I would like to go back in time and hug the person (you know who you are) that started this mess in motion, looks like it has back fired.

Thank you


:) Thanks a million

JP Morgan Chase Thank you

What a week.
This is all I can say.

You've Got To GO OUT and KICK A$$

Jamie Dimon Sure I trust you.

BRIEF-JPMorgan CEO Dimon: Economy 'can boom' if fiscal issues solved

Fri Nov 9, 2012 4:31pm EST

Nov 9 (Reuters) - JPMorgan Chase & Co : * CEO Jamie Dimon says economy 'can boom' if government fiscal issues solved * JPMorgan CEO Dimon speaks on cnbc television * Jpmorgan's Dimon: regulator calculations of bank capital should be modified * Jpmorgan's Dimon: all signs on housing are 'flashing green' * Jpmorgan's Dimon: housing could help drive the economy * Jpmorgan's Dimon: mortgage lending standards are 'still too tight' * Jpmorgan's Dimon: 'large pipeline of companies waiting' for IPOs


  **************************************************************************

Nothing like saying, Hey, let's do it ALL OVER AGAIN. smh wtf

Mortgage Fraud BOA

Legal/Regulatory October 24, 2012, 12:35 pm541 Comments

U.S. Accuses Bank of America of a ‘Brazen’ Mortgage Fraud

By BEN PROTESS

• 

  Spencer Platt/Getty Images

• 

  Chuck Burton/Associated Press

• 

  Susan Walsh/Associated Press

• 

  John Marshall Mantel for The New York Times

• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4

A Bank of America branch in Manhattan. The Justice Department took aim at a home loan program known as the "hustle."

9:34 p.m. | Updated
Five years after the housing market crumbled, government officials are still trying to assign blame for the problems that fueled the mortgage boom and bust.
On Wednesday, federal prosecutors in New York took aim at Bank of America. They accused it of carrying out a scheme, started by its Countrywide Financial unit, that defrauded government-backed mortgage agencies by churning out loans at a rapid pace without proper controls. In a civil suit, prosecutors seek to collect at least $1 billion in penalties from the bank as compensation for the behavior that they say forced taxpayers to guarantee billions in bad loans.
Financial firms have been battling chaotic — and at times redundant — litigation related to the mortgage mess. The cases have come from a patchwork of federal agencies, state officials and shareholder suits, some of which have been resolved in multibillion-dollar settlements.

“They never know who’s going to be coming after them next,” said Dan Hurson, a former federal prosecutor who now defends securities cases. “There’s no central traffic cop.”
Still, the public has been frustrated with the limited number of criminal actions that have been filed since the financial crisis. Few cases have taken aim at top executives. Even in the latest case against Bank of America, no company officials were sued as part of the complaint. Angelo R. Mozilo, the former chief executive of Countrywide Financial, never faced criminal charges but did agree in 2010 to pay $67.5 million to settle a civil fraud case brought by the Securities and Exchange Commission.
Mr. Hurson said that the government had yet to overcome the notion that federal authorities were reluctant to pursue the top rungs of Wall Street. The criminal actions to come from the crisis, he noted, have focused on “small-time operators.”
The government, however, has contended that it has aggressively pursued mortgage fraud. As the legal deadline approaches for filing crisis-related cases, President Obama formed a mortgage task force to investigate wrongdoing. The unit recently announced its first case, taking action against JPMorgan Chase over mortgage deals created by Bear Stearns, the firm that JPMorgan bought during the crisis.
The legal problems for Bank of America, however, have taken a deeper financial toll, costing the bank billions in write-downs and settlements. Much of its problems stem from its takeover of Countrywide Financial, once the nation’s largest mortgage lender. The bank also struck a $2.4 billion deal in September to settle a class-action lawsuit over shareholder claims that it misled investors about the 2009 purchase of Merrill Lynch.
In the lawsuit on Wednesday, the Justice Department attacked a home loan program known as the “hustle,” which the bank inherited from Countrywide in 2008 and kept alive through 2009.
Prosecutors say the venture was a symbol of Wall Street’s slipshod standards during the mortgage bubble. According to the lawsuit, Countrywide rubber-stamped mortgage loans to risky borrowers and passed them on to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the two government-controlled mortgage financial giants that guaranteed the loans. The two entities were ultimately stuck with heavy losses and a glut of foreclosed properties.
“The fraudulent conduct alleged in today’s complaint was spectacularly brazen in scope,” Preet Bharara, the United States attorney in Manhattan, said in a statement. “This lawsuit should send another clear message that reckless lending practices will not be tolerated.”
Mr. Bharara filed the civil suit along with the inspector general of the Federal Housing Finance Agency, which oversees Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The government watchdog for the bank bailout program, the special inspector general for the Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP, also joined the complaint.
In a statement, a Bank of America spokesman said the bank “has stepped up and acted responsibly to resolve legacy mortgage matters; the claim that we have failed to repurchase loans from Fannie Mae is simply false.” The spokesman, Lawrence Grayson, added, “At some point, Bank of America can’t be expected to compensate every entity that claims losses that actually were caused by the economic downturn.”
The case builds on a broader federal crackdown of Wall Street that continues years after the onset of the crisis. In a last-ditch effort to hold financial firms accountable, Mr. Bharara this month sued Wells Fargo over questionable mortgage deals.
The assertions in the Bank of America suit, however, do not shed much new light on the mortgage mess. The Federal Housing Finance Agency last year sued 17 big banks over losses sustained by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac over different mortgage-related products. The twin mortgage finance companies, also bailed out by taxpayers in 2008 and still controlled by the government, continue to push firms like Bank of America to repurchase billions of dollars in bad loans.
The flurry of litigation, which comes on the cusp of the presidential election, has caused some on Wall Street to question whether the effort is rooted in political motivations.
Other white-collar lawyers say the complaints rehash old claims put forth by private investors. JPMorgan says that the government urged it to buy Bear Stearns, a defense that does not apply to Bank of America, which acquired Countrywide as part of an aggressive expansion effort.
Still, a lawyer close to the Bank of America case, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the case was continuing, argued that the bank had already repaid Fannie Mae for some of the soured loans in question. Other loans, this person argued, were never before disputed by Fannie Mae.
The lawsuit threatens to impose steep fines on the bank. The Justice Department filed the case under the False Claims Act, which could provide for triple the damages suffered by Fannie and Freddie, a penalty that could reach more than $3 billion.
The act also provides an avenue for a Countrywide whistle-blower, Edward J. O’Donnell, to cash in. Under the act, the government can piggyback on accusations he filed in a lawsuit that was kept under seal until now.
Mr. O’Donnell, who lives in Pennsylvania, was an executive vice president for Countrywide before leaving the company in 2009. The government’s case in part hinges on the credibility of his claims.
In the 46-page lawsuit, prosecutors contend that Countrywide abandoned its lending standards in 2007 with the creation of the “hustle” program. Short for “HSSL,” or “High-Speed Swim Lane,” the program adopted the motto “move forward, never backward,” prosecutors said, citing Countrywide documents.
With the goal of generating a high number of loans, Countrywide tore down internal controls known as tollgates that were in place to slow the mortgage process and root out risky borrowers. The firm at one point removed trained underwriters from the loan process, opting instead to rely on “unqualified and inexperienced” loan processors.
At times, prosecutors claim, loan processors crossed a legal line. Some “repeatedly did manipulate” loan forms, jotting down higher incomes for borrowers so they would qualify for Fannie Mae’s standards.
By early 2008, the lax standards started to show. More than a third of the unit’s loans were defective, a significant jump over the industry standard of about 5 percent.
Despite the poor performance, prosecutors said, the bank sold the loans to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and “concealed the defect rates and continued the hustle.”

HOMEOWNER UNDER DURESS

#JPMC Homeowner LOVES them despite being ignored

:)

#JPMC Scare Tactics

#JPMC

Thank you, for the letters. Um, Arapahoe County Trustee notified me that this is a scare tactic.

knock it off already.

Michelle

Judge Tosses Out Foreclosure Action Due to Lack of Trustee Standing

Fascinating March 30 legal decision out of Alabama, in the case of Phyllis Horace vs. LaSalle Bank National Association et. el.
The judge issued a summary judgment ruling (original motion is here), tossing out the foreclosure action due to lack of trustee standing:

“The ruling prevents defendant LaSalle Bank – as the trustee holding the plaintiff’s securitized mortgage – from proceeding with a foreclosure because the trust failed to follow its own pooling and servicing agreement, and did not follow applicable New York law when trying to “obtain assignment of Horace’s note and mortgage,” according to the court order.
Without proof the mortgage had been assigned to the trust, in this case a Bear Stearns-related mortgage trust, the trustee lacked standing to foreclose, the court found.”

In other words, if you screw up the process of securitizing mortgages by failing to assign the loan note (and/or physically keep track of it), you lose the right to subsequently foreclose in the event of a default.
Ouch.
Note who the participants to this debacle are:

Bear Stearns Asset Backed Securities I LLC, asset-backed certificates series 2006-EC2.
Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (MERS),
Encore Credit Corp.,
EMC Mortgage Co.
Bank of America

>
Sources:
Alabama judge denies securitization trustee standing to foreclose
KERRI PANCHUK
Housing Wire, April 1, 2011
http://www.housingwire.com/2011/04/01/alabama-judge-denies-securitization-trustee-standing-to-foreclose
Court: Busted Securitization Prevents Foreclosure
ABIGAIL FIELD
Daily Finance 04/01/11
http://www.dailyfinance.com/story/real-estate/court-busted-securitization-prevents-foreclosure/19900530/
Yves has the original court filing here . . .

PERMALINK
Category: Foreclosures, Legal, Real Estate.

Void Foreclosure Sales of Two Homes

By ROBBIE WHELAN, ALAN ZIBEL and VICTORIA MCGRANE

The highest court in Massachusetts ruled against Wells Fargo WFC +0.91% & Co. and U.S. Bancorp in two foreclosure cases that cast doubt over whether some home loans were properly handled when packaged into securitizations.
Justices in the state's Supreme Judicial Court upheld a lower court's decision to void foreclosure sales of two homes in Springfield, because owners of the loans couldn't prove that the mortgages had been assigned to them. Both loans were assembled into mortgage-backed securities sold to investors.

Enlarge Image

Getty Images

A Wells Fargo branch in San Francisco. Shares of the bank fell 2% on the ruling, and other banks saw share-price losses as well.

Bank stocks fell on worries that Friday's ruling could make it harder for financial firms to foreclose on mortgages that wound up in securities. The defeat also might provide ammunition to mortgage-bond investors who have accused and even sued servicers for what the investors claim is systematically shoddy loan documentation.
The ruling against the fourth- and fifth-largest U.S. banks in assets came amid a delay in the crafting of new standards for mortgage lending as top U.S. regulators clash over protections for homeowners facing foreclosure.
The logjam is a sign of how strongly the financial crisis still looms as regulators work to implement the Dodd-Frank financial-overhaul law passed last summer. To help prevent another housing collapse, lawmakers included a provision requiring issuers of mortgage-backed securities to keep 5% of the risk, since investors would suffer losses when loans go bad.
Six federal agencies must sign off on the provision before it is released for comment, but their tentative goal of completing a proposal by the end of December came and went with no agreement. The delay was caused partly by disagreement about whether to include new protections for homeowners on the brink of foreclosure within this so-called risk-retention rule or separately, people familiar with the negotiations said. The Dodd-Frank law requires that the regulators finalize the risk-retention requirement by April.
The snag indicates that implementing the changes triggered by the new law could be messy as regulators wrestle to reach consensus. Friday's court ruling brought even more anxiety to the mortgage-securitization market.
The Massachusetts case is a closely watched example of what some mortgage experts describe as "show-me-the-paper" cases over widely used procedures for transferring loans after they are made. Individual loans often are sold to an investor, with the new owner's name left blank in loan documents to minimize paperwork hassles as the loan subsequently changes hands before being combined with other loans into mortgage-backed securities.
Justice Robert J. Cordy concluded in a concurring opinion that the two banks showed "utter carelessness" when they "documented the titles to their assets." If the ruling is followed by lower courts in Massachusetts or emboldens borrowers and investors elsewhere, it could delay or even derail some foreclosures. That would make it harder for banks to recoup loan losses by selling homes that are seized through foreclosure proceedings.
"It's deeply disturbing to investors that it even got to this point, but it potentially strengthens any bondholder claim that the servicers are mishandling foreclosures," said Talcott Franklin, a lawyer representing bond investors.
Susan Wachter, a real-estate finance professor at the University of Pennsylvania, called the ruling a "landmark decision" with nationwide implications because Massachusetts loans wound up in many securities.
Shares of Wells Fargo, based in San Francisco, fell 2%; U.S. Bancorp, Minneapolis, slipped 0.8%. Betsy Grasek, an analyst with Morgan Stanley, wrote in a note to clients that the declines created "buying opportunity for bank stocks," adding that the court ruling "is not saying the foreclosure process is flawed."
R. Bruce Allensworth, a partner at law firm K&L Gates who represents U.S. Bancorp, said the decision would have no effect outside Massachusetts. In a statement, Wells Fargo said the ruling "does not prevent foreclosures on loans in securitizations."
In the risk-retention spat, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. has insisted that forthcoming rules also contain new standards for mortgage servicers that collect mortgage payments and distribute them to investors.

Other regulators agree on the need for such changes but want to tackle them through a separate rule or possibly legislation. Those officials are concerned that the FDIC's approach wouldn't cover all mortgages, adding that it is unclear whether regulators have legal authority under the law to impose standards on mortgage servicers.
Industry officials are pressing for a delay, claiming that trying to define what kind of mortgages are deemed safe and therefore exempt from risk-retention requirements is complicated enough. "There should be a discussion on how you look at servicing standards and what they should be," said Paul Leonard, vice president of government affairs at the Housing Policy Council, a mortgage industry group. "We think they should be done separately."
The FDIC has the support of some top Democratic lawmakers, along with some investors in mortgage securities, economists and consumer groups. Supporters argue that servicing standards are a crucial part of the housing market's recovery and that the industry is long overdue for reform.
"We needed this three years ago; we needed it 20 years ago," said Alys Cohen, a lawyer with the National Consumer Law Center, a liberal consumer group. Including standards in the Dodd-Frank mortgage rules guarantees they will be in place by April, "which is lightning speed by federal rule-making standards."
Last month, the FDIC published a legal memo stating that servicing standards are "clearly permitted" under the risk-retention rules. Andrew Gray, an FDIC spokesman, said regulators were asked as part of the new law to "help ensure strong underwriting and a safe and stable securitization market, and the FDIC strongly believes that servicing standards are a critical part of this effort."
As a result of the recent foreclosure mess, regulators have been reviewing the mortgage-servicing system. Possible guidelines being discussed include a requirement that servicers establish a single point of contact for delinquent homeowners and disclose whether they own an interest in loans they handle.
—Liz Moyer contributed to this article.

BOA Sues Itself in Foreclosure Case

Bank Of America Sues Itself In Unusual Foreclosure Case

Posted: 04/10/2012 5:33 pm Updated: 04/10/2012 5:40 pm

Follow:

Bank Of America, Foreclosure Crisis, Housing Crisis, Housing Crisis, Financial Crisis, Banks, Economy, Foreclosure Crisis, Foreclosures, Careers, Foreclosure Fraud, Housing Bubble, Lynn Szymoniak, Bac, Bofa, Robo-Signing, Robosigning, Business News

WASHINGTON -- Bank of America is suing itself for foreclosure.
"It's crazy," housing data analyst Michael Olenick told HuffPost. "They shouldn't be suing themselves."
Over the past two years, the nation's largest banks and the Obama administration have repeatedly vowed to clean up the foreclosure fraud mess. In February, banks agreed to pay $25 billion and overhaul their foreclosure processes as part of a 50-state investigation into bank wrongdoing, resulting from practices that included robo-signing.
But in Florida's Palm Beach County alone, Bank of America has sued itself for foreclosure 11 times since late March, according to foreclosure fraud activist Lynn Szymoniak, who forwarded one such foreclosure filing, dated March 29, 2012, to The Huffington Post. (A white-collar crime expert, Szymoniak was recently awarded $18 million for her work helping the government recover $95 million as a result of bank foreclosure problems in North Carolina.)
In the March 29 filing, Bank of America is seeking to foreclose on a condominium and names the condo owner and Bank of America as defendants in the suit. The company is literally seeking damages from itself in order to foreclose on the condo owner.
"We are servicing the first mortgage on behalf of an investor and we own the second mortgage," Bank of America spokeswoman Jumana Bauwens told HuffPost. "Naming the second-lien holder in the suit is necessary to eliminate the junior interest," Bauwens said.
"This just strikes me as classic robo foreclosure," Professor Alan White of Valparaiso University Law School told HuffPost. White, a predatory lending expert who tracks and analyzes data on loan modifications and foreclosures, said that lawyers for the bank likely performed an electronic title search to see if any other liens on the property existed and simply wrote down the name of whatever bank came up in the search. Lawyers and paralegals who perform these tasks typically fill out dozens of such forms a day, White told HuffPost.

"I'm sure the paralegal who did this did 100 others that day," he said.
Banks have been caught suing themselves before. In 2009, Dow Jones columnist Al Lewis uncovered a case in which Wells Fargo had sued itself in connection with a foreclosure in Florida's Hillsborough County. The bank owned both the first and second liens on the property and ended up hiring two separate attorneys to deal with the snafu -- one to bring the lawsuit and another to defend itself.
The Bank of America self-suits seems to have emerged from a scenario that investors have complained about for years involving home equity loans. Big banks like Bank of America service mortgages on behalf of other investors. Bank of America processes payments, negotiates with borrowers and operates the foreclosure process but does not actually own the loan. Many properties from the housing bubble had an additional home equity loan, or second lien. Banks could charge higher interest rates on these second liens because they were riskier loans -- the second lien is supposed to eat losses before anything happens to the first lien.
When a bank brings a foreclosure case in court, it has to notify whoever owns the second lien that it is taking action. In this case, Bank of America owns the second lien.
But meticulous attorneys would not ordinarily let their clients sue themselves. "It is a little bit mindless on the part of the lawyer," White said. "They don't need to sue themselves."

West Seattle homeowner files lawsuit against JP Morgan Chase

West Seattle homeowner files lawsuit against JP Morgan Chase


***Watch this video, pretty interesting. I wonder if #JPMC or #SUNTRUST or anyone out there will ever hand over any of the documents that I have requested??

:)  Something stinks

JPMorgan Chase Sued For Misleading Homeowners

By : Carlos Montes

It has become apparent that the recent recession has made for some fabulous opportunities for some unscrupulous people and businesses to cash in on other people’s misfortune. Unfortunately, it has also been the case that while some companies have been trying to assist home owners, it’s not always easy to tell the well meaning from the deliberately devious. In the latest news about struggling home owners dealing with their lenders comes a whole new chapter in possible misinformation and miscommunication. Recently, some Californian home owners were informed by their bank that while they were struggling to pay their mortgage, they would have to be delinquent to actually qualify for mortgage modification. So, their Chase bank representative told them to stop paying their mortgage for a time so that they could qualify. The plan worked, and the couple received a letter notifying them of their qualification for the program in June 2009; unfortunately, three weeks later they also received a letter from their bank letting them know that their bank was foreclosing on their home. While the bank was claiming that their home was not, in fact, foreclosed on the family was having agents looking at their home under the impression that the house was an REO; public records show that the bank did actually foreclose on the property while telling the family that they had not. One can only guess at the bank’s reasoning in this case. The unfortunate family apparently spent months trying to work out the situation with their bank before deciding to file a complaint in District Court, charging the bank with breach of contract, fraud, predatory lending, and violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The couple is demanding $150,000 in damages from JPMorgan Chase in compensation. Unfortunately for JPMorgan Chase customers, this is not the only case of predatory lending that has come to light. More customers in other locations have been coming forward to press charges against JPMorgan Chase as a result of what they claim is wrongful foreclosure. In at least one case the bank continued to claim that the home had not been foreclosed on when in fact it had been sold to a third party and the rightful home owners were evicted. Hopefully with these cases coming to light, there will be added incentive for lenders to work truthfully with home owners so that less homes are foreclosed on and more mortgages are modified so that owners can manage their payments.

For professional Calgary real estate services and listings, visit CalgaryRealEstate.pro - the site is clean and informative, with details about every corner of Calgary including Panorama Hills real estate.

Queens Homeowners Sue JPMorgan Chase

Queens homeowners sue Chase to gain relief from foreclosure

By Anna Gustafson

Three Queens homeowners filed a lawsuit against JP Morgan Chase Bank Tuesday for allegedly illegally delaying and denying their applications for foreclosure relief.
The Jamaica, Queens Village and Fresh Meadows residents and attorneys from the Urban Justice Center filed the suit in federal court in Brooklyn that alleges the bank refused to provide them the help guaranteed to them under the federal Home Affordable Modification Program.
The three individuals are suing for an injunction to force Chase to modify their loans, end their foreclosures and award them damages.
Chase did not return a phone call for comment.

“Chase has collected months of on-time payments from these homeowners and surely many like them across the country, with seemingly no intention of giving them real relief through permanent modifications on their loans,” said Carmela Huang, an Urban Justice Center attorney who is representing Queens Village resident Shanaz Begum, Jamaica mother Tamara Williams and Fresh Meadows resident Alex Lam.
Under the Home Affordable Modification Program, banks are supposed to reduce mortgage payments for people facing foreclosure provided the individuals complete three months of trial payments and verify their income, which Huang said her clients did.
Begum, who in 2005 bought the home where she lives with her husband and two sons, fell behind on mortgage payments in September 2008 after losing her job as a manager of a retail business. She made trial payments of $1,576 a month for eight months, but Chase did not offer Begum mortgage relief until July 2009, the same month she was served with a foreclosure summons, her attorney said.
The Urban Justice Center said Chase allegedly claimed the Begums’ income is “inadequate,” despite the family meeting Chase’s demands for documentation. Begum now works as a clerical assistant at the city Department of Transportation on weedays and as a server at a Boston Market on weekends.
“Chase has completely lacked any transparency and has been staggeringly unresponsive — leaving us in the lurch for months,” Begum said. “They have demanded spurious documents and claimed they lost others. Our son is headed to college in the fall. We don’t know how to afford those bills too with the possibility of losing our home still looming.”
Williams, who bought her house in 2005 through a subprime, interest-only loan fraudulently marketed to her by a rental broker, fell behind on her payments when she lost her job in November 2008 and went into foreclosure in March of last year.
Chase, according to the suit, failed to provide a loan modification to Williams, who lives with her two sons, despite three on-time trial payments of $1,274 this winter.
“The Obama administration’s program was supposed to give people like me a lifeline and a chance to save our homes, but if the banks won’t play by the rules, what else are we supposed to do?” Williams said.
The suit charges that Chase instructed Lam to deliberately miss mortgage payments in order to become eligible for a modification. Lam bought his house in 2002 and refinanced in 2005. In 2009, he was told he did not qualify for a modification because he was current on his payments.
On his bank’s advice, Lam skipped payments in February and March 2009 and now faces foreclosure.
“I may lose my home and my credit is damaged because I believed what the bank told me,” said Lam. “I held out for the HAMP modification because the terms are better. But the months I spent waiting for Chase to follow through on their promises mean I may have lost any chance to get help by refinancing somewhere else.”
Reach reporter Anna Gustafson by e-mail at agustafson@cnglocal.com or by phone at 718-260-4574.

Homeowners sue JpMorgan Chase Under MMPA

Homeowners sue JPMorgan Chase under MMPA

Aug 19, 2011 9:35 am

Lawsuit, U.S. District Court in St. Louis

A Creve Coeur couple has filed a potential class action suit against JPMorgan Chase alleging the lender intentionally misled and delayed Missouri homeowners seeking loan modifications.
Thomas and Sharon Hayes sought a loan modification under the Home Affordable Modification Program set up by Congress. But the couple never secured a modification and claim they battled with Chase for almost two years before losing their home at 330 Ladue Woods Court in a Feb. 16 short sale.
They now allege in a federal suit that Chase deliberately impeded their efforts to secure a loan modification by, among other alleged tactics, instructing customer service representatives to keep them on hold indefinitely and lying about the receipt of loan documents.
“It’s nightmarish for anyone to be in, to have your home in jeopardy,” said John Driscoll, one of the Hayes’ St. Louis attorneys. “Congress implemented HAMP and HARP [Home Affordable Refinance Program] and these modification programs with the best of reasons, but many of the people who hold mortgages aren’t seriously following these programs.
“The Hayes aren’t the only people who have experienced problems in relying on HAMP or HARP. It’s really all over the country.”
Christine Holevas, a spokeswoman for JPMorgan Chase, said the company does not discuss litigation.
The potential class action alleges violations of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act and asks the court to offer permanent loan modifications to plaintiffs and award restitution and punitive damages to homeowners.
The case is Hayes et al v. J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. et al., 4:11-cv-01429.

HAMP, HARP, John Driscoll, JPMorgant Chase, loan modification, Missouri Merchandising Practices Act

Texas Homeowner Sues Chase Mortgage for DECEIT

Texas Homeowner Sues Chase Mortgage for Loan Modification Deceit

posted by Alex Ferreras on March 9, 2011 in Mortgage News - LoanSafe.org

(LoanSafe.org) - On this case brought about on February 28, brought before the United States District Court, S.D. Texas, the Plaintiff was filing a lawsuit against Chase Home Finance.The story goes, in May 2005, Plaintiff and her husband had gotten a mortgage loan from Chase Bank in Harris County, Texas. According to court records, the note proving that the mortgage had been allocated to JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., and Chase Home Finance, LLC, was that they were engaged as the mortgage servicer.
The couple’s loan had gone into default after some time, according to records. After modification of the loans terms was unsuccessful, the foreclosure proceedings were gone forward with anyways. According to records, the couple have not reached the eviction stage yet, but these days this is a common thing to happen with the lenders. A similar well known case recently occurred with Bank of America.
The Plaintiff filed the lawsuit against Chase in Texas state court in an attempt to stop the foreclosure proceedings. She successfully had obtained a temporary restraining order from the Texas court. The homeowner in court made claims that the lender’s records are inaccurate, and that statements she has received from Chase are inconsistent. The Plaintiff alleges also that Chase failed to respect a Forbearance Plan Agreement, and had given her inappropriate promises that she would most definitely qualify for a HAMP federal program loan modification. This is another common practice by lenders that has recently gotten them in trouble.

For all the numbers of cases that enter the courts, successful prosecutions are extremely rare. Complaints must contain a number of factual allegations, as opposed to strictly legal conclusions. When there are well-pleaded factual allegations, a court should presume they are true, even if doubtful, and then determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief.
According to court records, the Plaintiff has admitted that the complaint she has filed with the courts was rather early or premature because no foreclosure has been completed yet. The case clearly was an impulsive action to attempt to avoid foreclosure as fast as possible, and was filed in state court where pleading requirements are less stringent.
The lawsuit was denied on the side of the Plaintiff and her husband, and was favored in the side of the defendant, Chase. According to court records, the prosecutor is given permission on or before March 28, 2011to file an Amended Complaint that satisfies the pleading requirements for complaints in federal court. Plaintiff shall allege the factual basis for each cause of action separately, and shall include only those causes of action recognized under Texas or federal law. She has yet to accomplish doing this so far, according to the court.

JPMorgan Chase Oraganized Banksters

Homeowner Suffers Horrific Injustice at the Hands of JPMorgan Chase

65

For over two years I’ve had a front row seat for the foreclosure crisis, the by-product of our government’s complete mishandling of the worst economic downturn in seventy years.
During that time I’ve been exposed to some pretty horrific things… people living in their cars with a child sleeping in the trunk… the eviction of an 89 year-old couple… I’ve gotten to know what that fear sounds like and feels like… the fear of losing one’s home while the country talks about you as being nothing more than an “irresponsible borrower,” someone who never should have bought your home in the first place, even though you may have lived in it for 30 years.
What I saw this past week, however, was something new for me… I’d heard of things like this happening before, written about them, even.  But, I had never seen anything like it, up close and personal.

As a warning… this story is not for the squeamish.  If you’re pregnant, or have heart disease, or just want to go on pretending that your country is still a place of which you’re proud… it’s better that you click off now… because this one isn’t going to make you laugh.

An Anaheim couple with an eight year-old daughter has lost their home… that would be one way of phrasing it.  Another way to describe what happened would be to say that JPMorgan Chase, an outfit that I now see clearly is significantly worse than any crime family… has thus far been permitted by the courts and the laws in California to STEAL an Anaheim couple’s home.
Why do I say that Chase stole it?  Well, there are lots of reasons, but I think the one that tops my list would have to be, because they never missed or were late on a payment… in every single month that JPMorgan Chase told the couple to make a payment… they paid the exact amount they were told to pay… on time and as agreed… never missed even one… never were late, not even once.

“We trusted the bank,” the Mom says, “like idiots.”

The husband in this family worked for the City of Placentia in Southern California for some 27 years.  The wife and mother has her own small business.  Their adorable eight year-old daughter, whose life is about to be inalterably changed at the hand of JPMorgan Chase, goes to school near by and loves her home.  Her parents haven’t told her anything about this yet, and I pray to God they never have to… that JPMorgan Chase comes forward and stops this egregious wrong that they have let happen… that they have created.
I can barely tell this story… I can’t imagine it ever happening to me… I can’t imagine it ever happening to anyone in this country… a place I used to proudly think of as my country.  Not so much anymore though.
The husband in this family became ill a few years ago… advanced diabetes… his kidneys have failed, he’s on dialysis… heart disease… he’s spent time on a respirator while hospitalized.
Yet, they’ve made it through everything, this family, through all of that and more… stayed together… raised a daughter… found ways to laugh and play together… they must love each other very much.
They had bought their 2-bedroom home in August of 2006… as it turns out… terrible timing… but who knew that the bankers, who had leveraged themselves 40-100 to one, were about to blame homeowners for their defrauding of the investment community, bankrupting the global financial system, and destroying the credit markets?  Bernanke didn’t know… Paulson didn’t know… personally, I think that lets this couple off the hook about the whole should-have-known thing.
So, for three years they made their payments without fail.  And maybe if it would have just been the economy or just the medical bills, they would have made it through this… but both was too much, and they received a Notice of Default in July of 2009.

They applied to JPMorgan Chase for a loan modification, and Chase granted them a trial modification in February of 2010.  Chase told them to pay $869 for three months, and entered them into another program in May, telling them to make monthly payments of $1358.
They paid every month, on time every time… by cashier’s check, as required by Chase.  The trial modification paperwork said something to the effect of:

“If all payments are payments are made as agreed, we will reevaluate you to determine if we can offer you a permanent modification.”

“We trusted the bank,” the Mom says, “like idiots.”

In August, they received a Notice of Sale.  They called Chase… and imagine their relief when they were told not to worry one bit about that notice.  Apparently, it was just the fault of Chase’s stupid computer system that just spits things like that out without anyone telling it to do so.  False alarm, what a relief.
So, they paid their September payment… and paid their October payment… and it was around October 10^th when they received another Notice of Sale.  Again, they called Chase, perhaps a little less nervous than the last time the same thing had happened… and wouldn’t you know it… another false alarm… it was that darn computer system again.  Nothing to worry about, Chase told them… just keep those payments coming.
Oh, but while we’ve got you on the phone, we need you to send in some current paycheck stubs and other miscellaneous pieces of information, which they did… and then did again… you know the standard operating procedures for servicers by now I’m sure.
I know, it’s not Chase’s fault… they’ve reportedly been having trouble hiring minimum wage people for the last three years.  Or was it the investor’s who won’t let them modify?  I can never remember which lie was Chase’s favorite… Bank of America was having the phone problems… Wells couldn’t stop their employees from losing stuff over and over… Yep, Chase was the can’t-hire-anyone-and-investors-won’t-modify, I’m almost positive.
Right around the third week of October, they come home to find a notice of sale pinned to their front door.  Oh my God… they called Chase again.  “Oh, just ignore it once again,” Chase lied.  “You don’t have to worry about that, silly, you’re under consideration for a loan modification, why would we sell your house?”

A few more days and another notice on the door… Chase back on the phone… but this time everything was different… Chase said they were selling their home in ONE HOUR.  To stop the sale, they would need to get down to the courthouse with about twenty-five grand… in 55 minutes, 50… 45… 40…
I suppose we needed another vacant home in Anaheim in a hurry, because predictably, the home went back to Fannie Mae at the Trustee Sale.  Gone, in the blink of an eye… sold October 21, 2010… just 21 days after they had made their October payment.  Chase had told them not to worry… it was just the computer system… no one would sell their home.
And now it was gone.

“We trusted the bank,” the Mom says, “like idiots.”

The father has a hospital bed in the living room, he requires special care… their daughter… in school close by… eight years old… is that second or third grade?
The couple pleaded with Chase that day on the phone, I can only imagine what that felt like for them on that day.  Here’s what the mom said to me:

We’re not people who simply decided to skip out on our mortgage. We did everything as upright and by the book as we were instructed to do by Chase yet we still lost our home. On the day they took back the property, I called Chase pleading for an alternative to this. Their reply to me was “I suggest you find a new place to live.”

The Unlawful Detainer or UD hearing was the next indignity the couple would suffer… and I haven’t been able to stop thinking about this next part all week.
With the medical bills they were receiving, and the uncertainty about the future, they didn’t feel they could afford a lawyer for the Unlawful Detainer trial. As the date for the UD neared, the husband was still in the hospital; he would be released roughly 48 hours before he would have to be in court.
They found an attorney who would help them and she called the opposing counsel, a lawyer from one of those scum-of-the-earth foreclosure mills that have no doubt been making untold millions intimidating homeowners, already scared to death and almost always without counsel, McCarthy & Holthus. They look like rich young men who don’t care at all about what the banks are doing to their neighbors… well, maybe not their neighbors… they probably live in some zillion-dollar beach pad.

(Hey fellas… looking forward to seeing you on Google!  If you’ve been spending money on SEO trying to rank up at the top, I’ve got outstanding news… I’m going to put you right up there.  May not be exactly what you had in mind, but then I don’t give a rat’s ass what’s in your under-developed minds.)

The couple’s lawyer asked the McCarthy & Holthus lawyer if there could be a continuance as the husband would be only a day or two out of the hospital…. they said they’d check with Fannie Mae… then said that Fannie said no.  I guess Fannie Mae, a bankrupt and tax-payer owned mortgage company really wanted another empty condo in Anaheim.
The lawyer asked, what if the couple comes in and asks the judge for a continuance, would McCarthy & Holthus object?  No, she was told, they would not object “vigorously.”  So, the couple went to the UD expecting to ask the judge for a continuance, she pushing him in his wheelchair.
As soon as they walked in, another  McCarthy & Malthus lawyer, Kevin Mello was walking towards them.  As he approached, the couple overheard Kevin say to another, “I’m so sick of all these sob stories.”
Oh, no he didn’t… Oh, yes he did.

(And boy oh boy, is Kevin going to regret saying that… LOL… Yoohoo, Kevy, baby… you hang in the courthouse right near my house… do you know how lucky you’re aren’t?  I’m actually making a documentary about the foreclosure crisis, and hadn’t yet cast the shithead.  How lucky is that?)

Mello asked the couple when they could be out of their home.  They said that they would need six weeks.  Mello made a call and said they could have 30 days.  The husband asked to talk to the judge, but our guy Kevin said, “Why, the judge has no authority… he’ll tell you to be out in 4 days… the bank has all the authority.”
Does it now, Kevin?  The bank?  Fannie Mae?  The scandal-ridden, morally and financially bankrupt, already absorbed into the federal government, Fannie Mae?
Kevin had some papers he said that the couple needed to sign.  They said no, they didn’t want to sign anything.  Kevin said they had no choice… either sign or be out in four days.  He put the documents in front of them… they couldn’t move his hospital bed in 4 days… they signed.  Stipulated to a judgment and waved future claims.

When they appeared before the judge, he said that they should be GRATEFUL that the bank gave them 30 days.
When the couple tried to relay the story of the loan modification con job and Chase lying and then the stealing of the home… well, they didn’t use those terms, I did, but someone has to, right?  Because that’s what happened, and I don’t give a damn what other factors are involved, that’s what happened, sure as shootin’.
And, even though I’ve been covering the inconceivable tragedy that is the foreclosure crisis, after learning of what happened to this this couple, I couldn’t help but wonder how or why this could possibly happen… and no one cared… in this country… and no one cared.  Because I know I’ve been hard on the servicers, and deservedly so, but is it really possible that they are actually inherently evil… are they literally lying to everyone and intentionally try to sabotage the nation?  How could that be true?  It couldn’t, right?
And something occurred to me, something that I had not previously considered.  And maybe it’s important to consider.
Prior to the last three to four years tops, foreclosures were a very different animal than what we have going on today, but I’m starting to think that maybe a lot of people don’t know that.  You see, prior to this crisis, foreclosures were exceedingly rare.  When someone got into financial trouble they either sold their home, or borrowed against it to get through the storm.  But this housing market was pushed off a cliff, the credit markets froze almost overnight, prices fell through the floor and fast.  People losing homes today bear no resemblance to the foreclosures of the last 50 years… no resemblance whatsoever.
So, maybe our entire system, including the inadequate and fraudulent documentation, and the incredibly uncaring and incompetent treatment of the homeowners involved… maybe it’s happening because we haven’t stopped to realize that although today we have foreclosures and years ago we had foreclosures… they really shouldn’t be called the same thing because they’re not the same thing.  In fact, they’re so different they shouldn’t share the same moniker.
Maybe we should call today’s foreclosures, fraudclosures… I mean, like all the time… like as in someone call Webster’s.  Maybe if our society understood the substantive nature of the distinction, things would improve… no?  I think maybe  yes.  Like, do the bankers think that today we’re just having more of the same foreclosures we had years ago… same thing… just more of them?  Because that’s not the case.
Because in the days before this crisis, you’d never modify a loan… the person who went into foreclosure wasn’t a person that anyone would ever consider modifying a loan for, because by the time they went into foreclosure there was no hope for anything but repossession and after that, of course, liquidation was a certainty.  That’s not a description of today’s situation.
Look, what happened to this couple… is it not the kind of thing that you might expect to happen in some totalitarian regime?
So, why is that okay with even one single American?  We treat criminals better than this.  But today’s homeowners aren’t losing homes for the same reasons as before, they’re not deadbeats, they’re victims.  And something has to be done to change this, because as sure as I’m sitting here, what’s happening is going to end badly and I fear, violently.  People are going to get hurt… I don’t know how, when or where… but no way does this just keep going and everyone’s okay.
Chase’s conduct was so offensive that a highly experienced trial attorney agreed to take their case.
A complaint will be filed on Tuesday in Orange County Superior court seeking compensatory and punitive damages.


The couple’s lawyer would later ask a McCarthy Holthus lawyer about the apparent preference for coercion and intimidation, and she basically replied by saying, “Hey, look… I’m not their lawyer, I’m the bank’s lawyer.  If they wanted a lawyer they should have had their own.”  My words, not hers… but that’s what she was saying.
No, I’m sorry McCarthy Holthus… on that point you’re entirely wrong.  I mean, everyone know you don’t need to pay a lawyer when you’re applying for a loan modification… just ask the California State Bar, the Attorney General’s office… President Obama… come on… everyone knows that.
Mandelman out.



P.S. Hey bloggers… Facebookers… please help me get the word out on this… post, repost, tweet, re-tweet.  I’m hoping Chase sees this and stops the eviction… otherwise this couple could be fighting this from a homeless shelter.  We can’t save everybody, so let’s save one at a time.

Homeowners Sue JP Morgan Chase

Facing foreclosure, Southland homeowners sue JP Morgan Chase

By Shereen Marisol Meraji | July 7th, 2011, 4:21pm

Justin Sullivan/Getty Images

A foreclosure sign hangs on a fence in front of a foreclosed home in California.

Southland homeowners and an advocacy group are suing a major mortgage lender, claiming that it plans to foreclose on a property after a family qualified for a loan modification.
The family that’s suing — the Velascos of Pacoima — assembled reporters on the manicured lawn of a house that might go to someone else in a foreclosure sale next Monday. 
 
Samuel Chu of the activist organization One LA spoke in support of the Velascos saying, "Today we stand here, the community of One LA with the Velasco family to say, enough is enough!"
 
Armando and Anabeht Velasco brought up their three children in the Pacoima home they’ve occupied for 20 years. They started out renting before they bought the house from their landlord a dozen years ago. But the Velascos ran into money trouble about three years ago. Armando Velasco lost his job at a real estate office, then his factory job. The family couldn’t make its payments on time.
 
So the Velascos modified their home loan through the federal Home Affordable Modification Program a couple of years ago. The husband now drives a truck, and his wife works in maintenance for the City of Los Angeles Department of Recreation and Parks. 
 
The family’s new mortgage payments run about $1,900 a month. The Velascos say they haven’t missed a payment. That didn’t stop foreclosure notices from arriving in the mail, sometimes 10 at a time.
"It hurts my heart to see my dad open these letters and almost collapse," said daughter, Michelle Anabeth Velasco, fanning out the letters for emphasis, "I’ve never seen my dad so weak when he sees these letters, it’s so difficult, it’s difficult for me and my brother and my sister to see my mom and dad fall into this depression."
 
Her parents are trying to hold off foreclosure and they’re each suing JP Morgan Chase for at least $2 million for emotional distress.
 
"Unfortunately, because it’s pending litigation, there’s not much I can say about the case. I can tell you that the Velascos do have a permanent modification in place, so there’s no sale scheduled," said Gary Kishner, a California-based spokesman for JP Morgan Chase.
 
Kishner could not comment about why the Velascos continued to receive foreclosure notices from the bank. He added that in the last two years, Chase has prevented two foreclosures for every one it carries out.

JPMorgan Chase Homeowners Sue Over Mortgage Mess

Frustrated homeowners sue JPMorgan Chase over mortgage loan mess

BY CLARE TRAPASSO

DAILY NEWS WRITER

Wednesday, May 05, 2010

Three Queens homeowners are taking on one of the world's largest banks to save their homes.
Alex Lam, 35, of Fresh Meadows; Shanaz Begum, 40, of Queens Village and Tamara Williams, 39, of Jamaica, filed a lawsuit against JPMorgan Chase Tuesday for refusing to modify their mortgage loans - counter to federal regulations.
"I'm afraid of losing my house," said Lam, who is represented by the Urban Justice Center along with the other plaintiffs.
"My credit history is ruined. I cannot find a bank to help me refinance."

Lam requested a modification last year after he realized he was saddled with an interest-only adjustable loan. He claims the bank told him he wasn't eligible because he was current on his monthly payments. The bank told him to miss a few payments and then apply for a modification, he said.
Lam took the advice and missed two payments. He was approved for a trial modification that lowered his nearly $2,400 monthly payments to $1,500.
He said he assumed he would be approved for a permanent modification after making all of the lowered payments on time.
But instead of receiving the adjustment that would have helped him hold onto his home, Lam was served with foreclosure papers.
"I was shocked," Lam said. "I followed everything that Chase asked me to do and they said they wouldn't put me in foreclosure."
Chase spokesman Michael Fusco declined to comment on the lawsuit, filed in Brooklyn Federal Court.
But he did say Chase offered about 750,000 trial modifications from last year through last March. However, less than 25% of those have been made permanent, he said.
Bridgett Bush, a staff attorney at Neighborhood Housing Services of Jamaica, has recently begun to see more of her group's clients receive permanent modifications - though it's taking longer than expected.
"Most of the people are getting approved from a trial modification to a permanent modification," said Bush, who works with people facing foreclosure. But "it's taking a little while. ... Homeowners are getting frustrated."

JPMorgan Former Banker: Exploiting Consumers IS 'The Purpose Of The Banking Organization'

ThinkProgress / By Travis Waldron

44 COMMENTS

Former JPMorgan Banker: Exploiting Consumers Is ‘The Purpose Of The Banking Organization’

Wall Street continues to ignore America’s anger at it, sipping champagne from rooftops while protesters march below.

November 18, 2011  |  

 

 Wall Street banks, largely spared from the economic ruin felt by millions of Americans since the financial crisis of 2008, have returned to profitability, generating  higher profits  in the two-and-a-half years since the crisis than they did in nearly eight years preceding it. But that hasn’t stopped them from seeking new ways to generate revenue — like Bank of America’s proposed $5-a-month debit card fee or the millions banks have made from charging consumers to  receive unemployment benefits  or food stamps.

If all this makes Americans feel like Wall Street banks only view them as money-making tools, well, that’s because the banks apparently do. According to David Mooney, a former JPMorgan Chase employee, Wall Street banks see consumers as an “income stream” to  exploit for profit-making purposes , Reuters reports:

David Mooney, chief executive officer of Alliant Credit Union in Chicago, one of the nation’s larger credit unions, used to work at a one of Wall Street’s top banks, JPMorgan Chase. There’s a vast cultural gap between Wall Street and his new world, he says: Old friends from the Street, he says, now jokingly refer to him as a “socialist.” A credit union is supposed to be run in the interests of all members, he says, while  commercial bankers tend to see consumers as customers who can be “exploited” by layering on more fees .
Says Mooney: “ I don’t say this lightly, but the consumer is simply an income stream and exploiting that is the purpose of the banking organization .”

Mooney’s bluntness may seem shocking, but his assessment shouldn’t. Wall Street banks made millions profiting off  shoddy mortgage lending practices , setting the stage for the housing collapse that plunged millions of Americans into foreclosure. They made a mess of the foreclosure process,  using robo-signers to speed  foreclosures and foreclosing on homes they either  didn’t own  or that  weren’t even in foreclosure . They sold deals to investors that they knew would fail, and took advantage of customers with outrageous overdraft, credit card, and other fees.
In the aftermath of the financial crisis and the horrors it exposed, Wall Street banks spent millions  to prevent the passage of financial regulatory reform. Once the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform Act passed, they spent just as much trying to shape its rules. They opposed the formation of a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), the agency tasked with protecting consumers from predatory banking practices, and in concert with their Republican friends in Congress, have fought to shape who will lead the bureau and how it will work.
Unfortunately for Wall Street, it didn’t take blunt assessments like Mooney’s for Americans to take action. In October, 650,000 Americans  joined credit unions , which, as Mooney noted, are “supposed to be run in the interests of all members.”  40,000more joined them on Bank Transfer Day earlier this month.
Wall Street, meanwhile, continues to  ignore America’s anger at it, sipping champagne from rooftops while protesters march below.

Travis Waldron is a reporter/blogger for ThinkProgress.org at the Center for American Progress Action Fund.

JP Morgan Pays $384Million Arbitration Award. Quietly...shhhhh!

JPMorgan pays $384 mln arbitration award, quietly

3/22/2012 COMMENTS (0)

March 22 (Reuters) - JPMorgan Chase & Co quietly paid $384 million to American Century Investment Management after losing an arbitration over alleged breaches related to the bank's purchase of a retirement plan services business.
A panel of the American Arbitration Association said JPMorgan's asset management unit deliberately violated a contractual agreement tied to the 2003 purchase from American Century, by promoting its own funds at the expense of American Century funds.
That JPMorgan unit had been overseen by Jes Staley, who now heads JPMorgan's investment banking operations. He is often mentioned by analysts as a possible successor to Jamie Dimon as chief executive of the largest U.S. bank.
"JPMorgan breached the contract over and over again," the arbitrators concluded in a 72-page decision. "Evidence that compels this finding and conclusion of the one-sided sales and marketing support given to JPMorgan Asset Management and its funds is voluminous."
American Century, based in Kansas City, Missouri, won the arbitration ruling on Aug. 10, 2011. A Missouri state court confirmed the award on Dec. 6.
The matter remained confidential until JPMorgan agreed to its disclosure on Wednesday. JPMorgan's payout includes the $373.3 million arbitration award plus interest.
In a statement on Thursday, the New York-based bank said it paid the award in 2011, and accounted for it as a "non-client litigation" expense in its results for last year's third quarter.
"We disagree strongly with the arbitrators' decision and award, because among other things, it misinterprets the contract, ignores facts favorable to us such as the performance of certain American Century Funds during the period in dispute, and ignores expert opinions that were favorable to us," spokeswoman Kristen Chambers said in an emailed statement.
American Century is pleased with the award. "Justice was served," spokesman Chris Doyle said. The privately-held company now has about $120 billion of assets under management.

STACKING THE DECK
According to the panel, JPMorgan agreed to promote the American Century funds when it bought Retirement Plan Services, which handles 401(k) plans for employers, from American Century.
But JPMorgan, which held a large minority stake in American Century's parent, had long wanted to buy the entire company, the arbitrators said.
Some of the bank's personnel figured that if American Century funds performed worse, that company's value might fall, making it cheaper to buy, they added.
Over time, JPMorgan "stacked the deck" against American Century by pushing in-house funds, encouraging customers to swap out of American Century funds, and awarding bonuses for selling JPMorgan products, the arbitrators said.
Employees were "informed by an understanding ... that sales and promotion of JPMAM products were more beneficial to their careers than sales and promotion of ACI or other managers' products," the arbitrators said.
Staley also came in for criticism. The arbitrators said he wore "dual hats" by sitting on the board of American Century's parent, American Century Cos, even as he was charged with boosting profit at JPMorgan Asset Management.
JPMorgan held a 41 percent stake in American Century until August, when it sold that stake to Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce for $848 million.
The case is American Century Investment Management Inc v. JPMorgan Invest Holdings LLC, Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri, no. 1116-CV21103.
(Reporting by Jonathan Stempel)


Follow us on Twitter: @ReutersLegal

FBI Meet JP Morgan Chase

JP Morgan Chase trading loss prompts FBI criminal case

New York Times Oct 12, 2012, 11.30AM IST

NEW YORK: Federal authorities are using taped phone conversations to try to build criminal cases related to the multibillion-dollar trading loss at JPMorgan Chase, focusing on calls in which employees openly discussed how to value the troubled bets in a favorable way.
Investigators are looking into the actions of four people who previously worked for the team based in London responsible for the $6 billion loss, according to officials briefed on the case. The Federal Bureau of Investigation could make some arrests in the next several months, said one person who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the inquiry was ongoing.

The phone recordings, which were turned over to authorities by JPMorgan, have helped focus the investigation, the officials said. Authorities are poring over thousands of conversations, both in English and French. They are also relying on notes that employees took during staff meetings, instant messages circulated among traders and emails sent within the group.
Authorities are examining how some traders in the chief investment office influenced market prices as their bets began to sour. Investigators are also looking into whether records were falsified to hide the problems from executives in New York. Based on those records, JPMorgan submitted inaccurate financial statements to regulators, another area of focus for investigators.
The scope of the inquiry suggests that the problems were isolated to a handful of executives and traders in an overseas division, and did not reflect a fundamental weakness with the bank's culture and the leadership.
The investigation does not appear to touch the upper echelons of the executive suite, notably Ina Drew who oversaw the chief investment office. The findings could insulate JPMorgan and its chief executive, Jamie Dimon, from further fallout.
Five months into the investigation, attention is centered on four people: Javier Martin-Artajo, a manager who oversaw the trading strategy from the bank's London offices; Bruno Iksil, the trader dubbed the London Whale for placing the outsize bet; Achilles Macris, the executive in charge of the international chief investment office; and a low-level trader, Julien Grout, who worked for Iksil and was responsible for marking the trading book.
The people briefed on the matter said the investigation was in the early stages, and federal prosecutors in New York had not made a decision about whether to file charges. None of the current or former employees have been accused of wrongdoing.
If they decide to bring charges, prosecutors will face significant challenges. Financial cases are notoriously difficult to prove in court. The intricacies of Wall Street