archives

Nancy Fineman

This tag is associated with 60 posts

Werdegar, Kay ( AKA Kathryn Mickle Werdegar) Misrepresentation in Campaign Donation Records to Diane Fienstein; Falsely Claims “Homemaker” (TLR Note: William Wardlaw, Kinde Durkee, and Joe Cotchett Hereby Asked to Opine)

Advertisements

Werdegar, Kay ( AKA C Kathryn Mickle Werdegar) Misrepresentation in Campaign Donation Records to Diane Fienstein; Falsely Claims “Homemaker” (TLR Note: William Wardlaw, Kinde Durkee, and Joe Cotchett Hereby Asked to Opine)

Correction/Addendum to “All Roads Lead to Loyola – – Just Don’t Drive a Ford Explorer” : James J. Brosnahan of Morrison & Foerster and Joseph Cotchett of Cotchett Pitre & McCarthy

In TLR’s previously published article “”All Roads Lead to Loyola – – Just Don’t Drive a Ford Explorer” in the paragraph which reads:

“As such, to pay much deserve tribute to Mr. Girardi, in 2005 Loyola Law School honored Mr. Girardi at the Beverly Hills Hotel in Beverly Hills, California. Present were Senator Jospeh Dunn, Justice Carlos Moreno, and many other dignitaries from legal community”

We were remiss in failing to mention that in addition to Mr. Thomas Girardi of Girardi & Keese, Mr. James J. Brosnahan of Morrison & Foerster was also a recipient of the much coveted  “Champion of Justice” award from the Civil Justice Program at the Loyola Law School.

Similarly, we were also remiss in failing to mention that Mr. Joseph Cotchett of Cotchett Pitre & McCarthy was present to honor Mr. Brosnahan.

See Original entry @:

http://lesliebrodie.blog.co.uk/2011/01/25/all-roads-lead-to-loyola-just-don-t…

 

 

Cotchett Pitre & McCarthy Issues Yet Another Impromptu Nonsensical PR on Behalf of Marvell Technology Group (TLR Note: New Claim of Re-Titling Suspect as Alleged “New Evidence” Discovered Already in April 2011)

Cotchett Pitre & McCarthy Issues Yet Another Impromptu Nonsensical PR on Behalf of Marvell Technology Group (TLR Note: New Claim of Re-Titling Suspect as Alleged “New Evidence” Discovered Already in April 2011)

 

Source:

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/evidence-reveals-goldman-sachs-engaged-12000010…

 

SAN FRANCISCO, March 28, 2012 /PRNewswire/ — The founders of Marvell Technology Group (Nasdaq: MRVLNews), Dr. Sehat Sutardja and Ms. Weili Dai, are preparing to amend their claim filed with the San Francisco office of the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) against Goldman Sachs (NYSE: GSNews) and two account executives, alleging Goldman Sachs defrauded the two Silicon Valley executives of several hundreds of millions of dollars in the midst of the 2008 financial crisis.  At that time, Dr. Sutardja and Ms. Dai were two of the largest victims of fraud by Goldman’s Private Wealth Management Group. Today’s breaking news reveals there will be an amended FINRA Claim based on new evidence that Goldman Sachs engaged in secret re-titling into Goldman’s name alone of over 20 million shares owned by two founders of Marvell, Dr. Sutardja and Ms. Dai.  In a series of transactions eerily similar to MF Global, currently under Congressional investigation for misusing client funds, the amended FINRA Claim will allege Goldman Sachs secretly instructed the stock transfer agent to obtain title to the Marvell shares only in Goldman Sachs’ name, without their clients’ permission.

Recent information revealed Goldman Sachs re-titled over 20 million shares of its clients’ Marvell stock so that, as will be asserted in the amended FINRA Claim, Goldman could trade on its own account, create a market for its affiliated hedge funds and, ultimately, recapitalize its accounts to be used to help save the Firm from financial ruin at the height of the 2008 financial crisis.  In the midst of a financial crisis, the FINRA Claim contends Goldman put its own interests ahead of its clients’ interests.

A linchpin of Dr. Sutardja and Ms. Dai’s FINRA Claim is the allegation Goldman unlawfully re-titled into Goldman’s name alone over 20 million Marvell shares owned by Dr. Sutardja and Ms. Dai without client knowledge or authorization.  Newly discovered hard evidence establishes this claim.  It is questionable whether, under federal regulations, a brokerage firm is permitted to cause a client’s shares to be placed in the brokerage firm’s name absent the express consent of the client.  It was not until April 2011 that Dr. Sutardja and Ms. Dai discovered Goldman’s re-titling.  Thus, Goldman Sachs had over 20 million shares in its name alone from January 2008 to April 2011, even though the shares were actually owned by its clients.

“The best circumstantial evidence supporting our clients’ FINRA Claim is the amount of money Goldman Sachs made in proprietary trading during the time frame 2008-2011,” said attorney Joseph Cotchett, of Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy, LLP, one of the attorneys representing Marvell’s co-founders.

In January, 2008, under the guise of a margin account, Goldman undertook steps to re-title in its own name “GOLDMAN, SACHS & CO” over 20,000,000 Marvell shares then held by Dr. Sutardja and Ms. Dai.  Goldman had represented all re-registered shares would indicate on the face of the stock certificate “GOLDMAN, SACHS & CO. FOR BENEFIT OF SEHAT SUTARDJA” or, in the alternative, “GOLDMAN, SACHS & CO. FOR BENEFIT OF WEILI DAI.” 

Clear instructions were transmitted to the American Stock Transfer & Trust Company of Brooklyn, New York to indicate “GOLDMAN, SACHS & CO. FOR BENEFIT OF SEHAT SUTARDJA” or, in the alternative, “GOLDMAN, SACHS & CO. FOR BENEFIT OF WEILI DAI” on the face of the stock certificate.  At the specific request of Goldman Sachs, these instructions were not followed.

As recently confirmed by an email from the American Stock Transfer & Trust Company, “The requests (to re-title the shares) came in from Goldman Sachs, and … by their instruction letter, it was requested that we place (the shares) in the name of Goldman Sachs.”

Thus, the American Stock Transfer & Trust Company confirmed that, instead of re-registering Dr. Sutardja and Ms. Dai’s Marvell shares into Goldman’s name for the benefit of Dr. Sutardja or Ms. Dai, Goldman re-titled over 20 million of Claimant’s Marvell shares into Goldman’s name alone.  Indeed, on the transfer assignment control forms Goldman filed with the Depository Trust Company, Goldman indicated Dr. Sutardja and Ms. Dai’s shares were “TO BE REGISTERED IN THE NAME OF GOLDMAN SACHS & CO” alone. 

The significance of Goldman’s re-registering shares then worth over $120 million dollars goes to Goldman’s motives behind the unlawful transfers.  Under federal securities laws regulating short sales, before a short sale can be made, the shares must be borrowed.  Often hedge funds pay brokerage firms such as Goldman Sachs to loan shares to the fund.  By re-titling Claimants’ shares into Goldman’s name alone, Goldman created liquidity, i.e., it could trade, lend, and put up as collateral Claimants’ Marvell shares for Goldman’s own account, without Claimants’ consent, i.e. proprietary trading.

The FINRA Claim contends Goldman Sachs used the 2008 financial crisis to take advantage of Sehat Sutardja and Weili Dai.  The FINRA filing asserts that in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis, Goldman Sachs was under great stress – incurring its first quarterly loss in its history ($2.1 billion, 4th quarter 2008) and losing two-thirds of its stock value in less than four months.

According to attorney Joseph Cotchett, “Through a series of extraordinary and deceitful acts geared to save Goldman Sachs at the expense of its clients, the FINRA Claim expressly alleges the firm used customer accounts to leverage its own profits without regard to the consequences to Sehat and Weili.  Our clients became the victims of one of the largest acts of corporate greed and avarice in the history of our financial markets.”

As United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, Preet Bharara, working with the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Securities and Exchange Commission to bring down insider trading rings, recently explained in a statement:

“The charges unsealed today allege a corrupt circle of friends who formed a criminal club whose purpose was profit and whose members regularly bartered lucrative inside information so their respective funds could illegally profit, ” Bharara explained in a statement Wednesday afternoon.

“And profit they allegedly did – to the tune of more than $61m on illegal trades of a single stock – much of it coming in a $53 million short trade,” he said. “Here, The Big Short was The Big Illegal Short. We have demonstrated through our prosecutions that insider trading is rampant and has its own social network, a network we intend to dismantle. We will be unrelenting in our pursuit of those who think they are above the law.”  Excerpts quoted in The Register.

These insider trading schemes, including the ring allegedly involving Daniel Longueuil, Samir Barai, Jason Pflaum, and Noah Freeman, include obtaining inside information, such as detailed financial earnings.  Among the prominent public companies victimized by the insider trading rings are Marvell and NVIDIA Corporation (“NVIDIA”).

As SEC Chairman Mary Schapiro commented recently in connection with curbing conflicts of interest for firms such as Goldman Sachs through implementing the Volcker Rule, “[T]he Volcker Rule… generally prohibits certain banking entities from engaging in proprietary trading or sponsoring or investing in a hedge fund or private equity fund. The statute is intended to curb the proprietary interests of commercial banks and their affiliates in order to protect taxpayers and consumers by prohibiting insured depository institutions from engaging in risky proprietary trading.”  Chairman Schapiro went on to state that implementation of the Volcker Rule “would be a step forward in reducing conflicts of interests between the self-interests of banking entities and the interests of their customers. The statute is aimed at constraining banking entities’ proprietary trading, protecting the provision of essential financial services and promoting the stability of the U.S. financial system.”

The Volcker Rule, which has become one of the most controversial parts of the 2010 Dodd-Frank financial oversight law, seeks to add distance between the world of speculative trading and commercial banking.  The proposal bans banks from proprietary trading, or trades that are made solely for their own profit, and limits their investments in hedge funds.  It would mostly affect large banks, such as Goldman Sachs.  See Thomson Reuters News and Insight.

Further, by re-titling Claimants’ Marvell shares in Goldman’s name alone, Goldman was able to de-leverage and capitalize its own accounts.  Goldman needed this liquidity in the midst of the financial crisis to convert from an investment bank to a bank holding company, which it did in September, 2008.

Goldman is not the only firm alleged to be guilty of betraying its clients’ interests, breaching its fiduciary duty of loyalty, and breaking the law.  Threatened with bankruptcy, MF Global is alleged to have used client accounts in a last ditch effort to recapitalize the firm.  According to Bloomberg News, MF Global CEO and former Co-Chairman of Goldman Sachs Jon Corzine “gave ‘direct instructions’ to transfer $200 million from a customer fund account to meet an overdraft in brokerage account with JP Morgan Chase & Co. (JPM).”  The New York Times added, “[i]n its final days, MF Global tapped its customers’ accounts to meet its own financial obligations, people briefed on the matter have said.  The act violated a fundamental Wall Street regulation that firms never commingle customer money with company funds.”

A House Financial Services subcommittee is investigating what caused an estimated $1.6 billion shortfall in customer funds at MF Global, which collapsed into bankruptcy on October 31, 2011.  The Congressional subcommittee is focusing on instructions to move $200 million from an MF Global Holdings Ltd. account containing customer funds just three days before the collapse of the securities firm.  The transfer was allegedly needed to cure a $175 million overdraft in an MF Global bank account.

Just as MF Global purportedly misappropriated client accounts, the FINRA Claim asserts Goldman Sachs misappropriated Dr. Sutardja and Ms. Dai’s stock.  Goldman Sachs has recently been the subject of numerous claims of misuse of client funds and shares in connection with securities lending.  As one New York Times article pointed out,

“While few investors understand or care about the mechanics of securities lending, the area has come under increased regulatory scrutiny. The Securities and Exchange Commission has brought several cases in recent years accusing market participants of failing to borrow shares they or their customers had sold short, improperly creating a supply of additional stock to sell.

Along with a handful of traders at smallish firms, Goldman’s securities lending unit has been cited by regulators for lapses. In 2010, the S.E.C. sued Goldman on accusations that it ‘willfully’ had failed to preborrow shares as required for its short-selling clients in January 2009…. The improprieties involved 385 short sales in which the firm had not located shares for its brokerage clients to borrow.  Goldman paid $450,000 to settle the case without admitting or denying the accusations.”

Recently, a former Goldman Sachs Executive Director, Greg Smith, resigned from the firm and wrote a scathing Op-Ed article in The New York Times. In his Op-Ed article, Mr. Smith contended the Goldman Sachs culture had become toxic and the firm had placed its own interests ahead of those of its customers. 

The FINRA Claim of Dr. Sutardja and Ms. Dai has become a large concern in the Asian-American community.

In conclusion, the amended FINRA Claim will allege Goldman Sachs secretly took title in only its name to over 20 million of Dr. Sutardja and Ms. Dai’s Marvell shares, worth over $120 million at the time and over $315 million today.  Based on today’s breaking news, Dr. Sehat Sutardja and Ms. Weili Dai will be amending their FINRA Claim to allege Goldman Sachs secretly instructed the stock transfer agent to obtain title to the Marvell shares in Goldman Sachs’ name alone, without their clients’ permission.  It is asserted this undisclosed re-titling resulted in Dr. Sutardja and Ms. Dai becoming two of the largest victims of the culture of greed at Goldman Sachs. This use of client shares is similar to the alleged use of client funds by MF Global, currently under Congressional investigation for misusing client funds. The FINRA Claim seeks return of several hundreds of millions of dollars and punitive damages.

Pierce O’Donnell Asked to Disclose If Contributions to John Edwards Stemmed From Disempowerment by One Who Disempowered Mike Nisperos, Ronald George, Joe Dunn, Walter Lack, Joe Cotchett, Rory Little – Disempowerer Extraordinaire Tom Girardi

Pierce O’Donnell Hereby Asked to Disclose if Illegal Contributions to John Edwards Stemmed From Being Disempowered by One Who Disempowered Mike Nisperos, Ronald George, Eric George, Joe Dunn, Tom Layton,  Joe Cotchett, John Keker, Starr Babcock, Robert Hawley,  Walter Lack (Who In Turn Disempowered Sean Topp), Judge William Highberger, Rory Little, Erwin Chemerinsky — Disempowerer Extraordinaire Tom Girardi of Girardi & Keese

Related stories, please see:

https://lesliebrodie.wordpress.com/2011/12/29/girardi-keeses-tom-girardi-presi…

 

AND @:

https://lesliebrodie.wordpress.com/2011/09/30/muslim-community-of-orange-count…

 

AND @:

https://lesliebrodie.wordpress.com/2010/12/20/corrigendum-to-kastigar-thomas-g…

 

AND @:

 

http://lesliebrodie.blog.co.uk/2012/03/06/in-letter-to-ninth-circuit-judges-c…

 

 

 

 

 

Addendum to Disempowerment of Eliana Lopez — Similar to Use and Abuse of Women/Racial Minorities by James Brosnahan, John Keker, Joe Cotchett, Wayne Gretsky, Joe Dunn and Others Who Disempowered Annette Carnegie, Jon Streeter, Nancy Fineman, Alec Chang,

Addendum to Disempowerment of Eliana Lopez — Similar to Use and Abuse of Women/Racial Minorities by James Brosnahan, John Keker, Joe Cotchett, Wayne Gretsky, Joe Dunn and Others Who Disempowered Annette Carnegie, Jon Streeter, Nancy Fineman, Alec Chang and Jill Sperber, Respectively.

 

See relevant stories @:

http://lesliebrodie.blog.co.uk/2012/03/29/arnold-porter-s-douglas-winthrop-in…

 

AND @:

 

http://lesliebrodie.blog.co.uk/2012/01/19/jill-sperber-of-state-bar-of-califo…

 

 

 

 

 

Kinde Durkee will enter plea in embezzlement case (TLR Note: Joe Cotchett and William Wardlaw Hereby Asked to Disclose Reason Difficult to Trace $5 Million?)

The U.S. attorney’s office filed a hearing notice late Wednesday in the case against former treasurer Kinde Durkee. It says her attorney, Daniel Nixon, has agreed to the plea hearing

The filing said Durkee devised a scheme from January 2000 until she was arrested in September “to defraud clients of Durkee & Associates, and to obtain money from them by means of materially false and fraudulent pretenses, representations and promises.”

Feinstein estimated that she may have lost $5 million, but there has been no firm accounting of the losses because the money has been so difficult to track.

A complaint filed in court Tuesday details some of Durkee’s actions in June 2010, after she became aware of an investigation by the California Fair Political Practices Commission into campaign filings by Jerome Horton, a former lawmaker and member of the state Board of Equalization.

Read complete article @:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/03/29/MN121NRQQ6.DTL

Arnold & Porter’s Douglas Winthrop (Formerly of Howard Rice) In California Bar Foundation Musical Chairs Chamber Ensemble; Wayne Gretzky, James Brosnahan, Joe Cotchett, John Keker Proxies Revealed — Part 1

WAYNE GRETSKY

In the legal dispute between MGA (Bratz Dolls) and Mattel (Barbie Dolls), it is estimated that MGA’s legal cost to date are close to $200 million.  According to Mattel, Bratz Dolls were designed by a former Mattel employee (Carter Bryant) before he jumped ship to MGA. Mattel sought $2 billion in damages, and according to Bob Eckert, Mattel’s CEO, pursues the case “as a matter of principle.”

Representing El Segundo, California-based Mattel was John Quinn of Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan.

Defendant Carter Bryant was represented by Keker & Van Nest’s John Keker. Los Angeles-based MGA and founder/CEO Isaac Larian were initially represented by O’Melveny & Myers. However, a dispute erupted when O’Melveny insisted that partner Daniel Petrocelli serve as lead counsel in the case.

Mr. Larian was not thrilled about Petrocelli and fired O’Melveny altogether. O’Melveny immediately demanded payment of $10 million it claims MGA and Mr. Larian owe the firm in unpaid and outstanding legal fees.

With a looming  trial date, no counsel, and a threat from O’Melveny that if he does not pay he will be sued, Mr. Larian went knocking on the door of Thomas Girardi of Girardi & Keese.


MGA TEAM — COUNSELS WHO REPRESENTED DEFENDANT MGA (“BRATZ DOLLS”.) FROM LEFT: SKADDEN ARPS’ RAOUL KENNEDY AND THOMAS NOLAN ; HOWARD RICE’S JEROME FALK AND DOUGLAS WINTHROP; KEKER & VAN NEST’S JOHN KEKER AND MGA’S IN-HOUSE COUNSEL, MR. CRAIG HOLDEN.

Specifically,  Larian asked Girardi to look into the fees it had paid to O’Melveny.  According to media reports, Girardi stated, “When O’Melveny couldn’t get Petrocelli in the lead chair it wanted off the case. We are taking a look at the massively large fees that happened with the O’Melveny representation. On first blush, it seems like an awful lot of money for what has been accomplished. I think the client has strong reason to have great concern.”

At approximately the same time, Girardi’s friend — Thomas Nolan of Skadden Arps — was chosen to serve as counsel for MGA and Mr. Larian instead of O’Melveny.  At that time, also representing MGA  was its own in-house counsel, Mr. Craig Holden.

Thomas Nolan, who served as Girardi’s defense counsel (along with Diane Karpman) in the Ninth Circuit disciplinary matter of In Re Girardi stemming from an attempt  by Walter Lack and Thomas Girardi to defraud the Ninth Circuit , is a well-known and respected attorney. According to Mr. Girardi, Thomas Nolan “is like “Wayne Gretsky” – he doesn’t look any bigger, tougher or faster, but the next thing you know he’s scored four goals. And he’s always a gentleman.”

Following a verdict against MGA, preparations were made for the second stage of the trial to set damages, which were estimated to be approximately $500 million. At the conclusion of that stage, the jury awarded $100 million to Mattel. In addition, Judge Stephen Larson issued a draconian injunction against MGA, ipso facto dissolving it.

Following the trial, Wayne Gretsky of Skadden Arps quickly arranged for Howard Rice’s Jerome Falk and Douglas Winthrop to join the legal team and file an immediate emergency motion with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals which subsequently reversed the entire judgment.

 

WAYNE GRETSKY-THOMAS GIRARDI -JOHN KEKER-JOE COTCHETT  PROXIES REVEALED

At the conclusion of the appeal in a civil case prosecuted by the firms of Girardi & Keese and Engstrom Lipscomb & Lack against Dole Food Company, Chief Judge Alex Kozinski issued an order to show cause why Thomas Girardi and Walter Lack should not be disbarred, suspended, or sanctioned for the attempt to defraud this Court for the purpose of unjustly collecting a $500 million judgment.

Representing Thomas Girardi in those disciplinary proceedings before ther Ninth Circuit were Wayne Gretsky of Skadden Arps and ethics expert Diane Karpman.

Oral arguments ensued, during which one of the judges on the panel stated that the “elephant” in the room is the manner in which the matter would be developed by the State Bar of California.

Subsequently, the Court found both Girardi and Lack culpable, and imposed close to $500,000.00 in monetary sanctions, reprimanded Girardi, and suspended Lack.   Some of the findings included that Lack and Girardi have resorted to employing “the persistent use of known falsehoods” and that “false representations” were made “knowingly, intentionally, and recklessly” during years of litigation.

The State Bar of California assigned the matter to an outside special prosecutor (Jerome Falk of Howard Rice) since Howard Miller of Girardi & Keese served as President of the State Bar, and had hired the Chief Trial counsel of the State Bar at the time, Mr. James Towery.

After conducting an interview with Walter Lack, Jerome Falk chose to not file any charges against Lack or Girardi based on his position that any false statements submitted were not “intentional.” This determination was contrary to findings made by the Ninth Circuit.

Within days of the issuance of Mr. Falk’s decision, YR advanced an ethics complaint against James Towery, Jerome Falk, Howard Miller, and Douglas Winthrop, contending that it had been improper for Mr. Towery to select Jerome Falk (of Howard Rice) to serve as special prosecutor because, among other reasons, Howard Miller (of Girardi & Keese) had appointed Howard Rice’s managing partner (Douglas Winthrop) as president of the California Bar Foundation, a foundation owned, controlled, and maintained by the State Bar of California, as well as because of the close business relationship between Howard Rice’s Jerome Falk and Wayne Gretsky of Skadden Arps.

Subsequently, and fortuitously, YR  also discovered that Lack and Girardi were actually clients of Jerome Falk and Howard Rice.  YR had inquired with Mr. Hawley of the State Bar of California whether this fact was known to the Special Master investigating the complaint.  The State Bar of California remained mum.

Subsequently, Jerome Falk wrote to YR:

I received your November 13 email concerning my participation in the State Bar’s investigation of Walter J. Lack, Thomas V. Girardi and other attorneys. It is filled with disparaging characterizations, all of which seem to stem from your allegations that I or my firm have represented Mr. Lack and Mr. Girardi.

Your allegations are false.

I have never represented either person, or their firms. Neither has Douglas Winthrop. Nor has my firm ever represented Mr. Lack or Mr. Girardi.

From 2006-2008, my firm represented several law firms, including Engstrom, Lipscomb & Lack and Girardi & Keese, in a litigation matter. The public records of that litigation show that neither Mr. Winthrop nor I had nothing to do with that representation; in fact, I was unaware of it. The public records also show that my firm represented the law firms, but did not represent Mr. Girardi or Mr. Lack. The attorney responsible for that representation had left Howard Rice and taken the files with him before I was asked to serve as Special Deputy Trial Counsel in the State Bar matter.

You are on notice that your allegations are false. The falsity of those allegations can be determined from the public records of the litigation in question.

Jerome B. Falk, Jr.

 

Complainant YR wrote back:

Dear Mr. Falk:

Thank you for replying to my letter of November 13th, 2011 This will serve as a reply.

In your letter dated December 7, 2011, you attempt again to defraud and mislead in your attempt to avoid responsibility for your repugnant and deceitful actions taken in connection with your actions as a special prosecutor on behalf of the State Bar of California against two of your and your firm’s clients — Girardi & Keese and Engstrom Lipscomb & Lack (and by operation of law, Thomas Girardi and Walter Lack), as part of a scheme to exploit your authority for financial gain.

By analogy, rather than acknowledging that you were caught with your hand in the cookie jar, you seek to bamboozle the unwary by stating that it wasn’t actually your hand in the cookie jar but, rather, only your fingers, and in any event it wasn’t a jar but, rather, a plastic container which you contend doesn’t qualify as a jar. Therefore, you devote an entire paragraph proclaiming, “Your allegations are false.” You conclude by placing me on “notice” that my allegations are “false.”

The contents of your communication are unethical in the extreme, as well as entirely frivolous factually, legally, and by operation of law, to wit:

You claim, “In fact, I wasn’t aware of it” (referring to the fact that you and your firm had represented Girardi & Keese and ELL). While you acknowledge your firm (Howard Rice) did represent Girardi & Keese and ELL from 2006 to 2008 , you assert that you were not aware of this representation. Simply put, your assertion is false; it is simply implausible that for two entire years you were unaware that your firm represented such celebrity/famous/notorious attorneys such as Thomas Girardi, Walter Lack, and Pierce O’Donnell.

This is particularly true since you are a member of Howard Rice’s “attorney liability” group, which consists of between 7-9 attorneys (including your colleagues Sean SeLegue, Pamela Phillips, and Steve Mayer), and the subject matter of the litigation was a suit advanced against Girardi & Keese, ELL, and O’Donnell for legal malpractice in connection with alleged attorney misconduct in the litigation involving El Paso Natural Gas/Sempra Energy, a series of cases which received significant publicity.

 

El Paso Sempra Litigation

 

I am also hard-pressed to believe that you were unaware of the estimated $250,000 retainer Girardi & Keese and ELL paid to your firm (money which paid your and your colleagues’ salaries), and that no one ever discussed this matter with you for purposes of addressing legal strategy or legal issues in person or during meetings.

Most importantly, in your letter to Robert Baker you acknowledge that you had interviewed Walter Lack. Again, you ask me to believe that Walter Lack did not mention the fact that Howard Rice represented him and his firm only one year prior to your meeting.

The fact that Walter Lack did not speak up during the interview with you is just too convenient, and is further circumstantial evidence that you and he both knew of the prior representation, and chose to nevertheless further continue with the conspiracy to obstruct justice for financial gain, to the detriment of the public and the proper administration of justice. Complete story, please continue HERE.

Proxies at the State Bar of California Board of Governors are the president of  State Bar of California Jon Streeter of Keker & Van Nest, Alec Chang of Skadden Arps, Nancy Fineman of Cotchett Pitre & McCarthy, Craig Holden, and executive director of the State Bar of California — Voice of OC’s Joe Dunn, below:

Downstairs 1

Cotchett Pitre & McCarthy / Keker & Van Nest Mislead Public RE “Correction” of Marvell Technology Group Press-Release (TLR Note: In Addition to “Source” New PR Contains New Information — Re-titling)

Cotchett Pitre & McCarthy / Keker & Van Nest Mislead Public RE “Correction” of Marvell Technology Group Press-Release (TLR Note: In Addition to “Source,” New PR Contains New Information about Re-titling)

Older version of PR, please see @:

http://lesliebrodie.posterous.com/keker-van-nest-cotchett-pitre-mccarthy-finra

 

New version, below, which also include an entire paragraph of an alleged and dubious claim of re-titling:

Source:

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/founders-marvell-technology-group-among-1906004…

In the news release, Founders of Marvell Technology Group Are Among the Largest Victims of Greed at Goldman Sachs, issued 19-Mar-2012 by Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy, LLP over PR Newswire, the source should be Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy, LLP, rather than Marvell Technology Group as originally issued. The complete, corrected release follows:

Founders of Marvell Technology Group Are Among the Largest Victims of Greed at Goldman Sachs

Criminal Indictment of Former Goldman Sachs Director Rajat Gupta Alleges “Scheme to Defraud”; Other Current and Former Goldman Sachs Employees Under Investigation, Including Henry King and “Mr. X”

SAN FRANCISCO, March 19, 2012 /PRNewswire/ — The founders of Marvell Technology Group (Nasdaq: MRVLNews), Dr. Sehat Sutardja and Ms. Weili Dai, filed a claim in the San Francisco office of the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) against Goldman Sachs (NYSE: GSNews) and two account executives, alleging Goldman Sachs manipulated the 2008 financial crisis to defraud the two Silicon Valley executives of several hundreds of millions of dollars.  At that time, Dr. Sutardja and Ms. Dai were one of Goldman’s largest Private Wealth Management group clients on the West Coast.

This FINRA claim comes at a time when current and former directors and employees of Goldman Sachs are facing criminal prosecution or are under indictment, and on the heels of a scathing editorial by a former Goldman executive, Greg Smith, alleging widespread greed and corruption at the firm.  Former Goldman Sachs director Rajat Gupta has been indicted on six counts of securities fraud and one count of conspiracy relating to insider trading.  A second “insider” at Goldman Sachs, known to date as “Mr. X,” reportedly leaked tips to hedge fund manager Raj Rajaratnam.  Rajaratnam was convicted of insider trading charges in May, 2011.  Finally, according to Bloomberg Businessweek, two executives of Goldman Sachs are reportedly under investigation by federal authorities: David Loeb, a managing director of Goldman Sachs, allegedly under investigation for passing on secret information about technology companies; and Henry King, a technology analyst at Goldman Sachs, also being investigated by the FBI for allegedly offering insider tips to hedge fund clients.  A person at Goldman Sachs was allegedly caught on a wire tap leaking secrets about Intel and Apple.

“Our clients’ claims go directly to the culture of corruption at Goldman Sachs,” stated Joseph Cotchett, of Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy, LLP, one of the attorneys for Ms. Dai and Dr. Sutardja.  “Our claim clearly states Goldman Sachs put the firm’s interests ahead of its clients.  As a result, our clients claim they were defrauded of hundreds of millions of dollars by Goldman.  We will be seeking these damages and punitive damages.”  This same point was made by former Goldman Sachs Executive Director Greg Smith in his New York Times op-ed piece.

BACKGROUND ON DAI AND SUTARDJA: Dr. Sutardja and Ms. Dai founded Marvell Technology Group, a worldwide semiconductor company in 1995. Goldman Sachs managed the IPO for Marvell and put the two executives into its Private Wealth Management Group. It is alleged that once the two executives’ personal wealth was under the financial management of Goldman Sachs, the firm abused the two executives’ trust, manipulated their relationship, and ultimately defrauded them of several hundreds of millions of dollars.

GOLDMAN ACCUSED OF RIPPING OFF CLIENTS: The issues raised in the FINRA Claim are the same as those discussed by former Goldman Sachs Executive Director Greg Smith in his op-ed “Why I Am Leaving Goldman Sachs,” in the March 14, 2012 edition of the New York Times. As Smith states:

“To put the problem in the simplest terms, the interests of the client continue to be sidelined in the way the firm operates and thinks about making money. Goldman Sachs is one of the world’s largest and most important investment banks and it is too integral to global finance to continue to act this way. The firm has veered so far from the place I joined right out of college that I can no longer in good conscience say that I identify with what it stands for.”

Smith, a former executive director and head of Goldman’s U.S. equity derivatives business in Europe, the Middle East and Africa, goes on to describe what it takes to be a “leader” at Goldman, Sachs:

“What are three quick ways to become a leader? a) Execute on the firm’s “axes,” which is Goldman-speak for persuading your clients to invest in the stocks or other products that we are trying to get rid of because they are not seen as having a lot of potential profit. b) “Hunt Elephants.” In English: get your clients — some of whom are sophisticated, and some of whom aren’t — to trade whatever will bring the biggest profit to Goldman. Call me old-fashioned, but I don’t like selling my clients a product that is wrong for them. c) Find yourself sitting in a seat where your job is to trade any illiquid, opaque product with a three-letter acronym.”

Smith’s op-ed piece describes a culture “where not one single minute is spent asking questions about how we can help clients. It’s purely about how we can make the most possible money off of them.”  He then comments about “how callously people talk about ripping their clients off.”  According to Smith, Goldman managing directors even refer to their own clients as “muppets.”

In a May 18, 2010 New York Times article, anonymous former Goldman insiders discussed Goldman’s encouragement “to embrace conflicts [between Goldman and its clients], and argues that they are evidence of a healthy tension between the firm and its customers. If [Goldman employees] are not embracing conflicts, the argument holds, you are not being aggressive enough in generating business.”

In their FINRA claim, Ms. Dai and Dr. Sutardja allege similar acts by the Private Wealth Management Group at Goldman. According to John Keker of Keker & Van Nest, one of the attorneys for Ms. Dai and Dr. Sutardja, “Our clients’ FINRA Claim alleges the same course of conduct as described in Greg Smith’s piece in the New York Times.  Our clients trusted their Goldman advisors with their entire life savings, and Goldman abused their trust.”

NVIDIA: The FINRA Claim states that in the Spring of 2008, with Goldman’s encouragement, Dai purchased shares on margin in a technology company called NVIDIA. The FINRA Claim asserts that Goldman continued to recommend that Dai purchase additional shares in NVIDIA even after she had bought more than $150 million worth of NVIDIA stock.

The FINRA Claim provides a clear example of Goldman’s conflicting interests: while Goldman was managing Claimants’ assets, including Claimants’ position in NVIDIA, Goldman was managing its own stake in NVIDIA. According to the FINRA Claim, on March 31, 2008, Goldman’s position in NVIDIA consisted of 9,168,023 shares (including both shares held outright and “call” options). Over the next quarter, at the very time that the FINRA Claim asserts Goldman was urging Claimants to purchase more NVIDIA shares, Goldman actually decreased its own holdings of NVIDIA. On June 30, 2008, Goldman held 3,785,424 shares and call options – a nearly 60% decrease in a single quarter. 

“Pump-and-dump schemes undermine the integrity of our stock markets,” said Assistant Attorney General for DOJ’s Criminal Division, Lanny A. Breuer. “When stock brokers exploit their trusted positions to enrich themselves at the expense of innocent investors…, we will pursue them vigorously.”  Mr. Breuer’s quote was in reference to the Department of Justice’s ongoing investigations of “pump and dump” schemes.

The FINRA Claim goes on to allege on September 30, 2008, Goldman’s position in NVIDIA consisted of 3,162,225 shares (including both shares held outright and “call” options). Over the next quarter, at the very time that Goldman was forcing Claimants to sell their NVIDIA shares at a massive loss, according to claims made to FINRA, Goldman actually increased its own holdings of NVIDIA. On December 31, 2008, Goldman held 4,894,166 shares and call options – a nearly 55% increase in a single quarter.

Citing clear conflict of interest, the FINRA Claim alleges no one from Goldman ever disclosed to Claimants that Goldman was increasing its holdings in NVIDIA shares, while simultaneously forcing Claimants to sell their NVIDIA shares at a loss. Indeed, according to the FINRA Claim, no one from Goldman ever disclosed to Claimants that it was trading in NVIDIA at all or that it provided investment banking services to NVIDIA.

THE HENRY KING INVESTIGATION:  According to Bloomberg News and other news sources, Goldman technical analyst Henry King is being investigated for insider trading.  King was head of Taiwan Research for Goldman Sachs Asia. The newspaper said King’s activities focused on the flow of information from Taiwan to U.S. investors about the supply chain for personal-computer parts makers from Taiwan. The Wall Street Journal went on to comment that the King investigation “takes the insider-trading investigation inside the research operation of a major Wall Street firm for the first time.”  King reportedly spoke regularly to Rajaratnam’s Galleon fund, as well as to Level Global, another hedge fund drawn into the insider trading claims.

In June, 2008, Goldman “upgraded graphics chipmaker NVIDIA to buy from neutral, saying it now expects near-term business trends to be better than first thought.”  This upgrade was “the latest in a series of bullish analysts moves” by Goldman, helping to boost NVIDIA stock by more than 35%.  NVIDIA’s stock closed up more than 2.5% at $24.85 on June 5, 2008, after Goldman Sachs analysts boosted the rating to “buy” from “neutral.”  At the time, Goldman announced its view that NVIDIA’s “trends in its near-term business are likely to be better than we had expected.”

THE EXPERT NETWORKS AND GOLDMAN: In November 2010, the Department of Justice began charging individuals related to Primary Global Research (“PGR”), an “expert networking firm,” with allegations of insider trading. Individuals charged include Samir Barai, founder of Barai Capital; Donald Longueuil and Noah Freeman, hedge fund managers SAC Capital; and Winifred Jiau, a PGR consultant and former NVIDIA employee. Barai, Longueil, Freeman, and Jiau conspired to trade securities based on inside information about, among other companies, NVIDIA and Marvell.

Barai and Freeman paid PGR thousands of dollars each month for access to Jiau, who, in turn, provided them with detailed inside information about NVIDIA and Marvell. Jiau obtained the inside information from employees at NVIDIA and Marvell.  Barai, Longueuil, and Freeman have pleaded guilty to securities fraud.  Jiau was tried and convicted of securities fraud in June 2011. Freeman testified for the Government at Jiau’s trial and described her inside information as “absolutely perfect.”  Freeman explained: “She provided us with almost complete financial results before they were announced.” Freeman testified that the information was “extremely” helpful in executing trades, and that he made $5 to $10 million trading on the basis of Jiau’ s inside information.

Barai Capital was a Goldman client and used Goldman to execute trades based on NVIDIA and Marvell inside information at or around the same time Goldman was forcing Claimants to pledge their Marvell shares as collateral for the margin loan and forcing Claimants to sell the NVIDIA shares purchased with the margin loan.

MARGIN CALL: According to the FINRA Claim, Goldman Sachs issued a margin call for the two executives’ investment accounts, which were managed by Goldman Sachs Private Wealth Management Group, under false pretenses, wrongly claiming an SEC Rule mandated the margin call when no such rule existed. It is alleged the margin call was a result of Goldman Sachs’ need to repair its balance sheet and insulate itself from the extreme market turmoil of the financial crisis in 2008. Further, the complaint alleges Goldman Sachs’ wholly improper margin call reflects Goldman Sachs’ willingness to put its own interests ahead of its clients. The FINRA claim alleges:

“Through a series of extraordinary and deceitful acts, geared to save Goldman at all costs, the Firm used its clients’ accounts to leverage its success, making unreasonable collateral calls on its private wealth management clients.  Despite receiving an investment of $10 billion as a participant in the United States Treasury’s TARP Capital Purchase Program, Goldman forced its clients to unnecessarily liquidate their holdings through forced margin calls, only to repurchase these same shareholdings for accounts owned by Goldman and its related hedge funds, some currently under investigation by the federal government.  Goldman’s focus was to strengthen its balance sheet, no matter how many relationships were destroyed in the process.  The consequences to Goldman clients, such as Plaintiffs, were disastrous.  They became the victims of one of the largest acts of corporate greed and avarice in the history of our financial markets.”  (Page 2, Weili Dai and Sehat Sutardja v. Goldman Sachs & Co., Inc., et al.)

As alleged in the FINRA claim, Plaintiffs were told by Goldman Sachs that orders for the margin call were issued from Goldman Sachs’ most senior executives. The FINRA claim alleges the margin call was issued during the exact same time frame the now infamous Raj Rajaratman and other employees of the Galleon hedge fund were perpetrating mass insider trading using information obtained from Goldman Board members. According to the SEC investigation, Rajaratman received inside information from the highest levels of Goldman regarding Marvell in 2008—the same time Plaintiffs were improperly forced to sell their Marvell shares.   

NO SEC FIVE DOLLAR RULE: An important allegation in the FINRA Claim is Goldman contrived a margin call based on a mythical “SEC Five Dollar Rule.”  As with Smith’s New York Times op-ed piece, Ms. Dai and Dr. Sutardja’s FINRA Claim contends:

“In November 2008, Goldman contrived grounds to issue a margin call on Claimants’ accounts. Goldman insisted that Marvell shares had to be sold immediately. Acting on behalf of Goldman, [Bradley] DeFoor justified the margin call with a lie, telling Dai and Sutardja there was an SEC rule that DeFoor called the ‘SEC Five Dollar Rule.’ According to DeFoor, the ‘SEC Five Dollar Rule’ required Claimants to sell the Marvell shares in the margin account because the value of Marvell’s stock had dropped below $5 per share.”

“There is no ‘SEC Five Dollar Rule,’ a fact DeFoor and others at Goldman knew at the time they issued the immediate margin call on behalf of Goldman. Goldman maintained this ‘SEC Five Dollar Rule’ lie for years. As recently as November 2010, senior Goldman officials John Weinberger and Tucker York told Dai and Sutardja the ‘Five Dollar Rule’ was a ‘New York Stock Exchange’ rule, not an SEC rule.  According to these senior Goldman executives, the NYSE’s ‘Five Dollar Rule’ required the Marvell shares be sold because their value had dropped below $5 per share. No such NYSE ‘Five Dollar Rule’ exists, as Weinberger and York well knew.”

“When Sutardja questioned DeFoor about the need to sell Claimants’ Marvell shares, DeFoor told him his instructions came from ‘the highest levels at Goldman’ in New York.” (Page 4, Weili Dai and Sehat Sutardja v. Goldman Sachs & Co., Inc., et al.)

In a September 22, 2011 letter, Mary L. Schapiro, Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, wrote: “There is currently no rule that requires the sale of shares in a margin account if the market value of the shares falls below $5.00.” Chairman Schapiro’s letter was written in response to an inquiry from Congresswoman Anna Eshoo (D-CA).

UNLAWFUL RETITLING OF MARVELL SHARES: According to the FINRA Claim, in January, 2008, Goldman insisted Ms. Dai and Dr. Sutardja re-register 25,000,000 shares of Marvell stock into Goldman’s name, for the benefit of Ms. Dai and Dr. Sutardja, to secure the margin loan so that Dai could continue to purchase shares on margin.

The FINRA Claim also alleges when shares of NVIDIA dropped in July, 2008, Goldman requested even more shares owned by Ms. Dai and Dr. Sutardja in Marvell be re-registered in Goldman’s name for the benefit of Ms. Dai and Dr. Sutardja. Goldman assured Ms. Dai and Dr. Sutardja, as set forth in the FINRA Claim, that their Marvell stock was perfectly safe as collateral and they would not have to sell it due to the margin loan. Based on Goldman’s assurances, Ms. Dai and Dr. Sutardja allege in the FINRA Claim that they re-registered another 3,100,000 shares of Marvell stock into Goldman’s name.

Without notice or consent from Ms. Dai or Dr. Sutardja, the FINRA Claim asserts Goldman re-titled close to 30,000,000 of their shares into Goldman’s name alone. The re-registration did not indicate it was for the benefit of Ms. Dai and Dr. Sutardja. The claims of Ms. Dai and Dr. Sutardja include allegations that this transfer was unauthorized and completely unnecessary because Ms. Dai and Dr. Sutardja had already pledged more than sufficient collateral for their securities holdings with Goldman. According to their claims, Goldman’s sole purpose in re-titling these Marvell shares was to create liquidity to drive their proprietary trading in Marvell shares, and their transactions with affiliated hedge funds in Marvell shares. As illustrated in their claims, the timing of these transfers indicates Goldman re-titled Ms. Dai and Dr. Sutardja’s Marvell shares, without their consent, as part of the broader insider trading ring of which Ms. Dai and Dr. Sutardja now find themselves victims. 

These problems with the re-titling of their shares in Goldman’s name were only recently discovered in April, 2011 by Ms. Dai and Dr. Sutardja.  According to Ms. Dai and Dr. Sutardja, Goldman kept Claimants’ Marvell shares titled in Goldman’s name years after they stopped trading on margin.

The FINRA Claim was filed by two San Francisco area law firms, KEKER & VAN NEST LLP and COTCHETT, PITRE & McCARTHY, LLP – brought by John Keker and Joseph Cotchett.  The suit seeks return of several hundreds of millions of dollars and punitive damages.

FOR THE FULL FINRA STATEMENT OF CLAIM, SEE www.cpmlegal.com

 

 

 

 

 

The Leslie Brodie Report Has Updated Article Delineating Fraudulent Statements by Jill Sperber of State Bar of California; Links to Prima Facie Showing of Money Laundering Through California Bar Foundation; Quote by John Keker of Keker & Van Nest

The Leslie Brodie Report Has Updated Article Delineating Fraudulent Statements by Jill Sperber of State Bar of California; Links to Prima Facie Showing of Money Laundering Through California Bar Foundation; Quote by John Keker of Keker & Van Nest.

Please see updated article @:

 

http://tinyurl.com/883u3mx

 

While on its face the article references events relating to alleged ethical violations in the litigation between Sara Granda v. State Bar of California; boiling underneath the surface are prima facie showing of money laundering via the California Bar Foundation, and subsequent misappropriation of said funds by Voice of OC — an online publication established by State Bar of California executive director Joe Dunn with the help of Thomas Girardi and James Brosnahan.

Recently, Placer County Assistant District Attorney Clark Gehlbach, and fellow State Bar of California  BOG Members Joe Dunn of Voice of OC, Jon Streeter of Keker & Van Nest, Alec Chang of Skadden Arps, Nancy Fineman of Cotchett Pitre & McCarthy, Gretchen Nelson of Kreindler & Kreindler, Gwen Moore of GeM Communication, public member Jeannine English, Craig Holden of Lewis Brisbois, Samson Elsbernd, Karen Goodman, Loren Kieve, Pearl Gondrella Mann, Luis Rodriguez, Heather Linn Rosing, Lowell Carruth, public member George Davis of Davis Broadband Group, Cheryl Hicks, Patrick Kelly, Wells Lyman, Mark Shem, and public member Dennis Mangers have pressed criminal charges against the complainant on the ground that the ethics complaint relating to the case of Sara Granda v. State Bar of California, was false and malicious in violation of California Business & Professions Code 6043.5

The Leslie Brodie Report Has Updated Article Delineating Fraudulent Statements by Jill Sperber of State Bar of California; Links to Prima Facie Showing of Money Laundering Through California Bar Foundation; Quote by John Keker of Keker & Van Nest

The Leslie Brodie Report Has Updated Article Delineating Fraudulent Statements by Jill Sperber of State Bar of California; Links to Prima Facie Showing of Money Laundering Through California Bar Foundation; Quote by John Keker of Keker & Van Nest.

Please see updated article @:

 

http://tinyurl.com/883u3mx

 

While on its face the article references events relating to alleged ethical violations in the litigation between Sara Granda v. State Bar of California; boiling underneath the surface are prima facie showing of money laundering via the California Bar Foundation, and subsequent misappropriation of said funds by Voice of OC — an online publication established by State Bar of California executive director Joe Dunn with the help of Thomas Girardi and James Brosnahan.

Recently, Placer County Assistant District Attorney Clark Gehlbach, and fellow State Bar of California  BOG Members Joe Dunn of Voice of OC, Jon Streeter of Keker & Van Nest, Alec Chang of Skadden Arps, Nancy Fineman of Cotchett Pitre & McCarthy, Gretchen Nelson of Kreindler & Kreindler, Gwen Moore of Gems Communication, public member Jeannine English, Craig Holden of Lewis Brisbois, Samson Elsbernd, Karen Goodman, Loren Kieve, Pearl Gondrella Mann, Luis Rodriguez, Heather Linn Rosing, Lowell Carruth, public member George Davis of Davis Broadband Group, Cheryl Hicks, Patrick Kelly, Wells Lyman, Mark Shem, and public member Dennis Mangers have pressed criminal charges against the complainant on the ground that the ethics complaint relating to the case of Sara Granda v. State Bar of California, was false and malicious in violation of California Business & Professions Code 6043.5

Prior Illegible Press-Release by Cotchett Pitre & McCarthy / Keker & Van Nest on Behalf of Marvell Technology Group /Weili Dai / Sehat Sutardja — Now Part of “Fair & Care” Article by Journalist Samson Wong (TLR Note: 1 – Fair & Care Weili Dai Prohibited

Prior Illegible Press-Release by Cotchett Pitre & McCarthy / Keker & Van Nest on Behalf of Marvell Technology Group /Weili Dai / Sehat Sutardja — Now Part of “Fair & Care” Article by Journalist Samson Wong (TLR Note: 1 – Fair & Care Weili Dai Prohibited from Handling Finance 2- Notice Peculiar Claim Re NVIDIA)

 

Please see full article @:

http://www.asianweek.com/2012/03/22/fair-and-care-vs-goldman-sachs/

—   While Marvell’s founders wanted to pursue a conservative investment strategy, Goldman between 2005 and 2008 went on to place their assets in “unsuitable investments” such as hedge funds and stocks requiring margin calls.

— In late November 2008, Goldman executives and their team “demanded that Dai and Sutardja sell Marvell shares by issuing a ‘margin call’” for stocks which the couple bought while pledging their Marvell stock as collateral. Under “intense pressure,”

CONFLICT OF INTEREST: But no Goldman Sachs (NYSE: GS) representative ever disclosed to Dai and Sutardja that, for example, Goldman was increasing its stake in Silicon Valley’s NVIDIA (NASDAQ: NVDA) (a stock Goldman recommended Dai to buy) while forcing her to sell.

 

TLR Note– Marvell’s founders had a choice to not buy stocks “on credit.”  Nevertheless, and out of pure greed, they ordered Goldman Sachs to buy NVIDIA stocks.  Since they did not have the money to purchase the NVIDIA stocks, Goldman Sachs “loaned” them the money.  As a “security” for the loan, Marvell’s founders offered as collateral their own Marvell stocks.  Once the value of the  NVIDIA went below $5, Goldman Sacks came knocking on their door by placing the dreaded “margin call.”

NVIDIA was a fine choice, as even per the article, Goldman Sachs was purchasing the stock for itself.

 

TLR ‘s Issues Addendum to Conveniently Intertwined, Part 4: James Brosnahan (AKA Jim Brosnahan) of MoFo (TLR Note: 1-Part of original BOD of Voice of OC. 2- Presumed mastermind behind CaliforniaALL 3- May be motivated to cause legal injury to TLR/YR 4-Ru

TLR ‘s  Issues Addendum to Conveniently Intertwined, Part 4: James Brosnahan (AKA Jim Brosnahan) of MoFo (TLR Note: 1-Part of original BOD of Voice of OC. 2- Presumed mastermind behind CaliforniaALL 3- May be motivated to cause legal injury to TLR/YR 4-Ruthless)

 

Please see original post @:

http://lesliebrodie.blog.co.uk/2011/09/13/conveniently-intertwined-part-4-sta…

 

 

Addendum # 1: James Brosnahan of Morrison & Foerster.  Original member of Voice of OC BOD.  Prima facie evidence Brosnahan mastermind behind CaliforniaALL. Part of Democratic Party “legal team,” as are Joe Cotchett and John Keker.

Mr. James Bronsnahan of Morrison & Foerster stated : “I was suddenly elevated from an infrequent contributor to Demo­cratic politicians to being the mastermind behind the Democratic Party,” Brosnahan says. (Image: courtesy of ABA Journal) See @:
http://www.abajournal.com/magazine/article/james_brosnahan

 

Upstairs

Cotchett Pitre & McCarthy / Keker & Van Nest Marvell Technology Group Suit Against Goldman Sachs (TLR Note:Separate and Apart from Dubious Claim Filed with FINRA)

Keker & Van Nest / Cotchett Pitre & McCarthy Dubious Claim against Goldman Sachs on Behalf of Sehat Sutardja and Weili Dai of Marvell Technology Group — Purpose of 5-dollar Level in Stock Investing

Source :

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Why_is_5-dollar_level_so_important_in_stock_investing

Why is 5-dollar level so important in stock investing?

Answer:

Perceived Risk – There are almost no companies that have gone public at a price below 5-dollar level. Thus, for a company that trades under $5 there is a big chance that some serious operational or financial problems have accrued in the past or recently, and there is plenty of statistics suggesting that $5 stocks frequently go to zero.

Margin – Margin is a line of credit given to an investor so that they may make investments in amounts larger than their current funds would allow. This allows investors the ability to leverage their current holdings and make larger investments hoping that the return will be larger than the interest for the loan. These investors are taking on a larger amount of risk and so are the firms that loan the funds to the investor. Because of this most firms deem stocks under 5 dollars to be unmarginable. This means that they will not extend a line of credit on investments that are trading at less than 5 dollars. They do not feel that a stock trading under 5 dollars is good collateral. Some set the mark higher or lower but 5 dollars is the most common. They do this because of the higher risk associated with lower priced stocks. Brokerages worry that they may not be repayed if substantial losses are realized in a short period of time. These facts make unmarginable stocks or stocks trading under the 5 dollar mark less attractive to the investment public including institutional investors and hedge funds.

Penny Stock Notoriety – A “penny stock,” according to SEC interpretation, is an equity trading for less than $5 a share that is not traded on the listed markets of the NYSE, AMEX, or NASDAQ. This perception of riskiness in sub-$5 dollar stocks outside the major exchanges has definitely influenced the perception off all sub-$5 stocks, even those highly liquid and more transparent exchange traded stocks.

Note: Many consider penny stocks to be stocks that trade for less than a dollar which are listed in cents (pennies) as in .87 cents or pennies.

Institutional Investors – Many mutual funds’ charters directly prohibit their managers from investing or holding penny stocks (those traded on the OTCBB and pink sheets) and generally stocks under $5 dollars. However, mutual funds are not obligated by any regulations to have such clauses and there are mutual funds that specialize in penny stocks.

Government Influence – To the extent that municipal, state, or federal pension funds’ charters might prohibit their managers from investing in stocks (or holding stocks) below 5 dollar level, we can talk about government involvement in discouraging investments in stocks trading below $5.

Retail Constraints – Many brokerage houses and investment professionals strongly discourage trading in speculative stocks. Often their customers must sign extra paperwork acknowledging that they are aware of the risks of trading such stocks.

Keker & Van Nest-Cotchett Pitre & McCarthy FINRA claim against Goldman Sachs alleges Sehat Sutardja and Weili Dai victims of fraud(TLR Note:1 -Press release redundant,cheap attempt to besmirch Sachs 2- Notice claims Re: $5 Rule)

Source of PR:

http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20120316006016/en/Founders-Marvell-Tech…

 

Founders of Marvell Technology Group Are Among the Largest Victims of Greed at Goldman Sachs

Criminal Indictment of Former Goldman Sachs Director Rajat Gupta Alleges “Scheme to Defraud”; Other Current and Former Goldman Sachs Employees Under Investigation, Including Henry King and “Mr. X”

 

SAN FRANCISCO–(BUSINESS WIRE)–The founders of Marvell Technology Group, Sehat Sutardja and Weili Dai, filed a claim in the San Francisco office of the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) against Goldman Sachs (NYSE: GS) and two account executives, alleging Goldman Sachs manipulated the 2008 financial crisis to defraud the two Silicon Valley executives of several hundreds of millions of dollars. At that time, Mr. Sutardja and Ms. Dai were one of Goldman’s largest Private Wealth Management group clients on the West Coast.

“upgraded graphics chipmaker NVIDIA to buy from neutral, saying it now expects near-term business trends to be better than first thought.”

This FINRA claim comes at a time when current and former directors and employees of Goldman Sachs are facing criminal prosecution or are under indictment, and on the heels of a scathing editorial by a former Goldman executive, Greg Smith, alleging widespread greed and corruption at the firm. Former Goldman Sachs director Rajat Gupta has been indicted on six counts of securities fraud and one count of conspiracy relating to insider trading. A second “insider” at Goldman Sachs, known to date as “Mr. X,” reportedly leaked tips to hedge fund manager Raj Rajaratnam. Rajaratnam was convicted of insider trading charges in May, 2011. Finally, according to Bloomberg Businessweek, two executives of Goldman Sachs are reportedly under investigation by federal authorities: David Loeb, a managing director of Goldman Sachs, allegedly under investigation for passing on secret information about technology companies; and Henry King, a technology analyst at Goldman Sachs, also being investigated by the FBI for allegedly offering insider tips to hedge fund clients.

“Our clients’ claims go directly to the culture of corruption at Goldman Sachs,” stated Joseph Cotchett, of Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy, LLP, one of the attorneys for Dai and Sutardja. “Our claim clearly states Goldman Sachs put the firm’s interests ahead of its clients. As a result, our clients claim they were defrauded by hundreds of millions of dollars by Goldman. We will be seeking these damages and punitive damages.” This same point was made by former Executive Director Greg Smith in his New York Times op-ed piece.

BACKGROUND ON DAI AND SUTARDJA: Mr. Sutardja and Ms. Dai founded Marvell Technology Group, a worldwide semiconductor company in 1995. Goldman Sachs managed the IPO for Marvell and put the two executives into its Private Wealth Management Group. It is alleged that once the two executives’ personal wealth was under the financial management of Goldman Sachs, the firm abused the two executives’ trust, manipulated their relationship, and ultimately defrauded them of several hundreds of millions of dollars.

GOLDMAN ACCUSED OF RIPPING OFF CLIENTS: The issues raised in the FINRA Claim are the same as those discussed by former Goldman Sachs Executive Director Greg Smith in his op-ed “Why I Am Leaving Goldman Sachs,” in the March 14, 2012 edition of the New York Times. As Smith states:

“To put the problem in the simplest terms, the interests of the client continue to be sidelined in the way the firm operates and thinks about making money. Goldman Sachs is one of the world’s largest and most important investment banks and it is too integral to global finance to continue to act this way. The firm has veered so far from the place I joined right out of college that I can no longer in good conscience say that I identify with what it stands for.”

Smith, a former executive director and head of Goldman’s U.S. equity derivatives business in Europe, the Middle East and Africa, goes on to describe what it takes to be a “leader” at Goldman, Sachs:

“What are three quick ways to become a leader? a) Execute on the firm’s “axes,” which is Goldman-speak for persuading your clients to invest in the stocks or other products that we are trying to get rid of because they are not seen as having a lot of potential profit. b) “Hunt Elephants.” In English: get your clients — some of whom are sophisticated, and some of whom aren’t — to trade whatever will bring the biggest profit to Goldman. Call me old-fashioned, but I don’t like selling my clients a product that is wrong for them. c) Find yourself sitting in a seat where your job is to trade any illiquid, opaque product with a three-letter acronym.”

Smith’s op-ed piece describes a culture “where not one single minute is spent asking questions about how we can help clients. It’s purely about how we can make the most possible money off of them.” He then comments about “how callously people talk about ripping their clients off.” According to Smith, Goldman managing directors even refer to their own clients as “muppets.”

In a May 18, 2010 New York Times article, anonymous former Goldman insiders discussed Goldman’s encouragement “to embrace conflicts [between Goldman and its clients], and argues that they are evidence of a healthy tension between the firm and its customers. If [Goldman employees] are not embracing conflicts, the argument holds, you are not being aggressive enough in generating business.”

In their FINRA claim, Dai and Sutardja allege similar acts by the Private Wealth Management Group at Goldman. According to John Keker of Keker & Van Nest, one of the attorneys for Dai and Sutardja, “Our clients’ FINRA Claim alleged the same course of conduct as described in Greg Smith’s piece in the New York Times. Our clients trusted their Goldman advisors with their entire life savings, and Goldman abused their trust.”

NVIDIA: The FINRA Claim states that in the Spring of 2008, with Goldman’s encouragement, Dai purchased shares on margin in a technology company called NVIDIA. The FINRA Claim asserts that Goldman continued to recommend that Dai purchase additional shares in NVIDIA even after she had bought more than $150 million worth of NVIDIA stock.

The FINRA Claim provides a clear example of Goldman’ s conflicting interests: while Goldman was managing Claimants’ assets, including Claimants’ position in NVIDIA, Goldman was managing its own stake in NVIDIA. According to the FINRA Claim, on March 31, 2008, Goldman’s position in NVIDIA consisted of 9,168,023 shares (including both shares held outright and “call” options). Over the next quarter, at the very time that the FINRA Claim asserts Goldman was urging Claimants to purchase more NVIDIA shares, Goldman actually decreased its own holdings of NVIDIA. On June 30, 2008, Goldman held 3,785,424 shares and call options – a nearly 60% decrease in a single quarter.

The FINRA Claim goes on to allege on September 30, 2008, Goldman’s position in NVIDIA consisted of 3,162,225 shares (including both shares held outright and “call” options). Over the next quarter, at the very time that Goldman was forcing Claimants to sell their NVIDIA shares at a massive loss, according to claims made to FINRA, Goldman actually increased its own holdings of NVIDIA. On December 31, 2008, Goldman held 4,894,166 shares and call options – a nearly 55% increase in a single quarter.

Citing clear conflict of interest, the FINRA Claim alleges no one from Goldman ever disclosed to Claimants that Goldman was increasing its holdings in NVIDIA shares, while simultaneously forcing Claimants to sell their NVIDIA shares at a loss. Indeed, according to the FINRA Claim, no one from Goldman ever disclosed to Claimants that it was trading in NVIDIA at all or that it provided investment banking services to NVIDIA.

THE HENRY KING INVESTIGATION: According to Bloomberg News and other news sources, Goldman technical analyst Henry King is being investigated for insider trading. King was head of Taiwan Research for Goldman Sachs Asia. The newspaper said King’s activities focused on the flow of information from Taiwan to U.S. investors about the supply chain for personal-computer parts makers from Taiwan. The Wall Street Journal went on to comment that the King investigation “takes the insider-trading investigation inside the research operation of a major Wall Street firm for the first time.” King reportedly spoke regularly to Rajaratnam’s Galleon fund, as well as to Level Global, another hedge fund drawn into the insider trading claims.

In June, 2008, Goldman “upgraded graphics chipmaker NVIDIA to buy from neutral, saying it now expects near-term business trends to be better than first thought.” This upgrade was “the latest in a series of bullish analysts moves” by Goldman, helping to boost NVIDIA stock by more than 35%. NVIDIA’s stock closed up more than 2.5% at $24.85 on June 5, 2008, after Goldman Sachs analysts boosted the rating to “buy” from “neutral.” At the time, Goldman announced its view that NVIDIA’s “trends in its near-term business are likely to be better than we had expected.”

THE EXPERT NETWORKS AND GOLDMAN: In November 2010, the Department of Justice began charging individuals related to Primary Global Research (“PGR”), an “expert networking firm,” with allegations of insider trading. Individuals charged include Samir Barai, founder of Barai Capital; Donald Longueuil and Noah Freeman, hedge fund managers SAC Capital; and Winifred Jiau, a PGR consultant and former NVIDIA employee. Barai, Longueuil, Freeman, and Jiau conspired to trade securities based on inside information about, among other companies, NVIDIA and Marvell.

Barai and Freeman paid PGR thousands of dollars each month for access to Jiau, who, in turn, provided them with detailed inside information about NVIDIA and Marvell. Jiau obtained the inside information from employees at NVIDIA and Marvell. Barai, Longueuil, and Freeman have pleaded guilty to securities fraud. Jiau was tried and convicted of securities fraud in June 2011. Freeman testified for the Government at Jiau’s trial and described her inside information as “absolutely perfect.” Freeman explained: “She provided us with almost complete financial results before they were announced.” Freeman testified that the information was “extremely” helpful in executing trades, and that he made $5 to $10 million trading on the basis of Jiau’ s inside information.

Barai Capital was a Goldman client and used Goldman to execute trades based on NVIDIA and Marvell inside information at or around the same time Goldman was forcing Claimants to pledge their Marvell shares as collateral for the margin loan and forcing Claimants to sell the NVIDIA shares purchased with the margin loan.

MARGIN CALL: According to the FINRA Claim, Goldman Sachs issued a margin call for the two executives’ investment accounts, which were managed by Goldman Sachs Private Wealth Management Group, under false pretenses, wrongly claiming an SEC Rule mandated the margin call when no such rule existed. It is alleged the margin call was a result of Goldman Sachs’ need to repair its balance sheet and insulate itself from the extreme market turmoil of the financial crisis in 2008. Further, the complaint alleges Goldman Sachs’ wholly improper margin call reflects the Goldman Sachs’ willingness to put its own interests ahead of its clients. The FINRA claim alleges:

“Through a series of extraordinary and deceitful acts, geared to save Goldman at all costs, the Firm used its clients’ accounts to leverage its success, making unreasonable collateral calls on its private wealth management clients. Despite receiving an investment of $10 billion as a participant in the United States Treasury’s TARP Capital Purchase Program, Goldman forced its clients to unnecessarily liquidate their holdings through forced margin calls, only to repurchase these same shareholdings for accounts owned by Goldman and its related hedge funds, some currently under investigation by the federal government. Goldman’s focus was to strengthen its balance sheet, no matter how many relationships were destroyed in the process. The consequences to Goldman clients, such as Plaintiffs, were disastrous. They became the victims of one of the largest acts of corporate greed and avarice in the history of our financial markets.” (Page 2, Weili Dai and Sehat Sutardja v. Goldman Sachs & Co., Inc., et al.)

As alleged in the FINRA claim, Plaintiffs were told by Goldman Sachs that orders for the margin call were issued from Goldman Sachs’ most senior executives. The FINRA claim alleges the margin call was issued during the exact same time frame the now infamous Raj Rajaratnam and other employees of the Galleon hedge fund were perpetrating mass insider trading using information obtained from Goldman Board members. According to the SEC investigation, Rajaratnam received inside information from the highest levels of Goldman regarding Marvell in 2008—the same time Plaintiffs were improperly forced to sell their Marvell shares.

NO SEC FIVE DOLLAR RULE: An important allegation in the FINRA Claim is Goldman contrived a margin call based on a mythical “SEC Five Dollar Rule.” As with Smith’s New York Times op-ed piece, Dai and Sutardja’s FINRA Claim contends:

“In November 2008, Goldman contrived grounds to issue a margin call on Claimants’ accounts. Goldman insisted that Marvell shares had to be sold immediately. Acting on behalf of Goldman, [Bradley] DeFoor justified the margin call with a lie, telling Dai and Sutardja there was an SEC rule that DeFoor called the ‘SEC Five Dollar Rule.’ According to DeFoor, the ‘SEC Five Dollar Rule’ required Claimants to sell the Marvell shares in the margin account because the value of Marvell’s stock had dropped below $5 per share.”

“There is no ‘SEC Five Dollar Rule,’ a fact DeFoor and others at Goldman knew at the time they issued the immediate margin call on behalf of Goldman. Goldman maintained this ‘SEC Five Dollar Rule’ lie for years. As recently as November 2010, senior Goldman officials John Weinberger and Tucker York told Dai and Sutardja the ‘Five Dollar Rule’ was a ‘New York Stock Exchange’ rule, not an SEC rule. According to these senior Goldman executives, the NYSE’s ‘Five Dollar Rule’ required the Marvell shares be sold because their value had dropped below $5 per share. No such NYSE ‘Five Dollar Rule’ exists, as Weinberger and York well knew.”

“When Sutardja questioned DeFoor about the need to sell Claimants’ Marvell shares, DeFoor told him his instructions came from ‘the highest levels at Goldman’ in New York.” (Page 4, Weili Dai and Sehat Sutardja v. Goldman Sachs & Co., Inc., et al.)

In a September 22, 2011 letter, Mary L. Schapiro, Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, wrote: “There is currently no rule that requires the sale of shares in a margin account if the market value of the shares falls below $5.00.” Chairman Schapiro’s letter was written in response to an inquiry from Congresswoman Anna Eshoo (D-CA) (see Attachment: http://www.businesswire.com/cgi-bin/mmg.cgi?eid=50207542&lang=en).

The FINRA claim was filed by two San Francisco area law firms, KEKER & VAN NEST LLP and COTCHETT, PITRE & McCARTHY, LLP – brought by John Keker and Joseph Cotchett. The suit seeks return of several hundreds of millions of dollars and punitive damages.

Contact:

   
 
Barbara Abulafia Philip L. Gregory
Keker & Van Nest LLP Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy, LLP
710 Sansome Street 840 Malcolm Road
San Francisco, California 94111 Burlingame, CA 94010
Telephone: (415) 391-5400 Telephone: (650) 697-6000

FOR THE FULL FINRA STATEMENT OF CLAIM, SEE www.cpmlegal.com.

Photos/Multimedia Gallery Available: http://www.businesswire.com/cgi-bin/mmg.cgi?eid=50207542&lang=en

 

Contacts

Sloane & Company
Elliot Sloane, 212-446-1860

 

Republished — November 22, 2011 — Article Re 1 – Kinde Durkee Seeks Stay 2- TLR Criticism of Controversial Suit by Cotchett Against Durkee (TLR Note: May Be Partial Motive Behind Cotchett’s Nancy Fineman Seeking to Cause Injury to TLR/YR via Jeff Reisig

Republished — November 22, 2011 — Article Re 1 – Kinde Durkee Seeks Stay 2- TLR’s Criticism of Controversial Suit by Cotchett Against Durkee (TLR Note: May Be Partial Motive Behind Cotchett’s Nancy Fineman Seeking to Cause Injury to TLR/YR  via Jeff Reisig’s Posse)

 

See original @:

http://lesliebrodie.posterous.com/judge-imposes-limitations-on-senator-diane-fe

 

Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Richard Neidorf  has granted  Kinde Durkee’s request to postpone her deposition indefinitely, reports LA Weekly.  See http://blogs.laweekly.com/informer/2011/11/kinde_durkee_dianne_feinstein.php

———————————————————————————————-

Jose Solorio and Larissa Parecki

Mr. Jose Solorio (left) and CaliforniaALL‘s Larissa Parecki (center) during an event sponsored by funds CaliforniaALL contributed to the UCI Foundation.  Presently, criminal charges are pending against Kindee Dupree for the alleged embezzlement of nearly $700,000 in campaign funds from Solorio. (Image: courtesy photo)

In the the suit, filed by Cotchett Pitre & McCarthy, plaintiffs lash out at First California Bank, Durkee & Associates, Kinde Durkee, John Forgy, and Matthew Lemcke.

Additionally, and in a clear attempt to avoid personal responsibility for their own convenient failures to detect the prolonged and wide spread embezzlement, plaintiffs/prophets also claim that:

“Investigation will reveal other professionals, including attorneys, accountants, and additional banks had full knowledge of the wrongful acts committed by Durkee & Associates and the individuals.”

Kerr & Wagstaffe / Cotchett Pitre & McCarthy Peculiar Arrangement Part 3 (TLR Note Rory Little, McGeorge’s Paul Paton, Vikram Amar, Erwin Chemerinsky Hereby Asked to Opine)

Part 1 @:

http://lesliebrodie.blog.co.uk/2011/12/05/kerr-wagstaffe-s-jim-wagstaffe-pecu…

 

Part 2 @:

http://lesliebrodie.blog.co.uk/2011/12/05/kerr-wagstaffe-s-jim-wagstaffe-pecu…

 

Part 3:

Communication as was sent to DLA Piper in December 2011, below:

Mr. Brenbrook:

In reference to the above case, and in connection with the decision to utilize Mr. James Wagstaffe of Kerr & Wagstaffe as an expert witness to offer an opinion as to the reasonable value of past legal services rendered by Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy to Mr. Siller and CWS, please be advised that Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy and Mr. Wagstaffe currently represent a common defendant in litigation pending in San Mateo County Superior Court.

Without exploring any legal intricacies, common sense dictates that Mr. Wagstaffe may be disinclined to offer unfavorable testimony to the effect that Cotchett inflated its billable hours (not that I suggest that it did), or that the quality of the firm’s work was sub par (not that I suggest that it was) since any such testimony by Mr. Wagstaffe could, in essence, cast doubt on the value of services being offered mutually by him and the Cotchett firm in the San Mateo litigation. As such, I urge you to address with the Court, your client, and opposing counsel the ethical and practical implications of such an arrangement.

Mr Jim Wagstaffe of Kerr & Wagstaffe.  In the above, Mr Wagstaffe offers his students legal counsel on how to avoid a traffic ticket. Wagstaffe urged the students to deceive law enforcement personnel.  He stated: “Do what I do, put a CHP magazine in your car, so they think you are one of them.”

Additionally, in that you are a partner at the Sacramento Office of DLA Piper, I am extremely uncomfortable with such an arrangement given my research into the alarming circumstances involving the now-defunct charity CaliforniaALL, which was housed at your offices pursuant to an arrangement by DLA managing partner Gilles Attia.

My ongoing research into CaliforniaALL, which recently also resulted in a complaint filed with the IRS against Voice of OC, indicates the existence of a unsettling relationship between Joe Cotchett, James Brosnahan, Pierce O’Donnell, Geoffrey Brown, Senator Joe Dunn (Ret.) of Voice of OC, and his confederate, Thomas Girardi of Girardi & Keese.

Moreover, events surrounding DLA Piper, its former client DeMeter Energy, and a botched malpractice suit by Girardi & Keese against DLA Piper on behalf of DeMeter Energy, caused me to entertain thoughts that Girardi & Keese may have intentionally let the statute of limitations expire so as to sabotage the suit against DLA Piper.

As such, and based on the above, I am also entertaining thoughts that DLA Piper may have intentionally selected Mr. Wagstaffe to testify in the bankruptcy matter of Siller/CWA to further draw him into the circle, and to offer favorable testimony on behalf of Cotchett Pitre & Mcarthy and against the interests of Siller/CWA. Granted this may sound far-fetched; however, given my familiarity with past events and the parties’ modus operandi, I still consider it a possibility.

Note that I am on friendly terms with Mr. Wagstaffe and, despite our involvement in highly contentious litigation which settled after Mr. Wagstaffe’s client took the case on appeal, I am concerned that he may be pressured, either externally or due to financial consideration, to offer testimony which is inconsistent with the truth.

 

2007 SF Weekly: Voctoria Cotchett on Cotchett Pitre & McCarthy’s Joe Cotchett — Tyrant, Aggressive, Violent, Abuses Alcohol, ; Article Also Details Connections to John Edwards / Operatives in California Democratic Party

Cotchett Pitre & McCarthy’s Niki Okcu has joined the Legal Aid Society of San Mateo County’s board of directors

Pierce O’Donnell Has Agreed to Serve Time in Jail; Law License in Jeopardy

Los Angeles attorney Pierce O’Donnell, who pled guilty last fall to funneling illegal campaign contributions to former Sen. John Edwards, joined prosecutors Wednesday in asking a federal judge to sentence him to 60 days in prison, reports LAW360


Petitioner Pierce O’Donnell is asking Judge Thomas Anderle of the Santa Barbara County Superior Court for “legal separation” from spouse Dawn O’Donnell.

O’Donnell has been involved in countless legal proceedings involving his numerous acts of misconduct, described briefly below:

1. Criminal proceedings in the Los Angeles County Superior Court relating to unlawful contributions to James Hahn.

2. State Bar of California Court proceedings relating to his conviction of crimes involving moral turpitude in the Los Angeles County Superior Court.

3. State Bar of California alternative proceedings relating to his mental illness (O’Donnell failed to comply with the conditions of the program and his participation was terminated).

4. Administrative proceedings advanced by both the City of Los Angeles and the State of California.

5. State Bar of California Court proceedings relating to his attempt to mislead a Nevada state court.

6. Ongoing criminal proceedings in federal court. These proceedings (United States of America v. Pierce O’Donnell) relate to alleged unlawful contributions to John Edwards.

As was reported here earlier, O’Donnell’s participation (alongside Thomas Girardi , Walter Lack, Joe Cotchett, and James Brosnahan) in the El PasoNatural Gas/Sempra and Hurricane Katrina litigation is a source of grave concern, particularly due to circumstances involving sham charity CaliforniaALL.

Specifically events surroundings CPUC Commissioner Geoffrey Brown; James Brosnahan/Susan Mac Cormac /Diane Pritchard/Annette Carnegie of Morrison & Foerster; Thomas Girardi and Howard Miller of Girardi & Keese; Joe Cotchett and Nancy Fineman of Cotchett Pitre & Mcarthy; Joe Dunn of Voice of OC; Gilles Attia and Jeffrey Shohet of DLA Piper, and the hush-hush sub rosa transfer of $780,000 from the California Bar Foundation to CaliforniaALL.

Cotchett Pitre & McCarthy’s Co-Counsel — Kerr & Wagstaffe’s James Wagstaffe Hereby Asked to Opine Whether Ethics Complaint Re Matter of Sara Granda Justifies Home Invasion by Jeff Reisig (AKA Jeff Sig Heil)

Cotchett Pitre & McCarthy’s Co-Counsel — Kerr & Wagstaffe’s James Wagstaffe Hereby Asked to Opine Whether Ethics Complaint Re Matter of Sara Granda Justifies Home Invasion by Jeff Reisig (AKA Jeff Sig Heil)  who claims filing ethics complaint against Rachel Grunberg, Mark Torres-Gil, Judy Johnson, Holly Fujie, Lawrence Yee constituted a crime.

Relevant stories, please see @:

http://lesliebrodie.blog.co.uk/2012/02/24/subsequent-to-compliant-to-irs-re-sham-charity-californiaall-a-desperate-voice-of-oc-s-joe-dunn-executive-director-of-state-bar-of-california-unl-12927627/

 

And @:

http://lesliebrodie.blog.co.uk/2011/05/06/california-all-part-13-a-judge-and-mrs-morrison-england-sara-granda-vs-state-bar-of-california-11109029/

 

And @

 

http://lesliebrodie.blog.co.uk/2011/06/01/californiaall-part-13-c-ethics-complaint-filed-against-lawrence-yee-mark-torres-gil-rachel-grunberg-judy-johnson-and-holly-fujie-for-alleged-misc-11250473/

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

State Bar of California Board of Governors Roster -2012– (TLR Note: Notice Name of Kreindler & Kreindler’s Gretchen Nelson — Former Business Partner of Fraudster Susan Friery and Co-Counsel of Fraudster Thomas Girardi of In Re Girardi)

President

Streeter, Jon (District 4)
Keker & Van Nest
633 Battery St.
San Francisco, CA  94111
Phone: 415-676-2249
Fax: 415-397-7188
Jstreeter@KVN.com

 

Vice President

 

Carruth, Lowell T. (District 5)Lowell Carruth
McCormick Barstow et al LLP
P.O. Box 28912
Fresno, CA  93729
Phone: 559-433-1300
Fax: 559-433-2300
lowell.carruth@mccormickbarstow.com

 

Vice President

 

Davis, George (Public Member)George Davis
Davis Broadband Group, Inc.
6245 Bristol Parkway, Suite 297
Culver City, CA  90230
Phone: 310-877-0925
george@davisbroadband.com

 

Vice President

 

English, Jeannine (Public Member)Jeannine English
The State Bar of California
180 Howard Street
San Francisco, CA  94105
Phone: 415-538-2170
English@jeannineenglish.com

 

Vice President

 

Clark GehlbachGehlbach, Clark E. (District 1)
DA Placer County
10810 Justice Center Drive, #240
Roseville, CA  95678
Phone: 916-543-8000
Fax: 916-543-2550
CGehlbac@placer.ca.gov

 

Vice President

 

Hicks, Cheryl L. (District 3)Cheryl Hicks
1440 Broadway, #814
Oakland, CA  94612
Phone: 510-452-1117
bjusticeh@aol.com

 

Vice President

Kelly, Patrick M. (District 7)Patrick Kelly
Wilson Elser et al LLP
555 South Flower Street, #2900
Los Angeles, CA  90071
Phone: 213-443-5100
patrick.kelly@wilsonelser.com

 

Vice President

Lyman, Wells B. (District 9)Wells Lyman
P.O. Box 2085
La Mesa, CA  91943
Phone: 619-589-9984
Fax: 619-589-0073
wbl@cox.net

 

Vice President

Moore, Gwen (Public Member)Gwen Moore
4201 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 615
Los Angeles, CA  90010
Phone: 323-954-3777

 

 

Members

Chang, Alec Y. (District 3)
Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom LLP
525 University Avenue, Suite 1100
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Phone: 650-470-4684
Fax: 650-798-6500
Alec.chang@skadden.com

(Public Member)

This seat is vacant

Elsbernd, Samson (CYLA Member)
Wilke, Fleury, Hoffelt, Gould & Birney LLP
400 Capitol Mall, 22nd Floor
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: 916-441-2430
Fax: 916-442-6664
selsbernd@wilkefleury.com

 

Fineman, Nancy (District 4)
Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy LLP
840 Malcolm Road #200
Burlingame, CA 94010
Phone: 650-697-6000
Fax: 650-697-0577

 

(Public Member)

This seat is vacant

Karen GoodmanGoodman, Karen M. (District 2)
Goodman & Associates
3840 Watt Avenue, Building A
Sacramento, CA 95821
Phone: (916) 643-0600
Fax: (916) 643-0605
kgoodman@goodman-law.com
Craig HoldenHolden, Craig (District 7)
The State Bar of California
180 Howard Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
Phone: 415-538-2170
cholden@lbbslaw.com

 

Kieve, Loren (District 4)
Kieve Law Offices
The Presidio of San Francisco
5A Funston Avenue
San Francisco, CA 94129
Phone: (415) 364-0060
lk@kievelaw.com
Mangers, Dennis (Public Member)Dennis Mangers
The State Bar of California
180 Howard Street
San Francisco, CA  94105
Phone: 916-425-8167
dennismangers@aol.com
Pearl MannMann, Pearl (District 8)
Law Office of Pearl Gondrella Mann
2501 E. Chapman Ave. #225
Fullerton, CA 92831
Phone: 714-992-4045
pearlgmann@aol.com

 

 

Gretchen NelsonNelson, Gretchen M. (District 7)
Kreindler & Kreindler LLP
707 Wilshire Boulevard #4100
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Phone: (213) 622-6469
Fax: (213) 622-6019
gnelson@kreindler.com
Rodriguez, Luis J. (District 7)
Division Chief
Law Offices of the Public Defender
320 West Temple Street
Los Angeles, CA 90012
Phone: 213-974-2992
Fax: 213-626-3519
lrodriguez@pubdef.lacounty.gov
Rosing, Heather Linn (District 9)
Klinedinst PC
501 W. Broadway #600
San Diego, CA 92101
Phone: 619-239-8131
hrosing@klinedinstlaw.com
Mark ShemShem, Mark (District 6)
Borton Petrini LLP
95 S. Market St. #400
San Jose, CA 95113
Phone: 408-535-0870
mshem@bortonpetrini.com

 

 

Related story @;
http://lesliebrodie.blog.co.uk/2012/02/14/addendum-to-in-re-toyota-motor-corp…

Dean Erwin Chemerinsky discusses the power of bankruptcy courts at La Verne College of Law (TLR Note: Similar issues to case involving Cotchett Pitre & McCarthy and Kerr & Wagstaffe)

Erwin Chemerinsky, dean and professor of law at the UC Irvine College of Law, spoke on “Formalism Without a Foundation, Stern vs. Marshall” at the University of La Verne College of Law on Feb. 2. Chemerinsky’s remarks dealt with the Supreme Court’s limitation on the ability of bankruptcy courts to decide certain specific issues. His expertise includes constitutional law, federal practice, civil rights and civil liberties, and appellate litigation. / photo by Brittney Slater-Shew

Original story, please see @:
http://laverne.edu/campus-times/2012/02/lecturer-discusses-the-power-of-the-s…

Related stories:
http://lesliebrodie.blog.co.uk/2011/12/26/kerr-wagstaffe-cotchett-pitre-mccar…

And @:

http://lesliebrodie.blog.co.uk/2011/12/05/kerr-wagstaffe-s-jim-wagstaffe-pecu…

Administrative Law Judge Burton Mattson Issues Ruling In El Paso Natural Gas Proceedings Before the CPUC

    Natural Gas Anti-Trust Cases, JCCP Nos. 4221, 4224, 4226 & 4228
    (San Diego Superior Court)

 

William Bernstein

Joseph R. Saveri

Barry R. Himmelstein
Eric B. Fastiff
Daniel E. Barenbaum

Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, LLP

Embarcadero Center West

275 Battery Street, 30th Floor

San Francisco, CA 94111-3339

Telephone: (415) 956-1000

Facsimile: (415) 956-1008

Francis O. Scarpulla

Law Offices Of Francis O. Scarpulla

275 Battery Street, 28th Floor

San Francisco, CA 94111-3339

Attorneys for Plaintiffs William Patrick Bower and Thomas L. French

Walter J. Lack

Paul A. Traina

Engstrom, Lipscomb & Lack

A Professional Corporation

10100 Santa Monica Boulevard, 16th Floor

Los Angeles, CA 90067-4107

Attorneys for Plaintiffs Continental Forge Company; Andrew and Andrea Berg, Individually and dba Wave Length Hair Productions, and Gerald J. Marcil; John Clement Molony; Frank and Kathleen Stella; and Douglas and Valerie Welch; SierraPine, Limited; and The City of Los Angeles and The People of The State of California

Pierce O’Donnell

Carole E. Handler

Laura W. Adell

O’donnell & Shaeffer LLP

633 West Fifth Street, Suite 1700

Los Angeles, CA 90071

Attorneys for Plaintiffs Continental Forge Company; Andrew and Andrea Berg, Individually and dba Wave Length Hair Productions, and Gerald J. Marcil; John Clement Molony; Frank and Kathleen Stella, and Douglas and Valerie Welch; Sierrapine, Limited; The City of Long Beach, The People of The State of California, United Church Retirement Homes, Long Beach Brethren Manor, and Robert Lamont; and The City of Los Angeles and The People of The State of California

Thomas V. Girardi

Howard B. Miller

David N. Bigelow

Girardi & Keese

1126 Wilshire Boulevard

Los Angeles, CA 90017-1904

Lance Astrella

Astrella & Rice P.C.

1801 Broadway, Suite 1600

Denver, CO 80202

Brad N. Baker

Albro L. Lundy III

Baker, Burton & Lundy,
  a Professional Corporation

515 Pier Avenue

Hermosa Beach, CA 90254

Attorneys for Plaintiffs Andrew and Andrea Berg, Individually and dba Wave Length Hair Productions, and Gerald J. Marcil; John Clement Molony; and Frank and Kathleen Stella, and Douglas and Valerie Welch

M. Brian McMahon

Law Offices Of M. Brian Mcmahon

633 West Fifth Street, Suite 1700

Los Angeles, CA 90071

Attorneys for Plaintiffs The City of Long Beach, The People of The State of California, United Church Retirement Homes, Long Beach Brethren Manor, and Robert Lamont

Robert E. Shannon

City Attorney

City Of Long Beach

333 West Ocean Boulevard, 11th Floor

Long Beach, CA 90802

Attorneys for Plaintiffs The City of Long Beach; and The People of The State of California

Rockard Delgadillo, City Attorney

Mark Lambert, Deputy City Attorney

City Of Los Angeles

200 N. Main Street, 1600 City Hall East

Los Angeles, CA 90012

Attorneys for Plaintiffs The City of Los Angeles; and The People of The State of California

J. Tynan Kelly

1000 Louisiana, Suite 1800

Houston, TX 77002

Attorneys for Plaintiff Continental Forge Company

Michael J. Ponce

14882 Beach Boulevard, Suite T

Westminster, CA 92683-5341

Douglas A. Stacey

P.O. Box 55

Laguna Beach, CA 92652

Attorneys for Plaintiffs Frank and Kathleen Stella, and Douglas and Valerie Welch

Joseph W. Cotchett

Bruce L. Simon

Steven N. Williams

Cotchett, Pitre, Simon & McCarthy

San Francisco Airport Office Center

840 Malcolm Road, Suite 200

Burlingame, CA 94010

G. Kip Edwards

P.O. Box 1979

Kings Beach, CA 96143

Attorneys for Plaintiffs Dry Creek Corporation and Gallo Glass Company

Robert C. Cooper

Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher

333 South Grand Avenue

Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197

Attorneys for Defendants Sempra Energy, South California Gas Company, and San Diego Gas & Electric

James J. Brosnahan

Diane E. Pritchard

Stephen P. Freccero

Mark R. McDonald

Morrison & Foerster, LLP

425 Market Street

San Francisco, CA 94105-2482

Mark W. Danis

Morrison & Foerster, LLP

3811 Valley Centre Drive, Suite 500

San Diego, CA 92130-2332

Attorneys for Defendants El Paso Natural Gas Company; El Paso Merchant Energy, L.P., El Paso Merchant Energy Company, Mojave Pipeline Company, El Paso Tennessee Pipeline Co., El Paso Merchant Energy-Gas Company, El Paso Merchant Energy-Gas, L.P., El Paso Gas Marketing Company, El Paso Mojave Pipeline Company, Mojave Pipeline Operating Company, EPNG Mojave, Inc., El Paso Energy West Coast Holding Company, and El Paso Merchant Energy Holding Company

(END OF ATTACHMENT A)

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that I have by electronic mail this day served a true copy of the original attached Administrative Law Judge’s Ruling on Common Outline for Comments and Reply Comments on all parties on the following service lists with electronic mail addresses:

Application (A.) 02-11-017 (Pacific Gas and Electric Company
general rate case-GRC)

A.02-05-004 (Southern California Edison Company GRC)

A.02-12-028 (San Diego Gas and Electric Company cost of
service proceeding – COS)

A.02-12-027 (Southern California Gas Company COS)

A.02-02-012 (Southwest Gas Company GRC)

Rulemaking (R.) 01-10-024 (Electric Procurement)

R.02-01-011 (Direct Access Cost Responsibility Surcharge)

I certify that I have by regular mail this day served a true copy of the original attached Administrative Law Judge’s Ruling on Common Outline for Comments and Reply Comments on parties and/or counsel of record in natural gas anti-trust cases, JCCP Nos. 4221, 4224, 4226 & 4228 (San Diego Superior Court). (See Attachment A to the Ruling.)

Dated July 18, 2003, at San Francisco, California.

/s/ FANNIE SID

Fannie Sid

Milstein Adelman’s Mark Milstein to Discuss Issues And Considerations In The Handling Of Cy Pres Awards As Cotchett Pitre & McCarthy’s Niall McCarthy to Discuss Current Strategies In Prosecuting Class Actions

Current Strategies In Prosecuting Class Actions
Niall P. McCarthy • Cotchett, Pitre, & McCarthy

Issues And Considerations In The Handling Of Cy Pres Awards
Mark Milstein • Milstein Adelman, LLP

http://www.caoc.com/CA/index.cfm?event=showPage&pg=12ClassAction-SF

How NOT to Handle Cy Pres, see here:
http://lesliebrodie.blog.co.uk/2012/01/11/pacific-legal-foundation-s-robin-ri…

Supreme Court throws out Texas election maps (TLR Note: Similar to Issues in San Mateo County, California Whereas Jim Wagstaffe and Joe Cotchett Defend County Against Suit Filed by Asians and Latinos)

Cotchett Pitre & McCarthy’s Frank Damrell and DLA Piper’s Shirli Fabbri Weiss Hereby Asked to Discuss Kerr & Wagstaffe / Cotchett Pitre & McCarthy Peculiar Arrangement in Matter of Charles Siller

Charles Siller (represented by Cotchett Pitre & McCarthy) prosecuted litigation which settled for $10 million cash and $20.5 million in property to be transferred to CWS Enterprises, Inc. (“CWS”), which Siller owns.

Later, Siller tried to renegotiate their contingent fee agreements. When Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy declined to reduce their fees, Siller discharged them.

Pitre and Co-Counsel jointly demanded arbitration, and subsequently were awarded $9,150,437.90 and $2,497,325.07, respectively.

A state court confirmed the arbitration award and entered judgment against Siller/CWS, whereupon Siller/CWS, defiant, each sought protection under chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code.

Pitre and co-counsel both filed claims (“Pitre claim”). Siller in his own case, and David Flemmer (trustee for CWS) object to the Pitre Claim arguing it exceeds the “reasonable value” of the services rendered by Pitre and Co-Counsel.

Flemmer (represented by the Sacramento office of DLA Piper) invites Jim Wagstaffe of Kerr & Wagstaffe to testify as an expert witness as to the “reasonable value” of the services rendered by Cotchett Pitre & McCarthy.

Jim Wagstaffe of Kerr Wagstaffe is also Cotchett Pitre & McCarthy’s co-counsel in an ongoing separate matter in San Mateo.

Discuss.

(Answers should include references to both the California Rules of Professional Conduct and the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct)

Please observe that, rather than contacting Damrell and Weiss directly, the query is being delivered publicly, here and now.

Any reply, if any, can be deliverered to lesliebrodie@gmx.com

Related stories @:

http://lesliebrodie.blog.co.uk/2011/12/05/kerr-wagstaffe-s-jim-wagstaffe-pecu…

And @:

http://lesliebrodie.blog.co.uk/2011/12/05/kerr-wagstaffe-s-jim-wagstaffe-pecu…

 

Profile of Former Federal Judge Frank Damrell — Now with Cotchett Pitre & McCarthy

Frank C. Damrell Jr. (born 1938) is a United States federal judge in the Eastern District of California. He is also a Trustee of the University of California at Merced.

Contents

 [hide

[edit] Early life and education

Born in Modesto, California, Damrell received a B.A. from the University of California, Berkeley in 1961 and an LL.B. from Yale Law School in 1964.

[edit] Career

Damrell was a deputy in the Office of the State Attorney General of California from 1964 to 1966. He was a Deputy district attorney of Office of the District Attorney, California from 1966 to 1968. He was in private practice in Modesto, California from 1968 to 1997.

[edit] Judicial service

Damrell is a federal judge on the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California. Damrell was nominated by President Bill Clinton on July 24, 1997, to a seat vacated by Edward J. Garcia. He was confirmed by the United States Senate on November 9, 1997, and received his commission on November 12, 1997. He assumed senior status on December 31, 2008.

<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_C._Damrell_Jr.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_C._Damrell_Jr.</p&gt;

Ex-judge Frank Damrell joins Cotchett Pitre & McCarthy

5W13JUDGE.JPG

Damrell is a Modesto native who roomed with future Gov. Jerry Brown at Santa Clara University. He led a successful law firm in Modesto before he was appointed to the federal judgeship by President Clinton in 1997.

In an interview, Damrell said he and the firm’s founder, Joseph Cotchett, have been friends for 40 years, and “share common values.”

Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/2012/01/13/4184188/judge-oipu-poiu-oiu-pouoiu.html#stor…

Farmers Represented by Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy and Anderson Baker & Swanson Sue Jon Corzine Over Missing Millions

Dean Elizabeth Rindskopf Parker and Joe Cotchett — Strange Things Happen to Google

Dean Erwin Chemerinsky Avers The Eyes of Texas Are Upon Supreme Court (TLR Note: Similar Issues to Suit Defended by Jim Wagstaffe and Joe Cotchett and Prosecuted by Hispanic and Asian Voters)

Kerr & Wagstaffe / Cotchett Pitre & McCarthy Peculiar Arrangement in Matter of Charles Siller — Part 2: Hell Hath No Fury like a Stiffed Cotchett

In Part 1, we discussed the ongoing bankruptcy proceedings involving CWS and owner Charles Siller (“Siller”), former clients of Burlingame-based Cotchett Pitre & McCarthy (“Cotchett”).

After Siller unsuccessfully sought to renegotiate the amount of fees owed to Cotchett, Cotchett commenced legal proceedings against Siller and obtained a judgment. Siller, defiant, filed for bankruptcy. Cotchett, also defiant, continues to pursue Siller in bankruptcy court.

Presently, Siller is asking the bankruptcy court – through a trustee represented by DLA Piper in Sacramento – to essentially renegotiate the fees by examining the “reasonable value” of the benefits obtained from Cotchett. Presumably, the parties are operating under the assumption that the determined reasonable value will not exceed the original amount.

As an aside, DLA Piper’s Sacramento offices housed non-profit CaliforniaALL, the entity that obtained the sub rosa $780,000 contribution from the California Bar Foundation.

In yet another strange twist, Jim Wagstaffe of Kerr Wagstaffe – Cotchett’s co-counsel in an ongoing separate matter in San Mateo – has been selected to offer expert testimony as to the reasonable value of Cotchett’s services to Siller. 

Hell Hath No Fury Like a Stiffed Cotchett

Parties seeking representation by Cotchett, particularly in a contingency fee arrangement, had better stick to their word and their side of the agreement, and otherwise conduct themselves honorably. Shenanigans are not tolerated.

Mr. Joe cotchett
Mr Joseph Cotchett of Burlingame-based Cotchett Pitre & McCarthy (Image:courtesy photo)

At least based on our observation, Cotchett is not a corporate firm that will pretend to crunch the numbers and offer discounts or send an unpaid bill to a collection agency that might offer a client a “deal”, say 30 cents on the dollar.

The way the firm sees things, the client came to it in a time of need, the firm took a risk, the firm worked hard to earn the fees and invested its own money to pay for expenses, and ultimately it delivered; so, please, do not try to disrespect the firm by not paying it what it is entitled to.

A client engaging in waggery, or otherwise trying to pull a fast one on Cotchett, is perceived as committing an act of betrayal, which is highly and deeply offensive to Cotchett’s sense of fairness, justice, and what is right and wrong in the universe.

Hence, the same efficient and fearless legal machinery that initially worked on behalf of the errant client is now ready to take that client on – and justifiably so we might add.

That having been said, we have also observed that Cotchett, at times, enters into convoluted agreements with its clients regarding the payment of attorney’s fees, which usually involve business transactions post-settlement, and otherwise prolong the attorney-client relationships as they move into adversarial business relationships.

This new arrangement between a toxic client and the orderly Cotchett provides both, for a short while longer, the needed platform to co-dependently remain in a relationship for Cotchett to right another wrong until a court writes it off.

BREAKING NEWS: Contributions to Re-Elect Kamala Harris 2014 — Out of 61 Donations Many Not Strangers to TLR: Girardi, Cotchett, Nancy Fineman, Ron Burkle, Sempra Energy, Bicycle Casino

Election Track: keeping you  in the loop

Contributions to Harris 2014; Re-elect Attorney General Kamala
Contributions since: $416,400

Show 102550100 entries
Search:
Donor City, state Employer/Occupation Amount Contribution Date Report Date
Donor City, state Employer/Occupation Amount Contribution Date Report Date
KEITH BRACKPOOL MANHATTAN BEACH, CA 90266 OWNER/MANHATTAN COUNTRY CLUB 6500 2011-11-21 2011-12-07
UNITED AUBURN INDIAN COMMUNITY OF THE AUBURN RANCHERIA SACRAMENTO, CA 95814 6500 2011-11-17 2011-12-07
STEPHEN BING LOS ANGELES, CA 90067 FILLM PRODUCER/SELF – SAME NAME 6500 2011-11-09 2011-11-22
STEPHEN BING LOS ANGELES, CA 90067 FILLM PRODUCER/SELF – SAME NAME 6500 2011-11-09 2011-11-22
GRANT THORNTON LLP OAKBROOK TERRACE, IL 60181 5000 2011-11-03 2011-11-18
PRICEWATERHOUSE COOPERS LLP WASHINGTON, DC 20005 5000 2011-11-03 2011-11-18
LISA S. PRITZKER SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94118 ADVOCATE FOR WOMEN AND CHILDREN/SELF – SAME NAME 6500 2011-10-28 2011-11-18
CA STATE ASSOCIATION OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS PASADENA, CA 91101 12500 2011-10-28 2011-11-18
CA STATE PIPE TRADES COUNCIL POLITICAL ACTION FUND SACRAMENTO, CA 95814 12500 2011-10-28 2011-11-18
PIPE TRADES DISTRICT COUNCIL #36 PAC FRESNO, CA 93727 12500 2011-10-28 2011-11-18
PLUMBERS & PIPEFITTERS LOCAL 447 FEDERAL POLITICAL ACTION FUND SACRAMENTO, CA 95819 12500 2011-10-28 2011-11-18
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA PIPE TRADES DISTRICT COUNCIL #16 PAC LOS ANGELES, CA 90020 12500 2011-10-28 2011-11-18
WESTERN STATES COUNCIL OF SHEET METAL WORKERS PAC SACRAMENTO, CA 95814 12500 2011-10-28 2011-11-18
ANGELIQUE GRIEPP SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94109 HOMEMAKER 6500 2011-10-25 2011-11-01
CA STATE COUNCIL OF LABORERS PAC SACRAMENTO, CA 95814 6500 2011-10-19 2011-11-01
WILLIAM LOFTON SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94123 ATTORNEY/LOFTON & WILLIAM 6500 2011-10-17 2011-10-27
DELOITTE & TOUCHE PARTNERS CALIFORNIA FUND SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105 5000 2011-10-14 2011-10-27
STEVEN WILLIAMS BURLINGAME, CA 94010 ATTORNEY/COTCHETT PITRE & MCCARTHY 5000 2011-10-13 2011-10-27
JOSEPH W. COTCHETT BURLINGAME, CA 94010 ATTORNEY/COTCHETT, PITRE & MCCAARTHY 5000 2011-10-13 2011-10-27
NANCY L. FINEMAN BURLINGAME, CA 94010 ATTORNEY/SELF – SAME NAME 5000 2011-10-13 2011-10-27
PHILIP LAWRENCE GREGORY WOODSIDE, CA 94062 ATTORNEY/SELF – SAME NAME 5000 2011-10-13 2011-10-27
NIALL MCCARTHY BURLINGAME, CA 94010 ATTORNEY/SELF – SAME NAME 5000 2011-10-13 2011-10-27
MARK C. MOLUMPHY SAN MATEO, CA 94402 ATTORNEY/SELF – SAME NAME 5000 2011-10-13 2011-10-27
NANCI E. NISHIMURA SAN MATEO, CA 94402 ATTORNEY/SELF – SAME NAME 5000 2011-10-13 2011-10-27
MITCHELL KAPOR SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105 INVESTOR/KAPOR ENTERPRISES, INC. 6500 2011-10-09 2011-10-24
KPMG LLP DALLAS, TX 75201 6000 2011-10-05 2011-10-24
DOUGLAS C. ROSENBERG SAUSALITO, CA 94965 RETIRED 6500 2011-09-30 2011-10-14
ERNST & YOUNG, LLP LOS ANGELES, CA 90017 5000 2011-09-30 2011-10-14
JONATHAN KITCHEN SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94123 ATTORNEY/COX, CASTLE & NICHOLSON, LLP 6500 2011-09-29 2011-10-14
ROBERT MAILER ANDERSON SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94115 WRITER/SELF – SAME NAME 6500 2011-09-26 2011-10-10
RON BURKLE LOS AANGELES, CA 90069 INVESTOR/YUCAIPA COMPANIES 6500 2011-09-26 2011-10-10
ERIKA GIRARDI LOS ANGELES, CA 90017 RECORDING ARTIST/EJ GLOBAL LLC 6500 2011-09-26 2011-10-10
THOMAS V. GIRARDI LOS ANGELES, CA 90017 ATTORNEY/GIRARDI KEESE 6500 2011-09-26 2011-10-10
NION T. MCEVOY SAN FRANCICO, CA 94118 CHAIRMAN & CEO/CHRONICLE BOOKS 6500 2011-09-26 2011-10-10
MICROSOFT CORPORATION POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE REDMOND, WA 98073 6500 2011-09-26 2011-10-10
SNR DENTON NEW YORK, NY 10020 5000 2011-09-26 2011-10-10
DONALD J. TRUMP NEW YORK, NY 10022 ENTREPRENEUR/THE TRUMP ORGANIZATION 5000 2011-09-26 2011-10-10
DEMENNO/ KERDOON SOUTH GATE, CA 90280 6500 2011-09-19 2011-09-29
BARONA BAND OF MISSION INDIANS LAKESIDE, CA 92040 6500 2011-08-24 2011-09-07
WILLIAM LARSON BEVERLY HILLS, CA 90211 ATTORNEY/KIESEL, BOUCHER & LARSON 6500 2011-08-22 2011-08-30
KIESEL, BOUCHER & LARSON, LLP BEVERLY HILLS, CA 90211 5714 2011-08-22 2011-08-30
KIESEL, BOUCHER & LARSON, LLP BEVERLY HILLS, CA 90211 786 2011-08-22 2011-08-30
PAUL KIESEL BEVERLY HILLS, CA 90210 ATTORNEY/KIESEL, BOUCHER & LARSON 6500 2011-08-22 2011-08-30
BICYCLE CASINO BELL GARDENS, CA 90201 6500 2011-08-16 2011-08-30
CALIFORNIA COMMERCE CLUB, INC. COMMERCE, CA 90040 6500 2011-08-16 2011-08-30
HAWAIIAN GARDENS CASINO HAWAIIAN GARDENS, CA 90716 6500 2011-08-16 2011-08-30
HOLLYWOOD PARK CASINO INGLEWOOD, CA 90303 6500 2011-08-16 2011-08-30
CA ATTORNEYS, ADMIN LAW JUDGES AND HEARING OFFICERS IN STATE EMPLOYMENT (CASE) PAC SACRAMENTO, CA 95833 13000 2011-08-15 2011-08-23
ELI BROAD LOS ANGELES, CA 90024 FOUNDER/THE BROAD FOUNDATIONS 6500 2011-08-09 2011-08-23
GEORGE ROSE BEVERLY HILLS, CA 90210 EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT/ACTIVISION 3500 2011-07-28 2011-08-09
GEORGE ROSE BEVERLY HILLS, CA 90210 EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT/ACTIVISION 6500 2011-07-28 2011-08-09
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE, COUNTY & MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES-CA (AFSCME) SACRAMENTO, CA 95814 13000 2011-07-07 2011-07-20
HEWLETT PACKARD COMPANY PALO ALTO, CA 94304 6500 2011-06-30 2011-07-14
PEPSICO INC. ALISO VIEJO, CA 92656 5000 2011-06-30 2011-07-14
SEMPRA ENERGY SAN DIEGO, CA 92101 6500 2011-06-15 2011-06-29
YAHOO! INC. SUNNYVALE, CA 94089 5000 2011-05-26 2011-06-09
SAN PABLO LYTTON CASINO SAN PABLO, CA 94806 6500 2011-05-18 2011-06-01
CCA OF TENNESSEE, LLC NASHVILLE, TN 37215 5000 2011-05-18 2011-06-01
ORACLE AMERICA, INC. ROCKLIN, CA 95765 6500 2011-05-12 2011-05-26
TWENTIETH CENTURY FOX FILM CORPORATION LOS ANGELES, CA 90035 5000 2011-05-09 2011-05-23
PEACE OFFICERS RESEARCH ASSOCIATION OF CA PAC SACRAMENTO, CA 95834 12900 2011-03-31 2011-05-12

State Bar of California / California Bar Foundation in the Mystery of Bank of America and Southern California Edison BOD Members Richard Tom and Theodore Ting — Part 2: Names Appear, Suddenly.

2011 Board of Directors


Douglas A. Winthrop, President
Howard Rice

Holly J. Fujie, Vice President
Buchalter Nemer
State Bar President (2008-2009)

Joan Kupersmith Larkin, Vice President
Seyfarth Shaw LLP

Bruce G. Iwasaki, Secretary
Lim, Ruger & Kim, LLP

David C. Grove, Treasurer
Lim, Ruger & Kim, LLP

Pacific Crest Securities

Leslie T. Hatamiya, Executive Director
California Bar Foundation

Raul Ayala
Office of the Federal Public Defender

Ronald L. Blanc
Arnold & Porter LLP

Peter R. Boutin
Keesal, Young & Logan

Frederick Brown
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP

Debora Buljat
General Dynamics NASSCO

Peter H. Carson
Bingham McCutchen LLP

Neel Chatterjee
Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe, LLP

S. Raj Chatterjee
Morrison & Foerster LLP

Hon. Marguerite D. Downing
Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles

Nancy L. Fineman
Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy

John C. Fossum
Irell & Manella LLP

Martha K. Gooding

Dean Hansell
Dewey & LeBoeuf LLP

M. Ray Hartman, III
DLA Piper

William N. Hebert
Calvo Fisher & Jacob LLP
State Bar President (2010-2011)

Robert D. Infelise
Cox Castle & Nicholson LLP

Paul V. Konovalov
Latham & Watkins LLP

Justin T. Miller
BNY Mellon Wealth Management

Mark Parnes
Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati LLP

Thomas Silk
SILK NONPROFIT LAW

Dianne Baquet Smith
Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP

Christy Susman
Brown-Forman Brands

Paul Tepper
Western Center on Law and Poverty

Theodore T. Ting
Bank of America

Mary Ann Todd
Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP

Richard Tom
Southern California Edison

Karen E. Walter
Rutan & Tucker, LLP

S. Nancy Whang
Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP

State Bar of California / California Bar Foundation in the Mystery of Bank of America and Southern California Edison BOD Members Richard Tom and Theodore Ting — Part 1: Names Purposefully Omitted

San Francisco — January 12, 2011 — The California Bar Foundation, the statewide philanthropic organization for California’s legal community, today announced the appointment of 19 individuals to its Board of Directors. To more effectively carry out its mission of building a better justice system for all Californians, the Foundation has expanded the size of its Board to provide better representation throughout the state’s legal community and to bolster the nonprofit organization’s resource development efforts. The Board appointments include representatives from a number of the state’s leading law firms, many of whom have been leaders in championing access to justice issues and promoting diversity in the legal profession.

Twelve lawyers began serving their initial terms on the Board on January 1, 2011. They include Frederick Brown, a trial lawyer and partner-in-charge of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP’s San Francisco office; Debora Buljat, associate general counsel of General Dynamics/NASSCO; Peter H. Carson, a finance partner at Bingham McCutchen LLP, co-chair of the firm’s National Pro Bono Committee, and immediate past co-chair of the California Legal Services Trust Fund Commission; S. Raj Chatterjee, a San Francisco partner with Morrison & Foerster LLP; Nancy L. Fineman, an experienced trial lawyer with Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy; M. Ray Hartman, III, a San Diego partner with DLA Piper specializing in environmental litigation; Robert D. Infelise, a partner with Cox, Castle & Nicholson LLP who teaches environmental law courses at U.C. Berkeley School of Law; Paul Konovalov, a litigator in Latham & Watkins LLP’s Orange County office; Dianne Baquet Smith, a partner at Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP and president of the Black Women Lawyers of Angeles Foundation; Mary Ann Todd, a corporate partner at Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP in Los Angeles; Karen E. Walter, a Rutan & Tucker LLP partner and co-chair of the firm’s Unfair Competition/Class Action Defense Group; and S. Nancy Whang, a partner with Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP and former member of the Los Angeles Central Area Planning Commission.

“We are grateful to the new and returning Board members who are dedicating their time, knowledge, contacts, and financial resources to help the California Bar Foundation fulfill its mission of building a better justice system for all Californians,” said Douglas A. Winthrop, incoming Board president. “With their vision, leadership, and commitment, the Foundation will continue its important role as a catalyst for innovative access to justice and legal outreach initiatives and as an important source of scholarship funds for the next generation of California’s lawyers. This well-respected and accomplished group of Board members brings a wide range of professional experience, expertise, and networks that will benefit the Foundation and enable us to effectively carry out our work.”

Continuing Board members appointed to additional two-year terms include Raul Ayala, a deputy federal public defender in Los Angeles; Ronald L. Blanc, a Los Angeles tax attorney who retired from Arnold & Porter LLP; Neel Chatterjee, an intellectual property litigation partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP; Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Marguerite D. Downing; David C. Grove, an investment banker with Needham & Company; Dean Hansell, a partner at Dewey & LeBoeuf LLP and a former member of the Los Angeles Police Commission; and Joan Kupersmith Larkin, a Seyfarth Shaw LLP partner specializing in intellectual property matters in Century City.

The Foundation also announced its 2011 officers, who were elected by the Board in late 2010. In addition to Winthrop, the new officers include Vice Presidents Holly J. Fujie and Larkin, Bruce G. Iwasaki as secretary, and Grove as treasurer.

Appointments to the Foundation’s Board of Directors are made by the State Bar of California’s Board of Governors. Information about applying for 2012-2013 terms on the Board of Directors will be posted on the Foundation’s website, www.calbarfoundation.org, in May, and the deadline for applications will be August 12, 2011.

AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT — Horizon Anti-Trust — Of Interest Walter Lack (of In Re Girardi), Eric George (Son of Ronald George)

IN RE HAWAIIAN & GUAMANIAN CABOTAGE ANTITRUST — Of Interest are Thomas Girardi and Walter Lack (of In Re Girardi), Eric George (Son of Ronald George), Joe Cotchett, Gilmur Murray (of Judy Johnson’s CCPF)

IN RE HAWAIIAN & GUAMANIAN CABOTAGE ANTITRUST

647 F.Supp.2d 1250 (2009)

In re HAWAIIAN & GUAMANIAN CABOTAGE ANTITRUST LITIGATION.
This Document Relates to: All Cases.
No. 08-md-1972 TSZ.
United States District Court, W.D. Washington, at Seattle.

August 18, 2009.

Allen Steyer, Simon R. Goodfellow, Steyer Lowenthal Boodrookas Alvarez & Smith LLP, Laurence D. King, Linda M. Fong, Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP, Bruce L. Simon, Clifford H. Pearson, Daniel Warshaw, Esther L. Kilsura, Pearson Simon Warshaw & Penny LLP, Guido Saveri, Richard Alexander Saveri, Saveri & Saveri Inc., Joseph M. Alioto, Alioto Law Firm, Christopher L. Lebsock, Jon T. King, Michael Lehmann, Arthur N. Bailey, Hausfeld LLP, Craig C. Corbitt, Francis Onofrei Scarpulla, Patrick Bradford Clayton, Zelle Hofmann Voelbel Moason & Gette LLP, Joseph Marid Patane, Law Office of Joseph M. Patane, Lauren Clare Russell, Mario Nunzio Alioto, Trump Alioto Trump & Prescott LLP, San Francisco, CA, Dennis Stewart, Jennifer Anne Kagan, Sarah Pickeral Weber, Hullett Harper Stewart LLP, Christopher M. Burke, Scott & Scott LLP, Bonny E. Sweeney, David W. Mitchell, Thomas J. O’Reardon, II, Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins, San Diego, CA, Jay S. Cohen, Jonathan M. Jagher, William G. Caldes, Spector Roseman Kodroff & Willis PC, Anthony J. Bolognese, Bolognese & Associates LLC, Merrill G. Davidoff, Ruthane Gordon, Berger & Montague, PC, Philadelphia, PA, John McCarthy, Somers Point, NJ, John Murdock, Murdock & Goldenberg Schneider & Groh LPA, Cincinnati, OH, Marc Howard Edelson, Edelson & Associates LLC, Doylestown, PA, Philip A. Steinberg, Bala Cynwyd, PA, Kevin Bruce Love, Michael E. Criden, Hanz Criden & Love PA, South Miami, FL, Robert J. Kaplan, Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP, Seth R. Gassman, Cohen Milstein Hausfeld & Toll PLLC, Hollis Lee Salzman, Labaton Sucharow LLP, New York, NY, Glenn J. Stanford, Tam & Stanford, John S. Edmonds, Joy S. Omonaka, Ronald J. Verga, Edmonds & Verga, Honolulu, HI, J. Paul Sizemore, Jennifer Lenze, Thomas V. Girardi, Girardi & Keese, Edward Woords, Drier Stien Kahabrowne Woods George, Walter J. Jack, Engstrom Lipscombe & Lack, Brian S. Kabateck, Richard L. Kellner, Kabateck Brown Kellner LLP, Peter George Safirstien, Jeff S. Westerman, Milberg, Los Angeles, CA, Steve W. Berman, Anthony D. Shapiro, Ronnie S. Spiegel, Hagens Berman Sobol, Emillia L. Sweeney, Carney Badley Spellman, Seattle, WA, Christina L. Beatty-Walters, N. Robert Stoll, Stoll Stoll Berne Lokting Shlacter, Portland, OR, Ara Ray Jabagchourian, Joseph W. Cotchett, Nanci E. Nishimura, Steven Williams, Stuart G. Gross, Cotchett Pitre Simon and McCarthy, Burlingame, CA, Eric M. George, Michael A. Bowse, Drier Stien Kahan Growne Woods George LLP, Beverly Hills, CA, Norman E. Siegel, Stueve Siegle Hanson LLP, Kansas City, MO, Paul Novak, Milberg LLP, Detroit, MI, John Charles Evans, Specter Specter Evans & Manogue PC, Pittsburgh, PA, Derek G. Howard, Gilmur Roderick Murray, Murray & Howard LLP, Larkspur, CA, Benjamin Doyle Brown, Michael D. Hausfeld, Cohen Milstein Hausfeld & Toll, Washington, DC, William Timothy Needham, Jansen Malloy Needham Morrison & Reinholsten LLP, Eureka, CA, Douglas A. Millen, Robert J. Wozniak, Sreven A. Kanner, Willian H. London, Freed Kanner London & Millen LLC, Bannockburn, IL, Harry Shulman, The Mills Law Firm, San Rafael, CA, Edward L. Birk, Michael B. Bittner, Marks Gray PA, Jacksonville, FL, Michael I. Fistel, Jr., Holzer, Holzer & Fistel, Lie, Atlanta, CA, Daniel C. Hedlund, Gustafson Gluek PLLC, Elizabeth R. Odette, Richard A. Lockridge, W. Joseph Bruckner, Lockridge Grindal Nauen, Minneapolis, MN, Alex C. Turan, Montura Law Group, Walnut Creek, CA, Donald Chidi Amamgbo, Amamgbo & Associates, Oakland, CA, Reginald Terrell, The Terrell Law Group, Richmond, CA, for Robert H. Steinberg, Acutron, Inc., 50th State Distributors, Inc., Versa Dock Hawaii LLC, Taste of Nature Inc., Next Transportation, LLC, Rhythm of Life Cosmetics Inc., Curtis Brunk, Winkler Woods LLC, Joshua Wagner, E & M International Transport Inc., Laura Cutler, SJ Venture Group LLC, Alpha Freight & Transport International, Inc., Jay Inouye, Brian Foster, Scott Jackson, Ruthanne Jackson.
Michael Cosman, pro se.
Eric Chase Roberson, McGuire Woods, LLP, Jacksonville, FL, for Alpha Freight & Transport International, Inc., Horizon Lines, LLC, Horizon Logistics, LLC, Crowley Maritime Corporation.
George A Nicoud, III, Joel Steven Sanders, Rachel S. Brass, Rebecca Justice Lazarus, Darin M. Sands, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher, San Francisco, CA, Amy B. Manning, Angelo M. Russo, Richard J. Rappaport, Tammy L. Adkins, Mcguire Woods, Chicago, IL, Craig D. Bachman, Lane Powell, Portland, OR, Darrel Christopher Menthe, Mcguire Woods LLP, Los Angeles, CA, Larry Steven Gangnes, Milo Petranovich, James B. Stoetzer, Lane Powell PC, Seattle, WA, James W McCready, III, Seipp Flick & Kissane, Miami, FL, Cristine M. Russell, Rogers Towers, PA, James M. Riley, Rogers Towers, PA, Scott David Richburg, Foley & Lardner, LLP, Jacksonville, FL, Timothy Joseph Armstrong, Coral Gables, FL, for Matson Navitgation Co Inc., Alexander & Baldwin Inc., Horizon Lines, LLC, Horizon Lines Holding Co., Crowley Maritime Corporation, Sea Star Lines, LLC, Trailer Bridge, Inc., Crowley Liner Services, Inc.
Brent Snyder, John Terzaken, III, Michael L. Whitlock, U.S. Dept of Justice, Anittrust Division, National Criminal Enforcement Section, Washington, DC, for John Terzaken.

THOMAS S. ZILLY, District Judge.

THIS MATTER comes before the Court on defendants’ joint motion, docket no. 86, to dismiss the Consolidated Class Action Complaint, docket no. 69 (the “Consolidated Complaint”), pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). The Court has reviewed all papers filed in support of and in opposition to the motion and has considered the oral arguments of counsel presented on July 29, 2009.

Continue @:
http://www.leagle.com/xmlResult.aspx?xmldoc=20091897647cefsupp2d1250_11815.xml

El Paso’s $1.7 billion settlement — SF Gate Thursday, March 20, 2003

Orininally published @:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2003/03/20/MN251949.DTL

Below are selected parts:

El Paso Corp. has agreed to pay nearly $1.7 billion to settle lawsuits and end investigations by California entities who alleged the Houston company had manipulated the state’s natural gas market and illegally driven up prices during the energy crisis, sources have told The Chronicle.

While substantial, the settlement is still about $2 billion less than the amount California claims it is owed by El Paso.

In a complaint filed with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, California officials say the state was overcharged $3.7 billion in fraudulently inflated natural gas prices in 2000 and 2001. Under the settlement, California, represented by the state’s Public Utilities Commission,would withdraw that complaint.

An attorney for El Paso — James J. Brosnahan of Morrison & Forrester in San Francisco — referred a telephone call seeking comment to an El Paso spokeswoman. She declined to elaborate beyond statements made by El Paso’s acting chief executive earlier this week.

 

The FERC was scheduled to hold an evidentiary hearing on the California complaint against El Paso next Wednesday, at which one source said extraordinary evidence would be revealed showing that El Paso conspired with its subsidiaries to shorten the supply of natural gas to California.

FERC issued a ruling on Monday in which it said it would make public all evidence gathered during the complaint process. Because the discovery phase in the litigation is still open, the source said, El Paso is concerned about the material’s getting into the record in the legal proceeding and sought to settle the case.

Within the past month, El Paso lost its last legal chance to avoid trial, as the California Supreme Court refused to dismiss the lawsuits against it.

About a dozen public and private California plaintiffs filed lawsuits against El Paso and other companies alleging their natural gas costs had been driven up by a conspiracy to control the pipeline space that delivers gas to California.

The plaintiffs, represented by Joe Cotchett of Cotchett, Pitre, Simon & McCarthy of Burlingame, included Dry Creek Corp., the parent company of the Gallo wineries based in Modesto. A Dry Creek subsidiary, Gallo Glass, is a major manufacturer of wine bottles and is one of the largest natural gas consumers in the state.

The plaintiffs also included seven California dairies and several cities and counties in Southern California, which were represented by Tom Girardi ( Gerardi  in original) of Girardi & Keese in Los Angeles.

California Attorney General Bill Lockyer helped negotiate and settle the case. Lockyer was said to have personally demanded the provision requiring El Paso executives to forfeit their bonuses.

The lawsuits alleged that El Paso gained a stranglehold on the pipelines that provide gas to California.

By conspiring with its subsidiaries and other companies to acquire a dominant market position in pipeline capacity and raising the costs of transportation, it was able to reap windfall profits for transportation charges, its own profits on natural gas and the profits it earned from generating electricity in California, according to the complaint. El Paso controlled nearly half the gas pipeline capacity that serves California.

IN RE HAWAIIAN & GUAMANIAN CABOTAGE ANTITRUST — Of Interest Are Eric George (Son of Ronald George) Walter Lack, Thomas Girardi, Joe Cotchett, Gilmur Murray

IN RE HAWAIIAN &amp; GUAMANIAN CABOTAGE ANTITRUST

647 F.Supp.2d 1250 (2009)

In re HAWAIIAN &amp; GUAMANIAN CABOTAGE ANTITRUST LITIGATION.
This Document Relates to: All Cases.
No. 08-md-1972 TSZ.
United States District Court, W.D. Washington, at Seattle.

August 18, 2009.

Allen Steyer, Simon R. Goodfellow, Steyer Lowenthal Boodrookas Alvarez &amp; Smith LLP, Laurence D. King, Linda M. Fong, Kaplan Fox &amp; Kilsheimer LLP, Bruce L. Simon, Clifford H. Pearson, Daniel Warshaw, Esther L. Kilsura, Pearson Simon Warshaw &amp; Penny LLP, Guido Saveri, Richard Alexander Saveri, Saveri &amp; Saveri Inc., Joseph M. Alioto, Alioto Law Firm, Christopher L. Lebsock, Jon T. King, Michael Lehmann, Arthur N. Bailey, Hausfeld LLP, Craig C. Corbitt, Francis Onofrei Scarpulla, Patrick Bradford Clayton, Zelle Hofmann Voelbel Moason &amp; Gette LLP, Joseph Marid Patane, Law Office of Joseph M. Patane, Lauren Clare Russell, Mario Nunzio Alioto, Trump Alioto Trump &amp; Prescott LLP, San Francisco, CA, Dennis Stewart, Jennifer Anne Kagan, Sarah Pickeral Weber, Hullett Harper Stewart LLP, Christopher M. Burke, Scott &amp; Scott LLP, Bonny E. Sweeney, David W. Mitchell, Thomas J. O’Reardon, II, Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman &amp; Robbins, San Diego, CA, Jay S. Cohen, Jonathan M. Jagher, William G. Caldes, Spector Roseman Kodroff &amp; Willis PC, Anthony J. Bolognese, Bolognese &amp; Associates LLC, Merrill G. Davidoff, Ruthane Gordon, Berger &amp; Montague, PC, Philadelphia, PA, John McCarthy, Somers Point, NJ, John Murdock, Murdock &amp; Goldenberg Schneider &amp; Groh LPA, Cincinnati, OH, Marc Howard Edelson, Edelson &amp; Associates LLC, Doylestown, PA, Philip A. Steinberg, Bala Cynwyd, PA, Kevin Bruce Love, Michael E. Criden, Hanz Criden &amp; Love PA, South Miami, FL, Robert J. Kaplan, Kaplan Fox &amp; Kilsheimer LLP, Seth R. Gassman, Cohen Milstein Hausfeld &amp; Toll PLLC, Hollis Lee Salzman, Labaton Sucharow LLP, New York, NY, Glenn J. Stanford, Tam &amp; Stanford, John S. Edmonds, Joy S. Omonaka, Ronald J. Verga, Edmonds &amp; Verga, Honolulu, HI, J. Paul Sizemore, Jennifer Lenze, Thomas V. Girardi, Girardi &amp; Keese, Edward Woords, Drier Stien Kahabrowne Woods George, Walter J. Jack, Engstrom Lipscombe &amp; Lack, Brian S. Kabateck, Richard L. Kellner, Kabateck Brown Kellner LLP, Peter George Safirstien, Jeff S. Westerman, Milberg, Los Angeles, CA, Steve W. Berman, Anthony D. Shapiro, Ronnie S. Spiegel, Hagens Berman Sobol, Emillia L. Sweeney, Carney Badley Spellman, Seattle, WA, Christina L. Beatty-Walters, N. Robert Stoll, Stoll Stoll Berne Lokting Shlacter, Portland, OR, Ara Ray Jabagchourian, Joseph W. Cotchett, Nanci E. Nishimura, Steven Williams, Stuart G. Gross, Cotchett Pitre Simon and McCarthy, Burlingame, CA, Eric M. George, Michael A. Bowse, Drier Stien Kahan Growne Woods George LLP, Beverly Hills, CA, Norman E. Siegel, Stueve Siegle Hanson LLP, Kansas City, MO, Paul Novak, Milberg LLP, Detroit, MI, John Charles Evans, Specter Specter Evans &amp; Manogue PC, Pittsburgh, PA, Derek G. Howard, Gilmur Roderick Murray, Murray &amp; Howard LLP, Larkspur, CA, Benjamin Doyle Brown, Michael D. Hausfeld, Cohen Milstein Hausfeld &amp; Toll, Washington, DC, William Timothy Needham, Jansen Malloy Needham Morrison &amp; Reinholsten LLP, Eureka, CA, Douglas A. Millen, Robert J. Wozniak, Sreven A. Kanner, Willian H. London, Freed Kanner London &amp; Millen LLC, Bannockburn, IL, Harry Shulman, The Mills Law Firm, San Rafael, CA, Edward L. Birk, Michael B. Bittner, Marks Gray PA, Jacksonville, FL, Michael I. Fistel, Jr., Holzer, Holzer &amp; Fistel, Lie, Atlanta, CA, Daniel C. Hedlund, Gustafson Gluek PLLC, Elizabeth R. Odette, Richard A. Lockridge, W. Joseph Bruckner, Lockridge Grindal Nauen, Minneapolis, MN, Alex C. Turan, Montura Law Group, Walnut Creek, CA, Donald Chidi Amamgbo, Amamgbo &amp; Associates, Oakland, CA, Reginald Terrell, The Terrell Law Group, Richmond, CA, for Robert H. Steinberg, Acutron, Inc., 50th State Distributors, Inc., Versa Dock Hawaii LLC, Taste of Nature Inc., Next Transportation, LLC, Rhythm of Life Cosmetics Inc., Curtis Brunk, Winkler Woods LLC, Joshua Wagner, E &amp; M International Transport Inc., Laura Cutler, SJ Venture Group LLC, Alpha Freight &amp; Transport International, Inc., Jay Inouye, Brian Foster, Scott Jackson, Ruthanne Jackson.
Michael Cosman, pro se.
Eric Chase Roberson, McGuire Woods, LLP, Jacksonville, FL, for Alpha Freight &amp; Transport International, Inc., Horizon Lines, LLC, Horizon Logistics, LLC, Crowley Maritime Corporation.
George A Nicoud, III, Joel Steven Sanders, Rachel S. Brass, Rebecca Justice Lazarus, Darin M. Sands, Gibson Dunn &amp; Crutcher, San Francisco, CA, Amy B. Manning, Angelo M. Russo, Richard J. Rappaport, Tammy L. Adkins, Mcguire Woods, Chicago, IL, Craig D. Bachman, Lane Powell, Portland, OR, Darrel Christopher Menthe, Mcguire Woods LLP, Los Angeles, CA, Larry Steven Gangnes, Milo Petranovich, James B. Stoetzer, Lane Powell PC, Seattle, WA, James W McCready, III, Seipp Flick &amp; Kissane, Miami, FL, Cristine M. Russell, Rogers Towers, PA, James M. Riley, Rogers Towers, PA, Scott David Richburg, Foley &amp; Lardner, LLP, Jacksonville, FL, Timothy Joseph Armstrong, Coral Gables, FL, for Matson Navitgation Co Inc., Alexander &amp; Baldwin Inc., Horizon Lines, LLC, Horizon Lines Holding Co., Crowley Maritime Corporation, Sea Star Lines, LLC, Trailer Bridge, Inc., Crowley Liner Services, Inc.
Brent Snyder, John Terzaken, III, Michael L. Whitlock, U.S. Dept of Justice, Anittrust Division, National Criminal Enforcement Section, Washington, DC, for John Terzaken.

THOMAS S. ZILLY, District Judge.

THIS MATTER comes before the Court on defendants’ joint motion, docket no. 86, to dismiss the Consolidated Class Action Complaint, docket no. 69 (the “Consolidated Complaint”), pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). The Court has reviewed all papers filed in support of and in opposition to the motion and has considered the oral arguments of counsel presented on July 29, 2009.

Continue @:
http://www.leagle.com/xmlResult.aspx?xmldoc=20091897647cefsupp2d1250_11815.xml

AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT — Horizon Anti-Trust — Eric George, Walter Lack, Joe Cotchett

Kerr & Wagstaffe’s Jim Wagstaffe Peculiar Arrangement with DLA Piper (Former Abode of CaliforniaALL) in Cotchett Pitre & McCarthy – Charles Siller Litigation Prompts Serious Concerns — Part 1: Civ Pro on My Mind

Charles Siller (represented by Frank Pitre of Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy) prosecuted litigation which settled for $10 million cash and $20.5 million in property to be transferred to CWS Enterprises, Inc. (“CWS”), which Siller owns.

Later, Siller tried to renegotiate their contingent fee agreements. When Pitre and Co-Counsel declined to reduce their fees, Siller discharged them.

Pitre and Co-Counsel jointly demanded arbitration, and subsequently were awarded $9,150,437.90 and $2,497,325.07, respectively.

Mr Jim Wagstaffe of Kerr & Wagstaffe.  In the above, Mr Wagstaffe offers his students legal counsel on how to avoid a traffic ticket. Wagstaffe urged the students to deceive law enforcement personnel.  He stated: “Do what I do, put a CHP magazine in your car, so they think you are one of them.”

A state court confirmed the arbitration award and entered judgment against Siller/CWS, whereupon Siller/CWS, defiant, each sought protection under chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code.

Pitre and co-counsel both filed claims (“Pitre claim”). Siller in his own case, and David Flemmer (trustee for CWS) object to the Pitre Claim arguing it exceeds the “reasonable value” of the services rendered by Pitre and Co-Counsel.

Not so, argue Pitre and Co-Counsel. The reasonable value of the services rendered to Siller/CWS has already been adjudicated by a California court, and is therefore binding on the Bankruptcy Court pursuant to the Full Faith and Credit Clause and principles of Res Judicada and Collateral Estoppel.

Judge agrees with Siller and Flemmer, ruling that California law cannot trump the Bankruptcy Code per the Supremacy Clause.

With Civ Pro on his mind, Flemmer (represented by the Sacramento office of DLA Piper — former host of CaliforniaALL) invites James Wagstaffe to testify as an expert witness as to the “reasonable value” of the services rendered by Pitre and Co-Counsel.

See below press-release from law-firm originally known as Kause & Kerr.

Kerr Wagstaffe's James Wagstaffe RE Expert in CPM Suit

Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy / CWS Enterprises / Charles Siller / David Flemmer Published Opinion by Judge Klein (TLR Note: Pre- Peculiar Involvement of Kerr & Wagstafffe’s James Wagstaffe — Joe Cotchett’s Co-Counsel in San Mateo Litigation) )

Dateline 06/13/2011 — San Mateo County Files Motion to Dismiss Suit — Represented by Both Cotchett Pitre & McCarthy and K&W

June 13, 2011

 REDWOOD CITY, Calif. – San Mateo County today filed a motion to dismiss a lawsuit challenging the county’s system of electing county supervisors by at-large balloting rather than by districts.

 The motion, filed in San Mateo County Superior Court, states that the at-large voting system is required by the County Charter and expressly permitted by the California Constitution.  San Mateo County voters have chosen on three separate occasions (in 1932, 1978 and 1980) to elect supervisors in countywide votes rather than in polarizing district-based elections.

“San Mateo County is the only county in the state that elects supervisors countywide,” said attorney Joe Cotchett of Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy. “And it’s no coincidence that San Mateo County is the best-run and best-managed county in the state of California with supervisors who are accountable to all voters.”

 Attorney James Wagstaffe of Kerr & Wagstaffe noted:  “The California Constitution specifically gives counties the option to use countywide voting and here San Mateo County is seeking to uphold its constitutional rights.”

 San Mateo County was sued in April over the elections system.

 “We firmly believe that in addition to being the choice of the electorate, at-large voting is in the best-interests of the people of San Mateo County,” San Mateo County Board of Supervisors President Carole Groom said. “At-large voting honors the principle that public officials are accountable to the entire community.”

 San Mateo County’s five supervisors must live within the district they represent but are elected by voters countywide. The motion filed by the county states that the voter-approved County Charter specifically calls for at-large elections.

 San Mateo County is represented by County Counsel’s Office and two private law firms, Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy and Kerr & Wagstaffe.

 For further information, please contact:

 Joseph Cotchett

Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy

(650) 697-6000

 James Wagstaffe

Kerr & Wagstaffe

(415) 371-8500

 John Beiers, County Counsel

Office of the County Counsel

(650) 363-4250

 

Share this:

http://sanmateocountynews.wordpress.com/san-mateo-county-files-motion-to-dism…

http://tinyurl.com/dx35sjc
http://tinyurl.com/bszjnlo
http://tinyurl.com/bv4udz5

Kerr & Wagstaffe’s James Wagstaffe to Opine on Fee Request by Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy

On December 19, 2012, James Wagstaffe will testify as an expert on the reasonableness of attorneys’ fees sought by creditors in an adversary proceeding pending in United States Bankruptcy Court, in the matter of Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy and Spiller McProud v. CWS Enterprises, Inc., Adv. Proc. No.: 10-02226-C (Bankr. E.D. Cal.) Mr. Wagstaffe has been retained by the Chapter 11 trustee of CWS Enterprises. Inc. to provide an expert opinion as to the reasonable value of services performed by prior counsel in a corporate dissolution proceeding.

See full story @:
http://www.kerrwagstaffe.com/2011/12/02/firms-founder-retained-to-offer-exper…

K & W related stories see @:
http://tinyurl.com/dx35sjc
http://tinyurl.com/bszjnlo
http://tinyurl.com/bv4udz5

Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy, Girardi & Keese, and Pierce O’Donnell Connection in Katrina Litigation

Judge Imposes Limitations on Senator Diane Feinstein’s Contreversial Lawsuit Filed by Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy Against Kinde Durkee

Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Richard Neidorf  has granted  Kinde Durkee’s request to postpone her deposition indefinitel, reports LA Weekly.  

See http://blogs.laweekly.com/informer/2011/11/kinde_durkee_dianne_feinstein.php

———————————————————————————————-

In the the suit, filed by Cotchett Pitre & McCarthy, plaintiffs lash out at First California Bank, Durkee & Associates, Kinde Durkee, John Forgy, and Matthew Lemcke.

Additionaly, and in a clear attempt to avoid personal responsibility for their own convenient failures to detect the prolonged and wide spread embezzlement, plaintiffs/prophets also claim that:

“Investigation will reveal other professionals, including attorneys, accountants, and additional banks had full knowledge of the wrongful acts committed by Durkee & Associates and the individuals.”

 

 

 

John Burton — Sordid Sexual Harasser — Introduces Cotchett Pitre & McCarthy’s Joe Cotchett at Consumer Watchdog’s 2011 Rage For Justice Awards

Copy of Lawsuit Filed By Cotchett Pitre & McCarthy’s Joe Cotchett on Behalf of Senator Diane Fienstein Against Kinde Durkee

Categories

RSS .

  • Yet Another Unlicensed Contractor Debacle 2017/07/10
    This story is late in publishing because the AOC (ahem, the judicial council) spent months drawing out our requests for information on a simple inquiry they should have been able to deliver on the same day it was received because what scant information they did provide was readily available to them. But they dragged out […]
    Judicial Council Watcher
  • Another Clifford Ham boondoggle in San Diego 2017/04/19
    More false promises of tunnels reaching out from jails to courthouses. Don’t say we didn’t tell you so because we’ve stated many times that ALL tunnel promises are false promises made to win local support of the projects and penciled out upon approval. What we find most disturbing is that Clifford Ham has a track […]
    Judicial Council Watcher
  • Writing our obit is a bit premature… 2017/04/06
    Welcome to 2017! Yeah, we know, a bit of time has passed since we’ve been hyperactive here. We’ve been a bit busy frying other fish.  If you consider yourself a progressive, you’ve already read and possibly even recognized our work elsewhere. We will be continuing those projects and check in here as not to neglect […]
    Judicial Council Watcher
  • Welcome to the first business day of our reinvigorated 10 year run! 2017/01/02
    Thanks to the sheer incompetence of Judicial Council staff leadership, we’re going to be spending the next ten years nipping at their heels. Last week, the San Francisco trial court ruled that the Jacobs entities maintained their contractors license and that the 22.7 million that the Judicial Council should have been able to recover is […]
    Judicial Council Watcher
  • Working for the Judicial Council and a pattern of racketeering activity 2016/10/31
    The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, commonly referred to as the RICO Act or simply RICO, is a United States federal law that provides for extended criminal penalties and a civil cause of action for acts performed as part of an ongoing criminal organization. The RICO Act focuses specifically on racketeering, and it allows […]
    Judicial Council Watcher

RSS Drudge Report Feed

.