JusticeLeague: “Move over Equifax…
- At just the two biggest U.S. banks — J.P. Morgan Chase and Bank of America — cybersecurity budgets have swollen to a combined $1.4 billion a year.
- The industry has been employing everything from low-tech reminders about passwords posted in offices to sophisticated data analytics and risk-management programs to stay ahead of criminals.
- “The threat of cyber security may very well be the biggest threat to the U.S. financial system,” Dimon said in an April letter to shareholders.
It’s among the worst fears of any bank CEO.”
via Jamie Dimon’s worst fears for the banking industry realized with Capital One data hack
“People forget that Deutsch issued a directive to all servicers to cease using its name when initiating foreclosures. The investment banks fought back and apparently paid Deutsch more money in fees for the use of its name. That was around 2011.”
LivingLies: “U.S. Bank as Trustee: As Trustee, U.S. Bank Global Corporate Trust Services performs the following responsibilities:
• Holds an interest in the mortgage loans for the benefit of investors [Editor’s note: Not really true. It holds a claim to bare legal title to loan agreement for the benefit of the investment bank]
• Maintains investors/securities holder records [Editor’s Note: Also not true. Only the investment bank maintains such records. US Bank has no access to the names of investors nor any transactions ever conducted with them in the name of any trust in which US Bank is named as trustee.]
• Collects payments from the Servicer [Editor’s note: also not true. US Bank handles no money in connection with any account or any borrower or any servicer and does not disburse them. That is done by the party named as Master Servicer although that term is probably also a misrepresentation.]
• Distributes payments to the investors/ securities holder [Editor’s note: Not true see above.]”
Source: US Bank and Deutsch Agree That They Should NOT be named as Plaintiffs in Foreclosures
LivingLies: “The time may now be coming where the court systems and Federal and State legislatures must come to terms with two inescapable legal facts:
(1) That borrowers who sent TILA rescission notices — and particularly those who sent them within 3 years of consummation of the mortgage — still own the land that was deemed “lost” in foreclosure.
(2) That such borrowers possess valid claims to recover title, possession and money damages.
It was bound to happen and now it has. In one case, a judge is asking the following questions and inviting briefs on the following subjects: What is the effect of the failure to return consideration upon an attempt to exercise the right of TILA Rescission?
What is the effect on rescission if the borrower continues to pay?
Does TILA pertain to refinancing?”
Source: Finally a Judge Asks the right Questions about TILA Rescission and Invites Briefs