Bank of America sues Bear Stearns, Cioffi and Tannin
NEW YORK - Failed US bank Bear Stearns and two of its former hedge fund managers, Ralph Cioffi and Matthew Tannin, are being sued by Bank of America. The bank accuses Bear Stearns and both men - already indicted in June on federal charges of subprime market abuse - of misleading it in a "desperate" bid to obtain capital to prop up ailing hedge funds. Bank of America is seeking $2 billion from Bear Stearns, which has become part of rival Wall Street bank JP Morgan after its forced sale in April. JP Morgan has previously said it expects losses arising from litigation, consolidation and other issues surrounding the takeover to reach $6 million.
Tannin was Bear Stearns' head of asset management, while Cioffi was directly responsible for managing the funds in question.
Bank of America has claimed in the New York Federal Court that the two men were engaged in "egregious conduct" in their search for liquidity relating to a 'CDO-squared' transaction - effectively a further derivatives product on an existing collateralised debt obligation (CDO). According to the complaint, mortgage-backed assets owned by the Bear Stearns hedge funds were used in the sale of securities packaged by Bank of America. The hedge fund losses were allegedly hidden from Bank of America, leading to the funds' eventual collapse and decline in value of the assets and securities themselves. Bank of America claims the damages were compounded by the men luring it into providing a further $1 billion in funding to keep the funds afloat, leading to what says were "significant losses".
Only users who have a paid subscription or are part of a corporate subscription are able to print or copy content.
To access these options, along with all other subscription benefits, please contact info@risk.net or view our subscription options here: http://subscriptions.risk.net/subscribe
You are currently unable to print this content. Please contact info@risk.net to find out more.
You are currently unable to copy this content. Please contact info@risk.net to find out more.
Copyright Infopro Digital Limited. All rights reserved.
As outlined in our terms and conditions, https://www.infopro-digital.com/terms-and-conditions/subscriptions/ (point 2.4), printing is limited to a single copy.
If you would like to purchase additional rights please email info@risk.net
Copyright Infopro Digital Limited. All rights reserved.
You may share this content using our article tools. As outlined in our terms and conditions, https://www.infopro-digital.com/terms-and-conditions/subscriptions/ (clause 2.4), an Authorised User may only make one copy of the materials for their own personal use. You must also comply with the restrictions in clause 2.5.
If you would like to purchase additional rights please email info@risk.net
More on Regulation
Esma denies need for new competitiveness mandate
MEP wants explicit requirement; Esma official says it’s already covered in existing rulebook
US regulators cut FRTB’s IMA capital hit by 59%, Isda finds
Trade body pushes for further changes to cross-product netting, default risk charge
US FRTB glitch could spit out negative capital charges
Effort to recognise risk diversification between IMA and standardised approach went too far
Euronext, LCH back Esma as exchange super-regulator
National oversight hurts Europe, exchange officials say – but some are not ready to accept a single watchdog
Double, but no trouble? CVA capital hit may lack clout
Industry opinion mixed around Basel III endgame derivatives charge
Amid debanking drama, banks try to say ‘no’, safely
A basic risk management tool – the ability to turn a customer away – has become a political football
Erba myth: will US banks choose new capital measure?
B3E gives US banks a dilemma – adopt expanded risk-based approach, or a new standardised alternative
Illiquid assets pricing still needs expert judgement, say banks
EU regulators want more transparency in valuations, but some asset prices remain elusive