InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
SDNY Grants DOJ's Request To Add Bank Executive To Pending FCA/FIRREA Litigation
On December 12, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York granted the DOJ’s motion to add a bank executive to a civil fraud suit it filed over a year earlier against a mortgage lender alleged to have falsely certified loans under the FHA’s Direct Endorsement Lender Program. U.S. v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., No. 12-7527, slip op. (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 12, 2013). The government alleges that the bank’s vice president in charge of quality control purposefully failed to self-report bad loans to HUD, despite having knowledge of HUD’s reporting requirements, and that he signed annual certifications misrepresenting to HUD that the bank complied with those reporting requirements. The court agreed with the government’s contentions that amending the complaint to add the individual defendant was permissible because (i) the bank would not be unduly prejudiced because the allegations were already at issue in the pending suit and the parties had yet to begin discovery; (ii) the claims that the government would assert were not futile, as the court had already ruled on the validity of the government’s theories of liability under the FCA and FIRREA, and the new defendant would have the opportunity to seek dismissal on other grounds; (iii) there had been no undue delay, because the government had not received authority to add the executive until after the bank’s motion to dismiss was fully submitted, and had not made a final determination to bring the proposed action against the executive until the day it informed the bank of its intention to do so; and (iv) the interests of judicial economy supported joinder insofar as a separate suit against the executive for conduct already at issue here would have been inefficient. The court did not address the bank’s argument that the government knew sooner of its authority to add the executive, ultimately and improperly electing to do so because the bank suspended settlement negotiations.
Federal, State Authorities Announce Largest RMBS Settlement To Date
On November 19, the DOJ, other federal authorities, and state authorities in California, Delaware, Illinois, and Massachusetts, announced a $13 billion settlement of federal and state RMBS civil claims, which were being pursued as part of the state-federal RMBS Working Group, part of the Obama Administration’s Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force. The DOJ described the settlement as the largest it has ever entered with a single entity. Federal and state law enforcement authorities and financial regulators alleged that the bank and certain institutions it acquired mislead investors in connection with the packaging, marketing, sale and issuance of certain RMBS. They claimed the institutions’ employees knew that loans backing certain RMBS did not comply with underwriting guidelines and were not otherwise appropriate for securitization, yet allowed the loans to be securitized and sold without disclosing the alleged underwriting failures to investors.The agreement includes $9 billion in civil penalties and $4 billion in consumer relief. Of the civil penalty amount, $2 billion resolves DOJ’s claims under the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act (FIRREA), $1.4 billion resolves federal and state securities claims by the NCUA, $515.4 million resolves federal and state securities claims by the FDIC, $4 billion settles federal and state claims by the FHFA, while the remaining amount resolves claims brought by California ($298.9 million), Delaware ($19.7 million) Illinois ($100.0 million), Massachusetts ($34.4 million), and New York ($613.0 million). The bank also was required to acknowledge it made “serious misrepresentations.” The agreement does not prevent authorities from continuing to pursue any possible related criminal charges.
DOJ Secures Jury Verdict In First GSE Civil Fraud Suit
On October 23, a jury found a bank liable on one civil mortgage fraud charge arising out of a program operated by a lender the bank had acquired. The jury also found against a former executive of the acquired lender. The verdict followed a four week trial in the first DOJ case alleging violations of the FCA and FIRREA in connection with loans sold to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Judge Jed Rakoff of the Southern District of New York will consider briefing on the penalty—the DOJ originally had sought damages close to $1 billion. The bank stated that it will evaluate its options for an appeal. For more information about the government’s expanding FCA/FIRREA civil fraud initiative, please visit our resource center.
Southern District of New York Again Endorses DOJ Mortgage Fraud Theory
On September 24, U.S. District Court Judge Jesse Furman largely denied a bank’s motion to dismiss a complaint filed by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York (SDNY) in which the government alleges that the bank falsely certified loans under the FHA’s Direct Endorsement Lender Program in violation of the False Claims Act (FCA) and the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act (FIRREA). U.S. v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., No. 12-7527, 2013 WL 5312564 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 24, 2013). Addressing four primary arguments raised by the bank, the court held that the government sufficiently pleaded (i) that the bank falsely certified compliance with FHA regulations upon which payment was conditioned, (ii) that the bank fraudulently induced the government to insure loans it otherwise would not have, and (iii) that this alleged misconduct caused the FHA to pay insurance claims it otherwise would not have. It also held that the government’s claims were pleaded with sufficient particularity. Citing two recent decisions from other Southern District of New York courts, the court held that FIRREA allows the government to pursue claims against an institution for engaging in alleged fraud that “affects” itself. Further, relying in part on a recent holding by the Fourth Circuit, the court held that the government’s claims were timely because they were tolled by the Wartime Suspension of Limitations Act. Finally, relying on an order issued earlier this year by the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, the court rejected the bank’s argument that the release it executed as part of the National Mortgage Servicing Settlement specifically released liability arising under the FCA and FIRREA for the government’s claims. The court dismissed as untimely certain of the government’s common law and quasi-contract claims, but preserved the government’s breach of fiduciary duty claim, reasoning that whether such a duty existed is a question of fact.
Texas Federal District Court Allows Government's FCA / FIRREA Mortgage Suit To Proceed
On September 10, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas denied a mortgage lender’s motion to dismiss the federal government’s claims that the lender and two of its executives knowingly made false statements in loan applications to HUD regarding the company’s compliance with FHA origination requirements. U.S. v. Americus Mortg. Corp., No. 12-2676, 2013 WL 4829271 (S.D. Tex. Sept. 10, 2013). The government claims the lender’s actions violated the False Claims Act (FCA) and the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1989 (FIRREA), and resulted in HUD incurring losses of over $150 million on loans that defaulted. The court held (i) that the government complaint sufficiently alleged that the lender, at the direction of the individual defendants, knowingly made false statements of fact to HUD while engaging in a fraudulent course of business that caused HUD to pay out money that it otherwise would not have paid, thereby sufficiently alleging a violation of the FCA, and (ii) that pleading proof of specific intent to defraud was unnecessary. The court also rejected the lender’s argument that allegations of materiality or scienter were vitiated because HUD was “on notice of, and conducting an investigation into” the conduct alleged to have violated the FCA, and allowed the lender to continue participating in the FHA-insurance program. Finally, the court held, among other things, that the three-year tolling period that applied to the FCA’s six-year statute of limitations resulted in the government’s complaint being timely. With respect to the FIRREA claim, the court rejected the lender’s argument that it was not an entity subject to FIRREA. The court reasoned that the plain language of Section 1006 in the FIRREA statute applies to “whoever” is connected to HUD, which included the lender. It further stated that the complaint established that the lender knowingly submitted false statements to influence HUD, in violation of FIRREA.
August Beach Read Series: Understanding FIRREA
FIRREA is a financial fraud statute that has been on the books for decades, and is fast-becoming a valuable weapon in the Department of Justice’s efforts to combat alleged financial fraud. FIRREA’s reach is broader than other civil fraud statutes available to the government, making it an especially powerful tool.
- It allows civil liability for violations of any of 14 enumerated criminal statutes, including mail and wire fraud;
- It allows for whistleblower recovery, and the potential for significant monetary penalties for the government;
- It has a 10 year statute of limitations; and
- Unlike the False Claims Act, there need not be a link between government funds and the alleged fraud; instead, the fraud need only affect a federally-insured financial institution, which arguably can include the defendant institution.
To learn more about FIRREA and how it impacts the financial services industry, please review some of our recent articles on the issue. BuckleySandler partner, Andrew Schilling, recommends what steps to take if your institution receives a FIRREA subpoena in his article, “U.S. Using Subpoenas Under 1989 Act as New Tool to Probe Financial Firms.” BuckleySandler attorney Andrew Schilling use a small civil bank fraud case to shed some light on how penalties in FIRREA cases are determined in “Finally, 8 Factors Governing FIRREA Civil Penalty Awards”. Matthew Previn discuss the first time the court permitted DOJ to use FIRREA against an institution engaging in fraud that “affects” the same institution in their article, “A Financial Institution’s Fraud on Itself Triggers FIRREA.” Visit our False Claims Act and FIRREA Practice Resource Center for additional information.
Southern District of New York Endorses Use of FIRREA in Mortgage Fraud Cases
On August 16, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York issued a written opinion in support of its May 8, 2013 dismissal of claims for damages and civil penalties under the False Claims Act (FCA) brought by the federal government against a mortgage lender alleged to have sold defective loans to Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae while representing that the loans complied with the enterprises’ requirements. U.S. v. Countrywide Fin. Corp., No. 12-1422, 2013 WL 4437232 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 16, 2013). Although it dismissed the FCA claims, the court did not dismiss the government’s claims under the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act (FIRREA) that the lender’s conduct “affected” a federally insured financial institution – the lender itself. In its opinion, the court rejected the lender’s arguments that FIRREA’s legislative history and policy considerations contradict the government’s position, and instead applied a plain meaning analysis and held that the lender allegedly has paid billions of dollars to settle repurchase claims by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as a result of the alleged fraud, which “affected” the lender itself and as such is sufficient to sustain the FIRREA counts. The court also rejected the lender’s argument that the government failed to adequately allege the FIRREA predicate offenses of mail fraud and wire fraud because the alleged misrepresentations were “mere breaches of contract that cannot separately support an action for fraud,” holding that the argument is premised on the “fundamental error” that “mail fraud and wire fraud are subject to the same arcane limitations as common law fraud.” Notably, the court dismissed the government’s FCA claims “with prejudice” because the government failed to plead fraud with particularity with respect to loans sold after the enactment of the Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act of 2009, which extended the FCA to cover indirect recipients of federal funds.
RMBS Task Force Announces New Suits Over Sale of Jumbo Prime RMBS
On August 6, the DOJ and the SEC announced parallel civil fraud actions filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina. The DOJ alleged that a national bank and related entities misled investors about the residential jumbo prime mortgage loans backing an $850 million RMBS the bank offered for sale, made false statements after failing to perform proper due diligence, and filled the securitization with a disproportionate amount of risky mortgages originated through third party mortgage brokers. The DOJ action represents the enforcement agency’s latest effort to employ the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1989 (FIRREA) to seek civil penalties. The SEC is seeking an order requiring disgorgement and civil penalties under the Securities Act. The complaints were announced as part of the Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force’s RMBS Working Group, and Task Force participants Attorney General Eric Holder, Associate Attorney General Tony West, and New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman all promised additional investigations and actions, using every tool and resource available to the group.
California Federal District Court Allows Government's FIRREA-Based RMBS Suit to Proceed
On July 16, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California denied a major credit rating agency’s motion to dismiss a DOJ complaint alleging that the firm defrauded investors in residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS) and collateralized debt obligations (CDOs) by issuing inflated ratings that misrepresented the securities’ true credit risks, and by falsely representing that its ratings were uninfluenced by its relationships with investment banks. U.S. v. McGraw-Hill Cos., Inc., No. 13-779, slip. op (C.D. Cal. Jul. 16, 2013). The court held that the government met its initial pleading burden, in part, because it sufficiently had alleged that the rating agency “engaged in a ‘scheme to defraud investors in RMBS and CDOs tranches’ and ‘to obtain money from these investors by means of material false and fraudulent pretenses, representations, and promises, and the concealment of material facts’ with ‘intent to defraud.’” In doing so, the court allowed the government to pursue its $5 billion claims grounded in the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act (FIRREA). The court did not, however, consider the weight of the government’s evidence, specifically whether the rating agency’s alleged statements and conduct were part of an actual “scheme to defraud,” a key element to any FIRREA claim.
Southern District of New York Judge Dismisses False Claims Counts, Allows FIRREA Claims to Proceed in Major Mortgage Fraud Case
On May 8, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed claims for damages and civil penalties under the False Claims Act (FCA) brought by the federal government against a mortgage lender alleged to have sold defective loans to Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae while representing that the loans complied with the enterprises’ requirements. U.S. v. Countrywide Fin. Corp., No. 12-1422, Order (S.D.N.Y. May 8, 2013). The government also claims that (i) the lender’s senior management ignored warnings about the supposedly high levels of fraud and defects, (ii) the lender attempted to conceal internal quality control reports indicating that the loans had high material defect rates, and misleadingly informed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that it had tightened its underwriting guidelines, and (iii) the lender resisted buying many of the loans back after the loans defaulted. Notably, the court did not dismiss the government’s claims under FIRREA, which has a longer statute of limitations and lower burden of proof than the FCA. The court expects to release a written opinion in the near future.