An irreverent Wall Street Blog
by Bill Singer
 
Join BrokeAndBroker blog on Facebook  Follow the BrokeAndBroker blog on Twitter  Connect with BrokeAndBroker on LinkedIn  Join Bill Singer on Google+  Subscribe to RSS Feed

Judge Rakoff's Wall Street Zombies Arise In FINRA Citi Settlement
Written: March 19, 2012

Actors dressed up like zombies wait for the tr...

Oh wow!  The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”) just issued a press release:  “FINRA Fines Citi International Financial $600,000 and Orders Restitution of $648,000 for Excessive Markups and Markdowns”(March 19, 2012), which heralds the settlement by Wall Street’s self-regulatory organization with Citi International Financial Services LLC, a subsidiary of Citigroup, Inc.  This Citigroup subsidiary was fined by FINRA $600,000 and ordered to pay over $648,000 in restitution and interest to more than 3,600 customers arising from alleged excessive markups and markdowns (ranging from 2.73 to in excess of 10 %) on corporate and agency bond transactions, and for related supervisory violations.

Far from being an isolated miscue, the cited violations allegedly occurred over a three-year period from July 2007 through September 2010, during which time Citi International charged excessive corporate and agency bond markups and markdowns. In addition, from April 2009 through June 2009, Citi International allegedly failed to use reasonable diligence to buy or sell corporate bonds to ensure its customers were fairly charged.

Maybe We Did, Maybe We Didn’t — Who Knows And Who Cares?

What struck me most about FINRA’s million-dollar plus settlement was this solitary line in its press release (I have added the boldface):

In concluding this settlement, Citi International neither admitted nor denied the charges.

Hmmm, why does that refrain sound familiar? Where have we heard that same line before?

Kumbaya

On October 19, 2011, the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) announced  that it had charged Citigroup Global Markets (Citigroup’s principal U.S. broker-dealer subsidiary) with misleading investors about a $1 billion collateralized debt obligation (CDO) tied to the U.S. housing market in which Citigroup bet against investors as the housing market showed signs of distress. The CDO defaulted within months, leaving investors with losses while Citigroup made $160 million in fees and trading profits.  The SEC announced that Citigroup agreed to settle the SEC’s charges by paying a total of $285 million, which will be returned to investors.

How lovely that the SEC and Citigroup sat down, sang Kumbaya, and found a way to work through the painful issue of how many dollars in fines and how soon – all neatly tied up as part of a purportedly compelling settlement presented to federal judge Rakoff for his hoped-for cursory review and prompt rubber stamp.

Rakoff Ain’t Buyin’ It

As I wrote in “Judge Rakoff Rejects SEC’s “Contrivances” In Citigroup Settlement” (“ Street Sweeper” November 29, 2011), on November 28, 2011, Judge Jed S. Rakoff, refused to approve theConsent Judgement submitted by both Citigroup and the SEC in United States Securities and Exchange Commission v. Citigroup Global Markets Inc. (SDNY, Opinion and Order, 11-CIV-7387, November 28, 2011).  In rejecting the proposed settlement, which allowed for Citigroup to neither admit nor deny the allegations, Judge Rakoff noted:

As for common experience, a consent judgment that does not involve any admissions and that results in only very modest penalties is just as frequently viewed, particularly in the business community, as a cost of doing business imposed by having to maintain a working relationship with a regulatory agency, rather than as any indication of where the real truth lies. This, indeed, is Citigroup’s position in this very case.

Of course, the policy of accepting settlements without any admissions serves various narrow interests of the parties. In this case, for example, Citigroup was able, without admitting anything, to negotiate a settlement that (a) charges it only with negligence, (b) results in a very modest penalty, (c) imposes the kind of injunctive relief that Citigroup (a recidivist) knew that the S.E.C. had not sought to enforce against any financial institution for at least the last 10 years (d) imposes relatively inexpensive prophylactic measures for the next three years. In exchange, Citigroup not only settles what it states was a broad-ranging four-year investigation by the S.E.C. of Citigroup’s mortgage-backed securities offerings, but also avoids any investors’ relying in any respect on the S.E.C. Consent Judgment in seeking return of their losses. If the allegations of the Complaint are true, this is a very good deal for Citigroup; and, even if they are untrue, it is a mild and modest cost of doing business. . .

By the S.E.C.’s own account, Citigroup is a recidivist, and yet, in terms of deterrence, the $95 million civil penalty that the Consent Judgment proposes is pocket change to any entity as large as Citigroup. . .

Second Circuit Victory for SEC and Citi

On December 15, 2011, the SEC filed a Notice of Appeal seeking a ruling by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit that would reverse Judge Rakoff’s rejection of the proposed consent judgment and his order directing the parties to prepare for trial in July 2012. In his public comment on the appeal, SEC Enforcement Direct Robert Khuzami argued that Judge Rakoff was

incorrect in requiring an admission of facts — or a trial — as a condition of approving a proposed consent judgment, particularly where the agency provided the court with information laying out the reasoned basis for its conclusions. . .

On March 15, 2012, Khuzami and his SEC got its wish.  The Second Circuit set aside Judge Rakoff’s rejection of the settlement. As I commented on the SEC’s victory in “The SEC Couldn’t Stop Madoff or Stanford But Jams Up Judge Rakoff Over Citigroup Settlement” (“ Street Sweeper” March 15, 2012):

We now find ourselves in an Alice-In-Wonderland world where the Circuit Court seems to agree that Rakoff should not be required to merely rubber stamp the SEC’s settlement but, on the other hand, the judge should defer to the SEC’s assessment that the settlement is fair.  A fine enough proposition but one that seems made in a vacuum of recent history.

The SEC has run off these cookie-cutter settlements without admission of liability for decades.  It is a bankrupt approach to regulation that partially contributed to the onset of the Great Recession and seems likely to saddle our society with a future filled with more impotent responses. If this regulatory policy is fair and effective, then why has it only left a swath of devastation in its historic path?

Recidivist Zombies Arise!

Clearly this never-ending predilection for the expediency of tepid settlements by Wall Street’s cops shows no signs of ending.  Even as the smoke is still in the air from the SEC’s barrage against Rakoff, we see yet more proof that this bankrupt regulatory policy continues unabated — not only at Wall Street’s federal regulator but even at the industry’s self-regulator FINRA.  Having turned back one federal judge’s principled rejection of a settlement, those charged with regulating our financial markets now seem emboldened to permit the big boys to write out large checks for fines, which are ultimately paid by public shareholders, and without one word of meaningful admission of wrongdoing.  If I were one of Wall Street’s Too-Big-To-Fail, I’d sure as hell find these developments encouraging.  The likes of JP Morgan, Goldman Sachs, Bank of America, Morgan Stanley, and their ilk can set up a spreadsheet and do the cost-benefits analysis.  Of course, for the small fry, I’m not so sure that all these ardent advocates at the SEC and FINRA will feel the same about their not having to admit wrongdoing and agreeing to take their checks in full settlement of violations.

Failing to contain this counter-productive and discredited regulatory practice at the SEC, we now see that it retains its vibrancy at FINRA.  Rakoff’s zombies have arisen in force. Sadly, both the SEC and FINRA still think that such mealy-mouthed settlements justify self-congratulatory press releases.


 
[^top^]

Previous Entries
August 30, 2014
Stockbroker Wins Expungement of 1990 Customer ComplaintAugust 29, 2014You know how you figure something's foolproof? For example, I recently left for ... Read On
August 29, 2014
You know how you figure something's foolproof? For example, I recently left for vacation and set a week's worth of articles on the BrokeAndBroker.com ... Read On
August 28, 2014
On June 24, 2014, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”) Department of Enforcement filed a Complaint against James M. Katayanagi, who, ... Read On
August 27, 2014
What's A JP Morgan employee and a customer's debit card have to do with smoking too much dope and singing about it on the old Lawrence Welk show? Well... Read On
August 26, 2014
Stockbroker, Compliance, Legal, and Regulatory JobsEmployment Page BrokeAndBroker.com Jobs#wallstreetjobs @brokeandbrokerNOTICE TO EMPLOYERS... Read On
August 25, 2014
The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority ("FINRA") has a seemingly short and sweet rule in its Code of Arbitration Procedure for Customer Disp... Read On
BrokeAndBroker.com Job Search
Related Topics
Tag Cloud
Internet FINRA Bear Stearns Bloomberg SEC NASD NYSE Money Laundering Due Diligence Waiver Forbes China Chepucavage Broy Woody Allen Madoff NAC NPR Marketplace Stanford UBS Ketchum Antitrust NASDAQ RRBDLAW Schapiro Bill Singer BrokerAndBroker USERRA Brokeandbroker.com Morgan Keegan Arbitration Counterclaim BrokeAndBroker.com Khuzami BrokeAndBroker Aleynikov Goldman Sachs brokeandbroker Promissory Note U4 Bill SInger EFL CFTC Huffington Post Flash Crash arbitration RBC RRBDLAW.com Ponzi Affinity Fraud Wachovia Raymond James BrokeandBroker.com Expungement Fraud Securities Fraud Outside Business Activity Registered Rep Magazine FOREX BrokerAndBroker.com FBI Banc of America Pro Se Supreme Court Morgan Stanley Smith Barney E*Trade Margin email Galleon Penson U5 Defamation Protocol Wells Fargo Punitive Damages Citigroup Merrill Lynch ARS Employee Forgivable Loan Street Legal Morgan Stanley AWC Fidelity Bankruptcy Broke And Broker HFT David Sobel Day Trading Ameriprise Commissions Spouse Schwab Commission CRD Kenneth Starr IRS CNBC Complaint ATM Skimming Hacking Phishing Malware Naskovets Poteroba Koval Lincoln Financial Selling Away Outside Business Activities Rakoff 2nd Circuit Second Circuit IRA 401k Forgery Tax RRBDlaw.com Email Netschi Moore Whistleblower Street Sweeper Tran Bharara Facebook Online Bonus Eligibility Rule TD Ameritrade Hedge Fund SAC 1099 Smith Barney Lehman Brothers IC3 Scottrade Lehman JPMorgan Chase Hertz Insider Trading Bank of America Department of Justice Elles Bribe Auction Rate Securities Raiding Spam Edward Jones Medicare Diabetes Dow Schumer Walter Bid Rigging Real Estate Discrimination Wall Street Statutory Disqualification Form U4 Form U5 Indictment Boyland DOJ Corruption bill singer FTC Do Not Call FINRA Arbitration Costa Rica Settlement LIBOR Varney Plea Rule 8210 RRBDlaw Appeal Fowler LPL Johnson US Airways Reg D MSSB Vault Loan SunTrust Discovery Employment Rosenthal Recruiting Lawyer Trading Platform JP Morgan Employment Tuesday Wrongful Termination Bank Guarantee WaMu Solicitation REIT Martin Credit Cards Away Account Credit Repair PN Advisor Placement Group Forex Mortgage Private Placement Moon Merrill Anderson Exam Lee Borrowing Tax Lien Conversion Oppenheimer Wedbush Felony Misdemeanor Expenses ING Lien OTR Estate Jobs Florida Credit Card Elderly Flash Drive Annuity Reimbursement FNMA BrokeAndBroke TIC DWI Promissory Notes Suitability Will POA Power of Attorney Casino NSF MF Global Counterfeit Preet Bharara Corzine Hacker RIA Prison Disclosure NASAA Aguilar FCPA Subway Identity Theft Gold Dell Bar Injunction Bank Deutsche Bank God HSBC Private Placements Eric Stein Wire Fraud CCO Joshua Brown Backstage Wall Street Obstruction of Justice Reuters Retaliation Variable Annuity Outside Account Options Telephone Wine Social Media ADA Pacifico Non-Prosecution Agreement Confirm Tax Fraud Retirement OBA Equity Indexed Annuities EIA MetLife Continuing Education OIP Tax Liens Willful CE Unregistered Impersonation Annuities BBVA Business Expenses ETF JOBS Act Mail Fraud Parking Variable Annuities Signatures BitTorrent Impersonator Wire Transfer Wire Crowdfunding Nasdaq Away Accounts WSP Laptop Dodd Frank Checks RMBS PST Solicited Unsolicited Congress SRO Wife Discretion Non-Solicitation Restaurant Commodities Private Securities Transaction Offer of Settlement Money Market employment jobs Great Recession Chase Investment Services Arrest Barclays Liens Failure To Supervise Apple Time And Price T&P Willfully Husband Letter of Authorization LOA Sexism Debit Card Knight Test Practice Sale Unfair Competition Signature Judgments Undisclosed Settlement Trainee Fee Trust Laser Side Bar Mattera Female Sales Assistant Kennedy Charge Sexist NML Argentina Embezzlement Silver Judgment Bank Fraud Deceased TSSB Mary Jo White Trustee Frumento Conspiracy 6th Circuit Proctor Rule 3040 Class Action Beneficiary NYAG Schneiderman Gallagher White Short Sale Compromise Website TRO Supervision Vacatur SDNY BrokeAndBroker Bill Singer Piwowar Rule 1122 Article V signature VA Regulation SP Rule 3270 OWB Stockbrokers
 
Email Bill Singer Connect with Bill Singer on Facebook Follow Bill Singer on Twitter Link up with Bill Singer on LinkedIn Join Bill Singer on Google+