Exclusive: JPMorgan settlement complicated by Washington Mutual - sources

NEW YORK Mon Sep 30, 2013 7:26pm EDT

A sign outside the headquarters of JP Morgan Chase & Co in New York, September 19, 2013. REUTERS/Mike Segar

A sign outside the headquarters of JP Morgan Chase & Co in New York, September 19, 2013.

Credit: Reuters/Mike Segar

NEW YORK (Reuters) - JPMorgan Chase & Co's possible $11 billion settlement of government mortgage probes has been complicated by a dispute with the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp over responsibility for losses at the former Washington Mutual Inc, said people familiar with the matter.

The dispute, between the largest U.S. bank and the FDIC, could leave the federal agency on the hook for billions the bank is expected to pay as part of the settlement and substantially reduce the amount of the penalty JPMorgan actually pays to the government, some analysts said.

JPMorgan is seeking a "global" settlement of federal and state mortgage-related probes that could involve a payment of $7 billion in cash plus $4 billion for consumers, according to other people familiar with negotiations.

Last week, Chief Executive Jamie Dimon met with U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder to discuss a possible global settlement, and a source said the broad outlines could be reached any day. JPMorgan is also in talks with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and the New York Attorney General's office.

JPMorgan, which acquired Washington Mutual from the FDIC for $1.9 billion at the height of the financial crisis, has disputed its responsibility to cover losses incurred by investors on the failed thrift's mortgage securities.

The bank has said in corporate filings and court proceedings in recent years that its liability is limited when it comes to reimbursing investors who lost money on Washington Mutual mortgage-backed securities.

The FDIC is disputing the matter in court.

Some fear the FDIC, under pressure from the Justice Department to join a global settlement, might agree to assume liability, a move that would effectively force another government agency to absorb billions of dollars in losses.

Spokesmen for both JPMorgan Chase and the FDIC declined comment. A Justice Department spokeswoman was not immediately available for comment.

"If the FDIC were to indemnify JPM as part of the government deal, it would likely reduce the rumored $11 billion by about $3.5 billion," said Joshua Rosner, managing director of Graham Fisher, an independent research consultancy. "That would be an absurd outcome."

An indemnification, Rosner said, would put JPMorgan's losses back on the FDIC, five years' after JPMorgan and the FDIC claimed that the transaction came at no cost to the FDIC.

Rosner estimates that an indemnification deal for JPMorgan would force the FDIC to assume $3.5 billion in claims against JPMorgan by the Federal Housing Finance Agency over Washington Mutual mortgage securities. Sources have said the FHFA claims against Washington Mutual are part of the global settlement negotiations.

John McDonald, a senior analyst at Bernstein Research, said in a research report the issue may be tough to resolve, because the agreement JPMorgan signed with the FDIC when it bought Washington Mutual does not specify which party - JPMorgan or the FDIC - is responsible for Washington Mutual's alleged breaches of representations and warranties in securitization agreements.

The FHFA sued JPMorgan in September 2011, accusing the bank of misleading Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in their purchase of billions of dollars' worth of risky mortgage securities.

The regulator said JPMorgan falsely represented that the mortgages underlying the securities met underwriting standards. The securities were sponsored or underwritten by the bank, or two other companies it acquired, Bear Stearns Cos and Washington Mutual Bank.

The dispute has played out in a 2009 lawsuit filed by Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. claiming $6 billion to $10 billion in damages from Washington Mutual's alleged breach of representations and warranties in mortgages pooled into securities.

The FDIC has claimed it should be dismissed from the lawsuit and Deutsche Bank's claims should be against JPMorgan.

(Additional reporting by David Henry and Jonathan Stempel; Editing by Bob Burgdorfer)

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/
Comments (2)
SantaFean wrote:
Birds of feather it is said. Love to see the criminals sue each other for lying to each other! Does anyone, I mean ANYONE, not know that banks today are nothing more than continuing criminal enterprises protected by the ones they own in Congress, etc.? Big banks are the bane of the world, there is no doubt. Do you need a list of their latest crimes for which there will be no meaningful punishment? Don’t you wish you could rob someone, get caught, pay a PUNY fine AND keep all the money you stole? Oh…an no jail of course. That is how banks work today. Clearly. Bank of America is a great example of crime in action.

Sep 30, 2013 8:38pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
IfUAskMe wrote:
Well, isn’t that what insurance is for? Hope the FDIC doesn’t pull a fast one like AAA. When I had home insurance with AAA, they told me the water damage on the ceiling wasn’t going to be covered because it wasn’t water damage. I said to their inspector, “Either you come clean or I’m going to the State Attorney General to report you for fraud”. She immediately called them and said she was mistaken and the check to fix the problem was put in the mail. Hope the FDIC puts up less of a fight.

Oct 04, 2013 8:01am EDT  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.