Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
I pretty much stopped posting on the main ymb.
My other investments are boring and my hobbies are summer ones!
smd
docrew0 - when do you plan to update this?
smd
OT - docrew - kinda po'd at myself re sirna
Short and sweet - these motions are as big as SJ, unclean hands, etc.
I see Whyte playing it straight down the middle. In many instances he has to weigh
= likely probative value
against
= chance the jury will be inflamed or unduly influenced by a certain type of evidence.
In other cases he will allow evidence in with conditions.
The patent instructions are a good guide to what issues lie at the heart of the case. http://tinyurl.com/prkny
I would not venture a guess as to how he'll rule due to my lack of patent trial experience, and lack of experience before Whyte.
smd
gotcha - sorry
I uploaded protective order to ramboids
If you are going to write to the FTC I would keep it short and sweet.
The FTC's reputation is at stake. I urge you:
Let the sunshine in - - let it illiuminate the Rambus matter pending before you. Open up the Rambus record and hear additional oral argument.
Find out how Complaint Counsel's case is built on false premises, and false testimony from members of the DRAM cartel.
So that Rambus can prepare and provide you with a presentation concerning the false premises of Complaint Counsel's case, and the veracity of witnesses whose testimony underpins Complaint Counsel's case, please,
= send a "cooperation request letter" to the Department of Justice asking them to authorize Rambus to review and freely use documents submitted to DOJ by members of the DRAM cartel, so that Rambus can prepare such a presentation,
and
= send a "cooperation request letter" to each of of the DRAM cartel participants who have reached guilty plea agreements with the DOJ asking them to authorize Rambus to use documents submitted to DOJ by members of the DRAM cartel, so that Rambus can prepare such a presentation.
=======================================
The Commission is headed by five Commissioners, nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate, each serving a seven-year term. The President chooses one Commissioner to act as Chairman. No more than three Commissioners can be of the same political party. The current Chairman and Commissioners are: Deborah Platt Majoras , Pamela Jones Harbour, Jon Leibowitz, William E. Kovacic, and J. Thomas Rosch.
Federal Trade Commission
600 Pennsylvania Ave, NW
Washington, D.C. 20580
I uploaded the minutes to ramboids.
It is 2 pages only. Nothing new. RMBS's Motion to amend the protective order was DENIED!
smd
This post contains my views:
by: smdgc 02/27/06 02:11 am
Msg: 910637 of 910638
The docs were indeed rec'd from MU and Hynix.
They had submitted those docs to DOJ and Kramer made them provide copies to Rambus.
That was never my issue.
As part of the process of providing those docs to Rambus, the 3 parties (RMBS, MU and Hynix) negotiated the terms of a protective order - which Kramer then entered.
MU and Hynix subsequently refused to modify the protective order to accommodate RMBS's request to provide a PORTION - approximating 250 pages - to the FTC.
Upon that refusal, RMBS asked Kramer - as the Judge who had entered the order - to modify the protective order so that the FTC submittal could be accomplished. That RMBS request to Kramer has been pending since October 2005.
My difficulty w/o being able to see the court minutes from 2/23 is understanding how the protective order was modified or lifted - when all accounts indicate that Kramer DID NOT modify or lift it.
Hopefully this will be clarified, but for right now I remain skeptical about RMBS's ability to make the FTC submittal as desired.
smd
best I can tell:
The protective order ("PO") is an order entered by Kramer following negotiation of its terms by RAMBUS, MU HYNIX
That's all I know.
If Danforth can give the docs to the media, or put 'em on the Rambus site, that means the above PO was dissolved by Kramer, or he gave relief in part from its terms.
smd
PS - I never said the protective order derived fron DOJ or that the docs came from the DOJ
===========
JMKEL WROTE:
The documents were not collected from the DOJ and they are not covered by the DOJ order.
They were collected directly from the Banditos as part of the anti trust discovery.
The DOJ documents have not yet been produced by the Banditos.
It will take about 30 days to get both the DOJ and the Grand Jury document CDROMS.
Without the ability to see the filings on the court website, we are hard pressed to know.
If Rambus officers see this board PLEASE stop relying on court webistes to keep your shareholders informed. Post the darned stuff at Rambus.com!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
BTW - I assume Dow Jones moved to release a seal on docs and make them available to the media. That motion can be moot if the media has access to the docs; otherwise it is hard to see how it can be moot.
PS - I agree we have to assume RAMBUS is still restricted by the protective order.
smd
moot moot a thousand times moot!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
yeah baby!
Re: Recent entries in AT docket . . . .
by: tomonthebus
Long-Term Sentiment: Strong Buy 02/26/06 01:23 pm
Msg: 910287 of 910295
DOW JONES interested!!!
FEB-23-2006
MOTION OF NON-PARTY DOW JONES TO UNSEAL CERTAIN RECORDS IS OFF CALENDAR AS MOOT. JUDGE RICHARD A. KRAMER, CLERK JOSE RIOS-MERIDA, REPORTER PEPPINA THOMPSON, D-304.
re Sandy's "connections" post - thanks TJ for reposting it
Docrew - awesome job! smd
==maybe hollydump not the best reporter==
Re: Latches and settlement
by: hollydump 02/24/06 01:06 pm
Msg: 909125 of 909151
I have to admit this exercise reminds me of freshman year of college and how weak I was at taking notes during lectures! Or maybe its like being abused as a child and bringing back the events through hypnosis?
TDOX, I actually thought you would be doing a big write up of the events. I spent more time watching the drama play out (although it was pretty mundane logistics for the most part) rather than take notes! I also expect Hager had somebody there although Yusfdbk seems to know those guys and didn't point them out? Rick Currin, are you guys doing a write up of Whyte's hearing?
Anyhow, laches was mentioned in the mix but it may have been a debate about whether laches would be in front of the jury or just in front of Whyte. It may have been that Rambus was offering the willfullness to be withdrawn if Hynix withdrew laches?? TDOX???
On settlement- at the very end before closing the hearing Whyte asked again in a kind of resigned way, "have you guys made any progress on the settlement front"? Both lead lawyers expressed no encouragement, and of INTERSEST WAS STONE'S STATEMENT THAT SETTLEMENT SEEMED LESS LIKELY WITH NEW LAWSUITS BEING FILED RECENTLY. HE SAID THE PRINCIPALS CONTINUE TO TALK BUT GAVE NO HOPE FOR A SETTLEMENT. Whyte then said he heard from Judge Seacrest (name?) re: the settlement talks and Seacrest said he worked really hard but to no avail.
My take, perhaps biased by all the opinions I've heard on this board is that Stone's statement indicated they want to ram this trial through to gain more leverage over Samsung and Micron.
Those were requests to have certain lawyers from outside VA represent MU in VA. Maybe MU decided to use a different law firm.
smd
my post on TMF:
I'd like to believe this move by Stone was brilliant - psychologically increasing the chance of getting a wilfullness ruling out of Whyte.
Who knows?
zonz
=========================
Re: tardy report from San Jose
by: hollydump 02/24/06 03:04 am
Msg: 908589 of 909070
The essence of today's meeting was that 1) the trial is delayed until March 13 or 14th (opening arguments begin on weds 3/15) and 2) whether they continue to keep the infringement and damages together or bifurcate them. Hynix argued that they should be bifurcated and Rambus says its too hard to keep bringing back expert witnesses twice. Rambus offered to drop their willfullness charge as an offer to keep the other two together.They will make their arguments by next tuesday on this issue. My notes refer to the issue of "latches" thrown into this mix so I hope TDOX has explained that because I am sketchy on the disposition of the latches argument.
=========================
Re: tardy report from San Jose
by: hollydump 02/24/06 04:15 am
Msg: 908603 of 909070
I believe it goes to how much damages they can collect, maybe willfullness triggers triple damages. The Hynix guy scoffed at the Rambus "bone" and said willfullness was going to be very hard to prove anyway...
=========================
Re: tardy report from San Jose
by: nicdarealgreek 02/24/06 12:00 pm
Msg: 909041 of 909068
<Declining Rambus' offer to drop 3X damages in exchange for merging phase 2&3 either indicates Hynix plans to accept a settlement at the 11th hour or their lawyers are billing by the hour and taking Hynix for a ride in the country. Seems like an offer Hynix should have jumped at.>
Maybe Hynix believes the chance of treble damages is extremely remote, so the "offer" from Rambus is essentially worthless. If it were worth something, Rambus would never give it up so cheaply - says something about their confidence for that leg of the case.
Da Greek
PSsst, don't tell Watz and Infringeon about throwing out wilfulness, it will wreck their wacko damages model to hell.
Long Bloomberg article is expected - apparently
what an idiot he is
"US District Court judge"
"San Francisco District Court"
no
Judge Richard Kramer of San Francisco County's trial-level Superior Court
Maybe he wants to differentiate the record he has from the one Whyte developed. And use that/those difference(s)
Also, Hynix stuff (record) was not in the Sammy VA case as far as I know, just the lengthy opin. by Whyte.
smd
==========
Re: His Nibs is tricky
Yes he is . . .
He likely wrote this before Whyte filed today. At any rate I find it interesting how he wants to compare this to the Infineon record. If I remember correctly Rambus already submitted Whyte’s findings of fact and the opinion.
Given the cases just filed in VA and Italy, I don't understand why Rambus would stipulate to give MU more time:
Micron Technology v. Rambus Inc. Docket 716
U.S. District Court
District of Delaware (Wilmington)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:00-cv-00792-KAJ
02/23/2006 716 STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME to file and serve its answering papers in opposition to Rambus Inc.'s Motion to Transfer the Case to the Northern District of California and respond to Rambus' Amended Counterclaims and the time within which Rambus must serve and file its reply papers in connection with its motion to transfer to March 15, 2006 and March 29, 2006, respectively - filed by Micron Technology, Inc., Micron Technology, Inc.. (King, Matthew) (Entered: 02/23/2006)
where is it?
=========
on their private board
Through the looking Glass
by: slymmbo2 02/22/06 08:17 pm
Msg: 906341 of 906348
It was another Alice in Wonderland day in Payne's court. Samsung had a 55 slide presentation which I thought was completely demolished by Stone. Payne, however, seemed to be searching for a way to find that he didn't have juridiction, but still sanction Rambus. Samusng kept citing INF case and saying Whyte's ruling wasn't applicalble because the issues were different. As Stone pointed out Payne's original ruling for IFX expressly stated the ruling was limited to IFX. Samsung accused Rambus of gaming the ligation process by filing counterclaims against Samsung before the outcome of Whyte's ruling was known. Incredibly, Payne seemed to morph Rambus, the defendant in the case, into the plaintiff. The declaratory issues were already dropped. Payne posed question essentially asking ...suppose this court finds it has no juridiction, and the court is wrong, would that affect anything else the court does. So it looks like he trying to find a way to sanction Rambus, which Samsung says he has authority to do, even if he rules he has no jurisdiction. Samsung closes with "it is time to open the window blinds and let the sunshine in and clear these matters up once and for all"...bejesus, that was corny.
I left the courtroom convinced that Samsung wasn't going to get what they wanted because they had no case. I.e, there were two windows:
1. Court can find it doesn't have jurisdiction, hence Rambus offer to pay attorneys is moot.
2. Court can find it doesn't have jurisdiction but
still sanction Rambus.
I thought second window defied logic.
In our roundtable discussion after leaving the courthouse, however, everyone seemed to think that Payne will find a way to stick it to Rambus by way of a sanction. So I am now less sure it way a good day for Rambus,however, no one could make me understand what "sanction" means and what effect it would have.
In short, I don't know what the hell to think. Payne has defied
logic before, will he do it again...probably...but I don't know what it will mean. It is truly ironic that while Samsung was accusing Rambus of gaming the process, Micron was filing suit against Rambus in Va, pulling down their waiting number to get served in Payne's buffet.
Not sure any of this helps...will have to wait for ruling...clearly if Payne pulls some rabbit out of his hat, Rambus will appeal it....Joe.
The bar is set extremely high to have a judge disqualified, and Rambus has only snippets, anecdotes to present in this regard.
If John Doe is a bad judge, is illtempered, bends over backward to give opprtunities to one side in a case, makes bonehead decisions, well the appellate process is available to correct the results. Lots of judges can be identified who seem to give all the rulings one way.
Evidence - not inference - is needed to disqualify.
zonz
PS - see # 1 and # 2 below:
# 1
TITLE 28 > PART I > CHAPTER 21 > § 455
§ 455. Disqualification of justice, judge, or magistrate judge
Release date: 2005-09-29
(a) Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.
(b) He shall also disqualify himself in the following circumstances:
(1) Where he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding;
(2) Where in private practice he served as lawyer in the matter in controversy, or a lawyer with whom he previously practiced law served during such association as a lawyer concerning the matter, or the judge or such lawyer has been a material witness concerning it;
(3) Where he has served in governmental employment and in such capacity participated as counsel, adviser or material witness concerning the proceeding or expressed an opinion concerning the merits of the particular case in controversy;
(4) He knows that he, individually or as a fiduciary, or his spouse or minor child residing in his household, has a financial interest in the subject matter in controversy or in a party to the proceeding, or any other interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding;
(5) He or his spouse, or a person within the third degree of relationship to either of them, or the spouse of such a person:
(i) Is a party to the proceeding, or an officer, director, or trustee of a party;
(ii) Is acting as a lawyer in the proceeding;
(iii) Is known by the judge to have an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding;
(iv) Is to the judge's knowledge likely to be a material witness in the proceeding.
(c) A judge should inform himself about his personal and fiduciary financial interests, and make a reasonable effort to inform himself about the personal financial interests of his spouse and minor children residing in his household.
(d) For the purposes of this section the following words or phrases shall have the meaning indicated:
(1) “proceeding” includes pretrial, trial, appellate review, or other stages of litigation;
(2) the degree of relationship is calculated according to the civil law system;
(3) “fiduciary” includes such relationships as executor, administrator, trustee, and guardian;
(4) “financial interest” means ownership of a legal or equitable interest, however small, or a relationship as director, adviser, or other active participant in the affairs of a party, except that:
(i) Ownership in a mutual or common investment fund that holds securities is not a “financial interest” in such securities unless the judge participates in the management of the fund;
(ii) An office in an educational, religious, charitable, fraternal, or civic organization is not a “financial interest” in securities held by the organization;
(iii) The proprietary interest of a policyholder in a mutual insurance company, of a depositor in a mutual savings association, or a similar proprietary interest, is a “financial interest” in the organization only if the outcome of the proceeding could substantially affect the value of the interest;
(iv) Ownership of government securities is a “financial interest” in the issuer only if the outcome of the proceeding could substantially affect the value of the securities.
(e) No justice, judge, or magistrate judge shall accept from the parties to the proceeding a waiver of any ground for disqualification enumerated in subsection (b). Where the ground for disqualification arises only under subsection (a), waiver may be accepted provided it is preceded by a full disclosure on the record of the basis for disqualification.
(f) Notwithstanding the preceding provisions of this section, if any justice, judge, magistrate judge, or bankruptcy judge to whom a matter has been assigned would be disqualified, after substantial judicial time has been devoted to the matter, because of the appearance or discovery, after the matter was assigned to him or her, that he or she individually or as a fiduciary, or his or her spouse or minor child residing in his or her household, has a financial interest in a party (other than an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome), disqualification is not required if the justice, judge, magistrate judge, bankruptcy judge, spouse or minor child, as the case may be, divests himself or herself of the interest that provides the grounds for the disqualification.
# 2
Federal judicial conduct
Complaints against federal judges are filed under the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act of 1980. 28 U.S.C. Section 372(c). Under the Act, any person may file a written complaint alleging that a judge has engaged in "conduct prejudicial to the effective and expeditious administration of the business of the courts" or "is unable to discharge all duties of office by reason of mental or physical disability."
Complaints are filed with the chief judge of the court of appeals in the circuit in which the judge sits, through the clerk of the court. After reviewing the complaint, the chief judge either:
* dismisses the complaints,
* concludes the proceeding if corrective action has been taken, or
* appoints a special committee.
Most complaints are dismissed, and the most frequent ground for dismissing a complaint is that it is "directly related to the merits of a decision or procedural ruling." The complainant can petition to the circuit judicial council for review if the chief judge dismisses a complaint or concludes a proceeding.
If a complaint is not dismissed, a special committee is appointed to investigate the facts alleged in the complaint and file a written report with findings and a recommendation with the circuit judicial council. The council may conduct any additional investigation it considers necessary. The council is directed to take such action "as is appropriate to assure the effective and expeditious administration of the business of the courts within the circuit . . ." The judicial council may:
* dismiss the complaint,
* certify the disability of a judge,
* request that a judge voluntarily retire,
* order that, on a temporary basis for a time certain, no further cases be assigned to a judge,
* censure or reprimand the judge by private communication,
* censure or reprimand the judge by public announcement, or
* order such other action as it considers appropriate under the circumstances.
The complainant and the subject of a complaint can petition the United States Judicial Conference for review of any action taken by a circuit judicial council.
Federal judges cannot be removed under the Act, although the Judicial Conference can refer a complaint to the House of Representatives for consideration of impeachment.
Each circuit has adopted rules governing complaints of judicial misconduct and disability (see, e.g., www.ca7.uscourts.gov/compla.pdf). For further information regarding complaints against federal judges, contact:
http://www.rentamark.com/aeje/Judges_Conduct/judges_conduct.html
scruffy from last nite - see what I mean:
I wish I could have borrowed a brain.
I'm too tired to go through my notes, but I believe Payne will screw Rambus yet again. What a surprise.
Stone did very well .. as usual.
Healy for Samsung is a slob of a guy that whined his way through a rather boring slide powerpoint presentation of apx 50 slides.
The most telling thing of all, and I'm surprised it hasn't been mentioned before, is that just a block from the courthouse, towering over all the old buildings, is the most beautiful glass skyscraper in Richmond. It is a stunning building. Plastered across the top, in bright red letters, " McGUIRE WOODS "
Payne will nail us again and again. Plan accordingly
Cal, I read the post you responded to differently, and to my knowledge there was no substantive, worthwhile info on the VA happenings posted ANYWHERE.
Scruffy made a conclusory post on TMF last nite, but no details have emerged yet.
You'll be appreciated for your posts, whether you attend a hearing and post about it, or simply comment on what others say.
Maybe though you have been too quick to draw a conclusion on this.
smd
==========
Free flow of court info
I'm a bit disappointed that the VA court information isn't flowing freely. Are private groups established just to keep others out of the loop? That's an extremely selfish attitude.
Cal now has second thoughts on the upcoming Free Press. The distribution may be limited to just a couple of people.
It's really unfortunate it has to come down to this. I would love to share the info from the upcoming trial. But it's a two way street.
Quid pro quo
http://www.spottsfain.com/
http://www.spottsfain.com/CM/Custom/AttorneysByNameEmail.asp
http://www.spottsfainconsulting.com/
http://www.spottsfainconsulting.com/CM/Custom/TOCTeamMembers.html
Spotts Fain Consulting can help you bring into clear focus the complex world of the local, state, and federal regulatory process. Whether it is protecting your business or exploring new profitable opportunities, we can find the creative solutions that others cannot.
Our team members have advised Virginia governors, congressmen, state government agency heads and local governments on key issues affecting a wide array of regulatory issues. We have established and trusted relationships with the decision makers you will need to make your vision a reality.
We have the experience from providing results to Fortune 500 companies, state-wide associations and small family-owned businesses. We get the job done no matter what the size or dimension of your problem.
Spotts Fain Consulting is dedicated to the success of our clients by providing personal, swift and cost-effective services. Finding creative solutions to achieve your goals isn't just our job, it's our mission.
Micron's tactics in filing this latest suit?
I said earlier what Nic wrote on TMF (see below).
I think this is nothing more than a way to stall, hoping Payne will not toss the case b/c he thinks Rambus is due some further hurt.
I think MU'll ask Jordan to hold off on the transfer, b/c NDCA is no longer the main center of activiity for Rambus matters, given the Alberta and MU cases in VA.
My best guess is that there is no rock solid winning argument here for MU as respects Jordan, and that Jordan will transfer to NDCA. Judges don't like smarty pants litigants, and forum shopping like MU is doing is one form of that.
I think Rambus will try to transfer this MU case away from Payne using the same reasons as in their DE brief. Will Payne take the "oh goody more fun" view, or will he take the "oh crap more hassle" view? I was wrong about his transfer decision in the Sammy case, so I cannot be relied upon. If I were he, I'd boot it to CA, but if he really is a sadist + a masochist maybe he'll keep the darned thing. If he does, look for something creative from Rambus, but I don't know what. Rambus obviously DN want to try ANYTHING before Payne.
JMHO
smd
===================
Nic has little regard for the quality of MU's lawyering and apparently thinks this case was filed for show - to dress up the 10-k.
smd
Nic has little regard for the quality of MU's lawyering and apparently thinks this case was filed for show - to dress up the 10-k.
smd
buying opportunity? - the issue is whether this
advances
hinders
the chances of a settlement in the next 12 mos.
(or neither)
You have to couple this, as you ponder it, w/ the MU unwillingness to mediate. They are saying FU to Rambus, we will never try to settle. We're going to the mat. If you further consider the MU obligations under the leniency program, this is bizarre. They will never qualify for detrebling in the AT case before Kramer - which case will come up WAAAAAY before this RICO suit ripens.
I think someone's got a screw loose.
smd
Delta is a term used in the business world meaning change,
say from one value to another, or change over time; I guess you never encountered that use of the term as a fund manager.
You've been a jerk in every post you've made to date; I'll leave it at that since I'm supposed to be civil on this board.
Don't bother replying to this post.
smd
re Micron/DE - MU must still file re motion to transfer. I agree the Rambus brief was excellent. It will be interesting to see MU's opposition.
smd
I do not recall ever seeing that brief and do not think it was filed yet. (phase 3 SJ request in Hynix case)
assignments for Sony, Toshiba, IBM and
by: jimizdaman 02/20/06 12:21 pm
Msg: 904236 of 904238
see the paragraph below the stars **********
Rambus looks for major growth in India
Bangalore | February 15, 2006 12:30:59 PM IST
Rambus, a global leader in highspeed interface technology and advanced circuit designs, is ramping up its operations in India and aimed at emerging 100 strong by this year end.
''Our target is to double the strength to 200 in 2007 and cross 500 by the end of the decade,'' Rambus Chief Executive Officer Harold Hughes told UNI in an interview.
Mr Hughes, who was here to review the first year operations of Rambus which began with a headcount of mere five, said the company had over 50 engineers now.
Rambus joined the bandwagon of US chip designers who made a beeline to India, in March last year and never looked back. ''We are extremely happy with the talent pool available here,'' he said, adding that the company aimed at tapping the growing semiconductor design talent in the country and providing service to customers in Asia, mainly in Japan, through the Indian operations.
**********
It would also increase capacity for carrying out highly complex designs in a competitive manner. The Indian design centre was currently working on assignments for Sony, Toshiba, IBM and AMD, he added.
Stating that Rambus India was chartered to play a significant role in the overall operations of the Company, Mr Hughes said the Indian Centre enjoyed the same status as the US operations.
Rambus, founded in 1990, had been addressing the rapidly growing problem of memory transfer data rates. It had developed highly scalable, high bandwidth chip connection technology and a revenue base of over 130 million US Dollars.
The technology licensing business model had enabled its small team of highly talented professionals to produce the best work without any constraint and cost structure of an internal manufacturing entity, he added. The core business was focused on high speed IO interfaces, both proprietary interfaces like XDR, flex10 and industry standards such as DDR and PCI-express.
He said Rambus engineers had developed numerous innovations, resulting in over 850 issued and pending patents worldwide in areas such as logic and memory interfaces, memory architecture, and system design.
To a question, he said the company wanted to achieve growth both organically and inorganically and it was looking at some technology companies in the US for acquisition.
UNI VK RG SB1157
Docrew, you are terrific! Thanks, smd
Your comment is provocative.
His (tomonthebus') point was about the size of the free float.
Are you saying the delta in that is insignificant?
smd
================
Your post is meaningless and another case of silly cheerleading. This huge jump and steady increase from 40% to 47% is really insignificant. Just more silly cheerleading.
Anyone maintain a Canadian brokerage acct as a us investor?
Use it for an IRA?
thanks in advance
smd