By Cyrus Sanati
FORTUNE -- Bank of America's great mortgage "Hustle" opens a legal can of worms, which could have dangerous consequences for the rest of Wall Street.
A jury late Tuesday found Bank of America's Countrywide mortgage lending unit liable for fraud in selling the government bad mortgages under a scheme known internally as "The Hustle." This marks the first time the courts have found a bank liable for wrongdoing in connection with a deal done in the lead-up to the financial crisis.
But the significant development here is not the fact that the government won, but how it won. Government attorneys successfully used a controversial interpretation of an obscure law to gain a victory against Bank of America (BAC). Armed with this new piece of legal weaponry, there is concern on the Street that the government could lay waste to basically any financial institution that had anything to do with trading mortgage securities going back as far as a decade.
The government has launched dozens of lawsuits against Wall Street in the last two years due to shenanigans involving residential mortgage backed securities (RMBS), but few have actually made it to court. They were either dismissed on some legal technicality, or the banks settled before trial. Citigroup (C) and Deutsche Bank (DB) were amongst those accused of wrongdoing that decided to settle right away, costing them $158 million and $202 million, respectively.
Bank of America, though, stood its ground when the government accused its Countrywide mortgage lending unit of gross misconduct in the lead-up to the financial crisis. In a nutshell, the government alleged that Countrywide, through an internal program nicknamed "The Hustle," made "disastrously" bad mortgages, which it then sold to Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. The government, which took over Freddie and Fannie at the height of the financial crisis, claimed it suffered a gross loss of $850 million, while Countrywide earned $165 million.
The interesting thing here is that the government chose to sue BofA under The Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1989 (FIRREA). The act allows the Justice Department to bring civil proceedings against individuals or institutions who committed banking crimes against the government or a federally insured entity (a bank).
Being a civil proceeding, the burden of proof the government had to meet to win the case was much easier to achieve, as it only needed to prove guilt by a "preponderance of the evidence" as opposed to "beyond a reasonable doubt," which is used in criminal proceedings. That means that only 50% of the evidence needs to point to fraud to gain a conviction. The act also gives the government more time to bring an action by doubling the statute of limitations needed to file a case from five to 10 years. That's important because many of the actions that led to the mortgage meltdown occurred more than five years ago, from 2003 to 2007.
In winning its case, the government successfully argued under FIRREA that Countrywide's "Hustle" program harmed both the government (Freddie and Fannie) as well as Bank of America (a federally insured entity) and thus was liable for civil fraud. No, that wasn't a typo. The government argued effectively in court that one of the victims of the fraud was also the perpetrator of the fraud.
This interpretation therefore means that the government can use FIRREA to sue a bank for fraud even if the only victim is itself. That sounds very odd, but in a large organization, such as a multinational bank with dozens of businesses spread throughout the globe, it is entirely possible.
A spokesman for Bank of America said that the bank was evaluating its options to file an appeal. For now, the bank is waiting to hear what, if any, damages it might have to pay in connection with the fraud.
MORE: Twitter sets IPO terms
Armed with FIRREA, the government could now potentially go after any financial institution that was involved in the RMBS market going back as far as 2003. That stretch of time covers the entire mortgage debacle and puts basically all of Wall Street within the government's sights. It isn't just the banks that should be worried; the government has even threatened to use FIRREA against Standard & Poor's (MHFI), the ratings agency. In that case, the government alleges that S&P, which doesn't trade but rates RMBS, knowingly issued triple-A ratings to securities it knew were garbage. The government is looking for $5 billion in restitution, a fantastically large sum. If S&P falls to FIRREA, then its rivals Moody's (MCO) and Fitch should also expect to find themselves in front of a government firing squad.
So what is the endgame here for the government? If the goal is to achieve some sort of justice for the losses incurred by Fannie and Freddie during the crisis, then Wall Street is in deep trouble. From the third quarter of 2008, the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) has requested over $187 billion to fill the holes in Freddie and Fannie's tattered balance sheets. If the government tries to regain even half that amount, then one can expect multiple lawsuits to be filed against banks and other financial institutions for years to come.
Now that prosecutors have won their first case under FIRREA, financial institutions may be more inclined to settle with the government than go to trial. That may explain why J.P. Morgan (JPM) reportedly settled with the government last Friday for the whopping figure of $13 billion. The bank may have settled claims going back as far as a decade on concern that the government would come after it later using FIRREA. Meanwhile, those banks that are determined to go to trial, like Wells Fargo (WFC), may rethink that position and choose to settle than deal with a potential FIRREA onslaught.
But by settling, banks would have to claim fault, which would open themselves up to an equally lethal barrage of civil suits from investors. Large asset managers could team up and go after the banks themselves. This could wipe out a bank's litigation reserve and threaten its capital base. J.P. Morgan is reportedly trying to head off that fate by settling with institutional investors in advance for around $6 billion. If it is successful, the deal may become a useful template other banks could use to make things right with their clients. That means that even if a bank has already settled its RMBS issues with the government, like Citi and Deutsche, it may now have to open its wallet again to pay off institutional investors as well.
With a reported $13 billion settlement, JPMorgan has put the rest of the banking industry at risk of further government attacks, and it has raised the bar for potential fines from the big banks.
By Cyrus Sanati
FORTUNE -- JPMorgan's reported $13 billion settlement with U.S. authorities over shady investment practices sets a precedent that could have ghastly consequences for the bank, as well as for its main rivals. In rolling MOREOct 21, 2013 10:22 AM ET
The U.S. government is suing the ratings agency for fraud in its pre-crisis ratings, but investors are pooh-poohing the threat.
By Craig Giammona
FORTUNE -- The market doesn't seem too concerned about the federal government's fraud lawsuit against Standard and Poor's Ratings Services. The Department of Justice is seeking $5 billion in damages, claiming that S&P helped cause billions in investor losses during the financial crisis by inflating ratings on mortgage-backed MORESep 20, 2013 5:00 AM ET
The Bank of America settlement isn't enough for some burned mortgage investors. Now a group of them wants the big banks to clean up their acts, or else face another lawsuit.
By Abigail Field, contributor
FORTUNE -- Investors in mortgage-backed securities who got cleaned out during the housing bust aren't going to take their losses lying down. The first act of investor revolt was organized by Kathy Patrick, a little-known litigator who MOREJul 26, 2011 9:43 AM ET
Fortune examined hundreds of foreclosure documents to determine the validity of mortgage securitizations after Bank of America debunked testimony about them last fall. The results raise more questions than they answer.
By Abigail Field, contributor
FORTUNE -- Are Countrywide mortgage-backed securities really mortgage-backed? Do banks even have the legal right to foreclose on certain homes?
These are just a few of the questions raised since the foreclosure crisis revealed shoddy mortgage servicing practices MOREJun 3, 2011 11:49 AM ET
Institutional investors are clamoring for some of the most maligned securities from the credit crisis, while individual investors are taking on more risk for steady income that beats Treasuries. Is it 2005 all over again?
By Nancy Miller, contributor
Investors are getting fed up with minuscule interest rates but remain nervous Nellies -- afraid to gallop into the stock market and afraid to hang back with their bonds.
Instead they hope they're entering MOREFeb 24, 2011 12:25 PM ET
Mortgage-backed securities are back, but Moody's, Standard & Poor's, and Fitch are approaching their job rating them with very different tactics.
The big three credit rating agencies are in trouble for not taking taking risk seriously enough when they examined bonds made from residential mortgages before the housing market crashed. They've been roundly criticized for their overly generous assumptions about housing market hazards (Prices go down? No way!), and for MOREKatie Benner - Feb 18, 2011 6:00 AM ET
Remember those toxic assets that nearly wrecked the U.S. financial system back in 2008? They're back, even though housing isn't.
It seems like only yesterday that virtually everyone thought mortgage-backed securities were evil. After all, the securities – backed by mortgages including subprime home loans – helped put the country's largest banks on the brink and the global economy into a dizzying downward spiral after the housing bust started.
In the years MORENin-Hai Tseng, Writer - Dec 9, 2010 11:39 AM ET
|5 people you might not tip (but should)|
|Toyota unveils redesigned Camry|
|Oklahoma bans local minimum wage increases|
|Stock gain after Janet Yellen speech|
|GM reveals most powerful drop-top Corvette|