Why is it unconstitutional? The SEC clearly has authority to regulate or prosecute communications with investors designed to manipulate a stock's price. The fact that a flack for hedge funds gets away with calling himself a journalist doesn't give him immunity from the laws and regulations that apply to all of us. In Greenberg's case, he is being disingenuous when he says he is merely a journalist getting tips from sources. That might be true if he were writing a society gossip column or a political column, but he is in the position to influence the price of stocks. The people feeding him these tips are clearly not doing it to encourage sound corporate governance. They have big bucks at stake. I think a lot of this could be resolved if his editors required him to name his sources. Then it is obvious he is just a shill and not doing independent research. However, he pretends to be knowledgeable about these issues himself and to have his own opinions, and a lot of investors rely on him. In fairness, it is a tricky constitutional issue. Certainly a journalist can publish his opinions, even if he is doing it at someone's direction. Every newspaper in the world does that. When we are dealing with securities markets however, that right runs into the SEC's duty to prevent market manipulation. Bottom line, they will have to show he received some sort of quid pro quo to make a case.
<i>All you need todo is look at herbs financial records. Thats financial accounting 101. </i> Oh, ok. And because there wasn't a line item marked, "Illicit bribe from hedge fund manager, funneled through offshore trust, $10M" or "Fur coat for Herb's wife, gift from hedge fund manager, $20K" that means he's clean as a whistle? Martin
where have you been all my life, big boy???? Explain this to me someone. 1:03 EST - Update. Patrick Byrne was on Bloomberg, and made the comment that the short interest in OSTK is now 8.9 million shares, when there are only 8.4 million shares at the DTC. In other news, Cramer, in his blog, simultaneously says he respects the government's duty to investigate miscreants, but paints his own investigation as a witch hunt. Man, I wish I had a dollar for every perp who has ever declared himself to be a victim of the man. The prisons are filled with innocent men. Anyway, now he is claiming that there is a conspiracy involving Byrne, the SEC, and parties unknown. Isn't it odd that the guy who was calling Patrick a loon is now the biggest conspiracy theorist out there? Anyway, that is the latest... I don't care if Byrne is scamming people, actually cheating them. How do you short more than the float?" I know. do you?
thanks Im just a person that belieaves in freedoms and constitutional rights. Well the problem with dorfman was that he bought and sold stock that he wrote about, and never informed the readers. That was his problem. If herb bought stock, sure fry him, but he never did. And look at this the guy who is claminng a conspiracy innocently enought restated 4 years worth of earnings. The problem is that its not illegal for herb to write about the stocks he write, since he did nothing wrong. If he was manipulated, for herb, there is no legal problems. Thats an image problem but its not illegal. That overstock guy is the one whose a crook. http://biz.yahoo.com/rb/060228/retail_overstock_restatement.html?.v=2
Martin, then if thats the case why not look at his finances. Instead of suponeaning his emails and his reporters notes.
thanks beltway, its a really tricky issue. But I belieave the law is that you are only committing an offence if you influence a stock price for your own personal gain. Or if you knowingly influence stocks for personal gain or for others. Like you accept bribes to trash a stock. Thats illegal. Its not illegal to write stories saying your opinion or writing why patrick byrnes company keeps losing money. If it effects the stock, it doesnt matter, b/c he has no finanancial gain. Or the protection for people is stating he owns the stock or short it. The law is strict in its interpretation, and herb neither broke it or twisted it. The only person I know who seems to be bending the law is Byrnes. Did you see how he restted 4 years worht of earnings today. http://www.seclaw.com/centers/invscent.shtml
It's not tricky at all if you read the lawsuits. They specifically state what they allege is manipulation. The scamming was done tongue in cheek, and I gave you an easy opening. However, nobody wants to address shorting 108 percent of the float, which is impossible, and he's not counting the fails. He just counting "legit" shorts, which can't be legit. How do you get a locate for more than the float. It's like owning two lawnmowers, and lending three. Can't be done. Well, it obviously can get done, but it's w/mirrors. That's why they are fighting so hard.
They allege gradient and rocker not herb. thats the problem. Byrne is accusing him of committing a crime. And accepting bribes. Thought there is no proof and in fact financial records show, herb is correct. Today you have byrnes backing off...and claiming they were elicit charges of bribes. And that he wasnt saying herb did, that it was just something one of the witnesses claim. Thought the claim wasnt under oath, and wasnt a legal paper.