Posts Tagged ‘BANK
Pandemic Lying Admission: Deutsch Bank Up and Down the Fake Securitization Chain
Featured Products and Services by The Garfield Firm NEW! 2nd Edition Attorney Workbook,Treatise & Practice Manual – Pre-Order NOW for an up to $ 150 discount LivingLies Membership – Get Discounts and Free Access to ExpertsFor Customer Service call 1-520-405-1688
|
|
Want to read more? Download entire introduction for the Attorney Workbook, Treatise & Practice Manual 2012 Ed – Sample Pre-Order the new workbook today for up to a $ 150 savings, visit our store for more details. Act now, offer ends soon! |
Editor’s Comment:
One problem with securitization in practice even under the academic model is the effect on potential enforcement of the obligation, even assuming that the “lender” is properly identified in the closing documents with the buyer of the loan product and the closing papers of the buyer of the mortgage bonds (and we’ll assume that the mortgage bonds are real and valid, as well as having been issued by a fully funded REMIC in which loans were properly assigned and transferred —- an assumption, as we have seen that is not true in the real world). Take this quote from the glossary at the back of this book and which in turn was taken from established authoritative sources used by bankers, securities firms and accountants:
cross guarantees and credit default swaps, synthetic collateralized asset obligations and other exotic equity and debt instruments, each of which promises the holder an incomplete interest in the original security instrument and the revenue flow starting with the alleged borrower and ending with various parties who receive said revenue, including but not limited to parties who are obligated to make payments for shortfalls of revenues.
Real Property Lawyers spot the problem immediately.
First question is when do these cross guarantees, CDS, Insurance, and other exotic instruments arise. If they are in existence at the time of the closing with the borrower homeowner then the note and mortgage are not properly drafted as to terms of repayment nor identity of the lender/creditor. This renders the note either unenforceable or requiring the admission of parole evidence in any action to either enforce against the borrower or enforce the cross obligations of the new cross creditors who supposedly are receiving not just rights to the receivable but to the actual note and the actual mortgage.
Hence even a truthful statement that the “Trustee” beings this foreclosure on behalf of the “trust” as creditor (assuming a Trust existed by law and that the Trustee, and beneficiaries and terms were clear) would be insufficient if any of these “credit enhancements” and other synthetic or exotic vehicles were in place. The Trustee on the Deed of Sale would be required to get an accounting from each of the entities that are parties or counterparties whose interest is effected by the foreclosure and who would be entitled to part of the receivable generated either by the foreclosure itself or the payment by counterparties who “bet wrong” on the mortgage pool.
The second question is whether some or any or all of these instruments came into existence or were actualized by a required transaction AFTER the closing with the homeowner borrower. It would seem that while the original note and mortgage (or Deed of Trust) might not be affected directly by these instruments, the enforcement mechanism would still be subject to the same issues as raised above when they were fully actualized and in existence at the time of the closing with the homeowner borrower.
Deutsch Bank was a central player in most of the securitized mortgages in a variety of ways including the exotic instruments referred to above. If there was any doubt about whether there existed pandemic lying and cheating, it was removed when the U.S. Attorney Civil Frauds Unit obtained admissions and a judgment for Deutsch to pay over $ 200 million resulting from intentional misrepresentations contained in various documents used with numerous entities and people up and down the fictitious securitization chain. Similar claims are brought against Citi (which settled so far for $ 215 million in February, 2012) Flagstar Bank FSB (which settled so far for $ 133 million in February 2012, and Allied Home Mortgage Corp, which is still pending. Even the most casual reader can see that the entire securitization model was distorted by fraud from one end (the investor lender) to the other (the homeowner borrower) and back again (the parties and counterparties in insurance, bailouts, credit default swaps, cross guarantees that violated the terms of every promissory note etc.
Manhattan U.S. Attorney Recovers $ 202.3 Million From Deutsche Bank And Mortgageit In Civil Fraud Case Alleging Reckless Mortgage Lending Practices And False Certifications To HUD
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Thursday May 10, 2012
Preet Bharara, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, Stuart F. Delery, the Acting Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Division of the U.S. Department of Justice, Helen Kanovsky, General Counsel of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”), and David A. Montoya, Inspector General of HUD, announced today that the United States has settled a civil fraud lawsuit against DEUTSCHE BANK AG, DB STRUCTURED PRODUCTS, INC., DEUTSCHE BANK SECURITIES, INC. (collectively “DEUTSCHE BANK” or the “DEUTSCHE BANK defendants”) and MORTGAGEIT, INC. (“MORTGAGEIT”). The Government’s lawsuit, filed May 3, 2011, sought damages and civil penalties under the False Claims Act for repeated false certifications to HUD in connection with the residential mortgage origination practices of MORTGAGEIT, a wholly-owned subsidiary of DEUTSCHE BANK AG since 2007. The suit alleges approximately a decade of misconduct in connection with MORTGAGEIT’s participation in the Federal Housing Administration’s (“FHA’s”) Direct Endorsement Lender Program (“DEL program”), which delegates authority to participating private lenders to endorse mortgages for FHA insurance. Among other things, the suit accused the defendants of having submitted false certifications to HUD, including false certifications that MORTGAGEIT was originating mortgages in compliance with HUD rules when in fact it was not. In the settlement announced today, MORTGAGEIT and DEUTSCHE BANK admitted, acknowledged, and accepted responsibility for certain conduct alleged in the Complaint, including that, contrary to the representations in MORTGAGEIT’s annual certifications, MORTGAGEIT did not conform to all applicable HUD-FHA regulations. MORTGAGEIT also admitted that it submitted certifications to HUD stating that certain loans were eligible for FHA mortgage insurance when in fact they were not; that FHA insured certain loans endorsed by MORTGAGEIT that were not eligible for FHA mortgage insurance; and that HUD consequently incurred losses when some of those MORTGAGEIT loans defaulted. The defendants also agreed to pay $ 202.3 million to the United States to resolve the Government’s claims for damages and penalties under the False Claims Act. The settlement was approved today by United States District Judge Lewis Kaplan.
Manhattan U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara stated: “MORTGAGEIT and DEUTSCHE BANK treated FHA insurance as free Government money to backstop lending practices that did not follow the rules. Participation in the Direct Endorsement Lender program comes with requirements that are not mere technicalities to be circumvented through subterfuge as these defendants did repeatedly over the course of a decade. Their failure to meet these requirements caused substantial losses to the Government – losses that could have and should have been avoided. In addition to their admissions of responsibility, Deutsche Bank and MortgageIT have agreed to pay damages in an amount that will significantly compensate HUD for the losses it incurred as a result of the defendants’ actions.”
Acting Assistant Attorney General Stuart F. Delery stated: “This is an important settlement for the United States, both in terms of obtaining substantial reimbursement for the FHA insurance fund for wrongfully incurred claims, and in obtaining the defendants’ acceptance of their role in the losses they caused to the taxpayers.”
Giving Back to the Community through a variety of venues & initatives.
Making sure that victims of federal crimes are treated with compassion, fairness and respect.
www.justice.gov/usao/nys/pressreleases/may12/deutschebankmortgageitsettlement.html 1/45/16/12 USDOJ: US Attorney’s Office – Southern District of New York
HUD General Counsel Helen Kanovsky stated: “This case demonstrates that HUD has the ability to identify fraud patterns and work with our partners at the Department of Justice and U.S. Attorney’s Offices to pursue appropriate remedies. HUD would like to commend the work of the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York in achieving this settlement, which is a substantial recovery for the FHA mortgage insurance fund. We look forward to continuing our joint efforts with the Department of Justice and the SDNY to combat mortgage fraud. The mortgage industry should take notice that we will not sit silently by if we detect abuses in our programs.”
HUD Inspector General David A. Montoya stated: “We expect every Direct Endorsement Lender to adhere to the highest level of integrity and accountability. When the combined efforts and attention of the Department of Justice, HUD, and HUD OIG are focused upon those who fail to exercise such integrity in connection with HUD programs, the end result will be both unpleasant and costly to the offending party.”
The following allegations are based on the Complaint and Amended Complaint (the “Complaint”) filed in Manhattan federal court by the Government in this case:
Between 1999 and 2009, MORTGAGEIT was a participant in the DEL program, a federal program administered by the FHA. As a Direct Endorsement Lender, MORTGAGEIT had the authority to originate, underwrite, and endorse mortgages for FHA insurance. If a Direct Endorsement Lender approves a mortgage loan for FHA insurance and the loan later defaults, the holder of the loan may submit an insurance claim to HUD for the costs associated with the defaulted loan, which HUD must then pay. Under the DEL program, neither the FHA nor HUD reviews a loan before it is endorsed for FHA insurance. Direct Endorsement Lenders are therefore required to follow program rules designed to ensure that they are properly underwriting and endorsing mortgages for FHA insurance and maintaining a quality control program that can prevent and correct any deficiencies in their underwriting. These requirements include maintaining a quality control program, pursuant to which the lender must fully review all loans that go into default within the first six payments, known as “early payment defaults.” Early payment defaults may be signs of problems in the underwriting process, and by reviewing early payment defaults, Direct Endorsement Lenders are able to monitor those problems, correct them, and report them to HUD. MORTGAGEIT failed to comply with these basic requirements.
As the Complaint further alleges, MORTGAGEIT was also required to execute certifications for every mortgage loan that it endorsed for FHA insurance. Since 1999, MORTGAGEIT has endorsed more than 39,000 mortgages for FHA insurance, and FHA paid insurance claims on more than 3,200 mortgages, totaling more than $ 368 million, for mortgages endorsed for FHA insurance by MORTGAGEIT, including more than $ 58 million resulting from loans that defaulted after DEUTSCHE BANK AG acquired MORTGAGEIT in 2007.
As alleged in the Complaint, a portion of those losses was caused by the false statements that the defendants made to HUD to obtain FHA insurance on individual loans. Although MORTGAGEIT had certified that each of these loans was eligible for FHA insurance, it repeatedly submitted certifications that were knowingly or recklessly false. MORTGAGEIT failed to perform basic due diligence and repeatedly endorsed mortgage loans that were not eligible for FHA insurance.
The Complaint also alleges that MORTGAGEIT separately certified to HUD, on an annual basis, that it was in compliance with the rules governing its eligibility in the DEL program, including that it conduct a full review of all early payment defaults, as early payment defaults are indicators of mortgage fraud. Contrary to its certifications to HUD, MORTGAGEIT failed to implement a compliant quality control program, and failed to review all early payment defaults as required. In addition, the Complaint alleges that, after DEUTSCHE BANK acquired MORTGAGEIT in January 2007, DEUTSCHE BANK managed the quality control functions of the Direct Endorsement Lender business, and had its employees sign and submit MORTGAGEIT’s Direct Endorsement Lender annual certifications to HUD. Furthermore, by the end of 2007, MORTGAGEIT was not reviewing any early payment defaults on closed FHA-insured loans. Between 1999 and 2009, the FHA paid more than $ 92 million in FHA insurance claims for loans that defaulted within the first six payments.
***
Pursuant to the settlement, MORTGAGEIT and the DEUTSCHE BANK defendants will pay the United States $ 202.3 million within 30 days of the settlement.
As part of the settlement, the defendants admitted, acknowledged, and accepted responsibility for certain misconduct. Specifically,
MORTGAGEIT admitted, acknowledged, and accepted responsibility for the following:
www.justice.gov/usao/nys/pressreleases/may12/deutschebankmortgageitsettlement.html 2/4
5/16/12 USDOJ: US Attorney’s Office – Southern District of New York
MORTGAGEIT failed to conform fully to HUD-FHA rules requiring Direct Endorsement Lenders to maintain a compliant quality control program;
MORTGAGEIT failed to conduct a full review of all early payment defaults on loans endorsed for FHA insurance;
Contrary to the representations in MORTGAGEIT’s annual certifications, MORTGAGEIT did not conform to all applicable HUD-FHA regulations;
MORTGAGEIT endorsed for FHA mortgage insurance certain loans that did not meet all underwriting requirements contained in HUD’s handbooks and mortgagee letters, and therefore were not eligible for FHA mortgage insurance under the DEL program; and;
MORTGAGEIT submitted to HUD-FHA certifications stating that certain loans were eligible for FHA mortgage insurance when in fact they were not; FHA insured certain loans endorsed by MORTGAGEIT that were not eligible for FHA mortgage insurance; and HUD consequently incurred losses when some of those MORTGAGEIT loans defaulted.
The DEUTSCHE BANK defendants admitted, acknowledged, and accepted responsibility for the fact that after MORTGAGEIT became a wholly-owned, indirect subsidiary of DB Structured Products, Inc and Deutsche Bank AG in January 2007:
The DEUTSCHE BANK defendants were in a position to know that the operations of MORTGAGEIT did not conform fully to all of HUD-FHA’s regulations, policies, and handbooks;
One or more of the annual certifications was signed by an individual who was also an officer of certain of the DEUTSCHE BANK defendants; and;
Contrary to the representations in MORTGAGEIT’s annual certifications, MORTGAGEIT did not conform to all applicable HUD-FHA regulations.
***
The case is being handled by the Office’s Civil Frauds Unit. Mr. Bharara established the Civil Frauds Unit in March 2010 to bring renewed focus and additional resources to combating financial fraud, including mortgage fraud.
To date, the Office’s Civil Frauds Unit has brought four civil fraud lawsuits against major lenders under the False Claims Act alleging reckless residential mortgage lending.
Three of the four cases have settled, and today’s settlement represents the third, and largest, settlement. On February 15, 2012, the Government settled its civil fraud lawsuit against CITIMORTGAGE, INC. for $ 158.3 million. On February 24, 2012, the Government settled its civil fraud suit against FLAGSTAR BANK, F.S.B. for $ 132.8 million. The Government’s lawsuit against ALLIED HOME MORTGAGE CORP. and two of its officers remains pending. With today’s settlement, the Government has achieved settlements totaling $ 493.4 million in the last three months. In each settlement, the defendants have admitted and accepted responsibility for certain conduct alleged in the Government’s Complaint.
The Office’s Civil Frauds Unit is handling all three cases as part of its continuing investigation of reckless lending practices.
The Civil Frauds Unit works in coordination with President Barack Obama’s Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force, on which Mr. Bharara serves as a Co-Chair of the Securities and Commodities Fraud Working Group. President Obama established the interagency Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force to wage an aggressive, coordinated, and proactive effort to investigate and prosecute financial crimes. The task force includes representatives from a broad range of federal agencies, regulatory authorities, inspectors general, and state and local law enforcement who, working together, bring to bear a powerful array of criminal and civil enforcement resources. The task force is working to improve efforts across the federal executive branch, and with state and local partners, to investigate and prosecute significant financial crimes, ensure just and effective punishment for those who perpetrate financial crimes, combat discrimination in the lending and financial markets, and recover proceeds for victims of financial crimes.
Mr. Bharara thanked HUD and HUD-OIG for their extraordinary assistance in this case. He also expressed his appreciation for the support of the Commercial Litigation Branch of the U.S. Department of Justice’s Civil Division in Washington, D.C.
www.justice.gov/usao/nys/pressreleases/may12/deutschebankmortgageitsettlement.html 3/4
5/16/12 USDOJ: US Attorney’s Office – Southern District of New York
Assistant U.S. Attorneys Lara K. Eshkenazi, Pierre G. Armand, and Christopher B. Harwood are in charge of the case.
Filed under: foreclosure Tagged: Allied Home Mortgage Corp, annual certifications, Bankers, Barack Obama, beneficiaries, borrower, CDS, Christopher B Harwood, Citi, Citimortgage, closing papers, counterparties, credit default swaps, credit enhancements, creditor, cross guarantees, cross obligations, David A Montoya, DB Structured Products Inc., debt instruments, deed of sale, DEL program, Department of Justice, Deutsch Bank, Deutsche Bank Securities, Direct Endorsement Lender Program, exotic instruments, fake securitization chain, false certifications, False Claims Act, FHA, FHA insurance, Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force., Flagstar Bank FSB, fraud patterns, Helen Kanovsky, homeowner, HUD, Judge Lewis Kaplan, Lara K Eshkenazi, lender, mortgage bonds, mortgage industry, mortgage pool, MORTGAGEIT, OIG, Pandemic Lying Admission, Pierre G Armand, Preet Bharara, President Obama, private lenders, promissory note, quality control program, reckless lending practices, REMIC, SDNY, Securities and Commodities Fraud Working Group, securities firms, securitization, security instrument, Southern District of New York, Stuart F Delery, synthetic asset obligations, trust, trustee, U.S. Attorney Civil Frauds Unit 
Livinglies’s Weblog
Short Sale No Protection Against Bank
Featured Products and Services by The Garfield Firm NEW! 2nd Edition Attorney Workbook,Treatise & Practice Manual – Pre-Order NOW for an up to $ 150 discountLivingLies Membership – Get Discounts and Free Access to ExpertsFor Customer Service call 1-520-405-1688
|
|
Want to read more? Download entire introduction for the Attorney Workbook, Treatise & Practice Manual 2012 Ed – Sample Pre-Order the new workbook today for up to a $ 150 savings, visit our store for more details. Act now, offer ends soon! |
Editor’s Comment:
As if on queue this story appears. I have been warning buyers of short sales that they face strong headwinds in maintaining ownership of the house, keeping possession, and the general fact that buying a short sale probably is buying into litigation now or later.
This guy is a true innocent buyer without any real notice of the problems he was buying into. His realtor obviously didn’t tell him because the realtor’s compensation is based upon the sale closing. The title agent didn’t tell him for the same reason. And the bank selected as the ” designated hitter” to receive money and execute papers showing the old mortgage was satisfied and the foreclosure was over probably didn’t even know who to call or why because, like the originator at the original closing on the loan, was just a fee for service “satisfied” instead of a fee for service originator.
So the designated forecloser keeps proceeding — and in this case apparently foreclosed on the house without the new short sale buyer knowing a thing about it, evicted the tenants, which now included the shortsale buyer, and then broke in, removed all the personal belongings leaving this guy with a lawsuit for trespass and the loss of his furniture and personal belongings.
This will continue until we accept and act upon the fact that the foreclosures and the would-be originators of foreclosures have no right to even be at the table — same as when the old old loan was created.
KC Man Sues Bank Over Foreclosure Error
Claim: JPMorgan Chase Changed Locks, Seized New Owner’s Property
KANSAS CITY, Mo. – A Kansas City man is taking on banking giant JPMorgan Chase, accusing the company of something that he said would have landed anyone else in handcuffs.
Allan Danforth bought a house in a short sale in fall 2010. JPMorgan Chase held the previous owner’s mortgage. Danforth said two months later, without notice, the bank changed the locks and hauled away $ 25,000 worth of furniture, appliances and family heirlooms.
“I had to bust in through the basement window here,” Danforth said, pointing to the house that he was forced to break into more than 18 months ago.
He said JPMorgan Chase’s contractor, Safeguard Properties, ignored “No Trespassing” signs on the garage, changed the locks on his home and cleaned it out two months after he paid cash for the property.
“It was basically stuff that was 150 years of family history,” Danforth said. “I feel violated and I felt like the house wasn’t even safe to go into for a while.”
Danforth said Safeguard Properties could find his family heirlooms. He said JPMorgan Chase just gave him a runaround.
“They’re the big bank and they don’t care,” he said.
“It’s a wrong built upon wrongs,” said attorney Tony Stein.
He said it’s a wrongful foreclosure.
“We fully intend to go into court and have a Jackson County jury try to decide the eventual outcome of this case in the only language JPMorgan Chase understands,” Stein said. “The language of money.”
In his lawsuit, Stein accuses JPMorgan Chase of theft, trespassing and reckless indifference.
Jackson County court records show that on Sept. 9, the previous homeowners transferred the house to Danforth. The bank signed off 12 days later.
“For the very company to release their deed of trust and thereby release all their rights against this property, and then two months later, send in a company to clean this thing out? You’ll have to ask them why they’d do something like that,” Stein said. “It defies logic.”
Danforth and his attorney said the bank has ignored their letters. When KMBC investigated the case, a spokeswoman for JPMorgan Chase had a response.
“We made a paperwork mistake when the property was sold, which resulted in our service partner changing the locks and winterizing the property to ensure its security,” the statement said.
The company did not comment how it plans to settle the dispute.
“I’m not the first one. I will not be the last, unfortunately,” Danforth said.
He said he has installed a security system in case of another “paperwork mistake.”
“If it were you or I doing it, we’d be sitting in jail right now,” Danforth said. “Why isn’t JPMorgan in jail?”
Safeguard Properties deferred comment to the bank.
Danforth’s lawsuit is before the Jackson County Court and claims actual damages in excess of $ 25,000. Under law, Stein said members of Danforth’s family could be entitled to recover as much as $ 1.5 million in punitive damages.
Danforth’s copies of important documents were inside the house and were taken by Safeguard Properties. Experts said in case of a fire or burglary, it’s a good idea to have copies of important documents in a digital form or a safety deposit box.
Filed under: foreclosure Tagged: Allan Danforth, foreclosure, foreclosure fraud, Jackson County, JP Morgan Chase, KMBC, Lender Liability, punitive damages, realtor, Safeguard Properties, service originator, short-sale, theft by bank, title agent, Tony Stein 
Livinglies’s Weblog
Bank of America Greedy Ungrateful Credit Card Abuse
Bank of America’s recent move to raise the interest rate on the credit card accounts of their good customers is not only unfair but doesn’t make economic sense. Our elected officials need to take a close look at how this company is treating American taxpayers, and keep this in mind when BOA asks for more bailout funds. I say no more money for them until the bank exhibits some consideration for their clients; rather than assisting BOA customers in this difficult economy the bank is again being greedy and showing that they are not grateful for the government sponsored bailout that they received.
Video Rating: 4 / 5
6.28.11 Protest at Bank of America in Springfield MA
Check out this rockin’ protest outside on one of America’s worst corporate crime syndicates. The protest was sponsored by the Springfield No One Leaves Coalition who like groups across the country are fighting back against the thugs who destroyed the economy and still continue to try to steal homes from the people they conned. For more about the group go to Springfieldnooneleaves.org
Video Rating: 0 / 5
CNBC—Jan. 13–Nearly 3 million properties received some type of foreclosure filing in 2010, up 2% from 2009 and 23% from 2008. Copyright CNBC 2011 § 107.Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include — (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; (2) the nature of the copyrighted work; (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. CNBC realty check foreclosures hit record highs robosigning frauclosure US mortgages 2010 housing market
Video Rating: 5 / 5
MBS Investors in Revolt: Ultimatums to US Bank and Wells Fargo
MOST POPULAR ARTICLES
CLICK HERE TO GET COMBO TITLE AND SECURITIZATION REPORT
INVESTORS COMING OUT OF THE SHADOWS: BANKS’ WORST NIGHTMARE
EDITOR’S ANALYSIS: For those who have followed this Blog for any length of time, this news will come as no surprise. Ultimately, the proof and the relief sought by homeowners will come from investors who demand answers to what happened to their money when they purchased mortgage backed securities and pooled their money to fund mortgages.
The result is a pincer action, to put it military terms, where the creditors and the debtors are making the same allegations against the intermediaries who stole from both sides, “borrowed” the loss to claim Federal bailout money, and left both sides holding the bag.
Lawyers for the investors are clearly smelling blood and are on the hunt. Unlike the foreclosure defense side where the arguments and theories are the same, these lawyers will represent institutional investors whose credibility in court will rival, if not exceed, the credibility normally allowed to anyone with the word “Bank” in their name. These lawyers are going to make a fortune, as will any foreclosure defense lawyer who realizes the true nature of what is going on.
What they already know and they are demanding answers: that the mortgage origination process was defective in multiple ways that created fatal defects in the the quality and quantity of loans as well as the security of the collateral (the homes). The proof that will emerge is that the homes were not subject to a perfected lien because the intermediaries wanted to claim the loans themselves to create “trading profits” before they provided for any accounting to the investors and with no intention of ever providing an accounting to the borrower.
The document trail from the closing with investors, the document trail from the closing with borrowers, the actual money trail and the representations made in court are all at variance with each other. “Transfers” to the pool occurred only after the alleged default by the borrower, which was misrepresented because the default claimed did not match the actual receipt of funds that should have been reported to investors. All of this is in direct violation of the PSA and other securitization documents.
The final result will be the investors disavowing any interest in the loans, absent a broad settlement that allows for modifications of the mortgages based upon realistic values and terms. The investors will see, that the deep pockets here for recovery of their losses are where the money went in the first place — the investment banks.
The money advanced by investors was not used to fund mortgages as advertised but rather was sponged into a complex matrix of fees, trading profits for the investment banks, credit enhancements that inured to the benefit of the banks, and bets that the bonds would fail — a sure thing because the banks reserved the right exclusively to declare the failure.
All of this projects broad similar actions from investors around the world demanding answers on each and every pool. All loans will be thrown into a grey area of ownership and the end result may well be that the “free house” spin by the Banks will come back and bite them. With the creditors disavowing the transaction and making no claim against the homeowners there might be nobody to pay. Short of that, the proof will most likely provide a relatively easy way for homeowners to strip their homes of the liens of record as they relate to loans in which a securitization claim is present — because in most cases, the loan was not made or paid for by the originator who appears on the note and mortgage.
TILA rescission is most probably going to get much easier as a result of these actions. Meanwhile US Bank and Wells Fargo are going to experience the frustration that they have caused homeowners. Their attempts at foreclosure are going to met with stiff resistance as the investors emerge and have their say in foreclosure actions.
HSBC and US Bank to Investigate Ineligible Mortgages in Over $ 19 Billion of Wells Fargo-Issued RMBS
(Source: Gibbs & Bruns, LLP) – HOUSTON, Jan. 5, 2012 - Gibbs & Bruns LLP announced today that its clients have issued instructions to US Bank and HSBC, as Trustees, to open investigations of ineligible mortgages in pools securing over $ 19 billion of Residential Mortgage Backed Securities (RMBS) issued by various affiliates of Wells Fargo. Collectively, Gibbs & Bruns’ clients hold over 25% of the Voting Rights in 48 Trusts that issued these RMBS.
“Our clients continue to seek a comprehensive solution to the problems of ineligible mortgages in RMBS pools and deficient servicing of those loans. Today’s action is another step toward achieving that goal,” said Kathy D. Patrick of Gibbs & Bruns LLP, lead counsel for the Holders.
The Holders anticipate that they may provide additional instructions to Trustees, as needed, to further the investigations. The securities that are the subject of these instruction letters include:
| WFALT 2005-1 | WFMBS 2005-9 | WFMBS 2006-19 | WFMBS 2007-13 | |||
| WFALT 2007-PA2 | WFMBS 2005-AR11 | WFMBS 2006-20 | WFMBS 2007-8 | |||
| WFALT 2007-PA3 | WFMBS 2005-AR12 | WFMBS 2006-6 | WFMBS 2007-9 | |||
| WFALT 2007-PA4 | WFMBS 2005-AR14 | WFMBS 2006-7 | WFMBS 2007-AR3 | |||
| WFALT 2007-PA6 | WFMBS 2005-AR16 | WFMBS 2006-8 | WFMBS 2007-AR8 | |||
| WFHET 2005-3 | WFMBS 2005-AR3 | WFMBS 2006-AR10 | WMLT 2005-A | |||
| WFHET 2006-3 | WFMBS 2005-AR5 | WFMBS 2006-AR13 | WMLT 2005-B | |||
| WFHET 2007-1 | WFMBS 2005-AR8 | WFMBS 2006-AR14 | WMLT 2006-A | |||
| WFMBS 2005-12 | WFMBS 2005-AR9 | WFMBS 2006-AR18 | WMLT 2006-ALT1 | |||
| WFMBS 2005-17 | WFMBS 2006-11 | WFMBS 2006-AR2 | ||||
| WFMBS 2005-18 | WFMBS 2006-13 | WFMBS 2006-AR4 | ||||
| WFMBS 2005-3 | WFMBS 2006-14 | WFMBS 2006-AR8 | ||||
| WFMBS 2005-4 | WFMBS 2006-17 | WFMBS 2007-10 |
ABOUT GIBBS & BRUNS LLP
Gibbs & Bruns is a leading boutique law firm engaging in high-stakes business and commercial litigation. The firm is renowned for its representation of both plaintiffs and defendants in complex matters, including significant securities and institutional investor litigation, director and officer liability, contract disputes, fraud and fiduciary claims, energy, oil and gas litigation, construction litigation, insurance litigation, trust & estate litigation, antitrust litigation, legal and professional malpractice, and partnership disputes. Gibbs & Bruns is routinely recognized as a top commercial litigation firm in the US. For more information, visit www.gibbsbruns.com.
Source: Gibbs & Bruns, LLP
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, TILA audit, trustee, US BANK, WEISBAND, Wells Fargo, WFALT, WFHET, WFMBS, WMLT 
Livinglies’s Weblog
Bank Of America 5 Dollar Debit Card Fee
***UPDATE**** Freaking Foxnews Chicago used my vid for their broadcast! www.myfoxchicago.com The crooks are at it again. They’ll make over 3 billion a year off this. That’s after unloading 73 billion in toxic mortgages onto the US Taxpayer just a few weeks ago. Way to go BOA, you’re a class act!
Video Rating: 4 / 5
Link From: newzzcafe.com The fraudulent CEOs looted with impunity, were left in power, and were granted their fondest wish when Congress, at the behest of the Chamber of Commerce, Chairman Bernanke, and the bankers’ trade associations, successfully extorted the professional Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) to turn the accounting rules into a farce. The FASB’s new rules allowed the banks (and the Fed, which has taken over a trillion dollars in toxic mortgages as wholly inadequate collateral) to refuse to recognize hundreds of billions of dollars of losses. This accounting scam produces enormous fictional “income” and “capital” at the banks. The fictional income produces real bonuses to the CEOs that make them even wealthier. The fictional bank capital allows the regulators to evade their statutory duties under the Prompt Corrective Action (PCA) law to close the insolvent and failing banks.
US BANK AND CITIBANK GO WITH PRICE WATERHOUSE COOPER FOR THE FORECLOSURE REVIEW ORDERED BY THE OCC. PWC IS THE THIRD PARTY CONSULTANT.
MOST POPULAR ARTICLES
GET COMBO TITLE AND SECURITIZATION ANALYSIS – CLICK HERE
EDITOR’S NOTE: As expected the foreclosure “reviews” are being done using outside “consultants” who have a lot to lose if the foreclosures, the mortgages, and the mortgage bonds were bogus. Accounting firms certified the financial statements of dozens of banks holding these securities after an “audit.”
But I still suggest that the demand be made upon good information about your title and securitization as far as you can go, and demanding to know who were the people involved that participated in the review, their methods and whether they had anything to do with the Bank in prior dealings. These reviews could give rise to a growing number of administrative hearings that could bypass a number of tactics that the Banks are successful at using in Court. Get Help.
submitted by Abby
http://www.scribd.com/doc/73519369/OCC-FORECLOSURE-REVIEW-2-BIG-BANKS-GO-WITH-PWC-US-BANK-CITIBANK
Independent Foreclosure Review
As part of those consent orders, federal regulators required servicers to engage independent firms to conduct a multi-faceted review of foreclosure actions in process in 2009 and 2010. Under the orders, independent consultants are charged with evaluating whether borrowers suffered financial injury through errors, misrepresentations, or other deficiencies in foreclosure practices and determining appropriate remediation for those customers. Where a borrower suffered financial injury as a result of such practices, the agencies’ orders require financial remediation to be provided.
As part of that program, the 14 mortgage servicers covered by the enforcement actions will begin mailings November 1, 2011 that will continue through the end of the year. The mailings are intended to provide information to potentially eligible borrowers on how to request a review of their case if they believe they suffered financial injury as a result of errors, misrepresentations, or other deficiencies in foreclosure proceedings related to their primary residence between January 1, 2009 and December 31, 2010. The mailings will include a request for review form.
Borrowers may also visit http://www.IndependentForeclosureReview.com for more information about the review and claim process. Assistance with the form and answers to questions about the process are available at 1-888-952-9105, Monday through Friday from 8 a.m. to 10 p.m. (ET) and Saturday from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. (ET).
Requests for review must be received by April 30, 2012.
The third-party consultant will assess whether any errors, misrepresentations, or other deficiencies resulted in financial injury to borrowers. Where a borrower suffered financial injury as a result of such practices, the consent orders require remediation to be provided. During the review, customers may be contacted by mortgage servicers for additional information at the direction of the independent consultant.
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
JUDGE DENNIS BLACKMON NAILS US BANK IN GEORGIA ON HAMP, WRONGFUL FORECLOSURE AND EMOTIONAL DISTRESS DAMAGES
MOST POPULAR ARTICLES
GET COMBO TITLE AND SECURITIZATION ANALYSIS – CLICK HERE
PhillipsvsUSBankHomeownersare3rdPartyBeneficiariesofHAMP
“Sometimes, only courts of law stand to protect the taxpayer. Somewhere, someone has to stand up. Well, sometimes is now, and the place is the Great State of Georgia. The Defendant’s Motion is hereby Denied”
“The United States Government paid taxpayer dollars to the largest of our financial institutions, and to European Union Banks, in order to prop up those poorly run organizations. Twenty Billion of those dollars were handed over to the defendant, U.S. Bank.”
“The HAMP guidelines require U.S. Bank to perform modification services for all mortgage loans its services. Otis Philips applied to modify his mortgage with U.S. Bank. U..S. Bank denied the request, without numbers, figures, or explanation, reasoning, comparison to the guidelines, or anything.”
“A cynical Judge might believe that this entire motion to dismiss is a desperate attempt to avoid the discovery period, where U.S. Bank would have to tell Mr. Phillips how his financial situation did not qualify him for a modification. Or, perhaps he was [Judge's emphasis, not mine] qualified, yet didn’t receive the modification, in violation of U.S. Bank’s Service Participation Agreement (SPA).”
“U.S. Bank’s silence on this issue might heighten the suspicions of such a cynical jurist.”
“Clearly, U.S. Bank cannot take the money, contract with our government to provide a a service to the taxpayer, violate that agreement, and then say no one on earth can sue them for it. That is not the law in Georgia. In fact, since no administrative review is provided in HAMP [which is something you should put in your OCC letter demanding review], the courts are the only recourse.”
Filed under: bubble, CDO, CORRUPTION, currency, Eviction, foreclosure, GTC | Honor, Investor, Mortgage, securities fraud Tagged: bankruptcy, borrower, countrywide, disclosure, emotional distress, foreclosure, foreclosure defense, foreclosure offense, foreclosures, fraud, HAMP, LOAN MODIFICATION, modification, PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT, quiet title, rescission, RESPA, securitization, SERVICE, taxpayer, TILA audit, trustee, US BANK, WEISBAND 
Livinglies’s Weblog
TAMMY BALDWIN INTRODUCES RESOLUTION TO BLOCK BANK AMNESTY
MOST POPULAR ARTICLES
GET COMBO TITLE AND SECURITIZATION ANALYSIS – CLICK HERE
EDITOR’S COMMENT: That the resolution was even necessary shows how much pressure the Banks are using to get out of the corner they painted themselves into. The stage is set for the real facts to come out and they will continue to come out in large quantities of information and data that will show that the Banks didn’t just make mistakes — they took the honored traditions of Banking and turned them on their head using the irrelevant past as a means to deceive investors, consumers, homeowners, taxpayers, legislators and law enforcement.
The key fact that I see coming out is going to be relative to the Tier 2 yield spread premium that the Banks booked as trading profits. When investors get the data, they will be able to prove that the Banks skimmed a large chunk of the money intended to be used for funding mortgages. The amount loaned by the investors will not match up with the amount loaned to borrowers. Add that to the long list of intentional acts of fabrication, fraud and deception and those Banks are extremely vulnerable not only to civil attack for damages and injunctive relief but for criminal behavior. Remember that over 800 people went to jail when the savings sand loan crisis was revealed in the 1908′s. So far, in this case there have only been a handful of people.
If the full accounting for all money in and out is completed, there will be no doubt what happened. Whether the investors will recoup the money stolen from them by the Banks is for another day. But one thing is certain — if there was money coming in the Banks kept most of it and didn’t report accurately to either the investor lenders nor the borrowers. It is a certainty in my opinion that the account balances of borrowers on every type of loan will be affected and shown to be misrepresented when the Banks sought to enforce the debt. The balances will be reduced, in some cases below zero and in many cases the undisclosed profits and compensation is due back to both the investors and the borrowers under different laws. The Banks have created a double liability situation for themselves and I have no compassion for their situation.
The Banks are using their formidable resources to create a vehicle for amnesty in which the settlement is small and the liability for criminal or civil wrongs is effectively cancelled. Tammy Baldwin is running for Senate from her Congressional seat. She is running against the Banks and for America. Anybody in Congress who opposes this resolution will be an easy target in this election cycle. Aligning with the Banks now is seen by most as aligning with the forces of evil. Any politician looking to win an election this season had better take note.
Tammy Baldwin To Introduce Resolution Opposing Immunity For Banks In Foreclosure Deal
First Posted: 11/3/11 09:00 AM ET Updated: 11/3/11 09:00 AM ET
WASHINGTON — Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.) is set to introduce a resolution in Congress this week calling on the Obama administration and state attorneys general to ensure that any deal reached with the nation’s biggest banks on foreclosure abuses includes full investigations into what happened, awards proper compensation to victims and provides no immunity for potential wrongdoing.
U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder and the state AGs have been working with the nation’s five largest mortgage firms — Ally Financial, Bank of America, Citigroup, JPMorgan Chase and Wells Fargo — to settle disputes over potentially illegal foreclosure practices, such as the so-called robo-signing of foreclosure documents.
Baldwin’s resolution states that any settlement should follow three guidelines: 1) Banks that engaged in fraudulent behavior “should not be granted criminal or civil immunity for potential wrongdoing related to illegal mortgage and foreclosure practices,” 2) the federal government and state AGs should “proceed with full investigations into claims of fraudulent behavior by mortgage servicers” and 3) any monetary sum paid by the banks should “appropriately compensate for, and accurately reflect, the extent of harm to all victims.”
“We have to do the best we can to make innocent victims whole. But secondly, especially in light of the taxpayer bailout of the biggest banks, we owe taxpayers a solemn effort to do everything we can do to uncover what went wrong and whether laws were broken,” Baldwin said in an interview with The Huffington Post. “Part of that is to make certain this won’t happen again. That, to me, is one of the most basic responsibilities we have.”
According to news reports of a possible settlement between the parties, banks would pay around $ 20-25 billion in return for immunity from state lawsuits.
“While I can’t discuss the details of our negotiations, I will say that we are negotiating a limited — not a broad — civil liability release. We are discussing additional ways to help homeowners while still holding the banks accountable,” said Geoff Greenwood, spokesman for lead negotiator Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller.
Baldwin’s resolution follows a letter she wrote to Holder on Nov. 1, in which she argued that the low sum being discussed in settlement talks would be insufficient to help underwater homeowners. Twenty-four of her colleagues in the House of Representatives joined her on the letter.
“These underwater homeowners owe roughly $ 750 billion more than their homes are currently worth,” she wrote. “This $ 750 billion stands in contrast to reports of a $ 20 billion settlement with mortgage servicers. We are concerned that this $ 20 billion will provide little help to the estimated 14.6 million struggling homeowners who are underwater. Indeed, many of these families have been victims of outright fraud, and they deserve justice and just compensation.”
Obama administration officials, such as Housing and Urban Development Secretary Shaun Donovan and Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, have repeatedly said they would like to see a quick resolution to the mortgage probe.
When asked why there is such a push for a settlement amongst some of the members involved in the probe, Baldwin replied, “What I’ve read is that there’s an interest in resolving this prior to the next set of elections.”
But, she cautioned, such a strategy could backfire. “I do fear that a settlement that is just a tiny drop in the bucket, given all the devastation that’s occurred because of this, would have strong political ramifications,” she said.
The negotiations originally involved AGs from all 50 states, but a handful of them have pulled out due to concerns reflected in Baldwin’s resolution.
New York State Attorney General Eric Schneiderman (D) has been the leading voice pushing for a narrower deal, expressing concern that the proposed settlement would preclude state AGs from fully investigating and prosecuting banks found to have committed wrongdoing. In late August, he was kicked off of the 50-state task force after he refused to go along with the quick settlement the administration and his fellow state AGs were working out. Since then, several other state AGs have backed Schneiderman’s position.
Congress is not directly involved in the negotiations, but Baldwin said it was important for the administration and the state AGs to hear from the people’s representatives.
“I get a lot of constituents calling my office who are underwater in their mortgages, who are paid up but can’t refinance, can’t get lower interest rates. They’re struggling financially because of the economy,” said Baldwin. “Their calls aren’t even responded to by the big banks. They’ll call [my office] and say, ‘How am I supposed to talk about these federal programs that are out there for refinancing and help for homeowners who are underwater, if my bank won’t even call me back?’”
Baldwin is running for the U.S. Senate seat in Wisconsin being vacated by Sen. Herb Kohl (D) and currently has no Democratic primary challenger. The GOP field is more crowded: former governor Tommy Thompson, Wisconsin state Assembly Speaker Jeff Fitzgerald and former congressman Mark Neumann are all running.
Filed under: bubble, CDO, CORRUPTION, currency, Eviction, foreclosure, GTC | Honor, Investor, Mortgage, securities fraud Tagged: 112th Congress, 2012 Elections, bankruptcy, borrower, countrywide, disclosure, Eric Schneiderman Foreclosures, Eric Schneiderman Mortgages, foreclosure, foreclosure defense, Foreclosure Investigation, Foreclosure Negotiations, foreclosure offense, foreclosures, fraud, LOAN MODIFICATION, modification, Mortgage Abuse, Mortgage Crisis, Mortgage Investigation, Politics News, quiet title, rescission, RESPA, securitization, State Attorneys General, Tammy Baldwin, Tammy Baldwin 2012, Tammy Baldwin Foreclosures, Tammy Baldwin Mortgages, Tammy Baldwin Senate, Tammy Baldwin Senate Election, Tammy Baldwin Wisconsin, TILA audit, trustee, video, WEISBAND 
Livinglies’s Weblog