Mortgage Securitisation - Preferred

[Suetonius]

Plus to separate the legal and equitable titles there must be a separation of the legal and equitable title. Under property law/contract law, which require certain legal formalities to be observed in order to be valid at law (and in equity), what property law or contractual right empowered the lenders to separate the legal and equitable titles without the concurrence and expressed agreement of the borrower?

 

A Mortgagee is entitled under s.136 of the Law of Property Act 1925 to make an ABSOLUTE transfer its LEGAL TITLE , but there is nothing in that provision to entitle the lender to separate the equitable title from the legal title and transfer only the equitable title. In fact, that provision by implication only gives the statutory power to transfer an ABSOLUTE assignment and therefore does not provide a power to separate the equitable and legal titles.

 

So in the context of mortgage: what law or right are the lenders exercising when they claim to be entitled to separate the legal and equitable titles of a mortgage deed?...and if there's no legal entitlement to separate these titles, how can they be deemed to have lawfully separated these titles?.

 

I don't really understand your point.

 

If it is not possible to seperate the legal and equitable title, s.136 still means that the legal right to sue (which I understand is one of the main points being debated), remains with the Assignor, in this instance the mortgage provider.

 

"Any absolute assignment is effectual in law to pass transfer from the date of such notice"

 

Without such a notice, the right to sue cannot not be assigned.Thus it legally has to remain the the Assignor.

[Suetonius]

I have also found this from the House of Commons

 

House of Commons - Explanatory Note

 

11. If, as expected, the loans eventually sold are securitised, legal structures will be created to hold the legal and equitable interests in the loans in the names of different parties. Lords Amendment 6 would make clear that the provisions of clause 3 relating to onward sale of the loans do not apply to the creation or transfers of equitable rights that occur in a securitisation. Rather, it clarifies that clause 3 relates only to the onward transfer of legal title to the loans. The amendment ensures that the transfers of equitable interests that occur as a normal part of a securitisation are separate from the onward transfer of legal title, and which do not require the same protections.

[supersleuth]

No worries Suetonius, thanks for taking time to reply.

 

The law of Trusts may well be based upon a concept that property rights can be split - so where is the trust that has allegedly been created between the seller/lender and the SPV??? such that there was a separation of the legal and equitable interests.

 

The seller/lender is pretending to be a trustee if it asserts that it is holding the legal title on behalf of beneficial interest because we know that the seller/lender is NOT THE MORTGAGE TRUSTEE.

 

If you want to maintain that the seller/lender is the bona fide legal owner that holds the property on trust for the benefit of the investors - you're missing a big chunk of the securitisation structure.

 

To create a trust there must be the three C's. Certainty of intention to create a trust, Certainty of subject matter, and Certainty of object that the trust will fulfil - and the creation of a trust must be by a DEED of Trust.

 

If the seller/lender wants to pretend it is a trustee - then it should evidence that it has a Trust Deed with the SPV where the seller/lender is the MORTGAGE TRUSTEE and the SPV is the beneficiary if it wants to maintain that it merely sold the equitable interest to the SPV. It cannot do that because that is not a securitisation and there is no such trust between the seller/lender and the SPV that created the separation of the legal and equitable interests.

 

But we KNOW that the SPV acquired the legal title from the seller/lender because we KNOW that the SPV did create a trust from its ownership of the legal title. That is the securitisation.

 

The SPV has taken its legal title and has created a trust (compliant with the three C's). That is where the separation of legal and equitable title has occured. The separation of legal title did not occur until AFTER the lender sold the LEGAL TITLE to the SPV. Therefore, the SPV is the legal owner that should be registered as the legal owner but it has unlawfully failed to register as the legal owner.

 

In fact, to be entirely complete, when the SPV created a trust with the mortgage trustee and settled its legal title into the trust, the MORTGAGE TRUSTEE should have been registered as the legal owner who held the title on behalf of the beneficiaries i.e. the SPVs investors.

 

Consequently, the seller/lender is an imposter and a liar. The seller/lender did sell the LEGAL TITLE. The seller/lender is not a trustee.

 

There is no trust deed between the seller/lender and the SPV. Therefore there is no trust between them and consequently, there was no separation of the legal and equitable titles. The relationship between the seller/lender and the SPV is strictly a contractual relationship of buyer and seller. The SPV is the legal owner - the SPV should be registered.

 

So, seeing as it is the SPV that separated the legal and equitable interests when it created the trust - tell me, on what basis is the seller/lender entitled to falsely misrepresent itself as a trustee - and if the imposter lender is holding itself out as a trustee why does it not state that it is claiming in its capacity as a trustee (as the law requires it declare) and misrepresents itself to the court to claim possession in its OWN NAME?

 

You see Sontonius, there is a fraud being purportrated on the court here. Smoke and mirrors - but fraud nonetheless. Would value your feed back on these points when you have time.

[Suetonius]

You say we know this and we know that. But in reality, what do we really know.

 

In reality SS, I don't know.

 

However, even with my limited knowledge and experience, I have been able to counter most of the points you have raised and provided evidence to support my posts.

 

If I as a simple layman can do it, I am sure that the experts within the legal and judicial profession will also be able to do it.

 

Here is a question, under what legal process was this sale made ?

 

If it was assignment, s.136 confirms that it cannot be legal/absolute

If it was novation, where is the new contract ?

[Suetonius]

Here is a question, under what legal process was this sale made ?

 

If it was assignment, s.136 confirms that it cannot be legal/absolute

If it was novation, where is the new contract ?

 

 

Just out of interest, who do you consider to be the mortgagor & the mortgagee ?

Edited April 1, 2009 by Suetonius
I made a mistake

[Smarterchick]

"Last edited by Suetonius; Today at 18:36. Reason: I made a mistake "

 

 

..and there was me thinking you were infallible

 

SC

[Suetonius]

"Last edited by Suetonius; Today at 18:36. Reason: I made a mistake "

 

 

..and there was me thinking you were infallible

 

SC

 

And you can go forth and multiple too lol;)

 

 

*The above is said in jest because I know SC

[supersleuth]

You say we know this and we know that. But in reality, what do we really know.

 

In reality SS, I don't know.

 

However, even with my limited knowledge and experience, I have been able to counter most of the points you have raised and provided evidence to support my posts.

 

If I as a simple layman can do it, I am sure that the experts within the legal and judicial profession will also be able to do it.

 

Here is a question, under what legal process was this sale made ?

 

If it was assignment, s.136 confirms that it cannot be legal/absolute

If it was novation, where is the new contract ?

 

 

Answer to your first question: In REALITY I do know...and I know it with absolute certainty. I have inspected the documents and I know that the sale was, and I quote exactly "an absolute assignment with full title guarantee" - does that sound like an equitable assignment to you?

 

Second point: You say that you have been able to counter my points: have you? You have not answered the question as to where the lender is alleged to have separated the legal and equitable titles through the trust mechanism. What trust is the seller/lender alleged to have created in favour of the investors. That cannot be so because that is not a securitisation. The seller/lender is not the trustee and does not hold the legal title in TRUST as a trustee.

 

Third point: you say that s.136 confirms it cannot be an absolute assignment - does it? Are you sure you are absolutely correct? Do you think that the court's equity jurisdiction would deem the transferees legal title as void just because they did not serve a notice to the borrower. Don't forget that the legal title can "operate in equity". And the court's equity jurisdiction is not to be confused with trust law. Trust law is a branch of the court's equity jurisidiction. And besides, the borrowers on this site have constructive notice anyway.

 

Fourth point: why does the novation point need discussion? - the lenders have not alleged a novation. Their argument is an equitable interest assignment. and if you consider that novation is at issue here, then let us know what powers, legal or contractual that the lender has that entitles the lender to lawfully novate. As you say yourself - where is the new contract? and besides, if there was a lawful novation the borrower would be a party to that novation contract. So novation is not an issue. There is no novation contract.

 

Finally, you seem to challenge my intellect and assume that I may not know the difference between the mortgagee and the mortgagor (are you clutching straws Suetonius?) or alternatively it may be that you raised the question because you are confused and want clarification. Just in case you may be confused and want clarification: - the mortgagee is the lender and the mortgagor is the borrower.

 

Again, Suetonius, it's good to challenge and discuss so thanks for taking the time.

 

Supersleuth

Edited April 1, 2009 by supersleuth

[midge61]

What is a Deed of charge?

 

This is in the prospectus for SPS 05-3 plc

[kegi]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Suetonius

Here is a question, under what legal process was this sale made ?

 

If it was assignment, s.136 confirms that it cannot be legal/absolute

If it was novation, where is the new contract ?

 

I have to say on that I would agree there has to be out there in this world of paper somewhere that I could find out who now owns the title to the house I live in without me having to go to court and fight with a judge on that issue.which leads me back as always to my previous post on how could someone publish in writing that they have no intention of registering with the LR or of notifying the borrower to said event if that meant they were commiting a criminal act, fraud or other such crime, truth is in my view after all this time someone or other would have blown the whistle on the whole thing out of fear or even greed imagine how many MDs would now be in jail....Like I have said they will have had all this covered before the spv [problem] even started my view is they don't register or notify because they can't .Thing is its got to proved one way or the other to bring about an end to all this fiasco ,their get out of jail card is in there somewhere .

 

Just out of interest, who do you consider the mortgagee to be ?

 

is this for the £1,000,000 pound prize suetonius:D thinking caps on chaps

 

kegi peace

[supersleuth]

Hi Midge,

 

The deed of charge referred to on page 12 is:

 

Firstly, the SPV (the Issuer) has put its legal title to the mortgage assets in trust with the Mortgage Trustee. The document creating this trust is called the TRUST DEED.

 

However, under the TRUST DEED the trust can be wound-up once certain objectives have been achieved. At that point SPV is entitled to have its legal title to the mortgage be returned if there are any mortages left in the portfolio.

 

In order to ensure that the SPV can get its legal title back under certain circumstances, the SPV has created a DEED OF CHARGE which essentially is where the SPV has mortgaged its Portfolio of MORTGAGE ASSETS. That is: the SPV has mortgaged your mortgage. Think about that. Your mortgage has been mortgaged.

 

The document that creates the mortgage on the SPV's portfolio of mortgage assets is called the DEED OF CHARGE. It is the same as your deed of mortgage where you mortgaged your physical property. The difference being that you mortgaged your physical property whereas the SPV has mortgaged its asset i.e. your mortgage deed is the SPVs asset.

 

The MORTGAGE TRUSTEE perfects its legal title to the mortgage of the SPVs mortgage assets by filing a form 395 at Companies House. Form 395 is notice to any other company dealing with the SPV that the SPV has mortgaged i.e. GRANTED A LEGAL CHARGE on its portfolio of mortgage assets to the MORTGAGE TRUSEE.

 

So, if you search Companies House filings under the SPV you will find a form 395 which will state to the effect that:

 

... pursuant to the DEED OF CHARGE between the SPV and the MORTGAGE TRUSTEE (and others), that the SPVs mortgage assets (i.e. your mortgage) is charged in favour of the mortgage trustee for the benefit of the SPVs creditors and investors.

 

Once the SPV has paid the creditors and the investors in full, the DEED OF CHARGE will be redeemed (in like manner that when you pay your mortgage up you will redeem your mortgage) and the DEED OF CHARGE will be satisfied and expire. Then the TRUST can be wound-up.

 

Hope this explains it ... just mull over the concept of mortgaging (i.e. creating a charge over) an asset that is not a physical asset. Contracts are assets just as much as a physical property is an asset. Contracts have value in the same manner as a house or car has value.

 

In fact the correct terminology for a mortgage on a physical property is "a mortgage by way of legal charge" that is what people refer to as a "mortgage" in shorthand - but the only way to create a mortgage these days is: a mortgage by way of legal charge.

 

Supersleuth

[Suetonius]

Finally, you seem to challenge my intellect and assume that I may not know the difference between the mortgagee and the mortgagor (are you clutching straws Suetonius?) or alternatively it may be that you raised the question because you are confused and want clarification. Just in case you may be confused and want clarification: - the mortgagee is the lender and the mortgagor is the borrower.

 

Again, Suetonius, it's good to challenge and discuss so thanks for taking the time.

 

Supersleuth

 

I am by no means trying to challenge your intellect or in anyway attempting to make this into a personal argument.

 

There was a reason that I asked that question and that was in an attempt to understand your position. I respect your both your opinions and your posts.

 

You say the mortgagee is the lender and the mortgagor is the borrow.

 

What I am trying to establish is do you consider the lender to be the bank of the SPV.

[supersleuth]

Kegi,

 

You're question is entirely valid. The reason for this huge faux pas is that most of these (allegely) highly intellectual high powered lawyers work on the principle of "that's the way we did it last time". They are cut and paste lawyers. So they take the documents and reproduce them which is fine - providing that the law doesn't change.

 

So, nobody in these high falutin intellectual circles paid any attention to the changes in the Land Registration Act 2002. They just carried on doing it the way they did it last time. In fact, most lawyers don't read any legislation and don't read cases. Hence they have royally screwed up.

 

Thus the basis of your disbelief is that you believe that these expert lawyers couldn't have made this mistake - once you revisit that belief and consider the possibility that they are all cut and paste morons that don't read the law - then it becomes easier to believe that they could cause their clients to commit this criminal offence when the law changed.

 

Think about it - the banks have famously admitted that they don't understand CDO's and other structured finance products - why should we assume the lawyer do.

 

Food for thought kegi, it's the possible explanation that you've been looking for.

[midge61]

All from the prospectus again

 

For so long as neither the Issuer nor the Trustee has obtained legal title, each of SPML and SPPL will,

pursuant to the terms of the Mortgage Sale Agreement, undertake for the benefit of the Issuer and the

Trustee that it will lend its name to, and take such other steps as may reasonably be required by the Issuer

or the Trustee in relation to, any legal proceedings in respect of the Loans originated or acquired by it and

their related Collateral Security.

In order for legal title to the Mortgages over registered land in England and Wales and any land in

Scotland to be transferred, transfers and assignations would have to be registered or recorded at The Land

Registry of England and Wales or the Registers of Scotland, as applicable, and notice would have to be

given to the Borrowers.

 

Enforcement

In order to enforce a power of sale in respect of a property, the relevant mortgagee (which may be SPML,

SPPL, the Issuer or the Trustee) must first obtain possession of the Property. Possession is usually

obtained by way of a court order although this can be a lengthy and costly process and will involve the

mortgagee assuming certain risks. See "Title to the Mortgage Pool — Enforcement Procedures" and

"Repossession Procedures" below.

 

Neither the Issuer nor the Trustee currently intend to effect any registration at The Land Registry of

England and Wales or any registration or recording in the Registers of Scotland to protect the sale of the

Loans and the Collateral Security to the Issuer or the charge of them by the Issuer in favour of the Trustee

nor, save as mentioned below, do they intend to obtain possession of the title deeds to the Properties and

the Loans and their related Collateral Security.

Save as mentioned below, notice of the assignment to the Issuer of the Loans and Collateral Security and

their subsequent charging or assigning to the Trustee will not be given to the Borrowers.

Under the Mortgage Sale Agreement and the Deed of Charge, each of the Issuer (with the consent of the

Trustee) and the Trustee will be entitled to effect such registrations and recordings and give such notices

as it, acting in its absolute discretion, considers necessary to protect and perfect the interests respectively

of the Issuer (as purchaser) and the Trustee (as chargee) in the Loans and the Collateral Security, inter

alia, where (a) it is obliged to do so by law, by court order or by a mandatory requirement of any

regulatory authority, (b) an Enforcement Notice (as defined in Condition 9(a)) has been given, © the

Trustee considers that the Charged Property (as defined in the Deed of Charge) or any part thereof is in

jeopardy (including due to the possible insolvency of SPML or SPPL) or (d) any action is taken for the

winding-up, dissolution, administration or reorganisation of SPML or SPPL. These rights are supported

by irrevocable powers of attorney given by, among others, the Issuer, SPML and SPPL.

The effect of (i) not giving notice to the Borrowers of the sale of the relevant Loans and their Collateral

Security to the Issuer and the charging of the Issuer's interest in the Loans and their Collateral Security to

the Trustee and (ii) the charge of the Issuer's rights thereto in favour of the Trustee pursuant to the Deed

of Charge taking effect in equity (or extending over the Issuer's beneficial interest) only, is that the rights

of the Issuer and the Trustee may be, or may become, subject to equities as well as to the interests of third

parties who perfect a legal interest prior to the Issuer or the Trustee acquiring and perfecting a legal

interest (such as, in the case of English Mortgages over unregistered land, a third party acquiring a legal

interest in the relevant Mortgage without notice of the Issuer's or the Trustee's interests or, in the case of

Mortgages over registered land or any land in Scotland (whether at The Land Registry of England and

Wales or the Registers of Scotland), a third party acquiring a legal interest by registration or recording

prior to the registration or recording of the Issuer's or the Trustee's interests).

Until the legal interest of the Issuer or, as the case may be, the Trustee, has been perfected, the Issuer, or

as the case may be, the Trustee also need to join the relevant Originator in any legal proceedings taken

against the relevant Borrower. The Borrower is also entitled to set off any amounts owing to the relevant

Originator in respect of such Loan against any other amount owed by the relevant Originator to such

Borrower.

The risk of such equities and other interests leading to third party claims obtaining priority to the interests

of the Issuer or the Trustee in the Loans and the Collateral Security is likely to be limited to

circumstances arising from a breach by the relevant Originator or the Issuer of its or their contractual or

other obligations or fraud or mistake on the part of the relevant Originator or the Issuer or their respective

officers, employees or agents (if any).

 

Repossession procedures

Once litigation becomes necessary, the Mortgage Administrator selects solicitors from a pre-selected

panel. (note it says the mortgage Administrator not the mortgagee)

[supersleuth]

Hi Suetonius,

 

Calm down, no offence taken nor intended.

 

The lender is the SPV. Once the legal title was transferred to the SPV, the borrower is then in privity of contract with the SPV. Although, in reality, the borrower is led to believe that the seller/lender is still their lender.

 

It's all part of the concealment ruse driven by tax considerations to avoid tax and avoid the FSA regulatory controls. The SPV is exercising the legal rights e.g. setting interest rates and repossession policies all without FSA oversight and the SPV is also exercising the legal owners right to charge the mortgage (see Midge's question above).

 

See, the SPV exercises all the legal rights of the owner, but won't put its name on a public register - could have got away with that pre LRA 2002 but now its a criminal offence.

[midge61]

I posted the above for kegi to see that they do put it in writing and so he could see what they never thought we would see.

[supersleuth]

Midge thanks for posting the evidence re SPML,

 

Note the sentence in your post which states:

 

Until the legal interest of the Issuer or, as the case may be, the Trustee, has been perfected, the Issuer, or as the case may be, the Trustee also need to join the relevant Originator in any legal proceedings taken

against the relevant Borrower.

 

See, the Issuer acknowledges that it owns the legal interest and that it needs to join the relevant originator (SPML) in any legal proceeding. The only reason that SPML need to be named in the proceedings is because they falsely and illegally remain named as the owner of the mortgage on the LR.

 

Do you know that the word "perfected" means: it means that you perfect your legal title by registering at the Land Registry.

 

And don't you just love their confession:

 

Neither the Issuer nor the Trustee currently intend to effect any registration at The Land Registry of England and Wales

 

They don't INTEND to effect their registration - like they have a choice - the LRA 2002 mandates that they MUST effect their registration.

 

And if you are in any doubt about whether they were transferred the legal title here's the confirmation:

 

Under the Mortgage Sale Agreement and the Deed of Charge, each of the Issuer (with the consent of the Trustee) and the Trustee will be entitled to effect such registrations

 

If they were not transferred the legal title, how can they say they WILL BE ENTITLED TO EFFECT such registration.

 

Suetonius - see - we do, in reality KNOW.

[midge61]

Glad trawling through the 178 pages helped clarify things.

[midge61]

Dont know if this will have an effect on any of our securitisations

 

Market News

[IS IT ME?]

Supersleuth, OH GODDDD where were you in 2005!

Like you I have been firgthing GMAC-RFC about just this matter and have the above in writing and now after reading you posts since 10.00 today going after them.

 

FOR ALL TO READ THEY HAVE LIED TO ME THE COURTS AND THE D/J

Because the D/J god bless them did not understand this matter of Securitisation and that TITLE had changed but no one was going to listern then which cost us £14K in ERC and charges.

I am now getting the securitisation documents out again and looking at them.

Can you help with a letter to GMAC with regard to this?

But be careful as you know who is watching.

Ha Ha.

[bustthematrix]

Glad trawling through the 178 pages helped clarify things.

Midge you're an excellent soldier. Keep up the fantastic work!

[bustthematrix]

Suetonius - see - we do, in reality KNOW.

In my view, this has been very well answered by SS so far.

Suetonius, good of you to push though, we've all learned more from the debate!

[Suetonius]

Answer to your first question: In REALITY I do know...and I know it with absolute certainty. I have inspected the documents and I know that the sale was, and I quote exactly "an absolute assignment with full title guarantee" - does that sound like an equitable assignment to you?

 

As you will appreciate that is an impossible question to answer. Without sight of the documentation, I am unable to answer you.

 

Second point: You say that you have been able to counter my points: have you? You have not answered the question as to where the lender is alleged to have separated the legal and equitable titles through the trust mechanism. What trust is the seller/lender alleged to have created in favour of the investors. That cannot be so because that is not a securitisation. The seller/lender is not the trustee and does not hold the legal title in TRUST as a trustee.

 

The counter to your points I was refering to was in relation to the Pender case (2005) being a judgement, rather than an application for appeal (2003), as you previously indicated. Also the information from Her Majesty's Revenue Customs, details of the judgement from the MBNA case and the Capital One tribunial.

 

There is also the matter of the different accounting practices of the UK and US, in relation to securitisation.

 

In relation to the law of trusts, your specific question was:

 

So again, do you know of any powers under real property law where the lender can lawfully separate the legal and equitable titles?

 

Unless I am mistaken the Law of Trusts does give the lender the power to seperate legal and equitable titles.

 

Third point: you say that s.136 confirms it cannot be an absolute assignment - does it? Are you sure you are absolutely correct? Do you think that the court's equity jurisdiction would deem the transferees legal title as void just because they did not serve a notice to the borrower. Don't forget that the legal title can "operate in equity". And the court's equity jurisdiction is not to be confused with trust law. Trust law is a branch of the court's equity jurisidiction. And besides, the borrowers on this site have constructive notice anyway.

 

If there has not been a notice to the debtor then yes, I do consider that s.136 confirms quite clearly that it cannot be by way of absolute assignment. The legislation is quite clear and does not really appear to be open to interpretation.

 

I fully appreciate the courts equity jursidiction, but you would therefore be hoping the judge decides against legislation, which I consider would leave the door open for an appeal

 

Fourth point: why does the novation point need discussion? - the lenders have not alleged a novation. Their argument is an equitable interest assignment. and if you consider that novation is at issue here, then let us know what powers, legal or contractual that the lender has that entitles the lender to lawfully novate. As you say yourself - where is the new contract? and besides, if there was a lawful novation the borrower would be a party to that novation contract. So novation is not an issue. There is no novation contract.

 

Novation was raised as part of my unanswered question:

 

Here is a question, under what legal process was this sale made ?

 

If it was assignment, s.136 confirms that it cannot be legal/absolute

If it was novation, where is the new contract ?

 

In the context of my question to the legal process used, I am sure you will agree novation was correctly raised.

 

Finally, you seem to challenge my intellect and assume that I may not know the difference between the mortgagee and the mortgagor (are you clutching straws Suetonius?) or alternatively it may be that you raised the question because you are confused and want clarification. Just in case you may be confused and want clarification: - the mortgagee is the lender and the mortgagor is the borrower.

 

Again, Suetonius, it's good to challenge and discuss so thanks for taking the time.

 

Supersleuth

 

I am disappointed that you consider that I am in some attempting to challenge your intellect. I have no need and certainly don't desire to challenge your intellect.

 

The reason I was asking these questions, as I have previously stated was in attempt to understand your position/argument without the need to go around in circles.

 

My questions in relation to the mortgagee were in fact quite straight forward. Under the LRA 2002 is the mortgagee is deemed to be the original bank, it is fully entitled to be registered as the proprietor.

 

 

 

In summary,

 

You will need to overcome the judgements made in the pender case.

 

If you were to use s.136 of the Law of Property Act 1925, you would need to convince a judge that contrary to legislation, the assignment was absolute rather than equitable.

 

On a seperate note, I am in possession of a presale report for a Residential Mortgage Backed Security (RMBS), which was intended for potential investors. This presale report confirms in black and white that the SPV, objectives were to "aquire the equitable title to a mortgage portfolio, to issue the notes"

 

I have added it to this post. The section I am refering to, is at the bottom of page three.

 

It does raise the question, if as you say the legal title passes to the SPV, then why would this report say the SPV's objectives were to aquire the equitable title.

[Suetonius]

Hi Suetonius,

 

Calm down, no offence taken nor intended.

 

lol trust me Supersleuth, I am very calm

[Suetonius]

But we KNOW that the SPV acquired the legal title from the seller/lender because we KNOW that the SPV did create a trust from its ownership of the legal title. That is the securitisation.

 

We know that is securitisation in the USA, but do we know that is also securitisation in the UK ?

 

A previously quoted extract from the Capital One tribunial:

 

"Two of the exceptions are the consequence of US requirements. The first, which the Appellant contends is reflected in substance and in form in the structure which has been achieved, is that the assignment must be a true sale; it may not be an assignment by way of security if US accounting standards are to be respected. No such requirement is imposed by UK accounting standards, nor by the FSA"

 

As I understand it, in the US, it is a requirement that the assignment is by way of a true sale (legal/absolute assigment). However, no such requirement exists in the UK.