Monsanto (MON +1%) CEO Hugh Grant is "not overly concerned" by the USDA's decision to compile fuller environmental assessments of MON's new soybean and cotton seeds, remarks which differ with industry complaints about the "burdensome" U.S. regulatory system. But Grant has little patience for opponents of genetically modified foods; they're guilty of "elitism” and fail to consider needs of the global population. [View news story]
Monsanto CEO calls those who oppose GMO's "elitists" because they want to deny poor people food by forcing them to buy organic. Didn't know I was so evil. Meanwhile, he made $25M last year. Who's the elitist again?
Google Request To Postpone Vringo Ongoing Royalty Motion Ignored [View article]
That's demonstrably not true. You want other people to have a less opinion of me because you have a less opinion of me. Shaking your head is a ubiquitous way to show disapproval. So much so that "smh" is now a term. Your intent was transparent, and any attempt to argue insulting me wasn't your purpose is futile. It's fine, Erik, really. I just prefer to call things like I see them and not use passive-aggressive sarcastic tactics. Plenty of people call me a dumb rat. I have more respect for them than those who instead just try to infer I'm a dumb rat.
Google Request To Postpone Vringo Ongoing Royalty Motion Ignored [View article]
Viagra: It's intended to show I'm an idiot and shouldn't be listened to. It's a sophomoric unprofessional insult launched in the cliche sly way tongue-in-cheek comedians do these days.
VirnetX Denied Injunction Against Apple, Parties To Negotiate Ongoing Royalty [View instapost]
It may have bearing, but isn't a conclusive finding of infringement, since those products were specifically considered by the jury. It'll be hard, though, for AAPL to come up with an argument that those products don't infringe.
VirnetX Denied Injunction Against Apple, Parties To Negotiate Ongoing Royalty [View instapost]
The problem with excluding NPE's from injunctions is that you then also exclude universities, which are a much stronger and more compelling social group. There's a good law review article that raises this whole point, titled "Are Universities Patent Trolls?" We'll see how the law of injunctions develops, especially if VHC appeals the judges denial of an injunction to them. I really saw this case as being on all fours with i4i, but as you say, I was wrong.
Obvious mistake in the Q&A where it credits Mr. Johnson with saying, "And yes, we’ve had short discussions with Mr. [Ackman], but beyond that, nothing concrete to report." I think the [Ackman] is [Ichan]. That's a very funny slip up.
Ackman V. Icahn - Don't Forget Whitman [View article]
Yeah, but he still has to have the money to buy the shares, and he paid a lot (10% ish) just for the options. For him to say he bought at 36, but wouldn't buy in the 40s, but yet he bought expensive options, his cost basis for those shares will be in the 40s by time you include the option cost. Pretty stupid of him, actually, to pay such a vig for the options. He only bought 3% of shares. Should've bought the 9.9% he's allowed. He way overpaid and no one's going to bail him out. I doubt the options be in the money at expiration, especially the Jan 15 ones. He's investing on emotion, not rational thinking.
Ackman V. Icahn - Don't Forget Whitman [View article]
According to Carl Icahn on CNBC earlier today, owning call options is the same as being long. So, he doesn't see any difference between long/calls and short/puts.
Ackman V. Icahn - Don't Forget Whitman [View article]
When you submit an article for publication by SA, the form for disclosure does not allow you to identify option positions. You can only say you are long or short a particular stock.
But, your point is perhaps a good one, as Ackman is straight short the stock and Icahn is largely just an owner of call options, some which expire as early as May.
Ackman V. Icahn - Don't Forget Whitman [View article]
In the MBIA short, Ackman not only overcame long investors, he also fought through investigations of him by Spitzer and the SEC. People who think Ackman makes unjustified calls haven't done their homework. It is interesting to see the timing of Ichan's trades. It's pretty clear he hadn't been considering HLF until Ackman's December 20 presentation, so Ichan obviously didn't spend nearly as much time researching their business as Ackman has.
Might Other Companies Be Liable If Herbalife Is A Pyramid? [View article]
I don't have time or desire to write you a treatise on the issue, but with respect to the liability of Herbalife's intermediaries for aiding and abetting fraud, from Dodona I, LLC v. Goldman, Sachs & Co., 847 F. Supp. 2d 624, 639 (SDNY 2012) available at scholar.google.com/sch... comes ...
"To state a claim for aiding and abetting fraud under New York law, a plaintiff must plead facts showing (1) the existence of a fraud; (2) defendant's knowledge of the fraud; and (3) that the defendant provided substantial assistance to advance the fraud's commission. See Wight v. BankAmerica Corp., 219 F.3d 79, 91 (2d Cir. 2000). "The knowledge requirement of an aiding and abetting fraud claim is satisfied by alleging actual knowledge of the underlying fraud." JP Morgan Chase Bank v. Winnick, 406 F. Supp. 2d 247, 252 (S.D.N.Y. 2005) (citation omitted). "A defendant provides substantial assistance only if [she] affirmatively assists, helps conceal, or by virtue of failing to act when required to do so enables [the fraud] to proceed." Id. at 256 (internal quotation marks omitted).
If Herbalife is a fraud, element 1 is satisfied. I have provided the above mentioned intermediaries with knowledge of Herbalife's alleged fraud, which satisfies element 2. Their continued provision of "substantial assistance" to Herbalife satisfies element 3. Now, could we get into a big ol' fight over whether eBay and FedEx are providing "substantial assistance" or not. Maybe there's at least a non-trivial argument they aren't. But, I don't see any possible argument that BOA, JPM and WFC and the other banks providing the critical revolving line of credit to Herbalife or the NYSE's allowance of HLF to be publicly traded don't satisfy the third element.
Thus, anyone injured by Herbalife's fraud would have a claim for aiding and abetting that fraud against those intermediaries. The officers and directors of an intermediary that is aiding and abetting a fraud are in breach of their duties to shareholders. So, not only can Herbalife's victims sue the intermediaries, so too can shareholders of the intermediaries. This is why I am now a shareholder of the cited intermediaries. I have no standing to sue them as a victim, since I have not be injured by Herbalife's scheme directly.
Please feel free to get your own lawyer and have them publish their opinion on the topic. I welcome the sharing of ideas and debating of important issues of public policy.
Might Other Companies Be Liable If Herbalife Is A Pyramid? [View article]
From Dodona I, LLC v. Goldman, Sachs & Co., 847 F. Supp. 2d 624, 639 (SDNY 2012) available at scholar.google.com/sch... comes ...
"To state a claim for aiding and abetting fraud under New York law, a plaintiff must plead facts showing (1) the existence of a fraud; (2) defendant's knowledge of the fraud; and (3) that the defendant provided substantial assistance to advance the fraud's commission. See Wight v. BankAmerica Corp., 219 F.3d 79, 91 (2d Cir. 2000). "The knowledge requirement of an aiding and abetting fraud claim is satisfied by alleging actual knowledge of the underlying fraud." JP Morgan Chase Bank v. Winnick, 406 F. Supp. 2d 247, 252 (S.D.N.Y. 2005) (citation omitted). "A defendant provides substantial assistance only if [she] affirmatively assists, helps conceal, or by virtue of failing to act when required to do so enables [the fraud] to proceed." Id. at 256 (internal quotation marks omitted).
If Herbalife is a fraud, element 1 is satisfied. I have provided the above mentioned intermediaries with knowledge of Herbalife's alleged fraud, which satisfies element 2. Their continued provision of "substantial assistance" to Herbalife satisfies element 3. Now, could we get into a big ol' fight over whether eBay and FedEx are providing "substantial assistance" or not. Maybe there's at least a non-trivial argument they aren't. But, I don't see any possible argument that BOA, JPM and WFC and the other banks providing the critical revolving line of credit to Herbalife or the NYSE's allowance of HLF to be publicly traded don't satisfy the third element.
Thus, anyone injured by Herbalife's fraud would have a claim for aiding and abetting that fraud against those intermediaries. The officers and directors of an intermediary that is aiding and abetting a fraud are in breach of their duties to shareholders. So, not only can Herbalife's victims sue the intermediaries, so too can shareholders of the intermediaries. This is why I am now a shareholder of the cited intermediaries. I have no standing to sue them as a victim, since I have not be injured by Herbalife's scheme directly.
Monsanto (MON +1%) CEO Hugh Grant is "not overly concerned" by the USDA's decision to compile fuller environmental assessments of MON's new soybean and cotton seeds, remarks which differ with industry complaints about the "burdensome" U.S. regulatory system. But Grant has little patience for opponents of genetically modified foods; they're guilty of "elitism” and fail to consider needs of the global population. [View news story]
Google Request To Postpone Vringo Ongoing Royalty Motion Ignored [View article]
Google Request To Postpone Vringo Ongoing Royalty Motion Ignored [View article]
VirnetX Denied Injunction Against Apple, Parties To Negotiate Ongoing Royalty [View instapost]
VirnetX Denied Injunction Against Apple, Parties To Negotiate Ongoing Royalty [View instapost]
Herbalife CEO Discusses Q4 2012 Results - Earnings Call Transcript [View article]
Ackman V. Icahn - Don't Forget Whitman [View article]
Ackman V. Icahn - Don't Forget Whitman [View article]
Ackman V. Icahn - Don't Forget Whitman [View article]
Ackman V. Icahn - Don't Forget Whitman [View article]
Ackman V. Icahn - Don't Forget Whitman [View article]
But, your point is perhaps a good one, as Ackman is straight short the stock and Icahn is largely just an owner of call options, some which expire as early as May.
Ackman V. Icahn - Don't Forget Whitman [View article]
Might Other Companies Be Liable If Herbalife Is A Pyramid? [View article]
"To state a claim for aiding and abetting fraud under New York law, a plaintiff must plead facts showing (1) the existence of a fraud; (2) defendant's knowledge of the fraud; and (3) that the defendant provided substantial assistance to advance the fraud's commission. See Wight v. BankAmerica Corp., 219 F.3d 79, 91 (2d Cir. 2000). "The knowledge requirement of an aiding and abetting fraud claim is satisfied by alleging actual knowledge of the underlying fraud." JP Morgan Chase Bank v. Winnick, 406 F. Supp. 2d 247, 252 (S.D.N.Y. 2005) (citation omitted). "A defendant provides substantial assistance only if [she] affirmatively
assists, helps conceal, or by virtue of failing to act when required to do so enables [the fraud] to proceed." Id. at 256 (internal quotation marks omitted).
If Herbalife is a fraud, element 1 is satisfied. I have provided the above mentioned intermediaries with knowledge of Herbalife's alleged fraud, which satisfies element 2. Their continued provision of "substantial assistance" to Herbalife satisfies element 3. Now, could we get into a big ol' fight over whether eBay and FedEx are providing "substantial assistance" or not. Maybe there's at least a non-trivial argument they aren't. But, I don't see any possible argument that BOA,
JPM and WFC and the other banks providing the critical revolving line of credit to Herbalife or the NYSE's allowance of HLF to be publicly traded don't satisfy the third element.
Thus, anyone injured by Herbalife's fraud would have a claim for aiding and abetting that fraud against those intermediaries. The officers and directors of an intermediary that is aiding and abetting a fraud are in breach of their duties to shareholders. So, not only can Herbalife's victims sue the intermediaries, so too can shareholders of the intermediaries. This is why I am now a shareholder of the cited intermediaries. I have no standing to sue them as a victim, since I have
not be injured by Herbalife's scheme directly.
Please feel free to get your own lawyer and have them publish their opinion on the topic. I welcome the sharing of ideas and debating of important issues of public policy.
Might Other Companies Be Liable If Herbalife Is A Pyramid? [View article]
Might Other Companies Be Liable If Herbalife Is A Pyramid? [View article]
"To state a claim for aiding and abetting fraud under New York law, a plaintiff must plead facts showing (1) the existence of a fraud; (2) defendant's knowledge of the fraud; and (3) that the defendant provided substantial assistance to advance the fraud's commission. See Wight v. BankAmerica Corp., 219 F.3d 79, 91 (2d Cir. 2000). "The knowledge requirement of an aiding and abetting fraud claim is satisfied by alleging actual knowledge of the underlying fraud." JP Morgan Chase Bank v. Winnick, 406 F. Supp. 2d 247, 252 (S.D.N.Y. 2005) (citation omitted). "A defendant provides substantial assistance only if [she] affirmatively
assists, helps conceal, or by virtue of failing to act when required to do so enables [the fraud] to proceed." Id. at 256 (internal quotation marks omitted).
If Herbalife is a fraud, element 1 is satisfied. I have provided the above mentioned intermediaries with knowledge of Herbalife's alleged fraud, which satisfies element 2. Their continued provision of "substantial assistance" to Herbalife satisfies element 3. Now, could we get into a big ol' fight over whether eBay and FedEx are providing "substantial assistance" or not. Maybe there's at least a non-trivial argument they aren't. But, I don't see any possible argument that BOA, JPM and WFC and the other banks providing the critical revolving line of credit to Herbalife or the NYSE's allowance of HLF to be publicly traded don't satisfy the third element.
Thus, anyone injured by Herbalife's fraud would have a claim for aiding and abetting that fraud against those intermediaries. The officers and directors of an intermediary that is aiding and abetting a fraud are in breach of their duties to shareholders. So, not only can Herbalife's victims sue the intermediaries, so too can shareholders of the intermediaries. This is why I am now a shareholder of the cited intermediaries. I have no standing to sue them as a victim, since I have not be injured by Herbalife's scheme directly.