By the conduct set forth above, respondent violated the following R. Regulating Fla. Bar:
A. Rule 3-4.2 [Violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct as adopted by the rules governing The Florida Bar is a cause for discipline.];
B. Rule 4-3.4(c) [A lawyer shall not knowingly disobey an obligation
under the rules of a tribunal except for an open refusal based on an assertion that no valid obligation exists.]; and
C. Rule 4-8.4(a) [A lawyer shall not violate or attempt to violate the Rules of Professional Conduct, knowingly assist or induce another to do so, or do so through the acts of another.].
ROBERT E. RUBIN, C. MICHAEL
ARMSTRONG, JOHN M. DEUTCH,
ANNE M. MULCAHY, VIKRAM PANDIT,
ALAIN J.P BELDA, TIMOTHY C. COLLINS,
JERRY A GRUNDHOFR, ROBERT L. JOSS,
ANDREW N. LIVERIS, MICHAEL E. O’NEILL,
RICHARD D. PARSONS, LAWRENCE R.
RICCIARDI, JUDITH RODIN, ROBERT
L. RYAN, ANTHONY M. SANTOMERO,
DIANA L. TAYLOR, WILLIAM S. THOMPSON,
JR., AND ERNESTO ZEDILLO
~ Excerpts:
I. This is a shareholder derivative action brought on behalf and for the benefit of Citigroup against certain of its current and former directors. Citigroup is a global . financial services company, and provides consumers, corporations, governments and institutions with a range of financial products and services. The recipient of some $45 billion of federal government bail-out monies, Citigroup has suffered, and will continue to suffer, serious financial and reputational impacts from the inadequate servicing of its troubled residential mortgage loans.
2. On April 13, 2011, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (“OCC”) publicized findings from its fourth quarter 2010 investigation into Citigroup’s mortgage servicing and foreclosure processing practices. As a result of that investigation, the OCC concluded that Citigroup (through its wholly-owned subsidiary, Citibank, N.A.): engaged in improper servicing and foreclosure practices; lacked sufficient resources to ensure proper administration of its foreclosure processes; lacked adequate oversight, internal controls, policies, and procedures, compliance risk management, internal audit, third party management; failed to supervise outside counsel and other third parties handling foreclosure-related services; and engaged in unsafe or unsound banking practices. The above findings were made public in the OCC’s formal enforcement agreement with Citibank as set forth in the Consent Order captioned In the Matter of Citibank, NA. Las Vegas, Nevada AA -EC-II-I3 (the “Consent Order”).
<SNIP>
13. Apar from a dismal track record in complying with its obligations under TARP and HAMP, Citigroup also suffered from the effects of a lack of adequate controls over its foreclosure processes. By third and fourth quarters of 20 10, reports had surfàced alleging that companies (including Citigroup) servicing $6.4 trillion in American mortgages may have bypassed legally required steps to foreclose on a home. For example, a New Jersey state cour administrative order specifically implicated Citi Residential Lending, Inc. (“Citi Residential,” a business of Citigroup) in the so-called “robosigning” scandal. Robo-signers, as the court put it, “are mortgage lender/servicer employees who sign hundreds-in some cases thousands-of affidavits submitted in support of foreclosure claims without any personal knowledge of the information contained in the affidavits. ‘Robo-signing’ may also refer to improper notarizing practices or document backdating.” The administrative order cited devastating evidence of the inadequacies of Citigroup’s internal controls over its loan documentation and foreclosure processes:
An individual employed by Nationwide Title Clearing, Inc., with signing authority for Citi Residential Lending, Inc., testified in a deposition that when he signed documents for Citi, he did not review them for substantive correctness. He could not even explain what precisely an assignment of a mortgage accomplishes. He had no prior background in the mortgage industry.
Further, a second person with signing authority for Citi Residential Lending, Inc. testified that she never reviewed any books, records, or documents before signing affidavits and that she instead trusted the company’s internal policies and procedures to ensure the accuracy of the information she signed. She signed several documents each day (in many instances without knowledge of what she was signing) and indicated that they were often notarized outside of her presence.
14. The deficiencies in Citigroup’s controls over its loan documentation and foreclosure processes have led to tens of thousands of adverse outcomes for the Company throughout the United States. On November 23, 20 i 0, a Managing Director of Citi- Mortgage, in a written statement to the House Committee on Financial Services, Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity, admitted that: (a) the Company was reviewing approximately 10,000 affidavits executed in pending foreclosures initiated before February 2010; (b) affidavits executed before fàll 2009 would need to be refilled;
(c) that the Company was reviewing another approximately 4,000 pending foreclosure affidavits that may not have been properly executed; and (d) it was transferring approximately 8,500 foreclosure files from its former Florida law firm that engaged in robo-signing.
Madoff said: “JPMorgan doesn’t have a chance in hell of not coming up with a big settlement.”
“I am not a banker but I know that $100bn going in and out of a bank account is something that should alert you to something.”
“JPMorgan got all the financial statements.”
“There were senior people at the bank who knew what was going on,” he emphasized, without naming anyone. There will be a big interview with Madoff in this weekend’s Financial Times.
1. Citi’s “Due Diligence” And Early Discovery Of The Risks Of Possible Fraud
61. During the course of Citi’s 2005 initial “due diligence,” and as part of negotiating the final terms of the Prime Fund loan transaction, Citi learned, among other things, that Tremont received only paper copy trade confirmations approximately five (5) days conducted the alleged trading – a practice rife with the possibility for fraud due to the ability of the brokerage firm to backdate or manufacture trading activity with no ability on the customer’s part to check that the trades actually took place.
The allegations unveiled Thursday by the trustee amount to accusing the senior management of the bank (without naming anyone) of ignoring the public good to protect profits—and Bernie. Back when the complaint was under seal, Picard’s No. 1 counsel David Sheehan had asserted: “JPMorgan was willfully blind to the fraud, even after learning about numerous red flags surrounding Madoff.” In his statement, Sheehan said: “JPMC was at the very center of that fraud, and thoroughly complicit in it.” At the time, the bank called the trustee “irresponsible” and said the complaint was aimed at “headline-grabbing.”
For its part, JPMorgan Chase said Thursday that the bankruptcy trustee’s complaint is “based on distortions of both the relevant facts and the governing law. Contrary to the trustee’s allegation, JPMorgan did not know about or in any way become a party to the fraud orchestrated by Bernard Madoff.”
The statement continued:
“Madoff’s firm was not an important or significant customer in the context of JPMorgan’s commercial banking business, and the revenues earned from Madoff’s bank account were modest and entirely consistent with conventional market rates and fees.” The statement added that the trustee’s claims that the bank earned big bucks from Madoff “is demonstrably false.”
The bank’s statement made no mention of the supposed First Rule of Banking: “Know Your Customer.”
My simultaneous translation of the JPMorgan statement is this: “We are such a giant global bank that whatever profits we made from Madoff are chump change. A settlement would not affect earnings, even though we have to stipulate that we administered the accounts Bernie used to carry out the largest Ponzi fraud in history, and even though we neither admit nor deny turning a blind eye to his machinations and making hundreds of millions in the process.”
Amended Complaint against all defendants / Complaint against JPMorgan Chase & Co., JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., J.P. Morgan Securities LLC, J.P. Morgan Securities Ltd. [Redacted] (related document(s) 1 ) Filed by Deborah H. Renner on behalf of Irving H. Picard, Trustee for the Liquidation of Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC. (Renner, Deborah) (Entered: 02/03/2011)
Alden Berner, Legal Process Specialist Wells Fargo Home Mortgage. Signed verifications of complaints.
Courtesy of IceLegal.com
Excerpts:
8 Q. Did you do anything to attempt to
9 verify whether or not the original note and mortgage
10 were actually in the custody of the trustee by the
11 time the closing date for the trust occurred?
12 MR. WINSTON: Object to form.
13 THE WITNESS: No.
14 BY MR. FLANAGAN: (resumed)
15 Q. Do you even get involved in that at
16 all?
17 A. No.
18 Q. Have you seen any documents that
19 establish what the relationship is between HSBC Bank
20 and Wells Fargo Home Mortgage?
21 MR. WINSTON: Object to form.
22 THE WITNESS: No.
23 BY MR. FLANAGAN: (resumed)
24 Q. Do you know how it is that Wells Fargo
25 Home Mortgage came to be selected to do the
1 verification for HSBC Bank in this particular case,
2 the case?
3 MR. WINSTON: Object to form.
4 THE WITNESS: No.
5 BY MR. FLANAGAN: (resumed)
6 Q. Do you know if there is some document
7 that designates you to be the person to verify on
8 behalf of HSBC Bank.
9 MR. WINSTON: Object to form.
10 THE WITNESS: Me personally?
11 MR. FLANAGAN: Yes, sir.
12 THE WITNESS: No.
13 BY MR. FLANAGAN: (resumed)
14 Q. How about for Wells Fargo Bank, NA, is
15 there any document that you’re aware of that
16 designates you to have the authority to sign these
17 verifications on behalf of Wells Fargo Bank, NA?
18 MR. WINSTON: Object to form.
19 THE WITNESS: No, but I don’t need to,
20 because I’m an employee of Wells Fargo Home
21 Mortgage, which is owned by Wells Fargo Bank, N A.
22 BY MR. FLANAGAN: (resumed)
23 Q. Are they a subsidiary, as far as you
24 know?
25 A. Yes.
PRESS RELEASE OF IRVING H. PICARD TRUSTEE FOR LIQUIDATION OF MADOFF INVESTMENT SECURITIES SEEKS $9 BILLION IN RECOVERIES, AND ADDITIONAL DAMAGES AT TRIAL, FROM HSBC, RELATED ENTITIES, FEEDER FUNDS IN MADOFF PONZI SCHEME
NEW YORK, NY, December 5, 2010 – Irving H. Picard, the Trustee for the liquidation of Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC (“BLMIS”) today announced the filing of a complaint in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York, alleging 24 counts of financial fraud and misconduct against HSBC Holdings plc, HSBC Bank plc, and affiliated entities (collectively “HSBC”).
The complaint alleges that HSBC enabled Madoff’s Ponzi scheme through the creation, marketing and support of an international network of a dozen feeder funds based in Europe, the Caribbean, and Central America, which are also named in the complaint (collectively, the “Feeder Fund Defendants”). Other Defendants named in the filing include the management companies and service providers of those feeder funds, as well as certain of their directors and managers, namely Sonja Kohn, Genevalor, Mario Benbassat and his sons, Albert and Stephane, as well as Bank Medici and Unicredit, who together with other defendants helped fuel and extend Madoff’s Ponzi scheme across international borders.
Please submit documents that have been signed by any attorney from The Law Offices of David J. Stern located in Florida. I am collecting the signatures.
Kenneth Eric Trent, P.A. of Broward County has amended the Class Action complaint Figueroa v. MERSCORP, Inc. et al filed on July 26, 2010 in the Southern District of Florida.
Included in the amended complaint is MERS shareholders HSBC, JPMorgan Chase & Co., Wells Fargo & Company, AIG, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, WAMU, Countrywide, GMAC, Guaranty Bank, Merrill Lynch, Mortgage Bankers Association (MBA), Norwest, Bank of America, Everhome, American Land Title, First American Title, Corinthian Mtg, MGIC Investor Svc, Nationwide Advantage, Stewart Title, CRE Finance Council f/k/a Commercial Mortgage Securities Association, Suntrust Mortgage, CCO Mortgage Corporation, PMI Mortgage Insurance Company, Wells Fargo and also DJS Processing which is owned by David J. Stern.
I wonder if this was disclosed on DJSP Enterprise’s Prospectus letting investors be aware of this below…
David James Stern, 801 S. University Drive, Ste. 500, Plantation, reprimanded for professional misconduct following an October 24 court order. (Admitted to practice: 1991) Prior to 1999, Stern’s law firm filed potentially misleading affidavits in connection with abstraction work performed for foreclosures handled by the firm. Stern used personnel employed by his law firm to do the abstracting work rather than employees of his title company.(Case no. SC02-1991)
His address is also 900 South Pine Island Road Ste 400, Plantation FL 33324
In an extremely significant ruling, a Florida Circuit Judge today dismissed a residential foreclosure Complaint filed by the Bank of New York as trustee for a securitized mortgage loan trust for failure to comply with the Supreme Court of Florida Order amending the Rules of Civil Procedure to require that all residential mortgage foreclosure Complaints be verified and as the Plaintiff also failed to properly allege the chain of title from the original lender to the foreclosing Plaintiff as required by recent Florida case law. The Supreme Court of Florida rule amendment and the recent case law requiring proof of chain of title in order to be able to foreclose were both previously reported on this website.
The original lender was Taylor Bean & Whitaker, which failed and was taken over by the government for fraudulent lending practices. There was no assignment or other evidence showing how the loan went from TBW to the Bank of New York. The Complaint was filed on February 12, 2010, the day after the effective date of the Supreme Court Order requiring verification of all residential foreclosure Complaints.
The ruling is extremely significant, as it ratifies the effect of the Supreme Court Order requiring that ALL residential mortgage foreclosure complaints filed in Florida after February 11, 2010 be verified and that such Complaints also allege the proper chain of title of the note and mortgage from the original lender to the foreclosing Plaintiff, and that if the Complaint does not do both, the Complaint is subject to dismissal.
The borrower is represented by Jeff Barnes, Esq., who filed the Motion to Dismiss and argued the matter at a hearing this morning.
Another area that should be investigated in the foreclosure mill process is the “process serving” Mills such as ProVest LLC.
I worked at ProVest for 7 months a few years ago, as jobs are scarce. There were some issues there of some of the servers just “drop serving” the summons, (just leaving at the door and saying they gave it directly) or Sewer serves, (saying it was served and they never even left at the door). A few borrowers obtained legal counsel and executed their rights, as they were never properly served, but there are probably more borrowers unaware they have been “had”.
If Improperly served, the court dates cannot be set.
Due to ProVest’s aggressive style, and high volume of work, it is possible many servers, not direct employees, were forced to do the serves this way due to the volume and ProVest’s unrealistic expectations. They wanted a serve within 10 days of it being filed at the court house. As an employee, server or not, if you did not meet their outrageous timeframes it provoked what I call “public floggings” of employees. Not a nice place to work.
ProVest does process serving for many of the foreclosure mills such as Stern and FDLG… And for the record, when I was there, a husband worked for FDLG, and the wife worked for ProVest…
So, if you want more dirt for your compaign, here it is.. Check to see if the borrowers were properly served.
Recent Comments