Citigroup come al solito...

[FaGal]

Mts: Fsa(Consob Inglese) Apre Inchiesta Su Trading Citigroup
(ANSA) - MILANO, 18 AGO - La Financial Service Authority (Fsa), l'autorità di controllo dei mercati nel Regno Unito, ha aperto un'inchiesta formale sulle "inusuali attività di trading avviate il 2 agosto" da Citigroup (NYSE: C - notizie) sul mercato europeo dei bond e dei derivati.
L'iniziativa, come sottolinea una nota della Fsa, "potrà portare a una procedura disciplinare formale sulla base di quanto previsto dal Financial e services market act del 2000." Proprio il 3 agosto, la banca statunitense aveva ceduto sull'Mts, la società mercato per la contrattazione dei titoli di Statio, ben 11 miliardi di euro di titoli in soli due minuti, ricomprandone poi 4 miliardi, ma a un prezzo più basso appena un'ora e mezza circa. La maxi-operazione, in particolare, avrebbe interessato 100 titoli liquidi su 11 diversi mercati, scambiati su 13 piattaforme diverse di cui 11 gestite da Mts.
L'operazione ha poi portato il cda della società-mercato ad adottare una delibera in base alla quale possono essere annullate le transazioni di importo molto elevato portate a termine in breve tempo con l'obiettivo di evitare l'alterazione del corretto funzionamento degli scambi.
In altri termini, la delibera consente la contrattazione nell'arco temporale di due minuti, fissando però il limite del 20% del volume medio giornaliero registrato nelle dieci sedute precedenti o, in alternativa, fino a un massimo di 1 miliardo di euro. La decisione del cda è temporanea visto che sarà riesaminata non prima di settembre. (ANSA).

[FaGal]

Worldcom: Sec Indaga Su Citigroup E Altre Tre Banche
(ANSA-BLOOMBERG) - ROMA, 18 MAR - La Sec, organo di vigilanza sul mercato azionario statunitense, starebbe indagando sul conto di Citigroup, numero 1 mondiale nei servizi finanziari, e di altri tre grossi calibri del comparto creditizio, vale a dire J.P. Morgan Chase, Bank of America e Deutsche Bank, in relazione ad un maxi-collocamento di bond WorldCom del valore di 10 mld di dollari. E' quanto si è appreso da fonti ben informate, secondo cui il sospetto è che questi quattro istituti abbiano collocato le obbligazioni del big della telefonia statunitense attualmente in bancarotta pur essendo a conoscenza delle difficoltà in cui si trovava il gruppo.
Il collocamento risale al mese di maggio del 2001 e la Sec si sarebbe mossa sulla spinta di un' azione legale avviata da alcuni possessori di bond, secondo cui il noto ex analista di Citigroup, Jack Grubman, e le altre tre banche avrebbero saputo che WorldCom si trovava in cattive acque; le obbligazioni vennero collocate presso gli investitori 14 mesi prima che il gruppo delle tlc finisse in Chapter 11, la cosiddetta bancarotta protetta.
Questi stessi bond attualmente vengono scambiati ad un prezzo di 35 cents per ogni dollaro nominale.
La vicenda è stata oggetto di un esposto presentato dai titolari di bond (in prima fila fondi previdenziali) l' 8 marzo scorso alla corte distrettuale di New York. Quest' esposto a sua volta si basa fra l' altro su diversi documenti, da cui risulterebbe che parecchie comunicazioni interne alle banche in questione avrebbero evidenziato che queste ultime conoscevano l' effettiva situazione di WorldCom.
Fra l' altro l' esposto si fonda su alcuni report curati dall' ex principe degli analisti finanziari, appunto Grubman, che lasciò Citigroup nel mese di agosto del 2002 e pagò una sanzione da 15 milioni di dollari, oltre ad essere interdetto dall' attività, nell' ambito delle inchieste relative al conflitto di interessi frea analisti ed attività di investment banking.
L' intreccio fra WorldCom e in particolare Citigroup del resto è stato più volte evidenziato. Fra l' altro il fondatore di WorldCom, il discusso Bernard Ebbers, poté contare a suo tempo sull' assegnazione in via privilegiata di titoli della società telefonica all' atto del suo collocamento in Borsa, che gli fruttarono una plusvalenza di circa 12 milioni di dollari. La scorsa settimana WorldCom ha reso noto l' esito dell' ultimo restyling sui suoi conti, che ha evidenziato una perdita netta pari a 73,7 mld di dollari fra il 2000 ed il 2002. La società si prepara ad uscire il mese prossimo dal Capitolo 11, con la nuova denominazione sociale di MCI.
(ANSA).

Citigroup: Sec Apre Inchiesta Su Perdite Divisione Argentina
(ANSA-BLOOMBERG) - ROMA, 6 MAG - L'Authority della Borsa Usa (Sec) ha avviato un'inchiesta sul business in Argentina di Citigroup negli anni 2001-2002-2003, quando il colosso bancario registrò perdite per oltre 2 miliardi di dollari, risentendo del default da 95 miliardi di dollari del debito del Paese dichiarato sul finire del 2001. La Sec, secondo quanto comunicato dalla stessa banca, ha chiesto informazioni collegate alla contabilità e ai controlli interni svolti dalla divisione argentina della Banca. Nel registrar 470 milioni di dollari di oneri nel quarto trimestre del 2001, Citigroup dichiarò che 235 milioni erano dovuti a perdite sui titoli o crediti inesigibili in Argentina. La svalutazione del peso contro dollaro seguita alla crisi finanziaria è costata a Citigroup, secondo i dati in bilancio, altri 235 milioni di dollari. Citigroup ha poi registrato un altro onere per 858 milioni di dollari nel primo trimestre 2002. La Sec "sta cercando riscontri sui tempi e la documentazione relativi a certe entrate contabili o aggiustamenti riportati nei due trimestri" - ha detto la banca Usa in un comunicato.
(ANSA).


Senza contare ammenda di + di 250 milioni di dollari pagata alla sec per archiviare indagine sul comportamento nel caso di Enron

[kaciara]

11 miliardi di euro in due minuti...

(NO COMMENT)


e ci meravigliamo che i governi fantocci si inventano le guerre
per due spiccioli di petrolio...

[FaGal]

Una brutta settimana per Citibank in Giappone

[FaGal]

26 ottobre 2004

Citigroup, multa record per gli hedge fund Usa

Una nuova tegola si abbatte su Citigroup. Il gruppo bancario è stato multato per 250.000 dollari dal Nasd, l’associazione americana degli operatori di Borsa, per aver distribuito prospetti fuorvianti per la vendita di hedge fund. Si tratta della maggior sanzione mai inflitta a un intermediario del settore. Il provvedimento è stato preso proprio nello stesso giorno in cui Citigroup ha avviato una nuova iniziativa per recuperare la fiducia degli investitori giapponesi dopo gli scandali finanziari che l’hanno coinvolta nel Paese asiatico. Il gruppo chiuderà, infatti, le società di consulenza finanziaria e immobiliare in Giappone. Lo scorso mese la Fsa, la Consob nipponica, ha imposto la sospensione delle attività di private banking per le carenze nei controlli interni.

[FaGal]

Per Citigroup arrivano nuovi guai
Una commissione arbitrale ha stabilito che un ex dipendente Worldcom sia risarcito dalla banca per le perdite subite

[FaGal]

Big businesses fighting back against SEC

BY DEBORAH SOLOMON AND MICHAEL SCHROEDER THE WALL

Posted on Sunday, October 31, 2004

URL: http://www.nwanews.com/story/adg/97472

WASHINGTON — Big business to the Securities and Exchange Commission: Enough is enough.

As the number of high-profile corporate accounting scandals starts to diminish, business groups are starting to challenge the authority of regulators to impose new rules and restrictions.

Earlier this month, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce for the first time in history sued the SEC, saying the agency lacked legal authority to dictate how mutual-fund companies should structure their boards. The lawsuit, filed in two federal courts here to establish the appropriate jurisdiction, was in response to a controversial rule requiring that fund-company boards have independent chairmen, and that 75 percent of the board be composed of independent directors.

The suit is part of a broader push by business groups to try to rein in an SEC that has engaged in intense rule-making in the wake of corporate scandals. Two years after the U.S. enactment of Sarbanes-Oxley, which created a slew of new corporate-governance rules, businesses are beginning to bristle at the perceived costs and burden of the rules.

This month, the Managed Funds Association, which represents hedge funds, sent a letter to the SEC challenging its authority to implement a proposal requiring registration of hedge-fund advisers. The SEC on Tuesday, by a 3-2 vote, approved the hedge-fund rule.

A coalition of the Chamber of Commerce and the Business Roundtable has led a campaign against an SEC proposal that would give shareholders more power to nominate directors. And technology businesses have spearheaded a fierce battle against a plan to require companies to account for executives ’ stock options as an expense. There have also been loud cries from companies about the costs of a Sarbanes-Oxley rule requiring stricter corporate internal controls.

The challenges are a marked shift from just two years ago, when corporations and trade groups stayed largely silent as Congress and the SEC imposed new rules to improve corporate governance and bolster investor confidence. But some business representatives say they are concerned that the SEC has started to look for problems where none exist and craft solutions that exceed the agency’s statutory authority. "There is an overreaction" on the part of the SEC, said Stephen Bokat, the Chamber’s general counsel. "Our concern is that they’re going far beyond what they have authority to do and what the statute in these rule makings provides."

SEC officials counter that the rules are a necessary response to problems, including conflicts of interest at mutual funds and the growing size of the largely unregulated hedge-fund industry.

SEC Chairman William Donaldson, who has championed the proposals under attack, has recently begun chastising "business organizations" in his speeches, saying they are trying to derail much-needed improvements in how business operates.

It’s a somewhat awkward position for Donaldson, who has a long history on Wall Street as the founder of an investment bank, former chief executive of Aetna Corp. and a one-time head of the New York Stock Exchange.

John Coffee, a securities-law professor at Columbia University, said businesses are looking to limit the SEC’s power after a period in which it was unacceptable to question the need for new regulation. "It is a matter of the industry beginning to think the pendulum is swinging back and maybe we can constrain the SEC," said Coffee.

But some caution that’s a risky stance to take, especially as revelations of corporate wrongdoing continue. Regulators have recently launched a probe of alleged bid-rigging in the insurance industry, including at Marsh & McLennan Cos., and the SEC is investigating the accounting at Fannie Mae. "Executives who are trying to roll back some of these reforms are going to end up looking somewhat premature," said Henry Hu, a corporate and securities-law professor at the University of Texas.

While there are only a few investment companies among the Chamber’s members, the SEC is proposing other rules that would affect a much larger group. For the Chamber and Business Roundtable, a powerful association of 157 CEOs from the U.S. ’s largest corporations, the biggest concern is a pending proposal to give shareholders greater access to the corporate proxy.

The proposal, which is supported by thousands of small and large investors, academics and corporate-governance advocates, would allow shareholders to nominate directors at companies where they can show widespread dissatisfaction. After being proposed by the SEC a year ago, the rule has been roundly criticized by many in the business community, who say it will corrupt the board process and open companies to the whims of special interests.

The Chamber’s Bokat said the mutual-fund governance lawsuit is a "shot across the bow," signaling to the SEC that the Chamber will challenge the proxy rule if it’s adopted.

Whether the legal challenges will be successful remains to be seen. Earlier this month a federal court rejected the Chamber’s request to delay the mutual-fund rule until the litigation is resolved. But the court did agree to the Chamber’s request to expedite the case.

The collective actions are already having some impact. While Donaldson moved ahead successfully with his plan to register hedge-fund advisers, the proxy proposal is at a standstill.

[lud UK]

Suit accuses Citigroup of interfering with fund

posted on Thursday 4 Nov 2004 07:56 MET
From Associated Press
The Associated Press reports, a global investment fund manager has filed a civil suit against Citigroup.

Lawyers said that the New York-based bank improperly interfered with the investment fund's operations in Brazil. The suit alleges that a Brazilian fund manager affiliated with Citigroup tried to force Globalvest to sell shares in two Brazilian telecommunications companies at less than market value. Globalvest is also suing the Brazilian investment manager, Daniel Dantas, and his company, Opportunity Equity Partners.

The manager, Globalvest Management, is seeking at least $300 million in punitive and compensatory damages.

Opportunity Equity is a private-equity fund in which Citigroup is the sole investor. That suit is being pursued in the Cayman Islands.

[FaGal]

era un giochino vecchio, di fine anni 90, destinato necessariamente a finire, che hanno usato tante multinazionali proprio con il Brasile e sfruttando una falla nella legislazione statunitense
http://www.opensecrets.org/newslette...ext/01code.htm

[FaGal]

Code of Silence
Now You See It, Now You Don’t:
Loophole Makes Corporate Taxes Disappear

By JENNIFER SHECTER

It’s a Capitol Hill fight that might cause even a C-Span junkie to doze off. At issue is an obscure tax code provision “relating to the treatment under subpart F of certain branches of a controlled foreign corporation (CFC) that are treated as separate entities for foreign tax purposes.”
Sound too complex? That’s the point.
The tax code’s complexity keeps the latest legislative priority of a group of multinational corporations out of the limelight. But there’s nothing complex about what the companies want. Their aim is to preserve a loophole that allows them to cut tax payments to foreign governments and avoid any payments to Uncle Sam on profitable overseas operations.
And behind the complexity is a story with all the elements of money-in-politics intrigue. The revolving door of Washington’s power elite, chairmen of Congress’s tax-writing committees, the Treasury Department, the Internal Revenue Service, and some of Washington’s biggest players are all involved in a debate about this narrow special-interest provision of the tax code.
For the companies taking advantage of this loophole, millions of dollars is at stake. But critics argue that the loophole is unfair to competing U.S. businesses that can’t take advantage of the scheme.
In January, the Treasury Department announced plans to restrict multinational companies’ ability to cut their tax burdens using complex — though perfectly legal — arrangements known as “hybrid branches.”
Here’s how it works. A large U.S.-based multinational corporation has a holding company in a place like the Cayman Islands. The holding company sets up a subsidiary in Brazil as a “hybrid branch.” The Cayman-based parent loans money for operations to the Brazilian subsidiary, which, in turn, makes interest payments on the debt to the parent.
Now for some tax magic. The Internal Revenue Service waves its wand and says the branch – and therefore any transactions it has made – doesn’t exist. So the multinational parent pays no income tax to the United States on any transactions from the Brazilian operation.
But what about taxes the hybrid branch owes Brazil? Time for some more magic. The same branch treated as non-existent by the United States is recognized as a separate entity in Brazil — one allowed to deduct the interest payments made to its Cayman parent. These deductions reduce the taxes the branch pays Brazil. Presto! A multinational corporation avoids paying any U.S taxes on these financial transactions while using those same transactions to drastically reduce its tax burden to foreign governments.
So a system originally designed to protect companies from taxation in two countries has the effect of sheltering them from tax burdens in both countries.
The Treasury Department in January issued a daring announcement in the form of “Notice 98-11”: If a multinational corporation significantly reduced its taxes to foreign governments by deducting the hybrid branch interest payments, the Internal Revenue Service was going to acknowledge the branch’s existence. Treasury was not going to stand by any longer while multinational corporations with subsidiaries everywhere paid little or no taxes anywhere.
Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin said, “U.S businesses striving to be competitive in the United States could have been disadvantaged by tax burdens higher than those imposed on their multinational counterparts that availed themselves of hybrid structures.” Translation: American companies without these hybrid branches can’t compete fairly against those that use the technique.
For the large multinationals, Treasury’s decision to start recognizing hybrids threatened a reduction in their bottom lines. The corporations did not just get mad, they got lobbyists.
Enter Daniel Berman. A lobbyist with the firm, Sutherland, Asbill & Brennan, Berman represents the “Notice 98-11 Deferral Group” made up of companies like Philip Morris, Hallmark Cards, and Coca-Cola Enterprises.
Berman is uniquely qualified for the job. As former deputy international tax counsel at the Treasury Department, Berman “directed the development of international tax legislation and managed the United States tax treaty program” according to his biography on Sutherland’s Web site. Who better to plead the coalition’s case than the person who used to write the kinds of proposals the Treasury issued in January?
Berman told Capital Eye that the use of hybrid branches “lowers multinational corporations’ tax burdens immediately, which makes them more competitive immediately, and this increases profitability to shareholders.”
He argues that the Treasury will take in less — not more — revenues by taxing these branches because the multinationals will simply stop using interest payments to lower their taxes abroad. Instead, he contends, they will pay more taxes to foreign governments and take bigger foreign tax credits on their U.S returns.
“Why should the United States be the tax police of the world?” asked LaBrenda Garrett-Nelson of the Washington Counsel, a lobbying firm representing another coalition of multinationals. Like Berman, she said the Treasury’s proposals would serve only the purpose of increasing the revenues of foreign governments.
The Washington Counsel has paired up in this lobbying battle with the accounting firm of Ernst & Young. Accountants placed many of their clients in these hybrid tax arrangements. Price Waterhouse and Deloitte and Touche are leading other coalitions of multinationals. The Price Waterhouse coalition is being led by Kenneth Kies, who served as chief of staff on the Joint Committee of Taxation.
These groups are not the only ones lobbying the Treasury Department. House tax-writing committee members including Chairman Bill Archer (R-Texas) and ranking Democrat Charles Rangel (D-NY) — who received a $1,000 contribution from Washington Counsel lobbyist Nelson in 1998 — each wrote letters to Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin warning him that he was stepping on their turf. Treasury was trying to legislate through the regulatory process, they said, and Congress would not stand for it. Rangel also said Notice 98-11 has created uncertainty for multinationals that is “unfair and harmful to U.S. business interests.”
But Rubin did not back down.
In late March, Treasury issued temporary rules on tax treatment of hybrids. Senate Finance Committee Chairman William Roth (R-Del) responded by inserting a provision in legislation overhauling the Internal Revenue Service that would bar Treasury from carrying out rules on 98-11 for six months. One of the multinationals weighing in on the debate, Merrill Lynch, was Roth’s second biggest contributor between 1991 and 1996.