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.

Microcap & Penny Stocks : Naked Shorting-Hedge Fund & Market Maker manipulation? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: rrufff who wrote (2598)	7/14/2007 6:50:56 PM
From: rrufff	Respond to of 5034

Great commentary on the Piper case from Patchie To: Patchie who wrote (99657) 7/12/2007 3:39:18 PM From: Patchie of 99662 The problem with Wall Street regulations are that the investigators are too easy on the violators and are clearly not intelligent enough to think outside the box. Based on the NYSE ruling filed, the NYSE should have dug deeper into Piper violations once this fraud was detected. The violations found were not SHO violations but decade old violations. The fine imposed (slapped on wrist with a wet noodle) only considers the most limited of trading window and ignores the ulterior motives to the violations themselves. Excerpts from the NYSE Case: "During the Relevant Period, the Firm's Algorithmic Program Trading division ("APT") effected certain short sale transactions without borrowing shares, arranging to borrow shares, relying on an "easy to borrow" list or obtaining an affirmative determination from customers assuring it that shares were available to borrow." If the Piper system didn't do it during the relevant period of investigation it probably NEVER did it since the relevant period under investigation BEGAN on January 3, 2005 (Day 1 of SHO). Why didn't the NYSE begin a lookback in determining the magnitude of the violations once this was determined? "In addition, on March 31, 2005, the Firm's institutional trading desk effected the short sale of 300,000 shares of XYZ without confirming that the customer had arranged a locate or confirmed internally that the shares were available to borrow." What impact did the 300,000 shares, as executed, have on the market? You could imply that it manipulated the market by creating sell side pressures with shares that never existed. I wonder if these were sold into a downtick as well. "As an example, on January 20, 2005, the Firm effected the short sale of 22,000 shares of ABCD (an unlisted security), with a settlement date of January 23, 2005. Thus, according to Rule 203(b)(3) of Regulation SHO, the position had to be closed out by February 2, 2005. The Firm, however, did not perform the buy-in and close out the short position until February 12, 2005." I wonder what profit came from the delay between January 23 when the initial settlement date was and February 12 when it finally settled. If this was executed without a borrow what impact did the 22,000 shares, as executed, have on the market at the time of the trading? "While a participant in the NSCC's Anticipated Delivery Program, the Firm, on more than one occasion, recorded, in a good control location, positions for securities despite the fact that delivery had not been made for 14 days. For instance, on March 31, 2005, the Firm recorded a position of 61,516 shares of EFGH in a good control location despite the fact that delivery had not been made for 22 days." This allows for the lending of these non-existent shares since they are identified as in good standing . By placing these in "good control" they would no longer be carrying these as a failure and would create an imbalance between Piper and DTCC records on stock ownership. "In determining to resolve this matter on the basis set forth herein, Enforcement took into consideration that shortly after MFR's examination the Firm instituted written policies and procedures related to Regulation SHO for its APT division and updated its written policies and procedures related to Regulation SHO for its institutional desk." I.E. we gave them credit for changing policies that were decades out of compliance for immediately setting up procedures once we finally caught them. How many times will regulators send out such conflicting messages on Wall Street compliance violations. Stating your seriousness to compliance and then mixing such signals with pathetic fines is not a way of creating future deterrence. This isn't Rocket Science here, it is the integrity of the capital markets. As you can see, as the markets grow so too grows the sophistication of the investors and investors doing their own analysis of what is happening. Regulators are losing the trust because regulators are too lenient to members who manipulate our markets in compliance failures. For decades the regulators have denied the very existence of short sale abuses and yet these slap on the wrist enforcement cases continue to show that rudimentary short sale regulations have long been violated at the expense of the public and public companies.

To: rrufff who wrote (2598)	7/26/2007 12:00:17 AM
From: NYBob1	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 5034

rrufff thanks ex. Berman selling ??? - or 666nss selling - is that maybee the case? - Ex. 1. - nss-666 - done most of the selling - ex.spec. right in the beginning - to bring down RSDS from $5 - to a nickel etc.? - this video is a must see - tinyurl.com Ex. 2. - A company suffering from nss is seeking damages - of $3.48 billion - Overstock.com Wins Ruling in Prime Brokerage Litigation Court Gives Overstock.com the Okay to Proceed and Denies Prime Brokerages Attempts to Derail Exposure SALT LAKE CITY, July 18 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- Overstock.com, Inc. (Nasdaq: OSTK) (http://www.overstock.com) announced today a favorable ruling in the lawsuit pending in the Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco against most of the largest prime brokerage firms in the country, including Morgan Stanley & Co. Incorporated, Goldman Sachs & Co., Bear Stearns Companies, Inc., Bank of America Securities LLC, Bank of New York, Citigroup Inc., Credit Suisse (USA) Inc., Deutsche Bank Securities, Inc., Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., and UBS Financial Services, Inc. On July 17, 2007, Judge John Munter of the California Superior Court for the City and County of San Francisco ruled that Overstock and it co-plaintiffs have stated viable claims for market manipulation under California securities law, for common law claims for conversion and trespass to chattels, as well as for injunctive relief under California's Unfair Business Practices Act against the defendant prime brokerage firms based on those defendants allegedly executing naked short sales of the stock of Overstock with the intent of manipulating the market price for the shares of those companies' stocks. In addition, the Court granted Overstock (and its co-plaintiffs) leave to amend other of their claims for restitution under the Unfair Business Practices Act and for the common law claim of interference with advantage, to more specifically plead the factual basis of these claims. In so ruling, Judge Munter rejected defendants' claims that Overstock's complaint is preempted by federal law and that 'phantom' shares are not created by naked short selling of a company's stock as a matter of law. "This is a huge win for us," said Jonathan Johnson, Overstock Senior Vice President of Legal. "We are eager to start discovery and move this case to trial. The day we expose in detail the defendants' misconduct to a jury will be a good day for Overstock, its shareholders and the capital markets." "As I listened to defendants' counsel argue that phantom shares don't exist because the SEC says they don't exist," said Patrick Byrne, Overstock Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, "I was reminded on Abraham Lincoln's favorite joke: 'If you call a tail a leg, how many legs does a dog have?' 'Five?' 'No, four -- because calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg.' Defendants create phantom shares by facilitating naked short selling and other types of trades which result in failures-to-deliver. This is manipulative and illegal -- regardless of what the industry's all-too-cozy regulatory agency says. The battle to clean up Wall Street is only going to be won when it is brought to a jury of 12 Americans. Today was a giant step towards that goal." The suit alleges that the defendants, who control over 80% of the prime brokerage market, participated in a massive, illegal stock market manipulation scheme and that the defendants had no intention of covering such orders with borrowed stock, as they are required to do, causing what are referred to as "fails to deliver." The suit also alleges that the defendants' actions caused and continue to cause dramatic distortions with regard to the nature and amount of trading in the company's stock which have caused the share price of the company's stock to dramatically drop. The suit asserts that a persistent large number of "fails to deliver" creates large downward pressure on the price of a company's stock and that the amount of "fails to deliver" has exceeded the company's entire supply of outstanding shares. The company is seeking damages of $3.48 billion Ex. 3. - is the above case a start? - (about 4-8000 comp. since 911 - suffering from 666nss? - want or should join? - copycat - the class action law suits? - and each comp. may ask a min. fiatz$billion plus - in damages, remedies etc. ? - is it long overdue? - but better late than never) - Ex. 4. Do RSDS - suspect any nss has happen ? - RSDS - maybe not in that case - hesitate to do the same? - class action law suit? - (666 destructionz - to Liberty & Freedom in 888Societies? - that's ongoing 666suicide missionz? - history repeat itself - Imo. Tia. God Bless