Our banks are being sued

[Darkangelyaya]

Received this update per email:

'THE BIG CASE UPDATE: Judge van Eeden will hand down his ruling at 10h00 on Friday morning. Will NewERA's case (attached) be thrown out for being vexatious and / or "vague and embarrassing?" Or will the Judge ask NewERA to amend their summons and try again? Or will the Judge require the banks to respond to the allegations made against them?

We shall see...

One additional (and quite remarkable) point: We believe that the Reserve Bank had two Senior Counsels arguing their case today. The four major commercial banks were represented by three counsel, two of them senior. One SC was Gilbert Marcus, brother of Reserve Bank Chairman Gill Marcus. NewERA was represented by one junior counsel acting pro bono. The entire argument lasted no more than an hour. At an average of R50,000 for each of the SC's, one wonders: why all the trouble and expense to fight off nothing more than a "vexatious litigant?".

What can you do:

Spend 20 minutes skimming through the headlines and articles on our website. This page is the best and quickest summary of local and overseas news. For example: Did you know that Cyprus had to fight off the banks from seizing 10% out of their savings accounts to pay for their banks bailout? The same could be asked of Italy and now even New Zealand.
Join our Class Action and let’s sue the banks as a large group. Click here to join the class action.
Please support NewERA. Become a paying Member here.

And please note: Our annual AGM will be held in the afternoon of April 12th. We are looking for directors and volunteers for 2013. Please come and join us. We would love to have your support. (Details to follow in our next letter).

THE NEW ECONOMIC RIGHTS ALLIANCE'

[SkyWalker42]

Latest news HERE

[sterne.law@gmail.com]

To put into perspective the SC would be far more than 50 000, maybe the jnr rate!

[Blurock]

People or institutions with money will always employ the best legal team just to narrow the odds and to make sure they win. That is regardless of whether they are right or wrong. Did you really expect them to defend themselves with junior counsel? Maybe that shows the naivety of NewEra.

[SkyWalker42]

Latest news from NewERA:


Judgement opens a world of trouble for SA banks

http://www.newera.org.za/judgement-opens-a-world-of-trouble-for-sa-banks/

[SkyWalker42]

SABC3 Special Assignment:

A 34 year old journalist has single handedly exposed a deceitful scheme involving the major South African banks.

Peter Moyo from SABC3’s Special Assignment is a hero.

Maintaining journalistic integrity at all times, Peter and his camera man Casher, flew around the country to examine every side of the story. The result:

THE NATIONAL CREDIT REGULATOR: HUMILIATED
THE SOUTH AFRICAN SECURITISATION FORUM: HUMILIATED
THE SOUTH AFRICAN RESERVE BANK: HUMILIATED
THE BANKS AND THEIR LAWYERS: EXPOSED!

A secret and devious scheme, called securitisation, is being run by the banks and their lawyers. They have illegally repossessed homes, cars and stolen our livelihoods. This kind of underhanded activity has placed this country in a serious economic crisis.

The combined intellect and resources of the South African legal system, and those government institutions specifically set up to monitor this kind of thing, achieved absolutely nothing. In fact, the banks and the Judiciary are actively trying to punish NewERA for bringing this evidence to their attention. [See here.]

Yet, in just one month, a lone journalist has researched, understood and exposed the cover-up.

The implications are wild. If the banks are not disclosing this scheme in their financial statements, then this may be so serious that it could involve criminal action against their directors. This is just the tip of the iceberg.

Peter Moyo, you are a testimony to South Africa. You are the kind of investigative journalist that freedom fighters twice your age fought so hard to cultivate. On behalf of the New Economic Rights Alliance, we congratulate and solute you.

Watch part 1 of Special Assignment here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SbCxTy3cnvw

[SkyWalker42]

Interview on SAFM:

http://downloads.newera.org.za/Audio/

Download SAFM May 31(compressed).mp3 31-May-2013 15:06 11M

[Dave A]

Judgement opens a world of trouble for SA banks
http://www.newera.org.za/judgement-o...-for-sa-banks/

So The Big Case may have been barking up the wrong tree, but perhaps it has shaken up the tree enough for something interesting to fall out. My thoughts here seem vindicated.

So the SPV's may be subsidiaries of the banks themselves!

[SkyWalker42]

If your loan or credit agreement has been securitised, then the bank loses all rights to the asset

1.
An article published by Decillion Structured and Corporate Finance written by two experts: Eugene G van den Berg and Annelies Jacobs called South African Securitisation Regulatory Developments with reference to the South African Reserve Bank state that:

“Transfer must totally divest the originator form all rights and obligations and from all risks and rewards…"

Absolute Cession divests the cedent (originator) from all rights and vests them with the Cessionary (Special Purpose Entity) to the extent that only the Cessionary is entitled to sue for the enforcement of rights…


A securitisation with which assets are transferred by the originator to an SPE through assignment, effectively divests itself from all rights and obligations enjoyed in an underlying agreement with a borrower.”


2.
In the South African Reserve Bank’s own words: Note on the Impact of Securitisation Transactions on Credit Extension by Banks (by N Gumata and J Mokoena, p60), it states:

“Under a traditional securitisation scheme a true sale takes place and all rights and obligations are transferred to the SPV [Special Purpose Vehicle]”


3.
The SARB published its New Securitisation Regulations, http://www.bclr.com/pdf/legislation/...egulations.pdf

“Transfer of assets and recourse
In terms of paragraph 3(a) of the Schedule, it is required that the originator totally divest itself of all rights and obligations originating from the transactions which underlie the assets sold to the SPI and from all risks in connection with the assets transferred.”


4.
The Registrar of banks, represented by Advocate Blackbeard, stated in a letter to NewERA that: “When transferring assets to a SPV, a bank transfers its full ownership to such SPV and has no legal standing in respect of the assets thereafter.

Raymond Dicks explains it very well in this interview...
http://downloads.newera.org.za/May%20Hearing/
Episode 7 - Raymondt Dicks on Securitisation.mp3 20-May-2013 19:18 18M


In the interview he explains how the banks act illegally with respect to the Banks Act
Section 78 (g). The bank may not act as an agent without your knowledge, and how they defraud the people of SA which is CRIMINAL, not civil.

1) A bank -
a) shall not hold shares in any company of which such bank is a subsidiary;
b) shall not lend money to any person against security of its own shares or of shares of that bank’s controlling company;
c) shall not, for the purpose of furthering the sale of its own shares, grant unsecured loans or loans against security which in the opinion of the Registrar is inadequate;
d) shall hold all its assets in its own name, excluding any asset-
i) bona fide hypothecated to secure an actual or potential liability;
ii) in respect of which the Registrar has, on application of the bank concerned, approved in writing that such asset may be held in the name of another person; or
iii) falling within a category of assets designated by the Registrar by notice in the Gazette as a category of assets which may be held in the name of another person;
e) shall not show in its financial statements or in any return referred to in section 75(1)(b) as an asset any amount representing the cost of organisation or extension or the purchase of a business or a loss (including a loss originating from the sale of an asset) or bad debts;
f) shall not before provision has been made out of profits for the items referred to in paragraph (e)-
i) open any branch or agency or any further branch or agency; or
ii) pay out dividends on its shares;
g) shall not, for the purpose of effecting a money lending transaction directly between a lender and a borrower, perform any act in the capacity of an agent except where the funds to be lent in terms of the money lending transaction are entrusted by the lender to the bank subject to a written contract of agency in which, in addition to any other terms thereof, at least the following matters shall be recorded:
i) Confirmation by the lender that the bank acts as the agent of the lender;
ii) that the lender assumes, except in so far as the lender may in law have a right of recovery against the bank, all risks connected with the placing by the bank of the funds entrusted to it by the lender, as well as the responsibility to ensure that the bank executes the lender’s instructions as recorded in the written contract of agency; and
iii) that no express or implied guarantee regarding the payment of any amount of money owing by one person to another in pursuance of the relevant money lending transaction is furnished by the bank;


So, in conclusion:

1.
If your mortgage/loan has been securitised and you stop paying, the bank cannot repossess the asset/house. The SPV can, theoretically...

2.
But because the bank the broke the law [ Banking Act s78 (g) ] by selling your loan to the SPV without your knowledge or consent, and still insisted you pay them the monthly premium, they are sort of boxed in now. That's the reason for the strong arm court tactics and lying by the banks in general. ("The paperwork was destroyed in a fire/ We lost it during a move").

BTW that is not the only law they broke, the NCA and CPA is also involved.