Citi ordered to pay actor Larry Hagman $11.5 mln

[Elmore Furth]

It's really hard for investors to win at arbitration so the Citi behavior must have been egregious.

NEW YORK, Oct 7 (Reuters) - Larry Hagman, the actor who played the villainous J.R. Ewing in the 1980s TV show "Dallas," has won his case that he was victimized by Citigroup Inc (C.N), and the bank was ordered to pay over $11 million in damages.

The total award includes $10 million in punitive damages that Citi must pay to charities selected by Hagman, $1.1 million in compensatory damages and nearly $440,000 in legal fees.

Hagman, who also played astronaut Anthony Nelson in "I Dream of Jeannie" in the 1960s TV show, had requested $1.35 million in damages. He could not be reached for comment.

Hagman accused Citi in May 2009 of a breach of fiduciary duty and breach of contract, fraud by misrepresentation and omission, failure to supervise and violation of federal and state law, according to the ruling by an arbitration panel of FINRA, a self-regulatory body of the U.S. financial industry.

Hagman received the unusually large award after the arbitrators found Citigroup Global Markets "engaged in serious misconduct," meeting FINRA's standards for punitive damages, the ruling said.

Citi ordered to pay actor Larry Hagman $11.5 mln

[aquart]

1. I can assure you that it was.

Without knowing a single detail of the case. Citi is an organization of thieves.

[Skink]

2. Fiduciary is a word not found in any dictionary from the 21st centuary.

[redirish28]

3. One thing about Hagman that most don't know is that he is very kind

and generous. This is just another in a long list of Citi doing wrong. With all these stories in the paper about Citi and Bank of America you'd think we'd have senate and house hearings on these banks wrong doings front and center in the public eye...
Oh I forgot Steroids was much more important than the robbing of citizens.

[happyslug]

4. And that was an additional reason for the Board to rule the way it did.

Remember anything with Hagman will be front page news, thus if he had lost, it would have been front page news. These arbitration Boards are under attack, as being pro-wall street NOT neutral, but the US Supreme Court has ruled them legal under the Federal Arbitration Act passed in the 1920s. Several States are slowly developing cases against these boards that clearly show their prejudice and as such violate any concept of Due Process. Previous Attacks have been upheld on the grounds that since the Arbitration Act makes them legal, any one attacking them have to prove prejudice and if NOT "proved" (and that has been the case), the arbitration Panel Decision will be upheld.

The recent move involve insiders of the Board that clearly show how prejudice they have been, something NOT even known in earlier cases (The Board kept this quite or the plaintiff's did not have the Millions of Dollars to developer the Facts of the Case). Now several State Attorney Generals are attacking these Arbitration Boards and are developing the facts on how prejudice against consumers and for Wall Street they are.

My point is the Boards want to show they are NOT prejudice and a high profile case for a Consumer helps them show that even while they are still pro -wall street in 99% of their other cases. That the gain will go to Charity even helps the board looks good. Notice the emphasis on looking good, in lower profile cases the win-loss ration remains roughly the same (through some other wins for consumers as the AG case goes on, for the same reason to show they are NOT prejudice so to keep the arbitration act legal).