| | Register
Who is Bob O'Brien?
Sanity Check Archive
Click Here to see Bob's Old Sanity Check articles.
About our Blogs

Blogs found on this website represent the opinion of the author. For more information please visit our terms of use.
Funny Bunny
Looking for something a little lighter?
Catch Bob's more irreverent and amusing pieces in his Funny Bunny Blog.

Another Great Article On NSS - From The Farthest Point Possible From NY....

Location: Blogs Bob O'Brien's Sanity Check Blog    
Posted by:   bobo 7/19/2006 2:48 AM

Here's a great article from a Pasadena, California paper on NSS and the recent Senate hearing.

Isn't it funny how coherent, informed and balanced articles appear, not in the big-time pubs with all the so-called pro business and market commentators - usually beholden to Wall Street, and based in NY - but rather in pubs far from the NY power base?

Why is that, do you think?

Could it be that the NY financial press is bought and paid for by the enormously wealthy and powerful special interests on Wall Street?

You know my bet on that.

-----------------------

Is it just me, or are the proposed SEC amendments to Reg SHO disturbing in the extreme, in the sense that they clearly show the pro-Wall Street bent of the Commission, as well as contain numerous loopholes large enough to drive the space shuttle through?

Why would our securities regulators be so obviously interested in ensuring that market makers get preferential treatment for their business, and be so concerned about short squeezes (where short sellers lose money by being on the wrong side of the bet), and yet turn a blind eye to manipulated depressions and bear raids and the imbalance created by affording MMs exceptions and preferential treatment?

When did the regulator become a cheerleader for Wall Street, rather than a protector of the investing public?

The answer is, right around 1934, when they were created.

Wall Street fought any regulation tooth and nail back then, and when the Pecora hearings exposed a system of thievery and larceny so brazen and damaging and pervasive that it shocked and outraged the entire country, lobbied intensively to gut the inevitable creation of a regulator.

They were largely successful.

The charter of the SEC has always been to restore investor confidence in the market, not to ensure that confidence is appropriate. It isn't in the business of creating a level playing field, or protecting investors, or sanctioning miscreant participants in any meaningful way - that is why you don't see them doing so.

Once you understand this, the confusion cloud lifts, and it becomes clear that what we long believed was a regulator to protect the public good, is in fact a regulator to protect the system that enriches Wall Street. Simple. Explains all known data.

We need a special prosecutor to investigate the allegations of Gary Aguirre. Every one of you should write letters to non-Wall Street publications, preferably in Washington, demanding an unbiased, independent prosecutor be named by Congress to explore his charges. If true, they paint a picture of an SEC so badly compromised as to be a farce, and it would be better to remove that entity from the mix and start over than to allow a co-opted group continue to run interference for their Wall Street masters.

Write a short letter to your local paper, and demand a special prosecutor.

If his contentions are correct, the SEC runs cover-ups for Wall Street special interests, based upon their power and wealth. It wouldn't be the first time we've seen that from government, but that doesn't mean we need to tolerate it here.
Copyright ©2006 Bob O'Brien
Permalink  |  Trackback
Comments (40)
Re: Another Great Article On NSS - From The Farthest Point Possible From NY.... By CMElec on 7/19/2006 7:16 AM
EB, the "culture" of Wall Street is such that even though everyone there knows how corrupt it is, no one wants to rock the boat too much because they may be the first overboard. They ARE going down, such a "culture" is too fragile in todays information age to last very long. Keep up your valued work of "turd" exposure and EVERYONE will get the picture clearly soon enough. It's already started and like a snowball rolling down hill it is getting bigger as it travels further.
Stand back and enjoy your efforts now and then, I do.
Re: Another Great Article On NSS - From The Farthest Point Possible From NY.... By Niel Storts on 7/19/2006 8:00 AM
Exactly, it is so much easier for the s.e.c. to mouth platitudes about how well they are controlling abuses thereby fullfilling their mandate of maintaining public confidence then it is to actually DO anything to clean up the cesspool and make the street worthy of confidence. The clowns actually think that calming "fears" of manipulative behavior IS their job. Time to give them a wakeup call. An independent investigator seems to be a good method. The only thing those folks truely understand is that if they don't start proforming their asses will be gone.
Title of Jett's article wrong. By short seller on 7/20/2006 12:06 PM
Bobo, please help attorney Jett. The April suit was not a Securities Fraud suit. It is an anti-trust suit. Therefore not governed by the PSLRA and does not have to prove fraud , scienter.. blah, blah
These are meaningfully lower hurdles to discovery.

Lawsuits accuse `prime brokers' of securities fraud
Re: Another Great Article On NSS - From The Farthest Point Possible From NY.... By gregcable2002 on 7/20/2006 2:51 PM
everyone is accountable to someone,those who don't think they are are in for a great big surprise.
Re: Another Great Article On NSS - From The Farthest Point Possible From NY.... By InTheKnow on 7/20/2006 6:09 PM
sedona case vs. financeers moves to discovery>>>>>>


UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

SEDONA CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
- v - No. 03 Civ. 3120 (LTS)(THK)
LADENBURG THALMANN & CO., INC., gt al.,
Defendants.

LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN, United States District Judge


MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Defendants Amro International, S.A. ("Amro"), Roseworth Group Limited
("Roseworth"), Cambois Finance Inc. ("Cambois"), Rhino Advisors, Inc. ("Rhino"), Thomas Badian
("Badian"), UltraFinanz AG ("UltraFinanz"), and H.U. Bachofen ("Bachofen")(1)'(1 The Court has been informed that Bachofen died on December 5, 2005.
"Suggestion of Death," Docket Entry No. 250.))
(collectively, the
"Amro Settlement Defendants"); Ladenburg Thalmann & Co., Inc. ("Ladenburg"); Dr. Batliner and
Partner, Hans Gassner ("Gassner"), and Dr. Herbert Batliner ("Dr. Batliner") (collectively, the
"Batliner Defendants"); Markham Holdings Limited ("Markham"); Pershing, LLC ("Pershing");
Westminster Securities Corporation ("Westminster"); Wm. V. Frankel & Co., Inc. ("Frankel"); David
Boris ("Boris"); Joseph A. Smith ("Smith"); Thomas Tohn ("Tohn"); and Michael Vasinkevich
("Vasinkevich"), move this Court pursuant to Local Civil Rule 6.3 for reconsideration of the Court's
August 8, 2005, decision (the "Order") granting in part and denying in part their respective motions to
dismiss Plaintiff Sedona Corporation's ("Plaintiff' or "Sedona") First Amended Complaint
("Complaint"). See Sedona Corp. v. Ladenburg Thalmann & Co., Inc., No. 03 Civ. 3120(LTS), 2005
WL 1902780 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 9, 2005). Defendants Vasinkevich, Tohn and Perhing further move,
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(l), to correct perceived mistakes. Plaintiff, by
letter dated May 3 1, 2006, seeks permission to amend its allegations with respect to Defendant
Pershing.

Familiarity with the Court's Order is presumed. The Court has considered thoroughly
the parties' submissions in connection with the instant motions, and will address the merits of each
motion in turn. Capitalized terms have the meanings set forth in the Order unless indicated otherwise
here.


DISCUSSION

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(l) Motions
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(l) provides that, in the event of "mistake,
inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect," the Court may, upon a motion, "relieve a party . . . from
a final judgment [or] order." Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(l). Pursuant to the Rule, a Court may "relieve a
party from the effects of a judgment based on the court's own mistake of fact," as well as a mistake of
law. In re: 3 10 Assocs., 346 F.3d 3 1, 32, 35 (2d Cir. 2003).

Pershing
The "Conclusion" section of the Order incorrectly listed Pershing's motion to dismiss
Sedona's Second claim for relief as "denied." (Order, 50.) As a result, Pershing's motion to dismiss
the civil conspiracy claim against it was also "denied." (See id.) As the Court noted in the Order, the
Complaint is devoid of allegations of scienter as to Defendant Pershing; the Court therefore intended
to dismiss all fraud-based claims for relief as against Pershing. Accordingly, the Order is hereby
amended to the extent that Pershing's motion to dismiss the Complaint is granted, without prejudice,
in its entirety. Pershing's motion for reconsideration is denied as moot. Sedona's letter request, dated
May 3 1, 2006, to amend its allegations against Pershing is granted.

Boris
To the extent Defendants Ladenburg and Boris' motion for reconsideration includes a
motion on behalf of Boris to correct a mistake, such motion is granted. The Court neglected to
include Boris in a list of Defendant representatives as to whom Sedona failed to adequately allege a
strong inference of scienter in connection with its market manipulation claim. (& Order, 29.)
Accordingly, Boris' motion to dismiss Sedona's Second claim for relief is granted. The sole
remaining claim against Boris is for control person liability for Defendant Ladenburg's alleged
fraudulent activity.

Vasinkevich & Tohn
Defendants Vasinkevich and Tohn's motion to correct a mistake is denied.
Vasinkevich and Tohn argue that, in light of the Court's conclusion as to Sedona's claim for market
manipulation against them, the failure to dismiss the First, Fifth and Sixth claims for relief must have
been a mistake. However, as explained on pages 25-27 of the Order, the Complaint specifically
alleges that both Vasinkevich and Tohn knowingly made false statements. Those allegations of
misrepresentations andlor omissions are sufficient to support the scienter elements of the First and
Fifth claims for relief, and provide an underlying substantive basis for the Sixth claim for conspiracy.
Accordingly, the motion to dismiss those claims as against Vasinkevich and Tohn was properly
denied.



Motions for Reconsideration

Motions for reconsideration "are committed to the sound discretion of the district
court." Jordan v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., No. 03 Civ. 41 10(SAS), 2004 WL 1752822, at *2 (S.D.N.Y.
Aug. 4,2004). Reconsideration "is 'an extraordinary remedy to be employed sparingly in the interests
of finality and conservation of scarce judicial resources."' Montanile v. Nat'l Broad. Co., 216 F.
Supp. 2d 341,342 (S.D.N.Y. 2002) (quoting In re Health Mmt. Svs. Inc. Secs. Liti~, 113 F. Supp.
2d 6 13,6 14 (S.D.N.Y. 2000)). Thus, the standard "must be narrowly construed and strictly applied
so as to avoid repetitive arguments on issues that have been considered fully by the Court."
Hoffenberg. v. Hoffman & Pollok, 296 F. Supp. 2d 504, 505 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) (internal quotation
marks omitted).

In the Southern District of New York, motions for reconsideration are governed by
Local Civil Rule 6.3. Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 6.3, the party moving for reconsideration "must
demonstrate controlling law or factual matters put before the court on the underlying motion that the
movant believes the court overlooked and that might reasonably be expected to alter the court's
decision." Montanile, 2 16 F. Supp. 2d at 342. "Alternatively, the [clourt may grant the motion to
correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice." Global View Ltd. Venture Capital v. Great Cent.
Basin Exploration, L.L.C., 288 F. Supp. 2d 482,483 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) (internal citations and quotation
marks omitted).

Vasinkevich, Tohn & Smith(2)
(2 Hereinafter, the "Vasinkevich Defendants.")
The Court denies the Vasinkevich Defendants' motion to reconsider the Court's denial
of their motions to dismiss Sedona's Twelfth claim for relief (relating to control person liability under
!j 20(a) of the Exchange Act). The Vasinkevich Defendants assert that the Court overlooked case law
within this Circuit finding that the "culpable participation" element of a control person liability claim
is well pled only if a plaintiff has alleged scienter with particularity. (Vasinkevich Defs.' Mem. of
Law in Supp. of Mot. for Reconsideration under Local Civil Rule 6.3 ("Vasinkevich Defs.' Mem."),
5-6.) However, "[tlhe issue whether a plaintiff must plead culpable participation to state a claim
under Section 20(a) is one on which courts are divided." In re Bisvs Sec. Litig., No. 04 Civ.
3840(LAK), 2005 WL 3078482 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 16, 2005). While there is case law requiring a
heightened standard of pleading for culpable participation,(3)
(3 See, e.g., In re Yukos Oil Co. Sec. Litig., No. 04 Civ. 5243(WHP), 2006 WL 800736,
at *24 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 30, 2006).)
there is also longstanding support for the
position this Court took in the Order, that Sedona pled adequately control person liability as against
the Vasinkevich Defendants, regardless of whether scienter was alleged. See, e.n., In re Parmalat Sec.
Litig., 375 F. Supp. 2d 278,3 10 (S.D.N.Y. 2005); Neubauer v. Eva-Health USA. Inc., 158 F.R.D.
281,284-85 (S.D.N.Y. 1994).

Further, the Defendants' assertion that, in Suez Eauitv Investors. L.P. v. The Toronto-
Dominion Bank, 250 F.3d 87 (2d Cir. 2001), "the Second Circuit . . . held that control person
allegations must be pled with particularity" is completely unfounded. (Vasinkevich Defs.' Mem., 6.)
While the Suez Court referred to culpable participation in the context of describing control person
liability, the Court did not discuss how the cause of action is to be pled. See Suez, 250 F.3d at 101-
102. Indeed, the Suez Court found the following sufficient to make out a prima facie claim for control
person liability of a defendant bank under Section 20(a): "The complaint alleges that DeRoziere [(the
individual alleged to have disseminated false research information in connection with a transaction)]
was an officer of the Bank and that he had primary responsibility for the dealings of that Bank and the
other corporate defendants with SAM Group [(the investor that was given the false information)]."
Id. at 101 (citation omitted).

Here, Sedona's Complaint includes allegations that the Vasinkevich Defendants "acted
as controlling persons of Ladenburg," "exercised control over the corporate operations of Ladenburg
through each of their power to direct or cause the direction of the management and policies of
Ladenburg," and "had the power and authority to cause Ladenburg to engage in the wrongful conduct
complained of herein and did cause Ladenburg to engage in such acts." (Compl. 7 164.) Sedona also
specifically alleges that Vasinkevich and Smith "held executive officer positions at Ladenburg and,
along with Tohn, held signatory power on behalf of Ladenburg." (Id. 7 49.) These allegations, taken
together with the Complaint's specific allegations of illegal conduct on the part of these Defendants'
alleged controlled entity, Ladenburg, are sufficient to plead a control person liability cause of action at
this stage of the litigation. Accordingly, the Vasinkevich Defendants' motion for reconsideration is
denied.

Ladenburg & Boris
Defendants Ladenburg and Boris(4)
(4 Boris joined Ladenburg in this motion for reconsideration. However, in light of the
Court's granting of Boris' motion to dismiss the market manipulation claim against
him, the Court limits the fraud discussion in this section to Ladenburg.)
request that the Court reconsider its findings in the
Order in connection with Sedona's allegations against them. For the following reasons, the motion is
denied.

Despite Ladenburg's arguments to the contrary, the Court did not overlook Supreme
Court precedent in Central Bank which held that "a private plaintiff may not maintain an aiding and
abetting suit under 6 10(b)" of the Exchange Act. Central Bank of Denver, N.A. v. First Interstate
Bank of Denver. N.A., 5 1 1 U.S. 164, 19 1 (1994). Here, Sedona does not allege that Ladenburg was a
mere aider and abetter, but rather, that it was a direct "participant" in and a "co-creator" of the alleged
fraud. (Compl. 7 68.) For example, Sedona alleges that:

1-"Ladenburg set up Sedona using a 'bait and switch' technique." (a 7 39.) Sedona alleges
that "this activity has been repeated numerous times by Ladenburg and Rhino." 7 42.)

2-"Ladenburg . . . omitted to tell Sedona: a) [it] had prior significant relationships with Rhino
and other defendants herein; b) most if not all of the companies in which Rhino and
Ladenburg (including other investors and clients of Ladenburg and Rhino) had invested or
placed investments have suffered from price declines and illegal naked short selling; [and.] c)
Rhino and other clients of Ladenburg, inclusive of Ladenburg, were known shorters of stock
and manipulators of stock." (Id. 7 52.)

3-"The initial investment coupled with [Ladenburg's] misrepresentation regarding the
commitment to obtain the additional $50 Million of financing was used as a trick to also
mislead the market, thereby spiking the share price up and allowing the manipulators and
participants in the conspiracy to defraud Sedona by illegally manipulating and shorting the
stock of Sedona down from a higher stock price, knowing that the same group of defendants
herein . . . never intended to fund any material part of this $50 Million." (Id. 7 64.)

In connection with the issue of scienter, Sedona has alleged opportunity on the part of
Ladenburg to participate in the alleged scheme. However, Sedona's proffered allegations of
Ladenburg's motive, that is, motive arising from "the structure of the financing agreement" (KJ 7
11 I), are insufficient to support scienter, to the extent that Sedona has not alleged that Ladenburg
would substantially profit from such an agreement. Nonetheless, the Court's prior determination that
Sedona's Complaint contains otherwise adequate allegations of scienter as to Ladenburg stands.

Factual allegations of motive and opportunity are not the only means by which a
securities fraud plaintiff may plead scienter. Allegations of "facts that constitute strong circumstantial
evidence of conscious misbehavior or recklessness" are also sufficient. Rombach v. Chang, 355 F.3d
164, 176 (2d Cir. 2004) (quoting Rothman v. Gregor, 220 F.3d 81,90 (2d Cir. 2000)). Here, Sedona
has alleged strong circumstantial evidence of Ladenburg's conscious misbehavior andlor recklessness
with regard to its alleged fraudulent activity and Ladenburg's connection with the alleged fraudulent
activities of the investors it procured for Sedona. For example, Sedona's allegations that Ladenburg
played a central role in the alleged scheme to defraud Sedona by 1) obtaining investors for Sedona
that Ladenburg knew would likely manipulate Sedona's stock; 2) creating a "bait and switch" scenario
through which Sedona would ultimately be forced to procure its financing solely through Ladenburg's
investors; 3) concealing from Sedona that it had significant prior working relationships with entities
such as Amro and Markham, and that together they had participated in similar schemes in the past;
and 4) misrepresented its investment capabilities as a trick to mislead the market; support a strong
inference that Ladenburg either intended to defraud Sedona, had knowledge of the alleged fraud, or
recklessly disregarded the truth in connection with that fraud. See Cavuto v. Pfizer, Inc., 267 F.3d
18 1, 191 (2d Cir. 2001) (quotation omitted).

Accordingly, the Court continues to find sufficient allegations of scienter against
Ladenburg and denies its motion for reconsideration, to the extent Ladenburg requests reconsideration
of the Court's conclusions as to Sedona's Second and Sixth claims for relief.

In connection with the breach of contract aspect of the motion for reconsideration, the
Court dismissed the claim as insufficiently pled and will grant the motion for reconsideration only to
the extent that it relates to Boris. Boris is correct in asserting that the Complaint does not allege that
Boris intended to bind himself by the terms of the contract or personally failed to perform the
contract. Under New York law, Boris may not be held personally liable for a contract he signed only
in his capacity as an executive officer of Ladenburg. See. ex., Huntington - Int'l Corn. v. Fieldcrest
Cannon. Inc., 1994 WL 282220, at *2 (S.D.1V.Y. June 22, 1994) ("The Second Circuit has held that,
'[a] director is not personally liable for his corporation's contractual breaches unless he assume[s]
personal liability."' (quoting Mills v. Polar Molecular Corn., 12 F.3d 1170, 1177 (2d Cir. 1993)
(alterations in original))); Maranea v. McDonald & T. Corn., 777 N.Y.S.2d 732, 733 (2d Dep't 2004)
("Where a principal of a corporation expressly signs a contract in his or her capacity as an officer of
the corporation, unless he or she purports to personally bind him or herself, he or she will not be held
personally liable under the contract."). Accordingly, Boris' motion to dismiss the breach of contract
claim is granted, with prejudice.

Sedona has alleged sufficiently control person liability against Boris, the Executive
Vice President of Ladenburg, for the reasons stated in the Section of this Order discussing control
person liability of Vasinkevich, Tohn, and Smith. Accordingly, the motion for reconsideration is
denied, to the extent it relates to Sedona's Twelfth claim for relief as against Boris.

Markham & Hassan
Defendants Markham and Hassan's motion for reconsideration fails to identify any
factual or legal matters that the Court may have overlooked in reaching the determinations detailed in
the Order. The only controlling authority cited in their motion papers, Schreiber v. Burlinnton N.,
Inc 472 U.S. 1 (1 985), relates to Plaintiffs Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 market manipulation claim. .,
After a thorough analysis of the legislative history and intent underlying 5 14(e) of the Securities
Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. 5 78n(e), the Schreiber Court held that "the term 'manipulative' as used in 5
14(e) requires misrepresentation or nondisclosure." 472 U.S. at 12. While that limited holding
imposed no such requirement on market manipulation claims brought under 5 10(b) and Rule 10b-5,
the Schreiber Court noted that the Court has "interpreted 'manipulative' in [the context of tj 10(b)] to
require misrepresentation." Id. at 8 (citing Santa Fe Indus.. Inc. v. Green, 430 U.S. 462,476-77
(1 977); Piper v. Chris-Craft Indus., Inc., 430 U.S. 1,43 (1977); Ernst & Ernst v. Hochfelder, 425 U.S.
185, 199 (1976)).

Here, although Sedona has not alleged adequately misrepresentation against Markham,
its Section 10(b) and Rule lob-5 market manipulation claim is nonetheless supported by the
allegations of deception contained in the Complaint. See. e.g., Santa Fe Indus., 430 U.S. at 471
("Section 10(b) . . . makes it 'unlawful . . . to use or employ. . . any manipulative or deceptive device
. . .'; Rule lob-5 . . . prohibits, in addition to nondisclosure and misrepresentation, any 'artifice to
defraud' or any act 'which operates or would operate as a fraud or deceit."') (citations omitted). The
Complaint alleges that Markham is an "active practitioner[] of stock manipulation and stock fraud,"
and suggests a history of deceptive practices by listing six separate companies having "significantly
declining stock prices after receiving investments andlor financing" from Markham, in a manner
similar to the alleged experience of Sedona. (Compl. 11 33,43.) Sedona further alleges that
Markham was a part of the conspiracy to defraud Sedona as a preferred Series G holder that later
submitted conversion notices, which Sedona paid "in the hope that the stock manipulation would stop
and this raid on Sedona, intentionally inflicted by the defendants herein in a massive conspiracy . . .,
would cease." (Id. 1 70.)

With regard to Sedona's claim for control liability against Hassan, the Court refers
Hassan to the aforementioned analysis of that claim in connection with the Vasinkevich Defendants'
motion for reconsideration. Accordingly, Defendants Markham and Hassan's motion for
reconsideration is denied in its entirety.

Amro Settlement Defendants(5)
(5 This group of Defendants also includes the Batliner Defendants, as they are affiliated
with Roseworth and Cambois.)
The Amro Settlement Defendants move the Court to reconsider the Order to the extent
the Court found that Sedona may be able to void releases contained in a settlement agreement to
which the Amro Settlement Defendants are signatories. The Amro Settlement Defendants' motion for
reconsideration presents the Court with no authority, with regard to the issue of repudiation, that the
Court did not consider in determining the original motion to dismiss, and does not warrant
reconsideration of the Court's holdings in the Order to that extent.

However, to the extent the motion for reconsideration is premised upon the principle
that Sedona's acceptance of consideration precludes Sedona from asserting that the releases were
invalid, the motion is granted. Under New York law, a party repudiating a release due to fraud must
choose one of the following three options: "(1) he may return the consideration paid for the release,
thereby rescinding the transaction; (2) he may sue for a reascission [sic] and offer to return the
consideration; or (3) he may retain the consideration and sue at law for his damages." Inman v.
Merchants Mut. Cas. Co., 74 N.Y.S.2d 87, 89 (Sup. Ct. 1947) (citations omitted). Here, Sedona
argues in its brief that it is pursuing the third option, and is accordingly seeking damages in the instant
litigation in connection with alleged fraud and duress relating to the execution of the releases.
However, the Complaint on its face fails to assert such a claim for such damages. Accordingly, in
light of Sedona's references in its Complaint to the releases, its apparent validation of the releases
through its acceptance of consideration and the lack of any assertion of a cognizable cause of action
for damages in the Complaint, the Court grants the Amro Settlement Defendants' motion to dismiss,
on the basis of the releases, all of the claims asserted against them in the Complaint. & Order, 14
(" [l'lhe terms of the Release cover Sedona' s current claims. ") .)

Sedona is hereby granted leave to replead a cause of action for damages arising from
the releases and to clarify its claims and efforts, if any, regarding rescission, without prejudice to the
Amro Settlement Defendants' right to argue laches. However, such leave is not granted in connection
with any such claims against Defendants Bachofen, UltraFinanz, and the Batliner Defendants, over
whom the Court does not have personal jurisdiction (see infra).

Westminster & Frankel(6)
(6 Frankel sent the following missive to the Court: "On behalf of Wm. V. Frankel, we
respectfully request that to the extent reconsideration is granted any of the
codefendants and the issues for Frankel are the same (particularly with respect to the
issues raised by defendant Westminster Securities, another broker dealer), the [Clourt
reconsider its decision with respect to Frankel as well." (a Docket Entry No. 225).)
Westminster and Frankel request that the Court reconsider its denial of their motions
to dismiss Sedona's Second and Sixth causes of action against them. The request is denied. Even if,
as Westminster argues, the warrants it received from Roseworth were not adequate to support an
inference of motive, that is not the only basis upon which scienter may be alleged. Sedona has
provided sufficient allegations of strong circumstantial evidence that Westminster consciously
misbehaved or was reckless in connection with the alleged manipulation of Sedona's stock. Sedona
alleges that Westminster, "[d.]uring the time frame under the SEC Complaint, . . . traded over
1,800,000 Sedona shares as a non-reporting market maker.'' (Compl. 7 98.) Sedona also alleges that
Westminster "illegally converted short positions into false long positions, was responsible for stacking
bids andlor offers in an effort to manipulate the stock up or down, and likewise was responsible for
the manipulation of Sedona's stock herein." (Id. 7 99; see also id. 7 1 16.)

Further, to the extent that Westminster's motion papers may be construed as arguing
that the Court overlooked controlling law as to broker-dealers defending 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 claims
asserted against them, that argument also fails. The only case Westminster cites in this connection is
ATSI Commc'ns, Inc. v. The Shaar Fund. Ltd., 357 F. Supp. 2d 712 (S.D.N.Y. 2005). Westminster's
reliance on ATSI is misplaced. The ATSI Court made clear that the plaintiff in that case had made
only three allegations against the broker-dealer defendant: (1) "it 'was the principal declared market
maker in ATSI stock;"' (2) "'any manipulation which took place would have involved [defendant
representative], who knew or should have known' about the manipulation;" and (3) "it 'was a
cooperating broker-dealer with the defendants,"' ATSI, 357 F. Supp. 2d at 720 (quoting ATSI
Compl. 77 220-22), and that those allegations were "far too conclusory to past [sic] muster under Rule
9(b)." Id. The findings by the ATSI Court, particularly when compared to the allegations against
Westminster made by Plaintiffs herein, do not rise to the level of new or contrary controlling law.

Accordingly, Westminster's (and Frankel's) motions for reconsideration are denied.

The Batliner Defendants & The UltraFinanz Defendants
The Batliner Defendants, Bachofen and UltraFinanz (collectively, "BBU") note
accurately that the Court did not address their argument that the Complaint fails to allege that, as
foreign nationals, BBU have sufficient contacts with the United States to support this Court's exercise
of jurisdiction over them. The Court declines Sedona's request for permission to brief further this
issue and will decide this aspect of the BBU's motion to dismiss on the original, fully briefed, papers.
For the following reasons, the BBU's motion to dismiss the Complaint is granted to the extent the
motion requests dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction.

In determining a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, "a court may look
to evidence outside the pleadings." Seaweed. Inc. v. DMA Product & Design & Marketing LLC; 2 19
F. Supp. 2d 551, 554 (S.D.N.Y. 2002) (citing CutCo Indus., Inc., v. Naughton, 806 F.2d 361, 364 (2d
Cir. 1986)). Here, because BBU are challenging jurisdiction prior to discovery, Sedona "need make
only a prima facie showing by [its] pleadings and affidavits that jurisdiction exists." Teachers' Ret.
Svs. of Louisiana v. A.C.L.N., Ltd., No. 01 Civ. 1 1814(MP), 2003 WL 21058090, at *7 (S.D.N.Y.
May 15,2003). The Court will construe Sedona's proffers in the light most favorable to Sedona,
while resolving all doubts in its favor.

"[Tlhe Securities Exchange Act permits the exercise of personal jurisdiction to the
limit of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment." SEC v. Unifund SAL, 910 F.2d 1028,
1033 (2d Cir. 1990) (citations omitted). The Court may exercise personal jurisdiction "over a
defendant whose 'conduct and connection with the forum State are such that he should reasonably
anticipate being haled into court there. "' Id. (quoting World-Wide Volkswaaen Corp. v. Woodson,
444 U.S. 286, 297 (1980)). Here, the relevant "forum state" is the entire United States. See United
States v. Dowty Woodville Polymer, Ltd., 976 F. Supp. 207, 210 (S.D.N.Y. 1997) ("Where, as here,
there is a federal statute that permits worldwide service of process, the relevant inquiry is whether the
defendants have minimum contacts with the United States as a whole." (citations omitted)). The
Court may also consider whether the defendant's actions "have 'caused consequences' in the forum
state, [tlhough not every causal connection between action abroad and ultimate injury to American
investors will suffice." Unifund SAL, 910 F.2d at 1033 (citations omitted). Rather, Sedona must
show that BBU knew or should have known that their actions would have a causal effect in the United
States, such that they would be amenable to this Court's jurisdiction. See, ex., Landrv v. Price
Waterhouse Chartered Accountants, 715 F. Supp. 98, 101 (S.D.N.Y. 1989).

Here, Sedona has not made a prima facie showing that BBU's contacts with the United
States are sufficient to support the Court's assertion of jurisdiction over them with respect to
Plaintiffs claims. Plaintiff has proffered no basis for the exercise of personal jurisdiction over BBU,
other than generalized allegations in the Complaint of conspiracy to defraud Sedona, a United States
company, and a series of control relationships documented by various SEC filings. While Sedona
does allege a conspiracy between BBU and Defendants over whom the Court has personal
jurisdiction, in general "the rule in this circuit is that the mere presence of one conspirator . . . does
not confer personal jurisdiction over another alleged conspirator." Leasco Data Processina Equip.
Corp. v. Maxwell, 468 F.2d 1326, 1343 (2d Cir. 1972) (citations omitted).

Grant of the motion with respect to Defendants Bachofen, Dr. Batliner, and Gassner,
individuals alleged to have participated in the fraud perpetrated against Sedona by virtue of their
corporate positions, is additionally appropriate because "[ilf an individual is sued in his individual
capacity, but only had contact with [the forum] as an officer of a corporation acting within the scope
of his employment, that individual is not subject to personal jurisdiction . . . ." Seaweed, 219 F. Supp.
2d at 554 (citing Kreutter v. McFadden Oil Con)., 71 N.Y.2d 460,467-68 (N.Y. 1988)). Sedona
would have the Court compare favorably the instant action with the situation in SEC v. Unifund SAL,
where the Second Circuit held foreign defendants accused of insider trading subject to personal
jurisdiction in the United States for involvement in activity having a direct and foreseeable effect on
shareholders of a United States corporation. 91 0 F.2d 1028, 1033 (2d Cir. 1990). However, the
Unifund Court cautioned that "[nlot every securities law violation involving shares of a United States
corporation will have the requisite effect within the United States," and went on to distinguish the
particularly egregious consequences of insider trading. Here, while Sedona is a United States
corporation with American shareholders, unlike the plaintiff in Unifund, Sedona has not alleged
sufficiently direct liability for the alleged stock fraud as to BBU. Indeed, the Court determined in the
Order that the Complaint stated only one viable claim for relief against BBU - control person liability
for the alleged fraudulent conduct of their controlled entities. Even more tenuous, in the context of
personal jurisdiction, are the relationships between Gassner and his alleged controlling entities, Dr.
Batliner, and Dr. Batliner & Partner; and between Bachofen and his alleged controlling entity,
UltraFinanz. Thus, Sedona's allegations that, in their corporate capacities, (1) Gassner signed the
Stock Purchase Agreement, in Liechtenstein, under which Roseworth and Cambois bought
Sedona's common stock and warrants, and (2) Bachofen signed, in Switzerland, documents on
behalf of Amro in connection with Sedona, are wholly insufficient to support in personam
jurisdiction in light of relevant due process standards. It cannot be said that such activity would
have caused this group of Defendants to reasonably anticipate being haled into court here.

Accordingly, the Court finds that Sedona has failed to sustain its burden with respect
to the exercise of personal jurisdiction over BBU and the action is dismissed for lack of personal
jurisdiction as against Defendants Bachofen, UltraFinanz, Gassner, Dr. Batliner and Dr. Batliner &
Partner. Plaintiffs request for limited discovery on jurisdictional issues is denied.


Sedona's Request
To the extent Sedona's August 16, 2005, letter to the Court requests further clarification of the Order, the Court clarifies the decision as follows: (1) Defendant Pershing's motion to dismiss is granted in its entirety, without prejudice, and Sedona has leave to replead; (2)
the motions to dismiss the Fourth claim for relief under Pennsylvania law are granted as to all
Defendants who so moved; and (3) Plaintiff has 30 days from the date of this Memorandum
Opinion and Order to amend its Complaint.


CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, this Memorandum Opinion and Order resolves the
motions referenced in the docket as numbers 2 13,2 1 5,2 16,2 18, and 220, as follows: Defendant
Pershing's motion to correct a mistake is granted and Defendants Vasinkevich and Tohn's motion to
correct a mistake is denied. Defendants Pershing, the Vasinkevich Defendants, Markharn, Hassan
and Westminster's motions for reconsideration are denied. Defendants Boris and Ladenburg's
motion for reconsideration is granted in part and denied in part. The Arnro Settlement Defendants'
motions for reconsideration are granted, and the Complaint is accordingly dismissed as against
Defendants Amro, Roseworth, Cambois, Rhino, Badian, Gassner, Dr. Batliner and Partner, Dr.
Batliner, UltraFinanz and Bachofen, pursuant to the releases. Plaintiff may replead to seek to assert
a cause of action for damages arising from the releases, except as to the following Defendants,
against whom the Complaint is dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction: Defendants Bachofen,
UltraFinanz, Gassner, Dr. Batliner and Dr. Batliner & Partner. Any amended complaint must be
served and filed within 30 days from the date hereof.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: New York, New York
July 18,2006

TAYLOR SWAIN w United States District Judge
VERSION 711 8/06
ReHeads UP from SI By System Stalker on 7/20/2006 6:41 PM
Bob, I've sent a link to my Blog to your admin. I have been writing on these issues for many years using portfolios I develop to track bad system behavior.
link follows
http://www.siliconinvestor.com/subject.aspx?subjectid=52966
Re: Another Great Article On NSS - From The Farthest Point Possible From NY.... By hemingway811 on 7/21/2006 4:24 AM
Link to read comment letters posted at the SEC’s website:

http://www.sec.gov/comments/s7-12-06/s71206.shtml

Link to submit a comment letter:

http://www.sec.gov/cgi-bin/ruling-comments?ruling=s71206&rule_path=/rules/proposed/s71206&file_num=S7-12-06&action=Show_Form&title=Amendments%20to%20Regulation%20SHO

For those of you who may have missed out on reading Wayne’s letter, posted on the NFI board at InvestorVillage.com, here it is:

From: Wayne Jett
Sent: July 18, 2005
To: rule-comments@sec.gov
Subject: File No. S7-12-06


Securities & Exchange Commission
Dear Mr. Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen:
The central objective your amendments of Reg SHO must achieve is to assure that every buyer of corporate equities in U. S. markets must actually receive the shares purchased upon delivery and clearing of funds. Otherwise, the buyer will be fraudulently deceived, since no buyer is informed whether any seller is selling short rather than long.
Unless you achieve this objective, which Reg SHO does not presently satisfy, U. S. markets will remain unfair, deceptive and opaque. No participant in the trading system, whether a broker, market maker, investment bank or hedge fund, has an interest of any nature that can possibly justify clearing funds of a buyer to a seller who has not delivered actual shares which are the subject of the transaction.
If any arrangements relating to lending shares for purposes of short sale are to be permitted at all, those arrangements must affect only the lender and the borrower of the shares - NOT the buyer of the shares. Presently, that is not the case. Reg SHO as it exists allows a buyer to have his/her funds taken in exchange for nothing except electronic entry of numbers in his/her brokerage account; in the words of DTCC, the buyer gets an "entitlement" for the funds paid (to the complete surprise of any buyer). This is deceptive, and gives the buyer a substantively different asset than that which the buyer believed was being purchased.
That "entitlement" is, at most, a set of legal rights to pursue litigation against one or more parties, and its value depends upon efficacy of laws and financial viability of brokers and other parties other than the corporate business value of the shares intended to be bought. Such a circumstance makes analysis of the value of share purchases unviable, and "entitlement" purchases for fiduciaries such as pension plan trustees inappropriate.
Please review closely the factual allegations set forth in the complaints filed in the cases of Quark Fund LLC v. Banc of America, etc., et al., USDC-SDNY, Case No. 06 CV 3933, and Electronic Trading Group LLC v. Banc of America, etc., et al., USDC-SDNY Case No. 06 CV 2859. Each complaint alleges that the eleven largest prime brokers in the U. S. markets have conspired to fail to deliver all shares sold short by all hedge fund clients of those prime brokers. Each prime broker allegedly was contractually obligated to lend and deliver the shares sold short, and charged large fees for doing so, yet uniformly and consistently failed to deliver such shares. The allegations cover all such short sale transactions by hedge funds since April 12, 2000. No statement is made regarding the present status of those short sale transactions, but the potential number of shares sold without delivery is alarmingly high.
Please do what is clearly right and necessary to remove this blot on the integrity of U. S. markets immediately. Naked short selling, or concerted failures to deliver shares sold, ought to be eliminated from our markets entirely.
Wayne Jett
Managing Principal and Chief Economist
Classical Capital LLC
626-793-9614
Re: Another Great Article On NSS - From The Farthest Point Possible From NY.... By hemingway811 on 7/21/2006 5:06 AM
friendofthedevil,

This is from an e-mail I received from Wayne regarding the Roundtable that was cancelled:

"I was notified this afternoon that CFALA will not reschedule the June 6 event unless DTCC/NASD/SEC decide they would like to participate."

Sent June 20, 2006.
Re: Another Great Article On NSS - From The Farthest Point Possible From NY.... By hemingway811 on 7/21/2006 5:35 AM
You can set up a link (shortcut) to thesanitycheck.com by using InvestorVillage's "Add a Link" tool found at the top of the messages page.

http://www.thesanitycheck.com/Home/tabid/36/Default.aspx
Re: Another Great Article On NSS - From The Farthest Point Possible From NY.... By clearthinker on 7/21/2006 7:38 AM
CNBC should be VIGOROUSLY called to task for their coverage (lack of) and the bias i the naked shorting, FTD, etc... scandal. When the Judiciary Committee met and Aguirre testified, they yawned....

Yawn this....
Re: Another Great Article On NSS - From The Farthest Point Possible From NY.... By cynabear on 7/21/2006 10:36 AM
I loved this line......

The Senate Banking Committee appears reluctant to remedy risks to investors arising from millions of "phantom" shares sold but not delivered.

ahhhhhhh how great........the senate banking committee is reluctant.....a real for the people, by the people kind of committee.......

now where did i put that old guillotine i had around.........hmmmmmmmmm
and while i am looking around
where did the americans in politics with values, moral and ethics go?
clearly not to Washington....
*** Pisonya *** By InTheKnow on 7/21/2006 11:54 AM
In Russian pisonya means I Love You!
Again...

The SEC, The Senate Banking Committee and the DTCC would rather PISS on individual investor then to help them. Pisonya!
Re: Another Great Article On NSS - From The Farthest Point Possible From NY.... By friendofthedevil on 7/21/2006 11:55 AM
Thanks Hemingway811. Your mssg is easy to miss as the order of posts is mixed up.

Somewhat OT: the SEC will now interview Mack while vigorously denying Aguirre's charges. I'd love to know the strength of the evidence against him (and them).

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB115349427593413650.html?mod=home_whats_news_us
*** Pisonya *** By InTheKnow on 7/21/2006 11:58 AM
Pisonya Pisonya Pisonya
In Russian it means I love you!
If I had my way I'd Piss On Ya all day!
Pisonya Pisonya Pisonya

Just like the SEC does!
Re: Another Great Article On NSS - From The Farthest Point Possible From NY.... By Little Bo peep on 7/21/2006 12:58 PM
Does Mr John Mack know these dudes?

Barclays Global Investors UK Holdings Ltd
Re: Another Great Article On NSS - From The Farthest Point Possible From NY.... By Little Bo peep on 7/22/2006 4:23 PM
The New York Stock exchange should serve the public interest right?

Is the "Big Board" governed for and by a small group of specialist, members, regional brokerages and listed companies?
Is the interest for huge financial conglomerates? Should it be?

Would the exchange open up its books? Is it transparent? Should it be?

Should the management and governance structure be public, as well as the revenues and earnings? Should it be a secret? Can the American public demand the lights be turned on or are we just to dumb to vote?

Can we the people demand the boys and girls serve the investing public's
interest before those of the financial industry?

Can someone post
(12 slots)Public Directors
(12 slots) Securities Industry
(3 slots) Exchange Officers
and their position/present and former companies?

My sheep and I are not to smart and almost homeless. We wonder how we could get a job to make the nickels this dude made.

Thank you for your help in this matter.

10-May-06
FORD, WILLIAM E.
Director
2,100,230
Indirect
Private Sale at $60.27 per share.
$126,580,862
Re: Another Great Article On NSS - From The Farthest Point Possible From NY.... By clearthinker on 7/19/2006 8:14 AM
I think there are many in positions of power that can see how the S.E.C. has been acting and are not happy about it...the Aguirre allegations are HUGE and underscore the way that some at the SEC and also the DTC display contempt for anyone in the wya of their agenda....

CLEAN UP X CLEARING, NOW!
Re: Another Great Article On NSS - From The Farthest Point Possible From NY.... By Bobo on 7/19/2006 8:17 AM
Just an observation. The new message boards at InvestorVillage.com are becoming wildly popular, as they essentially shut down the ability of bashers to clog the threads. I'd advise everyone to go check them out (the NFI board is especially good) and then propagate the site to whatever other boards you are members of. It's free, fast, and basher-free, and shows just how large Yahoo is in continuing a format that allows bashers to clog the threads.

The bashers, of course, hate it. Go look at the OSTK Yahoo board for an example of one guy with two or three IDs talking to himself now. Paid? You be the judge, but why else would bashers continue to post drivel when nobody is reading it, and yet won't make the leap to the new Investorvillage boards?

Funny.
Re: Another Great Article On NSS - From The Farthest Point Possible From NY.... By harryofanguslane on 7/19/2006 8:28 AM
Note that this wonderful article is authored by a Wayne Jett. " Wayne Jett is managing principal and chief economist of Classical Capital LLC, a registered investment adviser in Pasadena. E-mail: wjett626@charter.net."

Might he not be interested in the NFI goings on?
Re: Another Great Article On NSS - From The Farthest Point Possible From NY.... By majordanger on 7/19/2006 8:39 AM
I've been telling ya, geography plays a big part in this Financial press. Look way out west at the Calif lawsuits and the Utah laws.

These 'writers' need to get out more often or at least different lunch buddies.

But thanks to all participatingin flipping the rock over, including you Bobo, I thinks some $23 martinis are about to be sprayed on a NY sidewalk when that subpoena comes with the lunch check.

Just email your local editor and suggest they google "Gary Aguirre" if they need to fill some columns.
Re: Another Great Article On NSS - From The Farthest Point Possible From NY.... By friendofthedevil on 7/19/2006 8:52 AM
Wayne Jett seems like someone with more than a passing interest in NSS. I recall he was listed as the moderator or sponsor of the June CFP Assoc meeting in L.A. that got "postponed." Speaking of, can anyone provide some follow-up on that? A week before the event I wrote a letter to business writer David Lazarus of the SF Chronicle suggesting he go. He did not answer me...
Re: Another Great Article On NSS - From The Farthest Point Possible From NY.... By Tanya on 7/19/2006 8:54 AM
Everyone should watch this 14 minute video. I verified everything I could, and NONE of it is false, so all 100% correct unless someone here can come up with something. Keep an open mine. Explains a lot.

http://www.fromfreedomtofascism.com/14min_trailer_box.html
Re: Another Great Article On NSS - From The Farthest Point Possible From NY.... By davidn on 7/19/2006 9:51 AM
Bobo, why don't you ask the investorvillage guys for a free link to this site? It's in the best interest of their community to understand the problem.

We can all drive traffic to them and they can drive traffic back to us.

Maybe they could even put a one paragraph blurb on what "naked selling" is on their front page.

(How it skews the market in a downward bias as "naked buying" isn't allowed creating a mismatch between supply and demand)

(BTW: I signed up and agree with Bobo - it's way better than Yahoo or RB)
Re: Another Great Article On NSS - From The Farthest Point Possible From NY.... By rtway1 on 7/19/2006 10:43 AM
One thing is becoming more apparent every day. The elephant in the room is now for real and getting bigger. Remember when it was all a delusion and pipe dreams. Life is getting better everyday because truth is overcoming lies. I stopped at that Yahoo board and it looked like a abandoned ghetto and certainly befitting of those who dwell there.
Re: Another Great Article On NSS - From The Farthest Point Possible From NY.... By anon on 7/19/2006 10:52 AM
Journalism Complaints

http://tinyurl.com/oavu6
Re: Another Great Article On NSS - From The Farthest Point Possible From NY.... By InTheKnow on 7/19/2006 1:28 PM
The SEC would rather piss on all you indivdual investors than to help you!
Re: Another Great Article On NSS - From The Farthest Point Possible From NY.... By davidn on 7/19/2006 3:35 PM
Another "naked selling" article that talks about the values of short selling as if that has anything to do with counterfeiting shares.

http://www.newhousenews.com/archive/saitz071906.html

Our friend David Rocker is referenced.
Re: Another Great Article On NSS - From The Farthest Point Possible From NY.... By gregcable2002 on 7/19/2006 4:52 PM
A second grader could understand that article,plain and simple,I'm pushing for jail time,these crooks are now openly robbing us blind with the blessing from a few well placed crooks within the sec.
Re: Another Great Article On NSS - From The Farthest Point Possible From NY.... By tbs_theman on 7/19/2006 6:13 PM
WOW!! That's a fantastic article!

I found this part to be quite damning: "Aguirre told Specter that a high-powered attorney for Morgan Stanley went over his head in seeking SEC clearance of John Mack. That attorney was Mary Jo White, who served as U.S. Attorney in the Southern District of New York during the Clinton administration.

As U.S. Attorney, White was responsible for investigating Clinton's pardons of felons, including tax evader Marc Rich, at the end of his second term as president. White closed those investigations without indictments. "

Someone else is on to something....
Re: Another Great Article On NSS - From The Farthest Point Possible From NY.... By bobo on 7/19/2006 8:06 PM
This isn't party specific. This is crook specific, and they are equal opportunity donators/buyers.
Re: Another Great Article On NSS - From The Farthest Point Possible From NY.... By anon on 7/19/2006 10:16 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Carlyle_Group

They all drink from the same trough.
Re: Another Great Article On NSS - From The Farthest Point Possible From NY.... By gregcable2002 on 7/20/2006 4:22 AM
If you can't buy a politician you find out what they have hidden in their closet and use it to your advantage,once a politician takes money,any money from folks with wrong motives they tend ( The crooks) on using that info for blackmail purposes.Do we think congressmen and senators are beholden to these types? Could that be why this is taking so long when it's so blantant? We live in the info age now so the crooks are no longer permitted to operate under cover and we're fed up with this looting of our companies through the stock market.The revolution has begun so you thieves out there who read this blog,your days are numbered.
Re: Another Great Article On NSS - From The Farthest Point Possible From NY.... By MellowYellow on 7/20/2006 4:43 AM
Follow the yellowbrick road.

It's easy to find the naked shorters... all they have to do is follow the yellow brick road. Follow the paper trail, the sell tickets, and they will find the naked shorters!

They can easily find them by looking at the sell tickets.
Re: Another Great Article On NSS - From The Farthest Point Possible From NY.... By Little Bo peep on 7/20/2006 5:05 AM
They will need to get an additional 20 gig hard drive to store all the spread sheets that list the carlyle group naked shorts. How much space would that list take up to print in the newspaper?

The LIGHTS are getting BRIGHT.
Re: Another Great Article On NSS - From The Farthest Point Possible From NY.... By browntrout on 7/20/2006 5:24 AM
Little Bo peep- Any public sources of info about the carlyle group being involved in naked shorting? Links etc?
Re: Another Great Article On NSS - From The Farthest Point Possible From NY.... By browntrout on 7/20/2006 5:58 AM
tbs_theman - Even more interesting is who ended up going to work with a cush job at the SEC after Mary Jo White went over Aguirre's head. Mary Jo's husband! Coinkydink? http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2006/05/19/the-secs-revolving-door-2/
Re: Another Great Article On NSS - From The Farthest Point Possible From NY.... By Little Bo peep on 7/20/2006 6:11 AM
The list is LONG, but this might be a good starting point.

Just follow the yellow brick road. As MellowYellow said.
Hold the salt on the fries and give me lots of ketchup please!

The Carlyle Group
Mitsui & Co. Ltd
Kohlberg Kravis Roberts
RBS PARTNERS, L.P.
The Blackstone Group
Re: Another Great Article On NSS - From The Farthest Point Possible From NY.... By Little Bo peep on 7/20/2006 8:26 AM
A couple more of interest might be...

Zeus Holdings Limited
Apax Partners
Apollo Management
Madison Dearborn Partners
Permira
Re: Another Great Article On NSS - From The Farthest Point Possible From NY.... By Pinkice on 7/20/2006 10:54 AM
Hysterical that CNBC is focusing on the SEC going after the companies backdating of options - lets show the world "we the SEC" are protecting the retail investor by going after the companies backdating options while at the same time letting the MM/hedgies/tutes steal the retail investor blind. what a farce!!!

SEC you cannot hide behind the curtains anymore by trying to throw the spotlight on the backdating of options. We, Main Street America are tired of having our money stolen by the MM/hedgies/tutes via the FTD and Naked Selling issues. MM should have no right to sell an unlimited supply of stock. We, Main Street America demand accountability of shares, specifically outstanding shares vs. legal short sellings vs. naked selling. Option makers have no right to sell and unlimited supply of stock.

Main Street America wants, no demands, Wall Street be brought to justice. Wall Street/New York finanical news no longer has an impact on trying to influence the rest of America as to what is really going on in the markets. New York financial news has completely lost its grip. All IMHO.
Re: Another Great Article On NSS - From The Farthest Point Possible From NY.... By davidn on 7/20/2006 10:55 AM
Little Bo, are you talking in code? Is there common ownership control among some of these funds?

Your name:
Title:
Comment:
Please limit your comments to 500 characters. For longer comments, use our forums.