I disagree with you guys about the settlement. Of course I'm nobody to say that but if Judge Peck wanted this case to be settled he should have blown the horn and flashed the lights long ago. He hasn't done that. Instead he welcomed everybody to a long trial. Bear in mind that he does not have to decide immediately after the trial. Final decision may take several months.
In my opinion Judge Peck is basically obligated to reverse the deal. Just think about what kind of message it sends to the business world if he does not do that: anybody with enough deep pockets can go straight to the top managers of any firm (troubled or healthy), "agree" a price and secure warm spot for those same execs in the predators nest. It really does not matter that Lehman execs who sold the assets didn't actually receive a penny from Barclays. They were to benefit from the deal also. It's a fundamental, systematic, ethical ...... (you name it) a CONFLICT ON A VERY BASIC LEVEL.
Dnoto posted a great article. In the end of that article is nice quote:
“Especially in a large transaction, a judge would be reticent to overturn the sale order absent a clear showing of fraud or other impermissible action,” he said.
I bet only Barclays guys hallucinate that this case "absent a clear showing of fraud or other impermissible action".
