U.S. seeks $864 million from Bank of America after fraud verdict

NEW YORK Sat Nov 9, 2013 1:00pm EST

A sign for a Bank of America office is pictured in Burbank, California August 19, 2011. REUTERS/Fred Prouser

A sign for a Bank of America office is pictured in Burbank, California August 19, 2011.

Credit: Reuters/Fred Prouser

NEW YORK (Reuters) - The U.S. government urged that Bank of America Corp pay $863.6 million in damages after a federal jury found it liable for fraud over defective mortgages sold by its Countrywide unit.

In a filing late Friday in the U.S. District Court in Manhattan, the government also asked for penalties against Rebecca Mairone, a former midlevel executive at the bank's Countrywide unit who the jury also found liable, "commensurate with her ability to pay."

The government said the penalties were necessary to punish the bank and Mairone "and to send a clear and unambiguous message that mortgage fraud for profit will not be tolerated."

Bank of America and Mairone were each found liable for defrauding government-controlled mortgage companies Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac through the sale of shoddy loans purchased from Countrywide in 2007 and 2008.

The case centered on a mortgage lending process at Countrywide, which Bank of America bought in July 2008, known as the "High Speed Swim Lane," or alternatively "HSSL" or "Hustle."

The government said Countrywide's program emphasized and rewarded employees for the quantity rather than the quality of loans produced, and eliminated checkpoints designed to ensure that loans were sound.

The penalties the government requested are slightly higher than the amount lawyers in the office of Manhattan U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara had previously indicated they would seek, $848.2 million. The amount is based on the gross loss Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac incurred on the HSSL loans, the government said.

Bank of America, the second-largest U.S. bank, has previously said it is evaluating its options for appeal. It is scheduled to respond to the government's penalty request by November 20.

"We believe the filing overstates the volume of loans and the appropriate measure of damages arising from one narrow Countrywide program that lasted several months and ended before Bank of America acquired the company," Lawrence Grayson, a spokesman for the bank, said Saturday.

In its filing, the government did not said it was holding off on recommending an amount to penalize Mairone until after it analyzed a financial disclosure form she provided Friday. The government also raised the question of whether Bank of America may indemnify her for the penalty.

Mairone joined JPMorgan Chase & Co after leaving the bank. She has denied wrongdoing.

"We intend, in our filing, to argue against the imposition of any penalty," Marc Mukasey, Mairone's lawyer, said in an email Saturday.

Penalties will be assessed by U.S. District Judge Jed Rakoff, who presided over the four-week trial in Manhattan.

The October 23 verdict was a major victory for the U.S. Department of Justice, which along with other regulators has been criticized by investors, politicians and others for failing to hold banks and individuals accountable for their roles in events leading up to the 2008 financial crisis.

Bank of America paid $2.5 billion for Countrywide, but analysts have said that acquisition has since cost the Charlotte, North Carolina-based bank tens of billions of dollars for litigation, loan repurchases and writedowns.

In October, Bank of America disclosed that staff of an unspecified U.S. Attorney's office plan to recommend that the Justice Department file a civil action against the bank related to the securitization of mortgages.

And in August, the government filed two civil lawsuits in North Carolina accusing the bank of understating the risks of about $850 million of mortgage securities. The bank moved to dismiss those case Friday.

The Hustle case, like some other financial crisis cases recently pursued by the government, was brought under the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act, a law passed after the 1980s savings-and-loan scandals.

That law carries a lower burden of proof than criminal cases, and a 10-year statute of limitations in which to bring cases, twice as long as in typical securities fraud cases.

The case is U.S. ex rel O'Donnell v. Bank of America Corp et al, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, No. 12-01422.

(Editing by Doina Chiacu and Nick Zieminski)

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 (16)
highlandlad wrote:
Double jeopardy. Profitable banks will not in future be willing to accommodate the government and take over failing banks, as a result of these criminal and civil prosecutions.

Nov 09, 2013 11:28am EST  --  Report as abuse
TomMariner wrote:
Again, vote pandering from the Democrat base. The US government ordered and pressured Countrywide and B of A to make substandard loans and to virtually ignore ability to repay (the ACORN effect). Then the Bush guys forced B of A to absorb (and pay for) Countrywide.

So for the privilege of social engineering so “everybody can have their God-given right to owning a home” and “save the US Economy”, B of A gets to pay another billion bucks. And is painted by the Democrat party and therefore the government as the “evil 1% banks” that the Democrats will protect against. Gee, wonder why no mortgages are to be had without like 95% down and a net worth five times the worth of the house.

The government is its and our own worst enemy. But wow can it get votes. Evil Sarah Palin, Tea Party, Bush, banks!

Nov 09, 2013 11:33am EST  --  Report as abuse
RMax304823 wrote:
It’s hard to understand these posts. They seem to be rooting for a bank and an individual who are charged with bilking the public and two government agencies of billions of dollars through fraud. And it’s all somehow the fault of one of our political parties.

The logic looks like it just escaped from a pretzel factory. TARP wasn’t the idea of the Democrats. Whether the idea was good or bad, it was Bush’s proposal, presented to Congress in a 3 and a half page typewritten document.

“Pandering FROM the Democratic base?” What does that sentence mean?

“The government is its own worst enemy?” Reagan said government was “the problem.” He never said it was “an enemy.”

What’s the source of this hatred?

Nov 09, 2013 1:37pm EST  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.