Damn... Is The FDIC Siding With NYAG Schneiderman ???

[WillyT]

FDIC Objects to BofA’s $8.5 Billion Mortgage-Bond Accord
By David McLaughlin - Bloomberg/BusinessWeek
August 29, 2011, 6:04 PM EDT

Aug. 29 (Bloomberg) -- The Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. is objecting to Bank of America Corp.’s proposed $8.5 billion mortgage-bond settlement with investors, joining investors and states that are challenging the agreement.

The FDIC owns securities covered by the settlement and says it doesn’t have enough information to evaluate the accord, according to a filing today in federal court in Manhattan.

Bank of America has agreed to pay $8.5 billion to resolve claims from investors in Countrywide Financial mortgage bonds. The settlement was negotiated with a group of institutional investors and would apply to investors outside that group.

A New York state judge was scheduled to consider approving the settlement in November. An investor group is trying to move the case to federal court.

Link: http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-08-29/fdic-objects-to-bofa-s-8-5-billion-mortgage-bond-accord.html

:kick:

[TheWraith]

1. So does that mean you're going to apologize for bashing Obama?

Oh wait, my bad. Obama only gets the responsibility for anything you can remotely spin as BAD, out of the federal government, not anything that could ever remotely be considered good.

[WillyT]

2. Well... I'll Avoid The Tempting Snark, And Say Instead...

What YOU consider bashing, I consider yelling, "Hey man... YOU'RE GOING THE WRONG WAY!!!"

Just looking out for the safety of others, ya know?

:shrug:

:D

:hi:

[TheWraith]

6. When you base it on lies and omissions, then it is bashing.

When your "criticism" is based on deliberately ignoring all positives; on spinning anything you dislike to the max; and when those fail, on making things up; THEN it goes far beyond the realm of "criticism." Like conveniently ignoring the fact that the deal the feds are trying to work out with those banks is based on the premise of preventing FORECLOSURES on millions of families. But no, it's spun as "Obama gives bankers immunity, sacrifices kittens to Mammon," even though some of the same people who are bashing him for that also bash him for not doing enough about foreclosures.

Or take for instance the persistent lie on DU and elsewhere about how Obama is slavering at the bit to slash Social Security... even though he has explicitly and repeatedly refused any deal which would cut Social Security benefits, and negotiated a debt deal which fully protects Social Security.

[WillyT]

13. No Dude... We Criticize Him For... Um...

kneeling while dealing with the banks and Wall Street. All the time getting smacked by the banks and Wall Street.

Don't need or want a president that Kowtows to the monied interests.

http://www.amfirstbooks.com/IntroPages/ToolBarTopics/Articles/Featured_Authors/fox,_william_b/Fox_works/Fox_books/Mission_of_Conscience/B-3/Art-3/MC-34/Kowtow.jpg

:shrug:

[TheWraith]

50. And the spurious, insulting accusations. I forgot to mention those.

God forbid anyone should require you to back up your wild and factually empty claims.

[WillyT]

51. Are You Gonna Be Alright ???

You seem a little tense.

:(

[Skittles]

63. give it up, Willy

they seriously need medication

[WillyT]

17. And BTW... You Want Schneiderman To Shut Up And Go Away Too ???

Really???

You trust these guys at the top that much???

That does say a lot.

How about we double/triple the amount for foreclosure rescue, and take the "no further legal proceedings/immunity" section off the table?

:shrug:

[sabrina 1]

18. There is already a huge fund to take care of preventing fore-closures

but Geithner would not release that money. Go look up Elizabeth Warren confronting Geithner about why that money was not being used for the purpose it was intended.

There is always an effort to tie their attempts to hide their corruption, or to give themselves more tax breaks or bonuses or whatever, to the 'little people', hoping we'll be so grateful for the crumbs we'll forget the massive crimes they committed.

Enough of this. It's getting old and no one's buying anymore. It's the Banks V The People now and it's crooked Banks who need to be investigated and prosecuted and we need to get our money back, which will pay for every foreclosed house in the country if we ever find it. But we won't be finding it if we fall for these cheap tricks and I hope no Democrat is going along with this.

[mike_c]

3. it sounds to me like the FDIC is breaking with the Obama administration's...

...position in support of the deal, like Schniederman broke with it. How do you figure Obama gets credit for that?

[bhikkhu]

27. This is a whole different deal than the settlement in the news recently

...which was not exactly a settlement anyway, as none of the parties involved ever actually agreed to anything.

For the most part, Obama, Schneiderman, the AG's in general, and the FDIC are working toward the same goals, and for the same people (us).

[mike_c]

43. it's hard to see how shielding banks from responsibility for fraud...

...is working for "us." I want to see CEOs in orange jumpsuits being led around the exercise yard on leashes by the dudes they were given to as prizes. THOSE folks will be working for us!

[bhikkhu]

45. Nobody is shielding the banks from responsibility for fraud

...in the recent overblown brouhaha, there were rumors that a committee of attorney generals were trying to settle a civil case against a group of banks over the robosigning issue. The committee is rumored to have considered $20 billion in penalties, to be applied to a fund for homeowner's benefit, to be a possible reasonable settlement. There were concerns from other AG's working on criminal cases, that this might make criminal prosecutions more difficult...and so on. Its not good vs evil, its different ways of prosecuting the same goals, which are both to fine the banks for their malfeasance, and to prosecute criminal acts. Too many cooks in the kitchen, and too many reporters who don't know what their talking about, and too many people who's ODS immediately leads to ridiculous conclusions.

[girl gone mad]

54. Actually, many are attempting to shield the banks, the White House included..

by pushing for quick settlements.

Robosigning was only the starting point in the negotiations. The banks will never agree to a $20 billion deal which grants limited immunity. They want protection against prosecutions on all aspects of mortgage-related fraud.

[bhikkhu]

57. Much fear of "broad releases", but no broad releases are apparent

...outside of rumor. Nothing from the administration suggests "broad releases". I can certainly understand why Schneiderman would want assurance that there will be no broad releases, but there are no details or anything concrete that it is anything but preemptive worry, blown all out of proportion on the 'net (imagine that!).

[girl gone mad]

59. That's your spin.

Biden, Schneiderman and others would beg to differ.

[Pooka Fey]

60. + 1

[WillyT]

55. Um... Take A Look Here:

Link: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=439&topic_id=1801069

:shrug:

[LetTimmySmoke]

58. And too many Presidential Administrations trying to stop the cooks who actually cooking.

[girl gone mad]

4. Looks like the FDIC is siding against Obama on this one.

The administration is pushing for quick resolution which would protect the banks. FDIC is saying not so fast, Schneiderman's got a case here.

[TheWraith]

7. That is, of course, exactly how it'll be spun.

However, that is of course utter hypocrisy, since Obama takes all the shit for things people don't like out of OTHER independent organizations in the government, like the DOJ and the Fed, but he also gets blamed when an independent group does something you like.

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mike_c]

19. "the dipshit left...?"

Working on getting banned more generally, are we?

Oops, gotta run-- I have meetings with teabaggers to try and figure ways to piss you off! :rofl:

[WillyT]

21. LOL !!!

:thumbsup::thumbsup:

:rofl:

:evilgrin:

:hi:

[banned from Kos]

23. No, meaning those who do not understand due process and existing

statutes on criminal law.

Many on the "left" are childish on criminal/civil law.

You can't hunt down some asshole banker just because you don't like him!

[WillyT]

25. What Are The Laws On Nationalizing A Bank, Throwing Out The Current Management...

and starting anew... with strings attached?

I'm truly curious.

:shrug:

[banned from Kos]

29. Great question! The Dodd-Frank bill grant Liquidation Authority

Any bank or INSURANCE company that does not maintain new HIGHER capital reserves is subject to total TAKEOVER by a panel of experts - thus bypassing the FDIC.

Its called Title II (2) in the bill. In the bill all management is fired at once. All stock is wiped out. GONE!

This is exactly what we want!

[WillyT]

37. Great Info, Thanks !!!

What are the chances the Obama Administration will stand up to the Republican attempts to water-down, the already watered-down Dodd-Franks???

And really... thank you for that info.

:hi:

[girl gone mad]

26. In over a decade of following financial scandals..

I've never seen anyone - left, right, or center - call for hunting down bankers based on solely on personal dislike.

[WillyT]

30. + 1,000,000,000... What You Said !!!

:yourock:

:hi:

:kick:

[banned from Kos]

36. Who said it happened? I hear hatred of Jamie Dimon all the time

and know-nothings want him in prison!

For what? What is his crime? Of course there is none! There are 4000 banks in the USA. What kind of witch-hunt is it to call 20,000 bank execs "criminals"?


Grow up and stick to some good, hard regs on these assholes!

[mike_c]

34. so the NLRB is "the dipshit left" and doesn't understand criminal statutes...?

Dude, you're not making any sense. In a post about the NLRB being an independent agency, you accused the "teabag right and dipshit left" of working together for unstated, presumably nefarious purposes. Never once did you mention criminal statutes-- and it's still unclear to me what that has to do with the OP and "hunting down bankers because (we) don't like them." The OP is about the FDIC objecting-- on legal grounds and following court procedure-- to the deal between bankers and the Obama DOJ, as brokered by a judge. One can only assume that the parties are aware of relevant statutes (and whether the criminal code is relevant *in this matter* is not clear to me either, at least until AFTER this "deal" falls through, when criminal proceedings might very well ensue, as long as the administration doesn't do more to shield the mortgage bankers who used MERS to circumvent title transfer laws). No one is hunting bankers, at least not yet, although when the fun starts I MUST get a hunting rifle and a good banker dog!

[banned from Kos]

38. No - I fully support the NLRB.

My chastisement was for those who quickly blame Obama for things beyond his control.

IE - I don't blame Obama for "Citizens United" nor should he be blamed for NLRB independent decisions.

[Bluebear]

41. When will you be banned from DU? hurry please

[smokey nj]

47. From your mouth to mods' ears!

[sabrina 1]

20. IT ISN'T ABOUT OBAMA!

Sorry to yell, but seriously, this is about the American People, about corruption on a massive scale by the Banking Ind that did more harm to this country than any terrorist could have dreamed of.

It's ridiculous the way everything is seen as 'how will this affect one politician and I will make up my mind about the issue depending on that one tiny, irrelevant item.

This is about THIS COUNTRY. And anyone who cares one iota about it will not even consider accepting this insulting deal. I do not know whether the FDIC joining the NYAG in his pursuit of justice for the American people is good or bad for Obama and I don't care. Nor does anyone else. This corruption that they are trying to cover up will affect this country long, long after this president is out of office and probably the next one.

This 'deal' sounds like something cooked up in a third world country to cover up for the massive correction of a crooked regime.

Is it really this bad, that we have been reduced to brushing everything aside no matter how it might harm this country for the sake of making one politician look good or bad?

[banned from Kos]

22. Well, hire an attorney and sue one of them on Civil charges then!

Because criminal charges have failed and would fail again!

[girl gone mad]

35. Prosecutions have not yet been attempted..

for the vast majority of crimes committed by bank executives and employees.

Nixing this deal and killing the proposed 50 state settlement will be a start in the right direction.

[sabrina 1]

40. What criminal charges have failed?? There have not been any.

None regarding what caused the collapse of this economy. Had they been they would NOT have failed, which explains the desperation to cover them up, quickly. That cannot be allowed to happen.

And I don't have to hire an attorney, I am counting on those we pay to do their jobs, you know, the US Attorneys.

And at least one of them is not caving to the pressure from the WH to protect these criminals. So, I'll encourage him to do the job for the American people that he knows he was hired to do. The people are behind him overwhelmingly. I hope this WH gets behind him and forgets any idea of protecting the economic terrorists who destroyed this country's economy. That would probably be the last straw for many people.

[banned from Kos]

46. Mozilo? the sleaziest of all the mortgage hucksters?

they worked and worked in the TRIAL and he escaped with a small fine.

[girl gone mad]

49. this makes the 3rd time I've had to correct you.

Mozilo was not charged criminally.

[whathehell]

9. Yes...and that is a good thing. n/t

[banned from Kos]

12. This is a BANK-on-BANK scuffle.

Are you for PIMCO/Blackrock or Bank of America?

Just curious where your loyalty lies.

[girl gone mad]

24. Institutional investors and state Attorneys Gerneral are contesting the agreement.

Pacific Investment Management Company, for example, represents a wide range of clients, including millions of retirement savers, public and private pension plans, educational institutions, foundations and endowments.

The states oppose the deal because it would hamper their efforts to investigate.

Your characterization is not accurate.

[Glimmer of Hope]

33. Yep. It is a civil case, not a state AG or criminal matter.

I think some have this confused with the matter Matt Taibbi wrote about.

[girl gone mad]

39. There is no confusion.

Schneiderman wants this deal thrown out because it's weak and would hamper efforts to bring criminal prosecutions or civil charges over the securitization issues.

The FDIC weighed in on the NY case today and seems to be echoing the objections raised by Schneiderman, Biden and some of the other state AGs.

[banned from Kos]

42. No! the previous poster is right! You won't get ANY criminal charges!

Your zeal is distracting you from reality!

[WillyT]

44. How Do We KNOW That, Before FULL INVESTIGATIONS Are Done ???

And WHY... if that's true, do the banks want an immunity clause after they make their money deal?

Why would they need such an assurance?

Sure as hell SOUNDS criminal, and if not, we have much bigger problems than any of us realize.

:shrug:

[girl gone mad]

48. there is good reason to belive the NY AG wants criminal prosecutions.

Take a look at the people he has brought on board, for example.

You never seem to present an argument more compelling than "banks are perfect and we should do what's best for them."

[girl gone mad]

52. Just to set the record straight, this is a state AG matter.

From http://www.housingwire.com/2011/08/11/delaware-ag-joins-fight-against-8-5-billion-servicer-settlement">Housing Wire:

Delaware AG joins fight against $8.5 billion servicer settlement

Delaware Attorney General Beau Biden is trying to intervene in the $8.5 billion mortgage servicing settlement that Bank of America (BAC: 8.39 +8.12%) made with The Bank of New York Mellon (BK: 20.86 +3.22%) over soured Countrywide Financial mortgage portfolios.

Biden, much like the New York Attorney General, said his office filed a motion with the New York Supreme Court arguing the AG's office should be able to intervene to protect investors who were not represented during the negotiations. The attorneys general also seek to preserve possible legal claims against the lender for alleged misrepresentations on toxic mortgage loans sold to investors.

The loans were packaged and administered by Bank of New York Mellon, which accepted the $8.5 billion settlement with BofA earlier this year to quash any potential litigation.

A Bank of America spokesman said the company doesn't comment on pending litigation.

[Glimmer of Hope]

64. They filed a motion to intervene that has not been signed off by the

judge yet. They are not a party of the case yet. If signed off, the FDIC will be allowed to file motions on behalf of unprotected investors. The Judge will make all decisions in this case since it is a civil litigation case. The judge is overseeing the case, not any State AG, the FDIC, DOJ or Obama.

[girl gone mad]

65. The matter now involves at least two state AGs, the FDIC, consumer and homeowners groups..

all of whom have raised serious objections to the settlement.

I'm not sure what point you are trying to convey since your comment doesn't provide any new or pertinent information. Judges always oversee these lawsuits, not "any State AG, the FDIC, DOJ or Obama".

Today's http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2011/08/30/homeowners-seek-to-block-bank-of-america-settlement/">developments:

The latest opposition to the $8.5 billion settlement coincided with a Tuesday deadline to file objections to the deal, which was negotiated in June by Bank of America, 22 large investors in soured mortgage-backed securities and Bank of New York Mellon, the trustee for those securities.

The Federal Housing Finance Agency, which oversees the mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, on Tuesday filed a “conditional objection” to the $8.5 billion settlement, one day after the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation made a similar move. Smaller investors have already filed legal actions opposing the deal, as has the New York state attorney general, Eric T. Schneiderman.

“There is a growing realization that this settlement needs more scrutiny,” said Keith Fleischman, the lawyer for the four homeowners in the suit. “It needs to address the housing crisis itself.”

[indepat]

16. The FDIC has typically long been with only Federal banking industry to

rigorously promote safety and soundness in the banking system and strong enforcement of consumer protection laws rather than being a cheerleader and protector of their client banks, i.e., the banks they regulate, as has often been the case imo with other Federal banking regulators. :patriot:

[Ruby the Liberal]

28. Yes - this. They want to give him a chance to present his concerns

(along with Beau Biden in Delaware) before they sign off on something BNY and their cohorts so graciously put on the table.

[abelenkpe]

11. Are you sure you understand this article?

the FDIC appears to be at odds with the administration.

[bhikkhu]

31. I don't think many understand most of the issues involved, reporters included

but that doesn't stop anyone from forming imaginary narratives.

[Bluebear]

53. They're just not as sophisticated as you

[Pooka Fey]

61. Stop kidding yourself.

[dameocrat67]

32. the fdic is not obama though they may or may not have been appointed by

him.

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[elleng]

8. Why 'Damn?'

[WillyT]

10. Cause 'Dam' Would Be Incorrect...

:evilgrin:

And... I'm surprised that a Federal Agency would go against the wishes of The Obama Administration.

:shrug:

:hi:

[xchrom]

15. +1

[LetTimmySmoke]

56. Oh damn. How's that banker ass-kissing working out Obama?

[Pooka Fey]

62. K&R