Here is a snapshot of The Simpsons’ season premiere:
Here is a snapshot of The Simpsons’ season premiere:
Staff members of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, headed by Senator Carl Levin, have interviewed JPMorgan officials as well as examiners and supervisors at the institution’s regulator, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, said the people, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the inquiry isn’t public.
One focus of the queries is whether JPMorgan’s wrong-way bets on derivatives would have been permitted under regulators’ initial draft of the Volcker ban on proprietary trading, the people said. The lender lost $5.8 billion on the trades in the first six months of the year.
The county accused national mortgage giants Freddie Mac and Freddie Mae of lying to evade real estate transfer fees, in a federal lawsuit filed Monday.
A recent decision by a New York federal court provides yet another example of the documentation-related challenges that creditors and debt buyers are increasingly facing in collection actions involving non-mortgage consumer debts.
In its opinion in Monique Sykes v. Mel Harris and Associates, LLC, issued September 4, 2012, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York granted class certification in a case alleging that a debt buyer, law firm, and process service company had engaged in a scheme to fraudulently obtain default judgments against more than 100,000 consumers in debt collection actions filed in state court.
The complaint alleged that the process service company had regularly engaged in “sewer service” by failing to serve the summons and complaint. It further alleged that, after a debtor failed to appear in court for lack of notice of the collection action, the debt buyer and law firm would seek a default judgment based on a false “affidavit of merit” attesting to their personal knowledge of the “facts and proceedings” relating to the action and a false affidavit of service.
According to the court, the plaintiffs had established that the affidavits of merit were “generated en masse by sophisticated computer programs and signed by a law firm employee who did not read the vast majority of them and claimed to, but apparently did not, have personal knowledge of the facts to which he was attesting.”
The employee typically did not receive the original credit agreement for a particular debt included in a portfolio of purchased debts. Instead, the employee received a bill of sale for the portfolio that included sample credit agreements and warranties from the portfolio seller. The court noted that even if the credit agreement existed (which it often did not), the employee’s standard practice was to rely on the warranties and database information instead of reviewing the agreements before signing an affidavit of merit.
The evidence showed that after producing the affidavits of merit in batches of up to 50 at a time,the law firm’s employee would do a “quality check” of one affidavit per batch to confirm that the affidavit information matched the database information. If both sets of information matched, he would sign the remaining affidavits without reviewing them. The employee would sign as many as 350 affidavits of merit in any given week.
The plaintiffs also alleged that, because the defendants had regularly engaged in “sewer service,” the affidavits of service that accompanied the affidavits of merit were also often false.
According to the court, evidence showing hundreds of instances of the same process server executing service at multiple locations simultaneously provided substantial support for the plaintiffs’ “sewer service” allegations.
In addition to claiming that the defendants’ conduct violated the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act and New York’s General Business Law and Judiciary Law, the complaint alleged that the defendants had violated the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act by filing false affidavits in the collection actions.
The court, in finding that the plaintiffs had satisfied the commonality requirement for class certification, noted that there is conflicting case law on whether making false representations in court, rather than to the debtor, violates the FDCPA.
Full article here…
NEW YORK (Reuters) – The mortgage task force formed by President Barack Obama to probe misconduct that contributed to the financial crisis will soon take legal action, New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman said on Thursday.
Schneiderman, a co-chair of the task force, would not say whether cases would be brought against individuals or financial institutions. He also would not comment on whether criminal charges would be filed.
But he said his office would take action and that he expected his federal counterparts on the task force to do so as well.
“We’ll see actions being taken sooner rather than later,” said Schneiderman, speaking in an interview at his office in New York.
Washington, D.C., September 20, 2012 – The states of Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Michigan today joined a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. The states are asking the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to review the constitutionality of the Orderly Liquidation Authority, established under Title II of Dodd-Frank. The three states are joining the original plaintiffs in the lawsuit: State National Bank of Big Spring, Texas; the 60 Plus Association; and the Competitive Enterprise Institute.
“We must challenge Dodd-Frank to protect Oklahoma taxpayers and our financial stability. The law puts at risk the pension contributions and tax dollars that the people have entrusted us to protect,” Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt said. The Orderly Liquidation Authority (OLA) gives the Treasury Secretary the power to liquidate any financial company as along as the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) and the Federal Reserve are in agreement.
The first Consumer Financial Protection Bureau exams into mortgage servicers will result in corrective actions for several firms, according to the bureau director Richard Cordray.
“We have the ability to examine mortgage servicers and send in examination teams. We have been doing that with different servicers. That’s been insightful for us. It will lead to corrective actions in a number of instances where they have not been up to snuff,” Cordray told a House committee Thursday.
The exams began in February. The bureau looks at how servicers are complying to existing federal laws and will identify risks of possible violations. The CFPB also takes into account how consumer complaints and loan transfers are handled.
A bureau spokesperson said the firms that had undergone exams so far would be kept confidential.