Recently in Investor Category

"Anatomy of a Scandal" ,the cover story of ai5000's March/April issue, addresses the mystery of why Wesleyan University's $500 million endowment failed to notice the alleged gross misconduct of its chief investment officer for close to a decade.

Wesleyan has initiated a $3 million lawsuit against its terminated CIO, Thomas Kannam, who stands accused of submitting questionable expense reports and using university resources to engage in a series of outside ventures.

"To a large extent, this story highlights a common aberration in our nation's financial system, of which Wesleyan is just an example," observed editor Kip McDaniel. "Even when alleged misconduct is practiced in plain sight, investors don't want to look too closely at the sausage-making if the individual in question is making money for us."

Paula Vasan, co-writer of the article, added, "Although the case has yet to be decided, it appears to us that neither Wesleyan nor Mr. Kannam is blameless. The evidence suggests that Wesleyan may have looked the other way, so long as it was convenient to do so."

ai5000 describes how Kannam signed a contract in 2005 agreeing not to participate in "distracting" outside business opportunities, and soon thereafter appeared to accelerate his entrepreneurial ventures. The university's lawsuit contends that Kannam expensed family trips to the university and used university staff for external ventures. Two years later, Wesleyan noticed Kannam's "extracurricular activities" and asked him to sign a "more robust" conflict-of-interest document. His wife's response to this request: "Oucheroo." Nevertheless, ai5000 reports that

this document was "impressively vague." Ultimately, under Kannam's supervision, the endowment lost 24% in 2008, well beyond the NACUBO average of -19%.

"One of the sad aspects of this case is that the trustees and administrators of the endowment are involved in doing good and likely assume that anyone who works for them has the same mindset," McDaniel commented. "Unfortunately, laissez-faire environments don't always bring out the best in people, regardless of the larger institution's admirable intentions."

A quarterly online publication, ai5000 focuses on the 5,000 largest pools of capital in the world, across pension plans, sovereign wealth funds, endowments, foundations, insurance funds and other leading institutional investors. ai5000 is edited by Charles Ruffel, founder of Asset International and PLANSPONSOR, PLANADVISER and Global Custodian.

Asset International is a privately-held publisher and information provider to global pension funds, asset managers, financial advisers, banking service providers, and other financial institutions in the private and public sector. Asset International produces and distributes print and digital publications, conferences, research and data resources via its industry-leading brands PLANSPONSOR, PLANADVISER and Global Custodian. The company was acquired in January 2009 by Austin Ventures and has offices in New York, London and Stamford, CT.

Stephen Harbeck, president of the Securities Investor Protection Corporation (SIPC), which maintains a special reserve fund authorized by Congress to help investors at failed brokerage firms, issued the following statement today:

"From the outset of the Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC  (Madoff) liquidation proceeding, the Securities Investor Protection Corporation has made it clear that our No. 1 goal is to make sure that every eligible Madoff investor receives every penny that he is or she is entitled to receive per the recovery process.

"We have a great deal of empathy for the Madoff victims.  That is why we have worked around the clock for more than a year to expedite this matter despite the unprecedented complexities arising from the web of deceit spun by Mr. Madoff.   Our concern for the victims was also the reason why we worked with  Irving H. Picard, the court-appointed trustee for the Madoff liquidation, to establish a special hardship procedure for particularly hard-hit victims requiring special attention.

"That is why we are disappointed to see that certain attorneys are exploiting the plight of these victims to incorrectly direct their anger and frustration at SIPC.   Sadly, this frivolous litigation will have the effect of making it harder for SIPC to focus all of its time and attention on aiding the Madoff victims.

"That being said, SIPC is not now and never was a FDIC-like 'insurance' entity.  

"Regarding the question of 'net equity', which the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York is now weighing, we firmly believe that the calculation being used by Irving H. Picard, the court-appointed trustee for the liquidation of Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC of New York, NY, is correct.

"This determination is completely consistent with past precedent on the matter.

"SIPC has filed two extensive briefs with the Court, which explain our position in detail. At this time, we are awaiting the court's ruling on the matter. We look forward to the decision resolving this matter."

SIPC's primary brief in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New

The Securities Investor Protection Corporation is the U.S. investor's first line of defense in the event a brokerage firm fails, owing customer cash and securities that are missing from customer accounts. SIPC either acts as trustee or works with an independent court-appointed trustee in a brokerage insolvency case to recover funds.

The statute that created SIPC provides that customers of a failed brokerage firm receive all non-negotiable securities - such as stocks or bonds -- that are already registered in their names or in the process of being registered. At the same time, funds from the SIPC reserve are available to satisfy the remaining claims of each customer up to a maximum of $500,000. This figure includes a maximum of $100,000 on claims for cash. From the time Congress created it in 1970 through December 2008, SIPC has advanced $520 million in order to make possible the recovery of $160 billion in assets for an estimated 761,000 investors.

SOURCE Securities Investor Protection Corporation, Washington, D.C.

Mina Mar Group Inc. www.minamargroup.com/ (MMG) and Mina Mar Marketing Group www.minamargroup.net/ (MMMG) inform the public that the courts ruled in the favour of Mina Mar Group in slander lawsuit against Investors Hub.

Mr. Justice Belobaba, Ontario Superior Court Of Justice awarded judgment in favor of Mina Mar Group, and awarded $75,000 in general damages, $10,000 in punitive damages and $20,000 for the trial costs to the company.

This was never about the money but rather principle. These stock bashers should not be allowed to destroy other peoples reputations and businesses with slanderous and malicious posts on the Internet

The court ruling can be seen on this link http://www.minamargroup.com/stock_bashers.php

Mina Mar Group wishes to quote some key declarations of the court:

    "4... THIS COURT ORDERS that all negative, defamatory and libellous
postings, made by Posters and members of Investors Hub.Com Inc web site are
untrue and are and were made without any foundation nor basis for any of their
content

    5... THE COURT ORDERS THAT the Defendants, Robert Zumbrunnen, Matt Brown
and InvestorsHub.com Inc. apologize and publicly retract the libelous
statements made against the Plaintiffs and that they shall send their signed
retraction to the Plaintiffs and publish the same on the web site,
InvestorsHub.com

    6. THIS COURT ORDERS that Robert Zumbrunnen, Matt Brown and
InvestorsHub.com Inc. provide the names and addresses of the following of its
members and posters:
    Stratey, itlogic, Jim Bishop, Janice Shell, Universal Trader, Rtso,
Livingstyle, Soyelpato, AccipiterO, strongtower, snow, peraire, and Fast Flyer
03, Strongtower, 1 summer, AccipiterQ, bob41, Buckley, soyelpato, greedy
malone, rolltide, marine-1, firelane, (and any other poster who makes
negative, libelous or defamatory statements against the Plaintiffs)
anonymously named John Doe (the foregoing collectively known as "The
Posters"). ..."

Mina Mar Group recently introduced the "Get the Facts Right" statement to our clients, which we remind all of our clients' shareholders to review before taking any advice from a stock board chat room. Most advisors have hidden agendas and prey on the unsuspecting.

Get the Facts Right. The issuer works hard to continue to keep our shareholders informed, and news is updated frequently via Press Releases, Pink Sheet http://www.pinksheets.com/ filings, and updates to our websites. Other websites not sponsored, or recognized by the Company may provide misleading or disinformation to investors in order to manipulate trading patterns for a given stock. Always look for original content from trusted sources, rather than relying on 'excerpts' or discussion boards that may not give you the whole story. The Securities and Exchange Commission requires financial institutions or brokerage firms to provide their clients with documentation, describing the risks of investing in penny stocks.

Vigorous enforcement of the court order including motions for contempt of court for any non compliance will commence shortly in Florida.

SOURCE Mina Mar Group

Overstock.com, Inc. (Nasdaq: OSTK) today announced that Rocker Partners (now known as Copper River Partners) will pay $5 million to Overstock.com to settle Overstock's claims against the remaining defendants in its case against Rocker Partners, David Rocker, Marc Cohodes, and the management companies and hedge funds they controlled and advised. The defendants have agreed to dismiss their cross-complaint against Overstock.com and Patrick Byrne. Below is a letter from Patrick Byrne, the company's Chairman and CEO, commenting on the settlement (see our story at DeepCapture.com for full details).

Dear Owner:

The good guys won.

I announced Overstock's lawsuit against Rocker in an August 12, 2005 conference call I titled, "The Miscreants' Ball". In that call (and in subsequent elaboration on DeepCapture.com) I claimed that a network of dirty Wall Street players was engineering modern bear raids, destroying companies and destabilizing the system. I claimed that the network of hedge fund manipulators and compliant reporters intersected in a dirty journalist named Jim Cramer. In the network, I claimed, were hedge funds such as David Rocker's; putatively independent research firms like Gradient which essentially took dictation from hedge funds; a small group of financial journalists such as Herb Greenberg and Carol Remond who, it appears, also took assignments from this hedge fund network; Milberg Weiss (a plaintiff's class action law firm which was coordinating its lawsuits with these bear raids); and Eliot Spitzer (whose investigations as New York's Attorney General mirrored the trading activities of these hedge funds, which were among his largest backers). In addition, I said that the SEC was saying grace over all of this because they had become hopelessly "captured" by Wall Street's worst elements.

Since then, the SEC's turn-a-blind-eye deference towards Wall Street has been revealed by the Aguirre and Madoff-Markopoulis affairs (if not much more); Milberg Weiss imploded under DOJ indictments and its leaders were jailed; Jim Cramer was exposed on national TV for the scoundrel he is; Eliot Spitzer was also exposed (but not yet, I believe, for his real connection to this crew); Herb Greenberg and others of the journalists I named have crawled under rocks (or gone to work for the hedge fund network for which I had so implausibly claimed they were shilling); David Rocker's hedge fund melted down (thanks, according to DowJones, to the SEC finally closing the gaping option market maker loophole against which Overstock had been lobbying for three years - if only, the SEC would now institute a pre-borrow requirement); and Rocker Partners is paying Overstock $5 million (that is on top of Gradient's earlier retraction and apology, and any monies Gradient paid which I cannot disclose).

So let's score that one for the good guys.

What is of vastly greater significance than this $5 million payment, however, is an examination of the cover-up conducted by elements of the New York financial press. Taking the lead was CNBC, which spent a great deal of airtime downplaying the significance of this suit, vilifying me, and smearing Overstock. For example, though less than 1/4 of the Miscreants' Ball conference call had even been about Overstock, and the remaining 3/4 concerned the modern bear raid, CNBC aggressively distorted the former and refused to mention (or allow mention of) the latter. This pattern was followed with suspicious alacrity by some of the more prominent members of the New York financial press, some of whom (e.g., Bethany McLean) saw some public emails which demonstrated precisely the relationship I had suggested, and some of whom (e.g., Herb Greenberg, Joe Nocera, and Dan Calaruso) were later secretly taped trying to persuade other journalists to engage in a cover-up. Ultimately, I resorted to creating a website of investigative journalism called www.DeepCapture.com (winner of the 2008 Weblogs Award for Best Business Blog), at which point CNBC, Fortune Magazine Joe Nocera, etc. developed sudden cases of laryngitis about me (lest they have to mention the website where my opinions were expressed without filtering: DeepCapture.com).

Now that Overstock has won, I would expect CNBC to invite me back to discuss these events, about which CNBC was so wrong and vocal. I estimate that the chance this happens, however, are roughly the same as the chance that any mainstream journalist who covers this $5 million settlement will mention DeepCapture.com, despite its having been central to these events.

I believe that the two factors which most determine the long-term health of a nation are its education system and its capital market (that is, its systems for developing human capital and for marrying it to financial capital). The miscreants of Wall Street may not be numerous, but they work together, and their blackguard ways impose an enormous social cost on our country. Presumably that claim will strike many as more plausible than it did when I first began publicly making it in August 2005.

I'd like to thank the late John O'Quinn, in whom I found an ally. I wish also to thank Overstock's fine legal team at Stein & Lubin for the superb work they did on this case. They will now be turning their full attention to Overstock.com's pending suit against the prime brokers (see below).

Your humble servant,

Patrick M. Byrne

History of the Rocker Case

In the landmark case, filed in Marin County, California August 11, 2005, Overstock.com, along with shareholder plaintiffs, sued Gradient Analytics, Inc.; Rocker Partners, L.P.; Rocker Management, LLC; Rocker Offshore Management Company, Inc. and their respective principals. On October 12, 2005, Overstock.com filed an amended complaint against the same entities alleging libel, intentional interference with prospective economic advantage and violations of California's unfair business practices act. On October 22, 2008, Overstock.com amended its complaint to name as additional defendants Cathy Longinotti, Mark Montgomery, Phillip Renna and Terrence Warzecha because of their former or existing status as general partners of Copper River Partners, L.P.

Overstock.com asserted that David Rocker, his partner, Marc Cohodes, entities under their control, and other confederates worked with the so-called "independent" research firm, Gradient Analytics, to defame Overstock.com by publishing false information in order to drive down Overstock.com shares and profit from their short positions in the stock. Overstock.com based its complaint on affidavits from four former Gradient insiders who swore that it was well known that Gradient worked closely with some of its short-selling hedge-fund subscribers to issue "special" negative reports on specific companies targeted by those subscribers, and that Rocker, among others, had special editorial privileges and coordinated publication timing to allow his hedge fund to position their portfolios in advance of publication. Overstock.com alleged that Rocker and Cohodes participated in suggesting and editing the false reports which were published throughout the period of 2004 to 2005, and which a judge, in commenting on the frequency of the attacks referred to as, "carpet bombing." Overstock.com also asserted that high profile reporters in the financial media were given unprecedented access to the Gradient reports for the purpose of further coordinated dissemination of the false Gradient reports in Rockers concerted effort to damage and defame the company and drive down its share price.

On October 10, 2008, Overstock and Patrick Byrne reached a confidential settlement agreement with Gradient Analytics and its current and former principals. Those defendants have been dismissed from the case after issuing a statement of "regret," reversing Gradient's published positions on Overstock.com, and stating that Gradient had "examined and improved its internal policies concerning how it communicates with clients, including hedge funds, and the media."

On May 14, 2009, the shareholder plaintiffs dismissed their claims against the Rocker defendants.

On November 9, 2007, Copper River Partners, L.P. f/k/a Rocker Partners L.P. filed a cross-complaint against Overstock.com and certain of its current and former directors. The Copper River cross-complaint alleged cross-defendants engaged in violations of California's state securities laws, violations of California's unfair business practices act, tortuous interference with contract and prospective business advantage, and deceit. On April 23, 2008, the court dismissed Copper River's cross claims against certain former Overstock.com directors. In that same ruling, the court dismissed four of the six claims against one of the former Overstock.com directors (and later Copper River dismissed the remaining claims against that director). In a separate ruling on the same day relating to Overstock.com and Patrick Byrne, the court dismissed the common law fraud claims and equitable indemnity claims and eliminated the possibility of money damages under Copper River's claims that Overstock.com and Byrne engaged in unfair business practices.

Trial for both the Overstock.com complaint and the Copper River cross-complaint were set for February 9, 2010.

History of the Prime Broker Case

On February 2, 2007, Overstock.com, along with five shareholder plaintiffs, filed a lawsuit in San Francisco against Morgan Stanley & Co. Incorporated, Goldman Sachs & Co., Bear Stearns Companies, Inc., Bank of America Securities LLC, Bank of New York, Citigroup Inc., Credit Suisse (USA) Inc., Deutsche Bank Securities, Inc., Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., and UBS Financial Services, Inc. In September 2007, Overstock.com filed an amended complaint adding two plaintiff shareholders, naming Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. as a defendant, eliminating the previous claim of intentional interference with prospective economic advantage and clarifying various points of other claims in the original complaint.

This suit alleges that the prime broker defendants, who control over 80% of the prime brokerage market, participated in an illegal stock market manipulation scheme and that the defendants had no intention of covering short sell orders with borrowed stock, as they are required to do, causing what are referred to as "fails to deliver" and that the defendants' actions caused and continue to cause dramatic distortions within the nature and amount of trading in Overstock.com stock, as well as dramatic declines in the share price of Overstock.com stock. The suit asserts that a persistent large number of "fails to deliver" creates significant downward pressure on the price of a company's stock and that the amount of "fails to deliver" has exceeded the entire supply of outstanding Overstock.com shares. The suit accuses the defendants of violations of California securities laws and common law, specifically, conversion, trespass to chattels, intentional interference with prospective economic advantage, and violations of California's Unfair Business Practices Act.

In April 2007, defendants filed a demurrer and motion to strike the Overstock.com complaint. Overstock.com opposed the demurrer and motion to strike. In July 2007, the court substantially denied defendants' demurrer and motion to strike. In November 2007, the defendants filed additional motions to strike. In February 2008, the court denied defendants' motion to strike the Overstock.com claims under California's Securities Anti-Fraud statute and defendants' motion to strike the Overstock.com common law punitive damages claims, but granted in part the defendants' motion to strike the Overstock.com claims under California's Unfair Business Practices Act, while allowing the Overstock.com claims for injunctive relief under California's Unfair Business Practices Act.

Lehman Brothers Holdings filed for bankruptcy on September 15, 2008 and Barclays Bank has purchased its investment banking and trading business. Overstock.com elected not to pursue its claims against Lehman Brothers Holdings in the bankruptcy proceedings. On January 12, 2009, the prime broker defendants filed a motion to strike portions of the Second Amended Complaint regarding allegations of collective action among defendants and the request for punitive damages. Also, on January 12, 2009, the prime broker defendants filed a demurrer to the first and second causes of action for conversion and trespass to chattels and a motion to strike various other allegations of the Second Amended Complaint. On March 19, 2009, the court sustained the demurrer to the first and second causes of action, but granted leave to amend the complaint. The motion to strike was denied. On April 20, 2009, Overstock.com amended its complaint against all the defendants, re-pleading conversion and trespass to chattels causes of action. The prime broker defendants again filed demurrer to the amended complaint and, on July 23, 2009, the court sustained the demurrer. Discovery in this case continues.

No trial date has been set.

SOURCE Overstock.com, Inc.

Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP and Berman DeValerio are issuing the following statement regarding the American Home Mortgage Action:

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

IN RE AMERICAN HOME MORTGAGE (Other OTC: AHMIQ) (Other OTC: AHMMQ) (Other OTC: AHMNQ) SECURITIES LITIGATION, 07-MD-1898 (TCP)

THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO ALL CLASS ACTIONS

Summary Notice of Pendency of Class Action and Proposed Settlements, Settlement Fairness Hearing, and Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Reimbursement of Litigation Expenses

TO: ALL PERSONS AND ENTITIES WHO PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED SHARES OF AMERICAN HOME MORTGAGE INVESTMENT CORP. ("AMERICAN HOME") COMMON AND/OR PREFERRED STOCK DURING THE PERIOD FROM JULY 19, 2005 THROUGH AND INCLUDING AUGUST 6, 2007 AND WHO WERE DAMAGED THEREBY, INCLUDING ALL PERSONS OR ENTITIES WHO PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED AMERICAN HOME COMMON STOCK PURSUANT OR TRACEABLE TO THE REGISTRATION STATEMENTS ISSUED IN CONNECTION WITH SECONDARY OFFERINGS CONDUCTED ON AUGUST 9, 2005 AND APRIL 30, 2007 (TOGETHER THE "OFFERINGS").

PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT PENDING IN THIS COURT.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, (i) of the pendency of this action (the "Action") as a class action on behalf of the persons and entities described above (the "Class"), except for certain persons and entities who are excluded from the Class by definition; and (ii) that three settlements reached in this Action (i.e., a settlement with the Individual Defendants in the amount of $24 million for the benefit of all Class Members; and settlements with defendant Deloitte & Touche LLP in the amount of $4.75 million, and with underwriter defendants in the amount of $8.5 million for the benefit of a subclass consisting of Class Members who purchased American Home common stock pursuant or traceable to the Offerings through and including August 6, 2007 (the "Offerings Subclass")) have been proposed that will fully and finally settle all claims against and release all Defendants. A hearing will be held before the Honorable Thomas C. Platt, at the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, 100 Federal Plaza, Courtroom 1040, Central Islip, NY 11722 at 1:30 p.m. on January 13, 2010 (i) to determine whether the proposed Settlements should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (ii) to determine whether the Settled Claims against the Settling Defendants and other Released Parties should be dismissed with prejudice; (iii) to determine whether the proposed plan of allocation should be approved by the Court as fair and reasonable; and (iv) to consider the application of Lead Counsel for attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses.

IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE CLASS DESCRIBED ABOVE, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY THE PENDING ACTION AND THE SETTLEMENTS, AND YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO SHARE IN ONE OR MORE OF THE SETTLEMENT FUNDS. If you have not yet received the full printed Notice of Pendency of Class Action and Proposed Settlements, Settlement Fairness Hearing, and Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Reimbursement of Litigation Expenses (the "Notice"), with the attached Claim Form, you may obtain a copy of these documents by contacting the Claims Administrator: In re American Home Mortgage Securities Litigation, c/o Analytics Incorporated, Claims Administrator, P.O. Box 2011, Chanhassen, MN 55317-2011, 1-877-265-3429. Copies of the Notice and Claim Form can also be downloaded from the website maintained by the Claims Administrator, www.amhomemortgagesecuritieslitigation.com, or from Lead Counsel's websites www.blbglaw.com and www.BermanDeValerio.com.

If you are a Class Member (including an Offerings Subclass Member) and do not exclude yourself from the Class, you will be bound by any judgment entered in the Action. To exclude yourself from the Class (including the Offerings Subclass), you must submit a request for exclusion such that it is received no later than December 23, 2009, in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice. Any objections to any of the proposed Settlements, the proposed plan of allocation, or the request for attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses, must be filed with the Court and delivered to Lead Counsel for the Class and counsel for the applicable Settling Defendants such that they are received no later than December 23, 2009, in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice.

PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING THIS NOTICE. Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice, may be made to Lead Counsel:

    Steven B. Singer, Esq.
    Avi Josefson, Esq.
    Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP
    1285 Avenue of the Americas
    New York, NY 10019
    (800) 380-8496
    www.blbglaw.com

    or

    Jeffrey C. Block, Esq.
    Kathleen M. Donovan-Maher, Esq.
    Berman DeValerio
    One Liberty Square
    Boston, MA 02109
    (800) 516-9926
    www.BermanDeValerio.com

By Order of the Court

Web site: http://www.blbglaw.com/cases/index

http://www.bermandevalerio.com/Securities/Index.asp

http://www.amhomemortgagesecuritieslitigation.com/

SOURCE Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP

Toronto Canada Mina Mar Group Inc (www.minamargroup.com) a privately held Canadian company today filed a lawsuit in Toronto Canada against Belmont Partners. www.belmontpartners.net and Joseph Meuse personally.

Amongst other things, the companies purchased by Mina Mar Group had the following names and trading symbols: Vsheild Software Corp. - VSHE, King Resources Inc. - KING and Aztec Technology Partners, Inc. - AZTC. In summary, Mina Mar Group takes the position that assets were removed from the 3 aforementioned companies which belong to all of the shareholders, however Joseph Meuse admitted to Miro Zecevic President of Mina Mar Group that these assets were distributed to only to some, but not all of the shareholders. Miro Zecevic said "Upon learning this, it just didn't sit well with us. That action exposed us and these Companies to law suits from dissenting shareholders, SEC inquiries, sanctions and other possible liabilities that Mina Mar did not anticipate and did not bargain for.

"We are extremely disappointed that Belmont and Mr. Meuse (The X management) simply refused to address these matters and other matters when brought to their attention. Moreover there are other serious irregularities that were discovered by our internal forensic research analysts that would seriously undermine any minority shareholder of these companies. In addition any company that merged with these issuers would have been in peril. Our team has worked very hard over the past several months by completing filings on Pink Sheets and increasing these issuers ranks from "STOP NO INFORMATION" to "YIELD LIMITED INFORMATION" and including introducing these issuers to substantial companies in Europe USA and China as per various past news releases. All of these pending deals are now off the table. We have a very strong presence in China with approximately 20 Chinese companies looking to enter the public markets with reverse mergers. In good conscience and as a good corporate citizen we can not recommend these companies to our clients nor provide any sort of meaningful investor relations to these issuers shareholders. We recently launched a shareholder advocacy division where we assist minority shareholders in cases where the issuers are abusive or where the issuers simply abandon the assets, and leave minority shareholders in the cold. This Belmont matter goes against the very principles we believe in."

Mina Mar Group acknowledges the efforts of Big Apple Consulting, a USA based company, who is also involved in a similar type of lawsuit with Belmont on a similar and unrelated transaction.

The entire Mina Mar Group law suit against Belmont Partners can be viewed at this link http://www.minamargroup.com/client_interests.php

SOURCE Mina Mar Group

Litigation sparked by financial losses investors suffered due to the alleged Madoff Ponzi scheme will be the focus of a half-day seminar and webcast scheduled to take place at Chicago's Gleacher Center on the afternoon of June 8, 2009.

The program is being produced by HB Litigation Conferences, formerly Mealey's Conferences.

"The faculty and agenda are being pulled together now, and will be adjusted as this dramatic legal and financial story unfolds," said Tom Hagy, president of HB Litigation Conferences.

Sharon Boothe, vice president at HB, added, "We are thrilled to be working again with Philip Bentley of Kramer Levin who did an extraordinary job moderating and speaking at our New York seminar."

Bentley, a partner with Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP in New York, currently represents numerous defrauded Madoff investors with respect to their rights in connection with potential litigation. In the Bayou Group bankruptcy, Bentley represented 70 former hedge fund investors in litigation brought by Bayou to recover redemption payments.

The Chicago seminar will start at 1 p.m. and end at 5 p.m. local time (2 p.m. to 6 p.m. ET). The price to attend in person or via webcast is $595. The program will be fully accredited for continuing legal education (rules vary by state).

For the latest details on the Chicago Madoff program, or to order the recording package from the New York Madoff program, go to www.LitigationConferences.com. A free excerpt of the session on clawback litigation, featuring Bentley and Jeff Marwil of Proskauer Rose has been posted on the site.

SOURCE HB Litigation Conferences

Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP ("Hagens Berman") (www.hbsslawsecurities.com/ocif) filed a class-action lawsuit in the United States District Court of Colorado against Oppenheimer Funds on behalf of investors. The suit, captioned Ron Jansen v. Oppenheimer Funds, Inc. (Nasdaq: OPCHX), filed in U.S. District Court of Colorado, is on behalf of two classes of shareholders, one under state law claiming breach of contract and secondly all fund purchasers during the outlined period of Nov. 1, 2006 to Dec. 31, 2008. The suit claims Oppenheimer, which runs the Oppenheimer Champion Income Fund ("The Fund"), misled investors about the Fund's investment style and risky investments resulting in an 82 percent collapse of the Fund's value. The lawsuit identifies the following funds as affected: A Shares (OPCHX), B Shares (OCHBX), C Shares (OCHCX), N Shares (OCHNX) and Y Shares (OCHYX).

The lawsuit alleges defendants marketed and sold the fund as a conservative high-income fund, portraying it as diversified and higher yielding. Plaintiff's claim fund managers failed to disclose the true risk of the fund, which took gambles on mortgage-backed securities and illiquid derivatives that ultimately led to the fund's collapse.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than April 25, 2009. If you wish to consider joining this action as lead plaintiff, discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel, Reed Kathrein of Hagens Berman at 510/725-3000 or via e-mail oppenheimer@hbsslaw.com.

You can view a copy of the complaint as filed or join this class action online at www.hbsslawsecurities.com/ocif. Any member of the purported class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. Although your ability to share in any recovery is not affected by the decision whether or not to seek appointment as a lead plaintiff, lead plaintiffs make important decisions that could affect the overall recovery for class members, including decisions concerning settlement. The securities laws require the Court to consider the class member(s) with the largest financial interest as presumptively the most adequate lead plaintiff(s).

Beginning in July 2008, shares declined as did other high-yield funds as the credit crunch exposed the volatility and collapse of mortgage-related investments. The Champion Fund continued to fall further as Lehman Brothers Holdings and other institutions collapsed.

Overall, the Fund experienced an 82 percent drop. Compared to other high-yield funds that averaged a drop of 32 percent in 2008, The Champion Fund experienced an almost $2 billion drop in assets in 15 months.

The complaint sites several misleading representations of the fund from defendants including, 'In selecting securities for the Fund, the overall strategy is to build a broadly diversified portfolio to help moderate the special risks of investing in high-yield debt instruments.' Plaintiffs claim the fund collapsed because fund managers targeted highly risky derivatives in an effort to 'pump returns.'

Hagens Berman seeks to represent two classes of shareholders, one under state law claiming breach of contract and secondly all fund purchasers during the outlined period. The lawsuit represents investors who purchased or held shares between Nov. 1, 2006 and Dec. 31, 2008.

The suit contends Oppenheimer violated state laws when it changed the fund's fundamental policies, a move requiring the vote of a majority of the fund's outstanding voting securities. The fund's policy says it cannot invest 25 percent or more of its total assets in one industry. The suit claims in late 2006, the fund concentrated more than 25 percent of its total assets in high-risk mortgage backed securities and failed to obtain approval from a majority of shareholders.

SOURCE Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP

BOSTON, Feb. 5 / -- The national law firm of Gilman and Pastor LLP (http://www.gilmanpastor.com) with offices in Boston, Massachusetts, and Naples, Florida, announces that a class action lawsuit has been brought on behalf of persons who purchased American International Group, herein ("AIG") Series FP Structured Notes (the "Notes") through several major investment banking firms since November 17, 2006. The latest wave of failed and fraudulent investments involves "structured investments". Such structured notes subjected investors to significantly more risk than may have been disclosed. Holders of these notes face losses, in some cases, of their entire principal investments. Gilman and Pastor LLP is finding that many investors have not been aware of their financial plights since their financial statements generally have not reflected current value but only alleged value at maturity.

Gilman and Pastor LLP is investigating over thirty (30) structured note issuers and more than forty (40) banks who have issued or sold structured offerings. These include:

    ABN AMBO Bank N.V.                Incapital LLC
    AIG                               JP Morgan Chase
    Bank of America                   Lehman Brothers
    Barclays Bank                     Merrill Lynch
    Bear Stearns                      Morgan Keegan
    Charles Schwab                    Morgan Stanley
    Citigroup                         RBC Royal Bank
    Countrywide Securities            Societe Generale
    Credit Suisse                     Sun Trust Bank
    Deutsche Bank                     UBS
    E-Trade                           Wachovia Corporation
    Harris National Association

"We are identifying offerings that made serious misstatements and omissions of material fact and deceived investors as to the risks of investing in these notes," Gilman and Pastor LLP said in a statement. The structured investments were generally offered and sold as suitable for investors seeking to protect their entire principal investment. Issuers and sellers allegedly touted and emphasized the protection of principal as a chief objective, when investors are now learning they may be at risk for losing virtually all of their investment. Investors should act promptly to protect their interests.

For nearly 30 years, Gilman and Pastor LLP has been one of the nation's leading firms representing investors in securities fraud actions and litigation to correct egregious corporate practices and breaches of fiduciary duty to investors. To discuss investment losses that exceed $100,000, contact us in confidence by calling (888) 252-0048 or online as follows:

   For More Information as to Specific Offerings, see
   http://structuredproductsinvestmentfraud.com and
   http://www.structured-investment.com 
SOURCE Gilman and Pastor LLP

The former head of HealthSouth Corporation, Birmingham, Alabama, is set to face yet another court date after being acquitted of federal criminal fraud charges more than three years ago.
Richard Scrushy's trial will begin on May 11 as ordered by a Jefferson County Circuit Court judge who presided over the long-running lawsuit. The lawsuit alleges that Scrushy seriously hampered the physical rehabilitation company while leading it.
At the moment Scrushy is lodged in a federal prison in Texas after being convicted for bribing former Gov. Don Siegelman for a spot on a health-care permitting board.
The Jefferson County lawsuit was filed by shareholders on behalf of HealthSouth.
To read more about the case click here.

 
The lawfirm Glancy Binkow, Goldberg LLP is filing a class action lawsuit on behalf of investors who had purchased or acquired the securites of Rackable Systems, Inc. Class plaintiffs who purchased or otherwise acquired securities from the above mentioned firm, from between October 30, 2006 and April 4, 2007, known as the class period, are included in the lawsuit.
The lawsuit charges Rackable and some of the company's former executive officers with the violation of certain federal securities laws.
Rackable designs, manufactures and implements highly scalable computer servers and high-capacity storage systems.
The complaint against the company alleges that throughout the class period, the defendants disregarded the fact that most of the information they were presenting to the public, about the performance of their overall business, their operations and their future prospects, were materially false and misleading. The company could not continue like this for long. In January, 2007, Rackable shocked the market when it disclosed its report for the financial results for the fourth quarter of 2006. These results showed that the company had achieved a gross margin of only between 19.2% and 19.7 percent. After this news was disclosed, Rackable's share prices crashed by $12.44 per share. This trend continued in February when the company declared the results of its fourth quarter financial results and again in April when the company announced that their non-GAAP gross margins would be 30% lower than what they had expected owing to the intensity of competition in three of the company's largest accounts.   
To read the details of the case check out the complete article on msnbc.com here.

Victims of the $50 billion Bernard L. Madoff Ponzi scam have already begun to attempt to recover their money. Since Madoff was an active philanthropist, their search is bound to lead them to several well-known charities apart who received donations from him.
The American judicial system will see to it that nobody benefits, even unknowingly, from criminal conduct. Several innocent investors may be compelled to part with any gains they may have made through the investment firm.  
What the government fails to seize, civil attorneys will try to divide amongst their ever increasing list of clients.
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro (HBSS), a law firm based in Seattle, was amongst the first to file a lawsuit in relation to the scam. The law firm represents investors and groups who claim to have placed funds with Stanley Chais, a long-time Jewish philanthropist in Los Angeles, who they claim acted as a 'feeder' for Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities (BMIS).
To read ore about the case click here.

A federal judge has  upheld a $22 million award to 32 retirees of Exxon Mobil Corp. in Baton Rouge who claimed an investment firm needlessly risked their money with questionable investments.

Securities America Inc. and financial planner David McFadden of Baton Rouge have until Nov. 1 to ask the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals to set aside the award issued by an arbitration panel, said Jim Swanson, an attorney representing the retirees.

Read our previous post about the award.

A recent article in the New York Times by Julie Creswell says that class-action lawsuits filed on behalf of shareholders in the wake of the collapse of companies like Enron and WorldCom have mostly not materialized, although over 80 companies are being investigated for backdating of stock options.

Creswell observes that lawyers are turning to what are called derivative suits, in which a shareholder sues on behalf of the company and settlements usually consist of corporate governance changes and legal fees.

So far, at least 57 companies have been sued in this way; some 15 class-action securities cases have been filed.

Proponents argue that the derivative lawsuits give shareholders a chance to force changes at the company, but critics counter that they do little more than produce fees for lawyers.

While legal fees are typically low in derivative suits, there have been a handful of high-profile cases where they amounted to millions.

Lawyers who filed a derivative suit involving accusations of insider trading by Lawrence J. Ellison, CEO, Oracle, received more than $22 million in fees and expenses for brokering an unusual settlement, which included Mr. Ellison making a $100 million contribution to charity.

Read our post on the Larry Ellison settlement.

Sprint Nextel Corp. has agreed to pay almost $29 million to settle a class-action lawsuit filed by current and former employees who had sued the company saying their retirement accounts were degraded by being tied to the company’s stock.

U.S. District Judge John Lungstrum approved the agreement last week, which will cover more than 85,000 employees who had money in the company’s retirement plan since 1998.

Susan Meagher, an attorney for the class, said employees who file claims would each receive between $400 and $1,000 in cash, increased company matching for their retirement plans or other benefits.

The class action suit had claimed that the company’s stock was too risky an investment to be included in their retirement plans.

Read

Dynacq Healthcare Inc. announced that it resolved the shareholder class action lawsuit pending against it for $1.5 million including administrative costs, class attorneys' fees as well as the payout to the class.

The company stated that it would pay $100,000 within 30 days of final approval of the settlement by the court and the balance in 36 equal monthly interest.

The lawsuit was filed against Dynacq and certain current and former officers and directors for providing materially misleading financial statements.

Read

With the unexpected death of former Enron CEO, Kenneth Lay, the criminal conviction against him, that was expected to result in a prison sentence, now stands void. Efforts to get restitution for victims of his fradulent practices through criminal proceedings are also no longer possible after his death.

However, the civil cases against him will not be affected and will proceed against his estate.

Kenneth Lay's death is also not likely to have an impact on the sentence or appeal of former Enron CEO Jeffrey Skilling.

Oracle co-founder Larry Ellison will settle an insider trading lawsuit that he faces with a $100 million donation to his non-profit medical foundation. However there are reports that the $115 million he had pledged to Harvard University last year has not yet been given.

The settlement relates to a civil complaint about a $900 million gain made by Ellison from selling Oracle stock shortly before the share value plummeted in 2001.

Ellison denied any wrongdoing, but agreed to donate the money to charity in Oracle's name and pay $22 million in shareholders' legal costs.

A special committee appointed by Oracle's board to investigate the allegations raised in the lawsuit also concluded that Ellison did nothing wrong.

This settlement comes at a time when Harvard University officials are cutting staff of the planned Ellison Institute for World Health because the donation he pledged to the school has not yet been paid.

Read

A class action suit has been filed against Vonage Holdings Corp. claiming that the company improperly steered consumers toward investing in its $531 million initial public offering.

Shares of the Internet phone startup have dropped by over 30% since the IPO on May 24. The company had taken the unusual step of setting aside 4.2 million IPO shares priced at $17 for customers. The stock closed at $11.98 last Friday on the New York Stock Exchange.

The suit, filed  in U.S. District Court in New Jersey, claims Vonage tried to compensate for a lack of interest among institutional investors by selling shares to consumers, according to a statement issued by the law firm Motley Rice LLC.

Read

A federal judge has approved an amount of $ 6.6 billion to be paid by Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, JPMorgan Chase & Co. and Citigroup Inc. to settle claims that they helped Enron Corp. manipulate earnings. Wall Street firms accused of helping the company hide losses and inflate profits have already paid settlements of $ 7.3 billion. Other banks and brokerage firms that have not struck settlements include Merrill Lynch & Co., Barclays PLC, Toronto-Dominion Bank, Royal Bank of Canada, Deutsche Bank AG and the Royal Bank of Scotland Group PLC.

Read

A three-member panel of the National Association of Securities Dealers has awarded $22 million to a group of Exxon retirees against brokerage firm Securities America Inc. for improperly steering them into high-risk investments between 1996 and mid-2003.  A Securities America broker promised the 32 employees huge returns, and put their money mostly into variable annuities and Class B fund shares.

Read

Attorney Christopher Gray has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of all persons who purchased the securities of Sea Containers, Ltd. (NYSE:SCR-A) from March 15, 2004 through March 24, 2006 (the "Class Period"). The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, the company caused the share price of Sea Containers stock to be artificially inflated by financial misrepresentation to the public. The class action lawsuit aims to recover investors’ losses, which resulted from the company’s announcement that it would need to take a write-down of assets to the tune of $ 500 million, leading to a drop in stock prices of 38% in a single day.

Read