Footnoted, a site that site takes a closer look at the things that companies try to bury in their routine SEC filings, specializes in surfacing hidden opportunities and early signs of potential problems.

January’s most egregious goes to (these are direct quotes from a footnoted.com release):

Jan. 11, 2012: Steve Madden Milks his Company for Everything and Then Some More: Steve Madden received a new employment agreement at the beginning of this year that assures him a base salary of more than $5.41 million. The employment agreement runs through Dec. 31, 2023, and it also promises that he will get a raise of approximately $2 million each year. He’s also going to get an “Annual Cash Bonus” and a “New Business Bonus,” plus a grant for restricted shares of stock worth $40 million. But because one $40 million stock grant might not be enough for a guy, there’s also a section cal led an “Additional Restricted Shares Amendment” which gives Madden even more restricted shares of stock worth—you guessed it—another $40 million. Finally, the board agreed to forgive the $3 million loan that Madden borrowed from the company back in 2007.

Jan. 17, 2012: Aon Gives London a Whole New Meaning: Aon Corp., a big insurance brokerage that had been headquartered in Chicago, announced that it planned to move its headquarters to London. And it’s giving CEO Greg Case—just one of several members of the executive ranks the company will pay to relocate—an extra $561,000 a year over and above moving expenses and one-time relocation costs. Showing a curious bit of restraint, though, Aon declared that Case must pay his own telephone and internet bills. London is a very expensive city, to be sure, but we bet that he can get by on what works out to $1,537 a day.

Jan. 13, 2012: Google Gives New Director $1 Million Worth of Stock: In mid-January, Google appointed Diane Greene to its board and a post on its Audit Committee. Greene founded VMWare (VMW) and took it public in 2007; she also sits on the board of Intuit (INTU). Google doubled the initial equity award that it’s paying to Greene, compared to what it paid the last time it appointed non-employee directors (which, admittedly, has been a while—back in 2005). Greene is getting $1 million worth of Google Stock Units (GSUs), as well as the compensation that directors get every year: a $75,000 cash retainer and another $350,000 worth of GSUs.

Photo by iStock

Even as fallout from the mortgage market meltdown still reverberates throughout the economy, ominous rumblings suggest that a similar bust in the student loan market could be the next big financial crisis.

According to a just-out report by the National Association of Consumer Bankrtupcy Attorneys, for example, 80 percent of respondents report a surge in prospective filers with student loan debt – including not only the students or former students but parents who co-signed loans, as well.  The release claims that loans to parents of college-age children have jumped a mind-boggling 75 percent since 2005-2006, and that delinquincies are common.  (Student loan debt is generally not dischargeable in bankruptcy so attorneys in that field have something of a vested interest in demonizing it – but I have no reason to doubt the findings as presented.)

The headlines beat on.  “The Student Loan is Crippling American Families,” reports Forbes, and a brand new Federal Reserve report shows that school loans helped fuel a $16.6 billion jump in non-revolving consumer debt in December, BusinessWeek reports.   And last month the credit-scoring firm FICO reported that many bank risk managers it has surveyd expected defauls on student loans to rise.  Debtors in the U.S. currently owe three-quarters of a trillion dollars in educational loans!

And if that isn’t burden enough, a lower interest rate set by Congress in 2007 may expire this July 1, effectively doubling the rate on Stafford loans for millions of borrowers, the Huffington Post reports.

Add in state budget woes, controversy over tuition inflation, the election cycle and it’s a complex – and at the moment, politicized – topic.  But against the backdrop of these sorts of headlines, the fact that many families probably getting under way with the application process and the dreaded FAFSA financial aid form-filling,  along with  various White House proposals related to college funding afoot (here’s a Dept. of Education summary), along with other developments in the market, you might want to plan a run at the topic soon.

Digging inside the market

A mutli-faceted approach to a student loan package might include the issues that face indebted borrowers now in the jobs market, as well as dilemmas being tackled by prospective and current students – and their parents – about borrowing resources and decisions.  What degrees are worth the debt and which programs, in hindsight, fail to pay for themselves?  What advice do current debtors have for upcoming students and prospective borrowers?  Go through CPAs, certified financial planners and other independent financial advisors; they may be able to hook you up with clients who will open their books and allow you to illustrate a story with detailed cash-flow information that can show how school loans affect a family’s finances and choices years after graduation.

Don’t forget stories about alternatives to borrowing – like working a few years ahead of college to save up, choosing AP or community college course to save on university tuition and choosing careers or jobs paths that afford student loan forgiveness.  Here’s a story from Californiaabout a proposal that student ride free in school but promise to pay a percentage of their income for decades after graduation.

Student loan stories generally should include clip-and-save (or click-and-save) sidebars and resources lists for readers;  FinAid.org is a good place to start.

Calculating the real cost of attendance

Just to play devil’s advocate: Student budgets and lifstyles are seldom mentioned in stories that bewail educational loan debt.  The notion that tuition inflation and books are solely responsible for burdensome student loan debt – rather than factors within a student’s control – is pervasive and makes for one-sided coverage of the issue.  I would suggest — through first-hand experience watching the changing retail and lifestyle scene at my own alma mater –  that travel, car ownership and general lifestyle expectations of the student population have burgeoned right along with the cost of credit hours …  and that some of that loan debt can be attributed to spring break trips, SUVs and salon shampoos.

Check out the “cost of attendance” pages at schools near you, or schools many regional students tend to flock to.  Just as an example I checked out the COA page at the University of Wisconsin (Madison) — where room and board costs seem to be predicated on a $1,000 a month average, along with another $100 a week in ‘miscellaneous’ expenses.   I’m a midlde-aged homeowner in a moderately high cost-of-living area and I spend less than $1,000 a month on shelter and food, and I sure wouldn’t be spending $100 a week on ‘misc’ if it took borrowed money to do so.  All told the room, board and incidentals at UW and many other schools with similar advisories on their sites total more than $50,000 over the course of acquiring a four-year degree.

I’m not saying students should live in a tent on boxed macaroni & cheese and water for four years, but there’s ample
precedent for living modestly and getting out of school with the minimum of debt.  Stories taking a detailed look at the budget of some local college students – and I mean really looking at their daily receipts and credit card statements — could be quite enlightening and really round out coverage of the ticking student debt bomb.

Nearly every day, in board rooms all over America, executives and their investor relations staff huddle around a speaker phone and put their best collective face on the financial figures they have just filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

RIM CEO Jim Balsillie was excited about the not-so-popular Blackberry PlayBook during a 2011 earnings call.

With the advent of earnings season, when dozens of such calls are taking place each day, it’s a good time to reflect on the value of this business communication ritual for business journalists.

And “ritual” is the correct word for “the quarterly earnings conference call.” These events have an eerie sameness if you listen to enough of them. Despite their best efforts to sound conversational, executives often come across as stilted or nervous as they read their carefully prepared scripts. Some even have scripts for anticipated questions and have gone through rehearsals with other staff posing as pesky analysts. Investor relations professionals view earnings calls as one of the critical events of their year, so they leave little to chance. (On the website “Inside Investor Relations,” one article details “30 tips for better conference calls,” including “avoid excessive exuberance.”)

The primary audience for an earnings call are the analysts who follow the company for investment banks and institutional investors; these folks are invited not only to listen to the call but also to ask questions at the end of the presentation. A moderator calls on the speakers one by one, so the exchange is far from free-wheeling. But an earnings call can still be mildly revelatory and, thanks to a regulation adopted by the SEC in 2000, anyone else can listen in, including small investors, competitors and journalists.

Regulation Fair Disclosure, or Reg FD, arose to ensure that everyone is able to receive material information about a company at the same time. Prior to its existence, companies might disclose important information selectively in private sessions with analysts or big investors, a practice that put smaller investors at a disadvantage.

If you are a journalist following a particular company, listening in on a conference call should be part of your regular beat responsibilities, just like monitoring SEC filings and insider stock trades. Sure, it’s unlikely that anything unexpected will happen, but you never know.

Perhaps the most infamous – and newsworthy – earnings conference call in history took place in the spring of 2001, when Jeffrey Skilling, then CEO of Enron, responded to a question from a persistent analyst with the epithet, “We appreciate it…a–hole.” Several years later, Al Lord, CEO of Sallie Mae, may have topped Skilling’s gaffe when he ended a conference call by muttering “Let’s get the – out of here.”

Although you are unlikely to hear something as colorful as an offhand expletive, the calls still have value for several reasons:

• You can learn what the company believes are most salient about its filings and develop some context about its strategies.
• You can get beyond the obvious in a quarterly earnings story and provide readers something of value that they are unlikely to seek out on their own.
• You can eavesdrop on concerns informed investors and analysts have about the company during the Q&A session.
• You can hear directly from top executives and quote them in your stories, even if these are people who will never return your call. Simply attribute the comment by saying something like, “the remark was made during the company’s fourth quarter conference call Tuesday.”
• If the executive is someone you plan to interview in the future, you can get a feel for his or her personality, even in a carefully scripted event.

Some executives take pains to be conversational and even jovial. Others are combative and prickly. Referring to a comment made in a conference call when you have that interview can be a good reporting habit. It conveys to the executive that you’ve done your homework.

Yahoo!'s Cutline column liveblogged News Corps' earnings call in August 2011. Photo: Yahoo!

The vast majority of publicly traded companies have conference calls. It’s easy to find out when they are scheduled by looking at a company’s website, usually under a tab labeled “investor relations.” Some make the time and date available a month or more in advance. Others wait until closer to the call. Many financial sites compile a calendar of upcoming calls, including Yahoo Finance, Marketwatch, Reuters, Seeking Alpha, Earningswhispers.com and Earnings.com.

To listen to a call real time, you often have to complete an online registration in advance via the company’s website. Then you just dial in at the appointed hour and listen. Some companies use technology that allows listeners to view charts and graphs on their computer screens as the call is taking place.

A call usually opens with a moderator or coordinator reading a disclaimer about “forward-looking statements.” Then the CEO typically has a few opening words about the quarter just ended and turns the microphone over to the chief financial officer.

Depending on the news and the company, other executives might be given a chance to elaborate on a particular development or strategy. Finally, the moderator will open the call to questions.

If you miss a company’s live call, don’t despair. A recording is usually archived for a month or so on the company’s website and at financial websites. Some archived recordings conveniently allow you to jump ahead in the call rather than listen to it linearly. Another time-saver is transcripts, many of which can be obtained free from seekingalpha.com; other services offer transcripts for a fee.

Be sure to check the provider’s linking or quotation policy before including information from a transcript in your reporting. And it’s a good practice to double check a quote in a transcript against the original recording, if that is still available. Like the conference call itself, the transcript probably comes with a disclaimer.

Pam Luecke was the initial Reynolds Endowed Chair in Business Journalism; her success at Washington and Lee University paving the way for the naming of subsequent business journalism chairs.

This Oshkosh military vehicle in Afghanistan is battle ready.

After years of covering a beat, earnings stories can lose their appeal for some reporters. Many reporters fall into a “plug and play” role. But that’s not what Scott Malone of Reuters did in his piece about Oshkosh Corp. Here the numbers aren’t as important as company investor Carl Icahn’s influence. He writes:

“Icahn, who owns 10 percent of the maker of military vehicles, said Oshkosh management does not do enough to boost shareholder returns. The company promises to provide investors with clearer benchmarks to measure its performance.

‘We heard the message that shareholders would like us to provide more targets to measure our progress,’ Chief Financial Officer David Sagehorn said on a conference call after the company reported better-than-expected first-quarter results. ‘As we go through our fiscal 2012, we will work on ways to provide targets.’”

Scott shared four tips for helping reporters get out of the rut.

Tip 1: Ask, “What’s the real story here?”

“Take a step back and ask yourself if the best story is really in the numbers,” Scott says. “Sometimes it is – if a company falls dramatically short of Wall Street’s expectations, readers will want to know why. But often there’s another story to be told that’s more compelling.”

Tip 2: Listen closely to quarterly conference calls to see if company executives go “off script.”

Do your homework ahead of time to know what the talking points will be so you’ll know if they’re offering new information. “Those small breaks can signal significant changes,” Scott says.

Tip 3:  Boil it down.

Scott says if the numbers are the story, don’t bog readers down trying to report on everything. Instead, focus on one or two numbers then use quotes and anecdotes to explain the rest. “You can convey as much information, and more importantly give the reader a frame to understand them in, that way.”

Tip 4: Go beyond what readers can get elsewhere.

Investors can easily access earnings reports and conference calls online. Therefore you need to “to offer exclusive information or insights, so they have a reason to choose to read your story,” Scott says.

By Flickr user Jeff Turner

Editors note:  On Feb. 9, 2012, after months of negotiations, federal and state officials announced a $26 billion settlement with five of the largest home lenders that could provide relief to  American homeowners harmed by housing meltdown. Melissa Preddy’s tips for covering the deal (originally written Feb. 1) now come into play.

We may know by Friday if state attorneys general have reached a deal - reportedly worth up to $25 billion – with five major banks accused of deceptive practices that exacerbated foreclosure problems for struggling homeowners.

The banks involved are Bank of America, Wells Fargo & Co, JPMorgan Chase & Co, Citigroup and Ally Financial Inc.  The value of the deal will depend on how many states sign it; some, like California and Delaware, already have signaled reservations about the terms.  The attorney general for Nevada – where one of the most desperate residential real estate markets exists – last week sent a 38-question memo to negotiators.  Among other things, she questions how the settlement will relieve banks of liability and whether it will undermine the authority of state regulators.

Twenty-five billion dollars sounds like a lot, but the settlement is likely to help only a fraction of people with mortgage woes.  Here’s a helpful Associated Press story that outlines some of the shortcomings of the deal.   No one who’s lost a home will get it back, but about 750,000 people could receive restittution payments of around $1,800, the AP reports.  Another million homeowners may get a reduction in the principal balance of their current mortgage loan or other restrutcturing.  So overall, it appears the settlement will help less than a quarter of the 8 million homeowners who’ve faced foreclosure since the housing bubble exploded.

Clearly, foreclosure issues will be making headlines again.  Here are a few ideas for finding local angles while we wait for the terms of a settlement to be released:

How many in your state will be helped?  Even if your AG won’t divulge terms of the proposed settlement, he or she must have a pretty good idea of the number of customers of those five banks who are expected to benefit from any deal.  You can put that into context by juxtaposing those figures with RealtyTrac foreclosure data to illustrate the limitations of the deal and make readers aware that the settlement making headlines won’t help everyone.

Foreclosure update.  Note on the RealtyTrac site the bloodcurdling statement that, nationally,  ”1 in every 634
housing units received a foreclosure filing in December 2011.”   You can mouse over the interactive map to get the rate for your state; in places like Florida, California and Michigan the ratio is far worse.

This RealtyTrac blog is like a veritable newsfeed of foreclosure stories nationwide; you can mine it for other local story ideas.  This blog post about the ‘Foreclosure bowl’ is eye-catching; it ranks National Football League cities by foreclosure rates; the post says San Francisco is likely to win the dubious honor.

You could do the same for cities in your region.  I honestly don’t know where the most comprehensive list of foreclosures is housed; you may be able to get that information from your state’s Realtor or real-estate agent trade group.  But check out the Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae home sales listings; they’re searchable by ZIP code and the results, complete with address and photo, are quite interesting.  The prices are astounding; you could take several samples and show the history of each house and its sale price over the years, for a detailed look at how the housing bust has affected your market.

Tips and caveats for buying foreclosures would be a good pre-spring feature.  And get this; according to this HUD website, a number of government agencies also have houses for sale – I guess the ones for sale from the IRS, U.S. Marshals and Customs are probably seizures, but one wonders what the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers is doing, dabbling in residential real estate.  Checking out the source of some of these ‘alternative’ listings could lead to some interesting tales.

Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke. Photo: NY Daily News

The Federal Reserve last week told the world it’s in a long-term relationship with ultra-low interest rates. In the process it laid the groundwork for a lot of good stories.

The Fed: “The committee decided today to keep the target range for the federal funds rate at 0 to 1/4 percent …  low rates of resource utilization and a subdued outlook for inflation over the medium run–are likely to warrant exceptionally low levels for the federal funds rate at least through late 2014.”

Translation: Interest rates, which are already at or near record lows, are going to stay that way probably until you start making plans to party like it’s about to be 2015.

For journalists on the business beat, that’s a cue to investigate such stories as whether readers are rushing to refinance their mortgages or waiting to see just how low rates can go. Nationally, mortgage refinance activity has been on the rise, according to the Mortgage Bankers Association. Mortgage refinancing now accounts for about 80% of mortgage activity these days.

“Ask economists how much lower they think mortgage rates will go,” said Martin Crutsinger, a reporter who has been covering the Fed for the Associated Press since the early 1980s.

Then look for people like Mark and Jan Sass and Gloria Putnam who are refinancing their loans in hopes of mortgage-free retirements. Take a tip from the Tampa Bay Times’ Mark Puente and ask if business is booming for mortgage servicers like Andy Wood. Or see if the rush to refinance slows as fees increase later this year.

The latest Fed decision is also a nudge to examine what a long-term low-interest rate environment does to savers like Maggie Smith.

Reuters reporters Karen Brettell and Steven C. Johnson describe her as a casualty of the Fed’s strategy.  “For Smith and other pensioners struggling to cope with inflation higher than the rate of interest they earn on their savings, all of this amounts to, as she puts it, “being punished” for being prudent,” they write.

The federal funds rate, which is determined by the Fed’s actions, impacts the yields on savings accounts and CDs. It affects the interest rates on mortgages, credit cards, business and auto loans. A low federal funds rate can entice businesses to borrow, expand and hire – as the Fed hopes it will now – and drive consumers to borrow, spend and drive business growth.

Smith, the Sasses and Putnam are prime examples of how to put faces on what could easily be faceless stories. Smith is on the losing end of the Fed’s strategy to spur economic growth and job creation, while the Sasses, Putnam and Wood stand to benefit handsomely.

Theirs are just a few of many tales that illustrate how the U.S. central bank’s actions impact real people across the country. And their stories are crucial to telling the bigger story of how well the Fed’s strategy is working to bring the American economy roaring back.

By Flickr user Nancy Pelosi

Hard to believe it’s been 18 months since President Obama signed financial regulatory overhaul into the law that was prompted by the collapse and/or near collapse of what’s now known as America’s too-big-to-fail financial institutions.

Pundits, critics and observers differ on the need for such legislation and now, whether it’s made our economy safer from the ripple effects of speculation, complicated trading, conflicts of interest and other practices that many feel led to the debt bubble and the 2008 collapse of investment banker Lehman Brothers which rippled out through global financial systems.

The bill known as the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act – here’s a summary - is so complex and far-reaching that covering its effects could be a full-time job.  Chances are  you don’t have that luxury, but if you want to take a look at the milestones in the long roll-out of new rules and regulations, below are some resources and suggestions that will arm you with interview topics for the banks, investment firms, securities analysts, regulators and consumers in your region.

A note of caution; many of the provisions of the bill concern the behind-the-scenes investing and trading activity at financial institutions; some of the terminology and practices mentioned are so sophisticated that even MBAs and industry veterans might feel a bit befuddled.  There’s also a major political or ideological element to much of the regulation; be sure to be clear on your sources’ loyalties and agendas when quoting praise or criticism of Dodd-Frank.

Here’s a hot-off-the-press progress report on Dodd-Frank by the DavisPolk law firm; the 17-page PDF notes that 75 percent of rulemaking deadlines have been missed by the agencies responsible for writing new regulations; note that the organization has implemented a Twitter feed that will augment its monthly progress report; this is a must-follow if you plan to cover Dodd-Frank at length.

If you have time for more in-depth reading, the U.S. Government Accountability Office has issued a 118-page PDF on the Dodd-Frank regulations, including cost-benefit analyses and conflicts of interest.  This report concerns rules that were in effect by July 21 but its format can help you develop questions on any of the regulations you might be following.

Similarly, here’s a Securities and Exchange Commission timeline for implementing provisions of the act, highlighting the next six months.  This is fairly fertile ground for local reporters since corporate governance, independent compensation committees and other nitty-gritty elements of Dodd-Frank proposals will effect executives, shareholders and workers at a wide range of publicly traded companies, apparently, not just the financial institutions or household names.  It would be interesting to interview a sampling of medium-sized and lesser-known public companies in your area about how any changes have or will affect them.

The Federal Reserve board’s regulatory reform portal also is a font of information, from  milestones to public communcations.  Don’t forget your district federal reserve bank officials as a source, too.

And finally, look for ancillary sectors that might not immediately seem affected by Dodd-Frank.  Here, for example, is a recent press release by the American Guild of Appraisers expressing alarm at Dodd-Frank related fee reductions that the appraiser are protesting.  It’s not an occupation that would spring to mind as being affected by financial regulatory reform, but it’s a pithy example that many readers will be able to relate to.

Susan Berfield of Bloomberg Businessweek used the municipal-bond database, EMMA, to get the story on a failed plant in Moberly, Mo.

Using municipal-bond data, Susan Berfield of Bloomberg Businessweek produced a well-researched and -written “tale of economic desperation” in Moberly, Mo.

She details the town’s relationship with “a short, chubby, well-dressed executive from Beverly Hills named Bruce Cole.” His company, Mamtek, planned to build an artificial-sweetener plant that would employ 612. Excited city officials dove into the deal within three weeks of meeting him and approved $39 million in municipal bonds for the company.

Susan writes:

“In August 2011, it came time for Mamtek to make its first payment on the principal of the bond, a sum of $3.2 million. Cole’s company didn’t have the money. It never did, as it turned out.”

Today’s Tip: Use bond-offering documents for inside scoops on municipal-bond deals.

Susan Berfield

“They provide hundreds of pages of interesting details in terms of what the company is telling officials,” Susan says. “The trustee for the bond is required to make public what’s going on at the company.”

You can use the Electronic Municipal Market Access system, better known as EMMA, which provides free access to information about the municipal-bond market, to find bond-issue documents. Susan said she used the name of the banker listed on those documents to start gathering information. She was referred to a PR staffer at the bank, who sent her additional documents she needed.

“Go to every primary source you can to see what you can get,” she says.

You can learn more about how to use EMMA during a free Reynolds Center’s Webinar March 27-28. One of the presenters will be Yamil Berard who spoke with me last year about using EMMA for her investigative story at the Fort Worth Star-Telegram on conduit bonds.

Susan said some people declined to talk because of investigations into Mamtek by the state and by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. So she used LinkedIn to find their connections to employees who had less at stake, she says.

The Reynolds Center also has a free Webinar on Feb. 28 on sourcing through LinkedIn.

ING Direct bank opened this cafe in Vancouver, B.C., last year. Photo by Flickr user jason_baker84.

When ING Direct bank decided to open a San Francisco “café,” Aaron Glantz of The Bay Citizen didn’t just focus on the “13 flat-screen televisions; beanbag chairs; a deli counter that sells coffee, cookies and sandwiches; and plenty of tables and outlets for customers using the free wireless Internet access.”

He talked to consumer advocates who suspected ING chose a café instead of a traditional branch with tellers, vaults and an ATM to circumvent Community Reinvestment Act regulations about lending to low-income borrowers. Aaron says those regulations would apply if ING opened a storefront that took deposits. The bank denies that’s its reason, but it does accept retail deposits only at its Wilmington, Del., headquarters and not at its eight U.S. retail outlets elsewhere, such as the one in San Francisco, where it makes loans. That’s when Aaron turned to the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council for information.

Today’s Tip: Use the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council to dig into the lending practices of local banks.

Aaron Glantz

The council’s website links to reports filed by financial institutions under the Community Reinvestment Act and the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act, Aaron says. Reports for the former show whether a bank lends to low-income customers in a given metro area. Reports for the latter give detailed information about the race and specific location of home borrowers by Census tract for the whole country.

The reports showed ING had an “outstanding” rating under the Community Reinvestment Act for its lending in the Wilmington area, but also indicated “the bank’s lending elsewhere skewed toward wealthy customers — including those in the Bay Area, where upper-income borrowers accounted for approximately three-fourths of ING Direct’s loans,” Aaron writes.

This is The Associated Press’ video about the $335 million settlement that Bank of America agreed to pay to settle discrimination claims.

Word on Wednesday that Bank of America would pay $335 million to settle discrimination claims against its Countrywide mortgage lending unit likely has some people in your audience wondering if they qualify for part of the payout.

Little information on would-be claimants is available. The U.S. Department of Justice, which agreed to the settlement, says it will notify awardees  once an administrator for the case is selected.  The Justice Department has identified about 200,000 African American and Hispanic borrowers who were charged higher mortgage-origination fees and/or steered into costlier subprime loans when they could have qualified for less expensive conventional mortgages.  Here’s the full press release outlining the case and the charges against Countrywide, which Bank of America bought in 2008.

According to this Chicago Tribune report, those taking part in the settlement could receive amounts ranging from a few hundred dollars to more than $10,000 depending on the circumstances of their loan.  Note that the Illinois attorney general provided an estimate of the number of affected citizens for this article. The AGs of many states were involved in the case and might be your best bet for additional information, case studies and examples until the Justice Department provides further information. Here’s a list of state attorneys general.

A couple of other nuggets from the Justice Department press release might lead to other angles:

• The settlement requires Countrywide to implement non-discrimination policies and practices when it again begins originating loans.  It would be interesting to talk with executives at local and regional lenders, as well as at large national firms with a big presence in your area, about similar policies in their organizations.  Do they have formal rules?  What protections are in place for minority consumers, and what should would-be borrowers consider red flags in mortgage discussions with loan officers?
• A refresher on typical mortgage-origination fees – including appraisal fees, credit checks and other paperwork – would be a good clip-and-save feature for readers, along with a list of bogus or inflated fees sometimes tacked on by less scrupulous lenders.
• The press release also says “The settlement also resolves the department’s claim that Countrywide violated the Equal Credit Opportunity Act by discriminating on the basis  of marital status against non-applicant spouses of borrowers by encouraging them to sign away their home-ownership rights.”   A primer on the pros and cons of borrowing for and titling real estate jointly or separately might help married couples understand their options, especially if one has far worse credit than the other.  Talk with real estate attorneys and advisers such as Certified Financial Planners.

For context, the Center for Responsible Lending rounds up a number of articles and studies on racial bias and predatory lending; you might also try your area universities’ business schools, law schools and public policy research centers for similar or regional studies.

This isn’t the first big-ticket settlement that Countrywide has cost Bank of America, by the way.  As this Wall Street Journal article notes, the lender has incurred billions of dollars in settlement costs with Countrywide investors and consumers, including payments to some borrowers whose Countrywide loans were foreclosed upon. See this settlement-information site for more information.  Those cases were due to be paid out earlier this year. It might be worth a check with your state’s attorney general to see if the process has been smooth.