Bank of America

AIG Settles Ex-Executive’s $274M Lawsuit Over Alleged Failure to Pay Him During 2008 Economic Crisis

Published on: November 8, 2013 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

American Insurance Group and one of its ex-executives, Kevin Fitzpatrick, have reached a settlement deal over his $274 million lawsuit against the insurer. Fitzpatrick, the former president of the AIG Global Real Estate Investment Corp. unit, claims that his then-employer would not pay him during the 2008 economic crisis. The insurer’s refusal to pay occurred not long after the US government said yes to the first part of what would turn into a $182 billion bailout.

Fitzpatrick, who worked for American Insurance Group for 22 years, said that the company breached agreements it had with him and entities under his control. He claims the agreements entitled him to a share of profits made on the insurer’s real estate investments but that on October 2008 they stopped paying him and others who were entitled to profit distributions. Fitzpatrick then quit.

Fitzpatrick sued in 2009, claiming that the company owed him $274 million and that he wanted interest and punitive damages, which is right around the time that the insurer was trying to get past public disapproval over $165 million in bonuses that were paid to employees in the AIG Financial Products unit. That is the group that handled the complex financial instruments that led to its huge losses.

AIG denied wrongdoing and said that Fitzpatrick was paid what he was owed. The insurer contended that Fitzpatrick actually was fired and that he stole data that was confidential and belonged to the company.

In other AIG-related news, a district court judge just threw out a shareholder lawsuit accusing Bank of America (BAC) of not telling them that the insurer was planning to sue the bank with a $10 billion fraud lawsuit. AIG accused Bank of America of misrepresenting the quality of more than $28 million of MBSs that AIG bought from the latter and its Countrywide and Merrill Lynch (MER) units.

Also, there are reports that AIG might file mortgage-backed securities case against Morgan Stanley (MS) over $3.7 billion of MBS.

Morgan Stanley Says AIG May Sue Over Mortgage-Linked Investments, Bloomberg, November 4, 2013

Bank of America wins dismissal of lawsuit on AIG disclosures, Reuters, November 4, 2013

AIG Sued by Its Own Executive as Tragedy Turns to Farce, CBS, December 10, 2009

Judge Dismisses Shareholder Lawsuit Suing Bank of America For Allegedly Concealing AIG Fraud Case

Published on: November 6, 2013 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

A judge has thrown out a securities lawsuit by shareholders accusing Bank of America Corp. (BAC) of concealing that insurer AIG (AIG) intended to file a $10 billion fraud case against it. U.S. District Judge John Koeltl in Manhattan said that BofA and four of its officers were not obligated to reveal in advance that the lawsuit was pending or that it was a large one.

AIG filed its securities fraud lawsuit against Bank of America in 2011. The insurer claimed that the bank misrepresented the quality of over $28 billion of mortgage-backed securities it purchased not just from the bank but also from its Merrill Lynch (MER) and Countrywide units. On the day that the complaint was filed, shares of Bank of America dropped 20.3% and Standard & Poor’s revoked the tripe-A credit rating it had issued.

The shareholder plaintiffs claim that the bank’s officers, including Chief Executive Brian Moynihan, knew about the MBS fraud case six months before the lawsuit was submitted and they should have given them advance warning.

SEC and DOJ Sue Bank of America Over Alleged $850M RMBS Fraud

Published on: August 17, 2013 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Bank of America (BAC) and two subsidiaries are now facing SEC charges for allegedly bilking investors in an residential mortgage-backed securities offering that led to close to $70M in losses and about $50 million in anticipated losses in the future. The US Department of Justice also has filed its securities lawsuit over the same allegations.

In its securities lawsuit, submitted in U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, the Securities and Exchange Commission contends that the bank, Bank of America Mortgage Securities (BOAMS) and Banc of America Securities LLC, which is now known as Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, conducted the RMBS offering, referred to as the the BOAMS 2008-A and valued at $855 million, in 2008. The securities was sold and offered as “prime securitization suitable for the majority of conservative RMBS investors.

However, according to the regulator, Bank of America misled investors about the risks and the mortgages’ underwriting quality while misrepresenting that the mortgage loans backing the RMBS were underwritten in a manner that conformed with the bank’s guidelines. In truth, claims the SEC, the loans included income statements that were not supported, appraisals that were not eligible, owner occupancy-related misrepresentations, and evidence that mortgage fraud was involved. Also, says the regulator, the ratio for original-combined-loan-to-value and debt-to-income was not calculated properly on a regular basis and, even though materially inaccurate, it was provided to the public.

Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase Among Banks Sued by Danish Pension Funds in Credit Default Swaps Lawsuit

Published on: August 15, 2013 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

In U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Danish pension funds (and their investment manager) Unipension Fondsmaeglerselskab, MP Pension-Pensionskassen for Magistre & Psykologer, Arkitekternes Pensionskasse, and Pensionskassen for Jordbrugsakademikere & Dyrlaeger are suing 12 banks accusing them of conspiring to take charge of access and pricing in the credit derivatives markets. They are claiming antitrust violations while contending that the defendants acted unreasonably to hold back competitors in the credit default swaps market.

The funds believe that the harm suffered by investors as a result was “tens of billions of dollars” worth. They want monetary damages and injunctive relief.

According to the Danish pension funds’ credit default swaps case, the defendants inflated profits by taking control of intellectual property rights in the CDS market, blocking would-be exchanges’ entry, and limiting client access to credit-default-swaps prices, and

Sonoma County Files Securities Lawsuit Over Libor Banking Debacle

Published on: July 2, 2013 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Sonoma County, CA is suing Citigroup (C), JPMorgan (JPM), Bank of America (BAC), UBS (UBS), Barclays (BCS), and a number of other former and current LIBOR members over the infamous international-rate fixing scandal that it claims caused it to suffer substantial financial losses. The County’s securities lawsuit contends that the defendants made billions of dollars when they understated and overstated borrowing costs and artificially established interest rates.

Sonoma County is one of the latest municipalities in California to sue over what it claims was rate manipulation that led to lower interest payments on investments linked to the London Interbank Offered Rate. Also seeking financial recovery over the LIBOR banking scandal are the Regents of the University of California, San Mateo County, San Diego Association of Governments, East Bay Municipal Utility District, City of Richmond, City of Riverside, San Diego County, and others.

The County of Sonoma is alleging several causes of action, including unjust enrichment, fraud, and antitrust law violations involving transactions that occurred between 2007 and 2010, a timeframe during which Barclays already admitted to engaging in interest manipulation. The county invested $96 million in Libor-type investments in 2007 and $61 million in 2008. Jonathan Kadlec, the Assistant Treasurer at Sonoma County, says that an investigation is ongoing to determine how much of a financial hit was sustained. Kadlec supervises an investment pool that is valued at about $1.5 billion for the county. He said that LIBOR-type investments, which involve floating securities with interests that are index-based, make up a small portion of the pool.

AIG Drops RMBS Lawsuit Against New York Fed, Fights Bank of America’s $8.5B MBS Settlement

Published on: June 5, 2013 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

American International Group (AIG) and Maiden Lane II dismissing lawsuit against the Federal Reserve Bank of New York regarding the $182.3 billion financial bailout that the insurer received during the 2008 economic crisis. In dispute was whether AIG still had the right to pursue a lawsuit over residential mortgage-backed securities losses and if the company had moved $18 billion of litigation claims to Maiden Lane, which is a New York Fed-created entity.

An AIG spokesperson said that in the wake of a recent ruling by a district judge in California that the company did not assign $7.3 billion of the claims to Maiden Lane, both are dropping their action without prejudice. This means that AIG can now pursue Bank of America (BAC) for these claims, which is what the insurer wants to do.

Bank of America had said that AIG could not sue it over the allegedly fraudulent MBS because the latter transferred that right when the New York Fed bought the instruments in question 2008. However, according to Judge Mariana R. Pfaelzer, even if the New York Fed meant for Maiden Lane II to have these claims, that intention was not made clear.

$500M MBS Settlement Reached Between Countrywide and Investors

Published on: May 10, 2013 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Class action securities plaintiffs, led by the Iowa Public Employees’ Retirement System, have settled their mortgage-backed securities lawsuit against Countrywide for $500 million. This is the largest federal class action MBS securities case in the US that has been resolved to date, even exceeding the $315 million settlement reached with Bank of America’s (BAC) Merrill Lynch (MER) last year.

Per the investors, Countryside, which was acquired by BofA, sold them billions of dollars in MBS certificates that were backed by defective loans. Toward the end of 2008, nearly all of the certificates were relegated to junk bond status.

The plaintiffs allege that offering documents for the mortgage-backed bonds failed to disclose that Countrywide was ignoring its own guidelines regarding home loan originating. In their consolidated class action securities case, investors sought over $351 billion of the Countrywide MBS that had been downgraded after the subprime collapse in 2007. (A district judge would go on to narrow the mortgage-backed securities lawsuit to $2.6 billion in bonds and Bank of America was dismissed as a defendant.)

New York Fed Bailed Out Bank of America Over Mortgage-Backed Securities Sold to AIG

Published on: February 20, 2013 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Recently, a secret deal came to light involving the Federal Reserve Bank of New York bailing out Bank of America (BAC) that released the latter from all legal claims involving mortgage-backed securities losses that the former obtained when the government rescued American International Group (AIG) in 2008. Some believe that the bank was allowed to abscond responsibility even as AIG sought to recover $7 billion that was loss on these same MBSs.

According to The New York Times, as part of its settlement with BofA, the New York Fed obtained $43 million in a securities dispute involving two of the mortgage securities. For no compensation, the bank was released from all other legal claims.

The roots of this settlement can be traced back to 2008 when the government intervened to rescue AIG . Part of that aid involved AIG selling mortgage securities to Maiden Lane II, which the New York Fed oversees. At the time, the insurer was losing money from toxic mortgages, many of which came from BofA. AIG obtained $20.8 billion for securities valued at $39.2 billion.

Dismissal of Double Derivative Delaware Securities Lawsuits Over The Bank of America-Merrill Lynch Merger is Affirmed by the Second Circuit

Published on: December 22, 2012 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has affirmed the dismissal of Lambrecht v. O’Neal and Sollins v. O’Neal, two double derivative actions that were brought under Delaware law for Bank of America Corp. (BAC) and its subsidiary Merrill Lynch & Co. The cases were brought by Merrill shareholders contending wrongdoing. (Because Bank of America acquired Merrill, following the stock-for-stock swap, these shareholders are now BofA shareholders.)

The actions were an attempt to make Bank of America board of directors mandate that Merrill sue some of the subsidiary’s officials over allegedly reckless investments that were made. Finding that the actions were a result of unprecedented losses experienced by Merrill because it had invested aggressively in mortgage-baked securities (including collateralized debt obligations) before it was acquired by Bank of America, the district law court dismissed both actions for different but related reasons under Delaware law. In Sollins, the court said that the plaintiff’s predecessor-in-interest submitted the action without making presuit demand on the board yet did not demand futility. As for the Lambrecht action, while that lawsuit made three demands on the Bank of America board, it did not demonstrate that the bank had wrongfully denied the request that claims be made against ex-Merrill officials.

The Second Circuit, in its unpublished summary order, said that it sees no error in the rulings made by the district court. The appeals court noted that while Sollins suggested that Bank of America was “complicit” in Merrill’s alleged pre-merger wrongdoing involving the subprime market by letting the latter issue bonuses at 2007 levels, consenting to indemnify Merrill directors over pre-merger wrongdoing, approving the merger without figuring out Merrill’s growing losses, sealing the deal despite serious misgivings about the firm’s financial state, and not doing a good enough job of notifying investors about losses, his arguments are not properly placed. The district court was therefore correct in stating that the plaintiff cannot “boostrap” his claims against Merrill related to the subprime market onto the merger-related allegations against Bank of America to get around the demand request.

Bank of America Corp. Sued for Over $1B By US Government For Mortgage Fraud Against Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae

Published on: October 24, 2012 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The United States is suing Bank of America Corporation (BAC) for more than $1 billion over alleged mortgage fraud involving the sale of defective loans to Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. The federal government contends that Countrywide, and then later Bank of America, following its acquisition of the former, executed the “Hustle,” a loan origination process intended to swiftly process loans without the use of quality checkpoints.

This allegedly resulted in thousands of defective and fraudulent residential mortgage loans, which were sold to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, that later defaulted, leading to innumerable foreclosures and over $1 billion in losses.

The US claims that between 2007 and 2009, mortgage company Countrywide Financial Corp. got rid of checks and quality control on loans, including opting not to use underwriters, giving unqualified personnel incentives to cut corners, and hiding defects, and then proceeded to falsely keep claiming that these loans were qualified to be insured by Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. The result, says U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York Preet Bharara, was that taxpayers were left to foot the bill from these “disastrously bad loans.”