ARE YOU A VICTIM OF WELLS FARGO'S PAIN?: GOTTA LOVE AG SCHNEIDERMAN!!

Sunday, August 7, 2011

SPECTRE OF FRAUD OF ALL TYPES HAUNTING BOFA, CITI, CHASE, WELLS ET AL

Posted on August 6, 2011 by Neil Garfield

MOST POPULAR ARTICLES

COMBO Title and Securitization Search, Report, Documents, Analysis & Commentary

GET COMBO TITLE AND SECURITIZATION ANALYSIS – CLICK HERE

New York AG Schneiderman Comes out Swinging at BofA, BoNY
Posted By igradman On August 5, 2011 (4:28 pm) In Attorneys General

This is big. Though we’ve seen leading indicators over the last few weeks that New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman might get involved in the proposed Bank of America settlement over Countrywide bonds, few expected a response that might dynamite the entire deal. But that’s exactly what yesterday’s filing before Judge Kapnick could do.

Stating that he has both a common law and a statutory interest “in protecting the economic health and well-being of all investors who reside or transact business within the State of New York,” Schneiderman’s petition to intervene takes a stance that’s more aggressive than that of any of the other investor groups asking for a seat at the table.

Rather than simply requesting a chance to conduct discovery or questioning the methodology that was used to arrive at the settlement, the AG’s petition seeks to intervene to assert counterclaims against Bank of New York Mellon for persistent fraud, securities fraud and breach of fiduciary duty.

Did you say F-f-f-fraud? That’s right. The elephant in the room during the putback debates of the last three years has been the specter of fraud. Sure, mortgage bonds are performing abysmally and the underlying loans appears largely defective when investors are able to peek under the hood, but did the banks really knowingly mislead investors or willfully obstruct their efforts to remedy these problems? Schneiderman thinks so. He accuses BoNY of violating:

Executive Law § 63(12)’s prohibition on persistent fraud or illegality in the conduct of business: the Trustee failed to safeguard the mortgage files entrusted to its care under the Governing Agreements, failed to take any steps to notify affected parties despite its knowledge of violations of representations and warranties, and did so repeatedly across 530 Trusts. (Petition to Intervene at 9)

By calling out BoNY for failing to enforce investors’ repurchase rights or help investors enforce those rights themselves, the AG has turned a spotlight on the most notoriously uncooperative of the four major RMBS Trustees. Of course, all of the Trustees have engaged in this type of heel-dragging obstructionism to some degree, but many have softened their stance.

since investors started getting more aggressive in threatening legal action against them. BoNY, in addition to remaining resolute in refusing to aid investors, has now gone further in trying to negotiate a sweetheart deal for Bank of America without allowing all affected investors a chance to participate. This has drawn the ire of the nation’s most outspoken financial cop.

And lest you think that the NYAG focuses all of his vitriol on BoNY, Schneiderman says that BofA may also be on the hook for its conduct, both before and after the issuance of the relevant securities. The Petition to Intervene states that:

Countrywide and BoA face liability for persistent illegality in:
(1) repeatedly breaching representations and warranties concerning loan quality;
(2) repeatedly failing to provide complete mortgage files as it was required to do under the Governing Agreements; and
(3) repeatedly acting pursuant to self-interest, rather than
investors’ interests, in servicing, in violation of the Governing Agreements. (Petition to Intervene at 9)

Though Countrywide may have been the culprit for breaching reps and warranties in originating these loans, the failure to provide loan files and the failure to service properly post-origination almost certainly implicates the nation’s largest bank. And lest any doubts remain in that regard, the AG’s Petition also provides, “given that BoA negotiated the settlement with BNYM despite BNYM’s obvious conflicts of interest, BoA may be liable for aiding and abetting BNYM’s breach of fiduciary duty.” (Petition at 7) So much for Bank of America’s characterization of these problems as simply “pay[ing] for the things that Countrywide did.”

As they say on late night infomercials, “but wait, there’s more!” In a step that is perhaps even more controversial than accusing Countrywide’s favorite Trustee of fraud, the AG has blown the cover off of the issue of improper transfer of mortgage loans into RMBS Trusts. This has truly been the third rail of RMBS problems, which few plaintiffs have dared touch, and yet the AG has now seized it with a vice grip.

In the AG’s Verified Pleading in Intervention (hereinafter referred to as the “Pleading,” and well worth reading), Schneiderman pulls no punches in calling the participating banks to task over improper mortgage transfers. First, he notes that the Trustee had a duty to ensure proper transfer of loans from Countrywide to the Trust. (Pleading ¶23). Next, he states that, “the ultimate failure of Countrywide to transfer complete mortgage loan documentation to the Trusts hampered the Trusts’ ability to foreclose on delinquent mortgages, thereby impairing the value of the notes secured by those mortgages. These circumstances apparently triggered widespread fraud, including BoA’s fabrication of missing documentation.” (Id.) Now that’s calling a spade a spade, in probably the most concise summary of the robosigning crisis that I’ve seen.

The AG goes on to note that, since BoNY issued numerous “exception reports” detailing loan documentation deficiencies, it knew of these problems and yet failed to notify investors that the loans underlying their investments and their rights to foreclose were impaired. In so doing, the Trustee failed to comply with the “prudent man” standard to which it is subject under New York law. (Pleading ¶¶28-29)

The AG raises all of this in an effort to show that BoNY was operating under serious conflicts of interest, calling into question the fairness of the proposed settlement. Namely, while the Trustee had a duty to negotiate the settlement in the best interests of investors, it could not do so because it stood to receive “direct financial benefits” from the deal in the form of indemnification against claims of misconduct. (Petition ¶¶15-16) And though Countrywide had already agreed to indemnify the Trustee against many such claims, Schneiderman states that, “Countrywide has inadequate resources” to provide such indemnification, leading BoNY to seek and obtain a side-letter agreement from BofA expressly guaranteeing the indemnification obligations of Countrywide and expanding that indemnity to cover BoNY’s conduct in negotiating and implementing the settlement. (Petition ¶16) That can’t be good forBofA’s arguments that it is not Countrywide’s successor-in-interest.

I applaud the NYAG for having the courage to call this conflict as he sees it, and not allowing this deal to derail his separate investigations or succumbing to the political pressure to water down his allegations or bypass “third rail” issues. Whether Judge Kapnick will ultimately permit the AG to intervene is another question, but at the very least, this filing raises some uncomfortable issues for the banks involved and provides the investors seeking to challenge the deal with some much-needed backup. In addition, Schneiderman has taken pressure off of the investors who have not yet opted to challenge the accord, by purporting to represent their interests and speak on their behalf. In that regard, he notes that, “[m]any of these investors have not intervened in this litigation and, indeed, may not even be aware of it.” (Pleading ¶12).

As for the investors who are speaking up, many could take a lesson from the no-nonsense language Schneiderman uses in challenging the settlement. Rather than dancing around the issue of the fairness of the deal and politely asking for more information, the AG has reached a firm conclusion based on the information the Trustee has already made available: “THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT IS UNFAIR AND INADEQUATE.” (Pleading at II.A) Tell us how you really feel.

[Author's Note: Though the proposed BofA settlement is certainly a landmark legal proceeding, there is plenty going on in the world of RMBS litigation aside from this case. While I have been repeatedly waylaid in my efforts to turn to these issues by successive major developments in the BofA case, I promise a roundup of recent RMBS legal action in the near future. Stay tuned...]

Article taken from The Subprime Shakeout – http://www.subprimeshakeout.com

URL to article: http://www.subprimeshakeout.com/2011/08/new-york-ag-schneiderman-comes-out-swinging-at-bofa-bony.html

Filed under: bubble, CDO, CORRUPTION, currency, Eviction, foreclosure, GTC | Honor, Investor,Mortgage, securities fraud Tagged: | Bad FAith, Bank of America, bank of new york, bankruptcy,BOA, borrower, chain of title, countrywide, disclosure, discovery, fiduciary duties, foreclosure,foreclosure defense, foreclosure offense, foreclosures, fraud, improper documentation,investors, loan files, LOAN MODIFICATION, LPS, MBS, modification, mortgage fraud, private label MBS, quiet title, rescission, RESPA, RMBS, robo signers, securitization, servicer defaults,servicers, settlements, standing, successor liability, TILA audit, trustee, TRUSTEES, underwriting practices, Wall St., WEISBAND

« MASS SUPREME CT RULES EVICTION JUDGE MUST HEAR FORECLOSURE CHALLENGE

One blogger likes this post.

14 Responses

saveamericaone, on August 6, 2011 at 7:09 pm said:
‘Legal Backgrounder’ Vol 18 No 5 by Robert A McTamaney – 2/28/2003 Whos afraid of the Martin Act?
New York’s Martin Act In 1986, intentional violations were made felonies. Specified per se criminal and civil liability if the designated acts occur. Extraordinarily broad administrative discovery permitted by the prosecutors. Injunction proceeding requires a showing of likely success on the merits.
What will happen now?
The TRUSTEE did not do business with either the consumer as borrower when they took the loan asset as collateral into the ‘Issuing Entity’ and used ‘mortgage brokers’ during Originations who are part of the nationwide network TDServices (CLOUD) integrated with Fidelity (Lawyers TItle Co, LandAmerica, Commonwealth, all those subsidiaries including Chicago TItle…. ) and MERS and Brokers, Dealers, Agents, Distributors who are non-bank affiliates and bank-affilaites.
The TRUSTEE did not do business with the brokers who sold the certificates to the consumers as investors.
Table funded loans through the ‘credit facility’ of Wells Fargo Bank NA CTS Link c/o Norwest Minnesota Bank NA Frederick MD, were with intent to PRE-FUNDIJNG of loans (ESCROWS) deposited into Trustee c/o SELLER as Depositor, became the collateral of the issuing entity c/o Registrant and TRUSTEE turned over to Master Servicer and Underwriters who turned over to ‘brokers’ third partys to sell again TRUSTEE not part of transactions but with intent.
The TRUSTEE sold the assets to FREDDIE MAC and FREDDIE Mac now tryint to sell assets back to Bank of America NA (what role? Servicer?)
So the Martin Act specifies per se criminal and civil liability if the designed acts occur. Provides vas ttactical advantages placing defendnats in impossible quandary of wishing to cooperate so as to gamer favorabl discretion, whie thereby wiaving possible Fifth Amendment objectiosn which might have been virtually automatic had the questions been asked post-Complaint. It also all but guarantees that sufficient evidence is available before the decision is taken formally to initiate the proceedings and guarantees that maxium public relations pressures will be imposed on potential defendants, resulting in settlements which have been secured not only pre-judgment, but prefiling.
saveamericaone, on August 6, 2011 at 6:39 pm said:
Question: How can the ‘Courts’ ignore substantive omissions of material facts including claiming check processed, and cancelled, and they ‘just don’t have warehouse side of transaction or the deposit of the cancelled check that puts consumer into false defaults?)
The Clearing House Payments Company LLC
The Clearing House
450 West 33rd Street
New York, NY 10001
212.613.0100
Trustee Payments?
Would that include payments issued in the 25,837 SEC TRANSACTIONS Registered c/o Wells Fargo Bank NA Trustee
Frederick MD?
Payments
The Clearing House Payments Company provides payment, clearing and settlement services to its member banks and other financial institutions, clearing almost $2 trillion daily and representing nearly half of the automated-clearing-house, funds-transfer and check-image payments made in the U.S.
•CHIPS is the leading private-sector U.S. dollar, real-time, clearing and settlement payment utility.
•EPN is the only private-sector ACH operation, clearing and settling nearly half the U.S. volume.
•SVPCO Image Exchange is the payments utility that provides efficient, secure, and integrated exchange, settlement and reporting of digital images of paper checks.
Solutions for Image Exchange
SVPCO is an industry utility that connects financial institutions to each other. Institutions exchange images through our Image Payments Network and share best practices and industry developments through SVPCO customer forums
SVPCO can get images from any size financial institution to any size financial institution – and only SVPCO directly routes images to and from your major exchange partners – often saving time and money for your entire program.
Financial institutions of all sizes
-Correspondent Bank (to/from) Gateway DTA, 3rd Party Processor, Federal Reserve, Standard DTA
Gateway DTA (to/from Correspondent Bank, 3rd Party Processor, Financial Institution Member, Standard DTA, Federal Reserve
Standard DTA to/from Financial Institution Member, Gateway DTA Financial Institution Member, Federal Reserve, 3rd Party Processor, Correspondent Bank
Federal Reserve to/from Correspondent Bank, 3rd Party Processor, Standard DTA Financial Institution Member, Gateway DTA Financial Institution Member
•Astoria Federal Savings Connects To SVPCO Image Payments Network
First S&L To Go Live On Nation?s Largest Image Exchange Network
2/1/08 (41KB)
Your mix of work is unique–let us show you how SVPCO adds value to your overall image program.
Please check all that apply:
My institution is currently image exchange enabled.
Whether your financial institution is ramping up or refining its image program, the SVPCO Image Payments Network can get your images where they need to go. Getting started with our network is easy. You’ll have your own experienced Relationship Manager to guide you through each step so you’ll be up and running quickly; and they’ll be with you as your volume and needs change. And, there are few, if any, start-up costs when you choose our Gateway Distributed Traffic Agent (DTA) option. SVPCO was instrumental in creating this industry and we are experts at helping you get the most out of your image exchange program. We are an industry utility serving all-sized financial institutions.
I would like to receive information on connectivity options.
I would like to receive information about the SVPCO Image Affiliate
Program.
My organization is not a financial institution but is interested in Image Exchange.
I would like to learn more about Online Adjustments.
SVPCO Image Payments Network
The SVPCO Image Payments Network gets your check images anywhere they need to go with speed, security and certainty. Serving institutions of all sizes, we offer several easy-to-use, economical options to move your images.
The SVPCO Image Payments Network is unique
SVPCO is different from other image exchange providers because of the way we move images. It is the fastest, most economical way to move images from institution-to-institution for our largest, highest-volume banks because we route the images directly, with no middleman. Importantly, the critical mass of these banks’ volumes allows most any size financial institution to save as well. Image Payments Network allows participants to use a single connection to directly exchange with the largest financial institutions in the country – making it the fastest and cheapest way to get to these large exchange partners.
Of course, participants get access to everyone else too. If the institution you are sending images to or receiving from is not a member of our network, then your images will travel through our links with the Fed, correspondent banks and third-party processors. Our SVPCO Image Payments Network can reach over 10,000 endpoints so we are connected to the vast majority of institutions.
Payment Services
The Clearing House is uniquely positioned to help financial institutions manage the migration of paper to electronic payments. We manage a full line of payment services including check clearing, electronic check presentment and check image exchange, ACH and wire.
SVPCO is the Check and Electronic Clearing Service of The Clearing House Payments Company.
paper
paper – to – electronic
electronic
Operational Excellence and Service
Our systems meet the highest standards for efficiency and reliability with nearly 100% uptime year after year. It’s just one of the reasons customers rate The Clearing House level of service as “excellent” – overall scores are consistently at or above 4.5 (on a 5 point scale)
Innovation
Throughout our history, we’ve developed and implemented “the next great idea” to make your payments business successful. Recent innovations:
•SVPCO Check Image Exchange
•EPN Universal Payments Identification Code (UPIC)
•CHIPS Remittance Information with Payments
Reference Documents
Documents that offer additional information regarding image exchange
•Check 21 Resource Document
•Check Clearing for the 21st Century Act
•Use of Check Images By Customers of Financial Institutions
•Federal Reserve – Payments Study
•Compelling Reasons To Do Image Exchange
•Universal Companion Document – DSTU X9.37
•Universal Companion Document – ASC X9.100-187
Marie, on August 6, 2011 at 6:27 pm said:
Schneiderman trashes homeowners in his zeal: the banks behavior jeopardized Foreclosures? I think not. They got my property with a fraudulent assignment and no note and lots of junk fees, misapplied payments, and forced place insurance.
saveamericaone, on August 6, 2011 at 6:11 pm said:
Where are the copies of the checks and transactions that they can’t find?
The Clearing House Association is a nonpartisan advocacy organization representing – through regulatory comment letters, amicus briefs and white papers – the interests of its owner banks on a variety of systemically important banking issues.
The Clearing House Payments Company provides payment clearing and settlement services to its member banks and other financial institutions, clearing almost $2 trillion daily and representing nearly half of the automated-clearing-house, funds-transfer and check-image payments made in the U.S.
The Clearing House Association LLC, new name 11/24/2008,
formerly known as The New York Clearing House Association LLC 3/16/1998.No information on stock.
Active as of 8/5/2011 in NY as a foreign LLC.
A Delaware LLC which is active. DOS Process that maill will be accepted on behalf of this entity:
The Clearing House Association L.L.C
100 Broad Street
New York, NY 10004
Note: New York had a DE entity now Inactive ‘The Financial Clearing House, Inc. 5/9/1989 – 9/27/1994
A lobbying group.with offices in New York, Illinois, California and …
In 1996 during Lawyers Title Corp merger and acquistions, an 11 member Credit Facility which has grown to 20 largest commercial banks including:
JPMorgan Chase & Co., Bank of America Corp., Citigroup Inc., Bank of New York Mellon Corp., Deutsche Bank AG, UBS AG, U.S. Bancorp and Wells Fargo & Co.
In September 2009, the Clearing House joined a lawsuit in support of the Federal Reserve after a federal court in New York ruled against the Fed.[1] Filed by Bloomberg News under the Freedom of Information Act, the lawsuit sought records showing where the Fed had lent $2 trillion of taxpayer funds during the bank bailout of the financial crisis of 2008. The Clearing House has filed an appeal before the United States Supreme Court on October 26, 2010.[4] As of March 2011[update], the case remains on appeal.[5]
The Clearing House was also sued by the State of New York in Andrew Cuomo v. the Clearing House Association, LLC to determine whether the U.S. Treasury’s Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) had the authority to preempt a state’s right to enforce its own fair lending laws against national banks.[6] A 5-4 decision by the Supreme Court overturned previous lower court decisions that had ruled in favor of the Clearing House and the OCC.
See alsoClearing house (finance)
Bankers’ clearing house
Clearing House Interbank Payments System
Automated Clearing House
Why would you want to be a member?
They say they don’t monetarily support – hmmmm -named respondent as defendant and one of the banks of the Credit Facility, like MBNA America Bank NA “MBNA’ the Clearing House Association LLC would provide a Statement of Interest
For example: Parks et al. v. MBNA America Bank, NA
No. S183703 (CA Sup. Ct., filed May 5, 2011)
5/5/11
The Clearing House is an association of leading commercial banks that through an affiliate provides payment, clearing, and settlement services to its member banks and other financial institutions. Eight members of the Clearing House are national banks and two are affiliates of national banks.
(1) Pursuant to Rule 8.520(f)(4) of the California Rules of Court, undersigned counsel certifies that no party or counsel for a party has has authoried the proposed brief in whole or in part, or made a monetary contribution intended to fund the preparation or submission of the brief. Futhermore, no person or entityother than the Clearing House has made a monetary contribution intended to fund the preparation or submission of the brief.
(2)The members of the Clearing House are:
Banco Santanuder, S.A.
Bank of Ameirica, N.A.
The Bank of New York Mellon
The Bank of Tokyo-Mitisubishi UFJ Ltd
Branch Banking and Trust Co (BBT)
Capital One, N.A.
Citibank, N.A.
Comercia Bank
Deutsche Bank Trust Co Americas (dba Bankers Trust of Ca,N.A.)
HSBC Bank USA, N.A.
JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A.
PNC Bank, N.A.
The Royal Bank of Scotland N.V.
U.S. Bank N.A.
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
Brief of Amicus Curiae the Clearing House Association LLC
The Clearing House is dedicated to protecting and promoting the interests of its members and the commercial banking industry. The Clearing House often presents the views of its members on important public policy issues affecting the commerical banking industry by, among other things, appearing as amicus curiae in federal and state courts in cases raising significant questions of banking law.
The Clearing House member banks have a substantial interest in the questions presented in this case and in upholding the uniform federal regulation of national banks, including national banks’ lending activities. The Clearing House member national banks’ lending activities. The Clearing House member national banks engage in a wide varietyof lending activities in all 50 states, The application of numerous overlapping and potentially inconsistent state and local restrictions would impose substantial costs and burdens on Clearing House member banks and their customers. Because we believe that the view of the Clearing House will contribute to the Court’s understanding of the issues presented in this case, we respectuflly request that this application be granted.
Submitted by 2 attorneys of Sullivan & Cromwell LLP
New York and California
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page(s)
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT ……………………………………………….. 1
BACKGROUND ………………………………………………………………….. 6
I. THE NATIONAL BANK ACT AND THE
“BUSINESS OF BANKING” …………………………………………. 6
II. THE OCC’S REGULATION OF NATIONAL
BANKS ……………………………………………………………………….. 8
ARGUMENT ………………………………………………………………… 12
I. THE NBA PREEMPTS THE APPLICATION OF
SECTION 1748.9 TO NATIONAL BANKS ………………….. 13
A. The NBA Ordinarily Preempts Local
Restrictions on a National Bank’s Exercise of
Statutory Powers ……………………………………………….. 13
B. Because Section 1748.9 Expressly Regulates
and Impairs the Exercise of Banking Powers
Under the NBA, Its Application to National
Banks Is Preempted ……………………………………………. 15
C. The Court of Appeal Provided No Basis for
Departing from Settled Precedent Interpreting
the NBA ……………………………………………………………. 18
II. SECTION 7.4008 REFLECTS A REASONABLE
OCC DETERMINATION THAT MERITS
DEFERENCE AND HAS CONTROLLING EFFECT …….. 19
A. The OCC’s Conclusions on Matters of Federal
Banking Law—Including Preemption of State
Law—Have Controlling Weight If Reasonable ……… 21
B. Section 7.4008 Reflects A Reasonable
Consideration of Policies Subject to the OCC’s
Authority Under the NBA …………………………………… 24
ii BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE THE CLEARING HOUSE ASSOCIATION L.L.C.
(1) The OCC Reasonably Determined That
Recent Application of State Laws to
National Banks’ Banking Activities
Prevented Banks from Fully Operating in
the Manner Authorized by Federal Law ……… 25
(2) The Text and Scope of the OCC
Regulation Reasonably Comported with
Previous Authority Concerning Banking
Preemption ……………………………………………… 27
(3) The OCC’s Application of Federal
Consumer Protection Standards
Reasonably Balanced Relevant Policies ……… 28
C. The Court of Appeal Did Not Consider the
OCC’s Deliberative Process or Reasoned
Considerations and Erred in Finding Section
7.4008 Invalid ……………………………………………………. 29
(1) Cuomo and Perdue Do Not Control ……………. 30
(2) No Other Reason Provided by the Court
of Appeal Justifies Invalidating Section
7.4008 …………………………………………………….. 32
D. Disclosure Laws Targeting Banking Activity
Such As Section 1748.9 Clearly Interfere with
the Function and Regulation of National Banks …….. 35
CONCLUSION ……………………………………………………………….37
Other Clearing House organization Amicus Curiae
Amicus Curiae
•TCF National Bank v. Bernanke
No. 4:10-cv-04149(LLP)(8th Cir., filed May 13, 2011)
5/13/11
•Parks, et al. v. MBNA America Bank, N.A.
No. S183703 (CA Sup. Ct., filed May 5, 2011)
5/5/11
•Eitzen Bulk A/S v. State Bank of India
No. 10-3352 (2d Cir., filed April 11, 2011)
4/11/11
•TCF National Bank v. Bernanke
No. 4:10-cv-04149(LLP)(DSD filed March 11, 2011)
3/11/11
•The Clearing House Ass’n L.L.C. v. Bloomberg L.P. et al. and The Clearing House Ass’n L.L.C. v. Fox News Network, LLC
Nos. 10-543, 10-660 (U.S. Sup. Ct., March 2, 2011)
3/2/11
•Microsoft Corporation v. i4i Limited Partnership and Infrastructures for Information, Inc.
No. 10-290 (U.S. Sup. Ct., February 2, 2011)
2/2/11
•Eitzen Bulk A/S v. State Bank of India
No. 10-3352-cv (2d Cir., filed January 6, 2011)
1/6/11
•Global-Tech Appliances Inc. v. SEB S.A., Inc.
No. 10-6 (U.S. Sup. Ct., filed December 6, 2010)
12/6/10
•Fox News Network, LLC v. Board of Governors
No. 09-3795-cv (2d Cir., filed November 5, 2010)
11/5/10
•Kilgore v. KeyBank, N.A.
No. 10-15934 (9th Cir., filed November 1, 2010)
11/1/10
•Samsun Logix Corp., v. Bank of China etl al.
No. 105262/2010 (U.S. Sup. Ct., filed October 29, 2010)
10/29/10
•Bloomberg L.P. v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System
No. 10-543 (U.S. Sup. Ct., filed October 26, 2010)
10/26/10
•Capital One Financial Corporation v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
No. 10-1788 (5th Cir., filed October 20, 2010)
10/20/10
•Microsoft Corp. v. i4i Limited Partnership
No. 10-290 (U.S. Sup. Ct., filed September 29, 2010)
9/29/10
•Hausler v. J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. et al.
No. 09 Civ. 10289(VM)(SDNY)July 29, 2010
7/29/10
•Sinoying Logistics Pte Ltd. v. Yi Da Xin Trading Corp.
No. 09-5368-cv (2d Cir., filed July 2, 2010)
7/2/10
•US Bank v. Thomas
No. 09-1161 (U.S. Sup. Ct., filed April 26, 2010)
4/26/10
•John Hancock Life Insurance Company v. United States of America
No. 09-31169 (5th Cir., filed March 10, 2010)
3/10/10
•Shipping Corp of India v. Jaldhi Overseas Pte. Ltd.
No. 09-849 (U.S. Sup. Ct., filed February 17, 2010)
2/17/10
•Fox News Network, LLC v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System
No. 09-3795-cv(2d Cir., filed December 10, 2009)
12/10/09
•DDJ Capital Management, LLC v. Rhone Capital Group L.L.C.
No. 601832/07 (NY Ct. of Appeals, filed November 25, 2009)
11/25/09
•Bloomberg L.P. v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System
No. 09-4083-cv(L) (2d Cir., filed November 6, 2009)
11/6/09
•Bilski v. Kappos
No. 08-964(U.S. Sup. Ct., filed October 2, 2009)
10/2/09
•Ex-Im Bank v. Asia Pulp & Paper
No. 09-2254-cv (2d Cir., filed September 2, 2009)
9/2/09
•In re HealthSouth Corp. Securities Litigation
No. 09-90012-H (11th Cir., filed April 24, 2009)
4/24/09
•Capital One Bank v. Commissioner of Revenue of Massachusetts
No. 08-1169 (U.S. Sup. Ct., filed April 17, 2009)
4/17/09
•Cuomo v.The Clearing House Association
No. 08-453 (U.S. Sup. Ct., filed March 25, 2009)
3/25/09
•Ex-Im Bank v. Asia Pulp & Paper
No. 03 Civ. 8554 (DCP)(SDNY)March 24, 2009)
3/24/09
•Koehler v. Bank of Bermuda
No. 05-2378-cv (2d Cir. Filed March 17, 2009)
3/17/09
•Shipping Corp of India v. Jaldhi Overseas Pte. Ltd.
No. 08-3477-cv (L)(2d Cir. Filed February 24, 2009)
2/24/09
•Brown Family Trust v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
No. B196258 (Cal Ct. App., filed January 23, 2009)(Request for Depublication)
1/23/09
•Cuomo v.The Clearing House Association
No. 08-453 (U.S. filed December 8, 2008)
12/8/08
•Peterson v. Islamic Republic of Iran
No. 08-80030 (N.D. Cal., filed June 9, 2008)
6/9/08
•Brown Family Trust v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
No. B196258 (Cal. Ct. App., filed May 22, 2008) (Reed Smith brief)
5/22/08
•Brown Family Trust v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
No. B196258 (Cal. Ct. App., filed May 22, 2008)(Munger Tolles brief)
5/22/08
•In re Bilski
No. 2007-1130 (Fed. Cir. filed April 7, 2008)
4/7/08
•The Clearing House Association v. Cuomo
No. 05-5996-cv (L)(2d Cir. filed March 26, 2008)
3/26/08
•American Isuzu Motors, Inc. v. Ntsebeza
No. 07-919 (U.S. Sup. Ct. filed February 11, 2008)
2/11/08
•Stoneridge Investment Partners, L.L.C. v. Scientific-Atlantic, Inc.
No. 06-43 (U.S. Sup. Ct., filed August 15, 2007
8/15/07
•Consub Delaware LLC v. Schahin Engenharia Ltda
No. 07-0833-cv (2d Cir., filed August 2, 2007
8/2/07
•FIA Card Services, N.A. v. Tax Commissioner of the State of West Virginia
No. 06-1228 (U.S. Sup. Ct., filed May 8, 2007)
5/8/07
•Regents of the University of California v. Credit Suisse First Boston (USA), Inc.
No. 06-20856 (5th Cir., filed December 13, 2006)
12/13/06
•Zengen, Inc. v. Comerica Bank
No. S142947 (CA Sup. Ct., filed November 27, 2006)
11/27/06
•Watters v. Wachovia Bank, N.A.
No. 05-1342 (U.S. Sup. Ct., filed November 3, 2006)
11/3/06
•Vamvaship Maritime Ltd. v. Little Rose Trading LLC
No. 06-2121 (2d Cir., filed October 3, 2006)
10/3/06
•U.S. Bank National Association v. Kroske
No. 05-1607 (U.S. Sup. Ct., filed August 7, 2006)
8/7/06
•In re Enron Corp. Securities, Derivative & “Erisa” Litigation
No. 06-20856 (5th Cir., filed July 26, 2006)
7/26/06
•The Clearing House Association v. Spitzer
No. 05-5996-cv (CON) (2d Cir., filed May 26, 2006)
5/26/06
•Banco Nacional de Mexico, S.A. v. Societe Generale
No. 603266/04 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. App. Div. First Dept., dated February 23, 2006)
2/23/06
•Aqua Stoli Shipping Ltd. v. Gardner Smith Pty Ltd.
No. 05-5385cv (2d Cir., filed February 22, 2006)
2/22/06
•Quaak v. Dexia Bank Belgium
No. 05-2580 (1st Cir., filed January 11, 2006)
1/11/06
•Wachovia v. Schmidt
No. 04-1186 (U.S. Sup. Ct., filed August 18, 2005)
8/18/05
•Regatos v. North Fork Bank
No. 03-9024 (NY Ct. of Appeals, filed June 1, 2005)
6/1/05
•NML Capital, Ltd. v. Republic of Argentina
No. 05-1543-cv(L)(2d Cir., filed April 20, 2005)
4/20/05
•EM Ltd. v. Republic of Argentina
No. 05-1525-cv (2d Cir., filed April 20, 2005)
4/20/05
•In re Owens Corning
No. 04-4080 (3d Cir., filed December 29, 2004
12/29/04
•Simpson v. Homestore.com., Inc
No. 04-55665 (9th Cir., filed December 21, 2004)
12/21/04
•Agency for Deposit Insurance v. Superintendent of Banks of the State of New York
No. 04-4997, 4999 (2d Cir., filed December 16, 2004)
12/16/04
•American Bankers Association v. Lockyer
No. 04-16334 (9th Cir., filed August 9, 2004)
8/9/04
•Macrotecnic International Corp. v. Republic of Argentina ,
No. 02 CV 5932 (TPG) (SDNY); EM Ltd. v. Republic of Argentina, No. 03 CV 2507 (TPG) (S.D.N.Y., filed January 12, 2004)
1/12/04
•Wachovia Bank, N.A. v. Burke
No. 303 CV 0738 (MRK) (D. Conn., filed September 25, 2003)
9/25/03
•TPI v. Winter Storm Shipping
Ltd., No. 02-1506 (U.S., filed May 16, 2003)
5/16/03
•Casa De Cambio Comdiv S.A. DE C.V. v. United States
No. 02-710 (U.S., filed February 12, 2003)
2/12/03
•Frazier v. O’Neill
No. 02 CV 7642 (JES); Daliberti v. J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., No. 02 CV 9773 (JES) (S.D.N.Y., filed December 30, 2002)
12/30/02
•Winter Storm Shipping
Ltd. v. TPI, No. 02-7078 (2nd Cir., filed November 20, 2002)
11/20/02
•Visa U.S.A., Inc. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc
No. 01-1464 (U.S., filed May 6, 2002)
5/6/02
•In re LTV Steel Co
No. 00-43866 (Bankr. N.D. Ohio)
2/20/01
Ann, on August 6, 2011 at 5:20 pm said:
All Bank “Property Preservation” is Unlicensed Contracting, It’s Time For Our State To Act!
August 6th, 2011 | Author: Matthew D. Weidner, Esq. I have had it with the banks hiring jack booted thugs to kick down doors, change locks and remove personal property.This is a dangerous violation of fundamental rights that must not be allowed to continue.
I am disappointed that law enforcement across this state has bought into the lies and campaign of misinformation conducted by the banks and their shady network of subcontractors. The law is clear, the banks do not have the right to enter any home until they have a lawful order signed by a judge.
An American’s home is his castle and it must not be subject to search or entry without a lawful order of a court
and executed with law enforcement present.
Law enforcement agencies all across this state are being inundated with calls from consumers complaining of unauthorized break ins by the banks, but they take the side of the banks and their thugs. Most recently read the following report issued by the Hernando County Sheriff’s Office about an incident that happened to Chris Boudreau. Now, Boudreau disputes much of what is contained within this report, and there are many other more damming facts that are not included. The point to be made here is the guy’s home was forcibly broken into, his stuff was stolen and law enforcement will not protect him.
Unfortunately, law enforcement in this country will not begin to act until someone is killed or seriously hurt when one of these incidents occur.
Until they do wake up and start defending the homes of the people they have sworn an oath to protect, it’s time to pursue another avenue that will provide some means of protection, Florida’s Unlicensed Contracting Law:
“Contractor” means the person who…for compensation, undertakes to, submits a bid to, or does himself or herself or by others construct, repair, alter, remodel, add to, demolish, subtract from, or improve any building or structure, including related improvements to real estate, for others or for resale to others; and whose job scope is substantially similar to the job scope described in one of the subsequent paragraphs of this subsection.
“Contracting” means engaging in business as a contractor and includes, but is not limited to, performance of any of the acts as set forth in subsection (3) which define types of contractors. The attempted sale of contracting services and the negotiation or bid for a contract on these services also constitutes contracting. If the services offered require licensure or agent qualification, the offering, negotiation for a bid, or attempted sale of these services requires the corresponding licensure.
So What’s the Penalty?
(2)(a) Any unlicensed person who violates any of the provisions of subsection (1) commits a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.
(b) Any unlicensed person who commits a violation of subsection (1) after having been previously found guilty of such violation commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.
It’s time for Florida’s Construction Industry Licensing Board to really step in here and support the hard working and law abiding licensed contractors who must be hired to perform any of the work currently being performed by the banks and their thugs.
PLEASE SHARE THIS POST WITH NEIGHBORS AND WITH LICENSED CONTRACTORS WHO MAY BE AWARE OF UNLICENSED CONTRACTING OCCURRING~! PLEASE ASK THEM TO CONTACT ME WITH EXAMPLES~!
saveamericaone, on August 6, 2011 at 4:32 pm said:
CLOUD accessed via subscribers of
TD Services dba TD Escrow Services whose members and subscribers include ‘Trustee’s all platforms who access global data integrating FIDELITY, global bank trustees, nationwide trustees. MEMBERS of TDS have access to MERS, FIDELITY, etc.
FIDELITY parent of LPS/DOCX integrated with TD Services & MERS
TD Servicers dba TD Escrow Services (via CLOUD) subscribers have access to records of Fidelity and LPS/DOCX,,LLI, transactions traded among MERS MEMBERS, updates via eLynx, SERVICE-Link, and Clearing House Finance LLC, Credit Facility, and if you don’t know who these are you should.
Wells Fargo Bank NA TRUSTEE 1998 for Wilmington Trust Co.
Does that mean every transaction or only some? Or is just c/o Wells Fargo Bank NA, who handles the collaterl, remitters, etc. for over 25,837 Commerical Client deals and millions of assets pre-funded by credit facility listed above as related to nationwide network of attorneys in real estate, banking, lending, underwrirint, insurance, etc, and title and settlement agencies dba under private brand label such as Cendant Settlement Services, PHH Settlement Services, and whose real estate related industries agents, dealers, brokers, distributors are connected to Wells Fargo Bank NA Trustee’s ‘mortgage brokers’ in storefronts who sit inside of Correspendent eLENDERS dba Wells FArgo Funding fka Norwest Funding and Norwest Funding II.
Anyway, the escrow check that comes from the unrelated party referred to as table funding is part of the 11 now 20 bank credit facility listed above. The Wells Fargo Bank NA TRUSTEE tracks the collateral via the remistters for their clients they manage the trusts for.
The ‘trust funds’ are not the end fo the considerations we need to be concerned with affecting consumers. No based upon Freddie Mac selling back to Bank of America NA TRUSTEE (US TRUST) I had to wonder what.
What did FREDDIE MAC buy? The COLLATERAL. What is the collateral – for them the assets the receivables of the mortgage notes. Is FREDDIE MAC a SERVICER?
Robo-firm in David Stern in Agreement with FREDDIE MAC.
David Stern’s sue FREDDIE MAC for $1.3 Million dollar lawsuit March 2011, involving over 100,000 cases in FLORDIA alone,
Question: How did this lawsuit affect cases in courts in NJ and other states. And specifically discussed affected the cases of ‘other’ ROBO-Firms including Zucker Goldberg and Ackerman LLC … as documented by Jeff Barnes Esq. another WordPress foreclosure advocate.
.
Former David Stern’s — Clients are primarily ‘securitization’ trustee banks and servicers. Reading Corporate Trust Services of Wells Fargo Bank NA, I realize sold to FREDDIE MAC the collateral it Services.
One must ask “Why would David Stern and FREDDIE MAC affect New Jersey cases in NJ courts handled by REED SMITH and ‘Zucker Goldberg Ackerman LLC’ robo-mill”? for example.
TheTrustee’s sold to FREDDIE MAC all of the collateral they acquired from the TRUSTESS, and FREDDIE MAC used inside of their deals as collateral and sold ‘something’ to?
Now FREDDIE MAC, wants to RETURN to Bank of America NA TRUSTEE dba US TRUST the collateral of the assets they used inside of the deals they sold to third parties. Under? REPRESENTATIONS? of ‘mortgage note assets as collateral’
Is ‘Freddie Mac’ the MASTER SERVICER? of the ‘Collateral’ and Wells FArgo Bank NA the TRUSTEE, Bank of America NA TRUSTEE?
Common denominator in all Retail Transactions during Origination:
Mortgae Broker & Trustee of ‘Trust Funds’ (as Seller, Depositor, Securities Admin, Master Servicer, Servicer)
Trustee responsible for its commercial ‘clients’ PRE-FUNDING.
Part of the table funding of individual consumers as borrowers – the unrelated third party comes from the ‘credit facility’ stable of the trustee.
The CREDIT FACILITY funds transactions for its client.
Forward selling ‘assets’. as collateral, tracking ‘remitters’ evidence of transactions by trustees and evidence of who ‘ordered by’ and evidence of the 10 digit agreement number. The MIN# contains the 10 Digit Agreement Number following the 7 digit prefix and reveal in the MIN# the asset traded under a separate Sales Agreement traded and tracked by a MERS MEMBER.
All of the ‘Wells Fargo Bank NA transactions as TRUSTEE are many over 25,837 on the SEC alone recording under Filing Agent Wells Fargo Bank NA formerly or still known as Norwest Minnesotta Bank, NA per 1998 ‘Indenture’ and ‘T-1′ AGreement as Trustee for ‘Wilminton Trust Co.’
Can the TRUSTEE be the Seller, Depositor, Originator, Servicer, Securities Admin, etc? and the Credit Facility forward selling ‘collateral’ to FREDDIE MAC?
During defaults, now we understand when ‘Wells FArgo Bank NA’ assignes they are the ‘TRUSTEE” and ordered by the ‘Master Servicer’ and ‘Trustee’ to assign a substitute trustee, in my case US Bank – Structured Asset Securities Corp 2006-WF3 Loan Trust, a securitized mortgage loan trust with individual borrower loans contained inside of commercial securitizations.
Jeff Barnes Esq. discussion NJ robo-mills case delays caused by David Sterns affecting delay in cases in NJ. Curious? David Sterns not turning over the Case Files? What? Or vulnerbility waiting for suit to be vacated? David Stern suing FREDDIE MAC for $1.3M in receivables.
Jeff Barnes Esw Foreclosure Defense Nationwide you can google
Jeff Barnes proved 4/12/2011 – Summary Judgement’ against Deutsche Bank as Trustee of a securitized mortgage loan trust over ‘commercial loans’ were securiized and assets of the ‘trust funds’
Wonder if Jeff Barnes knows in 2002 Bankers Trust of CA began using tradename of Deutche Bank Trust Company ‘a preferred more valuable tradename’ coincidently 2002/2003 time period when MERS connected with SEC to do all ‘commercial transactions’ soup to nuts and proved same 2nd half of 2003 when Wells Fargo ‘won’ OCC approval to not be monitored by State of CA and only under OCC vistorial powers. That’s why all Wells Fargo Bank NA “TRUSTEE’ – is the fair hair child of over 25,837 transactions over SEC related to the ‘credit facility group of banks’ related to Clearing Systems.
Freddie 100,000 transactions and David Sterns in FL affected nation’s Case File related to ‘Wells FArgo Bank NA Trustee’ sold to FREDDIE MAC and other ‘Trustees like US TRUST for Bank of America NA, and Deutsche Bank Trust Americas for Bankers Trust CA another NA, … preferred private brand label ‘tradenames’
Same would therefore be true of FANNIE MAE and info revealed – most interesting- in case of 15,000 Case Files and ben Ezra Katz PA -attached.
Firm: Levine Kellogg Lehman Schneiger + Grossman LLPO
201 So. Biscayne Blvd, 34th Floor
Miami FL 3131
Jeffrey C. Schneider PA
Forida Bar 933244
Amanda Star Frazer, Esq.
0043921
Fax 305-403-8789
Phone 305-403-8788
Freddie Mac – Fannie MAE sues the ‘agents’ (robo-firms) it hires to get back the 15,000 (accounts called ‘loans’) its ‘assets’ it purchased from the ‘trustee’ Wells Fargo Bank NA who collected and prefunded the loans for Freddie.
See the terminalogy incorporated into evidence in copy of case attached.
See languge page 3, second para inside of 9.
‘At any time, upon request from Fannie Mae, you must return or transfer any or all files as Fannie Mae may identify to Fannie Mae or its ‘designee.’
In addition, you acknowledge that any legal files your firm develops relating to a Fannie Mae-owned or Fannie Mae-securitized mortgage or a Fannie Mae REO belong to Fannie Mae and agree that your firm will not assert any lien rights against the files at any time.
Upon termination of your firm’s Services with Fannie Mae, you will deliver to Fannie Mae or Fannie Mae’s designed legal representative (upon request) all documents, records, and word products created and/or compiled hereunder, in electronic formate and in paper format if avialble.
2/10/2011 Fannie Mae terminated Agreement with Ben-Ezra.
Fannie Made demands Case Files
At present 15,000 cases Ben-Ezra handling on behalf of Fannie Mae.
Fannie Mae must transfer matters quickly to successor counsel for parties and properties related to 15,000 cases are not prejudiced by any delay.
Case files contain ‘original’ executed Promissory Notes and Mortgages securing Fannie Mae’s interests.
(I BELIEVE THEY ARE HANGING THIS GUY OUT TO DRY IN ORDER TO RECREATE THE DOCUMENTS AS IF THEY WERE ‘LOST’ …. INTENT….)
Fannie Mae counsel states
Page 4, 15.
Without the Case Files, in particular original executed Promissory Notes and Mortgages, Fannie Mae is unable to confirm state of or proceed with cases, transfer the cases… or conclude the cases and will blame this party Ben-Ezra for having loast and altered documents, records work products including applicable-attorney-client privledges until same can be delviered to Fannie Mae.
carie, on August 6, 2011 at 2:54 pm said:
“(2) repeatedly failing to provide complete mortgage files as it was required to do under the Governing Agreements;”
When Schneiderman and Biden finally open up those (fake) mortgage files—oh boy—here we go!!!
Christine, on August 6, 2011 at 1:25 pm said:
LOS ANGELES TIMES – 7/14/11
California may join probe of Wall Street’s role in mortgage meltdown
New York’s and Delaware’s investigation could lead to criminal charges against financial executives. ‘California was disproportionately harmed by the mortgage crisis, and our homeowners badly need relief,’ the state’s attorney general says.
Los Angeles TimesPeople close to the investigations said the lawyers are looking at whether the banks misled investors about the risks of the bonds and whether they even had proper title to the underlying mortgages they were selling.
The moves by Schneiderman and Biden go significantly further than a current effort by all 50 state attorneys general to take banks to task for their work in servicing foreclosures, which became an issue only after the financial crisis began.
That nationwide effort was expected to have produced a big settlement by now — for more than $20 billion — but negotiations have been slow, and the outlines of the deal have been criticized by consumer advocates and former regulators for letting banks off too lightly.
One of the sticking points in the negotiations is a request from the banks for immunity from further investigations, such as those being conducted by New York and Delaware.
In a call with analysts Thursday, JPMorgan Chief Executive Jamie Dimon said his bank wants to come to an agreement but doesn’t want to be open to further prosecution.
“We’re not going to do it and be subject to double and triple jeopardy,” Dimon said.
Schneiderman and Biden are still involved in the national settlement negotiations, but Schneiderman has said he is concerned that the other attorneys general will grant the banks immunity.
Harris is weighing whether she would sign on to the settlement if it gave banks immunity, a person familiar with her thinking said.
How large the pot of money going to California homeowners is the biggest consideration in any deal, that person said.
In May, Harris announced the creation of a 25-person task force to look at mortgage fraud, but she recently said that effort could be thrown into limbo by state budget cuts imposed this month.
“The budget cuts were a real challenge, are a real challenge, but the attorney general is literally working every hour, is literally working right now to mitigate those,” said Michael Troncoso, senior counsel to Harris.
Schneiderman’s office has requested documents from seven investment banks that sold mortgage-backed bonds to investors; two banks that held the mortgages while they were turned into bonds; four companies that insured the bonds; and two law firms that helped negotiate the process, according to people close to the investigation.
Delaware has separately subpoenaed MERS, the company that was responsible for registering the mortgages before they were turned into bonds, the people said.
None of the firms would comment on the investigation.
nathaniel.popper@latimes.com
Take your State’s AG to task!!! Things are moving in the right direction and now is the time to pound on people whose wages we pay!
David C Breidenbach, on August 6, 2011 at 1:21 pm said:
It is positive that the alegations have been made. A settlement without an investigation of the liability exposure and victim damages–past and present would fail the public interest. Without this state,ent of allegations and necessary investigation for prosecution –the settlement would have no economic or deterrant effect.
if the corporation is liable but buys out criminal charges, arguments can be made that it is of little use to criminalize a corp any further than tpo compell restitution etc—-but there should be no settlement inviolving criminal prosecution of the individuals that were creative enough to commit many of the breaches and gain some economic advantage, then those individuals’ conduct must be prosecuted irrespective of this agreement. they should at least have to spend their gains on defense and be deterred immediately from profiting during this second pahase.
The original footprint in the retail population drove up are prices comparables with unrealistict deals. This manipulated upward the prices paid by all–those not yet in default or who can afford the deals. So far.
There were realtors–appraisers and developers and brokers on the ground that have profited handsomely and used the tactics–the actual face of the criminal enterprise. This gang remains in operation and is profiting by insurance fraud, closed self-dealing and worse–using strong-arm thugs as needed. Property preservers that instead strip properties at night.
The criminal enterprise has a temporal dimension–it is not as if it was not thought out. It continues with all the money they got away with on the front end to speculate with.
Louise, on August 6, 2011 at 1:20 pm said:
Finally, someone is coming forward to do something that substantially nails the thieves. Delware’s Biden coming in with Schneiderman is really good news. Let’s hope the Judge in this mess doesn’t wimp out.
dewayne, on August 6, 2011 at 12:28 pm said:
WASHINGTON — Delaware Attorney General Beau Biden signaled his intent Friday to intervene in a proposed $8.5 billion settlement over troubled mortgage securities between Bank of America and a group of investors, uniting with his New York counterpart Eric Schneiderman, who argued a day earlier that the deal is unfair and its participants committed fraud.
Ian McConnell, director of Biden’s consumer protection unit, told a New York state judge that the state of Delaware intends to file paperwork early next week asking to become a full party in the suit. If granted, that status would allow the state to comment on and question virtually every move “from start to finish” as Bank of America and the investors attempt to end their multi-billion dollar spat.
It would also give Delaware the right to investigate the claims the deal strives to settle, like whether the lender and the other bank involved in the case, Bank of New York Mellon, followed state law when creating these mortgage securities, and when they moved to foreclose on homeowners who defaulted on their obligations.
The two attorneys general represent states whose laws govern nearly all mortgage securitization trusts, vehicles that bundle home loans and issue notes to investors. Both offices have teamed up to investigate allegations that Wall Street firms failed to properly assemble loan documents in accordance with their states’ laws when creating mortgage securities.
Schneiderman, New York’s attorney general, argued in court papers Thursday that the bank overseeing the trusts, Bank of New York Mellon, “knowingly, repeatedly, and consistently” misled investors into thinking that the mortgage bonds were created properly. The bank also put its own interests before those of the investors it was supposed to be representing, he said.
BNY Mellon, one of the largest U.S. banks by assets, engaged in “repeated fraud and illegality,” Schneiderman charged, which occurred “literally hundreds of times.”
Schneiderman linked the paperwork failures to the foreclosure crisis, arguing that the alleged shortcomings in gathering and processing documents effectively had led to “foreclosure fraud,” like in cases that involved so-called “robo-signing.”
A BNY Mellon spokesman called Schneiderman’s charges “baseless.” McConnell declined to comment on Schneiderman’s allegations.
The action by Schneiderman and Biden threaten the proposed accord between BofA and 22 of the world’s most prominent investors. The investors had demanded Bank of America repurchase home loans packaged into 530 mortgage trusts with a original loan balance of $424 billion. The proposed $8.5 billion payout represents less than 4 cents on the dollar of the current unpaid balance, or about $220 billion, according to Bank of America’s most recently quarterly filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
McConnell said in a phone interview that 527 of the trusts were created per New York law. The remaining three are governed by Delaware law, he said.
“We have enough information to think we have reasons to be concerned,” McConnell said. “There may be serious issues regarding conflicts and concerns over the general value proposition of the deal for Delaware investors.”
Bank of America is effectively indemnifying BNY Mellon for costs and liabilities arising from its duties as trustee. Some investors not party to the current deal have charged that BNY Mellon has a conflict of interest. New York’s top law enforcement officer agrees.
“There’s a paucity of information,” McConnell said of the settlement deal and of how the final dollar figures were derived. “We’d be in a position to gather more information” when Delaware joins the suit, he added.
Countrywide Financial, the nation’s largest mortgage lender when purchased by BofA in 2008, failed to properly pool loan documents needed for the creation of mortgage securities, and BNY Mellon effectively looked the other way in its role as overseer of these instruments, Schneiderman said in court documents. This “apparently triggered widespread fraud,” he said.
BNY Mellon should have known the mortgage securities were improperly created because the evidence was “abundant,” Schneiderman said, citing the bank’s own documents, news coverage of the issue and foreclosure actions brought on BNY Mellon’s behalf.
In addition, Schneiderman accused Bank of America of fabricating the missing documents when it came to foreclosing on homeowners who defaulted on their loans.
If the settlement is not finalized, Bank of America’s future mortgage-related losses could be “substantially different” than what the lender has set aside and already braced investors for, the bank said in its filing.
Shares of Bank of America, the largest U.S. bank by assets, touched $8.03 in New York trading on Friday, a 52-week low. They’re down 26 percent over the past month.
The cost to protect Bank of America’s bonds against default have surged more than 17 percent since last Friday, according to Markit.
It now costs $207,000 to protect $10 million of BofA’s debt, as of Friday’s close. Last week, it cost just $176,000. The price of credit protection generally increases as investor confidence deteriorates.
*****
FOLLOW HUFFPOST BUSINESS
ON
Facebook:
Like
Twitter:
GET ALERTS
CONTRIBUTE
TO THIS STORY
Send
Send us a Link
Contact us
OkayButWait, on August 6, 2011 at 12:20 pm said:
Erik Schneiderman for President!
Shelley A. Erickson, on August 6, 2011 at 11:43 am said:
This is so good to see happening. I know it is still to soon to dance in the streets, but I do believe everyone fighting this crime in their own way, no matter how small and or in a big way, especially the bloggers and good attorneys out their with morals and conscions, and hearts, need to be thanked for their due diligence and persistant support to fight these criminals and to help the homeowners in every way they could. We have a long fight ahead of us. Keep up the good work! There is a God and he is there for us. God Bless America and all the knowledgable people on this earth guiding us.
Christine, on August 6, 2011 at 11:37 am said:
Write to your state AG. Demand that he/she takes a public stand to uphold his/her public servant mandate by joining forces with Shneiderman, Coakley, Harris and all the other AGs willing to fight for America and for justice. I did. My letter is posted in the 4 previous posts. Inundate the AGs with letters and e-mails cc’d to your state reps. We need to recover the monies stolen by banks and mortgage servicers if we ever want to get out of this slump. Make them understand that we are watching their every moves.
Remember: we put them there. We can as well take them down if the don’t earn the salary we pay them.