Shareholders | FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA

Tag Archive | "shareholders"

Certification battle in Ohio MERS class action heats up

Certification battle in Ohio MERS class action heats up


Lexology-

On April 23, 2012, the plaintiff in State of Ohio ex rel. David P. Joyce, Prosecuting Attorney of Geauga County Ohio v. MERSCORP, Inc., et al., N.D. Ohio Case No. 1:11-cv-02474, filed its motion seeking an order certifying the action as a class action, appointing Geauga County as class representative, and appointing plaintiff’s counsel, the New York law firm of Bernstein Liebhard LLP, as class counsel. The plaintiff argues that the case, which the plaintiff is attempting to bring on behalf of all 88 Ohio counties for relief relating to the allegedly unlawful failure of MERS and its member institutions to record millions of mortgages and mortgage assignments throughout Ohio, meets all requirements of Rule 23(a) and that certification is proper under any one of the 3 subsections of Rule 23(b). The plaintiff hopes to persuade the court that the MERS/member institution policy concerning recordation of mortgages and assignments is a “common scheme or course of conduct” that has given rise to claims “ideally suited for class certification.”

[LEXOLOGY]

[ipaper docId=94254592 access_key=key-2nn3qssi6kdpdxy704up height=600 width=600 /]

 

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



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (0)

Law Offices of Howard G. Smith Announces Investigation of Lender Processing Services, Inc.

Law Offices of Howard G. Smith Announces Investigation of Lender Processing Services, Inc.


Market Watch-

The investigation concerns whether the Company or its fiduciaries breached their fiduciary duties by improperly processing mortgages and mortgage foreclosures. A civil lawsuit filed in December 2011 by the Office of the Attorney General of the State of Nevada alleges that LPS and certain of its subsidiaries: (1) engaged in a pattern and practice of falsifying, forging and/or fraudulently executing foreclosure related documents, resulting in numerous foreclosures that were predicated upon deficient documentation; (2) fraudulently notarized documents without ensuring that the notary did so in the presence of the person signing the document; (3) implemented a widespread scheme to forge signatures on key documents, to ensure that volume and speed quotas were met; (4) concealed the scope and severity of the fraud by misrepresenting that the problems were limited to clerical errors; (5) improperly directed and/or controlled the work of foreclosure attorneys by imposing inappropriate and arbitrary deadlines that forced attorneys to churn through foreclosures at a rate that sacrificed accuracy for speed; (6) improperly obstructed communication between foreclosure attorneys and their clients; and (7), demanded a kickback/referral fee from foreclosure firms for each case referred to the firm by LPS and allowed this fee to be misrepresented as “attorney’s fees” on invoices passed on to Nevada consumers and/or submitted to Nevada courts.

[MARKET WATCH]

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



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (0)

Shareholders and robosigning: Is Wells Fargo ruling a portent?

Shareholders and robosigning: Is Wells Fargo ruling a portent?


This is interesting since all responsible for Foreclosure Fraud are being investigated or sued for some breach of fiduciary duty including LPS for robosigning, whom by the way executed most of the documents…

Alison Frankel-

The big question for the other banks that signed the nationwide foreclosure settlement, though, is whether Illston’s robosigning ruling improves the prospects for shareholder derivative suits against them. JPMorgan Chase, for example, was just hit with a Manhattan State Supreme Court robosigning derivative complaint filed by Robbins Geller, one of the plaintiffs’ firms in the Wells Fargo case. Earlier this month, shareholders in a consolidated derivative class action against Bank of America in Manhattan federal court voluntarily dismissed their robosigning-based case, but said they planned to refile in Delaware Chancery Court. Two derivative suits against Citigroup alleging flawed foreclosure practices were consolidated in Manhattan federal court in December, but the docket indicates no activity since then.

But those banks, according to the plaintiffs’ allegations in the Wells suit, were quicker to renounce robosigning than Wells Fargo. JPMorgan Chase and Ally Financial were the first to halt foreclosures to investigate robosigning allegations, doing so in September 2010. Bank of America followed in October. Wells Fargo was still insisting at the time that its foreclosure practices were sound. According to the shareholder complaint, Wells continued to permit robosigning of foreclosure documents well into 2011, after it told shareholders it was cooperating with the government investigation.

[REUTERS LEGAL]

[ipaper docId=81659378 access_key=key-1n0tcfuzlxzaqnhda8bj height=600 width=600 /]

 

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



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (0)

TREVINO vs MERSCORP | MERS Settles, Avoiding Class Action Foreclosure Fee Lawsuit

TREVINO vs MERSCORP | MERS Settles, Avoiding Class Action Foreclosure Fee Lawsuit


An 11th-hour settlement is expected to stave off potential class action status in a lawsuit that claims foreclosed borrowers were overcharged for attorneys’ fees that the Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems Inc. did not actually incur.

National Mortgage News-

The plaintiffs, Jose and Lorry Trevino, filed a motion seeking class action status and an amended complaint on Jan. 12. The defendants had until Jan. 17 to respond, but received a two-week extension, “so that the parties can memorialize their settlement,” according to court documents filed Jan. 13.

The parties have agreed to terms, but the settlement is pending final paperwork. The case hasn’t been dismissed and likely won’t until the settlement is finalized.

The suit, originally filed in 2007, names Merscorp and a number of its shareholders, including Citigroup, Countrywide, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, GMAC Residential Funding, HSBC, JPMorgan Chase, Washington Mutual and Wells Fargo.

[NATIONAL MORTGAGE NEWS]

[ipaper docId=78671760 access_key=key-8o4lqwsa5jcvg5vbx86 height=600 width=600 /]

 

 

 

 

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



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (0)

Florida Homeowner Files A Massive Tsunami Lawsuit – KORMAN v. AURORA et al.

Florida Homeowner Files A Massive Tsunami Lawsuit – KORMAN v. AURORA et al.


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

This pretty much sums this up… But go ahead and read.

Excerpt:

705. DEFENDAN T et al., al. stand-by and know, Plaintiff’s foreclosure, and others similarly situated are fraudulent in their nature, supra, but stand silent in condolence, over a system in their care custody and control under the corporate veil of MERSCORP, which either created, support financially or employ thus making DEFENDANT co-conspirator, liable as a facilitator of said Fraudulent behavior facilitator of Larceny on a grand scale.

[…]

[ipaper docId=70114752 access_key=key-2308jy3fszbv2555ftg4 height=600 width=600 /]

 

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



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (1)

COMPLAINT | State of Ohio, Geauga County v. MERSCORP, MERS et al., No. 11-M-001087

COMPLAINT | State of Ohio, Geauga County v. MERSCORP, MERS et al., No. 11-M-001087


IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
GEAUGA COUNTY, OHIO

STATE OF OHIO, ex.rel.
DAVID P. JOYCE
PROSECUTING ATTORNEY OF GEAUGA
COUNTY, OHIO
Courthouse Annex, 231 Main St. Suite 3A
Chardon, Ohio 44024

On behalf of Geauga County and all others similarly
situated,

Plaintiff,

v.

MERSCORP, INC.
1818 Library Street, Suite 300
Reston, Virginia 20190

and

MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION
SYSTEMS, INC.
1818 Library Street, Suite 300
Reston, Virginia 20190

[…]

[ipaper docId=69166120 access_key=key-9gi3i39l3vj116tff1y height=600 width=600 /]

 

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



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (0)

Bernstein Liebhard Llp, With David P. Joyce, Prosecuting Attorney For Geauga County, Ohio, Announces Class Action Against MERS And Its Members

Bernstein Liebhard Llp, With David P. Joyce, Prosecuting Attorney For Geauga County, Ohio, Announces Class Action Against MERS And Its Members


October 13, 2011:  Bernstein Liebhard LLP, with David P. Joyce, Prosecuting Attorney for Geauga County, Ohio, announced today that a lawsuit has been filed in the Geauga County Court of Common Pleas by Plaintiff Geauga County, on behalf of itself and all other Ohio counties, (the “Class”) against MERSCORP, Inc., Mortgage Electronic Registration System, Inc. (“MERS”), and MERS’s members (collectively, “Defendants”).  

In the class action complaint, Plaintiff Geauga County, on behalf of itself and all other Ohio counties, alleges violations of Ohio state law arising from Defendants’ failure to record intermediate mortgage assignments in, and pay the attendant county recording fees to, Ohio county recording offices.  In failing to record, Defendants systematically broke chains of title throughout Ohio counties’ public land records by creating “gaps” due to missing mortgage assignments they failed to record, or by recording patently false and/or misleading mortgage assignments.  Defendants’ purposeful failure to record has eviscerated the accuracy of Ohio counties’ public land records, rendering them unreliable and unverifiable — damage to public land records that may never be entirely remedied. 

Ohio’s recording laws have been in place for nearly 200 years.

 

The case is captioned State of Ohio, ex rel. David P. Joyce Prosecuting Attorney of Geauga County, Ohio v. MERSCORP, Inc., et al., No. 11-M-001087.  For more information, please contact either Stanley D. Bernstein at (212) 779-1414, bernstein@bernlieb.com or Christian Siebott at (212) 779-1414, siebott@bernlieb.com.

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



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (0)

I’M SORRY | Dimon’s Annual Meeting Brings Mortgage Apology

I’M SORRY | Dimon’s Annual Meeting Brings Mortgage Apology


NOT…

“We are doing everything we can to keep people in their homes that should stay in their homes.”

BLOOMBERG-

Jamie Dimon, JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPM)’s chairman and chief executive officer, said he was sorry for foreclosure mistakes as hundreds of protesters at the annual meeting demanded he do more to help homeowners and small businesses recover from the financial crisis.


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



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (1)

JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon’s Letter to Shareholders 4.4.2011

JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon’s Letter to Shareholders 4.4.2011


Excerpt:

We do not believe that the Federal Reserve or the Treasury would want to leave American banks at a disadvantage. We need American leadership to be forceful and engaged to ensure a fair outcome.

We all have a vested interest in getting this right The government took great action to stop the crisis from getting worse. Lawmakers and regulators have and will take much action to fix what clearly was a broken system.

[hit image to read pdf]

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



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (0)

MERS 2.0 vs LIFE AFTER MERS

MERS 2.0 vs LIFE AFTER MERS


Does the system of tracking note holders need a reboot or a replacement?

.

Click on image below to go to National Mortgage News PDF



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



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (0)

HW | SEC clears shareholder vote for foreclosure reviews at major banks

HW | SEC clears shareholder vote for foreclosure reviews at major banks


Source: Housing Wire

The Securities and Exchange Commission upheld a New York City Pension Funds request that big bank shareholders will get to vote on whether or not those vested financial institutions conduct foreclosure reviews.

Shareholders of Bank of America (: ), Citigroup (: ) and Wells Fargo (WFC: 31.27 -0.76%) will vote at annual meetings this spring, because of the ruling. Wells did not contend the proposal at the SEC. In January, The New York City Comptroller John Liu asked the boards of the banks and JPMorgan Chase (JPM: 45.20 -0.59%) to conduct the reviews to catch potential problems related to robo-signing and other documentation issues.

Read full story… HOUSING WIRE

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



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (0)

MATT TAIBBI: An Extremely Long Metaphor to Explain Mortgage Chaos

MATT TAIBBI: An Extremely Long Metaphor to Explain Mortgage Chaos


POSTED: January 1, 1:25 PM EDT | By Matt Taibbi

Happy New Year, America…

Have multiple relatives en route to my home this morning, but wanted to post a few thoughts on an interesting story that came out this week before I disappear into a weekend of overeating and meaningless NFL games.

The piece, which came out Thursday, is the Washington Post’s feature on MERS, the electronic mortgage registration company that is at the center of the foreclosure/mortgage bubble mess. MERS is the brainchild of the mortgage-lending industry and is essentially an effort at systematically evading taxes (more on that in a moment) and hiding information from homeowners in ways that enabled the Countrywides of the world to defraud investors and avoid legal consequences for same.

The idea behind MERS was to wipe away centuries of legal tradition that mandated the physical transfer of loan notes and ownership information. Whereas lenders once were required to physically register with county clerk offices every time a mortgage loan was extended or re-sold, MERS provided an “electronic registry” of mortgage notes where all such transfers were recorded in the wiry brain of a giant computer instead of on paper.


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



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (0)

Potential Liabilities for the Mortgage Electronic Registration System (MERS) and its Affiliates

Potential Liabilities for the Mortgage Electronic Registration System (MERS) and its Affiliates


By John Lux

Introduction

This article discusses some of the legal aspects of the Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems or “MERS” with regard to its potential legal liabilities and how these liabilities may affect related public companies.

We maintain that the potential legal liabilities faced by these companies are very large and may seriously injure their stock prices. We believe that the affiliates of MERS may be held liable for MERS violations based on various legal theories, including conspiracy, and if the courts pierce the corporate veil of MERS.

A list of some of the companies that may be affected is found at the end of this analysis.

MERS

MERS is a private non-stock Delaware member corporation that operates an electronic registry to track servicing rights and ownership of mortgage loans in the United States. MERS acts as a so-called “straw man.” MERS clouds land records as the purported owner of mortgages transferred by lenders, investors and loan servicers. MERS maintains that it eliminates the need to file assignments in the county land records with the purpose of lowering costs for lenders. This naturally reduces county recording revenues from real estate transfers.

Legal Issues Faced by MERS

Not Qualified to do Business in Most States

MERS is not qualified to business in most of the states in which it operates. The problem here is that MERS has allowed itself to be the plaintiff in many hundreds of thousands of mortgage foreclosures in states where it is not qualified to do business and therefore has no standing to sue. Most, 95% or more of these cases, were uncontested and therefore resulted in the loss of the defendants home after a telephone hearing that lasted a few minutes.

Self-Appointment of Officers


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



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (2)

LENDERS TURNING TO OLD FASHION WAY OF “PAPER”, TURN AWAY FROM MERS

LENDERS TURNING TO OLD FASHION WAY OF “PAPER”, TURN AWAY FROM MERS


Thanks to a tip from California’s hero Brian Davies:

Lenders Turning Their Backs on MERS, Going Back to Paper

With more borrowers filing legal challenges to foreclosure, many mortgage lenders have turned their back on using MERSCORP Inc., which operates an electronic loan registry, to bring foreclosure actions. Some lenders are even returning to the old-fashioned, paper-based system of physically recording mortgage assignments at county recorder offices to ensure an unbroken chain of title.

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



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (4)

CALL TO ACTION: MERS ASSIGNMENTS

CALL TO ACTION: MERS ASSIGNMENTS


The Time To Act Is NOW!

I am working on a special project & need your help to gather as many MERS Assignments as we can possibly get.

What is especially needed are the Certifying Officers signing these assignments for MERS. I don’t care if it’s old, new, signed, undated, unmarked, lender has gone bankrupt ages ago…I just want them ALL!


Click the Envelope to load up your MERS Assignment(s).

Or Info at stopforeclosurefraud.com

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



Posted in Bank Owned, bankruptcy, chain in title, concealment, foreclosure, foreclosure fraud, foreclosure mills, foreclosures, forgery, investigation, mbs, MERS, MERSCORP, mortgage, MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS INC., Mortgage Foreclosure Fraud, Notary, notary fraud, note, quiet title, racketeering, Real Estate, REO, RICO, rmbs, robo signers, securitization, servicers, STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD, stopforeclosurefraud.com, Supreme Court, trade secrets, trustee, Trusts, Wall StreetComments (1)

MERS: Open Letter from Nye Lavalle

MERS: Open Letter from Nye Lavalle


Dear MERS Executives:

As a shareholder in several companies that are MERS Corp owners, I will be sending a report to the board of directors and audit committees of each company in the coming 60 days outlining the plethora of fraudulent representations your company has made via its “certifying officers” to allow the masking of complex trades and financial transactions that assist these corporations that control your corporation to “cook their books.”

As you each know, your prior arguments to me about your policies and practices have been deemed to be incorrect by numerous judges and even state supreme courts that have sided with many of my arguments.

In order to protect the American Public; all land and property owners; the financial markets and investors; our banking system; and the citizens and tax payers of the United States, I ask that you request the disbandment of your company from the board of directors of MERS Corp.  Similar requests will be made by me and other shareholders in each company with shareholder ownership in MERS Corp.

In addition, quite title actions must be initiated in court rooms across America in order to clean up the morass of fraud you have directly helped perpetuate.  I would strongly advise you to preserve and protect every document and communication in your company’s and executive’s personal records (including hard drives and other storage devices) that contain any reference to my name, family, complaints, reports, business dealings, lawsuits, and data related to me in any manner whatsoever.

This information will be the subject of discovery upon ALL YOUR companies (MERS 1 to 3) in upcoming and pending litigation involving your firm.

To that end, please take note of the article below and govern yourselves accordingly!

Sincerely,

Federal Judge Sanctions Tech Company Over Handling of E-Discovery

August 27, 2010

A federal judge has sanctioned a leading developer of “flash drive” technology for its mishandling of electronic discovery in what the judge called a “David and Goliath-like” struggle.

Southern District Judge William H. Pauley ruled that he would instruct the jury to draw a negative inference from the fact that SanDisk Corp., a company with a market capitalization of $8.7 billion, had lost the hard drives from laptop computers it issued to two former employees who are the plaintiffs in Harkabi v. Sandisk Corp., 08 Civ. 8230.

SanDisk must be “mortif[ied]” by the ex-employees’ argument that the company, as a leading purveyor of electronic data storage devices, cannot claim that it made an “innocent” mistake in losing the hard-drive data, Pauley wrote.

That argument is on target, the judge concluded, noting that SanDisk’s “size and cutting edge technology raises an expectation of competence in maintaining its own electronic records.”

Pauley also awarded $150,000 in attorney’s fees to the two plaintiffs, Dan Harkabi and Gidon Elazar, because of delays the company caused in producing their e-mails during the 17 months they worked for SanDisk.

In 2004, the plaintiffs sold a software company they had founded in Israel to SanDisk for $10 million up front. An additional $4 million was to be paid depending on the level of sales SanDisk realized over the next two years on products “derived” from technology developed by the Israeli company. As part of the deal, Harkabi and Elazar moved to New York and began working for SanDisk.

At the end of the two-year period, SanDisk contended the threshold for the Israeli software developers to claim their “earn-out” fee had not been met, and offered them $800,000. When the developers continued to demand the full $4 million, SanDisk ended their employment.

One of the key issues in the suit is whether a SanDisk flash drive called “U3” contained software “derived” from a product the two plaintiffs developed in Israel.

Flash drives are compact data storage devices about the size of a stick of gum used to transport data from one computer to another.

The Israeli company had developed software that could be used to encrypt flash drives so the data would be secured for personal use only. The owner would not be able to transfer copyrighted data such as movies, computer applications, books or other materials.

The two developers claim that SanDisk sold 15 million U3 flash drives. Under their contract, SanDisk had to sell 3.2 million flash drives utilizing an encryption system derived from the product plaintiffs had developed in Israel.

The developers contend that the U3 is derived from the Israeli product. SanDisk disputes any connection.

As the dispute began to heat up in 2007, the developers’ lawyers at the time asked SanDisk to preserve information on their client’s laptops.

SanDisk’s in-house counsel issued a “do-not-destroy” letter, and the two laptops were stored in a secure area for more than a year. But at some point a decision was made to re-issue the two laptops to other employees after the data from the hard drives had been separately preserved.

SanDisk’s response in the initial round of electronic discovery was a declaration from an in-house lawyer that “I have no reason to believe” the April 2007 “do-not-destroy” memo “was not fully complied with.”

SanDisk also produced 1.4 million documents, which it described as “everything” found in response to the developers’ electronic discovery demands. Six weeks later, however, the company acknowledged it was unable to retrieve the data from the laptops’ hard drives. But the two developers created their own software to analyze the 1.4 million documents received in discovery and concluded that much of their e-mail correspondence had not been turned over, according to the opinion.

SanDisk subsequently conceded that it had not turned over all of the developers’ e-mails, but has since begun the process of retrieving the missing e-mails from backup files.

A negative inference with regard to the data on the lost hard drives, Pauley concluded, is warranted because “the undisputed facts reveal a cascade of errors, each relatively minor,” which added to a significant discovery failure.

The loss of the hard-drive data has deprived the two developers of the opportunity to present “potentially powerful evidence” on the key issue of whether the U3 flash drive was derived from encryption software developed by the pair in Israel.

Although the missing e-mails eventually will be available at trial, Pauley concluded, SanDisk should nonetheless pay the developers $150,000 to cover their added legal costs for discovery.

SanDisk’s “misrepresentations” about its initial electronic document production, he wrote, “obscured the deficiencies and stopped discovery in its tracks.”

He added, “But for plaintiffs’ forensic analysis and their counsel’s persistence those deficiencies may not have come to light.”

Charles E. Bachman, of O’Melveny & Myers, who represented SanDisk, said the company would have no comment.

Harkabi and Elazar were represented by Charles A. Stillman and Daniel V. Shapiro of Stillman, Friedman & Shechtman.

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



Posted in chain in title, concealment, conflict of interest, conspiracy, CONTROL FRAUD, corruption, discovery, foreclosure, foreclosure fraud, foreclosures, forensic document examiner, forensic mortgage investigation audit, insider, investigation, MERS, MERSCORP, mortgage, MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS INC., Mortgage Foreclosure Fraud, notary fraud, note, quiet title, R.K. Arnold, Real Estate, robo signers, sanctioned, securitization, servicers, stopforeclosurefraud.com, Trusts, Wall StreetComments (1)

CLASS ACTION AMENDED against MERSCORP to include Shareholders, DJSP

CLASS ACTION AMENDED against MERSCORP to include Shareholders, DJSP


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.

MERSCORP shareholders…HERE

[ipaper docId=36456183 access_key=key-26csq0mmgo6l8zsnw0is height=600 width=600 /]

Related article:

______________________

CLASS ACTION FILED| Figueroa v. Law Offices Of David J. Stern, P.A. and MERSCORP, Inc.

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



Posted in bank of america, chain in title, citimortgage, class action, concealment, CONTROL FRAUD, corruption, countrywide, djsp enterprises, fannie mae, foreclosure, foreclosure fraud, foreclosure mills, foreclosures, forgery, Freddie Mac, HSBC, investigation, jpmorgan chase, Law Offices Of David J. Stern P.A., lawsuit, mail fraud, mbs, Merrill Lynch, MERS, MERSCORP, mortgage, Mortgage Bankers Association, MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS INC., Mortgage Foreclosure Fraud, non disclosure, notary fraud, note, racketeering, Real Estate, RICO, rmbs, securitization, stock, title company, trade secrets, trustee, Trusts, truth in lending act, wamu, washington mutual, wells fargoComments (13)

Could WAMU/ JPMorgan Chase Foreclosures be invalid?

Could WAMU/ JPMorgan Chase Foreclosures be invalid?


This is going to raise questions on how this has been able to proceed without the finalizing of the sale.

You cannot have an omelet if the chicken hasn’t laid the egg yet!

  • Were the shareholders made aware that JPMC never finalized the deal?
  • How does this effect those who filed for Bankruptcy?
  • Why hasn’t the FDIC stepped up when they knew that this was on going and never finalized the sale?
  • What happens to those who have an assignment of mortgage from WAMU to JPMC?
  • Is JPMC currently servicing any of WAMU’ loans?
  • All the chain in title that are in question?
  • Bailout? What Bailout?

Thanks to Foreclosure Hamlet and 4closurefraud for this alert!

Via: 4ClosureFraud

This is very intriguing… Check out the the excerpts from the report below…

Game Changer?

WaMu sale hasn’t closed, document suggests

Next month will mark two years since federal regulators seized Washington Mutual and sold it to JPMorgan Chase for $1.9 billion. Now a document that appears to be from the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation suggests the deal still hasn’t closed.

“Everyone is saying the sale is finalized,” said the shareholder, Farokh Lam, of Woburn, Mass. “It is not.

Lam noticed that on pages 7 and 9, the original WaMu purchase and sale agreement allows the FDIC to extend the settlement date. He says he asked about it, and the FDIC confirmed in phone calls and emails that the settlement date was set for Aug. 30, 2010, and could be extended further.

“Settlement Date” means the first Business Day immediately prior to the day which is one hundred eighty (180) days after Ban Closing, or such other date prior thereto as may be agreed upon by the Receiver and the Assuming Bank. The Receiver, in its discretion, may extend the Settlement Date.

It says: “The purpose of this amendment is to extend the time period for Final Settlement to August. 30, 2010.

WaMu’s final days were chronicled in depth by Puget Sound Business Journal Staff Writer Kirsten Grind in an award-winning series.

Does this mean that all the WAMU foreclosures being pushed through the courts by JPMorgan Chase using the FDIC Purchase and Sale Agreement are invalid?

Does it mean if they haven’t closed the deal THEY DO NOT OWN THE LOANS OR THEIR SERVICING RIGHTS?

Where are the windfall profits going after the foreclosure sale?

What if the agreement changes before it is finalized?

So many questions…

Pipe up in the comments and let me know what you think.

The way I see it is, if they haven’t finalized the deal, how can they foreclose on the homes?

[ipaper docId=36027673 access_key=key-5z7g1dy0c99oralt1p0 height=600 width=600 /]

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



Posted in discovery, fdic, foreclosure, foreclosure fraud, foreclosures, investigation, jpmorgan chase, non disclosure, psa, securitization, servicers, STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD, wamu, washington mutualComments (4)

What does DJSP, Enterprises Newly Appointed Counsel have in common with PBC Judge Meenu Sasser?

What does DJSP, Enterprises Newly Appointed Counsel have in common with PBC Judge Meenu Sasser?


DJSP, Enterprises announced today that they have added a General Counsel to their Senior Management Team.

Howard S. Burnston has accepted the position of Vice President, General Counsel and Corporate Secretary effective August 5th 2010. Prior to joining the company, Mr. Burnston was a shareholder with Gunster, Yoakley, & Stewart, P.A., a Florida law firm, where he practiced for 12 years, most recently as chairman of the firm’s Securities and Corporate Governance Practice Group.

“We are very pleased to add such a seasoned professional to our executive team,” said David J. Stern, Chairman and CEO of DJSP Enterprises. “Howard’s business experience and legal expertise in the areas of securities and corporate governance will add tremendous value to DJSP and our shareholders.”

Mr. Burnston stated, “The company is operating in a dynamic and challenging business environment. I believe the company has a promising future and I am excited to join the impressive management team assembled at DJSP.”

Palm Beach County Judge Meenu Sasser was also a shareholder of Gunster, Yoakley, & Stewart from 2002-09, Associate 1995-02.

Again, when is this all going to be disclosed to both investors and defendants? Where does one put a stop to conflict of interest? Where are the disclosures?

I am 100% certain that both The State of Florida and DJSP Investors want to know did Mr. Burnston and Mrs. Sasser have a working relationship and to what extent?

Inquiring minds do wish to know!

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



Posted in conflict of interest, djsp enterprises, investigation, Law Offices Of David J. Stern P.A., non disclosure, STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (1)


GARY DUBIN LAW OFFICES FORECLOSURE DEFENSE HAWAII and CALIFORNIA
Advertise your business on StopForeclosureFraud.com
Kenneth Eric Trent, www.ForeclosureDestroyer.com

Archives