SPML/LMC anyone claimed for mis selling and unfair charges?

[enoughisenough]

Pender just doesn't do the job for the naysayers half as well as they seem to think it does. But the interesting thing is it is better for all us on the other side of the fence that Pender happened rather than not. THis is now such a matter of heightened public interest and importance affecting hundreds of thousands that it simply cannot go away. To be honest How many people were even alive to the issues of the Pender 2003/05 cases. I took my subprime crap out after that. Oh and by the way can we all agree that the borrowers are not sub prime?

 

SUB PRIME = ORIGINATORS

SUB PRIME = SPiVs

SUB PRIME = ADMINISTRATORS

 

If only they'd described my mortgage as **** +. I might have stayed away then!

[supersleuth]

Truro,

 

It has come up before. What happened was that SPML had sold them a bunch of mortgages and made a "representation" in the contract that the mortgages all had Loan To Value ratios of 85% or less. The investors sussed out that that was a false representation and said hey, get stuffed, you lied, give us back our money. So they did. It's like you taking a jumper back to M&S and getting a refund. However, you can rest assured that the 86 mortgages that it refunded on that occasion would have been repackaged and sold off in its next securitsation anyway.

[supersleuth]

Agree - the borrowers are not subprime - its the lenders, the SPV who are sub prime PLUS it is the SPVs and the lenders that are TOXIC. Toxic to the nation, its citizens and our economy.

[brassed-off-2]

Weil Gotshal Advises Lehman Brothers on Residential Mortgage-Backed Securitization - News/Publications - Weil, Gotshal & Manges

 

In the 2nd paragraph,

"under an innovative structure that allows lehman to issue future Eurosail transactions with minimum documentary changes"

 

Reading between the lines, could this mean they dont have to inform the debtor and the LR of any changes in relation to the cecuritisation of the mortgage?

 

b-o-2

[supersleuth]

Hi BO2,

 

Don't think so. First its a press release and secondly, you cannot contract to break the law. The law requires that the legal owner is registered at the LR and they don't get to decide that its inconvenient to abide by the law. The LRA is not an act that you can OPT out of at your "structural" whim.

 

But have to say that it is interesting to see that there is "master" documentation in place which means that the essential terms of all the Eurosail transactions will be the same. Excellent and handy to know. So it doesn't matter which Eurosail SPV your mortgage is in, the documentation is essentially the same. The only things that will change between each of the various securitisations is the figures, dates and some other economic details etc.

Edited April 27, 2009 by supersleuth

[JonCris]

SS Can you start a separate thread where we can all discuss in full the Judgments in Pender & at the same time a detailed rebuttal

[brassed-off-2]

Hi BO2,

 

 

But have to say that it is interesting to see that there is "master" documentation in place which means that the essential terms of all the Eurosail transactions will be the same. Excellent and handy to know. So it doesn't matter which Eurosail SPV your mortgage is in, the documentation is essentially the same. The only things that will change between each of the various securitisations is the figures, dates and some other economic details etc.

 

Hi SS

 

These were my thoughts too!!

A couple of interesting links, and email addresses too, when i have more time, and have dealt with my other pressing matters, i will have a good old rummage around in there and see what else i can find, who knows it could lead to somebody elses dirty washing to hang out and dry;)

[mercyblue]

Yes all eurosail docs are essestially the same, all use the same share trustee etc. The lehman document above refers to this

"Lehman Brothers Special Financing Inc. (whose registered

address is at 2711 Centerville Road, Suite 400, Wilmington,

Delaware, 19808, USA) will be appointed as the fixed/floating

swap counterparty (the “Fixed/Floating Swap Counterparty”,

under the terms of the Fixed/Floating Swap Agreement (as

defined in “The Fixed Floating Swap Agreement” below).

Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. (the “Fixed/Floating Swap

Guarantor”) will, on or about the Closing Date, enter into a

guarantee in respect of the Fixed/Floating Swap Agreement (the

“Fixed/Floating Swap Guarantee”). The Fixed/Floating Swap

Guarantor will not be a party to the Fixed/Floating Swap

Agreement."

Their is a similar agreement for a BBR swap agreement. Basically they are trying to hedge their bets and cover their selves over changes in international rates etc indeed

 

"Each of the BBR Swap Guarantor and the Fixed/Floating Swap

Guarantor is a “Hedge Guarantor”.

 

This means that Lehman bro's should pay out on each interest date.

SPML may well have been a fully owned subsidiary of lehman's it does not matter a jot that they are bankrupt because err they have sold the loans. Don't forget the spv is a seperate ltd company. From a prospectus.

 

"Other than as provided in the Mortgage Sale Agreement (see “Title to the Mortgage Pool” below), the Issuer

and the Trustee will have no recourse to the Sellers in respect of the Loans".

 

Thats what happened when some of the loans had to be bought back because as ss said spml had lied.

 

This is a major point of this business the originator of the loans sells them on straight away hence why the "masters of the universe" claimed they had eliminated all risk. Except it turned into a massive game of pass the parcel. You just don't want to be left with the parcel now as you'll have no idea as to the real value of its contents.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[littledotty27]

This was not apparent to SPML until as part of SPML's investigation Land Registry records including registered purchase prices were checked for each loan originated through the particular packager

 

This is the problem with our LR,it doesn't state the price we got a mortgage for.

If you remember SS you thought they had someone's details mixed up with ours.

Edited April 28, 2009 by littledotty27
spelling error

[enoughisenough]

As I understand it and stand to be corrected, THE SPV sold the mortgages as packages bundles rated by S&P Fitch or Moodys - rubber stamped more like- then it is the trustee who makes the companies house s.395 registration?

[pt2537]

SS Can you start a separate thread where we can all discuss in full the Judgments in Pender & at the same time a detailed rebuttal

that would be very very very helpful if this could be done

[JonCris]

As I understand it and stand to be corrected, THE SPV sold the mortgages as packages bundles rated by S&P Fitch or Moodys - rubber stamped more like- then it is the trustee who makes the companies house s.395 registration?

 

 

The FBI arrested the CEO of one of them which was Fitch or Moodys - or was it both:eek:

[Dangermouse]

No it is the SPV itself that registers under s.395. For example if you took out a mortgage with SPML, the mortgage will be pooled with may others and sold to the SPV (in the case of SPML it will be a Eurosail Co.) Then Eurosail will have to register with Companies House a 395 Charge Form.

 

Dangermouse

[enoughisenough]

Mmmm - the plot thickens.

 

Check out a BBC Radio Four programme called Analysis. They had an episode about which I've posted before called 'Rating the Credit Agencies'. It states exactly what they did, what they knew they were doing and what the consequences might be. As I said rubber-stamping. Just another piece of the jigsaw - but a piece nonetheless.

 

It should still be available. If not I have it on MP3. However the BEEB might be straight down our throats so maybe not. It doesn't matter - it confirms that these guys and gals just gave the ratings a mix on the SPVs say so. Hundreds of Millions listed as AAA from the likes of SPML? Please!

 

Come on. But just to reiterate an earlier point it is rarely the borrowers who are delinquent. Rather it is the lender who has their own hidden agenda who is the delinquent one. Delinquent in performing the contract with due diligence, delinquent in exercising unfair terms, delinquent at law for failure to disclose material facts, delinquent even (not that I feel that sorry) to their investors. There's some sympathy here though - some of the investors may have been pension funds - and you can bet your butt the underlings were told to get on with it by their bosses.

 

Also check out S&P. Particularly a wealth of info on Eurosail SPPL/SPML. Anyway this is spilling out. Anybody think it's a good idea to start a consequences thread of their actions. It may be that somebody there is just doing a job because they have to, has a conscience, has also been ripped off elsewhere and wants to blow the whistle. Just a thought!

[enoughisenough]

Cheers dangermouse. Will act on that! My most recent post refers to the post before yours!

[nello]

I had a reminder recently from Capstone to say that i hadnt sent them an up to date building/contents ins certificate. It informed me several things and the most interesting was that i had to make sure that i put EUROSAIL as the interested party on the insurance as they were my mortgagee. My mortgage i thought was with SPML????? Does this mean that EUROSAIL are now the title holder or what?:-|

I'll post exactly what it says tomorrow as i've left it in work.

[enoughisenough]

Whooaaa Nello

 

THEY SAID YOU HAD TO PUT EUROSAIL ON YOUR BUILDINGS INSURANCE???

 

pretty much wraps it all up.

 

OH AND BY THE WAY CHECK Y'AL THAT THEY HAVE THEIR NAME ON YOUR OWN IF THEIR'S WAS A SECOND CHARGE AND ALSO CHECK WHETHER THEY HAVE PULLED YOU INTO A BLOCK INSURANCE POLIY WITHOUT EVER TELLING YOU!

[nello]

I'll post it word for word on here tomorrow.

[enoughisenough]

Good on you Nello.

 

I reiterate challenge them to state one way or the other, in writing, whether you are paying towards a block buildings insurance policy despite having perfectly valid buildings policy of your own. They have no right to do this but do it anyway. If they won't answer guess what the answer is.

[brassed-off-2]

Whooaaa Nello

 

THEY SAID YOU HAD TO PUT EUROSAIL ON YOUR BUILDINGS INSURANCE???

 

pretty much wraps it all up.

 

OH AND BY THE WAY CHECK Y'AL THAT THEY HAVE THEIR NAME ON YOUR OWN IF THEIR'S WAS A SECOND CHARGE AND ALSO CHECK WHETHER THEY HAVE PULLED YOU INTO A BLOCK INSURANCE POLIY WITHOUT EVER TELLING YOU!

 

;) Just about to open this little can of worms, its just reached the top of my todo list!

B-O-2

[truro]

Hi Nello

Also noticed that SPML is not on my buildings cover, I forgot to include them when I renewed my cover. Which mean they do not have a record of cover for my property. Just goes to show that there is something wrong with their admin system. If your mortgagee was SPML after the transfer, why are they now asking you to put Eurosail, on the insurance cover?

Another point is that after reading Pender case, I noted that the outstanding arrears on the mortgage was £130K. In the case of SPML would this be interpreted to mean that as the registered proprietor of the legal charge, Eurosail has by virtue of the administration agreements, expressly authorisedSPML to exercise such rights on its behalf.

 

 

111.It follows, in my judgment, that Paragon, so long as it remains the registered proprietor of the Legal Charge, is a necessary party to any claim to possession of the Property in right of the Legal Charge.

112.The only question then is whether the SPV should have been joined in the proceedings as an additional claimant. In my judgment, the answer to that question is plainly: No. On the assumption that the consideration for the transfer of the Legal Charge has been paid in full, Paragon has since retained its legal ownership of the Legal Charge as trustee for the SPV (see Whiteley v. Delaney [1914] AC 132 at 141 per Viscount Haldane LC). But it does not follow that in that situation the SPV, as the owner of the Legal Charge in equity, is a necessary party to the claim; and on the facts of the instant case joinder of the SPV is wholly unnecessary. There is, after all, no issue between the SPV and Paragon as to the exercise of the mortgagee's rights under the Legal Charge: indeed the SPV has, by virtue of the administration agreements, expressly authorised Paragon to exercise such rights on its behalf.

[mercyblue]

eie I posted something ages ago (not on this thread)about eurosail been the name on the building ins - its the easiest way to find out which spv has bought you. And yes you would imagine that you would have to be the true owner to insure a property otherwise wouldn't you be guilty of er fraud if you made a claim?

As for the ratings yes they were a complete farce all just rubber stamped triple a. But just look at who was paying the ratings agency.

 

[Dangermouse]

Hi Nello

 

Eurosail is the generic name for a series of SPVs. Before you go ahead and amend your insurance documents ask Capstone to confirm which Eurosail company it is. That way you will know eaxactly the SPV your mortgage has been sold to and you will be able to obtain the prospectus.

 

For example..it might be something like Eurosail 2007-1

 

 

Dangermouse

[Dangermouse]

Then you can go to Companieshouse.co.uk and use the free webcheck service to see details of who owns your mortgage. Then, if you take my advice you will write to that company and ask them to provide you with all the details and underlying documents of the charge they have registered under s.395 of the Companies Act. Tell them that you have a right to inspect these documents under section s.423 of the Companies Act & they will have to send you the details. Make sure you ask them for all the underlying documents not just the copy of the s.395 form (although that will be interesting reading for you also!)

 

Regarsd

 

Dangermouse

[nello]

This is what the letter said...

 

Building insurance policies should fulfill the following requirements:

 

1. The policy schedule must note the interest of Eurosail 2006-3 First Client as Mortgagee

 

 

BTW i'm still waiting for my agreement to be sent after i requested it via a SAR. They only sent the mortgage offer and said they didnt have to send the agreement. I wonder if there is an agreement???