Eric Holder: Defense Counsel for JP Morgan's Fraud

[eynon81]

[Indy]

[eynon81]

[Indy]

And that my man is the headline: no strings attached. That's what I've been saying for years. One time, ok. But no strings attached? Insane.

[gla22]

An economic collapse should have occurred. This would have allowed for the structural readjustment to occur. Instead we have used bailouts, government spending and QE to create a 'zombie economy' which will eventually blow up again.

The government should have provided direct assistance keep citizens in homes and provide for the necessities so we wouldn't have a bunch of homeless starving families during the recovery process. Instead we used QE to monetize the debt, inflate asset prices and keep the economy flowing at the expense of greater wealth inequality.

We will see another giant collapse within 10 years.

[eric]

[Dylan]

The silly nicknames are better suited for 45-year old housewives who are just getting "into politics" by listening to talk radio and watching Jon Stewart.

[Dylan]

1. $9B (even deducting the amount they saved in taxes) is a significant settlement. Perhaps Chase's potential exposure was greater, which would explain why Chase's shares went up, but nobody likes to write a check for billions of dollars. It's absurd to think of this as a slap on the wrist.

2. Any private actor can call for settlement negotiations. Big fish call other big fish to discuss such topics. That makes a lot of sense. Characterizing this as a crony-to-crony call to "erase" a legal proceeding or whatever is disingenuous (unless you think settlements are always inappropriate b/c they preclude a legal proceeding. Is that what you're saying?).

3. These cases are settled because it's much more trouble than it's worth to try to go all the way to trial with the kind of lawyers the big banks can afford to hire. Not because they agreed to it in smoke-filled backrooms. It's practical and pragmatic, not conspiratorial.

4. I'd be curious to learn more about the $4B "bogus" portion of the settlement. If this consumer relief is paid pursuant to agreements with investors to fund a portion of any losses incurred as a result of investments gone bad, which I suspect, then so be it. Actors enter into contracts. But there's really no detail in the article just a broadside assertion.

5. I really doubt the characterization of the relevant custodian point. I find it deeply unlikely a judge "took Chase's lawyers at their word" as to whether Fleischmann was a relevant custodian for purposes of that litigation. Another broadside with no supporting evidence.

6. Who better to hire for enforcement than those who have worked on the other side? That's why the private sector loves to hire SEC attorneys after they leave the field.

Would you prefer they hire somebody with no experience in securities fraud?

[eynon81]

[eynon81]