This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Next Chapter In Rakoff - BofA - SEC Love Triangle Gets Interesting; Cuomo's Arrival Adds Another Vertex
With Judge Rakoff's deadline for responses by the SEC and BofA on why the firms invoked a labyrinthine attorney-client privilege instead of explaining outright who the culpable parties were, about to pass, the two firms did not disappoint and both filed their relevant filings with Southern NY District Court (BofA response here, SEC response here).
The first and most blatantly amusing tidbit is the SEC's claim that the penalty sought indirectly from US taxpayers to fund its operations is fair and equitable:
As in all enforcement actions involving public companies, the Commission strives to achieve an appropriate balance between the need for deterrence and the desire to avoid harming innocent shareholders [TD: or in this case presumably involuntary TARP funders, aka, taxpayers]. The proposed $33 million penalty in this case strikes that balance. The penalty will have a meaningful deterrent effect on a corporation's future use of nonpublic documents to negate or qualify express disclosures that they make to investors. And it will achieve that effect without excessively burdening the shareholders of Bank of America.
Not even sure which sentence in the foregoing is the most asthma attack inducing, although the summary message that taxpayers are on the hook to pay up and make sure that Ken Lewis presumably does not go to prison, resounds loud and clear with anyone who would care to read the SEC's flagrant abuse of its "regulatory" approach.
Even more hilarious is BofA's retort, in which the firm mindbogglingly continues to plead for its innocence:
While the civil penalty agreed to in this settlement was indeed large – especially given the lack of merit of the SEC’s case – the settlement would not unfairly harm innocent shareholders and was determined by Bank of America for the reasons stated to be preferable to litigating the case.
For a firm so concerned about its "innocent" shareholders, BofA sure had no qualms about misleading them all, about $4 billion in undisclosed bonus payments to be received by the same captains of industry that bankrupted Merrill Lynch. As for the "SEC's lack of merit", hopefully Rakoff has half a brain to read between the lies in this doubly complicit game where nobody wants to point any fingers, and have taxpayers eat the penalty, so that no member of the executive committee ends up going in prison for securities fraud.
Yet where it gets most interesting is the core matter of the attorney-client privilege, which was the primary reason for Rakoff's order on August 25. Let's recall what the Judge said about the issue:
"This
is puzzling. If the responsible officers of Bank of America, in sworn
testimony to the SEC, all stated that "they relied entirely on
counsel," this would seem to be either a flat waiver of privilege or,
if privilege is maintained, then entitled to no weight whatever, since the statement cannot be tested.
In asserting that no waiver occurred, the SEC cites just one case, John
Does Co. v. United States[,] which, on first reading at least seems hardly to support such a broad assertion applicable to the fact here."
Here is the SEC's retort:
Bank of America repeatedly has asserted the attorney-client privilege with respect to the production of documents and in regard to testimony or interview of witnesses in the course of the staff's investigation. Bank of America has consistently declined to waive the privilege... The Commission cannot compel a party to waive the privilege if it declines to do so, nor does the Commission believe it has a sound legal basis here to seek a court order to compel a waiver. Under applicable Second Circuit precedent, the assertion by a party in an investigative setting that they have relied on counsel, or that they may have a defense based on such reliance, generally does not constitute a waiver of the attorney-client privilege.
Bank Of America elaborates on this "pass the potato" game, which persists in identifying not one relevant party:
In the August 25 Order, the Court also asked whether Bank of America had waived the attorney-client privilege by allegedly asserting that it relied on counsel. The answer is indisputably no for at least three reasons. First, no Bank of America or Merrill Lynch witnesses told the SEC that they relied on the advice of counsel with respect to the matter at issue here. At most, when asked, Bank of America and Merrill Lynch witnesses answered that they delegated to counsel the responsibility for preparing the Proxy Statement, including the section at issue here. Second, no Bank of America or Merrill Lynch witnesses revealed the content of any confidential communication with counsel. Third, neither Bank of America nor Merrill Lynch has ever invoked reliance on advice of counsel as a defense to a claim by the SEC in litigation.
So if BofA/Merrill expressly told the SEC they had never relied on counsel, why is the SEC making such a sticking point out the issue, and why is the attorney-client privilege being invoked in the first place? The relevant point is that none of these "defenses" have any pertinence to Rakoff's angry outbursts:
If the SEC is right in this assertion, it
would seem that all a corporate officer who has produced a false proxy
statement need offer by way of defense is that he or she relied on
counsel, and, if the company does not waive the privilege, the
assertion will never be tested, and the culpability of both the
corporate officer and the company counsel will remain beyond scrutiny.
This seems so at
war with common sense that the Court will need to be shown more than a
single, distinguishable case to be convinced that it is, indeed, the
law. It also leaves open the question of whether, if it was
actually the lawyers who made the decisions that resulted in a false
proxy statement, they should be held legally responsible.
Alas, to Rakoff's chagrin, the SEC holds firm in its assumption that this is purely a John Doe case law matter:
The Commission believes that John Doe Co. v. United States, 350 F. 3d 299 (2d Cir. 2003) is controlling here... Accordingly, when a party refuses to waive the attorney-client privilege, as Bank of America has done here, the Commission will give no weight to a possible advice of counsel defense in assessing the merits of the case or in making any particular charging decision... For the reasons set forth above, the Commission does not believe that the evidentiary record here supported individual charges or other charges against Bank Of America under the applicable legal standards, but that record firmly supports the proxy violation charged in the Commission's complaint.
Let us paraphrase what a possible scenario may have been: way back when, the two stooges Hank and Ben, told Ken to do what he has to do or else. He proceeded to do so, afraid for his job and forfeiture of massive accrued comp. Subsequently a likely exchange occurred under which Ken was essentially given promises that no matter what, there would never be any legal actions taken against him, and that Mary would likely be "briefed" on this. As the events have ultimately come to a head, the "privilege" is the sticking point in preventing Ken or anyone else from becoming a fall guy. However, the risk here is that neither the BofA nor the SEC response go so far as the provide evidentiary materials which go to assuaging Rakoff's concerns. And all this even before Andrew Cuomo got involved. Therefore, the next move by Rakoff will be very critical, as will the disclosure received by Cuomo which has a September 15th deadline. If it is basically the same two weak pieces of drivel that were submitted in SNY District Court, one should now start the over under on how many years of jailtime certain BofA executive committee members could be looking at.
»
- 5679 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
did we ever get the court ordered Bloomberg, "disclosure" on the banks ...where the hell is that?
Fed has until 9-30-09 to respond.
who cares ZH ? Market keeps ignoring all the facts and figures. Am numb now.
I only read the first 4 paragraphs, but must say that the legal talent is rather lacking.
EDIT: I would add that Lorne Michaels made a serious mistake by not recruiting SEC personnel for his comedy writing team at SNL.
This was never supposed to require any legal talent because all parties involved were supposed to simply rubber stamp their approval.
The judge is obviously the joker in the deck because he isn't playing ball and the other players aren't going to be very happy if he continues to actually insist on seeing justice prevail.
"The judge is obviously the joker in the deck because he isn't playing ball and the other players aren't going to be very happy if he continues to actually insist on seeing justice prevail."
well said. My bet is that Rakoff will be a bit pissed.
This is one of those situations where the bell just can't be unrung, notwithstanding Cuomo's recent involvement, which will likely make this a big gongfest.
I can't wait to see Judge Rakoff's reaction to this.
Are you kidding. Rakoff is going to be bouncing off the walls. B of A lawyers are total idiots and insult the intelligence of the Judge. From B of A Reply Memorandum:
"...Bank of America determined that the $33 million penalty – while at the high end of the range – was not unacceptable."
(my emphasis).
I'm dreaming that Rakoff issues contempt of court charges against both parties, and that Ken Lewis and Mary Shapiro have to share a cell in a Bronx borough detention facility until a viable penalty is assessed.
I know... it's just a dream.
I don't care what it is as long as he keeps breathing...
An interesting observation. Despite the fact the obviously zh generates revenue from BAC(the ad on top of the page),that doesn't prevent it from presenting an unbiased coverage for the still going saga of the aforementioned company. Now compare that to other media (propaganda) mediums.
Couple of questions for someone who knows something about legal procedure:
Could the judge hold both parties in contempt for failure to comply with his information requests and merely restating their previous arguments?
Could we see a possible piercing of the corporate veil if officers of B of A are directly implicated?
What, if anything, can the judge do to seek more severe penalties than what is sought by the plaintiff?
"Could the judge hold both parties in contempt for failure to comply with his information requests and merely restating their previous arguments?"
Exactly my thoughts while reading their giberish responses. This would make the case and resulting penalties stronger. No person with any common sense would consider these letters as actually addressing any of his information requests. From Rakoff's prior statement of this whole case being at war with common sense, I am hopeful. Of course this hope is under the assumption that nothing bad happens to the judge and no intervention from above in the name of national security or something ridiculous like that. They're already trying to go back to their racketeering methods as their next statement will surely mention the US taxpayer as a major shareholder, and how they're doing the nation a favor by not spending it's money on a larger settlement, but instead on the much more noble cause of bonuses.
i assure you that nothing will come of this....
bernanke owns this situation and geithner will
make it go away....
bernanke does not own the usa federal court system...no way, no how.
i didn't say that he did own it....i only said
that he owns the situation - the merger was his
project to get done....now he has to clean up
after the mess and he will see to it that
any major fallout is minimized....
the federal courts have a 99.3% conviction
rate - that means that outcomes are determined
in advance or a huge amount collusion obtains
desired ends...
the point is that the courts are compromised....
the same people who own bernanke own the courts....
whatever ruckus ensues will get smoothed over...
i certainly hope that i am wrong but the historical
data and power alignments are not encouraging...
bernanke was not reappointed without reason...
i didn't say that he did own it....i only said
that he owns the situation - the merger was his
project to get done....now he has to clean up
after the mess and he will see to it that
any major fallout is minimized....
Thank you for your clarification; I understand now what your point is.
It seems odd that the SEC is the best player on the BofA team.
Odd? What show have you been watching these last few months/years? The only odd part is that BofA had been sanctioned in the first place, but that was only due to the extremely visible nature of the wrongdoing, and the political/populist pressure involved.
The SEC are a bunch of illiterates and BoA is not far behind.
To call them illiterates is to give them a pass. This is corruption thru and thru.
Much like the disappearing or "lost" December 2008 loss reports for GS and MS. They were allowed to shuck and jive there way into omitting Billions in losses for that months by simply changing their fiscal year reporting from JAN-DEC to something more accomodating. "How convenient !" said the church lady.
way off topic but then again we are so far down the rabbit hole -- @ProjectMayhem, seems that Alex is creeping into the mainstream with his Hollywood pals - talk about brilliant PR - now if only an 'A lister'(other than Michael Moore) would request a meeting with the President on everything bankster.
http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS252554+08-Sep-2009+PRN20...
we need joker posters of Lloyd (actually forget the joker makeup, a straight photo would do)
Awe SNAP, in Reuters no less. Go Charlie, I can handle the truth.
OMG I just number 3'd in my pants. I've been waiting a full year for perp walks. The people want frog marches!!
#64012 - veil piercing is extremely unlikely. Not to mention shareholders (the government) would just pay for that anyway, that's what D&O policies are for.
The ultimate four-letter word among the elite:
ACCOUNTABILITY
Of course, the White House recently got away with torture based on the same attorney/client argument.
Why shouldn't BofA try it? Heck, a big bank is more powerful than the White House.
ZH referenced on dShort
http://dshort.com/articles/2009/gaming-the-market-with-five-financial-st...
That was great... dshort is a reliable source also... and by the way who put the smile on your face today :-)
For the umpteenth time, can someone remind me who appointed Mary Shapiro head of the SEC. Pretty hard to make any headway in these things when your commander-in-chief is a bought and paid for bankster tool.
that should be bought and paid for bankster stool -
as in piece of shit....
but then again most cia agents are...
Absolutely, and what the hell happened to all that campaign contribution reform? What I'd really like to see happening, though of course it will not, is for everyone's campaign funds to be listed on the ballot. They can put them in the space that currently has their name, as that is a lot more important than who it is behind the money. All they'll ever do is go with the money anyway. I just want to vote for the smallest number, we'd be back to having a great country if we could do that.
LOL - that'd never work as you wouldn't be able to tell them apart - would be identical lists at least for the 2 "main" parties.
Sure Tar...
It's the one with the brown smelly arm who's lap she's sitting on...
this is a travesty of justice that even I can understand.
I cannot imagine what would happen if joe six-pack ever got his arms around what is going on.
someone needs to make a you-tube video splainin' all this to the common folk.
I wonder if Beck will do a nice story on this and then show the you-tube video of the woman who decided not to pay her credit card bills.
Her "infraction" pales in comparison to infractions the crooks running the institutions are guilty of.
tyler, disappointed, missed oppurtunity to use Bizarre Love Triangle.
good point lizzy. then again, you know he is just saving that "bidetesque" in his back pocket for a real doozy....
Let's recap:
1. BofA accepts Merrill (and an undisclosed sum of cash from the government) without disclosing the $4B dollar bonus deal.
2. The bonus deal becomes public after-the-fact.
3. Shareholders feel boned.
4. SEC slaps BofA's hand (BofA does not admit guilt).
5. The whole world sees the fraud.
6. Justice (the third element in a checks and balances goverment) tries to get the players to come clean.
7. Players thumb noses at justice implying someone goofed but they ain't telling.
8. Life goes on.
9. Market ramps.
10. Have a nice day.
we're only at #7.
LOL... a lot can happen between 7 and 10...
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
A heck of a lot... that ever happen to anyone else... or just me?
Sorry guys... I'll try not to do whatever that was that I did again.
haha. More than forgiven. Happens to almost all of us.
Like #8. The bonusee's pass the hat around and the judge finds a way to de-escalate the situation.
Clearly the judge is going for a bigger shakedown than what was on the table.
Justice may be blind but it isn't cheap!
Madoff ?... Rakoff ?... isn't anyone but ME paying attention to these names ?????
I did that the other night too... my theory is that when your wireless internet slows down briefly just as you hit Save... so it looks like nothing happened... so you hit it again and again... and voila! Its a real problem to have to go back and change all those though ;-)
And yes I see a theme on the names... but then my mind got distracted by imagining what all of these avatars would look like wandering around in a virtual ZH world...
No this site acts like other sites when google is stomping all over them trying to index it. So I think because of the explosive growth it gets priortized on googles algorythms and gets the crap indexed out of it. I've put a post in here and then searched a keyword and it's IMMEDIATELY popped up on google.
No shit?
But but but... I only pushed the button once and it machine gunned. Each iteration had like one extra word... it was weird.
I felt soooo embarassed for sharting on his fine article. And I love Rakoff... just don't want to give him any wiggle-room.
But thanks for trying to cover for me Minnie!
If Judge Rakoff, after careful and through consideration and review of the information provided by B of A and the SEC decided that this is simply a matter of #7, I would be surprised indeed.
Judge Rakoff has made it abundantly clear that he was insisting on better case law and a more plausible explanation from the two parties before his bench. Not only did they fail miserably in this regard, they both are essentially telling the Judge to fuck off, be a good little punk and get with the program.
Most times I would just say that the court will find a way to flush this into oblivion, (be a good little punk). Some how I just do not think that option is in the cards this time. Either Judge Rakoff will issue an order compelling disclosure (minimus or maximus) which can be debated through several more filings or he just might tell the parties to fuck off right back. I cannot but help thinking that Judge Rakoff was explicitly saying that there are billions in loses to shareholders and that privilege had, in essence, been waived. (I would love to see Judge Rakoff get a case of approaching this like a criminal case as far as the two sets of counsel before him are concerned rather than the usual federal approach exemplified by the SEC in this matter of kid gloves and warm rounds of booze, hookers and golf).
The fact of the matter is that the federal bench, collectively, has brought this condition upon itself through its failure to maintain respect for their status through their willful subordination of justice throughout the whole of the federal judiciary, almost without exception. Judge Rakoff can and most likely will throw the book, bench and building at these two clowns. The fact remains that we will have to wait and see if this turns out to be an isolated instance of one judge losing it or this is a harbinger of things to come.
Regardless, I have decided that the situation is worth the expenditure of a bowl of popcorn.
elegant summary layne. i think you are correct that Judge Rakoff will be pissed by the absolute bullshit that both parties came back with. how long do you think it will take for him to respond?
better get additional popcorn brother because andrew cuomo is not likely to back down. bac's "spurious" strategy by their attorneys was pretty foolish with a NY AG, particularly as it was picked up immediately in the NYT, wsj, b'berg etc. Not a good idea to start your response to the possibility of criminal charges being filed by someone like Cuomo with a very public "fuck you". There is a long culture in the NY AG's office and bac's attorneys just got them riled. not to mention that cuomo will be running for governor.
and, if bac's brilliant counsel thinks that the "spurious" cuomo attack is going to garner public empathy and support........sorry, i started laughing too hard at my own words!
how long do you think it will take for him to respond?
We will know quite a bit by the answer to this question DH. I suspect that Judge Rakoff has a number of papers titled "friend of the Court" with respect to this case from folks like the NY, CT MA State Attroney General Office. I would also suspect that a number of public pension funds have contributed their 2c as well. Then there is the potential that Judge Rakoff will determine that the federal government is incapable of conducting a proper investigation of the events at hand due to the actions and decision cycle at the SEC. So, the Judge may well do a fairly wide ranging request for information to see what bounces back with the follow on concerning disclosure being limited to law enforcement agencies, to assist the various friends of the court in using the tools of justice to attempt to ascertain the facts since the federal government is unwilling or unable to do so as evidenced by their filing. The information flow will slow play until there is a hearing to discuss the combining of requests and cases in one venue. Unless of course Judge Rakoff just decides to drop the hammer which I think is what BA and SEC are attempting to get him to do. However, I do not think it will play that way.
The same holds true with respect of Cuomo. The lawyers are saying quite a bit by working this particular angle. Again, I think Cuomo will slow play this until the situation develops when either he or Judge Rakoff tie them off completely. For some reason or other things are not going as usual and to pursue this course requires competence in methods and objectives or the game would not be getting played.
Regardless, I join you in laughing my ass off at how the lawyers for BA and the SEC do their very best to come at them the same old way so they can be slaughtered in the same old way. History repeats once more.
thanks very much for the insight as to the potentialities involved. I was not aware of the possibility of the Judge determining investigative incapability and casting a net out for more info....fascinating.
BTW, if reading this and many other sites is any indication the TBTF corporatist have lost the discussion with those within society that were amenable to the argument due to their conduct. A big cornerstone of this segment of the population is acceptance of personal responsibility and in this measure the folks before the bench in this case haven't any sense of the concept.
Many of you keep expecting the apocalypse based on innuendo, lack of market participants, and the increase in prices of commodities. You have to understand that "Green Shoots" or "Obama's Call" of the bottom HAS materialized and YOU have lost. You can take pictures of hapless individuals at WMT and say this is America, but you refuse to leave your house and see middle America, in all of it's glory at TGT or Nordstrom's, Neimann Marcus etc. The world is a beautful place if you peek your head out the window. Green Shoots will not allow this thing to collapse and our creditors have no incentive of seeing the game come undone either. The full faith and credit of the U$ is backed by the greatest military the world has ever seen.
No, the full faith and credit of the U$ is backed by a full range of nuclear warheads that can be delivered rather easily by the greatest military the world has ever seen, along with the cajones to use them.
So far, only country to use nuclear weapons in a war of aggression.
Actually, they lack the cajones to use them. Why else would the US be playing games with Iran and N. Korea? If they want to develop nukes, the US can afford to send a few over.
well take a drive through the rust belt or any other place devastated by our glorious bansters and the "leaders" of corporate amerika, at least the soviet union had functional public transportation more than i can say for this country
You forgot to sign in again Phil
""Obama's Call" of the bottom HAS materialized and YOU have lost. "
Phil (or whomever)....that bottom of March was 6 months ago. take a look at a chart from 1929 through 1932 for starters.
I hope this judge doesn't meet with an "unfortunate" accident.
I had the same thought.
It depends if he is going for the truth or trying to become a most favoured member of the new (old) order.
I see another "green shoot" coming....Think there'll be an uptick in the construction sector for enlarging the prison cells....;>)
Anon 64122, Denial of reality /= reality. As C.B. would no doubt say much better than I, the Truth exists independently of any and all spin.
nice update on b'berg front page about this story from the Cuomo angle...BAC's attorneys suggest Cuomo's allegations are "spurious".....
isn't a "spurious" one of those european things that squirts water on your ass?
That's how I got my knickers in a bunch!
I expect the argument to come around to the "it's a fabrication" line any time now.
If you read the BofA document it does set forth a convincing argument that the proxy was not misleading and it was widely reported ML was planning to pay incentive compensation at year-end. I know people are all excited about bonuses paid to Wall Street and want to do something to vent their rage. They had very little of substance to do with the AIG bonuses. With the ML bonuses, people are trying to create drama out of the proxy in hopes of getting some sort of revenge for all these bonuses. Unfortunately, there is no case here. BofA knows it. The SEC knows it. Rakoff is about to capitulate. And Cuomo will realize he has better things to do.
Goldman must be laughing their asses off while they print money via their HFT operations while the public is distracted by this sideshow.
materially adverse change.
in addition to the bonuses, what about those 9+ billion in ml losses....
sorry pal, but the fact is that bac shareholders got boned and the ceo did not disclose information that should have been. fwiw, i did not own and do not own any bac shares or ml shares.
Year end bonus structure is January of the following year.
D for effort. Surely someone of such education and collection of asteaming titles can come up with something better, can't you? Or is this Gerber all you can come up with?
I certainly hope that GS is busy laughing right now... That will make what's coming their way even better when it arrives.
Wow, you actually posted that under your name.
from Denninger...BofA Debtors revolt begins:
http://market-ticker.denninger.net/archives/1419-And-So-It-Begins-Debtor...
from Denninger [BofA] Debtor Revolt BeginsNow:
http://market-ticker.denninger.net/archives/1419-And-So-It-Begins-Debtors-Revolt.html
This has legs. BofA's position about the attorney-client privilege would make it impossible to try securities law cases, since every securities filing is made "with advice of counsel." At some point, advice of counsel or not, the issuer and its officers need to decide if a fact is material and adverse and needs to be disclosed. The lawyer can only supply the law. The decision to disclose or not to disclose is not made by the lawyer (or, as the Judge has noted/threatened, surprise surprise, maybe in this case it WAS made by the lawyer, who has essentially stepped into the role of the person responsible for making the key decision.) This decision of necessity exists outside the "Cone of Silence", so Rakoff is right in asking, "who made the call?" I assume the officers signed the securities filing would be prima facie accountable and cannot shed their liability. If their lawyer's advice was bad, well they have a malpractice action they can file from prison, but it does not affect their personal liability. This will cause heads to roll, and voices to sing in sweet, sweet harmony to Mr. Cuomo as he asks " ...and who instructed you to do this?" Finally, when the buck stops at Ken, will he dime out Paulson, et al to avoid hard time?
Now, they could plead the 5th and things would be a lot clearer.
Hank - better wear clean underwear - the cops can show up anytime.
NY Times has an article about the former general counsel who was let go....worth a read.
edit: here's the link http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/09/business/09bank.html?_r=1&ref=business
{Mr. Mayopoulos is now the general counsel of Fannie Mae. In a Feb. 2 recommendation letter provided by his lawyer, Ed Hinson, the bank said he had served “with distinction throughout his tenure with the company.”
“The amazing thing about a guy like him is however he’s treated, he’ll do his duty,” Mr. Hinson said. “He’s not going to reveal confidential information.”}
well, his landing was pre-arranged.
and, of course, as any gangsta knows, snitching is bad karma.
this would be a dream outcome but i'm thomas from
missouri....doubting until i see evidence....
September 15th is a major cycle confluence date (i.e. a bunch of cycles flip on that day)
It's usually right about now that someone dies in a tragic accident. I'm just sayin...
i don't think that the clintons are involved
in this - yet....
You mean like Enron?
J. Clifford Baxter - shot in head "suicide"
Charles Dana Rice - shot in head "suicide"
James Daniel Watkins - shot in head "suicide"
Jake Horton - jet exploded on takeoff "accident"
was baxter shot in the head with a rifle suicide?
Speaking of Love Triangles (I love to stay on topic here). This is what's wrong with our government. A Conservative (i.e. hypocrite)politician from Cali, cheats on his wife. This pig has 2 girlfriends. Oops, that's not a triangle. Anyway, one of them is a lobbyist. WTF ?
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-duvall10-2009sep10,0,2300584.story
the only good thing that can be said about it is
that at least it wasn't one of those male pedophilia
trysts involving larry king, craig spence,
barney frank, daddy bush, baby bush, and jack kemp...
this larry king is not the cnn talk show host..
for those not familar with the franklin savings
and loan scandal from the late 80s in omaha a
search on that will bring up a lot of sickening
and gut wrenching material....it is a pedophilia
sex ring going all the way to the white house...
massive amounts of pornography were taken from
the savings and loan - much of incriminating
high ranking political figures....
very credible names were invovled in its investigation
and court cases....
tie-ins to keating five, major omaha civic leaders,
national republican politics and a nice connection with
barney frank....
I really wish I knew something about law. But I am not going to let that stop me.
It would seem to me that if the AG of NY backed the SEC into a corner, then the AG of the US would become involved in the case. Thus, removing the SEC from any communication with the judge.
Just read the SEC's reply in its entirety.
I want to set something on fire.
So BofA 'forgets' to mention a transaction of $5.8 billion to their shareholders (which certainly counts as misleading them), yet the SEC believes a penalty of a paltry $33 million is going to teach them a lesson? So give the SEC some pocket change and promise you'll never ever forget these things ever again, pinky swear, and you're off the hook?
I should stop reading this stuff and take up a healthier hobby...like alcoholism.
As I would never think that our judges or govt officials could ever be paid off, you have to always look whose got the most to lose to see which way the money's flowing to determine who's losing and winning in every situation, the sad state of affairs.
Good way to put it... and it is quite sad...
well...when the plaintiff has the most to lose
the judge gets the money...when defendant has the
most to lose then the judge gets the money...