Freddie Mac Can’t Dodge Libor Suit’s MDL Transfer
Law360, New York (June 06, 2013, 8:23 PM ET) — The U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on Thursday sent Freddie Mac’s suit against Bank of America Corp. and others over the allegedly suppressed Libor rate to the MDL pending in New York federal court, rebuffing Freddie Mac’s objection over the MDL judge’s dismissal of Sherman Act claims.
Freddie Mac opposed the transfer of the case from Virginia federal court arguing that while it did not initially object to the case’s inclusion in the MDL, it took issue with the dismissal of antitrust claims in six…
Ex-Barclays Employees Not Bank Execs To Face Criminal Libor Charges
Law360, New York (June 06, 2013, 10:42 PM ET) — American prosecutors and their counterparts across the Atlantic are planning to target some former Barclays PLC employees over the London Interbank Offered Rate scandal that cost the British investment banking giant a $450 million fine last summer, according to Thursday news reports.
Prosecutors in the U.S. and U.K. are planning to bring criminal charges against the former Barclays employees within in the next few months, but the exact time frame and the targets are not fully nailed down, confidential sources told the Wall Street Journal….
Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi criticized Bank of America on Thursday for failing to follow the rules of a national mortgage settlement reached last year over the practice of robo-signing during the height of the foreclosure crisis.
In a letter to Bank of America’s lawyer, she accuses the banking giant of “troubling” practices, including sending state officials “litigation letters” and failing to modify mortgages in an efficient manner. She floats a future lawsuit against Bank of America or any of the other banks in the settlement as a possibility.
Bondi’s letter comes a month after New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman threatened to sue Bank of America and Wells Fargo over alleged noncompliance with the $25 billion settlement inked between the five largest banks and 49 attorneys general.
In MERS ruling, Oregon Supreme Court clears way for out-of-court foreclosures to proceed
The Oregon Supreme Court on Thursday cleared the way for banks to return to their preferred out-of-court method of foreclosure.
The high court found that Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems Inc., a lending industry cooperative for cataloging loan ownership, can’t foreclose on mortgages itself — as was common in the early years of the foreclosure crisis — because it’s not the beneficiary of a deed of trust.
The court did rule in favor of MERS and lenders, however, by ruling that not all transfers in ownership of a loan need to be recorded in county records before out-of-court foreclosures can proceed. With those ownership records now considered complete, foreclosures can proceed outside the court system at a lower cost to lenders.
The recording decision reverses part of a ruling by the Oregon Court of Appeals, a lower court, that had been the final word in state law until Thursday. After the appellate court issued its decision in July 2012, most lenders diverted their foreclosures into the court system to avoid possible legal challenges.
Florida’s Fourth District Court of Appeal issued this written opinion today reversing a Final Judgment ofForeclosure. This decision is yet another case which makes it clear that foreclosure plaintiffs must comply with the “notice and cure” provisions in paragraph 22 of most mortgages before accelerating the balance due and before filing suit.
That’s old news for those in the industry. The fight is now beyond that stage for many of us, who are regularly arguing whether a paragraph 22 letter, even if sent, satisfies the requirements of paragraph 22. Plaintiffs like to argue that “substantial compliance” is all that is necessary, while defendants argue the standard is higher.
What I find interesting about this opinion is that it’s yet another case where a Florida appellate court had the chance to explain that a foreclosure plaintiff need only “substantially comply” with the paragraph 22 obligations yet declined to do so. Likewise, this is another case where a Florida appellate court could have ruled that prejudice was a factor in the analysis, i.e. that the homeowner could only complain about the paragraph 22 letter if he/she had the ability to cure the default, yet did not adopt that analysis.
Wells Fargo Pays $42 Million in Fair Housing Case
Again.. They never learn from their crimes..
Wells Fargo Bank agreed to pay $42 million to settle a complaint that it failed to maintain foreclosed properties in minority neighborhoods, turning the vacant houses into dilapidated eyesores.
The National Fair Housing Alliance and member organizations sued Wells Fargo in April 2012, alleging in an administrative complaint filed with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development that the bank violated the Fair Housing Act.
The complaint alleged Wells Fargo’s so-called “real estate owned” properties in white areas were much better maintained and marketed than the properties in African-American and Latino neighborhoods. For example, houses in minority areas often had ill-kept yards, broken doors, peeling paint or boarded-up windows.