Filed Date: March 4, 2010
Closed Date: Dec. 5, 2016
Clearinghouse coding complete
On March 4, 2010, the United States of America filed this lawsuit under the Fair Housing and Equal Credit Opportunity Acts against AIG Federal Savings Bank in the United States District Court, District of Delaware. The plaintiff, represented by attorneys from the U.S. Department of Justice and the U.S. Attorney's office asked the court for declaratory, injunctive, and monetary relief, claiming that AlG had engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination on the basis of race. Specifically, the U.S. claimed that from July 2003 to May 2006, black borrowers nationwide were charged broker fees 20 basis points higher, on average, than the broker fees charged to white borrowers.
On March 19, 2010, the parties entered into a consent decree in which the bank agreed to: 1) refrain from engaging in any act or practice in wholesale home mortgage lending that discriminates on the basis of race or color; 2) maintain during the period of the order annual fair lending training; 3) develop and implement specific, nonracial standards for the assessment of direct broker fees on residential real estate-related loans; 4) post and prominently display in each location where loan applications are received by the lender a notice of nondiscrimination; 5) require brokers to make certain disclosures to applicants; 6) participate in a monitoring program to ensure compliance with the provisions of the consent decree; 7) provide a minimum of $1 million to certain organizations to provide credit counseling, financial literacy; and other related educational programs to African-American borrowers; 8) provide employees with equal credit opportunity training; and 9) pay $6.1 million in damages to those affected by AIG's discriminatory lending practices.
On July 7, 2011, the Court (Judge Leonard P. Stark) entered an order for distribution of the funds remaining in the settlement fund ($1,268,372.92) among the National Urban League, Operation HOPE and the American Financial Services Association Education Foundation.
In March 2013, the Court's authority to enforce the requirements of the consent order expired. On November 17, 2016, the defendant filed a motion to reopen the case for the purpose of entering an order of dismissal with prejudice, as the terms of the consent order had expired and the order had mandated entry of dismissal with prejudice of the action at that time. On December 6, 2016, the court reopened the case and dismissed it with prejudice. The case is now closed.
Summary Authors
Gregory Pitt (7/30/2012)
Asma Husain (2/14/2016)
Avery Coombe (12/30/2024)
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4219150/parties/united-states-v-aig-federal-savings-bank/
Dull, Robin L. (District of Columbia)
Griffin, Howard R. (District of Columbia)
Hanson, Shannon T. (Delaware)
Hefferon, Thomas M. (District of Columbia)
Mierzewski, Michael B. (District of Columbia)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4219150/united-states-v-aig-federal-savings-bank/
Last updated April 7, 2025, 11:57 a.m.
State / Territory: Delaware
Case Type(s):
Fair Housing/Lending/Insurance
Special Collection(s):
Key Dates
Filing Date: March 4, 2010
Closing Date: Dec. 5, 2016
Case Ongoing: No reason to think so
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
The United States of America on behalf of African-American borrowers affected by AIG's discriminatory lending practices
Plaintiff Type(s):
U.S. Dept of Justice plaintiff
Attorney Organizations:
U.S. Dept. of Justice Civil Rights Division
Public Interest Lawyer: Yes
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
AIG Federal Savings Bank, Private Entity/Person
Defendant Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Fair Housing Act/Fair Housing Amendments Act (FHAA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 3601 et seq.
Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA), 15 U.S.C. § 1691
Available Documents:
Injunctive (or Injunctive-like) Relief
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Plaintiff
Nature of Relief:
Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement
Source of Relief:
Form of Settlement:
Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree
Content of Injunction:
Develop anti-discrimination policy
Amount Defendant Pays: $7.1 million
Order Duration: 2010 - 2013
Issues
General/Misc.:
Discrimination Area:
Discrimination Basis:
Affected Race(s):