aapl

Mattel (NYSE: MAT) scored a big victory when it sued MGA Entertainment over the origin of the wildly popular Bratz dolls, and won. But it looks like the victory won't be as big as the parent company of Barbie would like.

Mattel was seeking $1.8 billion in damages but, on Tuesday, a jury awarded Mattel just $100 million in damages, but The Wall Street Journal explains that that award "could be further reduced by U.S. District Judge Stephen G. Larson because it contains duplicate damages for the same offense, according to Thomas Nolan, an attorney for MGA." Still to be determined is who will have the right to continue marketing the Bratz brand.

This is a big loss for Mattel. The company spent millions pursuing the litigation -- the amount was large enough that Mattel said it materially affected earnings, and Mattel is a $30 billion company.

This has definitely been one of the more entertaining lawsuits in business news of late and it looks like there will be a few more rounds to go, with MGA Entertainment planning to file an appeal.

With irresponsible borrowing and excessive leverage threatening the financial well-being of so many families, at least one county may be joining them in the soup line.

Jefferson County, Alabama, with a population of 662,047, according to the 2000 U.S. Census, is preparing for a possible bankruptcy filing, according to The New York Times.



The culprit? $3 billion in bonds with rapidly escalating interest rates resulting from the exact same short-sighted financial planning that got so many home owners into trouble: adjustable rate loans (In this case, auction rate securities) that require higher interest payments as interest rates move up. The current turmoil in the credit market has sent the county's rates as high as 10%.

Bank of America's (NYSE: BAC) newly-acquired Countrywide Financial is being sued by yet another state attorney general, with Indiana's Steve Carter announcing on Sunday that he's suing the company for deceiving borrowers into loans that they could not afford and/or were not aware of the associated risks.

In a press release announcing the suit, Carter said that "These unfair lending practices may have harmed thousands of people and, in turn, negatively affected our communities and neighborhoods throughout the state." According to Carter, "The most common misrepresentations uncovered to date have been on 1) pre-payment penalty terms, and 2) the time period in which interest rates would be recalculated (resetting ARMs – adjustable rate mortgages)."

Carter is seeking penalties of up to $15,500 per violation, plus investigative costs and restitution.

Countrywide had been sued many times before the Bank of America acquisition, and BofA knew that there would be more to come. But for a deal that is widely considered to have been too expensive and too risky, the distraction and headache of all these lawsuits would seem to make this a deal Ken Lewis probably regrets. Of course, he won't say that publicly.

With China's once red hot stock market in the toilet, the China Securities Regulatory Commission has decided that it's time for some new rules.

The Wall Street Journal reports (subscription required) that draft rules posted on the CSRC's website will require that public companies looking to raise additional funds will need to have paid out dividends on 30% of their net income over the past three years, up from the current 20%.

Here's what's so stupid about this: it's stupid for a company to pay out dividends when it needs to raise cash -- the rule is completely counter to any notion of sound finance. Paying out dividends and then heading back to the capital markets to raise cash dilutes shareholders and wastes shareholder assets on investment banking and administrative fees.

The Journal also reports that profitable companies that don't pay a dividend will be required to provide an explanation. That's not such a bad idea; American companies do the same thing, but it's usually boilerplate like this: "We have never declared or paid any cash dividends on our non-redeemable common stock and do not intend to pay dividends on our non-redeemable common stock for the foreseeable future. We intend to invest our future earnings, if any, to fund our growth."

Most investors think Sarbanes-Oxley regulations have been the rule of the road in corporate governance since put into law in 2002. That has never quite been true. The law has been challenged in the courts for almost six years, accused of giving the federal government too much power to push public companies around.

What appears to be the final challenge to Sarbanes came to an end as a federal appeals court turned back a legal challenge to the act.

According to The Washington Post, "Businesses have protested that the act imposed costly burdens and provided too little benefit." The cost issue is entirely true, especially for small public companies that have had to stretch financial resources by spending hundreds of thousand of dollars to meet the requirements of the law.

But, it would be hard to make the case that the average shareholder is not better off with more independent corporate audit committees and accounting firms under pressure to perform flawlessly. A look at the number of companies that have had to restate financials because of errors uncovered and enforced by audit committees is a testament to the benefits of the law. The law has ended the habit of giving large institutions a "look" at company prospects and has taken away many of the disadvantages that individual investors have suffered for decades.

Sarbanes has been expensive, but the alternative would have done the common shareholder a great deal of damage.

Douglas A. McIntyre is an editor at 247wallst.com.

Third Point Management fund manager Daniel Loeb told his investors last night the firm is the target of a formal investigation being conducted by the Securities & Exchange Commission. According to Loeb, the subject of the investigation is his communications with other hedge funds.

The investigation appears to be an outgrowth of a conspiracy theory that a cadre of hedge funds engaged in nefarious campaigns of rumor-mongering and aggressive short-selling aimed at bringing down companies like Bear Stearns. The fact that the companies crying foul have lost billions and suffered from serious transparency problems is deemed irrelevant; bad management doesn't destroy companies, short sellers do, according to this line of thinking.

Loeb wrote that questions about the fund's communications were first raised during a routine audit last year, but added that its lawyers had said that such communications were legal under federal securities laws.

SEC Chairman Chris Cox, who has been off battling the imaginary dragon of naked short selling as actual securities fraud continues to be as easy as ever to get away with, has a message for you about the recently-expired naked-short selling rule.

He said that failures to deliver in the 19 financial stocks affected "were reduced substantially" and added that "It was a very effective order from that standpoint." Fair enough. But then he dropped this bomb shell: "We expected and intended to have no impact whatsoever on the direction of prices. That's not the purpose of regulations."

Uh-oh. That takes quite a bit of the wind out of the sails of the naked shore-selling conspiracy theorists -- if naked short selling was an evil scheme driving down share prices, then wouldn't regulation designed to curb it be expected to impact the direction of share prices? That statement from Mr. Cox would seem to be an admission that failures to deliver are a procedural issue, not some conspiracy to drive down stocks involving crooked journalists and a "sith lord" as Overstock (NASDAQ: OSTK) CEO Patrick Byrne infamously suggested.

For a summary of the commentary on this mess, check out this post from Gary Weiss.

In a move intended to make SEC filings more user-friendly for investors, the Securities and Exchange Commission introduced the "successor to the agency's 1980s-era EDGAR database, which will give investors far faster and easier access to key financial information about public companies and mutual funds."

The IDEA behind the Interactive Data Electronic Applications system is to make it so that investors can compare data between multiple SEC filings more easily, without having to open up new tabs.

While it's certainly a step in the right direction for investor-friendliness, it's actually bad news for sophisticated investors: the people who find undervalued stocks by seeking out mispricings caused by investors who don't analyze/understand the businesses they're looking at.

Look at what's happened in the foreclosure market: savvy investors used to be able to make million there but, as online databases have made searches of distressed properties possible in seconds, the deals aren't what they used to be.

As new rules and disclosures increase, so will market efficiency -- that's good for the market but bad for some of its participants.

One of the most common rebuttals to the naked short selling conspiracy theories is this: Name one company that has been hurt by naked short selling.

In a July 22nd interview with Fox Business, Overstock.com (NASDAQ: OSTK) CEO Patrick Byrne gave an example: Force Protection (NASDAQ: FRPT). "Makes vehicles for soldiers in Iraq. . . stock was at $25, got naked shorted down to $4, canceled the secondary. . . Some soldiers are going to die in Iraq this week because some hedge fund guys need a new Ferrari."

Oops. On August 14th, Force Protection dropped some bad news on its shareholders. In addition to having missed the deadline for filing its 10-K, the NASDAQ is now threatening to de-list Force Protection's stock for failing to file its 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2008. This comes after the company changed auditors and, back in March, disclosed "certain material weaknesses in internal control over financial reporting."

And that is, according to a message Patrick Byrne left on a message board (View the post for a video of the interview) the "easiest way to explain this problem to Congressmen, Senators, and most Americans."

Note to Byrne: I, and I suspect many others, will be more convinced when a company without serious accounting/internal controls problems and/or a failed business model complains about naked short selling. So far we haven't heard anything like that.

It turns out that Charles Schwab (NASDAQ: SCHW) and TDAmeritrade (NASDAQ: AMTD) may have sold auction-rate securities by using misleading marketing about whether or not the instruments were "cash equivalents." According to The New York Times, the "point of sale" activity at the discount and retail brokerages is similar, they said, and some of the discount brokerage firms use financial advisers or may have improperly listed information on their websites.

Schwab argues that it was only an "agent" and did not slant the marketing of auction-rates one way or the other.

It is safe to predict that Andrew Cuomo, the New York State Attorney General, will get discount brokerage firms to buy the auction-rate paper back from their customers. Cuomo can probably find some marketing material where the nature of the securities was represented the wrong way.

But, Cuomo's actions have stepped over the line. In all probability, many discount brokerage customers bought the auction-rates on their PC without seeing any information about whether their liquidity could be undermined. Discount brokerage customer often do their own research.

Cuomo won't care. He won't try to find out which people got their auction-rates without being attracted to them by marketing. He will get the discount firms to buy all of the paper back. The companies do not want years of litigation.

Cuomo is running for governor, or perhaps the U.S. Senate. He does not have time to pause for such details.

Douglas A. McIntyre is an editor at 247wallst.com.

In a tough economy, the income tax burden on individuals becomes more of a weight. Add the payments to higher gas prices, mortgages that are being reset at lofty levels and rising food costs and the results can be awful.

But at least corporations are paying income taxes to carry part of the burden of running the federal government, right? Too bad that it turns out that this assumption is wrong. As The New York Times writes, "Two out of every three United States corporations paid no federal income taxes from 1998 through 2005, according to a report released Tuesday by the Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of Congress"

How sweet a deal is that?

Part of the trick is that many companies move money to countries outside the U.S. where the tax burden is lower.

In a period where the federal deficit is at nose bleed levels and individual tax payers are being crushed, Congress will probably be upset enough to pass bills to correct the inequity.

How the companies got away with it for so long is a question that is pretty disturbing.

Douglas A. McIntyre is an editor at 247wallst.com.

While the horrific oil spill by the Exxon Valdez happened all the way back in 1989 (yes that was 19 years ago!), Exxon Mobil (NYSE: XOM) is still in litigation over how much it should be forced to pay in damages.

Last month, Exxon Mobil won a big victory when the Supreme Court (in a 5-3 decision) lowered the company's punitive damages from $2.5 billion all the way down to $507.5 million. While this was good news for Exxon Mobil, there was one little detail left to work out -- interest on all that money. Of course, Exxon Mobil does not want to pay that interest, and today the Supreme Court decided that a lower court needs to make this decision.

So just how much interest are we talking about here? Roughly $500 million and counting, as Exxon announced earlier that the victims of the oil spill have requested $488 million in interest. This works out to about $15,000 per victim.

What does this amount mean to Exxon? Ten hours of sales. That's right, ten hours. You would think the company would just pay the money and be done with the whole mess, but Exxon will continue to fight and will have its day in the lower court of appeals.

Rumors have swirled about the rapid collapse of Bear Stearns, with a lot of people -- even some normally credible commentators -- absolutely convinced that the company was a victim of a bear raid and naked short selling, and malicious rumor mongering that led to a run on the bank, sealing the bank's fate.

An interesting piece from Bloomberg discusses the suspicious options trading in the stock: on March 11th, someone bought $1.7 million worth of put options, effectively betting that shares of Bear Stearns would decline by nearly 50%. Bloomberg reports that "options specialists are convinced that the buyer, or buyers, made a concerted effort to drive the fifth-biggest U.S. securities firm out of business and, in the process, reap a profit of more than $270 million."

Interesting. But isn't it also possible that the puts were purchased by someone with insider information about the company's disastrous financial position? Must we assume that the only person who would be willing to bet big on Bear's collapse was a malicious short seller who was spreading rumors like Perez Hilton, working overtime to assure a run on the bank? It just seems a little melodramatic. It's not even James Bond -- more like Mack Bolan.

Before we feel to bad for Bear Stearns -- and record it in the history books as a victim of an outside invasion -- it's important to keep in mind what allowed rumor mongers to destroy it, if indeed they did: the company had no credibility, a result of its long insistence that everything was fine.

Bear Stearns was a company that treated its shareholders with scorn, never leveled on the company's true financial condition, and didn't even bother to disclose that its bridge-playing, allegedly marijuana-smoking CEO was seriously ill in the hospital while the credit crisis raged on.

The U.S. Department of Justice is challenging (subscription required) a settlement Countrywide Financial reached with a Pittsburgh bankruptcy court that had alleged that Countrywide was intentionally mishandling mortgage payments it received as part of a scheme to extract large fees and penalties from struggling borrowers.

The Justice Department says that a non-disparagement clause in the settlement could "impede, impair or otherwise chill witness testimony in the U.S. Trustee's ongoing investigation of Countrywide."

The non-disparagement clause required court official and whistle blower Ronda Winnecour to agree not to "in any manner, whether directly or indirectly, disparage" Countrywide, and to assure that her employees didn't disparage the company either.

As Tracy Coenen recently reported on WalletPOP, the California Attorney General has sued YTB International (OTC BB: YTBLA), alleging that the company is a "gigantic pyramid scheme."

Now color me naive but it would seem to me that the legality of a company's business would be something of material interest to shareholders and maybe, just maybe, something that should be announced through a press release. But YTB International decided that if its shareholders wanted to find out that California AG was trying to shut it down, they could jolly well dig through the SEC's EDGAR database and find out for themselves in this 8-K.

What makes especially lame is that YTB is normally somewhat of a PR mill, using PR Newswire to announce all kinds of things a lot less interesting than a lawsuit from a state attorney general:

YTB International Contemplates Implementation of Franchises
YTB International Continues to Climb Travel Weekly's Power List
YTB International (YTBLA) Approved for Trading on OTCBB

The first one is especially ambitious because it announces that the company is "contemplating" doing something.

Of course YTB International is innocent until proven guilty, but the company's effort to slip the lawsuit through unnoticed sure does make them look slimy.