The Resolution Law Group: JPMorgan and the DOJ Finalize Their $13 Billion Settlement

After months of back-and-forth, the US Justice Department and JPMorgan Chase (JPM) have agreed to a $13 billion settlement. The historic deal concludes several of lawsuits and probes over failed mortgage bonds that were issued prior to the economic crisis. It also is the largest combination of damages and fines to be obtained by the federal government in a civil case with just one company. JPMorgan had initially wanted to pay just $3 billion.

The $13 billion deal is the largest crackdown this government had made against Wall Street over questionable mortgage practices. US Attorney General H. Eric Holder and other lead DOJ officials were involved in the settlement talks with JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon and other senior officials.

The settlement is over billions of dollars in residential mortgage backed securities involving not just the firm but also its Washington Mutual (WAMUQ) and Bear Stearns (BSC) outfits. The government claims that the RMBS were based on mortgages that were not as solid as what they were advertised to be.

As part of the agreement, JPMorgan acknowledged a statement of facts that delineated its wrongdoing and retracted its demand that prosecutors stop a related criminal probe directed at the bank. Also, the firm for the most part forfeited getting back some of the settlement from the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.

Of the $13 billion, $9 billion will pay state and federal civil lawsuit claims over residential mortgage-backed securities including:

• $2 million as a civil penalty to the DOJ
• $1.4 billion to resolve the National Credit Union Administration’s state and federal claims
• $4 billion for Federal Housing Finance Agency claims
• $515 million over Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. claims
• Almost $20 million resolves Delaware claims
• Almost $300 million is for California claims
• Almost $614 million resolves NY state claims
• $100 million is for Illinois claims
• $34 million settles claims made by Massachusetts

The rest of the settlement in the amount of $4 billion will be in the form of programs to help homeowners that suffered harm. JPMorgan says it would pay up to $1.7 billion to write down principal amounts of loans it held in which the borrower owes a sum greater than the value of the property.

Meantime, $300 million to $500 million will go to forbearance, which involves the restructuring of certain mortgages to lower monthly payments. The final $2 billion will go to a number of measures, including absorbing whatever principal is still owed on properties that haven’t foreclosed but were already vacated, as well as to new mortgage originators for certain income borrowers. JPMorgan might even use some of this money to pay for anti-blight work in beleaguered neighborhoods.

The Resolution Law Group represents institutional investors and high net worth individual investors wishing to recoup their RMBS fraud losses. Contact our securities lawyers today.

Advertisements

The Resolution Law Group: JPMorgan Said to Reach Record $13 Billion U.S. Settlement

JPMorgan Chase & Co.’s record $13 billion deal to end U.S. probes of its mortgage-bond sales would free the nation’s largest bank from mounting civil disputes with the government while leaving a criminal inquiry unresolved.

The tentative pact with the Department of Justice increased from an $11 billion proposal last month and would mark the largest amount paid by a financial firm in a settlement with the U.S. The deal wouldn’t release the bank from potential criminal liability, at the insistence of U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, according to terms described by a person familiar with the talks, who asked not to be named because they were private.

“To not get the waiver from criminal prosecution is not good,” said Nancy Bush, a bank analyst who founded NAB Research LLC in New Jersey. “What we’re looking for in a settlement of this size is certainty from things like the criminal prosecution of a company. The Street wants certainty.”

JPMorgan Chief Executive Officer Jamie Dimon, 57, personally discussed the deal with Holder after markets closed Oct. 18 as the banker sought to end probes that have beset his firm and resulted in its first quarterly loss under his watch. The agreement, which isn’t yet final, includes $4 billion in relief for unspecified consumers and $9 billion in payments and fines, according to another person briefed on the terms.

The payouts would cover a $4 billion accord with the Federal Housing Finance Agency over the bank’s sale of mortgage-backed securities, that person said. The deal, which may be announced in the coming week, also resolves pending inquiries by New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, the people said.

Dwarfing Pay

The settlement would amount to more than half of JPMorgan’s record $21.3 billion profit last year, or 1.5 times what the firm’s corporate and investment bank set aside to pay employees during this year’s first nine months. Only seven companies in the Dow Jones Industrial Average earned more than $13 billion in 2012, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. Some portions of the deal, such as relief to homeowners, would probably be tax deductible for JPMorgan.

The outline of the tentative accord was reached during a telephone call between Holder, Dimon, JPMorgan General Counsel Stephen Cutler and Associate U.S. Attorney General Tony West, said the person. The settlement’s statement of facts is still being negotiated.

Bondholder Concerns

Holder told Dimon that a release from the criminal inquiry wouldn’t be forthcoming as part of any deal, said the person familiar with their talks. The accord will probably require JPMorgan to cooperate in criminal investigations of individuals tied to wrongdoing associated with the bank’s mortgage practices, said the person.

Brian Fallon, a spokesman for the Justice Department, and Matt Mittenthal, a spokesman for Schneiderman, declined to comment.

The possible inclusion of homeowner relief has revived concerns among mortgage-bond investors that efforts to ease the financial burdens of millions of Americans may lower the value of instruments held by Wall Street money managers.

The Association of Mortgage Investors, representing mutual funds and pensions, urged Holder in an Oct. 7 letter not to let banks saddle them with costs associated with relief for mortgage borrowers. Banks settling claims of underwriting lapses often service debts in bonds held by others, who can wind up bearing the burden of breaks granted to homeowners.

Talks Intensify

JPMorgan’s push to settle the mortgage probes and other cases required a $7.2 billion charge in the third quarter, causing the bank to report a $380 million loss on Oct. 11. The firm has tapped $8 billion of $28 billion in reserves set aside since 2010 to cover its legal expenses.

Those costs follow three years of record profits that have driven the stock higher. JPMorgan’s shares have climbed 72 percent since the end of 2008, compared with a 48 percent gain in the KBW Bank Index of 24 U.S. firms. On the day the firm reported its quarterly loss, the stock closed little changed. It has since climbed 3.4 percent.

“It looks like they are gradually becoming able to put the past and the crisis behind them,” said Craig Pirrong, professor of finance at the University of Houston’s Bauer College of Business whose research includes risk management. “It’s an expensive history lesson, and they are not out of the woods yet.”

JPMorgan’s push to end the mortgage probes intensified last month after the U.S. Attorney’s office in Sacramento, California, told the bank it was preparing to bring a case. Authorities there already had concluded there were civil violations and opened a criminal probe, JPMorgan said in an August regulatory filing.

Government’s Stance

Dimon spent two hours at the Justice Department in Washington on Sept. 26 to discuss a possible settlement of state and federal probes with Holder, a person familiar with the matter said at the time. During the bank’s talks with senior Justice Department officials, proposals swung by billions of dollars, people with knowledge of the situation said. At one point, officials rejected the company’s offer to pay $3 billion to $4 billion, one person said at the time.

“It almost sounds like a negotiation where the government just kept saying, ‘No. No. No,’ until JPMorgan met their number,” said Peter Henning, a former federal prosecutor and Securities and Exchange Commission attorney who teaches law at Wayne State University in Detroit.

Others involved in the talks of a global deal included the Department of Housing and Urban Development and Schneiderman, who is co-chairman of a federal and state working group on residential mortgage-backed securities, which negotiated the civil-mortgage settlement with JPMorgan.

False Statements

The FHFA sued JPMorgan and 17 other banks over faulty mortgage bonds two years ago to recoup some of the losses taxpayers were forced to cover when the government took control of failing mortgage finance companies in 2008.

The FHFA accused JPMorgan and its affiliates of making false statements and omitting material facts in selling $33 billion in mortgage bonds to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac from Sept. 7, 2005, through Sept. 19, 2007. Those two firms, regulated by FHFA, have taken $187.5 billion in federal aid since then.

The regulator said executives at JPMorgan, Washington Mutual and Bear Stearns Cos., which were acquired by JPMorgan in 2008, knowingly misrepresented the quality of the loans underlying the bonds, according to the lawsuit filed in federal court in Manhattan.

Dimon said in a speech last year that he did the U.S. a favor by buying Bear Stearns and that he might not go through with it again because of how much the deal ultimately cost.

Settlement ‘Chagrin’

“The settlement probably comes with a sense of chagrin at JPMorgan,” said Joseph Grundfest, a former SEC commissioner who’s now a professor of business and law at Stanford University Law School. “Many of the problematic transactions were done by banks that JPMorgan acquired during the financial crisis at the behest of the U.S. government — not by JPMorgan itself.”

UBS AG, Switzerland’s largest bank, agreed to pay $885 million last month to settle claims it misrepresented the quality of the loans backing $4.5 billion in residential mortgage bonds it sponsored and $1.8 billion of third-party mortgage bonds sold to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. UBS was the third bank to reach an agreement with FHFA.

Citigroup Inc. and General Electric Co. both paid undisclosed amounts to settle the regulator’s claims.

Probes Pending

JPMorgan has paid more than $1 billion to five different regulators in the past month to settle probes into botched derivatives trades that lost more than $6.2 billion in 2012. It also settled unrelated claims it unfairly charged customers for credit-monitoring products.

The bank faces an investigation into its hiring practices in Asia. It’s also the subject of a probe by Manhattan U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara into claims it abetted Bernard Madoff’s Ponzi scheme, a person familiar with that matter said.

The six biggest U.S. banks, led by JPMorgan and Charlotte, North Carolina-based Bank of America Corp., have piled up more than $100 billion in legal costs since the financial crisis, a figure that exceeds all of the dividends paid to shareholders in the past five years, Bloomberg data show.

The Obama administration set up the residential mortgage-backed securities working group in 2012 to coordinate a crackdown on deceptive underwriting practices that contributed to the financial crisis.

Schneiderman’s Claims

Schneiderman’s office sued JPMorgan last October over mortgage-bonds packaged by Bear Stearns.

Schneiderman alleged Bear Stearns misled mortgage-bond investors about defective loans backing the securities. The firm failed to fully evaluate the debt, ignored defects uncovered by a limited review and hid that it failed to adequately scrutinize the loans or disclose their risks, according to the complaint.

At the time it was filed, the cumulative realized losses on more than 100 subprime and Alt-A securities that the bank and its affiliates sponsored and underwrote in 2006 and 2007 totaled about $22.5 billion, or about 26 percent of the original balance of about $87 billion, according to the complaint. Alt-A is a term for mortgages that typically didn’t require documentation such as proof of income.

Schneiderman’s office asserted claims under New York’s Martin Act, an almost century-old law that gives the state’s attorney general broad powers to target financial fraud. The bank denied the claims in the case, which is pending in state Supreme Court in Manhattan.

‘Self-Inflicted’

The FHFA alleged in its 2011 lawsuit that the bank misled Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac about the soundness of loans in billions of dollars of residential mortgage-backed securities. The bank didn’t disclose that a significant portion of the loans failed to adhere to underwriting standards and had poor credit quality, according to the complaint.

The number of loans for owner-occupied properties was lower than investors were told, and the bank’s disclosures misrepresented the properties’ value, according to the complaint.

JPMorgan’s rising legal and regulatory penalties don’t mean the company’s bankers are “immoral,” Dimon told an audience Oct. 12 at a meeting hosted by Institute of International Finance, where he acknowledged the bank was working through a series of problems.

“Some are self-inflicted, which we’ve completely confessed to the whole world. Some are obviously industrywide,” he said. “And yes, we’ve had some mistakes. But honestly, you can never expect to have no mistakes. So, we’ve had more than our share.”

The case is Federal Housing Finance Agency v. JPMorgan Chase & Co., 11-06188, U.S. District Court Southern District of New York (Manhattan).

 

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.

The Resolution Law Group: US Will Likely Arrest Two Ex-JPMorgan Chase Employees Over Trading Losses Related to the London Whale Debacle

The United States Government is expected to announce criminal charges against two ex-JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPM) employees over allegations that they tried to cover up trading losses last year related to the London Whale fiasco. The ex-employees are Javier Martin-Artajo, the executive who was in charge of supervising the trading strategy, and Julien Grout, a trader that worked under him. Prosecutors also may impose penalties on the investment bank over this matter.

The securities fraud allegations stem from a probe into whether JPMorgan employees at its London offices tried to inflate certain trades’ values on the banks’ books, and charges could be filed over the falsification of documents and the mismarking of books. The criminal probe also has looked at whether the firm’s London traders engaged in the type of market manipulation that let them inflate their own positions’ value.

JPMorgan first revealed the losses at the London office May 2012. The trades were made by Bruno Iksil, dubbed the London Whale because of the vastness of his holdings. The bank would go on to lose over $6.2 billion when the trades failed. Other traders also were purportedly involved. They used derivatives to bet on the health of huge corporations.

Martin-Artajo oversaw Iksil, while Grout helped the latter value his trading book. The bank fired all three men last year, while several senior executives were reassigned or left the bank. CEO Jamie Dimon suffered a 50% pay cut.

Meantime, The FBI and the US Justice Department also have been investigating the trading loss, with prosecutors obtaining Iksil’s help. Reuters says that Iksil will not be charged.

Also, JPMorgan is working on a deal with the SEC for the latter to end its probe into the trading loss. However, according to a source, the agreement still could include allegations of failures to supervise, execute proper controls, share information internally, and other claims, and the firm could be reprimanded and ordered to pay a fine. The New York Times is reporting that the regulator wants the firm to admit wrongdoing, which is a departure from the SEC’s general “neither admit nor deny wrongdoing,” policy. The Commission has been trying to hold firms and their representatives more accountable in certain cases, especially in the wake of concerns that they get off too easily when it comes to financial fraud and other wrongdoings.

All of this comes five months after a Senate subcommittee published a 301-page report accusing the bank of hiding losses, misleading investors, and fooling regulators. In Britain, the Financial Conduct Authority also intends to fine JPMorgan.

Following the London Whale scandal, the bank has reworked its controls. It also began its own probe into the trades, giving over its findings to the Senate and federal authorities.

Last year’s trading loss brouhaha is not the only regulatory matter JPMorgan is dealing with. It is facing inquiries from two European countries, a state regulator, and several federal agencies here. Authorities also are looking at JPMorgan in connection with its mortgage business during the financial crisis and whether there are problems with its debt collection practices.

Please contact The Resolution Law Group if you believe you are the victim of Broker fraud. Our stockbroker fraud law firm represents corporations, financial firms, partnerships, banks, municipalities, retirement plans, school districts, large trusts, charitable organizations, high net worth individuals, and private foundations. Your case assessment with our securities lawyers is free.  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

Police Retirement System of St. Louis Also Suing JPMorgan Chase Executives Over “London Whale” Scandal

The Police Retirement System of St. Louis is suing JPMorgan Chase (JPM) CEO Jamie Dimon and several other senior bank officers over the “London Whale” scandal. The pension fund, which owns 39,000 of the investment bank, is one of numerous investors seeking compensation. Dimon and the other JPMorgan executives are accused of disregarding the red flags indicating that the London-based operation was engaged in taking large scale risks that ultimately resulted in close to $6 billion in losses last year.

In its derivatives lawsuit, the Police Retirement System of St. Louis contends that the defendants “eviscerated” the risk controls of JPMorgan’s London unit to up profits. Even after the media reported that one of the bank’s traders in London was making big bets (that trader was eventually dubbed the “London Whale”), Dimon downplayed the news to investors. The pension fund contends that the executives and others breached their duties to shareholders by not stopping the risky trades.

In March, US lawmakers sought to understand the multimillion-dollar trading loss. At a hearing before Congress, they questioned past and current JPMorgan executives about the financial scandal. Their interrogation came a day after the release of a damning 300-page Congressional report that blamed the bank’s lax culture while also criticizing the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency for also failing to follow up on warning signs.

The executives tried to defend themselves, saying their attempts to lower risks were countered by traders that purposely undervalued bets to conceal an increase in losses. Among the executives that gave testimony was ex-JPMorgan chief investment office head Ina Drew, whose group was in the middle of the debacle. She too blamed lower-level traders and others, while contending that she had been given inaccurate information. Drew said she didn’t know that traders were upping their bets.

Please contact our institutional investment fraud law firm today and ask for your free case assessment.

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

Woman ‘tags’ home with message to her bank ‘JPMorgan Chase is stealing this home’

See Video: http://www.thedenverchannel.com/web/kmgh/news/local-news/woman-tags-home-with-message-to-her-bank-jpmorgan-chase-is-stealing-this-home

What’s her tactic? She’s using her own house to publicly shame the bank, scrawling a message across her garage door that says: “JPMorgan Chase is stealing this home.”

“They think everyone’s just going to go away,” Hansen (pictured below) told KMGH-TV in Denver of her bank. “I think they picked the wrong house.” Hansen is doing anything but going away — she’s fighting back. The entirety of the message addressed to JPMorgan and its CEO, Jamie Dimon, that Hansen spray painted on her home reads: “Jamie Dimon & JPMorgan Chase, JPMorgan Chase is stealing this home. Ignores homeowner for 21 months!! I will not violate federal law on your behalf as a condition of communication from you! Call me. Chase Me!!” Hansen ends the note with a heart sign.

According to Hansen, she notified JPMorgan in May 2011 that she had fallen on hard times and would not be able to pay her mortgage payments. She said the bank promised to work with her on getting a loan modification, then refused to do so two months later. “You’re told, ‘We need A, B and C,’ so you give them A, B and C, and then, ‘No, we need this and then we’ll talk to you,'” Hansen said. “So you did it, and they keep lying.”

JPMorgan Chase said in a statement, “Chase does not own this mortgage but services it on behalf of its investor, Fannie Mae, and must follow all investor guidelines.” It’s easy for distressed homeowners in these types of situations to view the banks as the bad guys, but to be fair, Chase recently began refinancing thousands of loans. Last year, as part of the $25 billion mortgage settlement, Chase offered $4.2 billion toward mortgage relief to slash the interest rates and principal loan balances of thousands of underwater borrowers.

Hansen’s attorney, Keith Gantenbein, said many Colorado homeowners find themselves in situations similar to Hansen’s because the state’s foreclosure practice is “very one-sided for lenders.” He told KMGH, “There isn’t a lot of due process protections for borrowers to say, ‘Hey, I don’t feel like I’m being treated fairly.'” The Gantenbein Law Firm estimates that about 20 percent of borrowers are underwater in Colorado. Nationally, 28.2 percent of borrowers were underwater in the third quarter of 2012, according to Zillow.

Hansen said her message to Chase was a last-ditch effort to save her home. “Doing this and making it personal, writing to Jaime Dimon was hard,” she said. “I never wanted to pick a fight with the bank, but you can make a choice. You can make a choice to stand up for what you believe in.”

If you, your family, friends, neighbors or associates have been subjected to Bank Misconduct, 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