Case of Wall Street greed gone too far

Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein was one of the executives whose stock award was accelerated to beat higher tax rate.

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

• Goldman Sachs granted $65 million in stock to execs before new tax rates began


• Susan Antilla says the firm's CEO had endorsed higher rates, called for entitlement cuts


• She says Goldman benefits from the implicit promise that U.S. will bail it out


• Antilla: It was unseemly for Goldman to rush the payments to shield execs from new rates

Editor's note: Susan Antilla is a columnist at Bloomberg View and a contributor to TheStreet.com. She has written about finance for more than 30 years. She is author of "Tales From the Boom-Boom Room: The Landmark Legal Battles That Exposed Wall Street's Shocking Culture of Sexual Harassment." Follow her on Twitter @antillaview.

(CNN) -- Nobody likes to pay taxes, so can you blame the good folks at Goldman Sachs & Co. for doing what they could to avoid the higher rates that kicked in on January 1?

While the rest of us were donning our party clothes on New Year's Eve, the legal worker bees at Goldman were pushing the send button on 10 regulatory filings to the Securities and Exchange Commission.

By the time the ball dropped in Times Square, regulators had been notified that $65 million in Goldman stock had been granted a month early, helping a cluster of powerful multimillionaire executives trim their tax tab.

Among the 10 who shared that $65 million, Chief Executive Officer Lloyd Blankfein, Chief Operating Officer Gary Cohn and Chief Financial Officer David Viniar wound up with $8.4 million apiece in Goldman stock.

Susan Antilla

Blankfein's compensation in 2011 was $16.2 million. Cohn and Viniar that year made $15.8 million. Even Gordon Gekko would be impressed to see that bosses making that much money were able to catch a tax break for a couple hundred thousand.

The 10 executives who skirted 2013's higher rates were not the only Goldmanites who benefited from the "accelerated" vesting. Michael DuVally, a Goldman spokesman, acknowledged there was "a group larger than" the 10 but declined to say how many. DuVally would not comment on who made the decision to grant the shares early.

The shrewd Goldman move is hardly unique among rich business executives or even 99 percenters of more modest means. It was no secret that higher taxes were coming this year, and taxpayers of all shapes and sizes did what they could to ensure that "tax events" would occur in 2012.

Even environmental activist and Nobel Prize winner Al Gore tried, albeit without success, to unload his Current TV to Al Jazeera before the new year dawned.

What makes the Goldman move distasteful is that it wasn't even two months ago that CEO Blankfein was mouthing off in a Wall Street Journal op-ed that he endorsed tax increases "especially for the wealthiest" -- along with a plug to cut entitlements to all you freeloaders out there.

If you're pushing the position that the rich should pay more to help fix the deficit, it doesn't quite follow to employ a tax dodge, says Dennis Kelleher, president of the Washington-based public interest group Better Markets Inc.

"Goldman's quickie year-end tax shenanigans deprived the government of what it otherwise would get," he says. "So they either cause the debt to go up, or cause others to pay more by the taxes they are avoiding."

DuVally, the Goldman spokesman, declined to comment when I asked whether it was inconsistent for Goldman to make a move for its executives to avoid taxes after Blankfein endorsed increases for the wealthy.

I've got to hand it to Goldman. The firm is a master of the "have-your-cake-and-eat-it-too" brand of politics and public relations. One minute, Goldman is cranking out press releases about its devotion to women entrepreneurs in its philanthropic "10,000 women" program. The next, it is announcing its annual list of new partners that includes a paltry 10 women but 60 men.

Goldman was a victim on the defensive when Greg Smith, a former employee, wrote a New York Times op-ed on March 14, blasting the firm for having "morally bankrupt people" who needed to be weeded out. You could almost feel sorry for poor Goldman, which shipped out a memo reminding employees that their estimable employer had been named one of the best places to work in the United Kingdom only weeks before the London-based Smith's "Why I Am Leaving Goldman Sachs" essay.

By the time Smith published a book seven months later, the firm had turned ruthless revenge-seeker, even sharing parts of Smith's self-evaluations with the media. A "best place to work?" Really? Careful what you say in the press -- and in your HR file -- if you get your paycheck from a Goldman-style operation.

The brouhaha over Smith's op-ed and book stirred up debate of the "What did you expect of an investment bank operating in capitalistic society?" type.

Fair enough. Banks are not in the philanthropy business -- even if they spend as much time as Goldman does talking about its good deeds and famous "business principles." ("Our clients always come first" is famously No. 1 on the list.)

At Goldman and other "too big to fail" banks, though, employees walk through the doors each morning knowing that the rest of us will be forced to bail them out again should another crisis ensue. We taxpayers provide the insurance policy that they enjoy without ever sending us premiums. In October of 2008, Goldman got $10 billion in taxpayer money from the Troubled Asset Relief Program, which it ultimately paid back.

Blankfein, like other bank CEOs, would later make the case that Goldman wasn't "relying on" that government help.

But leaf through the tomes of some of the regulators who lived through the crisis, and you start to wonder whether our tax-dodging heroes might be out of jobs today if the public hadn't fronted a bailout.

From "Bull by the Horns," by former Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. chairman Sheila Bair: Goldman and Morgan Stanley were "teetering on the edge" in the fall of 2008.

From "Bailout: An Inside Account of how Washington Abandoned Main Street While Rescuing Wall Street," by Neil Barofsky, former special inspector general to oversee the Troubled Assets Relief Program: Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke "confided that he believed that Goldman Sachs would have been the next to go" after Morgan Stanley.

We need to change the conversation here.

Goldman and its too-big-to-fail brethren are banks that accepted welfare and are in debt to U.S. taxpayers for averting disaster. This hasn't been about hard-nosed capitalism since those first TARP wire transfers made their way into Goldman Sachs' coffers.

As for the bank's recent tax-reduction maneuver, it's another reminder that Goldman's management is either clueless about how bad it looks or doesn't care. Sometimes bad PR is a just a cost of doing business.

Follow @CNNOpinion on Twitter

Join us at Facebook/CNNOpinion

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Susan Antilla.

Read More..

Arianespace says 2012 sales leapt by 30%

PARIS: The European space launch company Arianespace said Tuesday that its 2012 sales rose 30 per cent and forecast that it would dominate Russian and US rivals this year with a market share of more than 60 per cent.

Arianespace sales soared to more than 1.3 billion euros, and the company said that it already covered 60 per cent of the global market last year, bringing its order book to 4.0 billion euros, or three years' worth of activity.

This year, the company plans 12 launches with three different vehicles, the giant Ariane 5 rocket, the smaller Vega, and the Russian rocket Soyuz, up from 10 in 2012, chief executive Jean-Yves Le Gall told a press conference.

He called 2012 a "remarkable" year, noting that the company had launched seven Ariane 5 rockets to mark its 10th consecutive year without a failure, and had put a total of 75 tonnes of satellites into orbit.

Arianespace could even surpass 12 launches this year if one of its rivals is unable to honour their contracts, Le Gall noted, joking: "When they sign contracts we are the one that launches the satellites."

Competitors include the private US firm SpaceX, which developed its own launch vehicle over a period of 10 years and successfully delivered a payload last year to the International Space Station with its reusable Dragon launch vehicle.

The Russian rocket Proton has had a spotty launch record meanwhile, but its successor Angara is set for its first launch this year.

Elsewhere, the US-Russian company Sea Launch is in financial trouble, while Chinese rockets are not yet serious rivals for Arianespace.

The European group still depends on subsidies from countries that have backed it from the beginning, but Le Gall estimated that it needed a little more than 100 million euros last year, down from 125 million a year before, and 250 million 10 years earlier.

Ariane 5 is to be replaced by an Ariane 6 rocket, pending confirmation of that project next year. Arianespace forecasts that it would then be profitable without public aid.

- AFp/jc

Read More..

The hottest year on record

Extreme heat, drought ravage Midwest

Extreme heat, drought ravage Midwest

Extreme heat, drought ravage Midwest

Extreme heat, drought ravage Midwest

Extreme heat, drought ravage Midwest

Extreme heat, drought ravage Midwest

Extreme heat, drought ravage Midwest

Extreme heat, drought ravage Midwest

Extreme heat, drought ravage Midwest

Extreme heat, drought ravage Midwest

Extreme heat, drought ravage Midwest

Extreme heat, drought ravage Midwest

Extreme heat, drought ravage Midwest

Extreme heat, drought ravage Midwest

Extreme heat, drought ravage Midwest

Extreme heat, drought ravage Midwest

Extreme heat, drought ravage Midwest

Extreme heat, drought ravage Midwest

Extreme heat, drought ravage Midwest

Extreme heat, drought ravage Midwest

Extreme heat, drought ravage Midwest

Extreme heat, drought ravage Midwest

Extreme heat, drought ravage Midwest

Extreme heat, drought ravage Midwest

Extreme heat, drought ravage Midwest

Extreme heat, drought ravage Midwest

Extreme heat, drought ravage Midwest

Extreme heat, drought ravage Midwest

Extreme heat, drought ravage Midwest

Extreme heat, drought ravage Midwest

Extreme heat, drought ravage Midwest

Read More..

USADA head: I got death threats during Armstrong probe

(CBS News) Travis Tygart is the head of the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency, which polices U.S. Olympic sports. Lance Armstrong won the world's most grueling event, the Tour de France, seven times. But after Tygart's investigation, Armstrong lost all of his titles. In his first interview, Tygart spoke with us for the premier of a new program, "60 Minutes Sports" on Showtime. Tygart says Armstrong was doping in his very first win at the Tour de France in 1999. The drug was EPO, which boosts endurance.

TRAVIS TYGART: Six samples that were taken from Lance Armstrong were retested in '05. And they were positive.

SCOTT PELLEY: In '99, when the tests were originally taken, was it reported that they were negative?

TYGART: There was no test for EPO. They were not tested for EPO at that time.

PELLEY: And when you tested for them in 2005, you discovered that they were --

TYGART: All six were flaming positive.

PELLEY: Flaming positive?

TYGART: Flaming positive.

Armstrong allegedly offered large "donation" to doping agency
Atty. denies report Lance Armstrong will admit doping
Lance Armstrong sued for more than $1.5M by U.K. newspaper over libel case

Tygart told Pelley that throughout the investigation, witnesses were intimidated to try to keep the code of silence from breaking.

PELLEY: Was Lance Armstrong personally involved in intimidating these other riders to keep them quiet?

TYGART: He was. It was tough. All -- all these witnesses were -- were scared of the repercussions of them simply telling the truth.

PELLEY: What could Lance Armstrong do to them?

TYGART: Incinerate them.

Former teammate Levi Leipheimer felt the heat. In his sworn affidavit, he says he came to a cycling dinner after he testified to the grand jury. Leipheimer says Armstrong was there and sent Leipheimer's wife a text that read, "Run don't walk."

PELLEY: What did she take it to mean?

TYGART: It's a veiled threat. Knowing her husband had just testified, truthfully, in front of the grand jury and had told citizens of this country about this great fraud. It was a message: You better run.

PELLEY: Your investigation showed that there were personal threats made against riders who had decided to come clean. I wonder if there were any threats against you.

TYGART: There were, Scott.

PELLEY: These threats came from where?

TYGART: Emails, letters.

PELLEY: Anonymous?

TYGART: Yeah.

PELLEY: Can you remember any of the lines from the emails or the letters?

TYGART: The worst was probably putting a bullet in my head.

PELLEY: Did you take that seriously?

TYGART: Absolutely.

To hear the rest of Travis Tygart's story, tune into the premiere edition of "60 Minutes Sports" tomorrow at 10:00 p.m. on the Showtime Network.

Read More..

Menu Calorie Counts: How Accurate Are They?

They are supposed to help America's obesity problem: calorie counts boldly displayed on restaurant menus across the country and important information, considering Americans now eat one-third of their meals outside the home.

Two states and nine counties require them today, and by the middle of next year, a federal law is expected to force chain restaurants, convenience stores and vending machines nationwide to post calorie counts.

But how accurate are those numbers that so affect your waistline?

A 2011 study by Tufts University sampling food from 42 restaurants says it depends.

Fast food restaurants were the most accurate because of the uniform recipes and portions, but there were wide variations found in sit-down restaurants.

"We found that 20 percent of the foods we tested had 100 calories or more over what was stated on the menu," Lorien Urban, a postdoctoral associate in the energy metabolism lab at Tufts University and first author of the study, told ABC News. "We would consider that to be a considerable amount."

Urban explained that consuming an extra 100 calories per day can lead to an extra 10 pounds in one year.

Most concerning was that a majority of the errors Urban and her colleagues found were made on the diet side of the menu.

"These were the foods that people who are trying to manage their weight would gravitate towards and they may be getting more calories than they expect," she said.

ABC News sent producers in three cities that already require posting menu calories to major chains to do a sampling under the direction of a nationally known lab and found that more than half of the low-cal meals tested had more calories than listed on the menu.

In total 24 food samples from four sit-down restaurants and one McDonald's were collected and the results were surprising.

McDonald's did the best. Its Big Mac Meal (posted: 930) and its Premium Chicken Sandwich (posted: 400) tested 30 calories below the menu posting.

But the sit-down restaurants had results sometimes wildly different than advertised.

In all, only one calorie count was accurate -- a Skinnylicious chicken salad sandwich from the Cheesecake Factory.

Eleven meals had more calories than on the menu and 10 had fewer calories. Some were over by only 40 calories; another was over by as much as 420 calories, again at the Cheesecake Factory: This time an order of the fish and chips dinner.

Urban said that fast food restaurants tended to be more accurate than sit-down because of the formulaic preparation that fast food restaurants use.

"Things are arriving already packaged into the restaurants and it's just a matter of warming it up and serving it to the consumer," she said. "A sit-down restaurant, things are being prepared on [the] spot [and] by chance some extra butter gets into the pan."

That can change the calorie amount.

All the restaurants and their trade association say that most calorie counts are as accurate as possible and tested extensively to make sure.

They conceded that there are variations, mostly due to portion size and individual restaurant preparation, and that the menus warn actual calories may vary.

What can you do? Take control of what is put on top of the entree by asking for everything fattening -- such as cheeses, sauces or dressings -- on the side.

Read More..

Why Al Jazeera deal doesn't seem right

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

• Al Gore sold Current to al Jazeera and could net an estimated $70 million


• Howard Kurtz: Gore's Current network failed to gain an identity or viewers


• He says it's odd that the former vice president is selling to an oil-rich potentate


• Kurtz: Al Jazeera may have a tough time getting traction with U.S. viewers

Editor's note: Howard Kurtz is the host of CNN's "Reliable Sources" and is Newsweek's Washington bureau chief. He is also a contributor to the website Daily Download.

(CNN) -- So Al Gore starts a liberal cable network, which turns into a complete and utter flop, then sells it to a Middle East potentate in a deal that will bring him an estimated $70 million.

Is America a great country or what?

There is something highly unusual -- OK, just plain weird -- about a former vice president of the United States doing this deal with the emir of Qatar, Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa al-Thani.

Howard Kurtz

Al Jazeera, owned by said emir's government, is trying to buy its way into the American television market by purchasing Current TV for a half billion dollars. The only thing stranger would be if Gore had sold Current to Glenn Beck -- oh wait, Beck did try to buy it and was told no way within 15 minutes.

So the sale was in part about ideology, which opens the door to examining why Gore believes Al Jazeera gives "voice to those who are not typically heard" and speaks "truth to power."

Bill O'Reilly, on Fox News, calls the network "anti-American." Fox pundit Dick Morris says Gore has sold to a fount of "anti-Israel propaganda." Such labels are rooted in the network's role during the height of the war on terror, when it aired smuggled videos of Osama bin Laden and was denounced by Bush administration officials.

Watch: How Lance Armstrong lied to me about doping

But Al Jazeera English, the spinoff channel launched in 2006, doesn't have the same reputation. In fact, no less a figure than Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has praised it as "real news," and the channel has won journalism awards for its reporting on the Arab Spring and other global events.

To be sure, the main Al Jazeera network gives a platform to such figures as Yusuf al-Qaradawi. He's the Muslim cleric in Egypt who, The Washington Post gas reported, frequently appears on air to castigate Jews and America and has praised suicide bombings. But when I went to the home page of Al Jazeera English the other day, there was video of David Frost, the acclaimed British journalist who now works for the main network, interviewing Israeli President Shimon Peres.

That's not to say Al Jazeera America, the working name for the new channel, won't have its own biases. Al Jazeera English is sometimes determined to paint the U.S. in a negative light.

During a report on President Barack Obama signing a renewal of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which entails a legitimate controversy over civil liberties, the reporter said flatly that the law "violate(s) U.S. constitutional rights in the name of national security."

Watch: Can Al Jazeera make it in the American market?

Dave Marash, the ABC News veteran who once worked for Al Jazeera English, told me the network has a "post-colonial" view of America and its stories can be infused with that attitude.

And there are real questions about how independent these channels are from the Qatar government that helps bankroll them. The director-general of Al Jazeera, Sheikh Ahmed bin Jassim al-Thani, is a member of the country's royal family and has no background in journalism.

Such details add to the odd spectacle of the ex-veep, who would have been running Mideast policy had he won a few more votes in Florida, selling -- and some say selling out -- to the emir. Not to mention that the crusader against climate change is taking petrodollars from an empire built on oil, the bete noire of environmentalists.

Watch: Hey Fox, Hillary Clinton was sick after all

But what is Al Jazeera buying? The network is going to have a tough time cracking the American market.

Its earlier reputation makes the company highly controversial, and other cable carriers might follow the lead of Time Warner Cable (which is no longer owned by CNN's parent company, Time Warner) in refusing to carry it. These carriers agreed to air Current TV, after all, and contracts generally require them to approve a major change in programming.

Global politics aside, it may just be bad business. There's a reason Al Jazeera English, which will supply 40% of the content to the new channel, has barely gotten a foothold in the United States. Most Americans aren't lusting for a steady diet of international news.

Watch: Did Nancy Pelosi go too far in photoshopping picture of congresswomen?

There's no denying that Gore, a onetime newspaper reporter who had testy relations with the press during his 2000 campaign, presided over a lousy cable channel. No one quite knew what Current was during the years when it aired mostly low-rent entertainment fare and was famous mainly for North Korea taking two of its correspondents, including Lisa Ling's sister Laura, into custody.

Then Gore tried to relaunch it as a talking head channel to the left of MSNBC, hiring Keith Olbermann -- a relationship that ended with his firing and mutual lawsuits -- along with the likes of Eliot Spitzer and Jennifer Granholm, former Michigan governor. Gore himself offered commentary during major political events.

It was the utter failure of that incarnation of Current that prompted Gore and co-founder Joel Hyatt to put the thing up for sale.

Some detractors have slammed Gore for hypocrisy because, while he has advocated higher taxes on the rich, he tried to get the Al Jazeera deal done by December 31 to avoid the Obama tax hike. (The sale didn't close until January 2.) I don't see a problem trying to legally take advantage of changes in the tax code, no matter what your political stance.

Nor do I want to prejudge Al Jazeera America. The marketplace will decide its fate.

But there is something unsettling about Gore making off with such a big payday from a government-subsidized channel after making such bad television. Nice work if you can get it.

Follow @CNNOpinion on Twitter

Join us at Facebook/CNNOpinion

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Howard Kurtz.

Read More..

Samsung tips record Q4 profit of US$8.3b

SEOUL: South Korea's Samsung Electronics said Tuesday it expected to post a record operating profit of 8.8 trillion won ($8.3 billion) in the fourth quarter of 2012.

The predicted operating profit for October-December represents an 89 per cent rise from a year earlier, and would beat the record of 8.1 trillion won set in the previous quarter.

Samsung, the world's largest technology firm by revenue, was giving earnings guidance before announcing official results later this month.

Fourth-quarter sales were estimated at 56 trillion won, up 18.4 per cent from a year earlier, according to the company, which did not provide figures for each of its business divisions.

Samsung, also the world's leading smartphone and memory chip maker, did not disclose its net profit estimate.

For Samsung, 2012 was a watershed year that saw it take a giant bite out of Apple Inc as it carved out a dominant position in the global mobile computing market.

Having ended Nokia's 14-year rule as the world's top cell phone manufacturer, Samsung saw its share of the lucrative smartphone market surge to 31.3 per cent in the third quarter of 2012, up from just 3.3 per cent in late 2009.

It extended its lead over main rival Apple as the top maker of smartphones worldwide, according to research firm IHS iSuppli, which gave Samsung 28 per cent of the market in 2012, up from 20 per cent the previous year.

Apple's share rose to 20 per cent in 2012 from 19 per cent, IHS said.

While Apple continues to rely mainly on its iPhone series, Samsung produces dozens of smartphone models every year that address all segments of the market, from the high-end to the low-end.

- AFP/ac

Read More..

Enough with 'Happy New Year' already

Time to put away all things New Year's, says Dean Obeidallah, starting with the constant "Happy New Year" greeting

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

• Dean Obeidallah: You can stop saying Happy New Year now. It's tacky and too late


• Even South Jersey School of Etiquette president said after the first week, stop


• He says we don't say Merry Christmas or Happy Hanukah when those holidays are over


• Obeidallah: It gets progressively more insincere. Lets agree to cut off the greeting at 7 days

Editor's note: Dean Obeidallah, a former attorney, is a political comedian and frequent commentator on various TV networks including CNN. He is the editor of the politics blog "The Dean's Report" and co-director of the upcoming documentary, "The Muslims Are Coming!" Follow him on Twitter: @deanofcomedy

(CNN) -- It's now a week after New Years Day, can we please stop saying, "Happy New Year?" Telling people "Happy New Year" more than a week after the first of the year is like keeping your Christmas lights up until February. It's tacky. And I grew up in New Jersey; I know a thing or two about tacky.

Plus it's bad New Year's etiquette. That's not just me talking, that's the opinion of etiquette expert Crystal Seamon-Primas, founder of the South Jersey School of Etiquette. (Stop laughing. We are not all "Jersey Shore.") Seamon-Primas told me: "In my opinion, after the first week, I stop wishing others a Happy New Year, the new year is well on its way."

Dean Obeidallah

The biggest reason we need to stop New Year's wishes weeks into the year is that it sounds so insincere. Hollow, not heartfelt, like something you say to a co-worker you really don't know well to fill an awkward silence, a small step up from, "That's some weather we're having, huh?"

The same goes for the insincerity you detect when people greet you a few days after January 1 with the question: "So how's your new year been so far?" Really? You are actually asking if I have survived the first "grueling" 48 hours of the year? If you really care about how my year is going, ask me in October.

Look: No one says "Happy Thanksgiving" on December 1. I never heard anyone offer a "Happy Fourth of July" on July 6. And when is the last time you heard a "Happy St. Patrick's Day" on March 19?

Even with the big religious holidays, well wishing starts before the holiday and stops with its occurrence. Go ahead and joyfully exchange wishes of "Have a Merry Christmas" the week before the holiday through Christmas Day, but not on December 29. Happy Hanukah greetings are fine throughout the eight-day holiday but not after. And Ramadan wishes are contained within the 30 days of the holy month and stop with the Eid celebration at the month's end.

Sure, I get it: It's a wish for a full year, not just a day. But among the vast array of omens that predict good fortune for the coming year, not one involves saying Happy New Year's for weeks on end. Believe me, there are some odd superstitions out there that will supposedly bring you luck for the year, from kissing a loved one as the clock strikes midnight to writing your new year's wishes on a piece of paper and planting it in the ground to eating lentils or black-eyed peas on New Year's Day.

There are even admonitions to avoid certain activities on New Year's Day because they portend bad luck for the coming year. One such superstition tells us that eating poultry on New Year's Day means you will financially struggle for the coming year, which I really wish I had known before I ate chicken with mixed vegetables on January 1.

If even one custom instructed us that extended New Year's wishes would increase the chances the year would indeed be a good one, I'd be saying Happy New Year's every day until April. But none do.

Consequently, I propose that from here out we need to come together in a bipartisan fashion -- as a lesson to our dysfunctional Congress -- and stop with New Year's wishes after the first seven days of the year. If someone does offer you such a greeting two or three weeks into the New Year, don't be rude, simply explain that it's like wishing someone Happy Valentines Day on February 18

In time, hopefully we'll all be on the same page on this issue. However, even if you are reading this after January 7, I still sincerely wish you, and your family, a very happy and healthy New Year. But this is the very last time I will say that in 2013.

Follow @CNNOpinion on Twitter

Join us at Facebook/CNNOpinion

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Dean Obeidallah.

Read More..

Millions of foreclosure abuse victims to get checks

(CBS News) LOS ANGELES - Since the real estate implosion five years ago, major banks have been accused of fraudulent tactics to foreclose on thousands of Americans.

On Monday, the U.S. government reached a settlement with 10 banks who will pay $8.5 billion. About four million homeowners who lost their homes to foreclosure will be getting some compensation.

About 200 people showed up to a workshop in south Los Angeles last month trying to figure out if their banks improperly foreclosed on their homes. Now many of them will be getting a check.

10 banks agree to pay $8.5B for foreclosure abuse
Consumer advocates question $8.5B foreclosure deal

The 10 banks -- including Citi, JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, and Wells Fargo -- will make $3.3 billion in direct payments to customers who were in foreclosure during 2009 and 2010.

Homeowners charged improper fees could be paid a couple hundred dollars. About $125,000 would go to homeowners who were foreclosed on even though they were up to date in their mortgage payments.

The settlement replaces an existing independent foreclosure review program that began in 2011 after it was discovered many banks approved foreclosure without actually reviewing the cases, sometimes hundreds a day.

Tunua Thrash

/

CBS News

Tunua Thrash helps homeowners in Los Angeles navigate foreclosure. She worries the bank payouts won't go far enough.

"Certainly the fact that there have been many mistakes, and some homeowners have lost equity that could exceed that amount, is letting the banks off easy...as far making sure that homeowners are made whole," Thrash said.

The banks will also spend $5.2 billion on loan modifications and principal reductions for current homeowners. That may help James Bruce, who could lose his south L.A. home at the end of the month unless Citibank modifies his adjustable rate mortgage, which he can no longer afford.

"It started adjusting on me and it just got overbearing and I couldn't take it, so it just ate up all my savings and everything that I could muster up to pay that mortgage for over a year," Bruce said.

About 3.8 million people will be getting some payment from these 10 banks. Even homeowners whose foreclosures were processed properly will get something because the banks have decided it's simply easier to write a check than try to figure out who was actually harmed.

Read More..

Colo. Suspect Bought Ticket 12 Days Before Shooting

Accused Aurora movie theater gunman James Holmes bought his movie ticket 12 days before the shooting, it was revealed in court today during the emotional first day of a preliminary hearing.

Aurora Police Department homicide detective Matthew Ingui testified that there is no video surveillance of the actual shooting, but there are several photos of Holmes checking into the theater kiosk with his cellphone. He scanned his phone three times.

Surveillance footage shown in court for the first time also showed Holmes lingering by the concession stand for about three minutes before entering theater nine dressed in dark pants, a light colored shirt and a skull cap. He would later be caught wearing a bullet proof vest and a gas mask.

Another video showed the lobby the moment theater staff heard shots ring out. Some of them ducked behind counters as people started streaming out of the front door.

Ingui also testified about the positions of the bodies in the theater, strewn across seats and aisles.

Click here for full coverage of the Aurora movie theater shooting.

Holmes is accused of killing 12 people and wounding dozens more in the movie theater massacre.

Earlier in the day, two veteran police officers broke down on the stand, with one officer choking up when he described finding the body of a 6-year-old girl inside the theater.

Sgt. Gerald Jonsgaard needed a moment to compose himself as he described finding the little girl, Veronica Moser Sullivan, in the blood splattered theater.

Police Testify at Hearing for Accused Colorado Gunman Watch Video

James Holmes Tries to Harm Himself, Sources Say Watch Video

Aurora, Colorado Gunman: Neuroscience PhD Student Watch Video

An officer felt for a pulse and thought Veronica was still alive, Jonsgaard said, but the officer then realized he was feeling his own pulse.

The officers wiped away tears as they described the horror they found inside of theater nine.

Officer Justin Grizzle recounted seeing bodies lying motionless on the floor, surrounded by so much blood he nearly slipped and fell.

Grizzle, a former paramedic, says ambulances had not yet made it to the theater, so he began loading victims into his patrol car and driving to the hospital.

"I knew I needed to get them to the hospital now, " Grizzle said, tearing up. "I didn't want anyone else to die."

Grizzle drove six victims in four trips, saying that by the end there was so much blood in his patrol car he could hear it "sloshing around."

An officer who took the stand earlier today described Holmes as "relaxed" and "detached" when police confronted him just moments after the shooting stopped.

The first two officers to testify today described responding to the theater and spotting Holmes standing by his car at the rear of the theater on July 20, 2012. He allegedly opened fire in the crowded theater during the midnight showing of "The Dark Knight Rises."

Officer Jason Oviatt said he first thought Holmes was a cop because he was wearing a gas mask and helmet, but as he got closer realized he was not an officer and held Holmes at gunpoint.

Throughout the search and arrest, Holmes was extremely compliant, the officer said.

"He was very, very relaxed," Oviatt said. "These were not normal reactions to anything. He seemed very detached from it all."

Oviatt said Holmes had extremely dilated pupils and smelled badly when he was arrested.

Officer Aaron Blue testified that Holmes volunteered that he had four guns and that there were "improvised explosive devices" in his apartment and that they would go off if the police triggered them.

Holmes was dressed for the court hearing in a red jumpsuit and has brown hair and a full beard. He did not show any reaction when the officers pointed him out in the courtroom.

This is the most important court hearing in the case so far, essentially a mini-trial as prosecutors present witness testimony and evidence -- some never before heard -- to outline their case against the former neuroscience student.

The hearing at the Arapahoe County District Court could last all week. At the end, Judge William Sylvester will decide whether the case will go to trial.

Read More..