Consumer Protection

Los Angeles – Threatening possible criminal and civil prosecution, Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr. today ordered 386 mortgage foreclosure consultants to post $100,000 bonds and register with his office.

He also ordered more than two dozen companies to justify suspicious loan modification claims made in “slick advertising,” online and through the mail.

“Hoping to lower their mortgage payments, thousands of homeowners were instead duped by slick advertising and money-back guarantees,” Brown said. “The time for accountability is at hand, and this rogue industry must clean itself up or face legal action,” Brown added.

Brown also unveiled a new website (http://ag.ca.gov/loanmod) that provides homeowners tips to avoid loan modification fraud, allows them to determine if a company is registered with his office and makes it easier to file complaints.

Brown today joined with the California Department of Real Estate and the State Bar of California in a new partnership to combat loan modification and foreclosure fraud.

Brown has sent letters directing 386 mortgage foreclosure consultants to register with his office within 10 days and post $100,000 bond, or demonstrate why they are not required to. If the consultants are required to register and have failed to do so, they are subject to criminal penalties of up to a year in jail and fines ranging from $1,000 to $25,000 per violation. Eighty-five of these consultants are based in Los Angeles County, 133 in Orange County, 47 in the Inland Empire, 68 in San Diego County and seven in the Bay Area.

Additionally, Brown sent letters today demanding that 27 loan consultants substantiate suspect claims made on the internet and in direct mail advertising. For instance:

· Brown directed Irsfeld, Irsfeld & Younger, LLP as corporate counsel for JL Richman, doing business as Home Retention Programs of Glendale, Calif. to substantiate its claims including: “Our team has 10 years of success in negotiating 90% of all mortgage loan modification requests to a successful outcome….For the modification requests we accept, our modification failure rate is less than 1%.”

· Brown directed 21st Century Real Estate Investment Corporation of Rancho Cucamonga to substantiate its written solicitations including: “[y]our proposed loan modification is a 30 year fixed/3.5% interest rate with a monthly payment of $495. Your monthly savings is $705. Total savings over a 30-year period is $253,800. . . . Your first payment will be negotiated to begin March 2009 – payable to your current lender for $495.”

· Brown directed Mortgage Modification Solutions of Irvine to substantiate its claims including: “Our services are due to the FEDERAL MANDATE which makes it mandatory for mortgagees, upon the default of a single family mortgage, to engage in loss mitigation actions” and “Why $3995.00 is nothing compared to what you can accomplish in return? #1- It’s 10 times more expensive to hire a CPA or a Financial Advisor to exclusively analyze & Research your financial affairs to create a plan acceptable to the Banking standards.”

· Brown directed Alliance Law Center of San Diego to substantiate its letters to consumers stating: “Final Notice: 3/11/09, our review of certain information indicates you may be a victim of federal disclosure violations and/or predatory lending violations, therefore your loan may be invalid, and you may qualify for a loan modification saving you thousands of dollars.”

The State Bar of California today announced that it has obtained resignations from two lawyers and filed charges against a third for their loan modification activities. The State Bar’s special team on loan modification complaints continues to investigate more than four hundred active complaints from consumers about lawyers’ roles in loan modification scams.

Brown has made it a top priority to combat loan modification fraud. As part of a nationwide sweep last month, Brown filed suits against 21 individuals and 14 companies who ripped off thousands of homeowners seeking mortgage relief. In total, Brown has sought court orders to shut down 32 companies and has brought criminal charges and obtained lengthy prison sentences for deceptive loan modification consultants.

Copies of the letters and a list of consultants who have not registered are attached.

San Diego – Continuing his fight against “rip-off artists,” Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr. won a $1.2 million ruling against Gaston Muhammad, 42, and Ronna Green, 41, of Duluth, GA, who billed nearly a million California business owners $150 each for deceptive and unnecessary corporate minutes services.

“These rip-off artists sent nearly a million deceptive mailers to business owners, threatening them with loss of their corporate status if they didn’t pay $150 for unnecessary services,” Brown said. “In reality, this was a massive scam costing California small business owners hundreds of thousands of dollars.”

The defendants mailed solicitations to California business owners that were designed to look like State of California official forms—specifically, the Secretary of State’s “Annual Statement of Information.” The solicitations implied that unless the corporations paid the defendants a $150 annual fee, they could lose their corporate status. The defendants sent out 986,000 solicitations to California businesses between July 2007 and November 2008.

The solicitation appeared to be a government document featuring an official-looking seal, an official-sounding name, the corporation number, citations to the Corporations Code, and a return address in Sacramento. The defendants, in fact, resided in Georgia and the Sacramento address was a mail drop.

The defendants promised to prepare annual minutes for the recipient corporations, even though the information sought on the forms was insufficient to create minutes. Defendants simply invented the dates, meeting places, participants, and actions taken in the fictitious minutes they created.

Brown filed suit in San Diego Superior Court in May 2008, charging defendants with violating:

• Business and Professions Code section 17533.6 (Deceptive Mailing Statute) and 17550 (False Advertising Statute)
• Civil Code section 1716 (Phony Billing Statute)
• Permanent injunction from a previous mail scam judgment against Gaston Muhammad
• Unfair business practices within the meaning of Business and Professions Code section 17200.

On June 22, the Trial Court ruled that the solicitations were misleading. The Court also found that the disclaimers were not big and bold enough to alert the recipients that this was not an official form. It found that the defendants violated all four statues and the permanent injunction.

The court ordered defendants to pay restitution of $200,000 and imposed civil penalties of $986,000. It further issued a permanent injunction which, in addition to requiring the defendants to comply with the law, barred them from engaging in the business of providing corporate minutes in California for five years. The Court also awarded the state the costs incurred in the prosecution of this case.

Earlier this year, Brown filed suit against two brothers operating a similar scam, billing homeowners nearly $200 each for property tax reassessment services that were almost never performed and are available free of charge from local tax assessors.

The judgment and a copy of the mailer are attached.

Los Angeles – Responding to a just-released report that exposes the inner workings of a loan modification boiler room, Brown warned homeowners to avoid “shadowy and unscrupulous” loan modification consultants who use aggressive telemarketing tactics and charge thousands of dollars in upfront fees for foreclosure relief.

The report, written by a court-appointed receiver, found that H.E. Servicing, Inc., a loan modification company that Brown sued last week, ran a “well-appointed telephone boiler room” focused on making money, rather than helping homeowners stay in their homes.

“From sun up to sun down, this shadowy and unscrupulous operation used high-pressure telemarketing tactics to bully homeowners into paying thousands of dollars for phony loan modification services,” Brown said. “In reality, the goal wasn’t to help these homeowners stay in their homes, but to rip them off and take their hard-earned dollars.”

On July 7, 2009, as part of “Operation Loan Lies,” Brown, the Federal Trade Commission and the State of Missouri sued US Foreclosure Relief Corp., George Escalante, Cesar Lopez and Adrian Pomery who operated a number of fraudulent foreclosure relief companies including H.E. Servicing, Inc. On the same day the suit was filed, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California entered a temporary restraining order appointing an independent receiver to closely examine the structure, operation and finances of these companies.

After reviewing documents, tracing financial transactions, interviewing employees and speaking with state officials, the receiver made the following findings:

• “Even if most of the deceptive sales practices could be cured, this is not a lawful advance fee loan modification business. It is not operated and managed by a lawyer or a properly licensed DRE broker. It is a phone sales operation selling unlicensed loan modification services with more than 80 percent of its clients residing outside of California.” (p. 2)

• “At the outset, it is a challenge to precisely categorize this business. It is not a law practice. It is not a licensed mortgage or real estate company. Rather, I see this business as a high-pressure, cash-up-front telephone sales business targeting distressed homeowners. It appears that some homeowners may have been helped, but the overriding goal of the business was not to help homeowners, but to make money.” (p. 6)

• “The Sales Department is essentially a well-appointed telephone boiler room with phone cubicles for 44 sales people – ‘counselors’ – and separate offices or stations for 3 on-site managers.” (p. 9)

In addition to the excerpts above, the receiver’s report, submitted July 15, 2009, made the following observations about H.E. Servicing, Inc.:

• The sales department operated like a boiler room. Spread across 11,285 square feet of office space in Anaheim, the company operated as a “bustling enterprise” with phone cubicles for 44 sales people and offices for three on-site managers. Sales people handled approximately 500 incoming calls per day in staggered shifts from 5:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Of the 60 employees, only eight “staff negotiators” communicated directly with clients and lenders about mortgage details.

• The typical commission was $450 for a fully paid sale (i.e. $2,500 upfront payment) with an extra $25 if the consumer paid by debit card or wire transfer. If the consumer could only handle a payment plan (minimum $1,000 down), the sales person received a percentage (10-15%) of the amount actually paid, with no commission on the later payment. Other sales incentives were also offered, including a Rolex watch.

• Sales people informed homeowners that the company successfully negotiated 10,000 loan modifications, when in truth, only 311 were completed. Sales people informed homeowners that the company had 10,000 confirmed and negotiated loan modifications, a 90% success rate, nationwide service and over 100 workers. According to company records, from November 2008 to July 8, 2009 a total of 2,960 loan modification files were opened with only 311 completed.

• The company spent $70,000 a week on radio and television advertising in 100 media markets and had plans to expand to $80,000-$100,000, producing an estimated $270,000 a week in new business. The company also planned to aggressively hire additional sales staff.

• The company advertised a money back guarantee, but just before being shut down it implemented a cap on refunds, regardless of the amount due to consumers.

• Homeowners were led to believe that they were hiring a lawyer or law firm to save their homes. Sales people frequently referred to the company as “attorney-based.” One sales person had a note claiming that the attorney was “the most aggressive attorney in the mortgage industry.” By contrast, the receiver’s report says that the business is “not a law practice.”

• In the first six months of 2009, a report prepared by an outside accountant reported a net income of $4.5 million.

Last Friday, with the temporary restraining order set to expire, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California held a hearing to consider the receiver’s report and other evidence presented by the Attorney General, the Federal Trade Commission and the State of Missouri. After hearing this evidence, the court issued a preliminary injunction to keep the terms of the temporary restraining order in place.

The Court set a hearing for July 28, 2009 to consider options to assist homeowners, particularly those facing foreclosure.

Brown has been leading the fight against fraudulent loan modification companies. In addition to last week’s legal action against 21 individuals and 14 companies, he has sought court orders to shut down several companies including First Gov and Foreclosure Freedom and has brought criminal charges and obtained lengthy prison sentences for deceptive loan modification consultants.

As part of today’s consumer alert, Brown’s office issued the following tips for homeowners to avoid becoming a victim:

DON'T pay money to people who promise to work with your lender to modify your loan. It is unlawful for foreclosure consultants to collect money before (1) they give you a written contract describing the services they promise to provide and (2) they actually perform all the services described in the contract, such as negotiating new monthly payments or a new mortgage loan. However, an advance fee may be charged by an attorney, or by a real estate broker who has submitted the advance fee agreement to the Department of Real Estate, for review.

DO call your lender yourself. Your lender wants to hear from you, and will likely be much more willing to work directly with you than with a foreclosure consultant.

DON'T ignore letters from your lender. Consider contacting your lender yourself, many lenders are willing to work with homeowners who are behind on their payments.

DON'T transfer title or sell your house to a “foreclosure rescuer.” Fraudulent foreclosure consultants often promise that if homeowners transfer title, they may stay in the home as renters and buy their home back later. The foreclosure consultants claim that transfer is necessary so that someone with a better credit rating can obtain a new loan to prevent foreclosure. BEWARE! This is a common scheme so-called “rescuers” use to evict homeowners and steal all or most of the home's equity.

DON'T pay your mortgage payments to someone other than your lender or loan servicer, even if he or she promises to pass the payment on. Fraudulent foreclosure consultants often keep the money for themselves.

DON'T sign any documents without reading them first. Many homeowners think that they are signing documents for a new loan to pay off the mortgage they are behind on. Later, they discover that they actually transferred ownership to the “rescuer.”

DO contact housing counselors approved by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), who may be able to help you for free. For a referral to a housing counselor near you, contact HUD at 1-800-569-4287 (TTY: 1-800-877-8339) or www.hud.gov.
If you believe you have been the victim of a mortgage-relief scam in California, please contact the Attorney General's Public Inquiry Unit at http://ag.ca.gov/consumers/general.php.

A copy of the court-appointed receiver’s report, submitted July 15, 2009, is attached.

Los Angeles – As part of a massive federal-state crackdown on loan modification scams, Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr. at a press conference today announced the filing of legal action against 21 individuals and 14 companies who ripped off thousands of homeowners desperately seeking mortgage relief.

Brown is demanding millions in civil penalties, restitution for victims and permanent injunctions to keep the companies and defendants from offering mortgage-relief services.

“The loan modification industry is teeming with confidence men and charlatans, who rip off desperate homeowners facing foreclosure,” Brown said. “Despite firm promises and money-back guarantees, these scam artists pocketed thousands of dollars from each victim and didn’t provide an ounce of relief.”

Brown filed five lawsuits as part of “Operation Loan Lies,” a nationwide sweep of sham loan modification consultants, which he conducted with the Federal Trade Commission, the U.S. Attorney’s office and 22 other federal and state agencies. In total, 189 suits and orders to stop doing business were filed across the country.

Following the housing collapse, hundreds of loan modification and foreclosure-prevention companies have cropped up, charging thousands of dollars in upfront fees and claiming that they can reduce mortgage payments. Yet, loan modifications are rarely, if ever, obtained. Less than 1 percent of homeowners nationwide have received principal reductions of any kind.

Brown has been leading the fight against fraudulent loan modification companies. He has sought court orders to shut down several companies including First Gov and Foreclosure Freedom and has brought criminal charges and obtained lengthy prison sentences for deceptive loan modification consultants.

Brown’s office filed the following lawsuits in Orange County and U.S. District Court for the Central District (Los Angeles):

• U.S. Homeowners Assistance, based in Irvine;
• U.S. Foreclosure Relief Corp and its legal affiliate Adrian Pomery, based in the City of Orange;
• Home Relief Services, LLC, with offices in Irvine, Newport Beach and Anaheim, and its legal affiliate, the Diener Law Firm;
• RMR Group Loss Mitigation, LLC and its legal affiliates Shippey & Associates and Arthur Aldridge. RMR Group has offices in Newport Beach, City of Orange, Huntington Beach, Corona, and Fresno;
• and
• United First, Inc, and its lawyer affiliate Mitchell Roth, based in Los Angeles.

U.S. Homeowners Assistance
Brown on Monday sued U.S. Homeowners Assistance, and its executives -- Hakimullah “Sean” Sarpas and Zulmai Nazarzai -- for bilking dozens of homeowners out of thousands of dollars each.

U.S. Homeowners Assistance claimed to be a government agency with a 98 percent success rate in aiding homeowners. In reality, the company was not a government agency and was never certified as an approved housing counselor by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. None of U.S. Homeowners Assistance’s known victims received loan modifications despite paying upfront fees ranging from $1,200 to $3,500.

For example, in January 2008, one victim received a letter from her lender indicating that her monthly mortgage payment would increase from $2,300 to $3,500. Days later, she received an unsolicited phone call from U.S. Homeowners Assistance promising a 40 percent reduction in principal and a $2,000 reduction in her monthly payment. She paid $3500 upfront for U.S. Homeowners Assistance’s services.

At the end of April 2008, her lender informed her that her loan modification request had been denied and sent her the documents that U.S. Homeowners Assistance had filed on her behalf. After reviewing those documents, she discovered that U.S. Homeowners Assistance had forged her signature and falsified her financial information – including fabricating a lease agreement with a fictitious tenant.

When she confronted U.S. Homeowners Assistance, she was immediately disconnected and has not been able to reach the company.

Brown’s suit contends that U.S. Homeowners Assistance violated:
• California Business and Professions Code section 17500 by falsely stating they were a government agency and misleading homeowners by claiming a 98 percent success rate in obtaining loan modifications;

• California Business and Professions Code section 17200 by failing to perform services made in exchange for upfront fees;

• California Civil Code section 2945.4 for unlawfully collecting upfront fees for loan modification services;

• California Civil Code section 2945.45 for failing to register with the California Attorney General’s Office as foreclosure consultants; and

• California Penal Code section 487 for grand theft.

Brown is seeking $7.5 million in civil penalties, full restitution for victims, and a permanent injunction to keep the company and the defendants from offering foreclosure consultant services.

US Homeowners Assistance also did business as Statewide Financial Group, Inc., We Beat All Rates, and US Homeowners Preservation Center.

US Foreclosure Relief Corporation
Brown last week sued US Foreclosure Relief Corporation, H.E. Service Company, their executives -- George Escalante and Cesar Lopez -- as well as their legal affiliate Adrian Pomery for running a scam promising homeowners reductions in their principal and interest rates as low as 4 percent. Brown was joined in this suit by the Federal Trade Commission and the State of Missouri.

Using aggressive telemarketing tactics, the defendants solicited desperate homeowners and charged an upfront fee ranging from $1,800 to $2,800 for loan modification services. During one nine-month period alone, consumers paid defendants in excess of $4.4 million. Yet, in most instances, defendants failed to provide the mortgage-relief services. Once consumers paid the fee, the defendants avoided responding to consumers’ inquiries.

In response to a large number of consumer complaints, several government agencies directed the defendants to stop their illegal practices. Instead, they changed their business name and continued their operations – using six different business aliases in the past eight months alone.

Brown’s lawsuit alleges the companies and individuals violated:
• The National Do Not Call Registry, 16 C.F.R. section 310.4 and California Business and Professions Code section 17200 by telemarketing their services to persons on the registry;

• The National Do Not Call Registry, 16 C.F.R. section 310.8 and California Business and Professions Code section 17200 by telemarketing their services without paying the mandatory annual fee for access to telephone numbers within the area codes included in the registry;

• California Civil Code section 2945 et seq. and California Business and Professions Code section 17200 by demanding and collecting up-front fees prior to performing any services, failing to include statutory notices in their contracts, and failing to comply with other requirements imposed on mortgage foreclosure consultants;

• California Business and Professions Code sections 17200 and 17500 by representing that they would obtain home loan modifications for consumers but failing to do so in most instances; by representing that consumers must make further payments even though they had not performed any of the promised services; by representing that they have a high success rate and that they can obtain loan modification within no more than 60 days when in fact these representations were false; and by directing consumers to avoid contact with their lenders and to stop making loan payments causing some lenders to initiate foreclosure proceedings and causing damage to consumers’ credit records.

Victims of this scam include a father of four battling cancer, a small business owner, an elderly disabled couple, a sheriff whose income dropped due to city budget cuts and an Iraq-war veteran. None of these victims received the loan modification promised.

Brown is seeking unspecified civil penalties, full restitution for victims, and a permanent injunction to keep the company and the defendants from offering foreclosure consultant services.

The defendants also did business under other names including Lighthouse Services and California Foreclosure Specialists.

Home Relief Services, LLC
Brown Monday sued Home Relief Services, LLC., its executives Terence Green Sr. and Stefano Marrero, the Diener Law Firm and its principal attorney Christopher L. Diener for bilking thousands of homeowners out of thousands of dollars each.

Home Relief Services charged homeowners over $4,000 in upfront fees, promised to lower interest rates to 4 percent, convert adjustable-rate mortgages to low fixed-rate loans and reduce principal up to 50 percent within 30 to 60 days. None of the known victims received a modification with the assistance of the defendants.

In some cases, these companies also sought to be the lenders’ agent in the short-sale of their clients’ homes. In doing so, the defendants attempted to use their customers’ personal financial information for their own benefit.

Home Relief Services and the Diener Law Firm directed homeowners to stop contacting their lender because the defendants would act as their sole agent and negotiator.

Brown’s lawsuit contends that the defendants violated:
• California Business and Professions Code section 17500 by claiming a 95 percent success rate and promising consumers significant reductions in the principal balance of their mortgages;

• California Business and Professions Code section 17200 by failing to perform on promises made in exchange for upfront fees;

• California Civil Code section 2945.4 for unlawfully collecting upfront fees for loan modification services;

• California Business and Professions Code section 2945.3 by failing to include cancellation notices in their contracts;

• California Civil Code section 2945.45 by not registering with the Attorney General’s office as foreclosure consultants; and

• California Penal Code section 487 for grand theft.

Brown is seeking $10 million in civil penalties, full restitution for victims, and a permanent injunction to keep the company and the defendants from offering foreclosure consultant services.

Two other companies with the same management were also involved in the effort to deceive homeowners: Payment Relief Services, Inc. and Golden State Funding, Inc.

RMR Group Loss Mitigation Group
Brown Monday sued RMR Group Loss Mitigation and its executives Michael Scott Armendariz of Huntington Beach, Ruben Curiel of Lancaster, and Ricardo Haag of Corona; Living Water Lending, Inc.; and attorney Arthur Steven Aldridge of Westlake Village as well as the law firm of Shippey & Associates and its principal attorney Karla C. Shippey of Yorba Linda — for bilking over 500 victims out of nearly $1 million.

The company solicited homeowners through telephone calls and in-person home visits. Employees claimed a 98 percent success rate and a money-back guarantee. None of the known victims received any refunds or modifications with the assistance of defendants.

For example, in July 2008, a 71-year old victim learned his monthly mortgage payments would increase from $2,470 to $3,295. He paid $2,995, yet received no loan modification and no refund.

Additionally, RMR insisted that homeowners refrain from contacting their lenders because the defendants would act as their agents.

Brown’s suit contends that the defendants violated:

• California Business and Professions Code section 17500 by claiming a 98 percent success rate and promising consumers significant reductions in the principal balance of their mortgages;

• California Business and Professions Code section 17200 by failing to perform on promises made in exchange for upfront fees;

• California Civil Code section 2945.4 for unlawfully collecting upfront fees for loan modification services;

• California Business and Professions Code section 2945.3 by failing to include cancellation notices in their contracts;

• California Civil Code section 2945.45 by not registering with the Attorney General’s office as foreclosure consultants; and

• California Penal Code section 487 for grand theft.

Brown is seeking $7.5 million in civil penalties, full restitution for victims, and a permanent injunction to keep the company and the defendants from offering foreclosure consultant services.

United First, Inc.
On July 6, 2009, Brown sued a foreclosure consultant and an attorney -- Paul Noe Jr. and Mitchell Roth - who conned 2,000 desperate homeowners into paying exorbitant fees for 'phony lawsuits' to forestall foreclosure proceedings.

These lawsuits were filed and abandoned, even though homeowners were charged $1,800 in upfront fees, at least $1,200 per month and contingency fees of up to 80 percent of their home's value.

Noe convinced more than 2,000 homeowners to sign 'joint venture' agreements with his company, United First, and hire Roth to file suits claiming that the borrower's loan was invalid because the mortgages had been sold so many times on Wall Street that the lender could not demonstrate who owned it. Similar suits in other states have never resulted in the elimination of the borrower's mortgage debt.

After filing the lawsuits, Roth did virtually nothing to advance the cases. He often failed to make required court filings, respond to legal motions, comply with court deadlines, or appear at court hearings. Instead, Roth's firm simply tried to extend the lawsuits as long as possible in order to collect additional monthly fees.

United First charged homeowners approximately $1,800 in upfront fees, plus at least $1,200 per month. If the case was settled, homeowners were required to pay 50 percent of the cash value of the settlement. For example, if United First won a $100,000 reduction of the mortgage debt, the homeowner would have to pay United First a fee of $50,000. If United First completely eliminated the homeowner's debt, the homeowner would be required to pay the company 80 percent of the value of the home.

Brown's lawsuit contends that Noe, Roth and United First:

• Violated California's credit counseling and foreclosure consultant laws, Civil Code sections 1789 and 2945

• Inserted unconscionable terms in contracts;

• Engaged in improper running and capping, meaning that Roth improperly partnered with United First, Inc. and Noe, who were not lawyers, to generate business for his law firm violating California Business and Professions Code 6150; and

• Violated 17500 of the California Business and Professions Code.

Brown's office is seeking $2 million in civil penalties, full restitution for victims, and a permanent injunction to keep the company and the defendants from offering foreclosure consultant services.

Tips for Homeowners
Brown’s office issued these tips for homeowners to avoid becoming a victim:

DON'T pay money to people who promise to work with your lender to modify your loan. It is unlawful for foreclosure consultants to collect money before (1) they give you a written contract describing the services they promise to provide and (2) they actually perform all the services described in the contract, such as negotiating new monthly payments or a new mortgage loan. However, an advance fee may be charged by an attorney, or by a real estate broker who has submitted the advance fee agreement to the Department of Real Estate, for review.

DO call your lender yourself. Your lender wants to hear from you, and will likely be much more willing to work directly with you than with a foreclosure consultant.

DON'T ignore letters from your lender. Consider contacting your lender yourself, many lenders are willing to work with homeowners who are behind on their payments.

DON'T transfer title or sell your house to a 'foreclosure rescuer.' Fraudulent foreclosure consultants often promise that if homeowners transfer title, they may stay in the home as renters and buy their home back later. The foreclosure consultants claim that transfer is necessary so that someone with a better credit rating can obtain a new loan to prevent foreclosure. BEWARE! This is a common scheme so-called 'rescuers' use to evict homeowners and steal all or most of the home's equity.

DON'T pay your mortgage payments to someone other than your lender or loan servicer, even if he or she promises to pass the payment on. Fraudulent foreclosure consultants often keep the money for themselves.

DON'T sign any documents without reading them first. Many homeowners think that they are signing documents for a new loan to pay off the mortgage they are behind on. Later, they discover that they actually transferred ownership to the 'rescuer.'

DO contact housing counselors approved by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), who may be able to help you for free. For a referral to a housing counselor near you, contact HUD at 1-800-569-4287 (TTY: 1-800-877-8339) or www.hud.gov.

If you believe you have been the victim of a mortgage-relief scam in California, please contact the Attorney General’s Public Inquiry Unit at http://ag.ca.gov/consumers/general.php.

Los Angeles – Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr. today sued a foreclosure consultant and an attorney -- Paul Noe Jr. and Mitchell Roth – who conned 2,000 desperate homeowners into paying exorbitant fees for “phony lawsuits” to forestall foreclosure proceedings.

These lawsuits were filed and abandoned, even though homeowners were charged $1,800 in upfront fees, at least $1,200 per month and contingency fees of up to 80 percent of their home’s value.

“Noe and Roth ripped off homeowners desperate for help by charging unconscionable fees for phony lawsuits,” Brown said. “Instead of aggressively pursuing the lawsuits, Noe and Roth strung them along so they could continue to rake in fees.”

Beginning in mid-2008, Noe promised homeowners facing foreclosure or default he could help them lower or eliminate their mortgage debt.

He convinced more than 2,000 homeowners to sign “joint venture” agreements with his company, United First, and hire Roth to file suits claiming that the borrower’s loan was invalid because the mortgages had been sold so many times on Wall Street that the lender could not demonstrate who owned it. Similar suits in other states have never resulted in the elimination of the borrower’s mortgage debt.

After filing the lawsuits, Roth did virtually nothing to advance the cases. He often failed to make required court filings, respond to legal motions, comply with court deadlines, or appear at court hearings. Instead, Roth’s firm simply tried to extend the lawsuits as long as possible in order to collect additional monthly fees.

Under the terms of the agreement, United First charged homeowners approximately $1,800 in upfront fees, plus at least $1,200 per month. If the case was settled, homeowners were required to pay 50 percent of the cash value of the settlement. For example, if United First won a $100,000 reduction of the mortgage debt, the homeowner would have to pay United First a fee of $50,000. If United First completely eliminated the homeowner’s debt, the homeowner would be required to pay the company 80 percent of the value of the home.

Brown’s lawsuit contends that Noe, Roth and United First:
• Violated California’s credit counseling and foreclosure consultant laws, Civil Code sections 1789 and 2945;
• Inserted unconscionable terms in contracts;
• Engaged in improper running and capping, meaning that Roth improperly partnered with United First, Inc. and Noe, who were not lawyers, to generate business for his law firm violating California Business and Professions Code 6150; and
• Violated 17500 of the California Business and Professions Code.

Brown’s office is seeking $2 million in civil penalties, full restitution for victims, and a permanent injunction to keep the company and the defendants from offering foreclosure consultant services.

Paul Noe Jr. was convicted of wire fraud in 1989 and the subject of a California Department of Insurance Cease and Desist Order in 2004. Mitchell Roth resigned for the California State Bar in late May 2009, after the State Bar closed his law firm.

VICTIMS
P.J. -- After receiving default notices and conducting unsuccessful negotiations with his lender, P.J. of Panorama City contacted United First and was promised his home could be saved. In November 2008, P.J. signed a contract with United First and hired Roth’s law firm, paying nearly $5,000 in upfront and monthly fees. Even as P.J. was paying United First, Roth did nothing to advance his case, and his lender foreclosed on his home earlier this year.

A.S. -- In June 2008, A.S. from La Mesa, Calif. received notices that his mortgage payments were going to increase from $3,700 to over $5,000 per month. A.S. was referred to United First by a member of his church. Representatives of the company assured him that his mortgage debt could be eliminated. A.S. paid over $10,000 to retain Roth’s firm. Shortly after signing a contract, A.S. received foreclosure notices from his lender. He called United First about the notices but was told not to worry and that his case was moving along. In January 2009, A.S. received a notice to come to United First's office to pick up his file. Roth had abandoned his cases, and the State Bar had shut down the firm.

Tips for Homeowners

DON'T pay money to people who promise to work with your lender to modify your loan. It is unlawful for foreclosure consultants to collect money before (1) they give you a written contract describing the services they promise to provide and (2) they actually perform all the services described in the contract, such as negotiating new monthly payments or a new mortgage loan. However, an advance fee may be charged by an attorney, or by a real estate broker who has submitted the advance fee agreement to the Department of Real Estate, for review.

DO call your lender yourself. Your lender wants to hear from you, and will likely be much more willing to work directly with you than with a foreclosure consultant.

DON'T ignore letters from your lender. Consider contacting your lender yourself, many lenders are willing to work with homeowners who are behind on their payments.

DON'T transfer title or sell your house to a 'foreclosure rescuer.' Fraudulent foreclosure consultants often promise that if homeowners transfer title, they may stay in the home as renters and buy their home back later. The foreclosure consultants claim that transfer is necessary so that someone with a better credit rating can obtain a new loan to prevent foreclosure. BEWARE! This is a common scheme so-called 'rescuers' use to evict homeowners and steal all or most of the home's equity.

DON'T pay your mortgage payments to someone other than your lender or loan servicer, even if he or she promises to pass the payment on. Fraudulent foreclosure consultants often keep the money for themselves.

DON'T sign any documents without reading them first. Many homeowners think that they are signing documents for a new loan to pay off the mortgage they are behind on. Later, they discover that they actually transferred ownership to the 'rescuer.'

DO contact housing counselors approved by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), who may be able to help you for free. For a referral to a housing counselor near you, contact HUD at 1-800-569-4287 (TTY: 1-800-877-8339) or www.hud.gov.

Brown's Actions to Help Homeowners and Stop Loan Modification Fraud

Sued Countrywide For Predatory Lending And Secured $8.6 Billion Settlement. 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.

Obtained Guilty Plea From Woman Who Operated Sophisticated Loan Scam. In May 2009, Brown obtained a guilty plea from Anna Santos, 22, who used forged documents to convince more than 100 desperate homeowners to hand over an average of $3,000 for non-existent loan modification services.

Shut Down 'Foreclosure Freedom' And Announced Arrest Of Two Loan Modification Scam Artists. In March 2009, Brown shut down Foreclosure Freedom, a fraudulent loan modification company that continued to collect fees and mortgage payments from dozens of homeowners without ever providing loan modification services. The two scam artists were charged with 24 counts of grand theft and 25 counts of foreclosure consultant statute violations.

Broke Up 'First Gov' And Sent Five Members To Prison. In November 2008, Brown shut down First Gov, a company that demanded $1,500 to $5,000 in up-front fees to modify loans it never renegotiated. In March 2009, five members of the ring were sentenced to a total of 18 years in prison.

Ended 'Federal Land Grant' Foreclosure Rescue Scam. In May 2008, Brown ended a scam in which hundreds of homeowners were convinced to pay $10,000 to place their property in a land grant, a phony and worthless real estate document, and then convinced to sign over the deed to their home.

Shut Down Six Predatory Lending Companies. In March 2008, Brown shut down Lifetime Financial, Nations Mortgage, Greenleaf Lending, Virtual Escrow, Olympic Escrow and Direct Credit Solutions for promising homeowners unrealistically low mortgage payments and then switching them to loans that did not match the original agreement, many with hidden fees of up to $20,000. The three scam artists who operated the scheme have been sentenced to three years in prison.

A copy of the complaint is attached.

Oakland – Following more than two dozen undercover sting operations, Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr. today sued Maurice Irving Glad and his 22 California Midas auto shops to stop a “massive bait- and-switch scam” in which customers were offered cheap brake specials and then charged hundreds of dollars more for unnecessary repairs.

The undercover operations revealed that over four years Glad’s Midas shops regularly advertised $79 to $99 brake specials to draw customers in and then charged another $110 to $130 for unnecessary brake rotor resurfacing services – and hundreds of dollars more for repairs that were not needed or never performed.

The suit, filed in Alameda County Superior Court, seeks $222 million in civil penalties, costs and reimbursements to customers.

“These Midas shops were running a massive bait-and-switch scam, in which customers were lured in with the promise of cheap brake specials and then charged hundreds more for unnecessary repairs,” Brown said. “This investigation revealed a shady and deceptive operation that violated the trust of its customers.”

Brown’s lawsuit, filed jointly with Alameda County District Attorney Tom Orloff and Fresno County District Attorney Elizabeth A. Egan, involves 22 Midas shops in Campbell, Clovis, Concord, Dublin, Fremont, Fresno, Hayward, Manteca, Merced, Modesto, San Jose, San Leandro, Turlock and Walnut Creek.

The lawsuit follows a four-year California Bureau of Automotive Repair investigation into Glad and his Midas shops to monitor compliance with a 1989 Alameda County Superior Court injunction. The 1989 injunction prohibited Glad’s shops from performing unnecessary repairs, charging for services not performed, or using scare tactics to convince customers to purchase unnecessary parts and services.

Undercover agents, posing as customers, conducted approximately 30 sting operations at Midas shops owned by Glad. In total, there were more than 35 incidents in which shop managers, mechanics and employees made false or misleading statements to pressure customers to purchase unnecessary parts and services.

On average, the shops charged undercover agents almost $300 in unnecessary brake rotor resurfacings, brake drum repairs, brake adjustments, brake cleaning services and other services. For example:

• In May 2007, at a Dublin Midas shop, an undercover agent was informed that the car needed thicker, more expensive brake pads than what was advertised. This was despite the fact that the manufacturer listed the advertised brake pads as a direct replacement. The agent was also told that the car’s new rotors “could be saved” if they were resurfaced and was charged for the removal of all four wheels when only three wheels were removed for inspection. In total, the agent was charged almost $400.

• In June 2006, at a Clovis Midas shop, an undercover agent was informed that the front rotors needed to be resurfaced, a brake fluid flush was needed and the rear brakes required adjustment, when in fact, none of the repairs was necessary. The agent was charged over $275 for the unnecessary repairs, including the brake fluid flush that was never performed.

• In May 2006, at a Merced Midas shop, an undercover agent was informed that the rear brakes required replacement and adjustment when they did not, and that the rotors required resurfacing when they were new and not in need of any service. The agent was charged $320.

• In April 2006, at a Fresno Midas shop, an undercover agent was informed that the front rotors should be resurfaced because of “a safety issue” when the rotors were new and in good condition, had no scoring or hot spots, were within factory specifications and were not in need of resurfacing. The agent was charged over $230 for the unnecessary repairs.

• In October 2005, at another Modesto Midas shop, an undercover agent was informed that the struts were “completely blown” and “leaking a lot of oil,” that two of the rotors and brake pads needed to be replaced and that the other two rotors needed to be resurfaced at a cost of over $1,700. None of the repairs or services was necessary.

• In October 2005, at a Clovis Midas shop, an undercover agent was informed that the front rotors should be resurfaced and a transmission fluid flush should be performed when the rotors were new and within manufacturer’s specifications and the automatic transmission had just been flushed and refilled. The shop charged over $230 for the unnecessary repairs.

• In September 2005, at a Modesto Midas shop, an undercover agent was informed that the brakes needed to be adjusted and cleaned and a brake and cooling system flush was required, when in fact, none of the services was necessary. The agent was charged over $200 and the brake flush was never performed.

In July 2008, the California Bureau of Automotive Repair referred the case to Brown’s Office for prosecution. Alameda County District Attorney Orloff and Fresno County District Attorney Egan joined due to the large number of shops operating in their counties.

Brown, Orloff and Egan are suing Glad and his 22 Midas shops for:
• False and misleading advertising in violation of Business and Professions Code 17500;
• Unlawful, unfair and fraudulent business practices in violation of Business and Professions Code 17200; and
• Breaking the 1989 Alameda County Superior Court injunction in violation of Business and Professions Code 17535.5 and 17207.

If successful, the lawsuit would require these Midas shops to pay up to $222 million in penalties, costs and reimbursements to customers. This includes up to $1 million, or $2,500 per violation, for false and misleading advertising; up to $1 million, or $2,500 per violation, for unlawful, unfair and fraudulent business practices; and up to $220 million, or $12,000 per violation, for violating the 1989 injunction.

The lawsuit also seeks a permanent injunction prohibiting these shops from:
• Coercing its customers into buying unnecessary motor vehicle repairs or services;
• Making or authorizing false and misleading statements; and
• Obtaining payment for repairs or services that were not performed or for retail products that were not provided.

Consumers who believe they have been ripped off by an auto repair facility can file a complaint with the California Department of Consumer Affairs, Bureau of Automotive Repair online at: www.autorepair.ca.gov or by calling 1-800-952-5210.

The following Midas shops are named in today’s lawsuit:

• 1236 White Oaks Road, Campbell
• 704 Clovis Avenue, Clovis
• 2525 Monument Boulevard, Concord
• 6955 Village Parkway, Dublin
• 4045 Thornton Avenue, Fremont
• 3741 Washington Boulevard, Fremont
• 7340 N. Blackstone Avenue, Fresno
• 3937 N. Blackstone Avenue, Fresno
• 4304 W. Shaw Avenue, Fresno
• 1078 La Playa Drive, Hayward
• 24659 Mission Boulevard, Hayward
• 1412 W. Yosemite Avenue, Manteca
• 1420 V Street, Merced
• 338 McHenry Avenue, Modesto
• 3833 McHenry Avenue, Modesto
• 93 S. Capitol Avenue, San Jose
• 4224 Monterey Highway, San Jose
• 5287 Prospect Road, San Jose
• 2200 Stevens Creek Boulevard, San Jose
• 13745 E. 14th Street, San Leandro
• 2651 Geer Road, Turlock
• 2710 N. Main Street, Walnut Creek

Midas is one of the world’s largest providers of automotive services with more than 1,600 franchised and company-owned locations in the United States.

Today’s lawsuit, filed in Alameda County Superior Court, is attached.

Pleasanton, Calif. – Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr. today sued the City of Pleasanton to remove its “draconian and illegal” limit on new housing, a significant cause of traffic congestion, air pollution and urban sprawl in the East Bay and Tri-Valley area.

“Pleasanton’s draconian and illegal limit on new housing forces people to commute long distances, adding to the bumper-to-bumper traffic along 580 and 680 and increasing dangerous air pollution,” Brown said. “It’s time for Pleasanton to balance its housing and its jobs and take full advantage of its underutilized land and proximity to BART.”

Brown today filed a motion to intervene in Alameda County Superior Court that would force Pleasanton to lift its housing cap. The suit was initially filed by the nonprofit group Public Advocates on October 17, 2006.

In 1996, Pleasanton adopted Measure GG, which imposed a strict, permanent cap of 29,000 total housing units within the city. At the time, Pleasanton had 21,180 homes, apartments and condominiums. The cap, therefore, allowed fewer than 8,000 new housing units to be built within city limits, regardless of demand or state law requirements.

The City is now on the verge of adopting a General Plan update, which calls for the creation of 45,000 additional jobs by 2025, while retaining the 29,000 limit on housing. This, Brown contends, violates state law, which requires every California city to provide sufficient housing to accommodate its fair share of regional needs.
The State requires Pleasanton to provide 3,277 additional housing units between 2007 and 2014. The cap, however, allows for only 2,000 more to be built – and that does not account for additional housing which will likely be required after 2014.

In the past 10 years, job growth in Pleasanton has nearly doubled -- from 31,683 to more than 58,000. Yet, the number of new housing units has not kept pace with demand. This is despite the fact that there is ample land for development, including property adjacent to the Pleasanton BART station. Unless the city lifts its housing cap, this and other land near transit will most likely not be utilized for housing.

As a result of the cap, many workers have been unable to find affordable housing within Pleasanton. A 2005 Association of Bay Area Governments study found that 79 percent of Pleasanton’s 58,000 employees lived outside Pleasanton, and their commutes can take two hours per day or more.

Brown’s suit demands that Pleasanton’s housing cap be repealed – so that jobs and housing can increase in proportion with each other.

In his suit, Brown contends that:

• Pleasanton is violating state law by enforcing a housing cap that prevents the City from accommodating its fair share of the regional housing need, as required by state housing element law (Gov. Code §65583.).

• Pleasanton’s housing cap violates the state constitution, which prohibits cities from adopting ordinances that conflict with state law.

• Pleasanton’s general plan is internally inconsistent, in violation of California Government Code Section 65300.5. The City’s existing land use element contains the housing cap limit of 29,000 housing units, while its housing element recognizes that the cap must be addressed because it prevents the City from meeting its fair share of regional housing needs.

If Pleasanton continues to enforce its housing cap, the consequences for the region include:

• Increased traffic congestion and longer commute times. Interstate 580 has some of the longest commute times in the region, with evening eastbound commuters delayed 7,410 hours and morning westbound commuters delayed 5,120 hours in 2007.

• Urban sprawl. Communities outside of Pleasanton will continue to lose farmland and open space to accommodate Pleasanton’s workers. These communities will have to build more schools, fire and police stations to keep up with anticipated growth.

• Increased greenhouse gas emissions. More people will be commuting for longer periods and over greater distances. Pleasanton’s CO2 output was 1.388 million tons in 2008. When the City is projected to reach 105,000 jobs in 2025, it is estimated its CO2 output will increase to 1.940 million tons. The increase is the equivalent of adding 120,000 cars to the road every year.

• Increased dependence on foreign oil.

Transportation is the largest contributor to California’s greenhouse gas emissions. The California Air Resources Board estimates that transportation is currently responsible for 38 percent of the greenhouse gas emissions in the state. Transportation accounts for 50 percent of greenhouse gas emissions in the Bay Area.

Brown has reached several agreements and settlements with local governments and businesses across California to help them reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. Some of his actions include:

• A landmark settlement with San Bernardino County which established a greenhouse gas reduction plan that identifies sources of emissions and sets reduction targets.

• An agreement with Stockton requiring it to identify and reduce greenhouse gas emissions, permit construction of thousands of new residential units within its current city limits, develop a rapid transit bus system and require all new buildings to be energy efficient.

• An agreement with ConocoPhillips that offsets greenhouse gases attributable to an oil refinery expansion in Contra Costa County.

An agreement with the Port of Los Angeles that identifies and reduces greenhouse gas emissions generated from port operations.

Brown’s suit against the City of Pleasanton is attached.

San Francisco – Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr. won a lawsuit earlier this week that bars the nation’s third largest tax preparer -- Liberty Tax Service -- from deceptive advertising that “blurs the line” between tax refunds that are free and high-cost loans.

“Liberty Tax Service lured cash-strapped Californians into paying for high-cost loans, when they could obtain tax refunds free from the IRS just weeks later,” Brown said. “This ruling bars Liberty from deceptive advertising that blurs the line between IRS tax refunds and pricey loans.”

Liberty Tax Service’s print and television ads misled customers by promising 'Most Refunds in 24 Hours.” In reality, Liberty was selling refund anticipation loans, not a tax refund. Customers had to pay an upfront fee of about $30 plus interest, at a rate that could be as high as 395% annually. By contrast, tax refunds are available at no charge from the IRS and generally arrive anywhere from 8 days to 4 weeks after returns are filed.

In February 2007, Brown filed suit in San Francisco Superior Court against Liberty Tax Service as part of an effort to stop deceptive marketing associated with Refund Anticipation Loans. Brown reached settlements with Jackson Hewitt in 2007 and with H&R Block in 2009 over similar claims.

Monday’s ruling holds Liberty Tax Service responsible for its deceptive marketing, which also included print ads that failed to include disclaimers mandated by law and television ads that included those disclaimers, but so briefly and in such faint type that the Court said they were “plainly designed to be overlooked by consumers.”

According to the IRS, refund anticipation loans target low-income taxpayers, especially those who receive the Earned Income Tax Credit. Approximately 70% of Liberty Tax Service’s refund anticipation loan customers in 2006 and 2007 received this credit.

The ruling:

• Bars Liberty Tax Service from using false or misleading advertising to sell tax refund loans;
• Requires the company to review and monitor the ads run by its California franchisees;
• Requires the company to discipline franchisees that fail to receive approval of their ads from Liberty and report those franchisees to the Attorney General; and
• Requires the company to pay $1.16 million in civil penalties, $135,886 in restitution, and the Attorney General’s costs.

Two violations of the advertising provisions of the injunction by a single franchisee will result in a $15,000 fine; a third violation requires the termination of the franchisee.

The injunction also imposes limitations on Liberty’s ability to collect, on behalf of itself or others, money supposedly due from its customers for previous years’ tax refund loans.

The judgment requires Liberty Tax Service to inform these alleged debtors of supposed debts before the consumers takes any step that would commit them to having any amount of the alleged debt deducted or withheld even temporarily from their refund. This is a significant modification of Liberty Tax Service’s past collection practices.

Consumer advocates and policy makers, including the U.S. Taxpayer Advocate, have sharply criticized such practices for years.

San Diego - Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr. today forged a settlement with CVS Pharmacy requiring the company to make sure expired products are not sold in its stores and provide customers a $2 coupon if they identify products past their sell-by date.

The settlement also applies to Longs Drug Stores California, which CVS purchased in late 2008.

“CVS Pharmacy routinely sold expired baby formula, over-the-counter medication and dairy products long after the expiration date,” Brown said. “This agreement forces the company to give customers a $2 dollar coupon if they find expired products in CVS or Longs Drug Stores.”

In March 2008, Brown launched an investigation which revealed that CVS Stores in Los Angeles, Orange, and San Diego Counties had regularly sold expired baby food, baby formula, over-the-counter medications and dairy products to consumers. Expired products found include:

• Gerber’s Vanilla Custard, 11 months expired, at a Huntington Beach store.
• Bright Beginnings Ultra Baby Formula 31.7 oz., 3 months expired, at a Fullerton store.
• Bonine for Kids (children’s motion sickness medication), 5 months expired, at a Buena Park store.
• Gerber Baby Food Oatmeal with Applesauce and Bananas, 2 months expired, at an El Cajon store.

The investigation also confirmed that five CVS Pharmacies had improperly discarded more than 500 documents and prescription bottles containing confidential medical information in dumpsters outside of its stores. This discarded information included patient names, addresses, birthdates and prescription medications.

In June 2008, Brown called on CVS Pharmacy to immediately end the sale of expired products and mishandling of confidential customer information across all CVS Pharmacy stores.

Brown today filed a civil suit and a stipulated judgment in San Diego County Superior Court.

The suit contends that CVS Pharmacy violated Business and Professions Code 17200 and Civil Code 1798.81, by misleading customers about CVS’ standards to insure that products would not be sold after the expiration of the “sell buy” or “best by” date and by failing to preserve the confidentiality of customers’ personal medical records. In entering into the settlement, CVS denied any wrong-doing.

The stipulated judgment resolves the suit and forces CVS to:
• Stop the sale of expired products in CVS Pharmacy and Longs Drug stores in California;
• Implement a first-of-its-kind coupon program whereby consumers who find an expired item on store shelves are entitled to a coupon worth $2.00 which can be used in any future purchase at a CVS Store in California for any product;
• Revise existing policies regarding the sale of expired products and require employees to check at least twice a month that sell-by dates have not passed on infant formula, baby food, eggs, dairy products and over-the-counter medications;
• Revise existing policies regarding the disposal of confidential waste so that they include proper shredding policies and require written certification that all records containing personal information have been properly disposed of;
• Review and revise these updated policies annually and provide employees with written training in these new policies;
• Provide the Attorney General’s Office with sworn statements certifying that it has complied with all aspects of the Judgment;
• Perform random audits in its California stores twice a year to make certain that expired products aren’t being sold and that confidential medical information is safeguarded and disposed of properly: if CVS fails to meet these new conditions, audits will continue until these new requirements are met for two consecutive years; and
• Designate a toll-free number for employees and customers to report expired products and each store must submit reports to its corporate headquarters regarding these incidents at least twice a month.
CVS will pay $975,000 in civil penalties, attorney fees and costs.

A copy of the complaint and stipulated judgment are attached.