Similar kinds of backdoor derivatives deals resulted in some U.S. cities and counties filing for bankruptcy as well. In 2011, Jefferson County, Alabama entered into the largest municipal bankruptcy at that time with $4 billion in debt. Remember the example with the treasurer of Orange County, CA who relied upon psychic advisors? In that instance, Merrill Lynch representatives roped him in with a derivatives contract. On the other hand, JPMorgan Chase took the ethical high road by refusing to offer such a venture because the county’s treasurer was clearly unqualified to evaluate the risks involved. However, fast forward nearly twenty years later and JPMorgan’s reps jumped right onto that gravy train. In fact, their representatives bribed
…show more content…
The modification passed in the House on a Friday afternoon through a process called “unanimous consent,” which only took 30 seconds with no debate after many members of Congress had left for the weekend. “National security” fears were cited as the reason behind the modification and it basically gutted the bill by virtually eliminating any transparency for detecting insider trading. For example, in 2014 the SEC attempted to conduct one of these investigations of a high level staffer from the House Ways and Means Committee. In response, the committee officially refused to comply with their subpoenas citing that their members were “absolutely immune” from that type of …show more content…
Investors already had very few effective protections against fraud inundating corporate America. That was supposed to change with the Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002, which was passed in the aftermath of a couple of high profile accounting scandals with executives from Enron and WorldCom swindling their investors out of millions of dollars. Sarbanes Oxley was sold to the public as a measure that would truly hold corrupt executives accountable, however that message hasn’t made its way to their ivory towers. Let’s put it this way, two years after Sarbanes Oxley went into effect, CFO Magazine conducted a survey of 179 Chief Financial Officers (CFOs) from some of the largest companies in America. Yet, forty-seven percent responded that they still felt pressure within their company to mislead investors with financial reports. Plus, only 27% felt “very confident” about the accuracy of financial statements from other companies. Essentially, corporate criminals are placing a very safe bet by calling the bluff of the federal government. They know that white collar crooks are unlikely to get
The modification passed in the House on a Friday afternoon through a process called “unanimous consent,” which only took 30 seconds with no debate after many members of Congress had left for the weekend. “National security” fears were cited as the reason behind the modification and it basically gutted the bill by virtually eliminating any transparency for detecting insider trading. For example, in 2014 the SEC attempted to conduct one of these investigations of a high level staffer from the House Ways and Means Committee. In response, the committee officially refused to comply with their subpoenas citing that their members were “absolutely immune” from that type of …show more content…
Investors already had very few effective protections against fraud inundating corporate America. That was supposed to change with the Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002, which was passed in the aftermath of a couple of high profile accounting scandals with executives from Enron and WorldCom swindling their investors out of millions of dollars. Sarbanes Oxley was sold to the public as a measure that would truly hold corrupt executives accountable, however that message hasn’t made its way to their ivory towers. Let’s put it this way, two years after Sarbanes Oxley went into effect, CFO Magazine conducted a survey of 179 Chief Financial Officers (CFOs) from some of the largest companies in America. Yet, forty-seven percent responded that they still felt pressure within their company to mislead investors with financial reports. Plus, only 27% felt “very confident” about the accuracy of financial statements from other companies. Essentially, corporate criminals are placing a very safe bet by calling the bluff of the federal government. They know that white collar crooks are unlikely to get