Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae Ex-CEOs Sued for Understating Loans

By David Glovin and Joshua Gallu
Business Week
Comment by Jim Campbell
Wait a minute Barney Frank promised that there would never be a housing bubble and that both entities were financially solvent.  There will be no justice rendered until he and those that lied before the House Committee order by President George W. Bush back in 2004share a cell with the Barnster. 
Could that be why he isn’t running for election in 2012? Or perhaps he was being honest in his interview with Bill O’Reilly at FOX NEWS about his pending his gender reassignment surgery.
That’s my story and I’m sticking to it.
This video is very likely not the one you have seen in the past.

See indictment here:

Daniel Mudd, the former chief executive officer of Fannie Mae, and Richard Syron, ex-CEO of Freddie Mac, were sued by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for understating by hundreds of billions of dollars the subprime loans held by the firms.

Mudd and Syron

The lawsuits filed today in Manhattan federal court were followed by an SEC statement that it had entered into “non- prosecution agreements” with each company. Fannie Mae, the government-sponsored enterprise which issues almost half of all mortgage-backed securities, and Freddie Mac, the McLean, Virginia-based mortgage-finance company, had “agreed to accept responsibility” for their conduct, the SEC said.

The agency said in the lawsuits that Syron, Mudd and other executives understated exposure to subprime mortgage loans. From 2007 to 2008, Freddie Mac executives said the company’s exposure was from $2 billion to $6 billion when it was actually as high as $244 billion, according to one SEC complaint.

From 2006 to 2008, Washington-based Fannie Mae executives said the firm’s exposure to subprime mortgage and reduced- documentation loans was about $4.8 billion when it was almost 10 times greater, according to the regulator.

‘Told the World’

“Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac executives told the world that their subprime exposure was substantially smaller than it really was,” Robert Khuzami, director of the SEC’s enforcement division, said in a statement. “These material misstatements occurred during a time of acute investor interest in financial institutions’ exposure to subprime loans, and misled the market about the amount of risk on the company’s books.”

The lawsuits, which together name six former executives at the government-sponsored entities, come amid criticism from judges and lawmakers that the SEC hasn’t done enough to hold individuals responsible for misconduct related to the housing crisis and financial-market collapse that followed.

Fannie Mae, based in Washington, and Freddie Mac were seized and placed under U.S. control in 2008 as losses on soured loans pushed them to the brink of insolvency. The two have been sustained by more than $150 billion in U.S. aid. Congress and the Obama administration are examining plans for winding down the firms and building a new system for financing housing debt.

The two non-prosecution agreements require Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae to “accept responsibility” for their conduct and to cooperate with the SEC probe of the former executives.

Legal Fees

“Under the agreement, without admitting or denying liability, Fannie Mae has offered to accept responsibility for its conduct and to not dispute, contest or contradict a set of factual statements regarding the disclosures,” Fannie Mae said today in a securities filing.

“The SEC will not initiate an enforcement action against Freddie Mac or require the company to pay a monetary penalty,” the company said in a statement. Fannie Mae said in a statement that it is “pleased to bring the SEC inquiry to a close.”

At least part of the ex-executives’ legal fees will be covered by indemnification policies, said Michael Cosgrove, a spokesman for Freddie Mac, and Andrew Wilson, a spokesman for Fannie Mae. Cosgrove declined to comment on whether Freddie Mac will be responsible for covering a damage award. Wilson said it wasn’t clear if Fannie Mae will be responsible for damages.

In the suits against the former executives, the SEC wants financial penalties and disgorgement, and an order barring them from serving as officers or directors of other companies.

Fortress Investment Group

Also named as defendants are Patricia Cook, Freddie Mac’s former executive vice president; Donald Bisenius, ex-senior vice president at Freddie Mac; Enrico Dallavecchia, who was chief risk officer for Fannie Mae; and Thomas Lund, Fannie’s Mae’s former executive vice president.

Mudd, now CEO of Fortress Investment Group LLC, was ousted when Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were seized by regulators in September 2008. In a statement, he said the U.S. government and investors were aware of “every piece of material data about loans held by Fannie Mae.”

“The government reviewed and approved the company’s disclosures during my tenure, and through the present,” Mudd said. “Now it appears that the government has negotiated a deal to hold the government, and government-appointed executives who have signed the same disclosures since my departure, blameless – – so that it can sue individuals it fired years ago.”

‘Thorough Review’

Fortress said in a statement that the complaint against Mudd “does not relate to Fortress, and this matter has not impacted our company or our business operations. We are undertaking a thorough review of the matters.”

Michael Levy, Lund’s attorney at Bingham McCutchen LLP in Washington, said his client “did not mislead anyone. During a period of unprecedented disruption in the housing market, nobody worked more diligently or honestly to serve the best interests of both investors and homeowners.”

Tom Green, Syron’s attorney at Sidley Austin LLP in Washington, said there was “no uniform definition” of “subprime” in 2007 and that Freddie Mac included in its disclosures tables detailing credit risks. “There was no shortage of meaningful disclosures,” he said in a statement.

Dallavecchia is now chief risk officer at PNC Financial Services Group. His lawyer, Kelly Kramer, said in a statement that Dallavecchia warned in 2007 that subprime loans “could infect the entire housing market” and made clear that “Fannie Mae’s credit risks were not limited to its subprime holdings.”

Easier Loans

Steven Salky, Cook’s lawyer at Zuckerman Spaeder LLP, and Walter Ricciardi, an attorney for Bisenius at Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, didn’t immediately return calls for comment on the lawsuits.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were created by Congress to encourage homeownership by making it easier for people to get loans. The firms now own or guarantee less than half of all U.S. mortgage debt, most of which they pool and sell on the secondary market.

During Mudd’s tenure as CEO of Fannie Mae, from 2004 through its government takeover in 2008, the firm expanded its business with lower-quality mortgages. Mudd said in a 2006 interview that he planned to expand the companies’ holdings to include more higher-risk loans. Anything else would be “counterproductive,” he told investors in March of that year.

In April 2007, Mudd said in testimony before lawmakers that the firm’s exposure to subprime loans “remains minimal, less than 2.5 percent of our book.”

At the same hearing, Syron, who ran Freddie Mac from 2004 to 2008, said his firm hadn’t “been heavily involved in subprime all along.”

Within 18 months, regulators seized Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac after losses on soured loans pushed them to the brink of insolvency.

The cases are SEC v. Syron, 11-cv-09201, and SEC v. Mudd, 11-cv-09202, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (Manhattan).

–Editors: Michael Hytha, John Pickering

To contact the reporters on this story: David Glovin in New York federal court at; Joshua Gallu in Washington at

To contact the editors responsible for this story: Michael Hytha at; Lawrence Roberts at

About these ads

2 thoughts on “Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae Ex-CEOs Sued for Understating Loans

  1. No one arrested! because they are govt contractors and congress gave all of them immunity from prosecution and they can’t be internally audited.So there must be some ‘ whistle blowers’ that have given internal info or some ‘ plea deals’ with some of the lesser criminals that have pled guilty for their testimony. Will one in Congress please reinstate the constitutional right for internal audits of use of public monies and make all those persons working for govt contractors subject to our criminal laws as it always used to be in this country. When does AG Holder sue the Federal Reserve for return of all the monies ‘ stolen’ from individuals like me? Why must I, an old, disabled woman from rural OK have to do this for the monies that ‘ disappeared there for my life sustaining medical care that disappeared there after being coded in at the US dept of labor for my permanent medical care with Federal workers comp and then there is the $ 4 million by govt contractor claims processor stealing my claims and ID and turning them into 17 each and used for the ‘ TARP” monies? Remember since 2005 no one can get a letter of waiver on govt debts, even when stolen by the contractors, as one can get for a stolen credit card. Few understand that when laws are written that causes monies to have to be transferred from agency to agency before getting to the right agency for use for someone or something; the Federal reserve gets it in between and has to release it. That includes social security checks. When one calls a govt agency , or usually the contractor call center and they say a check has been issued; it has only been sent to the federal reserve and they must then permit it being sent on or sent to you. Linda Joy Adams with monies and files missing in 5 agencies under the control of Affiliated computer Services created by the investors? of the federal reserve. A coup d’etat of t state and federal govt and even other nations.( ALL DOCMENTED BY GOVT DOCUMENTS< AGENCY DECISIONS< AND other evidence good enough for a search warrant if these individuals were subject to our criminal laws.

  2. Not enough people are being thrown under the bus here. Franklin Raines, a “good friend” of Obama got 50 million out of his time at Fanny & Freddie. Jamie Gorelock left with 26 million. Jim Johnson also got millions and was asked by Obama to look for the right V.P. candidate to run with him. In addition, three democratic senators got paid money–presumably to do nothing about what was happening at F & F. Obama got 126,349. Dodd got 165,400. Kerry, the war hero, boat docker out of state to avoid taxes, got 111,000. I wonder what Obama and Kerry said when they learned that Dodd got more?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s