Home Other Reports News Other Exposés More Reading Contact
Beneath the Iceberg
By Len Clements
Copyright © 2011
Coenen The Enabler
It also would have been obvious to anyone who cared to look that Tracy Coenen's agenda was far removed from any authentic fraud investigation and exposure. Coenen claims that she did not short Usana's stock in any way and had no profit motive for attacking Usana. Within her blog she stated, "I get nothing from warning consumers about these sketchy companies, other than the satisfaction that the information was made available for those who take the time to research." However, we now know she was paid between $500 and $2,500 per assignment by Minkow for her assistance in slamming Usana.86 Coenen also testified in her deposition that she was paid $50,000 by Minkow for her work on the Lennar scheme (Antar testified he was paid $30,000).87 Also, when I submitted these questions to her blog…
1) Have you owned put options on either Usana or Herbalife within the past two years?
2) Have you shorted the stock of either Usana or Herbalife within the past two years?
3) Have you been compensated in any way for your participation in, and ongoing support of,
Barry Minkow's findings related to Usana and Herbalife?
… Coenen unleashed a long diatribe against me personally and responded with a series of "Pressing Questions for MLM Supporter Len Clements". What was conspicuously absent anywhere within her verbose reply was the word "no".
Even if Coenen has never shorted Usana's or any other MLM company's stock, this only goes to remove just one of several unethical, or at best unprofessional, motives for her support of, and contribution to, Barry Minkow. For example, when Usana's then Executive Vice President of Asia Pacific Brad Richardson started exercising his options and selling his stock Coenen repeatedly speculated that Richardson knew of Usana's supposed illegal activity in China and was preparing to take the money and run. Or, he knew he was going to be terminated as Usana's "sacrificial lamb" to appease Chinese authorities and the SEC after their supposedly inevitable legal actions. To wit, Coenen blogged (among other accusatory comments):
"I could be way off base here, but isn’t it possible that this guy knows all about the cheating in China and knows that it will very soon catch up with Usana… and he’s selling while his stock is still worth something? Naaaaah… I’m sure that can’t be it."
Coenen was way off base here. We know now that Brad Richardson cashed out on his Usana stock for no other reason than he accept an offer, and promotion to President of International Operations, from Shaklee. What was also eventually discovered, by Coenen's own admission, was that she knew all along that this was the reason Richardson was selling his stock. In response I submitted this comment:
"…if you knew this was all going on, why did you continue to promote the idea that Richardson was selling his shares pending his firing over alleged 'Cheating-in-China'? Wouldn’t also presenting the far more likely, and more innocent possibility that he was simply liquidating his holdings to avoid a conflict of interest before accepting a position with a competing company had been the more integrous and responsible thing for a professional “forensic investigator” to do? This scenario would not have incriminated Richardson or Usana in any way, but certainly that wasn’t a factor in your decision making. Your intent is to report the truth, not just dig up dirt on companies you’ve shorted– right?"
When specifically asked by a commenter on her blog why Chinese authorities had so far taken no action, as of January, 2008, Coenen responded: "China is investigating. Obviously it may take some time before action is taken." Apparently so. Three-and-a-half years later and Usana still hasn't even been contacted by Chinese authorities, nor is there any evidence that they were ever investigating them.
In another of many of her blog posts regarding Minkow's, and now her own, assertion that Usana was "Cheating in China", her and Steve Rotolante88, another impotent but prolific Usana antagonist who assisted Minkow in his anti-Usana campaign, discuss why Chinese authorities have taken no action, and within the context of how inept and baseless my rebuttal to this issue was. I responded within the comment section of her blog:
"It was so funny to read how you thought my rebuttal to Minkow's China allegations 'had no substance to it' (in spite of containing overwhelming evidence [the allegations] were all based on numerous errors and fallacies), but then you and [Steve] admit to being so stumped as to why Barry's Cheating-In-China case went no where. Um, maybe because... it was based on numerous errors and fallacies?"
After that comment was submitted, Tracy Coenen, who claims to be a devout defender of the First Amendment and staunch supporter of freedom of speech, and who has railed against those who have tried to censor her online commentary and criticisms, deleted all of my comments and criticisms and blocked my ability to post within her blog (as she has done to others89). She also never addressed any of my deleted commentary and criticisms, because her conduct was indefensible. She was clearly called out as nothing more than an ultra-biased, paid propagandist for Barry Minkow, so rather than defend herself she cowardly deleted anything that would incriminate her.
After Minkow's sentencing Coenen has made only one post to her blog related to Minkow, which was nothing more than the text of the press release by the United States Attorney's Office.90 Quite uncharacteristically, no commentary was included by Coenen. She also disabled the public commentary function. The very next blog entry is a video of Coenen describing her superior investigative techniques that are, "more efficient and more accurate" than other investigators.
"Isn't it ironic?"
– Alanis Morissette
Part 8: The Past Leaves Clues
Part 9: The Beginning of the End – Again
Part 10: Not All Were Fooled
Copyright © 2011 MarketWave, Inc. ALL WORLDWIDE RIGHTS RESERVED.
Lenny, Lenny, Lenny, we all know Minkow is a convicted felon and liar. He shorts stocks every chance he gets. That being said his many investigations have always been litigated to be factually correct as far as I am aware. The problem is he uses the facts his investigations yields to make money illegally off of the company's stock. Completely sleazy to be sure, but it does not in any way involve any of the other fraud investigators who have worked for him and been paid the fair going rate for doing so.
Tracy Coenen has never shorted any stock and only did the specific forensic accounting investigation she was paid to do. She has no control over Minkow. That is like blaming me because someone cons an MLM scammer and rakes in a fortune by telling the scammer that they can get my posts about them removed. The one falsely promising to remove my posts can run off with the $$$$ and laugh all the way to the bank as they were simply using my research to blackmail the MLM scammer. That in no way makes me guilty of anything, except what I am always guilty of -- sharing the facts and truth.
Tracy Coenen's work is impeccable. You, Lenny, are just in a snit because her work has led to a number of sleazy MLMs having their very troubling numbers exposed and analyzed and you were not able to foil it. You can't effectively refute any of her work so you are resorting to slime attacks in your usual long winded speculation filled diatribes. Coenen and I post the facts, truth and our opinions. We cannot be held responsible for those being misused behind our backs.
And, Lenny, Coenen owns her page. She has the right to entertain comments as she so desires. Here I and my fine co-admins here have full editorial control. Unlike Scam we do not accept bribes or threats to remove content either.
I am surprised you, Lenny, haven't been sued. Just where do you have any proof that Coenen was ever unprofessional, unethical, supporting Minkow and contributing to Minkow. She was compensated for preparing financial reports and did so. Those reports as I said were impeccable and I am sure you have nothing with which to challenge anything in them.