Sunday, November 9, 2008
"In a victory for Citigroup Inc., a New Jersey jury rejected claims brought against it by Italy's Parmalat SpA and instead ruled that the fallen dairy giant should pay $364 million in damages to the bank. ... Citigroup countered Parmalat's $2.2 billion legal action with claims it had been the victim of the fraud that took place at the company. ... Parmalat, in a statement, said it plans to appeal the jury's verdict, as well as an earlier decision by Superior Court Judge Jonathan Harris [JH], who in April had thrown out allegations against Citigroup of fraud, racketeering and unjust enrichment and a claim for punitive damages", my emphasis, Chad Bray at the WSJ, 21 October 2008.
I have followed the Parmalat case from the outset, concluding Citigroup had aider-abetter liability. What was JH basis for apparently granting Citigroup partial summary judgment and throwing out the claims against it? Did Henry Paulson tell JH Citigroup's paying damages would damage the "US economy"? Or did JH note Parmalat had no affidavit from Robert Rubin or Vikram Pandit stating Citigroup did everything Parmalat alleged? The courts are that bad. I hope this is overturned on appeal and retried. Well Roger Parloff at Fortune, do you think an Italian firm can get a fair trial in a US court in a state which has a "former" Goldman Sachs guy governor?