Refco CEO charged with fraud
Phillip Bennett, until last week chairman and chief executive of brokerage firm Refco, has been charged with fraud after Refco accountants discovered debts of $430 million.
Bennett took an indefinite leave of absence on Monday after Refco discovered a company he controlled owed Refco $430 million. The company said it had failed to record repeated transfers of uncollectable obligations from itself to Bennett's company, and, as a result, its accounts since 2002 should now be regarded as unreliable. Bennett has since repaid the $430 million.
Refco shares have fallen by more than 50% since Friday. The US Securities and Exchange Commission started an informal investigation earlier this week.
Investors in Refco lodged several class-action suits against the company and its officers yesterday. The suits claim Refco misled its investors by producing misleading statements, and that various Refco officers knew the company's internal controls were faulty before its initial public offering in August this year.
Refco is pursuing its own investigation of Bennett's actions. According to a Financial Times report yesterday, the investigators have identified the hedge fund Liberty Corner Capital as Bennett's cutout in the debt shuffle. Liberty Corner was allegedly paid a fee for claiming that it, rather than Bennett's company, owed Refco the debts, thus concealing Bennett's involvement. However, it is still not known whether Liberty Corner knew it was helping to hide Bennett's activities from his own company.
The origin and nature of the debts is still uncertain. Refco has revealed that the debts go back as far as 1998 in some cases, raising the possibility that they were acquired, either by Bennett himself or by Refco clients, during the Russian or Asian financial crises of that year. Bennett became chief executive in 1998, having been chief financial officer.
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