Judge Blocks Citigroup Settlement With S.E.C.

Source: NY Times

NEW YORK (Reuters) - A judge on Monday rejected a proposed $285 million settlement between Citigroup Inc and the top U.S. market regulator over the sale of toxic mortgage debt and ordered a trial.

In a written opinion, Manhattan federal court judge Jed Rakoff said the proposed settlement was "neither reasonable, nor fair, nor adequate, nor in the public interest."

Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2011/11/28/business/business-us-citigroup-sec.html?_r=1&hp

should hire body guards.

He ordered a trial ...

and hopefully has kept his dick in his pants.

He has experience:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jed_S._Rakoff

How did Bloomberg do that when they were evicting OWS?

Maybe we'll actually see some justice here. Plus, this may generate some media coverage of this case.

in fact excellent news.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jed_S._Rakoff

Thanks for the thread, Sivafae.:thumbsup:

This country will not recover until proper justice is served and the markets stabilize around that justice.
The SEC and the banks are in bed together. Everyone knows it. The corruption needs full exposure to be weeded out.

The SEC claimed Citigroup sold $1bn worth of mortgage assets and then bet that their value would fall.

Neither the SEC nor the US's third-largest bank had any immediate comment.

In a written opinion, the Manhattan judge said the allegations against Citigroup should go to trial.

>

Investors lost $700 million, according to the SEC, while Citigroup made about $160 million in profits.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-15929572

Then they need to pay a multiple of that for malfeasance, plus pay all legal costs of both sides - think that would be more fair than what they deserve - which is going to jail.

Love the judge who rules fairly for the 99% instead of voting for the $$ interests of the 1% like most of his ilk do.

:loveya:

Or should I say, one of the "New Incorruptibles."

:applause: :applause: :applause: :applause:

:applause:

Source: The New York Times

A federal judge in New York on Monday threw out a settlement between the Securities and Exchange Commission and Citigroup over a 2007 mortgage derivatives deal, saying that the S.E.C.’s policy of settling cases by allowing a company to neither admit nor deny the agency’s allegations did not satisfy the law.

The judge, Jed S. Rakoff of United States District Court in Manhattan, ruled that the S.E.C.’s $285 million settlement, announced last month, is “neither fair, nor reasonable, nor adequate, nor in the public interest” because it does not provide the court with evidence on which to judge the settlement.

The ruling could throw the S.E.C.’s enforcement efforts into chaos, because a majority of the fraud cases and other actions that the agency brings against Wall Street firms are settled out of court, most often with a condition that the defendant does not admit that it violated the law while also promising not to deny it.

That condition gives a company or individual an advantage in subsequent civil litigation for damages, because cases in which no facts are established cannot be used in evidence in other cases, like shareholder lawsuits seeking recovery of losses or damages.

Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/29/business/judge-rejects-sec-accord-with-citi.html?_r=1&hp

---

And the world looks a little brighter each and every day......

even you know when the SEC and the Citi are screwing the people

". In general, agency decisions are given special deference by the courts because the agency is believed to have the greatest expertise on the matter, and serves as the best interpreter of its own rules. The administrative agency also does the fact finding that is usually done at the trial level of a civil or criminal case in the courts, making the agency better suited to make a judgment. In addition to allowing agencies to take some of the burden off their own overloaded dockets, courts seek to encourage parties to win during the actual administrative process itself, rather than waiting to appeal to the courts."



http://law.freeadvice.com/litigation/appeals/review_decisions_adminstrative.htm

the honorable judge will get the "phone call" and it will all of a sudden go away.