November 18, 2024

DealBook: Citigroup in $590 Million Settlement of Subprime Lawsuit

Foreclosure notices hit a record high in 2007, driven up by problems with subprime mortgages.David Zalubowski/Associated PressForeclosure notices hit a record high in 2007, driven up by problems with subprime mortgages.

Citigroup said on Wednesday that it had agreed to pay $590 million to settle a class action lawsuit brought by shareholders who contended that they had been misled about the bank’s exposure to subprime mortgage debt on the eve of the financial crisis.

The shareholder lawsuit, originally filed in November 2007, alleged that former officers and directors of Citigroup had “concealed the company’s failure to write down impaired securities containing subprime debt” at a time when the collapse in the mortgage market made it apparent that banks including Citi would be adversely impacted. In late 2007, Citigroup wrote down billions of dollars on collateralized debt obligations tied to subprime debt, and reported a fourth-quarter loss of $9.83 billion that year.

In a statement on Wednesday, Citigroup, which denied the allegations, said: “Citi will be pleased to put this matter behind us. This settlement is a significant step toward resolving our exposure to claims arising from the period of the financial crisis.”

It added, “Citi is fundamentally a different company today than at the beginning of the financial crisis.”

The proposed settlement, which needs to be approved by Judge Sidney H. Stein of the Federal District Court in Manhattan, covers investors who bought Citi shares from Feb. 26, 2007, through April 18, 2008. Shares of Citigroup traded as high as $55 in the summer of 2007. By Feb. 27, its stock price had tumbled by more than half.

Vikram Pandit, chief of Citigroup.Brendan McDermid/ReutersVikram Pandit, chief of Citigroup.

In a court filing on Wednesday, the plaintiffs’ lawyers from the law firm Kirby McInerney, wrote:

Although plaintiffs believe that the defendants knowingly or recklessly misrepresented Citigroup’s C.D.O. exposure and valuation, defendants have raised a host of factual and legal challenges increasing the uncertainty of a favorable outcome absent settlement. Securities fraud litigations like this action are notoriously complex and difficult to prove: rarely is there concrete direct evidence of fraudulent intent.

For Citigroup, as well as other Wall Street firms, the business of slicing apart and packaging mortgages and other loans into complex securities had been a lucrative and fast-growing business before the financial crisis. The bank underwrote some $70 billion in C.D.O.’s from 2004 to 2008.

Citigroup paid $75 million in 2010 to settle a Securities and Exchange Commission complaint that the bank made misleading public statements about the extent of its subprime exposure. In a statement at the time, the agency said that “between July and mid-October 2007, Citigroup represented that subprime exposure in its investment banking unit was $13 billion or less, when in fact it was more than $50 billion.”

In a separate case involving C.D.O.’s, the bank had agreed with the Securities and Exchange Commission to pay $285 million over allegations that Citi had misled investors in a C.D.O.’s by not disclosing that it was helping select the mortgage securities that underpinned the investment and that it was betting against it. That settlement was initially rejected by a federal judge, but an appeals court found that the judge may have overstepped his authority.

Article source: http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2012/08/29/citigroup-in-590-million-settlement-of-subprime-lawsuit/?partner=rss&emc=rss

DealBook: Goldman Discloses More Subpoenas

7:02 p.m. | Updated

Goldman Sachs’s mortgage problems are far from over.

The Wall Street investment bank paid $550 million last year to settle a civil fraud suit brought by the Securities and Exchange Commission, which accused Goldman Sachs of creating a mortgage product that was intended to fail.

On Tuesday, the firm disclosed in a regulatory filing that it had received more subpoenas related to that mortgage product, Abacus 2007-AC1, and other collateralized debt obligations that it made during the housing boom.

Goldman has previously revealed that the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority and the Financial Services Authority in Britain are looking into Abacus. The firm said on Tuesday that it had received subpoenas from other unnamed regulators in connection to Abacus and other C.D.O.’s. In a filing in late March, the firm disclosed only that it had received requests for information from unnamed regulators. A subpoena is a more serious step.

The Abacus matter is one of the darkest chapters in Goldman’s 142-year history — the first time that the firm has been accused of fraud. Last July, the bank settled the S.E.C. charges without admitting or denying guilt.

News of the subpoena came in a quarterly filing in which Goldman cut its estimated losses from legal claims by 21 percent. The bank said its “reasonably possible” losses from lawsuits were $2.7 billion at the end of March, down from $3.4 billion at the end of 2010.

This number declined after a handful of major settlements. In one such case, Goldman was among several underwriters of securities offerings by Washington Mutual that were sued in 2008, accused of failing to accurately describe the bank’s exposure to the mortgage market.

Federal regulators seized Washington Mutual in September 2008, making it the biggest bank failure in American history.

Goldman also disclosed on Tuesday that the Commodity Futures Trading Commission was investigating the firm’s role as clearing broker for an unnamed S.E.C.-registered broker-dealer. The firm said it had been “orally advised” that regulators intended to “recommend that the C.F.T.C. bring aiding and abetting, civil fraud and supervision-related charges” against the Goldman unit related to its provision of clearing services to this broker-dealer.

According to the filing, the commission said Goldman knew or should have known that the client’s subaccounts maintained at the firm’s unit “were actually accounts belonging to customers of the broker-dealer client and not the client’s proprietary accounts.”

Neither Goldman nor the Commodity Futures Trading Commission would comment on the case.

Wall Street clearing businesses often find themselves in the sights of regulators. The firms handle billions of dollars in trades and sometimes the clients turn out to be swindlers. Defrauded investors often demand that firms that clear trades for these companies be held accountable. The Wall Street banks assert that their job is simply to clear trades, not police the clients.

In its regulatory filing, Goldman also disclosed that it lost money on just one trading day in the first quarter. And the firm had 32 days when it posted trading revenue of more than $100 million, the filing shows. It is not known on which day Goldman lost money, but the loss was $25 million to $50 million.

After difficult markets took a bite out of profit in the fourth quarter, the first quarter was one of Goldman’s best for trading in a while.

In terms of trading days, it was the best since the first quarter of 2010, when there were no days where Goldman posted a negative trading day. In the period a year earlier, Goldman recorded 35 days when trading revenue exceeded $100 million and it had no day when trading revenue dipped below $25 million.

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=1618840b0906f79bf2ca6c446d9ffafd