What Really Collapsed Enron? Well it was a Proskauer Rose Law Firm Scandal, a Foiled Patent Theft. Proskauer Rose Law Attorney Corruption.

In America only Certain People have rights to Protection from the Law - Most All are just Collateral Damage to Protect Corrupt Attorneys, Judges, DOJ Officials, Corrupt FBI agents, Billionaire Tech Companies, Major Media Companies and Mega Law Firms.

Judical Coverups, Attorneys and Judges Protecting Each Other, Illegal Behavior among judges, attorneys and clerks .. well this is American Justice.. not based in TRUTH or Law but Based in who you know and what your willing to pay them to cover your Dirty Deeds...

******

"" KernelOfTruth says:

There is a case in which any one of you might be interested. It involves the theft of patents worth at least one trillion dollars, and has already paid out billions in royalties that have never been received by the inventor or the company (with no report of where that much looted money has disappeared).


The reason you may be interested is that it is a Florida case with ties to places in New York, and the inventor seems to have run into problems similar to those discussed by individuals who have posted on the subject of public corruption in the Scott Rothstein case.


The shenanigans are unbelievable, including, but certainly not limited to, a Keystone Cop like investigation by the Boca Raton Police Department and an ostensible Office of the FBI [in West Palm Beach]. How much do you think it cost the taxpayers to set up that [rented FBI] Office, which acted as though an investigation was being run when nothing was done to examine the complicity of lawyers, public officials, and investigating agencies and a car bombing.

If you are interested, you can go to http://www.iviewit.tv and listen to certain testimony relating to the crimes that were allowed to occur through the Courts, both a Civil Division State Court and U.S. Bankruptcy Court, in West Palm Beach, Florida.

If you prefer, you can read certain documents at
http://www.iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/2007%2004%2020%20Iviewit%20Request%20for%20FBI%20IA%20and%20OIG%20investigation%20of%20FBI%20case%20downlow.pdf

The inventor and main person being abused, Eliot L. Bernstein, discusses the matter in the State Hearings held in New York, involving public corruption. One case brought up concerns a Monty Friedkin case, which he says is cloaked as lawyers and law firms acting as a criminal enterprise stealing inventions from inventors.


He identifies William J. Dick of the Foley and Lardner law firm and Brian Utley as working with Christopher Clarke Wheeler to steal inventions from Monte Friedkin, of Diamond Turf Equipment, a Florida corporation.

The criminal enterprise against Mr. Friedkin was explained as Utley (operating as the President of the company) contracting former IBM patent attorney William Dick to write Friedkin’s patents in his name and place them into a company incorporated by Christopher C.Wheeler of Proskauer Rose.

According to [page 15 of] the Complaint found at that web site, a lawyer that had subsequently been convicted in Florida of Felony Driving Under the Influence with Injury is identified as the instigator or ringleader. Then, this ringleader, Christopher Clarke Wheeler, is identified as a lawyer with the law firm of Proskauer Rose.

This scam is identified by Eliot Bernstein (in testimony and also by Stephen Lamont in the Complaint) as being perpetrated in a same fashion [as that run against Diamond Turf] when involving his Iviewit Company, wherein certain individuals performed in the enterprise, to walk the patents and intellectual properties [Utley] worked on, out of the business and into a company that these co-adventurers owned, in which the true owner [in this case, one can replace Friedkin with Bernstein] had no interest or idea of it’s existence.

Scroll down to pages 16 - 18 of the 43 page Complaint, and you can read about how both intrinsic and extrinsic fraud were further perpetrated before a Court of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, in and for Palm Beach County, in the State of Florida, with what would appear a Circuit Court Judge’s willingness to grant an allowance for continual acts of perjury, intentional fraud, and criminal acts of conversion.


For instance, the Judge [Jorge Labarga] is said to have stated that the prior counsel that the parties did not know or hire had been representing them so that the right to file almost anything in the case had been waived by the counsel that had no authority to file the case or act in the case.

Further on, at page 21 [after explaining the reasons for starting File number 402-2-59-1799-339, on May 13th, 2002, with the County of Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department, at the behest of the Long Beach, California FBI], is the explanation “Bernstein, upon discovering further that the companies were involved in a federal bankruptcy in Florida (Case No. 01-33407-BKC-SHF Inv Chap 11 in the Southern District of Florida) and the law suit in civil court in Proskauer Rose v. Iviewit discussed above, both previously unbeknownst to exist by shareholders or management of the legitimate companies, built his case from California and then moved to Florida to the lions den or Labarga’s court and the Bankruptcy Court, believing that justice would be had.

Both actions filed in Florida were instigated by Proskauer Rose and Proskauer Rose referred management Utley, Michael Reale and an entity RYJO, Inc. (“RYJO”).

RYJO a subcontractor under a strategic alliance structured by Proskauer Rose, between Iviewit and Real 3D, Inc. (“R3D”) a client of theirs, R3D owned 70% by Lockheed Martin, 20% by Silicon Graphics Inc., and 10% by Intel, later wholly acquired by Intel and a third party necessary with management to file an involuntary.

With new counsel relieving dirty counsel, those acting without authority, now replaced by counsel retained by the legitimate companies, Bernstein went back to Florida to pursue his rights. It is presumed that once Proskauer Rose to instantly get rid of the evidence of the fraudulent companies but first had a plan to get the stolen intellectual properties out.


Thus, when combined, the billing case that they thought nobody would ever discover was in court and bankruptcy, the companies could do the following:

(i) Proskauer Rose would sue fraudulent companies ABC which harbored the stolen patents with a large unpaid bill

(ii) this would make them the largest creditor and thus entitled in a bankruptcy to majority of the company and the stolen patents and

(iii) with Utley, RYJO and Reale instigating the bankruptcy they would be the remaining benefactors, it would all look clean to the Courts, almost invisible and they would walk off with the stolen assets. They never figured that Bernstein would be tipped off to this in the midst of the process”.

It was related that one of the counsel [Kenneth Rubenstein] “was so brazen that the Court was in his pocket, that he wrote [Judge] Jorge Labarga a sworn statement claiming he never heard of Eliot Bernstein, the Iviewit companies and was being harassed”.

Also related to the case was a declaration of a showing to Warner Brothers of entries with investor H. Wayne Huizenga, in regards to the Iviewit inventions and multiple billings.

The kicker in the last paragraph [on page 18] is the obvious dereliction of duty in regards to what passes for FBI Agents in the network [of the ol’ south Good Ole Boys] and compromised Office of the US Attorney with the Southern District of Florida, when it is written “one asks, why later those same crimes exposed in mass against the government to the West Palm Beach Office of the FBI, were not prosecuted when taken by the FBI to the US Attorney for the Southern District of Florida, along with all the other crimes they were apprised of and given evidence in support of and which they then led Iviewit to believe they were investigating until April 17, 2007”.

Page 20 holds a critical piece of information, which is “Another part of the immediate problem was that evidence surfaced of a deal between the fraudulent Iviewit companies and Enron’s Broadband Division, in the now infamous Enron/Blockbuster Deal which due to Enron’s booking of hundreds of millions of dollars ahead of earning it, on a new technology for broadband internet distribution of movies, based on technologies almost stolen from Iviewit which are the true cause of the collapse of Enron.

All evidence of this had to be destroyed by the law firms who had perpetrated the crimes and this may have been the cause of the massive shredding party”.

For a story about the “Specific Involvement by the Federal Bureau of Investigation -- West Palm Beach Office: January 2003 to March 2007”, scroll down to page 23.

The tale involves accusations regarding lawyers submitting false statements and falsified documents (including to a Court of Law), money made or laundered under the use of Non-Disclosure Agreements, conflicts of interest and appearances of impropriety that involved Public Office corruption cases before the Florida Supreme Court, denial of due process and procedure in the Civil Courts as the criminal lawyers legal and political power have been able to position [without disclosure] through conflict to avoid prosecution by infiltrating Public Offices where Complaints have been filed, the infiltration of the attorney discipline process [both in New York and Florida],

..the possibility that the [Democrat-controlled] Proskauer Rose law firm is controlling certain of the Florida Courts and Disciplinary Departments when the New York law firm has one small Office in Boca Raton, cases at the Boca Raton Police Department that were derailed [with the Officer disappearing without Notice],

...the possibility that the [Republican-controlled] Foley and Lardner Law Firm is controlling a certain tier of the Florida Courts and the Governor’s Office when the Wisconsin law firm had virtually no presence in Florida, a subterfuge of a deferral of a Department of Business and Professional Regulation Complaint that falls under another conflict due to the fact that Governor Charlie Crist had appointed [Iviewit’s former patent counsel] Foley and Lardner, special Office positions favorably given to lawyers like George Lemieux [a managing shareholder where the ringleader (Christopher Wheeler) worked in the Fort Lauderdale Office of the Gunster, Yoakley, & Stewart law firm].

The behavior of the President of The Florida Bar [Kelly Overstreet Johnson] who worked for the brother [James Wheeler] of the ringleader lawyer, the infiltration of federal investigations, an FBI Agent [Stephen Lucchesi] who acted as though the problem was one that was civil in nature without need for FBI involvement, Special Agent Joseph Sconzo’s denial that there was any file concerning Iviewit in the FBI’s [rented] West Palm Beach Office.


Special Agent in Charge John McVie’s denial of any history of Iviewit or Eliot Bernstein with any FBI investigation after years of investigation, a non-existent Securities and Exchange Commission investigation jointly run with the Boca Raton Police Department, denial of any oversight responsibilities pertaining to action taken by the FBI by the Inspector General of the Department of Justice [Glenn Fine],

.... the dismissal of a need for an audit when the Small Business Administration is the largest investor and shareholder through SBIC loans, the lack of oversight by the US Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Florida, the lack of investigation by the Department of Justice into the Iraqi-style car bombing of the family vehicle belonging to Mr. Bernstein his wife and three children, possible terminations of US Attorneys for political reasons and retirements of Special Agents for political reasons,

... an admittance of no power or authority held by either the House Judiciary Committee or the Senate Judiciary Committee, harm to international relations through violations of international treatises, the failure of former Commissioner of Patents [John Doll] and his successor Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property [Jon W. Dudas] to follow the law, and possible influence wielded by Michael Grebe [the former Chairman of the Foley and Lardner law firm and former Chairman of the Republican National Committee who is currently under investigation for other violations]

The gist of the Complaint can be boiled down to the request contained on page 22, which is “With the revenues from the technologies converted to their pools and already generating profits in billions of dollars since invention, it would take either a continuous corruption of any legal or prosecutorial agency the complaints went or easier that with a Presidential top down denial of due process and procedure, through various Presidential appointments in key positions to block it top down.

We are asking the DOJ OIG to investigate for any possible connection to election fraud or payola to politicians capable of planting individuals to block Iviewit at each of these agencies”.

Moreover, on page 7 of a succeeding formal request to the Office of Internal Affairs for the Federal Bureau of Investigations, the inventor and President & Founder of Iviewit Technologies, Inc./Iviewit [Iviewit Holdings, Inc.], Eliot Bernstein, further concluded his ordeal and exasperation and concern for others, in his summation: “Please contact me immediately regarding these matters, as I fear for not only the life of my family but those who had volunteered to act as witnesses and others, that presumed they were doing so with the FBI investigating the matters.


I am in grave concern that the FBI has taken no actions to protect a citizen whose life has been threatened repeatedly, whose car has been blown up and confirmed as committed with intent by fire investigators.

A group of citizens who have followed all the rules of making complaints to all the proper authorities, to find that no one is protecting their rights to life, as well as, the rights guaranteed through the Constitution under Article I, Sec 8, Clause 8 pertaining to protection of inventors with the full weight of the Constitution, in the event of just such attempts to steal such inventions and murder inventors.

In fact, in a RICO case the FBI typically offers protection to witnesses against corruption from small or large mobsters when witnesses’ lives may be in danger.

Where a group of citizens have brought allegations of corruption that may yield a Patentgate, with attempted murders already occurring in the US and threats already effectuated against ones life, it is stunning that FBI officers who have been fully apprised of the matters and tendered evidence and witnesses against the accused, have not granted an iota of protection to those who are in danger, all indicating a top down control of the government and its regulatory agencies.

Control by those at the top to aid and abet those alleged to have committed such atrocities, through violation of public offices of these federal and state investigatory agencies. Most disturbing though is that it now appears that no one is protecting the United States and foreign nations from a group of criminals cloaked as lawyers, politicians and judicial members!”. ""

Posted Here by
Investigative Blogger

Crystal L. Cox

Crystal@CrystalCox.com

Read more...

Los Angeles, California Proskauer Rose LLP - Googling Cadwalader and Lou Solomon

And Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP very interested in my Proskauer Rose Blogs - New York.  And Same Day, and over and over New York Proskauer Rose Looking at the Posts on Cadwalader - and even googling "ProskauerRoseSucks.com" ..

The Medicines Company googling "Proskauer Cadwalader".

proskauer rose versus Chrystal international - what does this Google search mean..

Hogan Hartson interested in "Lou Solomon"

Got a Tip.. Email me at Crystal@CrystalCox.com

Read more...

J.P. Morgan Chase - TRAVELERS INDEM. CO - Proskauer Rose - Enron Collapse - Bankers Professional Liability Insurance

J.P. Morgan Chase & Co.

Decided March 18, 2010

"" JPMORGAN CHASE & CO. v. TRAVELERS INDEM. CO.

2010 NY Slip Op 02075

JPMORGAN CHASE & CO., ET AL., Plaintiffs-Respondents,
v.
THE TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY, ET AL., Defendants,

TWIN CITY FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellant.

600674/06, 2156, 2157.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department.

Decided March 18, 2010.

Arkin Kaplan Rice LLP, New York (Howard J. Kaplan, Lisa C. Solbakken, Michael J. McLaughlin and Elizabeth A. Fitzwater of counsel), for appellant.

Proskauer Rose LLP, New York (John H. Gross, Steven E. Obus, Francis D. Landrey and Michelle R. Migdon of counsel), for respondents.

Before: Gonzalez, P.J., Saxe, Moskowitz, Abdus-Salaam, RomÁn, JJ.

ABDUS-SALAAM, J.

In this declaratory judgment and breach of contract action, plaintiffs JPMorgan Chase & Co., JPMorgan Chase Bank and J.P. Morgan Securities, Inc. (collectively JPMC) seek a declaration that defendant Twin City Fire Insurance, Inc. (Twin City) is obligated to indemnify them in the amount of the limits of their coverage ($22.5 million) for losses incurred in connection with the defense and settlement of a series of federal court class action suits arising out of Enron's financial collapse, as well as several lawsuits filed by Enron investors in state courts. JPMC ultimately paid more than $2.2 billion to settle the Enron actions.

The motion court rejected Twin City's defenses, including that JPMC had failed to comply with the notice provision of the "claims-made" policy at issue here, and directed that judgment be entered in favor of plaintiffs in the amount of $22,500,000 plus prejudgment interest, together with costs and disbursements, all together amounting to $28,358,180.14.

Twin City was a $22.5 million participant in a combined lines program providing JPMC with a total of $200 million in Bankers Professional Liability insurance, effective November 30, 1997 to November 30, 2001 (the 97-01 Program).

Twin City was not a participating insurer at the inception of the 97-01 Program, but, effective July 15, 2000, replaced Reliance Insurance Company as an excess insurer by providing coverage for the second excess layer of $10 million excess of $30 million and for the sixth excess layer of $12.5 million excess of $70 million.

The binders issued by Twin City adopted the terms of coverage as bound by Reliance, which incorporated the terms and conditions of the primary policy issued by Lloyd's, London.

The "claims-made" policy afforded coverage both for claims made against the insured during the policy period, as well as claims made subsequent to the policy period, provided that the insured gave notice during the policy term of any act, error or omission that may subsequently give rise to a claim. As set forth in the Lloyd's primary policy:

"If during the Policy Period . . . the Risk and Insurance Management Department shall become aware of any act, error or omission which may subsequently give rise to a claim being made against an Insured and shall during the Policy Period . . . give written notice of such act, error or omission, then any claim which is subsequently made against the Insured arising out of such act, error or omission shall for the purpose of this policy be treated as a claim made during the Policy Period."

An addendum to the Lloyd's primary policy substituted the words "Wrongful Act" for all references to "acts, errors or omissions" throughout the policy. Another addendum defined "Wrongful Act" to include any "(i) act, error or omission by the Insured or any person or entity for whom the Insured is legally responsible, or (iv) dishonest or fraudulent act or omission by any officer or employee of the Named Corporation or any Subsidiary Company."

The record shows that in late November 2001, as the 97-01 Program was nearing expiration and JPMC was seeking renewal of its insurance for the 2001-2002 policy period, Enron's credit rating had been downgraded to junk status and there was speculation in the press that Enron was headed for bankruptcy.

According to Richard Straub, Vice President, Corporate Insurance Services for JPMC, the insurers that were considering participating in the renewal program, including Twin City, "began to balk at providing coverage for Enron claims under the subsequent program," because [t]hey did not want to effectively buy a loss.'"

These insurers inquired as to whether JPMC had noticed or was going to notice Enron claims under the 97-01 policy, and certain of them made clear that JPMC must provide notice of the Enron circumstances to the 97-01 insurers as a condition of these prospective insurers binding coverage under the new 01-02 Program.

Mr. Straub, in conjunction with others, made the decision to notice potential claims to the 97-01 Program both because he was concerned about potential claims that might arise from JPMC's provision of professional services to Enron and because he wanted to obtain coverage for the 01-02 period.

On November 29, 2001 JPMC's insurance broker, Marsh & McLennan, sent an e-mail to the 01-02 insurers, including Twin City, outlining the terms pursuant to which the insurers agreed to bind coverage:

"As discussed, it was agreed to put the expiring contract on notice of the ENRON circumstance. JP Morgan Chase is in the process of drafting this notice and putting the prior policy on notice. It was also agreed, that in the event a Claim does arise out of this ENRON matter, this current policy shall apply (subject to this policy's terms and conditions) in the event that there is a final adjudication that no coverage exists under the prior Blended policy solely due to such claim not fulfilling the notice requirements under the prior policy — wording to be agreed."

Twin City's binder for the 01-02 Program provides that it will follow the terms and conditions of the November 29, 2001 e-mail. Stephen Guglielmo, a Twin City underwriter, testified that Enron's demise caused him concern about the renewal of JPMC's policy because of the possible exposure to an Enron claim, and that as he recalls, Enron claims were going to be noticed for the 97-01 policy and excluded from the 01-02 policy which gave him "some comfort in being part of an ongoing program with JPMorgan Chase."

On November 29, 2001 at 9 P.M., three hours before the 97-01 policy was to expire, JPMC sent the following e-mail to Twin City through its broker, Marsh:

"On November 28th 2001 it was announced that various credit agencies had downgraded Enron, Inc. debt to junk status. In addition it was announced that merger discussions with Dynegy, Inc. had been terminated. In light of this situation J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. released a statement disclosing that it has approximately $500 million of unsecured exposure to various Enron entities, including loans, letters of credit and derivatives. It was also confirmed that it has additional exposures of $400 million secured by the Transwestern and Northern Natural pipelines.

J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. and its subsidiaries and affiliates, and their directors and officers ("JP Morgan Chase") have an extensive relationship with Enron which includes, but is not necessarily limited to, lending, merger & acquisition advisory services, restructuring advisory services, various SWAPS transactions, purchaser of gas/energy and serving as indenture trustee for Enron's public debt.

While we have not received notice of any claim or potential claim at this time[,] it is anticipated that we may be named in litigation expected to arise out of the financial difficulties of Enron as a result of the relationship described above."

Fifteen minutes later, JPMC, again through Marsh, sent another e-mail which advised "please disregard the earlier email regarding this matter." The second e-mail contained the language quoted above, but with the following language added:

"Such litigation could include, among other things, allegations of breaches of fiduciary duty, aiding and abetting breaches of fiduciary duty, errors and omissions, securities fraud, negligence (including gross negligence), fraudulent conveyance, equitable subordination and misrepresentation.

While JP Morgan Chase would vigorously contest the validity of any such claims, and has no actual knowledge of such acts, we believe that all of the foregoing constitute Wrongful Acts that could give rise to a claim under the policy."

Twin City responded on November 30, 2001 with a letter acknowledging receipt of the correspondence, informing Marsh of the name of the individual assigned to the matter, and stating that "[i]n the meantime all rights and defenses afforded under any applicable policy, at law, or in equity should be considered reserved." On January 17, 2002, Lloyd's accepted the notice "as notice of a potential claim under the BPL [Bankers Professional Liability] section of the [p]olicy."

Subsequently, other insurers did so as well. Only one excess insurer, American International Specialty Lines Insurance Company (AISLIC), asserted that the notice was deficient. AISLIC, which was a defendant in this lawsuit, ultimately settled with JPMC for its Enron claims under the 97-01 program after the motion court denied its motion for an order dismissing the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a)(1) and (7).

Twin City never indicated to JPMC its position that the notice was in any way deficient until this litigation, where in its answer it asserted affirmative defenses, alleging, among other things, that coverage is barred because JPMC failed to satisfy conditions precedent to coverage, failed to provide timely, sufficient and appropriate written notice of claims and made false statements in the notices of claims.

Additionally, Twin City maintains that it has no obligation under the 01-02 policy, and has interposed counterclaims seeking damages and rescission of its participation in the 01-02 Program, alleging that it was induced to renew coverage to JPMC as the result of the fraudulent misrepresentation contained in the notice that JPMC had "no actual knowledge" of acts that could give rise to claims in connection with Enron under the 97-01 program, when JPMC in fact had actual knowledge that it had assisted Enron in manipulating its financial statements, and had learned "[b]y no later than November 19, 2001 . . . that many of the transactions it had either designed for Enron, or had engaged in as a participant, were directly responsible for Enron's deteriorating financial conditions."

Twin City initially moved in July 2006 for an order pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1) and (7) dismissing the complaint on the ground that JPMC's November 29, 2001 letter did not provide it with sufficient notice of the potential claim. The motion court denied the motion, finding that the notice was sufficient. In June 2007, in response to a motion by JPMC for partial summary judgment, Twin City cross-moved for summary judgment, again asserting that the notice was legally insufficient. That cross motion was denied.

In June 2008, following extensive discovery, JPMC moved, in this action and two related actions it had commenced against Twin City arising out of Twin City's refusal to indemnify JPMC in connection with professional services rendered to other corporations (the Worldcom action and the National Century Financial Enterprises, Inc., action), for partial summary judgment dismissing Twin City's counterclaims and certain affirmative defenses. Twin City cross-moved (in this action only) for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the notice was insufficient to invoke coverage under the 97-01 policy period. JPMC "cross-moved"[ 1 ] (in this action only) for partial summary judgment dismissing the affirmative defenses to the extent that they contested the legal sufficiency of the notice. On March 10, 2009 the motion court granted JPMC's motion for partial summary judgment dismissing Twin City's affirmative defenses insofar as they challenged the sufficiency of the notice, denied Twin City's motion for summary judgment, and ordered that JPMC's motion for summary judgment dismissing defendant's counterclaims and certain affirmative defenses is sub judice and that the remainder of the action was to continue.

In December 2008, following the completion of discovery, JPMC moved for summary judgment on all remaining liability issues and damages. The motion was granted and Twin City appealed from the March 10 order and the May 21 judgment.

The motion court correctly held that the notice to Twin City was valid under the 97-01 Program. Twin City argues that JPMC did not meet the condition precedent to coverage because 1) at the time of the notice, JPMC's Risk and Insurance Management Department, in particular Mr. Straub, had no awareness of any wrongful act, and 2) the notice did not identify any specific wrongful act.

Twin City puts great stock in the fact that the notice states that JPMC has no actual knowledge of the acts listed, including breach of fiduciary duty, misrepresentation, fraud and negligence, and that Straub testified that the notice was JPMC's "effort to identify the types of acts and activities which we were involved with which, not specific to us, JPMorgan Chase, but as a general situation could, in the financial world . . . give rise to a claim."

However, Twin City's assertion that there was no awareness by JPMC of any wrongful acts, but only conjecture, rings hollow. It is clear from the record that there was heightened awareness, by both JPMC and its insurers in the days prior to the expiration of the 97-01 policy, of the impending implosion of JPMC's client Enron, which awareness led to the last minute filing of the notice of potential claims encompassing wide-ranging legal and financial issues that were almost certain to arise.

It is beyond cavil that the entire purpose of the notice, from both the perspective of the insured and the insurers, including Twin City, was "to put the expiring contract on notice of the ENRON circumstance" (emphasis added). And the notice accomplished this goal, as it presaged the allegations of the Enron lawsuits, including claims that JPMC, as one of the principal lending banks, loaning over a billion dollars to Enron, knew that Enron was falsifying its publicly reported financial results and that JPMC helped raise over $2 billion from the investing public for Enron and made false and misleading statements in registration statements and prospectuses used by Enron to raise billions of dollars in new capital for Enron.

The notice identified claims that were likely to arise out of enumerated acts and in the context of the particular unfolding circumstances of the Enron debacle, all of which were described in the notice.

In a "claims-made" policy, the purpose of the provision requiring notice of potential claims before the end of the policy is to provide "a certain date after which an insurer knows that it is no longer liable under the policy, and accordingly, allows the insurer to more accurately fix its reserves for future liabilities and compute premiums with greater certainty" (City of Harrisburg v International Surplus Lines Ins. Co., 596 F Supp 954, 962 [M D Pa 1984], affd 770 F2d 1067 [3rd Cir 1985]).

The notice here, with its reference to Enron and its catalog of the transactions with Enron, is analogous to, if not more detailed than, other notices that have been held to be sufficient pursuant to similar notice provisions in claims-made policies.

For example, in Federal Sav. & Loan Ins. Corp. v Heidrick (774 F Supp 352, 355 [D Md 1991], on reconsideration 812 F Supp 586 [D Md 1991], affd sub nom. Federal Deposit Ins. Co v American Cas. Co., 995 F2d 471 [4th Cir 1993]) where the notice set forth wrongful acts including "possible self-dealing by certain officers and directors in the construction of the . . . main office building, and violations of regulations, breaches of fiduciary duty, and negligent acts or omissions by Officers and Directors . . . relating to the construction of [the] main office building and by authorizing, approving and administering various loans and projects," the court held that the notice satisfied the purpose of the policy by giving the insurer a date certain and allowing it to fix its reserves accurately and compute premiums.

In Bodewes v Ulico Cas. Co. (336 F Supp 2d 263 [WD NY 2004], affd in part and vacated in part on other grounds, 165 Fed Appx 125 [2d Cir 2006]), the notice was held valid where the Trustees of the Buffalo Carpenters Health Care Premium Benefit, Annuity & Pension Funds gave notice that claims would likely be made as the result of the decline in the financial status of the funds and of certain specific instances of alleged mismanagement, "as well as additional claims [that] would be likely to result in the filing of legal action against the Trustees" (336 F Supp 2d at 278 [internal quotation marks omitted]).

Furthermore, in Resolution Trust Corp. v American Cas. Co. (874 F Supp 961 [ED Mo 1995]), the court upheld a notice by a savings and loan reporting that a Federal Home Loan Bank supervisor had made statements regarding certain real estate projects to the effect that because of some deficiencies in documentation, if the projects result in losses, responsibility for these losses would be placed directly on the bank's board of directors.

A follow up letter contained the identity of a potential claimant and "very vague descriptions of the circumstances under which the insureds became aware of a potential claim and the nature of claim" (id. at 965).

The court rejected the insurer's contention that the letters did not provide "enough specific information to constitute adequate notice" (id.), noting that there was no requirement of such specificity in the policy.

Nor is there such a requirement of specificity in this policy, which requires only that the insured give written notice of "wrongful acts," defined as any act, error or omission, or dishonest or fraudulent act or omission.

Twin City's citation to Home Ins. Co. v Cooper & Cooper, Ltd. (889 F 2d 746 [7th Cir 1989]), is unpersuasive, as it actually supports JPMC's position. In Home Ins., an attorney who was the sole shareholder of his firm embezzled from accounts held by his firm, casting the firm into bankruptcy.

The bankruptcy trustee made claims before the policy expired on every matter the firm had ever handled. The court held the notice ineffective, finding that

"[i]f the trustee had reason to believe that the firm's work in a given case would lead to liability, it was entitled under the policy to inform the insurer within the period of coverage and to ensure indemnity if the potential came to pass. An effort to lodge claims on everything, to extend indefinitely the coverage of a 15-month policy, has no similar effect; it is merely vexatious" (id. at 750 [emphasis added]).

Here, the notice focused on a given situation — the Enron collapse — and set forth the many different aspects of professional services that might give rise to claims.

Similarly, Twin City's reliance on American Cas. Co v Wilkinson (1990 WL 302175, 1990 US Dist LEXIS 20153 [WD Okla 1990], is misplaced. In that case, the insured bank's notice listed 50 different individuals or entities who did business with the bank, and unlike the notice here, "[no] information was given about the events or circumstances giving rise to these alleged potential claims" (1990 WL 302175, *3, 1990 US Dist LEXIS 20153, *9).

In sum, the notice here was sufficient and the insured met the condition precedent for coverage.

We have considered Twin City's other arguments and find them unavailing, including the assertion that the loss arising out of the defense and settlement of the underlying litigation was not entirely for "professional services" covered under the policy and that there should have been some allocation performed by the trial court in awarding damages.

Professional services is defined broadly in the policy to include all services provided by JPMC, including, but not limited to, Investment Banking Activities and Lending Activity. The underlying litigation specified these types of activities as giving rise to the claims. Thus, the losses are covered under the policy.

Accordingly, the judgment of the Supreme Court, New York County (Charles E. Ramos, J.), entered May 21, 2009, awarding plaintiffs the aggregate amount of $28,359,180.14 against defendant-appellant pursuant to an order, same court and Justice, entered May 19, 2009, which granted plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment, and order, same court and Justice, entered March 10, 2009, which, inter alia, granted plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment and denied appellant's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint should be affirmed, with costs.

All concur.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

1. The motion court noted the impropriety of attempting to file a cross motion to a cross motion but nonetheless considered the application, in the absence of prejudice to Twin City, which had submitted its opposition to that application. ""

Source
http://www.randywhitestone.com/2010/03/lehman-brothers-private-equity-lehman.html

Folks, don't forget that Proskauer Rose trying to Steal the Trillion Dollar Iviewit Patent and the Enron investments at that time led to the Enron Collapse.

Proskauer Rose gets these companies into the trouble that makes them go bankrupt, then represents them in the bankruptcy.. the Shareholders.. investors lose and Proskauer Rose Wins on all sides of the story. .. and as with all bankruptcy cases - it seems there is no one accountable to the creditors.. Really.. the FBI and DOJ are not listening .. they are looking for the WRONG Criminal just to get an indictment under their hat.

Links to Proskauer Rose and Enron
http://www.proskauersucks.com/search/label/Enron%20Bankruptcy

Read more...

"Will Judith Kaye Use Her Jimmy Choo Shoes to Run to the Nearest OAG Exit?" - Judith Kaye - Andrew Cuomo, Conflict of Interst. Cuomo Family Secrets.

"" Once upon a time, a prince named Andrew who would be king, prevailed upon his fairy godmother named Judith to wave her magic wand and make his problems miraculously disappear. . .

Ms. Kaye,

Since you now have an email address at the OAG, presumably with office space, staff, and expenses paid with tax dollars (courtesy of Andrew Cuomo), I will be resending the three emails I previously sent you at your private law office on 3/12/10 to your OAG email address.

As to your own lack of monetary compensation, the financial arrangement you made with Andrew Cuomo to work pro bono appears to be a generous offer to an uninformed public and a sleeping and non-inquisitive NY press.

I am not in either category. Therefore, I am insisting that you accept $1.00 from NYS funds--not a penny more or less--in payment for your services as independent counsel to the OAG. Informed individuals and lawyers know the legal significance of either offering or accepting state funds--even $1.00--in a situation rife with the possibility of potential criminal charges later being sought.

I would also request that you go on public record that you have accepted $1.00 as salary to serve as independent counsel. Andrew Cuomo's refusal to offer $1.00 from state funds and your refusal to accept $1.00 from state funds could be very telling re: what you knew before agreeing to be independent counsel and what Andrew Cuomo expects from you as independent counsel.

My instincts are hardly ever wrong.

Andrew Cuomo has already gone on public record claiming that his appointment of you as independent counsel was to insure the public of the integrity of the investigation. I believe otherwise--that he had an ulterior and improper motive for appointing you.

Andrew Cuomo is first and foremost a politician and politicians are infamous for granting favors now and collecting payment later. Andrew Cuomo's appointment of you can reasonably and legitimately be viewed as his collecting a delayed payment that was still owed to his father by you..

Governor Paterson has known for some time about the Cuomo family's dirty little secrets. He may be legally blind, but he's not dumb. Rest assured, he knew exactly what he was doing when he asked Andrew Cuomo to investigate any charges against him.

I would venture that he's not laying awake at night worrying whether there will be any criminal charges brought against him.

As to your own predicament and for your own consideration, I acknowledge that claims of appearance of impropriety/conflict of interest do not arise simply out of mere friendship. However, your relationship with the Cuomo family goes well beyond that standard, as even you should be willing to admit. To be blunt, your professional standing and social status is undeniably associated with Mario Cuomo.

Who would Andrew Cuomo be if his father wasn't Mario Cuomo?

Like most attorneys, he would most likely be toiling away in relative obscurity at some non-prestigious law firm or employed by some government agency in an equally obscure position--similar to the career path you possibly would have suffered except for the same Mario Cuomo.

Please don't take this last comment as a personal insult--it's just a recognition of reality, even for myself. There is always someone more intelligent, more capable, more insightful, more principled, more connected, etc. when it comes to filling any position.

Given the Cuomo family dirty little secrets, doesn't it seem strange to you that Andrew Cuomo would ask you to be independent counsel when there are thousands of NY lawyers with prosecutorial experience who have no indebtedness to the Cuomo family or connection to any of NY's hidden political scandals?

Doesn't instinctively knowing that Andrew Cuomo will very possibly expect you to remain silent about crimes and misconduct not connected to David Paterson but linked to the OAG and the NYSP cause you any angst?

Wouldn't any deliberate decision to look the other way be in violation of certain provisions of the Lawyer's Code of Professional Conduct? As a former chief judge for NYS who has written books on ethics, you very likely know this code forward and backward.

Additionally and perhaps irrelevant, you most likely are aware of Christine Anderson's lawsuit claiming that the disciplinary committee for the 1st department of the NY OCA whitewashed and covered up charges made against politically connected attorneys. If you recall, this suit was filed during the last years of your service as chief judge.

Furthermore, any future claim by you that you were only appointed to investigate the Booker matter and World Series tickets matter and, therefore, can ignore any damaging information re: your main benefactor, his son, and others would be subject to justifiable ridicule.

I would hope that you, as a former NYS chief judge, would hold yourself to the highest ethical standards possible and won't resort to "lawyer speak" in defense of your actions if ever questioned.

Andrew Cuomo, and not me, has placed you in a compromising position that should mandate your own withdrawal as independent counsel.

It would be naive to believe that attorneys representing various targets of your investigation who have already been sent the three emails you were sent would not want concessions for their clients or input into any of your findings in return for their own silence.

The fact that each side knows of the Cuomo family's dirty little secrets need not be verbalized, knowledge alone being sufficient enough to cast doubt on the credibility and integrity of any investigation.and its findings.

It would seem to me that there is only one available option if you wish to continue as independent counsel, i,e., to make a full and public disclosure of the compromising position Andrew Cuomo has chosen to put you in--something, I doubt, you would be willing to do.

In the event that you are not a true liberal like myself who can stand on principle, this insignificant nobody and ordinary US citizen would offer this advice: Use your Jimmy Choo high heels and presumed arthritic knees to run as fast as possible to the nearest OAG exit. Prince Andrew, who would be king, is not worthy enough for you to risk the potential damage to your own public reputation. ""

Source
Send in by A Reader

Read more...

"At SEC, the system can be deaf to Whistleblowing" - I say the SEC has Motives to NOT Listen as they Still are NOT Listening To Billion Dollar Tips.

" By Zachary A. Goldfarb
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, January 21, 2010

Eric Kolchinsky was an executive at Moody's, the credit rating company, when he called a top official at the Securities and Exchange Commission in September to warn that his firm might be violating securities law. He reported that Moody's was blessing mortgage-backed investments that it knew were dangerous, according to a person familiar with the conversation.

The SEC official assured Kolchinsky that someone from the agency would call him back shortly. But the call never came, Kolchinsky later told congressional investigators who were examining how the credit rating industry's failures contributed to the financial crisis. He had gone to Congress after losing patience with the SEC.

Kolchinsky is one in a series of whistleblowers who in recent years tried to tip off the SEC to potential wrongdoing, only to be ignored, misunderstood or left to wonder whether they were being listened to. The SEC has no system in place to guide how officials should handle tips and complaints from outsiders, making it difficult for investigators to take advantage of an invaluable source of information.

This failure helped to continue two of the most celebrated frauds of the last decade for several years, potentially costing unwitting investors millions of dollars. Countless others may have been left vulnerable to shysters because of warnings that went unheeded.

Since SEC Chairman Mary L. Schapiro took office last year, she has said that fixing the holes in the process for handling tips and complaints has been a top priority. But improving the way hundreds of thousands of tips are analyzed and pursued has proven difficult.

The SEC's enforcement division got back in touch with Kolchinsky about his allegations only after he told the story publicly to a congressional committee last fall, according to a person familiar with the matter.

The SEC said it responded to Kolchinsky's concerns but declined to provide details or to say how fast it did so. Moody's said it examined his allegations and found nothing improper.
The SEC has a haphazard, decentralized system for analyzing outsider information.

Tips arrive by phone, mail and e-mail to officials throughout the agency -- investor education to enforcement divisions. A study commissioned by the SEC last year and conducted by Mitre, a nonprofit group that does research for the federal government, found that the SEC lacks technology to analyze tips and complaints, as well as cohesive policies for what officials should do when they get information.

Whistleblower complaints are one of the main ways that investigators should be tipped to wrongdoing, SEC officials say, along with inconsistencies in financial filings and alerts from financial exchanges about suspicious trading patterns. But the SEC lags behind some other federal agencies in handling tips.

The Internal Revenue Service, for instance, pays reward money to whistleblowers who provide credible information about tax fraud. The Federal Trade Commission has set up a call center for tips and complaints.

On top of structural problems at the SEC, agency officials individually made mistakes in handling several recent cases, sometimes violating agency rules.

Members of Schapiro's management team said they recognized problems with the system for handling whistleblowers shortly after taking over.

"There was no uniformity to it. Every division and office had its own system of recording, tracking or handling tips and complaints. That system was pretty rudimentary," said Steve Cohen, the official tasked by Schapiro to overhaul the agency's tips, complaints and whistleblower program. "We're already working to acquire and deploy technology that centralizes all of the agency's tips and complaints so they can be sorted, reviewed, analyzed and tracked."

No shortage of witnesses

The SEC's struggles were underlined over the past two years with the revelation of two huge Ponzi schemes.

In the case of Bernard L. Madoff, whistleblowers had provided credible information to various SEC units for years.

The most prominent of these informants, a Boston financial analyst named Harry Markopolos, contacted the enforcement division on numerous occasions, according to the SEC's inspector general.

In one instance, Markopolos provided a detailed explanation of why Madoff's business was probably a fraud. Enforcement officials listened, but they dismissed him in their internal discussions. Two former enforcement officials told the inspector general that they discounted Markopolos's information because he was not an insider in Madoff's company.

Then, a few months after the Madoff scheme exploded into the headlines, the SEC exposed a second large Ponzi scheme, run by R. Allen Stanford. But that happened five years after an insider went to the SEC, warning that Stanford might be conducting a fraudulent business.

Leyla Wydler had been a vice president at Stanford's Houston-based company when she first started asking her supervisors tough questions about what the firm did with clients' money, according to her testimony before Congress last year. Her superiors were evasive, and she ultimately was fired.

After that, she went to the National Association of Securities Dealers, a private industry regulator overseen by the SEC. The NASD dismissed her concerns. Then in September 2004, she contacted the SEC's Fort Worth office, according to her congressional testimony. She followed up with a letter to an official there, questioning whether clients' money had been invested in the way Stanford said.

She never heard from the SEC again -- until January 2009, days before the SEC finally filed a case against Stanford, according to her testimony. The agency wanted to know more about her allegations. An inspector general report from June 2009 said the SEC began looking into Stanford years earlier but struggled to build a case against him.

Turning in the Tipster

In one case, it was the SEC that blew the whistle on Peter Sivere, an informant.

Sivere worked in the compliance office of New York investment bank J.P. Morgan Chase. As part of a team helping the bank furnish documents related to a 2004 SEC probe into suspected illegal trading, he found an e-mail that he thought was incriminating.

According to a subsequent report by the SEC inspector general, the e-mail said J.P. Morgan was knowingly providing hundreds of millions of dollars in credit to a firm "in the business of day trading mutual funds" -- which is illegal.

Sivere asked his superiors if this e-mail had been turned over to the SEC but did not get an answer. Instead, he was taken off the SEC project, according to the inspector general report. Sivere accessed his superiors' e-mail accounts to retrieve relevant e-mails, then contacted the SEC. He told the agency that he had relevant documents and asked whether he could receive a reward. He was told he was not eligible, but he turned over the documents anyway.

Sivere informed J.P. Morgan that he had contacted the SEC.

The company fired him, partly on the grounds that he had "sought payment from the SEC to provide documents and information to them outside of the normal scope of their investigation," according to a letter company lawyers wrote defending his dismissal. J.P. Morgan declined to comment for this article.

Sivere was shocked to learn that J.P. Morgan knew he had inquired about a bounty. He had been promised that his discussions with the SEC were confidential.

An SEC internal probe found that an investigator working on the case disclosed Sivere's information to J.P. Morgan's lawyers, violating the agency's confidentiality rules. The inspector general recommended that the SEC official who made the disclosure be referred for disciplinary action. None was taken, according to agency documents.

Retraining the Watchdog

Cohen, who is overhauling the SEC's whistleblower practices, said a database, jury-rigged from existing technology, will be in place this month to centralize all tips and complaints. Officials said that by the end of 2010, they hope to develop technology that would not only centralize the data but also automatically analyze them for patterns to help officials prioritize cases.

Currently, the SEC is setting procedures for responding to whistleblowers and is creating an office of market intelligence to coordinate how the agency's various units respond to tips.

The agency also wants to be able to reward whistleblowers, which it can only do now for insider-trading cases. The SEC has requested that Congress pass legislation giving it the ability to offer financial rewards to people who provide evidence of violations of securities law. ""

Source of Article
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/20/AR2010012005125_2.html

The SEC Gets Tips that Will inevitable Cost Shareholder Millions and they HAVE No System in place to really handle these tips, yet they act like they are taking in Tips and Handling them. The Iviewit Technologies Case will one day explode into Billions in Loss and the SEC has ignored the Eliot Bernstein SEC Complaint - and has know of the Involvement of Proskauer Rose way before the Standford Billions were lost. More on the Iviewit Stolen Patent and what Companies are affected go to http://www.deniedpatent.com/ and www.Iviewit.TV

Why is there no Accountability for the SEC Insiders that let these Billion Dollar Scams Happen then after the Scam and many innocent investors lose everything, the SEC insider gets a a Really Good Job at a high profile law firm. And no one seems to raise an eyebrow.

All these Billion Dollar Investment schemes seem to have the same thing in common. They have a Mega Law Firm behind them helping them, and the Law firms such as Proskauer Rose seem to have No Accountability for the Damage they due to investors.

In the Stanford investment Scandal SEC Sjoblom went to Proskauer Rose - talk about a conflict of Interest - Proskauer Rose seems to be behind a whole lot of these Billion Dollar Scams and they never seem to be held accountable.

In the Dreier Scandal there was Proskauer Rose LLP Attorney Sheila Gowan.

In the Madoff Scandal and there is said to a woman who fled the SEC to the Law Firm Proskauer Rose and that she is fingered all over the SEC report on Madoff failures.

So the SEC seems to hire these lawyers and let them run these scams and there seems to be no REAL regulators of any kind for the ones in place seem to be part of the organized RICO Enterprise of Criminal Lawyers and Law Firms and the US court System does not seem to be able to do anything about them.

Is the SEC Liable for Billions to Trillions of Investors money when it is Obviously, Easily proved that the SEC Ignored TIPS for Years upon Years in all these cases. Time to Sue the SEC. This Government Agent should not be above the law, it is as if they let this stuff go on - on Purpose for pay offs and cushy jobs... and year after year the same scheme plays out and no one seems to be able to bring Justice, Accountability, or Real Action from the SEC to do what the Duty of the SEC is....

Links

Sheila M. Gowan - Proskauer Rose - Iviewit
http://www.free-press-release.com/news-iviewit-trillion-fed-suit-defendant-proskauer-rose-sued-in-global-class-action-re-stanford-ponzi-1252249099.html

Standford - Proskauer Rose - Thomas Sjoblom
http://www.proskauersucks.com/2010/01/thomas-v-sjoblom-allen-stanford.html

Madoff - Proskauer Rose
http://www.proskauerrosesucks.com/2010/02/proskauer-rose-madoff-mary-shapiro-sec.html

Read more...

Lehman’s Hidden Leverage ‘Shenanigans’ May Haunt Fuld - Proskauer Rose - Lehman Brothers

"" By Joshua Gallu and David Scheer

March 13 (Bloomberg) -- Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc.’s Richard Fuld exuded confidence as he briefed analysts on June 16, 2008, four days after demoting his firm’s finance chief in the wake of a $2.8 billion quarterly loss.

“I am the one who ultimately signs off and I’m comfortable with our valuations at the end of our second quarter,” then- Chief Executive Officer Fuld said on the conference call. “We have always had a rigorous internal process.”

The rigor was based on a shaky foundation, according to a 2,200-page report about the firm’s demise by Anton Valukas, the examiner for the bankrupt firm. Lehman Brothers “reverse- engineered” a key measure of stability, masking the firm’s true financial condition, Valukas said. Some asset valuations were also “unreasonable,” he said.

Keen to show that it had reduced leverage, a gauge of a company’s ability to withstand losses, Chief Financial Officer Ian Lowitt said on the June 16 call that the firm had shrunk its net leverage ratio to 12 times from 15.4 in the second quarter.

It accomplished the feat by reducing net assets by $70 billion, said Lowitt, who had just replaced Erin Callan in his post. “We’re going to operate conservatively,” he said.

Unbeknownst to shareholders, the firm was hiding $50 billion in assets through off-balance-sheet transactions known as Repo 105s that temporarily removed holdings until days after the quarter closed, according to Valukas. In the first quarter, the firm had used the same strategy to hide $49 billion in assets, he said in the report.

‘Shenanigans’

Lehman Brothers actions amounted to no more than “shenanigans,” said Sanford C. Bernstein & Co. analyst Brad Hintz, a former Lehman chief financial officer. “If all you’re doing is hiding something behind the curtain, the financial strength isn’t there.”

The repos helped prop up Lehman’s credit rating, Valukas said. The off-balance dealings required more collateral than if Lehman had opted for ordinary transactions visible to shareholders, he said.

“Repos were just one of many ways to hide losses,” said Janet Tavakoli, president of Chicago-based financial consulting firm Tavakoli Structured Finance Inc. “All of the former investment banks used those techniques. All of them borrowed too much money and were overleveraged.”

Lehman Brothers bolstered capital by raising about $12 billion from investors during the first half of 2008, a time when Valukas said the New York-based firm’s financial statements were misleading.

‘Grossly Negligent’

Investors included Blackrock Inc., the largest publicly traded fund manager in the U.S., a venture run by former American International Group Inc. CEO Maurice “Hank” Greenberg, and New Jersey government retirees.

Fuld, 63, was “at least grossly negligent in causing Lehman Brothers to file misleading periodic reports,” Valukas said.

Fuld’s lawyer, Patricia Hynes, disputed the examiner’s conclusions.

“Mr. Fuld did not know what those transactions were -- he didn’t structure or negotiate them, nor was he aware of their accounting treatment,” Hynes said in a statement. She also said none of Lehman’s senior financial officers, lawyers or outside auditors raised concern about the transactions with Fuld.

Robert Cleary, a lawyer for Callan at Proskauer Rose, didn’t return a call seeking comment. Callan, 44, who left Lehman in July 2008 to join Credit Suisse Group AG, stepped down from the Swiss bank Dec. 31, spokesman Duncan King said.

Real Estate Overvalued

Lewis Liman, a lawyer for Lowitt, 46, said in an e-mail that his client did nothing wrong. Lowitt is now chief operating officer at Barclays Wealth Americas, whose parent, Barclays Plc, bought Lehman’s North American brokerage for $1.54 billion.

In its final year, Lehman overvalued real-estate holdings, including a stake in U.S. apartment developer Archstone-Smith Trust, Valukas said. Lehman and Tishman Speyer Properties LP completed a joint acquisition of Archstone for $22 billion, including debt, in October 2007.

Lehman presented “unreasonable” valuations of its Archstone stake in the first three quarters of 2008, overvaluing the holding by as much as $450 million in the second quarter, the examiner wrote.

The bankruptcy case is In re Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc., 08-13555, U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Southern District of New York (Manhattan).

--With assistance from Erik Schatzker and Christine Harper in New York. Editors: Alec McCabe, Dan Reichl.

To contact the reporters on this story: Joshua Gallu in Washington at jgallu@bloomberg.net; David Scheer in New York at dscheer@bloomberg.net. ""

Source of Post
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-03-13/lehman-brothers-shenanigans-on-hidden-leverage-may-haunt-fuld.html

Lehman Brothers and Proskauer Rose Connections

More on Lehman Brothers Hidden Assets and Lehman Brothers - Neuberber Berman go to www.RandallWhitestone.com and for More on the Shenanigans of Proskauer Rose LLP go to www.ProskauerSucks.com .

Read more...

Eliot Bernstein of Iviewit Technologies files SEC and FBI Complaint with Mary Schapiro, against Warner Bros., AOL Inc., Time Warner, Intel, SGI, and .

SEC Complaint Filed, is the SEC Listening .. It Does not sound like it. The SEC must be covering up for Favors owed, covering and protecting billionair tech companies and Above the Law Law Firms Like Foley and Lardner and Proskauer Rose.

Eliot Bernstein of Iviewit Technologies files SEC & FBI Complaint with Mary Schapiro & Others against Warner Bros., AOL Inc., Time Warner, Intel, SGI, Lockheed Martin, Proskauer Rose, Foley & Lardner.

"" March 14, 2010 --

FORMAL CRIMINAL COMPLAINT TO SEC & FBI
RE SHAREHOLDER FRAUD BY LEADING BLUE CHIPS

Corp Management of Time Warner (NYSE: TWX), Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc., AOL Inc. (NYSE: AOL), Intel Corporation (NASDAQ: INTC), Silicon Graphics, Inc. (delisted NYSE: SGI) & successor Silicon Graphics International (NASDAQ: SGI), Sony Corporation (NYSE/ADR: SNE) , Lockheed Martin Corporation (NYSE: LMT), Ernst & Young Global Limited have known about the Trillion Dollar Iviewit Liabilities for years & allegedly have concealed the liabilities from Shareholders & in some instances reorganized to the detriment of Shareholders in alleged fraudulent transactions, which may lead to Shareholder Rescissory Rights & catastrophic damage to the companies as complained of to Fed Officials.FEB 12, 2010 CRIMINAL COMPLAINTThe SEC Complaint filed Feb 12, 2010,

“Iviewit & Eliot I. Bernstein Official Formal Complaint…against Warner Bros. Entertainment, Inc., AOL Inc. & Time Warner, regarding Trillion Dollar alleged Fraud on Shareholders; FASB No. 5 & other SEC accounting violations & violations of State, Federal & Int’l Laws; Rescissory Rights of Shareholders; Evidence & Important Info for the SEC regarding ongoing SEC Investigations of Bernard L. Madoff, Marc S. Dreier, Sir Robert Allen Stanford, Proskauer Rose, Galleon, Enron Broadband, Enron, Arthur Andersen & more”

http://www.iviewit.tv/wordpress/?p=274

and

http://www.iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/20100206%20FINAL%20SEC%20FBI%20and%20more%20COMPLAINT%20Against%20Warner%20Bros%20Time%20Warner%20AOL176238nscolorlow.pdf

SEC COMPLAINT INTEL, LOCKHEED MARTIN & SGIA SEC complaint also was filed by Iviewit against Intel, SGI & Lockheed & similar allegations were levied against these corps for Patent Theft, knowing infringement & Shareholder Fraud.

The March 29th 2009 SEC Complaint to Shapiro titled “Complaint Regarding Intel Corp & Possible Trillion Dollar Fraud on Intel Shareholders & Others”http://www.iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/United%20States%20District%20Court%20Southern%20District%20NY/20090325%20FINAL%20Intel%20SEC%20Complaint%20SIGNED2073.pdf

12 COUNT 12 TRILLION DOLLAR FED RICO & ANTITRUST SUIT LEGALLY MARKED “RELATED” TO NY SUPREME COURT WHISTLEBLOWER SUIT

Liabilities for the complained of companies centers on both knowing technology infringements & liabilities from failure to report the Fed RICO & ANTITRUST filed by Iviewit & now legally marked “RELATED” to the Whistleblower suit of Christine C. Anderson, a former staff attorney for the NY Supreme Court Appellate Division. Anderson gave riveting testimony of systemic corruption to the NY State Senate Judiciary & in sworn testimony in before Judge Shira Scheindlin of Whitewashing & Criminal Obstruction by Court Officials for “Favored Lawyers & Law Firms, the US Attorney in New York, the DA and Asst DA” or words to that effect. Anderson further fingered one of the “CLEANERS” of ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT COMPLAINTS at the NY Supreme Court as Naomi Goldstein.A “CLEANER” at the ETHICS department of NY responsible for attorney regulation in Manhattan & the WallStreet financial district, perhaps the reason the country is suffering from a lack of attorney regulation in the heart of the financial district that has led to lax or complicit regulators and prosecutors and a worldwide economic meltdown.

Anderson’s testimony http://www.iviewit.tv/20090608nysjudiciaryhearing/index.htmhttp://www.iviewit.tv/wordpress/?p=205

Bernstein testimony before the NY Senate Judiciary of systemic corruption that has blocked due process & procedure via corrupt infiltration of the NY Courts @http://www.iviewit.tv/wordpress/?p=189http://www.iviewit.tv/wordpress/?p=165

HOUSE OF CARD COLLAPSING ON NY CRIME SYNDICATE INSIDE NY COURTS, ETHICS DEPARTMENTS, PUBLIC OFFICES & REGULATORY AGENCIES BY CRIMINAL LAW FIRMS & LAWYERSThe House of Cards is Crumbling on Key Players in the Iviewit Scandal as the NY Corruption Scandal Elevates to Senior NY Political Figures including Cuomo & members of the NY Supreme Court & US Fed Courts in NY. Proskauer Rose.

Proskauer, mastermind of the bungled attempt to steal the Iviewit patents through Fraud on the US Patent Office & further bungled attempts to cover up the crimes in the NY Courts is under further scrutiny with Proskauer’s direct involvement in the Stanford Financial Ponzi & subsequent resignation of partner Thomas Sjoblom, a former SEC enforcement officer, allegedly found coaching Stanford employees on how to lie to SEC & FBI investigators at a Miami Airport Hanger preceding the arrest of Stanford & his employees.

Proskauer also sued in a Class Action suit for the entire 7 billion dollar Stanford losses & sued by an arrested Stanford employee. Proskauer has further direct ties to both the Madoff & Dreier Ponzis.NY Attorney General CuomoFollowing the illegal representation by the NY AG in the Iviewit RICO & ANTITRUST suit & Anderson’s Whistleblower suit under Spitzer as NY AG, the Cuomo Admin continues to represent illegally State Defendants in both cases left over by Spitzer (a named Defendant in the RICO and Antitrust).

As the Iviewit & Anderson claims are further investigated & litigated these present the largest liability to Cuomo’s run for any office as the largest scandal brewing in NY begins to unravel with his offices dead center.

Anderson’s filing http://www.frankbrady.org/TammanyHall/Documents_files/Anderson%20111609%20Filing.pdf

Iviewit filings of Illegal rep by Cuomo @http://www.iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/United%20States%20District%20Court%20Southern%20District%20NY/20080305%20Final%20Plaintiff%20Oposition%20to%20AG%20Cuomo%20letter%20email%20copy.pdfhttp://www.iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/United%20States%20District%20Court%20Southern%20District%20NY/20090129%20Final%20Extension%20of%20Time%202%20SIGNED%20low.pdf

The US District CourtWith Anderson’s revelations in the US District Court & the Jury finding that her 1st Amendment Rights to Free Speech regarding Whistleblower Allegations had been violated, the whole case has been called into question & further questioned due to the ILLEGAL REPRESENTATION of the NY AG Cuomo’s office. Based on Cuomo’s illegal representation of State Officials, Anderson filed for an entirely new hearing based on the Cuomo’s mass conflicts. Iviewit alleges that NY AG Cuomo’s illegal representation of State Defendants, Officially & Personally, violates his office duties & obligations of honest services to NY, public office rules and violates state & federal laws, whereby the Conflicts of Interest act to block investigation of the State Defendants fingered by Whistleblower Anderson & in Iviewit’s suit, causing Obstruction of Justice through Fraud on the Court. Serious allegations for Cuomo who continues to illegally represent State Officials on public funds, while failing to investigate those same public officials, including former NY Chief Judge Judith Kaye.

Also of concern is if these massive liabilities have been reported to State Auditors by Cuomo?The US 2nd CircuitIn the US Second Circuit, Iviewit filed a “Motion to Compel” compelling that court to follow law, as with Anderson’s revelations exposing court members, that court has tried to ILLEGALLY Dismiss all the legally “related” cases to Anderson in attempts to bury them & keep the lids on the scandal that may lead them to exchange their legal robes for prison garb. Motion to Compel

http://www.iviewit.tv/wordpress/?p=78http://www.iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/United%20States%20District%20Court%20Southern%20District%20NY/20090908%20FINAL%20Emergency%20Motion%20to%20Compel%20SIGNED44948.pdf ""

"Addressed to:
SEC Chair Mary Shapiro
SEC IG, H. David Kotz
IG OF THE US DOJ, Glenn Fine
FBI
HOUSE & SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
NY SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
US AG, Eric Holder

Treasury IG, David Gouvaia
SBA IG, Peggy Gustafson & Daniel O’Rourke

US DEP OF COMMERCE IG, Todd Zinser
Under Sec of Commerce for Intellectual Property & Dir of the USPTO, David Kappos
Deputy Under Sec of Commerce for Intellectual Property & Deputy Dir of the USPTO, Sharon Barner

USPTO - OFFICE OF ENROLLMENT & DISCIPLINE DIR, Harry I. Moatz
US PRESIDENT, Hon President of the US, Barack H. Obama II
FILED AGAINST
Warner Bros. Entertainment, Inc.
Chair & CEO: Barry Meyer

Pres & COO: Alan Horn
EVP & CFO: Edward Romano
VP & Chief Patent Counsel: Wayne Smith
AOL, Inc.
Chair & CEO: Tim Armstrong
GC & EVP: Ira Parker
Counsel - Patent Lit, Prosecution & Licensing: Christopher Day
Exec Escalation Team: Jerry McKinley

Time Warner, Inc.
Chair & CEO: Jeffrey Bewkes
EVP & GC: Paul Cappuccio
MARCH 29, 2009 SEC COMPLAINT INTEL, LOCKHEED MARTIN & SGI "

Press Release for Immediate Release

Read more...

Jonathan Lippman - Chief Judge Judith Kaye, March 7th 2007 - Appellate Division

" RE: VERIFIED CRIMINAL COMPLAINT /AFFIDAVIT OF TRUTH WITH EVIDENCE, AGAINST JONATHAN LIPPMAN’S TRESPASS AS A NYS CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE AND HIS DOCUMENTED CRIMINAL REPITITIOUS, PATTERN AND PRACTICED LAWLESS USURPATIONS, USURPING POWER HE DOES NOT LEGITIMATELY POSSESS AND THE DISREGARD OF SUCH, EFFECTUATING THE BELOW JONATHAN LIPPMAN GLOBAL ODIOUS CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY AND AGAINST EQUAL PROTECTIONS EMBEDDED IN GOD GIVEN AND CONSTITUTIONAL PUBLIC SAFETY RIGHTS: "

"" Dear Public Officials:

THIS Criminal Complaint Truth Affidavit is written pursuant to Almighty God the Creator God given rights so all people can live free from public record documented Jonathan Lippman, NYS Chief Administrative Judicial Trespasser criminal, seditious, odious scourge, usurpations MANDATING, REQUIRING, AUTHORIZING, his arrest, removal, and impeachment, accordingly.

Jonathan Lippman’s heinous crimes, criminal usurpations, legal fiction administration, persistent and willful insurrection and rebellion against the New York and the United States of America Constitutions effectuated a deadly Public Defraud requiring his arrest as his actions and the attachments attached hereto epitomize his high misdemeanors, felonies, malfeasance in office and are documented public atrocities with genocidal and deadly power and control
ramifications.

Above all, I am filing this Criminal Complaint Truth Affidavit against Jonathan Lippman with particularity to the fact that all persons are born equally free, and have certain natural, inherent and inalienable rights, among which are the rights of enjoying and defending life and liberty, of acquiring, possessing and protecting property, and of seeking and obtaining safety and happiness.

These God given rights have been LAWLESSLY obstructed via lawless disregarded life
threatening usurpations inflicted on humankind near and far. These crimes are
documented in the above and below offices and documented in the public record
of the below mentioned law suit.

This Criminal Complaint Truth Affidavit is written with emphasis on TRUTHFUL DOCUMENTATION OF JONATHAN LIPPMAN’S verifiable crimes that defrauded and OVER THREW the United States system of government, for his power craze personal gain while trespassing as a judge in the law suit against him titled 1 NO. 1: LEONARD J. LEVENSON, ET AL. V. JONATHAN LIPPMAN,&C., ET AL.

This criminal complaint is written on behalf of the people of New York State, Africa, and the sacredness of the protections guaranteed by God, to live free from lawless Jonathan Lippman usurpations and public disturbances, that obstruct justice, terrorize countries and people, as well as kill under varied disguises cited in the multiple documentaries I have written that are filed in the NYC FBI office, Chief Justice Judith Kaye’s office, and The Department of Investigations under NYC Mayor Bloomberg’s office via Rose Hearn, Commissioner.

Additionally, I have attached evidence verifying the above Jonathan Lippman
criminal activities, premised off of lawless disregarded public disturbance
usurpations and his unregulated 2 billion dollar budget that facilitates such.

I have been terrorized, denied all aspects of equal protection of the law, targeted
for a disguised killing/wiped off this earth via lawless Jonathan Lippman
documented patterned and practiced criminal usurpations, consistent with his
patterns of lawless court administration, union interference, public education
usurpations. Usurpations that have wiped out over 13 million people are listed
under his name.

His lawless usurpations including his public record Appellate Division
documented lawless usurpation require arrest and additional charges for the
disregard and seditious/defraud appeal. ""

Full 162 page Document Click Here

Read more...

Andrew Cuomo Appoints Retired Court of Appeals Chief Justice Judith Kaye to run the Gov. Paterson Probes.

WoW, this should be Impartial, Fair, Just... Come on talk about the Queen of the Attorney Fraternity in New York State that Reaches Everywhere Proskauer Rose Law Firm Is..

Judith L. Kaye would definitely qualify in my book as IN NO way a good pick for this "probe" .. oh unless you want to cover up Zillions in Alleged Crimes - Fraud - or Really Anything.. as with Proskauer Rose connections, Favors Owed, Steven Krane and all the Favors and Influence that Brings ... there seems to be No One that Can Hold Criminals Accountable for Crimes on their Watch...

Here is the Article..

"" ALBANY - Attorney General Andrew Cuomo handed off the politically red-hot probes of Gov. Paterson on Thursday - clearly hoping not to get burned any more.

Just days after a Marist College poll revealed a sizable drop in his approval ratings, particularly among blacks, Cuomo "removed" himself from the potentially explosive inquests.

He appointed retired Court of Appeals Chief Justice Judith Kaye to run the probes.

"This is a legal determination as to what is the best way to conduct an investigation," said Cuomo, who is all but certain to run for governor.

Cuomo said he made the decision to appoint Kaye out of "an abundance of caution" to avoid any possible conflicts, though he acknowledged the political prism through which the case is likely to be viewed.

"I understand the ferocity of politics of New York and I understand that it is incredibly important to all of us that the public have a 100% confidence that this investigation is being handled properly," Cuomo said.

Cuomo's office is investigating whether Paterson and the state police interfered in a domestic violence complaint mom of two Sherr-una Booker brought against top Paterson aide David Johnson.

His office has also launched a probe into whether the governor got free World Series tickets from the Yankees - and then lied about it to the state's Public Integrity Commission.

Tuesday's Marist poll found the public was becoming increasingly uncomfortable with Cuomo's role in the investigation. His once sky-high approval rating had dropped 13 points in just a week, including a 22-point drop among nonwhite voters, to 45%, the Marist poll showed.

"Politicians are supposed to follow public opinion, he did and the result was a wise decision," said Democratic strategist Hank Sheinkopf."

Kaye's appointment means the case is likely to drag on for several more weeks - and hang over Paterson as he tries to negotiate a budget with lawmakers.

Kaye will oversee Cuomo's staff of lawyers and investigators, who've interviewed dozens of witnesses and pored over pages of documents in both cases.

Nearly all of the crucial witnesses have been deposed in the probe of whether Paterson, his aides or the state police broke any laws by intervening in the domestic abuse case.

The Daily News reported yesterday that Cuomo's investigators have found little evidence to support a witness tampering case against Paterson.

Cuomo did not deny the story, but said: "Discussing any outcome would be premature."
This week, a handful of witnesses are being called back for a second interview. Johnson, another top Paterson aide, Clemmie Harris, and the governor are to be interviewed as soon as next week.

Kaye will essentially play the role Cuomo would have played, overseeing any presentation to a grand jury, signing off on subpoenas and, in the end, making the call as to whether to prosecute.
Cuomo will be barred from participating in any of these matters.

Kaye, who has no experience as a prosecutor, vowed the "public will have a full, fair and independent accounting of the facts."

Paterson's lawyer Theodore Wells Jr. promised to cooperate with Kaye.""

Source of Post...
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/2010/03/11/2010-03-11_down_in_polls_andy_bails_on_probe_gives_hotpotato_gov_mess_over_to_former_chief_.html#ixzz0hwGdgE2T
So Cuomo wants to Be Gov. - Cuomo's Dad Appointed Kaye to her Judge Job... and now Judith Kaye is Investigating the Current NY Governor.. Hmmm.. nobody sees this as a Conflict.. and Andrew Cuomo has the nerve to say.. "Cuomo said he made the decision to appoint Kaye out of "an abundance of caution" to avoid any possible conflicts, though he acknowledged the political prism through which the case is likely to be viewed." What is Going on in New York?

Who is Theodore Wells Jr. - what Connections does he have to Proskauer, or History with any of the Attorney Fraternity we talk about on this site... ???

More on Proskauer Rose Affiliations, Conflicts of Interest and Alleged Crimes..
and How Proskauer Rose is Involved in a Trillion Dollar Patent Theft that now has plenty to do with the Corruption in the New York Court System and the Cover Up Power of Judith S. Kaye..
www.ProskauerSucks.com - www.DeniedPatent.com - www.Iviewit.TV

Got a Inside Tip on any of this.. Email Me At
Crystal@CrystalCox.com
Crystal L. Cox
Investigative Blogger

Read more...