More

SEC Hits Bank Of America With New Charges Over Merrill Bonuses

LARRY NEUMEISTER   01/12/10 02:51 PM ET   AP

Bank Of America Sec Lawsuit

NEW YORK — Federal regulators sued Bank of America Corp. on Tuesday, accusing the company of failing to disclose "staggering financial losses" at Merrill Lynch before shareholders approved a combination of the companies.

The lawsuit filed by the Securities and Exchange Commission in U.S. District Court in Manhattan sought an order requiring Bank of America to pay a civil penalty for not telling shareholders it was losing $15.3 billion in the fourth quarter of 2008.

Bank of America spokesman Robert Stickler called the charges "totally without merit."

He said the company believes it provided sufficient and appropriate disclosure to shareholders prior to their vote approving the combination.

"We look forward to presenting the facts in court," Stickler said. "What we would note is that there were no charges against individuals and no charges of fraud. We were pleased with that."

The SEC said the information about the losses should have been announced when it was learned after the companies publicly announced their deal in September 2008. They did not obtain shareholder approval until three months later.

Federal laws governing such transactions require that losses be revealed if they were not already reflected in Merrill's quarterly reports or other filings.

The SEC and Bank of America, which is based in Charlotte, N.C., are already scheduled to go to trial March 1 after the SEC previously accused the bank of failing to disclose billions of dollars in bonuses paid at Merrill Lynch after the acquisition was completed a year ago.

In the new lawsuit, the SEC said Bank of America "learned of staggering losses at Merrill" in October and November of 2008.

The agency said the bank consulted its lawyers who "erroneously and negligently concluded that no disclosure was necessary because the projected quarterly loss was within the range of losses that Merrill had sustained in the preceding five quarters."

Those losses included a $4.5 billion loss by Merrill in October 2008. The deal was approved by shareholders at a Dec. 5, 2008 meeting. Several days later, Bank of America received an updated report reflecting a forecasted net loss of more than $12 billion at Merrill, the SEC said.

It said the full fourth quarter 2008 results at Merrill were announced on Jan. 16, 2009, nearly six weeks after the shareholder vote and two weeks after the deal had closed.

A day after net loss of $15.3 billion for the quarter was reported, Bank of America stock dropped by nearly 30 percent, the SEC noted.

Bank of America shares fell 72 cents, or 4.3 percent, to $16.21 in afternoon trading.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST BUSINESS

NEW YORK — Federal regulators sued Bank of America Corp. on Tuesday, accusing the company of failing to disclose "staggering financial losses" at Merrill Lynch before shareholders approved a com...
NEW YORK — Federal regulators sued Bank of America Corp. on Tuesday, accusing the company of failing to disclose "staggering financial losses" at Merrill Lynch before shareholders approved a com...
Filed by Grace Kiser  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 10
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
03:31 PM on 01/13/2010
what happened to the court case involving the FED making Bank of A (used to be Italy) into taking in Merrill Lynch?

that being quietly swept under the rug?
madame48
NO..it's a gop Cookbook !Tempus edax,homo edacior
12:35 PM on 01/13/2010
real hard jail time will be the only thing these criminals understand
01:29 PM on 01/13/2010
you mean the banks or the SEC, or both even?
11:50 AM on 01/13/2010
how about some arrests? hat tip to http://iamned-website.blogspot.com
11:31 AM on 01/13/2010
I wonder what the fine is for screwing people over and making billions of dollars, a million dollars? Four million dollars? Somehow I don't think that anything the SEC will do to them will be thought of as more than the cost of doing business.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
mdlawyer2
11:57 AM on 01/13/2010
It's a good thing Judge Rakoff refused to accept the SEC's settlement with BofA. They tried to sweep this under the rug, but the rug isn't big enough to cover the immense amount of dirt.
11:21 AM on 01/13/2010
Instead of taxing 'too big to fail' companies who are taking tax payers money why not just ban them by breaking them up.
hat tip to http://iamned-website.blogspot.com

Repealing the Commodities Futures and Modernization Act of 2000 and the Smoot Hawley Act is a good start.
10:51 AM on 01/13/2010
"What we would note is that there were no charges against individuals and no charges of fraud. We were pleased with that."

Ooooh, what a surprise! With the SEC on the case, who would have expected that then?
madame48
NO..it's a gop Cookbook !Tempus edax,homo edacior
12:37 PM on 01/13/2010
this is the revolving door of SEC job then investment bank job then back to the SEC. Same with military leaders & defense contractors.These people are going to destroy this country for good at some point.
01:33 PM on 01/13/2010
Yes, that quote jumped out at me, too. It's like Al Capone saying that because he was only charged with tax evasion and not murder, extortion, bootlegging or professional gambling, he's completely innocent of all of those things.