Cited: Reuters
Even though Bank of America Corp. won its lawsuit with the United States Security and Exchange Commission over a merger with Merrill Lynch, the judge called it a “half-baked baked settlement of $150 million. This ended an embarrassing public battle between the largest US bank in the nation’s top securities regulator
Deals
U.S. District Judge Jed Rakoff nevertheless called the settlement “half-baked justice at best,” and in criticizing it may have given new ammunition to the many lawsuits over the merger, including litigation by New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo.
Rakoff said it was clear that the bank had failed prior to a shareholder vote on the merger to adequately disclose the scope of Merrill’s “historically great” losses, and that it had authorized Merrill to pay as much as $5.8 billion of bonuses.
“Despite the bank’s somewhat coy refusal to concede the materiality of these nondisclosures, it seems obvious that a prudent bank shareholder, if informed of the aforementioned facts, would have thought twice about approving the merger or might have sought its renegotiation,” he said.
The judge nevertheless said the law required him to give “substantial deference” to the SEC in approving the accord.
Bank of America spokesman Bob Stickler said the bank was “very pleased” that Rakoff accepted the settlement. The SEC and Cuomo’s office had no immediate comment.
The settlement ends two SEC lawsuits alleging that Bank of America misled shareholders about the bonus payouts, which ultimately totaled $3.6 billion, and Merrill’s losses, which reached $15.8 billion in the fourth quarter of 2008.
Do you need to file a lawsuit to get wood is do you? This group of Denver civil law attorneys works on the philosophy of aggressive, ethical representation and is committed to innovative and creative solutions for each and every client. They are an experienced team of legal professionals and understand the needs and concerns of their clients. That means if you need a personal injury attorney Vail CO, one is available to you when you need one.
“DAMNING” RULING FOR BANK
Had Rakoff rejected the settlement, a trial over the bonuses would have begun on March 1.
The judge in September rejected a $33 million accord over the bonuses, faulting the SEC for accepting a lenient penalty that failed to hold individuals responsible.
“Bank of America might have won a settlement, but in the big picture, it lost,” said Elizabeth Nowicki, a visiting professor at Boston University School of Law.
“Judge Rakoff’s acceptance of the settlement is actually as damning as his rejection would have been,” she went on. “Shareholders in other lawsuits will have guidance on how best to go forward, and will have encouragement from how poorly a jurist viewed the actions of Bank of America executives.”
Among the lawsuits is a shareholder class-action case in Manhattan federal court, led by Ohio Attorney General Richard Cordray. His office was not immediately available for comment.
Rakoff’s approval requires both sides to file by February 25 a revised settlement reflecting some changes they had accepted.
Bank of America’s shares rose 28 cents, or 1.8%, to $16.16 in afternoon trading on the New York Stock Exchange.
DEFERENCE
The judge said he accepted the settlement despite its “very modest punitive, compensatory, and remedial measures that are neither directed at the specific individuals responsible for the nondisclosures nor appear likely to have more than a very modest impact on corporate practices or victim compensation.
“While better than nothing,” Rakoff went on, “this is half-baked justice at best.”
Rakoff particularly faulted the $150 million fine, which he called “modest” and said “penalizes the shareholders for what was, in effect if not in intent, a fraud by management on the shareholders.”
The judge also accepted the settlement though Charlotte, North Carolina-based Bank of America rejected his proposal to let the SEC and the court help choose a pay consultant.
Rakoff nevertheless said that it is not judges’ role to “impose their own preferences,” and that he would exercise “self-restraint” in declining to block the settlement. The judge was appointed to the bench by President Bill Clinton.
YOGI BERRA
Cuomo on February 4 sued the bank, its former chief executive, Kenneth Lewis, and its former chief financial officer, Joe Price, who now oversees consumer and small business banking.
That lawsuit sets forth a significantly different set of facts, including that the bank in mid-December 2008 used an “empty threat” of backing out of the merger as leverage to get taxpayer aid from the government.
Bank of America has said the government essentially forced it to close the merger. It ultimately received $20 billion of federal bailout money, which it has since repaid.
Cuomo also called into question the facts behind the decision to fire general counsel Tim Mayopoulos, just as the bank’s worry over Merrill’s losses was morphing into alarm.
The SEC accepted the bank’s argument that Mayopoulos was let go to keep Brian Moynihan, who was being displaced as corporate and investment banking chief, from leaving the company. Moynihan is now the bank’s chief executive.
Rakoff said he had not determined who was right, but said there was “substantial evidence” to support the SEC’s view.
“Given the somewhat tortured background of these cases and the difficulties the motion presents,” Rakoff wrote, “the court is tempted to quote the great American philosopher Yogi Berra: ‘I wish I had an answer to that because I’m getting tired of answering that question.’”
The judge used a comment by a Hall of Fame baseball player, which has been used by many non-baseball people when making his final statement about the case.
If you wish to obtain more information about these cases, they are SEC v. Bank of America Corp, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, Nos. 09-06829 and 10-00215.
——————————————————-
My Take: I think my question would be if they needed $20 billion bailout money why were they trying to get a merger with the company that had massive losses? I think it’s great that B of A has paid back that $20 billion, but why did they want to merge with a company that was losing money?
It sounds to me like the company was getting ready to hire some bankruptcy attorneys or North Carolina bankruptcy attorneys. I guess Merrill Lynch found a way out of it, the merger. However, I think the judge could have come up with a better decision. To me, it seems like the shareholders lost out on the deal.
———————————————————
Other Resources
Quality Born of Experience
If you or a loved one have been caught up in the legal system and need an experienced lawyer and require the help from a solid Manasquan NJ criminal defense lawyer, there is one who has the experience of more than 20 years as a successful criminal defense lawyer and is ready to offer you the one-on-one supportive representation you deserve. You can get the same Monmouth County drug crimes lawyer if your charges are drug-related.
Article Rating: