For Lewis to say "The Devil made me do it" reflects ill on both Lewis and the Devil(s)

Pressure builds on BofA's Ken LewisBy Colin Barr, senior writer 4/23/09
Blaming Hank Paulson for being forced to keep details about the Merrill deal secret won't help the Bank of America CEO in a struggle with shareholders.
NEW YORK (Fortune) -- Questions about whether Bank of America breached its duties to shareholders come at an inconvenient time for embattled CEO Ken Lewis.... the BofA (BAC, Fortune 500) chief met repeatedly late last year with federal regulators and the bank's board to discuss the deteriorating condition of Merrill Lynch,...At one point,...Lewis told then-Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson that BofA was considering backing out of the Merrill deal -- only to relent when Paulson said... might respond by removing Lewis and his directors....But worse, to some observers, is BofA's failure to disclose any of this information to its shareholders -- regardless of Lewis's claim he was being leaned on by Paulson....It's hard for me to believe the Treasury and the Federal Reserve would tell Ken Lewis to violate securities laws," ..."Regardless of the pressure he may have felt, Ken Lewis still had a duty to protect shareholders and disclose relevant information." ****It IS plausible that Lewis was leaned on.****...BofA's 'shotgun wedding' regret
But some observers aren't bowled over by Lewis' claim that he was strong-armed by regulators...."You need to talk to all the participants in the conversation before you can come up with a conclusion of 100% of what happened," ...(but) Paulson generally confirmed Lewis' account, the Cuomo report said..... "Our right to transparency trumps any concern Lewis may have had about saving his job or keeping the current board in place."... the most damning allegations in the Cuomo report come from the minutes of the BofA board meetings Dec. 22 and 30 of last year.These minutes describe the "detailed oral assurances" federal regulators supposedly made to BofA executives. The Federal Reserve and Treasury agreed to provide financial support to the bank after it completed its acquisition of Merrill Lynch and before the bank's scheduled Jan. 20 earnings release, the minutes said. On Jan. 16, the bank and regulators announced that the government did cough up $20 billion in new capital and $118 billion in asset guarantees for Bank of America. BofA had received $25 billion, counting Merrill's allocation, in the first round of TARP funding.
But in late December, before the deal's Jan. 1 completion, regulators couldn't make those promises in writing, according to the minutes, "because any written assurances would require formal action by the Fed and Treasury -- which formal action would require public disclosure."... suggests neither party was faithful to its own decision making processes and disclosure duties, ..."Secretary Paulson said he could not provide a letter...would instead rattle markets by creating more questions than it answered," ...
****I tend to believe Lewis, although that makes him a wimp transgressing securities laws. I had bought MER when the merger was announced because of favorable arbitrage. Close to the shareholder vote, however, there were many public rumors ( e.g. on CNBC ) that MER was sour and that the deal wouldn't be approved by BAC shareholders. I sold MER and bought BAC in anticipation of this so I recall the situation and was surprised when Lewis said nothing and the shareholders approved it. For Paulson/Geithner/Bernanke to say that the deal was legally binding before the SH vote is untenable. At worst, BAC could be sued by MER ( not likely in view of their 11th hour bonus story!). PG&B doubtless leaned on Lewis w/o government "lawyers."
A credible story is that PG&B were in a panic ever since the French Finance Minister Christine LaGarde called Paulson in a hissy fit that Societe Generale would go down unless the U.S. did something ( mostly about AIG but everything was in play.)****