Financial Services Litigation & Investigation Monitor : Financial Services Lawyer & Attorney : Perkins Coie Law Firm : Government Investigations, Class Actions

The Associated Press reports that Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan has sued Countrywide Home Loans, alleging the company discriminated against African American and Latino borrowers in Illinois between 2005 and 2007.  The complaint includes allegations that Countrywide charged African American and Latino borrowers higher rates and fees compared to similarly situated white borrowers.   The complaint states that Countrywide engaged "in practices that resulted in a disparate impact and disparate treatment of African American and Latino borrowers.  The complaint also alleges that Countrywide utilized lending standards that had no economic basis and were discriminatory in effect..."

While the complaint includes allegations not unfamiliar in lending discrimination cases, it may spark important legal analysis regarding the use of the disparate impact theory as the sole basis to provide lending discrimination.  See prior posting  - "AAG Perez Reiterates DOJ's Emphasis on Lending Discrimination Enforcement," June 24, 2010.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Speaking at a June 23, 2010 Brookings conference, the Department of Justice's Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division made clear that investigating and prosecuting lending discrimination is a top priority for his administration.  As reported on mainjustice.com, AAG Thomas Perez reaffirmed the DOJ's commitment to increased oversight and enforcement of the financial industry, as well as close interaction among the federal regulators that police the financial systems.

Mr. Perez also reiterated that his division will use the "disparate impact" theory to file lending discrimination case.  “The government must be a credible deterrent,” he said. “Our Fair Lending Unit will use every tool in our arsenal, including but not limited to disparate impact theory.”  Perez made similar remarks at the May 2010 Legal Issues Conference of the Mortgage Banker's Association.  The disparate impact theory, as articulated in U.S. Supreme Court's 1971 decision Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U.S. 424 (1971), allows a plaintiff to challenge a facially neutral practice that has an unjustified adverse impact on members of a protected class; evidence of an intent to discriminate is not required.  The DOJ's reliance on the disparate impact theory as the sole basis to file a lending discrimination case signals a marked departure from its prior lending discrimination cases, none of which relied exclusively on disparate impact.  The department's aggressive approach will undoubtedly lead to a significant increase in enforcement cases and litigation in this area.  And lenders anticipating this change in enforcement are wise to adapt their compliance program accordingly. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The DOJ's Civil Rights Division announced a $6.1 million settlement with two AIG subsidiaries that the government alleged had engaged in a pattern and practice of lending discriminated against African-Americans.  According to the Wall Street Journal, the government identified approximately 2,500 African-American borrowers that will each receive about $2,300 in compensation under the agreement. 

The Justice Department's settlement resolved its complaint filed under the federal Fair Housing Act and Equal Credit Opportunity Act.  The complaint alleges that African-American borrowers were charged higher fees on wholesale loans made by AIG Federal Savings Bank and Wilmington Finance Inc., an affiliated mortgage lending company.

According to the WSJ article, the AIG subsidiaries disagreed with the Justice Department's allegations but were pleased to reach the settlement and "avoid the distractions and burdens of protracted litigation over contentious issues."

The settlement comes a month after the Department of Justice announced the creation of a Fair Lending Task Force, and resulted from a 2007 referral by the Treasury Department's Office of Thrift Supervision to the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division.   In announcing the AIG settlement, Assistant Attorney General Thomas Perez signaled that  more such cases were in the pipeline.  Perez said that for a long time, lenders' supervision over their mortgage brokers was inadequate.

The DOJ's full press release and links to the complaint and settlement agreement are available at the Civil Rights Division's website: DOJ, Civil Rights Division.

The recent settlement sends a clear message that lending discrimination matters are a top priority for the Obama Justice Department, and this is likely the tip of the iceberg.  As DOJ's Civil Rights Division continues to staff its new Lending Discrimination Task Force and communications between the various federal banking regulatory agencies improve, many more complaints and settlements can be expected over the next several months.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The New York Times reports that the Department of Justice's Civil Rights Division has formed a Lending Discrimination unit devoted to investigating and prosecuting unfair lending practices.  According to Assistant Attorney General Tom Perez, the new unit  will look "at any and every practice in the industry,”   Under the DOJ's most recent budget, the Lending Discrimination unit will include at least 10 lawyers and an economist.   Unlike prior Lending Discrimination prosecutions by DOJ that concerned Redlining and discriminatory underwriting decisions, the new unit will focus on "Reverse Redlining," the practice of targeting minority neighborhoods for loans with inferior terms, including high rates and fees.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

United Security Bancshares Inc., Thomasville, Ala., entered into a settlement agreement with the Department of Justice's Civil Rights Division to resolve allegations that its subsidiary First United Security Bank violated the Fair Housing Act and the Equal Credit Opportunity Act when dealing with African-American borrowers.  According the the Justice Department's press release, the Complaint alleged that the bank charged African-American borrowers higher rates than similarly-situated white borrowers on home mortgage-related loans. The complaint also alleged that the bank engaged in unlawful "redlining" by failing to provide its lending products and services on an equal basis to majority African-American areas in west central Alabama.

Under the Consent Order, which remains subject to court approval, First United Security Bank will invest more than $600,000 to open a new branch in an African-American neighborhood in west central Alabama and take other steps resolve allegations that it engaged in a pattern of discrimination on the basis of race.  The additional steps include investing $500,000 in a special financing program, and spending more than $110,000 for outreach to potential customers, promotion of its products and services and consumer financial education in the redlined areas.

The lawsuit originated from a referral from the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), according to the DOJ press release.

This is the first Fair Lending case regarding mortgage lending filed by the Justice Department in over a year, and comes on the heals of the FFIEC's release of 2008 HMDA data that, according to  a Wall Street Journal article summarizing the HMDA report, shows that African-Americans and Hispanic whites were far more likely than non-Hispanic whites to be denied last year in applying to refinance.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

A new analysis by the General Accountability Office (GAO) found that the existing fair lending enforcement efforts by bank regulators are not working. In the GAO's Fair Lending report noted that regulators have a fragmented enforcement mechanism that impairs effective fair lending enforcement.  The study also detailed deficiencies in the mortgage data currently made available through the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA).  In particular, the GAO found that a lack of data concerning borrower credit risk and race/gender information for non-residential mortgages (i.e., small business loans) limited "agencies' and regulators' capacity to identify potential lending discrimination."

The GAO reports comes at a time when congress is considering President Obama's plan for a single financial services consumer regulator--the Consumer Financial Products Agency.   The GAO report may fuel the arguments of advocates who claim that the current system doesn't work, and that a consolidated enforcement agency is necessary.  The GAO report also renews the debate about the adequacy of the HMDA requirements, and whether lenders should be required to report more information about their lending practices.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In a highly anticipated decision, a divided U.S. Supreme Court  authorized states to investigate national banks for lending discrimination, thus rejecting the OCC's position that its regulatory authority preempted states' enforcement powers.   In the 5-4 opinion authored by Justice Scalia, the high court in Cuomo v. Clearing House Association, LLC held that federal banking regulations did not pre-empt states from enforcing their own fair-lending laws.

The ruling decided a dispute between the OCC and the New York attorney general's office, which had initiated investigations into national banks' residential real-estate lending practices.  Former Attorney General and Governor Eliot Spitzer initiated the investigation of several banks, including Wells Fargo, JPMorgan Chase and Citigroup, based on mortgage data he claimed showed black and Hispanic borrowers received a larger percentage of high-interest home loans than white borrowers.

CNN reported the mixed reactions to the ruling.  The American Bankers Association issued a statement contending that the ruling "changes over 140 years of settled law," and expressed concern that national banks will  "face a patchwork of duplicative and conflicting federal and state regulation and enforcement actions."  On the other hand, current New York Attorney General Cuomo said the ruling "reaffirms the vital role state attorneys general play in protecting consumers from illegal and improper practices by our country's biggest and most powerful banks."  Similarly, the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law applauded the decision, stating in a press release that the the decision "will unshackle the oversight muscle of state attorneys general whose attempts to enforce fair lending laws against national banks were thwarted when most needed." 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On June 17, 2009, Attorney General Eric Holder testified before the United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary regarding the U.S. Department of Justice's recent accomplishments and current priorities.  In his statement, Holder made clear that prosecuting mortgage fraud and other financial crimes will continue as a top Department priority.  In addition, he emphasized the Department's commitment to combating lending discrimination.

In addition to focusing on fraudulent scams, I am committed to ensuring that homeowners who may be having difficulty making their mortgage payments do not experience discrimination and can benefit in equal measure from legitimate loan modification programs and other federal programs to provide mortgage assistance and stabilize home prices. Discrimination in lending on the basis of race, national origin, or other prohibited factors is destructive, morally repugnant, and against the law. Lending discrimination prevents those who are discriminated against from enjoying the benefits of access to credit, including reasonable mortgage payments, so they can stay in their homes and provide much needed stability for their neighborhoods. We are using the full range of our enforcement authority to investigate and prosecute this type of unacceptable lending discrimination.

Beginning in the early 1990's with ground-breaking cases filed and settled against Decatur Federal Savings & Loan (consent order), Chevy Chase FSB (consent order), and Shawmut Mortgage (consent order), the DOJ's Civil Rights Division aggressively pursued lending discrimination investigations and prosecutions concerning underwriting, pricing, and redlining.   However, more recently the number of filings in this area has dropped precipitously for a number of reasons, not the least of which is the abundance of available credit in the market and changed priorities within the Department.  With a tightening credit market, more stringent underwriting standards, and a re-committed Justice Department, Attorney General Holder's recent statement may signal a renewed interest in lending discrimination matters. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link