Showing posts with label BANK OF AMERICA. Show all posts
Showing posts with label BANK OF AMERICA. Show all posts

Sunday, September 29, 2013

BOA TO PAY NEARLY $2.2 MILLION FOR RACIAL DISCRIMINATION AGAINST AFRICAN-AMERICAN JOB SEEKERS

FROM:  U.S. JUSTICE DEPARTMENT 
Judge orders Bank of America to pay almost $2.2 million for racial discrimination against more than 1,100 African-American job seekers

CHARLOTTE, N.C. — U.S. Department of Labor Administrative Law Judge Linda S. Chapman has ordered Bank of America Corp. to pay 1,147 African American job applicants $ 2,181,593 in back wages and interest for race-based hiring discrimination at the company's Charlotte facility. In an earlier ruling, the judge determined that the bank applied unfair and inconsistent selection criteria resulting in the rejection of qualified African American applicants for teller and entry-level clerical and administrative positions. The ruling represents a major victory in a case that has spanned nearly two decades, during which Bank of America repeatedly challenged the authority of the department's Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs. Bank of America is a federally-insured financial institution that provides a variety services and products, making it a federal contractor under the purview of OFCCP's regulatory requirements.

"Wherever doors of opportunity are unfairly closed to workers, we will be there to open them — no matter how long it takes," said OFCCP Director Patricia A. Shiu. "Judge Chapman's decision upholds the legal principle of making victims of discrimination whole, and these workers deserve to get the full measure of what is owed to them."

The ruling awards $964,033 to 1,034 applicants who were rejected for jobs in 1993 and $1,217,560 to 113 individuals who were rejected between 2002 and 2005. It further orders Bank of America to extend job offers, with appropriate seniority, to 10 class members as positions become available. After hearing from experts on both sides, the judge agreed with the government's positions on every issue in dispute. Notably, she rejected the bank's arguments for a lower award on the grounds that they could not take advantage of missing records that they had failed to keep.

On Nov. 24, 1993, OFCCP initiated a routine compliance review that revealed indications of systemic hiring discrimination affecting African American job seekers at the Charlotte facility. After conciliation efforts failed, the Solicitor of Labor in 1997 filed an administrative complaint against the company for violating Executive Order 11246, which prohibits federal contractors from discriminating in employment practices on the basis of race.

"Our investigators and attorneys prevailed despite decades of stalling tactics," said Solicitor of Labor M. Patricia Smith. "This case demonstrates that the department will not be deterred in our pursuit of justice for job seekers."
In addition to Executive Order 11246, OFCCP enforces Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the Vietnam Era Veterans' Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974. These three laws require those who do business with the federal government, both contractors and subcontractors, to follow the fair and reasonable standard that they not discriminate in employment on the basis of sex, race, color, religion, national origin, disability or status as a protected veteran.

Friday, August 9, 2013

SEC CHARGES BANK OF AMERICA ENTITIES WITH SECURITIES ACT VIOLATIONS RELATED TO RMBS OFFERING

FROM:  U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION 

SEC Charges Bank of America Entities with Material Misrepresentations and Omissions in Connection with an RMBS Offering

On August 6, 2013, the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) filed a civil injunctive action against Bank of America, N.A. (“BANA”), Banc of America Mortgage Securities, Inc. (“BOAMS”), and Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. f/k/a Banc of America Securities LLC (“BAS”) (collectively the “Bank of America Entities”). The Commission alleges that the Bank of America Entities made material misrepresentations and omissions in connection with the sale of residential mortgage-backed securities known as BOAMS 2008-A. Specifically, the complaint alleges that the Bank of America Entities failed to disclose the disproportionate concentration of wholesale loans (72% by unpaid principal balance) underlying BOAMS 2008-A as compared to prior BOAMS offerings. The complaint also alleges that the Bank of America Entities failed to disclose known risks associated with the high concentration of wholesale loans in BOAMS 2008-A including higher likelihood that the loans would be subject to material underwriting errors, become severely delinquent, fail early in the life of the loan, or prepay. The complaint further alleges that the Bank of America entities violated Regulation S-K and subpart Regulation AB of the Securities Act of 1933 (the “Securities Act”) by failing to disclose the material characteristics of the pool of loans underlying BOAMS 2008-A. The complaint also alleges that the Bank of America Entities made material misrepresentations and omissions in its public filings and in the loan tapes it provided to investors and rating agencies that the loans in BOAMS 2008-A complied with BANA’s underwriting standards when a material amount did not. Finally, the complaint alleges that BOAMS and BAS violated Section 5(b)(1) of the Securities Act by failing to file with the Commission certain loan tapes that it provided only to select investors.

The Commission’s complaint, filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, charges the Bank of America Entities with violating the antifraud provisions of the federal securities laws. The complaint alleges that that each violated Sections 17(a)(2) and 17(a)(3) of the Securities Act. The complaint also alleges that BAS and BOAMS violated Section 5(b)(1) of the Securities Act. The complaint seeks against each of the Bank of America Entities a permanent injunction, disgorgement with prejudgment interest and civil monetary penalties pursuant Section 20(d) of the Securities Act.

The Commission would like to thank the United States Attorney’s Office for the Western District of North Carolina for its substantial assistance in this matter.