Shareholders sue JPMorgan over losses
NEW YORK — JPMorgan Chase & Co was the target of two separate lawsuits by shareholders on Wednesday, accusing the bank and its management of excessive risk that led to trading losses of at least US$2-billion.
NEW YORK — JPMorgan Chase & Co
“We will do the right thing. That may well include clawbacks,” he told reporters after the annual meeting.
N.H. Nicholls
Clerk of the Privy Council
Durham trust victim's heirs accusing the Clerk of the Privy Council
CANADIAN banks and crown banks and its management of excessive risk that led to trading losses of at least US$2-billion.
Clerk of the Privy Council
Durham trust victim's heirs accusing the Clerk of the Privy Council
CANADIAN banks and crown banks and its management of excessive risk that led to trading losses of at least US$2-billion.
JPMorgan can cancel unvested awards or require that the value of distributed shares be repaid
JPMorgan can cancel unvested awards or require that the value of distributed shares be repaid when “the employee engages in conduct that causes material financial or reputational harm to the firm or its business activities,” according to the proxy.
THE JP MORGAN TRADE OF THE CENTURY
TAMPA, Fla. — The FBI has opened a probe into trading losses at JPMorgan Chase & Co, stepping up the pressure on the bank after the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and the Federal Reserve said they were also looking into the wrong-way bets that led to the losses.
Yet at the same time, shareholders backed embattled Chief Executive Jamie Dimon at the bank’s annual shareholders meeting in Tampa, Florida on Tuesday, voting against a proposal to split the CEO and chairman roles.
Though shareholders mostly gave Dimon a pass, pressure mounted on the bank to reclaim some of the millions of dollars it paid to the executives who oversaw the trades. Dimon said JPMorgan would pursue more disciplinary action against those who were responsible.
“We will do the right thing. That may well include clawbacks,” he told reporters after the annual meeting.
Yet at the same time, shareholders backed embattled Chief Executive Jamie Dimon at the bank’s annual shareholders meeting in Tampa, Florida on Tuesday, voting against a proposal to split the CEO and chairman roles.
Though shareholders mostly gave Dimon a pass, pressure mounted on the bank to reclaim some of the millions of dollars it paid to the executives who oversaw the trades. Dimon said JPMorgan would pursue more disciplinary action against those who were responsible.
“We will do the right thing. That may well include clawbacks,” he told reporters after the annual meeting.
bonds that the government owes to itself (such as Social Security trust fund bonds.)
The Facts
The Treasury Department’s “Debt to the Penny” Web site makes it easy to track the growth of the national debt during Obama’s presidency. There are two key figures — for publicly held debt and for gross debt, which includes bonds that the government owes to itself (such as Social Security trust fund bonds.)
The Treasury Department’s “Debt to the Penny” Web site makes it easy to track the growth of the national debt during Obama’s presidency. There are two key figures — for publicly held debt and for gross debt, which includes bonds that the government owes to itself (such as Social Security trust fund bonds.)
“The problem is that the way Bush has done it over the last eight years is to take out a credit card from the Bank of China in the name of our children, driving up our national debt from $5 trillion for the first 42 presidents,” Obama said in Fargo, N.D. “Number 43 added $4 trillion by his lonesome, so that we now have over $9 trillion of debt that we are going to have to pay back — $30,000 for every man, woman and child. That’s irresponsible. It’s unpatriotic.”
The Facts
The Treasury Department’s “Debt to the Penny” Web site makes it easy to track the growth of the national debt during Obama’s presidency. There are two key figures — for publicly held debt and for gross debt, which includes bonds that the government owes to itself (such as Social Security trust fund bonds.)
As of Jan. 20, 2009, the publicly held debt was $6.31 trillion and the gross debt was $10.63 trillion. As of May 14, 2012, the publicly held debt was $10.92 trillion and the gross debt was $15.68 trillion.
So, the publicly held debt has grown by $4.61 trillion, and the gross debt has grown by $5.05 trillion. Thus it’s certainly correct that the national debt has grown by about $5 trillion under Obama.
Eric Fehrnstrom, a senior adviser to the Romney campaign, said that the $5 trillion figure came from these Treasury Department figures.
“We’re using the same standard that Obama used during his campaign in assigning blame to President Bush for the increase in debt that happened under his watch,” he said, pointing to a speech that then-Sen. Obama made during the 2008 presidential campaign.
“The problem is that the way Bush has done it over the last eight years is to take out a credit card from the Bank of China in the name of our children, driving up our national debt from $5 trillion for the first 42 presidents,” Obama said in Fargo, N.D. “Number 43 added $4 trillion by his lonesome, so that we now have over $9 trillion of debt that we are going to have to pay back — $30,000 for every man, woman and child. That’s irresponsible. It’s unpatriotic.”
Hmm, “unpatriotic” is certainly harsh. But, we’ve often said, two wrongs don’t make a right.
Romney also attributed the growth of the debt entirely to Obama’s policies. And, and while the numbers add up, that is a bit more difficult to justify.
First of all, Obama has failed to convince Congress to enact some of his proposed policies — such as higher taxes on the wealthy — that likely would have reduced the deficit and thus kept the debt growing more slowly.
But more to the point, a major factor in the debt explosion has been the decline in government revenues because of the recession. One could argue — and Romney might — that the laggard recovery is the result of Obama’s policies and thus he should also get all of the blame for the decline in revenues. But the chart below shows that the decline in revenues (the red line) began at start of the recession — a year before Obama took office.
The Treasury Department’s “Debt to the Penny” Web site makes it easy to track the growth of the national debt during Obama’s presidency. There are two key figures — for publicly held debt and for gross debt, which includes bonds that the government owes to itself (such as Social Security trust fund bonds.)
As of Jan. 20, 2009, the publicly held debt was $6.31 trillion and the gross debt was $10.63 trillion. As of May 14, 2012, the publicly held debt was $10.92 trillion and the gross debt was $15.68 trillion.
So, the publicly held debt has grown by $4.61 trillion, and the gross debt has grown by $5.05 trillion. Thus it’s certainly correct that the national debt has grown by about $5 trillion under Obama.
Eric Fehrnstrom, a senior adviser to the Romney campaign, said that the $5 trillion figure came from these Treasury Department figures.
“We’re using the same standard that Obama used during his campaign in assigning blame to President Bush for the increase in debt that happened under his watch,” he said, pointing to a speech that then-Sen. Obama made during the 2008 presidential campaign.
“The problem is that the way Bush has done it over the last eight years is to take out a credit card from the Bank of China in the name of our children, driving up our national debt from $5 trillion for the first 42 presidents,” Obama said in Fargo, N.D. “Number 43 added $4 trillion by his lonesome, so that we now have over $9 trillion of debt that we are going to have to pay back — $30,000 for every man, woman and child. That’s irresponsible. It’s unpatriotic.”
Hmm, “unpatriotic” is certainly harsh. But, we’ve often said, two wrongs don’t make a right.
Romney also attributed the growth of the debt entirely to Obama’s policies. And, and while the numbers add up, that is a bit more difficult to justify.
First of all, Obama has failed to convince Congress to enact some of his proposed policies — such as higher taxes on the wealthy — that likely would have reduced the deficit and thus kept the debt growing more slowly.
But more to the point, a major factor in the debt explosion has been the decline in government revenues because of the recession. One could argue — and Romney might — that the laggard recovery is the result of Obama’s policies and thus he should also get all of the blame for the decline in revenues. But the chart below shows that the decline in revenues (the red line) began at start of the recession — a year before Obama took office.
EXPLANATORY NOTE
(This note is not part of the Order)
This Order makes provision for the modification of the Social Security Administration Act 1992 and the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 so as to give effect to the Supplementary Agreement on social security (which is set out in Schedule 1 to this Order) made between the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Government of the United States of America. The Supplementary Agreement amends the Agreement on social security set out in Schedule 1 to the Social Security (United States of America) Order 1984 to take into account changes in United Kingdom legislation, in particular as relates to incapacity benefit.
There are also set out in Schedule 2 to this Order the provisions of a Supplementary Administrative Agreement amending the Administrative Agreement set out in Schedule 2 to the Social Security (United States of America) Order 1984.
This Order does not impose any costs on business.
http://www.theantechamber.net/Mirror/StatutoryInstrument1997.html
- Statutory Instrument 1997 No. 1778 The Social Security (United States of America) Order 1997
© Crown Copyright 1997
Statutory Instruments printed from this website are printed under the superintendence and authority of the Controller of HMSO being the Queen's Printer of Acts of Parliament.
The legislation contained on this web site is subject to Crown Copyright protection. It may be reproduced free of charge provided that it is reproduced accurately and that the source and copyright status of the material is made evident to users.
It should be noted that the right to reproduce the text of Statutory Instruments does not extend to the Queen's Printer imprints which should be removed from any copies of the Statutory Instrument which are issued or made available to the public. This includes reproduction of the Statutory Instrument on the Internet and on intranet sites. The Royal Arms may be reproduced only where they are an integral part of the original document.
The text of this Internet version of the Statutory Instrument which is published by the Queen's Printer of Acts of Parliament has been prepared to reflect the text as it was Made. A print version is also available and is published by The Stationery Office Limited as the The Social Security (United States of America) Order 1997 , ISBN 0 11 064698 3. The print version may be purchased by clicking here. Braille copies of this Statutory Instrument can also be purchased at the same price as the print edition by contacting TSO Customer Services on 0870 600 5522 or e-mail:[email protected].
Further information about the publication of legislation on this website can be found by referring to the Frequently Asked Questions.
To ensure fast access over slow connections, large documents have been segmented into "chunks". Where you see a "continue" button at the bottom of the page of text, this indicates that there is another chunk of text available.
1997 No. 1778
SOCIAL SECURITY
The Social Security (United States of America) Order 1997
Made 22nd July 1997 Coming into force 1st September 1997
At the Court at Buckingham Palace, the 22nd day of July 1997
Present,
The Queen's Most Excellent Majesty in Council
Whereas at London on the 13th February 1984 an Agreement on social security between the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Government of the United States of America (hereinafter referred to as "the Agreement") and an Administrative Agreement for the implementation of the Agreement (hereinafter referred to as "the Administrative Agreement")[1] were signed on behalf of those Governments and effect was given to the Agreement by the Social Security (United States of America) Order 1984 (hereinafter referred to as "the Principal Order")[2]:
And Whereas at London on 6th June 1996 a Supplementary Agreement between the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Government of the United States of America (which Supplementary Agreement is set out in Schedule 1 to this Order and is hereinafter referred to as "the Supplementary Agreement") amending the Agreement and a Supplementary Administrative Agreement amending the Administrative Agreement (which Supplementary Administrative Agreement is set out in Schedule 2 to this Order and is hereinafter referred to as "the Supplementary Administrative Agreement")[3] were signed on behalf of those Governments:
And Whereas by Article 3 of the Supplementary Agreement it is provided that the Supplementary Agreement shall enter into force on the first day of the third month following the month in which each Government has received from the other Government written notification that all statutory and constitutional requirements have been complied with for entry into force of the Supplementary Agreement:
And Whereas by Article 2 of the Supplementary Administrative Agreement it is provided that the Supplementary Administrative Agreement shall enter into force on the date of entry into force of the Supplementary Agreement:
And Whereas written notification in accordance with Article 3 of the Supplementary Agreement was received by each Government on 20th June 1997 and accordingly the Supplementary Agreement and the Supplementary Administrative Agreement enter into force on the 1st September 1997:
And Whereas by section 179(1)(a) and (2) of the Social Security Administration Act 1992[4] it is provided that Her Majesty may by Order in Council make provision for modifying or adapting that Act and the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992[5] in their application to cases affected by agreements with other Governments providing for reciprocity in matters specified in the said section:
Now, therefore, Her Majesty, in pursuance of section 179(1)(a) and (2) of the Social Security Administration Act 1992 and of all other powers enabling Her in that behalf, is pleased, by and with the advice of Her Privy Council, to order, and it is hereby ordered, as follows: -
Citation and commencement
1. This Order may be cited as the Social Security (United States of America) Order 1997 and shall come into force on 1st September 1997.
Modification of the Social Security Administration Act 1992 and the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 and amendment of the Principal Order
2. The Social Security Administration Act 1992 and the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 shall be modified and the Principal Order shall be amended so as to give effect to the Agreement as modified by the Supplementary Agreement set out in Schedule 1 to this Order and to the Administrative Agreement as modified by the Supplementary Administrative Agreement set out in Schedule 2 to this Order, so far as the same relate to England, Wales and Scotland.
Amendment of Order
3. The reference to the Social Security (United States of America) Order 1984 shall be omitted in the Schedule to the Social Security (Reciprocal Agreements) Order 1988[6] and in Schedules 2 and 3 to the Social Security (Reciprocal Agreements) Order 1995[7].
N.H. Nicholls
Clerk of the Privy Council
“We don’t know the facts and culpability, but it appears she (Drew) did have a responsibility here along with a number of others,”
“We don’t know the facts and culpability, but it appears she (Drew) did have a responsibility here along with a number of others,” Sheila Bair, former chairman of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp, said in an interview with Reuters Insider. “Clearly, the whole purpose of clawbacks is if you make a bad bet that results in losses, compensation should be clawed back.”
