OVERSTOCK'S BYRNE GETS HIS REVENGE + Other News

[imSINGLEruRICH]

DIAMOND JEDI WARLORD
Thanks..... taskforceviking on 9 hours ago

dagblog.com/reader-blogs/overstocks-patrick-byrne-gets-his-revenge-16786

OVERSTOCK'S PATRICK BYRNE GETS HIS REVENGE
by PeraclesPlease 6/4/2013 - 9:33 am

There's been considerable schadenfreude over Patrick Byrne's claims about naked short selling crashing his company Overstock, amongst which includes circular arguments that his company did poorly so he must be a hack, and the gleeful contention by Goldman Sachs et al that naked short selling didn't actually exist (despite massive fails to deliver exceeding outstanding shares). Claims that were echoed by some (one) here.

Sadly for them, Goldman's lawyer accidentally released a ton of info showing not only did it exist, but that Goldman Sachs had excelled at it.

www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/accidentally-released-and-incredibly-embarrassing-documents-show-how-goldman-et-al-engaged-in-naked-short-selling-20120515

The 2nd piece of schadenfreude was that someone Byrne's Deepcapture.org had reported on had a) gotten Deepcapture's DNS & other internet presence disabled via court order in Canada, and b) the Canadian court had accepted that person's case for summary judgement on a libel case. Meaning somehow that Byrne & Deepcapture are automatically guilty, as web rumor mills have it. Sadly for the mill, apparently "summary judgment" has been reversed, and the case will go to actual trial to address such issues as whether the plaintiff misled the court in shutting down Overstock, and whether Deepcapture was justified in its "libelous" statements as part of a news story.
The 3rd piece to confirm Byrne was a hack was simply that he'd lost money, or "run Overstock into the ground" as the conventional wisdom went. Ignoring issues like Overstock had made a rebound during the economic meltdown, that if they hadn't made a boneheaded move by launching "o.co" domain & rights to name Oakland Coliseum 2 years ago they still likely would have made a profit that year, and all this competing against the formidable Amazon.com these days, and naked short sellers in days of yore.

Well, three's the charm - Overstock's back over 26, after last years low of 5, and not too far off its peak of 27 in 2008 (thought not back to higher peaks in 2004 & 2007 of 72 & 36.6). Still, there must be something Patrick Byrne is doing right, and likely isn't the complete incompetent or scam artist as contended earlier. The tale's as old as the Book of Job - if you have bad fortune, someone will be assured you've sinned badly. But when that unlucky streak passes, will they be back to say they're sorry? I'll let Tracy Chapman have the last word.

[imSINGLEruRICH]

sammyhagar
DIAMOND JEDI
Post by sammyhagar on 17 hours ago

Jim Cramer’s TheStreet.com Upgrades OSTK to Buy: ‘The Hun is always either at your throat or at your feet’ – Winston Churchill

Posted on 05 June 2013 by Patrick Byrne

On May 31 TheStreet.com (which at one point had notorious Wall Street villains Jim Cramer and David Rocker as shareholders #1 and #2), and has repeatedly been used by Jim Cramer in the pursuit of the kinds of illegal market practices for which he so proudly took credit in this video, published an “upgrade”: Overstock.com Inc. Stock Upgraded (OSTK). Given my history with Jim Cramer, including unsuccessfully attempting to draw a libel suit from him some years ago by writing ““Jim Cramer is a Complicated Man and broadcasting in an Overstock.com marketing email to close to 20 million people that Cramer is a criminal, the compliment is something of a surprise, and reminiscent of the full Churchill line, “By its sudden collapse, … the proud German army has once again proved the truth of the saying, ‘The Hun is always either at your throat or at your feet.’”

Patrick

N.B. Generally I divorce references to my day job at Overstock from my writing on DeepCapture. I mention Overstock here only when it is unavoidable, as it is here. Nothing in this brief post is meant to suggest endorsement of Overstock or TheStreet.com (which I continue to maintain is one node in a criminal enterprise that has emerged on Wall Street in the last 15 years, abetted by an SEC which has bravely re-branded itself as Wall Street’s Towel Boy), nor make any comment about the stock price.

www.deepcapture.com/jim-cramers-thestreet-com-upgrades-ostk-to-buy-the-hun-is-always-either-at-your-throat-or-at-your-feet-winston-churchill/

[JoeRockss]

Jun 5, 2013 at 12:47pmcarlos said:
I'd like to see him (Cramer) on "the street" and choke him out.[/quote]




144r
DIAMOND JEDI WARLORD



He openly brags and gets away with it ... this guy needs to be stripped of his TV persona and sent packing. Unreal isn't it?

[imSINGLEruRICH]

ShowMeTheMoney
Mod Squad
Post by ShowMeTheMoney on 7 hours ago

I never did understand how how he got away with these comments. But hey... when you're a $400 million Hedge Fund Tycoon, you can surround yourself with an Army of lawyers... or ask your buddies at the SEC to look away.

AIMO,

- Show

[imSINGLEruRICH]

flyingj
DIAMOND JEDI MASTER
10 hours ago sogwap, kashman9 and 2 more like this.
Post by flyingj on 10 hours ago

Must be another coincidence.



finance.yahoo.com/news/overstocks-market-rigging-case-proceed-220347662.html

Overstock's Market-Rigging Case to Proceed
California Supreme Court Decision Clears Way for Release of Discovery on Goldman and Merrill, and for Trial Against Merrill
Overstock.com, Inc.
4 hours ago
GlobeNewswire

SALT LAKE CITY, March 2, 2015 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Overstock.com, Inc. (OSTK) announces that due to the California Supreme Court's decision last week not to review a lower appellate court ruling, relevant discovery materials gained in its long-fought battle with Goldman Sachs and Merrill Lynch will be released to the public, and it will be proceeding to trial against Merrill Lynch.

Overstock.com CEO Patrick Byrne said, "I have long maintained that Wall Street owns its own regulators, senators, congressmen and financial media, but the one thing they cannot buy is 12 Americans in a jury box. I look forward to seeing what they have to say about the Wall Street mischief we have discovered, and will now expose in a courtroom."

In a suit filed in 2007, Overstock.com alleged certain brokerages engaged in illegal market manipulation ("naked short selling," or selling phantom shares of stock) in a deliberate effort to manipulate Overstock.com's share prices. Over many years and millions of dollars of discovery generating millions of documents, it fashioned its case against some of the premier brokerages on Wall Street.

As was previously disclosed in a filing with the SEC in December 2010, Overstock.com entered into a settlement with certain other defendants in the aggregate amount of $4.44 million, the terms of which are confidential.

In January 2012, a California trial court decided that relevant portions of the voluminous discovery records regarding Goldman and Merrill should be made public, but dismissed the case on narrow, technical grounds.

In November 2014, an appellate court upheld the decision to make public what had been learned through discovery, and that the case against Merrill Lynch could proceed. Regarding Goldman, the California Appellate Court wrote that, "Goldman knew the trades were shams and created a 'phony' supply of Overstock shares. Indeed there is evidence that Goldman Brokerage acted as Arenstein's agent." (Arenstein and his accomplice Hazen were collectively fined $8 million by market regulators for their participation in this scheme and each suspended for five years.) "In sum, there is substantial evidence Goldman Brokerage was, itself, a beneficial purchaser of one species of the exotic trades in which Hazen and Arenstein engaged to circumvent Regulation SHO," the California Appellate Court added. However, it decided that on jurisdictional grounds, Goldman could not be included in the California case.

Last week's decision by the California Supreme Court not to review the appellate court ruling means that the process for public release of information gathered through the discovery process may now proceed, and also the trial against Merrill Lynch.

In October 2014, FINRA announced fines totaling $6 million against Merrill Lynch for Regulation SHO violations which Overstock believes ties to the types of market-rigging practices it alleged in its complaint.

Overstock SVP and General Counsel Mark Griffin added, "It is unfortunate the Court has decided that, despite the substantial evidence against Goldman Sachs, due to jurisdictional grounds they cannot be made to account for it in a California courtroom. Overstock looks forward to making that evidence available to the public for review, and we can't wait to get Merrill Lynch in front of a jury, and let them decide what to do about these manipulative stock market abuses."

After settlement in December 2010 against other prime brokerage defendants, the remaining defendants were Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc.; Merrill Lynch Professional Clearing Corporation ("Merrill Pro"); Goldman Sachs & Co.; and Goldman Sachs Execution & Clearing L.P. The California Supreme Court's decision means that trial will now proceed against Merrill Lynch Professional Clearing Corporation, a Merrill Lynch subsidiary.

About Overstock.com

Overstock.com, Inc. (OSTK) is an online shopping retailer based in Salt Lake City, Utah that sells a broad range of products at low prices including furniture, rugs, bedding, electronics, clothing, and jewelry. Worldstock.com is a fair trade department dedicated to selling artisan-crafted products from around the world whereas Main Street Revolution supports small businesses across the U.S. by providing them a national customer base. Overstock has additional community-focused initiatives such as a Farmers Market and pet adoption service. Forbes ranked Overstock in its list of the Top 100 Most Trustworthy Companies in 2014. Overstock sells internationally under the name O.co. Overstock Shopping (http://www.overstock.com and http://www.o.co) regularly posts information about the company and other related matters under Investor Relations on its website.

O, Overstock.com, O.com, O.co, Club O, Main Street Revolution, Worldstock Fair Trade, Worldstock, and OVillage are registered trademarks. O.biz, Club O Dollars, and OGlobal are trademarks of Overstock.com, Inc. The Overstock.com, Club O, and Worldstock Fair Trade logos are also registered trademarks of Overstock.com, Inc. Other service marks, trademarks and trade names which may be referred to herein are the property of their respective owners.

This press release contains certain forward-looking statements within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Such forward-looking statements include, but are not limited to, statements other than statements of historical fact, including statements of future actions or outcomes of the case. Additional information regarding factors that could materially affect results and the accuracy of the forward-looking statements contained herein may be found in the Company's Form 10-Q for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2014, which was filed with the SEC on Oct. 28, 2014, and any subsequent filings with the SEC.

View photo
.
Contact:
Media Contact:
Kirstie Burden, Overstock.com, Inc.
[phone]
[e-mail]
Investor Contact:
Mark Harden, Overstock.com, Inc.
[phone]
[e-mail]

[imSINGLEruRICH]

THANKS GINGER.....

ginger
Diamond Cutter Level 2
A victim of abusive short-selling
15 hours ago


Overstock - A company’s battle to show it was a victim of abusive short-selling
The latest chapter in Overstock's long-running campaign
Nov 10th 2015

SHORT sellers bet against companies by borrowing their stock and selling it. The hope is that the share price will fall before the shares must be returned. That way, the shorter can buy new shares more cheaply to settle with the lender, and pocket the difference, less a small amount of interest. Those who make their living this way do markets a big service, by seeking out and drawing attention to mispriced shares.

Not all shorting, however, is welcome—or legal. “Naked” short-selling involves selling a stock that you have not yet borrowed or otherwise lined up for delivery. This circumvents the natural limits on shares available for shorting and is deemed abusive if it is deliberately intended to send misleading signals to markets or, worse, to pile downward pressure on the share price—as opposed to, say, for hedging purposes or as part of market-making.

Naked shorting hit the headlines in the 2007-08 financial meltdown, when regulators tightened restrictions on the practice (and later, briefly, banned all shorting of bank stocks), fearful that it was being used to destablise markets. Though the issue has long since receded from front pages, it has continued to percolate, including in a long-running legal battle in America which the plaintiff portrays as a David-versus-Goliath struggle.

Overstock, an online retailer, claims that in 2004-07 Wall Street firms cooked up a manipulative scheme in conjunction with smaller trading outfits based in New York and New Jersey. The aim was to increase the supply of Overstock shares that could be sold short, and to profit from peddling them to hedge-fund shorts. This alleged manipulation was carried out in part by using complex trading strategies that avoided settling past transactions, in effect creating “phantom” shares. That, Overstock asserts, explains why at one point the number of shorted Overstock shares was higher than the number of shares the firm had issued.

The intention, Overstock maintains, was not so much to drive down its share price—that was largely a side effect—as to make money by first creating and then lending out the illusory shares. At the time the company was on the so-called “threshold list” (of stocks with a high incidence of settlement failures) for a staggering 667 consecutive trading days—an indicator both of very high demand and of possible manipulation.

Overstock argues that Wall Street firms were attracted to the high fees they could earn from lending out its and other hard-to-borrow shares—as much as 50% of the share price, on an annualised basis—and from clearing related trades. Securities lending is not sexy, but it is a big business: $1.7 trillion-worth of stocks, bonds and other securities was on loan as of June 2015, according to DataLend.

By creating more stock for shorting, the alleged scheme would have put downward pressure on Overstock’s share price. Although a lower share price was not the primary goal, it would have helped the firms involved by making their trades cheaper to service.

The small trading outfits were the ink-stained workmen in what Overstock alleges was the stock-lending equivalent of a back-room printing press for counterfeit banknotes. Some of these firms have since been fined by the Securities and Exchange Commission or other regulators for breaches of Reg SHO, a set of rules governing short-selling.

Overstock argues that the traders would have needed willing accomplices higher up the financial food chain. It initially sued a dozen Wall Street firms, later narrowing its focus to Goldman Sachs, the traders’ prime broker, and Merrill Lynch (now part of Bank of America), their clearing broker. Goldman settled with the retailer earlier this year, without admitting any wrongdoing. Merrill remains a target; the case is due to go to trial in March. Merrill, too, denies wrongdoing.

The case is complex, and many of the facts have been obscured by the sealing of key documents. Overstock fought for years to have these unsealed. Several media organisations (including The Economist) filed pleas in support of its call for transparency. After long deliberation, the court in California that is hearing the case recently made some of the documents public. They include Overstock’s fifth amended complaint in a racketeering suit that was ultimately unsuccessful1. The firm was barred from filing this because it missed a court deadline, but says the complaint presents “the most accurate statement of what we will argue at the trial” (the case now rests on alleged violations of state securities laws). The court also released dozens of e-mails and other documents, some of which form the basis of Overstock’s claims (here).

At the heart of the alleged scheme were deliberate efforts to “fail to deliver”, meaning failing to produce for settlement shares supposedly borrowed for the purposes of short-selling. In one e-mail, a broker says that Scott Arenstein, one of the New Jersey-based traders, has large short positions in stocks “that everyone on the street is failing”. In another, a Merrill clearing executive says “We are NOT borrowing negatives? Why would we want to borrow them? We want to fail on them.” (“Negatives” is a reference to “negative rebate” stocks: those which are scarce and more expensive to borrow.) The only rational explanation for the trades was that the brokers and traders involved understood and agreed that “no borrowing and delivery will occur...In other words the short sale will be a naked short sale”, according to a court declaration by an expert hired by Overstock to review the trades, which forms part of the unsealed trove.

Merrill argues in a court filing that the litigation is “wasteful and expensive” and has produced no evidence that it was engaged in intentional market manipulation. The firm says that the trading and broking in question was in a legal grey area at the time, that it didn’t receive clear guidance from regulators on what was or wasn’t permitted under Reg SHO until 2007, and that this clarification closed a loophole which had been exploited by certain clients who “misrepresented” to Merrill the nature of their trading.

The SEC has increased its focus on naked shorting since the market quakes of 2008. But it has targeted mostly small firms, leading some to accuse it of skirting the issue. Some experts say it is difficult, if not impossible, for financial minnows to dodge the rules without help from bigger fish.

Moreover, although regulation has been tightened, and policing stepped up a bit, there are worries that trading strategies continue to evolve to allow canny operators to get around the latest rules. In 2013 the SEC issued a risk alert after observing the use of exotic trading techniques such as “buy-writes”, “married puts” and “customisable flex options”, sometimes in dizzying combinations, to evade settlement requirements—possibly to aid naked shorting. The Overstock case may relate to events a decade ago, but the issues it raises look anything but old.

cdn.static-economist.com/sites/default/files/pdfs/Fifth_Amended_Complaint_%28Redacted%29_Redacted.pdf

Read more: cmkxunitedforum.proboards.com/thread/15454/victim-abusive-short-selling#ixzz3rDpHti6p

[3bid]

Dec 19, 2015

Max interviews Patrick Byrne, CEO of Overstock.com, about the SEC’s decision to allow him to issue securities on the blockchain, the future of Bitcoin and more.

"Eliminating the mischief.  Trades are supposed to be matched in a timely matter.  The SEC was asleep at the switch, leaving America open to economic warfare... "

[Brigantine]

Patrick Byrne is a true American Hero! If you don't already know his back story, read it. He was all but dead from cancer and beat it 3 times. www.deepcapture.com/patrick-byrne/ I wish I could find the link where I read the full story of his battle with cancer and subsequent cross country bicycle ride with his brother. An amazing story of determination and grit.

That bit alone is awe inspiring and marvelous. But, he has been at the forefront of the battle against the evil banksters and their abuses for over 15 years. And just like in his fight against cancer, he has never given up, never hinted that he might be defeated. God Bless him. We could use a few more Patrick Byrnes.


Found it, finally: www.pmc.org/blog/2015/9/17/pmc-threshold-moment-billy-starr?utm_content=buffer6a20a&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer (it had been removed from where I read it, years ago.)

[thunkerdrone]

if this thing pays off big, there will be a LOT of heroes around, including many of the people on these boards and many of the others involved. I pray that they can all hang in to live that day, everyone here, listen up, do not trust in the medical system alone will save you. You have to prevent illness yourself before it even happens. Anyone here over fifty should be hurling themselves full bore into nutritional healing modalities , anti aging protocols, supplementation, just get informed and get involved with restoring yourselves. The medical system is your last resort, and use it wisely, it's not the panacea people think it is.

[imSINGLEruRICH]

THANKS.....
stump1
Senior Diamond Miner
Post by stump1 on 15 hours ago

Overstock.com Accepts $20 Million to Settle Market Manipulation Case
Overstock.com, Inc.
January 28, 2016 5:45 PM
GlobeNewswire
Fri, Jan 29, 2016 4:00 PM EST

5:55 pm Overstock.com accepts $20 mln to settle market manipulation case Briefing.com 1 day 4 hrs ago
Amazon Now Offering Refunds On All Hoverboards Fortune q 8 days ago
More
SALT LAKE CITY, Jan. 28, 2016 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Overstock.com, Inc. (OSTK) announces that Merrill Lynch Professional Clearing Corporation (“Merrill Pro”), the last defendant standing after Goldman Sachs, in Overstock.com’s longstanding market manipulation case, has settled Overstock.com’s claims by paying $20 million to Overstock.com and its co-plaintiffs.

The suit, first filed in 2007, alleged that certain prime brokerage firms had engaged in illegal market manipulation (“naked short selling,” or selling phantom shares of stock) in a deliberate effort to manipulate Overstock.com’s share prices. Over many years and millions of dollars of discovery generating millions of documents, Overstock.com chased the conduct of several of these firms, settled with many, and eventually winnowed its case down to two principal defendants: Goldman Sachs and Merrill Pro.

In January 2012, a California trial court dismissed the case. But in November 2014, the California Appellate Court reinstated the case against Merrill Pro on the ground that questions of fact remained as to the claims requiring a trial, and at the same time ruled that many of the case documents Overstock.com obtained in discovery could now be (and have been) made public. The trial of the case was later scheduled for the first week of April. Merrill Pro has admitted no liability in the settlement.

Even though it upheld the dismissal of Goldman from the California case, the California Appellate Court wrote that Overstock.com’s experts had opined that “Goldman knew the [stock] trades were shams and created a ‘phony’ supply of Overstock shares…. In sum, there is substantial evidence Goldman Brokerage was, itself, a beneficial purchaser of one species of the exotic trades in which [co-participants] engaged to circumvent [SEC regulation].” However, the court decided that on jurisdictional grounds the case against Goldman could not go forward.

Overstock.com feels the fight was well worth the effort. Bringing this conduct to light has caused useful changes in the way the SEC regulates close-out requirements for stock trading. In short, Overstock believes the effort has helped reform the US Capital markets and lessened the opportunities for illegal stock manipulation.

Commenting on today’s settlement, Overstock.com CEO Patrick Byrne said, “Lao Tzu wrote, ‘In war’s victory keep to funeral ceremony.’ Though I am under no obligation to say so, I want to make clear that Bank of America had nothing to do with the behavior documented in this case. Even with Merrill Lynch, the individuals at issue are no longer employed there. I do not feel like bayonetting any more of Wall Street’s wounded today. Because we fought long and hard to get so many of the documents public, the true story of this decade-long battle can and should be told by an objective journalist. Res Ipsa Loquitur.”







stump1
Senior Diamond Miner
www.deepcapture.com/2009/08/goldman-pillages-goldman-steals-goldman-sachs/

[John Winston Lennon O'Boogie]

This is some big news that will not make the TV 6:00 or 11:00 showing..

[vulcanized crawler]

wish ole patrick owned some cmkx

[John Winston Lennon O'Boogie]

Jan 30, 2016 16:30:19 GMT -5 vulcanized crawler said:

wish ole patrick owned some cmkx

Maybe he does... You never know...

[vulcanized crawler]

well then i want him to do a repeat taking the bad guys to the clink and get a big payoff

[imSINGLEruRICH]

Jan 30, 2016 19:49:12 GMT -5 John Winston Lennon O'Boogie said:

Jan 30, 2016 16:30:19 GMT -5 vulcanized crawler said:

wish ole patrick owned some cmkx

Maybe he does... You never know...

Do I remember a picture, of Patrick Byrne, appearing on a CMKM Diamonds llc company website.. a long time ago??