DELAWARE COURT ORDERS BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON AS TRUSTEE TO FULLY COMPLY WITH COURT’S DISCOVERY ORDER UNDER THREAT OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE AND ASSESSES SANCTIONS

DELAWARE COURT ORDERS BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON AS TRUSTEE TO FULLY COMPLY WITH COURT’S DISCOVERY ORDER UNDER THREAT OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE AND ASSESSES SANCTIONS
A Sussex County, Delaware Court has entered an Order finding that Bank of New York Mellon as Trustee of a First Horizon securitized mortgage loan trust failed to comply with the Court’s prior order compelling discovery, and has also assessed sanctions against BNYM for the the homeowner’s having to bring a Motion for Sanctions against BNYM for violation of the Court’s discovery Order. The Order also provides that if BNYM continues to not comply with the prior Order that the case will be dismissed with prejudice.
The homeowneer is represented by Jeff Barnes, Esq. and local Delaware counsel Paul G. Enterline, Esq. We believe this to be the first case in Delaware where securitization-related discovery is being compelled under the threat of a dismissal with prejudice for noncompliance with a prior discovery order. Mr. Barnes has already had several foreclosure cases dismissed in Florida and New Jersey for a foreclosing Plaintiff’s failure to comply with discovery, and he has also obtained court orders assessing attorneys’ fees against “banks” for noncompliance with discovery.
The foreclosing Plaintiff styles itself as the trustee for a series of pass-through certificates by a division of a Tennessee bank “Master Association” in its capacity as trustee under a Pooling and Servicing Agreement and assignee of MERS. As such, all issues as to the securitization including the PSA and MERS’ involvement are implicated by virtue of the Plaintiff’s self-chosen denomination.
It is common knowledge that Joseph Biden III, the Attorney General of Delaware, has sued MERS in a 91-page Verified Complaint sounding in deceptive trade practices which have lead to improper foreclosures. We expect many of the issues in the Biden lawsuit to be raised in the Sussex County litigation.

See more on Biden and the suing of MERS     HERE

Dimon Says US Banks Should Dictate to Regulators « naked capitalism

Dimon Says US Banks Should Dictate to Regulators « naked capitalism

Now that Steve Jobs has retired from Apple, Jamie Dimon seems determined to assume his role as the CEO with the most effective reality distortion sphere. You can infer that from the magnitude of the whoppers he is telling and the size of the audience he is trying to bamboozle.
But while Jobs’ Svengali tendencies have gotten more than occasional mention, they weren’t a major failing. Jobs not only saved Apple, but he spearheaded the development of important new product categories. By contrast, Dimon has long been a bully, a smart and capable bully, but a bully nevertheless (I have reports going back to his first year at Harvard Business School, and it takes some doing to be memorably obnoxious by dint of the competition in that category).
Now on the surface, Dimon’s latest brazen remark isn’t quite as gross as my headline suggests. He is merely saying that US banks should not be subject to the new incoming international bank rules, known as Basel III. That might seem to be a narrower statement, but as we show, when you parse his logic, it amounts to banking uber alles.
Here is the relevant section of an interview published today in the Financial Times:

New international bank capital rules are “anti-American” and the US should consider pulling out of the Basel group of global regulators, Jamie Dimon, chief executive of JPMorgan Chase, has said….
The Basel III capital rules are designed to make the financial system safer by making banks build up risk-absorbent “core tier one” capital to at least 7 per cent of risk-weighted assets. The biggest, including JPMorgan, have to reach 9.5 per cent.
“I’m very close to thinking the United States shouldn’t be in Basel any more. I would not have agreed to rules that are blatantly anti-American,” he said. “Our regulators should go there and say: ‘If it’s not in the interests of the United States, we’re not doing it’.”
Mr Dimon also criticised global liquidity rules, arguing that regulations that viewed covered bonds – a European market feature – as highly liquid but discounted government-backed mortgage-backed securities in the US were unfair and that other details hit investment banking activity core to US banks hardest.
Regulators say all countries compromised on agreeing the rules, which put eight banks – five from outside the US – in the top level of capital. But Mr Dimon said there was a threat that Asian banks, in particular, could take US market share because of the combination of US domestic and global rules.
“I think any American president, secretary of Treasury, regulator or other leader would want strong, healthy global financial firms and not think that somehow we should give up that position in the world and that would be good for your country,” said Mr Dimon. “If they think that’s good for the country then we have a different view on how the economy operates, how the world operates.”

Let’s start with some background. Treasury secretary Geithner said repeatedly during the Dodd Frank process that the shortcomings in the legislation didn’t matter all that much, since having banks carry larger capital buffers would do the trick, and that was coming with Basel III. In other words, Geithner argued the higher capital requirements to be imposed by international rulemaking process was where the critical banking regulatory fix would happen. And this is what Dimon is now, loudly, out to undermine.
Let’s go to the Dimon argument, such as it is. What about “international” does he not understand? If you want to play outside America’s borders, you can expect to be subject to different rules. The Eurozone, much to the consternation of US and UK players, has basically told the Anglo private equity firms to go to hell. They are forbidden both from doing deals in EU countries and from raising funds there unless they register and obey local rules. The Eurozone has gotten sick of rapacious foreign players buying decent European companies, cutting jobs, saddling them with lots of debt, and shrugging their shoulders when they miscalculate (often) and the rent extraction kills the company. The EU rules, among other things, will restrict how much a PE firm could lever up a portfolio company.

 http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/09/dimon-says-us-banks-should-dictate-to-regulators.html

Arizona Representative Drops Chain of Title Notification Provision After Apparent Bribe by Servicer « naked capitalism

More unbelievable BS from the banks and the politicians.  Funny how the AZ rep gets a loan mod that is a 56% principal reduction after two previous failed requests for loan modification.  The coincidence is that the Az Rep was set to initiate a bill that was very unfavorable to the banks.  It looks a little like bribery.

From Naked Capitalism

"When Rep. Seel was asked what had happened to prevent him from showing up on time to propose the amendment, he explained that he had decided not to propose it because he was told there was no chance of it being adopted… something about it not being “germane,” whatever that means.

One thing though… from what Darrell explained to me, Carl Seel must have been in a very good mood the day of his unexpected tardiness, because even though he had been previously turned down twice for his own loan modification, two days before he showed up too late to propose the amendment, Ocwen granted him a PRINCIPAL REDUCTION that reduced his mortgage to $88,000 from roughly $190,000… that’s a reduction of approximately 56% give or take a few points one way or the other.

Now that is lucky, was all I could think to say. Really lucky, considering it was Ocwen, a servicer I’ve been told is among the most difficult when it comes to modifying loans. In fact, it’s almost like being the single-ticket-lottery-winner-three-days-in-a-row kind of lucky, wouldn’t you say?

So, how did Darrell know about the fortuitous timing of Mr. Seel’s generous principal reduction?

It’s quite simple really… Seel hired him to help him with his loan.

You see, according to Darrell Blomberg, Rep. Seel had asked him to conduct an audit of Seel’s trustee sale in an effort to postpone his own home’s sale, which had been scheduled after his servicer denied his loan modification application for the second time. And Darrell had forwarded the results of his examination to Ocwen in a letter outlining several discrepancies in an attempt to delay the sale date.

As a result of that close involvement, Darrell says he personally saw the paperwork indicating both the trustee sale was being cancelled and that the significant principal reduction was being granted as part of Seel’s loan modification. He even went over it with Seel, telling him he hadn’t seen many… if any… like this one.

If you are in Arizona, demand an ethics investigation. This isn’t even subtle. And it won’t be hard to find plenty of industry insiders like Blomberg who will attest that the Ocwen mod isn’t just irregular, it’s unheard of. "

Arizona Representative Drops Chain of Title Notification Provision After Apparent Bribe by Servicer « naked capitalism



http://www.buyscanner.net

Massachusetts Supreme Court voids foreclosures - Jan. 7, 2011

Massachusetts Supreme Court voids foreclosures - Jan. 7, 2011 Mass. Supreme court will not allow bank to foreclose without proper evidence of title. The Foreclosure fiasco is exactly right. It is hard to believe the only reason this ended up in court was because the banks could not re sell the property after they took it back without the legal right to do so. They were trying to establish the chain of title by asking the court allow it even though they didn't do it before they brought the foreclosure proceedings. It appears that as long as the banks can get title insurance or sell property for cash after a foreclosure, they will not be required to prove ownership. This is likely to have happened millions of times in the United States already with nary a peep from the banks, Congress or the Administration. The White House has hopped back in bed with Wall Street after realizing the likelihood of losing too many votes to those done wrong by the banks was very slim. Moral of the story is after years of a devastating financial crisis caused by Wall Street the Too Big to Fail Banks has done nothing to change the truth that banks get their way.

Government likely to change more laws to favor the banking industry

From the Huffington Post and Mary Bottari
With a $4.7 trillion bailout under their belts and no harm done to their billion-dollar bonuses, don't expect Wall Street bankers to be chastened by the 2008 financial crisis. Below we list eight things to watch out for in 2011 that threaten to rock the financial system and undermine any recovery.
1) The Demise of Bank of America WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange is promising to unleash a cache of secret documents from the troubled Bank of America (BofA). BofA is already under the gun, defending itself from multiple lawsuits demanding that the bank buy back billions worth of toxic mortgages it peddled to investors. The firm is also at the heart of the robo-signing scandal, having wrongfully kicked many American families to the curb. If Assange has emails showing that Countrywide or BofA knew they were recklessly abandoning underwriting standards and/or peddling toxic dreck to investors, the damage to the firm could be irreparable.

You can read the full article by clicking here Eight things to watch out for in 2011  and here

This article covers a lot of things that are in motion going foreword to 2011. Read this article here from October 2010 that made similar predictions to give the banks the upper hand on homeowners as government will cave to whims of the banks. There likely will be some law change or rule change that will let the banks off the hook.

Here is a quote from the 2009 article "You can already here the spinning of the bank spokespeople as they once again collude with politicians to try and buy votes in the upcoming election. After Obama vetoed bill that would have given the banks a free pass out of the mortgage fraud quagmire, White House staff was already laying the ground work for another change of the rules to allow banks to steam roll borrowers. They are already working out a deal with a wink and a nod that will lead to another outrageous effort to change the rules of the game in favor of the banks. It should not be any surprise though because the banks have always gotten what they want in the long run. The perfect example was when banks were allowed to move to mark to model to keep them from being insolvent at the beginning of the crisis. The were allowed to "pretend" they were not bankrupt because they no longer had to mark their assets to market. The banks are getting over on everyone. " read more here