As my regular readers are very well-aware, the SEC has been looking into suspicious trading activity in both Schering-Plough call options, and common stock, in the days immediately prior to the March 9, 2009, announcement of the bust-up styled as a reverse merger with Merck. [Additional background here. Possible connecting thread -- to the Galleon insider trading case, here.]
Yesterday, The Wall Street Journal confirmed that at least nine separate deals are the subject of very formal insider trading investigations -- with many parties, executives, bankers, advisers and lawyers in receipt of SEC subpoenas of varying scope -- all served upon each in recent days.
One common thread the WSJ immediately focused upon? Here's a hint: the initials are "G" and "S". As an adviser on some aspect of almost every deal under scrutiny. . . here is the Reuters version of it:
. . . .The Journal said some of the recent subpoenas focus on specifics of investment bankers' involvement in deals, including Goldman Sachs Group Inc bankers' roles in roughly a dozen health-care transactions since 2006.
Goldman was an adviser to Schering-Plough and Pfizer, according to filings cited by the Journal. . . .
I'll go pop the popcorn -- this "Bonfire of the Vanities Meets Michael Clayton" will be one great flick!
3 comments:
Amen, I just tried to post this on cafepharma and my post was "interceded" by the moderator. Am convinced you need to use acronyms for Fred, Carrie, SEC... these keywords flip on the moderator alert...
That's wild -- I went and checked, and whatever you wrote never cleared the moderation side-car, over at CafePharma yesterday.
Usually, the posts eventually appear -- by the following morning.
Bizarre. Sarah is generally a very fair, and a mostly "let 'er rip" sort of SysAdmin over there (provided one is libeling a specific private figure, about matters that are NOT of public concern). And Goldman is both a public figure, and this is a matter of substantial public concern. As I say, strange.
In any event, thanks for commenting -- do stop back
Namaste
Obviously, the parenthetical should read ". . .isn't libeling a specific private figure, about matters that are NOT of public concern. . . ."
Dag.
Post a Comment