The Corporate Observer : Washington D.C. Class Action Lawyer & Attorney : Steven Berk Law Firm : Consumer Protection, Corporate Abuse : The Corporate Observer Blog

Here is a Federal Agency willing to walk the walk.  The FTC recently announced that Countrywide, one of the nation’s largest mortgage lenders and now a member of the Bank of America family was fined $108 million for improperly pursuing foreclosures and charging excessive and unfair fees to lenders being thrown out on the street.  Where is the pity?  How bout showing a little humanity. Nope.  Instead, Countrywide took advantage of folks that who had no resources to fight back.  As just an example or two, Countrywide’s egregious action included fees for  a $300 lawn mowing and the approval of a trustee’s fee that exceeded the going rate by more than 400%.   Shocking ... Not.

But no need to dwell on Countrywide’s disgraceful, dishonest, shameful (insert your own sentiment here) behavior.  There is a bright side.  The fighting and fit FTC; going to bat for the American public. As Gretchen Morgenson rightly pointed out in her column on Monday, the wheels of justice have been turning painfully slowly but we at Berk Law are delighted to see justice any time – even when it shows up late to the party.

So, three cheers for the FTC for reaching this settlement.   No doubt thousands of aggrieved homeowners will be made whole. The United States Trustee, the investigative arm of the Department of Justice that assisted the FTC in this matter plans to look into similar predatory practices committed by other now-defunct mortgage-lending banks.

There are undoubtedly scores of lenders whose predatory actions, despite harming thousands of citizens, have gone undetected and unpunished. We hope that investigations and results such as this recent settlement with Countrywide scare some sense into banks and other financial institutions who are in a position to make mischief for homeowners while lining their own pockets.

 

Assisted by Zachary Kady

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The culture of Bank of America appears to place profits over compliance

October 23, 2009

A Complaint filed yesterday in Federal District Court in Tampa, Florida alleges that Bank of America was at the center of yet another Ponzi scheme. The operator of this scheme, 27 year-old Beau Diamond, defrauded hundreds of investors from Florida and around the country of at least $37 million. He claimed to be an experienced trader in off exchange foreign currencies. In truth, he had no such experience and was not registered to sell securities or trade foreign currencies for others. 

Nevertheless, Bank of America, as alleged in the Complaint, accepted Mr. Diamond into its Premier Banking and Investment Division. According to the Bank’s promotional materials, as a Premier customer, young Mr. Diamond received “close personal attention,” “priority customer service” and “expertise in banking and investment services.” Providing these services over a 32 month stretch surely alerted the bank to the scope and nature of Diamond’s illegal activities. 

Steven N. Berk, Co-lead Counsel for the investors, explained that “the lifeblood of a Ponzi scheme is the ability of the scheme’s operator to claim legitimacy and have a banking facility that can accept and distribute large sums of money from a significant number of individuals. Bank of America was critical in providing both. Without the active support and backing of, in this case, one of the nation’s largest banks, Ponzi schemers like Mr. Diamond would be relegated to using off shore banks and other dubious financial arrangements. Many investors would no doubt be scared away. But with a Bank of America on their side, these schemes can too easily metastasize.”

This matter is strikingly similar to at least 3 other cases filed around the country where Bank of America has been alleged to have had actual knowledge of, and provided substantial support to, a Ponzi scheme.[1] In all of these cases, the schemes originated and operated out of tiny Bank of America branches. 

This case originated in a branch with only 5 employees located in Siesta Key Florida. “It defies common sense to believe that those employees would not have known Diamond was engaged in some type of illegal enterprise. He was under 30, had no business experience, no securities licenses, and no employees. Yet he amassed nearly forty million dollars from hundreds of individuals and in many cases quickly wired that money off shore, or spent the money on luxury items and gambling.” 

Berk also noted that “Bank of America’s support of several Ponzi Schemes (where innocent investors lost hundreds of millions) appears unfortunately consistent with other questionable conduct such as the Bank’s failure to advise its shareholders of $6.5 billion dollars paid in bonuses to Merrill Lynch executives (a case being prosecuted by the SEC) and investing heavily in the sub-prime mortgage market racking up tens of billions in losses. The culture of Bank of America appears to place profits over compliance.”

Berk Law is working on this matter with the Florida firms of Randall Smith of Lakin & Smith and Andre Perron of Ozark, Perron & Nelson, P.A.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

We’ve all heard about overdraft protection, but most people probably don’t understand exactly what it is and how it works... As several recent news articles have highlighted, this service:

1)    Offers No Protection. Standard interpretations of protection would lead a consumer to believe that he or she is protected from over drafting their account – i.e. a consumer will not be able to spend more than they have.

2)    Is instead an automated loan with a high fixed interest rate.

According to Moebs Services, most Wall Street banks charge $35 dollars per check or debit paid without sufficient funds. In essence, that $1.50 Snickers bar you bought at the convenience store will end up costing $36.50. This may seem like an exaggeration or oversimplification of the process, but it is not. The Center for Responsible Lending reports that most point-of-sale overdrafts (like buying that Snickers bar) are for an amount less than half of the $35 dollar fee charged by big banks. That’s right; Main Street is paying an average of at least 50% interest on these small loans. Normally, when an individual takes out a loan from a bank, he or she consults with a loan advisor and is made aware of interest rates ahead of time. In the case of overdrafts, the system is marketed as a protective measure and most consumers are completely unaware of impending charges that cardholders will incur if they spend more than they have. In this regard, overdraft protection acts like a loan forced upon the consumer with no express consent.

The trouble does not end here. The banks have been fighting Congress and public sentiment for years on the issue of allowing customers to opt out of overdraft protection. Until recently, this has not been an option and still only a few large banks have made the switch to allowing customers to opt-out.

The worst is still yet to come: Bank of America has recently been shown to reorganize payments at the end of each business day so that larger payments are paid first. According to the bank, this is done with the intention of paying more important bills first. However, the actual effect is that larger payments deplete a cardholder’s funds so that numerous small charges can rack up the maximum amount in fees. Any reasonable person can realize that thanks to overdraft protection all bills will be paid regardless of their order of entry and that this scheme of reorganization serves only to create more fees and more gains for the big banks.

In addition, this is by no means a minor practice in the banking industry. The Center for Responsible Lending reported that banks made over $24 billion in overdraft fees in 2008 alone. Moebs Services reported that about half of all banks make more money from these fees than from actual profits. The same firm estimates that banks will make another $27 billion from overdraft fees in 2009. Banks appear to not only be content to profit off of Main Street’s money when times were good; it is now their prerogative to profit off of the lack of money in people’s checking accounts during this recession.

News of outrageous gains from loans disguised as “over draft protection” is both disturbing and upsetting, but it is not surprising. As we have discussed previously, big banks have been practicing risky, deceptive and even illegal deceptive practices for years. The irony, even after Main Street has given hundreds of billions of dollars in bail out money to the banks with the goal of “saving the economy,” they continue to swindle those hit hardest by the recession. It is time Congress stands up to the big banks and that the average person demand oversight on all lending practices, even those disguised as aid to consumers.

Proposed solutions forthcoming…

Assisted by Zach Kady

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The New York Times reported yesterday yet another fraudulent investment scheme. Ho hum. This time it is a group of investors suing an entity called Lancer Offshore and a few other hedge funds run by Michael Lauer. Lauer’s gains from the scheme total around $62 million, and overall losses for investors total over $550 million. Nothing new, right?  

Wrong. This time Bank of America is up to its ears (if a bank had ears) in this fraud. BAS (an investment subsidiary of Bank of America) allegedly aided and abetted Lancer Funds in deceiving its investors. BAS acted as the prime broker for Lancer. Their role was to clear and settle trades, and act as the custodian for some of the securities held by Lancer. Bank of America’s biggest blunder was allowing Lancer funds to report the value of their investments in a manner that has been banned for almost 50 years. Yes 50 years; think pre-Beatles, pre-color TV.

The investors allege that by reporting the value of certain restricted stocks at the same price as freely traded shares, Bank of America allowed Lancer to dramatically inflate its earnings. During the period when Lauer was making his trades, Lancer’s account was overseen by three different executives, all of which called Bank of America’s actions standard procedure. Perhaps Bank of America should revise its “standard procedure”.

Bank of America moved to dismiss those allegations. But that effort was summarily rejected by Judge Shira A. Scheindlin – click here to read the ruling. Not surprisingly, Bank of America acted irresponsibly in the face of a duty to protect investors. The investors claim that Bank of America knowingly posted reports and account statements based on fraudulent data. Bank of America seems to be at the head of the line when it comes to high profile cases of bad judgment and investor protection. Stay tuned to A Voice For Main Street for more news on Bank of America’s culpability in this case and other related stories.

Assisted by: Zach Kady

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link