CHINATOWN - Der Staatsanwalt sitzt dir im Nacken - 500 Beiträge pro Seite

[1802]

Chinatown, du solltest jetzt langsam aufpassen !
So langsam setzt das Gehirn wohl aus. Achte auf
die Überschrift !!!

In Amiland geht das ganz schnell !

Kann nicht mal jemand diesem "Kumpel" von Kumpel
den gar ausmachen ?

[1802]

Wenn Chinatown der Englischen Sprache mächtig ist, kann er sich hier
mal ein paar Gedanken machen. Ich danke Mochajet.


Dealing With the "Cybersmear"
BY BLAKE A. BELL
New York Law Journal
April 19, 1999

The corporate “cyber-smear” — in which a false and disparaging rumor about a company, its management or its stock is posted to the Internet — is a problem that is out of control and is likely to get worse. Beginning about six months ago, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission began receiving one or two calls a day from victims of corporate cyber-smears seeking help.

Since June 1998, American companies fighting such cyber-smears reportedly have been filing one or two lawsuits a week in Santa Clara County, Calif., the home of Yahoo! Inc., one of the Web’s most heavily trafficked “portals” (sites that offer a host of services, such as search engines, news reports and e-mail, and serve as a jumping-off point to other places on the Web). The suits typically list unnamed “John Does” as defendants and are intended to use the court’s powers to help identify and pursue claims against persons who have posted false and disparaging gossip about the companies on Yahoo! message boards.

Recently, talk show host Oprah Winfrey opened her program by denouncing false Internet rumors that clothing designer Tommy Hilfiger had appeared on her show and made racially insensitive comments. Ms. Winfrey reportedly told her audience, “Read my lips, Tommy Hilfiger has never appeared on this show. And all of the people who claim that they saw it, they heard it — it never happened.”

Other false Internet rumors have swirled around e-greeting card distributor Blue Mountain Arts. The company has been forced to mount a marketing campaign to fight rumors that a Blue Mountain e-greeting card will infect recipients’ computers with a virus.

Nevada-based AgriBioTech Inc. has also suffered the effects of a cyber-smear campaign. Though the company’s fundamentals are sound and analyst confidence in the company reportedly is high, cyber-gossip posted to a Yahoo! Finance message board helped to spark a precipitous drop in AgriBioTech’s stock price. After trading at a 52-week high of $29.50, shares plummeted to $9.75 — when Internet rumors, posted anonymously, falsely claimed that one of the company’s co-founders would be indicted within two days, that the company was about to declare bankruptcy and that there was evidence of accounting fraud.

The rumors reportedly led the company’s chief executive officer to conduct a conference call to reassure investors and analysts and to declare that the rumors were a “coordinated effort” by short sellers to drive down the price of the company’s stock. Sadly, AgriBioTech is not alone. Other companies have limped through similar incidents in the last few months.

As the AgriBioTech case demonstrates, Internet rumors can raise serious issues for companies and their investor relations personnel. Occasionally, however, there is a humorous element. For example, a rumor that recently circulated throughout the Internet suggested that Nike would replace old sneakers collected and forwarded to the company by schools. Although it was false, the rumor prompted the return of nearly 7,000 pairs of smelly shoes to Nike’s headquarters!

Recently, companies have begun to fight back. More than a few have filed lawsuits seeking to identify the perpetrators and to hold them accountable for their actions. For example, following anonymous Yahoo! postings that falsely disparaged the company and its management, Canadian-based Philip Services Corp. filed suit against “Does 1-100” seeking to identify persons responsible for the postings and to hold them liable for defamation and breach of fiduciary duty.1 Indeed, even the “Carib Inn,” a small tropical resort in the Caribbean, has gone to court after an anonymous posting to an America Online message board falsely accused the resort of unsafe scuba diving practices.2

The number of companies willing to sue to protect their good name and reputation is growing fast. Among the many well-known companies that have chosen this route, in addition to Philip Services, are E*Trade Group Inc., Sunbeam Corp., National Semiconductor Corp. and Amplicon Inc.

Exchanges and self-regulatory organizations are not twiddling their thumbs. For example, on Aug. 13, 1998, the Toronto Stock Exchange (TSE) proposed guidelines for the use of electronic communications. The guidelines addressed, among other things, Internet rumors, providing as follows:

A company is not expected to monitor chat rooms or newsgroups for rumors about itself. Nevertheless, the TSE recommends that the company’s standard policy for addressing rumors apply to those on the Internet.
Whether a company should respond to a rumor depends on the circumstances. The TSE suggests that the company should consider the market impact of the rumor and the degree of accuracy and significance to the company. In general, the TSE recommends against a company participating in a chat room or newsgroup to dispel or clarify a rumor. Instead, it is preferable for the company to issue a news release to ensure widespread dissemination of its statement.
If a company becomes aware of a rumor in a chat room, newsgroup or any other source that may have a material impact on the price of its stock, it should immediately contact the TSE’s Market Surveillance, so that the TSE can monitor trading in the company’s securities. If Market Surveillance determines that trading is being affected by the rumor, it may require the company to issue a news release stating that there are no corporate developments to explain the market activity.
Securities regulators have taken notice as well and, in some instances, apparently are considering enforcement actions. Last September, false Internet rumors began circulating that Lehman Brothers Holding was experiencing financial difficulties and that the Federal Reserve was looking to find a buyer for Lehman. Since then, at least one news report has suggested that the SEC is investigating the matter, noting that “the SEC suspects the Lehman rumors may have come from traders who had bet Lehman’s stock would decline or potential acquirers looking to knock down the company’s value.”3
John Reed Stark, head of the SEC’s newly created Internet Enforcement Office, has spoken on the subject at conferences and seminars throughout the country. According to Mr. Stark, the SEC has observed such incidents with increasing frequency and regulators and enforcement officials are prepared to take action in appropriate circumstances.4

Such a response would be welcome in many quarters. But a mere promise of regulatory “action” is of little use to a company during that agonizing period when false postings are first discovered and the company must weigh its rather unsatisfying options. Seeking a judicial remedy may satisfy primal urges to seek vengeance, but is likely to be a costly and, perhaps, futile option. Anyone — including short sellers, fired employees, disgruntled employees and irate customers — can easily walk into a cyber-cafe, plunk down cash to gain Internet access for a few minutes and make false and disparaging postings through services like www.anonymizer.com. Such postings are difficult, if not impossible, to trace.

Preemptive Measures

What courses of action are available to a company to protect itself against such rumors and to deal with them once they have been posted? The remainder of this article will explore a few of the available options.

The increasing frequency of corporate cyber-smears strongly suggests that companies should anticipate the worst and put into place corporate policies and damage control mechanisms designed to deal with a cyber-smear as soon as it is discovered. There are a wide variety of preemptive measures that a company might take.

First and foremost, the company must be cyber-savvy and well-informed to avoid being caught off guard. Assign personnel to monitor pertinent Internet chat rooms, message boards, Usenet newsgroups, Web pages and other Internet sites where the company is likely to be mentioned.5 For larger companies, public relations firms and other businesses will perform such monitoring for a fee. Some of the most widely-used monitoring services include: Ewatch Inc., a company that has developed powerful monitoring software named eWatch and that recently was acquired by WavePhore Inc.; Burson-Marsteller, a PR firm that provides a service called QUIKeclip (based on eWatch); and the PR firm The Delahaye Group.

Smaller firms that do not have the resources to hire such consultants are not left out in the cold. Robotic agent software that will automatically troll designated sites is inexpensive and easily available through Web sites such as www.botspot.com. Moreover, some sites offer free services to monitor message board postings about certain companies. One such widely used site is www.companysleuth.com.

Second, take steps to minimize the risk that company employees are not involved — intentionally or unwittingly — in starting the sort of Internet rumors that can mushroom into public relations nightmares. Employees should be provided with clear guidelines that proscribe discussions of internal corporate matters, company business, client information and confidential business data via the Internet. Additionally, employees should receive training to impress upon them the importance of following these guidelines and the damage to the company that can result from a failure to abide by such policies.6

The case of CIBER Inc. represents a good example of the problems that can arise in the absence of clear employee guidelines proscribing discussions of internal corporate matters on the Internet. CIBER Inc. reportedly paid little or no attention to Internet message boards until its stock price declined for no apparent reason. The company issued a press release stating that it was unaware of any company-specific reason for the price decline and its director of investor relations began to monitor message boards related to the company. What she discovered shocked her. Individuals identifying themselves as company employees were discussing the company on the message boards. She now says that the company is drawing up an Internet policy for the next edition of its employee handbook.7

Similarly, Raytheon recently filed suit against 21 “John Does” who had allegedly posted embarrassing information about the company, including information regarding rumors of product testing failures. It has been reported that one of the posters, who used the name “RSCDeepThroat,” was a vice president of the company who since has resigned.

Once the Rumors Fly

When the company learns of false and disparaging rumors about its products, management or the value of its stock, it has a variety of theoretical options:

Remain silent and do nothing.
Handle the rumors in precisely the same fashion as the company would handle any other marketplace rumors, without regard to the fact that the rumors arose via the Internet.
Contact, and seek to involve, the Securities and Exchange Commission, other regulators or law enforcement authorities.
Reply via the Internet, press releases or news conferences, providing a specific rebuttal or simply referring to public filings.
Issue cease-and-desist letters or formal demand letters to operators of Web sites, Internet message boards, chat rooms or Usenet newsgroups demanding that offending postings be removed or, in extreme cases, blocked in advance.
Sue the persons who posted the offending messages for cyber-libel or, if the postings were made anonymously, sue unnamed “John Does” for cyber-libel, and use the court’s subpoena powers to identify the defendants so that claims may be prosecuted against them.
Choosing one of these options, or some combination of them, is a difficult task for most companies. Moreover, the decision is an intensely factual one, driven by the specific circumstances surrounding the rumor. For example, one company faced with a false rumor posted in an Internet chat room chose not to respond because the rumor had been promulgated by a person fraudulently claiming to be the company’s CEO. The company believed that a message from its actual CEO released in a chat room populated by a fake CEO might not be credible.
Silence May Not be Golden

Although many companies believe that silence or a simple “no comment” is an appropriate response to any kind of rumor, this approach can be risky when cyber-gossip is involved. Indeed, some would argue that there can be circumstances in which a company risks potential liability under the securities laws if it simply ignores Internet rumors.

Ordinarily a company has no duty under the securities laws to correct or to verify rumors unless those rumors can be attributed in some way to the company. If, however, the company has placed a hyperlink on its own Web site linking to a message board, chat room or newsgroup devoted to the company and its securities, and the rumor appears on the linked site, an argument could be made that the company has entangled itself with the rumor and, thus, may have a duty to respond.

Additionally, self-regulatory organization rules such as those promulgated by the New York Stock Exchange, AMEX and NASDAQ may impose an independent duty on listed companies to respond to Internet rumors. For example, section 202.03 of the New York Stock Exchange Listed Company Manual requires listed companies, in certain circumstances, promptly to deny or clarify rumors without regard to the source of such rumors. Thus, silence may simply not be an option in some cases.

Finally, mere inaction is rarely a viable alternative. Companies have an obligation to act prudently and to protect shareholders’ interests. Is there a chance that the rumors may be true? Is an investigation warranted? Such questions presumably prompted one company recently to ask its CEO to take a four-week vacation while the company investigated disparaging rumors posted to an on-line message board.8

Replying to Rumors

Marketing experts and public relations firms often urge corporate clients to respond to cyber-gossip before it spirals out of control. Often they urge clients to go so far as to participate in Usenet newsgroups, message boards and chat rooms to add the company’s view to the overall mix of information.

Internet-savvy securities lawyers, however, generally advise against using the Internet to respond to cyber-gossip. There are unique liability risks associated with using the Internet to reply to rumors. As one noted commentator emphasized, the “potential for liability escalates if . . . the firm has followed the advice of some public relations experts and responded directly to newsgroups where unfavorable rumors were flying. The failure to then similarly correct beneficial rumors gives rise to very plausible claims of selective disclosure.” 9

In addition, despite the undeniably public nature of easily accessible chat rooms, message boards and newsgroups, questions arise over whether or not a reply posted to such locations constitutes “widespread dissemination” of the company’s reply to the investing public. If a company feels compelled to reply to cyber-gossip on the Internet, it rarely — if ever — should do so without also issuing a more “traditional” news release (via more low-tech means of dissemination) containing identical information.

That said, there may come a time when a company concludes that a response to cyber-gossip is necessary to correct misunderstandings or to clarify the company’s position. In such circumstances, some companies have chosen to permit their investor relations personnel or other employees to discuss appropriate company matters in chat rooms and on message boards. For example, for a period of time the investor relations manager of Genzyme Corporation, Stephen Push, participated in several on-line chat rooms that dealt with Genzyme issues. Mr. Push, who has since left Genzyme and now manages investor relations for Gene Logic, stopped the practice last year when it began to take too much of his time. According to Mr. Push, “It was low volume three years ago, it only took 10 minutes a day. But the activity is increasing and the payoff is relatively small.”10

When gossip appears on a Web site, one option is the use of so-called “exchange links.” These permit the same Web site to publish both sides of a story.” Another, less effective, option is to use the company’s pre-existing Web site or to create a new site to address the issue.

No matter how the company chooses to respond, however, it is critical that it treat all such communications as carefully as it would a formal press release issued in a more ordinary context. Such communications should be vetted with counsel and should be scrupulously accurate and complete.

Wielding the Litigation Club

For many companies, the most expensive, time-consuming and least-palatable option is to commence litigation against the perpetrators of disparaging Internet rumors. Although many such lawsuits have been commenced, neither their success nor their deterrent value has yet been proven.

Cyber-libel lawsuits are not necessarily the answer. The now-infamous McDonald’s “McLibel” case, filed in England, is perhaps the most notable failure in the libel context. As one commentator noted regarding the McLibel case:

McDonald’s filed a libel action in England over statements made in a pamphlet (that might well have been placed on a Web site by more sophisticated defendants). McDonalds won the suit but in so doing spent $16 million in order to obtain an uncollectible $68,000 judgment. The trial was the longest in English legal history and was a public relations disaster for the company. McDonald’s would have done well to just have looked the other way.11

Moreover, there is no assurance that the culprits can actually be identified — no matter how much time, money and effort are spent. Nor is the deterrent value of such lawsuits yet demonstrated. And, even if a matter can be prosecuted to judgment, there would seem to be at least some likelihood that an individual defendant would be judgment-proof.

A less expensive alternative, though not necessarily a more effective one, would be to issue cease-and-desist letters to persons who can be identified as responsible for false and disparaging postings. Absent the ability to identify such persons, it is at least possible to issue letters to Web site owners or to the operators of message boards or Internet chat rooms arguing that the postings violate user policies and should be removed or even blocked in the future.

The company should take care, however. Cease-and-desist letters almost invariably are posted by the recipient to a Web site and can quickly become ‘David and Goliath’ affairs in the eyes of Netizens, leading to a public relations disaster.

What is a Company to Do?

It would seem that the brief but helpful guidelines issued by the Toronto Stock Exchange provide a good starting point for companies in the United States, Canada and elsewhere when faced with deciding how to deal with a corporate cyber-smear campaign. With that in mind, here are a few recommendations:


If you have not already done so, create, distribute and implement a standard corporate policy for dealing with rumors of any sort — Internet or otherwise. Experienced securities counsel are typically well versed in the sorts of issues that should be included within such policy statements.
Be Internet-savvy and Internet-informed. Arrange for an employee or an outside service to monitor the Net for references to and rumors about the company. Many companies utilize clipping services or monitor local print publications. The Internet should be treated no differently. Like various print media, the Net is a powerful communications medium.
Refrain from participating in chat room, message board, newsgroup or other Internet communications to dispel or clarify a rumor unless there is a very good reason for

[US_Trader]

Ich habe heute mit einem Juristen gesprochen.
Es ist richtig, Chinatown kann für seine eindeutigen Falschaussagen in diesem Board rechtlich belangt und verurteilt werden.
Wenn es zur Anklage kommt (z.Bsp durch HRCT,Aktionäre etc.)ständen die Chancen sehr gut.
Identifizierung würde durch IP/Provider erfolgen.
Auch eine Sammelklage ist möglich.
Chinatown agiert lt. Juristen vorsätzlich geschäftsschädigend und die Bestrafung erfolgt in Form hoher Geldstrafen oder Gefängnis bis zu 3 Jahren.
Ich würde dir Chinatown empfehlen, es nicht so weit kommen zu lassen, den wenn es zu Anklage kommt, bist du geliefert, das verspreche ich dir.
Die Beweise lassen sich nicht verwischen!

ein informierter und zum handeln entschlossener US_trader

[Roadrunner RS]

Chinatown,

an deiner Stelle würd ich jetzt schon mal mit dem Sparen anfangen!

Hätte auch ne gute Aktienempfehlung für dich...

fängt mit "H" an und hört mit dem engl.Wort auf welches übersetzt ins Deutsche so viel wie "Gerichtshof" od "Schloß" bedeutet kannst du dir aussuchen

und allen dicke Geschenke
Gruß RS

[1802]

Möchte meinen Dank an US_TRADER aussprechen für die Unterstützung.
Das Verhalten von Chinatown ist mitlerweile unerträglich geworden.
Das war ja nicht das erste mal.

Ich möchte Chinatown ja keine Angst machen, sollte eine Warnung in
seinem Interesse sein. Sonnst gibt es Hard(t)court - um das Wortspiel
von Roadrunner fortzuführen.

Wünsche allen eine frohe Weihnachten.

1802

[Net_trader]

Hallo beisammen,

mich würd mahl interessieren warum Ihr so sauer auf Chinatown seid ?

Falls was dran ist mit den bewußten Falschaussagen, dann finde ich das es gerecht ist C-T. zu bestrafen....

[US_Trader]

!

Dieser Beitrag wurde vom System automatisch gesperrt. Bei Fragen wenden Sie sich bitte an [e-mail]

[1802]

An Net_trader

Schau die einmal den Thread: "Hartcourt, wann wird der Betrügerladen
dichtgemacht ???" und "Keine Party - Hartcourt vor dem Ende !!!" an.

Dort hagelt es nur so von Falschaussagen, Verfälschungen und
Verleumdungen. Anleger werden m.E. bewusst getäuscht.

Und das verfolgt der Gesetzeshüter nun einmal. Alledings erst nach
einer Anzeige. Vielleicht hat ja jemand Interesse, wenn CHINATOWN
so weitermacht.

Noch hatten seine Diffamierungen ja keine Auswirkungen.

Also, schaun `mer mal.
1802

[derREICHSTE]

Vorsicht Chinatown, verbrenn dir nicht die Finger!
Diesen Thread bitte nicht verschieben, er dient der Aufklärung im Bereich Internetaktien und Falschinformationen.

[derREICHSTE]

Ich denke wer sich folgendermaßen außert, "Hartcourt ist und bleibt Schrott!!! " gehört rechtlich verfolgt.
Und diesmal wirst du den Kopf vielleicht nicht mehr aus der Schlinge ziehen können, wenn Aktionäre eine Sammelklage gegen dich anstreben werden.
Du besitzt keinen Charakter, und belügst auf unterstem Niveau die Boardteilnehmer.
Ich bitte das WO, hier einzuschreiten und Chinatown im Sinne des Boards zu beobachten und endlich zu intervenieren !

[derREICHSTE]

Chinatown, dein Hirnmüll ist absolut abstoßend, es widert mich an, deine Unverschämtheiten lesen zu müssen.
Du agierst nicht nur geschäftsschädigend und beleidigend, nein du ignorierst die harte Arbeit weniger Pioniere in Sachen Internet.
Du bist ein absoluter Stümper und Dummschwätzer, und ich hoffe im Interesse der Leser des Internetboards, daß dieser thread nicht verschoben wird, und der Aufklärung dient.
Dieser Beitrag muß hier im Internetboard weiterhin zu lesen sein!

euer TRAURIGER Reicher

[Meier M]

mittlerweile glaube ich das die wahrheit und chinatown die
selben warmduscher sind!

mfg

[timotei210]

Chinatown wurde vorerst gesperrt. Ich bitte um eine Schilderung der Vorgänge an [emai][e-mail][/email].

Danke und Grüsse, Thomas...

[NETMAN1]

Zunächst einmal war ich doch überrascht, als ich mich heute über die Vorfälle in der Nacht informiert habe.
Das einzig richtige war die Sperrung des Synonyms Chinatown.
timotei210 es ist nicht schwierig, Chinatown zu "entlarven", schau dir einfach alle "Kommentare", oder soll man sagen "Lügen" dieses Paranoiden an.
Da wird nicht sachlich kritisiert, da fallen keine Argumente, nein da wird Frustabbau auf Kosten der Hartcourt-Aktionäre betrieben.
Vor einigen Wochen versuchte Chinatown, extreme Verkaufspanik aufkommen zu lassen, und erzählte von Freunden, die an einem Tag 80000 shares in FF verkaufen würden, natürlich gab es nie diese Order, geschweige denn diese Freunde.
Ich hab jetzt zwar keine Zeit, aber vielleicht mache ich mir mal die Arbeit, signifikante Zitate herauszusuchen, obwohl dieser Provokateur es nicht wert ist.

Die Sperrung war unausweichlich und richtig.

NETMAN

[FrancescoSuper]

HAHAHAHAHA

Wer zuletzt lacht, lacht am besten!

Grüsse von einem Aussteiger, bin gerade aus einem einjährigen Urlaub zurück gekommen!

Wallstreet:online: Hier hättet Chinatown nicht sperren dürfen, er hatte bzgl. HRCT absolut recht und wollte die Schafe unter den Anlegern nur warnen.