????周秀文和戴偉立自己也不是毫無爭議。2008年,，美滿電子支付了1,000萬美元罰款，了結(jié)美國證券交易委員會(huì)（SEC）的一項(xiàng)指控,，稱該公司提前了在支付給高管的期權(quán)中所標(biāo)注的日期,。另外，作為和解方案一部分,，曾身為美滿電子首席營運(yùn)官的戴偉立個(gè)人還支付了50萬美元罰金,，并且五年內(nèi)不得擔(dān)任任何上市公司的董事或高管。

????同樣是這一年,，這對夫妻的高盛麻煩開始了,。2008年年中，周秀文和戴偉立根據(jù)高盛經(jīng)紀(jì)人的建議,、買入了另一家科技公司英偉達(dá)（Nvidia）的股票,，用的是一個(gè)保證金賬戶，抵押品是他們所持的相當(dāng)數(shù)量的美滿電子股票,。這對夫妻很快就買了大量的英偉達(dá)股票,。此前不久，高盛的一位分析師剛剛開始推薦這只科技股,。但根據(jù)這位夫婦提交的訴狀,，高盛告訴周秀文,、戴偉立及其他客戶買入英偉達(dá)股票的同時(shí)，自己卻在削減持倉,，總計(jì)將對這家科技公司的投資減少了60%,。

????周秀文和戴偉立購入英偉達(dá)股票后不久，該股開始暴跌,。美滿電子的股價(jià)也在下跌,。2008年底，美滿電子的股價(jià)一度跌破5美元,。根據(jù)訴狀,，周秀文和戴偉立接到高盛經(jīng)紀(jì)人的電話稱，他們必須要賣出900萬股美滿電子股票來填補(bǔ)保證金賬戶的虧損,，并稱股價(jià)低于5美元的股票不能作為保證金賬戶的抵押品,。這對夫婦提出為保證金貸款提供其他抵押品，而且,，幾天后,，美滿電子的股價(jià)反彈到了5美元上方，但他們?nèi)愿械匠鍪酃善钡膲毫?。同時(shí),，這對夫婦聲稱，高盛在迫使他們賣出美滿電子的股票時(shí),，高盛和高盛經(jīng)營的一個(gè)對沖基金正在買入這只股票,。此后，英偉達(dá)和美滿電子的股價(jià)都已較2008年底的低點(diǎn)反彈了一倍以上,。這對夫婦聲稱,，由于被迫售股，他們損失了1億多美元,。

????“我們指控高盛在自己試圖買入美滿電子股票的同時(shí),，向客戶施壓要求他們出售，”格里格雷表示,。他說,，在金融危機(jī)鼎盛時(shí)期，為了讓自己的資產(chǎn)負(fù)債表在監(jiān)管部門以及投資者眼里顯得好看點(diǎn),，高盛不惜尋找一切理由來減少貸款,，導(dǎo)致周秀文和戴偉立夫婦遭受無妄之災(zāi)?！案鶕?jù)我們掌握的信息,，高盛曾下令要求經(jīng)紀(jì)人盡可能地收回保證金貸款。我的客戶被迫售股，即便當(dāng)時(shí)并沒有理由要求追加保證金,?！?/p>

????譯者：早稻米

????Sutardja and Dia are not without controversy themselves. In 2008, Marvell Technology paid a $10 million fine to settle allegations from the Securities and Exchange Commission that the company backdated the options it paid out to its executives. As part of the settlement, Dai, who was once Marvell's chief operating officer, paid a personal fine of $500,000 and was bared from being a director or officer of a publicly traded company for five years.

????That was the same year the couple's Goldman troubles began. At a Goldman broker's suggestion, Sutardja and Dai bought shares in another technology company Nvidia (NVDA) in mid-2008, using a margin account in which their sizable holding of Marvell shares had been pledged as collateral. The couple quickly amassed a large position in Nvidia's shares. A Goldman analyst had recently begun recommending the technology company. However, according to the couple's suit, at the same time Goldman was telling Sutardja and Dai and other clients to buy Nvidia, Goldman was selling its own stake, slashing the company's investment in the technology firm by 60%.

????Shortly after Sutardja and Dai purchased Nvidia shares, the stock plunged. Marvell's shares were falling as well. In late 2008, Marvell's shares dipped briefly below $5. Sutardja and Dai, according to the suit, got a call from their Goldman broker who said that they would have to sell 9 million Marvell says to cover the losses in their account. The broker, according to the suit, allegedly said stocks trading for under $5 a share could not be used as collateral for a margin account. The couple say they offered to come up with other collateral to back the margin loan, and that Marvell's shares rebounded above $5 within a few days. Nonetheless, they said they felt pressured to sell. What's more, the couple's suit alleges that Goldman and a hedge fund run by Goldman were buying Marvell's shares at the same time the firm was forcing Sutardja and Dai to sell. Both Nvidia and Marvell's shares have since more than doubled from their late 2008 lows. The couple claim they lost more than $100 million because of their force sales.

????"Our claim alleges Goldman was trying to get into Marvell at the same time they were forcing my clients to sell," says Gregory. He says at the height of the financial crisis Goldman was looking for any excuse to reduce its lending in order to make its balance sheet look better to regulators and the firm's own investors. Sutardja and Dai got caught in the crossfire. "Based on the information we have, the order from New York was for the firm's brokers to close as many margin loans as possible. My clients were forced to sell even though the rational for the margin call no longer existed."