READ ORDER | JPMorgan loses court ruling over 'loan putbacks' Syncora Guarantee Inc v. EMC Mortgage Corp

Categorized | STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD

READ ORDER | JPMorgan loses court ruling over ‘loan putbacks’ Syncora Guarantee Inc v. EMC Mortgage Corp

READ ORDER | JPMorgan loses court ruling over ‘loan putbacks’ Syncora Guarantee Inc v. EMC Mortgage Corp

You can read about this from REUTERS

* Syncora can pursue claims based on entire loan pool

* Insurer need not show breaches of individual loans

NEW YORK, March 28 (Reuters) – JPMorgan Chase & Co (JPM.N) could be forced to repurchase thousands of home equity loans, after a judge ruled in favor of a bond insurer that argued it could build its case based on a sampling of loans.

The ruling against EMC Mortgage Corp, once a unit of Bear Stearns Cos, comes amid many lawsuits seeking to force banks to buy back tens of billions of dollars of mortgage and other home loans that went sour. JPMorgan bought Bear Stearns in 2008.

You may read the court Order below:

SYNCORA GUARANTEE INC., f/k/a XL Capital Assurance Inc.,
v.
EMC MORTGAGE CORP.,

No. 09 Civ. 3106 (PAC).

USDC, S.D. New York.

March 25, 2011.

OPINION & ORDER


HONORABLE PAUL A. CROTTY, United States District Judge.

This breach of contract lawsuit arises out of a securitization transaction (“Transaction”), involving 9,871 Home Equity Line of Credit (“HELOC”) residential mortgage loans, which were purchased and used as collateral for the issuance of $666 million in publicly offered securities (“Notes”). (Mem. in Supp. Mot. to Am. 3). Defendant EMC Mortgage Corp. (“EMC”) aggregated the HELOCs, sold the loan pool to the entity that issued the Notes, and contracted with Plaintiff Syncora Guarantee Inc., formerly known as XL Capital Assurance Inc., (“Syncora”) to provide a financial-guaranty insurance policy protecting the investors in the Note. (Id.) Syncora claims that EMC breached its representations regarding 85% of the loan pool. It now moves for partial summary judgment or, alternatively, a ruling in limine, that it was not required to comply with a repurchase protocol as the exclusive remedy for all such claims. The Court GRANTS the motion for partial summary judgment on the grounds that, in light of the broad rights and remedies for which Syncora contracted, any such remedial limitation would have to be expressly stated.

Continue below…

[ipaper docId=51773005 access_key=key-omatq6c8r86r535pfvu height=600 width=600 /]

© 2010-17 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.



Comments

comments

This post was written by:

- who has written 8640 posts on FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA.

CONTROL FRAUD | ‘If you don’t look; you don’t find, Wherever you look; you will find’ -William Black

Contact the author

Leave a Reply

GARY DUBIN LAW OFFICES FORECLOSURE DEFENSE HAWAII and CALIFORNIA
Advertise your business on StopForeclosureFraud.com

Archives