AMEX securitization cases

5 replies

• brian · December 8, 2025

  There are mostly negative cases. The large majority of cases are settled on this so you don't hear about the positive ones. Keep it in your tool box as it is an effective way to settle or discount creditor cases.

• Keith · December 14, 2025

  Watch Brian's Amex and Securitization videos. I had success didn't get chance to argue my seritation defense or the other 15 defense I had. The opposing side kept trying to overwhelm me with motions but I oppose their motions while motioning them back with my own to the point that the opposing side forgot all the discovery deadlines and failed to respond to any of them. I motions submitted to deem request for admissions admitted, and motion to compel answers to interrogatories and and production of documents, and to strike their entire submission for a motion to dismiss and to oppose some of my previous motions. So I really never got a chance to argue any merits of the case because on the first motion hearing the other side just came out and said lets just do a mutual walk away and both parties drop all claims against each other and agree to dismiss with prejudice. It was costing them more to defend than what they were trying to get from me. But ParkerGPT help me line them up real good for the kill but case never made it far enough to do it. They wave the white flag on the play, and did not want any smoke

• Spiro · January 29, 2026

  This 2013 Scott v BoA case is very relevant. However, like Brian said it is negative. The court’s  decision rests on the Pooling and Servicing Agreement which distinguishes between “receivables” vs. “account” being transferred, and that if the receivables are charged off they are automatically ejected from the trust and sold back to BoA.

  “...the Bank Defendants point to the Pooling and Servicing Agreement attached to Plaintiff's Complaint and referenced in her Amended Complaint, which, like the agreement discussed in Tostado, 2010 WL 55976, makes clear that only receivables, not entire accounts, are sold in the securitization process…Even if, somehow, ownership of the account without the receivable was not enough, the Pooling and Servicing Agreement provides that if an account falls into default and has all its receivables charged off as uncollectible, those receivables are automatically ejected from the trust and sold back to the Bank Of America entity that originated them.”

  In my case, Citi in their MSJ alleged my securitization defense in my Answer was based on “wild speculation” and that “no such thing has happened” without supporting documentation and cited one inapposite mortgage loan case. I’ll argue that, at minimum, this is a triable issue of fact that needs discovery as only they know if the debt was securitized/transferred so their MSJ should be denied. I’ll also cross-move to dismiss for lack of standing/failure of proof in the MSJ documents and evidence that at least one of the charges is disputed/unauthorized.  

  Brian, are Pooling and Servicing Agreements standard across creditors and bulletproof to securitization defenses (if properly raised by plaintiffs), or are there potential counterarguments that may someday result in positive case outcomes? 

  I greatly appreciate your videos and work/help in this area!

• Spiro · January 29, 2026

  Sorry here is the link to the case I had trouble including it in the original post. https://www.casemine.com/judgement/us/5914e515add7b049349036dd

• Pro_sayer · January 29, 2026

  I read through this. This looks like a debtor trying to sue a creditor using only securitization and failed to apply any legal theories that supported their claim. "rather than addressing many of the Defendants' legal arguments directly, spends several pages of her opposition explaining the securitization process and, without any legal citations" You might find similar issues in the other referenced cases.

  In my research I have found that these agreements usually differ in some TSA, PSA, etc. Each agreement defines the account usually and the receivables (underlying debt) and involve the 'assignment' which creates question "where are the Assignments?", from my understanding so far I have only been researching for a month though. But there is usually a lot going on in these structures.

  For instance I have seen a section that basically says no one is responsible for verifying anything going in, but we can make as many copies as we want of everything coming out and they are all an original and when their powers combine they form one agreement or thing, which is just weird. I refer to it as the copy machine that only prints originals, which is a logical impossibility. Further stating that no one mentioned in the agreement can be held liable for the agreement. From what I have seen these securitization trusts are one way doors and do not verifiably spit out the same thing that went in. But you would have to look at the specific executed agreement and any referenced documents, if you were looking to use securitization on its own.

  For example this: “Collection Account” has the meaning specified in the Asset Pool One Supplement" points to an entirely different document outside the PSA, TSA, etc. But the rights of the servicer are usually clearly outlined in the PSA, TSA or other similar agreement. After all words have meaning.

Already a member? Log in to join this discussion.