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

[enoughisenough]

:D:D

 

Keep the faith

 

NO KAGGA LEFT BEHIND...

[enoughisenough]

Rockets making a gallon of tea hopefully,could do with a gallon myself!

[enoughisenough]

[enoughisenough]

Rocket. Can you please do 2 things.

 

1. Give examples of where you Think you are receiving contradictory advice so we can get some consensus. As far as I can see everyone is saying the same thing. It needs to be shorter. You must do a budget sheet. You must minimise the personal circumstances and you must show an ability to pay going forward. 2. Do as ryde says and STAY on line this morning.

 

Also don't forget the application will cost £35 in cash.

[enoughisenough]

Get working on your budget sheet. I already said you're a goner without it. The judge will kick your ass the minute he thinks you are not taking it seriously and a clear sign of this as far as they are concerned is not having done one.

[enoughisenough]

Yup heard this one on 5 live this morning. Hid $50 bn black hole by keeping it off their balance sheet away from the fed, the NYSE, the ratings agencies, the investors, the IRS and god knows who else. Who's covering them and why? U thought they'd been left out to dry.

[enoughisenough]

Oh my goodness posted and gone. At least wait an hour for ryde and do the budget sheet.

 

A lot of us are busy....

[enoughisenough]

OK That's a massive relief....

 

Well done Rocket1. Under the very difficult circumstances we can chalk that up as a qualified victory. Phew...

[enoughisenough]

Aye and what about this -

 

What have we been saying about E&Y

 

Think we have a very strong possibility of a real breakthrough here

 

Ernst & Young faces legal action over Lehman collapse - Times Online

[enoughisenough]

From here, in full:

 

Ernst & Young faces legal action over Lehman collapse - Times Online

 

 

Ernst & Young could face legal action after a damning report into the collapse of Lehman Brothers accused the British accountancy firm of professional negligence over a number of years before the catastrophic downfall of the 158-year-old American bank in 2008.

 

A 2,200-page report into the collapse of the once highly respected institution also uncovered evidence that the bank had used an accounting practice known as Repo 105 to remove temporarily up to $50 billion of debt from its balance sheet, without telling investors or regulators.

 

Lehman’s auditor Ernst & Young is criticised in the report, “for among other things its "failure to question and challenge improper or inadequate disclosure in those financial statements".

 

Dick Fuld, the former chairman and chief executive of Lehmans, and some of his closest lieutenants are also facing legal claims for breach of fiduciary duty after using the “lazy accounting gimmick” to hide the fact that the bank was insolvent.

 

Anton Valukas, of Jenner & Block, who was appointed as examiner by the judge handling Lehman’s bankruptcy, paints a damning picture of the bank’s final two years, branding it as a hothouse institution so obsessed with growth that senior executives said openly they did not want to hear “too much detail” about the risks they might face in case it held them back.

 

The examiner concluded that while Lehman’s top management chose to disregard or overrule the firm’s risk controls on a regular basis and while certain of their risk decisions were “unwise” and represented poor “judgment”, this did not amount to a breach of fiduciary duty.

 

The Repo 105 practice had been in use by Lehmans since 2001 but it was in the bank’s final two years that it was regularly used to alter public perceptions of the balance sheet.

 

In the run up to a reporting period, Lehman would enter an arrangement to sell and then repurchase financial assets. Normally, such deals are accounted as “transactions” but by adding a cash element Lehmans was able to call them “sales”.

 

The bank’s balance sheet could therefore be pumped up with cash from the sale and this would also reduce its leverage. At the beginning of a new quarter, Lehman would borrow more money and repurchase the assets to put them back on its balance sheet.

 

In 2008, just before Lehmans filed for bankruptcy, it transferred $50.38 billion in a Repo 105 arrangement, reducing its leverage from 13.9 per cent to 12.1 per cent.

 

“Lehman’s failure to disclose the use of an accounting device to significantly and temporarily lower leverage, at the same time that it affirmatively represented those “low” leverage numbers to investors as positive news, created a misleading portrayal of Lehman’s true financial health,” Mr Valukas said.

 

He noted that the sole function of the Repo 105 transactions was “balance sheet manipulation”, adding that even Lehman’s own accounting personnel described them as an “accounting gimmick” and a “lazy way of managing the balance sheet”.

 

Mr Valukas concluded that there were “colorable claims” against Mr Fuld, Christopher O’Meara, Lehman’s head of risk, Erin Callan, the chief financial officer and Ian Lowitt, who replaced Ms Callan as chief financial officer.

 

He described a “colorable claim” as one for which “there is sufficient credible evidence” to support a finding in a court.

 

Mr Valukas also said: “Ernst & Young, the firm’s outside auditor, was professionally negligent in allowing those [Repo 105] reports to go unchallenged.” He added that there could be a colorable claim for professional malpractice against the accountancy giant.

 

Mr Fuld’s lawyer said last night that the former Lehman boss did not know what the Repo 105 transactions were or their accounting treatment.

 

Ernst & Young said: “Our opinion indicated that Lehman’s financial statements for that year were fairly presented in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP), and we remain of that view.”

 

When Lehman filed for bankruptcy on September 15, 2008, with about $600 billion in debt, its collapse contributed to the freezing of credit markets worldwide and to increasing the depth of the global recession.

 

Judge James Peck, who is handling the Lehman bankruptcy in the Bankruptcy Court of the Southern District of New York, appointed Mr Valukas a year ago to investigate the events that led to Lehman’s collapse, including any possible “fraud, dishonesty, incompetence, misconduct, mismanagement, or irregularity”.

 

On Thursday, Judge Peck unsealed Mr Vulakas’s report, which had been presented to him last month.

 

The meticulously researched document describes Lehman’s aggressive growth strategy which, Mr Vulakas said, was intended to take advantage of the sub-prime mortgage crisis that broke in 2006 by increasing its exposure to real estate at a time when others were cutting back.

 

While Mr Vulakas concluded that Mr Fuld and other senior executives may have a case to answer in the use of Repo 105 arrangements, their management of Lehman’s aggressive expansion and attitude to risk were not so “reckless and irrational” as to give rise to a breach of fiduciary duty.

 

Mr Valukas also concluded that after Lehman’s collapse Barclays may have received “a limited amount of assets” improperly when it took control of Lehman’s core US brokerage.

 

He added that Lehman could have potential claims against JPMorgan Chase and Citibank in connection with demands for collateral and certain changes made to guarantee agreements in Lehman’s final days.

 

The long-awaited report, which cost $38 million to produce, is likely to give ammunition to shareholders suing Lehman as well as government prosecutors.

 

Compiled with the help of a team of 70 attorneys, it is based on more than 250 interviews, 5 million documents and 26 million pages of company e-mails.

Hector Sants, chief executive of Britain’s Financial Services Authority (FSA), was the only person to refuse to be interviewed.

 

However, the FSA did provide detailed, written answers to specific questions regarding the FSA’s involvement in the weekend before Lehman’s collapse and in the Barclays transaction that would have been posed to Mr Sants.

 

 

[enoughisenough]

Do you know I'm sure the FOS is the trump card here, its the common denominator in all these cases and as soon as theyre mentioned the court adjourns pending their decision.Had this happen to me several years ago ,lender just caved in and did a deal in the end which without the mediation of the fos they previously wouldn't agree to.

Don't forget uneverdid on her own thread hearing next week,will mention fos if she hasnt already got a complaint in.

 

 

I am in total agreement here...If anyone who thinks they may get problems further down the line this year you must,make your complaints to Capstone, give them eight weeks , and when they haven't responded satisfactorily, get it in front of the FOS.

 

Judges are well known for not making decisions they don't want to such as the unlawful charges lark. They'd be a lot happier then when your defence is. "I'm afraid it's currently under investigation by the Ombudsman."

 

And as we all know that can take months. Cheap and easy way to buy some peace of mind...

[enoughisenough]

Class MWSPML! And welcome on board...

 

A judge who won't hear ANY of their Repo claims. Now that's what I call a result. Have our DJs wizened up...? Let's hope so.

 

Oh and by the way, an admission that Capstone instruct. Can we have that in writing please and can we also have the originator's agreement with Capstone as per their right to collect and their locus standi...Just so we all know where we stand...

Edited March 12, 2010 by enoughisenough

[enoughisenough]

Comity n.

 

...when one court defers to the jurisdiction of another in a case in which both would have the right to handle the case. Usually this is applied to a federal court allowing a state court to try a criminal case (either exclusively or first) in which both a state and federal crime has apparently been committed. Murder which also violates civil rights, kidnapping across state borders, murder of a federal official, fraud involving violations of both federal and state laws are examples of cases to which comity may apply.

 

Or just ship Attia and her accomplices off to Camp X-Ray...

[enoughisenough]

CAGGERS 5 CRUDSTONE 0

 

 

:lol:

 

 

NO KAGGA LEFT BEHIND...

[enoughisenough]

MWSPML

Great result to what could have ended up another tale of despair and woe at our" friends" hands.If you've got info from this site sure you wouldn't mind us chalking up CAGGERS 5 CAPSTONE 0.

WHAT AN UNDERSTANDING DJ

YOU HAVE AN ABSOLUTELY PRIME CASE FOR AN FOS COMPLAINT SO IT IS SUGGESTED YOU START ONE ASAP.

All the info about how to go about this is on site,as pointed out it seems if you have an ongoing complaint (which usually takes about 18months to 2 years!) its like a suit of armour at any hearing and you stand an excellent chance of getting a large refund..

anyone who hasn't got an fos complaint in progress would be well advised to start one.

I WAS TOLD THE LENDER HAS TO STUMP UP £500 EVERY TIME A COMPLAINT IS MADE AGAINST THEM,SO ENOUGH COMPLAINTS?

 

NOW YOU'VE GIVEN ME FOOD FOR THOUGHT...

 

Let us say that you have eight separate issues with the ****. Instead of sending a letter of complaint with all the issues, you send off 8 separate letters...one after the other...they would get deluged and would find it impossible to co-ordinate. Then you launch 8 separate complaints with the FOS, costing them £4000 instead of £500. Slightly joking here...but...

[enoughisenough]

Well now it's official and breaking through into the open. It's in the media spotlight. Lehmans rotten to the core, E&Y and Linklaters, shoddy and complicit. Lower down the food chain you have the likes of Capstone, Vertex and Lightfoots, terrorising the consumer and across the way you have the OFT, FSA, & CH all wringing their hands.

 

You looked after the investors first. You talked tough and then hid behind typically British obfuscation, prevarication and downright sophistry. YOU LET THE CONSUMER BURN.

 

What is quite clear now and probably can longer be contained or written of as the inarticulate moanings of a few feckless debtors is that we were right in all of this.

 

It infuriates me that we have been left to be advocates in our own cause. Some of us can, but many of those out there cannot and could not.

 

All of those repoed by this scurrilous gang of thieves MUST BE FULLY COMPENSATED for being left destitute and FAILED by the supposed guardians and custodians of their welfare. And we don't want no GMAC-RFC level fine either. They must be liquidated and every last consumer fully compensated.

 

If that means liquidating the assets and closing down once and for all the originators the third party administrators the trustees and the spvs that's something I'll live with. If it means sequestrating the assets of the likes of Attia and the other directors I have no problem with that. They fully deserve everything that they have visited on us. Let them be the ones who face each day with dread. Let them be the ones who see their kids chucked into the street. Let them be the ones made destitute and dispossessed of all they have.

 

And if it means leaving no stone unturned to find out where this charitable trust slush fund has squirelled away their fraudulently obtained largesse, then so be it.

 

They should be tried for treason for wrecking the economy.Pity the death penalty no longer applies for treason.

 

It's only recently come to light that Capstone are indeed Jackals and Hyenas. Last year they launched 300+ negligence claims against their erstwhile colleagues in crime such as estate agents and solicitors who had helped perpetrate this massive fraud. The Jackal may hunt in packs but it also turns on its own kind. It needs to be subject to a rigorous bout of pest control and culling.

[enoughisenough]

NOT READ THIS YET BUT I'LL POST IT UP. THOUGHT SOMETHING WOULD BE OUT TODAY...

 

BET THERE'S NOWT IN IT FOR US THOUGH...

 

http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pubs/other/lehman.pdf

 

OH WELL THAT WAS A BIG FAT NOTHING. Except for paragraph 38. Chapter 11 bankruptcy would have a profound impact on the UK. Don't we know it...?

Edited March 12, 2010 by enoughisenough

[enoughisenough]

Rocket

 

hi there again and well done for doing the necessary under serious duress. Of course you must check that the bailiffs warrant has been removed from the list first thing Monday. Others will know about the checking procedure and what you need to ask, but otherwise I think you can begin to chill, and give your kid a hug.

 

I'd like to apologise for any pressure, confusion or additional stress you may have received in the last week or so from myself. As you will have probably gathered the red mist descends when the a holes try a repo. So please accept this humbly offered apology. I hoe you can get everything sorted moving forward. Best wishes EiE.

[enoughisenough]

Well...

 

Well done Rocket once again.

 

Once upon a time, not so very long ago, the **** would have had your guts for garters, and would not have given a damn for your health, your welfare or your responsibilities towards your son. I'm sure every cagger wishes you and your boy a speedy and full recovery.

 

In many ways they still don't give a stuff and will carry on trying to repo anyone else they can get their grubby mitts on for as long as the negligent disreputable authorities give them license to do so.

 

It speaks volumes that a solicitor turned up. They will now bang that on top of your alleged arrears. That's another £500 + to deal with.

 

How desperate for repos must they be....?

 

Well done. Rest well. Recover and now enjoy quality time with your kid.

 

Glad you do not have this hanging over this weekend, BUT YOU MUST CONFIRM with the bailiffs Monday morning. They have a notorious habit of losing paperwork, turning up changing locks, billing people and taking a month of Sundays to restore the status quo ante.

 

Serious...

[enoughisenough]

Well...that was tense

 

I bet you're all big Lee Marvin fans....

[enoughisenough]

The whole securitisation process and the fall out from the bankruptcy is shrouded in secrecy. It takes months to get your head around all this stuff I'm afraid.

 

Dotty is still batting strong (legend and respect to the thread's pioneer). Super also a legend. Has been known to make the odd cameo return...

[enoughisenough]

bye bye Ernst & Young..

 

Regulators demand detailed Lehman Brothers' papers from Ernst & Young | Business | guardian.co.uk

 

Excellent...if one tumbles the rest will scream for protection...

 

and once that happens who knows where it leads. Ultimately all the jackals in the pack will start tearing chunks out of each other.

 

Neat. I like that...

 

Incidentally...Why did it take the publication of an investigation taking place in the US to alert the authorities? Did they think we were plebs who could be ignored when these very questions were being raised by us?

 

That's the feckin' problem with this country. Too much about who says something, too little notice of WHAT is being said.

[enoughisenough]

gosh...

 

Am I blessed to be here...

 

Now keep it civil...the pair of you.

 

Oh and by the way Super

 

This is right on the nail. The whole logic of consumer protections is thus.

 

A common law construction is ALWAYS built around freedom of contract, no shelter from a bad bargain, caveat emptor, tough titty etc.

 

However regulations and statute have sought progressively to correct this imbalance.

 

Otherwise what's the point of the overriding objective? It recognises inequality before the law and therefore tries to make some attempt to redress the balance. That's my take,,,and welcome back to the pair of you!

[enoughisenough]

Lehman chicanery is tip of the iceberg | Prem Sikka | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk

 

Hi Zill, and thanks for posting this. I'm not ignoring your PMs but I have had a very demanding schedule this week. (So will you from what you divulged in your pm!) I will respond soon and thanks as always for taking the time and effort.

 

This is very interesting. On the face of it again, nowt for us. However if you'll pardon the pun, articles like this give us scope for 'leverage.'

 

Ignore the narrow focus on auditing and accounting 'lapses.' It's hinting at a much wider picture and that picture includes us.

 

The Lehman insolvency examiner's report once again shows that the public should be sceptical of the audited accounts published by giant corporations.

 

Too bloody right....

 

Accountants disarm journalists, critics, regulators and the general public by claiming that the accounts are fairly presented in accordance with some generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP), but the Lehman report shows that they are based in carefully rejigged accounting practices (CRAP)

.

 

good joke...

 

Ernst & Young, Lehman's auditors, collected $31mn in fees in 2007, and knew of Lehman's $50bn Repo 105 accounting gimmick, but did not make or demand public disclosures even though the insolvency examiner argues (page 735) that

 

"the only purpose or motive for the transactions was reduction in balance sheet … there was no substance to the transactions".

Repo 105 had been in existence since 2001. Perhaps, the auditing firm was unwilling to upset its paymasters.

 

If Lehman had survived then we would have never heard of Repo 105 or other accounting gimmicks. What lurks in the financial statements of other banks? How clean are they? What shady practices have their auditors approved? Such questions deserve the attention of regulators, governments and the public at large, which is bearing the ultimate cost of bank bailouts.

 

There has been no UK report on the demise of Lehman Brothers.

 

Given the social carnage they've visited upon us in the last three years or so there ought to be

 

The UK taxpayers bailed out HBOS, Royal Bank of Scotland and Northern Rock, but there has been no investigation of their accounting practices. The Financial Reporting Council (FRC), UK's accounting and auditing regulator, has been in deep sleep. After the bailout out of Northern Rock it promised to investigate the financial statements of banks, but so far there has been no report. Rather than investigating auditors, the FRC has been acting as a cheerleader for the auditing industry. Its chief executive boasted that "auditing has had a good crisis" (page 7 of address), meaning that the firms had escaped any retribution. The reactive FRC is now promising to look at the Ernst & Young files on Lehman Brothers, but it will take years to do anything worthwhile. In 2007 it announced an investigation into the work of auditors of Farepak and the report is yet to appear.

 

The main casualty of the Lehman scandal is trust, without which no society can flourish.

 

Actually the main casualty is all the repo casualties that have occured and continue almost unabated.

 

The Lehman examiner's report shows that eminent lawyers and accountants will go to considerable lengths to appease their paymasters and weave webs of deception. Even fines and prison sentences do not seem to deter accountants. KPMG paid a fine of $456m for its role in the largest criminal tax case ever filed. Some of its former (they always become former) partners have been imprisoned and partners of Ernst & Young languish in prison for facilitating tax evasion.

 

Accountants at the Japanese arm of PricewaterhouseCoopers were found guilty of helping a client company to falsify financial statements. There are numerous other episodes of predatory behaviour which show that major auditing firms cannot reconcile their private interests with public duties. The same firms control the making of accounting and auditing standards. Little has changed since the days of Enron, WorldCom, Global Crossing, Parmalat, Maxwell, Barings, the Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI) and other headline scandals.

 

Without reforms, more Lehmans are inevitable. That process can begin by removing accounting firms from the audit of banks and delegating it to a designated state regulator. This needs to be accompanied by a public inquiry into the auditing industry, the creation of independent regulators for accounting and auditing – not poodles like the FRC – rights for audit stakeholder to examine audit files, and approval by parliamentary committees of all accounting and auditing standards. Yet I fear that legislators will succumb to pressures from the corporate lobby and do nothing. We may well be talking about another Lehman in the not too distant future.

[enoughisenough]

Jet

 

This was not my understanding of your situation. Is this something forced upon you by the court?

 

There will be a necessary payment towards them and your solicitor will have to ensure, on the insistence of the purchaser, that all prior registered charges are cleared. This is where the VULTURES rack it up as well. You can bet after years of paying them on a repayment you owe them more than you started with. And you can bet their latest set of figures are astronomical for legal charges. And you can bet they drag it out until your sale falls through so that the **** can repossess you and start whacking on yet more financial misery.

 

If you have a suspended repo and do not want to sell. DO NOT SELL.