Some intriguing items revealed in recent suit against our largest bank

[unc70]

A few days ago, I decided to read the entire NY v BofA complaint to see what was really there. It contains several small facts from secret testimony that had not been previously disclosed. Digging further I found an alternative narrative for BofA decisions and actions regarding the ML merger that is plausible and better explains what happened than does the narrative in the NY complaint.

These discussions, most on my journal, have little visibility here at DU, where many see this as their hero Cuomo taking down the pure evil of BofA. Since many of us in NC have more mixed opinions of BofA (not mixed wrt their CC division). We know that BofA and its leaders like McColl and Spangler have strongly supported progressive causes in NC, mostly as Democrats.

Anyway, curious what other locals think of my speculation.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7694561

[unc70]

1. Short summary before going to the journal writeup

ML changed what was being reported in the internal reports later used by BofA, but did not change the labels on the reports. Anyone not aware of these changes would likely be mislead in believing the numbers were full-quarter projections rather than already knows losses for the current month. BofA actions seem consistent with not knowing of the changes and thus assuming the numbers were consistent with their labels on the various reports.

Did those at BofA know the ML reports had been changed? If so, when did they first find out and how?

At this point, just some speculation on my point. Does seem more-likely an explanation than repeated fraudulent actions involving multiple participants at BofA for little to gain personally or corporately.