Seeking Alpha
View as an RSS Feed

Daniel B. Ravicher  

View Daniel B. Ravicher's Comments BY TICKER:
Latest comments  |  Highest rated
  • Ackman V. Icahn - Don't Forget Whitman [View article]
    And my guess is that the man does not know what he is talking about when it comes to the law and whether HLF is an illegal pyramid.
    Feb 16, 2013. 07:57 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Ackman V. Icahn - Don't Forget Whitman [View article]
    A bully initiates a fight. I don't do that. I just defend myself when attacked.
    Feb 15, 2013. 09:56 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • 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.
    Feb 15, 2013. 09:30 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • 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.
    Feb 15, 2013. 03:49 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • 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.
    Feb 15, 2013. 11:32 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • 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.
    Feb 15, 2013. 09:47 AM | 3 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • 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.
    Feb 5, 2013. 10:50 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Might Other Companies Be Liable If Herbalife Is A Pyramid? [View article]
    Those parties likely don't have deep enough pockets to make them worth pursuing.
    Feb 5, 2013. 10:45 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • 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.
    Feb 5, 2013. 10:30 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Might Other Companies Be Liable If Herbalife Is A Pyramid? [View article]
    Intermediary third-party corporations have a duty to avoid committing crimes. Thus, those dealing with Herbalife have a duty to make sure they are not playing part in an illegal scheme now that they are on notice of the potentiality of such.
    Feb 5, 2013. 08:53 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Might Other Companies Be Liable If Herbalife Is A Pyramid? [View article]
    I was defending myself from a personal attack made in light of the inability to refute the content of my article. I did not initiate a conversation about me. I responded and that should have been the end of it.
    Feb 5, 2013. 08:51 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Might Other Companies Be Liable If Herbalife Is A Pyramid? [View article]
    But they then must stop continuing to be involved in the ongoing commission of the crime as well. They can't continue to distribute what they now know is crack cocaine just because they informed the police of my illegal conduct.
    Feb 5, 2013. 08:50 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Might Other Companies Be Liable If Herbalife Is A Pyramid? [View article]
    I'm not sure how you owning shares disproves anything I've said in my article, but if it makes you feel better to say you have confidence, then I'm happy for you.
    Feb 5, 2013. 07:43 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Might Other Companies Be Liable If Herbalife Is A Pyramid? [View article]
    Why are you talking about me? The issue here is Herbalife and those companies that it relies on for its business. Your question proves the best you can do is try to smear me, and you have absolutely nothing to say to defend Herbalife or contradict the conclusions in my article.
    Feb 5, 2013. 07:39 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Might Other Companies Be Liable If Herbalife Is A Pyramid? [View article]
    They have a duty to make sure they are not participating in a crime. That's why, in light of knowledge of the allegations that Herbalife is a criminal enterprise, they now have a duty to investigate Herbalife and, should they determine it is indeed a fraud, cease all involvement therein.
    Feb 5, 2013. 07:31 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
COMMENTS STATS
379 Comments
417 Likes