U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission VS. Galleon Management LP

What Do IBM, Intel and McKinsey & Company Have in Common ? - JOHN CALKINS and Lieberfarb and Associates ... which involves Trillion Dollar Stolen Technology and Trade Secrets.

$$$$$$

U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
Litigation Release No. 21255
October 16, 2009

SEC v. Galleon Management, LP, Raj Rajaratnam, Rajiv Goel, Anil Kumar, Danielle Chiesi, Mark Kurland, Robert Moffat and New Castle LLC Civil Action No. 09-CV-8811 (SDNY) (JSR)
SEC Charges Billionaire Hedge Fund Manager Raj Rajaratnam with Insider Trading
On October 16, 2009, the Securities and Exchange Commission (Commission) filed a civil injunctive action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York charging billionaire Raj Rajaratnam and his New York-based hedge fund advisory firm Galleon Management LP with engaging in a massive insider trading scheme that generated more than $25 million in illicit gains.

The SEC also charged six others involved in the scheme, including senior executives at major companies IBM, Intel and McKinsey & Company.

The SEC’s complaint, filed in federal court in Manhattan, alleges that Rajaratnam tapped into his network of friends and close business associates to obtain insider tips and confidential information about corporate earnings or takeover activity at several companies, including Google, Hilton and Sun Microsystems.

He then used the non-public information to illegally trade on behalf of Galleon.

In addition to Rajaratnam and Galleon,
the SEC’s complaint charges:

Danielle Chiesi of New York, N.Y. — a portfolio manager at New Castle Funds.

Rajiv Goel of Los Altos, Calif. — a managing director at Intel Capital, an Intel subsidiary.

Anil Kumar of Saratoga, Calif. — a director at McKinsey & Company.

Mark Kurland of Mount Kisco, N.Y. — a Senior Managing Director and General Partner at New Castle.

Robert Moffat of Ridgefield, Conn. — a senior vice president at IBM.

New Castle Funds LLC — a New York-based hedge fund According to the SEC’s complaint, Rajaratnam and Galleon traded on inside information about the following events or transactions:

An unnamed source, identified in the SEC’s complaint as Tipper A, obtained inside information about earnings announcements at Polycom and Google, as well as a takeover announcement of Hilton. Tipper A then allegedly provided this information to Rajaratnam, who used it to trade on behalf of Galleon.

Goel provided inside information to Rajaratnam about certain Intel quarterly earnings and a pending joint venture concerning Clearwire Corp., in which Intel had invested. Rajaratnam then used this information to trade on behalf of Galleon. As payback for Goel’s tips, Rajaratnam, or someone acting on his behalf, executed trades in Goel’s personal brokerage account based on inside information concerning Hilton and PeopleSupport, which resulted in nearly $250,000 in illicit profits for Goel.

Kumar obtained inside information about pending transactions involving AMD and two Abu Dhabi-based sovereign entities, which he shared with Rajaratnam. Rajaratnam then traded on the basis of this information on behalf of Galleon.

Chiesi obtained inside information from an executive at Akamai Technologies and traded on the information on behalf of a New Castle fund, netting a profit of approximately $2.4 million. Chiesi also passed on the inside information to Rajaratnam, who then traded on behalf of Galleon.

The SEC also alleges that Moffat provided inside information to Chiesi about Sun Microsystems. Moffat obtained the information when IBM was contemplating acquiring Sun.

Chiesi then allegedly traded on the basis of this information on behalf of New Castle, making approximately $1 million in profits.

The SEC’s complaint charges each of the defendants with violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, and, except for Kumar and Moffat, violations of Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 and.

The complaint seeks a final judgment permanently enjoining the defendants from future violations of the above provisions of the federal securities laws, ordering them to disgorge their ill-gotten gains plus prejudgment interest, and ordering them to pay financial penalties.

The complaint also seeks to permanently prohibit Goel and Moffat from acting as an officer or director of any registered public company.

The SEC acknowledges the assistance and cooperation of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York and the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

The SEC’s investigation is continuing.

SEC Complaint in this matter

Crystal L. Cox

Industry Whistleblower

www.DeniedPatent.com

Inventors Rights

CEO Paul Otellini is Guilty of SEC Fraud the Way I See it..

CEO Paul Otellini of Intel knew of a Trillion Dollar Liability and REFUSED to tell his Shareholders. Why ? And now as insider Trading News is going around about Intel and IBM, now Paul Otellini says It is news to us... Paul Otellini KEEPS shareholders in the Dark, Does not Honor Contracts with Inventors and STANDS on the Wrong Side of the Moral Compass..

Is all this Not Fraud?

I Guess it is a Matter of Who Ya Know... Boy if I had Intel Stocks I would Sure Be MAD if the Boys in Charge and their Attorney ( Bruce Sewell ) Were .. Well aware of a Trillion Dollar Stolen Patent and were well aware of Contracts they Refused to Make Good on and ... D. Bruce Sewell ... Attorney and CEO Paul Otellini knowing of this HUGE Liability .. and Did they Tell their Shareholders... Is this a Crime? Is it an Ethics Violation? Does it Even Matter at All?

Did Bruce Sewell and CEO Paul Otellini Make any Attempt to Make Good on the Contracts they Assumed... or did they Just Ignore it.. and Now D. Bruce Sewell is at Apple where it Seems he is part of the Fight with Nokio and this Patent Infringment... anyway MUCH More on that Issue and Connected Parties Later...

http://www.iphonejd.com/iphone_jd/2009/09/apple-hires-bruce-sewell-as-new-general-counsel.html

You will NEVER confince me that CEO Paul Otellini is not GUILTY, that he had no INSIDE information on any of this.

Come on Paul Otellini, as we Well Know .. had Knowledge of a Trillion Dollar Patent Theft which affects Stocks NOT ONLY in CEO Paul Otellini's Company but in many SEC Regulated Companies... Trillions of Dollars and ( Silent Fraud ) CEO Paul Otellini Said NOTHING to Shareholders RIGHT? And doesn't this So Called Pillar of the Financial Community owe any Fiduciary Duty to Other Companies, to Shareholders, to Inventors?

CEO Paul Otellini would have us believe he is NOT involved in this Multi-Billion Dollar Scandal....?? Hmmm.. Well I Say CEO Paul Otellini is GUILTY... But hey that is Just My Opinion.

We all Need to Complain to the SEC ON this guy.

Oh Nevermind CEO Paul Otellini and Intel are Above the Law because of Politicians they Know, Political Favors Owed to Them, Billions of Dollars and Corruption Beyond the Comprehension of Folks who have Morals.

Does the ITC (International Trade Commission) Really Care about Patent Infringement and the True Rights of Inventors, My Guess is AGAIN it is a matter of Who your Connected to, How Much Money the Bad Guys Have and Who is Above the Law, Ethics and Morals of Any Kind.


Why are Lengthy Court Battles Needed in Fights Such as Iviewit Getting their Patent, or in Nokai Getting Their Rights Honored against APPLE?

I mean It should take a Week, may be a month to Read the Patents and to see if they have been used by APPLE and do the right thing.


However, Keeping Nokai, Iviewit and REAL patent owners such as them in Court for years well this keeps Stock Prices Stable as the Decision is Pending and Meanwhile Guys like CEO Paul Otellini, the Apple Owners, Intel Corporation, Warner, Sony, MPEGLA - well they can lie about all this so Shareholders won't panic.

Though the Proof is Right there, if the Courts can be bought off in some way or some how manipulated well then it can drag on for years, GET those Attorneys Plenty of Money and NOT create a Panic in the Stock Market with the TRUTH that there is Trillions in Liability that Have not Been Reported on the Books.


Related Documents and Links...


http://www.pbs.org/nbr/site/onair/transcripts/intel_ceo_paul_otellini_on_galleon_group_091019/


http://www.deniedpatent.com/2009/12/intel-ibm-lockheed-sgi-in-trillion.html


http://www.deniedpatent.com/2009/12/intel-ibm-lockheed-sgi-in-trillion.html


http://www.deniedpatent.com/2009/12/federal-complaint-service-intel.html


http://www.deniedpatent.com/2009/12/to-paul-s-otellini-president-and-chief.html

Insider Trading News Links ( Again Print or Copy to your Computer - as Links and Information Disappear once the BOUGHT Media see the Dots Being Connected by Obnoxious Bloggers.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13924_3-10377395-64.html

http://sanfrancisco.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/stories/2009/10/26/daily153.html

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2001/12/11/intel_insider_trader_fined/

More on What CEO Paul Otellini and D. Bruce Sewell ( Now a Liability at APPLE) - More on What they Knew and did not Disclose to Shareholders COMING SOON.... Oh and Don't Think that IBM and Intel Were NOT Talking on this Trillion DOLLAR Patent Theft that WOULD affect both their Stock Prices.


Crystal@CrystalCox.com


Crystal

Intel's chief says company not involved in Galleon probe

I believe that CEO Paul Otellini was well aware of this Insider Training, I mean from www.DeniedPatent.com we see that CEO Paul Otellini knew of a Trillion Dollar Liability that Shareholders were NOT informed of that Certainly WOULD affect Stocks Right?


So what Would STOP a Guy Like Paul Otellini from Being involved in Insider Trading?

Well nothing that I can See... but being a Good Ol' Boy to the Max.. I am sure it can all be kept in Court for Years and Intel CEO can be Falsley Proven "innocent" - while the TRUTH gets swept under the Proverbial Rug.

Just My Opinion, But Justice is What it is So Paul can just Say, Hey we did not know...

Here is the Article Titled in this Post.....



" By Mike Rogoway, The Oregonian
October 19, 2009, 12:40PM

Intel CEO Paul Otellini
was at the WSJ's HQs in NY today,
and told the paper (sub. req'd) he had no advance knowledge of the Galleon probe, and Intel isn't participating in the inquiry.The allegation is that Rajiv Goel, an Intel treasury employee who lives in Los Altos, allegedly guided Galleon on trades in Intel shares and Clearwire stock (Intel is a major Clearwire backer). Here's more detail on the specific allegations from Fortune. Intel put Goel on leave during the federal investigation. Also in Otellini's chat with the WSJ, he said '09 sales should be up over '08 (which was apparent from the company's Q3 results last week). And he bemoaned the regulatory situation that Intel faces in Europe:
In Europe, where the European Union levied a record $1.45 billion fine against Intel in May, Mr. Otellini said the regulatory climate was "very bad." EU regulators have alleged that the computer giant abused its dominant position in the microprocessor market.
The chief executive predicted regulators would continue to bring more cases against companies. "They are going to be more activist," he said. He added that European regulators are worried about protecting the rights of competitors, instead of looking at the issue of consumer harm, which Intel executives dispute in view of the declining price of computer technology.
Update: Otellini also spoke with Fox Business, which asked his feedback on several political issues:
What the government should do to create jobs: "The government doesn't generate the jobs. Private sector does, as you know. The good news is the administration is concerned about this and is asking business leaders, 'What do you think?' I've been asked the question by the administration and I gave them the same answer I gave you: Take the uncertainty out. Businesses hate uncertainty...At the end of the day, ending recessions is about confidence."
The public option: "Don't know enough about it. At face value, I don't think it would help our employees. Our employees get a fairly good health package today. They have a lot of choice today. I would be afraid of the option that took away that choice...There are opportunities like the Baucus Bill on exchanges that are interesting. We might want to look at those."
On cap-and-trade legislation: "I don't think I like what's being proposed. I have seen one version of it, which is out of Cantwell's office. I doesn't, I think takes into account that people build things for a global basis and you have global competition.""


Source:
http://blog.oregonlive.com/siliconforest/2009/10/intels_chief_says_company_not.html



So Intel is Not Involved, Hmmm.. How Do we Know this? Well Because Intel Says So That's How.

Would Paul Otellini tell the "papers" that he had "advanced knowledge" of the Trillion Dollar Liability with Illegally and Unethically honored contracts with Iviewit - in the Biggest Patent Heist of the Century?

Intel Acts So Innocent.

I Will Bet that the Intel Shareholders have not seen this Blog and All the Documents and information from Deep withing http://www.iviewit.tv/ - I mean if they had surely Intel would be out of Business by Now. A Trillion Dollar Liability Kept from Shareholders ?

More Documents
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13924_3-10377395-64.html

Intel IBM Lockheed SGI in TRILLION DOLLAR FEDERAL RICO/INFRINGEMENT LAWSUIT

Posted Wednesday 23rd December 2009 17:50 GMT

In FTC whacks Intel with anticompetition complaint
IBM has a history of WAR CRIMES?

Currently they are being sued in Federal US District Court Judge Shira Scheindlin's court for Aparthied related WAR CRIMES. IBM's role, same as their role in WWII, giving machines to tabulate the loot from victims and track their blood lines to hunt and kill their bloodlines.

Little known fact is that IBM had their employees in every single NAZI concentration camp, yes, somebody needs to count the gold fillings and how many were burned, hanged, shot, showered (gased).

Now for the scary part, their software is involved I believe with Lockheed to be controlling the US Census data collection. Buyer be beware.

PS - on a final note, IBM Intel Lockheed SGI are also in a 12-count, 12-trillion dollar lawsuit, boy I hope they are accounting for it on their books, relating to their role in stealing technologies from Inventor Eliot Bernstein of Iviewit Technologies and others. According to FASB No 5, both liabilities need to be accounted for but they are not.

If you own IBM shares you may have rescissory rights dating back to 1999.

Also may be concerned that the LAWSUIT has been marked legally "RELATED" to an inside Whistleblower lawsuit by Judge Scheindlin.

Intel is also involved as a Defendant in the Lawsuit for more information on Intel’s involvement see SEC Complaint exposing possible financial crimes relating to FASB No 5 accounting rules and more @ http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/United%20States%20District%20Court%20Southern%20District%20NY/20090306%20Intel%20Demand%20Letter%20&%20Liability%20Exposure%20%20Signed%203549l.pdf (note Bruce Sewell who letter is addressed to with Paul Otellini, just left longtime Intel job for Apple, wonder if Apple knows of his baggage) and

http://iviewit.tv/wordpress/?p=234

08-4873-cv United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Docket - Bernstein, et al. v Appellate Division First Department Disciplinary Committee, et al. - TRILLION DOLLAR LAWSUIT
Cases @ US District Court - Southern District NY
(07cv09599) Anderson v The State of New York, et al. - WHISTLEBLOWER LAWSUIT
(07cv11196) Bernstein, et al. v Appellate Division
First Department Disciplinary Committee, et al.
(07cv11612) Esposito v The State of New York, et al.,
(08cv00526) Capogrosso v New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct, et al.,
(08cv02391) McKeown v The State of New York, et al.,
(08cv02852) Galison v The State of New York, et al.,
(08cv03305) Carvel v The State of New York, et al., and,
(08cv4053) Gizella Weisshaus v The State of New York, et al.
(08cv4438) Suzanne McCormick v The State of New York, et al.
Related cases by judge
(08 cv 6368) John L. Petrec-Tolino v. The State of New York
Eliot I. Bernstein


Source of Post
http://forums.theregister.co.uk/user/38893/

FTC files antitrust suit against Intel - Isn't Intel Above the Law

" The U.S. Federal Trade Commission accused Intel Corp. in a lawsuit Wednesday of illegally trying to keep competitors out of the semiconductor market.

Santa Clara-based Intel (NASDAQ:INTC) systematically kept rivals' chips from being used through illegal strategies, the government said in its complaint.

In the complaint, the FTC has asked for the court to order Intel to stop using threats, bundled prices and other tactics aimed at manipulating the market.

Earlier this month, reports surfaced that Intel was trying to head off a federal complaint by discussing how it prices its products. That doesn't appear to have worked.

Both Sunnyvale-based Advanced Micro Devices Inc. (NYSE:AMD) and Santa Clara-based Nvidia Corp. (NASDAQ:NVDA) have leveled unfair pricing accusations against Intel, complaining that it offers big incentives to customers who buy its chips only.

Intel last month announced it would pay AMD a $1.25 billion settlement and agreed to a five-year cross license deal to settle their long-running antitrust and patent disputes.
That followed a record $1.45 billion fine levied earlier this year by European Union regulators for anticompetitive practices by Intel. The company is appealing that fine.

New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo has also sued Intel, accusing the computer company of violating state and federal antitrust laws.

Cuomo alleged that Intel bullied clients and paid them billions of dollars to use Intel’s computer microprocessor parts instead of those from AMD.

In a prepared statement Wednesday, Intel said it has competed fairly and lawfully and called FTC’s case "misguided. It is based largely on claims that the FTC added at the last minute and has not investigated. In addition, it is explicitly not based on existing law but is instead intended to make new rules for regulating business conduct. These new rules would harm consumers by reducing innovation and raising prices.”

Intel senior vice president and general counsel Doug Melamed added, “This case could have, and should have, been settled. Settlement talks had progressed very far but stalled when the FTC insisted on unprecedented remedies -- including the restrictions on lawful price competition and enforcement of intellectual property rights set forth in the complaint -- that would make it impossible for Intel to conduct business.

“The FTC’s rush to file this case will cost taxpayers tens of millions of dollars to litigate issues that the FTC has not fully investigated. It is the normal practice of antitrust enforcement agencies to investigate the facts before filing suit. The Commission did not do that in this case,” said Melamed."

Full Article and Source
http://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/stories/2009/12/14/daily46.html

Intel