"[lawsuit] is about an unfair business practice: one hedge fund paying a research house to prepare putatively independent research while providing it to that client before others, allowing that client to edit it, and delaying publication to suit that client's trading purpose. It is no more “about” shorting than a lawsuit alleging sexual harassment in the workplace is “about” sex. The pattern of facts we are alleging could have supported a lawsuit (mutatis mutandis) whether the defendants were short the stock, long the stock, betting in favor of volatility in the stock, or betting against volatility in the stock. The reader can, of course, see this for himself by simply reading the lawsuit (http://www.shareholder.com/overstock/downloads/OSTKcomplaint.pdf), the first page of which lists “unfair competition” and “negligence” as the only causes of action, or checking to see that the statute under which it was filed (California 17200) concerns unfair business practices, not stock manipulation, stock prices, shorting stock, or anything related to stock"Patrick Byrne is fighting Wall Street. He may end up with a bloody nose but we are all gonna be better for it. (I'll attempt to update this post in the near future to give you a better understanding of what the fight is about)
Subscribe to
Posts [Atom]