1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Case 1:12-cv-00375-LJO-SKO Document 1 Filed 03/12/12 Page 1 of 50 1 KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP 2 Ramzi Abadou (Bar No. 222567) 580 California Street, Suite 1750 3 San Francisco, CA 94104 4 Telephone: (415) 400-3000 Facsimile: (415) 400-3001 5 rabadou@ktmc.com 6 Counsel for Plaintiff 7 [Additional counsel listed on signature page] 8 9 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 12 13 LUCAS E. MCCARN, individually and on behalf ) Civil Action No.: of all others similarly situated, ) 14 ) 15 Plaintiff, ) ) 16 v. ) CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT ) 17 HSBC USA, INC., HSBC BANK USA, N.A., ) HSBC MORTGAGE CORPORATION, HSBC ) 18 REINSURANCE (USA) INC., UNITED ) JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 19 GUARANTY RESIDENTIAL INSURANCE CO., ) PMI MORTGAGE INSURANCE CO., ) 20 GENWORTH MORTGAGE INSURANCE ) CORP., REPUBLIC MORTGAGE INSURANCE ) 21 CO., MORTGAGE GUARANTY INSURANCE ) CORP., and RADIAN GUARANTY INC. ) 22 ) 23 Defendants. ) 24 25 26 27 28 Case 1:12-cv-00375-LJO-SKO Document 1 Filed 03/12/12 Page 2 of 50 1 INTRODUCTION 2 1. Defendants HSBC USA, Inc. (“HSBC USA”), HSBC Bank USA, N.A. (“HSBC 3 Bank”) and HSBC Mortgage Corp. (“HSBC Mortgage”), together with their affiliated reinsurer, 4 Defendant HSBC Reinsurance (USA), Inc. (“HSBC RE”) (collectively, “HSBC”), have acted in 5 concert with Defendants United Guaranty Residential Insurance Co., PMI Mortgage Insurance Co., 6 Genworth Mortgage Insurance Corp., Republic Mortgage Insurance Co., Mortgage Guaranty 7 Insurance Corp. and Radian Guaranty Inc. (collectively, the “Private Mortgage Insurers”) (together 8 with HSBC, “Defendants”) to effectuate a captive reinsurance scheme whereby, in violation of the 9 Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act of 1974 (“RESPA”): (a) illegal referral payments in the form of 10 purported reinsurance premiums were paid by the Private Mortgage Insurers to HSBC RE; and (b) 11 HSBC RE received an unlawful split of private mortgage insurance premiums paid by the Private 12 Mortgage Insurers’ customers referred by HSBC entities. 13 2. This is a proposed nationwide action brought by Plaintiff Lucas E. McCarn 14 (“Plaintiff”) on behalf of himself and a class of all other similarly situated persons who obtained 15 residential mortgage loans originated, funded and/or originated through correspondent lending by 16 HSBC Bank and/or HSBC Mortgage or any of their subsidiaries and/or affiliates between January 1, 17 2004 and the present (the “Class Period”) and, in connection therewith, purchased private mortgage 18 insurance and whose residential mortgage loans were included within HSBC’s captive mortgage 19 reinsurance arrangements (hereinafter, the “Class”). 20 3. Captive reinsurance schemes, such as the scheme involving Defendants described 21 herein, have been widespread throughout the mortgage lending marketplace. As American Banker 22 magazine recently reported in connection with an investigation by the Inspector General of the 23 Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”), “beginning in the late 1990s major U.S. 24 banks began coercing [private mortgage] insurers into cutting them in on what would ultimately 25 amount to $6 billion of insurance premiums in exchange for assuming little or no risk.” See Jeff 26 Horwitz, Bank Mortgage Kickback Scheme Thrived Amid Regulatory Inaction, American Banker 27 (Sept. 16, 2011, 7:45 PM), http://www.americanbanker.com/issues/176_181/mortgages-reinsurance- 28 deals-kickbacks-HUD-1042277-1.html, attached as Exhibit A (hereinafter referred to as “Mortgage 1 Case 1:12-cv-00375-LJO-SKO Document 1 Filed 03/12/12 Page 3 of 50 1 Kickback Scheme”); see also Jeff Horwitz, Banks Took $6B in Reinsurance Kickbacks, Investigators 2 Say, American Banker (Sept. 6, 2011, 4:55 PM), http://www.americanbanker.com/…/176_173/ 3 mortgage-reinsurance-respa-kickbacks-hud-investigation-doj-1041928-1.html, attached as Exhibit B 4 (hereinafter referred to as “Reinsurance Kickbacks”).1 5 4. As described in greater detail below, this was accomplished through a secretive “pay- 6 to-play scheme”2 that utilized carefully crafted excess-of-loss or “purported” quota-share reinsurance 7 contracts that minimized risk exposure to bands of losses unlikely to be pierced. Further, as described 8 below, even with regard to the purported band of exposure, certain lenders, including HSBC Bank and 9 HSBC Mortgage, insulated themselves from providing any real reinsurance by: (a) making their 10 captive reinsurance arrangements “self-capitalizing,” in that they were required to put only “nominal 11 initial capital” into the trusts supporting the reinsurance contracts and (b) providing no recourse for the 12 failure to adequately fund the trusts. See Mortgage Kickback Scheme. 13 5. As American Banker described such arrangements: 14 The banks were supposedly providing catastrophic reinsurance, but the policies appeared to render it impossible that they’d ever suffer 15 significant losses. In the event of catastrophic losses, a bank could simply walk away from its nominal initial investment and leave the 16 insurer to bear the other costs . 17 See Mortgage Kickback Scheme. 18 6. In other words, these lenders—including HSBC Bank and HSBC Mortgage—were 19 “playing with the house’s money” with no risk of meaningful losses. As American Banker aptly 20 explained: 21 If defaults remained low, banks would pocket large premiums without paying any claims; if defaults were high, banks’ losses would be 22 capped at the amount of their small initial investments, plus the 23 premiums paid by homeowners and passed along to them by their mortgage insurance partners. In other words, it appeared to be a no- 24 25 1 In fact, “Bank of America recently spent $34 million to settle a RESPA class action suit 26 accusing Countrywide of taking the same mortgage insurance kickbacks alleged by HUD investigators.” See Reinsurance Kickbacks. See also Final Approval Order in Alston v. Countrywide 27 Fin. Corp., No. 07-cv-03508 (E.D. Pa. July 29, 2011) at ECF No. 149. 2 Id. 28 2 Case 1:12-cv-00375-LJO-SKO Document 1 Filed 03/12/12 Page 4 of 50 1 lose proposition for the banks. 2 See Mortgage Kickback Scheme. 3 7. In this action, Plaintiff challenges Defendants’ hidden scheme to circumvent RESPA’s 4 strict prohibition against kickbacks, referral payments and unearned fee splits and seek statutory 5 damages and/or restitution for Defendants’ unjust enrichment. Each Defendant participated in the 6 scheme. 7 8. Homeowners who buy a home with less than a 20% down payment are typically 8 required to pay for private mortgage insurance. See http://www.privatemi.com. Private mortgage 9 insurance protects the lender in the event of a default by the borrower. Id. See also Exhibit C hereto 10 at 1, Proposed EITF Issue titled “Risk Transfer in Mortgage Reinsurance Captive Arrangements,” 11 discussing the purpose of private mortgage insurance. Although the premium is paid by the borrower 12 (either directly or indirectly, as further described below), borrowers typically have no opportunity to 13 comparison-shop or select the provider of the private mortgage insurance. See Reinsurance Kickbacks 14 (“Banks typically choose the insurance carrier . .). 15 9. Section 2607(a) of RESPA prohibits lenders from accepting kickbacks or referral fees 16 from any person providing a real estate settlement service, including providers of private mortgage 17 insurance. Thus, a lender cannot legally accept a referral fee from the insurer issuing the private 18 mortgage insurance policy on the borrower’s home. Similarly, Section 2607(a) of RESPA prohibits 19 providers of private mortgage insurance from giving kickbacks or referrals fees to providers of real 20 estate settlement services, including lenders and their affiliates. Accordingly, it is unlawful for 21 providers of private mortgage insurance to pay referral fees to lenders and their affiliates. 22 10. Section 2607(b) of RESPA prohibits lenders from accepting any portion of a settlement 23 service fee—including amounts paid by borrowers for private mortgage insurance—from any person 24 providing a real estate settlement service, including providers of private mortgage insurance, other 25 than for services actually performed. Thus, a lender cannot legally accept an unearned fee split from 26 the insurer issuing the private mortgage insurance policy on the borrower’s home. Similarly, Section 27 2607(b) of RESPA prohibits providers of private mortgage insurance from giving any portion of a 28 settlement service fee—including amounts paid by borrowers for private mortgage insurance—to 3 Case 1:12-cv-00375-LJO-SKO Document 1 Filed 03/12/12 Page 5 of 50 1 providers of real estate settlement services, including lenders and their affiliates, other than for 2 services actually performed. Accordingly, it is unlawful for providers of private mortgage insurance 3 to pay unearned fee splits to lenders and their affiliates. 4 11. Defendants have engaged in a single, coordinated scheme designed to circumvent 5 RESPA’s prohibition against kickbacks, referral payments and unearned fee splits. Pursuant to the 6 scheme, each Private Mortgage Insurer pays a portion of borrowers’ private mortgage insurance 7 premiums to HSBC RE in the form of purported “reinsurance” premiums. 8 12. While these payments to HSBC RE are purportedly for “reinsurance” services, HSBC 9 RE receives these payments while assuming very little or no actual risk under its contracts with the 10 Private Mortgage Insurers. From the beginning of 2004 through the end of 2008, HSBC RE collected 11 from the Private Mortgage Insurers at least $61 million as its “share” of borrower’s private mortgage 12 insurance premiums. In contrast, HSBC RE’s “share” of paid claims during this time period was 13 zero.3 See Schedule F – Part 3 from the 2004-2008 Annual Statements filed with the National 14 Association of Insurance Commissioners (“NAIC”) by each of the Defendant Private Mortgage 15 Insurers (showing the reinsurance premiums ceded to and the “losses” paid by HSBC RE).
Recommended publications
  • Alabama Credit Unions & Banker Myths
    Alabama Credit Unions & Banker Myths Bumper profits and a massive concentration of market share aren’t enough for Alabama’s bankers. They want more. And they seem willing to do anything to get it. Indeed, banking industry publications recently distributed to state policy-makers use anecdotes, half-truths, and innuendo in an all-out assault the state’s credit unions. While its true that Alabama credit unions are growing, they aren’t, as bankers suggest, taking over the world. They remain true to their original purpose. And they certainly aren’t harming the state’s banks. Growth: Banking institution deposits in Alabama grew by $10.2 billion in the 88% ISN'T ENOUGH? five years ending June 2003. Since 1998 Alabama banking deposits have grown Alabama Bankers Want More 22% more than the total growth Market Share! recorded by the state’s’ credit unions (Mid-Year 2003 Deposits) since credit unions began operating in the state in 1927! Largest 10 Banks Market Share: Banking institutions 58% control 88% of all financial institution Smaller deposits in the state of Alabama – a CUs market share that is virtually unchanged 5% over the past decade. Small banks in Alabama have a lot more Largest 10 significant competitive threats to worry CUs Smaller 7% about than the threat of credit union Banks competition. Indeed, at the mid-year 30% 2003, the largest 10 banking institutions control 58% of total deposits in the state (or 66% of total banking deposits). In contrast, credit unions control just 12% of the market and the largest 10 credit unions control just 7% of the deposit market in Alabama.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 United States District Court Eastern District of New York
    Case 1:18-cv-07359-PKC-CLP Document 90 Filed 01/07/21 Page 1 of 21 PageID #: <pageID> UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK -------------------------------------------------------x KATHALEEN FREEMAN, et al., Plaintiffs, MEMORANDUM & ORDER 18-CV-7359 (PKC) (CLP) - against - 19-CV-2146 (PKC) (CLP) HSBC HOLDINGS PLC, HSBC BANK PLC, HSBC BANK MIDDLE EAST LIMITED, HSBC BANK USA, N.A., BARCLAYS BANK PLC, STANDARD CHARTERED BANK, ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND, N.V., CREDIT SUISSE AG, BANK SADERAT PLC, COMMERZBANK AG, and JOHN DOES 1–50, Defendants. -------------------------------------------------------x RYAN BOWMAN, et al., Plaintiffs, - against - HSBC HOLDINGS PLC, HSBC BANK PLC, HSBC BANK MIDDLE EAST LIMITED, HSBC BANK USA, N.A., BARCLAYS BANK PLC, STANDARD CHARTERED BANK, ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND, N.V., CREDIT SUISSE AG, BANK SADERAT PLC, COMMERZBANK AG, and JOHN DOES 1–50, Defendants. -------------------------------------------------------x PAMELA K. CHEN, United States District Judge: In November 2014, a group of American citizens killed or injured by terrorist attacks in Iraq between 2004 and 2011, and/or their families, filed an action, Freeman, et al. v. HSBC Holdings PLC, et al., 14-CV-6601 (PKC) (CLP) (“Freeman I”), against ten banking institutions— HSBC Holdings, PLC, HSBC Bank PLC, HSBC Bank Middle East Ltd., and HSBC Bank USA, 1 Case 1:18-cv-07359-PKC-CLP Document 90 Filed 01/07/21 Page 2 of 21 PageID #: <pageID> N.A. (the “HSBC Defendants”); Barclays Bank PLC; Standard Chartered Bank; Royal Bank of Scotland, N.V.; Credit Suisse AG; Bank Saderat PLC (“Bank Saderat”)1; and Commerzbank AG (“Commerzbank”)—as well as John Does 1–50, seeking damages pursuant to the Antiterrorism Act (the “ATA”), 18 U.S.C.
    [Show full text]
  • Controlling Banker's Bonuses: Efficient Regulation Or Politics of Envy?
    A Service of Leibniz-Informationszentrum econstor Wirtschaft Leibniz Information Centre Make Your Publications Visible. zbw for Economics Matthews, Kent; Matthews, Owen Working Paper Controlling banker's bonuses: Efficient regulation or politics of envy? Cardiff Economics Working Papers, No. E2009/27 Provided in Cooperation with: Cardiff Business School, Cardiff University Suggested Citation: Matthews, Kent; Matthews, Owen (2009) : Controlling banker's bonuses: Efficient regulation or politics of envy?, Cardiff Economics Working Papers, No. E2009/27, Cardiff University, Cardiff Business School, Cardiff This Version is available at: http://hdl.handle.net/10419/65789 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Terms of use: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. personal and scholarly purposes. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle You are not to copy documents for public or commercial Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, If the documents have been made available under an Open gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der
    [Show full text]
  • Notice of Annual General Meeting to Be Held on 22 May 2009
    THIS DOCUMENT IS IMPORTANT AND REQUIRES YOUR IMMEDIATE ATTENTION. If you are in any doubt as to any aspect of the proposals referred to in this document or as to the action you should take, you should consult a stockbroker, solicitor, accountant or other appropriate independent professional adviser. If you have sold or transferred all your shares in HSBC Holdings plc (the “Company”), you should at once forward this document and the accompanying Form of Proxy to the stockbroker, bank or other agent through whom the sale or transfer was effected for transmission to the purchaser or transferee. This document should be read in conjunction with the Annual Report and Accounts and/or Annual Review in respect of the year ended 31 December 2008. Hong Kong Exchanges and Clearing Limited and The Stock Exchange of Hong Kong Limited take no responsibility for the contents of this document, make no representation as to its accuracy or completeness and expressly disclaim any liability whatsoever for any loss howsoever arising from or in reliance upon the whole or any part of the contents of this document. The ordinary shares of HSBC Holdings plc trade under stock code 5 on The Stock Exchange of Hong Kong Limited. Shareholders may at any time choose to receive corporate communications in printed form or to receive notifications of their availability on HSBC’s website. To receive future notifications of the availability of corporate communications on HSBC’s website by email, or revoke or amend an instruction to receive such notifications by email, go to www.hsbc.com/ecomms.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 11 ) INTELSAT
    Case 20-32299-KLP Doc 495 Filed 07/09/20 Entered 07/09/20 15:11:39 Desc Main Document Page 1 of 16 IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA RICHMOND DIVISION ) In re: ) Chapter 11 ) 1 INTELSAT S.A., et al., ) Case No. 20-32299 (KLP) ) Debtors. ) (Jointly Administered) ) DECLARATION OF DISINTERESTEDNESS OF HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP AS PROPOSED ORDINARY COURSE PROFESSIONAL I, Steven M. Kaufman, declare under penalty of perjury: 1. I am a Partner of Hogan Lovells US LLP, located at Columbia Square, 555 Thirteenth Street, NW, Washington, D.C. 2004 (“HLUS”). 2. Intelsat S.A. and its affiliates, as debtors and debtors in possession (collectively, the “Debtors”), have requested that HLUS continue to provide legal services to the Debtors as an ordinary course professional pursuant to section 327(e) of the Bankruptcy Code in the Debtors’ chapter 11 cases (collectively, the “Chapter 11 Cases”), and HLUS has agreed to provide such services. Such services may be provided by HLUS directly and/or through its affiliated businesses, including Hogan Lovells International LLP (collectively, the “Firm”), through arrangements with HLUS. 3. The Firm may have performed services in the past, may currently perform services, and may perform services in the future in matters unrelated to the Chapter 11 Cases for persons or entities that are parties in interest in the Chapter 11 Cases. See Schedule A attached 1 Due to the large number of Debtors in these Chapter 11 Cases, for which joint administration has been granted, a complete list of the Debtor entities and the last four digits of their federal tax identification numbers is not provided herein.
    [Show full text]
  • LB&I Process Unit Knowledge Base – Corporate/Business Issues & Credits
    LB&I Process Unit Knowledge Base – Corporate/Business Issues & Credits Library Level Number Title Shelf Corporate Issues Book 225 Transaction Costs Chapter 1 Transaction Costs Overview Section Unit Name Examining a Transaction Costs Issue Primary UIL Code 263.14-00 Allocation Between Capital Expenditure and Expense Document Control Number (DCN) CDA/P/225_01-01 Date of Last Update 07/02/18 Note: This document is not an official pronouncement of law, and cannot be used, cited or relied upon as such. Further, this document may not contain a comprehensive discussion of all pertinent issues or law or the IRS's interpretation of current law. DRAFT Table of Contents (View this PowerPoint in “Presentation View” to click on the links below) Process Overview Detailed Explanation of the Process Process Applicability Summary of Process Steps . Step 1 – Proper Legal Entity . Step 2 – Facilitative Costs . Step 3 – Treatment of Facilitative Costs 2 DRAFT Table of Contents (cont’d) (View this PowerPoint in “Presentation View” to click on the links below) Definitions Other Considerations / Impact to Audit Index of Referenced Resources Training and Additional Resources Glossary of Terms and Acronyms Index of Related Practice Units 3 DRAFT Process Overview Examining a Transaction Costs Issue When executing a business transaction, a taxpayer may incur legal fees, accounting fees, consulting fees, investment advisory service fees and other transaction costs. If the cost facilitates a transaction described in Treas. Reg. 1.263(a)-5(a), the taxpayer must capitalize the cost. Transactions described in Treas. Reg. 1.263(a)-5(a) include acquiring or selling a trade or business, or changing a company’s capital structure.
    [Show full text]
  • Market Measures
    Market Measures 2,080 S&P 500 17,800 Dow Jones industrials 2,020 Close: 2,056.50 17,440 Close: 17,528.27 Change: -4.49 (-0.2%) Change: -23.90 (-0.1%) 1,960 10 DAYS 17,080 10 DAYS 2,160 18,400 2,080 17,600 2,000 16,800 1,920 16,000 1,840 15,200 JASOND JASOND Stocks Recap HIGH LOW CLOSE CHG. %CHG. YTD DOW 17536.90 17437.34 17528.27 -23.90 -0.14% -1.65% NYSE NASD DOW Trans. 7614.09 7508.65 7566.70 -55.91 -0.73% -17.21% DOW Util. 582.92 578.01 582.40 +1.38 +0.24% -5.77% Vol. (in mil.) 2,422 1,283 NYSE Comp. 10225.99 10169.09 10217.41 -41.14 -0.40% -5.74% Pvs. Volume 1,389 691 NASDAQ 5041.27 4999.07 5040.99 -7.50 -0.15% +6.44% Advanced 1202 1008 S&P 500 2056.76 2044.20 2056.50 -4.49 -0.22% -0.12% Declined 1926 1848 S&P 400 1413.95 1400.33 1413.86 -2.24 -0.16% -2.66% New Highs 53 43 Wilshire 5000 21354.56 21165.08 21296.18 -58.38 -0.27% -1.72% New Lows 24 54 Russell 2000 1153.98 1140.02 1148.21 -6.55 -0.57% -4.69% Metals & Season Season Commodities Exp. Vol High Low Settle Chg Exp. Vol High Low Settle Chg CORN WHEAT Jul 16 25,572 597.50 373 373.75 -3 Mar 16 58,552 769 465.50 466.50 -1 May 16 50,286 514.25 367 367.75 -3 Jul 16 13,082 732 480.50 481 -1.75 SILVER CLOSE CHANGE Mar 16 179,546 512 360.50 361 -3.50 May 16 14,614 765.75 473 473.25 -1.25 OATS CATTLE Handy & Harman 13.945 -0.455 May 16 60 333.75 220 224.25 +3.75 Feb 16 18,059 437.00 121.97 136.15 -.87 Jul 16 6 351.50 223.25 227.50 +3 Jun 16 7,120 328.25 115.47 127.10 -.35 CLOSE CHANGE GOLD Mar 16 688 350.50 215 223.75 +4.25 Apr 16 11,607 422.75 123.05 137.37 -.65 Handy & Harman 1070.60 -1.30 SOYBEANS HOGS Engelhard 1073.47 +1.10 Mar 16 180,566 1216.25 847 861.25 -11.75 Jun 16 1,108 758.75 70.25 78.55 +.95 Merc.
    [Show full text]
  • Credit Perspectives: Making Waves with 5G
    HSBC Global Asset Management Credit Perspectives April 2019 Making waves with 5G Companies have been quick to tout the rise and development of 5G technologies. But, is 5G really changing the tide in telecommunications? Annika Rohweder, Credit Analyst for Global Credit, examines the real impact of 5G on the telecommunications sector and user experience. 5G is the fifth generation wireless technology, the successor to 4G. The main potential benefits of 5G are improved speed, reduced latency and higher capacity, which means that differences between wired and wireless communications will narrow. Offsetting these benefits is lower coverage as 5G is expected to rely primarily on mid- and high-frequency spectrum bands. High-frequency spectrum offers faster speeds in its coverage area, but has limited reach. This means that more network equipment will be required to cover the same area under 5G technology than under 4G, making large-scale build out more capital-intensive. A nationwide 5G build-out in the US would cost north of USD 10bn, excluding spectrum costs, which would likely be as high, if not higher. As a result, 5G will be limited to dense urban areas, at least initially and will likely be used together with 4G for the foreseeable future. Possible applications of 5G include fixed wireless 5G as an alternative to home broadband, enhancements in mobile communications, and machine-to-machine communications (M2M) or internet of things (IoT): Fixed wireless applications will be used to replace wired home broadband by installing antennas outside the home, hence foregoing last mile wiring, an often costly pursuit. Home broadband trials by mobile phone carriers, led by Verizon, have already started.
    [Show full text]
  • The Code of Hammurabi: an Economic Interpretation
    International Journal of Business and Social Science Vol. 2 No. 8; May 2011 The Code of Hammurabi: An Economic Interpretation K.V. Nagarajan Department of Economics, School of Commerce and Administration Laurentian University, Sudbury Canada E-mail: knagarajan@laurentian.ca, Fax: 705-675-4886 Introduction Hammurabi was the ruler of Babylon from 1792 B.C. to 1750 B.C1. He is much celebrated for proclaiming a set of laws, called the Code of Hammurabi (The Code henceforward). The Code was written in the Akkadian language and engraved on black diorite, measuring about two-and-a-quarter meters. The tablet is on display in the Louvre, Paris. The stone carving on which the laws are written was found in 1901-1902 by French archeologists at the Edomite capital Susa which is now part of the Kuzhisthan province in Iran. The Code was determined to be written circa 1780 B.C. Although there are other codes preceding it2, The Code is considered the first important legal code known to historians for its comprehensive coverage of topics and wide-spread application. It has been translated and analyzed by historians, legal and theological scholars (Goodspeed, 1902; Vincent, 1904; Duncan, 1904; Pfeiffer, 1920; Driver and Miles, 1952). The Code is well- known for embodying the principle of lex talionis (“eye for an eye”) which is described as a system of retributive justice. However, The Code is also much more complex than just describing offenses and punishments and not all punishments are of the retributive kind. The Code has great relevance to economists. However, very few studies have been undertaken from an economic or economic thought point of view.
    [Show full text]
  • AMR O. ALY Partner AMR O. ALY, Partner
    AMR O. ALY, Partner Amr Aly is a member of the firm’s Patent Litigation and Counseling Practice. He focuses on patent litigation in the telecom, networking, data encryption and security, internet, biotechnology, banking, chemical and pharmaceutical industries. He has been involved in major complex litigations, including multiparty and multidistrict litigations; he has been a key member and leader of litigation teams that secured favorable pretrial results that were affirmed by the Federal Circuit. Before practicing law, Mr. Aly worked with major engineering companies for more than 10 years. There, he gained extensive experience in engineering and management. Mr. Aly is the named inventor of US Patent No. 4,999, 225, titled “Powder Thermal Spray Method for Spraying Non-Meltable Materials.” Mr. Aly holds a BA and BS in chemical engineering from Columbia University, AMR O. ALY where he played for the soccer team as two-time captain and All American. He Partner was a member of the 1984 US Olympic Soccer Team and awarded the NEW YORK Hermann Trophy (soccer’s equivalent of the Heisman Trophy) as the best Office: 212 407-1774 Email: aaly@jenner.com collegiate soccer player in 1984. Mr. Aly speaks conversational Arabic. PRACTICE GROUPS Intellectual Property Litigation Patent Litigation and Counseling Trademark, Advertising and Unfair Representative engagements prior to joining Jenner & Block include the Competition Practice following: EDUCATION Anuwave LLC v. Digi International Inc. (D. Del.). Served as lead counsel for Seton Hall University School of Law, JD, 1996 Digi International against infringement claims of patent directed to telecommunications using SMS communication channels. Identified prior Hofstra University, School of Business, MBA, 1989 art that was used to secure a very favorable settlement.
    [Show full text]
  • The Birth of Partnership Systems in Renaissance Florence1 John F
    Chapter 6 Transposition and Refunctionality: The Birth of Partnership Systems in 1 Renaissance Florence John F. Padgett Inventions of any sort are hard to understand. They seem to come out of the blue, a rupture with the past, yet close investigation always reveals historical roots. Individual geniuses sometimes create them, but is “genius” just our celebratory label for a process that worked, which we do not understand? To proffer a tentative distinction: innovations improve on existing ways (i.e, activities, conceptions and purposes) of doing things, while inventions change the ways things are done. Under this definition, the key to classifying something as an invention is the degree to which it reverberates out to alter the interacting system of which it is a part. To some extent we understand micrologics of combination and recombination.2 Yet the invention puzzle is that some of these innovative recombinations cascade out to reconfigure entire interlinked ecologies of “ways of doing things,” whereas most innovations do not. The poisedness of a system to reconfiguration by an invention is as much a part of the phenomenon to be explained as is the system’s production of the invention itself. Invention “in the wild” cannot be understood through abstracting away from concrete social context, because inventions are permutations of that context.3 But to make progress in understanding discontinuous change we need to embed our analysis of transformation in the routine dynamics of actively self-reproducing social contexts, where constitutive elements and relations are generated and reinforced. 1 This chapter is an abridged version (40% cut) of John F.
    [Show full text]
  • AIP-Client-List.Pdf
    Weekly Update 2021-09-27 #DTCC Public (White) AIP Member List (Distributors - Broker-Dealers/ Custodians / Clearing Firms) Participant Name Participant Type NSCC AIP Number Membership Live Date American Enterprise Investment Services Inc. {Ameriprise} Firm 3433 2/17/2012 American Portfolios Financial Services, Inc. Firm 9846 12/21/2015 Axos Clearing LLC Firm 0648 10/31/2016 Beta Capital Securities, LLC Firm 4394 12/9/2019 Cetera Investment Services LLC Firm 1768 9/5/2018 Charles Schwab & Co, Inc. Firm 3401 12/31/2009 Crowdkey, Inc. Firm 7291 12/13/2016 Dempsey Lord Smith, LLC Firm 5261 11/7/2016 Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P. Firm 1871 1/16/2013 Grove Point Investments, LLC Firm 3911 5/6/2021 HD Vest Investment Securities, Inc Firm 7242 7/24/2018 Hilltop Holdings, Inc. (formerly Southwest Securities, Inc.) Firm 1956 4/19/2013 ICapital Securities, LLC Firm 6523 5/18/2018 J.W.Korth & Company Limited Partnership Firm 9893 3/3/2016 Janney Montgomery Scott, LLC Firm 4073 4/16/2019 LPL Financial LLC Firm 3477 6/19/2013 LPL Financial LLC (AXA) Firm 6989 8/24/2015 # DTCC Public (White) AIP Member List (Distributors - Broker-Dealers/ Custodians / Clearing Firms) Participant Name Participant Type NSCC AIP Number Membership Live Date Matrix Trust Company Firm 1531 5/26/2015 Millennium Trust Company, LLC Firm 1659 7/20/2020 Morgan Stanley Smith Barney LLC Firm 1287 8/29/2014 National Financial Services LLC (NFS) Firm 3409 2/22/2011 National Securities Corporation Firm 9389 5/12/2016 Orion Advisor Services, LLC. Firm 8843 6/8/2018 Pershing LLC Firm 0838 10/1/2008 Provident Trust Group, LLC Firm 1237 7/11/2014 RBC Capital Markets, LLC Firm 3428 2/11/2011 Robert W.
    [Show full text]