????硅谷半導體公司美滿電子科技（Marvell Technologies）的共同創始人兼高管周秀文和戴偉立夫婦日前起訴高盛（Goldman Sachs），稱這家華爾街公司為協助做空美滿電子股票的空頭，將這對夫婦經紀賬戶中所持的美滿電子股票權屬進行了不實標注。

????周秀文和戴偉立夫婦的代理律師稱，周二這項指控將加入這對夫婦一年前在舊金山起訴高盛的另一宗案件。周秀文是美滿電子的首席執行官，戴偉立是公司的通信主管。

????這對夫婦在一年前提起的訴訟中指控高盛在金融危機鼎盛時期，哄騙他們賣出一部分美滿電子股票來支撐保證金貸款，導致他們損失了1億美元。此案將交由仲裁處理。“從法律上講，高盛無權借出不屬于它的股票，”周秀文和戴偉立夫妻的代理律師、Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy律師事務所的費爾?格里格雷稱。“這起案子完全是高盛為了讓自己賬面上好看一點，結果導致我的客戶蒙受了巨大的損失。”

????這對夫妻提出的新指控是，2008年1月，高盛將他們兩人在高盛一個經紀賬戶中所持的2,000萬股美滿電子股票的權屬紀錄完全抹去了。這對夫妻表示，他們曾同意將高盛的名字加入股票權屬紀錄，這些股票應被視為（高盛）代周秀文或戴偉立持有，但結果他們兩人的名字完全被抹掉了。

????當時，投資者做空美滿電子的意愿高漲。2007年9月中旬到2008年1月底之間，空頭借入的美滿電子股票數量增長超過了一倍，達到近3,700萬股。這對夫婦稱，高盛將他們的股票置于自己名下后，就能把這些股票借給空頭，大大增加了做空美滿電子的籌碼。同時，高盛還向借入股票的對沖基金和其他投資者收取費用。如果借不到股票，空頭的做空能力就會受到限制。周秀文和戴偉立表示，他們肯定不會同意把自己的股票借給空頭。這對夫妻稱，他們不確定高盛將多少股票借給了空頭，或者到底借了沒有。如今，周秀文和戴偉立已經收回了這些股票，此后一直沒有出售過這些股票。

????高盛的一位女發言人拒絕置評公司是否曾將這對夫妻的美滿電子股票借給做空者。“高盛對周秀文博士和戴偉立女士的指控一直予以否認，目前此案已交由美國金融業監管局（FINRA）仲裁，”高盛的一位女發言人稱。“迄今我們并沒有收到任何新的指控。”

????近期，高盛最近在對待客戶的方式方面遭到了一系列的聲討，公司被推到了風口浪尖。3月份，高盛一位剛離職的中層管理人士格雷格?史密斯在《紐約時報》（New York Times）專欄版撰文稱，公司文化有毒，員工常將公司利益置于客戶利益之前，但他并沒有給出具體的例子。高盛否認這些說法。周秀文和戴偉立并不是唯一兩位對高盛融券業務發出抱怨之聲的人。周一，《紐約時報》報道，一位曾擔任對沖基金經理的養雞場主認為，正是高盛融券部門對其交易的誤操作，導致他一度非常成功的15億美元基金倒閉。

????Two Silicon Valley entrepreneurs suing Goldman Sachs say the Wall Street firm mislabeled shares in the couple's brokerage account in order to be able to assist short-sellers who were betting against the company the couple founded.

????A lawyer for the couple, Sehat Sutardja and Weili Dai, co-founders and executives of the semiconductor company Marvell Technologies (MRVL), said the claim will be added Tuesday to a suit the couple filed in a San Francisco court against Goldman a year ago. Sutardja is the CEO of Marvell. Dai is the company's manager of communications.

????The suit claims that Goldman cost the married couple $100 million by duping them into selling a portion of their Marvell shares to cover a margin loan at the height of the financial crisis. The case is set to go to arbitration. "Goldman had no legal right to lend out shares that didn't belong to the firm," says Phil Gregory of Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy, who is representing Sutardja and Dai. "This whole case is about Goldman trying to make Goldman look better, and my clients suffering for it."

????In the amendment, the couple allege that in January 2008 Goldman (GS) removed Sutardja and Dai from the ownership records of 20 million shares of Marvell stock the couple held in a Goldman brokerage account. The couple say they agreed to allow Goldman to add the firm's name to the stock ownership records, but that the shares were supposed to classified as held for the benefit of either Sutardja or Dai. Instead, the couple says their names were removed completely.

????At the time, interest from investors wanting to bet against Marvell's stock was soaring. The number of Marvell shares borrowed by short-sellers more than doubled from 16 million in mid-September 2007 to nearly 37 million by the end of January. The couple allege that by putting their shares in Goldman's name, the firm was able to lend those shares to short-sellers, allowing them to increase their bets against Marvell. Goldman also collected fees from the hedge funds and other investors who borrowed the shares. Short-sellers are restricted from betting against stocks in which they have not secured the rights to borrow the shares. Sutardja and Dai say they would have objected to lending out their shares to investors who were betting against their company's stock. The couple say they do not know how many shares Goldman lent to short-sellers, or if the firm did at all. Sutardja and Dai have reclaimed the shares, which were never sold from their account.

????A Goldman spokeswoman declined to comment on whether the firm had lent the couple's Marvell shares to short-sellers. "Goldman Sachs has consistently denied and continues to fight Dr. Sutardja and Ms. Dai's claims, which are currently in arbitration with FINRA," says a Goldman spokeswoman. "We have not seen any new claims."

????Goldman has recently come under increasing fire for allegations about the way the firm treats its clients. In early March, a recently departed Goldman executive Greg Smith wrote in a New York Times op-ed that the firm's culture had become toxic and that its employees regularly put the firm's interests ahead of clients. He didn't offer specific examples. Goldman denies the claims. Sutardja and Dai are not the only ones to complain about Goldman's securities lending operations. On Monday, the New York Times reported that a former hedge fund manager turned chicken farmer believes Goldman's mishandling of his trades by the firm's securities lending division caused his once successful $1.5 billion fund to collapse.