So, is Citigroup just a big crybaby corporation, or do they have a legitimate claim against Wachovia? Basically they are upset that they pumped a bunch of liquidity into Wachovia thinking it was going to be theirs. This hurt their ability to make short-term deals - in other words, their ability to buy other banks instead.

Relevant WSJ Blog:
http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2008/10/09/with-the-citiwachovia-talks-done-where-does-the-fight-go-from-here/

An interesting bit in last week's bailout:

Quote :

"While these are claims Wachovia is likely to have to answer to, Nowicki suspects that Wells Fargo might be able to walk away from all this without much of a scratch, largely because of a provision tucked in to the just-signed Bailout Bill. The provision is section 126(c), which says, in essence, that there shall be no liability against a third party for having acquired a target that otherwise was in an exclusivity agreement with someone else. “I believe it’s fairly clear,” she says. “I doubt Wells will have tortious-interference liability because of it.”"

10/10/2008 4:49:49 PM

Wells Fargo should challenge citi to Pistols at Ten Paces.

10/10/2008 8:14:42 PM

GG wells-fargo. Have to give props to a well-played game on their part.

10/10/2008 8:16:31 PM

Fuck citibank.

they're a fucking shady ass corporation.

10/10/2008 9:17:04 PM

i lolled when the girl in front of me at the grocery store check out line card failed to read

it was a citi card

10/10/2008 11:21:42 PM

I'll admit that for entirely selfish reasons I was hoping Citigroup would come out on top

10/12/2008 2:10:26 AM