COMBO Title and Securitization Search, Report, Documents, Analysis & Commentary GET COMBO TITLE AND SECURITIZATION ANALYSIS – CLICK HERE



EDITOR’S NOTE: Now the FDIC gets it too. THE WORSE THE LOAN THE MORE MONEY THEY MADE. In the convoluted logic of the mortgage mess the investment banks profits skyrocketed as they increased the likelihood that the the loan would fail. Going into the subprime market was only one way it was done. The same facts apply across the board. A loan destined to fail was far more likely to carry an inflated nominal rate of interest, albeit knowing that the payments would not be made at earliest time possible. Since these loans could not be closed with borrowers unless the initial payment (teaser etc.) was low enough that the borrower could be convinced they could afford it, and the borrowers were relying on the mortgage broker and the fact that a lender would not take the risk unless there was merit to the deal, they relied upon the lender’s appraisal and apparent confirmation of appraisal of the property. By increasing the “value”of the property they were able to close larger loans. By closing larger loans, they were able to move more money faster.

The higher nominal rate of interest was something everyone except the borrower and investor knew would never be paid. The principal was also skewed based upon a higher rate of principal payments based upon an unsustainable appraisal (which of course also increased the size of the loan and therefore the principal and interest payments). The life of the loan and the effect on the actual rate of interest moved many loans into usury territory. And before you tell me that banks are exempt in many states from usury laws, let me say that in many states they are not and even if they banks ARE exempt the originators of nearly all securitized loans either were not banks at all or were banks acting as mortgage brokers — i.e., not actually underwriting the loan nor funding it.

The net effect of this, from a TILA standpoint, is that the APR was misstated in the Good Faith Estimate (GFE) given to each borrower which did not reflect the reality of the actual loan life (obviously ending when the payments reset to a level that exceeded the borrower’s income), the inflated appraisal and the actual terms of compensation being received by intermediaries who were not disclosed to the borrower or the investors. RESCISSION is therefore most probably an available remedy even in old loans as a result of this. ANd the amount that would be required for tender back to the “Lender” (originator) would be reduced by the amount of the appraisal fraud and other causes of action attendant to this fraud.

The plot thickens: by using crappy loans and getting what on paper looked like high interest rates (nominal rates), the banks were able to create the illusion that the DOLLAR amount of return that the investor was expecting was satisfied by the loans “in the portfolio” which we now know never made into the “portfolio” or “pool.” Thus by jacking up at least part of the portfolio nominal rates the banks were able to REDUCE THE PRINCIPAL of the so-called “loan,” which we now know was a sham. This reduction in the amount of principal actually funded produced a spread between the amount of money advanced by the investors and the amount of money actually funded, which the investors knew nothing about.

This spread was caused by the difference between the rates that the investors were expecting (yield) and the rates that the borrowers were supposed to pay (yield), which is why I identified a second yield spread premium (YSP2) years ago. This premium taken by the banks was in the form of profit on sale of loans that were neither sold nor even transferred but nobody knew that back then, although I suspected it based upon the inability of the banks to produce documentation on any performing loan. The only time they came up with documentation was when the loan was in foreclosure and it was in litigation and it was close a hearing in which they had to either putup or shut up. Many simply shut up and moved on to more low hanging fruit. 

FDIC Sues LPS and CoreLogic Over Appraisal Fraud; Shows Investors Leaving Money on the Table

Posted By igradman On May 30, 2011 (10:43 pm)

In another sign that the Federal Government is turning its focus towards prosecuting the securitization players who may have contributed to the Mortgage Crisis, the FDIC filed separate lawsuits against LSI Appraisal (available here) and CoreLogic (available here) earlier this month.  In the suits, both filed in the Central District of California, the FDIC, as Receiver for Washington Mutual Bank (“WAMU”), accuses vendors with whom WAMU contracted to provide appraisal services with gross negligence, breach of reps and warranties, and other breaches of contract for providing defective and/or inflated appraisals.  The FDIC seeks at least $154 million from LSI (and its parent companies, including Lender Processing Services and Fidelity, based on alter ego liability) and at least $129 million from CoreLogic (and its parent companies, including First American Financial, based on alter ego liability).

As we’ve been discussing on The Subprime Shakeout this past month, the U.S. Government has stepped up its efforts to pursue claims against originators, underwriters and other participants in mortgage securitization over irresponsible lending and underwriting practices that led to the largest financial crisis since the Great Depression.  This has included the DOJ suing Deutsche Bank over reckless lending and submitting improper loans to the FHA and the SEC subpoenaing records from Credit Suisse and JPMorgan Chase over so-called “double dipping” schemes.  The FDIC’s lawsuit is just the latest sign that much more litigation is on the horizon, as it focuses on yet another aspect of the Crisis that is ripe for investigation–appraisal fraud.

Granted, those familiar with the loan repurchase or putback process have long recognized that inflated or otherwise improper appraisals are a major category of rep and warranty violations that are found in subprime and Alt-A loans originated between 2005 and 2007.  In fact, David Grais, in his lawsuits on behalf of the Federal Home Loan Banks of San Francisco and Seattle, focused the majority of his allegations against mortgage securitizers on inflated appraisals (ironically, the data Grais used in his complaints was compiled by CoreLogic, which is now one of the subjects of the FDIC’s suits).

Grais likely zeroed in on appraisals in those cases because he was able to evaluate their propriety after the fact using publicly available data, as he had not yet acquired access to the underlying loan files that would have provided more concrete evidence of underwriting deficiences.  But, appraisals have been historically a bit squishy and subjective–even using retroactive appraisal tools–and absent evidence of a scheme to inflate a series of comparable properties, it can be difficult to convince a judge or jury that an appraisal that’s, say, 10% higher than you would expect was actually a negligent or defective assessment of value.

The reason that the FDIC/WAMU is likely focusing on this aspect of the underwriting process is because it’s one of the few avenues available to WAMU to recover its losses.  Namely, the FDIC is suing over losses associated with loans that it holds on its books, not loans that it sold into securitization.  Though the latter would be a much larger set of loans, WAMU no longer holds any ownership interest in those loans, and would not suffer losses on that pool unless and until it (or its new owner, JPMorgan) were forced to repurchase a significant portion of those loans (read: a basis for more lawsuits down the road).

Which brings me to the most interesting aspect of these cases.  As I mentioned, the FDIC is only suing these appraisal vendors over the limited number of loans that WAMU still holds on its books.  In the case against LSI, the FDIC only reviewed 292 appraisals and is seeking damages with respect to 220 of those (75.3%), for which it claims it found “multiple egregious violations of USPAP and applicable industry standards” (LSI Complaint p. 12).   Only 10 out of 292 (3.4%) were found to be fully compliant.  Yet, the FDIC notes earlier in that complaint that LSI “provided or approved more than 386,000 appraisals for residential loans that WaMu originated or purchased” (LSI Complaint p. 11).

In the case against CoreLogic, the FDIC says that it reviewed 259 appraisals out of the more than 260,000 that had been provided (CoreLogic Complaint pp. 11-12).  Out of those, it found only seven that were fully compliant (2.7%), while 194 (74.9%) contained multiple egregious violations (CoreLogic Complaint p. 12).  And it was the 194 egregiously defective appraisals that the FDIC alleges caused over $129 million in damages.

Can you see where I’m going with this?  If you assume that the rest of the appraisals looked very similar to those sampled by the FDIC, there’s a ton of potential liability left on the table.

Just for fun, let’s just do some rough, back-of-the-envelope calculations to provide a framework for estimating that potential liability.  I will warn you that these numbers are going to be eye-popping, but before you get too excited or jump down my throat, please recognize that, as statisticians will no doubt tell you, there are many reasons why the samples cited in the FDIC’s complaints may not be representative of the overall population.  For example, the FDIC may have taken an adverse sample or the average size of the loans WAMU held on its balance sheet may have been significantly greater than the average size of the loans WAMU securitized, meaning they produced higher than average loss severities (and were also more prone to material appraisal inflation). Thus, do not take these numbers as gospel, but merely as an indication of the ballpark size of this potential problem.

With that proviso, let’s project out some of the numbers in the complaints.  In the LSI/LPS case, the FDIC alleges that 75% of the appraisals it sampled contained multiple egregious violations of appraisal standards.  If we project that number to the total population of 386,000 loans for which LSI/LPS provided appraisal services, that’s 289,500 faulty appraisals.  The FDIC also claims it suffered $154 million in losses on the 220 loans with egregiously deficient appraisals, for an average loss severity of $700,000.  Multiply 289,500 faulty appraisals by $700,000 in losses per loan and you get a potential liability to LSI/LPS (on just the loans it handled for WAMU) of $202 billion.  Even if we cut the percentage of deficient appraisals in half to account for the FDIC’s potential adverse sampling and cut the loss severity in half to account for the fact that the average loss severity was likely much smaller (WAMU may have retained the biggest loans that it could not sell into securitizations), that’s still an outstanding liability of over $50 billion for LSI/LPS.

Do the same math for the CoreLogic case and you get similar results.  The FDIC found 74.9% of the loans sampled had egregious appraisal violations, meaning that at least 194,740 of the loans that CoreLogic handled for WAMU may contain similar violations.  Since the 194 egregious loans accounted for $129 million in losses according to the Complaint, that’s an average loss severity of $664,948.  Using these numbers, CoreLogic thus faces potential liabilities of $129 billion.  Even using our very conservative discounting methodology, that’s still over $32 billion in potential liability.

This means that somewhere out there, there are pension funds, mutual funds, insurance funds and other institutional investors who collectively have claims of anywhere from $82 billion to $331 billion against these two vendors of appraisal services with respect to WAMU-originated or securitized loans.  For how many other banks did LSI and CoreLogic provide similar services?  And how many other appraisal service vendors provided similar services during this time and likely conformed to what appear to have been industry practices of inflating appraisals?  The potential liability floating out there on just this appraisal issue alone is astounding, if the FDIC’s numbers are to be believed.

The point of this exercise is not to say that the FDIC necessarily got its numbers right, or even to say that WAMU wasn’t complicit in the industry practice of inflating appraisals.  My point is that these suits reveal additional evidence that investors are sitting on massive amounts of potential claims, about which they’re doing next to nothing.  Where are the men and women of action amongst institutional money managers (and for that matter, who is John Galt?)?  Are they simply passive by nature, and too afraid of getting sued to even peek out from behind the rock? Maybe this is why investors don’t want to reveal their holdings in MBS – they’re afraid that if unions or other organized groups of pensioners realized that their institutional money managers held WAMU MBS and were doing nothing about it, they would sue these managers and/or never run their money through them again.

The better choice, of course, would be to join the Investor Syndicate or one of the other bondholder groups that are primed for action, and then actually support their efforts to go after the participants in the largest Ponzi scheme in history (an upcoming article on TSS will focus on the challenges that these groups have faced in getting their members actually motivated to do something).  It seems that these managers should be focused on trying to recover the funds their investments lost for their constituents, rather than just acting to protect their own anonymity and their jobs.  If suits like those brought by the FDIC don’t cause institutional money managers to sit up and take notice, we have no other choice but to believe these individuals are highly conflicted and incapable of acting as the fiduciaries they’re supposed to be.  Of all the conflicts of interest that have been revealed in the fallout of the Mortgage Crisis, this last conflict would be the most devastating, because it would mean that the securitization participants who were instrumental in causing this crisis, and who were themselves wildly conflicted, will largely be let off the hook by those they harmed the most.

Article taken from The Subprime Shakeout – http://www.subprimeshakeout.com
URL to article: http://www.subprimeshakeout.com/2011/05/fdic-sues-lps-and-corelogic-over-appraisal-fraud-shows-investors-leaving-money-on-the-table.html

Jake Naumer
Resolution Advisors
3187 Morgan Ford
St Louis Missouri 63116
314 961 7600
Fax Voice Mail 314 754 9086

43 Responses

  1. do you think they know that ‘FARES LLC’
    First American Real Estate Solutions and Norwest Mortgage, Inc. conduit for NASCOR and NISTAR are partners and FARES LLC dba CoreLogic now RES division… Fidelity? Why is not Norwest Mortgage Inc. every mentioned as if it does not exist when in fact in 2004 touched 80% of originations !!!!! with MORSERV, INC. dba Chase Manhattan Mortgae Residentail conduit …..

  2. To Mary Cochrane-

    The post below showed up on my computer in reference to the NY AG Eric Schneiderman’s motion banning non lawyers being investors
    State attorney general attacks law firm’s liberalisation drive
    01 August 2011
    Jacoby & Meyers’s attempt to quash New York State rule against non-lawyer collaboration takes flak from top legal official
    Legal Management / Litigation / Regulatory & Compliance A law firm’s bid to trigger legal-sector liberalisation in New York State has met with fierce resistance from the jurisdiction’s attorney general. In papers filed at the District Court for the Southern District of New York, Eric T Schneiderman described the effort by Jacoby & Meyers to overturn the ban on fee sharing with non-lawyers as ‘frivolous’ and without merit.

    As NewLegal Review reported in May , the firm filed suit that month against four presiding justices at the appellate division of New York State’s Supreme Court, with the aim of overturning Rule 5.4 of the state’s professional code. This holds that the creation of a legal services firm operated by a blend of lawyers and non-lawyers is strictly prohibited, in order to preserve lawyers’ ethics. Derived from the Model Rules of Professional Conduct set down by the American Bar Association, Rule 5.4 exists on the statute of every US jurisdiction except the District of Columbia – the only region to adopt a more flexible version.

    Jacoby & Meyers alleged that the rule contravened a fair-treatment clause in the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution, designed to safeguard businesses’ abilities to locate sources of funding. The firm also argued that the ban was anachronistic in the face of rapid developments in the delivery of legal services.

    Schneiderman disagrees. In a memorandum of law backing the appellate justices’ motion to dismiss, he wrote: ‘Plaintiff’s claims have no merit – indeed, many border on frivolous. The state has a compelling interest in regulation of its bar, and the limitations found in Rule 5.4 are designed to ensure that a lawyer’s independence and loyalty to his client – the very foundation of the profession – is not compromised by the conflicts that would arise when a firm becomes beholden to its investors.’

    Schneiderman added that Jacoby & Meyers would not be able to add a non-lawyer partner to its staff even if Rule 5.4 were struck down. ‘Plaintiff is a professional limited liability partnership,’ he wrote, ‘and New York partnership law prevents it from adding a non-lawyer partner. The state courts have further found that the New York judiciary law would – in any event – make the arrangement proposed by plaintiff illegal.’ As such, Schneiderman argued, the grievance that Jacoby & Meyers has brought to light is ‘not fairly traceable’ to Rule 5.4 being challenged. From that viewpoint, striking down the rule would make no difference.

    The case continues

    News 1 new result for NY Supreme Court jurisdiction

    State attorney general attacks law firm’s liberalisation drive
    CPA Global
    As NewLegal Review reported in May, the firm filed suit that month against four presiding justices at the appellate division of New York State’s Supreme Court, with the aim of overturning Rule 5.4 of the state’s professional code. …

    If you look at earlier post on this thread when you were doing fact finding on Doreen Harris aka Doreen Higgins,

    36 W 44TH ST STE 816 NEW YORK NY 1003″

    From: NJ Lawyers Fund For Client Protection 11/22/2010 – Chief Justice Rabner – 2010 PHV Inelibile List. Confirmed payment was made called 6/1/2011: David Fiveson c/o LAWFIRM for ‘title’ busienss.

    Doreen Higgens (work name)
    aka (DOREEN DIBENEDETTO as Princpal)
    lives in Staten Island per own hand in virtual memory book.

    DOREEN DiBENEDETTO Title Office Manager
    Butler, Fitzgerald, Fiveson & McCarthy
    36 W. 44th St., Ste. 916
    New York

    (what about her being a principal without being an attorney.
    From what I gather she went to Kathrine Gibbs.)

    Just to refresh your memory David K Fiveson of Coronet Title is the attorney using a Forged Deed claiming title to one of my two properties. The other is Fidelity National Title.

  3. Annomyous thank you. We need a few good men and women to create Agency. Can’t take check until Agency created. Professionals needed. Agency as commercial entity members transactions will be with due process of laws.

    Anyone interested send email to Mary_Cochrane@saveamerica.one.

    Envision (SaveAmericaOne) as the name of the organization and SAO

    Like ‘AARP’ model protecting group of consumers with common characteristics ‘age’

    SaveAmericaOne, on June 7, 2011 at 2:56 pm said:
    Found excellent data facts researchign ‘Litton’ ‘Ocwen’ ‘Barclay plc’ ‘Goldman’.
    In ‘Litton’ Case (1970′s) ‘FTC’ * Attorney General’s – Clayton Act. Litton prematurely attempts to prevent disclosure of evidence. Refusal to comply and the FTC requested Attorney General to seek enforcement pursuant to 15 U.S.C. Sec 49.

    If only ‘consumer’ as defendant could seek FTC, or OCC, or CONGRESS to seek Attorney General to enforce purusant to ….

    The FTC, on July 2, 1968, adopted a resolution directing an investigation of the social and economic consequences of corporate mergers in the United States. The investigation was specifically directed toward Litton and eight other corporations. Litton moved in the FTC to quash or limit subpoena on info sought irrelevant and confidential.

    While motion pending, FTC filed complaint against Litton under Section 7 of the Clayton act, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 18. Litton argued FTC dic order and FTC d leaving two proceedings, one investigative and one adjudicative before FTC.

    ??? Wonder how consumers as members of ‘Agency’ would be protected standing as agroup rather than individuals? (like AARP protecting its class of consumers)?

    15 U.S.C. Sec. 46(b) empowers the FTC: “* * * to require, by general or special orders, corporations engaged in commerce * * * to file with the commission * * * special, reports * * *, furnishing to the commission such information as it may require as to the [corporation’s] organization, business, conduct, practices, management, and relation to other corporations * * *.”

    15 U.S.C. Sec. 49 provides in pertinent part: “Upon the application of the Attorney General of the United States, at the request of the commission, the district courts of the United States shall have jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus commanding any person or corporation to comply with the provisions of sections 41-46 * * * of this title or any order of the commission made in pursuance thereof.”

    15 U.S.C. Sec. 21 provides, inter alia, that whenever the FTC orders a corporation to cease and desist from violating Section 7 of the Clayton Act the corporation may obtain review of such order in the United States Court of Appeals for the Circuit where the violation occurred or where the corporation resides or does business

    Or is more to come?

    How will OCC Supervisory Powers over MERS help or ham consumers?

    If the Attorney Generals were to become involved under Clayton Act would the ruling be used to proceed full-speed ahead

    And why do I keep wondering when this does or does not help consumers.

    Could members be protected as John Does 1 – 31,000,000 mortgages alive in MERS for example that is scope of membership to address current harms.

    Source: 462 F.2d 14: United States of America, Appellee, v. Litton Industries, Inc., Appellant


    How powerful could issues before court in a joinder be for ‘members’ of ‘SAO’? who will have more rights than consumer to be heard the ‘harms’ common. The ‘joinder’ of members represented by business entity may speak volumes.

    50 state chapters, chapters in US territories, national chapter, funding to help consumers period. Donations to political groups would be directed to members who can decide to use their own money. Difference of what exists today versus what exists with SAO representation of lobbyists goal to protect and reveal loopholes, how bills in the hopper will help or harm rights of individual consumers to be safe in life and property!


  4. To Mary C
    working from the info you gave me, I found Doreen DiBenedetto is a Principal at the lawfirm, Found a Doctor DiBenedetto in SI, educated in Italy, practicing 47 years. Perhaps Doreen father. What to me seemed odd was before you see any info on the Dr. you had to accept an agreement on the internet page. I didn’t

    . I think I once read you don’t have to be an attorney to invest in a lawfirm.

    To me, Fiveson is not the brightest light on the tree but was led by Malone of Fidelity, This happened
    at the end of 2008 before all the knowledge of fraud exploded. However Judge Schlesinger knew she was ruling against her obligation to uphold the US Constitution especially since I brought my two motions pursuant to US Supreme Court case Elliot v Piersol and in her 5 page story telling opinion does not mention Elliot v Piersol. The five appellate judges covering up for Judge Schlesinger didn’t mention Elliot v Piersol either. In fact the Appellate decision distorts all the facts and the dates and reads like a LPS Docx document.

    These are activist judges that trash the US Constitution. These Judges had lied so I don’t think it is any concern that Fiveson would lie.

    As for Cumming of Wy., their is a Ian M Cumming Chair of Leucadia National Corp here in NYC looks like an oil and drilling investment co.

    Going back to Elliot v. Piersol that decision reads
    that if a Court is without Authority, its judgments and Orders are regarded as nullities. They are not voidable but simply VOID and form no bar to recocvery sought, even prior to reversal in opposition to them… (my creating money issue was under Federal Jurisdiction the day the State Court signed the void judgments ab initio- June 30 1997) There are no latches to a nullity or a Forged Deed.

    What happened to the idea of getting a lobby together to fight for our Constitution. Count me in.
    I don’t do any money transaction over the internet including paypal so please put a po box to mail a check to. Thanks

  5. saveamericaone — Mary
    that David Fiveson had title insurance on June 1 2011 doesn’t help the fact he needed to be a title insurer in 1999 when Fang Li flipped her forged deed to Frances Turner, his client. (but I guess Fiveson’s connection to Malone of Fidelity National Title will show him how to backdate it. .

    When I came into Judge Schlesingers courtroom in sept 2008 with Astoria Federal’s new attorneys Arthur Walsh of O Reilly, Marsh & Corteselli Judge Schlesinger said”why would the Federal Court have remanded this case ” since Judge Schlesinger knew as well as I that Federal Court has original jurisdiction of who can create money under our Constitution.

    I think what changed her mind were dollar signs in the attorneys eyes. In her decisions she reverses herself and states , this case was not removable to Federal Court. If a judge is so needy for money, why doesn’t she get a job with a private law firm. She is one of the plaintiffs in the original lawsuit of the judges suing the Legislators for raises.

    This was not a case for Judicial discretion it was cut and dry pursuant to the ‘US Supreme Court case of Elliot v. Piersol. where the court ruled if a court does not have jurisdiction when they issue a judgment it is a nullity even prior to reversal.

    . The chain of title is good up to me. NY being a lien state My two titles have never left me so whatever MJRF auctioned off to straw buyers Fang Li and Cheetah realty is wasn’t my two titles.

    These two foreclosure scams started with Fidelity NY FSB claiming they didn’t get my four mortgage checks. and yet they silently dropped them into envelopes and mailed them back to me but what they didn’t know then was they had already posted the four checks to their ledger and they had the banks postings on them.

    I hope the NY Register of Deed really want to correct the NY land records. What good are land records if they are not accurate and do not reflect the truth

    I have written a little book about it. if you are interested in reading it I could mail it to you or email the transcript.

    Just as William P Foley plays musical chairs with all the titles he held at FNTand its subsidaries, Malone and Fiveson I see keep changing addresses and associates. (Somewhere in my computer I recently saved a new address for Thomas Malone on 40th or 42nd st. NYC and another office for Butler,Fitzgerald, Fiveson & McCarthy at 350 Fifth Ave. NY. It seems like a bridge conspiracy so that no one can keep track of them.

    Malone & Fiveson distort the facts in their motions and use a laundrylist of lies. They each asked for
    sanctions against me in the Appellate Court and in the NY Court of Appeals and wanted the Courts to stop me from representing myself. Both courts denied both of their requests There has never been a final determination in these two cases.


  6. Annoymous and Carrie accronymn for SOL

    I read your post a number of times using not ‘Statute of limitations’ rather agreeing that we are all SOL ” S_ _ _ Outa Luck’

  7. I certainly don’t know anything about the case.
    What is going on with Fiveson and Doreen and not revealing what title company they do business as a settlement agent is significant substantive omission of material fact. Glaring back at you filing falsified document with Court for Coronet TItle?

  8. Mortgage Technology ‘Featured Story Free’

    MERS Ruling Forces HUD to REFORECLOSUE
    ‘Mortgage Technology’

    Department of Housing and Urban Developmetn will-reforeclose on all its REO properteis in Michigan where the original foreclosure was conducted in the name of MERS using state’s nonjudicial process.


  9. Dear Mary
    You are great but alot for me to understand and digest, My feeling is Fiveson’s client Frances B Turner was not able to secure Title insurance since the State Court Records and the Federal Docket reflect that this property was one of a pair that Astoria Federal successor in Interest to Fidelity NY FSB auctioned off without ever owning them.

    The acris files Blk 1414 LOT 1069 says Deed Marilyn Lane, def. to Fang Li – (Astoria Federal’s name is missing .) I think Fang Li was the strawbuyer for her attorneys Schwall & Becker New City NY The ref.’s deed says Fang Li resides at Schwall & Becker. New City NY.

    Fang Li flipped her deed to Frances B Turner (motion papers said Turner paid $310,000 in 1999 }
    Turner takes out a mortgage for $240,000 with Bk of America etc and record a satisfaction of mortgage on 3/23/2006. Then there is a lapse of 3 yrs, 3 mos(and right before the the appellate decision comes down which I thought I won., Turner makes an AGREEMENT with bank of America for $217,000 and a mortgage for $4,150 (taxes?) My feeling is Fiveson put his money into this around 3/23/2006 and gave Turner a life tenancy. and I think she is the front for Fiveson.

    Mullooly, Jeffrey Rooney & Flynn, Ref. Penny Stark, Judge Carol Arbor, Judge Alice Schlesinger, Schwall & Becker, Fiveson, Malone et al , all just trash the Constitution and the jUDGES i HAD JUST COVER UP FOR THEM.


  10. Mortgage new math = convertible debt and convertible receivables tracked by DTC and MERS respectively the only constant the loan number bought and sold under US contract law have become lease backs of value to the states to cover the debt the US GOVERNEMENT owes.

    Can we close this LOOPHOLE of using third party credit lines held in broker names which allow financial holding company parents to control pipeline and conduits and employees in their stables to insure placing deposits into their Corporate Securities Treasuries which as deposits are the most valuable part of the transaction.

    Once the currency in the form of a deposit, those who know how banks operate under Bank Secrecy Act, convert curreny into assets owned by the banks.

    Can we remove this loophole today please?

    Over the financial exchange, as Depositor for SELLER converting assets into owner name c/o Cede & Co, held by DTC as nominee?

    Can we stop LOOPHOLE of allowing ‘Issuing Entity’ to be fictitious names, receive upfront commissions to sell the bonds in the public domain?

    Can we stop the LOOPHOLE that the US GOVERNMENT who insures the assets does preinspect the assets for defects prior to allowing the financial products and financial services to be sold in the public domain of the United States of Ameircia?

    LOOPHOLES not taxing rather floating assets and receivables in pass through agencies allowing FOREIGN OWNERS NAME c/o Cede & Co with DTC as nominee, and MERS as nominee post receivables as assets of the SERVICERS who under contract law take the portfolios as assets on their books.

    LOOPHOLE not taxing the owners who buyback the properties at nominal $100 increments not taxing the difference then and there!

    LOOPHOLE not allowing ‘mortgage loan numbers since early 2000’ to be sold under contract law without taxing the sale of these transactions.

    LOOPHOLE Federal reserve system operating with the blessings of US TREASURY tax free taking contol of you asset leaving you to pay all of the taxes which become profits of the bank tax free?

    LOOPHOLE not taxing financial holding company sales to itself, for as Parent, the takings of its subsidiaries allowed to appear as pass through agencies who don’t report taxes are the way and means for over a decade the nation harmed.

  11. resent saw my mistake. Thanks,

  12. Tried to send email request to contact failed:
    “This is an automatically generated Delivery Status Notification. Delivery to the following recipients failed. 4u@comcast.net

  13. carie

    Not if the 50 state AG settlement goes through. This settlement must be stopped!!!!!!

    Anyone — any suggestions how to do this???.

  14. saveamericaone…mary

    could you contact me freak 4 u at comcast dot net
    i have a team member for you.

  15. Dear Marilyn Lane – found some more info for you and posted as a comment under moderation. Hopefully they will mail to you. Regards, Mary

  16. Dear neidermeyer,

    Read all about the non-recovery ratings by the experts inside ‘sec’ documents revealing no impovement seen over past 2 years and none expected.

  17. Dear marilyn l.

    Fact gathering. At this point a legal affidavit would be of benefit you you sent by an attorney regarding ‘Coronet Title’ not registered under actual or ‘fictitious name’ dba Law Firm, c/o office manager Doreen (see below) Suite 816.
    Would the COURT consider legal motion that D.Fiveson filed falsified document with court a felonious act and …

    Only registered entity in New York State:

    Professional Corporation
    Registered 5/13/2005
    200 Shares of Stock
    Active Jurisdiction New York NY

    Only UCC Documents in person of Raymond Fitzgerald c/o law firm as DEBTOR – working with a private family business ‘Cummings’

    Doreen Harris, aka
    Title Manager Doreen Higgens
    (212) 764-2155
    36 W 45th St Suite 816 New York NY

    Commercially active
    David Fiveson c/o Lawfirm (references title compancy name to be Law Firm Name)

    ‘Title & Settlement Services’ management by
    Doreen Higgens aka
    Suite 816, – NY NY 10036
    Per Receptionist 6/1/2011 9:30 AM Title Business Conducted Ste 816. Called back 2:00 PM asked for Doreen Higgens and told I have wrong number. This mornng Doreen D. does title business in Suite 816 in name of Doreen Higgens. Oppsssiie.
    Confirmed with ‘door man’ a ‘Doreen’ of Butler … does work in Suite 816 and also Raymond Fitzgerald who is ‘out of town.’

    36 W 44TH ST STE 816 NEW YORK NY 1003”

    From: NJ Lawyers Fund For Client Protection 11/22/2010 – Chief Justice Rabner – 2010 PHV Inelibile List. Confirmed payment was made called 6/1/2011: David Fiveson c/o LAWFIRM for ‘title’ busienss.

    Doreen Higgens (work name)
    aka (DOREEN DIBENEDETTO as Princpal)
    lives in Staten Island per own hand in virtual memory book.

    DOREEN DiBENEDETTO Title Office Manager
    Butler, Fitzgerald, Fiveson & McCarthy
    36 W. 44th St., Ste. 916
    New York

    Attorney Mario Cometti listed in Linkedin as a current attorney no details.

    6/1/2011: Butler (gone) Fitzgerald out of state

    In NJ Butler, Fitzgerald, Fiveson (no McCarthy)
    47 Orient Way, Rutherford NJ

    Established in 2005 and incorporated in New York. Current estimates show this company has an annual revenue of 430,000 and employs a staff of approximately 6

    Listed in Martindale Hubbell:

    (212) 764-2155
    David K. Fiveson
    = dfiveson@bfplaw.net (EMAIL DOES NOT WORK)
    Practice Areas
    Trial and Appellate Corporate and Commercial Litigation Practice in Federal and State Courts, Broker-Dealer Litigation and Arbitrations, SEC, NASD and Stock Exchange Proceedings, Corporate, Commercial, Real Estate, Bankruptcy, Employment Law, Personal Injury, Medical Malpractice and Matrimonial.

    Raymond Fitzgerald one entity in NY Dissolved in 2009 Voluntary Dissolution with Potter in the name

    Cases in name of ‘LNC’ R. Fitzgerald
    LNC operates multiple insurance and investment management businesses
    Collective Group of Companies

    BUTLER, FITZGERALD, FIVESON & MCCARTHY CORP. no fictitous name registered for Coronet
    and New York State requires registration of fictitious names.

    UCC: 200611290942964 11/29/06-11/29/11 Financing Statement
    Raymond Fitzgerald (Individual) DEBTOR
    c/o Bulter, Fitzgerald, Fiveson & McCarthy, Ste 6215, NY 10118

    350 N. ST PAUL STE 2900
    DALLAS TX 72501
    Agent# Commercial Litigator only knows Cummings

    There is UCC Filing for Raymond Fitzgerald purchasing Car with VIN# in Adams NY. Don’t know if same person.

    Sent Fax 307-734 4665 Attn: Kathy – they are not familiar with Raymond Fitzgerald. Sent her ‘UCC’ (3) documents which appear to take ‘stock of company

    Name of Individual Searched :





    UCC Filings: 200611290942964 11/29/2006
    200612088484398 12/08/2006
    200908218288020 08/21/2009

    Personal Address or different person?
    Debtor Names: FITZGERALD, RAYMOND W 12931 BISHOP ST RD, ADAMS, NY 13605, USA
    Secured Party Names: AMERICAN HONDA FINANCE CORP #59124 DEPT 109 POBX 997503, SACRAMENTO, CA 95899, USA

    File no. File Date Lapse Date Filing Type Pages Image
    200811100755924 11/10/2008 11/10/2013 Financing Statement 1 View
    Thomas P. Malone
    V.P. & Coun.
    Fidelity National Title Grp., Inc.
    350 5th Ave., Ste. 5016
    New York
    (New York Co.) Martindale Hubbell

  18. ANON—Don’t you think the “real massive fraud” will eventually HAVE to be exposed???

  19. Thanks, ANON—I guess I’m SOL with the SOL…

  20. carie

    It should. Third party services??? Clearly a bulk sale – before you closed. Violation of RESPA – but, SOL if 2006 — courts not kind with SOL — it does not matter circumstances. However, believe SOL does not apply to government actions. But, government so afraid to expose the real massive fraud.

    As I have said, government handled so poorly at onset of crisis. They took the fraudsters side – and let the people fall. Reluctant to ever admit their mistake. Many people will NEVER recover — their lives destroyed.

  21. to Mary
    an expert on title. I have been searching for a Coronet Title to no avail. NY dept of insurance and NJ Dept of Insurance have never registered a Coronet Title and in fact have never heard of them, nor has the abstractor listed on the papers.

    Fidelity National Title’s attorney Thomas Malone and his partner in crime David Fiveson who claims he represents Coronet Title have filed forged deeds with the NY register of Deeds. With your great expertise can you locate an address or any info on Coronet Title? I know where William Foley is, he is hiding under his grapes.

  22. So, Virginia—the fact that they were securitized BEFORE we signed the paperwork—which isn’t mentioned in the loan docs—isn’t this blatant, provable fraud???

  23. If these appraisals were faulty as far as the FDIC is concerned – the same rings true for the borrower. As unsophisticated as the borrowers were, the fact remains that the borrower based the majority of their investment decision to buy or refinance their property on the value of the appraisal.

    No one would have bought a home for $500,000 if the appraisal came in at only $400,000. I always found it amazing that the appraisals came in almost to the penny of the sales contract; however, if the lender wanted to roll in your unsecured credit card debit there was always room in the value.

    Now that we suspect (in most cases) that the loans were securitized BEFORE the borrower signed the mortgage documents… looks like FHLB (who securitized the PLMBS) will be the pot calling the kettle black… but then mama always said, “guilty dogs bark first.”

  24. ANONYMOUS—question for you—I looked at my loan docs from 2006…it was an “interest only” for 10 years—nothing anywhere there about securitization—just one page about “Bundle Services Disclosure”—wherein it is stated: “IndyMac Bank will be obtaining third party services to complete this loan transaction. These services will be ordered as a bundle from a third party provider.”

    Is this what was eventually securitized? The fact that it was not disclosed—that they were planning on “gambling” with my “loan”—doesn’t that nullify the contract?

    Doesn’t this fall under RICO???

  25. Of course, if FDIC succeeds in 154 million — think homeowner victims will see a penny??

    Government still saying — foreclosures must go through — clear the market.

    And, as judges still appease the crooks.

  26. Goes beyond appraisal fraud. FDIC — behind the eight ball.

    First America (CoreLogic) – who also took over TransAmerica — also provided escrow tax services to banks/mortgage servicers for property taxes. That is, they paid the escrow property taxes to the townships – they were hired by banks/servicers to do so. .

    Easiest way to put homeowners falsely in default — before actual default — is by falsely misapplying tax payments and home insurance payments.

    So you think prior mortgage was paid at last refinance??? Think again.

  27. FAF) on December 3, 1993 NYSE prior NASDAQ. As defined by owners of what becomes CoreLogic: First American…executive offices, its trust and banking subsidiary and the Orange County title insurance branch operations..

    .through First American and its subsidiaries, transacts the business of title insurance through a network of more than 300 branch offices and over 4,000 independent agents. Through its branch office and agent network, the Company issues policies in all states (except Iowa),
    the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, the Bahama Islands, Canada, Mexico, Bermuda and the United Kingdom.

    In Iowa, the company provides abstracts of title only, because title insurance is not permitted. Through acquisitions and start-ups during the mid-1980s, the Company has grown from a large regional company to a nationwide company,
    becoming less dependent on operating revenues from any one state or region.

    Real estate information subsidiary, First American Real Estate Information Services, Inc. (“FAREISI”), owns a building in Irving, Texas,
    which houses its national operations center.

    1996 10K:

    Title insurance has become increasingly accepted as the most efficient means of determining title to, and the priority of interests in, real estate in
    nearly all parts of the United States. Today, virtually all real property mortgage lenders require their borrowers to obtain a title insurance policy at
    the time a mortgage loan is made.

    Title Policies. Title insurance policies are insured statements of the condition of title to real property, showing priority of ownership as indicated by public records, as well as outstanding liens, encumbrances and other matters of record, and certain other matters not of public record. Title
    insurance policies are issued on the basis of a title report, which isprepared after a search of the public records, maps, documents and prior title
    policies to ascertain the existence of easements, restrictions, rights of way, conditions, encumbrances or other matters affecting the title to, or use of, real property.

    In certain instances, a visual inspection of the property is also made. To facilitate the preparation of title reports, copies of public
    records, maps, documents and prior title policies may be compiled and indexed to specific properties in an area. This compilation is known as a “title plant.”

    The beneficiaries of title insurance policies are generally real estate buyers and mortgage lenders. A title insurance policy indemnifies the named insured and certain successors in interest against title defects, liens and encumbrances existing as of the date of the policy and not specifically excepted from its provisions.

    The policy typically provides coverage for the
    real property mortgage lender in the amount of its outstanding mortgage loan balance and for the buyer in the amount of the purchase price.

    Coverage under a title insurance policy issued to a real property mortgage lender generally
    terminates when the mortgage loan is repaid.

    Coverage under a title insurance
    policy issued to an owner generally terminates upon the sale of the insured property unless the owner carries back a mortgage or makes certain warranties as to the title.

    Unlike other types of insurance policies, title insurance policies do not insure against future risk.

    Before issuing title policies, title insurers seek
    to limit their risk of loss by accurately performing title searches and examinations.

    The major expenses of a title company relate to such searches and examinations, the preparation of preliminary reports or commitments and
    the maintenance of title plants, and not from claim losses as in the case of property and casualty insurers.

    The Closing Process.
    Title insurance is essential to the real estate closing process in most transactions involving real property mortgage lenders. In a typical residential real estate sale transaction, title insurance is generally ordered on behalf of an insured by a real estate broker, lawyer, developer, lender or closer involved in the transaction.

    Once the order has been placed, a title insurance company or an agent conducts a title search to determine the current status of the title to the property. When the search is complete, the
    title company or agent prepares, issues and circulates a commitment or preliminary title report (“commitment”) to the parties to the transaction.

    The commitment summarizes the current status of the title to the property, identifies the conditions, exceptions and/or limitations that the title
    insurer intends to attach to the policy and identifies items appearing on the title that must be eliminated prior to closing.

    The closing function, sometimes called an escrow in western states, is often erformed by a lawyer, an escrow company or by a title insurance company or agent (such person or entity, the “closer”). Once documentation has been prepared and signed, and mortgage lender payoff demands are in hand, the transaction is “closed.”

    The closer records the appropriate title documents and arranges the transfer of funds to pay off prior loans and extinguish the iens securing such loans. Title policies are then issued insuring the
    priority of the mortgage of the real property mortgage lender in the amount of its mortgage loan and the buyer in the amount of the purchase price. The time lag between the opening of the title order and the issuance of the title policy is usually between 30 and 90 days.

    Issuing the Policy: Direct vs. Agency. A title policy can be issued directly by a title insurer or indirectly on behalf of a title insurer through agents
    which are not themselves licensed as insurers. Where the policy is issued by a title insurer, the search is performed by or at the direction of the title insurer, and the premium is collected and retained by the title insurer. Where the policy is issued by an agent, the agent performs the search, examines the title, collects the premium and retains a portion of the premium.

    The remainder of the premium is remitted to the title insurer as compensation for bearing the risk of loss in the event a claim is made under the policy.

    The percentage of the premium retained by an agent varies from region to region. A
    title insurer is obligated to pay title claims in accordance with the terms of its policies, regardless of whether it issues its policy directly or indirectly through an agent.

    Premiums. The premium for title insurance is due and earned in full when the real estate transaction is closed.

    Premiums are generally calculated with
    reference to the policy amount.

    The premium charged by a title insurer or an
    agent is subject to regulation in most areas.

    Such regulations vary from state
    to state.

    Because the policy insures against matters that have occurred prior to its issuance (rather than future occurrences, as with most other types of insurance), the major portion of the premium is related to the service performed in ascertaining the current status of title to the property.

  28. CoreLogic

    1996 First American Corp Subsidiaries

    Resales and refinancings of residential properties constitute the major sources of the Company’s revenues …
    adverse effect is mitigated in part by the continuing
    diversification of the Company’s operations into areas outside of its traditional title insurance business…

    The First American Financial Corporation was organized in 1894 as Orange County Title Company, succeeding to the business of two title abstract companies founded in 1889 and operating in Orange County, California.

    In 1924, the Company commenced issuing title insurance policies. In 1986, the Company
    began a diversification program by acquiring and developing financial service businesses closely related to the real estate transfer and closing process.

    The Company is a California corporation and has its executive offices at 114 East Fifth Street, Santa Ana, California 92701-4699. The Company’s telephone number is (714) 558-3211. Unless the context otherwise indicates, the
    “Company,” as used herein, refers to The First American Financial Corporation and its subsidiaries.

    GENERAL its wholly owned subsidiary, First American Title Insurance Company
    (“First American”), was the second largest title insurer in the United States, …

    title insurance, tax monitoring, credit reporting, flood zone determination and property information business results from resales and refinancings of real estate, including residential and commercial properties, and from the construction and sale of new properties …

    First American Home Buyers Protection Corporation, was the third largest provider of home warranties in the United States … home warranty business results from residential resales and does not benefit from refinancings or commercial transactions

    The Company, through its subsidiaries, is engaged in the business of providing real estate related financial and information services, including
    title insurance, real estate tax monitoring, mortgage credit reporting, flood
    zone determination, property information and home warranty services, to real
    property buyers and mortgage lenders. The Company also provides trust and
    limited banking services.

  29. First Advantage Corp “FADV” is an international provider of risk mitigation and business solutions. Our Company was formed in the June 5, 2003 merger with The First American Corporation’s (“First American”) ‘FAST’ screening technology division and US SEARCH.com Inc. (“US Search”) ‘SRCH’ became wholly-owned operating subsidiaries.

    Since becoming a public company in June 2003, we have actively pursued our acquisition strategy…

    9/14/2005 acquired First American’s Credit Info Group “CIG” acquistion under common control of First American owns appox 74% economic interest and 91% of voting interest of First Advantage.

    Lender, Data, Dealer, Employer, Multifamily, Investigative and Litigation Support Services

    We also offer due diligence services for a variety of purposes and have a specialized database of hedge fund managers
    First Advantage, through its subsidiaries, serves a wide variety of clients throughout the United States and abroad.

    The tens of thousands of customers served by First Advantage include nearly a quarter of those businesses comprising the Fortune 1000, leading mortgage lenders…

    The Company acquired fifteen companies in 2005. In the second quarter of 2005, the Company acquired Bar None, Inc, a provider of credit-based lead generation, processing and tracking services, which is included in our Dealer Services segment. In the fourth quarter of 2005, the Company acquired majority interest in LeadClick Media Inc, an online lead generation and marketing company. This company is included in our Data Services segment.

    In 2005, we acquired two businesses from Experian. They were Experian RES and Credit Data Services, both were added to our Lender Services segment.

    The Lender Services segment provides specialized credit reports for mortgage lenders throughout the United States.

    The Company believes that it is the largest provider of credit reports to the United States mortgage lending industry, based on the number of credit reports issued. In preparing its merged credit reports for mortgage lenders, the Company obtains credit reports from at least two of the three United States primary credit bureaus, merges and summarizes the credit reports, and delivers its report in a standard format acceptable to mortgage loan originators and secondary mortgage purchasers.

    Our Lender Services segment accounted for approximately 18% of our service revenue in 2008.

    The current economic downturn has caused decreased service revenue in the Lender Services segment related to the mortgage industry.

    Management expects continued weakness in the real estate and mortgage markets to continue impacting this segment.

    Given this outlook, management is focusing on expense reductions, operating efficiencies, and increasing market share throughout the Company.

    First American Registry, now wholly-owned subsidiaries of First Advantage, were wholly-owned subsidiaries of First American and made up the FAST division.

    In the late 1990s, First American initiated a diversification strategy which called for, among other things, the combination of one of its core competencies—data management and analysis—with businesses that are counter-cyclical to its long-standing real estate related products and services.

    First American also sought businesses that were complementary to its rapidly growing credit reporting business, First American CREDCO.

    First American management initially focused on the background screening industry—an information-intensive business with a heavy demand for credit reports and a relatively tangential tie to the real estate market.

    Current Subsidiaries:

  30. First Advantage Corporation is a growing, national provider of risk management solutions. Our Company was formed in the June 5, 2003 merger with The First American Corporation’s screening technology division and US SEARCH.com Inc. On June 6, 2003, First Advantage’s Class A common stock commenced trading on the Nasdaq National Market under the symbol “FADV”.

    Prior to June 5, 2003, our activities were limited to participation in the business combination transaction contemplated by the Agreement and Plan of Merger dated December 13, 2002 by and among The First American Corporation, US SEARCH, First Advantage and Stockholm Seven Merger Corp.

    On June 5, 2003, HireCheck, Inc., Employee Health Programs, Inc., SafeRent, Inc., Substance Abuse Management, Inc., American Driving Records, Inc. and First American Registry, Inc., each formerly a wholly-owned subsidiary of First American and collectively comprising the First American Screening Technology division, and US SEARCH, a public company whose common shares were, until June 5, 2003, traded on the Nasdaq National Market under the symbol “SRCH”, became wholly-owned operating subsidiaries of First Advantage.

  31. CoreLogic

    President: Parker S. Kennedy Signatory for
    11 Registrants including

    Corlogic (formerly First American Corp)
    (Ellie Mae Inc.)Underwriters: Barclays Capital Inc; William Blair & Co LLC; Piper Jaffray & C; Morgan Keegan & Co Inc
    (National Information Group / formerly National Insurance Group / CA)

    (First Advantage Corp)
    (First American Financial Corp)
    (Isle of Capri Black Hawk Capital Corp)
    (Isle of Capri Black Hawk LLC)
    (Kennedy Enterprises LP)
    (Kennedy Parks S)

    Formerly First American Corp 6/28/02
    First American Financial Corp 7/392
    4 First American Way
    Santa Anna, CA 92707
    Delaware Corp 714-250-6400

    SIC Codes 7374, 6361, 6719
    6361 Title Insurance Filing 8/4/03
    7374 Computer Processing & Data Preparation & Processing Services
    6719 Offices of Holding Companies, Not Elsewhere Classified Filing 10/16/97

    Exhibit 21.1

    Fastrac Systems, Inc. California
    Great Pacific Insurance Company California
    New Arts Acquisition, Inc. Delaware
    Pinnacle Data Corporation California
    Pinnacle Management Solutions Insurance Services California
    Pinnacle Real Estate Tax Services, Inc. Delaware
    Pinnacle Real Estate Tax Services of New York, Inc. Delaware
    Pinnacle Tax Outsourcing Corporation California

    16 Registrants for SIC Code 6361:
    As Of Name

    2005 Alleghany Corp/DE
    2003 Anfi Inc [ formerly American National Financial Inc ]
    2011 Argo Group International Holdings/LTD [ formerly Pxre Group Ltd ]
    2006 Capital Title Group Inc
    2000 Chicago Title Corp
    2010 Corelogic/Inc [ formerly First American Corp ]
    2011 Fidelity National Financial/Inc [ formerly Fidelity National Title Group/Inc ]
    2009 Fidelity National Financial Inc/DE
    2011 First American Financial Corp
    2003 Firstmark Corp/ME
    2011 Investors Title Co
    2010 Landamerica Financial Group Inc [ formerly Lawyers Title Corp ]
    2004 M Corp
    2011 Stewart Information Services Corp
    2005 Tsi Inc/MT
    2011 Unique Underwriters/Inc

    Products and Businesses of SIC Industry 6361

    Guaranty of titles
    Real estate title insurance
    Title insurance
    Articles of Incorporation of
    National Insurance Group as filed 11/7/1986

    1997 National Information Group:

    National Insurance Group, a California corporation (“National”), and its
    wholly-owned subsidiaries provide specialized information services through
    technology, tracking services, outsourcing services and related insurance
    products to financial institutions located throughout the United States and in
    Canada. National and its Subsidiaries are referred to in this Report
    collectively as the “Company”.

    Utilizing sophisticated computer applications,
    the Company has developed special-purpose, proprietary software and database
    systems which provide information services on an outsourced, remote computer or
    manual access basis, enabling the customers of the Company to:

    o determine if residential or commercial real estate is located inside or
    outside a federally-designated Special Flood Hazard Area (“SFHA”), with respect to real estate which is collateral for loans being financed or
    serviced by customers of the Company or for other purposes (the “Flood Zone Determination Services”);

    o obtain real estate tax data from various local, county and state taxing authorities nationwide with respect to real estate which is collateral
    for loans being financed or serviced by the customers of the Company, facilitate the payment to such taxing authorities by mortgage lenders
    and mortgage loan servicing companies from certain escrowed funds collected for real estate taxes from their borrowers with each monthly
    loan payment for real estate taxes to such taxing authorities, and inform mortgage lenders and mortgage servicing companies whether the
    real estate taxes on property securing real estate loans have been paid and perform certain tasks of the Company’s customers on an outsourced
    basis (the “Real Estate Tax Services”); and

    o monitor the insurance coverage on collateral securing residential mortgages (predominantly one-to-four unit family dwellings), motor
    vehicle and other consumer loans and leases and, to a lesser extent, commercial mortgages, disburse insurance premiums collected from
    borrowers with each monthly loan payment for insurance coverage on behalf of mortgage lenders and mortgage servicing companies and perform
    certain tasks of the Company’s customers on an outsourced basis (collectively, the “Tracking and Outsourcing Services”).

    When the Tracking and Outsourcing Services indicate that hazard insurance
    coverage on the collateral securing the loan has lapsed, the customer may contract with the Company to provide specialized, fire, allied peril or physical damage insurance (generally referred to as “lender-placed” insurance, formerly
    referred to by the Company as “force-place” insurance), that generally insures
    the improvements or personal property on the collateral security. The Company
    provides this lender-placed insurance through its wholly-owned subsidiary Great
    Pacific Insurance Company, in 48 states and the District of Columbia and through
    nonaffiliated insurance companies in the remainder of the United States.

    Ellie Mae (an interesting name to say the least and Faith and Begora Board of Director John Stumpf).


    This Agreement and Plan of Merger (the “Agreement”) is made and entered into as of November 25, 2009, by and among Ellie Mae, Inc., a California corporation (which is in the process of reincorporating in Delaware) (“Acquiror”), Mavent Acquisition Corp., a Delaware corporation (“Merger Sub”) and wholly owned subsidiary of Acquiror, Mavent Holdings Inc., a Delaware corporation (“Target”), and the Principal Stockholders. For the purposes of this Agreement, the term “Principal Stockholders” means Financial Technology Ventures, L.P., Financial Technology Ventures (Q), L.P., Financial Technology Ventures II, L.P., and Financial Technology Ventures II (Q), L.P.


    A. The Boards of Directors of Target, Acquiror and Merger Sub believe it is in the best interests of their respective companies and the stockholders of their respective companies that Target and Merger Sub combine into a single company through the merger of Merger Sub and Target (the “Merger”) and, in furtherance thereof, have approved the Merger. Pursuant to the Merger, among other things, the outstanding shares of capital stock of Target (the “Target Capital Stock”) shall be converted into the right to receive cash at the rates set forth herein.

    B. Target, Acquiror and Merger Sub desire to make certain representations and warranties and other agreements in connection with the Merger.


    a) if to Acquiror or Merger Sub, to:

    Ellie Mae, Inc.

    4155 Hopyard Road, Suite 200

    Pleasanton, CA 94588

    Attention: President

    Facsimile No.: (925) 227-7000

    Telephone No.: (925) 227-9030

    (b) if to Target, to:

    Mavent Holdings Inc.

    3 Park Plaza, Suite 700

    Irvine, CA 92614

    Attention: Chief Executive Officer

    Facsimile No.: (949) 474-4703

    Telephone No.: (949) 474-4732

    (c) if to the Principal Stockholders or the Exchange Agent, to:

    c/o FTV Capital

    555 California Street, Suite 2900

    San Francisco, CA 94101

    Attention: General Counsel

    Facsimile No.: (415) 229-3005

    Telephone No.: (415) 229-3000

  32. http://www.secinfo.com/d14D5a.r33sj.d.htm

    Ellie Mae, Inc. IPO
    (Goldman Sachs & Co.
    William Blair & Co.
    Keefe, Bruyette & Woods
    Macquarie Capital
    Piper Jaffray
    ThinkEquity LLC

    Sublease: ADP Pleasanton National Service Center Inc. DE Corp
    5800 Windward Pkwy
    Alpharetta GA 30005
    & Ellie Mae, Inc. (Subtenant) CA Corp
    4140 Dublin Blvd, Suite 300
    Dublin CA 94568
    Lisa Bruun VP
    1/1/2008 – 4/29/2015

    By: /s/ JASON NADEAU
    Title: PRESIDENT
    1980 Post Oak Boulevard, Ste. 300
    Houston, TX 77056

    /S/ Cynthia L. Pilsowski CFO
    1980 Post Oak Blvd, Ste 300
    Houston TX 77056

    BUYER ELLIE MAE, Inc. (DE Corp)
    Edgar Luce CFO
    4155 Hopyard Rd, Suite 200
    Pleasanton CA 94588
    Subsidiares: Mavent Holdings Inc. DE Corp
    Mavent Inc. DE Corp

    This Asset Purchase Agreement (the “Agreement”) is entered into as of September 30, 2008, by and among Ellie Mae, Inc., a California corporation (“Buyer”), Stewart Lender Services, Inc., a Texas corporation (“Parent”) and Online Documents, Inc., a California corporation (“Seller”) and wholly-owned subsidiary of Parent.


    Seller is a provider of technology and services to provide and support the preparation and delivery of electronic mortgage documents including electronic disclosures and loan origination closing packages (the “Business”). Buyer desires to acquire from Seller, and Seller desires to sell to Buyer, substantially all of the assets of the Business on the terms and subject to the conditions set forth in this Agreement

    The Company’s customers are concentrated in the financial services industry, as the Company’s product evaluates residential mortgage loans for regulatory compliance. The financial services industry has been affected by credit concerns, mainly in the areas of consumer real estate and residential construction, declining interest rates, tightened liquidity, and a slowing economy. These factors have resulted in continued lower levels of earnings and stock prices of financial institutions, industry consolidation, and regulatory take over of several financial institutions.

    The Company’s accounts receivable are due primarily from customers in the United States and are typically unsecured. Management specifically analyzes the accounts receivable balances, historical bad debts, customer credit worthiness, and current economic trends when evaluating the adequacy of the allowance for doubtful accounts.

    The Company had five customers that accounted for 71% and 63% of net sales in 2008 and 2009, respectively. One customer accounted for approximately 40% of net sales in 2008 and 2009.

    At December 31, 2008, 70% of the trade accounts receivable balance was due from seven customers. At December 11, 2009, 54% of the trade accounts receivable balance was due from six customers.

    The Company maintains its cash accounts in a commercial bank. Cash on deposit was fully insured by the FDIC.

  33. I am glad, FDIC took the Job ,and I safe my money .
    Bangalore,India will have more unemployment.
    With american people , Corelogic would not have
    this headache .I dont think , the Corelogic split of last year will help , FDIC knows where the money seat.




  35. Why aren’t they looking at nailing William P Foley CEO of Fidelity National Title, former chairman of LPS DOCX who masterminded this great swindle against millions of homeowners?

  36. Well at least they are including LSI in this muddled mess,too bad they didn’t pay attention long before this .Some of this might not have happened to alot of good people had somebody been doing thier job and not feeding people a ration of BS.Familys could have been saved lenders could still be recieving payments.Guess this is a little to simplistic for TBTF.

  37. Does this have anything to do with PREDATORY LENDING?

  38. […] Source: Livinglies’s Weblog […]

  39. If the FDIC is suing as Receivership, that means that FOR SURE the WaMu deal is not yet complete with Chase. Why is this still not MAJOR news???

  40. Agreed neidermeyer, they’re tossing out flotation collars attached to kite string….has all the look of a rescue without actually pulling anybody out of the drink. All homeowner programs have fit into this exact mold.

    Save for the investor class. They’ll be seeing more and more enforcements as they too grease the political wheels in D.C.

    With all of the talk on LL and other sites about RICO and how this and that is plainly against the law, the truth remains a bitter pill, the courts aren’t coming to these same conclusions agreed upon here. And they won’t, as they too know which side their pension bread is buttered on. And none want to set precident that allows the horses out of the barn, even though the barn is on fire.

    We are divided into two different camps here; those who still believe on a win in the judicial system, even though years have gone by and ten million folks have lost that fight; and those who believe we have to threaten those in our legislative branch who obviously care not about the plight of the citizenry.

    Maybe it’s a combination of the two, but I don’t see any change occurring without threats of woodshed punishments doled out to an unresponsive administration and captured legislators. The banking cartel holds the checkbook, and 2012 looms close. The greedy bastards in D.C. are set to whine like piglets in line for their share at the graft trough. That last item is the only thing that can be counted on here with extreme clarity. That’s the one sure thing you can take to the bank.

  41. Can they sue Fannie Mae next?

  42. Finally the Banks are getting squeezed on all sides…

    I am working with a producer in Hollywood on a under ground documentary called

    “Smoke and MERS”

    its about foreclosure Fraud, robo, BS, etc?

    The Producers are looking for homeowners who want to tell their story …

    Here’s your chance to be heard!

    If interested email me uprootedone@gmail.com

  43. As we enter the THIRD FULL “Summer of Recovery” we are witnessing B.Obama’s re-election bid take shape … send his regulators out to give homeowners hope that things will get set straight… or at least throw enough sand in the vaseline that lubricates the banking and court systems that foreclosure filing slow to a crawl.

    LPS is up $0.49 at this moment at $26.52 ,, if you know anyone with money THIS IS A SCREAMING SHORT… BIGGER THAN DJSP…

Contribute to the discussion!

%d bloggers like this: