Apple Gets New Damages Trial After $506M Patent Verdict
Caitlin Simpson, 14 April 2021
A Texas federal judge ruled Wednesday that Apple is entitled to a new damages trial after a jury found in August that it infringed PanOptis’ standard-essential 4G wireless patents and must pay $506 million, saying there is “serious doubt” about the reliability of the verdict.
U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap declined to order a new trial on any other issues that Apple raised. As for the damages, he said that because the dispute centers on standard-essential patents, or SEPs, they must be licensed on terms that are fair, reasonable and nondiscriminatory, or FRAND, but the parties decided to leave the FRAND issues to a bench trial after the jury trial. Continue reading “Article: Apple Gets New Damages Trial After $506M Patent Verdict”
Carlyle’s $396M Oil Loss Row With Excess Insurers Revived
Caitlin Simpson, 14 April 2021
A New York appeals court has reversed a ruling that Carlyle Group affiliates can’t tap into excess insurance to cover part of $396 million in losses when a Moroccan oil refinery was seized, finding factual disputes remain about whether the policy’s coverage for theft was triggered.
A four-judge Appellate Division panel for the First Department on Tuesday reversed Justice O. Peter Sherwood’s July order that had granted underwriters at Lloyd’s of London’s motion for summary judgment and had rejected Carlyle’s assertion that its oil was essentially stolen by refinery operator Societe Anonyme Marocaine de l’Industrie du Raffinage, or SAMIR. Continue reading “Article: Carlyle’s $396M Oil Loss Row With Excess Insurers Revived”
Paul Simpson: Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation (DTCC) member of the board. He is the Global Banking & Markets Operations and Regions executive at Bank of America. He leads a team responsible for operations for institutional and commercial, corporate, investment banking and government clients, as well as small business and business banking clients. The team delivers end-to-end services, support and operations for sales, trading and underwriting businesses and comprehensive financial services solutions, including credit, depository, treasury and trade delivery and support. Simpson also leads the regional technology and operations teams in the Asia Pacific, Europe, Middle East & Africa and Latin America regions. Simpson is also responsible for robotics, and robotics process automation optimization across Global Technology and Operations.
Continue reading “Subject: Paul Simpson”
What Is Naked Short Selling?
When a seller “naked short sells a stock” they do not own the shares they are selling and therefore are selling artificial shares. This is like counterfeiting a stock. This process creates an obvious unfair advantage to the seller and an imbalance in the market as the sell side is now increased with more shares – many of which are counterfeit. There is a time limit on how long the seller can sell these shares and be naked on the trade and the time limit is 3 days. This is where the RegSho rules come in and the data we track. If the sellers broker-dealer has not located a borrow to cover this short trade within 3 days they will need to purchase back the shares they have sold on the open market. This process is referred to as a “Buy In”.
“When it comes to illicit short selling, the shorts win over 90% of the time”
Continue reading “Web: NakedShortReport – What Is Naked Short Selling?”
In Pursuit of the Naked Short
Alexis Stokes, Texas State University
Journal of Law and Business 5/1 (Spring 2009)
This article explores the origins of naked short-selling litigation; considers
the failures of significant naked short-selling lawsuits in federal court;
surveys the obstacles erected collectively by constitutional standing requirements, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act, brokerage firms, death spiral financiers, and the Depository Trust and Clearing Corporation; examines the efficacy of Regulation SHO, SEC rule 10b-21, and new FINRA rules; discusses recent state legislation and state court litigation; and identifies non-litigation options to curb naked short-selling. Ultimately, this article seeks to answer the question: If manipulative naked short-selling is more than a mythological scapegoat for
small cap failure, what remedies are, or should be, available?
PDF (62 Pages): Article In Pursuit of the Naked Short
Naked Short Selling: How Exposed are Investors?
James W. Christian, Robert Shapiro, John-Paul Whalen
The Houston Law Review, 10 November 2006
Regulation SHO is a start, but in order to guarantee a fair market place, the SEC must close the loopholes in Regulation SHO and institute comprehensive reforms to the clearing and settlement system. Until the SEC makes these necessary reforms and addresses the DTCC’s mismanagement of the Stock Borrow Program, investors will continue to be exposed to the manipulative potential of naked short selling.
PDF (58 Pages): HLR Naked Short Selling 2006-11-10
Forbes, 25 August 2006
Suspicious trading last year in shares of Global Links, a small Nevada real estate holding company, was far more intense than previously thought.
Data released to Patch earlier this month had shown trade fails of 10 million shares starting in mid-April, a time when 4 million shares of Global Links were issued and outstanding.
The Naked Truth on Illegal Shorting
The Motley Fool cited by RGM Communications via Wayback, 24 March 2005
It’s amazing how the word “naked” can liven up a discussion. Take naked short selling, for instance. The addition of this saucy little word turns the mundane act of borrowing and selling shares of stock in hopes of buying them back later at a lower price into a raging controversy fraught with conspiracy, secret identities, public recriminations, foreign intrigue, sports team owners, and now some of the top regulators in the land.
How can one word cause so much trouble? While legal short sellers must borrow the shares they sell, naked short sellers sell shares of stock they haven’t borrowed, have no intention of borrowing, and that may not even exist. Not surprisingly, this activity is illegal and has been since the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934. But for a number of reasons, regulators have overlooked it in the past.
Access archived page.