Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Non-Tech : The ENRON Scandal -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Baldur Fjvlnisson who wrote (4014)	5/11/2002 6:42:00 AM
From: Baldur Fjvlnisson	Respond to of 5185

SEC's Pitt Calls Spitzer's Stock-Analyst Plan `Very Drastic' By Neil Roland Washington, May 10 (Bloomberg) -- New York State Attorney General Eliot Spitzer's idea of breaking up the stock research and investment banking businesses at Wall Street firms ``is a very drastic remedy,'' Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman Harvey Pitt said. Speaking at an SEC investor conference today, Pitt said the federal agency would consider this step ``only as a last resort.'' Spitzer, who is in settlement talks with Merrill Lynch & Co. after an investigation of its analyst practices, has been considering a separation of Merrill's research and banking operations. His investigation turned up Merrill e-mails showing that analysts at the U.S.'s largest brokerage were issuing recommendations on stocks they disparaged in private. Pitt is facing investor and congressional pressure to crack down on analyst conflicts and deceptive accounting practices. Watchdog group Common Cause called for Pitt to resign today, saying he has abandoned to Spitzer the role of defending shareholders from deceptive analysis. Pitt dismissed Common Cause's complaint and said Spitzer's plan may not be necessary. ``The notion of government requiring divestiture is a very serious step and should only be taken when there is no other potential solution to the problems that caused it,'' he said. The SEC approved its own rules earlier this week that seek to limit conflicts of interest among stock analysts. The rules, which don't go as far as Spitzer's idea, forbid analysts from reporting to bankers and getting paid from specific banking deals. SEC Investigation Spurred by Spitzer's findings, the SEC began its own investigation of analysts' practices. Pitt, a Republican, has said the SEC may consider a second round of rulemaking after it completes an investigation of analyst practices. A spokeswoman for Spitzer, a Democrat, declined comment. The SEC rules, which are being phased in over the next six months, also forbid analysts from trading against their own recommendations. In addition, analysts must disclose their ownership of any stocks that they are reviewing. Securities regulators will review these rules in a year. A group of workers' pension funds called on Pitt to pursue Spitzer's remedy. Analysts aren't serving investors because their ``true customer is the investment banking department,'' Damon Silvers, AFL-CIO associate general counsel, told the summit panel. ``I urge you to start a second step tomorrow. Cut the tie that binds investment banks and analysts.'' Representative John LaFalce, a New York Democrat, introduced a bill earlier this year that would have prohibited analysts' pay from being based on investment-banking revenue. The bill failed, and the House instead passed a Republican-sponsored measure that calls on the SEC to study analyst conflicts of interest.

To: Baldur Fjvlnisson who wrote (4014)	8/9/2002 7:09:18 AM
From: Mephisto	Respond to of 5185

"Common Cause Calls for The Resignation of SEC Chairman Harvey Pitt Harshbarger: “Pattern of Conflicts Undermines Citizen and Investor Confidence” >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The only way this is going to happen is to Impeach Bush. And maybe, he should be impeached. Now, you could put him in the category of a law breaker. I noticed Tayna Harding was sent to jail because she failed to follow a judge's sentence. Bush ignores the law of the courts, the law of the people and he is still President. Unlimited Presidential Powers The New York Times Editorial August 8, 2002 The Justice Department all but told a federal judge this week to take his legitimate concerns about civil liberties and stuff them in the garbage pail. The Bush administration seems to believe, on no good legal authority, that if it calls citizens combatants in the war on terrorism, it can imprison them indefinitely and deprive them of lawyers. It took this misguided position to a ludicrous extreme on Tuesday, insisting that the federal courts could not review its determinations. This defiance of the courts repudiates two centuries of constitutional law and undermines the very freedoms that President Bush says he is defending in the struggle against terrorism. The courts must firmly reject the White House's assertion of unchecked powers. The administration's autocratic approach is unfolding in the case of Yasser Esam Hamdi. Mr. Hamdi, who was born in Baton Rouge, La., to Saudi parents, was captured by the Northern Alliance while fighting with the Taliban in Afghanistan. Mr. Hamdi is being held in a Navy brig in Norfolk, Va., without having been charged with any crime and has been denied permission to see a lawyer. Judge Robert Doumar of the federal district court in Norfolk asked prosecutors to submit documents, including interview notes, so he could assess the claim that Mr. Hamdi is an enemy combatant. On Tuesday the Justice Department refused to hand over the documents, saying the courts had no jurisdiction in the matter. The Bush administration has framed the dispute as being over the separation of powers and the right of the executive branch to oversee the waging of war. The courts have, in fact, given the political branches considerable leeway where wars are concerned. But declaring American citizens to be enemy combatants, and therefore not entitled to basic constitutional protections, is a clear matter of domestic civil liberties. The courts have an obligation to play an active role in reviewing these determinations. In the case of Mr. Hamdi, the evidence submitted by prosecutors is thin. The government is relying on a two-page affidavit from a Defense Department adviser that simply gives a brief outline of Mr. Hamdi's alleged actions and declares him a combatant. Given the importance of the rights at stake, Judge Doumar was correct to ask prosecutors to hand over supporting materials so he can satisfy himself that the right decision was made. Judge Doumar acted at the behest of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Va., which advised him that he needed to adduce more facts and hear more arguments before he could order the government to let Mr. Hamdi consult with a lawyer. Though the three-judge panel that issued the ruling was deferential to the administration, Chief Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson 3rd, a conservative stalwart, warned that in the absence of judicial review, "any American citizen alleged to be an enemy combatant could be detained indefinitely without charges or counsel." The Bush administration seems to be using the Hamdi case to establish the principle that it has the exclusive power to decide who is an enemy combatant. If the administration's position prevails, we can expect to see many more cases like it. The government will be free to seize anyone it wants simply by saying the magic words "enemy combatant," and the courts will be powerless to release such people from prison, or even provide them with lawyers. This was not what the founders had in mind. They established a system of checks and balances so no one branch of government would have unrestrained power. And the Supreme Court has made clear, in case after case, that the courts have just the sort of judicial review power that Judge Doumar has invoked. The parties in the Hamdi case will soon return to court. If the government has not changed its mind, Judge Doumar should insist that it comply with his well-reasoned order. nytimes.com Copyright 2002 The New York Times Company