Banking Fraud Under Attack

Below is a current snapshot of the international monetary system and how legal complaints may ultimately unravel the current global financial cartel
Should we expect more banker deaths as the criminal elite rid themselves of the weaker members and potential snitches? ~Ron
.

Out of Ammo? The Eroding Power of Central Banks

By Michael Sauga and Anne Seith

The skyline of Frankfurt with the new ECB building in the background: "Exhausting the policy room for manoeuver." Zoom

DPA

The skyline of Frankfurt with the new ECB building in the background: “Exhausting the policy room for manoeuver.”

Since the financial crisis, central banks have slashed interest rates, purchased vast quantities of sovereign bonds and bailed out banks. Now, though, their influence appears to be on the wane with measures producing paltry results. Do they still have control?

Once every six weeks, the most powerful players in the global economy meet on the 18th floor of an ugly office building near the train station in the Swiss city of Basel. The group includes United States Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen and her counterpart at the European Central Bank (ECB), Mario Draghi, along with 16 other top monetary policy officials from Beijing, Frankfurt, Paris and elsewhere.

The attendees spend almost two hours exchanging views in a debate chaired by Bank of Mexico Governor Agustín Carstens. Waiters serve an exquisite meal and expensive wine as the central bankers talk about the economy, growth and market prices. No one keeps minutes, but the world’s most influential money managers are convinced that the meetings help expand their knowledge in important ways.

Read More: http://www.spiegel.de/international/business/central-banks-ability-to-influence-markets-waning-a-964757-druck.html
.

Kirch Settlement: Deutsche Bank’s Ongoing Legal Woes

By Dinah Deckstein and Martin Hesse

The late Leo Kirch (l) brought a lawsuit against Deutsche Bank's former CEO Rolf Breuer (r) and Deutsche Bank over comments made by Breuer in 2002 about the creditworthiness of Kirch's media group. Zoom

REUTERS

The late Leo Kirch (l) brought a lawsuit against Deutsche Bank’s former CEO Rolf Breuer (r) and Deutsche Bank over comments made by Breuer in 2002 about the creditworthiness of Kirch’s media group.

A settlement has been reached in the 12-year legal battle between the heirs of the late media mogul Leo Kirch and Deutsche Bank. But Germany’s largest lender hasn’t seen the last of its legal headaches.

Achleitner, Fitschen and his co-head Anshu Jain also know that the settlement does not mark the end of the drama. The supervisory board will have to take recourse against Breuer for damages. The board might do its best to reach an agreement quickly, but the outcome is by no means a given. Bank sources say that erstwhile associates of Breuer, including former SAP head Henning Kagermann, still stand by him.

Nor can Deutsche Bank’s board take the support of its shareholders for granted. A few investor representatives are already grumbling that it hardly need have taken so long to reach such a costly settlement.

Read More: http://www.spiegel.de/international/business/deutsche-bank-reaches-deal-in-kirch-case-but-faces-further-troubles-a-955390.html
.

Lawsuit: CME aided high-frequency traders

Three traders have accused the world’s largest futures market of letting high-frequency traders get an improper advance look at price and market data and execute trades using the data before other market participants.

In a federal lawsuit seeking class-action status, the traders alleged that the CME Group secretly maintained the practice from 2007 through this month and financially victimized an untold number of market participants by engaging in “a fraud on the marketplace.”

The traders charged that CME, owner of the Chicago Mercantile Exchange and Chicago Board of Trade, falsely assured all market participants that their exchange fees and data-fees gave them access to financial data “in real time.”

But high-frequency traders, equipped with powerful computing equipment that can receive and execute trades on financial data in tiny fractions of a second, got the market information before anyone else, according to the April 11 lawsuit filed in the Northern District of Illinois.

The lawsuit was filed on behalf of futures traders William Braman, Mark Mendelson and John Simms, but seeks class-action status to represent other market participants allegedly damaged by preferential treatment of high-frequency trading.

The action accuses the CME Group of fraud, fraudulent concealment, market manipulation and disseminating false information. It seeks unspecified compensation for financial damages.
.

Hagens Berman Reminds Investors of May 13, 2014, Lead Plaintiff Deadline in Geron Securities Class Action

April 9, 2014

Berkeley, Calif. – Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP a national investor-rights law firm, is investigating Geron Corporation (NASDAQ: GERN) (“Geron” or “the Company”) for securities fraud following allegations that the company distributed false and misleading statements to investors concerning its business and prospects, and advises investors of the May 13, 2014 lead plaintiff deadline. Investors who have suffered significant financial losses, and who want to discuss their options, can contact Hagens Berman Partner Reed Kathrein, who is leading the firm’s investigation, by emailing Geron@hbsslaw.com or by calling 510-725-300

The securities fraud class-action lawsuit, filed on March 14, 2014, on behalf of investors who purchased Geron stock between June 16, 2013 and March 11, 2014 (the “Class Period”), alleges that the company failed to disclose key information to its investors regarding the halting of its sponsored clinical trials by the FDA.For more information about the suit, visit http://hb-securities.com/investigations/Geron.

Read more: http://www.hbsslaw.com/newsroom/Hagens-Berman-Reminds-Investors-of-May-13-2014-Lead-Plaintiff-Deadline-in-Geron-Securities-Class-Action
.

BNP Banker, His Wife And Nephew Murdered In Belgium

In the beginning it was banker suicides. Then about two weeks ago, suicides were replaced by outright murders after the execution-style killing of the CEO of a bank in otherwise sleepy (and tax evasive) Lichtenstein by a disgruntled client. Then on Friday news hit of another execution-type murder in just as sleepy, if not so tax evasive, Belgium, where in the city of Vise, a 37-year-old Director at BNP Paribas Fortis was murdered alongside his wife and a 9 year old nephew in a premeditated and orchestrated drive-by shooting.

Read More: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-04-20/bnp-banker-his-wife-and-nephew-murdered-belgium

RELATED:
https://ronmamita.wordpress.com/2014/03/11/legal-complaints-may-ultimately-unravel-the-current-global-financial-cartel/
https://ronmamita.wordpress.com/2014/04/18/legal-complaints-may-ultimately-unravel-the-current-global-financial-cartel-part-2/
https://ronmamita.wordpress.com/2014/03/10/how-to-get-away-with-murder-theft-and-fraud/
https://ronmamita.wordpress.com/2014/02/28/smart-questions-about-unexpected-dead-bankers/
https://ronmamita.wordpress.com/2014/02/08/grisly-trend-of-executive-financiers-deaths-continue/
https://ronmamita.wordpress.com/2014/02/18/bankers-and-governments-joined-at-the-hip-pocket/
https://ronmamita.wordpress.com/2013/05/04/the-big-criminal-list/
https://ronmamita.wordpress.com/2013/05/07/people-you-should-know/
________________________________________________________

Advertisements
About

Want Worldwide PEACE and Prosperity. We are the solution we have been searching for... Free People on Earth will solve our crisis and create an era of Creativity. Be Aware; Be Creative; Be Active; Be Free; and then Share it. LOVE & Wholeness AMOR y Paz

Tagged with: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Freedom-Expressed, Mortgage Fraud
9 comments on “Banking Fraud Under Attack
  1. Reblogged this on Spartan of Truth and commented:
    Thanks Ron.

    Like

  2. The suicides of course will turn to “out right murders”, especially if the “suicides” are not fully investigated, wherever they may lead!

    Like

  3. RonMamita says:

    Central Bankers Are Pushing War To Cover Up The Economic Collapse – Episode 346

    Like

  4. RonMamita says:

    Rob Kirby: Fiat Money is Failing, Federal Reserve Fraud and More

    Like

  5. RonMamita says:

    RBS’s fraud and criminality faces legal complaints

    Keiser Report: Hot Tips from Losers (E593)
    Posted 26 April 2014
    In this episode of the Keiser Report, Max Keiser and Stacy Herbert discuss Americans as the big globalisation losers, though they refuse to admit it because they’ve bought Hot Tips from Losers.
    Meanwhile, in China, the middle class recognize the equally corrupt oligarchic system there also makes them losers, or, in their own words, male pubic hair.

    In the second half, Max interviews international businessman and RBS claimant, Neil Mitchell, about the latest in his high-profile battle against GRG and RBS.
    He suggests the public move their funds from RBS and Max suggests that British law = government hack writes report, then they hold an enquiry, then they write another report.

    Like

  6. RonMamita says:

    YET MORE BANKSTERS “SUICIDED”…

    I may perhaps be forgiven my preempting any conclusions to be argued here, by titling this article “Yet More Banksters ‘Suicided’”… In fact, it could be argued that I am making two assumptions, not only that they are being “suicided”, but that they are “banksters” to begin with. To clarify the latter point, in today’s world, where a criminal British bank keeps sending me form letters to accept their usurious credit cards, and which I keep refusing (using their return postage paid envelopes to send my angry form letters demanding that they cease and desist perstering me with their crummy offers and to participate in their criminality), I assume that banking is now more or less a “family business” rather like the Mafia, and some members of the family may be relatively isolated from the family business; others, like Michael Corleone, might be pressured by circumstances to take “a more active role.” As for so many banksters taking walks off of roofs, yes, I do think this is a pattern, and not accidental. After all, even though all the families are involved in the same criminal business, and cooperate in it to rig markets and rates (think LIBOR here folks), they also turn the guns loose on each other, make each other wear concrete boots for a walk on the river, or throw each other off of roofs, or use the old tried and true nail-gun-in-the-head method. It’s all just Venice, Florence, Genoa, and Amsterdam, updated with a bit of theatrical modern technology.

    In fact, my dot-connecting has been positively tame compared to some of the emails I receive in this regard. One gentleman nicely reminded me that M. Christophe de Margerie was the oil tycoon that reminded the whole world that petroleum did not have to be traded in dollars, and that his “death by lone nut snow plow driver” and “airplane crash” might be payback for the untimely death of David Rockefeller’s son in an airplane crash earlier this year. Well, personally, I have no idea… is Mr. Rockefeller a Michael Corleone? or is the family business run by other more “let’s loose the thugs against the competition” people, like grand-dad, the old family don himself?

    All this, of course, is prelude to the point: there are now yet more banksters who have been suicided, one of whom, M. Thierry, we have already noted. This one, however, is a former Deutsche Bank lawyer, and this one is almost, in a certain sense, too good to be true, or rather, too bizarre to be believed save as a bad plot in a bad Hollyweird B movie:

    Another Deutsche Banker And Former SEC Enforcement Attorney Commits Suicide

    more dead banksters illuminate taking care of business goodfellows style: Another Deutsche Banker And Former SEC Enforcement Attorney Commits Suicide

    Yes,you read that correctly: (1) a lawyer,(2)with the surname of Gambino, (3) working for Deutsche Bank… It doesn’t get any better….

    …or does it?

    Mr. Gambino, as noted, was found hung by a staircase banister – a bit of intriguing symbolism if one thinks about it a bit, shades of another Italian banker found hanging beneath a bridge, and other stuff – but the real question is, why would anyone want him suicided? I believe a threadbare pattern is beginning to emerge, one disclosed in the Zero Hedge version:

    “As a reminder, the other Deutsche Bank-er who was found dead earlier in the year, William Broeksmit, was involved in the bank’s risk function and advised the firm’s senior leadership; he was “anxious about various authorities investigating areas of the bank where he worked,” according to written evidence from his psychologist, given Tuesday at an inquest at London’s Royal Courts of Justice. And now that an almost identical suicide by hanging has taken place at Europe’s most systemically important bank, and by a person who worked in a nearly identical function – to shield the bank from regulators and prosecutors and cover up its allegedly illegal activities with settlements and fines – is surely bound to raise many questions.

    “The WSJ reports that Mr. Gambino had been “closely involved in negotiating legal issues for Deutsche Bank, including the prolonged probe into manipulation of the London interbank offered rate, or Libor, and ongoing investigations into manipulation of currencies markets, according to people familiar with his role at the bank.’

    “He previously was an associate at a private law firm and a regulatory enforcement lawyer from 1997 to 1999, according to his online LinkedIn profile and biographies for conferences where he spoke. But most notably, as his LinkedIn profile below shows, like many other Wall Street revolving door regulators, he started his career at the SEC itself where he worked from 1997 to 1999.”(Emphasis Zero Hedge’s).

    In other words, part of the bankster suicides have to do with market manipulation, and some of them, like the unfortunate Mr. Richard Talley, who woke up to nails in his head, were involved in mortgage titles; and against the wider context of the financial fraud and bailouts, we saw (1) a massive expansion of credit default swaps and derivatives, which collapsed with the “housing bubble”, which in turn exposed the massive mortgage fraud and hence bad paper in the system(which may have been exposed by assiduous title researchers like Mr. Talley). Interestingly, Deutsche Bank’s exposure to both is rather high, if recent Fed pronouncements are of any value. And both the mortgage fraud and the bad paper are, as readers here know, intimately related to the bearer bonds scandals (their own unique kind of bad paper), and drug traffic, and hidden systems of finance.

    So, what’s the bottom line for today’s high octane speculation? It would appear that the bankster suicides might indicate that the whole post-war system of hidden finance is in danger of coming unraveled faster than a new system can be erected, and that various people in management positions in prime banks are beginning to connect dots that were connected by a previous generation, and realizing how deep, pervasive, and fragile the whole system is. It might indicate therefore that they are realizing that the central player in the central banking model is no longer the central banks, but that dangerous alliance between the technology corporations, the intelligence apparatus, and international criminal enterprises like the drug trade. Would all the rival members of the family – the Banksterini, the Technocrati, the Intelligentsi, the Mafiosi – want to keep the thing from unraveling until a new system could be erected? Let us hypothesize further:Would they want to conceal how a new equity based system of finance was brought into existence through decades of criminality and massive fraud by burning the bad paper, and anyone who knew of it, or at least of significant parts of the story?

    I suspect you know the answers to these questions already, and I suspect you know that this means that the banksters, even the “really bad” ones in the central banks, might not be the ultimate bad guys in the play, but rather, the intelligence-technocratic corporation interface. But it is, after all, high octane speculation, the stuff of “out there” Lewis Perdue thriller novels (and a certain one were, as it turns out, very prophetic) and Hollywood B gangster movies, starring Edward G.Robinson and James Cagney and Sydney Greenstreet.

    See you on the flip side. http://gizadeathstar.com/2014/11/yet-banksters-suicided/

    Like

  7. RonMamita says:

    BAP Panel Raises the Stakes Against Deutsch et al — Secured Status May be Challenged

    Fur Further Information please call 954-495-9867 or 520-405-1688

    ——————————–

    ALERT FOR BANKRUPTCY LAWYERS — SECURED STATUS OF ALLEGED CREDITOR IS NOT TO BE ASSUMED

    ——————————–

    I have long held and advocated three points:

    1. The filing of false claims in the nonjudicial process of a majority of states should not result in success where the same false claims could never be proven in judicial process. Nonjudicial process was meant as an administrative remedy to foreclosures that were NOT in dispute. Any application of nonjudicial schemes that allows false claims to succeed where they would fail in a judicial action is unconstitutional.
    2. The filing of a bankruptcy petition that shows property to be encumbered by virtue of a deed of trust is admitting a false representation made by a stranger to the transaction. The petition for bankruptcy relief should be filed showing that the property is not encumbered and the adversary or collateral proceeding to nullify the mortgage and the note should accompany each filing where the note and mortgage are subject to claims of securitization or a “new” beneficiary.
    3. The vast majority of decisions against borrowers result from voluntary or involuntary waiver, ignorance and failure to plead or object on the basis of false claims based on false documentation. The issue is not the signature (although that probably is false too); rather it is (a) the actual transaction which is missing and the (b) false documentation of a (i) fictitious transaction and (ii) fictitious transfers of fictitious (and non-fictitious) transactions. The result is often that the homeowner has admitted to the false assertion of being a borrower in relation to the party making the claim, admitting the secured status of the “creditor”, admitting that they are a creditor, admitting that they received a loan from within the chain claimed by the “creditor”, admitting the default, admitting the validity of the note and admitting the validity of the mortgage or deed of trust — thus leaving both the trial and appellate courts with no choice but to rule against the homeowner. Thus procedurally a false claim becomes “true” for purposes of that case.

    see 11/24/14 Decision: MEMORANDUM-_-ANTON-ANDREW-RIVERA-DENISE-ANN-RIVERA-Appellants-v.-DEUTSCHE-BANK-NATIONAL-TRUST-COMPANY-Trustee-of-Certificate-Holders-of-the-WAMU-Mortgage-Pass-Through-Certificate-Series-2005-AR6

    This decision is breath-taking. What the Panel has done here is fire a warning shot over the bow of the California Supreme Court with respect to the APPLICATION of the non-judicial process. AND it takes dead aim at those who make false claims on false debts in both nonjudicial and judicial process. Amongst the insiders it is well known that your chances on appeal to the BAP are less than 15% whereas an appeal to the District Judge, often ignored as an option, has at least a 50% prospect for success.

    So the fact that this decision comes from the BAP Panel which normally rubber stamps decisions of bankruptcy judges is all the more compelling. One word of caution that is not discussed here is the the matter of jurisdiction. I am not so sure the bankruptcy judge had jurisdiction to consider the matters raised in the adversary proceeding. I think there is a possibility that jurisdiction would be present before the District Court Judge, but not the Bankruptcy Judge.

    From one of my anonymous sources within a significant government agency I received the following:

    This case is going to be a cornucopia of decision material for BK courts nationwide (and others), it directly tackles all the issues regarding standing and assignment (But based on Non-J foreclosure, and this is California of course……) it tackles Glaski and Glaski loses, BUT notes dichotomy on secured creditor status….this case could have been even more , but leave to amend was forfeited by borrower inaction—– it is part huge win, part huge loss as it relates to Glaski, BUT IT IS DIRECTLY APPLICABLE TO CHASE/WAMU CASES……….Note in full case how court refers to transfer of “some of WAMU’s assets”, tacitly inferring that the court WILL NOT second guess what was and was not transferred………… i.e, foreclosing party needs to prove this!!

    AFFIRMED- NO SECURED PARTY STATUS FOR BK PROVEN

    Even though Siliga, Jenkins and Debrunner may preclude the

    Riveras from attacking DBNTC’s foreclosure proceedings by arguing

    that Chase’s assignment of the deed of trust was a nullity in

    light of the absence of a valid transfer of the underlying debt,

    we know of no law precluding the Riveras from challenging DBNTC’s assertion of secured status for purposes of the Riveras’ bankruptcy case. Nor did the bankruptcy court cite to any such law.

    We acknowledge that our analysis promotes the existence of two different sets of legal standards – one applicable in nonjudicial foreclosure proceedings and a markedly different one for use in ascertaining creditors’ rights in bankruptcy cases.

    But we did not create these divergent standards. The California legislature and the California courts did. We are not the first to point out the divergence of these standards. See CAL. REAL EST., at § 10:41 (noting that the requirements under California law for an effective assignment of a real-estate-secured obligation may differ depending on whether or not the dispute over the assignment arises in a challenge to nonjudicial foreclosure proceedings).
    We must accept the truth of the Riveras’ well-pled
    allegations indicating that the Hutchinson endorsement on the
    note was a sham and, more generally, that neither DBNTC nor Chase
    ever obtained any valid interest in the Riveras’ note or the loan
    repayment rights evidenced by that note. We also must
    acknowledge that at least part of the Riveras’ adversary
    proceeding was devoted to challenging DBNTC’s standing to file
    its proof of claim and to challenging DBNTC’s assertion of
    secured status for purposes of the Riveras’ bankruptcy case. As
    a result of these allegations and acknowledgments, we cannot
    reconcile our legal analysis, set forth above, with the
    bankruptcy court’s rulings on the Riveras’ second amended
    complaint. The bankruptcy court did not distinguish between the
    Riveras’ claims for relief that at least in part implicated the
    parties’ respective rights in the Riveras’ bankruptcy case from
    those claims for relief that only implicated the parties’
    respective rights in DBNTC’s nonjudicial foreclosure proceedings.

    THEY REJECT GLASKI-

    Here, we note that the California Supreme Court recently

    granted review from an intermediate appellate court decision
    following Jenkins and rejecting Glaski. Yvanova v. New Century
    Mortg. Corp., 226 Cal.App.4th 495 (2014), review granted &
    opinion de-published, 331 P.3d 1275 (Cal. Aug 27, 2014). Thus,
    we eventually will learn how the California Supreme Court views
    this issue. Even so, we are tasked with deciding the case before
    us, and Ninth Circuit precedent suggests that we should decide
    the case now, based on our prediction, rather than wait for the
    California Supreme Court to rule. See Hemmings, 285 F.3d at
    1203; Lewis v. Telephone Employees Credit Union, 87 F.3d 1537,
    1545 (9th Cir. 1996). Because we have no convincing reason to
    doubt that the California Supreme Court will follow the weight of
    authority among California’s intermediate appellate courts, we
    will follow them as well and hold that the Riveras lack standing
    to challenge the assignment of their deed of trust based on an
    alleged violation of a pooling and servicing agreement to which
    they were not a party.

    BUT……… THEY DO SUCCEED ON SECURED STATUS

    Even though the Riveras’ first claim for relief principally

    relies on their allegations regarding the assignment’s violation
    of the pooling and servicing agreement, their first claim for
    relief also explicitly incorporates their allegations challenging
    DBNTC’s proof of claim and disputing the validity of the
    Hutchinson endorsement. Those allegations, when combined with
    what is set forth in the first claim for relief, are sufficient
    on their face to state a claim that DBNTC does not hold a valid
    lien against the Riveras’ property because the underlying debt
    never was validly transferred to DBNTC. See In re Leisure Time
    Sports, Inc., 194 B.R. at 861 (citing Kelly v. Upshaw, 39 Cal.2d
    179 (1952) and stating that “a purported assignment of a mortgage
    without an assignment of the debt which it secured was a legal
    nullity.”).
    While the Riveras cannot pursue their first claim for relief
    for purposes of directly challenging DBNTC’s pending nonjudicial
    foreclosure proceedings, Debrunner, 204 Cal.App.4th at 440-42,
    the first claim for relief states a cognizable legal theory to
    the extent it is aimed at determining DBNTC’s rights, if any, as
    a creditor who has filed a proof of secured claim in the Riveras’
    bankruptcy case.

    TILA CLAIM UPHELD!—–

    Fifth Claim for Relief – for violation of the Federal Truth In Lending Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1641(g)

    The Riveras’ TILA Claim alleged, quite simply, that they did
    not receive from DBNTC, at the time of Chase’s assignment of the
    deed of trust to DBNTC, the notice of change of ownership
    required by 15 U.S.C. § 1641(g)(1). That section provides:
    In addition to other disclosures required by this
    subchapter, not later than 30 days after the date on
    which a mortgage loan is sold or otherwise transferred
    or assigned to a third party, the creditor that is the
    new owner or assignee of the debt shall notify the
    borrower in writing of such transfer, including–

    (A) the identity, address, telephone number of the new

    creditor;

    (B) the date of transfer;

     

    (C) how to reach an agent or party having authority to

    act on behalf of the new creditor;

    (D) the location of the place where transfer of

    ownership of the debt is recorded; and

    (E) any other relevant information regarding the new

    creditor.

    The bankruptcy court did not explain why it considered this claim as lacking in merit. It refers to the fact that the
    Riveras had actual knowledge of the change in ownership within
    months of the recordation of the trust deed assignment. But the
    bankruptcy court did not explain how or why this actual knowledge
    would excuse noncompliance with the requirements of the statute.
    Generally, the consumer protections contained in the statute
    are liberally interpreted, and creditors must strictly comply
    with TILA’s requirements. See McDonald v. Checks–N–Advance, Inc.
    (In re Ferrell), 539 F.3d 1186, 1189 (9th Cir. 2008). On its
    face, 15 U.S.C. § 1640(a)(2)(A)(iv) imposes upon the assignee of
    a deed of trust who violates 15 U.S.C. § 1641(g)(1) statutory
    damages of “not less than $400 or greater than $4,000.”
    While the Riveras’ TILA claim did not state a plausible
    claim for actual damages, it did state a plausible claim for
    statutory damages. Consequently, the bankruptcy court erred when
    it dismissed the Riveras’ TILA claim.

    LAST, THEY GOT REAR ENDED FOR NOT SEEKING LEAVE TO AMEND

    Here, however, the Riveras did not argue in either the bankruptcy court or in their opening appeal brief that the court should have granted them leave to amend. Having not raised the issue in either place, we may consider it forfeited. See Golden v. Chicago Title Ins. Co. (In re Choo), 273 B.R. 608, 613 (9th Cir. BAP 2002).

    Even if we were to consider the issue, we note that the

    bankruptcy court gave the Riveras two chances to amend their
    complaint to state viable claims for relief, examined the claims
    they presented on three occasions and found them legally
    deficient each time. Moreover, the Riveras have not provided us
    with all of the record materials that would have permitted us a
    full view of the analyses and explanations the bankruptcy court
    offered them when it reviewed the Riveras’ original complaint and
    their first amended complaint. Under these circumstances, we
    will not second-guess the bankruptcy court’s decision to deny
    leave to amend. See generally In re Nordeen, 495 B.R. at 489-90
    (examining multiple opportunities given to the plaintiffs to
    amend their complaint and the bankruptcy court’s efforts to
    explain to them the deficiencies in their claims, and ultimately
    determining that the court did not abuse its discretion in
    denying the plaintiffs leave to amend their second amended
    complaint).

    Like

Please Contribute a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 370 other followers

The Worldwide Awakening
Peaceful Awareness & Knowledge Based TransitionSeptember 11th, 2017
Exercise freedom and creativity for all Earth’s inhabitants to explore ready breakthroughs in Self Organizing Communities, economics, and technology. This is a D.I.Y. project
State Sponsored Terror
The Big Day ReportMarch 30th, 2018
Institutions of crime Big days have come, gone, and come again (Manipulations: Market Exchanges crash, wars, government Elections, and Taxation). Search for what is hidden and for what is not spoken. What secrets are hidden in Antarctica? Be Aware of the next big Day for fraudulent institutions.
RonMamita
Peace Today

Peace Today

RonMamita’s Blog
April 2014
S M T W T F S
« Mar   May »
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
27282930  
All posts here
Whole-Community
Audio coming soon!
%d bloggers like this: