Total Pageviews

Hong Kong Protesters Ordered to Leave HSBC Site

HONG KONG - A Hong Kong judge gave a dwindling band of Occupy Hong Kong protesters two weeks to vacate the space below 's Asian headquarters, accepting a petition by the bank.

About a dozen protesters still use a collection of tents erected in an area that is owned by HSBC but is designated as a public passageway. If the protesters have not left by the deadline, 9 p.m. Aug. 27, the next step would be for a court bailiff to decide what, if any, action to take.

Any legal appeals along the way could further delay the departure or removal of the protesters.

The site under the HSBC building had been used by local domestic workers to take refuge from the heat on Sundays, when many of them have their weekly day off.

Occupy encampments in some other places, like London and New York, were removed months ago, but the authorities in Hong Kong have been wary of seeming insensitive at a time of considerable public concern about wealth inequality.

Members have vowed not to budge.

“We've never asked for permission from the law, we've never asked for permission from the courts, we've never asked for permission from HSBC,” Nin Chan, one of the Occupy activists, told The Associated Press. “From the very beginning, we've never recognized these authorities as legitimate.”

According to the wire service, Occupy activists have been living under the bank's headquarters since Oct. 15, when protesters in Hong Kong joined others around the world in a day of demonstrations against corporate excess and economic inequality.

“We welcome the court ruling, and we look forward to the occupiers following the court order,” Gareth Hewett, an HSBC spokesman, told The Associated Press.

HSBC named four defendants in its lawsuit. One was the “occupiers of the ground floor” of its building, and three others were people Occupy activists said were loosely related to their movement.

Mui Kai-ming, one of the latter three, said he would “absolutely” not leave, according to The A.P.



Hong Kong Protesters Ordered to Leave HSBC Site

HONG KONG - A Hong Kong judge gave a dwindling band of Occupy Hong Kong protesters two weeks to vacate the space below 's Asian headquarters, accepting a petition by the bank.

About a dozen protesters still use a collection of tents erected in an area that is owned by HSBC but is designated as a public passageway. If the protesters have not left by the deadline, 9 p.m. Aug. 27, the next step would be for a court bailiff to decide what, if any, action to take.

Any legal appeals along the way could further delay the departure or removal of the protesters.

The site under the HSBC building had been used by local domestic workers to take refuge from the heat on Sundays, when many of them have their weekly day off.

Occupy encampments in some other places, like London and New York, were removed months ago, but the authorities in Hong Kong have been wary of seeming insensitive at a time of considerable public concern about wealth inequality.

Members have vowed not to budge.

“We've never asked for permission from the law, we've never asked for permission from the courts, we've never asked for permission from HSBC,” Nin Chan, one of the Occupy activists, told The Associated Press. “From the very beginning, we've never recognized these authorities as legitimate.”

According to the wire service, Occupy activists have been living under the bank's headquarters since Oct. 15, when protesters in Hong Kong joined others around the world in a day of demonstrations against corporate excess and economic inequality.

“We welcome the court ruling, and we look forward to the occupiers following the court order,” Gareth Hewett, an HSBC spokesman, told The Associated Press.

HSBC named four defendants in its lawsuit. One was the “occupiers of the ground floor” of its building, and three others were people Occupy activists said were loosely related to their movement.

Mui Kai-ming, one of the latter three, said he would “absolutely” not leave, according to The A.P.



Dimon on the Defensive

Jamie Dimon, the chief executive of JPMorgan Chase, tells Jessica Pressler of New York magazine that he never considered resigning.

Julius Baer to Buy Bank of America Unit

LONDON â€" The Swiss bank Julius Baer agreed on Monday to buy the private banking operations outside the United States of Bank of America Merrill Lynch, in a deal that will increase the European firm's assets under management by 40 percent.

The acquisition is the latest consolidation move in the private banking industry, as firms look to bolster their operations to gain access to the new markets of emerging economies.

As part of this effort, Julius Baer will pay around 860 million Swiss francs ($882 million) for the American bank's international wealth management business outside of the United States. The division has roughly $84 billion of assets under management.

Under the terms of the deal, Julius Baer will oversee up to an additional $74 billion of assets, which primarily come from wealthy clients in developing economies. The acquisition will increase Julius Baer's assets under management to around $258 billion.

“This acquisition brings us a m ajor step forward in our growth strategy and will considerably strengthen Julius Baer's leading position in global private banking by adding a new dimension not only to growth markets but also to Europe,” the company's chief executive, Boris Collardi, said in a statement.

Despite the bank's large increase in assets under management, investors reacted negatively to the news. Shares in Julius Baer fell almost 6 percent in morning trading in Zurich on Monday.

The shareholder response to the announcement came after the Swiss bank said it would finance the acquisition through existing cash reserves and a $770 million rights offering. The bank said it would raise a further $257 million for potential future acquisitions and $206 million through hybrid bonds.

The firm also canceled a previously announced $510 million share buyback.

As part of the new share sale, Bank of America Merrill Lynch will be given around $246 million of Julius Baer stock, making the American firm a large shareholder.

Julius Baer said costs related to the acquisition would total about $320 million, while Bank of America Merrill Lynch would assume about $125 million of costs connected to the deal.

The deal is one of a number of acquisitions by Julius Baer in recent years. In 2009, it bought the private banking unit of the Dutch firm ING for around $500 million.

The deal is expected to close by early 2013. Perella Weinberg advised Julius Baer on the acquisition.



Peltz Takes Seat on Ingersoll-Rand Board

The activist investor Nelson Peltz is joining the board of Ingersoll-Rand, heading off a potential proxy fight.

Mr. Peltz disclosed in May that his fund, Trian Fund Management, had acquired a 7.05 percent stake in the manufacturing conglomerate, saying its shares were “currently undervalued in the marketplace and represent an attractive investment opportunity.” Trian said at the time that it wanted to discuss with senior management a restructuring of Ingersoll-Rand's key business units.

Mr. Peltz has been an advocate of corporate splits to try to unlock value, most famously in 2008, when he pushed Cadbury Schweppes to spin off its beverage businesses.

Ingersoll-Rand, whose manufactured brands include Thermo King, Kryptonite locks and Club Car golf carts, has looked to be a tempting target for a breakup. (For an undervalued conglomerate, Ingersoll-Rand is doing fairly well so far this year: its stock price is up nearly 48 percent year to date. )

In June, Trian disclosed that it had turned down an offer of a board seat.

But on Monday, Mike Lamach, Ingersoll-Rand's chief executive, said: “Following discussions with Trian Partners over the past few months, we have concluded that Nelson would be a valuable addition to Ingersoll-Rand's board. We welcome his perspective and ideas as we work towards our shared goal of enhancing value for our shareholders.”

Mr. Peltz will also join the corporate governance and nominating committee and the finance committee of the board, which will expand to 12 directors.

“I look forward to working closely and constructively with the board and management as Ingersoll-Rand evaluates strategic opportunities to drive growth and shareholder value, including proposals presented by Trian Partners and other alternatives identified by the board,” Mr. Peltz said.



Problems Riddle Moves to Collect Credit Card Debt

The same problems that plagued the foreclosure process - and prompted a multibillion-dollar settlement with big banks - are now emerging in the debt collection practices of credit card companies.

As they work through a glut of bad loans, companies like American Express, Citigroup and Discover Financial are going to court to recoup their money. But many of the lawsuits rely on erroneous documents, incomplete records and generic testimony from witnesses, according to judges who oversee the cases.

Lenders, the judges said, are churning out lawsuits without regard for accuracy and improperly collecting debts from consumers. The concerns echo a recent abuse in the foreclosure system, a practice known as robo-signing in which banks produced similar documents for different homeowners and did not review them.

“I would say that roughly 90 percent of the credit card lawsuits are flawed and can't prove the person owes the debt,” said Noach Dear, a state civil co urt judge in Brooklyn, who said he presides over as many as 100 such cases a day.

Last year, American Express sued Felicia Tancreto, claiming that she had stopped making payments and owed more than $16,000 on her credit card.

While Ms. Tancreto was behind on her payments, she contested owing the full amount, according to court records. In April, Judge Dear dismissed the lawsuit, citing a lack of evidence. The American Express employee who testified, the judge noted, provided generic testimony about the way the company maintained its records. The same witness gave similar evidence in other cases, which the judge said amounted to “robo-testimony.”

American Express and other credit card companies defended their practices. Sonya Conway, a spokeswoman for American Express, said, “we strongly disagree with Judge Dear's comments and believe that we have a strong process in place to ensure accuracy of testimony and affidavits provided to courts.”

Inte rviews with dozens of state judges, regulators and lawyers, however, indicated that such flaws are increasingly common in credit card suits. In certain instances, lenders are trying to collect money from consumers who have already paid their bills or increasing the size of the debts by adding erroneous fees and interest costs.

The scope of the lawsuits is vast. Some consumers dispute that they owe money at all. More commonly, borrowers are behind on their payments but contest the size of their debts.

The problem, according to judges, is that credit card companies are not always following the proper legal procedures, even when they have the right to collect money. Certain cases hinge on mass-produced documents because the lenders do not provide proof of the outstanding debts, like the original contract or payment history.

At times, lawsuits include falsified credit card statements, produced years after borrowers supposedly fell behind on their bills, accordi ng to the judges and others in the industry.

“This is robo-signing redux,” Peter Holland, a lawyer who runs the Consumer Protection Clinic at the University of Maryland Francis King Carey School of Law.

Lawsuits against credit card borrowers are flooding the courts, according to the judges. While the amount of bad debt has fallen since the financial crisis, lenders are trying to work through the soured loans and clean up their books. In all, borrowers are behind on $18.7 billion of credit card debt, or roughly 3 percent of the total, according to Equifax and Moody's Analytics.

Amid the surge in lawsuits, credit cards companies are facing scrutiny. The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency is investigating JPMorgan Chase after a former employee said that nearly 23,000 delinquent accounts had incorrect balances, according to people with knowledge of the investigation.

Linda Almonte, a former assistant vice president at JPMorgan, claimed in a whi stle-blower complaint that she had been fired after alerting her managers to flaws in the bank's records.

The currency office, which oversees the nation's largest banks, is also broadly looking into the industry's debt collection efforts, focusing in part on the documents included with lawsuits. A spokeswoman for JPMorgan declined to comment.

The Federal Trade Commission is working with courts across the country to improve the process for pursuing borrowers who are behind on their credit card payments, mortgages and other bills. In a recent review of the consumer litigation system, the commission found that credit card issuers and other companies were basing some lawsuits on incomplete or false paperwork.

“Our concerns center on the fact that debt collection lawsuits are a pure volume business,” said Tom Pahl, assistant director for the F.T.C.'s division of financial practices. “The documentation is very bare bones.”

The lenders disputed the s uggestion that they file lawsuits that include flawed or inaccurate documentation.

“We look at account records in our system to individually verify the accuracy of information before affidavits are filed and testimony is given,” said Ms. Conway, the American Express spokeswoman, who declined to comment on specific borrowers.

The industry has faced similar criticism over practices stemming from the housing crisis. Amid a surge in foreclosures, state attorneys general accused the banks of using faulty documents without reviewing them and improperly seizing homes. In February, five big banks agreed to pay $26 billion to settle the matter.

The errors in credit card suits often go undetected, according to the judges. Unlike in foreclosures, the borrowers typically do not show up in court to defend themselves. As a result, an estimated 95 percent of lawsuits result in default judgments in favor of lenders. With a default judgment, credit card companies can ga rnish a consumer's wages or freeze bank accounts to get their money back.

In 2010, Discover sued Taryn Gregory for more than $7,000 in credit card debt. Ms. Gregory, of Commerce, Ga., had fallen behind on her bills, but said she had accumulated only $4,000 in debt.

After the suit was filed, Ms. Gregory, a 41-year-old child care assistant, asked Discover for proof of the balance. The resulting documents, which were reviewed by The New York Times, have inconsistencies. One statement, for example, says it was produced in 2004, but advertisements on the bottom of the document bear a 2010 date.

The lawsuit against Ms. Gregory is still pending. Discover declined to comment. Judges have also raised concerns about witnesses and affidavits.

In May, Michael A. Ciaffa, a district court judge in Nassau County, N.Y., challenged the paperwork signed by a Citigroup employee in Kansas City, Mo. He found that one document “has the look and feel of a robo-signed affi davit, prepared in advance,” according to court records. The case is still pending.

Emily Collins, a spokeswoman for Citigroup, said: “We continually review the effectiveness of our controls and policies for credit card collections, and ensure that affidavits are validated for accuracy and signed by Citi employees with knowledge of the client's account. Citi Cards has a range of programs to support our clients who may be facing financial difficulty, and we make every effort to work with our clients to prevent delinquency.”

A review of dozens of court records showed that the same employee signed documents in cases filed against borrowers in three other states. In one lawsuit in Seattle, the employee attested in an affidavit in May that a customer, Vickie Sawadee, owed $14,000 on her Citigroup credit card. Although Ms. Sawadee was behind on her payments, she said she does not owe the full amount. She hired a lawyer to defend her case.

Many judges said t hat their hands are tied. Unless a consumer shows up to contest a lawsuit, the judges cannot question the banks or comb through the lawsuits to root out suspicious documents. Instead, they are generally required to issue a summary judgment, in essence an automatic win for the bank.

“I do suspect flaws,” said Harry Walsh, a superior court judge in Ventura, Calif. “But there is little I can do.”



Libor Case Energizes a Wall Street Watchdog

Months after he arrived in Washington in 2009, Gary Gensler knew he had a big case.

Huddled around his assistant's desk with a colleague, Mr. Gensler, then Wall Street's newest regulator, listened to a taped telephone call of two Barclays employees discussing plans to report false interest rates. When the brief recording ended, Mr. Gensler realized the gravity of the wrongdoing.

“We need to make this case even more of a priority,” he told his colleague at the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Stephen Obie, who already had been investigating Barclays for more than a year.

The Barclays case has now thrust Mr. Gensler - and his once-obscure agency - into the spotlight.

In June, the commission reached a settlement with Barclays in the rate-manipulation case, which produced the largest fine in the agency's nearly 40-year history. The deal is expected to be the first of many, as Mr. Gensler's team leads a global investigation into rate-rigging at more than a dozen big banks.

It is a new role for the agency, the industry's smallest regulator. For years, it was viewed as the Rodney Dangerfield of the regulatory world, with a light touch and little respect.

When the agency first opened the rate investigation in 2008, some banks dismissed the regulator, telling it to narrow the focus to a particular time period or trading desk. Barclays questioned whether the American regulator had the authority to examine a British bank, according to people with knowledge of the matter.

Now, Wall Street is taking the commission more seriously.

Along with the inquiry into rate manipulation, the agency is playing a central part in several prominent investigations, examining the blowup of MF Global and the multibillion-dollar trading loss at JPMorgan Chase. Mr. Gensler has also aggressively - some say obsessively - pushed the agency to adopt dozens of new rules under the Dodd-Frank law, the financial regulatory over haul.

“The change is night and day,” said Representative Barney Frank, Democrat of Massachusetts, the co-author of the sweeping law that bears his name.

“It was a toothless agency,” he said, but when “Gary became chairman, he was very aggressive.”

The agency's revival stems from the wave of new regulation. Dodd-Frank, passed in 2010, greatly expanded the responsibility of the agency, stretching its reach to the dark corners of the $300 trillion derivatives market. Before that, the agency oversaw the $40 trillion futures business.

Mr. Gensler has positioned himself as a chief advocate of the law, initially lobbying lawmakers to close loopholes and now overseeing the flurry of rule-making at his agency. After a long career at Goldman Sachs and a stint in the Wall Street-friendly Clinton administration, the job has given Mr. Gensler a shot at redemption.

But Mr. Gensler and his agency have faced a steep learning curve with the bureaucra tic and political ways of Washington.

To win support from fellow regulators, Mr. Gensler has agreed to dial back some rules. And while the agency's rule-writing has outpaced other financial regulators, the trading commission has missed multiple deadlines for completing the crackdown on derivatives, a central cause of the 2008 crisis.

Mr. Gensler has also drawn the ire of Congressional Republicans, who say his commission is overstepping its authority. Some bankers have taken aim at the agency, saying its rules threaten profits.

“No one likes their regulator right now, however good they are, and Gary is good,” said Eugene Ludwig, head of the Promontory Financial Group and a former bank regulator who knew Mr. Gensler from their days in the Clinton administration.

The new identity of the agency reflects the personal evolution of its leader.

A math whiz who grew up in a working-class Baltimore neighborhood, Mr. Gensler attended the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania. After an 18-year career at Goldman Sachs as a mergers and acquisitions banker and later an executive, he joined the Treasury Department.

At the time, the department oversaw the broad deregulation of the same markets Mr. Gensler now oversees. In 2009, some liberal lawmakers stalled Mr. Gensler's nomination to the commission, fearing that he remained a banker at heart.

Mr. Gensler, a father of three daughters, agrees that he has yet to shake his penchant for deal-making. When negotiating over the wording of a rule, he still props up his socked feet on an employee's desk, a habit common to bankers. His efforts now, however, are directed at reforming the industry that once made him millions.

“I think what we're trying to do is bring common-sense rules of the road to this really important marketplace,” he said in an interview.

As Congress debated Dodd-Frank, Mr. Gensler was a ubiquitous presence on Capitol Hill, pres suring lawmakers to beef up the details. The day the law became final, he stayed past 4 a.m. with Blanche Lincoln, then a senator from Arkansas, putting the finishing touches on several provisions.

“I told him that Dodd-Frank was his baby because he labored with it for at least nine months,” said Michael Dunn, a former C.F.T.C. commissioner who works at Patton Boggs.

With the intensity of a longtime banker, Mr. Gensler has pushed his staff to finish the rules promptly. He is an avid reader of the “Dodd-Frank Progress Report,” from the law firm Davis Polk & Wardwell, a publication that tracks rule-writing. Once, when he mistakenly thought the publication failed to count a C.F.T.C. rule, Mr. Gensler phoned a lawyer at the firm to request a correction.

A marathon runner and mountain climber, his fixation with speed has made him a brusque taskmaster at times.

Last year, when a small earthquake forced the agency to evacuate its offices, Mr. Gensler arranged a staff meeting at a cafe in the building's lobby. The employees, he said, could not afford to lose an afternoon of work.

Despite his demanding pace, colleagues say he is quick to compromise. When Scott O'Malia, a Republican commissioner of the agency, urged Mr. Gensler to tweak a complex derivatives rule, they convened the so-called Meiwah summit, referring to the Chinese restaurant in Washington where they completed a deal.

Mr. Gensler has also built relationships with other agencies, as they collaborate on Dodd-Frank. Mr. Gensler was a mock senator when Mary L. Schapiro, the head of the Securities and Exchange Commission, prepared for her confirmation hearing. Ms. Schapiro once baked cupcakes for Mr. Gensler's birthday.

“Together we can make this the most successful partnership in government,” she wrote in his copy of the Dodd-Frank law.

Even so, some industry players paint Mr. Gensler as a stubborn negotiator with a knack for harangu ing Wall Street. He was a co-author of a book, “The Great Mutual Fund Trap,” that criticized the industry in which his twin brother, Robert, works.

And after two Wall Street trade groups sued the agency over a rule curbing speculative trading, Mr. Gensler took a harsh tone with one executive who came to the commission to lobby on the issue. “You sued us, so it's clear what you think about the rule,” he said, dismissing the executive's concerns, said a person briefed on the meeting.

Bristling at the sometimes-abrasive approach, Republican lawmakers have fought to freeze or depress the commission's $205 million budget.

While the figure is a fraction of other regulatory budgets, lawmakers and lobbyists say Mr. Gensler could cut costs by tempering his ambitions.

“I wonder if Mr. Gensler is more focused on building a personal legacy and expanding his agency's powers than making the economy stronger and safer,” said Steven Lofchie, a partner at the law firm Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft.

Others, however, have praised Mr. Gensler for marshaling resources and stepping up the agency's game. Mr. Gensler has sharply increased his staff to more than 700 employees. He also hired a former federal prosecutor, David Meister, as the head of enforcement.

The agency, which has previously had big cases against energy companies, brought a record number of enforcement actions last year, notably against Wall Street firms.

“We've come into our own as a regulator to be reckoned with, out there doing our best to protect investors and consumers every day,” said Bart Chilton, a Democratic commissioner.

The rate-rigging case is the commission's biggest investigation yet. The case centers on how banks set a key benchmark, the London interbank offered rate, or Libor, which affects the cost of borrowing for consumers and corporations.

The investigation heated up after Mr. Gensler heard the Barclays recordin g. As the examination broadened, the agency assigned additional employees to the case, nearly 15 enforcement lawyers, up from three.

Mr. Gensler also championed measures to prevent Barclays from repeating its mistakes. The new controls forced the bank to report rates based on actual transactions when possible and to prevent conflicts of interest.

After more than four years of investigating, the agency filed its action against the bank on June 27. For Mr. Gensler, it was a bittersweet day. While it was the biggest moment in his regulatory career, it also was the sixth anniversary of his wife's death from breast cancer.

Publicly, he has focused on the win. “It's about the integrity of the market,” Mr. Gensler said. “This agency stood up for the public and said that rates have to be based on honest figures.”