UPDATE 1-Mass. court rejects developer bid in transfer case
By Ross KerberBOSTON, Oct 18 (Reuters) - A developer who acquired
property in a faulty transfer cannot sue the original owner,
Massachusetts’ highest court ruled on Tuesday, the second time
it has sided with a homeowner in a high-profile housing case
this year.The decision by the state’s Supreme Judicial Court turned
on technical reasons and left the developer facing the prospect
of suing banks and title companies that had left him with
faulty documentation, rather than the original homeowner who
had been foreclosed upon.The result could make it easier for individuals to fend off
financial companies in similar cases elsewhere, said an
attorney who had argued against the developer’s case.”The banks are the ones that violated the law, so why
should homeowners have to pay for the violations?” said Max
Weinstein, an attorney and Harvard Law School lecturer who had
filed a friend-of-the-court brief on behalf of the homeowner.Housing industry executives had previously warned a ruling
against the developer, Francis Bevilacqua, could destabilize
the real-estate finance system.Bevilacqua’s attorney, Jeffrey Loeb, said he was
disappointed the court did not accept parts of his argument,
but pleased with a section of the ruling in which the judges
reaffirmed that even a flawed foreclosure deed could “operate
as an assignment of the mortgage itself.”The result, he said, “gives Fran Bevilacqua and people in
his position the right to re-foreclose.”Loeb said he has not had a chance to discuss the ruling
with Bevilacqua or to decide their next course of action.SECOND CASE FOR COURTIn January, the state’s highest court voided the seizure of
two homes by Wells Fargo & Co and US Bancorp
after they failed to show they held titles at the time of the
foreclosures.Issues of foreclosures done without proper documentation
have flared up nationwide as banks and regulators grapple with
the aftermath of the housing boom and the loose oversight that
accompanied it.In this case, banks and mortgage companies had lined up
behind the developer, while state officials and housing
activists had cited his claims as examples of a flawed system.The matter began when US Bancorp transferred to Bevilacqua
the title for a building in Haverhill, Massachusetts, a suburb
north of Boston. He turned it into four condominiums.In a bid to establish clear title, Bevilacqua sued the
previous owner who had been foreclosed upon. But a lower court
ruled that Bevilacqua did not hold title to the property and
said his lawsuit would be better directed at those that gave
him the faulty title.The original owner and defendant in the suit, Pablo
Rodriguez, has not appeared at hearings or filed motions in the
case.The Supreme Judicial Court upheld the lower court ruling
dismissing Bevilacqua’s lawsuit, but left the door open for him
to refile his lawsuit in a different form.The case in the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts is
Francis J. Bevilacqua III vs. Pablo Rodriguez, SJC-10880.
Sinopec keeps focus on east Siberia oil and gas
Sinopec, which collaborates with Rosneft on Sakhalin-3
block, said in spring it will keep working in the Pacific island
of Sakhalin, while also focusing on oil and gas exploration in
east Siberia.The company also owns small Russian oil firm Udmurtneft
together with state-owned Rosneft, which has invited Sinopec as
well as several other Chinese and Indian firms to jointly
explore Russia’s Arctic offshore.
DIARY - Today in Belgium/Luxembourg - October 18
- All events/times provisional and in local time.- The inclusion of an event does not necessarily mean that
Reuters will file a story based on itNo major scheduled items——————————————————————————-
UK tax office targets 6,000 HSBC Swiss accounts
“HMRC will shortly be writing to those who have not yet come
forward or are not currently under investigation,” the body
said.HMRC added those who have not yet come forward will be
offered a chance to disclose all their tax liabilities.Those that do not come forward will be investigated and
could incur penalties of up to 200 percent, HMRC said.
UPDATE 1-Two life insurers meet systemic criteria-analyst
* Life insurers rally in morning tradingOct 12 (Reuters) - Only two life insurers — MetLife Inc and Prudential Financial Inc — meet new
requirements to be considered “systemic” and regulated as such,
KBW analysts said on Wednesday.The Financial Stability Oversight Council on Tuesday
proposed a three-stage test to figure out which nonbank
financial firms should come in for tighter capital and
liquidity regulation by the Federal Reserve.The insurance industry has argued that no insurer should be
designated a “strategically important financial institution,”
or SIFI, in part on fears that any company so tagged would have
difficultly competing with peers that are free to take more
risks.KBW said only MetLife and Prudential crossed the council’s
$50 billion asset threshold and at least one of the secondary
hurdles as well. While that does not guarantee that they will
be designated systemic, it does suggest they will at least get
further scrutiny in the review process.”Presumably, companies not tripping any thresholds are
unlikely to be seriously considered for SIFI status (and) are
likely out of the woods,” analyst Jeffrey Schuman said in a
note to clients.Schuman said that was good news for the other large life
insurance companies, including Aflac , Hartford
Financial , Lincoln National and Genworth
Financial .He also said it was still “far from certain” that MetLife
or Prudential would be tagged as SIFIs.Both MetLife and Prudential have said in regulatory filings
that they may be subject to the council’s scrutiny, given their
size.MetLife shares were up 3.5 percent in Wednesday morning
trading, while Prudential rose 2.4 percent.Shares of other life insurers rallied, with Lincoln rising
5.7 percent, Aflac up 5.1 percent, AIG up 4.2 percent, Genworth
up 3.6 percent and Hartford gaining 3.1 percent.
