The National  Memo Logo

Smart. Sharp. Funny. Fearless.

Monday, December 09, 2019 {{ new Date().getDay() }}

Citigroup, one of a litany of American banks bailed out by U.S. taxpayers at the height of the financial crisis in 2008, was sued in Manhattan Federal Court Thursday by a shareholder angry at $54 million in compensation doled out to executives last year.

The suit, brought by shareholder Stanley Moskal against CEO Vikram Pandit and the board of directors, comes in the wake of the Citigroup annual meeting on Tuesday, where some 55 percent of shareholders (in a non-binding, advisory vote) rejected the executive pay scheme, which included $15 million for Pandit.

The vote “has cast doubt on the board’s decision-making process, as well as the accuracy and truthfulness of its public statements,” reads the complaint. “Absent this (lawsuit), the majority will of the company’s stockholders shall be rendered meaningless.”

While Citigroup said the lawsuit was without merit, the third-largest bank by assets in the United States did attempt to sympathize with shareholder anger.

“The board takes the shareholder vote on executive compensation very seriously and will consult with representative shareholders to better understand their concerns,” said Citigroup spokeswoman Shannon Bell. The ability to cast a shareholder vote on executive pay at publicly-traded companies stems from the 2010 Dodd-Frank financial reform bill.

Citigroup has bounced back since its collapse, gaining market value and posting significant — if underwhelming — profits in 2011. The culture has not changed enough to assuage the concerns of shareholders frustrated at its low stock price and vulnerability to European debt troubles, however.

Advertising

Start your day with National Memo Newsletter

Know first.

The opinions that matter. Delivered to your inbox every morning

Wandrea "Shaye" Moss

YouTube Screenshot

Just who deserves protection in America?

If you observe the folks this country chooses to protect and chooses to ignore, you may get an answer that doesn’t exactly line up with America’s ideals.

Keep reading... Show less
YouTube Screenshot

The First Amendment reflects a principled but shrewd attitude toward religion, which can be summarized: Government should keep its big fat nose out of matters of faith. The current Supreme Court, however, is not in full agreement with that proposition. It is in half agreement — and half is not enough.

This section of the Bill of Rights contains two commands. First, the government can't do anything "respecting an establishment of religion" — that is, sponsoring, subsidizing or providing special favors for religious institutions or individuals.

Keep reading... Show less
{{ post.roar_specific_data.api_data.analytics }}