The executives were thus given the chance to make massive profits by selling the new shares as they instantly soared in value.Among those cited were Jerry Yang, a co-founder of Yahoo, Margaret Whitman, the president of eBay, Martin Peretz of TheStreet – as well as top managers at Enron, Tyco and WorldCom, three companies that are now under criminal investigation. Between 1996 and 2000, the executives are said to have bought into up to 100 Goldman-managed IPOs, stock virtually unobtainable by ordinary investors.The allegations were dismissed by Goldman Sachs as "an egregious distortion" of the facts. It was "simply wrong" to suggest the bank had behaved wrongly over IPO allocations, its spokesman, Lucas van Praag, said. Though the information released by the committee was correct, the inferences it had drawn were "rubbish".The report significantly widens the various investigationsinto "spinning" – whereby investment companies personally cut top executives into IPOs in an attempt to secure the business of those executives' companies. Citigroup's Salomon Smith Barney unit and Credit Suisse First Boston have now been joined under the unwelcome spotlight by arguably the blue riband investment banking house on Wall Street.The development comes as the Securities and Exchange Commission's chairman, Harvey Pitt, and New York state's attorney general Eliot Spitzer have agreed to pool their efforts to root out malpractice in the securities industry and work out a new set of rules to govern their operations.Mr Spitzer secured a $100m (£63m) settlement from Merrill Lynch after its analysts recommended stock that they privately scorned. This week he filed lawsuits against five top telecommunications executives – among them the former WorldCom boss Bernard Ebbers and Philip Anschutz, the founder of the troubled Qwest group and prospective purchaser of the Millennium Dome – to force them to disgorge "enormous" profits from IPO allocations.The IPOs in question were managed by Salomon Smith Barney, alleged by Mr Spitzer to have channelled IPO shares to the five men as a reward for business they steered to Salomon and Citigroup. Jack Grubman, Salomon's former star telecoms analyst, is at the centre of the controversy for his close personal ties with WorldCom and his relentless enthusiasm for its stock even as it was heading into bankruptcy.Wall Street has also been unsettled by signs of rivalry between Mr Spitzer, a Democrat with political ambitions, and Mr Pitt, a Republican appointee with ties with the securities industry.

The two have clashed over plans to sever investment banks from their supposedly independent research arms.Thus a pact could speed negotiations between the industry and regulators to settle various investigations and work out new rules of conduct.. Hoover has paid £4m in damages and £2m in costs to rival vacuum cleaner manufacturer James Dyson in what is believed to be the largest patent-case legal award in UK history. Mr Dyson, 54, had suggested a settlement of £1m in damages, without a court case.But Hoover refused and took the case to the Court of Appeal in October last year. It lost and had a petition for a further right to appeal to the House of Lords rejected.The Hoover's Triple Vortex was launched in February 1999, and Mr Dyson immediately complained about infringement.

After the original court order, Hoover was forced to stop selling its machine.Mr Dyson, with a personal fortune of £700m from his bagless cleaner technology, said: "When we discovered Hoover had stolen one of our patents, we tried to settle to avoid an expensive three-year court battle, but Hoover refused. So we were forced to defend our patent against Hoover's infringement. Having developed new technology, it is important for Dyson [the company] to protect patented inventions and defend all patents The patent system can work. I hope [this case] encourages inventors who have their ideas stolen by multinational companies to fight for their patent rights." Hoover had no comment.Mr Dyson has closed his factory in Wiltshire, with the loss of 700 jobs, and transferred production to the Far East.. The Government's various "wars" against drugs, street attacks and burglary attract all the attention. However, just as important – in the view of significant sections of the business community – is the battle against fraud But this is a campaign that has barely started.

Big cases, such as the Barings and Maxwell affairs, grab the headlines, but they are only the tip of the iceberg. Quick guide to combatting cybercrime The Government's various "wars" against drugs, street attacks and burglary attract all the attention. However, just as important – in the view of significant sections of the business community – is the battle against fraud But this is a campaign that has barely started. NERA believes this figure is likely to be an underestimate and has pointed to 1999 figures from the Association of British Insurers suggesting that fraud was costing £16bn a year (or £650 for every household in the country) as "not outside the bounds of possibility".Such figures indicate that this is a problem big enough to require serious attention. And yet those involved in combating it consistently complain of a lack of resources.