April 23, 2013 – Statement 45: MBIA Dismisses Lawsuit Against M. Perry and Others
March 13, 2013 – Statement 44: The Securities and Exchange Commission v. The State of Illinois
March 1, 2013 – Statement 43: In the Great American Tradition – “Let’s Debate!”
February 26, 2013 – Statement 42: Is FHA “A home wrecker”?
February 26, 2013 – Statement 41: HUD and FHA’s Single Family Mutual Mortgage Insurance (MMI) Fund
February 7, 2013 – Statement 40: M. Perry’s General Views About The Financial Crisis #3
February 4, 2013 – Statement 39: Resolution of All Government Civil Litigation Re. M. Perry: Summarized
January 29, 2013 – Statement 38: M. Perry’s General Views About The Financial Crisis #2
January 29, 2013 – Statement 37: Discussion of IndyMac Bank’s 2007 Safety and Soundness Regulatory Examination
January 17, 2013 – Statement 36: M. Perry’s General Views About the Financial Crisis #1
January 9, 2013 – Statement 35: FDIC Settlement Documents and M. Perry’s Comments Re. Settlement
January 3, 2013 – Statement 34: IndyMac’s (Credit Quality) Performance as a Loan Originator
January 2, 2013 – Statement 33: “Informal Mortgage Industry Talk By Michael Perry”
January 2, 2013 – Statement 32: “IndyMac Bank OMG Not TBTF”
September 27, 2012 – Statement 31: SEC Settlement Documents and M. Perry’s Attorney’s Comments Re. Settlement
September 24, 2012 – Statement 30: U.S. Judge Manuel L. Real’s Signed “Findings of Uncontroverted Facts and Conclusions of Law: Related to Order Granting Partial Summary Judgment in Favor of Perry on SEC’s Risk-Weighting and Section 17(a)(2) Claims”
September 10, 2012 – Statement 28: Transcript of 2nd Partial Summary Judgment Motion Hearing Before Judge Real
August 30, 2012 – Statement 27: The Truth is Emerging Despite the SEC’s Attempts to Conceal It.
August 30, 2012 – Statement 26: I think the SEC is engaging in denialism in their statements to the Court.
August 29, 2012 – Statement 25: How about this recent SEC Statement to the Court; is it misleading? I think so.
August 28, 2012 – Statement 24: Are these recent SEC Statements to the Court inaccurate or misleading? I think so.
August 28, 2012 – Statement 23: Status update on SEC vs. Michael W. Perry
August 24, 2012 – Statement 22: Excerpt from Michael W. Perry’s Sworn SEC Testimony
August 23, 2012 – Statement 21: Supplemental Brief in Support of M. Perry’s 2nd Motion for Partial Summary Judgment in SEC Matter
July 2, 2012 – Statement 20: Reply in Support of M. Perry’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment: SEC’s Risk Weighting and 17(a)(2) Claims
June 13, 2012 – Statement 19: M. Perry’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment: SEC’s Risk-Weighting and Section 17 (a)(2) Claims
May 31, 2012 – Statement 18: U.S. Judge Manuel L. Real’s Signed “Order Granting Partial Summary Judgment in Favor of Perry and Keys”
May 31, 2012 – Statement 17: U.S. Judge Manuel L. Real’s Signed “Findings of Uncontroverted Facts and Conclusions of Law”
May 25, 2012 – Statement 16: M. Perry’s Motion in Limine to Exclude Testimony of Professor Anthony Saunders
May 25, 2012 – Statement 15: M. Perry’s Motion in Limine to Exclude Analyst Testimony
May 21, 2012 – Statement 14: Transcript of Partial Summary Judgment Motion Hearing Before Judge Real
May 18, 2012 – Statement 13: M. Perry’s Memorandum of Contentions of Fact and Law
May 7, 2012 – Statement 12: Reply Memorandum in Support of M. Perry’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment
April 23, 2012 – Statement 11: Former FASB Director MacDonald Opines on $18 million Intercompany Payable/Receivable at March 31, 2008
April 23, 2012 – Statement 10: FTI’s Beloreshki Opines on 2008 DSPP Stock Issuance/Impact on Book Value
April 6, 2012 – Statement 9: Former OTS Regional Director Vigna Opines on Disclosure of Various Regulatory Matters
April 6, 2012 – Statement 8: Former SEC Chief Economist Lehn Opines on Materiality of SEC Allegations and Defendants’ Intent
April 6, 2012 – Statement 7: Former SEC Commissioner Fleischman Opines on Indymac’s Disclosure Controls
April 6, 2012 – Statement 6: Declaration of M. Perry In Support Of His Motion For Partial Summary Judgment
April 6, 2012 – Statement 5: M. Perry’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment
November 30, 2011 – Statement 4: M. Perry’s Responses to SEC’s First Set of Interrogatories
November 21, 2011 – Statement 3: SEC’s Responses to M. Perry’s First Set of Interrogatories
September 29, 2011 – Statement 2: M. Perry’s Motion to Dismiss FDIC Complaint
September 1,2011 – Statement 1: Initial Statement
“To sin by silence when they should protest makes cowards of men” -Abraham Lincoln
My name is Michael Perry. I am the former Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Indymac. I have kept silent for three years in the hope that I would be left alone and allowed to rebuild my professional life, but unfortunately that has not been the case. I have been forced to defend myself against unwarranted and false, public allegations.
On July 11, 2008, Indymac Bank was seized by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) after a U.S. Senator’s inappropriate public statements during the financial crisis caused a “run on the bank” that rapidly depleted the bank’s ample liquidity. As a result of this bank run and the fact that Indymac was deemed by banking regulators to be “Not Too Big To Fail”, it was not around just a few months later, at the height of the financial crisis, to receive any of the significant and unprecedented assistance the government provided to every “Too Big To Fail” financial institution and hundreds of smaller financial firms. Without this assistance, many, if not most would have suffered the same fate as Indymac, including some of the largest and oldest firms.
Since that time, I and others have been the subject of various government investigations and named as defendants in numerous civil lawsuits, including ones filed by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) on February 11, 2011 (31 months after Indymac was seized), and the FDIC on July 6, 2011 (3 years after Indymac was seized).
The plaintiffs in these civil lawsuits apparently don’t care about the facts or the truth; these suits are filled with distortions and inaccuracies. They are primarily being pursued to gain access to potential settlement proceeds from directors and officers liability insurance, or in the case of the SEC to show politicians, the press, and the public that they are now tough enforcers of the securities laws. The FDIC, for its part, is seeking a significant share of D&O insurance proceeds, but it is also inappropriately seeking to blame former banking executives like me for the FDIC’s own failures. The private deposit insurance fund, for which the FDIC is responsible, became insolvent during this crisis and remains so; without the full faith and credit of the U.S. behind them, they like Indymac and many others, would have failed.
Importantly, Indymac decided in 2000 to carry out its business model through the acquisition of a depository institution whose deposits were insured by the FDIC. Because of this decision, Indymac – unlike government-sponsored mortgage lenders Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (and others) — has not cost U.S. taxpayers one penny. And while the seizure of Indymac Bank has cost the FDIC’s insurance fund billions, industry experts and others (including me) believe that much of the insurance fund’s loss was avoidable, if only the FDIC had worked with us to save the bank when that was still possible or if the FDIC had made better decisions as conservator once it took over the bank.
Not one of the lawsuits against me has any merit.
I, and the management team and directors of Indymac Bank, made prudent and appropriate business decisions based on the facts available to us at the time and always with the primary goal being to keep Indymac Bank safe and sound, within the parameters of our regulatory-approved, mortgage lending business model. And importantly, we always acted with honesty, integrity and complete transparency and properly complied with all relevant regulations and laws.
The plaintiffs know this and as a result do not want these matters to go to trial where they will lose. This is what happens in America today. Frivolous lawsuits rarely go to trial and nearly always settle despite their lack of merit, because of the time and cost to defend against them (and perversely having a “pot” of liability insurance, or even better a deep-pocket, corporate indemnification, encourages more lawsuits and more settlements). It is particularly disheartening though, to have U.S. government agencies like the SEC and FDIC engaged in this type of behavior in order to further their own image without regard to the damage done to the reputation, career, and finances of honest individuals like myself and others. And it’s not just me and my family that is adversely affected. I believe these legal tactics have a long-term cost to our country’s economic potential and erode our standards. In regard to my latter assertion, I don’t think most Americans are aware (I wasn’t until recently), but there is an exemption in our defamation laws that “privileges” plaintiff’s lawyers and allows them to distort facts and make untrue statements and defame defendants like myself, without any consequence, even if the defendant proves so later in a court of law. This doesn’t seem right, does it?
In conclusion, this site’s purpose is to counter the allegations in these lawsuits (and regurgitated in the press as authoritative, when they are not) with the truth and the facts, for those who care to spend the time to read the documents on this site and understand them. I plan to start out slowly, focus on the government cases, and then if I have the time and it is warranted, expand the site to include my views based upon my experiences and post-crisis study of its true systemic and macroeconomic causes.