高盛涉嫌强买强卖

    硅谷半导体公司美满电子科技（Marvell Technologies）的共同创始人兼高管周秀文和戴伟立夫妇日前起诉高盛（Goldman Sachs），称这家华尔街公司为协助做空美满电子股票的空头，将这对夫妇经纪账户中所持的美满电子股票权属进行了不实标注。

    周秀文和戴伟立夫妇的代理律师称，周二这项指控将加入这对夫妇一年前在旧金山起诉高盛的另一宗案件。周秀文是美满电子的首席执行官，戴伟立是公司的通信主管。

    这对夫妇在一年前提起的诉讼中指控高盛在金融危机鼎盛时期，哄骗他们卖出一部分美满电子股票来支撑保证金贷款，导致他们损失了1亿美元。此案将交由仲裁处理。“从法律上讲，高盛无权借出不属于它的股票，”周秀文和戴伟立夫妻的代理律师、Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy律师事务所的费尔•格里格雷称。“这起案子完全是高盛为了让自己账面上好看一点，结果导致我的客户蒙受了巨大的损失。”

    这对夫妻提出的新指控是，2008年1月，高盛将他们两人在高盛一个经纪账户中所持的2,000万股美满电子股票的权属纪录完全抹去了。这对夫妻表示，他们曾同意将高盛的名字加入股票权属纪录，这些股票应被视为（高盛）代周秀文或戴伟立持有，但结果他们两人的名字完全被抹掉了。

    当时，投资者做空美满电子的意愿高涨。2007年9月中旬到2008年1月底之间，空头借入的美满电子股票数量增长超过了一倍，达到近3,700万股。这对夫妇称，高盛将他们的股票置于自己名下后，就能把这些股票借给空头，大大增加了做空美满电子的筹码。同时，高盛还向借入股票的对冲基金和其他投资者收取费用。如果借不到股票，空头的做空能力就会受到限制。周秀文和戴伟立表示，他们肯定不会同意把自己的股票借给空头。这对夫妻称，他们不确定高盛将多少股票借给了空头，或者到底借了没有。如今，周秀文和戴伟立已经收回了这些股票，此后一直没有出售过这些股票。

    高盛的一位女发言人拒绝置评公司是否曾将这对夫妻的美满电子股票借给做空者。“高盛对周秀文博士和戴伟立女士的指控一直予以否认，目前此案已交由美国金融业监管局（FINRA）仲裁，”高盛的一位女发言人称。“迄今我们并没有收到任何新的指控。”

    近期，高盛最近在对待客户的方式方面遭到了一系列的声讨，公司被推到了风口浪尖。3月份，高盛一位刚离职的中层管理人士格雷格•史密斯在《纽约时报》（New York Times）专栏版撰文称，公司文化有毒，员工常将公司利益置于客户利益之前，但他并没有给出具体的例子。高盛否认这些说法。周秀文和戴伟立并不是唯一两位对高盛融券业务发出抱怨之声的人。周一，《纽约时报》报道，一位曾担任对冲基金经理的养鸡场主认为，正是高盛融券部门对其交易的误操作，导致他一度非常成功的15亿美元基金倒闭。

    Two Silicon Valley entrepreneurs suing Goldman Sachs say the Wall Street firm mislabeled shares in the couple's brokerage account in order to be able to assist short-sellers who were betting against the company the couple founded.

    A lawyer for the couple, Sehat Sutardja and Weili Dai, co-founders and executives of the semiconductor company Marvell Technologies (MRVL), said the claim will be added Tuesday to a suit the couple filed in a San Francisco court against Goldman a year ago. Sutardja is the CEO of Marvell. Dai is the company's manager of communications.

    The suit claims that Goldman cost the married couple $100 million by duping them into selling a portion of their Marvell shares to cover a margin loan at the height of the financial crisis. The case is set to go to arbitration. "Goldman had no legal right to lend out shares that didn't belong to the firm," says Phil Gregory of Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy, who is representing Sutardja and Dai. "This whole case is about Goldman trying to make Goldman look better, and my clients suffering for it."

    In the amendment, the couple allege that in January 2008 Goldman (GS) removed Sutardja and Dai from the ownership records of 20 million shares of Marvell stock the couple held in a Goldman brokerage account. The couple say they agreed to allow Goldman to add the firm's name to the stock ownership records, but that the shares were supposed to classified as held for the benefit of either Sutardja or Dai. Instead, the couple says their names were removed completely.

    At the time, interest from investors wanting to bet against Marvell's stock was soaring. The number of Marvell shares borrowed by short-sellers more than doubled from 16 million in mid-September 2007 to nearly 37 million by the end of January. The couple allege that by putting their shares in Goldman's name, the firm was able to lend those shares to short-sellers, allowing them to increase their bets against Marvell. Goldman also collected fees from the hedge funds and other investors who borrowed the shares. Short-sellers are restricted from betting against stocks in which they have not secured the rights to borrow the shares. Sutardja and Dai say they would have objected to lending out their shares to investors who were betting against their company's stock. The couple say they do not know how many shares Goldman lent to short-sellers, or if the firm did at all. Sutardja and Dai have reclaimed the shares, which were never sold from their account.

    A Goldman spokeswoman declined to comment on whether the firm had lent the couple's Marvell shares to short-sellers. "Goldman Sachs has consistently denied and continues to fight Dr. Sutardja and Ms. Dai's claims, which are currently in arbitration with FINRA," says a Goldman spokeswoman. "We have not seen any new claims."

    Goldman has recently come under increasing fire for allegations about the way the firm treats its clients. In early March, a recently departed Goldman executive Greg Smith wrote in a New York Times op-ed that the firm's culture had become toxic and that its employees regularly put the firm's interests ahead of clients. He didn't offer specific examples. Goldman denies the claims. Sutardja and Dai are not the only ones to complain about Goldman's securities lending operations. On Monday, the New York Times reported that a former hedge fund manager turned chicken farmer believes Goldman's mishandling of his trades by the firm's securities lending division caused his once successful $1.5 billion fund to collapse.