Judge Rejects Settlement Over Merrill Bonuses

Judge Rejects Settlement Over Merrill Bonuses

www.nytimes.com

The ruling directed both the agency and the bank to prepare for a possible trial that would begin no later than Feb. 1. The case involved $3.6 billion in bonuses that were paid by Merrill Lynch late last year, ...

The judge focused much of his criticism on the fact that the fine in the case would be paid by the bank’s shareholders, who were the ones that were supposed to have been injured by the lack of disclosure.

(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
online.wsj.com

If Obama is going to prove he is a real man of the public, he will get rid of everyone in the SEC who supported this settlement. Clearly it is time to clean house in the SEC. Individual executives found guilty should see fines on there personal fortunes large enough to bankrupt them.

People who support corporations buying control of government are communist, because when the people who control business are the same people who control government, then government the means of production become one and the same.

That is all this free market con job is, a new form of communism.



www.nytimes.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

Here is what the other article on this situation has to say.

'Oscar Wilde once famously said that a cynic is someone 'who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing,'" wrote federal Judge Jed Rakoff yesterday in a scathing order rejecting a $33 million settlement between Bank of America and the SEC. Credit the judge with highlighting the particular political cynicism that drives too many of today's regulators.

The SEC alleged earlier this year that BofA had "materially lied" in shareholder communications prior to its takeover of Merrill Lynch, by failing to disclose bonuses owed to Merrill employees. New SEC chief Mary Schapiro figured she'd play off public outrage with a civil lawsuit that would earn some headlines. BofA in August settled for $33 million, neither admitting nor denying guilt.

Judge Rakoff was having none of it. In a 12-page opinion, he tore into the SEC for ignoring its own guidelines and penalizing shareholders rather than the individuals who supposedly acted improperly.

He noted that this decision might have been "made even easier" for BofA given "the U.S. Government provided [it] with a $40 billion or so 'bailout.'" What was a "mere $33 million . . . to get rid of a lawsuit?"

I am glad the author of this article made this last point, because I think that is really tees most people off about this whacked out situation.

And this is from the Wall Street Journal, not exactly a bastion of liberalism.

I am surprised I haven't seen any threads on this story because I have looked.

This case makes it extremely clear that congress needs to start reinstating some rules, and closing up loop holes in the laws, and if the repubs don't want to go along, then the heck with em.

This is the result of Newt Gingrich's contract on America, with the deregulation of the banks. Regulations have a purpose, and that purpose is to prevent fraud.

This is the result of Newt Gingrich's contract on America, with the deregulation of the banks. Regulations have a purpose, and that purpose is to prevent fraud.

Deregulation isn't the problem IMO. You could have all the regulations in the world and it wouldn't mean a thing without OVERSIGHT.

People looked the other way while all of this went on and are still turning their head as it continues.


Judge of the Year award goes to this judge.

BTW can't read story because I have to be a registered member.

Hm, that is interesting, I got the story off of google news, and the link now requires someone to log in.

Now there is something clearly wrong with this.

I figured that since this story is a few day old, they would be happy with the attention.

Edit due to late night posting.

[edit on 16-9-2009 by poet1b]