Jump to content

BANKS OFFER FIVE BILLION DOLLARS TO SETTLE WITH THE FEDS


Recommended Posts

Banks Said to Offer $5 Billion to Resolve Probe

The proposal made by banks yesterday during settlement talks in Washington came after state attorneys general and federal officials offered revised settlement terms. Photographer: Jin Lee/Bloomberg

Bank of America Corp. (BAC) and JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPM), along with three other U.S. mortgage servicers, proposed paying $5 billion to settle a probe of their foreclosure practices by state and federal officials, two people familiar with the matter said.

The proposal made by banks yesterday during settlement talks in Washington came after state attorneys general and federal officials offered revised settlement terms and a proposal for banks to fund principal writedowns for homeowners.

The probe by all 50 states was triggered by claims of faulty foreclosure practices after the housing collapse, which state officials said may violate their laws. The original settlement proposal offered by states and federal agencies drew criticism from banks and Republican attorneys general opposed to a deal that would reduce principal amounts for borrowers.

In a new proposal, officials called for a fund, administered by state and federal officials, that would in part pay for principal writedowns, said Geoff Greenwood, a spokesman for Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller. Miller, a Democrat, is leading negotiations for the states. Attorneys general haven’t made a proposal for a payment by banks, Greenwood said.

The $5 billion payment proposed by the banks was reported earlier by the Wall Street Journal.

“An amount in that range would be viewed as a positive for the banks, given larger numbers have been referenced previously,” Brian Foran, an analyst with Nomura Securities International Inc. in New York, wrote in a report today. Regulators had previously suggested a $20 billion penalty.

Citigroup, Wells Fargo

State and federal officials have been negotiating with the mortgage servicers, a group that also includes Citigroup Inc. ©, Wells Fargo & Co. (WFC) and Ally Financial Inc. Miller has said the five companies service 59 percent of U.S. home loans.

Rick Simon, a spokesman for Charlotte, North Carolina-based Bank of America, and Teri Schrettenbrunner of San Francisco- based Wells Fargo didn’t return calls for comment after regular business hours yesterday.

Gina Proia, a spokeswoman for Detroit-based Ally Financial, New York-based JPMorgan Chase’s Thomas Kelly and Mark Rodgers, a spokesman for New York-based Citigroup, declined to comment.

The fund for principal reductions could pay for restitution to borrowers whose homes were improperly foreclosed on, Greenwood said.

Loans, Foreclosures

State and federal officials yesterday also revised provisions of their original March term sheet offered to mortgage servicers. That term sheet included requirements for how banks service loans and conduct home foreclosures. The changes aren’t substantially different from the original proposal and incorporate negotiations with the banks, Greenwood said. Those talks continue in Washington this week, he said.

Republican attorneys general criticized the original settlement proposal, saying the plan for principal reductions would encourage borrowers to default on loans to reduce payments. Some of those attorneys general met yesterday in Atlanta to discuss the issue, said Adam Temple of the Republican State Leadership Committee.

Bob Davis, an executive vice president with the American Bankers Association, spoke to the group in Atlanta, telling them principal reductions don’t work, he said in an interview. Loan balances must be reduced so much for borrowers struggling to make payments that it’s a better deal for lenders to foreclose instead, he said.

“Principal reductions don’t substantially improve the cash-flow problem,” Davis said. “You can’t lower principal enough to make it an attractive tool.”

Encouraging Defaults

During a conference call between state officials and the banks, some lenders said they opposed any settlement terms that would reduce loan balances, according to one of the people familiar with the talks. The banks argued a writedown plan would encourage homeowners to default, a notion some attorneys general on the call disputed, the person said.

Bank representatives said they were open to other types of loan modifications, including changing interest payments, said the person. Mortgage servicers have reached agreements with U.S. banking regulators to improve procedures for modifying loans and seizing homes.

Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt, a Republican, said last month that he may negotiate an alternative accord with the banks if the national settlement turns out to be “inconsistent with our conviction.”

‘Some’ Changes

Pruitt said in a letter to Miller in March that forcing lenders to reduce mortgage balances would take away incentives for banks to loan money and “destroy an already devastated housing market.”

Diane Clay, Pruitt’s spokeswoman, said in an interview that the latest settlement proposal incorporates “some” of the changes sought by the attorney general. She said she hadn’t seen the new terms.

“General Pruitt’s letter certainly helped move the negotiations along,” said Clay, who previously said several “industry representatives” had contacted with her office.

Other state attorneys general who have criticized the proposal to reduce principal balances include those from Florida, Texas, South Carolina, Virginia, Alabama, Nebraska and Georgia. Attorneys general for Florida, Georgia and Alabama were among the officials meeting in Atlanta yesterday, Temple said.

Lauren Kane, a spokeswoman for Georgia Attorney General Sam Olens, has said a bank, which she declined to identify, discussed with her office the federal regulator settlement. Adam Piper, a spokesman for South Carolina Attorney General Alan Wilson, said last month that two banking representatives “shared research” with his office and “pointed out some concerns with certain provisions” of the original proposal.

Jennifer Meale, a spokeswoman for Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi, said last month that her office has “had general discussions with banks about how the matter might be resolved.”

END QUOTE

Reference in Google" Banks offer 5 Billion to Settle"

Hmmmm...now this shoots down the remark that " State Attorney General complaints are a big joke"....makes ya just want to say, "Well, kiss my Grits" !!

These attorney's are part of the NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF ATTORNEY GENERALS in Washington, DC. Rumor has it that they are investigating debt collectors and junk debt buyers who are suspected of illegal activity as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Banks Said to Offer $5 Billion to Resolve Probe

Bank of America Corp. (BAC) and JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPM), along with three other U.S. mortgage servicers, proposed paying $5 billion to settle a probe of their foreclosure practices by state and federal officials, two people familiar with the matter said.

.... probe by all 50 states was triggered by claims of faulty foreclosure practices after the housing collapse, which state officials said may violate their laws. The original settlement proposal offered by states and federal agencies drew criticism from banks and Republican attorneys general opposed to a deal that would reduce principal amounts for borrowers.

Hmmmm...now this shoots down the remark that " State Attorney General complaints are a big joke"....makes ya just want to say, "Well, kiss my Grits" !!

These attorney's are part of the NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF ATTORNEY GENERALS in Washington, DC. Rumor has it that they are investigating debt collectors and junk debt buyers who are suspected of illegal activity as well.

I've decided ...(removed).... You are reaching for things to fit your ridiculous arguments. This settlement concerns the MORTGAGE MELTDOWN. It has nothing to do with CC debt collection. Attorney Generals get involved when the politicians get involved.

The American economy tanked because of the housing bubble and foreclosures, not because someone received and inaccurate dunning letter.

Edited by lheart
Self censored personal attack on OP
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are dead wrong...I made this post because so many people have lost their homes to fraudulent foreclosure....and even STARTED A NEW THREAD with the subject.. It is very safe to call someone names when you are sitting 100's of miles away.

ADMIN..can we shut this guy up...I think forum terms and conditions call for addressing arrogant or hateful remarks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are dead wrong...I made this post because so many people have lost their homes to fraudulent foreclosure....and even STARTED A NEW THREAD with the subject.. It is very safe to call someone names when you are sitting 100's of miles away.

ADMIN..can we shut this guy up...I think forum terms and conditions call for addressing arrogant or hateful remarks.

For those that read later, I have edited a personal attack out of my previous post.

Norway, you quote a news story and then end referring to "debt collectors and junk debt buyers who are suspected of illegal activity as well" If you are referring to mortgages, stick with mortgages, someone may be helped by it. But you close by tying these actions to debt collections which have nothing to do with the article.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For those that read later, I have edited a personal attack out of my previous post.

Norway, you quote a news story and then end referring to "debt collectors and junk debt buyers who are suspected of illegal activity as well" If you are referring to mortgages, stick with mortgages, someone may be helped by it. But you close by tying these actions to debt collections which have nothing to do with the article.

That's correct, maybe the post will help folks who got caught up in the mortgage fiasco, as well as those who are battling ca's and jdb's. and I make no apology for "sharing the news", and wouldn't it be grand if a debt collector or jdb could be slammed just as hard, based on the premise of using false affidavits.

Edited by Noway
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Noway. Here you go again. I appreciate your sharing of informtion, but dont try to make a connection with the foreclosures and the cc debt collectors. You need to read more to see what brought this all to a head. Why do you want to keep misleading people?

There are people who come here that need help, if you are not going to give it, be gone. I am done. I am not responding to your ridiculous nonsense anymore. I hope everyone that reads anything you post just ignores it. You know what is a shame, your not dumb, you could actually use your energy to help someone.

There are people on here struggling to survive, to feed their kids, to keep their home, car or just make it from day to day. They come because, for what ever reason, they couldn't pay their credit card and then the interest, late fees and over the limit fees made it impossiple to pay at all. No they are faced with getting their paycheck garnished, bank account garnished or not even being able to rent an apartment or get a job. Quit this bs. There are people here trying to fend for their kids.

I appreciate your informative post, but dont turn into your own personal agenda. I may not always give the right answer on here, but I always try to help the best I can, in the only way that I can. It offends me that I see you distorting the picture for your own personal reason. The best thing that can happen here is either you get blocked altogether or everyone on here just ignores you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Noway. Here you go again. I appreciate your sharing of informtion, but dont try to make a connection with the foreclosures and the cc debt collectors. You need to read more to see what brought this all to a head. Why do you want to keep misleading people?

There are people who come here that need help, if you are not going to give it, be gone. I am done. I am not responding to your ridiculous nonsense anymore. I hope everyone that reads anything you post just ignores it. You know what is a shame, your not dumb, you could actually use your energy to help someone.

There are people on here struggling to survive, to feed their kids, to keep their home, car or just make it from day to day. They come because, for what ever reason, they couldn't pay their credit card and then the interest, late fees and over the limit fees made it impossiple to pay at all. No they are faced with getting their paycheck garnished, bank account garnished or not even being able to rent an apartment or get a job. Quit this bs. There are people here trying to fend for their kids.

I appreciate your informative post, but dont turn into your own personal agenda. I may not always give the right answer on here, but I always try to help the best I can, in the only way that I can. It offends me that I see you distorting the picture for your own personal reason. The best thing that can happen here is either you get blocked altogether or everyone on here just ignores you.

Well, look at the overall picture and you will see a parallel. Meaning that false affidavits were/are used in both scenarios.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, look at the overall picture and you will see a parallel. Meaning that false affidavits were/are used in both scenarios.

That is what makes your connection so short sighted. They are two totally different types and circumstances of affidavit. You are just wanting to bait an argument. There is no connection to be made.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is old news and pertains to CREDIT CARD ACCOUNTS. I haven't heard of any final resolution, but Chase has recently been attacked by the Feds in Mortgage related problems as well regarding robo signed affidavits and other docs. Hence the parallel. The point being...robo signing of affidavits ( someone who signs without having personal knowledge and without taking the time to conduct a meaningful review) is not legal, immoral and can result in severe consequences. No argument intended...just trying to share the big picture. I don't know if this matter has been settled or is still ongoing.

Quote:

"Linda Almonte, a former employee of JPMorgan Chase (JPM) who is suing the bank for wrongful termination, has just upped the ante: She has now also filed a whistleblower complaint with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The core allegations add context to her lawsuit, and they charge Chase with grotesque and illegal practices involving its credit card debt processes, including robo-signing. Chase denies her claims.

Almonte's allegations are detailed in the Nov. 30 letter sent to the SEC. In the letter, she says:

1. Chase Bank sold to third party debt buyers hundreds of millions of dollars worth of credit card accounts. . .when in fact Chase Bank executives knew that many of those accounts had incorrect and overstated balances.

3. Chase Bank executives routinely destroyed information and communications from consumers rather than incorporate that information into the consumer's credit card file, including bankruptcy notices, powers of attorney, notice of cancellation of auto-pay, proof of payments and letters from debt settlement companies.

4. Chase Bank executives mass-executed thousands of affidavits in support of Chase Banks collection efforts and those Chase Bank executives did not have personal knowledge of the facts set forth in the affidavits.

5. When senior Chase Bank executives were made aware of these systemic problems, senior Chase Bank executives -- rather than remedy the problems -- immediately fired the whistleblower and attempted to cover up these problems.

When I reached Almonte's lawyer, George Pressly, for comment, he was shocked that I had the letter because it was supposed to be confidential. While Pressly was willing to confirm Almonte was a client, beyond that he had no comment. Pressly, who was clearly trying to figure out how to handle the letter's disclosure, said he was suddenly getting a "firestorm" of calls and seemed unprepared for the onslaught. While he has filed many SEC complaints before -- he operates the website SEC Whistleblower Program Home, which is how Almonte found him -- her letter is the first one he's filed that went public.

The bank, through spokesman Paul Harwick, says "Chase is aggressively defending itself against the allegations made by this former employee. We have thoroughly researched these allegations and are confident that the sales of these loans were handled properly. We have strong internal controls and processes for managing credit card debt-sales transactions."

The SEC says it never comments on such letters.

In the letter, Almonte's lawyer explains the reason she contacted the SEC: "Her disclosures may bring into question Chase Bank's representations regarding Chase Bank's own securities but may also bear on certain asset-backed securities where the underlying assets are Chase Bank credit card accounts."

Almonte's Evidence

To support her claims, Almonte says she has "a large volume of documents in her possession available for review by the SEC" and offers her first-hand observations as well.

Those direct observations allegedly include witnessing the head of Chase's pre-litigation group "shred" material communications from borrowers, such as "bankruptcy notices, settlement communications, and debt settlement company communications" rather than entering the information into Chase's database. She also claims that senior Chase Bank executives instructed Chase Bank employees remove important information and data from Litigation Accounts because the retention of the information would have resulted in increased computer hardware costs. Both types of record destruction rendered the accounts inaccurate, she says.

Concerning robo-signing, Pressly wrote:

"On numerous occasions, Ms. Almonte witnessed these Affidavit Signers work through at times 3-feet tall stacks of Judgment Affidavits at once during weekly multi-hour long, non-related company meetings. The notaries were not present at these meetings. The Affidavit Signers simply relied on hourly workers to reconcile amounts owed and then treated the actual execution of the affidavits as busy work to be performed while the Affidavit Signers could focus on other matters."

According to Almonte, determining the amounts owed wasn't easy: Chase had a number of "legacy" databases from its various acquisitions that were not well integrated. So, perhaps the executives should have looked more closely at the documents. "Indeed, Ms. Almonte determined that as many as 20% of the Judgment Accounts to be sold failed an internal test to check for accuracy."

Who Is Linda Almonte?

During her time at Chase, Almonte was a "mid-level executive" who "supervised employees across the litigation and post-judgment functions" of the credit card litigation department.

In March, she sued the bank, claiming that she was fired for refusing to participate in the sale of 23,000 credit card accounts Chase had packaged for sale. Almonte says 5,000 of the accounts listed the wrong amount owed, and thousands more had other problems. By going forward with the sale after being informed of the problems, Almonte says, Chase was breaking the law.

Almonte's whistleblower complaint provides big-picture context for the sale she refused to participate in, providing background on how so many credit card accounts could contain flawed data.

Robo-signing and other problems with credit card debt collection aren't new, as David Segal's October article for The New York Times detailed. What is new is that someone in Almonte's position is willing to make such charges publicly.

END QUOTE

The Moral of the story is this: Challenge any and all affidavits submitted by any credit card company !! I'm of the opinion that one might be able to use the above as an example when getting the courts attention, even if not accepted as a precedent. Who knows, the judge might raise his eyebrows and start asking a lot of pointed questions !

Use all available tools when defending yourself in court.

Edited by Noway
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've decided ...(removed).... You are reaching for things to fit your ridiculous arguments. This settlement concerns the MORTGAGE MELTDOWN. It has nothing to do with CC debt collection. Attorney Generals get involved when the politicians get involved.

The American economy tanked because of the housing bubble and foreclosures, not because someone received and inaccurate dunning letter.

...And the politicians get involved when the people get involved...and start demanding answers. Thousands of foreclosures took place because of inaccurate information submitted by the mortgage companies ie robo signed documents and false affidavits. And as a result of "people involvement", The Feds have required Mortgage companies to stop certain foreclosures and have even required the Mortgage companies to compensate their victims.

It's not about dunning letters, it's about the false affidavits which sometimes follow the dunning letters via a summons and complaint.

I think this question is best answered in a court room setting, but Please explain the legal difference between a false document or affidavit submitted by a Mortgage company and a credit card company. They both seek a judgement via False statements, do they not ? Hey, no argument intended at all...enlighten me and I will recant !

Edited by Noway
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest mrsfrancis1

Several yrs ago I was a victiim of Identity theft, someone got hold of my information, opened an account & then overdrafted $3000. As human beings when you know better you do better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've decided ...(removed).... You are reaching for things to fit your ridiculous arguments. This settlement concerns the MORTGAGE MELTDOWN. It has nothing to do with CC debt collection. Attorney Generals get involved when the politicians get involved.

The American economy tanked because of the housing bubble and foreclosures, not because someone received and inaccurate dunning letter.

And I've decide that ( edited) felt brave enough to make the arrogant assertion because his physical address is "parts unknown"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And I've decide that ( edited) felt brave enough to make the arrogant assertion because his physical address is "parts unknown"

Implying what? If you knew where he/she was you'd head down there and give him/her a whoopn'? LMAO!

Don't get so worked up old man. It's only the internet. :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And I've decide that ( edited) felt brave enough to make the arrogant assertion because his physical address is "parts unknown"

1. I have censored myself. I should not have posted that comment. I left the basic idea behind because you had already replied to it and I did not want to pretend I had said nothing at all.

2. I am in Ohio. I have said it in my previous post. It has nothing to do with how or what I type.

3. The board is to help those who are seeking information. None of this is personal to me, except to help those in the place that I was helped when I received a summons in the mail (that is how a summons is issued in Ohio), and I had no idea what to do. If I had read your post at that time and believed your information, I would have been chasing my tail trying to resolve this.

4. False affidavits are a problem, but a news article will not help you to deal with them. This is the "Is There a Lawyer in the House" section of the forum. Learning how to strike an false affidavit, or how to depose an affiant, or how to argue "Lack of Standing" for a JDB is what people are looking for when they read this section. They want to know when they are sued what is a good affirmative defense if they believe the dunning amount is inaccurate. They can read the news in "Credit Article of the Week" section of this board.

5. I will no longer reply to personal issues. But I will still reply to misinformation with correct information. Whoever happens to post it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Implying what? If you knew where he/she was you'd head down there and give him/her a whoopn'? LMAO!

Don't get so worked up old man. It's only the internet. :rolleyes:

And I resent being called an old man". Making hateful or arrogant remarks is a violation of the forum rules and I request that Admin take appropriate action.

No "whoopin" in mind...just wondering why people are big enough to make such remarks while hiding behind a keyboard in parts unknown...but I guess that would certainly prevent someone from getting a "whoopin"

Other folks have have banned or at least censored by admin or mods for making such brash remarks. Are the mods and admin selective or do the forum rules apply to all, members as well as mods ?

Edited by Noway
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And I resent being called an old man". Making hateful or arrogant remarks is a violation of the forum rules and I request that Admin take appropriate action.

No "whoopin" in mind...just wondering why people are big enough to make such remarks while hiding behind a keyboard in parts unknown...but I guess that would certainly prevent someone from getting a "whoopin"

Other folks have have banned or at least censored by admin or mods for making such brash remarks. Are the mods and admin selective or do the forum rules apply to all, members as well as mods ?

Bwhahahahahaha!!!

Are you really that thin skined and that sensitive that you consider "old man" a hateful or arrogant remark? Wait.. I need to remember who I'm dealing with.

Maybe you can sue me or contact my attorney general's office to investigate me for age discrimination or maybe you could write my mother a letter for hurting your feelings on an internet message board..

Relax pops, I Don't want you to get all mad and crinkle up that AARP card of yours and lose your discount from KFC or the Golden Coral ;)

Edited by Hal Jordan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bwhahahahahaha!!!

Are you really that thin skined and that sensitive that you consider "old man" a hateful or arrogant remark? Wait.. I need to remember who I'm dealing with.

Maybe you can sue me or contact my attorney general's office to investigate me for age discrimination or maybe you could write my mother a letter for hurting your feelings on an internet message board..

Relax pops, I Don't want you to get all mad and crinkle up that AARP card of yours.. wouldn't want you to lose that discount at KFC or the Golden Coral ;)

ADMIN...ARE THESE DEROGATORY REMARKS CONDUCIVE TO THE TERMS OF THE FORUM RULES ? How about it AMERIKANNER ?

DOES NOT SUCH BEHAVIOR WARRANT BANNING OR AT LEAST CENSORING ??

No further comment from me...too childish, but hopefully Admin or one of the mods will deal with this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest usctrojanalum

Other folks have have banned or at least censored by admin or mods for making such brash remarks. Are the mods and admin selective or do the forum rules apply to all, members as well as mods ?

Well we have banned you twice already but you keep coming back, do the forum rules apply to you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the%20man%20crying.jpg

Seriously man.. get a sense of humor 8-):lol:

I have a sense of humor..I poked a little fun at USC the other day with my "batters up routine" and Amerikanner sent me a warning !

So who's on first ??....and in one post USC indicated I was FOS...did he/she/it get censored ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well we have banned you twice already but you keep coming back, do the forum rules apply to you?

???????

Well let's stop being selective and ban ALL (mods included) who violate any rules of the forum, including the guy from the Land of Oz... Kansas.. Hal Jordon.

Edited by Noway
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is what makes your connection so short sighted. They are two totally different types and circumstances of affidavit. You are just wanting to bait an argument. There is no connection to be made.

Hey Man, I'm serious here...please explain the difference in the two affidavits and also why Ro-bo signing of a SWORN AFFIDAVIT is not considered perjury under both circumstances. Are you saying there are two levels of perjury and two levels of false affidavits...(.Level 1)...false affidavits re: credit cards, and (Level 2)...false affidavits for mortgage foreclosure. OK, now tell me which level of perjury earns the most severe sanctions ...Level 1 or Level 2.

Hell, I thought perjury was perjury regardless of the affidavit. Maybe there are two levels of committing fraud upon the court as well. Please enlighten me and I will help others along the way.

Please understand, no argument intended, let's all just share our knowledge and experience for the benefit of all. I feel like I have learned much, but not so naive to think I cannot learn more.

Thank you.

Edited by Noway
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.. For more information, please see our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.