stockguru

Total Rating:
0 / 0

37 Comments

    • Tue Dec 25th 19:42 PM | Rating: 0 0
      Commented on:
      US Energy Bill: Solar Stocks Will Feel All the Heat
      someone on yahoo by name of gungbao2003

      It has been claimed and I quote from Bill Alpert's Barrons' Article:
      "What dismayed investors were September-quarter gross margins of 30.8% -- down from 35% in June and 39% in 2006. Piper Jaffray's Jesse Pichel noted that LDK gross margins were still an inexplicable 10 percentage points above those of peer ReneSola (SOLA). LDK inventory is turning just 2.2 times a year. Pichel downgraded the shares to a Sell with a price target of 34.50."

      In summary the answers to why RENESOLA's margins are 10% points lower than LDK are found in RENESOLA's press releases and financial statements. The difference is in the technology. Majority of RENESOLA's solar wafers produced up to 3rd Qtr of 2007 are monocrystalline wafers while LDK's are MULTIcrystalline wafers. Why would this difference account for LDK's margin's being better?

      First, RENESOLA in their IPO papers stated and I quote from
      buchanan.uk.com/cgi-bi......
      "In early 2007, the Directors intend to commence the installation of 15 multicrystalline furnaces, which each have a capacity in excess of 2,400 kg per month. Multicrystalline furnaces are more energy efficient than monocrystalline furnaces and require a lower grade of polysilicon which would improve the yield from ReneSola's raw materials."

      What happened since then? Did RENESOLA achieve full capacity production yet on cheaper and more efficient Multi-crystalline solar wafer production? The answers are in RENESOLA's 3rd quarter ER. renesola.com/investorR......

      "ReneSola commenced the installation of multicrystalline furnaces in September following the delivery of the coated crucibles. 15 multicrystalline furnaces, with a combined manufacturing capacity of 75 MW, have now been delivered and installed and are in initial production. The remaining 17 furnaces will be delivered and installed, as planned, by the end of 2007."

      If you use your brains, then you would see that majority of RENESOLA's products were still made using the less efficient mono-crystalline methods and they are just going on-stream with Multi-crystalline production in 4th Qtr of 2007. RENESOLA is just playing catch up to LDK and are aware their margins are lower hence their decision to switch to the more efficient production of multicrystalline wafers.

      View article »
    • Tue Dec 25th 19:41 PM | Rating: 0 0
      Commented on:
      Best Performing Stocks YTD
      someone on yahoo by name of gungbao2003

      It has been claimed and I quote from Bill Alpert's Barrons' Article:
      "What dismayed investors were September-quarter gross margins of 30.8% -- down from 35% in June and 39% in 2006. Piper Jaffray's Jesse Pichel noted that LDK gross margins were still an inexplicable 10 percentage points above those of peer ReneSola (SOLA). LDK inventory is turning just 2.2 times a year. Pichel downgraded the shares to a Sell with a price target of 34.50."

      In summary the answers to why RENESOLA's margins are 10% points lower than LDK are found in RENESOLA's press releases and financial statements. The difference is in the technology. Majority of RENESOLA's solar wafers produced up to 3rd Qtr of 2007 are monocrystalline wafers while LDK's are MULTIcrystalline wafers. Why would this difference account for LDK's margin's being better?

      First, RENESOLA in their IPO papers stated and I quote from
      buchanan.uk.com/cgi-bi......
      "In early 2007, the Directors intend to commence the installation of 15 multicrystalline furnaces, which each have a capacity in excess of 2,400 kg per month. Multicrystalline furnaces are more energy efficient than monocrystalline furnaces and require a lower grade of polysilicon which would improve the yield from ReneSola's raw materials."

      What happened since then? Did RENESOLA achieve full capacity production yet on cheaper and more efficient Multi-crystalline solar wafer production? The answers are in RENESOLA's 3rd quarter ER. renesola.com/investorR......

      "ReneSola commenced the installation of multicrystalline furnaces in September following the delivery of the coated crucibles. 15 multicrystalline furnaces, with a combined manufacturing capacity of 75 MW, have now been delivered and installed and are in initial production. The remaining 17 furnaces will be delivered and installed, as planned, by the end of 2007."

      If you use your brains, then you would see that majority of RENESOLA's products were still made using the less efficient mono-crystalline methods and they are just going on-stream with Multi-crystalline production in 4th Qtr of 2007. RENESOLA is just playing catch up to LDK and are aware their margins are lower hence their decision to switch to the more efficient production of multicrystalline wafers.

      View article »
    • Tue Dec 25th 19:40 PM | Rating: 0 0
      Commented on:
      Analyzing Micron's Downside
      someone on yahoo by name of gungbao2003

      It has been claimed and I quote from Bill Alpert's Barrons' Article:
      "What dismayed investors were September-quarter gross margins of 30.8% -- down from 35% in June and 39% in 2006. Piper Jaffray's Jesse Pichel noted that LDK gross margins were still an inexplicable 10 percentage points above those of peer ReneSola (SOLA). LDK inventory is turning just 2.2 times a year. Pichel downgraded the shares to a Sell with a price target of 34.50."

      In summary the answers to why RENESOLA's margins are 10% points lower than LDK are found in RENESOLA's press releases and financial statements. The difference is in the technology. Majority of RENESOLA's solar wafers produced up to 3rd Qtr of 2007 are monocrystalline wafers while LDK's are MULTIcrystalline wafers. Why would this difference account for LDK's margin's being better?

      First, RENESOLA in their IPO papers stated and I quote from
      buchanan.uk.com/cgi-bi......
      "In early 2007, the Directors intend to commence the installation of 15 multicrystalline furnaces, which each have a capacity in excess of 2,400 kg per month. Multicrystalline furnaces are more energy efficient than monocrystalline furnaces and require a lower grade of polysilicon which would improve the yield from ReneSola's raw materials."

      What happened since then? Did RENESOLA achieve full capacity production yet on cheaper and more efficient Multi-crystalline solar wafer production? The answers are in RENESOLA's 3rd quarter ER. renesola.com/investorR......

      "ReneSola commenced the installation of multicrystalline furnaces in September following the delivery of the coated crucibles. 15 multicrystalline furnaces, with a combined manufacturing capacity of 75 MW, have now been delivered and installed and are in initial production. The remaining 17 furnaces will be delivered and installed, as planned, by the end of 2007."

      If you use your brains, then you would see that majority of RENESOLA's products were still made using the less efficient mono-crystalline methods and they are just going on-stream with Multi-crystalline production in 4th Qtr of 2007. RENESOLA is just playing catch up to LDK and are aware their margins are lower hence their decision to switch to the more efficient production of multicrystalline wafers.

      View article »
    • Tue Dec 25th 19:39 PM | Rating: 0 0
      Commented on:
      Lehman Raises Target on Solar Stocks
      someone on yahoo by name of gungbao2003

      It has been claimed and I quote from Bill Alpert's Barrons' Article:
      "What dismayed investors were September-quarter gross margins of 30.8% -- down from 35% in June and 39% in 2006. Piper Jaffray's Jesse Pichel noted that LDK gross margins were still an inexplicable 10 percentage points above those of peer ReneSola (SOLA). LDK inventory is turning just 2.2 times a year. Pichel downgraded the shares to a Sell with a price target of 34.50."

      In summary the answers to why RENESOLA's margins are 10% points lower than LDK are found in RENESOLA's press releases and financial statements. The difference is in the technology. Majority of RENESOLA's solar wafers produced up to 3rd Qtr of 2007 are monocrystalline wafers while LDK's are MULTIcrystalline wafers. Why would this difference account for LDK's margin's being better?

      First, RENESOLA in their IPO papers stated and I quote from
      buchanan.uk.com/cgi-bi......
      "In early 2007, the Directors intend to commence the installation of 15 multicrystalline furnaces, which each have a capacity in excess of 2,400 kg per month. Multicrystalline furnaces are more energy efficient than monocrystalline furnaces and require a lower grade of polysilicon which would improve the yield from ReneSola's raw materials."

      What happened since then? Did RENESOLA achieve full capacity production yet on cheaper and more efficient Multi-crystalline solar wafer production? The answers are in RENESOLA's 3rd quarter ER. renesola.com/investorR......

      "ReneSola commenced the installation of multicrystalline furnaces in September following the delivery of the coated crucibles. 15 multicrystalline furnaces, with a combined manufacturing capacity of 75 MW, have now been delivered and installed and are in initial production. The remaining 17 furnaces will be delivered and installed, as planned, by the end of 2007."

      If you use your brains, then you would see that majority of RENESOLA's products were still made using the less efficient mono-crystalline methods and they are just going on-stream with Multi-crystalline production in 4th Qtr of 2007. RENESOLA is just playing catch up to LDK and are aware their margins are lower hence their decision to switch to the more efficient production of multicrystalline wafers.

      View article »
    • Tue Dec 25th 19:38 PM | Rating: 0 0
      Commented on:
      LDK Solar: The Naked Shorting Crime
      someone on yahoo by name of gungbao2003

      It has been claimed and I quote from Bill Alpert's Barrons' Article:
      "What dismayed investors were September-quarter gross margins of 30.8% -- down from 35% in June and 39% in 2006. Piper Jaffray's Jesse Pichel noted that LDK gross margins were still an inexplicable 10 percentage points above those of peer ReneSola (SOLA). LDK inventory is turning just 2.2 times a year. Pichel downgraded the shares to a Sell with a price target of 34.50."

      In summary the answers to why RENESOLA's margins are 10% points lower than LDK are found in RENESOLA's press releases and financial statements. The difference is in the technology. Majority of RENESOLA's solar wafers produced up to 3rd Qtr of 2007 are monocrystalline wafers while LDK's are MULTIcrystalline wafers. Why would this difference account for LDK's margin's being better?

      First, RENESOLA in their IPO papers stated and I quote from
      www.buchanan.uk.com/cg......
      "In early 2007, the Directors intend to commence the installation of 15 multicrystalline furnaces, which each have a capacity in excess of 2,400 kg per month. Multicrystalline furnaces are more energy efficient than monocrystalline furnaces and require a lower grade of polysilicon which would improve the yield from ReneSola's raw materials."

      What happened since then? Did RENESOLA achieve full capacity production yet on cheaper and more efficient Multi-crystalline solar wafer production? The answers are in RENESOLA's 3rd quarter ER. www.renesola.com/inves......

      "ReneSola commenced the installation of multicrystalline furnaces in September following the delivery of the coated crucibles. 15 multicrystalline furnaces, with a combined manufacturing capacity of 75 MW, have now been delivered and installed and are in initial production. The remaining 17 furnaces will be delivered and installed, as planned, by the end of 2007."

      If you use your brains, then you would see that majority of RENESOLA's products were still made using the less efficient mono-crystalline methods and they are just going on-stream with Multi-crystalline production in 4th Qtr of 2007. RENESOLA is just playing catch up to LDK and are aware their margins are lower hence their decision to switch to the more efficient production of multicrystalline wafers.

      View article »
    • Tue Dec 25th 10:41 AM | Rating: 0 0
      Commented on:
      LDK Solar: The Naked Shorting Crime
      and wheres your bio and pic??shorty run hard!!! lol
      View article »
    • Tue Dec 25th 01:25 AM | Rating: 0 0
      Commented on:
      LDK Solar: The Naked Shorting Crime
      well!! past failures do not represent future success so why dont you move on and let us do what we feel is right!!!
      View article »
    • Tue Dec 25th 00:10 AM | Rating: 0 0
      Commented on:
      Analyzing Micron's Downside
      Eric ,
      Have you worked for a hedge fund too in the past like your friend bill alpert???
      please check the bio of bill alpert!!
      informedinvestors.com/...
      he worked for a hedge fund in past!!!
      Mr. Alpert began his journalism career as a general assignment reporter for the Hudson Dispatch in Union City, N.J., where he worked from 1981 to 1982. He first joined Barron's as a staff writer in 1984. He resigned in September 1988 to become a stock analyst at a research-oriented hedge fund. He rejoined Barron's in 1996
      View article »
    • Tue Dec 25th 00:06 AM | Rating: 0 0
      Commented on:
      LDK Solar: The Naked Shorting Crime
      please check the bio of bill alpert!!
      www.informedinvestors....
      he worked for a hedge fund in past!!!
      Mr. Alpert began his journalism career as a general assignment reporter for the Hudson Dispatch in Union City, N.J., where he worked from 1981 to 1982. He first joined Barron's as a staff writer in 1984. He resigned in September 1988 to become a stock analyst at a research-oriented hedge fund. He rejoined Barron's in 1996
      View article »
    • Mon Dec 24th 06:36 AM | Rating: 0 0
      Commented on:
      LDK Solar: The Naked Shorting Crime
      my open letter to bill alpert at barrons!!!

      Dear Bill,

      I was astonished to see how biased and full of dirt you could be in your latest article on LDK. I think you do not read any other news than barrons since you do not know the difference between self acquittal and audit by Big Four firms. Is this attack to justify your opinion on LDK in october which was proved to be wrong recently? I believe that as an editor at once reputed Barrons you should keep your biased opinions to yourself and rather write some unbiased articles showing us facts rather than using your imagination and being paranoid. If you want to post your personal opinions, you can start a personal blog against LDK. I even have a title for you in my mind "How LDK pissed me off by being Right". You seem to blindly believe in Situ rather than a reputed firm. Can you please enlighten LDK investors by giving a solid reason for that rather than basing your articles on some vague sources. I must also warn you that you might be testing the patience of investors who are being hurt by your sensational one sided journalism. If you do not stick to facts and reality you might be required to divulge your sources in the court of law in the very near future.

      thanks
      View article »
    • Sun Dec 23rd 18:26 PM | Rating: 0 0
      Commented on:
      Analyzing Micron's Downside
      Eric ,
      Can you please pass on my letter to your friend at barrons!! Mr Bill Alpert!!!
      Dear Bill,

      I was astonished to see how biased and full of dirt you could be in your latest article on LDK. I think you do not read any other news than barrons since you do not know the difference between self acquittal and audit by Big Four firms. Is this attack to justify your opinion on LDK in october which was proved to be wrong recently? I believe that as an editor at once reputed Barrons you should keep your biased opinions to yourself and rather write some unbiased articles showing us facts rather than using your imagination and being paranoid. If you want to post your personal opinions, you can start a personal blog against LDK. I even have a title for you in my mind "How LDK pissed me off by being Right". You seem to blindly believe in Situ rather than a reputed firm. Can you please enlighten LDK investors by giving a solid reason for that rather than basing your articles on some vague sources. I must also warn you that you might be testing the patience of investors who are being hurt by your sensational one sided journalism. If you do not stick to facts and reality you might be required to divulge your sources in the court of law in the very near future.

      thanks
      View article »
    • Sun Dec 23rd 15:03 PM | Rating: 0 0
      Commented on:
      Friday Outlook
      *
      Piper Jaffray
      Fraud

      Piper Jaffray Securities Fraud InfoCenter
      Learn about Piper Jaffray fraud and securities fraud lawsuits!
      InfoCenter
      December 23, 2007 Protect your retirement, your savings, your financial future. Learn about securities fraud today!

      Home
      Piper Jaffray Fraud information
      Piper Jaffray Fraud attorneys
      Bookmark Page
      Tell a Friend
      Subscribe
      Contact Us

      About Piper Jaffray Fraud InfoCenter
      Piper Jaffray Fraud InfoCenter is an Internet resource that offers you an opportunity to research securities fraud and your legal rights associated with Piper Jaffray fraud. Piper Jaffray Fraud InfoCenter does not offer legal advice or referrals.

      Piper Jaffray Fraud Information
      Piper Jaffray

      What is Piper Jaffray?
      Piper Jaffray, now known as U.S. Bancorp Piper Jaffray, is a Minneapolis-based brokerage and investment banking firm that was formed in 1895. The company provides financial information, products, and services to businesses, individuals, and institutions. It operates more than 120 offices in 25 states, employs more than 2,900 investment bankers, sales and trading executives, research analysts, and financial advisors, and is one of the nation’s most powerful firms in its class.

      Why is Piper Jaffray accused of fraud?
      In one of the largest securities fraud cases in Minnesota’s history, U.S. Bancorp Piper Jaffray is accused of making more than 6,000 fraudulent transactions in the accounts of 38 of its investors between June 1999 and June 2001. The company also allegedly paid other firms to publish research on its underwriting clients but failed to ensure that those payments were disclosed and neglected to sufficiently supervise its divisions.

      Specifically, Piper Jaffray is accused of:

      · Issuing research reports that violated NASD and NYSE rules to Esperion Therapeutics, Inc. and Triton Network Systems
      · Failing to disclose that it received more than $18 million in payment for research coverage performed for various companies
      · Failing to disclose that it paid portions of underwriting proceedings to other firms for research it performed
      · Neglecting to effectively monitor its research and investment banking divisions to ensure that both complied with federal securities laws and NASD and NYSE rules.

      Who were the key players in the fraud?
      Although the entire company is under scrutiny, former U.S. Bancorp Jaffray stockbroker Thomas O’Neill has been charged with administrative fraud and is facing at least 35 civil lawsuits. O’Neill has a history, officials say, of volatile trading and is accused of making thousands of unethical, unwanted, and illegal trades. According to Piper Jaffray representatives, O’Neill was terminated in March 2001 and has been suspended from trading. In addition, chairman Tad Piper, president Andrew Duff, former head of retail Ross Rogers, and at least 10 other executives are being investigated on possible fraud charges.

      What is the status?
      On April 28, 2003, the Securities and Exchange Commission announced a settlement with U.S. Bancorp Piper Jaffray. Piper Jaffray agreed to pay $12.5 million in penalties and fines and $12.5 million in disgorgement. Exactly one-half of the total payment will be and placed into a fund that will be divided among customers who were defrauded by the firm. The remaining $12.5 will be used to resolve all remaining state regulators’ proceedings. In addition, Piper Jaffray accepted a federal court order prohibiting the firm from disobeying NYSE and NASD rules and all federal securities laws; the order also calls for the restructuring of the company’s equity research and banking divisions to ensure that the departments will not influence one another. Finally, the settlement stipulates that Piper Jaffray must foot the $7.5 million bill for firm clients’ independent research over the course of five years.



      Find a Lawyer
      Related Sites
      Piper Jaffray Fraud Information
      Securities Fraud Info
      Criminal Law Info
      Legal Rights Info

      Piper Jaffray Fraud News
      Securities Fraud News
      Shareholder Fraud News
      Investment Fraud News
      Merrill Lynch Fraud News
      Smith Barney Fraud News
      Morgan Stanley Fraud News
      UBS Warburg Fraud News
      Credit Suisse Fraud News
      Bear Stearns Fraud News
      JP Morgan Fraud News
      Lehman Brothers Fraud News
      Deutsche Bank Fraud News
      Charles Schwab Fraud News
      Wachovia Securities Fraud News
      Knight Trading Fraud News
      Alliance Capital Fraud News
      Goldman Sachs Fraud News
      Enron Fraud News
      Tyco Fraud News
      WorldCom Fraud News
      Adelphia Fraud News
      Criminal Law News
      Legal Rights News


      RESOURCES
      Recommended Sites
      Law Schools
      National Legal Associations
      National Bar Associations
      Statewide Legal Associations
      Other Resources

      Piper Jaffray Fraud InfoCenter
      Terms of Use | Webmaster | Developed by Einstein Law, Inc. | Advertise

      pjfraudinfocenter.com/...

      View article »
    • Sun Dec 23rd 15:01 PM | Rating: 0 0
      Commented on:
      Jefferies Out Positive on Solar Stocks
      *
      Piper Jaffray
      Fraud

      Piper Jaffray Securities Fraud InfoCenter
      Learn about Piper Jaffray fraud and securities fraud lawsuits!
      InfoCenter
      December 23, 2007 Protect your retirement, your savings, your financial future. Learn about securities fraud today!

      Home
      Piper Jaffray Fraud information
      Piper Jaffray Fraud attorneys
      Bookmark Page
      Tell a Friend
      Subscribe
      Contact Us

      About Piper Jaffray Fraud InfoCenter
      Piper Jaffray Fraud InfoCenter is an Internet resource that offers you an opportunity to research securities fraud and your legal rights associated with Piper Jaffray fraud. Piper Jaffray Fraud InfoCenter does not offer legal advice or referrals.

      Piper Jaffray Fraud Information
      Piper Jaffray

      What is Piper Jaffray?
      Piper Jaffray, now known as U.S. Bancorp Piper Jaffray, is a Minneapolis-based brokerage and investment banking firm that was formed in 1895. The company provides financial information, products, and services to businesses, individuals, and institutions. It operates more than 120 offices in 25 states, employs more than 2,900 investment bankers, sales and trading executives, research analysts, and financial advisors, and is one of the nation’s most powerful firms in its class.

      Why is Piper Jaffray accused of fraud?
      In one of the largest securities fraud cases in Minnesota’s history, U.S. Bancorp Piper Jaffray is accused of making more than 6,000 fraudulent transactions in the accounts of 38 of its investors between June 1999 and June 2001. The company also allegedly paid other firms to publish research on its underwriting clients but failed to ensure that those payments were disclosed and neglected to sufficiently supervise its divisions.

      Specifically, Piper Jaffray is accused of:

      · Issuing research reports that violated NASD and NYSE rules to Esperion Therapeutics, Inc. and Triton Network Systems
      · Failing to disclose that it received more than $18 million in payment for research coverage performed for various companies
      · Failing to disclose that it paid portions of underwriting proceedings to other firms for research it performed
      · Neglecting to effectively monitor its research and investment banking divisions to ensure that both complied with federal securities laws and NASD and NYSE rules.

      Who were the key players in the fraud?
      Although the entire company is under scrutiny, former U.S. Bancorp Jaffray stockbroker Thomas O’Neill has been charged with administrative fraud and is facing at least 35 civil lawsuits. O’Neill has a history, officials say, of volatile trading and is accused of making thousands of unethical, unwanted, and illegal trades. According to Piper Jaffray representatives, O’Neill was terminated in March 2001 and has been suspended from trading. In addition, chairman Tad Piper, president Andrew Duff, former head of retail Ross Rogers, and at least 10 other executives are being investigated on possible fraud charges.

      What is the status?
      On April 28, 2003, the Securities and Exchange Commission announced a settlement with U.S. Bancorp Piper Jaffray. Piper Jaffray agreed to pay $12.5 million in penalties and fines and $12.5 million in disgorgement. Exactly one-half of the total payment will be and placed into a fund that will be divided among customers who were defrauded by the firm. The remaining $12.5 will be used to resolve all remaining state regulators’ proceedings. In addition, Piper Jaffray accepted a federal court order prohibiting the firm from disobeying NYSE and NASD rules and all federal securities laws; the order also calls for the restructuring of the company’s equity research and banking divisions to ensure that the departments will not influence one another. Finally, the settlement stipulates that Piper Jaffray must foot the $7.5 million bill for firm clients’ independent research over the course of five years.



      Find a Lawyer
      Related Sites
      Piper Jaffray Fraud Information
      Securities Fraud Info
      Criminal Law Info
      Legal Rights Info

      Piper Jaffray Fraud News
      Securities Fraud News
      Shareholder Fraud News
      Investment Fraud News
      Merrill Lynch Fraud News
      Smith Barney Fraud News
      Morgan Stanley Fraud News
      UBS Warburg Fraud News
      Credit Suisse Fraud News
      Bear Stearns Fraud News
      JP Morgan Fraud News
      Lehman Brothers Fraud News
      Deutsche Bank Fraud News
      Charles Schwab Fraud News
      Wachovia Securities Fraud News
      Knight Trading Fraud News
      Alliance Capital Fraud News
      Goldman Sachs Fraud News
      Enron Fraud News
      Tyco Fraud News
      WorldCom Fraud News
      Adelphia Fraud News
      Criminal Law News
      Legal Rights News


      RESOURCES
      Recommended Sites
      Law Schools
      National Legal Associations
      National Bar Associations
      Statewide Legal Associations
      Other Resources

      Piper Jaffray Fraud InfoCenter
      Terms of Use | Webmaster | Developed by Einstein Law, Inc. | Advertise

      pjfraudinfocenter.com/...
      View article »
    • Sun Dec 23rd 15:00 PM | Rating: 0 0
      Commented on:
      Lehman Raises Target on Solar Stocks
      *
      Piper Jaffray
      Fraud

      Piper Jaffray Securities Fraud InfoCenter
      Learn about Piper Jaffray fraud and securities fraud lawsuits!
      InfoCenter
      December 23, 2007 Protect your retirement, your savings, your financial future. Learn about securities fraud today!

      Home
      Piper Jaffray Fraud information
      Piper Jaffray Fraud attorneys
      Bookmark Page
      Tell a Friend
      Subscribe
      Contact Us

      About Piper Jaffray Fraud InfoCenter
      Piper Jaffray Fraud InfoCenter is an Internet resource that offers you an opportunity to research securities fraud and your legal rights associated with Piper Jaffray fraud. Piper Jaffray Fraud InfoCenter does not offer legal advice or referrals.

      Piper Jaffray Fraud Information
      Piper Jaffray

      What is Piper Jaffray?
      Piper Jaffray, now known as U.S. Bancorp Piper Jaffray, is a Minneapolis-based brokerage and investment banking firm that was formed in 1895. The company provides financial information, products, and services to businesses, individuals, and institutions. It operates more than 120 offices in 25 states, employs more than 2,900 investment bankers, sales and trading executives, research analysts, and financial advisors, and is one of the nation’s most powerful firms in its class.

      Why is Piper Jaffray accused of fraud?
      In one of the largest securities fraud cases in Minnesota’s history, U.S. Bancorp Piper Jaffray is accused of making more than 6,000 fraudulent transactions in the accounts of 38 of its investors between June 1999 and June 2001. The company also allegedly paid other firms to publish research on its underwriting clients but failed to ensure that those payments were disclosed and neglected to sufficiently supervise its divisions.

      Specifically, Piper Jaffray is accused of:

      · Issuing research reports that violated NASD and NYSE rules to Esperion Therapeutics, Inc. and Triton Network Systems
      · Failing to disclose that it received more than $18 million in payment for research coverage performed for various companies
      · Failing to disclose that it paid portions of underwriting proceedings to other firms for research it performed
      · Neglecting to effectively monitor its research and investment banking divisions to ensure that both complied with federal securities laws and NASD and NYSE rules.

      Who were the key players in the fraud?
      Although the entire company is under scrutiny, former U.S. Bancorp Jaffray stockbroker Thomas O’Neill has been charged with administrative fraud and is facing at least 35 civil lawsuits. O’Neill has a history, officials say, of volatile trading and is accused of making thousands of unethical, unwanted, and illegal trades. According to Piper Jaffray representatives, O’Neill was terminated in March 2001 and has been suspended from trading. In addition, chairman Tad Piper, president Andrew Duff, former head of retail Ross Rogers, and at least 10 other executives are being investigated on possible fraud charges.

      What is the status?
      On April 28, 2003, the Securities and Exchange Commission announced a settlement with U.S. Bancorp Piper Jaffray. Piper Jaffray agreed to pay $12.5 million in penalties and fines and $12.5 million in disgorgement. Exactly one-half of the total payment will be and placed into a fund that will be divided among customers who were defrauded by the firm. The remaining $12.5 will be used to resolve all remaining state regulators’ proceedings. In addition, Piper Jaffray accepted a federal court order prohibiting the firm from disobeying NYSE and NASD rules and all federal securities laws; the order also calls for the restructuring of the company’s equity research and banking divisions to ensure that the departments will not influence one another. Finally, the settlement stipulates that Piper Jaffray must foot the $7.5 million bill for firm clients’ independent research over the course of five years.



      Find a Lawyer
      Related Sites
      Piper Jaffray Fraud Information
      Securities Fraud Info
      Criminal Law Info
      Legal Rights Info

      Piper Jaffray Fraud News
      Securities Fraud News
      Shareholder Fraud News
      Investment Fraud News
      Merrill Lynch Fraud News
      Smith Barney Fraud News
      Morgan Stanley Fraud News
      UBS Warburg Fraud News
      Credit Suisse Fraud News
      Bear Stearns Fraud News
      JP Morgan Fraud News
      Lehman Brothers Fraud News
      Deutsche Bank Fraud News
      Charles Schwab Fraud News
      Wachovia Securities Fraud News
      Knight Trading Fraud News
      Alliance Capital Fraud News
      Goldman Sachs Fraud News
      Enron Fraud News
      Tyco Fraud News
      WorldCom Fraud News
      Adelphia Fraud News
      Criminal Law News
      Legal Rights News


      RESOURCES
      Recommended Sites
      Law Schools
      National Legal Associations
      National Bar Associations
      Statewide Legal Associations
      Other Resources

      Piper Jaffray Fraud InfoCenter
      Terms of Use | Webmaster | Developed by Einstein Law, Inc. | Advertise

      pjfraudinfocenter.com/...
      View article »
    • Sun Dec 23rd 01:59 AM | Rating: 0 0
      Commented on:
      If You Like Solar, LDK Is a Good Bet
      ldk vs overstock.com
      images.overstock.com/f...
      View article »
Contribute an Article Become a Seeking Alpha Contributor