Bank of America Corp. is impeding an investigation of its loan modification practices by negotiating settlements with borrowers who must agree to keep them secret and not criticize the bank in exchange for cash payments and loan relief, Arizona officials say.
The Arizona Attorney General’s office is asking a court to block those aspects of the settlements and require the bank to turn over all the agreements. The bank denies any wrongdoing.
One 2011 accord involving a borrower facing foreclosure who defaulted on a $253,142 mortgage included a $5,000 payment, plus $7,500 for legal fees, and the defaulted payments were waived and the loan was modified to a 40-year term with a 2 percent interest rate, court documents show. The terms of the original loan and the borrower’s complaint about the lender weren’t described in the documents.
The CEOs of major banks maintained they were in good financial shape. Meanwhile, they secretly borrowed massive amounts from the government to stay afloat.
Imagine you walked into a bank, applied for a personal line of credit, and filled out all the paperwork claiming to have no debts and an income of $200,000 per year. The bank, based on these representations, extended you the line of credit. Then, three years later, after fighting disclosure all the way, you were forced by a court to tell the truth: At the time you made the statements to the bank, you actually were unemployed, you had a $1 million mortgage on your house on which you had failed to make payments for six months, and you hadn’t paid even the minimum on your credit-card bills for three months. Do you think the bank would just say: Never mind, don’t worry about it? Of course not. Whether or not you had paid back the personal line of credit, three FBI agents would be at your door within hours.
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP today announced that it is investigating concerns by hedge funds and institutional investors who believe Bank of America Corp. (NYSE: BAC) may have failed to disclose to investors the risk associated with a $10 billion lawsuit threat from American International Group (“AIG”) (NYSE: AIG).
According to reports, AIG invested in billions of dollars of mortgage-backed securities sold by Bank of America prior to the housing collapse. In January 2011, after analyzing data from hundreds of thousands of loans, AIG reportedly informed the bank that it felt the risk of the securities had been misrepresented and was prepared to sue the banking giant for more than $10 billion.
Hagens Berman is investigating whether Bank of America failed to disclose fully the risks of its dispute with AIG. According to media reports, the bank did not mention the threat of the lawsuit in its quarterly regulatory filing, which was issued four days before AIG’s lawsuit was filed.
“We believe that Bank of America knew, or should have known, that its dispute with AIG represented a significant risk for investors,” said Partner Reed R. Kathrein, who is leading the firm’s investigation from its San Francisco office. “If the company did indeed fail to disclose such a risk, it could represent a major breach of the securities laws.”
On August 8, 2011, after several months of negotiations, AIG filed its lawsuit. Bank of America shares fell sharply, losing 20 percent of their value.
Institutional investors and others who purchased Bank of America common stock between May 5, 2011 and August 8, 2011, and who have losses exceeding $1,000,000 as a result of BAC’s stock drop on August 8, 2011, are encouraged to contact the firm. Reed R. Kathrein can be reached at (206) 623-7292 or via email at CCME@hbsslaw.com. Investors can also learn more about this investigation at www.hbsslaw.com/BACsecurities.
Top Bank of America Corp lawyers knew as early as January that American International Group Inc was prepared to sue the bank for more than $10 billion, seven months before the lawsuit was filed, according to sources familiar with the matter.
Bank of America shares fell more than 20 percent on August 8, the day the lawsuit was filed, adding to worries about the stability of the largest U.S. bank. It wasn’t until Warren Buffett stepped up with a $5 billion investment that those fears were eased, though hardly eliminated.
For those who may not recall “What’s Happening”… Back then this was one of the hottest shows along with “Good Times”, “Different Strokes” etc. This was a show that was part of my childhood and enjoyed very much.
Because of “Rerun” we have a dance that was named after him for his unique moves.
EVIDENCE OF A 20 MILLION DOLLAR BB&T BANK COVER UP.52-2197854 & 52-2052386
“Fred Rerun Berry” actor from 1970’s sitcom(“What’s Happening”)”Family is asking for a Federal Investigation on a 20 million dollar cover up from Mr. Fred and Essie Berry Tax Identification number.(52-2197854)
Whistle Blower!!! Over the past six years regarding the late Fred Rerun Berry who was an actor from the 1970’s “What’s Happening” Sitcom. Berry died October 21, 2003.
It has been determined that there has been an unauthorized use of Mr. and Mrs. Fred Berry’s personal identification number utilizing this number to establish bank accounts in the form of loans, government grants, saving accounts and lines of credit. Thousands of dollars have been utilized in property developments, purchasing of land and community development projects in the Suitland Maryland, Largo Maryland and New Carrolton areas. Many attempts to gather documents from a Bank and a Corporation in Maryland have been met with roadblocks.
In 2001 Fred Rerun Berry appeared on” The Weakest Link and that is were it all began. Mrs. Berry started receiving paper work from the Internal Revenue, Documents and contracts in c/o Essie Berry for this corporation and Tax Idenification Number. Mrs. Berry requested bank accounts records . The bank teller wanted Mrs. Berry to provided information to confirm her identity. Information was faxed in 2004 to a bank in Maryland still no records.
In 2005, Mrs. Berry meets with the Vice-President of the bank. Mrs. Berry asked for all accounts in reference to Fred Rerun Berry Tax Identification 52-2197854 records were mail but they were incomplete.
Mrs. Berry and Portia Allen, Fred’s daughter in 2007 over heard a phone conversation with a bank employee while holding during a phone conversation say, “That poor, poor lady they drained her husbands’ account.
With all of the compelling evidence, bank records, documents and paper trail and errors that the banks have made in utilizing Mr. and Mrs. Fred Berry Tax Identification number. The Berry family is seeking a full Federal Investigation to this matter. All facts can be proven.
Banks Are Quietly Reestablishing Mortgages That Don’t Require Income Documentation
By Stephane Fitch, Forbes.com
July 8, 2010
Did you think the housing collapse killed off “liar loans”–those infamous bubble-era mortgages for which people were allowed to get creative in portraying their ability to make the payments? Well, they’re back, and that may be a good thing.
All the rage during the peak of the housing boom, these mortgages went by names like “no-doc” (meaning no documentation of income required), “low-doc” or “stated-income” mortgages. In all cases, banks set aside their underwriting standards based on what borrowers could prove they were earning with pay stubs, tax returns and the like. Instead, lenders started trusting borrowers to “forecast” future income and underwrote loans based on those projections (using as a fallback the house itself as collateral).
In the height of the housing boom in 2006 and 2007, low-doc loans accounted for roughly 40% of newly issued mortgages in the U.S., according to mortgage-data firm FirstAmerican CoreLogic. University of Chicago assistant professor Amit Seru says that for subprime loans, the portion exceeded 50%.
Then came the housing collapse, with subprime loan defaults playing a leading role, particularly the low-doc “liar” variety. The delinquency rate for subprime loans reached 39% in early 2009, seven times the rate in 2005, according to LPS Applied Analytics.
Ashlyn Aiko Nelson, a public policy lecturer at Indiana University, studied the low-doc loan craze. She and two of her colleagues concluded that low-doc borrowers exaggerated their incomes by 15% to 19%. “Our sense was that investors knew that people were lying, but figured it was OK because house prices would keep going up and the homeowners could refinance,” says Nelson.
DinSFLA here: Again, who exaggerated their incomes? All of a sudden the consumer is in charge of the loan origination? Who exactly sent the file to the Underwriter? Surely not the unlicensed borrower who’s job is to broker loans!
The most outrageous types of no-doc lending disappeared entirely in 2009. Many mortgage pros say they’re unaware of banks making any low-doc loans in recent months. (A Forbes editor was, however, approached by a leading bank recently with an offer to refinance his home without documenting his income.)