|
Post by siriusnews on Jan 4, 2012 14:20:24 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by alrich on Jan 5, 2012 16:24:22 GMT -5
Nice news Richard. ;D
|
|
|
Post by alrich on Jan 5, 2012 16:25:43 GMT -5
Administrative Law Judge Robert G. Mahony Retires After 46 Years of Federal Service FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE 2012-5 Washington, D.C., Jan. 5, 2012 — The Securities and Exchange Commission today announced that Administrative Law Judge Robert G. Mahony has retired from the federal government after 46 years of public service, including more than 14 years at the SEC. During his tenure with the SEC, Judge Mahony presided over and issued initial decisions in administrative proceedings brought by the SEC's Division of Enforcement. His initial decisions covered a broad range of alleged violations of securities law, including insider trading, the sale of unregistered securities, delinquent filings, failure to supervise, and disciplinary actions involving corporate officers and directors, brokers, accountants, auditors, and other financial professionals. Before coming to the SEC, Judge Mahony spent 20 years as an Administrative Law Judge at the U.S. Department of Labor. He served as a temporary member of the Labor Department’s Benefits Review Board from 1986 to 1987. He began his career as a trial attorney in the Criminal Division of the U.S. Justice Department in Washington, D.C. Judge Mahony graduated from the University of Notre Dame in 1961, and received his law degree from Loyola University of Chicago in 1965. He served in active duty in the U.S. Army from 1965 to 1967. www.sec.gov/news/press/2011/2012-5.htmAdministrative Law Judge Robert G. Mahony did our St George Minerals Case http://www.sec..gov/litigation/aljdec/id298rgm.pdf In the Matter of : : : INITIAL DECISION ST. GEORGE METALS, INC. : September 29, 2005 : ___________________________________ APPEARANCES: Leslie A. Hakala and Gregory C. Glynn for the Division of Enforcement, Securities and Exchange Commission St. George Metals, Inc., pro se BEFORE: Robert G. Mahony, Administrative Law Judge ******************************************************* I just wonder is his retirement some kind of indicator for cmkxer's getting paid ?
|
|
|
Post by gotcmkxdiamonds on Jan 5, 2012 20:02:23 GMT -5
paid looks like that mite never happen at the rate were going
|
|
|
Post by siriusnews on Jan 6, 2012 14:52:30 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by siriusnews on Jan 6, 2012 14:53:45 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by siriusnews on Jan 6, 2012 14:54:17 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by siriusnews on Jan 6, 2012 15:06:23 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by siriusnews on Jan 6, 2012 17:28:53 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by alrich on Jan 7, 2012 19:51:07 GMT -5
Just4profit: Just wondering out loud but, is there a Possibility, new plainiffs hope to somehow replace general counsel or install Fryar? The Coalition whom Mr. Nelson claims he represents, has stated he represents tens of thousands of shareholders, is also a Plaintiff. It would appear in the Coalition filing a Complaint with the State Bar of Texas, which even mentioned Kevin, might have been hopeful in the removal of Mr. Frizzell, disciplinary action or maybe hopeful in their minds, ? disbarrment. Mr. Frizzell, the force card to agency's civil & criminal following actions against Defendants, After Mr. Frizzell's CMKM lawsuits against prior management and defendants. Why? It’s an old case but… Eric Fryar, attorney for jerry's group, was hired because he's licensed to practice in Texas & due a case regarding Diamond Fields Resources Inc. The lawsuit's target? Most of Diamond Fields' assets. "The Dallas lawsuit asserted a claim to most of the assets of Diamond Fields and could result in Inco paying $4.3-billion for an empty shell," Rounding up the team is famed Houston Plaintiff' lawyer John O'Q'uinn, who was pictured on the cover of Fortune Magazine's "Lawyers from hell". The suit alleges that Jean Boulle, Friedland's partner in Diamond Fields, sold certain assets to the company, breaching his fiduciary duty to an inactive exploration hopeful called Exdiam Corp. A defunct company. But Friedland's story (owner of 15% in one of the companies) is about more than money stated by Forbes & Friedland face on their cover. Last week, when Inco met its shareholders at its annual meeting, there was no trumpet voluntary accompanying the approval of the Diamond Fields takeover. There was, instead, a lawsuit. Through the takeover negotiations for Voisey's Bay this spring, which pitted Inco against Falconbridge Ltd. of Toronto. Paltalkers might remember Accadacca's rants with an insistence for shareholders to be dd'ing Falconbridge whom are project generators & involved with CMKM in some way. And both companies against the fearsome deal-making skills of Robert Friedland, attempts were made to settle with the American plaintiffs. Eric Fryar, a Houston-based lawyer acting for the plaintiffs, says talks were initiated by lawyers for Jean Boulle and subsequently pursued by Diamond Fields. A typically vituperative Friedland says Fryar is a "pathologiical liar," A source stated that one of the litigants was approached. Regarding another company involved, the shareholders are• threatening to sue Mr. Fryar and "have legal means at their disposal". The suit was filed on behalf of shareholders who alleged a breach of fiduciary duty involving diamond exploration information that was transferred from one company to another. The crux was a defunct company's shareholders, Exdiam, hired Fryar because they felt there was a "freeze out" of the shareholders to not receive monetary benefit of assets during a merger/takeover. Jerry, upon securing Fryar posted in print that, Tyler are crooks & referenced Bill and Kevin. He gave a link to the Diamond Fields Exdiam story. If my interpretation of all his posts regarding CMKM is correct, Jerry was claiming CMKM in their joint venture with 1010, were going to freeze out CMKM shareholders and take any assets for themselves. He posted Fryar told him this may be what's happening. Jerry stated his group will be looking for assets…privately. Backing up a little, certain shareholders feel by a Geologist's study, equated a value of claims to be in multi billions$$. Value of claim information has been a high priority ticket and many attempts around the company, even through the 1010 driller, involved in a three way contract, has been ongoing since 2009. Saltydog on mic stated he and Mr. Hodges had a nda with 1010. In a previous post here, mentioned the plea from the driller to pressure Tyler to give Emerson the $50,000 Emerson needed for core samples. CMKM by their financials, didn't have $50,000 and tied to the litigations they were involved in. I question the urgent need for claim value and who needed it so badly, in the past & including present day? Dunno? Read more: qbidtalk.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=8682&page=2#ixzz1ip5WQP1i Something I disapprove of is plaintiffs getting a copy of the CMKM master shareholder list. With a presence of Enterprise related persons still hooked into our stock, on boards & in paltalk, it's a legitimate concern. Shareholders only have to look for real proof of that, only as far as the Sworn Declaration of Jeffrey G. Turino being released. Including video form. Where? On a prominent message board & then quickly spread to other boards. One might think an imprisoned ring leader of the Enterprise would be somewhat disadvantaged by incarceration? Obviously it isn't true & the release would have to have been with consent of Turino, by someone like his attorney or an affiliate. Things like that just don't get in shareholder's hands. We have Urban who at this point has nothing to lose but only gains, if CMKM derails. SEC obtained, the most damaging piece of evidence against Urban possible. It's been sealed. He doesn't want to come here to trial & face charges. Obviously. The next thing is because of the Dinar scam deliberately infiltrated into CMKM. An already scammed shareholder base by the likes of RICO Idicted Defendants Urban, Edwards & Turino. Many state governments have posted on their official websites, warnings that the Dinar is a scam and why. There is huge focus on the Dinar alleged reval any moment & related to CMKM windfalls. There are attorneys & various plaintiffs in all lawsuits, who believe this. We have seen an affiliation with the Dinar promotion, Thing1 and Thing2, Sheila Morris & Reece Hamilton (sheilayea1 & wyatt). Mr. Nelson has a long time assortment of posts regarding Mr. Hodges' information. An attorney gives an update, which might be considered more of a Dinar update. Personally, I don't want known formed groups, which don't represent my interests, A coalition or a legal group, which I purposely didn't join. Lawuits with specific plaintiffs only. The sharholder base is not included nor represented. Don't want solicitations from Dinar scams or any other new scam thingy coming down the pike. Or being legally identified as a shareholder in regards to a coalition that put out a legal notice, who at the time, had no way of identifying who, the shareholder base was at the time of the questionable legal notice. Am thinking a question needs to be asked for legal opinion, if we have objectional rights under the circumstances? Have posted Transfer Online's email response previously. We see in the lawsuit, a shareholder known to the base as briwad, will be, with the assistance of several other shareholders, has requested a court, to inspect company records. It includes in Texas the shareholder list/copy of. I question, by only what plaintiffs have put in print themselves over the last 2 years. Read more: qbidtalk.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=8682&page=2#ixzz1ip7Q8sUP
|
|
|
Post by alrich on Jan 7, 2012 19:57:33 GMT -5
Dave Desormeau settled his lawsuit « Thread Started Yesterday at 7:03pm » -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 06/14/2011 Third Amended Complaint Third Amended Complaint 06/24/2011 Case Reassigned to Department 29 Case reassigned from Judge Kathleen E. Delaney 09/02/2011 Answer (Business Court) Defendant Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.'s Answer to Third Amended Complaint 09/02/2011 Initial Appearance Fee Disclosure Initial Appearance Fee Disclosure 12/22/2011 Stipulation and Order for Dismissal Without Prejudice Stipulation and Order for Dismissal Without Prejudice of CMKM Diamonds, Inc.'s Claims Against Dave Desormeau 02/15/2012 Calendar Call (10:30 AM) (Judicial Officer Scann, Susan) 02/15/2012 Reset by Court to 02/15/2012 02/21/2012 Bench Trial (10:30 AM) (Judicial Officer Scann, Susan) 02/21/2012 Reset by Court to 02/21/2012 Read more: qbidtalk.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=8685#ixzz1ioINnvt3
|
|
|
Post by alrich on Jan 8, 2012 10:56:49 GMT -5
Iran, Russia replace greenback with national currencies in trade exchanges Iran: 8 hours, 47 minutes ago.0 The Iranian Ambassador to Moscow, Seyed Reza Sajjadi has said Iran and Russia have replaced the US dollar with their own currencies in their trade ties, Fars news has reported. The move was discussed by Russian president Dmitry Medvedev and his Iranian counterpart Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in the Kazakh capital, Astana, on the sidelines of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) meeting. "Since then, we have acted on this basis and a part of our interactions is done in Ruble now," Sajjadi said.
|
|
|
Post by alrich on Jan 8, 2012 12:14:04 GMT -5
Kuwait, Vietnam in talks on refinery JV financial issues Kuwait: 10 hours, 43 minutes ago.0 Kuwait Petroleum Corp (KPC) is in talks with Vietnam to reach possible solutions to the foreign currency guarantees required for the joint refining and petrochemical project, Kuna has reported. "Once foreign exchanges and other financial issues come clear, we will be in a position to submit it to the KPC board for final decision," said Farouk Al-Zanki, the chief executive of KPC. The Nghi Son Refinery Petrochemical Complex, the largest refining project in energy-hungry Vietnam, will be located in the northern province of Thanh Hoa, some 180 kilometers south of Hanoi. The refinery will have an annual oil processing capacity of 10 million tons, or 200,000 barrels per day (bpd), with plans to go online in four years after commencement of construction.
|
|
|
Post by alrich on Jan 9, 2012 11:52:30 GMT -5
lawprofessors.typepad.com/securities/2012/01/sec-modifies-neither-admit-nor-deny-policy.html January 8, 2012 SEC Modifies "Neither Admit Nor Deny" Policy The SEC's Enforcement Division announced on Friday that it would no longer allow defendants to deny liability in SEC settlements when they have admitted to or been convicted of criminal wrongdoing at the same time. This is a sensible, and minor, modification of its "neither admit nor deny" policy and would not have changed the terms of the Citigroup settlement at issue in Judge Rakoff's denial of approval. NYTimes, S.E.C. Changes Policy on Firms’ Admission of Guilt WSJ, SEC Modifies 'Confirm Nor Deny' .
|
|
|
Post by alrich on Jan 9, 2012 11:54:45 GMT -5
S.E.C. Changes Policy on Firms’ Admission of Guilt By EDWARD WYATT Published: January 6, 2012 . WASHINGTON — The Securities and Exchange Commission, in a fundamental policy shift, said Friday that it would no longer allow defendants to say they neither admit nor deny civil fraud or insider trading charges when, at the same time, they admit to or have been convicted of criminal violations.
Joshua Roberts/Bloomberg News Robert Khuzami said that, in some cases, defendants would not be able to settle S.E.C. fraud charges without admitting wrongdoing. Justin Maxon/The New York Times Federal District Judge Jed S. Rakoff was critical of the S.E.C.'s “neither admit nor deny” policy. The change is the first time that the S.E.C. has stepped back from its longstanding practice of allowing companies to settle fraud charges by paying a fine without admitting wrongdoing. The new policy will also apply to cases where a company or an individual enters an agreement with criminal authorities to defer prosecution or to not be prosecuted as part of a settlement.
Robert Khuzami, the director of enforcement at the S.E.C., said the agency would continue to use the “neither admit nor deny” settlement process when the agency alone reached a deal with a company in a case of civil securities law violations. Those types of cases make up a large majority of S.E.C. settlements.
The commission has been sharply criticized, in federal court and on Capitol Hill, for allowing companies to repeatedly settle fraud cases without admitting or denying the charges. Until last week, that policy had been applied even when a company acknowledged the same conduct to another government agency, often the Justice Department.
For example, the S.E.C. and the Justice Department announced on the same day last month that Wachovia bank would pay $148 million to settle charges that the bank reaped millions of dollars in profits by rigging bids in the municipal securities market, one of several such settlements announced last year by the two agencies.
In the Justice Department settlement, Wachovia said it “admits, acknowledges and accepts responsibility for” manipulating the bidding process in the sale of derivatives on tax-exempt bonds to institutional investors like cities, hospitals and pension plans over a six-year period ending in 2004.
But in fashioning a settlement based on the same facts with the S.E.C, Wachovia agreed to settle the charges “without admitting or denying the allegations.” Wachovia is now part of Wells Fargo.
Under the new policy, a civil settlement will cite the admission of conduct or conviction in the corresponding criminal case, Mr. Khuzami said. But the S.E.C.’s enforcement staff will have discretion whether to use relevant facts from the criminal case in its own court documents for the civil case.
Last year, the S.E.C. encountered the conflict between simultaneous admission and nonadmission of facts in three other cases involving bid-rigging by large Wall Street firms. S.E.C. officials declined to comment on whether additional cases could result from the Wall Street bid-rigging.
Mr. Khuzami said the policy change had been under consideration since last spring and had been discussed with commissioners “over the last several months.”
The S.E.C. has defended the practice of allowing companies to avoid admitting or denying charges, saying that by settling with companies, it saves the commission the far greater expense — and potential risk — of fighting them in court. The agency says it is usually able to get as much money from a settlement as it could win in a protracted legal case, with money being returned to investors more quickly.
In drafting a settlement of securities fraud charges, companies frequently seek the “neither admit nor deny” language for fear that their acknowledgment of the conduct could be used against them in shareholder lawsuits seeking damages. But legal experts say that safe harbor does not apply when a company has admitted facts in a criminal case.
Securities law experts differed over the practical importance of the change, with some saying it is a notable acknowledgment by the agency of flaws in its system, and others suggesting that it will not affect most S.E.C. cases, which involve only civil charges. Since the S.E.C. is not empowered to bring criminal cases it refers potential criminal cases to the Justice Department.
“It’s an important development because it is a change of policy,” said James D. Cox, a professor at Duke Law School and co-author of a securities regulation textbook. “It’s a small step forward in addressing the concerns” that a federal judge recently voiced about the S.E.C.’s broader settlement policy.
But David S. Ruder, an emeritus professor at Northwestern School of Law and a former S.E.C. chairman, said the change was merely “a tweaking” of policy that would not significantly reduce the commission’s reliance on the “neither admit nor deny” policy to settle cases.
The practice has been in use for years by many government agencies in addition to the S.E.C. The Justice Department has, in at least one case, allowed a company both to admit and deny similar charges in a single instance. Last November, Merck pleaded guilty to a criminal charge that it promoted its painkiller Vioxx for an unapproved use.
At the same time, it settled a broader array of civil charges by the Justice Department that it made misleading statements about the drug’s safety. In that settlement, Merck expressly denied that it engaged in wrongful conduct.
It has been the S.E.C.’s application of this policy, however, that has attracted renewed criticism, particularly in cases related to the 2008 financial crisis. The House Financial Services committee said it would conduct a hearing to examine the practice early this year.
In November, Jed S. Rakoff, a Federal District Court judge in New York, rejected an S.E.C. settlement with Citigroup over securities fraud charges and was sharply critical of the practice. He said the “neither admit nor deny” language deprived the court of the facts necessary to determine if the punishment was adequate because it meant that there were no established facts on which to base a decision.
The Citigroup case will not be affected by the policy change, because there is no accompanying criminal charge. The S.E.C. has appealed Judge Rakoff’s rejection of its Citigroup settlement.
A version of this article appeared in print on January 7, 2012, on page B1 of the New York edition with the headline: S.E.C. Changes Policy on Firms’ Admissions of Guilt.
|
|
|
Post by alrich on Jan 9, 2012 12:17:48 GMT -5
www.secactions.com/?p=3827 « THIS WEEK IN SECURITIES LITIGATION (Dec. 30, 2011 – Jan. 7, 2012)THE NEW ENFORCEMENT SETTLEMENT POLICY The Division of Enforcement altered its long standing policy on one of its key settlement terms last week. Traditionally, the Division has permitted defendants to settle enforcement actions without admitting or denying the allegations in the complaint expect as to jurisdiction. Under a revision to the policy announced the Division will no longer permit those convicted, or who otherwise admited the facts in a parallel criminal action, to settle with the Commission based on “not admitting or denying” the facts. The Division announced this change at a time of increasing concern regarding the “not admit or deny” procedure it has traditionally used. Some courts have raised questions about the issue. Lawmakers on Capital Hill have also expressed concern about this practice. Some commentators have also questioned the policy. The Division’s announcement appears to be an updating of its policies to reflect current enforcement trends rather than a radical revision of its policies. The “not admit nor deny” practice traces to the early days of the Division in the 1970s. The policy arose from concerns that admissions could be used in parallel civil class actions. At the time there were few parallel criminal and civil securities investigations. While the DOJ did in fact bring criminal cases during the period, frequently they would follow a Commission investigation and a formal criminal reference of the matter by the agency to criminal enforcement authorities. Today as many as 55% of the Commission’s civil law enforcement investigations are paralleled by criminal securities inquiries. Many of the Commission’s civil cases are filed in tandem with a criminal action by the DOJ. This is an outgrowth of the President’s task force and its predecessor. It also reflects Attorney General Eric Holder’s emphasis on parallel proceedings to muster the full resources of the government. The impact of these task forces and the Attorney General’s directive is evident in the recent insider trading actions and the FCPA cases. In the Galleon and expert network insider trading cases, the Commission has worked closely with the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Manhattan, in brining a series of parallel insider trading cases. Typically the criminal cases have been resolved first either with a conviction or a guilty plea. Following those admissions the Commission settled its parallel case on a neither admit nor deny basis. The same pattern is evident in the FCPA cases. There the defendant frequently resolves the criminal action with the DOJ by entering into a non-prosecution agreement in which there are extensive admissions but settles with the SEC without admitting or denying the facts. Since the facts have been determined in the criminal cases the potential civil liability rationale behind the neither admit nor deny policy no longer exists. Viewed in this context it is clear that the change represents an updating to reflect current enforcement trends rather than a radical turn in enforcement policy. Likewise, it does not appear to be an outgrowth of the litigation concerning the rejection by the Court of the Citigroup settlement. The U.S. Attorney’s Office did not bring a parallel criminal case in that instance. Judge Rakoff’s concerns in that case, which included the policy, centered more on the apparent lack of any explanation for the allegations of intentional wrong doing mismatched with charges and a settlement grounded in negligence. In fact the Commission continues to litigate in the Second Circuit regarding the rejection of its settlement in Citigroup. Perhaps the more important question is whether this change signals a reexamination of other enforcement policies. Key settlement policies should in fact be carefully examined. Today the Commission seems to be placing far more emphasis on large corporate penalties than remedial procedures which can prevent a reoccurrence of the wrongful conduct. Indeed, the Commission recently requested that lawmakers give it increased fine authority despite no indication that that its current power is inadequate. Yet there is a serious question as to whether corporate fines represent anything more than a “cost of doing business” which is passed onto innocent shareholders while. This emphasis also seems to detract from focusing on remedial procedures to prevent a reoccurrence in the future. In Citigroup and other cases questions have been raised regarding the adequacy of procedures included in SEC settlements. Yet a key focus of the enforcement program is to prevent the reoccurrence of violations, a point which has traditionally been achieved by including meaningful new procedures in settlements. Perhaps now the Commission will move forward with a full reexamination of its settlement policies.
|
|
|
Post by alrich on Jan 9, 2012 12:38:50 GMT -5
"Under the new policy, a civil settlement will cite the admission of conduct or conviction in the corresponding criminal case, Mr. Khuzami said. But the S.E.C.’s enforcement staff will have discretion whether to use relevant facts from the criminal case in its own court documents for the civil case." I hope it helps us in some type of settlement with those charged with crimminal conduct in cmkx.
|
|
|
Post by alrich on Jan 10, 2012 16:42:29 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by alrich on Jan 10, 2012 16:46:34 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by alrich on Jan 10, 2012 16:48:45 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by alrich on Jan 10, 2012 16:55:45 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by alrich on Jan 10, 2012 16:58:36 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by alrich on Jan 10, 2012 17:01:41 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by alrich on Jan 10, 2012 17:05:52 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by gotcmkxdiamonds on Jan 10, 2012 22:03:22 GMT -5
Overstock.Com Loses Ruling in Suit Alleging Short Selling by Goldman Sachs www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-01-11....man-sachs. html By Karen Gullo - Jan 10, 2012 7:26 PM ET ...Overstock.com Inc. (OSTK)’s lawsuit alleging it was the victim of a “naked short selling” stock manipulation scheme was dismissed entirely or in part by a state judge in San Francisco, according to the court docket. The ruling wasn’t immediately available from electronic court records. Goldman Sachs Group Inc. (GS) units and Merrill Lynch units now part of Bank of America Corp. (BAC) were the remaining defendants in the case. To contact the reporter on this story: Karen Gullo in San Francisco at kgullo@bloomberg.net To contact the editor responsible for this story: Michael Hytha at mhytha@bloomberg.net
|
|
|
Post by alrich on Jan 10, 2012 22:07:58 GMT -5
Goldman Sachs Wins Dismissal of Overstock’s Short Sale Suit QBy Karen Gullo - Jan 10, 2012 8:48 PM ET . inShare.0 More Business ExchangeBuzz up!DiggPrint Email ...Goldman Sachs Group Inc. (GS) won dismissal of Overstock.com Inc. (OSTK)’s lawsuit alleging the investment bank manipulated short sales of the online retailer’s stock from 2005 to 2007, causing the shares to fall.
State court judge John Munter in San Francisco threw out the complaint in a ruling today. The decision comes almost five years after Overstock.com accused Wall Street brokerages of using a practice known as naked short selling to deliberately drive down its shares to allegedly reap security lending fees and appease hedge fund clients who were shorting Overstock.com.
Munter agreed with the defendants, which included Merrill Lynch & Co., that the lawsuit couldn’t go forward because Overstock.com hadn’t shown that any of the conduct it sued over happened in California.
“Plaintiffs have failed to raise a triable issue of material fact supportive of a finding that any act by any defendant foundational to liability, causation or damages occurred in California,” Munter said in the ruling.
Patrick Byrne, chief executive officer of Salt Lake City- based Overstock, has accused investment banks and hedge funds of working together to destroy market value of small-cap companies.
In short selling, investors sell shares they have borrowed in anticipation of making a profit by paying for the stock after its price has fallen. In naked short selling, traders never borrow the stock and can drive down prices by flooding the market with orders to sell shares they don’t have, Overstock.com alleges in court filings.
Naked Shorting Overstock claims large portions of its shares were the subject of naked shorting, leading to instances where the short position in its stock has exceeded the entire supply of outstanding shares. Its shares fell from more than $70 in early 2005 to less than $20 in late 2006, according to court filings.
The clearing operations at Goldman Sachs and Merrill Lynch, the brokerage acquired by Bank of America Corp. 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.
Clients shorting the stock benefited because the oversupply of shares depressed the shares, the company alleges. The conduct violated California’s unfair business practices and securities laws, according to the complaint.
Jonathan Johnson, Overstock’s president, said he hadn’t seen today’s ruling yet and couldn’t comment. He said in an e- mail that Overstock expects to file a racketeering lawsuit on the same allegations in New Jersey tomorrow.
Michael DuVally, a spokesman for New York-based Goldman Sachs, declined to comment on the ruling in a telephone interview. Lawrence Grayson, a spokesman for Charlotte, North Carolina-based Bank of America, and Andrew Frackman, an attorney who represented the Merrill Lynch units in the case, didn’t immediately respond to e-mail messages seeking comment on the ruling after hours.
‘Phantom Shares’ Lawyers for Goldman Sachs and Merrill Lynch said the case had to be dismissed because the alleged manipulative conduct at issue didn’t occur in California and there’s no evidence that failing to deliver stock creates “phantom shares” or depressed Overstock’s shares. Clearing operations for Goldman Sachs and Merrill Lynch are based in New York, they said.
“There’s no evidence in the record that the defendants’ fails-to-deliver, regardless of what short sales we might have caused as a result of that, caused Overstock to be in the top 1 percent of all shorted companies,” Andrew Frackman, an attorney for Merrill Lynch, said at a Jan. 5 hearing in San Francisco. “Their prime broker, their settling departments that were engaged in this are located in New York and New Jersey.”
“We do believe very strongly that the conduct at issue here, wherever it occurred, was entirely lawful and was not prohibited under any laws against market manipulation,” Joseph Floren, a lawyer for Goldman Sachs, said at the hearing.
California Brokers Lawyers for Overstock told Munter that the company sold shares in California and the defendants were licensed California brokers that affected the national market for Overstock shares.
They also pointed to certain trades the defendants executed on the San Francisco-based Pacific Stock Exchange for clients who were based in Northern California and conduct at a San Francisco-based Merrill Lynch office that allegedly accommodated manipulative trading schemes.
“In looking at the California conduct, you have to look at it from soup to nuts,” Theodore Griffinger, Overstock’s lawyer, said at the hearing. “You have to look at it from the initiation of the relationship.”
The company originally sued more than 10 brokerage firms in its 2007 lawsuit. Claims against all but Goldman Sachs and Merrill Lynch were dismissed previously.
The case is Overstock.com v. Morgan Stanley, CGC-07-460147, Superior Court of California, San Francisco.
To contact the reporter on this story: Karen Gullo in San Francisco at kgullo@bloomberg.net
To contact the editor responsible for this story: Michael Hytha at mhytha@bloomberg.net.
|
|
|
Post by alrich on Jan 10, 2012 22:11:43 GMT -5
WTF ! TRIED CASE IN WRONG STATE........GIVE ME A F'N BREAK ! SO DID HODGES TRY OUR CASE IN THE WRONG STATE TOO ?
|
|
|
Post by gotcmkxdiamonds on Jan 10, 2012 22:22:12 GMT -5
SAN FRAN AINT THE PLACE TO DO IT
|
|
|
Post by alrich on Jan 12, 2012 13:03:17 GMT -5
Brian Dvorak asks for Extension
In the appeal with the SEC Case 11-17021
01/10/2012 16 Filed (ECF) Appellant Brian Dvorak in 11-17025 Motion to extend time to file Opening brief until 01/17/2012 at 05:00 pm. Date of service: 01/10/2012. [8026513] [11-17025, 11-17021] (JWH)
|
|
|
Post by alrich on Jan 13, 2012 3:00:36 GMT -5
|
|