Alabama Securities Commission; Attorney General

From: RDShatt@aol.com
To: chris.rhodes@asc.alabama.gov
CC: asc@asc.alabama.gov, constitutentaffairs@ago.state.al.us, communications@rsa-al.gov, legislative@rsa-al.gov, ri@nasaa.org, jmcpherson@naag.org
Sent: 3/20/2013 7:14:28 A.M. Central Daylight Time
Subj: Continued request for Alabama Securities Commission to speak up
Dear Mr. Rhodes,
I am continuing to follow up on recent communications I have made to the Alabama Securities Commission (and parallel communications to the Alabama Attorney General).
In the Regions Morgan Keegan closed end funds class action litigation, I have, as a shareholder, completed submission of my written objection to the Court. You may find my written objection here.
I continue to solicit the Alabama Securities Commission, in its general oversight role as a protector of Alabama investors and of the securities market in Alabama, to formulate its views about what I have been endeavoring to communicate to the Commission and as particularly involved in the locally connected Regions Morgan Keegan lawsuit. If the Commission concludes that I have raised meritorious points that the Court in the case should give consideration to, I would believe an avenue can be found to put forth to the Court a statement of the Commission's views. Please let me know if the Commission is interested in doing this.
It behooves mentioning that Alabama governmental retirement funds, through their securities investments, have a material interest, and further they may be solicited to serve as lead plaintiffs and become, wittingly or unwittingly, propagators of these lawsuits that the investment world (and the general public) should find highly objectionable.
In 2008, there was one of these lawsuits involving Monster Worldwide, Inc., in which a governmental retirement plan was a lead plaintiff, and I disseminated this email Why aren't government retirement systems screaming bloody murder?, including to the Retirement Systems of Alabama. I received a reply from the RSA, which you can find here, but no follow up discussion occurred.
Misguided beliefs on this subject persist. Take a look at the recent press release announcing the pending Citigroup settlement, in which the pension plan proponents and Ohio Attorney General DeWine effusively pat themselves on the back in lauding the recovery being made of lost shareholder assets and the deterrence message sent to others. These are false and misleading claims.
The country's economy is still struggling, investment is cried out for to help create jobs, government retirement plans are under great stress, and yet the Courts tool along allowing these detrimental predations by the plaintiffs' lawyers. I hope the Commissioner, or the Alabama Attorney General, will speak up about this.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Rob Shattuck
Birmingham

From: RDShatt@aol.com
To: chris.rhodes@asc.alabama.gov, constitutentaffairs@ago.state.al.us
CC: asc@asc.alabama.gov, communications@rsa-al.gov, legislative@rsa-al.gov, ri@nasaa.org, jmcpherson@naag.org
Sent: 3/23/2013 7:23:53 A.M. Central Daylight Time
Subj: FYI Bank of America and Citigroup
Dear Mr. Rhodes and Mr. Loftin,
This is in follow to my email on Wednesday.
The Regions Morgan Keegan closed end funds litigation is small compared to the Bank of America and Citigroup cases. I did not have standing to object as a shareholder in the latter cases and could only submit amicus objections. Very possibly the Retirement Systems of Alabama and other governmental plans in Alabama are members of the plaintiff classes in Bank of America and Citigroup.
I hope the RSA has had an opportunity to revisit this subject that I raised with them in 2008.
The settlement hearing in Citigroup is April 8th and in Bank of America is April 5th While the deadlines for members of the plaintiff classes to submit objections in those cases are past, I would like to think there are avenues for the Alabama Attorney General and the Alabama Securities Commission (and even the RSA) to get their views before the Southern District of New York. The Court and the parties are well on notice about the issues in question from my amicus objections.
As explained in my Regions Morgan Keegan objection, there is a difference between that case and the Bank of America and Citigroup cases, and such difference probably makes objections in Bank of America and Citigroup more compelling.
I hope the Attorney General and/or the Securities Commission will see fit to speak up.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Rob Shattuck
Birmingham

From: RDShatt@aol.com
To: chris.rhodes@asc.alabama.gov, constitutentaffairs@ago.state.al.us
CC: asc@asc.alabama.gov, communications@rsa-al.gov, legislative@rsa-al.gov, ri@nasaa.org, jmcpherson@naag.org
Sent: 4/2/2013 8:03:36 P.M. Central Daylight Time
Subj: Citigroup, Bank of America and Regions Morgan Keegan cases
Dear Mr. Rhodes and Mr. Loftin,
I know it is getting late in the day for the Alabama Attorney General and the Alabama Securities Commission to speak up concerning the Citigroup, Bank of America and Regions Morgan Keegan class action lawsuits that I have been emailing you about.
There has been a development in those cases I wish to report to the Attorney General and to the Securities Commission in case it will affect things.
In the Citigroup case, Former United States District Court Judge Layn R. Phillips submitted to the Court this Declaration Regarding Approval Of Settlement, dated November 19, 2012. A week ago, I sent an email to Mr. Phillips asking some questions related to his Declaration. Mr. Phillips emailed me back saying I should serve my email on the parties in the Citigroup case to give them an opportunity to comment before he responded, and I proceeded to serve my email on the Citigroup parties.
Mr. Phillips was also involved in the negotiations in the Bank of America case. Although it did not appear Mr. Phillips submitted a Declaration to the Court in the Bank of America case as in the Citigroup case, the legal similarity of the cases prompted me to supplement my objection to the Court in the Bank of America case. I sent a letter to the Court and the Bank of America parties urging the Court to inform itself about my email in the Citigroup case, any comments the parties in the Citigroup case make about my email, and such response as Mr. Phillips makes after the Citigroup parties have had an opportunity to comment.
I especially mentioned how the plaintiffs' lawyers, in their Joint Declaration to the Court in the Bank of America case, had touted the tremendous recovery they were making for the plaintiff class. I restated my contention that windfall gains went into the pockets of stockholders who sold during the artificially inflated period, these windfall gains corresponded to the losses caused to the purchasers of the stock as a result of the wrongdoing; the Bank of America lawsuit does not seek recovery, and there will not be recovery/offset (except possibly to a small, illogical extent), of these windfall gains going into the pockets of selling shareholders; and there will be only, in substance, a shuffling around of losses. I said, in short, the claims of the lead plaintiffs' and their counsel about the tremedndous recovery being made in the case were false and misleading.
Also, I mentioned how the lead plaintiffs touted the deterrence benefit from their class action lawsuit in their press release, and restated my contention there was no purpose of deterring wrongdoing that was served by the Bank of America lawsuit.
After sending my letters to the Court in the Citigroup and Bank of America cases, I further sent a supplemental letter to the Court in the Regions Morgan Keegan case.
My above three letters, my email to Mr. Phillips, and his reply email to me can all be found here.
My email interchange with Mr. Phillips is suggestive that my contentions were not put forth by any of the parties, and, if my contentions have merit and should be considered in the litigation, it is fair to infer there was a failure of adequate representation of all legitimate interest and concerns in the litigations. I have tried to take steps to speak on behalf of such interests and concerns, but I am not an entirely adequate and appropriate person for doing that. It seems to me the Alabama Attorney General and/or the Alabama Securities Commission are better for fulfilling that role.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Rob Shattuck


From: ConstitutentAffairs@ago.state.al.us
To: RDShatt@aol.com
Sent: 4/3/2013 9:02:20 A.M. Central Daylight Time
Subj: RE: Citigroup, Bank of America and Regions Morgan Keegan cases
Dear Mr. Shattuck:
I received your email regarding the Citigroup, Bank of America, Regions, and Morgan Keegan class action lawsuits. In my original response to you I directed you to the Alabama Securities Commission. While I appreciate the information you are providing, it is unclear what action you are requesting the Office of the Attorney General take. However, Alabama state law prohibits our office from providing private citizens with legal advice, legal opinions, or legal representation. We can only recommend that you consider discussing your concerns with a private attorney, who may provide you with legal advice and any representation that may be appropriate to address your concerns.
If you wish to obtain an attorney referral, you may contact the Alabama State Bar’s Lawyer Referral Service toll-free by calling 1-800-392-5660. If you feel you cannot afford an attorney you may contact Alabama Legal Services by calling 1-866-456-4995.
Thank you again for contacting the Office of the Attorney General. I hope you find the above information helpful.
Sincerely,
Clay J. Loftin
Director of Constituent Affairs

___________________________

Clay J. Loftin

Office of the Alabama Attorney General

From: RDShatt@aol.com
To: ConstitutentAffairs@ago.state.al.us
Sent: 4/3/2013 10:16:47 A.M. Central Daylight Time
Subj: Re: Citigroup, Bank of America and Regions Morgan Keegan cases
Thank you for replying, Clay.
I think I have been fairly clear that I am endeavoring to get before the Court a general public interest related to deterrence of corporate wrongdoing and also a general investor interest concerning these lawsuits. If these are legitimate concerns that the Court ought to consider, and the Court is failing to consider the same, I would say the class action lawsuit system is working poorly, and further it should not have to devolve on a private citizen such as myself to undertake getting the Court to consider the general public and general investor interest. What is within or without the statutory authority of Attorney General Strange to do in advocating for the deterrence of corporate wrongdoing and the protection of the public, I leave to the AG office to decide (and it would seem that the AG office has decided here). I have basically not had a response from the Alabama Securities Commission. After I send this email, I am going to send another email to the recipients of my original email below (including yourself), in which I will give a link to this news story from Monday: Judge Questions Fairness Of Citigroup's $590 Million Settlement.
Sincerely,
Rob Shattuck

From: RDShatt@aol.com
To: chris.rhodes@asc.alabama.gov, ConstitutentAffairs@ago.state.al.us, asc@asc.alabama.gov, communications@rsa-al.gov, legislative@rsa-al.gov, ri@nasaa.org, jmcpherson@naag.org
Sent: 4/3/2013 12:28:36 P.M. Central Daylight Time
Subj: Judge Questions Fairness Of Citigroup's $590 Million Settlement
In follow up to my previous emails, please note this news article from Monday: Judge Questions Fairness Of Citigroup's $590 Million Settlement.
I don't know whether the same thing is going to happen in the Bank of America case, but I have been working on it, and I am under the impression that The Charlotte Observer (where Bank of America is headquartered) is working on an article about Friday's "fairness" hearing in Manhattan in that case.
In my view, there has been a history of a failure of adequate consideration in these class action lawsuits of a a general public interest in the deterrence of corporate wrongdoing and of a general investor interest that these lawsuits not pretend to make recovery when the actual gains from the alleged wrongdoing are in the pockets of selling shareholders and there is only a shuffling around of losses.
Maybe newspaper publicity will have an impact on these cases; maybe not.
I think all state attorneys general and all state securities regulators should be endeavoring to protect the citizens and investors in their respective states by speaking out in some fashion, such as by an amicus curiae submission to the Court.
Thank you.
Rob Shattuck