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.

Strategies & Market Trends : Anthony @ Equity Investigations, Dear Anthony, -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Wolff who wrote (78370)	6/21/2002 4:54:42 PM
From: Wolff	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 122087

15 Arrested in New York for Sept. 11 Fund Scams Wed Jun 19, 5:05 PM ET NEW YORK (Reuters) - Fifteen more people were arrested on Wednesday for claiming money meant for the victims and families of the World Trade Center attack in the latest roundup of "charity chiselers," prosecutors said. The 15 were arrested and charged with crimes including grand larceny, falsifying business records and offering false instruments for filing. Four of the defendants are New York City Housing Authority employees who falsely claimed to have lost their government job as a result of the Sept. 11 attacks. Others claimed they lost their job in the private sector. Calling those arrested "charity chiselers," District Attorney Robert Morgenthau said, "We want to get the message out that if you steal from charities and you get caught, you will be prosecuted." If convicted, they each face up to seven years in prison. Seventy-six people have been previously charged with similar crimes, said Morgenthau. Between them, the 91 people charged in charity scam cases have allegedly stolen nearly $1 million from the American Red Cross ( news - web sites), Safe Horizon, the Salvation Army, the Social Security Administration ( news - web sites) and the Federal Emergency Management Agency ( news - web sites) (FEMA), he added. The group arrested on Wednesday were charged with false claims totaling $52,724. The 91 come from the New York metropolitan area, Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Michigan, Mississippi, Pennsylvania, Puerto Rico, Texas, Utah and China.

To: Wolff who wrote (78370)	6/23/2002 6:48:01 AM
From: Wolff	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 122087

Delaware Court Declines To Create Market Manipulation Cause of Action In RGC International Investors, LDC v. Greka Energy Corp., 2001 Del. Ch. LEXIS 30, 2001 WL 312454 (Del. Ch. Mar. 7, 2001), the Delaware Court of Chancery held that there is no equitable cause of action under Delaware law for market manipulation by means of short selling that decreases the stock price of an issuer's security. The court held that "[t]he judicial invention of such a cause of action would intrude on the authority of appropriate federal and state legislative bodies to regulate the securities markets, and be an exercise in judicial legislation." The court reasoned as follows: Short selling is in itself a perfectly respectable trading practice. . . . Therefore, as a practical matter, the decision to evaluate whether RGC's trading practices support an unjust enrichment claim or an unclean hands defense will require the judicial articulation of a new equitable cause of action for market manipulation. The court respectfully refuses Greka's invitation for the court to create an equitable cause of action that would prohibit behavior that is regulated by federal and state securities laws. Short-selling that violates the federal Securities Exchange Act of 1934 may be remedied by an action under § 10(b) of the Act and SEC Rule 10b-5; that is, by an action which is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal courts. An exercise in judicial legislation of this sort would be disrespectful of the pre-eminent role played by the federal government in the regulation of the nation's securities markets. While Delaware courts have recognized equitable causes of action addressing certain activities also regulated by federal law, those causes of action regulate the fiduciary conduct of corporate directors, an area of traditional state concern recognized by the federal government. Outside of that narrow area, the Delaware courts have consistently refused to regulate the securities markets through the judicial recognition of new equitable claims, especially when those claims (as here) would mirror statutory claims falling within the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal courts. In this case, Greka seeks to have the court recognize the right of an issuer of securities (Old Saba) to assert a so-called "equitable" claim of market manipulation against a holder. Such an equitable claim does not address an area of traditional state regulation. In fact, the creation of such an equitable claim would grant issuers a cause of action that they do not possess under federal law. As things stand, a claim of the nature Greka makes against RGC for alleged market manipulation may only be asserted under federal law by a purchaser or seller of securities. While Greka contends that the lack of an issuer's cause of action under federal law means that there would be no conflict with federal law were this court to recognize such a cause of action as a matter of state common law, I perceive things much differently. To my mind, the judicial creation of a state law issuer's cause of action in these circumstances would flout the well-reasoned judgment of Congress regarding the appropriate reach of the federal securities laws. It also involves a judicial extension of state law that the General Assembly has not seen fit to take under the State's own statutory securities laws. When such an extension has no relationship to this State's traditional concern with enforcing the fiduciary duties of Delaware directors, by what authority of Delaware law has the right to make such a policy decision been invested in this court? [footnotes omitted]. The court specifically noted that "[h]aving been the recent beneficiary of the so-called 'Delaware carve outs' in the federal Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998, Pub. L. No. 105-353, § 16(d), 112 Stat. 3227 (1998), it is prudent for this State to be quite cautious about creating new forms of securities regulation by judicial fiat." The decision was written by Vice Chancellor Leo E. Strine Jr.