This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Corzined Marvell Muppets Sue Vampire Squid
Pay close attention because this could be a record-breaking amount of mauling ever attempted by the colossus of client care as Goldman shows it does not discriminate between millionaire and billionaire Muppets. In a bizarre story in CNN Money, we are told that two billionaire 'married' executives of Marvell Technologies - MRVL (no, not the comic book though that would be spectacular) are suing Goldman for what initially appears to be a straight-forward alleged fraud of unauthorized transfer of ownership of their MRVL shares to Goldman's internal fund to enable more borrow availability for shorts (1 Corzine-ing). But the story gets better. The executives, upon the advice of another Goldman broker were advised to take levered long positions in competitor NVDA's shares (which GS was allegedly selling out of its own book - 2 Corzine-ings) only to very rapidly face significant losses when the company missed and the stock dropped notably (3 Corzine-ings). Then, GS sends the MRVL execs margin calls on that position (4 Corzine-ings) and unwilling to accept the MRVL shares as collateral due to its low share price (5 Corzine-ings), forces the former MRVL executives to sell their MRVL shares (6 Corzine-ings) to meet cash calls - all the while remembering that GS had transferred the ownership in order that they could allegedly have more of this hard-to-borrow stock to short (7 Corzine-ings). What's more, the couple's suit alleges that Goldman and a hedge fund run by Goldman were buying MRVL's shares at the same time the firm was forcing Sutardja and Dai to sell (8 Corzine-ings). Both NVDA and MRVL's shares have since more than doubled from their late 2008 lows. The couple claim they lost more than $100 million because of their forced sales and general Muppet massacre.
Do not, however, feel too bad for these two Muppets as Sutardja and Dia are not without controversy themselves. In 2008, MRVL paid a $10 million fine to settle allegations from the SEC that the company backdated the options it paid out to its executives. As part of the settlement, Dai, who was once Marvell's COO, paid a personal fine of $500,000 and was barred from being a director or officer of a publicly traded company for five years.
Couple says Goldman misused shares to assist short-sellers
Silicon Valley entrepreneurs say they were mistreated by Goldman, joining other critics of the firm.
FORTUNE -- Two Silicon Valley entrepreneurs suing Goldman Sachs say the Wall Street firm mislabeled shares in the couple's brokerage account in order to be able to assist short-sellers who were betting against the company the couple founded.
...
The suit claims that Goldman cost the married couple $100 million by duping them into selling a portion of their Marvell shares to cover a margin loan at the height of the financial crisis. "Goldman had no legal right to lend out shares that didn't belong to the firm," says Phil Gregory of Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy, who is representing Sutardja and Dai. "This whole case is about Goldman trying to make Goldman look better, and my clients suffering for it."
...
At the time, interest from investors wanting to bet against Marvell's stock was soaring. The number of Marvell shares borrowed by short-sellers more than doubled from 16 million in mid-September 2007 to nearly 37 million by the end of January. The couple allege that by putting their shares in Goldman's name, the firm was able to lend those shares to short-sellers, allowing them to increase their bets against Marvell. Goldman also collected fees from the hedge funds and other investors who borrowed the shares.
...
Sutardja and Dai are not the only ones to complain about Goldman's securities lending operations. On Monday, the New York Times reported that a former hedge fund manager turned chicken farmer believes Goldman's mishandling of his trades by the firm's securities lending division caused his once successful $1.5 billion fund to collapse.
Sutardja and Dia are not without controversy themselves. In 2008, Marvell Technology paid a $10 million fine to settle allegations from the Securities and Exchange Commission that the company backdated the options it paid out to its executives. As part of the settlement, Dai, who was once Marvell's chief operating officer, paid a personal fine of $500,000 and was bared from being a director or officer of a publicly traded company for five years.
That was the same year the couple's Goldman troubles began. At a Goldman broker's suggestion, Sutardja and Dai bought shares in another technology company Nvidia (NVDA) in mid-2008, using a margin account in which their sizable holding of Marvell shares had been pledged as collateral. The couple quickly amassed a large position in Nvidia's shares. A Goldman analyst had recently begun recommending the technology company. However, according to the couple's suit, at the same time Goldman was telling Sutardja and Dai and other clients to buy Nvidia, Goldman was selling its own stake, slashing the company's investment in the technology firm by 60%.
Shortly after Sutardja and Dai purchased Nvidia shares, the stock plunged. Marvell's shares were falling as well. In late 2008, Marvell's shares dipped briefly below $5. Sutardja and Dai, according to the suit, got a call from their Goldman broker who said that they would have to sell 9 million Marvell says to cover the losses in their account. The broker, according to the suit, allegedly said stocks trading for under $5 a share could not be used as collateral for a margin account. The couple say they offered to come up with other collateral to back the margin loan, and that Marvell's shares rebounded above $5 within a few days. Nonetheless, they said they felt pressured to sell. What's more, the couple's suit alleges that Goldman and a hedge fund run by Goldman were buying Marvell's shares at the same time the firm was forcing Sutardja and Dai to sell. Both Nvidia and Marvell's shares have since more than doubled from their late 2008 lows. The couple claim they lost more than $100 million because of their force sales.
"Our claim alleges Goldman was trying to get into Marvell at the same time they were forcing my clients to sell," says Gregory. He says at the height of the financial crisis Goldman was looking for any excuse to reduce its lending in order to make its balance sheet look better to regulators and the firm's own investors. Sutardja and Dai got caught in the crossfire. "Based on the information we have, the order from New York was for the firm's brokers to close as many margin loans as possible. My clients were forced to sell even though the rational for the margin call no longer existed."
»
- 16533 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
Why are we making this so hard? I could give a dog turd for these people but they got screwed by the powers that be. The ONLY way to hold EVERYONE accountable is IF WE ALL PLAY BY THE SAME FUCKING RULES. Rich, poor....dumb, smart...tall, short...white, hispanic,black, asian, native American....
If there is a fucking failure it is that we ALLOW fucking "certain" people to slide due to their status, in this case a "rich" couple got fucked over.
Right is right, wrong is wrong. GET IT????
You're totally right. Grab a sign denouncing this fraud and stand out in front of the GS building; I'm sure the president himself will be on the phone to discuss this travesty of justice with you soon enough, after he gets done laughing it up with Corzine and the rest of his buds in Wall Street.
You can really make a difference, if you just believe in the power of your dreams! /rainbows_and_sunshine
gimme a fuking break! whre the junior corzeeens now? josh?? Jennifer?? whatewver the fuck???
FUK U WHERE S UR O ED NOW MUTHA FUKERZ
Lay with vampire squid
Awakened by tenacle
It is in my ass!
Hopefully they gave the courtesy of a reach around.
Now that is a worthy headline. What frightens me is that I understood it.
8 Corzine Stars!
New record?
Let's just put all of these uber-rich assholes and their banksters into Thunderdome.
Brackets!
http://geraldcelentechannel.blogspot.com/2012/03/end-corporate-personhoo...
End Corporate Personhood Event in Seattle March 29, 2012 : The corporations and special interests have taken over our system of government through political contributions . We, the People of the United States of America, reject the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Citizens United, and move to amend our Constitution to firmly establish that money is not speech, and that human beings, not corporations, are persons entitled to constitutional rights.Corporations are not people. Our Bill of Rights is for people not corporations. To END CORPORATE PERSONHOOD we need nothing short of a Constitutional Amendment to legally define corporations as different from people. This will restore integrity to our Bill of Rights and will effectively take down the political barricade that stops good ideas right in their tracks.
Our Bill of Rights was the result of tremendous efforts to institutionalize and protect the rights of human beings. It strengthened the premise of our Constitution: that the people are the root of all power and authority for government. This vision has made our Constitution and government a model emulated in many nations. But corporate lawyers (acting as both attorneys and judges) subverted our Bill of Rights in the late 1800's by establishing the doctrine of "corporate personhood" -- the claim that corporations were intended to fully enjoy the legal status and protections created for human beings. We believe that corporations are not persons and possess only the privileges we willfully grant them. Granting corporations the status of legal "persons" effectively rewrites the Constitution to serve corporate interests as though they were human interests. Ultimately, the doctrine of granting constitutional rights to corporations gives a thing illegitimate privilege and power that undermines our freedom and authority as citizens. While corporations are setting the agenda on issues in our Congress and courts, We the People are not; for we can never speak as loudly with our own voices as corporations can with the unlimited amplification of money.
Sometimes I think I'm the only one in the world who thinks that Citizens United was a good ruling.
I wouldn't think that giving the government the power to pick and choose which political speech to ban or allow would somehow make our system less corrupt, but apparently it's what everyone is foaming at the mouth for.
"Save me gub'ment! I'm too stupid to sort through the information presented to me by all these organizations! I need you to come in and decide which ones I can and can't see!"
@ "I wouldn't think that giving the government the power to pick and choose which political speech to ban or allow would somehow make our system less corrupt, but apparently it's what everyone is foaming at the mouth for." ..
.
in the present environment where the fed res is the nations central
banker and responsible for monetary policy ( read speech with
amplifier and power supply ) the "government" is merely the entertainment
portion of the program. no voice is heard other than the one the
real money speaks with. corporations with person hood, 14th amendment,
and control of the money supply and distribution make a mockery of
the rule of law, justice and the constitution itself and that is self
evident, now evidenced by recent history. it is a living blaspheme, imo.
.
Predictions 2012 #6: “The Corporation” Becomes A Central Societal Question Mark
By jbat - January 09, 2012
http://battellemedia.com/archives/2012/01/predictions-2012-6-the-corpora...
.
"Amidst all the chaos, tragedy, and tumult that was 2011, I noticed one very clear theme: Most of us are struggling with the role corporations play in our society. The 14th Amendment (yes, the one that banished slavery) established corporations, in the US, as “persons” in the legal sense. In 2010, Citizens v. United sanctified corporations as equivalent to you and I in terms of political speech; in 2011, we began to see the impact of that decision on our political process here in the US (in short, follow the money). The freedom to “associate in corporate form,” as it is termed in portions of the Citizens decision, is one I sense all of us are not entirely certain about. Corporations are utterly undemocratic organizations, and being a part of one is often not a choice, but a necessity. Does joining a corporation mean that you must defend that corporations’ point of view and now Constitutionally-protected right to speech?
Usually, at least in practice, the answer is yes. That corporation is paying your salary, and keeping food on your family’s table. Speaking out against it would be folly. This creates a tension in society that is clearly starting to surface. We overthrew the feudal system in the 1600s, and the theocracy in the 1700s. But currently, corporations play similar roles in many of our lives, either directly or indirectly."
.
http://www.historyisaweapon.com/defcon1/zinnbaron11.html
A People's History of the United States by Howard Zinn
Chapter 11: Robber Barons And Rebels
..
"..A New York banker toasted the Supreme Court in 1895: "I give you, gentlemen, the Supreme Court of the United States-guardian of the dollar, defender of private property, enemy of spoliation, sheet anchor of the Republic."
Very soon after the Fourteenth Amendment became law, the Supreme Court began to demolish it as a protection for blacks, and to develop it as a protection for corporations. However, in 1877, a Supreme Court decision (Munn v. Illinois) approved state laws regulating the prices charged to farmers for the use of grain elevators. The grain elevator company argued it was a person being deprived of property, thus violating the Fourteenth Amendment's declaration "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law." The Supreme Court disagreed, saying that grain elevators were not simply private property but were invested with "a public interest" and so could be regulated.
One year after that decision, the American Bar Association, organized by lawyers accustomed to serving the wealthy, began a national campaign of education to reverse the Court decision. Its presidents said, at different times: "If trusts are a defensive weapon of property interests against the communistic trend, they are desirable." And: "Monopoly is often a necessity and an advantage."
By 1886, they succeeded. State legislatures, under the pressure of aroused farmers, had passed laws to regulate the rates charged farmers by the railroads. The Supreme Court that year (Wabash v. Illinois) said states could not do this, that this was an intrusion on federal power. That year alone, the Court did away with 230 state laws that had been passed to regulate corporations.
By this time the Supreme Court had accepted the argument that corporations were "persons" and their money was property protected by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Supposedly, the Amendment had been passed to protect Negro rights, but of the Fourteenth Amendment cases brought before the Supreme Court between 1890 and 1910, nineteen dealt with the Negro, 288 dealt with corporations.
The justices of the Supreme Court were not simply interpreters of the Constitution. They were men of certain backgrounds, of certain interests. One of them (Justice Samuel Miller) had said in 1875: "It is vain to contend with Judges who have been at the bar the advocates for forty years of railroad companies, and all forms of associated capital. . . ." In 1893, Supreme Court Justice David J. Brewer, addressing the New York State Bar Association, said:
It is the unvarying law that the wealth of the community will be in the hands of the few. . . . The great majority of men are unwilling to endure that long self-denial and saving which makes accumulations possible . .. and hence it always has been, and until human nature is remodeled always will be true, that the wealth of a nation is in the hands of a few, while the many subsist upon the proceeds of their daily toil.
This was not just a whim of the 1880s and 1890s-it went back to the Founding Fathers, who had learned their law in the era of Blackstone's Commentaries, which said: "So great is the regard of the law for private property, that it will not authorize the least violation of it; no, not even for the common good of the whole community."
Control in modern times requires more than force, more than law. It requires that a population dangerously concentrated in cities and factories, whose lives are filled with cause for rebellion, be taught that all is right as it is. And so, the schools, the churches, the popular literature taught that to be rich was a sign of superiority, to be poor a sign of personal failure, and that the only way upward for a poor person was to climb into the ranks of the rich by extraordinary effort and extraordinary luck.
In those years after the Civil War, a man named Russell Conwell, a graduate of Yale Law School, a minister, and author of best-selling books, gave the same lecture, "Acres of Diamonds," more than five thousand times to audiences across the country, reaching several million people in all. His message was that anyone could get rich if he tried hard enough, that everywhere, if people looked closely enough, were "acres of diamonds." A sampling:
I say that you ought to get rich, and it is your duty to get rich.... The men who get rich may be the most honest men you find in the community. Let me say here clearly .. . ninety-eight out of one hundred of the rich men of America are honest. That is why they are rich. That is why they are trusted with money. That is why they carry on great enterprises and find plenty of people to work with them. It is because they are honest men. ...
... I sympathize with the poor, but the number of poor who are to be sympathised with is very small. To sympathize with a man whom God has punished for his sins ... is to do wrong.... let us remember there is not a poor person in the United States who was not made poor by his own shortcomings." ...
ps.
if corporations were persons they would need to sleep.
when do they sleep? they would bleed blood when cut.
where is their blood? they are much like machines, not
like persons. will the supreme court soon tell us machines
are persons too? yes, i think they will. watch for it.
a whiff of artificial intelligence and we are a stones
throw from state sanctioned genocide in broad daylight
to preserve the rights of the robots.
...the company robot lacks humanity, so the ruling favors the black hole. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7NADnE6Onk0&feature=results_main&playnext=1&list=PL3FA003DF51B76F22
the "human jukebox" ...
SLEEPY LABEEF - Rock And Roll Ruby
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GYBxCgYNcv0
the government made corporations a person when they taxed them as one. a texed entity has the right to protect itself and that is what they do. Agression for power against the taxing entity is only natural. There are lots of realatively small corps out there being eaten by big gov and their chronies. Are they to have no voice? Its not like GS is going away because of this personhood issue.
@"the government made corporations a person when they taxed them as one." ...
they argued for person hood and won before the tax code of 1913, creation
of the irs. no?
...the tax code should be a commerce tax system only, no income tax etc..
Forget sleeping - what's the natural lifespan of a corporation? If it's a person, it has to die like one.
I'll believe corporations are people when Texas executes one.
Shit must be really hitting the fan today. Obama is starting to run ads with the family photographs. That was always the last card to play when I'd screw something up really bad at work. As an attempt not to get fired I'd always break out the family photos.
USD high soon
http://change-in-trend.blogspot.com/2012/04/thursday-5-april-2012.html
The truth is I hope they find no justice at all.
If the plebs that took an ass raping at the hands of MFG had to grin and bear it why should someone of the financial elite get a pass?
Just because you can purchase high profile legal counsel shouldnt entitle you to special priviledges in the realm of "being made whole."
Of course this is just a pipe dream because our system is currently geared towards just this sort of event.
But I can dream cant I?
The first time I made love to Maria Bartiromo I couldn't even get hard at first because I was so nervous. She had interviewd some CEO and tried desperately to eschew her Brooklyn mannerisms: she was a woman seeking the approbation of rich men. Every gesture, sound, and article of clothing was an attemt to distance her from her humble Italian-American roots. She was ashamed really, and sensing her identity crisis and longing for approval i decided to buy her a drink. Most of her interaction with Wall St. guys had been (needless to say) completely fake. Questions about fantasy earnings, charlatan economic data, and fictional economic rebounds had left her feeling distanced from meaningful interactions with humans. I could just tell she needed something more palpable and visceral. I asked her, "How many dicks have you had in your ass this month?" At first, she looked offended as in I'm Maria Bartiromo how can you ask me that?? I apologized and said, "I meant to ask how many of those dicks were black or hispanic?" She blushed and looked so grateful because what we had just shared was infinitely more honest than anything she had experienced in her professional or personal life. I knew she would be putting her botoxed lips all over my cock. I hadn't showered in two and I liked that she would have confront that. We went back to my place (I bought her a pair of UGGS on the way back) and made terrible financial jokes about whether her pussy smelled better after working out in Lululemon pants or Athelica. I told her I was long blowjobs and she said they weren't optionable. I gave a kind of fake laugh knowing that in a few minutes I would BE FUCKING THE SHIT OUT HER AND WOULDN"T HAVE TO HEAR ANY FAKE LAUGHS OR BUSINESS JOKES. We fucked really hard and dudes from CNBC kept calling and asking if she was going to in for her makeup. I kept askin her about other guys she had banged and I think she got offende at some point because she left and didn't thank me or invite me to Squawk Box. I wasn't hurt but truthfully I did expect it to become more of a regular thing.
Would have rather had you use Lara Logan but otherwise not bad.
It wasn't Sydney Sheldon, but not an altogether uninteresting read :p
Something along the lines of her picking up a piece of lint off the carpet, in that Princess Leia outfit from Jedi of course, every time a comment was made by Steve Leisman that stimulated your upchuck reflex, would have increased the DSK factor.
Just musing.
The combination of English not being your first language and the visualization of this actually happening to Maria, god knows she deserves it, was too much for me and I burst out laughing. Funny mainly because I met the woman randomly at 48 wall St. on the 5th floor back in 2008 when I worked in nyc. She's not extraordinary at all. Body is sort of frumpy. Anyway, loved the first line. Someone should film her being asked that line and post it here. Gold.
Aargh...We've been re-hypothecated by the Corzinians at the Sach
FROM MUPPETS TO MORE MUPPETS - HYSTERICAL TO WATCH AND READ LOL!!!!!!!!!!!
Don't you guys have laws in the US of A?
Only for the 'little people'.
Dong-A Ilbo: #ROK military source says S. Korea trying to locate several #DPRK subs unseen since leaving bases on N. Korean east coast.
http://english.donga.com/srv/service.php3?bicode=050000&biid=2012040531968
N. Korean pro-govt paper hints at nuke test
http://www.panarmenian.net/eng/news/101707/
Russia to Send 4 Warships to Joint Drill with China
The Russian Navy will be represented by the guided missile cruiser Varyag, and three large antisubmarine ships in an exercise that is to take place between April 22 and 29 in the Yellow Sea.
http://en.rian.ru/world/20120403/172583281.html
Basically a week after the NKorean launch, when tensions are gonna be sky high, China and Russia are gonna do a drill right off the South Korean coast... yeah...
N.Korea 'Building Even Bigger Missile'
http://english.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2012/04/03/2012040300634.html
Military Plans Corresponding Strike on N. Korea
A senior military official said that until now in the event of a North Korean provocation, South Korean action required a process of approval by the UN Command in line with the rules of engagement of the Armistice Agreement. The official said under the new plan, South Korea can immediately respond to the North's provocation for self-defense.
http://world.kbs.co.kr/english/news/news_Po_detail.htm?No=89311
This is quite a change...
Key China insurer to stop covering tankers with Iran oil
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/sns-rt-us-iran-oil-chinabre83405l-201...
It would seem that everyone is fair game for the vampire squid.
To finish the deal properly, we must discover how much Sut and Dai (both foreign nationals if I recall) donated to the Obama campaign, and then see who from Goldman winds up with the Obama advisory job of telling them how to launder and conceal the foreign donations - and that's what they consider to be a win-win situation.
The five boxes of liberty ...
I think we are at point five.
Here he lies, Kermit of Nazareth, King of the Frogs.
Both Nvidia and Marvell's shares have since more than doubled from their late 2008 lows.
I think most shares have doubled since that time, not really evidence.....just sayin.
I remeber playing railroad tycoon as a kid. You had to employ some dirty tactics to win.... I loved winning...
I wonder what The Limerick King has got to say about this.
So... naked short selling does exist. Maybe they should require Goldman to demonstrate that they owned NVDA as a Goldman broker advised to take a levered long position in NVDA. It would seem to me that Goldman forced executives at NVDA to short sale when they realized they needed their shares to cover.
it's not really naked short-selling, it's more like Goldman mugging clients in hoodies while saying "I have your best interests at heart"
"8 Corzine-ings"
that's going some, even for Goldmans
"The couple claim they lost more than $100 million ...Muppet massacre."
Do Goldmans 'highly valued clients' know where the Exit is or are they all blind?
"Do not, however, feel too bad for these two Muppets as Sutardja and Dia... the SEC.. fine of $500,000 and was barred from..publicly traded company for 5 years"
after 8 Corzine-ings (on just 1 client alone) why haven't the SEC slapped a 500 year ban on Lloyd Blankfein yet?????
Where's the "vote up" arrow for the title of the article?
Sex For Cheeseburgers: Christine Baker Offered Favors For Two Doubles, Cops Say
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/04/sex-for-cheeseburgers-christine...
Soon Single Moms and College Girls will be lining up. The future of USSA.
Gartman this morning on gold:
"The chart of gold in weekly terms at the lower left of p.1 now haunts us, for in retrospect it does appear that gold has not been in a bull market but has indeed been in a bear market since the spring of ’11 when gold traded to and just barely over $1900. Since then, each new interim low has been lower and each new interim high has followed. How, we ask, had we missed that fact! How, we ask ourselves at night, did we not pay greater heed to the gold sales made earlier this year that marked the high just under $1800 and how did we allow ourselves to be influenced by the “Bugs” who took us to task the times we headed for the sidelines? How did we miss the fact that
the trend line drawn on the chart was so clearly broken over time?"
Now THAT is hilarious...arrogant pompous prick. WE ARE LONG OF GOLD AND WRONG OF GOLD.
Who would've thought that Goldman was capable of such deviltry?
Seriously though, how did they manage to get caught doing that, again? I swear, their record is getting atrocious.
Accusations between thieves always make an interesting story. Same expected outcome that GS wins.
Sutardja and Dia - insiders say these two are crazy - pissed they didn't lose more.....
So shut up and print the faggot broker names!
Lets see who exactly is fucking who, not some incorporated Goldfuck Sacklicker smoke screen.
Names.
Goldman Sachs, raising the bar in extracting money from hapless "clients". In an industry rich in innovation and new product development can it be long before even this standard is exceeded?
Muppet Mauling at its finest...
Tyler - great piece and no surprise. It make me wonder...what is a poor billionaire or trailer trash millionaire to do? Where does one park securities and capital?
Memo to sheep - please wake up and stay awake/focused until the rule of law is restored, otherwise, stop complaining. You keep on electing reelecting the same animals and expect a different result.
Long tin foil hats and bed mattress that can double as a safe for the next few years.
I must admit. This story is fucking epic.
Epic, I tell you!!!!
This sounds similar to the suit with the Copper River Fund vs. Goldman. Goldman always pulling a fast one when it comes to borrowing shares.
Lol. Stereotypical Goldman at it again.