US DOJ To Bring Charges Against Those Accountable for 2008 Financial Crisis

According to The Wall Street Journal, US Attorney General Eric Holder wants Wall Street to know that the Justice Department is getting ready to bring criminal and civil securities fraud charges against those accountable for the financial crisis of 2008. Cases against a number of large financial firms are likely. During his interview with the WSJ, Holder said that “No individual, no company is above the law.”

Holder has been criticized, along with the Obama Administration, of not doing enough to file criminal charges against financial firm executives over the 2008 meltdown. However, recent disclosures indicate that the US government is going after new prosecutions of possible wrongdoing involving mortgage-backed securities.

After that industry’s fast growth led to the housing bubble, which then burst, resulting in a credit crisis, financial institutions were left with securities that dropped in value. DOJ officials also say that prosecutors continue to be involved in probes involving RMBS.

Meantime, federal prosecutors have been filing cases related to purported wrongdoing from prior to the economic meltdown, including the criminal charges against two former JPMorgan (JPM) traders for allegedly misstating trading loses that would eventually lead to over $6 billion in loses. There is also the DOJ’s securities lawsuit against Standard & Poor’s Ratings Services and McGraw Hill Financial Inc. for allegedly misleading investors about the ratings of mortgage bonds.

While such action is positive, it is important to note that when certain white-color criminal charges are involved, the five-year statute of limitations may make it hard to successfully prosecute actions that took place prior to the financial crash.

If you feel you are the victim of Broker Fraud, please do not hesitate to email or call the The Resolution Law Group (203) 542-7275 for a confidential, no obligation consultation.

Advertisements

The Resolution Law Group: DOJ’s $5B Securities Lawsuit Against Standard & Poor’s Can Proceed, Says Judge

U.S. District Judge David O. Carter for the Central District of California has turned down Standard & Poor’s bid to have the Justice Department’s $5 billion securities lawsuit against it dismissed. This affirms Carter’s recent tentative ruling earlier on the matter.

S & P is the largest credit rating agency in the world. It is a McGraw Hill Financial Inc. unit.

According to the US government, the credit rater fraudulently misrepresented its ratings process as objective and independent when it was, in fact, stymied from issuing ratings because of its desire to please banks and other clients. Instead, between 2004 and 2007, S & P purportedly issued AAA ratings to certain poor quality mortgage packages, including residential mortgage-backed securities, collateralized debt obligations, and subprime mortgage-backed securities. Now, prosecutors want to recover the losses that credit unions and federally insured banks allegedly suffered because of these inaccurate ratings that it contends upped investor demand for the instruments until the prices soared and the market collapsed, contributing to the global economic meltdown that followed.

S & P contends that it did not cause the financial crisis. It claims that just like the Federal Reserve, the US Treasury, and other market participants, the credit rater could not have foreseen the market events that went on to happen in 2008.

Seeking to have the securities case dismissed, S & P argued that its public statements about its objectivity and autonomy that prosecutors identified as purportedly fraudulent misrepresentations, including official policy statements about rating deals and employee conduct codes, are in actuality “puffery” statements that investors were not supposed to take at face value. S & P lawyers said that because of this, the government couldn’t use these statements as grounds for its securities fraud case.

Now, Judge Carter is saying that he finds S & P’s “puffery” defense “deeply… troubling,” especially in light of the implications. He observed that with this defense, S & P is implying that investors, legislators, and regulators shouldn’t have taken seriously any of the public statements the credit rater made about either supposed data-based, unbiased credit ratings or its agency procedures.

As in his earlier, tentative ruling, Carter said that contrary to defendants’ protestations, his court cannot see how all the “must nots” and “shalls” used by S & P in its statements was merely the company’s way to aspire about vague objectives. Rather, he sees these statements as “specific assertions” about polices and they contrast conduct the government is accusing S & P of committing.

Meantime, S & P is battling more than a dozen CDO lawsuits filed by state prosecutors who are accusing the credit rating agency of the same alleged fraud.

If you feel you are the victim of Bank Fraud, please do not hesitate to email or call the The Resolution Law Group (203) 542-7275 for a confidential, no obligation consultation.

Lender Litigation, Unlawful Foreclosure, Tarp Money, Mortgage Backed Securities, Derivitives Lawsuits, Insider Trading Lawsuit, SEC Settlements, Ponzi Scheme Lawsuits, Intentional Misrepresentation, Securitized Mortgage, Class Action Securities Lawsuit, Robo-Signing Lawsuit, Lost Equity Litigation, Mortgage Lender Fraud, FINRA Fraud Lawsuit, Suing Banks, Fraudulent Misrepresentation, Short Sale Fraud, Fraudulent Business Practices, Mortgage Litigation, Complex Tort Litigation, Injunctive Relief, MERS Fraud

The Resolution Law Group: District Judge Not Inclined to Toss $5B Securities Fraud Case Against Standard & Poor’s

A U.S. district judge in California has put out a tentative decision in the $5B fraud lawsuit against Standard & Poor’s indicating that he will likely reject a motion to dismiss the civil case against the credit rating agency. Judge David Carter said he needs more time to come up with his final ruling, which is expected on July 15, but for now, he is turning down S & P’s request to toss out the case outright.

Federal prosecutors sued S & P contending that the credit rater chose not to alert investors that the housing market was failing in ‘06 and inflated high-risk mortgage investments’ ratings. The Obama Administration said the ratings agency did not act fast enough to put downgrade a large number of subprime-backed securities despite realizing that home prices were dropping and borrowers were finding it hard to pay back loans. Instead, collateralized debt obligations and mortgage-backed securities continued to receive elevated ratings from the top credit rating agencies, allowing banks to sell trillions of these investments.

Contending that the credit rater committed fraud by making false claims that its ratings were objective, the US Department of Justice wants S & P to pay $5 billion in penalties, The government believes that between 9/04 and 10/07, S & P delayed updating both its ratings criteria and analytical models, which means the requirements were weaker than what analysts say should have been necessary to ensure their accuracy. During this time, S & P credit rated about $1.2 trillion in structured products related to $2.8 trillion worth of mortgage securities and charged up to $750 per rated deal. The government says that this means that S & P saw the investment banks that put out the securities as its primary customers.

Now, S & P wants the MBS case thrown out, contending that the lawsuit is too broad and doesn’t offer enough specific examples of the alleged fraud. The credit rating agency maintains that the statements federal prosecutors say are the allegedly fraudulent misrepresentations are ones that investors were not supposed to take at face value and, therefore, they cannot be grounds for the securities fraud case.

Also, S & P’s legal defense says that just like other market participants, including the US Treasury, the credit rating agency did not have the ability to predict how severe the ensuing “catastrophic meltdown” would be and, if anything, this showed a “lack of prescience” rather than fraud.

However, Judge Carter in his tentative ruling, did say that S & P’s statements in employee conduct codes and official policy statements about its standards and processes for ratings deals aren’t just “mere aspirational musings,” but instead are “specific assertions of policies… in stark contrast” to conduct that the government is alleging occurred.

If you feel you are the victim of Mortgage Fraud, please do not hesitate to email or call the The Resolution Law Group (203) 542-7275 for a confidential, no obligation consultation.

Lender Litigation, Unlawful Foreclosure, Tarp Money, Mortgage Backed Securities, Derivitives Lawsuits, Insider Trading Lawsuit, SEC Settlements, Ponzi Scheme Lawsuits, Intentional Misrepresentation, Securitized Mortgage, Class Action Securities Lawsuit, Robo-Signing Lawsuit, Lost Equity Litigation, Mortgage Lender Fraud, FINRA Fraud Lawsuit, Suing Banks, Fraudulent Misrepresentation, Short Sale Fraud, Fraudulent Business Practices, Mortgage Litigation, Complex Tort Litigation, Injunctive Relief, MERS Fraud

The Resolution Law Group Update: Standard & Poors Wants DOJ’s Mortgage Debt Lawsuit Against It Tossed

Standard Poors is asking a judge to dismiss the US Justice Department’s securities lawsuit against it. The government claims that the largest ratings agency defrauded investors when it put out excellent ratings for some poor quality complex mortgage packages, including collateralized debt obligations, residential mortgage-backed securities, and subprime mortgage-backed securities, between 2004 and 2007. The ratings agency, however, claims that the DOJ has no case.

Per the government’s securities complaint, financial institutions lost over $5 billion on 33 CDOs because they trusted S & P’s ratings and invested in the complex debt instruments. The DOJ believes that the credit rater issued its inaccurate ratings on purpose, raising investor demand and prices until the latter crashed, triggering the global economic crisis. It argues that certain ratings were inflated based on conflicts of interest that involved making the banks that packaged the mortgage securities happy as opposed to issuing independent, objective ratings that investors could rely on.

Now, S & P is claiming that the government’s lawsuit overreaches in targeting it and fails to show that the credit rater knew what the more accurate ratings should have been, which it contends would be necessary for there to be grounds for this CDO lawsuit. In a brief submitted to the United States District Court for the Central District of California, in Los Angeles, S & P’s lawyers argue that there is no way that their client, the Treasury, the Federal Reserve, or other market participants could have predicted how severe the financial meltdown would be.

S & P is also fighting over a dozen other CDO lawsuits filed by state attorneys general that make similar securities fraud allegations. The states are generally invoking their consumer-protection statutes, which carry a lower burden of proof, and the credit rating agency is seeking to have their securities lawsuits moved to federal court.

If you, your family, friends, neighbors or associates have been subjected to Mortgage Fraud, please contact The Resolution Law Group at (203) 542-7275 for a confidential, no obligation consultation.

Lender Litigation, Unlawful Foreclosure, Tarp Money, Mortgage Backed Securities, Derivitives Lawsuits, Insider Trading Lawsuit, SEC Settlements, Ponzi Scheme Lawsuits, Intentional Misrepresentation, Securitized Mortgage, Class Action Securities Lawsuit, Robo-Signing Lawsuit, Lost Equity Litigation, Mortgage Lender Fraud, FINRA Fraud Lawsuit, Suing Banks, Fraudulent Misrepresentation, Short Sale Fraud, Fraudulent Business Practices, Mortgage Litigation, Complex Tort Litigation, Injunctive Relief, MERS Fraud

Standard & Poor’s Misled Investors By Giving Synthetic Derivatives Its Highest Ratings, Rules Australian Federal Court

November 8, 2012

A ruling by the Australian Federal Court against Standard & Poor’s could give 13 NSW councils about A$30M in compensation for their about A$16M in synthetic derivative losses. According to the court, the ratings firm misled investors by giving its highest ratings to complex investment instruments that ended up failing during the worldwide economic crisis. The councils can now claim compensation from S & P and co-defendants Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS)- owned ABN Amro Bank and the Local Government Financial Services, Ltd. The three had sold the councils constant proportion debt obligation notes, promoted as Rembrandt notes, six years ago.

Specifically to this case, Australian Federal Court Justice Jayne Jagot said that Standard & Poor’s took part in conduct that was “deceptive” when it gave AAA ratings to constant proportion debt obligations that were created by ABN Amro Bank NV. The Australian townships were among those that invested what amounted to trillions of dollars in the CPDOs, as well as in collateralized debt obligations.

The projected A$30M in compensation includes not just councils’ losses, but also interest and costs. The councils are also entitled to receive compensation for breach of fiduciary duty from LGFS, which succeeded in its own claim against Standard and Poor’s and ABN Amro for Rembrandt notes that it sold to its parent company after the notes were downgraded from their triple-A rating to triple-B+.

This ruling, issued on Monday, is considered a landmark one in that it is the first judgment to be issued against a ratings firm since the worldwide financial crisis over the way it rated complex securities. The decline of synthetic derivatives during the economic collapse played a huge role in the collapse of Lehman Brothers. The decision could be an opening for similar cases elsewhere around the globe.

Yesterday, back in the United States, Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan won a ruling in circuit court allowing her to move forward with litigation against Standard & Poor’s Ratings Services. She is also accusing the rating firm of misleading investors while the economic meltdown was happening. Madigan claims that S & P sought to favor banker clients and up profits through the assignation to MBS of its highest ratings. The securities later failed. Madigan said that this ruling was key in that it was the first obstacle to pursuing the case and it has now been overcome. She said that this is a statement that S & P isn’t going to be able to use legal measures to escape the “fact that they committed fraud.”

For years, rating firms have overcome lawsuits in the US by claiming that the ratings they issue are opinions and have First Amendment protection. This Illinois lawsuit, however, appears to get around this by concentrating not on the actual ratings but on public statements S & P made about how its ratings process is autonomous and objective. Circuit Court Judge Mary Anne Mason said that First Amendment protections aren’t applicable to this case, because constitutions, both state and federal, don’t protect practices that are “false, misleading, or deceptive.”

If you, your family, friends, neighbors or associates have been subjected to Credit Rating Agencies abuse, please contact our law firm at (203) 542-7275 for a confidential, no obligation consultation.

Lender Litigation, Unlawful Foreclosure, Tarp Money, Mortgage Backed Securities, Derivitives Lawsuits, Insider Trading Lawsuit, SEC Settlements, Ponzi Scheme Lawsuits, Intentional Misrepresentation, Securitized Mortgage, Class Action Securities Lawsuit, Robo-Signing Lawsuit, Lost Equity Litigation, Mortgage Lender Fraud, FINRA Fraud Lawsuit, Suing Banks, Fraudulent Misrepresentation, Short Sale Fraud, Fraudulent Business Practices, Mortgage Litigation, Complex Tort Litigation, Injunctive Relief, MERS Fraud