of answering th at q uesti on. ' Howe ver, afte r full consider ation, the Court reluctantly grants the motion, on the terms specified belo w. The Court begins where any court should : with the facts. In disapproving as neither f ai r, reasonabl e, adequate nor in the publ ic interest the prior proposed settlem ent o f the first o f these two case s, 09 Civ. 6829 (the Undisclosed Bonuses case), the Cou rt bewailed the absen ce o f e stablish ed fac ts supporting the proposal and expressed the hope t hat the truth may still emerge. S. E. C. v. Ban k of America Corp ., 65 3 F. Supp. 2 d 507, 5 12 (S.D .N.Y . 009). Sin ce then, the parties have conducted extensive discovery , assisted b y the helpful decision of defendant Bank o f America C orp. (t he Bank ) to waive attor ney-clien t privilege , resulting in the S.E.C.'s presentation t o this Court of a 35- pag e Statement o f Facts and a 13 - page Suppleme ntal Statemen t o f Fa cts , the accuracy of which is not conteste d here by the Ba nk .' In addi tion , in response to questio ns David H. Nathan, Baseball Quotations 150 (1993). Berra, a disciple o f the equally profound profe ssor Casey Stengel, has had a notable impac t on the development o f American law.

ee

senerally Willi am D . Araiza et a l . , The Jurisprudence of Yoqi Berr a, 4 6 Emory

L

697 (1997) At the hearing o n the instant proposed settlement held before this Court on February 8, 2010 , the Court asked counsel for th e Bank to affirm that you have no material quarrel wi th the accuracy o f the facts set fo rth in the SEC state ment of facts and that the Court can consider those st atements of fact as agreed to for the purposes of evaluati ng t he sett leme nt, to which Ba nk counsel responded That' s correct, your Honor. Trans cript ( tr . ), /8/10, at

6 .