Go Home

Now why doesn't President Obama nominate more judges like this one?

As President Obama traveled to Wall Street on Monday and chided bankers for their recklessness, across town a federal judge issued a far sharper rebuke, not just for some of the financiers but for their regulators in Washington as well.

Judge Rakoff_7efb1.jpg

Giving voice to the anger and frustration of many ordinary Americans, Judge Jed S. Rakoff issued a scathing ruling on one of the watershed moments of the financial crisis: the star-crossed takeover of Merrill Lynch by the now-struggling Bank of America.

Judge Rakoff refused to approve a $33 million deal that would have settled a lawsuit filed by the Securities and Exchange Commission against the Bank of America. The lawsuit alleged that the bank failed to adequately disclose the bonuses that were paid by Merrill before the merger, which was completed in January at regulators’ behest as Merrill foundered.

He accused the S.E.C. of failing in its role as Wall Street’s top cop by going too easy on one of the biggest banks it regulates. And he accused executives of the Bank of America of failing to take responsibility for actions that blindsided its shareholders and the taxpayers who bailed out the bank at the height of the crisis.

The sharply worded ruling, which invoked justice and morality, seemed to speak not only to the controversial deal, but also to the anger across the nation over the excesses that led to the financial crisis, and the lax regulation in Washington that permitted those excesses to flourish.

Implicit in the judge’s remarks were broader questions on the anniversary of one of the most tumultuous weeks in Wall Street’s history: What do the giants of finance owe their shareholders and the investing public? And who will adequately oversee these behemoths?

Congress is pondering these issues as it prepares to reshape the power structure of financial regulators in Washington, including the S.E.C. President Obama is pushing lawmakers to pass tougher regulations this year that would touch everything from bonuses to the structural soundness of Wall Street’s most powerful banks, even as some Democrats fret that the health care debate makes it unlikely that financial reform can be achieved.

“We will not go back to the days of reckless behavior and unchecked excess at the heart of this crisis,” Mr. Obama said in his speech before several hundred banking executives, lawmakers and Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg of New York.

Such consequences were at the heart of the dispute that came before Judge Rakoff, who had demanded that the S.E.C. and the bank explain which executives were responsible for failing to tell the bank’s shareholders about the payout of Merrill’s bonuses. That information, together with evidence of large undisclosed losses at Merrill, may have led shareholders to reject the merger at a time when the government wanted to forestall a worse meltdown of the financial system.

The judge accused Bank of America and the S.E.C. of concocting the settlement to effectively absolve themselves of further responsibility.

“The S.E.C. gets to claim that it is exposing wrongdoing on the part of the Bank of America in a high-profile merger,” he wrote, and “the Bank’s management gets to claim that they have been coerced into an onerous settlement by overzealous regulators.”

Share This Post

Link To This Post


27 Comments
lizbeth's picture

and wish we had more like in in SO many more positions....

luis stoole's picture

let them eat advil!

Can O Whoopass's picture

...would be an improvement over their current attitude of, "Go home and die!"

Ferrofluid's picture

Theres barely a serious thing done in the last ten years by the SEC, they sat on their ***** and collected their paychecks for doing squat, while America burned.

project's picture

It is the ruin bush/chenny/republican party have done to us!
we need to take our money back from these criminals that produce nothing!
republicanism is a mental illness!

Alice X - Chomsky Nader's picture

Obama voted for the BOMB, the Bush-Obama-McCain-Bailout.

Paulson, without the legal authority to do it, promised BoA a tax windfall which netted the Banksters over $140 billion, that no one ever talks about. Except me.

The Section 382 IRS windfall was forgiven in Obama's 'Stimulus' package. One observer is here

Congress quietly wrote it into the law.

Republicanism is not a mental illness, they and the Democrats know exactly what they are doing.

They are selling us out regularly.


statusquObama, change you can only pretend in

That Mick Piobr's picture

shit howdy.

Thanks for that information.

Alice X - Chomsky Nader's picture

My first comment from Nov 10 '08 is here

My last comment [I can find] from March is here

I need to correct my statement, Michael Hudson who was a Kucinich advisor and radically good source of information did talk about the Section 382 giveaway. Although he didn't have it quite right.

The fat cats all knew about it, their tax attorneys got the IRS notice.

It is a government of, by and for the Corporations.

Judge Rakoff seems to be hero but there is not much to do when the other two branches of government are corrupt.

The post is missing another point. This is Obama's SEC, why are they still so lame?

And:

As President Obama traveled to Wall Street on Monday and chided bankers for their recklessness, across town a federal judge issued a far sharper rebuke, not just for some of the financiers but for their regulators in Washington as well.

Obama wagged his finger at the Banksters and threatened them with more slaps on the wrist if they didn't behave themselves.

The Banksters were NOT even in attendance which tells us what a joke they think Obama and his wagging finger are. The joke is on us.


statusquObama, change you can only pretend in

That Mick Piobr's picture

a buypartisan effort?

I feel more than a little foolish for gambling that Barack Obama would rise to the occasion.

I guess that it's never too early to get ready for a Green/Socialist/Kucinich-Kaptur third party run.

shit

That Mick Piobr's picture

like this one?

Because it would upset the Republicans and the Corporate Directory?

Because it wouldn't be bi-partisan?

ron's picture

he is an activest judge.

RickinSF's picture

...this guy'll never get close to being considered for the SCOTUS.

New_Damage's picture

There shall be no federal regulators who have served as management or board members of the firms being regulated.

Repeal those portions of the 15th - 17th Amendments which have been misinterpreted by conservative activist justices to impart personhood to corporations.

Bring back the corporate death penalty. If a company offends sufficiently, it pays redress, then anything left over is sold off and split up amongst the shareholders.

Criminal penalties for corporate management and boardroom individuals when crimes are committed "by the company."

Reasonable taxation of corporations. Loopholes begone!

Wages up to a certain point are tax free. Wages over that point are increasingly taxed on a sliding scale topping off at 95%.

Capital gains are taxed at the same rate as wages. R & D is tax-free. Companies must be forced to see the benefit of reinvesting the profit into the business (and workers) rather than simply having it be a money machine for the parasites at the top.

EFCA.

Corporate "donations" to anything political are labeled for what they really are, bribery, and made illegal. Jail time for CEO's who break this law. Money is not speech.

No registered lobbyist shall subsequently be eligible for municipal, county, state, or federal office. No such officer shall subsequently be eligible for registration as a lobbyist. The revolving door needs to be slammed shut.

Etc.

Alice X - Chomsky Nader's picture

Don't you mean the 14th amendment?


statusquObama, change you can only pretend in

New_Damage's picture

Sorry, meant to say Amendments 13 - 15. Chalk the error up to Amendment 21.

Cheers.

Michelle's picture

because that where we get our right to due process. I am fairly certain none of us want to give that up.


I pledge allegiance to the Constitution of the United States of America, and to the republic which it established, one nation from many peoples, promising liberty and justice for all

New_Damage's picture

Michelle,

I couldn't agree more that due process is a good thing, but I would claim that that concept actually has a much, much longer pedigree than the 14th Amendment. (See: Magna Carta.) And even so, we Natural Persons don't "get" our rights from the Constitution. They are Inalienable.

I guess my main point is that we need some mechanism whereby to properly interpret the 14th Amendment. One option would be to load the SCOTUS with justices we like, but those individuals will come and go, and are only permitted to interpret law as it bubbles up via litigation.

No, I think we require something more indelible, say, a new Amendment which clarifies which entities are and are not subject to the text of the 14th.

"Natural Persons," yes; "Artificial Persons?" To an extent. An extent which must spell out these Artificial Persons' corresponding responsibilities and liabilities.

Ironically, the concept of artificial persons itself arose from the fact that corporations in England a couple hundred years ago could get away with murder because the laws were commonly composed beginning with the phrase "No person shall…"

Cheers.

Not going to fly, because it is not binding on American judges.

In the US, the Bill of Rights enumerates some inalienable rights, but that is only the first 10 Amendments to the Consitution.

And yes, the right to due process comes from the 14th amendment. I just spent 3 hours in Civ. Pro. class having that very fact hammered into my head.


I pledge allegiance to the Constitution of the United States of America, and to the republic which it established, one nation from many peoples, promising liberty and justice for all

New_Damage's picture

I am not suggesting citing the Magna Carta in cases before United States courts. I am suggesting Congress pass a clarification of the 14th via a new Amendment. Does that not work for you?

Again, I suspect we are on the same side, here regarding the irreplaceable value of due process. As to where it "comes from," perhaps we can agree to describe yourself as a structuralist and myself as a Platonist?

Sorry about the hammers to your head.

Cheers.

Michelle's picture

I think law school is supposed to hammer your head. It was in the brochure. ;o}


I pledge allegiance to the Constitution of the United States of America, and to the republic which it established, one nation from many peoples, promising liberty and justice for all

FilthyHarry's picture

Could upset the applecart. Better impeach this anarchist fast before one of our beloved oligarchs' holdings lose a .00001% of their value!

golden joe's picture

we can get similar rulings on the pharma and the HHS protecting self interests

lizbeth's picture

and wish we had more like in in SO many more positions....

That Mick Piobr's picture

when a sensible decision by a judge can be seen an act of defiance and displeasure at the Corporate Ruling Hegemony.

Nation - States are nothing but a mechanism for enlisting mercenaries and socializing corporate risk/losses. It's politicians run interference between the Corporate Directory and an increasingly angry/confused public.

Dividing the spoils in an orderly manner.

Amitola's picture

process...but kudos to Judge Rakoff for doing what is right by not approving the settlement.

Now, I guess it'll go to trial, and if BoA et al are not satisfied with the outcome there, it's a sure bet they'll appeal....up and up and up. Then the Supremes will just sweeten the pot somehow and make the taxpayers reimburse the banksters for their 'trouble and the long wait for justice'.

And, if I were the Judge, I'd keep away from travel in small planes for a while.


"Egotism is the anesthetic that dulls the pain of Stupidity" - Frank Leahy

Trittydi's picture

This man is an American Hero.
*

Maybe he has, but we won't know because the rethugs have put a hold on nominations.

Comments are closed on this entry