2:05: Ken Lewis adjourned the meeting. Four hours long. Wow, one hell of a meeting!

2:02: A shareholder pointed out that many shareholders were not able to get into the hall where the meeting is being held because of the large number of associates that were in there. He asked Ken Lewis or "any future CEO" to make sure there is ample room for anyone so that shareholders don't miss out on the meeting.

2:00: A shareholder asked if the bank had any idea when the vote results would be released. BofA responded that it would be as soon as possible, and likely some time today.

1:49: The bank has mentioned the rebranding of Countrywide a few times now. Countrywide is now "Bank of America Home Loans". I look forward to seeing if they change more than just the name. Countrywide, after all, was investigated by the FBI, the U.S. Justice Department, and multiple state attorney general offices in 2008 for predatory lending and securities fraud, and has become the poster child for the subprime crisis.

1:36: Amy from Rainforest Action Network (RAN) is slamming BofA for recently having financed five companies that participate in mountaintop coal removal. She also points out that while the bank recently adopted a policy on mountaintop coal removal last year, RAN is concerned with the way the bank is interpreting the policy.

1:30: Several shareholders have commented on BofA's environmental policies. A North Carolina woman just asked the bank to reconsider financing a coal-fired bank that is slated to open in her county. Rainforest Action Network has taken the bank on for its environmental policies and was part of the coalition around yesterday's national taxpayer day of action.

1:27: A shareholder commented about being hit by BofA's high fees. Seems like shareholders are feeling the pain just like the millions of working families who are customers of the bank.

1:15: A shareholder asks Lewis to quantify, on a scale of one through ten, the likelihood of additional shareholder dilution this year. Lewis says he cannot do so and points to the government's stress tests for guidance. Well, the Wall Street Journal yesterday reported that preliminary stress test results indicate a multi-billion dollar capital shortfall at the bank. Analysts say the shortfall could be up to $70 billion.

1:05: And as for vote results... because of the large volume of the votes cast, the company is unable to announce final vote results. Results will be announced in a press release once they become available. The floor is now open for questions.

1:04: Lewis thanks everyone and tries to wrap things up on a warm and fuzzy note.

12:57: Lewis says that as the nation's largest bank, there is "little difference" between BofA shareholders' interests and the country's interests. True, given that the country's taxpayers are the bank's largest shareholders. But what if the stress tests show that it is in the country's interest to give the government a controlling stake in the bank? Will Lewis and the bank's other private shareholders still happily go along with the country's best interest?

12:50: Ken Lewis assures us that the decision to go through with the Merrill deal even as the company revealed losses that wiped out the last ten years' profits at the firm "was not about a selfish desire to keep our jobs."

12:45: Joe Price financial presentation is over. Ken Lewis is up now.

12:44: BofA's projection of the bank's "potential net income" relies on Countrywide profits from 2003, Merrill Lynch profits from 2004, and the bank's own profits from 2005. Is it realistic to say that profits from four to six years ago, before the economic bust, can tell us anything useful about the taxpayer-dependent company going forward in a recession?

12:31: Joe Price talks about the bank's three franchise strengths: earnings, liquidity, & capital. Earnings, which were propped up this quarter by accounting tricks; liquidity, which is elusive in the current environment; and capital, of which the bank is facing a multi-billion dollar shortfall. These are your core strengths?

12:25: Polls are closed, concluding the official business of the meeting. CFO Joe Price is now presenting on the company's financials.

12:23: Lewis clarifies that he only made $1.5 million last year, no bonus. One shareholder suggests that he donate his $1.5 million to local schools in Charlotte.

12:18: Evelyn Davis is back up making the argument that if we don't pay executives enough, then they will pick up and go somewhere else. Well, would that really be the worst thing in the world? These guys have crashed the economy. Frankly, I'd be happy to see the likes of Ken Lewis go.

12:13: The Indiana Laborers Pension Fund also has a proposal on executive compensation. Another shareholder is asking Lewis detailed questions about his own 2008 bonus. Lewis cuts her off and testily says, "the board recommends a vote against this proposal."

12:08: The AFL-CIO Reserve Fund had a resolution asking BofA to sign onto principles endorsing healthcare reform. She pointed out that even though BofA argues that this is beyond the company's purview, other major companies like American Express and Goldman Sachs have already endorsed similar principles. True to form, "the board recommends a vote against this proposal."

12:03: Moving onto a shareholder proposal around predatory credit card lending practices. A representative from the Community Reinvestment Association of North Carolina (CRA-NC) presenting the proposal. He pointed to a Philadelphia Inquirer editorial saying that the current business model is to try to trap customers into a cycle of debt where they can't pay it back. He said this is by definition predatory, and it is also bad for the bank. Makes sense to me--after all, aren't unsustainable debt levels a key culprit in the current economic crisis? And, of course, "The board recommends a vote against the proposal."

11:58: A shareholder asks that Lewis explain himself in saying why the board recommends voting against all of these proposals, instead of just decreeing it from above. She also asks if the board's recommendation was unanimous on all of these issues.

11:54: Presenting on a proposal that requires BofA board to appoint an independent Chairman of the Board of Directors. "Mr. Lewis, Mr. Sloan, and our entire board of directors betrayed the trust and the confidence placed in you by the owenrs of the company...The board needs to make some changes that will bring true independence back into the board room." Lewis' response: "The board recommends a vote against the proposal."

11:52: Michael Garland from CtW Investment Group, presenting on a proposal giving major shareholders the right to call special shareholder meetings: "The vote against you may be the highest vote ever against a sitting CEO" at one of the nation's top companies. Ouch. Again, "The board recommends a vote against the proposal."

11:48: Bill Patterson from CtW Investment Group presented on an advisory proposal on executive compensation. He pointed out that the significant vote at this meeting against the current board has been fueled by the $3.6 billion Merrill Lynch bonuses, and BofA management's "significant role" in structuring those bonuses, despite initial denials. Lewis responded, "The board recommends a vote against the proposal."

11:40: A shareholder says that if people aren't happy with their investments in BofA, they should move on and take their money out of the bank. Hello?! We can't. Taxpayers are the largest shareholder in the bank and we can't pull our money out until BofA turns this ship around.

11:30: Shareholder Mrs. Evelyn Davis: "Countrywide is our toxic asset and we have to get rid of them."

11:23: Shareholder Francis Murray, a banker who owns some 66,000 shares, suggests a novel idea of "cost control" for the board. Specifically, he asked why Director Gifford spent $1 million of BofA money using the corporate jet. Lewis responded that Gifford could not be here today. What, couldn't get the corporate jet to fly him out? Lewis went on to say that they try to keep board compensation on par with other major companies. Do other major companies have taxpayers on the hook for up to $200 billion?

11:12: A shareholder asks, "If we don't have Ken, who do we have?" Um, someone else--anyone else--who hasn't cost the bank 75% of its shareholder value over the last year? Someone who hasn't made disastrous decisions that have left taxpayers on the hook for up to $200 billion. Hell, I know many people who are in the hunt for a job these days!

11:05: After an hourlong grilling session, Lewis sounds like he finally might be getting ready cut the discussion so that they can move on to the business at hand. Yeah, because responding to your shareholders questions about your performance isn't business to big bank CEOs.

10:59: A shareholder probed Lewis about a December email to the BofA board suggesting that they did not want public disclosure around Merrill's losses and possible government assistance for the bank. Lewis shot back that he can't say more because of all the shareholder lawsuits against the company. His exact words: "If you'd like to know more, withdraw your lawsuit." The shareholder responded that he hadn't filed any lawsuits against the company.

10:52: Yet another shareholder (sorry for not being able to keep track of names, folks) asked Ken Lewis to shed light on the stress tests and the rumors that BofA may have to be nationalized. Ken Lewis' response to the appeal for more information? To ask for the next question.

10:49: Another shareholder is asking, "What happened to due diligence" when it came to Merrill Lynch? The response from the bank: they had not anticipated the credit meltdown that happened in the fourth quarter. Even as Lehman was collapsing and rumors were swirling around WaMu and Wachovia, BofA could not anticipate the credit meltdown? Even after the meltdown was already in full swing, they could not anticipate it? If BofA can't "anticipate" something that is already happening, then the problem goes way beyond due diligence.

10:47: A shareholder just told Ken Lewis, "Your decisions are responsible for our insolvency... Good sir, your system has failed and the time has to come to move on." He also suggests bringing back Glass-Steagall, which separated commercial and investment banking, that was gutted in 1999. A wise idea, to say the least.

10:41: A shareholder is asking the board how it can ask to keep its job if it doesn't have the guts to say no to the government. A director responded that they didn't make their decision based on the government's threat against their jobs, and that the shareholder had her facts wrong. New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo's investigation suggests otherwise.

10:27: Bill Patterson from the CtW Investment Group asked if BofA would separate the votes actually cast by shareholders from those that brokers cast on shareholders' behalf without shareholder input (so-called "broker non-votes") in announcing a final tally, especially because the SEC may change rules on this questionable practice early next year. The Charlotte Observer had a great story on this earlier this week. A BofA director responded that they intended to count these votes anyway, which a corporate governance expert from Yale says is like "legalized ballot stuffing."

10:25: Ken Lewis said the bank intends to repay TARP funds and is working with regulators to do so. Really, Ken? Because the Wall Street Journal reported yesterday that BofA faces a capital shortfall of billions of dollars. An analyst puts the shortfall at up to $70 billion, and a Financial Times story today notes that BofA is even considering converting the government's preferred stock to common stock, a move that could be seen as a first step towards receivership. So really, is it completely realistic to say that you can pay the funds back soon?

10:20: A shareholder of 26 years is giving a spiel about how Ken Lewis has her full confidence and his detractors need to give the mergers more time because all the mergers in the past have always worked themselves out. Well, have they? Of course experts say that it was CEO Ken Lewis' appetite for empire-building itself that got him into this mess, so all those mergers that 'worked out' have brought us where we are today. The bank is weighed down with LaSalle's commercial loans, Countrywide's mortgage loans, and Merrill's toxic assets.

I'll be liveblogging Bank of America's annual shareholder meeting starting at 10am EST. Stay tuned here for commentary and analysis on the meeting in which Ken Lewis' fate at Bank of America will be decided by shareholders. We are following on the live webcast on BofA's website.

On Friday, four labor unions and two environmental organizations representing six million people announced their support for comprehensive cap-and-trade climate change legislation in 2009. The Blue Green Alliance and its partner organizations said this legislation is an effective way to rapidly put millions of Americans back to work building a clean energy economy and to reduce global warming emissions to avoid the worst effects of climate change.

The Alliance's goal is nothing less than to transform the U.S. economy through global warming solutions, and create millions of family-sustaining green jobs in the clean energy economy. "We have a unique opportunity to be part of the solution and to improve the lives of working people and their families for generations to come," said Gerry Hudson, International Executive Vice President of SEIU. "It is our duty to ensure that legislation develops a cap-and-trade system that connects environmental justice to economic justice in a way that supports communities across America and creates good, green jobs."

The Blue Green Alliance supports a reduction of U.S. emissions by at least 80 percent from 1990 levels by 2050, and supports a renewed U.S. effort to forge a global treaty to reduce worldwide emissions by 50 percent by that same date. The Alliance also supports complementary regulation, including standards for renewable energy, energy efficiency resources and fuel and appliance efficiency. In addition, climate change legislation should include investments in a wide range of technologies -- including carbon, capture and sequestration technology -- and federal financing for the transition to a clean energy economy. Read the policy statement here.

David Foster, executive director of the Blue Green Alliance, spoke of the significance of the labor and environmental movements embracing a common vision for the future, saying, "For the first time, a substantial number of unions representing workers across a broad section of the American economy have endorsed the principle that the way out of our current economic turmoil is through major investments in solving global warming."

Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.), the chair of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, has promised to introduce climate change legislation by Memorial Day. Tomorrow, he and Energy and Environment Subcommittee Chairman Ed Markey (D-Mass.) will release a draft bill that is predicted to be the centerpiece of the upcoming climate policy debate. President Obama has also expressed his support for Congress to focus its attention on passing cap-and-trade legislation as part of his energy and climate change agenda to move away from polluting energy resources toward cleaner energy sources.

The Blue Green Alliance is a national partnership of labor unions and environmental organizations dedicated to expanding the number and quality of jobs in the green economy. Formed initially by the United Steelworkers and the Sierra Club in 2006, the organization has recently grown to include SEIU, NRDC, CWA, and LIUNA.

More details here and at www.bluegreenalliance.org.

Foreword: For the second consecutive year, SEIU is participating in the Labor Delegation to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, taking place this week in Posnan, Poland. Union representatives from Mexico, India, the U.K., the U.S., Korea, Sierra Leone and elsewhere are making sure that the concerns of and effects on working people the world over are an essential part of every discussion at the conference. Marrianne McMullen, SEIU's representative to U.S. Labor Delegation, blogs about their work and experiences (below).

It's 3:30 p.m. in Poznan and we can see the sun already setting through the sheer drapes of the hotel meeting room. More than 90 labor delegates are gathered at this hotel about 12 miles outside of the city. Many more countries are represented now: Nepal, South Africa, Pakistan, Norway, Latvia, Brazil, Holland, Ethiopia.

No formal talks are scheduled for the United Nations Climate Change Conference today, so the labor delegates of the International Trade Union Council are using the day for presentations and discussions.

Foreword: For the second consecutive year, SEIU is participating in the Labor Delegation to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, taking place this week in Posnan, Poland. Union representatives from Mexico, India, the U.K., the U.S., Korea, Sierra Leone and elsewhere are making sure that the concerns of and effects on working people the world over are an essential part of every discussion at the conference. Marrianne McMullen, SEIU's representative to U.S. Labor Delegation, blogs about their work and experiences (below).

Poznan, Poland
Friday, December 5, 2008

More than 20 of us were crowded into the trade union delegation office at the Poznan Convention Center. It was 9 a.m., and time for the daily organizational meeting for the labor delegation at the U.N. Climate Talks in Poland. I'm sure I wasn't the only one in the room dazed by long flights and lack of sleep, and a bit queasy from the Polish staple of boiled sausage.

We were in our small Trade Union Non-Governmental Organization (TUNGO) office because we lost our regular meeting space due to meeting shuffling, a fairly routine event in a conference as sprawling as this one.

Labor union representatives introduced themselves from Peru, Australia, Mexico, India, the U.K., Spain, Belgium, Algeria, Korea, Japan, Sierra Leone --a sort of United Nations of Labor. Together this group painted a too-rarely-seen portrait of a truly global labor movement.

Together we went through that day's 26-page daily program for the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Phillip Pearson of the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) reviewed the delegation's daily goal: to attend all of the meetings and "side events" possible and deliver a strong labor message. From climate change impacts, to green job opportunities, our goal was to always introduce the concerns of and effects on working people in every environmental discussion.

Another task set before the delegates: Each national delegation was to set up meetings with our government delegation leaders. The government delegates are the ones who actually do the negotiating on the climate change agreements. Labor representatives, being from non-governmental organizations, can observe and provide input in open meetings.