Why is Judge Ramos pushing a Wachovia-Citigroup marriage?

Under ordinary circumstances, a fight between Citigroup and Wells Fargo over Wachovia would be a good thing, benefiting Wachovia’s shareholders by pitting two prospective buyers against each other in a bidding war. Hence this Sunday statement by Wachovia:

“Wachovia believes its agreement with Wells Fargo is proper, valid and is in the best interest of shareholders, employees and the American taxpayers [however]. . . Citigroup is always free to make a superior offer to Wachovia.” (Courtesy WSJ Law Blog)

But these are no ordinary circumstances. The nation’s banking system would benefit, it seems, from an early resolution of the battle. Against this backdrop . . . Continue reading

Wachovia responds: Citigroup violated confidentiality agreement

Citigroup appears to have even less of a claim on Wachovia than I previously thought, on the basis of transaction documents posted late Sunday night by the New York Times (copy below the jump). The documents include an affidavit of Wachovia CEO Robert Steele and the Wachovia-Wells Fargo merger agreement. It appears, from these documents and others filed earlier by Citigroup, that if there’s a bad corporate citizen in this game, it’s Citigroup. Continue reading

Wachovia-Citigroup letter: Non-binding agreement to agree

Citigroup’s “agreement” with Wachovia appears to be a bust. If the $2.1 billion deal is documented by nothing more than the letter posted at Clusterstock (key excerpt below), Citigroup shareholders should get set for disappointment: the “non-binding” term sheet apparently involved a $42 billion contribution by the federal government. Citi’s reported $60 billion lawsuit against Wells Fargo suggests Wachovia was worth far more than Citi was letting on.

Continue reading