Home > Mortgages > Cleveland Versus Wall Street

Comments 0 Comments

How do you make a documentary movie about a trial that never happened?

Run your own trial.

That’s the gamble made in Cleveland Versus Wall Street, a new movie about Cleveland’s lawsuit against Wall Street banks for their role in funding the subprime mortgage boom, which destroyed many Cleveland neighborhoods. The movie made its American premiere this week in Cleveland.

In real life, the city of Cleveland sued 21 Wall Street banks in January 2008, asserting that the institutions knowingly pushed the city into financial crisis by writing thousands of subprime mortgage loans to people who could never repay. The empty homes became havens for vandals and drug dealers, and cost the city hundreds of millions of dollars in lost taxes, maintenance and demolition costs.

“We’re going after them to get the resources we need to rebuild our city,” Cleveland Mayor Frank G. Jackson told me when I wrote about the suit for The New York Times.

Federal judges from the Northern District of Ohio all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear the case. But French film director Jean-Stéphane Bron already had spent months filming the city’s legal team, led by Josh Cohen, a private attorney in Cleveland.

[Article: One Family’s 9-Month Trip Through the Loan Mod Twilight Zone]

So Bron decided to film his own trial. He used real jurors, recruited from the Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court jury pool. He used real lawyers, including Josh Cohen, the attorney handling the case for Cleveland, and Keith Fisher, a Washington D.C.-based attorney who has represented many of the nation’s largest banks. Bron recruited former county common pleas judge Thomas J. Pokorny to preside over the trial, and filmed the whole thing in a very officious-looking, oak-paneled courtroom.

Director Bron decided to focus on the psychological impact of the foreclosure crisis and the emotional interplay between the lawyers and jurors, rather than the facts of the case. That left both sides, and many audience members, feeling disappointed. Talking after the premiere, Fisher complained that none of his arguments about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac’s loans for low-income people contributing to the crisis appeared in the film.

Lawyers for Cleveland expressed displeasure that their emotional appeals were included, but not their arguments about how specific decisions by Wall Street banks to reap big fees from high-risk loans led directly to Cleveland’s blight.

“Where were all the specifics?” Bobbi Reichtell, a longtime community development specialist in Cleveland, said after the movie.

Others who attended the premiere were happy that the problem of blighted neighborhoods in a city like Cleveland was receiving any attention at all. Cleveland Versus Wall Street played at last year’s Cannes Film Festival. It has been distributed in Europe, and a distributor called Neoclassics Films has agreed to promote the film to U.S. theaters.

Meanwhile, a different version of the lawsuit remains stuck in Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court. Cohen hopes to hear within the next six weeks whether that case will move forward.

“I was so proud to be part of Cleveland Versus Wall Street,” Barbara Anderson, a Cleveland resident who features prominently in the film, said before the movie to a sold-out crowd. “It’s only in Cleveland where you see this kind of resilience. I know that Cleveland knows how to fight back.”

[Resource: Get your free Credit Report Card]

Image: Rev Stan, via Flickr

Comments on articles and responses to those comments are not provided or commissioned by a bank advertiser. Responses have not been reviewed, approved or otherwise endorsed by a bank advertiser. It is not a bank advertiser's responsibility to ensure all posts and/or questions are answered.

Please note that our comments are moderated, so it may take a little time before you see them on the page. Thanks for your patience.

Certain credit cards and other financial products mentioned in this and other articles on Credit.com News & Advice may also be offered through Credit.com product pages, and Credit.com will be compensated if our users apply for and ultimately sign up for any of these cards or products. However, this relationship does not result in any preferential editorial treatment.

Hello, Reader!

Thanks for checking out Credit.com. We hope you find the site and the journalism we produce useful. We wanted to take some time to tell you a bit about ourselves.

Our People

The Credit.com editorial team is staffed by a team of editors and reporters, each with many years of financial reporting experience. We’ve worked for places like the New York Times, American Banker, Frontline, TheStreet.com, Business Insider, ABC News, NBC News, CNBC and many others. We also employ a few freelancers and more than 50 contributors (these are typically subject matter experts from the worlds of finance, academia, politics, business and elsewhere).

Our Reporting

We take great pains to ensure that the articles, video and graphics you see on Credit.com are thoroughly reported and fact-checked. Each story is read by two separate editors, and we adhere to the highest editorial standards. We’re not perfect, however, and if you see something that you think is wrong, please email us at editorial team [at] credit [dot] com,

The Credit.com editorial team is committed to providing our readers and viewers with sound, well-reported and understandable information designed to inform and empower. We won’t tell you what to do. We will, however, do our best to explain the consequences of various actions, thereby arming you with the information you need to make decisions that are in your best interests. We also write about things relating to money and finance we think are interesting and want to share.

In addition to appearing on Credit.com, our articles are syndicated to dozens of other news sites. We have more than 100 partners, including MSN, ABC News, CBS News, Yahoo, Marketwatch, Scripps, Money Magazine and many others. This network operates similarly to the Associated Press or Reuters, except we focus almost exclusively on issues relating to personal finance. These are not advertorial or paid placements, rather we provide these articles to our partners in most cases for free. These relationships create more awareness of Credit.com in general and they result in more traffic to us as well.

Our Business Model

Credit.com’s journalism is largely supported by an e-commerce business model. Rather than rely on revenue from display ad impressions, Credit.com maintains a financial marketplace separate from its editorial pages. When someone navigates to those pages, and applies for a credit card, for example, Credit.com will get paid what is essentially a finder’s fee if that person ends up getting the card. That doesn’t mean, however, that our editorial decisions are informed by the products available in our marketplace. The editorial team chooses what to write about and how to write about it independently of the decisions and priorities of the business side of the company. In fact, we maintain a strict and important firewall between the editorial and business departments. Our mission as journalists is to serve the reader, not the advertiser. In that sense, we are no different from any other news organization that is supported by ad revenue.

Visitors to Credit.com are also able to register for a free Credit.com account, which gives them access to a tool called The Credit Report Card. This tool provides users with two free credit scores and a breakdown of the information in their Experian credit report, updated twice monthly. Again, this tool is entirely free, and we mention that frequently in our articles, because we think that it’s a good thing for users to have access to data like this. Separate from its educational value, there is also a business angle to the Credit Report Card. Registered users can be matched with products and services for which they are most likely to qualify. In other words, if you register and you find that your credit is less than stellar, Credit.com won’t recommend a high-end platinum credit card that requires an excellent credit score You’d likely get rejected, and that’s no good for you or Credit.com. You’d be no closer to getting a product you need, there’d be a wasted inquiry on your credit report, and Credit.com wouldn’t get paid. These are essentially what are commonly referred to as "targeted ads" in the world of the Internet. Despite all of this, however, even if you never apply for any product, the Credit Report Card will remain free, and none of this will impact how the editorial team reports on credit and credit scores.

Our Owners

Credit.com is owned by Progrexion Holdings Inc. which is the owner and administrator of a number of business related to credit and credit repair, including CreditRepair.com, and eFolks. In addition, Progrexion also provides services to Lexington Law Firm as a third party provider. Despite being owned by Progrexion, it is not the role of the Credit.com editorial team to advocate the use of the company’s other services. In articles, reporters may mention credit repair as an option, for example, but we’ll also be sure to note the various alternatives to that service. Furthermore, you may see ads for credit repair services on Credit.com, but the editorial team isn’t responsible for the creation or implementation of those ads, anymore than reporters for the New York Times or Washington Post are responsible for the ads on their sites.

Your Stories

Lastly, much of what we do is informed by our own experiences as well as the experiences of our readers. We want to tell your stories if you’re interested in sharing them. Please email us at story ideas [at] credit [dot] com with ideas or visit us on Facebook or Twitter.

Thanks for stopping by.

- The Credit.com Editorial Team