thread title uses the last words from the article -
'SEC Cops Want to Fight U.S. Judge '
'Agency's Enforcement Unit Expected to Recommend That Commissioners
Appeal Citigroup Ruling' by JEAN EAGLESHAM And SUZANNE KAPNER - WSJ
"The Securities and Exchange Commission is heading on a collision course with
the federal judge who thinks the agency has been too lenient on big banks
accused of misdeeds.
The SEC's enforcement staff is expected to recommend to the five-person
commission leading the agency that it vote to appeal last month's rejection by
U.S. District Judge Jed S. Rakoff of a proposed $285 million settlement between
the SEC and Citigroup Inc., according to people familiar with the situation.
Rob Bennett for The Wall Street Journal
The penalty against Citigroup was 'pocket change,' said Judge Jed Rakoff in his
ruling.
In his ruling, the New York judge denounced as "pocket change" a penalty
agreed to by Citigroup as part of the settlement, claiming it was paltry compared
with losses of more than $700 million suffered by investors in a $1 billion deal
called Class V Funding III.
. . . Another possible problem: The Manhattan federal court where Judge Rakoff
sits often reviews proposed settlements by the SEC. In 2009, he threw out the
agency's $33 million deal with Bank of America Corp. over disclosures made
before the Charlotte, N.C., company's takeover of Merrill Lynch & Co. The judge
approved a revised $150 million settlement in that case, though he said it was
"half-baked justice at best."
. . . The vast majority of enforcement actions filed by the SEC are resolved before
coming to trial. In the past year, the SEC went to trial in 19 cases, while filing a
record-high 735 enforcement actions. Settlements allow the SEC to spread its
limited resources among the largest number of cases, agency officials say.
Judge Rakoff ruled in his Citigroup decision that firms often view settlements of
serious allegations for modest penalties and no admission of wrongdoing as just
a "cost of doing business." " - more -
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100...?mod=WSJ_article_comments#articleTabs=article
and have a read of the Comments
'SEC Cops Want to Fight U.S. Judge '
'Agency's Enforcement Unit Expected to Recommend That Commissioners
Appeal Citigroup Ruling' by JEAN EAGLESHAM And SUZANNE KAPNER - WSJ
"The Securities and Exchange Commission is heading on a collision course with
the federal judge who thinks the agency has been too lenient on big banks
accused of misdeeds.
The SEC's enforcement staff is expected to recommend to the five-person
commission leading the agency that it vote to appeal last month's rejection by
U.S. District Judge Jed S. Rakoff of a proposed $285 million settlement between
the SEC and Citigroup Inc., according to people familiar with the situation.
Rob Bennett for The Wall Street Journal
The penalty against Citigroup was 'pocket change,' said Judge Jed Rakoff in his
ruling.
In his ruling, the New York judge denounced as "pocket change" a penalty
agreed to by Citigroup as part of the settlement, claiming it was paltry compared
with losses of more than $700 million suffered by investors in a $1 billion deal
called Class V Funding III.
. . . Another possible problem: The Manhattan federal court where Judge Rakoff
sits often reviews proposed settlements by the SEC. In 2009, he threw out the
agency's $33 million deal with Bank of America Corp. over disclosures made
before the Charlotte, N.C., company's takeover of Merrill Lynch & Co. The judge
approved a revised $150 million settlement in that case, though he said it was
"half-baked justice at best."
. . . The vast majority of enforcement actions filed by the SEC are resolved before
coming to trial. In the past year, the SEC went to trial in 19 cases, while filing a
record-high 735 enforcement actions. Settlements allow the SEC to spread its
limited resources among the largest number of cases, agency officials say.
Judge Rakoff ruled in his Citigroup decision that firms often view settlements of
serious allegations for modest penalties and no admission of wrongdoing as just
a "cost of doing business." " - more -
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100...?mod=WSJ_article_comments#articleTabs=article
and have a read of the Comments