Reuters | Florida Foreclosure Case Could Slam Banks – BONY v PINO
Ability-to-Repay Rule for Mortgages Nears CFPB Approval
- Attn Captain Obvious | Fed Proposes Rule that Would Require Creditors to Determine a Consumer’s Ability to Repay a Mortgage BEFORE Making the Loan
- Mortgage Bankers Association Letter to the Federal Reserve RE “Skin in the Game” and the Ability of Borrowers to Repay
- Mass Court May Rule on Retroactivity of some Foreclosures Tied to ‘Naked Mortgages’
Bloomberg’s Editorial On MBS Failures – The First Time Mortgage-Backed Securities Failed
- Why Mortgage-Backed Securities Aren’t (Backed by Securities): How MERS Toasted the Banks
- Bear Stearns Asset Backed Securities Trust 2005-4 v. EMC Mortgage Corp | JPMorgan Sued for $95 Million Over Mortgage Securities
- Another Wrist Slap | Wells Fargo Agrees to “Settle” with SEC for $11 million on Wachovia Securities Laws Violations Involving Mortgage-Backed Securities
Colorado Initiative 84 | Banking Groups Challenge Initiative that Would Require Lenders to Prove their Right to Foreclose
- Update from NJ – Bank of New York v. Michael Raftogainis – Foreclosure Case Means Lenders Have to Prove They Hold Mortgage in Atlantic, Cape Counties
- Motion to Dismiss WITH Prejudice Against Florida Default Law Groups Client Deutsche Bank – Over Two Year Period Plaintiff Failed to Produce Documents to Foreclose
- Allonge (n)- A Clever Way for Pretender Lenders to Pabricate “Proof” of Ownership in Order to Foreclose
Greenville Lafayette, LLC v. Elgin State Bank | “What do you mean that I can’t foreclose my mortgage and sue the guarantor at the same time? Since when?”
Greenville Lafayette, LLC v. Elgin State Bank | “What do you mean that I can’t foreclose my mortgage and sue the guarantor at the same time? Since when?”
Interview, MERS RICO complaint: Doug Welborn, State District Court Clerk vs. MERSCORP Shareholders and Trustees (“the banksters”)
- COMPLAINT | DOUG WELBORN AS CLERK OF COURT v BANK OF NY MELLON, BOA, CHASE, CITI, GMAC et al
- Clerk of Court (NOT SHARON BOCK) Sues Lenders for Withholding Fees in Racketeering Conspiracy
- COMPLAINT | JIM FULLER, CLERK OF THE COURT, DUVAL COUNTY, FLORIDA vs MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, MERS
Toxic Titles | Oklahoma Stewart Bulletin – Recent Oklahoma Supreme Court Decisions Regarding Foreclosures
Sit Back and RadLAX
I'm having trouble getting excited over RadLAX going before SCOTUS. Ronald Mann has written that RadLAX "well might be the most important business bankruptcy case since its 1999 decision in Bank of America National Trust & Savings Ass’n v. 203 North LaSalle Street Partnership." I think that statement is literaly true, but that's not saying much; the Supreme Court doesn't hear very many business bankruptcy cases, period.
As it stands, I don't think the outcome in RadLAX is going to have much of an impact on bankruptcy practice on the ground. If the creditors prevail, the world will look like status quo, say 2009: credit bidding is allowed in sales under plans (and there will be little reason to teach RadLAX in a bankruptcy course).
If the debtor prevails, then de jure there will be no right to credit bid, but there will be one de facto in most cases (making the case well worth teaching). If there's a DIP financing agreement, that agreement will almost certainly provide for the DIP lender to have a right to credit bid. That means a ruling for the debtors will affect a narrow class of creditors and cases. It will affect secured lenders not in the DIP consortium, and it will affect secured lenders in cases where there is no DIP financing. That's cases financing themselves on cash collateral or unrestricted cash or trade credit or unsecured insider DIP loans. In other words, no impact whatsoever on the mega-cases. Maybe a greater impact on middle market. We'll also see syndication agreements including provisions to deal with cash bidding situations. In other words, a ruling for the debtors in RadLAX is unlikely to result in a major realignment of power in bankruptcy cases.
Sadly, SCOTUS taking RadLAX (which is reasonable to deal with a circuit split) is a reminder that SCOTUS hasn't addressed the two key issues in Chapter 11: the use of DIP financing agreements and asset sales as sub rosa plans. Obviously SCOTUS has to have a proper case to deal with these problems, and SCOTUS generally has discretion on hearing appeals. The Court could have dealt with this in Chrysler, but because of the macroeconomic impact of Chrysler (via GM), it was not the ideal case for addressing the interaction between the DIP loan, the sale, and the plan. So while it's nice to see a business bankruptcy case before the Court, I don't think too much rides on this one.
COMPLAINT | DOUG WELBORN AS CLERK OF COURT v BANK OF NY MELLON, BOA, CHASE, CITI, GMAC et al
Clerk of Court (NOT SHARON BOCK) Sues Lenders for Withholding Fees in Racketeering Conspiracy
- Florida Clerk of Court (NOT SHARON BOCK) Sues Mortgage Electronic Registration System (MERS) for Civil Conspiracy, Unjust Enrichment, as well as Fraudulent and Negligent Misrepresentation
- PBC Clerk of Court Sharon Bock to County Citizens RE Fraudclosures, It’s Not My Problem
- Clueless | Palm Beach County Clerk of Court Sharon Bock on FL MERS Lawsuit “We had no knowledge of the lawsuit until today”
New York’s Top Judge, Jonathan Lippman, is Not Done Smacking Around Foreclosure Mills
Big Banks Slack on Maintaining Foreclosed Homes in Minority Areas, Complaint Charges
- NFHA Report | Here Comes the Bank, There Goes Our Neighborhood – How “Lenders” Discriminate in the Treatment of Foreclosed Homes
- Bulldoze ‘Em | Banks turn to demolition of foreclosed properties to ease housing-market pressures
- High court in Massachusetts upholds law aimed at blocking certain evictions from foreclosed homes
Palm Beach County Foreclosure Filings Surge 65% in March
Report | THE BANKS ARE BACK OUR NEIGHBORHOODS ARE NOT – Discrimination in the Maintenance and Marketing of REO Properties
- NFHA Report | Here Comes the Bank, There Goes Our Neighborhood – How “Lenders” Discriminate in the Treatment of Foreclosed Homes
- GAO Report | VACANT PROPERTIES – Growing Number Increases Communities’ Costs and Challenges
- Fraudclosuregate | More Banks Walking Away from Homes, Adding to Housing Crisis
MERS | All in One Basket – The Bankruptcy Risk of a National Agent-Based Mortgage Recording System
- Mass. Bankruptcy Judge Voids Foreclosure of MERS Mortgage – Judge Tells Lenders You Can’t Have Your MERS Cake & Eat It Too
- California | Bankruptcy Judge Denies MERS, Foreclosure Sale Void, “MERS System is not an Alternative to Statutory Foreclosure Law”
- Statement by CEO of Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (MERS) “The MERS System is not fraudulent, and MERS has not committed any fraud.”
OREGON DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE SEEKS TO STOP LENDERS FROM WRONGFULLY FORECLOSING
Judge Rules against Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, Taxpayers Will Recover Millions (VIDEO)
$95 MILLION SETTLEMENT WITH THE NATION’S FIVE LARGEST MORTGAGE SERVICERS PARTIALLY RESOLVES SOUTH CAROLINA FALSE CLAIMS ACT LAWSUIT
- OCC Settles Civil Money Penalties Against Large National Bank Mortgage Servicers for $394 Million; Penalty Assessment Coordinated with Servicers’ Actions and Payments Under Federal-State Settlement
- Supreme Court of South Carolina ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER Re: Mortgage Foreclosure Actions
- Federal Government and State Attorneys General Reach $25 Billion Agreement with Five Largest Mortgage Servicers to Address Mortgage Loan Servicing and Foreclosure Abuses
$95 MILLION SETTLEMENT WITH THE NATION’S FIVE LARGEST MORTGAGE SERVICERS PARTIALLY RESOLVES SOUTH CAROLINA FALSE CLAIMS ACT LAWSUIT
- OCC Settles Civil Money Penalties Against Large National Bank Mortgage Servicers for $394 Million; Penalty Assessment Coordinated with Servicers’ Actions and Payments Under Federal-State Settlement
- Supreme Court of South Carolina ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER Re: Mortgage Foreclosure Actions
- Federal Government and State Attorneys General Reach $25 Billion Agreement with Five Largest Mortgage Servicers to Address Mortgage Loan Servicing and Foreclosure Abuses
Bank of America, MERS Ask Court to Dismiss Texas Counties’ Recording Fee Suit
Bank of America, MERS Ask Court to Dismiss Texas Counties’ Recording Fee Suit
Oregon House Passes Foreclosure Protection Bill Addressing Mediation, Dual Track
- Oregon | House Proposal Would Weaken Senate Foreclosure Protection Bills, Validate MERS Retroactively
- Homeowners’ Response to Banks’ Dual Track Mod/Foreclosure System
- Oregon | Re: PRR 174 – Public Records Request Acknowledgment on Oregon House Judiciary Committee Records Dash-7 Amendment to Senate Bill 519
Article 9 and Bankruptcy Judges
By Melissa Jacoby | Securitization-MBS
Leave a Comment
A prior post addressed a proposed amendment to Article 9's official comments stating that the date of an Article 9 filing relates back to the initial filing date even if the debtor did NOT authorize the filing at that time. This post returns to that topic for two reasons. First, although it is risky to generalize, I sense that bankruptcy judges may still be unaware of this proposed amendment. This is relevant because bankruptcy judges often are on the "front lines" of Article 9 interpretation. Second, I have heard, indirectly, that at least some people want this amendment to lend approval to some lenders' current practice to routinely file without authorization during the loan application process. In other words, the loan is likely to be given within a few days, so no harm no foul. Maybe I misheard or misunderstood?
Article 9 does contemplate and even endorses "pre-filing," (filing a financing statement before the loan is approved). Absent exceptions not relevant here, however, Article 9 expressly conditions a lender's authority to file a financing statement against a debtor on getting that debtor's authorization for the filing in an authenticated record - whether in an elaborate loan application or scrawled on a napkin. This may well be one of the clearest parts of Article 9. Whatever one's views of the merits, a comment cannot trump this statutory requirement that reserves to the debtor some control over the clouding of title to his/her/its property.As suggested by one of the commentators in response to my last post, eliminating debtor signatures from financing statements sure did open a can of worms. Moving to medium neutrality is one thing. Rendering debtor authorization optional is something different entirely.