DV and securitization

[donqII]

I need to DV 2 JDBs. One for a well known OC who sole 3 of my accounts,

and onw who bought an HSN account.

I knwo that the well known OC would fall under the securitization. Master Trust Pooling, the other would be questionable.

Can I include a question regarding this on my DV?

If so, how should I word it?

[nobk4me]

Yes, you can include a question about securitization in your DV letter. I'm not sure it would make much difference (not sure they would have to disclose this under FDCPA), and it might tip them off as to your strategy.

Just ask them if the debt was securitized. And if so, to what party was the account sold, and provide a chain of custody for it. Just my opinion, at least.

[donqII]

Yes, you can include a question about securitization in your DV letter. I'm not sure it would make much difference (not sure they would have to disclose this under FDCPA), and it might tip them off as to your strategy.

Just ask them if the debt was securitized. And if so, to what party was the account sold, and provide a chain of custody for it. Just my opinion, at least.

Thank you,

How does this sound for wording as I already know they are a JDB?

Please provide the documentation regarding the transfer to and from the XXXXXX Master Trust Pooling and Servicing Agreement for this specific alleged account, inclusive of Reassignment of Receivables. And please provide the complete chain of custody for it.

Also.... include a graduated denial or not?

Thanks again.

[donqII]

WOW... All I can say is looking into this securitization and master trust and pooling I am amazed.

It is extremely complicated , however, very very interesting.

I can even link this concept to one of the televised shopping channels.

Yes, I am including it in my DV.

I have a very extensive one that I think someone on here suggested

a while ago and I have been using that one with minor changes.

This is the wording I am using for this point.

X. Please provide the documentation regarding the transfer to and from and between XXXXXX (the "Bank"), and XXXXXX (the "Trustee" ), and XXXXX (the "Trust" ), pursuant to the Pooling and Servicing Agreement, for this specific alleged account, inclusive of Reassignment of Receivables. And please provide the complete chain of custody for it.

It almost seems like there really is a non provable conspiracy out there against us, LOL.

[willingtocope]

First of all, realize that under the FDCPA, they only need respond to a DV with the name of the OC, the account number, and the amount.

Any further discussion of ownership would have to be done in court.

Second, as you imply (and as I understand it) the "securitization" that takes place with CCs is only selling a stake in the recievables...not ownership of the account as happened with mortgages. The OC still owns it. Different ball game.

[daybyday]

dongII you're not suppose to mention the "S" word!

Second, as you imply (and as I understand it) the "securitization" that takes place with CCs is only selling a stake in the recievables...not ownership of the account as happened with mortgages. The OC still owns it. Different ball game.

I have not done any research in this area, but the question I would have is if they sell even apart ownership, especially in receivables, would that not negate the claim of "we suffered an economic loss" used to prove valid consideration?

*

[RebelLady]

My understanding of the securitization process is that the OC sells the debt but retains the account. They retain the account so they can continue to add services charges, etc. to it.

The investors who bought the debts get paid for the interest that is collected on the debts. When the debts aren't being paid, neither are the investors who bought them.

This is just my understanding of it and might be totally incorrect.

This explains it in simple terms:

http://www.paymentsnews.com/2008/11/how-credit-card.html

RL

Edited December 17, 2010 by RebelLady

[willingtocope]

dongII you're not suppose to mention the "S" word!

I have not done any research in this area, but the question I would have is if they sell even apart ownership, especially in receivables, would that not negate the claim of "we suffered an economic loss" used to prove valid consideration?

*

No problem discussing securitization. Just don't claim it makes your CC debt go away.

The way it works is: the CC company makes money lending money by charging interest and penality. They sells shares in that interest and penalty. They use the money they get for selling the shares to fund lending more money. When they get paid (interest and penalty), they pay their "shareholders" dividends. They don't sell the principal...therefore, they don't sell the account.

[hopefulscambeater.]

This makes me curious WillingtoCope, (legally) if there is not some serious legal issue of proving "real party of interest" (in court) as the interest and fees are mainly(or at least a large degree of ) what one is sued for? Why they love the "default interest and penalties they charge" ????

IOW , I am curious IF they can legally sue (and win if contested on standing) for interest, late fees, other penalties which they no longer hold the rights to (in the case of the OC)

It would sure "throw a wrench in the works" for the OC.... IF it was decided (especially by a high court) that they were only entitled to sue for the real Principal amount and no more IMHO

[willingtocope]

That's a valid question...and I don't know the answer. It will be decided by the courts sooner or later. As it stands right now, they sue for the whole amount...and the "but its securitized" argument (to me, at least) doesn't seem to apply.

My reasoning says it like when somebody runs over your toe with his car. Who's responsible? The guy? The car dealer? The car maker? The stockholder of the car maker?

IMO, just because a CC company sells a "share" in the money they make, I don't think that's any different than selling a share of stock in the bank.

[hopefulscambeater.]

Thanks and that is a valid point, though I'm still betting some smart lawyer somewhere will challenge them on "legal standing" (real party of interest) and perhaps if proven they sold the rights to interest and fees/penalties etc. could get "interesting" (from our standpoint as opposed to the OC)

[calawyer]

In most securitization agreements, ownership rights to the underlying obligation are transferred. The question is whether the servicer retains the right to sue to recover the debt on behalf of the pool of investors.

[hopefulscambeater.]

IF I may a couple of questions on that Calawyer

1.) Would in your opinion on this type case "lack of standing" be a worthwhile defense in such a known instance that this did take place.

2.) Is there any cases anywhere (particularly in Fed Court) where this has even been addressed that you're aware of ?

[Bobbys2k1]

In most case's the OC sells the recievables and then keeps a small percentage (2 to 7% for sevicing the account. My Citibank Sears account sold all rights(abosolute sale) which passed all risks to the buyer.I used this in my motion to dismiss and presently waiting for my day in court.

[hopefulscambeater.]

Please do keep us updated on your case, this is a very interesting (at least to me) potential development .

[Bobbys2k1]

The receivables are “accounts” as defined in Article 9 of the UCC as in effect in the state in which the Seller of that receivable is located, which would be the state of incorporation for a corporation organized under the laws of a state. To the extent Article 9 of the UCC applies, it treats both the absolute transfer of those receivables and the transfer of those receivables to secure an obligation as creating a security interest in those receivables. The Seller or master servicer must file financing statements in favor of the trustee for the master trust to perfect the master trust’s security interest in those receivables. The Seller or master servicer has filed a financing statement covering the receivables, and the master servicer will file continuation statements to such filing statement, under the UCC as in effect in Delaware to protect the master trust.

I gave a copy of the propectus to the judge and attorney when I filed my motion to dismiss. I tabed and highlighted the Judge's copy to all the important verbage in the prospectus.

[donqII]

The receivables are “accounts” as defined in Article 9 of the UCC as in effect in the state in which the Seller of that receivable is located, which would be the state of incorporation for a corporation organized under the laws of a state. To the extent Article 9 of the UCC applies, it treats both the absolute transfer of those receivables and the transfer of those receivables to secure an obligation as creating a security interest in those receivables. The Seller or master servicer must file financing statements in favor of the trustee for the master trust to perfect the master trust’s security interest in those receivables. The Seller or master servicer has filed a financing statement covering the receivables, and the master servicer will file continuation statements to such filing statement, under the UCC as in effect in Delaware to protect the master trust.

I gave a copy of the propectus to the judge and attorney when I filed my motion to dismiss. I tabed and highlighted the Judge's copy to all the important verbage in the prospectus.

When you are looking for the proper prospectus, how did you go about it.

In otherwords, from what I understand, the banks file a prospectus of this every year.

Did you opt fot the current year , or the year of default, or when.

And can you give any pointers of the best way to search for these things.

[Bobbys2k1]

I went back to the year and month the account was opened. You can start your search here secinfo.com

[donqII]

I went back to the year and month the account was opened. You can start your search here secinfo.com

Thank you so much for the link.