From
Bounce Back From Bankruptcy by Paula Langguth Ryan
bounce back bankruptcy eBay auctions you should keep an eye on:
Bernsen Distances Himself from Courtroom Drama
- Corbin Bernsen
Actor Corbin Bernsen, who became a star playing cunning divorce lawyer Arnie Becker in “L.A. Law,” is not happy with the spotlight being shined on his former company in a Southern California bankruptcy court.
In an interview with Bankruptcy Beat, Bernsen said he’s been inundated with calls about the bankruptcy filing of Public Media Works, a company he led as recently as 2008, and fears negative publicity could affect the promotion of his new film, “25 Hill.”
Bankruptcy Beat first reported the link between Public Media and Bernsen Tuesday.
While Bernsen said that he was Public Media’s chief executive and still holds stock in the company, he said he hasn’t been involved with the company’s operations “for years.” Bernsen did, however, have a consulting agreement with Public Media that paid him with 211,540 shares of stock in 2010, according to a filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
“They haven’t returned my calls in six months,” Bernsen said. “I have zero to do with the company. When I ran it, it was a film company.”
The company did take a dramatic turn in its business model since Bernsen stepped down as CEO in 2008.
Bernsen used the company to launch films he directed, including “Donna On Demand” and “Car Pool Guy.” But in the time since, the publicly traded firm had shifted its focus to video rental kiosks.
In a statement released after Public Media’s Chapter 11 filing in Riverside, Calif., last month, the company said the failure of the kiosk model lead to the bankruptcy.
Bernsen said he wasn’t involved in that decision.
“I left and they wanted to do something else,” he said.
Public Media Works did not respond to requests for comment. In the statement, current CEO Martin W. Greenwald said the company is planning to reorganize in bankruptcy court.
Bernsen, who also plays Henry Spencer in USA Network’s “Psych,” said he started a new production company and is focused on promoting “25 Hill,” a soapbox derby themed film.
Starting Saturday, Bernsen is kicking off an 11-city tour to promote the film that will combine a soapbox race and a showing of the movie.
A portion of the proceeds from the movie will go to support the All-American Soap Box Derby. That organization was more than $ 600,000 in debt, but thanks in part to the film, the organization is now in the black, according to a press release promoting “25 Hill.”
Bernsen said his new company, Home Theater Films, is in no way associated with Public Media and is working to create “faith and family films.”
INVESTORS SHOULD SEEK HELP FROM BORROWERS
MOST POPULAR ARTICLES
GET COMBO TITLE AND SECURITIZATION ANALYSIS – CLICK HERE
GOLDMAN SACHS WINS DISMISSAL OF INVESTOR CASE
EDITOR’S COMMENT: Here Goldman Sachs wins a case it surely should have lost. And the reason is the same thing that the borrowers are encountering. The middlemen (investment bankers and all their affiliates) are keeping vital information from the investors that would allow them to plead and prove their case. By keeping the borrowers and investors apart, the investment banks are succeeding at obscuring the truth and getting away with outright theft. The prejudice against the lowly borrower is keeping the investors from entertaining that their interests may be similar and virtually identical on many issues.
By combining forces investors and borrowers could effect a pincer action in which the investment banks had no where to hide. And this is the place for them to come together to do it. Just by comparing notes from both sides, they would each gain additional knowledge and proof of the reality behind the securitization scam. Like, for example, the fact that part of the money they advanced for mortgage bonds was never used for mortgage funding and was instead taken as fees and profits.
And for those high-priced lawyers who have missed the point, here it is: only the investor and the borrower can come into court with the WHOLE transaction and the documents to prove it. The investor received a bond and the borrower signed a note. Unless you connect those two different documents (each being “evidence” of the obligation), you don’t have a case against anyone. And without the homeowners there to affirm the transaction, all you have is some vague equitable right for restitution against people who defrauded you or people who could help you but are not being invited to the party.
It’s so obvious that it makes my head spin. If the real parties in interest — both ends of the spectrum that were defrauded — were to combine forces, the real facts would come out, and real solutions would emerge. Most homeowners would be glad to achieve a settlement or modification in which the investors recovered part of their money. Many channels would come into the market on those homes that are permanently abandoned if they knew that they were not in danger of losing title. And investors would (a) be able to account for the loss in actual dollars and cents (and sense) and (b) recover part of their loss from the homeowner sector and the rest from the the investment banks who are responsible for this mess.
How can investors not see that all the foreclosures are an exercise in defrauding investors? The property is being taken, for the most part lock stock and barrel by intermediaries who have no investment in the loan. This is happening because the investors have abandoned their claims for restitution and are seeking it solely from investment banks. granted, the investment banks should pay the lion’s share of the loss. But investors beware! You are not going to get past the goal line without homeowner help!
With the real parties in interest in the same courtroom, the servicers and the investment banks can be eliminated from the equation since they are using their powers (mostly fictional) to bar settlements that would be far more beneficial to investors than foreclosure. The train is pulling out of the station without you, investors, and at the end of the day someone is going to get a free house at YOUR expense — either borrowers, when the evidence starts being applied, or the servicers and other pretender lenders who serve in that capacity courtesy of your inaction!
Sept. 28 (Bloomberg) — Goldman Sachs Group Inc. won dismissal of a lawsuit brought by Landesbank Baden-Wuerttemberg over losses on $ 37 million in collateralized debt obligations.
U.S. District Judge William Pauley III in Manhattan ruled today that the bank didn’t sufficiently back up its claims against Goldman Sachs, which underwrote Davis Square, a CDO collateralized by residential mortgage-backed securities in 2006, and against Los Angeles-based TCW Asset Management Co., which manages collateral for asset-backed securities.
Goldman Sachs, based in New York, and TCW sold the Davis Square securities to institutional investors, marketing it as a $ 2 billion “High Grade Structured Product CDO” backed by investment-grade mortgage-backed securities, Pauley said in his opinion today. LBBW bought two notes totaling $ 37 million.
Pauley said about 79 percent of the mortgages underlying Davis Square were below prime and at an increased risk of default. He ruled that LBBW failed to allege specific facts to support its claims for fraud and unjust enrichment. He also said the bank was a sophisticated investor that accepted the risks of its investment.
LBBW, based in Stuttgart, Germany, sued in October 2010. The bank claimed that Goldman knew many of the mortgages didn’t conform to the requirements for inclusion in the CDO and that they were riskier than indicated in the Davis Square offering circular. The bank claimed Goldman Sachs also concealed the true risk of the mortgages from rating agencies, which gave Davis Square a triple-A rating.
A voice-mail message seeking comment on the ruling from LBBW’s press services department wasn’t immediately returned after regular business hours in Germany.
The case is Landesbank Baden-Wuerttemberg v. Goldman Sachs, 10-7549, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York (Manhattan.)
–With assistance from Edvard Pettersson in Los Angeles and Patricia Hurtado in New York. Editors: Peter Blumberg, Michael Hytha
To contact the reporter on this story: Bob Van Voris in New York at rvanvoris@bloomberg.net.
To contact the editor responsible for this story: Michael Hytha at mhytha@bloomberg.net.
Filed under: bubble, CDO, CORRUPTION, currency, Eviction, foreclosure, GTC | Honor, Investor, Mortgage, securities fraud Tagged: bankruptcy, borrower, countrywide, disclosure, foreclosure, foreclosure defense, foreclosure offense, foreclosures, fraud, Goldman Sachs, LOAN MODIFICATION, modification, quiet title, rescission, RESPA, securitization, TILA audit, trustee, WEISBAND 
Livinglies’s Weblog
WALL STREET OCCUPATION GAINS MOMENTUM, SUPPORT AND DRAWS FROM ACROSS ALL POLITICAL SPECTRUMS
MOST POPULAR ARTICLES
GET COMBO TITLE AND SECURITIZATION ANALYSIS – CLICK HERE
SEE NY TIMES ARTICLE IN TODAY’S PAPER.
Slowly, the media is catching on to the fact that something remarkable is happening on Wall Street. The little known occupation of wall Street with its “we are the 99%!” manifesto is catching the attention of all sorts of people who are joining ranks with the leaderless group. It’s like a flash mob in slow motion and the people who are joining are not just foreclosure victims, whom everyone seems to want to blame for this crisis. It’s not so much about foreclosure as it is about the banks.
These people are protesting against the banks. And everyone from Tea Party to liberals are coming, in small numbers, but growing numbers. The one unifying force here is that people dislike the banks that created our economic, governmental and social mess and they are angry that the banks are not being held accountable for it, while taxpayers take it on the chin for the bailout, the declining economy, lack of jobs and government missteps all along the way.
The growing recognition is that it is the banks who are the deadbeats looking for a free ride, not the homeowners and consumers who were trapped into crazy deals that could not be understood by a PhD.
Filed under: bubble, CDO, CORRUPTION, currency, Eviction, foreclosure, GTC | Honor, Investor, Mortgage, securities fraud Tagged: bankruptcy, borrower, countrywide, disclosure, foreclosure, foreclosure defense, foreclosure offense, foreclosures, fraud, LOAN MODIFICATION, modification, quiet title, rescission, RESPA, securitization, TILA audit, trustee, WEISBAND 
Livinglies’s Weblog
Can I Bounce Back From Bankruptcy?
Can I Bounce Back From Bankruptcy?
Filing for personal bankruptcy can be very scary for potential filers in the state of Wisconsin. Fortunately for some, they have the opportunity to work with a Wisconsin bankruptcy attorney. Having a Wisconsin bankruptcy attorney represent you can help ease and alleviate some of your concerns. One question that every single Wisconsin bankruptcy attorney has undoubtedly heard at one time or another is: Is it possible for a filer to bounce back and live a fruitful financial life following a personal bankruptcy, and if so, then how?
The answer to that question is yes, it is definitely possible to resume a quality financial existence after a bankruptcy filing. You do have to remain patient and optimistic because realistically speaking, it will not be easy but it has been done and will be done numerous times in the future.
]]>
Becoming familiar with a popular lending philosophy is a great start in a successful post bankruptcy recovery process. Many lenders subscribe to the lending credence of ability, stability and willingness to pay. If you can prove those three things then lenders are more willing to take a chance and extend credit to you. What is probably more important than simply being able to prove those things is being able to prove those things consistently over time.
One’s ability to repay a debt lies within one’s monthly income versus monthly output. Generally speaking, if you have more money left over at the end of the month than bills then you have an ability to pay a debt, depending on the amount of the debt. One’s stability is basically consistency over time. This can be demonstrated through a certain number of years at the same place of employment or living in the same home.
One’s willingness to pay is usually viewed using one’s payment history. Just because a person has the stability and ability does not necessarily mean that they will pay so the best indicator of future payment is one’s past payment history.
<!–Session data–>
For experienced, knowledgeable and trustworthy bankruptcy assistance, contact the attorneys from www.legalhelpers.com. Call toll-free 800-260-1402 today for your initial free consultation or come into one of their 100 offices across the country.
More Bounce Back Bankruptcy Articles
How to Bounce Back from Bankruptcy
Learn the secret about how to make bankruptcy work for you. There is Life After Bankruptcy. Filing Bankruptcy isn’t the end of the world. Learn how you can survive bankruptcy.
Video Rating: 0 / 5
7 Keys to Bouncing Back From Bankruptcy from Brian Douglas
7 Keys to Bouncing Back From Bankruptcy from Brian Douglas
Video Rating: 0 / 5