WAMU Shareholders Get Settllement Based on Bad Loan Practices


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

EDITORS COMMENT: Is it me? Or does it seem that everyone — investors, governments, and anybody BIG is getting paid hundreds of millions of dollars or even billions of dollars from all the big players in the securitization (derivative scam) but NOBODY is asking to apply these settlements to the Borrower’s obligation. The figures are wrong in the settlements, wrong in the foreclosures, wrong at the auction, wrong on demands for adequate protection and wrong on supercedeas bond.

When is somebody going to ask the the FULL accounting from the investors on down to the borrower and start doing simple arithmetic. These loans are (a) not in default (b) partially or completely paid off by third parties (c) subject to various counterclaims and defenses that would set-off against the principal demanded, (d) not secured (e) discharged in bankruptcy.

Washington Mutual Settles Fraud Suits for $208 Million


Washington Mutual’s officers, directors, underwriters and auditor have agreed to a $208.5 million settlement to end class-action securities fraud lawsuits, according to court documents.

The settlement is among the largest stemming from the financial crisis, behind a $624 million settlement by the Countrywide Financial Corporation and $475 million by Merrill Lynch & Company.

The lawsuits, in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, accused the defendants of concealing from investors poor loan underwriting and inflated appraisals that overstated earnings and inflated the company’s stock price.

As the housing market began to crash, Washington Mutual’s loans soured at an alarming rate. In September 2008, regulators seized the company’s savings and loan business in the largest bank failure in the nation’s history.

The day after the seizure, the bank holding company, Washington Mutual, filed for bankruptcy.

Under the terms of the class-action settlement, announced in court papers dated Thursday, claims against the directors and officers will be settled for about $105 million.

About a dozen underwriters of the company’s securities contributed $85 million to the settlement; the company’s auditor, Deloitte & Touche, contributed $18.5 million.

The settlement is subject to court approval.

27 Responses

  1. Because “they” don’t want the “masses” to find out…(about you-know-what)…

  2. Dear Mr. Soliman:

    I get the ‘receivables’ (mortgage loan note Retail IOU consumers’ promissory note’

    I get the ‘capitalized’ matter- US Dollars as deposits converted into securities as stocks include the bulk purchase of residential ‘mortgages notes’ as assets and were acquired a long long time ago – Congress allowed the ‘mortgage note assets’ and all ‘capital’ to be sliced and diced includes ABS 1996/1996.

    I’m baffled by the intent during foreclosure, identifying the reconstitution servicing agreement – what does that buy the ‘Lender’? that they did not already possess?

    Why all of the backtracking and filing falsified documents by every robo-attorney? by every substitute lender and/or trustee?

  3. The Notary was done in the state of Florida, and I believe it’s a 5 year SOL. Unfortunatley, we filed our claim with Travelers just a few weeks past the 5 year mark … therefore, class action complaint.

  4. Lisa D.,

    How long is the statue of limitations on the bond for your state?

  5. Hey Lisa D….Most states have an exception to SOL fraud, being “knowledge” and more important the plaintiff has no responsibility to investigate if the perp was a fiduciary.

  6. kicboxer,

    After 11 months, the State of Florida Office of the Governor reopened the investigation of our initial complaint regarding falsified Notary signatures on our assignment of DOT. The Notary in question is admitting to NOT having Ocwen “VP” Scott Anderson (if he really exists) present when she “witnessed” him signing assignments … which is a REQUIREMENT by law!!!

    We are currently waiting to see what discipline the notary division hands down on this notary. Because of the statute of limitations, with regards to the $7500 bond,Traveler’s denied our claim last Aug. – well before the ‘Robo Signing’ became so well known.

    We are now trying to find one more person, also aggrieved by a notary bonded by Travelers, in order to pursue a class action complaint.

    If you and/or anyone has a valid case against Traveler’s Ins., please contact me at mrsdiamond@msn.com – MAKE IT A GREAT 4TH OF JULY!

  7. @ Lisa D.,

    You have to file a complaint form with your state’s notary public department. The state goes after the notary’s bond and issues you a check if it is proven that you were damaged by the notary. The insurance company that issued the bond will then go after the notary to recover the money.

  8. Remember the claim that the “pools are empty”?
    Well, they are!

    from the FASB article
    “Finally, the Board agreed that the pass through test in IAS 39 does not need to be included in the proposed derecognition requirements as the proposed guidance addresses the issues that were intended to be captured by the pass through test. Nonetheless, the Board agreed to provide illustration of these conditions in the application guidance.

    The Board continued with the discussion of ’empty SPEs’. Some Board members expressed their concerns that the proposed derecognition approach would lead to almost all SPEs to be empty.

    Most of the Board members did not share these concerns. In their opinion, even though the proposed guidance would increase the prevalence of ’empty SPEs’, the application of the derecognition principle would depend on the nature of the beneficial interest issued. Moreover, some of the ’empty SPEs’ would be treated in the same way under IAS 39 requirements. For these Board members this was not an issue and conceptual derecognition principle would bring more clarity and transparency in the conditions.

    Finally, the Board agreed not to introduce any additional criteria that would address the issue of ’empty SPEs’.

    The Board discussed the nonrecourse loans issue. In the discussion the Board tried to clarify the difference between overcollateralization and nonrecourse provisions.

    After a considerable discussion, the Board agreed that the proposed treatment of recourse and nonrecourse transactions should not differ.

    Some Board members were concerned with potential valuation of the continuing involvement. Nonetheless, it they agreed that it was more a recognition rather than a derecognition issue.
    Finally, the Board agreed not to introduce any additional criteria that would address the issue of ’empty SPEs’.

    The Board discussed the nonrecourse loans issue. In the discussion the Board tried to clarify the difference between overcollateralization and nonrecourse provisions.”

    read that one out loud ten times:
    “Some Board members expressed their concerns that the proposed derecognition approach would lead to almost all SPEs to be empty”

    there’s your sign……

    thanks for finding that, carie.

  9. What about any of his relatives filing a wrongful death claim with regards to the “fake foreclosure” paperwork pushing him over the edge? If I was related to them I would sure as hell be all over that!!!
    Imagine the publicity for the “cause” if that went national!



    “…Tom Fuchs, a 49-year-old self-employed attorney, fatally shot his two sons, Sean, 15, and Kyle, 13, and then himself after setting fires inside his Chula Vista home, which faced being foreclosed by the bank, police said.”

    These things are happening more and more…when are the ***holes responsible for this madness going to stop??? If that man had known about the “Great Fraud’, he would not have done this…

  11. usedkarguy—what do you make of this:


    “The basic derecognition principle is that an entity should derecognise a financial asset when it no longer qualifies as an asset of the entity.”

  12. Douglas, that is Maher answering his own question.

    I know he won’t say it, but the answer is DERECOGNITION.

    I think the moral of the story is that there is only a “moral” obligation left. The “liability”, as it exists, that is, the liability of the “depositor” of the loan (originator, depositor, sponsor) who took the money from the undisclosed table funder (aka warehouse line) has extinguished his liability with the sponsor. But wait, the sponsor owns the originator. Hmmmm. How about when Bear Stearns goes under as the “counterparty”. What share of my loan did they write off? Securities Underwriter was Citigroup Global (like all the other deals, Citigroup always shows up somewhere). Oct 08 “Citigroup takes $62Billion Writedown…” was the headline.

    Now explain it to a judge. “Well, yerronnnerrr, pursuant to FASB 140-3 and the faulty servicing and reporting under AB1122…..”

    This is where I get lost…..

  13. m. soliman/ foreclosureinfosearch:

    It makes me sick. The whole world of lawyers, government, media, wall street, banks, judicatory system now corrupted,

    just about everything these days,

    is all about how we can,

    get away with it based on some rule, man made rule, which are put in place for somebodies own interest but others have no cognizant of the rules, and thus it is just work and sign here and just work and pay. But you agreed.

    of what is the greatest good for all those involved. It has become truely “what I can get away with” because of endless rules, and more rules put in place to solve the problem, and more rules, and rules, rules, rules.

    Jesus Christ almighty already. How complicated can it get before nobody knows of what what?

    Take your tax code? In the USA.

    It’s pretty crazy so some can take advantage of others and make money because the others do not know the rules. oh, I got you, you violated this rule, pay now, you owe.

    Please explain in a manner that somebody else can duplicate what you write and thus you have understanding as opposed to understanding by a select few.

  14. This is scary, yet so typical of the greedy banksters:


    Big Banks Easing Terms on Loans Deemed as Risks
    Published: July 2, 2011

    “As millions of Americans struggle in foreclosure with little hope of relief, big banks are going to borrowers who are not even in default and cutting their debt or easing the mortgage terms, sometimes with no questions asked.”

    YUP, they are getting unsuspecting homeowners to sign away ALL RIGHTS to sue in the future (when the “Great Fraud” becomes known), by giving them “new loans” and with new PAPERWORK.

    There’s a very special place in hell for these banksters…

  15. kicboxer,
    On 06/30 you said: “We should all go after the notary bonds and use the funds to finance our lawsuits”. That’s a GREAT idea … who was your Notary insured with?

  16. okay Maher, at what point does the “abandonment” occur? At the trigger event? The trigger events forces the SPE to do what? Divest itself of the assets? they return them to the sponsor? is that why my loan shows in a 1999 Norwest Asset Sec.Corp. trust instead of the designated QSPE?

  17. Douglas, foreclosureinfosearch IS Soliman. He’s the man who comes from the inside of this chicanery to guide our arguments. Listen for he speaks with knowledge.

  18. foreclosureinfosearch

    You talk a good game … and I’m sure you could easily put together a step-by-step of how the deals were formed and where Wall Street took your brilliant concept and butchered it at every point where they could save a dollar or a days time… I for one would like to see it.. Your attack on MSoliman seems for the most part to be based on him not being a wall street insider and in presenting things using words that are “unapproved” by you and in a way intended for consumption by non-lawyers,, your statement “But the brilliance of WALL STREET is not going to err and not be mindful … ” and “I paid them well” shows a certain arrogance in the face of sworn testimony delivered at least 3 years ago where it was shown that Wall Street did in fact intentionally disregard your brilliant legal minds best advice and that the trusts were intentionally broken by non-delivery of the notes… quite simply everything that follows that breach is in the end irrelevant. The CEO’s and CFO’s took your creation and bastardized it in illegal ways and abused firewalls of their own creation to sell product to multiple buyers.

    The whole charade is coming to an end ,, it will be accelerating from here on until it is totally out of control ,, discovery is our friend.. If you are who you state in the creation of the structure of these entities NOW is the time to lay it all down for the rest of us… otherwise I’ll just take it that you’re visiting here to simply smear MSoliman who seems to be attacking the same errors but with a different tactic and is getting positive results…

    This is a holiday weekend, you can give us a gift of knowledge.. fill in the gaps for us,, grant us freedom this July 4th… maybe you’ll get a sympathetic depiction of yourself in a documentary or two…

  19. Has anyone heard of Nathan Sands? He is a VP of MERS
    I think he is a Robo signer????

  20. Pleading the right arguments means awareness of the fact the lender is foreclosing on a moral obligation that sit unencumbered. I understand that Mr. Gardner and another attorney are back at it and offering the boot camp. Guys, you have a lot of work to do. Gentlemen – You are so far off and I would hope you could have avoided publishing this stuff. Subject matter content –

    Comments – the originator sells loans (one-by-one)
    M.soliman flow schedule – not true

    Comments – (or in bundles)

    M.Soliman pooled asset, no one on the street calls it a bundle. You’re confusing a bulk single asset as one mortgage. A bulk transfer and sale can occur many times a month one unit at a time .Otherwise you mean replacement files which is illegal under the trust .

    Comments To the securitizer (a/k/a the sponsor) pursuant to a mortgage loan purchase and sale agreement (MLPSA) or similarly-named document.

    M.soliman wrong again – WTF (where’s the fed) not sold to the securitizer not sold under the pooling and late night servicing agreements – it’s what the street wants suckers to believe!

    Comments The purpose of the MLPSA is to sell all right, title, claims, legal, equitable and any and all other interest in the loans to the securitizer-sponsor.

    M.soliman – Stop …gibberish! Wrong again! Not the MLPSA at all .

    Comments for notes endorsed in “blank” which are bearer instruments under the ucc, the mlpsa normally requires acceptance and delivery receipts for all such notes in order to fully document the “true sale.”

    M.soliman – So what? Bailment agreement polling and servicing under mers is a bailment agreement.

    Comments frequently a form is prescribed for the acceptance and delivery receipt and attached as an exhibit to the mlpsa.

    The MLPSA will contain representations, attestations and warranties as to the enforceability and marketability of each loan, and specify the purchaser’s remedies for a breach of any “rep” or “warrant.”

    M.soliman – has nothing at all to do with securitization!

    Comments The primary remedy is the purchaser’s right to require the seller to repurchase any loan materially and adversely affected by a breach.

    M.soliman – wrong; cannot purchase anything back after delivery – whole loan sale contract is what your reading – wrong!

    Comments – Among the defects and events covered by “reps” and “warrants” are “early payment defaults,” commonly referred to as “EPD’S.”

    M.soliman – wrong again … CPR buddy CPR

    Comments An EDP occurs if a loan becomes seriously (usually, 60 or more days) delinquent within a specified period of time after it has been sold to the trust.

    M.Soliman – Wrong, What is this a joke?

    Comments the EDP covenants are always limited in time and normally only cover EDPS that occur within 12 to 18 months of the original sale.

    M.Soliman Why – this is huge …ask yourself why. It is the basis for the entire subject matter and just briefly mentioned.

    Comments If an EDP occurs, then the trust can force the originator to repurchase the epd note and replace it with a note of similar static qualities (amount, term, type, etc.)

    M.soliman – wrong – warehouse agreement – a repo (outside of embedded dereivitives is illegal and violates 1122 ab. Please is this a joke?

    Comments the securitizer-sponsor sells the loans to the depositor.

    M.soliman – wrong ! What do you mean the securitizer sells the loans to the depositor. The bank na orchestrates the sale to the qspe and it’s a spate receivable creating dual consideration. What?

    Comments this takes place in another mlpsa very similar to the first one and the same documents are created and exchange with the same or similar terms. These are typically included as exhibits to the psa.
    M.soliman –how does it take place? Dual consideration – is that what you’re saying? Wrong!

    Comments Depositor, trustee, master servicer and servicer enter into a pooling and servicing agreement (“PSA”) in which:— the depositor sells all right, title, legal, equitable and any other interest in the mortgage loans to the trustee, with requirements for acceptance and delivery receipts, often including the prescribed form as an exhibit, in similar fashion to the MLPSA’S;

    M.Soliman – wrong, wrong. What? The originator is “Combination” that originates for the BANK NA loans under a Sham TPO! The receivables and not the loans are sold to the SPE which is capitalized n a highly controversial method that takes into account a death blow to litigation. The parties fail in foreclosure when its revealed that…..

    I have worked with the most brilliant legal minds on the planet when it comes to this stuff. They were brilliant and knew how to assemble these asset-backed MBS structured finance platforms. They were steeped in securities laws and accounting, most were tax attorney s.

    And I paid them well.

    But the brilliance of WALL STREET is not going to err and not be mindful of irrelevant UCC laws. In MAX G’S deal he’s citing inapplicable UCC code that attorneys want to cram down the Judge for their own stubborn reasons. The facts as they really are. .. No offense. But if you knew the facts as they stand, you would not be reciting the above mentioned arguments for a foreclosure when the matter before the household is abandonment of Trust Assets.

    Expert.Witness@live .com

  21. Livinglies

  22. “Bad Loans” that is a misnomer. There were NO LOANS!

    In my case Nali v. K.Hovnanian American Mortgage, new things keep popping up. U just discovered my hiusband BOUGHT THREE properties, and the GRANT DEED that conveyed what was -I thought my home, was for the LOT across the Street! APN 2854-065-010.

    It was according to public record sold in 2007 for $611, then it mysteriously sold in 2010 for $455- I smell a short sale, and they had NO RIGHTS TO IT! The APN 2854-065-010 was CONVEYED to my husband! and I DID NOT KNOW!

    I just posted my claim on that front door,


    APN 2854-065-010 IS MINE!

  23. As you say “doing simple arithmetic” would reveal the truth…but it would also mean the total collapse of the megabanks…bring it on!!!

  24. Where are the whistleblower ACCOUNTANTS???
    Are they all afraid of going to jail???
    Obviously, the bottom line is the accounting…

  25. When the Loan Servicer sues me for Foreclosure when they report that Fannie Mae is the reported loan owner….SHOULD we also sue Fannie Mae to make them a part of the action? Also should we sue the U.S. Government/FED/Tresury.

    WHO REALLY OWNS Fannie Mae?

  26. […] Livinglies’s Weblog Filed Under: Foreclosure News Tagged With: crisis, foreclosure, housing, News, real […]

  27. Well Neil, I think the main issue is that the homeowner received a lump sum of money, to which they used to purchase or renovate a home. However nefarious means were used for that money to eventually make it’s way to the homeowner seems to be immaterial. But, I hope you are correct in that the homeowner’s obligation has to be affected by these payments in some way. I wonder if any of the cases winding their way through the system are arguing for just such an accounting.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: