Total Pageviews

JPMorgan Settlement Offers Look Into Mortgage Machine

JPMorgan Chase and the Justice Department reached a record $13 billion settlement on Tuesday, wrapping up a series of state and federal investigations that offer a rare glimpse into Wall Street’s mortgage machine before the financial crisis, when it churned out billions of dollars in securities that later imploded.

At the heart of the civil settlement, which materialized after months of wrangling, is a statement of facts negotiated with the government that provides details into how JPMorgan assembled mortgage securities sold from 2005 through 2008. While the bank did not admit any violations of law, its decision to approve the statement was one of a few critical concessions it made in order to strike the deal.

The statement shows that as JPMorgan packaged the residential mortgages into complex securities, the bank promised to alert investors to any flaws that might raise questions about the loans, according to the statement.

Investors relied on the bank to vet the underlying loans, which mortgage lenders across the country originated with varying degrees of quality. Still, investors were kept in the dark, the government’s statement found.

They were told, the statement of fact says, that the lenders originating the mortgages had “solid underwriting platforms” and that JPMorgan itself would provide another level of assurance by ensuring that the loans were independently scrutinized.

To do that, the bank hired Clayton Holdings and other third-party firms to examine the loans before they were packed into investments. Poring through the mortgages, the firms scoured them for potential red flags like borrowers who had vastly overstated their incomes or appraisals that inflated property values, the statement of fact shows.

But even when problems were found, JPMorgan sometimes ignored the warnings. According to the statement of facts, an analysis for JPMorgan performed from the first quarter of 2006 through the second quarter of 2007 on 23,668 loans found that 27 percent â€" about 6,238 loans â€" should have been categorized as “event 3,” meaning they did not meet underwriting standards. Still, JPMorgan ultimately decided to accept the loans anyway or altered their classification to a higher rating.

For JPMorgan and its chief executive, Jamie Dimon, the deal allows the bank to move past one of its biggest legal headaches. While the bank continues to face a criminal investigation into its role as Bernard L. Madoff’s bank and its decision to hire the sons and daughters of some of China’s ruling elite, executives cheered the culmination of the deal on Tuesday.

“We are pleased to have concluded this extensive agreement,” Mr. Dimon said in a statement.

Signaling the bank’s broader desire to resolve its mortgage-related woes, the $13 billion deal also comes just days after the bank struck a separate $4.5 billion deal with a group of investors over the sale of soured mortgage-backed securities.

Much of the $13 billion payout, roughly $7 billion, will go toward compensating those investors who were harmed. The largest beneficiary is the Federal Housing Finance Agency, which announced a separate $4 billion deal with JPMorgan last month. The agency oversees Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the housing finance giants that scooped up billions of dollars in the mortgage securities that later imploded. Other beneficiaries will include the National Credit Union Administration and state attorneys general in California, New York and Illinois.

The settlement also includes a $2 billion fine to federal prosecutors in Sacramento, where the United States attorney, Benjamin Wagner, led an investigation into the bank’s mortgage practices. The final $4 billion will go to struggling homeowners in hard hit areas like Detroit and certain neighborhoods in New York where abandoned homes still dot the landscape.

Half of that relief will go to reducing the balance of mortgages in foreclosure-racked areas, offering a so-called forbearance plan to certain homeowners, briefly halting the collection of their mortgage payments. For the remaining $2 billion in relief, JPMorgan must reduce interest rates on existing loans and offer new loans to low-income home buyers. The bank also will receive a credit for demolishing abandoned homes to reduce urban blight.

“Today’s settlement is a major victory in the fight to hold those who caused the financial crisis accountable,” Eric T. Schneiderman, the New York attorney general, said in a statement.

Mr. Schneiderman has helped lead a federal and state task force focused on holding banks accountable for their mortgage practices during the financial crisis. His lawsuit against JPMorgan last year was the opening salvo in the government’s fight with the bank. Under the final settlement, he collected more than $600 million in cash and $400 million in consumer relief.

Many of the mortgage securities included in the settlement are not JPMorgan’s. Instead, they belong to Bear Stearns and Washington Mutual, which JPMorgan bought in 2008.

On a conference call on Tuesday, Marianne Lake, the bank’s chief financial officer, said that roughly 80 percent of the losses at issue in the settlement stem from Bear Stearns.

Still, the Justice Department structured the deal in a way that focused on JPMorgan’s own securities. The prosecutors in Sacramento who collected the only fine in the case were focused on mortgage securities that JPMorgan itself sold in the run-up to the financial crisis.

The $13 billion settlement took shape in recent weeks during a series of calls between Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. and Mr. Dimon. In the interest of expediting a deal, Mr. Dimon backed down on several important issues.

While the deal put numerous civil cases to rest, it does not save JPMorgan from any criminal inquiries into its mortgage practices. Under the terms of the deal, the bank will also have to assist prosecutors with an investigation into former employees who helped create the mortgage investments.

That agreement alone represented a significant concession for JPMorgan, which was seeking to put all of its mortgage-related cases behind it. Mr. Dimon abandoned that demand on one of his many phone calls with Mr. Holder.

At other moments, though, the bank mounted stronger objections. In a draft settlement document JPMorgan circulated to the Justice Department late last month, people briefed on the talks said, the bank sought to credit an unrelated $1.1 billion penalty toward the $13 billion settlement, a move that rankled the Justice Department.

But with the Justice Department refusing to apply the credit, the bank had to either back down or face a lawsuit. JPMorgan chose to withdraw its request.

Another flash point in the negotiations centered on mortgage securities sold by Washington Mutual. JPMorgan contends that when the bank bought Washington Mutual in 2008, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation agreed to shoulder some of the liabilities stemming from its failure. The Justice Department, the people said, adamantly opposed any transfer. Eventually, JPMorgan blinked.

Such sticking points threatened to scuttle the deal at several turns. As talks dragged on, the Federal Housing Finance Agency ran ahead, announcing its own deal with the bank last month. That deal effectively allows JPMorgan to try to recoup about $1 billion from the F.D.I.C.

For JPMorgan, another thorny issue involved the statements of fact included in the pact.

Those statements had to strike a delicate balance, according to two people briefed on the bank’s thinking: satisfying the government, but not stoking private lawsuits from investors.

Despite paying a string of banner settlements this year, Mr. Dimon appears to have a firm grip atop JPMorgan, according to several bank executives. The bank’s board remains steadfastly behind Mr. Dimon, who holds the dual roles of chairman and chief executive. That support traces to a widespread belief among board members that the deals represent a victory for the bank as it tries to move past its woes.



A Municipal Bankruptcy May Create a Template

Jefferson County, Ala., which just became the first municipality to tap the public bond markets while bankrupt, will go to court on Wednesday to seek approval for its plan to exit bankruptcy by the end of this year.

But there is a catch: Even if Jefferson County does emerge from bankruptcy soon, it will not fully sever its ties to the Federal Bankruptcy Court in Birmingham for 40 more years.

The county’s unusual exit plan, which could offer a possible template for other bankrupt municipalities, calls for the court to retain jurisdiction for the life of $1.8 billion in sewer-revenue debt that it sold over the last few days. If the county falters at some point, even decades from now, the bankruptcy court is supposed to have the power to enforce rate increases to produce the cash needed to pay back the $1.8 billion on schedule, with interest.

For now, the new mechanism appears to have helped Jefferson County, which includes the city of Birmingham, Ala., solve the problem of how to win back lenders after a big default. Municipalities typically go to great lengths to avoid defaulting out of fear that the stigma will ruin their credit for many years.

“To sell new bonds while you’re in default on the old bonds, it really hasn’t happened before,” said Matt Fabian, a managing director at Municipal Market Advisors. “Without the assumption of court protection, the financing would have been more difficult, if not impossible.”

He said that Jefferson County was demonstrating a new source of financing that other municipalities might use to resolve bankruptcies: future rate increases or tax increases. “It’s not just cram-downs on creditors, or terminations of employees’ contracts,” he said, citing the bitter medicine typically used in municipal bankruptcy.

Sewer rates remain a potential flash point in Jefferson County, which built up a crushing mountain of debt in recent years while trying, unsuccessfully so far, to bring its antiquated sewer system into compliance with the federal Clean Water Act. The state constitution calls for public utility rates to be “fair and reasonable,” and two groups of ratepayers have filed objections to the county’s plan of debt adjustment, in part on that basis. The state attorney general has also said Jefferson County’s current sewer rates are unconstitutional, let alone future increases, which have already been ratified by the county commission. No precedent exists for a clash between a federal bankruptcy ruling and a state constitution.

But Jefferson County has told the court that its plan of adjustment should be confirmed because “it is the result of extensive, arm’s-length, and good faith negotiations” and that its creditors have voted overwhelmingly to approve it. The county will also be able to point to its recent, successful debt sale as evidence that the markets believe its financial plans are feasible, something the court must confirm in approving the county’s exit from bankruptcy.

The hearing that begins Wednesday is expected to last several days.

Issuing the $1.8 billion in new debt is central to Jefferson County’s exit plan, and officials have spent recent weeks pitching the deal in financial centers like London, Hong Kong, New York, Boston and Chicago â€" as well as Birmingham, which is the county seat and a regional banking center. Most of the proceeds will be used to pay cash settlements to the holders of the county’s outstanding sewer-revenue debt, worth about $3.1 billion when the county defaulted in 2008.

The bondholders are to write off the remaining $1.5 billion, which Jefferson County called “a remarkable result” in a filing with the United States Bankruptcy Court in Birmingham. In effect, the transaction will extinguish the old sewer debt for 54 cents on the dollar.

When the county declared bankruptcy in November 2011, it was the largest municipal bankruptcy in United States history, although Detroit’s subsequent $18 billion bankruptcy this year has eclipsed it. The sewer-construction debacle, default and bankruptcy made Jefferson County a financial outcast, and its new debt would have been a hard sell without a special provision like the bankruptcy court’s continuing 40-year role.

The proposed exit plan is so unusual that the three largest ratings agencies have been at odds over how to evaluate the new debt at the heart of it. Standard & Poor’s rated the new debt, whose lead underwriter is Citigroup Global Markets, at the low end of its investment-grade scale, either BBB or BBB-minus, depending on whether it was insured or not. The Assured Guaranty Municipal Corporation has charged a $26 million premium to insure $500 million of the total $1.8 billion.

Fitch, on the other hand, rated the county’s new debt at the high end of its junk range, either BB-plus, if insured, or BB if not.

Moody’s Investors Service was not hired to rate the new debt, but it issued a special report on it as part of its general efforts to track distressed municipalities. It said Jefferson County’s debt seemed to qualify for a rating as low as B, indicating a “substantial-to-high credit risk.”

Moody’s and Fitch said they were concerned that the new debt is to be paid back slowly at first, with accelerating payments in later years that will require sewer rates to rise. The county’s rate schedule, subject to bankruptcy court approval, also includes increases to cover the cost of the remaining work to be done to bring the system into compliance with the Clean Water Act.

Fitch said its rating was preliminary and would become permanent once Jefferson County emerged from bankruptcy and completed the settlement with the current bondholders.

Its analyst, Doug Scott, said future rate increases “could spark increased political concerns, litigation, and elasticity in usage,” meaning that homeowners might vote with their feet by leaving the system. That could throw the system’s finances out of balance again. The county has also taken steps to dedicate certain property taxes to supporting the sewer system because not all county residents are on the system.

Moody’s noted in its report that “We are not aware of a precedent for a federal court to compel public utility rates of this nature, given the federalism issues involved in this bankruptcy.”



A Municipal Bankruptcy May Create a Template

Jefferson County, Ala., which just became the first municipality to tap the public bond markets while bankrupt, will go to court on Wednesday to seek approval for its plan to exit bankruptcy by the end of this year.

But there is a catch: Even if Jefferson County does emerge from bankruptcy soon, it will not fully sever its ties to the Federal Bankruptcy Court in Birmingham for 40 more years.

The county’s unusual exit plan, which could offer a possible template for other bankrupt municipalities, calls for the court to retain jurisdiction for the life of $1.8 billion in sewer-revenue debt that it sold over the last few days. If the county falters at some point, even decades from now, the bankruptcy court is supposed to have the power to enforce rate increases to produce the cash needed to pay back the $1.8 billion on schedule, with interest.

For now, the new mechanism appears to have helped Jefferson County, which includes the city of Birmingham, Ala., solve the problem of how to win back lenders after a big default. Municipalities typically go to great lengths to avoid defaulting out of fear that the stigma will ruin their credit for many years.

“To sell new bonds while you’re in default on the old bonds, it really hasn’t happened before,” said Matt Fabian, a managing director at Municipal Market Advisors. “Without the assumption of court protection, the financing would have been more difficult, if not impossible.”

He said that Jefferson County was demonstrating a new source of financing that other municipalities might use to resolve bankruptcies: future rate increases or tax increases. “It’s not just cram-downs on creditors, or terminations of employees’ contracts,” he said, citing the bitter medicine typically used in municipal bankruptcy.

Sewer rates remain a potential flash point in Jefferson County, which built up a crushing mountain of debt in recent years while trying, unsuccessfully so far, to bring its antiquated sewer system into compliance with the federal Clean Water Act. The state constitution calls for public utility rates to be “fair and reasonable,” and two groups of ratepayers have filed objections to the county’s plan of debt adjustment, in part on that basis. The state attorney general has also said Jefferson County’s current sewer rates are unconstitutional, let alone future increases, which have already been ratified by the county commission. No precedent exists for a clash between a federal bankruptcy ruling and a state constitution.

But Jefferson County has told the court that its plan of adjustment should be confirmed because “it is the result of extensive, arm’s-length, and good faith negotiations” and that its creditors have voted overwhelmingly to approve it. The county will also be able to point to its recent, successful debt sale as evidence that the markets believe its financial plans are feasible, something the court must confirm in approving the county’s exit from bankruptcy.

The hearing that begins Wednesday is expected to last several days.

Issuing the $1.8 billion in new debt is central to Jefferson County’s exit plan, and officials have spent recent weeks pitching the deal in financial centers like London, Hong Kong, New York, Boston and Chicago â€" as well as Birmingham, which is the county seat and a regional banking center. Most of the proceeds will be used to pay cash settlements to the holders of the county’s outstanding sewer-revenue debt, worth about $3.1 billion when the county defaulted in 2008.

The bondholders are to write off the remaining $1.5 billion, which Jefferson County called “a remarkable result” in a filing with the United States Bankruptcy Court in Birmingham. In effect, the transaction will extinguish the old sewer debt for 54 cents on the dollar.

When the county declared bankruptcy in November 2011, it was the largest municipal bankruptcy in United States history, although Detroit’s subsequent $18 billion bankruptcy this year has eclipsed it. The sewer-construction debacle, default and bankruptcy made Jefferson County a financial outcast, and its new debt would have been a hard sell without a special provision like the bankruptcy court’s continuing 40-year role.

The proposed exit plan is so unusual that the three largest ratings agencies have been at odds over how to evaluate the new debt at the heart of it. Standard & Poor’s rated the new debt, whose lead underwriter is Citigroup Global Markets, at the low end of its investment-grade scale, either BBB or BBB-minus, depending on whether it was insured or not. The Assured Guaranty Municipal Corporation has charged a $26 million premium to insure $500 million of the total $1.8 billion.

Fitch, on the other hand, rated the county’s new debt at the high end of its junk range, either BB-plus, if insured, or BB if not.

Moody’s Investors Service was not hired to rate the new debt, but it issued a special report on it as part of its general efforts to track distressed municipalities. It said Jefferson County’s debt seemed to qualify for a rating as low as B, indicating a “substantial-to-high credit risk.”

Moody’s and Fitch said they were concerned that the new debt is to be paid back slowly at first, with accelerating payments in later years that will require sewer rates to rise. The county’s rate schedule, subject to bankruptcy court approval, also includes increases to cover the cost of the remaining work to be done to bring the system into compliance with the Clean Water Act.

Fitch said its rating was preliminary and would become permanent once Jefferson County emerged from bankruptcy and completed the settlement with the current bondholders.

Its analyst, Doug Scott, said future rate increases “could spark increased political concerns, litigation, and elasticity in usage,” meaning that homeowners might vote with their feet by leaving the system. That could throw the system’s finances out of balance again. The county has also taken steps to dedicate certain property taxes to supporting the sewer system because not all county residents are on the system.

Moody’s noted in its report that “We are not aware of a precedent for a federal court to compel public utility rates of this nature, given the federalism issues involved in this bankruptcy.”



As Trader’s Trial Begins, Name of One Insider Stands Out

From his cubicle at Dell’s headquarters in Round Rock, Tex., Rob Ray shared insights about the computer maker that ricocheted across the country, reaching a trust company in California, a mutual fund in Manhattan and hedge funds in New York and Connecticut.

The insights also led to criminal insider trading charges against eight employees at those firms, as well as an indictment of SAC Capital Advisors, the hedge fund run by Steven A. Cohen.

Yet the authorities have not accused Mr. Ray of any wrongdoing. Mr. Ray, whose given name is Chandradip, is not cooperating with the government. Today, he works at Pepsico in investor relations, the same job he had at Dell.

The disparate fates â€" prosecutors have charged the traders who profited from Mr. Ray’s information, but not Mr. Ray himself â€" signify a rare and curious loose end in the government’s otherwise unyielding insider trading crackdown. An examination of Mr. Ray’s role in the investigation, based on a review of court documents and public records as well as interviews with people involved in the matter, raises questions about the prosecution’s strategy in the Dell case and in the broader inquiry.

Those questions loom large as the criminal trial of the former SAC trader Michael S. Steinberg began Tuesday in Federal District Court in Manhattan. Mr. Steinberg, a 41-year-old trader who was among SAC’s earliest employees, is one of the eight charged on the Dell trades; the others have either pleaded guilty or have been convicted at trial. He is SAC’s most senior employee to be charged with insider trading, and the first to stand trial.

The trial hinges in part on Mr. Ray. The prosecution of insider trading requires proof that someone like Mr. Ray wrongfully disclosed secret information in a breach of a duty to his employer. In other words, if the source did not break the law, no one who trades on the information can be held liable.

While the government has complete discretion over whether to charge someone â€" and may decide not to press charges for a host of reasons other than lack of guilt â€" lawyers for some of the Dell defendants have highlighted the government’s decision thus far to spare Mr. Ray as evidence of their own clients’ innocence.

“Ray has never been charged with any wrongdoing whatsoever, a telling indication of the government’s view of his culpability,” lawyers for Todd Newman, a former employee at Diamondback Capital Management who was convicted on the Dell trades, said in court papers. The prosecutors, Mr. Newman’s lawyers wrote, made scapegoats of “only the hedge fund traders who make such an easy target in the government’s crusade against Wall Street inequality.”

The traders who pleaded guilty, some defense lawyers have theorized, yielded to pressure from the government, and decided to cooperate in the hope of being spared jail time. Since 2009, the United States attorney’s office in Manhattan has secured 76 insider trading convictions without losing a single trial.

Mr. Ray, 38, is not out of the woods. Federal prosecutors in Manhattan and the Securities and Exchange Commission continue to view him as a suspect in the investigation, the people briefed on the case said. And in a 2011 court filing, without mentioning him by name, prosecutors labeled Mr. Ray a “co-conspirator.” In a more recent filing, they claimed he “violated Dell’s policies.”

Joanna C. Hendon, a lawyer for Mr. Ray, said in a statement that her client was “loyal and conscientious, with a reputation for integrity and good judgment.” She added, “Rob cherished his time at Dell and was unaware of any insider trading scheme.”

A Dell spokesman, David S. Frink, said that Mr. Ray left Dell in April 2010 and that the company was cooperating with the government’s investigation. A spokesman for Pepsi declined to comment, as did James M. Margolin, a spokesman for the United States attorney’s office.

Mr. Ray arrived at Dell in 2004, records show, after a stint at a Tampa, Fla., company that creates software to design bridges. His onetime boss and mentor at Dell, testifying at Mr. Newman’s trial, portrayed Mr. Ray as something of a model employee. Mr. Ray, the boss agreed, was a “very careful” employee who earned high marks on performance evaluations and took “his career very seriously.”

Mr. Ray’s legal problems arose as a result of his relationship with Sandeep Goyal. The two knew each other from business school and worked together at Dell. They were “not very close or personal,” according to a court filing, but they kept in touch when Mr. Goyal left Dell in 2006 to pursue a career as a technology stock analyst on Wall Street.

Prosecutors say that in 2008, while Mr. Goyal was working at the mutual fund company Neuberger Berman, he received secret information from Mr. Ray about Dell’s financial performance.

Unlike other insider trading cases in which traders pay for illegal tips with cash or extravagant meals and other gifts, Mr. Goyal did not provide Mr. Ray with any financial benefits. Instead, prosecutors say that Mr. Goyal gave Mr. Ray career advice, helping him try to get a Wall Street job.

While the government has characterized their dealings as improper, a Dell investor relations executive testified during an earlier trial that Mr. Ray’s job included helping analysts like Mr. Goyal with their financial models. And Mr. Goyal testified that he concealed from Mr. Ray that he was sharing the information with other traders.

Nevertheless, prosecutors seized on what it saw as a breach. In January 2012, the government filed criminal charges against Mr. Goyal and the others. They accused Mr. Goyal of sharing the illicit tips from inside Dell with what they called a “circle of friends,” some of whom socialized together in Manhattan and the Hamptons. Together, the traders are said to have earned more than $60 million in illegal gains on Dell stock.

Of the accused, only two fought the charges, Anthony Chiasson of Level Global Investors and Mr. Newman of Diamondback. A jury convicted them last December and they are free on bail while awaiting the outcome of their appeal. In court papers, lawyers for both men have criticized the government’s tactic of charging the hedge fund traders but not Mr. Ray.

Mr. Goyal and four others pleaded guilty and are cooperating with the government. Among them was Jon Horvath, a former SAC analyst who helped build a case against Mr. Steinberg and SAC.

Jury selection began on Tuesday in the trial, which is expected to last about a month and shed light on the trading practices of SAC and Mr. Cohen. Mr. Goyal and Mr. Horvath are expected to testify.

Lawyers for Mr. Steinberg plan to argue that their client had no idea that the Dell financial data was improperly obtained. The government has placed him at the end of a five-person chain of information that started with Mr. Ray and found its way to Mr. Horvath, who then passed it on to his boss, Mr. Steinberg.

Unlike some other past insider trading trials, prosecutors have no wiretapped conversations to play for jurors, probably making the case more difficult to prove. The trial, then, will largely turn on the strength of Mr. Horvath’s testimony, as well as several pieces of email evidence.

Mr. Steinberg, who was arrested in March at his Park Avenue apartment, was also accused of insider trading in shares of Nvidia, a chip maker. But as with Mr. Ray, prosecutors have not charged the original source of that supposed tip, a former executive in Nvidia’s finance department.

A crucial piece of evidence likely to surface at trial is an email from August 2008 that Mr. Horvarth sent to Mr. Steinberg just before Dell’s quarterly earnings announcement. He wrote that he had “a 2nd hand read from someone at the company,” adding, “Please keep to yourself as obviously not well known.”

Mr. Steinberg replied: “Yes normally we would never divulge data like this, so please be discreet.”

Another SAC trader forwarded Mr. Horvath’s email to Mr. Cohen, according to the government. Federal regulators said that Mr. Cohen, who has not been criminally charged, quickly sold Dell stock before the company announced its financial results.

Three hours after the earnings release, Mr. Cohen emailed Mr. Steinberg: “Nice job on Dell.”



Baucus Corporate Tax Proposal Takes Aim at Merger ‘Inversions’

There’s lots for big companies to like about a proposed overhaul of the corporate tax code, put forward on Tuesday by Senator Max Baucus, Democrat of Montana.

As Jonathan Weisman of The New York Times wrote from Washington, the draft legislation “would permanently exempt much of the profits earned by American corporate subsidiaries in foreign countries” and “establish a temporary 20 percent tax rate on billions of dollars in corporate earnings that have been parked abroad.”

Though the bill would also tax the profits from foreign subsidiaries selling into the American market, and would still tax overseas cash when it is brought back to the U.S., the overall effect would be to simplify the corporate tax code and create incentives for multinationals to keep more of their business onshore.

There is reason to think Mr. Baucus may find ample support for his plan. As The Times wrote, “There is broad bipartisan consensus in Washington that the corporate tax code is hopelessly outdated and overly complex, with a 35 percent tax rate that is now the highest in the developed world.”

But some companies may not be so enamored with Mr. Baucus’s proposal. Technology and pharmaceutical companies that have hoarded cash overseas will still be hit disproportionately hard if they do repatriate cash.

And companies considering more systemic fixes to their high tax rates will also be discouraged, as the Baucus proposal aims to clamp down on so-called “inversions.”

Inversions, which occur when a U.S. company reincorporates abroad, have picked up lately as highly-taxed multinationals seek relief in low-tax jurisdictions like Ireland and the Netherlands. In a press release, Mr. Baucus said one of the goals of the proposed bill is to “reduce incentives for U.S.-based businesses to move abroad, whether by reincorporating abroad or merging with a foreign business.”

Mr. Baucus has become a vocal critic of inversions, speaking out on them recently, after DealBook published an article documenting their increasing popularity.

Though the draft legislation doesn’t specifically propose new rules for how companies could invert, it includes a number of provisions that would make them less attractive. Simply lowering the statutory tax rate of 35 percent would be one big step. A new effective rate below 30 percent, which is the goal of the new plan, would make a big difference to many companies with billions of dollars in profits.

Inverted companies also avoid U.S. taxes because they are able to use overseas cash more freely, without being taxed when bringing back to the U.S. By introducing a limited tax holiday for overseas cash trapped overseas, Mr. Baucus’ plan would go a ways towards curbing the appeal of this move.

A final way corporations save money once inverted is by using tax credits from losses in foreign subsidiaries to offset taxes on profits in the United States. The Baucus proposal would limit such activities.

Despite bipartisan support, Mr. Baucus’ proposal won’t be adopted overnight. Businesses and other senators have until Jan. 17 to submit comments on the draft legislation, and even then, many parties may look for changes to the corporate tax code to come as part of more comprehensive tax reform.

As The Times wrote, “what’s standing in the way is lawmakers’ insistence that any corporate tax overhaul must be part of a comprehensive plan that also simplifies the individual tax code and helps the half of businesses that file through the individual code.”



Devon Said to Be Near Deal to Buy GeoSouthern for $6 Billion

Devon Energy is near a deal to buy GeoSouthern Energy, a privately held oil and gas driller, for about $6 billion, a person briefed on the matter said on Tuesday.

A deal could be announced as soon as this week.

The deal, if completed, comes as companies are seeking to shore up their positions in shale formations rich in oil. But the industry has had few megadeals this year, with energy companies instead focusing on selling off nonessential assets.

In many cases, integrated companies â€" which find and produce oil and gas and then transport it to refineries â€" have instead focused on either “upstream,” which involves exploring and producing resources, or “midstream,” the transporting of the extracted material. Divestitures accounted for 84 percent of total deal volume for the energy sector in the third quarter, according to PricewaterhouseCoopers.

A transaction would be the first big takeover by Devon in three years. The independent driller has focused more on selling in recent years, having raised more than $11.5 billion in proceeds since 2010, according to data from Standard & Poor’s Capital IQ. In October, the company said that it would spin off its midstream assets and merge them with another energy concern, Crosstex.

Buying GeoSouthern would bolster Devon’s position in the Eagle Ford formation in South Texas, one of the most popular fields in recent years. The smaller oil company was one of the first in the region, and has spent much of its time in recent years focusing on the Black Hawk field.

One of GeoSouthern’s main investors is the Blackstone Group, which helped the company secure $1 billion in financing to develop its holdings in Black Hawk.

News of the deal talks was reported earlier by The Wall Street Journal.

David Gelles contributed reporting.



Jostens Agrees to Buy Rival in Commemorative Paraphernalia

 American Achievement Group's brands include Balfour, which helped create this New York Yankees 2009 championship ring.New York Yankees/Associated Press  American Achievement Group’s brands include Balfour, which helped create this New York Yankees 2009 championship ring.

Jostens, a seller of yearbooks and class rings to students across the United States, is looking to gain a bigger piece of the business of school spirit.

The company has agreed to buy a rival, American Achievement Group, which sells rings, jackets and other commemorative paraphernalia, according to an announcement on Tuesday. The price was not disclosed, but a person briefed on the matter said it was about $500 million.

American Achievement, which sells its products under brands like Balfour, ArtCarved and Keepsake, is owned by the private equity firm Fenway Partners. The sale represents a return on capital of 2.4 times for Fenway, the person familiar with the matter said.

The deal is expected to close by the second quarter of next year â€" when high school and college students will be graduating.

Jostens, based in Minneapolis, also has private equity parents: It is a subsidiary of the Visant Corporation, which is owned by Kohlberg Kravis Roberts and a buyout unit of Credit Suisse.

Many private equity firms have been moving to sell companies to the investing public this year, with stock markets buoyant. But some are also doing what are known as secondary deals, when one private equity firm sells a business to another.

For American Achievement, the deal will give it yet another private equity owner. Fenway Partners bought the company in 2004 from Castle Harlan, a private equity firm that had owned it since 1996.

By joining with Jostens, American Achievement, is aiming to expand its reach.

“The combined company will be better positioned to maximize sales opportunities and capture operating efficiencies while better serving a growing customer base,” Steven Parr, the president and chief executive of American Achievement, said in a statement. “Jostens is the ideal partner to help preserve American Achievement’s rich history while simultaneously facilitating continued growth.”

Credit Suisse is providing loan financing to Visant and is acting as the bookrunner for the debt financing. K.K.R.’s capital markets unit assisted in placing the financing, the announcement said.

Simpson Thacher & Bartlett served as the legal adviser for Visant and Jostens, while Ropes & Gray and Wilmer Hale were the legal advisers for American Achievement and Fenway. Goldman Sachs was American Achievement’s financial adviser.



Jostens Agrees to Buy Rival in Commemorative Paraphernalia

 American Achievement Group's brands include Balfour, which helped create this New York Yankees 2009 championship ring.New York Yankees/Associated Press  American Achievement Group’s brands include Balfour, which helped create this New York Yankees 2009 championship ring.

Jostens, a seller of yearbooks and class rings to students across the United States, is looking to gain a bigger piece of the business of school spirit.

The company has agreed to buy a rival, American Achievement Group, which sells rings, jackets and other commemorative paraphernalia, according to an announcement on Tuesday. The price was not disclosed, but a person briefed on the matter said it was about $500 million.

American Achievement, which sells its products under brands like Balfour, ArtCarved and Keepsake, is owned by the private equity firm Fenway Partners. The sale represents a return on capital of 2.4 times for Fenway, the person familiar with the matter said.

The deal is expected to close by the second quarter of next year â€" when high school and college students will be graduating.

Jostens, based in Minneapolis, also has private equity parents: It is a subsidiary of the Visant Corporation, which is owned by Kohlberg Kravis Roberts and a buyout unit of Credit Suisse.

Many private equity firms have been moving to sell companies to the investing public this year, with stock markets buoyant. But some are also doing what are known as secondary deals, when one private equity firm sells a business to another.

For American Achievement, the deal will give it yet another private equity owner. Fenway Partners bought the company in 2004 from Castle Harlan, a private equity firm that had owned it since 1996.

By joining with Jostens, American Achievement, is aiming to expand its reach.

“The combined company will be better positioned to maximize sales opportunities and capture operating efficiencies while better serving a growing customer base,” Steven Parr, the president and chief executive of American Achievement, said in a statement. “Jostens is the ideal partner to help preserve American Achievement’s rich history while simultaneously facilitating continued growth.”

Credit Suisse is providing loan financing to Visant and is acting as the bookrunner for the debt financing. K.K.R.’s capital markets unit assisted in placing the financing, the announcement said.

Simpson Thacher & Bartlett served as the legal adviser for Visant and Jostens, while Ropes & Gray and Wilmer Hale were the legal advisers for American Achievement and Fenway. Goldman Sachs was American Achievement’s financial adviser.



$13 Billion Settlement With JPMorgan Is Announced

JPMorgan Chase and the Justice Department finalized a $13 billion settlement on Tuesday, punctuating a long legal battle over the risky mortgage practices that became synonymous with the financial crisis.

The civil settlement, which materialized after months of wrangling, resolves an array of state and federal investigations into JPMorgan’s sale of troubled mortgage securities to pension funds and other investors from 2005 through 2008. The government accused the bank of not fully disclosing the risks of buying such securities, which imploded in 2008 and helped plunge the economy to its lowest depths since the Depression.

JPMorgan’s settlement strikes at the core of the accusations, requiring the bank to pay fines to prosecutors and provide relief to struggling homeowners as well as compensation for harmed investors. JPMorgan initially planned to pay about $3 billion, a position it abandoned midway through negotiations.

The final $13 billion deal eclipses other major Wall Street settlements. In fact, it is the largest sum that a single company has ever paid to the government.

The magnitude of the payout reflects a broader strategy shift within the Justice Department to hit Wall Street where it hurts most: the bottom line. Once content to extract multi-million dollar fines that critics dismissed as little more than a slap on the wrist, prosecutors have signaled to the nation’s biggest banks that the billion- dollar mark is a floor rather than a ceiling.

In the JPMorgan case, the Justice Department secured a range of other concessions. For one, JPMorgan had to acknowledge a statement of facts that outline the bank’s wrongdoing in the case. JPMorgan also backed down from demands that prosecutors drop a related criminal investigation into the bank and largely forfeited the right to try to later recoup some of the $13 billion from the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.

“Without a doubt, the conduct uncovered in this investigation helped sow the seeds of the mortgage meltdown,” Attorney General Eric Holder, said in a statement. “JPMorgan was not the only financial institution during this period to knowingly bundle toxic loans and sell them to unsuspecting investors, but that is no excuse for the firm’s behavior. Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. said in a statement

Underscoring the importance of the case, top Justice Department officials led the settlement talks. Mr. Holder negotiated directly with Jamie Dimon, JPMorgan’s chief executive, talking five times over the phone and meeting in person at the Justice Department in Washington.

Tony West, the No. 3 Justice Department official, played an even larger role, negotiating much of the deal with bank executives, a task that typically falls to lower-level government lawyers.

The involvement of senior officials - and JPMorgan’s status as the nation’s biggest bank - made the case a symbol of the government’s wider crackdown on Wall Street’s dubious mortgage practices. The settlement, officials say, could set a precedent for such cases against Bank of America and other major banks.

And coming fast on the heels of an announcement by federal prosecutors in Manhattan that the hedge fund SAC Capital Advisors had agreed to plead guilty and pay a record $1.2 billion insider-trading fine, the JPMorgan case suggests that Wall Street investigations are gaining momentum at the Justice Department. For years, prosecutors have come under fire for not criminally charging any top Wall Street executives involved in the crisis.

“The size and scope of this resolution should send a clear signal that the Justice Department’s financial fraud investigations are far from over,” Mr. Holder said. “No firm, no matter how profitable, is above the law, and the passage of time is no shield from accountability.”

For JPMorgan and Mr. Dimon, once a favorite in Washington, the deal reflects just how far the pendulum has swung. While the settlement will remove one of JPMorgan’s biggest legal headaches, the bank continues to face a criminal investigation into its role as Bernard L. Madoff’s bank and its decision to hire the sons and daughters of some of China’s ruling elite.

The $13 billion deal also comes just days after the bank struck a separate $4.5 billion deal with a group of investors over the sale of soured mortgage-backed securities. The bank recently reported its first quarterly loss under Mr. Dimon, citing the mounting legal woes.

JPMorgan did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The $13 billion payout underpins the importance of the mortgage case. The breakdown of the money includes a $2 billion fine to prosecutors in Sacramento and $4 billion in relief to struggling homeowners in hard hit areas like Detroit and certain neighborhoods in New York.

Half of that relief will go to reducing the balance of mortgages in foreclosure-racked areas and offering a so-called forbearance plan to certain homeowners, briefly halting collection of their mortgage payments. For the remaining $2 billion in relief, JPMorgan must reduce interest rates on existing loans and offer new loans to low-income home buyers. The bank also will receive a credit for demolishing abandoned homes in an effort to reduce urban blight.

The government earmarked the other $7 billion as compensation for investors. The largest beneficiary is the Federal Housing Finance Agency, which announced a $4 billion deal with JPMorgan last month. The agency oversees Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the housing finance giants that purchased billions of dollars in mortgage securities that later imploded.

JPMorgan will dole out the remaining compensation to a credit union association and state attorneys general in California and New York as well as the Justice Department’s own civil division.

“Today’s settlement is a major victory in the fight to hold those who caused the financial crisis accountable,” Eric T. Schneiderman, the New York Attorney General, said in a statement.

Mr. Schneiderman has helped lead a federal and state task force focused on holding banks accountable for their financial crisis-era mortgage practices. His lawsuit against JPMorgan last year was the opening salvo in the government’s fight with the bank. Under the final settlement, he collected more than $600 million in cash and $400 million in consumer relief.

Some defense lawyers question whether the punishment corresponds to the crime, noting that the $13 billion penalty would very likely wipe out about half of the bank’s annual profit. The lawyers also note that some of the mortgage securities in question are not JPMorgan’s. Instead, they belong to Bear Stearns and Washington Mutual, which JPMorgan bought at the height of the financial crisis in 2008. Mr. Dimon has called lawsuits related to Bear Stearns and Washington Mutual unfair, arguing that JPMorgan purchased the flailing lenders at the urging of the federal government.

Still, the Justice Department structured the deal in a way that focused on JPMorgan’s own securities. The prosecutors in Sacramento who collected the only fine in the case were focused on mortgage securities that JPMorgan itself sold in the lead up to the financial crisis.

And Mr. Dimon’s statements at the time suggested that the bank knew the risks of the deal. “Our eyes are not closed on this one,” he said around the time of the Washington Mutual takeover.

The $13 billion settlement took shape last month in a series of calls between Mr. Holder and Mr. Dimon. Ultimately, in the interest of expediting a deal, Mr. Dimon backed down on several important issues.

While the deal put numerous civil cases to rest, for example, it would not save JPMorgan from any criminal inquiries into its mortgage practices. Under the terms of the deal, the bank would also have to assist prosecutors with an investigation into former employees who helped create the mortgage investments.

That agreement represented a major concession for JPMorgan, which was seeking to put all of its mortgage-related cases behind it. Mr. Dimon abandoned that demand on one of his many phone calls with Mr. Holder.

The Justice Department also extracted a larger than expected fine from JPMorgan. The bank’s opening offer was about $3 billion, a fraction of what it paid.

At one point, Mr. Dimon asked, “What will it take to get this done?” Mr. Holder informed Mr. Dimon, who at the time was offering $11 billion, that the government would not accept less than $13 billion. And with that, they had a tentative deal.

At other moments, the bank mounted stronger objections. In a draft settlement document JPMorgan circulated to the Justice Department late last month, people briefed on the talks said, the bank sought to credit an unrelated $1.1 billion penalty toward the $13 billion settlement, a move that rankled the Justice Department.

But with the Justice Department refusing to apply the credit, the bank had to either back down or face a lawsuit. JPMorgan chose to withdraw its request.

Another flash point in the negotiations centered on mortgage securities sold by Washington Mutual. JPMorgan contends that when the bank purchased Washington Mutual in 2008, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation agreed to shoulder some of the liabilities stemming from the failed thrift. The Justice Department, the people said, has been adamant that JPMorgan not transfer some of the settlement costs onto the F.D.I.C. Ultimately, JPMorgan blinked.

Such sticking points threatened to scuttle the deal at several turns. As talks dragged on, the Federal Housing Finance Agency ran ahead, announcing its own deal with the bank last month. That deal effectively allows JPMorgan to try and recoup about $1 billion from the F.D.I.C.

For JPMorgan, another thorny issue involved the statements of fact included in the pact. The statements, in essence, amount to admissions of wrongdoing.

For JPMorgan, any admissions had to strike a delicate balance, according to two people familiar with the bank’s thinking: satisfying the government, but not stoking private lawsuits from investors.

Despite paying a string of banner settlements this year - a $1 billion payout in September to resolve an array of government investigations into a trading loss in London, $80 million over dubious credit card products and now the $13 billion deal - Mr. Dimon appears to have a firm grip atop JPMorgan, according to several bank executives.

The bank’s board remains steadfastly behind Mr. Dimon, who holds the dual roles of chairman and chief executive. Part of that support, the executives said, traces to a widespread belief among board members that the deals represent a victory for the bank as it tries to move past its legal and regulatory woes.

The mortgage deal almost did not happen.

As the summer drew to a close, the prosecutors in Sacramento prepared to announce their civil case against JPMorgan. The prosecutors informed the bank that the lawsuit was coming on Sept. 24.

The Justice Department quietly planned a news conference to announce the case. And Benjamin B. Wagner, the United States attorney in Sacramento, boarded a plane to Washington so he could attend the news conference.

But at 8 a.m. on Sept. 24, just four hours before the scheduled news conference, Mr. West’s cellphone rang. It was Mr. Dimon.

“I think we should meet in person,” Mr. Dimon said, according to a person briefed on the call.

The meeting happened later that week, laying the groundwork for the $13 billion deal.



Jury Selection Begins in SAC Insider Trading Trial

Selection of a 12-member jury from a 100-member pool began on Tuesday at the insider trading trial of Michael S. Steinberg, a former SAC Capital Advisors portfolio manager.

Dressed conservatively in a slightly wrinkled grey suit, white shirt and blue tie, the 40-year-old Mr. Steinberg appeared confident as he stood at the defense table, flanked by three of his lawyers, including the lead lawyer, Barry H. Berke. With his hands in his pockets, he swayed from side to side and occasionally flashed a smile as he waited for Judge Richard J. Sullivan to enter the courtroom at the federal courthouse in Lower Manhattan.

The trial of Mr. Steinberg is at the center of a multiyear investigation by the Justice Department into insider trading at SAC Capital. Six of the hedge fund’s traders have pleaded guilty to securities fraud and, nearly two weeks ago, the firm agreed to pay $1.2 billion and plead guilty to five counts of insider trading violations.

Mr. Steinberg, the most senior former employee at SAC Capital to be charged, has been accused of trading the stocks of technology companies like Dell after receiving confidential information about their earnings. He is the first former SAC employee to stand trial and prosecutors hope his case will shine a light on the culture that existed at the hedge fund.

Two assistant United States attorneys, Antonia Apps and Harry Chernoff, are trying the case for the government and were joined on Tuesday by an F.B.I. special agent, John Radzicki.

At 10:45 a.m., jury candidates filtered through the wood and marble-paneled room on the third floor of the courthouse to take their seats in the gallery. By early afternoon, the first pool of 34 candidates had been questioned. Of those, 18 were seated in the jury box to Judge Sullivan’s left.

Among the 70 questions on a list, Judge Sullivan asked each potential juror whether he or she had heard, read or seen reports in the media about Mr. Steinberg, the charges against him or the case generally. Five members of the group raised their hands.

Potential jurors were also asked whether they had seen media reports about Steven A. Cohen, the hedge fund’s founder. To this question, one man said he had read about the sale of some of Mr. Cohen’s art at Christie’s and Sotheby’s auctions last week.

The first group of potential jurors was a mixed lot, including one Occupy Wall Street member and people who had themselves been investigated by the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Many in the pool disclosed that they had ties to Wall Street. Two said they were employed or had been employed by a hedge fund, while one man said he was the head of a small investment bank and a handful of people gave the details of their indirect ties to the financial world. One woman said she had once worked for Julian Robertson, the founder of the hedge fund Tiger Management, and one man told the judge his friend’s daughter was dating a compliance officer at SAC Capital.

At one point, when the potential jurors were given the opportunity to say whether they had strong views about Wall Street, a young juror raised his hand and said he was affiliated with the Occupy Wall Street movement.

Many of the questions reflected the tedium of the administrative process as Judge Sullivan went through all manner of questions to determine any biases among the jurors. There was a comic moment when one juror, a tax lawyer, said he had strong views about the Internal Revenue Service. “That’s a shocker,” Judge Sullivan shot back.

Within the group, two jurors had been investigated by the S.E.C., while the juror who said his friend’s daughter was dating an SAC employee said he had a very strong bias against the commission.

This afternoon, Judge Sullivan is taking some of the first pool of jurors into a separate room to discuss some of their disclosures while a new pool of jurors will questioned in the main courtroom.



An Odd Spinoff by Royal DSM

Royal DSM has come up with an odd formulation to solve its drug-production headache. The world’s biggest vitamin maker is merging its DSM Pharmaceutical Products business with a private equity-backed rival. Phamaceutical Products was a subscale distraction. But the precise benefits of the $2.6 billion tie-up are hard to fathom. And DSM cedes control of the unit without reducing its economic exposure.

For years the Dutch company has wanted to fix the low-margin unit, which produces chemicals and other ingredients for drug makers, and also makes some medicines under contract. The working assumption was an Asian buyer would eventually turn up. Instead, DSM has struck a deal with JLL Partners, a New York buyout firm that is the majority owner of Patheon, a Toronto-listed manufacturer.

Under the complex deal, DSM swaps Pharmaceutical Products for a stake in a new company. This will borrow $1.56 billion to buy Patheon. DSM gets a 49 percent stake and three of 10 board seats. The rest goes to JLL, which is reinvesting $489 million from a fresh fund. Patheon’s minority investors are offered a 64 percent premium to the previous share price.

This is unambiguously a good deal for outside investors in Patheon, who get bought out at a rich 10 times this year’s earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization and for investors in the current JLL fund, who have trebled their money.

Perhaps eventually it could prove good for DSM and JLL’s next crop of investors too. The combined group will be better balanced between intermediate products and finished drugs, and heftier in North America. So sales should rise and costs should fall. Still, DSM will not quantify these synergies, so the exact benefits are not yet clear. Meanwhile, analysts will probably prefer the new-look DSM, which appears simpler and higher-margin.

But this is a good deal messier than a full sale. Partnerships between companies and private equity are often fraught: the two sides frequently have different objectives and time horizons. DSM is still exposed to the business and may not be able to sell down for years. This unusual experiment might not be repeated too often.

Neil Unmack is a columnist at Reuters Breakingviews. For more independent commentary and analysis, visit breakingviews.com.



Nokia Shareholders Vote to Sell Cellphone Unit to Microsoft

Handset Unit Nearly Sold, Nokia Looks to an Uncertain Future

Antti Aimo-Koivisto/Lehtikuva, via Agence France-Presse â€" Getty Images

Risto Siilasmaa, second from right, Nokia’s chairman and interim chief executive, at the company's shareholder meeting on Tuesday.

HELSINKI â€" Nokia’s shareholders took a major step on Tuesday to reshape the company, voting overwhelming in favor of selling the company’s handset business to Microsoft for $7.2 billion.

The approval represents one of the final steps before Microsoft takes control of the struggling cellphone division, which is expected early next year. But it also leaves many questions about what is in store for Nokia, a Finnish company that still lies at the heart of Europe’s technology industry.

“It’s been a very challenging period,” Risto Siilasmaa, Nokia’s chairman and interim chief executive, said in a recent interview. “When I became chairman, I didn’t think this was going to be a possibility. There have been a lot of emotions.”

The handset unit - which sold 64.6 million phones in the third quarter of 2013 â€" is still one of the world’s largest. But it has increasingly lost out to rivals like Samsung and Apple that now dominate the lucrative smartphone market.

After pioneering mobile phone technology throughout the 1990s, Nokia became the world’s largest handset maker with a market value of around $250 billion. It had nearly a 40 percent share of the global smartphone market as late as 2009, according to Gartner, the research company.

But Nokia’s market share has quickly dwindled to less than 4 percent of global smartphone sales, and Samsung is the world’s largest phone maker. The company’s market value stands at roughly $30 billion, or just 12 percent of its record high.

“It’s a sad moment, but we have to look forward,” said Michael Halbherr, who leads Here, Nokia’s mapping business, which will remain part of the company. “The type of culture we had at Nokia created success, but it didn’t do enough to succeed in the smartphone era.”

Despite the company’s recent lackluster performance in the cellphone market, Nokia still has a few tricks up its sleeve as it contemplates the future. Senior executives at the company are completing a strategy, due early next year, that is expected to focus on Nokia’s remaining businesses and be supported, at least in part, by the cash from the handset sale.

The plans are likely to include a networking unit that competes with companies like Ericsson of Sweden and Huawei of China to build high-speed mobile data infrastructure for large carriers, including Verizon Wireless and Vodafone. While the business began as a joint venture with Siemens, Nokia bought the 50 percent that it did not already own for $2.2 billion earlier this year.

The company has also held on to its mapping division, whose technology is in about 80 percent of the automotive navigation systems worldwide. It also controls an intellectual property portfolio that could either be licensed to other companies or used to build new products.

“We are in a unique situation,” Henry Tirri, Nokia’s chief technology officer, who manages the company’s intellectual property, said in an interview. “Before, we only thought about fitting our technology into mobile devices because that was our main business. Now, we have kept our technological assets and can use them where we see opportunities.”

Analysts warn, however, that creating a viable business from the three separate divisions, which are run independently, could prove a challenge.

Nokia’s networking division, for example, will generate over 90 percent of the company’s revenue after the handset sale is completed. With little overlap with the company’s mapping unit, some investors have called on the firm to sell, or spin off, the smaller unit so that Nokia can prioritize its core networking operations.

“These are very different business,” said Sylvain Fabre, a Gartner telecoms analyst in London. “It’s hard to see how they could create connections between them.”

Other shareholders have demanded that Nokia return some of the almost 8 billion euros, or $10.8 billion, in cash that Nokia will have after it completes the sale of its handset division.



S.E.C. Official Charged With Making False Statements

A Securities and Exchange Commission official was criminally charged on Tuesday with making false statements about stock holdings that he wasn’t allowed to own under the agency’s ethics rules.

The official, Steven Gilchrist, a compliance examiner in the New York office of the S.E.C., was arrested Tuesday morning and was scheduled to appear in court in the afternoon. He faces three counts of making false statements, with a maximum possible prison sentence of 15 years.

On three occasions this year, Mr. Gilchrist falsely told the S.E.C. that his stock holdings were in compliance with the ethics rules or that he no longer owned certain prohibited stocks, prosecutors claim. Those rules, put in place in August 2010, bar S.E.C. employees from owning stock in companies regulated by the agency.

In actuality, Mr. Gilchrist continued to own prohibited stocks in six companies, according to the criminal complaint.

“As an S.E.C. examiner, Steven Gilchrist had a duty to avoid conflicts of interest that might compromise or even appear to compromise his integrity,” Preet Bharara, the United States attorney in Manhattan, said in a statement. “Instead, as alleged, he violated the S.E.C.’s internal rules about stock ownership and repeatedly lied to the S.E.C. about his holdings.”

A lawyer for Mr. Gilchrist, Laura Miranda, could not be reached immediately for comment.

According to federal prosecutors, Mr. Gilchrist failed to divest his holdings of prohibited companies when the new rules took effect, instead transferring the stock to a joint brokerage account that he controlled. He also purchased more prohibited stock without clearing the transactions with the S.E.C.

Before the rules went into effect, Mr. Gilchrist owned shares of Bank of America, Citigroup, Morgan Stanley and the insurance companies Ambac and MBIA.

He requested a waiver in 2011 to continue owning shares of Bank of America, Citigroup and Morgan Stanley, saying he had inherited them from his father and that he did not actively trade them, the complaint says. But the request was denied.

Then, in January 2012, Mr. Gilchrist opened a joint brokerage account with his mother and transferred shares of Citigroup and Morgan Stanley into the account. Mr. Gilchrist had “complete control” over the account, prosecutors say.

He later transferred his Bank of America stock into the joint account, and also purchased shares of JPMorgan Chase through the account. Later that year, he transferred his Ambac and MBIA stock into the account as well.

But in January 2013, Mr. Gilchrist submitted a certification to the S.E.C. that his stock holdings were in compliance with the ethics rules. And on two occasions in February, he claimed that he no longer held or had sold his holdings in the prohibited companies, according to the complaint.

“Making false statements to government agencies undermines the foundation of public integrity,” Carl Hoecker, the S.E.C. inspector general, said in a statement. “My office investigates these matters thoroughly and today’s arrest exemplifies our commitment to working with the S.E.C. to improve and protect its programs and operations.”



S.E.C. Official Charged With Making False Statements

A Securities and Exchange Commission official was criminally charged on Tuesday with making false statements about stock holdings that he wasn’t allowed to own under the agency’s ethics rules.

The official, Steven Gilchrist, a compliance examiner in the New York office of the S.E.C., was arrested Tuesday morning and was scheduled to appear in court in the afternoon. He faces three counts of making false statements, with a maximum possible prison sentence of 15 years.

On three occasions this year, Mr. Gilchrist falsely told the S.E.C. that his stock holdings were in compliance with the ethics rules or that he no longer owned certain prohibited stocks, prosecutors claim. Those rules, put in place in August 2010, bar S.E.C. employees from owning stock in companies regulated by the agency.

In actuality, Mr. Gilchrist continued to own prohibited stocks in six companies, according to the criminal complaint.

“As an S.E.C. examiner, Steven Gilchrist had a duty to avoid conflicts of interest that might compromise or even appear to compromise his integrity,” Preet Bharara, the United States attorney in Manhattan, said in a statement. “Instead, as alleged, he violated the S.E.C.’s internal rules about stock ownership and repeatedly lied to the S.E.C. about his holdings.”

A lawyer for Mr. Gilchrist, Laura Miranda, could not be reached immediately for comment.

According to federal prosecutors, Mr. Gilchrist failed to divest his holdings of prohibited companies when the new rules took effect, instead transferring the stock to a joint brokerage account that he controlled. He also purchased more prohibited stock without clearing the transactions with the S.E.C.

Before the rules went into effect, Mr. Gilchrist owned shares of Bank of America, Citigroup, Morgan Stanley and the insurance companies Ambac and MBIA.

He requested a waiver in 2011 to continue owning shares of Bank of America, Citigroup and Morgan Stanley, saying he had inherited them from his father and that he did not actively trade them, the complaint says. But the request was denied.

Then, in January 2012, Mr. Gilchrist opened a joint brokerage account with his mother and transferred shares of Citigroup and Morgan Stanley into the account. Mr. Gilchrist had “complete control” over the account, prosecutors say.

He later transferred his Bank of America stock into the joint account, and also purchased shares of JPMorgan Chase through the account. Later that year, he transferred his Ambac and MBIA stock into the account as well.

But in January 2013, Mr. Gilchrist submitted a certification to the S.E.C. that his stock holdings were in compliance with the ethics rules. And on two occasions in February, he claimed that he no longer held or had sold his holdings in the prohibited companies, according to the complaint.

“Making false statements to government agencies undermines the foundation of public integrity,” Carl Hoecker, the S.E.C. inspector general, said in a statement. “My office investigates these matters thoroughly and today’s arrest exemplifies our commitment to working with the S.E.C. to improve and protect its programs and operations.”



Chairman of Co-Operative Group Resigns Amid Scandal

LONDON - The chairman of the British food and financial services conglomerate Co-operative Group resigned Tuesday amid media reports that the former top executive of its banking business was purportedly caught on video buying illegal drugs.

Len Wardle, the group chairman, said in a statement Tuesday that recent allegations involving Paul Flowers, the former chairman of Co-operative Bank and a Methodist minister, have “raised a number of serious questions” for the bank and the group over all.

Mr. Wardle will be replaced by Ursula Lidbetter, who currently serves as deputy chairwoman of the group. She is expected to remain chairwoman through a governance review at the company.

This past weekend a British tabloid newspaper, The Mail on Sunday, reported that Mr. Flowers, 63, was covertly filmed counting out money to buy illegal drugs. The incident is said to have taken place just days after he appeared before Parliament this month to answer questions about his leadership at the bank. The report has since led to a police inquiry.

In a statement, Mr. Flowers, who left Co-op Bank in June, apologized for his “stupid and wrong” behavior and said he was seeking professional help. He has been suspended by the church.

“I led the board that appointed Paul Flowers to lead the bank board and under those circumstances I feel that it is right that I step down now, ahead of my planned retirement in May next year,” Mr. Wardle said in his statement.

“I have already made it clear that I believe the time is right for real change in our operations and our governance and the board recently started a detailed review of our democracy,” Mr. Wardle said. “I hope that the group now takes the chance to put in place a new democratic structure so we can modernize in the interests of all our members.”

Co-operative Bank, in an effort to avoid collapse earlier this year, agreed to a debt restructuring in which it relinquished a 70 percent stake to a group of bondholders. Those included the hedge funds Silver Point Capital and Aurelius Capital Management, in exchange for a cash infusion of 125 million pounds, or $201 million. After the debt restructuring, the mutual company will be the bank’s largest shareholder, with a 30 percent stake.

The Co-operative Group traces its roots back to the Rochdale Pioneers Society, a cooperative company formed in 1844 that paid a share of its profit back to its members as a dividend.

The company provides a range of products and services, including operating grocery stores, funeral homes, pharmacies, an insurance company, a banking unit and legal services providers.



Chairman of Co-Operative Group Resigns Amid Scandal

LONDON - The chairman of the British food and financial services conglomerate Co-operative Group resigned Tuesday amid media reports that the former top executive of its banking business was purportedly caught on video buying illegal drugs.

Len Wardle, the group chairman, said in a statement Tuesday that recent allegations involving Paul Flowers, the former chairman of Co-operative Bank and a Methodist minister, have “raised a number of serious questions” for the bank and the group over all.

Mr. Wardle will be replaced by Ursula Lidbetter, who currently serves as deputy chairwoman of the group. She is expected to remain chairwoman through a governance review at the company.

This past weekend a British tabloid newspaper, The Mail on Sunday, reported that Mr. Flowers, 63, was covertly filmed counting out money to buy illegal drugs. The incident is said to have taken place just days after he appeared before Parliament this month to answer questions about his leadership at the bank. The report has since led to a police inquiry.

In a statement, Mr. Flowers, who left Co-op Bank in June, apologized for his “stupid and wrong” behavior and said he was seeking professional help. He has been suspended by the church.

“I led the board that appointed Paul Flowers to lead the bank board and under those circumstances I feel that it is right that I step down now, ahead of my planned retirement in May next year,” Mr. Wardle said in his statement.

“I have already made it clear that I believe the time is right for real change in our operations and our governance and the board recently started a detailed review of our democracy,” Mr. Wardle said. “I hope that the group now takes the chance to put in place a new democratic structure so we can modernize in the interests of all our members.”

Co-operative Bank, in an effort to avoid collapse earlier this year, agreed to a debt restructuring in which it relinquished a 70 percent stake to a group of bondholders. Those included the hedge funds Silver Point Capital and Aurelius Capital Management, in exchange for a cash infusion of 125 million pounds, or $201 million. After the debt restructuring, the mutual company will be the bank’s largest shareholder, with a 30 percent stake.

The Co-operative Group traces its roots back to the Rochdale Pioneers Society, a cooperative company formed in 1844 that paid a share of its profit back to its members as a dividend.

The company provides a range of products and services, including operating grocery stores, funeral homes, pharmacies, an insurance company, a banking unit and legal services providers.



Morning Agenda: Edwards Opens Law Firm

“Before he served as a United States senator, before he made a run at the presidency and before his political career collapsed amid a sex scandal and fraud trial, John Edwards was a trial lawyer,” Peter Lattman and Kim Severson write in DealBook. “Now, Mr. Edwards is returning to his roots and opening a new law practice. The plaintiffs’ firm, Edwards Kirby, reunites him with his former partner, David F. Kirby, and includes on its payroll his eldest daughter, Cate Edwards.”

“The reason we formed this firm is because we all believe in the same thing â€" in standing up for the disenfranchised and those who need an equal chance,” Mr. Edwards said in a telephone interview from his offices in Raleigh, N.C. “That’s why we exist.”

U.S. POISED TO ANNOUNCE $13 BILLION JPMORGAN DEAL  | The Justice Department is set to announce the final details of a $13 billion settlement with JPMorgan Chase over the bank’s questionable mortgage practices in the run-up to the financial crisis, Ben Protess and Jessica Silver-Greenberg report in DealBook. The announcement is expected as soon as Tuesday.

Under the settlement, people briefed on the deal said, JPMorgan will have to hire an independent monitor to oversee the distribution of $4 billion in relief for struggling homeowners â€" a black mark for a bank once considered one of Wall Street’s most trusted institutions. The settlement, coming after months of negotiations, will resolve an array of state and federal investigations into the bank’s sale of troubled mortgage securities to investors.

Nearly half of the $4 billion in consumer relief will go to reducing the balance of mortgages in foreclosure-racked areas, one person briefed on the deal said. JPMorgan will also be credited with up to $500 million for briefly halting the collection of mortgage payments. For the remaining $2 billion in relief, the person said, the bank has agreed to reduce interest rates on existing loans, offer new loans to low-income home buyers and keep those loans on its books.

DROPBOX IS SAID TO SEEK $8 BILLION VALUATION  | Dropbox, a five-year-old San Francisco start-up that allows users to access stored documents via the web, is seeking $250 million in financing in a round that would value it at more than $8 billion, Quentin Hardy and David Gelles report in DealBook. If successful, such a fund-raising round would more than double the company’s valuation, underscoring how online storage is suddenly a hot commodity in Silicon Valley.

Mr. Hardy and Mr. Gelles write: “Dropbox is just the latest young technology company to seek a sky-high valuation. Last week, it was revealed that Snapchat, a photo-sharing application with no revenue, turned down a $3 billion offer from Facebook. Twitter is valued at more than $22 billion after a week and a half of trading. Box, another online storage company that competes with Dropbox, is valued at more than $1 billion and is looking to conduct its initial public offering next year. And Pinterest, a bookmarking service, recently raised $225 million at a valuation of $3.8 billion.”

ON THE AGENDA  | Ben S. Bernanke, the Federal Reserve chairman, speaks at the annual dinner of the National Economists Club in Washington. Best Buy, Home Depot and Saks report earnings before the market opens. Laurence D. Fink, the chief executive of BlackRock, is on Bloomberg TV at 11 a.m.

A CONFLICT IN GEITHNER’S NEW JOB? NOT REALLY  | “Within 24 hours of Timothy F. Geithner’s announcement on Saturday that he would join Warburg Pincus, the private equity firm, a parade of naysayers emerged, almost like clockwork, to criticize the former Treasury secretary’s move as a prime example of the evil of the government’s revolving door,” Andrew Ross Sorkin writes in the DealBook column. “While there’s nothing good about the ‘revolving door’ between Washington and Wall Street, there’s something quite odd about the developing narrative about Mr. Geithner’s move, because it is hard to argue Mr. Geithner ever spun through the revolving door even once.

“Maybe this is splitting hairs, but Warburg Pincus, a relatively obscure yet well-respected private equity firm has little to do with the big institutions Mr. Geithner once oversaw. Had Mr. Geithner gone to a large bank like Goldman Sachs, there would rightly be a steady stream of negative headlines, as there would be had he gone to BlackRock, one of the largest buyers of United States Treasuries.”

BROADER POOL OF MADOFF VICTIMS TO BENEFIT FROM FUND  |  “The largest category of victims in the vast Ponzi scheme run by Bernard L. Madoff â€" those who lost cash through accounts with various middleman funds â€" will be first in line for compensation from a $2.35 billion fund collected by the Justice Department,” Diana B. Henriques reports in DealBook.

“These so-called indirect investors represent about 70 percent of all the claims filed after Mr. Madoff’s arrest in December 2008, and about 85 percent of the claims for out-of-pocket cash losses. But because they were not formal customers of Mr. Madoff’s brokerage firm, they are not eligible to recover anything from the federal bankruptcy court, where the Madoff trustee has so far collected $9 billion to apply toward eligible claims.”

Mergers & Acquisitions »

Dutch Firm to Spin Off Drug-Making Business in $2.6 Billion Deal  |  Royal DSM, the Dutch life and materials sciences company, said on Tuesday that it would form a joint venture with the New York private equity firm JLL Partners. DealBook »

Euronext Is Said to Attract Suitors  |  The Wall Street Journal reports: “Three exchange companies are considering individual bids for Euronext, the European exchange group set to be spun off after it was acquired last week by IntercontinentalExchange Group Inc., according to people familiar with the discussions.” WALL STREET JOURNAL

Upheaval at the Highest Levels of Hollywood  |  “Even as the movie awards season accelerates here, studio chiefs and major producers have been fretting less about Oscars than about job security,” Michael Cieply and Brooks Barnes report from Los Angeles for The New York Times. NEW YORK TIMES

Exxon to Sell Stakes in Hong Kong Power Firms  |  Exxon Mobil is selling majority stakes in a Hong Kong utility and a power storage firm for a combined $3.4 billion, Reuters reports. REUTERS

Advent International to Take Dutch Firm Private for $1.58 Billion  |  The private equity firm Advent International has reached a deal to take private Unit4, a software provider based in the Netherlands. DealBook »

CareFusion to Buy General Electric Unit for $500 Million  |  The deal for the vital signs division of G.E.’s health care arm will expand CareFusion’s offerings in respiratory treatments and anesthesiology. It will also grow the company’s operations outside the United States, and is expected to start significantly adding to earnings per share in the 2015 fiscal year. News Release

INVESTMENT BANKING »

New Market Benchmarks Show a Lack of OptionsNew Market Benchmarks Show a Lack of Options  |  A consensus of professional strategists became convinced months ago that compared with bonds, stocks were a good bet. News Analysis »

Tracking the Dow, Adjusted for Inflation  |  “The Dow Jones industrial average broke through 16,000 on Monday for the first time on record â€" well, at least in nominal terms. If you adjust for inflation, technically the highest level was on Jan. 14, 2000,” Catherine Rampell writes in the Economix blog in The New York Times. NEW YORK TIMES

Chinese Banks Are Forced to Delay Bond Deals  |  The Financial Times reports: “China Development Bank and fellow state policy lender Agricultural Development Bank of China have had to delay or dramatically reduce Chinese bond issues as the impact of a tight onshore credit market begins to be felt.” FINANCIAL TIMES

Bartiromo to Leave CNBC for Fox Business  |  Maria Bartiromo, the anchor of CNBC’s “Closing Bell,” will join the Fox Business Network and Fox News next week, Bill Carter reports in The New York Times. DealBook »

Bloomberg News Lays Off Staff in Sports and Culture  |  The staff changes sought to “emphasize areas that promote growth and focus more on core subjects like finance and government,” The New York Times writes. NEW YORK TIMES

PRIVATE EQUITY »

Blackstone’s Chairman in China Is Said to Be Leaving  |  Antony Leung, the Blackstone Group’s chairman for the greater China region, “is stepping down to become Nan Fung Group Holdings Ltd.’s chief executive officer after seven years at the U.S. asset management firm,” Bloomberg News reports. BLOOMBERG NEWS

How K.K.R. Approaches Real Estate  |  In an interview with PrivcapRE, Ralph F. Rosenberg, the head of K.K.R.’s real estate platform, said that investors “lose a little bit of intellectual integrity” if they think real estate carries as little risk as Treasury debt. PRIVCAPRE

HEDGE FUNDS »

Sony Entertainment Is Said to Hire Bain & Company for Cost-Cutting  |  Michael Lynton, chief executive of Sony Entertainment, has worked to speed up cost-cutting efforts since the company came under strong criticism in the spring from the activist investor Daniel S. Loeb, Brooks Barnes reports in The New York Times. DealBook »

I.P.O./OFFERINGS »

JPMorgan Is Said to Withdraw From Chinese Bank I.P.O.  |  JPMorgan Chase has withdrawn from underwriting the Hong Kong initial public offering of the lender China Everbright Bank, The Wall Street Journal reports, citing unidentified people with direct knowledge of the deal. WALL STREET JOURNAL

A Note of Skepticism on Some Internet Stocks  |  In its latest monthly equities update, the mutual fund firm Janus Capital wrote about cloud computing and social media companies: “Valuations for many of these companies seem just as stretched as Internet stocks were back then,” in the dot-com era. WALL STREET JOURNAL

VENTURE CAPITAL »

A Partner Leaves Khosla Ventures  |  “Shirish Sathaye has quietly stepped down as a general partner with Khosla Ventures,” Fortune reports. FORTUNE

LEGAL/REGULATORY »

Regulators See Value in Bitcoin, and Investors Hasten to AgreeRegulators See Value in Bitcoin, and Investors Hasten to Agree  |  Federal officials told a Senate hearing that virtual currencies like bitcoin offered real benefits for the financial system. DealBook »

Obama’s First-Term Finance Team: Where Are They Now?Obama’s First-Term Finance Team: Where Are They Now?  |  Some of the top financial government officials appointed in the Obama administration’s first term have moved into the private sector, while others are taking on new posts in Washington. DealBook »

Google to Pay $17 Million to Resolve Privacy Case  |  “Google agreed on Monday to pay $17 million to 37 states and the District of Columbia in a wide-reaching settlement over tracking consumers online without their knowledge,” The New York Times writes. NEW YORK TIMES

MF Global Is Ordered to Pay $1.2 Billion  |  A federal court in New York ordered MF Global to pay $1.2 billion in restitution to customers of the failed brokerage firm. The firm will also pay a $100 million civil penalty. The restitution and the fine had been anticipated, The Wall Street Journal notes. WALL STREET JOURNAL

Top Restructuring Lawyer Joins Morrison & Foerster  |  Morrison & Foerster says Howard Morris, a former co-chief executive of SNR Denton, is joining the law firm as head of the bankruptcy and restructuring group in London. DealBook »

A Hurdle to Winding Down a Failing Global Bank  |  United States and European regulators want to standardize derivatives contracts to help cross-border banks fail smoothly. It’s a reminder of how much work still needs to be done to end “too big to fail,” Daniel Indiviglio of Reuters Breakingviews writes. REUTERS BREAKINGVIEWS