The U.S. Department of Justice is challenging (subscription required) a settlement Countrywide Financial reached with a Pittsburgh bankruptcy court that had alleged that Countrywide was intentionally mishandling mortgage payments it received as part of a scheme to extract large fees and penalties from struggling borrowers.

The Justice Department says that a non-disparagement clause in the settlement could "impede, impair or otherwise chill witness testimony in the U.S. Trustee's ongoing investigation of Countrywide."

The non-disparagement clause required court official and whistle blower Ronda Winnecour to agree not to "in any manner, whether directly or indirectly, disparage" Countrywide, and to assure that her employees didn't disparage the company either.

Ms. Winnecour had alleged that Countrywide destroyed or intentionally lost mortgage payments that it received through the bankruptcy court, and then tacked on large fees for the missed payments -- Countrywide settled the suit for a paltry $325,000, and appears to have purchased the silence of a major critic in the process. Given all the state and federal investigations into the company's practices, along with myriad class-action lawsuits, that's a pretty valuable acquisition.

It's good that the Justice Department is standing up to Countrywide's bullying but Bank of America says that the clauses are "standard."

Enter problem number 4,232,243 with the Bank of America (NYSE: BAC)'s acquisition of Countrywide: the company is now in a position where, for financial reasons, it has no choice but to defend Countrywide's abhorrent practices in court. Bank of America could have won a lot of good publicity if it had, having largely sidestepped the whole subprime rout, been a strong advocate of reform in the industry. Instead, the company purchased the role of apologist for one of the industry's bad boys.