Category Archives: banks

The Wizard Behind the Curtain

Posted on February 10th, 2012 by Mark Stopa

Through my experience litigating foreclosure cases, I’ve become convinced that the plaintiffs prosecuting foreclosure lawsuits often don’t even realize those lawsuits are pending.  Let’s say that again: 

The Plaintiffs who have filed suit don’t even realize a lawsuit is pending.

How can that be?  Simple.  Third-party servicers retain a foreclosure mill, a.k.a. a plaintiff’s lawyer, and, without actually appearing as a party in their own names, direct the foreclosure mill to file suit on behalf of the plaintiff, i.e. the owner of the Note and Mortgage.  Does the servicer actually have authority to do so?  Honestly, who the heck knows.  This strange phenomenon is something I’ve started to call the “Wizard Behind the Curtain.”  The servicer isn’t named in the lawsuit, but it’s the one behind the scenes, calling all the shots, directing the foreclosure of thousands of homes throughout America. 

I see a myriad of problems with this.  In fact, just last month, I expressed my concerns when I saw a foreclosure mill’s written admission that it had no relationship whatsoever with the plaintiff it was purporting to represent.  Think about that for a second:

The lawyer had no relationship whatsoever with the plaintiff it purported to represent.

Instead, the firm’s alleged authority to file the foreclosure lawsuit came from, you guessed it, the “servicer.” 

I recently came across a document filed in a court case that sheds more light on this troubling phenomenon, and this document will provide a useful example to illustrate the problem. 

Take a look for yourself … what do you see?

Obviously this document, which Shapiro & Fishman calls a “Non-Title Document Review,” is a checklist used prior to filing a foreclosure complaint.  What really strikes me about this document (which Shapiro filed with the Complaint in this case and is a matter of public record) is that it has one box for the “Plaintiff” and the heading/style of the case, and an entirely separate box for the “Client.”  Here, for instance, the “Plaintiff” is U.S. Bank, National Association, but the “client” is “Bank of America, N.A.” 

Call me crazy, but shouldn’t the “client” and the “plaintiff” be the same?  How can Shapiro & Fishman be filing a lawsuit on behalf of U.S. Bank when its “client” is Bank of America? 

This may sound technical, and perhaps it is.  But think about how this “wizard behind the curtain” phenomenon will play out in a foreclosure case.  I see four huge problems.

First, the Florida Supreme Court requires via Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.110(b) that the Plaintiff verify its Complaint in all residential foreclosure cases.  Given the relationship between the foreclosure mills and the servicers, it seems clear the required verifications aren’t being done by the plaintiffs, but by the servicers.  Many learned judges in Florida before whom I appear have made it clear that verification by a servicer is insufficient – the complaints are supposed to be verified by the “plaintiff.”  Remember, the Rule doesn’t permit verification by a third party, but by “the plaintiff.”  In fact, Shapiro & Fishman moved for rehearing of the Florida Supreme Court’s ruling on this precise issue, and the Court rejected its motion. 

This prompts a significant question – if verification is required by the plaintiff, and the attorneys representing the plaintiff have no relationship with the plaintiff, how on earth can they get the required verification?  Undoubtedly, this is why the mills ask for 90 days or 120 days to get the requisite verification (when complaints are dismissed with leave to amend), as they often don’t even represent the plaintiff prosecuting the foreclosure case!  Literally, the mills are in the position of calling up an entity who they don’t represent and saying “You don’t know me, but I’m representing you in this foreclosure case, and I need you to verify under penalty of perjury that the allegations we’ve raised are correct.” 

A bit awkward, eh?  Yet that’s the position in which the mills have put themselves (in a large percentage of foreclosure cases in Florida). 

Second, I struggle to see how the mills can prosecute lawsuits on behalf of plaintiffs without the plaintiffs’ knowledge or consent in a manner consistent with The Rules Regulating The Florida Bar.  I’ve spoken with the Bar on this, and given our conversation, I’m not prepared to say it’s impossible, but I will say this.  Personally, I couldn’t imagine appearing as counsel for a party in any lawsuit without that party’s knowledge or consent, much less doing so on a widespread, systematic basis. 

Think about it this way.  An attorney is able to act on behalf of a client because the attorney’s actions bind the client.  Stipulations, representations, court filings, etc. … we as attorneys are, quite literally, agents for our clients.  If a client is going to be bound in this manner, the attorney’s authority to represent/bind the client must be clearly established.  This is why, for example, there are strict rules about how an attorney may appear as counsel, failing which the attorney’s actions don’t bind the client.  See Pasco County v. Quail Hollow Props., Inc., 693 So. 2d 92 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997). 

If these foreclosure attorneys don’t have an attorney-client relationship with the plaintiff, it seems to me they cannot represent the plaintiff at all and should be disqualified from doing so.  After all, how can an attorney bind the plaintiff when the attorney has no relationship with the plaintiff?  Why should any court accept the representations or stipulations of a plaintiff’s attorney when that attorney has no relationship with the plaintiff? 

There must be a better answer than “there are lots of foreclosure cases in Florida, and this is just how it’s done.” 

Third, you want to know why the Florida Supreme Court’s mediation program failed?  How can anyone expect to get a binding agreement with U.S. Bank when the attorneys prosecuting this foreclosure case don’t even represent U.S. Bank?  Remember, Shapiro & Fishman’s client is Bank of America, so the contact person for Shapiro & Fishman on this file is undoubtedly an agent of Bank of America, not U.S. Bank.  Again, how can anyone expect to get a loan modification under these circumstances, i.e. the appropriate parties aren’t even at the bargaining table. 

Fourth, when the plaintiff alleges in the complaint that it is the owner and holder of the Note and Mortgage, what exactly does that mean?  Taking plaintiff’s allegations literally, the plaintiff is the owner/holder.  But in all of these cases where the entity driving the suit is actually the servicer, it seems that the servicer is the “holder” of the Note, not the Plaintiff.  Remember, to be the holder, the “plaintiff” must be in “possession” of the Note.  See Fla. Stat. 671.201(21).  However, are these plaintiffs really in possession when they don’t even know a case has been filed?  I suppose it’s possible, but when the Note is subsequently put into the court file, how did it get there?  If it’s from the servicer, as I’d think it must since the servicer is the only one who knows about the case, then doesn’t that show the servicer was in possession, not the Plaintiff? And that the servicer was the “holder,” not the Plaintiff?  Actually, no – where the Note is specifically indorsed to the plaintiff, the servicer isn’t the holder, either.  In that situation, the servicer has possession, but the plaintiff has the indorsement, so neither one is the “holder.” 

So what’s the solution to all of this madness?  It’s two-fold: (1) Require verifications by the plaintiff (not the servicer, the plaintiff) and dismiss all cases without it; and (2) Require the foreclosure mills to have attorney-client relationships with the plaintiff (not the servicer, the plaintiff prosecuting the case) and disqualify all attorneys who lack such a relationship.  That sounds harsh, but it’s ridiculous to inundate our courts with garbage pleadings that languish for years without a resolution when the parties prosecuting them don’t even know they’ve been filed.

Mark Stopa


Charles
Charles Wayne Cox – Oregon State Director for the National Homeowners Cooperative
Email: mailto:Charles@BayLiving.com
Websites: http://www.NHCwest.com; www.BayLiving.com; and www.ForensicLoanAnalyst.com
1969 Camellia Ave.
Medford, OR 97504-5403
(541) 727-2240 direct
(541) 610-1931 eFax

Advertisements

A. G. SUES NATION’S LARGEST BANKS FOR DECEPTIVE & FRAUDULENT USE OF MERS

Saturday, February 4, 2012

A. G. SUES NATION’S LARGEST BANKS FOR DECEPTIVE & FRAUDULENT USE OF MERS

 
A.G. SCHNEIDERMAN ANNOUNCES MAJOR LAWSUIT AGAINST NATION’S LARGEST BANKS FOR DECEPTIVE & FRAUDULENT USE OF ELECTRONIC MORTGAGEundefined
Complaint Charges Use Of MERS By Bank Of America, J.P. Morgan Chase, And Wells Fargo Resulted In Fraudulent Foreclosure Filings  
Servicers And MERS Filed Improper Foreclosure Actions Where Authority To Sue Was Questionable
Schneiderman: MERS And Servicers Engaged In Deceptive and Fraudulent Practices That Harmed Homeowners And Undermined Judicial Foreclosure Process
NEW YORK – Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman today filed a lawsuit against several of the nation’s largest banks charging that the creation and use of a private national mortgage electronic registry system known as MERS has resulted in a wide range of deceptive and fraudulent foreclosure filings in New York state and federal courts, harming homeowners and undermining the integrity of the judicial foreclosure process. The lawsuit asserts that employees and agents of Bank of America, J.P. Morgan Chase, and Wells Fargo, acting as “MERS certifying officers,” have repeatedly submitted court documents containing false and misleading information that made it appear that the foreclosing party had the authority to bring a case when in fact it may not have. The lawsuit names JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., Bank of America, N.A., Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as well as Virginia-based MERSCORP, Inc. and its subsidiary, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc.
The lawsuit further asserts that the MERS System has effectively eliminated homeowners’ and the public’s ability to track property transfers through the traditional public records system. Instead, this information is now stored only in a private database – which is plagued with inaccuracies and errors – over which MERS and its financial institution members exercise sole control. Additional defendants include BAC Home Loansundefined
“The banks created the MERS system as an end-run around the property recording system, to facilitate the rapid securitization and sale of mortgages. Once the mortgages went sour, these same banks brought foreclosure proceedings en masse based on deceptive and fraudulent court submissions, seeking to take homes away from people with little regard for basic legal requirements or the rule of law,” said Attorney General Schneiderman. “Our action demonstrates that there is one set of rules for all – no matter how big or powerful the institution may be – and that those rules will be enforced vigorously. Only through real accountability for the illegal and deceptive conduct in the foreclosure crisis will there be justice for New York’s homeowners.”
The financial industry created MERS in 1995 to allow financial institutions to evade local county recording fees, avoid the hassle and paperwork of publicly recording mortgage transfers, and facilitate the rapid sale and securitization of mortgages. MERS operates as a membership organization, and most large companies that participate in the mortgage industry – by originating loans, buying or investingundefined
Through their membership in MERS, these companies avoided publicly recording the purchase and sale of mortgages by designating MERS Inc. – a shell company with no economic interest in any mortgage loan – as the “nominal” mortgagee of the loan in the public records. Instead, MERS members were supposed to log mortgage transfers in the MERS private electronic registry. The basic theory behind MERS is that, because MERS Inc. serves as a “nominee” (or agent) for most major lenders, it remains the “mortgagee” in the public records regardless of how often the loan is sold or transferred among MERS members. Thus, although MERSCORP has only about 70 employees, MERS Inc. serves as the mortgagee of record for tens of millions of loans registered in the MERS System.
MERS has granted over 20,000 “certifying officers” the authority to act on its behalf, including the authority to assign mortgages, to execute paperwork necessary to foreclose, and to submit filings on behalf of MERS in bankruptcy proceedings. These certifying officers are not MERS employees, but instead are employed by MERS members, including JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, and Wells Fargo.
MERS’ conduct, as well as the servicers’ use of the MERS System, has resulted in the filing of improper New York foreclosure proceedings, undermined the integrity of the judicial process, created confusion and uncertainty concerning property ownership interests, and potentially clouded titles on properties throughout the State of New York. In fact, several New York judges have questioned the standing of the foreclosing party in cases involving MERS loans and the validity of mortgage assignments executed by MERS certifying officers.
The lawsuit specifically charges that the defendants have engaged in the following fraudulent and deceptive practices:
  • MERS has filed over 13,000 foreclosure actions against New York homeowners listing itself as the plaintiff, but in many instances, MERS lacked the legalundefined
  • MERS certifying officers, including employees and agents of JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, and Wells Fargo, have repeatedly executed and submitted in court legal documents purporting to assign the mortgage and/or note to the foreclosing party. These documents contain numerous defects, including affirmative misrepresentations of fact, which render them false, deceptive, and/or invalid. These assignments were often automatically generated and “robosigned” by individuals who did not review the underlying property ownership records, confirm the documents’ accuracy, or even read the documents. These false and defective assignments often masked gaps in the chain of title and the foreclosing party’s inability to establish its authority to foreclose, and as a result have misled homeowners and the courts.
  • MERS’ indiscriminate use of non-employee “certifying officers” to execute vital legal documents has confused, misled, and deceived homeowners and the courts and made it difficult to ascertain whether a party actually has the right to foreclose. MERS certifying officers have regularly executed and submitted in court mortgage assignments and other legal documents on behalf of MERS without disclosing that they are not MERS employees, but instead are employed by other entities, such as the mortgage servicer filing the case or its counsel. The signature line just indicates that the individual is an “Assistant Secretary,” “Vice President,” or other officer of MERS. Indeed, these documents often purport to assign the mortgage to the certifying officer’s own employer. Moreover, as a result of the defendants’ failure to track the designation of certifying officers and the scope of their authority to act, individuals have executed legal documents on behalf of MERS, such as mortgage assignments and loan modifications, when they were either not designated as a MERS certifying officer at the time or were not authorized to execute documents on behalf of MERS with respect to the subject loan.
  • MERS and its members have deceived and misled borrowers about the importance and ramifications of MERS’ role with respect to their loan by providing inadequate disclosures.
  • The MERS System is riddled with inaccuracies which make it difficult to verify the chain of title for a loan or the current note-holder, and creates confusion among stakeholders who rely on the information. In addition, as a result of these inaccuracies, MERS has filed mortgage satisfactions against the wrong property.
The lawsuit seeks a declaration that the alleged practices violate the law, as well as injunctive relief, damages for harmed homeowners, and civil penalties. The lawsuit also seeks a court order requiring defendants to take all actions necessary to cure any title defects and clear any improper liens resulting from their fraudulent and deceptive acts and practices.
The matter is being handled by Deputy Bureau Chief of the Bureau of Consumer Frauds & Protection Jeffrey K. Powell, Assistant Attorneyundefined

Court denies lender’s motion to dismiss Section 547 preference action seeking to avoid valid foreclosure sale

  • Reed Smith LLP
  • Ann E. Pille
  • USA
  • ·         December 19 2011
  • Whittle Development, Inc. v. Branch Banking & Trust Co. et al. (In re Whittle Development Inc.) 2011 WL 3268398 (Bankr. N.D. Tex., July 27, 2011)      

CASE SNAPSHOT

The lender foreclosed on the borrower’s property after the borrower defaulted on its loan obligations. At the foreclosure sale, the property was sold to a subsidiary of the lender for less than the outstanding loan balance. Within one month following the foreclosure sale, the borrower filed for chapter 11 bankruptcy, and the lender filed a deficiency claim for the difference between the loan balance due and the amount of the credit bid at the foreclosure sale. Despite the fact that the foreclosure sale was operated in accordance with state law, the borrower argued that the value of the property exceeded the pre-foreclosure loan balance, and that the foreclosure sale was avoidable as a preferential transfer. The lender filed a motion to dismiss the preference claim, and the Bankruptcy Court denied the motion.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Whittle Development, Inc. was a real estate developer in Dallas, Texas. Whittle and the lender entered into a loan agreement secured by real property. After Whittle defaulted on its obligations, the lender notified Whittle of its intent to foreclose upon the property securing the note. A sale was held in conformity with all relevant state requirements, and the property was sold to a subsidiary of the lender for $1.2 million. Within a month, Whittle filed for bankruptcy, and the lender filed a deficiency claim for the roughly $1 million that remained due and owing following the foreclosure sale.

The debtor argued that there was no deficiency claim, contending that the property was worth $3.3 million. As such, the debtor contended that the lender received more than it would have under a chapter 7 liquidation, rendering the foreclosure avoidable as a preferential transfer under section 547 of the Bankruptcy Code. The debtor filed an adversary action, and the lender filed a motion to dismiss.  

COURT ANALYSIS

Under section 547 of the Bankruptcy Code, a transfer can only be avoided if the creditor received more than it would receive in a chapter 7 case. The lender argued that this requirement could not be met as a matter of law, because the Supreme Court’s decision in BFP v. Resolution Trust Corp. 511 U.S. 531 (1994), held that a non-collusive foreclosure sale conducted in accordance with state law was not avoidable because, as a matter of law, it provided “reasonably equivalent value” for the property transferred. The debtor countered that, if it could prove the property’s fair market value was $3.3 million, the lender did indeed receive more through foreclosure than it would have in a chapter 7 liquidation (i.e., both the property and a $1 million deficiency claim on a $2.2 million debt). Further, the debtor argued that BFP did not control the outcome of this case, because BFP dealt with a constructively fraudulent transfer under section 548, and that section’s requirement of “reasonably equivalent value” is distinguishable from section 547, which requires only that the creditor receive more than it would have under chapter 7 without regard to equivalent value. The debtor’s position was that the amounts bid at a foreclosure are not per se equal to the fair market value of the property. As such, it is possible that a creditor might receive more through a pre-petition foreclosure sale than it might have obtained in hypothetical chapter 7 liquidation. If true, the prong of section 547 at issue would be satisfied, and the transfer would be avoidable.

In declining to dismiss the preference claim, the court held that applying the BFP reasoning to a case involving section 547 was “misplaced.” In BFP, the Supreme Court analyzed what, as a matter of law, was meant by “reasonably equivalent value” under section 548. Section 547, however, does not require that value be reasonably equivalent; it requires only that a creditor receive an amount in excess of a hypothetical recovery. The court concluded that BFP was not controlling, and that the debtor’s complaint was sufficient to state a claim against the lender.  

PRACTICAL CONSIDERATIONS

Mere compliance with state law is insufficient to shield a foreclosure sale, and the benefits received therefrom, from a preference action. Secured lenders that wish to credit bid at a foreclosure sale need to be cognizant that a low-ball offer may subject them to liability if their borrower files for bankruptcy protection within 90 days after the foreclosure sale.

 


Charles
Charles Wayne Cox – Oregon State Director for the National Homeowners Cooperative
Email: mailto:Charles@BayLiving.com
Websites: http://www.NHCwest.com; www.BayLiving.com; and www.ForensicLoanAnalyst.com
1969 Camellia Ave.
Medford, OR 97504-5403
(541) 727-2240 direct
(541) 610-1931 eFax


Oakland OWS Update -from the ground in Oakland

From: charles@bayliving.com
To: charles@bayliving.com
Subject: Oakland OWS Update -from the ground in Oakland
Date: Thu, 5 Jan 2012 13:40:12 -0800

Charles,

 

The police department and DA’s office are really stepping it up.  People are planning to do a sit in at the mayor’s office this afternoon at 2 pm. Here is the comment/release I received, please forward widely to your network.

 

 

“Tonight, the OPD, assumedly backed by the city, acted with such complete disregard for the law that our immediate action is required in protest. At about 11pm, Sri Louise and I were at the Interfaith Umbrella on Frank Ogawa Plaza, making political signs and keeping an eye on a sweet puppy named Jasmine. Others around us were gathered in small clusters talking, using computers at a new power station someone had rigged up, and eating food some of us brought to share. There were maybe 50 or 60 people total. .It was all so peaceful and beautiful, and then the cry went out: “Riot Police! Watch out!” Sure enough, more than a dozen cruisers had pulled up at high speed and were now disgorging scores of police in riot gear, who immediately began advancing on us with no order to disperse, no warning, and no explanation of what they were doing. One protester, Sven La Rose, stepped forward and began to speak to the police about what they were doing. They had him on the ground in seconds and immediately handcuffed him. Meanwhile, I was nearly taken as I stopped to grab the blankets we had at the umbrella. Several police were advancing on me, forcing me forward and telling me to move or be arrested. Meanwhile, Sri was shouting for help moving a man who was drunk and asleep and who had a dog with him. We did get him up and out of harm’s way, but fourteen of our people were taken in all, including two who actually had left the scene and crossed the street to avoid arrest, and who were arrested by cops who deliberately broke away and went after them as targets. (Both are African American men who have demonstrated leadership in two different areas of the movement.) An attorney then appeared on the scene and offered to go with us to the jail to try to get people out, since they had clearly been arrested without the police following legal procedure. We marched there but were prevented from getting there by a line of police advancing on us and yelling for us to “Get back.” The attorney, Sri, several other witnesses and I then went around the corner to the public entrance to the jail lobby, which we entered. Immediately someone started saying over a PA that we were trespassing and needed to leave or be arrested. Meanwhile, someone opened the opposite door, and a group of protesters entered, and then several dozen sherriff’s deputies came out and told us we had ten seconds to choose one representative and get out. They then advanced on us while counting backward from ten, and we chose the attorney (who was lovely–I will get her name) and stood outside videotaping her through the glass. The deputies told her very aggressively to leave and go to the police station across the street where our people were being held. We did that, but the police station told us they had no holding facilities and that we should go back to the jail. It was a classic run-around consisting of blatant lies to an attorney who was trying to represent clients.

This action tonight is the most serious violation of first amendment rights I have ever seen. It is mind-boggling. We were doing nothing wrong. We were simply present in a public square as part of a movement that is being targeted for repression. We have to respond and respond with clarity of purpose and intent.

Please invite your clergy colleagues, right now, to join you at 2pm at the plaza. We propose to erect the canopy and then go into city hall to occupy the mayor’s and city administrator’s offices. I know this is short notice and that many of you haven’t been spending time at the plaza, nor do you know the people impacted by this. I don’t know how to say to you how upsetting and urgent this is. These people have done nothing wrong. They are political prisoners currently being held without charge. We must demand their release and the release of all Occupy Oakland political prisoners and an end to the police harassment of peaceful protesters.

Sri and I will lead an action with whoever will come with us. If you come, wonderful. If not, that’s fine, too. There will be a risk of arrest, of course, although an order to disperse should be given before arrests are made. I plan to use the nonviolence pledge to develop a set of requests we will ask protesters to agree to, including nonviolence and a spirit of love rather than revenge.

I am very sorry about the short notice, but next week is too late, and if we wait until Friday, we are likely to spend all weekend in jail.

It would be a great asset to have many members of the faith community present, but we will go with whoever is willing to go with us. Please wear clergy collars or other religious garb if you have it.

Thanks.”


Charles
Charles Wayne Cox – Oregon State Director for the National Homeowners Cooperative
Email: mailto:Charles@BayLiving.com
Websites: http://www.NHCwest.com; www.BayLiving.com; and www.ForensicLoanAnalyst.com
1969 Camellia Ave.
Medford, OR 97504-5403
(541) 727-2240 direct
(541) 610-1931 eFax

Description: Description: Description: cid:image001.jpg@01CC3E40.AB921B50  Description: Description: http://www.nhclawgroup.com/images/NAMU.png

            MERScurse   Protect America’s Dream

              The LEGAL Group   PRO-NETWORK

                    JOIN NHC, IT’S FREE

Paralegal; CA Licensed Real Estate Broker; Certified Forensic Loan Analyst.  Litigation Support; Mortgage and Real Estate Expert Witness Services.
________________________________________________________________________
DISCLOSURE: I AM NOT AN ATTORNEY AND NOTHING IN THIS EMAIL SHALL BE CONSIDERED OR CONSTRUED AS LEGAL ADVICE.  I am a California Business and Professions Code § 6450 qualified paralegal and only work as a paralegal when employed by an attorney or law firm. I am also a licensed California Real Estate Broker #01217620.  My license expires 10/09/2013. As a real estate broker, I am qualified to advise on real estate but I do not offer legal advice. If you have any questions concerning the legal sufficiency, legal effect, insurance, or tax consequences regarding any real estate or other matter, consult with your attorney, accountant, insurance agent, tax or other appropriate professional.

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information.  Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited.  If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of, and the original message.  Thank you.

Charles


IMPORTANT – California court holds the business judgment rule does not protect corporate officers in California‏

IMPORTANT – California court holds the business judgment rule does not protect corporate officers in California‏.


IMPORTANT – California court holds the business judgment rule does not protect corporate officers in California‏

California court holds the business judgment rule does not protect corporate officers in California
The business judgment rule is a longstanding corporate law principle that shields corporate directors from personal liability for their business decisions, even if the decisions lead to bad results, so long as the decisions are made in good faith, and with reasonable care and diligence. The business judgment rule recognizes the realities of business by not requiring directors to be liable for every business risk they take, or substituting a court’s judgment for that of a director.

Lawyers have generally believed that the protection of the business judgment rule extends to corporate officers as well as directors. However, a recent federal district court decision held that under California law, the business judgment rule does not insulate officers from liability for their mistaken decisions.

In Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation v. Perry , C.D. Cal., No. CV 11-5561 ODW (MRWx), December 13, 2011, IndyMac CEO Michael Perry was denied the protection of the business judgment rule in an action brought against him in his capacity as CEO. Mr. Perry moved to dismiss the FDIC’s claims that he negligently permitted the sale of US$10 billion in “risky” residential loans to the secondary market, arguing that the business judgment rule applied. The court disagreed, basing its decision on (1) the fact that California’s codified business judgment rule refers only to directors and not officers, (2) the existence of California legislative history that indicates omission of officers from the statute was intentional and (3) the absence of any direct California precedent holding that the business judgment rule protects officers as well as directors. One concept underlying this decision is the rationale that directors may rely on information received from corporate officers in making business decisions, while officers are closer to the business data and information on which decisions are based and therefore may be held to a higher standard of care.

This decision is significant to all corporate officers doing business in California (including corporate officers of out-of- state corporations doing business in the state), and may expose such individuals to lawsuits and liability for claims that they failed in their duties.

——————————————————————————–

Charles
Charles Wayne Cox – Oregon State Director for the National Homeowners Cooperative
Email: mailto:Charles@BayLiving.com
Websites: http://www.NHCwest.com; http://www.BayLiving.com; and http://www.ForensicLoanAnalyst.com
1969 Camellia Ave.
Medford, OR 97504-5403
(541) 727-2240 direct
(541) 610-1931 eFax


Bank of America settles MBS case for $315 million‏

  • 12/19/11 

 
1 attachment (7.9 MB)
 
 
Download Pub Employees Miss v. BofA.pdf (7.9 MB)

Pub Emplo…pdf
Download(7.9 MB)
 
 

Bank of America settles MBS case for $315 million

·         Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP

· ·         December 12 2011

On December 5, 2011, lead plaintiff Public Employees’ Retirement System of Mississippi moved in the Southern District of New York for approval of a $315 million settlement with Merrill Lynch.  In the class action lawsuit, plaintiff asserted claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, alleging that Merrill Lynch misrepresented the quality of the subprime mortgages underlying 84 different RMBS offerings.  The proposed settlement was entered into after discovery had begun and following decisions of Merrill Lynch’s motion to dismiss and Plaintiff’s motion for class certification.


 

Charles
Charles Wayne Cox – Oregon State Director for the National Homeowners Cooperative
Email: mailto:Charles@BayLiving.com
Websites: http://www.NHCwest.com; www.BayLiving.com; and www.ForensicLoanAnalyst.com
1969 Camellia Ave.
Medford, OR 97504-5403
(541) 727-2240 direct
(541) 610-1931 eFax