Daily Archives: November 4, 2014

‘France is a tax haven’ says French billionaire

French telecoms billionaire Xavier Niel on Tuesday became probably the first tycoon ever to declare France a “tax haven”.

Forget François Hollande’s famous 75 percent tax on millionaires and the hefty payroll taxes liberal economists say weigh heavy on French companies; for Niel, the French tax man is presiding, in an undemanding manner, over a “paradis fiscal”.

Speaking on the television channel BFM TV, the founder of Free – the country’s second biggest internet provider and third largest mobile phone service – reiterated his previous comments that France is the best place in the world to start a business – even better than the US.

“France is a tax haven. If I’m an entrepreneur and I want to pass on my business, in which country will I pay the least taxes? It’s France –  where there’s only a 23 percent tax on capital gains if I hold on to my company for more than eight years and a five to seven percent tax if I want to pass on my business to my children.

Read on.


Cross-posted from The Law Offices of Evan M. Rosen

An excerpt from one of our latest trial wins:

MR. ROSEN:  Judge, at this time, we would like to make a motion pursuant to 1.420, Rules of Civil Procedure, a motion for involuntary dismissal is the appropriate mechanism at the close of a plaintiff’s case in a nonjury trial. A motion for involuntary dismissal tests not the weight of the evidence, but rather whether the plaintiff has met its prima facie burden.  The prima facie burden in a foreclosure case is four-pronged under the Ernest v Carter case. One, that there be a contractual relationship between the parties, two, that there be a breach of that contractual relationship.  Three, acceleration of a debt, proper acceleration. And lastly, damages to satisfy the mind of a prudent, impartial person.  As to standing, Judge, and the contractual relationship. This action began with an allegation that the plaintiff was the servicer for the owner acting on behalf of the owner with the authority to do so, and is the present and designated holderof the note. They are holding the note for someone else. The designated holder for someone else and with authority, quote, unquote, to pursue the present action. There has been no evidence, whatsoever, before the Court to validate that allegation in their complaint. Rather, what’s before the Court is that there was a complaint filed with a note made payable to another party with no endorsement, that there is now a note, for the first time, never been filed before with the Court, a note endorsed in blank, from this third party. Standing is not today, although today it needs to be as well.  It’s throughout the case.  And the Sentinel case in foreclosure — really, the Sentinel case is not inforeclosure case, it’s a PIP case, if I’m not mistaken, the Progressive v McGrath case, which says standing at inception is what’s required, and it’s incurable. Numerous other cases have come down from the 4th, as well, to indicate that this law is unshakable. At this time, that is what you have to show standing and inception, as well as standing throughout the litigation.  There has been no documentary evidence, whatsoever, to show who held the note at the time the suit was filed. In fact, just the opposite.  They say the note was lost in their complaint.  And as the Court knows, there are these surprising requests for admissions filed by the current plaintiff’s firm admitting that they didn’t have possession of the note at the time the suit was filed. It’s number five, admitting that the copy attached to the complaint is a true and correct copy.  So those are, as we’ve discussed, uncontrovertible, under Erhardt. Those are judicial admissions, different than evidentiary ones.  And even if they were evidentiary, there has been no evidence to controvert them. And the only evidence that we have are two assignments of mortgagethat don’t reference the note, and both are dated two years after suit is filed. Two years, referencing a transfer from the original lender of the mortgage to the original plaintiff in this case, two years post-suit being filed. What is also of interest into considering the contractual relationship, the complaint in this case references that they are suing on a note dated May 11th, 2008, and a mortgage recorded in 2008. The note that’s before you is not from 2008, nor is the mortgage.  They are from 2006.  I encourage the Court to take a look at both the complaint and the note. In a light most favorable to the plaintiff, which is the standard in a motion for involuntary dismissal, that may very well be a mistake, but that’s their allegations in conjunction with the request for admissions and the testimony before the Court.  I think it’s as clear as it can possibly be that there’s no standing and inception…

THE COURT:  Response?

MR. SILEVITCH:  Yes, Your Honor.  Regarding standing and standing at the inception, my witness testified to being the holder of the note, to —

THE COURT:  Wait.  What is the testimony about being the holder of the note?

MR. SILEVITCH:   I believe in my redirect, she testified that Nationstar is the holderof the note.

THE COURT:  But not at any particular time.

MR. SILEVITCH:   Correct.  I’m getting there. She testified —

THE COURT:  She’s basically saying I produced the note in court as the agent for Nationstar?

MR. SILEVITCH:   That’s one of the things.  She testified to the payment history.  She testified that the chain of servicers was First Magnus, who was the originating lender. Shortly after origination, it went to Aurora Loan Services, LLC, and after that, it went to Nationstar Mortgage, LLC.  She testified to what was in the payment history, that shortly after origination, the first payment was received by Aurora Loan Services. I believe it was July 1st, 2014.  Subsequent payments were made to Aurora LoanServices.  The borrower is well aware that Aurora Loan Services was servicing the loan, as they were submitting payments to them. In June, 2012, the loan then service transferred through acquisition to Nationstar Mortgage, LLC, who is now the —

THE COURT:  How does that prove that you hold the note, the fact that you are making payments to somebody?

MR. SILEVITCH:   Well, under Florida statute 673.3011, you can be entitled to enforce the note, and not in possession of the note.  As we have here, there was a lost note count pled, going back to his request for admissions.

THE COURT:  Let’s assume it is not a lost note.  Let’s say that’s a note that was never lost. All right? And someone is making — let’s talk about this very narrow issue.  Someone is making payments to a servicer, making payments to an agent.  We always call it the servicer, but really, what you’re talking about is they are an agent for somebody that’s entitled to the payments. Either they are entitled to the payments on their own, or they are entitled to the payments as the agent for somebody.  It could be either one. So the mere fact that you are making payments to somebody, how does that mean that that somebody is the holder of the note? For example, couldn’t you have an owner of the note who is also the holder of the note hire a company to collect the payments for them?

MR. SILEVITCH:   Correct.  Well —

THE COURT:  How do we know it’s not that kind of a situation?

MR. SILEVITCH:  Well, if that were the case, the statute also allows for that entity to enforce the note.

THE COURT:  It will allow the owner to enforce the note, but it doesn’t allow the agent to enforce the note.

MR. SILEVITCH:  Well, it allows the —

THE COURT:  Well, I take that back.  When they are in authority, they can enforce the note, if they are designated by the owner of the note to enforce the note.

MR. ROSEN:  A nonholder in possession with the rights of a holder, subsection two.

THE COURT: Right.  Here’s the problem you’ve got, it seems to me.  There’s no evidence in the record other than the payment history and the two post-dated assignments that indicate an assignment of a mortgage, not an assignment of the note. But regardless of that fact, there’s nothing in the record to indicate who possessed the note on a day the lawsuit was filed.  How do we know who possessed the note on the date the lawsuit was filed?  That could have been some other party.

MR. SILEVITCH:  Well, a copy of the note was attached to the complaint.

THE COURT:  But that’s not a copy — that’s our problem.  That’s what raises the question mark. The question mark that’s raised in this case by virtue of the fact that the copy of the note that’s attached to the complaint doesn’t have a blank endorsement on it.  Am I correct?

MR. ROSEN:  That’s correct, Judge.  It does not.

THE COURT:  So it doesn’t have a blank endorsement on it, and that raises a great big giant question mark, which you can overcome, but you have to overcome it somehow.

MR. SILEVITCH:  Right.  Well, my witness testified to the — she testified to the relationship and the servicer, the subsequent servicers about being the holder. The statute 673.3011, if you look at the bottom, says a person may be entitled to enforce the instrument even though the person is not the owner of the instrument or is in wrongful possession of the instrument. Even if that were the case, if they were in wrongful possession of it, they would be entitled to enforce it.

THE COURT:  Let me ask you a question. Suppose you have a lender that is in possession of a note, and then there’s a succession of servicers — in this case, I’ve heard reference to four — there’s a succession of servicers who have some rights as the agent of the owner. And then ultimately, the last of those servicers ends up with possession of the note at some point in time, we know not when.  Does that give — is that fact alone sufficient to allow a judge to find that there was standing on the day the suit was filed?

MR. SILEVITCH:  Well, the standing is a preponderance of the evidence.  It’s based off the weight of evidence that was presented.  Counsel didn’t provide any evidence into the record to the contrary.

MR. ROSEN:  Actually —

THE COURT:  Aurora Bank or something —

MR. ROSEN:  There was Aurora Bank before Aurora Servicing.

THE COURT:  We know Aurora Bank had something to do in here, we know that Lehman had something to do in here, and we don’t know what.

MR. SILEVITCH:  No, we don’t, Your Honor. It’s hearsay.

THE COURT: Aren’t their names in the loan history?

MR. SILEVITCH:  No.  What’s in the loan history is First Magnus, the Aurora loan number who was servicing the loan at the time, and then it went to Nationstar. Counsel showed my witness and wanted — I’m not sure, but I believe wanted Your Honor to take judicial notice of a document that was attached to a discovery response.

MR. ROSEN:  It was not a discovery response. It was a pleading.

THE COURT:  That was a discovery response?

MR. ROSEN:  That was a reply to affirmative defense, which is a pleading by definition, Judge. That’s a pleading.  It’s a judicial admission.

MR. SILEVITCH:   That was a request for production.

MR. ROSEN:  It wasn’t.  You can pull the record, Judge.  It’s not accurate.  I apologize for interrupting, but it’s not truthful.

THE COURT:  Okay.  But it’s not in the loan history?  I thought it was in the loan history.

MR. ROSEN:  No.  The loan history is an incorporation of multiple servicers, how many, we’re not exactly sure.  I crossed her on that, and she didn’t know. But I have records from their own response in the pleading that says there might be multiple servicers, and that was a printout from MERS.

MR. SILEVITCH:  And Your Honor, she never testified to the fact that she knew what the document was.  He asked her — he pointed out a couple words and had her read that.  That document was not in evidence. No predicate was laid.  There was no foundation.  The document is hearsay.  What we have on the record is a payment history, loan history, showing Aurora to Nationstar.

THE COURT: Okay.  And Nationstar took over Aurora?

MR. SILEVITCH:  Correct.

THE COURT: And Aurora was the plaintiff at the time the suit was filed?

MR. SILEVITCH:  Correct.

THE COURT:  And we’re looking at this at the time the suit was filed, so —

MR. ROSEN:  Well, there’s another party that he’s ignoring all of a sudden.  That’s First Magnus, and there was testimony to that.

THE COURT: Hold on.  Let’s back up for a minute.  So except for whether or not the First Magnus issue is before me — the Aurora Bank issue is before me, according to the plaintiff, what we’ve got is First Magnus has the note, obviously, as the lender. Aurora is shown on the loan history as being the only servicer from the time of the first payment.  We don’t know yet about these other two entities. It doesn’t really matter about Nationstar, because we’re only concerned about Aurora.  Did Aurora possess the note at the time Aurora filed the lawsuit for standing?  On the standing point. We don’t care about Nationstar.

MR. ROSEN:  I think we do, but that’s another point.

THE COURT: For standing?

MR. ROSEN:  Yeah.  I think you have to have standing all the way through, but that’s another story, altogether.

MR. SILEVITCH:  Judge, there was a lost note count pled.

THE COURT:  I’m only looking at the time —

MR. ROSEN:  That’s fine for now.

THE COURT: I’m concerned right now at the time the suit was filed.  At the time the suit was filed, we’ve got two entities involved —

MR. ROSEN:  Three.

THE COURT:  — that we know of.

MR. SILEVITCH:  No.  Two at the time it was filed.

THE COURT: According to plaintiff, Nationstar, and the other being Aurora.  Now, let’s assume that that’s true. As far as the plaintiff knows, there’s only two entities that are involved, the lender and Aurora.

MR. ROSEN: Who are servicing, nothing to do with holding.  Just servicing, collecting payments.

THE COURT:  We know who was collecting the money on the account.

MR. ROSEN: Correct.  Which you pointed out means nothing.

THE COURT:  We don’t know — and we know also that Freddie Mac got into this picture at some point.

MR. ROSEN:  Correct.

THE COURT: And that’s undisputed.  And we don’t know at what point Freddie Mac got into the picture.  So how do we know that that note was endorsed by First Magnus prior to the time the suit was filed?

MR. SILEVITCH:  Your Honor, I do have authority that states all that’s needed is —

THE COURT: How do we know when Aurora came into possession, if ever, of that note?

MR. ROSEN: We don’t, Judge.  The only evidence that’s before us is — and they said we have no evidence.  We have a request for admission that they admitted they didn’t have it at the time of filing suit.

THE COURT:  Yeah, but at that time, they are claiming a lost note, so it would be the right to possession.

MR. ROSEN:  Two years later, they said that, that they didn’t have the note.

MR. SILEVITCH:  Well, that says we didn’t have the note at the time the suit was filed, which is an accurate statement.

MR. ROSEN:  That’s a problem, then.  And they don’t have any evidence as to —

MR. SILEVITCH:  We had a lost note count.  How could you have possession of it when you have a lost note count?

MR. ROSEN:  That’s the answer right there.

THE COURT:  Well, the point is you have to have a right — they still have to demonstrate that they have a right to possession on the day the suit — that Aurora has the right to possession on the date the suit was filed.  And I don’t have any evidence as to that.

MR. SILEVITCH:  Well, Your Honor, we do have the witness’s testimony to her records, mainly the payment history, that they have the right to collect payments.

THE COURT: I’ve got to be honest.  I don’t think the payment history cuts it.  I don’t think the payment history that someone is collecting money is indicative of anything other than the fact that they obviously have the right to be collecting the money for somebody, because nobody is complaining that they are collecting the money for two years. So I think that’s good evidence that they are the servicer of the loan, and with authority to collect the money.  Otherwise, somebody would be complaining. But the — I don’t think its indicative of anything with respect to the note, when it was endorsed, who it was endorsed to, who possessed it, and who had the right to possess it.

MR. SILEVITCH:   Your Honor, it was a David Stern complaint.  A lot of endorsements are on the back of the note.

THE COURT:  I recognize that.

MR. SILEVITCH:  It didn’t make it.  I do have case law which says —

THE COURT: I recognize that, and I’m not holding it against you, frankly, the fact that it’s a two-count complaint, because the record — the appellate court wouldn’t know it, but the record ought to show that there are thousands of David Stern complaints that have a count one and a count two, count two being a lost note count. So the fact that there’s a count two lost note count by itself doesn’t hold a lot of water with the Court.  It’s common knowledge in this courthouse that that’s how all those — almost all those complaints were filed. On the other hand, I’m not sure that that means anything.  So I think we have a problem in this case.  I think there’s a definite problem of standing. I don’t think those assignments — I haven’t compared the two assignments, so it sounds from what the question was that one of them in is question, anyhow, but without even comparing the assignments, just the fact that they are post-dated by two years — if these assignments were dated before the suit was filed, then it would mean something. But two years after the suit was filed doesn’t mean a thing in terms of what was the status of matters on the suit was filed.

MR. SILEVITCH:  Your Honor, if I can interject for a couple things?  Statute 673.3011 states a person may be entitled to enforce the instrument, even though the person is not the owner of the instrument or in wrongful possession of the instrument.

THE COURT:  That’s true.  On the date the suit is filed.

MR. SILEVITCH:  Correct.

THE COURT:  But we’re not talking about — if we didn’t have a standing issue, and you show up today in court with the note, that applies to you, and I would allow you, even if you were a thief, to enforce the note. And you could enforce the mortgage, because the mortgage follows the note.  But that’s not the standing question.  The standing question is who had that right on the day the suit was filed?

MR. SILEVITCH:  Well, it goes to where the evidence — the complaint was filed by Aurora, there’s an assignment from Aurora to Nationstar. Plaintiff showed up here today with the original note and mortgage in hand. They have been filed with the Court.  I do have authority, Deutsche Bank versus DePerry.  It’s out of the 4th DCA.

THE COURT: If I accept what you are saying, then there would never be a standing issue in this court.  I mean, 99.9 percent of the standing issues are exactly this. You always have a plaintiff who’s got a loan history that they can produce, and most often — more often than not, they will come in with a post-dated assignment.  But those two facts alone don’t cut it.

MR. ROSEN: Judge, I have no less than 15 cases that reiterates standing and inception is the law on its face.

MR. SILEVITCH:  In this case, it stands to the proposition that you can — that you need to attach an adequate portion of the copy of the note, and it can be supplemented later.  You know, the note that was put into evidence does have a blank endorsement from First Magnus.

MR. ROSEN: Judge, there’s absolutely no evidence of standing and inception, zero.  Her knowledge is based upon review of records. There’s not a single business record that says where the note was at the time of filing.  We’re getting so sidetracked with servicing and notes showing up now.  That’s just not the law. And you allowed standing objections throughout the trial where there’s testimony as to the contents of a record without that record first coming in. There is not a single record, collection note, or anything that would show that, and there needs to be.  We can go through Green, we can go through Saber, Hall v REO, Progressive v McGrath. There’s so many cases on standing and inception, as the Court is well aware.

THE COURT: I just don’t see it.

MR. SILEVITCH:  Your Honor, I think it goes to the weight of the evidence.  The borrower made payments to Aurora Loan Services.

THE COURT:  To save time, I’m not going to address the other issues in the motion to dismiss. I’m going to withhold the ruling on the motion to dismiss, and go ahead with the case.

MR. ROSEN: Fair enough, Judge.  I have no witnesses or exhibits to introduce at this time.

THE COURT: And you rest?

MR. ROSEN:  Rest.

THE COURT:  And you make the same final argument?

MR. ROSEN: Same final argument, now with the standard of weighing the evidence, by a preponderance —

THE COURT:  And all the doubts I’ve expressed, that’s why I feel that you haven’t proved your case by a preponderance of the evidence. So either they are entitled to a dismissal outright, which as I indicated, I don’t know if there’s a case that tells you what the weight is, or you haven’t satisfied me by what I consider to be trustworthy evidence that the — that you’ve proved standing of Aurora at the time Aurora filed the case.  And so —

MR. SILEVITCH:  And Your Honor, I would just go back to my argument, the fact that payments were made to Aurora, they were servicing the loan.  They don’t necessarily need to be in possession of the note and mortgage.

THE COURT:  I agree.  You have proved that to my satisfaction, and the record should show that you’ve proved to my satisfaction Aurora was the servicer, and they were servicing it at the time the suit was filed, and I’m not making this decision on the basis of whether they had authority to file the suit, or whether they had the authority to be the servicer. I’m making this decision purely on the question of standing under the uniform commercial code at the time the suit was filed, and I just don’t think that you’ve proved that.

MR. ROSEN:  Thank you, Judge.

THE COURT:  So by either as a holder of the lost note, or a regular note that wasn’t lost, or as the owner with a right to file suit, under any of those theories, I don’t have enough information that I can rule in your favor. So it’s dismissed either on the motion to dismiss, or on the — for lack of standing on the final — as a final decision in the case.  Either way, I rule in favor of the defendant.  And I want to make it clear that I’m doing this on the basis of standing.

MR. ROSEN:  We can write that up, Judge. Thank you.

(Thereupon, the proceeding was concluded.)

Case Dismissed!


Freddie Mac Off Hook in Subprime Exposure Suit

CLEVELAND (CN) – The Ohio Public Employees Retirement System failed to prove Freddie Mac concealed a $2 billion loss on risky mortgages from investors before a 2007 financial report set its stocks reeling, a federal judge ruled.
The retirement system, alternately known as OPERS, sued the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation in January 2008, alleging that the government-sponsored mortgage broker lied about the number of “subprime” loans it purchased in 2006 and 2007.
Following the release of a financial statement revealing a $2 billion loss on November 20, 2007, Freddie Mac’s stock dropped 29 percent in one day, resulting in shareholder losses of over $6.6 billion.
In its complaint OPERS claimed “the drop in [stock] price ‘confirms empirically that the market was previously unaware of the full extent of Freddie Mac’s exposure to, and risk from, non-traditional mortgages,” while Freddie Mac blamed the price drop on the financial crisis.
U.S. District Court Judge Benita Y. Pearson cited several of Freddie Mac’s annual reports in her opinion, pointing out how their disclosures run counter the plaintiff’s argument.
She wrote: “before November 2007, Freddie Mac had already disclosed that it was increasing its purchase of non-traditional mortgages products that may default more often.”

Read on.

Discretion Needed On Libor MDL, Ex-Judges Tell High Court

Law360, New York (November 03, 2014, 10:41 PM ET) — Former federal district judge and U.S. Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey urged the U.S. Supreme Court to reject plaintiffs’ bid to appeal the dismissal of their antitrust claims in multidistrict litigation over alleged rigging of a key interest rate while the bulk of the case continues.

In an amicus brief dated Oct. 22, Mukasey and six other former U.S. district judges said the plaintiffs seeking to appeal the dismissal of their antitrust claims in multidistrict litigation over allegations that global banks manipulated the London Interbank Offered…

Source: Law360

Regulators have rejected UK banks’ efforts to forestall a full competition probe, Sky News learns

Britain’s biggest banks have abandoned efforts to head off a full-blown competition inquiry following a lukewarm response from regulators.

Sky News understands that the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) will announce on Thursday that it is proceeding with a formal probe into the supply of banking services to small and medium-sized companies (SMEs) and personal current accounts.

The decision is understood to have been approved by the CMA board last month.

An inquiry, which could last for up to two years, will kick the politically sensitive issue of banking competition into the post-general election long grass.

The four largest banks collectively supply more than three-quarters of personal current accounts and an even higher proportion of banking services to SMEs.

Read on.

‘Rigging’ may add to JPMorgan’s nearly $6B legal tab

Jamie Dimon is ready to pay for some shady currency.

The Department of Justice and other regulators are investigating JPMorgan, the largest US bank by assets, for its role in allegedly rigging currency rates — a rapidly developing investigation that’s recently ensnared at least two other banks, Citigroup and HSBC.

The bank that Dimon runs is preparing for around $5.9 billion in losses from legal expenses due to multiple investigations, some of which are still in preliminary stages, the bank said in a regulatory filing late Monday.

The Commodity Futures Trading Commission, as well as the UK and other foreign regulators, are also investigating the alleged rigging, the bank disclosed.

The bank said it’s cooperating with regulators, and that there’s no guarantee of a settlement.

Read on.

Former GMAC head named CEO for new Fannie, Freddie subsidiary

Fannie Mae website:

Callie Dosberg


WASHINGTON, DC – Fannie Mae (FNMA/OTC) and Freddie Mac (OTCQB: FMCC) today jointly announced that the first chief executive officer (CEO) has been named for Common Securitization Solutions, LLC (CSS), which was established by the companies to build and operate the Common Securitization Platform (CSP), a new secondary mortgage market infrastructure. Additionally, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac each appointed two executives to the CSS Board of Managers and signed governance and operating agreements for CSS.

David M. Applegate, who led both GMAC Mortgage and GMAC Bank during a 17-year career at General Motors Acceptance Corporation, has been appointed chief executive officer of CSS. Applegate brings more than 20 years of mortgage and banking experience to his new leadership role at CSS.

Prior to joining CSS, Applegate was president, CEO and director of Homeward Residential, Inc., a Dallas-based mortgage lender and servicer with assets of $4.5 billion and a global workforce of 3,000. Previously, he was president of GMAC Mortgage and chairman of GMAC Bank from 2000-2007. At GMAC Mortgage, Applegate assembled a strong executive team that transformed the company into an industry leader. Applegate also served as president of mortgage insurer Radian Guaranty Inc., and managed a consulting practice with major financial services clients.

Jerry Weiss, Freddie Mac Executive Vice President and Chief Administrative Officer, said, “I am delighted that CSS will have a leader of such stature and quality. David Applegate will help ensure that CSS forms a sound foundation on which to rebuild the infrastructure of the country’s secondary mortgage market and launch a single security. Freddie Mac is pleased to be playing a leading role in this important project.”

“CSS is poised to take the next steps in building a future securitization infrastructure,” said Andrew Bon Salle, Fannie Mae Executive Vice President, Single-Family Underwriting, Pricing and Capital Markets. “David Applegate is a respected leader in the industry who will bring deep expertise in mortgage finance to CSS.  Fannie Mae looks forward to working with CSS, Freddie Mac and the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) to lay the foundation for a strong housing finance system for the future.”

Appointments to the CSS Board of Managers are:

David Lowman, Freddie Mac Executive Vice President, Single-Family Business

David Lowman has served as executive vice president for Freddie Mac’s Single-Family Business since May 2013 and is a member of the company’s senior operating committee. As head of Freddie Mac’s Single-Family Business, Lowman has broad responsibility for the line of business, including managing the company’s relationships with its Seller/Servicers, the performance of Freddie Mac’s guarantee book of business, securitization of new business, and all sourcing, servicing and business operations. Lowman has worked in the mortgage and consumer finance business for over 30 years, serving at some of the nation’s largest mortgage operations.

Jerry Weiss, Freddie Mac Executive Vice President and Chief Administrative Officer

Jerry Weiss has served as executive vice president and chief administrative officer since July 2010 and is a member of Freddie Mac’s senior operating committee. Weiss has overall responsibility for managing the Freddie Mac’s external and regulatory affairs and serves as the company’s senior executive liaison to the FHFA and the U.S. Department of the Treasury. He also manages Freddie Mac’s Strategic Initiatives division, overseeing all significant conservatorship and corporate strategic initiatives. Weiss has over 30 years of experience in the financial services industry and joined Freddie Mac in October 2003.

Terry Edwards, Fannie Mae Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer

Terry Edwards has served as Fannie Mae’s executive vice president and chief operating officer since 2013. He joined Fannie Mae in September 2009 to lead the company’s foreclosure prevention and loss mitigation activities for its single-family book of business. Prior to that, Edwards was president and CEO of PHH Corporation, where he served for nearly three decades in a variety of executive roles.

Rick Sorkin, Fannie Mae Senior Vice President, Single-Family Pricing Strategy and Structured Transactions

Rick Sorkin has served as Fannie Mae’s senior vice president – single-family pricing strategy and structured transactions since April of 2014. Previously, he was vice president of structured transactions. Sorkin’s pricing strategy team sets and implements single-family guaranty pricing terms for whole loan and mortgage-backed securities business. He also is responsible for overseeing the issuance and product development of mortgage-backed structured transactions. Over the past 10 years, his team has issued more than $4 trillion in structured securities.  He joined Fannie Mae in 1989.

Common Securitization Solutions, LLC is a jointly owned limited liability company formed between Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac for the purpose of designing, developing, building and operating the CSP. Common Securitization Solutions is equally owned by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and represents an important milestone in FHFA’s goal of building a new secondary market infrastructure. The intention of the CSP is to replace certain elements of the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac proprietary systems for securitizing mortgages and performing associated back-office and administrative functions. The FHFA’s 2014 Strategic Plan for the Conservatorships of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac includes the goal of developing a single Enterprise mortgage-backed security as part of the efforts to build the CSP.

Finally, do you recognize the name David Lowman on CSS Board? I know I do. David Lowman was the CEO of Chase Home Lending who was fired by JP Morgan for the duel tracking mess that Chase created in the foreclosure crisis and overcharging the active duty soldiers on loans. Lowman was in the hot seat on Capitol Hill when he testified in front of Congress. Remember this infamous testimony? “Come to me,” said David Lowman, chief executive for JPMorgan Chase’s home mortgage business in response to the question to where struggling homeowners can go to for help from Congressman Barney Frank. Check out a man attempting to show Mr. Lowman his collection letter from Chase:



And Mr. Lowmans’ testimony to the Senate which provoked furious gallery protest by homeowners. And this man is on the new Fannie, Freddie subsidiary?