Government,
Banking
Sep. 14, 2013
Sham suits and securitizers
It might be helpful to show why the banks' putative legal claims in the Richmond mortgage seizure case have no merit.
Robert Hockett
Cornell Law SchoolRobert is an originator of the eminent domain approach to securitized underwater mortgage loans, is professor of law at Cornell Law School and recent consultant at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and the International Monetary Fund. He is also a fellow at The Century Foundation and Americans for Financial Reform, a commissioned author for the New America Foundation, and a regular consultant on finance-regulatory and related matters to federal, state and local government officials. For the past several years he has helped found, and continued to consult for, a number of both for-profit and nonprofit institutions developing eminent domain plans for underwater loans. He is not financially invested in any such institutions or plans.
In a straightforward continuation of the private label securitization industry's "bluff and intimidate" strategy commenced in the summer of 2012, several banks that "service" underwater securitized loans and accordingly profit by protracted foreclosure filed a lawsuit against the city of Richmond last month. Wells Fargo Bank, National Association et al. v. City of Richmond et al., No. CV-13-03663-CRB (N.D. Cal., filed Aug. 7, 2013). They hoped in so doing to frighten both Richmon...
For only $95 a month (the price of 2 article purchases)
Receive unlimited article access and full access to our archives,
Daily Appellate Report, award winning columns, and our
Verdicts and Settlements.
Or
$795 for an entire year!
Or access this article for $45
(Purchase provides 7-day access to this article. Printing, posting or downloading is not allowed.)
Already a subscriber?
Sign In