Tuesday, November 6, 2012

Glaring Omission

Recent information has disclosed that less than $130 million of the $170 million in out-of-court settlements has gone to the Temporary Corporate Credit Union Stabilization Fund (Stabilization Fund). More than $40 million of the settlement went to two law firms that employed by NCUA on a contingency fee arrangement.

However, during the October 4 Virtual Town Hall Meeting, NCUA Chairman Debbie Matz stated that the $170 million in settlements was going to the Stabilization Fund, when the agency knew this was not true.

Below are excerpts from the transcript of the Town Hall Meeting dealing with the lawsuits and the out-of-court settlements.

Todd Harper: We have a question here about the lawsuits that NCUA has been bringing. What is the latest with the lawsuits against the big lenders who caused the big losses at the corporates? Is there talk of a settlement? And I think Mike McKenna, you’re probably in the best place to answer that.

Mike McKenna: Well, we’ve sued a number of different underwriters. We’ve sued Goldman Sachs, Bank of Scotland, JPMorgan, Wachovia, UBS, and Barclays. We’ve settled with 3 underwriters. We’ve settled with Deutsche Bank, Citi Group, and HSBC for approximately $170 million.

Todd Harper: We have a question here about the $170 million that NCUA has already received to date in settlements with Wall Street financial underwriters. How will this $170 million that NCUA has collected affect future Corporate Stabilization Fund assessments charged to credit unions?

Chairman Debbie Matz: That $170 million is returned to the Corporate Stabilization Fund and is used to reduce corporate assessments going forward.

While NCUA Chairman Matz is correct that the settlements will lower future assessments, the failure to acknowledge that less than $130 million of the $170 million in settlements was being applied to the Stabilization Fund balance is a glaring omission on the part of Chairman Matz. If this information had been disclosed, it could have raised additional uncomfortable questions for the agency.


  1. and thats because Fenner wanted to feed his buddy some business.
    any chance Issa can grab some of that lofty retirement pay Fenner is receiving and use it to pay down assessments?
    looks like we need keith leggett and aba to look after our interests, since ncua and cuna arent.

  2. Keith we need to keep the focus on this issue and bring this lated information to the hill. NCUA is out of control and so is the leadership there. If credit unions don't revolt now we are going into ruins.

  3. Omission huh? You're too kind.

  4. Where is NAFCU? Where is CUNA? Call it transparency. Where is the OIG? Where is the criminal prosecution? Don't hold your breath. Once again we see NAFCU and CUNA in bed with the NCUA - figuretively speaking - with all due respect to Debra Matz.



The content is provided for educational purposes only, with the understanding that neither the authors, contributors, nor the publishers of this site are engaged in rendering legal, accounting or other expert or professional services. If legal or other expert assistance is required, the services of a competent professional should be sought.

Comments appearing in response to articles appearing on this site do not necessarily reflect the views of the ABA. ABA makes no representations regarding the truth or accuracy of commentary or opinions that may be posted in response to the articles that appear on this website.

The inclusion herein of any link to a website, either in the text of an article or in a comment, does not denote any approval, sponsorship, or endorsement by the ABA, and ABA is not responsible for the content or opinions expressed on those linked websites or related commentary. This content is not licensed to third parties sites and is not affiliated with any third party site. Any reference to the author or this content on any third party site on the Internet is not authorized by the ABA.

It is the policy of the American Bankers Association to comply fully with all antitrust laws. Certain discussions should be considered off-limits, including those that contain competitively sensitive data such as price and cost information, or statements that could be construed as reflecting an attempt or desire to control or influence a particular market or markets. Future pricing or other prospective competitive information should never be shared.