Compliance Staff Has Marching Orders in Citigroup Settlement Over Robo-Signing
Citibank and its compliance assurance unit have their work cut out for them to comply with the terms of a $5 million settlement with the federal government.
September 25, 2018 at 04:16 PM
3 minute read
Compliance staff at Citigroup Inc. received specific instructions on ensuring that the bank fulfills the terms of its $5 million settlement with the U.S. Department of Justice over robo-signing claims in consumer bankruptcy cases involving some 71,000 Macy's credit card accounts.
Citigroup, which self-reported the problem, gave this statement to Corporate Counsel on Tuesday: “In 2015, Citi identified potential issues with the way a vendor was processing bankruptcy proof of claims for the Macy's credit card program. Citi halted the vendor's filings and promptly reported the issue to the Executive Office of the United States Trustee.”
The statement continued, “Citi is pleased to have resolved this legacy issue and regrets any inconvenience to customers. Affected cardholders will receive refunds of $70 per account.”
The settlement said the account holders were parties in bankruptcy cases where robo-signed proofs of claim may have been filed. Robo-signing refers to employees signing documents that have not been read or properly validated.
It's not the bank's first penalty for improperly signing documents. In 2013 Citigroup paid $307 million to compensate borrowers and pledged $487 million more in homeowner assistance as part of a federal settlement with 13 banks over abuses involving robo-signing home foreclosure forms.
In the current case, Citigroup discovered that proofs of claim filed between 2012 and 2015 by employees of a third-party vendor had been robo-signed. FDS Bank, a private bank of Macy's parent, Federated Department Stores, was responsible for account servicing activities and contracted certain bankruptcy-related services to vendors.
According to the settlement, Citigroup learned of the vendor's improper practices after the bank took over servicing the accounts in July 2015, and informed the government in August. The bank and its affiliate were represented by Phoebe Winder, of the Boston office of K&L Gates.
Besides the $70 per account holder remediation payments, this week's deal requires the bank to notify each affected consumer within 120 days.
Then the order listed specific instructions for the bank's compliance assurance unit, which it said operates independent of the line of business. The document said, “Compliance Assurance supports Citigroup Inc.'s compliance and risk functions by independently assessing compliance risks and controls … including by the performance of risk assessments, independent assurance activities such as testing and on-going monitoring, and validation of the adequacy of remediation measures.”
The settlement gives the compliance unit 195 days to:
- Assess the adequacy of the method used to determine which accounts were affected, identify any issues or errors and update the U.S. Trustee Office on steps taken to cure issues or errors. The unit will present its findings to Citigroup to file with the court.
- Inspect a sample of the accounts resulting from Citigroup's search, and assess the accuracy of the search.
- Validate that Citigroup mailed notice and payment for each matched account to the most likely address of the account holder.
- Then within 225 days, the compliance unit must submit its draft findings to the bank, “which will contemporaneously provide a copy” to the U.S. Trustee Office. Citigroup then has 45 days to cure any issues or errors identified by compliance. Compliance will then prepare and submit its final report to the bank, which will provide it to the court.
The settlement still must be approved by the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in the Northern District of Georgia.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllNetflix Music Guru Becomes First GC of Startup Helping Independent Artists Monetize Catalogs
2 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Some Thoughts on What It Takes to Connect With Millennial Jurors
- 2Artificial Wisdom or Automated Folly? Practical Considerations for Arbitration Practitioners to Address the AI Conundrum
- 3The New Global M&A Kings All Have Something in Common
- 4Big Law Aims to Make DEI Less Divisive in Trump's Second Term
- 5Public Notices/Calendars
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250