Government files lawsuit against Lend America & Michael Ashley (1 Viewer)

[.]

Considering the wonderful job the government is doing of running our country (into the ground),

 

[ctjstr]

What he said! Good luck Mike and I hope this works out for you and your company.

I think everyone wishes mike and his company the best because of his contributions to our sport, but the type of activity alleged in the complaint (fraudulent loan aps) is one of the significant factors in the current financial crisis and I certainly hope that the government goes after the folks responsible as agressively as they can. Countrywide/B of A would be a good start.

 

[JL]

Best of luck getting through this Mike.

 

[Bobby Bennett]

ASHLEY DEFENDS HIS COMPANY AND NAME AFTER GOV?T SUIT

The Full Story at CompetitionPlus.com

 

[BlueStangGT]

I think everyone wishes mike and his company the best because of his contributions to our sport, but the type of activity alleged in the complaint (fraudulent loan aps) is one of the significant factors in the current financial crisis and I certainly hope that the government goes after the folks responsible as agressively as they can. Countrywide/B of A would be a good start.

Interesting to me is that they filed a civil suit and not a criminal suit. I'm not sure I've ever heard of a government prosecutor doing that before. Not that I'm any kind of legal scholar, just thought it seemed odd. Any comments you can make on this?

I also thought this quote of Mike's had some interesting insight:

“Just to give you an idea of how this government behaves, they are doing this to everybody so quickly that the same complaint they filed against someone else, and put out of business, still had that company’s name in my filing papers,” Ashley said, discussing Madison Home Equities. “It’s almost as if they cut and pasted my company’s name in there.”

Looks like somebody forgot to dot thier "i's" and cross their "t's".

 

[mw6789]

Interesting to me is that they filed a civil suit and not a criminal suit. I'm not sure I've ever heard of a government prosecutor doing that before. Not that I'm any kind of legal scholar, just thought it seemed odd. Any comments you can make on this?

The civil suit filing also throws a red flag for me.

 

[Jer]

Well first Evan Knoll and now this. Don't forget it was the Federal Government and ACORN that leaned on lenders to make housing loans to people not qualified which lead to the recession. So he was doing nothing more than what the Feds were once demanding the industry to do.

Yea speaking of Knoll,thought he made a post on here that he was gonna come back bigger and badder than ever,lol.

 

[clwill]

With all the turmoil in the financial sector, and the dramatic effect it's had on the economy in general, there's little wonder that people everywhere (on Wall Street, on Main Street, up and down Pennsylvania Avenue, inside every government agency) are looking for people to blame.

It's troubling that a small number of loans out of thousands can tar Mike and his company with a broad brush so publicly. Let's hope it gets resolved promptly and, whatever the outcome, the resolution gets as much publicity as the accusation.

Best of luck to Mike and MAR, would hate to see this hinder your many fine efforts in drag racing.

 

[Jim]

So it is alleged that Ashley made loans to people who had a dream of home ownership but were not in reality fully qualified for a government backed loan? THAT *******!

Not quite. The government says that he gave loans to such people but lied about them to the government to get the government backing.

Whether he made the loans or not is not the issue. The issue is whether he provided false information to the government.

Jim

 

[Jake]

It did not surprise me one bit when I read the title of this thread today.

 

[Jim]

One thing to keep in mind with this kind of story is that with just about any business, if the government digs around enough, it will find something that can be used as the basis of a suit.

With the volume of transactions most businesses do, and the number of people working for each company, things happen. But that doesn't mean they were intentional.

Now, why go after a company like Lend America instead of a bigger fish like Countrywide? Lend America is big enough that the numbers will impress the public that something is being done, but not big enough to be able to put up the same fight that a Bank of America could put up.

It was the same as when the government put Martha Stewart in jail. What she did was small potatoes compared to other people, but she was easy to prosecute, got a lot of attention and made it look as if the government was doing its job.

So if you wonder why the government is going after Lend America, think about taking your shoes off when you go through security at the airport. It doesn't accomplish much but it looks like a lot is being done.

Jim

 

[DrRocket]

I'm inclined to wait and see what shakes out here.
.

I'm in complete agreement. Just because charges were filed, doesn't mean the filers know what the hell they're doing.

Typical reaction by most people is "if the cops charge them, they must be guilty, else, why would they bother???"

Well, in many cases, it's "Let's throw a buch of meatballs at the wall, if some stick, hey. we're good!"

 

[Professional Fan]

Having met Mike several times at the races and having seen the way his race team is run, like others above, I'll give Mike the benefit of the doubt and let things shake our rather than casting judgmement since I have no more knowledge of the facts here than anyone else. I do hope this turns out to be a witch hunt by the government and it turns out OK for Mike and his company.

 

[mw6789]

One thing to keep in mind with this kind of story is that with just about any business, if the government digs around enough, it will find something that can be used as the basis of a suit.

With the volume of transactions most businesses do, and the number of people working for each company, things happen. But that doesn't mean they were intentional.

Now, why go after a company like Lend America instead of a bigger fish like Countrywide? Lend America is big enough that the numbers will impress the public that something is being done, but not big enough to be able to put up the same fight that a Bank of America could put up.

It was the same as when the government put Martha Stewart in jail. What she did was small potatoes compared to other people, but she was easy to prosecute, got a lot of attention and made it look as if the government was doing its job.

So if you wonder why the government is going after Lend America, think about taking your shoes off when you go through security at the airport. It doesn't accomplish much but it looks like a lot is being done.

Jim

You have hit the nail on the head. The big guys have legions of lawyers to fight back---the little guy does not. Just another case of our well spent tax dollars at work

 

[mw6789]

Not quite. The government says that he gave loans to such people but lied about them to the government to get the government backing.

Whether he made the loans or not is not the issue. The issue is whether he provided false information to the government.

Jim

GAVE FALSE INFORMATION TO THE GOVERNMENT!!!!!! WHY THEY SURELY DONT GIVE US CITIZENS ANY FALSE INFORMATION..........DO THEY???

 

[Nick Name]

Let's see, Mike Ashley vs the current federal government. Wow!!! going to be tough picking a side on this one!!!!!...............NOT

 

[ctjstr]

Interesting to me is that they filed a civil suit and not a criminal suit. I'm not sure I've ever heard of a government prosecutor doing that before. Not that I'm any kind of legal scholar, just thought it seemed odd. Any comments you can make on this?

Its not all that unusual. Sometimes it is because they don't have proof beyond a reasonable doubt as needed in a criminal case, sometimes its because they recognize that in a situation where employees down the food chain may be the real culprits they're less likely to go after the head guy, even though he's ultimately responsible. (ACORN is a perfect example). IOW, a recognition that the guy(s) at the top had no criminal intent, just didn't supervise appropriately. In some cases, its the government not wanting to play all their cards, and the discovery rules are much tougher in criminal cases than civil cases on some issues. It may be something as simple as a different attitude with the geitner a.g.'s office. I've spoken to a number of assistant u.s. attorneys since the change in administration and there is certainly a difference in how the two administrations operated.
Or, as mike suggested, it could just be a guy in the government with a giant case of the red a*s for this particular company.

I also thought this quote of Mike's had some interesting insight:



Looks like somebody forgot to dot thier "i's" and cross their "t's".

That kind of stuff happens a lot...just a word processing mistake more often than not. Embarrassing for sure, but not a big deal.

The most troubling part of this to me was the mention in one of the stories about a prior deal back in 1996. I would suspect that that fact alone would give you the answer as to why the government is looking harder at this situation than it might otherwise.

Best left to play out on its own to see what happens before any conclusions.

 

[The Little Lizard]

As a lay person and in my opinion Governmental agencies filing civil actions is common and nothing new (they usually have separate portion/section of the legal department that address civil/tort actions). Government agencies may file an initial action. It is filed with the court, reviewed by the clerk, and then goes to the judge to determine if he/she will docket the action and give it a hearing date. When and if that date comes both parties in the action hopefully show up. In and at that time the court will review the claim to determine its merit, and will proceed accordingly. During the initial hearing both parties may be able to file additional motions. Many times motions are put forth simply because they can be, and other times they may be neccessary. It's kind of like, well it doesn't hurt to ask.
Whether a motion is accepted or rejected at an initial hearing, may or may not mean anything and could be simply procedural. Many cases may only require limited proof, evidence, assertions, etc. to have the court move the process forward. Important to note, one side or the other may not show all that supports their case at initial hearings for many reasons such as strategic, information is being developed or prepared, etc. On many occasions as a legal action develops during the legal process, other information may be gleened or discovered giving rise to additional actions of various and variable types.
In the case at hand, it would be important to fully review the complaint in its final form as well as the record to fully understand the issues before the court.

One may want to proceed with caution in such matters.

 

[Chad Fergen]

This seems odd to me ... tens of billions were pilfered on Wall Street in the last couple of years leading to a taxpayer bailout ... and the government is going to take a stand against Mike for a measly 13 million? The agent says Lend America lent out over $1 billion, and they could "only" find 40 suspect loans, I would be willing to bet Morgan-Chase, Bank of America, Wells Fargo et al would love to only have to sweat 13 million on over a billion worth of paper.

Don't get me wrong, to you and me 13 million is A LOT of money ... but when you stack it up against a billion, it absolutely NOTHING.

40 loans could be 1 or 2 ambitious sales reps that learned how to work the system so they could get the commissions.

It could be ambitious junior US Attorneys looking to advance their careers.

It could just be that when you put a billion out there, that 13 million just slipped thru the cracks (1.3 percent).

The dollar amount just seems too low to call shananigans at this point without more information.

In any event, Mike's name is on the door, so his is the name that is going to get dragged through the mud. I operate on the presumption of innocence until proven guilty, until such time, Mike and Lend America have my full support.


EDIT: tree'd by the man himself.

I would like to hear him out too. Good point on the Billion, which is 1000 million correct?

 

[Taunsie]

Who would your trust to watch you 5 year old daughter while you ran an errand?? Mike Ashley or a Fed bureaucrat. My vote goes for Mike anytime.

I have never met Mike, but know many who know him professionally and they say he is a very honorable guy with high family values and intergity.

I know the mortgage business very well and his company's batting average is probably in the top 10%. Dealing with sub prime type of borrowers is a nightmare. Remember these folks are "subprime" for a reason. 40 shakey loans our of 12000 with that crowd is great in my opinion.

Check with Chris Dodd or Barny Frank's buddy's records. With that bunch in competition Mike should get an award.

I know from first hand exprerience , when a over active Fed comes after you with all of the power of the US Government backing him,it is a chore to beat them down. Just take a lot of attorney fees and the truth to prevail. They assume most will cave and settle.

Just remember the only reason most US Attorneys are in that position is due to the fact they can not make it in the real legal world. They may make a 100K per year and love to bring down a businessman who makes 5 million. They have the attitude that if you make .that much money you must be a crook and never think that hard work and a good product can deliver such rewards. It is hard for them as they sit in there tiny shared office, take thier lunch to work and car pool home in a 9 year old mini van.

They just can't stand to see a guy like Mike, who could'nt any smarter than them (in thier mind)live a live they can only dream of.



Stangley the truth usually prevails.