Posts Tagged Merrill Lynch
Federal Judge Jed S. Rakoff: A Lonely Soldier in the War Against Wall Street’s Financial Terrorists?
Posted by Lance Haley in Bailouts, Banking, Business and Money, Capitalism, Financial Crisis, Financial Terrorists, Government, How and Why We Get Screwed, Legal & Justice, U.S. District Courts, Wall Street, financial industry on February 26th, 2010
THE ONE MAN WITH BIG ENOUGH BALLS TO TAKE ON WALL STREET
Calling the Security and Exchange Commission’s legal settlement with Bank of America (BoA) “half-baked justice at best“, U.S. District Court Judge Jed S. Rakoff reluctantly signed-off on the agreement between the two parties on Monday, writing in his order that “[t]his court, while shaking its head, grants the S.E.C.’s motion and approves the proposed consent judgment.”
Judge Rakoff is a true American Maverick, and a champion for American public shareholders.
I am not talking about some half-baked Sarah “Pretender” Palin maverick. This man is the real deal – and you can take that to the bank. Just don’t deposit it with Bank of America. Because when it comes to the truth, BoA – like the rest of the Wall Street Financial Terrorists – has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that it simply cannot be trusted.
On several occasions this author has commented, here and here regarding the ongoing feud between that limp-dicked, impotent icon of American investor protection - the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (S.E.C.) - and Judge Rakoff, over this settlement of Bank of America’s failure to disclose critical information in it’s SEC stock disclosure filings regarding the Merrill Lynch merger.
BoA shareholders were entitled to know the scale of Merrill Lynch’s liabilities, as well as the size of the bonuses that were to be paid to Merrill’s top executives, before approving the merger. However, none of that was disclosed in the filing, and BoA is blaming it’s former top legal counsel for it’s ostensibly innocent error in judgment.
During one of those previous court hearings, the Judge voiced his utter contempt for claims by both BoA and the SEC that none of the BoA executives were culpable for the material non-disclosure. He was further incensed over the irony that it would be BoA’s shareholders who would ultimately be the ones who were financially punished because the bank would have to pay the fines out of it’s profits, thus further diminishing the value of the shareholders stock. The judge lamented this fact, having preferred that BoA’s top executives pay the fines. Nonetheless, he begrudgingly approved the settlement.
Judge Rakoff is also currently presiding over a pending civil matter against J.P. Morgan Chase. In the order he issued on January 28, 2010 in that case, the Judge wrote that “JP Morgan thereby violated, at a minimum, the covenant of good faith and fair dealing” when it obviously attempted to structure a deal with one client in an effort to position itself so as to benefit another client in the same industry – a clear conflict of interest. The judge noted that “such an end run, if not a down right sham , is not permissable . . .”, insinuating J.P. Morgan committed fraud.
Felix Salmon, a well respected business writer and blogger, wrote a good analysis of Morgan’s corrupt business dealings in the matter titled How J.P. Morgan treats its clients: scandalously and in bad faith. As another writer so eloquently put it, “[w]e have entered a period of grotesque decadence in the financial and business dealings of those who brought us the great financial calamities.”
In the final irony in the BoA case, both the S.E.C. and Bank of America expressed just how pleased they were with the settlement. I’ll bet they were. Now the question becomes, when will the S.E.C. lawyers who worked on this case retire from “government service”, and take jobs with BoA or one of the other of the Wall Street Terrorist Organizations ? Anyone want to take a bet that this doesn’t happen?
I welcome any and all takers. And I will be laughing all the way to the bank when I win that bet. Just hope you were smart enough to hedge that wager Goldman Sachs-style by betting that I won’t be depositing my winnings in BoA. Because I won’t. Judge Rakoff would be disgusted with me, and rightfully so.
Thank Goodness We Have At Least One Man With Balls On Our Side!
Now the rest of you government weenies and politicians - grow some freakin’ testicles.
Bank of America’s CEO Ken Lewis Will Play the “But We Made Lots of Money” Card in his Criminal Case?
Posted by Lance Haley in Bailouts, Banking, Business and Money, Capitalism, Crime & Punishment, Economics, Financial Crisis, Financial Terrorists, How and Why We Get Screwed, Legal & Justice, Politics, Show Them the $$$, Wall Street, financial industry on February 5th, 2010
There is plenty of blame to go around in Washington and New York for the financial meltdown and subsequent bailout debacle. These Wall Street financial terrorists – Wizards of Mass Derivatives (WMD’s) – with the assistance of their Washington lackeys, Paulson, Geithner, Bernanke, et al., robbed the national treasury to pay the piper for their incompetence and then left us standing alone on the dance floor. And do not even go there about the fact that they “paid the money back” in their defense.
That dog won’t hunt!
Since our federal prosecutors would not grow some testicles and bring criminal indictments against any of these guys – with President Obama’s U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder leading the “Charge of the Lightweight Brigade” – New York AG Andrew Cuomo has demonstrated that he has big enough balls to make at least a couple of them pay for screwing us.
Ken Lewis, former CEO of Bank of America (BoA), was charged with committing fraud yesterday in a New York state court for his failure to divulge to BoA shareholders the extent of Merrill’s losses, as well as an undisclosed agreement to pay former Lynch executives massive bonuses, and that he intentionally misled the government by threatening to scuttle the deal in order to get another $20 billion in bailouts from the Treasury.
Sources from Lewis’ criminal defense team have indicated that they may subpoena Henry Paulson, former Bush Treasury Secretary, as well as Ben Bernanke, Chairman of the FederalReserve, to testify at Lewis’ trial in an attempt to persuade the jury that Lewis did not mislead the government about the severity of BoA’s financial condition subsequent to the banks merger with Merrill Lynch. They will further argue that the bank made money after the deal, and repaid all of the TARP money it received from the federal government, so the government and shareholders were not harmed – and in fact benefited from his actions (or inactions, as the case may be).
What is so unnerving is the audacity of Lewis to claim that “they made the company lot’s of money” as a defense. Worse yet, the Wall Street Journal comes to their defense, claming among other things that “TARP was a gilded straitjacket that every bank, including BofA, wanted to flee as quickly as possible”.
Really? Let’ review this twisted and misleading logic.
We made some really, really bad bets, and the financial system will collapse if you do not give us unprecedented bailouts to fix the system. Of course we understand that the government is giving us this money to restore the necessary liquidity - a continuous flow of money to keep the economy running – so that businesses can continue to borrow money, and keep people working. Now we are not going to making any promises to that effect, but we will do what we think is right for the financial system . Also, we accept that we have to purchase/merge with some of the other failed financial institutions as a condition of getting our asses saved. But we will not be obligated to deal honestly, nor follow financial regulations, in these business dealings, and if we see an opportunity to squeeze more money out of this mess, we will. Moreover, we will probably accept this unreasonable condition that you may limit our pay structure while we are under the obligation to pay the government back, but once we retire that debt to the government, you have to get off our ass and we can transact business however we like.
How dare them now have the arrogance to say they made money as a result of some uncanny business acumen. As I have stated previously in this blog – give me $15 or $20 Billion, I can make a Billion or so investing in some very conservative financial instruments over the course of a year, pay you back, give myself an obscene bonus – and then tell you to go FxxK youself!!
Moreover, REMEMBER THIS: they did NOT have to accept the money. Furthermore, they were supposed to lend the money, not hold it in reserve while waiting for the markets to turn North, and then invest it in order to make a quick killing so they could line their fat pockets, all the while leaving many Americans and businesses hung out to swing in the cold, harsh winds of their utter malfeasance. How utterly disingenuous of both Wall Street and the Wall Street Journal.
This author has previously commented several times about the criminal malfeasance of BoA in this blog – in this entry and in this entry - and questioned the refusal of federal prosecutors to bring charges in this matter. A Federal District Court Judge was appalled by BoA’s behavior, and was obviously disgusted that the U.S. government – specifically the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) – was not doing more. If we have to wait for a New York Attorney General to act, this begs the question as to how deep in bed people at the top of this government are with Wall Street?
President Obama – you took money from Wall Street, and now you say you want them to be accountable? Prove it!
P.S. This same picture was used in a previous entry – it is the finest representative illustration of the BoA bailout I have seen on the Internet. Illustration by graphic artist David Dees of DeesIllustration.com
Bank Of America’s Criminal Deception of U.S. Treasury on Bailout
Posted by Lance Haley in Bailouts, Business and Money, Capitalism, Congress, Economics, Financial Crisis, Government, How and Why We Get Screwed, Politics, Show Them the $$$, Uncategorized, United States, Wall Street, Wealth Disparity & the Ultra Rich on November 16th, 2009
Illustration from Deesillustration.com
The Chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, Congressman Edopholus Towns (D -Brooklyn, N.Y.) is leading the investigation into whether executives for Bank of America made misrepresentations based on false claims to the government in December 2008 regarding it’s agreed takeover of Merrill Lynch in order to receive significant taxpayer bailouts.
The committee has acquired thousands of documents that included handwritten notes from lawyers representing BoA in it’s takeover of Merrill Lynch that indicated the bank’s claim of a “Material Adverse Change” in circumstances regarding the takeover was unfounded. Nonetheless, it appears executives for the bank used this legal clause as a veiled threat to withdraw from the takeover in order to to persuade the U.S. Treasury and then Secretary Hank Paulson to give them more bailout money. If true, this would be tantamount to extortion – which is a criminal offense – let alone fraudulent misrepresentation.
BofA spokesman Larry Di Rita said that BoA’s actions “were based on our desire to make the best decision for our shareholders . . .”
This self-serving statement is utterly laughable in light of U.S. District Court Judge Jed A. Rakoff’s take on BoA’s behavior in the suit brought by the SEC against the bank. BoA screwed it’s shareholders by intentionally withholding information regarding the Merrill Lynch bonuses and then blaming their lawyers. Now we learn the high likelihood that these same executives ignored the advice of their lawyers and wilfully mislead the U.S. Treasury when they looked to the government for financial bailouts. Why BoA is allowed to perpetuate this ongoing charade defies logic and reason.
These men are financial terrorists!
When will they be made to answer for their crimes against the American people?
Mean-spirited to Take Away Bank of America CEO’s Salary?
Posted by Lance Haley in Bailouts, Business and Money, Capitalism, Economics, Financial Crisis, Government, How and Why We Get Screwed, Uncategorized, Wall Street on October 20th, 2009
![banker [umbrella]](http://screwedus.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/banker-umbrella-183x300.jpg "banker [umbrella]")
Do you know the definition of a banker? It is a person who will lend you an umbrella on a sunny day, and then ask for it back when the rain starts falling.
Ken Lewis is retiring as CEO of Bank of America after overseeing the rapid implosion of one of the largest financial institutions in the country.
As the global financial collapse was getting started last year, he decided to purchase both Country Wide Mortgage and Merrill Lynch so that he could really become a player in the global financial casino. When BoA teetered on the verge of bankruptcy as a result of “biting off more than it could chew”, the government bailed his bank out, while Lewis engineered the payout of huge financial bonuses for former Merrill Lynch employees behind every one’s back.
Later, when it was discovered that BoA had failed to disclose this fact in SEC filings, the SEC brought civil charges against the bank, wherein an agreement that was reached that would have resulted in the bank paying a record $33 Million fine – which meant shareholders, not the executives, would ultimately be the one’s who would suffer the consequences. The federal judge overseeing that matter angrily denied to sign off on the settlement, openly stating that was incensed over the fact that no one was taking responsibility and that the government had not brought criminal charges (the civil case is now set for trial in February 2010).
In the wake of all of this, BoA shareholders then demanded that Lewis voluntarily resign. Furthermore, as a result of this unprecedented business debacle, Kenneth Feinberg, the government pay czar overseeing executive compensation of financial institutions that received TARP (government bailout) funds, recommended that Lewis relinquish his 2009 salary and bonus. Rather than fight the issue, Lewis has agreed to take no compensation for 2009, and pay back the $1 million dollars in salary that he has already received for the year.
OK, so you are saying to yourself, “Finally, one of these guys will not get paid for screwing up!”
Well, not everyone is in agreement with you. Greg Donaldson, chairman of Donaldson Capital Management in Evansville, Ind., responded to the news of Lewis’ not being paid his salary for 2009, by saying, “[i]t’s punitive and it’s mean-spirited, and it’s an attitude that will send shivers through every person who does business with the government or is regulated by the government.”
After a comment like Mr. Donaldson’s, I just hope bankers never have the audacity to come asking for an umbrella from the U.S. taxpayers one more time. It will be a cold day in Hell when we ever quietly acquiesce to our government bailing them out again.
Bank of America Execs Still Duckin’ and Dodging Responsibility
Posted by Lance Haley in Bailouts, Business and Money, Capitalism, Economics, Financial Crisis, How and Why We Get Screwed, Legal & Justice, Wall Street, Wealth Disparity & the Ultra Rich on September 30th, 2009
![Shawshank Redemption Prison yard [my lawyer fucked me]](http://screwedus.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/Shawshank-Redemption-Prison-yard-my-lawyer-fucked-me-300x211.jpg "Shawshank Redemption Prison yard [my lawyer fucked me]")
“What’ch you in here for?”
“Armed Robbery.”
“Guilty?”
“Nope. My lawyer fucked me.”
- from The Shawshank Redemption
Buried in the news this past week was a compelling story that personifies the degree to which the men and women of Wall Street and the financial world continue to evade responsibility for the personal destruction of trillions of dollars worth of shareholders wealth, all the while continuing to collect millions of dollars in compensation as they simultaneously took bailouts from American taxpayers, and avoid prosecution for their criminally fraudulent behavior.
“There is no individual liability in this case; there is no evidence that any individual is culpable.”
- Bank of America’s statement in a federal court filing
A U.S. District Court Judge thinks otherwise.
When Bank of America (BoA) was in the process of acquiring Merrill Lynch after the financial meltdown late last year, it intentionally failed to disclose to it’s shareholders that millions of dollars in executive bonuses where being paid to Merrill Lynch executives. When BoA tried to settle it’s litigation with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) for $33 million this week over it’s corporate malfeasance, guess who they blamed?
Their lawyers!
The federal judge overseeing the case viewed all of this with a healthy degree of skepticism, and questioned why the SEC was NOT prosecuting even one of the BoA executives for it’s failure to disclose this bonus payout arrangement to it’s shareholders, intimating that someone is responsible for leaving that important piece of information out of an SEC document regarding financial disclosures. BoA executives say they authorized the filing of the disclosure upon the advice of staff and outside counsel, and that it was the lawyers that prepared the document. The judge rejected the settlement and decided that all BoA had to do was waive attorney-client privilege – - presumably so that an inquiry could be made to determine who advised BoA to file the document, what did the executives know (or should have known).
Now BoA is defiantly refusing to waive attorney-client privilege. Why?
Sounds like their lawyers not only screwed BoA, they all now likely screwed themselves and one another.
Oh damn, that pesky law of unintended consequences even applies to “really smart people”.