Judge ‘Very Disturbed’ By Testimony Leak In AIG Suit
Law360, Washington (May 23, 2014, 4:28 PM ET) — A U.S. Court of Federal Claims judge said Friday he is “very disturbed” by a leak of confidential testimony by top government officials in a $55 billion lawsuit over American International Group Inc.’s bailout and warned the government and Starr International Co. he would take action against whoever disseminated the information.
The U.S. Department of Justice and Starr have been unable to identify the leak of confidential deposition testimony of two former leaders of the U.S. Department of the Treasury — Timothy Geithner and Henry Paulson…
AURORA LOAN SERVS. LLC V SCHELLER | NYSC – NEITHER AURORA LOAN SERVICES LLC, NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC NOR THE REMIC HAVE ANY INTEREST WHATSOEVER IN THE MORTGAGE SOUGHT TO BE FORECLOSED
It has not been determined as to whether or not Defendants’ loan is or was held by a trust, by Aurora Loan Services LLC, by Nationstar Mortgage LLC, by a combination of them or by none of them. This is clearly a triable issue of fact which cannot be disposed of summarily but instead requires further searching examination. As a consequence, the Court must, at this juncture, necessarily limit its inquiry to the sufficiency of the allegations in the proposed Second Amended Answer, particularly when the same is juxtaposed with the complaints that have been filed in both matters. Plaintiff counters Defendants’ claims by asserting that the proposed Second Amended Answer is palpably insufficient. This Court strongly disagrees with that posture. Defendants allege, inter alia, that the acceptance of the asset, viz. the note and mortgage at issue, by the Trustee was actually accomplished in a manner other than that either prescribed or permitted by the Pooling & Servicing Agreement or PSA, which is the controlling instrument for the REMIC. If the allegations of the foregoing counterclaim by Defendants is borne out by the facts, then it inexorably follows that the acts taken by the Trustee were clearly ultra vires and therefore would necessarily be void ab initio. For well over one hundred years, it has been the law in New York that where the transfer of a mortgage to a third party is effectuated in a manner that contravenes the express terms of a governing trust, the transfer is ultra vires and is void, Kirsch v. Tozier 143 NY 390 (1894). Indeed, it follows logically that where the Trustee’s acts are ultra vires, all successors and subsequent assignees are charged with constructive knowledge of the express terms of the trust and hence cannot claim to be bona fide purchasers thereafter inasmuch as they would either know or would have reason to know that any interest transferred would be subject to the operative terms of the trust, Smith v. Kidd 68 NY 130 (1877), McPherson v. Rollins 107 NY 316 (1887).
Wells Fargo settles another robosigning lawsuit brought by shareholders not homeowners
Wells Fargo (WFC) settled another lawsuit in relation to alleged robosigning activity at the big bank.
This time, as opposed to a national settlement from Attorneys General, this $67 million settlement resolves a lawsuit brought by shareholders against the Wells Fargo board of directors.
“As a result of the alleged so-called “robo-signing” at Wells Fargo, the Federal Plaintiff alleges that the Federal Individual Defendants breached their fiduciary duty of loyalty owed to Wells Fargo and its stockholders,” the court filing said.
Wells Fargo spokesman Tom Goyda said “Wells Fargo and its directors are pleased to have resolved this matter.”
“We remain committed to our efforts to assist borrowers facing financial challenges and believe this settlement benefits the company, our customers and our shareholders,” he added.
As a result of the settlement, Wells Fargo will agree to some homeowner counseling and down-payment assistance.
Ocwen Exec: We do not require “gag clauses” for modifications
After being accused of forcing borrowers to promise not to insult them publicly, nonbank mortgage servicer Ocwen Financial Corp. (OCN) issued a rebuttal saying it does not require “gag clauses” for ordinary loan modifications.
Angry Deutsche Bank shareholders boo bosses over capital hike
Deutsche Bank’s bosses could have expected the annual shareholders meeting on Thursday to be a rowdy affair and they were not disappointed.
Just days before the bank had revealed it was going to have to raise another eight billion euros in capital by selling new shares.
It was not a popular move and co-Chief Executives Anshu Jain and Juergen Fitschen were booed and jeered.
Shareholders’ representative Klaus Nieding, head of the Deutscher Anlegerschutzbund complained: “We see the bank hasn’t been able to raise the capital it needs from its day-to-day business, so it needs capital from the market, from foreign investors. That means a significant dilution of shareholders value, unless they participate in the capital increase – whether they want to or not.”
The eight billion euros capital increase is needed to help to fortify its finances ahead of a regulatory health check due later this year.
Deutsche Bank says faces around 1,000 big lawsuits
(Reuters) – Deutsche Bank (DBKGn.DE) gave shareholders a sense of the size of its legal and regulatory problems on Thursday, when it said it faced around 1,000 major lawsuits.
Stefan Krause, the bank’s finance chief, said that the bank had paid around 350 million euros ($478 million) in legal advisory fees in 2013 alone as the bank works to free itself from investigations and lawsuits that have followed the financial crisis.
“We are involved currently in around 1,000 suits that have a value of over 100,000 (euros),” Krause told shareholders at the bank’s annual general meeting. He said the total number of lawsuits was more than 6,000.
“We are expecting continued headwinds from legal matters.”
Sen. Whitehouse Introduces Bill to Protect Servicemembers from Foreclosure
WASHINGTON, D.C. – May 23, 2014 – (RealEstateRama) — As the nation prepares to honor veterans and servicemembers during this Memorial Day weekend, U.S. Senator Sheldon Whitehouse has introduced legislation to help keep military families in their homes by protecting them against foreclosure following active duty. The Foreclosure Relief and Extension for Servicemembers Act of 2014 (S. 2404) would ensure that troops who serve active duty are protected against losing their home for one year following the completion of their service in the field.
“After fighting for our country overseas, our troops shouldn’t have to fight to keep a roof over their heads when they return home,” said Whitehouse. “Servicemembers returning from active duty often need time to regain their financial footing, particularly those in the National Guard and Reserves who give up their full-time jobs to fight for our freedom. This legislation will guarantee a full year of foreclosure protection for those troops and their families, and I hope all of my colleagues will support it.”
In 2008, Congress first extended the period of foreclosure protection under the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA) from 90 days to 9 months in response to a report by the Commission on the National Guard and Reserves. The report found that “the threat of foreclosure is a stressor that need not be placed on members of the armed forces during the first months of their return to civilian life.”
Wells Fargo faces suit after agent cancels policies
HUNTINGTON — A Huntington man is suing an insurance company after his former business was used in an alleged fraud.
Ronald D. Nisbet filed a lawsuit May 7 in Cabell Circuit Court against Wells Fargo Insurance Services of West Virginia Inc.
According to the complaint, on Nov. 1, 2000, Nisbet was president of his own insurance company, Ron Nisbet & Associates Inc. On that date the plaintiff entered into a purchasing agreement with the defendant, as well as signing a three-year non-compete agreement as part of the sale of his firm.
The suit states on May 28, 2006, an agent with the defendant wrote insurance policies under the plaintiff’s firm for Allianz Life Insurance Company, which he then cancelled following receipt of commissions totaling $46,800.
Beginning in January 2012, after the non-compete order expired and the plaintiff formed a new firm, Allianz began to charge Nesbit for the policies canceled by the defendant.
Nesbit contends he is not responsible for the canceled policies and lost money from the policies should be covered by the defendant.
Nisbet is seeking damages and costs of the suit.
Barclays fined £26 million over gold-fix failings
LONDON (MarketWatch) — Barclays Bank PLCUK:BARC +1.27% BCS +0.79% is to be fined more than £26 million ($43.9 million) for failings around the London Gold Fix, the U.K.’s Financial Conduct Authority said on Friday. The bank did not “adequately manage conflicts of interest between itself and its customers” and fell down on “systems and controls” around the setting of the gold price, the authority said in a statement . It cited the actions of former Barclays trader Daniel James Plunkett, who took advantage of weaknesses in the bank’s systems in June 2012 to try to influence the gold fix. The attempt meant the bank did not have to pay its customer $3.9 million. “Plunkett’s actions came the day after the publication of our Libor and Euribor action against Barclays. The investigation and outcomes in that case meant that the firm, and Plunkett, were clearly on notice of the potential for conflicts of interests around benchmarks,” the FCA said. Plunkett was banned from involvement in regulated activity and fined £95,600. Both the ex-trader and Barclays avoided higher fines, of £136,600 and more than £37 million, respectively, by agreeing to settle at an early stage. Barclays shares were up 0.6% in London after the news.