We will be building a list of all JPMorgan and Chase lawsuits and class action here. Chase, don’t thank me.
PMorgan Chase accused of gender bias in lawsuit
NEW YORK, Sept 29 (Reuters) – JPMorgan Chase & Co (JPM.N) was sued on Tuesday by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which accused the bank of discriminating against women by paying them less than men and subjecting them to a “sexually hostile” work environment.
The federal lawsuit alleged that JPMorgan fired Aimee Doneyhue, who worked in a Columbus, Ohio office, after she alleged the second-largest U.S. bank made it more difficult for women than men to earn commissions and bonuses, and subjected women to verbal harassment.
It said the New York-based bank retaliated against Doneyhue by subjecting her to ridicule, including telling her that she was an “idiot,” and fired her after learning from her that she had consulted with the EEOC.
The complaint seeks to recover back pay and other losses suffered by Doneyhue and other women, punitive damages, an end to practices that discriminate on the basis of gender, and other remedies.
JPMorgan spokesman Joe Evangelisti declined to comment.
The case is EEOC v. JPMorgan Chase Bank NA, U.S. District Court, Southern District of Ohio (Columbus), No. 09-711. (Reporting by Jonathan Stempel)
Court Reinstates Lawsuit Against JP Morgan for Rise in Credit Card Rate
A couple in Oregon who attempted to sue JP Morgan for failing to properly disclose risk factors the bank used to raise its interest rates on its credit cards, has had their suit reinstated.
Earlier, a federal district court in Oregon had dismissed the couple’s claim for further proceedings. But the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has now ruled that JP Morgan had not made “clear and conspicuous disclosure” of the annual percentage rates it could impose, as required under the federal Truth in Lending Act. Instead, the bank put in writing its reasons for rate increases on apges 10 and 11 of the couple’s credit card agreement, “five dense pages after the disclosure of the APR,” Judge Diarmuid O’Scannlain, one of three judges on the review panel, wrote.
The couple were prompted to file the suit against Chase after their annual 8.99 percent interest rate shot up to 24.24 percent, apparently with no warning.
Recently, the US Senate and the House or Representatives have both approved bills to curb sudden interest rate increases on credit cards. President Barack Obama will likely sign the bill into law in late May.
Milan Police Seize UBS, JPMorgan, Deutsche Bank Funds
By Elisa Martinuzzi
April 28 (Bloomberg) — Milan?s financial police seized 476 million euros ($620 million) of assets belonging to UBS AG, Deutsche Bank AG, JPMorgan Chase & Co. and Depfa Bank Plc amid a probe into alleged fraud linked to the sale of derivatives.
The police froze the banks? stakes in Italian companies, real estate assets and accounts, the financial police said in a statement today. The assets seized yesterday also include those of an ex-municipality official and a consultant, the police said.
The City of Milan is suing the four banks after it lost money on derivatives it bought from the lenders in 2005. The securities swapped a fixed rate of interest on 1.7 billion euros of bonds for a variable rate that was losing the city 298 million euros as of June. Milan is among about 600 Italian municipalities that took out 1,000 derivatives contracts worth 35.5 billion euros in all, the Treasury said.
?Milan is an important case because it can be used as an example by others,? said Alfonso Scarano, who is heading a study into the trades by AIAF, a group representing Italian financial analysts. ?This is a unique time for borrowers to shed light on their potential losses and renegotiate contracts? to take advantage of interest rates that have fallen to record lows. AIAF will next week testify before the Italian Senate?s inquiry into the cities? use of derivatives contracts.
Officials at all four banks declined to comment. In January, JPMorgan filed a lawsuit against the city in London. The bank is seeking to have dispute heard in the U.K., according to two people familiar with the claims.
A spokesman for Milan?s city council declined to comment. A report commissioned by the city last year into the derivatives trades didn?t identify the officials involved in the decision.
The banks reaped about 100 million euros in fees from the transactions, Milan?s financial police said today. Public officials, seeking to cut the cost of their debt and help fund their budgets, turned to the banks to refinance borrowings from the state-owned lender Cassa Depositi e Prestiti.
The 30-year bond carried annual interest of 4.019 percent. With the derivatives, the city swapped the fixed interest rate for a floating rate set at 12-month Euribor. Milan also agreed to repay the principal by annual payments instead of at maturity, according to the city?s report.
The banks and Milan later agreed on so-called interest-rate collars, under which the banks would pay the borrower if Euribor rose above a certain level, the so-called cap, while the borrower would pay the banks if Euribor fell below the so-called floor.
The banks misled municipal officials on the advantages of buying the derivatives, including the impact of the fees they charged on the contracts, the financial police have said. The banks made three times more money from the cap than Milan did from the floor, according to the city?s report.
Local governments often entered into derivative contracts without soliciting bids from competing buyers. In 2007, Milan also sold a credit-default swap, exposing itself to the risk that the Republic of Italy might default, the document shows.
The Milan case is among lawsuits filed by local governments from Germany to the U.S. amid allegations of mis-selling and fraud. Italy?s Senate is leading a review of the use of derivatives among local administrations.
Italian prosecutors can seize assets, subject to judicial approval, to prevent the worsening of the consequences of the crime or prevent further crimes being committed, according to Andrea Giannelli, a researcher at Milan?s Bocconi University.
?Intimidating and unprecedented?
?Its use in this case is somewhat intimidating and unprecedented,? said Giannelli. ?It?s a measure they may be using to accelerate a solution.?
Deutsche Bank, Germany?s largest bank, last year won dismissal of a lawsuit filed by Hagen, Germany, over losses on derivatives that the city purchased from the lender.
The U.S. Justice Department has been investigating for more than two years whether banks and brokers conspired to overcharge local governments on similar swap agreements.
Alabama challenged a so-called swaption deal last year as local governments across the U.S. faced rising bills after derivative trades with Wall Street banks backfired. The Alabama Public School and College Authority filed a lawsuit in October seeking to void a so-called swaption, or option on an interest- rate swap, that it sold to JPMorgan in 2002.
To contact the reporter on this story: Elisa Martinuzzi in Milan at [email protected]
Last Updated: April 28, 2009 10:12 EDT
JPMorgan Chase Accidentally Breaks Into Your House And Steals Everything You Own
Bobo and Joy Dickson bought a house had been headed for foreclosure, but JPMorgan Chase apparently didn’t get the message that the former owners had moved out and the new owners were in residence. So, naturally, they hired a firm to drill the Dickson’s locks and take everything they owned, including their food. Now JPMorgan Chase is “taking it seriously.”
“We take this very seriously, and we are working with EMC [a mortgage company JPMorgan Chase owns] and the family’s attorney to make this right,” said Tom Kelly, a JPMorgan spokesman.
After the Dickson’s bought the house back in May, the foreclosure proceedings were supposed to have been stopped. They weren’t. That’s when the former owner’s mortgage company (owned by JPMorgan Chase) hired “Field Asset Services Inc.” to drill the locks and “empty the house,” according to the Austin American-Statesmen. Field Asset Services claims that the Dickson’s possessions were given to area thrift stores, but they have been unable to locate them.
Ordinarily, when personal possessions are left in a foreclosed home a court order is needed to remove the items and the owners are given the opportunity to reclaim them within 24 hours. JPMorgan Chase says its not sure if there was a court order in this case.
Elizabeth Bradburn, the Dicksons’ real estate agent, is organizing an effort to collect donations for the family. She said gift cards to furniture and household goods stores are preferred and may be sent to the Dicksons’ business address: 9800 N. Lamar Blvd.,
No. 315, Austin TX 78753.
“It’s been awesome to see people mobilize and want to help out,” Hance [Dicksons’ attorney] said. “The Dicksons are, of course, very grateful and touched by the outpouring of support from the community.”
Report: WaMu parent wants U.S. documents in failure probe
December 15, 2009 | 8:38 pm
The bankrupt parent of Washington Mutual Bank asked the judge in its reorganization case to allow for an expansion of a probe into the circumstances immediately leading up to the September 2008 failure.
From the Puget Sound Business Journal:
A filing in the Washington Mutual bankruptcy case says that new evidence supports allegations that JPMorgan Chase used access to inside information about WaMu to drive down the bank?s credit rating and share price, scare away other suitors and arrange to buy the ailing Seattle bank from regulators at a bargain price.
The 20-page motion cites hundreds of internal documents received from JPMorgan through discovery in the bankruptcy case, including emails between JPMorgan executives and other banks interested in bidding on WaMu as well as slide show presentations discussing the viability of a WaMu purchase.
The latest motion now seeks to expand the subpoena to include regulators such as the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., the Office of Thrift Supervision, the U.S. Treasury Department, the Federal Reserve, other banks that considered buying Washington Mutual, Goldman Sachs in its capacity as an adviser to WaMu, credit-rating agencies and other banks involved in lending to WaMu.
Conspiracy theories have been rampant since the S&L’s failure, and WaMu’s parent has been battling JPMorgan and the FDIC in multiple court venues over billions of dollars in assets.
As Jordan Weissmann wrote on law.com in October:
Washington Mutual is arguing in its suit brought in D.C. federal trial court that the government sold the bank for less than it would have been worth in liquidation, which it further argues violates the FDIC’s obligations under the Federal Deposit Insurance Act.
It also contends that many assets should never have been transferred to JPMorgan at all.
— Tom Petruno
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Chase Home Finance LLC and JPMorgan Chase, N.A. in the U.S. District Court, Southern District of California, alleging that defendants reneged on a promise to modify troubled mortgages. The class action is brought on behalf of the following class of persons:
All mortgagors in the the State of California whose home mortgage loans are or were serviced by Chase Home Finance LLC or JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. and who (a) have attempted to obtain permanent loan modifications from Chase Home Finance LLC or JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. through the Home Affordable Modification Program (?HAMP?) or similiar loan modification programs; and (b) have made payments pursuant to a HAMP Trial Period Plan (?TPP?) or any similiar temporary modification agreement offered by Defendants.
For more information on the Chase Home Finance & JPMorgan Chase mortgage loan modification class action lawsuit, read the Chase Home Finance & JPMorgan Chase class action lawsuit complaint.
For information about this class action, contact paralegal Nick Wallace or attorneys Gretchen Obrist or Lynn Sarko at 800.776.6044 or via email at [email protected]