Comments on: How JP Morgan treats its clients: scandalously and in bad faith http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2010/02/18/how-jp-morgan-treats-its-clients-scandalously-and-in-bad-faith/ A slice of lime in the soda Sun, 26 Oct 2014 19:05:02 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=4.2.5 By: essay writers http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2010/02/18/how-jp-morgan-treats-its-clients-scandalously-and-in-bad-faith/comment-page-1/#comment-54878 Mon, 13 Oct 2014 11:40:42 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=2621#comment-54878 2012 longchamps is on popular purchase now,Longchamp Eiffel Tower Travelling bag has turned into a beneficial type in the world,Imprinted at first glance in the case symbol in the Eiffel Easy, Tower and SimpleBasic and Easy and

]]>
By: donna cerca uomo Roma http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2010/02/18/how-jp-morgan-treats-its-clients-scandalously-and-in-bad-faith/comment-page-1/#comment-54770 Sun, 12 Oct 2014 21:18:32 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=2621#comment-54770 we no more than produce eso gold for special events a result of the hue, therefore doesnt a lot of stuff go together with the item.

]]>
By: https://eyeweardock.com/shop/brand/elle/ http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2010/02/18/how-jp-morgan-treats-its-clients-scandalously-and-in-bad-faith/comment-page-1/#comment-53163 Sun, 28 Sep 2014 15:31:16 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=2621#comment-53163 Related to Merck Individual Care The modern Merck is a international clinical alpha dog fitting in with profit the environment be. Merck Individual Care is a part for Merck Company., Inc. Each day, large numbers trust in a number of our own industry leading makes which help eliminate or perhaps treat many common types of conditions.

]]>
By: cheap fifa 15 coins http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2010/02/18/how-jp-morgan-treats-its-clients-scandalously-and-in-bad-faith/comment-page-1/#comment-52751 Fri, 26 Sep 2014 01:25:23 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=2621#comment-52751 a person formerly michael kors factory outlet engineered beats by dre cheap and beats by dre cheap expanded Nike worldwide michael kors handbags outlet karate/soccer michael kors factory outlet business venture as vp not to mention is states branding vp remedies business michael kors outlet.

]]>
By: rhomes http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2010/02/18/how-jp-morgan-treats-its-clients-scandalously-and-in-bad-faith/comment-page-1/#comment-32026 Wed, 19 Oct 2011 14:44:14 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=2621#comment-32026 Let me tell you what Morgan Stanley did to me. I put $1,000.00 in a Roth IRA about 10 years ago with them. The market has flexed as everyone is aware, but now MSSB has installed a minimum balance fee, before I noticed it and transferred the account (for which they have a %95.00 closing fee) they had debited the account for all she was worth. I will never EVER use Morgan Stanley Smith Barney for the rest of my days. What they have done is essentially legalized stealing. I wish others with the same issues would come together with me in a class action against them. Robert – Long Beach, MS

]]>
By: larch http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2010/02/18/how-jp-morgan-treats-its-clients-scandalously-and-in-bad-faith/comment-page-1/#comment-12218 Wed, 24 Feb 2010 22:16:32 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=2621#comment-12218 One further point. Not much attention has been paid to what confidential information, if any, was available to JPM and Inbursa. Televisa itself has told Inbursa directly that there was no private information supplied to banks – not unusual for strong companies – and on that basis JPM would have had a tough time asking for anything extra (“reasonable’ request would not go beyond company practice unless there was a real credit problem).

That is not to say that the whole idea of Inbursa being a lender isn’t a cause Televisa to stop and wonder but it is hardly the immediate catastrophe Televisa suggests.

]]>
By: larch http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2010/02/18/how-jp-morgan-treats-its-clients-scandalously-and-in-bad-faith/comment-page-1/#comment-12217 Wed, 24 Feb 2010 22:03:18 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=2621#comment-12217 After reading the materials it is not as clear cut as you say.

Apart from the first call to Philips, JPM’s dialogue with Televisa seems to be well documented and it is not at all clear that Televisa was in a panic about confidential information. They were clearly aware of the dialogue with Inbursa and curiously seem to have been negotiating directly with Inbursa themselves. And Salvi Foch also thought the loan was an attractive buy.

Interestingly no one, including you, has commented on the 22% stake in Cablevision that Inbursa holds. First, what information and board representation do they already get because of that? Second if the deeply discounted loan was attractive to Televisa as majority owner, why would it not be to Inbursa? Apart from their own ownership stake, Inbursa would have benefited from the implicit support of Televisa (Televisa probably has cross defaults and accelerations in it loan and bond agreements tied to its subs).

Inbursa is well known for making large, aggressive credit plays in situations where it can arbitrage the international bank practices vs its own strong credit views and more flexible credit allocation practice. In this case they could get a local big name credit cheap because capital restrictions made foreign banks less able to invest in asset plays rather than relationship lending. Also many banks cant hold that kind of large bilateral term loan; their internal rules require syndication. So JPM probably had to firesale the loan and Inbursa saw a deal yielding much more than other Cablebision and Televisa debt.

Separately, amending a standard participation agreement is not prima facie grounds for assuming skulduggery. Most large financial outfits have standard templates for contracts which then get negotiated; some things cannot be changed and others can. No surprise Inbursa wanted to get as many lender rights as it could, and that JPM stuck on the items which would break the loan agreement.

Hard to be sure until both sides get to argue fully in court but there is at least a case here that Televisa reacted only when it lost out to Inbursa, or when someone very senior above Foch learnt about this and had a cow about the Slim link. Either way it would seem that you have taken the easy approach of taking the fashionable bank attack route rather than dig a bit and look at the possibility that there is a more cpmplex but equally juicy story which might still trip up some people at JPM but also at Televisa.

P.S. Your dismissal of the JPM document as “narrowly legalistic” is hyperbole. What else would it be? JPM is making a legal case, not writing an article. And it is pretty standard for this type of submission just as Rakoff’s admittedly racy ruling is standard. There is a lot of information that you simply ignore which is pretty sloppy because it raises lots of unanswered questions which would have made your article more interesting.

]]>
By: MaxKennerly http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2010/02/18/how-jp-morgan-treats-its-clients-scandalously-and-in-bad-faith/comment-page-1/#comment-12154 Mon, 22 Feb 2010 14:39:16 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=2621#comment-12154 Nice find, Felix. As I blogged this morning ( http://bit.ly/9qXCPZ ), JP Morgan’s silence on the facts is telling. It’s not as if they had no opportunity to respond:

“Since JPMorgan moved for summary judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56, they, like Televisa, were entitled to submit affidavits in support of their position, and it appears they submitted declarations from “Sheldon L. Pollock” and “Jaquelina Truzzell.” Both declarations have been unsealed by Judge Rakoff’s order, but neither is on the docket.

I doubt the declarations say much; JPMorgan’s memorandum of law primarily references the Pollock and Truzzell declarations when discussing side matters, like telephone calls and Televisa’s motives for opposing the assignment / participation. Truzzell apparently affirms there are “no side agreements” with Inbursa and that JPMorgan would not release “confidential” information, but that’s it. There’s nothing about how JPMorgan came to participation terms with Inbursa that, at least on their face, entitle Inbursa to a treasure trove of information about Televisa, far more than provided by JPMorgan’s standard participation agreement.

Which I find telling. Though the standard response of most defendants is — for tactical reasons like avoiding getting pinned down to a particular version of events — to “deny and delay” rather than to come forth with an affirmative opposition, under the facts here, JPMorgan really needed to make a better showing. …

Such silence could be, in part, an attempt by JPMorgan to protect Inbursa’s confidences, which arguably would have been appropriate. (I say “arguably” because the totality of the circumstances here — primarily Inbursa’s attempt to negotiate terms more favorable than those typically provided by a participation agreement — imply that Inbursa has waived its right to keep those discussions confidential from Televisa.) But there’s nothing on the docket reflecting an attempt to have Judge Rakoff review any pertinent materials in camera, and so there’s no reason for us to speculate that JPMorgan’s silence was a product of confidentiality.”

]]>
By: manbelbrot http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2010/02/18/how-jp-morgan-treats-its-clients-scandalously-and-in-bad-faith/comment-page-1/#comment-12150 Mon, 22 Feb 2010 08:21:12 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=2621#comment-12150 The phrase “criminal enterprise” comes to mind. The blatant willingness to ignore fiduciary and contractual duty is, to me, not just contemptible, but criminal in the very legal sense of the word. Ah, but special rules for the TARP hand-maidens. And some in the banking world still cannot understand why many now refer to them as “banksters?”

]]>
By: Rudovsky http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2010/02/18/how-jp-morgan-treats-its-clients-scandalously-and-in-bad-faith/comment-page-1/#comment-12136 Sun, 21 Feb 2010 11:50:20 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=2621#comment-12136 This is the exact same Carlos Slim who invested $250 million in the NY Times in either 2008 or 2009. Funny thing, the great NY Times (which prints “all the news it deems fir to print”, shows ZIPPO about this ruling and this case on its own website. To my mind, that is a bigger scandal than the case itself (albeit not surprising, frankly).

]]>