Roland Head | Sunday, 14th February, 2021 | More on: BNZL TW Our 6 ‘Best Buys Now’ Shares “This Stock Could Be Like Buying Amazon in 1997” Simply click below to discover how you can take advantage of this. See all posts by Roland Head I would like to receive emails from you about product information and offers from The Fool and its business partners. Each of these emails will provide a link to unsubscribe from future emails. More information about how The Fool collects, stores, and handles personal data is available in its Privacy Statement. 2 FTSE 100 shares I’d buy now and hold for 10 years Roland Head has no position in any of the shares mentioned. The Motley Fool UK has no position in any of the shares mentioned. Views expressed on the companies mentioned in this article are those of the writer and therefore may differ from the official recommendations we make in our subscription services such as Share Advisor, Hidden Winners and Pro. Here at The Motley Fool we believe that considering a diverse range of insights makes us better investors. Click here to claim your copy now — and we’ll tell you the name of this Top US Share… free of charge! Finding shares that will reward me for my long-term loyalty isn’t always easy. But I think I’ve found two FTSE 100 shares I could safely buy today and forget until 2031.The companies in question are all at the smaller end of the FTSE index, with market caps of around £6bn. My hope is that they’ll deliver profit growth and rising dividends over the coming years.5G is here – and shares of this ‘sleeping giant’ could be a great way for you to potentially profit!According to one leading industry firm, the 5G boom could create a global industry worth US$12.3 TRILLION out of thin air…And if you click here we’ll show you something that could be key to unlocking 5G’s full potential…Safer than housesThe share price of housebuilder Taylor Wimpey (LSE: TW) has fallen by around 25% over the last year. But I think this could provide me with a decent entry point for a long-term investment.Housebuilding completions took a hit in 2020, but the company says its order book had grown to 10,685 home by the end of the year. That’s a 10% increase from the 9,725 homes reported at the end of 2019. This backlog of demand suggests to me that 2021 should be a decent year.Despite this strong backlog, I can see some risks. If the pandemic is followed by a recession, demand could weaken. The Stamp Duty holiday is due to end shortly. Changes to the Help to Buy scheme this year could also hurt housebuilders, as they limit government support to first-time buyers.However, I think these risks are probably priced into Taylor Wimpey stock already. At the time of writing, the shares look affordable to me, trading on 11 times 2021 forecast earnings with a dividend yield of 4.7%. I’d be comfortable adding Taylor Wimpey to my portfolio at this level.The best FTSE 100 share to buy now?What’s the best business in the FTSE 100? There’s no single correct answer. But I think that Bunzl (LSE: BNZL) would have to be a contender. This business provides cleaning supplies and many other essential items to workplaces all over the world.This group isn’t exactly a household name, but it has a remarkable record. Bunzl’s profits doubled between 2010 and 2019. As far as I can see, the company has not cut its dividend since at least 1992. That’s a dividend streak of almost 30 years.What could go wrong? Bunzl has benefited from exceptional demand for PPE and cleaning supplies over the last year. The company has already warned that it expects a decline in “larger Covid-19 related orders” over the coming year. A broader economic slowdown would also be a risk.One of the secrets of Bunzl’s long-term success is its acquisition strategy. The company regularly acquires much smaller businesses operating in its sector. These can be rolled up into the company with little risk, adding to earnings each year.No company is perfect and there’s no guarantee Bunzl’s long growth streak can be maintained. However, my view is that the essential nature of the products sold by the company should mean it remains a reliable long-term earner.Looking ahead to 21, Bunzl shares trade on 17 times forecast earnings, with a dividend yield of 2.4%. In my view, this is probably a fair valuation for a good business. I’d be happy to buy this FTSE 100 share today. I’m sure you’ll agree that’s quite the statement from Motley Fool Co-Founder Tom Gardner.But since our US analyst team first recommended shares in this unique tech stock back in 2016, the value has soared.What’s more, we firmly believe there’s still plenty of upside in its future. In fact, even throughout the current coronavirus crisis, its performance has been beating Wall St expectations.And right now, we’re giving you a chance to discover exactly what has got our analysts all fired up about this niche industry phenomenon, in our FREE special report, A Top US Share From The Motley Fool. Renowned stock-picker Mark Rogers and his analyst team at The Motley Fool UK have named 6 shares that they believe UK investors should consider buying NOW.So if you’re looking for more stock ideas to try and best position your portfolio today, then it might be a good day for you. Because we’re offering a full 33% off your first year of membership to our flagship share-tipping service, backed by our ‘no quibbles’ 30-day subscription fee refund guarantee. Enter Your Email Address Image source: Getty Images
News January 6, 2011 – Updated on January 20, 2016 Cyber-dissident Sleh Edine Kchouk briefly arrested Help by sharing this information Organisation RSF_en The cyber-dissident Sleh Edine Kchouk, an active member of the General Union of Tunisian Students (UGET), was briefly arrested by the police in Bizerte (60 km northwest of Tunis). Her computer was also seized.
Home / Commentary / The Gap Between Mortgage Default and Settlement Print This Post The Gap Between Mortgage Default and Settlement in Commentary, Daily Dose, Featured, Foreclosure, News Roy A. Diaz is the Managing Shareholder of Diaz, Anselmo Lindberg, P.A. The firm provides representation in Florida, Illinois, Ohio, Indiana, Kentucky, Wisconsin and Michigan. Diaz has been a member of the Florida Bar since 1988. He has concentrated his practice in the areas of real estate, litigation, and bankruptcy. He has represented lenders, servicers of both conventional and GSE loans, private investors, and real estate developers throughout his career with an emphasis on the mortgage servicing industry for over 25 years. Share Save Governmental Measures Target Expanded Access to Affordable Housing 2 days ago Servicers Navigate the Post-Pandemic World 2 days ago Tagged with: borrower court default Foreclosure lender Loan Property servicer Settlement Previous: The Renter/Investor Relationship Next: The Growing Problem With Household Debt borrower court default Foreclosure lender Loan Property servicer Settlement 2019-05-15 Radhika Ojha About Author: Roy Diaz In April 2019, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit issued a 60-page opinion which addressed claims brought by borrowers Johnnie and Adrian Marchisio against servicer Mortgage Services, LLC, for various statutory and contractual violations committed by the servicer while servicing the Marchisios’ first and second mortgages. (Marchisio v. Servicer Mortgage Services, LLC.)The borrowers took out two mortgage loans to purchase property and defaulted on both loans in 2008. The servicer filed an action seeking to foreclose both mortgages, and the lawsuit was later resolved through a deed-in-lieu of foreclosure entered in December 2009.Pursuant to the parties’ agreement, the borrowers surrendered the property and the servicer “agreed to report to the credit reporting agencies … that the mortgage was discharged with a zero balance owed.” However, more than two years later, the bank still had not reported the discharge. Instead, it “resumed its debt collections efforts” reporting the borrowers’ debt as delinquent. As a result, in July 2012, the Marchisios filed a federal action (first action) alleging Mortgage Services’ failure to timely report the pertinent settlement terms violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) and the Florida Collections Act (FCA).The filing of the first action prompted the servicer to partially correct its misreporting. The lender sent an automated universal dataform (AUD) to the reporting agencies requesting they “update the first loan to reflect that it had a zero balance.” However, the servicer continued to misreport a delinquent balance due on the second mortgage.Ultimately, in January 2013, the parties reached a settlement agreement with regard to the second mortgage wherein the servicer paid the borrowers $125,000 and agreed to “report the second loan as having a zero balance as of December 9, 2009 … as soon as reasonably possible, but in any case within 90 days.” In exchange, the borrowers dismissed the first action. The settlement noted that time was of the essence, which has the legal effect of a hard default on the 91st day.Despite the parties’ settlement agreement and the borrowers’ dismissal of the first action, the servicer continued to send inaccurate reports to credit agencies in February, March, and April 2013. The reports reflected the borrowers’ second mortgage was not paid off and had a past due balance exceeding 120 days. Only after the borrowers complained to the servicer about these inaccurate reports did the company submit an AUD to the credit agencies requesting “they update the second loan to show a zero balance.” Notably, the servicer did not send this AUD until April 25, 2013—two days after the deadline for doing so under the settlement agreement. Additionally, according to the borrowers, the servicer continued to make collection calls wherein they threatened to foreclose due to an allegedly unpaid “balloon balance” on the second mortgage.In August 2013, the borrowers moved to enforce the settlement agreement which resulted from the first action, but the district court declined to exercise jurisdiction. In November 2013, they disputed the servicer debt with the credit agencies. In their written dispute they described the litigation history between them and the servicer, the resulting settlement, and the final agreement, which indicated the borrowers owed nothing on the first or second mortgages.Pursuant to the requirements of the FCRA (codified at 15 U.S.C. § 1681i(a)(1) and (2)), the credit agency notified the servicer about the dispute and the servicer conducted an investigation. As part of its investigation, an employee of the servicer consulted the “Fiserv database” which was supposed to house all relevant information regarding the loans serviced by the company. Notwithstanding, the Fiserv database did not have any information regarding the 2013 settlement agreement. The servicer’s representative reported back to the credit agencies that its prior reports were accurate and confirmed the borrowers owed a balloon payment on the second loan.To further complicate matters, near the end of 2013, the servicer’s insurance vendor (Southwest) sent the borrowers letters on the servicer’s letterhead informing them that force-placed fire insurance would be placed on their property if they did not obtain their own insurance. When the borrowers failed to purchase fire insurance for a property they no longer owned, Southwest purchased it for them, billed them, and then tried to collect payment by sending notices on the servicer’s letterhead.Ostensibly left with no other options for resolving the dispute, the borrowers filed a second federal action (second action) against the servicer in January 2014, “alleging breach of the settlement agreement entered in the first action and violations of the FCRA and the Florida Collections Act.” Regarding the FCRA claim, the borrowers alleged that the servicer violated the act by failing to conduct a reasonable investigation upon learning that the borrowers disputed the credit reports, which included the balloon balance on the second mortgage. As to the FCRA claim, the borrowers argued the collection calls and notices regarding force-placed insurance constituted violations of the FCRA because the servicer attempted to enforce a debt that they knew did not exist.The second action finally prompted the servicer to issue an AUD to the credit agencies requesting they “delete from [the borrowers’] credit reports any reference to a balloon-payment obligation.” The servicer also canceled the force-placed fire insurance. Despite this corrective action, litigation ensued and both parties moved for summary judgment. The district court entered summary judgment in the borrowers’ favor on their FCRA claim finding the servicer “failed to conduct a reasonable investigation” of the dispute filed with the credit agency and that such failure was willful. The court awarded statutory damages of $3,000 but “ruled that Plaintiffs were not entitled to any damages for emotional distress or as punitive damages” as a matter of law. As to both the FCA claim and the breach of contract claim the district court entered summary judgment in the servicer’s favor. The district court awarded $94,000 in attorneys’ fees to the borrowers. Both parties appealed to the Eleventh Circuit.On appeal, the Eleventh Circuit made the following rulings:Firstly, it affirmed “the district court’s finding of a willful FCRA violation,” surmising it was “obvious that [Servicer] failed to conduct a reasonable investigation of [the Borrowers’] report.” The court disagreed with the servicer’s argument that the “erroneous verification” that a balloon payment was owed on the second loan “constituted a mere isolated human error that was promptly corrected.” The court clarified it was not the employee that made the mistake because he “accurately reported what he found in the databases.” The court explained it was the servicer which “failed to create a reliable system for inputting information regarding the settlement of litigation that might impact the data found on the relevant databases.”The Circuit Court concluded the servicer’s system was “unreliable” and that “it was incumbent” on the servicer “to take steps to ensure that news of the terms of the settlement agreement be communicated to those who generate reports to reporting agencies.” The court surmised “there was a large ‘disconnect’ between [servicer’s] system for debt verification and its ad hoc handling of settlement-related changes to debt obligations” rendering the servicer’s investigation unreasonable for purposes of the FCRA. The court also concluded the servicer’s conduct was willful because even if unintentional, the servicer “acted in reckless disregard” of its obligations under the FCRA, given its failure to take corrective action despite “the number of times that [Servicer] was put on notice of the false information being reported.” It concluded the servicer’s FCRA violations could support an award for emotional distress and punitive damages and reversed the district court’s grant of summary judgment on those issues “to allow factual development” of those issues at trial.Secondly, the Circuit Court reversed the summary judgment for the servicer on the FCA claim finding there to be genuine issues of material fact as to whether the servicer made the debt collection calls and whether the servicer could prove its “bona fide error defense.” The court concluded the borrowers’ testimony regarding the collection calls, viewed in a light most favorable to the non-movants, was sufficient to withstand summary judgment. The court also found that the question of whether Servicer “maintained procedures reasonably adapted” to avoid violations of the FCRA was a question for the jury and not properly disposed of on summary judgment.Thirdly, the Circuit Court reversed the grant of summary judgment for the servicer on the breach of contract claim. Although the Circuit Court agreed with the district court that “emotional distress damages [were] not cognizable as to the breach of contract claim,” the court explained the servicer’s failure to timely correct the misreporting on the second mortgage could have resulted in other damages such as “adverse financing terms” in connection with the borrowers’ purchase of two automobiles prior to the servicer correcting its misreporting. The court surmised the merit of the borrowers’ breach of contract claim and whether the borrowers could establish damages from that breach was to be determined by the jury and not properly disposed of on summary judgment.Lastly, the Circuit Court vacated “the award of attorney’s fees to [the borrowers] so that the district court [could] recalculate those fees at the conclusion of the litigation.” The court remanded the matter for trial and set the floor for a fee award at $94,000 reasoning that the district court had calculated that number, “in part, on the fact the borrowers’ prevailed on only one claim” but they may prevail on additional claims at trial thereby entitling them to additional fees.This detailed holding provides helpful insights into best practices for servicing a loan in default where the default is resolved through settlement. While this article is not intended to be giving legal advise, below is a list of suggested practices extrapolated from the Circuit Court’s holding:SETTLEMENT AGREEMENTS: Ensure those responsible for complying with a settlement agreement understand the terms of the agreement and know what is required for full compliance. Where possible, incorporate clear requirements into an agreement and avoid terms such as “as soon as reasonably possible.” Phrases such as these are subject to interpretation and create confusion and/or conflicting expectations of the various parties. Where deadlines are clearly articulated in an agreement, do not delay in complying and understand that courts will consider “the spirit of the agreement” when evaluating whether a party complied with a particular provision.SYSTEM ENTRIES: When settlement is reached, make redundant entries into multiple systems clearly indicating the parties reached a settlement. Create and implement a procedure that details the various steps required when settlement is reached and make the procedure known and understood to the appropriate staff. Include the primary aspects of the settlement agreement in system entries and reference where additional information about the settlement can be obtained. Provide information about the department involved in the settlement negotiations, and the name of at least one point of contact. Have a policy in place to ensure this information is updated in the event of staffing changes. If the specifics of the settlement are to remain confidential, note “CONFIDENTIAL SETTLEMENT REACHED” in all systems. Again, reference a point of contact and where additional information can be obtained.CREDIT DISPUTES: Upon receiving notice of a credit reporting dispute, conduct a thorough investigation. This should include the review of system notes and documents, but also a thorough review of the information submitted by the borrower. If there is a discrepancy between the system notes and information from the borrower, especially significant facts that were omitted such as a reference to a lawsuit or settlement, investigate further. Seek assistance from or refer the matter to a litigation specialist within your company. Importantly, you should not reach out to the borrower for clarification until there is confirmation he or she is not represented by counsel. Data Provider Black Knight to Acquire Top of Mind 2 days ago The Best Markets For Residential Property Investors 2 days ago Governmental Measures Target Expanded Access to Affordable Housing 2 days ago Sign up for DS News Daily May 15, 2019 10,738 Views The Week Ahead: Nearing the Forbearance Exit 2 days ago Demand Propels Home Prices Upward 2 days ago The Best Markets For Residential Property Investors 2 days ago Servicers Navigate the Post-Pandemic World 2 days ago Data Provider Black Knight to Acquire Top of Mind 2 days ago Demand Propels Home Prices Upward 2 days ago Related Articles Subscribe
Previous Article Next Article If the BBC can do it, so can Personnel Today. We want to know which Britonyou rate as the greatest people manager and leader of all time. Personnel Todayhas invited 10 leading figures in the field of management to nominateindividuals they believe are the best, and then convince you they are right. Tovote, visit the voting form where you will also find summaries of all 10nominees. The voting closes on Tuesday 4th March 2003.This week’s nominee is:Ernest ShackletonBy Ruth Spellman, chief executive of Investors in PeopleOn paper, Ernest Shackleton’s credentials may not seem to measure up tothose of a great leader or inspiration to others – he led three ambitious polarmissions, all of which were aborted before they reached their end goal. Andyet, Shackleton’s expeditions demonstrate an inspirational leadership model. He defied geographical boundaries that had never before been crossed, yet heled every single member of his party back to safety through extreme obstaclesand environmental conditions. At home, Shackleton generated great enthusiasmamong the British public for his expeditions, raising today’s equivalent of£10m – a particularly amazing achievement coming as it did in the wake ofRobert F Scott’s mission, when people could have questioned the value of asecond expedition to the Pole. In terms of recruiting teams for hisexpeditions, he was also a success: in one instance, 5,000 people applied forjust 56 positions on his team. Shackleton, like most great leaders, always recognised the importance of histeam. As he himself said: “The personnel of an expedition of the characterI proposed is a factor on which success depends to a very large extent.” To choose the members of his various expeditions, Shackleton drew oninsights gained during his seafaring career. He based his selections on who hecould trust to work both with and without him, as his missions often requiredhim to split his team to explore different directions or look after injuredcrew. He also understood the importance of giving every team member a degree ofresponsibility. For Shackleton, this helped establish a unit that could stillfunction should any of its party falter. Leadership in the early 20th century was typically very hierarchical. ButShackleton stands out in stark contrast as a leader who never expected his mento do anything that he was not prepared to do himself. He did his share of menial tasks – when the team wintered on the Antarctic,for example, they had a rota for night watch, which included everyone exceptthe cook and the team member with frostbite. And knowing his crews looked tohim for answers, Shackleton told it how it was – honestly, briefly. This is acrucial lesson to those leaders who favour ‘corporate speak’ or occasionalmessages from ‘on high’. And what difference did this make? Clearly, Shackleton was a leader who notonly understood, but shared the high and low points with his teams. When thingswent well, they all celebrated. When spirits were low, Shackleton rallied themen with football or ice hockey games. For me, any part of Shackleton’s adventures is inspirational. I have alwaysfound him to be the best example to follow because he offers a tangible rolemodel that is based not on modern management theory, but on real-lifeexperience. He exemplifies the model of optimism, and his example has driven myown enthusiasm throughout my career. I had to regularly draw on my own reservesof optimism when I worked at the NSPCC, where regular exposure to heartbreakingstories made it hard to stay positive. His optimism was particularly evident on a trip to the South Pole, when aseries of life-threatening problems plagued the expedition, ranging frominjuries and running out of food, to horrific weather conditions and having tokill their accompanying ponies. Yet Shackleton is reported to have told hismen: “Difficulties are just things to overcome, after all.” I have to agree – difficulties are just things to overcome, but this canonly happen with the right team and the right leader. Through Shackleton’sexample, I realise the importance of building teams and of recognising thedifferent strengths of each individual on board. When colleagues and acquaintances tell me about their leadershipexperiences, the predominant feeling that comes across is one of loneliness.Shackleton teaches us that this needn’t be the case if strong bonds areestablished with the team. Leadership needs to be intellectual and emotional, and while this cansometimes seem unnatural in the work environment, consider instead the exampleof Shackleton and his men enjoying an impromptu Christmas Day celebration withplum pudding, medical brandy and crème de menthe after 58 days of hiking. Did Shackleton change the world? He didn’t aspire to change the world; hisambitions were personal aspirations that he shared with many – demonstratingqualities of leadership that are unparalleled in the modern environment. However, the manager who follows Shackleton’s example can create confidencein his or her team. Everything we do is a voyage of discovery, and in our freshchallenges, we need to choose, lead and inspire teams like Shackleton. Shackleton’s CV15 February 1874 Ernest H Shackletonis born in County Kildare, Ireland1898 At age 24, qualifies to command any British vessel1899 Volunteers for the National Antarctic Expedition and isaccepted, only to fall ill and be sent home1907 Leads a team of 18 in a bid to reach the South Pole,stopping just 97 miles short1914 Unsuccessfully attempts to cross the Pole from sea to sea,but charters new land when forced to seek help for his iced-in ship1921 Attempts to reach the North PoleJanuary 1922 Shackleton dies of heart failure aboard the Quest Related posts:No related photos. The greatest Briton: Ernest ShackletonOn 11 Feb 2003 in Personnel Today Comments are closed.