How many times have you seen opposing counsel argue in a Motion to Dismiss that MERSCORP, Inc. should not be a Defendant in the lawsuit? They allege, for example: “Plaintiffs do not allege that they had any dealings with Defendant MERSCORP, nor that Defendant MERSCORP is a party to or drafted any of the documents relative to their loan, or took any action against them?” Well, folks – MERS and MERSCORP, Inc. are apparently one-in-the-same… it appears to be a “dba” at best…. New evidence, anybody? [Ed. note: I stand corrected referring to the comment below; not even “dba” is adequate. See AMERICA WHOLESALE LENDER v. PAGANO stating,“We conclude that, because a trade name is not an entity with legal capacity to sue, the corporation has no standing to litigate the merits of the case.” Check your state and local case law.]
The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office documents a MERS “name change” …
Or how do you like this one: “Plaintiffs fail to allege any conduct that would warrant the piercing of the corporate veil.” It appears alleging anything against MERS is the same as MERSCORP, Inc. and that’s where the money is – bases covered!
Pursuant to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, on May 8, 2003 Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. changed its name to MERSCORP, Inc. Here is a copy of the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office document of the MERS name change: assignment-tm-2731-0198 (1)….suitable for download… “MERS, MERS BoMERS, BoNANA, Fanna, FoMERS, Fe, Fi, Fo MERS – MERSCORP… the name change….”
And here is the MERS Corporation Certificate of Amendment filed with the U.S. Patent and Trademark office:
And the Certification of Authentication from the State of Delaware: