CLASS ACTION SUIT INVOLVING MORTGAGE BACKED SECURITIES OF WELLS FARGO & JP MORGAN ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION

SOMEBODY SEND ME THE COMPLAINT PLEASE —> NGARFIELD@MSN.COM
Registration Statements omitted and/or misrepresented the fact that the sellers of the underlying mortgages to JP Morgan Acceptance were issuing many of the mortgage loans to borrowers who: (i) did not meet the prudent or maximum debt-to-income ratio purportedly required by the lender; (ii) did not provide adequate documentation to support the income and assets required for the lenders to approve and fund the mortgage loans pursuant to the lenders’ own guidelines; (iii) were steered to stated income/asset and low documentation mortgage loans by lenders, lenders’ correspondents or lenders’ agents, such as mortgage brokers, because the borrowers could not qualify for mortgage loans that required full documentation; and (iv) did not have the income required by the lenders’ own guidelines to afford the required mortgage payments which resulted in a mismatch between the amount loaned to the borrower and the capacity of the borrower.

Wells Fargo more than likely caloborated with J.P. Morgan . Look and see if your Trust is located below.

COUGHLIN STOIA GELLER RUDMAN & ROBBINS LLP FILES CLASS ACTION SUIT INVOLVING MORTGAGE BACKED SECURITIES OF JP MORGAN ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION
January 21, 2009 – Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (“Coughlin Stoia”) (http://www.csgrr.com/cases/jpmorgan/) today announced that a class action lawsuit is pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates and Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates (“Certificates”) of J.P. Morgan Acceptance Corporation I (“JP Morgan Acceptance” or the “Depositor”) pursuant and/or traceable to false and misleading Registration Statements and Prospectus Supplements issued between January 2006 and March 2007 by JP Morgan Acceptance (collectively, the “Registration Statements”). The class includes purchasers of Certificates in the following trusts:

J.P. Morgan Alternative Loan Trust 2006-A1
J.P. Morgan Alternative Loan Trust 2006-A7

J.P. Morgan Alternative Loan Trust 2006-A2
J.P. Morgan Alternative Loan Trust 2006-S1

J.P. Morgan Alternative Loan Trust 2006-A3
J.P. Morgan Alternative Loan Trust 2006-S2

J.P. Morgan Alternative Loan Trust 2006-A4
J.P. Morgan Alternative Loan Trust 2006-S3

J.P. Morgan Alternative Loan Trust 2006-A5
J.P. Morgan Alternative Loan Trust 2006-S4

J.P. Morgan Alternative Loan Trust 2006-A6
J.P. Morgan Mortgage Acquisition Trust 2006-A3

J.P. Morgan Mortgage Acquisition Trust 2006-A4
J.P. Morgan Mortgage Acquisition Trust 2006-A5

J.P. Morgan Mortgage Acquisition Trust 2006-A6
J.P. Morgan Mortgage Acquisition Trust 2006-A7

J.P. Morgan Mortgage Acquisition Trust 2006-ACC1
J.P. Morgan Mortgage Acquisition Trust 2006-CH2

J.P. Morgan Mortgage Acquisition Trust 2006-HE2
J.P. Morgan Mortgage Acquisition Trust 2006-HE3

J.P. Morgan Mortgage Acquisition Trust 2006-NC1
J.P. Morgan Mortgage Acquisition Trust 2006-RM1

J.P. Morgan Mortgage Acquisition Trust 2006-S2
J.P. Morgan Mortgage Acquisition Trust 2006-WF1

J.P. Morgan Mortgage Acquisition Trust 2006-WMC2
J.P. Morgan Mortgage Acquisition Trust 2006-WMC3

J.P. Morgan Mortgage Acquisition Trust 2006-WMC4
J.P. Morgan Mortgage Acquisition Trust 2007-A1

J.P. Morgan Mortgage Acquisition Trust 2007-A2
J.P. Morgan Mortgage Acquisition Trust 2007-CH1

J.P. Morgan Mortgage Acquisition Trust 2007-CH2
J.P. Morgan Mortgage Acquisition Trust 2007-S1

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than 60 days from today. If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact plaintiff’s counsel, Samuel H. Rudman or David A. Rosenfeld of Coughlin Stoia at 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058, or via e-mail at djr@csgrr.com. If you are a member of this class, you can view a copy of the complaint or join this class action online at http://www.csgrr.com/cases/jpmorgan/. Any member of the putative class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member.

The complaint charges JP Morgan Acceptance, certain of its officers and directors and the issuers and underwriters of the Certificates with violations of the Securities Act of 1933. JP Morgan Acceptance was formed in 1988 for the purpose of acquiring, owning and selling interests in those assets. JP Morgan Acceptance is a subsidiary of J.P. Morgan Securities Inc. (“JP Morgan”) and is engaged in mortgage lending and other real estate finance-related businesses, including mortgage banking, mortgage warehouse lending, and insurance underwriting.

The complaint alleges that on July 29, 2005 and February 8, 2006, JP Morgan Acceptance and the Defendant Issuers caused Registration Statements to be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) in connection with the issuance of billions of dollars of Certificates. The Certificates were issued pursuant to Prospectus Supplements, each of which was incorporated into the Registration Statements. The Certificates included several classes or tranches, which had various priorities of payment, exposure to default, interest payment provisions and/or levels of seniority. The Certificates were supported by large pools of mortgage loans. The Registration Statements represented that the mortgage pools would primarily consist of loan groups generally secured by first liens on residential properties, including conventional, adjustable rate and negative amortization mortgage loans.

The complaint alleges that the Registration Statements omitted and/or misrepresented the fact that the sellers of the underlying mortgages to JP Morgan Acceptance were issuing many of the mortgage loans to borrowers who: (i) did not meet the prudent or maximum debt-to-income ratio purportedly required by the lender; (ii) did not provide adequate documentation to support the income and assets required for the lenders to approve and fund the mortgage loans pursuant to the lenders’ own guidelines; (iii) were steered to stated income/asset and low documentation mortgage loans by lenders, lenders’ correspondents or lenders’ agents, such as mortgage brokers, because the borrowers could not qualify for mortgage loans that required full documentation; and (iv) did not have the income required by the lenders’ own guidelines to afford the required mortgage payments which resulted in a mismatch between the amount loaned to the borrower and the capacity of the borrower.

According to the complaint, by the summer of 2007, the amount of uncollectible mortgage loans securing the Certificates began to be revealed to the public. To avoid scrutiny for their own involvement in the sale of the Certificates, the Rating Agencies began to put negative watch labels on many Certificate classes, ultimately downgrading many. The delinquency and foreclosure rates of the mortgage loans securing the Certificates has grown both faster and in greater quantity than what would be expected for mortgage loans of the types described in the Prospectus Supplements. As an additional result, the Certificates are no longer marketable at prices anywhere near the price paid by plaintiffs and the Class and the holders of the Certificates are exposed to much more risk with respect to both the timing and absolute cash flow to be received than the Registration Statements/Prospectus Supplements represented.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of Certificates pursuant and/or traceable to the Registration Statements (the “Class”). The plaintiff is represented by Coughlin Stoia, which has expertise in prosecuting investor class actions and extensive experience in actions involving financial fraud.

Coughlin Stoia, a 190-lawyer firm with offices in San Diego, San Francisco, Los Angeles, New York, Boca Raton, Washington, D.C., Philadelphia and Atlanta, is active in major litigations pending in federal and state courts throughout the United States and has taken a leading role in many important actions on behalf of defrauded investors, consumers, and companies, as well as victims of human rights violations. The Coughlin Stoia Web site (http://www.csgrr.com) has more information about the firm.

About these ads

12 Responses

  1. [...] CLASS ACTION SUIT INVOLVING MORTGAGE BACKED SECURITIES OF WELLS FARGO & JP MORGAN ACCEPTANCE CO… [...]

  2. We had our home foreclosed on recently in 2008. We even came up with over $5,000 which would had made us current on our mortgage. We spoke with a representative over the phone before the foreclosure and she said that if we could western union the funds overnight that our mortgage would be up-to date. Well we did what she said to do sent the funds via western union overnight which was expensive but we paid and the money went to wells fargo and they received the funds by the date she stated according to western union. When we called wells fargo to make sure they had received the funds we were told that the woman who we spoke to was mistaken and had no right to tell us what she did. Anyways they stated that they did not accept the funds from western union so we would have to get our money back from western union. Well that was about a two week battle with western union stating that wells fargo had our funds. We finally got our money back which we did not even want back we wanted to be caught up on our mortgage. I should note that when I state we I mean my wife really she had to deal with nearly all of it because in Nov, 2007 had suffered an emotional break down. I was in the US Air Force and had be called to active duty in Sept, 2001. I was first at my home base for 11 days straight protecting my base. I was a Staff Sargent in the 121st Security Forces Squadron. Then i was deployed to Andrews Air Force Base deployed in the war on terrorism for around a month or so then I was called to deploy as part of a Detainee Ops Unit which was made up of only those who were civilian law enforcement officers or correctional officers. We did several missions in and out of Afghanistan. We were tasked with getting the detainees aboard the plane then secure and maintain control over them at all times. We would snatch them up and take them to Gitmo or otherwise known as Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. If you can help us in anyway please email us. Thank you.

  3. I took WAMU to court over a $1.2 mil mortgage they gave my mother. She made $630.00 from Social Security. They took the money. My lawyer sued them. They never answered the complaint. Instead they sold it to JP Morgan. Now they are trying to foreclose on her house. Some one might want to see the documents on this case.

  4. i sent over…………
    i am in the wmc2… or that is my lender that is trying to foreclose…. i wonder should i join

  5. Joyce Louise

    PPSI was not a “dealer” — they were a “depositor” — and subsidiary. Yes — all released.

    After SEC compliance letter issued in March 2006 — there were no other issues by PPSI — same for Argent Securities..

  6. If you check out the Ameriquest MDL settlement you will see how the Depositor, Park Place Securities, was released and other companies that were created to handle the securitization process were RELEASED EVEN THOUGH THEY WERE NOT DEFENDANTS IN THE ACTUAL SUIT. If that isn’t telling, I don’t know what is. In otherwords, the dealers were not yet being sued because no one understood the extent of the part they played in the mess and now they do. Thus, the Class Action Suit of J. P. Morgan. Again, we covered this in a suit back in 2007 which is now very timely for the homeowner whose case is in the Appeals Court. Who would have thought? The Judge in the lower court did not understand about the Depositor, etc., but now, the Appeals Court Judges have learned a lot about what has been going on just in the last 3 months. They will know what to look for.

  7. I have already had a forensic audit of my mortgage w/Chase. There are TILA & RESPA violations, as well as, securitization concerns. Despite this I have had difficulty locating an “attorney who gets it.” I live in Virginia, and could email the audit findings to anyone willing to help. Otherwise, I would appreciate referrals for “attorneys who get it.” My email is: rock4751@hotmail.com

  8. I just don’t know how the govt has allowed all this to happen and why there are not more people wearing orange jump suits ..

  9. Future -

    How do you find out if your loan is one of these pools? Please email me at davyjay1978@gmail.com

    thanks. DJ

  10. My loan is in this pool
    J.P. Morgan Mortgage Acquisition Trust 2006-WMC2
    I am fighting JP now on my foreclosure and I know this is good info to have. I need an attorney in MD that can help me with all of the info. I also need t he commentary for the securitization report I got from here waiting patiently but really need it bad. :)
    Anyone have any advice for me or know of an attorney?

  11. ok i called 100 numbers this morning lol
    the attorneys that are handling this case phone number is

    800- 380- 8496 out of california
    and then
    wolf popper 877 370 7703

  12. Thank goodness I had my loan done here for the securitization audit because I can clearly see mines on this list. What does that mean for me? I did not originate with JP Chase but my loan was sold to them. They brought it from WMC Mortgage.

Leave 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 )

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 3,251 other followers

%d bloggers like this: