Two different groups holding Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac stock filed suit against the government this week claiming that the Treasury Department and the Federal Housing Finance Agency are illegally poaching the profits from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that should go to shareholders. The FHFA and Treasury illegally implemented the so-called sweep amendment last summer that altered Fannie’s and Freddie’s preferred stock purchase agreements, according to the suits. The amended agreement allows the government to seize nearly all the profits of the two government-sponsored enterprises. This is a direct violation of the 2008 conservatorship legislation, according to the lawsuit filed by hedge fund Perry Capital in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Less than two days later, Fairholme Capital Management filed...

The mortgage banking industry recently declared victory in the wake of a federal appeals court decision to overturn a previous court ruling, which had upheld a 2010 administrative interpretation by the Department of Labor that mortgage loan officers are entitled to overtime pay. In Mortgage Bankers Association v. Seth D. Harris, acting secretary of U.S. Department of Labor, a three-judge panel from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia reversed a lower court’s decision denying the MBA’s motion for summary judgment. At the same time, the appellate court remanded the case to the district court with instructions to vacate the DOL’s 2010 interpretation of the administrative exemption under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The court, however, left...

Two insurance industry trade groups recently filed suit in federal district court to contest the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s final rule formalizing its “disparate impact” interpretation of the Fair Housing Act, which asserts that housing policies and practices can be deemed discriminatory not only through their intent but also by their effects. The rule, issued in early February, formally establishes the three-part burden-shifting test for determining when a practice with a discriminatory effect violates the Fair Housing Act. The American Insurance Association and the National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies, whose members sell homeowners insurance, challenged...

A Wells Fargo securities trial is underway in Minnesota federal district court where jurors will decide whether the financial institution had misrepresented the safety and soundness of its securities lending program and lied to investors about the risks involved or whether the economic crisis was to blame for investor losses. The securities lending program (SLP) was marketed to large institutional investors, including pension funds. As part of the SLP, Wells Fargo held the participants’ securities in custodial accounts and loaned them temporarily to brokers. The brokers then posted cash collateral, which the bank invested until the securities were returned. Under agreements with SLP participants, Wells Fargo acted...

Given that regulators are paying closer attention to fair lending these days than ever, as well as the growing use of social media by mortgage lenders, some top compliance sources have offered up a number of best practices and other recommendations to help firms reduce or eliminate their potential liability. “I’ve heard it said that some companies choose not to do social media or websites because of the risk. When I hear that, I’m perplexed because it is the main form of communication with the ...

An FHA proposal for new legislative authority to transfer servicing has raised concerns among industry participants, particularly in the Ginnie Mae market. Authorizing the FHA to shift mortgage-servicing rights from one servicer to another could have a ripple effect on Ginnie Mae servicing rights and also adversely impact state mortgage servicing and origination licenses, some say. The bottom line is that Congress should consider FHA’s request for new statutory authority with great care, said Larry Platt, a compliance attorney and a partner at the Washington law firm K&L Gates. “We would hope that ...

The Securities and Exchange Commission and defendants in civil lawsuits will have to face the harsher realities of an open-ended policy change requiring defendants in certain civil lawsuits to admit guilt as a condition for settlement, say legal experts. There is apparently a consensus among industry attorneys that it will be difficult for the SEC to determine when to apply the new policy and to which cases. In addition, there is also the question of whether the SEC will have the discipline to reject a huge settlement and avoid the expense and uncertainty of a drawn-out trial, just so it could get an admission of guilt by a corporate defendant. According to global law firm DLA Piper, SEC Chairman Mary Jo White recently notified...

In a legal development that could be pivotal for the tenure of Richard Cordray as director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau – as well as the scope of the agency’s authority – the Supreme Court of the United States announced this week that it was taking on Noel Canning v. National Labor Relations Board. In Canning, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled earlier this year that President Obama’s three recess appointments to the NLRB were unconstitutional. If the SCOTUS upholds that determination, it could eventually spell the end for Cordray’s tenure at the helm of the bureau, numerous attorneys concur, given that he was named to the CFPB as a recess appointment in the same announcement in which the President revealed his NLRB appointments. There’s more...

Ambac Assurance Corp. may proceed with its fraud claims against JPMorgan Chase in connection with residential MBS that Ambac insured, a New York state judge ruled last week. In March 2012, Ambac filed suit against JPMorgan Chase, alleging fraudulent marketing of residential MBS by Bear Stearns and Co., which was acquired and renamed JPMorgan Securities. The suit claims that Ambac had to pay more than $200 million in insurance claims to investors from seven Bear Stearns securitization transactions that lost $1.8 billion. Ambac contends...

The Supreme Court of the United States announced this week that it will hear a legal dispute that would determine whether the Fair Housing Act – and perhaps, by extension, the Equal Credit Opportunity Act – permit claims under the “disparate impact” theory of discrimination. “The threshold issue on appeal is whether plaintiffs may use disparate impact to allege a violation under the Fair Housing Act rather than proving liability by demonstrating an actual intent to discriminate,” explained attorneys with the Dykema Gossett law firm. In Township of Mount Holly, New Jersey v. Mt. Holly Gardens Citizens in Action, the plaintiff citizen group is challenging...