G. DETAILS OF COMPLAINT:<o></o
<o
This complaint arises from a telephone call I received April 14, 2008 at approximately 10:30 am PDT.
<o
Background. I own a substantial number of shares in Sirius Satellite Radio Inc. (Sirius). Sirius and XM Satellite Radio Inc. (XM) have agreed to merge and filed applications with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) for approval to do so. These applications are being considered by the FCC in its Media Bureau Docket No. 07-57.
<o
In March 2007, a shareholder class action was brought against Sirius alleging improper or inadequate valuation of the stock that would be transferred if the merger was completed as proposed. Brockwell v. Sirius Satellite Radio (Index No. 600819/07) (Supreme Court of the State of New York). In late 2007, a settlement of this class action was announced. However, details about the terms of the settlement and what value the shareholders would receive if it was effected were not provided. Since then, I have tried to obtain the terms and to force the parties in the suit to make full disclosure of the terms of settlement and the value the shareholders could be expected to receive if the settlement was approved. I have been denied access to any such information.
<o
However, my efforts in this regard discovered that the law firm serving as lead counsel for the class, Robbins, Umeda & Fink, San Diego, California had a long-term relationship with the putative class representative plaintiff, Greg Brockwell. The firm has represented Mr. Brockwell as representative class plaintiff in numerous class actions. As I investigated further, I learned that the firm representing Mr. Brockwell had long term relationships with the New York firm of Milberg Weiss and with William Lerach as well. This caused concern that the class action in the Brockwell case raised issues whether Mr. Brockwell was a paid plaintiff. My understanding is that using paid plaintiffs in class action cases led to the indictments and convictions of ranking members of the Milberg Weiss firm and Mr. Lerach for obstruction of justice.
<o
I therefore took my concerns to the United States Attorney’s Office for the Central District of California. My intent was simply to pass on the facts that I learned through my efforts to get to the bottom of the settlement being made in the Brockwell case in New York.
<o
Complaint. With this background in mind, the following occurred. On April 14, 2008, I had multiple telephone conversations with members of the US Attorney’s office for the Central District of California regarding the Milberg Weiss and William Lerach cases and how those cases and circumstances related to the Robbins, Umeda & Fink firm, class representative plaintiff Greg Brockwell and the Brockwell case and its proposed settlement. During the time frame in which my calls were made to the US Attorney’s Office, I received an incoming call on my cell phone. My phone’s caller ID displayed the words “Gary’s Office” as a pre-programmed number in my contact list. This is unusual because I do not recall having at any time entered such a number or identified one as such as “Gary’s Office.”
<o
I took the call and it lasted approximately 20 minutes. The person who called me identified himself as a “US Attorney” and as calling on “behalf of the US Attorney’s Office”. The caller specifically wanted me to address the issues I had raised in my telephone conversations with other members of the US Attorney’s Office for Central District of California. Believing I was speaking with a member of that office, I proceeded to share confidential and privileged information with the caller.
<o
After the call ended, it occurred to me that I really didn’t know who I had just spoken with because I realized that I had no knowledge of what my cell phone displayed when the call came in. I then called “Gary’s Office” and discovered the call had been made from someone at the Washington, D.C. law firm of Latham & Watkins. I knew this because my phone displayed its number, i.e., 202-637-2200. It made no sense to me that a US Attorney from the Central District of California would have called me from the offices of Latham & Watkins in Washington, D.C. It also was quite strange that the firm is counsel of record for XM representing it in the merger proceeding before the FCC.
<o
In an attempt to get clarification, I called Gary Epstein, a partner in the firm and lead counsel for XM in the merger proceeding before the FCC. I called Mr. Epstein several times, at both his home and his office, each time leaving detailed messages for him. I placed these calls beginning at approximately 12:30 pm PDT on April 14, 2008. As of this date, my calls and concerns have not been addressed by Mr. Epstein or his firm. <o
<o
Since at the time I believed I was speaking with a US Attorney and divulging confidential information, if Latham & Watkins, Mr. Epstein or someone else at the firm gained information from me by pretending to be a federal official, it appears that not only was there a breach of professional ethics, but quite possibly a violation of Federal Law. Since I have given Mr. Epstein an opportunity to clarify this matter in his own interests and he has not done so, I am compelled in order to protect my interests to bring this to the Bar Association’s attention.
<o
I have a copy of my cell phone call summary for the date of April 14, 2008 and will provide it as needed. I have also informed Richard E. Robinson, Lead Investigator in the Millberg Weiss case of the details of this telephone call. <o
<o
<o
tankedsecondchance said:
tankedsecondchance said:to admin
whats below is factual information, if you feel the need to remove the information feel free to do so...
also whats below is true I wont post all the information I have from what i understand another person will be named and this person wants the information related to the interoperable radios made available to the public.
he wont settle for less at this point
heres part of one of the complaints filed with the bar thus far and is available in other public forums....
G. DETAILS OF COMPLAINT:<o
<o
This complaint arises from a telephone call I received April 14, 2008 at approximately 10:30 am PDT.
<o
Background. I own a substantial number of shares in Sirius Satellite Radio Inc. (Sirius). Sirius and XM Satellite Radio Inc. (XM) have agreed to merge and filed applications with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) for approval to do so. These applications are being considered by the FCC in its Media Bureau Docket No. 07-57.
<o
In March 2007, a shareholder class action was brought against Sirius alleging improper or inadequate valuation of the stock that would be transferred if the merger was completed as proposed. Brockwell v. Sirius Satellite Radio (Index No. 600819/07) (Supreme Court of the State of New York). In late 2007, a settlement of this class action was announced. However, details about the terms of the settlement and what value the shareholders would receive if it was effected were not provided. Since then, I have tried to obtain the terms and to force the parties in the suit to make full disclosure of the terms of settlement and the value the shareholders could be expected to receive if the settlement was approved. I have been denied access to any such information.
<o
However, my efforts in this regard discovered that the law firm serving as lead counsel for the class, Robbins, Umeda & Fink, San Diego, California had a long-term relationship with the putative class representative plaintiff, Greg Brockwell. The firm has represented Mr. Brockwell as representative class plaintiff in numerous class actions. As I investigated further, I learned that the firm representing Mr. Brockwell had long term relationships with the New York firm of Milberg Weiss and with William Lerach as well. This caused concern that the class action in the Brockwell case raised issues whether Mr. Brockwell was a paid plaintiff. My understanding is that using paid plaintiffs in class action cases led to the indictments and convictions of ranking members of the Milberg Weiss firm and Mr. Lerach for obstruction of justice.
<o
I therefore took my concerns to the United States Attorney’s Office for the Central District of California. My intent was simply to pass on the facts that I learned through my efforts to get to the bottom of the settlement being made in the Brockwell case in New York.
<o
Complaint. With this background in mind, the following occurred. On April 14, 2008, I had multiple telephone conversations with members of the US Attorney’s office for the Central District of California regarding the Milberg Weiss and William Lerach cases and how those cases and circumstances related to the Robbins, Umeda & Fink firm, class representative plaintiff Greg Brockwell and the Brockwell case and its proposed settlement. During the time frame in which my calls were made to the US Attorney’s Office, I received an incoming call on my cell phone. My phone’s caller ID displayed the words “Gary’s Office” as a pre-programmed number in my contact list. This is unusual because I do not recall having at any time entered such a number or identified one as such as “Gary’s Office.”
<o
I took the call and it lasted approximately 20 minutes. The person who called me identified himself as a “US Attorney” and as calling on “behalf of the US Attorney’s Office”. The caller specifically wanted me to address the issues I had raised in my telephone conversations with other members of the US Attorney’s Office for Central District of California. Believing I was speaking with a member of that office, I proceeded to share confidential and privileged information with the caller.
<o
After the call ended, it occurred to me that I really didn’t know who I had just spoken with because I realized that I had no knowledge of what my cell phone displayed when the call came in. I then called “Gary’s Office” and discovered the call had been made from someone at the Washington, D.C. law firm of Latham & Watkins. I knew this because my phone displayed its number, i.e., 202-637-2200. It made no sense to me that a US Attorney from the Central District of California would have called me from the offices of Latham & Watkins in Washington, D.C. It also was quite strange that the firm is counsel of record for XM representing it in the merger proceeding before the FCC.
<o
In an attempt to get clarification, I called Gary Epstein, a partner in the firm and lead counsel for XM in the merger proceeding before the FCC. I called Mr. Epstein several times, at both his home and his office, each time leaving detailed messages for him. I placed these calls beginning at approximately 12:30 pm PDT on April 14, 2008. As of this date, my calls and concerns have not been addressed by Mr. Epstein or his firm. <o
<o
Since at the time I believed I was speaking with a US Attorney and divulging confidential information, if Latham & Watkins, Mr. Epstein or someone else at the firm gained information from me by pretending to be a federal official, it appears that not only was there a breach of professional ethics, but quite possibly a violation of Federal Law. Since I have given Mr. Epstein an opportunity to clarify this matter in his own interests and he has not done so, I am compelled in order to protect my interests to bring this to the Bar Association’s attention.
<o
I have a copy of my cell phone call summary for the date of April 14, 2008 and will provide it as needed. I have also informed Richard E. Robinson, Lead Investigator in the Millberg Weiss case of the details of this telephone call. <o
<o
<o
Garrett said:
answers.yahoo.com/ said: