lawsuit

menafn.com…

(MENAFN) MasterCard Inc said that during the fourth quarter, the company recorded a charge of USD495 million to cover lawsuit losses, reported Gulf News. The company added that the lawsuit was …

Here is the original post:
MasterCard records USD495m charge in Q4

Find our Weekly Commercial Real Estate, Private Equity and Fund Newsletters at www.WeeklyBrief.net

{ 0 comments }

Huffington Post…

Nearly a hundred warehouse workers in California who spoke up about alleged wage violations and unsafe working conditions fear they now may lose their jobs. The workers, most of whom load and unload goods destined for Walmart stores, filed a class action lawsuit in the fall against staffing company Rogers-Premier Unloading Services, their employer, and against Schneider Logistics, the company that’s contracted by Walmart to oversee the Riverside County warehouse. The workers contended that they often weren’t paid the legal minimum wage or overtime and were threatened with termination when they complained. Now, the workers say they’ve been notified by management that their jobs will be end on Feb. 24, when a contract between Rogers-Premier and Schneider apparently comes to a close. Erin Elliott, a spokeswoman for Schneider, said that the move was “solely the decision of Rogers-Premier” and that the company will no longer provide workers to the Schneider facilities in Elwood, Ill., or Savannah, Ga., either. Rogers-Premier did not respond to a request for comment. Daniel Lopez, who has been loading trucks at the warehouse since 2009, said he was notified both orally and in writing that his job would end next month. “They just asked us to stay on with them until that day,” said Lopez, 32. Problems at the warehouse first came to light in October, when the California labor department announced it had launched an investigation into alleged labor law violations. Two staffing operations at the facility were cited for not properly maintaining time records for their workers and hit with fines totaling more than $1 million. Six workers filed the class action lawsuit on the heels of the state inspections, alleging they were routinely short-changed on their paychecks and required to work in excessively hot conditions. Warehouses like the Schneider facility commonly use temporary workers who are paid low wages and labor without benefits. As HuffPost detailed in an article last month, allegations of wage theft and other workplace abuses are common at the warehouses in the Inland Empire area of Southern California, one of the largest distribution nexuses in the world. The workers at such facilities — many of whom are Latino immigrants — may be employed directly by small labor agencies, but they often move products for the benefit of mega-retailers like Walmart. Officials with Warehouse Workers United , an advocacy group leading a unionization effort in the Inland Empire, predict that the Rogers-Premier workers will ultimately lose their jobs because they spurred a state investigation and sued their employer. “Either they’re getting fired as retaliation or because the company can’t make any money” while under scrutiny from investigators, argued Sheheryar Kaoosji, an organizer with the group. “Either way, it shows a problem.” Some of the workers held a demonstration with members of Occupy Riverside outside the warehouse on Wednesday morning. The group is calling on Schneider to make sure that the workers find continued employment at the warehouse through another staffing firm. Schneider spokeswoman Elliott says, “If we have openings, we would deal with them in the ordinary fashion, through screening and hiring.” In the lawsuit filed in October, the workers contended that they “spend their workdays performing strenuous, unskilled physical labor in an environment where the temperature often exceeds 90 degrees.” When they questioned their paychecks, their bosses “routinely responded with threats of retaliation and actual retaliation, including by sending the inquiring workers home without pay, refusing to give them work the next day … and imposing other forms of discipline on them,” according to the lawsuit. Lopez said that there were times in 2009 when he worked double shifts several days in a row and never received overtime pay. He added that when he started at the warehouse he was paid at an hourly rate, but he was eventually switched to a “piece rate” under which he was compensated based on the number of trucks he loaded. In the lawsuit, the workers say that they were told their pay would rise under the piece rate plan, but that, in fact, it went down. Lopez said he has been looking for work at other warehouses, although he hasn’t had any luck yet. “Because we know our rights, we spoke up,” Lopez said. “And I’m glad we spoke up. We’re not going to have a job, but I don’t regret it.”

Read the original:
Warehouse Woes: Workers Say They’re Losing Jobs For Speaking Up

Find our Weekly Commercial Real Estate, Private Equity and Fund Newsletters at www.WeeklyBrief.net

{ 0 comments }

More Defendants Would Admit Guilt Under New SEC Policy

January 6, 2012

In a change of policy that comes after more than two years of public and embarrassing scoldings by a federal judge, the Securities and Exchange Commission will now force some defendants to do something they’ve never had to do in order to settle their case: confess. Companies and individuals that settle a civil case with the SEC that also have admitted to or been convicted of criminal violations in a related matter will no longer be allowed to say that they “neither admit nor deny” the agency’s charges, according to the agency. The policy would end a practice that allowed such celebrated villains as Bernard Madoff — who was sentenced to 150 years in prison for masterminding the biggest financial con job in history — to settle charges with the SEC without admitting wrongdoing. However, it wouldn’t affect most SEC settlements, which come independent of any criminal charges. Prior to the change, the SEC, which has the power to file civil, but not criminal charges, included the boilerplate disclaimer in every settlement deal reviewed by the Center for Public Integrity in an analysis last year. “This is a logical updating of the commission’s enforcement policies” said Thomas Gorman, a Washington partner at the law firm Dorsey & Whitney, who writes the SEC Actions blog . “But it doesn’t signal a fundamental shift in policy that will affect the typical civil enforcement action.” That means that high-profile civil defendants will still be able to settle charges without admitting to any wrongdoing. Some recent examples include: Michael Dell, founder of the giant computer manufacturer, who agreed to pay $4 million to settle accounting fraud charges; Steven Rattner, the Obama administration’s one-time auto czar, who agreed to pay $6.2 million to settle pay-for-play charges involving the New York state pension fund; and Paul George Chironis, a broker-dealer at a now-defunct firm, who paid $350,000 to settle charges that he defrauded a group of elderly Sisters of Charity nuns in the Bronx. It also probably won’t do anything to lower the temperature in a public spat between New York Federal District Judge Jed Rakoff and the SEC over whether agency settlements are fair to the public. In a 2010 ruling, the judge “reluctantly” approved a $150 million agency settlement with Bank of America over its Merrill Lynch acquisition, after having rejected an earlier, smaller deal. He said that allowing defendants to walk away without admitting guilt is a “palpable” disservice to the public interest. “Here an agency of the United States is saying, in effect, ‘Although we claim that these defendants have done terrible things, they refuse to admit it and we do not propose to prove it, but will simply resort to gagging their right to deny it,’” he wrote. More recently, Rakoff rejected a proposed $285 million settlement with Citigroup Inc. over charges that it sold risky mortgage-backed securities without telling investors that it was also betting against the debt. Once again, Rakoff said the “neither admit nor deny” language left him no way to determine whether the settlement was fair. The SEC is now appealing Rakoff’s decision in the Citigroup case. The SEC’s traditional explanation for including the boilerplate language had been that defendants will not agree to settle a case if they have to admit wrongdoing because doing so would expose them to future lawsuits from whoever might claim to have been harmed by their actions. But this explanation didn’t make much sense in instances where that same defendant was already admitting to wrongdoing in a criminal case. For example, the SEC and the Justice Department announced on the same day last year that Wachovia had agreed to pay $148 million to settle charges that it rigged bids in the municipal securities market. The bank said it “admits, acknowledges and accepts responsibility for” manipulating the bidding process in the Justice Department deal. But it didn’t admit any wrongdoing in the SEC settlement. For its part, the SEC seems to be downplaying the significance of the change in policy and also serving notice that the change doesn’t mean it is kowtowing to Rakoff. “This policy change does not affect our traditional ‘neither admit nor deny’ approach in settlements that do not involve criminal convictions or admissions of criminal law violations,” the agency said in a press release. “In particular, it is separate from and unrelated to the recent ruling in the Citigroup case, which does not involve a criminal conviction or admissions of criminal law violations.”

Read the full article →

JPMorgan Chase Sued Over Allegedly Misrepresenting Mortgage Loans

January 3, 2012

JPMorgan Chase & Co has been sued for $95 million by the trustee for securities marketed in 2005 by the former Bear Stearns Cos over alleged misrepresentations regarding the underlying mortgage loans. US Bank NA wants to force JPMorgan to buy back the mortgage loans because of alleged breaches of representations and warranties regarding the Bear Stearns Asset Backed Securities Trust 2005-4, for which it serves as trustee. It also said JPMorgan has refused to provide the underlying loan, as the trust documents require, so it can investigate the extent of the alleged breaches. The unit of US Bancorp said it made its request at the direction of a majority certificate holder in the trust. US Bank also sued Bear Stearns and its former EMC Mortgage Corp unit. JPMorgan bought Bear Stearns in 2008. A JPMorgan spokeswoman did not immediately respond to requests for comment. The lawsuit was filed on Friday in the New York State Supreme Court in Manhattan, and publicly docketed on Tuesday. It is one of many lawsuits seeking to hold banks responsible for investor losses over mortgages that may have been toxic, defective or improperly underwritten. The case is Bear Stearns Asset Backed Securities Trust 2005-4 v. EMC Mortgage Corp et al, New York State Supreme Court, New York County, No. 650003/2012. Copyright 2011 Thomson Reuters. Click for Restrictions .

Read the full article →

Jury ‘Confused’ By Huge Tech Lawsuit

December 15, 2011

SALT LAKE CITY — Jurors deliberating Wednesday in a Utah company’s $1 billion federal antitrust lawsuit against Microsoft Corp. appeared confused, sending at least five questions to the judge, one of which couldn’t be answered. Novell Inc. sued Microsoft in 2004, claiming the Redmond, Wash.-based technology giant duped it into developing a version of its WordPerfect writing program for Windows 95 only to pull the plug so Microsoft could gain market share with its own word program. Jurors started deliberating at about 8:45 a.m. Wednesday and didn’t go home until about 7:45 p.m., the Salt Lake Tribune reported. They’ll resume their discussions Thursday. During the day, the judge received notes from the panel seeking clarification on some of the technical testimony throughout the two-month trial. One message so baffled U.S. District Judge J. Frederick Motz that he told jurors to simply disregard their own question in deliberations. Tensions were high among lawyers waiting for what could be an enormous verdict. Novell is seeking up to $1.3 billion from Microsoft. If the jury rules against Novell, its attorneys will have little to show for a decade of effort. Throughout the trial, Novell lawyers argued that because its office products worked on multiple operating systems, Microsoft’s snub of WordPerfect for Windows 95 was an illegal effort to maintain its monopoly. Microsoft countered that it had valid business reasons to deny WordPerfect a set of software tools that threatened to crash new Windows technology. They say Novell could have worked around the problem but moved too slow. Microsoft says Novell’s ensuing loss of market share was its own doing because the company didn’t develop a compatible WordPerfect program until long after the Windows 95 rollout. WordPerfect once had nearly 50 percent of the market for word processing, but its share quickly plummeted to less than 10 percent as Microsoft’s own Office programs took hold. “Novell was late. It was always behind. It was playing catch-up,” Microsoft attorney David Tulchin said during closing arguments Tuesday. Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates testified last month that he had no idea his decision to drop a tool for outside developers would sidetrack Novell. He denied Novell’s claim that Microsoft intentionally deceived the company. Gates also said Novell just couldn’t deliver a compatible WordPerfect program in time for the rollout, and that Microsoft’s own Word program was actually better. He said that by 1994, the Word writing program was ranked No. 1 in the market, above WordPerfect. Novell argued that Gates ordered Microsoft engineers to reject WordPerfect as a Windows 95 application because he feared it was too good. Novell’s lawsuit is the last major private antitrust case to follow the settlement of a federal antitrust enforcement action against Microsoft more than eight years ago. The trial began in October in federal court in Salt Lake City. Novell is now a wholly owned subsidiary of The Attachmate Group, the result of a merger that was completed earlier this year.

Read the full article →

Scam Poses As Email From Better Business Bureau

December 7, 2011

An email with the subject line “Complaint from your customers” may be a scam, according to an urgent scam alert issued today by the Council of Better Business Bureaus. The Council warned businesses and consumers that the return email address, riskmanager@bbb.org, is not an address the BBB uses, according to an email from BBB spokesperson Kelsey Owen. The fake scam email is signed with the address of the Council of Better Business Bureaus, which is the national office of the BBB system, but links to a non-BBB website. Owen, in her email alert, warns, “Do NOT click on the link.” While a scam email has been circulating for a couple weeks, the Council of Better Business Bureaus received another email with a malicious link today. “We’re considering this a second wave,” Owen told The Huffington Post. She confirms that other businesses have received the suspect email today: “The phones are ringing off the hook.” The BBB has requested that recipients of the scam email alert the BBB at https://www.bbb.org/scam/report-a-scam/ . In the meantime, Owen says they’re trying to track down whoever sent the email. “We have the FBI looking into it,” she says.

Read the full article →

BP executives get U.S. investor lawsuit dismissed

September 16, 2011

By Moira Herbst (Reuters) – Current and former BP executives and directors won dismissal on Thursday of one of several U.S.-shareholder lawsuits filed over last year’s Gulf of Mexico oil spill. A federal court in Houston said it was more appropriate that investors file their lawsuit in the United Kingdom because the company is based in London. “English law governs this dispute and will determine whether the individual defendants breached their fiduciary duties and harmed BP in the process,” wrote U.S. District Judge Keith Ellison. BP declined to comment. Plaintiffs’ attorneys did not respond to a request for comment. The U.S. court could reassert jurisdiction if the UK courts refuse to take the case, the ruling said. Investors had argued in their lawsuit that the company’s management and board were responsible for the disaster because they knowingly prioritized cost-cutting over safety. Other oil spill-related lawsuits brought by BP shareholders — including one brought by New York and Ohio state pension funds alleging securities fraud and another brought by BP employees alleging violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)– are still before Ellison’s court. Separately, hundreds of cases involving economic loss, wrongful death and personal injury are currently before a federal judge in New Orleans. The Macondo well blow-out led to the death of 11 men and was the biggest offshore oil spill in U.S. history. U.S. authorities placed most of the blame on BP in a report issued on Wednesday. The case is In re BP Shareholder Derivative Litigation, U.S. District Court, Southern District of Texas, No. 10-cv03447, (Reporting by Moira Herbst in New York; Editing by Tim Dobbyn)

Read the full article →

HP execs misled investors before August stock crash: lawsuit

September 15, 2011

(Reuters) – Hewlett-Packard Co and top executives misled investors for months before unveiling a series of major decisions, such as the demise of the TouchPad, that hammered its shares, a shareholder alleged in a proposed class-action lawsuit filed this week. Shareholder Richard Gammel accuses the world’s largest technology company of concealing the fact that its existing business model was not working and that webOS — the operating software it inherited after buying Palm — was no longer central to its business model. On August 18, the U.S. tech giant stunned Wall Street by saying it was considering a spinoff of the world’s largest PC business, killing off webOS devices such as the TouchPad, and buying British software company Autonomy Corp for $12 billion. Shares of the company plunged 20 percent the following day, marking their biggest single-day drop since the Black Monday stock market collapse of 1987. The lawsuit, filed this week in U.S. District Court by Robbins Geller Rudman & Down, accuses HP executives including CEO Leo Apotheker and CFO Cathie Lesjak of misleading investors by making positive statements about the company’s performance that later proved unfounded. The lawsuit seeks to recover unspecified damages on behalf of any who bought into HP between November 22, 2010, and Aug 18 of this year, arguing that the lack of disclosure about potential issues means its shares were artificially inflated. HP did not respond to requests for comment. Lawsuits by shareholders seeking class-action status are common after major declines in stock prices. Investor ire against Apotheker has grown after a series of disappointments in quarterly results, capped by the August announcements. Some also say HP is overpaying for Autonomy. (Reporting by Edwin Chan in Los Angeles, editing by Matthew Lewis)

Read the full article →

Bank stocks slide on mortgage lawsuit and worries

September 6, 2011

CHARLOTTE, North Carolina (Reuters) – JPMorgan Chase & Co, the second largest U.S. bank by assets, led a broader decline in bank share prices, as investors feared lenders face a growing list of lawsuits due to problem mortgages. Late on Friday, the Federal Housing Finance Agency sued 17 large U.S. banks over $200 billion in subprime mortgage-backed bonds, now owned by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. JPMorgan shares declined 3.7 percent at $33.34 in midday trading, outpacing a 3.4 percent decline in Bank of America and a 2.9 percent fall for Citigroup Inc shares. JPMorgan’s share price drop also exceeded the 1.8 percent decline in the KBW Bank Index and the broader S&P 500 Index. Analysts said investors are becoming concerned the industry faces a long slog of litigation due to now-toxic mortgages. The suit by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac’s regulator, they said, is just the latest addition to those worries. “When you have a regulator suing on behalf of the parties it regulates, that’s bad news,” said Jefferson Harralson, a bank analyst with Keefe, Bruyette & Woods Inc. In August, investors pounded the shares of Bank of America Corp, the largest U.S. bank, on fears it would need to raise as much as $50 billion in capital to absorb mortgage losses and fight related litigation. Bank of America shares dropped were at $7.05 at midday, but the shares declined as low as $6.80, below the stock’s closing price of $6.99 before billionaire investor Warren Buffett agreed to purchase $5 billion in preferred stock. The deal, announced on August 25, sent Bank of America shares up by as much as 26 percent. Also on Tuesday, Nomura cut its price targets for U.S. bank stocks, citing a weak economic recovery, low interest rates, rising litigation costs and a slowdown in capital markets activity. (Reporting by Joe Rauch; editing by Andre Grenon)

Read the full article →

Judge Overturns Oracle’s $1.3 Billion Win

September 1, 2011

SAN FRANCISCO — A federal judge has overturned a $1.3 billion verdict against business software maker SAP, calling it “grossly excessive.” The ruling Thursday is a major victory for SAP AG and an unexpected setback for Oracle Corp., which filed the case. Oracle’s outspoken CEO Larry Ellison had used evidence that an SAP subsidiary had stolen software and customer-support documents from password-protected Oracle websites as a platform to slam his longtime nemesis. The jury award in November capped a circus-like trial in which Ellison taunted not only SAP but also its former CEO, Leo Apotheker, who is now CEO of Hewlett-Packard Co., another Oracle rival. Oracle, based in Redwood Shores, Calif., is the leading maker of database software, which helps companies organize their information. Its aggressive expansion into business applications has forced Oracle into a faceoff with SAP, the leader in that space. Late last year, a jury found that SAP plundered software and documents from Oracle’s secured websites and awarded Oracle $1.3 billion in damages. SAP admitted that a now-shuttered subsidiary was secretly siphoning off instruction manuals and technical specifications for Oracle’s software. But its lawyers argued that Oracle’s claims of injury were exaggerated. Judge Phyllis Hamilton in in U.S. District Court in Oakland, Calif., the site of the three-week trial, said the penalty was “contrary to the weight of the evidence” in the high-profile case. Oracle’s stock fell 23 cents, or 0.8 percent, to close Thursday at $27.84. SAP’s stock fell 75 cents, or 1.4 percent, to $53.76.

Read the full article →

Microsoft Sued By Customers

August 31, 2011

By Dan Levine SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) – Microsoft allegedly tracks the location of its mobile customers even after users request that tracking software be turned off, according to a new lawsuit. The proposed class action, filed in a Seattle federal court on Wednesday, says Microsoft intentionally designed camera software on the Windows Phone 7 operating system to ignore customer requests that they not be tracked. A Microsoft representative could not immediately be reached for comment. The lawsuit comes after concerns surfaced earlier this year that Apple’s iPhones collected location data and stored it for up to a year, even when location software was supposedly turned off. Apple issued a patch to fix the problem. However, the revelation prompted renewed scrutiny of the nexus between location and privacy. At a hearing in May, U.S. lawmakers accused the tech industry of exploiting location data for marketing purposes — a potentially multibillion-dollar industry — without getting proper consent from millions of Americans. The lawsuit against Microsoft cites a letter the company sent to Congress, in which Microsoft said it only collects geolocation data with the express consent of the user. “Microsoft’s representations to Congress were false,” the lawsuit says. The litigation, brought on behalf of a Windows Phone 7 user, claims Microsoft transmits data — including approximate latitude and longitude coordinates of the user’s device — while the camera application is activated. It seeks an injunction and punitive damages, among other remedies. The case in U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington is Rebecca Cousineau, individually on her own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Microsoft Corp., 11-cv-1438. (Reporting by Dan Levine, editing by Bernard Orr) Copyright 2011 Thomson Reuters. Click for Restrictions

Read the full article →

Tobacco Companies Sue Federal Government Over Graphic Cigarette Warning Labels

August 17, 2011

COLUMBIA, S.C. — Four of the five largest U.S. tobacco companies sued the federal government Tuesday over new graphic cigarette labels that include the sewn-up corpse of a smoker and a picture of diseased lungs, saying the warnings violate their free speech rights and will cost millions of dollars to print. The companies, led by R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., Lorillard Tobacco Co., said the warnings no longer simply convey facts to allow people to make a decision whether to smoke. They instead force them to put government anti-smoking advocacy more prominently on their packs than their own brands, the companies say. They want a judge to stop the labels. “Never before in the United States have producers of a lawful product been required to use their own packaging and advertising to convey an emotionally-charged government message urging adult consumers to shun their products,” the companies wrote in the lawsuit filed in federal court in Washington, D.C. The FDA refused to comment, saying the agency does not discuss pending litigation. But when she announced the new labels in June, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius called them frank and honest warnings about the dangers of smoking. The FDA approved nine new warnings to rotate on cigarette packs. They will be printed on the entire top half, front and back, of the packaging. The new warnings also must constitute 20 percent of any cigarette advertising. They also all include a number for stop-smoking hotline One warning label is a picture of a corpse with its chest sewed up and the words: “Smoking can kill you.” Another label has a picture of a healthy pair of lungs beside a yellow and black pair with a warning that smoking causes fatal lung disease. The lawsuit said the images were manipulated to be especially emotional. The tobacco companies said the corpse photo is actually an actor with a fake scar, while the healthy lungs were sanitized to make the diseased organ look worse. The companies also said the new labels will cost them millions of dollars for new equipment so they can frequently change from warning to warning and designers to make sure the labels meet federal requirements while maintaining some distinction among brands. Joining R.J. Reynolds and Lorillard in the suit are Commonwealth Brands Inc., Liggett Group LLC and Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company Inc. Altria Group Inc., parent company of the nation’s largest cigarette maker, Philip Morris USA, is not a part of the lawsuit. The free speech lawsuit is a different action than a suit by several of the same companies over the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act. The law, which took affect two years ago, cleared the way for the more graphic warning labels, but also allowed the FDA to limit nicotine. The law also banned tobacco companies from sponsoring athletic or social events and prevented them from giving away free samples or branded merchandise. A federal judge upheld many parts of the law, but the companies are appealing.

Read the full article →

Bank Of America Stock Drops 20 Percent Following $10 Billion Lawsuit

August 9, 2011

Bank of America stocks tumbled 20 percent on Monday as investors reacted in part to a $10 billion lawsuit that the insurance corporation American International Group brought against the company. The dramatic single-day drop was reminiscent of market plunges during the financial crisis of 2008, and stood out even amongst a market-wide spate of sell-offs that left the Dow Jones industrial average more than 600 points down on the day. BofA closed at $6.51 on Monday, a 20.32 percent drop from the opening bell, after a day of rapid stock declines that saw the Dow shed 634 points. The Dow closed at 10,809 after dipping below 11,000 for the first time since November 2010, making Monday the sixth-worst trading day in Dow history . Elsewhere in the market, the S&P 500 Index fell by 6.66 percent and the NASDAQ Composite closed at 6.9 percent down. On Monday, AIG announced that it was suing Bank of America for more than $10 billion, alleging that BofA, and its acquisitions Merrill Lynch and Countrywide Financial, participated in “massive fraud” when they sold mortgage-backed securities to AIG between 2005 and 2007. AIG says that more than 40 percent of the mortgages were presented as being more secure than they actually were. A spokesman for Bank of America has countered that AIG “is the very definition of an informed, seasoned investor” and should be held responsible for any purchases it made. The slide in BofA stocks, the worst since April 2009, was reflected in declines among other major lenders. Citigroup was down 16 percent at the end of the day, Morgan Stanley closed down 14 percent, JPMorgan and Wells Fargo were each down 9 percent and Goldman Sachs fell 6 percent. AIG’s own stock fell 10 percent to $22.58. Bank of America, the country’s largest banks by assets, has seen the value of its stock decline by 54 percent since the start of 2011. Last month, BofA reported losses of $8.8 billion in the second quarter , its worst quarterly earnings report ever. On Wednesday, BofA CEO Brian Moynihan will answer shareholder questions during a 90-minute conference call. A press release from Fairholme Capital Management , a major shareholder with BofA, says that “skeptics are invited to participate.” Monday’s market plunge is seen as a response to Standard & Poor’s historic downgrade of the United States’ credit rating last Friday, as well as concerns that Italy and Spain could slip into default as part of the worsening European debt crisis. Investors have also seen a series of disappointing economic reports in recent days, raising fears that the U.S. economy may be headed for a double-dip recession.

Read the full article →

SEC And Ex-Goldman Trader Drop Litigation

August 5, 2011

NEW YORK (Jonathan Stempel) – Former Goldman Sachs Group Inc (GS.N) director Rajat Gupta and the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission are dropping litigation against each other stemming from the sprawling federal insider trading probe. The agreement, revealed Thursday in a court filing, for now ends litigation against Gupta, a former chief of consulting firm McKinsey & Co and one of the highest-profile defendants accused by the government of wrongdoing. Investigators have said Gupta passed tips to Galleon Group hedge fund founder Raj Rajaratnam about Goldman, including a possible multibillion dollar investment from Warren Buffett, and Procter & Gamble Co (PG.N), where Gupta was also a director. Prosecutors named Gupta as an unindicted co-conspirator in that case, which led to Rajaratnam’s conviction in May, but have not charged him criminally. Citing the “public interest,” the SEC dismissed administrative proceedings filed on March 1 accusing Gupta of passing tips illegally to Rajaratnam. “Dismissing these proceedings will not prevent the Commission from filing an action against Mr. Gupta in United States District Court,” the dismissal order shows. As a result of the dismissal, Gupta agreed to dismiss his lawsuit filed in Manhattan federal court against the SEC. In it, Gupta accused the regulator of depriving him of a jury trial and other procedural safeguards by bringing administrative proceedings rather than filing a lawsuit. SEC STILL “COMMITTED” TO CASE A two-page letter agreement between Gupta and the SEC was made public on Thursday by U.S. District Judge Jed Rakoff, who presided over Gupta’s lawsuit. He said that agreement will moot that case. “Mr. Gupta is very pleased that as a result of his lawsuit the SEC has dismissed its administrative proceeding and he will no longer be singled out for disparate treatment,” his lawyer Gary Naftalis said in a statement. “Mr. Gupta’s lawsuit against the SEC has achieved all of the relief he sought. As we’ve said previously, the SEC’s allegations are totally baseless.” SEC spokesman John Nester said: “The staff is fully committed to the case and will proceed as appropriate.” A spokeswoman for U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara in New York declined to comment. RECORDED PHONE CALLS Gupta had been accused by the SEC of passing advance tips about Goldman’s financial results, and a $5 billion investment from Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway Inc (BRKa.N) (BRKb.N) at the height of the 2008 financial crisis. On May 11, a federal jury convicted Rajaratnam of 14 securities fraud and conspiracy charges related to insider trading. At Rajaratnam’s trial, prosecutors played secretly recorded phone calls to show Gupta’s alleged tips. In one, Rajaratnam and Gupta discussed a Goldman board meeting. In another, Rajaratnam told a Galleon colleague that a Goldman director provided him with details that the bank was on track for a surprise loss in the fourth quarter of 2008. Rajaratnam is expected to be sentenced in the criminal case on September 27. He also faces SEC civil charges. The case is Gupta v. SEC, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, No. 11-01900. (Editing by Tim Dobbyn and Lisa Shumaker) Copyright 2011 Thomson Reuters. Click for Restrictions .

Read the full article →

Navajo Nation Settles Allegations Against Coal Company

August 5, 2011

FLAGSTAFF, Ariz. — The Navajo Nation has settled its allegations that a coal mining company conspired with others to cheat the tribe out of hundreds of millions of dollars in royalties. The tribe and Peabody Energy announced a settlement Thursday that stemmed from a 1999 lawsuit the tribe filed in federal court, but the terms are confidential. The Navajo Nation had sought to reform the leases granted to Peabody some 40 years ago and recover what it claimed was $600 million in lost coal royalties. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled against the tribe in a similar lawsuit filed against the federal government. “The nation is pleased that the issue is now behind us,” said Navajo Department of Justice attorney William Johnson. “The revenue that the companies provide will allow the nation to assist its elderly, provide scholarships for the students and provide services for the Navajo people.” Representatives of Peabody, and the Salt River Project and Southern California Edison – two utilities that benefit from power plants fed by the coal Peabody mines from the Navajo and Hopi reservations in northeastern Arizona – echoed that sentiment. “Mining on Black Mesa is a major economic staple, contributing more than $12 billion in direct and indirect economic benefits to the region since the operations began,” said G. Brad Brown, a Peabody senior vice president. A federal judge dismissed the lawsuit with prejudice, months after the parties began another round of mediation to try to resolve their differences. Claims brought by the Hopi Tribe, which sought unspecified damages and reformation of its lease with Peabody, were dismissed last year, according to court documents. The Navajo Nation approved a lease for Peabody in 1964 that was worth 37.5 cents a ton for the tribe, about 2 percent of gross proceeds. When the lease came up for renewal 20 years later, the Navajo Nation sought a higher royalty rate of 20 percent. That effort was backed by the Navajo-area U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs director. But before the rate was set, then-Interior Secretary Donald Hodel met with a Peabody lobbyist and blocked the rate, forcing the tribe back into negotiations. The tribe, not knowing what became of its proposal, later agreed to a 12.5 percent royalty, the then-standard rate for federal coal leases. Navajo lawmakers recently approved a royalty reopener agreement with Peabody that maintained the 12.5 percent rate but increased scholarship payments to the tribe and provided for bonus payments. “The leases will still continue,” Johnson said.

Read the full article →

For-Profit College Chain In Kentucky Accused Of Cheating Students Out Of Financial Aid

July 27, 2011

The Kentucky Attorney General filed suit Wednesday against a chain of for-profit colleges in the state, claiming that administrators at Daymar Colleges have consistently deceived students by making false promises about the ability to transfer course credits and have forced them to purchase textbooks and supplies at substantially marked-up rates. Attorney General Jack Conway (D), who is leading a multi-state investigation into for-profit colleges with top prosecutors from 18 other states, alleged that Daymar Colleges violated state consumer protection laws by engaging in “unfair, false, misleading and deceptive acts and practices” involving financial aid and recruitment of students. The suit seeks damages and restitution for approximately 5,000 students who were allegedly swindled by the schools. The for-profit college industry, which has tripled in size over the past decade, is facing increased scrutiny on a national scale as evidence mounts that some schools are aggressively recruiting unsuspecting students and capturing disproportionate shares of federal student aid dollars as revenues. Many students leave the schools with unmanageable debts and little in the way of job prospects, leading to a high rate of federal student loan defaults . Although Conway has been conferring with other state attorneys general from around the country, the case against Daymar Colleges is confined to Kentucky. Daymar operates 16 campuses in Kentucky, Ohio and Indiana, along with an online program. The schools have among the highest student loan default rates in the state, with nearly 37 percent of students at one of the Daymar schools defaulting on loans within three years of leaving the institution, according to data from the Department of Education. The court filing states that administrators at Daymar purposely force students to purchase textbooks and other supplies from the school itself, instead of through third-party vendors that would charge substantially less. Instructors and other employees tell students that they must purchase textbooks from the school in order to use their financial aid dollars, according to the filing. “We’re alleging that this was a sophisticated and systematic effort on the part of Daymar to deny students access to their financial aid funds so that they could receive the benefit of marking up the books,” Conway said. Administrators tell employees not to provide students with serial numbers or other information about textbooks, intentionally shrink wrapping the books to hide information that students could use to purchase the materials through another bookstore or the Internet. “Defendants are engaged in a sophisticated practice of deceiving and misleading students about their textbooks and financial aid so that students will be forced into purchasing their textbooks and supplies from Daymar College at prices substantially higher than other vendors,” the filing reads. “Defendants have engaged in unconscionable conduct in causing students to incur additional educational costs and interest charges.” A spokesman for Daymar, Tom Nunez, said the company has not had a chance to review the specific allegations in the lawsuit, but said the company will defend itself “vigorously” in court. Conway would not say how much the school was marking up the textbooks for students. Other allegations in the lawsuit involve issues of transparency and misrepresentation during the recruiting process. The investigation found that employees at Daymar are not transparent up front about the amount of tuition and other costs that students will incur. Recruiters also make unfair promises about the value of the courses, according to the complaint, engaging in a practice of “enrolling and retaining students with false assurances that their credits will transfer to public or traditional schools, when, in fact, the credits do not transfer in most circumstances.” In addition to the multi-state probe into for-profit colleges, Conway’s office in Kentucky is investigating six other colleges in the state over potential misrepresentations about job placement and misleading recruiting tactics that violate state consumer protection laws. “We need to make sure that these institutions … are just as interested in taking care of students and finding them a job and educating them as they are in getting their hands on public taxpayer money via student loans,” Conway said.

Read the full article →

Hedge Fund Manager Pays Back Trading Violation With Penalty

July 8, 2011

BOSTON – Former hedge fund manager Forrest Fontana, who once worked for industry titan Steven A. Cohen’s SAC Capital Advisors, will pay nearly $1 million to resolve claims that he violated a short-selling rule, the Securities and Exchange Commission said on Friday. Financial regulators charged that Fontana, whose Boston-based Fontana Capital LLC traded mostly in financial stocks, helped his investors earn unlawful profits of about $816,184 by having participated in public offerings after having shorted the same securities. According to the government Fontana violated Rule 105 of Regulation M, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission said in an order imposing sanctions and a cease and desist order. Fontana broke the rule on three occasions between July 2008 through November 2008 with trades on XL Group PLC, Merrill Lynch, and Wells Fargo, the SEC said. He will now pay a disgorgement of $816,184, prejudgment interest of $3,606 and a civil penalty of $165,000 to the United States Treasury, the SEC said. Fontana’s lawyer was not immediately available for comment. The SEC has brought a number of these types of cases in the last months and only last week settled a similar matter with hedge fund Level Global, which has been embroiled in the government’s insider trading case. Fontana launched his own business in Boston in 2005 with $50 million in start-up capital from his former SAC boss, Cohen, and quickly generated buzz in the local investment community. But by 2010, he was effectively out of business, managing no funds for clients and concentrating on his work as one of five selectmen in the town of Winchester, north of Boston. (Reporting by Svea Herbst-Bayliss) Copyright 2011 Thomson Reuters. Click for Restrictions .

Read the full article →

WikiLeaks Reportedly To Begin Receiving Credit Card Funds

July 7, 2011

LONDON — WikiLeaks has again begun accepting credit card donations, a company affiliated with the secret-spilling site said Thursday. Andreas Fink, the chief executive of Icelandic payment processor DataCell, told The Associated Press that Visa and MasterCard were again processing payments to WikiLeaks after a seven-month hiatus. Fink claimed the move as a tacit admission of guilt from the credit card companies, but it may well have been accidental. Visa Europe spokesman Simon Kleine told AP that processing the payments was “not something that we’ve sanctioned” and that the company was investigating. An email and phone calls seeking comment from MasterCard were not immediately returned. Visa and MasterCard pulled the plug on the company, DataCell ehf, in early December, shortly after WikiLeaks began publishing about 250,000 U.S. State Department cables. But Fink said Thursday that card services had been restored – saying that lawyers had made sure of it by making test donations. “We have seen donations going through,” he said, although he added that he wouldn’t get a clear idea of how much money was flowing into WikiLeaks’ coffers for another couple of days. Visa Inc. and MasterCard Inc. were two of a host of financial and Internet services companies which severed their links with WikiLeaks following the publication of the State Department cables. PayPal Inc., Amazon.com, EveryDNS and others also cut their ties with the site amid intense government criticism of the online activist group – leading WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange to accuse them of bowing to pressure from the Pentagon. Last week, WikiLeaks and DataCell said they were preparing to take the credit card companies to court in Denmark. On its website, WikiLeaks claims that the block placed on WikiLeaks by companies such as MasterCard and Visa have cost it more than 90 percent of its donations, or $15 million. It has offered no explanation as to how those figures were derived. The company is still raising money through bitcoins, a kind of online currency, and direct bank transfers to accounts in Iceland and Germany. ___ Online: http://www.datacell.com

Read the full article →

Yankee Stadium ‘Service Fee’ Scheme Now Disclosed To Beer Drinkers

July 5, 2011

Back in May, a group of beer and food servers at Yankee Stadium sued the concession company they worked for, accusing Legends Hospitality of pocketing their hard-earned tips . Legends — which is co-owned by the Yankees, the Dallas Cowboys and Goldman Sachs — seems to have gotten the vendors’ message, judging from revamped menus now found inside the stadium. The vendors’ lawsuit revolves around an involuntary 20 percent service fee that’s tacked on to the original price of a cold beer, hot dog and any other ballpark fare sold to fans in lower-level seats. Although most fans would assume the 20 percent fee is a tip, the bulk of that surcharge has been going not to the hustling vendors but to Legends itself, according to the lawsuit. Brian Schaffer, an attorney for the vendors, previously told HuffPost that Legends management had forbade his clients from explaining to spectators how the system really works. But now fans can see for themselves, thanks to a disclaimer added to the food menu [see photo below] sometime between the filing of the vendors’ lawsuit in federal court and last week’s sweep of the Milwaukee Brewers. It reads, in part: “The 20% Supplemental Charge appears as one amount on your bill, but represents both an Administrative Fee and a Gratuity.” The “administrative” chunk of the extra charge far outweighs the “gratuity” portion, according to the note. The server takes home a measly 4 to 6 percent of the add-on cost, depending on seniority, while Legends swallows the remaining 14 to 16 percent. “14-16% of your total bill before tax will be added as an Administrative Fee,” the note explains. “This amount is not a gratuity. Rather, it is retained by Legends to help defray administrative costs.” (emphasis is Legends.) The detailed disclaimer could be Legends’ attempt to get in better line with a New York law that says no employer can “retain any part of a gratuity or of any charge purported to be a gratuity for an employee.” Schaffer said he’s aware of the new disclaimer but cannot discuss pending litigation. A Yankees spokesperson could not be reached for comment. Shortly after filing the lawsuit, Schaffer said that Legends’ service-fee system cheats not only the vendors but the fans as well, since it artificially inflates the price of food and drink. “It’s pretty unbelievable if you think about what’s going on,” Schaffer said. “Honestly, I couldn’t fathom the profits.” Legends Hospitality has exclusive rights to selling food at both Yankees and Cowboys stadiums. Upon the formation of Legends in 2008, the company’s CEO said their goal was to ” create a new paradigm in sports concessions that will deliver unparalleled and affordable stadium experiences for fans.” The extra fee at Yankees Stadium pushes the price of some beers from $10.50 to $12.60. Read the new menu disclosure below:

Read the full article →

French Writer To File Sexual Assault Lawsuit Against DSK

July 4, 2011

PARIS, July 4 (Reuters) – French writer Tristane Banon will file a legal complaint on Tuesday over an alleged rape attempt by former IMF chief Dominique Strauss-Kahn in 2002, her lawyer told Reuters. David Koubbi, Banon’s attorney, said the complaint would relate to an incident that took place when she went to interview Strauss-Kahn in an apartment in Paris. She was 22 at the time and has already publically discussed the incident. “Tristane Banon will file a complaint on Tuesday for attempted rape in Paris,” Koubbi said. (Reporting by Gerard Bon) Copyright 2011 Thomson Reuters. Click for Restrictions .

Read the full article →

Woman ‘Shocked’ Over Abercrombie & Fitch Headscarf Firing

June 28, 2011

Hani Khan, 20, of Foster City said she had never faced discrimination before being fired from an Abercrombie & Fitch subsidiary at Hillsdale Mall.

Read the full article →

Competitor Sues Google For Billions

June 16, 2011

SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) – Oracle Corp is seeking damages “in the billions of dollars” from Google Inc in a patent lawsuit over the smartphone market, according to a court filing. Oracle sued Google last year, claiming the Web search company’s Android mobile operating technology infringes Oracle’s Java patents. Oracle bought the Java programing language through its acquisition of Sun Microsystems in January 2010. In a document filed in court by Oracle on Thursday, Oracle accused Google of trying to conceal the fact that Oracle’s damages claims in the case are in the billions. Google has redacted large portions of Oracle’s damages estimates from recent court filings. Oracle asked the court on Thursday to make some of that information public. Google representatives did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The case in U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, is Oracle America, Inc v. Google Inc, 10-3561. (Reporting by Dan Levine, editing by Dave Zimmerman) Copyright 2011 Thomson Reuters. Click for Restrictions

Read the full article →

NFL Owners Ask Federal Court To Dismiss Players’ Antitrust Lawsuit

June 7, 2011

MINNEAPOLIS — As the labor battle between NFL owners and players moved from the bargaining table to the courtroom, judges at each stop have urged both sides to reach an agreement before they have to issue significant rulings. The latest nudge in that direction came on Monday from U.S. District Judge Susan Richard Nelson, who scheduled a hearing on the owners’ motion to dismiss an antitrust lawsuit from a group of players for Sept. 12. Coincidentally or not, Sept. 12 is four days after the regular season is set to open in Green Bay, and one day after the first Sunday of games for the 2011 season. Shortly after the owners filed their motion to dismiss on Monday, Nelson announced when she would hear arguments on the motion. The timing is significant, given that the Packers are scheduled to host the New Orleans Saints on Sept. 8, and the NFL has big plans for the first Sunday of action to commemorate the anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks. Both sides hope that hearing never has to happen. The NFL and its players held settlement discussions in Chicago last week, but there is no sign a new collective bargaining agreement is imminent. A group of players including superstar quarterbacks Tom Brady, Peyton Manning and Drew Brees filed the antitrust lawsuit against the owners, alleging their lockout of the players is illegal. Nelson initially ruled in favor of the players in April, requiring the league to lift the lockout and let the players get back to work. That ruling has been appealed to the 8th Circuit in St. Louis, where a three-judge panel heard arguments on Friday and is considering the matter. The 8th Circuit put Nelson’s ruling on hold while it considers the appeal, though it is unclear when they will issue a ruling. In the meantime, the judges urged both sides to get back to the bargaining table and hammer out a deal. Judge Kermit Bye told attorneys on Friday that if no deal is done before the panel comes to a conclusion, they will likely offer up a decision that will be “probably something both sides aren’t going to like.” The owners argue, among other things, that Nelson did not have the jurisdiction to lift the lockout while the National Labor Relations Board is considering an unfair labor charge brought by the league against the players. The NLRB’s regional office in New York forwarded a preliminary report to the national board in Washington, but a spokeswoman said Monday it “doesn’t mean a decision is around the corner.” The two sides are engaged in a sometimes bitter dispute over how to divide $9 billion in revenue, a fight that has already caused some minicamps and offseason programs to be lost, free agency and trades to be delayed and resulted in hundreds of employees for teams across the league having their paychecks cut. The start of training camp is less than two months away, and teams are already making contingency plans if the lockout drags on. The Minnesota Vikings plan to have a date set this week that, if the lockout continued to that point, would force them to cancel training camp in Mankato. The owners are required to file a full brief supporting their motion by Aug. 1.

Read the full article →

Boehner’s Big Foreclosure Problem

June 2, 2011

Regina Moore has lived in her Hamilton, Ohio, home, in the heart of House Speaker John Boehner’s district, for 50 years. Her husband passed away in 2005, and in 2008 she took out a new $72,000 mortgage so she afford to pay her medical bills. She had a steady job, having worked at the Champion Printing Company in Cincinnati for more than two decades. Her monthly payments on her $86,000 home amounted to about $450. It was a simple mortgage for a simple home — no exploding payments or swimming pools. But last year, at the age of 70, Regina lost her job, and her $1100 a month Social Security payment wasn’t enough to make ends meet. She called her son, Jeff, who works three part-time jobs, to ask for help. “She had a mortgage on her home and just couldn’t afford to pay the bills anymore,” Jeff said. “She went through a period where she was embarrassed. She didn’t want to say that she couldn’t get a job or couldn’t pay her mortgage. And finally it got to a point where she was facing foreclosure and called me.” While Jeff, a local housing group and a lender ultimately helped Regina modify her mortgage so she could stay in her home, many of her fellow Ohioans haven’t been so fortunate. Hamilton, about 45 minutes outside of Cincinnati, has one of the highest foreclosure rates in Butler County. And Butler County has been a foreclosure hotspot for years. Along with the Cleveland and Columbus areas, Cincinnati and its surroundings have seen the predatory subprime binge come and go and now watch as the crumbling job market pushes more and more homeowners into financial ruin. In February, Butler County featured the highest foreclosure rate of any county in Ohio, according to RealtyTrac data. In March, it had the second-highest rate. “In the beginning, we really saw more loans that we thought had predatory features,” said Sister Barbara Busch, a Catholic social justice worker who serves as Executive Director of a Cincinnati-based homeowner advocacy group called Working In Neighborhoods that does extensive work in Butler County. “When we first started doing this, I would say 70 percent of the people who came through for counseling were in the subprime market. But in 2008 and 2009, it started slanting toward option-ARMs, and then in 2010 we saw a large number of unemployed, where the loans themselves weren’t so bad, but people had just lost their jobs.” Others who work with struggling homeowners say the same thing: The initial wave of mortgage problems was due to people unable to manage exotic or high-risk mortgages, but the current problem simply involves people losing jobs in a weak economy who can’t pay their bills. “In certain communities in Butler County there was a fair amount of predatory lending,” said Stephanie Moes, an attorney with the Legal Aid Society of Southwest Ohio. “But most recently, it’s homeowners who are still struggling with the economic downturn. These are homeowners who have done everything right in the sense that they were careful about the kind of mortgage they got, they didn’t buy a property they couldn’t afford, but now they’re facing long-term unemployment.” THE SPEAKER IS SILENT Over the past three years, lawmakers across Ohio have pressed for foreclosure relief, often crossing party lines to do so. But Boehner has never joined the effort. When Rep. Steve Chabot, a fellow Republican whose district borders Boehner’s and shares many of its economic hardships, backed a 2008 bill to grant relief to homeowners in bankruptcy courts, Boehner refused to sign on. When Democrats passed a separate foreclosure prevention bill later that year, Boehner blasted it as ” a bailout for scam artists and speculators .” When banks briefly halted foreclosures amid the robo-signing scandal last November, President Barack Obama vetoed a bill that would have made it easier for banks to push through improper foreclosures and harder for homeowners to show they had been wronged. Boehner, along with 168 Republicans and 16 Democrats, embarked on a failed effort to override that veto, even at a time when Ohio’s own Attorney General had begun suing banks for fraud. Boehner is rarely pressed on housing issues publicly, even though the foreclosure crisis marches on unabated. While his office declined multiple invitations to comment for this story, the House Speaker made the case for his opposition to foreclosure aid in a recent appearance on CBS News’ Face The Nation. “Over the last couple years, Congress has really set up four programs to help with those mortgage problems,” Boehner told CBS’ Harry Smith . “And unfortunately, none of those have worked. And all they’ve really done is dragged out the length of time for the market to clear the problems.” The argument holds for programs like President Barack Obama’s Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP), which anti-foreclosure activists have long criticized for being overly reliant on big, reluctant banks to implement it. Still, in many housing markets — especially in Ohio, and especially within Boehner’s own district — there is simply nothing left for “the market to clear.” Regina Moore’s $86,000 home isn’t an anomaly in the region, even though it’s worth much less than the median U.S. home price of $169,900, according to Zillow data . Ohio never experienced the rabid run-up in home prices that states like Florida and California went through, but its foreclosures drive down home prices further than any other state. The average Ohio foreclosure in 2010 sold for 43 percent less than an ordinary home sale, a discount more than 50 percent below the national average, according to RealtyTrac data . Today, the average foreclosure sale price statewide is $77,795. “If people are trapped in houses where they can’t pay their mortgage but can pay something, you can prevent areas from becoming desolated by foreclosed and abandoned homes, which drive down prices for everyone,” said economist Dean Baker, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, a left-leaning research group. Boehner’s job as House Speaker includes partisan duties beyond Ohio’s eighth district, a southwestern swath of the state that encompasses six counties from the Cincinnati suburbs to sparsely populated farmland. Boehner is also tasked with leading the GOP’s Congressional agenda and spearheading a host of corporate fundraising efforts critical to the party’s campaign operations. As foreclosures have steadily ravaged the eighth district, Boehner has raked in millions of dollars in campaign cash from the financial sector. And Boehner consistently votes with Wall Street on major policy issues. He voted in favor of the bank bailout in 2008, and opposed financial reform legislation in 2009 and 2010, even as he socialized with such major financiers as JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon in an effort to raise campaign cash. Over the course of his career, Boehner has raised $4,261,340 from the finance, insurance and real estate industries, according to data from the Center for Responsive Politics. In the first quarter of 2011 alone, after Boehner became Speaker of the House, his fundraising operations secured $638,742 from the same sector for his campaign, his political action committee and then the Republican Party, according to data compiled by Paul Blumenthal of the Sunlight Foundation. MODIFICATION MORASS When Jeff Moore learned about his mother’s mortgage problems, he contacted a foreclosure counseling group called Empowering and Strengthening Ohio’s People , which helped him apply for relief from a new program called Restoring Stability. The program uses the state’s Housing Finance Agency to provide up to $15,000 to help struggling borrowers catch up. Restoring Stability is one of seventeen foreclosure relief programs working with money from the Hardest Hit Fund. Drawing from a small portion of the federal funds allocated for the 2008 bank bailout, HHF lets state governments devote funding to helping homeowners avoid foreclosures. And unlike other TARP programs, including Obama’s HAMP initiative, the Ohio government actually requires banks to sign a legally binding contract with the state, creating clearly defined obligations: the bank gets money, but the mortgage must be modified. It took seven months, but the program worked for Regina Moore. Central Mortgage, Moore’s lender, cancelled her foreclosure and agreed to a plan that will keep her from losing her home. Housing counselors in Ohio say that Restoring Stability is, in many ways, an improvement over HAMP. While it still relies on banks to follow through with modifications, the state’s Housing Finance Agency processes paperwork to determine whether a borrower qualifies for the program or not. That prevents banks from losing key documents, botching the analysis or using the modification process to abuse borrowers with predatory fees (all common complaints from borrowers working with HAMP). But the program has serious flaws. Jeff said he couldn’t understand why it took seven months for his mother’s paperwork to be approved. It wasn’t terribly complicated, he said; either the numbers worked, or they didn’t. The program’s managers acknowledge the slow start. While they began accepting applications for aid in September, they were unable to actually help anybody until they had worked out legal agreements with different banks. “We were overly optimistic about how fast we could get this up and running,” said Cindy Flaherty, director of homeownership for the Ohio Housing Finance Agency. Restoring Stability managers have spent much of this year automating software to allow applications to be processed faster. Things do seem to be picking up speed: After approving aid to 400 borrowers in the first three months of the year, another 400 received help in April. The program currently has 1,000 more approvals in the pipeline. Even the Moores’ seven-month process compares very favorably to HAMP. According to a new report from the Government Accountability Office, it takes about half of HAMP borrowers more than seven months just to hear if they’ve been approved for a trial modification, which doesn’t include the time it also takes for the actual trial modification offer to be put through or for borrowers to secure permanent mortgage relief. But the biggest problem with Restoring Stability isn’t its sluggish start. It’s the basic design of the relief borrowers receive. Regina Moore will get about $12,000 to make up for missed payments, and the Ohio Housing Finance Agency will cover all of her mortgage payments for six months. When that six month period is up, Regina will have to work out a permanent modification plan with her bank. So far, the Moores say their bank, Central Mortgage, a division of Arvest Bank, has worked with them and has been cooperative with the modification efforts. Central Mortgage said the Restoring Stability program was “a helpful tool” for keeping borrowers in their homes. “I really don’t have anything bad to say about Central Mortgage,” Jeff Moore said. “They just wanted to get their loan paid. She really wasn’t being taken advantage of, she just couldn’t afford to pay her bills.” Ohio, like 26 other states, requires banks to obtain a court order to foreclose. It’s a protection for borrowers that helps prevent banks from evicting the wrong families. If you want to challenge a foreclosure, you can. But you need a lawyer, and families on the brink of losing their homes often can’t afford attorney fees. “In Ohio, a homeowner is a party to a court case in a foreclosure, and naturally, it’s difficult for anyone to proceed in a court case without a lawyer,” said Aneel Chablani, director of advocacy with Advocates for Basic Legal Equality , a legal aid group based in Toledo, northeast of Boehner’s district. Chablani says that ABLE’s five in-house attorneys can handle about 20 foreclosures at a time free of charge to homeowners, nowhere near enough to tackle the thousands of cases they are asked to represent each year. Last year, the Treasury Department’s lawyers determined that the 2008 bank bailout legislation forbade the use of federal bailout funds to cover distressed borrowers’ legal costs even though banks and hedge funds have been allowed to use bailout money for their own legal costs. For homeowners, a lawyer can be the difference between keeping their home and losing it. Even Jeff Moore had to hire an attorney to clear his foreclosure with the helpful Central Mortgage, and he’ll almost certainly need legal help when it comes time to negotiating a permanent deal with the bank for his mother. Big banks, by contrast, are frequently combative throughout the entire foreclosure process. The Legal Aid Society of Southwest Ohio (LASSWO) is currently suing Bank of America on behalf of 12 families, including at least one in Boehner’s district, for filching on loan modification agreements that it made during an October 2009 in-person “borrower outreach” program in Cincinnati. The Treasury Department sponsored the event as part of its HAMP program. After detailing a modification for the borrowers, Bank of America employees promised the families that they’d receive final paperwork in a few weeks, according to lawyers for LASSWO. When the homeowners didn’t hear back, LASSWO checked in with Bank of America. The lender denied attending the event, according to LASSWO, which filed a lawsuit against the bank last summer on behalf of the families. The suit hasn’t been resolved, and Bank of America declined to comment for this story. The company’s political action committee and its employees have donated $42,825 to Boehner’s political projects since the lawsuit was filed, according to the Sunlight Foundation. “It’s next to impossible to have a constructive discussion with a bank or a loan servicer, especially if you don’t have a lawyer available,” said Mary Asbury, executive director of the Legal Aid Society of Greater Cincinnati. In December, in what may well prove to be the final major foreclosure relief vote on Capitol Hill, Congress voted on allowing states to use Hardest-Hit Funds on legal aid. Ohio and the other states weren’t requesting more money, they were asking for some of the funds they had already been granted to be approved for legal aid, effectively overturning the Treasury’s opinion on the matter from last year. At the final hour, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner even lent his support to the bill. Legal aid funding is a key lynchpin for ensuring that borrowers get long-term relief, but it amounts to peanuts in comparison with the $700 billion TARP legislation. Ohio only wanted $5 million of its $570 million funding to go toward legal fees. Nevertheless, the vote failed. “It was a huge disappointment,” said Asbury. And the vote failed even though six Republicans crossed the aisle to support the plan; two from Florida, one from Alaska and three from Ohio. Ohio Republican Rep. Steve LaTourette, who declined to comment for this story, even worked the floor as he tried to win over more Republican supporters. According to Democratic aides, Boehner was a top target for support. Knowing that his district and his state were facing serious foreclosure trouble, they actively courted the GOP leader, hoping that on this issue, at least, they might be able to win him over. If the top House Republican backed the bill, others might join, so the thinking went. But Boehner rebuffed efforts to divert some of that federal funding to help borrowers in foreclosure litigation. As the vote approached, Boehner’s spokesman, Michael Steel, launched a broadside against the entire effort. “This bill re-opens the TARP bailout fund for ‘legal aid’ programs, which could result in millions of taxpayer dollars being pumped into groups similar to ACORN,” he told HuffPost . The Hardest Hit Fund is, nevertheless, moving forward. So far it has spent only about one percent of its total funding authorization of its $570 million budget. With its current funding, the program could deliver help for up to 60,000 homeowners in Ohio, provided that banks continue to cooperate. But much of that relief may ultimately be short-lived without legal assistance for borrowers. And Ohio needs all the help it can get. “The foreclosure problem is just symptomatic of what’s going on with the economy,” said Jeff Moore. “I watch the news channels, I read a ton on the internet and I hear that things are rebounding and the economy’s getting better. But it’s not good. The economy is not in good shape.”

Read the full article →

Match.com Heads To Court Over Sexual Predator Lawsuit

May 23, 2011

LOS ANGELES — An online dating empire is headed to court. Match.com President Mandy Ginsberg will appear in a Los Angeles Federal Court Monday afternoon to testify in the case of Carole Markin, who suffered an alleged sexual assault after a second date with a man she met through the site. Markin subsequently sued Match, calling for the site to institute basic background checks on all users. Monday’s court date brings a preliminary injunction hearing that would prohibit Match.com from accepting new users until the company satisfactorily implements sex offender screening. Match.com had promised to do so in response to Markin’s lawsuit. Markin’s lawyer, Mark L. Webb, spoke with HuffPost Monday morning before the trial, calling attention to an alleged rape that occurred after a Match.com encounter less than a week ago. Webb said the new case underscores the urgency of his client’s own in a world where, as Match.com claims , one in five relationships begin online. Webb also emphasized that his client “is not asking for one dime” and that the lawsuit does not mean that Match.com clients don’t have a responsibility for their own safety. “Of course we’re not asking Match.com to give us an ironclad guarantee that people who go on dates aren’t going to be at risk with somebody,” he clarified. “We are just asking that they share the responsibility, and not just the profits.” In addition to Ginsberg, Webb is also subpoenaing security expert Russell Mallette of Catalyst Data Services . Mallette is prepared to testify that a comprehensive, cost-effective background check database would take just five business days to implement, not the 60-90 days Match.com claims it would. Mallette also said the national sex offender registry could be an insufficient tool. “We need to develop a solution that in a cost-effective way goes to the county level to determine whether or not someone is guilty and convicted of sex crimes,” he told HuffPost. Match.com to Screen for Sex Offenders But a simple Google search reveals Markin’s alleged assailant, Alan Paul Wurtzel, was has previously been charged for sex crimes , and he may have been denied access to a Match.com account had screening procedures been in place. Markin and Wurtzel will also appear in court Monday. Markin, a television and film producer, met Wurtzel through Match.com and went on two dates with him before the alleged attack occurred. She initially filed the lawsuit under the pseudonym “Jane Doe” but decided last month to come forward about her identity on ABC’s “Good Morning America.” On the show, she said, “I had dated other people on Match.com and had always had good experiences. I just didn’t expect that there would be someone with a criminal background on the service. … When you’ve met nice, successful men previously on the same site, you just don’t assume the worst.”

Read the full article →

Chuck E. Cheese’s Sued For Promoting Gambling With Kids

May 14, 2011

The Chuck E. Cheese’s chain of restaurants uses the slogan, “Where a kid can be a kid.” But to one San Diego mother , the chain is really where a kid can develop a serious gambling habit. Debbie Keller, a real estate agent with two kids ages 3 and 5, is suing the Dallas-based restaurant chain for $5 million because she feels that many of the games intended for children at these locations are actually illegal gambling devices — like slot machines and roulette wheels. Although Keller is asking for a jury trial as well as damages and restitution totaling at least $5 million, her lawyer, Eric Binink told the San Diego Union Tribune that the money is a secondary issue. Benink said the lawsuit’s real purpose is to prevent Texas-based parent company CEC Entertainment Inc. from keeping the machines in its game rooms. “We don’t think that children should be exposed to casino-style gambling devices at an arcade,” Benink said, adding that the games take only a few seconds to play and some of them feature a roulette-style wheel. Many of the games at Chuck E. Cheese rely on 25 cent tokens, and, depending on the score, dispense tickets that can be redeemed for prizes. The higher the score, the greater the number of tickets. The more tickets, the better prize. Chuck E. Cheese attorneys are moving for a dismissal of the lawsuit on the grounds that the games are legal and the California Legislature never intended to make operating a children’s arcade game a criminal act. They also contend that even if the games were illegal, then Keller would be an admitted participant in illegal gambling and therefore barred from seeking damages and restitution. The attorneys have asked a federal judge to dismiss the case, but the judge has not yet issued a ruling. Still, the suit does raise an interesting question: Does a child’s desire to win a plastic pterodactyl by playing Wack-A-Mole really send the little nipper down the slippery slope to gambling addiction that ends with them betting their mortgage payment on red at the local Native American casino? Gambling addiction expert Bob Cabiness, owns the Williamsville Wellness treatment center for compulsive gambling in Hanover, Virginia, isn’t betting on it. He sees a difference between a game that awards tickets and one that pays out cold hard cash. “The thing about gambling is the chasing,” he told AOL Weird News. “If you lose $10, you want to keep playing until you win it back. This is one step removed.” That doesn’t mean he hasn’t seen cases where games like the kind that are at Chuck E. Cheese — such as “The Claw,” where players try and pick up a prize using a metal clawed controlled by a joystick — cause people to go crazy. “I met one women in Gamblers Anonymous who was addicted to ‘The Claw’ and spent all her money on it,” Cabiness said. “She’d win a teddy bear and just throw it away.” That’s one person, but Cabiness still thinks Keller’s chances of prevailing in court are a crapshoot at best. “I don’t think [Keller] has a case. If the mother feels there’s gambling at Chuck E. Cheese, she shouldn’t take the kids there.” On the other hand, mothers like Hollie Schultz feel Keller’s pain. She has three kids ages 2, 4 and 6 and says her daughter has an addiction to the dreaded “Claw.” “We have left Chuck E. Cheese’s in her in tears begging for one more quarter,” said Schultz, who has written about her own issues with “Claw Rage” at her website, BabyGizmo.com. “I’ve seen her going through my purse for quarters. It’s devastating.” However, Schultz believes that Keller’s lawsuit is a sucker’s bet. “I don’t think she could win,” she said. “With Chuck E. Cheese’s, you know what you’re getting into. It’s when ‘The Claw’ is in the grocery store that bothers me.” Another mom who is bothered by the suit is San Diego blogger Morgan Quinn Benzian, who says Keller’s suit is “mind boggling.” Benzian — who has written love poems to the chain — freely admits she’s taught her daughter to play “The Claw” and claims the girl has, so far, not had any major meltdowns. Benzian believes that instead of suing Chuck E. Cheese’s, Keller should look at the restaurant as a godsend. “Chuck E. Cheese’s serves beer and pizza and they watch your kids for two hours,” Benzian said, adding with a cackle, “[Keller] better not f–k it up for the rest of us.”  

Read the full article →

Major Bank Appears To Have Retaliated Against Foreclosure Fraud Expert By Targeting Her Son

May 14, 2011

WASHINGTON — Deutsche Bank appears to have retaliated against a high-profile foreclosure fraud expert, whose years-long battle against her own foreclosure helped reveal a wave of apparent malfeasance, by suing her son. The expert, Lynn Szymoniak, an attorney who specializes in white-collar crime, is widely considered on Capitol Hill to be one of the nation’s top experts on foreclosure law. When Deutsche Bank attempted to jack up the interest rate on the mortgage for her Palm Beach Gardens, Fla., home in May 2008, she contested the move, setting off an investigation which unveiled mountains of forged signatures and fraudulent bank paperwork associated with the foreclosure process. Szymoniak alerted other attorneys, neighborhood advocates, lawmakers and the media about the apparent rampant fraud. She appeared on “60 Minutes” in April to discuss the broader foreclosure scandal [video appended below]. Her own home has been in foreclosure since June 2008. A month earlier, she had been notified that the interest rate on her adjustable-rate mortgage was being raised, increasing her monthly payments by about $1,000. But the terms of her mortgage only allowed interest-rate hikes at certain dates. In an interview with The Huffington Post, Szymoniak noted that Deutsche Bank was not acting within the allowed timeframe. “They missed my adjustment date, and then when they figured it out, they just slapped that higher payment on anyway,” she said. “I paid one payment at the higher rate and then I said, ‘This is ridiculous.’ And I stopped paying and then they sued me in June ’08.” Both Deutsche Bank and their legal counsel, Akerman Sentertfitt LLP, declined to comment for this report. After she’d been sued, Szymoniak said, she began investigating the documentation on Florida foreclosures, uncovering alarming irregularities, including signatures that were apparently forged. If so, those signatures allowed banks to push foreclosures through overly quickly, charge improper fees and assert improperly inflated borrower debts. Shortly after appearing on “60 Minutes” Szymoniak won a major victory in her own foreclosure case. The court found that Deutsche Bank was unable to demonstrate ownership of her mortgage, which had originally been issued by the defunct subprime mortgage lender Option One, and threw the case out. Deutsche Bank was permitted to refile their case if they could obtain proper documentation, however. And on Friday, May 6, Szymoniak received a notification from the bank’s lawyers that she was again being sued for foreclosure. But Deutsche Bank wasn’t just going after her. The bank was also attempting to sue her son, Mark Cullen, who is currently pursuing a graduate degree in poetry at the New School in New York. Cullen hasn’t lived in Szymoniak’s house for seven years and is not a party to any aspect of her mortgage — he has no interest in either the property or the loan, and never has had any such interest, according to Szymoniak. “It is just absolute harassment,” Szymoniak said. “He doesn’t own anything, for god’s sake! He’s getting a masters in poetry. He not only doesn’t have any money, he’s never going to have any money.” And other Florida foreclosure experts say it’s difficult to interpret Deutsche Bank’s move as anything other than retaliation for Szymoniak’s media presence. If it is not, in fact, retaliation, they argue, then Deutsche Bank’s lawyers have demonstrated rank incompetence. “It sounds crazy,” said Margery Golant, a principal with the foreclosure defense law firm of Golant & Golant PA in Florida. “I can think of no legitimate reason, if he doesn’t have some connection to the property or to the mortgage, to include him in an action to foreclosure.” “It’s an intimidation tool,” said Matt Englett, a partner at the Florida law firm Kaufman Englett Lynd PLLC. “Most people, they get scared and they get nervous and I think that’s the affect that they’re trying to have on him and his mother.” “If he’s not an owner of the house, it’s pretty clearly just vindictive,” said Joshua Rosner, the managing director of Graham Fisher & Co., a mortgage investment firm. “If they’re doing it intentionally, that’s one hell of a statement. If they’re doing it randomly, that’s still pretty incredible.” The experts said the lawsuit against Szymoniak’s son could also have negative implications for him beyond the immediate costs of fighting the foreclosure case, even though he has no financial interest in anything related to it. “He’s going to have a lawsuit out there against him,” Englett said, “so if someone were to do some kind of background check against him, that would come up.” Watch Szymoniak’s “60 Minutes” interview:

Read the full article →

Big Banks Sued For Helping To Bankrupt Home Loan Company

May 3, 2011

WILMINGTON, Delaware (Tom Hals) – The trustee for bankrupt Thornburg Mortgage Inc has sued Goldman Sachs, Barclays and other big banks for a combined $2.2 billion, blaming them for the former home loan company’s bankruptcy. The trustee filed four separate lawsuits, the most extensive of which blames a “collusive scheme” by units of JPMorgan Chase & Co, Citigroup, Royal Bank of Scotland, Credit Suisse and UBS for driving the company into bankruptcy. The trustee, Maryland lawyer Joel Sher, accused the five banks of acting together to use a series of unjustified margin calls to extend their control over Thornburg, which was once a leading provider of “jumbo” home loans. The lawsuit seeks to recover $2 billon for fraudulent conveyances and transfers by the banks, which had financed Thornburg’s mortgage-backed securities. The trustee said the banks eventually drove the Thornburg into Chapter 11 in May 2009. It sought protection from creditors with $36.5 billion in assets, making it one of the larger bankruptcies during the financial crisis. Citigroup and JPMorgan both said the lawsuit was meritless, and JPMorgan also said it would defend its Bear Stearns unit vigorously. Credit Suisse and UBS declined to comment. RBS did not immediately return a call for comment. Sher was appointed to run Thornburg after the company’s executives were accused of using Thornburg’s staff and offices, without creditors’ approval, to start a new company. The trustee also sued Barclays for improperly seizing mortgage bonds from Thornburg in 2007 by undervaluing the securities in a series of margin calls. The trustee is seeking at least $94 million. Barclays declined to comment. Sher sued Goldman Sachs, seeking at least $71 million and accused the bank of scheming to seize hundreds of millions of dollars of investment-grade mortgage bonds that Thornburg had pledged as collateral. Goldman Sachs declined to comment. The final lawsuit claims Countrywide Home Loans Inc, which was acquired by Bank of America, breached representations and warranties on the loans it sold to a unit of Thornburg. Bank of America declined to comment. That lawsuit was also brought on behalf of a group of investors known as the Zuni Investors LLC, who were represented by David Grais of Grais & Ellsworth. Grais has brought numerous “putback” lawsuits that seek to have originators such as Countrywide repurchase mortgages that fell short of promised standards but were packaged into mortgage-backed securities and sold as top-notch investments. Investors holding hundreds of billions of dollars of mortgage bonds have been hoping to shift their losses from the bonds back to the banks that packaged the bonds, but it has been a struggle. In part, that is because the loans are held in trusts that sold the mortgage bonds. The trustees overseeing the trusts have been reluctant to cooperate with investors and go after the originators of the loans, although that may be changing. The Thornburg putback lawsuit is based in part on a “joint prosecution agreement” between the mortgage bond trustee and the Zuni investors. Grais said it was the first lawsuit that he knew of that was based on such an agreement. Thornburg is now known as TMST Inc and the lawsuits were filed as part of the bankruptcy, which is In re TMST Inc U.S. Bankruptcy Court, District of Maryland, No. 09-17787. (Editing by Steve Orlofsky, Bernard Orr and Richard Chang) Copyright 2011 Thomson Reuters. Click for Restrictions .

Read the full article →

JPMorgan Accused Of Profiting From Souring Investment, While Clients Lost Millions

April 11, 2011

In newly unsealed court document JPMorgan, the nation’s second largest bank by assets, is accused of profiting from a troubled investment vehicle, while keeping client money in the same failing group of securities. According to documents first unearthed by the New York Times , despite high-reaching concerns at JPMorgan about a structured investment vehicle (SIV) called Sigma, the bank kept client money in the deal and profited off its collapse. The class action suit, filed on behalf of a several pension funds, accuses JPMorgan of earning “substantial fees and interest” and hundreds of millions more from colleteral on short term loans, for total of $1.9 billion. JPMorgan’s clients, the suit argues, lost almost all of the $500 million the bank had invested on their behalf. JPMorgan, the suit argues, breached its fiduciary duty to protect clients’ investments by placing its own interests first, and by failing to disclose information about Sigma’s troubles. The thrust of the argument is that it the bank not only failed to act in the best interests of its clients, but also profited from client losses. The actions of JPMorgan reflect a “blatant disregard of this fundamental duty,” the suit reads. “The undisputed record evidence establishes that JPMorgan knowingly and intentionally enriched itself despite having actual knowledge that its actions would substantially impair the financial interests of the Class.” The suit lays out in detail how JPMorgan, along with a host of Wall Street analysts, allegedly predicted the demise of Sigma. The original complaint documents the warning signs that came before Sigma’s collapse and JPMorgan’s alleged failure to disclose the information to clients with money invested in it. It also emphasizes that the type of investment — a “Securities Lending Agreement” — JPMorgan made on behalf of its clients was supposed to be “conservative.” From the suit: According to the Securities Lending section of JPMorgan’s website, the stated purpose for its Securities Lending Program is to “obtain an attractive return while minimizing risk.” A spokesman for the bank told the New York Times that some of accusations in the suit were “ludicrous” and claimed that JPMorgan did its best to protect clients’ interest in its dealings with Sigma. In one email unearthed in the lawsuit, a JPMorgan executive wrote that the bank was treating its loans to Sigma as “trades” rather than support for the failing investment vehicle. JPMorgan is not the first bank that has been accused of putting its own interests before its clients’. Last year, Goldman Sachs spent $550 million to settle civil fraud charges brought by the SEC, in which the bank was accused of misleading investors and profiting from a group of securities allegedly designed to fail. As a part of the settlement, the bank admitted no wrongdoing, but acknowledged it had “made a mistake” in the disclosures it made to clients. Read the original complaint, filed in Read the full New York Times story for more detail on the case. show_temp

Read the full article →

Wisconsin Judge Blocks Implementation Of Union Law

March 29, 2011

MADISON, Wis. — The showdown over Wisconsin’s explosive union bargaining law shifted from the Statehouse back to the courthouse on Tuesday, but it remained unclear when or even whether the measure would take effect. Republican lawmakers pushed through passage of the law earlier this month despite massive protests that drew up to 85,000 people to the state Capitol and a boycott by Democratic state senators. Opponents immediately filed a series of lawsuits that resulted in further chaos that might not end until the state Supreme Court weighs in. That appeared even more likely after a hearing on Tuesday, when a Dane County judge again ordered the state to put the law on hold while she considers a broader challenge to its legality. She chastised state officials for ignoring her earlier order to halt the law’s publication. “Apparently that language was either misunderstood or ignored, but what I said was the further implementation of (the law) was enjoined,” Dane County Circuit Judge Maryann Sumi said during a hearing. “That is what I now want to make crystal clear.” Sumi is set to hear additional arguments Friday on the larger question of whether GOP legislative leaders violated the state’s open meetings law during debate on the measure. She also is considering Republican claims that the law technically took effect last weekend after a state agency unexpectedly published it online. Whether she decides it did or didn’t become law on Saturday, the measure’s legitimacy will likely be decided by the state Supreme Court, which is already considering whether to take up an appeals court’s request to hear the case. The back and forth amplified the often angry debate between new Gov. Scott Walker, his Republican allies in the Legislature and the state’s public sector unions. Walker and the GOP have aggressively pushed forward their effort to remove the bargaining rights of state workers, using a surprise parliamentary maneuver to break a weeks-long stalemate to get it passed and then finding another route to publish the law after Sumi’s order blocked the secretary of state from doing so. State Department of Justice spokesman Steve Means said the agency continues to believe the law was properly published and is in effect. Wisconsin Department of Administration Secretary Mike Huebsch, Walker’s top aide, issued a statement saying the agency will evaluate the judge’s order. Earlier this month Sumi issued an emergency injunction in the case that blocked Secretary of State Doug La Follette from publishing the law. Republican leaders sidestepped the order, convincing the Legislative Reference Bureau, another state agency, to post the law on its website on Friday. The GOP declared that move amounted to publication and said the law would take effect Saturday. Dane County Democratic District Attorney Ismael Ozanne – the plaintiff in the lawsuit heard Tuesday – argued the reference bureau can’t publish a law without a date from the secretary of state. Attorneys for the state Department of Justice, which is representing the Republicans, argued the case means nothing because legislators are immune from civil lawsuits and the law is in effect. The district attorney asked Sumi to declare that the law had not been published, but she refused to rule, saying she wanted to hear more testimony. But she issued the new restraining order, warning anyone who violates this one will face sanctions. “Wisconsin working families hope that (Gov.) Scott Walker and his Republican allies in the legislature will finally begin to respect our state’s judicial process and reverse any damage they’ve done to the working families of our state, Stephanie Bloomingdale, secretary-treasurer of the Wisconsin State AFL-CIO, said in a statement. Justice Department attorneys maintain Sumi has no authority to intervene in the legislative process. And Assembly Speaker Jeff Fitzgerald, R-Horicon, said in a statement that once again Sumi has improperly injected herself into the legislative process. “Her action today again flies in the face of the separation of powers between the three branches of government,” Fitzgerald said. The law has been a flashpoint of controversy since Walker introduced it in February. The measure requires most public workers to contribute more to their pensions and health insurance. It also strips away their rights to collectively bargain for anything except wages. Walker, who wrote the law, insists the measure is necessary to help close the state’s budget deficit. But Democrats see the law as a political move to cripple unions, who are traditionally among their strongest campaign supporters. Tens of thousands of people staged almost non-stop demonstrations at the state Capitol for nearly three weeks and Senate Democrats fled the state for Illinois to block a vote in that chamber. Republicans who control the Legislature ended the stalemate by removing what they said were the fiscal elements from the plan on March 9, allowing the Senate to vote without a quorum. The Assembly passed the measure the next day and Walker signed the measure into law on March 11. Dane County Executive Kathleen Falk, a Democrat, and several unions have filed lawsuits challenging the Senate vote, arguing the final law still contains fiscal components. Those lawsuits are still pending.

Read the full article →

What’s At Stake In The Massive Walmart Anti-Discrimination Case Before The Supreme Court

March 29, 2011

Walmart Stores, the

Read the full article →

Supreme Court Hears Argument In Wal-Mart Sex Bias Lawsuit

March 29, 2011

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Tuesday questioned a massive sex discrimination lawsuit on behalf of at least 500,000 women claiming that Wal-Mart favors men over women in pay and promotions. The justices suggested that they are troubled by lower court decisions allowing the class-action lawsuit to proceed against the world’s largest retailer. Justice Anthony Kennedy, often a key vote on the high court, said he is unsure “what the unlawful policy is” that Wal-Mart engaged in to deprive women of pay increases and promotions comparable to men. Billions of dollars are at stake in the case. Class actions create pressure on businesses to settle claims and create the potential for large judgments. Wal-Mart denies it discriminates against its female employees. But Joseph Sellers, the lawyer for the women, said that lower courts were persuaded by statistical and other evidence put forth so far in the 10-year-old lawsuit. Sellers said a strong corporate culture at Wal-Mart’s Bentonville, Ark., headquarters that stereotyped women as less aggressive than men translated into individual pay and promotions decisions at the more than 3,400 Wal-Mart and Sam’s Clubs stores across the country. “The decisions are informed by the values the company provides,” Sellers said. Justice Antonin Scalia said he felt “whipsawed” by Sellers’ description. “Well, which is it?” Scalia asked. Either individual managers are on their own, “or else a strong corporate culture tells them what to do,” he said. Theodore Boutrous Jr., representing Wal-Mart, said that the class-action nature of the case deprives the company of its legal rights because it is being forced to defend the treatment of women employees regardless of the jobs they hold, or where they work in the Wal-Mart chain. “There is absolutely no way there can be a fair process here,” Boutrous said. He pointed to a group of at least 544 women who serve as store managers who “are alleged to be both discriminators and victims.” Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said that at this stage of the lawsuit, the issue is not proving discrimination, but showing enough evidence to go forward. “We’re talking about getting a foot in the door,” Ginsburg said, a standard she called not hard to meet. The 78-year-old justice, who made her name by bringing discrimination claims, said it was possible that Wal-Mart could refute the claims at a trial. But several of her colleagues appeared to agree with Boutrous that even subjecting Wal-Mart to a trial would be unfair. A decision should come by summer. The case is Wal-Mart Stores Inc. v. Dukes, 10-277.

Read the full article →

Martha Burk: Wal-Mart’s Woman Troubles — Too Big to Be Sued?

March 28, 2011

Seven years ago a judge in California ruled that women suing Wal-Mart for sex discrimination could move forward as a class. That meant the women with various claims wouldn’t have to go it alone, each with a separate lawyer and separate expenses. Essentially what the judge said is that the six women who filed the lawsuit can represent a whole group of women who might have similar complaints — all 1.6 million of them. Wal-Mart appealed all the way to the Supreme Court. Taking a page from the big bank playbook, the company claims that it is too big to be sued . The Supreme Court will hear arguments on Tuesday as to whether the class certification stands. If so, Dukes v. Walmart will be the largest class action suit in history. Then if women can prove a “pattern and practice” of discrimination at Wally Mart, back pay and promotions could be due, and the company might have to mend its gender-biased ways. If the Supremes rule against them, it could mean the end to redress for sex discrimination at work . Well, OK. Gender bias hasn’t been proven yet. But look at the numbers : According to walmartclass.com , close to 70% of the employees are women, but less than a third of the managers are female (up from 14.3% when the suit was filed in 2001). The rest are concentrated in the lowest level jobs. Data presented by the plaintiffs showed that 93% of cashier positions were held by women, and they made less than the male cashiers ($13,800 and $14,500 respectively). It doesn’t get any better at the higher levels, where the few women who made it to store manager earned average of $89,300, while the guys pulled down $105,700. Data from the past couple of years are not available — if Walmart has corrected the problem, it doesn’t want the world to know about it. And even if 100% of the wage discrimination has gone away (and cows can do cartwheels), it won’t erase the damage to the women with short paychecks over several past decades. One of the women in the suit, a single mother working as an assistant manager, was told, according to walmartclass.com , that a male in the same position making $10,000 more a year was paid more because he had ” a wife and kids to support. ” When she protested, she was asked to submit a personal household budget — and got a $40 a week raise. Looks like a duck to me. Most people don’t know that the majority of the working poor, and Wal-Mart is responsible for a bunch of them, are adult women. They’re also mostly white (58%) and mostly high school educated or higher (77%). Wal-Mart is ranked second in the Fortune 500, and is the nation’s largest non-government employer. Members of the Walton family hold four of the top ten positions on the Forbes list of the 400 richest Americans , with assets of over $80 billion. If they gave up just a measly nickel on the dollar, they could raise the wages of their approximately 869,000 female workers by over $2.20 per hour — enough to lift many of those lowest paid women above the poverty line — and just incidentally keep the company out of the courthouse. Of course Wal-Mart is entitled to a fair profit, as are all businesses. But the key word is fair . If corporations are entitled to the most profit they can possibly make, we should go ahead and abolish the minimum wage and repeal our employment discrimination laws, or maybe just go back to slavery and forget about paying workers altogether. In granting the female employees the right to stand together against the largest company in the nation, the lower court has took a small step for womankind. Let’s hope the Roberts Corporate Court doesn’t knock the feet out from under those same women, and gut over 40 years of precedent in the process.

Read the full article →

Supreme Court To Take Up Sex Bias Claim Against Wal-Mart

March 27, 2011

WASHINGTON — Christine Kwapnoski hasn’t done too badly in nearly 25 years in the Wal-Mart family, making more than $60,000 a year in a job she enjoys most days. But Kwapnoski says she faced obstacles at Wal-Mart-owned Sam’s Club stores in both Missouri and California: Men making more than women and getting promoted faster. She never heard a supervisor tell a man, as she says one told her, to “doll up” or “blow the cobwebs off” her make-up. Once she got over the fear that she might be fired, she joined what has turned into the largest job discrimination lawsuit ever. The 46-year-old single mother of two is one of the named plaintiffs in a suit that will be argued at the Supreme Court on Tuesday. At stake is whether the suit can go forward as a class action that could involve 500,000 to 1.6 million women, according to varying estimates, and potentially could cost the world’s largest retailer billions of dollars. But the case’s potential importance issue goes well beyond the Wal-Mart dispute, as evidenced by more than two dozen briefs filed by business interests on Wal-Mart’s side, and civil rights, consumer and union groups on the other. The question is crucial to the viability of discrimination claims, which become powerful vehicles to force change when they are presented together, instead of individually. Class actions increase pressure on businesses to settle suits because of the cost of defending them and the potential for very large judgments. Columbia University law professor John Coffee said that the high court could bring a virtual end to employment discrimination class actions filed under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, depending on how it decides the Wal-Mart case. “Litigation brought by individuals under Title VII is just too costly,” Coffee said. “It’s either class action or nothing.” Illustrating the value of class actions, Brad Seligman, the California-based lawyer who conceived of and filed the suit 10 years ago, said the average salary for a woman at Wal-Mart was $13,000, about $1,100 more than the average for a man, when the case began. “That’s hugely significant if you’re making $13,000 a year, but not enough to hire a lawyer and bring a case.” The company has fought the suit every step of the way, Seligman said, because it is the “biggest litigation threat Wal-Mart has ever faced.” A trial judge and the federal appeals court in San Francisco, over a fierce dissent, said the suit could go forward. But Wal-Mart wants the high court to stop the suit in its tracks. The company argues it includes too many women with too many different positions in its 3,400 stores across the country. Wal-Mart says its policies prohibit discrimination and that most management decisions are made at the store and regional levels, not at its Bentonville, Ark., headquarters. Theodore J. Boutrous, Wal-Mart’s California-based lawyer, said there is no evidence that women are poorly treated at Wal-Mart. “The evidence is the contrary of that,” Boutrous said. The company is not conceding that any woman has faced discrimination, but says that if any allegations are proven, they are isolated. “People will make errors,” said Gisel Ruiz, Wal-Mart’s executive vice president for people, as the company calls its human resources unit. “People are people.” Ruiz paints a very different picture of the opportunities offered women at Wal-Mart. She joined the company straight from college in 1992. “In less than four years, I went from an assistant manager trainee to running my own store,” she said. “I’m one of thousands of women who have had a positive experience at Wal-Mart.” Kwapnoski, who works at the Sam’s Club in Concord, Calif., is one of two women who continue to work at Wal-Mart while playing a prominent role in the suit. The other is Betty Dukes, a greeter at the Walmart in Pittsburg, Calif. “It’s very hard for anyone to understand how difficult that is and what courage that is,” Seligman said of Kwapnoski and Dukes. “They’re Public Enemy No. 1 at Wal-Mart and they are known for their involvement in this lawsuit. Nevertheless, they get and up and go to work every day.” Kwapnoski didn’t want to discuss any issues she faces at work as a result of the suit. She said she has seen some changes at Wal-Mart since the suit was filed in 2001. The company now posts all its openings electronically. “It does give people a better idea of what’s out there, but they still can be very easily passed over.” she said. “But before you didn’t even know the position was open.” The suit, citing what are now dated figures from 2001, contends that women are grossly underrepresented among managers, holding just 14 percent of store manager positions compared with more than 80 percent of lower-ranking supervisory jobs that are paid by the hour. Wal-Mart responds that women in its retail stores made up two-thirds of all employees and two-thirds of all managers in 2001. Kwapnoski said she and a lot of women were promoted into management just after the suit was filed, although she has had only a couple of pay increases in the nine years since. She is the assistant manager in her store’s groceries and produce sections. Now, she said, promotions are back to the way they were before, favoring men over women. She said she’s hoping the long-running court fight will force Wal-Mart to recognize that, stories like Ruiz’s aside, women are not valued as much as men are and that her bosses will begin to “make sure that good men and good women are being promoted, not just men.” ___ Online: Briefs in the case: http://tinyurl.com/4ckzfz5

Read the full article →

Walmart Will Urge Supreme Court To Reject Record Sex-Discrimination Lawsuit

March 22, 2011

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Wal-Mart Stores Inc will urge the Supreme Court next week to reject the largest class-action sex-discrimination lawsuit in history, brought by female employees who seek billion of dollars. The top U.S. court hears arguments on March 29 in a lawsuit against the world’s largest retailer for allegedly giving women less pay and fewer promotions at 3,400 U.S. stores since late 1998. Lawyers for the two sides will spar over whether the small group of women who began the lawsuit 10 years ago can represent a huge nationwide class of current and former employees that could total millions of women. The case has pitted women’s and employees’ rights against business interests, with Robin Conrad of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce calling it “the most important class-action case facing the court in over a decade.” The case will have far-reaching implications for working women who challenge discrimination, women’s rights advocate Marcia Greenberger of the National Women’s Law Center said. “The ability of women to be treated fairly in the workplace hangs in the balance,” Greenberger said. The ruling, expected by late June, could change the legal landscape for workplace class-action lawsuits and affect many cases, including a similar one against Costco Wholesale Corp. Large class-action lawsuits make it easier for big groups of plaintiffs to sue corporations and they have yielded huge payouts by tobacco, oil and food companies. Companies have sought to limit such lawsuits to individual or small groups of plaintiffs. The Supreme Court, with a conservative majority that has often ruled for businesses, has already limited large class-action securities fraud lawsuits and asbestos cases. If Wal-Mart wins, the huge class would be undone, though the company still could face individual discrimination lawsuits. If the workers win, they would be able to pursue their lawsuit as a collective group at trial. Legal experts and financial analysts said Wal-Mart, with more than $400 billion in sales and $16 billion in net income last year, has enough cash to make even a big payout if it loses at trial. “It would take a seismic ruling against the company to have an impact on the valuation,” said R.J. Hottovy, equity analyst at the Chicago-based Morningstar Inc investment research firm. MANAGERS ACCUSED OF GOING STRIP CLUBS The Wal-Mart lawsuit has produced testimony that managers held business meetings at Hooters restaurants, attended strip clubs and referred to female employees as “girls,” in what plaintiffs lawyers said was a corporate culture rife with stereotypes demeaning to women. Wal-Mart, founded in 1962 and based in Bentonville, Arkansas, has denied the allegations and said it has operated under a policy barring discrimination. The discount retailer said the claims involving current and former female workers, hourly employees and salaried managers, and stores across the country are too different to proceed as a single class-action lawsuit. Lawyer Theodore Boutrous, who will argue for Wal-Mart, said bundling together all the diverse claims is unfair, making it impossible for the company to defend itself. “Class actions can be helpful for efficiency, and there’s an attraction to that. But at some point, they can start chopping away rights. I think that’s what happened here,” Boutrous told reporters. Jocelyn Larkin and other lawyers for the employees disagreed. They said overwhelming evidence supported the judge’s decision, upheld by a U.S. appeals court, to certify the nationwide class for trial. “Wal-Mart is attempting to dismantle the Supreme Court’s employment discrimination class-action jurisprudence,” Larkin said. “Such far-reaching changes to the law would require the court to overrule 45 years of civil rights and class-action precedent. This would rule out certification of all but the smallest employment discrimination cases,” Larkin said. The Obama administration did not take a position in the dispute, even though the federal government’s Equal Employment Opportunity Commission previously supported the workers. Legal briefs filed with the Supreme Court split largely along predictable lines, with Wal-Mart supported by business groups and big corporations, including retailer Costco, tobacco company Altria Group Inc and software giant Microsoft Corp. Women’s rights groups backed the employees. The Supreme Court case is Wal-Mart Stores Inc v. Betty Dukes, No. 10-277. (Additional reporting by Jessica Wohl in Chicago; Editing by Will Dunham) Copyright 2011 Thomson Reuters. Click for Restrictions .

Read the full article →

Chris Christie’s School Budget Cuts Left State Unable To Meet Educational Obligations: Judge

March 22, 2011

A New Jersey judge ruled on Tuesday that Governor Chris Christie’s nearly $1 billion in budget cuts to schools last year left the state unable to meet its educational obligations to more than one million children, the Star-Ledger reports . The AP reports : In a report issued Tuesday, Superior Court Judge Peter Doyne found that Christie’s cuts hit high-risk districts the hardest. … Last year, Christie cut state funding for all districts, including the needy ones, saying the state government couldn’t balance its budget otherwise. According to the Star-Ledger , Doyne wrote in an opinion on the case, “Despite spending levels that meet or exceed virtually every state in the country, and that saw a significant increase in spending levels from 2000 to 2008, our ‘at risk’ children are now moving further from proficiency.” The Wall Street Journal reports : The state Supreme Court has yet to issue a ruling on the lawsuit, which could have major implications on Christie’s next $29.4 billion budget, which he proposed last month and would take effect July 1 if passed by the Legislature. The state and the Education Law Center, which filed the complaint, will debate the special master’s report before the court. This is a developing story… More information to come…

Read the full article →

Lehman Trustee Sues Citibank For $1.3 Billion

March 18, 2011

NEW YORK (Reuters) – The trustee overseeing the liquidation of Lehman Brothers Holdings’(LEHMQ.PK: Quote, Profile, Research, Stock Buzz) broker dealer has sued Citibank to recover more than $1.3 billion in cash and other assets, according to court papers filed on Friday. The assets include a $1 billion deposit that Citibank demanded to continue providing foreign exchange settlement services to broker-dealer Lehman Brothers Inc after its parent filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection, according to a complaint filed in U.S. bankruptcy court in Manhattan. Citibank, part of Citigroup Inc (C.N: Quote, Profile, Research, Stock Buzz), also froze over $300 million in additional deposits, according to the complaint, filed by Lehman Brothers trustee James Giddens. When Lehman requested the return of the $1 billion deposit, Citibank said it had set the deposit off against other obligations Lehman owed to Citibank, according to the lawsuit. In a statement, Citigroup said it demanded the deposit to cover any losses it suffered in settling Lehman Brothers Inc’s trades during the panic caused by its parent’s bankruptcy filing in September 2008. It called the trustee’s claims “unjustified and without merit” and said it will vigorously defend its right to recover its losses, which amounted to more than $1 billion for helping settle the Lehman trades. (Reporting by Dena Aubin, editing by Dave Zimmerman) Copyright 2011 Thomson Reuters. Click for Restrictions

Read the full article →

Wisconsin Union Law Challenge Filed By County District Attorney

March 17, 2011

MADISON, Wis. — Republican lawmakers violated Wisconsin’s open meetings law when they amended a contentious plan that bars most public employees from collective bargaining, a Madison prosecutor alleged in a lawsuit Wednesday. Dane County District Attorney Ismael Ozanne’s legal challenge is the second from a county official since Gov. Scott Walker signed the bill into law Friday. Ozanne filed his lawsuit after Democrats in the Wisconsin Assembly alleged Republican leaders didn’t give enough public notice that a committee planned to meet to amend the bill. Ozanne, a Democrat, wants a judge to void the law and issue an emergency order blocking the secretary of state from publishing the law, which would prevent it from taking effect. He also wants each Republican leader fined $300. Judge Maryann Sumi was scheduled to hold a hearing on the lawsuit Thursday morning. Dane County Executive Kathleen Falk filed a lawsuit nearly identical to Ozanne’s the same day Walker signed the bill, which garnered nationwide attention and drew tens of thousands of protesters to the Wisconsin Capitol for weeks. Walker spokesman Chris Schrimpf said Republicans did nothing wrong. Andrew Welhouse, spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald, added: “We are completely confidant we followed the law through the entire process.” The new law limits most public workers’ collective bargaining rights to wages only, so they can no longer negotiate work conditions, vacation time or grievance processes. Walker and Republicans insist the move will help the state balance its current $137 million deficit and a $3.6 billion hole in the upcoming two-year budget. Walker also has said the law will give local governments the flexibility to absorb deep cuts in state aid. Democrats consider it a direct attempt to cripple unions, one of their strongest campaign allies. Union workers see the law as a personal attack. Demonstrations against the bill jammed the Capitol and its grounds for three straight weeks. Senate Democrats left the state for Illinois to block a vote in the Senate. But Republicans broke the impasse on March 9, when they convened a committee in the Senate parlor to strip what they said were the fiscal provisions from the bill. That negated the need for a full quorum, allowing Republican senators to vote without the minority Democrats. Assembly Republicans passed the bill the next day and Walker signed it about 24 hours later, leaving Democrats no way to stop the measure except in court. Assembly Democrats filed a complaint alleging the open meetings violations with Ozanne the day after the committee convened. Falk’s suit argues the bill still contained spending provisions after the committee was done revising it. That means a full quorum was necessary to vote in the Senate. She also argues that the Republicans convened the committee hearing on less than two hours’ notice, even though the state’s open meeting law demands at least 24 hours. Ozanne’s lawsuit alleges the same open meeting violation. He also claims that the Senate parlor was too small to be considered reasonably accessible and police had restricted public access to the state Capitol building to limit protesters. Senate Clerk Rob Marchant has said the meeting was legally called under rules of the Senate that have no time requirement, but Ozanne argues that open meeting statutes still applied. Falk asked for an emergency order blocking publication of the law on March 11, but Dane County Circuit Judge Amy R. Smith denied the request. The case then shifted to Sumi, who has decided to hold a hearing on Friday in that case. Falk’s attorneys hope Sumi will decide to halt publication on a non-emergency basis then, but the judge has warned them that the decision may not come during Friday’s proceedings and she plans to be out of her office all next week. Ozanne’s lawsuit gives Democrats another chance to win an emergency injunction on Thursday.

Read the full article →

Chevron Wins Temporary Victory In Rainforest Contamination Case

March 8, 2011

NEW YORK — A federal judge on Monday extended his temporary order banning collection of an $18 billion judgment by the courts in Ecuador against Chevron, saying the oil company could face irreparable harm because it appeared that lawyers for Ecuadoreans who sued over rainforest contamination were going to try to quickly collect the award. U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan said evidence had established that lawyers for 30,000 Ecuadoreans planned to move swiftly to pursue multiple enforcement actions and asset seizures around the globe, including in areas where Chevron would not be immediately able to challenge the actions. He said that without his order, “Chevron would be forced to defend itself and litigate the enforceability of the Ecuadorean judgment in multiple proceedings. There is a significant risk that assets would be seized or attached, thus disrupting Chevron’s supply chain, causing it to miss critical deliveries to business partners.” The judge said such a disruption would also damage a business reputation and relationships the company had developed over the past 130 years. Kaplan ordered Chevron to post a $21.8 million bond to cover the cost of any delay in enforcement of the award should it be determined that the damages are legitimate. Kaplan’s ruling came after Chevron sued lawyers and others involved in the Ecuadorean litigation, saying they violated racketeering laws by manipulating Ecuadorean courts into issuing an unfair judgment against the company. After the lawsuit was filed, Ecuadorean Judge Nicolas Zambrano issued his award last month. Karen Hinton, a spokeswoman for the Ecuadoreans, called Kaplan’s ruling “a slap in the face to the democratic nation of Ecuador and the thousands of Ecuadorean citizens who have courageously fought for 18 years to hold Chevron accountable for committing the world’s worst environmental disaster.” She said Kaplan’s failure to consider key evidence or schedule a hearing to learn more facts was a “trampling of due process” and “an inappropriate exercise of judicial power.” She said Kaplan had disregarded Zambrano’s “scholarly and comprehensive” 188-page opinion and ignored key evidence that Chevron had committed a series of frauds in Ecuador to “cover up its unlawful conduct.” In a 127-page opinion of his own, Kaplan cited evidence of what he described as possible misconduct by an American lawyer for the Ecuadoreans. Yet, he said, neither the lawyer “nor any of the other key actors has denied Chevron’s allegations or attempted here to explain or justify under oath their recorded statements and written admissions.” The judge said there was “a great deal of posturing on both sides” and added that “a good deal of the rhetoric and argument in this case … must be viewed with a critical eye.” Kaplan said he solicited the views of the U.S. Department of State on Feb. 9 but the department politely declined to express any view. Chevron, which has never operated in Ecuador, found itself a party in the litigation after acquiring Texaco Inc. in 2001. Lawsuits had accused Texaco of contaminating Ecuadorean land during three decades of oil exploration and extraction. San Ramon, Calif.-based Chevron has maintained that a 1998 agreement Texaco signed with Ecuador after a $40 million cleanup absolves it of liability. The Ecuadorean plaintiffs say the cleanup was a sham and didn’t exempt third-party claims. Chevron has vowed to appeal in Ecuador. Kaplan said his order prevents the plaintiffs from trying to collect the award or seize Chevron assets prior to his issuance of a final order in the case. Hinton said the Ecuadorean plaintiffs believe Kaplan cannot bar them from enforcing the judgment in any country, except the United States.

Read the full article →

Janet Tavakoli: The Biggest Headache for Investors in Groupon and Facebook

March 2, 2011

Groupon makes its money by selling coupons for goods and services. It partners with local merchants. When you buy a coupon for a merchant’s discount on Groupon, it reportedly takes a 50% cut in the U.S. Groupon has had a few embarrassments . On Valentine’s Day, FTD’s flowers were priced lower than Groupon’s “deals” and the online discounter had to apologize to customers. Moreover, merchants often put conditions and restrictions on Groupon discounts that dilute the value of the deal, similar to restrictions on redeeming air miles. Even so Groupon’s valuations have ranged from $1.2 billion to $6 billion to $15 billion all in the space of a year. What’s it really worth? More on that later. Facebook is free and “always will be.” It makes its money from ads and revenues from games (if users don’t block them), albeit phone apps so far do not display ads. Michael Arrington at Techcrunch reported that Facebook is secretly building its own phone to control its own operating system. He noted that Li Ka-Shing is a Facebook investor, and he is an investor in the rumored INQ and Spotify phone project. While Facebook may remain free, it would have to figure out a way to get users to pay their phone bills. Facebook has tremendous potential to exploit its 500 million users. In fact, one of Facebook’s fundraisers is a genius at exploitation. Goldman Sachs, the Great and Powerful Oz of Finance (just don’t look behind the curtain), has already opined on Facebook’s value. In January 2011, it valued Facebook at $50 billion when it sought to raise $1.5 billion in Facebook financing. Rich Teitelbaum of Bloomberg News reminded the financial world that Goldman Sachs Asset Management’s anemic track record suggests that Goldman may not be the best go-to source for putting a value on an asset. Despite Goldman’s public relations hype that it employs the “best and brightest,” it trailed the average return of its peer group in every category. Goldman has an incentive to dangle a high valuation on Facebook in front of clients: Jim Clark of Netscape and Silicon Graphics fame was irritated that Goldman wanted to fee stuff its Facebook offering with a 4 percent placement fee, a half percent expense fee, and a snatch-back of 5 percent of investors’ potential profits. A few months earlier, Clark had invested in Facebook through another financial firm at a lower price, and the other firm wouldn’t potentially gouge him with Goldman’s 5 percent pleasure-of-your-company tax. “I don’t think it’s reasonable,” Clark told Bloomberg. “It’s just another way for [Goldman] to make money from their clients.” The question remains whether Clark bought his stake at a reasonable price. ” Blankfein Flunks Asset Management as Clark Vows No More Goldman ,” by Richard Teitelbaum, Bloomberg News , January 24, 2011 In January 2011, SharesPost Inc. valued Facebook at $82.9 billion on the secondary exchange. Whatever price the market will pay today, one has to be concerned about what it will pay tomorrow. Even if the future value of Facebook is say, $4 billion, Goldman will rake in fees. Impermanent Value Both Facebook and Groupon became successes because they are web based networks that required few management skills, minimum capital to start, and there were no barriers to entry. That is also their biggest problem. The ugly truth is that no one can tell you what they are worth as businesses. Groupon’s successful-so-far revenue model is its curse. It’s both trying to hold its position in “established” markets, and it’s trying to expand. The problem is that web users in other countries have noticed Groupon’s success and the fact that Groupon has been paying high premiums for local established discounting web sites just to get at the client distribution lists. Groupon’s competitors are both buying sites for the same reason as Groupon, and local entrepreneurs can easily copy Groupon’s business model. It seems all it takes is a good web developer, a two-page merchant agreement, and an accounting firm that can handle the taxes as a site expands internationally. Groupon may have a head start, but it has no long-term competitive advantage. That puts its margins, its market share, and it’s ability to expand and hold its position in new markets at risk. Smart investors look for highly skilled managers in industries with a long-term competitive advantage in a stable industry run by decision makers with a “here-today, here-forever” mentality. Between Groupon and Facebook, it seems Facebook has the better chance of making a case, but it hasn’t made one so far. Facebook seems to be thinking of ways to create a loyal user base by penetrating deep within its user base. It certainly has a shot, but it is unclear whether it can maintain a competitive advantage. Users are fickle, and young users will gravitate to the next exciting new thing. The rapid success of Catherine Cook’s myyearbook.com has to give investors pause. She started the site 6 years ago as a 16-year old high school student with a $250,000 investment from her brother, and the site is valued at $20 million. While it’s no threat to Facebook, it has a fresh look, is responsive to users, and offers new spins such as allowing users to buy each other gifts and “lunch money.” Investors may wonder when the next bright young kid will eat Facebook’s lunch and make it look like a site for old fogies in comparison. Facebook may adapt, but it would do itself favors by disclosing its revenues, and how it plans to face up to potential competitors. Update: ” Groupon Singled Out in Lawsuit: Man Claims Chicago-based Website Offers Illegal Gift Certificates ,” by Lacy McCrany, NBC Chicago, March 2, 2011.

Read the full article →

JPMorgan Accused of Fraudulently Selling Securities

February 16, 2011

JPMorgan Chase is being sued by Allstate insurance company for fraud, in the latest example of a big bank being accused of knowingly selling a poor-quality product. In a lawsuit dated Wednesday, the insurance company accuses the bank of knowing that the bundles of loans it was selling were very likely to go bad. The suit joins a host of similar accusations from insurance companies and investors, who suffered losses when securities that were sold as high-quality instead turned sour. An industry of originating, selling and investing in risky mortgages helped bring about the worst economic downturn since the Depression. When the real estate market crashed, investors, insurers and homeowners saw the value of their assets tumble. Allstate is claiming that JPMorgan and the banks it now owns fraudulently sold it more than $750 million of such mortgage-backed securities, CNBC reports. In another lawsuit , recently unsealed, Ambac insurance company has accused Bear Stearns (now owned by JPMorgan) not only of knowing the loans it was selling were toxic, but also of accepting payments from mortgage companies to compensate for those loans. From the Allstate lawsuit: Whereas Allstate was made to believe it was buying highly-rated, safe securities backed by pools of loans with specifically-represented risk profiles, in fact, Defendants knew the pool was a toxic mix of loans given to borrowers that could not afford the properties, and thus were highly likely to default. READ the suit below: document

Read the full article →

NY Mets Owners Hit With $300 Million Madoff Lawsuit

February 4, 2011

NEW YORK/DETROIT (By Jonathan Stempel and Ben Klayman) – The owners of the New York Mets turned a blind eye to Bernard Madoff’s Ponzi scheme and should give up roughly $300 million of fictitious profits tied to the now imprisoned swindler, a lawsuit charges. Irving Picard, the court-appointed trustee recovering money for Madoff’s victims, claims the partners at Sterling Equities, including the Mets’ Fred Wilpon, “were simply in too deep — having substantially supported their businesses with Madoff money — to do anything but ignore the gathering clouds. “Despite being on notice and having every resource at their disposal to investigate the litany of legitimate questions surrounding Madoff,” Picard said, “the Sterling partners chose to do nothing.” In his sweeping 365-page complaint unsealed on Friday, Picard also said the baseball team itself had 16 Madoff accounts from which it withdrew more than $90 million of bogus profits to fund day-to-day operations. The litigation has cast its own cloud over the immediate future of the Mets, which has had two straight losing seasons despite having one of the highest payrolls in Major League Baseball. Attendance at its two-year-old ballpark Citi Field fell 19 percent last year. Wilpon, a co-founder at Sterling, repeated that he may sell part of the Mets as a result of Picard’s litigation. The Mets also own a majority of SportsNet New York, better known as SNY, which broadcasts their games, with Time Warner Cable Inc and Comcast Corp also owning stakes. “OUTRAGEOUS STRONG-ARM EFFORT,” WILPON SAYS In a joint statement, he and Sterling co-founder Saul Katz, who is Wilpon’s brother-in-law, called Picard’s lawsuit “an outrageous strong-arm effort” to coerce a settlement and ruin their reputations and businesses. “Not one of the Sterling partners ever knew or suspected that Madoff ran a Ponzi scheme,” they said. “We thought that Madoff was a friend for 25 years. That is why his betrayal was so painful. We should not be made victims twice over — the first time by Madoff, and again by the trustee’s actions.” A Major League Baseball spokesman declined to comment. Madoff’s estimated $65 billion Ponzi scheme was uncovered on December 11, 2008. Now 72, Madoff later pleaded guilty and is now serving a 150-year prison sentence in North Carolina. Picard filed the lawsuit under seal in December. Wilpon had opposed making it public while settlement talks with the trustee were ongoing, but agreed to an unsealing after the talks broke down. OTHER MADOFF LITIGATION According to the complaint, Picard is seeking $295.5 million of fictitious profits from Sterling partners, family members and affiliates; $14.2 million of principal withdrawn in the 90 days prior to the collapse of Madoff’s firm; and $12 million of other “fraudulent” transfers. The lawsuit came one day after Picard unveiled embarrassing accusations in his $6.4 billion lawsuit accusing JPMorgan Chase & Co, once Madoff’s main banker, of turning a blind eye to and being “thoroughly complicit” in Madoff’s fraud so it could do more business with him and protect its investments. Picard has recovered roughly $10 billion from various parties to repay former Madoff clients. Wilpon has said he might sell 20 percent to 25 percent of the Mets, while retaining a majority stake [ID:nN28107090], but a big settlement could force a change in ownership. “Any time you have this kind of noise around a sale, you start at 25 percent, then you sell 50 percent with an option to buy the rest; it seems to be heading in that direction,” said a sports banker who asked not to be identified, citing a lack of authority to discuss specific teams. “At the end of the day, anyone coming in is going to want some kind of voice, is going to want a piece of the whole pie,” the banker added. The case is Picard v. Katz et al, U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Southern District of New York, No. 10-ap-05287. (Reporting by Jonathan Stempel in New York and Ben Klayman in Detroit; Editing by Lisa Von Ahn, Phil Berlowitz) Copyright 2010 Thomson Reuters. Click for Restrictions .

Read the full article →

Zannah P. Becker: Walking Away: My Story

February 3, 2011

It has been a year since we decided to walk away from our mortgage on a condominium that was underwater financially, but also was saddled with the additional burden of a construction defect lawsuit. Our foreclosure went fairly quickly, thankfully, and it was eight months between the last payment we made and the auction date. The hard facts: We stopped paying our mortgage in December 2009 and the foreclosure went through in August 2010. We owned condominium so we continued to pay our monthly dues and our property taxes. We checked our credit score this January 2011 and the score had gone from the 700′s to 615. During the time we were in foreclosure we received twice weekly phone calls from Chase- none of which did I answer. When the first call came in I let it hit voice mail, checked the message and added that number to my phone so I always knew when they called. I received numerous letters of collection from Chase. We actually received one from the mortgage insurance company at the end of our foreclosure process urging us to make our mortgage payments. I assume this is because they did not want to have to pay the bank for the insured mortgage. I thought it was pretty funny and added their letter to the shredding pile. We attended our foreclosure proceeding, which was held outside of an office building at a picnic table. Fifty or more real estate agents with property lists and stacks of cashier’s checks circled like vultures waiting for the prime properties to be read off. Ours was not a prime property so it reverted to the bank. It was an interesting process to see in the flesh. Our foreclosure was on a Friday and on Monday a Fed-ex letter arrives from Chase again urging us to make payments. Again I thought this was pretty funny as the foreclosure was now done and over with. I mailed keys into the real estate agency that took over the management of the property from- Not Chase- but now Fannie Mae- our mortgage had been sold at some point- we were never notified. A week or so later I received a letter from an attorney- many attorneys sent us letters along with real estate agents all claiming they could help us. This letter stated if we were tenants of the unit we needed to send in our lease. Since we had moved out I sent no paperwork and ignored their letter. The next week I received another letter saying I was being taken to court for not vacating the premises and had to send a letter to them and the court by said date or face paying legal and court costs. Furious as I was considering I had sent keys to the real estate agent managing the property and had moved out in March, I filed a letter with documentation with the court and sent the same letter to the attorney. I never heard from them again so I assume it was finalized and no one had to waste any further time on the matter. We did not have difficulty renting a home during our foreclosure and have not suffered any recriminations from our creditors at this point. One credit card which ironically we had closed already and are paying off sent us a letter telling us they were lowering our credit limit. Again we thought this somewhat humorous and added it to the shred pile. I just received a tax document in the mail, which has to do with our walking away from our mortgage. I have yet to do our taxes and am hoping that it will not penalize us financially. We shall see. The condo: Our mortgage was a zero down, fixed interest rate loan from Washington Mutual with whom I had been a customer for five years or more at that time. We purchased a property that was less than the approved amount they gave us for a home loan. We sat down and did the math and figured with our debts and wanting to eat more than rice and beans what amount we could actually afford for our monthly housing payment. I was excited to finally own a piece of property, my own home, even if it was just 1,023 sq ft and a condominium to boot. My husband had wanted to keep renting but I just wanted out of that feeling of being beholden to some random landlord and their whims. Somehow being beholden to a faceless corporation did not bother me at the time. Perhaps because of my living with credit debt so long I was just used it and it was comfortable to me. Also rental rates in the area we lived in at the time were sky high as people were demanding a lot for very little. I felt we would get just as tiny an apartment renting as we would buying a place. Ideally I wanted a house but the cost was too great for us to attempt. I had also just lost my maternal grandmother who raised me, to a year long struggle with Congestive Heart Failure. I cared for her during her illness and was there with her when she passed. I was also caring for my then two year old daughter. I craved stability and a safe shelter out of the storm my life had become. At first we were fairly happy, the space was very small for us, a family of three, but it was alright. For a long time I clung to the idea it was my house, I owned it, and somehow finally I was one of those people that was not a “renter”. A respectable homeowner- that nod of approval you receive from banks, and other financial institutions when you go in to apply for a loan, buy a car, or even get a cell phone with family plan at AT&T. Somehow you are suddenly worth more in the eyes of the world. I was not a different person in any way except I paid an obscene amount of money every month on a mortgage that included mortgage insurance. Since we lived in a condominium we paid dues each month as well so we were at around $3K a month for a tiny little place in the heart of a busy neighborhood that was honestly never quiet. In the first six months of our moving into the building the condominium board had hired an attorney to proceed with legal action against the developer of the building. I was on the board and was privy to what was going on with regard to the lawsuit and the construction defects. It was then that somehow my bubble burst over my head and I thought what have we done? What have I done? What can we do to get out of this mess? Should we stick it out? Should we try to sell or rent our place? I researched our options with a feeling of dread building in my stomach. I contacted several real estate agents that told me a property in litigation has zero chance of being sold. I listed our unit for rent for several months without as much as a nibble. About this time the credit card companies started raising interest rates on customers to unjustifiable amounts. Again we always paid on time and were never late. We carried a balance, fairly high, but always we paid and on time. When the letters came out with the either or option; either you close your account and keep your lower rate and pay us off, or you pay a higher interest rate and keep using the card- we closed the accounts. It was painful because that crutch of credit we had always had available to make up the difference in expenses for groceries or needed items suddenly vanished. A crutch we should have never depended on but I am being honest here it was there and we used it, we had to eat. It was not long after the credit card rate hikes that I reviewed our property value assessment from the tax office and noted our value had dropped by about 10K The second year in the condo was the year I started getting sick. I would have bronchitis and be treated with antibiotics and be back after a day or so of being off the medication with another bout of bronchitis. I went through five of these in a row, I also had tracheitis, and severe sinus infections too numerous to count. I finally decided it was the environment I was living in since the doctors could find nothing wrong with me through blood tests and the fact that I don’t smoke or spend time around cigarette smoke. One of the owners in the building found mold in his walls when he was remodeling his unit. They found mold in a few other areas of the building but lawyers did not want to pursue this as part of the lawsuit. Financial Background : At first it was liberating to have a month, particularly being December as we celebrate Christmas, which we did not have a huge mortgage payment and little else left over. We did not spend extravagantly on gifts as some might assume. I paid bills that were due but that had been piling up a bit over the last few months, not credit debt, but those additional fees that one owes from doctor visits and other medical related expenses. It was a relief to my ever acid churning gut to put checks in the mail and get those nagging invoices out of my To Be paid file. I bought groceries and not just a few bags but the liberating feeling of filling ones pantry for a change. I did not have to walk to the market with calculator in one hand and coupons in the other and make choices between what we had to have to get by and a few simple extras like a bottle of diet soda for my husband or a small treat for our daughter. Not to say that I did not use my coupons, watch for sales and shop other stores for lower prices. Being strapped for cash for so long starts to leave a mark on you psychologically. You get in the habit of not having funds to spend on much of anything, food or otherwise. Pinching pennies becomes a way of life to the extreme. While we did get Christmas gifts it was nothing expensive, we bought things like new socks and underwear because our essentials were getting a bit threadbare. A new pair of shoes for my husband because he had worn his shoes down walking 25 minutes to and from a free park & ride, rain or shine, every day to save money on parking expenses. I can’t recall how many birthdays and other gift type holidays we skipped as far as gifts go, and how many times we had to postpone a birthday dinner for ourselves indefinitely because the funds were just not available for anything accept our debts and mortgage expenses. Neither my husband nor I grew up with much in the way of money. My family, consisting of a mother, grandmother and myself never owned anything with regard to real estate. We never even had a car when I was growing up; we took the bus or walked. I stood in food lines with my grandmother as a small child observing at that time that most of the people in line were elderly and looked just like everyone else. We all received a large block of orange Government Issue cheese, sometimes the white labeled can of mystery meat and a few other staples. Oddly I did not feel humiliated in any way. I was just there observing what went on and how people survived. We canned our fruits and vegetables, used coupons, scrimped to get by and never had any savings because there was never anything left to save. My grandmother was on disability; my mother worked full time and went to school at night. There was no support from my father. We paid the rent, utilities, grocery bills, and daydreamed because that was all we could afford to do. Actually we were really great library patrons during those years. I love to read and libraries were free. We had no credit debt at that time in my life. The experience of eviction because we could not pay the ever increasing rent fees demanded of us, the poor treatment that we received because we were “renters” and could not supply proof of income that could pay double the monthly rent and also have enough saved for first, last and deposit left a mark on me. I hate renting! I hate leasing! I hate being beholden to someone’s idea of what a good person is and that means having money. If you don’t have lots of it in savings or on your balance sheet then somehow you are less of a person than someone who does. We moved a lot — 21 times by the time I was 20. I have moved a few times since then of my own volition. I wanted to own my home for as long as I can remember. The idea was that it was mine and that I could live there safely without fear of eviction or persecution from a landlord that decided that he wanted to double the monthly rent telling us we had 30 days to get out or pay up. The truth is in this country if you are a home owner then you are an established respected individual versus the poor schmuck that has little to their name in assets, even if they are just as hard working and decent as the person who owns property. As I grew older finances in our lives improved some but we always rented apartments and never had a car. My mother got into credit debt when I was about nine years old. She did what she thought was the more responsible thing and went Chapter 13 instead straight bankruptcy. I hated her for that since again we had no money. Every month we made a trek downtown to the offices of Paul Wolf (yes that was his name and I remember it well) and made her debt payment. Trust me any time I asked for anything, dance classes, new clothes, a trip to a nearby city, a weekend matinee movie, I was always reminded where every single penny of our extra money went- to Paul Wolf and my mother’s misguided ideas of doing the right thing. She would even whip out the checkbook and show me what money we did not have and what money we had and where it was spent. I started working early, volunteer work at first, and then paid work at 16. At 17 I was standing on my own pretty well and working full time at a now defunct retailer. I was offered a credit card by Citibank. I applied for it thinking I might get $500 which would be nice as I was starting college early while I worked retail. In the mail arrives a $10,000 Visa and I thought I had hit the lottery. My grandmother had counseled me closely on finance and how I had to pay off my credit card each month, how I should save money for my future, that I should always pay my bills on time and always maintain a good credit score as this was the key to opening doors for my future financially. If I wanted a home, a car, loans, etc I had to have an excellent credit score. Well I listened to two of those pieces of advice; I listened to all of it, but ended up only following through on two items. I always paid my bills on time and always maintained a high credit score. That $10,000 was just the beginning because other credit cards seemingly appeared in my hands like magic. Not one of them had a limit under $1,000. I had reported my income honestly, which was a retail hourly income in the 1990′s. No way did I make enough to actually qualify for any of this money but there it was and here I was finally being able to buy things I wanted like new clothes more than a couple of times a year. I became like many people, a slave to my credit cards, my entire income went to the credit card payments and I lived off the available credit. A nasty hamster wheel of a cycle to live in but once you are there, there is no way out. I did not want to throw in the towel and file bankruptcy. I made the bills and felt like somehow someway I would earn the money to pay it off. I went to college at night and worked full time during the day and after eight long years earned an AA degree and managed to work my way up from a phone operator to a manager in the finance department. My debt traveled with me and I finally got to a financial point where I could start getting rid of my debts. Slowly I started paying some off and always if there was a tax refund a credit card got paid off or down. When I met my husband I was 40K in debt but managing the payments, although I had nothing in savings. I wanted to save but there was no chance of that with my bills. I went to a branch of Washington Mutual- now Chase and applied for a loan for the full amount of my debt. I wanted to pay them $800 a month on the debt and close all my credit accounts, and pay off my debt in about five years. They refused to even consider it since I had no collateral, I had not purchased a car or bought a home, but they offered me a line of credit instead. I took the line of credit and moved a higher interest amount onto it and continued to pay my bills. I paid faithfully on these debts I made for years; I still pay them every month without fail. I have never been late and never once defaulted. I made those debts and it is my responsibility to pay it off. Financial Truths: My husband purchased and read through a book entitled “Web of Debt” by E. H. Brown and wow what an eye opener it was for us. While I don’t propose to endorse the entire book and its contents, since I was never a student of economics, but the base facts of who controls our currency and the history thereof remain invaluable. We are taught to trust that banks have the funds to loan us for homes, cars and lines of credit. We are taught that they have assets that have value and that somewhere in the country is a big vault full of actual currency that belongs to the bank. When the truth is they create money out of thin air. When we opened our mortgage account with Washington Mutual they simply added an account with a dollar entry under our name. They never removed that amount of money from an existing account of available funds they had to loan. There is not enough actual physical currency circulating in the country to cover the amount of debts that are out there. It is an odd realization to find that the Federal Reserve is not a Federal Government institution. The Federal Reserve is a private corporation owned by some of the largest banks in our country. It is rather ironic that we have spent so much time and money bailing out banks that are part of the Federal Reserve, the private corporation which dictates how much money is available to us as a country and at what rate of interest we must pay for the privilege of using said currency. We are taught to feel we owe our loyalty to the financial institutions we do business with because they care about us as consumers, even as people. What I learned from my experience of homeownership and walking away from our mortgage was that it was all lie. The bank was not interested in us as consumers or as people. Even with a high credit score in the 700′s they would not consider lowering our interest rate. Somehow we did not qualify but then I don’t think there really is an average person who qualifies for the best interest rate available. To me the system as it was based on credit scores, homeownership, and responsible debt management has to be reevaluated. I have heard financial analysts try and convince people that things are like they used to be. That credit scores matter, that homeownership means something, that we should save our money and pay off our debts. Am I irresponsible for walking away from a money pit that I could never sell and could not live in and be healthy? No I am not! I chose life instead of being owned by a thing. For a brief period it gave me a false sense of security and of self worth financially. Now I look back and see the illusion that we are taught to buy into as consumers. Do I still pay our monthly credit debts? Yes I pay them their minimum payment amount every month and they can have just that until they finally go away. I am in no hurry to pay them off. Will we pay more interest over time doing this? Of course we will but then again in this economy if I take the extra we have and pay off a debt, if my husband loses his job next month then I will have nothing to live on at all. You can’t trust your credit cards to be there and you certainly can’t expect empathy from them if you are out of a job and need a month or two leniency. Do I blame the banks that gave me credit for my credit card debt? The error I see in their actions was this: giving a 17 year old a credit card for $10,000 and then other companies for sending me cards without my having solicited their product. Is it my fault I went into credit card debt? – Absolutely. Without hesitation I take full responsibility and still comply with my end of the agreement by always making my monthly payments. Credit cards gave me the means to pay for a college degree when I could not have paid it otherwise. The naysayers out there will wag their fingers, and shake their heads. “You could have saved for it,” they would say. Certainly I could have remained in a low paying job, barley getting by and tucked my pennies under my mattress hoping one day I might be able to attend college and better myself. “Student Loans,” I hear people shout at me. I considered it and even filled out the paperwork but then shredded it. Why? Because I was struggling to an AA degree paid for. I had yet to even make it to an actual University and I was contemplating taking out student loans? I thought it foolish and decided that using my credit cards was a better option. Save student loans for a bachelor’s degree at a University where the fees are truly out of reach. You ask me: I am willing to pay off my credit debt but not my mortgage why? Because I could actually pay off the credit debt and because I received something for the debt I created. I paid for my college education with those credit cards because I could not get financial aid outside of applying for student loans. With the mortgage debt I feel like the bank came out even and then some. They have the property back in excellent condition and they made money on what was basically a rental for over two years from us. They can sell that property again when the market rebounds or rent it in the interim. Plus they had us paying mortgage insurance on the property so they get payment from that as well. To me the differences in walking away from a mortgage and paying off credit debt are quite clear. I honestly see no changes in finance for our future as country. We have a definite division of class now, rich and poor. Few of us live in the middle any longer and those that do; we hang on by a thread and prayer.

Read the full article →

California Settles Predatory Lending Lawsuit Against Countrywide Execs

February 3, 2011

LOS ANGELES — The state of California has reached a settlement in a predatory lending lawsuit against former executives at Countrywide Financial Corp. that will pour $6.5 million into a fund to help foreclosed homeowners. The state had sued Countrywide, CEO Angelo Mozilo and President David Sambol under former Attorney General Jerry Brown. The 2008 lawsuit alleged that the company lured borrowers with low “teaser” rates on adjustable rate loans. Loan officers didn’t tell borrowers that the rates would jump, that prepayments would be penalized, and the total loan costs would skyrocket, even if they made additional payments, the state alleged. The settlement filed Wednesday in Los Angeles Superior Court says Countrywide agreed to pay $6.5 million to a Foreclosure Crisis Relief Fund. It will provide restitution, loan modification services and relocation assistance for foreclosed homeowners, plus money for state and local agencies to prosecute mortgage fraud, Attorney General Kamala Harris said. The lawsuit claimed that Countrywide engaged in unfair business practices and false advertising laws with just about every action it took to market and originate some of the most popular – and potentially risky – types of home loans. Countrywide allegedly loosened its mortgage standards and verification procedures and agents overrode warnings from a computerized underwriting system that analyzed the ability of applicants to repay. The company paid higher commissions to agents who put borrowers into loans with higher rates and fees than they qualified for based on their credit scores. In one case described in the lawsuit, the company provided a mortgage for an 85-year-old disabled veteran with such a low credit score and high debt that he defaulted on an adjustable rate mortgage in less than six months. The state claimed that these practices led to tens of thousands of homeowners with Countrywide loans defaulting and losing their homes to foreclosure. The attorney general’s lawsuit alleged that Mozilo and Sambol knew of these practices and allowed them to continue. The state settled with Countrywide in October 2008, with the company agreeing to provide loan modifications and other foreclosure relief worth $8.68 billion nationwide, with $3.5 billion for California borrowers. The executives left the company when Bank of America Corp. bought it in July 2008. Bank of America assumed responsibility for loan modifications for Countrywide borrowers and for paying restitution to those who qualify under the terms of the settlement.

Read the full article →

Investigators Accused Of ‘Malpractice’ In Report On For-Profit Colleges

February 2, 2011

A lobbying group representing the for-profit college industry filed a lawsuit today accusing federal government investigators of “professional malpractice” after issuing a report last summer that documented aggressive and misleading recruitment at several for-profit institutions. The undercover investigation by the Government Accountability Office, which involved four investigators posing as fictitious prospective students, found numerous examples of deceptive statements made by admissions officers and other employees at 15 for-profit colleges. The findings included overstated promises of potential salaries after graduation and high-pressure tactics that pressed applicants to enroll before receiving information about financial aid. The for-profit college industry in recent months has seized on revisions made to the report in November – changes that in many cases represent technical tweaks and elaborations, but that the industry says have “cast serious doubt on the credibility and objectivity of the GAO’s analysis.” The report garnered great attention when it was released last August, causing stock prices to plunge at many of the publicly-traded corporations that own for-profit schools. The for-profit college sector includes a diverse array of schools, ranging from specialized institutions such as ITT Technical Institute to mostly-online colleges such as the University of Phoenix and Kaplan University. Chuck Young, a spokesman for the GAO said the revisions in no way undermine the overall message of the report, and that the agency stands by its findings. According to Young, an independent GAO review team examined the report after it was published and “found no material flaws in the evidentiary support for the overall message.” The lawsuit — filed by the Coalition for Educational Success, represented by Washington lobbyist Lanny Davis — is the latest example of an intense campaign the for-profit colleges are waging against new federal regulations that could restrict their access to lucrative federal student aid dollars. Industry groups have filed a flurry of lawsuits against the Department of Education and conducted an advertising blitz accusing the government of trying to prevent students from going to college. Davis, a former special counsel to President Bill Clinton, began representing the for-profit college sector last year. He has faced criticism in recent years over his paid representation of controversial international figures, including Laurent Gbagbo, the Ivory Coast dictator who refused to step down after losing an election last year. Davis dropped Gbagbo as a client soon after taking him on in December, following complaints from human rights groups. The for-profit college industry faces increased scrutiny as evidence mounts of its students leaving with debts they cannot afford to pay, given the low-wage jobs they tend to attain after graduation. For-profit schools enroll about 12 percent of students nationwide, yet the sector takes in nearly 25 percent of all student aid dollars and is responsible for 43 percent of student loan defaults. A number of the alterations to the GAO report cited in the lawsuit involved wording changes and statements made by recruiters to the fictitious students that were omitted from the first report. For example, in the original report, the GAO noted how a representative at a two-year college in California told the undercover applicant getting a job is a “piece of cake” and graduates of the computer drafting program could make more than $120,000 per year. The revised report added that the employee also said in the current economic environment, the job applicant could expect a job earning $15 per hour, if lucky. However, during the same interview, the representative also encouraged the student to falsely fill out a federal student aid form in order to qualify for Pell Grants. There were no revisions to that conclusion. In another case, the original report said a recruiter at a publicly-traded four-year college in Pennsylvania told an applicant she “should” take out the maximum in federal student loans, even if she didn’t need all of the money for tuition. The revised version of the report changed the wording to “could.” The lawsuit names a series of other tweaks made to the report, suggesting that “pervasive and one-sided errors resulted from the intentional bias driving the investigation, in violation of the GAO’s protocols.” GAO has not discounted any of the conclusions of its report, and the vast majority of the findings required no tweaks or revisions. Some of the more misleading statements included a recruiter in Washington, D.C., telling an applicant a barber can earn between $150,000 and $250,000 per year, even though the Bureau of Labor Statistics pegs 90 percent of barbers’ salaries below $43,000 per year. Another employee at a college in Florida sat coaching an undercover applicant while she took a proficiency test. The same recruiter implied a student did not have to pay back student loans, even though federal student aid is a debt that often cannot be discharged even in bankruptcy. The lawsuit notes that the GAO’s “malpractice and negligence” with the report forced the group to take on “substantial costs and expenses” to set the record straight. The Coalition for Educational Success has been pursuing a separate lawsuit against the Department of Education over access to e-mail records discussing proposed industry regulations. Another group representing the industry, the Association for Private Sector Colleges and Universities, filed a lawsuit last month against the Department of Education seeking to undo consumer protection regulations approved last fall. The disputed rules included guidelines meant to prevent misleading and deceptive pitches by recruiters and measures prohibiting bonuses awarded to recruiters based on the number of student enrollments they secure.

Read the full article →

Mary Bottari: U.S. Chamber Attacks FCIC as "Job-Killing" WikiLeakers

January 27, 2011

In a response to the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission releasing its final report on the financial crisis today, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce pitched a hissy fit calling the report an “abuse of the process” that would create “job-killing lawsuits.” (So much for the new tone in Washington.) FCIC the New Wikileaks? The Chamber quickly goes to the heart of the matter: 
”The commission’s final report and its pledge to post raw materials — apparently including information obtained from companies as well as other government agencies — is an astounding abuse of process that would effectively create a government-sanctioned Wikileaks,” said Lisa Rickard, president of the U.S. Chamber’s Institute for Legal Reform. This is what the Chamber fears most of all, the FCIC’s planned release of those reckless, imprudent and downright ugly emails from the masters of the universe crowing about how well they do their jobs — fleecing America. A stack of these emails were just released by Atlantic Monthly in a stellar report on the information uncovered by an insurance firm’s lawsuit against Bear Sterns. Documents discovered in the lawsuit suggest that Bear executives cheated clients out of billions by double dipping on securities sales they knew to be flawed. The lawsuit also alleges continued accounting fraud by JP Morgan Chase (which bought Bear in 2008) in an effort to cover-up the problem. In just one example of those embarrassing emails, Bear Sterns top executives crow over selling investors a “sack of shit.” Bear deal manager Nicolas Smith wrote an e-mail on August 11th, 2006 to Keith Lind, a Managing Director on the trading desk, referring to a particular bond, SACO 2006-8, as “SACK OF SHIT [2006-]8″ and said, “I hope your [sic] making a lot of money off this trade.” The Real Job Killers The U.S. Chamber is in panic mode for two reasons. One, the FCIC details in its 576 page report who the real job killers are, reckless Wall Street financial firms and negligent government officials who took a series of specific actions that resulted in 30 million unemployed and underemployed Americans. They are also panicked because the Dodd-Frank Wall Street reform law is kicking in to high gear. Federal banking agencies are issuing new rules under the act that will clamp down on some of the reckless behavior in the big banks, mortgage services and other financial firms. Unbelievably, the Chamber is fighting hard to protect the lucrative shadow banking industry from being dragged into the sunlight, rigorously protesting the new transparency, capital and margin requirements for all over the counter derivatives traders. This week the Chamber released an amusing art work , placing the array of Dodd-+Frank rules into a graphic chart full of polka dots. As the watchdog group U.S. Chamber Watch noted: “Although the Chamber has unveiled this pointless pointillist masterpiece, (probably being secretly funded by the big banks that, left unregulated, led to the recession in the first place), it still has yet to release a substantive plan for jobs or avoiding future financial meltdowns.” Buy the FCIC report today, and call the U.S. Chamber of Commerce toll-free and tell them what you think of their foray into modern art. U.S. Chamber of Commerce Customer Service: 1-800-638-6582.

Read the full article →

Feds SUE NYC, Say City Committed Medicaid Fraud

January 12, 2011

NEW YORK — The federal government sued the city of New York on Tuesday for Medicaid fraud, accusing it of overcharging the program tens of millions of dollars for 24-hour services for patients who need help with shopping, grooming and other personal care. The government in a lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Manhattan sought civil penalties and damages against the city, saying administrators over the last 10 years routinely reauthorized 24-hour continuous personal care services for applicants without obtaining the required local medical evaluation. According to the lawsuit, state law requires that anyone found eligible for the program receive assessments from a doctor, a social worker, a nurse and – when 24-hour care is necessary – from a designated local medical director. The lawsuit said city administrators sometimes overruled the local medical director when the director decided continued care was inappropriate. In a release, U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara said the allegations “unfortunately reflect a systemic failure to responsibly administer the Medicaid program.” Bharara added: “It goes without saying that ultimate medical decisions about patient care should be made by doctors and nurses, not government bureaucrats, and they should be based first and foremost on the best interests of the patient.” The city Human Resources Administration, which administers the program in the city, responded to the lawsuit in a statement by noting that the city helps nearly 42,000 frail and elderly New Yorkers with their daily needs through the program and takes its responsibilities seriously. In the lawsuit, the government said about 17,500 people have received 24-hour personal care services from the city since 2000. It said the current annual cost of the services ranges from $75,000 to $150,000 per individual. Sometimes, the city’s conduct has caused patients to receive more services than necessary or warranted by their condition, costing taxpayers millions, the lawsuit said. The federal government cited one instance in which a medical doctor determined that a 65-year-old woman did not need 24-hour services, only to be overruled by a city administrator who authorized the services anyway. In another instance, the city caused a 75-year-old patient to get less care than needed by keeping the person in the 24-hour care program even though the local medical director said the patient needed to be in a psychiatric facility, the lawsuit said.

Read the full article →

Kaplan Sued Over Alleged Job Discrimination

December 21, 2010

Federal authorities on Tuesday filed a lawsuit against Kaplan Higher Education Corp. for allegedly discriminating against black job applicants by screening the credit history of potential employees. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission says the practice of rejecting job seekers based on their credit history has a discriminatory impact on some racial and ethnic groups. The lawsuit alleges that Kaplan’s practice is not job-related or justified by business necessity. The lawsuit seeks lost wages, benefits and offers of employment for people who were not hired because of the company’s credit history screening procedures. Kaplan spokeswoman Michele Pore said the company has a diverse work force and does not discriminate. She said the company conducts background checks on all potential employees, including checking credit histories of applicants whose duties would include financial matters. The EEOC said it tried to reach a voluntary settlement with Kaplan before filing the lawsuit in federal district court in Cleveland. Kaplan is a unit of Washington Post Co.

Read the full article →

Arizona Sues Bank Of America, Alleges Loan Modification Fraud

December 17, 2010

PHOENIX — Attorneys general in Arizona and Nevada filed civil lawsuits Friday against Bank of America Corp., alleging that the lender is misleading and deceiving homeowners who have tried to modify mortgages in two of the nation’s most foreclosure-damaged states. Bank of America violated Arizona’s consumer fraud law by misleading consumers who tried to reduce their monthly payments to keep their homes, state Attorney General Terry Goddard said. The bank also violated the terms of a 2009 consent agreement requiring its Countrywide mortgage subsidiary to implement a loan modification program, the Arizona lawsuit alleges. Hundreds of homeowners kept making their mortgage payments because Bank of America repeatedly assured them that their loans were being modified, Goddard said. Instead, many lost their homes anyway. “Those people could have used that money for something else,” Goddard told The Associated Press. “They were deceived into continuing to make mortgage payments when they had no hope of saving their homes.” Nevada Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto told the AP that the Silver State’s lawsuit was a last resort to try to get the bank to change its ways. It was filed after several discussions with bank managers led to assurances but little more. “Clearly there is a disconnect between what Bank of America tells me at the management level and what’s happening on the front line,” Masto said. Masto said separate lawsuits show the bank’s problems with consumers are widespread. “The only thing that I’m asking is that (Bank of America) give them a reasonable response in a timely manner,” she said. “It is, in my perspective, a callous disregard for what we are telling them.” Nevada and Arizona are among the states hardest hit by homeowners who have defaulted on mortgages in the last few years as adjustable payments soared, people lost their jobs, and home values collapsed. One out of every 99 households in Nevada received a foreclosure notice last month, according to RealtyTrac Inc., and Arizona’s rate wasn’t far behind. The Arizona attorney general’s office was deluged with consumer complaints and launched an investigation more than a year ago, Goddard said. Settlement talks with Bank of America began in April but ultimately collapsed Thursday. Goddard, a Democrat, is leaving office in January after an unsuccessful run for governor and will be replaced by Republican Tom Horne. A Bank of America spokesman criticized Goddard for filing the lawsuit in his last days in office while multistate negotiations on foreclosures were under way. Dan Frahm, a senior vice president for the Charlotte, N.C.-based bank, said it shares the attorneys general’s goal of helping homeowners. “We are disappointed that the suits were filed at this time, however, because we and other major servicers are currently engaged in multistate discussions led by Attorney General (Tom) Miller in Iowa to try to address foreclosure related issues more comprehensively,” Frahm said in an e-mailed statement. “Bank of America has been a cooperative partner with the attorneys general, has worked with state leaders to evolve programs and resources to broaden assistance to distressed customers, and we are already under way with further improvements to our processes and programs for Bank of America customers,” Frahm said. Bank of America has completed nearly 750,000 loan modifications and has foreclosed on fewer than half that many homes, Frahm said. Many of the foreclosures did not qualify for loan modifications. The Arizona lawsuit, filed in Maricopa County Superior Court, alleges that the bank has repeatedly violated an October 2008 consent agreement between Bank of America and 11 states requiring the bank’s Countrywide subsidiary to modify hundreds of thousands of loans. Arizona’s agreement was finalized in 2009. Countrywide was accused of engaging in widespread deceptive practices with its customers, and Bank of America agreed to reduce principal or interest payments by up to $8.4 billion on those loans. But Bank of America, which had acquired Countrywide in July 2008, failed to make timely decisions on modification requests and went ahead with foreclosures, Goddard said. Bank of America is the No. 1 loan servicer in both Arizona and Nevada. It’s also tops in complaints to Arizona regulators, and not just because of its size, Goddard said. “They’re head and shoulders above any other financial institution,” he said. “Nobody’s got a great record, but Bank of America’s is worse than any of them. Friday’s lawsuit in Arizona asks for contempt citations against the bank for violating the consent agreement. It also seeks restitution for consumers, civil penalties, legal fees, plus $25,000 for each consent agreement violation and up to $10,000 for each violation of the Arizona Consumer Fraud Act. Nevada’s complaint accuses the bank of operating its loan modification program in violation of the Nevada Deceptive Trade Practices Act. It seeks civil penalties and restitution along with other fees. Bank of America shares rose 5 cents to $12.57 Friday. ___ Associated Press writer Oskar Garcia in Las Vegas contributed to this report.

Read the full article →

Ray Brescia: Robo-Sign Scandal Gives State Attorneys General Opportunity to Move Towards a Resolution of the Foreclosure Crisis.

December 17, 2010

In the fall of 2010, in one of the largest scandals to ever hit the American court system, information gathered from lawsuits across the country revealed that tens of thousands of foreclosure filings were likely fraudulent — if not outright criminal. These revelations sparked a nation-wide investigation by all 50 state attorneys general to assess not only the extent of the scandal and its potential impacts but also potential legal and policy responses to such behavior. That investigation is nearing its close. The state attorneys general will have to consider what steps to take in light of this scandal. Some of the weapons in the law enforcement arsenal are consumer protection laws. Once we know all that there is to know about the scandal, the state attorneys general should wield consumer protection laws to not only rein in that scandal, but also make progress on resolving the entire foreclosure crisis. This can be accomplished by using consumer protection lawsuits to apply pressure on banks to engage in mortgage principal reductions. The robo-sign scandal gives them an opening, and the leverage, to do so. One of the important consumer protection statutes at the disposal of the state attorneys general includes each state’s Unfair and Deceptive Acts and Practices (UDAP) laws. All fifty states and the District of Columbia have some statutory ban on unfair and/or deceptive practices in trade or commerce. Many of these UDAP laws were adopted in the 1970s and early 1980s as states sought new tools to protect consumers from abusive business practices. These laws are modeled on the Federal Trade Commission Act (FTCA), which Congress passed in 1914 and makes unlawful “[u]nfair methods of competition in or affecting commerce, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce.” One of the limitations of the FTCA is that it is typically only enforced by the U.S. Federal Trade Commission. Unlike the FTCA, however, many state UDAP statutes grant both consumers and state attorneys general the standing to bring actions alleging UDAP violations. UDAP laws serve a critical consumer protection function by filling in gaps in the law where other, more targeted statutes might not cover all practices that have a harmful impact on consumers. Since their inception, UDAP laws have been used to stop abusive practices in such areas as used car sales, telemarketing and even the sale of tobacco products. They have also been used to combat abusive foreclosure practices, as more fully described in this briefing paper on the subject. Once a violation of a UDAP law is found, state law enforcement officials can seek civil penalties, actual and punitive damages, and injunctions against offending parties. In its November 2010 report , the TARP Congressional Oversight Panel described the range of practices revealed in the so-called “robo-sign scandal.” The false affidavits, reckless claims and improper notarizations all violate the essence of most state UDAP laws; accordingly, the remedies available under such laws may be wielded by state attorneys general to halt abusive foreclosure practices throughout the nation. In addition, the actual damages to borrowers wrongfully foreclosed upon would seem quite substantial, especially if they lost equity in their home or were rendered homeless as a result of a faulty foreclosure. Given the high stakes at risk when deceptive practices are utilized in the foreclosure process, the prospect of substantial civil penalties and punitive damages, as well as injunctions preventing foreclosures from going ahead when tainted by robo-sign practices, is considerable. At the end of the day, however, the prospect of a resolution to such claims that minimizes the threat of stiff penalties or sweeping injunctions barring foreclosures from taking place should be enough to get lenders and servicers to the negotiating table to bring about solutions to the robo-sign scandal that are more acceptable to borrowers, lenders, servicers and investors alike. The best solution to the foreclosure crisis is mortgage principal reduction: i.e., bringing outstanding debt in line with home values. This both reduces the monthly payments borrowers must make and strengthens incentives to continue to make those payments by restoring the prospect of borrower equity in the home. The threat of significant penalties and injunctions through state UDAP laws for the abuses evident in the robo-sign scandal may be just the type of leverage needed to convince interested parties that such principal reductions are a more palatable resolution to UDAP enforcement actions than allowing such cases to drag out in the courts, where litigants may obtain more costly awards and more burdensome injunctions. Such principal write-downs would not be unprecedented in the UDAP enforcement context. In litigation filed by Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley against Fremont Bank, and in the lawsuit Bank of America settled by paying $8.4 billion to resolve claims of predatory lending by its subsidiary, Countrywide, those banks faced UDAP and other claims, and ultimately resolved those cases in ways that promoted sustainable mortgage relief, including principal reductions. Getting banks to the settlement table through the pursuit of UDAP actions for robo-sign abuses could be a primary goal of UDAP actions in the wake of the robo-sign scandal. Should lenders and servicers wish to defend those actions on the merits, and risk judicial intervention that might translate into tens of thousands of dollars in penalties and punitive damages in each case, such would be their right. At the same time, a sensible response to such actions by the institutions caught up in the robo-sign scandal would be to consider more robust foreclosure mitigation strategies, including meaningful principal write-downs. State attorneys general should not hesitate to pursue UDAP remedies for robo-sign abuses. At the same time, they should be willing to discuss resolution of UDAP cases in ways that can promote mortgage principal reductions for those borrowers who might benefit from such relief.

Read the full article →