Newscast Media WASHINGTON—Deutsche Bank (XETRA: DBKGn.DE / NYSE: DB)
announced today that it has reached an agreement to resolve its residential
mortgage-backed securities litigation with the Federal Housing Finance Agency
(FHFA) as conservator for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. As part of the agreement,
Deutsche Bank will pay $1.9 billion.
The FHFA made claims against 17 financial institutions in relation to residential
mortgage-backed securities, including Deutsche Bank.
The settlement agreement does not release Deutsche Bank from any claims relating
to LIBOR manipulation and does not include claims made against Deutsche Bank in two
other PLS lawsuits presently the subject of ongoing litigation: FHFA v. SC Americas,
Inc., et. al., and FHFA v. Countrywide Financial Corp., et. al. The other parties to
those lawsuits were not part of the negotiations with Deutsche Bank.
*Click here to read or download the entire $1.9 billion settlement.
Jürgen Fitschen and Anshu Jain, Co-Chief Executive Officers of Deutsche Bank, said:
“Today’s agreement marks another step in our efforts to resolve the Bank’s legacy
issues, and we intend to make further progress in this regard throughout 2014.”
They added: “We have exited the mortgage businesses that gave rise to these claims
and have further improved our controls.”
Newscast Media WASHINGTON—The Securities and Exchange Commission has charged
Merrill Lynch with making faulty disclosures about collateral selection for two
collateralized debt obligations (CDO) that it structured and marketed to investors,
and maintaining inaccurate books and records for a third CDO. CDOs are the same as
mortgage-backed securities or derivatives.
Merrill Lynch agreed to pay $131.8 million to settle the SEC’s charges. CONTINUE TO FULL STORY>>
Newscast Media WASHINGTON—The Securities and Exchange Commission today
announced charges against a Morristown, N.J.-based investment advisory firm and its
owner for misleading investors in a collateralized debt obligation (CDO) and breaching
their fiduciary duties.
The SEC’s Enforcement Division alleges that Harding Advisory LLC and Wing F. Chau
compromised their independent judgment as collateral manager to a CDO named
Octans I CDO Ltd. in order to accommodate trades requested by a third-party hedge
fund firm whose interests were not necessarily aligned with the debt investors.
CONTINUE TO FULL ARTICLE>>
Newscast Media WASHINGTON, D.C. — The Securities and Exchange Commission obtained a temporary restraining order and asset freeze against a Utah man and company charged with operating a real estate-based Ponzi scheme that bilked $100 million from investors nationwide.
The SEC’s complaint filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Utah, names Wayne L. Palmer and his firm, National Note of Utah, LC, both of West Jordan, Utah. According to the complaint, Palmer told investors that their money would be used to buy mortgage notes and real estate assets, or to make real estate loans. More than 600 individuals invested, lured by promises of annual returns of 12 percent, the SEC alleged.
“Palmer promised double-digit returns at his real estate seminars, where investors learned the hard way about his lies and deceit,” said Kenneth Israel, Director of the SEC’s Salt Lake City Regional Office.
The SEC’s complaint charges National Note and Palmer with violating the anti-fraud and securities registration provisions of U.S. securities laws. Palmer also faces charges that he operated as an unregistered broker-dealer.
Section 17(a)(2) – Anti-Fraud Authority of the Securities Act of 1933 states:
“It shall be unlawful for any person in the offer or sale of any securities or any security-based swap agreement (as defined in section 206B of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act [15 USCS § 78c note]) by the use of any means or instruments of transportation or communication in interstate commerce or by use of the mails, directly or indirectly (1) to employ any device, scheme, or artifice to defraud, or (2) to obtain money or property by means of any untrue statement of a material fact or any omission to state a material fact necessary in order to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading.” Click here to download or read entire complaint.
Newscast Media WASHINGTON, D.C.—The Securities and Exchange Commission has charged UBS Financial Services Inc. of Puerto Rico and two executives with making misleading statements to investors and concealing material information regarding securities. However, this approach is very unique that the SEC is taking. It bypasses the courts by the use Administrative Procedure Act, and directly charges the banks and executives involved with securities fraud, and even imposes a fine.
This is very powerful because the majority of judges in federal courts do not understand securities; attorneys also do not know how to defend such cases because they do not learn about securities laws in law school, so rather than risk losing a case based on a technicality or a judge’s unwillingness to address fraud committed by banks, the SEC is charging them directly and writing orders very much like a judge would do. This out-of-court approach will help investors and beneficiaries of fraudulently-created trusts resolve cases in which mortgage-backed securities are involved.
Just like a judge can issue an injunction, the SEC’s version is to issue a cease and desist from violating the Securities Act of 1933. Which means if a bank defrauds investors in regard to the existence of Trusts that don’t exist, and they bring it to the awareness of the SEC rather than the courts, they can receive relief for the fraud. Homeowners whose mortgages were put in defunct trusts secured by their deeds of trusts, benefit from such an order because it prohibits the banks and their agents from ever receiving any financial gain relating to such trusts. This way, homeowners are quietly winning injunctions against the big banks, without having to deal with the courts or when ruled against by the courts.
In this particular case of UBS in PR, the SEC used the Administrative Procedure to resolve the case. Here is exactly what the SEC said in its order:
In view of the foregoing, the Commission deems it appropriate and in the public interest to impose the sanctions agreed to in UBS PR’s Offer.
Accordingly, pursuant to Section 8A of the Securities Act, and Sections 15(b) and 21C of the Exchange Act, it is hereby ORDERED that:
A. UBS PR cease and desist from committing or causing any violations and any future violations of Sections 17(a) of the Securities Act, Sections 10(b) and 15(c) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 of the Exchange Act.
B. UBS PR shall, within 14 days of the entry of this Order, pay disgorgement of $11,500,000.00, prejudgment interest of $1,109,739.94, and a civil money penalty of $14,000,000.00 to the Securities and Exchange Commission.
When a bank violates Section 17 of the Securities Act of 1933, it means there was fraud involved in the sale or acquring of securities. As I have said before in previous articles, almost 100 percent of the Trusts banks claim to be Trustees over do not exist, so the mortgage-backed securities are not mortgage backed. Banks like Deutsche Bank, Option One, Wells Fargo and many others that claim to hold mortgages for Trust XYZ on behalf of Certificate holders would be in violation of Section 17(a)(2) if the Trusts in which those alleged mortgage-backed securities they claim to own do not exist.
Violation of Section 17(a)(1) and 17(a)(2) of the Securities Act of 1933
Section 17 – Anti-Fraud Authority
Section 17(a) provides one of the central sources of anti-fraud authority for law enforcement. In most securities actions you will see Section 17(a) used as a basis for jurisdiction (along with Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder).
“It shall be unlawful for any person in the offer or sale of any securities or any security-based swap agreement (as defined in section 206B of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act [15 USCS § 78c note]) by the use of any means or instruments of transportation or communication in interstate commerce or by use of the mails, directly or indirectly (1) to employ any device, scheme, or artifice to defraud, or (2) to obtain money or property by means of any untrue statement of a material fact or any omission to state a material fact necessary in order to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading.”
So when the SEC issues a cease and desist to a bank from committing or causing any violations and any future violations of Sections 17 of the Securities Act of 1933, it is an equivalent of a permanent injunction to enjoin(stop) the bank from claiming any property rights to the related trust as highlighted in Section 17(a)(2) above.
Unfortunately not too many homeowners or even their attorneys are familiar with SEC rules, to be able to benefit from the rulings that are happening in regard to fraud. Only the savvy homeowners are the ones benefiting from such rulings, and when a “clear title” is filed, the bank, in accordance to the SEC order, cannot attempt to claim ownership over a property tainted with fraud, or else it will be in violation of the SEC order. This is something the media is forbidden to report, because the large corporations own the corporate media, and do not want an awakening to occur. You may read or download the UBS cease and desist order here.
Categories: News Tags: collateralized debt obligations, credit default swaps, derivatives, foreclosure fraud, fraudclosure, mortgage backed securities, securities fraud, Troubled Asset Relief Program, UBS Puerto Rico
Newscast Media WASHINGTON, D.C. —The Securities and Exchange Commission today announced that it charged Franklin Bank Corp.’s former chief executives for their involvement in a fraudulent scheme designed to conceal the deterioration of the bank’s loan portfolio and inflate its reported earnings during the financial crisis. The SEC alleges that former Franklin CEO Anthony J. Nocella and CFO J. Russell McCann used aggressive loan modification programs during the third and fourth quarters of 2007 to hide the true amount of Franklin’s non-performing loans and artificially boost its net income and earnings. The Houston-based bank holding company declared bankruptcy in 2008.
“Nocella and McCann used the loan modification scheme like a magic wand to change non-performing loans into performing assets,” said Robert Khuzami, Director of the SEC’s Division of Enforcement. “Their disclosure and accounting tricks misled investors into believing that Franklin was outperforming other banks during the height of the financial crisis.”
What the SEC means is that these banks sold “toxic assets” to investors in form of Mortgage-Backed Securities (MBS) that were pooled together into Trusts. The banks were first compensated through TARP (Troubled Assets Relief Program) money using billions of taxpayers’ money. They were also compensated a second time through insurance (credit default swaps), and the third compensation came through the stream of monthly payments by homeowners. The fourth compensation came when banks were unable to modify loans, and sold the homes at public auctions through foreclosure.
So these banks have earned money four-fold, and are not being held accountable. It seems the magic word is to add the word “bank” in a business name and one is virtually immune from being charged with illegal business practices. However, the SEC is slowly changing that, yet whether the courts will be willing to hold the banks accountable remains to be seen.
The SEC’s complaint filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas seeks financial penalties, officer-and-director bars, and permanent injunctive relief against Nocella and McCann to enjoin them from future violations of the federal securities laws.
The SEC has a strong case under Exchange Act Section 10(b) [15 U.S.C. § 78j(b)] and Rule 10b-5 [17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5]
15 USC § 78j(b) – Manipulative and deceptive devices states:
It shall be unlawful for any person, directly or indirectly, by the use of any means or instrumentality of interstate commerce or of the mails, or of any facility of any national securities exchange—
(b) To use or employ, in connection with the purchase or sale of any security registered on a national securities exchange or any security not so registered, or any securities-based swap agreement (as defined in section 206B of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act), any manipulative or deceptive device or contrivance in
contravention of such rules and regulations as the Commission may prescribe as necessary or appropriate in the public interest or for the protection of investors.
17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5 states:
It shall be unlawful for any person, directly or indirectly, by the use of any means or instrumentality of interstate commerce, or of the mails or of any facility of any national securities exchange,
(a) To employ any device, scheme, or artifice to defraud,
(b) To make any untrue statement of a material fact or to omit to state a material fact necessary in order to make the statements made, in the light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading, or
(c) To engage in any act, practice, or course of business which operates or would operate as a fraud or deceit upon any person,
in connection with the purchase or sale of any security.
The securities banks deal with are Mortgage-Backed Securities (MBS). A company that engages in the business of investing, reinvesting, owning, holding, or trading in securities should abide by the Investment Company Act of 1940 also referred to as (15 USC § 80a–3) that requires any such business to be registered in order to conduct business.
Almost 100 percent of these banks that claim to be Trustees for XYZ Trust are operating illegally because the Trusts are defunct and do not exist. Unfortunately judges and attorneys seem to be unfamiliar or unwilling to learn about the securitization process, so one has to school them using charts, tables or
diagrams. The SEC is doing just that, and we should expect more diagrams to be provided at trial.
When fighting such cases involving banks claiming to be Trustees, acting on behalf of some Trust, one has to be willing to fight them all the way to the Supreme Court, since those justices are more knowledgeable in dealing with such complex laws.
For more information about this enforcement action, contact:
Regional Director, SEC’s Fort Worth Regional Office
Associate Regional Director, SEC’s Fort Worth Regional Office
Categories: News Tags: asset backed securities, bank mortgage fraud, collateralized debt obligations, credit default swap, derivatives, foreclosure fraud, mortgage backed securities, mortgage fraud, SEC, SEC investigations, SEC mortgage fraud
Newscast Media WASHINGTON D.C. — The Securities and Exchange Commission today announced that a federal judge has ordered the former CEO of Brookstreet Securities Corp. to pay a maximum $10 million penalty in a securities fraud case related to the financial crisis.
The SEC litigated the case beginning in December 2009, when the agency charged Stanley C. Brooks and Brookstreet with fraud for systematically selling risky mortgage-backed securities to customers with conservative investment goals. Brookstreet and Brooks developed a program through which the firm’s registered representatives sold particularly risky and illiquid types of Collateralized Mortgage Obligations (CMOs) to more than 1,000 seniors, retirees, and others for whom the securities were unsuitable.
Brookstreet and Brooks continued to promote and sell the risky CMOs even after Brooks received numerous warnings that these were dangerous investments that could become worthless overnight. The fraud caused
severe investor losses and eventually caused the firm to collapse.
The Honorable David O. Carter in federal court in Los Angeles granted summary judgment in favor of the SEC on February 23, finding Brookstreet and Brooks liable for violating Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 as well as Rule 10b-5. The court entered a final judgment in the case yesterday and ordered the financial penalty sought by the SEC.
Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act states:
Section 10 — Manipulative and Deceptive Devices: It shall be unlawful for any person, directly or indirectly, by the use of any means or instrumentality of interstate commerce or of the mails, or of any facility of any national securities exchange–
a. (1) To effect a short sale, or to use or employ any stop-loss order in connection with the purchase or sale, of any security registered on a national securities exchange, in contravention of such rules and regulations as the Commission may prescribe as necessary or appropriate in the public interest or
for the protection of investors.
(2) Paragraph (1) of this subsection shall not apply to security futures products.
b. To use or employ, in connection with the purchase or sale of any security registered on a national securities exchange or any security not so registered, or any securities-based swap agreement (as defined in section 206B of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act), any manipulative or deceptive device or contrivance in contravention of such rules and regulations as the Commission may prescribe as necessary or appropriate in the public interest or for the protection of investors.
Rules promulgated under subsection (b) prohibit fraud, manipulation, or insider trading.
“Brooks’ aggressive promotion and sale of risky mortgage products to seniors and other risk-averse investors deserves the maximum penalty possible, and that is what he got,” said Robert Khuzami, Director of the SEC’s Division of Enforcement.
“Those who direct such exploitative practices from the boardroom will be held personally accountable and face severe consequences for their egregious actions.”
Rosalind Tyson, Director of the SEC’s Los Angeles Regional Office, added, “The CMOs that Brookstreet sold its customers were among the most risky of all mortgage-backed securities. This judgment highlights the responsibility of brokerage firm principals to ensure the suitability of the securities they sell to customers.”
The SEC has brought enforcement actions stemming from the financial crisis against 95 entities and individuals, including 49 CEOs, CFOs, and other senior officers.
Guest article by Michael Olenik
Newscast Media — The pooling and servicing agreement (PSA) is a contract that should govern the terms under which trillions of dollars worth of equity in the land of the United States of America was flung around the world. These contracts should govern how disputes over ownership and interest in the land that was the United States of America should be resolved. Pretty simple stuff, right? I mean if I’m a millionaire big shot New York Lawyer working for big shot billionaire Wall Street Investors and banks, then I’d do my job as a lawyer to make sure the contract was right and that all the “is” were dotted and the “Ts” were crossed right?
But that’s not at all what’s happened. In our scraggly street level offices, far below the big fancy marble encased towers of American law and finance simple dirt lawyers defending homeowners started actually reading these contracts. We ask lots of questions about just what all those fancy words in their big shot contracts mean. Invariably, the big shot lawyers and the foreclosure mills tell us, “Don’t you worry about all them words you scraggly, simple dirt lawyer. Those words aren’t important to you.”
But increasingly judges recognize that the words really do mean something. Take note of the following statements from the recent Ibanez Ruling:
I concur fully in the opinion of the court, and write separately only to underscore that what is surprising about these cases is not the statement of principles articulated by the court regarding title law and the law of foreclosure in Massachusetts, but rather the utter carelessness with which the plaintiff banks documented the titles to their assets.
The type of sophisticated transactions leading up to the accumulation of the notes and mortgages in question in these cases and their securitization, and, ultimately the sale of mortgaged-backed securities, are not barred nor even burdened by the requirements of Massachusetts law. The plaintiff banks, who brought these cases to clear the titles that they acquired at their own foreclosure sales, have simply failed to prove that the underlying assignments of the mortgages that they allege (and would have) entitled them to foreclose ever existed in any legally recognizable form before they exercised the power of sale that accompanies those assignments.
The Ibanez decision underscores the fact that it is important for all of us to know and understand how the pooling and servicing agreements directly impact what is occurring in the courtroom. And for assistance with understanding the PSA and how to find it, more commentary from Michael Olenick at Legalprise:
Overview of PSAs
Securitized loans are built into securities, which happen to look and function virtually identically to bonds but are categorized and called securities because of some legal restrictions on bonds that nobody seems to know about.
The securities start with one or more investment banks, called the Underwriter (should be called the Undertaker), that seems to disappear right after cashing in lots of fees. They create a prospectus that has different parts of the security that they are proposing. Each of these parts is called a tranche. There are anywhere from a half-dozen to a couple dozen tranches. Each one is considered riskier.
Each tranche is actually a separate sub-security, that can and is traded differently, but governed by the same PSA, listed in the Prospectus. Similar tranches from multiple loans were often bundled together into something called a Collateralized Debt Obligation, or CDO. So besides the MBS there might also be one or more CDOs made up of, say, one middle tranche of each MBS. Each tranche is considered riskier, usually based a combination of the Credit Scores of the people in the tranche and the type of loans (ex: full/partial/no doc, traditional/interest-only/neg am, first or secondary lien, etc…).
CDOs were eligible for a type of “insurance” in case their price went down called a Credit Default Swap, or CDS (also known as “synthetic CDOs). There was actually no need to own the CDO to buy the insurance and many companies purchased the insurance, that paid out handsomely. [That's what the AIG bailout was for, because they didn't keep adequate reserves to pay out the insurance policies.]
Later, investors could also purchase securities made up of multiple CDOs, much the same way that CDOs were made up of tranches of multiple MBSs. These were called “CDOs squared.” Not surprisingly, there were also a few “CDOs cubed, CDOs of CDOs squared. CDOs were virtually all written offshore so little is known about who owns them, except that they were premised on the idea that since there was
collateralized mortgage debt at their base they could not collapse. Their purpose was to spread the various of risks of mortgages which, back then, meant prepayment of high interest debt and default.
Investors were actually way more obsessed with prepayment because they thought the whole country could not default; to make sure of that MBSs and all their gobbly gook were spread around the country; you can see where in the prospectus. They were almost more concerned with geographic dispersion than
One warning on those secondary filings, servicers and trusts both break them out as assets. How one loan can be reported as an asset in two places is a mystery, but considering this doesn’t even cover the CDOs and CDSs dual reporting doesn’t seem to strange. You’ll see your loan keep wandering through the financial
system, with one exception (next paragraph), right up to the present day. You can even see how much the investment banks thinks that its worth over time since they report out both original amount and fair market value.
The exception – when your loan really does disappear – is when it was eaten up by the Federal Reserve’s Toxic Loan Asset Facility, TALF. But you can look that up to and see how the government purchased your loan for full-price, when investors on the open market were only willing to pay a few cents on the dollar. If
your loan went to TALF you can find it in the spreadsheet here:
Your loan will be in the top spreadsheet and the genuine lender in the bottom.
305 Puritan Rd.
W. Palm Beach, FL 33405
Categories: News Tags: CDS, collateralized debt obligations, credit default swaps, derivatives, how to find your pooling and servicing agreement, how to find your psa, MBS Trust, mortgage backed securities, pooling and servicing agreement, psa, REMIC, REMIC Trust, REMICs, SEC, securities and exchange commission, TARP, Toxic assets