Citigroup Settlement Over Robo-Signing Awaits Approval in Georgia Federal Court
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
The original version of this story was published on Corporate Counsel
In a deal awaiting approval by the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in the Northern District of Georgia, 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.
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
© 2024 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 AllOn the Move: Hunton Andrews Kurth Practice Leader Named Charlotte Managing Partner
6 minute readPaul Weiss’ Shanmugam Joins 11th Circuit Fight Over False Claims Act’s Constitutionality
Atlanta Attorneys Rely on Google Earth, YouTube for Evidence in $6M Faulty Guardrail Settlement
Trending Stories
- 1Authenticating Electronic Signatures
- 2'Fulfilled Her Purpose on the Court': Presiding Judge M. Yvette Miller Is 'Ready for a New Challenge'
- 3Litigation Leaders: Greenspoon Marder’s Beth-Ann Krimsky on What Makes Her Team ‘Prepared, Compassionate and Wicked Smart’
- 4A Look Back at High-Profile Hires in Big Law From Federal Government
- 5Grabbing Market Share From Rivals, Law Firms Ramped Up Group Lateral Hires
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
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