In the upper right hand part of http://www.DeepCapture.com under ” 5.The Corporate Democracy Hoax” is a link to a Bloomsburg report about the normal fraudulent voting practices on Wall Street (thank you Patrick for the link), and of course Insider Wall Streeters are in charge of this whole fraudulent process:

Corporate Voting Charade….
http://www.rgm.com/articles/FalseProxies.pdf

Here is one quote from this report:

“If political elections were run like corporate votes, people would be allowed to cast as many ballots as they could, as long as the total didn’t exceed the number of registered voters, Lambiase says. “It’s an affront to the public trust,” he says.”

=======================

In the case of MEDX…

- The SEC releases its Fail To Deliver Totals (FTDs) once very two weeks, which in the MEDX example meant that BMY was able to acquire MEDX BEFORE the FTDs for MEDX were known to by the public, BEFORE the existence of the COUNTERFEIT MEDX shares were released to the public.

- The New Jersey Short Form Merger laws assumes there is NO such thing as Fraudulent Voting on Wall Street, as BMY was allowed to buy all outstanding shares of MEDX on Tuesday, September 1, the very day it announced it had acquired 90.7% of MEDX shares via its tender offer, many days before the MEDX FTDs were released to the public.

- The BMY acquisition company had a real-time count from minute to minute of the total number of MEDX shares it had received and how many more it needed for 90%. And they called every stockholder to find out if they would tender. From these two things, they could project how many more shares they needed.

- Goldman Sachs had full knowledge of and access to the WALL STREET COUNTERFEIT MACHINE.

- So seven days before the close of the BMY tender offer for MEDX shares as can be seen in the SEC FTD data, the WALL STREET COUNTERFEIT MACHINE was turned on by Wall Street Insiders to guarantee that BMY would acquire 90% of the MEDX shares.

- And so it was done…
…- MEDX was acquired by BMY without a shareholder meeting vote by MEDX shareholders.

))- MONDAY August 31, 2009 is the last day of the BMY tender offer for MEDX shares.

—-( The DELIVERY DATE for all shares sold on this Monday is three days later — Thursday September 3, 2009 (FTDs = 428,326 = .33%)

))- TUESDAY September 1, 2009, BMY releases its press release about having obtained 90.7% of MEDX shares via its tender offering at midnight (New York City time) on MONDAY August 31, 2009 (the day before):

—–( http://www.businesswire.com/portal/site/bms/?ndmViewId=news_view&newsId=20090901006647&newsLang=en

))- TUESDAY September 1, 2009 is the last trading day for MEDX

—-( The DELIVERY DATE for all shares sold on this Tuesday is three days later — Friday September 4, 2009 (FTDs = 1,431,546 = 1.11%)
NOTE: Friday September 4, 2009 is the LAST entry in SEC’s FTD data for MEDX, since this is the delivery date for all shares traded on the LAST TRADING DAY, Tuesday Sept 1st.

The FTD data during the tender offering period shows that some Wall Street Insiders (the only ones who can) started accessing the Wall Street Counterfeit Machine in earnest three days before August 26

20090826__583916101_MEDX__262203__MEDAREX_INC_15.93
20090827__583916101_MEDX__748535__MEDAREX_INC_15.96
20090828__583916101_MEDX__764248__MEDAREX_INC_15.98
20090831__583916101_MEDX__565266__MEDAREX_INC_15.97
20090901__583916101_MEDX__72539___MEDAREX_INC_16.00
20090902__583916101_MEDX__164286__MEDAREX_INC_16.02
20090903__583916101_MEDX__428326__MEDAREX_INC_16.02
20090904__583916101_MEDX__1431546_MEDAREX_INC_16.02

QUESTION 1……
Why would Wall Street insiders start Counterfeiting MEDX shares three days before August 26th? A mere 7 trading days before the expiration of the tender offering for MEDX shares?

The only explanation that makes sense to me is that BMY’s acquistion team suspected it would come up short of 90% on Monday August 31st. So Wall Street Insiders, such as, the BMY and MEDX Investment Bankers could have been contacted and told to start Counterfeiting MEDX shares so they could obtain the additional YES VOTES they needed to reach the required 90% for a short merger procedure that does not requires a MEDX stockholders meeting.

QUESTION 2……
Why would any Wall Street insider(s) Counterfeit approximately 1 MILLION more shares of MEDX on TUESDAY September 1st when supposedly BMY had already obtained 90.7% of MEDX shares the day before – Monday August 31st, 2009?

This is an interesting Mystery….. since there is no reason to continue counterfeiting MEDX shares after the additional YES VOTES (tendered shares) had already been obtained.

I suspect the ANSWER to this apparent mystery is that Wall Street Insiders are allowed to restart the 3 day delivery clock via regulatory loopholes the SEC conveniently fails to reveal to us NON-Wall-Streeters… but which Dr. Jim DeCosta has spoken about many times in http://www.DeepCapture.com .

So the FTD Total on Friday September 4, 2009 of FTDs = 1,431,546 = 1.11% of outstanding shares (the FINAL FTD entry of MEDX), may very well be the actual TOTAL NUMBER of FTDs that existed on Monday August 31…. Which allowed BMY to claim that it had reached the 90% total it needed for a quick merger.

Observation #1……
COST OF 1,431,546 COUNTERFEIT SHARES of MEDX @ $16.00/share is about $23 MILLION DOLLARS.

Observation #2……
Goldman Sachs would receive a bonus from MEDX of 1% of the deal if the merger succeeded, which it did….

““Medarex has agreed to pay Goldman Sachs a transaction fee of approximately $21 million, all of which is payable only upon consummation of the Contemplated Transactions.””

Observation #3……
1,431,546 COUNTERFEIT SHARES of MEDX = $23 MILLION DOLLARS
Goldman Sachs Bonus = $21 MILLION

Observation #4……
Goldman Sachs, as a Wall Street Insider, has full access to the Wall Street Counterfeit Machine. Additionally, BMY investment banker also has full access to the Wall Street Counterfeit Machine.

MY CONCLUSION…..
My conclusion is that BMY was able to reach the desired 90% number ONLY BECAUSE Wall Streeters accessed the Wall Street Counterfeit Machine to create the additional needed YES VOTES (tendered shares).

..And that the 1,431,546 COUNTERFEIT SHARES of MEDX is part of the 90.7% number BMY claimed even though it appears to be the total one day after the expiration of the tender offer.

“….generally accepted accounting principles and apologized for saying that some of Overstock’s directors weren’t so independent”

Boy, some of this verbiage is verrrry familiar.

http://www.businesswire.com/portal/site/bms/?ndmViewId=news_view&newsId=20090901006647&newsLang=en

On August 31st, the SEC data indicates that 565,266 shares of MEDX were classed as Fails to Deliver (FTDs), which equals 0.44% of the outstanding shares of MEDX. The day before, there were 764,248 FTDs or 0.59% of the outstanding shares.

I also noted in the press release that BMY added its 2,879,223 (2.23%)of MEDX shares to obtain the declared 90.7% total. So the SEC allows acquiring companies to vote the shares they had acquired from a previous drug development agreement.

My QUESTION Is —-
WHY was BMY allowed to add its MEDX shares to the total, since by law they were NOT allowed to purchase any shares in the open market during the tender period?

BOTTOM LINE…
My reference above to the total number of counterfeit shares (FTDs) on the last day of trading is not valid, since the 90.7% was declared days before.

Since the SEC allows Wall Streeters to Counterfeit stock shares outside the official tracking system, we Non-Wall-Streeters are NOT ALLOWED to KNOW the total number of Counterfeit Shares created by the Wall Street Counterfeit Machine.

The SEC has created the whole SHO regulations to merely give the APPEARANCE OF Enforcement to us Non-Wall-Streeters so their fraternity brothers can increase the Liquidity of their bank accounts.

What happened with MEDX is another clear example of Wall Streeters Manipulating the U.S. Stock Market to create more LIQUIDITY to their bank accounts.

For example, if a large Wall Street company had a very large position in Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. (BMY), and saw that BMY’s acquisition of MEDX would add value to BMY, then a Wall Street firm could access the Wall Street Counterfeit Machine to guarantee the BMY merger by making sure the tender offer reached 90%.

The Counterfeiting of 1,431,546 share of MEDX shares on the last day of trading added 1.11% to the 90.7% total.

In writing this, I just realized that I do not have the time line to indicate what day BMY declared its 90.7%. If BMY declared its 90.7% before the last day of trading, then the details of my point here are not valid.

Nevertheless, the general point, I think, is still valid, because Wall Streeters are allowed by the SEC to access to the Wall Street Counterfeit Machine to manipulate the stock market to increase the LIQUIDITY of their bank accounts.

Here is an example of HOW WALL STREET FIRMS, the SEC’s Fraternity brothers, can manipulate a tender offer to increase the value of their stock shares in the tendering company.

On or about July 28, 2009, BMY and MEDX Board of Directors agreed to a merger where BMY would buy all outstanding shares of MEDX for cash.

During the Tender Offer Period, someone continued to COUNTERFEIT MEDX shares as in indicated by the Fail to Deliver data from the SEC. (See: http://www.failstodeliver.com ):

SETTLEMENT__CUSIP_SYMBOL__QUANTITY__DESCRIP___PRICE
_DATE_____________________(FAILS)
—————————————————-
20090723__583916101_MEDX__703_____MEDAREX_INC_8.40
20090727__583916101_MEDX__739_____MEDAREX_INC_15.90
20090728__583916101_MEDX__71854___MEDAREX_INC_15.89
20090729__583916101_MEDX__2000____MEDAREX_INC_15.90
20090730__583916101_MEDX__44135___MEDAREX_INC_15.91
20090731__583916101_MEDX__10928___MEDAREX_INC_15.91
20090803__583916101_MEDX__1622____MEDAREX_INC_15.87
20090805__583916101_MEDX__237250__MEDAREX_INC_15.88
20090806__583916101_MEDX__50______MEDAREX_INC_15.84
20090810__583916101_MEDX__240_____MEDAREX_INC_15.87
20090817__583916101_MEDX__21900___MEDAREX_INC_15.93
20090818__583916101_MEDX__400_____MEDAREX_INC_15.94
20090819__583916101_MEDX__300_____MEDAREX_INC_15.95
20090824__583916101_MEDX__2207____MEDAREX_INC_15.96
20090825__583916101_MEDX__100_____MEDAREX_INC_15.92
20090826__583916101_MEDX__262203__MEDAREX_INC_15.93
20090827__583916101_MEDX__748535__MEDAREX_INC_15.96
20090828__583916101_MEDX__764248__MEDAREX_INC_15.98
20090831__583916101_MEDX__565266__MEDAREX_INC_15.97
20090901__583916101_MEDX__72539___MEDAREX_INC_16.00
20090902__583916101_MEDX__164286__MEDAREX_INC_16.02
20090903__583916101_MEDX__428326__MEDAREX_INC_16.02
20090904__583916101_MEDX__1431546_MEDAREX_INC_16.02
_________________________ ———
_________________________ 4,401,609

BMY successfully bought MEDX via the NJ short merger method that did Not require a MEDX stockholders’ meeting by receiving 90.7% of the outstanding shares (128,918,402 = Shares outstanding per MEDX). (Thanks to Yahoo.com, the complete history of MEDX has been deleted from the Internet ).

For BMY to acquire MEDX without a shareholder meeting, it had to receive 90% of the outstanding shares of MEDX through its tender offer, which it barely made with 90.7%, or by ONLY 0.7% or 0.8%.
(0.7% = 902,429 MEDX shares //AND// 0.8% = 1,031,347 MEDX shares).

The SEC has so many “Fails to Deliver (FTDs)” loopholes for their Wall Street Fraternity Brothers, I have no idea what the exact number of MEDX FTDs remained at the end of its corporate life. The SEC allows its Wall Streeter friends to hide FTDs outside the official reporting system, so I have to conclude that the numbers above are part of the SEC’s “illusion of enforcement,” and that the actual FTD number is much larger.

Nevertheless, let us assume the final number of FTDs on the final day of trading is the official number of MEDX FTDs remaining – 1,431,546 Shares of MEDX.

( 1,431,546 / 128,918,402 ) x 100 = 1.11% of MEDX Shares Outstanding

If one subtracts 1.11% from 90.7%, we get
———->>> 90.7% – 1.11% = 89.59% <<<——

If one subtracts the COUNTERFEIT SHARES CREATED (1.11%) on the Last Day of Trading, one would have to conclude that BMY FAILED to obtain the required 90% needed under New Jersey Law to acquire MEDX outright without a MEDX shareholders meeting (90.7% – 1.11% = 89.59%).

If my calculations are correct, the BMY or MEDX Board of Directors needs to call a MEDX shareholders meeting to approve the merger.

Does anyone know if the SEC allows its fraternity brothers to COUNTERFEIT shares of stock with impunity to manipulate mergers?

Since I have NOT heard the SEC publicly speak about the fraudulent Counterfeit aspects of the BMY tender offer for MEDX shares, I have to conclude that the SEC DOES allow its fraternity brothers to Counterfeit share of publicly traded companies during tender offers with impunity.

Copper River, Overstock Close To Settling Dispute -Sources
Copper River, Overstock Close To Settling Dispute -Sources 12/08 03:48 PM

Overstock.com Inc. (OSTK:$14.64,00$-0.38,00-2.53%) and arch-nemesis Copper River Partners are close to settling a four-year long dispute, according to people familiar with the matter.
Utah-based Overstock and Copper River have been battling since the online retailer sued the hedge fund (then known as Rocker Partners) and research firm Gradient Analytics in California state court in 2005.
The company accused Rocker, which was short Overstock, and Gradient, which published research critical of the company, of colluding to denigrate Overstock for profit. A trial is scheduled for February 2010.
Gradient and Copper have denied any wrongdoing, claiming that Overstock Chief Executive Patrick Byrne, an unabashed critic of short sellers, was attempting to silence critics.
When asked about the new settlement with Copper, Byrne said he would call back, then hung up.
Byrne told investors in 2005 that he believed “Overstock has been damaged …in the high hundreds of millions of dollars, perhaps more.”
Overstock settled its dispute with Gradient in 2008. Details of this settlement weren’t made public, but people familiar with the matter said that the research firm, running out of cash to fund its legal defense, settled for a relatively small sum.
In a carefully worded statement, Gradient said at the time it regretted saying that Overstock’s accounting policies didn’t conform to generally accepted accounting principles and apologized for saying that some of Overstock’s directors weren’t so independent. But Gradient didn’t make any statement about Overstock’s claim that it let Copper River edit libelous reports while the fund positioned itself to profit from the expected drop in the company’s share price.
Copper River, of Larkspur, Calif., filed counterclaims in 2007, claiming Overstock and Byrne made false statements to boost the company’s stock price and launched a campaign to intimidate critics. The fund is seeking damages for false statements in connection with Overstock’s securities, stock price manipulation and unfair business practices.
The fund liquidated late last year after losing more than half of its value in the market downturn. Copper River had been a $1 billion fund that primarily took bets on the declining value of stock it deemed overpriced.
Fund manager Marc Cohodes might be keen to end the legal tussle with Overstock to facilitate the launch of a new fund. Not long after Overstock filed its suit, the Securities and Exchange commission began an investigation into Gradient.
In November 2005, U.S. securities regulators subpoenaed information from Gradient and some of its employees and clients.
In February 2006, the SEC also subpoenaed this columnist and others, requesting information in connection with its investigation into Gradient. Dow Jones & Co., publisher of The Wall Street Journal and Dow Jones Newswires, objected to the subpoenas, which were put on hold. The SEC later announced new guidelines for requesting information from journalists. Dow Jones is owned by News Corp. (NWSA:$12.295,0$0.035,00.29%) .
In 2007, the SEC terminated its probe of Gradient without recommending an enforcement action. In 2008, the SEC also closed an investigation into Overstock’s accounting policies without recommending an enforcement action.
In September, Overstock announced that the SEC is investigating several restatements of its financial statements in 2006 and 2008 and other matters. Last month, the company fired its accountants over a disagreement on how to book revenue. Nasdaq recently put Overstock on notice that the filing of an unreviewed quarterly report violated its listing requirements. Overstock has until Jan. 18 to provide Nasdaq with a plan to regain compliance.

http://www.mondaq.com/unitedstates/article.asp?articleid=90638

Lawsuits
Icahn Blasts Goldman In Short Sale Suit
Nathan Vardi, 12.08.09, 06:00 AM EST
Billionaire investor claims investment bank wronged him in short sale gone awry.

Carl Icahn’s High River Limited Partnership has struck back at Goldman Sachs Group, saying a lending unit of the investment bank owes High River $30.8 million in a short sale that has turned contentious.

The short sale involved $140 million face amount of Delphi ( DPHI.PK – news – people ) bank debt that Goldman Sachs ( GS – news – people ) in July agreed to purchase for $53.2 million, or 38 cents per dollar. In a counterclaim filed in New York state court, High River takes the position that the bank debt now has a value of $22.4 million, or 16 cents on the dollar, and that Goldman Sachs owes High River the difference between $53.2 million and $22.4 million.

Article Controls
email

print

reprint

newsletter

comments

share

del.icio.us

Digg It!

yahoo

Facebook

Twitter

Reddit

rss

Yahoo! Buzz

In a short sale, an investor will sell a security they do not own believing the price of the security will fall and the security can be bought later at a lower price to make a profit. If the price of the security increases, the investor gets stuck with a loss.

But this was no ordinary short sale. It involved debtor-in-possession loans made to auto parts maker Delphi, a company that in October emerged from four years of bankruptcy-court protection. In addition, Icahn did not borrow the debt he was selling and was never in possession of it. Further complicating the deal: Goldman Sachs and Icahn disagree materially about how much the bank debt turned out to be worth and when their transactions were required to close.

In its original complaint, filed in October, Goldman Sachs Lending Partners claimed Icahn got caught shorting the Delphi bank debt. In the lawsuit, first reported by Forbes, Goldman Sachs said “the market price of the bank debt increased after High River entered into the contracts, and High River is now trying to walk away from its obligations.”

The original trading agreements were signed just before lenders providing Delphi’s bankruptcy financing, like Elliott Management and Silver Point Capital, won court approval at the end of July to purchase the assets of Delphi. Goldman Sachs contends that when it tried to close its transaction to purchase the bank debt with High River in early September, Icahn’s lawyer said that High River was not in a position to…

Read the rest of the story in link below

http://www.forbes.com/2009/12/07/icahn-goldman-lawsuit-business-wall-street-goldman.html?feed=rss_popstories

THE ROLE OF TECHNICAL INNOVATIONS AND ASSOCIATED LAG PERIODS

All of the recent technical innovations on Wall Street give rise to a lag period during which the “securities cops” have no idea how to recognize and address abuses associated with these innovations. Wall Street will posit that these new innovations are necessary to implement in order to keep our markets “efficient” and a step ahead of those in other countries. By the time the SEC and the SROs climb the learning curve associated with these new innovations the associated frauds are well-established and the criminals have devised and implemented efficient cover up methodologies. Nowhere is this more obvious than in the abusive legal short selling and abusive naked short selling sectors which now find themselves in the midst of one of these cover up phases.

THE ROLE OF TECHNOLOGICAL INNOVATIONS IN THE THEORETICAL NEED TO ELIMINATE VARIOUS “INVESTOR PROTECTION” REGULATIONS

They say that pattern recognition skills are important to develop. Have you recognized the pattern that involves almost all of these new technological innovations on Wall Street somehow (not so mysteriously) increasing the leverage of Wall Street insiders over Main Street investors? They do so by not quite fitting into our current regulatory structure which results not in the refusal to implement the technological innovation by the SEC but in the need to remove certain “investor protection” regulations to accommodate the new innovation. Once again the sales pitch usually includes the need to keep a step ahead of other countries’ market structures to remain a financial super power. We would like for you in Congress to appreciate the fact that many of these theoretically necessary reductions in investor protection may have been made by design.

Do you remember all of those risk-mitigating opportunities associated with the implementation of “credit default swaps” (“CDSs”)? Who would have thought that selling insurance without the need to set aside reserves should somebody file an insurance claim might present a bit of an issue? How about when the ECNs came onto the scene and for “technical” reasons they had to be abstained from needing to comply with the “uptick rule” in effect at the time? Who would have thought that abusive short sellers would simply route their naked short sale orders through ECNs?

How about recently when “high frequency” traders came onto the scene and now dominate our markets? That’s the purported reason why the 75-year old “uptick rule” needed to be totally done away with since high frequency trading all of a sudden “accidentally” comprises over half of all trades. OOPS, couldn’t have seen that one coming!

All of a sudden operating in secretive “dark pools” somehow adds to market efficiency? Don’t people with something to hide typically want to operate in the dark? “I’m not responsible for the abusive naked short selling I’ve been doing; it’s the algorithm that did it! I had no idea that those paying my firm for “sponsored access” were misbehaving; shame on them!”