[Quote]:

Judd Gregg, a former New Hampshire senator who was a lead Republican negotiator on TARP, and Barney Frank, a Massachusetts Democrat who chaired the House Financial Services Committee, both say they were kept in the dark.

“We didn’t know the specifics,” says Gregg, who’s now an adviser to Goldman Sachs.

“We were aware emergency efforts were going on,” Frank says. “We didn’t know the specifics.”

OK, wait, so you knew the Fed was helping out banks beyond what was authorized under TARP, and you asked no questions?

[Quote]:

Today’s juicy Apple rumor is that Microsoft is planning to bring some form of its Office software suite to the iPad. For a company whose business is based on selling software for the most popular hardware platforms, this make a lot of sense. And for customers using the ubiquitous Word application, it’s huge.

[Quote]:

A cyber warfare expert claims he has linked the Stuxnet computer virus that attacked Iran’s nuclear program in 2010 to Conficker, a mysterious “worm” that surfaced in late 2008 and infected millions of PCs.

Conficker was used to open back doors into computers in Iran, then infect them with Stuxnet, according to research from John Bumgarner, a retired U.S. Army special-operations veteran and former intelligence officer.

“Conficker was a door kicker,” said Bumgarner, chief technology officer for the U.S. Cyber Consequences Unit, a non-profit group that studies the impact of cyber threats. “It built out an elaborate smoke screen around the whole world to mask the real operation, which was to deliver Stuxnet.”

[Quote]:

One memory particularly troubles Theckston. He says that some account executives earned a commission seven times higher from subprime loans, rather than prime mortgages. So they looked for less savvy borrowers — those with less education, without previous mortgage experience, or without fluent English — and nudged them toward subprime loans.

These less savvy borrowers were disproportionately blacks and Latinos, he said, and they ended up paying a higher rate so that they were more likely to lose their homes. Senior executives seemed aware of this racial mismatch, he recalled, and frantically tried to cover it up.

Theckston, who has a shelf full of awards that he won from Chase, such as “sales manager of the year,” showed me his 2006 performance review. It indicates that 60 percent of his evaluation depended on him increasing high-risk loans.

[Quote]:

The Massachusetts lawsuit, filed in state court in Boston, accuses Bank of America Corp, JPMorgan Chase & Co Inc, Citigroup Inc, Wells Fargo & Co and GMAC of deceptive foreclosure practices, such as using robo-signers and false documents.

"Our suit alleges that the banks have charted a destructive path by cutting corners and rushing to foreclose on homeowners without following the rule of law," Coakley said in a statement.

Here’s what the complaint says about the government sponsored loan mod programs:

[Quote]:

The Bank Defendants frequently represent to borrowers and the public that they are actively assisting distressed borrowers…Instead, however, upon information and belief, each of the Bank. Defendants has deceived Massachusetts borrowers about loan modification requirements, by, without limitation., misrepresenting that:

—Borrowers must be over sixty days delinquent to get a loan modification, when in fact actual delinquency is not required. Borrowers may be eligible even if they are at simply at risk of imminent default. Such misrepresentations resat in increased and unnecessary defaults.

—If borrowers are over ninety days delinquent they will receive priority treatment, which is false; and which results in unnecessary additional defaults and extended delinquencies.

—Certain borrowers cannot be considered based oil the type or seasonal, nature of their income, when in fact such factors are not determinative of eligibility. This results in borrowers who otherwise may qualify for a loan modification being improperly denied or dissuaded from applying.

…In spite of the Bank Defendants’ conduct above, certain borrowers have received loan modifications, often after waiting months, hiring counsel, and/or answering repeated requests to provide identical application information. Once approved, borrowers typically must execute and return written loan modifications to their servicer and then begin making the required modified monthly payments. On numerous occasions, however, and often after months of accepting the bo owers’ payments pursuant to the very loan modifications the Bank Defendants approved, each of the Bank Defendants has informed these borrowers that their loan modifications were in fact rejected, were never accepted by investors, were never in place, and/or that foreclosure auctions were scheduled imminently…The Bank Defendants routinely make misrepresentations to borrowers and/or their counsel regarding pending foreclosure proceedings, including, among other misrepresentations, that while loan modification negotiations are occurring, foreclosure proceedings will not continue and/or that foreclosure auctions will be postponed. As negotiations progress, however, borrowers and/or their counsel often learn, whether through public notices or communications with other employees or agents of the relevant Bank Defendant, that the foreclosure auctions are continuing as scheduled.