FDIC files objection to Bank of America mortgage settlement
On Oct. 9, the FDIC filed an objection to the settlement, asking that the terms be renegotiated to be more equitable for all involved.
October 09, 2013 at 09:32 AM
5 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
While Bank of America hoped it could shed the mortgage securities woes it had picked up with its acquisition of Countrywide Financial in 2008, the deal it struck to mitigate problems and reimburse investors has received new scrutiny.
The deal, a $500 million settlement it struck in April, was designed to take care of approximately 80 percent of the mortgage securities that were back by defective loans. But the figure of $500 million is said to be too small in regards to the $450.7 billion original face values of the mortgages in question.
While finalization of this deal was expected to be made in hearing in October, action by the FDIC could now derail that confirmation. On Oct. 9, the FDIC filed an objection to the settlement, asking that the terms be renegotiated to be more equitable for all involved.
The FDIC has alleged that deal was advantageous for a portion of the plaintiff class. The settlement is being scrutinized because it sets aside only $41 million for the claims of 91 percent of the investors while the lawyers for the named plaintiffs were set to receive $85 million.
The FDIC has urged the judge presiding over the settlement to reject it. Business Journal reports that the FDIC says the plaintiff group in question “had a conflict of interest in negotiating and accepting the proposed settlement because, under the settlement, they would receive substantial payments at the expense of the rest of the class.”
BoA has been no stranger to legal hurdles this year. On Oct. 2 it reached a settlement with the state of New York to overhaul its aid of struggling homeowners. It agreed to offer kinder options for homeowner by changing its communication plan and potentially offering loan re-negotiations for those underwater with their mortgages.
But this benevolent gesture is not anticipated to sway the FDIC's objection. More new on the reworked settlement is expected shortly.
While
The deal, a $500 million settlement it struck in April, was designed to take care of approximately 80 percent of the mortgage securities that were back by defective loans. But the figure of $500 million is said to be too small in regards to the $450.7 billion original face values of the mortgages in question.
While finalization of this deal was expected to be made in hearing in October, action by the FDIC could now derail that confirmation. On Oct. 9, the FDIC filed an objection to the settlement, asking that the terms be renegotiated to be more equitable for all involved.
The FDIC has alleged that deal was advantageous for a portion of the plaintiff class. The settlement is being scrutinized because it sets aside only $41 million for the claims of 91 percent of the investors while the lawyers for the named plaintiffs were set to receive $85 million.
The FDIC has urged the judge presiding over the settlement to reject it. Business Journal reports that the FDIC says the plaintiff group in question “had a conflict of interest in negotiating and accepting the proposed settlement because, under the settlement, they would receive substantial payments at the expense of the rest of the class.”
BoA has been no stranger to legal hurdles this year. On Oct. 2 it reached a settlement with the state of
But this benevolent gesture is not anticipated to sway the FDIC's objection. More new on the reworked settlement is expected shortly.
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 AllCoinbase Hit With Antitrust Suit That Seeks to Change How Crypto Exchanges Operate
3 minute readBaker Botts' Biopharma Client Sues Former In-House Attorney, Others Alleging Extortion Scheme
Trending Stories
- 1Deal Watch: Latham, Paul Weiss, Debevoise Land on Year-End Big Deals. Plus, Mixed Messages for 2025 M&A
- 2Bathroom Recording Leads to Lawyer's Disbarment: Disciplinary Roundup
- 3Conn. Supreme Court: Workers' Comp Insurance Cancellations Must Be Unambiguous
- 4To Avoid Conflict, NYAG Hands Probe Into Inmate's Beating Death to Syracuse-Area DA
- 5Scripture-Quoting Employee Sues Company for Supporting LGBTQ Pride
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