eptember 17, 2009 7:17 PM
LITIGATION DAILY: Could Rakoff's Ruling Cost BofA's Shareholders More Than $33 Million?
Posted by Susan Beck
This story was originally published by The Am Law Litigation Daily.
This writer is a shareholder who was probably the ONLY one who filed an affidavit with Judge Rakoff, requesting to reject the Proposed Settlement. My Affidavit's central claim was that the parties never came to court in good faith/clean hands... SEC never intended to enforce the law, and BAC never intended to comply with the law. Judge Rakoff apparently accepted at least the first half of the last statement - that SEC never intended to enforce the law.
Additionally, I sought to undermine the Affidavit of Prof Joseph Grundfest, former SEC Commissioner, on the grounds that I had first hand knowledge that he had pertinent information, which he failed to address in his opinion, which was unreasonably narrow in its construction.
.
Looking at impact of Judge Rakoff's decision on short term share value is typical U.S. market attitude that got to grow up one day...
.
The failure of the U.S. government to enforce the law and institute regulation of U.S. financial institutions, combined with the reckless decision to waive the 10% deposit limit on BAC, while grafting into it some of the allegedly most corrupt elements from CFC, was the harbinger of a much greater disaster than some share price fluctuation...
.
It appears that our only hope these days for some reason to find its way to U.S. policy makers... is through pressure from BASEL - seat of the Basel Committee of International Banking Accords, or from BEIJING - holder of >$2trillion in reserves denominated in U.S. dollars, The U.S. itself is back to the Era of the Robber Barons, in a big swing, as if we learned nothing from the Great Depression...
One must note, that in disregard of repeated requests, Counsel for SEC has so far refused to publicly display a copy of the Summons in SEC v BAC (1:09-cv-06829).
.
Therefore, beyond all other arguments, the public display at the U.S. District Court in NYC remained so far indefinite as a legal action, and SEC insisted on keeping it that way...
.
For all we know SEC could have
in error, or otherwise, issued defective Summons, and the display in its entirety could then be null and void.
.
Insistence of a U.S. regulatory agency to conduct its business in such manner, in the midst of the current financial crisis, and the fact that it can get away with it, and there is no protest or public uproar, is just one more indication how deluded either is this writer, or are some regulators at SEC.