Short-selling blogs dog Northern Oil and Gas
Reger gave an interview to the Pioneer Press in Saint Paul. Apparently he's very open to interviews with journalists who aren't getting paid by the shorts.
The high points:
* Ashwood Resources was managed by Jacob Schaffer, a friend
* The "cosmetologist" who filed papers was an executive assistant at Ashwood
* his wife Brittany processed paperwork for well-interest transactions
* the wellbore sales were not material to Northern
* an outside attorney advised the company that his wife's work at Ashwood did not constitute a related-party transaction
* Reger admits it was "probably was not a good decision, even though it was completely appropriate."
Jack wrote: >My guess is that at the slightest hint of litigation she would flee the country. <
When you do what they do, you can count on someone trying to sue. Jack you are beginning to sound quite silly, or is it "shilly".
This board has been entertaining lately.
You're absolutely right about right Melissa's inability to respond monetarily to any judgment; doubt she could afford the defense either. The fun would be in the discovery phase, like taking Herb Greenberg's deposition; seeing the paper trail of emails; who knows where that yellow brick road would lead.
You're also right about the feds taking any interest. You've got to be someone like Martha Stewart lying to the FBI about a $30K deal to draw any attention.
boepd, Funny, I inadvertently equated the witch's article, slanted to boost short gains regardless of accuracy and materiality, with an "accident." We agree that any case brought against her by NOG shareholders or the company would set the venue in her locale.
My guess is that at the slightest hint of litigation she would flee the country.
I do not think there is any real question that her writing constituted an effort aimed at fraudulent market manipulation. The issue is whether it's worth the bother to pursue her; it's unlikely that she could pay damages.
Hate to think of the Feds seeking jail time, but it might serve a warning for a while.
My reading of the opinions was that that location of the accidnt was onlky incidental to the logi of the majority position, and would extend generally. All of the coursts are increasdingly concerned with the economics of tort decisions. My own school, as an advocate of applying economics to the law (the large credit, two semester fresman class to weed out the uninterested and incompetent was all about legal economics, and we had a large diet of Posner http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?collection=journals&handle=hein.journals/uclr46&div=18&id=&page= )
Good point, but I think not dispositive in favoring of the accident's location or the plaintiff's choice of convenience--if appealed up to the SCt.
Such common sense reasoning about forum selection in tort is unfortunately not correct by SCt precedent. See Carnival Cruise Lines v Shute, wherein the SCt majority ruled on economic efficiency grounds that the company could select the forum (its HQ location) most efficient to litigate claims, even though that created a financial hardship on the plaintiff. The plaintiff had argued that Carnival did not have an enforceable contract clause as the forum selection clause was presented only in the fine print on the back of boarding tickets that were mailed long after the couple had to pay and did for the cruise.
The minority was vocal about the hardship and injustice caused by selecting a forum far distant from the plaintiff's home, but the SCt majority argued back that Carnival would be exposed to greatly increased expenses and lost time for management if litigation were at the plaintiff's convenience. The cost of business would rise substantially and all ticket prices would have to rise to keep the business solvent.
The suit is ongoing. Looks like Steve A. Cohen is a target of the U.S. Atty for the S.D. NY.
Now with Raj's conviction watch him drop a dime on everyone he can to reduce his sentence. I don't see Raj as a "stand up guy" and Cohen would be quite a prize for the U.S. Atty.