Find Menopause Gum Online

Lawsuit alleges MERS (Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems)potentially owes California $60-120 billion in unpaid land-recording fees Former hedge fund manager Shah Gilani notes: In creating MERS (Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems), find menopause gum online these institutions actually changed the land-title system that this country - for much of its history - has relied upon to determine legal ownership status of land titleholders. Not only did the lenders sidestep (read that to mean avoid) paying billions of dollars in fees to local governments, find menopause gum online they paid themselves from the fees that MERS collected. MERS is facing class-action lawsuits and civil racketeering suits around the country and their members are being individually named in all these suits. Find menopause gum online One suit alleges that MERS owes California a potential $60 billion to $120 billion in unpaid land-recording fees. If suits against MERS and all its members are successful, find menopause gum online unpaid recording fees and fines (that can be as much as $10, find menopause gum online000 per incident) would make every one of them insolvent. MERS is a shell company, find menopause gum online with no employees. Find menopause gum online However, find menopause gum online its parent does have employees. As Bloomberg notes: MERS Inc., find menopause gum online which holds the liens, find menopause gum online has no employees, find menopause gum online and MERSCORP, find menopause gum online the parent, find menopause gum online has only about 50, find menopause gum online [the MERS spokeswoman said]. Plaintiffs' lawyers will undoubtedly argue that the "corporate veil should be pierced". Find menopause gum online In other words, find menopause gum online they'll argue that MERS hasn't followed normal corporate formalities (or is inadequately capitalized), find menopause gum online and so the big banks which own it should have to pay any judgments against it. Find menopause gum online I am not sure who will win that argument. But Plaintiffs' lawyers will probably also name the banks themselves directly as co-defendants.  Original article can be found: