Morgan Stanley | FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA - Part 2

Tag Archive | "Morgan Stanley"

Banks Illegally Foreclosed On Dozens Of Military Borrowers, Federal Investigators Say

Banks Illegally Foreclosed On Dozens Of Military Borrowers, Federal Investigators Say


HUFFPO

WASHINGTON — Two of the nation’s largest mortgage firms illegally foreclosed on the homes of “almost 50” active-duty military service members, according to a Thursday report by the Government Accountability Office.

The report does not identify the two mortgage companies. GAO investigators attributed the finding to federal bank regulators, who recently completed a three-month probe into allegations of improper foreclosures carried out by the nation’s 14 largest home loan servicers.

© 2010-19 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (0)

John Carney | Red Flags Popping Up All Over Bank of America

John Carney | Red Flags Popping Up All Over Bank of America


CNBC

Bank of America [BAC  12.82  -0.31  (-2.36%)   ] shares gave up more than 2 percent Friday on disappointing earnings. But a bad quarter may be the least of the bank’s worries.

The largest bank by deposits just lost its chief financial officer and just hired one of the most connected regulatory lawyers in the U.S.

Both events are alarming.

© 2010-19 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (0)

TAIBBI | The REAL Housewives of WALL STREET

TAIBBI | The REAL Housewives of WALL STREET


Why is the Federal Reserve forking over $220 million in bailout money to the wives of two Morgan Stanley bigwigs? 

© 2010-19 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (1)

MATT TAIBBI | Why is the Federal Reserve forking over $220 million in bailout money to the wives of two Morgan Stanley bigwigs?

MATT TAIBBI | Why is the Federal Reserve forking over $220 million in bailout money to the wives of two Morgan Stanley bigwigs?


The Real Housewives of Wall Street

via Rolling Stone

America has two national budgets, one official, one unofficial. The official budget is public record and hotly debated: Money comes in as taxes and goes out as jet fighters, DEA agents, wheat subsidies and Medicare, plus pensions and bennies for that great untamed socialist menace called a unionized public-sector workforce that Republicans are always complaining about. According to popular legend, we’re broke and in so much debt that 40 years from now our granddaughters will still be hooking on weekends to pay the medical bills of this year’s retirees from the IRS, the SEC and the Department of Energy.

© 2010-19 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (0)

NYT | U.S. Inquiry on Military Family Foreclosures

NYT | U.S. Inquiry on Military Family Foreclosures


By DIANA B. HENRIQUES
Published: March 11, 2011

The Justice Department is investigating allegations that a mortgage subsidiary of Morgan Stanley foreclosed on almost two dozen military families from 2006 to 2008 in violation of a longstanding law aimed at preventing such action.

A department spokeswoman confirmed on Friday that the Morgan Stanley unit, Saxon Mortgage Services, is one of several mortgage and lending companies being investigated by its civil rights division. The inquiry is focused on possible violations of a federal law that bars lenders from foreclosing on active-duty service members without a court hearing.

Continue reading… New York Times

© 2010-19 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (0)

Newsweek | WALL STREET COVERS ITS FANNIE MAE

Newsweek | WALL STREET COVERS ITS FANNIE MAE


October 18, 2004

When Wall Street’s biggest firms settled with regulators in April 2003 over charges of fraudulent stock research, the industry promised a new era of independence. Marc Lackritz, president of the Securities Industry Association, promised Wall Street would ensure that “the quality and integrity of financial analysis is beyond reproach.”

The recent highly critical report by federal regulators on Fannie Mae’s accounting practices, though, may rekindle questions about Wall Street’s ability to issue unbiased research. Fannie is one of Wall Street’s best clients, issuing close to $2 trillion in debt to provide cheap loans for home buyers, and those figures don’t include other huge fees Wall Street earns in helping Fannie. Fannie’s top five underwriters have earned close to $700 million in fees since 1999, according to Thomson Financial. Those same firms have provided continuing upbeat assessments despite growing signs Fannie was facing financial difficulties. Merrill Lynch, Fannie’s largest underwriter, maintained its “buy” rating last week. A Merrill spokesman said the firm’s research is objective, adding: “Our buy rating is in line with the consensus of research on this company.” Other leading underwriters–Goldman Sachs, Lehman Brothers, Morgan Stanley, and JPMorgan–declined to comment.

© 2010-19 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (1)

NYTIMES | A Coming Nightmare of Homeownership?

NYTIMES | A Coming Nightmare of Homeownership?


By GRETCHEN MORGENSON
Published: October 3, 2004

IT is literally a trillion-dollar question: What will a humbled, reined-in Fannie Mae, the nation’s biggest mortgage provider, mean to the economy, the financial markets, interest rates and housing in America?

Since regulators disclosed evidence of widespread accounting improprieties at the company, which carries almost $1 trillion in mortgages on its books, the response from the financial markets has been surprisingly muted. To be sure, Fannie Mae’s stock has lost 14 percent of its value, but its debt securities have held fairly steady and the pools of mortgages it sells to investors have continued to attract buyers.

Even if Fannie Mae’s troubles are eventually worked out, there may be other, potentially nasty reverberations from the company’s weakened position. These include a possible hit to the dollar if foreign investors, who have bought so much of the company’s debt, become alarmed by the accounting problems and sell.

James A. Bianco of Bianco Research in Chicago, said he thinks foreigners might well cut back on their Fannie Mae debt holdings, as they seem to have done when Freddie Mac, another government-sponsored enterprise in the mortgage business, had its own accounting problems last year. ”If Freddie spooked foreigners, the Fannie scandal will exacerbate the trend,” he said.

In addition, Fannie Mae’s woes could work against the Federal Reserve Board as it moves to keep inflation in check by raising interest rates. If the company, under heightened scrutiny, decides that it must manage its interest rate risk more aggressively, it would have to buy huge amounts of Treasury securities. Doing so would push rates down further, creating a vicious cycle in which more homeowners refinance their mortgages, leaving Fannie Mae with a larger mismatch between the longer-term debt they have issued to buy the mortgages and the shorter-lived mortgages themselves.



© 2010-19 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (1)

NYTimes | Banks Want Pieces of Fannie-Freddie Pie

NYTimes | Banks Want Pieces of Fannie-Freddie Pie


By LOUISE STORY
Published: January 20, 2011

As the Obama administration prepares a report on the future of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, some of the nation’s largest banks are offering a few suggestions.

Wells Fargo and some other large banks would like private companies, perhaps even themselves, to become the new housing finance giants helping to bundle individual mortgages into securities — that would be stamped with a government guarantee.

The banks have presented their ideas publicly through trade groups. Housing industry consultants and people familiar with recent meetings at the Treasury Department say these banks view the government’s overhaul of the mortgage market as a potential profit opportunity. Treasury officials have met with executives from several institutions, including Wells Fargo, Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs and Credit Suisse, according to a public listing of the meetings.

© 2010-19 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (3)

Which of These Banks Was 2010’s Most Shameless Corporate Outlaw?

Which of These Banks Was 2010’s Most Shameless Corporate Outlaw?


Richard (RJ) Eskow

Consultant, Writer, Senior Fellow with The Campaign for America’s Future
Posted: December 30, 2010 04:58 PM

Bankers. The red carpet’s still being rolled out for them in Washington, but if there’s a stain on it they’ll pout for days. Jason Linkins documents the latest set of cheap white whines from very wealthy white men. (Discrimination lawsuits are a routine part of their legal troubles, too.) This time they’re upset because nobody from the six largest banks in America was invited to the president’s CEO Roundtable.

They’re offended because they didn’t meet with the president? From the looks of things they’re lucky not to be meeting with the warden. Their collective rap sheet includes fraud, sex discrimination, collusion to bribe public officials… even laundering drug money for Mexican drug cartels. One of them is accused of ripping off some nuns! None of this criminal behavior has stopped them from sulking over a presidential slight. Let’s review the record for these corporate malefactors, and then decide:

Which of these six banks was “America’s Most Shameless Corporate Outlaw” in 2010? (I mean, really: Nuns?)


© 2010-19 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (1)

[VIDEO] Nasty Mortgage Fraud Self Help remedy: Courtroom video in New Hampshire.

[VIDEO] Nasty Mortgage Fraud Self Help remedy: Courtroom video in New Hampshire.


KingCast65 | December 07, 2010 |

http://christopher-king.blogspot.com/…
This is a crucial video with actual courtroom footage showing how mortgages and notes are lost as U.S. Citizens face foreclosure, as noted by journalists like Matt Taibbi. Fight back with KingCast courtroom video. I’ve been shooting courtroom video since I tried Civil Rights cases in the mid 1990’s.

KingCast — Reel News for Real People.

Ingress v. Wells Fargo
Hillsborough South
226-2010-CV571

© 2010-19 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (1)

FULL DEPOSITION TRANSCRIPT OF WELLS FARGO TAMARA SAVERY

FULL DEPOSITION TRANSCRIPT OF WELLS FARGO TAMARA SAVERY


[…]

And my duties at
21 that point was a consultant for certain investors that
22 we — that we acquired their pools of loans.
23 And I was that go-to person for that investor,
24 and it was Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs at the time.
25 And we acquired — we didn’t acquire, but I acquired

1 Ohio [phonetic] Savings as one of my relationships that
2 I had; and they — I was the go-to person for any of
3 their reporting, any questions they may have had on one
4 of their loans in their pools that we were servicing.
5 So I was that go-to person in client relations, and that
6 position —

7 Q. Can you define what being a go-to person
8 entailed?

9 A. Basically if there — again, if there was
10 questions on a particular loan in the pool, if there was
11 an acquisition or they were selling a certain pool of
12 loans, you know, they’d send me up the numbers reports.

13 Q. Okay. For example, you say questions regarding a
14 particular loan in a certain pool. What would be an
15 example of a type of question that you might get?
16 A. I may get a phone call from the investor, I’ve
17 got this particular loan that perhaps is in foreclosure,
18 REO, I need some details of what’s going on, where that
19 loan is at in the process of foreclosure, or perhaps it
20 was an REO. And then my job was to go to those
21 different areas, those different departments and get the
22 details for the client.

<SNIP>

4 Q. You have, okay. So it’s your testimony that
5 you’ve never seen this one, though?
6 A. Correct.
7 Q. Okay. But you did review all of the documents
8 that were produced in connection with this case?
9 A. This is the history that I reviewed.
10 Q. Okay. Not the question. The question was did
11 you review all of the documents that Wells Fargo
12 produced in connection with this case?
13 A. I did.
14 Q. Okay. Did you review all the documents —
15 MR. ALFIERI: Objection, form.
16 Q. (By Mr. Bartholow) Did you review all of the
17 documents that I produced on behalf of the Guevaras in
18 connection with this case?
19 A. I have.
20 Q. Okay. And so it’s your testimony that you have
21 never seen that document before?
22 A. I do not recall looking at this particular
23 account activity statement.
24 Q. Okay. Do you know how Wells Fargo determines
25 when and whether to charge a late fee?

1 A. I do.
2 Q. Okay. How do they do it?
3 A. Okay. After the — after the 15-day grace period
4 — and this is typical. Some notes can vary, but it’s
5 typical that the payment is due on the 1st of the month;
6 and after 15 days a late fee is assessed on the 16th of
7 the month. And typically that’s 5 percent of what their
8 payment is.
9 Q. Is it assessed every time?
10 A. Every — each time the payment is late, yes, a
11 late fee is assessed if it’s not received by the due
12 date or the grace period that’s been granted.
13 Q. Are there any exceptions that would be made?
14 A. Not that I’m aware of.
15 Q. Okay. Are you aware of any changes to Wells
16 Fargo’s accounting practices following April of 2007?
17 MR. ALFIERI: Objection, form.
18 A. I am not.
19 Q. (By Mr. Bartholow) Okay. And specifically with
20 regard to how Wells Fargo books receipts and pays late
21 fees from those receipts, have you ever heard of any
22 changes being made?
23 A. I have not.
24 Q. Okay. Are you familiar with Freddie Mac
25 Servicing Guidelines?

1 A. If it pertains to what I do on a daily basis,
2 yes.
3 Q. Okay. And what does that include?
4 A. General servicing of the loan. I do — I have
5 some knowledge of how the custodial files are held.
6 Q. How are the custodial files held?
7 A. It’s designated by Freddie Mac who the custodian
8 would be.

9 Q. I’m sorry, what is designated?
10 A. Who the custodial facility would be, who the
11 custodian would be.

12 Q. Where would that designation be, or how does
13 that designation — I mean, does it appear on a computer
14 screen? Is it in a file?
15 A. It — in general I’m just — no, it would not
16 be — it would not be — are you asking in relation to
17 this loan or just in general?
18 Q. I want to know what your knowledge is —
19 A. Okay.
20 Q. — regarding the custodial procedures pertaining
21 to Freddie Mac and their guidelines.
22 MR. ALFIERI: Okay. Ask — wait for the
23 question.
24 THE WITNESS: Thank you.
25 MR. ALFIERI: Mr. Bartholow will ask you a

1 question. Answer the question.
2 A. Okay. Could you re-ask the question, please?
3 Thank you.
4 Q. (By Mr. Bartholow) Okay. You stated a moment
5 ago that you were familiar with the custodian — custody
6 guidelines for Freddie Mac, correct?
7 A. Yes, correct.
8 Q. Okay. What are the custody guidelines for
9 Freddie Mac? What is your knowledge of them anyway?
10 MR. ALFIERI: Ask a specific question to my
11 witness, please.
12 MR. BARTHOLOW: That is as specific as I can
13 get.
14 Q. (By Mr. Bartholow) Please answer the question if
15 you can.
16 MR. ALFIERI: Objection, form.
17 Q. (By Mr. Bartholow) You can answer if you know,
18 if you’re able. If you’re unable, that’s fine. We
19 can — I can pull out some Freddie guidelines and we can
20 talk about them specifically.
21 A. Okay. Let’s move forward.
22 (Exhibit No. 10 was marked.)
23 Q. (By Mr. Bartholow) The document I am handing you
24 is a custodian certification schedule summary form
25 1034S.
Have you seen this form before?

Just read this it’s very good…

.

[ipaper docId=39916077 access_key=key-zforz3r3fux3xpgcx9f height=600 width=600 /]

© 2010-19 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (1)

U.S. Home Prices Face 3-Year Drop as Inventory Surge Looms

U.S. Home Prices Face 3-Year Drop as Inventory Surge Looms


I have the perfect solution…Why not give the current homeowner a “short sale” price modification and call it a happy ending to all? Buyers are too wise nowadays.

Besides most future homeowners will have a defective title or will have an F in the past!

Here’s an example why it makes sense to work with the current owner:

LPS using their MN address purchased my home at auction for 75% discount put it on the market for about 80% and made a few grand from the highest contract that was accepted. It benefited no one!

Now if they use my solution not only will the investors save on the fees they payout to the foreclosure mills but also on the late fees the homeowner accrues…see isn’t this economic sense for everyone?

By John Gittelsohn and Kathleen M. Howley – Sep 15, 2010 12:14 PM ET

The slide in U.S. home prices may have another three years to go as sellers add as many as 12 million more properties to the market.

Shadow inventory — the supply of homes in default or foreclosure that may be offered for sale — is preventing prices from bottoming after a 28 percent plunge from 2006, according to analysts from Moody’s Analytics Inc., Fannie Mae, Morgan Stanley and Barclays Plc. Those properties are in addition to houses that are vacant or that may soon be put on the market by owners.

“Whether it’s the sidelined, shadow or current inventory, the issue is there’s more supply than demand,” said Oliver Chang, a U.S. housing strategist with Morgan Stanley in San Francisco. “Once you reach a bottom, it will take three or four years for prices to begin to rise 1 or 2 percent a year.”

Rising supply threatens to undermine government efforts to boost the housing market as homebuyers wait for better deals. Further price declines are necessary for a sustainable rebound as a stimulus-driven recovery falters, said Joshua Shapiro, chief U.S. economist of Maria Fiorini Ramirez Inc., a New York economic forecasting firm.

Sales of new and existing homes fell to the lowest levels on record in July as a federal tax credit for buyers expired and U.S. unemployment remained near a 26-year high. The median price of a previously owned home in the month was $182,600, about the level it was in 2003, the National Association of Realtors said.

Fannie Mae Forecast

Fannie Mae, the largest U.S. mortgage finance company, today lowered its forecast for home sales this year, projecting a 7 percent decline from 2009. A drop in demand after the April 30 tax credit expiration “suggests weakening home prices” in the third quarter, according to the report.

There were 4 million homes listed with brokers for sale as of July. It would take a record 12.5 months for those properties to be sold at that month’s sales pace, according to the Chicago- based Realtors group.

“The best thing that could happen is for prices to get to a level that clears the market,” said Shapiro, who predicts prices may fall another 10 percent to 15 percent. “Right now, buyers know it hasn’t hit bottom, so they’re sitting on the sidelines.”

About 2 million houses will be seized by lenders by the end of next year, according to Mark Zandi, chief economist of Moody’s Analytics in West Chester, Pennsylvania. He estimates prices will drop 5 percent by 2013.

‘Lost Decade’

After reaching bottom, prices will gain at the historic annual pace of 3 percent, requiring more than 10 years to return to their peak, he said.

“A long if not lost decade,” Zandi said.

Continue reading….BLOOMBERG

.

.

© 2010-19 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.



Posted in bloomberg, chain in title, conspiracy, CONTROL FRAUD, fannie mae, foreclosure, foreclosure fraud, foreclosure mills, foreclosures, mbs, mortgage, repossession, rmbs, shadow foreclosuresComments (1)

PALM BEACH COUNTY FORECLOSURES: THE PURSUIT OF NON-PERFORMING MORTGAGES IN 2009 BY BANK OF AMERICA & DEUTSCHE BANK

PALM BEACH COUNTY FORECLOSURES: THE PURSUIT OF NON-PERFORMING MORTGAGES IN 2009 BY BANK OF AMERICA & DEUTSCHE BANK


By Lynn E. Szymoniak, Esq., Ed., Fraud Digest, August 23, 2010

In 2009, Bank of America filed 3,200 foreclosure actions in Palm Beach County; Deutsche Bank National Trust Company filed 2,375 foreclosure actions. Most of these foreclosure actions were filed on behalf of mortgage-backed trusts. The county records show that at the same time these bank/trustees were filing foreclosure actions, they were also acquiring thousands of other “non-performing” mortgages for trusts.

These statistics are similar in counties across the country. Judges rarely question these foreclosures and acquisitions, but in Brooklyn, a few judges have been curious about these patterns and have asked the trustee/banks to explain why they were acquiring nonperforming loans for the trusts and whether such acquisition was a violation of the trustee’s fiduciary duty to the trust.

“The Court wonders why HSBC would purchase a  on-performing loan, four months in arrears?”

– Judge Arthur M. Schack of Kings County, New York, in HSBC Bank v. Valentin, 2008, NY Slip Op 52167(U), 21 Misc. 3d 1124 [A]
“Further, the Court requires an explanation from an officer of plaintiff DEUTSCHE BANK as to why, in the middle of our national sub-prime mortgage financial crisis, DEUTSCHE BANK would purchase a nonperforming loan from INDYMAC…”

– Judge Arthur M. Schack of Kings County, New York, in Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. v. Harris, Kings, New York, Index No. 39192/2007 (05 FEB 2008)

This pattern of acquiring non-performing mortgages, then immediately pursuing foreclosures, was very evident in 2009 in Palm Beach County, a county particularly hard-hit by the mortgage crisis.

Bank of America (“BOA”) and Deutsche Bank National Trust Company (“DBNTC”) acquired thousands of mortgages in 2009. Most often, BOA and DBNTC acquired these “foreclosure imminent mortgages” while acting as Trustees for residential mortgage-backed securitized “RMBS” trusts. In almost every case, these acquisitions were made for trusts that closed several years prior to the 2009 acquisitions.

• How often are RMBS trusts acquiring mortgages where the foreclosure is imminent?

• What trusts are acquiring these “foreclosure imminent” mortgages?

• Have the Trustees disclosed to the investors that the trusts have embarked on this path that will cause the trusts to incur significant costs and attorney’s fees to pursue these foreclosures?

• Are the trusts following local court rules making to resolve these cases through mediation and possibly modification?

• Have the Trustees disclosed to investors that, even where the foreclosure is “successful,” the trusts in many cases have acquired properties worth far less than the mortgage amount, with the obligation to pay taxes, purchase insurance and maintain the properties?

• Have the Trustees disclosed that the mortgages being acquired have chain-of-title problems that will make resales difficult and costly?

• Have the Trustees disclosed to the Securities & Exchange Commission that they have embarked on this new, risky, costly activity of acquiring “foreclosure imminent” mortgages, often in violation of the terms of the trust’s obligations as set forth in the Pooling & Servicing Agreement of the trust; specifically, have the Trustees disclosed that they are acquiring many mortgages long after the closing date of the trust?

• Have the Trustees disclosed to the Internal Revenue Service that the trusts have embarked on this new activity of acquiring “foreclosure imminent” mortgages, in violation of the terms of the trust’s Pooling & Servicing Agreement; specifically, have the Trustees disclosed that they are acquiring many mortgages long after the closing date of the trust; and specifically, have the trusts disclosed that these transactions do not qualify as tax-exempt REMIC transactions?

• Have the Trustees disclosed to the investors the tax consequences of these acquisitions?

An examination of mortgage assignments and foreclosures in Palm Beach County, Florida, by Trustees of Goldman Sachs Alternative Mortgage Product Trusts (“GSAMP”), Morgan Stanley ABS Capital I, Inc. (“MSABS”) trusts and Soundview Home Loan Trusts answers some of these questions.

MORTGAGE ASSIGNMENTS

In total, LaSalle Bank acquired 664 mortgages in Palm Beach County in 2009, and Bank of America acquired 736 mortgages. Because Bank of America is the successor in interest to LaSalle Bank, the total acquisitions in Palm Beach County in 2009 for Bank of America was 1,400. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company acquired 3,039 mortgages.

An examination of acquisitions for particular trusts shows that the majority of these acquisitions were made as Trustees for mortgagebacked trusts and the majority of mortgages acquired were “foreclosure imminent” mortgages. In hundreds of cases, BOA and DBNTC filed foreclosure actions within days of acquiring the mortgages.

According to recorded documents, GSAMP (Goldman Sachs Alternative Mortgage Products) Trusts acquired 100 mortgages in Palm Beach County in 2009, Soundview Home Loan Trusts acquired 101 mortgages and Morgan Stanley ABS Capital 1 Trusts acquired 117 mortgages.

LIS PENDENS

The filing of a Lis Pendens is the first step in the foreclosure process in Florida (a judicial foreclosure state). The filing of a Lis Pendens alerts all interested persons that a court has acquired jurisdiction over the property described in the Lis Pendens.

In 2009, the Trustees of GSAMP Trusts filed 119 Lis Pendens; the trustees of Soundview Trusts filed 91 Lis Pendens; and the trustees of Morgan Stanley ABS Capital 1 Trusts filed 136 Lis Pendens.

Almost half of the GSAMP foreclosures were filed by Bank of America as successor to LaSalle Bank, or by LaSalle Bank, as Trustee for a GSAMP Trust; most of the other GSAMP foreclosures were filed by Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as Trustee.

Assignments of Mortgages were recorded less than half of these cases. No document filed in the official records of Palm Beach County established the right of the Trustees to file these foreclosure actions.

The failure to record the mortgage makes proof of chain-of-title more difficult to establish, and is likely to impair the resale of the foreclosed property. Local governments are also deprived of filing fees at a time when every source of revenue to local government is important.

In the cases with recorded Mortgage Assignments, over 90% of the Assignments were dated AFTER the foreclosure action was filed. In these cases, from the records, BANK OF AMERICA and DEUTSCHE BANK filed for foreclosure several days, weeks, or months BEFORE they even acquired the mortgages for the Trusts.

The majority of the Assignments to GSAMP Trusts were signed by an employee of Litton Loan Servicing, a mortgage servicing company bought by Goldman Sachs in 2007. Employees of the foreclosing law firms also signed many of the Assignments. The law firm employees did not disclose that they were law firm employees. Instead, they used titles as officers of Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (“MERS”). The Litton Loan employees also used MERS titles so it is not readily apparent that a Goldman subsidiary – not the original lender – was assigning these mortgages to a Goldman trust.

The vast majority of the Soundview foreclosures were filed by Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as Trustee. Again, in the cases with recorded Mortgage Assignments, the records show that in the majority of cases, DEUTSCHE BANK filed for foreclosure several days, weeks, or months BEFORE they even acquired the mortgages for the Trusts.

The majority of the Assignments to Soundview Trusts were signed by an employee of Lender Processing Services (“LPS”), a publiclytraded company that specializes in “facilitating” foreclosures for banks.

Employees of the foreclosing law firms also signed many of the Soundview Assignments. The law firm employees did not disclose that they were law firm employees. Instead, they used titles as officers of MERS. The LPS employees also used MERS titles so it is not readily apparent that a company working for the Trustees – not the original lender – was assigning these mortgages to the Soundview trusts.

The vast majority of the Morgan Stanley ABS Capital 1, Inc. foreclosures were filed by Deutsche Bank National Trust
Company, as Trustee. Again, in the cases with recorded Mortgage Assignments, the records show that in the majority
of cases, DEUTSCHE BANK filed for foreclosure several days, weeks, or months BEFORE they even acquired the mortgages for the Trusts.

The majority of the Assignments to Morgan Stanley ABS Capital 1, Inc. Trusts were also signed by an employee of LPS. Employees of the foreclosing law firms also signed many of the Morgan Stanley ABS Capital Assignments. Again, the law firm employees did not disclose that they were law firm employees. Instead, they used titles as officers of MERS. The LPS employees also used MERS titles so it is not readily apparent that a company working for the Trustees – not the original lender – was assigning these mortgages to the Morgan Stanley ABS Capital 1 Trusts.

WHY PURSUE NON-PERFORMING LOANS?

Fees from the government-funded loan modification program funds (“HAMP Funds”) may be an incentive for RMBS Trusts and their mortgage servicing companies to acquire non-performing loans.

Another incentive may be the opportunity to sell distressed loans to securities companies that are busily putting together new funds made up primarily of non-performing mortgages. Some authorities believe trusts may be acquiring non-performing loans so that the trust may reach the level of defaults necessary to make a claim on the financial guaranty insurance policies of the trust.

THE ACQUISITIONS THAT NEVER HAPPENED

Another explanation is that in the vast majority of cases, these mortgage assignments NEVER HAPPENED as represented in the documents. The trusts did not acquire the mortgages in 2009. Banks, trusts and/or their mortgage servicing companies and law firms may have created and filed hundreds of thousands of mortgage assignments so that they could use these very documents to “prove” that they had the legal right to foreclose – and conceal this simple truth: many trusts failed to ever acquire the mortgages they promised investors and regulators they had acquired.

© 2010-19 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.



Posted in CONTROL FRAUD, corruption, deutsche bank, foreclosure, foreclosure fraud, foreclosure mills, foreclosures, fraud digest, Lender Processing Services Inc., LPS, Lynn Szymoniak ESQ, MERS, MERSCORP, MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS INC., notary fraud, trusteeComments (0)

Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment on the Entirety of Plaintiff’s Complaint

Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment on the Entirety of Plaintiff’s Complaint


Via: Kenneth Eric Trent, Attorney at Law Fort Lauderdale, FL

This is the follow up to the latest Depositions posted on SFF taken from The Law Offices of David J. Sterns’ employees Cheryl Samons and Shannon Smith.

[ipaper docId=34550572 access_key=key-2cbgnrr6653palfl8a4w height=600 width=600 /]

RELATED STORIES:

Full Deposition of David J. Stern’s Notary | Para Legal Shannon Smith

STERN’S CHERYL SAMONS| SHANNON SMITH Assignment Of Mortgage| NOTARY FRAUD!

Take Two: *New* Full Deposition of Law Office of David J. Stern’s Cheryl Samons

© 2010-19 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.



Posted in aurora loan servicing, citimortgage, conflict of interest, CONTROL FRAUD, corruption, dismissed, djsp enterprises, foreclosure, foreclosure fraud, foreclosure mills, foreclosures, forgery, Law Offices Of David J. Stern P.A., MERS, MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS INC., Notary, notary fraud, robo signers, settlement, STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (1)

CLASS ACTION Amended complaint against Countrywide et al Involving $350 Billion of Mortgage-Backed Securities

CLASS ACTION Amended complaint against Countrywide et al Involving $350 Billion of Mortgage-Backed Securities


Other defendants in the case, aside from Countrywide, several of its former top executives, and Bank of America, include 16 underwriters of more than $350 billion in Countrywide securities, among them J.P. Morgan, Deutsche Bank, Bear Stearns, UBS, Morgan Stanley, Edward Jones, Citigroup, Goldman Sachs and Credit Suisse.

July 15, 2010, 8:00 a.m.

False and Misleading Offering Documents Detailed in Class Action Lawsuit Against Countrywide Financial

Cohen Milstein Files Amended Consolidated Complaint in Case Involving $350 Billion of Mortgage-Backed Securities

WASHINGTON, July 15, 2010 /PRNewswire via COMTEX/ — Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC filed an Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint this week in its landmark litigation against Countrywide Financial Corporation and other underwriter defendants who were prominently involved in the failure of mortgage-backed securities over the last several years.

Countrywide, since acquired by Bank of America, was one of the largest and most controversial institutions involved in mortgage-backed securities. Other defendants in the case, aside from Countrywide, several of its former top executives, and Bank of America, include 16 underwriters of more than $350 billion in Countrywide securities, among them J.P. Morgan, Deutsche Bank, Bear Stearns, UBS, Morgan Stanley, Edward Jones, Citigroup, Goldman Sachs and Credit Suisse.

Cohen Milstein is Lead Counsel for the Class and Counsel for the Lead Plaintiff, the Iowa Public Employees’ Retirement System, as well as the Oregon Public Employees’ Retirement System and Orange County Employees’ Retirement System. The General Board of Pension and Health Benefits of the United Methodist Church is also named as a plaintiff in the litigation.

“Amidst all this high finance, it’s too easy to lose sight of the fact that pension funds invested heavily in these mortgage-backed securities and so retirees are the real victims here,” commented Steve Toll, Managing Partner at Cohen Milstein and co-chair of its Securities Fraud/Investor Protection practice group.

In the amended complaint, the Plaintiffs further buttress their allegation that the defendants published false and misleading offering documents, including registration statements, prospectuses, and prospectus supplements. Specifically, these documents misrepresented or failed to disclose that underwriting guidelines for the mortgages backing the securities had been systematically disregarded.

According to the lawsuit, from 2005 through 2007 Countrywide was the nation’s largest residential mortgage lender, originating in excess of $850 billion in home loans throughout the United States in 2005 and 2006 alone. Countrywide’s ability to originate residential mortgages on such a massive scale was facilitated, in large part, by its ability to rapidly package or securitize those loans and then, through the activities of the underwriter defendants, sell them to investors as purportedly investment grade mortgage-backed securities.

In order to generate a steady flow of mortgage loans to sustain this mass production of mortgage-backed securities, Countrywide routinely issued loans to borrowers who otherwise would never have qualified for them – and indeed, did not qualify for the loans they received — through, for example, “low doc” and “no doc” loan programs, often with adjustable interest rates that had been designed for borrowers with higher incomes and better credit.

Upon pooling these mortgages and issuing them as MBS certificates, over 92% received the very highest, investment-grade ratings from rating agencies; ultimately, however, 87% were downgraded to junk. Tellingly, one year after the date of the certificate offerings, delinquency and default rates on the underlying mortgages had increased 2,525% from issuance. In explaining such an unprecedented collapse in ratings on these certificates in 2008 and 2009, the rating agencies noted that they were forced to change their models because of previously undisclosed and systematic “aggressive underwriting” practices used to originate the mortgage loan collateral. Along with the exponential increases in delinquency and default rates of the underlying mortgages and the collapse of the certificates’ ratings, the value of the certificates plummeted.

Plaintiffs’ complaint alleges that the Defendants’ actions violated Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, legislation, still on the books, originally enacted in response to similar abuses that led to the Great Depression.

The Countrywide case is pending before Judge Mariana R. Pfaelzer in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.

Cohen Milstein has been named lead or co-lead counsel by courts in eight of the most significant mortgage-backed securities cases currently being litigated, including Lehman Brothers, Bear Stearns and Washington Mutual as well as Countrywide.

Docket No. 2:10-CV-00302

SOURCE Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC

Copyright (C) 2010 PR Newswire. All rights reserved

© 2010-19 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.



Posted in bank of america, CitiGroup, class action, lawsuit, mbs, STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (1)

DAVID J. STERN’S CHERYL SAMONS| SHANNON SMITH Assignment Of Mortgage| NOTARY FRAUD!

DAVID J. STERN’S CHERYL SAMONS| SHANNON SMITH Assignment Of Mortgage| NOTARY FRAUD!


Hat Tip to Attorney Kenneth Eric Trent in Fort Lauderdale for sending this my way.

Below we have two Assignment of Mortgages created by David J. Stern Esq.

Take a look at the notary’s signature and compare it to Ms. Cheryl Samons…also make sure to see the printed names of Shannon Smith.

Here we have another version of Shannon Smith’s signature. Not the same as above.

RELATED STORIES:

Full Deposition of David J. Stern’s Notary | Para Legal Shannon Smith

Take Two: *New* Full Deposition of Law Office of David J. Stern’s Cheryl Samons

© 2010-19 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.



Posted in citimortgage, CONTROL FRAUD, corruption, deutsche bank, djsp enterprises, foreclosure, foreclosure fraud, foreclosures, Law Offices Of David J. Stern P.A., MERS, morgan stanley, mortgage, MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS INC., Notary, notary fraud, robo signers, STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD, trade secrets, wells fargoComments (6)

$8k to deliver pizzas? I’ll buy that | By Gretchen Morgenson

$8k to deliver pizzas? I’ll buy that | By Gretchen Morgenson


If trust in capital markets is to return, investors must be able to believe due diligence has been conducted

by GRETCHEN MORGENSON 05:55 AM Jul 14, 2010

Investors who lost billions on boatloads of faulty mortgage securities have had a hard time holding Wall Street accountable for selling the things in the first place.

For the most part, banks have said they cannot be called out in court on any of this because they had no idea that so many of these loans went to people who lacked the resources to make even their first mortgage payment.

Wall Street firms were intimately involved in the financing, bundling and sales of these loans, so their defence rings hollow. They provided hundreds of millions of dollars in credit to dubious underwriters and some even had their own people on site at the loan factories. Many Wall Street firms owned mortgage lenders outright.

Because many of the worst lenders are now out of business, investors in search of recoveries have turned to the banks that packaged the loans into securities. But successfully arguing that Wall Street aided lenders in a fraud is tough under United States federal securities laws. This is largely a result of Supreme Court decisions barring investors from bringing federal securities fraud cases that accuse underwriters and other third parties as enablers.

Where there’s a will, however, there’s a way. And state courts are proving to be a more fruitful place for mortgage investors seeking redress, legal experts say.

Late last month, for example, Massachusetts Attorney-General Martha Coakley extracted US$102 million ($140 million) from Morgan Stanley in a case involving Morgan’s extensive financing of loans made by New Century, a notorious and now-defunct lender that was based in California.

Morgan packaged the loans into securities and sold them to clients, even after its due diligence uncovered problems with the underlying mortgages that New Century fed to the firm, Ms Coakley said. In settling the matter, Morgan neither admitted nor denied the allegations. The investigation is continuing.

On Friday, an investment management firm that lost US$1.2 billion in mortgage securities it bought for clients filed suit in Massachusetts state court against 15 banks, accusing them of abetting a fraud.

The firm, Cambridge Place Investment Management of Concord, Massachusetts, purchased US$2 billion in mortgage securities from the banks and it says the banks misrepresented the risks in the underlying loans – both in prospectuses and sales pitches (see box).

The complaint says the banks misled Cambridge Place by maintaining that the mortgages in the securities it bought had met strict underwriting requirements related to the borrowers’ ability to repay the loans. Cambridge also contends it relied on the banks’ claims of having conducted due diligence to verify the quality of the loans bundled into the securities.

Continue Reading…TODAYonline

© 2010-19 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.



Posted in Cambridge Place Investment Management, case, CONTROL FRAUD, investigation, lawsuit, STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (0)

FULL COMPLAINT | Cambridge Place Investment Management Inc. v. Morgan Stanley, 10-2741, Suffolk Superior Court (Boston)

FULL COMPLAINT | Cambridge Place Investment Management Inc. v. Morgan Stanley, 10-2741, Suffolk Superior Court (Boston)


[ipaper docId=34161218 access_key=key-hnn1p8grrpy85crm4rc height=600 width=600 /]

Read More…

Mortgage Investors Suing For MBS FRAUD… Is your Trust named?

© 2010-19 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.



Posted in lawsuitComments (0)

Mortgage Investors Suing For MBS FRAUD… Is your Trust named?

Mortgage Investors Suing For MBS FRAUD… Is your Trust named?


Now these investors should know better…See the picture you’ll see what I mean? You can probably make out a few possibilities.

We can’t even get justice and we are quite a few million!

Mortgage Investors Turn to State Courts for Relief

By GRETCHEN MORGENSON Published: July 9, 2010
The NEW YORK TIMES

INVESTORS who lost billions on boatloads of faulty mortgage securities have had a hard time holding Wall Street accountable for selling the things in the first place.

For the most part, banks have said they can’t be called out in court on any of this because they had no idea that so many of these loans went to people who lacked the resources to make even their first mortgage payment.

Wall Street firms were intimately involved in the financing, bundling and sales of these loans, so their Sergeant Schultz defense rings hollow. They provided hundreds of millions of dollars in credit to dubious underwriters, and some even had their own people on site at the loan factories. Many Wall Street firms owned mortgage lenders outright.

Because many of the worst lenders are now out of business, investors in search of recoveries have turned to the banks that packaged the loans into securities. But successfully arguing that Wall Street aided lenders in a fraud is tough under federal securities laws. This is largely a result of Supreme Court decisions barring investors from bringing federal securities fraud cases that accuse underwriters and other third parties as enablers.

Where there’s a will, however, there’s a way. And state courts are proving to be a more fruitful place for mortgage investors seeking redress, legal experts say.

In late June, for example, Martha Coakley, the attorney general of Massachusetts, extracted $102 million from Morgan Stanley in a case involving Morgan’s extensive financing of loans made by New Century, a notorious and now defunct lender that was based in California.

Morgan packaged the loans into securities and sold them to clients, even after its due diligence uncovered problems with the underlying mortgages that New Century fed to the firm, Ms. Coakley said. In settling the matter, Morgan neither admitted nor denied the allegations. Her investigation is continuing.

One of the most interesting aspects of this case “is the active role of state regulators relying upon state law to protect investors,” said Lewis D. Lowenfels, an authority on securities law at Tolins & Lowenfels in New York. “This state focus may well fill a void left by the U.S. Supreme Court’s increasingly narrow interpretation of the antifraud provisions of the federal securities laws as well as the relatively few S.E.C. enforcement actions initiated in this area.”

Last Friday, an investment management firm that lost $1.2 billion in mortgage securities it bought for clients filed suit in Massachusetts state court against 15 banks, accusing them of abetting a fraud. The firm, Cambridge Place Investment Management of Concord, Mass., purchased $2 billion in mortgage securities from the banks, and it says the banks misrepresented the risks in the underlying loans — both in prospectuses and sales pitches.

The complaint says the banks misled Cambridge Place by maintaining that the mortgages in the securities it bought had met strict underwriting requirements related to the borrowers’ ability to repay the loans. Cambridge also contends it relied on the banks’ claims of having conducted due diligence to verify the quality of the loans bundled into the securities.

The complaint also details the anything-goes lending practices during the subprime mortgage boom.

Interviews in the complaint with 63 confidential witnesses turned up such gems as Fremont Investment & Loan, which had been based in California, approving loans for pizza delivery men with reported monthly incomes of $6,000, and management at Long Beach Mortgage, also in California, directing underwriters to “approve, approve, approve.”

One Long Beach program made loans to self-employed borrowers based on three letters of reference from past employers. A former worker said some letters amounted to “So-and-so cuts my lawn and does a good job,” adding that the company made no attempt to verify the information, the complaint stated.

Such tales are hardly shockers. But they provide important context when Cambridge moves up the ladder to the banks that bundled and sold the loans.

For example, the complaint contended that Credit Suisse, from whom it bought $88 million of mortgage securities in 2005 and 2006, told Cambridge of its “superior” due diligence, including a performance review of every loan. Three-quarters of these loans are delinquent, in default, foreclosure, bankruptcy or repossession, the complaint said.

Bear Stearns, now a unit of JPMorgan Chase, sold Cambridge $65 million of securities. It owned three mortgage lenders and told Cambridge it sampled the loans it sold to check underwriting procedures, borrower documentation and compliance, the complaint said.

Among others named in the suit are Bank of America, Barclays, Citigroup, Countrywide, Deutsche Bank, Goldman Sachs, Merrill Lynch, Morgan Stanley and UBS. All of those, as well as Credit Suisse and JPMorgan, declined to comment.

CAMBRIDGE’S lawyers brought its case in Massachusetts under laws barring those who sell securities from making false statements about them or omitting material facts. Jerry Silk, a senior partner at Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann who represents Cambridge, said, “This case represents yet another example of Wall Street banks’ failure to live up to their basic responsibility to investors — to tell the truth about the securities they are selling.”

Mr. Silk’s firm has jousted with Wall Street underwriters before. In 2004, it recovered $6 billion in a suit against banks that underwrote debt issued by WorldCom, the defunct telecom. Denise L. Cote, the federal judge overseeing that matter, concluded that because investors rely so heavily on underwriters, courts must be “particularly scrupulous in examining the conduct,” she said.

It is too soon to tell if investors will recover losses in mortgage securities. But the efforts are reminiscent of those in the mid-90s against brokerage firms that cleared trades and provided capital to dubious penny-stock outfits such as A. R. Baron and Sterling Foster.

For decades, companies that cleared such trades — Bear Stearns was a big one — escaped liability for fraud at these so-called “bucket shops.” But regulators went after clearing firms by accusing them of facilitating such acts; in a 1999 lawsuit, the Securities & Exchange Commission accused Bear Stearns of enabling a fraud at A. R. Baron. Bear Stearns paid $35 million in fines and restitution to settle the case.

If trust in capital markets is to return, investors must be able to believe what they read in prospectuses. Without that minimum standard, how can Wall Street expect the markets to function again?

A version of this article appeared in print on July 11, 2010, on page BU1 of the New York edition.

COMPLAINT:

[ipaper docId=34161218 access_key=key-hnn1p8grrpy85crm4rc height=600 width=600 /]

© 2010-19 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.



Posted in bankruptcy, CONTROL FRAUD, foreclosure, foreclosure fraud, foreclosures, mbs, rmbs, securitizationComments (2)

They're sure running out of people…NOW go after those who can't "legally" have kids and maybe have a nest egg!

They're sure running out of people…NOW go after those who can't "legally" have kids and maybe have a nest egg!


Did someone step on SHIT?

Don’t fall for it! They’re running out of humans!

Industry News: Morgan Stanley (NYSE: MS) To Hold Investment Symposium For Domestic Partners

May 25th, 2010 • by mitch AMERICAN BANKING NEWS

Morgan Stanley (NYSE: MS) announced Tuesday that in conjunction with the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD), the Williams Institute – UCLA School of Law and The Principal Funds, it will host a private reception and investment symposium on wealth planning for domestic partners on Thursday, May 27, 2010.

The Wall Street bank said the symposium will focus on findings from two studies by the Williams Institute on challenges gay and lesbian individuals and their partners face under current retirement and real estate tax laws.

“We’re pleased to facilitate this discussion with GLAAD and the Williams Institute, said Robert Perry, Managing Director, Los Angeles Metro Regional Director, Morgan Stanley Smith Barney. “This event provides a forum for us to highlight our wealth planning expertise with a targeted focus on the individual needs of the LGBT community.”

Morgan Stanley will have Alan Wolberg, Executive Director, Wealth Advisory Resources, Planning Director – Soundview Region, Morgan Stanley Smith Barney as its feature speaker.

“On behalf of GLAAD, we are pleased to partner again with our long-time friends at Morgan Stanley Smith Barney on this symposium,” said GLAAD President Jarrett Barrios. “Wealth planning is critical to protect ourselves and our families, as well as to inspire and engage future generations in the work that is important to each of us.”

The event will take place on Thursday, May 27, 2010 at 5:30 p.m. at the Luxe Hotel Sunset Boulevard, 11461 Sunset Boulevard Los Angeles, CA 90049.

Posted in conspiracy, glaad, Morgan StanleyComments (0)

Bank Investigations Cheat Sheet: ProPublica

Bank Investigations Cheat Sheet: ProPublica


by Marian Wang, ProPublica – May 13, 2010

Here’s our attempt to lay out exactly what’s known about which banks are being investigated by whom and for what. We’re going to keep updating this page, so please send usstories or details we’ve missed. Related: Covering the Bank Investigations: A Cautionary Tale

  What has been reported What the bank has said
 
Citigroup
Citing “a person familiar with the matter,” The Wall Street Journal has reported that Citigroup is under “early-stage criminal scrutiny” by the Department of Justice. Also citing unnamed sources, Fox Business reported on May 12 that the SEC has an active civil investigation into Citigroup and has subpoenaed the firm, but has not issued any Wells notices. A report on May 12th by the Journal cited unnamed sources saying that the Department of Justice is scrutinizing a few CDO deals that Morgan Stanley bet against–but which were underwritten by Citigroup and UBS. Neither the SEC nor the Justice Department have confirmed these reports.

Citing two anonymous sources, The New York Times has reported that New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo is investigating eight banks to determine whether they misled rating agencies in order to get higher ratings for their mortgage-related products; Citigroup has been named as one of the banks. Subpoenas were issued on May 12, according to the Times and the Dow Jones Newswires, both of which relied on anonymous sourcing for their reports.

Citigroup has declined to comment to us and other outlets.

Credit Agricole
Credit Agricole has also been named as one of the banks that New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo is investigating separately. Credit Agricole did not immediately respond to the Times’ request for comment and has not yet responded to ours.

Credit Suisse
Credit Suisse has also been named as one of the banks that New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo is investigating. Credit Suisse declined to comment to the Times about the New York attorney general’s investigation.

Deutsche Bank
Citing “a person familiar with the matter,” The Wall Street Journal has reported that Deutsche Bank is under “early-stage criminal scrutiny” by the Department of Justice. Also citing unnamed sources, Fox Business reported on May 12 that the SEC has an active civil investigation into Deutsche and has subpoenaed the firm, but has not issued any Wells notices. Neither agency has confirmed these reports.

Deutsche Bank has also been named as one of the banks that New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo is investigating separately.

Deutsche Bank declined to comment to Fox, the Journal, and the Times about possible investigations.

Goldman Sachs
The SEC has brought a civil fraud lawsuit against Goldman, alleging that the investment bank made “materially misleading statements and omissions” when it allowed a hedge fund to help create and bet against a CDO, called Abacus, without disclosing the hedge fund’s role to investors.

The Wall Street Journal, citing “people familiar with the probe,” reported in April that the Justice Department has been conducting a criminal investigation into Goldman’s CDO dealings following a referral from the SEC. Neither agency has confirmed this, but the AP, citing another unnamed source, has reported the same thing. Since then, many news organizations–including the The New York TimesABC News and the Washington Post–have also reported on the criminal probe, citing unnamed sources. No charges have been brought.

Goldman Sachs has also been named as one of the banks that New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo is investigating separately.

Goldman called the SEC’s accusations “unfounded in law and fact.

After the reports of a criminal investigation, a Goldman Sachs spokesman declined to confirm that the bank had been contacted by the DOJ but also told several news outlets that “given the recent focus on the firm, we’re not surprised by the report of an inquiry. We would cooperate fully with any request for information.”

The bank has declined to comment to us on the New York attorney general’s investigation.

 
JP Morgan Chase
Citing “a person familiar with the matter,” The Wall Street Journal has also reported that JPMorgan Chase has received civil subpoenas from the SEC and is under “early-stage criminal scrutiny” by the Department of Justice. Neither the SEC nor the Justice Department has confirmed these reports. A JPMorgan spokesman told the Journal that the bank “hasn’t been contacted” by federal prosecutors and isn’t aware of a criminal investigation.

Merrill Lynch (now part of Bank of America)
Merrill has not been named in any SEC investigations. But as we pointed out, a lawsuit brought by a Dutch bank asserts that Merrill Lynch did a CDO deal that was “precisely” like Goldman’s. The SEC has declined to comment on whether it is investigating the deal.

Merrill Lynch has also been named as one of the banks that New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo is investigating.

Merrill has said its CDO deal was not like Goldman’s, calling Goldman’s Abacus deal an “entirely different transaction.”

The bank did not immediately return the Times’ request for comment about the investigation by Coumo, but when we called and asked, a spokesman from Bank of America, which merged with Merrill, said, “We are cooperating with the attorney general’s office on this matter.”


Morgan Stanley
Citing “people familiar with the matter,” The Wall Street Journal reported on May 12 that the Justice Department has been conducting a criminal investigation into Morgan Stanley’s CDO dealings, including its role in helping design and betting against two sets of CDOs from 2006 known as Jackson and Buchanan. The Justice Department declined to comment. No charges have been brought, and according to the Journal, the probe is “at a preliminary stage.” A Morgan Stanley spokeswoman said the bank had “no knowledge of a Justice Department investigation into these transactions.” The Journal reported that the SEC has subpoenaed Morgan Stanley on several occasions, but the bank says it has received no Wells notices, which would indicate pending SEC charges.

Morgan Stanley has also been named as one of the banks that New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo is investigating.

A Morgan Stanley spokeswoman said on May 12that the firm has “not been contacted by the Justice Department about the transactions being raised by The Wall Street Journal, and we have no knowledge of a Justice Department investigation into these transactions.”

The investment bank declined to comment to the Times about the Coumo’s investigation.


UBS
Citing “a person familiar with the matter,” The Wall Street Journal reported that UBS has received civil subpoenas from the SEC and is under “early-stage criminal scrutiny” by the Department of Justice. In a report on May 12, the Journal reported that the Justice Department is scrutinizing a few CDO deals that Morgan Stanley helped design and bet against–but which were marketed by Citigroup and UBS. Neither the SEC nor the Justice Department has confirmed these reports. The firm has not disclosed that it has gotten any Wells notices.

UBS has also been named as one of the banks New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo is investigating.

A UBS spokesman has declined to comment on any of the investigations.

Posted in bank of america, citi, CitiGroup, concealment, conspiracy, corruption, Credit Suisse, FED FRAUD, federal reserve board, foreclosure fraud, goldman sachs, investigation, Merrill Lynch, Morgan Stanley, S.E.C., scam, securitizationComments (0)

Moooove Over SLACKERS!! NY AG CUOMO probing 8 banks over securities

Moooove Over SLACKERS!! NY AG CUOMO probing 8 banks over securities


AP Source: NY AG probing 8 banks over securities

NEW YORK — The New York attorney general has launched an investigation into eight banks to determine whether they misled ratings agencies about mortgage securities, according to a person familiar with the investigation.

Attorney General Andrew Cuomo is trying to figure out if banks provided the agencies with false information in order to get better ratings on the risky securities, said the person, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the investigation has not been made public.

Cuomo’s office is investigating Goldman Sachs Group Inc., Morgan Stanley, UBS AG, Citigroup Inc., Credit Suisse, Deutsche Bank, Credit Agricole and Merrill Lynch, which is now part of Bank of America Corp.

Continue reading HERE

© 2010-19 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.



Posted in bank of america, cdo, citi, concealment, FED FRAUD, federal reserve board, foreclosure fraud, goldman sachs, S.E.C.Comments (0)

Advertise your business on StopForeclosureFraud.com

Archives

Please Support Me!

All Of These Are Troll Comments