News
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
view the rest of the comments
I presume the rationale is that when these claims became public the stock price was adversely impacted meaning public investors during that period lost money. Not all shareholders are wealthy people playing the dips and highs for maximum gains or have any connection to the bank itself. For example some everyday people may have had their modest retirement funds or life savings impacted as some of these investments commonly include bank stocks as they are seen as “safe” and are usually not direct investment decisions that these people make if part of a managed portfolio.
This is the risk that comes with holding stock directly or indirectly, but for some this not really a “benefit” but an attempt to get back their hard earned money that they tucked away and then lost through no fault of their own. Governments have historically bailed out banks when they are in trouble regardless if caused by the banks actions or not, so I see no reason why a bank should not have to cover people’s losses caused by their corrupt actions through a class action lawsuit.
The article wasn't specific about how the settlement amount was decided upon, but it's a class action lawsuit, so the more class members there are, the less each one receives. The people who were actually doing these bogus interviews are, therefore, getting less than they would have as a result of the shareholders getting 'bailed out'.
Maybe that was factored into the amount and they're getting the same amount they would have, but if not, it's bullshit and IMO should all be going to the people who went to the interviews.
I couldn’t also see the definition of “qualified” candidate in the article. Someone may have attended one of these fake recruitment processes but secured employment elsewhere in the same timeframe without any real financial penalty other than having their time wasted. Also just holding stock during that time does not mean an actual loss was realised by a shareholder. A bit of a mess for either type of candidate to work out compensation.