Disclosing Dirty Laundry?

Lawyers need to be very careful they don’t become embroiled in money laundering, says Reuben Guttman of Guttman, Buschner & Brooks PLLC.

BOSTON, MASS — At the melting pot of nation and culture that is the 2013 International Bar Association Convention, participants at a panel on money laundering debated the obligation of lawyers to make reports of illegal conduct to regulators.

Stephen Revell of Freshfields in Singapore noted that the question of a lawyer’s obligation to disclose suspicious activity that could involve money laundering is a question for transactional lawyers and not criminal defense lawyers who are defending those accused of money laundering.

For the transactional lawyer, said Enide Perez, a Professor of Law at The Hague, there is a “risk of the lawyer becoming involved in the laundering.”

Under ethics rules covering most US jurisdictions, a lawyer is permitted to disclose the potential for unlawful conduct to regulators only after an effort has been made to address the problem internally within the organization. The policy behind the rule is to allow, in certain circumstances, disclosures necessary to prevent substantial injury to an organization. If, however, the lawyer’s services are being used in furtherance of the violation, the lawyer is allowed to disclose confidential information and may be required to withdraw from representing the organization.

Mauro Wolfe of U.S.-based Duane Morris agreed that as an international norm, lawyers should give their clients an opportunity to “purge corruption out of the transaction.” And Wolfe suggested that attorneys “should have a discussion with the client” to determine whether the suspicion is well founded.

While money laundering has varying definitions, its purpose is to hide the proceeds of crime. Panelists described how cross-border money laundering schemes involve the conversion of cash into big tickets assets – including jets and yachts – which can be sold and converted back to cash. “Once crooked money becomes an asset it gets lost” to investigators, noted Revell.

Thirty-four countries, including the United States and the United Kingdom, have been working together to create standards to promote effectively effective implementation of legal, regulatory, and operational measures to combat money laundering, terrorist financing, and other related threats to the international financial system through the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) for the past three decades. The standards created by this inter-governmental agency are used by more than 180 governments to combat money laundering and other financial crimes and were most recently updated in February 2012.

In addition to participating in the formulation of international standards for legal protections against money laundering though the FATF, Mouro noted that that US Department of Justice (DOJ) has treaties with foreign nations for the cooperation in investigating matters of money laundering. If the wrongful conduct touches the US, Mauro opined that “at least 20 US Attorney offices would be interested” in investigation.

And does a lawyer walk away from a client whose conduct may involve suspicious activity? “Sacking the client may only pass the problem to another lawyer,” opined Revell.

Foreign Regulators Up Co-Operation

The IBA is all about the interface of legal systems, says our man at the 2013 extravaganza, Reuben Guttman of Guttman, Buschner & Brooks PLLC.

BOSTON, MASS — It is day three of the International Bar Association’s 2013 Convention and the halls of the Hynes Convention Center here are graced with lawyers from across the globe.

With the growth of a global economy, the common question among all attendees is how to interface the laws of different nations particularly where culture and language may not be susceptible to simple translation?

At a panel entitled “Enforcement by Regulators,” Richard Walker, counsel for Deutsche Bank, noted the rise in cooperation among foreign regulators. “Multi-jurisdictional investigations have a new meaning with Libor,” noted Walker, who explained that the US prosecution of Seimans for violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act “was the beginning with local German prosecutors cooperating with US prosecutors.”

Panelists noted that attorney client privileges may vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction presenting challenges to legal counsel involved in cross boarder investigations. Yet attorney client privileges are just the tip of the iceberg with language and cultural barriers presenting a thick layer of challenge for prosecutors involved in cross-border cooperation.

Others sessions on international investment arbitration shared the same common theme of the interface of law, culture and language. Creating fluid movement between legal systems is the challenge faced by IBA members.

But the IBA is not just about the procedural side of law. Questions about human trafficking, pollution and employment standards are topics of discourse here. While the subtle theme is promotion of human rights the driver is economics. Reliable legal systems that allow for enforce of rights provide confidence for investors.

A Global Epicentre

Our man at the IBA, Reuben Guttman, is most impressed by a law professor from Washington University who is teaching the world from a booth in the convention centre.

BOSTON, MASS — It is day two of the International Bar Association’s Convention here and Washington University Law Professor Michael Koby is sitting in a chair at Washington University’s booth in a cavernous convention hall.

A Global Epicentre

In front of Koby is his notebook computer and above him — for all to see — is a large flat screen television with Koby’s face and the faces of his students from across the globe. Amidst Convention chaos, Koby is teaching a civil procedure class to students in Brazil, China, Japan, Mexico and other countries across the globe. Koby proudly points out that one of his students is a member of the Parliament in India.

50 students from 21 countries.

Washington University is a prime sponsor of this 2013 IBA Convention and it came here to promote its online LLM Program in the US and comparative law for students who reside outside of the US. The program is less than one year old but it already has 50 students from 21 countries. And with a commitment as a prime sponsor for the 2013 IBA Convention, officials at Washington University must see a bright future for their LLM program.

Top shelf program

In the United States, Washington University Law School, located in St. Louis, is one of the nation’s top ranked law schools according to rankings by US News and World Report. Koby says that the school did not want to risk its reputation on anything other than a “top shelf program.” Small class size and the participation of the law school’s full time faculty is a hallmark of the Washington University offering. And rather than recruit students just out of law school, Washington University is looking for individuals who have a solid legal practice but absent Skype technology would not have the opportunity to study at a US law school.

The Skype technology brings students to St. Louis – or Boston – without boarding an airplane.

Students must be proficient in English and they must also undergo a Skype interview says Koby. Where US law schools’ overseas endeavors can be high cost and risky, the Washington University strategy is premised on the Skype technology which brings students to St. Louis – or Boston – without boarding an airplane. Whether other law schools will follow the Washington University lead remains a question. But here in Boston where Harvard has reigned as king of legal training, Washington University is leaving its mark.

China Under the Spotlight in Boston

The US may be closed for business but the IBA is well and truly open. Reuben Guttman reports from the 2013 IBA Convention in Boston.

The International Bar Association is open for business

BOSTON, MASS — The United States government is shut down, but the International Bar Association is open for business here with its 2013 Annual Convention. With a few exceptions, the shutdown has had no impact on the convention. The dinner meeting of the IBA Arbitration Committee – originally scheduled for the John F Kennedy Library and Museum — had to be rescheduled. The faculty is run by the federal government. Other events scheduled for state, city and private venues remained unaffected.

Pharma giants are under the watchfully eye of investigators in China.

At the meeting of the anti-corruption committee, China’s bribery investigation of the pharmaceutical giant, GlaxoSmithKline took center stage. Wenjie Qian of Chance Bridge Partners in Beijing said that the GSK investigation is just the beginning of China’s efforts at taking a lead in battling corruption. She indicated that pharma giants, Roche, Novartis and Merck are under the watchfully eye of investigators in China. And she said that others industries including auto, telecommunications and hi-tech will soon be under the scrutiny of the State Administration for Industry and Commerce (SAIC). Ms Qian also said that whistleblowers are playing a critical role in compliance enforcement in China.

Whether investigations in China will lead to prosecutions elsewhere – particularly under the US Foreign Corrupt Practices Act – remains an open question.

Buried in Fine Print: $57B of FHA Loans Big Banks May Have to Eat

Below is an article by Kate Berry which was published on October 7, 2013 in the American Banker.

The nation’s four largest banks are holding $57 billion of seriously delinquent loans that they’ve been slow to move into foreclosure over concerns that the Federal Housing Administration, the government mortgage insurer, will refuse to cover the losses and hit them with damages, according to industry sources.

The banks — Bank of America (BAC), Citigroup (NYSE:C), JPMorgan Chase (JPM), and Wells Fargo (WFC) — have assured investors in the footnotes of quarterly filings that the loans are government-insured and therefore pose no threat to their bottom lines, even if they end up in foreclosure. What’s more, the banks have used these supposedly iron-clad government guarantees as a pretext for continuing to classify the loans as performing and for holding no reserves against them.

The FHA insures home loans issued by banks and other mortgage lenders to low-income and first-time home buyers. Those buyers pay the FHA insurance premiums to cover potential losses. In the event that an FHA-backed loan goes into foreclosure, the lender has the right to file a claim for reimbursement of losses.

However, the FHA’s guarantee does not apply if lenders are found to have violated underwriting or servicing standards, or to have engaged in misconduct. Banks can also be held liable for treble damages under the False Claims Act if they are found to have “falsely certified” that mortgages met all FHA requirements.

As a result, the banks face hefty losses if the loans go into foreclosure because there is no guarantee that the FHA will cover them, asserts Rebel Cole, a former Federal Reserve Board economist who is now a professor of finance and real estate at DePaul University in Chicago.

In the last year, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, which oversees the FHA, has forced four banks to pay a total of $1.5 billion under the False Claims Act on FHA loans that defaulted. More settlements are expected soon.

“The banks say they are certain of repayment on these distressed assets, but that’s simply not true,” says Cole.

To be sure, even if all $57 billion of loans went into foreclosure, losses to the FHA and banks would likely be substantially less, thanks to recoveries on the properties. The FHA’s overall recovery rate was 42% of the principal value in the second quarter.

Some lenders acknowledge that they will likely end up eating losses on defaulted loans held on their balance sheets and settlements related to past claims. They are also likely to try to avoid the risk of getting hit with damages by forgoing the FHA claims process and absorbing some losses themselves.

“There’s a distinct possibility that they [banks] do not file all claims and just self-insure [absorb losses] on those loans,” says Melissa Klimkiewicz, an attorney at BuckleySandler. “Lenders may err on the side of not filing claims where there is uncertainty because of the potential for HUD action or treble damages.”

For their part, lenders bristle at the claim that they’re intentionally keeping loans out of foreclosure. Even Ed Pinto, a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and a sharp FHA critic, attributes the backlog of delinquent FHA loans to efforts by consumer groups to slow foreclosures, and to the unreasonably long time it takes to complete a foreclosure in states such as New York, New Jersey and Florida, where foreclosures are processed through the courts.

“Servicers are engaged in vigorous, robust loss mitigation efforts and that’s one of the reasons foreclosures are taking longer and so many loans are still on (banks’) books,” says Phillip Schulman, a partner with the Washington office of K&L Gates, who represents several banks currently in negotiations with HUD.

“You can’t file a claim until the house is in foreclosure or has [been the subject of] a short sale. It’s a lengthy process, and foreclosure is the last option we look at,” adds Jerry Dubrowski, a spokesman for B of A.

Moreover, it is not as if the FHA — whose own financial health is in question — is pressuring the banks to file claims. Like any insurer, the FHA wants to avoid paying claims, so it is providing incentives to mortgage servicers when they modify loans, offer a forbearance of past due mortgage payments or provide other alternatives to foreclosure. The FHA’s goal is “to reduce the number of full claims against the insurance fund,” a 2012 Government Accountability Office report on its finances said.

Some bank critics say they have intentionally held off from filing claims in the wake of their scandal involving the ‘robo-signing’ of foreclosure documents. That episode led to $25 billion national settlement between state attorneys general and the nation’s five largest servicers. Critics suggest the banks are now unable to foreclose on FHA loans because they do not have proper documentation, and therefore cannot file claims with the FHA.

“It’s like saying you’ll be reimbursed for expenses when you’ve lost the receipts,” says Reuben Guttman, who specializes in False Claims Act cases against banks at Guttman, Buschner & Brooks PLLC.

Most banks define delinquent FHA loans as those 90 days or more past due but still accruing interest. B of A has $21.4 billion of delinquent FHA loans on its books, while Wells has $19 billion, Citi has $4.2 billion and JPMorgan Chase has $3.3 billion. The banks also have on their books more than $8.6 billion of “nonaccrual” delinquent loans on which the FHA is no longer covering interest. Almost $7 billion of those loans are held by JPMorgan Chase.

DePaul’s Cole says that the numbers are misleading, however.

Bank of America, for example, lists only a fraction of its $23 billion in defaulted FHA loans as nonaccrual. But in a footnote to its second quarter filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission, B of A says the FHA, as the insurer, has stopped paying interest on $17 billion of the defaulted loans. Cole insists those also should be listed as nonaccrual.

Some observers suggest that the loans could sit on the four banks’ balance sheets until they settle existing disputes with the FHA over their underwriting. B of A and Citibank have already negotiated settlements over False Claims Act violations with the FHA or are in the midst of doing so.

The settlements are to resolve claims involving an unknown amount of previously filed FHA claims that could date back a decade or more. After the legal claims involving these mortgages are cleared up, the banks will be able to file new claims for loans still on their balance sheets.

“At some point there is going to be a settlement and it will include the loans held on their balance sheets, and at that point they will be able to file claims,” said one attorney who represents a bank currently in settlement talks.

In all, 10 FHA lenders are currently in negotiations with HUD and the Justice Department, David A. Montoya, HUD’s Inspector General, told legislators last month. The FHA’s servicing review teams have found widespread violations of servicing practices, and the expectation is that the FHA will be reimbursed for claims it has already paid, Montoya said.

“Given the sheer volume of loans involved and high error rates identified in underwriting, settlements and favorable court actions may result in significant recoveries by the government from each of the 10 lenders,” Montoya told a House subcommittee on Sept. 10.

Any recoveries, of course, would help the FHA bolster its own finances. Though the FHA says it has already set aside reserves to cover losses, the agency remains undercapitalized and had to tap the Treasury Department for a bailout last month.

“There’s no question that HUD is stepping up its enforcement efforts and that’s a euphemism for collection efforts,” says Schulman, the K&L Gates attorney.

The FHA has more than $32 billion in reserves, but it faces an estimated $70 billion in future payouts on loans originated just from 2007 through 2009, according to the 2012t from the Government Accountability Office. In all, the FHA has roughly 686,000 seriously delinquent loans, representing $106 billion in total principal balances for all lenders. These distressed assets continue to be a major drag on the housing market, distorting the supply of homes for sale because so many remain stuck in the foreclosure process.

Last year, the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, the Justice Department, HUD’s general counsel and HUD’s Office of Inspector General settled civil fraud cases with three large banks: Deutsche Bank’s Mortgage IT unit for $202.3 million, CitiMortgage for $158.3 million and Flagstar Bank for $132.8 million. Each of those settlements involved the lender’s admission that they submitted what are called “false annual certifications” to HUD. A spokesman for Citi says because of its past settlement, it has continued to file new claims and expects the FHA to pay for all losses.

In addition, B of A agreed last year to pay roughly $1 billion to resolve allegations of misconduct for loans originated by Countrywide Financial, which it bought in 2008. That settlement helped FHA patch a $688 million budget shortfall.

B of A in particular has dramatically whittled down its backlog of delinquent FHA loans. From the fourth quarter of 2012 to the second quarter of this year, B of A sold off $8 billion in mortgage servicing rights, essentially unloading soured FHA loans to nonbank servicers Nationstar Mortgage (NSM) and Ocwen Financial (OCN). Those servicers now have the authority to file claims with the FHA once loans go through foreclosure.

Of the four lenders, Wells appears to be the most resistant to a settlement.

The bank is locked in a bitter legal dispute with Preet Bharara, the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, and HUD over allegations of widespread FHA underwriting violations going back a decade.

Wells has claimed it received a broad release from False Claims liability as part of the $25 billion national mortgage settlement, but regulators have disputed that claim in court.

Wells “believes it acted in good faith and in compliance with FHA and HUD rules,” a spokesman said in an email. “We look forward to presenting facts to vigorously defend against this action.”
.

1 6 7 8 9 10 13