So much for the SEC’s renaissance.
A federal judge refused to sign off on the Securities and Exchange Commission’s $75 million settlement with Citigroup, saying she needs more information to decide if it’s fair.
The judge, Ellen Segal Huvelle, asked the commission and the bank to provide additional information, the Wall Street Journal reported.
Citi agreed last month to pay $75 million to settle charges that the bank failed to timely disclose its full exposure to subprime mortgages. The agency said the bank, in an effort led by then finance chief Gary Crittenden, concealed $40 billion of souring subprime exposure for more than a month, until a management shakeup forced the company to come clean.
The settlement gave Citi yet another black eye, if that’s possible, and looked like a victory for the SEC, which has been looking newly vigorous after years of dozing at the switch. The agency last month won a $550 million settlement against Goldman Sachs, which admitted making mistakes in its disclosures to investors who got cleaned out on subprime debt deals the bank sold.
But Monday’s setback in the Citi case echoes an SEC case against Bank of America that got thrown out late last year by U.S. District Judge Jed Rakoff. He rejected a $33 million settlement of a case over BofA’s handling of disclosure of its Merrill Lynch purchase, on the grounds that the settlement agreement didn’t explain just why BofA was paying. He later approved a $150 million settlement.
In the Citi-BofA case, Judge Huvelle questioned how the SEC arrived at the penalties being paid by Citi and two former execs including Crittenden, and why shareholders should pay for the alleged misdeeds of insiders who settle for peanuts. That question has been getting a good airing ever since the Citi settlement was announced.
Monday’s ruling shows the SEC’s rebound has a ways to go yet.