Consumer Protection

Oakland - Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr. today is encouraging Californians to make charitable donations for victims of the devastating earthquake in Haiti, but warns citizens to avoid “scam artists” who may prey on the goodwill of California donors.

“After every tragedy, a wave of scam artists take advantage of generous individuals who want to help the victims of a tragedy,” Brown said. “It’s important to thoroughly research charitable organizations before you write a check.”

The Attorney General’s Office regulates charities and professional fundraisers in order to prevent the misapplication of charitable donations made by Californians. Brown offers the following tips on how to give wisely in order to assure that donations will be used for the intended purpose:

1. Carefully review disaster-relief appeals before giving. In times of disaster, many “sound-alike” organizations and sham operations solicit donations.

2. Know the charity before you donate. Review the charity’s website and written material to assure the program is one you want to support. Check the organization’s financial filings to see how it spends its assets, how long it has been operating and what program services it offers.

3. Make sure the charity is registered in the Attorney General’s Registry of Charitable Trusts. Registration does not guarantee that a charity is effective, but it is an important indicator. A searchable database is available at http://ag.ca.gov/charities.php.

4. Beware of organizations that don’t have a track record. Only give to established charities, not organizations that seem to spring up overnight. Again, check the Registry database to confirm this information.

5. Take action on your own rather than responding to solicitations. Seek out known organizations and give directly, either by calling the organization, using the organization’s official web site, or mailing a check to the address listed on the organization’s website.

6. Listen closely to the name of the group and beware of 'copycat' names that sound like reputable charities.

7. Avoid donating through email solicitations. Clicking on an email may lead you to a website that looks authentic, but is established by identity thieves seeking to obtain money or personal information.

8. Do not give cash. Write checks to the charitable organization, not a solicitor.

9. Do not be pressured into giving. Even in times of emergency, reputable organizations do not expect you to contribute immediately if you are unfamiliar with their services. Be wary of appeals that are long on emotion, but short on details about how the charity will help disaster victims.

10. If you are contacted by a solicitor, ask what percentage of your donations will be used for charitable activities that help victims and how much will be used to pay for administrative and fundraising costs. State law requires solicitors to provide such information if requested by donors. Be wary of fundraisers who balk at answering.

11. Find out what the charity intends to do with any excess contributions remaining after victims' needs are met.

12. There are many forms of giving. Alternative forms of giving include charitable gift annuities, in-kind contributions, and endowments.

For additional tips on charitable giving, go to http://ag.ca.gov/charities/charit_giving.php. Information on national charities is available from the Better Business Bureau's Wise Giving Alliance at 800-575-4483 or www.give.org.

Californians who believe they or others have been victimized by fraudulent charitable solicitation can file a complaint online with the Attorney General's Registrar of Charitable Trusts at http://ag.ca.gov/charities.php.

Oakland—Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr. today sued Florida-based electronic-cigarette retailer Smoking Everywhere to prevent the company from targeting minors and making “misleading and irresponsible” claims that electronic cigarettes are a safe alternative to smoking.

“Smoking Everywhere launched a misleading and irresponsible advertising campaign targeting minors and claiming that electronic cigarettes do not contain harmful chemicals,” Brown said. “We are asking the Court to take these cigarettes off the market until the company has proven the products are safe.”

Electronic cigarettes, or e-cigarettes, are battery-operated devices with nicotine cartridges designed to look and feel like conventional cigarettes. Instead of actual smoke, e-cigarettes produce a vapor from the nicotine cartridge that is inhaled by the user. Smoking Everywhere, one of the largest e-cigarette retailers in the United States, claims in its advertisements that the e-cigarettes have no carcinogens, no tar, no second-hand smoke, and are therefore safe and healthy.

However, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has determined that electronic cigarettes contain a variety of dangerous chemicals, including nicotine, carcinogens such as nitrosamines and, in at least one case, diethylene glycol, commonly known as antifreeze.

Today’s lawsuit seeks to prevent the company from selling its products until there is evidence to substantiate its claims that they are safe. The lawsuit will also require the products to display the state-mandated Proposition 65 warnings of ingredients known to cause cancer or reproductive harm and seeks to prevent the company from making false and misleading claims and promoting the products to minors.

In one advertisement targeted to minors, Smoking Everywhere featured a video with radio show host Howard Stern claiming, “kids love ‘em.” The products feature flavors that appeal to youth, including strawberry, chocolate, mint, banana and cookies-and-cream.

Other ads claim that electronic cigarettes can help people quit smoking. To be advertised as a smoking-cessation device, a product must be approved by the FDA for that purpose. In fact, none of Smoking Everywhere’s products have been approved by the FDA.

The American Cancer Society, the American Heart Association, the American Lung Association, the Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids and other groups have expressed serious concerns about the safety of electronic cigarettes and urged that they be removed from the market until proof of their safety has been established.

A copy of the complaint is attached.

Oakland—Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr. and 23 other state attorneys general today announced a $22.5 million settlement with pharmaceutical giants Abbott and Fournier after the companies “illegally blocked” cheaper generic substitutes for the cholesterol-reducing drug Tricor.

The settlement is the result of one of the country’s first legal actions challenging pharmaceutical companies for 'product hopping,' a strategy to block generic competition by making slight changes to the formulation of a drug.

“Abbott and Fournier devised a complex scheme that illegally blocked cheaper generic drugs from entering the market,” Brown said. “They used minor reformulations of the drug to delay competition and filed frivolous patent lawsuits. This scheme cost California and other states millions of dollars.”

Beginning in 1998, Abbott and Fournier, two of the nation’s largest pharamaceutical companies, partnered to manufacture and distribute Tricor, a cholesterol-reducing drug. Tricor’s annual sales were in excess of $750 million.

By 2002, as Tricor’s patents were set to expire, several drug companies sought approval from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to market a generic drug equivalent to Tricor. To be approved by the FDA, the generic-drug manufacturer must prove that its drug has the same active ingredients and the same labeling as the brand-name drug, in addition to being a therapeutic equivalent of the brand-name product.

Once a generic drug is approved for market, the market share for a brand-name drug like Tricor can decrease by up to 80 percent. Most states and group health plans require pharmacists to substitute the generic drug for a brand-name drug to get the cost benefit of the cheaper generic version.

Knowing generic manufacturers were attempting to enter the market, the lawsuit alleged that Abbott and Fournier devised a complex scheme to delay and prevent the approval and marketing of generic versions of Tricor. The companies made minor changes in the form and dosage strength of Tricor that did not provide any significant health benefits over previous Tricor formulations. These minor changes interfered with and delayed any FDA approval of the generics.

To further delay the process, Abbott and Fournier also filed more than a dozen lawsuits against generic drug manufacturers Teva Pharmaceuticals and Impax Laboratories because the law prohibits the FDA from approving a generic drug for 30 months after patent-infringement lawsuits have been filed. After the 30-month automatic stays expired, all of the suits were eventually dismissed.

As a result of the scheme, Abbott and Fournier recorded Tricor sales exceeding $1 billion at the expense of consumers and state governments.

Today’s settlement agreement requires the companies to cease illegal efforts to block generic competition to Tricor and to pay the states approximately $22.5 million dollars. In California, the Department of General Services, Medi-Cal and the Department of Corrections will be reimbursed for overcharges.

States joining California in today’s lawsuit include: Arizona, Arkansas, Connecticut, District of Columbia, Florida, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, Missouri, Nevada, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Washington, and West Virginia.

A copy of the agreement is attached.

Sacramento – Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr. announced today a $21.3 million settlement with Schering-Plough Corporation, resolving allegations the company “deliberately inflated” the price of Albuterol and other drugs, causing California’s Medicaid (Medi-Cal) program to overpay millions of dollars in pharmacy reimbursement.

Albuterol is a widely prescribed generic drug, delivered through inhalers, nebulizers and masks, and used to treat asthma and other breathing problems.

“With healthcare costs spiraling out of control, it’s unconscionable that a Fortune 500 pharmaceutical company deliberately inflated its drug prices to cheat California’s public healthcare system out of millions of dollars,” said Brown. “This is a company that made more than $12 billion in profits last year, yet still raided the pockets of California taxpayers.”

Today’s settlement stems from a lawsuit filed by a whistleblower against several pharmaceutical companies accused of Medicaid fraud. The case is still proceeding against Dey, Inc., Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Sandoz, Inc. and their parent companies. Schering-Plough recently merged with Merck, and is now known as Merck & Co.

California’s $21.3 million agreement is one of three settlements negotiated with Schering-Plough, collectively totaling $69 million, over falsely inflated drug prices. The three lawsuits were originally filed by a whistleblower, Ven-A-Care of the Florida Keys, Inc., on behalf of California, Florida and the federal government. Schering-Plough also reached settlements with Florida and the federal government, the latter for approximately $44.5 million.

The settlement resolves allegations that Warrick Pharmaceuticals, a subsidiary of Schering-Plough, deliberately inflated the Average Wholesale Prices (AWPs) it reported to California for Albuterol. Medi-Cal sets the reimbursement rates for pharmacies for many of the drugs dispensed to Medi-Cal patients based on the AWPs reported by drug manufacturers.

California pharmacies dispensed Albuterol to patients and were then reimbursed by Medi-Cal. By reporting falsely inflated AWPs, some drug manufacturers caused Medi-Cal to overpay millions of dollars in pharmacy reimbursement. Medi-Cal is funded on a roughly 50% - 50% basis by the federal government and the State of California.

Reporting fraudulent AWPs is a violation of the California False Claims Act. The Attorney General’s Office investigated the claims, and in 2005, intervened in the lawsuit with its own complaint, currently being litigated in federal court in Boston. The California Department of Health Care Services, which is responsible for administering Medi-Cal, will receive $20.1 million, and the Attorney General’s False Claims Fund will receive just over $1.2 million.

The Attorney General’s False Claims Fund is used for the ongoing investigation and prosecution of false claims, including Medi-Cal fraud claims. Today’s settlement was negotiated by the Attorney General’s Bureau of Medi-Cal Fraud and Elder Abuse. The Bureau of Medi-Cal Fraud and Elder Abuse investigates and prosecutes claims of Medi-Cal civil and criminal fraud, as well as allegations of elder abuse, such as physical assaults or financial theft.

The settlement agreement is attached.

Los Angeles –Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr. today sued a Los Angeles car wash for $2.6 million for illegally forcing employees to work nearly 60-hour weeks without overtime, ignoring minimum wage laws and denying injured employees workers’ compensation benefits.

Brown's legal action was part of his statewide crackdown on companies that break worker-protection laws.

"Most companies in California comply with state wage and benefit laws, but if you're running a firm that's exploiting your workers in this economy when people are desperate for jobs, we want you to know that we will find you, we will stop you and we will file some of the toughest legal actions in the nation against you,' Brown warned.

Brown’s lawsuit was filed in Los Angeles Superior Court today against Auto Spa Express, Inc. and its owner, Jonathan Min Kim, and Sunset Car Wash, LLC. The violations occurred at Auto Spa Express car wash facility located at 2028 Sunset Blvd., which employed between 23 and 41 people, depending on the time of year. The facility was sold to Sunset Car Wash, LLC earlier this year.

The suit contends that from 2006 to 2008, the company failed to:

• Pay the state minimum wage to its employees. Employees were often paid $6.32 an hour; the state’s minimum wage is $8.00 an hour. On days when there were no customers, employees sometimes would not be paid at all.

• Pay overtime. Employees were often forced to work six days a week, from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m., without overtime pay.

• Provide accurate itemized statements of hours and wages to employees. Employees were often paid in cash so that the company would not have to pay into the State Unemployment Fund or withhold pay for state taxes.

• Provide safe working conditions or report industrial injuries suffered by employees.

After receiving numerous complaints from Auto Express Spa employees, the Underground Economy Unit of the Attorney General's Office conducted an investigation into Auto Spa Express’ practices and uncovered the violations.

Brown seeks to recover $630,000 in unpaid wages for the company’s workers and to assess $2 million in penalties for violating California’s Unfair Business Act. The Attorney General is also seeking an injunction to prevent the defendants from committing similar violations in the future.

Today's action is part of Attorney General Brown’s ongoing crackdown on businesses that engage in unfair business practices by evading payroll taxes and failing to provide employees with state-mandated protections and benefits. Similar lawsuits were filed against a drywall contractor in Bakersfield and several trucking companies in Los Angeles.

The lawsuit is attached.

Los Angeles – Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr. and the Los Angeles County Department of Consumer Affairs announced today that $100,000 in consumer refunds are still available as part of a settlement reached last year with Hy Cite Corp. after the company “hoodwinked” consumers into buying its high-priced cookware using deceptive in-home demonstrations and scare tactics.

Brown urges consumers who were scammed by Hy Cite to contact the Los Angeles County Department of Consumers Affairs at 1-800-593-8222 to claim their refund.

“Hy Cite hoodwinked hundreds of consumers into purchasing high-priced pots and pans by using deceptive in-home demonstrations and scare tactics,” Brown said. “We want people to know that if they were scammed by HyCite, there’s refund money available for them. While $250,000 has already been paid to victims as part of our settlement, $100,000 in refunds remains unclaimed.”

In September 2008, Brown’s office secured a million-dollar settlement with Hy Cite, requiring the company to pay $350,000 in restitution to consumer victims. As part of the settlement, the Los Angeles County Department of Consumer Affairs agreed to distribute the restitution funds, $100,000 of which remains unclaimed.

Prior to the settlement, Brown’s office investigated Hy Cite and found that the company violated the state’s unfair competition and false advertising laws, as well as a previous injunction prohibiting such practices.

Hy Cite’s victims were mostly Spanish-speaking consumers living in predominantly Latino neighborhoods in Southern California. To get into homes, salespeople told consumers that they had won a prize or asked them to participate in opinion polls. Once inside, salespeople often used high-pressure, deceptive tactics, including in-home demonstrations of their products.

For example, salespeople regularly performed bogus “tests” on the victim’s cookware, claiming that non-stick or aluminum cookware was unsafe for families and could lead to illness. One test involved heating a mixture of baking soda and water in consumers’ pans to produce a bad-tasting paste. The salespeople claimed their tests showed that toxic chemicals were transferred into the family’s food through their existing cookware. Hy Cite’s “Royal Prestige” cookware ranged in price from $2,000 to $4,500 per set.

Costs further escalated when consumers agreed to pay for the pots and pans through the Hy Cite’s financing plan. Under these terms, while the company promised low rates, consumers were instead stuck with interest rates of 24% or higher, leading to missed payments, damaged credit scores and collection calls.

Brown’s office also found that the company used two separate credit structures for customers based on ethnicity: one for “Anglo” customers, who were offered 90-day payment deferral, contract cancellation, and the use of post-dated checks; and one for Latino customers, which included none of these options.

In addition to the restitution and penalties, last year’s settlement required Hy Cite to pay for an independent monitor to conduct in-depth interviews with future consumers of Hy Cite products. The settlement also set forth strict requirements on what salespeople say before and during sales presentations.

A copy of the September 2008 settlement with Hy Cite is attached.

*To request interviews in Spanish, please contact the Los Angeles County Department of Consumer Affairs, Office of Director Pastor Herrera Jr. at 213-974-9750*

Los Angeles – Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr. announced today that his office has launched an investigation into whether four individuals defrauded more than 30 African American churches in Southern California by forcing them to pay up to $45,000 for shoddy computer kiosks originally presented as cost-free. These individuals—Michael Morris; Willie Perkins; Tonya Wilson; and Wayne Wilson—are also suspected of targeting dozens of churches in at least ten other states.

Additionally, Brown is investigating what role three national leasing companies—Balboa Capital Corporation; United Leasing Associates of America Ltd.; and Banc of America Leasing and Capital, LLC—may have played in facilitating this scam.

“These individuals sold the churches on the promise of free services and advertising revenues,” said Brown. “Instead, the churches were enticed into expensive leases, which the leasing companies aggressively enforced, even after learning of the alleged scam.”

Since 2000, Morris, Perkins, Wilson and Wilson have operated two companies—Urban Interfaith Network and Television Broadcasting Online—that peddled computer kiosks to African American churches throughout the country. In California, these individuals targeted neighborhood churches in Compton, Los Angeles, Long Beach, Moreno Valley, Murrieta, Pasadena, Perris, Pomona, Rialto, Riverside and San Bernardino.

These individuals purportedly pitched the kiosks to church leaders as cost-free, high-tech devices that could serve as electronic message boards, print retail coupons from local businesses and generate advertising revenue.

Once a church agreed to house a kiosk, the individuals presented it with a lease agreement from United Leasing Associates of America Ltd. or Balboa Capital Corp (who later sold some of its leases to Banc of America Leasing and Capital, LLC). The individuals repeatedly assured church leaders that Urban Interfaith Network, Television Broadcasting Online or other church-friendly corporate sponsors would cover all leasing costs.

Instead, churches were left with leases as high as $45,000 per year for what amounted to little more than desktop computers and printers housed in podium-sized wooden boxes. Many of the kiosks did not function.

Even after learning of the alleged scam, leasing companies continued to aggressively enforce the terms of the leases, filing lawsuits against churches to collect payment, interest and late fees. For example:

• Los Angeles-based Bryant Temple AME Church was sued by Balboa Capital Corp. to collect on a kiosk lease even after the church informed the company that it had been defrauded into signing the lease. For months, the church pooled funds together to pay down the lease and avoid the cost of litigation, however, it has recently decided to stop making payments to Balboa.

• Los Angeles-based True Way Missionary Baptist Church contends in its own lawsuit against United Leasing Associates of America, Ltd. that even after learning of the alleged scam, the leasing company collected payments on the lease by debiting the church’s bank account without authorization. The lawsuit further contends that United obtained a default judgment in Wisconsin for over $30,000 for a kiosk that the leasing company knew was worth only $2,000.

• San Bernardino-based Ecclesia Christian Fellowship Church was sued by Balboa Capital Corp. and Banc of America Leasing and Capital, LLC to collect on two separate kiosk leases. The two leasing companies continue to aggressively pursue their lawsuits.

• San Bernardino-based New Hope Missionary Baptist Church was sued by Banc of America to collect payment on two leases it purchased from Balboa Leasing. The church filed a countersuit contending that Balboa, working with Urban Interfaith Network and Television Broadcasting Online, defrauded the church. Balboa’s motion to dismiss the church’s countersuit was overruled in court.

Brown has served investigative subpoenas on the three leasing companies: United Leasing Associates of America Ltd.; Balboa Capital Corporation; and Banc of America Leasing and Capital, LLC; and the two companies operated by Morris, Perkins, Wilson and Wilson: Urban Interfaith Network and Television Broadcasting Online.

Last month, Michigan Attorney General Mike Cox filed criminal charges against Morris and Perkins, including: one count of racketeering, one count of conspiracy to commit false pretenses over $20,000, four counts of false pretenses over $20,000 and four counts of fraudulently obtaining a signature.

San Francisco— Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr. today announced a landmark $1.4 billion settlement with three Wells Fargo affiliates to pay back investors, charities and small businesses that purchased auction-rate securities based on “misleading advice.”

“Wells Fargo convinced thousands of investors to purchase auction-rate securities with promises of robust returns and liquidity, but when the market collapsed, investors were left out in the cold,” Brown said. “Based on misleading advice, investors bought these risky securities. Now, retail investors and small businesses are finally getting their money back.”

Under today’s settlement, Wells Fargo will buy back $1.4 billion in non-liquid auction-rate securities from thousands of retail customers, charities, and small businesses nationwide, including about $700 million to California investors. Wells Fargo will also pay legal costs and future monitoring expenses incurred by Brown’s office.

In February 2008, nationwide auction markets froze, and investors have been unable to sell their securities.

Earlier this year, Brown filed the suit against three Wells Fargo affiliates—Wells Fargo Investments, LLC; Wells Fargo Brokerage Services, LLC; and Wells Fargo Institutional Securities, LLC—for violating California’s Securities Law. Brown’s suit contended that Wells Fargo routinely misrepresented, marketed and sold auction-rate securities as safe, liquid and cash-like investments, omitting material facts. The company was also charged with failing to supervise and train its sales agents and selling unsuitable investments.

The lawsuit contended that Wells Fargo ignored clear industry and internal warnings about risk and previous auction failure. In March 2005, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), the “Big 4” accounting firms, and the Financial Accounting Standards Board all determined that auction-rate securities should not be considered “cash equivalents.”

Despite these warnings, Wells Fargo continued to aggressively sell and falsely market auction-rate securities as safe, liquid, cash-like investments until the nationwide auction markets froze in early 2008.

In marketing and selling these investments, Wells Fargo failed to inform investors about how auction-rate securities or the auction process worked, as well as the risks and consequences of auction failure.

Los Angeles – Concerned about a “new wave” of foreclosures, Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr. today called on ten major banks and loan servicers to detail their plans to assist homeowners facing dramatic monthly payment increases on Pay Option Adjustable Rate Mortgages.

“Homeowners with Pay Option ARMs are sitting on ticking time bombs that the lending industry has the power to defuse,” Brown said. “Unless these banks and loan servicers act quickly, hundreds of thousands of mortgages will reset across the state, creating a new wave of foreclosures.”

In the third quarter of 2009, California accounted for more than 25 percent of the nation’s foreclosure activity, with 250,000 homes receiving foreclosure filings statewide. This is an annual increase of almost 20 percent in foreclosure activity and more foreclosures loom.

California homeowners hold almost 60 percent of the nation’s exotic Pay Option ARMs originated between 2004 and 2008. Approximately one million of these mortgages will reset nationwide in the next four years, resulting in higher payments and a dramatic increase in foreclosures.

Brown believes that the lending industry must be responsive to homeowners and loan modification programs must be expanded.

Brown has made it a top priority to protect homeowners and combat loan modification fraud in California. In October 2008, Brown announced an $8.68 billion settlement with Countrywide Home Loans, once the largest lender in the county, after the company deceived borrowers by misrepresenting loan terms, loan payment increases, and borrowers’ ability to afford loans.

In total, Brown has sought court orders to shut down more than 30 fraudulent foreclosure assistance companies and has brought criminal charges and obtained lengthy prison sentences for dozens of deceptive loan modification consultants.

Homeowners who have been scammed can contact the Attorney General’s office at 1-800-952-5225, or file a complaint online at: www.ag.ca.gov/consumers/general.php

For more information on the Brown’s action against loan modification fraud visit: http://ag.ca.gov/loanmod.

Brown's request was made in a letter sent to: Bank of America Home Loans & Insurance; Wells Fargo & Company; JP Morgan Chase & Co.; Litton Loan Servicing; ResCap, LLC; Ocwen Financial Corporation; OneWest Bank; American Home Mortgage Servicing; Saxon Mortgage Services, Inc.; and Select Portfolio Servicing. Banks and loan servicers are asked to respond by November 23, 2009.

The text of the letter follows. Copies of each letter sent today are attached.

October 29, 2009

The foreclosure crisis continues to plague California homeowners who are trapped in mortgages with exploding monthly payments. While the economy is beginning to improve, homeowners desperate to save their homes have seen little relief. And analysts predict that foreclosures will continue to worsen, particularly as Pay Option ARMs begin to recast.

Economists estimate that about one million Pay Option ARMs will reset in the next four years, resulting in massive payment shock and dramatically worsening the foreclosure crisis. California, with 58 per cent of all Pay Option ARMs originated between 2004 and 2008, will be the epicenter of this crisis. Systemic plans to modify these loans as they recast must be in place, in order to preserve home ownership and avoid a prolonged and painful recession.

Loan modifications can help many of these borrowers save their homes. To be successful, however, current loan modification programs must expand. The Administration’s Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP) has been slow to get off the ground and will not benefit thousands of Californians threatened by foreclosure, as it does not allow for principal reduction. Yet principal reduction is exactly what borrowers need. Borrowers living in areas with sharp depreciation in housing prices do not have enough equity in their homes to qualify for HAMP. This situation is even more dire for borrowers with Pay Option ARMs, who now owe more on their homes than when they first took out their mortgages.

Poor customer service often is a significant obstacle to effective loan modifications. Homeowners seeking loan modifications continually complain that their lenders and servicers fail to respond to their phone calls; that they are asked to resubmit the same paperwork over and over again; that they are told they will not be considered for a modification unless they are already in default; and that they receive no answer to their request for a loan modification and are left with no option but to short sell their home, go through foreclosure, or file for bankruptcy. Effective customer service systems must be in place to address the next wave of mortgage resets.

The foreclosure crisis and the expected deluge of Pay Option ARM recasts require advance planning on the part of the entire mortgage industry. Given the importance of this issue, we ask that you provide the following information by no later than November 23, 2009:

1. The number of Pay Option ARM loans secured by residential real property
located in California that you are servicing (regardless of whether you own the loans).

2. Of the number of Pay Option ARM loans identified above, the number that have negatively amortized, and the average dollar amount of that negative amortization.

3. A detailed explanation of all efforts you have taken to handle customer service concerns of borrowers with Pay Option ARM loans, including any increased staffing and a description of any notices you send or are planning to send to borrowers whose loans are about to reset. For advance notices sent to borrowers, please specify how far in advance of the reset date you send, or plan to send, those notices.

4. A detailed explanation of the loan modification plans you have developed for Pay Option ARM loans. Please state the circumstances under which your plans allow for the reduction of principal, and the possible amounts of principal reduction. If you are not willing to consider principal reduction as part of your plan, please explain why. Please also specify whether you have already implemented your modification plans for Pay Option ARMs or, if not, the time frame within which you expect to do so.

5. To the extent your approach for considering whether and how to modify Pay Option ARM loans has changed since the beginning of the foreclosure crisis, please explain the changes and the reasons for those changes.

We look forward to receiving the requested information and to productive discussions on how to minimize the impact of Pay Option ARM recasts on California’s residents and economy.

Sincerely,

BENJAMIN DIEHL
Deputy Attorney General

For EDMUND G. BROWN JR.
Attorney General

El Cajon—Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr. and 11 other state Attorneys General today forced Student Loan Xpress, Inc. to provide $112.7 million in debt relief to students facing a “mountain of debt” for helicopter flight instruction they never received.

Of the $112.7 million, approximately $25.5 million in debt relief will go to California residents who did not receive the training they paid for.

“These students did not obtain the helicopter instruction they were promised, yet Student Loan Xpress insisted that they pay off the full cost of their tuition,” Brown said. “Without this agreement, Silver State flight school students would face a mountain of debt for training they never received.”

Silver State Helicopters was founded near Las Vegas in 2002, and the company quickly grew. At its height, the school comprised 34 campuses in 17 states, and included 2,700 students who paid approximately $69,900 each. In California, Silver State Helicopters operated flight schools in Sacramento, Chino and El Cajon.

In August 2005, Student Loan Xpress became the preferred student loan provider for Silver State Helicopters, lending or servicing some $180 million in student loans.

Yet, even before it made its first loan, Student Loan Xpress had reason to believe that the school was in serious financial difficulty. Students complained of a shortage of instructors, flight simulators and helicopters. Only 10 percent of Silver State students graduated. Ultimately, the school filed for bankruptcy in February 2008.

Many students paid thousands of dollars of tuition, but did not receive the flight training they were promised in return. Regardless of the bankruptcy, Student Loan Express demanded that borrowers repay the full cost of the loans.

Consequently, several state Attorneys General launched an investigation, which determined that the two companies had a close business relationship, and that that Student Loan Xpress had failed to comply with the duty to provide required notices to borrowers. Under the settlement, Student Loan Xpress denied any wrongdoing.

After several months of negotiations, the attorneys general and Student Loan Xpress reached a settlement agreement. The settlement, in tandem with the resolution of a private class action, calls for Student Loan Xpress to restructure approximately $174 million of student debt, based on the number of Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) certifications each student obtained. The fewer certificates obtained, the larger the amount forgiven. The average debt relief for students under this settlement is $46,016.

The company also agreed to:
• Forgive an additional 2.5 percent of the student loan if the adjusted loan is repaid within five years;
• Refrain from providing negative information to credit reporting agencies with respect to any loan restructured; and
• Forgive interest between the dates Silver State Helicopters filed for bankruptcy and approximately the end of 2009.

Student Loan Xpress will also pay $125,000 in legal expenses to the states. The states joining California in today’s settlement are: Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, Oklahoma, Oregon, Utah, and Washington.

The $112.7 in debt forgiveness included in this settlement includes the total relief provided in both the states’ settlement with Student Loan Xpress, and the proposed settlement in a private, nationwide class-action called Holman et al v. Student Loan Xpress, Inc. That class action was filed in federal court in Florida.

Student Loan Xpress borrowers with questions about the settlement are asked to contact the settlement administrator in this matter by e-mail, at settlementquestions@gmail.com.

A copy of the Assurance of Voluntary Compliance is attached.