Explain deals and Selangor told

Chua added that his check showed the Talam annual report disclosed that on March 12, 2010, and April 9, 2010, the Selangor government purchased assets worth RM676mil from the company.

“Before the deal with the Pakatan Selangor government, Talam was still under PN17 with lots of debts.

“When a company is under that category, that means financially it is not in good shape and can be de-listed 

which will be detrimental to the shareholders.

“The shares of Talam cannot be traded in the stock exchange before the deal with the Selangor government.

“It is shocking that the state started out trying to recover a RM392mil debt and ended up with questionable deals amounting to more than RM1bil,” Chua said.

“The Selangor government should explain the acquisition of RM676mil worth of assets and the use of the RM392mil grant.”

He also noted that RM266mil was paid to Talam's bankers, according to the company's financial report.

Judge to SEC Explain your $100M

Why should the court impose a judgment in a case in which the SEC alleges a serious securities fraud but the defendant neither admits not denies wrongdoing?” Rakoff asked the parties in a letter that set the Nov. 9 hearing.

“Given the SEC’s statutory mandate to ensure transparency in the financial marketplace, is there an overriding public interest in determining whether the SEC’s charges are true?” the judge added.

Citi ultimately pocketed $160 million in fees and trading profits off the sales of the product and its failure, while Citi’s customers were left holding the bag for the default, the SEC said.

The allegations are similar to charges the SEC brought against Goldman Sachs last year, which resulted in top Goldman execs being dragged before Congress and a $550 million fine -- the largest ever.

Rakoff also questioned Citi’s fine in comparison to Goldman’s, noting that Citi’s penalty portion is just $95 million, or “less than one-fifth” Goldman’s $535 million penalty.

“How can a securities fraud of this nature and magnitude be the result simply of negligence,” Rakoff asked.

Citigroup declined to comment.

“We look forward to responding to the questions raised by the court,” said SEC spokesman John Nester.

It isn’t the first time Judge Dread has put the brakes on the SEC’s efforts to cut a deal with a bank accused of serious wrongdoing.

In 2009, the judge made headlines when he called Schapiro on the carpet for a $33 million pact with Bank of America over allegations the bank misled shareholders about details of its Merrill Lynch acquisition.

Rakoff said the fine was paltry compared to BofA’s alleged misdeeds, and he demanded documents from both the SEC and the bank explaining the fine. He ultimately accepted a $150 million settlement with BofA, but not before criticizing the process as “half-baked justice at best.”