|
|
 |
|
|
|
 |
|
Welcome to the official website of Professor andré douglas pond cummings. Within, you will find links and connections to all of the activities engaged by this dynamic scholar. This greetings/introduction page will serve to showcase the latest insights and thoughts of Professor cummings as he seeks to challenge the status quo and work toward equality and social justice. According to renowned public intellectual Dr. Cornel West, Professor cummings scholarly "reputation goes far beyond . . . the nation, and is heard in every corner of the globe, wrestling with legacies of legal thinking on one hand and popular culture on the other."
|
 |
More Cowbell
Monday, April 23, 2012. Some very interesting stories from unexpected sources: First, the Wall Street Journal reports what most thoughtful observers know already which is that the War on Drugs has been a miserable failure and that we need to seriously consider alternatives to mass incarceration and the fueling prison-industrial complex. See Rethinking the War on Drugs Second, again from the Wall Street Journal, a county court judge in North Carolina just reversed a death penalty conviction based on racially biased jury selection during the trail phase. Judge Gregory Weeks applied a new North Carolina statute that requires death sentences to be changed to life without parole if a judge finds that racial bias played a role in jury selection. "Judge Weeks . . . said in court Friday that North Carolina 'prosecutors intentionally discriminated' against potential black jurors during jury selection historically and in the Robinson case."
(originally published at the Corporate Justice Blog
|
 |
Shareholder Angst.
Angry shareholders forced a delay yesterday at the annual meeting of the EQT Corp. as they openly defied CEO David Porges shouting questions at him about executive compensation, the Buffet Rule, and shareholder proposals that management was actively seeking for shareholders to reject, including a limit on Board member tenure from three years to one year. The EQT Corp. is a 120 year-old energy company that is one of the United States' largest natural gas producers operating in four states and based in Pittsburgh, PA.
From the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette: "The annual shareholders meeting for EQT Corp. was adjourned for more than an hour this morning after angry shareholders began shouting questions at chief executive officer David Porges about fair executive compensation, the ethics of its board of directors and a proposal to shorten director tenures to one year."
Responding to the angry shareholders' concerns, CEO Porges claimed that EQT's executive compensation packages were "much fairer" than the average "ratio of pay between the nation's CEOs and regular workers." Further attempting to minimize the shareholder outrage, "Mr. Porges said the disruption was part of a 'broader movement' of anti-corporation sentiment. 'I don't think the unrest had anything to do with EQT proper,' said Mr. Porges. Their concerns were tied to general industry practices like hydraulic fracturing and a frustration over what they see as outsized compensation and profit at a time when the state is cutting budgets for education and transportation."
Shareholders did succeed in passing a shareholder proposal that management opposed limiting tenures for Board members to just one year. Rarely do shareholder proposals pass, but this proposal was backed by the Ohio Public Employees Retirement System and shareholders succeeded in passing it over management's objections.
Shareholder anger may be a harbinger of things to come as both institutional investors and nominal shareholders seem to be ratcheting up the disaffect with outsized executive compensation packages and corporations that appear to be working for its executives first and its shareholders later. Will corporate leadership pay attention?
|
 |
Citigroup Shareholders Reject Executive Compensation Plan
Citigroup Shareholders Reject Executive Compensation Plan
Dodd-Frank requires a non-binding vote by a company's shareholders on whether they approve of the executive compensation plan disclosed in its proxy material, known as the "say on pay" provision. Citigroup's shareholders today rejected the executive compensation plan submitted by the company. While non-binding, the "say on pay" vote is considered to carry significant weight as a shareholder signal to management that the managers are acting outside of shareholder approval.
Per the Wall Street Journal: "Shareholders of Citigroup Inc. on Tuesday handed the bank a scathing rebuke, rejecting a board-approved compensation package for its senior executives that boosted Chief Executive Vikram Pandit's 2011 pay to $14.9 million from $1 a year earlier.
The shareholder vote, mandated by the Dodd-Frank financial overhaul law, is nonbinding and won't require Mr. Pandit or Citigroup's other executives to give back pay they have already received. But it is a rare setback for a large corporation and could force Citigroup to rethink aspects of its executive-pay practices. Corporate governance advisers had criticized Citigroup's plan because it failed to closely link pay to performance."
Citigroup's shareholders are the first of any major corporation to reject the executive compensation plan submitted for approval. The question is whether the board will take this non-binding vote seriously and begin to address concerns that pay is not significantly tied to performance at Citigroup. Early statements seem to indicate that management will consider this vote a serious rejection of business as usual.
Board chair Richard Parsons responded as follows: "The result 'is a serious matter,' Citigroup Chairman Richard Parsons said at the end of the company's annual meeting in Dallas, where the shareholder vote occurred. The directors will consult with shareholder groups to determine their concerns, he said. . . . The setback followed negative recommendations by two proxy-voting firms widely followed by institutional investors, and could foreshadow increasing shareholder activism. The California Public Employees' Retirement System, a major shareholder, voted against Citigroup's executive-pay practices because 'the bank has not anchored rewards to performance,' spokesman Brad Pacheco said."
Is more shareholder activism in the executive compensation arena on the horizon? The New York Times (DealBook) seems to think so. "The shareholder vote, which comes amid a rising national debate over income inequality, suggests that anger over pay for chief executives has spread from Occupy Wall Street to wealthy institutional investors like pension fund and mutual fund managers. About 55 percent of the shareholders voting were against the plan, which laid out compensation for the bank’s five top executives, including Mr. Pandit. 'C.E.O.’s deserve good pay but there’s good pay and there’s obscene pay,' said Brian Wenzinger, a principal at Aronson Johnson Ortiz, a Philadelphia money management company that voted against the pay package. Mr. Wenzinger’s firm owns more than 5 million shares of Citigroup."
If institutional investors become aggressive in combating the executive compensation problem in the United States, then we could see real change.
|
 |
Eight More Banks Fined for Abusive Foreclosure Practices
Although federal and state officials announced a $25 billion settlement last month with the nation’s five largest mortgage servicing firms, including Bank of America Corp., Wells Fargo & Co., J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., Citigroup Inc. and Ally Financial Inc., the Federal Reserve has named eight more banks to that list of mortgage servicers that it intends to fine for foreclosure abuse primarily through the use of “robo-signers.” The eight additional banks the Fed has deemed to have engaged in abusive foreclosure practices include HSBC Holdings PLC’s U.S. bank division, SunTrust Banks Inc., MetLife Inc., U.S. Bancorp, PNC Financial Services Group Inc., EverBank, OneWest Bank and Goldman Sachs Group Inc. The initial five banks that engaged in foreclosure fraud and abuse were fined over $760 million; no fines for the latest eight have been announced.
The Fed, in spring 2011, ordered several of the largest banks engaged in mortgage lending to review their foreclosure practices. Now, the bank regulators are moving forward to help distressed homeowners by hiring independent consultants to review the bank’s foreclosure files. This arrangement is different than the $25 billion settlement; consumers have to request a review of their case under the banks’ review process. Thus, if consumers are deemed to have received a “financial injury” through abusive foreclosure practices, they may be in line for compensation.
Alternatives to Foreclosure Tested.
Foreclosures continue to plague main street Americans. Working to resolve the continuing foreclosure crisis, Bank of America has rolled out a new program that it thinks might help remedy the crisis: a deed-for-lease program, called “Mortgage to Lease.” This program, allows homeowners who face foreclosure to give/return their mortgage deeds to the bank, and then, in turn, sign leases to remain in their homes as renters. Although the program remains small—and invite-only—Bank of America is attempting to create alternatives by reaching out to homeowners rather than act adversarially. BofA does not expect the “deed-in-lieu” to continue forever. If however, the deed-for-lease program proves less costly than eviction, is less costly to the bank and does not hurt the homeowner’s credit as much as a traditional foreclosure, the program may be expanded.
BofA maintains that it remains optimistic, yet realistic. Owners, after giving up the deed, would be offered one-year leases with the option to renew, at a rate the banks determines to be at or below the current market price. And if this small program works, BofA plans to broaden the program beyond the 1,000 or so homes in Nevada, Arizona, and New York that it has initially targeted. Because of increased foreclosures resulting from the big banks fraudulent “robo-signing,” banks are looking for alternatives to foreclosure, including this Mortgage to Lease program. According to the Wall Street Journal: “One of the outcomes of the ‘robo-signing’ scandal is that it is more difficult to foreclose [now]. . . .It’s more worthwhile for the banks to pursue alternatives.”
Corporate Justic In 2008 testimony to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform in the days following the failure of Lehman Brothers, former Federal Bank chair Alan Greenspan told Congress, “Those of us who have looked to the self-interest of lending institutions to protect shareholders’ equity, myself included, are in a state of shocked disbelief.” Law and economics icon Judge Richard Posner wrote in his 2009 book entitled “The Failure of Capitalism” that “we are learning from [the crisis] that we need a more active and intelligent government to keep our model of a capitalist economy from running off the rails.”
How did the economy run off the rails in 2008? New revelations have just surfaced that should add additional “shocked disbelief” to Greenspan’s admittedly flawed worldview. Last Wednesday, news from Congressional interrogation shows that Washington Mutual, once the nation’s largest savings and loan association, was deliberatelynpackaging mortgages they knew were delinquent or strongly believed would become delinquent, and securitized them as CDOs to pass the risk of known or sure default on to investors. The bank admittedly and purposefully "used shoddy lending practices . . . to make tens of thousands of high-risk home loans that too often contained excessive risk, fraudulent information orerrors” according to the congressional report. The bank, in its reckless pursuit of profits, in the face of competition that had materially minimized its returns resorted to innovative new financial instruments that instead of freeing up capital caused a financial collapse.
In light of this purported failure of capitalism, have Wall Street investment banks and national commercial banks changed their practices—reined in the reckless pursuit of profits at the expense of consumers and shareholders? It appears that the answer is no. Eighteen banks, including Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan and Citigroup, "understated their debt levels used to fund securities trades by lowering them an average of 42% at the end of each of the past five quarterly periods." The very banks that needed bailout money from the U.S. taxpayers in 2008, have for the past five quarters in 2009 and 2010 manipulated their balance sheets by hiding their true risk exposure directly before required quarterly disclosures are due to investors. While these banks argue that this manipulation of balance sheets falls within GAAP (generally accepted accounting principles), that is also the argument that Lehman Brothers makes in response to its “repo 105” practice that has been slammed in the recent Valukas Report.
The incentives inherent in a deregulated market, the private market discipline mantra of Alan Greenspan and the insatiable greed exhibited by Wall Street bank executives clearly do not promote the public welfare. Un-regulated markets that incentivize failure for profit rather than sustainable growth are not beneficial no matter how “free.”
(originally published at the Corporate Justice Blog on March 19 , 2010)
As Steve Ramirez noted earlier this week, Senator Dodd has released his new financial regulation bill which the Senate is likely to take up after health care is completed. The bill moves toward providing additional information to regulators about systemic risk and giving more authority to regulators to manage collapses when they happen, but will likely do little to prevent the next collapse. The bill is as Senator Dodd said: “I’m not predicting that we’re going avoid forever, in the future, any kind of financial crisis. The question is: Are we putting in place the tools that will minimize when that crisis occurs so it doesn’t create the kindof economic carnage that we’ve seen over the last several years?”The bill will not resolve many of the continuing ills present in the financial sector, such problems having recently been exposed in the Valukas report on Lehman Brothers. Still, the bill has the backing of Elizabeth Warren, chairperson of the Congressional Oversight Panel of TARP, despite the fact that the Senate bill situates the new consumer protection agency within the Fed and the status of the Volcker rule remains unclear. The bill appears to be a step in the right direction, even if Goldman Sachs lobbyists are likely to be unfazed by its provisions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |