We can understand why they sold it: Litton serviced $9.7 billion in mortgages and had a delinquency rate of 43% in 2009. Goldman Sachs halted 23,000 foreclosures in order "to sort out affidavits that were signed without a review of the documentation."
Goldman Sachs's actions surrounding Litton lie at the heart of the fraud that Goldman Sachs perpetrated, not only on the homeowners of the US but also on the pensions and savings funds that bought the highly rated CDOs that Goldman Sachs touted.
Goldman Sachs had to buy a less-than-sterling company in the hopes of keeping its CDOs rolling along and raking in the money but Litton proved to be a horror show for hundreds of the homeowners who were caught in its snare. Customers who were unfortunate enough to buy their mortgages through Litton have a great deal to complain about. See the hundreds of complaints against Litton listed here.
Read those complaints and weep. Here's one
Over and over, Litton said I didn't send a piece of info. I did.Below are excerpts from a document that tells why justice has not been delivered to the homeowners such as the one quoted above.
They would send me the wrong modification package.
They withheld my payments, only to send them back to me.
They would take as long as laws allowed them. It seemed to me the whole time, the issue was just a game to them.
It would be the reason for having to send us back our payments.
I think there is over 50 g's added on to my mortgage.
Now I'm being told that my taxes weren't paid.
Before I was told they were, I asked how.
How are they getting paid if the escrow is already short?
They said they're paid.
Who helps us in Connecticut?
(Candice of Moosup. Ct. May 23, 2012 from: http://www.consumeraffairs.com/finance/litton_loan.html )
Justice Inaction: The Department of Justice's Unprecedented Failure to Prosecute Big Finance
By Government Accountability Institute - www.g-a-i.org
. . . .
Goldman Sachs created an investment in 2007 that seemed designed to fail, and then allowed a client who was betting against the mortgage market to help shape the investment instrument, known as Abacus 2007-AC1.49 Both Goldman and the client bet against the investment without informing other clients whose investments wagered on its success. Uninformed clients lost more than $1 billion in the investment. The Senate's Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, chaired by Democrat Carl Levin, proposed that the DOJ criminally investigate Goldman Sachs for its handling of the Abacus 2007-AC1 transaction.50
In 2010, the SEC charged Goldman Sachs with securities fraud "for making materially misleading statements and omissions" in marketing the investment.51 Because the SEC only conducts civil litigation, it referred the case to the DOJ for criminal investigation. A year later in April 2011, the Senate's Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations issued a 635-page report detailing several transactions (including the Abacus deal) that Levin and his staff asked the DOJ to investigate as possible crimes.52
Forbes captured the tone of the report with the bold headline: "Criminal Charges Loom for Goldman Sachs After Scathing Report."53 The subcommittee made a formal referral to the Justice Department, as did the Federal Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, chaired by Phil Angelides. Levin publicly stated that a criminal inquiry was warranted, and Goldman CEO Lloyd Blankfein, among other Goldman Sachs executives hired white-collar defense attorneys.
. . . .
Goldman Sachs settled with the SEC over the Abacus transaction in July 2010. Goldman paid $550 million, but admitted to no wrongdoing.56 The fine constitutes a mere four percent of the $12.1 billion Goldman paid its execs in bonuses the year of the Abacus transaction.57
. . . .
It would be a reach to conclude that the Department of Justice dropped its criminal investigation of Goldman Sachs solely in response to large campaign contributions from Goldman Sachs executives, but the situation comprises what one Justice official openly acknowledges as a "bad set of facts." Angelides continues to call for a rigorous criminal investigation of Wall Street, because he believes "it's fundamental that people in this country need to feel that the justice system is for everyone--that there's not one system for those people of enormous wealth and power, and one for everyone else."60 (page 17-19 of Justice Inaction:...)
You can read the full report here