HIGATE INSTA 60b4TEMPLATE SET4FILINGAUGUST2012

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Brad Greenspan, Pro Se 264 South La Cienega Suite 1016 Beverly Hills, CA 90211 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA WESTERN DIVISION
JIM BROWN, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff Plaintiff,
v. BRETT C. BREWER, et. al., Defendants
Defendants
) CASE NO: 2:06-cv-03731-GHK) SH ) ) CLASS ACTION ) ) MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND ) AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF ) MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM ANTI) ) RETALIATORY ACTS & LOSS OF ) EMPLOYMENT THRU U.S.C. 78u-6 ))("SECTION 922") AND SECTION 78u-6(h)(1)
(A)(iii) OF THE DODD FRANK BILL INCORPORATING 18 U.S.C. 1513(e) AND RELIEF FROM FRAUD UPON COURT AND JUDGEMENT
UNDER FRCP 60(b4).
DATE: TBD TIME: TBD COURTROOM: Honorable George H. King ROOM: 650
1
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS & AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGEMEN; FRCP 60(b), 60(b)(2), 60(b)(3), or 60(b)(6)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 IIpg. IIIFACTUAL BACKGROUND 6 LEGAL STANDARDS AND ARGUMENTS pg. 6 2

TABLE OF CONTENTS IINTRODUCTION 6 pg
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
IVV-
Additional Specific Acts of Fraud pg. 18 RELIEF 31 pg.
CASE LAW CITED Jones v. Swanson, 512 F.3d 1045, 1048 (8th Cir. 2008) pg. 6 (quoting United States v. Young, 806 F.2d 805, 806 (8th Cir. 1986)). United States v. Young, 806 F.2d 805, 806 (8th Cir. 1986 pg. 6 )
Atkinson v. Prudential Prop. Co., Inc., 43 F.3d 367, 372-73 (8th Cir. 1994) pg. 6 (citing Paige v. Sandbulte, 917 F.2d 1108, 1009 (8th Cir. 1990)) (emphasis 3
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
added) Paige v. Sandbulte, 917 F.2d 1108, 1009 (8th Cir. 1990) pg. 7 Johnson v. Law Offices of Marshall C. Watson, P.A., 348 F. Appx 447, 448 pg. 7 (11th Cir. 2009) (emphasis supplied). (Kenner v. C.I.R., 387F. 3d 689 (1968); Moores Federal Practice, 2d ed., p. 512, 60.23) pg. 7 (Demjanjuk v. Petrovsky, 10 F.3d 338,) pg. 7 rehearing and suggestion for rehearing denied, certiorari denied Rison v. Demjanjuk, 115 S. Ct. 295, 513 U.S. 914, 130 L. Ed. 2d 205 (Ohio) 1993. Fed Civ Proc 2654. (People v. Zajic, 88 Ill. App. 3d 477, 410 N.E. 2d 626 [1980]) pg.7 Sandstrom v. Chel Lawn Corp., 904 F. 2d 83. Fed CivProc 1741) pg. 7 Abatti v. C.I.R., 859 F.2d 115, Me., (1990). Fed CivProc 2654 pg. 7 Bulloch v, United States, 763 F. 2d 1115, 1121 (10th Cir. 1985). Pg. 7 Derzack v. County of Allegheny, Pa., 1996 Fed CivProc279] 173 F.R.D. pg. 7 40ff affirmed 118 F.3d 1575 Television & Radio, Inc., 894 F.2d 696, 702 (5th Cir.1990), affd, 501 U.S. 32 (1991). pg.7 Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah and Ouray Reservation v. State of Utah, 114 F.3d pg. 7 1513, 1522 (10th Cir. 1997) (Tacha, J.) (quoting Coleman v. Turpen, 827 F.2d 667, 671 (10th Cir. 1987)). (Coleman v. Turpen, 827 F.2d 667, 671 (10th Cir. 1987)). pg. 7 H. Lightsey & J. Flanagan, South Carolina Civil Procedure 407 (2d ed. 1985). pg. 7 4
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Chewning v. Ford Motor Company . pg. 8 Evans v. Gunter, 294 S.C. 525, 529, 366 S.E.2d 44, 46 (Ct. App. 1988) pg.8 (emphasis added) (quoting Lightsey & Flanagan, supra, at 408) 12 Moore's Federal Practice 60.21[4][a] (3d. ed. 2000). pg.8 See Hagy v. Pruitt, 339 S.C. 425, 430, 529 S.E.2d 714, 717 (2000); pg. 8 Mr. G v. Mrs. G, 320 S.C. 305, 307-08, 465 S.E.2d 101, 102-03 (Ct. App. 1995) pg. 8 (City of San Francisco v. Cartagena, 41 Cal. Rptr. 2d 797, 801 (Cal. Ct. App. 1995) pg. 8 Hilton Head Ctr., Inc. v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 294 S.C. 9, 11, 362 S.E.2d 176, 177 (1987) pg. 8 Davis v. Davis, 236 S.C. 277, 113 S.E.2d 819 (1960), pg. 8 In re Celsor, 330 S.C. 497, 501, 499 S.E.2d 809, 811 (1998) pg. 8 In re Jennings, 321 S.C. 440, 446, 468 S.E.2d 869, 873 (1996) pg.8 Pierce v. Cook & Co., 518 F.2d 720, 722 (10th Cir. 1975) pg. 8 (internal quotations omitted). Pierce, 518 F.2d at 723 (quoting Collins v. City of Wichita, 254 F.2d 837, 839 (10th Cir. 1958)) Collins v. City of Wichita, 254 F.2d 837, 839 (10th Cir. 1958)). pg. 8 McGraw v. Barnhart, 450 F.3d 493, 505 (10th Cir. 2006) (quoting Pierce, 518 F.2d at 722). pg. 8 5
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Moore's Federal Practice, supra, at 60.21[4][b] & [c]. pg. 8 Great Coastal Express, Inc. v. Int'l Bhd. of Teamsters, 675 F.2d 1349, 1357 (4th Cir. 1982); pg. 8 see also Meindl v. Genesys Pac. Techs., Inc., 204 F.3d 124, 130 (4th Cir.) ("[F]raud upon the court includes fraud by bribing a judge, or tampering with a jury, or fraud by an officer of the court, including an attorney."); Cleveland Demolition Co. v. Azcon Scrap Corp., 827 F.2d 984, 986 (4th Cir. 1987) ("A verdict may be set aside for fraud on the court if an attorney and a witness have conspired to present perjured testimony."). Meindl v. Genesys Pac. Techs., Inc., 204 F.3d 124, 130 (4th Cir.) pg. 9 Cleveland Demolition Co. v. Azcon Scrap Corp., 827 F.2d 984, 986 (4th Cir. 1987) pg. 9 Worrell v. Houston Can! Academy, 2008 WL 2753405 at *3 (5th Cir. July 16, 2008). pg. 9 Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 33 (1991). pg. 9 (Id;citing Universal Oil Products Co. v. Root Refining Co., 328 U.S. 575, 580 (1946). Universal Oil Products Co. v. Root Refining Co., 328 U.S. 575, 580 (1946) pg. 9 In re SS&C Tech. Inc. Sholders Litig., 911 A.2d 816, 818 (Del. Ch. 2006) pg. 10 Cf. In re TD BankNorth Sholders Litig., 938 A.2d 654, 668 (Del. Ch. 2007) pg. 10
Baker v. F&F Investment, 420 F.2d 1191 (7th Cir. 1970), cert. den., 400 U.S. 821 (1970) pg. 11 United National Records, Inc. v. MCA, Inc., 609 F.Supp. 33 (N.D. Ill. 1984) pg. 11 Pennsylvania v. Lake Asphalt & Petroleum Co., 610 F.Supp. 885 (M.D. Pa. 1985) pg. 11 DeClaire, 453 So.2d at 377. pg. 11 6
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Marrero Pichardo v. Ashcroft, 374 F.3d 46, 55 (2nd Cir. 2004), pg. 11 McGraw, 450 F.3d at 505 (quoting Pierce, 518 F.2d at 722). pg. 11
(We have held that the testimony of a financial analyst of the FBI who simply reviewed and summarized over seven thousand financial documents, was properly admitted under Rule 701 in United States v. Hamaker, 455 F.3d 1316, 1331-32 (11th Cir. 2006). Jayyousi, _ F.3d at _ (citing United States v. Gold, 743 F.2d 800, 817 (11th Cir. 1984) (in Medicare fraud case, company president lay testimony based on his own examination of the stores records and his personal experience in the optical business))).
Porchia v. Design Equip. Co., 113 F.3d 877, 882 (8th Cir. 1997). pg. 16 Voegeli v. Lewis, 568 F.2d 89, 97 (8th Cir.1977). pg. 16 Mawby v. United States, 999 F.2d 1252, 1254 (8th Cir.1993) ,1 pg. 16 Greyhound Lines, Inc. v. Miller, 402 F.2d 134, 143 (8th Cir.1968))."[ pg. 16 United States v. Throckmorton, 98 U.S. 61, 65-66, 25 L.Ed. 93 (1878). pg. 17 United States v. Jayyousi, F.3d (11th Cir. Sept. 19, 2011), pg. 17 Ruma Enterprise, Inc. v. Big Mac's Packing, Inc.,1994 Mass. App. Div. 110. pg. 27. Marrero Pichardo v. Ashcroft, 374 F.3d 46, 55 (2nd Cir. 2004) pg. 31
7
1 2 3 4 5 6 1. 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM ANTI-RETALIATORY ACTS & LOSS OF EMPLOYMENT THRU U.S.C. 78u-6 ("SECTION 922");SECTION 78u-6(h)(1)
(A)(iii) OF DODD FRANK BILL INCORPORATING 18 U.S.C. 1513(e) AND RELIEF FROM FRAUD UPON COURT AND JUDGEMENT UNDER FRCP
60(b4).
INTRODUCTION Petitioner Brad Greenspan is shareholder. In 2006, Petitioner introduced Lerach Law partners Wissbroecker, Robbins, and Baron to the Class Representative that Petitioner selected. Petitioner then worked directly with same partners as they moved from CoughlinStoya Law firm to the now named, RGRD. During these periods it was Petitioner and his first hand experience and work product contributed to RGRD that served as the core set of facts and blueprint for the Brown V. Brewer Federal Class Action including the 14a claims. Petitioner seeks a Court Order to grant relief from ongoing anti-retaliatory acts as well as loss of employment in 2003 under 15 U.S.C. 78u-6 ("Section 922") and Section 78u-6(h)(1)(A)
(iii) of the DoddFrank bill incorporates 18 U.S.C. 1513(e), as well as relief under these statues from the Order granting
Defendants Motion to Dismiss petitioner (the Dismissal Order) from participating as a member of defined Federal Class of shareholders of Issuer on October 19, 2010. Or relief shall be provided pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 60(b)(4), 60(b)(6).
The court in Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., ruled that Federal Courts have the inherent power to manage their own proceedings and to control the conduct of those who appear before them. The Court can punish conduct which abuses the judicial process, and impose fees
28 against a party when the party practices a fraud upon the court. Id. . Exhibit B,C,D,E,F attached are proof of correspondences and reporting out to SEC per Dodd Frank rules. II FACTUAL BACKGROUND 8
1 2 3
Dodd Frank is main basis for relief herin as ruled in Egan v. Tradingscreen, Inc., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 47713 (S.D.N.Y. May 4, 2011), there exists, a private cause of action for whistleblowers alleging retaliatory discharge or other discrimination. Id. 78u-6(h)(1)(B)(i). Relief includes reinstatement, double the back pay owed, and costs and fees. Id. 78u-6. New schemes revealed herein include multiple acts of fraudulent
concealment, breach of fiduciary
4 duty, and breaches of the duty of candor before the court. This includes independent fraudulent concealment schemes 5 to attempt to mitigate liability from defendants stewardship after taking 6 management control from former CEO, the 7 III LEGAL STANDARDS AND ARGUMENTS: 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
15 U.S.C. 78u-6 ("Section 922") states no employer may discharge a whistleblower because of any lawful act done by the whistleblower in providing information to the SEC regarding potential security violations or in making disclosures that are required or protected under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78a et seq.), or any other law, rule, or regulation subject to the jurisdiction of the Commission. Section 78u-6(h)(1)(A)(iii) of the Dodd-Frank bill incorporates 18 U.S.C. 1513(e), which prohibits interference with the lawful employment or livelihood of any person who provides truthful information to a law enforcement officer relating to the commission of federal offenses. As a result of Defendants, News Corp, Intermix, Hogan & Lovell, RGRD Law, Orrick, and VantagePoints violation of Dodd-Frank whistleblower statute, Mr. Greenspan has been injured in an amount to be determined at trial but believed to be not less than $1 billion dollars. Finally, European companies should remember what Sarbanes-Oxley really is all about the deterrence of financial frauds and restatements of financial statements due to material accounting errors and accounting irregularities. The surest way to comply with Sarbanes-Oxley is to get the financial statements right the first time.
[U]nder the intangible-rights theory of federal mail or wire fraud liability, a valid indictment need only allege, and a finder of fact need only believe, that a defendant used the interstate mails or wire communications system in furtherance of a scheme to misuse his fiduciary relationship for gain at the expense of the party to whom the fiduciary duty was owed. U.S. v. Hausmann, 345 F.3d 952, 956 (7th Cir. 2003) (lawyer failed to disclose to his clients a kickback scheme with a chiropractor).
9
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 16
1. A party may seek relief from a judgment or order pursuant to Rule 60(b) for: (4) The judgment is void; (5) The judgment has been satisfied, released or discharged; (6) Any other reason that justifies relief. 2 2. The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals defines Fraud upon the court as, a decision produced by fraud upon the court is not in essence a decision at all, and never becomes final.
3. The court ruled in duty of candor case Demjanjuk v. Petrovsky,10 F.3d 33860b that, Fraud on the court consists of conduct: (1) on part of officer of the court, (2) that is directed to judicial machinery itself, (3) that is intentionally false, willfully blind to the truth, or is in reckless disregard for the truth, that is positive averment or is concealment when one is under duty to disclose, that deceives court. 4. Attorneys are officers of the court, See People v. Zajic. Chel Lawn Corp.4, the court
3
In Sandstrom v.
found Litigant commits fraud on court when litigant and attorney concoct 15 some unconscionable scheme calculated to impair courts ability fairly and impartially to adjudicate dispute.5 In Abatti v. 17 C.I.R., the court found, Fraud on the 18 court may occur when acts of party prevent his adversary from fully and fairly 19 presenting his case or defense.6. 20 9. Under Rule 60(b), courts have broad discretion to relieve a party from final judgment, order or proceeding 21 22 for the specific reasons outlined in the rule, as well as, under Rule 60(b)(6), for any other reason that justifies relief. 23 24 25 26 27 28
5 2 3 4 7
quoting Greyhound Lines, Inc. v. Miller, 402 F.2d 134, 143 (8th Cir.1968))."[
Court stated, an officer of the court..are all attorneys See Bulloch v. United States, Whenever any officer of the court commits fraud during a proceeding in the court, he/she is engaged in fraud upon the court.
Sandstrom v. Chel Lawn Corp., 904 F. 2d 83. Fed CivProc 1741
Similarily defined by Court in Derzack v. County of Allegheny, Pa., stating, fraudulent scheme of fabricating key evidence and fraudulently concealing evidence to support their business loss claim and subsequently covering-up their scheme constituted fraud on the court warranting sanctions 6 (Television & Radio, Inc.,) The court examing the claims of fraud upon the court found Ford guilty stating such actions if true, would constitute a scheme resulting in harm to the public at large and would result in the type of fraud envisioned in Hazel-Atlas and Great Coastal.
10
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 0 0 0 0 0 `(1) to provide information, cause information to be provided, or otherwise assist in an investigation regarding any conduct which the employee reasonably believes constitutes a violation of section 1341, 1343, 1344, or 1348, any rule or regulation of the Securities and Exchange Commission, or any provision of Federal law relating to fraud against shareholders, when the information or assistance is provided to or the investigation is conducted by-`(A) a Federal regulatory or law enforcement agency; `(B) any Member of Congress or any committee of Congress; or `(C) a person with supervisory authority over the employee (or such other person working for the employer who has the authority to investigate, discover, or terminate misconduct); or `(2) to file, cause to be filed, testify, participate in, or otherwise assist in a proceeding filed or about to be filed (with any knowledge of the employer) relating to an alleged violation of section 1341, 1343, 1344, or 1348, any rule or regulation of the Securities and Exchange Commission, or any provision of Federal law relating to fraud against shareholders. SEC. 806. PROTECTION FOR EMPLOYEES OF PUBLICLY TRADED COMPANIES W WHO PROVIDE EVIDENCE OF FRAUD. (a) IN GENERAL- Chapter 73 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after section 1514 the following: `Sec. 1514A. Civil action to protect against retaliation in fraud cases ` `(a) WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTION FOR EMPLOYEES OF PUBLICLY TRADED COMPANIES- No company with a class of securities registered under section 12 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78l), or that is required to file reports under section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78o(d)), or any officer, employee, contractor, subcontractor, or agent of such company, may discharge, demote, suspend, threaten, harass, or in any other manner discriminate against an employee in the terms and conditions of employment because of any lawful act done by the employee--
11
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
0 0
(2) PROCEDURE`(A) IN GENERAL- An action under paragraph (1)(A) shall be governed under the rules and procedures set forth in section 42121(b) of title 49, United States Code. `(B) EXCEPTION- Notification made under section 42121(b)(1) of title 49, United States Code, shall be made to the person named in the complaint and to the employer. `(C) BURDENS OF PROOF- An action brought under paragraph (1)(B) shall be governed by the legal burdens of proof set forth in section 42121(b) of title 49, United States Code. `(D) STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS- An action under paragraph (1) shall be commenced not later than 90 days after the date o on which the violation occurs. `(c) REMEDIES-
`(1) IN GENERAL- An employee prevailing in any action under subsection (b)(1) shall be entitled to all relief necessary to make t the employee whole. `(2) COMPENSATORY DAMAGES- Relief for any action under paragraph (1) shall include--
`(A) reinstatement with the same seniority status that the employee would have had, but for the discrimination;
12
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 24 25 26
0 0
`(B) the amount of back pay, with interest; and `(C) compensation for any special damages sustained as a result of the discrimination, including litigation costs, e expert witness fees, and reasonable attorney fees. `(d) RIGHTS RETAINED BY EMPLOYEE- Nothing in this section shall be deemed to diminish the rights, privileges, or remedies of any employee under any Federal or State law, or under any collective b bargaining agreement.'. (b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT- The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 73 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 1514 the following new item:
`1514A. Civil action to protect against retaliation in fraud cases.'.

11. Legal Standard for Fed. R. Civ. P. 11. provides for sanctions against any attorney, law firm, or party that violated the rule or is responsible for the violation8 . RGRD,HHLAW & ORRICK are in violation of L.R. 83-3.1.2, Standards of Professional Conduct & Basis for Disciplinary Action, FAILURE TO NOTIFY UNDER L.R. 83-3.4 14. RGRD violates L.R. 83-3.4 by failing to notify Federal Court of over $250,000 in sanctions including
23 a finding of bad faith in recent case R 15. RGRDs fraudulently concealed sanctions are for misleading Court and acting in bad faith in Delaware as cited
in In re SS&C Tech. Inc. Sholders Litig.9 Its obvious why Baron failed to 27 disclose sanctions, because RGRD would 28 have had to operate in tougher environment, making it harder to alter the Class Certificate definition. Vice Chancellor
8 9
Worrell v. Houston Can Academy

In re SS&C Tech. Inc. Sholders Litig., 911 A.2d 816, 818 (Del. Ch. 2006)
13
1 Laster exposes Barons misleading Court in reckless attempt to gain a quick profitable legal settlement while inflating 2 the work of the involved law firms. 3 i) Additional Evidence: (Petitioner 60b Declaration, 13094 1317, pgs.576-581) 5 16. (See Evidence701 Declaration Exhib:856 i) 7 104,105,106,240,245) 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
17. HHLAW is conflicted by having fraudulently concealed the fact that HHLAW was working for News Corp while creating the merger agreement in July 2005.(60b3 Declaration Exhibits104,105), and should be disqualified. 18. The Court in Pennsylvania v. Lake Asphalt & Petroleum Co., 610 F.Supp. 885 (M.D. Pa. 1985) ruled that fraudulent concealment requires affirmative acts independent of underlying conspiracy. 19.The January & July 2004 and August 2005 Proxies omit key facts rendering them defective. 20. Defendants leverage their relationship with acquiror to create defamatory and fabricated lies thru Angwins
published in late 2009 book, Stealing MySpace which fraudulently conceals 20 the true background of former Director and Chairman Jeff Edell and his scheme with Brewer to forward a fabricated false resume, misleading CEO to get Edell onto the Board. Edell benefitted from fraud of fabricating his work experience by gaining access to the public issuers board. In reality, Edell had not come off a successful business endeavor as his fabricated resume stated but really had failed in his last two ventures including one of two failures resulting in a Chapter 7 Bankruptcy filing. Brewer sent Edells fabricated resume to CEO. Brewer moved scheme forward with aid of new CFO 14
Flahie whose disloyalty in not reporting to
2 the CEO or public that resume of Edell had fabricated demonstrates Scienter 3 intent to defraud & mislead shareholders. 4 5 21. New CFO Flahie had pre existing business relationship with Edell, working for a company where Jeff Edell served
6 as Director and Edells brother served as CEO managing Flahie immediately 7 prior to coming to work for eUniverse in 8 August 2003. Flahie who is disloyal along with Brewer in not revealing Edells 9 fabricated resume then colludes with 10 General Counsel Chris Lipp to knowingly falsify the proxy in January 2004,July 11 2004, August 2005 Defendants violate 12 Item 102 Rule SK of Proxy disclosure requirements. Flahie & Edell quietly resign 13 in early December 2004. 14 16 17 18 20 i) (See Evidence 701 Declaration Exhibits 20,21,22,23,25, 15 199,200,201,202,203,208 ) 22. Lipp admits his actions placing Edell in Sonys Series B Board seat was done without Sonys consent under Judge
Strines withering testimony in Delaware court. Shockingly with evidence of 19 Defendants improprieties laid bare in court and significant red flags raised, Sony then agrees to nominate Edell to serve as 21 Series B Director. Sonys aid eliminates 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 shareholders ability to keep Edell off Board & further conspiring with Defendants in late 2004 to complete a sweetheart deal to sell almost half of MySpace. Defendants also breach pledge made with Judge Strine & Petitioner, failing to make corrective disclosure in January 2004 Proxy. 23. Defendants have also not legally effected a valid closing or vote on the Series C stock sale or transfer from Sony of their Series B shares, blocking public issuers option received in three way 15
agreement between Sony, VantagePoint,
2 and public issuer in 2003. The crooked dealings expand when Orrick uses its 3 insider knowledge to produce a 4 commercial benefit for VantagePoint while having Issuer pay 100% of the cost 5 by paying off Sony debt earlier then due. 6 7 24. Defendants wait until SEC informal investigation from May 2003 restatement ends with SEC no action decision.
8 Orricks Harroch working directly with Chris DeWolfe and VantagePoint 9 transfers 48% of MySpace.coms equity thru 10 below market sweetheart for Carlicks fellow AskJeeves Director Yang & Chris 11 DeWolfe. DeWolfe as director of Fog Cutter 12 Group served on its audit and compensation committee, and steps in to help 13 operate Fog Cutter in 2004 as DeWolfes 14 16 18 20 high school friend pleads guilty to bribery & tax evasion. DeWolfe finds a great 15 benefit of being a FogCutter Director is the ability to control compensation for Orrick. DeWolfe supports paying Orrick 17 roughly $5 million in cash between 20042005. DeWolfes influence induces Orrick to intervene & represent his 19 interests in negotiations related to issuing MySpace employees equity at below fair market valuation and thru fabricating 21 an asset purchase agreement to appear 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 as if it had been signed in December 2003 while evidence shows the agreement was signed in 2004 when it appears for first time in public issuers November 2004 10Q. Defendants fail to disclose relationship between Orrick, DeWolfe, and FogCutter. Carlick takes similar advantage & fraudulently conveys a slice of MySpace ownership below market to Yang, allowing the Ask Jeeves partners control of MySpace Search & ensure value will accrue to Ask Jeeves(later joining with 16
1 IAC) and/or Google. Orrick works with Latham & Watkins to make sure the Yang 2004 emails and fraudulently concealing 2 3 CFO Flahie determined to resign in 2004 when learning of Orrick negotiating the MySpace transaction away from the 4 5 Intermix board and general counsel. Orrick instead worked directly with VantagePoint, Yang, and DeWolfe representing 6 7 MSV LLC to finalize & consummate the series of transactions first disclosed starting with the November 2004 8 9 10Qs disclosure of fake December 17, 2003 MySpace asset sale document. I) (See 701 Declaration Exhib 10 28,29,30,31,32)) 11 25. In late 2009, defendants work with News Corps Angwin to create a 12 book called Stealing MySpace. 13 Even after a NY Times Article was published August 14, 2005 titled,Announcing an 14 15 Award for Greed By Nicholas Kristoff describing the board Chris DeWolfe was running (Summary - Exhibit A), I've 16 17 decided to offer my own prize for executive greed. and 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 the Fog Cutter board displayed spine-tingling chutzpah. The board announced that it would continue to employ Mr. Wiederhorn at full salary while he is behind bars, and it even granted him a leave of absence payment of $2 million to make up for the restitution he had to pay. Nasdaq was so disgusted that it delisted the company. Corporate documents released this spring show that the Fog Cutter board awarded Mr. Wiederhorn $6.3 million in total compensation for 2004 and for the nine months of prison time in 2005. I can't think of a board that has ever so disgraced the principles of corporate governance by overpaying a C.E.O. even as he sits in prison.
25 . (60b Declar. Sections 1098-1103 pg. 502-512 / Paragraph: 1294-1308 pg. 566-576 26 28. Section 307 requires counsel to report material violations of the securities law "up the ladder in the company, 27
28 and permits attorneys to "blow the whistle" to the SEC if necessary to prevent the corporation from violating the securities laws. HHLAW is in violation of Section 307. I) (See Evidence 701 Declaration Exhibit - 134) 17
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
29. HHLAW then obstructs justice after jumping in the middle of a dispute between RGRD & petitioner in early 2009. HHLAW gets RGRD to agree to block petitioners new evidence, while destroying Classs Rule 701 lay witness from reviewing new incoming discovery, with intent to prevent Class from the benefit of decoding the evidence to put forth new antitrust claims related to the Search Auction. RGRD was reckless because at the time they struck agreement to remove Petitioner on or around May 1, 2009,RGRD could not predict if in future the lay witness would be needed. It does not appear that RGRD ever read the Julia Anwin Stealing MySpace book before making a terminal decision to bet the Classs legal asset future on Acquirors version of the story uncontested. It appears the book was first published in April 2009. So RGRD expect the Court to believe that somehow they knew a controversial set of facts had been
18 produced by Acquirors employee and RGRD both read it cover to cover, checked the facts against discovery but did 19 20 not discuss these with the petitioner the previous sole historical witness they used, but determined the book was so 21 22 credible it could be used as a one stop fact replacement with the largest common stockholder, Chairman and CEO who 23 24 was volunteering to put the proper facts into the record and was scheduled to be deposed imminently. Its no wonder 25 26 that MySpace Search was omitted from consideration by Classs damage experts. RGRD had poisoned the Classs legal 27 28 asset greatly diluting the upside. RGRD thru its actions, robs the Class of receiving fair shake in the Federal Judiciary system, specifically the right of an equitable discovery process. The Class gets 18
neither: i) A Class Counsel Fiduciary
2 acting in good faith during discovery, or ii) its Rule 701 lay witness adding new 3 evidence or decoding discovery for 4 RGRD in similar manner before RGRD eliminated Petitioner first as source of 5 evidence, later from Settlement mediation 6 and later from using a scheme to ban Petitioner as member of Class after 7 previously confirming to Petitioner he was a 8 member of the Class in 2009. After RGRD realizes they could have used Rule 9 701 fact witness who is petitioner, 10 instead of righting their wrong, RGRD continues down path of further 11 transgressions. At end of 2011 RGRD launches a 12 new scheme to create an economic kick back for defendant. RGRD then 13 argues June 2011 motion that the changed 14 16 18 19 20 wording was not a mistake. That RGRD gives this economic asset to 15 defendants for no disclosed consideration and then seeks to defend this scheme is proof enough for RGRD to be disqualified 17 and sanctions levied by this court. 30. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(e) 31. In Voegeli v. Lewis, 568 F.2d 89, 97 (8th Cir.1977). The court ruled, "Discovery of expert opinion must not be
21 allowed to degenerate into a game of evasion." The Court states in Mawby v. 10 22 United States, 999 F.2d 1252, 1254 (8th Cir.1993) , T]he purpose of our 23 24 26 28 modern discovery procedure is to narrow the issues, to eliminate surprise, and to have obstructed Classs right to receive report b) A historically accurate set of uncontroverted facts to use for Summary judgment c) the benefit of the
10
25 achieve substantial justice." Therefore, defendants actions violate 60b(2) & 27 equitable benefit of evidence including: a) The Rule 701 valuation and damages
(quoting Greyhound Lines, Inc. v. Miller, 402 F.2d 134, 143 (8th Cir.1968))."[
19
MySpace Search evidence produced by
2 Petitioner in July 2010. d) the benefit of not having to accept a settlement with 3 defendants based on Angwins 4 fabricated facts. 5 i) 6 7 8 Ex: 111-121,) 31. Therefore its an inequitable surprise for Class to not receive the benefit of protection owed to Federal (See Evidence 701 Declaration
9 Whistleblower. RGRD became aware of the need to update and failed to do so under 26e. EXTRINSIC FRAUD KEEPS PETITIONER AWAY FROM COURT 10 11 12 JOINT MOTION TO BAN IN 2010 IS INDEPENDENT ACT IN SCHEME 34. Petitioner and class members are both harmed by the motion to ban in late 2010 which is 13 RGRD knew petitioner was valuable Federal 701 lay witness for the Class in April 2009, October 14 2010, and May 2011 as RGRD filed pleadings which aided and abetted 15 defendants efforts to cover up & obstruct new 16 evidence from entering this case 36. 17 RGRD is retained by Petitioner legally and RGRD has simply 18 19 failed to honor either its written Agreements and/or fiduciary duties to its first client, Petitioner. Petitioner assisted, 20 21 facilitated, & enabled RGRD to ascend to class Counsel in current case in this court. Without Petitioner, RGRD admitted it 22 23 had no case or way to move forward in Federal Court on the claims Petitioner and RGRD and Petitioners counsel in 24 25 2006 had identified as being both available and available as a separate source of facts, evidence, claims not in State 26 27 Action.. Brown was unknown to RGRD.Petitioner found Brown and convinced him thru 28 providing facts from petitioner to serve as interim lead representative. An agreement between Brown and petitioner 20
was made before petitioner gave Browns information to RGRD 2 Brown was identified by Petitioner after contacting existing shareholders and 3 Stock brokers. Petitioner contacted Brown and spoke with Brown. After receipt of Petitioners 4 call and 5 learning of the reason Petitioner was contacting Brown then at that time Brown 6 became aware of Petitioner and 7 opportunity of receipt as a shareholder of the benefit of a 8 Brown agreed with Petitioner and agreed to the deal discussed verbally on a 9 telephone call. Brown 10 11 . Brown agreed to defer to Petitioner on fair final settlement acceptable to Class. Finally, 12 13 RGRD breached duty of candor to court by failing to provide this background information to Court. 14 IV- Additional Specific Acts of Fraud 2003 & 2004 15 16 A)Defendants, Orrick, and VantagePoint are guilty of violating Rule SK Item 401 or aiding and abetting Edells violation of Rule S-K Item 17 401 & 401 (f) Rule S-K Item 401 (f) states the requirement for information disclosed in 18 1. Intermixs January 2004 & July 2004 19 Proxy filings for Directors Involvement in certain legal proceedings stating, 20 Describe any of the following events that occurred during the past 21 ten years and that are material an evaluation of the ability or integrity of any director, person nominated to become a director or executive 22 officer of the registrant: 23 A petition under the Federal bankruptcy laws or any state insolvency law 24 was filed by or against, or a receiver, fiscal agent or similar officer was 25 appointed by a court for the business or property of such person, or any partnership in which he was a general partner at or within two years before 26 the time of such filing, or any corporation or business association of which 27 he was an executive officer at or within two years before the time of such filing; (See Evidence 701 Dec. Exhib 20,21,22,23,24,25) 28 B) Defendants & their Counsel are guilty of: i) Fraudulently concealing Edells background in 2003,2004,2005 & 14A violations and 21
1 2 3 4
C) Defendants, VantagePoint, and Orrick are guilty of Fraud upon Strines court thru first trying to mislead Judge Strine that Proxy disclosure is factual. Next caught in multiple lies before the court, defendants agree to fix defective disclosure and fail to do so. 1. Judge Strine findings stated,
5 i)the way the board purported to fill it was invalid. and Edell was not validly elected to a Series B slot on October 6th. (line 6 3 /line 5; pg.141, Petitioner Declaration: Strine Trial Summary) 7 ii)THE COURT: It's not really, I guess, my job to be Director of Hygiene for eUniverse, but now that very competent Delaware counsel has been 8 engaged to assist the company, I mean, it's pretty common knowledge that the board of directors has to approve the actual certificate of designation 9 amendment that's being proposed. And you know-- and this isn't the first dot come kind of company that's tried to be a bit innovative. 10 (line 1; pg.142, Petitioner Declaration: Strine Trial Summary) 11 (line 2; pg.142, Petitioner Declaration: Strine Trial Summary) 12 13 x) MR. TEKLITS: We will make sure this is right, Your Honor. ( line 10; pg.142, Petit. Declar. Strine Trial Summ) 14 15 16 2. Defendants were aware the January 2004 Proxy was defective, fraudulently concealing Edells work experience
Inc. Defendants ignore Judge Strines ruling and dont cure the defects 17 3. Sony Corp is guilty of aiding & abetting Edell and defendants in violating Rule SK Item 401. Sony Corp & 18 defendants are further guilty of fraudulently concealing Edells true background 19 January 2004 and July 2004 proxies 20 are defective because Edell fabricated his resume and work experience to get on public issuers board in late 2003. 21 4. SONY IS CONFLICTED AND HAS INFLICTED MULTIPLE PREDICATE ACTS: 22 1) Sony was an insider shareholder in eUniverse (Intermix, and Myspace by ownership level prior to 23 24 25 26 27 28 2. Sony Corps general counsel Seligman is married to Joel Klein who began working for News Corp in 2009. Sony has fraudulently concealed the defective Edell background & both violations of Rule SK Item 401 in January and July 2004 Proxy and Annual meetings respectively. 22
Sale of VantagePoint VC firm in July 2003;October30, 2003;April 2004 (SEC disclosure) and had a Director and Series B Nominee Edell in January 2004 Proxy.
1 2 3 5. 4 5
Sony and/or Seligman are aiding and abetting News Corp for the benefit of Joel Klein who is an executive,Director earns $1m+ per year from News Corp. Sony Corp, Klein, Seligman, News Corp, Intermix, Thomas Perkins Director of News Corp, Julia Angwin, defendants, VantagePoint, HHLAW, and RGRD conspire to fraudulently conceal Edells Rule SK Item 401 violation and
6 the defective Proxy in January 2004, the defective Proxy in July 2004, the defective proxy in August 2005, and the 7 attempt to fraudulently conceal both the fabricated MySpace Asset sale in 8 November 2004 and Orrick Herringtons 9 involvement in fraudulently conveying 49% of MySpace.com for the benefit of DeWolfe, MySpace Ventures LLC, and 10 RedPoints Geoff Yang. 11 6. This court should in addition, rule on the above named parties for Fraud upon 12 the court, before Vice 13 Chancellor Judge Strine of Delaware in January 2004. Clearly Judge Strine has deferred to the Federal Court for this type 14 of remedial action based on his comments after revealing Chris Lipps lies and 15 Lipp admitting he attempted to deceive 16 the court, stating, It's not really, I guess, my job to be Director of Hygiene for eUniverse (ibid) 17 i) See: Petitioner Declaration (pgs. 42-50, Sections 145-180) (pgs. 107 18 143, Sections 281-381) 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 7. To make 2005 Proxy not defective under 14a, issuer would have to disclose prior to September 30, 2005 that, Our former Chairman who resigned effective December 2003 was replaced by Jeffrey S. Edell. Edell was most recently President and CEO of Showorks Entertainment Group, Inc. from January 2001 thru April 2002. Sometime in 2002, Showorks Entertainment Group, Inc. underwent a name change to MTS, Inc. Sometime in September of 2002 Edell learned that MTS, Inc. had filed for bankruptcy under Chapter 7. Edell was not there at the time of filing. Edell has informed the company Edell was never personally named or contacted as part of the bankruptcy under Chapter 7 or subsequent proceedings. Edell was from 1995 thru December 31, 2000,President and CEO of Soundelux Entertainment Group., Inc. Omission in Proxy statements thru September 30, 2005 is violation of: Rule SK Item 401 and Rule S-K Item 401 (f). D) Orrick Herrington LLC, VantagePoint, Defendants, are guilty of breach of fiduciary duty and fraudulent concealment & fraudulent conveyance in facilitating Orrick & Harrochs role in MySpace transaction with RedPoint in October and November 2004. 23
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
1) November 18, 2004 CFO Flahie emails CEO, Subject: RE: MySpace Term Sheet states, this situation really goes beyond anything I want to be a part of. I communicated my feelings in writing twice now about the lawyer for a large preferred stockholder and one director negotiating a major business transaction on behalf of the company without authorization of our board and all I received was an admonishment from Harroch about my email and told to shut up in a conference call. Since you have not seen this yet and I have certainly not, this makes a broader statement about our Senior Management. As an officer I would be derelict in my duties to our company to allow this to continue outside of the view of the Board without doing something about it i) (Paragraph 1292/ pgs. 573 / PetitionerDeclaration) Defendants, News Corp, HHLAW, and Orrick are guilty of fraudulently concealing Orrick role in negotiating on behalf & with Vantage Point Partners in July 2005, 1. 3. This matter was not disclosed in the Proxy nor in the State Class action nor in the Federal Class Action, nor
17 disclosed prior to Orrick filing for motion to ban petitioner. If such matter had been properly disclosed, then this would 18 be a new 14A claim and matter if disclosed and/or if Rule 701 lay witness and 19 petitioner was not obstructed and 20 attacked by RGRD and HHLAW in 2009s scheme. In turn, these facts entered into the record would have made 21 defendants late 2010 ban motion void under 60(b)(4). 22 i) See Evidence (60b Declaration Section 628-673 / 23 pgs. 297-247) 24 B) Fraudulent concealment of the undisposed whistleblower 25 notification received in May 2005 and acknowledged by News Corp as early as July 17, 2005. 26 i) (See Evidence 701 27 28 Declaration Exhibits 71) 1. Defendants and HHLAW and News Corp are also guilty of anti-Retaliatory violations against petitioner which damaged petitioner personally and the Class thru damaging and lessening value of the legal asset when compared to a 24
1 similar legal asset where defendants had already fully disposed of and disclosed similar facts such as a whistleblower 2 notification. Defendants received notice in May 2005 and HHLAW and News 3 Corp became aware of Whistleblower 4 notification on or about on July 17, 2005 as stated in News Corp email from Corporate counsel Lang emailed at 4:13AM 5 to Sheehan, Subject: 'Purchase Agreement, stating, 6 "On the issues, let's close on the remaining ones in a fair and reasonable 7 way-- so we can build out relationship. 8 9 10 11 12 13 3. We feel like we have given indemnification on the shares and the purchase agreement itself to do so on any issue we have had no involvement in whatsoever (i.e. Greenspan) - that seems like too much. Andy, I know we are very eager to get this done. Let do it so both sides can feel good and move forward on our longer-term relationship." i) Further evidence 60b Declaration(Sections 629-673 & 1472 / pg. 280-292, & 659) 2. The undisposed whistleblower notice sent by petitioner to public issuer in May 2005 initiates a board meeting
14 on June 2005, but defendants never dispose of matter according to minutes from discovery. Defendants are guilty of 15 fraudulent concealment as well as a related 14A violation. 11 16 C) Breach of Duty of Candor & Fraudulent Concealment HHLAW 17 On July 16, 2005 or sooner, senior partners of HHLAW are engaged by News 18 Corp and begin working on the 19 merger agreement, representing NewsCorp. Sheinfield, one of the involved lawyers, is one of the main partners in 20 Hogan and merged with HHLaw in 2002. Senior partners of HHLAW include 21 Mark Weinstein & Shienfeld. Both are ccd on 22 the Draft Ivory Merger Agreement July 16, 2005 email sent to Rosenblatt. 23 24 3. HHLAW fails to disclose it was retained by News Corp prior to July 18, 2005 to work on the merger agreement as
25 one of News Corps transaction attorneys. 26 D) OMISSION OF INVESTIGATIONS BY NY AG & LA AG 27 28 HHLAW is further conflicted by aiding & abetting, the omission by Intermix of the Los Angeles City Attorneys
11
Providing this information to the court instead of concealing it would have resulted in Court forcing defendants to disclose their role in covering up such special committee process and omitting it from the Proxy in 2005.
25
1 notification during the Proxy Failures to disclose these matters are both new 2 14(a) violations. 3 News Corp and HHLAW have until now, fraudulently concealed HHLAWs role 4 in negotiating on behalf of News 5 Corp in July 2005 and knowledge of the undisposed whistleblower notification sent to Intermix and received May 6 2005 and disclosed to entire board June 2005. 7 HHLAW & Orrick Herrington have aided and abetted defendants fraudulent 8 concealment of both HHLAWs role 9 in assisting Intermix with the NY AG and City of LA and was not disclosed in the Proxy nor in the State Class action 10 nor in the Federal Class Action nor disclosed prior to HHLaw filing for motion to 11 ban petitioner. If such matter had been 12 properly disclosed, then this would be new 14A claim and matter, rendering HHLAWs ban motion void. 13 i) (Sections: 822-837, pg 345 -350 / 14 Petitoner 60(b) declaration) 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 A) 22 23 24 25 26 27 5. Defendants fail to disclose that Chris DeWolfe was Director, on compensation & on audit committee of FogCutter while accused of actions not in the public interest & delisted from Nasdaq while target of derivative lawsuit in 2004. Evidence: 60(b) Declar.(Section 427 - 447 / pg. 203 - 212 & (section 486-517 / pg. 224-241) 2006 RGRD fraudulently conceals its in breach of 2006 State Class agreement signed with HHLAW, restricting RGRD serving as counsel in Federal Action. i)See: Petitioner 60(b)) (Paragraph 1013-1026 / pg. 450-456
2. Latham & Watkins' Alex Voxman according to the firms website, represented issuer with "formation, recapitalization
and preferred stock financing of its majority-owned subsidiary Myspace.com 28 and the sale of Intermix/MySpace to News Corp. Its Latham Watkins as State Class Counsel, thats guilty allowing defendants to omit evidence. 26
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
2009 A) In 2009 when making motion to Judge King that cited removal of petitioner HHLAW breaches duty of candor to court regarding its deal with Rule 701 witness. 1 i) 1078 pgs.491-493) (Petitioner Declaration 60b Paragraphs: See: 1073-
B) Fraudulent concealment by RGRD in 2009 of knowledge that petitioner evidence and ongoing involvement would benefit Class while hurting defendants 1. Instead, RGRD agreed to support HHLAW efforts and was disloyal. 2. It was not possible for RGRD to know if new evidence or discovery it might receive in future would result in new
11 claims or not as RGRD had relied previously on its Rule 701 lay witness who subsequently RGRD eliminated. It proves 12 RGRD acted recklessly & were induced to go adverse against their fiduciaries 13 prompted thru arrangement with 14 Defendants or Defendantss counsel made prior to May 2009. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 C) Replacing petitioners testimony with News Corp employee testimony knowing such conduct meant replacing the 2006 Rule 701 lay witness and fact witness that had developed the set of facts the case had originally been Filed with, resulting in an act of disloyalty by RGRD. 1097 pg. 482-502 Petitioner 60B declaration Paragraphs: 1056-
D) RGRD fraudulently concealed from 2009 thru the present the discovery of an email Subject: NYAG, implicating Defendants and defendants counsel in scheme to partition blame on petitioner for defendants Adware lawsuit filed by NY AG in 2005. Further evidence is cited as part of petitioner declaration sections, 700-716 E) Defendant Rosenblatt perjures himself on uncontroverted fact #1 in Brown v. Brewer 2009 Summary Judgment where Rosenblatt states he sold Imall for $565 million dollars. This conflicts with evidence provided in both SEC filings for acquiror Excite@Home and by defendant witness Angwin in her book which states such number is $425 million dollars. F) Rosenblatts deposition in State Action clearly conflicts rising to level of perjury with his Federal Class action testimony related to his claim Freston was told Sunday was deadline to make a bid. G) 2009 Illegal Computer Intrusion was obstruction of Justice & 27
1.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
fraudulent concealment of Rule 701 valuation report. HHLAW, News Corp, or related firm or consultant illegally introduces and gains access to Petitioners computer on or around January 2009 and uses confidential H) RGRDs Baron lies & misleads petitioner in May 2009 email stating Petitioner will ,have an opportunity to opt out of the class hire your own counsel and bring an individual action.12 1. I) RGRD fraudulently conceals evidence available from shareholder witness
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
J) DEFENDANTS, HHLAW, ORRICK, RGRD, & BROWN CONCEAL EMAILS 1103, pgs. 459-516 ) (see Petitioner 60b declaration (sections: 1038
i)News Corp refused to produce discovery on or around March 10, 2009" (pg.
28 at paragraph 115)(Baron, RGRD decl. 2011)
1. In late 2010, HHLAWs breach of duty of candor to court regarding the status of discovery provided to petitioner as part of State Class action in 2005 and 2006 and that ii) "On March 31, 2009, defendants produced privilege and redaction logs to Lead Plaintiff.Lead Counsel reviewed the logs and determined that the majority of the entries were so vague that Lead Plaintiff was unable to determine whether the documents were improperly being withheld" (At pg. 31 para. 128.) iii) "When Lead Plaintiff received documents from Viacom (on April 10, 2009) and documents from individuals at MySpace, Lead Counsel was able to ascertain that many of these documents should have also been produced by defendants." iv) "Likewise, Lead Counsel repeatedly attempted to secure disclosure of defendants counsel advice through deposition questions and was repeatedly informed that defendants would not be permitted to answer the questions." vi) On April 7, 2009, the Court granted Lead Plaintiffs exparte application
In the full email Baron promises, Brad you can do what you feel you need to do. My ego is not in play. I am litigating diligently on behalf of the class and under the direction of the named lead plaintiff. Luckily once the Court certifies a class you and any other shareholder who would like to will have an opportunity to opt out of the class hire your own counsel and bring an individual action. (60b declaration, paragraph 1086, pg. 497)
12
28
1 2 3 4 5 6
and continued the fact discovery deadline to May 20, 2009, and expert discovery completion date to July 20, 2009. vii) On April10 2009, after receiving discovery from Viacom, Baron determined,
certain documents had been improperly redacted, as the Viacom documents revealed communications by defendants that were clearly not privileged but had been treated as such in defendants production.
7 RGRD knew petitioner wanted to submit new evidence but is blocked & 8 removed as witness. 2. Jim Browns claim in reply to petitioners emails are false as Brown states in 9 May 2009 reply, 10 11 4. HHLaw, Orrick, and defendants fail to turn over email evidence in the State Action, preventing fair adjudication. 12 RGRD colludes with HHLAW , Orrick, and defendants to fraudulently conceal 13 such omitted emails. Both fail to make court 14 aware of a federal and state crime that has occurred with the fraudulently concealed State emails. This becomes 15 evidence when Viacom provides Email evidence in April 2009 showing DeWolfe 16 & Bermans emails to Viacom which 17 were never disclosed previously.i)60b decl.(sect. 1114.1 / pg. 522) (sec. 1098-1103 /pg.
502-513) (sect.1112-1113 /pg. 517-520)
18 19 20 1. 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
K) PETITIONER DID NOT RECEIVE BENEFIT OF LIMTED STATE DISCOVERY & RGRD, HHLAW, ORRICK FRAUDULENTLY CONCEAL MISSING STATE EVIDENCE While State Class Counsel RGRD had the limited discovery documents to begin reviewing on or about September 15, 2005 and used many of these facts from the initial discovery production by defendants to amend RGRD State Class complaint. Petitioner was not able to even review the same discovery material until late April 2006. 2010 A) Edell, Defendants, HHLAW, Angwin, News Corp, Orrick fraudulently conceal true Origin date of MySpace asset sale see: (paragraphs: 1115 1293, pgs. 526-571 / Petitioner 60b declaration) 2. Indeed, Edell is the critical source of evidence for Angwin on page 84 of 29
1 2
her book which uses and relies on fabricated credibility of Edell to claim retrospectively that indeed the MySpace Asset sale agreement was signed on
3 December 17, 2003 as defendants disclosed in Proxy. 4 HHLAW & Orrick knew several key emails provided in 5 Federal Action discovery had been omitted in even the partial State action discovery provided. 6 3. In late 2010 after suffering an adverse ruling in the summary judgment it 7 led to more acts of fraudulent 8 concealment including RGRDs ignoring new damage evidence provided by petitioner in or around July 2010 Therefore, 9 HHLAW fraudulently concealed information that would have resulted in the 10 Judge nixing on its face without need of 11 petitioner to reply or respond to such motion in 2010. Thus 60(b)(4) is appropriate to provide relief here. 12 4. In 2010 when RGRD broadcast knowingly false statements via the New 13 York Times article. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 B) Fraudulent concealment of scheme to damage class economically thru changing the class certification in late 2010 & misleading court in May 2011 Court hearing & June 2011 motion. Evidence (Petitioners 60b declaration, sections 12941303, pg. 450 454) C) RGRD fraudulently concealed that petitioner contacted RGRD several times in 2010 after the summary judgment decision providing material new information and claims that RGRD refused to consider or review in good faith. 1. This included damages based on new evidence: i) MySpace Search and ii) MySpace Financial Forecast
21 documents that were part of Federal discovery but not given to damage experts or used for benefit of Class. 22 2011 23 A) Omission of RGRDs 900% error in 2006 & 2008, discovered by 24 petitioner. 25 26 27 28 1. Notification sent to RGRD of such error made twice. RGRD made same error three times. Paragraphs 1045-1046 / pgs. 462-464 / Petitioner 60b Declaration B) Fraudulent concealment by RGRD & Jim Brown in March & May 2011 declarations & RGRD defames petitioner to court, breaching common interest agreement. Such claims by RGRD & Brown are false -see 60b Decl. Sections: 787 / pg. 331 & Sections 966 - 1055, pgs. 418-476 30
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
C) In May 2011, RGRD fraudulently conceals its in breach of 2007 Common Interests & confidentiality agreement with petitioner i) Petitioner 60b Decl. (Section 114, pg. 359 ) D) RGRDS Randall Baron allows himself to become conflicted in late 2010 after being retained by DEFENDANTS largest investor in new internet company, Oak Tree Capital 1.
Class. Such conflict remains unabated currently. i)60b Decl. Sec: 1104 1111 (pg. 518-521) ii)(section:1114-1114(pgs: 525-526)
V-
RELIEF
Substantial Justice Will Be Served by Granting Relief under 15 U.S.C. 78u-6 ("Section
922") , Section 78u6(h)(1)(A)(iii) of the Dodd-Frank bill incorporating18 U.S.C. 1513(e), and Motions under 60b4, or
60b6, as the underlying facts of this case dictatesubstantial justice will be served and a
manifest injustice would be prevented by granting relief. 13 Defendant has 15 consistently demonstrated an unwillingness 16 to proceed fairly and openly in this litigation & directly flouted courts authority 17 by fraudulently concealing evidence and 18 engaging in an egregious pattern of misconduct to delay and hamper 19 proceedings. Petitioner requests: 1) RGRD, 20 HHLAW, & Orrick should be disqualified + sanctions 2) The motion to ban 21 vacated. 3) current settlement should be vacated 4) aJury trial date provided 22 5) 25 summary judgment motions disposed for benefit of class, filed in separate motion 6) Petitioner serves as Class Representative. 7) Court should 23 accept the Rule 701 Declaration & Valuation Report as evidence of equal or 24 greater merit then Kennedy when a Jury would consider damages. 8) Class & defendants must hire new counsel. 9) provide dates for Federal 25 whistleblower anti-retaliatory acts under Dodd Frank 10) Monetary 26 compensation under Dodd Frank for loss of job in 2003 and independent and continuing actions by same company News Corp purchased in 2005 27 28
13
DATED:
January 13, 2012
respectfully submitted,
31
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 EXHIBIT A
Brad Greenspan, in Pro Per And on behalf and for benefit of Class
and unincorporated association of the MySpace2006 Association which is a group of individual common stock holders that email and update each other periodically since 2005.
32
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
TITLE IX--WHITE-COLLAR CRIME PENALTY ENHANCEMENT

S SEC. 901. SHORT TITLE. This title may be cited as the `White-Collar Crime Penalty Enhancement Act of 2002'. SEC. 902. ATTEMPTS AND CONSPIRACIES TO COMMIT CRIMINAL FRAUD O OFFENSES. (a) IN GENERAL- Chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after section 1348 as added by this Act the following: `Sec. 1349. Attempt and conspiracy ` `Any person who attempts or conspires to commit any offense under this chapter shall be subject to the same penalties as those prescribed for the offense, the commission of w which was the object of the attempt or conspiracy. (b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT- The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 63 of t title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new item: `1349. Attempt and conspiracy.'.
SEC. 807. CRIMINAL PENALTIES FOR DEFRAUDING SHAREHOLDERS OF PUBLICLY TRADED COMPANIES.
33
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 0 0
(a) IN GENERAL- Chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
` `Sec. 1348. Securities fraud `Whoever knowingly executes, or attempts to execute, a scheme or artifice-`(1) to defraud any person in connection with any security of an issuer with a class of securities registered under section 12 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78l) or that is required to file reports under section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78o(d)); or `(2) to obtain, by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises, any money or property in connection with the purchase or sale of any security of an issuer with a class of securities registered under section 12 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78l) or that is required to file reports u under section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78o(d)); s shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned not more than 25 years, or both.'. (b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT- The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new item: `1348. Securities fraud.'
TITLE VI--COMMISSION RESOURCES AND AUTHORITY
34
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
S SEC. 601. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
Section 35 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78kk) is amended to read as follows:
`SEC. 35. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS. S
`In addition to any other funds authorized to be appropriated to the Commission, there are authorized to be appropriated to carry out the functions, powers, and duties of the Commission, $776,000,000 for fiscal year 2003, of which-1 `(1) $102,700,000 shall be available to fund additional compensation, including salaries and benefits, as authorized in the Investor and Capital Markets Fee Relief Act (Public Law 107-123; 115 Stat. 2390 et seq.); `(2) $108,400,000 shall be available for information technology, security enhancements, and recovery and mitigation activities in light of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001; and
`(3) $98,000,000 shall be available to add not fewer than an additional 200 qualified professionals to provide enhanced oversight of auditors and audit services required by the Federal securities laws, and to improve Commission investigative and disciplinary efforts with respect to such auditors and services, as well as for additional professional support staff necessary to strengthen the programs of the Commission involving Full Disclosure and Prevention and Suppression of Fraud, risk management, industry technology review, compliance, inspections, examinations, market regulation, and investment management.'.
35
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
S SEC. 409. REAL TIME ISSUER DISCLOSURES.
Section 13 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m), as amended by this Act, is amended by adding at the end the following:
36
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
`(l) REAL TIME ISSUER DISCLOSURES- Each issuer reporting under section 13(a) or 15(d) shall disclose to the public on a rapid and current basis such additional information concerning material changes in the financial condition or operations of the issuer, in plain English, which may include trend and qualitative information and graphic presentations, as the Commission determines, by rule, is necessary or useful for the protection of investors and in the public interest.'.
S SEC. 408. ENHANCED REVIEW OF PERIODIC DISCLOSURES BY ISSUERS.
(a) REGULAR AND SYSTEMATIC REVIEW- The Commission shall review disclosures made by issuers reporting under section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (including reports filed on Form 10-K), and which have a class of securities listed on a national securities exchange or traded on an automated quotation facility of a national 37
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 0 0 2 2
securities association, on a regular and systematic basis for the protection of investors. Such r review shall include a review of an issuer's financial statement. (b) REVIEW CRITERIA- For purposes of scheduling the reviews required by subsection (a), the Commission shall consider, among other factors-(1) issuers that have issued material restatements of financial results; (2) issuers that experience significant volatility in their stock price as compared to other issuers; (3) issuers with the largest market capitalization; (4) emerging companies with disparities in price to earning ratios; (5) issuers whose operations significantly affect any material sector of the economy; and
(6) any other factors that the Commission may consider relevant.
38
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
TITLE V--ANALYST CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
SEC. 501. TREATMENT OF SECURITIES ANALYSTS BY REGISTERED SECURITIES A ASSOCIATIONS AND NATIONAL SECURITIES EXCHANGES.
(a) RULES REGARDING SECURITIES ANALYSTS- The Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78a et seq.) is amended by inserting after section 15C the following new section: ` `SEC. 15D. SECURITIES ANALYSTS AND RESEARCH REPORTS.
`(a) ANALYST PROTECTIONS- The Commission, or upon the authorization and direction of the Commission, a registered securities association or national securities exchange, shall have adopted, not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this section, rules reasonably designed to address conflicts of interest that can arise when securities analysts recommend equity securities in research reports and public appearances, in order to improve the objectivity of research and provide investors with more useful and reliable information, including rules designed-3 `(1) to foster greater public confidence in securities research, and to protect the objectivity and independence of securities analysts, by-`(A) restricting the prepublication clearance or approval of research reports by persons employed by the broker or dealer who are engaged in investment banking activities, or persons not directly responsible for investment research, other than legal or compliance staff; `(B) limiting the supervision and compensatory evaluation of securities analysts to officials employed by the broker or dealer who are not engaged in investment banking activities; and `(C) requiring that a broker or dealer and persons employed by a broker or dealer 39
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3
who are involved with investment banking activities may not, directly or indirectly, retaliate against or threaten to retaliate against any securities analyst employed by that broker or dealer or its affiliates as a result of an adverse, negative, or otherwise unfavorable research report that may adversely affect the present or prospective investment banking relationship of the broker or dealer with the issuer that is the subject of the research report, except that such rules may not limit the authority of a broker or dealer to discipline a securities analyst for causes other than such research report in accordance with the policies and procedures of the firm; `(2) to define periods during which brokers or dealers who have participated, or are to participate, in a public offering of securities as underwriters or dealers should not publish or otherwise distribute research reports relating to such securities or to the i issuer of such securities; `(3) to establish structural and institutional safeguards within registered brokers or dealers to assure that securities analysts are separated by appropriate informational partitions within the firm from the review, pressure, or oversight of those whose involvement in investment banking activities might potentially bias their judgment or supervision; a and `(4) to address such other issues as the Commission, or such association or exchange, d determines appropriate. `(b) DISCLOSURE- The Commission, or upon the authorization and direction of the Commission, a registered securities association or national securities exchange, shall have adopted, not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this section, rules reasonably designed to require each securities analyst to disclose in public appearances, and each registered broker or dealer to disclose in each research report, as applicable, conflicts of interest that are known or should have been known by the securities analyst or the broker or dealer, to exist at the time of the appearance or the date of distribution of the report, i including-`(1) the extent to which the securities analyst has debt or equity investments in the issuer t that is the subject of the appearance or research report; `(2) whether any compensation has been received by the registered broker or dealer, or any affiliate thereof, including the securities analyst, from the issuer that is the 40
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
subject of the appearance or research report, subject to such exemptions as the Commission may determine appropriate and necessary to prevent disclosure by virtue of this paragraph of material non-public information regarding specific potential future investment banking transactions of such issuer, as is appropriate in t the public interest and consistent with the protection of investors; `(3) whether an issuer, the securities of which are recommended in the appearance or research report, currently is, or during the 1-year period preceding the date of the appearance or date of distribution of the report has been, a client of the registered b broker or dealer, and if so, stating the types of services provided to the issuer; `(4) whether the securities analyst received compensation with respect to a research report, based upon (among any other factors) the investment banking revenues (either generally or specifically earned from the issuer being analyzed) of the r registered broker or dealer; and `(5) such other disclosures of conflicts of interest that are material to investors, research analysts, or the broker or dealer as the Commission, or such association or exchange, d determines appropriate. ` `(c) DEFINITIONS- In this section-`(1) the term `securities analyst' means any associated person of a registered broker or dealer that is principally responsible for, and any associated person who reports directly or indirectly to a securities analyst in connection with, the preparation of the substance of a research report, whether or not any such person has the job title of ` `securities analyst'; and `(2) the term `research report' means a written or electronic communication that includes an analysis of equity securities of individual companies or industries, and that provides information reasonably sufficient upon which to base an investment d decision.'. (b) ENFORCEMENT- Section 21B(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78u2(a)) is amended by inserting `15D,' before `15B'. 41
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
(c) COMMISSION AUTHORITY- The Commission may promulgate and amend its regulations, or direct a registered securities association or national securities exchange to promulgate and amend its rules, to carry out section 15D of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as added by this section, as is necessary for the protection of investors and in the public interest
S SEC. 407. DISCLOSURE OF AUDIT COMMITTEE FINANCIAL EXPERT.
(a) RULES DEFINING `FINANCIAL EXPERT'- The Commission shall issue rules, as necessary or appropriate in the public interest and consistent with the protection of 42
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4 1 1 3 4
investors, to require each issuer, together with periodic reports required pursuant to sections 13(a) and 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, to disclose whether or not, and if not, the reasons therefor, the audit committee of that issuer is comprised of at least 1 m member who is a financial expert, as such term is defined by the Commission. (b) CONSIDERATIONS- In defining the term `financial expert' for purposes of subsection (a), the Commission shall consider whether a person has, through education and experience as a public accountant or auditor or a principal financial officer, comptroller, or principal accounting officer of an issuer, or from a position involving the performance of similar functions-(1) an understanding of generally accepted accounting principles and financial statements; (2) experience in-(A) the preparation or auditing of financial statements of generally comparable issuers; and (B) the application of such principles in connection with the accounting for estimates, accruals, and reserves; ( (3) experience with internal accounting controls; and ( (4) an understanding of audit committee functions. ( (c) DEADLINE FOR RULEMAKING- The Commission shall-(1) propose rules to implement this section, not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act; and (2) issue final rules to implement this section, not later than 180 days after that date of enactment. 43
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
44
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 0 (B) the offense involved abuse of a special skill or a position of trust; 45

SEC. 805. REVIEW OF FEDERAL SENTENCING GUIDELINES FOR OBSTRUCTION O OF JUSTICE AND EXTENSIVE CRIMINAL FRAUD.
(a) ENHANCEMENT OF FRAUD AND OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE SENTENCESPursuant to section 994 of title 28, United States Code, and in accordance with this section, the United States Sentencing Commission shall review and amend, as appropriate, the Federal Sentencing Guidelines and related policy statements to ensure that-0 (1) the base offense level and existing enhancements contained in United States Sentencing Guideline 2J1.2 relating to obstruction of justice are sufficient to deter and punish that activity; (2) the enhancements and specific offense characteristics relating to obstruction of justice are adequate in cases where-(A) the destruction, alteration, or fabrication of evidence involves-(i) a large amount of evidence, a large number of participants, or is otherwise extensive; (ii) the selection of evidence that is particularly probative or essential to the investigation; or (iii) more than minimal planning; or
0 0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
(3) the guideline offense levels and enhancements for violations of section 1519 or 1520 of title 18, United States Code, as added by this title, are sufficient to deter and p punish that activity; (4) a specific offense characteristic enhancing sentencing is provided under United States Sentencing Guideline 2B1.1 (as in effect on the date of enactment of this Act) for a fraud offense that endangers the solvency or financial security of a substantial n number of victims; and (5) the guidelines that apply to organizations in United States Sentencing Guidelines, chapter 8, are sufficient to deter and punish organizational criminal misconduct.
(b) EMERGENCY AUTHORITY AND DEADLINE FOR COMMISSION ACTION- The United States Sentencing Commission is requested to promulgate the guidelines or amendments provided for under this section as soon as practicable, and in any event not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, in accordance with the prcedures set forth in section 219(a) of the Sentencing Reform Act of 1987, as though the authority under that Act had not expired.
46
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 SEC. 406. CODE OF ETHICS FOR SENIOR FINANCIAL OFFICERS.
47
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 1 1 4
(a) CODE OF ETHICS DISCLOSURE- The Commission shall issue rules to require each issuer, together with periodic reports required pursuant to section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, to disclose whether or not, and if not, the reason therefor, such issuer has adopted a code of ethics for senior financial officers, applicable to its principal financial officer and comptroller or principal accounting officer, or persons p performing similar functions. (b) CHANGES IN CODES OF ETHICS- The Commission shall revise its regulations concerning matters requiring prompt disclosure on Form 8-K (or any successor thereto) to require the immediate disclosure, by means of the filing of such form, dissemination by the Internet or by other electronic means, by any issuer of any change in or waiver of the code o of ethics for senior financial officers. (c) DEFINITION- In this section, the term `code of ethics' means such standards as are reasonably necessary to promote-(1) honest and ethical conduct, including the ethical handling of actual or apparent conflicts of interest between personal and professional relationships; (2) full, fair, accurate, timely, and understandable disclosure in the periodic reports required to be filed by the issuer; and ( (3) compliance with applicable governmental rules and regulations. ( (d) DEADLINE FOR RULEMAKING- The Commission shall-(1) propose rules to implement this section, not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act; and (2) issue final rules to implement this section, not later than 180 days after that date of enactment.
48
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
0 `(iv) EXTENSIONS AUTHORIZED- The effective period of an order under this subparagraph may be extended by the court upon good cause shown for not longer than 45 additional days, provided that the combined period of the order shall not exceed 90 days. 0 `(II) be served upon the parties subject to it; and 1 0 `(III) unless set aside, limited or suspended by a court of competent jurisdiction, shall remain effective and enforceable for 45 days. 1 0 0 `(i) ISSUANCE OF TEMPORARY ORDER- Whenever, during the course of a lawful investigation involving possible violations of the Federal securities laws by an issuer of publicly traded securities or any of its directors, officers, partners, controlling persons, agents, or employees, it shall appear to the Commission that it is likely that the issuer will make extraordinary payments (whether compensation or otherwise) to any of the foregoing persons, the Commission may petition a Federal district court for a temporary order requiring the issuer to escrow, subject to court supervision, those payments in an interest-bearing account for 45 days. `(ii) STANDARD- A temporary order shall be entered under clause (i), only after notice and opportunity for a hearing, unless the court determines that notice and hearing prior to entry of the order would be impracticable or contrary to the public interest. (a) IN GENERAL- Section 21C(c) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78u-3(c)) is amended by adding at the end the following: 0 `(3) TEMPORARY FREEZE`(A) IN GENERALSEC. 1103. TEMPORARY FREEZE AUTHORITY FOR THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE C COMMISSION.
`(iii) EFFECTIVE PERIOD- A temporary order issued under clause (i) shall--
`(I) become effective immediately;
49
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
0 `(B) PROCESS ON DETERMINATION OF VIOLATIONS-
0 `(i) VIOLATIONS CHARGED- If the issuer or other person described in subparagraph (A) is charged with any violation of the Federal securities laws before the expiration of the effective period of a temporary order under subparagraph (A) (including any applicable extension period), the order shall remain in effect, subject to court approval, until the conclusion of any legal proceedings related thereto, and the affected issuer or other person, shall have the right to petition the court for review of the order.
0 `(ii) VIOLATIONS NOT CHARGED- If the issuer or other person described in subparagraph (A) is not charged with any violation of the Federal securities laws before the expiration of the effective period of a temporary order under subparagraph (A) (including any applicable extension period), the escrow shall terminate at the expiration of the 45-day effective period (or the expiration of any extension period, as applicable), and the disputed payments (with accrued interest) shall be returned to the issuer or other affected person.'.
50
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
(4) ensure that guideline offense levels and enhancements for an obstruction of justice offense are adequate in cases where documents or other physical evidence are actually destroyed or fabricated; (3) account for any aggravating or mitigating circumstances that might justify exceptions, including circumstances for which the sentencing guidelines currently provide sentencing e enhancements; 1 ( (2) assure reasonable consistency with other relevant directives and with other guidelines; 2 (1) ensure that the sentencing guidelines and policy statements reflect the serious nature of securities, pension, and accounting fraud and the need for aggressive and appropriate law enforcement action to prevent such offenses; (b) CONSIDERATIONS IN REVIEW- In carrying out this section, the Sentencing Commission is requested to-5 (3) submit to Congress an explanation of actions taken by the Sentencing Commission pursuant to paragraph (2) and any additional policy recommendations the Sentencing C Commission may have for combating offenses described in paragraph (1). 1 (2) expeditiously consider the promulgation of new sentencing guidelines or amendments to existing sentencing guidelines to provide an enhancement for officers or directors of publicly traded corporations who commit fraud and related offenses; and 1 (a) REQUEST FOR IMMEDIATE CONSIDERATION BY THE UNITED STATES SENTENCING COMMISSION- Pursuant to its authority under section 994(p) of title 28, United States Code, and in accordance with this section, the United States Sentencing Commission is requested to-E EC. 1104. AMENDMENT TO THE FEDERAL SENTENCING GUIDELINES.
(1) promptly review the sentencing guidelines applicable to securities and accounting fraud and related offenses;
51
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
(7) assure that the guidelines adequately meet the purposes of sentencing as set forth in section 3553 (a)(2) of title 18, United States Code. (c) EMERGENCY AUTHORITY AND DEADLINE FOR COMMISSION ACTION- The United States Sentencing Commission is requested to promulgate the guidelines or amendments provided for under this section as soon as practicable, and in any event not later than the 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, in accordance with the procedures sent forth in section 21(a) of the Sentencing Reform Act of 1987, as though the authority under that Act had not expired. ( (6) make any necessary conforming changes to the sentencing guidelines; and (5) ensure that the guideline offense levels and enhancements under United States Sentencing Guideline 2B1.1 (as in effect on the date of enactment of this Act) are sufficient for a fraud o offense when the number of victims adversely involved is significantly greater than 50;
52
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
(b) SECURITIES ACT OF 1933- Section 8A of the Securities Act of 1933 (15 U.S.C. 77h-1) is amended by adding at the end of the following: `(f) AUTHORITY OF THE COMMISSION TO PROHIBIT PERSONS FROM SERVING AS OFFICERS OR DIRECTORS- In any cease-and-desist proceeding under subsection (a), the Commission may issue an order to prohibit, conditionally or unconditionally, and permanently or for such period of time as it shall determine, any person who has violated section 17(a)(1) or the rules or regulations thereunder, from acting as an officer or director of any issuer that has a class of securities registered pursuant to section 12 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, or that is required to file reports pursuant to section 15(d) of that Act, if the conduct of that person demonstrates unfitness to serve as an officer or director of any such issuer.'. (a) SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934- Section 21C of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ( (15 U.S.C. 78u-3) is amended by adding at the end the following: SEC. 1105. AUTHORITY OF THE COMMISSION TO PROHIBIT PERSONS FROM SERVING AS O OFFICERS OR DIRECTORS.
`(f) AUTHORITY OF THE COMMISSION TO PROHIBIT PERSONS FROM SERVING AS OFFICERS OR DIRECTORS- In any cease-and-desist proceeding under subsection (a), the Commission may issue an order to prohibit, conditionally or unconditionally, and permanently or for such period of time as it shall determine, any person who has violated section 10(b) or the rules or regulations thereunder, from acting as an officer or director of any issuer that has a class of securities registered pursuant to section 12, or that is required to file reports pursuant to section 15(d), if the conduct of that person demonstrates unfitness to serve as an officer or director of a any such issuer.'.
53
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
S SEC. 1107. RETALIATION AGAINST INFORMANTS. ( (a) IN GENERAL- Section 1513 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following: 0 0 (1) by striking `$1,000,000, or imprisoned not more than 10 years' and inserting `$5,000,000, or imprisoned not more than 20 years'; and S SEC. 1106. INCREASED CRIMINAL PENALTIES UNDER SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934. Section 32(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78ff(a)) is amended--
(2) by striking `$2,500,000' and inserting `$25,000,000'.
`(e) Whoever knowingly, with the intent to retaliate, takes any action harmful to any person, including interference with the lawful employment or livelihood of any person, for providing to a law enforcement officer any truthful information relating to the commission or possible commission of any Federal offense, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.'.
54
1 2 3 4 5 6 1. Plaintiff Counsel RGRD were same lawyers at the Lerach firm that signed and agreed to abide by
) . This 7 paragraph 17(c firm on clearly is stated in the document signed by Steve Oddo of Lerach law January 12, 2006. 8 The firm changes its name soon after to Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman Robbins 9 LLC, now RGRD LLC. Mr. Oddo is a beneficiary of the 10 member of RGRD and a of the principals oflegal fees if they continue to be class counsel. The rest 11 RGRD are almost identical to the principals operating the entity that entered 12 into this agreement precluding them from 13 serving in current role as federal class counsel. In addition because the other signatories are Orrick and HHLaw, it 14 raises troubling conflicts for the RGRD firm to continue to be class counsel. In 15 addition, the firm has also breached its to the 16 duty of candor parties court. The court should consider Rule 11 sanctions be applied to all based on 17 investigation by court an responses of parties. 18 19 20 RGRD was 21 . as in July notified by petitioner of new evidence on multiple occasions such 22 2010 regarding: i) Heckmans admissions in Angwin book about the Search 23 auction timing and economics of January bid ii) value 24 2006 Microsoftlay testimony,of missing MySpace Search. Rule 701 allows for the admission of where 25 three requirements are met. 14 The Eleventh Circuit recently considered the 26 application of these requirements in a case an agent was permitted to provide 27 in whichconcerning international terrorism lay testimony concerning code words 28 activities. In United States v. Jayyousi, F.3d (11th Cir. Sept. 19, 2011), the majority concluded testimony was admissible
14
55
1 2
under FRE 701.
15
35. An independent scheme by defendants is 2010 joint motion to brief the motion to ban Brad Greenspan. The
3 stated goal is to preclude petitioner. Brown & RGRD lie thru omission of relationship and agreements with petitioner. 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 This book
13 largely promotes a clearly false set of facts to cover up new claims and other liabilities of Defendants. This perverts and 14 15 corrupts the Classs chance of getting a fair trial. RGRD obstructs equitable discovery process by ensuring no discovery 16 17 comes from petitioner, while using only one source, Julia Angwin. Angwin worked for News Corp for over two years 18 19 before publishing her book and continues to work for News Corp. Angwin uses Edell as a critical source, attempting to 20 21 explain why Intermix would have sold a big piece of their crown jewel to insiders for scant consideration in December of 22 23 2003. A significant challenge as Issuer failed to disclose any such arrangement in any public filings for 11 months. 24 25 News Corp, Defendants and RGRD fraudulently conceal Edells background again in 2009 and 2010 as well as new 26 27 MySpace search evidence when releasing the book & for the purpose of reducing Summary Judgement claims. 28 26. Defendants have worked closely with the same law firms since 2003 and
15
56
each law firm have themselves been
2 involved in preparing or part of at least one defective Proxy as all Proxies filed 3 since 2004 have been defective. Orrick 4 by themselves have been paid over $5 million dollars just from two years thru 5 2005 serving Chris DeWolfe at FogCutter. 6 Orrick was being paid by additional funds from VantagePont and public issuer. 7 Defendants fail to disclose in Proxy, 8 Orrick and DeWolfes ongoing work relationship at FogCutter and had 9 determined it proper to pay their CEO in jail as he 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 GRD & Randall Baron litigated in Delaware State Court. HHLAW and Orrick were also complicit in not disclosing the sanctions under their duty of candor, as it was Latham Watkins that won the
that many of the documents produced by Viacom should have been previously produced by defendants or third parties controlled by defendants, as many of the documents were sent or received by individuals at MySpace, including Chris DeWolfe and Joshua Berman, who had been served document subpoenas. Upon further review, and comparison with documents that were produced by defendants, plaintiff ascertained that
pled guilty for evasion and bribery.
21 sanctions against RGRD in 2008. LathamWatkins was defendants co-counsel for State Action and is also an adverse 22 witness in the Federal Class action. RGRD has fraudulently concealed Barons 23 red flag sanctions received by Vice 24 Chancellor Laster. RGRD utterly failed to report out under L.R. 83-3.4 which states, 25 26 27 28 Laster a long time defender of corporate governance uses Sanction ruling as precedential yardstick in future cases. In 2010, Laster cited his bad faith RGRD 57
1 2
ruling after disqualifiy another firm in Delaware Baron works closely with for not zealously litigating. RGRD must be disqualified similar to how Laster
3 elegantly disqualifies RGRDs Delaware Co-counsel for lack of adequate representation citing the Precedent of 4 sanctioning Mr. Baron who Judge Laster is holding as the new example of a 5 dishonest lawyer, stating, 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 In addition, SEC proposed so-called "noisy withdrawals" regulations that would 16 require or permit counsel 17 to withdraw from representation of the company if the violations continued. HHLAW was aware since at least 2009 that 18 News Corp and Intermix have violated securities law and HHLAW has not 19 reported out to the SEC. Therefore 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 period of LA Citys decision to file a legal complaint against public issuer for the 28 companys
16
Taking this conduct as a whole, I conclude that Old Counsel has not provided adequate representation. This conclusion provides a sufficient grounding to replace Old Counsel.16(rejecting settlement where lead counsel unreasonably failed to investigate or pursue viable claims before consenting to settlement); In re SS&C Tech.Inc. Sholders Litig., 911 A.2d 816, 818 (Del. Ch. 2006)(declining to approve settlement where plaintiffs counsel entered into a disclosure-only settlement after a document demand was served but before any discovery was taken; finding that plaintiffs counsel failed to establish that the potential claims belonging to the class were adequately or diligently investigated or pursued).
Cf. In re TD BankNorth Sholders Litig., 938 A.2d 654, 668 (Del. Ch. 2007)
58
1 distribution of software without proper disclosure notices for consumers. News 2 4 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Corp discloses thru its SEC filings the first indeed by the LA City Attorney on November HHLaw also admits in the same answer on 3 mention that a LA City investigation occurred and Intermix has been sued 5 17, 2005 that the City sent Intermix a draft complaint on August 31,2005. 7 November 23, 2005 in State Court that, On August 31, 2005 after the News Corp acquisition of Intermix was announced, and after News Corp and Fox had begun assisting Intermix in finalizing its proposed settlement with the N.Y.A.G. and "The City's attempt to renege and extract monetary penalties from Intermix, and ultimately Fox, is barred by the agreement arising from Intermix's acceptance of the City's August 31 offer, and Fox and Intermix' detrimental reliance by agreeing to forego the opportunity to include the City in a final global resolution with the New York Attorney General office." Issuer never disclosed in Proxy prior to September 30, 2005 that News Corp or HHLAW had been involved in the settlement discussions or were assisting Intermix in finalizing any matters with the Los Angeles City Attorney or
19 the New York City AG prior to September 30, 2005. Only after deal closed and seventy five days later are facts 20 disclosed by News Corp and public issuer thru News Corp SEC filings. 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 . HHLaw effects scheme that kept Class Members from receiving the benefit of such agreement. 2. Evidence benefitting Class Members omitted from pleadings is included in the summary judgment 3. HHLAW in May 2009 takes actions to induce petitioners law firm to interfere with HHLAW & Petitioner agreement 59
which prevented evidence entering the Federal Court. HHLAW induces RGRD to substitute in News Corp employee Julia
2 Angwin as fact source. This series of acts constitute new affirmative acts independent of the underlying conspiracy in 3 2005 which is at the heart of the Federal Brown v. Brewer case. HHLAWs Bety 4 Javidzad sends petitioner an email with 5 Elizabeth Moriarty ccd who works directly with Rick Stone. Stone represents News Corp and defendants while also 6 being the same individuals that negotiated merger agreement for News Corp 7 while also Assisting Intermix in its 8 settlement negotiations with the NY AG and the LA AG. HHLAW also is responsible for producing all of News Corps 9 10 SEC filings and has done so for at least the last 10 years. Ms. Javidzads May 5, 2009 email sent at 2:08:39 PM PDT 11 12 Subject: Deposition and Documents Subpoena, states, We just wanted to let you know that we are withdrawing the 13 subpoena for the deposition of and production of documents by Brad Greenspan pursuant to an agreement we reached with Plaintiff not to call 14 Greenspan as a witness or use his testimony in any form. Therefore, you 15 do not need to produce documents tomorrow and you do not need to 16 appear for your deposition on May 13. 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Ii) Preparing, Reviewing, and allowing to be Filed Proxies omitting Edells true and known background in the January 2004 Proxy, July 2004 Proxy, and September 2005 Proxy. Iii) Fraudulently concealing their knowledge of these fraudulent acts
60
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 On July 3, 2010 Randall Baron Stated that it would be karmic justice if shareholders received the full damages owed and The Article by Gretchen Morgenson cited $617 million dollars as
9 such damages shareholders would receive if such was the outcome cited by Baron. This act of deception was cited in 10 the objection by objector Wollins and should be addressed regardless of citation 11 again in this motion. Then on or 12 around July 2010 RGRD affirmed false history in joint motion facilitating Defendants motion to ban petitioner. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1.
17
Not only does Petitioner never get the chance to opt out, but RGRD fails to notify Petitioner in late 2009 per the Courts instructions. This causes Petitioner loss of several months of heads up notice that are never recovered and provide further grounds to vacate ban motion. Motion to ban should be vacated based on 60b(1) excusable neglect. RGRD cannot provide evidence or proof they followed Courts instructions and never notified Petitioner.17
v) On or around March 31,2009, Lead Counsel filed an exparte application for an extension of discovery deadlines, based on certain difficulties that Lead Plaintiff was having in securing discovery and including documents from News Corp. and the deposition of Viacom.
In late 2010, HHLAWs breach of duty of candor to court regarding the 61
Ruma Enterprise, Inc. v. Big Mac's Packing, Inc.,1994 Mass. App. Div. 110.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
status of discovery provided to petitioner as part of State Class action in 2005 and 2006 and that
requires parties to supplement the testimony of their expert witnesses to inform the opposing party of any changes or alterations. RGRD had a duty to inform the court when it
8 became aware of new evidence and discovery by any of their fact or expert witnesses used or planned to be used. 9 10 Petitioner was both contributing fact witness and Rule 701 witness as of April 2009. Its uncontested as shown by 11 evidence submitted in these pleadings that RGRD had accepted and made use 12 of evidence provided by petitioner prior 13 to April 2009. In 2010 and 2011, RGRD violates 26(e), becoming aware of new evidence from petitioner & failing to 14 make critical changes or to inform the opposing party of such needed changes. 15 Instead RGRD just tried to get a quick 16 settlement done. Under Rule 37(a) failing to supplement expert testimony, the district court may order appropriate 17 sanctions as provided Not equitable, this predictably creates a fundamental 18 18 unfairness,See - Porchiv.DesEquip.Co., 19 20 21 22 23 24 26 27 28 which states, In order to maintain the effective administration of justice and the integrity of the Court, each attorney shall be familiar with and comply with the standards of professional conduct required of members of the State Bar of should disqualify all law firms other then Objector
California
25 Counsel.under Rule 83-3 which states, nor shall anything contained in this Rule 83-3 be construed to deny any judge of this Court said judges inherent power to maintain control over the proceedings conducted before said judge, nor to deny the judge those powers derived from any statute or rule of court. Misconduct of any attorney in the presence of a court or in any manner in respect to any
18
62
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3. 13
matter pending in a court may be dealt with directly by the judge in charge of the matter or at said judges option, referred to the Committee, or both.
For the record, I am being told by the Lawyers that there was nothing that could be done at this point anyway. I do know you have the option to opt out with the shareholders who are behind you on this. Sorry this has created such anxiety. JB This is proven by May 19, 2009, RGRD and Defendants signing a joint stipulation allowing for more discovery, Taking of DeWolfe Deposition After the Discovery Cut-off if Necessary, is hereby ORDERED that in the event DeWolfe cannot be made available for his deposition prior to the discovery cut-off on May 20, 2009, RGRD then allows DeWolfe to wait until September 2009 to be deposed. Therefore, Browns contention in
14 email is sent to petitioner prior to May 19, 2009. Therefore, Discovery was ongoing as of May 19, 2009. RGRD and 15 clearly could have at any time 16 Brown received would require them toclaimed new information & discovery they get 17 discovery from petitioner. Therefore, Brown lied to petitioner having 18 stated, nothing that could be done at this point 19 Information including learning of April 2009 dispute RGRD. thru HHLAW or News Corp illegal 20 between Petitioner &using aDefendants email computer intrusion misleading 21 sent to Petitioner that claimed to be a receipt for a recent web domain 22 purchased that once clicked on turned out to and not be 23 have no information visible and HHLAWfrom a destination or source recognized by petitioner. Defendants 24 were aware that petitioner often bought web domains. Thus by inducing 25 petitioner to think the downloadable file might device 26 have been from a bona fide vendor, a Trojan or the was installed onto petitioners computer. HHLAW, News Corp, 27 party they hired got access to Petitioners emails and viewed or downloaded 28 private conversations and emails, then used the ill got confidential information to interfere, driving a wedge between RGRD and its first client, Petitioner. 63
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1. Such shareholder is, Gordon Crawford (Capital Research & Management,) identified by defendants in their supplemental disclosures) was deposed on May 14, 2009. RGRD fails to procure evidence that exists which is fact that
8 Crawford was shareholder in public company that evangelist Pat Robertson owned large equity stake. News Corp 9 acquired control of this same Company in 1997. Broadcasting & Cable reported 10 on April 28, 1997,All in family for 11 Murdoch: deal to acquire International Family Entertainment for $350 million $400 million all but done. 12 13 14 15 1. Defendants use the benefits of the fabricated Edell resume to mislead Shareholders, fraudulently concealing
16 fact that purported MySpace Asset Purchase document disclosed by Issuer in November 2004 10Q, fabricates the 17 claim of having been executed on December 17, 2003, Defendants attempt to 18 leverage the fraudulent concealment of 19 Edells true Professional Experience, by using the resulting fake credibility temporarily captured by Edell to provide false 20 Statements and reason why eUniverse would have sold 33% of Myspace.com 21 on December 17, 2003 to insiders for 22 $50,000. Defendants and News Corps hope is to permanently fraudulently conceal a string of misdeeds to seal up 23 liability by pushing past statue of limitations and/or Class Action settlement 24 bought by bribing RGRD. 25 26 27 28
EXHIBIT C
From: Brad Greenspan <bspan@earthlink.net> Date: November 4, 2011 12:10:49 PM PDT To: nytnews@nytimes.com, president@nytimes.com, public@nytimes.com,
64
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
publisher@nytimes.com, gmorgenson@nytimes.com, executiveeditor@nytimes.com, John Rossetti <rossettij@sec.gov>, Matthew Finnegan <FinneganM@SEC.GOV>, publicinfo@sec.gov, cerified@sec.gov, enfsearch@sec.gov, eeo-events@sec.gov, chairmanoffice@sec.gov, tradingandmarkets@sec.gov, help@sec.gov, foiapa@sec.gov, oca@sec.gov, oms@sec.gov, cfletters@sec.gov, dcaoletters@sec.gov, iardlive@sec.gov, webmaster@sec.gov, newyork@sec.gov, boston@sec.gov, philadelphia@sec.gov, miami@sec.gov, atlanta@sec.gov, chicago@sec.gov, denver@sec.gov, dfw@sec.gov, saltlake@sec.gov, losangeles@sec.gov, sanfrancisco@sec.gov, sporkint@sec.gov, senator@boxer.senate.gov, senator@inouye.senate.gov, rinia.shelby@mail.house.gov, john_kerry@kerry.senate.gov, tom_towslee@wyden.senate.gov, elizabeth@earlblumenauer.com Subject: NY TIMES & SEC & STOCKHOLDERS UPDATE- NEW EVIDENCE- TRANSCRIPT RELEASE SHOWS BARON BRIBED BY NEWS CORP CAUGHT LIKE PIG IN POKE: LYING NOW FACES 60B3 SANCTIONS/HEARING
Clearly we have been victims of 2nd Crime against shareholders-I report out findings to SEC & NYTIMES & BCC SOME SHAREHOLDERS I AM KEEPING IN LOOP SEC - please consider Intermix was never validly sold in 2005 and therefore I would like the SEC to regard this as public issue for SEC to investigate. Especially with the Fraud upon court its pretty clear Judge King is victim of and having to deal with without SEC support or DOJ support. Its really shameful none of agencies or U.S. Govt is support the Federal Judiciary and investigating News Corp or RGRDLAW firm. They control over 500 pending class actions. They are a monopoly that does bid rigging against U.S. public and they have teamed up with News Corp to attempt a rather novel attempt that can be simplified as they attempted securities fraud eliminating 50% of eligable shareholders hoping no one would notice and they could trick Judge King. Well! Not in America. Judge King is tough. He rejected settlement and if you review his rulings. He was ready for my 60b3 fraud on court filing to help him understand the scam being run against his court by RGRDLAW's Baron.
65
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Baron lies pretty clearly. But he broadcast a public lie in the NY Times promising to settle for $600 mln and then trying to cram a $45M settlement thru Judge King in Central District. It failed. Its blown up. KEY DOCS TO TELL STORYa) Compare May 2011 transcript - Just released - Oral Objecion by Objector BWGR firm- led by Mr. Bowse (summary below) b) Compare with Judge King's ruling Sep 29, 2011 Note: See position change by Mr. Baron from (a) to (b) c) Judge King roughly 30 days after starting to use the word "odd" to explain Mr. Randall Baron's actions like forgetting he fought with defendants in 2009 to erase the language Baron now argues should be removed. -Then Judge King receives a 1000+ pleading set led by 60b3 motion for fraud upon the court and details how RGRDLAW is lying to court about its knowledge of # of shares that cut removed with Baron's changing language in late 2010. JUDGE KING SETS NOVEMBER 28, 2011 TO HAVE HEARING. CONCLUSION: How can Baron recover??? Or has the ship passed and we are now in BILLIONS ON RECOVERY AND WE ARE OWED SOME CASH FOR BARON'S SECURITIES FRAUD AGAINST HIS OWN FIDUCIARIES. STEP 2- SEPTEMBER 29TH JUDGE KING RULING - REJECTS SETTLEMENT
1) Plaintiff asserts that the Plan of Allocation is fair and that it is proper for the Selling Members not to share in the funds because they do not have any viable claims.
1) We have reviewed the Parties Joint Brief Regarding Trafelets Objection. It appears that the Parties now agree that Trafelet and all other persons who held Intermix stock at any time between July 18, 2005, and September 30, 2005, are members of the Class. Moreover, the Parties agree that pursuant to the Amended Stipulation re: Settlement, all members of the Class, including Trafelet and other shareholders who held stock on July 18 but sold before September 30 (Selling Members), are releasing all claims that were or could have been brought in this action. Additionally, the Parties agree that the Selling Members will receive no proceeds under the current Plan of
66
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Allocation. Therefore, of the two issues raised at the Settlement Hearing, only the second the right to share in the proceeds of the settlement fund remains outstanding. Moreover, even if we were to find the objection foreclosed on procedural grounds, the objection raises fundamental questions as to the fairness of the Settlement and Plan of Allocation, which we have an independent duty to assess. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(2) (If the proposal would bind class members, the court may approve it only after a hearing and on finding that it is fair, reasonable, and adequate.). Plaintiff now argues that as with the federal proxy claims the Selling Members do not have standing to assert the Revlon claim because they sold their shares before the shareholder vote on the merger. Plaintiff calls this the no-recovery-to-persons-who-sell rule. While Plaintiff has given this apparent rule a catchy name, Plaintiff has not provided any authority to show that such a broad sweeping rule actually exists. **ODD** Additionally, in Plaintiffs Response to the Courts Order re: Plaintiffs Motion for Class Certification, Plaintiff opposed any modification to the class definition that would have excluded non- continuous owners of Intermix stock. (Dkt. No. 189) (And while there is some authority for the proposition that 14(a) classes are limited to shareholders who held on the record date, because the breach of fiduciary duty class is broader, there is no reason to narrow the class definition at this time.). If the Selling Members do not have any viable claims as Plaintiff now argues then it would be odd, in the least, that Plaintiff would have fought so hard to include them in the Class in the first place. As Plaintiff has not provided sufficient authority supporting its argument that Trafelet and the other Selling Members do not have a viable claim, and Weigand at least implies the contrary, we conclude that Plaintiff has not met its burden of demonstrating that the Selling Members have no viable claim as a matter of law. Therefore, we REJECT the settlement insofar as the Plan of Allocation is not fair, adequate, and reasonable as presently constituted because it does not allow the Selling Members to share in the proceeds, but the Settlement Agreement requires them to release their claims. II. The Merits of the Objection Trafelet objects to the fairness of the Plan of Allocation because it does not provide any share of the proceeds to the Selling Members. The proponents of any class settlement bear the burden of proof on the issue of fairness. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(2)-(3). Plaintiff asserts that the Plan of Allocation is fair and that it is proper for the Selling Members not to share in the funds because they do not have any viable claims. The claims in this litigation are based on (a) violations of federal proxy laws, and (b) breach of fiduciary duty under Delaware law. Trafelet acknowledges that it does not have standing to assert the federal proxy claims because it sold its shares before the shareholder vote on the merger. See, e.g., Beebe v. Pac. Realty Trust, 99 F.R.D. 60, 72 (D. Or. 1983) (holding that sellers could not assert a federal proxy claim because none of them was a shareholder on the date of the vote). However, Trafelet maintains that it still has a viable claim based on breach of fiduciary duty. One of the breach of fiduciary duty claims in this litigation alleges that Defendants acted in bad faith in the auction context under Revlon, Inc. v. MacAndrews & Forbes Holdings, Inc., 506 A.2d 173 (Del. 1986), when they prevented Viacom from submitting a bid for Intermix even though Viacom as late as July 15, 2005, stood ready to submit a bid for the company. (Dkt. No. 89). Under this claim, Plaintiff presented a lost opportunity theory of damages, whereby Plaintiff argued that because the Defendants took steps to avoid competitive bidding, Plaintiff and the Class have been damaged in that they have not received their fair portion of the value of Intermixs assets and businesses and have been prevented from obtaining a fair price for their shares. (Dkt. No. 89). We explicitly left open this theory of damages in our June 17, 2010 Order re: Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment. (Dkt. No. 278) (We have no occasion to consider and therefore express no opinion on whether the lost opportunity theory of damages premised on a potential Viacom bid would be viable with respect to the breach of fiduciary Plaintiff also argues that Trafelet did not comply with the approved procedures for objecting because it did not provide proof of ownership of its shares. However, we note that paragraph 22 of the Notice, which sets forth the procedures for objecting in person at the Settlement Hearing, does not
1
67
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
contain a proof of ownership requirement.
2. November 18, 2004 at 7:20PM Rosenblatt responds to Flahie, stating (Section 1293/ pgs. 573 / 60b Decl.), i) Tom, I know how this could look but it is NOT at-all how it may appear. ii)Andy NEVER looked at it as a vantage shareholder, but as a Board member looking out for Intermix as a whole. iii)I believed (and was right) that he was better positioned than I was to extract terms that would be acceptable to the Board at large. Over the past week he was, to my surprise, able to get the terms we all think are BETTER for the company and make the Redpoint deal a great deal. iv) In hindsight, I should have asked him to give those new terms to Chris and we should have sent the term sheet to Redpoint. (60b Declar Section: 1291 - 1293/ pgs. 570 - 574 /) 2005
Issuer minutes state, July 17, 2005 - Board Minutes from the 6pm pst meeting &, "Richard Harroch of VantagePoint Venture Partners joined the meeting in progress." 2. Public issuers minutes also state, "The meeting reconvened at 10pm PDT, with all Board Members present as well as Lisa Terrill, the Company's Chief Financial Officer, Adam Goldenberg, President of the Company's Alena, LLC subsidiary, Paul Tosetti, AlexVoxman, Jim Barrall and David Hernand of Latham & Watkins LLP, outside counsel to the Company, Michael Montgomery of Montgomery & CO. ("MCO") and Bob Kitts and Blake Warner of Thomas Weisel Partners ("TWP"), financial advisors to the Company, and Richard Harroch of VantagePoint Venture Partners. Christopher Lipp continued as Secretary of the meeting."
68
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 1. Described in a MAY 19, 1997 Business week article titled, THE DIVINE RIGHT OF MEDIA MOGULS Is
16 Robertson's deal with Murdoch unfair to other investors?, Gordon Crawford a fund manager and member of Federal 17 18 Class of Intermix was victim in 1997 of News Corp making below fair market bid 19 to acquire public company Crawford was 20 stockholder in. Murdochs initial bid to take control was $350-400 million. The 21 article states,But media investor Gordon 22 Crawford, whose funds own about 15% of the Class B shares, raised hell over 23 the deal, say other IFE institutional 24 shareholders. Ultimately to close the buyout News Corp paid over $1.7 billion 25 dollars. Defendants induced RGRD to not 26 cite Crawford testimony in summary judgement . Crawford transcript is sealed 27 and has not been reviewed by petitioner. 28
69
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
On Dec 1, 2011, at 11:01 AM, John Brandenburg wrote: Dear Mr. Greenspan: Thank you for your correspondence dated November 23, 2011, which has been forwarded to the Office of Investor Education and Advocacy (OIEA) for response. We appreciate your alerting us to your concerns regarding certain conduct by the NY Times and some of its employees. OIEA processes many complaints received from individual investors and others. We keep records of the correspondence we receive in a searchable database that SEC staff may make use of in inspections, examinations, and investigations. In addition, some correspondence received by OIEA is referred directly to other SEC offices and divisions for their review. The SEC conducts its investigations on a confidential and nonpublic basis and neither confirms nor denies the existence of an investigation unless the SEC brings charges against someone involved. We do this to protect the integrity and effectiveness of our investigative process and to preserve the privacy of the individuals and entities involved. As a result, we will be unable to confirm whether an investigation exists or provide you with any updates on the status of your complaint or of any pending SEC investigation. Information on our policy is enclosed. You may wish to check our website, www.sec.gov, for information about pending SEC civil actions, administrative cases, and other matters. If you have any questions, please contact me. Sincerely, John P. Brandenburg Attorney Office of Investor Education and Advocacy EXHIBIT D_
From: Brad Greenspan <bspan@earthlink.net> Date: December 9, 2011 4:18:39 PM PST To: John Brandenburg <brandenburgj@sec.gov> Subject: See new evidence for ur review - Reuters reporter asks me about Facebook Valuation and then neither my quote nor my contrarian VALUATION is published
http://www.scribd.com/doc/75077859/CENSORSHIPMEDIA-STYLE-PUBCO-SOX-LIABLE-AND-MUSTBE-COMPLIANT-Reuters-wants-my-valuation-report-but-then-steals-my-data-and-dampens-or-passesoff
70
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------INFORMATION ABOUT SEC INVESTIGATIONS Each year, thousands of investors ask the Securities and Exchange Commission to investigate the activities of other investors, financial professionals, corporations, brokerage firms, investment companies, stock exchanges, and others. These complaints generally suggest some impropriety or misconduct and sometimes make a plea to the SEC for direct assistance in resolving a grievance. The SEC has the authority to investigate whether violations of the federal securities laws have occurred, and we make every effort to evaluate promptly and thoroughly the information provided by investors. But we cannot investigate every investor complaint. While many investor complaints do lead to full investigations and, if appropriate, to enforcement actions, we cannot guarantee that our review will lead to further investigation or that the SEC will take any legal action. We also cannot provide you with updates on the status of your complaint or your request for an investigation. The SEC conducts investigations confidentially for two main reasons. First, we can conduct investigations more effectively if they are not announced publicly. For instance, important documents and evidence can be destroyed quickly if people hear of an investigation. Second, we keep our investigations confidential to protect the reputations of companies and individuals if we find no wrongdoing or decide we cannot bring a successful action against them. The SEC will not confirm or deny the existence of an investigation unless, and until, it becomes a matter of public record as the result of a court action or administrative proceeding. When there is proof that someone has violated the securities laws, the sanctions may include financial penalties, orders to surrender profits, cease and desist orders, or an injunction by a court to prevent further violations. The SEC may also bar individuals from working for a securities firm, investment adviser, or investment company. We can also ask a federal court to bar individuals from being officers and directors of publicly held companies. In some situations, we may refer a case to the Department of Justice for possible criminal prosecution. The SEC publishes news releases about its lawsuits and administrative actions, and the news media often report on them. You can read and download the SECs Enforcement Actions on our website at www.sec.gov/divisions/enforce/enforceactions.shtml. Or you can obtain hard copies by reviewing How to Request Public Documents at: http://www.sec.gov/answers/publicdocs.htm Or Submit a written request to: U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission Office of FOIA/PA Operations 100 F Street N.E. Washington, DC 20549-2736 Fax: (202) 772-9337 Tel: (202) 551-8300 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------File Attachment: Correspondent Name: Mr. Brad Greenspan Create Date: 11/23/2011 Origin: Email File #: HO::~00178048~::HO
71
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
ref:00D3JxQy.5003Hj35M:ref
On Nov 4, 2011, at 8:52 AM, Brad Greenspan wrote:
Dear NY TimesBelow is sufficient evidence. Showing the NY Times reporters covered a story heartily and "zealously" like honest journalists as of June 2010 thru July 2010. At that time, after such article came out titled "Bidder Beware" , the NY Times has refused to cover or update its global audience on material new developments and rulings from Judge King. This is disturbing for multiple reasons. 1. Does NY Times fail to have technology or systems in place to remember or track federal cases where Fortune 500 corporations are defendants? 2. Is NY Times becoming aware of material developments in Brown v. Brewer and simply and simply choosing to ignore them to "tip" coverage to benefit News Corp? 3. Is NY Times a victim of a mole or agent inside its company thats blocking honest journalists from trying to continue coverage of material events in brown v. brewer? 4. Is NY Times conducting undisclosed arrangements directly with News Corp or PR firms representing News Corp or law firms representing News Corp and as part fo this, there is a quid pro quo to not cover results in Brown v. Brewer? 5. Is the NY Times aware that the law firm NY Times promoted in article has had their proposed "karmic justice" settlement rejected by Judge King on 9/29/2011? 6. Is the NY Times aware that the founder of MySpace has been granted a motion of 60b3 fraud upon the court and also inputed new damages including antitrust damages looking for Class to collect up to $96 billion? 7. Is the NY Times aware that News Corps CEO cited his ability to sell Intermix/MySpace for $6 billion a month after buying it for $650 million before admitting to making the mistakes that subsequently lost the value he claimed existed at that time?
72
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
8. Is the NY Times aware that the founder of MySpace has informed Judge King in the 60b3 that he is the victim of Computer Intrusion and having his emails hacked by News Corp and/or its agent Hogan Hartson Law firm that the 60b3 motion has requested be disqualified from case for being too conflicted to represent Intermix defendants in the case? 9. Is the NY Times aware that Class counsel RGRDLAW who made such quote above has been accused by Myspace founder of securities fraud for trying to eliminate 50% of damage eligable shares for News Corp's benefit and that now RGRDLAW has been caught lying to Judge King multiple times and Judge King will be ruling in hearing or shortly after on 11/28/2011 on sanctions for News Corp under 60b3 and its lawyers. 10. Is the NY Times aware that the Class already won summary judgement in July 2010 and now with the new material event of the settlement proposed by class counsel and News Corp being REJECTED and the Judge then cancelling further settlement opportunity because he now has seen sufficient evidence under the Motion for Fraud upon the court 60b3 to send case to Jury Trial to determine proper damages for News Corp to pay? 11. Is the NY Times aware that I also filed for 17+ Summary Judgement claims including antiTrust claims not in the case until now? And that these 17 Summary Judgements are all pending before the Court and Judge King will likely allow those to GO LIVE against News Corp on or after 11/28/2011 (thus Class may not even have to go to Jury Trial within 6 months to win case but Judge may just rule in Class's favor? I suggest someone at NY Times reach out to gretchen Morgenson and ask her why she has stopped reporting on Story she began coverage of. Uneven coverage and censoring material rulings from Federal Court Judges is for amateur hour publications like News Corp publications or publications controlled by State Governments in countries like Syria. I challenge the NY Times President and management and executives to do the right thing and take the evidence of the rulings below and re-start coverage of the case, immediately. I am happy to grant Gretchen or any NY Times reporter an exclusive first interiew on the recent developments and my being granted a hearing for my 60b3 motion for fraud and therefore I have come back into the action and case (I had been banned by a motion filed by HHLAW approximately one year ago that I did not contest at the time). I expect my personal recoupment of damages to be approx $9.6 billion personally. (10% of common stock ownership and a $96B ruling based on Violation of Section 8 of Clayton Act (3X damages) and using the valuation
73
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
created from the previous fraudulently concealed MySpace Actual Financials that were concealed in the State Action which got kicked out by State Judge in 2006. DRATHS CORP UPCOMING STORY OPP Note: I have a second somewhat related story about my Cleantech company Draths Corp which has been the victim of Solyndra's gobbling of DOE $$. Vinod Khosla was my partner and so was CMEA. Draths Corp is first company to have created green plastic and generated over $1mln in revenue so far in 2011 with Coca Cola (for Green PET) and Shaw Industries (Green Nylon6). Suddenly out of nowhere, Draths Corp contacts me (about month ago) and informs me that company is about to go bankrupt unless we are lucky enough to be bought by Amryis. I was busy with MySpace case. My research has found I and Draths Corp and Lansing Michigan and the founders who NY Times wrote beautiful article a few years ago (husband wife founders who were Presidential green chemisty award winners 10 years ago are kicked out of Draths Corp and have had to return to teaching Chemistry at Michigan State) -Khosla, CMEA and TPG pull funding commitments even as Draths Corp scores deals and begins selling green plastic to 2 top customers in space. -Khosla then spins off some of board members and execs of Draths Corp into competitor biotech companies he refashions into direct competitors of Draths Corp. -Khosla then uses Section 8 Clayton Act violation trick again to have Amryis Director Samir Kaul who is the Draths Corp main Director steal Draths corp's clients and business opportunities and transfer them to Amryis, Gevo, and Kios (which he IPOS in 2010 and 2011). -Therefore I have contacted the SEC to add this to their investigation of RedPoint because RedPoint was investor with CMEA in Solyndra. Redpoint is to be new defendant in MySpace Federal Brown v. Brewer as new evidence i put into court for antitrust is a section 8 clayton act violation of RedPoint (Geoff Yang was put on board of MySpace, Inc. at same time he was on board of AskJeeves, and Intermix Chairman Carlick was on board of AskJeeves during sale of company in 2005, both violating Clayton Act and creating the 3X trebles and explaining the key mechanism used to cheat Viacom and shareholders out of fair Auction in 2005.) Doerr and Yang were co-investors in a wireless company in 2005 and were co-investors in Excite@home and both on board at one point before that company went bankrupt in 2001. Excite@home acquired Richard Rosenblatt's Imall in 2001 and went bankrupt a few months after that acquisition. Therefore- I suggest you assign a cleantech reporter to contact me to start getting up to speed on what will be huge story I plan to put before U.S. Solyndra investigation next week (i.e. DRATHS VS .SOLYNDRA- HOW DRATHS SUCCESS KILLED IT BUT CREATED GREAT UPSIDE AND ACCELERATION FOR AMRYIS, GEVO, KIOR. AND HOW CAN THE DOE EXPLAIN NOT WANTING TO INVEST IN A PORTFOLIO COMPANY OF VINOD KHOSLA
74
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
THAT HAS GENERATED REAL REVENUE FROM COCA COLA AND SHAW INDUSTRIES AND WAS ONLY LOSTING $4 MILLION PER YEAR. (I have emails between me and Vinod from within last 30 days showing that Vinod has a massive conflict with his ownership and his use of Samir Kaul as a Director on all the same types of competitors. -Allison Spinner of Sonsini who is controversial lawyer for Solyndra is the Atty for Amryis. After I reviewed the S1 and Def14a on Amryis it has become clear that the SEC might argue or shareholders might argue that Amryis and Spinner have fraudulently concealed the Board Director roles of Samir Kaul on competitor Draths Corp because the public may not have valued Amryis at $1.8billion if they knew Draths Existed in same portfolio, same type of company, and with Interlocking Section 8 violating Director on 3-4 competitors. NOTE: Gevo appears to be competing to get Coca Cola Green PET business out of nowhere and Gevo is 70% owned by Vinod Khosla....Kleiner Perkins's Doerr is on board of Amryis... -So I will grant you 2nd exclusive for cleantech story which is gonna be huge! (and I plan to file lawsuit soon on behalf of shareholders including founder scientists who appear to be corporate espionage victims at the hands of Amryis, Gevo, Kios, Khosla Ventures,
Regards Brad Greenspan Founder MySpace
SEC. 806. PROTECTION FOR EMPLOYEES OF PUBLICLY TRADED COMPANIES W WHO PROVIDE EVIDENCE OF FRAUD. (a) IN GENERAL- Chapter 73 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after section 1514 the following: `Sec. 1514A. Civil action to protect against retaliation in fraud cases ` `(a) WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTION FOR EMPLOYEES OF PUBLICLY TRADED COMPANIES- No company with a class of securities registered under section 12 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78l), or that is required to file reports under section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78o(d)), or any 75
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1
officer, employee, contractor, subcontractor, or agent of such company, may discharge, demote, suspend, threaten, harass, or in any other manner discriminate against an employee in the terms and conditions of employment because of any lawful act done by the employee-`(1) to provide information, cause information to be provided, or otherwise assist in an investigation regarding any conduct which the employee reasonably believes constitutes a violation of section 1341, 1343, 1344, or 1348, any rule or regulation of the Securities and Exchange Commission, or any provision of Federal law relating to fraud against shareholders, when the information or assistance is provided to or the investigation is conducted by-`(A) a Federal regulatory or law enforcement agency; `(B) any Member of Congress or any committee of Congress; or `(C) a person with supervisory authority over the employee (or such other person working for the employer who has the authority to investigate, discover, or terminate misconduct); or `(2) to file, cause to be filed, testify, participate in, or otherwise assist in a proceeding filed or about to be filed (with any knowledge of the employer) relating to an alleged violation of section 1341, 1343, 1344, or 1348, any rule or regulation of the Securities and Exchange Commission, or any provision of Federal law relating to fraud against shareholders.
(2) PROCEDURE`(A) IN GENERAL- An action under paragraph (1)(A) shall be governed under the rules and procedures set forth in section 42121(b) of title 49, United States Code. `(B) EXCEPTION- Notification made under section 42121(b)(1) of title 49, United States Code, shall be made to the person named in the complaint and to the employer. 76
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 `1514A. Civil action to protect against retaliation in fraud cases.'. `(2) COMPENSATORY DAMAGES- Relief for any action under paragraph (1) shall include-0 `(A) reinstatement with the same seniority status that the employee would have had, but for the discrimination; 0 `(B) the amount of back pay, with interest; and 0 `(C) compensation for any special damages sustained as a result of the discrimination, including litigation costs, expert witness fees, and reasonable a attorney fees. `(d) RIGHTS RETAINED BY EMPLOYEE- Nothing in this section shall be deemed to diminish the rights, privileges, or remedies of any employee under any Federal or State law, o or under any collective bargaining agreement.'. (b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT- The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 73 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 1514 the following new item: 1 1 `(C) BURDENS OF PROOF- An action brought under paragraph (1)(B) shall be governed by the legal burdens of proof set forth in section 42121(b) of title 49, United States Code.
`(D) STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS- An action under paragraph (1) shall be c commenced not later than 90 days after the date on which the violation occurs. `(c) REMEDIES3 `(1) IN GENERAL- An employee prevailing in any action under subsection (b)(1) shall b be entitled to all relief necessary to make the employee whole.
77
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Wow... I must be psychic. :) lol My attorney just notified me (see below), that Robbins firm and defendants have made a motion to support defendants efforts try to KICK ME SPECIFICALLY OUT OF CASE BEFORE SETTLEMENT. (see court document just filed) They want to shut me up quick...:) Thanks Darren! You guys are true defenders for shareholders. Begin forwarded message:
EXHIBIT E
Begin forwarded message:
From: Brad Greenspan <bspan@earthlink.net> Date: October 13, 2010 4:48:42 PM PDT To: enforcement@sec.gov Subject: PART II Fwd: Wow--I must be psychic - Robbins firm files document confirming collusion against largest member of class
From: Brad Greenspan <bspan@earthlink.net> Date: July 19, 2010 6:42:03 AM PDT To: Brad Greenspan <bspan@earthlink.net> Cc: mmoller@kreindler.com, George Shohet <georgeshohet@gmail.com>, GNelson@kreindler.com, gretchen morgenson <grmorg@hotmail.com>, MLabaton@kreindler.com, SFraenkel@kreindler.com, DCook@kreindler.com, JKreindler@kreindler.com, Laurence Rosen <lrosen@rosenlegal.com>, Mike Maguire <MikeMaguire@aol.com>, Darren Robbins <DarrenR@rgrdlaw.com> Subject: Wow--I must be psychic - Robbins firm files document confirming collusion against largest member of class
78
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
From: "Rosen, Laurence" <lrosen@rosenlegal.com> Date: July 19, 2010 5:22:04 AM PDT To: Brad Greenspan <bspan@earthlink.net> Subject: Bown v. Brewer
Brad Attached is a status report filed by defendants and lead plaintiffs. You should note the following: 1. Defendants and lead plaintiff want the court to determine whether your claims are barred (by res judicata/collateral estoppel) before proceeding to mediation.
On Jul 18, 2010, at 7:09 PM, Brad Greenspan wrote: Kreindler FirmHope you have all been well. I am writing you with proof of significant troubling incidents that have led me to conclude that the current Class Counsel (RGRDLAW) has suppressed key email evidence hurting State claims & appeal, tampered with witnesses against the interests of Shareholder class, omitted key valuation evidence to create a lower Damages Range in Federal matter, lied and misled lead plantiff (Jim Brown), and intentionally held back notification to 'opt-out' to key shareholders including myself and other large holders who were never properly contacted. -I have also attached a Court Ruling (unrelated action) against RGRDLAW firm recently that ruled against them for behavior that was done in their best interests vs. the shareholders they pledged to represent in such legal case. The Judge found RGRDLAW guilty of these acts of disloyalty, and sanctioned them. THEREFORE WE ARE DEALING WITH LAWYERS THAT HAVE RECENT TRACK RECORD OF MALFEASANCE (proved and ruled by Judge in unrelated case) DURING THE SAME TIME PERIOD I HAVE VIDENCE OF THEIR MALFEASANCE IN THIS INTERMIX FEDERAL TRIAL. I am contacting you so you can quickly get up to speed and: i) Determine if State Plantiffs/Counsel should take action against RGRDLAW or DEFENDANTS
79
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
related to EVIDENCE TAMPERING ii) Review facts below and consider subbing in for RGRDLAW on Federal Case and working with me to get them to COME CLEAN AND/OR REMOVE THEM FROM HURTING CASE ANY MORE. MY VIEW- RGRDLAW made a bunch of mistakes in their State filings (Intermix), I called them on these mistakes. RGRDLAW were afraid I would bring in new counsel to replace them. So they decided to try to limit my involvement in case as witness. To do this, they jumped on an opportunity to collude with defendants after I disclosed in confidentiality to RGRDLAW firm that I was being Subpoened by Defendants and going to be deposed in a few days. -RGRDLAW was clearly afraid I would put evidence into the record that would show Federal Judge that RGRDLAW had HIDDEN or SUPPRESSED EVIDENCE or done other questionable behavior. -RGRDLAW acted disloyally and agreed to eliminate from being witness or providing evidence - #1 Shareholder, creator of asset under dispute (Myspace), top technical and internet expert, and fact witness. And RGRDLAW did this in a disloyal fashion by not even contacting or disclosing their intent to act on confidential information I had emailed them. RGRDLAW also thru their actions violated confidentiality and spirit of LEGAL COLLABORATION agreement I struck with them in 2007
I am copying George Shohet who is the attorney representing John Friendman and other class members who filed State Class action related lawsuits to benefit class. (George- Please send this on to your clients so they understand what has occurred). I am copying my attorney Laurence Rosen I am copying the NYTimes (by way of cc'ing nytimes email addy for journalist Gretchen Morgenson) so that we continue to ILLUMINATE EVERYTHING THAT HAPPENS GOING FORWARD and I will be sending this to several other News organizations over the next several hours. I have copied several of the Kreindler & Kreindler attorneys who were involved as State Class Action counsel. SHAREHOLDER GOALS: 1) FULL DISCLOSURE TO PUBLIC OF TROUBLING ACTIONS THAT HAVE OCCURRED HiSTORICALLY SO THAT DARREN & HIS FIRM WILL STOP THEIR CONTiNUED 'DISLOYAL' BEHAVIOR AGAINST INTERESTS OF INTERMIX SHAREHOLDER CLASS. 2) DISCLOSE TO FEDERAL JUDGE GEORGE KING WHAT HAS OCCURRED HERE WITH MISSING EVIDENCE (DEUTSCHE BANK VALUATION IN FEDERAL & KEY EMAILS IN STATE ACTION THAT ONLY NOW SHOWED UP IN FEDERAL CASE)
80
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
-VIA INTERVENTION THIS WEEK. 3) GET NEW CLASS COUNSEL OR CO-COUNSEL AND SHAREHOLDER FIDUCIARY COMMITTEE SET UP TO PROTECT PROCEEDINGS GOING FURTHER. 4) INVESTIGATE MISSING EVIDENCE ISSUES & NOTIFY STATE COURT AND OTHER REGULATORS AS NECESSARY. MARK MOLLER- I would like you to consider becoming the new class counsel in this case effective immediately and we will go together with other large shareholders I have lined up, to compel Federal Judge George King revoke or limit RGRDLAW's standing and involvement in Federal case. Lets give Darren Robbins (who I cc'd) 24 hours to respond about the missing email evidence that his firm seems to be the only one that received such evidence. Darren and his firm had to know at some point that these emails were not submitted to state plantiffs. OR DARREN'S FIRM KNEW THEY HAD EMAILS NO ONE ELSE DID AND SAT ON THEM TO LET STATE CLAIM BE THROWN OUT SO HIS FIRM COULD BE SOLE COUNSEL FOR FEDERAL CASE WITH BETTER EVIDENCE Regards-Brad Greenspan attached to this email are: i) Copy of New Damages Report (Up to $24.5Billion) (10 slide pdf approx) that is ready to be filed in court Monday. This report is made possible by key evidence - DEUTSCHE BANK'S VALUATION PRESENTATION TO INTERMIX BOARD MADE JUNE 20, 2005. -Simply plugging in the Intermix Management Forecast creates much larger damages then what RGDLAW has submitted. ii) Copy of Myspace Report (I released in 2006) which shows all key emails that were in the evidence production provided to State Plantiffs (So Kreindler firm and others can quickly confirm the MISSING KEY EMAIL EVIDENCE) iii) Copy of recent Federal decision Judge made (2009) in unrelated case where Darren Robbins and his firm were SANCTIONED for lying to court and taking drastic actions against the benefit of Shareholders it was representing in an effort to stop Evidence from being released showing RGRDLAW doing unethical behavior. -SO WE HAVE CLEAR PRECEDENT OF DARREN & HIS LAW FIRM DOING SIMILAR UNETHICAL BEHAVIOR AS CLASS COUNSEL IN ANOTHER CASE AND GETTING CAUGHT AND SANCTIONED IN COURT RULING
81
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
This same bad behavior took place during same time that the evidence disappeared for State Plantiffs and Darren's firm colluded with Defendants's counsel to get rid of more evidence of their firm's mistakes/bad behavior/etc. -PROBLEM- The elimination of evidence (ME) they wanted to go away, has also damaged case for shareholders.
1) MISSING EVIDENCE #1 Key emailsWe have become aware of significant key email evidence from defendants that were not disclosed to State plantiffs at any time during proceedings including appeal which was thrown out. Of the emails cited by the Federal Judge in his ruling (6/17/10), 61% of such emails were not ever seen by me Your firm is the current Federal Class action counsel and was also one of the State Class action counsels. DARREN- PLEASE INDICATE TO EVERYONE ON THIS EMAIL: A) WHEN DID YOU RECEIVE THESE EMAILS I SHOW ON FIRST SLIDE OF NEW DAMAGES REPORT WHICH WERE NOT IN STATE EVIDENCE SUBMISSIONS? B) WHEN YOU BECAME AWARE THIS EVIDENCE WAS NEW AND NOT SUBMITTED TO OTHER STATE CLASS ACTION ATTORNEYS OR OTHER PLANTIFFS WHAT ACTIONS DID YOU TAKE? 2) MISSING EVIDENCE #2 - VALUATION REPORT See my powerpoint. But my discovery of this Deutsche Bank Valuation document report just created minimum of extra $600+ million in damages -Up to $24 Billion. Darren - Why did you OMIT this KEY EVIDENCE from DAMAGES EXPERT you used? It appears your keeping this document under wraps is incredibly bizarre and unexplainable. Did you not receive a copy of this evidence from Defendants in Federal case? 3) DISLOYAL ACTION BY CLASS COUNSEL
82
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
1) Email sequence showing Class Counsel (RGRDLAW) using confidential information provided by member of Class (me disclosing subpoena by defendants) to injure the Class and me personally. -2008 emails show good faith efforts by me to help all shareholdes and Class Action attorneys (which I did over a 4+ year period) -2009 - In February I become aware of 900% ERROR made by RGRDLAW in State case. I email them and indicate I might look to bring in new Class counsel to help shareholders not get damaged by more mistakes/negligence of RGRDLAW firm. -RGRDLAW breaches its duties to shareholders by scheming and taking actions to ELIMINATE POTENTIALLY EMBARRASSING INFORMATION BY MEMBER OF CLASS. -RGRDLAW strikes secret deal 2 days before key evidence was set to get entered into record) - (MAY 2009) that is for sole reason to protect their law firm and reputations while damaging claims/evidence of Intermix Shareholders. -RGRDLAW further has tainted lead plantiff (Jim Brown) by defaming me personally, my facts and evidence submitted, etc. So that RGRDLAW can have 100% complete control of this case and to maximize their ECONOMICS. END RESULT- RGRDLAW HAS EFECTIVELY SEE END RESULT - MAY 5th EMAIL from HHLAW -SECRET AGREEMENT STRUCK BY HHLAW & RGRDLAW
2007 - I AGREE TO DONATE TO DARREN ROBBINS' POLITICAL CANDIDATE CHOICE 2007 -We sign a COMMON INTEREST AGREEMENT to work in best interests of shareholders 2009- emails with HHLAW
On 1/9/07 9:57 AM, "Pilar Colina" <PilarC@lerachlaw.com> wrote: Hi Brad, Darren asked that I follow-up on the email I sent to you regarding John Edwards' Campaign. I am reattaching again the Donor card that needs to be filled out by you and your wife. Please fax or mail the form to my attention once you have filled it out so that I can keep track of what's coming in My direct fax is 619-239-3247. Call me if
83
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
you have any questions. Robbins 619-231-1058 (tel)
Pilar Colina 619-231-7423 (fax)
Secretary to Darren J.
----- Original Message -----From: Smith, Greg <GSmith@irell.com> To: Darren RobbinsCc: Bspan@earthlink.net <Bspan@earthlink.net>; Hueston, John <JHueston@irell.com>; Sent: Thu Jan 25 18:50:51 2007 Subject: Common interest agreement Darren, please sign and return by pdf. I look forward to consulting with you on this matter. <<Ltr to Darren Robbins.PDF>>
From: Brad Greenspan [mailto:bspan@earthlink.net] Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2009 4:16 PM To: Moriarty, Elizabeth A. Cc: Shepard, Julie A.; peterbronz@yahoo.com Subject: Re: Brown v. Brewer -- Deposition and Document Production I can do a depo on may 13th at 10am if the document production can be completed by May 6th. I have multiple document productions/depositions in unrelated matters that fall in April. So i am sure if we go to court, I will show judge and likely get more time then May 6th. let me know if this works. thx
From: Brad Greenspan [mailto:bspan@earthlink.net] Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2009 4:16 PM To: Moriarty, Elizabeth A. Cc: Shepard, Julie A.; peterbronz@yahoo.com Subject: Re: Brown v. Brewer -- Deposition and Document Production
I can do a depo on may 13th at 10am if the document production can be completed
84
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
by May 6th. I have multiple document productions/depositions in unrelated matters that fall in April. So i am sure if we go to court, I will show judge and likely get more time then May 6th. let me know if this works. thx From: "Moriarty, Elizabeth A." <EAMoriarty@HHLAW.com> Date: April 14, 2009 5:57:39 PM PDT To: "Brad Greenspan" <bspan@earthlink.net> Cc: "Shepard, Julie A." <JAShepard@HHLAW.com>, peterbronz@yahoo.com, "Gallegos, Amy Marshall" <AMGallegos@HHLAW.com> Subject: RE: Brown v. Brewer -- Deposition and Document Production Brad, We will accept your latest proposal. Your documents must be produced by noon on May 6, 2009 to Hogan & Hartson. Your deposition is set for May 13 at 10 am at Hogan & Hartson. If you do not produce documents on May 6 or appear for your deposition on May 13, we will move to compel and seek sanctions. Our address and my contact information is below. Liz
ELIZABETH MORIARTY, ATTORNEY AT LAWHOGAN & HARTSON LLP From: "Javidzad, Bety" <BJavidzad@HHLAW.com> Date: May 5, 2009 2:08:39 PM PDT To: bspan@earthlink.net, peterbronz@yahoo.com Cc: "Moriarty, Elizabeth A." <EAMoriarty@HHLAW.com>
85
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Subject: Deposition and Documents Subpoena Hello, We just wanted to let you know that we are withdrawing the subpoena for the deposition of and production of documents by Brad Greenspan pursuant to an agreement we reached with Plaintiff not to call Greenspan as a witness or use his testimony in any form. Therefore, you do not need to produce documents tomorrow and you do not need to appear for your deposition on May 13. Thanks, Bety
FEBRUARY 2008 EMAILS-
On Feb 6, 2008, at 5:08 PM, David Wissbroecker wrote: Brad, Hope all is well. Attached is a draft of the Second Amended Consolidated Complaint that is due to be filed on Friday, February 8, 2008, per Judge King's Order of Jan. 17, 2008. Let us know if you have any comments. David Wissbroecker Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP 655 West Broadway Suite 1900 San Diego, California (619) 231-1058
From: Brad Greenspan <bspan@earthlink.net> To: David WissbroeckerCc: Steve Oddo; Randall Baron Sent: Wed Feb 06 17:38:35 2008
86
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
tnite
Subject: Re: Intermix Federal Action FYI-I am not happy with going it alone so much on this case.I have lots of capital invested and putting significant newamounts each month.And I am one of top shareholders in terms of shares heldI already got my main work product fromIrell completed and filed (first appeal doc)It seems like we should consider something.Any ideas? On Feb 6, 2008, at 5:35 PM, David Wissbroecker wrote: Thanks Brad. We will look forward to seeing your summary.________________________________
From: Brad Greenspan [mailto:bspan@earthlink.net] Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2008 5:29 PM To: David Wissbroecker Cc: Steve Oddo; Randall Baron
Subject: Re: Intermix Federal Action I have VERY VERY VERY HELPFUL comments and facts I will get summary out
On Feb 6, 2008, at 5:50 PM, Randall Baron wrote: Brad: i am not sure what you mean. What do you have in mind?----- Orig
MARCH 2008-EMAILS From: "David Wissbroecker" <DWissbroecker@csgrr.com> Date: March 29, 2008 7:35:22 PM PDT To: "Brad Greenspan" <bspan@earthlink.net> Subject: RE: Summary of ECF Activity Here's our opp in pdf in case you weren't able to access it.
87
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
disclosed. -And in fact, this WAS DISCLOSED in their most recent 10Q before shareholder vote. HOWEVER THIS NET INCOME # IS NOT ACCURATE REFLECTION OF OPERATING You need me to walk thru story and facts NOW I am really disappointed that you guys couldnt correct your inaccurate assertion about Net Income that significantly hurt the case for everyone: This is - you were never able to explain to the Appeals judges clearly that the $1.1 mln in income that you guys made mistake of latching onto, and that judges speared with is that this was created by a one time charge/gain in that quarter where the net income was in public filings (and its stated this way). -So you guys created this concept that there was a 900% increase in net income that wasnt I am like a Master Scholar on this Case and you guys need to immediately treat me as such because you have low threshold of knowledge base on case (no offense, but you guys have 100s of cases and I have one). the class. David- lets try to talk today. I believe you are deposing Jim Brown next week. I read the State appeal decision briefly. I need to educate you guys on facts to best of my knowledge for Federal ASAP to best benefit GentlemenHope you are well. From: Brad Greenspan <bspan@earthlink.net> Date: November 20, 2008 12:13:28 PM PST To: Randall Baron <RandyB@csgrr.com> Cc: "David Wissbroecker" <DWissbroecker@csgrr.com>, "Steve Oddo" <SteveO@csgrr.com> Subject: Re: Intermix Federal Action
88
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
RESULTS OF ONGOING BUSINESS. The Net income of $900k for quarter was caused by a $1million one time gain in net income from the sale of SKILLJAM Asset. (clearly marked in financial table) Therefore, if you take this out, then the results to public show a company whose Net Income is a loss and roughly same level loss of 12 months ago prior period. So you created a bogey man, and then let the other side take control of the bogey man and speared everyone with inaccurate info that you guys never fixed (i.e. YOU GUYS - "There was 900% gain in net income the other side didnt tell shareholders about" OTHER SIDE- "(internal thought - haha thanks for creating the appearance that there was this kind of financial proof available that shareholders could see and "OH YES JUDGE
This message has been truncated
Show Full Message

Attachments D Download All
89
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
pls attach this with submission i did to website for ID Assistance for SEC. i) Please review Judge George King's findings where said individual is current defendant in Federal Court Central District, Judge George King's court for a Federal Class Action Shareholder lawsuit which is ongoing. dense 40 pages or so but Judge King makes specific references to identified Issuer's current Board member and CEO, which if a likely Jury agrees with the Judge, then CEO of Issuer that is publicy traded in 30 days will have been found guilty of manipulating other Directors + Disloyalty and Breach of Fiduciary Duty and 14(a) Federal related violations in preparation and distribution of Proxy type information statements to public shareholders. ii) please find if helpful for other SEC interested parties to get quick summary of Judge's 40 page dense ruling from link below to recent article from respected business journalist that is timely review and commentary on Federal George King's ruling See Gretchen Morgenson of NY Times article (July 4, 2010): BIDDER BEWAREhttp://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/04/business/04gret.html EXHIBIT F
From: Brad Greenspan <bspan@earthlink.net> Date: October 15, 2010 12:35:40 AM PDT To: sporkint@sec.gov Subject: Easy reference article NYTIMES + REQUEST FOR SEC TO CONSIDER RULE CLEARIFICATION
Now, in 2010, second offense of exact same Rule401 Violation, TWICE-
90
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
1X initial S1 ready to be distributed if SEC confirmed, Amended S1, when Issuer had opportunity to self-review after SEC Comments and upon full internal reflection which surely attests to the fundamental and critical internal controls of a public company existing (including who its outside counsel and securities counsel are, etc. ). As they are all in aggregate allegedly guilty of a complete breakdown of internal controls or such controls as of today are not in existence to level required to be a publicly traded company that sells hundreds of millions of dollars to the public. Of note: The Dr.Koop Bankruptcy omission also helps issuer downplay his role as the manager of the corporation that indeed received $27.5 million in additional cash the day he joined as regular CEO via SEC filings in August 28, 2000, and the subsequent bankruptcy filing in late 2001
drkoop.com Announces Completion of Expanded $27.5 Million Financing, New Management Team, and Proposed New Members to the Board of Directors drkoop.com, Inc Monday August 28, 8:40 am Eastern TimePress Release AUSTIN, Texas, Aug. 28 /PRNewswire drkoop.com, Inc. (Nasdaq: KOOP - news), a leading Internet health network providing information to individuals worldwide, has completed an expanded $27.5 million equity financing and appointed a new management team led by new Chief Executive Richard M. Rosenblatt, former CEO of iMall and SVP of Excite@Home. In addition, the company is expected to add five new members to its board of directors.
NEW ISSUE TO REVIEW BUT RELATED.- PUFFERY (at least 1 existing Puffery disclosure from 2004 (as company announces he is new CEO) Issuer CEO (and in this case the new CEO of public eUniverse, Inc.) discloses and announces his Imall, Inc. was sold for $565 million dollars. Note- same press release also is evidence of Issuer CEO's first uncontested violation of Rule401 omission of bankruptcy (which is issue I filed bounty-notice with SEC on web) Additional issue - $565MLN PUFFERY VS. $425mln SEC FILING (FICTION VS. FACT) In addition, issuer CEO identified also continues to promote a $565mln financial figure for sale of Imall, Inc. in 2000, in opposition to: i) actual $425mln all stock deal that Athome disclosed in SEC filings at time When Rosenblatt disclosed this figure in 2004, its announced to public eUniverse shareholders as $565million Imall sale
91
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-131536324.html (note: same press release included the Federal Rule401 Violation first offense (Omission of 2001.koop.Bankruptcy) + PUFFERY
FROM WIKIPEDIA OF ROSENBLATT-
In July 1999, Rosenblatt negotiated the sale of iMALL to Excite@Home for $565 million. In 1999, iMALL and two of its founders were sued by the Federal Trade Commission, though Rosenblatt was not among those named in the suit.[8] Rosenblatt became the Sr. VP of ecommerce for Excite@Home for a short period of time.[3][9]
However,
which the same individual had an article on his website promoting this $425mln figure until he transformed it thru puffery to $565mln in popular media sources and then has continued to as needed provided spot puffery additional transgressions to keep a knowingly false and incorrect number to be quoted and publicly distributed. (see text of article below- NOTE- For first time I see new evidence which will be helpful in federal class action and perhaps your Investigator's communications with Issuer. ---> LATHAM WATKINS potential conflict It appears LathamWatkins top lawyers were or are investors with Issuer on prior deals -see mention at end/(quote from Latham partner) --->. Latham was class counsel at Intermix when the 14(a) proxy bad disclosure occurred that is subject of federal class action) -->So I have acquired a magical karmic gift of value that I can introduce into the federal class action lawsuit as a new material FACT (the Latham partner as investor/quote/tied to article that would tie LathamWatkins to knowingly allowing false facts to be distributed thru BOTH: eUniverse, Inc. & now Demand Media, Inc. The only person publicly as journalist to get right figure is author of article written quickly after the fact in 2001 (scan down pages on left to see reference to article from Los Angeles Times writer Debora Vrana. BONUS- free documents obtained easily online showing evidence that Issuer CEO as of 2002, had posted the very article below on his own website - PrimeVentures.com (he operated VC fund before Dr. Koop) about the $425million Imall deal (and factual SEC implied value). I got these from the WayBackMachine Archive which allows some websites to be reviewed historically thru captures by this .org -attached -Useful in future if you Interview Issuer CEO to inquire about the $565million number and how he
92
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
believed it was correct, and then after his answer, showing him his own website and this article which seems very explicit, and even inquire if the article is correct that his stock lost 60% of its value as of that exact date of the article, when Rosenblatt is interviewed and says he is not worried, etc. then at that moment the stock was only worth $200 million or less. note: within a few months after this article came out, Excite@Home went Bankrupt. So the delta of the puffery is even more significant, measured against Issuer CEO's knowing and affirming to public via post-SEC Filing of the $425million stock value, that indeed after this $425 million hopeful deal value, as Issuer CEO attests do via interview, that the same Imall sold in an all stock deal and announced having a $425 million value was now as of date of this LA Times interview, trading at a 60% lower value for stockholders (of which he was as article mentioned a 10% holder). Therefore, at what level is Puffery simple fraud when it comes to duties to disclose accurate and often unpleasant or modest historical numbers touting one's accomplishments? Issuer CEO did not like $425million SEC figure, Issuer CEO liked less more recent self disclosed 60% and falling value of stock received in cited transaction, Therefore Issuer simply fabricated a new go forward number ($565MILLION) and injected it directly into an SEC regulated marketplace (2004 press release) and such fabricated figure desired - $565 million. Issuer now gets continued benefits of continuing puffery outside SEC regulated marketplace, but can point/link to 2004 press release/$565 million figure and this allows him to continue a knowingly false # being promoted on Wikipedia and other web sites and sources, furthering the damage to investors looking to become informed. EVIDENCE OF ISSUER CEO IN POSSESSION OR KNOWLEDGE OF IMALL 'SALE' FIGURE THAT IS IN S4 SEC FILINGS (The $425million number is generated by multiplying the number of shares to be issued to Imall from Excite@Home and the price of excite@home's stock on the date S4 was filed (original)....a few months later, a final S4 is filed (and hence shortly after the deal closes), already by this second S4 date, the stock value (as the shares have stayed the same) has declined below $400 million. )
New Internet Venture for Imall Co-Founder Richard Rosenblatt's Santa Monica investment firm has its sights set on 12 companies it expects to prosper.By Debora Vrana, Times Staff Writer This time last year, San Fernando Valley native Richard Rosenblatt suddenly became very rich. It seemed everything Internet was gold then, and he had just agreed to sell IMall, the Santa Monica Web shopping company he co-founded when he was 25, to Excite@Home in an all stock-deal for $425 million. He owned roughly 10% of the company. Since then, Internet stocks have fallen out of favor, and Excite@Home has seen its shares plummet about 60%, dragging down the UCLA graduate's own worth--on paper, anyway. Rosenblatt, 31, isn't worried. The former attorney thinks it's the perfect time to be starting Prime
93
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Ventures, a Santa Monica investment firm with $17 million from individual investors. Including some investments he made on his own last year, Prime, which was formed last year, has placed bets on 12 companies, all Internet-related and more than half of them in Southern California. "The Internet is not going away," Rosenblatt said. "There are now less of these lousy deals and some entrepreneurs' egos have been deflated and some of these crazy valuations are gone. We can find the right deals." Although many venture capitalists are in a holding pattern, storing investment money to help their portfolio companies through the tough times, Rosenblatt is in investment mode and planning to raise about $200 million for his first major fund. He calls himself and his venture capital team-former J.P. Morgan investment banker Edward A. Cespedes and former Capitol Records executive and new-media specialist Liz Heller--"street VCs." "We're scrappy; we can get things done. We figure things out," Rosenblatt said. "I was never a VC. I am a person who understands entrepreneurs, who can help them get their companies up and running. Unless you grew up in the [Internet] space, you can't maneuver quickly enough to be successful." This month, Prime Ventures had one of its first successes with the sale of portfolio company WebMillion, an online Internet sweepstakes firm based in Boise, Idaho, to L90, a Los Angelesbased online advertising company. The company was sold for $20 million, roughly an eightfold return for investors, Rosenblatt said. Rosenblatt, the son of two academics, graduated from USC law school and worked for a major downtown Los Angeles law firm for four months before leaving, saying he had to be involved in the Internet. IMall had its ups and downs, including a 1999 scandal when the company and two former executives agreed to pay $4 million to settle Federal Trade Commission charges that they misled people about how much money could be earned selling advertising for the company's Internet shopping mall. Former IMall President Mark Comer and former Chairman Craig R. Pickering, also co-founders of the company with Rosenblatt, were barred for life from selling any Internet-related business opportunities as part of the agreement, the FTC said. Rosenblatt was not charged and remained at the company, helping to negotiate its sale to Excite@Home. "I've been through almost everything--you have no idea," he said. "And I think our entrepreneurs like that. You've got a problem, I can handle it." Andy Kraftsow, who helped co-found DolphinSearch, a document retrieval company in Camarillo, said Prime Ventures will own about 11% of the start-up after a second-round investment later this month. "Rich is our only VC," Kraftsow said. "One reason was proximity. I met with people in Silicon Valley and New York, but I wanted to work closely with someone and not have to fly all the time." The ability to perform as a proven entrepreneur and trust were other reasons, he said. "Sometimes in N.Y. and S.F. with VCs, it's education and style, not much else. Rich made money.
94
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
He knows how to make money, and he did it not by loaning, but by building a business." Other companies in Prime's portfolio include GreatDomains, a Studio City-based online broker of Internet domain names, which owns more than 1 million listings, and CelebSites, a Santa Monica venture started by "Dumb and Dumber" producer Brad Krevoy, which creates official Web sites for movie stars. While some of the companies Prime is supporting will share new office space the firm is leasing in Santa Monica, Rosenblatt said he is not running an incubator and doesn't want to copy that model, hiring a large staff and coming up with ideas for new companies internally. "Our companies don't want to be controlled, they want to be helped," he said. Prime investors such as Randall Kaplan, founder of Los Angeles-based JUMP Investors, said Rosenblatt has done an "excellent job of guiding early stage companies and creating value through his relationships and his network." Kaplan said GreatDomains could be a big winner. George A. Vandeman, former head of mergers and acquisitions for the Los Angeles law firm Latham & Watkins, has invested about $500,000 with Rosenblatt, whom he called "mature" for his age, noting that he surrounds himself with seasoned advisors. He also likes Rosenblatt's Internet expertise. "I am computer illiterate," Vandeman said. "I have no way of participating in the Internet space on the VC side unless I do it with an expert. Rich has an excellent background." Vandeman isn't worried about recent stock market declines. "There might not be an [initial public offering] candidate every five minutes, but there is now a greater array of investment opportunities," he said, noting that the spring downturn has brought stock valuations to more manageable levels.
Times wire services were used in compiling this report. Remember that initial public offerings are highly speculative and not suitable for all investors. Debora Vrana, who covers investment banking and the securities industry for The Times, can be reached at debora.vrana@latimes.com or Business Section, Los Angeles Times, 202 W. 1st St., Los Angeles, CA 90012. Prime PartnersThese are some of the companies in which newly formed PrimeVentures has
invested. While it does not divulge amounts, the fund's average investment is $750,000. GreatDomains: A Studio City online broker of Internet domain names, with more than 1 million listings. The Brain: A Santa Monica company whose technology "enables users to organize, navigate and communicate complex materials on the Internet." Dedication Channel: A Glendale company that allows consumers to integrate radio, animation and music on the Web. DolphinSearch: A Camarillo company started by a research psychologist who sees links between dolphin behavior and Web surfers. The company is creating technology to develop new search techniques on the Web that would be alternatives to directories like Yahoo and traditional search engines.
95
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
CelebSites: A Santa Monica company that is a leading developer of official celebrity Web sites, including those for John Travolta, Denzel Washington and Helen Hunt. Infantelligence: A Taos, N.M., company that aims to be a resource for prenatal and early childhood development.
96
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
97
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
98

HIGATE INSTA 60b4TEMPLATE SET4FILINGAUGUST2012

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

HIGATE INSTA 60b4TEMPLATE SET4FILINGAUGUST2012

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

v. BRETT C. BREWER, et. al., Defendants

UNDER FRCP 60(b4).

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 IIpg. IIIFACTUAL BACKGROUND 6 LEGAL STANDARDS AND ARGUMENTS pg. 6 2

TABLE OF CONTENTS IINTRODUCTION 6 pg

Additional Specific Acts of Fraud pg. 18 RELIEF 31 pg.

concealment, breach of fiduciary

Sandstrom v. Chel Lawn Corp., 904 F. 2d 83. Fed CivProc 1741

`1514A. Civil action to protect against retaliation in fraud cases.'.

Worrell v. Houston Can Academy

Flahie whose disloyalty in not reporting to

agreement between Sony, VantagePoint,

neither: i) A Class Counsel Fiduciary

MySpace Search evidence produced by

January 13, 2012

TITLE IX--WHITE-COLLAR CRIME PENALTY ENHANCEMENT

TITLE VI--COMMISSION RESOURCES AND AUTHORITY

S SEC. 601. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

`SEC. 35. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS. S

S SEC. 409. REAL TIME ISSUER DISCLOSURES.

S SEC. 408. ENHANCED REVIEW OF PERIODIC DISCLOSURES BY ISSUERS.

TITLE V--ANALYST CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

S SEC. 407. DISCLOSURE OF AUDIT COMMITTEE FINANCIAL EXPERT.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 0 (B) the offense involved abuse of a special skill or a position of trust; 45

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 SEC. 406. CODE OF ETHICS FOR SENIOR FINANCIAL OFFICERS.

`(I) become effective immediately;

0 `(B) PROCESS ON DETERMINATION OF VIOLATIONS-

(2) by striking `$2,500,000' and inserting `$25,000,000'.

under FRE 701.

each law firm have themselves been

pled guilty for evasion and bribery.

In late 2010, HHLAWs breach of duty of candor to court regarding the 61

contain a proof of ownership requirement.

On Nov 4, 2011, at 8:52 AM, Brad Greenspan wrote:

Regards Brad Greenspan Founder MySpace

you have any questions. Robbins 619-231-1058 (tel)

Pilar Colina 619-231-7423 (fax)

FEBRUARY 2008 EMAILS-

Show Full Message

Now, in 2010, second offense of exact same Rule401 Violation, TWICE-

FROM WIKIPEDIA OF ROSENBLATT-

You might also like