Bank Lawyer's Blog

The CU-Bank War Is Getting Ugly

Crying "The Time Is Right To Tax," commercial bankers are upping the thermostat on state and federal regulators to "level the playing field" by eliminating the tax exempt status of credit unions. According to the ABA Banking Journal, in a recent panel discussion at the American Bankers Association's 2013 Government Relations Summit, bankers of all stripes, including a CEO of a bank that was once a credit union, took the position that in this time when Congress and just about every state legislature is looking for ways to raise revenues without raising tax rates, the opportunity exists to convince legislators that tax exempt status for the credit union industry is an idea whose time has passed.

Panel member Ken Kies, managing director of the Federal Policy Group lobbying consultancy, spent years in Washington tax-writing roles, and believes banks could pursue a change.

"Frankly," said Kies, who's working with ABA, "I'm not sure that the environment has ever been better than it is today."

Kies indicated that no one should think that "not taxed" means "never to be taxed." History has not only seen many attempts to subject tax-exempt organizations to federal tax, but success in those attempts. Today's congressional urge towards tax reform, even on a revenue-neutral basis, could be the factor that pushes credit union taxation into reality.

In 1986, tax legislation pulled Blue Cross and Blue Shield organizations under the tax umbrella, reflected Kies. And a year later, the TIAA/CREF benefits organization likewise got shifted. And savings institutions lost their tax-favored status decades ago, and remain a viable part of the financial services business.

Mr. Kies also mentions the fact that there's a trillion dollar federal deficit that makes this the best time to press the case. However, he does not mention by how much that deficit would be reduced by taxing credit unions, which ought to show up somewhere in the argument if it's to survive counter attacks. 

Meanwhile, In Illinois, the hate-fest between banks and credit unions rages on.

Linda Koch, CEO of the Illinois Bankers Association, wrote an op-ed piece for The State-Journal Register in that state's capitol city, in which she sang the same tune as the ABA panelists.

She took the additional step of citing the CBO to the effect that CU tax exemption costs the federal government $2 billion a year in "lost revenue" and the state of Illinois $25 million. I don 't know what the state of Illinois's budget deficit is, but I do know that $2 billion in additional tax revenue is a drop from an eye dropper in a Pacific ocean of federal spending that, according to the Heritage Foundation, reached $3.6 trillion in 2012 and is expected to reach $5.5 trillion by 2022. To me, contributing such relatively small amounts to the black hole of government spending is an argument that lacks weight. I'd prefer that banks stick to the fact that if credit unions want to be "more like banks" (in other words, make commercial loans), they can pay the same freight that goes with that business model, including income taxes. You want to waddle, quack, and fly like a duck, but be pampered like a golden goose. Sorry, leveling the playing field on the powers side ought to come with a leveling of the playing field on the taxation side. Otherwise, you really are gaining an unfair competitive advantage.

The CEO of the Illinois Credit Union League, Dan Plauda, responded to Ms. Koch with the argument that tax revenues from credit unions in Illinois won't solve Illinois' revenue shortfalls. That's most likely very true. However, he also alleges that taxing credit unions will hurt their members, who rely on deposit rates that are much higher than banks pay and consumer loan rates that are much lower than those charged by banks. To me, that makes the banks' case, that tax exemption gives credit unions an unfair competitive advantage on the same deposits and loans that banks fight for. It seems to weaken the case for credit unions to intrude further into the commercial banks' sacred ground of commercial lending.

Mr. Plauda talks about how credit unions are member owned, "democratically controlled," and manned by volunteers. He also alleges that all "excess revenues" are plowed back into the credit union. By "excess revenues, he means what would otherwise be deemed "profits." I started out my career as a bank lawyer in-house for a large mutual savings bank. The only practical difference between a stock-owned commercial bank and a member-owned mutual is that, by soliciting proxies from members who don't give a rip about anything other than services and rates, management of a mutual is, in many cases, able to "rest easy" from all those pesky shareholders who demand the distribution of "profits" either in the form of higher stock prices, dividends, or both. At the same time, there's not exactly a lot of oversight on salaries and cash bonuses that are deducted from gross revenues before the "excess revenues" are calculated.

Mr. Plauda finished his piece with a flourish.

This “people helping people” approach to financial services helps explain why credit unions have become so popular in recent years. As new bank fees have proliferated, for instance, Americans have moved to credit unions in droves. Last year alone, credit unions nationwide added more than 2 million net new members — the biggest annual net member growth in 15 years.

Today, more than 96 million people belong to credit unions.

If anyone seriously thinks that folks flocked to credit unions because credit union members feel like they are part of a movement of "people helping people," as opposed to the financial incentives of lower loan rates and higher deposit rates, both possible because of CU's tax exempt status, that person needs a reality transplant. It just seems to me that responding to banks' call for the end of credit union tax exempt status by taunting banks with the line "we're stealing your customers by the boxcar-load" is going to make even the densest legislator wake up and smell the coffee, eventually.

Both sides of this debate need to sharpen their arguments. If they're able to do so, that is.

Thanks to a loyal reader from Illinois for links to the Illinois op-ed pieces

A Bad Idea That Refuses To Die

Even though municipalities like San Bernardino have come to their senses and dropped a make-your-investment-banker-rich-quick scheme to seize underwater mortgages from mortgage lenders and wrote down the principal balances, the scheme refuses to completely die. I guess we'll have to use holy water, garlic, mirrors, fire, crucifixes and wooden stakes to stamp it out. In the interim, SIFMA continues to publicly pummel it.

In a recent post on its Pennsylvania + Wall blog, SIFMA's Timothy Cameron reiterates why those municipalities still considering this likely unconstitutional scheme to abandon it.

The proposals being touted target a very narrow slice of homeowners – those that are in private-label MBS and who are current on their existing mortgages, have good credit, and ideally don’t have existing home equity loans or other liens on the property. Those who are behind on their mortgage payments or have poor credit (which is the vast majority of homeowners needing help) will get no relief.

Within the small pool of qualifying homeowners, the proposal, on its face, will substantially undervalue their homes. In one example, the mortgage that investors would get paid $160,000 for is refinanced shortly thereafter for $190,000, with much of the additional $30,000 going to the plan’s backers after costs and a kickback to the municipality are accounted for. This is not fair compensation, since the amount paid is well below the face value of the taken note, and significant profits accrue to private parties.

In addition to the legal issues, the use of eminent domain will also be immensely destructive to U.S. mortgage markets in general and to specific communities using eminent domain, in particular. If the sanctity of the contractual relationship between a borrower and a creditor is undermined by the use of eminent domain, both lenders and investors will be reluctant to provide funding in the future. The result will be a significant contraction of credit availability, particularly in communities that have exercised eminent domain to seize loans. It will be much harder to get a loan: any loans that are granted will likely require much larger down payments, stronger credit scores and higher interest rates to compensate for this new and unprecedented risk. This contraction of credit availability would likely serve to halt any recovery in the municipality’s housing market, and could further depress housing values in the cities using eminent domain.

The last reason may be the most telling. Good luck with the future availability of affordable residential mortgage credit in your soon-to-be dustbowl of a community if you enact this scheme. The investment fund gets wealthy, of course, which is the impetus for this half-baked plan. All to help, but not so much, a narrow slice of the community.

Bad ideas never die. They never seem to fade away, either, unfortunately.

Florida Continues To Pummel Stern

Nearly two years ago, we noted that the Florida Bar had filed a complaint against former Florida Foreclosure King David J. Stern over alleged ethical lapses related to the meltdown of his foreclosure mill firm in the wake of a robosigning scandal. The wheels of justice grind exceedingly slowly (at least, they do in The Sunshine State), but last week, the Bar filed another whopper against Stern.

It took two years, but the Florida Bar has finally dropped a doozey of a complaint against former foreclosure king David J. Stern.

The 80-page complaint includes 17 counts or charges that Stern violated the Bar’s rules of professional conduct. The Bar alleges that Stern failed to properly supervise lawyers and non-lawyers at his firm and failed to halt regular violations of Bar rules.

The article summarizes the allegations made in the long complaint. Most have them appear to have been made public previously.

According to the newspaper, neither Stern nor his attorneys could be reached for comment (although another article states that Stern's lawyer, Jeffrey Tew, "told the newspaper Thursday that Stern has done nothing to warrant discipline"). Unfortunately for Stern, a former nemesis was ready and willing to pipe up with an opinion.

Former assistant state attorney general Theresa Edwards, who investigated Stern several years ago before being fired by the AG's office, said she thinks the bar should have acted sooner. (Contacted by the newspaper, the Bar declined, through a spokeswoman, to comment.)

"Considering the amount of money he's made, his bar license will be of little concern to him," said Edwards, who is now in private practice.

Biting off more than you can chew, then trying to gulp it down by cutting corners, appears, in retrospect, to have been a bad business plan. Then again, perhaps Ms. Edwards is correct. Perhaps he's made so much money that he won't care what the state does with his law license.

We'll see. At this rate, it may be another two years before this plays out. By that time, only crackpot bloggers may even remember who Stern was.

Impeding Foreclosure Hurts Homeowners As Well As Lenders

According to a story at Housingwire, a recent study by research firm Corelogic concludes that those states with more cumbersome and lengthy foreclosure processes impose "hidden costs" on homebuyers.

"Extended disposition timelines impose operational costs on servicers, carrying costs on investors in the mortgages, and in some cases, significant legal risk and compliance costs," said Mark Fleming, chief economist for CoreLogic.

"The likely result is more expensive mortgages and possibly increased rationing of credit based on the additional costs of disposition, which may vary dramatically by local foreclosure process requirements," he added.

In the short run, however, all the homes tied up in foreclosure restricts supply and, for the immediate future, stablizes or actually increases home prices. In some states and regions (California, the South and the Southwest), a steep drop in REO, due to investor demand, has also helped housing prices.

Unfortunately, over the long run, in addition to the possible increase in borrowing costs in long-foreclosure states, the results are not favorable. An earlier Housingwire piece that addressed a study by LPS, claimed that judicial foreclosure states were lagging in recovery versus non-judicial foreclosure states. These studies support Housingwire's publisher Paul Jackson's long-asserted contention that housing markets would have recovered more quickly than they have if foreclosure was allowed to run its course and inventory was cleared more quickly. In other words, the desire to "do good" over the short term may be prolonging the pain and adding new pain to the residential housing market.

Where's My Treat?

A faithful reader from The Show Me State sent word that my recent story about a gun-toting bank president in the land that wrought the Jayhawk-killing Outlaw Josey Wales, who tracked down and took down a bank robber who'd just robbed his bank, has a happy ending.

The robber who was captured at gunpoint by the president of a Lincoln County bank last year was sentenced Friday to six years in prison.

Donald Ray Lee, 58, pleaded guilty Jan. 16 of second-degree robbery, according to court records. He was sentenced by Lincoln County Associate Circuit Judge Ben Burkemper.

According to the story, Donny Ray wore his granddaughter's Halloween mask as a disguise. I think it's safe to sAY THAT any bank lawyer worth his salt would have advised his client that 9 out of every 10 successful robberies require a gender-appropriate Halloween mask. Cross-dressing is just fine for Mardi Gras, but frowned upon for "stickups" of the illegal variety.

Plus, the carrying of an actual firearm is, in most cases de rigueur, preferably of a caliber larger than your average Missouri bank president's, which, also according to the linked story, happens to be .380. Donny Ray was not only bereft of a proper mask, he was sans boom-boom. While bank president David Thompson is still on my banker action hero list, his mettle was not tested to the utmost by Mr. Lee, a man who told police that "he only went into the bank for trick-or-treat." Well, it appears that he got a trick instead of a treat. If he were a member of Gen Y instead of a Boomer, he'd have cried and demanded that he was entitled to the treat by reason of the fact that he was a sentient being in the Milky Way Galaxy.

At 58, even if he serves his entire term (unlikely in a world ripped asunder via sequester), he's got plenty of time to figure out a way to get it done right. Like these guys, who all wear a style of mask that everyone associates with male thuggery: NHL players.

The Rocky Mountain Lowdown: Loan Collateral Up In Smoke

I asked Steve Mulligan, a partner in the Denver office of the law firm that suffers my presence in their Texas office, to write a guest post for the blog on an issue of concern to lenders in Colorado (and, perhaps, other states) where, after the most recent state and national elections, lighting up a fat boy in public, or growing smokable hemp in  your basement, no longer puts you on the wrong side of local law enforcement. As Steve points out, that's not the end of the story for lenders whose collateral may be a place where some mellow cats are toking up a Rocky Mountain high.

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

Bankers & Lenders, Your Real Property Collateral May Be At Risk if Your Borrower Violates Federal Drug Laws

By Steven T. Mulligan, Bieging Shapiro & Barber LLP

Bankers and lenders, if your borrower grows marijuana or rents to people who grow marijuana, your real property collateral may be at risk of forfeiture under federal law despite the fact that such activity might be legal under Colorado state law.

Judge Howard A. Tallman, chief judge of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Colorado, had recent occasion to considersuch a situation.  In In re Rent-Rite Super Kegs West Ltd., the Chapter 11 debtor owned a warehouse in Denver and some of its tenants were in the business of growing marijuana.  While this may be a legal activity under Colorado law, it is not under the federal Controlled Substance Act (the “CSA”) unless one receives a certificate of registration from the Drug Enforcement Agency (“DEA”). 

Judge Tallman looked to § 856 of the CSA, known as the “crack house statute,” which provides that it is a federal crime to use real property or allow real property to be used for unlawfully manufacturing, storing, distributing, or using a controlled substance.  Marijuana is a Schedule I controlled substance under the CSA. 

The Judge then looked to the criminal penalties for violating the CSA which includes a potential prison term of not more than twenty years.  As a result, the federal forfeiture statute comes into play.  That statute provides that real property used in connection with activities that violate the CSA and are punishable by more than one year’s imprisonment is subject to forfeiture.

Consequently, Judge Tallman found that the debtor’s illegal activity put the lender’s collateral at risk because of the federal forfeiture statute.  Moreover, since the automatic stay provisions of the Bankruptcy Code do not prevent the U.S. from seizing property under the forfeiture statute, the risk continued every day that the debtor remained in bankruptcy.  The matter was before the court on the secured creditor’s motion to dismiss the debtor’s bankruptcy case. 

In re Rent-Rite highlights the need for lenders to gather important information when underwriting and administering a commercial real estate loan.  Such information should include current rent rolls, copies of any leases, and research on any tenant; it may be that the name is a good indication as to what the tenant’s business is.  If possible, you may want to visit the property to see if any potentially illegal activity is taking place.  An affirmative covenant from the borrower that no activity in violation of state or federal law may also be beneficial.

Additionally, consider requiring the borrower to provide periodic updates and immediate notification if it enters into any new leases or changes its own business to include growing marijuana.  Finally, think about reviewing your default provisions; if the borrower engages in activities that are in violation of the CSA or allows such activities to occur, you may be able to declare a default under the loan documents.

Memories, Like The Corners Of My Mind

Yesterday's post prompted a couple of quick responses from regular readers. One asked me if I had noticed who applauded Senator Chingachgook's question about taking big banks to trial. I had not noticed. My correspondent alleged that they were wearing NACA logos on their shirts. That explained much.

NACA is one of the non-profit organizations that was a prime player in the DAP debacle, which cost HUD a bundle of loot due to the fact that the percentage of borrowers under that program who defaulted on their loans far exceeded the percentage of borrowers who did not participate in the program. NACA also tried to convince various legislatures to enact foreclosure moratoriums, alleging that they were aghast that mortgage servicers were handling foreclosures in-house (The horror! The horror!). Finally, NACA was also one of the pre-Occupy-This-Or-That activist organizations that staged mock foreclosures at the homes of bank executives, prompting me to suggest that the way to combat those non-legal foreclosures might be with extra-legal firepower. As usual, cooler heads prevailed.

Of course the applause came from NACAites. Liz is their kind of pol.

Another reader reminded me that Senator Magua's habit of dramatic overstatement and misdirection was highlighted by me before the CFPB was even a gleam in the eye of either Dodd or Frank. That post featured the fevered dream of then-blogger Lie-awatha that national banks who were loan servicers were trying to preempt all state foreclosure laws. I think she might have thought that what national banks wanted more than life itself was to be able to move a battalion of dozers through poor neighborhoods with impunity, crushing homes like piles of matchsticks, just because they're all evil and that's what evildoers do. I'd forgotten about that post, but my elephant-minded reader had filed it away in his mental chest of fond memories.

I'm pleased that some readers pay more attention to what I write than I do. It saves time and effort to be resupplied in a timely fashion by others when the snark train needs another shovel-full of coal to keep steam in the boiler.

Full speed ahead.

Adverse Possessor Dispossessed Adversely

When it comes to foreclosing on homes, Bank of America can't seem to catch a break. If they're not seizing the wrong home (and the owner's parrot), some nut job is seizing the right home from them.

In the last few years, some scofflaws have been using "adverse possession" laws as justification for occupying homes that are in foreclosure, have been foreclosed upon, or none of the above. In Boca Raton, Florida, a Gen Y jug-head who calls himself named "Loki Boy" (why not "Loki Man"?), with alleged ties to a fringe anti-government group, tried a variation on this theme and "adversely occupied" for a few months a $2.5 million mansion that was owned by the bank. Although this brazen attempt to violate trespassing laws made national news, those of us in North Texas have been facing a wave of similar attempts. At least we were until the local law enforcement authorities quickly snuffed it out by arresting the "adverse occupiers" and prosecuting them. That nipped this brewing insurrection in the bud. Then again, it's Texas, so we tend to shoot first, ask questions later.

Loki Boy's escapade also ended badly (for Loki Boy), when Bank of America sought (and obtained) an injunction against the Boy and his "house guests." The local police then raided the place, took back possession (with extreme prejudice) from The Boy (who, wisely, was not at home when the fuzz came calling), and restored Bank of America to full possession (no word on how many house guests the bank plans to invite to share the digs). The bank is also suing the Boy for $15,000 in attorneys' fees, but I'm sure B of A wouldn't be surprised if it has a tough time locating Loki, much less collecting that amount from him.

In terms of creating new legal rights, however, you have to give Loki Boy a pat on the back (and perhaps a Thai stick and a fat boy).

The Sun-Sentinel reported that Barbosa posted a notice in the front window of the house naming him as a "living beneficiary to the Divine Estate being superior of commerce and usury." On Facebook, a man named Andre Barbosa calls the property "Templo de Kamisamar."

Man, I haven't seen the "living beneficiary of the Divine Estate" theory pushed since 1967 in Haight Ashbury. At least I think it was in 1967. It might have been 1977. Maybe it wasn't Haight Ashbury. Maybe it was Woodstock. Blast! Those years are a blur to me now. It's as if they've all gone up in smoke.

As for any other potential adverse possessors thinking about floating in Loki Boy's elevated footsteps, Bank of America says "Don't even think about it!"

In a statement issued after the home was secured, a spokeswoman for Bank of America said it appreciated "the assistance of local authorities and the patience of neighbors as we worked to have the trespassers removed.

"We take trespassing seriously, and in the interest of the community, we will take appropriate legal action to protect this and all properties we service," the statement said.

Go ahead Loki Boy wanna-bees: make B of A's day.

San Bernardino Calls It Quits

San Bernardino County is the birthplace of the first serious consideration by a local government to implement a scheme concocted by former Clinton administration officials and private equity pirates to steal seize underwater mortgages from the lenders in order to write down the principal, refinance them into FHA loans, and sell those loans to new investors (enriching the investment bankers who would fund the scheme). It’s also the place that, when residents publicly objected to the scheme, thumbed its nose at its constituents and forged forward.

Fortunately for all that is right and holy in the land of fruits and nuts, San Bernardino recently came to its senses and abandoned the crackpot plan and opted to submit a request for proposal “seeking plans to address the mortgage crisis.” Given their track record, I suspect they’ll receive and seriously consider plans from the Hells Angels to turn foreclosed homes into profitable meth labs and from Maxine Waters to buy bad loans from whatever financial institution her husband owns these days. I mean, if you’re going to abuse the 14^th Amendment, you might as well throw all caution to the winds and just let fly with whatever comes to mind, whether tethered or untethered to reality.

Although the county’s CEO claimed that the threat of eminent domain was interfering with the ability of the county to work on other “solutions” with lenders and mortgage security investors, and that it was “wrong” to impose “unintended consequences” of the loan seizure scheme on residents who didn’t want it in the first place, anyone with an ounce of grey matter in his or her cranium knew of those negative aspects from the outset. Thus, the local yokels at county hall wasted a lot of time stirring the pot, to no avail. However, they have given the voters the appearance of “doing something” and in politics, appearance always trumps substance.

San Bernardino isn’t the first local governmental entity to attempt to play a fruitless populist (i.e., anti-bank) card to win a PR coup concerning the residential mortgage meltdown. We all recall those geniuses back East who have tried to hold lenders responsible for the condition of abandoned homes they don’t even own and for other consequences of economic and social forces beyond any lender's control. When will voters wise up and kick these time wasters to the curb?

You’re right: when Hell freezes over.

PATCO Played Out: A Few Lessons Learned

The last time we discussed the PATCO decision, the appellate court had found that the bank's security procedures to defeat account takeover were not "commercially reasonable," but had sent the case back down to the trial court to determine what legal responsibility the customer might have to prevent account takeover. Following that action, the bank and PATCO settled the case, so that burning legal issue was not resolved.

Recently, PATCO co-owner Mark Patterson and counsel Dan Mitchell were interviewed by Bank Info Security's Tracy Kitten about the lessons they think they learned from the case. Among those (along with my observations) are:

• PATCO approached the bank within the first month of the incident with a settlement proposal that turned out to be a heck of a lot less than what the bank eventually paid in settlement after three years of litigation. Both sides ended up enriching their legal counsel needlessly. Sweet!
• Community banks seem more willing to settle quickly than do larger banks. Mitchell and Patterson think that's because community banks are more concerned about the reputational risk if the dispute hits the press. Might this be a potential competitive marketing advantage for community banks? "Bank with us! We'll pay for your negligence!"
• Most cases of corporate account takeover are settled quickly, and off the radar screen. That certainly appears to be accurate from our personal experience. While many lawyers live to engage in disputes, bankers live to make money the old fashioned way: by doing business. It's hard to do business when you're the defendant and your customer is the plaintiff.
• Prospective litigation costs and reputational risk can be as much of a deterrent to bank customers pursuing litigation as they can be to banks.
• There's not much case law on these issues. Until there is, there is likely to be much jockeying for position, blustering and posturing by lawyers for both sides, unless responsible business leaders on each side of the table seize control early in the game and keep their eyes on the prize: salvaging the relationship (if possible) without breaking either the bank or the customer.
• Patterson thinks ACH should not be done by businesses, no matter how allegedly "strong" the security devices or procedures used. He claims that his business will use ACH only for tax payments. The reasons for his revulsion: the one-sided nature of the agreements prepared by the banks, which place almost all liability on the customer. Hey, that's why banks pay us the big bucks, Mark!
• Patterson and Mitchell do believe that customers have "some responsibility" for protecting their accounts from takeover. However, they claim that banks bear more responsibility than customers because they are "in a better position" to prevent and detect takeovers. While I don't disagree that banks should be more sophisticated in this area than the average small business owner, I'm still not willing to go as far as Patterson and claim that using a dedicated separate PC solely for online banking (and not for cruising Internet porn sites) is cost prohibitive for most small businesses. That simply doesn't pass the smell test for me. On the other hand, I'm an alleged elitist, so perhaps my view is slanted toward my liege lords and masters, "The Banks." Perhaps a refurbished eMachine for $250 is simply beyond the reach of the average small business. If that's the case, how much money would they stand to lose from any of their corporate accounts? Wouldn't cybercrooks just enter, laugh, and leave?

Whether you represent banks or bank customers, Mitchell's final words ring true.

I would bet my bottom dollar that there will be more lawsuits in the future in this area. What types of questions will come up really will depend on the unique circumstances of each case. But given the prevalence of corporate account takeover, you can bet that there will be more cases.