Apparently i was right in my suspicion that you are not acting properly with the public money and you may not deserve the trust that the public and the depositors and your certificate holders give you (it’s about time that the government looks deeply into your business).
The judges verdict that you have to pay 203,000,000$ is the tip of the ice that is coming foreword see below the decision.
Apparently i was right in my suspicion that you are not acting properly with the public money and you may not deserve the trust that the public and the depositors and your certificate holders give you (it’s about time that the government looks deeply into your business).The judges verdict that you have to pay 203,000,000$ is the tip of the ice that is coming foreword see below the decision.
Wells Fargo Must Pay Consumers $203 Million in Overdraft Case
By Joel Rosenblatt and Karen Gullo – Aug 11, 2010
A judge ordered Wells Fargo & Co. to stop manipulating debit-card transactions without consumers’ knowledge to increase revenue from overdraft fees while ruling the bank should pay about $203 million to customers because of the practice.
U.S. District Judge William Alsup in San Francisco sided with three customers who sued in 2007 on behalf of thousands of Californians charged overdraft fees. In a ruling yesterday, he agreed that the practice was unfair, deceptive and fraudulent.
In 2001, Wells Fargo, the largest U.S. home lender, changed the way it treated daily debit transactions and cash withdrawals so that transactions with the highest dollar amount posted first, rather than in the order they occurred, according to the complaint. The practice, allegedly intended to boost revenue from overdraft fees, led to customers overdrawing accounts by small amounts multiple times a day, according to the complaint.
Customers don’t “reasonably expect that they will have to pay up to 10 overdraft fees when only one would ordinarily be incurred,” Alsup wrote, deciding the case without a jury. The multiple fees are “so pernicious,” he said, that they should be allowed only if customers expected them and in this case “the proof is the opposite.”
Wells Fargo “went to great lengths to bury the words deep in a lengthy fine-print document and the words selected were too vague to warn depositors, as even the bank’s own expert conceded,” Alsup wrote.
Multiple Fees
In his order, the judge said Wells Fargo must end the practice by Nov. 30, 2010, and said that based on a strictly chronological posting of withdraws, the bank must pay customers who paid multiple fees due to the policy change about $203 million.
Wells Fargo will appeal the ruling, which isn’t “in line with the facts of the case,” Richele Messick, a spokeswoman for the San Francisco-based bank, said yesterday in a phone interview.
Wells Fargo’s method of processing transactions has been “appropriate and consistent with customers’ interests and the laws and rules of governing regulatory authorities,” Messick said.
“Many banks process customers’ transactions in high-to-low order,” she said, “because it gives priority to larger transactions,” such as mortgage, rent or car payments.
The case is Gutierrez v. Wells Fargo, 07-05923, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California (San Francisco).
To Wells Fargo , Orix and the certificate holders of MLMI 1999-C1 and Jim Tomson, John Dinan, Amy Natasha and Greg May,
We would like to understand how come after the decision of the appeals court that said that from the 33 loans you were satisfied on 32 of them and the only one open is the Arlington loan but you still perusing after Lee Hall loan (see the 33 loan, case number 02-02849 Dallas County Texas 192 Judicial District) that the appeal court said that it was satisfied see the decision below.
Is this a part of your plan to steal money that does not belong to you?
Merrill Lynch MLPA, Schedule I ¶ 7. On September 13, 2004, after two years of vigorous litigation, the Trust and UBS reached a settlement releasing the Trust’s claims as to 33 loans. While UBS paid the Trust $19.375 million in consideration for releases on 32 loans, the sole consideration for the Trust’s release on the Arlington Loan was UBS’s assignment of its rights under the Love MLPA.
To Jim Tomson, John Dinan, Amy Natasha and Greg May,
Please look at this article from Living Lies and see that im not the only one the caught on to what you are doing playing with the securitised mortgages (CMBS, RMBS) .
Since the investors in the CMBS and RMBS (residential mortgage securities) do not get their investment back (Bonds) they did not reinvest money in these type of bonds. There for there was no money for people to take mortgages if the supply of money dries up the real estate market collapses . The story that we hear all the time about collapse of the sub-prime because people had bad credit to my opinion is complexity wrong because people with bad credit you always have in the bad times and in the good times.
More and more people, and to my understanding even the government, have started to understand what people like you did do the U.S and global economy.
To my understanding people like you are the main reason that the sub-prime crises happened . I think it’s about time that your conscious should start to bother you. You should confess your wrong doings before it’s will be to late. If you want our help we are willing to put it online.
To Wells Fargo, Orix , People of the IRS and the certificate holders of MLMI 1999-C-1,
The Master Servicer and the Special Serviser, sent you a letter (See Below) explaining to you what they did with the money. In the letter they explain how they dealt with the money according to the PSA. Mr Dinan in a affidavit in the Israeli Court stated that UBS paid the money “to compensate the trust for it’s overpayment on the purchase on the UBS pool”.
Gentleman, this category (Overpayment) is not stated ether in the PSA or the MLPA. Gentleman if thats correct what Mr Dinan stated it is prohibited income and it is 100% taxable based on REMIC law. Which the IRS can come and demand the money., if it’s incorrect has Mr Dinan Again (lying).
Mr Dinan, in an affidavit in Israel stated that UBS paid to the trust “to compensate the trust for it’s overpayment on the purchase on the UBS pool”.
In a Demand letter dated July 31, 2003 (See Below) Oerix demanded that UBS cure our repurchase or substitute the loans. under the MLPA agreement dated November 1, 1999.
Mr Dinan, We looked over the MLPA agreement and the PSA but we never found any mention to overpayment. Is this one of your misspoken (lying ) that you admit in federal court Dalles Davison case number CV-0271-B. See Below.
Can you explain to us how did you sue Mr, Robert Kovats in the name of the trust 2010 when it was dissolved in 2008?
This trust was established in Oct of 1998 and the life of the trust was for 10 years. Is this another trick of Orix to try and steal money (if I am mistaken ill be happy to hear and post Orix’s comment).
To Mr Kovats,
I suggest to you to look and check why Orix filed this law suit in this particulate court?
Last week we showed you that to our estimates the trust and the certificate holders of the trust because of Orix and Wells Fargo owe you appropriately 300$ Million because Orix/Wells Fargo broke the rules of the REMIC law (IRS rule i860). When a trust claims that the depositor (UBS) missreprisent information when they sold the trust alone there are three ways to correct it (based on MLPA and the PSA which the governed by the trust based on REMIC law);
To substitute a mortgage
To cure a mortgage
Repurchase the mortgage
As you can see in the following MLPA doc.
A judge in Louisiana decided that UBS did not repurchase the Lee Hall loan and Wells Fargo in Virginia used the verdict. So if they did not repurchase or cure in substitute how did they receive the UBS settlement money. To our understanding they broke the REMIC law, and that happened in October 2004. To our understanding every income that comes to the trust from this date on is 100% taxable.
Wells Fargo/ Orix Witnesses testified in a Israeli court, that they did not find the right category in the PSA how to categories the money from the UBS settlement, that’s why they can do with the money what ever they wish.
TO THE IRS PEOPLE,
I DIDNT KNOW THAT ORIX SUBSTITUTES THE IRS AND MAKE THEIR OWN LAW.
If in any way we are mistaken we would like to hear about it, and will be happy to post a correction.
Since the REMIC trust is governed by the IRS I860 you should please look in to this particular trust and other trusts that Orix are involved in since to my understanding they broke the REMIC rules to understanding they owe the IRS approximately 300 million dollars because the rules said if they broke the rules they are 100% taxable and to my understanding they broke the rules in 2004 since then every income that the trust gained belonged to the IRS. gentleman of the IRS it’s about time that somebody looks into the business of CMBS that Orix and wells Fargo handle. There are two reasons for this 1 to gain income for the government and 2. to maybe protect the hard working people that invested their hard earned money through the pension plane.
The affirmations are the result of increased subordination levels offsetting the expected losses, which are in line with the loss expectations from Fitch’s previous formal review.
The collateral has paid down 9.5% to $536.3 million as of June 2004 from $592.5 million at issuance.
Currently, there are seven loans in special servicing (12.5%), consisting of two real estate owned Real Estate Owned
Property owned by a lender – usually a bank – after an unsuccessful sale at a foreclosure auction. This is common because most of the properties up for sale at these auctions are worth less than the total amount owed to the bank: the minimum bid in most (REO reo Noun
NZ a language [Maori] ) properties (3.2%), two loans in foreclosureforeclosure
Legal proceeding by which a borrower’s rights to a mortgaged property may be extinguished if the borrower fails to live up to the obligations agreed to in the loan contract. ….. Click the link for more information. (4.4%), one 90 days or more delinquent loan (2.9%), and two loans that are current. The largest of these loans (3.3%) is collateralized by an office property in Salt Lake City, UT. The loan is in foreclosure and a receiver is in place. The property is approximately 35% occupied, and according to according to prep. 1. As stated or indicated by; on the authority of: according to historians.
2. In keeping with: according to instructions.
3. the special servicer, ORIX Capital Markets (ORIX), prospective tenants are interested in leasing space. The second largest specially serviced loan (2.9%) is 90 days or more delinquent and collateralized by an office property located in Irving, TX. The borrower has requested a loan restructure and ORIX is evaluating workout options. The third largest specially serviced loan (2.8%) is collateralized by two multifamily properties located in Virginia. The original loan was collateralized by four properties; however, two of the four were sold after the loan became REO. Proceeds of the two sold properties were used to pay down the outstanding loan amount. ORIX is currently marketing both remaining properties for sale. Losses are expected on most of the loans in special servicing.
Fitch is also concerned with the high percentage of loans with year-end (YE) 2003 DSCRs less than 1.0x. As of June 2004, ORIX, as master servicer, collected 74.3% of YE 2003 operating statements operating statement
See income statement. . Loans with DSCRs less than 1.0x constitute 12.2% of the pool. In addition, there are six loans collateralized by single tenant Gateway 2000 stores (1.7%). These properties are vacant and the likelihood of releasing is unknown at this time. The loans remain current, and are on the master servicer’s watchlist.
ORIX is pursuing a representation and warranty claim against one of the loan sellers due to several matters, including presecuritization issues such as loan default, property condition, and fraud. While this lawsuit may lessen or eliminate losses to the trust, Fitch will assume losses based on property valuations until the lawsuit’s outcome is known.
Fitch will continue to monitor the performance of the pool, including expected and realized losses, interest shortfalls, and additional loans of concern. Should these conditions change, Fitch will revisit re·vis·it tr.v.re·vis·it·ed, re·vis·it·ing, re·vis·its
To visit again.
n.
A second or repeated visit.
re ….. Click the link for more information. the ratings.
Scridb filter
When you got the settlement money from UBS you and your representative of your company that represented them selves as Wells Fargo, claimed that you don’t have to follow the PSA and MLPA in this case. because it’s this is a special settlement that will never show up in the PSA, so there for you can do whatever you want with the money. Can you explain to the hard working people that are losing their money in this investment and maybe other investments and from the 19.375 million dollars just showing on the books (distribution report) 10.5 million. IS this part of the profit that went to buy your airplane ?
The affirmations are the result of increased subordination levels offsetting the expected losses, which are in line with the loss expectations from Fitch’s previous formal review.
The collateral has paid down 9.5% to $536.3 million as of June 2004 from $592.5 million at issuance.
Currently, there are seven loans in special servicing (12.5%), consisting of two real estate owned Real Estate Owned
Property owned by a lender – usually a bank – after an unsuccessful sale at a foreclosure auction. This is common because most of the properties up for sale at these auctions are worth less than the total amount owed to the bank: the minimum bid in most (REO reo Noun
NZ a language [Maori] ) properties (3.2%), two loans in foreclosureforeclosure
Legal proceeding by which a borrower’s rights to a mortgaged property may be extinguished if the borrower fails to live up to the obligations agreed to in the loan contract. ….. Click the link for more information. (4.4%), one 90 days or more delinquent loan (2.9%), and two loans that are current. The largest of these loans (3.3%) is collateralized by an office property in Salt Lake City, UT. The loan is in foreclosure and a receiver is in place. The property is approximately 35% occupied, and according to according to prep. 1. As stated or indicated by; on the authority of: according to historians.
2. In keeping with: according to instructions.
3. the special servicer, ORIX Capital Markets (ORIX), prospective tenants are interested in leasing space. The second largest specially serviced loan (2.9%) is 90 days or more delinquent and collateralized by an office property located in Irving, TX. The borrower has requested a loan restructure and ORIX is evaluating workout options. The third largest specially serviced loan (2.8%) is collateralized by two multifamily properties located in Virginia. The original loan was collateralized by four properties; however, two of the four were sold after the loan became REO. Proceeds of the two sold properties were used to pay down the outstanding loan amount. ORIX is currently marketing both remaining properties for sale. Losses are expected on most of the loans in special servicing.
Fitch is also concerned with the high percentage of loans with year-end (YE) 2003 DSCRs less than 1.0x. As of June 2004, ORIX, as master servicer, collected 74.3% of YE 2003 operating statements operating statement
See income statement. . Loans with DSCRs less than 1.0x constitute 12.2% of the pool. In addition, there are six loans collateralized by single tenant Gateway 2000 stores (1.7%). These properties are vacant and the likelihood of releasing is unknown at this time. The loans remain current, and are on the master servicer’s watchlist.
ORIX is pursuing a representation and warranty claim against one of the loan sellers due to several matters, including presecuritization issues such as loan default, property condition, and fraud. While this lawsuit may lessen or eliminate losses to the trust, Fitch will assume losses based on property valuations until the lawsuit’s outcome is known.
Fitch will continue to monitor the performance of the pool, including expected and realized losses, interest shortfalls, and additional loans of concern. Should these conditions change, Fitch will revisit re·vis·it tr.v.re·vis·it·ed, re·vis·it·ing, re·vis·its
To visit again.
n.
A second or repeated visit.
re ….. Click the link for more information. the ratings.
We would be happy to hear your response Mr Thompson,
