This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

The Bank Of America Non-Settlement "Settlement"

Tyler Durden's picture




 

Some curious language in the BAC settlement: “…In addition, because the settlement is with the Trustee on behalf of the Covered Trusts and releases rights under the governing agreements for the Covered Trusts, the settlement does not release investors’ securities law or fraud claims based upon disclosures made in connection with their decision to purchase, sell, or hold securities issued by the trusts. To date, various investors, including certain members of the Investor Group, are pursuing securities law or fraud claims related to one or more of the Covered Trusts. The Corporation is not able to determine whether any additional securities law or fraud claims will be made by investors in the Covered Trusts and, if made, to reasonably estimate the amount of losses, if any, with respect to such asserted or potential claims…” Uh, just how is that a settlement.

Also, did Bank of America just admit its securitization trusts violated IRS laws:

"the settlement is conditioned on receipt of private letter rulings from the IRS as well as receipt of legal opinions under California and New York state tax laws and regulations."

We can't wait to hear for the cash strapped IRS' response on this matter.

h/t Manal Mehta

 

- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Wed, 06/29/2011 - 09:43 | 1411550 Cognitive Dissonance
Cognitive Dissonance's picture

Uh, just how is that a settlement.

It is not a 'settlement'.

It's a payoff.

Wed, 06/29/2011 - 11:26 | 1411893 Zero Govt
Zero Govt's picture

pay-off indeed but seems (for once) some fleeced investors have got a bankster over a barrel with this holy Swiss cheese of a 'settlement' 

Wed, 06/29/2011 - 14:35 | 1412834 Triggernometry
Triggernometry's picture

CD;

Seems more like a bribe to me, in which case the operative word becomes RICO.

-Trigg

Wed, 06/29/2011 - 09:49 | 1411556 holdbuysell
holdbuysell's picture

So, if still exposed to the risk of more lawsuits, what, again, is the purpose of this settlement?

What's behind the curtain?

Wed, 06/29/2011 - 09:51 | 1411565 Josh Randall
Josh Randall's picture

BlackRock is the new Squid (Goldman is soooo 2008) - you know they are going to keep sucking blood until BAC is hollow

Wed, 06/29/2011 - 10:10 | 1411647 Bartanist
Bartanist's picture

Yes.

Wed, 06/29/2011 - 11:32 | 1411969 NotApplicable
NotApplicable's picture

Don't forget PIMCO. They're gettin' paid too.

Wed, 06/29/2011 - 14:01 | 1412682 Boxed Merlot
Boxed Merlot's picture

and Thrivent Financial for Lutherans...

Wed, 06/29/2011 - 09:53 | 1411566 bill1102inf
bill1102inf's picture

 

China Has Declared War On The United States

 

That's not a misprint folks.

Last year, the U.S. Navy bought 59,000 microchips for use in everything from missiles to transponders and all of them turned out to be counterfeits from China.

Wired reports the chips weren't only low-quality fakes, they had been made with a "back-door" and could have been remotely shut down at any time.

Got it folks?  Let me simplify that for you.

The Chinese sold to The American Navy microchips that contained "back doors" that allowed them to shut down their functionality remotely.  That is, they attacked our military through back-door, surreptitious means.

That's a declaration of war folks.

When do we stop sucking off the Chinese and tell them to pound sand on their alleged "full faith and credit" US Treasuries?  Will it be before or after they formally attack America and her military?

If the latter how can you argue that this event did not already occur? -- KARL DENINGER

 

Wed, 06/29/2011 - 10:00 | 1411606 Urban Redneck
Urban Redneck's picture

Soft warfare is a bitch, but Americans should rest assured because they have Timmy & Eric to protect them... 

Wed, 06/29/2011 - 10:08 | 1411621 Cognitive Dissonance
Cognitive Dissonance's picture

That is, they attacked our military through back-door, surreptitious means.

So you fully identify with the US military that is paid and used in your name, but not under your control. Keep coming dude. A week here on ZH isn't long enough for you to break through that fog bank you're in.

Wed, 06/29/2011 - 10:06 | 1411624 oddjob
oddjob's picture

So I suppose Karl was just fine with this.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/1769642.stm

 

 

Wed, 06/29/2011 - 10:11 | 1411654 Cognitive Dissonance
Cognitive Dissonance's picture

It's only wrong when they do it.

Get with it oddjob, nationalism is the new fiat opiate.

Wed, 06/29/2011 - 11:00 | 1411787 Careless Whisper
Careless Whisper's picture

but microsoft swore they didn't put a backdoor in windows 7 for the nsaaa. they wouldn't lie.

http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9141182/Microsoft_denies_it_built...

 

Wed, 06/29/2011 - 11:06 | 1411810 Thisson
Thisson's picture

Am I the only one who found it disturbing that the Chinese had troops in Seattle and/or Texas:

According to the FT, the plane was built at the Boeing factory in Seattle, then fitted out with VIP features by other companies in Texas.  The construction was under 24-hour Chinese surveillance throughout, with Chinese troops posted at the hangar, and the paper says that Beijing has now launched an investigation into how the work was handled.

Wed, 06/29/2011 - 10:54 | 1411762 DaveyJones
DaveyJones's picture

even worse, the chips are made from flouride

Wed, 06/29/2011 - 11:09 | 1411806 rufusbird
rufusbird's picture

Chinese say "oops! So sorry! Back door already built into chip design we stole from Microsoft!"

 

Wed, 06/29/2011 - 09:52 | 1411568 The Fonz
The Fonz's picture

It's also going up... bleh. So what don't we know?

Wed, 06/29/2011 - 09:51 | 1411576 Miss Expectations
Miss Expectations's picture

The Way of the Lehman.  Who wants BAC gone? 

Wed, 06/29/2011 - 09:56 | 1411588 Caviar Emptor
Caviar Emptor's picture

Children, children....this is all good! We here at BAC are very very sympathetic to the US economy. Not that it matters to our bottom line or salaries and expense accounts. We have bailout funds and expected future bailout funds that will keep us running into the next decade

Wed, 06/29/2011 - 09:56 | 1411590 wombats
wombats's picture

Bernank and Geithner will just print more and giveout more handouts in a TARP-like fashion if necessary to keep the TBTF BAC from slipping too far.

Wed, 06/29/2011 - 10:01 | 1411595 Bastiat
Bastiat's picture

That's more like cutting off a chunk of flesh to throw at the pursuing wolves.

Wed, 06/29/2011 - 10:09 | 1411612 TruthInSunshine
TruthInSunshine's picture

If the putbacks succeeded, there's a great argument to be made that the sellers of the MBS didn't own, legally speaking, what they claimed?

Now, if that's true, and I'd argue that it is, or that a strong claim can be made that it is, forget the investors of these MBS for a moment:  Show me the note is alive and better than ever from the perspective of any mortgagor (borrower) having MERS in their chain of title.

This is the shot heard across the banking/lending world. The loading of the cartridge occurred with court after court essentially stating that MERS is a legal non-entity and that it has no ability to assign anything in terms of producing a legally binding result.

NO. THERE’S NO LIFE AT MERS

On April 7, 2010, in the Superior Court of New Jersey, MERS Treasurer and Secretary William C. Hultman gave an oral sworn video/telephone deposition in the case of Bank Of New York v. Ukpe.:

Q Do the assistant secretaries — first off, are
you a salaried employee of MERS?
A No.

Q Are you a salaried employee of MERS Corp,
Inc.?
A Yes.

Q Are any of the employees of MERS, Inc.
salaried employees?
A I don’t understand your question.

Q Does anyone get a paycheck, if they are an
employee of MERS, Inc., do they get a paycheck from
Mercer, Inc.?
A There is no MERS, Inc.

Q I thought, sir, there’s a company that was
formed January 1, 1999, Mortgage Electronic Registration
Systems, Inc. Does it have paid employees?
A No, it does not.

Q Does it have employees?
A No.

Q Does MERS have any employees?
A Did they ever have any? I couldn’t hear you.

Q Does MERS have any employees currently?
A No.

Q In the last five years has MERS had any
employees?
A No.

<SNIP>

Q How many assistant secretaries have you
appointed pursuant to the April 9, 1998 resolution; how
many assistant secretaries of MERS have you appointed?
A I don’t know that number.

Q Approximately?
A I wouldn’t even begin to be able to tell you
right now.

Q Is it in the thousands?
A Yes.

Q Have you been doing this all around the
country in every state in the country?
A Yes.

Q And all these officers I understand are unpaid
officers of MERS?
A Yes.

Q And there’s no live person who is an employee
of MERS that they report to, is that correct, who is an employee?
A There are no employees of MERS.

Wed, 06/29/2011 - 11:15 | 1411852 Thisson
Thisson's picture

If the putbacks succeeded, there's a great argument to be made that the sellers of the MBS didn't own, legally speaking, what they claimed?

No.  The putbacks are a separate issue from ownership/chain of title.  The agreements essentially require that defective loans be either replaced with nondefective collateral or refunded.

Ultimately, all of the transfers done in the name of MERS will have to be done over again in the correct manner and properly recorded, unless there is some sort of legislative/executive action to ratify the MERS holdings (I'm not sure this is even a lawful possibility, but laws seem to be "optional" these days).  Meanwhile, the adverse possession clock may be running on some of these properties.

Wed, 06/29/2011 - 11:27 | 1411932 TruthInSunshine
TruthInSunshine's picture

The loans are "defective" as you worded it precisely because they didn't do what they purported to, to wit, convey a title interest that was legally effective and reliable in the underlying asset.

What other basis could there be for the legal action requiring (just the beginning), what is essentially a return for a refund action?

Wed, 06/29/2011 - 13:39 | 1412592 ejhickey
ejhickey's picture

so it looks like the price of countrywide was a little higher than what BOA paid in 2008

Wed, 06/29/2011 - 15:32 | 1413036 SwingForce
SwingForce's picture

Cocksucker Bernanke just paid for the extra fine, raising the Debit Card swipe fee. How blatant does this racketeering need to be before somebody cuts of Ben's fingers???

Thu, 06/30/2011 - 11:45 | 1415698 CoolBeans
CoolBeans's picture

Hmmm...while many other folks are struggling to get their mortgage co. to give them a modification - I know of a big bank scenario where the mortgage co. is practically begging the homeowner to fill out new paperwork.  Big house.  It seems as though they are anxious for a new contract to be signed to help cover the prior contract - which is full of fraud....including signatures that are not the borrower's and even a mortgage co signature on one doc that is litterally a x's.  Seriously - signature line on verification of income, etc. reads, "XXXXXXX" as the authorized signor.  Crazy stuff - Hey, if I was being paid an hourly wage by a mortgage co - Hell if I'd sign my actual name to a doc I knew was full of false data. 

 Anyway, maybe smaller property owners aren't seeing this kind of activity because the bank/investors don't want any more of these properties on their books -- Curious if anyone else has seen similar anxious attempts to cover old loan docs w/new from a company that is under "review" (yeah, sure) by Feds.  The homeowner in this case is not signing anything new and is just "sitting" right now - per advice given (unsure what that was other than "don't sign anything new").  Will be curious to see what the mortgage co. does next...

How I wish these bankers would simply implode....

 

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!