lawyer

Huffington Post…

LOS ANGELES — An attorney for a woman who pepper-sprayed fellow shoppers at a Los Angeles Walmart on Black Friday says she did it to protect her teenage children. Attorney Michael Champ said Friday the son and daughter of 32-year-old Elizabeth Macias were “traumatized” when other shoppers attacked them as they tried to buy Xbox game consoles. The family left empty-handed. Detectives previously told the Los Angeles Times Macias may have acted in self-defense. County prosecutors said Thursday they would not file felony charges against Macias in the chaotic incident that brought national attention, with some 20 people suffering nose and throat irritation. She could still face misdemeanor charges. ___

Excerpt from:
Walmart Pepper-Sprayer: Lawyer Claims She Was Defending Her Kids

Find our Weekly Commercial Real Estate, Private Equity and Fund Newsletters at www.WeeklyBrief.net

{ 0 comments }

Young Lawyers Forced To Find Jobs Outside Legal Profession

by The Huffington Post on August 1, 2011

Huffington Post…

Earning a degree — and accumulating student loan debt — drives today’s young lawyers to get creative with their livelihoods.

Read this article:
Young Lawyers Forced To Find Jobs Outside Legal Profession

Find our Weekly Commercial Real Estate, Private Equity and Fund Newsletters at www.WeeklyBrief.net

{ 0 comments }

World Bank Will Provide $1 Billion For Insurance In Mideast Investment

June 27, 2011

WASHINGTON – The World Bank’s political risk guarantee agency said on Monday it would mobilize about $1 billion for insurance coverage for countries in the Middle East and North Africa to encourage foreign direct investment. The Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency, or MIGA, said its underwriters were in Egypt, Jordan, Morocco and Tunisia for discussions with the private sector, regional agencies and state-owned enterprises. “Restoring investors’ confidence is critical to the medium- to long-term economic and social development of the Middle East and North Africa,” said Izumi Kobayashi, MIGA’s executive vice president. Countries across the region are trying to attract more foreign investment to help create jobs following mass protests earlier this year that toppled rulers in Egypt and Tunisia and sparked unrest across the region. Foreign investors use political risk insurance to cover themselves against loss of assets through political unrest, violence, expropriation, nationalization and other government actions. (Reporting by Lesley Wroughton; Editing by Leslie Adler) Copyright 2011 Thomson Reuters. Click for Restrictions .

Read the full article →

Supreme Court Hears Argument In Wal-Mart Sex Bias Lawsuit

March 29, 2011

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Tuesday questioned a massive sex discrimination lawsuit on behalf of at least 500,000 women claiming that Wal-Mart favors men over women in pay and promotions. The justices suggested that they are troubled by lower court decisions allowing the class-action lawsuit to proceed against the world’s largest retailer. Justice Anthony Kennedy, often a key vote on the high court, said he is unsure “what the unlawful policy is” that Wal-Mart engaged in to deprive women of pay increases and promotions comparable to men. Billions of dollars are at stake in the case. Class actions create pressure on businesses to settle claims and create the potential for large judgments. Wal-Mart denies it discriminates against its female employees. But Joseph Sellers, the lawyer for the women, said that lower courts were persuaded by statistical and other evidence put forth so far in the 10-year-old lawsuit. Sellers said a strong corporate culture at Wal-Mart’s Bentonville, Ark., headquarters that stereotyped women as less aggressive than men translated into individual pay and promotions decisions at the more than 3,400 Wal-Mart and Sam’s Clubs stores across the country. “The decisions are informed by the values the company provides,” Sellers said. Justice Antonin Scalia said he felt “whipsawed” by Sellers’ description. “Well, which is it?” Scalia asked. Either individual managers are on their own, “or else a strong corporate culture tells them what to do,” he said. Theodore Boutrous Jr., representing Wal-Mart, said that the class-action nature of the case deprives the company of its legal rights because it is being forced to defend the treatment of women employees regardless of the jobs they hold, or where they work in the Wal-Mart chain. “There is absolutely no way there can be a fair process here,” Boutrous said. He pointed to a group of at least 544 women who serve as store managers who “are alleged to be both discriminators and victims.” Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said that at this stage of the lawsuit, the issue is not proving discrimination, but showing enough evidence to go forward. “We’re talking about getting a foot in the door,” Ginsburg said, a standard she called not hard to meet. The 78-year-old justice, who made her name by bringing discrimination claims, said it was possible that Wal-Mart could refute the claims at a trial. But several of her colleagues appeared to agree with Boutrous that even subjecting Wal-Mart to a trial would be unfair. A decision should come by summer. The case is Wal-Mart Stores Inc. v. Dukes, 10-277.

Read the full article →

Chevron Wins Temporary Victory In Rainforest Contamination Case

March 8, 2011

NEW YORK — A federal judge on Monday extended his temporary order banning collection of an $18 billion judgment by the courts in Ecuador against Chevron, saying the oil company could face irreparable harm because it appeared that lawyers for Ecuadoreans who sued over rainforest contamination were going to try to quickly collect the award. U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan said evidence had established that lawyers for 30,000 Ecuadoreans planned to move swiftly to pursue multiple enforcement actions and asset seizures around the globe, including in areas where Chevron would not be immediately able to challenge the actions. He said that without his order, “Chevron would be forced to defend itself and litigate the enforceability of the Ecuadorean judgment in multiple proceedings. There is a significant risk that assets would be seized or attached, thus disrupting Chevron’s supply chain, causing it to miss critical deliveries to business partners.” The judge said such a disruption would also damage a business reputation and relationships the company had developed over the past 130 years. Kaplan ordered Chevron to post a $21.8 million bond to cover the cost of any delay in enforcement of the award should it be determined that the damages are legitimate. Kaplan’s ruling came after Chevron sued lawyers and others involved in the Ecuadorean litigation, saying they violated racketeering laws by manipulating Ecuadorean courts into issuing an unfair judgment against the company. After the lawsuit was filed, Ecuadorean Judge Nicolas Zambrano issued his award last month. Karen Hinton, a spokeswoman for the Ecuadoreans, called Kaplan’s ruling “a slap in the face to the democratic nation of Ecuador and the thousands of Ecuadorean citizens who have courageously fought for 18 years to hold Chevron accountable for committing the world’s worst environmental disaster.” She said Kaplan’s failure to consider key evidence or schedule a hearing to learn more facts was a “trampling of due process” and “an inappropriate exercise of judicial power.” She said Kaplan had disregarded Zambrano’s “scholarly and comprehensive” 188-page opinion and ignored key evidence that Chevron had committed a series of frauds in Ecuador to “cover up its unlawful conduct.” In a 127-page opinion of his own, Kaplan cited evidence of what he described as possible misconduct by an American lawyer for the Ecuadoreans. Yet, he said, neither the lawyer “nor any of the other key actors has denied Chevron’s allegations or attempted here to explain or justify under oath their recorded statements and written admissions.” The judge said there was “a great deal of posturing on both sides” and added that “a good deal of the rhetoric and argument in this case … must be viewed with a critical eye.” Kaplan said he solicited the views of the U.S. Department of State on Feb. 9 but the department politely declined to express any view. Chevron, which has never operated in Ecuador, found itself a party in the litigation after acquiring Texaco Inc. in 2001. Lawsuits had accused Texaco of contaminating Ecuadorean land during three decades of oil exploration and extraction. San Ramon, Calif.-based Chevron has maintained that a 1998 agreement Texaco signed with Ecuador after a $40 million cleanup absolves it of liability. The Ecuadorean plaintiffs say the cleanup was a sham and didn’t exempt third-party claims. Chevron has vowed to appeal in Ecuador. Kaplan said his order prevents the plaintiffs from trying to collect the award or seize Chevron assets prior to his issuance of a final order in the case. Hinton said the Ecuadorean plaintiffs believe Kaplan cannot bar them from enforcing the judgment in any country, except the United States.

Read the full article →

Bernie Madoff: ‘I’m A Good Person’

February 28, 2011

Bernie Madoff’s personal PR campaign has begun. The convicted ponzi schemer made a series of calls from prison to writer Steve Fishman in hopes of setting the record straight — and to potentially “get a message” across to his estranged son, Andy Madoff, according to a new article in New York magazine. He apologized for calling collect. “I don’t have that much money in my commissary account,” he said. Madoff is serving a prison sentence of 150 years for running the largest recorded Ponzi scheme in history, one that had a direct effect on thousands of investors and a host of charities and hedge funds. The collective investment of $36 billion in Madoff’s scheme returned only $18 billion to investors before the financial collapse. And while there is still debate about where the other $18 billion exactly landed, much of it believed to have gone to Madoff. Madoff appears to have spent the better part of the interviews defending his actions, stopping short of excusing himself entirely. “I am a good person,” Madoff says. “I’m not the kind of person I’m portrayed as.” He also believes others are less innocent than they appear. “Everyone was greedy,” he explains, “I just went along.” He also notes that not everyone left empty-handed: “I’m sure it’s a traumatic experience to some, but I made a lot of money for people.” Madoff again had some choice words about Wall Street. In February, in his only other interview, Madoff said banks and hedge funds “had to know… But the attitude was sort of, ‘If you’re doing something wrong, we don’t want to know.” JPMorgan Chase, Madoff’s bank, has come under scrutiny for its alleged role in the Ponzi scheme. Trustee Irving Picard is suing the bank for $6.4 billion on behalf of scammed investors. His lawyer, David Sheehan, says the bank was “willfully blind” to the scheme and played a direct role in abetting Madoff’s scheme by ignoring “red flags,” while collecting fees and profits. Picard has also sued Citigroup for $425 million, alleging the bank knowingly passed Madoff’s dirty money onto other banks. This time, he went farther, admitting the market exploits individual investors. “There’s no chance that investors have in this market,” he says. During the interview, he also expresses surprise that no one else on Wall Street has seen criminal convictions. Regulatory reform, he believes, didn’t go far enough. His stated reason for calling Fishman, though, had more to do with his estranged son, Adam, than with Wall Street. Madoff hasn’t spoken to Adam since his other son, Mark, committed suicide on the second anniversary of the Madoff’s arrest in downtown Manhattan. Through the interview, he hopes to reach his son, against his lawyer’s advice. Since the Mark’s suicide, Madoff has also lost contact with his wife, Ruth Madoff. Read the entire piece here.

Read the full article →

Bernie Madoff Won’t Attend Son’s Funeral

December 13, 2010

NEW YORK — Imprisoned financier Bernard Madoff won’t seek to attend his son’s funeral out of consideration for the privacy of his son’s wife and four children, his lawyer said Monday. Attorney Ira Sorkin said Madoff instead will mourn privately at the North Carolina prison where he’s serving a 150-year sentence for his fraud conviction in what authorities have called history’s largest Ponzi scheme. Madoff’s older son, Mark Madoff, 46, hanged himself early Saturday in his Manhattan apartment two years after his father was arrested on charges that he cheated thousands of people out of tens of billions of dollars. Sorkin declined to say whether Madoff considered asking to attend his son’s funeral. The lawyer would say only: “Mr. Madoff will not be attending the funeral out of consideration for his daughter-in-law’s and grandchildren’s privacy. He will be conducting a private service on his own where he is presently incarcerated.” Sorkin commented a day after the city medical examiner’s office formally ruled Mark Madoff’s death a suicide. Madoff was found hanging from a dog leash in his apartment. His 2-year-old son was found asleep in an adjacent room. Madoff’s body hadn’t been picked up from the medical examiner’s office for burial as of Monday, office spokeswoman Ellen Borakove said. The death came while the Madoff family faced increased scrutiny in the days before the two-year anniversary of Bernard Madoff’s arrest as a court-appointed trustee trying to recover money for investors filed dozens of lawsuits to meet a filing deadline. The actions of Mark Madoff, along with those of his brother, Andrew Madoff, and his uncle Peter Madoff, have been studied by investigators trying to learn how Bernard Madoff was able to carry out such a large fraud without a wider circle of people knowing about it. Madoff’s brother and sons all held management positions at the family investment business. In November 2008, Madoff informed investors that their initial investment of roughly $20 billion had more than tripled in value. Just days later, Madoff confessed to his sons that the investment business was a sham and that he had only several hundred million dollars of investors’ money left. In court papers, a lawyer for the sons has portrayed his clients as whistle-blowers who alerted authorities as soon as their father revealed the fraud to them. Neither son, nor Madoff’s brother, was charged criminally, and authorities have said no charges are imminent. Mark Madoff was remembered fondly by former classmates Monday. Lev Seltzer, reached by telephone in Israel, where he now lives, recalled working with Madoff on a sixth-grade assignment at a Long Island school to create a fake television commercial. He said the ad mocked a long-running Life cereal commercial that featured a boy named Mikey who hated everything else but liked the cereal. “Instead of Mikey, we had Marky,” Seltzer said. Doreen Hebron said Madoff was “very popular,” dressed well and had a good attitude. ___ Associated Press writer Frank Eltman contributed to this report.

Read the full article →

Ex-Goldman Sachs Programmer Found Guilty Of Stealing Bank’s Computer Code

December 10, 2010

NEW YORK — A former Goldman Sachs programmer was convicted Friday of stealing secret computer code that enables high-speed trading from the company when he took a new job with a rival last year. The jury in U.S. District Court in Manhattan convicted Sergey Aleynikov of North Caldwell, N.J., of theft of trade secrets and transportation of stolen property in interstate and foreign commerce. Aleynikov of North Caldwell, N.J., could face up to 15 years in prison when he is sentenced March 18. Aleynikov and his lawyer, Kevin Marino, declined to comment after the verdict. Prosecutors who had called it a case about theft and greed requested after the verdict that Aleynikov wear an electronic bracelet until sentencing. The judge did not immediately rule on the request. The criminal case was brought after federal authorities concluded that Aleynikov left Goldman Sachs in 2008 with trade secrets to help his new company – Teza Technologies – gain an advantage with high-speed trading. Marino had argued that the case should have been no more than a civil lawsuit rather than criminal charges. Aleynikov, a naturalized U.S. citizen who came to the U.S. from Russia in 1990, left his $400,000 job as a vice president at Goldman Sachs Group Inc. to join Teza Technologies LLC, where he was to be paid $300,000 annually, with a $700,000 bonus in his first year and a revenue-sharing plan that would have added an additional $150,000 annually. Marino said during the two-week trial that his client was merely trying to copy parts of the company’s software that was taken from public software codes. He acknowledged that Aleynikov had violated the company’s confidentiality agreements but said that was a civil matter. Aleynikov was arrested on July 3, 2009, as he returned from a trip to his new employer’s offices in Chicago. The trial brought into focus sophisticated computer programs that use mathematical formulas to execute scores of trades in short periods of time after evaluating moment-to-moment developments in the markets. The government said Goldman Sachs makes millions of dollars a year in profits from high-frequency trading and carries a competitive advantage over rivals because of the speed of its computer programs.

Read the full article →

Ray Brescia: First, Let’s Deputize the Lawyers: NY Requires Lawyers to Check Bank Filings, Offers Roadmap Out of Foreclosure Logjam

October 21, 2010

The courts in New York State instituted a new rule yesterday that would require bank lawyers to ensure that their clients’ filings in foreclosure cases are accurate and honest. This requirement enlists the help of lawyers–who are not just advocates, but also officers of the court–in the effort to protect the integrity of the courts in the face of widespread fraud. The penalties that attach to a false certification are criminal: lawyers must endorse the allegations contained in their clients’ filings “under the penalties of perjury.” While using lawyers to check their client’s homework is not novel, the type of detail required of lawyers in New York pursuing foreclosure cases is. Could such an approach help chart a course out of the current foreclosure quagmire? And could this type of an approach help not only in states where judicial intervention is required to foreclose on a home but also where it is not? A series of revelations about flawed bank practices brought about the current state of the foreclosure crisis, with several major banks calling a halt to foreclosures and advocates pressing for a national foreclosure moratorium. Those revelations exposed the widespread practice of robo-signing: bank officials failing to check bank records when making applications for foreclosures, failing to sign their affidavits supporting those applications, and failing to have those affidavits properly notarized. The robo-sign scandal raised deeper and more serious questions: questions about the ability of banks to bring these foreclosure actions in the first place. What are these questions? Shoddy record keeping and flawed procedures during the height of the mortgage securitization market may have infected the chain of title of many mortgages that were sold on that market, so much so that it is not always clear whether banks have legal interests in the mortgages that are at the heart of their foreclosure actions. Without a clear interest in a mortgage, the bank should not be able to foreclose on that mortgage. If a foreclosure goes ahead despite such a question about the bank’s interest in the mortgage, a subsequent purchaser of the foreclosed property may find him or herself in court, fighting to defend title to the property. Such questions about the owners of these mortgages threaten to undermine the property title system, raise doubts about the integrity of the courts, and could expose banks to criminal liability for the ways in which they handled hundreds of thousands of foreclosure actions. Attempting to resolve these issues is like a giant game of pickup sticks: it is a challenge to address one aspect of the crisis without making other matters worse. Ignoring the defective bank filings excuses criminal conduct and threatens the legitimacy of courts as guardians of due process. Assessing bank filings on a case-by-case basis would require significant resources that overworked court personnel are unable to do on short order, likely delaying matters for a significant amount of time. Is there some way to ensure the legitimacy of bank filings without placing a strain on already overburdened courts and without leaving the assessment of those filings to bank personnel who have a clear stake in the outcome that might cloud their judgment? New York’s new foreclosure filing requirements attempt to work a fine balance between efficiency and legitimacy, by placing the burden on bank lawyers to check their client’s homework and ensure that banks have a strong basis for bringing their foreclosure claims. These requirements include a statement by the lawyer that he or she has spoken with a bank official personally and that bank official has assured the lawyer that he or she has personally reviewed bank records, confirmed the legitimacy of the bank’s claims and can attest to the propriety of the notary public’s endorsement of the filing. The lawyer must also conduct a “diligent inquiry” into the legitimacy of the bank’s claims on his or her own, and cannot just sit by and rubber-stamp bank allegations. These requirements hold lawyer’s personally accountable for failing to monitor bank practices closely; indeed, these certifications must be made under the penalties of perjury, and shoddy lawyer oversight will most certainly result in a referral for disciplinary proceedings separate and apart from any criminal prosecution that might arise as a result of poor oversight. Are these obligations on lawyers new, different or more detailed? In most civil litigation, in both state and federal courts, lawyers are under a duty to present only good faith claims, and cannot offer falsified evidence in the cases they bring. The new requirements, imposed by court rule in New York State, raise the ante for lawyers handling foreclosure cases by imposing highly detailed obligations and requiring a hands-on diligent inquiry (which, I would argue, means an “independent” inquiry) into the legitimacy of their clients’ claims. In this way, they require lawyers to perform a critical gate keeping function for the courts and weed out illegitimate from legitimate claims. Lawyers should always do this, but New York’s new rule places new and more detailed requirements on lawyers unlike any others, and adds criminal penalties for violation of the rule. Will such requirements help? Possibly. Lawyers play the dual role of advocates and officers of the court. Too often, lawyers favor the first of these roles, and neglect the second. This new requirement places the onus squarely on bank lawyers to monitor their clients’ conduct, and holds them accountable when such conduct is improper. With a lawyer’s license and livelihood on the line, it is possible that New York may have found a straightforward, simple and efficient way to cut through the myriad problems the robo-sign scandal revealed and ensure the legitimacy of foreclosure filings and the integrity of the courts. Could this approach be used in other jurisdictions? Unquestionably. This could prove an effective tool in the 22 states, like New York, that require judicial intervention in foreclosures. But it could also prove adaptable in non-judicial foreclosure states. State law could require this type of certification before any foreclosure auction takes place, and could require that any attempt to file title documents with the county clerk’s office be accompanied by an attorney’s certification, signed under the penalties of perjury, that the attorney for the bank has reviewed the records and found them legitimate and the sale proper. It is not a perfect solution, and it is one that certainly still poses the risk that a lawyer’s desire for personal gain will trump his or her professional honor. Let’s bank on honor, for now, and see whether the lawyers will not disappoint.

Read the full article →

Judge H. Lee Sarokin: Who Are the Culprits in the Foreclosure Crisis: The Lenders, The Borrowers or the Congress?

October 17, 2010

I read that Angelo R.Mozilo of Countrywide Financia l fame is paying a $67.5 million fine of which Countrywide is paying $20 million. It reminds me of the old story that lawyers are wont to tell. A petty thief is charged with stealing a watch. He vehemently denies it. He is convicted and sentenced to probation. As he is walking out of court, he turns to his lawyer and says: “Does this mean that I can keep the watch?” I expect that Mr. Mozilo turned to his lawyer and asked: “Does this mean that I can keep the remaining $100 million?” There is now talk of a foreclosure moratorium and a criminal investigation, because it appears that papers submitted in support of foreclosures have been submitted without verification or valid notarization. Let us start with the obvious. Foreclosure is a devastating event for anyone. Being forced to move from one’s home because of the inability to meet payments must be one of the most devastating experiences. However, the reaction to the foreclosure process seems to be a little overblown. Whoever certifies or swears that a mortgage is in default undoubtedly relies on some computer printout indicating how much is due and how much has been paid. It is difficult to envision how there could be any independent verification, particularly since the mortgages have been bundled, resold and resold. Furthermore, foreclosures do not start with a forced sale of the premises. They are preceded by notices of default, threats, court papers, notices and numerous opportunities to object or defend. The foreclosures of the wrong house or paid mortgage are rare. Borrowers know whether or not they are in default. How much may be a matter of dispute, but not the fact of default. I certainly do not want to appear as an advocate for mortgage foreclosures in these dire times, and I certainly do not intend to condone the use of false notarizations of signatures nor the submission of inaccurate information to obtain foreclosure judgments, but a moratorium may not be warranted and could make matters worse. If it serves to prompt mortgage holders to renegotiate loans and permit persons to remain in their homes it is a good thing. But if it permits persons to remain in their homes without paying or if it permits abandoned homes to remain unsaleable, it is a bad thing. Although foreclosures bring down surrounding property values, abandoned, unkempt and trashed houses do so likewise. Further, allowing millions of mortgages to continue without payment or foreclosure is certain to cause further economic disaster and possibly more bank failures. Mortgage holders must strive for accuracy and honesty in foreclosure proceedings. Congress should not stoop to “touching up the X-rays” by making illegal notarizations easier to accomplish, an effort which President Obama pocket-vetoed. It is easy to feel no sympathy for the “evil” banks who granted mortgages to people who could not afford to maintain them. But a person who purchases an auto on time should not be able to keep it without keeping up the payments no matter what the sales pitch, and the same must be true for homeowners. While our hearts may cry out to those who are forced to lose their homes because of their inability to make payments, our economic (and legal) system will collapse if promises made are not required to be kept. If purchase money mortgages were involved (loans made by the seller to the purchaser) we would not hesitate to uphold the seller’s right to foreclose. It cannot be different, no matter how angry we are at the banks, because it is an institution rather than a person that holds the mortgage. Maybe lenders convinced borrowers to take out mortgages they could not pay, or maybe borrowers took out mortgages they knew they could not afford. In either instance, absent a modification by agreement, the right to foreclose cannot be foreclosed. We should do everything humanly and economically possible to aid those who are in danger of losing their homes, but failing that, the dire and sad consequences of a foreclosure are inescapable. A promise is a promise even if made by the good guys to the bad guys. In the meantime, the guy who stole the watch shouldn’t be allowed to keep it, except possibly in the company of some fellow inmates.

Read the full article →

Did GMAC Try To Silence A Lawyer Who Exposed Its Alleged Foreclosure Fraud?

October 11, 2010

Is GMAC Mortgage, the company under siege by numerous state attorneys general and members of Congress for its use of dubious foreclosure legal filings, trying to silence the lawyer who exposed the bank’s practices? So says Thomas Cox, the Maine attorney whose case is at the center of GMAC’s ongoing debacle. It’s been a rough few weeks for GMAC Mortgage, a subsidiary of the bank Ally Financial, which was bailed out by American taxpayers in 2008 to the tune of $16 billion. The first domino fell when Bloomberg reported on September 20 about a leaked internal memo directing mortgage brokers in 23 states to halt foreclosure evictions and sales, adding that the company may “need to take corrective action in connection with some foreclosures.”

Read the full article →

Robert Weller: France’s Gordon Gecko Likely Off to Prison

October 5, 2010

Former Société Générale trader Jerome Kerviel, whose greed knew no bounds, has been fined $7 billion and sentenced to three years imprison. The Gordon Gecko of France, Kerviel insisted his bosses knew what he was going and approved it until he began losing money during the economic crash. They testified against him during his trial, Le Monde reported. Unlike the vast majority of traders and others around the world who went scott free after bringing the world’s economy to a grinding halt, Kerviel was épingler. The 33-year-old’s sentence, which his lawyer said he would appeal, was pathetically short compared to the 20 years the fictional character played by Michael Douglas was ordered to serve. Of course Gecko got out after eight for good behavior. “Kerviel knowingly went beyond his remit as a trader,” president judge Dominque Pauthe told the court. He was convicted of forgery, introducing false data in a computer systems, and breach of trust. The lawyer for Société Générale said Kerviel continued to reassure his bosses that all was well even after the losses began mountain. He committed nearly $70 million of the banks funds. The bank itself was fined $5 billion. Kerviel began working at the bank in 2000, and was only caught in 2008. He has compared his risky trading with an orgasm. In the dark recesses of the mind that brings a vision of a New Yorker cartoon that went something like this: As a man is dressing, on the edge of the bed, he tells his female partner something like, “of course I ejaculated prematurely. I am a busy man.” Once Kerviel is free will he return to his old ways, or become a fraud avenger like Michael Douglas in the second movie, Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps ? Only time will tell. It may be worth noting the fact that the original movie was based on actions 20 years ago suggests avarice isn’t new for financial services companies.

Read the full article →

AIG Not Required to Compensate For Alleged Madoff Loss, Judge Rules

October 1, 2010

Fake Madoff profits, it turns out, are not covered by AIG insurance policies. AIG does not need to compensate two former Bernard Madoff clients who say they lost millions to the convict’s Ponzi scheme, a U.S. district judge ruled. The money allegedly lost, the judge said, never existed in the first place. The lawsuit , filed more than a year ago, alleged that AIG had to pay Robert and Harlene Horowitz up to $30,000 under their AIG insurance policy, to compensate for $8.5 million they claimed they lost. But, as Reuters reports, U.S. district judge Paul Crotty has taken AIG’s side, deciding the $8.5 million existed only the Horowitz’s account statement and not in actuality. In fact, the Horowitzes withdrew more from their Madoff account than they put in, Reuters reports. Madoff, who is currently serving a 150-year sentence in Federal prison for a $65 billion scam (which Bloomberg says cost investors $20 billion), might not have been sentenced so harshly had he committed his crime in France. Bloomberg reports today that Jerome Kerviel, a trader who allegedly caused his former employer Societe Generale a $6.5 billion loss, would likely serve no more than two years in prison if convicted. Kerviel, who has admitted to lying about the extent of huge bets his was placing at the bank, would probably serve 10 or 20 years if he were tried in the U.S., Ira Sorkin, the lawyer who represented Madoff, said.

Read the full article →

Medea Benjamin: Blackwater vs. Pinkwater: The Wife of Erik Prince Picks a Fight With CODEPINK

August 23, 2010

It felt surreal to be inside the home of Erik Prince, the founder, owner and chairman of Blackwater (or Xe, as it is now called). Prince, a former Navy Seal, provides security for the CIA, the Pentagon and the State Department. His company trains 40,000 people a year in skills that include personal protection. Yet his home in McLean, Virginia, has no security. None. Not even a fence or a guard dog or a No Trespassing sign. And his mother-in-law, who helps care for his young children, invited a total stranger — me — into his home without hesitation. I had gone to Prince’s home, together with two CODEPINK colleagues, assuming it would be empty. I’d read in the New York Times that Mr. Prince and his family had moved out of the country, fleeing from a series of civil lawsuits, criminal charges and Congressional investigations stemming from his company’s contracts in Iraq and Afghanistan. According to the news, “In documents filed last week in a civil lawsuit brought by former Blackwater employees accusing Mr. Prince of defrauding the government, Mr. Prince sought to avoid giving a deposition by stating that he had moved to Abu Dhabi [which is in the United Arab Emirates] in time for his children to enter school there on August 15.” Susan Burke, the lawyer seeking the deposition, announced that she was flying to the Emirates to find him. I had been feeling particularly upset about Blackwater lately. Seeing the combat troops leaving Iraq, I’d been thinking about the banner CODEPINK members held in countless anti-war vigils: “Iraq War: Who Lies? Who Dies? Who Pays? Who Profits?” Politicians lied about weapons of mass destruction, Iraqis and American soldiers died, U.S. taxpayers paid, and companies like Blackwater make a killing. In just a few years, Blackwater received over $1 billion in U.S. government contracts, contracts that accounted for 90 percent of its revenue. Erik Prince, the company’s sole owner, was now taking his profits, trying to sell the company and running away to the Emirates, a country that has no extradition treaty with the United States. So we decided to make a symbolic gesture of visiting his home in McLean to bid good riddance to bad rubbish. On Friday, August 20, five days after the Prince children were supposed to be starting their new lives as schoolchildren in the Emirates, we MapQuested the old McLean home and drove there, ready to take a photo with our “Adios Diablo Prince” sign and leave. But when we got there, to our surprise we could see through the window that the house was full of people and furniture. There were no moving boxes, no empty rooms. Could the new owners have settled in so quickly? Curious, I rang the doorbell and before I knew it, I was invited in and found myself inside the living room with a bunch of young children and several adults, who turned out to be grandma, grandpa and wife Joanna Prince. The rest happened very quickly. Joanna asked who I was and why I was there. I asked the same questions: Was this the Prince family and if so, why weren’t they in Abu Dhabi? She freaked, told the grandparents to call the police, and she pushed me out the door. We hung around outside waiting for the police. We wanted to assure them that there was no problem — that I had indeed been invited inside and left when asked to leave. In the meantime, I wrote a letter to Erik. Dear Erik Prince, On behalf of U.S. taxpayers, we say “Shame on You.” Through your company Blackwater, or Xe as you now like to call it, you made — or should I say stole? — hundreds of millions of dollars and your employees also killed innocent civilians in Iraq. You should be held responsible. Don’t run away to the Emirates to escape prosecution. Stay here in the USA and face the consequences of your actions, like a good Christian. Sincerely, Pinkwater When the police arrived, Joanna Prince lied and said I’d been told to leave the house and refused. I was arrested, charged with trespassing, held for 5 hours and forced to pay $500 in bail. I have to appear in court on September 28. So does Joanna Prince. Will she show up in court or will she — like her husband — run away to Abu Dhabi? Will the court subpoena her to appear? Will her husband, a man who shuns publicity, tell her that she is crazy to pick a public fight with CODEPINK (or Pinkwater, as we now call ourselves) and make her drop the charges? Will I be able to sue her for false arrest? Stay tuned for round two of Xe (formerly Blackwater) vs. Pinkwater (formerly CODEPINK). You can see the video of this episode here:

Read the full article →

Donald Bren, Billionaire Real Estate Tycoon, SUED By His Illegitimate Kids (VIDEO)

August 20, 2010

LOS ANGELES — Billionaire real estate mogul Donald Bren testified Thursday in the child support case brought by his two adult children, saying he was shocked when his then-lover told him decades ago that she was pregnant with their first child. Bren, one of the nation’s richest men, has an estimated net worth of $12 billion and has spent a lifetime protecting his privacy. Twenty-two-year-old Christie Bren and 18-year-old David Bren have sued him for $400,000 a month in child support retroactive to the time they were born. That comes to about $100 million. WATCH: The 78-year-old Irvine Co. chairman told a courtroom that he suggested to Jennifer McKay Gold that they create a legal agreement to provide for child care. He said they never talked about marriage or having a family. Four contracts were created involving child support entered into by Gold each time she became pregnant and after the children were born. The accords, beginning in 1988, rose from $3,500 a month to $18,000 a month between 1992 and 2002. Bren recounted that he and Gold dated in the mid-1980s but she never slept over at his home and the two would see each less frequently as the years passed. Bren said he was surprised that Gold became pregnant twice because he was under the impression she was using birth control. “I felt I was betrayed in that she promised me she would be protected and she wasn’t,” he said while under questioning by his lawyer, John Quinn. Bren said he saw both children after they were born a handful of times and sent them toys. He also said he paid for their college expenses. “I felt an education at the university level, at the graduate level is perhaps the best gift a parent can give a child,” he said. Gold gave an entirely different account of the pair’s 13-year relationship, saying she and Bren loved one another and saw each other regularly. She portrayed Bren as a jilted lover when she said she broke off the courtship in 1997 because she wanted a full-time partner. “He was not very happy about that,” Gold told jurors. “He said I would pay for that. He said he would punish me.” On cross-examination, however, Gold testified Bren never withheld child support payments from her after the split. She also confirmed that she received about $3 million in child support from Bren between 1988 and 2002. The payments were her only source of income for a majority of that time, she said. While her children had many amenities growing up, Gold attempted to tell jurors why she filed the lawsuit against Bren in 2003 on behalf of her kids. “I would have liked my children to have more in the lifestyle as their father,” said Gold, adding that Bren wasn’t keeping his promise to be involved in the kids’ lives. Earlier, the children’s attorney Hillel Chodos pointed out to Bren that none of the legal agreements limited the amount of support payments the billionaire could make. Bren noted that Gold could have sought to increase the child support through a court order. “She always had the right to appeal to the court,” he said. But Gold said Bren didn’t want her to seek additional child support because of the undue attention he would receive. “He wanted to preserve his privacy,” she said. “He was adamant about that.” Chodos portrayed Bren during his opening statement Wednesday as a high-living executive who has two California homes, a New York apartment, a Sun Valley ranch, two yachts and five private jets. Gold said Bren told her he spent $3 million to $5 million a month on personal expenses. Bren, wearing a black blazer, gray pants and a powder blue shirt, remained composed during his testimony and rarely elaborated on his answers. He could be recalled to testify on Monday.

Read the full article →

King & Spalding to Open Singapore Office Focused on Commercial Arbitration and Energy Transactions

August 9, 2010

Prominent International Arbitration Lawyer John Savage Joins Firm; Will Anchor Singapore Office With Veteran King & Spalding Energy Partners Weems and Rogers

Read the full article →

Halsey Minor: Why I Fight

July 15, 2010

CHARLOTTESVILLE, Va. — Here in the shadow of Monticello, I often wonder what Thomas Jefferson would think of today’s America, a nation that is rapidly but silently abandoning the individual in favor of faceless corporations, rapacious banks and a collusive, unresponsive government. The Founding Father who envisioned a republic built on the unalienable rights of “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” would be sickened at how the very institutions built to protect average citizens from repression have instead become weapons of the rich, the powerful, and mostly the corporate. Whole branches of government have become enablers and enforcers for the corporations and banks that created the economic crisis out of greed and irresponsibility and now are exploiting the mess they themselves created to tighten their grip on America. Big bailouts of Merrill Lynch, Bank of America and AIG get the press attention. Far more corrosive are thousands of unpublicized, self-dealing transactions overseen by bureaucrats following laws written by a pliant Congress and enforced by lifetime-tenured judges trained to believe in the bank over the debtor. A prime example of how the common good is subverted can literally be seen from the gardens of Monticello. Prior to the financial crisis, I was building a hotel in my hometown of Charlottesville. As its own balance sheet faltered, Silverton Bank, the Atlanta-based institution funding the project reneged on its commitment to finance and simply cut off funding. I sued the bank; the bank sued me. Within two months, Silverton was taken over by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. in the largest bank failure in Georgia history. I am sure you would expect that the FDIC’s priority would be to maximize the value of the asset for the public by working with me to wrap up the problem caused by the failed bank. We could have put more than 100 people back to work, injected millions of dollars into the Charlottesville economy and finished a half-built structure that now stands as a nine-story testament to hard times. Instead, Chairman Sheila Bair’s FDIC did nothing of the sort. The FDIC accused me of defaulting on the loan, but unlike the actions banks usually take in a default, they did not foreclose. I thought that was extremely odd — until I learned that the loan had been split up among eight banks and as long as there was no foreclosure the banks could say the loans were “good.” In other words, the banks can say the loan is good even though the project is a see-through concrete-and-steel skeleton that has sat idle for more than a year. How fitting, then, that the person overseeing my project for the FDIC is Claire Cotter, a former employee at Ameriquest, which established a fund to settle accusations that it had engaged in unlawful mortgage lending practices during the real estate boom. When Cotter’s bank went belly up, she joined the FDIC knowing the ropes. She immediately went to work to protect the balance sheets of the eight lending banks by wasting millions of taxpayer dollars continuing to fight Silverton’s misguided legal battle, all so these banks don’t have write down my loan. (I’ve already won arbitration against the bank’s developer on the project; I face the FDIC in October.) Between the government and me, roughly $10 million already has been spent in legal fees on a dispute over a $10.3 million loan. Ridiculous, I know; so why do I fight? The simple answer is that someone must or we will emerge from this recession with wealth and power concentrated in a few tiny financial institutions representing a new ruling elite, not unlike the one that inspired Jefferson’s generation to revolution. The same day I heard Bank of America pledge to pay back its taxpayer-funded loan from the government my babysitter told me the interest rate on her Bank of America credit card doubled — from 14% to 28%. When the FDIC carves up the assets of failed banks, it cuts incredible deals with other financial institutions — offering loans for pennies on the dollar and even guaranteeing future losses. So banks bailed out because they were too big to fail get bigger as they swallow the portfolios of those smaller banks the government decides are expendable. And they are aided in this bulking up by the so-called regulators, who can clear pesky obstacles (formerly known as bank customers and clients) by just legally dismissing their claims or offering up threats of litigation funded by a bottomless federal purse. Countless projects like mine, with countless jobs attached, feeding countless people are considered collateral damage, if they are considered at all. Every time I called Claire Cotter, the FDIC official overseeing my project’s failed lender, to discuss a solution she told me to talk to her lawyer and hung up the phone on me. Litigation is expensive and very few people have the money necessary to fight a bank, let alone the federal government. That’s what they count on. Forget the notion of equal access to justice. A minor dispute can easily cost half a million dollars to try, not counting appeals which big companies and the government always take. Even then, it’s the individual who bears all of the personal risk: lose, and the court can seize possessions; win, and face the prospect of a draining appeal. That’s why small businesses have watched helplessly as their credit lines are unilaterally slashed or capriciously revoked, leaving them without the flexibility they need to hire or expand or order fresh inventory. Most can do almost nothing beyond cycling through the push-button responses on the customer service line and hope that things change. The first step toward that change is for people to know what their government is doing with their money in their name. When people hear terms like FDIC “financial protection,” they should understand that it doesn’t necessarily refer to their financial protection but to the banks that hold their mortgage or their credit card. All that FDIC sign in the bank means is that if the banks really screw it up, you and I will pay ourselves back. FDR would be appalled by the FDIC, created in 1933 and designed to help people. Americans are rightly suspicious of moneymen, and not just in the last few years. Jefferson himself once said “that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies.” When it exists to support businesses and create jobs and fund innovation, finance is integral to a modern economy. But when finance becomes an end in itself and morphs from tool to master, it’s easy to imagine Jefferson’s fear realized in a system that deprives “the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.”

Read the full article →

Bill Singer: Wall Street Reform: $5 Worth of No Substitutions

July 14, 2010

My wife and I were having lunch at a local diner and saw the above sign on the wall at the end of our table. She read it. I read it. She laughed. I laughed. Given that we’re both lawyers, we wound up spending much of the meal trying to figure out just exactly what the hell the restaurant meant to say. Okay, so maybe not the stuff of Jackson Browne’s Lawyers in Love but at least Lawyers at Lunch. Figuring that no one would believe me, I took a photo of the sign with my cellphone. I now offer Exhibit 1 for the Prosecution. I am a long-time critic of the tortured language that lawmakers employ when they draft regulations for Wall Street, or, for the matter, for virtually all laws by which we are governed. As best I can tell, the formula is to start off with bold slogans that are calculated to achieve sound-bite status in the media. Then the politico contacts all those in favor of the proposition and sees how much money they will donate to the upcoming re-election campaign or a somewhat shady non-profit organization. Then that same elected official contacts all those who oppose the proposition and determines how much these folks will donate to the same campaign or non-profit. Cash register politics! Next, the representative of the people takes out a calculator and adds up the total for the deposits from the pro’s versus the deposits from the con’s — of course, let’s not get silly here, it’s not as if so much as one cent is going to be returned to either side. Everything makes its way onto the deposit slip. You got your principles and then you got principal that earns interest. No point in confusing the two. After your bank deposits are cleared and you determine on which side your bread is best buttered, you make a choice. With your personal telethon completed, you either continue pressing forward with your original proposition, or, with the benefit of some persuasive bucks to the contrary, you suddenly tone things down. In fact, depending upon how well-financed the opposition appears, you may even have an amazing, religious-like conversion and suddently realize that your adversaries have some good points. And to prove your sincere change of heart, you might stand in front of the mirror, just before you call a press conference, and practice the various pained looks and oratorical skills that will convey your honest-to-goodness about face. I mean, geez, once you can fake sincerity, you have it made. At some point, when the phone lines are quiet and the flow of checks is a mere dribble, our elected officials tell us that we’re going to get a new law, a change for the better, reform — and it’s going to have teeth, and with a bite, and, you know, this time, seriously, no kiddin’, things are gonna be different. At first blush, the proposed law looks good, and if you weigh law by the pound, well, this one has heft. However, what we get for a law is so eviscerated with exemptions, exceptions and elastic language that it is nearly incomprehensible. You can read it but you can’t explain it to anyone, and you don’t really understand it. At best, it’s indecipherable garbage. Alas, we now arrive back to the sign that my wife found so hilarious at the local diner. ” $5 Minimum Per Person At Tables ,” is a straight-forward proposition. You want a seat at a table, then you have to spend at least $5. But that’s not all the language on the sign. Someone couldn’t leave well enough alone. They had to clarify it — add a few more words as a flourish and finishing touch. It’s akin to the handiwork at which the back-room, under-the-table, dirty-dealing politicians excel. It’s copywriting legerdemain. ” No Substitutions Please .” What exactly can’t you “substitute?” No substitution for the $5 minimum ? How exactly would I even attempt such a prohibited act? No substitution for the “per person” at the table ? Meaning what? If Jack and Jill sit down at the table and each orders at least $5, then Jill can’t get up before the order arrives and allow Joan to take her seat? No substitutions “at tables” ? Does that mean that I can’t switch my table for another one in the restaurant or that once I sit down and order from station 3 that I can’t move my party to station 4? Of course, since I’m ever the lawyer, what happens if I order the $15 lunch special and my wife orders only a $2 cup of coffee? Does that pro-rate out to $8.50 per person at the table, or have I illegally substituted in violation of the posted policy? If my wife isn’t hungry and I want a $6 hamburger, a $3 soda, and $3 slice of pie, can I order the hamburger for me; the soda and pie for my wife — but after it’s served, can I simply drink my wife’s beverage and eat her dessert? Otto Von Bismarck said that “Laws are like sausages, it is better not to see them being made.” Thankfully, the Iron Chancellor never sat down in a local diner for lunch. Of course, if he did, he would have had to order at least $5 without substitutions.

Read the full article →

The Most Unexpectedly Profitable Celebrity Businesses

June 29, 2010

Can’t take celebrity prankster Ashton Kutcher seriously? Think again. The actor has built something of a mini-media empire and is one of a handful of celebs who are making millions in their side jobs. Sure, there’ve been plenty of celebrity businesses and start-ups over the years — and many don’t get too far once the buzz dies down. But there are certainly a few celebrity businesses from which entrepreneurs could learn a lesson. Successful celebrity entreprenuers are known for creating unique ideas , zeroing in on niches , and for some putting an emphasis

Read the full article →

The Most Unexpectedly Profitable Celebrity Businesses (PHOTOS)

June 28, 2010

Can’t take celebrity prankster Ashton Kutcher seriously? Think again. The actor’s built something of a mini-media empire is one of a handful of celebs who are making millions in their side jobs. Sure, there’ve been plenty of celebrity businesses and start-ups over the years — and many don’t get too far once the buzz dies down. Britney Spears opened up the Manhattan eatery NYLA in June 2002. The restaurant received terrible reviews — along with a few lawsuits — and eventually closed, with a $350,000 debt. But there still are a couple of celebrity businesses from which entrepreneurs could learn a lesson. There are even a couple celebrities who are probably getting to be more well-known as entrepreneurs than as entertainers. The eleven we picked have all been highly involved in their businesses by creating unique ideas and designs (Gwen Stefani) or as USA Today reports, buying out their lawyer’s minority stake in their own company in order to attain full business control (the Olsen twins).

Read the full article →

Frank DiPascali, Madoff’s Ex-Finance Chief, Released On Bail

June 22, 2010

NEW YORK — The former finance chief for jailed financier Bernard Madoff was released on $10 million bail Tuesday, months after he admitted his role in an epic fraud that cost thousands of investors billions of dollars and agreed to cooperate with investigators. Just a few hours after Frank DiPascali left U.S. District Court in Manhattan without speaking to reporters, prosecutors revealed they had filed civil papers to recoup $5 million from two longtime former back office Madoff employees who have never been charged criminally. DiPascali, 53, was freed according to the terms of a bail package that a judge had set in February. He pleaded guilty in August to helping with Madoff’s multi-decade Ponzi scheme until it collapsed in late 2008, when Madoff revealed to his sons that his private investment business was a fraud and they notified the FBI. DiPascali walked quickly in front of his lawyer Marc Mukasey as he left the courthouse. Mukasey and prosecutors have said DiPascali provided substantial information that contributed to the arrests of two computer programmers for the firm and Madoff’s longtime auditor. The FBI’s work to identify those who can be held accountable for the fraud and to help civil investigators identify assets continued soon afterward when prosecutors announced they were seeking to recover $5 million in assets controlled by two women who worked for Madoff for more than 25 years. The civil complaints seeking proceeds of Madoff’s fraud were filed against Annette Bongiorno and Joann Crupi, identified as members of Madoff’s back office staff. Prosecutors said in a news release that Bongiorno was a supervisor of the back office staff and was responsible for answering questions from clients about their purported investments, along with overseeing the fabrication of account statements, trade confirmations and other documents and distributing those documents to clients. A lawyer for Bongiorno did not immediately return a telephone call for comment Tuesday. Eric Breslin, a lawyer for Crupi, said: “Our position is that Ms. Crupi did nothing wrong here, and we intend to contest the government’s allegations.” Madoff, 72, is serving a 150-year prison term after admitting that his secretive investment advisory service at Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities never bought any securities. Instead, he used new investments to pay returns to existing clients. DiPascali’s cooperation has delayed his sentencing on his guilty plea to securities fraud, money laundering and other charges that carry potential penalties of up to 125 years in prison. “I was loyal to him. I ended up being loyal to a terrible, terrible fault,” DiPascali said during the plea. DiPascali began working for Madoff in 1975, just after he finished high school. He has said he became aware of the fraud by the 1980s or early 1990s. After the plea, U.S. District Judge Richard Sullivan twice turned down bail packages that were arranged for DiPascali and were supported by prosecutors. He called DiPascali’s role in the fraud “crucial” and the potential sentence “astronomical.” He asked for proof that DiPascali’s cooperation had been significant. He agreed to the $10 million bail in February but ordered that DiPascali remain under house arrest after his release and required that he and his wife forfeit all family assets except for an amount less than $300,000 to be agreed upon by the government, the defendant and the judge. The government in April filed papers saying DiPascali’s wife could keep $178,000 after the family gave up assets estimated to be worth more than $6 million. The government said the sales of three cars and a yacht alone totaled nearly $1 million. It was unclear where DiPascali was headed Tuesday. In January, he and his wife, Joanne DiPascali, agreed to the sale and forfeiture of their Bridgewater, N.J., home, which is being prepared for its marketing and sale. Items also surrendered by the couple included a Jet Ski, two motorcycles, two minibikes, a scooter and a snow blower, along with watches and jewelry. The judge has asked prosecutors to notify him by letter before Nov. 17 whether DiPascali’s cooperation has concluded and whether the parties are prepared to proceed with sentencing. In a May 14 letter to the judge, prosecutors said DiPascali’s cooperation was ongoing. It confirmed that DiPascali’s cooperation had been partly responsible for the charges brought against Madoff’s former director of operations and the two computer programmers. The government said it expects to call DiPascali as a witness should those cases proceed to trial. The government redacted several paragraphs from the letter, saying disclosure of all its parts would unfairly prejudice subjects of the investigation who haven’t been indicted. Prosecutors have said they expect to request leniency at sentencing in return for the cooperation.

Read the full article →

Most U.S. Stocks Fall on FedEx Profit Forecast, Decline in Housing Starts

June 16, 2010

By Nikolaj Gammeltoft June 16 (Bloomberg) — U.S. stocks fluctuated as BP Plc ’s agreement to pay about $20 billion for claims from the Gulf of Mexico oil spill assuaged concern about the company’s future, helping the market recover most of an earlier drop. BP’s U.S. shares pared a loss of as much as 5.8 percent and energy shares in the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index turned higher as a person familiar with the talks said BP tentatively agreed to set up a fund to pay damages from the worst oil spill in U.S. history. FedEx Corp. , the largest U.S. air-cargo carrier, slid 2.6 percent as its full-year earnings forecast trailed analyst estimates on higher costs for health care and pensions. The S&P 500 was nearly even at 1,115.20 at 1:24 p.m. in New York. The index advanced as much as 0.2 percent on the news of an agreement between BP and the U.S. government. The Dow Jones Industrial Average slipped 7.56 points, or 0.1 percent, to 10,397.21 after gaining as much as 8.84 points earlier. About four stocks fell for every three that rose on U.S. exchanges. “If anything, it puts hard numbers around quantity,” said Evan Smith , who helps manage $2 billion at U.S. Global Investors Inc., including shares of Anadarko Petroleum Corp., the company that owns a 25 percent stake in BP’s well. “High estimates I’ve seen have been $30 billion or $40 billion and this is less than that. I’d imagine that’s incrementally positive. It’s putting a number around the liability.” U.S. equities slumped earlier after FedEx’s forecast and a drop in housing starts cast doubt on the economic recovery. The S&P 500 rallied 2.4 percent yesterday to 1,115.23, the highest close since May 18. The advance sent the index about 6.5 points above its average level in the past 200 days, a move considered significant by investors who base trading decisions on chart patterns. Recovery After Tumble The index tumbled 14 percent from a 19-month high on April 23 through June 7 as concern grew that Europe’s debt crisis will derail the economic recovery and BP’s leaking well triggered the worst oil spill in U.S. history. The S&P 500 has since rebounded 6.2 percent as concern over European budget deficits eased and investors speculated growth in China and the U.S. will bolster the global recovery. BP dropped 1.1 percent to $31.06, after falling as much as 5.8 percent earlier. The company tentatively agreed to put about $20 billion into a fund to pay damages over a period of time resulting from the Gulf of Mexico oil spill, with claims administered by Kenneth Feinberg , the lawyer who oversaw executive compensation for the government’s financial bailout, people familiar with the talks said. ‘Incrementally Positive’ FedEx fell 2.6 percent to $80.84. The company expects a fiscal 2011 profit of $4.40 to $5 a share. The average estimate of analysts surveyed by Bloomberg was a profit of $5.07 a share. “The market is driven by sentiment and what we see now is all a continuum of the problems that exist inside the credit system in particular,” said Liam Dalton , who oversees $1.4 billion as president of Axiom Capital Management in New York. “Expectations for corporate earnings are probably set too high given that we see the economic data is beginning to slow.” Analysts have lifted their average 2010 earnings growth forecasts for the S&P 500 to about 32 percent from 26 percent at the end of March. Home Depot lost 0.7 percent to $32.04. Housing starts fell 10 percent to a 593,000 annual rate last month, the lowest level this year, from a revised 659,000 pace in April that was less than previously estimated, Commerce Department figures showed today. Fannie, Freddie Sink Fannie Mae’s shares tumbled 38 percent to 57 cents and Freddie Mac’s plummeted 42 percent to 70 cents after their regulator told the mortgage-finance companies to delist their shares from the New York Stock Exchange. Fannie’s and Freddie’s common and preferred stock will be quoted on the over-the- Counter Bulletin Board once they’re de-listed from the NYSE, the Federal Housing Finance Agency said in an e-mailed statement. The S&P 500’s Consumer Discretionary Sector Index dropped 0.7 percent for the biggest decline among 10 industry groups in the benchmark index for U.S. equities. General Electric Co. rose 1.1 percent to $15.95 for the biggest gain in the Dow as government data showed industrial production in the U.S. gained 1.2 percent in May, the most since August and beating the median estimate of 0.9 percent based on a survey 82 economists. Priceline.com Inc. advanced the most in the S&P 500, rising 6.3 percent to $197.38 after the second-biggest online travel agency was raised to “buy” from “neutral” at Goldman Sachs. To contact the reporter on this story: Nikolaj Gammeltoft in New York at ngammeltoft@bloomberg.net .

Read the full article →

BP Is Said to Agree on $20 Billion Escrow Fund for Gulf Oil Spill Damages

June 16, 2010

By Julianna Goldman and Roger Runningen June 16 (Bloomberg) — BP Plc tentatively agreed to put about $20 billion into a fund to pay damages resulting from the Gulf of Mexico oil spill, with claims administered by the lawyer who oversaw executive compensation for the government’s financial bailout, a person familiar with the talks said. The agreement was worked out in a White House meeting between company executives including Chairman Carl-Henric Svanberg and President Barack Obama and his top advisers. Kenneth Feinberg, who also oversaw the fund that paid families of the Sept. 11 attacks, will act as an independent third party to judge claims and authorize payments to Gulf Coast residents affected by the biggest oil spill in U.S. history. To contact the reporter on this story: Julianna Goldman in Washington at jgoldman6@bloomberg.net

Read the full article →

Former Merrill Asia Investment-Bank Chief Chunilal Sues Over Reduced Bonus

June 11, 2010

By Lindsay Fortado June 12 (Bloomberg) — The former head of Asia-Pacific investment banking at Merrill Lynch & Co., Damian Chunilal , is suing the bank over reducing his bonus last year he was with the firm. Chunilal, who was fired from Merrill in November 2008 less than two months after the bank agreed to be taken over by Bank of America Corp. , says he was paid a $2.3 million bonus for his last year. That was one-fifth of his year earlier bonus, his lawyer, Robin Knowles, said at a hearing yesterday in London, where Chunilal is suing for breach of contract. “They looked back at last year and took 20 percent,” Knowles said. “It doesn’t matter how well you’ve done, however hard you’ve worked, that’s what you get.” U.K. bankers have had success with lawsuits over reduced or withheld bonus payments in London courts since the beginning of the financial crisis. A former Societe Generale SA managing director, an ex-Seymour Pierce Ltd. investment banker and a derivatives trader who had worked at Rabobank International, have all won rulings on unpaid compensation claims this year. Merrill lawyer Christopher Harrison asked the court to throw out Chunilal’s claim, arguing the dispute should be decided in Hong Kong, where he was based. Chunilal, who reported to Greg Fleming in New York, must show the contract breach happened in London for it to be heard by a U.K. court, he said. ‘A Lot of Problems’ “We say that his claim has a lot of problems with it, as it was a wholly discretionary bonus,” Harrison said. “The claimant is not resident in this country, and yet seeks to drag the respondent into this country.” Merrill’s “normal practice” was to offer fired employees a payment of 20 percent of the bonus they received the previous year, Knowles said the bank told Chunilal. The bonus decision was, therefore, made in London by the head of human resources for investment banking, Knowles said. Bonuses for fired workers weren’t “an automatic 20 percent,” Harrison said. “Someone had to work out what level to give him.” Judge Michael Burton said he would rule on jurisdiction as early as next week. Chunilal worked for Merrill in England until 2003, when he signed a new contract with the bank and was sent to work in Hong Kong, his lawyer said. His original contract was governed by English law, and the latter one did not specify, Knowles said. The departure of Chunilal and that of Jason Brand , president of Asia-Pacific operations, and Raymundo Yu , chairman of the region, came shortly after Merrill’s purchase by Bank of America. The Asia-Pacific head of mergers and acquisitions, Kalpana Desai , also left months later. The case is Damian Chunilal v. Merrill Lynch International Inc., case no. 2009-1354, High Court of Justice (London). To contact the reporter on this story: Lindsay Fortado in London at lfortado@bloomberg.net

Read the full article →

Ex-Merrill Lynch Asia Investment Banking Head Chunilal Sues Over Bonus Cut

June 11, 2010

By Lindsay Fortado June 11 (Bloomberg) — Damian Chunilal , the former Asia- Pacific head of investment banking at Merrill Lynch & Co., is suing the bank over a reduced bonus payment in his last year with the firm. Chunilal, who was fired from Merrill in November 2008 less than two months after the bank agreed to be taken over by Bank of America Corp., says he was paid a $2.3 million bonus for his last year. That was one-fifth of his year earlier bonus, his lawyer, Robin Knowles, said at a hearing today in London, where Chunilal is suing for breach of contract. “They looked back at last year and took 20 percent,” Knowles said. “It doesn’t matter how well you’ve done, however hard you’ve worked, that’s what you get.” U.K. bankers have had success with lawsuits over reduced or withheld bonus payments in London courts since the beginning of the financial crisis. A former Societe Generale SA managing director, an ex-Seymour Pierce Ltd. investment banker and a derivatives trader who had worked at Rabobank International, have all won rulings on unpaid compensation claims this year. Merrill lawyer Christopher Harrison asked the court to throw out Chunilal’s claim, arguing the dispute should be decided in Hong Kong, where he was based. Chunilal, who reported to Greg Fleming in New York, must show the contract breach happened in London for it to be heard by a U.K. court, he said. ‘A Lot of Problems’ “We say that his claim has a lot of problems with it, as it was a wholly discretionary bonus,” Harrison said. “The claimant is not resident in this country, and yet seeks to drag the respondent into this country.” Merrill’s “normal practice” was to offer fired employees a payment of 20 percent of the bonus they received the previous year, Knowles said the bank told Chunilal. The bonus decision was, therefore, made in London by the head of human resources for investment banking, Knowles said. Bonuses for fired workers weren’t “an automatic 20 percent,” Harrison said. “Someone had to work out what level to give him.” Judge Michael Burton said he would rule on jurisdiction as early as next week. Chunilal worked for Merrill in England until 2003, when he signed a new contract with the bank and was sent to work in Hong Kong, his lawyer said. His original contract was governed by English law, and the latter one did not specify, Knowles said. The departure of Chunilal and that of Jason Brand , president of Asia-Pacific operations, and Raymundo Yu , chairman of the region, came shortly after Merrill’s purchase by Bank of America. The Asia-Pacific head of mergers and acquisitions, Kalpana Desai , also left months later. The case is Damian Chunilal v. Merrill Lynch International Inc., case no. 2009-1354, High Court of Justice (London). To contact the reporter on this story: Lindsay Fortado in London at lfortado@bloomberg.net

Read the full article →

Kerviel Says Societe Generale Superiors `Helped’ Him Make Disputed Trades

May 26, 2010

By Ryan Chilcote and Heather Smith May 26 (Bloomberg) — Jerome Kerviel , who goes on trial next month over his role in Societe Generale SA’s 4.9 billion- euro ($6 billion) trading loss, said his superiors “helped” him make the futures bets at the center of the case. “I’m innocent,” Kerviel, 33, said in a Bloomberg Television interview yesterday outside his lawyer’s Paris office. “I want to prove to everybody that my superiors knew what I was doing and helped me to do it, to make more money for the bank.” Societe Generale, France’s second-largest bank by market value, disclosed the loss in January 2008, saying it occurred after unwinding unauthorized positions taken by a lone employee. While Kerviel has previously said the bank knew about the trades, he now explicitly says his supervisors helped him. “The more money you get for the bank,” Kerviel said in the interview two weeks before the trial is scheduled to start in Paris. “The more the bank asks you for. My only objective was to make money for the bank.” Kerviel is charged with abuse of trust, falsifying documents and hacking into bank computers. He faces as many as five years in prison if found guilty at the trial that starts June 8. Waiting for Kerviel Jean Veil , a lawyer for Societe Generale, said in a telephone interview that he is “waiting for Mr. Kerviel to prove” that his superiors aided him in his bets. Paris-based Societe Generale will ask the court to make Kerviel pay it 4.9 billion euros as “reparation for the financial cost of unwinding the fraudulent operations, as well as the cost of the recapitalization,” Veil said. The June trial will bring the banking sector and the trading culture under the judges’ scrutiny, as well as the question of his own guilt, Kerviel said. “My first goal is to defend myself and to prove” that the bank hierarchy knew of his activities, said Kerviel, wearing blue jeans, a black v-necked shirt, and gray pinstriped jacket on a sunny day with temperatures of 86 degrees Fahrenheit (30 degrees Celsius). “I hope perhaps one of the upsides of the trial will be to expose the practices” of traders. Kerviel worked on Societe Generale’s Delta One trading desk, specializing in European stock market index futures. His job was to arbitrage small price differences between contracts, not to take bets on the markets’ direction. His positions, mostly on Germany’s DAX Index and the pan-European Euro Stoxx 50, had losses of 1.4 billion euros when Societe Generale discovered the fraud. The bank said it lost an additional 3.5 billion euros liquidating the stakes as European markets fell. Part-Time Consultant Kerviel earned less than 100,000 euros a year before the bank fired him in March 2008. He has been working as a part-time consultant for a computer services firm while preparing for the trial. Societe Generale raised 5.5 billion euros from shareholders in March 2008 to offset the trading loss. The bank announced a first-quarter profit aided by a rebound in its investment- banking unit on May 5, saying it expects to reach 2010 targets. Kerviel called his actions “a practice of the bank.” A Societe Generale manager wrote that “a good guy, a good employee should break the rules,” Kerviel said. “Your superior asks you to break the rules every day.” France’s Banking Commission fined Societe Generale 4 million euros in July 2008 for risk control failures, a conclusion supported by an internal review commissioned by the bank’s board. Book Release Kerviel denied having hacked into the bank’s computers or using coworkers’ identifications to log in, a story Kerviel said was part of the reason he wrote a book about the affair that was released May 5. “There were a lot of things that were wrong, that have been said for two years now,” Kerviel said in the interview. “Everybody was thinking that I used some colleague’s ID on the computer to enter trades — that’s completely wrong. Everything I did, I did it with the rights, the computer rights that SocGen gave me.” To contact the reporter on this story: Heather Smith in Paris at hsmith26@bloomberg.net ; Ryan Chilcote in London at rchilcote@bloomberg.net .

Read the full article →

Homestore Ex-Chief Wolff Gets 4 1/2 Year Term for `Calculated Deception’

April 19, 2010

By Edvard Pettersson April 20 (Bloomberg) — Former Homestore Inc. Chief Executive Officer Stuart Wolff was sentenced to 4 1/2 years in prison after pleading guilty in January to conspiracy to commit securities fraud. U.S. District Judge Gary Feess at a hearing yesterday in Los Angeles rejected arguments by Wolff’s lawyer for a three- year term, the low end under his plea deal with prosecutors. The judge said Wolff, 46, with a doctorate in electrical engineering from Princeton University, must have known that what he did was inappropriate and morally wrong. “This was a very calculated deception of the public,” Feess said. “He knew what was going on, and he knew it was wrong when it was happening.” Wolff’s lawyer, John Gibbons, said his client knew what he did was wrong and that it was out of character. At the time of the 2001 fraud, Wolff was part of the “go-go-go” generation of young entrepreneurs swept up in the Internet bubble, the lawyer told the judge. “He wasn’t doing what a morally bereft person would have done,” Gibbons said. Wolff didn’t address the court at the hearing. In 2006, Wolff was sentenced to 15 years in prison after a jury found him guilty of directing a $67 million fraud aimed at boosting the online home-listings company’s stock price. That conviction was thrown out in 2008 when a U.S. appeals court said the trial judge, who owned shares of America Online Inc. , a business partner of Homestore, had a conflict of interest. Round-Trip Deals Prosecutors claimed Homestore, which ran an online real estate site now known as Move.com , used intermediary vendors to pay companies including AOL to buy advertising on its site. Homestore improperly recorded revenue from the so-called round- trip deals, prosecutors claimed. Assistant U.S. Attorney Michael Wilner asked Feess to sentence Wolff to five years in prison, the longest possible term under his plea deal. Wilner said Wolff shouldn’t get additional credit for pleading guilty because he refused to come forward and answer questions for almost eight years. The case is U.S. v. Wolff, 2:05-cr-00398, U.S. District Court, Central District of California (Los Angeles). To contact the reporter on this story: Edvard Pettersson in Los Angeles at epettersson@bloomberg.net .

Read the full article →

Fujitsu’s Ex-President Takes Legal Action Over Organized Crime Allegations

April 6, 2010

By Mariko Yasu, Mikako Nakajima and Jason Clenfield April 7 (Bloomberg) — Fujitsu Ltd. former President Kuniaki Nozoe started legal proceedings against his previous employer after he said the company forced him to resign using unfounded allegations of ties to organized crime. The company received a document from Nozoe on March 29 and its statutory auditing officers will meet to investigate his complaint as required by law, Fujitsu spokesman Etsuro Yamada said by phone from Tokyo, declining to elaborate. Nozoe will hold a press conference later today, according to his lawyer. The move escalates a dispute that started last month when the former executive at Japan’s biggest computer-services company asked Fujitsu to nullify his September resignation and reinstate him. The public spat reflects a breakdown of corporate governance, said Yoshihiro Ito, senior strategist at Okasan Asset Management Co. “Given what a huge corporation this is, it shakes people’s trust in the company,” said Tokyo-based Ito, who helps oversee $8 billion in assets. “If Fujitsu can continue to turn in better results, they’ll be able to win back investor trust.” Fujitsu said on March 6 it had asked Nozoe to resign because he had links to a company with an “unfavorable” reputation, more than five months after saying he quit for health reasons. Nozoe, 62, denies having ties to “antisocial forces,” or organized crime, his lawyer Kei Hata said in an interview last month. Fujitsu fell 1 percent to 619 yen as of the 11 a.m. trading break on the Tokyo Stock Exchange, while Japan’s benchmark Nikkei 225 Stock Average added 0.4 percent. The stock has gained 1 percent since Sept. 25 when Nozoe stepped down, underperforming the Nikkei’s 10 percent advance. Financial Compensation Nozoe will seek several hundred million yen in compensation, the Mainichi newspaper reported earlier today, citing an unidentified person familiar with the plan. Fujitsu has no knowledge of such a claim, Yasuhiko Yodo, a company spokesman said by phone. “Whatever happens next in court, doesn’t mean much to investors,” said Okasan Asset’s Ito. “The question is how the company performs. So you have a few people tied up in court; that’s not going to send shock waves through a company this size.”     Japanese law requires shareholder suits first be channeled through corporate auditors whose job it is to police company directors, Mitsuhiro Kamiya, a partner at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP in Tokyo, said in an interview. Shareholders can sue the executives directly if auditors don’t act within 60 days, he said. Auditors’ Action Unlikely      “Unless the former CEO can produce new evidence about which they’re not aware, it’s highly unlikely that the statutory auditors will take action against the directors,” Kamiya said. Fujitsu told Nozoe his links to a fund involved in the potential sale of Fujitsu subsidiary Nifty Corp. was improper because the fund had connections with “antisocial forces” or organized crime, Hata said last month, declining to identify the fund. Nozoe, who was sick at the time of his resignation in September, agreed to cite health reasons to avoid damaging the reputation of the company he headed, Fujitsu said in its March statement. The former president agreed to step down because he understood his actions put the company’s reputation at risk, not because of malpractice or illegal actions, according to the statement. Investors Weren’t Misled Last month, the Tokyo Stock Exchange ended a probe into the conflicting reasons given by Fujitsu and determined the company didn’t mislead investors enough to warrant a sanction. In January, Fujitsu named Masami Yamamoto president, to take over the role from Chairman Michiyoshi Mazuka who temporarily assumed the position after Nozoe’s resignation till the end of March. During Nozoe’s 15-month tenure, the company pushed forward with the sale of its hard-disk-drive business to Toshiba Corp. and agreed to outsource some chip production to Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co., the world’s largest custom-chip maker, to cut spending. The company also sought to strengthen its operations in Europe by making Maarssen, Netherlands-based Fujitsu Siemens Computers Holding BV a fully owned subsidiary. Fujitsu swung to a profit in the third quarter after the company sold money-losing hardware businesses . Net income was 4.1 billion yen ($46 million) in the three months ended Dec. 31, compared with a 40.8 billion yen loss a year earlier, the Tokyo- based company said on Jan. 29. The company forecasts annual net income of 95 billion yen and operating profit at 90 billion yen on sales projected at 4.75 trillion yen. To contact the reporter on this story: Mariko Yasu in Tokyo at myasu@bloomberg.net .

Read the full article →

Video: Javers Says More Transparency Needed in Corporate Spying: Video

March 19, 2010

March 19 (Bloomberg) — Eamon Javers, author and financial correspondent at Politico, talks with Bloomberg’s Deirdre Bolton about corporate espionage. Javers, speaking from Washington, is the author of “Broker, Trader, Lawyer, Spy: The Secret World of Corporate Espionage.” (Source: Bloomberg)

Read the full article →

Lehman Misled Investors on Leverage, Fuld Was `Negligent,’ Examiner Says

March 12, 2010

By David Scheer and Joshua Gallu March 12 (Bloomberg) — Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. used off-balance-sheet transactions to downplay its leverage in late 2007 and 2008, deceiving shareholders about its ability to withstand losses, a bankruptcy examiner’s report said. Then-Chief Executive Officer Richard Fuld was “at least grossly negligent” for letting Lehman file financial reports in which a key gauge of strength was “reverse-engineered” through transactions known as Repo 105s, bankruptcy examiner Anton Valukas said in a report yesterday. Lehman auditor Ernst & Young LLP could be accused of “professional malpractice,” he said. “The balance sheet manipulation was intentional, for deceptive appearances, had a material impact on Lehman’s net leverage ratio” and caused financial reports to be misleading, Valukas wrote of the New York-based company. Higher leverage undermines a firm’s capacity to absorb financial shock. Lehman filed the biggest bankruptcy in U.S. history in September 2008 after mounting losses on mortgage-backed securities spooked investors and creditors. The Wall Street investment bank’s failure helped trigger a freeze of global credit markets, forcing the U.S. government to provide $700 billion in bailout funds. Fuld didn’t know what the Repo 105 transactions were, his lawyer, Patricia Hynes of Allen & Overy LP in New York, said in a statement. He “didn’t structure or negotiate them,” she said. “Nor was he aware of the accounting treatment.” Concern Among Workers The transactions increased just before the end of financial reporting periods, temporarily moving $49 billion to $50 billion of assets off the balance sheet at the end of the first and second quarters of 2008, according to the report. Many employees expressed concern that Lehman was alone among its peers in using such methods, Valukas said. Ernst & Young last audited Lehman for the fiscal year ending Nov. 30, 2007, the accounting firm said in a statement yesterday. “Our opinion indicated that Lehman’s financial statements for that year were fairly presented in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles,” the firm said. “We remain of that view.” The leverage ratios that were reported in Lehman’s management discussion and analysis “were the responsibility of management, not the auditor,” Ernst & Young said. “They are not part of the audited financial statements.” Valukas, appointed by a federal court in Manhattan last year to probe Lehman’s demise, doesn’t have prosecutorial authority. Instead, the report outlines what claims creditors may bring to recoup losses. Archstone-Smith Trust In its final year, Lehman also overvalued some real-estate holdings, including a stake in U.S. apartment developer Archstone-Smith Trust, Valukas said. Lehman and Tishman Speyer Properties LP completed a joint acquisition of Archstone for $22 billion, including debt, in October 2007. In the first three quarters of 2008, Lehman’s valuations for an equity holding in Archstone “were unreasonable,” the examiner wrote. In the second quarter of 2008, for example, the stake may have been overvalued by as much as $450 million. As Wall Street’s mortgage losses mounted in 2007, banks struggled to win back investor confidence. By at least January 2008, Fuld had become focused on net leverage and reducing Lehman’s balance sheet, Valukas’s report shows. Failing to do so could lead to a ratings downgrade, inflicting “an immediate, tangible monetary impact” on Lehman, the report said. The bank, which had been using the repos since 2001, ramped them up in mid-2007, breaching internal limits, the report shows. Lehman’s former president, Herbert “Bart” McDade , commented on them in an April 2008 e-mail exchange, after he was asked whether he knew about their effect on the balance sheet, Valukas said. “I am very aware,” McDade wrote back. “It is another drug we r on.” Repo Presentation Fuld received a presentation referencing Repo 105s in March 2008, and McDade recalled discussing the transactions with the CEO in June of that year, according to the report. “Fuld knew about the accounting of Repo 105,” McDade said in an interview with Valukas on Jan. 28 this year. “At no time did Lehman’s senior financial officers, legal counsel or Ernst & Young raise any concerns about the use of Repo 105 with Mr. Fuld, who throughout his career faithfully and diligently worked in the interests of Lehman and its stakeholders,” Hynes wrote in her statement. The transactions were done in accordance with an internal accounting policy and supported by legal opinions, she said. In a repo agreement, one party temporarily transfers a security to another as collateral for short-term cash. A Repo 105 transaction requires extra collateral, making it a more costly form of borrowing. Lehman accounted for the Repo 105s as “sales,” as opposed to financing transactions, Valukas said. The bankruptcy case is In re Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc., 08-13555, U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Southern District of New York (Manhattan). To contact the reporters on this story: David Scheer in New York at dscheer@bloomberg.net .

Read the full article →

Fujitsu Probe Fails to Dispel Investors’ Concerns About Nozoe Controversy

March 9, 2010

By Jason Clenfield and Pavel Alpeyev March 10 (Bloomberg) — Fujitsu Ltd. , the computer company embroiled in a dispute with its former chief, was inadequately probed by Japan’s main stock exchange over the disclosure of President Kuniaki Nozoe ’s resignation, investors said. The Tokyo Stock Exchange ended its probe of Fujitsu yesterday after determining the company didn’t mislead investors enough to warrant further action. In response, the nation’s largest provider of computer services said it will strive to disclose information appropriately. Fujitsu last week said it ousted the former president because of possible ties to a company with an “unfavorable reputation,” rescinding the earlier explanation he quit for health reasons. Nozoe’s dismissal was inappropriate, according to his lawyer. The bourse’s conclusions may prolong concerns over Fujitsu’s transparency, said Mitsushige Akino , a fund manager at Tokyo-based Ichiyoshi Investment Management Co. “We need to get to the bottom of why this happened,” said Akino, who oversees about $450 million at the Tokyo-based asset manager. “This doesn’t put the issue to rest.” Fujitsu, the worst performer on the Nikkei 225 Stock Average this week, may rebound because the exchange’s conclusion removes the risk of the stock being placed under special watch, Morgan Stanley analyst Masaharu Miyachi wrote in a report. Still, investors will probably remain concerned about corporate governance and the risk that former management had ties to inappropriate corporations, Miyachi wrote. “You have to be a little skeptical about the company’s governance and their stance on disclosure,” said Junichi Misawa , head of the equity investment division at Tokyo-based STB Asset Management Co., which manages the equivalent of $14 billion. “The explanation is still lacking.” Organized Crime Fujitsu shares began falling after Nozoe’s request to nullify his resignation prompted the Tokyo-based company to alter its explanation of the departure. Nozoe continued to have ties with an unidentified company even after Fujitsu told him that would be “inappropriate,” Fujitsu said in a March 6 statement. On Sept. 25, he accepted the board of director’s offer to resign, according to the statement. Nozoe, 62, was improperly forced out and he denies having ties to “anti-social forces,” or organized crime, as Fujitsu claims, said his attorney, Kei Hata . Fujitsu told Nozoe his relations with a fund involved in the potential sale of Fujitsu subsidiary Nifty Corp. was improper because the fund had connections with organized crime, Hata said in an interview. The fund didn’t have connections with “anti-social forces,” Hata said, declining to identify the fund. Etsuro Yamada , a Tokyo-based spokesman at Fujitsu, declined to elaborate beyond the company’s public statements when asked about Hata’s comments. ‘Strict’ Warning The Tokyo exchange yesterday said it issued a “strict” warning to Fujitsu for initially saying that Nozoe resigned for health reasons. Still, the inadequacy of the Sept. 25 disclosure wasn’t significant enough for investors to make erroneous investment decisions, according to the exchange. “We’re not an investigative body,” said Ikue Izawa, a spokeswoman at the bourse. “We share information and have links with the authorities but there are limits to what we can do.” While analysts at Morgan Stanley, Mizuho Securities Co. and Deutsche Bank AG have voiced concerns over Fujitsu’s disclosure practices this week following the dispute with Nozoe, some investors said the controversy may not last. “In a short period, investors will forget this unless there’s more hard news,” said Edwin Merner , Tokyo-based president of Atlantis Investment, which manages about $3 billion in assets. “In a few months, this will all be forgotten.” Nozoe’s Accomplishments During Nozoe’s 15-month tenure as chief, the company pushed forward with the sale of its hard-disk-drive business to Toshiba Corp. and agreed to outsource some chip production to Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co. , the world’s largest custom-chip maker, to cut spending. The company also sought to strengthen its operations in Europe by making Maarssen, Netherlands-based Fujitsu Siemens Computers Holding BV a fully owned subsidiary. The controversy comes at a time when the company is trying to transform itself into a provider of services similar to International Business Machines Corp. and moving away from unprofitable hardware businesses after posting a 112.4 billion yen ($1.25 billion) loss in the year ended March 2009. Fujitsu forecasts profit of 95 billion yen for this fiscal year. And while the stock exchange may have concluded its examination of Fujitsu, the concerns will likely linger, Ichiyoshi Investment ’s Akino said. “There’s a big grey area here and that grey area encourages speculation,” he said. “The company had relationships it shouldn’t have had, so people will say, ‘is that the kind of company this is?’” To contact the reporters on this story: Jason Clenfield in Tokyo at jclenfield@bloomberg.net ; Pavel Alpeyev in Tokyo at palpeyev@bloomberg.net .

Read the full article →

Fujitsu Probe Fails to Dispel Investors’ Concerns About Nozoe Controversy

March 9, 2010

By Jason Clenfield and Pavel Alpeyev March 10 (Bloomberg) — Fujitsu Ltd. , the computer company embroiled in a dispute with its former chief, was inadequately probed by Japan’s main stock exchange over the disclosure of President Kuniaki Nozoe ’s resignation, investors said. The Tokyo Stock Exchange ended its probe of Fujitsu yesterday after determining the company didn’t mislead investors enough to warrant further action. In response, the nation’s largest provider of computer services said it will strive to disclose information appropriately. Fujitsu last week said it ousted the former president because of possible ties to a company with an “unfavorable reputation,” rescinding the earlier explanation he quit for health reasons. Nozoe’s dismissal was inappropriate, according to his lawyer. The bourse’s conclusions may prolong concerns over Fujitsu’s transparency, said Mitsushige Akino , a fund manager at Tokyo-based Ichiyoshi Investment Management Co. “We need to get to the bottom of why this happened,” said Akino, who oversees about $450 million at the Tokyo-based asset manager. “This doesn’t put the issue to rest.” Fujitsu, the worst performer on the Nikkei 225 Stock Average this week, may rebound because the exchange’s conclusion removes the risk of the stock being placed under special watch, Morgan Stanley analyst Masaharu Miyachi wrote in a report. Still, investors will probably remain concerned about corporate governance and the risk that former management had ties to inappropriate corporations, Miyachi wrote. “You have to be a little skeptical about the company’s governance and their stance on disclosure,” said Junichi Misawa , head of the equity investment division at Tokyo-based STB Asset Management Co., which manages the equivalent of $14 billion. “The explanation is still lacking.” Organized Crime Fujitsu shares began falling after Nozoe’s request to nullify his resignation prompted the Tokyo-based company to alter its explanation of the departure. Nozoe continued to have ties with an unidentified company even after Fujitsu told him that would be “inappropriate,” Fujitsu said in a March 6 statement. On Sept. 25, he accepted the board of director’s offer to resign, according to the statement. Nozoe, 62, was improperly forced out and he denies having ties to “anti-social forces,” or organized crime, as Fujitsu claims, said his attorney, Kei Hata . Fujitsu told Nozoe his relations with a fund involved in the potential sale of Fujitsu subsidiary Nifty Corp. was improper because the fund had connections with organized crime, Hata said in an interview. The fund didn’t have connections with “anti-social forces,” Hata said, declining to identify the fund. Etsuro Yamada , a Tokyo-based spokesman at Fujitsu, declined to elaborate beyond the company’s public statements when asked about Hata’s comments. ‘Strict’ Warning The Tokyo exchange yesterday said it issued a “strict” warning to Fujitsu for initially saying that Nozoe resigned for health reasons. Still, the inadequacy of the Sept. 25 disclosure wasn’t significant enough for investors to make erroneous investment decisions, according to the exchange. “We’re not an investigative body,” said Ikue Izawa, a spokeswoman at the bourse. “We share information and have links with the authorities but there are limits to what we can do.” While analysts at Morgan Stanley, Mizuho Securities Co. and Deutsche Bank AG have voiced concerns over Fujitsu’s disclosure practices this week following the dispute with Nozoe, some investors said the controversy may not last. “In a short period, investors will forget this unless there’s more hard news,” said Edwin Merner , Tokyo-based president of Atlantis Investment, which manages about $3 billion in assets. “In a few months, this will all be forgotten.” Nozoe’s Accomplishments During Nozoe’s 15-month tenure as chief, the company pushed forward with the sale of its hard-disk-drive business to Toshiba Corp. and agreed to outsource some chip production to Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co. , the world’s largest custom-chip maker, to cut spending. The company also sought to strengthen its operations in Europe by making Maarssen, Netherlands-based Fujitsu Siemens Computers Holding BV a fully owned subsidiary. The controversy comes at a time when the company is trying to transform itself into a provider of services similar to International Business Machines Corp. and moving away from unprofitable hardware businesses after posting a 112.4 billion yen ($1.25 billion) loss in the year ended March 2009. Fujitsu forecasts profit of 95 billion yen for this fiscal year. And while the stock exchange may have concluded its examination of Fujitsu, the concerns will likely linger, Ichiyoshi Investment ’s Akino said. “There’s a big grey area here and that grey area encourages speculation,” he said. “The company had relationships it shouldn’t have had, so people will say, ‘is that the kind of company this is?’” To contact the reporters on this story: Jason Clenfield in Tokyo at jclenfield@bloomberg.net ; Pavel Alpeyev in Tokyo at palpeyev@bloomberg.net .

Read the full article →

Terror Suspect Najibullah Zazi Said to Plan Guilty Plea in New York Plot

February 22, 2010

By Patricia Hurtado Feb. 17 (Bloomberg) — Mohammed Wali Zazi , the father of Najibullah Zazi , charged with plotting to bomb New York City landmarks, will be released from jail in two days if he posts a $50,000 bond, a federal magistrate judge said. The elder Zazi, who was arrested in Denver in September along with his son, was indicted Feb. 1 for conspiring to obstruct a federal grand jury investigation into terrorism. Prosecutors said the father destroyed or hid eyeglasses, masks, liquid chemicals and containers sought as part of a probe into the son’s alleged scheme. “He intends to fight the case and we ask the public to withhold judgment until the facts are revealed,” his lawyer, Deborah Colson, said after court today. U.S. Magistrate Judge Steven Gold in Brooklyn, New York, said Zazi could be released Feb. 19 after his wife and daughter sign the bond and post $20,000 in cash. When he’s released, Zazi must wear an electronic monitoring bracelet on his ankle at all times, Gold said. He’s allowed to leave his home in Aurora, Colorado, for work or religious observances, or to visit his lawyer or doctor. Otherwise, the magistrate said, the only place he’s allowed to travel outside Colorado is the Eastern District of New York, which includes the New York City boroughs of Queens, Brooklyn and Staten Island, as well as Long Island. Gold also prohibited Zazi from having contact with his son or with three other people who weren’t identified in court. Cash, Gold Seized FBI agents had seized $14,500 in cash and gold during a search of the elder Zazi’s home, Assistant U.S. Attorney David Bitkower said today in court. The money will be returned to him, Bitkower told Gold. Last week, prosecutors described Mohammed Zazi as a danger to the community when he was arraigned in court and pleaded not guilty. Today they consented to his release and declined to comment when asked about it after court. The defendant was directed to return to court March 2 for an appearance before U.S. District Judge Raymond Dearie . Mohammed Zazi faces as long as 20 years in prison if convicted, according to the office of Brooklyn U.S. Attorney Benton Campbell . The younger Zazi, an Afghan immigrant who once lived in Queens, New York, and worked as an airport shuttle-van driver in Denver until his arrest, was charged last year with training at an al-Qaeda terrorist camp and conspiring to detonate an improvised explosive device in New York around the anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. He, too, has pleaded not guilty. Najibullah Zazi and three unidentified associates bought components for explosive devices from July to September, the U.S. said in a conspiracy indictment unsealed on Sept. 24. The cases are U.S. v. Najibullah Zazi, 09-CR-663; U.S. v. Mohammed Wali Zazi, 10-CR-0060, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of New York (Brooklyn). To contact the reporter on this story: Patricia Hurtado in federal court in Brooklyn, New York, at pathurtado@bloomberg.net .

Read the full article →

Former Goldman Employee Aleynikov Indicted by U.S. Over Theft of Software

February 11, 2010

By David Glovin Feb. 11 (Bloomberg) — Former Goldman Sachs Group Inc. computer programmer Sergey Aleynikov was indicted on federal charges that he stole trading software from the bank. The indictment, unsealed today in Manhattan federal court, follows appeals to prosecutors by Aleynikov’s lawyer that the government dismiss the charges. Aleynikov must now enter a plea as the case moves closer to a trial. Aleynikov, 40, was arrested July 3 and charged with theft of trade secrets and transportation of stolen property in foreign commerce. At a July 4 court appearance, a prosecutor said the alleged theft is the “most substantial” that New York-based Goldman Sachs can recall. “Proprietary information and trade secrets are sometimes the most valuable assets of a business,” FBI Assistant Director-in-Charge Joseph Demarest said in a statement today. The proprietary code, worth millions of dollars, lets the company do “sophisticated, high-speed and high-volume trades on various stock and commodities markets,” prosecutors have said in court documents. Aleynikov planned to earn three times his salary by joining a new company and engaging in high-volume automated trading, prosecutors said at the time of his arrest. Teza According to the indictment, Aleynikov’s last day at Goldman was June 5, before he left to join Teza Technologies LLC, a Chicago-based firm co-founded by former Citadel Investment Group LLC trader Misha Malyshev . Beginning at 5:20 p.m., he began transferring “substantial portions” of Goldman’s code for its trading platform to an outside server in Germany, the indictment says. “After transferring the files, Aleynikov deleted the program he used to encrypt the files and deleted the computer’s ‘bash history,’ which records the most recent commands executed on his computer,” U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara said in a statement. Teza suspended Aleynikov after his arrest and has since fired him. On July 2, Aleynikov attended meetings at Teza’s office and brought his laptop computer and another storage device, each of which held Goldman’s source code, the indictment says. Defense attorney Sabrina Shroff didn’t immediately return a call for comment. She said at an Aug. 10 court hearing that prosecutors “may be under a false impression” about the case. Only 32 of 1,024 megabits of the software code was transferred, Shroff has said. Dual Citizenship Aleynikov, who is free on $750,000 bond, lives in New Jersey and holds dual U.S. and Russian citizenship. He and his lawyer have said the files that prosecutors said he stole weren’t shared with anyone and he took them so he could work from home. The indictment says Aleynikov transferred thousands of files related to the firm’s trading program over the course of his career, without telling Goldman. Aleynikov worked at Goldman from 2007 until June, the government said in its July criminal complaint. He was part of a team of workers responsible for improving the computer platform. He faces one count of theft of trade secrets, one count of transportation of stolen property in foreign commerce, and one count of unauthorized computer access. He faces up to 25 years in prison. Before joining Goldman, Aleynikov worked for about eight years at IDT Corp., the U.S. vendor of prepaid calling cards, where he led the team responsible for developing routing systems, according to the profile on the social-networking site LinkedIn. Michael DuVally , a spokesman for Goldman, declined to comment. The case is U.S. v. Aleynikov, U.S. District Court, 09-mag- 1553, Southern District of New York (Manhattan). To contact the reporter on this story: David Glovin in New York federal court at dglovin@bloomberg.net .

Read the full article →

Massachusetts’ Brown Will Be Sworn In at Capitol Today, Ahead of Schedule

February 4, 2010

By Kate Andersen Brower Feb. 4 (Bloomberg) — Massachusetts Senator-elect Scott Brown will be sworn in today at 5 p.m. Washington time in a ceremony at the U.S. Capitol, according to a White House announcement. Vice President Joe Biden will give the oath to Brown, a Republican who won a special election last month to fill the seat formerly held by the late Democratic Senator Edward Kennedy . Brown, 50, had been scheduled to be sworn in next week. He was certified this morning as the winner of the Jan. 19 election after his lawyer wrote to Massachusetts officials asking that the election results be certified “without delay.” Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick certified the election results this morning, spokesman Juan Martinez said in a telephone interview. Brown’s ascension will end the 60-vote supermajority that allowed Senate Democrats to overcome Republican stalling tactics on legislation. “While Senator-elect Brown had tentatively planned to be sworn into office on Feb. 11, he has been advised that there are a number of votes scheduled prior to that date,” wrote his attorney, Daniel Winslow . “For that reason, he wants certification to occur immediately.” Health-Care Fight Brown’s win over once-favored Democratic state Attorney General Martha Coakley has imperiled an overhaul of health-care legislation that is President Barack Obama’s top domestic priority and was Kennedy’s decades-long goal. Still, Democrats said they aim to work with Brown on the measure. In a television interview on CNN’s “State of the Union” broadcast Jan. 31, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said that polls showed 70 percent of voters in the Massachusetts election said they hoped Brown “would go to Washington and be able to work with Democrats to make health- care reform a reality. Only 28 percent wanted him to come to Washington, stop everything.” Brown, a previously little-known state senator, cast himself as an independent voice who would help thwart Obama’s health-care plan and keep a check on Democrats in Congress. His race against Coakley provided an early glimpse of the potential for Republican momentum heading into this year’s midterm congressional elections. Kennedy, 77, died Aug. 25 after a 15-month battle with brain cancer. Brown will serve the rest of Kennedy’s term, ending in January 2013. He will replace Paul Kirk , a Kennedy friend and former head of the Democratic National Committee who was appointed by Patrick Sept. 24 to fill the seat temporarily. To contact the reporter on this story: Kate Andersen Brower in Washington at Kandersen7@bloomberg.net

Read the full article →

Nina Wang Fortune Claimant Arrested After Will Ruled Fraudulent, AFP Says

February 3, 2010

By Marco Lui and Debra Mao Feb. 4 (Bloomberg) — Tony Chan , the Hong Kong feng shui practitioner who tried to claim the fortune of late billionaire Nina Wang , was arrested yesterday, a day after a court ruled a will produced by him wasn’t signed by Wang, Agence France-Presse reported. A man aged 50 surnamed Chan remained in custody after his arrest yesterday for the alleged forgery of a document, Hong Kong police spokeswoman Odelia Tam said today, declining to identify the man as Tony Chan. Documents were confiscated and no charges have been laid against the man, she said. High Court Judge Johnson Lam ruled that Wang’s estate belongs to the charitable foundation created by the late owner of the Chinachem property group after a legal battle that gripped the city with accounts of kidnap, sex and feng shui rituals. Lam wrote in his judgment that a 2006 will produced by Chan following Wang’s April 2007 death was forged. Police earlier searched Chan’s house on the Peak, Hong Kong’s most exclusive residential area, according to Radio Television Hong Kong reports. Chan “lied and withheld relevant information from this court,” Lam wrote in his 326-page judgment, following a 40-day probate hearing that began in May last year. Wang was awarded her husband’s estate in 2005 at the city’s highest court after a legal dispute in which two lower court judgments sided with her father-in-law’s claim to the money. Teddy Wang , Nina’s husband, was kidnapped in 1983 and again seven years later. He wasn’t returned after the second abduction, even after his wife paid part of the ransom. ‘Little Sweetie’ When Nina Wang, dubbed “Little Sweetie” by Hong Kong media, died of cancer in 2007 at the age of 69, Chan claimed her fortune, citing a 2006 will. That sparked a legal fight with Wang’s siblings, who helm her charitable foundation and said they had a 2002 will that made it the legitimate heir. In June, Chan told the court Nina called him husband and he was seeing her while his wife was pregnant with their first son. He said digging holes at Chinachem sites and burning real money were among the happy memories he and Nina Wang enjoyed as a “married couple.” “We won’t say anything at the moment on Mr. Chan’s case,” Kenis Liu, a PR manager at Master Gain Consultants Ltd., a firm hired by Chan, said by phone today. She declined to reveal Chan’s whereabouts. “The will was handed over to me by Nina’s own hands,” Chan told reporters on Feb. 2 in comments that were broadcast on local television in Hong Kong. “The truth will come to light, because I am innocent.” Chan’s lawyer, Jonathan Midgley , said on Feb. 2 his client planned to appeal the court decision. Midgley wasn’t immediately available for comment today, Candy Law, secretary to the lawyer, said by phone today. A final decision on the case may ultimately be made in the city’s highest court, the Court of Final Appeal, which could take 12 to 18 months, Fai Hung Cheung, a Hong Kong-based lawyer at Allen & Overy, said earlier this week. To contact the reporter on this story: Marco Lui in Hong Kong at mlui7@bloomberg.net ; Debra Mao in Hong Kong at dmao5@bloomberg.net

Read the full article →

New York Man Is Charged With Two Counts in Al-Qaeda Linked Terrorism Case

January 9, 2010

By Patricia Hurtado and Justin Blum Jan. 9 (Bloomberg) — A New York man arrested in connection with an alleged bomb plot targeting the city was charged today with conspiracy to commit murder and receiving terrorist training from al-Qaeda. Adis Medunjanin, 25, pleaded not guilty to the charges at an arraignment hearing in federal court in Brooklyn, New York. Authorities say Medunjanin got “military-type training” from al-Qaeda between August and October 2008. He was ordered held until a detention hearing on Jan. 14. Medunjanin and a second suspect, Zarein Ahmedzay, were arrested early yesterday, FBI spokesman James Margolin said in a phone interview. Ahmedzay appeared yesterday in Brooklyn federal court and pleaded not guilty to one count of making false statements to federal agents. Robert Gottlieb , Medunjanin’s attorney, had no immediate comment. The arrests came the same day that Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab , the Nigerian man accused of trying to destroy a Northwest Airlines plane carrying 290 people on Christmas Day, pleaded not guilty to charges in Detroit federal court. As the flight approached that city’s airport, Abdulmutallab, 23, ignited his pants leg and a wall of the plane while trying to detonate a mixture of explosives he smuggled aboard, according to prosecutors. He faces as much as life in prison if convicted. Charged in Connection Medunjanin and Ahmedzay were charged in connection with an investigation of Najibullah Zazi , an Afghan man who authorities said trained at an al-Qaeda terrorist camp and conspired to detonate an improvised explosive device in New York, according to Margolin. Zazi and two other men were arrested in September over an alleged plot to detonate a bomb around the anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Medunjanin told authorities he trained in an al-Qaeda camp in Pakistan with Zazi, another law enforcement official said. Medunjanin and Ahmedzay attended Flushing High School with Zazi in Queens, New York, the person said. Ahmedzay was taken into custody by police detectives and FBI agents at about 10 p.m. on Jan. 7 while driving a cab in Manhattan, said Michael Marinaccio, his lawyer. Ahmedzay was arraigned yesterday before U.S. Magistrate James Orenstein and was charged with making a false statement in an investigation of “international and domestic terrorism.” Ahmedzay, on Sept. 17 and Sept. 18, “falsely stated to special agents of the FBI that he had disclosed to them all of the locations he visited during his trip to Pakistan and Afghanistan, which trip occurred on or about and between Aug. 28, 2008, and Jan. 22, 2009,” the U.S. alleged. To contact the reporters on this story: Patricia Hurtado in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York in Brooklyn at pathurtado@bloomberg.net and; Justin Blum in Washington at Jblum4@bloomberg.net .

Read the full article →

New York Man Said to Face Terrorism Charge in Alleged Sept. 11 Bomb Plot

January 8, 2010

By Patricia Hurtado and Justin Blum Jan. 8 (Bloomberg) — A New York man arrested in connection with an alleged bomb plot targeting New York faces federal charges after telling authorities he trained at an al-Qaeda camp in Pakistan, two people familiar with the investigation said. Adis Medunjanin, 25, who was arrested with a second suspect today, likely will be charged with conspiracy and with receiving training from a foreign terrorist organization, one of the people said. Medunjanin and Zarein Ahmedzay were arrested early today, said FBI spokesman James Margolin in a phone interview. Ahmedzay, appeared today in federal court in Brooklyn, New York, and pleaded not guilty to one count of making false statements to FBI agents. The two were charged in connection with an investigation of Najibullah Zazi , an Afghan man who authorities said trained at an al-Qaeda terrorist camp and conspired to detonate an improvised explosive device in New York, according to Margolin. Zazi and two other men were arrested in September over an alleged plot to detonate a bomb around the anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Medunjanin told authorities he trained in an al-Qaeda camp in Pakistan with Zazi, another law enforcement official said. Medunjanin and Ahmedzay attended Flushing High School with Zazi in Queens, New York, the person said. Robert Gottlieb, a lawyer for Medunjanin, said in an interview at the federal courthouse in Brooklyn that Medunjanin contacted him yesterday to say the FBI was at his apartment asking for his passport. Expected Arraignment Gottlieb, who said he was retained as defense counsel by Medunjanin in September, said he came to court today expecting his client to be arraigned. He said he was told by Assistant U.S. Attorney Jeffrey Knox that Medunjanin no longer wanted him as his lawyer. “They knew I represented him,” said Gottlieb, who said prosecutors wouldn’t let him talk to Medunjanin. “They have flagrantly decided that it’s OK to violate the Constitution and deny him access to his lawyer.” Gottlieb said he would return to court tomorrow for what he expected to be Medunjanin’s arraignment. Ahmedzay was arraigned today before U.S. Magistrate James Orenstein and was charged with making a false statement in an investigation of “international and domestic terrorism.” Ahmedzay, on Sept. 17 and Sept. 18, “falsely stated to special agents of the FBI that he had disclosed to them all of the locations he visited during his trip to Pakistan and Afghanistan, which trip occurred on or about and between Aug. 28, 2008, and Jan. 22, 2009,” the U.S. said. Ahmedzay also allegedly falsely stated that he hadn’t had discussions with a person identified as “John Doe” in court papers “about attending a camp to receive military-type training while in Pakistan,” the U.S. alleged. ‘John Doe’ Prosecutors said Ahmedzay falsely told the FBI that he didn’t “know that John Doe attended a camp to receive military- type training while in Pakistan” when he “did know that John Doe attended a camp.” “I am going to deal with the indictment as I see it,” Ahmedzay’s lawyer, Michael Marinaccio, told reporters after today’s arraignment. “I don’t know who John Doe is,” he said. “This is very early in the case,” he said. “Whether or not the allegations are borne out remains to be seen.” Orenstein set a hearing for Jan. 12 to consider whether Ahmedzay can be released on bail. The men were arrested shortly after midnight by members of the FBI’s and New York Police Department’s Joint Terrorism Task Force, said Margolin of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Search Warrant New York Police detectives and FBI agents went to Medunjanin’s residence in the Flushing section of Queens yesterday afternoon to execute a search warrant for his passport, said a law enforcement official who requested anonymity. Medunjanin surrendered his passport without incident, the person said. After the search, Medunjanin left the apartment and got into his car and drove away, with detectives conducting surveillance from a distance and not in pursuit, the person said. While driving on the Whitestone Expressway near the Bronx-Whitestone Bridge, Medunjanin sped up and his vehicle collided with the car traveling ahead of him at about 4 p.m., the person said. Medunjanin then fled on foot and was taken into custody by New York City police officers and FBI agents after a brief chase, the person said. Medunjanin suffered minor neck injuries in the crash, and was taken to a hospital, where he was treated and released into the custody of the Joint Terrorism Task Force, the person said. Ahmedzay was taken into custody by police detectives and FBI agents at about 10 p.m. yesterday while driving a cab in Manhattan, Marinaccio said. Van Driver The two men came to the attention of authorities in September during the investigation of Zazi, Margolin said. Zazi, a former Denver airport shuttle-van driver who had moved to Colorado from Queens, drove to New York in early September, prosecutors said in a federal indictment. The U.S. alleges in Zazi’s indictment that he traveled last year to Pakistan, attended an al-Qaeda training camp, and returned to the U.S. with bomb-making instructions. Prosecutors said Zazi returned from Pakistan on Jan. 15, staying in Flushing in Queens. He then moved to Colorado within days. Zazi and three unidentified associates bought components for improvised explosive devices from July to September, the U.S. said in a conspiracy indictment unsealed Sept. 24. When officials searched a residence in Flushing where Zazi stayed, they found an electronic scale that could be used to weigh chemicals and batteries that could be installed in a bomb, according to the indictment. Car Stopped Members of the Joint Terrorism Task Force stopped Zazi in a rental car on Sept. 11 in Queens. They searched Zazi’s vehicle and found a laptop computer. The computer had an image of nine pages of handwritten notes, including a recipe for an explosive used in the 2005 London train bombings and intended for use in the 2001 plot involving “shoe bomber” Richard Reid to blow up an airplane, prosecutors said. Zazi was videotaped on store cameras in Colorado buying products such as acetone and hydrogen peroxide that can be use to make a bomb, officials said. Zazi Arrest FBI agents interviewed Zazi on Sept. 16 in Denver and showed him the handwritten notes, at which point he falsely said he hadn’t written them and had never seen them, according to an affidavit related to Zazi’s arrest. Zazi later admitted to authorities that, during a trip to Pakistan last year, he received training in the use of weapons and explosives at an al-Qaeda facility, according to a Justice Department statement. Zazi has pleaded not guilty to the charges and is awaiting trial. He faces as long as life in prison if convicted. No trial date has been set. His father, Mohammed Wali Zazi, and another man, Ahmad Wais Afzali, were also arrested and were charged with lying to investigators. Both men pleaded not guilty to the charges and are free on bond pending trial. To contact the reporters on this story: Patricia Hurtado in New York at pathurtado@bloomberg.net ; Justin Blum in Washington at Jblum4@bloomberg.net .

Read the full article →

Swiss Financial Regulator Broke Law on UBS Client Disclosure, Court Rules

January 8, 2010

By Elena Logutenkova and Joseph Heaven Jan. 8 (Bloomberg) — Switzerland’s financial markets regulator broke the law when it ordered UBS AG to give data on 255 of the bank’s clients to the U.S. last year, a court ruled. The Swiss Financial Market Supervisory Authority, known as Finma, exceeded its authority when it told the bank Feb. 18 to deliver the information to the U.S., the Federal Administrative Court in Bern ruled today. The case is separate from a larger agreement to turn over data on as many as 4,450 UBS accounts. Finma ordered UBS to hand over information on the 255 clients so the bank could avoid criminal prosecution in the U.S., which may have led to the bank’s insolvency, according to the regulator. The Justice Department accused UBS of conspiring to defraud the U.S. by helping Americans hide accounts from the Internal Revenue Service. “Even if Finma was in a difficult situation because of the threat of a lawsuit against UBS, it shouldn’t have authorized the data transfer without following the proper administrative procedure,” the court said in a statement attached to the ruling. “An authority like Finma cannot apply state of emergency measures in place of the government.” The court said there was nothing it could do to retrieve the data that had been given to the U.S. UBS, Switzerland’s biggest bank, was ordered to cover the clients’ legal expenses of 5,000 Swiss francs ($4,835) and pay total compensation to the three appellants of 17,000 francs, as it was a defendant in the case. The ruling can be appealed at Switzerland’s Supreme Court. Possible Appeal Finma will analyze the decision and decide whether to appeal, the Bern-based market supervisor said in a statement on its Web site. “I expect it will be appealed,” Andreas Rued, the lawyer who represented the UBS clients, said by telephone. Decisions about further remedies must wait until the appeals are completed, he said. Criminal complaints he filed with prosecutors over possible breaches of banking secrecy laws in February are still pending. UBS spokesman Serge Steiner declined to comment. Swiss government spokesman Andre Simonazzi couldn’t immediately comment. Finma Arguments The five judges rejected Finma’s argument that action was needed to prevent the bank’s insolvency and ensure the stability of the Swiss financial system. The situation didn’t allow Finma to use emergency measures reserved for parliament and the government, the judges ruled. While the Swiss government had asked Finma to do everything to prevent UBS’s criminal indictment, it didn’t give any details on what the regulator should do. The government and the parliament are the only institutions with the authority to implement state of emergency laws, the court said in the 60-page ruling. A day after UBS agreed to pay $780 million and pass on the client data, the U.S. sued the bank to force disclosure on as many as 52,000 American accounts. UBS shares fell 23 percent over the following three days. UBS and the Swiss government settled that lawsuit in August by agreeing to reveal data on as many as 4,450 U.S. clients suspected of evading taxes through an administrative assistance procedure between the U.S. and Switzerland. Legal Procedures The February handover of data overrode legal procedures that would have allowed clients to appeal before their information was sent to the U.S. Under Switzerland’s administrative assistance rules, clients have to be notified if the government decides to pass on their data because of evidence of a criminal offense such as tax fraud. Clients can then appeal in the Swiss administrative court. Swiss Finance Minister Hans-Rudolf Merz last year described the data handover as an “isolated case” after the U.S. authorities set a Feb. 18 deadline for UBS to reach a deal or face indictment. While it was “problematic” that the official procedure wasn’t followed, an indictment and a possible failure of UBS would have had consequences for the whole Swiss economy, he said on Feb. 19. To contact the reporters on this story: Elena Logutenkova in Zurich at elogutenkova@bloomberg.net ; Joseph Heaven in Zurich at jheaven1@bloomberg.net

Read the full article →

Rabbi Shmuley Boteach: Mortgage Ignominy at JP Morgan Chase

January 6, 2010

In the heart of New York City, if you listen closely, you’ll hear a severe sucking sound, as if some magical and invisible vortex is pulling in all that surrounds it. Amazingly, it doesn’t swallow up your scarf, your briefcase, or muss you hair. It does, however, pluck every last dollar and cent from your wallet. It is an insatiable behemoth whose hunger can never be stilled. Shove hundreds of billions of dollars in the chasm and still it aches for more. Welcome to Wall Street, whose bankers, after nearly collapsing the global economy, have learned nothing from their greed and who have become more voracious than ever. Matt Taibbi of Rolling Stone coined last year’s most memorable journalistic phrase when he described Goldman Sachs as “a great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity, relentlessly jamming its blood funnel into anything that smells like money.” But when it comes to screwing the American tax payer out of funds designed to alleviate his mortgage burden, JP Morgan Chase emerges as the great celestial black hole, sucking in every last particle of cash before it devours your very home into eternal foreclosure darkness. In 2008 JP Morgan Chase was given, according to CNN, $25 billion dollars in bailout money which was, along with Citigroup and Wells Fargo, ‘the largest amount given to any bank.’ In addition, the New York Times, in a story entitled, “Billions to Fight Foreclosure, but Few New Loans,” reported that JP Morgan Chase also participated in an Obama program begun ten months ago that distributed $75 billion in order to keep four million Americans in their homes ‘by persuading the banks to renegotiate their mortgages.’ But of one million applications filed, only 31,000 have thus far been converted to new mortgages. In New York City, lenders have offered new or trial mortgages to only three percent of those who sought relief. That’s a lot of taxpayer cash that seems to have facilitated JP Morgan Chase and others paying billions in bonuses its bankers while preventing even meager morsels from falling to those most in need. How badly does JP Morgan Chase fail at helping those whom the government’s money was meant to assist? Take just one story, reported by the New York Times on January 2, 2010. JP Morgan Chase acquired Washington Mutual, who owned the mortgage of one Jaime Smith of Lakeland, Florida. After giving her a trial adjustment that lowered her mortgage by all of $200 per month, Smith made every payment on time and submitted all required documents. She was therefore shocked to tears when she received a legal notice a few weeks later telling her that Chase has foreclosed on her home and sold it at auction for $100. The story gets only better. Who bought the house? Why, JP Morgan Chase, of course. Amid the appalling nature of JP Morgan Chase’s behavior toward her, Smith should at least be happy she ever got through to a live person at the bank who actually agreed to a modification. Most applicants are not nearly so lucky. As the Times wrote, “the lenders toss up daunting hurdles. Homeowners say they send and resend thick piles of documentation, only to be told that their papers have been misplaced, or that their pay stubs are out of date. Housing counselors dial a dozen times just to get a servicer on the phone… ‘It’s a constant Catch‐22: They never give you their name,’ said Gerald Carter, a counselor with the Parodneck Foundation in New York City, which receives city and state money to advise homeowners. ‘You call back and say, ‘No, I was talking to Bob last time,’ but Bob wouldn’t give his last name — not even an employee ID number. So you start over.’” I have, unfortunately, had my own experience with JP Morgan Chase that mirrors this exactly. I was born in Los Angeles and moved, as a boy, to Miami Beach in the wake of my parents’ divorce because there my mother had the support of her parents and brother. That’s where my siblings and I were raised and where my mother, brothers, sisters, nephews and nieces all still live. My wife and I always spoke of making Miami our permanent home where we could be close to family. Thus, in April 2006, while living in our New Jersey home where my radio and media commitments necessitated I reside, we realized our dream of purchasing a house in Miami Beach on the same block as my brother. Our kids were in Jewish day schools and one was in a special educational program, and we decided to delay our move until we could find a program that matched. In the meantime, we rented out our new home, receiving in rent only half the costs of the high mortgage but never defaulting on a single payment. By the middle of June 2009, having lost our tenant and with the economic downturn hitting especially hard, we sought a mortgage modification to make the home affordable. The home had already lost half its value. But interest rates had shrunk substantially to almost nothing, JP Morgan Chase had been given a massive bailout to assist homeowners, and we assumed it would be relatively easy to refinance and that the bank, which had received so much assistance from the American taxpayer, would welcome making our lives a touch easier in these very difficult times. Surely JP Morgan Chase would be happy to modify the loan since they were now borrowing money at significantly lower rates than before and they could still make a hefty profit even after the modification. How wrong we were. We quickly discovered that it was impossible even to get through to a living person or leave a message for them to call back. For five months we placed phone call after phone call but could not reach one person who would help us. When we did finally encounter a live human voice, we were told to send in reams of paper, which we did on numerous occasions, only to be told a few weeks later that the documents had been lost or never arrived. We finally hired a lawyer who sent the documents in multiple times. Still, JP Morgan Chase told us that they did not find our documents. Let me be clear that I never believed in the bailouts, not for we regular people and certainly not for billionaire bankers. Capitalism is going to have winners and losers and the latter, however painful, must sometimes take lumps. But what is so grossly unjust is that, having received billions of dollars to bail out regular taxpayers, banks like JP Morgan Chase decided to use the money to bail out themselves, paid billions more in bonuses, and are loath to help the very same taxpayers that rescued them. These banks are also now borrowing money at miniscule rates but refuse to alter the mortgages of those who are still stuck in very high payments. There is something cruel about a system that bails out multi‐millionaires but not average citizens who struggle to make ends meet. As a way of illustrating the obstructive nature of the bank, I took notes on a single December 2009 day of trying to get through to speak to someone at the bank. First I called the number of a written notice sent to us about our mortgage and was put on a long hold. I finally got through to Bob, who would not give his last name or employee ID number. He only said he was in Texas and could not help me because I had to speak to ‘The Imminent Default Department.’ He said he would transfer me and immediately cut me off. He made no effort to call me back although the first thing I did was give him my callback number. Having found the number for the department myself, I called and was put on hold for one hour and forty minutes. Andrea H from Jacksonville, Florida, who refused to give her last name and employee ID, immediately told me that I had to call Bob’s department back because she could not help me and I had been misinformed. I protested that I had just held on for the longest time and that Bob had told me her department would help me. Without so much as a word, she promptly hung up. Calling Bob’s number back I got through to Melissa T, who finally, after much pressure, gave her employee ID number. She agreed to look up my file. Predictably, a few minutes later she told me my documents were incomplete and I had to submit them again. I told her the name and number of my lawyer who could confirm that we had sent the documents in multiple times. She promptly hung up. Finally, in desperation I called the main number of JP Morgan Chase in NY and asked for the CEO, Jamie Dimon. I was transferred to Rosa Alderete in Texas who told me there was no direct number for the CEO’s office, which is curious since the bank is a public corporation. What was he hiding from? Could it be the nearly $20 million he took in total 2008 compensation (he smartly relinquished a monetary bonus, but more than made up for it by taking $17 million in stock awards), the year Wall Street brought America to its knees? I began to describe the hellish experiences I had had with her bank and demanded to speak to a supervisor. Refusing to take no for an answer, I was put through to Heather McLendon, a customer care analyst with the executive office. Only this time, I mentioned that I work in media and planned to write about my experiences. I was immediately transferred to her supervisor, Emma Huggins, in Florence, North Carolina. While on the phone my other office suddenly line rang with Michael Fusco of JP Morgan Chase’s press office telling me he would help me get answers. Surprise! Mentioning the media made me finally appear on the bank’s radar. Mr. Fusco, who has alone acted like a gentleman, later sent me the following statement: “We apologize for the delay and are continuing to add staff and invest in technology to better serve our customers. In 2009 alone, we hired 5,300 additional mortgage employees to handle the unprecedented volume generated by the troubled economy and housing market. This year, we offered more than 568,000 mortgage modifications to struggling homeowners, including 83,000 modifications that have already become permanent.” It sounded nice but was belied by my and so many others’ experience. I thought to myself that if I, who work in media and could thereby at least publicly expose some of their practices, could make absolutely no headway against a bank seemingly intent on obstructing any and all refinancing attempts in their desire to take my home, what chance does the average American, whose government has given this bank tens of billions of dollars to assist them with easing their mortgages, have in getting any relief? Apparently none. JP Morgan Chase is too busy paying their executives billions of dollars, all of which were facilitated by assistance they received from the taxes of hard‐working Americans who were going to lose their homes so that these guys could buy a new Ferrari. It amazes me that there’s so little public outrage. Sure, there is plenty of grumbling over the water cooler, but few of these financial giants have been publicly challenged. In addition to everything else mentioned, the government actually pays these banks $1000 for each loan modified. And still they refuse to extend relief, even as they give their employees colossal bonuses. This past June I published an article about why I was forced to file a lawsuit against Bear Stearns, another JP Morgan Chase subsidiary, the investment bank that had looked after my pension plan for many years as it rapidly deteriorated and as I was given barely any time by its chairman and my portfolio manager, Ace Greenberg. When in the course of 2008, the investment dwindled by about 40 percent and I still was given barely any time to discuss my dwindling investments with Greenberg, I decided I had to make a switch. I soon discovered that my new portfolio manager at Bear did his utmost to squeeze every last fee out of me, even as he handed the bulk of my investments over to mutual funds who charged their own fees to manage what he claimed to be doing for me. You might have thought that a bank whose gambling addiction and insatiable appetite for money brought it to the brink of bankruptcy and ended up being sold for what was initially $2 a share would have learned a lesson. But no. Aside from everything I detailed above, I called the office of CEO Jamie Dimon on multiple occasions and sent him a personal letter hoping to get just one of his lieutenants or secretaries to call me back. Not until I mentioned that I had a media platform was I deemed worthy of attention. Don’t get me wrong. Capitalism works and Wall Street has many people of high integrity and sterling reputations for honesty and philanthropy. But where, overall, is the gratitude? At least George Soros was honest enough to say that the billions of dollars of bank bonuses being paid out this year were all gifts from the government, without which so many of these banks would not even be around. Is it too much to ask that these millionaires share just a few of their government‐granted crumbs with the millions of people fighting to keep their homes? Wall Street needs a dramatic overhaul and it is for the Obama Administration, first and foremost, to demand change and reform. Using the term ‘fat‐cats’ is not enough. We don’t need name‐calling but real action. But a President who allows the heads of Goldman Sacks, Citigroup, and Morgan Stanley to disrespect him by missing a meeting (they cited fog) to which they were summoned – when they could easily have gotten into a car or train and shown the elected leader of the American people that they take him seriously – is demonstrating a kids‐glove approach that is weak and ineffective. President Obama may be the leader of the free world but he seems to be in awe of these masters of the universe. The toothlessness of the Obama approach is best captured in the quote Phillis Caldwell, chief of the Treasury Department’s Home Ownership Preservation Office and who oversees the Obama mortgage modification plan, gave to the New York Times after being asked about a lender who refused to modify customers’ mortgages. “If it is reported in The New York Times and someone chooses to audit it, that’s important,” she said. So she punted responsibility for enforcing compliance to the media. It seems as though even the Obama Administration concedes that only the shame of the press, rather than the integrity of the process or the enforcement of government, will work to bring change to the great vacuum in the heart of New York City. Rabbi Shmuley Boteach , a relationships counselor, writer, and broadcaster is the author of many books, his most recent being, “The Blessing of Enough: Rejecting Material Greed, Embracing Spiritual Hunger.” Find him on the web Shmuley.com and follow him on Twitter @RabbiShmuley.

Read the full article →

Kumar Agrees to Waive U.S. Grand Jury Indictment in Galleon Insider Case

December 30, 2009

By Thom Weidlich Dec. 30 (Bloomberg) — Anil Kumar , the former McKinsey & Co. director who is a defendant in the Galleon Group insider- trading case, will be charged by criminal information once he waives his right to be indicted by a federal grand jury. The notice of Kumar’s agreement to waive indictment was signed by his lawyer, Robert Morvillo , and prosecutors from the office of U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara in Manhattan, and filed in his case today, according to Rebekah Carmichael , a spokeswoman for Bharara. She declined to comment further. Morvillo didn’t immediately return a call seeking comment. Prosecutors traditionally charge by information in cases where defendants have agreed to cooperate. Kumar is one of more than a dozen people charged in the Galleon Group hedge-fund insider-trading case. “It’s a good sign that at a minimum they are negotiating some sort of a deal,” said Barry Pollack , a white-collar criminal lawyer at Miller & Chevalier Chartered in Washington, who’s not involved in the case. “It could still fall apart but there wouldn’t be any reason to waive indictment if you were proceeding to trial.” Kumar is accused by federal prosecutors of leaking confidential tips to Galleon founder Raj Rajaratnam , who is also charged in the case. Both deny wrongdoing. Rajaratnam pleaded not guilty Dec. 21. McKinsey said in a statement Dec. 4 that Kumar left the consulting company on Nov. 30. It said it concluded an internal investigation and declined to comment further. The case is U.S. v. Rajaratnam, 09-mag-2306, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York (Manhattan). To contact the reporter on this story: Thom Weidlich in federal court in New York at tweidlich@bloomberg.net .

Read the full article →

Cioffi’s Lawyer Says SEC `Not Likely’ to Settle Suit After Jury Acquittal

December 9, 2009

By Patricia Hurtado Dec. 9 (Bloomberg) — A lawyer for Bear Stearns Cos. hedge fund manager Ralph Cioffi said the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission wasn’t likely to drop or settle its suit after Cioffi and co-defendant Matthew Tannin were acquitted last month. At a hearing today in U.S. District Court in Brooklyn, New York, Edward Little , a lawyer for Cioffi, told a federal magistrate presiding over the civil suit that he’d met with the SEC yesterday to ask the commission to drop it in light of the jury’s verdict. After a monthlong trial, a panel of eight women and four men took only nine hours to find both men not guilty on all six counts. During interviews after the verdict, several jurors said the government failed to prove the defendants defrauded investors who lost $1.6 billion in the two hedge funds run by the men — both of which were mostly made up of subprime mortgage-backed securities. “What are the prospects for a settlement, by now you’ve seen a lot of each other’s evidence?” U.S. Magistrate Judge Viktor Pohorelsky asked. “We had a meeting yesterday and the gist of it is we were imploring the SEC to drop the case in light of the swift jury verdict,” Little told Pohorelsky. “No, that’s not likely, it’s not going to settle and we’re going to trial,” he said. Scapegoats The funds collapsed in 2007, as did Bear Stearns itself less than a year later. The defendants, according to juror Serphaine Stimpson, were made “scapegoats for Wall Street.” Prosecutors missed the mark so widely in the fraud trial that a juror said after the acquittal she would invest with the fund managers if she had the money. Cioffi, 53, the portfolio manager for the two funds, and Tannin, 48, their chief operating officer, went on trial Oct. 13 in federal court in Brooklyn, New York, on charges of conspiracy, securities and wire fraud. Each had faced as many as 20 years in prison if convicted. Their two funds failed when prices for collateralized debt obligations linked to home loans fell amid rising late payments by borrowers with poor credit or heavy debt. Bear Stearns was purchased the next year by New York-based JPMorgan Chase & Co. The government alleged Cioffi and Tannin continued to seek investors in their funds after they learned they were financially unsound. Dispute Little told Pohorelsky that he believed a wire fraud count dismissed by prosecutors because of lack of venue was “duplicative” and he thought that effort to pursue that count in another jurisdiction, such as in Manhattan, where the Bear Stearns funds were located, would constitute “double- jeopardy.” Pohorelsky today asked about a dispute between the SEC and Tannin’s lawyers regarding evidence which the commission sought from him, including computers, hard-drives and e-mails. The SEC said in court papers that it had produced nine million pages of documents while Tannin objected to turning over evidence, if any relevant materials existed, citing Fifth Amendment privilege. The SEC in June filed a motion to compel Tannin for the material. The matter was held in abeyance pending the criminal trial. Chance to Review “I’m really looking at the defense,” Pohorelsky said. “Their set of road blocks was the assertion of privilege, but it appears that has given way, seeing the acquittals? “The motion to compel was held in abeyance pending the criminal trial but it may all be moot now?” the magistrate asked. “We do assert privilege without waiving it,” said Tannin’s lawyer, Nina Beattie . “We just want to review, given the passing of time. We would like to take a good hard look.” John Worland Jr., an SEC lawyer, said he would defer the issue to another commission lawyer, Brian Sano, who he said, “knows more about the case than anyone at the SEC.” “By the end of January we’ll know, your honor,” he said. Pohorelsky directed that the parties return to court on Jan. 27 to discuss the number of witnesses’ depositions which needed to be taken in the civil case, which is being presided over by U.S. District Court Judge Frederic Block , who oversaw the criminal case. Beattie declined comment after court. ‘Zero’ Chance Asked after court his opinion on the likelihood the SEC would settle or drop the case, Little, who is representing Cioffi with another lawyer, Marc Weinstein , said “Zero.” “We told them they should drop the case in light of the quick, definitive verdict and they didn’t say one way or another,” he said. “We’re prepared to go to trial.” Neither Cioffi nor Tannin were in court today. Cioffi managed the two funds that collapsed, and Tannin served as his chief operating officer. The funds, which invested most of their assets in subprime mortgage-related securities, failed in June 2007 when prices for collateralized debt obligations linked to home loans fell amid rising late payments by borrowers with poor credit or heavy debt. The funds, part of Bear Stearns Asset Management Inc., were the Bear Stearns High-Grade Structured Credit Strategies Enhanced Leverage Master Fund Ltd. and the Bear Stearns High- Grade Structured Credit Strategies Master Fund Ltd. The case is SEC v. Cioffi, 08-CV-2457, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Brooklyn). To contact the reporter on this story: Patricia Hurtado in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York in Brooklyn at pathurtado@bloomberg.net .

Read the full article →

ALM Closes Four Regional Real Estate Titles

December 4, 2009

Real Estate Media Group cuts workforce by a third. American Lawyer Media’s Real Estate Media Group has folded its four regional magazines: Real Estate Florida, Real Estate New Jersey, Real Estate

Read the full article →

Ford Loses U.S. High Court Appeal of $55 Million Award for Rollover Crash

November 30, 2009

By Greg Stohr Nov. 30 (Bloomberg) — The U.S. Supreme Court , rejecting corporate calls to restrict punitive damages, turned away Ford Motor Co. ’s appeal of a $55 million award in the case of a woman paralyzed when her Explorer sport utility vehicle rolled over. The rebuff means Ford must pay the largest punitive award ever upheld on appeal in California state court – now $87 million with interest, according to Jerome B. Falk Jr., the lawyer for crash victim Benetta Buell-Wilson and her husband. Ford has already paid more than $30 million in compensatory damages, interest and costs. Ford, the automaker that posted an unexpected $997 million in third-quarter net income on Nov. 2, argued that the vehicle complied with federal standards and that the company had insufficient reason to believe its design decisions might subject it to punitive damages under California law. Ford and other manufacturers “are routinely exposed to massive punitive damage awards without regard to whether they had notice sufficient to allow them to comply with the law and avoid punishment,” the automaker argued in its appeal, which had support from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other business trade groups. Buell-Wilson, then 46, was injured in January 2002 when she swerved to avoid an object on the highway and her 1997 Explorer flipped over 4 1/2 times. Her lawyers argued that the Explorer’s design made it prone to rolling over during common evasive maneuvers and that the vehicle’s roof was too weak to withstand a rollover. Safer Design “The jury and the court of appeals found that Ford has knowingly sold a dangerous and defective vehicle that could have been made safe for a modest amount,” Buell-Wilson’s team told the Supreme Court. The 2004 jury verdict was the first loss at trial in an Explorer rollover case for Ford, which had won 11 previous cases involving the same alleged defects. Ford settled a number of other cases on the eve of trial. The company has faced several hundred Explorer accident suits. A jury awarded Buell-Wilson and her husband $368 million, the largest award ever assessed against the Dearborn, Michigan, company. The trial judge and an appeals court later reduced the amount. The case was making its second trip to the Supreme Court, which in 2007 told the California courts to reconsider the punitive award in light of a ruling the justices had issued three months earlier. The case is Ford v. Buell-Wilson, 09-297. To contact the reporter on this story: Greg Stohr in Washington at gstohr@bloomberg.net .

Read the full article →

Eversheds advises Pennant Walters and HSBC on wind farm – Energy Law

November 29, 2009

- LawFuel.com – Lawyer News – International law firm Eversheds has advised Pennant Walters and HSBC Infrastructure Fund on their joint venture project to construct and operate a wind farm in Maesgwyn, South Wales. The wind farm will consist of 13 wind

Read the full article →

Nomos Fund Manager Lowe Denies He Hired Escorts, Hit Man in Sex-Bias Case

November 17, 2009

By Lindsay Fortado Nov. 18 (Bloomberg) — Nomos Capital Partners Ltd. founder Mark Lowe said he didn’t take escorts on business trips and didn’t hire a hit-man to kill a former employee who is suing him for sexual discrimination. Lowe testified yesterday that he “took exception” to the claims by Jordan Wimmer, who is suing the hedge-fund boss for 4 million pounds ($6.7 million). Lowe told a London employment tribunal that he took girlfriends on trips, not escorts. He admitted to calling Wimmer a “dumb blonde” in front of colleagues, and said he stopped after she complained. Lowe later sent a joke to his staff about a blonde woman who couldn’t tell the difference between corn flakes and a jigsaw puzzle. “I did not for one moment suppose that Jordan or anyone else would take exception to the joke,” said Lowe, 59. “Had I imagined for one minute it would have done harm to her I would not have sent it.” Lowe started his business raising money for European hedge funds including Madrid-based Vega Asset Management, which was once Europe’s largest hedge fund firm and doubled assets in 2004 to $11 billion. Vega, run by Ravinder Mehra , has since contracted after losses and investors redeeming their holdings. Lowe’s Nomos this year renamed the firm NCP Introductions. Wimmer left the firm in February making a salary of 577,000 pounds, and she has testified that Lowe subjected her to insults and harassment, the Daily Mail reported. Wimmer said Lowe regularly took escorts on business trips and she suspected him of hiring a hit man to kill her after leaving Nomos, she testified, according to the Mail. Madrid Trip Wimmer’s claim that Lowe tried to sleep with her during a trip to Milan is also false, the hedge-fund manager testified. On a separate trip to Madrid, after a night of drinking, Lowe tried to “pair up” with one of Wimmer’s colleagues at the Ritz-Carlton hotel and left her to “pair off” with Mehra, her lawyer, Julian Wilson, said. “This is another instance when you were prepared to use the charms of your female employees to suit your business purposes,” Wilson said. “That’s absolutely ridiculous,” Lowe said and denied the allegations. “She was always treated in a gentlemanly way.” During a hedge fund charity event in October 2007, Lowe told other hedge-fund managers that Wimmer was “not smart but creative” and needed to “work more and dress less,” Wilson said. Lowe denied the allegations. ‘Trousers Off’ Sexual jokes that Lowe sent to his staff showed that his “view of women is very much dictated by their bodies,” Wilson said. The jokes he e-mailed to staff included one that featured a photo of a sign that read “Men: no shirt, no service. Women: no shirt, free drinks,” Wilson said. Another asked “Who is your real friend? Put your dog and your girlfriend in the rear boot of your car for an hour and see who still likes you when you open it.” In another, Lowe sent Wimmer and one of her female colleagues a line in Russian and told them to ask someone to translate it. The line meant “after you’ve taken your trousers off, don’t worry about your hair,” Lowe said. “None of these jokes were in the least bit demeaning or provocative,” Lowe said. “These are very mild by comparison to some of the jokes I receive from business associates that I don’t forward.” To contact the reporter for this story: Lindsay Fortado in London at lfortado@bloomberg.net .

Read the full article →

Week 842: Ask backwards

November 6, 2009

Hydroxycut Liver , Cochlear Implants, Denture Cream Zinc, Yaz> > Attorney: Mesothelioma , Lawyer, Cancer from Asbestos, Lung Cancer> > Debt destroying your day?New Debt Wise helps you decrease your debt! > > Create Jobs. Help the Economy.

Read the full article →

Rajaratnam’s Former Colleagues Cooperate, Plead Guilty in Hedge-Fund Case

November 6, 2009

By Katherine Burton and Saijel Kishan Nov. 6 (Bloomberg) — Choo-Beng Lee and Raj Rajaratnam were colleagues almost two decades ago at research firm Needham & Co. Ali Far worked at Rajaratnam’s hedge-fund firm for at least four years. And when Lee and Far opened Spherix Capital LLC in 2007, Rajaratnam invested with them. Now, Lee and Far are cooperating in the investigation that has ensnared themselves, Galleon Group LLC co-founder Rajaratnam and 17 others in the largest insider-trading case involving hedge funds. Lee, 53, and Far, 47, pleaded guilty along with three others, including Roomy Khan , a former Galleon employee in the 1990s who is a key witness, prosecutors said yesterday. “It seems like Lee and Far cooperated in exchange for giving up a bigger fish, whether that is Rajaratnam or someone else,” said Ross Intelisano , a lawyer at New York-based Rich & Intelisano LLP, who isn’t representing anyone in the case. The past connections among Rajaratnam, 52, Khan, 51, Lee and Far make up one piece of a growing web of defendants rounded up by prosecutors who used wiretaps and informants to build their case. Yesterday, the government charged 14 people, including trader Zvi Goffer and lawyer Arthur Cutillo , with using material nonpublic information to make $20 million trading on deals involving firms such as 3Com Corp., a Marlborough, Massachusetts-based maker of computer-networking equipment, and Dallas-based credit-card processor Alliance Data Systems Corp. The arrests came almost three weeks after Rajaratnam was arrested along with five others for allegedly running an insider-trading ring that the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission says netted $33 million. They have all said they are innocent. Market Street Link Also pleading guilty were Steven Fortuna , a managing director at S2 Capital Management LP in New York, and Gautham Shankar , 35, a former trader at Schottenfeld Group LLC. According to the complaint, Far and Lee’s involvement came from trading on inside information allegedly provided by an employee at San Francisco-based Market Street Partners, a consulting firm that did investor relations work for Google Inc., the world’s largest Internet search company. That person, who hasn’t been charged, is Shammara Hussain, according to a person familiar with the matter. Hussain couldn’t be located for comment. Far and Lee also made trades based on inside information allegedly provided by Ali Hariri , a vice president at semiconductor company Santa Clara, California-based Atheros Communications Inc. They made $1.33 million in profit, according to the SEC. The criminal and civil complaints don’t say they traded information directly with Rajaratnam. Shielded From Charges As part of their agreements with authorities, the government said Lee and Far won’t be further prosecuted for any insider trading they may have committed at previous jobs, as long as they have told prosecutors of any such activity. Lawyers for the two men didn’t return calls seeking comment. Lee’s agreement covers actions going back to 1999. Lee worked at Steven Cohen’s SAC Capital Advisors LP from 1999 to 2004. That year he moved to New York-based Stratix Asset Management LP, a firm started by former SAC managers Richard Grodin and Ian Goodman , which closed at the end of 2007. Lee then formed Spherix in San Jose, California, with Far. The firm closed in March 2009. Far’s agreement includes 2003 through 2007, when he worked for New York-based Galleon, and at Spherix. Jonathan Gasthalter , a spokesman for Stamford, Connecticut- based SAC, declined to comment. Fortuna Fortuna, 47, a resident of Westwood, Massachusetts, pleaded guilty to trading on inside information on Akamai Technologies Inc. of Cambridge, Massachusetts, the largest supplier of software and services to make Web sites load faster, and chipmaker Advanced Micro Devices Inc. of Sunnyvale, California. S2 Capital had more than $125 million in assets. Fortuna worked at Stratix for about a year and a half in 2006 and 2007, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. Fortuna’s agreement says he won’t be further prosecuted for any insider trading from 2008 to 2009, as long as he’s disclosed such activity to prosecutors. “Fortuna has pled guilty and accepts responsibility for his conduct,” his lawyer, Richard Schaeffer, said in a telephone interview. Fortuna made $2.4 million on Akamai trades. Shankar, 35, who lives in New Canaan, Connecticut, acted as a tipster to two other people who were arrested yesterday: Goffer and David Plate , who were working with him at New York- based Schottenfeld. Shankar’s lawyer, Frederick Sosinsky, didn’t return a call seeking a comment. Shankar made $284,000 trading on tips on McLean, Virginia-based Hilton Hotels Corp., Google in Mountain, View, California, and Kronos Inc., a Chelmsford, Massachusetts- based software developer. To contact the reporters on this story: Katherine Burton in New York at kburton@bloomberg.net ; Saijel Kishan in New York at skishan@bloomberg.net ;

Read the full article →

Trish Kinney: My Meet the Press Minute

October 21, 2009

It started just like every Sunday morning, watching Meet the Press . I picked it up when David Gregory was getting into the Shriver Report, A Woman’s Nation, with Valerie Jarrett (Chair of the White House Council on Women and Girls) along with Maria Shriver and John Podesta of the Center for American Progress. This was an unexpected and welcome possibility, the second half of Meet the Press devoted to women’s issues. Valerie acknowledged that by thanking David for devoting so much of the program to the topic. However, it didn’t take long for me to take off my woman hat and put on my business owner hat. Once I saw where this seemed to be going, I let out the deep sigh that over the past twenty-eight years has been reserved for the ongoing tangle of complex business issues that balance the privileges of ownership with its responsibilities. It seems that our society is changing in ways we have already been experiencing but now are borne out in real numbers. We are fast approaching a time when women will outnumber men in the work force. Existing labor policies are outdated, according to the study, and reflect a time when breadwinners were predominantly men with a spouse at home. Now in most homes, single parent or otherwise, all available parents are working outside the home. So it is concluded that we need new, family friendly employee benefits such as paid family leave, flexible hours, and employers who are supportive of the complex pressures on working mothers, in particular, because we still seem to be at the point where mothers have more responsibility in the home, no matter if they do make more than their spouses. Maria stated we can all agree that it is best if a parent is home when children get out of school at 3 pm, so flexible hours are in order. If a child is sick, the parent should be allowed paid time off, because no family can afford to give up paid work days to stay home with a sick child. And then there is the need for time off for elder care as well. Let’s flip the coin to the other side for a moment. So many small businesses have lost the battle with the tough economy, and others are hanging on doing the best they can with less income, perpetually rising costs, and increasing pressure from competitors who will do just about anything to wrestle away clients. My company’s staff is lean and dedicated, most with years of longevity in our high stress industry, and I pride myself on being an understanding, fair and loyal employer. We have the standard policies but are always willing to listen to individual requests for time off due to family or personal concerns. But I cannot imagine how we could manage flexible work hours as a policy and still get our jobs done. What do I tell the client who calls at 3:45 PM asking for their manager or accounting contact? “I’m sorry, she has left to pick up her child from school.” Who does the work of the employee who misses 2-5 days because her child is sick and then she gets sick as well? And if I am to be required to pay for those days off, how do I afford to pay whomever does that work during those days? It has been my experience that if you quietly allow one worker “mom” to come in early and leave early each day, you immediately have 5 more who want the same benefit. Obviously everyone can’t work those flexible hours when your business operates on an 8-5 schedule, so now I have a morale problem, or perhaps even a discrimination claim from childless workers who feel they are being penalized by not being offered the same benefit. And if I give the unmarried male worker more responsibility and more pay because he has greater availability and is willing and able to put in the longer hours, I am accused of contributing to the problem of women being discriminated against in the workplace. As a woman business owner, I am sensitive to the challenges of combining motherhood with career. I have done it all my life. We decided that my husband would quit his lawyer job while I built the business so that he could be home with our two young sons. It was tough financially for a long while but we felt the sacrifice was worth it. After our sons left home, my husband joined the business full-time. But I admit that it was frustrating to hear David Gregory get personal and state that this study was about his own life and family. He referred to his wife by name as a prominent trial attorney, suggesting that they both had demanding careers with three children and how challenging that could be. Instantly imagining what a prominent trial attorney and the moderator of NBC’s Meet the Press must make in combined income, I somehow didn’t feel his case was a fair reflection of the social issues being discussed considering they could probably afford a live-in nanny for each child. But I am being asked to accommodate families who, in some cases, choose two parent careers, even though they could afford to live on the income of one of those careers, which in theory could force the family of a small business owner into the necessity of two incomes due to the sheer cost of the requested workplace changes. There are millions of workers employed by small and medium size businesses that are not Chase Bank, for example, that apparently has $3.6 billion in third quarter profits to work with. Perhaps they can afford flexible schedules and paid family sick days. Most of us simply cannot. And while I am being so politically incorrect as to challenge a study urging employers to accommodate the changing needs of women in the workplace, let me also have a go at health care. I don’t have to offer health insurance to my employees, but I want to. I pay 75% of the employee coverage which has now ballooned to well over $300 per employee. It is a huge corporate expense to offer a decent plan to my workers. Annual increases have been staggering over the years but somehow my clients are not all that sympathetic when I ask for contract increases to offset the constantly growing costs. They have their own costs. So every year, the increases have to be absorbed. Nothing would please me more than to offer the benefits recommended in the Shriver Report to all my employees, male and female. But somehow I feel at this point that it would be better to insure they continue to have jobs and not join the nearly 10% of the population who is unemployed. I can do that by remaining competitive, being a fair and decent employer, and caring about them as people. That is the best I can do for now. I sincerely hope that this national conversation will eventually include the rights and challenges of everyone in the workplace, including small business owners who collectively represent a significant portion of our country’s employers and who struggle every day to be good at it.

Read the full article →

Iranian-American Imprisoned for 12 Years Over Iran Election Demonstration

October 20, 2009

By Ali Sheikholeslami Oct. 20 (Bloomberg) — Iranian-U.S. scholar Kian Tajbakhsh was sentenced to a prison term of more than 12 years after being convicted of having a role in disturbances that followed the disputed June 12 presidential election, his lawyer said. Houshang Azhari said he received the court’s ruling on his client yesterday, the state-run Islamic Republic News Agency reported. Tajbakhsh is in “satisfactory” condition, said Azhari, who visited him in prison yesterday. An appeal request will be presented to the court, the lawyer added. Tajbakhsh, who works with the Open Society Institute of George Soros , was arrested July 9. The charges against him included actions against national security, spying and working as a consultant for the Soros organization to design a so-called Velvet Revolution against Iran’s government, IRNA reported. An Iranian court sentenced three men to death for their involvement in the protests that followed President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s re-election, state-run Press TV reported Oct. 11. Some 4,000 protesters were arrested and more than 140 have been tried on charges of attempting to topple the state after Ahmadinejad’s victory was announced. It isn’t clear how many people remain in detention. Defeated candidates Mir Hossein Mousavi and Mehdi Karrubi claimed the election was rigged, spurring days of protests. Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and Ahmadinejad reject allegations of election fraud and accuse Western powers of stirring the unrest. To contact the reporter on this story: Ali Sheikholeslami in London at alis2@bloomberg.net .

Read the full article →