Bear Stearns Will Pay $28 Million
Litigation Reports
Bear Stearns and subsidiary EMC Mortgage on Tuesday agreed to pay $28 million in settlement with the Federal Trade Commission, on charges of defrauding tens of thousands of home loan customers and violating four sets of federal laws.
"The companies violated four different federal laws, "said Frank Dorman, the spokesperson for the FTC. "We hope people in mortgage servicing companies will read this judgment and adhere to the law."
Bear Sterns through its mortgage subsidiary, EMC, has handled 475,000 mortgage loans in the last year.
Apart from misrepresenting the amounts borrowers owed, said the FTC's complaint, the company charged unauthorized fees to clients. One such fee was the $500 loan-modification fee, which was automatically added to the loan's principle balance, without notice to the client.
The company also made harassing collection calls, where agents would wrongly state the legal status or amount of the customers' debts.
The defendants also failed to notify customers of their right to obtain verification of the debt, or of their right to dispute the debt. When the loans were contested, the defendants failed to report the dispute to credit reporting agencies, as required by law.
Bear Sterns and EMC did, however, illegally share information about the customers' payment status with credit reporting agencies.
In total, the FTC Act, the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, the Fair Credit Reporting Act, and regulation Z of the Truth in Lending Act were all violated.
Apart from the $28 million in redress to affected customers, the settlement prohibits the companies from violating these laws in the future, and requires that they establish and maintain a comprehensive data integrity program to ensure accuracy of their data regarding consumers' loans.
The companies must also hire a qualified and independent group to ensure compliance with the settlement.
Apart for redress to consumers, no fines were imposed.
Bear Steams and EMC Mortgage are represented by Kevin Arquit, from Simpson Thacher & Bartlett.
Related listings
-
Trump is at the Court as it hears arguments over his bid to limit birthright citizenship
Litigation Reports 04/02/2026The Supreme Court is taking up one of the term's most consequential cases, President Donald Trump's executive order on birthright citizenship declaring that children born to parents who are in the United States illegally or temporarily are not Americ...
-
Wisconsin man who ordered ballots without consent found guilty of fraud
Litigation Reports 03/31/2026A jury convicted a Wisconsin man of election fraud and identity theft for requesting the ballots of Republican state Assembly Speaker Robin Vos and Democratic Racine Mayor Cory Mason without their consent.Jurors in Racine County on Tuesday found Harr...
-
Federal judge blocks Pentagon from labeling Anthropic a supply chain risk
Litigation Reports 03/27/2026A federal judge has ruled in favor of artificial intelligence company Anthropic in temporarily blocking the Pentagon from labeling the company as a supply chain risk.U.S. District Judge Rita Lin on Thursday said she was also blocking enforcement of P...
Grounds for Divorce in Ohio - Sylkatis Law, LLC
A divorce in Ohio is filed when there is typically “fault” by one of the parties and party not at “fault” seeks to end the marriage. A court in Ohio may grant a divorce for the following reasons:
• Willful absence of the adverse party for one year
• Adultery
• Extreme cruelty
• Fraudulent contract
• Any gross neglect of duty
• Habitual drunkenness
• Imprisonment in a correctional institution at the time of filing the complaint
• Procurement of a divorce outside this state by the other party
Additionally, there are two “no-fault” basis for which a court may grant a divorce:
• When the parties have, without interruption for one year, lived separate and apart without cohabitation
• Incompatibility, unless denied by either party
However, whether or not the the court grants the divorce for “fault” or not, in Ohio the party not at “fault” will not get a bigger slice of the marital property.
