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: kknightmcc who wrote (3101)	12/26/2007 7:58:57 AM
From: dvdw©	Respond to of 5034

This confirms that the whole thing is one big desking operation. thanks for posting that.

To: kknightmcc who wrote (3101)	12/26/2007 5:19:53 PM
From: rrufff	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 5034

STOCKGATE TODAY: US Court provides Free Pass on Possible Collusion - December 20, 2007 Location: Blogs Dave Patch's Blog Posted by: dpatch 12/20/2007 12:25 PM US Court provides Free Pass on Possible Collusion - December 20, 2007 Setting the US Judicial system back decades, US District Court Judge Victor Marrero dismissed a class action suit filed against Wall Street’s most premiere broker-dealers based on the most ludicrous of reasons. We will get into the case itself in a minute but it is not the case that set back our judicial system, it was the reason behind the dismissal. In an opinion released today Judge Marrero announced his decision to dismiss the case citing "the threat of a 'nonexpert jury' mistaking lawful conduct under the securities laws as evidence of a conspiracy under the antitrust laws and exacerbated by the prospect of trebled damages, would place immense pressure on defendants to curtail the open exchange of information….Such antitrust suits would likely chill a broad range of activities that the securities laws permit and encourage, and would likely inhibit the short selling activity that provides market liquidity and pricing efficiency." So much for the right to take your claims to court or for the impartiality of a Judge. Apparently this Judge has concluded on the case before it was ever presented to the court. "Chill a broad range of activities that the securities laws permit" has not been validated by a court of law, it is an opinion formulated by a Judge that has not even been plead the case through a process of discovery. As if Wall Street was not already being protected by one captured Federal Agency, the Securities and Exchange Commission, the country must now suffer the consequences of an equally disruptive Federal court system. The language used within the Judges decision sounds unmistakably like the rhetoric of the SEC making us wonders whose words those really were. Suddenly jurors who have the mental capacity to hear complicated cases relating to corporate espionage, medical malpractice, or complicated criminal enterprises are too ignorant to hear testimony of possible collusion between two independent broker-dealers. By the Judges remarks, jurors may be smart enough to invest their savings in Wall Street but they are clearly too stupid to hear a case involving potential collusion amongst broker dealers. What does that say about the transparency of risk in our capital market system if the investors are not qualified enough to understand the system they invest in? What I read into the Judges decision is more straightforward. The Judge was too ignorant of the facts as presented by the plaintiffs and thus passed the baton back to the agency the plaintiffs claim failed them; the SEC. The complaint filed by Electronic Trading Group LLC in April 2006 had argued that members of Wall Street had charged unearned fees, commissions or interest on short sales where those broker-dealers failed to borrow or deliver the stock to back up a short position executed. In layman’s terms, Wall Street was charging Electronic Trading group and their clients fees for the execution of trades and then failing to fulfill all of the obligations of the trade execution. In a short sale the representing broker dealer to the short seller must locate a share to borrow prior to executing the trade. The reason for the locate is to insure that, should the trade be executed a borrow will follow such that the share borrowed can be delivered to the representative buyer in the trade executed. The short seller pays a fee on the borrowed share similar to paying interest on debt accrued on a credit card. In this case Electronic Trading group represented the short seller. Electronic Trading Group (ETG) contends that as a short seller they paid the major broker dealers a fee not only to execute the trade (commission) but also paid a fee on shares that were supposedly borrowed (interest). But trade records indicate that no shares were borrowed instead letting the trade fall into a category identified as a failed trade. ETG was paying a late fee and interest on a credit card bill with zero balance and they have taken their case to federal court for recovery of fees paid. Under Securities law, all trades must settle within 3-business days after execution of fall into a category of failure. The intent of securities law, passed down by Congress under the Securities Act of 1934 is to seek 3-day settlement efficiencies in all markets to protect the markets and all participating parties from unhealthy liabilities. That is not to say every trade will settle within 3-days but once a trade fails, the broker dealers are obligated to continue pursuing all efforts to close that trade immediately. ETG’s suit claims that not only did their broker fail to borrow shares for delivery to the buyer but that the buyers representative broker dealer colluded with ETG’s broker to allow the failed trade to persist for an extended period in time without the demand for settlement. Again, in layman’s terms, neither side of the contra parties were forcing the settlement of the trade and yet both profited from the commissions and fees charged for the execution of that trade. The buyer paid for nothing, the seller delivered nothing and the brokers collected a fee from both and walked away from the remaining trade obligations. How real is it? Over the past decade the SEC has dismissed all efforts to firm up this area of abuse although admitting that such areas exist. They have offered little if any assistance to those who may be victimized by the process despite their admissions that the abuse exists. In response to the failures of the Commission to react responsibly, more and more investors and business issuers have taken their pleas to the state and federal courts where, as witnessed today, the courts are likewise offering little by way of legal remedy. The victims are left out in the cold while the fat cats of Wall Street remain bulletproof. The merits of the case aside, should a Federal Judge be dismissing cases for reasons of "non-qualified" jurors? If so, what does that say about the equal opportunity for all to utilize the US Judiciary system? Where and how does a Judge decide the intelligence of the US jury pool? Wall Street has longed ruled Washington DC, buying off politicians and regulators with an excess lobbying funds. The near Trillion Dollar industry has the money to spend and spend it wisely they do. The decision today by Judge Marrero now begs the question, has Wall Street likewise purchased the voice of our Judicial system as well? Certainly when a Judge of supposed impartiality makes comments like "would likely inhibit the short selling activity that provides market liquidity and pricing efficiency" you have to wonder what issues of market liquidity are doing making way into a judges decision to dismiss. The beneficiaries of market liquidity real and criminal is, after all, Wall Street broker dealers. A call into Judge Marreno’s office was responded to with a curt "The Judge does not comment on his positions". And the drum beat of conflicts at the highest levels goes on…..