Total Pageviews

Case Against SAC Is Aided by Hiring of Fired Trader

Richard S. Lee’s first day of running a trading desk was his last.

In March 2008, hours after starting a new job at Citadel, Mr. Lee signed into the hedge fund’s accounting system and misstated the value of his holdings, according to people briefed on the matter. That effort ultimately would have inflated Mr. Lee’s returns by about $4.5 million. Citadel, based in Chicago, detected the misconduct and fired him the next morning.

Such a shady move would have blacklisted most traders from Wall Street, but Mr. Lee found a new home: SAC Capital Advisors, the hedge fund run by the billionaire stock picker Steven A. Cohen that federal prosecutors have called a “magnet of market cheaters.” Although a Citadel employee and SAC’s legal department warned about Mr. Lee’s past, Mr. Cohen hired him anyway.

An examination of Mr. Lee’s hedge fund career underscores his importance to the government’s criminal insider-trading case against SAC. Federal authorities in Manhattan announced SAC’s indictment last week, an unusual, forceful action against a large company.

Mr. Lee, who has pleaded guilty and is cooperating with investigators, proved crucial to the government’s case â€" not so much because of his illicit trading, but because of how he landed a job at SAC despite his earlier misstep. Mr. Lee’s interview process added to questions about SAC’s hiring practices and controls. His cooperation, as well as evidence suggesting that SAC recruited employees with sources inside publicly traded companies, provided ammunition for the government’s claim that SAC and its units permitted a “systemic” decade-long insider-trading scheme.

People briefed on the investigation say that Mr. Lee also possesses a rich vein of information about other illicit activity at SAC, including potential insider trading in the shares of Gymboree, the children’s clothing store. The trade, linked to Bain Capital’s 2010 takeover of Gymboree, was not cited in the indictment, which said that Mr. Lee obtained secrets about “various” companies, including “but not limited to” Yahoo and 3Com, a maker of computer hardware and software.

“Richard Lee has accepted responsibility for his prior conduct,” said Mr. Lee’s lawyer, Richard D. Owens of Latham & Watkins. Mr. Owens declined to comment on his client’s time at Citadel, but a person close to Mr. Lee said that he did not intend to misstate the value of the trades.

It is unclear whether Mr. Lee has provided prosecutors with evidence against Mr. Cohen, who is not accused of any criminal wrongdoing. Yet the government is still homing in on other former SAC employees, people briefed on the investigation said, and is still trying to build a criminal case against Mr. Cohen. In a separate civil case filed last month, the Securities and Exchange Commission accused Mr. Cohen of failing to supervise his employees.

Under this cloud of suspicion, SAC is carrying on business as usual, and Wall Street banks continue to trade with the firm.

On Wednesday, a top bank executive spoke publicly in support of the hedge fund for the first time since the indictment. Gary D. Cohn, the president of Goldman Sachs, said that his firm continued to do business with SAC, which is based in Stamford, Conn., and manages about $14 billion.

“They’re an important client to us, they have been an important client to us,” Mr. Cohn said in an interview on CNBC. “We continue to trade with them, and they’re a great counterparty.”

Goldman’s open embrace of SAC comes at a tricky time. That bank, along with others, came under scrutiny for its conduct leading up to the financial crisis. On Thursday, after a civil trial, a jury found that Fabrice Tourre, a former Goldman trader, defrauded the bank’s investors in the sale of a complex mortgage-bond deal.

Over the years, SAC has generated billions of dollars in commissions for brokerage firms and is a Top 5 client on stock-trading desks at most large banks. Banks have also earned big revenues supporting SAC by clearing its trades and financing its operations.

It remains to be seen whether SAC will become a less important client on Wall Street over the longer term. The fund’s assets under management are dropping as investors have asked to withdraw money amid the intensifying investigation. Over the last six months, many investors have cut ties with SAC, with roughly $5 billion of $6 billion in outside money being withdrawn from the fund.

The firm could also see an exodus of employees. Already, according to one executive of another hedge fund, some SAC employees are stealthily conducting interviews in hotel rooms and private homes to avoid being seen on rivals’ trading floors.

After the indictment last week, senior bank executives debated whether the government’s charges required them to terminate their relationship with SAC, or whether it was too hazardous trading with a firm operating under indictment.

“Everyone had the conversation, and it happened at the highest levels,” said a senior Wall Street executive who spoke on the condition that he not be named because he was not authorized to discuss the matter publicly.

The decision to keep SAC as a client was based on a number of factors, according to conversations with four executives at three banks, who all deal directly with the fund.

A major reason the banks continue to trade with SAC is that the fund is viewed as a safe trading partner. SAC is considered very well capitalized, and the government did not freeze any of its assets nor has it tried to affect the fund’s operations.

Another critical factor is the presumption of innocence. Bank executives reason that it would be unfair to terminate a relationship based on accusations. The fund said that it “has never encouraged, promoted or tolerated insider trading and takes its compliance and management obligations seriously.”

The banks also note that SAC has bolstered its legal and compliance staff. Today, there are about 40 compliance personnel, an increase from 10 in 2008, when much of the activity at the center of the indictment took place. SAC spends millions of dollars a year on surveillance of trading activity and communications like e-mail and phone conversations.

“You’re dealing with a more buttoned-up infrastructure there in 2013 than you were a few years ago,” a Wall Street executive said.

There is also, in some executives’ views, little that is new contained in the indictment. Prosecutors still have not charged Mr. Cohen, who owns 100 percent of the firm. They also note that of the eight former SAC employees accused in the filing of insider trading, seven were previously known, with six having already pleaded guilty.

Mr. Lee was the former employee whose role in the investigation was not publicly known until last week.

A 34-year-old trader who graduated from Brown University, Mr. Lee pursued Wall Street riches after a stint at the Clinton Foundation and at the consulting firm McKinsey & Company, according to public records. His hedge fund career began in 2003 as an analyst for the prestigious firm Farallon Capital Management. Seeking a new role three years later, he interviewed at SAC, but accepted a job at Citadel.

Working from his native Chicago, Mr. Lee was part of Citadel’s special situations group, placing bets tied to events like product recalls or companies being sued. With a trim build and a soft-spoken manner, Mr. Lee did little to attract attention.

But after two years, when his boss moved on, Citadel thrust Mr. Lee into a new role atop the desk. The promotion took effect on March 31, 2008.

That evening, as Mr. Lee valued existing positions, he edited some of the figures to underestimate his predecessor’s returns. That way, the people briefed on the matter said, Mr. Lee could collect even greater gains if the position continued to rise, a move that would have increased his pay by $100,000 or more. Within hours, the people said, a colleague flagged Mr. Lee’s activity.

Kenneth C. Griffin, Citadel’s chief executive, approved the decision to fire him.

In April 2009, Mr. Lee joined SAC. He did so, prosecutors said, over objections of SAC’s lawyers. Mr. Cohen “received a warning” from a Citadel employee that Mr. Lee belonged to Citadel’s “insider trading group,” said the government filing.

Citadel, which has not been accused of wrongdoing, said in a statement that “it does not have, and never has had, an ‘insider trading group.’ ”

It is unclear how Mr. Lee, despite his problems at Citadel, persuaded SAC to hire him, though he had a previous interview experience to draw upon.

In a 2006 interview with SAC, the indictment said, Mr. Lee told the fund that he routinely relied on so-called expert networks that connect traders with corporate insiders. A senior SAC executive, however, told Mr. Lee that the fund’s top traders typically tapped their own personal network of public company employees for information.



U.S. May Move Against Bank Over Jumbo Loan Securities

Bank of America disclosed on Thursday that the Justice Department was weighing whether to bring a civil complaint against it over claims that the bank had improperly handled securities backed by jumbo loans.

The Securities and Exchange Commission is also considering whether to file a civil action over how Merrill Lynch, the brokerage house owned by Bank of America, handled its securities, the bank said in a filing.

The potential actions would be the latest mortgage woes for the bank, which is based in Charlotte, N.C., just as it is trying to move beyond the problems of the financial crisis.

In the filing on Thursday, Bank of America said it was “in active discussions” related to the investigations. As part of those discussions, the bank will seek to argue why bringing a civil charge would be a mistake.

In addition, the New York attorney general may also move against Merrill Lynch over the residential mortgages the bank packaged and sold.

Bank of America was pummeled by a glut of bad mortgages it inherited after acquiring a troubled mortgage lender, Countrywide Financial, in the financial crisis.

And like some of its Wall Street rivals, Bank of America is still grappling with mistakes it made during the housing boom.

In October, federal prosecutors in New York accused Bank of America of churning out loans through its Countrywide unit at such a rapid clip that quality controls were largely ignored.

The bank also is facing a high-stakes lawsuit in federal court that could further crimp profits. In that case, the Federal Housing Finance Authority, which oversees Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, sued Bank of America and 17 other banks, claiming that the lenders had duped the agencies into buying shaky securities.

As part of its efforts to move beyond the mortgage turmoil, Bank of America reached a $1.7 billion settlement in May to resolve a drawn-out battle with MBIA, the bond insurer, over mortgage-backed securities.



Banks as Bookies

Why did Fabrice Tourre’s security exist?

I refer to the security that he helped to create while he worked at Goldman Sachs. A jury concluded on Thursday that he misled investors, as the Securities and Exchange Commission alleged.

The important thing to understand is that the securitization at issue in no way helped to create capital for anything. It was a pure gamble. One side bet that the mortgage market would collapse. The other bet it would not. I don’t see any difference between that and betting on a football game.

Consider the mortgage securitization market. First, there are mortgages, which help people buy homes. Those mortgages are packaged in a securitization and sold to investors. Some investors buy tranches that give them low yields with little chance of loss. Others get tranches with higher yields, but will lose their principal if enough borrowers default. The money put up by the investors helped to finance home buyers, which is the kind of thing a financial system should do. (It did it badly, but that is not the issue here.)

The next level of security packaged a bunch of tranches from different deals and sold securities based on those assets. By raising money to finance tranches in the first level of securitizations, it indirectly helped to finance home buyers.

Note that nobody needed to bet against either of those securitizations. The money put up by the buyers was going to home owners, or at least to those who had previously lent to those buyers.

But the securitization that Mr. Tourre helped to create was “synthetic.” It did not raise money that went, directly, or indirectly, to homeowners or to those who had lent money to them. Instead it picked a bunch of tranches from previous securitizations â€" tranches that no one involved in this deal had to own â€" and fashioned a new securitization in which one set of investors bet those securities would work out O.K., and another set bet they would not.

It proved to be a wonderful bet for one side, and a horrid one for the other. Something similar happened in the Super Bowl last year, when betters who were smarter, or luckier, than others bet that Baltimore would defeat San Francisco. They made money, bettors on the other side lost money, and the bookies in the middle took a cut.

If people want to gamble, I see no particular reason to stop them. Sports betting is legal in Nevada. But I don’t think that banks that have access to insured deposits should be using that money to put together a sports betting book and taking out the bookie’s cut, whether or not they accurately explain the wager to the customers.



New York Investigates Disqualification of Customers by Banks

New York’s top prosecutor is investigating some of the nation’s largest banks in connection with their use of credit-reporting databases that disqualify people seeking to open checking or savings accounts â€" an inquiry that has gained urgency as the ranks of the unbanked has swelled in the aftermath of the financial crisis.

The New York attorney general, Eric T. Schneiderman, on Thursday sent a batch of letters seeking information to six banks, including Bank of America, Citibank and JPMorgan Chase, people briefed on the matter said.

The inquiry on Thursday is playing out as a growing number of banks and credit unions tap into the vast repositories of information â€" a record of banking transgressions including bounced checks, overdrawn accounts and fees â€" to guard against risky customers and protect against fraud.

But consumer advocates and state authorities say the databases are disproportionately affecting lower-income Americans, whose precarious financial footing makes them more likely to end up in the databases for relatively small financial errors like amassing fees or bungling a monthly budget.

Concerned that banks might be “improperly denying or otherwise restricting banking access to New York consumers,” Mr. Schneiderman’s office is requesting more information about the use of the databases, zeroing in, for example, on how the lenders ultimately decide whether to accept a customer, according to copies of the letters reviewed by The New York Times.

Negative reports in the databases have effectively banished more than a million lower-income Americans from the financial system, relegating them to a second-class tier in which they are forced to use costly fringe operations to pay bills or cash a check, according to interviews with financial counselors, consumer lawyers and more than two dozen low-income people in California, Illinois, Florida, New York and Washington.

The ranks of those without bank accounts has ballooned â€" up more than 10 percent since 2009, according to the most recent estimates from the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.

The databases, Mr. Schneiderman’s office said, could especially harm “African-Americans, Latinos and other minority groups,” a potential violation of state and federal laws governing equal access to credit.

Use of the databases and the problems associated with them were the subject of an article in The Times on Wednesday.

JPMorgan said that a single negative mark in ChexSystems, the largest database, would typically not present a hurdle for someone looking to obtain an account. Others, like Bank of America and Citibank, have said that they cull the information in the databases prudently, discerning between people who have willfully committed fraud and those whose records are marred only by small mistakes.

Some banks have introduced second-chance checking accounts for people who may not qualify for traditional bank accounts. The databases, the banks say, are an important tool to root out fraud, a problem that continues to bedevil them. Losses from fraud on new bank accounts doubled between 2011 and 2012, according to Javelin Strategy and Research, surging to $9.8 billion last year.

People ensnared in the databases say it can be tough to correct inaccurate information or obtain a copy of the report, a requirement under a federal law aimed at diminishing the flow of inaccurate consumer information.

Mr. Schneiderman requested that banks detail the processes in place for consumers to dispute inaccurate information, the people said. His office is also requesting ZIP-code level data for every customer denied an account as a result of the databases between Feb. 1 and July 1 of this year, the people said.

The banks have until Tuesday to schedule a time to meet with the attorney general’s office to further discuss the matter.



HootSuite Raises $165 Million in New Round of Financing

HootSuite, which provides services to manage multiple social media accounts like Facebook and Twitter, said on Thursday that it has raised $165 million in new financing from a trio of investment firms.

The Series B round was led by Insight Venture Partners and included Accel Partners and an existing investor, OMERS Ventures. Representatives from all three firms will join the company’s board. Other financial terms, including the round’s valuation, weren’t disclosed.

HootSuite is one of several start-ups focusing on social media tools for enterprise users. It’s a popular space these days, as companies ranging from Salesforce.com to Adobe have bought digital marketing service providers with a focus on social networking.

Founded four years ago in Vancouver, HootSuite offers ways for clients to manage their social media presences from one dashboard, as analyze the effectiveness of their campaigns. Among its clients are PepsiCo, Sony Music and HBO.

With the new financing, the company plans to continue expanding internationally, to expand its product and sales employee rosters and potentially to make some acquisitions.

“This capital gives us additional resources to expand quickly and strategically into new markets, innovate rapidly, and deliver on our vision around the world,” Ryan Holmes, HootSuite’s chief executive, said in a statement.



Former Goldman Trader Is Found Liable in Mortgage Deal

Fabrice Tourre, the former Goldman Sachs trader at the center of a toxic mortgage deal sold to investors on the eve of the financial crisis, was found liable on Thursday for civil securities fraud.

Five years after the crisis, he is the only employee of a big American bank to lose a courtroom battle to Wall Street’s top regulator, the Securities and Exchange Commission. The S.E.C. took only a handful of employees to court over the crisis, but most cases were settled.

After two days of deliberation, the nine-person jury concluded that Mr. Tourre misled investors about the mortgage deal, capping a more than two-week civil trial in one of the most prominent cases involving the 2008 crisis.

Of the seven charges facing Mr. Tourre, the jury found him liable on six.

Mr. Tourre, a 34-year-old Frenchman who is enrolled in a doctoral economics program at the University of Chicago, now faces a fine, or worse, a ban from the Wall Street. The verdict raises questions about his lawyers’ decision not call a single witness, a show of confidence that failed to impress the jury.

The S.E.C. overcame a rocky start to its case. In the opening days of the trial, the S.E.C. blanketed the jury with financial jargon and called a witness who suddenly contradicted earlier statements he made to the agency, saying that he had been “scared” and pressured by S.E.C. officials.

For the S.E.C., an agency still dogged by its failure to thwart the crisis, the verdict delivered a long-sought courtroom victory for its crisis-era cases. The defining moment follows one courtroom disappointment after another, including two similar mortgage-related cases that crumbled. In one case, a jury cleared a midlevel Citigroup employee, questioning why the agency declined to charge more senior executives at the bank.

Even with the triumph over Mr. Tourre, however, the S.E.C. could face scrutiny all the same.

Some critics have questioned why the agency chose to make Mr. Tourre â€" a midlevel employee who was stationed in the bowels of Goldman’s mortgage machine â€" the face of the crisis. Rather than take aim at a high-flying executive, the agency pursued someone barely known on Wall Street, let alone Main Street.

Although the agency has won about 80 percent of its trials under Matthew T. Martens, and has sued 66 chief executives and other senior officers in crisis-related cases, most Wall Street employees settled without fighting in court.

Despite the criticism, the S.E.C. threw its resources at Mr. Tourre’s case. For one, the agency talked to a private jury consultant. It also assigned Mr. Martens to the case, even though he typically oversees the agency’s trial lawyers without acting as one.

“There is no denying the importance of this to the S.E.C. because it is a financial crisis case,” said Stephen J. Crimmins, a partner at law firm K&L Gates and former deputy chief litigation counsel in the S.E.C. enforcement division.

Andrew Ceresney, co-director of the S.E.C.’s division of enforcement, on said in a statement: “We are gratified by the jury’s verdict finding Mr. Tourre liable for fraud. We will continue to vigorously seek to hold accountable, and bring to trial when necessary, those who commit fraud on Wall Street.”

Judge Katherine B. Forrest has the final say on monetary sanctions, be it disgorgement of profits made from the trade in question or a fine. The fine could range from $5,000 to $130,000 per violation.

Mr. Tourre also faces a ban from the securities industry, but any decision to prohibit Mr. Tourre from working on Wall Street, and for how long, lies solely with the S.E.C.

A lawyer for Mr. Tourre declined to comment on Thursday.

A spokesman for Goldman Sachs said, “As a firm, we remain focused on being more transparent, more acountable and more responsive to the needs of our clients.”

The verdict comes three years after the S.E.C. thrust Mr. Tourre into the spotlight with civil charges and a series of embarrassing e-mails. Those e-mails, in which Mr. Tourre referred to a friend nicknaming him the “Fabulous Fab,” a moniker that has come to define Mr. Tourre’s persona, transformed him from an obscure trader into a symbol of Wall Street hubris.

The S.E.C.’s case against Mr. Tourre hinged on the claim that he and Goldman sold investors a mortgage security in 2007 without disclosing a crucial conflict of interest: a hedge fund that helped construct the deal, Paulson & Company, also bet it would fail. In his opening argument to the jury, Matthew Martens, the S.E.C.’s lead lawyer, depicted the commission’s case as an assault on “Wall Street greed,” arguing that Mr. Tourre created a deal “to maximize the potential it would fail.”

Mr. Tourre was living in a “Goldman Sachs land of make believe” where deceiving investors is not fraudulent, Mr. Martens declared on Tuesday when delivering his closing arguments.

Lawyers for the former Goldman trader, however, portrayed their client as a scapegoat who was 28 at the time of the crisis. Throughout the trial, the defense lawyers reminded the jury that senior Goldman executives approved the deal.

“The idea that Fabrice Tourre, a 28-year-old vice president, was conjuring up a $1 billion fraud, or conspiring with others, is just not supported by the evidence,” Sean Coffey, one of his lawyers, said during his closing arguments.

Mr. Tourre, whose fresh face and diminutive stature suggest he is much younger than his current age of 34, took the witness stand for three crucial days. While he showed a sympathetic side as someone who has shunned Wall Street to pursue his Ph.D. and a teaching career, he also stumbled at times and even conceded that he made mistakes.

But his defense failed to persuade a jury that included a minister, a graphic designer and a former stockbroker. The broker routinely whipped his head back and forth between the lawyers and the witness stand, but other jurors appeared to nod off as the case became bogged down in financial minutiae.

In finding Mr. Tourre liable for civil fraud, the jury concluded that he made a material â€" or important â€" misstatement to investors and failed to correct it. The S.E.C. had to prove its case by a preponderance of the evidence, a lower standard than criminal cases.

In deliberating the S.E.C.’s most serious claims, the jury was instructed to weigh whether Mr. Tourre intended to defraud investors, or at least acted recklessly. The lesser charges required only that Mr. Tourre acted negligently.

In 2010, the S.E.C. had also charged Goldman with fraud. Not long after the case was announced, the bank settled for $550 million, a record fine at the time.

The S.E.C.’s victory reopens some wounds for Goldman, which is paying for Mr. Tourre’s defense. Inside the bank, employees had been quietly cheering for Mr. Tourre, whom one executive called “the poor kid.” Viewing the S.E.C.’s case as thin, the executives saw Mr. Tourre as a proxy for the fight they wanted to wage with regulators.

Mr. Tourre’s troubles trace to early 2007, the end of Goldman’s mortgage security boom. At the urging of Paulson & Company, the hedge fund run by the billionaire John Paulson, Mr. Tourre set out to create a mortgage deal known as Abacus 2007-AC1.

Paulson & Company, which helped pick the underlying mortgage bonds in the deal, made $1 billion betting Abacus would fail. To bolster the deal’s credibility in the eyes of investors, Goldman persuaded an outside company, ACA, to work with Paulson & Company to pick the mortgages.

The S.E.C. took aim at Mr. Tourre and Goldman for failing to warn investors that Mr. Paulson was not only helping to create the deal, but was betting against it. In the documents Goldman submitted to investors â€" including a term sheet and a 66-page marketing book â€" the banks said the portfolio was “selected by ACA,” without reference to Paulson & Company.

Yet Mr. Tourre’s boss at Goldman, Jonathan Egol, testified that it was unheard-of for any Wall Street bank to disclose the name of the hedge fund betting against an investment. Client confidentiality rules typically prevented Goldman from doing so.

Mr. Egol, an S.E.C. witness, also testified on cross-examination that the German bank IKB Deutsche Industriebank, a main investor in the transaction, knew the contents of the deal and had a say in what went into it.

Mr. Tourre’s lawyers have argued it should not have mattered to IKB what Paulson & Company was doing. The trade in question had to have an investor who was betting it would fail, and another betting it would rise â€" a fact that each side knew.

Anticipating this defense, the S.E.C. also accused Mr. Tourre of luring ACA into structuring the deal - and later taking a small investment in it. He did so, the S.E.C. said, by misleading ACA about Paulson & Company’s role.

After Goldman contacted ACA to pitch the potential deal in January 2010, ACA sent out a meeting request to Mr. Tourre and others. The subject field said: “Meet with Paulson, Potential Equity Investor.” For many people on Wall Street, the phrase “equity investor” is shorthand for someone who bets a deal will rise in value, also known as a long investor.

A few days after the meeting, Mr. Tourre sent a “contemplated” structure of the trade to an ACA executive, Laura Schwartz. The e-mail stated that the riskiest slice of the trade - a piece typically bought by someone betting the deal would succeed â€" was “precommitted” when in fact it was not even going to be offered.

Mr. Tourre, the S.E.C. argued, meant to imply wrongly that Paulson & Company bought that risky piece. The e-mail also referenced Paulson & Company as the “transaction sponsor,” a term that could be construed to mean the hedge fund was betting for the deal.

“That’s not how I would customarily have used the term,” Mr. Egol said in one of the most damning moments of the trial for Mr. Tourre.

Mr. Tourre conceded that some of his statements were wrong.

“I wasn’t trying to confuse anybody, it just wasn’t accurate at the time,” he told jurors.

But Mr. Tourre also testified that he likely cut and pasted the language in the e-mail to Ms. Schwartz from another document and there was “no intent to confuse anyone.” Goldman followed up almost immediately with a term sheet that, according to Mr. Tourre’s lawyers, should have clarified to ACA that Paulson & Company was not a long investor.

Mr. Tourre’s lawyers further argued that if ACA did not know of the hedge fund’s bet against Abacus, it should have. ACA, the lawyers note, was a sophisticated player and met separately with Mr. Paulson’s team to discuss the Abacus deal.

Mr. Tourre told jurors it was “inconceivable” to him ACA did not understand Paulson & Company was betting the trade would fail.

Still, ACA’s confusion persisted, and Ms. Schwartz continued to refer to Paulson & Company as the “equity,” or long, investor in an e-mail. That e-mail was forwarded to Mr. Tourre, who failed to clarify the hedge fund’s position. Instead, Mr. Tourre forwarded the e-mail to another colleague, saying that they needed to “discuss” it.

Another Goldman employee added to the confusion. The employee, Gail Kreitman, told one of Ms. Schwartz’s deputies over the phone that Goldman was discussing a deal in which the firm was “placing a hundred percent of the equity,” or long position, with Paulson & Company. In alleging that Mr. Tourre was part of a broader conspiracy at Goldman, the S.E.C. used a recording of that call as evidence against him.

Ms. Schwartz also took the stand for the S.E.C. While Mr. Tourre’s lawyers questioned Ms. Schwartz’s motives for testifying against Mr. Tourre â€" on the eve of trial, the S.E.C. dropped an unrelated investigation against her - she repeated over and over again that “I believed Paulson was the equity investor in the transaction.” Her boss also testified that, had he known Paulson & Company was betting against the deal, ACA would have steered clear of it.

The S.E.C. also used some of Mr. Tourre’s love notes to a girlfriend to impugn his credibility. In one e-mail, he wrote “I love this website” and linked to a site that referred to exploding mortgages. He also joked to his girlfriend that he sold toxic real estate bonds to “widows and orphans.”

On the witness stand, Mr. Tourre acknowledged that the e-mail was “in poor taste.”

But he was confident that he did nothing wrong. “I am here to tell the truth and clear my name,” he said.



Icahn Sues Dell to Halt Changes to Buyout Vote

The billionaire Carl C. Icahn said Thursday that he had sued Dell Inc., seeking to prevent the company and its board from altering terms of a scheduled vote on a proposed $24.4 billion takeover bid by the computer maker’s founder.

The lawsuit was filed on the eve of a shareholder vote on the original bid by Michael S. Dell and the investment firm Silver Lake of $13.65 a share, which has already been twice rescheduled. People close to both the buyers and a special committee of Dell’s board said they expected that deal to fail, absent a huge shift in votes.

In a news release, Mr. Icahn said that his lawsuit, filed in Delaware’s court of chancery, is aimed at preventing Dell from rescheduling a vote on the deal â€" currently set for this Friday â€" and from moving the record date for the election, the day by which shareholders must have owned shares to be eligible to vote.

The record date is currently June 3. But a special committee of Dell’s board offered on Wednesday to accept a revised $13.75-a-share takeover bid by Mr. Dell and Silver Lake in exchange for moving the meeting to sometime in mid-September and the record date to sometime around Aug. 10.

Moving the record date would allow more investors who bought Dell stock in recent months, especially arbitrageurs with a vested interest in helping the deal succeed, vote in the election.

If the chancery court won’t block Dell’s board from doing that, Mr. Icahn said he would then seek to have the rescheduled shareholder vote held at the same time as an annual investor meeting. Mr. Icahn is seeking to oust the company’s existing 11-member board and replace it with a slate picked by him and an ally, Southeastern Asset Management.

Mr. Icahn is also seeking to prevent the Dell board from altering the voting standards of the shareholder election. Currently, absentee votes count as no votes. Mr. Dell and Silver Lake offered the revised bid of $13.75 in exchange for a change that would discard that requirement, making the requirement for victory just the winning of a majority of eligible votes cast.

According to a recent tally, about 579 million votes have already been cast in favor of Mr. Dell’s original bid of $13.65 a share, versus 563 million against.

A spokesman for Dell said in a statement: “The Dell board of directors has at all times sought to maximize value for, and acted in accordance with its fiduciary duties to, Dell stockholders and will continue to do so. Beyond that, we have no further comment on pending litigation.”

Lawsuit against Dell



Sun Capital Court Ruling Threatens Structure of Private Equity

Think twice before you bet against the widows and orphans.

Last week, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit issued a ruling that will make it harder for private equity funds to walk away from the unfunded pension liabilities of companies they have bought if the company goes bankrupt.

Specifically, the court ruled that one of Sun Capital’s private equity funds was “not merely a ‘passive’ investor” but actively involved in the operations of Scott Brass Inc., a portfolio company that went bankrupt in 2008. The case was brought by the New England Teamsters and Trucking Industry Pension Fund.

The case is undoubtedly important for private equity deals. Firms must consider the greater risk of unfunded pension liability when valuing targets. Portfolio companies may be grouped together to take advantage of certain pension qualifications. But the implications of the case potentially go beyond pension law.

The taxation of private equity funds is built on the premise that the funds are merely investors in portfolio companies and are not engaged in a “trade or business” for tax purposes - in other words, they are not actively involved in the business. But the court found in the Sun Capital case that a private equity fund was engaged in a trade or business for purposes of the Employee Retirement Income and Security Act, also known as Erisa. It is not a big leap to argue that the fund was engaged in a trade or business for tax purposes. And then it gets really interesting.

This raises the issue of whether foreign investors in a private equity fund could be taxed as effectively connected with a United States trade or business. (Under current law, those foreign investors are usually untaxed and need not file tax returns in the United States.) Similarly, tax-exempt investors like pension funds and university endowments could face tax liability for unrelated business taxable income on their investments. And if, as Steven M. Rosenthal of the Tax Policy Center has argued, the fund is in the trade or business of developing portfolio companies for sale to customers, the profit share paid to the fund’s managers, which is often taxed at lower long-term capital gains rates under current law, may instead be taxed as ordinary income.

The Sun Capital decision is important because it collapses a legal structure aimed at keeping the activities of the fund manager legally separate from the fund’s investors. Typically, a private equity fund is managed by a general partner; a management company that is affiliated with the general partner usually helps to manage the fund’s portfolio companies. The general partner puts in a small amount of capital but shares 20 percent of the profits, or carried interest. The limited partner investors, who contribute most of the capital, are usually institutional investors, including many tax-exempt and foreign investors. The limited partners are mostly passive and not engaged in the active management of the fund’s portfolio companies. Given the passive nature of the fund’s investors, most practitioners agree that the fund itself is not a trade or business.

No one disputes that the general partner (or its affiliated management company) often gets highly involved with the fund’s portfolio companies. In Sun Capital, for example, the management company weighed in on the portfolio company’s personnel decisions, capital spending and possible acquisitions. The critical question is whether the general partner’s activities can be attributed “downward” to the fund - that is, from the partner to the partnership.

In Sun Capital, the appeals court held that the activities of the management company should be attributed to the fund and its investors for Erisa purposes, and thus that the fund, and not just the general partner, was engaged in a trade or business. In a crucial passage, the court noted that Scott Brass Inc. paid fees to the general partner of the fund for the management services it provided. Those fees were then used to offset part of the 2 percent annual management fees that the limited partners normally pay to the general partner. The court explained that these fees thus “provided a direct economic benefit” that “an ordinary, passive investor would not derive: an offset against the management fees it otherwise would have paid its general partner.” Such management fee offsets are common but not universal, and some practitioners have noted the increased risk that these fee offsets may result in limited partners being treated as effectively connected with a trade or business.

Of course, the entire private equity business model is premised on the fund’s managers creating value through active management of portfolio companies, which then presumably leads to an increase in the portfolio company’s value. The increase in value is then realized through a dividend or sale of the company. This value creation did not happen in the case of the bankrupt Scott Brass, and so the court used the management fee offset to identify an economic benefit to the limited partners. But even without a management fee offset, limited partners generally derive an economic benefit from the activities of the general partner. What else would justify the fees? By looking through the legal fiction separating the fund’s managers and investors, the court’s reasoning could easily apply in the tax context.

For now, nothing in the Sun Capital decision changes the definition of trade or business for tax purposes. The court’s holding is an interpretation of Erisa, not tax law, and unless the Internal Revenue Service decides to make the argument in the tax context, nothing has changed. There are also some other code sections, like the “stock or securities” exception in section 864, that may further protect foreign investors from being treated as effectively connected with a United States trade or business.

Finally, there were human aspects to the case that, while not discussed by the court, might have made a difference. Sun Capital was co-founded by Marc Leder, a flashy investor who has gotten attention for using the bankruptcy process to shed legacy pension liabilities. (Mr. Leder is also known for being the host of the private fund-raiser where the Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney dismissed 47 percent of Americans as victims who depend on the government to take care of them.) Here, Sun Capital bought a Rhode Island brass and copper manufacturer with obligations to a Teamsters pension fund. Sun Capital was trying to walk away from its pension liabilities.

The case evokes the 1991 movie “Other People’s Monday,” where Danny DeVito - as Lawrence Garfield (known to his critics as “Larry the Liquidator”) â€" seeks to take over the struggling company New England Wire and Cable. I’m not surprised that the court wanted to write a Hollywood ending for the pensioners of Scott Brass Inc.

Victor Fleischer is a professor of law at the University of San Diego, where he teaches classes on corporate tax, tax policy, and venture capital and serves as the director of research for the Graduate Tax Program. His research focuses on how tax affects the structuring of venture capital, private equity, and corporate transactions. Twitter: @vicfleischer



Sun Capital Court Ruling Threatens Structure of Private Equity

Think twice before you bet against the widows and orphans.

Last week, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit issued a ruling that will make it harder for private equity funds to walk away from the unfunded pension liabilities of companies they have bought if the company goes bankrupt.

Specifically, the court ruled that one of Sun Capital’s private equity funds was “not merely a ‘passive’ investor” but actively involved in the operations of Scott Brass Inc., a portfolio company that went bankrupt in 2008. The case was brought by the New England Teamsters and Trucking Industry Pension Fund.

The case is undoubtedly important for private equity deals. Firms must consider the greater risk of unfunded pension liability when valuing targets. Portfolio companies may be grouped together to take advantage of certain pension qualifications. But the implications of the case potentially go beyond pension law.

The taxation of private equity funds is built on the premise that the funds are merely investors in portfolio companies and are not engaged in a “trade or business” for tax purposes - in other words, they are not actively involved in the business. But the court found in the Sun Capital case that a private equity fund was engaged in a trade or business for purposes of the Employee Retirement Income and Security Act, also known as Erisa. It is not a big leap to argue that the fund was engaged in a trade or business for tax purposes. And then it gets really interesting.

This raises the issue of whether foreign investors in a private equity fund could be taxed as effectively connected with a United States trade or business. (Under current law, those foreign investors are usually untaxed and need not file tax returns in the United States.) Similarly, tax-exempt investors like pension funds and university endowments could face tax liability for unrelated business taxable income on their investments. And if, as Steven M. Rosenthal of the Tax Policy Center has argued, the fund is in the trade or business of developing portfolio companies for sale to customers, the profit share paid to the fund’s managers, which is often taxed at lower long-term capital gains rates under current law, may instead be taxed as ordinary income.

The Sun Capital decision is important because it collapses a legal structure aimed at keeping the activities of the fund manager legally separate from the fund’s investors. Typically, a private equity fund is managed by a general partner; a management company that is affiliated with the general partner usually helps to manage the fund’s portfolio companies. The general partner puts in a small amount of capital but shares 20 percent of the profits, or carried interest. The limited partner investors, who contribute most of the capital, are usually institutional investors, including many tax-exempt and foreign investors. The limited partners are mostly passive and not engaged in the active management of the fund’s portfolio companies. Given the passive nature of the fund’s investors, most practitioners agree that the fund itself is not a trade or business.

No one disputes that the general partner (or its affiliated management company) often gets highly involved with the fund’s portfolio companies. In Sun Capital, for example, the management company weighed in on the portfolio company’s personnel decisions, capital spending and possible acquisitions. The critical question is whether the general partner’s activities can be attributed “downward” to the fund - that is, from the partner to the partnership.

In Sun Capital, the appeals court held that the activities of the management company should be attributed to the fund and its investors for Erisa purposes, and thus that the fund, and not just the general partner, was engaged in a trade or business. In a crucial passage, the court noted that Scott Brass Inc. paid fees to the general partner of the fund for the management services it provided. Those fees were then used to offset part of the 2 percent annual management fees that the limited partners normally pay to the general partner. The court explained that these fees thus “provided a direct economic benefit” that “an ordinary, passive investor would not derive: an offset against the management fees it otherwise would have paid its general partner.” Such management fee offsets are common but not universal, and some practitioners have noted the increased risk that these fee offsets may result in limited partners being treated as effectively connected with a trade or business.

Of course, the entire private equity business model is premised on the fund’s managers creating value through active management of portfolio companies, which then presumably leads to an increase in the portfolio company’s value. The increase in value is then realized through a dividend or sale of the company. This value creation did not happen in the case of the bankrupt Scott Brass, and so the court used the management fee offset to identify an economic benefit to the limited partners. But even without a management fee offset, limited partners generally derive an economic benefit from the activities of the general partner. What else would justify the fees? By looking through the legal fiction separating the fund’s managers and investors, the court’s reasoning could easily apply in the tax context.

For now, nothing in the Sun Capital decision changes the definition of trade or business for tax purposes. The court’s holding is an interpretation of Erisa, not tax law, and unless the Internal Revenue Service decides to make the argument in the tax context, nothing has changed. There are also some other code sections, like the “stock or securities” exception in section 864, that may further protect foreign investors from being treated as effectively connected with a United States trade or business.

Finally, there were human aspects to the case that, while not discussed by the court, might have made a difference. Sun Capital was co-founded by Marc Leder, a flashy investor who has gotten attention for using the bankruptcy process to shed legacy pension liabilities. (Mr. Leder is also known for being the host of the private fund-raiser where the Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney dismissed 47 percent of Americans as victims who depend on the government to take care of them.) Here, Sun Capital bought a Rhode Island brass and copper manufacturer with obligations to a Teamsters pension fund. Sun Capital was trying to walk away from its pension liabilities.

The case evokes the 1991 movie “Other People’s Monday,” where Danny DeVito - as Lawrence Garfield (known to his critics as “Larry the Liquidator”) â€" seeks to take over the struggling company New England Wire and Cable. I’m not surprised that the court wanted to write a Hollywood ending for the pensioners of Scott Brass Inc.

Victor Fleischer is a professor of law at the University of San Diego, where he teaches classes on corporate tax, tax policy, and venture capital and serves as the director of research for the Graduate Tax Program. His research focuses on how tax affects the structuring of venture capital, private equity, and corporate transactions. Twitter: @vicfleischer



Lloyds Poses Front-Running Risk for Barclays

Who’s going to win, Antonio or Antony?

Barclays’ chief executive, Antony Jenkins, has just announced he will be passing the cap to institutional investors, by announcing a 5.8 billion pound rights issue. Following some upbeat interim results from rival Lloyds Banking Group on Thurday, the question is now whether its chief executive , Antonio Horta-Osorio, will jump the queue and empty the well of investor demand.

Lloyds’ numbers show the bank beginning to motor. Costs and impairments in the first half of 2013 were down 6 percent and 43 percent, respectively, allowing underlying profit to soar 178 percent. The bank managed to grow revenue by 2 percent, offering encouraging evidence that the British economy to which Lloyds is umbilically linked is beginning to recover.

The British regulator has been careful not to allow Lloyds, or its state-owned peer Royal Bank of Scotland, to pay dividends before it is cleaned up. But Lloyds looks in good shape. Although a mis-selling redress remains an irritant - the bank has now paid out 5.6 billion pounds of a recently beefed-up 7.3 billion pound fund - it has reached targets on net-interest margins and non-core asset shrinkage way ahead of schedule. Its 10 percent core Tier 1 ratio on a Basel III basis in December looks strong enough.

At 74 pence, Lloyds’ shares now trade where the state bought its 39 percent stake in 2009 - counting in fees paid by bank to government, it’s almost 10 pence above the in-price. Moreover, the bank would offer a dividend yield of 4.9 percent if it moved up to a not-inconceivable 50 percent payout ratio and made the 7.2 pence in earnings per share Deutsche Bank forecasts in 2015.

The only cloud from a government perspective is Barclays’ own cash call, which could drain demand from investors keen to buy into British bank stocks. But given that Lloyds looks ready to go, it would seem easy for its investment bankers to organize a share placing, which could be done in hours. That would get its dominant shareholder’s stake sale off to a flying start - and leave rival Barclays cursing the government once again.

George Hay is a columnist for Reuters Breakingviews. For more independent commentary and analysis, visit breakingviews.com.



A Fallen Wall Street Programmer Tells His Side

Sergey Aleynikov, a former Goldman Sachs computer programmer, has had a complicated journey since being convicted of stealing computer code from the bank. The latest chapter came on Thursday in the form of a profile in Vanity Fair.

In the article by Michael Lewis â€" the second half of which will be published online on Friday â€" Mr. Aleynikov tells his version of what happened when he downloaded computer code from Goldman before leaving for a job at a high-frequency trading firm, where he planned to create a rival trading platform.

His motivation in downloading the files, which contained open-source code mingled with code that was proprietary to Goldman, was to disentangle the two in case he needed to remind himself later how he had done so, Mr. Aleynikov told the F.B.I., according to the article. Still, he knew he was making waves at Goldman.

“I knew that they wouldn’t be happy about it,” Mr. Aleynikov told Mr. Lewis. Asked how he felt at the time, he recalled: “It felt like speeding. Speeding in the car.”

Mr. Aleynikov is also critical of Goldman’s approach to its software. A boss was “tense” when Mr. Aleynikov asked if he could return free software that he had modified back to the Internet, as was common practice with open-source code, he said. “He said it was now Goldman’s property,” Mr. Aleynikov recalled of the boss.

Mr. Aleynikov, a Russian immigrant who proved to be a standout at Goldman, said he grew frustrated working on Goldman’s computer platform. “I had a feeling no one at Goldman really knows how it works as a whole, and they are just uncomfortable admitting that,” he said in the article.

A jury found Mr. Aleynikov guilty in 2010, and he was sentenced to eight years in prison. But an appeals court overturned that conviction last year, finding the case was based on a misuse of federal corporate espionage laws. Months later, he was charged with state crimes.

In the Vanity Fair article, Mr. Aleynikov contends that the F.B.I. and Goldman did not have a full understanding of the issue. “He didn’t seem to know anything about high-frequency trading or source code,” Mr. Aleynikov said of the F.B.I. agent in charge of the case.

In the trial, Mr. Lewis writes, Goldman’s role “was to make genuine understanding even more difficult.”

In a statement to Vanity Fair, Goldman said it had “spent millions of dollars and tens of thousands of hours developing the proprietary source code and technology used in our market-making business.” Goldman added that it “restricts access to proprietary technology to those employees whose duties designing and maintaining the technology require such access.”



R.B.S. Said to Be Ready to Name New C.E.O.

LONDON - Royal Bank of Scotland is preparing to promote Ross McEwan to chief executive, a person with direct knowledge of the decision said Thursday.

R.B.S., which is majority-owned by the British government after a bailout in 2008, still needs the approval of the Bank of England’s Prudential Regulation Authority and the government to go ahead with the appointment, said the person who declined to be named because the decision is not final. The approval might come as early as Thursday, the person said. R.B.S. declined to comment on the plan.

Mr. McEwan, currently the head of R.B.S.’s retail bank, would replace Stephen Hester, who said in June he would leave the post at the end of this year after five years in job.

Mr. Hester’s announcement took some investors by surprise, and came as the government is preparing to start selling its stake in the bank. The bank’s board had decided it needed a new chief executive to oversee the pending share sale without questions being raised about how long he would stay in the job.

The new chief executive will be expected to work closely with the government to complete the privatization process, which could take several years to complete. R.B.S.’s shares still trade below the level that the government accumulated its 81 percent stake.

The new head would also have to create a new strategy for a bank that is completing a major restructuring, including shedding hundreds of billions of dollars of assets and radically shrinking its investment banking operations. The new chief’s pay package will also be subject to intense public scrutiny. Mr. Hester was forced to turn down several bonuses after public outcry over the multimillion-dollar payouts.

Some analysts have raised questions about whether enough candidates also from outside the bank were considered for the position given that the board only decided a few weeks ago to replace Mr. Hester.

Should Mr. McEwan’s appointment be confirmed, R.B.S. would join local rival Barclays in picking its own retail banking chief to run the company. Barclays named Antony P. Jenkins last year as chief executive to help repair the bank’s reputation among investors following a string of financial scandals.

Mr. McEwan became head of R.B.S.’s retail operation in August 2012 when he joined from Commonwealth Bank of Australia, where he had held the same title for five years. Before that he was in charge of the bank’s branch network and contact centers.



R.B.S. Said to Be Ready to Name New C.E.O.

LONDON - Royal Bank of Scotland is preparing to promote Ross McEwan to chief executive, a person with direct knowledge of the decision said Thursday.

R.B.S., which is majority-owned by the British government after a bailout in 2008, still needs the approval of the Bank of England’s Prudential Regulation Authority and the government to go ahead with the appointment, said the person who declined to be named because the decision is not final. The approval might come as early as Thursday, the person said. R.B.S. declined to comment on the plan.

Mr. McEwan, currently the head of R.B.S.’s retail bank, would replace Stephen Hester, who said in June he would leave the post at the end of this year after five years in job.

Mr. Hester’s announcement took some investors by surprise, and came as the government is preparing to start selling its stake in the bank. The bank’s board had decided it needed a new chief executive to oversee the pending share sale without questions being raised about how long he would stay in the job.

The new chief executive will be expected to work closely with the government to complete the privatization process, which could take several years to complete. R.B.S.’s shares still trade below the level that the government accumulated its 81 percent stake.

The new head would also have to create a new strategy for a bank that is completing a major restructuring, including shedding hundreds of billions of dollars of assets and radically shrinking its investment banking operations. The new chief’s pay package will also be subject to intense public scrutiny. Mr. Hester was forced to turn down several bonuses after public outcry over the multimillion-dollar payouts.

Some analysts have raised questions about whether enough candidates also from outside the bank were considered for the position given that the board only decided a few weeks ago to replace Mr. Hester.

Should Mr. McEwan’s appointment be confirmed, R.B.S. would join local rival Barclays in picking its own retail banking chief to run the company. Barclays named Antony P. Jenkins last year as chief executive to help repair the bank’s reputation among investors following a string of financial scandals.

Mr. McEwan became head of R.B.S.’s retail operation in August 2012 when he joined from Commonwealth Bank of Australia, where he had held the same title for five years. Before that he was in charge of the bank’s branch network and contact centers.



Morning Agenda: Dell Takeover Bid in Peril

Michael S. Dell’s effort to buy the company he founded has been thrown into jeopardy after a special committee of the computer maker’s board refused his demand to change the voting rules on the buyout offer, DealBook’s Michael J. de la Merced writes. With Dell shareholders set to decide on the deal on Friday, it appears that the offer of $13.65 a share, or a total of $24.4 billion, to take the company private is likely to lose the shareholder vote, people close to both sides say.

If the buyout fails, Dell will face even fiercer competition in the PC business, Mr. de la Merced writes. “They were cutting in anticipation of going private, making advances in a high-volume, low-margin business without having to show the results,” said Mikako Kitagawa, an analyst with Gartner. “They can’t be competitive with the pressure they’ll have from Wall Street.”

The company’s two chief rivals, Hewlett-Packard and Lenovo of China, are expected to redouble their efforts to take Dell’s customers if it seems like the company is reeling. And Dell’s board and prospective buyers have warned that the stock could fall into the $8 range if the deal collapses. On Wednesday, the stock fell 1.56 percent to $12.66.

BANKS FIND S.&P. MORE FAVORABLE IN BOND RATINGS  | “Five years after inflated credit ratings helped touch off the financial crisis, the nation’s largest ratings agency, Standard & Poor’s, is winning business again by offering more favorable ratings,” Nathaniel Popper writes in DealBook.

“S.&P. has been giving higher grades than its big rivals to certain mortgage-backed securities just as Wall Street is eagerly trying to revive the market for these investments, according to an analysis conducted for The New York Times by Commercial Mortgage Alert, which collects data on the industry. S.&P.’s chase for business is notable because it is fighting a government lawsuit accusing it of similar action before the financial crisis.

“As the company battles those accusations, industry participants say it has once again been moving to capture business by offering Wall Street underwriters higher ratings than other agencies will offer. And it has apparently worked. Banks have shown a new willingness to hire S.&P. to rate their bonds, tripling its market share in the first half of 2013. Its biggest rivals have been much less likely to give higher ratings.”

A PROGRAMMER’S FIGHT WITH GOLDMAN SACHS  | Sergey Aleynikov, a former star programmer at Goldman Sachs, was accused of stealing the firm’s computer code after he got a job at a high-frequency trading firm, and he was sentenced to eight years in prison. In the latest Vanity Fair, Michael Lewis explores whether the F.B.I., and Goldman, might have overreached in going after Mr. Aleynikov, who signed a confession after hours of questioning.

“He didn’t seem to know anything about high-frequency trading or source code,” Mr. Aleynikov said of the F.B.I. agent who questioned him. “I thought it was like, crazy, really.” His trial, which lasted 10 days, “was notable for its paucity of informed outsiders,” Mr. Lewis writes. Goldman’s role in the trial, Mr. Lewis continues, “was to make genuine understanding even more difficult. Its lawyers coached witnesses; its employees, on the witness stand, behaved more like salesmen for the prosecution than citizens of the state.” As Mr. Aleynikov put it, “they told things that were not in their expertise.”

Goldman has offered an extended response, published in Business Insider.

ON THE AGENDA  | 
Time Warner Cable and Procter & Gamble report earnings before the market opens. LinkedIn and the American International Group report earnings after the market closes Robert H. Benmosche, the chief executive of A.I.G., is on CNBC at 4:30 p.m. Terrence Duffy, the chairman of the CME Group, is on Bloomberg TV at 11:40 a.m. The ISM manufacturing index for July is out 10 a.m.

JURY DELIBERATING IN TOURRE CASE  |  It is now up to nine jurors, including a former stockbroker, a minister and a graphic designer, to decide whether Fabrice P. Tourre, a former Goldman Sachs trader, committed fraud as he set up a complex investment tied to mortgages, DealBook’s Michael J. de la Merced and Susanne Craig write. The Securities and Exchange Commission accused Mr. Tourre of misleading investors, and he faces seven counts of fraud. The jury did not reach a verdict on Wednesday and will continue deliberations on Thursday. Because it is a civil suit, the S.E.C. need only have convinced jurors with a preponderance of evidence, rather than beyond a reasonable doubt.

Mergers & Acquisitions »

Sony Shares Fall on Report It Will Not Pursue Breakup  |  Shares of Sony fell as much as 3.1 percent in trading in Japan after Nikkei reported the company would reject a proposal from the hedge fund manager Daniel S. Loeb, Bloomberg News reports. BLOOMBERG NEWS

Inside Mayer’s Effort to Save Yahoo  |  “Name another Internet giant that went through three years of decline and then started to grow again,” Marissa Mayer, Yahoo’s chief executive, told Bloomberg Businessweek. “It’s a very good sign.” BLOOMBERG BUSINESSWEEK

Chinese Workers Protest Cross-Border Tire Deal  |  Chinese workers at a subsidiary of Cooper Tire & Rubber are concerned about the effects of the planned acquisition by Apollo Tyres of India, The Wall Street Journal reports. WALL STREET JOURNAL

INVESTMENT BANKING »

Goldman, Under Scrutiny, Offers to Speed Metal Delivery  |  “Goldman Sachs has offered to speed up delivery of aluminum stored in warehouses that it controls as federal authorities examine how delays at the facilities have driven up the price of the metal,” The New York Times reports. NEW YORK TIMES

A New Leader for R.B.S.  |  The Financial Times, citing unidentified people close to the process, reports: “Royal Bank of Scotland is in late-stage discussions with regulators at the Bank of England to appoint insider Ross McEwan” as the partly nationalized lender’s new chief executive. FINANCIAL TIMES

Lloyds Banking Group Returns to Profit  |  The Lloyds Banking Group said second-quarter profit more than doubled, as the British bank took another step toward privatization. DealBook »

Peter M. Flanigan, Banker and Nixon Aide, Has Died  |  The New York Times writes: “Peter M. Flanigan, a Wall Street investment banker who became one of President Richard M. Nixon’s most trusted, influential and well-connected aides on business and economic matters, died on Monday in Salzburg, Austria. He was 90.” NEW YORK TIMES

At Goldman, SAC Remains a Valued Client  |  SAC Capital Advisors, the hedge fund that was criminally charged last week, is “an important client,” Gary D. Cohn, the president of Goldman Sachs, said on CNBC. “We continue to do business with SAC Capital,” he said. CNBC

Brazilian Bank Pushes Into Commodities, as Others Retreat  |  BTG Pactual of Brazil is “betting it can avoid the regulatory pressure rattling rivals,” Reuters writes. REUTERS

Clearinghouse Said to Approach Former CME Chief for Chairman Role  |  The Options Clearing Corporation “is in talks with Craig Donohue, the former chief executive officer of CME Group Inc., about hiring him as chairman, according to two people familiar with the matter,” Bloomberg News reports. BLOOMBERG NEWS

PRIVATE EQUITY »

Credit Suisse Said to Approach Sale of Private Equity Unit  |  Credit Suisse “is in advanced talks to sell a multibillion-dollar private-equity business as the bank adapts to stricter rules for managing capital and risk, according to people familiar with the matter,” The Wall Street Journal reports. WALL STREET JOURNAL

HEDGE FUNDS »

Air Products Faces Modern Form of Hostile Takeover  |  William A. Ackman’s firm, Pershing Square Capital Management, is likely to follow a well-worn path taken by both activist investors and his own fund in seeking to shake up the management and strategy at Air Products and Chemicals, Steven M. Davidoff writes in the Deal Professor column. DealBook »

Ackman Acquires 9.8% Stake in Air ProductsAckman Acquires 9.8% Stake in Air Products  |  The $2.2 billion bet on Air Products and Chemicals, a producer of industrial gases, is the largest ever made by William A. Ackman’s firm, Pershing Square Capital Management. DealBook »

I.P.O./OFFERINGS »

Facebook Stock Returns, Briefly, to I.P.O. Price  |  The stock of the social network crossed $38 a share, an important psychological barrier, on Wednesday morning. NEW YORK TIMES

Facebook’s I.P.O. Breakthrough  |  But the shares of the social network giant still have a way to go, Richard Beales of Reuters Breakingviews writes. In comparison, the Nasdaq market is up more than 20 percent, and Google more than 40 percent since the May 17, 2012, market debut of Facebook. REUTERS BREAKINGVIEWS

The ‘Do-It-Yourself I.P.O.’  |  A direct public offering, or D.P.O., is similar to an initial public offering but with a big difference: there is no need to hire an investment bank. NEW YORK TIMES

VENTURE CAPITAL »

U.S. Financial Firm Courts Start-Ups in Brazil  |  In recent months, one of the SVB Financial Group’s subsidiaries, Silicon Valley Bank, has added venture capital firms and young companies in Brazil as clients. And SVB Capital, another subsidiary, expects to make new investments in South American venture capital firms. DealBook »

Fab Raises $10 Million Financing Round  |  The e-commerce company Fab announced it had raised $10 million from the venture capital arm of the SingTel Group of Singapore. A day earlier, it announced it was cutting 100 jobs, AllThingsD notes. ALLTHINGSD

LEGAL/REGULATORY »

Judge Rejects Fed’s Cap on Debit Card Fees  |  The billions of dollars that banks earn when consumers swipe their debit cards are under threat after a federal court ruling. DealBook »

The Power Behind the Throne at the Federal ReserveThe Power Behind the Throne at the Federal Reserve  |  Few outside the world of banking regulation understand the influence held by the staff of the Federal Reserve, which includes Scott G. Alvarez, its general counsel, Jesse Eisinger of ProPublica writes in his column, The Trade. The Trade »

Fed Bond Purchases Will Continue at Least for Another Month  |  “The Federal Reserve issued a 700-word statement on Wednesday, but four words would have sufficed: see you in September,” The New York Times writes. NEW YORK TIMES

Raskin Would Be Highest-Ranking Woman to Serve at Treasury  |  On Wednesday, President Obama nominated Sarah Bloom Raskin to be deputy Treasury secretary. NEW YORK TIMES

The Persistence of Too Big to Fail  |  “Dodd-Frank has some tools that help reduce the problem of too big to fail, but none of this will help unless the supporting regulations are fully in place,” Simon Johnson writes on the Economix blog of The New York Times. NEW YORK TIMES ECONOMIX

Apologizing to Rowling, Law Firm Makes a Donation  |  The London law firm responsible for revealing that J. K. Rowling is the author of a novel she wrote under a pseudonym has agreed to make a donation to charity as part of an apology. NEW YORK TIMES



Societe Generale Earnings Surge on Investment Bank Activity

LONDON â€" The French bank Société Générale on Thursday reported a large jump in its second quarter earnings, buoyed by a strong performance from its investment and corporate banking division.

Société Générale, France’s second largest bank behind BNP Paribas, said that its net income for the three months through June 30 more than doubled, to 955 million euros, or $1.26 billion, compared to the same period last year. The firm’s revenue fell slightly, to 6.2 billion euros, over the same period.

The French bank’s strong second-quarter earnings, which beat analysts’ estimates, follow the announcement of a major restructuring drive that will lead to 900 million euros of cost savings by 2015. Société Générale said on Thursday that it already had achieved 170 million euros of these cost savings by the end of the second quarter.

The plans, which included a separate 550 million euros of cost savings last year, may lead to hundreds of job losses in France as the country’s banks and its European rivals struggle to cope with the Continent’s economic problems. Société Générale also has sold a number of its businesses, including those in Greece and Egypt, in a bid to boost profitability.

“We are going to continue our efforts,” the French bank’s chief executive, Frédéric Oudéa, said in a statement. “The second stage of the group’s transformation is well under way.”

Unlike some of its European rivals, Société Générale reported a surge in profits from its trading and other investment banking activity during the second quarter. The unit generated income of 374 million euros in the three months through June 30, compared to 131 million euros in the same period last year.

The firm attributed the jump in profits, in part, to increased equities trading activity, particularly in the Asia Pacific region. The earnings contrast with those from its local rival, BNP Paribas, which reported a 39 percent fall, to 497 million euros, in its investment banking unit’s income on Wednesday.

The surge in trading activity helped to offset Société Générale’s lackluster performance in its domestic market, where further provisions related to delinquent loans hurt the firm’s retail banking operations. The unit reported an 11 percent fall in income, to 319 million euros, compared to the same period in 2012, though the figure beat analysts’ expectations.

The French bank’s other retail operations, which are spread across Western and Eastern Europe, as well as Sub-Saharan Africa, reported a 59 million euro profit in the second quarter, compared to a 231 million loss in the same period last year.

Like other European banks, Société Générale is being forced by local regulators to hold more capital in reserve to protect against future financial shocks.

The bank said on Thursday that its common tier 1 equity ratio, a measure of firm’s ability to weather financial difficulty, , rose almost 1 percentage point, to 9.4 percent, under the accounting rules known as Basel III.



Lloyds Banking Group Returns to Profit

LONDON - Lloyds Banking Group said on Thursday that its second-quarter profit more than doubled, as the part-nationalized British bank took another step toward privatization.

Lloyds, which received a multibillion dollar bailout from local taxpayers during the financial crisis, said its profit in the three months through June 30 rose to £1.4 billion, or $2.1 billion, compared to £547 million in the same period last year. The bank’s revenue increased slightly, to £4.8 billion, over the same period.

Lloyds has been shedding assets and reducing its balance sheet in a bid to increase its profitability before the start of the government’s potential share sale in the bank.

George Osborne, the British Chancellor of the exchequer, said in June that the government was “actively considering options for share sales in Lloyds,” and has appointed JPMorgan Chase to advise on a potential share sale for both Lloyds and Royal Bank of Scotland, which also received a bailout.

The British government has said that the break-even point on selling its 39 percent holding in Lloyds is around 61 pence, and the company’s stock is currently trading at 68.5 pence. The bank’s share price has risen 123 percent over the last 12 months.

“The share price is now in a position where the government can return the bank to the public at a profit,” Lloyds’s chief executive, Antonio Horta-Osório, told reporters on Thursday. “We have completed the first phase of recovery, and now it’s the government’s decision.”

Mr. Horta-Osório declined to say when a potential share sale would start.

In a sign that Lloyds is starting to woo potential investors, the bank said Thursday that it would enter into discussions with local regulators about restarting dividend payments to shareholders in the second half of the year.

As part of its reemergence as a profitable bank, Lloyds has continued to shed assets, while provisions connected to delinquent loans fell almost 50 percent, to £811 million, in the second quarter of 2013.

The firm said that its so-called non-core assets had fallen 16 percent, to £82.6 billion, over the last 6 months, and were now expected to drop to around £70 billion by the end of the year.

The improvements helped to support the bank’s first half earnings, as it reported net income of £1.58 billion, compared to a £662 million loss for the same period last year. The first-half profit follows three consecutive years of annual losses for the British bank.

Despite Lloyds’ improved financial performance, the British bank is still dealing with a number of past wrongdoings that have cost the firm billions of dollars in legal costs.

On Thursday, Lloyds said that it had set aside an additional £450 million to repay customers who had been inappropriately sold insurance products. The firm also said it had made another £50 million provision related to delays in how a company that had been contracted by Lloyds to handle customer claims processed complaints.

All told, Lloyds has now set aside more than £7 billion to cover legal costs related to the inappropriate sale of insurance products to clients.

The bank also said that its core Tier 1 ratio, a measure of the firm’s ability to weather financial shocks, now stood at 9.6 percent, and would rise to above 10 percent by the end of the year.