounded above $5 within a few days. Nonetheless, they said they felt pressured to sell. What's more, the couple's suit alleges that Goldman and a hedge fund run by Goldman were buying Marvell's shares at the same time the firm was forcing Sutardja and Dai to sell. Both Nvidia and Marvell's shares have since more than doubled from their late 2008 lows. The couple claim they lost more than $100 million because of their force sales. "Our claim alleges Goldman was trying to get into Marvell at the same time they were forcing my clients to sell," says Gregory. He says at the height of the financial crisis Goldman was looking for any excuse to reduce its lending in order to make its balance sheet look better to regulators and the firm's own investors. Sutardja and Dai got caught in the crossfire. "Based on the information we have, the order from New York was for the firm's brokers to close as many margin loans as possible. My clients were forced to sell even though the rational for the margin call no longer existed." Posted in: financial crisis, Goldman Sachs, investing, lawsuits, Marvell Technologies, securities lending, Wall Street finance.fortune.cnn.com/2012/03/27/entrepreneurs-sue-goldman/?section=money_topstories&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+rss%2Fmoney_topstories+(Top+Stories)
|
|
|
Post by alrich on Mar 30, 2012 9:54:01 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by siriusnews on Mar 31, 2012 10:03:10 GMT -5
Dear Clients,
Fryar Law Firm has now concluded its assignment. The Final Report of our investigation has been uploaded to the Reports folder, and the final invoice has been uploaded to the Billing folder. Effective January 31, 2012, the representation is terminated. This site will remain active through March 31, 2012 so that you may download the materials we have posted for your own use. Thereafter, the site will be archived and no longer available. It has been an honor to represent you. Thank you so much for the opportunity. Best of luck in the future.
Eric Fryar
|
|
|
Post by siriusnews on Mar 31, 2012 21:08:11 GMT -5
Was he fired ( Keith Olbermann because the network would not let him talked about the new do***entary about Goldman Sachs selling Fake stock into pension funds. The new Do***entary The Wall Street Conspiracy premiered in NYC March 1st, 2012 and on March 5th the movie director was to go on the Keith Olbermann Show on Current TV. Here is the official movie trailer www.TheWallStreetConspiracy.com see this powerful 3 minute clip for yourself. Richard SiriusNews
|
|
|
Post by alrich on Apr 1, 2012 11:10:13 GMT -5
Social media connection to Naked shorting.... Today at 10:04am » (This guy interviewed Patrick Byrne for 4 hours) This is an amazing Connection of the DTCC, to Weiss, Boyd and a couple others to even wikipedia and the manipulation that goes on....... its a little slow to start before the pieces start falling into place...... Definately worth the listen, look yadda.... antisocialmedia.net/lecture1/player.html
|
|