Lest We Forget: How Bear Stearns Regularly Flouted the Law

I chatted with the Canadian Broadcasting Corp. this morning about something we must never forget: how Bear Stearns regularly flouted the law.

That got me to thinking: gee, wouldn't it be nice to see a compendium of the kind of trouble Bear is in right now? Well, it so happens that there is a nice, up-to-date repository of such information, Item 3 of Bear Stearns's 10-K for 2007, entitled "Legal Proceedings."

I have taken the liberty or replicating it, in its entirety, below.

Yes, it's long. But Bear Stearns' history of sliminess is long too, ain't it?

In re McKesson HBOC, Inc. Securities Litigation: This matter arises out of a merger between McKesson Corporation ("McKesson") and HBO & Company ("HBOC") resulting in an entity called McKesson HBOC, Inc. ("McKesson HBOC").

Beginning on June 29, 1999, 53 purported class actions were commenced in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. These actions were subsequently consolidated, and the plaintiffs proceeded to file a series of amended complaints. On February 15, 2002, the plaintiffs filed a third amended consolidated complaint, which alleges that Bear Stearns violated Sections 10(b) and 14(a) of the Exchange Act in connection with allegedly false and misleading disclosures contained in a joint proxy statement/prospectus that was issued with respect to the McKesson/HBOC merger.

Plaintiffs purport to represent a class consisting of all persons who either (i) acquired publicly traded securities of HBOC between January 20, 1997 and January 12, 1999, or (ii) acquired publicly traded securities of McKesson or McKesson HBOC between October 18, 1998 and April 27, 1999, and who held McKesson securities on November 27, 1998 and January 22, 1999. Named defendants include McKesson HBOC, certain present and former directors and/or officers of McKesson HBOC, McKesson and/or HBOC, Bear Stearns and Arthur Andersen LLP. Compensatory damages in an unspecified amount are sought.

On January 6, 2003, the court granted Bear Stearns' motion to dismiss the Section 10(b) claim asserted in the third amended complaint, and denied Bear Stearns' motion to dismiss the Section 14(a) claim. On March 7, 2003, Bear Stearns filed an answer to the third amended complaint denying all allegations of wrongdoing and asserting affirmative defenses to the claims in the complaint. On January 12, 2005, McKesson HBOC announced that it had reached a settlement with the plaintiff class, which settlement required court approval. Bear Stearns' engagement letter with McKesson in connection with the merger of McKesson and HBOC provides that McKesson cannot settle any litigation without Bear Stearns' written consent unless McKesson
obtains an unconditional written release for Bear Stearns and, under certain circumstances, is required to provide indemnification to Bear Stearns.

By Order dated May 23, 2005, the Court denied preliminary approval of the proposed settlement between McKesson HBOC and the plaintiff class. On July 12, 2005, the plaintiff and McKesson HBOC submitted a revised proposed settlement, purporting to address the issues identified by the Court in its order denying preliminary approval, to which Bear Stearns objected. The revised proposed settlement provides, among other things, that Bear Stearns' rights under its engagement letter are preserved for future resolution. McKesson HBOC's claims in connection with the letter are also preserved.

On February 24, 2006, the Court granted final approval of the revised proposed settlement. Bear Stearns appealed the final approval order to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, seeking to reverse the final approval of the settlement on the ground that consummation of the settlement may deprive Bear Stearns of certain rights and remedies provided for in its
engagement letter.

On December 8, 2005, Bear Stearns commenced a separate action in New York State Supreme Court, New York County, Bear Stearns v. McKesson Corp. (the "New York Action"), asserting breach of contracts and other claims against McKesson based on the engagement letter and seeking, among other things, declaratory relief and damages. On April 24, 2006, McKesson moved to dismiss certain causes of action asserted in the complaint. On October 25, 2006, the Court issued an opinion denying McKesson's motion to dismiss in part and allowing Bear Stearns
to proceed with certain of its claims.

On September 24, 2007, the parties in the Federal Class Action entered into a stipulation of settlement. The stipulation of settlement provides that, subject to final approval by the District Court, the claims asserted on behalf of the settlement class against Bear Stearns will be dismissed with prejudice and that Bear Stearns denies any wrongdoing in connection with the claims
asserted against it in the Federal Class Action. Under the stipulation of settlement, promptly following preliminary approval of the settlement by the District Court, Bear Stearns will withdraw its appeal of the District Court's approval of McKesson's settlement of the Federal Class Action. The District Court granted preliminary approval on September 28, 2007. Pursuant to the
stipulation of settlement, on October 9, 2007, Bear Stearns withdrew its appeal in the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. On January 18, 2008, the District Court gave final approval to the settlement of the Federal Class Action and entered a judgment for dismissal. Bear Stearns has agreed to dismiss its claims against McKesson in the New York Action and Bear Stearns and McKesson have agreed to exchange mutual releases. Bear Stearns will make no payment in connection with the settlement.

Helen Gredd, Chapter 11 Trustee for Manhattan Investment Fund Ltd. v. Bear, Stearns Securities Corp.: On April 24, 2001, an action was commenced against BSSC in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York by the Chapter 11 Trustee for Manhattan Investment Fund Limited ("MIFL"). BSSC provided prime brokerage services to MIFL prior to its bankruptcy. BSSC is the sole defendant in this action. The complaint alleges, among other things, that certain transfers of cash and securities to BSSC in connection with short sales of securities by MIFL in 1999 were "fraudulent transfers" made in violation of Sections 548 and 550 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code and are recoverable by the Trustee. The Trustee also alleges that any claim that may be asserted by BSSC against MIFL should be equitably subordinated to the claims of other creditors pursuant to Sections 105 and 510 of the Bankruptcy Code. The Trustee seeks to recover in excess of $1.9 billion in connection with the allegedly fraudulent transfers to BSSC.

On March 21, 2002, the District Court dismissed the trustee's claims seeking to recover allegedly fraudulent transfers in amounts exceeding $1.9 billion. The District Court also remanded to the Bankruptcy Court the Trustee's remaining claims, which seek to recover allegedly fraudulent transfers in the amount of $141.4 million plus pre-judgment interest and to equitably subordinate any claim that may be asserted by BSSC against MIFL to the claims of other
creditors.

On October 17, 2002, BSSC filed an answer to the complaint in which it denied all allegations of wrongdoing and asserted affirmative defenses.

By Order and Decision dated January 9, 2007, the Bankruptcy Court ruled on the parties' cross motions for summary judgment. The Court denied BSSC's motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of the Trustee's complaint in its entirety and granted the Trustee's motion for summary judgment on the fraudulent transfer claims against BSSC. BSSC believes it has substantial defenses to the Trustee's claims and appealed the Bankruptcy Court's decision to the U.S.
District for the Southern District of New York.

On appeal, the District Court affirmed the Bankruptcy Court's findings in part, but also reversed in part, the Bankruptcy's Court's grant of summary judgment to the Trustee, finding that a trial is necessary to make a factual finding as to whether BSSC acted in good faith with respect to its receipt of the alleged fraudulent transfers.

Enron Corp., et ano. v. Bear, Stearns International Ltd., et ano.: On November 25, 2003, BSIL and BSSC were named as defendants in an adversary proceeding commenced by Enron and Enron North America Corp. in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York. Plaintiffs seek, interalia, to recover payments, totaling approximately $26 million that were allegedly made to BSIL and BSSC during August 2001 in connection with an equity derivative contract between BSIL and Enron. According to the complaint, Enron's payments constituted (a) fraudulent transfers, under Section 548(a) of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code and under applicable state law and (b) an unlawful redemption of Enron common stock in violation of Oregon law. Enron seeks judgment (a) avoiding and setting aside Enron's August 2001 payments to BSIL and BSSC, (b) directing BSIL and BSSC to pay Enron approximately $26 million, plus prejudgment interest, (c) declaring that Enron's August 2001 payments violated Oregon law, (d) disallowing any claims by BSIL and BSSC in connection with Enron's bankruptcy proceedings until they have returned the August 2001 payments to Enron and (e) awarding Enron its reasonable attorneys' fees and costs incurred in connection with the action.

By Order dated June 3, 2005, the Bankruptcy Court had denied the motion to dismiss filed by BSIL and BSSC. Defendants filed a motion with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York for leave to take an interlocutory appeal from the Bankruptcy Court's decision. By Order dated May 2, 2006, the District Court denied defendants' motion for leave to take an interlocutory appeal from the Bankruptcy Court's decision.

The parties reached a mutual agreement to settle this proceeding. By Order dated December 3, 2007, the Bankruptcy Court approved the terms of the parties' settlement.

IPO Allocation Securities and Antitrust Litigations

The Company and Bear Stearns (the "Bear Stearns defendants"), along with many other financial services firms, have been named as defendants in many putative class actions filed during 2001 and 2002 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York involving the allocation of securities in certain initial public offerings ("IPOs"). The complaints in these purported class actions generally allege, among other things, that between 1998 and 2000: (i) the underwriters of certain "hot" IPOs of technology and internet-related companies obtained excessive compensation by allocating shares in these IPOs to preferred customers who, in return, purportedly agreed to pay additional compensation to the underwriters, and the underwriters failed to disclose this additional compensation and/or (ii) the underwriters' customers, in return for a favorable allocation of these securities, agreed to purchase additional shares in the aftermarket at pre-arranged prices or to pay additional compensation in connection with other transactions.

Beginning on April 19, 2002, the plaintiffs in these litigations filed amended complaints by virtue of which the public offerings of each of the 309 issuers are now the subjects of separate complaints. The Bear Stearns defendants are defendants in 95 of these amended complaints. As amended, the complaints allege, among other things, that the underwriters, including Bear Stearns, violated Section 11 of the Securities Act and Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, based on the wrongdoing alleged in the original complaints and by causing their securities analysts to issue unwarranted positive reports regarding the issuers. Compensatory damages in unspecified amounts are sought.

By order dated October 13, 2004, the Court granted in part and denied in part class certification for each of the six cases selected to be the focus cases for these proceedings.

By opinion and order dated February 15, 2005, the Court preliminarily approved the proposed settlement among plaintiffs and a substantial number of the non-bankrupt issuer defendants and their officers and directors. The settlement generally provided that (1) the insurers of these issuers will guarantee an ultimate recovery by plaintiffs, in this and related litigations, of $1 billion; (2) these issuers will assign to plaintiffs so-called "excess compensation" claims against the underwriter defendants, including the Bear Stearns defendants, that these issuers allegedly possess; and (3) plaintiffs will, upon final approval of the settlement, dismiss all claims against these issuers and the individual director and officer defendants. That preliminary approval, however, was conditioned upon certain changes being made to the terms of the settlement.

On December 5, 2006, the Second Circuit vacated the lower court's class certification of the six selected focus cases. The Second Circuit concluded that class certification of these cases was improper and remanded the cases to the lower court for further proceedings.

In January 2002, Bear Stearns was named as a defendant, along with nine other financial services firms, in an antitrust complaint filed in the same court on behalf of a putative class of purchasers who, either in IPOs or in the aftermarket, purchased technology-related securities during the period March 1997 to December 2000. The Plaintiffs allege that the defendants conspired to require that customers, in return for an allocation in the IPOs, (i) pay charges in addition to the IPO price, such as non-competitively determined commissions on the purchase or sale of other securities and/or (ii) agree to purchase the IPO securities in the aftermarket at prices above the IPO price. Plaintiffs claim that these alleged practices violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act and
state antitrust laws and seek compensatory and treble damages. On November 6, 2003, the District Court granted the defendants' (including Bear Stearns') motion to dismiss all claims asserted against them by these antitrust plaintiffs. The plaintiffs appealed that decision to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals and on September 28, 2005, the Court of Appeals vacated the dismissal and remanded this matter to the lower court for further proceedings.

On December 7, 2006, the U.S. Supreme Court granted defendants' petition for certiorari to appeal the decision issued by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. On June 18, 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the Second Circuit Court of Appeals' decision.

The Company denies all allegations of wrongdoing asserted against it in these litigations and believes that it has substantial defenses to these claims.

IPO Underwriting Fee Antitrust Litigation: Bear Stearns, along with numerous other financial services firms, is a defendant in several consolidated class actions currently pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The first consolidated action, filed on March 15, 2001, purports to be brought on behalf of a putative class of purchasers of stock in initial public offerings (the "Purchaser Action"). The second consolidated action, filed on July 6, 2001, purports to be brought on behalf of a putative class of issuers of stock in initial public offerings (the "Issuer Action"). Each suit alleges that Bear Stearns violated federal antitrust laws by fixing
underwriting fees at 7% for initial public offerings with an aggregate issuance value of $20-$80 million for the time period 1994 to the present. The plaintiff in each action seeks injunctive relief and treble damages.

On February 24, 2004, the District Court granted defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint in the Purchaser Action in part, dismissing plaintiffs' claim for treble damages under Section 4 of the Clayton Act. However, the Court denied defendants' motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' claim for injunctive relief.

On September 16, 2004, plaintiffs in the Purchaser Action and the Issuer Action moved for class certification. On October 25, 2005, plaintiffs in both actions moved for partial summary judgment against defendants on liability.

By Order dated April 18, 2006, the District Court denied the Issuer plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The Issuer plaintiffs appealed the District Court's ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. By Order dated September 11, 2007, the Second Circuit reversed the District Court's denial of class certification and remanded the matter back to the District Court for
further consideration of certain questions specified in the Second Circuit's Order.

Bear Stearns has denied all allegations of wrongdoing asserted against it in these litigations and believes that it has substantial defenses to these claims.

Mutual Fund Litigation

On November 7, 2003, BSSC, the Company and Bear Stearns (the "Bear Stearns defendants"), together with 18 other entities and individuals, were named as defendants in a purported class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York by a mutual fund investor on behalf of persons who purchased and/or sold ownership units of mutual funds in the Janus or Putnam families of mutual funds between November 1, 1998 and July 3, 2003. On January 26, 2004, plaintiff filed a first amended complaint, again on behalf of persons
who traded in the Janus or Putnam families of mutual funds, against the same Bear Stearns defendants and 16 other entities and individuals, including mutual funds and other financial institutions. On October 22, 2003, another purported class action was filed on behalf of the general public of the State of California against multiple defendants, and subsequently included the Company as a defendant, with respect to various mutual funds. Both of these actions allege
that the defendants violated federal and/or state laws by allowing certain investors to market time and/or late trade mutual fund shares and seek various forms of relief including damages of an indeterminate amount. On March 19, 2004, these actions were transferred to the District of Maryland for coordinated and/or consolidated pre-trial proceedings as part of MDL 1586-In re: Mutual Funds Investment Litigation.

On or subsequent to September 29, 2004, fifteen new and/or amended class action or derivative complaints were filed in MDL-1586 naming as defendants the Bear Stearns defendants, various mutual fund companies, certain broker-dealers, and others (collectively the "defendants"). Plaintiffs who have brought actions, either directly or derivatively, against one or more of the Bear Stearns defendants are shareholders in the following families of mutual funds: AIM, Invesco, PIMCO/Allianz Dresdner, Excelsior, Alliance, Franklin Templeton, One Group, Strong, Columbia, Pilgrim Baxter, Alger, Janus, RS and MFS. Among other things, the actions allege that the defendants violated federal and/or state laws by allowing certain investors to market time and/or late trade mutual fund shares and seek various forms of relief including damages of an indeterminate amount.

The Bear Stearns defendants, along with certain other defendants, filed an omnibus motion to dismiss the consolidated class action and derivative claims against them. On November 3, 2005, the derivative claims against the Bear Stearns defendants were dismissed. As of December 31, 2005, the Bear Stearns defendants' motion to dismiss was otherwise granted in part and denied in part as to direct investor claims in the following families of mutual funds: Janus, AIM/Invesco, RS, One Group, MFS, Columbia, PIMCO/Allianz Dresdner, Alger, Excelsior and Strong.

The Bear Stearns defendants believe that they have substantial defenses to the remaining claims.

Bear Wagner Specialists LLC: Bear Wagner Specialists LLC, a subsidiary of the Company, is among numerous defendants named in purported class actions brought on behalf of investors beginning in October 2003 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York alleging violations of the federal securities laws in connection with NYSE floor specialist activities. The actions seek unspecified compensatory damages, restitution, and disgorgement on behalf of purchasers and sellers of unspecified securities between October 17, 1998 and October 15, 2003. Bear Wagner Specialists LLC and the Company are also among the defendants in a purported class action filed in December 2003 in California Superior Court, Los Angeles County alleging violation of California law in connection with the same conduct. This case was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The district court consolidated these purported class actions under the caption In re NYSE Specialists Securities Litigation, No. 03 Civ. 8264 (RWS). On September 15, 2004, a consolidated amended complaint was filed in this action.

Bear Wagner and the Company deny all allegations of wrongdoing in the class action specialist litigations and believe they have substantial defenses to the claims.

In re Prime Hospitality, Inc. Shareholders Litigation: On July 15, 2005, plaintiff shareholders of Prime Hospitality Corporation ("Prime") filed a consolidated amended class action complaint in the Delaware Chancery Court against the directors of Prime, the Blackstone Group ("Blackstone") and certain affiliates of Blackstone, and Bear Stearns. As amended, the complaint alleges that Bear Stearns acted as financial advisor to Prime in connection with the sale of Prime to Blackstone, and that Bear Stearns aided and abetted a breach of fiduciary duty by the directors of Prime in connection with that transaction.

The amended complaint seeks from defendants compensatory damages in an unspecified amount, as well as various forms of equitable relief, including, but not limited to, rescissory damages, the imposition of a constructive trust and an accounting. On October 3, 2005, Bear Stearns filed its answer to the consolidated amended class action complaint denying all allegations of wrongdoing and asserted affirmative defenses.

The parties reached an agreement in principle to settle the action against all defendants, including Bear Stearns. On September 19, 2007, the Court approved the settlement and the case was dismissed with prejudice. Pursuant to the settlement, Bear Stearns was not required to make any payments, and obtained a full release of all claims that were asserted against it.

Short Selling Litigation

The Company, along with numerous other financial services firms, was named as a defendant in a purported class action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York by customers who engaged in short-selling transactions in equity securities since April 12, 2000. The complaint generally alleged that the customers were charged fees in connection with the short sales but that the applicable securities were not necessarily borrowed to effect delivery, which resulted in failed deliveries of the securities and/or excess charges to the customers. The complaint alleged that this conduct constituted a conspiracy in violation of the federal antitrust laws, and also asserts New York state-law claims.

Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint on March 15, 2007. On December 20, 2007, the District Court dismissed the complaint in its entirety, dismissing the federal antitrust claims with prejudice, and the state-law claims without prejudice, as to all defendants, and directing that the case be closed.

BSSC, along with numerous other financial securities firms and other unnamed persons, has been named as a defendant in two separate actions in California state court. The complaints generally allege that since late 2004, the defendants have engaged in a market-manipulation scheme in their role as prime brokers, involving the alleged intentional failure to deliver securities
to cover short sales. The complaints further allege that such failures to deliver distorted the market for, and artificially depressed the share price of, the securities identified in the respective complaints. The complaints allege causes of action under California statutory and common law.

BSSC believes it has substantial defenses to the claims brought in these actions.

Mortgage-Related Matters

The Company has received requests for information from various regulatory and governmental entities relating to subprime mortgages, mortgage securitizations, collateralized debt obligations, and synthetic products related to subprime mortgages. The Company is cooperating with the requests.

BSAM-Managed Hedge Fund Matters

The Company, Bear Stearns, BSAM, BSSC and/or certain individual current or former employees have been named as defendants in two purported class action complaints relating to the Bear Stearns High Grade Structured Credit Strategies Master Fund, Ltd. (the "High Grade Fund") and the Bear Stearns High Grade Structured Credit Strategies Enhanced Leverage Master Fund, Ltd. (the "Enhanced Leverage Fund"). BSAM served as investment manager for both of these funds.

The first action, titled Navigator Capital Partners, L.P. v. BSAM, et al., was filed on August 6, 2007 in New York State Supreme Court. The action is styled as both a purported class action on behalf of purchasers of partnership interests in Bear Stearns High Grade Structured Credit Strategies Fund, L.P. (the "HG Partnership"), also known as a "feeder fund," which invested
substantially all of its assets in the High Grade Fund, as well as a derivative action on behalf of the HG Partnership as a nominal defendant. The Complaint asserts claims for breaches of fiduciary duty against BSAM and the individual defendants. The remaining defendants are alleged to have aided and abetted in the breaches of fiduciary duty. The named plaintiff in this action alleges that
it purchased in excess of $700,000 of Partnership interests. The relief being sought by the plaintiff is unspecified damages, costs and fees.

The second action, titled FIC, L.P. v. BSAM, et al., was filed on December 21, 2007 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The action was brought by a purchaser of partnership interests in the Bear Stearns High Grade Structured Credit Strategies Enhanced Leverage Fund, L.P., also known as a "feeder fund," which invested substantially all its assets synthetically through a leverage instrument to conduct activities indirectly through an investment in the Enhanced Leverage Fund. The Complaint asserts claims for breach of contract and breaches of fiduciary duty against BSAM and the individual defendants. The remaining defendants are charged with having aided and abetted in the breaches of fiduciary duty. The relief being sought by the plaintiff is unspecified damages, costs and fees.

Also, the Company, Bear Stearns, BSAM, and certain individual employees have been named as defendants in an action filed by Barclays Bank PLC ("Barclays") on December 20, 2007 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The complaint asserts claims for, among other things, fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, and negligent misrepresentation for the conduct
of defendants relating to the Enhanced Leverage Fund, and transactions Barclays entered into with the feeder funds of the Enhanced Leverage Fund. The relief being sought by Barclays is unspecified compensatory and punitive damages, costs, and fees.

In addition, one or more of Bear Stearns, BSAM, BSSC, and/or certain individual current or former employees have been named as respondents in multiple FINRA arbitrations related to investments in feeder funds of the High Grade Fund and/or the Enhanced Leverage Fund. The relief being sought by the claimants in these arbitrations is compensatory damages, unspecified punitive damages, costs and expenses.

The Company believes it has substantial defenses to claims asserted against it in these proceedings.

The Company has also been contacted by and received requests for information and documents from various federal and state regulatory and law enforcement authorities regarding the High Grade Fund and the Enhanced Leverage Fund, including the Securities and Exchange Commission, the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of New York and the Securities Division of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts (the "Securities Division"). On November 14, 2007, the Securities Division filed an administrative complaint against BSAM alleging
that BSAM violated multiple provisions of the Massachusetts Securities Act by
failing to adequately disclose and/or manage conflicts of interest related to procedures for related party transactions.

Derivative Actions

Samuel T. Cohen v. Board of Directors and certain of the Company's present and former executive officers: On or about December 19, 2007, a shareholder of the Company commenced a purported shareholder derivative suit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company's Board of Directors and certain of its present and former executive officers. The
Company is named as a nominal defendant. The Complaint asserts claims for breaches of fiduciary duty, corporate mismanagement, waste and violations of the federal securities laws in connection with losses sustained by the Company as a result of its purchases of residential sub-prime loans. Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages in an unspecified amount and an order directing the Company to improve its corporate governance procedures.

Jerome Birn v. Board of Directors and certain of the Company's present and former executive officers: On or about January 23, 2008, a shareholder of the Company commenced a purported shareholder derivative suit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company's Board of Directors and certain of its present and former executive officers. The Company is named as a nominal defendant. The Complaint asserts claims for breaches of
fiduciary duty, waste of corporate assets, unjust enrichment and violations of the federal securities laws in connection with losses sustained by the Company as a result of its purchases of residential sub-prime loans and certain repurchases of its own common shares. Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages in an unspecified amount and an order directing the Company to improve its corporate governance procedures.

Long, isn't it?

While there may be some junk lawsuits buried in there -- I spotted a "fail to deliver" piece of trash filed by Overstock.com -- you really have to marvel at the degree to which Bear Stearns managed to get itself into a whole passel of litigation.

© 2008 Gary Weiss. All rights reserved.