Digital Commons Network^™

Note: City Of Oakland V. Wells Fargo Co.: Examining The Proximate Cause Standard Under The Fair Housing Act, Ava Lau-Silveira

Golden Gate University Law Review

The Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999 partially deregulated the financial industry under the premise of helping “everyone attain the American dream of home ownership.” In 1999, the “Fannie Mae” made subprime mortgage loans readily accessible to those who normally would not qualify. People in Oakland, who “used to find it difficult to obtain mortgages,” were suddenly able to obtain mortgage loans, but with subprime terms, which started with low monthly payments, but would increase based on changes in the market interest rates. By 2008, subprime borrowers began defaulting on their loans at an unprecedented rate.

During the 2008 mortgage …

The Fallout Of Too Big For Trial: Advocating Control Person Liability, Tudor Jones

Golden Gate University Law Review

The Subprime Mortgage Crisis of 2008 (Subprime Crisis or Crisis) caused an unprecedented worldwide recession. Between 2007 and 2010, the global financial services sector lost 325,000 jobs. In the United States, consumer household net worth decreased by $11 trillion. Meanwhile, C-level executives (hereafter, executives or corporate officers) from sixteen of the firms most closely associated with the Subprime Crisis were eligible to receive golden parachute payments approaching $1 billion if their firms’ failures had resulted in their terminations. Because of the government bailout program, that money would have been indirectly funded by United States taxpayers.

The Subprime Crisis presented the …

Maya V. Centex: Potential Liabilities For Developers Related To Speculative Injuries, Alexander Cheung

Golden Gate University Law Review

The Ninth Circuit’s decision in Maya v. Centex addresses the impacts of the sub-prime mortgage crisis on fiscally responsible homeowners. Maya is the first appellate decision to potentially permit homeowners to assert claims against developers for injuries related to market-wide decline in property values. In Maya, the Ninth Circuit decided only the narrow question of whether plaintiff-homeowners have constitutional standing to pursue claims against defendant-developers for injuries that were allegedly caused by the defendants’ high-risk marketing and financing behaviors. Although the Ninth Circuit did not resolve the plaintiffs’ claims, it held that the plaintiffs have constitutional standing to assert …