Recently, the mortgage industry has been involved in a class action lawsuit against H ASC and HSBC. The complaint says that both institutions arranged fraudulent loans for homeowners in order to increase their profits. When homeowners defaulted on the payments, H ASC and HSBC became the straw that broke the camel’s back. They went into action and started collecting the late fees from homeowners. It is also alleged that the two conspired together to increase the cost of mortgages so that they could earn more profits from them. This class action lawsuit against H ASC and HSBC was recently filed by lawyers at the Washington State Department of Financial Services.
The complaint revolves around two separate cases. In one, an individual has been paying H ASC and HSBC for property inspection services.
He signed a promissory note agreeing to pay the property inspection fees. The defendant in this case, JAS, a lender in Washington State, sold the property inspection service to a Foreclosure Capital LLC for $3.9 million. In this case, the complaint says that JAS and Foreclosure Capital LLC conspired to keep the property inspection fees artificially low in order to receive a profit on the property.
The second case involves a plaintiff who signed a promissory note for a home sold through an investor.
JAS sold the house without requiring the plaintiff to pay any money or provide any property inspection. He ended up losing the house because the plaintiff did not have the funds to buy it back after foreclosure.
In both these cases, the complaint alleges that H ASC and HSBC misrepresented facts to investors about how the properties were worth less than they were.
For instance, in the case of JAS, the property inspection fee was listed as being two thousand dollars, when it was actually worth only one hundred. The complaint also says that in the case of HSBC, the corporation made false and misleading statements to investors about how much the mortgage loans from which the defendants purchased were worth. Those properties ultimately were sold for far less than the true value.
H ASC and HSBC were defendants in the first class action lawsuit against H ASC and Chun Uy.
In that case, the complaint was that Chun Uy and his companies defrauded investors of approximately two hundred million dollars. In addition to defrauding investors, Chun Uy and his companies also agreed to settle the claims with the help of their attorneys.
This is part of the second class action lawsuit against H ASC and HSBC.
In that case, the complaint alleges that H ASC and HSBC conspired to violate the Telephone Consumer Credit Act by failing to provide information to prospective buyers about the existence and contents of an optional auto-dialler system called the Automatic Telephone Dialing System (ATADS). The complaint further states that Chun Uy and his companies failed to make timely payments to the Federal Trade Commission on AATDS-related claims. In addition to the second class action lawsuit against H ASC and HSBC, there is also a fourth lawsuit against Chun Uy.
