PointofLaw.com
 Subscribe Subscribe   Find us on Twitter Follow POL on Twitter  
   
 
   

 

 

Suing for Settling

| No Comments


Advocacy group, Better Markets, filed suit in federal district court today to challenge the settlement between JPMorgan and the Department of Justice last November related to JPMorgan's crisis-era sales of residential mortgage-backed securities. The complaint alleges that the DOJ violated the law when it entered into a settlement that was shielded from judicial review and the details of which remain a mystery. As Better Markets paints it, the deal was negotiated by a politically connected bank with a department officials scrambling to show themselves tough on too big to fail institutions. The complaint suggests that the large settlement numbers served as a smoke screen to conceal DOJ's gentle slap on JPMorgan's brutish wrist. Better Markets, itself a confidant of regulators, likely overstates DOJ's deference in this matter, but correctly points out the settlement's troubling lack of transparency. When it was announced, I objected that the settlement's large dollar figures were not accompanied by any clear explanation of the violations being punished.

Better Markets concludes that DOJ had evidence of the bad conduct, but hid it from the public in order to go easy on JPMorgan. An alternate interpretation is that DOJ did not want to have to explain to a judge that it lacked the facts to support specific legal violations that would warrant a $13 billion settlement. Either way, because DOJ did not file a case, the government will never be subject even to the cursory scrutiny that courts usually give settled cases. If, as Better Markets alleges, the JPMorgan arrangement is a template for future settlements, there is even more cause for concern.

The Better Markets complaint raises important questions about the way in which DOJ pursues wrongdoers. If the government has a good, legally sound case to make, it should not need to proceed--as Better Markets alleged it did in this matter--"as investigator, prosecutor, judge, jury, sentencer, and collector, without any review or approval of its unilateral and largely secret actions."

Leave a comment

Once submitted, the comment will first be reviewed by our editors and is not guaranteed to be published. Point of Law editors reserve the right to edit, delete, move, or mark as spam any and all comments. They also have the right to block access to any one or group from commenting or from the entire blog. A comment which does not add to the conversation, runs of on an inappropriate tangent, or kills the conversation may be edited, moved, or deleted.

The views and opinions of those providing comments are those of the author of the comment alone, and even if allowed onto the site do not reflect the opinions of Point of Law bloggers or the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research or any employee thereof. Comments submitted to Point of Law are the sole responsibility of their authors, and the author will take full responsibility for the comment, including any asserted liability for defamation or any other cause of action, and neither the Manhattan Institute nor its insurance carriers will assume responsibility for the comment merely because the Institute has provided the forum for its posting.

Related Entries:

 

 


Isaac Gorodetski
Project Manager,
Center for Legal Policy at the
Manhattan Institute
igorodetski@manhattan-institute.org

Katherine Lazarski
Press Officer,
Manhattan Institute
klazarski@manhattan-institute.org

 

Published by the Manhattan Institute

The Manhattan Insitute's Center for Legal Policy.