Oops … CDO Owners can’t find the deed

[TheBreeze]

As if the owners of CDOs weren’t screwed enough already:

Judge Christopher A. Boyko of Federal District Court in Cleveland dismissed 14 foreclosure cases brought on behalf of mortgage investors, ruling that they had failed to prove that they owned the properties they were trying to seize.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/15/business/15lend.html?_r=1&ref=business&oref=slogin

That’s got to smart a little.

[4plexowner]

All of the paper that has been written on top of real estate mortgages (both residential and commercial) is worthless trash

This judge appears to agree with me

[4plexowner]

All of the paper that has been written on top of real estate mortgages (both residential and commercial) is worthless trash

This judge appears to agree with me

[4plexowner]

All of the paper that has been written on top of real estate mortgages (both residential and commercial) is worthless trash

This judge appears to agree with me

[4plexowner]

All of the paper that has been written on top of real estate mortgages (both residential and commercial) is worthless trash

This judge appears to agree with me

[4plexowner]

All of the paper that has been written on top of real estate mortgages (both residential and commercial) is worthless trash

This judge appears to agree with me

[Daniel]

Hi folks,

Tanta at Calculated Risk has written no less than 3 very long and informative posts on this issue over the past couple of days. Highly recommended reading for anyone who wants to know how these things work. If you don’t care that much about technicalities, and only want to know the conclusion, here it is: this case is not such a big deal, and it’s been blown out of proportion by some uninformed blog writer, duly followed by the NYT. It’s simply a case of Deutsche Bank mishandling some paperwork. The lawsuit was dismissed “without prejudice”, which means DB can re-file when they get their paperwork sorted out (which they undoubtely will). End of story.

[Daniel]

Hi folks,

Tanta at Calculated Risk has written no less than 3 very long and informative posts on this issue over the past couple of days. Highly recommended reading for anyone who wants to know how these things work. If you don’t care that much about technicalities, and only want to know the conclusion, here it is: this case is not such a big deal, and it’s been blown out of proportion by some uninformed blog writer, duly followed by the NYT. It’s simply a case of Deutsche Bank mishandling some paperwork. The lawsuit was dismissed “without prejudice”, which means DB can re-file when they get their paperwork sorted out (which they undoubtely will). End of story.

[Daniel]

Hi folks,

Tanta at Calculated Risk has written no less than 3 very long and informative posts on this issue over the past couple of days. Highly recommended reading for anyone who wants to know how these things work. If you don’t care that much about technicalities, and only want to know the conclusion, here it is: this case is not such a big deal, and it’s been blown out of proportion by some uninformed blog writer, duly followed by the NYT. It’s simply a case of Deutsche Bank mishandling some paperwork. The lawsuit was dismissed “without prejudice”, which means DB can re-file when they get their paperwork sorted out (which they undoubtely will). End of story.

[Daniel]

Hi folks,

Tanta at Calculated Risk has written no less than 3 very long and informative posts on this issue over the past couple of days. Highly recommended reading for anyone who wants to know how these things work. If you don’t care that much about technicalities, and only want to know the conclusion, here it is: this case is not such a big deal, and it’s been blown out of proportion by some uninformed blog writer, duly followed by the NYT. It’s simply a case of Deutsche Bank mishandling some paperwork. The lawsuit was dismissed “without prejudice”, which means DB can re-file when they get their paperwork sorted out (which they undoubtely will). End of story.

[Daniel]

Hi folks,

Tanta at Calculated Risk has written no less than 3 very long and informative posts on this issue over the past couple of days. Highly recommended reading for anyone who wants to know how these things work. If you don’t care that much about technicalities, and only want to know the conclusion, here it is: this case is not such a big deal, and it’s been blown out of proportion by some uninformed blog writer, duly followed by the NYT. It’s simply a case of Deutsche Bank mishandling some paperwork. The lawsuit was dismissed “without prejudice”, which means DB can re-file when they get their paperwork sorted out (which they undoubtely will). End of story.

[patientlywaiting]

Good point, Daniel.

But the example means the industry is in disarray. The risk management systems did not work. And now the asset management systems aren’t working either. Fixing them will cost money and more losses.

How much is the monthly carrying cost on 1 house? Multiply that by millions and by several months.

[patientlywaiting]

Good point, Daniel.

But the example means the industry is in disarray. The risk management systems did not work. And now the asset management systems aren’t working either. Fixing them will cost money and more losses.

How much is the monthly carrying cost on 1 house? Multiply that by millions and by several months.

[patientlywaiting]

Good point, Daniel.

But the example means the industry is in disarray. The risk management systems did not work. And now the asset management systems aren’t working either. Fixing them will cost money and more losses.

How much is the monthly carrying cost on 1 house? Multiply that by millions and by several months.

[patientlywaiting]

Good point, Daniel.

But the example means the industry is in disarray. The risk management systems did not work. And now the asset management systems aren’t working either. Fixing them will cost money and more losses.

How much is the monthly carrying cost on 1 house? Multiply that by millions and by several months.

[Author]

Posts