stockguru's Comments RSS Syndication from SeekingAlpha.com http://seekingalpha.comuser/124569/comments http://seekingalpha.com/article/57456-us-energy-bill-solar-stocks-will-feel-all-the-heat?source=feed#comment-106857 106857
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.

]]> Tue, 25 Dec 2007 19:42:40 -0500
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.

]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/58039-best-performing-stocks-ytd?source=feed#comment-106856 106856
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.

]]> Tue, 25 Dec 2007 19:41:10 -0500
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.

]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/58210-analyzing-micron-s-downside?source=feed#comment-106855 106855
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.

]]> Tue, 25 Dec 2007 19:40:23 -0500
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.

]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/57739-lehman-raises-target-on-solar-stocks?source=feed#comment-106854 106854
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.

]]> Tue, 25 Dec 2007 19:39:51 -0500
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.

]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/58220-ldk-solar-the-naked-shorting-crime?source=feed#comment-106852 106852
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.

]]> Tue, 25 Dec 2007 19:38:01 -0500
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.

]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/58220-ldk-solar-the-naked-shorting-crime?source=feed#comment-106813 106813 Tue, 25 Dec 2007 10:41:52 -0500 http://seekingalpha.com/article/58220-ldk-solar-the-naked-shorting-crime?source=feed#comment-106792 106792 Tue, 25 Dec 2007 01:25:48 -0500 http://seekingalpha.com/article/58210-analyzing-micron-s-downside?source=feed#comment-106787 106787 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]]> Tue, 25 Dec 2007 00:10:02 -0500 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]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/58220-ldk-solar-the-naked-shorting-crime?source=feed#comment-106785 106785 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]]> Tue, 25 Dec 2007 00:06:08 -0500 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]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/58220-ldk-solar-the-naked-shorting-crime?source=feed#comment-106689 106689
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
]]> Mon, 24 Dec 2007 06:36:47 -0500
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
]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/58210-analyzing-micron-s-downside?source=feed#comment-106654 106654 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]]> Sun, 23 Dec 2007 18:26:06 -0500 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]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/58203-friday-outlook?source=feed#comment-106639 106639 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/...

]]> Sun, 23 Dec 2007 15:03:07 -0500 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/...

]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/56651-jefferies-out-positive-on-solar-stocks?source=feed#comment-106638 106638 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/...
]]> Sun, 23 Dec 2007 15:01:54 -0500 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/...
]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/57739-lehman-raises-target-on-solar-stocks?source=feed#comment-106637 106637 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/...
]]> Sun, 23 Dec 2007 15:00:44 -0500 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/...
]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/58092-if-you-like-solar-ldk-is-a-good-bet?source=feed#comment-106568 106568 images.overstock.com/f...]]> Sun, 23 Dec 2007 01:59:15 -0500 images.overstock.com/f...]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/57739-lehman-raises-target-on-solar-stocks?source=feed#comment-106566 106566 NEW YORK, Oct 17 (Reuters) - Piper Jaffray Cos (PJC.N: Quote, Profile , Research), an investment bank focused on mid-sized companies, on Wednesday said third-quarter operating profit fell 49 percent, hurt by turmoil in credit markets.

Earnings from continuing operations fell to $4.8 million, or 28 cents per share, from $9.5 million, or 50 cents, a year earlier. Revenue from continuing operations fell 20 percent to $92.9 million.

Net income fell to $4.4 million, or 26 cents per share, from $186.6 million, or $9.79 per share. Year-earlier results included a $177.1 million gain from the sale of Piper's retail brokerage to Swiss bank UBS AG (UBSN.VX: Quote, Profile , Research).



Analysts on average forecast profit of 53 cents per share on revenue of $114.3 million, according to Reuters Estimates.

"While our business is not focused on the most troubled aspects of the credit markets, namely subprime mortgages and (leveraged) loan commitments, the fallout from the turbulence in these markets negatively impacted nearly all of our businesses," Chief Executive Andrew Duff said in a statement. "We believe the adverse conditions were largely concentrated in the third quarter."

From continuing operations, investment banking revenue fell 28 percent to $52.5 million, hurt by a "sharp decline" in offerings from the consumer and health-care sectors. Institutional sales and trading revenue fell 11 percent to $38.8 million.

Piper shares closed Tuesday at $52.33 on the New York Stock Exchange. They have fallen 20 percent this year. (Reporting by Jonathan Stempel)
]]> Sun, 23 Dec 2007 01:30:36 -0500 NEW YORK, Oct 17 (Reuters) - Piper Jaffray Cos (PJC.N: Quote, Profile , Research), an investment bank focused on mid-sized companies, on Wednesday said third-quarter operating profit fell 49 percent, hurt by turmoil in credit markets.

Earnings from continuing operations fell to $4.8 million, or 28 cents per share, from $9.5 million, or 50 cents, a year earlier. Revenue from continuing operations fell 20 percent to $92.9 million.

Net income fell to $4.4 million, or 26 cents per share, from $186.6 million, or $9.79 per share. Year-earlier results included a $177.1 million gain from the sale of Piper's retail brokerage to Swiss bank UBS AG (UBSN.VX: Quote, Profile , Research).



Analysts on average forecast profit of 53 cents per share on revenue of $114.3 million, according to Reuters Estimates.

"While our business is not focused on the most troubled aspects of the credit markets, namely subprime mortgages and (leveraged) loan commitments, the fallout from the turbulence in these markets negatively impacted nearly all of our businesses," Chief Executive Andrew Duff said in a statement. "We believe the adverse conditions were largely concentrated in the third quarter."

From continuing operations, investment banking revenue fell 28 percent to $52.5 million, hurt by a "sharp decline" in offerings from the consumer and health-care sectors. Institutional sales and trading revenue fell 11 percent to $38.8 million.

Piper shares closed Tuesday at $52.33 on the New York Stock Exchange. They have fallen 20 percent this year. (Reporting by Jonathan Stempel)
]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/57345-ja-solar-should-jump-on-piper-jaffray-note?source=feed#comment-106565 106565 NEW YORK, Oct 17 (Reuters) - Piper Jaffray Cos (PJC.N: Quote, Profile , Research), an investment bank focused on mid-sized companies, on Wednesday said third-quarter operating profit fell 49 percent, hurt by turmoil in credit markets.

Earnings from continuing operations fell to $4.8 million, or 28 cents per share, from $9.5 million, or 50 cents, a year earlier. Revenue from continuing operations fell 20 percent to $92.9 million.

Net income fell to $4.4 million, or 26 cents per share, from $186.6 million, or $9.79 per share. Year-earlier results included a $177.1 million gain from the sale of Piper's retail brokerage to Swiss bank UBS AG (UBSN.VX: Quote, Profile , Research).



Analysts on average forecast profit of 53 cents per share on revenue of $114.3 million, according to Reuters Estimates.

"While our business is not focused on the most troubled aspects of the credit markets, namely subprime mortgages and (leveraged) loan commitments, the fallout from the turbulence in these markets negatively impacted nearly all of our businesses," Chief Executive Andrew Duff said in a statement. "We believe the adverse conditions were largely concentrated in the third quarter."

From continuing operations, investment banking revenue fell 28 percent to $52.5 million, hurt by a "sharp decline" in offerings from the consumer and health-care sectors. Institutional sales and trading revenue fell 11 percent to $38.8 million.

Piper shares closed Tuesday at $52.33 on the New York Stock Exchange. They have fallen 20 percent this year. (Reporting by Jonathan Stempel)
]]> Sun, 23 Dec 2007 01:30:01 -0500 NEW YORK, Oct 17 (Reuters) - Piper Jaffray Cos (PJC.N: Quote, Profile , Research), an investment bank focused on mid-sized companies, on Wednesday said third-quarter operating profit fell 49 percent, hurt by turmoil in credit markets.

Earnings from continuing operations fell to $4.8 million, or 28 cents per share, from $9.5 million, or 50 cents, a year earlier. Revenue from continuing operations fell 20 percent to $92.9 million.

Net income fell to $4.4 million, or 26 cents per share, from $186.6 million, or $9.79 per share. Year-earlier results included a $177.1 million gain from the sale of Piper's retail brokerage to Swiss bank UBS AG (UBSN.VX: Quote, Profile , Research).



Analysts on average forecast profit of 53 cents per share on revenue of $114.3 million, according to Reuters Estimates.

"While our business is not focused on the most troubled aspects of the credit markets, namely subprime mortgages and (leveraged) loan commitments, the fallout from the turbulence in these markets negatively impacted nearly all of our businesses," Chief Executive Andrew Duff said in a statement. "We believe the adverse conditions were largely concentrated in the third quarter."

From continuing operations, investment banking revenue fell 28 percent to $52.5 million, hurt by a "sharp decline" in offerings from the consumer and health-care sectors. Institutional sales and trading revenue fell 11 percent to $38.8 million.

Piper shares closed Tuesday at $52.33 on the New York Stock Exchange. They have fallen 20 percent this year. (Reporting by Jonathan Stempel)
]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/58092-if-you-like-solar-ldk-is-a-good-bet?source=feed#comment-106564 106564 NEW YORK, Oct 17 (Reuters) - Piper Jaffray Cos (PJC.N: Quote, Profile , Research), an investment bank focused on mid-sized companies, on Wednesday said third-quarter operating profit fell 49 percent, hurt by turmoil in credit markets.

Earnings from continuing operations fell to $4.8 million, or 28 cents per share, from $9.5 million, or 50 cents, a year earlier. Revenue from continuing operations fell 20 percent to $92.9 million.

Net income fell to $4.4 million, or 26 cents per share, from $186.6 million, or $9.79 per share. Year-earlier results included a $177.1 million gain from the sale of Piper's retail brokerage to Swiss bank UBS AG (UBSN.VX: Quote, Profile , Research).



Analysts on average forecast profit of 53 cents per share on revenue of $114.3 million, according to Reuters Estimates.

"While our business is not focused on the most troubled aspects of the credit markets, namely subprime mortgages and (leveraged) loan commitments, the fallout from the turbulence in these markets negatively impacted nearly all of our businesses," Chief Executive Andrew Duff said in a statement. "We believe the adverse conditions were largely concentrated in the third quarter."

From continuing operations, investment banking revenue fell 28 percent to $52.5 million, hurt by a "sharp decline" in offerings from the consumer and health-care sectors. Institutional sales and trading revenue fell 11 percent to $38.8 million.

Piper shares closed Tuesday at $52.33 on the New York Stock Exchange. They have fallen 20 percent this year. (Reporting by Jonathan Stempel)

]]> Sun, 23 Dec 2007 01:29:01 -0500 NEW YORK, Oct 17 (Reuters) - Piper Jaffray Cos (PJC.N: Quote, Profile , Research), an investment bank focused on mid-sized companies, on Wednesday said third-quarter operating profit fell 49 percent, hurt by turmoil in credit markets.

Earnings from continuing operations fell to $4.8 million, or 28 cents per share, from $9.5 million, or 50 cents, a year earlier. Revenue from continuing operations fell 20 percent to $92.9 million.

Net income fell to $4.4 million, or 26 cents per share, from $186.6 million, or $9.79 per share. Year-earlier results included a $177.1 million gain from the sale of Piper's retail brokerage to Swiss bank UBS AG (UBSN.VX: Quote, Profile , Research).



Analysts on average forecast profit of 53 cents per share on revenue of $114.3 million, according to Reuters Estimates.

"While our business is not focused on the most troubled aspects of the credit markets, namely subprime mortgages and (leveraged) loan commitments, the fallout from the turbulence in these markets negatively impacted nearly all of our businesses," Chief Executive Andrew Duff said in a statement. "We believe the adverse conditions were largely concentrated in the third quarter."

From continuing operations, investment banking revenue fell 28 percent to $52.5 million, hurt by a "sharp decline" in offerings from the consumer and health-care sectors. Institutional sales and trading revenue fell 11 percent to $38.8 million.

Piper shares closed Tuesday at $52.33 on the New York Stock Exchange. They have fallen 20 percent this year. (Reporting by Jonathan Stempel)

]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/58092-if-you-like-solar-ldk-is-a-good-bet?source=feed#comment-106563 106563 Sun, 23 Dec 2007 01:25:55 -0500 http://seekingalpha.com/article/58092-if-you-like-solar-ldk-is-a-good-bet?source=feed#comment-106560 106560 Sun, 23 Dec 2007 00:40:56 -0500 http://seekingalpha.com/article/58092-if-you-like-solar-ldk-is-a-good-bet?source=feed#comment-106551 106551 Semiconductor Analyst Chosen on the Basis of Stellar 2006 Recommendations and Performance

NEW YORK -- Needham & Company, LLC today announced that Pierre Maccagno, a senior research analyst in Needham's semiconductor group, received the top score as The Wall Street Journal's "Best on The Street" analyst in the semiconductor category based on his recommendations in 2006. The list appeared in The Wall Street Journal on May 21, 2007.

Three of Mr. Maccagno's recommendations cited by The Wall Street Journal were Anadigics (Nasdaq: ANAD), which produces chips for cell phones and other wireless products and returned 48% last year; Cree (Nasdaq: CREE), which makes light-emitting-diode chips for computer and cell phone displays and returned 35%; and STEC (Nasdaq: STEC), which packages conventional memory chips into data-storage modules and returned 236% in 2006. RF Micro Devices (Nasdaq: RFMD) is Mr. Maccagno's top pick for 2007.

The Wall Street Journal used Thomson Corporation's Thomson Financial division to calculate performance scores based on total return of each eligible stock an analyst followed and the number of stocks the analyst covered. Analysts also scored points for correct buy and sell recommendations. The winners in each category were drawn from 1,705 eligible analysts, based on data from more than 4,000 analysts at more than 280 firms. The Journal listed the top five analysts in each industry
]]> Sat, 22 Dec 2007 20:01:34 -0500 Semiconductor Analyst Chosen on the Basis of Stellar 2006 Recommendations and Performance

NEW YORK -- Needham & Company, LLC today announced that Pierre Maccagno, a senior research analyst in Needham's semiconductor group, received the top score as The Wall Street Journal's "Best on The Street" analyst in the semiconductor category based on his recommendations in 2006. The list appeared in The Wall Street Journal on May 21, 2007.

Three of Mr. Maccagno's recommendations cited by The Wall Street Journal were Anadigics (Nasdaq: ANAD), which produces chips for cell phones and other wireless products and returned 48% last year; Cree (Nasdaq: CREE), which makes light-emitting-diode chips for computer and cell phone displays and returned 35%; and STEC (Nasdaq: STEC), which packages conventional memory chips into data-storage modules and returned 236% in 2006. RF Micro Devices (Nasdaq: RFMD) is Mr. Maccagno's top pick for 2007.

The Wall Street Journal used Thomson Corporation's Thomson Financial division to calculate performance scores based on total return of each eligible stock an analyst followed and the number of stocks the analyst covered. Analysts also scored points for correct buy and sell recommendations. The winners in each category were drawn from 1,705 eligible analysts, based on data from more than 4,000 analysts at more than 280 firms. The Journal listed the top five analysts in each industry
]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/58092-if-you-like-solar-ldk-is-a-good-bet?source=feed#comment-106546 106546
Published: August 6, 2004
The NASD, the brokerage industry's self-policing organization, told the Piper Jaffray Company to expect disciplinary action for several of its compensation arrangements with mutual fund companies, the company said. Piper Jaffray revealed the possible action in a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission on Wednesday. The action relates to so-called directed brokerage arrangements, in which a mutual fund sends trading business to a brokerage firm in return for the brokerage selling shares in the fund to investors. Such arrangements are prohibited by NASD because the payments could lead brokers to pitch funds that are not suitable for all investors. Piper Jaffray is based in Minneapolis.

]]> Sat, 22 Dec 2007 19:37:39 -0500
Published: August 6, 2004
The NASD, the brokerage industry's self-policing organization, told the Piper Jaffray Company to expect disciplinary action for several of its compensation arrangements with mutual fund companies, the company said. Piper Jaffray revealed the possible action in a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission on Wednesday. The action relates to so-called directed brokerage arrangements, in which a mutual fund sends trading business to a brokerage firm in return for the brokerage selling shares in the fund to investors. Such arrangements are prohibited by NASD because the payments could lead brokers to pitch funds that are not suitable for all investors. Piper Jaffray is based in Minneapolis.

]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/57997-ldk-solar-dives-on-margin-worries-despite-earnings-beat?source=feed#comment-106543 106543 I have a question for you. Why did PJ downgrde LDK and upgrade JASO while i think JASO`s margins and revenue are lower than LDK. Was it because he lost their investment business? ]]> Sat, 22 Dec 2007 19:30:33 -0500 I have a question for you. Why did PJ downgrde LDK and upgrade JASO while i think JASO`s margins and revenue are lower than LDK. Was it because he lost their investment business? ]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/57739-lehman-raises-target-on-solar-stocks?source=feed#comment-106542 106542 I have a question for you!! why you guys at Barron are bashing LDK without any evidence against them and pumping other solar stocks.
Bill Alpert seems to believe Situ more than he believes an independent law firm. Can you please tell me whats going on? why are you trying to manipulate the price of LDK? some vested interests?]]> Sat, 22 Dec 2007 19:26:41 -0500 I have a question for you!! why you guys at Barron are bashing LDK without any evidence against them and pumping other solar stocks.
Bill Alpert seems to believe Situ more than he believes an independent law firm. Can you please tell me whats going on? why are you trying to manipulate the price of LDK? some vested interests?]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/57747-ldk-found-error-free-rises-30-where-is-the-solar-rally?source=feed#comment-106540 106540 Sat, 22 Dec 2007 19:10:23 -0500 http://seekingalpha.com/article/57747-ldk-found-error-free-rises-30-where-is-the-solar-rally?source=feed#comment-106539 106539 Sat, 22 Dec 2007 19:09:51 -0500 http://seekingalpha.com/article/58117-ldk-solar-just-the-facts-jack?source=feed#comment-106536 106536 Litigation Release No. 18113 / April 28, 2003

The Securities and Exchange Commission announced today that it has settled charges against Goldman, Sachs & Co.

As part of the settlement, Goldman Sachs has agreed to pay $25 million as disgorgement and an additional $25 million in penalties.

In addition, Goldman Sachs will pay, over five years, $50 million to provide the firm's clients with independent research, and $10 million to be used for investor education.

Specifically, the Commission's Complaint alleges that:

1) Goldman Sachs compensated its analysts based at least in part upon their participation in the firm's investment banking-related activities.

2) Goldman Sachs "aligned" its research, equities, and investment banking divisions to work collaboratively in order to fully leverage its limited research resources.

3) Goldman Sachs analysts participated in investment banking marketing efforts, including working with investment bankers to prepare "pitch" materials and in some cases attending the pitch meetings.

4) In several instances, these conflicts resulted in analysts publishing recommendations that were exaggerated or unwarranted.

5) Goldman Sachs failed to establish and maintain adequate policies, systems, and procedures reasonably designed to ensure the objectivity of its published research.
]]> Sat, 22 Dec 2007 19:06:58 -0500 Litigation Release No. 18113 / April 28, 2003

The Securities and Exchange Commission announced today that it has settled charges against Goldman, Sachs & Co.

As part of the settlement, Goldman Sachs has agreed to pay $25 million as disgorgement and an additional $25 million in penalties.

In addition, Goldman Sachs will pay, over five years, $50 million to provide the firm's clients with independent research, and $10 million to be used for investor education.

Specifically, the Commission's Complaint alleges that:

1) Goldman Sachs compensated its analysts based at least in part upon their participation in the firm's investment banking-related activities.

2) Goldman Sachs "aligned" its research, equities, and investment banking divisions to work collaboratively in order to fully leverage its limited research resources.

3) Goldman Sachs analysts participated in investment banking marketing efforts, including working with investment bankers to prepare "pitch" materials and in some cases attending the pitch meetings.

4) In several instances, these conflicts resulted in analysts publishing recommendations that were exaggerated or unwarranted.

5) Goldman Sachs failed to establish and maintain adequate policies, systems, and procedures reasonably designed to ensure the objectivity of its published research.
]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/58092-if-you-like-solar-ldk-is-a-good-bet?source=feed#comment-106535 106535 Litigation Release No. 18113 / April 28, 2003

The Securities and Exchange Commission announced today that it has settled charges against Goldman, Sachs & Co.

As part of the settlement, Goldman Sachs has agreed to pay $25 million as disgorgement and an additional $25 million in penalties.

In addition, Goldman Sachs will pay, over five years, $50 million to provide the firm's clients with independent research, and $10 million to be used for investor education.

Specifically, the Commission's Complaint alleges that:

1) Goldman Sachs compensated its analysts based at least in part upon their participation in the firm's investment banking-related activities.

2) Goldman Sachs "aligned" its research, equities, and investment banking divisions to work collaboratively in order to fully leverage its limited research resources.

3) Goldman Sachs analysts participated in investment banking marketing efforts, including working with investment bankers to prepare "pitch" materials and in some cases attending the pitch meetings.

4) In several instances, these conflicts resulted in analysts publishing recommendations that were exaggerated or unwarranted.

5) Goldman Sachs failed to establish and maintain adequate policies, systems, and procedures reasonably designed to ensure the objectivity of its published research.
]]> Sat, 22 Dec 2007 19:06:12 -0500 Litigation Release No. 18113 / April 28, 2003

The Securities and Exchange Commission announced today that it has settled charges against Goldman, Sachs & Co.

As part of the settlement, Goldman Sachs has agreed to pay $25 million as disgorgement and an additional $25 million in penalties.

In addition, Goldman Sachs will pay, over five years, $50 million to provide the firm's clients with independent research, and $10 million to be used for investor education.

Specifically, the Commission's Complaint alleges that:

1) Goldman Sachs compensated its analysts based at least in part upon their participation in the firm's investment banking-related activities.

2) Goldman Sachs "aligned" its research, equities, and investment banking divisions to work collaboratively in order to fully leverage its limited research resources.

3) Goldman Sachs analysts participated in investment banking marketing efforts, including working with investment bankers to prepare "pitch" materials and in some cases attending the pitch meetings.

4) In several instances, these conflicts resulted in analysts publishing recommendations that were exaggerated or unwarranted.

5) Goldman Sachs failed to establish and maintain adequate policies, systems, and procedures reasonably designed to ensure the objectivity of its published research.
]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/58092-if-you-like-solar-ldk-is-a-good-bet?source=feed#comment-106534 106534 Sat, 22 Dec 2007 19:05:53 -0500 http://seekingalpha.com/article/57739-lehman-raises-target-on-solar-stocks?source=feed#comment-106532 106532
----------------------...
LDK guidelance for Q4 is $180-185 Million and it's a SELL?
]]> Sat, 22 Dec 2007 19:02:04 -0500
----------------------...
LDK guidelance for Q4 is $180-185 Million and it's a SELL?
]]>