Lehman Bankruptcy Affects Many Entities: Get involved and file your objections or your defenses may be waived when they sell the assets


Dear Neil; Good News, Pro Bono:  I have been contacted by a local law firm that is contemplating within the next several weeks to motion the Lehman Bankruptcy Courts to Appoint a Borrowers Committee for all borrowers who are otherwise unrepresentative in the Lehman Bankruptcy!  This is very good news!

The law firm will be representing our interest Pro Bono in a limited capacity.  If they are successful in convincing the courts that the borrows committee in fact is needed, as it is, then at least homeowners with these onerous loans will have a fund established in their benefit to allow borrowers to collect against upon winning their claims.

There is even a possibility that if….this goes well, the firm may be interested in representing borrowers claims, again, this is “IF” with no promises made here.  The law firm will be paid by the trustee for Lehman.  Most people do not know they have what is known as a Lehman Loan and I will cite just a few lenders that had their paper/loan securitized by the behemoth that are but is not limited to AURORA LOAN SERVICES, HSBC, CITIMORTGAGE INC., WELLS FARGO, WMC MORTGAGE CORP, PROVIDENT BANK, GREEN POINT MORTGAGE, NEW CENTURY MORTGAGE.

I have a comprehensive list of who the lenders are and anyone is free to contact me at timcotten@mris.com.  Also, I am putting together a prospective list for this law firm of borrowers who want to be represented by the Consumer Borrower Committee.  I am hopeful that any of your readers who believes Lehman may be the originator or, if you have anyone of the lenders just cited, please call me at 410-257-5283 or email me at timcotten@mris.com.  Lehman’s bankruptcy case has been posted www.epiqbankruptcysolutions.com, and you can view it for free.

Also, do not delay in getting a letter of objection in the courts regarding transfers or sales of notes subject to TILA claims as they MUST contain an order stipulating the transfer to be contingent up 11 U.S.C. §363(o).

We are very concerned about the sale of LEHMAN core assets as this is just going to be an underhanded attempt to dump “bad paper” and to escape liabilities so, though we are not lawyers and are not providing anyone here with ANY legal advise, we want everyone here to know that we are sending off a motion to block all transfers within the Lehman case unless they contain the Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005, Pub. L. No. 109-8, 119 Stat. 23 (2005), 11 U.S.C. §363(o) forcing the new acquirer of said loans to take them contingent this provision and all consumer TILA claims. Thanks Neil and keep up the great blog! Tim 410-257-5283.

6 Responses

  1. Argue a Defective deeds and voidable claims as grounds for dismissal at Hold over hearing (UD). If the deed is defect the sale must fail or an unlawful conveyance. We are Legal Experts to counsel so spread the word (consumers are difficult to solicit w/o referrals. We now are 5 for 5 this month in wrongful cases ….matter being argued in Superior Court California. UD hearings . . . that is UNHEARD OF given the weak opportunity. “Affirmative defenses” limitation and weakened case given jurisdiction. None the less. . . Point is the judges all seem to be dialed in to a solid UD response and motion. I SWEAR Be ready Or ELSE! You WILL GET RAM-RODED OUT THE DOOR.. .with swift kick from the bailiff.

    Each defendant MUST add a motion to dismiss in the response (within 5 days of the 30 day UD having been issued. Defense must tactfully oppose the conveyance and press and damn it, press hard to sage way into the arguments while you challenge standing whereby plaintiff will become defensive and be shown to lack grounds etc…i.e. trustee sale and new owner (your lender ) is perpetrating a fraud against the court arguing the merit of the conveyance and voidable condition of the trustee’s sale. You’re the best sire – keep it up M Soliman http://www.borrowerhotline.com / hint: the intervening assignments are the issue – not MERS (screw MERS that argument is getting old and there’s nothing there if made to stand alone). secondarytradedesk@yahoo.com

    PS 5 hearings (to date)
    1 dismissal with counsel*
    trial dates set (all pro per)

    *Dismissal – we want to inflict serious pain to the beloved lender and – -you got it! We are back in court with a motion to have the courts render the Dismissal/” WITH PREJUDICE!” Wish you all luck!

  2. From: maxgardner@maxgardner.com
    To: ot@nacba.org
    CC: mailinglist@maxbankruptcybootcamp.com
    Sent: 9/27/2008 3:44:35 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time
    Subj: Why Fed Cannot Modify Mortgages with $700B Bond Purchase Deal

    Why The Government Cannot Modify Mortgages If It Purchases $700BN of MBS
    posted by Adam Levitin

    I’ve written a short explanation of the why even if the Treasury buys
    $700BN of MBS it will be unable to modify the underlying mortgages. The
    explanation is attached

    At core it is a Trust Indenture Act problem, where the bonds cannot be
    modified absent a specified majority vote and consent of bondholders
    whose payment rights are affected. And here is no possibility of doing
    an exchange offer to get around it; there is simply no mechanism for an
    MBS trust to do an exchange offer. (For the classic discussion of Trust
    Indenture problems, see Mark Roe’s article, The Voting Prohibition in
    Bond Workouts.) The solution of Trust Indenture Act problems with
    corporate bonds is…you guessed it, bankruptcy modification!

  3. This is from a GreenPoint Mortgage Securities, LLC Contract with a buyer of their pool of loans bundled as securities.

    Subsection 6.02 Books and Records. Record title to each Mortgage and the related Mortgage Note as of the related Closing Date shall be in the
    name of the Seller; provided, however, that if a Mortgage has been recorded in the name of MERS or its designee, the Seller is shown as the owner of the related Mortgage Loan on the records of MERS for purposes of the system of
    recording transfers of beneficial ownership of mortgages maintained by MERS.

    Notwithstanding the foregoing, ownership of each Mortgage and the related Mortgage Note shall be vested solely in the Purchaser or the appropriate designee of the Purchaser, as the case may be. All rights arising out of the
    Mortgage Loans including, but not limited to, all funds received by the Servicer after the related Cut-off Date on or in connection with a Mortgage Loan as provided in Section 2 shall be vested in the Purchaser; provided, however, that all such funds received on or in connection with a Mortgage Loan as provided in Section 2 shall be received and held by the Servicer in trust for the benefit of the Purchaser as the owner of the Mortgage Loans pursuant
    to the terms of this Agreement.

    It is the express intention of the parties that the transactions contemplated by this Agreement be, and be construed as, a sale of the related Mortgage Loans by the Seller and not a pledge of such Mortgage Loans by the Seller to the Purchaser to secure a debt or other obligation of the Seller. Consequently, the sale of each Mortgage Loan shall be reflected as a purchase on the Purchaser’s business records, tax returns and financial statements, and as a sale of assets on the Seller’s business records, tax returns and financial statements.

    Subsection 6.04 MERS Designated Loans. With respect to each MERS Designated Mortgage Loan, the Seller shall, on or prior to the related Closing Date, designate the Purchaser as the Investor and the Custodian as custodian,
    and no Person shall be listed as Interim Funder on the MERS System. In addition, on or prior to the related Closing Date, Seller shall provide the
    Custodian and the Purchaser with a MERS Report listing the Purchaser as the
    Investor, the Custodian as custodian and no Person listed as Interim Funder
    with respect to each MERS Designated Mortgage Loan.

    (p) Sale Treatment. The Seller expects to be advised by its independent certified public accountants that under generally accepted
    accounting principles the transfer of the Mortgage Loans may be treated as a
    sale on the books and records of the Seller and the Seller has determined that the disposition of the Mortgage Loans pursuant to this Agreement will be afforded sale treatment for tax and accounting purposes;


  4. I’d beware of the coming “BAILOUT” legislation, these banksters are going to get off the hook.

    The loan modification agreements I’m seeing here in the Detroit area have some issues:

    1) Homeowners waive their rights to any affirmative defenses when they sign the agreement.

    2) Homeowners agree to pay for attorney fees, recording fees, etc. without those fees being disclosed when they sign.

    3) The terms have, for the most part, been a temporary fixed rate that adjusts in 5 years that would make the payment higher than it is scheduled to be.

    Anyone that has the chance to get in on this, do it now before our government “fixes” the problem, and you get screwed.

    McBamaBush ’08

    Government: If you think our problems are bad, wait until you see our solutions.



Contribute to the discussion!

%d bloggers like this: