Post by unlawflcombatnt on Jul 17, 2010 14:45:02 GMT -6
Okay. Citigroup didn't actually say that. But they should have.
Below is a Reuters/New York Times article about Citigroup's "failure to disclose" information to clients who'd invested in some of their assets.
This article really should be titled:
"Citigroup caught lying about finances"
Judge Rules Bondholders Can Pursue Citigroup Suit
July 12, 2010
"A federal judge on Monday rejected Citigroup’s bid to dismiss a class-action lawsuit by bondholders who said the bank "misled them" [lied to them] about its exposure to troubled mortgages.
The judge, Sidney H. Stein of United States District Court in Manhattan, said the bondholders could pursue allegations that the bank did not reveal the exposure in offering materials for 48 bond offerings from May 2006 to August 2008, in which it raised more than $71 billion.
The bondholders, led by 7 pension funds and an insurer, said their holdings sank in value after Citigroup revealed its exposure in November 2008, making it apparent the bank was “insolvent” and would need a government bailout.
“The core of plaintiffs’ allegations,” Judge Stein wrote in a 50-page opinion, “turn not on Citigroup’s management of its assets and liability, but instead on the manner in which they disclosed those assets and liabilities.”
Citigroup lied, plain & simple. All they "failed to disclose" was that they were lying about the numbers.
Monday’s ruling came as Citigroup was trying to sell unwanted assets and restore the health of the bank, which, ranked by assets, is the 3rd-largest in the nation.
A series of federal bailouts starting in late 2008 left taxpayers owning 1/3 of Citigroup, which suffered tens of billions of dollars of losses on risky assets that became illiquid as credit markets tightened.
Judge Stein let the plaintiffs pursue claims that Citigroup failed to properly disclose exposure to $66 billion of collateralized debt obligations backed by subprime mortgages and did not reserve enough for residential mortgage losses.
In other words, they didn't tell the plaintiffs about it at all, and claimed their investments were backed by solid, non-risky assets. Yet the knowing falsification of the information is considered only a "failure to properly disclose."
The rest of the world calls this LYING. But I guess if you're rich enough and powerful enough, there's no such thing as lying.
He dismissed some claims over exposure to $100 billion of structured investment vehicles backed largely by subprime mortgages, and $11 billion of auction-rate securities.... Ah. Apparently Citigroup didn't lie quite as badly about those investments.
The plaintiffs include pension funds in Florida, Louisiana, Minnesota and Pennsylvania, including the Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority rail system, as well as the New Jersey-based American European Insurance Company.
Citigroup had alleged that the plaintiffs lacked standing or else did not deserve relief under federal securities laws
Citigroup seems to be saying: 'Just because we lied to you and cost you billions of $$, doesn't mean you have any right blame us, much less expect any of your money back. You should have known we were lying to start with. It's all your fault for not figuring that out.'
Below is a Reuters/New York Times article about Citigroup's "failure to disclose" information to clients who'd invested in some of their assets.
This article really should be titled:
"Citigroup caught lying about finances"
Judge Rules Bondholders Can Pursue Citigroup Suit
July 12, 2010
"A federal judge on Monday rejected Citigroup’s bid to dismiss a class-action lawsuit by bondholders who said the bank "misled them" [lied to them] about its exposure to troubled mortgages.
The judge, Sidney H. Stein of United States District Court in Manhattan, said the bondholders could pursue allegations that the bank did not reveal the exposure in offering materials for 48 bond offerings from May 2006 to August 2008, in which it raised more than $71 billion.
The bondholders, led by 7 pension funds and an insurer, said their holdings sank in value after Citigroup revealed its exposure in November 2008, making it apparent the bank was “insolvent” and would need a government bailout.
“The core of plaintiffs’ allegations,” Judge Stein wrote in a 50-page opinion, “turn not on Citigroup’s management of its assets and liability, but instead on the manner in which they disclosed those assets and liabilities.”
Citigroup lied, plain & simple. All they "failed to disclose" was that they were lying about the numbers.
Monday’s ruling came as Citigroup was trying to sell unwanted assets and restore the health of the bank, which, ranked by assets, is the 3rd-largest in the nation.
A series of federal bailouts starting in late 2008 left taxpayers owning 1/3 of Citigroup, which suffered tens of billions of dollars of losses on risky assets that became illiquid as credit markets tightened.
Judge Stein let the plaintiffs pursue claims that Citigroup failed to properly disclose exposure to $66 billion of collateralized debt obligations backed by subprime mortgages and did not reserve enough for residential mortgage losses.
In other words, they didn't tell the plaintiffs about it at all, and claimed their investments were backed by solid, non-risky assets. Yet the knowing falsification of the information is considered only a "failure to properly disclose."
The rest of the world calls this LYING. But I guess if you're rich enough and powerful enough, there's no such thing as lying.
He dismissed some claims over exposure to $100 billion of structured investment vehicles backed largely by subprime mortgages, and $11 billion of auction-rate securities.... Ah. Apparently Citigroup didn't lie quite as badly about those investments.
The plaintiffs include pension funds in Florida, Louisiana, Minnesota and Pennsylvania, including the Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority rail system, as well as the New Jersey-based American European Insurance Company.
Citigroup had alleged that the plaintiffs lacked standing or else did not deserve relief under federal securities laws
Citigroup seems to be saying: 'Just because we lied to you and cost you billions of $$, doesn't mean you have any right blame us, much less expect any of your money back. You should have known we were lying to start with. It's all your fault for not figuring that out.'