Discussion:7.7 Trillion in Fed. Res. Bailouts, on top of TARP
From TaxAlmanac, A Free Online Resource for Tax Professionals
Note: You are using this website at your own risk, subject to our Disclaimer and Website Use and Contribution Terms.
From TaxAlmanac
Discussion Forum Index --> General Chat --> 7.7 Trillion in Fed. Res. Bailouts, on top of TARP
| 29 November 2011 | |
| The headline to this Bloomberg article is "slightly" misleading, but it goes on to be a pretty good article. | |
Death&Taxes (talk|edits) said: | 29 November 2011 |
| Well, here is one judge who has stopped playing the game | |
| 30 November 2011 | |
| Unfortunately the district court judge is coming in a day late and a dollar short.
I might was well add another one: Former Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson had friendly luncheon with hedge fund managers in the midst of the financial crisis..... “What is this but crony capitalism?” she asks. “Most people have had their fill of it.” Quoting the Article from Bloomberg above. | |
| 30 November 2011 | |
| Crow, why is the judge coming up a day late and a dollar short? Unless he has let other similar cases slip through, isn't it really the system (and his fellow judges) that have been found wanting? Or am I missing something in your analysis? | |
| 30 November 2011 | |
My apologies. It appears from the article that David posted that the judge DID nix the SEC v. Citi settlement. I thought I had read somewhere that he did accept the settlement and merely issued a warning as to future cases. | |
| 30 November 2011 | |
| Crow, I read an article yesterday that made exactly that point - that his rejection of the settlement will change the way this is handled in the future. Mind you, isn't that dependent upon an appeal? I am no lawyer, but couldn't either side appeal the judge's ruling, which might lead to an appeals court saying "You're talking nonsense, judge. PS, don't rock the boat, there's a good chap." If so, wouldn't that put us back where we started? | |
| 30 November 2011 | |
| If the ruling is appealable and if it is appealed then I would guess that the appellate court would give the trial court wide discretion in the matter. The judge is refusing to accept the settlement because to him it appears to be against public policy. Keep in mind, the judge is not terminating the case and it will now be set for trial. It's possible that the parties could still reach a settlement which would be acceptable to the judge. We'll see what happens. | |
To join in on this discussion, you must first
log in.
