Paradise Backdrops Turn Prison Walls Into Fantasy Escapes


Read More..

DealBook: Office Supply Rivals' Merger Leaked by a Wayward Report

8:56 p.m. | Updated

It was a paragraph buried on Page 4 of an earnings release, under the heading of “other matters.” Yet what those four sentences revealed sent bankers and lawyers who had been working all night on a deal scrambling early Wednesday morning.

The earnings release, from the office supplies chain Office Depot, appeared shortly after 7 a.m. and inadvertently disclosed the terms of a long-awaited merger between the company and OfficeMax. The announcement disappeared from the company’s Web site quickly, but not before a gaggle of news outlets began running full-fledged reports about the deal.

At that time, bankers and lawyers for the two companies were still negotiating the final language of the merger agreement. The mistaken early publication of the release — since blamed on the data provider Thomson Reuters — prompted Office Depot’s chief executive, Neil R. Austrian, to call up his counterpart at OfficeMax, Ravi K. Saligram, and apologize.

More than two hours later, the companies formally announced their combination.

The episode recalls other times that major company news was published prematurely. Last fall, Google’s third-quarter earnings were published three hours early; the technology giant blamed R. R. Donnelley & Sons, its filings agent, for the mistake.

The chief executives played down the inadvertent disclosure as a harmless mistake, since the announcement was scheduled before the markets opened anyway.

“When two big Fortune 500 companies merge, occasionally mishaps happen,” Mr. Saligram said in an interview.

And Thomson Reuters apologized in a statement, saying it regretted the error and would take steps to prevent such a mistake from happening again.

But people involved in the deal privately bemoaned the unexpectedly bumpy ride, which knocked off kilter a carefully choreographed announcement meant to emphasize what they called a transformative merger of equals.

The union will combine two of the big retailers of staples and notepads, a major effort to combat years of losing sales to bigger, nimbler rivals. Both chief executives said that combining their companies could yield $400 million to $600 million in cost savings. It will probably lead to significant job cuts, as the companies seek to shrink their combined footprint of over 2,500 stores.

Both companies disclosed big drops in their sales for the fourth quarter on Wednesday: Office Depot’s revenue slipped 12 percent from the year-ago period, to $2.6 billion, while OfficeMax’s fell 7.4 percent, to $1.7 billion.

And both have also been under pressure from investors. Office Depot is fending off Starboard Value, an activist hedge fund that holds a 14.8 percent stake and has called for a major change in strategy. And OfficeMax has contended with Neuberger Berman, an investor with a 5 percent stake that has called for bigger payouts to shareholders.

“The whole industry and every analyst thought this made sense,” Mr. Austrian said in an interview. “The timing was right at this point in time.”

Shares of Office Depot fell 16.7 percent on Wednesday, to $4.18, while those of OfficeMax slid 7 percent, to $12.09. The decline wiped out some of the gains both stocks enjoyed after word of the deal talks emerged on Monday.

Negotiations have been held in earnest since at least last summer, people briefed on the matter said.

One important negotiating point that was resolved early on was ensuring that the deal could be presented as a “merger of equals.” Though Office Depot is paying a premium for OfficeMax — it is issuing 2.69 new shares for each share of the target, valuing the smaller retailer at about $1.2 billion as of Tuesday’s closing prices — neither company’s chief has a lock as the leader of the combined company.

Indeed, both Mr. Austrian and Mr. Saligram will remain in place while board members from each company run a search for a new chief executive, which could be either man. Also undecided: the new company’s name and whether it will have its headquarters in Office Depot’s home of Boca Raton, Fla., or OfficeMax’s base in Naperville, Ill.

People involved in the deal said that the compromise, which took about two months to complete, was important in bringing both companies to the negotiating table.

“We both put our egos aside,” Mr. Austrian of Office Depot said. “It’s not a win for one side and a loss for another.”

Both Office Depot and OfficeMax also wanted to emphasize that they would remain competitors until the deal was approved by shareholders and antitrust regulators. That is a nod to the collapse of a proposed merger of Office Depot and Staples more than a decade ago, which was blocked on anticompetitive grounds and left Office Depot reeling for years.

Mr. Saligram of OfficeMax argued on a call with analysts that the regulatory environment has shifted since. Both companies have lost ground not only to Staples, but also to online outlets like Amazon.com and bulk retailers like Target and Wal-Mart Stores.

“This industry has completely changed,” he said.

Should the deal fall apart because of antitrust concerns, neither company will be liable for a termination fee, executives said on the analyst call.

Company executives and advisers also spent significant amounts of time negotiating with BC Partners, an investment firm that owns the equivalent of 22 percent of Office Depot’s stock. Under the terms of Wednesday’s deal, BC Partners will own no more than 5 percent of the combined company’s voting shares and will have no representatives on its board.

Read More..

At least 16 hurt in blast and fire at Kansas City restaurant









At least 16 people were hurt and a popular wine bar was destroyed by an apparent natural gas explosion and ensuing fire at an upscale shopping district in Kansas City, Mo., Tuesday evening.


Residents reported smelling natural gas and seeing utility crews in the area before the conflagration. A strong scent of gas hung in the air afterward.


“Early indications are that a contractor doing underground work struck a natural gas line, but the investigation continues,” Missouri Gas Energy, a natural-gas provider, said in a statement.





The Kansas City Fire Department said the incident was under investigation. “It does seem to be an accident,” Fire Chief Paul Berardi said during a late-night news briefing.


JJ's Restaurant and wine bar, just off Country Club Plaza, had apparently been partially evacuated before the blast occurred about 6 p.m.


"This was happy hour at the restaurant. There were patrons in the restaurant," Berardi said.


No fatalities were reported, but officials brought in cadaver dogs to check the rubble. The Kansas City Star reported that one JJ's employee was missing.


The fire raged for two hours, with thick smoke visible for miles. Victims streamed to hospitals; at least four people were in critical condition.


Initially, police said a car had hit a gas main, but officials later discounted that explanation.


Witnesses described a chaotic scene. 


"I was sitting in my living room folding laundry, and felt in my chest -- and heard -- an explosion," said Jamie Lawless, who lives about two blocks from JJ's. "I started freaking out, and I was looking around, and then I saw other people walking outside. You could see giant black smoke billowing up from the plaza area, and nobody really knew what it was."


Sally McVey, who lives across the street from JJ's, said the fire "was growing exponentially, incredibly quickly. It was not like a fire I’ve seen before, where it takes a long time to spread.”


A crowd gathered to watch firefighters battle the blaze. At an apartment building on JJ's block, a woman on a top-floor balcony called down to onlookers.  "'Is my building on fire?' and everybody says, 'Yes, come down!' " McVey said. "She’s like, 'Oh my gosh,' and a lot of people come out of that building with their computers and dogs. She did too.”


JJ's owner, Jimmy Frantze, was out of town, said Kansas City Mayor Sly James, who used to be a fixture at the restaurant. The business, which boasted a selection of 1,800 bottles, had been on the site for 28 years.


“It was 28 years of a great restaurant, and then it has to end like this,” Frantze told the Kansas City Star while driving back from Oklahoma. “I want to make sure to check on my employees to make sure they are all right.”


Kansas City Police Department's bomb squad and officials with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives were expected to investigate the accident after the search dogs finished looking for victims, Berardi said.


 matt.pearce@latimes.com


ALSO:


Coast Guard: Fuel line leak caused Carnival cruise fire


New York anchorman charged with choking his TV-journalist wife


Executive, charged with slapping baby on Delta flight, loses job





Read More..

Secret Lives of Wild Animals Captured by 1 Million Camera-Trap Images











All images courtesy of the TEAM Network






Read More..

The New Old Age Blog: The Reluctant Caregiver

Now and then, I refer to the people that caregivers tend to as “loved ones.” And whenever I do, a woman in Southern California tells me, I set her teeth on edge.

She visits her mother-in-law, runs errands, helps with the paperwork — all tasks she has shouldered with a grim sense of duty.  She doesn’t have much affection for this increasingly frail 90something or enjoy her company; her efforts bring no emotional reward. Her husband, an only child, feels nearly as detached. His mother wasn’t abusive, a completely different scenario, but they were never very close.

Ms. A., as I’ll call her because her mother-in-law reads The Times on her computer, feels miserable about this. “She says she appreciates us, she’s counting on us. She thanks us,” Ms. A. said of her non-loved one. “It makes me feel worse, because I feel guilty.”

She has performed many services for her mother-in-law, who lives in a retirement community, “but I really didn’t want to. I know how grudging it was.”

Call her the Reluctant Caregiver. She and her husband didn’t invite his parents to follow them to the small city where they settled to take jobs. The elders did anyway, and as long as they stayed healthy and active, both couples maintained their own lives. Now that her mother-in-law is widowed and needy, Ms. A feels trapped.

Ashamed, too. She knows lots of adult children work much harder at caregiving yet see it as a privilege. For her, it is mere drudgery. “I don’t feel there’s anybody I can say that to,” she told me — except a friend in Phoenix and, anonymously, to us.

The friend, therapist Randy Weiss, has served as both a reluctant caregiver to her mother, who died very recently at 86, and a willing caregiver to her childless aunt, living in an assisted living dementia unit at 82. Spending time with each of them made Ms. Weiss conscious of the distinction.

Her visits involved many of the same activities, “but it feels very different,” she said. “I feel the appreciation from my aunt, even if she’s much less able to verbalize it.” A cherished confidante since adolescence, her aunt breaks into smiles when Ms. Weiss arrives and exclaims over every small gift, even a doughnut. She worked in the music industry for decades and, despite her memory loss, happily sings along with the jazz CDs Ms. Weiss brings.

Because she had no such connection with her mother, whom Ms. Weiss described as distant and critical, “it’s harder to do what I have to do,” she said. (We spoke before her mother’s death.) “One is an obligation I fulfill out of duty. One is done with love.”

Unlike her friend Ms. A, “I don’t feel guilty that I don’t feel warmly towards my mother,” Ms. Weiss said. “I’ve made my peace.”

Let’s acknowledge that at times almost every caregiver knows exhaustion, anger and resentment.  But to me, reluctant caregivers probably deserve more credit than most. They are not getting any of the good stuff back, no warmth or laughter, little tenderness, sometimes not even gratitude.

Yet they are doing this tough work anyway, usually because no one else can or will. Maybe an early death or a divorce means that the person who would ordinarily have provided care can’t. Or maybe the reluctant caregiver is simply the one who can’t walk away.

“It’s important to acknowledge that every relationship doesn’t come from ‘The Cosby Show,’” said Barbara Moscowitz when I called to ask her about reluctance. Ms. Moscowitz, a senior geriatric social worker at Massachusetts General Hospital, has heard many such tales from caregivers in her clinical practice and support groups.

“We need to allow people to be reluctant,” she said. “It means they’re dutiful; they’re responsible. Those are admirable qualities.”

Yet, she recognizes, “they feel oppressed by the platitudes. ‘Your mother is so lucky to have you!’” Such praise just makes people like Ms. A. squirm.

Ms. Moscowitz also worries about reluctant caregivers, and urges them to find support groups where they can say the supposedly unsay-able, and to sign up early for community services — hotlines, senior centers, day programs, meals on wheels — that can help lighten the load.

“Caregiving only goes one way – it gets harder, more complex,” she said. “Support groups and community resources are like having a first aid kit. It’s going to feel like even more of a burden, and you need to be armed.”

I wonder, too, if reluctant caregivers have a romanticized view of what the task is like for everyone else. Elder care can be a wonderful experience, satisfying and meaningful, but guilt and resentment are also standard parts of the job description, at least occasionally.

For a reluctant caregiver, “the satisfaction is, you haven’t turned your back,” Ms. Moscowitz said. “You can take pride in that.”


Paula Span is the author of “When the Time Comes: Families With Aging Parents Share Their Struggles and Solutions.”

Read More..

DealBook: Court Gives Investor an Edge in a Lawsuit Against Apple

7:47 p.m. | Updated

In the battle between Apple and the hedge fund manager David Einhorn, score a point for the billionaire who is taking up the mantle of shareholder advocate.

A federal judge said on Tuesday that he was leaning toward Mr. Einhorn’s contention that Apple had violated securities regulations by bundling several shareholder proposals into one matter.

A lawsuit by Mr. Einhorn’s Greenlight Capital, filed this month in Federal District Court in Manhattan, argues that Apple improperly grouped a vote to eliminate the company’s ability to issue preferred stock at will with other initiatives that Mr. Einhorn supports.

While the judge overseeing the case, Richard J. Sullivan, did not immediately grant Mr. Einhorn’s request for a halt to the vote, he said that the facts of the case favored the investor’s interpretation.

“I think success on the merits lies with Greenlight,” Judge Sullivan said at the end of a nearly two-hour hearing. Earlier in the hearing, he implied that he believed Securities and Exchange Commission rules prohibited the bundling of disparate shareholder initiatives.

Spokesmen for Greenlight and Apple declined to comment after the hearing.

Though a small point in the skirmish between Apple and Mr. Einhorn, the judge’s comments may provide some ballast to the hedge fund manager’s call to other investors. Mr. Einhorn’s bigger goal is to persuade Apple to return some of its $137 billion cash trove to shareholders.

He has asked Apple to issue preferred shares, which would pay out billions of dollars in dividends over time. His lawsuit revolves around the technology giant’s proposal to eliminate “blank check” preferred shares that the company can issue without a shareholder vote. He argues that the company improperly bundled the plan with two other corporate governance changes that he supports.

Apple has said that it will consider Mr. Einhorn’s request, but that it has no plans to amend the shareholder proposal.

Judge Sullivan is expected to decide within days whether to grant a preliminary injunction, given the Feb. 27 cutoff for voting on Apple’s shareholder proposals.

A lawyer for Mr. Einhorn, Mitchell P. Hurley of the firm Akin Gump, argued during Tuesday’s hearing that his client would suffer “irreparable harm” if the vote were allowed to proceed, because he would be forced to vote against two matters he would ordinarily support.

During questioning, however, Judge Sullivan expressed skepticism about the need to take immediate action.

A lawyer for Apple, George Riley of O’Melveny & Myers, said in court that if shareholders approved the disputed initiative, the company would wait for the judge to rule before adopting the new measures in its corporate charter.

Judge Sullivan also questioned why Mr. Einhorn had waited so long to act. He filed suit on Feb. 6, over a month after Apple first disclosed its shareholder proxy.

Read More..

Civilian deaths in war in Afghanistan drop for first time in 6 years










KABUL, Afghanistan -- Civilian deaths in the war in Afghanistan dropped in 2012 for the first time in six years, a sign of lessening hostilities, but insurgents dramatically expanded their campaign of assassinating government supporters, the United Nations said Tuesday.


The annual U.N. report on civilian casualties in Afghanistan documented a 12% decline in civilian deaths, largely due to fewer ground operations, new limits on airstrikes by U.S.-led coalition forces and fewer suicide bombings by insurgents. Coalition operations resulted in 39% fewer civilian deaths, the report said.





A harsh winter that limited combat operations and insurgent movements also contributed to the drop in casualties as the 11-year conflict shifts to a new phase in which foreign forces step back and Afghan soldiers and police, who possess less deadly weapons, are almost entirely in the lead.


In all, 2,754 civilians died in the war last year, bringing the death toll to 14,728 since 2007, when the U.N. began tracking civilian casualties.


But the report said that targeted killings -- attacks against government employees, tribal and religious leaders and Afghans involved in peace efforts -- resulted in more than twice as many deaths and injuries in 2012, in part because Taliban-led insurgents increased their use of homemade bombs that spread damage over a wider area.


U.N. officials said they were particularly disturbed by a seven-fold increase in casualties among government workers, including the murders of the two top officials in the women’s affairs department in Laghman province, east of Kabul.


"Steep increases in the deliberate targeting of civilians perceived to be supporting the government demonstrates another grave violation of international humanitarian law," Jan Kubis, the U.N. special envoy to Afghanistan, said in a statement. He said the Taliban leaders’ promises to protect civilians so far amounted to "only words."


Insurgents were responsible for 81% of civilian casualties last year, compared to 72% in 2011, the report said, with improvised bombs being the single deadliest weapon.


Civilian deaths and injuries from operations by U.S.-led international forces and Afghan soldiers and police fell by 46%, the U.N. said, due largely to new restrictions by coalition commanders on airstrikes on residential dwellings.


Still, a NATO airstrike last week in eastern Kunar province reportedly killed 10 civilians in addition to four Taliban commanders, provoking fresh ire from President Hamid Karzai. The Afghan leader on Monday ordered his country’s security forces "not to request foreign airstrikes on residential areas" – a move that could further reduce civilian deaths but also hinder Afghan forces that have no air power of their own.


Marine Gen. Joseph F. Dunford, the coalition commander, said this week that his forces would comply with Karzai's order and could continue to operate effectively. The order does not apply to unilateral NATO operations, but experts say that in practice it could give U.S. forces cover for stepping back even further from combat operations as the Obama administration seeks to withdraw half of the remaining 66,000 American troops from Afghanistan by next February.


ALSO:


Chavez return may increase pressure for new election


U.N. panel finds conflicts in Syria 'increasinly sectarian'


Murder charges filed after woman burned alive in Papua New Guinea





Read More..

Watch a Robot Interview <em>Portlandia'</em>s Fred Armisen











Here at Wired we don’t fear losing our jobs to robots – in fact, we advocate for it.


So when Fred Armisen stopped by the Wired office after the SF Sketchfest tribute to his Peabody Award-winning show Portlandia, we decided to let our robot Rob-EE do the talking. Armisen and Rob-EE even had a heart-to-android-heart. Rob-EE also managed to get some dirt about Armisen’s thoughts on the end of 30 Rock, working on both Portlandia and Saturday Night Live, and the very-prescient subject of a robot’s right to comedy.


“Hopefully there will be a day when all comedy is all robots,” Armisen says. “There should be comedians who perform only for robots – I’m saying human comedians that only perform for robots.”


Find out what else happened when Rob-EE sat down with Armisen in the video above. Portlandia airs Fridays at 10 p.m./9 p.m. Central on IFC.






Read More..

National Briefing | South: Abortion Curbs Clear Senate in Arkansas



The State Senate voted 25 to 7 on Monday to ban most abortions 20 weeks into a pregnancy. The measure goes back to the House to consider an amendment that added exceptions for rape and incest. The legislation is based on the belief that fetuses can feel pain 20 weeks into a pregnancy, and is similar to bans in several other states. Opponents say it would require mothers to deliver babies with fatal conditions. Gov. Mike Beebe has said he has constitutional concerns about the proposal but has not said whether he will veto it.


Read More..

DealBook: Prosecutors, Shifting Strategy, Build New Wall Street Cases

Criticized for letting Wall Street off the hook after the financial crisis, the Justice Department is building a new model for prosecuting big banks.

In a recent round of actions that shook the financial industry, the government pushed for guilty pleas, rather than just the usual fines and reforms. Prosecutors now aim to apply the approach broadly to financial fraud cases, according to officials involved in the investigations.

Lawyers for several big banks, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said they were already adjusting their defenses and urging banks to fire employees suspected of wrongdoing in the hope of appeasing authorities.

But critics question whether the new strategy amounts to a symbolic reprimand rather than a sweeping rebuke. So far, the Justice Department has extracted guilty pleas only from remote subsidiaries of big foreign banks, a move that has inflicted reputational damage but little else.

The new strategy first materialized in recent settlements with UBS and the Royal Bank of Scotland, which were accused of manipulating interest rates to bolster profit. As part of a broader deal, the banks’ Japanese subsidiaries pleaded guilty to felony wire fraud.

The settlements present a significant shift. Authorities have long avoided guilty pleas over fears they will destroy the banks and imperil the broader economy. By going after a subsidiary, prosecutors shield the parent company from losing its license, but still send a warning to the financial industry.

The Justice Department plans to continue the campaign as it pursues guilty pleas from other bank subsidiaries suspected of reporting false interest rates, according to the prosecutors and the lawyers who requested anonymity to discuss the cases. Authorities are scrutinizing Citigroup, whose Japanese unit is suspected of rate manipulation, and prosecutors recently accused one former trader there of colluding with other banks in a vast rate-rigging conspiracy.

Prosecutors want the rate-rigging investigation to serve as a template for other financial fraud cases. Two officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity, described a plan to eventually wring an admission of guilt from an entire bank.

“This Department of Justice will continue to hold financial institutions that break the law criminally responsible,” Lanny A. Breuer, the departing head of the agency’s criminal division, said in an interview.

The strategy will face significant roadblocks.

For one, banking regulators are likely to sound alarms about the economy. HSBC avoided charges in a money laundering case last year after concerns arose that an indictment could put the bank out of business. In the first interest rate-rigging case, prosecutors briefly considered criminal charges against an arm of Barclays, but they hesitated given the bank’s cooperation and its importance to the financial system, two people close to the case said.

The Justice Department will also face resistance from Wall Street. In meetings with authorities, banks are trying to distinguish their activities from the bad behavior at UBS and Barclays, according to the industry lawyers. One lawyer who represents Deutsche Bank acknowledged that Wall Street was girding for battle over the push for guilty pleas.

Some lawyers posit that the new approach amounts to a government shakedown, because institutions may plead guilty to dodge an indictment. “I think it’s a step in the wrong direction,” said James R. Copland, the director of the Center for Legal Policy at the Manhattan Institute.

Complicating matters, lawmakers and consumer advocates will continue to complain that banks get off too easily. In the rate manipulation cases, critics have clamored for more potent penalties, seeking convictions against parent companies.

The problems “should provide motivation to prosecutors, regulators and Congress to do more to ensure that this type of behavior is stopped, and that banks and their executives who manipulate markets are held accountable,” said Senator Carl Levin, Democrat of Michigan.

Critics point to the UBS case. Before UBS signed the deal, Japanese authorities assured the bank that a guilty plea would not cost the subsidiary its license, a person involved in the case said. While the case has weighed on the stock price, the subsidiary is operating normally and clients have stayed put, according to people with direct knowledge of the case.

Prosecutors defend their effort, saying it was born from painful experiences over the last decade.

After Arthur Andersen was convicted in 2002, the accounting firm went out of business, taking 28,000 jobs with it. The Supreme Court later overturned the case, prompting the government to alter its approach.

Prosecutors then turned to deferred-prosecution agreements, which suspend charges against corporations in exchange for certain concessions and a promise to behave. But the Justice Department took heat for prosecuting few top bank executives after the financial crisis. A recent “Frontline” documentary portrayed prosecutors as Wall Street apologists.

So the government is seeking a balanced approach, aiming to hold banks accountable without shutting them down. Prosecutors consulted federal policies that required them to weigh action with “collateral consequences” like job losses. Mr. Breuer also collected input from staff, including the head of his fraud unit, Denis J. McInerney, a former defense lawyer who represented Arthur Andersen.

Mr. Breuer eventually deployed a strategy built on guilty pleas for subsidiaries. He imported the model, in part, from his foreign bribery actions and pharmaceutical cases.

“Extracting a guilty plea from a wholly owned subsidiary finally enables the Justice Department to look tough on financial institutions while sparing them from the corporate death penalty,” said Evan T. Barr, a former federal prosecutor who now defends white-collar cases as a partner at Steptoe & Johnson.

As the Arthur Andersen cases fades from memory, some prosecutors say their new approach will lay the groundwork for parent companies to plead guilty.

But first, officials say, they are testing the strategy in the interest rate-rigging case. Authorities suspect that more than a dozen banks falsified reports to influence benchmark interest rates like the London interbank offered rate, or Libor, which underpins the costs for trillions of dollars in financial products like mortgages and credit cards.

Prosecutors focused on Japanese units because e-mail traffic exposed how traders there had routinely manipulated rates to increase profits, officials say. The units also have few ties to American arms of the banks, containing any threat to the economy.

After the Barclays case, authorities shifted to UBS, given the scope of the evidence and the bank’s past brushes with authorities, according to officials. The bank’s Japanese subsidiary was also a hub of rate-rigging activity. “The Justice Department had a clear view on the past of this institution,” said one executive who met with government officials.

Along with paying $1.5 billion in fines, the bank agreed to bolster its controls and have its Japanese unit plead guilty. It was the first big global bank subsidiary to plead guilty in more than two decades.

The Royal Bank of Scotland met a similar fate. The bank’s conduct was less severe than the actions of UBS, but it too had a rogue Japanese subsidiary. The bank announced a $612 million settlement with authorities this month, including a guilty plea in Japan.

Using the settlements as a template, prosecutors are building cases against other banks ensnared in the investigation, people involved in the case said, and guilty pleas are likely. Deutsche Bank is expected to settle with authorities by late 2013, the people said.

Citigroup and JPMorgan Chase, two American banks under scrutiny, pose a thornier challenge. So far, authorities have flexed their newfound muscle with foreign banks.

American regulators may warn that extending the campaign to Citigroup would threaten the company’s stock and prompt an exodus of clients. Japan’s regulators, some feeling upstaged by the recent actions, might raise similar concerns. Citigroup’s lawyers will also push back, people involved in the case said, citing the bank’s cooperation with investigators and emphasizing that wrongdoing never reached upper levels of management. The bank fired the trader recently charged by the Justice Department.

Authorities could counter that Citigroup’s Japanese unit is a repeat offender. It butted heads with Japanese regulators three times over the last decade.

“This is hard-nosed negotiation,” said Samuel W. Buell, a former prosecutor who is now a professor at Duke Law School. “It’s a game of chicken.”

Mark Scott contributed reporting from London and Hiroko Tabuchi from Tokyo.

Read More..