HSBC Faces $34 Billion in Damages to Investors


HSBC was sued by Blackrock et al for breaches of duties as Trustee of RMBS Trusts. U.S. District Court Judge Shira Scheindlin has ruled that while the Plaintiff may amend, causes of action were sufficiently stated, leaving the Bank facing at least $34 Billion in damages relating to losses allocated to investors.
There are actually three complaints, but to sum it up in the Judges words,
“Each complaint details the ‘routine abandonment of their underwriting guidelines; the routine fabrication of borrower and loan information; massive breaches of their [representations and warranties]; and the engagement of predatory and abusive lending.”‘
“alleging … common sponsors’ pervasive disregard of prudent securitization standards.”
According to the investors, HSBS as Trustee should have “putback” the loans requiring the sellers to repurchase them or replace them with good loans. That of course they couldn’t do because by the time everyone realized what was happening there were no good loans or any loans at all that could replace the prior bad loans.
HSBC is a relatively small player. The figures for the likes of U.S. Bank and others are going to be staggering. And they should be.
Then underlying theme is that HSBC acted against the interests of the investors instead of for them. No Surprise. And it should come as no surprise that these lawsuits are being processed through the judicial system now leaving the mega banks with a hole in their balance sheets and income statements that just can’t be plugged up. They have faked the whole securitization scheme up until now, but now the auditors may feel they are required to force disclosure of risk of loss and worse yet, force disclosure that the assets and income reported are based upon fictitious or over stated transactions. Or is it time to throw the auditors under the bus again?
Elizabeth Warren may get her wish — the big banks that have controlled the country are about to be broken into little pieces.

16 Responses

  1. Jenninga,
    I didn’t read that you filed a complaint with a federal agency.
    Are you planning to leave the power to keep the door locked with the company you want to unlock the door?

    Open up the door and let me in.
    Not by the hair of my chinny, chin, chin.
    Then I’ll huff and I’ll puff and I’ll blow your house in.

    Well when the wolf got to a brick house, that technique didn’t work.
    So they invented CFPB to huff and puff and blow the house in.

    Trespass Unwanted, Creator, Corporeal, Life.

  2. Bank-ster must tender everything they earned on the property, not just what was paid by the home “owner” as they never loaned any money but made a ton of it off the signature.

    When they tender to the home “owner” there is more than enough for the home “owner” to tender back, if the bankster loaned money.

    This is to keep people from getting unjust enrichment from an unconscionable contract.

    David Belanger, only you know what to do for you.
    But I would never take legal advice from anyone, not here, not anywhere.

    We always say we don’t know legal things and this site is for entertainment.

    If my home was still in my possess(shun) I would rescind and make it known to CFPB, cause the agent has a duty to notify the principal, whoever that is that the agent is collecting the payments for, and if the agent is NOT forwarding the payments to any entity but keeping it for their self, then the rescission stops at them and they have to tender back what they have in the accounting after they make it appear that they have call back all the securities.

    I know I posted that they give the appearance of calling them back but they are getting payments on those securities wherever they are.

    They can tender to you, that’s why the supreme court demanded it.
    Supreme court issues decisions on law, and courts are supposed to issue decisions on fact, but they do not try facts in the lower courts, cause under the War Powers Act a judge does not have to try fact, but they definitely cannot make a decision on law, and they can ignore supreme court decisions, that’s why the appeals court is where people have found their remedy because of how things are done in a time of ‘state of emergency’.

    Strip their immunity, name the people you are in contact with by name, and you can get past the limitations of the control they exert over us.

    Problem is, most are cautious to make a move different from the one everyone else make.

    If a court is a slaughter house, many still go there and expect to not get slaughtered.

    Then someone provides a remedy and people are afraid to try it, they prefer to take their chance in the slaughter house.

    I don’t know.
    I tell you, I rescinded, and did many other things.
    My only good news is that with the subsequent CFPB complaint the employee of the theiving servicer actually produced a letter that was a response from one of their execs to the state AG and it proves in the contents of the letter that I attempted to rescind and the VP said, something to the effect that ‘trespass tried to create a self executing document to cancel the contract, and it just doesn’t work that way’.
    Something like that.
    Well hell, CFPB knows we have the right to back out of a contract, so if I reply that their response is evidence of TILA/RESPA violations, it’s clear there is an issue.

    Only thing I don’t care for about CFPB is they submit the complaint, give the other side the opportunity to answer, but they don’t monitor the answer, they just let you know it came back answered, and then you have the opportunity to rebut.

    If you fail to rebut, it’s considered settled, and if you rebut, it’s not actively monitored, it probably falls back into a situation where the rebuttal is sent to the company, or maybe it sits on a CFPB employee desk to decide if there is a real issue that needs to be investigated.

    As much as there is contact back and forth, there is also uncertainty.

    All I know is when it’s all over, they will ‘wish’ they had just given me the home back because for the complaints I have made, there is more fines and penalties involved, and the wealth they have in securitization is paper wealth, as soon as that collapses, there is no payment, there is only what they have in their reserves and that’s not enough assets.

    They are the stupidest people alive to put all their assets in paper that has a digital value but once they pull it back out of the securitization they have to accept the value it closes at, and that messes with their books.

    They do not want to accept a rescission, as much as these people here don’t want you to send them one.

    Trespass Unwanted, Creator, Corporeal, Life, Free, People, Independent, State, In Jure Proprio, Jure Divino

  3. @DavidB – simply put, if you proceed with the rescission you may have affirmed an illegitimate debt, and are bound by the legal terms of a TILA rescission. You get your deposits back, and banksters get the house if you can’t tender cash for it after figuring in the payments you made already.

    Silly wabbit.



  5. Part of my lawsuit against Ocwen is that they NEVER replied to my inquiries via certified letter (3), which is a violation of RESPA. Frankly, I do not think they have the personnel to answer letters. They are completely incompetent, and the staff (whatever that consists of) are kept out of the loop on illegal acts and practices by the corporation. This is nothing new. All debt collection companies do the same thing. Only a few people are in the know and are literate enough to write letters. They are in the business of collecting as much money under the worst possible circumstances and threats against the consumer.

  6. I also wrote to HSBC as trustee too -they could not tell me much – said not responsible for the recorded assignment – said I should contact Ocwen.

  7. Have any of you posted ever felt with Ocwen? I have sent them many QWR and when I get the partial replies from Ocwen I see errors – grammar and spelling. They ( Ocwen) try to appear professional but the errors are painful and I feel many times they are avoiding answering things on purpose too- so at the end of reading their customer service reply -you are almost in a fit of frustration! Perhaps this is by design?

  8. Yeah Louise. “exception to” and “acceptance of” couldn’t be more diametrically oppositional. If it were my case, while holding onto the original, I’d damned sure ask opposing counsel, or her fourth grade helper in this case, to fix all of the irregularities in that document.

    Otherwise, woe be the fool to allow such Trojan horse vocabulary in such an important document. As that idiot Bush the Elder was wont to say, “Wouldn’t be prudent!”

    Or was that the church lady?

  9. E.Tolle, I noticed the same thing “excepted” which does not make sense. Later there is the word “accepted” and the question is which is which? Something is fishy here: except vs. accept with two different meanings.

  10. why would i have to turn over house that they never own? it was a refi, and they just said they never loan me any money. and i own the home and had a little home equity line that they payed off for me. if they say they never loan us money, why would i just turn the home over to them??

  11. @ Elexquisitor, my thoughts exactly. Like here:

    “….OCWEN LOAN SERVING,LLC has excepted the rescission….”

    Is that a misspell, or an ulterior meaning? Too strange for comfort.

  12. David belanger- good for you- now sue them for attempting to foreclose a mortgage they had nothing to do with. Emotional duress, marital discord, the whole kitchen sink. If they say they dont have any money, they can borrow it at 1/4%, or 0 interest under ZIRP. Go get ’em!

  13. @David B – that’s the second time you’ve posted that rescission. It’s weird because of all the misspellings and grammatical errors – and you never answered my question about having to turn the house over to them if you execute rescission.

  14. for christine,rock, for your viewing pleasure.

    Orlans Moran File Number: 189.5527

    There is currently no sale scheduled for this property, the foreclosure sale that was schedule for may 5, 2015 at 1200 PM, has been

    canceled by our office, we were told by OCWEN to stop any further and future actions on this property. that William a Marshall SR, and

    Joanna l Belanger, had as of the 4 march 2015, rescinded the mortgage contract and mortgage note. and that OCWEN LOAN SERVING,LLC

    has excepted the rescission, along with WELLS FARGO BANK,N.A. AS TRUSTEE FOR GMACM MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST 2006-J1. there will no

    further actions taken , NOW and in the FUTURE will be taken by either party on this property, because of the acceptances of both parties to the

    rescission of the loan contract, mortgage, and note, dated November 8 , 2005. It has come to our attention that the loan contract, and mortgage,

    and mortgage note , has not been CONSUMMATED by the TRUE LENDER , THAT THE TRUE LENDER OF ANY AND ALL MONEY PAID TO ALL PARTY’S TO THE MORTGAGE TRANSACTION, THAT WAS GIVEN TO CLOSING ATTORNEY, WAS NOT GMAC MORTGAGE CORP, GMAC MORTGAGE CORP did not fund the loan contract or mortgage , and the mortgage note. The Truth in Lending Act (TILA ), 15 U.S.C. 1601 et seq, enacted on may 29, 1968, as title I of the Consumer Credit Protection Act (pub. L. 90-321 ). The TILA, implemented by Regulation Z (12 CFR 1026 ) , became effective July 1, 1969. it has come to our attention that the required DISCLOSURE

    were never given to William a Marshall , SR, and Joanna L. Belanger, prior to and during or afterwards the closing date of November 8, 2005. By the proper

    parties, and true lender or creditor of the mortgage contract, and note, Dated Nov 8, 2005.

    P.O. Box 540540
    Waltham, MA 02454

    P 781 790 7800 | F 781 790 7801

  15. I think the mega banks still have some fight left in them, but the end is getting near. I want these executives at the top in jail like they did in Iceland. Break up the mega banks.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: