2004 Credit Suit

Providian Director = Deputy Attorney General Larry Thompson

Corporate Officers & Directors Liability Litigation Reporter - Andrews Publications

The "number-two man in the U.S. Justice Department"

According to the complaint, Thompson used his position in the Justice Department for his own private benefit, "refusing or failing to investigate and prosecute the manifold fraudulent and criminal misconduct."

What else is new? Are they ALL corrupt?

"While he was a director of Providian Financial Corporation, the number-two man in the U.S. Justice Department committed the same type of corporate wrongdoing that his Corporate Crime Task Force is trying to root out, a Providian investor charges in a suit filed in federal court in San Francisco with the help of legal watchdog group Judicial Watch Inc. The suit claims current Deputy Attorney General Larry Thompson helped to hide severe problems while with the company. Lake v. Providian Financial Corp. et al., No. 02-03933, complaint filed (N.D. Cal., 8/13/2002)

Even though he was the chairman of Providian's audit committee, Thompson joined in the alleged scheme to artificially inflate the company's stock price and give insiders time to cash in their stock options before the fiscal roof caved in, the suit says. After Thompson left for Washington last year, Providian's stock price fell when investors heard that the company changed accounting policies for the sole purpose of masking a rapidly increasing number of bad loans, shareholder Robert Lake charges."

Isn't it amazing that every time SHAREHOLDERS lose a few bucks, law suits are filed and all hell breaks lose.

Is anyone surprised about these activities by the "number-two man in the U.S. Justice Department?"

"To delay the day of reckoning with investors, the officers changed their procedure for recognizing losses that resulted from customer bankruptcies, Lake's suit complains. The sole reason for that accounting change was to hide the increasing rate of customer defaults, the suit alleges."

The CRAs' failure to implement reasonable procedures to ensure the accuracy of consumer reports is not just saving costs.

All CRAs try to have as much incorrect derogatory data on the consumer reports as possible. When scores are lower, the CRA customers get to charge more interest.

If one CRA had consistently BETTER quality reports and the subsequent higher scores, the creditors would no longer use their reports.

Add to that the CRAs' DELETIONS of positive tradelines after 10 years and often much sooner, SERIOUSLY lowering credit scores.

The so called "regulators" are regulating the flow of cash into their bank accounts, corrupt, and with no interest in consumer protection whatsoever. And apparently the attorneys think that only SHAREHOLDERS are worth litigating for.