|  | | 2008 News and Press Releases | | |
HEADLINE NEWS:
Forum Selection and '33 Act Subprime Lawsuits
Kevin LaCroix
The D & O Diary. December 8, 2008
_________________________________________________________________________
EXCERPT: As I have previously noted, one of the significant procedural developments in the subprime securities litigation wave has been the plaintiffs’ apparent interest in pursuing ’33 Act subprime-related lawsuits in state court. Section 22(a) of the ’33 Act expressly provides that the federal court’s jurisdiction for ’33 Act lawsuits is "concurrent with State and Territorial courts," which presents an immediate forum selection issue for any prospective ’33 Act plaintiff. A recent ’33 Act lawsuit filing suggests that the forum selection issue involves not only electing between federal and state courts, but also deciding in which state to file, if a state court forum is to be preferred. The case also suggests that the forum selection may also entail forum shopping. […] "the definition of predatory lending and describe the recent litigation history. The authors then examine alleged discriminatory lending in detail, reviewing key economic theory and evidence, as well as relevant statistical techniques." The paper also reviews predatory lending allegations and takes a look at recent predatory lending lawsuit filings. The article categorizes the lawsuits according to the specific allegations, and also examines predatory lending lawsuit settlements. The report contends that proper statistical analysis is required to establish whether or not discriminatory or other improper lending activity has taken place. The report states that: A proper assessment of alleged predatory lending, then, must control for characteristics including but not limited to the credit history, employment status, income level, and education of the borrower, as well as the borrower’s preference for risk (or discount rate). The competitiveness of the market in which the loan was arranged and other relevant macroeconomic factors may also need to be considered. Such analysis is essential to distinguish behavior that is predatory from that which is explainable by these other factors and would not be evidence of discrimination. |
|
|
