The news today is that David J. Stern, former foreclosure mill king, has been disbarred by the Florida Supreme Court.  But who really cares?  What does it really matter?  After all, hundreds of millions of dollars and untold tens of thousands of properties continue to slush around this state.  I just returned from court today on an old David J. Stern case….courts all across this state are still filled with the garbage poured into them…untold tens of millions of taxpayer dollars being spent continuing to clean up the debris left behind.

As usual with news these days (and with the treatment of elites generally)…….the biggest and most important issues go completely ignored while the press and general public are left to focus on meaningless distractions.  Again, so what that a lawyer was disbarred.  And who cares about the meaningless $50.00 fine.  (Might as well have been that low.)

The real issue, still left completely untouched by all involved comes back to the important issues that were presented before the United States Securities and Exchange Commission in a series of filings:

I especially don’t like the thought of the profits derived from taking the homes of hundreds of thousands of my neighbors having anything to do with,

“an unidentified operating business which has its principal business and/or material operations in China.”
And this……
During the three months ended March 31, 2010, our REO liquidation services business became an increasingly significant source of revenue, generating approximately 5% of our total revenue during that period.    Our REO liquidation business has a sole customer through which we generated $3.3 million in revenue for the first quarter of 2010 compared to $1.9 million in the same period last year, primarily due to an increase in the number of REO liquidation files which grew to 1,728 files in the first quarter of 2010, an increase of 56%, from 1,111 files in the first quarter of 2009.
(Remember even as late as today I still want to know….who is taking title to these homes?)
Just read all of this…it’s still so mind-blowing…too muc
  • The Supreme Court of Florida has recently taken steps to insure that proper documentation is filed in foreclosure actions, and if DJS does not comply with the new rules and procedures the foreclosure actions on which they are working may be dismissed, which may result in DJS receiving fewer referrals, and, since they are our primary client, reduced revenues for us. However, DJS may not be successful in complying with these new rules.
  • Mr. Stern received a significant amount of cash consideration in connection with the Transaction, which may reduce his incentive to devote his full efforts to continue to develop and expand the business of DJS and our business.   Under the terms of the Acquisition Agreement, Mr. Stern and his affiliates received approximately $58.5 million in Initial Cash in exchange for contributing  their business to DAL, plus another approximately $88 million in the Stern Note and Post-Closing Cash.
  • DJSP Enterprises, Inc. (” DJSP”, ” we,” ” us” or ” our”) is a holding company whose primary business operations are conducted through three wholly owned subsidiaries, DJS Processing, LLC (” DJS LLC”), Professional Title and Abstract Company of Florida, LLC (” PTA LLC”), and Default Servicing, LLC (” DSI LLC”) of DAL Group LLC (” DAL”), a company in which DJSP holds a controlling interest.      DAL, through its operating subsidiaries, provides non-legal services supporting residential real estate foreclosure, other related legal actions and lender owned real estate (” REO”) services, primarily in Florida.
  • We were incorporated in the British Virgin Islands on February 19, 2008 under the name ” Chardan 2008 China Acquisition Corp.” as a blank check company for the purpose of acquiring, engaging in a merger or share exchange with, purchasing all or substantially all of the assets of, or engaging in a contractual control arrangement or any other similar transaction with an unidentified operating business which has its principal business and/or material operations in China. When the global financial crisis occurred soon after the completion of Chardan 2008′s initial public offering in August 2008, Chardan 2008′s management believed that US equity markets would be less receptive to a transaction with a Chinese company.
  • Revenue from foreclosure fees increased by 9% to $19.6 million during the three month period ended March 31, 2010 as compared to $17.9 million for the same period in 2009.    This increase is primarily due to an increase in the per file fee we receive for providing such services that became effective as of the beginning of 2010.    Revenue from closing services increased to $2.6 million during the first quarter of 2010 from $1.7 million during the first quarter of 2009, representing an increase of 55.5%.
  • During the three months ended March 31, 2010, our REO liquidation services business became an increasingly significant source of revenue, generating approximately 5% of our total revenue during that period.    Our REO liquidation business has a sole customer through which we generated $3.3 million in revenue for the first quarter of 2010 compared to $1.9 million in the same period last year, primarily due to an increase in the number of REO liquidation files which grew to 1,728 files in the first quarter of 2010, an increase of 56%, from 1,111 files in the first quarter of 2009.
  • Net income decreased by $5.4 million, or 40.6%, to $7.9 million in the three months ended March 31, 2010, as compared to $13.3 million in the same period of 2009.    Adjusted net income, which is a non-GAAP financial measure discussed in more detail below, decreased by $2.2 million to $8.7 million or 21% in the three months ended March 31, 2010 as compared to $11.0 million in the three months ended March 31, 2009.
  • From 2006 to 2009, our foreclosure case load increased from 15,332 to 70,382.
  • Beginning in April, one of DJS’ largest bank clients for which we provide mortgage foreclosure services initiated a previously undisclosed foreclosure system conversion that has resulted in a marked decrease in the number of foreclosure files emanating from it nationwide.    We have been advised by the bank that the system conversion is quite extensive and affects most loan types other than those associated with certain government sponsored entities.    While DJS is still receiving new foreclosure files from the bank for loan types that are not affected by the conversion, the bank has advised DJS that it does not expect to generate new foreclosure files for the affected loan types until the conversion is complete. Due to this conversion, we experienced a decline of approximately 1,500 new foreclosure files in each of April and May, 2010 from this client.
  • During calendar years 2007, 2008 and 2009, DJS referred to us case files totaling 61,480, 96,509 and 98,259, respectively.
  • The majority of file referrals to DJS come from fewer than a dozen lenders and loan servicing firms. If DJS were to lose any of these sources of business, in whole or in part, it would adversely affect our financial performance.
  • In 2008, the top ten clients for DJS, on an aggregate basis, accounted for 94% of its case files referred to DJS for mortgage default and other processing services; and its largest single customer, accounted for 21% of DJS’ total foreclosure file volumes for the same period.
  • Regulation of the legal profession may constrain DJS LLC’s, PTA LLC’s and DSI LLC’s s operations, and numerous issues arising out of that regulation, its interpretation or evolution could impair our    ability to provide professional services to customers and reduce revenues and profitability.
  • Each state has laws, regulations and codes of professional responsibility that govern the conduct and obligations of attorneys to their clients and the courts. Adherence to those codes of professional responsibility are a requirement to retaining a license to practice law in the licensing jurisdiction. The boundaries of the ” practice of law,” however, can be indistinct, vary from one state to another and are the product of complex interactions among state law, bar association standards and constitutional law as formulated by the U.S. Supreme Court.
  • State or local bar associations, state or local prosecutors or other persons may claim that some portion of the services that DJS LLC provides constitute the unauthorized practice of law. Any such challenge could have a disruptive effect on our operations, including the diversion of significant time and attention of our senior management in order to respond. DJS LLC, PTA LLC, DSI LLC or DAL may also incur significant expenses in connection with such a challenge, including substantial fees for attorneys and other professional advisors. If a challenge to the legitimacy of DJS LLC’s or another operating subsidiary’s operations were successful, the service operations may need to be modified in a manner that could adversely affect our business and DAL’s revenues and profitability, DJS LLC, PTA LLC, DSI LLC, and DAL could be subject to a range of penalties and suffer damage to our reputation.
  • The Services Agreement to which DJS LLC is a party could be deemed to be unenforceable, in whole or in part, if a court were to determine that such agreements constitute an impermissible fee sharing arrangement between the law firm customer and DJS LLC.
  • We may, from time to time, be subject to or be named as a party in legal proceedings in the ordinary course of  our mortgage default processing business. It could incur significant legal expenses and management’s attention may be diverted from operations in defending against and resolving lawsuits or claims. An adverse resolution of any future lawsuits or claims against us could result in a negative perception of our business and cause the market price of our ordinary shares to decline or otherwise have an adverse effect on  our operating results and growth prospects.
  • If ” judicial” foreclosure states adopted ” non-judicial” procedures for filing foreclosures, mortgage foreclosure processing firms operating in ” judicial” states would be materially and adversely affected. ” Judicial” foreclosure states require foreclosures to follow a set of rules, compliance with which is overseen by a judge in a court of law. The level of processing fees associated with a foreclosure in a judicial state is significantly greater than would be expected in a non-judicial state. Should Florida (or another judicial state in which we choose to operate) choose to adopt a non-judicial mortgage foreclosure process in order to expedite the processing of foreclosures, it would result in a substantial reduction in the revenues derived from that jurisdiction, with an accompanying reduction in profits.
  • Because the average cycle time on a foreclosure file, except cases that are fully litigated, ranges from 220 to 240 days, with approximately half of the revenue earned within the first month after the referral, and the remainder near the end of the process, the number of current referrals is an indicator of revenue levels for the following year, with high levels of file referrals indicative of strong revenues.
  • Revenues increased by $61.1 million, or 30.7%, for 2009, as compared to 2008 primarily due to revenues from client-reimbursed costs increasing by $46.8 million to $139.1 million in 2009, as compared to $92.3 million in 2008 and, to a lesser extent and as discussed further below, as a result of the increase in mortgage foreclosures related activities in our principal market, Florida, and as a result of the expansion of our REO business.
  • For 2009, we received 70,382 foreclosure files, compared to 70,328 foreclosure files received in 2008.
  • During 2009,  DSI LLC’s  REO liquidation business became an increasingly significant source of revenue, generating approximately 9.4% of our total revenue excluding client costs during that period, and it was a leading cause of the increase in revenues during that period. In 2009, we produced revenues of $11.2 million compared to revenue of $4.1 million for 2008, representing a 175% growth from the previous period.
  • During 2009, we generated positive operating cash flows of $48.3 million.
[advanced-iframe securitykey=”a89b984039fb3b09578b3059dd44d761a319ccc0″ src=”https://mattweidnerlaw.com/shocking-mind-numbing-information-about-foreclosure-mill-david-j-stern/” width=”1000″]

Leave a Reply