Tag Archives: Rakoff

FIRREA Blanks

Posted on by

photo by Mike Cumpston

The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed the District Court’s judgment (SDNY, Rakoff, J.) against Bank of America defendants for actions arising from Countrywide’s infamous “Hustle” mortgage origination program. The case has a lot of interesting aspects to it, not the least of which is that it does away with more than one billion dollar in civil penalties levied against the defendants.

The opinion itself answers the narrow question, when “can a breach of contract also support a claim for fraud?” (2) The Court concluded that “the trial evidence fails to demonstrate the contemporaneous fraudulent intent necessary to prove a scheme to defraud through contractual promises.” (3)

I think the most important aspect of the opinion is how it limits the reach of the Financial Institutions Reform, Recover, and Enforcement Act of 1989 (FIRREA). Courts have have been reading FIRREA very broadly to give the federal government immense power to go after financial institutions accused of wrongdoing.

FIRREA provides for civil penalties for violations of federal mail or wire fraud statutes, but the Court found that there was no fraud at all. It made its point with a hypothetical:

Imagine that two parties—A and B—execute a contract, in which A agrees to provide widgets periodically to B during the five-year term of the agreement. A represents that each delivery of widgets, “as of” the date of delivery, complies with a set of standards identified as “widget specifications” in the contract. At the time of contracting, A intends to fulfill the bargain and provide conforming widgets. Later, after several successful and conforming deliveries to B, A’s production process experiences difficulties, and the quality of A’s widgets falls below the specified standards. Despite knowing the widgets are subpar, A decides to ship these nonconforming widgets to B without saying anything about their quality. When these widgets begin to break down, B complains, alleging that A has not only breached its agreement but also has committed a fraud. B’s fraud theory is that A knowingly and intentionally provided substandard widgets in violation of the contractual promise—a promise A made at the time of contract execution about the quality of widgets at the time of future delivery. Is A’s willful but silent noncompliance a fraud—a knowingly false statement, made with intent to defraud—or is it simply an intentional breach of contract? (10)

This case emphasizes that “a representation is fraudulent only if made with the contemporaneous intent to defraud . . .” (14) While this is not really new law, it is a clear statement as to the limits of FIRREA. This will act as a limit on how the government can deploy this powerful tool as new cases crop up. Unless, of course, the Supreme Court were to reverse it on appeal.

Lederman, Rahman & Reiss on CFPB No-Action Policy

Posted on by

Jeff Lederman, Sabeel Rahman and I submitted a comment on the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s proposed policy on No-Action Letters. Basically,

This is a comment on the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s (the “Bureau”) proposed Policy on No-Action Letters (the “Policy”).  The Policy is a step in the right direction, but a more robust Policy could better help the Bureau achieve its statutory purposes.

The Bureau recognizes that there are situations in which consumer financial service businesses (“Businesses”) are uncertain as to the applicability of laws and rules related to new financial products (“Products”); how regulatory provisions might be applied to their Products; and what potential enforcement actions could be brought against them by regulatory agencies for noncompliance.  Businesses could therefore benefit from the issuance of a No-Action Letter to reduce that uncertainty.

There is very little scholarly literature on the use of No-Action Letters by administrative agencies.  In the absence of comprehensive studies, it is hard to precisely determine how to allocate agency resources to informal guidance as opposed to other types of regulatory action.  Notwithstanding this, an agency should attempt to determine the optimal amount of its resources that should be devoted to informal guidance as opposed to the alternatives and then refine that initial estimate as experience dictates.

A rapidly changing field like consumer finance can benefit from the availability of quick and informal feedback for Businesses so long as the process is properly designed.  Because the Policy would use a relatively small amount of Bureau resources compared to other types of regulatory action, a well-designed No-Action Letter Policy would be a win-win-win for Businesses, for the Bureau and for consumers.

Reiss on FIRREA Penalties

Posted on by

Bloomberg quoted me in S&P Faces Squeeze After $1.3 Billion Countrywide Fine. It opens,

Standard & Poor’s (MHFI)’ chances of settling the government’s lawsuit over mortgage-bond ratings for less than $1 billion may have slipped away after Bank of America Corp.’s Countrywide unit was socked with a $1.3 billion fine.

The Countrywide ruling was the first to lay out what penalties financial institutions could face under a 1989 bank-fraud law the Obama administration is using against alleged culprits of the subprime mortgage crisis. It has boosted the government’s hand against McGraw Hill Financial Inc.’s S&P, said Peter Henning, a law professor at Wayne State University.

“If the starting negotiation point for the Justice Department to settle was $1 billion before, that number has just gone up,” Henning said in a phone interview.

The U.S. sued S&P and Countrywide under the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act, a law passed by Congress in the wake of the savings and loan crisis of the 1980s. The administration, which seeks as much as $5 billion from S&P, is using the law to punish alleged misconduct in the creation and sale of residential mortgage-backed securities blamed for the financial crisis two decades later.

For the Justice Department, the case against S&P goes to the heart of the financial crisis, attacking the company’s claims that its ratings — relied on by investors worldwide — were honest and neutral. S&P has countered that the case is really retribution for it downgrading the U.S. government’s own debt and it has subpoenaed officials including former Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner in an effort to prove that.

Hearing Today

A hearing on the company’s request to force Geithner and the government to turn over records is scheduled for today in federal court in Santa Ana, California.

Countrywide was found liable by a federal jury in Manhattan for lying about the quality of the almost $3 billion in mortgages it sold to Fannie Mae (FNMA) and Freddie Mac (FMCC) in 2007 and 2008. U.S. District Judge Jed Rakoff in Manhattan agreed with the Justice Department that the penalty should be based on how much money the mortgage lender fraudulently induced the companies to pay for the loans.

“The civil penalty provisions of FIRREA are designed to serve punitive and deterrent purposes and should be construed in accordance with those purposes,” the judge said in his July 30 ruling.

S&P is accused of defrauding institutions that relied on its credit ratings for residential mortgage-based securities and collateralized debt obligations that included those securities. The government claims S&P lied to investors about its ratings on trillions of dollars in securities being objective and free of conflicts of interest.

*     *     *

Appeal Probable

The judge’s analysis, using the nominal value of the transactions as a starting point to determine the penalty, was “out of whack” and will probably be appealed by Bank of America to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in New York, said David Reiss, a professor at the Brooklyn Law School.

“The Second Circuit has no problem reversing Rakoff,” Reiss said in in a phone interview. “The ruling pushes the balance of power in favor of the government by expanding the definition of a civil penalty.”

While other judges aren’t obliged to follow Rakoff’s reasoning, they will pay close attention to the decision because the federal court in Manhattan is the leading business law jurisdiction in the country and the ruling was clearly explained, Reiss said.

Reiss on Big BoA FIRREA Penalty

Posted on by

Bloomberg BNA quoted me in FIRREA-Fueled Penalty Against BofA Signals More Risk for Large Institutions (behind a paywall). It reads in part,

A federal judge in New York ordered Bank of America to pay $1.26 billion in civil penalties to the U.S. government in connection with a Countrywide lending program, setting up a likely appeal in one of the most closely watched cases in the financial services arena (United States v. Bank of Am. Corp., S.D.N.Y., No. 12-cv-01422, 7/30/14).

The ruling by Judge Jed Rakoff of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, which also said former Countrywide official Rebecca Mairone must pay $1 million in installments, followed an October jury verdict that found Bank of America liable for Countrywide’s sale of bad loans to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, some of which were securitized.

Countrywide sold those loans under its “High-Speed Swim Lane” program—an initiative aimed at speeding the loan approval process and one launched before Bank of America acquired Countrywide in 2008.

Rakoff called the nine-month HSSL program “from start to finish the vehicle for a brazen fraud,” and imposed a $1,267,491,770 penalty on Bank of America.

The amount was less than the $2.1 billion sought by the government, but well above what Bank of America argued was appropriate, which was $1.1 million at the most .

“We believe that this figure simply bears no relation to a limited Countrywide program that lasted several months and ended before Bank of America’s acquisition of the company,” Bank of America spokesman Lawrence Grayson told Bloomberg BNA July 30. “We are reviewing the ruling and assessing our appellate options,” he said.

*     *      *

According to Rakoff, Firrea could have allowed a penalty in this case that would have equaled the value of the loan transaction itself, which totaled $2.96 billion.

Rakoff, citing the discretion granted to judges in such cases, reduced the penalty to $1.267 billion, saying not all of the loans were flawed.

Brooklyn Law School Professor David Reiss called Rakoff’s ruling significant and a new turn in an important area of case law for businesses.

“We’re beginning to see a jurisprudence of Firrea penalties and a penalty regime that is very pro-government,” Reiss told Bloomberg BNA. “This shows that the penalty can be as high as the nominal amount of the transaction. It’s good guidance in the sense that it helps businesses know the outer boundaries of their risk, but it’s a generous view of deterrence,” he said.

FIRREA Does the Hustle

Posted on by

Judge Rakoff has issued another Opinion in U.S. v. Countrywide Fin. Corp. et al., 12 Civ. 1422 (Feb. 17, 2014).  Rakoff reconfirms his broad reading of the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act (FIRREA), which covers fraudulent behavior that is self-affecting; that is, where the perpetrator and victim of the fraud are one and the same financial institution. This Opinion goes further, however, based on on developments in the litigation since that earlier opinion.

The Opinion notes that the defendants were found liable at trial and finds that

Based on the charge as given to the jury, the jury, by finding liability, necessarily found that the defendants intentionally induced two government-sponsored entities, the Federal National Mortgage Association (“Fannie Mae”) and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (“Freddie Mac”), to purchase from the Bank Defendants thousands of loans that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac would not otherwise have purchased. The defendants did so, the jury necessarily found, by misrepresenting that the loans they were selling were “investment quality” and that they knew of nothing that might cause investors to regard the mortgages as poor investments, when in fact the defendants knew that their underwriting process, known as the “High Speed Swim Lane,” “HSSL,” or “Hustle,” was calculated to produce loans that were not of investment quality. (3)

The Court had previously found that “the fraud here in question, perpetrated by the Countrywide defendants and Ms. Mairone, had a huge effect on Bank of America defendants, which, as a result of Bank of America’s purchase of Countrywide, paid, directly or through affiliates, billions of dollars to settle repurchase claims brought by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.” (4) The opinion concludes that

It is highly improbable that Congress would have intended to place beyond the reach of FIRREA those defendants whose misconduct “affects” federally insured banks that have the great fortune to be fully insured [by their affiliates] for such losses. Even less so can it be imagined that the device of having BAC [the BoA parent holding company] indemnify BANA [the BoA federally insured bank] for losses that otherwise would result from Countrywide’s fraud immunizes Countrywide from liability under FIRREA. Indeed, defendants’ labeling of this theory of liability as the “self-affecting” theory is something of a misnomer; Countrywide’s fraud, which culminated before the merger with BANA, directly affected, not just Countrywide, but its merger partner, BANA, as well. While the effect on Countrywide might be “self-affecting,” the effect on BANA was not. (5)

This Opinion seems to bolster Rakoff’s broad reading of FIRREA.  As of now, FIRREA gives the federal government a powerful tool to pursue alleged wrongdoing affecting federally insured financial institutions.  The caselaw reads FIRREA broadly and the statute’s ten-year statute of limitations means that additional suits may still be coming down the pike.

Judge Rakoff Is All FIRREA-ed Up

Posted on by

Law360 quoted me in a story, Rakoff Gives DOJ License To Be Bold In Bank Crackdown (behind a paywall), that reads in part,

U.S. District Judge Jed S. Rakoff’s expansive Monday opinion backing the federal government’s $1 billion mortgage fraud suit against Bank of America Corp. leaves the U.S. Department of Justice wide latitude to use its favorite financial fraud tools in cases linked to the recent financial crisis.

Judge Rakoff’s opinion expanded his May decision allowing the Justice Department’s October suit against Bank of America over lending practices during the housing bubble and financial crisis to move forward under the Financial Institutions Reform Recovery Enforcement Act, while also explaining why portions of its case using the False Claims Act failed.

The ruling, which accepted the government’s broad view of which federally insured financial institutions can be sued under FIRREA and on what grounds, gives the government further ammunition to bring such cases in the future, said Brooklyn Law School professor David Reiss.

“The federal government has taken an expansive view of this phrase, and Judge Rakoff agrees that it can be read broadly in certain circumstances, such as when the affected federally insured financial institution is the alleged wrongdoer itself,” he said.

* * *

[T]he Second Circuit will look closely at other appellate rulings related to interpreting congressional intent, as well as any rulings dealing specifically with FIRREA should an appeal come its way, as many observers expect.

However, it is likely to look closely at Judge Rakoff’s opinion when rendering an ultimate decision, which is why he considered those issues, Reiss said.

“Judge Rakoff stated that this result clearly flowed from the plain language of FIRREA, so the defendants may have a hard time on appeal,” he said.

FIRREA Flies

Posted on by

Law360 interviewed me about the federal government’s continuing reliance on FIRREA in Prosecutors Get Last Laugh In $1B BofA Fraud Case (behind a paywall):

A controversial legal theory at the heart of a $1 billion mortgage fraud suit against Bank of America Corp. could become a go-to enforcement tool for civil prosecutors in the wake of a New York federal judge’s surprise ruling Wednesday, experts say.

U.S. District Judge Jed Rakoff pared the suit in a two-page order, granting BofA’s motion to dismiss False Claims Act allegations but keeping alive claims under the Financial Institutions Reform Recovery Enforcement Act, an anti-fraud law passed in the wake of the 1980s savings-and-loan crisis.

FIRREA allows civil prosecutors to sue entities that negatively “affect” the stability of federally insured banks. Seizing on a broad interpretation of that term, prosecutors have launched several suits in recent years accusing firms of affecting themselves, prompting an outcry from Wall Street and the defense bar.

Judge Rakoff said during an April 29 hearing that he was “troubled” by the government’s use of FIRREA to sue BofA, prompting many in the securities bar to be taken by surprise by Wednesday’s ruling. It comes two weeks after U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan refused to dismiss FIRREA claims against Bank of New York Mellon Corp. in a suit alleging the bank defrauded forex customers.

The rulings by Judges Kaplan and Rakoff suggest a consensus is beginning to form within the judiciary that FIRREA may be interpreted broadly, according to David Reiss, a professor at Brooklyn Law School. That could pose challenges for financial institutions, he said.

“There seems to be a greater interest now in pursuing financial wrongdoing,” he said. “With FIRREA, it’s a whole new game.”

And the law’s generous 10-year statute of limitations could give new life to allegations of misconduct during the financial meltdown, Reiss said.

“If FIRREA continues to be interpreted broadly, it ensures the government will still have a tool to bring claims,” he said.