by Yves Smith Saturday, February 11, 2012 Mortgage Settlement as Attorney General Sellout: Deal is Not Done, and

Final Version Guaranteed to be Worse Than Advertised

You know its bad when banks are the most truthful guys in the room. Remember that historical mortgage settlement deal that was the lead news story on Thursday? It has been widely depicted as a done deal. The various AGs who had been holdouts said their concerns had been satisfied. But in fact, Bank of Americas press release said that the deal was agreements in principle as opposed to a final agreement. The Charlotte bank had to be more precise than politicians because it is subject to SEC regulations about the accuracy of its disclosures. And if you read the template for the AG press release carefully, you can see how it finesses where the pact stands. And today, American Banker confirmed that the settlement pact is far from done, and the details will be kept from the public as long as possible, until it is filed in Federal court (because it includes injunctive relief, a judge must bless the agreement). This may not sound all that important to laypeople, but most negotiators and attorneys will react viscerally to how negligent the behavior of the AGs has been. The most common reaction among lawyers I know who been with white shoe firms (including former partners) is shocking. Let me explain why. Negotiating of large, complex deals (or even little deals) does not happen in one fell swoop. Even when the two sides have outlined the major terms, and in sone cases hammered out the really important ones in some detail, there is still a great deal of negotiating that takes place in finalizing the text of the contract. The negotiation over the definitive agreement makes a great deal of difference on how fair the pact turns out to be. For instance, one of the sayings of transaction lawyers is He who controls the document controls the deal. The party that writes up the initial version of the contract has undue influence because that becomes the default and the other side has to negotiate back from that language.

As attorney Max Gardner said via e-mail (boldface ours): I would never tell a client that I had settled a case or claim against a creditor until the ink was on the final written settlement agreement. I would of course advise the client of the verbal offer and secure the clients acceptance but would always say something like dont spend any of the money because as Yogi might say it aint over until we have the signed agreement and their check has cleared my trust account. An attorney would be guilty of serious ethical violations if he or she told a client we have a settlement with BoA and it is final before the deal was closed out by written agreement and in my bankruptcy practice the agreement was approved by the court. The AGs have said this agreement must be approved by a Federal District Court Judge so really why would you make such public announcements before at the least a written agreement signed and inked by ALL of the parties. Why is it deeply troubling that the attorneys general have gone along with the Administrations messaging and have all fallen in line with the biggest Federal-state settlement ever when no such settlement in fact exists? This isnt just acceding to the Administrations pet wish to build on its State of the Union PR. Theyve completely abandoned their negotiating leverage at a critical stage. Lets look at this equation. The Administration and the banks both want a pro-bank deal (the only minor point of difference is how much in populist gestures the banks have to submit to in order to get the much more valuable bennies they want). The only parties that cared to any degree about ordinary citizens were the dissident AGs. But they now have now given up any bargaining leverage over how this deal turns out. The only power any party has in a negotiation is his threat to leave the bargaining table. The AGs can no longer do that. Theyve taken star turns, made ringing pronouncements of how great this pact is. They cant possibly reverse themselves mere weeks down the road and say, whoops, this deal isnt go great after all. The AGs had to have known what they were doing in capitulating. Delawares Beau Biden was one of the most outspoken AGs after the Schneiderman destabilized the opposition by putting himself on the sidelines, making it clear he had not signed on when most other AGs remained silent. Yet in an interview with Dylan Ratigan early last week, he sounded as if the fight had been beaten out of him, that he was resigned to signing on to the agreement if he could preserve the MERS suit he had filed and add bank names to it later if the facts warranted. What sort of veiled or

not so veiled threats did the Democratic party operatives make to get him to fall into line? I hate using Biden as an example because he resisted down to the end. I dont see how any seasoned attorney could possibly have misunderstood what he was giving up. Maybe the last holdouts felt even en bloc that they had no sway and even if they all stood aside, it would hurt them with little upside for their constituents. But agreeing to a pig in the poke would never be acceptable in the private sector, and the AGs cant pretend not to know how outside the pale their conduct was. Weve seen an analogous process at work in the Dodd Frank bill. It was widely described as a bill to come up with a bill, with a lot of provisions either subjected to studies or kicked over to regulatory rulemaking to come up with a final version of the provision. The result has been that it has given the banks another go at the bill, and various media reports indicate that theyve done a very good job in blunting the impact of many provisions. Now some readers might argue that this analogy is unfair, that the mortgage settlement is much further along that Dodd Frank was. That might seem to be true. However, the attorneys general are not experts in securitization, and benign-sounding language can have implication that they dont appreciate. And some of the responses from AG offices to simple questions suggest they are over their heads on this deal. And the American Banker article indicates that the deal has a lot more points still open that the Administrations victory lap would lead you to believe: a fully authorized, legally binding deal has not been inked yet.A representative for the North Carolina attorney general downplayed the significance of the documents non-final status, saying that the terms were already fixed Go to the full article by Yves Smith: http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2012/02/mortgage-settlement-asattorney-general-sellout-deal-is-not-done-and-final-version-guaranteed-tobe-worse-than-advertised.html#comment-630633

Other sources who spoke with American Banker raised doubts that everything is yet in place. A person familiar with the mortgage servicing pact says that a settlement term sheet does not yet exist. Instead, there are a series of nearly-complete documents that will be attached to a consent judgment eventually filed with the court. That truly final version will include things such as servicing standards, consumer relief options, legal releases, and enforcement terms. There will likely be separate state and a federal versions of the release..

Please click on link above for more of the article