iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

BofA Lawyers Kept AIG's Legal Threat Under Wraps For Seven Months

Bank Of America

First Posted: 08/30/11 04:12 PM ET Updated: 10/30/11 06:12 AM ET

NEW YORK (Lauren Tara LaCapra) - Top Bank of America Corp lawyers knew as early as January that American International Group Inc was prepared to sue the bank for more than $10 billion, seven months before the lawsuit was filed, according to sources familiar with the matter.

Bank of America shares fell more than 20 percent on August 8, the day the lawsuit was filed, adding to worries about the stability of the largest U.S. bank. It wasn't until Warren Buffett stepped up with a $5 billion investment that those fears were eased, though hardly eliminated.

The bank made no mention of the lawsuit threat in a quarterly regulatory filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission just four days earlier. Nor did management discuss it on conference calls about quarterly results and other pending legal claims.

The SEC's rules for litigation disclosure are murky, and some lawyers said Bank of America may have been justified in not revealing AIG's lawsuit before it was filed. The bank's litigation disclosures are in line with those of many rivals.

But other lawyers said banks have an obligation to disclose legal threats that could have major consequences.

"Publicly owned companies are supposed to disclose material threatened litigation under generally accepted accounting principles," said Richard Rowe, a former director of the SEC's Division of Corporation Finance, who was commenting generally and not specifically about Bank of America.

Rowe, now a partner in the Washington, D.C., office of law firm Proskauer Rose, said bank executives must make a "judgment call" as to what is material, but "the general rule is, if it's threatened litigation and it's material, and you can put a number on it, you should disclose it."

AIG's lawsuit shows why investors are so fearful: they have no idea how much litigation lurks behind closed doors.

"Management surely has a credibility problem with investors," said Jonathan Finger, whose Finger Interests Number One Ltd in Houston owns Bank of America shares. "They continue to under-address or under-disclose on the mortgage issue."

Finger in 2009 sued the bank over its disclosures related to the takeover of Merrill Lynch & Co.

Bank of America and AIG declined to comment for this article.

DISCLOSING MORE

SEC staff have this year advised banks including Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase & Co, Citigroup Inc, Wells Fargo & Co, Goldman Sachs Group Inc, and Morgan Stanley to disclose more information about lawsuits that have been filed, as well as legal proceedings that they know the government is considering.

Banks have responded by providing additional information, including legal loss estimates in some cases.

But the agency has given banks more leeway in disclosing the expected cost of early-stage litigation, or threats of litigation whose outcome is more difficult to predict, according to securities lawyers and current and former regulatory officials.

There are two standards for disclosing legal liabilities. One under banks' legal proceedings relies on whether losses are "reasonably probable" and "reasonably estimable." Another, under management's discussion and analysis, is based on whether losses are "reasonably possible." Disclosure relies heavily on management's assessment of the merits of a case.

Companies might need to disclose large potential lawsuits, even if they believe a loss is improbable, as well as less consequential cases if a loss appears certain, said Meredith Cross, director of the agency's Division of Corporation Finance, in an interview with Reuters about the SEC's disclosure requirements.

"The goal has been to have better disclosures, which should result in fewer surprises," said Cross, who was speaking generally and not commenting on any specific institution.

Legal experts say it is difficult for top bank executives to decide exactly what they have to disclose in relation to pending and potential legal matters. That is particularly true in the current environment, they said, in which confidence in large banks is so easily shaken by legal threats that may or may not have merit.

"This is a classic problem in the disclosure regime with litigation," said Charles Elson, director of the John L. Weinberg Center for Corporate Governance at the University of Delaware. "You're required to disclose anything material. The question is, 'is it material?' You have to gauge the size and the probability of success, which is very hard to evaluate."


FOLLOW HUFFPOST BUSINESS
Subscribe to the HuffPost Money newsletter!
Filed by Maxwell Strachan  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 11
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Steelsil
Warren/Grayson 2016! Yes We Can!
12:42 AM on 08/31/2011
Is anyone on planet Earth surprised that the B of A chose to screw the little people again?
08:47 PM on 08/30/2011
When are people going to see that B of America being ran by a bunch of people who don't care about giving good service, but to enrich themselves. Pull your funds, close them down, that's the only way to get rid of this type of dung.
11:29 PM on 08/30/2011
American companies need to fire the bunch that are running some of these failing and failed.
Most know nothing about their companies. Plus they are not worth their salaries.
If the business were preforming well they stocks would be up. Instead of worrying about the stock build a great company and the stock will be great also.
Bring our Jobs Home. Long term jobs with benefit.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Tom95134
06:27 PM on 08/30/2011
It seems to me that if Buffett made his $5B investment but BofA were setting on this information since January he would have legal cause to demand an immediate repayment of his investment.
photo
grizzly bear55
King of the forest
08:37 PM on 08/30/2011
BAC should eventually sue it's own Countrywide for $30 Billion or more and bankrupt it.

It will get rid of all liability and get back its $4 billion invested in Countrywide, plus the money already paid to settle claims.

I would fire their lead lawyer and use this plan.
03:50 PM on 08/30/2011
the rule in washingon now is the banks do whatt they want,
Had Obama grown a pair and put some of these crooks in jail wjhere they belong he cruise to a relection. I ain't voting for him again no matter what. Better to have the republicans force us rightward, than a president who pretends he's a democrat and does the same thing. had he appointed or listened to anyone outside of his wall street insiders maybe we'd have a recovery now. Still no banklers in jail. Bof A had the robo doc, the most poor mortgages seucritizartions and fruad, and many other foul deeds they pay fineas for. time to just liquidate the company, it's a criminal enterprise
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
jsrl317
Persuade me or prove me wrong, and I will change
03:45 PM on 08/30/2011
IS the SEC now a toothless tiger? What is the point of their existence if they can no longer compel compliance?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
BonnieDoon
Fool me once...
03:56 PM on 08/30/2011
Now a toothless tiger?

They've been sitting on their hands, turning a deaf ear to whisleblowers and ignoring warnings of wrongdoing for years.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
PrincessAnnie
Austin Proud
04:20 PM on 08/30/2011
Not so much a toothless tiger as willing accomplice.