[NYtimes] AP Study Finds $1.6B Went to Bailed-Out Bank Execs

Then you should't have made a bet expressly contingent upon the company being sued without realizing this..... I realized this, which is I why I agreed to the terms - you said make sure it's "the bank" or "the firm" or "the company" getting sued for fraud. It was. You lost.

Even my mortal enemy MFW, (the fact that you have appointed a profane and profoundly angry chinese nationalist xenophobe as your arbiter is another in a series of increasingly poor decisions on your part...but I digress) agreed that you lost on a "technicality" - a loss is a loss is a loss. And you lost.

 

Actually I can, if I explicitly express what I am referring to in MULTIPLE posts. My posts also clearly state that a few individuals can get a company in trouble, and note that I am not referring to those situations. Yes, MULTIPLE posts note that I am not referring to the types of situations that you are trying to highlight.

I did realize this, which is why I clarified exactly what I meant in multiple posts such as the one above. The language is clearly there, Mr. Attorney. Not my fault you choose to ignore the part of posts that don't fit your story. Posts that were made over 3 years ago.

Let me know when you change your sig.

 

But then you followed it up by citing an example of a few individuals getting the company in trouble by acting on its behalf. That is precisely how and frow what corporate liability stems.

3 years later you tried to draw up a nonexistent legal distinction between "the company" being charged and "the company as a whole" being charged.

This distinciton, as previously stated, does not exist, and you cannot invent it after the fact. Investment banks act through their employees, which includes senior managers and anybody with authority to act on its behalf (which include brokers and traders who are explicitly acting in its name).

You should have understood this prior to making the bet. You clearly didn't. You lost, and now you're going to try to bluster and act like a b**** to try to weasel your way out after staying silent for a few years, and I guess, formulate this strategy.

it's not working.

 

Yes, your tricks aren't working. Any rational reader can see what I was trying to convey in my MULTIPLE posts. Again, let me know when you change your sig. Secondly, don't direct profanity towards me in your posts. I'm not that type of poster.

 

It's not a trick, it's fact.

This happened. Fact.

The SEC asserted that they did. Fact.

This was not a rogue individual, the instances in the SEC suing Bank of America (btw, in that case the actors were THE CEOS...) Citi, and Goldman for actions that the firms/banks took. It wasn't a rogue individual who filed fraudulent proxy statement, or offering documents, the offering documents were filed by THE BANKS.

Fact.

Great example, and it is the exact same instance as the multiple occasoins identified above. Fact. Of course, it was comparatively minor, since in your instance, the bank's violaitons only cost the bank a few milion, whereas in teh Goldman Citi and BOA examples, the banks were forced to pay an aggregate sum in the billions of dollars to atone for the banks wrongful conduct.

Then stop acting like such a whining little ass clown.

You were wrong on the internet, big ****ing deal.

Live with it.

 

so hard to keep straight, which types of corporate welfare are good and which are bad?

 

Ice cream. That is cheap. Fact.

 

Actually I'm not wrong. From the differentiating stipulations that I made clear in MULTIPLE posts, I'm very much right. That won't change no matter how much legal jargon you type. Companies deciding to commit fraud. Not individuals or divisions that dont run the company committing fraud and getting the company sued. I noted in my posts that this very thing happens and can get companies in trouble. Yes, I clarified that I'm not referring to those situations. Hence me noting Sr Mgmt (yes, 3 years ago). It's not that complex and that distinction was made 3 years ago. Companies, ie Sr Mgmt deciding to cheat people. Not that complex. At least it shouldn't be for a lawyer.

 

Not coming down on either side of this but we should have some sort of a bet forum with a jury. Bets on this forum are the most complicated and least followed through with.

 

You did not say a bank AND senior management - you said a bank OR senior management. Accordingly - the condition was fulfilled.

The company was acting - the company made the fraudulent statements - therefore the company was sued.

You lose

 

No, I don't. My McDonalds example makes it clear as day, no matter how much you try to act like you can't comprehend dome

 

No, I don't. My McDonalds example makes it clear as day, no matter how much you try to act like you can't comprehend what I typed. Not falling for it. Doesn't get much clearer than me saying I'm referring to Sr Execs at McDonalds deciding to commit fraud and not someone who simply works there doing wrong. Not that complex. Last post on it. Scream and curse to your hearts content. The rest of us can read and comprehend.

 

If a cashier at mcdonalds intentionally defrauds you on mcdonalds behalf - mcdonalds is defrauding you, and mcdonalds is laiable


Just like when Goldman, citi, BOA issued fraudulent documents on their firms repective behalf, which is why they had to pay billions in damages. (The traders did not...)

You lose - and you are just adding b**** points by denying it.

 

From a purely legal perspective no one is denying that. No one said the corporation wasnt liable. My posts actually stated they were and I'm not referring to those instances. Hence me clarifying the distinction in MULTIPLE posts.

So keep adding to your dummy points for not being able to comprehend that I made a clear distinction, or your fraud points for realizing the distinction was made and ignoring it or saying "it's not possible legally".

You lose, and you are just adding b**** points by denying it!!! Woosah.

 

The distinction you're clarifying doesn't exist. Either a company is deemed as having acting, or it didn't. That is the extent of the inquiry - and when companies make public filings - they are very obviously acting.

Look, what you haven't addressed in two days worth of backpedaling is the fact that the example you cited is the exact same legal theory as the multiple other cases. It multiplies your already huge b****-point tab manyfold.

Why don't you just admit that this is an area in which you don't have subject matter expertise instead of trying to invent ludicrous distinctions between "the company" as a defendant and "the company as a whole" as a defendant - it doesn't exist, you didn't understand this going in, and now it is hurting you.

Believe it or not, kiddo, there are things about which others are subject matter experts and which you are not. This is obviously one of them. There are probably things which you understand better than some people, like accounting internships or Morehouse college, because you've done them. There are other things which you don't, like federal securities law, because you haven't.

You should probably accentuate the positive and not the negative when dealing with your limitations.

 

All bad...