Proskauer Rose Investigative Research Blog - by Investigative Blogger Crystal L. Cox

Proskauer Rose, Conflict of Interest? No Say it Ain't So..

2011-01-27T16:40:00.000-08:00

" Malpractice Claim Against Proskauer Rose

LOS ANGELES (CN) - A media executive sued the Proskauer Rose law firm for more than $500,000 in a malpractice complaint. William Frazee claims that as president of Ascent Media Group he relied on Proskauer Rose's advice that there were no conflicts of interest in its representing him and Ascent in a lawsuit and a separate arbitration dispute.

But Ascent filed a claim against Frazee in November, claiming his actions in the two previous cases were outside the scope of his employment, "and that it is entitled to in excess of $500,000 for attorneys' fees, expenses and settlement payments made by Ascent in connection with these matters and other unspecified matters."

In his complaint in Superior Court, Frazee says, "At no time did defendants inform plaintiff that he could be liable for such attorneys' fees, expenses and settlement payments."

Frazee says Ascent hired him as vice president in 1996, "and within six months, was promoted to president."

Ascent employee J. Carrie Zuzenak filed an arbitration claim against Ascent in May 2006, alleging sexual harassment, intentional infliction of emotional distress, constructive discharge and failure to prevent and correct discrimination. Frazee says he "has denied all wrongdoings as alleged by Zuzenak".

Frazee says that Proskauer Rose sent him a conflict of interest waiver letter in December 2006, asking him to consent to joint representation of him and Ascent in the Zuzenak arbitration at Ascent's expense. He says he agreed and reasonably relied on the assurances in the letter, "that defendants were unaware of any conflict of interests between Ascent and plaintiff, but that if a conflict between Ascent and plaintiff did arise, defendants would cease representing plaintiff and plaintiff would be provided an opportunity to obtain separate representation at his own expense."

That arbitration was settled in 2008.

A similar thing happened after Addie Hall sued Ascent and Frazee in March 2010, Frazee says. He again denied all wrongdoing and again consented to Proskauer Rose's joint representation, and its statements about conflicts of interest.

But on Nov. 8, 2010, Ascent filed a complaint against Frazee in an arbitration that is still pending. "In its petition against plaintiff, Ascent alleges, inter alia, that plaintiff's actions in the Zuzenak arbitration and Hall litigation were outside the scope of his employment and that it is entitled to in excess of $500,000 for attorneys' fees, expenses and settlement payments made by Ascent in connection with these matters and other unspecified matters."

Frazee seeks damages for legal malpractice and breach of fiduciary, from Proskauer Rose and its attorney Anthony Oncidi. He says he has or will incur more than $500,000 in legal fees, costs and settlement payments.

And he says the defendant intended to injure him, with despicable, outrageous, oppressive and malicious conduct, so he should get punitive damages. He is represented by Samuel Smith with SJS Counsel, of Beverly Hills.

Ascent describes itself on its web page as a "fully integrated digital media services provider ... through the stages of creative post production, content management, distribution and, finally, content monetization."

Source of Above Quote
http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/01/06/33100.htm

Proskauer Rose Law Firm is Evil, Criminal and NO Longer Above the Law.. no Longer Protected by the Supreme Court with Cover Up Crony .. Good Ol' Gal - Ex Judge Judith Kaye.

Time for Accountability for Proskauer Rose...

Proskauer Rose Stole a 13 Trillion Dollar Patent and Hid the Technology in Patent Pools withMPEG LA via Proskauer Rose Corrupt Patent Attorney Kenneth Rubenstein.

This Technology is Now Used by Time Warner Inc., Clearwire Corporation, Intel Corp. , Lockheed Martin, Verizon, Apple, Nokia, Motorola, IBM, and Well anyone who uses ModernHigh Speed Video Technology.

Once iViewit Technologies issues a Cease and Desist that is Up Held by a Non-Proskauer Rose Controlled Court - Well 95% of all Cable TV, Video on Phones, Internet Video ... Will Come to an Abrupt Halt UNTIL they can Negotiate with iViewit Technologies.

Time Warner Inc. Has Signed Agreements and non-compete agreements with the iViewit Technologies and IGNORED these Signed - Binding Contracts.

Time Warner Inc. - CEO Jeffrey Bewkes has known for a very long time that Time Warner Inc., Warner Bros., and AOL will face Massive Liabilities over the iViewit Technology they STOLE. Yet Time Warner Inc. - CEO Jeffrey Bewkes Continues to Ignore this Fact and Time Warner Inc. - CEO Jeffrey Bewkes continues to Fail to Disclose to the "Board of Directors".

Intel Corp. Knows Full Well they Screwed over Iviewit Technologies and Intel CEO Paul Otellini, as Well as Ex-Intel General Counsel Bruce Sewell Have Known and NOT Disclosed this Massive Shareholder Fraud.

Even though there is Massive Criminal Complaints Filed, There is over 1200 documents of proof online at Iviewit.TV, there is Criminal Complaints against the New York Attorney General NowGovernor Andrew Cuomo over the Stolen Iviewit Technology, there is a Federal RICO Lawsuit, and a VERY Detailed SEC Complaint.

And for Now Intel Corp, Time Warner Inc., Apple, IBM, Lockheed Martin, Clearwire Corp., and More seem to be able to STOP massive action against them in the Iviewit Case. This will NOT continue much longer, their corruption and cover up is OVER. The Truth is Roaring and it is Simply a matter of time.

Resources To Research the Stolen Iviewit Technology in more detail

https://docs.google.com/View?id=dgvpzjzw_9ghxg4km9&pli=1

iViewit SEC Complaint

http://www.ceopaulotellini.com/

Intel Corp. CEO

http://www.jeffreybewkes.com/

Time Warner Inc. CEO

http://www.stolentechnology.com/2010/12/criminal-complaint-against-nyag-andrew.html

http://www.iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/United%20States%20District%20Court%20Southern%20District%20NY/20090325%20FINAL%20Intel%20SEC%20Complaint%20SIGNED2073.pdf

http://www.brucesewell.com/

http://www.kennethrubenstein.com/

Corrupt Proskauer Rose Lawyer - MPEG LA

http://www.jeffreybewkes.com/2010/02/warner-bros-signed-non-disclosure.html

Proskauer Rose WILL Soon Be Held Accountable.

Proskauer Rose is Corrupt and Well Connected.

2010-12-03T17:31:00.000-08:00

"Proskauer Rose is representing my former employer. They are one of the largest employment law firms in the nation. They are extremley corrupt and well connected. Their lawyers manufacturered a totally new and inaccurate performance review in order to win summary judgement against me.

The district court judges are in their pockets. During my case the district judges would not even read my attorney's submissions (when i was represented) nor my submissions when I was pro se; the judges would just rely on the submissions of the proskauer attorney's."

Source

http://www.undercoverlawyer.com/forum/topic.php?id=2710

Got a Tip on Corrupt Attorneys At Proskauer Rose Law Firm?

eMail me Crystal L. Cox ~ Investigative Blogger

Crystal@CrystalCox.com

more on Varsity Brands Inc, Proskauer Rose Corruption, the NCAA,Quinnipiac University and CEO Jeff Webb.

2010-11-01T14:46:00.000-07:00

Apparently there a Whole Lot more to the Conflicts of Interest and Behind the Scenes Details to the Quinnipiac University Court Case. Oh and is Proskauer Rose LLP aiding and abetting more invention stealing, patent theft just like they did in the Iviewit Technology Stolen Patent Case. Talk about tons of Proof of a RICO Complaint. (RICO Pattern and History Galore)

More to Ponder on the Proskauer Rose LLP, Varsity Brands Inc.,
CEO Jeff Webb and Quinnipiac University.

" What you need to know is how it has challenged the integrity of the emerging sport process of the NCAA for the 6 member institutions (including Quinnipiac University) that are working to create a real and valid NCAA sport called Acrobatics and Tumbling.

Varsity Brands has ALWAYS maintained that cheerleading is not a sport, but an athletic activity!

Classification as a sport would bring regulation under the high school associations and the NCAA.

In the current make up of the billion dollar cheerleading industry, Varsity Brands Controls Regulation. They use this vantage point to make money.

Jeff Webb, Varsity Brands testified against competitive cheer in the Quinnipiac University court case so that cheerleading could not evolve into an NCAA sport.

What you maybe don't know, is that Varsity Brands created USA Cheer who crafted their copied version of the Acrobatics and Tumbling format and announced its inception within 6 weeks later. The Varsity Brands version is called Stunt.

Now think about the connection between Jeff Webb (president of USA Cheer)
and Proskauer Rose LLP.

If Quinnipiac University was on trial for its practices with counting numbers and the competitive cheer team was being evaluated, why did the plantiffs keep pushing back the trial date from winter to AFTER the competitive cheer team finished their season.

Could it be that all emails from the Quinnipiac University competitive cheer coach were evidence and the 6 schools planned a May meeting to improve the format for the following season.

Sure would be useful information if Varsity Brands CEO, Jeff Webb was reading those emails about the other model before they "invented" their USA Cheer model.

So now a for profit company is basically introducing their own model for consideration as an NCAA emerging sport right after Jeff Webb, the CEO of Varsity Brands and the President of USA Cheer testified that it isn't a sport. "

So More Dirty Dealings and Invention THEFT brought to you by the Most Powerful, Most Corrupt Law Firm in the World - Proskauer Rose LLP.

Got a Tip on any of this?
Crystal@CrystalCox.com

www.ProskauerSucks.com

Let's Ask Some Questions about Proskauer Rose LLP, CEO Jeff Webb of Varsity Brands and major conflicts of interest.

2010-11-01T14:45:00.000-07:00

So What is Really Going on with the Conflicts of Interest, Cover Ups, Flat Out Lies, People Seemingly in Fear of their Life from Proskauer Rose LLP and issues surrounding CEO Jeff Webb of Varsity Brands.

It Seems that Proskauer Rose LLP Represented Varsity Brands Inc. Chairman of the Board Robert Nederlander aka Nederlander Entertainment Group. It seems that Nederlander Entertainment Group owns over 300 companies globally.

Apparently "Cheer" is not a sport because the regulation that comes with it would cost Varsity Brands $100s of millions per year in revenue.

It is said that "Magically a federal court case appears due to Quinnipiac University being slapped with a lawsuit when they tried to make competitive cheer a varsity sport and count toward title IX. " - have a tip on this? Crystal@CrystalCox.com

Why did CEO Jeff Webb of Varsity Brands testify against the "cheer team" but meanwhile with a huge conflict of interest Prosauker Rose represents the University, opposite of Jeff Webb and with a huge conflict of interest.

It is Said that Eric Dezenhall, a DC PR super star for corporate disasters as Exxon Valdez Oil Spill, Enron, was hired by Varsity Brands to fight a grass roots organization called the National Cheer Safety Foundation. In addition to Eric Dezenhall they also hired 7 man crisis team at Ketchum Communications in New York. Why?

Other connections from Varsity Brands to Proskauer Rose LLP are Gen2Media, Cookie Jar Entertainment, Disney, ESPN, Universal and well isn't this "Media" cozy? Seeings how Proskauer Rose STOLE the biggest Media Technology Intellectual Property of our time from the Iviewit Technology Inventors.

Has Jeff Webb, CEO of Varsity Brands, Inc. ever been represented by Proskauer Rose? What Connections Does CEO Jeff Webb of Varsity Brands have to Proskauer Rose LLP really?

It is Said that Proskauer Rose came in as second or third chair in the federal case of Biediger vs Quinnipiac in Connecticut. The question is why did Proskauer Rose LLP come on board after the original filing? Seems to be another ABOVE The Law, Control the Courts, Buy off the Judges move by the Corrupt Proskauer Rose Law Firm.

Proskauer Rose LLP represented the defendants - Quinnipiac University, meanwhile, the plaintiffs used Jeff Webb CEO of Varsity Brands as an expert witness against cheerleading being called a sport for Title IX purposes. So all this Conflicts of Interest for Proskauer Rose LLP to Keep Billionaires in the Money and to Keep YOU Down. Proskauer Rose LLP Attorneys and their Corrupt Connections SHOULD NOT be above the Law.

Here is a Link to More on the "Biediger et al v. Quinnipiac Univ."

http://dockets.justia.com/docket/connecticut/ctdce/3:2009cv00621/85148/

If Proskauer Rose LLP represents, or has represented, Jeff Webb and Varsity Brands in the past, why are they on one side (defense counsel) whereas Jeff Webb testified on behalf of the plaintiffs? - Conflicts of Interest? You Bet - that is What Proskauer Rose LLP specializes in.. Crminal Activity..

And Kind of Comes in Handy that Proskauer Rose LLP - Law Firm for MPEG LA is so Connection to Nederlander Entertainment Group,Gen2Media, Disney, ESPN, Universal and other major media connections - as Proskauer Rose LLP fraudulent stole the intellectual property of the iViewit Technology Company over a Decade ago. Kind of Makes Proskauer Rose LLP - well billions and billions and seems to be a very good reason to Keep the Corrupt Proskauer Rose LLP attorney

Also just Who is Eric Dezenhall? More coming soon on that Proskauer Rose LLP connection as Proskauer Rose was DIRECTLY Responsible for the Collapse of Enron through the Iviewit Stolen Technology. And Eric Dezenhall was involved in that as well as the Exxon Oil Spill Mess... so What's the Scoop? Crystal@CrystalCox.com

More on the iViewit Stolen Patent at
www.DeniedPatent.com

More on Proskauer Rose at
www.ProskauerSucks.com

Posted By
Crystal L. Cox
Investigative Blogger

Proskauer Rose LLP Gregg M. Mashberg Knows FULL Well that Stephen Lamont has NO Right to Speak on Behalf of iViewit.

2010-10-27T17:01:00.001-07:00

Proskauer Rose Law Firm Knows that Stephen Lamont has NO LEGAL Right to Speak on Behalf of iViewit.

So why is the Corrupt Law Firm of Proskauer Rose Responding to an Illegal Filing by Stephen Lamont on Behalf of Iviewit Technologies?

Could it be that Gregg Mashberg of Proskauer Rose is doing this to deliberately fraud the courts, as Stephen Lamont is VERY Connected to Judith Kaye, ex-supreme court judge who was married to Proskauer Rose Partner Stephen Kaye - and Judith Kaye use to Work at IBM and is connected with William Dick who also use to work at IBM and is connected to the Iviewit Patent Suppression and iViewit Invention Theft.

So it seems to me that New York Attorney Gregg M. Mashberg, Proskauer Rose Law Firm is deliberately frauding the courts and the motive seems to me to be to cause further stalling of the Iviewit Technology patent and to further prolong the Federal RICO Lawsuit against Proskauer Rose, the Criminal Complaint and SEC Complaint Against Proskauer Rose and to Protect the Corrupt MPEG LA to keep making Billions a year on a technology that Kenneth Rubenstein of Proskauer Rose LLP knew he had stolen for MPEG LA over a Decade Ago.

So why is this all going on Right Now?

What is P. Stephen Lamont up to with Gregg M. Mashberg and the Pro Se Party over there at the Corrupt Proskauer Rose Law Firm?

Eliot Bernstein did Not initiate this at this Time, P. Stephen Lamont did and P. Stephen Lamont has No Legal Right to Speak for Eliot Bernstein, nor does P. Stephen Lamont have a right to speak for the iViewit Investors or the iViewit Inventors.

For Proskauer Rose LLP to Continue in this scam, they are blatantly playing games on Judge Shira Scheindlin and making a mockery out of the New York Courts. Gregg M. Mashberg, Proskauer Rose is Doing This Deliberately to confuse the issue and to keep Stephen Lamont involved somehow. All the Motives here are Unclear, and well it is not like YOU can Complain to the New York Bar - as Proskauer Rose LLP controls the New York Bar.

Stephen Lamont is Under Investigation for Fraudulently Representing iViewit and other Suspected Illegal Activities and though Gregg M. Mashberg and Proskauer Rose LLP KNOW this, still Gregg M. Mashberg files this JOKE on the New York Courts, Why?

Gregg M. Mashberg - Proskauer Rose LLP

Just How Corrupt is Gregg M. Mashberg - I mean Come on Stephen Lamont ILLEGALLY Files a "Bernstein Vs. Appellate Division First Department..." and Even though Gregg Mashberg, Proskauer Rose LLP Attorney KNOWS that P. Stephen Lamont has No Right to Do so, Still Gregg M. Mashberg of Proskauer Rose LLP has a RESPONSE Delivered?

A Hand Delivered Response from Gregg M. Mashberg of Proskauer Rose LLP to Judge Shira A. Scheindlin. Proskauer Rose LLP, Attorney Gregg M. Mashberg RESPONDS to P. Stephen Lamont's Fraudulent Court Filings on Behalf of iViewit when Gregg M. Mashberg - Proskauer Rose LLPAttorrney knows that Stephen Lamont has no Right to be filing anything on behalf of iViewit.

Proskauer Rose LLP, Gregg M. Mashberg Attorneys Pro Se for Proskauer Rose LLP
and Attorneys for Kenneth Rubenstein, Steven C. Krane and and the Estate of Steven Rackow Kaye .. and "Respectfully Submitted" - that is BULL - it is Lies and Cover Ups and no Respect Intended..

The Corrupt Proskauer Rose LLP is Still representing themselves in the Iviewit Stolen Technology Case. Odd that 2 of the Above Attorneys have Died, and they are VERY Guilty of Stealing a 13 Trillion Dollar Patent. And yet still Proskauer Ross LLP seems to Run the New York Justice System and Get Their Way.

There is Tons of Proof on Proskauer Rose's Guilt in the Stealing of the Iviewit Technologies Invention and in Proskauer Roses Law Firm using this to Entice Enron, which led to the Collapse of Enron and Billions Lost to Investors. Which is the Same thing that Will Soon happen at Intel Corp. , Time Warner, Warner Bros., SONY, Lockheed Martin, and More..

So what is Gregg M. Mashberg and the Corrupt Proskauer Rose Law Firm Really Up to with this, the Latest Stunt in the Decade Old Saga of Proskauer Rose Patent Thieves for MPEG LA.

Click Here for Eliot Bernstein iViewit Technology SEC Complaint Against Proskauer Rose, Kenneth Rubenstein, Stephen Kaye, MPEG LA and many others...

Got a Tip on Gregg M. Mashberg or Proskauer Rose LLP ?
eMail me Crystal L. Cox ~ Investigative Blogger
Crystal@CrystalCox.com

How can Proskauer Rose Law Firm even Be Insured? They must own the insurance company or control them.. So much illegal activiity and ?

2010-05-20T18:54:00.000-07:00

""Proskauer Rose Tangled in a Web of Crime, how do they operate, who is insuring them with all these suits and liabilities, do they carry insurance??? Have they reported this and Stanford and Iviewit???

http://federaltaxcrimes.blogspot.com/2010/05/judge-finds-ambassadors-tax-shelter.html#comment-form

Federal Tax Crimes

Wednesday, May 19, 2010

Judge Finds Ambassador's Tax Shelter Transactions Bullshit (Actually Worse Than That)

I have previously noted here that a Claims Court judge, in effect, held that a tax shelter transaction was bullshit. Another case does the same thing, although it does not exactly use the BS word. Judge F. Dennis Saylor, District Judge for Massachusetts, has handed down a whopping – both in length and effect on the taxpayers – opinion in Fidelity International Currency Advisor A Fund, LLC v. United States (4:05-cv-40151), a TEFRA proceeding involving Son-of-Boss tax shelters.

The taxpayers involved (when the drill down on the partnerships is made) were Richard and Maureen Egan. Richard Egan was former Ambassador to Ireland. He and his wife made too much money. He and his wife did not like to pay tax. They entered phony transactions to shelter large gains. They did not pay the tax. They tried to hide their activity from the IRS. They were caught.

His estate and his wife will have to pay the tax, interest on the tax, apparently the accuracy related penalties, and interest on the accuracy related penalties. (I would think that, given the strength of the judge's view of the taxpayers' misbehavior, the Government / IRS might be sorely tempted to assert the civil fraud penalty when the action moves to the taxpayer level; note that if fraud was involved as the court held and the partnership is a sham, everything could drill down to the taxpayers' returns and the civil statute would be open indefinitely (see prior posts here and here); I haven't thought this through yet, so maybe someone will comment on it.)
The opinion is 357 pages long as issued by the court. The only copy of the opinion that I have is a whopping scanned pdf the original which is large, not easy to read and is not searchable.

Hence, I offer up here an OCR'd version that I hope has been reasonably OCR'd (I have not tried to proof read it; note that when you click, the document will come up in google docs which I find difficult to work with; I recommend that you download the document (click on top of screen in Google Docs) and view it in regular pdf format which is both bookmarked and searchable.).

I won't try to summarize the opinion, because the Court does that for us as follows:

I. INTRODUCTION

A. Summary of Facts

Richard J. Egan was one of the founders of EMC Corporation, a large, publicly-traded manufacturer of computer storage devices. By the year 2000. Richard Egan and his wife Maureen had amassed enormous personal wealth, the great majority of which was in the form of EMC stock.

The Egans were highly sophisticated taxpayers; Richard Egan was one of the most successful businessmen in the history of the United States.

His personal and family financial affairs, including the management of his wealth and the payment of his taxes, occupied an entire organization of twenty or so employees, which included his three sons, at least two certified public accountants, and a variety of other business and financial specialists.

Richard and Maureen Egan expressly delegated power over their tax affairs to their son Michael, and explicitly and implicitly delegated authority for those matters throughout the family organization.

With the Egans' wealth and income came potentially large tax liabilities. As of 2000, the Egans beneficially owned approximately 25 million shares of EMC stock. At its peak in September 2000, EMC shares traded at more than $100 per share.

Because the Egans' basis in those shares was extremely small -- approximately two cents per share -- the sale of any substantial portion of that stock would have produced huge capital gains, subject to a long-term capital gains tax at a rate of 20%.

In addition, the Egans owned non-qualified options to purchase more than 8 million shares of EMC stock at very low strike prices. The exercise of those options would generate large amounts of ordinary income, subject to taxes at a marginal rate that approached 40%.

In early 2000, Richard Egan and his son Michael became interested in investing in tax shelters to avoid taxes on the capital gains and ordinary income that was likely to result from the sale of EMC stock and the exercise of the options.

With the assistance of an attorney from Chicago named Stephanie Denby, the Egans interviewed several tax shelter promoters in May 2000. They eventually selected the large international accounting firm KPMG.

Through KPMG, the Egans were introduced to a small firm called Helios, which (with a related company called Diversified Group International, or DGI) had designed a highly complex tax shelter transaction that it was marketing to wealthy individuals.

The original tax shelter scheme involved the contribution of both paired offsetting options (in large notional amounts) and appreciated assets (such as EMC stock) to an entity taxed as a partnership.

In simplified terms, the promoters claimed that the purchased option was an asset, but that the sold option was not a liability; the taxpayer thus supposedly contributed assets to the partnership entity, but not liabilities, creating a grossly inflated basis in his interest in the entity. The taxpayer's interest would then be sold, and the taxpayer would claim that the inflated basis (from the contribution of the options) "eliminated" any gain from the disposition of the stock or other assets.

Variations of the scheme were designed to create artificial losses to offset ordinary income.

A significant feature of the scheme was the fact that four major law firms -- including Proskauer Rose and Brown & Wood, eventually Sidley Austin Brown & Wood -- had been recruited by the promoters to provide favorable opinion letters.

The taxpayers were told in advance that they could choose one of the four firms for their favorable opinion. The opinion letters were in essence intended to serve as insurance against tax penalties should the IRS ever discover the transactions, and thus to induce investors to invest in the tax shelters.

By early August 2000, the Egans were on the brink of engaging in a transaction with KPMG and DGI/Helios that was designed to eliminate up to $200 million in capital gains by artificially inflating basis, and were considering a follow-up transaction designed to create up to $200 million in artificial losses to offset ordinary income.

In August 2000, the IRS issued Notice 2000-44. That notice directly attacked the types of tax shelter schemes that the Egans were about to enter into, and stated that the IRS would not recognize transactions of the type described in the Notice.

In the wake of Notice 2000-44, the promoters and their law firms concluded that it was too risky to proceed with the ordinary income portion of the scheme in its present form.

The promoters and the Egans nonetheless pressed forward with the capital gains strategy, with a transaction designed to create $160 million in artificial basis.

The strategy involved an orchestrated series of steps that were principally conducted through Fidelity High Tech Advisor A Fund, LLC. The essential steps of the transaction, other than the sale of the stock, were completed by early 2001.

Unfortunately for the Egans, however, the price of EMC stock declined, to the point where they had created a purported "basis" of $160 million without sufficient offsetting assets to take advantage of it. The Egans accordingly decided to "stuff" additional low-basis stock into Fidelity High Tech in an effort to use the artificial basis they had created.

In the meantime, the Egans continued to speak with the promoters about a possible tax shelter strategy for ordinary income from the exercise of the options. By early 2001, the promoters had devised a new variation of the strategy that they called the "Financial Derivatives Investment Strategy," or FDIS.

The FDIS strategy, among other things, generated paper "losses" for taxpayers by assigning any offsetting "gains" offshore -- to one of two Irish confederates of the tax promoters (neither of whom, of course, filed U.S. tax returns).

The Egans exercised their stock options at various points in 2001, resulting in a gain of $162.9 million.

By early October 2001, the Egans had decided to use the FDIS strategy to shelter that income from taxes. Like the prior transaction, the strategy involved an orchestrated series of steps, this time through Fidelity International Currency Advisor A Fund, LLC. The various steps of the transaction were completed by the end of 2001.

The IRS, however, continued its efforts to crack down on tax shelters. In June 2002 -- before the Egans had filed their individual tax return for the year 2001 -- the IRS adopted a temporary regulation that required the filing of a disclosure statement if a taxpayer had participated in certain tax shelter transactions.

KPMG, which was preparing the Egans' return, concluded that such a disclosure statement was required with the Egans' return.

Rather than make the disclosure, however, the Egans fired KPMG and hired an accountant at another law firm -- who was also a confederate of the promoters -- to sign their return.

Around the same time, and as promised by the promoters, the Egans received opinion letters from Proskauer Rose (as to the Fidelity High Tech transaction) and Sidley Austin (as to the Fidelity International transaction) purporting to opine that it was "more likely than not" that the proposed tax treatment would be upheld.

The Egans also received a separate letter from Proskauer Rose opining that the disclosure insisted upon by KPMG was not required.

The Fidelity International transaction resulted in the creation of artificial "losses" of $158.6 million in 2001, which the Egans used to offset the ordinary income of $162.9 million from the option exercise on their 2001 income tax return that year.

The disclosure statement that was prepared by KPMG, and never filed, stated that "expected reduction in federal income tax liability" from the Fidelity International transaction was $65.5 million. The Egans also claimed a loss of $1.7 million from Fidelity International on their 2002 tax return.

The Egans sold all of the stock in Fidelity High Tech in 2002, for $76.2 million in proceeds. The real basis for that stock was $8.7 million; the inflated claimed basis was more than $163 million. Instead of reporting a capital gain of $67.4 million from the sale of that stock for 2002, the Egans reported a huge loss.

The IRS eventually learned of the scheme, and disallowed the treatment of the transaction on the various partnership returns on multiple grounds.

B. Summary of Legal Conclusions

In substance, plaintiffs Fidelity High Tech and Fidelity International seek to overturn the various adjustments made by the IRS to items on the partnership tax returns. The principal argument advanced by the government in response is premised on the economic substance doctrine, sometimes referred to as the sham transaction doctrine.

A fundamental principle of tax law is that transactions without economic substance, or sham transactions, will not be recognized. The precise contours of the economic substance doctrine have not been set, and vary from circuit to circuit.

Nonetheless, it is clear that courts are required to consider the substance of a transaction, rather than its mere form, in considering the tax effect to be given to it. In making that determination, courts normally are required to consider two aspects of a transaction: the subjective purpose of the taxpayer (that is, whether the taxpayer actually had a non-tax business purpose for entering into the transaction) and the objective purpose of the transaction (that is, whether the transaction, objectively viewed, had a reasonable possibility of profit or other business benefit).

Here, the Egans claim that the principal purpose of the transactions, viewed objectively, was to serve as a hedge: to mitigate the risk of a decline in the price of EMC stock (in the case of the Fidelity High Tech transaction) or to mitigate the risk of fluctuating interest rates or foreign currency values (in the case of the Fidelity International transaction).

From an objective standpoint, however, the transactions were entirely irrational; they were unnecessarily and extravagantly expensive, and did not hedge the purported risks effectively (or at all). The Egans also appear to claim that the transactions were entered into for profit. If so, they were also irrational for that purpose; the transactions were designed and intended to lose money, and in fact did so.

The objective features of the transactions were irrational because, of course, the Egans subjectively had no actual business purpose for entering into them. None of the participants in these complex transactions believed that they were real business transactions, with any purpose other than tax avoidance.

Indeed, it is highly doubtful that any participant believed, even for a minute, that the transactions would withstand legal scrutiny if discovered. No one with the slightest understanding of the tax laws could reasonably believe that $160 million in basis could be created cut of thin air, or that $160 million in income could be made to vanish in a puff of smoke.

In accordance with that belief, the Egans and their advisors went to great lengths to try to ensure that the IRS would never find out about the transactions -- including, among other things, the filing of partnership and individual tax returns with multiple false and misleading entries.

The Egans contend that their subjective intentions are irrelevant. In substance, they contend that as long as the transactions were not fictitious -- that is, as long as the entities existed, the money was transferred, and the options were purchased and sold -- the economic substance doctrine does not apply. But the transactions at issue were "real" only in the sense that a performance by actors on stage is "real."

The actors are real human beings, and the stage sets are made of real wood and real paint. But the actors are reading from a script. No one watching "Macbeth" believes that they are witnessing the murder of a Scottish king, and the actors do not believe it either. Here, too, the participants were simply following a script -- a script that had little or no connection to any underlying business or economic reality.

The Egans also make a number of technical arguments, all of which assume that the transactions were real and should be respected. The linchpin of the scheme from a technical standpoint was a potential anomaly in the tax code: under a line of cases interpreting Section 752, a purchased option is an asset, but a sold option is only a contingent liability.

The Egans thus take the position that a taxpayer can purchase offsetting options and contribute them to a partnership entity, and thereby contribute an asset but not a liability. From there, it is but a few steps to use the "asset" to inflate the basis of the partner's interest in the entity. If the tax system depended entirely on form over substance, the argument might well pass muster.

But tax liabilities are not so easy to dodge. It would be absurd to consider offsetting options -- purchased and sold at the same time, and with the same counterparties -- as separate items, and to act as if the one item existed and the other did not.

That is particularly true where (as here) the individual option positions were gigantic, and might bankrupt the taxpayer or the options dealer if no offset were in place.

The Egans also point to the longstanding principle that it is perfectly legitimate to arrange one's affairs so as to pay as low a tax bill as possible. That assertion is true, as far as it goes. It is entirely appropriate, for example, for a taxpayer to decide to buy a house rather than to rent, in order to take advantage of the many tax advantages of home ownership.

A taxpayer may buy a house with a mortgage in order to take advantage of the deductibility of mortgage interest. But a taxpayer cannot undertake phony or meaningless transactions and claim a tax advantage; he cannot, for example, lend money to himself, pay "interest" on the loan, and claim the interest deduction.

If the tax laws permitted such a result, they would be nonsensical, and anyone who paid taxes would be a fool. The tax laws are neither so simple nor so easily evaded.

Finally, the Egans claim that they relied in good faith on formal legal opinions issued by Proskauer Rose and Sidley Austin, two highly prominent law firms. It is true that both firms issued opinions to the Egans. And it is true that both firms opined that it was more likely than not that their tax treatment of the transactions would be upheld.

But those opinions, too, were just additional acts of stagecraft. The lawyers were not in the slightest rendering independent advice; the promoters of the tax shelters had arranged favorable opinions from those firms well in advance, and as part of their marketing strategy. Indeed, the promoters (not the Egans) paid the law firms' fees.

More fundamentally, the opinions were themselves fraudulent: they were premised on purported "facts" that the Egans and the law firms knew were false, and reached conclusions that everyone involved knew could not possibly be correct. The opinions had but one purpose: to serve as a form of insurance against the imposition of penalties if the transactions were ever to come to light.

The claim of good faith reliance on counsel is thus wholly without merit. The Egans knew that the opinion letters were simply part of the tax shelter scheme, and did not for a moment believe that they were receiving independent legal advice after a full disclosure of all underlying facts.

In short, the Fidelity High Tech and Fidelity International transactions were complete shams, without any economic substance of any kind.

For that reason, and for the other reasons set forth below, the transactions should not be recognized, and the adjustments made by the IRS will be upheld. ""

Proskauer Rose is Imploding and the Answer seems to be Merger - Where Does the Proskauer Rose Corruption - Damage - Coverups - Liability and Conflict of Interet End?

posted by
Crystal L. Cox
Investigative Blogger

SJ Berwin - Proskauer Rose Connections, History and Affiliations - "SJ Berwin" "Proskauer Rose"

2010-05-17T11:36:00.000-07:00

"SJ Berwin" "Proskauer Rose"

What kinds of Connections, Conflicts of Interest does

"" Proskauer picks up Paris PE partner

Proskauer Rose has hired former SJ Berwin counsel Caroline Chabrerie.

Chabrerie joins the firm today (3 September) to work on M&A and private equity matters.

While at SJ she worked for CDC Enterprises on the Cine Invest French film fund and also advised AXA Private Equity on its LBO of Benedicta. ""

March 09, 2009
http://www.toplegalinternational.com/approfondimento.asp?ID=4632&idtiponews=435&idargomento=&idsettore=&idstato=

******

With a possible SJ Berwin - what will this do for Proskauer Rose ? will It help Proskauer Rose to hide assets, to cover tracks with the stanford case or with the enron scandal or all the other HUGE liability that proskauer rose was involved in? I mean what is the Benefit.. ? I think, in my Opinion that Proskauer Rose has hid billions in Paris and surrounding area and that they need SJ Berwin somehow to help aid and abett.. just my opinion.. I mean look at Proskauer Rose's track record... where there is Billions and Trillions hidden, stolen, moved off shore .. there seems to be Proskauer Rose... so Proskauer Rose Needs to make some sort of move Right???

Other Links Connecting "SJ Berwin" "Proskauer Rose"

Much MUCH - .. oh and Lot's more on the Connections Between "SJ Berwin" "Proskauer Rose" - you know this cannot be good.. how do you know? Well Because where there is "Proskauer Rose" - there is corruption, fraud, conflicts of interest, payoffs, side deals, attorney favors and a wall of corruption so high it would SHOCK most of you.. Of course just in my opinion .. however.. come on .. how much proof of all this do you NEED.. do your homework.. I am not inventing this stuff, this is not some sort of Fiction novel on Corruption - Greed and Crooked Law Firms.. I am showing you proof after proof .. and from there well time to figure it out and DEMAND accountability right..

" Law firm Proskauer Rose has continued the expansion of its global private investment funds practice with the appointment of Robert Barry as a partner in its London office.
Barry, the former head of Travers Smith’s investment funds group, focuses his practice on fund formation and advising institutional investors on fund investments.

He has extensive experience working with a wide range of funds around the world, including private equity, real estate, funds of funds, venture capital and hedge, in their formation, ongoing operations and investments, and has advised on more than 150 fund investments and direct co-investments.

The addition of Barry to Proskauer’s private investment funds practice follows the recent announcement that Caroline Chabrerie and Christophe Baert, fund formation and private equity transactional lawyers who formerly practiced at SJ Berwin, joined the firm as a partner and senior associate, respectively, in Paris.

In addition, Mary Kuusisto, a partner in the firm’s private investment funds practice with vast experience in fund formation and related tax matters, who was previously based in Boston, recently moved to Proskauer’s London office, and senior associate Alisa Chhoa has joined the London practice from Clifford Chance. "

http://www.hedgeweek.com/2009/09/30/proskauer-rose-expands-global-private-investment-funds-practice

******

"SJ Berwin is set to pursue a U.S. merger with Proskauer Rose in a deal that would create a global top 30 law firm with combined revenues of more than 600 Million..."
http://sampsonandslechter.com/news/

Well Folks as if Proskauer Rose did not control enough.. I mean isn't there anti-trust violations or monopoly issues that apply to huge law firms.. or is that just Real Estate and Tech Companies.. I mean all this money and connection.. they own the TRUTH according to them Right? This kind of power puts them above the law Right? I mean come on.. is no one looking at this.. how can this all happen.. Enron, Standford, and all the Billions in investors Money that Proskauer Rose has been involved in and now a Merger like this.. where is the SEC? Where is the trade commission or are Global Top 30 Law Firms above any rules that apply to the rest of us.. ???

What about Proskauer Rose being involved in a Trillion Dollar Patent Theft involving Iviewit Technologies .. in which was the Reason that Enron Collapsed... over 1200 documents of proof at www.iViewit.TV and Proskauer Rose thinks that will NEVER be liable or held accountable for this Massive Shareholder Fraud, never be accountable for the RICO Complaint or SEC Complaint against them over the Iviewit Stolen Patent... hmmm.. how does Proskauer Rose know this and boldly continue their climb to world domination? I mean does Proskauer Rose own the Courts in Paris too or just the US patent office - US supreme court - SEC and well all those that seem to be aiding and abetteing Proskauer Rose..

Why do This Major Law Firms Even Bother With Individual Names, Insurance Policies, Buildings .. I mean why don't they just have one Law Firm Called Attorney Frattorney LLC.?

They seem to cover for each other, lie for each other, protect each other.. beyond the impossible and keep cases in courts and in hidden drawers for decades while the victim train wreck piles up.. ... Proskauer Rose Tip? Email me at Crystal@CrystalCox.com

Who in There Right Mind would Merge With Proskauer Rose? Billions in Liabilities - Does anyone Care?

2010-05-13T21:23:00.000-07:00

the Standford Scandal - investors lost Billions and Proskauer Rose was part of it.. the Iviewit Stolen Patent.. Trillion in Liabilities..

And someone hates money enough - is gullable enough to want to "Merger" with Proskauer Rose? Are you Kidding Me...

Talk about taking on Major Liabilities...

"" Proskauer Rose Being Eyed as Merger Partner for SJ Berwin

Jeremy Hodges and Sofia Lind
Legal Week
May 10, 2010

SJ Berwin has shifted its hunt to secure a U.S. merger to Proskauer Rose, with the U.K. firm set for detailed talks with the New York practice over the next month.

Proskauer Rose has been identified as the sole merger candidate for the U.K. firm, although the discussions remain at a relatively early stage.

A union would propel the pair into the global top 30 in revenue terms, creating a £600 million practice, according to the most recent financial data.

Proskauer Rose recorded gross revenues of $634 million (£422 million) for its 2009 financial year, while SJ Berwin posted revenues of £184 million in 2008-09.

SJ Berwin has held exploratory discussions with a handful of U.S. law firms in recent months, including Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe and Boston's Goodwin Procter.

Earlier this week, it emerged that Orrick had decided against pursuing a merger with SJ Berwin, a stance that was confirmed in an internal e-mail from Chairman Ralph Baxter. He wrote in the e-mail: "Based on our discussions to date and the information now available to us, the team working on this does not recommend pursuing it further. No one issue led us to this decision, and we leave the process with great respect for SJ Berwin."

SJ Berwin has a small committee overseeing the merger discussions. An SJ Berwin partner commented: "We have had a number of firms approaching us and looked around. There are ongoing discussions and no specific date set to make a decision." ""

Source of Proskauer Rose Post
http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202457895648&pos=ataglance

Boca Aviation v. Proskauer Rose Trial Webcast Live - Proskauer Rose Law Firm - Proskauer Rose LLP

2010-05-12T00:53:00.000-07:00

Proskauer Rose LLP

"CVN's live webcast of Boca Aviation v. Proskauer Rose began with plaintiff attorney Patrick Quinlan, of Searcy Denney, explaining the plaintiff's view of the facts. According to the plaintiff:
Boca Aviation was a fixed base operator at Boca Raton Airport.

Boca Aviation had a long-term lease on 45 acres, and was the sole provider of aviation services, including fuel, at Boca Airport.

An additional 15-acre lot became available, and Boca Aviation won the right to build additional hangars on the lot.

The FAA subsequently suggested that the local airport authority develop the lot, and Boca Aviation agreed to give up its right to build the additional hangers, said the plaintiff, in exchange for the airport authority's commitment to allow Boca Aviation to continue as the airport's sole fuel supplier.

However, the lease amendments formalizing this agreement between the airport authority and Boca Aviation did not secure Boca's claimed rights, but instead allowed the airport authority to assign the development rights to a third party, and, after a change in membership, the airport authority did bring in a competing fixed base operator.

Boca Aviation subsequently asserted breach of fiduciary duty and professional negligence claims against Proskauer Rose, and sought to recover damages in excess of $60M for lost profits. "

According to defense attorney Mark Heise, of Boies Schiller, "from 1984 when Mr. Greenberg had Boca Aviation at the airport, until 1996, he had a monopoly on the sale of fuel. And as we talked about in voir dire, sometimes it's ok, and sometimes it's not.

From 1984 to 1996, when he had the only gas station at the airport, it was completely fine. But things changed in 1996. In 1996, a competitor wanted to open up and...Boca Aviation did everything they could to prevent competition at the airport, to keep out the other gas station. And when you do that, it's against federal aviation law."

According to the defense, the Proskauer Rose attorney clearly stated in writing that the FAA would not accept a proposed restriction on the airport authority's ability to use the land, and that their client's interest therefore was not fully protected.

What in fact happened, said Mr. Heise, was that membership changes made the airport authority less friendly to Boca Aviation, and the new authority felt compelled to authorize a competing provider.

"Federal aviation law prohibits exactly what they planned," said Mr. Heise. "Mr. Greenberg could not get this written guaranty...Lawyers are not magicians, and as a result...we are going to ask you to deliver a verdict that says Proskauer Rose is not responsible for this."

Prokauer Rose LLP

http://info.courtroomview.com/Blog/bid/39776/
Proskauer Rose LLP

Proskauer Rose Law Firm - Do ALL Roads to Billion Dollar Corruption Scandals Lead back to Proskauer Rose?

2010-05-12T00:50:00.000-07:00

Enron - Proskauer Rose LLP Allegedly behind that due to the Stolen Iviewit Technologies patent and the corruption that Proskauer Rose and Enron were "in bed together with"...

Proskauer Rose LLP was behind the Standford Scandal - the Madoff Scandal and well it seems that Proskauer Rose LLP was behind a whole lot of multi-billion dollar scandals that took MILLIONS upon millions adding up to Billions from innocent shareholder and investors ... Proskauer Rose LLP needs to be held accountable for ruining lives, corruption and illegal activity..

Enron - Law Firms Blamed.. Major Bankrupties that RUIN Lives .. well they need a Savvy, Corrupt Law Firm to Back them up.. to aid and abet... Never Forget the Lives that Proskauer Rose has Ruined.. Look DEEP into the Enron Collapse and you see Proskauer Rose LLP.

"" UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Monday, April 8, 2002
Banks, law firms were pivotal in executing Enron Securities Fraud

· Nine banks hid loans, set up false investments and facilitated phantom Enron
sales

· Bank executives profited personally from “Ponzi scheme”

· Law firms structure phony deals Additional insider trading documented he Enron fraud perpetrated by the Houston-based energy giant and its auditors succeeded ecause of the active complicity of several prominent banks and law firms, according to new llegations in federal court today.

The University of California, the lead plaintiff in the Enron shareholders lawsuit, filed a
consolidated complaint in the U. S. District Court for the Southern District Court of Texas in
Houston, adding nine financial institutions, two law firms and other new individual defendants to a ist that already included 29 current and former Enron executives and the accounting firm of
Arthur Andersen LLP.

The 485-page amended complaint lays out the scheme in detail, naming J. P. Morgan Chase,
Citigroup, Merrill Lynch, Credit Suisse First Boston, Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce
(CIBC), Bank America, Barclays Bank, Deutsche Bank and Lehman Brothers as key players in a
series of fraudulent transactions that ultimately cost shareholders more than $25 billion. At the
same time, a number of top bank executives profited personally from the schemes, according to
the complaint.

Two law firms were also added to the list of Enron defendants because of their significant and
essential involvement in the fraud – Enron’s Houston-based corporate counsel Vinson & Elkins,
as well as Chicago-based Kirkland & Ellis, which Enron used to represent a number of so-called
“special purpose entities.”

“These prestigious banks and law firms used their skills and their professional reputation to help
Enron executives shore up the company’s stock price and create a false appearance of financial
strength and profitability which fooled the public into investing billions of dollars,” said James E.
Holst, the university’s general counsel. “In return, these firms received multi-million-dollar fees,
and some of their top executives exploited the situation to cash in personally.”

The amended complaint also documents a total of almost $1.2 billion in insider trading by 28 Enron irectors and officers, approximately $171 million more than previously disclosed. Two Enron nsiders, Kenneth Lay and Robert Belfer, together sold $144 million more than has been reported.

Bankers tricked investors with dual deception
Many of the financial institutions named in the complaint helped to set up clandestinely controlled Enron partnerships, used offshore companies to disguise loans, and facilitated the phony sale of overvalued Enron assets. As a result, Enron executives were able to deceive investors by moving billions of dollars of debt off its balance sheet and artificially inflating the value of Enron stock.

For their part, the law firms allegedly issued false legal opinions, helped structure non-arm’s-length transactions, and helped prepare false submissions to the U. S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.

The banks played a dual role in the elaborate scheme, which the amended complaint describes as
“a hall of mirrors inside a house of cards.” While bank executives were helping conceal the true
state of Enron's precarious financial condition, securities analysts at the same banks were making
false, rosy assessments of Enron to entice investors.

As underwriters in the sales of Enron securities, the banks also misled the public by approving
incomplete or incorrect company statements. J.P. Morgan Chase, for instance, helped Enron raise$2 billion in publicly traded securities that are now almost worthless.

“Instead of protecting the public from the Enron fraud, the bankers knowingly chose to become
partners in deceit,” said William Lerach, senior partner at Milberg, Weiss, Bershad, Hynes &
Lerach, the university’s lead counsel. “They were not only willing participants but profiteers. Their executives followed the example of Enron’s insiders, getting rich off† thousands of unwitting pensioners and other investors who entrusted – and lost – what for many was their life savings.”

Bankers made inside deal for themselves Executives at several of the banks took advantage of their positions to invest more than $150 million in one of the Enron-controlled, off-the-books partnerships called LJM2, which they knew would pay an exorbitantly high return because of “self-dealing” transactions with Enron, according to the complaint.

From the start, the banks provided “extraordinary” assistance to Enron to set up LJM2.†In
information presented for the first time, the complaint reveals the “prefunding” of LJM2 by J.P.
Morgan Chase, CIBC, Deutsche Bank, Credit Suisse First Boston, Lehman Brothers and Merrill
Lynch at the end of December 1999 – a critical juncture for Enron. Although under no obligation
to do so, the banks advanced nearly 100 percent of the money for LJM2, including a $65 million
credit line.

LJM2 used the money in the final days of 1999 to buy four Enron assets that the company had
failed to sell to other parties, enabling Enron to report large gains and prevent a sudden decline in stock prices that would have meant large losses for the company and the banks.

The deals, described as “sham” transactions, involved the Nowa Sarzyna power plant in Poland,
the MEGS, LLC natural gas system in the Gulf of Mexico, the Yosemite certificates and a set of
collateralized loan obligations. Later, LJM2 sold the assets back to Enron.

The four transactions allowed Enron to overstate its profits, conveniently meeting forecasts put out by the company and bank analysts. Simultaneously, bank executives who had invested in LJM2 were enriched when the special-purpose entities paid millions to LJM2.

Banks, law firms helped Enron conceal loans and create fake profits
The banks and law firms are accused of playing an instrumental role in creating a mythical picture of Enron profitability. They helped set up transactions that appeared to be independent, but
“which, in fact, Enron controlled through a series of secret understandings and illicit financing
arrangements,” said Lerach.
Loans, which should have counted as debt, were made to look like profits from sales. The
complaint explains how J.P. Morgan Chase helped Enron hide $3.9 billion in debt through a
company known as Mahonia Ltd., located in the Channel Islands off England. The bank disguised
approximately $5 billion in back-and-forth transactions in which Enron sold gas and oil contracts to Mahonia, but then secretly repurchased the contracts.

The complaint also reveals that Vinson & Elkins gave J.P. Morgan Chase and Enron legal cover
for the Mahonia transactions by writing an opinion corroborating them as legitimate.

Citigroup used its Delta subsidiary in the Cayman Islands to carry out $2.4 billion of financial
“swaps” with Enron that the lawsuit says “perfectly replicated loans and were, in fact, loans,” but
were not disclosed on Enron’s books. Credit Suisse First Boston gave Enron $150 million in a
transaction that the lawsuit says was “made to appear to be a ‘swap,’” but was actually a loan, as
a bank officer later admitted.

Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce (CIBC) also formed a partnership with Enron, called EBS
Content Systems, and pretended to invest $115 million, enabling the energy company to report
$110 million in profits. However, because Enron secretly agreed to guarantee the $115 million, the lawsuit calls the transaction a “contrivance” that inflated the company’s profits.

CIBC likewise lent $125 million to the Enron venture New Power IPO, allowing the company to
post fictitious profits, while again receiving a secret guarantee that protected the bank. Later,
Enron had to reverse the entire $370 million in profits it had created by the New Power deal.
In other cases, Enron and the banks made loans look like investments. Barclays gave $11.4
million to two investors in Chewco, another of Enron’s off-the-books partnerships. While the
money gave the appearance of outside investment in Chewco, Enron secretly subsidized the loans through a $6.6 million cash deposit with Barclays. The complaint describes the two investors as “strawmen.”

Schemes propped up Enron stock but eventually collapsed
The banks' complex maneuvers on Enron’s behalf were intended to bolster the value of Enron
stock and its apparent creditworthiness. Bank officers were aware that if the price fell, Enron
would be required to issue additional stock that would diminish the company's investment rating
and limit access to new capital, likely collapsing the scheme from which the banks were profiting.
At one point, executives of Credit Suisse First Boston strongly warned their Enron counterparts
that the company would be ruined if the stock dropped to $20 a share.

For the first time, the amended complaint reveals that some of the financial institutions were
themselves at risk for extensive losses because they had written millions of dollars of “credit
default puts” on Enron securities, requiring them to make good on Enron’s publicly traded debt if
the company defaulted. This gave them strong incentives to keep Enron afloat.

When Enron’s financial manipulations finally became public and the stock collapsed in November
2001, executives from J.P. Morgan Chase and Citigroup pressured Moody’s to keep Enron’s
credit rating in place until the banks could arrange a bailout sale of Enron to avoid insolvency and
forestall a full-scale investigation into the company’s dealings. A proposed sale to Dynegy fell
through, however, and Enron filed for bankruptcy on December 2, 2001.

The losses of the plaintiffs in the shareholders class action, who purchased Enron equity and debt
securities between October 19, 1998 and November 29, 2001, are estimated at more than $25
billion.

The amended complaint also extends the responsibility of Enron’s auditing firm, Arthur Andersen, to cover the role of 24 Andersen executives and several of the firm’s international entities, including Andersen Worldwide, SC, and affiliates in Brazil, the Cayman Islands, India, Puerto Rico, and the United Kingdom.

“The defendants’ sophisticated manipulations allowed them to enrich themselves at the expense of millions of Americans who lost billions of their hard-earned dollars invested in Enron for their
retirements,” said Holst. “That’s not fair. Our lawsuit seeks to return those funds to their rightful
owners and to retirees and working families across the country.”

A copy of the complaint and background materials will be available online at 9:00 am PDT at
www.ucop.edu/news/enron and http://www.enronfraud.com/ . ""

Andrew Cuomo Follows In Eliot Spitzer’s Footprints In Pursuit of “The Ring” and Governorship Ignoring The Law And Rules.

2010-04-12T12:14:00.001-07:00

"Andrew Cuomo Follows In Eliot Spitzer’s Footprints In Pursuit of “The Ring” and Governorship Ignoring The Law And Rules To Amass A 16 Million Dollar Treasury.

Can Andrew Cuomo follow Eliot Spitzer’s example pursuing the Governorship and fund his campaign treasury with payments from opposing attorneys with actions against NY State?.

For_Immediate_Release:
Terence Finnan reports on his blog CuomoTARP.blogspot.com , that one can follow Cuomo’s and Spitzer’s Money Trails pursuing for themselves “The Ring,” specifically the Governorship and, ultimately, the Presidency. Mr. Finnan reports of the joy in London over Spitzer’s role in taking money out of the NY Financial Markets, ” History will come to view him (Spitzer) as one of the most damaging figures in the history of the state. It is difficult to imagine that he will, as governor, do anything to counter the damage he has already done to American business, or even that he would wish to do so. ”Mr. Finnan asks, “Is Cuomo like Spitzer, a Gollum, obsessed with the ‘Ring,’ and becoming Governor and our first Italian president?” Mr. Finnan further asks, ” Do the People of NY benefit when Cuomo shakes down lawyers for his campaign treasury, instead of Spitzer shaking down Wall Street? What benefit to the People of NY accrues when Cuomo builds a 16 million dollar campaign fund with payoffs by lawyers with cases against NY State. In the end, weren’t the payoffs made to Cuomo’s treasury only passed on as an expense of the People of NY whose interests were compromised?”Following the advice in Matthew 6:24 “No man can serve two masters,” Mr. Finnan asks whether Andrew Cuomo can serve as the People’s attorney and at the same time collect payments from opposing lawyers?Mr. Finnan quotes the applicable Disciplinary Rule DR 5-101 [1200.20] concerning “Conflicts of Interest” and asks whether Andrew Cuomo obtained permission from the People of NY to take money from opposing attorneys?Finally, Mr. Finnan asks three questions of Andrew Cuomo:1. Did you obtain the consent of the People after full disclosure of the implications before you took the money for your own personal campaign interests?2. A special prosecutor?3. Is your defense, Spitzer did it first?
Earlier posts had asked Andrew Cuomo to support making “Official Misconduct” a felony, instead of a misdemeanor and presented criminal complaints to facilitate Andrew Cuomo to prosecute several State Judges and Senators for criminal conduct..

####
For more information:Keywords: Andrew Cuomo,Eliot Spitzer,Cuomo Corruption

Tags: Andrew Cuomo, christine c. anderson, eliot bernstein, Eliot Spitzer, eric holder, First Department, first department disciplinary, JUDITH KAYE, mario cuomo, ny senate judiciary committee, proskauer, SHIRA SCHEINDLIN, thomas cahill ""

Source of Post
http://iviewit.tv/wordpress/?p=295

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

2010-03-24T20:27:00.000-07:00

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

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

2010-03-22T22:29:00.001-07:00

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

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

2010-03-20T18:40:00.004-07:00

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

"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.

2010-03-19T14:43:00.000-07:00

"" 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

"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.

2010-03-19T14:10:00.001-07:00

" 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

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

2010-03-17T19:14:00.000-07:00

"" 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 .

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

2010-03-16T12:26:00.000-07:00

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.htm http://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=189 http://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.pdf http://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

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

2010-03-16T12:21:00.000-07:00

" 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

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

2010-03-11T21:42:00.000-08:00

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

Top Judge Sets Liberal Course for New York - Jonathan Lippman - Judith Kaye - Proskauer Rose LLP - Iviewit Technologies - Connections and Affiliations

2010-03-11T20:26:00.001-08:00

"" Gov. David A. Paterson nominated Jonathan Lippman to head the New York Court of Appeals in January 2009, making him the chief judge of the state.

The choice was a gamble: The judge, a longtime court administrator, did not have a long history of deciding cases, and there was almost no record of his political views.

Judge Jonathan Lippman has helped turn the Court of Appeals into a scrappier, more divided and more liberal panel, its rulings and court statistics show.

Now, a year in, the parameters of the Lippman court are coming into focus. He has helped turn the Court of Appeals into a scrappier, more divided and more liberal panel, its rulings and court statistics show.

To get the rulings he wants, the decisions show, the new chief judge has built alliances case by case with each of the four judges who were nominated by the last Republican governor, George E. Pataki, cracking the conservative majority.

The changes to the culture of the court, New York’s highest — which has sometimes been one of the most influential state courts in the country — are especially striking when Chief Judge Lippman’s approach is compared with the judicial style of his predecessor, Judith S. Kaye. She had prized unanimity.

In the past year, the court has issued a series of sharply divided decisions that have been surprising from a judicial body with a clear 4-to-3 conservative majority. They have included decisions favoring criminal defendants and injured workers, expanding environmental challenges and extolling individual rights against the police.

“The message he is sending is he doesn’t mind fighting for a much more progressive direction at the court,” Vincent M. Bonventre, a professor at Albany Law School who studies the court, said of Judge Lippman.

Though fiscal and political problems have plagued Mr. Paterson, a Democrat, Judge Lippman’s nomination may be one of his most enduring accomplishments in shaping policy. Judge Lippman, 64, does not reach mandatory retirement age until 2015.

Noting that the Supreme Court had yet to rule on questions presented by Global Positioning Systems, for example, the Court of Appeals ruled 4 to 3 that the State Constitution barred the police from placing GPS tracking devices on cars without a warrant.

A different Republican judge joined the three Democratic appointees in another divided ruling, this one striking down a youth curfew in Rochester as unconstitutional, though other courts around the country have approved such laws.

The Lippman court has also shifted ground on worker injury suits, saying that in the past the court too rigidly limited some of them. It has also signaled a new interest in arguments from criminal defendants, sharply increasing, at Judge Lippman’s urging, the number of appeals it is considering.
In an interview, Judge Lippman acknowledged that he had a different approach from that of Judge Kaye, a longtime collaborator in running the courts.

She was also nominated by a Democrat, former Gov. Mario M. Cuomo, but during her nearly 16 years as chief judge, she often worked for unified rulings.

“I am a result-oriented person,” Judge Lippman said, “and the result I am looking for is not necessarily unanimity.”

According to the court, unanimous rulings declined from about 82 percent during 2008, Judge Kaye’s final year, to 69 percent in Judge Lippman’s first year.

During Judge Kaye’s tenure, the court became more conservative partly because of the arrival of the four Pataki judges. Professor Bonventre, the Albany Law School expert, said that divided decisions became more common in Judge Kaye’s final years but that dissents increased further after Judge Lippman arrived.

The rulings indicate that on occasion, Judge Lippman has tailored his arguments to attract one of the four Pataki judges.

In a decision he wrote in September, the court waded into politics by overruling two lower courts that had said Mr. Paterson’s appointment of Richard Ravitch as lieutenant governor was unlawful.

That view, Judge Lippman wrote, would “frustrate the work of the executive branch.”
It was an argument that seemed crafted to appeal to Judge Susan P. Read, a staunch conservative but a former top legal adviser to Governor Pataki, who was not shy about exerting executive authority. It was a party-line vote, except that Judge Read broke with the other Pataki appointees.

In the environmental case, Judge Lippman and the other two Democratic appointees aligned with two of the Republican-appointed judges, Victoria A. Graffeo, a onetime Republican legislative lawyer, and Robert S. Smith, who had sometimes expressed libertarian views.
The decision, written by Judge Smith, appeared to involve tradeoffs.

It tartly noted that the suit sought to kill a proposed hotel to protect obscure species, the Eastern spadefoot toad and the worm snake.

The hotel got a green light. But in the process, the case gave environmentalists one of their most important court victories in New York in nearly 20 years. The majority said a 1991 ruling of the court had been too narrowly applied to limit those who could bring such suits to immediate neighbors.

Stephen F. Downs, the lawyer for Save the Pine Bush, the Albany group that brought the suit, said someone on the bench seemed to be paying for an environmental victory with a defeat for the spadefoot toad. “My impression,” Mr. Downs said, “was there was a certain amount of horse trading that went on.”

That would be vintage Lippman, people who know him say. He was a get-things-done administrator, said a retired judge, Betty Weinberg Ellerin, who has known him throughout his 38-year legal career. ""

Source of Post
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/18/nyregion/18lippman.html

New York Court Corruption, Affiliations and Conflicts of Interest. Time for Accountability in the New York Courts. Time Whistleblowers were heard and time Proskauer Rose to be accountable for their actions. The Iviewit Stolen Patent Case has many players, however Proskauer Rose is the Patent Attorney that STOLE the Trillion Dollar Patent and Judge Judith Kaye and Her Connections to Proskauer Rose through her Husband.. Stephen Kaye made a Trillion Dollar Patent Theft such as the Eliot Bernstein and Iviewit Technologies Stolen Patent, seem like a Simple "Standard of Practice"...

Pay Attention Folks as more Unfolds on the Connections, Cronism and Conflicts of Interest of Proskauer Rose LLP - Ex-Judge Judith Kaye, Andrew Cuomo ( whose Father Appointed Judith Kaye) and how this all relates to court corruption in New York...

posted here by Investigative Blogger
Crystal L. Cox
More on the Iviewit Stolen Patent at
www.DeniedPatent.com and www.Iviewit.TV

A Veteran Judge, Never a Prosecutor, Is Seen as Well Suited to Investigate the Governor - Judith S. Kaye - David A. Paterson - New York Courts

2010-03-11T19:50:00.000-08:00

"" The new chief investigator who stepped into the spotlight in place of Attorney General Andrew M. Cuomo on Thursday was a judge for a quarter century, not only in title but also in temperament.

Cuomo Hands Paterson Case to an Ex-Judge
(March 12, 2010)

Times Topic: Judith S. Kaye

That, say people who know the state’s retired chief judge, Judith S. Kaye, may be a strong enough résumé point to make up for a lack of prosecutorial experience as she takes over the politically volatile investigation of Gov. David A. Paterson and his administration. In a long legal career, she never worked as a prosecutor.

But her appointment could add to the investigation’s credibility, said George Bundy Smith, who served with Judge Kaye as a judge on the state’s Court of Appeals until he retired in 2006. “She will be objective, and that is the main thing you look for in an investigation like this,” Judge Smith said.
In a statement on Thursday, Judge Kaye thanked Mr. Cuomo for entrusting her “with these serious and important matters.”
“I promise,” Judge Kaye added, “that the public will have a full, fair and independent accounting of the facts.”

Former prosecutors said that though Judge Kaye lacked a track record of making prosecution decisions herself, her career on the state’s highest court and, before that, as a litigator in civil cases, provided her with many of the skills needed to navigate not only the management but also the political sensitivities of the investigation.

“Regardless of what decision she reaches, her decision will be respected because of who she is and what she brings to the table,” said Alan Vinegrad, a former United States attorney in Brooklyn.

Judge Kaye, 71, was first appointed to the court in 1983 by the current attorney general’s father, Gov. Mario M. Cuomo.

She became chief judge in 1993 and was widely praised when she retired as the longest-serving chief judge in 2008.

Mr. Paterson said at the time that she would “go down in history as one of the greatest chief judges this state has ever had.”

Benito Romano, a former United States attorney in Manhattan, said that Judge Kaye’s reputation as a careful judge might be exactly what was needed to calm political anxieties. “It should provide people who are concerned about the decision being driven by politics with great reassurance,” Mr. Romano said.

On the court, Judge Kaye was considered liberal on some issues, including gay marriage and the death penalty. But she often sided with the prosecution in criminal cases and sometimes said that her rulings defied simplistic labels.

With a domestic-violence case as one of the aspects of the inquiry, some lawyers noted her history of interest in that issue. In her role as the chief officer of the sprawling state court system, she made it plain that she had a special commitment to working on the problems of domestic-violence victims.

She created special domestic-violence courts to provide victims with social and other services, saying that the complex cases required an integrated approach that went beyond the letter of the law.

Before she was named to the bench, Judge Kaye was a prominent civil litigator and the first female partner at Olwine, Connelly, Chase, O’Donnell & Weyher, which was one of the city’s blue-chip law firms.

Since she retired from the court, she has been at the law firm Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom.

While there, she headed an investigation into the State University at Binghamton’s athletic scandals that was critical of officials for compromising standards when the school moved into major college athletics. ""

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/12/nyregion/12judge.html

Are You Kidding me, Judith Kaye Investigating anyone for anything is Riddled with Conflicts of Interest, Cronism, Favortism, Political Ties, Political Favors and will certainly not be unbiased in any way what so ever in my opinion.

As I have been following the Iviewit Technologies Stolen Patent case and It seems to me that when Judith Kaye was Judge, the Criminal did as they pleased and that she allegedly covered up for Trillions of Dollars in Crimes that Proskauer Rose Law Firm was accused of, as in the Alleged Trillion Dollar Iviewit Technologies Stolen Patent.

Remember .. yes Judith Kaye is now a Widow, However, her then Husband was Stephen Kaye a Proskauer Rose Partner - and her whipping boy was Steven Krane.. big wig in New York Ethics and well THEY run New York along with the Connections at Proskauer Rose - which are connected to the Really Big Money and Political Ties and WELL - Judith S. Kaye will Certainly NOT Add ANY credibility to an investigation on ANYONE..

Who is George Bundy Smith... I mean Really.. he thinks Judith S. Kaye adds "Credibility" ARE YOU KIDDING... ???????????

I just see No Way that Judith Kaye adds ANY Credibility to this Investigation.. in My Opinion Judith Kaye .. Ex-Judges adds the Element of ... ok Whew not someone has my Back and I won't get into trouble.. Judge Judy will Hide my Ass and ALL will be Well...

didn't Judith S. Kaye Create that Athletic Scandal... or was some part of creating some smoke screen or diversion so the bad guy could get away.. hmmm.. I cannot keep up with the Alleged Corruption out of New York.. and where there is Alleged Corruption I cannot help but notice a Proskauer Rose Cronie Connection..

"greatest chief judge" "calm political anxities"???? What a Crock !!!

other links for more information on Judith Kaye, Proskauer Rose and Iviewit Technologies..

http://nylaw.typepad.com/new_york_civil_law/2007/03/chief_judge_jud.html

www.Iviewit.TV

www.DeniedPatent.com

www.ProskauerSucks.com

posted here by
Crystal L. Cox
Investigative Blogger...

Prokauer Rose LLP and the Google Search Results..

2010-03-11T15:32:00.001-08:00

Years of Blogging and Lots of Blogs and Websites over the Years and I have never seen the Search so Seemingly Controlled and Changing so much as the search term "Proskauer Rose" - it changes sometimes hour to hour as if Proskauer Rose Calls up Google and Says.. ok I got a Big Fish to land so Remove that Crazy Crystal Cox from the Front Page of Google at least... then it comes back.. then others sites shuffled and changed.. yes this happens but NONE of my sites and NONE of the search terms I Monitor all day everyday are quite like the perplexing Dancing Search Results for the Search Term "Proskauer Rose"...

Just an Interesting Tidbit.. that's All...

Proskauer Rose Expands Chicago Office, Bankruptcy and Restructuring Practice with Addition of...

2010-03-10T22:08:00.000-08:00

Feb 2009 News Archives - Proskauer Rose LLP

"" Marwil, Thomas & Possinger Join as Partners

CHICAGO -- Proskauer Rose LLP, a global law firm with 800 lawyers worldwide, an nounced the expansion of its Chicago office and Bankruptcy & Restructuring Practice Group with the addition of partners Jeff J. Marwil, Mark K. Thomas and Paul V. Possinger.

Formerly partners in Winston & Strawn's Restructuring and Insolvency Group, which Mr. Marwil co-chaired, they comprise one of the country's leading bankruptcy and workout teams. With a long history of representing distressed clients of all types, from hedge funds and sophisticated institutional investors to upper-tier public and private companies, they bring a formidable presence in the market to Proskauer's growing Chicago office as well as its international Bankruptcy and Restructuring Practice Group, which also includes lawyers in New York, Boston, Los Angeles, London, Paris, Hong Kong and Sao Paulo.

"Jeff, Mark and Paul add a new dimension to our bankruptcy and restructuring practice that extends our ability to address the increasingly complex needs of our corporate clients in this extremely challenging economic environment," said Allen I. Fagin, Chairman of Proskauer Rose. "Among others, our roster of private investment fund clients will be especially well served by the counsel and experience this new team brings to the table."

According to Steven R. Gilford, head of Proskauer's Chicago Office, the addition of the well-regarded trio highlights the firm's commitment to Chicago and the opportunities of the market As we stated when we opened the office last April, we plan to be a player in this market," said Mr. Gilford. "This well-respected and high-profile group gives us a platform for even broader growth. They are also an excellent fit for us culturally, reflecting the same professional values and dedication to collaboration that the firm has always embraced."

Mr. Marwil brings over 20 years of experience in the bankruptcy, workout and corporate restructuring areas. He currently serves as sole managing member of the Bayou Group in its Chapter 11 cases and has devoted significant attention to other hedge funds in distress, including restructurings, wind-downs and liquidations.

He also represents hedge funds, managers/advisers and sophisticated fund-of-fund and pension plan investors in hedge fund restructurings, wind-downs and complex litigation matters. In addition, Mr. Marwil has long-term and extensive experience representing public and private companies in restructuring complex capital structures and reorganizing their financial affairs and business operations.

Mr. Thomas represents lenders, debtors and borrowers in Chapter 11 bankruptcy cases and out-of-court workouts and restructurings. He has handled workouts and bankruptcies involving both public and private companies and represents secured lenders and syndicated loan agents in workouts, restructurings and bankruptcies as well as assisting bank groups in providing debtor-in-possession financing facilities and bankruptcy exit financing. Mr. Thomas has also represented sellers and buyers of distressed businesses and assets in transactions both in and outside of bankruptcy.

Mr. Possinger's practice focuses on corporate reorganizations, creditors' rights and bankruptcy matters. He primarily represents financially troubled entities and senior, second-lien and mezzanine lenders in and out of bankruptcy in debt restructuring and reorganization, workouts, asset and going concern sales and litigation. He has acted as lead counsel to Chapter 11 debtors, official creditor and equity committees, boards of directors and other fiduciaries, hedge funds and fund investors, lenders and repurchase counterparties and has also represented warehouse and repurchase lenders and subprime mortgage investors in insolvency matters relating to the recent subprime lending and financial market crises.""

Source of Post and Full Article..
http://www.allbusiness.com/banking-finance/financial-markets-investing-funds/11781315-1.html

Don't Forget the Proskauer Rose - Fannie Mae Connections as we See Subprime Lending stuff here... Looks to Me like Proskauer Rose Rules the World or Thinks they DO...

Hennessee Group Settles with SEC over Bayou Group Fraud

2010-03-10T16:55:00.001-08:00

So if your Working on the Side of the Bayou Group, and in the Bayou Group Scam, Investors Lost $400 Million.. well then what does that make you.. ?? on the Wrong side of the Moral Compass... Wonder How much the Liquidation .. Bankruptcy Attorney made on that one.. and how much the DOJ Trustee got paid to look the other way... which in my Opinion is "Standard of Practice" in any Bankruptcy Court...

SO Here is this April 2009 News Archive

""Posted On: April 28, 2009 by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas
Hennessee Group Settles with SEC over Bayou Group Fraud

Hedge fund investment adviser Hennessee Group, LLC has reached an agreement with the Securities and Exchange Commission over its securities fraud probe into Bayou Group and hedge fund manage Samuel Goldberg. Investors lost some $400 million in the scam. Now, Hennessee Group and principal Charles J Gradante will pay over $814,000 to settle charges that Hennessee failed to do the correct due diligence before recommending Bayou Group to investors.

According to the SEC, investors placed over $65 million with Bayou Group between 2002 and 2005. Hennessee collected over $500,000 in advisory fees. However, the SEC charges that Hennessee failed to perform the type of due diligence they told investors that they engage in.

The firm failed to check up on Bayou Group’s relationship with its auditor and did not follow up on emails sent by investors questioning the ties between the auditor and Bayou Group cofounder Daniel Marino. It would later come to light that Israel and Marino established a bogus accounting firm and Marino signed fake audits.

Israel was sentenced to 20-years in jail but pretended to kill himself and disappeared on the day he was supposed to go to jail. He later turned himself into authorities and is waiting to receive his sentence for fleeing. Marino is serving a 20-year prison term.

Also last week, Marino’s brother, Matthew Marino, was sentenced to 21-months in prison for his role in the investment fraud scam. He has been ordered to pay $60 million in restitution.

Prosecutors had accused Matthew of knowing that Bayou executives were committing investment fraud and that Richmond-Fairfield Associates was a bogus accounting firm. He was accused of helping conceal the fraud by taking part in the scheme, concealing documents, and making changes to a certain bogus document. ""

http://www.stockbrokerfraudblog.com/2009/04/hennessee_group_settles_with_s.html

Remember AGAIN .. you like the Source.. Save it.. for they change..

So if Jeff Marwil is Connected the SEC then how is all this not a conflict of interest.. there is so much lurking beneath the surface on all this..

Stay Tuned for Affiliations, Conflicts of Interest, and Attorney Fraternity Connections among the Bayou Group, Jeff Marwill, Proskauer Rose LLP, DOJ Trustees involved in ALL these connected bankruptcies, Life Fund / A&O, Department of Justice Trustee, Deborah J. Fritsche, Lori Hood, Brian M. Graham, Smith Amundsen, Johnson Trent ...
Got a Tip - Crystal@CrystalCox.com

posted here By
Investigative Blogger
Crystal L. Cox