Link

BLACKROCK V. U.S. BANK | DERIVATIVE COMPLAINT AGAINST U.S. BANK NA FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT; VIOLATION OF THE TRUST INDENTURE ACT OF 1939; BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY; BREACH OF DUTY OF INDEPENDENCE; AND NEGLIGENCE

BLACKROCK V. U.S. BANK | DERIVATIVE COMPLAINT AGAINST U.S. BANK NA FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT; VIOLATION OF THE TRUST INDENTURE ACT OF 1939; BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY; BREACH OF DUTY OF INDEPENDENCE; AND NEGLIGENCE

certificateholders. Between 2004 and 2008, a handful of large investment banks dominated the RMBS market and controlled the process from beginning to end. These banks act as “sponsors” of the RMBS, acquiring the mortgage loans from originators, who often were affiliates of the sponsors, or beholden to them through warehouse lending or other financial arrangements. Once the loans are originated, acquired and selected for securitization, the sponsor creates a trust where the loans are deposited for the benefit of the Certificateholders. The sponsor also hand-picks the servicer, often an affiliate of the sponsor or originator, to collect payments on the loans. Finally, a select number of these same banks that originate, securitize and service RMBS also act as trustees on other sponsor’s deals. 3. To ensure the quality of the RMBS and the underlying loans, the Trust documents generally include representations and warranties from the loan sellers attesting to the quality and characteristics of the mortgages as well as an agreement to cure, substitute, or repurchase mortgages that do not comply with those representations and warranties. Because the risk of non-payment or default on the loans is “passed through” to investors, other than these representations and warranties, the large investment banks and other players in the mortgage securitization industry have no “skin” in the game once the RMBS are sold to certificateholders. Instead, their profits are principally derived from the spread between the cost to originate or purchase loans, how much they can sell them to investors once packaged as securities, as well as various servicing-related income. Accordingly, volume became the focus, and the quality of the loans was disregarded.

 

One response to “BLACKROCK V. U.S. BANK | DERIVATIVE COMPLAINT AGAINST U.S. BANK NA FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT; VIOLATION OF THE TRUST INDENTURE ACT OF 1939; BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY; BREACH OF DUTY OF INDEPENDENCE; AND NEGLIGENCE

  1. Exactly NO SKIN IN THE GAME. APPEARS ABSOLUTE INTENT TO ROB!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s