Merck & Co (NYSE: MRK) shares are trading higher today after a Citi Investment Research analyst initiated coverage on the stock with a "Buy" rating, saying the company will benefit as rivals' drug patents expire in the coming year. This is despite news that came out today that Merck will soon start to send out almost $5B in Vioxx settlement checks. If you think that the stock won't fall by too much in the coming months, then now could be a good time to look at a bullish hedged trade on MRK.

After hitting a one-year high of $61.62 in December, the stock hit a one-year low of $34.49 in June. MRK opened this morning at $37.12. So far today the stock has hit a low of $36.60 and a high of $37.38. As of 1:05, MRK is trading at $37.38, up 42 cents(1.1%). The chart for MRK looks neutral and improving, while S&P gives the stock a neutral 3 Stars (out of 5) Hold rating.

For a bullish hedged play on this stock, I would consider an October bull-put credit spread below the $32.50 range. A bull-put credit spread is an options position that combines the purchase and sale of put options to hedge risk in case the stock doesn't do what you think but still leverage nice returns. For this particular trade, we will make a 16.3% return in just three months as long as MRK is above $32.50 at October expiration. Merck would have to fall by more than 13% before we would start to lose money. Learn more about this type of trade here.

MRK hasn't been below $34.50 at all in the past year and has shown support around $37 recently. This trade could be risky if the company's earnings (due out 7/21) disappoint, but even if that happens, this position could be protected by the support the stock might find at its year low, which is just below $35.

Brent Archer is an options analyst and writer at Investors Observer.

DISCLOSURE: Mr. Archer owns and/or controls diversified portfolios of long and short stock and option positions that may include holdings in companies he writes about. At publication time, Brent neither owns nor controls positions in MRK.

Mattel (NYSE: MAT) shares are trading higher today after the company posted a second-quarter profit of $11.8 million, or 3 cents per share, beating analysts' estimates of 2 cents per share. Also, last night Mattel won a copyright case against rival MGA Entertainment over the origins of MGA's Bratz dolls. Next week a jury will decide on any damages owed to MAT by MGA. If you think that the stock won't fall by too much in the coming months, then now could be a good time to look at a bullish hedged trade on MAT.

After hitting a one-year high of $26.12 last July, the stock hit a one-year low of $16.42 in January. MAT opened this morning at $20.42. So far today the stock has hit a low of $19.96 and a high of $21.18. As of 1:05, MAT is trading at $20.48, up $2.20 (12.0%). The chart for MAT looks bearish and steady, while S&P gives the stock a neutral 3 Stars (out of 5) hold rating.

For a bullish hedged play on this stock, I would consider a January bull-put credit spread below the $15 range. A bull-put credit spread is an options position that combines the purchase and sale of put options to hedge risk in case the stock doesn't do what you think but still leverage nice returns. For this particular trade, we will make a 13.6% return in just six months as long as MAT is above $15 at January expiration. Mattel would have to fall by more than 26% before we would start to lose money. Learn more about this type of trade here.

MAT hasn't been below $16.40 at all in the past year and has shown support around $17 recently. This trade could be risky if the damages turn out to be negligible, but even if that happens, this position could be protected by the support the stock might find around $16.50, where it has bottomed out twice in the past seven months.

Brent Archer is an options analyst and writer at Investors Observer.

DISCLOSURE: Mr. Archer owns and/or controls diversified portfolios of long and short stock and option positions that may include holdings in companies he writes about. At publication time, Brent neither owns nor controls positions in MAT.

It has been widely anticipated that the EU would bring new antitrust charges against Intel (NASDAQ: INTC). The FTC and other US authorities are chasing the largest chip company in the world for similar reasons. South Korea has already fined Intel for anti-competitive behavior.

The theory behind the charges is that Intel induced PC companies and their retailers to use its chips and not those from rival AMD (NYSE: AMD). According to The Wall Street Journal, "The European Union launched new antitrust charges against Intel Corp., saying the chip giant paid rebates to a major retailer to encourage it not to carry computers using chips from smaller rival Advanced Micro Devices Inc ."

If the charges are true, it shows the extent to which a company of real size, like Intel, can be its own worst enemy. Microsoft (NASDAQ: MSFT) ran into similar problems a decade ago for being too aggressive killing off competition in the browser and media player markets.

The irony of Intel's legal bind is that it almost certainly did not need to pressure or give incentives to keep AMD in a distant second place. It had the balance sheet to keep margin pressure on AMD and the engineering prowess to offer better chips.

Arrogance and carelessness often go with being in first place. This time it appears that it has caught up to Intel.

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

The U.S. Supreme Court in LaRue vs. DeWolff, Boberg & Associates has just given individual investors the right to sue under ERISA for breach of fiduciary duty to recover individual losses to an individual 401(k) or other defined contribution plans. Previous Supreme Court decisions had pertained to defined benefits plans. Prior to LaRue v. DeWolff, individuals were limited to participating in class action suits for relief for the plan as a whole. Now, individual investors can sue to be "made whole" as individuals, and do not have to settle for equitable relief among all plan investors.

Mr. LaRue had sued his former employer DeWolff, Boberg & Associates for breach of fiduciary duty when it failed to follow his instructions to move some of his 401(k) money to different investments. His initial suit was to recoup a personal loss to be paid into his individual account. Having been denied by the Fourth Circuit Court under two different statutes of ERISA sec. 502, Mr. LaRue appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, thus doing an untold number of individual investors a great service.

In a press release, the Securities and Exchange Commission announced that it had filed insider trading charges against Beaufort, South Carolina mayor William J. Rauch. The SEC alleges that he "purchased stock in Advanced Cell Technology, Inc. (OTC: ACTC), immediately after one of its executives informed him about a breakthrough embryonic stem cell technique that the company was about to disclose publicly. According to the SEC's complaint, Rauch was told the information was confidential, and he had previously signed an agreement with the company that barred him from using confidential company information for his own benefit."

He agreed to pay $20,708 in disgorgement, $2,576 in prejudgment interest, $20,708 in penalties, and promised not to do it again -- without admitting or denying guilt, of course.

But it gets worse. According to the SEC's complaint (PDF File):

In mid-2005, Rauch entered into a written Finder's Fee Agreement ("Agreement") with Advanced Cell. Under the Agreement, Rauch agreed to refer potential investors to Advanced Cell. In exchange for Rauch's services, Advanced Cell granted Rauch an option to buy 48,000 shares of Advanced Cell stock and promised him a referral fee equal to a percentage of any amounts raised.

Translation: The mayor of Beaufort, South Carolina, in addition to the fact that he just settled insider trading charges, was also a shill for a penny stock, telling people he knew to invest in the company while pocketing a "referral fee" from the company. Given that he apparently had few qualms about trading on insider information, it seems likely that he had no problem steering people into shares of Advanced Cell Technology without disclosing his massive conflict of interest.

The announcement of the embryonic stem cell technique sent shares of the stock up to $1.83. They closed yesterday at 2.5 cents. I recognize that the standards of ethics for elected officials are pretty low, but citizens of Beaufort should give this clown the boot.

When Countrywide fell apart, the government moved in and began to examine the company's loan practices for fraud. Perhaps history is repeating itself. The FBI has set up an office at IndyMac (OTC: IDMC) to investigate whether its loan practices were above board.

According to The Wall Street Journal, "Failed lender IndyMac Bank is among nearly two dozen banks under scrutiny by the Federal Bureau of Investigation for possible mortgage fraud." Both the media and the bank were thin on details, very thin.

The matter, and questions at Countrywide, raise the issue of where regulators were when these firms operating as normal, standalone businesses making hundreds of thousand of home loans each year. Consumers are not terribly well-served if the FBI or any other government agency gets into the act once all of the damage has been done.

If the FBI finds any wrong-doing, what then? Is there a way to make reparations to people who may have lost their home or paid mortgage rates and additional fees which were much too high? Management at some of these lending operations may get into trouble, but the victims are unlikely to be helped.

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

Lou Pearlman, the airplane entrepreneur turned boy band promoter turned modeling agency con-artist, has been ordered to repay $300 million to investors he bilked in a decade-long Ponzi scheme.

It's been a stunning downfall for Pearlman, who is now serving a 25-year prison sentence. He was the Svengali behind the Backstreet Boys and *NSYNC, but was later sued by both bands, and accused of inappropriate sexual conduct by several former band members, most notably Nick Carter.

Interesting trivia item: Mr. Pearlman is the first cousin of Art Garfunkel. Take a look at this funny video from Saturday Night Live, parodying Mr. Pearlman.

On Tuesday, the Securities and Exchange Commission threw a brushback pitch at those who are betting on the further collapse of our big financial institutions. Instead of suggesting better oversight of the companies, the SEC is going after short sellers.

For 30 days starting Monday, short-selling will be restricted on 19 financial companies. Financial regulators are also cracking down on "sensational rumors." To put the short-selling rule in perspective, consider that even when the market re-opened after the September 11th attacks, the SEC considered, but didn't implement, short sale restrictions.

Since Bear Steans collapsed and Vanity Fair bought the company's story that short-sellers did them in, everyone is worried that short sellers are bringing the market down. And I'm sure they are, but short-selling, after all, is legal. The SEC just loosened rules on it last year.

Yesterday, SEC chair Steven Cox testified that he's worried about short-selling in connection with spreading false rumors to manipulate the market. OK, that's not legal, but as Cox pointed out, the SEC brought its first case -- EVER -- for this sort of deception this year. And it still hasn't gone after anyone for spreading false positive rumors about a company.

The Chapter 13 bankruptcy trustee in Pittsburgh accused Countrywide Financial, the poster child for lending practices that were disastrous for both investors and consumers (but worked out quite well for Angelo Mozilo), of losing or destroying more than $500,000 in checks between December 2005 and April 2007, and then charging already downtrodden borrowers for illegitimate late fees and legal costs.

Countrywide recently settled those allegations, and will pay $325,000. That's it. Is that a deterrent? Now that Countrywide is owned by Bank of America (NYSE: BAC), it's barely a rounding error, and certainly not something that will discourage Countrywide or other lenders from ripping people off.

Crime might not pay, but apparently it doesn't cost much either. Given the continuing flow of hugely negative publicity for Countrywide, it's hard to imagine that Bank of America isn't rethinking its plan to keep the Countrywide brand. Why would someone go a company synonymous with foreclosures, bait and switch, and corporate greed when they want a home loan?

Intel (NASDAQ: INTC) delivered extremely good earnings, surpassing what most analysts thought the big chip company would deliver. Global notebook sales were the key source of the company's success.

With 80% of the world's PC and server chip sales, Intel has little to compete with but itself. That may prove to be its undoing. Late word is that Intel is about to be hit by major antitrust charges in Europe. According to The Wall Street Journal, "European regulators are preparing to file new antitrust charges against Intel."

The case against Intel -- the same as the ones being brought in the U.S. and South Korea -- is that the company took a number of actions to shut out sales of chips and computers with chips from smaller competitor AMD (NYSE: AMD).

Intel has begun to take on the role that Microsoft (NASDAQ: MSFT) has a decade ago. It has become so big that authorities are questioning how it got to its place of dominance. In essence, regulators are saying Intel cheated.

While Intel may suffer fines and other sanctions, the cases against the company may be the only chance AMD has of surviving. With over $5 billion in debt, operating losses, and falling gross margins, reparations from Intel's antitrust cases are probably its only life preserver.

Douglas A. McIntyre is an editor at 24/7 Wall St.

So the Wall Street Journal and a few blogs reported that Apple Inc. (NASDAQ: AAPL) said Tuesday it has filed a suit against Psystar Corp., a Florida-based company that makes and sells computers that run Leopard, Apple's Macintosh operating system software. The suit was filed July 3.

Apple seems to think that Psystar is infringing its copyrighted computers as Psystar's $600 Open Computer "violates an Apple policy that forbids people from installing Apple's Macintosh software on anything other than an Apple-labeled device."

But according to AppleInsider, "A representative for the company, identified only as Robert [argues] that the Mac OS X end-user license agreement, which prohibits third-party installations of Mac OS X on non-Apple hardware, stands in violation of antitrust laws." Rodolfo Pedraza, Psystar co-founder said in the past to the Journal that his company pays for every copy of the software it sells.

I understand what Apple is so worried about. If anyone remembers the IBM Clones of the 80s, they also remember that very quickly IBM has lost the leadership role in the market for IBM PC compatibles by 1990. It wasn't the end for International Business Machines Corp. (NYSE: IBM) as it derived a considerable income stream from license fees. But Macs are not just hardware, they're software too, and we all know what operating system has dominated those PCs. Microsoft Corporation (NASDAQ: MSFT) Windows has become the global leader.

So other than the fact that Apple has different rules on what can run on its computers, iPods and iPhones, including the strict iTunes/iPod relationship, seem strenuous to the extreme and definitely borderline violating some consumer protection laws, it's also possible Apple may be missing on a great opportunity here. The Journal mentions that No. 2 computer maker Dell Inc. (NASDAQ: DELL) is interested in making such Apple OS capable computers, meaning Apple see sales increase ten fold and capitalize on licensing fees as well as software sales.

Then again, knowing Jobs' strict attention to details, his Alpha personality and controlling nature, I'd say that's likely never to happen.

After four years, a federal judge has finally ruled in the counterfeit goods case in which Tiffany & Co. (NYSE: TIF) sued eBay Inc. (NASDAQ: EBAY), demanding it create better polices on its auction site and assume responsibility for the goods traded there.

But the judge ruled in favor of eBay, saying that "the law is clear: it is the trademark owner's burden to police its mark. [...] Tiffany must ultimately bear the burden of protecting its trademark."

No doubt, this is a significant victory for eBay and all online retailers that, while agreeing to take fake merchandise off their sites, want to be alerted to it by the owners of the trademarks. This means e-tailers don't need to police their sites for counterfeit goods, something that would have been quite costly.

If this sounds a little odd to you, maybe that's because of a recent suit regarding copyrighted material on Google Inc. (NASDAQ: GOOG)'s YouTube. Viacom Inc. (NYSE: VIA) has sued the owner of the video sharing site for $1 billion in damages, accusing YouTube of enabling copyright infringement since users upload copyrighted material to the site.

The Wall Street Journal reports (subscription required) that the SEC has subpoenaed 50 hedge-fund advisers as part of its probe into allegations that traders spread negative rumors to drive down the share prices of stocks they were short.

It seems especially zealous given how little the SEC has done to crack down on a multitude of other problems harming investors, like the inadequate disclosures of serious risks that have sent shares of companies like Lehman Brothers (NYSE: LEH) and Washington Mutual (NYSE: WM) tumbling.

Maybe there was some foul play at hedge funds, and maybe it's a good use of SEC resources to go after it. But it's worth noting that, throughout history, every time a bubble has burst, the short sellers who profited from its demise have been scapegoated for their foresight. The men who were at the helm of Bear Stearns (Yes, it was men. Women would never foul anything up that badly!) when it collapsed can blame rumor-spreading short sellers for causing a run on the bank. It's the same excuse that former Enron CEO Jeff Skilling invoked in his testimony before Congress.

What does the SEC's new policy entail? The Times says that the SEC will start today by focusing on "what policies brokerage firms have in place to prevent the passing of false information. The intent is to stop malicious rumors without hampering the natural exchange of information in the marketplace." I am not a lawyer but it sounds like the SEC will have a tough time monitoring all the exchanges of information among those on Wall Street unless it plans to record every cell phone, land-line, e-mail, IM, and Blackberry exchange all around the world.

Meanwhile, it seems that the government has strained to distinguish between fact and fiction when it makes big policy decisions. For instance, last year Hank Paulson and Ben Bernanke were saying that the subprime problem was "contained." Would the SEC indict Paulson and Bernanke for spreading false rumors intended to manipulate stock prices? After all, their statements -- which are clearly false -- may have had the effect of causing investors to buy stock in non-subprime mortgage lenders. Could they get off the SEC's hook by proving they had no intent to manipulate stock prices?

In a press release issued on Sunday -- presumably meant to be a warning to traders before the opening bell on Monday -- the SEC announced that "the SEC and other securities regulators will immediately conduct examinations aimed at the prevention of the intentional spread of false information intended to manipulate securities prices."

Cash-bleeding train wrecks like Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers (NYSE: LEH) have complained that rumor-mongering has damaged investors by causing a precipitous slide in their stock prices. Bear Stearns executives have essentially blamed short-sellers for the company collapse which is, interestingly, the same argument made by Enron's former head honchos. Just saying.

I don't doubt that there's a fair amount of hanky panky on the part of short-sellers looking to profit from declines in share price, but I think that massive writedowns and a lack of transparency at these companies have been larger factors. As DealBreaker recently noted, "if a company can be brought down by the corporate equivalent of 7th grade girls passing notes in class, perhaps it doesn't deserve to exist anyway."

The Wall Street Journal notes (subscription required) that "The need for such a move by the SEC took on new urgency after a brutal week in the U.S. stock market, where major financial firms such as Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc., Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were battered as rumors about everything from government bailouts to possible mergers flew across Wall Street."

This just in: Fed to rescue Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac. Apparently those mean short-selling trash-talkers were onto something.