The massive class action lawsuit which was
tossed out earlier in the year, is moving forward again. This is at the same time as the
criminal investigation into CDR and could spell serious trouble into the 2.8 trillion dollar muni-bond industry, the fact that there was an informant who appears to have detailed the information as well as taped some of the players could blow the lid off the whole scam.
From the Bond Buyer:
WASHINGTON — Court documents filed in class action and other lawsuits by issuers’ lawyers who were briefed by attorneys at Bank of America — the one firm that is cooperating with the Justice Department’s antitrust probe in return for indemnity from criminal charges — present a disturbing picture of alleged widespread collusion between dozens of firms involved with municipal investment contracts and derivatives.
Relying largely on information from a confidential witness at Bank of America called CW, the lawsuits provide something of a play-by-play primer on routines among certain firms in the reinvestment and derivatives business. The winners of bids for the contracts in the sector were determined in advance, traders used verbal cues to rig bids, some firms intentionally submitted losing bids, and several firms received “last looks” that allowed them to compare competing bids and alter their own to win.
The suits also rely in part on extensive audiotapes that B of A made available to the Justice Department. The issuer attorneys did not have access to the tapes but received detailed descriptions of some of their contents from the bank’s attorneys.
In addition, one of the suits notes that Charles Anderson, the former field operations manager for the Internal Revenue Service’ tax-exempt bond office, said: “I have listened to tape recordings of bankers talking to each other saying, 'This law firm or lawyer will go along, they know what’s going on, they’ll give us an opinion.’ It might take a little time to unwind it all, but I think we’ve only seen the tip of the iceberg.”
The class action lawsuit that Baltimore and other issuers filed against dozens of firms, and five separate suits filed against many of the same firms by Los Angeles and other issuers in California, are pending before the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York in Manhattan. They allege that a significant portion of the industry was involved in bid-rigging and anti-competitive behavior that led to last week’s federal indictment of Beverly Hills, Calif.-based CDR Financial Products Inc., its founder David Rubin, and a current and a former employee at the firm.
According to reports, pay for play was so endemic that top executives were angry if it bid winners weren't pre-ordained:
The “unlawful pre-selection practice” was so widespread that Phillip Murphy, the former managing director of B of A’s muni derivatives department, “expressed dissatisfaction if the CW did not know who would win a trade before it was bid.” The collusive practices continued after Murphy left the bank to become a principal at Winters & Co. in 2002, the Hausfeld suit said.
The cw is the confidential wittness who apparently got in pretty damn deep:
The CW, who discovered the alleged collusive conduct after he joined Bank of America’s muni derivatives trading desk in April of 1999, “learned that his was a business about doing favors, generating referrals for brokers, and getting favors in return,” according to the Hausfeld and Cotchett suits. He got his job on the recommendation of executives from IMAGE, the firm he was assigned to work with by Murphy and Douglas Campbell, a former sales team manager at B of A. He also closely worked with Martin Stallone, a managing director at IMAGE.
The CW and other members of the bank’s trading desk used various verbal cues to rig bids, the suits said. One approach used by the CW was to ask if the bank’s bid was “a good fit,” according to the Hausfeld suit. But the conspirators allegedly used several additional code phrases to communicate their desire to be pre-selected as the winner of a particular auction, including: “We really want this deal” or “We want to get in on this rate,” or “I can do better, I want this bid.”
The code word “axe” was also allegedly commonly used to refer to a contract provider’s interest in winning a deal.Firms allegedly also put in sham bids that they knew would not win for business they did not want.
I would assume the sham bids were part of the conspiracy to provide a veneer of competitvness even though key players would have known ahead of time who was going to win what. Perhaps this is a bit of cliche, but this informatnt who went undercover, recorded conversations, detailed secret deals sounds like a scene right out of the movies.