Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Judges Take Notice of Subprime Mortgage Crisis
Just in case you missed it, here is the most recent addition to the list of famous last words: 'Your honor, you just don't understand how things work.' According to press reports, that is how Judge Christopher A. Boyko of the Federal District
Court in Cleveland, OH, characterized the foreclosing lender's counsel response to the judge's request for proof that the lender, Deutsche Bank, actually owned the 14 unpaid mortgages that the lender was asking the court to foreclose.
The mortgages were part of a package of thousands of such loans purchased as a part of a Structured Investment Vehicle ('SIV') by Deutsche Bank. Apparently, somewhere between the closing, the packaging of the mortgages, their securitization by the packager, and the sale of the package to Deutsche Bank, the original mortgage documents had been lost. The only thing that Deutsche Bank's counsel could produce was a document showing an 'intent to convey the mortgages.' In dismissing Deutsche Bank's foreclosure action, an exasperated Judge Boyko wrote that the banks 'seem to adopt the attitude that since they have been doing this for so long unchallenged, this practice equates with legal compliance.' (See Amir Efrati, The Wall Street Journal, Nov. 30, 2007, p. B6, and Gretchen Morgenson, 'Foreclosures Hit a Snag for Lenders,' The New York Times, Nov. 15, 2007)
Once word of Judge Boyko's decision reached the popular press, the blogosphere immediately lit up. One participant commented that lenders should be held to task and required to produce ownership of mortgages because such ownership is 'the heart of Western property rights since the Magna Carta.' (digg.com) Other comments were more inflammatory.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Anti-Assignment Override Provisions
UCC Sections 9406(d) and 9408(a) are one of the most powerful, yet least understood, sections of the Uniform Commercial Code. On their face, they appear to override anti-assignment provisions in agreements that would limit the grant of a security interest. But do these sections really work?