StayViolation.Com

U.S. Senate Votes Down Bankruptcy Mortgage Bill

It really is a sad day for those facing foreclosure in this country.  Strangely, it is probably not good news for the mortgage industry either that must now foreclose millions of homes and sell them at bargain basement prices.  Worse of all, it is bad news for the housing market in that everyone will probably see their home prices reduced further.

The Senate has defeated legislation that would have let hundreds of thousands of debt-ridden homeowners seek mortgage relief in bankruptcy court.

President Barack Obama had said the bill was important to saving the economy and promised to push for its passage. But facing stiff opposition from banks, Obama did little to lean on lawmakers who worried it might spike interest rates.

The bill would have allowed bankruptcy judges to rewrite a person’s mortgage terms, if a bank refused to offer better terms based on income and home value. Only 45 senators voted in favor of the bill, with 51 senators opposed.

Posting Sign About The Debtor Can Constitute A Stay Violation (Judgment Achieved On One Of Our Cases)

United States Bankruptcy Judge Bill Parker of the Eastern District of Texas issued JUDGMENT against a creditor in one of our adversary proceedings finding that posting a sign concerning the pre-petition debt owed by the Debtor constituted a willful violation of the stay.  Worse for the creditor was the fact that the Court found that the creditor should pay actual and punitive damages of $21,820.00.

In James Bradley Collier v. Paul Hill the Court found that Hill's Mobile Home Parts & Service sold various mobile home parts and materials to Brad Collier prior to Mr. Collier filing a Chapter 13 bankruptcy, and Mr. Collier owed Paul Hill a pre-petition debt of $984.23.

Initial errors by Mr. Collier and the Bankruptcy Court failed to provide actual notice to Paul Hill and his company, Hill's Mobile home Parts & Service.  However, after confirmation by Paul Hill that Brad Collier had filed Chapter 13 bankruptcy, Paul Hill engaged in two improper acts in violation of the automatic stay.  First, he retained Josh B. Maness to represent him in regard to collection of the pre-petition claim.  Mr. Maness sent a letter to Brad Collier's bankruptcy attorney, Jean H. Taylor, confirming the bankruptcy, yet demanding the full balance of the pre-petition debt.  Misstatements were made in the letter that Mr. Maness attributed to an unfamiliarity as to how to use the Bankruptcy Court's PACER/ECF system.  Regardless, the Court found the letter constituted a willful violation of the automatic stay issued in Mr. Collier's Chapter 13 bankruptcy because no good faith defenses are allowed as to stay violation.  The Court concluded this "ill-informed conclusion based upon an insufficient investigation" was "not a technical violation based upon an innocent mistake" as "[t]his is precisely the type of behavior that the automatic stay is intended to preclude".

Based on the letter alone, litigation was not initiated.  Jean Taylor contacted Josh Maness and informed him that his assumptions as stated in the letter were incorrect.

Second, and more concerning, Paul Hill and his company posted a large sign near a major intersection of US Highway 80 and FM 2199 in Scottsville, Texas, not far from where Brad Collier, his family, his friends, and his employer lived and worked, which read - "BRAD COLLIER OWES ME $984.23 WILL YOU PLEASE COME PAY ME!"  (Emphasis in original).  It is unclear if Mr. Maness encouraged the sign to be posted by Paul Hill, but he did continue to represent Mr. Hill in his refusal to remove the sign.  It remained posted in public view  for a period of 21 days, and Paul Hill only agreed to remove the sign at the hearing scheduled by the Bankruptcy Court on Brad Collier's requested expedited hearing for an injunction.

Following the precedent of the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in Campbell v. Countrywide and In re Chesnut, the Bankruptcy Court found the sign constituted a willful violation of the automatic stay pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(k).

Paul Hill vigorously contended that the posting of the Scottsville sign did not constitute a violation of the automatic stay, "[n]otwithstanding the actual languageusd in the sign" because it was not posted to collect a debt but rather "to inform the public that Collier wouldn't pay his debts and not to give him any credit".  Mr. Hill testified that he had already "written off the debt" and that the threat of a judgment and the sign were intended to create embarrassment for Mr. Hill.

The Court found that "[w]hile embarrassing the Debtor in their shared community was certainly a motive of the Defendant, the Court finds that such a motive had an objective - to coerce the Debtor into paying his debt".

Mr. Hill contended throughout the litigation that the directive on the sign -- "WILL YOU PLEAS COME PAY ME!" - did not constitute an effort to collect a debt because there was no question mark at the end of the sentence.  However, the Court found that the use of an exclamation mark in lieu of a question mark demonstrated that the opposite was true.  "The exclamation mark transforms the sentence into a directive, which demands that the Debtor pay the debt."  The Court further found that the Bankruptcy Code was clear. "Any effort, action, or demand by a creditor to collect a pre-petition debt violates the automatic stay".

Regardless of the stay violation, Paul Hill contended that he could not be sanctioned for his action of posting the sign because of his entitlement to exercise his free speech right under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, citing Turner Advertising Co. v. National Serv. Corp. (In re National Serv. Corp.), 742 F.2d 859 (5th Cir. 1984).  Since the Scottsville sign constituted free speech, Hill through his counsel contended, it could not be curtailed by 11 U.S.C. §§ 362(a) and (k).

As to this argument the Court found:

"While there are certainly components of speech involved in virtually every expression offered about the filing of a bankruptcy case, the automatic stay and the restrictions contained therein focus not upon speech but rather upon the restraint of actions -- actions that threaten the core objectives of the Bankruptcy Code and the judicial system designed to achieve those objectives.  It proscribes conduct — conduct that threatens the “breathing spell” and the “fresh start” to which an honest debtor under this system is entitled as it fulfills the duty of full disclosure of its assets and liabilities — as well as conduct that threatens the efficient marshaling of those assets in order to insure a fair and equitable distribution to creditors. The scope of the automatic stay may at times incidentally impact free speech, but those isolated intrusions are justified in order to accomplish the significant governmental interest in providing uniform bankruptcy laws and an effective means by which to implement them".

Paul Hill's decision to continue with the sign and stating it was intended to embarrass Mr. Collier might have proved fatal.  The Court awarded actual and punitive damages of $21,820.00 as against Mr. Hill.

Fighting The Foreclosure Machine

Written before the collapse of our credit markets, I was reminded of the New York Times article Foreclosure Machines Thrives on Woes by Billy Price and his blog Dallas Bankruptcy Lawyer.  It was an amazing article when written, and it likely speaks volumes now that foreclosures have only increased.

The essence of the article is really that bankruptcy attorneys seem to be the only real line of defense against some bad foreclosure practices, but the conduct does not stop even once a debtor enters bankruptcy.

One point of the article is that the methods employed by mortgage servicing companies has corrupted the system in a way that benefits nobody but the large law firms that pursue these matters in large numbers based on unit costs.

As stated in the article, "Nobody wins when a home enters foreclosure - neither the borrower, who is evicted, nor the lender, who takes a loss when the home is resold ... The reality is very different.  Behind the scenes in these dramas, a small army of law firms and default servicing companies, who represent mortgage lenders, have been raking in mounting profits."

These law firms are commonly called "foreclosure mills".  Most bankruptcy firms that have had to work with these mills will tell you that they are generally strident, ill informed, and have generally contributed to a worsening of the real estate market.  They certainly make a debtors honest efforts to reorganize and save their home in bankruptcy exceedingly difficult many times.  Yet, there is little change now as to how mortgage servicing companies have employed their services since the crash of the real estate market in this country.

The problem from a bankruptcy standpoint?

These foreclosure mills are paid by the number of motions, objections and documents filed in a bankruptcy. The result is that these mills are encouraged to file as many claims as possible.  As stated in the article, “Court documents say that some of the largest firms in the industry have repeatedly submitted erroneous affidavits when moving to seize homes and levied improper fees that make it harder for homeowners to get back on track with payments.”

What seems to empower mortgage servicing companies and foreclosure mills is the notion that it can add any fee its wishes, without bankruptcy court authority or effective disclosure to the debtor's mortgage account.  In a recent study, Katherine M. Porter, an associate professor of law at the University of Iowa, found that of 1,733 mortgage accounts in bankruptcy across the country she reviewed almost half contained questionable fees, which were automatically added tot he debtor's account.

The problem with any machine is that once it gets going it is just hard to turn off, especially when the machine is fueled not by its analysis of the situation, or how exactly it has effectively assisted its client, but by the shear number of motions and objections its files.  The only real line of defense has been the debtors' bankruptcy attorneys, and even they get overwhelmed by the magnitude of this problem.

Previously I posted about series of problem in the State of Texas concerning the law firm of Barrett Burke Wilson Castle Daffin & Frappier (then commonly known as BBWCDF).  The law firm went through a period of embarrassing revelations in the bankruptcy courts in Houston, Texas resulting in a number of high dollar sanctions and sever tongue lashings by the judges.  (You can read these decisions by clicking HERE, and HERE, and HERE and HERE).  The law firm has since undergone a reorganization and is now known as Barrett Daffin Frappier Turner & Engel, L.L.P (or BDFTE).

The problem ultimately is that BBWCDF or BDFTE might be one of the largest of this type of firm or foreclosure mill, but they are not the only one by any means.

The only recourse a debtor has is to be vigilant in reviewing the statements or records obtained from mortgage servicing companies, calling questionable fees and conduct to the attention of a bankruptcy attorney, and comparing with the bankruptcy attorney this information to that filed in the underlying bankruptcy case.  Bankruptcy rights are not self-enforcing.  If the courts do not know the activity is taking place, the courts cannot correct it.  Bankruptcy attorneys only know to enforce what they can reasonably discover from the bankruptcy documents filed.  It is ultimately the comparison of these bankruptcy documents, and what is really happening on the ground that uncovers much of the bad conduct.  Mortgage servicing companies and these bankruptcy mills survive because nobody but the debtor has all of the information to review and compare, and the consumer is not versed in doing so.

So, be vigilant.

Bill Collectors Are Terrible People In Terrible Jobs

I have thought about it off and on, and I always wonder why were should just not outlaw bill collectors.  I am not talking about companies that feel they need to collect their own debt, but independent debt collection companies.  After all, what really useful function do they serve?  There entire existence, say what you will, is based solely on harassing, lying, bullying and deceiving people.  They really have no other arrows in their quivers, except for these.  They exist for no other reason.  And, most often, they are rewarded for succeeding at exactly this type of conduct in that they live off of a percentage of what they collect.  They eat what they kill.

The goal of the law is to simply turn a blind eye to the entire reason these people and companies exist.  The law seeks to insulate the actual creditor from the conduct that the creditor suspects is going to be employed to collect the debt.  Maybe this is more metaphorical, but it is tantamount to hiring someone to go break the debtor's leg only to tell them you do not want to hear about it later.  It reminds me of that scene in the movie Sneakers in which Ben Kingsley says to Robert Redford, "I cannot kill my friend".  Then he turns to his henchman and says to him, "Kill my friend".  Like the good servant that goes to church every Sunday only to live a regretful life the rest of the week, it is all too convenient for creditors, politicians, courts and we the people to simply put this in too sterile of light.

Do not get me wrong.  There is a problem when companies extend credit and they do not get paid.  They obviously need to do what they can to get paid.  There are legal mechanisms, where a neutral party can make these hard decisions.  Nobody is talking about taking from creditors there legal rights or their right to reasonably attempt to recover their capitalist lifeblood.  Nobody is saying that.  The complaint concerns tactics and techniques that are extrajudicial.

We somehow miss the mark.  We meet and pass legislation that tries to delineate when a debt collector absolutely goes too far.  Forget that they still cross this broad line constantly.  We ignore that their purpose is simply not necessary.  We concern ourselves with it might be okay for a private debt collector (not the creditor undertaking legal means) to turn the wheel on the rack 5 times but not 6 times, while ignoring completely that the rack is wrong.

You might think I exaggerate.  I do not.  These people are hurtful.  Their tactics are cutting, pernicious, distressing and malicious.  Why else would any normal person send money to a imperceptible third party, with no apparent connection to the debt, when they do not necessarily have the funds or have greater obligations that cannot be met.  Maybe it is not physical brutality, or the threat of it.  Maybe it is more clairvoyant in nature.  But, sometimes psychological discomfort, or playing off the fears and emotions of those already in fear is worse.  We know this for we worry about enhanced interrogation techniques at Gitmo.

And, it is hard to imagine that most of the people who are forced for low wages to man the call centers that do this type of work are enjoying the experience either.  Sure there are probably some sadistic bastards who like the thrill of the work, but most problems arise because the ordinary people manning the phones at these collection agencies are being pushed beyond their moral compass as well.  Why do you think most large corporations do not want to employ people for this nasty task.  It is kind of like Wal-Mart not wishing to employ illegal aliens to clean it stores at night, so it elects to hire companies that hire illegal aliens to clean its stores at night.  The cartoon below, I think illustrates this.

Therein lies the problem for us.  Since the entire system of independent collection agencies is designed to skirt the law, to be so persistent as to not stop, and to lie and cheat their way into an advantageous position with the debtor, small things like the automatic stay and the discharge injunction simply do not matter that much.  These collectors are trained to shoot back when they are threatened with the prospect of legal rights being violated, so why would they not do the same when told of the stay or the discharge injunction?  In short, they are paid to pay it no never mind.

The only logical solution is not to say that some practices are wrong, but to outlaw the profession altogether.  If a creditors is owed money, let the creditor try to collect it legally.  These thugs they do not need.

Maintaining An Auto Disabling Device Is A Stay Violation

There is a trend among used car dealers, and especially those used car dealers that tote the note, to install disabling devices in the automobiles they sell, which disables the vehicle from operating if a new code is not inputted at the time a payment is normally due.

The technology is generally called telematics, and where this term addresses many different solutions involving asset management such as maintaining the tracking of fleet vehicles and the use of anti-theft devices, one of the "solutions" is the ability to disable a mortgaged automobile if timely payments are not made.  There is not a lot written on this aspect of telematics, but U. S. News & World Reports did report on it. There are a few companies that manufacture these devices.  These are, for example, Aircept, PayTeck, and PassTime to name a few.  Strangely enough, although devises to disable mortgage vehicles is a growing and vibrant area of the industry, it would seem that even the providers of the devices and system do not maintain websites that directly tout what they do in this regard.  The disabling services deployed by these companies must seem insidious to these companies as well.  Here is a video that explains the product from a positive standpoint that is not easy to find on the web --  CLICK HERE FOR THE VIDEO.

There are a lot of interesting issues concerning these auto disabling devices and who exactly they are intended to benefit.  For example, the video talks about the system reducing interest rates charged by note lots.  We seriously doubt that this is true and could find no direct evidence on this fact.

The Debtor Does Not Have To Prove Up Injury Seperate And Apart From A Willful Violation Of The Stay

In reading bankruptcy court opinions concerning violations of the automatic stay, and from my practice in prosecuting these violations, it would appear the greatest misunderstanding of 11 U.S.C. § 362(k) (and the pre-BAPCPA provision of § 362(h)), is the distinction between damages and injury.

As I have often said, "damages" do not constitute a element that must be established to establish liability under § 362(k).  Damages are simply a consequence of the bankruptcy court otherwise finding a willful violation of the stay.

Injury, on the other hand does not have to be individually proved up by a Plaintiff in a stay violation for the simple reason that the proving up of a violation (any violation, willful or otherwise) establishes the violation of a core right, which constitutes an injury.  If you prove what you otherwise need to prove under § 362(k), you have established injury.

Yet, well meaning bankruptcy judges, as well as less than well meaning defense counsel, continue to spend much time and effort attempting to (1) confuse actual, out-of-pocket damages with injury, and (2) attempting to refute injury is separately established, contesting whether a defendant is liable under § 362(k).  It is an analysis that is simply unnecessary.

As to the issue of damages v. injury the tendency is to treat these a synonomous terms.  Defendants, and some judges, continue to believe that if actual, out-of-pocket damages cannot be established at the outset of the case prosecuting a violation, then the plaintiff simply cannot prevail.  This would seem, however, to ignore proper legal construction.  Words in a statute are not to be read so as to render them superfluous. Hence, the elementary rule of statutory construction is that, wherever possible, effect must be given to every word of a statute. United States v. Nordic Village, Inc., 503 U.S. 30, 112 S.Ct. 1011, 1015 (1992).  The terms injury and damages are included in the same sentence and cannot be interchangable terms.

Further, the 5th Circuit (as with all circuit courts) does not establish either injury or damages as any one of the elements necessary for a determination of liability in its reading of § 362(k). In re Chesnut, 422 F.3d 298, 302 (5th Cir. 2005), In re Repine, 536 F.3d 512 (5th Cir. 2008), and Campbell v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., Case No. 07-20499, Pg. 9 (5th Cir. October 13, 2008). 

The finding of a willful violation of the injunctions of a court, injury is already established. “Injury” is broadly defined as being "a violation of another's legal right, for which the law provides a remedy." Black's Law Dictionary 801 (8th ed. 2004). Since the automatic stay of 11 U.S.C. § 362(a) is a legal right afforded to Mr. and Mrs. Henderson that protects them from continued collection efforts by their Creditors. (H.R. Rep. No. 595, 95th Cong., 1st Sess. 174-75 (1977)) "the mere violation of the automatic stay constitutes an injury to the debtor inasmuch as the creditor's violation restricts the debtor's breathing spell and subjects the debtor to continued collection efforts, possibly including harassment and intimidation." Jackson v. Dan Holiday Furniture, LLC (In re Jackson), 309 B.R. 33, 38 (Bankr. W.D. Mo. 2004). Also see, In re Reed, 102 B.R. 243, 245 (Bankr. E.D. Okl. 1989); Bukowski v. Patel, 266 B.R. 838 (Bankr. E.D. Wis. 2001); and, In re Preston, 333 B.R. 346, 350 (Bankr. M.D. NC 2005). The United States Supreme Court recently confirmed that “injury” constitutes a standing issue, ruling that one of the elements to Article III standing a plaintiff must establish “a ―concrete and particularized‖ invasion of a ―legally protected interest”, as is the case with 11 U.S.C. § 362(a) and other bankruptcy provisions. Sprint Communications Co. v. APCC Services, Inc., 07-552, pg. 4 (U.S. 6-23-2008). The willful violation of 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(1) and other bankruptcy provisions and rules does constitute the invasion of such a legally protected interest and the undisputed material facts above demonstrate such an invasion.

The 10 Largest Bankruptcies In History

With Lehman Brothers filing the largest bankruptcy in history, there are a couple interesting points to make.

First, in a democracy, what is a right for the biggest and most powerful corporations among us, should be a right extended to the least consumer among us.  After all, this is also Biblical, is it not?  "Whatever you do for the least of these my brothers, you do it to me".  Matthew 25:40.

Second, it is interesting to view the top 10 biggest brothers (bankruptcies) of all time to give you the size and enormity of that right.  These are:

1.    Lehman Brothers - $639 billion in assets.
2.    Worldcom - 103.4 billion in assets.
3.    Enron - $63.4 billion in assets.
4.    Conseco - $61.4 billion in assets.
5.    Texaco - $35.9 billion in assets.
6.    Financial Corp. of America - $33.9 billion in assets.
7.    Refco - $33 billion in assets.
8.    Global Crossing - $30.2 billion in assets.
9.    Pacific Gas and Electric - $29.8 billion in assets.
10.  United Airlines - $25.2 billion in assets.

IndyMac Files For Bankruptcy Protection

According to The New York Times and others,IndyMac Bancorp, the third-largest banking failure in United States history, said that it had filed for bankruptcy protection, less than three weeks after being seized by federal regulators following a bank run by depositors.

Based in Pasadena, Calif., the holding company for IndyMac Bank filed for Chapter 7 protection on Thursday with the federal bankruptcy court in Los Angeles, indicating it plans to liquidate. IndyMac said it expected the court will appoint a bankruptcy trustee promptly.

IndyMac Bancorp has $50 million to $100 million of assets, $100 million to $500 million of liabilities, and fewer than 50 creditors, according to the bankruptcy filing.

The collapse of IndyMac was the largest U.S. banking failure in two decades. Regulators at the time said IndyMac ended March with about $32 billion of assets, and about $19 billion of deposits, most of which were insured.

IndyMac was the fifth of seven bank failures this year, the F.D.I.C. said.

IndyMac once specialized in "Alt-A" and other below-prime home loans, which often did not require borrowers to fully document income or assets.

It collapsed as borrower defaults began to mount, while tight capital markets forced it to take losses on mortgages it sold and kept on its books.

Former NFL Star Michael Vick Files For Bankruptcy Protection

On July 8, 2008, Michael Vick, the former NFL quarterback who is serving a 23-month prison term for plotting to run an interstate dogfighting ring, filed for Chapter 11 reorganization according to Bloomberg News.  Vick cited debts of $10 million to $50 million in Chapter 11 papers filed yesterday in U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Newport News, Virginia. He listed assets valued at between $10 million and $50 million.

It is reported that Vick's hope is that by filing bankruptcy that he can, after the conclusion of the bankruptcy case, rebuild his life on a personal and spiritual level, resurrect his image as a public figure, and resolve matters with the NFL such that he can resume his career,'' Vick's lawyers said in the bankruptcy filing.

Vick, 28, the No. 1 pick in the National Football League's 2001 college draft and a three-time Pro Bowl choice with the Atlanta Falcons, was indefinitely suspended by the league when he agreed to enter his August 2007 felony plea. He is due to be released from the U.S. penitentiary in Leavenworth, Kansas, in about a year, according to court papers.

A federal judge in December gave Vick less than half the maximum penalty for his role in buying, training and killing dogs while funding gambling on fights held on his property in Surry County, Virginia. He also received three years probation.

Vick pleaded guilty to conspiracy to travel in interstate commerce in aid of unlawful activities and to sponsor a dog in an animal-fighting venture. He publicly apologized for his actions and said he would stand against animal cruelty.

His creditors include The Atlanta Falcons, which are owed $3.75 million for a pro rated signing bonus according to the filing. Other of the largest unsecured creditors listed include Joel Enterprises Inc., owed $4.5 million for breach of contract, and Royal Bank of Canada, owed $2.5 million for a real-estate loan.

Wizard Of OZ

Someone recently compared what we attorneys do as being something similar to the Wizard of Oz, in  that what is behind our organizations might be a little smaller than and less intimidating than as we try to make it appear.

Maybe so, but behind everything what we are trying to do is pin a conscience on corporations, banks, finance companies and creditors that pretend to tear their clothes and gnash their teeth over having to pay a little recompense to a financially vulnerable person to whom they have treated badly.  At the same time, most of the multi billion dollar corporations do not think twice of paying their badly performing management hundred million dollar compensation packages or in spending, like Citibank, hundreds of millions to change their logo from one side of their name to another side of their name on all of their signs and print material.

I had a major national bank recently tell me in an email that it would not be "bullied" by my debtor who was in bankruptcy.  Really?  Bullied by a debtor who was just minding his own business and wanted to be left alone from the constant harassment he was receiving despite the fact the lender knew it had been enjoined from this behavior and the fact that the bankruptcy attorney had warned the bank that it was violating the automatic stay.  And, what did the lender find as being bullied.  The Debtor asking them to stop, pay him $500.00 for his time in this matter, and to pay his attorneys' fees of a few thousand dollars that he had not wanted to spend but for the fact that the lender would not stop its activities when politely asked to obey the Court's order.

The last refuge is bankruptcy court, and in this the debtor is suppose to be safe for unilateral action without the knowledge and concern of the bankruptcy court.  And, when big business and big lenders do not obey the law we are increasingly fighting a war of hyperbole.

Not only bankruptcy, but predatory lending, junk fees, the inability to solve any problem or concern of a customer without litigation shows how the essential problem of big lenders and big business and big law firms that they have ceased to serve their customers.  We all feel it.  We are not now trusted customers as we feel more like targets.

Government offers few protections with the exception of the bankruptcy courts.  As a result, the Bankruptcy Code has become the de facto Code of Conduct that should be imposed on all corporations and all lenders.  Should it be so?  Maybe not, but that is what our government has left us, and they have left it to the debtors to enforce this Code of Conduct themselves.

Everybody needs a conscience.  Only it either does not come naturally to big business and those in finance or it is lost in the hierarchy.  It is necessary to ensure that individual actions do not violate a group's moral norms. Conscience consists in the internalization or acceptance of a group's moral norms as correct and overriding one's self-interest when they conflict.  These big lenders and big business do not do override, and these corporations desperately need a conscience to monitor and control their behavior.

William Langewiesche wrote in The Atlantic in November 2001: "The greatest pyramids ... are made not of stone but of people: they are the vast bureaucracies that constitute society's core, and they function not necessarily to get the "job" done but to reward the personal loyalty of those at the bottom to those at the top."  I tend to think he is right.

Adam Smith’s first major work was the Theory of Moral Sentiments. He understood, as an ethicist, that the mechanism of the “invisible hand” would be most efficient if self-interest was restrained by conscience. With remarkable prescience Smith warned that corporations would slip the restraints of human conscience.  These big companies and lenders have taken on a life of their own.  These are entities without a conscience with the potential to wreak havoc on the societies that have created them.

So, what is our job?  It is, I think, to try as best we can in individual cases to demand the respect of these big institutions and try to pin to them a little conscience -- a little concern -- as to what they do.