London Whale Also Not Responsible For Those Last 10 Pounds You Haven’t Lost

There are a lot of things that, if you wanted to, you could legitimately blame on former JP Morgan employee London P. Whale. The $6.2 billion trading loss the bank incurred over the summer. Ina Drew getting fired. This awkward phone call. Some stuff you can’t pin on him, though many have tried: male pattern baldness, the bombing of Pearl Harbor, Apple Maps, Lehman Brothers’ bankruptcy, tempting as it may be.

The former JPMorgan Chase & Co trader known as the “London Whale” was not responsible for Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc’s bankruptcy and should not be dragged into an $8.6 billion lawsuit accusing the largest U.S. bank of causing it, JPMorgan said. In a Wednesday filing in Manhattan bankruptcy court, JPMorgan said Lehman knew from documents it produced itself that the trader, Bruno Iksil, had nothing to do with allegedly mismarked derivative trades about which Lehman wanted to take his deposition. JPMorgan also said Lehman and its unsecured creditors committee, which also seeks Iksil’s testimony, had pointed to nothing that shows the bank’s Chief Investment Office had any role in the collateral requests at the center of Lehman’s 3-year-old lawsuit.

Moreover, getting Iksil involved wastes time and money, JPMorgan said, particularly in light of statements by former U.S. Treasury Secretaries Timothy Geithner and Henry Paulson that the collateral requests did not cause Lehman to fail. “It is readily apparent that the only real reason for plaintiffs interest in taking Mr. Iksil’s deposition is that he has been in the news,” JPMorgan said.

JPMorgan Says London Whale Didn’t Cause Lehman Bankruptcy [Reuters]

(hidden for your protection)
Show all comments

7 Responses to “London Whale Also Not Responsible For Those Last 10 Pounds You Haven’t Lost”

  1. Bejujular says:

    "But it’s also possible that the London Whale position is basically a blob of green glowing radioactive material that just deals indiscriminate pain everywhere it goes. So, for instance, this quarter, after causing massive and time-traveling losses last quarter and being mostly unwound and/or moved from the Chief Investment Office to the investment bank, it still managed to lose money in not one but two places – the investment bank, where the bulk of its ominously pulsing self “experienced a modest loss,”1 but also the CIO, where its mangled remnants lost $449 million on about a $12bn notional remaining position, or about 3.75% of quarter-initial notional." – M. Levine, October 2012

    More evidence to Matt's time traveling radioactive blob hypothesis? What now Bloomberg?

  2. guest says:

    Leave Whale alone!

  3. Barsita says:

    I only blame poor people

  4. Dyl Rat says:

    What does Maria B. have to do with this?

  5. Ina Drew says:

    Eh, I kind of blame him for all the stress eating.

  6. Gary says:

    Awesome possum!