• Welcome to The Corporate Insider

    Welcome to The Corporate Insider, a website for workers, consumers, shareholders, academics and members of the press. This site is the internet's resource center for all who are impacted by corporate conduct.

    Recent history has demonstrated that wrongful conduct by corporate insiders can have a devastating impact on corporate stakeholders and observers. From securities fraud which adversely impacts the value of stock to short cuts in the manufacturing process that result in defective products being injected into the marketplace, corporate conduct can be devastating. Yet, it is not so much the conduct of the corporation itself that can be problematic as much as it is the conduct of the corporate insiders who, often times guided by their own self-interest, abuse their corporate mandate to the detriment of stakeholders. In addition to shareholders and consumers, workers lose out when basic wage and hour, benefit, and job safety laws are skirted. Insider wrongdoing has eroded the integrity of many publicly traded corporations, and layoffs and plant closings have caused rising unemployment and the destruction of local economies.

    Why do corporate insiders skirt the law and their obligations to stakeholders? One answer is that misguided executive compensation plans often reward insiders for short term corporate performance as measured by the value of the stock. If not paying workers overtime pay or cutting corners on product safety means profits in the short term, executives who want to see larger year-end bonuses will take the short cuts. While executive compensation plans should be written to properly incentivize insiders, stakeholders can have a real impact by knowing the laws that regulate corporations and taking action to enforce them. These laws range from securities laws to consumer and labor laws. With this in mind, this site has been developed with the intent of providing an overview of the laws that regulate corporate conduct.

and another thing . . .

The Tragedy of the Clemens
Federal prosecutors have indicted former baseball star pitcher, Roger Clemens, for lying to Congress about his alleged use of steroids.

Whether Roger Clemens took steroids and whether, if he took steroids, his statistics need to be placed in a different light undoubtedly is proper banter for the sports pages.

This country has...
Read more...
 

Latest Stats

  • Consumer Price Index
    Unemployment Rate
    Payroll Employment
    Avg. Hourly Earning
    Producer Price index
    Employment Cost index
    Productivity
    U.S. Import Price Index
    Unemploy. Initial Claims
    UI Claims 4-Week Avg.
    Federal Min. Wage

    +0.3%
    9.6%
    -54,000
    +$0.06
    +0.2%
    +0.5%
    -0.9%
    +0.2%
    472,000
    485,500
    $7.25

    7/10
    8/10
    8/10
    8/10
    7/10
    2Q 10
    2Q 10
    7/10
    8/28/10
    8/28/10
    Current

 
Articles:
  • Corporate Integrity Agreements: Asking the Companies to Police Themselves, Please
    The use of a corporate integrity agreements (“CIA”) in resolving the prosecution of pharmaceutical and medical companies is commonplace. As part of a deferred prosecution agreement, the U.S. Department of Justice, or the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Inspector General, will ask the defendant corporation to enter into a CIA to police its behavior and, in part, ensure compliance with the terms of the settlement.
    Read more...

Corporate Insider News:
Citigroup to Pay $75 Million Fine for Misleading Investors PDF Print E-mail
Washington, D.C., July 29, 2010 — The Securities and Exchange Commission today charged Citigroup Inc. with misleading investors about the company's exposure to subprime mortgage-related assets. The SEC also charged one current and one former executive for their roles in causing Citigroup to make the misleading statements in an SEC filing. The SEC alleges that in response to intense investor interest on the topic, Citigroup repeatedly made misleading statements in earnings calls and public filings about the extent of its holdings of assets backed by subprime mortgages. Between July and mid-October 2007, Citigroup represented that subprime exposure in its investment banking unit was $13 billion or less, when in fact it was more than $50 billion.

Citigroup and the two executives agreed to settle the SEC's charges. Citigroup agreed to pay a $75 million penalty. Former chief financial officer Gary Crittenden agreed to pay $100,000, and former head of investor relations Arthur Tildesley, Jr., (currently the head of cross marketing at Citigroup) agreed to pay $80,000.

"Even as late as fall 2007, as the mortgage market was rapidly deteriorating, Citigroup boasted of superior risk management skills in reducing its subprime exposure to approximately $13 billion. In fact, billions more in CDO and other subprime exposure sat on its books undisclosed to investors," said Robert Khuzami, Director of the SEC's Division of Enforcement. "The rules of financial disclosure are simple — if you choose to speak, speak in full and not in half-truths."

Scott W. Friestad, Associate Director of the SEC's Division of Enforcement, added, "Citigroup's improper disclosures came at a critical time when investors were clamoring for details about Wall Street firms' exposure to subprime securities. Instead of providing clear and accurate information to the market, Citigroup dropped the ball and made a bad situation worse."

According to the SEC's complaint, filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, Citigroup represented in earnings calls and public filings from July 20 to Oct. 15, 2007, that its investment bank's subprime exposure was $13 billion or less and had declined over the course of 2007. However, the $13 billion figure reported by Citigroup omitted two categories of subprime-backed assets: "super senior" tranches of collateralized debt obligations (CDOs) and "liquidity puts." Citigroup had more than $40 billion of additional subprime exposure in these categories, which it didn't disclose until November 2007 after a decline in their value.

The SEC's complaint alleges that as early as April 2007, Citigroup's senior management began to gather information on the investment bank's subprime exposure for purposes of possible public disclosure. From the outset of these efforts, internal documents describing the investment bank's subprime exposure included the super senior CDO tranches and the liquidity puts, while noting that they bore little risk of default. Nevertheless on four occasions in 2007, Citigroup stated that its investment bank's subprime exposure was reduced to $13 billion from $24 billion at the end of 2006 — without disclosing the more than $40 billion in additional subprime exposure relating to the super senior CDO tranches and liquidity puts. These occasions included a July 20 earnings call, a July 27 Fixed Income investors call, an October 1 earnings pre-announcement, and an October 15 earnings call.

According to the SEC's order instituting administrative proceedings against Crittenden and Tildesley, they were repeatedly provided with information about the full extent of Citigroup's subprime exposure. Crittenden received a detailed briefing on valuation issues relating to the super senior tranches of CDOs in early September 2007. Tildesley received information that same month that discussed the possibility that Citigroup's disclosures could be misleading because they did not include the amounts of the super senior tranches and the liquidity puts. The SEC's order finds that both Crittenden and Tildesley helped draft and then approved the disclosures that were included in a Form 8-K filed with the SEC on Oct. 1, 2007. The SEC's order finds that, in doing so, Crittenden and Tildesley caused Citigroup's filing to be misleading to investors.

Without admitting or denying the SEC's allegations, Citigroup Inc. consented to the entry of a final judgment that permanently restrains and enjoins it from violation of Section 17(a)(2) of the Securities Act of 1933, Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Exchange Act Rules 12b-20 and 13a-11. Crittenden and Tildesley, without admitting or denying the SEC's findings, consented to the issuance of an administrative order requiring them to cease-and-desist from causing any violations of Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act and Exchange Act Rules 12b-20 and 13a-11.

 
< Prev   Next >