Daily Archives: October 20, 2013


Major JPMorgan Chase settlements and fines

Major JPMorgan Chase settlements and fines

Total settlements as up to date: Approximately $312 billion and counting…

Here’s a list of what the fines and settlements have cost JPMorgan Chase to date in the fallout of the 2008 financial crisis, not including the tentative settlement reached with the Justice Department Saturday of $13 billion:

Oct. 2013: $100 million: Agreed to pay a $100 million fine and admit to reckless conduct and market manipulation in connection with its 2012 “London whale” trading debacle, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission announced.

Sept. 2013: $920 million – Paid to the Federal Reserve, Securities and Exchange Commission, Office of Comptroller of the Currency and the United Kingdom’s Financial Conduct Authority to settle claims about management and oversight of traders involved in the “London Whale” disaster. The bank also admitted wrongdoing in the trading episode, which caused roughly $6 billion in losses.

Sept. 2013: $389 million – A total of $80 million in fines paid plus $309 million in refunds after regulators charged that more than 2.1 consumers were harmed by unfair billing practices that charged for credit monitoring services they did not receive. The settlement also covered allegations that consumers were harmed by mistakes in thousands of debt-collection lawsuits.

July 2013: $410 million – Penalties and repayments related to Federal Energy Regulatory Commission findings of alleged bidding manipulation of California and Midwest electricity markets from Sept. 2010 through Nov. 2012.

January 2013 and Feb. 2012: $1.8 billion – Two agreements in which JPMorgan joined other major banks in a nationwide settlement over allegations the institutions improperly carried out home foreclosures after the housing market crisis. JPMorgan also agreed to $3.7 billion for financially troubled homeowners and roughly $540 million in refinancing.

November 2012: $296.9 million – Paid to settle SEC allegations that the bank misstated information about the delinquency status of mortgages that served as financial collateral for a securities offering underwritten by the bank. JPMorgan received more than $2.7 million in fees on the offering, while investors sustained at least $37 million in losses.

August 2012: $1.2 billion – The bank’s share of a broad settlement resolving a class-action lawsuits that alleged JPMorgan, other banks, Visa and Mastercard improperly conspired to set the price of credit and debit card interchange fees.

April 2012: $20 million – Paid to settle Commodity Futures Trading Commission allegations that the bank improperly extended credit to Lehman Brothers based in part on customer funds that were required to be kept separate.

August 2011: $88.3 million – Fines settling allegations by the Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control that the bank improperly processed transactions involving Cuba, Iran and Sudan.

July 2011: $228 million – Settling SEC allegations that the bank fraudulently rigged at least 93 municipal bond transactions in 31 states, generating millions of dollars in ill-gotten gains.

June 2011: $153.6 million – Penalties to the SEC in settling allegations that the bank misled investors about a collateralized debt obligation it marketed without telling them a hedge fund chosen the underlying collateral and made investment bets it would fail.

April 2011: $56 million – Paid to settle claims the bank overcharged active-duty service members on their mortgages. The agreement included $27 million in cash to approximately 6,000 military personnel, lower interest rates on soldiers’ home loans and the return of homes taken in improper foreclosures.

June 2010: $48.6 million – Fine paid to settle allegations by Great Britain’s financial regulator that the bank’s London unit failed to maintain required separation between clients’ accounts and JPMorgan funds.


Capital One Bnk USA NA v Joseph | NYDC – The affidavit, on its face, has the look and feel of a “robo-signed affidavit” that was prepared in blank…

Capital One Bnk USA NA v Joseph | NYDC – The affidavit, on its face, has the look and feel of a “robo-signed affidavit” that was prepared in blank…

The affidavit, on its face, has the look and feel of a robo-signed affidavit that was prepared in blank, in advance, without knowing the identity of the person who would be asked to sign it. This fact, by itself, gives the Court pause. See American Express v Badalamenti, supra. More importantly, according to Ms. Chamberlain’s affidavit, her employment as a Litigation Support Representative for Capital One Services, LLC commenced just two months before the date of her affidavit (May 17, 2013). Given her limited tenure with the company, she is hardly in a position to attest to the actual mailing of the statements in question, which bear dates between November 2008 and November 2011. Nor has she demonstrated her personal knowledge of plaintiff’s standard office practices and procedures for mailing account statements to credit card customers during the time period covered by the statements.





Parties to securitization could operate only as stipulated in the pooling and servicing agreement that created that particular deal. Over 100 years of precedents in New York have produced well settled case law that deems actions outside what the trustee is specifically authorized to do as “void acts” having no legal force. The rigidity of New York trust law has serious implications for mortgage securitizations. The PSAs required that the notes (the borrower IOUs) be transferred to the trust in a very specific fashion (endorsed with wet ink signatures through a particular set of parties) before a cut-off date, which typically was no later than 90 days after the trust closing. There also had to be a recordation of assignments through a specific procedure. There is no legal way to remedy the problem after the fact. Here is the typical chain of transfers that was supposed to occur:



U.S. housing regulators seek over $6 billion from BofA: FT

U.S. housing regulators seek over $6 billion from BofA: FT

(Reuters) – U.S. housing regulators are looking to fine Bank of America more than $6 billion for its role in misleading mortgage agencies during the housing boom, compared with the $4 billion to be paid byJPMorgan Chase & Co, the Financial Times reported on its website, citing people familiar with the matter.

The FT said the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA), pursuing claims on behalf of finance agencies Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that back about half the existing U.S. home loans, are seeking the penalty. (link.reuters.com/muc93v)

FHFA and Bank of America (BofA) could not be reached for comment outside of regular businesshours.


JPMorgan said to have reached $13B U.S. accord but doesn’t include a release of potential criminal liability

JPMorgan said to have reached $13B U.S. accord but doesn’t include a release of potential criminal liability

PMorgan Chase & Co. (JPM) has reached a tentative resolution of all civil mortgage-bond related matters with the Department of Justice under which it will pay a record $13 billion, a person familiar with settlement talks said.

The amount, which increased to $13 billion from $11 billion during negotiations last night, includes a $4 billion accord with the Federal Housing Finance Agency over the bank’s sale of mortgage-backed securities, the person said.

The pact, which isn’t yet final, doesn’t include a release of potential criminal liability for the bank, the person said, at the insistence of U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, who told JPMorgan Chief Executive Officer Jamie Dimon during talks that such a release wouldn’t be forthcoming as part of any deal.

The proposed accord will probably require the bank to cooperate in criminal investigations of individuals tied to wrongdoing associated with the bank’s mortgage practices, said the person, who requested anonymity because the matter isn’t public. The deal also includes pending inquiries by New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, the person said.