In an article in The San Francisco Chronicle in December 2007 proposed attorney Sean Olender that the real reason for the subprime bailout schemes of the U.S. Treasury Department suggested it was not borrowers strapped in their homes as much as to prevent a flood of holding actions against the banks. The plan then on the table was an taux banque interest rate freeze on a limited number of subprime loans. Olender wrote: LINEBREAK LINEBREAK LINE BREAK “The only goal of the freeze for owners of mortgage-backed securities, which prevent many of them foreigners suing U.S. banks and forcing them to buy back worthless mortgage securities at face value is – right now almost 10-fold their market value. The ticking time bomb in the U.S. banking system is not resetting subprime mortgage rates. The real problem is the contractual ability of investors to require mortgage bonds banks to buy back the bonds at par, whether it fraud in the creation process. LINEBREAK LINEBREAK LINE BREAK “. . . The catastrophic consequences of bond investors forcing originators to buy back loans at face value take place outside of the current media discussion. The loans at issue Shadow, brings together the capital available to the largest U.S. banks, and investor lawsuits would be sufficient to increase breath-taking responsibility for themselves to fail, the largest U.S. banks, resulting in massive taxpayer-funded bailouts of Fannie and Freddie, and even FDIC . . . .
“What would be prudent and logical is for the banks that these toxic waste sold to buy them again and go for a lot of people in jail. If they bancaire knew about the fraud, they should have to buy the bonds back.” 1
The thought could send shivers through even the most powerful investment bankers, including Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, himself, the head of Goldman Sachs during the heyday of toxic subprime paper-writing 2004 to 2006, to send. Mortgage fraud has not made the representations to borrowers or loan documents, but is in the design of the banks ‘financial products’ within limits. Among other design flaws is that securitized mortgage debt has become so complex that the ownership of the underlying security has often been lost in the shuffle, and without a legal owner, there is no one with standing to foreclose. That was bancaire the procedural problem prompting Federal District Judge Christopher Boyko decided in October 2007 that the German bank were not entitled, on 14 Mortgage foreclose on trust for a pool of mortgage-backed securities holders.2 place when a large number of defaulting homeowners were their foreclosures on the ground that lacked the plaintiff was able to deny sue trillions of dollars in mortgage-backed securities (MBS) in be hazardous. Irate securities holders might then with litigation that could threaten the existence of actually responding to the banking Goliaths.
STATES CHARGE
MBS leads the investors with the power to bring major lawsuits are state and local governments, which hold a substantial portion of its assets in MBS and similar investments. A harbinger of things to come was a complaint on 1 February 2008, sold by the state Massachusetts filed against Merrill Lynch, for fraud and misrepresentation of approximately $ 14 million worth of subprime securities to the city Springfield. The complaints focus on the sale of “certain esoteric financial instruments such as collateralized debt obligations (CDOs) known … not for the city and those who were within a few months after the sale, were illiquid and lost almost all of their market value.” 3
The previous month, the city of Baltimore sued Wells Fargo Bank for damages from the subprime debacle, alleging that Wells Fargo had intentionally discriminated against more often in the sale of high-interest mortgages than blacks to whites, in violation of federal law law.4
Another innovative action In January 2008, submitted by Mayor Frank Jackson in Cleveland brought against 21 large investment banks, to enable the sub-prime crisis and foreclosure in his city. The action was aimed at the investment banks that supplied from the mortgage market by buying subprime mortgages from lenders and then “securitized” them and sell them to investors. City officials said they hoped to recover hundreds of millions of dollars in damages from the banks, including lost taxes from devalued property and money in the demolition and boarding up thousands of abandoned houses. The defendants included banking giants German bank, Goldman Sachs, Merrill Lynch, Wells Fargo, Bank of America and Citigroup. They were charged with creating a “public nuisance” by irresponsibly buying and selling of high-interest home loans, causing widespread defaults that the city tax base and left neighborhoods in ruins exhausted.
“For me, this is no different than organized crime and drugs,” Jackson told the Cleveland newspaper The Plain Dealer. “It has the same effect as drug activity in the neighborhood. It is a form of organized crime that happens in many ways legal.” He added, in a videotaped interview: “This lawsuit said,” You’re not going to them for us to do more. ‘”5
The Plain Dealer also interviewed Ohio Attorney General Marc Then who are considering a state lawsuit against some of the same plant was banks.” There is clearly a wrong, “he said,” and the source is Wall Street. I am glad to have some company on my hunt. “
However, a funny thing happened on the way to court. As the New York governor Eliot Spitzer, Attorney General, then wound up his post in May 2008 after an investigation of sexual harassment in its office.6 Before they were forced to resign, both prosecutors were hot on the tail of the banks are trying to impose liability for the destructive wave of home foreclosures in their jurisdictions.
But the hits keep coming back. In June 2008, sued California Attorney General Jerry Brown, Countrywide Financial Corporation, the nation’s largest mortgage lender as to cause, thousands of foreclosures by deceptively marketing risky loans to borrowers. Among other things, alleged the 46-page complaint that: viewed LINEBREAK LINEBREAK LINE BREAK “‘defendant borrowers as nothing more than the means for producing more loans, loans with original little or no relation to credit ratings of long-term ability to afford them and home ownership support ‘… LINEBREAK LINEBREAK LINE BREAK “The company routinely. . . ‘Turning an eye, “” numerous complaints from borrowers claiming that they did not understand their loan terms.’ LINEBREAK LINEBREAK LINE BREAK “fraudulent practices of brokers and agents, despite their own credit … Underwriters, the information on the mortgage applications were confirmed “a lot of pressure … to process 60-70 loans per day, so that careful examination of the creditworthiness of the financial circumstances and the suitability of the product for them nearly impossible loan.”
“‘Countrywide high-pressure sales environment and compensation system encouraged serial refinancing of Countrywide loans.’” 7
Similar lawsuits against Countrywide and CEO of the Illinois and Florida have been filed. These suits seek not only damages but rescission of the loan, creating a potential nightmare for the banks.
AN avalanche of class actions? Line Break Line Break Line Break Line Break Massive class action lawsuits by defrauded borrowers may also be in the works. In a 2007 ruling in Wisconsin, which now decided to appeal U.S. District Judge Lynn Adelman, that Chevy Chase Bank, the truth was injured in Lending Act by hiding the terms of an adjustable rate loan, and that thousands of other Chevy Chase borrowers could join plaintiff in a class action lawsuit for this reason. After a 30th June 2008 report in Reuters: LINEBREAK LINEBREAK LINE BREAK “The judge transformed the case from a run-of-the-mill class action to a potential nightmare for the U.S. banking sector by noting that forcing borrowers to the bank to cancel or withdraw their loans . This decision was pending an appeal to the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which is expected to dominate every day still.
“Has the idea of ââlifting tainted curb loans to a wave of foreclosures is caught up in other quarters,. ‘Unfair and deceptive practices,” a lawsuit filed last week by the Illinois attorney general asks a court to repeal or reform Countrywide Financial mortgages originated under LINEBREAK LINEBREAK LINE BREAK “… The mortgage banking industry is faced with the pressure already state and federal regulators, the banks are accused of forcing to lower underwriting standards and some borrowers, adjustable through fraud, into costly that banks bundle loans and later sold as high interest-bearing investments. “
The Truth in Lending Act (TILA) is developed by a federal law in 1968 to consumers from fraud by requiring clear disclosure of loan terms and costs of credit to protect. It lets consumers seek rescission or termination of a loan and the return of all interest and fees if a lender. found to be opposite to be the beauty of the Constitution, says Cathy California bankruptcy attorney Moran, is that it provides for a strict liability: not an aggrieved borrower must prove they were defrauded person or misled, or that they had actually incurred . Just the fact that the data were flawed gives them the right to resign and take the lender of interest. In Moran’s small sample size, at least half of the loans reviewed contained TILA violations.8 If class actions are found to be available for the conversion of loans based on fraud in the disclosure process, could be the result of a flood of lawsuits against banks-class throughout the country.9
A shift of the BACK TO LOSS BANKS
Rescission may be an appeal not only for borrowers but for MBS investors. Many loan sale contracts provide by their terms that lenders must take back that loan default unusually quickly or that errors or fraud. An avalanche of cancellations could be catastrophic for the banks. Banks were moving loans from their books and sell them to investors, thus more loans made, as it may otherwise have been allowed under banking regulations. The banking rules are complex, but for every dollar of shareholder capital a bank has on its balance sheet, it should be limited to around $ 10 in loans. The problem for banks is that if the process is reversed, the 10 to 1 rule can in the opposite direction of work: less than one dollar of bad debt back on a bench books to her credit to reduce capacity to 10-fold. As explained in a BBC News story citing Prof. Nouriel Roubini for authority:. LINEBREAK LINEBREAK LINE BREAK “[S] ecuritisation was to help the key is to avoid the banks that appear to the supervisors 10:01 rule to their risky loans to buyers attractive, using banks, complex financial engineering to her pack, so they looked super-safe and paid returns well above what equivalent super-safe investments offered to banks to sell even opportunities, loans from their balance sheets, without getting them at all they were devised bizarre new financial entities – ..-called Special Investment Vehicles or SIVs – in which loans could be technically and will not be legally held in the balance, out of sight, and beyond the scope of the regulators rules So, once again, SIVs made room on balance sheets of banks going to lend ..
“The banks had to the regulators’ rules by selling their risky loans, but because so many of the securitized loans were bought by other banks, the losses were within the banking system. Loans held in SIVs was technically from banks balance sheets were given, but if the value of the credits began to collapse in SIVs, banks, found them in the organization that it is still responsible for them. So losses from investments that might seem outside the scope of Supervisors 10:01 rule, suddenly turning up on bank balance sheets …. The problem now facing many of the biggest lenders is that back when losses appear on banks’ balance sheets regulator 10:01 rule comes into play because losses reduce a banks shareholder capital. “If you have a $ 200 billion loss, which have reduced your capital by $ 200 billion, you must reduce your credit by 10 times as much, ‘[Prof. Roubini] explains.” This could be a reduction of total lending to the economy have two trillion dollars. ‘”10
You could also have some very bankrupt banks. Equity of the top 100 U.S. banks stood at $ 800 billion at the end of the third quarter of 2007. Banking losses are currently expected to increase by not less than $ 450 billion, enough pay off more than half of the capital adequacy of banks and bases many of them leave insolvent.11 If debtors were to deluge the courts with viable defenses to their debts and mortgage-backed securities were holders of their securities could be in question, the result of worse be.
PUTTING THE GENIE BACK IN THE BOTTLE
So what would happen if the mega-banks with which this was irresponsible practices actually in bankruptcy? These banks are widely acknowledged to be the blame, but they expect to be rescued by the Federal Reserve or the taxpayers because they are “too big to fail.” The argument is that if they were allowed to collapse, they would take the economy down with them. That is the fear, but it’s not really true. We need a ready source of credit, so we need banks, but we do not need private banks. It is a little-known, well hidden that the banks do not lend their own money or even their depositors’ money. Rather, they create the money they lend, and the creation of money is actually a public and not private, function. The Constitution delegates the power to create money to Congress and only in the United Congress.12 making loans, banks are only lending, and the proper agency for extending “the full faith and credit of the United States” States itself.
There is more at stake than just the equitable treatment of injured homeowners and investors in mortgage-backed securities. Banks and investment houses are now squeezed the last drop of blood from the U.S. government’s credit rating, “borrowing” money and unloading worthless paper on the government and taxpayers. When the dust has settled, it is the banks, investment brokers and hedge funds for wealthy investors who want to save. The returned, the dispossessed, and unless your pension fund has invested in politically well-connected hedge funds, you can probably kiss it goodbye, as teachers in Florida already have.
But the banking system, genius is a creature of the law and the law can it back into the bottle. The impending loss of a few very large banks might be able to win back the government the opportunity to take control of their finances. More than that, they could threaten the funding for the fight against otherwise insurmountable problems now our standard of living and our position can destroy the world. The only solution that will be more than a temporary solution is to take the power to create money away from private bankers and return it to the common people. That’s how it would have all the time, and as it was in our early history, but we are so used to banks as a private company, that we forget the public banks of our ancestors. The best of the colonial American banking models was developed in Benjamin Franklin’s province of Pennsylvania, where a state-owned bank issued money and lent it to farmers at 5 percent interest. The interest was returned to the government, replacing taxes. In the decades that this system was in operation, the province of Pennsylvania operated without taxes, inflation or debt.
Instead of rescuing failed banks and send them happily on their way, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) to take a close look at the banks books and all proved to be insolvent banks into receivership. The FDIC (unlike the Federal Reserve) is actually a federal agency and has the opportunity to work with a bank, shares in exchange for rescuing it from, nationalize it effectively. This is done in Europe with bankrupt banks, and it was in the United States with Continental Illinois, the country’s fourth largest bank did, when it went in the system of 1990s.
A truly “national” banks could issue in bankruptcy, “the full faith and credit of the United States “for public purposes, including issued to finance the infrastructure, the development of sustainable energy systems and health care.13 Publicly-credit could also be used to alleviate the subprime crisis. Local governments could use it to buy up mortgages in default, compensating the MBS investors and freeing the property for the public. The properties could then be rented back to their occupants at reasonable prices so that people pay in their homes without the windfall for the purchase of a house without it. A program of the lease may also be initiated. The proceeds would be promoted to repay the loan to buy the mortgages, to prevent the balance of the money supply and inflation, applied.
Local and Private Solutions, we LineBreak Line Break Line Break Line Break While waiting to be acting on the federal government, there are also private and local possibilities for relieving the subprime crisis. Chris Cook is a British strategic market consultant and former compliance director for the International Petroleum Exchange. He recommends that all parties to settle constituted by a pool as an LLC (limited liability company), in a partnership framework that brings together occupiers and financiers as co-owners under a neutral custodian. The original owners would pay an affordable rent, and the resulting pool of rentals would be “unitized” (divided into unit interests, similar to a REIT or Real Estate Investment Trust). Among other advantages over the conventional mortgage-backed security, there would be no credit to his interest, as would be the property of the LLC is an obsession. The elimination of interest is a significant cost reduction. The former owners would be able to occupy the property at an affordable rent with the option to buy a stake in it. For the banks, would that be, that they would be able to find investors again, since the risk would be released from benefit from investment by assuring full occupancy at affordable prices, and for the investors, the advantage would be a safe investment with its a reliable return.14
Carolyn Betts is an attorney, formed the Ohio served in Washington as a lawyer familiar with the issuer of MBS with various federal government agencies, and represented Resolution Trust Corporation in its auction of defaulted commercial mortgage loans during the last real estate crisis. She proposes a squeeze play by the States in the style that brought against tobacco companies by a consortium of public prosecutors in the 1990s. She noted that at the end of 2007 were at least 20% of the funds from the Ohio Public Employees’ Retirement System (PERS) held in mortgage-backed securities and similar investments. That makes Ohio public money a major investor in these mortgage-related securities. Ohio governments have an interest in not having to houses, foreclosed since foreclosures destroy local real estate markets, contribute to lower tax revenues and losses on PERS investments, and a burden on state and local affordable housing systems. A coordinated series of actions brought by state attorneys general could eliminate the culpable banker middlemen and give the properties of local ownership and control.
Andrew Jackson reportedly told Congress in 1829: “If the American people only understood the rank injustice of our his money and banking system, there would be a revolution before morning.” Could aim trigger a wave of private actions, class actions and government lawsuits to eliminate harmful practices of banks, a revolution in banking, restoration of power to the rise of “the full faith and credit of the United States” means the United States, and the return of community assets to ownership and Sean Olender control.
1 “Mortgage Meltdown” San Francisco Chronicle (December 9, 2007).
2 See Ellen Brown, “The Subprime Trump” webofdebt.com / articles, 26 June 2008.
3 Greg Morcroft, “Massachusetts Charges Merrill with Fraud,” MarketWatch (February 1, 2008).
4 Henry Gomez, Tom Ott, “Cleveland is suing 21 banks subprime crisis,” The Plain Dealer (Cleveland, January 11, 2008).
5 Ibid.
6 Marc occurs then as Attorney General, “NBC24 (May 14, 2008). E. Scott Reckard
7,” California Atty. General Jerry Brown sued Countrywide, “Los Angeles Times (June 26, 2008).
8 Cathy Moran, “And the Truth (in Lending) Shall Set You Free”, mortgagelawnetwork.com (June 11, 2008).
9 Gina Keating, “Mortgage ruling could shock U.S. banking industry”, Reuters (June 30, 2008).
10 Michael Robinson, “City of debt shows U.S. housing woe,” BBC News (December 30, 2007).
11 “is the most recent liquidity crunch in remission?” NakedCapitalism (March 26, 2008).
12 See E. Brown, “Dollar Deception”. webofdebt.com / articles (July 3, 2007)
13 More on this financing solution and why it does not inflate prices, see E. Brown: draw “How Banks Secretly money, Waking Up on a Minnesota Bridge: How do you make the Infrastructure Crisis be solved without sellout Our National Assets, “ibid. (4th August 2007).
14 Chris Cook, “Peak credit and a flight to simplicity,” Asia Times (April 3, 2008).
my old articles
Let the lawsuits Begin – Banks Brace for a Storm of Litigation
Credit Scores – How do they work?
529 College Savings Plans shown – College Financial Aid Consulting
maria