JP Morgan’s $920 million fine

by Walter Olson on September 20, 2013

Matt Levine concludes that a large share of it was for making dumb trades, as opposed to intentional malfeasance. (Earlier on whether regulators had taken a bead on Morgan because of chief Jamie Dimon’s perceived bad attitude.) Will Morgan’s admissions materially help plaintiff’s lawyers in the inevitable shareholder class action? Don’t be so sure [Alison Frankel, Reuters] More: WSJ (sees politics), Hank Greenberg via FedSocBlog, Iain Murray.

{ 1 trackback }

It's a "massive problem"... - Overlawyered
10.02.13 at 12:30 am

{ 1 comment }

1 Bob Lipton 09.20.13 at 9:00 am

1: Stuff done by the companies that Bank of America, J.P. Morgan and other companies acquired at the behest of the Federal government should be walled off from corporate government prosecution. Going after the individuals is fine, but several of these companies (Bear Stearns, for example) were acquired without a chance to do normal due diligence because of the insistence that it had to be done immediately. the government, being complicit in the acquirers’ assuming these tainted assets, should bear the responsibility. The acquirers have enough on their plates in cleaning up the messes.

2: Issues like the London Whale are corporate responsibilities. However, J.P. Morgan-Chase can and should turn around and cross-sue the individuals who failed in their responsibilities to the corporation.

Note: I own shares in J.P. Morgan-Chase.

Bob

Comments on this entry are closed.