Page 1 of 9 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 85

Thread: New Economic Rights Alliance???The Big Case?

  1. #1
    Diamond Member Vanash Naick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    lenasia
    Posts
    3,281
    Thanks
    849
    Thanked 693 Times in 607 Posts
    Blog Entries
    2

    New Economic Rights Alliance???The Big Case?

    Hi Guys,

    I've come across an email that makes for interesting reading! I can't confirm or deny it's authenticity. I would however like some form of clarity, information or comments on this email please........

    "Up to a trillion rand could be refunded to South African customers by the banks. This is precisely the kind of cash injection that will help bring our country out of debt slavery and into a new age of prosperity.

    Millions of South Africans who have loans or credit could see their monthly repayments reduced substantially. And tens of thousands of people who have had judgments against them over the past two decades may be eligible for compensation. Garnishee orders should be slashed and small businesses struggling with overdrafts should be released from the shackles of debt slavery.

    In simple terms – it is very possible that your credit card, home loan, personal loan, vehicle loan or any form of credit you may have, has been settled in full by a third party, called a Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV). Because your loan has been settled in full (i.e.. The bank has been paid out for your loan), the bank cannot bring your case to court. Under these circumstances, the collections process undertaken by banks, and any judgments taken by the bank as a result, would be unlawful.

    Once a loan has been securitised (this is the technical term for this process), the bank loses the legal right to the asset. Confirmation of this was given to the New Economic Rights Alliance in the form of the attached letter from the South African Reserve Bank (see page 5, para AD8).

    Unfortunately the banks “neglect” to tell the customer that their loan has been settled thanks to securitisation. This is why The New Economic Rights Alliance, a non-profit organisation, was formed. We are here to educate the South African people, and take legal action if required.

    An example of where a bank has admitted outright securitisation, and withdrawn their court case, is the case of ABSA vs Louis Louw. You can read about this case in our legal documents at www.thebigcase.co.za.

    Several
    overseas court cases have also proven that what we are saying is correct. For example:



    There are many other cases too numerous to mention, but legal beavers who want to see for themselves should look up these cases:
    • Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. V Farmer, 2008 NY
    • Francis J. Bevilacqua, Third vs. Pablo Rodriguez, Oct. 18th, 2011
    • FERREL L. AGARD Case No. 810-77338



    Securitising loans behind the backs of the customer is a huge business for South African banks. According to the Banking Association of South Africa’s website, banks are securitising around R30billion per month (http://www.banking.org.za/Securitisation/detailed.php.) These numbers indicate that the banks are offloading private debt very quickly onto the public. This is leading to a kind of "financial cannibalism" where one person is forced to rely on another person's repayments in order to survive.

    If you default on a loan, the debt to the SPV and its investors are covered by an insurance policy. This is provided for in the Securities Services Act. Insurance of this nature (usually called a credit default swap) nearly sent insurance giant AIG under in 2008. When insurance pays out, the debt is settled. So, quite simply, there can be no legal case against you because all parties have been settled. In law, this would be referred to as de minimis non curat lex.

    Securitisation has yielded massive profits for the banks while the customer continually loses out. Because they did not disclose what they were doing to the customer and did not inform the customer that their debt had been settled, we believe that the bank profited unfairly. Is it time to bring the scales of justice into balance?

    Feel free to have your lawyer or debt counsellor contact us for more information. Alternatively, stand by while we prepare for a class action lawsuit whereby all South Africans can join with NewERA and claim from the banks what is rightly theirs.

    Please let all your friends, family members and colleagues know about this letter, and to join us at www.newera.org.za.THE NEW ECONOMIC RIGHTS ALLIANCE

    PS. If you would like to demand answers from your bank right now, below is a list of questions that you can ask. If you are lucky enough to receive a response, read it carefully. You will notice that your questions will probably not be answered directly. Click here for a list of contact details.

    1. Am I indebted to the bank right now? (Please answer yes or no).
    2. Please confirm that the bank actually possessed the money they claim to have lent me, prior to my loan being granted. In other words, did the bank physically have the money they lent me, prior to the money appearing in my account?
    3. Would the bank be prepared to amend the credit agreement as follows: “We, the bank, did in fact possess the money we loaned you, prior to the loan being approved.”
    4. Was the loan funded by assets belonging to the bank at the time the loan was granted? Either way, please describe in detail the accounting process used to create my loan.
    5. Did the bank record my promissory note / negotiable instrument as an asset on its books? If yes, how was my instrument used to create my loan, and where is my valuable promissory note / negotiable instrument now?
    6. Does the bank participate in a securitisation scheme whereby debts / promissory notes are bundled and then sold-on to a third party/parties via special purpose vehicles, entities or alike processes?
    7. Was my loan securitised? If so, please send me all details regarding the securitisation.
    8. Does the bank have a legal right to collect money it claims I owe it? If so, then were does this legal right come from, assuming the loan has been securitised?
    9. Has my loan with the bank been settled by a special purpose vehicle, insurance policy, or by any other party?
    10. Regarding the security given to the bank by me, has this security been sold on or given as security to another party?"
    Last edited by Dave A; 03-Oct-12 at 12:34 PM. Reason: reformatted for readability
    “The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it.” Karl Marx
    vanash.naick@gmail.com
    TFSA Disclaimer
    Local Music with a grassroots touch


  2. #2
    Gold Member vieome's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    joburg
    Posts
    524
    Thanks
    57
    Thanked 159 Times in 118 Posts
    Blog Entries
    36

  3. #3
    Diamond Member Vanash Naick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    lenasia
    Posts
    3,281
    Thanks
    849
    Thanked 693 Times in 607 Posts
    Blog Entries
    2
    My question is simply this: If this was as big a story as it appears to be, then why is it not in the mainstream media? The media are vultures for just this sort of thing! Also, call me naive, but with the advent of the Companies Act 71 of 2008, section 21 no longer refers to the former non profit company as it was in section 21 of the 1973 Act. Now somewhere on there website is a reference to s 21???
    “The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it.” Karl Marx
    vanash.naick@gmail.com
    TFSA Disclaimer
    Local Music with a grassroots touch


  4. #4
    Site Caretaker Dave A's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Durban, South Africa
    Posts
    20,978
    Thanks
    3,055
    Thanked 2,462 Times in 2,067 Posts
    Blog Entries
    12
    As far as I know it isn't a hoax email, and the guy behind it has made mainstream media - although not the headline news.

    Michael Tellinger's lawsuit actually came up on TFSA a few months ago, a Youtube video where Michael was long on hype and short on detail. A few of us had a dip in the following posts.

    And the New Economics Rights Alliance website is for real too.

    I do see fundamental flaws in the argument presented by the email.

    For example, here's a quick question that you shouldn't have to ask your bank to figure out the answer - Does a bank lend its own money to borrowers, or does it actually act as an intermediary lending you money it has obtained from elsewhere, and manages and invests in loans on these funders' behalf?

    If you're struggling with the answer, what do you think banks do with positive account balances - leave the cash to rot in their vaults?

    At this point I have one other comment - has anyone taken a close look at their bond contract recently? There's some damn interesting stuff about the bank selling your debt on to third parties nowadays that I'd think would kill any claim by the debtor against the bank along the lines suggested above stone dead. What I don't know off the top of my head is whether that stuff has always been there or it's a recent addition.
    Last edited by Dave A; 04-Oct-12 at 06:56 AM. Reason: typo
    The trouble with opportunity is it normally comes dressed up as work.

  5. Thanks given for this post:

    Vanash Naick (04-Oct-12)

  6. #5
    Diamond Member Blurock's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Durban
    Posts
    3,437
    Thanks
    660
    Thanked 765 Times in 630 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by Vanash Naick View Post
    My question is simply this: If this was as big a story as it appears to be, then why is it not in the mainstream media? The media are vultures for just this sort of thing! Also, call me naive, but with the advent of the Companies Act 71 of 2008, section 21 no longer refers to the former non profit company as it was in section 21 of the 1973 Act. Now somewhere on there website is a reference to s 21???
    It did make the headline news earlier in the year. The case was heard and rejected in the Pietermaritzburg court. This group are now garnering support and are trying in other provinces. It is funny that these kind of cases only goes to court when the s#!rt hits the fan. Why did they not complain before they defaulted on their bond repayments?

    The arguments raised does not make sense at all. It is clear that they do not understand the economic system and they know nothing about banking. (See Dave's comments) An emotional appeal will never win in court. Unless you have your facts right, you have no chance.
    Excellence is not a skill; its an attitude...

  7. Thanks given for this post:

    Vanash Naick (04-Oct-12)

  8. #6
    Diamond Member Vanash Naick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    lenasia
    Posts
    3,281
    Thanks
    849
    Thanked 693 Times in 607 Posts
    Blog Entries
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave A View Post
    As far as I know it isn't a hoax email, and the guy behind it has made mainstream media - although not the headline news.

    Michael Tellinger's lawsuit actually came up on TFSA a few months ago, a Youtube video where Michael was long on hype and short on detail. A few of us had a dip in the following posts.

    And the New Economics Rights Alliance website is for real too.

    I do see fundamental flaws in the argument presented by the email.

    For example, here's a quick question that you shouldn't have to ask your bank to figure out the answer - Does a bank lend its own money to borrowers, or does it actually act as an intermediary lending you money it has obtained from elsewhere, and manages and invests in loans on these funders' behalf?

    If you're struggling with the answer, what do you think banks do with positive account balances - leave the cash to rot in their vaults?

    At this point I hve one other comment - has anyone taken a close look at their bond contract recently? There's some damn interesting stuff about the bank selling your debt on to third parties nowadays that I'd think would kill any claim by the debtor against the bank along the lines suggested above stone dead. What I don't know off the top of my head is whether that stuff has always been there or it's a recent addition.
    I can't help but agree with Dave! What does make sense to me is that is Bank abc, sells debtor D's to debt collector X on 4 October 2012; then in principle they ceded all rights and titles. In practice if bank ABC then goes ahead and applies for and obtains one form of judgment or another on debtor B on 2 November 2012, then they acting on a debt over which they have no rights. Ordinarlily this would be a problem, but bank ABC and debt collector X are in bed together and therefore have a nice cosy relationship. This is where the real problem arises, I assist Miss Q, to obtain extinctive prescription over this debt in December 2012, debt collector x, confirms in writing that this debt is prescribed and that they abandon their claim, then bank ABC contacts Q and demands payment citing default judgement. In principle one would argue that they sold the debt and all its rights BUT becuase XYZ and X are in bed, they happy to amend the sale date!! What is the practical and most lucrative way forward in such a circumstance?
    “The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it.” Karl Marx
    vanash.naick@gmail.com
    TFSA Disclaimer
    Local Music with a grassroots touch


  9. #7
    Site Caretaker Dave A's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Durban, South Africa
    Posts
    20,978
    Thanks
    3,055
    Thanked 2,462 Times in 2,067 Posts
    Blog Entries
    12
    Quote Originally Posted by Vanash Naick View Post
    What does make sense to me is that is Bank abc, sells debtor D's to debt collector X on 4 October 2012; then in principle they ceded all rights and titles. In practice if bank ABC then goes ahead and applies for and obtains one form of judgment or another on debtor B on 2 November 2012, then they acting on a debt over which they have no rights. Ordinarlily this would be a problem, but bank ABC and debt collector X are in bed together and therefore have a nice cosy relationship.
    I suspect when you get down to the nuts and bolts the debt is "sold" (securitised), but not the bank's duty to administrate payments and ensure performance of the debtor.

    The other wrinkle I see in the NERA argument relates to the insurance side of this. If the banks (or SPV's) have been double dipping and fraudulently collecting from the debtor and claiming from insurance in the same matter, it is not the debtor that is being predjudiced but the insurance company.

    If there is any money due to be refunded for double dipping, I suggest it'll be owed to the insurance company.
    The trouble with opportunity is it normally comes dressed up as work.

  10. #8
    Diamond Member Vanash Naick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    lenasia
    Posts
    3,281
    Thanks
    849
    Thanked 693 Times in 607 Posts
    Blog Entries
    2
    Will be interesting to see what develops here either way....
    “The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it.” Karl Marx
    vanash.naick@gmail.com
    TFSA Disclaimer
    Local Music with a grassroots touch


  11. #9
    Full Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Joburg
    Posts
    26
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts
    Hi everyone, I am Scott Cundill, the Chairman of the New Economic Rights Alliance (www.newera.org.za). This is very real. Most of your questions can be answered on our website, but to be honest they have already been answered in this email. You will note three things about the above email. 1. Proof from the Reserve Bank that the bank loses the rights to the asset in the securitisaiton process (this was attached to the original email). 2. Proof that SA banks are securitising at a rate of about R30billion per month. 3. A list of overseas court cases that show that this idea is not new, nor is it "conspiracy theory" but has been proven in overseas courts. Anyone who investigates the evidence can see this for themselves. However, for the ultimate proof, go to http://downloads.newera.org.za/Ray and you can listen to interviews with our legal advisor that explains the whole system in South African legal and banking terms. This information is free as we are an NPO. Donations are always welcome - how else can we get to the truth unless we dig for it? [/i]

  12. #10
    Site Caretaker Dave A's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Durban, South Africa
    Posts
    20,978
    Thanks
    3,055
    Thanked 2,462 Times in 2,067 Posts
    Blog Entries
    12
    Quote Originally Posted by ScottyC View Post
    1. Proof from the Reserve Bank that the bank loses the rights to the asset in the securitisaiton process (this was attached to the original email).
    That, I think, is agreed and not contested. My question is whether the bank is still responsible for enforcement of the bond debtor's responsibility?

    I'd also caution against putting too much store in USA court decisions in this. The SA bond contract is significantly different to what is common in the USA.
    The trouble with opportunity is it normally comes dressed up as work.

Page 1 of 9 123 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Alliance partners want central control
    By Dave A in forum South African Politics Forum
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 18-Nov-09, 02:05 AM
  2. Helen Zille - leader of the Democratic Alliance
    By Dave A in forum General Chat Forum
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 07-May-07, 09:58 PM
  3. Cronin's comments on alliance split
    By duncan drennan in forum General Business Forum
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 29-Jun-06, 07:58 PM

Tags for this Thread

Did you like this article? Share it with your favourite social network.

Did you like this article? Share it with your favourite social network.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •