Mortgage Securitisation - Preferred

[IS IT ME?]

But That Would Mean They Could Not Repossess Peoples Homes And Not Get The Cash In Quickly With And This Is The Big Point Here ss Are You Looking The Erc Payments Of About £20k Each Just Think 250 Per Month And That My Friends Is The Real Reason Being This

[Suetonius]

look at GMAC-RFC for one

 

Ok I will.

 

http://www.mortgagesolutions-online.com/public/showPage.html?page=214589

 

GMAC RFC has announced its first sale of residential UK mortgage assets, worth £125m, into a new funding vehicle, complementing its existing whole loan sale and securitisation programmes.

 

Within the new structure the equitable interest in the mortgage loans was purchased through the issuance of Credit Linked Notes, which have been bought by Deutsche Genossenschafts-Hypothekenbank (DGH).

 

DGH also acted as sole arranger for the deal. GMAC has retained legal title to the loans and will continue to administer the loans on behalf of the vehicle.

[Suetonius]

The benefits for investors investing in securitisation instruments can include:

 

 

(a) diversification of investments within an investment portfolio;

 

(b) diversification into new asset classes and along credit spectrum;

 

© spreading risk between different sectors of the economy by reference to the assets generated in those sectors;

 

(d) comfort from the highest level of structural and legal review;

 

(e) transparency of the risks involved in a securitisation transaction at all

times during the life of a transaction;

 

(f) reducing exposure to corporate entities whilst being able to increase risk to certain sectors in which such corporate entities operate; and

 

(g) the supply of highly rated instruments that may not otherwise be available.

 

 

[Suetonius]

The House of Lords take on securisitation

 

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmbills/121/en/2008121en.pdf

 

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.

[Suetonius]

As I have previously asked SS, under what legal process has the legal title been transfered ?

 

I will even answer my own question.

 

The Pender case (2003 application for appeal) even though this case does not set a precedent. It does indicate the legal process used to transfer title of ownership.

 

137. I am only concerned of course with the taking of possession, because there was no monetary judgment. I do not see that either section 114 LPA 1925 nor the provisions of the LRA 1925 have impact on the enforcement of the mortgage debt. For there to be a legal assignment of that it seems to me self evident that it must be completed by notice under section 136 LPA 1925 and until so done, even by virtue of section 114, it will remain an equitable assignment only.

 

Firstly, as I have previously posted s.136 of the LPA states:

 

136 Legal assignments of things in action

 

(1)Any absolute assignment by writing under the hand of the assignor (not purporting to be by way of charge only) of any debt or other legal thing in action, of which express notice in writing has been given to the debtor, trustee or other person from whom the assignor would have been entitled to claim such debt or thing in action, is effectual in law (subject to equities having priority over the right of the assignee) to pass and transfer from the date of such notice—

(a)the legal right to such debt or thing in action;

(b)all legal and other remedies for the same; and

©the power to give a good discharge for the same without the concurrence of the assignor:

Provided that, if the debtor, trustee or other person liable in respect of such debt or thing in action has notice—

(a)that the assignment is disputed by the assignor or any person claiming under him; or

(b)of any other opposing or conflicting claims to such debt or thing in action;he may, if he thinks fit, either call upon the persons making claim thereto to interplead concerning the same, or pay the debt or other thing in action into court under the provisions of the M1Trustee Act, 1925.

 

Secondly, the prospectuses that have previously been posted, each confirm that a notice will not be sent to the debtor.

 

s.136 of the LPA states that if a notice in writing has been given to the debtor (in this instance a letter saying your mortgage had been sold to the SPV), the assignee (the SPV) has the legal right to such a debt or thing in action and all legal and other remedies for the same. If a notice has not been given, the assignment can only be equitable.

 

Has anyone received a notice to inform them that their mortgage has been sold to a SPV ?

 

The implications of s.136 of the LPA are that unless a notice has been given to the debtor the assignment can only be equitable and the assignee does not have the legal right to such a debt or thing in action and does not have all legal and other remedies for the same.

 

I think the above is clear and straight forward.

 

Would anyone disagree with the above and s.136 preventing legal / absolute assignment ??

 

 

This is my understanding of the securisation process

 

The way I see it, is that there is only ever one legal charge. This one legal charge is seperated into two distinct and seperate parts

 

1) The Legal Charge in Law (which I have previously refered to as Legal Title). = Rights & Duties

 

2) The Legal Charge in Equity (which I have previously refered to as Equitable Title). = Monetry Benefit (future cash flow)

 

I consider that it is the Legal Charge in Equity that is assigned (sold) to the SPV. The Legal Charge in Law remains with the original mortgage provider / lender.

 

This means that by selling the Legal Charge in Equity to the SPV, your mortgage provider can have the capital balance of loan it gave you repaid in one lump sum, rather than having to wait for it to be repaid in monthly over the term of your mortgage.

 

The SPV sells bonds, investors invest in these bonds. The money invested in the bonds sold by the SPV are used to purchase the Legal Charge in Equity from your mortgage provider.

 

When you repay your mortgage (capital and interest), these payments are transferred to to the SPV and then paid to the investors upon maturity of the bonds.

 

The investors make a profit because the money used to purchase the Legal Charge in Equity, was only the capital balance of your mortgage. Whereas when the bond matures the investors receive the intial stake (the capital balance of your mortgage) and the interest that you have paid.

 

The interest rate you pay is higher than the rate the investors could have obtained had the invested these funds using alternative methods.

[Suetonius]

SS,

WELL CHILL MAN,

but I notice you have not answered the question of how or what security the bond holders have and I take it you have read the document from one company with C and ending i (lol) which IF YOU HAD GOOGLED you would find is behind most of these with chase Manhantten New York.

As in these times is the SFV goes broke then they have nothing as that is what has happened in the sub prime market in the US L/B for one ( look at GMAC-RFC for one)

If you feel or think there is nothing in this way do you not get a sale agreement then? as the companies can say what they like, you and I can say nothing else and they know it they work the LAW to what they need and its smoke and mirrors. smoke and mirrors my friend and that is why they will never EVER give you or any one else these details.

 

• I am not sure which company with c and ending in i actually is, if you care to clarify, I am more than willing to take a look
  

• As for two companies (the one with C and ending in i, and Chase Manhatten New York) being behind most of these, if your talking about mortgage securitisation within the UK, could you also please clarify how you reached this conclusion.
  

• In relation to the SFV going broke. I have not heard of that abbreviation before, could you please clarify if you are referring to a SPV / SPE. If you are referring to something else, can you please explain what you are referring too.
  

• I have taken a look at GMAC RFC and I have subsequently responded.
  

• In relation to your concerns with regard to the content of the sales agreement, I would refer you in the first instance to the Debt Collection section of this forum. You will note that after a great deal of effort certain members have successfully obtained copies of sales agreements between banks and debt collection agencies. This would imply that it is not beyond the realms of possibility that someone may be able to obtain a copy of a sales agreement relating to securitisation. In the second instance, I would remind you of the importance of a notice to the borrower / debtor under s.136 of the Law of Property Act 1925.
  

[Suetonius]

1) They receive the repayment of the money that they have previously provided and interest. They don't just do it for fun.

 

2) To which company going belle up are you referring to ?

 

Do you mean the original lender or the SPV, or one of the other companies involved ?

 

If you are refering to your mortgage provider "going belle up", then this should answer your question:

 

Bankruptcy remote

 

A key concern in securitisation transactions to ensure that the transfer of assets of the originator to the investors' representative or SPV is not affected by bankruptcy or distress of the originator.

 

This necessitates certain legal precautions in structuring the assignment of receivables, as also so constituting the SPV that it can neither be taken to liquidation by the shareholders of the originator, nor by those of the SPV itself. Further, the structure should also ensure that the SPV would not be treated as the subset of the originator by substantice consolidation. Such a structure is called bankruptcy remote structure.

 

3) And who do you think I work for ?

 

Mortgage Lender, SPV ?

 

Why is it when someone posts unpopular information (which I have supported with fact) they are always accused of working for the bad guys.

 

4) And no, I have not had the misfortune to pay anyone an ERC of £20k.

 

5) If you have any further questions that you need an answer, I suggest you try Google. It is amazing the things that you can find. For example, everything that I have posted on this thread has been found via a google or yahoo search.

 

So in future you can save me the trouble and do it yourself

 

I don't want to apologise anymore !!

Edited April 6, 2009 by Suetonius

[Suetonius]

I am now going to bed and would like to wish Button could luck in the race !

[foolishgirl]

I would like to apologise to 'IS IT ME?' for the tone of the above post. I just find it very irritating

 

I'd like to apologise too (in advance) to IS IT ME for this post & being irritated but could you possibly please turn your capitalisation off when you post ITM? It makes it hecky difficult to read.

[IS IT ME?]

The company is Citibank who if you had looked at this would have seen that they are the ones behind most of the securitisation with Chase Manhattan Bank.

As for the documents I have these and can say yes in one fact ' notice will not be given to the borrowers' why is that 'questions being asked?'

2. Why can no one get the sale agreements for these ??

3.when you say there is nothing wrong with these securitisation you the interest and rates the bond holders are getting even now in to days climate?

4. I know the worlds not rosy but still nothing has ever happened to you which is not right??

5. why when in court they stated these are documents which 'should and will not be released'

you have your thoughts on this and I have mine I know there is some thing not right

[IS IT ME?]

by the way I note that you never answered what security the bond holders have?

[Suetonius]

The company is Citibank who if you had looked at this would have seen that they are the ones behind most of the securitisation with Chase Manhattan Bank.

As for the documents I have these and can say yes in one fact ' notice will not be given to the borrowers' why is that 'questions being asked?'

2. Why can no one get the sale agreements for these ??

3.when you say there is nothing wrong with these securitisation you the interest and rates the bond holders are getting even now in to days climate?

4. I know the worlds not rosy but still nothing has ever happened to you which is not right??

5. why when in court they stated these are documents which 'should and will not be released'

you have your thoughts on this and I have mine I know there is some thing not right

 

Which documents have you seen and have your recevied a notice to tell you that your mortgage had been sold to a SPV ?

 

if so, please post a copy of the letter as that would bring an end to this debate.

[Suetonius]

by the way I note that you never answered what security the bond holders have?

 

I will point you in the right direction. Take a look at a prospectus, the answer to your question will be there

[Suetonius]

As for the documents I have these and can say yes in one fact ' notice will not be given to the borrowers' why is that 'questions being asked?'

 

If you mean why is the question being asked by me, it is because a notice is a legal requirement, for a legal /absolute assignment. Without this notice, it is not a legal / absolute assignment and therefore can only be equitable

[IS IT ME?]

yes I have and they will never inform the borrowers

what I would say is look at the accounts of this one company from 2000 to now when they where in a rented office in Gt Queen St.

But until you answer what I've asked then there is no more to say.

[Suetonius]

But until you answer what I've asked then there is no more to say.

 

I will point you in the right direction. Take a look at a prospectus, the answer to your question will be there

 

Or do you want me to

 

• Do a yahoo / google search for you.
  
• Read through the prospectus
  
• Then cut and paste the relevent section on cag for you
  

[Suetonius]

yes I have and they will never inform the borrowers

 

 

Need I say anymore ?

 

As a notice is a legal requirement, the assignment can only be equitable

[IS IT ME?]

and they the lenders follow the law?

ANSWER THE QUESTION WHAT GUARANTEE DOES THE BOND HOLDER HAVE?

and I notice as will every one else that you have not, which only makes me feel some bond with the lenders here.

[JonCris]

Litigation ie repossession...............Anyone thought about 'Champerty'

[Suetonius]

and they the lenders follow the law?

ANSWER THE QUESTION WHAT GUARANTEE DOES THE BOND HOLDER HAVE? and I notice as will every one else that you have not, which only makes me feel some bond with the lenders here.

 

 

Are you for real ?

 

Because I have not answered your question, you will jump to an assumption with regard to (I am not quite sure to what, as your post does not make sense) ??????

 

You don't know who I am or anything, but your willing to make assumptions based upon my actions ???

 

Your reasoning does not make sense. That is how you can jump to the wrong conclusions !!!

 

I don't know who you think I am. However, I can confirm that I am in no way employed by any company within the securitisation process.

 

Furthermore, as I have previously stated, EVERYTHING (that is me shouting to get my point across ) I have posted on here can be found via google and yahoo searches.

 

I am not sure what your apparent beef with me is, however as you don't appear to be bothered to do your own search on google to find a prospectus and that you don't appear to be bothered enough to read one and find the relevant section (why I don't know).:confused::confused:

 

I guess I will do it for you, as (despite being told exactly where the answer is to your own question) you do not appear willing to look for yourself ??

 

Now that does confuse me.....

 

Anyway... Just to save you, (heaven forbid) the trouble of actually looking for yourself:

 

Security

 

The security for the Notes will be created pursuant to, and on the terms set out in, the Deed of Charge, which will create in favour of the Trustee on trust for (among other persons) the Noteholders:

 

(1) a sub-charge over the Mortgages (including any Non-Verified Mortgages) which comprise English Mortgages and Northern Irish Mortgages and an assignation in security of the Issuer’s interest in the Mortgages which comprise Scottish Mortgages (consisting of the Issuer’s beneficial interest under the trusts declared by the Originators pursuant to the Scottish Declarations of Trust) purchased by the Issuer from any Seller under the Mortgage Sale Agreement and, where those Mortgages have the benefit of a guarantee, an assignment or assignation in security of the benefit of the guarantee;

 

(2) an assignment of the Issuer’s interest in various insurance policies taken out in connection with the Mortgages;

 

(3) an assignment of the Issuer’s rights under the Mortgage Sale Agreement, under the Services Letter, under the Flexible Drawing Facility Agreement (if any), under the Subordinated Loan Agreement, under the Fee Letter, under the Administration Agreement, under the Substitute Administrator Agreement, under the VAT Declaration of Trust, under the Agency Agreement, under the Collection Account Declarations of Trust, under the Cross-collateral Mortgage Rights Deed, under the Subscription Agreement, under each Currency Swap Agreement, under each Basis Hedge Agreement and under any Caps or other hedging arrangements

entered into by the Issuer and under the Remarketing Agreement and the A1 Note Conditional Purchase Agreement;

 

(4) an assignment of the Issuer’s rights to all moneys standing to the credit of the Transaction Account and any other bank accounts in which the Issuer has an interest (which may take effect as a floating charge and thus rank behind the claims of certain preferential creditors);

 

(5) a charge over any other investments of the Issuer (which may take effect, in certain cases, as floating charges or equitable charges and thus rank behind the claims of certain preferential and other creditors); and

 

(6) a floating charge (the ‘‘Floating Charge’’) (ranking behind the claims of certain preferential creditors) over the undertaking and all the assets of the Issuer which are not already subject to fixed security but extending over all the Issuer’s undertaking and all the assets of the Issuer as are situated in Scotland or governed by Scots law. The assets of the Issuer, which will constitute the security for the Notes, are referred to as the ‘‘Security’’. The Security will also stand as security for any amounts payable by the Issuer to any Receiver, the Trustee, the Substitute Administrator, PML, PFPLC, MTL, MTS, the Issue Services Provider, the Flexible Drawing Facility Provider (if any), the Subordinated Lenders, any Additional Subordinated Lender, the Currency Swap Provider, each Basis Hedge Provider and each Permitted Basis Hedge Provider under the Trust Deed, the Substitute Administrator Agreement, the Administration Agreement, the Mortgage Sale Agreement, the Deed of Charge, the Fee Letter, the Services Letter, the Flexible Drawing Facility Agreement (if any), the Subordinated Loan Agreement, each Currency Swap Agreement, each Basis Hedge Agreement and each Permitted Basis Hedge Agreement. The Deed of Charge will contain provisions regulating the priority of application of amounts forming part of the Security among the persons entitled thereto.

 

The Issuers interest is the legal charge in equity

 

 

Now that I have taken the time to answer your question. Please answer two of mine..

 

Despite me telling you exactly where the answer was:

 

1)Why could you not be bothered to look for yourself ?

2)Why do you expect me to do it for ?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited April 6, 2009 by Suetonius

[Suetonius]

Litigation ie repossession...............Anyone thought about 'Champerty'

 

In all honesty, no I have personally not even considered champerty

 

It is late now but I will do some digging via google and yahoo (subtle hint to IS IT ME?)

 

Thanks

Edited April 6, 2009 by Suetonius

[midge61]

Morning all

 

Have found this:

Criminal Law Act 1967 s.13

latest news

 

 

"A person is guilty of maintenance if he supports litigation in which he has no legitimate concern without just cause or excuse": see Chitty on Contracts (28th edition (1999) volume 1, paragraph 17-050). Champerty "occurs when the person maintaining another stipulates for a share of the proceeds of the action or suit": (see paragrgaph 17-054).

The Criminal Law Act 1967 abolished both the offences and the torts of champerty and maintenance but expressly preserved the invalidity of champertous agreements. Champerty therefore still survives as a rule of public policy capable of rendering a contract unenforceable if the champerty is not justifiable. Because the question of whether a champertous agreement can be justified is a question of public policy, the courts keep the legal position under review as public policy changes.

A recent and full consideration of the position was provided by the Court of Appeal in Regina (Factortame Ltd and Others) v Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (No 8) [2002] EWCA Civ 932 (CA on 3rd July 2002, reported at TLR 9th July 2002). The Court of Appeal held that fees payable to a firm of reporting accountants, Grant Thornton, under an agreement giving them "8% of the final settlement received" was not unlawful champerty but pointed out that the position might have been different if they had acted as expert witnesses. Only very rarely would it be appropriatate for an expert witness (who is meant to be neutral) to be instructed under a contingency fee agreement. In another 2002 case the House of Lords gave detailed consideration to the position in respect of recovery of contingency fees and "after the event" insurance policy premiums (see Callery v Gray HL 2002 UKHL 28 on 27th June 2002).

[midge61]

and this:

 

Allen & Overy | Areas of Expertise | Assigning a claim in the UK - key points to remember

 

What provisions should be included in an assignment agreement?

In terms of formalities, remember that for assignments to meet the statutory criteria of s136 Law of Property Act 1925, they need to be in writing, signed by the assignor and notice of the assignment has to be given to the debtor, trustee or which ever other person the assignor would have been entitled to claim against. If they do not meet those criteria, the assignment can still be effective but only as an equitable assignment. The key drawback here (in the context of assigning litigation) is that the assignee could not pursue the litigation in its own name; the assignor would have to be joined as a party to the proceedings

[IS IT ME?]

suetonius,

sue if that's your name really, you have missed the point here, do you really think and believe that the lenders are going to put the points and questions about these secritisation being asked in the open.

I HAVE seen and read the documents which by the way are not the same as yours but I will answer yours as follows,

1 so there has been a charge over the mortgages ( i take it you have a copy of this and seen it) it also clearly states an

assignment over beneficial interest in SOCTISIH mortgages nothing about English mortgages being of beneficial interest and you should read the last part again.

2 again every things been assigned to bond holders

3 Again assignment of all RIGHTS under the mortgage sale agreement you seen this then?.

4 The same again.

5 A CHARGE = MORTGAGE!

6. You must have a copy of the deed of charge then? showing what these rights etec are?

 

I do not mean to make you work or am I asking you to do any work, but I can not for the life of me think why you are so clear that there is nothing worng with these documents.

Why is it then that these securitisations where sold to the US markets which now has gone belly up?, the two main players are gone!.

Why when in my case they cryied blue munder not to show these documents in court? why if nothing to hide?.

You have checked the records for Gmac-RFC from 2000 to now as well?

 

[IS IT ME?]

mdge61,

well done you have at least got the point there can be no repo done without the bonders trustee joining any court claim and that's the point I am making here and that why the papers will never be shown to you , a judge or no one or until we have an employee will to give them over.