Acenden capstone spml pml lmc sppl

[caro]

Was this online zither? Could you post a link?

[applecart]

This to me stinks of insult to injury - It is one thing to find that your mortgage has been sold on, so that the original lender whose name appears on the title register is no more than a bare trustee asserting rights that it does not have in either equitable or legal terms in seeking to repossess the property...

 

Then, for those with mortgage loans that are libor linked to find that the rates have been rigged...not to mention the atrocities on consumers with regard to charges for this and that along the way and during the term of the mortgages....

 

Then, the FSA purports that it is unsure that it will affect consumers, because they cannot be sure that the rigging affected sterling libor....

 

All this after they have fined Barclays alongside the CFTC for the rigging of libor rates over an extensive period!!! - you don't fine a company under false pretense do you?

 

The CFTC had no such issue in finding that sterling libor had been rigged....

 

The CFTC's Order can be found here: http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/enfbarclaysorder062712.pdf

 

in particular on the final page you can see where it says :

 

"Respondents agree that neither they nor any of their successors and assigns,

agents or employees under their authority or control shall take any action or make

any public statement denying, directly or indirectly, any findings or conclusions

in this Order or creating, or tending to create, the impression that this Order is

without a factual basis; provided, however, that nothing in this provision shall

affect Respondents' (i) testimonial obligations, or (ii) right to take legal positions

in other proceedings to which the Commission is not a party. Respondents and

their successors and assigns shall undeliake all steps necessary to ensure that all

of their agents andlor employees under their authority or control understand and

comply with this agreement."

 

FSA's final order against barclays can be found here: http://www.fsa.gov.uk/static/pubs/final/barclays-jun12.pdf

 

Apple

[applecart]

Well as I am just preparing a bundle as we speak, it wouldn't take much to slip a line or two in the Witness Statement to a Barclays funded sub-prime lender about this. Any thoughts on the wording might be helpful.....I have just written to that lender asking how, if at all, the Barclays exposure has affected my interest rate. Going to be interesting to see how they reply. I doubt it will be any kind of comprehensive or transparent answer, especially as you say, other banks have been involved too and it is very early days. But answer they must and the more people writing in and asking the better.

 

I don't care about the other banks though, Barclays will do!

 

Yep (by the way, I owe you a massive apology, but I wont go into the whys etc on the open forum..)

 

Does this approach help at all?:

 

Dear Sirs

 

Acct No:

 

NOTICE OF INTENT

 

I write with regard to the recent reports in the news in relation to the Libor Rates. As you are aware my mortgage is based on Libor + x.xx% and has been so since xxxx[date].

 

The news reports were not speculative, indeed, Barclay's have admitted the reprehensible behavior that led to them being fined where we have seen that they have justly been fined both here and in the USA for manipulating the libor rate. I am happy to submit copies of the final orders made by the FSA and the CTFC upon request.

 

I am hopeful that you will appreciate that a manipulated libor rate regardless as to whether it was manipulated up or down may now, for all intent and purpose be no more than an implied rate and as such cannot be relied upon to reflect the true cost of my loan with you as was supposed to be the case.

 

It is without doubt that these findings are as much a concern to me as they may be for you, given that an implied term would render the agreement in breach of s.61 cca 1974.

 

I would be grateful for your comments and any supporting evidence to assist me conclude that Barclays manipulation of the Libor rate has no such implied affect on the agreement between us within the next 14 days.

 

In the event you are unable to provide me with the above, please be advised that the matter will be put before a court of Law for redress on or after a period of 14 days has expired.

 

 

Yours sincerely

 

xxxx

 

 

There may be others that can either add or remove text from the above, but at least it's a start....

 

Apple

[applecart]

Thanks for your comments Jim

 

nice to see that what I have said has caused someone who has just 3 posts to reply so ardently - welcome to the forum.

 

Genuinely, Welcome. your points raised are noted : )

 

Apple

[applecart]

Based upon the information in the public domain, at this time it would be impossible to seek redress. Any such claim would run the risk of being considered to be vexatious and frivolous and subject to an order for costs.

 

With respect, there is no frivolous or vexatious intent here. The facts are as they are, the orders came about after a genuine investigation of the facts as founded by Authorities here and in the USA to prove that Libor was manipulated.... The case was not about Barclays per se, BUT about whether Libor had been rigged and over what period - Barclays were just the first to come forward.

 

It may be that a lender would argue 'vexation' in a defence to a claim - but then that would be to suppose that the Authorities investigation was both frivolous and vexatious - Given the evidence and where it is derived, I do not consider that such a defence would hold much weight do you? If you do, then please advise...

 

Barclays is only one of currently 15 banks that make submissions to the BBA inregard to the setting of Sterling Libor.

 

The full list includes

 

Abbey National plc

Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi UFJ Ltd

BNP Paribas

Barclays Bank plc

Citibank NA

Credit Agricole Corporate Investment Bank

Deutsche Bank AG

HSBC

JP Morgan Chase

Lloyds Banking Group

Mizuho

Rabobank

Royal Bank of Canada

The Royal Bank of Scotland Group

Société Générale

UBS AG

 

I am aware that Barclays are one of a reported number of banks to provides submissions, It would be unfair of the Authorities to single out Barclays don't you think? - Lets' remember, the investigation was to do with Libor rigging - Barclays were simply the 1st to come forward and owned up - This does not mean that the investigation stops there. And... it does not take away from the reason for the investigation which was to investigate whether libor was rigged or not. The Fines confirm that Libor was rigged. Again, if you disagree, please advise.

 

As a preventative measure. the BBA when setting LIBOR, remove the highest 4 and lowest 4 quotes and average the middle 8 submissions.

 

The investigation proves that the way in which BBA set LIBOR has been manipulated, As you will be aware by now a number of the banks in the list regardless of where they are placed are also due or being investigated, again, if you disagree, please advise.

 

Therefore, any claim would have to be based upon what LIBOR should have been and what it was. To calculate this, you would need to take into consideration all of the submissions by the panel of banks not just Barclays.

 

There is nothing complicated here, why over complicate matters, it's really quite simple... an investigation was undertaken into reports of libor manipulation, the findings were that libor was, has been manipulated - From a contractual point of view - The libor rate quoted on the agreement requires investigation also - given the evidence it is unlikely to reflect the true cost of borrowing....which it is supposed to do...

 

Until investigations are completed and published it would be virtually impossible and fruitile to make an claim in Court. Therefore, any threat to claim redress at this stage is ridiculous.

 

I wouldn't use such strong terms personally, all cases need to be weighed up individually - e.g if you do not have a mortgage linked to Libor, then it will not concern you in the slightest, but for those who do, then it will be of great concern to them. Manipulation of Libor is evident between 2005 - 2009 possibly before and todate...if you entered an agreement linked to libor during that time you would be very concerned, concerned enough to consider where you stand.

 

Loss.... if you have an erroneous rate levied every 3 months (interestingly Mr Diamond said advised the committee that it was only the 1 mth and 3 mth rates that were manipulated, he said that these rates were only directed at wholesale markets --- well, no offence intended, but it might surprise him to know that most 'retail' mortgages placed with sub-prime lenders are 3 month libor!!) then for every penny you have paid whilst the contract is running is a loss, because where the Libor can be seen to be a 'implied' term by virtue of its evidenced manipulation - then the contract may be invalid... note, I do not say unenforceable....

 

I agree with Andrew1... I think that one has nothing to lose by asking the lender for their comments on recent events and how they consider a manipulated libor rate affects the contract between you. Whether an affected party decides to take the matter to court or not is their civil right...once they are as sure as they can be that there is a 50+ chance of success after weighing up the pros and cons...

 

Apple

[applecart]

"A personal opinion, disproved and shown to be baseless and incorrect by set legal precedent following High Court and Court of Appeal Judgements which are binding upon lower courts."

 

 

Forgive me, but I must have mis-read Pender, where does any section of its lengthy outline does it relate to Bare Trustees? With respect...... I've moved the entire issue of securitised mortgages on since Pender mate : )

 

Apple

[caro]

Thank you for your view on this Jim Kirk. It's nice to see a newby who has read the site rules.

[Sappho54]

Whereas Applecart's advice is not likely to bring about an effective legal remedy for all the reasons that contributors to this thread have outlined, I for one would be more than happy if Acenden were put under pressure by being inundated with requests for clarification of the current situation regarding LIBOR along the lines that Applecart advised. Otherwise, those of us on LIBOR mortgages are forced to have to sit on our hands and do nothing. It is shocking that Ministers are happy to state that "only" 250 000 loans and mortgages have been affected. That's 250 000 at the time that the LIBOR rate was being fiddled with. A very sizeable percentage, in fact the majority, of these must be Lehmans loans and mortgages. Barclays took over Lehmans. Lehmans victims are at the heart of this scandal.

[applecart]

I am not going to be drawn into this personal character assassination.

 

I would however remind caggers that a recorded delivery letter costs no more than a few quid - if that - hopefully no legal or financial implications there then : )

 

Apple

[Crapstone]

I think Kirk is pretty obvious despite them taking off into orbit, but I get the point. This is the first hurdle.. just 3 people, 1 company and the so called regulators tying themselves in knots already. If Acenden give the same response as those, so far, before the committee then it would just be a waste of money.

 

You really don't expect them to hold their hands up? And if they do will you be kicking yourself in the future for not holding out? It's not as though they can deny any wrong doing or you having to prove a case... It's cut and shut that the consumer relationship and the contract was compromised.

 

Can we do an E-Petition to get everyone who has a mortgage linked directly to LIBOR to sign? Asking for a stay on any potential evictions or court action until this enquiry is concluded? Any thoughts on that?

Edited July 11, 2012 by Crapstone

[Crapstone]

Did Lehmans ever submit to the LIBOR rate? Can anyone find historical listing of companies that have submitted?

[applecart]

This link shows global rates - the sterling libor goes back to the 1980's

http://www.global-rates.com/interest...-sterling.aspx

 

For more information about LIBOR:

 

http://www.global-rates.com/interest-rates/libor/libor-information.aspx

 

Here's an extract:

 

"LIBOR panel banks

As has already been indicated, LIBOR is an average interest rate at which a selection of banks will lend one another funds. These banks are called ‘panel banks’. The selection is made every year by the British Bankers' Association (BBA) with assistance from the Foreign Exchange and Money Markets Committee (FX&MMC). A panel is made up for each currency consisting of at least 8 and a maximum of 16 banks which are deemed to be representative for the London money market. Banks are assessed on market volume, reputation and assumed knowledge of the currency concerned. Because the criteria applied are strict, the rates can generally be considered to be the lowest interbank lending rates on the London money market."

 

US Dollar Panel

 

Please find a complete list below for all the 18 banks that currently contribute to the fixing of US Dollar bbalibor. This panel was last reviewed in May 2012.

Bank of America

Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi UFJ Ltd

Barclays Bank plc

BNP Paribas

Citibank NA

Credit Agricole CIB

Credit Suisse

Deutsche Bank AG

HSBC

JP Morgan Chase

Lloyds Banking Group

Rabobank

Royal Bank of Canada

Société Générale

Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corporation

The Norinchukin Bank

The Royal Bank of Scotland Group

UBS AG

 

Of interest is the fact that Barclays sits on every single bank panel involved in the libor rates submitted globally.

 

The way libor rates are derived is found here:

 

http://www.bbalibor.com/bbalibor-explained/the-basics

 

No. of Contributors

 

 

Trimming methodology

No. of Contributors on which BBA LIBOR rate is based

 

18 Contributors

top 4 highest rates, tail 4 lowest rates

10

 

17 Contributors

top 4 highest rates, tail 4 lowest rates

9

 

16 Contributors

top 4 highest rates, tail 4 lowest rates

8

 

15 Contributors

top 4 highest rates, tail 4 lowest rates

7

 

14 Contributors

top 3 highest rates, tail 3 lowest rates

8

 

13 Contributors

top 3 highest rates, tail 3 lowest rates

7

 

12 Contributors

top 3 highest rates, tail 3 lowest rates

6

 

11 Contributors

top 3 highest rates, tail 3 lowest rates

5

 

10 Contributors

top 2 highest rates, tail 2 lowest rates

6

 

9 Contributors

top 2 highest rates, tail 2 lowest rates

5

 

8 Contributors

top 2 highest rates, tail 2 lowest rates

4

 

7 Contributors

top highest rate, tail lowest rate

 

Check here how libor affects your mortgage payments: http://www.bbalibor.com/bbalibor-explained/my-mortgage-bbalibor

 

And if you are wondering who is submitting rates that influence the libor rate right now:

 

BBA Libor panels

 

1 Jun 2012

 

BBA Libor panels

 

1 June 2012

 

At their recent meeting, the independent Foreign Exchange and Money Markets Committee that oversees BBA LIBOR undertook a full review of all BBA LIBOR panels.

This is a scheduled event that currently takes place twice annually. Prior to May 2009, reviews were annual, but in response to market consultation the reviews were moved to a bi-annual basis. The next scheduled review of all panels will take place in autumn 2012.

 

Contributor panel banks are selected by the Foreign Exchange and Money Markets committee on the basis of scale of activity in the London market and perceived expertise in the currency concerned, with due consideration given to credit standing. "London market" means any transaction carried out from London, with a London counterparty, or via a London intermediary.

 

Any bank may apply to join any LIBOR contributor panel and the committee invite applications from all banks. Banks signal their willingness to join a panel by submitting data regarding their activity in the cash and FX swap markets in confidence to the BBA. The LIBOR Director at the BBA compiles this data into a review which is presented to the committee at their meetings. For more information on this, please contact [email protected]

 

Following the full review of all constituents, the Committee announce that with effect from Monday 18 June the panels will be constituted as described below.

 

Australian Dollar (AUD): 7 Banks

Barclays Bank plc

Commonwealth Bank of Australia

Deutsche Bank AG

HSBC

JP Morgan

Lloyds Banking Group

The Royal Bank of Scotland Group

 

The calculation methodology for this panel will be to rank contributions, remove the highest and lowest quotes and average the middle 5.

 

Canadian Dollar (CAD): 9 Banks

Bank of Nova Scotia

Barclays Bank plc

Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce

Deutsche Bank AG

HSBC

Lloyds Banking Group

Royal Bank of Canada

Société Générale

The Royal Bank of Scotland Group

 

The calculation methodology for this panel will be to rank contributions, remove the highest 2 and lowest 2 quotes and average the middle 5.

 

Danish Krone (DKK): 6 Banks

Barclays Bank plc

Deutsche Bank AG

HSBC

JP Morgan Chase

Lloyds Banking Group

The Royal Bank of Scotland Group

 

The calculation methodology for this panel will be to rank contributions, remove the highest and lowest quotes and average the middle 4.

 

Euro (EUR): 15 Banks

Abbey National

Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi UFJ Ltd

Barclays Bank plc

Citibank NA

Credit Suisse

Deutsche Bank AG

HSBC

JP Morgan Chase

Lloyds Banking Group

Mizuho

Rabobank

Royal Bank of Canada

Société Générale

The Royal Bank of Scotland Group

UBS AG

 

The calculation methodology for this panel will be to rank contributions, remove the highest 4 and lowest 4 quotes and average the middle 7.

 

Japanese Yen (JPY): 13 Banks

Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi UFJ Ltd

Barclays Bank plc

Credit Agricole Corporate Investment Bank

Deutsche Bank AG

HSBC

JP Morgan Chase

Lloyds Banking Group

Mizuho Corporate Bank

Société Générale

Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corporation Europe Ltd (SMBCE)

The Norinchukin Bank

The Royal Bank of Scotland Group

UBS AG

 

The calculation methodology for this panel will be to rank contributions, remove the highest 3 and lowest 3 quotes and average the middle 7.

 

New Zealand Dollar (NZD): 7 Banks

Barclays Bank plc

Commonwealth Bank of Australia

Deutsche Bank AG

HSBC

JP Morgan Chase

Lloyds Banking Group

The Royal Bank of Scotland Group

 

The calculation methodology for this panel will be to rank contributions, remove the highest and lowest quotes and average the middle 5.

 

Sterling (GBP): 16 Banks

Abbey National plc

Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi UFJ Ltd

BNP Paribas

Barclays Bank plc

Citibank NA

Credit Agricole Corporate Investment Bank

Deutsche Bank AG

HSBC

JP Morgan Chase

Lloyds Banking Group

Mizuho

Rabobank

Royal Bank of Canada

The Royal Bank of Scotland Group

Société Générale

UBS AG

 

The calculation methodology for this panel will be to rank contributions, remove the highest 4 and lowest 4 quotes and average the middle 8.

 

Swedish Krona (SEK): 6 Banks

Barclays Bank

Deutsche Bank

HSBC

JP Morgan Chase

Lloyds Banking Group

The Royal Bank of Scotland Group

 

The calculation methodology for this panel will be to rank contributions, remove the highest and lowest quotes and average the middle 4.

 

Swiss Franc (CHF): 11 Banks

Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi UFJ Ltd

Barclays Bank plc

Citibank NA

Credit Suisse

Deutsche Bank AG

HSBC

JP Morgan Chase

Lloyds Banking Group

Société Générale

The Royal Bank of Scotland Group

UBS AG

 

The calculation methodology for this panel will be to rank contributions, remove the highest 3 and lowest 3 quotes and average the middle 5.

 

US Dollar (USD): 18 Banks

Bank of America

Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi UFJ Ltd

Barclays Bank plc

BNP Paribas

Citibank NA

Credit Agricole CIB

Credit Suisse

Deutsche Bank AG

HSBC

JP Morgan Chase

Lloyds Banking Group

Rabobank

Royal Bank of Canada

Société Générale

Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corporation Europe Ltd (SMBCE)

The Norinchukin Bank

The Royal Bank of Scotland Group

UBS AG

 

The calculation methodology for this panel will be to rank contributions, remove the highest 4 and lowest 4 quotes and average the middle 10.

 

Notes to editors

 

Decisions on individual banks were taken on the basis of scale of activity in the London market, perceived expertise in the currency concerned, reputation, and due consideration of credit standing. Current and potential panel members were asked to provide data confidentially to the BBA about their cash and short-term FX swap business in each currency in order to measure their scale of activity.

 

Any bank may apply to join any LIBOR contributor panel. Banks signal their willingness to join a panel by submitting data regarding their activity in the cash and FX swap markets in confidence to the BBA. The LIBOR Director at the BBA compiles this data into a review which is presented to the committee at their meetings. For more information on this, please contact [email protected].

 

The decisions represent the composite judgment of the independent Foreign Exchange and Money Markets Committee and the BBA and the Foreign Exchange and Money Markets Committee are not able to comment on any individual Panel or bank.

 

The Foreign Exchange and Money Markets Committee is committed to reviewing the Panels at least twice annually"

 

For historical data on which banks were on the BBA Panel - Google "bba libor panel 2005" and so on (couldn't see any listings shown prior to 2005 though....

[applecart]

Did Lehmans ever submit to the LIBOR rate? Can anyone find historical listing of companies that have submitted?

 

I couldn't find anything to show that 'Lehmans' sat on any of the banking panels in their own 'name' at all - JP Morgan Stanley and BNY Mellon acted as primary clearing banks for them though. JP Morgan Stanley are on the bank panel....

 

When Barclays bought Lehmans - in essence, since 2008 Lehmans have been on the bank panel by directly being owned by Barclays..

[Crapstone]

Thanks for that Applecart.

[zither]

Was this online zither? Could you post a link?

I cant for the life of me remember where I saw it, and its driving me mad! I wont give up though.

[applecart]

I think it is fair to say that 'Sub-Prime' lending was a business model introduced to the UK from America. The FSA's investigation of the manipulation of the Libor Rate is alleged to have been instigated by the CFTC. The CFTC reportedly have been investigating what has come to be known as the 'Barclays Libor Scandal' since 2008.... and, as we all now know... it's conclusions saw both the CFTC and the FSA accepting monies by way of a fine from Barclays for what Mr Diamond referred to as 'reprehensible' behavior.

 

It is also fair to say that the USA are ahead of the UK in bringing Banks to account for such 'reprehensible' behavior.

 

This News Article makes interesting reading - is this where we are heading in the UK too? source: http://www.markewatch.com/story/home-owners-across-the-nation-sue-all-bank-servicers-and-their-offshore-havens-spire-law-officially-announces-filing-of-landmark-lawsuit-2012-04-23

 

press release

 

April 23, 2012, 12:01 a.m. EDT

Home Owners Across the Nation Sue All Bank Servicers and Their Offshore Havens; Spire Law Officially Announces Filing of Landmark Lawsuit

Largest International Money Laundering Network in History Formed During Obama Administration; U.S. Banks' Theft of Home Owners' Money Laundered Through Cayman Islands, Isle of Man and Numerous Offshore-Based Affiliates

 

NEW YORK, NY, Apr 23, 2012 (MARKETWIRE via COMTEX) -- In a lawsuit alleged to involve the largest money laundering network in United States history, Spire Law Group, LLP -- on behalf of home owners across the Country -- has filed a mass tort action in the Supreme Court of New York, County of Kings. Home owners across the country have sued every major bank servicer and their subsidiaries -- formed in countries known as havens for money laundering such as the Cayman Islands, the Isle of Man, Luxembourg and Malaysia -- alleging that while the Obama Administration was publicly encouraging loan modifications for home owners, it was privately ratifying the formation of these shell companies in violation of the United States Patriot Act, and State and Federal law. The case further alleges that through these obscure foreign companies, Bank of America, J.P. Morgan, Wells Fargo Bank, Citibank, Citigroup, One West Bank, and numerous other federally chartered banks stole hundreds of millions of dollars of home owners' money during the last decade and then laundered it through offshore companies. The complaint, Index No. 500827, was filed by Spire Law Group, LLP, and several of the Firm's affiliates and partners across the United States.

 

Far from being ambiguous, this is a complaint that "names names." Indeed, the lawsuit identifies specific companies and the offshore countries used in this enormous money laundering scheme. Federally Chartered Banks' theft of money and their utilization of offshore tax haven subsidiaries represent potential FDIC violations, violations of New York law, and countless other legal wrongdoings under state and federal law.

 

"The laundering of trillions of dollars of U.S. taxpayer money -- and the wrongful taking of the homes of those taxpayers -- was known by the Administration and expressly supported by it. Evidence uncovered by the plaintiffs revealed that the Administration ignored its own agencies' reports -- and reports from the Department of Homeland Security -- about this situation, dating as far back as 2010. Worse, the Administration purported to endorse a 'national bank settlement' without disclosing or having any public discourse whatsoever about the thousands of foreign tax havens now wholly owned by our nation's banks. Fortunately, no home owner is bound to enter into this fraudulent bank settlement," stated Eric J. Wittenberg of Columbus, Ohio -- a noted trial lawyer, author and student of US history -- on behalf of plaintiffs in the case.

 

The suing home owners reveal how deeply they were defrauded by bank and governmental corruption -- and are suing for conversion, larceny, fraud, and for violations of other provisions of New York state law committed by these financial institutions and their offshore counterparts.

 

This lawsuit explains why loans were, in general, rarely modified after 2009. It explains why the entire bank crisis worsened, crippling the economy of the United States and stripping countless home owners of their piece of the American dream. It is indeed a fact that the Administration has spent far more money stopping bank investigations, than they have investigating them. When the Administration's agencies (like the FDIC) blew the whistle, their reports were ignored.

 

The case is styled Abeel v. Bank of America, etc., et al. -- and includes such entities as ML Banderia Cayman BRL Inc., ML Whitby Luxembourg S.A.R.L. and J.P Morgan Asset Management Luxembourg S.A. -- as well as hundreds of other obscure offshore entities somehow "owned" by federally chartered banks and formed "under the nose" of the Administration and the FDIC.

 

Commenting further on the case, Mr. Wittenberg stated: "As if it is not bad enough that banks collect money and do not credit it to homeowners' accounts, and as if it is not bad enough that those banks then foreclose when they know they do not have a legally enforceable interest in the realty, we now learn that they have been operating under unbridled free reign given by the Administration and some states' Attorneys General in formulating this international money laundering network. Now that the light of day has been shined on it, I believe we can all rest assured that the beginning of the end of the bank crisis has arrived." [My emphasis - I'm clearly not the only person to have noticed that our Sub-Prime Lenders have no legal right to a borrowers property]

 

All United States home owners may have the right to bring a lawsuit of this kind if they paid money to a national bank servicer during the years 2003 through 2009.

 

One lawyer impacted by the corruption -- Mitchell J. Stein, who formerly represented the FDIC, the RTC and the FSLIC during the Savings and Loan scandal of the 1990s, and who predicted all of the foregoing in open court two years ago -- commented: "Two years ago, I remarked in open court to a Los Angeles Superior Court Judge, as well as to legislators including Senator Dianne Feinstein's office during a multitude of in-person meetings, that the ongoing violations of the Patriot Act by these financial institutions was outrageous and a breach of the public trust of unprecedented proportions," said Stein.

 

"The size and scope of this misconduct -- stretching to far-away islands never before having standing as approved United States Bank affiliates -- is remarkable and emblematic of what we have seen," he continued. "The bank crisis represents the height of corruption and brazen behavior where our historically trusted financial institutions have no qualms about breaking the law, because they have the Administration behind them. Banks do well enough when they operate lawfully without needing to be permitted to operate as criminal enterprises that steal money from United States citizens."

 

Additional plaintiffs' counsel Nicholas M. Moccia commented: "Having been in the trenches of the bank crisis for years, I always knew that the misconduct was being conducted by a network. When I started litigating against banks, however, I could have never imagined that it would be this extensive. I look forward to taking discovery of these thousands of obscure foreign entities and to obtaining for homeowners their constitutionally entitled injuries for this international ring of theft and deception."

 

As the saying goes 'When America sneezes we in the UK catch a cold"

 

Apple

Edited July 13, 2012 by applecart
url link

[applecart]

Given some of the allegations in the report, I thought best to see if there was anything else this US Law firm were getting up to, I found this:

 

http://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/Abeel-v-Bank-of-America-etal-trillions_4-12.pdf

 

It is the claim submitted by the USA Law firm on behalf of 100's + of borrowers against 100's + Banks etc.

 

Let's hope we don't get a cold here because the claim appears to be 'sneezing' even without any mention of Libor manipulation.

 

Mentions something called CDS's (Credit Default Swaps), I had no idea that when a borrower defaulted on mortgage payments that the lenders got a payout - Shocking!!! and imagine, it is defaulting on the loan that sees the borrower marched off to court for a suspended or outright possession order..... absolutely shocking!

 

Apple

[Sappho54]

The originator of the loan got paid out in full by the SPV as soon as the loan agreement was signed.

 

The SPV - after manufacturing a default by imposition of charges, "lost" payments and vexatious litigation - got paid out in full by CSDs

 

The SPV continues to receive payouts - LIBOR interest + spurious charges whilst loan in running - getting paid out in full + extras

 

The Investors get a house at a 60% or more discount when property is finally taken off the borrower by the courts, which can be sold on with profit - yet another payout......

 

I don't really have words for this.

[applecart]

The issue is that it is easier said than proven.

 

The Law firm in the US are making 'allegations' that have yet to be proven...

 

If it is proven, then it is borrowers that have made a loss in my opinion.

 

Apple

[applecart]

This may take a while to read and digest and I apologise for the length of the post in advance...........

 

Looking at what Lord Justice Jonathan Parker actually says in more detail below......

 

Lord Justice Jonathan Parker :

 

“…..As Dr Eilis Ferran MA (presently Reader in Corporate Law and Financial Regulation at Cambridge University) points out in a book entitled 'mortgage Securitisation – Legal Aspects' (Butterworths, 1992) to which we were helpfully referred by Mr Ali Malek QC (for Paragon) in the course of argument, if the transfer of the mortgages is not completed by registration, the SPV acquires an equitable title to the mortgage but the transferor retains the legal title, albeit as trustee for the SPV (assuming, as will usually be the case, that the full consideration has been paid)….[my emphasis

 

 

The judge establishes here that the Lender is a 'trustee' for the SPV - and confirms that 'as will usually be the case that the full consideration has been paid'

 

So, what 'type' of 'trustee' does he mean? What 'type' of 'trustee' relationship exists - in the Pender case, for all intent and purpose on the evidence submitted the Administration Agreements 'appointed' Paragon as trustee were to ensure they retained the powers of an 'appointed trustee'.

 

Compare this type of 'appointed trustee' with a 'custodian trustee' or 'bare trustee' - what is the difference?

 

 

…In my judgment Mr and Mrs Pender's case on this issue is misconceived. It is common ground that Paragon, as registered proprietor of the Legal Charge, retains legal ownership of it. One incident of its legal ownership – and an essential one at that – is the right to possession of the mortgaged property…..

 

The Judge establishes that it was Paragon that registered the charge, sold the debt, but retained legal rights to possession because their admin agreement, secured this important right for them by evidencing that they were 'appointed trustees' after the sale

 

The Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustee Act 1996 establishes the rights of 'appointed trustees'

 

Section 6: General powers of trustees.

 

(1) For the purpose of exercising their functions as trustees, the trustees of land have in relation to the land subject to the trust all the powers of an absolute owner.

 

(2) Where in the case of any land subject to a trust of land each of the beneficiaries interested in the land is a person of full age and capacity who is absolutely entitled to the land, the powers conferred on the trustees by subsection (1) include the power to convey the land to the beneficiaries even though they have not required the trustees to do so; and where land is conveyed by virtue of this subsection—

 

(a) the beneficiaries shall do whatever is necessary to secure that it vests in them, and

 

(b) if they fail to do so, the court may make an order requiring them to do so.

 

(3) The trustees of land have power to [F1acquire land under the power conferred by section 8 of the Trustee Act 2000.]

 

F2(4)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

 

(5) In exercising the powers conferred by this section trustees shall have regard to the rights of the beneficiaries.

 

(6) The powers conferred by this section shall not be exercised in contravention of, or of any order made in pursuance of, any other enactment or any rule of law or equity.

 

(7) The reference in subsection (6) to an order includes an order of any court or of the Charity Commissioners.

 

(8) Where any enactment other than this section confers on trustees authority to act subject to any restriction, limitation or condition, trustees of land may not exercise the powers conferred by this section to do any act which they are prevented from doing under the other enactment by reason of the restriction, limitation or condition.

 

[F3(9) The duty of care under section 1 of the Trustee Act 2000 applies to trustees of land when exercising the powers conferred by this section.]

 

 

So, how do I come to the conclusion that there are situations where this Act does not work in favor of the Lender in a position who has sold the mortgage debt, retained it's name on the title and collects your monthly money via an administrator and then seeks possession when you default on the loan?

 

Well, Look at "(6) The powers conferred by this section shall not be exercised in contravention of, or of any order made in pursuance of, any other enactment or any rule of law or equity".[/b so...... what does this mean? If Pender essentially says that Paragon by virtue of the admin Agreements were 'appointed trustees' - then, what about those lenders that cannot prove they remained 'appointed trustees' - Paragon is owned by Paragon PLC and bought and sold within the group- so, as a subsiduary of one and the same company - it spells sense that they 'kept it in the Company' so's to speak....

 

In my opinion, for a number of sub-prime lenders the position is quite different from Pender... why?... because Pender after the sale occurred were able to show evidence that they retained admin rights within which it must have clearly stated that they were 'appointed trustees' by Paragon PLC......

 

If the original lender does not remain as administrator for the SPV but instead outsources those duties, this does not mean that the original lender is not a 'trustee' - they are..... but they are not 'appointed' as in the meaning of TLAT Act 1996 s(1) there is a difference.....a trust is created... but not an appointed one....

 

As an un-appointed trustee, they become a trustee in equity or what is more commonly known as a 'bare' or 'custodian' trustee - these type of 'trustee' will find that it is s.6(6) of the TLAT Act 1996 that applies to them ..... their status is created by way of equity, not by way of appointment......unfortun ately rights to possession are excluded to custodian or bare trustees....put simply, "..powers conferred by this section shall not be exercised in contravention of, or of any order made in pursuance of, any other enactment or any rule of law or equity - so, where an appointed trustee has the right to possession for example..... a bare trustee does not]

 

…In my judgment as a matter of principle the right to possession conferred by the Legal Charge remains exercisable by Paragon as the legal owner of the Legal Charge (i.e. as the registered proprietor of it), notwithstanding that Paragon may have transferred the beneficial ownership of the Legal Charge to the SPV…

 

The Judge given the evidence before him, found in favor of Paragon, and quite rightly to... but look carefully at what he actually says.. he says 'as a matter of principle'..... 'legal charge remains exercisable'.... 'notwithstanding that paragon "may" have transferred the benenficial ownership of the Legal Charge to the SPV' ... This could mean that he was not provided with any evidence to substantiate that the mortgage debt had actually been sold. ....B

 

Any questions? thoughts? opinions?

 

Apple

[applecart]

The originator of the loan got paid out in full by the SPV as soon as the loan agreement was signed.

 

The SPV - after manufacturing a default by imposition of charges, "lost" payments and vexatious litigation - got paid out in full by CSDs

 

The SPV continues to receive payouts - LIBOR interest + spurious charges whilst loan in running - getting paid out in full + extras

 

The Investors get a house at a 60% or more discount when property is finally taken off the borrower by the courts, which can be sold on with profit - yet another payout......

 

I don't really have words for this.

 

Yes, that what is alleged Sappho - but where's the proof? - In America, people seem more willing to dig up the truth.. here we simply talk about the truth and do nothing - a friend of mine called it 'The British Way' : )

 

Apple

[Sappho54]

Well, the mortgage sale agreement is proof the originator sold the loan for a full consideration.

 

Prospectus spells out in detail the registration gap wrangle.

 

The TR4 (Land Registry transfer document) which names the SPV as having the beneficial interest in the loan following the sale, and also shows that the transferor and transferee are one and the same, as the transferor (the SPV) was been given power of attorney to sign over the loan.

 

Somewhere on the net, and I lost the link, I tracked down the reference that showed my SPV redeemed the loan in 2009, after I had been driven into default. Cannot find the link but it's there somewhere. I assume this was the credit-default swap but I have never got my head around this part of it and I now cannot pick up the trail I followed.

 

The requirement to sell on the house within 90days in the current climate means a very hefty discount to guarantee the sale. The alleged costs of the forced sale - anecdotal evidence on this site and others.....

 

It's all there. But what to do about it? None of it appears to be illegal.

[Sappho54]

i found out today that the SPV with whom I have the loan, Eurosail UK 2007 1NC PLC, lost its credit licence in March of this year, and is down to one director (source Companies House) The OFT told me when I rang them and asked about the lapsed credit licence that the company had more than likely ceased trading! Being without a licence makes it a criminal act to take any legal action, and must surely make the loans and mortgage agreements unenforceable?

[uneverdid]

Hi I know i should start a new thread but cannot find out how to

Basically I have had my statement from Preferred/acenden which states the following;

 

Payment Arrears £4437.53

 

Charges as a result of missed payments £2.127.13

 

Total overdue balance £4636.01

 

Other amounts due £198.48

 

It is the charges i am concerned about can i claim them back ?

 

I appreciate any support with this, thanking you all in advance.

[applecart]

Oh My Goodness.... so you have a TR4 with Eurosail UK 2007 1NC PLC - a Mortgage Sale Agreement - who is on the Title? is it them as well??

 

Apple