The Resolution Law Group: Volcker Rule is Approved by SEC, FDIC, Federal Reserve, CFTC, and OCC

Five regulatory agencies in the US have voted to approve the Volcker Rule today. The measure establishes new hurdles for banks that engage in market timing and will limit compensation arrangements that previously provided incentive for high risk trading.

While the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation voted unanimously to approve the Volcker Rule, the Securities and Exchange Commission approved it in a 3-2 vote, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission approved it in a 3-1 vote, and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency’s sole voting member also said yes. President Barack Obama praised the rule’s finalization. He believes it will improve accountability and create a safer financial system.

Named after ex-Federal Chairman Paul Volcker, the rule sets up guidelines that impose risk-taking limits for banks with federally insured deposits. It mandates that they show the way their hedging strategies are designed to function, as well as set up approval procedures for any diversions from these plans. Per the rule’s preamble, banks have to make sure hedges are geared to mitigate risks upon “inception” and this needs to be “based on analysis” regarding the appropriateness of strategies, hedging instruments, limits, techniques, as well as the correlation between the hedge and underlying risks.

Banks with federal insured deposits won’t able to take part in proprietary trading, which involves engaging in risky investment endeavors for their own benefits. They also won’t be allowed to take ownership stakes in private equity funds and hedge funds.

Unlike an earlier version of the rule, which gave an exemption to the proprietary trading ban involving US Treasury securities, this final rule lets firms trade foreign debt. That said, foreign banks in the US will have to contend with stringent trading restrictions and overseas banks with US offices won’t be allowed to sell, buy or hedge investments for profit.

According to CNN.com, advocates of reform believe that with the Volcker Rule’s restrictions taxpayers wont have to bail out these institutions In the future. Meanwhile, representatives of the industry are calling measure burdensome and too complicated.

Banks wanted the rule to protect market timing (with the firms hold the securities to engage in customer transactions). They also wanted to keep their ability to trade for hedging purposes.

Now, with the Volcker Rule, to show that they are taking part in market making (rather than speculation), banks will need to demonstrate that trades are being determined by customers’ “reasonably expected near-term demands,” and that historic demand and existing market conditions have been factored into the equation. Also, although banks will now have to contend with more limits on foreign bond trading, they can still take part in the proprietary trading of federal, state, municipal, and government-backed entities’ bonds.

As for hedging, firms will have to identify specific risks that such activities would offset. Bankers involved in hedging won’t be compensated in a manner that rewards proprietary trading.

The Resolution Law Group represents institutional investors and high net worth individual investors throughout the US. We help our clients recover their securities fraud losses

Advertisements

The Resolution Law Group: JPMorgan to Pay $920M to Settle London Whale Debacle & $80M Over Credit-Card Practice Allegations

JPMorgan Chase (JPM) has agreed to pay a $920 million fine to resolve securities fraud investigations conducted by the Federal Reserve, the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, and the Financial Conduct Authority in London. The probes were related to the multibillion-dollar trading losses the bank is blamed for in last year’s London Whale debacle.

The regulators cited JPMorgan for “deficiencies” related to controls assessments, risk oversight, and internal financial reporting. The bank’s senior management is getting the brunt of the blame for purportedly not citing concerns about the losses to the board. However, no charges have been filed in this case against any executive.

Also, the SEC was able to extract an acknowledgement from JPMorgan that it was in violation of federal securities laws over this matter. This comes in the wake of the regulator’s decision to reverse its policy that previously let banks settle without having to deny or admit to having done anything wrong.

The admission could put JPMorgan at a disadvantage in any private securities lawsuits from investors who may have been hurt by the trading fiasco, during which complex derivatives were traded, including those amassed by one now former JPMorgan trader who became known as the London Whale. Traders are accused of betting on credit derivatives, which let them wager on certain companies’ perceived health. Authorities say that when positions started to sour, the trades were still valued in too optimistic light, with their worth purposely inflated by traders. JPMorgan would lose $600 billion in the debacle.

As part of this securities settlement, the bank will pay $200 million each to the SEC, the Federal Reserve, and the Financial Conduct Authority, and $300 million to the comptroller’s office.

The settlements, issued today, revealed even more details about the bank’s failures over the London Whale trades, including that trading loss were a result of accounting controls that were “woefully deficient” in the chief investment office, miscalculations on spreadsheets, the standard employed for traders’ valuations were “subjective,” and the group tasked with checking the estimated losses and profits of traders was comprised of just one person.

Meantime, JPMorgan has yet to reach a settlement with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, which is trying to determine whether the bank’s trading manipulated the market for the derivatives. However, the agency’s staff is recommending that it file an enforcement action.

Also today, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and the comptroller’s office imposed fines against the bank over credit card practices. The financial firm consented to pay $80 million over allegations that it deceived customers with credit cards into purchasing products that were supposed to protect them from identity fraud. However, the regulators say that products, which were offered by JPMorgan Chase between ’05 and 6/ ’12, were never created.

Already, the bank has paid about $300 million to over 2 million customers over this matter. $60 million of the $80 million settlement will go to the comptroller’s office while the bureau will get the remaining $20 million. The comptroller’s office also took issue with how JPMorgan gets back debt from customers, such as depending on potentially inaccurate documentation to determine how much a customer is owed.

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

 

California AG Files Lawsuit Against JP Morgan Chase Alleging Debt Collection Abuse Over 100,000 Credit Card Cases

According to California Attorney General Kamala Harris, JP Morgan Chase (JPM) filed about 100,000 credit card debt collection lawsuits between 2008 and 2011 without conducting sufficient research to properly assess the cases’ merits. The bank reportedly submitted 200 lawsuits over 15 weeks in 2011, including 32 lawsuits on January 5, 2011. Now, Harris is suing the banking giant, accusing it of “debt collection abuse” while victimizing tens of thousands of state residents.

Per the complaint, Chase prioritized saving money and speed, even “robo-signing” legal documents without sufficiently evaluating the evidence and engaging in other “unlawful practices.” The state points to questionable documents and incomplete records that were purportedly used to back up the cases. Harris, who contends that JPMorgan’s “debt collection mill” abused the state’s judicial process, wants damages for borrowers.

Meantime, JPMorgan is cooperating regulators, including the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, which is getting ready to file an enforcement action against it ,also over its handling of credit card debt collection. The firm reviewed its debt collection procedures in 2011 and it is no longer filing credit card lawsuits.

After spending the last few years focusing on the way lenders went after homeowners who couldn’t pay their mortgages on time—in 2012, five banks settled for $26 billion with 49 state attorneys general over the way homes were wrongfully seized—regulators are now focusing on the former’s handling of credit card debt.

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

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

THE RESOLUTION LAW GROUP, P.C: The government was a major contributor to the current housing crisis by helping the banks and servicers carry out their practices that were designed to maximize bank profits and were destined to create the largest housing and financial crisis of all time.

The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) and the Federal Reserve announced another “huge” settlement with some of the larger banks. Geoffrey Broderick, the senior partner of the Resolution Law Group, says “This is another headline designed to make homeowners believe that the Government is taking steps to hold banks and servicers accountable for the mess that has been created.” What had previously been rumored as a $10 billion for 14 servicers, turned out to be $8.5 billion for 10 servicers.  $3.3 billion has been earmarked for direct payments to “eligible borrowers” who were wrongfully foreclosed – assuming a process can be created to identify these former homeowners who were wrongfully displaced from their homes.  The balance of the money, $5.2 billion will be “soft dollars” applied to loan modifications and short sale relief.
Mr. Broderick adds that “The government was a major contributor to the current housing crisis by helping the banks and servicers carry out their practices that were designed to maximize bank profits and were destined to create the largest housing and financial crisis of all time.”
This so-called “huge” settlement will not provide meaningful relief for homeowners and will not fix the problems most borrowers continue to face.  Mr. Broderick maintains that the Government, by announcing  a series of settlements and programs, is simply confirming its partnership with banks and financial institutions, and the headlines and press releases fail to inform homeowners that the new arrangement eliminates the Independent Foreclosure Review, a program that was supposed to give homeowners an opportunity to have an unbiased third-party review their foreclosure and determine whether they might qualify for a cash payment f up to $125,000.
The Resolution Law Group continues to prosecute ground breaking litigation in Federal Court on behalf of homeowners suing lenders and servicers for, among other things, the illegal use of MERS, robo-signing, and intentionally ignoring underwriting standards and encouraging inflated appraisals.
Prospective clients are invited to call the law firm or visit its website at www.TheResolutionLawGroup.com