• Andrew Ramonas
    Lobbying Reporter
  • Beth Frerking
    Editor in Chief
  • David Brown
    Vice President/Editor, ALM
  • Diego Radzinschi
    Photo Editor
  • Jenna Greene
    Senior Reporter
  • Marcia Coyle
    Chief Washington Correspondent
  • Mike Scarcella
    Washington Bureau Chief
  • Todd Ruger
    Capitol Hill Reporter
  • Tony Mauro
    Supreme Court Correspondent
  • Zoe Tillman
    D.C. Courts Reporter

« AmLaw Daily: Mayer Brown-Heller Ehrman Merger Called Off | Main | Cable Programmers Air FCC Challenge in D.C. Circuit »

September 15, 2008




A few thoughts. First, SARBOX didn't pass until 2002, and wasn't in effect during most of Raines' tenure. Next, merely restating the profits does not, in and of itself, mean that criminal activity took place. I agree that Fannie's activities need to looked at carefully, but you've reached conclusions before we have the facts.



Hopefully, they have the Attorney General reviewing criminal charges against the former Frannie execs - Franklin Raines, I recall, took in over $38 million and then all profits had to be restated - How is this not a Sarbanes oxley violation? How is this complete failure to oversee, in this case, FannieMae, not a criminal act? Is this different than what Bernard Ebbers did at MCI? Shouldn't executives of GSE's that materially mislead the financial markets face the same consequences for their actions as executives of "regular" public companies?

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad