On Thu, 26 Dec 2002 Nomiprins at aol.com wrote:
> Let me give one example (of many possible ones) of how no change really
> occurred because the real guilty parties weren't even tried
That was great, Nomi. You should have a column in the Times. Come the revolution . . .
One footnote of a question. You've mentioned several times that the corporations admitted no wrongdoing, and that this was very important to them as it would effectively jam lawsuits against them. Attached below is an FT article entitled "Bank abuses report could boost lawsuits." Is the operative word in that headline "could?" Perhaps lawsuits will get filed, but you're quite sure they won't prevail?
Said article is also filled with the dazzling image of billions of dollars in suffering, just like the fines articles a few days past. It's remarkable what a wide range of applications there is for this 90s techique is of attaching the word "could" to billions of dollars and instantly clouding men's minds. It seems to be working just as well for the smokescreen as it did for the bubble.
Michael
===========
Financial Times; Dec 23, 2002
FRONT PAGE - COMPANIES & MARKETS: Bank abuses report may boost lawsuits
By Joshua Chaffin, Adrian Michaels and Gary Silverman in New York
Leading investment banks that misled investors are bracing themselves for the release of potentially embarrassing details that could boost claims against them totalling billions of dollars.
The details will be keenly awaited by investors following the historic settlement on Friday between a coalition of state and federal regulators investigating conflicts of interest on Wall Street, and 10 investment banks that agreed to pay nearly $1bn (£624m) in penalties.
The conflicts of interest centred around tainted stock research and initial public offering practices.
Regulators will detail in a "record of findings" the meat of the evidence they collected against the banks after months of reading their e-mails and internal memoranda and questioning executives.
The reports, due next month, are crucial because their contents are expected to boost the class action law suits filed against the banks by investors. Some legal and financial analysts have predicted that the damages to Wall Street firms could surpass $5bn.
The findings may also signal which individuals could face prosecution as Eliot Spitzer, New York attorney-general, and the Securities and Exchange Commission turn attention from the institutions to their executives.
Regulators reached an agreement in principle with Jack Grubman of Citigroup's Salomon Smith Barney unit - once one of the highest paid analysts on Wall Street - who will pay $15m and be barred for life from the securities industry. Massachusetts authorities have referred evidence to federal prosecutors against Frank Quattrone, the head of Credit Suisse First Boston's technology banking group.
Even for those who avoid charges, the contents of the findings could fuel civil law suits filed against them and damage their professional reputations.
Regulators will begin meeting today as they continue working with the banks on the final language of the findings.
Mr Spitzer and other regulators are already struggling to dispose of the $900m in fines they are to collect from the banks. Mr Spitzer and Steve Cutler, director of enforcement at the SEC, pledged on Friday to work towards a restitution fund but acknowledged it might be impossible to achieve.