????美國證券交易委員會(SEC)正在調(diào)查花旗集團(Citigroup)前首席執(zhí)行官潘偉迪離職一事?

????美國證券交易委員會尚未就這篇報道置評,但上周二福克斯商業(yè)頻道(Fox Business)就是這樣報道的。根據(jù)福克斯的報道，問題在于披露的時機以及潘偉迪離開是誰的主意——是董事會的主意，還是潘偉迪自己的主意？

????或者兩者兼而有之，雙方可能都對這個結(jié)果比較滿意。潘偉迪于10月16日宣布辭職，距離花旗股東對他的薪酬方案投下歷史性否決票整整6個月，幾乎一天都不差。而在這項投票之前，美國聯(lián)邦儲備委員會(Federal Reserve)剛剛否決了花旗上調(diào)股息的請求。

????薪酬方案投票結(jié)果和監(jiān)管機構叫停上調(diào)股息，兩件事無疑向董事會發(fā)出了同一個信號：利益相關方對花旗執(zhí)行力的不信任。董事會成員知道如果股東們對公司業(yè)績滿意，就不會否決高管薪酬方案。【想想蘋果公司（Apple）。】幾乎同時，邁克?奧尼爾升任花旗獨立董事長，令這場花旗人事變動更加撲朔迷離。

????花旗提交的監(jiān)管文件顯示，就在潘偉迪辭職的同一天，約翰?哈文思也辭任花旗總裁、首席營運官以及機構客戶業(yè)務首席執(zhí)行官。“這些辭職事件發(fā)生在2012年10月15日下班后，”監(jiān)管文件稱。花旗集團的第三季度業(yè)績電話會議于當日早些時候舉行，公司在10月16日一早的新聞稿中宣布了這些人辭職的消息。哈文思曾與潘偉迪共同創(chuàng)立Old Lane對沖基金，這家基金后來被花旗收購。

????《紐約時報》（New York Times）報道稱，潘偉迪的離開是邁克?奧尼爾提供的三項選擇之一。潘偉迪可以選擇立即辭職、年底辭職或被無理由辭退。他選擇了第一項。這篇報道稱，三位董事會成員隨后約見了哈文思，稱“潘偉迪已主動辭職，我們也想給你這樣自行辭職的機會。”

????鑒于董事會手頭的一堆燙手山芋，大多數(shù)董事都不會選擇進行辭職披露。但不管一位董事或高管的離開是否存在令人不安的因素，董事會都有責任確保公司提交的監(jiān)管文件準確無誤。

????要評估有爭議的辭職事件并不是件容易的事。科技巨頭惠普(HP)對董事湯姆?珀金斯的辭職披露就是一個很好的例子。湯姆?珀金斯后來改變了對辭職的個人解釋。美國證券交易委員會（時任主席克里斯?考克斯）對惠普的披露進行了評估，對它提出了批評。

????但從我們目前掌握的信息來看，花旗董事會和監(jiān)管部門應該仔細評估董事會對Citi Capital Advisors (CCA)所有權變更一事的監(jiān)督和披露。CCA的資產(chǎn)管理總額超過了180億美元。“花旗已開始將一些CCA業(yè)務從完全由花旗持有、轉(zhuǎn)變成主要由管理層持有，”花旗集團的一位發(fā)言人在一份電子郵件中向我證實，彭博社（Bloomberg）此前刊發(fā)了相關“劃分”的報道。“CCA業(yè)務過去向機構客戶業(yè)務首席執(zhí)行官約翰（?哈文思）匯報，”花旗發(fā)言人在隨后的一份電子郵件中寫道。“新公司將由管理團隊(吉姆?歐布萊恩、喬?多弗曼和其他基金經(jīng)理)持有，但不包括哈文思。”

????Is the SEC investigating former CEO Vikram Pandit's departure from Citigroup?

????The regulator wouldn't comment on the issue for this article, but that's what Fox Business reported last Tuesday. The issue, according to Fox's reporting, is around the timing of disclosure and whose idea it was for Pandit to leave, the board's or Pandit's.

????Perhaps it was both – and perhaps both were happy with the outcome. Pandit's October 16 resignation announcement came six months -- almost to the day -- following the historic no vote by shareholders on the bank's executive pay. That vote came on the heels of the Federal Reserve's denial of Citi's (C) request to raise itsdividend.

????No doubt the pay vote and the regulatory impasse sent a signal to the board about stakeholders' views of the bank's execution. Board members understand that shareholders don't vote down executive pay if they're happy with a company's performance. (Think about Apple.) Mike O'Neill's ascension as Citi's new independent chair piled on at the very same time to create a cocktail for change at the firm.

????According to a Citi regulatory filing, John Havens also resigned as president and COO of the company and CEO of the bank's Institutional Clients Group the same day that Pandit departed. "These resignations occurred after the close of business on October 15, 2012," the filing stated. Citi's third quarter earnings conference call was held earlier that day -- and the bank announced the exits in an early October 16 press release. Havens had co-founded Old Lane hedge fund with Pandit, which Citi subsequently purchased.

????The New York Times has described Pandit's departure as a choice among three options provided by Mike O'Neill. Pandit could resign immediately, resign at the end of the year, or be fired without cause. He chose the former. Three board members then confronted Havens, according to the report, saying, "Vikram has offered his resignation, and we would like to give you the opportunity to offer yours."

????Given a list of top hot button issues for board deliberation, most directors would not select resignation disclosures. But whether or not there are troubling circumstances surrounding a director or executive's departure, boards have a duty to ensure that the company's filings are accurate.

????Evaluating the facts surrounding contentious resignations is no simple task. HP's (HPQ) exit disclosures when Tom Perkins stepped down from the tech giant's board are a case in point. In that case, under SEC Chair Chris Cox's watch, the SEC mangled its assessment of those disclosures, blaming the company after Tom Perkins' explanations for his departure changed over time.

????Given what we know so far, though, the board and regulators should take a close look at board oversight and disclosures concerning the changes in ownership at Citi Capital Advisors (CCA), which has over $18 billion in assets under management. "Citi has begun transitioning certain CCA businesses from being wholly Citi-owned to being owned primarily by management," a Citigroup spokesperson confirmed in an email to me, after reports of a "carve out" by Bloomberg. "The CCA business reported into John [Havens] as head of the Institutional Clients Group," the spokesperson wrote me in a subsequent email. "The new co will be owned by its management team (Jim O'Brien and Jon Dorfman and other fund managers) but not including Havens."