The New York Times reports that US securities regulators have accused Morgan Stanley of failing to correctly maintain internal e-mail records as required by law. Investigators claim that the firm has produced fewer documents than rival firms. Fewer e-mails, of course, may also mean less chance of finding any incriminating material.
Staff e-mails have embarrassed Merrill Lynch and Credit Suisse First Boston and are currently causing problems for Citigroup. Does the fact that Morgan Stanley has produced fewer e-mails mean that the it simply has less or is there a more sinister explanation ? It does, however, remain unclear exactly why regulators are unhappy with the volume of e-mails the firm has handed over.
The firm has issued a statement on the matter, which said, in part: 'We have produced close to 400,000 pages of documents, including more than 200,000 pages of e-mails and e-mail attachments.....Any focus on e-mail production at this late date is a complete red herring'.
Have something to tell us about this article?