"Banks and the securitization industry have been spinning the Ibanez decision as hard as they can, even going so far as to put forward Baghdad Bob style claims that the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruling said that mortgage assignment in blank worked, when a reading of the ruling show the polar opposite.
Industry participants have been claiming that the ruling is no big deal, since Massachusetts law has some quirks and the securitization documents on the two mortgages at issue were a real mess.
One of the court’s big beefs was that even if you were to try to use the pooling & servicing agreement to prove that the loans in question belonged to the securitzations in question, the loan schedules in question fell far short of providing the necessary detail to identify the particular properties (address, name of borrower, loan number or servicing number). Georgetown law professor Adam Levitin has done a bit of digging to see if the securitization industry defenders’ claims, that most mortgages in RMBS meet the documentation standard set forth in Ibanez, actually holds up. He find that many deals fail to meet the decisions’ requirements:..."
at http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/01/more-reasons-why-banks-should-worry-about-ibanez-decision.html
No comments:
Post a Comment