Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Thats,, keeping HOPE alive.....Joker
They're still picken da bones...
Hello over is no news good news,,, or is it over.........
Anything new here?
$ available...me too :)
Law360, New York (June 27, 2017, 5:59 PM EDT) -- Defunct brokerage MF Global's excess insurer Allied World told a New York bankruptcy court Monday that it had posted a $15 million bond, which a judge had required before the court could consider the insurer's request to arbitrate a coverage dispute in Bermuda.
In ordering Allied World Assurance Co. Ltd. to post the bond, U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Martin Glenn said earlier this month that the insurer cannot evade requirements of New York insurance law.
If Allied World wants to continue a monthslong battle to move an insurance coverage suit from New York to Bermuda, the insurer is going to have to first post a bond for the amount the company would potentially owe MF Global under an errors and omissions policy Allied World issued to the defunct brokerage in 2011, Judge Glenn said in a written opinion issued on June 12.
Under New York law, foreign insurers, like Allied World, that issue and deliver insurance policies to parties in the state must either obtain a required business license or post a bond before filing a pleading in a court proceeding against the insurer, Judge Glenn said. His conclusion, that Allied World cannot skirt the bond requirement, directly repudiates the insurer's argument that the company is exempted under the law because Allied World did not “issue or deliver” an insurance policy in New York, but rather issued and delivered the MF Global policy to a broker for the insured in Bermuda.
“Allied World’s position is unfounded given that such a narrow reading of the term ‘delivered’ would dictate that no policies were ever actually delivered by insurers, as the technical delivery would take place by a mail carrier or some other delivery service, acting as a necessary intermediary,” the judge wrote. “And though it was interacting with MF Global’s broker, presumably Allied World fully expected that the policies would ultimately be delivered to New York — a natural destination given MF Global’s New York address on the policy.”
Judge Glenn also rejected Allied World's position that the insurer's motion to compel arbitration was not a pleading covered by Section 1213.
The insurer was given 14 days to post the bond amount or see its pleadings stricken and a default judgment entered. On the day of the deadline, Allied World on Monday said in a brief filing that “respectfully posts this bond in compliance with the court’s opinion and order.”
In October 2011, MF Global went down in spectacular fashion and dragged along its parent company, MF Global Holdings Ltd., following the discovery of a $1.6 billion shortfall in segregated customer accounts tied to an aggressive investment strategy in European sovereign debt.
In its adversary proceeding, MF Global has alleged that Allied World and other Bermuda-based excess insurers owe at least $25 million for policy coverage and damages of up to $40 million after failing to contribute any money to a $159 million multidistrict litigation settlement to resolve claims against the company’s former managers and directors, including ex-CEO Jon Corzine, a former governor and U.S. senator from New Jersey.
Allied World remains the sole defendant in the dispute after Iron-Starr Excess Agency Ltd. and other affiliated entities recently reached terms of a settlement with MF Global, according to the opinion.
Despite being ordered to post $15 million to prevent a default judgment, Allied World dodged a heftier request that it put up $60 million to potentially cover other forms of damages, including a “bad faith refusal to provide coverage.” According to the judge, “the plaintiffs’ proposed bond is not warranted based on the facts and circumstances of the case at this time.”
Attorneys for either side did not immediately respond to requests for comment Tuesday.
MF Global Inc. and MF Global Holdings Ltd. are represented by Bruce Bennett, Jane Rue Wittstein and Edward Joyce of Jones Day.
Allied World is represented by Daniel Slifkin and Omid H. Nasab of Cravath Swaine & Moore LLP and Erica Kerstein of White and Williams LLP.
The adversary case is MF Global Holdings Ltd. et al. v. Allied World Assurance Co. Ltd. et al., case number 1:16-ap-01251, and the bankruptcy is In re: MF Global Holdings Ltd. et al., case number 1:11-bk-15059, both in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York.
--Additional reporting by Alex Wolf. Editing by Pamela Wilkinson.
Law360, New York (June 22, 2017, 5:35 PM EDT) -- A New York bankruptcy judge found Thursday that former MF Global excess insurer Allied World Assurance Co. Ltd. owes the defunct company $926,000 in attorneys' fees over Allied’s failure to get court permission before filing an action to arbitrate a contract dispute in Bermuda.
Bankruptcy Judge Martin Glenn did deny MF Global the full $1.8 million it requested, however, saying Allied was not jointly liable with another excess insurer who had been accused of the same actions but had settled with MF Global.
im going to look in my account one morning ,,,the balance will be up by 400,000 dollars.....200,000 shares x 2.00....WISHFULL THINKING...JOKER
Law360, Washington (May 18, 2017, 5:23 PM EDT) -- Former MF Global excess insurer Allied World Assurance Co. Ltd. said in New York bankruptcy court Wednesday that it never violated court rules, despite the defunct company’s bid for $1.8 million in attorneys' fees over insurers' alleged failure to obtain court permission before filing an action to arbitrate a contract dispute in Bermuda.
MF Global’s trustee says Allied, Ironshore Insurance Ltd., Iron-Starr Excess Agency Ltd. and Starr Insurance & Reinsurance Ltd. should be forced to pay up to $1.8 million as a result of their violation of the so-called Barton doctrine for filing actions in Bermuda without requesting leave from the bankruptcy court and disobeying a related temporary restraining order.
Allied struck back Wednesday, contending that while it’s not challenging the “reasonableness” of an award against it totaling $926,348.95, it never violated the Barton doctrine — whose violation MF Global says cost it $463,902.50 spread across the insurers in a series of appeals — or any other court order. There’s also been insufficient process service against Allied, it said.
“Accordingly, Allied World contends that it is not liable for any fees or costs requested by plaintiffs in respect of Allied World’s alleged violation of the Barton doctrine or alleged contempt,” it said. “Allied World reserves all rights to seek appellate review of this court’s Barton and contempt holdings, and further reserves its rights to seek the elimination or reduction of attorney’s fees based upon the result of any appeal. Allied World further reserves the right to challenge any claimed fees or costs not listed in the Wittstein declaration.”
The Wittstein declaration refers to Jones Day attorney Jane Rue Wittstein, who tabulated the costs of the litigation and subsequent fees in a mid-April filing. At the time, the defunct brokerage, which claims that the insurers wrongfully refused to participate in the payment of a massive settlement in connection with its infamous collapse, said it is entitled to “all fees and costs arising from or related to the improper Bermuda actions,” including briefing and hearings in U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Martin Glenn’s court, related appeals in federal district court and appearances in Bermuda.
Allied argued Wednesday, however, that MF Global also improperly asked for it to be required to pay up within 10 days of a sanction order being entered.
“Plaintiffs provide no authority for that request, nor do they explain why such an order would comply with the applicable rules,” Allied said. “An award of attorneys’ fees, when issued as a sanction, must be set forth in a separate judgment.”
In a separate letter on Wednesday, Allied also lashed out at MF Global fears raised earlier this month that although the insurer abruptly dropped its personal jurisdiction challenge to a coverage dispute, the insurer is likely to show similar inconsistencies, particularly if the case goes to arbitration in Bermuda: a matter still under consideration.
Allied had previously argued that the court lacked personal jurisdiction over it as a Bermuda insurer, but earlier this month issued a brief notice stating that it was withdrawing its objections, save for ones based on insufficient service of process. In a letter filed with the court two days later, MF Global claimed Allied “suddenly reversed its position” when faced with the defunct brokerage’s jurisdictional discovery requests.
However, MF Global contended that Allied could continue to show inconsistent behavior, especially if its bid to compel arbitration is granted. MF Global noted that although the court found Allied and other insurers had violated the Barton doctrine, the insurers have continued to try to find caveats to that and other orders.
Allied argued Wednesday that it can still be trusted on what coverage defenses it plans to raise in arbitration, decrying MF Global’s contentions as a “non sequitur.”
“Allied World withdrew that defense in light of the significant costs that plaintiffs’ broad jurisdictional discovery requests would likely impose given the amount at stake in this litigation,” the insurer said. “Allied World’s withdrawal has nothing to do with its motion to compel arbitration, and plaintiffs have no basis to claim otherwise.”
Nor has Allied waived its arguments about New York insurance law not applying to the motion to force arbitration, it said, maintaining that the provision at issue only applies to insurance policies “issued or delivered” in New York.
In October 2011, MF Global went down in spectacular fashion and dragged along its parent company, MF Global Holdings Ltd., following the discovery of a $1.6 billion shortfall in segregated customer accounts tied to an aggressive investment strategy in European sovereign debt.
MF Global alleges that the excess insurers owe at least $25 million under their errors-and-omissions policies and damages of up to $40 million after failing to contribute any money to a $159 million multidistrict litigation settlement to resolve claims against the company’s former managers and directors, including ex-CEO Jon Corzine, a former governor and U.S. senator from New Jersey.
Requests for comment were not immediately successful Thursday.
MF Global Inc. and MF Global Holdings Ltd. are represented by Bruce Bennett, Jane Rue Wittstein and Edward Joyce of Jones Day.
The insurers are represented by Daniel Slifkin and Omid H. Nasab of Cravath Swaine & Moore LLP, Erica Kerstein of White and Williams LLP, and Maryann Taylor and Mary Jo Barry of D'Amato & Lynch LLP.
The case is MF Global v. Allied World et al., case number 1:16-ap-01251, in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York.
https://www.law360.com/assetmanagement/articles/925762/bermuda-insurer-fights-mf-global-s-1-8m-attys-fee-bid
Welp, it looks like they're not disclosing the settlement amount nor the terms but I noticed the cash available has more than doubled since the last quarter but that doesn't mean the settlement has been paid in full or that the settlement is being paid off completely in cash. They may be accepting some assets in payment that shall be liquidated as part of the settlement. LOL, they're definitely keeping it confidential!
those things are always over my head, but page 11 looks interesting:
The Plan Administrator intends to make a distribution shortly, and will file a Notice of Distribution in advance of the commencement of the distribution. This distribution will include, among other things, the amounts that flow to Available Cash from the confidential settlements in Dooley, PwC, and amounts reverting from reserves established in the MDL settlement as described above, regardless of whether such amounts are reflected in the Schedules of Cash Flows in this QOR or will be reflected in the next QOR because such amounts have been or will be received in April prior to the distribution. In connection with this distribution, the Plan Administrator also evaluated the Plan Administration Expenses Reserve and the MFGAA Expenses Reserve and determined it would be prudent to decrease its estimates of potential future operating expenses and professional fees to $41.3 million for the Plan Administrator and $3.7 million for MFGAA, which includes reasonable contingency amounts.
anything new in this.......................filed today...................http://mfglobalcaseinfo.com/docs/QOR%2003.31.17.pdf
MF Global Seeks $1.8M In Fees For Insurers' Bermuda Action
Law360, New York (April 17, 2017, 4:58 PM EDT) -- MF Global's trustee asked a New York bankruptcy court on Friday to award the estate $1.8 million in fees that it incurred as a result of its insurers' failure to obtain court permission before filing an action to arbitrate a contract dispute in Bermuda
https://www.law360.com/newyork/articles/914133/mf-global-seeks-1-8m-in-fees-for-insurers-bermuda-action
Would be nice if all these lawsuit winnings eventually trickle down to us mfglq shareholders
question, do they have the funds to pay?,,,so what happens next,we wake up one morning and our shares are worth 3.00 a share....LOL JOKER
IMO the "chance" of some recovery for shareholders has turned the corner to "how much?" recovery for shareholders
We all waited this long. At least we are in the homestretch
We find out last but the hedge fund guys are shareholders if that tells yah anything
I'm not sure what happened with Colonial after the settlement and who was supposed to get the proceeds, but here at MF Global the estate is pursing this. I read there are hedge fund guys funding this lawsuit... just don't know what that means how we find out if the MFGLQ shareholders get anything.
Well they may agree not to announce the settlement amount as a term of the settlement but it ought to show up on the next quarterly report... http://mfglobalcaseinfo.com/reporting.php
the Colonial Bank settlement with pwc was never disclosed either. that was another sizable lawsuit in the 5-6 billion range a few months ago. PWC handing out hush money like it's going out of style
thanks,long time coming
Yes, there was a lot at stake & MF Global was showing no sign of backing down until the settlement was announced today so the settlement amount must have been substantial IMO. Just not sure why it's such a secret which sets up the NEXT headline, LOL!
just says both sides mutually satisfied
all auditors were at risk if pwc lost. it would have set precedence for future lawsuits. hopefully it's a 9 figure settlement.... but 10 figures couldn't hurt either.
When will we see the terms??? LOL! Have not seen this much MF Global coverage in quite some time...
The case was just settled after PWC had that set back in court. Terms not disclosed yet
PWC and MF Global have settled
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/mf-global-pricewater
MF Global contended that PwC had given it the wrong advice on how to account for risky European-debt trades that ultimately doomed the company, and that PwC’s advice had contributed to confusion and concern that helped lead to the brokerage’s failure. PwC maintained its advice was correct, and that MF Global’s failure was caused by its own poor decisions and strategy.housecoopers-settle-malpractice-lawsuit-2017-03-23-91035246
you would need a PACER account. i have been too lazy to go that route, so i just follow the news on google for MF Global
is there a website that I can follow the case on..
now the plaintiff can paint pwc as a watchdog that was supposed to be looking out for their clients best interest and not do a 180 catching everyone by surprise resulting in a mass redemption from mf global throwing it into bankruptcy. notice all the missing money was eventually found, but only after a massive bank run
time to get paid,,,,,
Judge Rejects PwC's Request For Mistrial In MF Global Case
https://www.forbes.com/sites/danielfisher/2017/03/15/judge-rejects-pwcs-request-for-mistrial-in-mf-global-case/#7cae6a8937b3
In an unsurprising move, the judge overseeing bankrupt commodities broker MF Global's $3 billion suit against PwC rejected the accounting firm's request for a mistrial, saying PwC's lawyers can challenge MF Global's arguments in court over the rest of what is expected to be a five-week trial.
PriceWaterhouseCoopers asked for a mistrial in a midnight filing Sunday, saying lawyers for the administrator of MF Global's estate switched strategies on the eve of trial, abandoning the theory that PwC's incorrect accounting allowed MF Global to amass a $6.3 billion portfolio of European sovereign debt, which in turn caused the company to collapse. In opening arguments and friendly questioning of former MF Global Chairman Jon Corzine, those lawyers instead tried to establish the story that the Euro bond strategy was sound but that PwC's errors caused confusion and a loss of confidence in MF Global's finances.
In an order filed this morning, U.S. District Judge Victor Marrero rejected PwC's claim it was the victim of "trial by ambush" because it had prepared for a different theory of causation in the three years before the trial started last week.
"PwC had sufficient notice prior to the time it filed this motion to conclude that the Plan Administrator alleges that PwC's advice caused a crisis of confidence in MF Global's financial statements," the judge wrote. In its complaint, MF Global blamed PwC for allowing sale accounting for repurchase-to-maturity contracts under which MF Global actually regained ownership of the bonds two days before they maturity, saying PwC wouldn't have embarked on the strategy without PwC's blessing.
Corzine walked away from that premise in his testimony, saying MF Global could have bought the bonds with or without sale accounting. But in its complaint, MF Global also made broader claims that PwC's mistakes, including bad advice on whether to write down a deferred tax asset, led to a big earnings disappointment and loss of faith in September 2011 that triggered a liquidity crisis and bankruptcy.
"Although PwC may well be surprised" by the theory of causation advanced in the first days of the trial, the judge wrote, "PwC cannot at this late stage claim to be prejudiced."
"The weeks remaining should afford PwC sufficient time to respond to any shift it perceives in the Plan Administrator's theory," he concluded.
In a statement, PwC attorney Richard Marooney with King & Spalding said: “We are confident in our position and expect to win this case on the merits, regardless of the causation theory the Plan Administrator decides to utilize. The bottom line is that PricewaterhouseCoopers had no role in any of the events that led to the demise of MF Global."
if the judge doesn't rule a mistrial, wonder if we'll get a settlement soon thereafter?
PwC threatens MF Global mistrial; Corzine defends actions
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-mf-global-hldg-pricewaterhouse-idUSKBN16K25A
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP on Monday said it may seek a mistrial in a $3 billion malpractice case over the collapse of Jon Corzine's MF Global Holdings Ltd, saying it was blindsided when the plaintiff changed its theory of why the brokerage failed.
The auditor has been accused by MF Global's bankruptcy administrator of accounting negligence that let the former New Jersey governor invest $6.3 billion in European sovereign debt, leading to a liquidity crisis and an Oct. 31, 2011 bankruptcy.
But PwC said the administrator has instead argued at a federal trial that began last Tuesday that Corzine's bet was sound, and that MF Global's collapse was caused by market "confusion" and a "crisis of confidence" that was "somehow" the result of PwC's accounting advice.
PwC urged U.S. District Judge Victor Marrero in Manhattan to strike evidence and arguments supporting this theory, including from Corzine, or else declare a mistrial.
The plaintiff's lawyers "have clearly shifted their causation theory," PwC's lawyer, James Cusick, told the judge before Corzine began his third and final day of testimony. "It amounts to a trial by ambush."
The administrator's lawyer, Daniel Fetterman, rejected that contention.
"This motion is extremely untimely," he said. "We are entitled to try causation as the evidence comes in. ... This is way too late, highly prejudicial. It is gamesmanship."
Marrero gave the administrator a day to respond formally.
"This is obviously a major issue, a complicated subject," the judge said.
Corzine, who is also a former New Jersey senator and Goldman Sachs (GS.N) chairman, has said the short-term debt from five western European countries had been a low-risk wager for MF Global that the market simply did not understand.
MF Global's collapse also followed credit rating downgrades that referred to the debt, which had been moved onto the brokerage's balance sheet as of Sept. 30, 2011, and a tax-related writedown.
Corzine, who is cooperating with the administrator, on Monday resisted Cusick's renewed effort to blame his business strategy for MF Global's failure.
"The problem, really, sir, was not that the market was confused," Cusick suggested to him. "The problem was that the marketplace perfectly understood."
Corzine responded, "The market could do an analysis, but the sovereign debt exposure was there on March 31, June 30 and September 30. There was nothing new."
Corzine, 70, has said little publicly about MF Global since testifying in December 2011 before Congress. He has settled claims by investors and the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission, without admitting wrongdoing.
The case is MF Global Holdings Ltd as Plan Administrator v PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, No. 14-02197.
(Reporting by Jonathan Stempel in New York; Editing by Jonathan Oatis)
NEW YORK (AP) — It was not a huge bet on European bonds that caused the 2011 demise of Wall Street brokerage firm MF Global, but rather “confusion” created by its accountants about the company’s financial condition, former New Jersey Gov. Jon Corzine testified on Thursday.
Corzine, who ran MF Global after leaving the governor’s office, took the stand in a New York trial pitting the legal remnants of the collapsed brokerage against its accounting firm, PricewaterhouseCoopers. MF Global is seeking at least $3 billion in damages, saying PwC’s negligence and malpractice caused the brokerage to go under.
At the center of the trial is $6.3 billion in assets tied to European government bonds that MF Global purchased from Italy, Spain, Belgium, Ireland and Portugal. Another issue is how PwC accounted for $72 million in what’s known as tax-deferred assets that further caused uncertainty about MF Global’s financial health.
Those two issues caused MF Global to be downgraded by the credit rating agencies like Moody’s and counterparties to eventually cut off business from the firm. After a whirlwind week in late October 2011, MF Global filed for bankruptcy.
Most Read Stories
Corzine testified that the European bonds that MF Global invested in were relatively low-risk and the firm expected to get its money back. All of the bonds were from countries with investment-grade ratings, and at the time, the European Central Bank created a $500 billion facility to help eurozone countries meet their obligations.
“We believed the bonds would be paid in their own right,” Corzine said. The thesis later proved to be correct, as all the bonds that MF Global purchased were paid back in full — but some months after MF Global filed for bankruptcy.
PwC argues that MF Global’s business decisions, including its purchase of the European government bonds, were the reason why MF Global failed — not because PwC did not account for those assets as MF Global says they should have.
“PricewaterhouseCoopers stands by the work it did for MF Global as its independent auditor,” said Rich Marooney, outside counsel to the accounting firm.
While Corzine did not blame PwC directly for MF Global’s failure, did indicate he believed that improper accounting caused investors to be caught off guard.
For example, in March 2011 the firm had $72 million in what’s known as tax-deferred assets. But six months later, PwC changed its mind on how MF Global should account for those assets. It partially caused MF Global to report a $120 million loss that quarter. But instead of investors looking at these tax-deferred assets, Corzine said investors took the loss as a sign that MF Global’s European bonds were in trouble instead.
“If the marketplace knew we didn’t lose money on the euro sovereign position, we wouldn’t have had the confusion in the marketplace,” Corzine said.
Corzine is expected to testify on Friday. Since MF Global’s bankruptcy in 2011, he has kept a low profile.
http://www.seattletimes.com/business/former-nj-governor-corzine-testifies-in-mf-global-trial/
Lynn Turner, a former chief accountant at the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and the administrator's first witness, testified that PwC made an "incorrect certification" of MF Global's financials by treating the European debt and tax matters improperly.
"Did PwC do their job?" Steven Thomas, a lawyer for the administrator, asked him.
"No, I don't believe so," Turner answered.
The case is MF Global Holdings Ltd as Plan Administrator v PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, No. 14-02197.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-mfglobal-pwc-idUSKBN16E2CH
The PWC fiasco at the Academy Awards made it difficult to find jurors that were not aware of PWC"s snafu. Supposedly the judge instructed lawyers not to mention it during the trial... but only if you live under a rock you are not aware of what happened just days ago
Sucks to be PWC.... hopefully that is a good sign for us!!
Mediation talks fail. Trial to begin March 6th!!
Corzine's posture relied on PWC guidance. The Judge's priority is to preserve the courts resources when possible by avoiding harsh decisions leading to appeals using more of the courts resources having no concern about how much Lawyers make. PWC, and MF-Global now weight the risk/reward of full trial. MF Global has nothing to lose moving forward while PWC has a future to consider so a loss in court would be greater than any monetary judgement. The real question is how much $$$ can PWC free up for settlement within 2 weeks time, and will it be enough to satisfy council objectives for the MF Global estate IMO
would be nice to hear a settlement sometime over the next 3 weeks... but is it in an attorney's best interest to settle when this case can be dragged out
I think they are just trying to keep the lawyers from profiting too much by dragging this out longer than necessary. Corzine settles with regulators without admitting guilt, so now PWC is the bag-holder. What will they decide to do?
Interesting the Judge is the one pushing the parties to settle through mediation... that usually indicates the Judge does not wish to render the harsh decision which in this case would be issuing a Judgement for over 3 billion if it goes all the way through trial, and that's when treble damages may sometimes be won in a malpractice suit.
coming to an end,wheather good or bad,huh,,,JOKER
MF Global's $1B-Plus PwC Malpractice Trial Delayed For Talks
Law360, New York (February 7, 2017, 4:41 PM EST) -- MF Global and PricewaterhouseCoopers yielded Monday to prodding by a New York federal judge to take one last stab at settling the $1 billion-plus professional malpractice case against the accounting giant before an expected five-week trial, which had been due to start next week, according to court documents.
At what was supposed to be the final pretrial conference, U.S District Court Judge Victor Marrero asked the parties to consider private mediation to settle the case. Both sides were hesitant until the judge said he would get them back on the calendar in a couple of weeks if mediation failed. Judge Marrero told the attorneys to let him know by noon on Monday and hours later issued a brief order pushing back the trial at the request of the parties.
The trial, which was slated to commence Feb. 13, will now start March 6.
The 2014 suit says PwC’s professional malpractice and negligence were a direct cause of massive damages MF Global suffered in an amount to be determined at trial. From September 2010, when the company began investing heavily in European sovereign debt through euro “repurchase to maturity” financing transactions, or RTMs, through October 2011, when MF Global filed for bankruptcy, the enterprise value of the company declined by “significantly more than $1 billion,” according to the complaint.
The suit alleges that the financial services firm had relied on PwC’s “flatly erroneous” accounting advice when it made billions of dollars worth of foreign investments by using the euro RTMs. Contrary to PwC’s advice, the euro RTMs didn’t qualify as “sales,” and the company shouldn’t have processed the revenues, the suit says.
MF Global said in its complaint that it was seeking at least $1 billion on the professional malpractice claim. In MF Global’s January pretrial memorandum of law, it estimated its damages at approximately $2 billion, to be topped off with around $1 billion in prejudgment interest.
PwC said it’s ready to re-engage the battle should talks fail.
"PricewaterhouseCoopers stands by the work it did for MF Global as its independent auditor,” Rich Marooney of King & Spalding LLP, PwC’s outside counsel, said in a statement. “We are fully prepared to defeat the plan administrator's meritless claims at trial if efforts to resolve the matter prove unsuccessful."
MF Global attorney Daniel Fetterman of Kasowitz Benson Torres & Friedman LLP told Law360 by email Wednesday that MF Global is also ready for trial.
"If discussions are not successful, we look forward to presenting evidence that PwC’s numerous and egregious acts of negligence concerning two critical accounting issues at MF Global were a substantial cause of its financial crash," Fetterman wrote. "PwC is a public watchdog, and it had a duty to get the accounting right. It failed. And, when public auditors fail to do their jobs, disastrous consequences can follow as occurred here.”
Judge Marrero dismissed MF Global’s claims of unjust enrichment and breach of contract, but let stand the professional malpractice claim.
MF Global is represented by Daniel J. Fetterman, Michael C. Harwood and David J. Mark of Kasowitz Benson Torres & Friedman LLP.
PwC is represented by James P. Cusick, James J. Capra Jr. and David M. Fine of King & Spalding LLP.
The case is MF Global Holdings Ltd. v. PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, case number 1:14-cv-02197, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.
Updated: This story has been updated with a comment from MF Global attorney Daniel Fetterman.
--Editing by Bruce Goldman.
yup, just need to hear about the mfglq estate
was that a tumbleweed.... of course it was
Followers
|
48
|
Posters
|
|
Posts (Today)
|
0
|
Posts (Total)
|
2533
|
Created
|
07/19/07
|
Type
|
Free
|
Moderators |
MF Global Holdings Ltd. (Case No. 11-15059 (MG)),
MF Global Finance USA Inc. (Case No. 11-15058 (MG)),
MF Global Capital LLC (Case No. 11-15808) (MG)),
MF Global Market Services LLC (Case No. 11-15809 (MG))
MF Global FX Clear LLC (Case No. 11-15810 (MG)) and
MF Global Holdings USA Inc. (Case No. 12-10863 (MG))
Volume | |
Day Range: | |
Bid Price | |
Ask Price | |
Last Trade Time: |