Judge Won't Approve Bank Of America, SEC Settlement.

[elleng]

Source: Reuters/NYTimes

A U.S. federal judge has refused to approve Monday's settlement between the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and Bank of America Corp <BAC.N> related to the acquisition of Merrill Lynch & Co.


Read more: http://nytimes.com/reuters/2009/08/06/business/business-us-bankofamerica-sec.html

[DeSwiss]

1. Oh! This is delish!

And http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jed_S._Rakoff">Judge Rakoff is one of the Big Dawg's boys!!!!

He says:

""Despite the public importance of this case, the proposed consent judgment would leave uncertain the truth of the very serious allegations made in the complaint," Rakoff wrote in his two-page order. "The proposed consent judgment in no way specifies the basis for the $33 million figure or whether any of this money is derived directly or indirectly from the $20 billion in public funds previously advanced to Bank of America as part of its 'bailout,'" the judge added.

- This will definitely bear watching.....

K&R

[The Backlash Cometh]

4. Finally! A judge that gets it!

[BumRushDaShow]

2. Kick!

K&R

:kick:

[nradisic]

3. Whack 'em...

No there's a judge that is thinking....makes perfect sense.

[dipsydoodle]

5. A Judge May Kill Bank Of America (BAC) Settlement With SEC

Source: 24/7 wall Street

Almost the entire fight to save the American financial system and punish those responsible for it has gone on in the executive and legislative branches. The third leg of the government, the judicial branch, has been silent.

The courts asserted themselves today as a judge rejected the $33 million settlement between Bank of America (BAC) and the SEC. The bank was accused of not properly disclosing when and why Merrill Lynch employees were paid bonuses as Bank of America bought the brokerage.

Several media reports about the judge’s decision say that he stated two major concerns. The first is that he fears that the judgment penalty may be paid out of money that the federal government advanced the bank. The other is that the agreement with the SEC “would leave uncertain the truth of the very serious allegations made in the complaint.”

Put another way, the SEC deal with Bank of America is a bit of a cover-up.

Read more: http://247wallst.com/2009/08/06/a-judge-may-kill-bank-of-america-bac-settlement-with-sec/

---

I picked this up on TV news here in the UK. Above is just a convenient link : there are doubtles others.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

6. Courts have pretty much rolled over for the new administration on this kind of thing

[ellenfl]

8. but this could be an old admin thing . . .

"Bank of America had said in filings that Merrill had agreed not to pay out bonuses until January 31, 2009, unless the bank gave specific permission to Merrill to do so. As it turned out, BAC had given permission to the brokerage to pay $3.6 billion in incentive compensation for 2008, after leaving the impression that the permission had not already been granted."

(from the link below your article.)

ellen fl

[JDPriestly]

7. This is extremely important. I hope the court is not overruled on this.

We need transparency on these under the table deals with our money. That is the only way to rout corruption out of the government. It's corruption that is turning us into a third-world country. It's lack of transparency that enables corruption. We need absolute transparency especially about financial matters. It is quite a stretch to claim that financial matters are state secrets or deserving of confidentiality when they involve the use of tax money. Where in the Constitution is there any provision permitting secrecy for anything that is not directly military or diplomatic?

[dmosh42]

9. Wow, an honest judge! n/t

[Alhena]

10. Rakoff is a Clinton appointee

[No Elephants]

11. The SEC had some nerve putting that settlement before a court.