text:
The Complainant is Briggs Medical Service Company Inc. of West Des Moines, Iowa, United States of America, represented by Dickinson Mackaman Tyler & Hagen, PC, United States of America.
The disputed domain name <briggshealthcare.com> (“Domain Name”) is registered with Hebei Guoji Maoyi (Shanghai) LTD aka Hebei International Trading (Shanghai) Co., Ltd dba HebeiDomains.com (the “Registrar”).
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on December 16, 2011. On December 19, 2011, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On December 20, 2011, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the Domain Name which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on December 28, 2011 providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant filed a first amended Complaint on December 30, 2011. In response to a request for further amendment by the Center, the Complainant filed a second amended Complaint on January 4, 2012. On December 28, 2011, the Center transmitted an email communication to the parties in both English and Slovak regarding the language of the proceeding. On December 30, 2011, the Complainant submitted a request that English be the language of the proceeding. The Respondent did not comment on the language of the proceeding by the specified due date.
The Center appointed Olga Zalomiy as the sole panelist in this matter on February 8, 2012. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with the Rules, paragraph 7.
The Complainant is a United States company that offers medical and healthcare goods and services.
The Complainant owns several registrations in the BRIGGS trademark, including United States registrations: No. 1059210 dated February 15, 1977 for use in connection with “pressure sensitive tapes and labels; paper stationery-namely, envelopes and writing paper; telephone indexes in booklet form; printed record forms, charts, file folders and file envelopes for medical patient records; card holders and paper dividers for cards used for visible index filings; and electrocardiograph paper rolls and cardboard mountings therefore”; No. 2107151 dated October 21, 1997 for use in connection with “pressure sensitive tapes and labels; paper stationery, namely, envelopes and writing papers; telephone indexes in booklet form; printed record forms, charts, file folders and file envelopes for medical patient records; card holders and paper dividers for cards used for visible index filings; and electrocardiograph paper rolls and cardboard mountings therefore”; No. 2177437 dated July 28, 1998 for use in connection with “recorded video tapes, computer discs, and CD-ROM discs featuring training, education, and recordkeeping in the field of health care”; and No. 2294521 dated November 23, 1999 for use in connection with “mail order catalog services featuring medical supplies”.
The Complainant filed an application for registration of the BRIGGS HEALTHCARE mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) in May of 2011 and started using the mark in commerce in October of 2011.
The Respondent is Milan Kovac, a natural person who resides in Slovakia. The Domain Name <briggshealthcare.com> was registered on July 17, 2006 using Privacy Protect service. The Respondent updated the WhoIs record on July 19, 2011. The Domain Name redirects to the website “www.searchreinvented.com”, which appears to be a pay-per-click service page.
Milan Kovac has been the respondent in twelve previously decided UDRP cases and is the respondent in several other pending cases. Panels in all twelve of the previously decided cases found that the Respondent registered and used the disputed domain names in bad faith.
The Complainant alleges that it is a small company that has been in existence for over 60 years, developing, supplying and offering a variety of durable medical and healthcare goods and services throughout the world. The Complainant further alleges that it has a number of registered trademarks and service marks in the United States, Australia, Brazil, Canada, Europe, Hong Kong (China), Israel and South Africa.
The Complainant claims that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to its registered trademark BRIGGS due to the Domain Name’s similarity in sight, sound and connotation to the registered BRIGGS marks. The Complainant draws the Panel’s attention to its application for registration of the BRIGGS HEALTHCARE trademark filed with the USPTO in 2011. The Complainant points out that the USPTO required a disclaimer of the term “healthcare” because the term merely describes the Complainant’s services (i.e. in the healthcare field). In the Complainant’s opinion, this means that the dominant portion of the mark is BRIGGS. According to the Complainant, the trademark BRIGGS HEALTHCARE carries with it the goodwill garnered from the co-owned marks which have been used as early as 1961 in conjunction with healthcare–related products.
The Complainant claims that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. In Complainant’s view, the Respondent’s use of the Domain Name is not a legitimate noncommercial use. The Complainant claims that the website “www.briggshealthcare.com” is nothing more than a collection site for links unrelated to “healthcare,” which happen to have in common the term “Briggs,” such as engine parts, luggage, mowers, a high school, and even the Meyers Briggs psychological test. The Complainant further alleges that recently the Respondent’s website showed prominent presence and references to healthcare products.
The Complainant alleges that it took additional branding initiatives incorporating the BRIGGS mark into “Briggs Healthcare.” According to the Complainant, the BRIGGS HEALTHCARE mark represents its longstanding substantial goodwill in the healthcare field. To further its branding, the Complainant filed a service mark application for BRIGGS HEALTHCARE mark with the USPTO that was approved for publication in the USPTO Official Gazette in the end of December of 2011.
The Complainant claims it has not found that the Respondent owns any “Briggs” trademarks or trade names. Further, the Complainant alleges it has given no license or authorization of any kind to the Respondent to use the trademarks.
The Complainant asserts that the Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith. In the Complainant’s view, the fact that the Domain Name directs to a website that is nothing more than a hosting site for unrelated “briggs” products supports finding of bad faith. The Complainant claims that the Domain Name was registered and is being used primarily for the purpose of confusing and misleading the public. The Complainant alleges that the use of a privacy shield in the present case as well as the Respondent’s use of privacy shields in previous UDRP cases indicates bad faith.
Because the language of the registration agreement is Slovak and there is no agreement between the parties as to the use of a different language in this proceeding, the language of the proceeding would typically be Slovak. However, the Complainant submitted its Complaint in English and requested that English be the language of the proceeding. In support of its request the Complainant states that the Respondent has a history of registering domain names which corresponds to English language brands, often involving a combination of the brand name and other elements which form a coherent combination, and the Respondent’s “choice of the Domain Name <briggshealthcare.com>” suggests that the Respondent has a good command of the English language. The Respondent did not object to, or comment on, that request.
The Panel finds that the Complainant presented sufficient evidence to conclude that the Respondent will not be prejudiced if this proceeding is conducted in English. First, it appears that the Respondent understands English. The content of the Respondent’s website at the Domain Name is in English with no alternative language options. The choice of the Domain Name that constitutes a coherent phrase in English also supports this conclusion. Second, the Respondent’s website at the Domain Name contains a collection of links which redirect to other English-language websites. Third, the Center notified the Respondent of the Complaint and communicated all other case-related matters to the Respondent in both Slovak and English languages. Therefore, even if the Respondent is not proficient in English, he had a fair chance to learn about his right to object to the language of the proceeding, but failed to do so. Fourth, the Respondent was a party to at least nine UDRP proceedings, all of which were conducted in English. Finally, to force the Complainant to translate the Complaint and accompanying documents into Slovak will result in significant delay and expense.
Because of the Respondent’s apparent ability to understand the English language, the absence of any objection to English as the language of the proceeding and the objective of the UDRP to provide for a cost-effective mechanism, the Panel finds English to be an appropriate language for this proceeding.
Under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant must prove each of the following three elements in its case: (i) the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; (ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name; and (iii) the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
To satisfy the first element of the Policy, a domain name must be identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which a complainant has rights.
The Panel finds that the Complainant has rights in the BRIGGS trademark for the purposes of the Policy. Under paragraph 1.1 of the WIPO Overview 2.0, if the complainant owns a registered trademark, then it satisfies the threshold requirement of having trademark rights. Here, the Complainant has provided as evidence, copies of several trademark registrations in the BRIGGS trademark, including United States registrations: No. 1059210 dated February 15, 1977; No. 2107151 dated October 21, 1997; No. 2177437 dated July 28, 1998; and No. 2294521 dated November 23, 1999.
The Panel, however, does not find that the Complainant presented sufficient evidence to show that it has rights in the unregistered mark BRIGGS HEALTHCARE for the purpose of the Policy. It is a consensus view of the WIPO UDRP panelists that “the complainant must show that the name has become a distinctive identifier associated with the complainant or its goods or services. Relevant evidence of such “secondary meaning” includes length and amount of sales under the trademark, the nature and extent of advertising, consumer surveys and media recognition.”4 Here, the Complainant concedes that it does not have registered trademark rights in the mark BRIGGS HEALTHCARE and admits its application was published for opposition in the USPTO Official Gazette on December 27, 2011. The Complainant claims that it filed for registration of the BRIGGS HEALTHCARE service mark on May 24, 2011.
The Complainant also claims that it undertook “additional branding initiatives incorporating the ‘Briggs’ mark into the ‘Briggs Healthcare’ brand.” In support of its claim, the Complainant submitted a printout from its website which prominently displays the stylized words “Briggs Healthcare.” The Panel finds that this evidence falls short of showing that “Briggs Healthcare” has become a “distinctive identifier associated with the complainant or its goods or services” because the Complainant’s application for registration of the BRIGGS HEALTHCARE mark reveals that the Complainant started using the mark in commerce on October 3, 2011. The Panel finds the Complainant presented insufficient evidence to conclude that in two months of use of the BRIGGS HEALTHCARE mark, the Complainant built a reputation sufficient to be considered a source identifier for healthcare services.
The Complainant has proven that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the BRIGGS trademark in which the Complainant has rights, the first element of paragraph 4(a) of the UDRP has been satisfied.
Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides an open list of circumstances which demonstrate rights or legitimate interests of a respondent in a domain name. The Panel finds that the Complainant presented a prima facie showing that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name for three reasons. First, the Respondent did not use the Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. Second, the Respondent used the Domain Name for commercial gain and to misleadingly divert Internet users to its website. Third, it appears that the Respondent has not been commonly known by the Domain Name.
The Panel finds it unlikely that the Respondent used the Domain Name in connection with bona fide offering of goods or services. The Complainant submitted screenshots of the Respondent’s website “www.briggshealthcare.com,” screenshots of the Respondent’s website received from WayBackMachine and screenshots of “searchreinvented.com,” which is the website linked to the Respondent’s website. The evidence shows that until recently, the “www.briggshealthcare.com” website contained a collection of links offering various “Briggs” products (such as Briggs & Stratton11, and Briggs & Riley12) unrelated to the Complainant’s goods. Within the last month or so, the Respondent changed the content of its website. Currently, the website features several tabs relating to medical equipment and supplies. The tabs are named “medical supplies,” “medical charts,” “medical forms” and etc. Each of those tabs redirects a user to “searchreinvented.com,” which is a pay-per-click website containing advertising of various medical products.
While, the Complainant attributes the recent change in the Respondent’s website content to its letter to the Registrar concerning its rights in the BRIGGS mark, the Complainant provides no evidence to support that assertion. Regardless of the Respondent’s motives in changing the content of its website, its earlier use does not appear to constitute a “bona fide offering of goods and services” in the meaning of the Policy. Because the Respondent’s website contains no information to the contrary it is more likely than not the Respondent was not a legitimate reseller or authorized licensee of any of the BRIGGS trademarks owners. Nor does the Respondent’s use of the Domain Name constitute a legitimate noncommercial use of the Domain Name under the Policy, because it is likely that the Respondent receives remuneration for displaying third-party advertising.
Furthermore, there is no indication that the Respondent has been commonly known by the Domain Name. While the word “Briggs” is a common surname in the Unites States and is used by number of companies in the United States in connection with their goods or services that is not the case in Slovakia. Further, the Respondent’s name is different from the Domain Name. Moreover, the submitted screenshots of the website to which the Domain Name redirects, show that the website contains no information about its owner. Without such information, one cannot be “commonly known” by the Domain Name. Finally, the Respondent’s use of a privacy shield to hide its identity, is another indication that it is not commonly known by the Domain Name.
Therefore, the Panel finds that the Complainant has established a prima facie case. Without contrary evidence from the Respondent, this Panel finds that the second element of the paragraph 4(a) of the UDRP has been established.
In addition, because the Panel concludes that the Respondent is familiar with trademarks that are well-known in the United States, the Panel finds that it is more likely than not that the Domain Name was registered primarily for the purpose of confusing and misleading the public as to the affiliation of the Domain Name with the BRIGGS and BRIGGS HEALTHCARE trademarks. Because of the Complainant’s use of the BRIGGS trademark in the United States since 1961, which is 45 years earlier than the Respondent’s registration of the Domain Name, it is more likely than not that the Respondent knew about the Complainant’s BRIGGS trademark and registered the Domain Name to confuse Internet users looking for the Complainant’s products.
The Panel also finds that it is more likely than not that the Respondent used the Domain Name in bad faith.
The Complainant claims that the Domain Name was registered and is being used primarily for the purpose of confusing and misleading the public as to the affiliation of the Domain Name with its BRIGGS and BRIGGS HEALTHCARE marks and that the Respondent has been a subject of twelve UDRP proceedings concerning the registration of domain names containing trademarks of third parties. In the Panel’s view, the Complainant alleges that the Respondent’s behavior corresponds to the example of bad faith registration and use set forth in paragraph 4(b)(ii) of the Policy, which states the following: “you have registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that you have engaged in a pattern of such conduct.” Because the Panel concluded that it is likely the Respondent knew about the Complainant’s trademark and because the Respondent has been a respondent in twelve decided WIPO UDRP cases and several pending cases, the Panel accepts the Complainant’s allegation and finds that present case corresponds to the situation described in paragraph 4(b)(ii) of the Policy. Furthermore, while it is a consensus view among UDRP panelists that the “use of privacy or proxy registration service is not in and of itself an indicator or bad faith,”18 the Panel finds that Respondent’s use of a privacy shield under the circumstances of this case, coupled with the circumstances of the previous cases involving the Respondent, is evidence of the Respondent’s bad faith.
Finally, it is a well-established view among UDRP panelists that “automatically” generated material appearing on a website connected to the disputed domain name supports a finding of bad faith use under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the UDRP. “It would normally be sufficient to show that profit or “commercial gain” was made by a third party, such as by the operator of an advertising revenue arrangement applicable to the registrant, or a domain name parking service used by the registrant.”19 Based on the record, the Respondent used the website connected to the Domain Name to display third-party advertising various Briggs products and it is likely that the Respondent profited from that arrangement. As a result, the Panel finds that the Respondent used the Domain Name is bad faith.
Because the Panel finds that the Complainant proved the Respondent registered and used the Domain Name in bad faith, the Respondent satisfied the requirement of the third element of the Policy.
For the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the Domain Name <briggshealthcare.com> be transferred to the Complainant.
1 See, paragraphs 10(a) and 10(b) of the Rules; Groupe Auchan v. xmxzl, WIPO Case No. DCC2006-0004; See also Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council v. Kim Jung Hak, WIPO Case No. D2009-1583.
2 See, paragraph 4.6 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Second Edition (“WIPO Overview 2.0”).
3 See, paragraph 4.6 of the WIPO Overview 2.0.
4 See, paragraph 1.7 of the WIPO Overview 2.0.
5 See, paragraph 1.2 of the WIPO Overview 2.0.
7 See, paragraph 1.9 of the WIPO Overview, 2.0.
8 See, paragraph 1.2 of the WIPO Overview, 2.0.
9 See, paragraph 2.1 of the WIPO Overview, 2.0.
11 Briggs & Stratton is a manufacturer of air-cooled gasoline engines for outdoor power equipment.
12 Briggs & Riley is a luggage manufacturer.
13 Paragraph 2.6 of the WIPO Overview, 2.0.
15 Iowa Family Policy Center v. Basic Rights Oregon, WIPO Case No. D2011-1846.
Comerica Incorporated v. Milan Kovac, WIPO Case No. D2011-0894 (in regard to COMERICA trademark); Revlon Consumer Products Corporation v. Privacy-Protect.org / Milan Kovac, WIPO Case No. D2010-1806 (in regard to REVLON trademark); The American Automobile Association, Inc., v. aaaaautoinsurance.com Privacy--Protect.org, aaa-netaccess.com Privacy--Protect.org, aaanetacceess.com Privacy--Protect.org, Isaac Goldstein, WIPO Case No. D2011-2069 (concerning AAA trademark).
17 The American Automobile Association, Inc., v. aaaaautoinsurance.com Privacy--Protect.org, aaa-netaccess.com Privacy--Protect.org, aaanetacceess.com Privacy--Protect.org, Isaac Goldstein, WIPO Case No. D2011-2069.
18 See, Paragraph 3.9 of the WIPO Overview, 2.0.
19 See, Paragraph 3.8 of WIPO Overview 2.0.

matches: v. v. v. v. v. v. v.


text:
Estrogen receptors, antiestrogens, and non-small cell lung cancer by T. A. Bogush; E. A. Dudko; A. A. Beme; E. A. Bogush; A. I. Kim; B. E. Polotsky; S. A. Tjuljandin; M. I. Davydov (1421-1427).
This review considers data on expression of different types of estrogen receptors (ERα and ERβ) in in vitro cultured cells of non-small cell lung cancer and also in human and animal lung tumors. Estrogens are shown to play an important role in genesis and development of non-small cell lung cancer because the estrogen-stimulated cell proliferation as well as antiestrogen-caused inhibition of proliferation occurred only in the cells expressing different types of estrogen receptors. In general, the situation is similar to that observed in breast cancer, but in the cells of non-small cell lung cancer not ERα are expressed in more than half of cases but ERβ. Just estrogen receptors β play the crucial role in inducing cell proliferation in response to estrogens, and ERβ is a prognostic marker of a favorable course of non-small cell lung cancer. Data on the interactions between ER and EGFR signaling pathways, as well as on the additive antitumor effect of antiestrogens (tamoxifen and fulvestrant) combined with tyrosine kinase inhibitors (gefitinib, erlotinib, and vandetanib) are considered. The review also includes data on the influence of estrogens on genesis and development of lung cancer in humans and animals and the frequency of ERα and ERβ expression in non-small cell lung cancer in tissues from patients of the two sexes. Problems of quantitative determination of α and β estrogen receptors in the tumor cells are also discussed.
The Wnt/Frizzled GPCR signaling pathway by V. L. Katanaev (1428-1434).
G protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs) represent the biggest transmembrane receptor family. The Frizzled group of GPCRs is evolutionarily conserved and serves to transduce signals from the Wnt-type lipoglycoprotein growth factors. The Wnt/Frizzled signaling cascades are repeatedly used during animal development and are mostly silent in the adult. Improper activation of these cascades, e.g. through somatic mutation, underlies cancer development in various tissues. Our research over the past years has identified the trimeric G proteins as crucial transducers of the Wnt/Frizzled cascades in insect and mammalian cells. The current mini-review summarizes our findings on the role of G proteins in Wnt/Frizzled signaling, as well as on identification of other signaling intermediates in this physiologically and pathologically important type of intracellular signal transduction.
Cloning and characterization of indolepyruvate decarboxylase from Methylobacterium extorquens AM1 by D. N. Fedorov; N. V. Doronina; Yu. A. Trotsenko (1435-1443).
For the first time for methylotrophic bacteria an enzyme of phytohormone indole-3-acetic acid (IAA) biosynthesis, indole-3-pyruvate decarboxylase (EC 4.1.1.74), has been found. An open reading frame (ORF) was identified in the genome of facultative methylotroph Methylobacterium extorquens AM1 using BLAST. This ORF encodes thiamine diphosphate-dependent 2-keto acid decarboxylase and has similarity with indole-3-pyruvate decarboxylases, which are key enzymes of IAA biosynthesis. The ORF of the gene, named ipdC, was cloned into overexpression vector pET-22b(+). Recombinant enzyme IpdC was purified from Escherichia coli BL21(DE3) and characterized. The enzyme showed the highest k cat value for benzoylformate, albeit the indolepyruvate was decarboxylated with the highest catalytic efficiency (k cat/K m). The molecular mass of the holoenzyme determined using gel-permeation chromatography corresponds to a 245-kDa homotetramer. An ipdC-knockout mutant of M. extorquens grown in the presence of tryptophan had decreased IAA level (46% of wild type strain). Complementation of the mutation resulted in 6.3-fold increase of IAA concentration in the culture medium compared to that of the mutant strain. Thus involvement of IpdC in IAA biosynthesis in M. extorquens was shown.
Novel inhibitors of glyceraldehyde-3-phosphate dehydrogenase: Covalent modification of NAD-binding site by aromatic thiols by K. A. Chernorizov; J. L. Elkina; P. I. Semenyuk; V. K. Švedas; V. I. Muronetz (1444-1449).
Glyceraldehyde-3-phosphate dehydrogenase (GAPDH, EC 1.2.1.12) is a glycolytic enzyme catalyzing the formation of 1,3-diphosphoglycerate from glyceraldehyde-3-phosphate and inorganic phosphate. In cooperation with E3 ubiquitin-kinase Siah1, GAPDH directly participates in the apoptotic death of neurons in Parkinson’s disease. Potential GAPDH inhibitors were screened in silico, and three compounds with high affinity to the NAD-binding site and theoretically capable of forming a disulfide bond with amino acid residue Cys149 were found among cysteine and glutathione derivatives. The inhibitory effect of these compounds was tested on GAPDH from rabbit muscles using isothermal calorimetry and kinetic methods. As a result of experimental screening, we selected two compounds that inhibit GAPDH by forming disulfide bonds with the Cys149 residue in the enzyme active site. Since Cys149 is the key residue not only for the catalyzed reaction, but also for interaction with Siah1, the compounds can be assumed to inhibit the formation of the proapoptotic complex GAPDH-Siah1 and therefore have potential effect against Parkinson’s disease.
Glycosylation of purified buffalo heart galectin-1 plays crucial role in maintaining its structural and functional integrity by G. M. Ashraf; N. Bilal; N. Suhail; S. Hasan; N. Banu (1450-1457).
A buffalo heart galectin-1 purified by gel filtration chromatography revealed the presence of 3.55% carbohydrate content, thus it is the first mammalian heart galectin found to be glycosylated in nature and emphasizes the need to perform deglycosylation studies. Physicochemical comparative analysis between the properties of the native and deglycosylated proteins was carried out to understand the significance of glycosylation. The deglycosylated protein exhibited lesser thermal and pH stability compared to the native galectin. When exposed to thiol blocking reagents, denaturants, and detergents, remarkable differences were observed in the properties of the native and deglycosylated protein. Compared to the native glycosylated protein, the deglycosylated galectin showed enhanced fluorescence quenching when exposed to various agents. CD and FTIR analysis showed that deglycosylation of the purified galectin and its exposure to different chemicals resulted in significant deviations from regular secondary structure of the protein, thus emphasizing the significance of glycosylation for maintaining the active conformation of the protein. The remarkable differences observed in the properties of the native and deglycosylated galectin add an important dimension to the significance of protein glycosylation and its associated biological and clinical relevance.
Novel mutants of human tumor necrosis factor with dominant-negative properties by L. N. Shingarova; E. F. Boldyreva; S. A. Yakimov; S. V. Guryanova; D. A. Dolgikh; S. A. Nedospasov; M. P. Kirpichnikov (1458-1463).
Tumor necrosis factor (TNF) is a polyfunctional cytokine, one of the key mediators of inflammation and innate immunity. On the other hand, systemic or local TNF overexpression is typical of such pathological states as rheumatoid arthritis, psoriasis, Crohn’s disease, septic shock, and multiple sclerosis. Neutralization of TNF activity has a marked curative effect for some diseases; therefore, the search for various TNF blockers is a promising field of protein engineering and biotechnology. According to the previously developed concept concerning the possibility of designing dominant-negative mutants, the following TNF variants have been studied: TNFY87H + A145R, TNFY87H + A96S + A145R, and TNFV91N + A145R. All of these form inactive TNF heterotrimers with the native protein. The ability of mutants to neutralize the effect of TNF was investigated. The addition of mutants to the native protein was shown to provide a concentration-dependent suppression of TNF cytotoxicity against the mouse fibroblast cell line L929. Thus, novel inhibitors of human TNF can be engineered on the basis of these muteins.
Interaction of ceruloplasmin and 5-lipoxygenase by A. V. Sokolov; E. A. Golenkina; V. A. Kostevich; V. B. Vasilyev; G. F. Sud’ina (1464-1469).
The interaction between ceruloplasmin (CP), the multicopper oxidase of human plasma, and 5-lipoxygenase (5-LO), the key enzyme of leukotriene synthesis, is shown for the first time. By Western-blotting and mass spectrometry of tryptic fragments, it is shown that 5-LO from protein extract of human leukocytes binds with immobilized CP. Dose-dependent influence of intact CP on leukotrienes synthesis is found: CP reduced leukotrienes synthesis in leukocytes in a dose above 50 μg/ml (normal CP concentration in plasma is about 300–400 μg/ml). Proteolyzed CP and apo-form of CP is unable to inhibit activity of 5-LO. CP increased activity of 5-LO at low doses (5–10 μg/ml). On the whole, the influence of CP on phagocytosis index of leukocytes coordinates with influence on activity of 5-LO: the index increased in the range of 2–10 μg/ml CP and decreased at doses of CP above 40 μg/ml. The dual role of CP in regulation of cellular response of leukocytes is discussed.
Proteome analysis of chloroplasts from the moss Physcomitrella patens (Hedw.) B.S.G. by N. B. Polyakov; D. K. Slizhikova; M. Yu. Izmalkova; N. I. Cherepanova; V. S. Kazakov; M. A. Rogova; N. A. Zhukova; D. G. Alexeev; N. A. Bazaleev; A. Yu. Skripnikov; V. M. Govorun (1470-1483).
Intact chloroplasts were prepared from protoplasts of the moss Physcomitrella patens according to an especially developed method. They were additionally separated into stroma and thylakoid fractions. The proteomes of intact plastids, stroma, and thylakoids were analyzed by 1D-electrophoresis under denaturing conditions followed by protein digestion and nano-LC-ESI-MS/MS of tryptic peptides from gel bands. A total of 624 unique proteins were identified, 434 of which were annotated as chloroplast resident proteins. The majority of proteins belonged to a photosynthetic group (21.3%) and to the group of proteins implicated in protein degradation, posttranslational modification, folding, and import (20.6%). Among proteins assigned to chloroplasts, the following groups are prominent combining proteins implicated in metabolism of: amino acids (6.9%), nucleotides (2.5%), lipids (2.2%), carbohydrates (2.4%), hormones (1.5%), isoprenoids (1.25%), vitamins and cofactors (1%), sulfur (1.25%), and nitrogen (1%); as well as proteins involved in the pentose-phosphate cycle (1.75%), tetrapyrrole synthesis (3.7%), and redox processes (3.6%). The data can be used in physiological and photobiological studies as well as in further studies of P. patens chloroplast proteome including structural and functional specifics of plant protein localization in organelles.
Recombinant DNA-methyltransferase M1.BspACI from Bacillus psychrodurans AC: Purification and properties by M. V. Tarasova; V. V. Kuznetsov; N. A. Netesova; D. A. Gonchar; S. Kh. Degtyarev (1484-1490).
A restriction-modification system from Bacillus psychrodurans AC (recognition sequence 5′-CCGC-3′) comprises two DNA methyltransferases: M1.BspACI and M2.BspACI. The bspACIM1 gene was cloned in the pJW2 vector and expressed in Escherichia coli cells. High-purity M1.BspACI preparation has been obtained by chromatography on different carriers. M1.BspACI has a temperature optimum of 30°C and demonstrates maximum activity at pH 8.0. M1.BspACI modifies the first cytosine in the recognition sequence 5′-CCGC-3′. The kinetic parameters of M1.BspACI DNA methylation are as follows: K m for phage λ DNA is 0.053 μM and K m for S-adenosyl-L-methionine is 5.1 μM. The catalytic constant (k cat) is 0.095 min−1.
Dietary supplementation of old rats with hydrogenated peanut oil restores activities of mitochondrial respiratory complexes in skeletal muscles by G. E. Bronnikov; T. P. Kulagina; A. V. Aripovsky (1491-1497).
The effect of dietary supplementation of old rats (26–33 months) with hydrogenated peanut oil on the activity of mitochondrial enzymes in skeletal muscles has been studied. The activities of NADH-coenzyme Q1 oxidoreductase, cytochrome c oxidase, and citrate synthase were determined spectrophotometrically in muscle homogenates. The activities of respiratory complexes I and IV were shown to significantly decrease with the age compared to the activity of the same enzymes in young animals, while the activity of citrate synthase was virtually unchanged. The fatty acid composition of muscle homogenates of old rats differed from that of young animals by a reduced content of myristic, oleic, linoleic, and α-linolenic acids and enhanced content of dihomo-γ-linolenic, arachidonic, and docosahexaenoic acids. Per oral supple-mentation of the old rats with hydrogenated peanut oil completely restored the activity of complex IV and increased the activity of complex I to 80% of the value observed in muscles of young animals, reducing the content of stearic, dihomo-γ-linolenic, arachidonic, eicosapentaenoic, docosapentaenoic, and docosahexaenoic acids relative to that in the groups of old and young rats. The content of oleic and linoleic acids increased relatively to that in the group of the old rats, as well as young animals. The possible mechanisms of the restoration of the activity of the respiratory enzymes under the administration of hydrogenated peanut oil are discussed.
Discovery of a photosynthesizing animal that can survive for months in a light-dependent manner by V. P. Skulachev (1498-1499).
Recently M. E. Rumpho and coworkers (USA) established that the marine slug Elysia chlorotica, a gastropod mollusk that feeds on the eukaryotic filamentous yellow-green alga Vaucheria litorea, recruits chloroplasts from the alga and transports them from the digestive apparatus into a special organ of the slug that resembles a green leaf and is an approximately 100-fold increased parapodium—an outgrowth of the slug’s body. The chloroplasts survive inside the slug for up to 10 months and perform active photosynthesis accompanied by assimilation of CO2. Under conditions of starvation, this photosynthesis becomes for the animal the only source of energy and fixed carbon. For functioning, chloroplasts have to constantly import some short-lived proteins that are encoded in the nucleus of the photosynthesizing organism. Therefore, the authors supposed that a transfer of the corresponding genes must have occurred between the algal and mollusk nuclei. This hypothesis was experimentally confirmed for two genes encoding proteins of the photosynthesizing apparatus. The questions arise of what mechanism was responsible for the transfer of these genes and how the slug created its photosynthesizing organ resembling the leaf of a higher plant rather than the primitive filamentous algal structure which was the source of the acquired chloroplasts and the photosynthesis genes.

matches: V. V. V. V. V. V. V. V. V. V. V. V. V. V.


Speak with our speeding & traffic court defense lawyers if you were given a ticket and it is being heard in the Arcade Village Court in Wyoming County.
The Village of Arcade is located in Wyoming County, New York. Our traffic ticket defense lawyers and attorneys will defend your case in the Arcade Village Court. The court handles all speeding tickets [NY VTL § 1180], cell phone tickets [NY VTL § 1225], failure to yield / move over [NY VTL § 1144], lane change tickets [NY VTL § 1128], failure to signal [NY VTL § 1163], following too close [NY VTL § 1129], uninsured [NY VTL § 319], aggravated unlicensed operation [NY VTL § 511], and all other moving violations as well as automobile crimes.
The first thing you should if given a ticket in Wyoming County, NY is read the ticket carefully. There are detailed instructions to understand so that you do not accidently plead guilty as charged or end up with a license suspension. Time is always of the essence when you receive a speeding ticket in New York. Before you do anything call us right now 24 / 7 for a free consultation on our toll free traffic ticket defense hotline at 1-877-99-No-Tix (1-877-996-6849).


text:
Matthew A. Arnold is a partner in the firm. Matt concentrates his practice in the areas of medical malpractice defense, nursing home law, health care law, products liability, insurance defense, appellate law, insurance coverage, and professional liability.
Matt received a Bachelor of Science degree in Sociology/Criminal Justice (Pre-Law) from Northern Illinois University in 1993. While at NIU, Matt volunteered in the Night Narcotics Division and Felony Trial Division at 26th and California, Cook County State’s Attorney’s Office. He also received a paralegal certificate from Roosevelt University. Matt received his Juris Doctorate degree from The John Marshall Law School in Chicago in 1997. While a full-time student at John Marshall, Matt continued to volunteer and work as a paid intern in the Appellate Division writing appeals for the Cook County State’s Attorney’s Office.
Matt began his practice with the firm of Galvin, Lowery & Meade in 1997 handling general liability files. There, he continued his appellate practice, managed a satellite office in Rockford, and began his coverage experience in the field of bad faith law. After working for two years, Matt joined Price Tunney Rider, a Chicago law firm where he specialized in medical malpractice defense, nursing home law, health care law, products liability, insurance coverage, and professional liability. In 2002, Matt moved his practice to the western suburbs and joined the firm Meyer, Kreuzer & Esp, where he continued his practice in medical malpractice, nursing home law, health care law, products liability, insurance coverage, and professional liability.
Matt started early in his career trying cases. During Matt’s final year in law school, he successfully prosecuted dozens of criminal defendants on felony charges as a 711 law student. After getting a taste of trying cases, Matt continued trying numerous jury cases to verdict in counties across northern Illinois, as well as arguing successful motions on behalf of his clients. Matt has also argued in the First, Second and Third Appellate Districts, successfully defending his clients. Some of his published cases include Walikonis v. Halsor, 306 Ill.App.3d 811 (2d Dist. 1999); Sullivan v. Edward Hosp., 209 Ill.2d 100 (2004); Karas v. Strevell, 369 Ill.App.3d 884 (2d Dist. 2006); People v. Johnson, 379 Ill.App.3d 710 (2d Dist. 2008); Scott v. 5448 Campbell, 391 Ill.App.3d 1126, 991 (1st Dist. 2009); and Bosman v. Riverside Health System, 2016 IL App (3d) 150445.
In Sullivan v. Edward Hospital, Matt successfully argued before the Illinois Supreme Court. There, for the first time in the nation, a state’s highest court found that nurses should have their own nursing standard of care, and physicians should be prevented from offering their own opinions about the nursing standard. Also, Sullivan is one of the most cited cases relating to proper expert disclosure under Supreme Court Rule 213.
For more than 15 years, Matt has enjoyed serving as a court-appointed chair arbitrator for the DuPage County Mandatory Arbitration System and the Cook County Mandatory Arbitration System. Matt is a member of the Bob Jones DuPage Inns of Court, the Defense Research Institute, the Illinois Association of Defense Trial Counsel, and the Illinois State Bar Association.


Following FHA’s Short Sale Program allows homeowners to purchase immediately after a short sale. Read the FHA Short Sale Guidelines and FHA repurchase program that affects short sales on All HUD Properties.
High foreclosure rates continue to have devastating effects on families and neighborhoods. The Federal Housing Administration (FHA) remains committed to taking actions to help families avoid foreclosure. Since being introduced as a national program in 1994, the PFS Program has helped thousands of mortgagors in default to avoid foreclosure and transition to more affordable housing. The Pre-Foreclosure Sale can help many families who today are facing foreclosure. The PFS loss mitigation option allows a mortgagor in default to sell his or her home and use the sale proceeds in satisfaction of the mortgage debt when the proceeds are less than the amount owed.
This Mortgagee Letter (ML) serves to remind mortgagees of the relief that the PFS Program can bring to borrowers with FHA-insured mortgages. To facilitate greater use of this program, FHA has consolidated in this ML the requirements of the PFS Program that have been issued over the years, and has updated and clarified those requirements where needed, to better address the problems faced by mortgagors today and provide greater flexibility in considering a mortgagor’s candidacy for participation in this program.
Establishing Market Value –Mortgagees are reminded to ensure that properties in the PFS program are sold at or near fair market value as established by an independent appraisal, prepared by an appraiser on the FHA Appraisal Roster.
Minimum List Price Requirements – Properties offered for sale under the PFS program are to be listed for sale at no less than the “as-is” appraised value as determined by a current FHA appraisal, obtained and reviewed by the mortgagee.
Negative Equity – The ratio of 63% for the fair market value (FMV) to the outstanding mortgage balance (including unpaid principal and accrued interest) has been updated to address events in the current housing market, and replaced with tiered net sales proceeds.
Tiered Net Proceeds Requirement – This ML incorporates guidelines for varying minimum net sales proceeds based on the length of time a property has been competitively marketed for sale.
Marketing Documentation – Prior to accepting a discounted offer, evidence of competitive marketing from the selling broker is to be presented and mortgagees are to retain this documentation in the claim review file.
Non-owner Occupant Exceptions – Mortgagees are authorized to grant reasonable exceptions to non-occupant mortgagors when documentation indicates a property was not purchased as a rental or used as a rental for more than 18 months, immediately preceding the approval into the PFS program.
Removal of Repair Limitations –With prior approval from HUD, properties with surchargeable damage (i.e., damage caused by fire, flood, earthquake, hurricane, boiler explosion or mortgagee neglect) may be eligible for the PFS program if funds – sufficient to cover the government’s estimated repair costs – are applied to reduce the outstanding debt when a claim is filed.
Increase in Funds Available for Discharge of Subordinate Liens – In instances where a mortgagor has made an initial contribution/incentive of $750 or $1,000, the amount that can be used from sales proceeds for the discharge of liens or encumbrances (which represent an impediment to conveyance of marketable title) has been raised from $2,000 to $2,500.
Change in Allowable Closing Costs – Subject to the stated ratios, HUD allows up to 1% of the buyer’s mortgage amount for closing costs to be included in the “Seller’s Costs” on the HUD-1 for all transactions that involve a new FHA-insured mortgage.
This ML supersedes in its entirety ML 1994-45, “HUD’s Nationwide Pre-Foreclosure Sale (PFS) Procedure”. It also supersedes the section (pages 29-35) of ML 2000-05, “Loss Mitigation Program-Comprehensive Clarification of Policy and Notice of Procedural Changes” that describes Pre-Foreclosure Sale requirements.
Form HUD-90035 (Information Sheet) and Form HUD-90036 (Application to Participate) have been consolidated to reflect updates made to the program and to delete any reference to HUD’s former Assignment Program. The new Form HUD-90035 (Information/Disclosure) no longer requires the signature of the party providing homeownership counseling to the mortgagor. Form HUD-90036, Application to Participate is obsolete and no longer required.
Form HUD-90038 (Homeownership Counseling Certificate) is now obsolete. Form HUD-90054 (Pre-Foreclosure Sale Data Reporting) and Form HUD-92068-F (Mortgage Assignment Program Request for Financials) were both previously declared obsolete.
Form HUD-90041 (Request for Variance) has been slightly modified to reflect the new minimum net sales proceeds of 84%.
Form HUD-90045 (Approval to Participate) has been modified to provide a signature block for the mortgagor’s signature(s) and new language describing HUD’s current PFS Program.
Mortgagees are reminded that HUD performs monitoring reviews of appraisals and holds mortgagees accountable for the quality of appraisals on properties securing FHA-insured mortgages. As such, HUD may request electronically-formatted appraisals to review and ensure their accuracy. Mortgagees who submit appraisals that do not meet HUD’s requirements are subject to the imposition of sanctions by the HUD Mortgagee Review Board in accordance with 24 CFR Part § 25.9 (ee) and Part § 203.5 (e)(3).
Paperwork reduction information collection requirements contained in this document have been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520) and assigned OMB Control Number 2502-0464. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, HUD may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection displays a currently valid OMB Control Number.
Mortgagees may direct questions or concerns regarding the Department’s PFS procedures to the Customer Call Center for HUD’s National Servicing Center (NSC). The toll free number is (888) 297-8685. Persons with hearing or speech impairments may reach this number via TDD/TTY by calling 1-877-TDD-2HUD (1-877-833-2483).
The Pre-Foreclosure Sale (PFS) option allows mortgagors in default (resulting from an adverse and unavoidable financial situation) to sell their home at FMV and use the sale proceeds to satisfy the mortgage debt even if the proceeds are less than the amount owed. This option is appropriate for mortgagors whose financial situation requires that they sell their home, but they are unable to do so without FHA relief because the gross recovery on the sale of their property (i.e., sales price minus sales expenses) is less than the amount owed on the mortgage. HUD’s home retention alternatives such as Special Forbearance, Mortgage Modification, or Partial Claim must first be considered and determined unlikely to succeed due to the mortgagor’s financial situation. Mortgagees must maintain supporting documentation to demonstrate that a comprehensive review of the mortgagor’s financial records was completed, and that the mortgagor did not have sufficient income to sustain the mortgage. Under no circumstances shall the PFS option be made available to mortgagors who have abandoned their mortgage obligation despite their continued ability to pay.
To participate in the program, mortgagors must be willing to make a commitment to actively market their property for a period of 3 months, during which time the mortgagee delays foreclosure action. Mortgagors who successfully sell to a third party within the required time may receive a cash consideration of up to $1,000. Mortgagees also receive a $1,000 incentive for successfully avoiding the foreclosure and complying with all the requirements of this ML. If the property does not sell, mortgagors are encouraged to use the deed-in-lieu of foreclosure (DIL) option, providing the title on the property is marketable. By following procedures and time frames included in this ML, a mortgagee may submit a FHA insurance claim and be compensated for the difference between the sale proceeds and the amount owed on the mortgage (including accrued interest and reimbursable costs).
A PFS sale must be an outright sale of the property. If a foreclosure occurs after the mortgagor unsuccessfully participated in the PFS process in good faith, neither the mortgagee nor HUD will pursue the mortgagor for a deficiency judgment.
Home Equity Conversion Mortgages (HECM) are not eligible for the PFS Program. The Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) provides special provisions for HECM short sales. Mortgagees should refer to 24 CFR Part § 206.125 (c) or contact HUD’s NSC at the address below (Attention: HECM Housing Specialist) or email [email protected].
At the time the PFS closes, the loan must be in default (i.e., delinquent more than 30 days). Mortgagees may exercise their discretion to accept applications from mortgagors who are current but facing imminent default. However, by the date the PFS settlement occurs, the loan must be in default. Mortgagees should document this decision in the claim review file.
On the 32nd day but, no later than the 60th day of delinquency, the mortgagee shall send the delinquent borrower a pamphlet (HUD-PA-426, How to Avoid Foreclosure) about foreclosure avoidance. This pamphlet provides mortgagors with important information about loss mitigation alternatives, which include the pre-foreclosure sale option.
Mortgagees must inform mortgagors of the full spectrum of foreclosure-avoidance options prior to mortgagors’ participation in the PFS Program. The mortgagee shall also advise that default counseling is available and highly recommended, though not required.
A mortgagor who has expressed an interest in the PFS option or who has been identified by the mortgagee as a qualified candidate for the PFS Program must be mailed a copy of the revised Form HUD-90035 (Information/Disclosure). Prior to mailing Form HUD-90035, the mortgagee must add its toll-free or collect telephone number to the form. Form HUD-90035 provides the mortgagor with appropriate PFS disclosures, information on housing counseling, and information about tax consequences. This disclosure form, the aforementioned pamphlet, and other HUD forms can be found on HUDclips at: http://www.hudclips.org.
Prior to signing Form HUD-90045 (Approval to Participate), the mortgagee must request financial documentation to evaluate the mortgagor’s ability to support the mortgage debt. The PFS option may not be offered to mortgagors who have sufficient personal resources to pay off their mortgage commitment.
The mortgagee may prescribe the form that the mortgagor must use to submit its financial information. Mortgagors may provide financial information during a telephone interview, electronically, via the regular mail, or in person. Regardless of how the mortgagor’s financial information is obtained, the mortgagee must independently verify the financial information. Mortgagors with surplus income and/or other assets are required to re-pay the indebtedness through the use of a repayment plan.
Subtracting expenses from income to determine the amount of surplus income available each month.
If the mortgagee’s evaluation indicates that the mortgagor is not eligible for a PFS or another loss mitigation option, the mortgagee must immediately advise the mortgagor of this decision in writing, explaining the reason for denial and giving the mortgagor at least seven calendar days to respond. In the servicing or claim review file, the mortgagee must maintain all evidence (i.e., supporting documentation, including all communication logs) of compliance with HUD’s Loss Mitigation Program requirements.
Distress sales may not be used by the appraiser to establish comparable values unless they represent the only comparables within reasonable proximity of the subject property.
Provide a copy of the appraisal to the homeowner, sales agent, or HUD, upon request.
Mortgagees are reminded that in accordance with HUD regulations at 24 CFR Part § 203.365 (c) they are responsible for the accuracy of all documentation used in the PFS decision, including accurate and complete appraisal information.
In an effort to ensure that the most current FMV is used for the PFS, a mortgagee may obtain a new FHA appraisal, even if the property was appraised by an FHA Roster Appraiser within the preceding 6 months.
To be reimbursed through HUD’s claim filing process, the cost of the appraisal must be reasonable and customary for the market area where the appraisal is performed. The appraisal must be retained in the claim/servicing file, even if the PFS is not approved or completed.
Properties that have sustained damage may be eligible for the PFS option. If the cause of the damage is fire, flood, earthquake, tornado, boiler explosion (for condominium’s only) or mortgagee neglect (i.e., surchargeable damages as defined in 24 CFR Part § 203.378) mortgagees must obtain prior approval from the NSC at the address above. Prior to seeking this approval, the mortgagee must obtain the government’s estimate of the cost to repair the surchargeable damage by contacting the HUD Management and Marketing (M&M) Contractor with jurisdiction for the geographic area where the property is located. A list of M&M Contractors can be found on the Internet at: http://www.hud.gov/offices/hsg/sfh/reo/mm/mmingo.cfm.
Upon receipt of the government’s repair estimate, the mortgagee must submit a Form HUD-90041 (Request for Variance) to the NSC to obtain the approval needed to enter into a PFS Agreement with the mortgagor.
In accordance with 24 CFR Part § 203.379 mortgagees are responsible for the cost of surchargeable property damage. If the property is being sold “As Is” subject to the damage, the mortgagee will be required to deduct the government’s estimate of the cost of the damage from its PFS claim (See Appendix A – Claim Filing Instructions for Item 109).
If the property is being sold “As Repaired” and funds for surchargeable repairs will be escrowed or provided as a credit to the borrower at closing, the amount of the repair escrow or repair credit is not an allowable settlement cost as defined in Section J of this ML and may not be included in the net sales proceeds calculation.
If the damage is not surchargeable it is not necessary to obtain approval from NSC prior to approving the PFS Agreement. Regardless of the cause of the damage, the mortgagee must work with the mortgagor to file a hazard insurance claim and either use the proceeds to repair the property or adjust the claim by the amount of the insurance settlement (non-surchargeable damage) or the government’s repair cost estimate.
Mortgagors are required to disclose any property damage to the mortgagee during the application or after the PFS approval. In the event a property sustains significant damage after a mortgagor has received approval to participate in the PFS program, the mortgagee must re-evaluate the property to determine if it continues to qualify for the PFS Program and terminate participation if the extent of the damage changes the property’s FMV. .
All properties sold under the PFS Program must have marketable title. Prior to execution of Form HUD-90045 ( Approval to Participate) the mortgagee must obtain a title search or preliminary report verifying that the title is not impaired with un-resolvable title problems or with junior liens that cannot be discharged as permitted by HUD. If the mortgagee determines that these issues can be resolved, the mortgagor may be accepted into the PFS Program and resolution of said issues may be pursued while the property is being marketed.
Frequently, it is in the interest of all parties to facilitate the discharge of secondary liens in order to clear title. In some cases, junior lien holders will release a lien for a partial cash payment or a promissory note from the mortgagor. Mortgagors who have the financial ability to do so must be required to satisfy or obtain release of liens. Additionally, any incentive consideration payable to the mortgagor ($750 to $1,000) may be applied toward discharging liens.
If no other source of funds is available after applying the mortgagor’s incentive amount, the mortgagee may obligate up to an additional $1,500 – for a total of $2,500 – from sale proceeds towards discharging liens or encumbrances to meet all required ratios.
Title I Liens – If the first mortgagee discovers that a mortgagor has a HUD Title I (property improvement) loan secured by the property, the first mortgage holder must contact the Title I subordinate lien holder to advise of the mortgagor’s participation in a PFS. The first mortgagee may be required to negotiate the release of the lien in order to proceed with a PFS.
Section 235 Recapture – Mortgagors with Section 235 mortgages may be eligible to participate in the PFS Program. However, the mortgagee must first determine if the loan is subject to recapture as referenced in Chapter 11 of HUD Handbook 4330.1, Rev. 4 (Administration of Insured Home Mortgages). Generally, if the mortgagor has no equity in the property, there will be no recapture amount owed to HUD under the subsidy provisions of the 235 mortgage. If a recapture amount is owed to HUD after completing the calculation, the mortgagee should contact HUD’s NSC prior to approving the PFS.
Partial Claim – The partial claim (unpaid subordinate mortgage) amount must be included in the total delinquency when calculations are made. Any outstanding balance on a partial claim note must be deducted from the net sale proceeds based on the tiered structure of 88%, 86% or the minimum of 84% of “as-is” appraised FMV.
After determining that a mortgagor and property meet the participation requirements herein, the mortgagee must notify the mortgagor using Form HUD-90045 (Approval to Participate). The form shall include the date by which the mortgagor’s sales contract must be executed.
A mortgagor must acknowledge their decision to participate in the PFS program by signing and returning Form HUD-90045 (Approval to Participate) to the mortgagee within 7 days of receiving the form. The mortgagor’s signature on Form HUD-90045 confirms their agreement to comply with the PFS Program requirements listed below. Mortgagees must monitor the PFS transaction in its entirety to ensure the mortgagors’ compliance with these requirements and, should terminate a mortgagor’s participation in the PFS Program in the event of noncompliance.
Use of Real Estate Broker – The services of a real estate broker/agent must be retained to market a property within 7 days of the date the approval to participate is granted. The broker/agent must market the property within the pre-established time frame and list the property for the established sales price. The broker/agent selected should have no conflict of interest with the mortgagor, the mortgagee, the appraiser or the purchaser associated with the PFS transaction. Any conflict of interest, appearance of a conflict, or self-dealing by any of the parties to the transaction is strictly prohibited. A broker/agent shall never be permitted to claim a sales commission on a PFS of his or her own property or that of an immediate family member (e.g., spouse, sibling, parent, or child).
Pre-Existing Purchasers – The requirement to engage a real estate professional does not apply if a mortgagor located a buyer for the property prior to being approved to participate in the PFS Program, providing all PFS requirements are met concerning appraisal requirements and minimum ratios for net sales proceeds.
Property Maintenance – Until the PFS transaction has closed, the mortgagor must maintain the property in “ready to show” condition, make basic property repairs, and perform all normal property maintenance activities (e.g., interior cleaning, lawn maintenance, etc.).
Arms-Length Transaction – Mortgagors and mortgagees must adhere to ethical standards of conduct in their dealings with all parties involved in a PFS transaction. The PFS must be between two unrelated parties and be characterized by a selling price and other conditions that would prevail in a typical real estate sales transaction.
Relocation Services – A relocation service affiliated with the mortgagor’s employer may contribute a fixed sum towards the proceeds of the PFS, without altering the arms- length nature of the sale. This contribution simply reduces the shortfall between the proceeds and the amount owed on the mortgage note. As with any other PFS, such a transaction must result in the outright sale of the property and cancellation of the FHA mortgage insurance.
The mortgagee will have 5 working days from receipt of an executed Contract for Sale to respond back to the mortgagor using the Form HUD-90051 (Sales Contract Review). The PFS transaction must be an outright sale of the premises.
No sale by assumption, regardless of provisions for release of liability, may be considered. The contract must not include contingencies that might delay or jeopardize a timely settlement.
Before approving any sales contract, the mortgagee must review the sales documentation to determine that there are no hidden terms or special agreements existing between any of the parties involved in the transaction. Additionally, the mortgagee must determine if the property was marketed at the gross offering price (close to FMV) and the minimum net sales proceeds’ requirements (described herein) have been met. The mortgagee will be liable for any insurance claim overpayment on a PFS transaction that closes with net sales proceeds less than the percentages indicated below.
Net Sale Proceeds – Regardless of the property’s sale price, a mortgagee may not approve a PFS contract if the net sale proceeds fall below the minimum allowable thresholds stated herein. HUD has established guidelines for varying minimum net sales proceeds based on the length of time a property has been competitively marketed for sale.
For the first 30 days of marketing, mortgagees may only approve offers that will result in minimum net sale proceeds of 88% of the “as-is” appraised FMV.
During the next 30 days of marketing, mortgagees may only approve offers that will result in minimum net sale proceeds of 86% of the “as-is” appraised FMV.
For the duration of the PFS marketing period, mortgagees may only approve offers that will result in minimum net sale proceeds of 84% of the “as-is” appraised FMV.
Mortgagees have the discretion to deny or delay sales where an offer may meet or exceed the 84%, if it is presumed that continued marketing would likely produce a higher sale amount. However, the mortgagee is still limited to 4 to 6 months after the date of the mortgagor’s approval to participate in the PFS Program.
Up to 1% of the buyer’s first mortgage amount if the sale includes FHA financing.
Unacceptable Settlement Costs – The following costs may not be included in the net sales proceeds calculation, however, the seller may use their consideration of $750 or $1,000 for these settlement costs.
There is a signed Contract of Sale, but settlement has not occurred by the end of the fourth month following the date of the mortgagor’s approval to participate in the PFS Program.
Mortgagees are reminded that, on a monthly basis, they must review a property’s marketing status with the mortgagor and/or real estate broker.
Mortgagees have a responsibility to ensure that insured properties are not subject to abandonment or waste, and are required to conduct property inspections on the 45th day following default if there has been no contact with the mortgagor. Property preservation and protection (P&P) inspections are not required during the PFS period if contact with the mortgagor is maintained, unless there is reason to suspect that the property has become vacant. Inspections to verify occupancy are reimbursable using Part C of the Form HUD-27011 (Single Family Application for Insurance Benefits). However, funds expended for P&P work on an occupied property are not reimbursable.
Re-evaluation of the information provided by the mortgagor indicates that the case does not qualify for the PFS option.
The mortgagee must forward the mortgagor a date-stamped written explanation for terminating his/her program participation. This letter shall also include the “end-of-participation” date for the mortgagor. The mortgagee must then resume appropriate servicing actions.
At the expiration of the PFS period, the mortgagee must re-evaluate available loss mitigation options. If the mortgagor’s financial condition has improved to the point that reinstatement is a viable option, the mortgagee may undertake one of the home retention loss mitigation tools. If reinstatement is not feasible, the mortgagee should try to obtain a DIL of foreclosure before commencing foreclosure. An alternate loss mitigation option or first legal action to initiate foreclosure must be completed within 90 days of the expiration of the PFS period. If more than 90 days are needed to complete a DIL or initiate foreclosure or resume foreclosure, mortgagees must follow HUD’s standard extension procedures and request an extension from the NSC.
FHA will pay mortgagees an incentive fee of $1,000 for each completed PFS transaction that complies with all of the requirements in this ML. This fee may be claimed on line 129, Part B of Form HUD-27011.
Mortgagors, acting in good faith, who successfully sell their properties using this option are relieved of their mortgage obligation and are entitled to a consideration of $750. If the closing occurs within 3 months of the approval to participate, the mortgagor will be entitled to $1,000. Unless the mortgagor’s consideration is required to release junior liens, the mortgagor may elect to accept cash paid at closing. The mortgagor may also apply a portion of or the entire amount of consideration to offset sales costs not paid by HUD; including a home warranty plan fee, costs of optional repairs, and buyer’s closing expenses. If the PFS is unsuccessful and foreclosure occurs, mortgagors who participate in the PFS Program in good faith will not be pursued for deficiency judgments by the mortgagee or HUD.
The Form HUD-90052 is included in the claim/servicing file.
Once the mortgagee gives final approval for the PFS and the settlement occurs, the closing agent must pay the expenses out of the proceeds, and must forward the net sales proceeds to the mortgagee. The closing agent must also forward a copy of the Form HUD-1 to the mortgagee to be included in the claim/servicing file.
A PFS must be reported to national credit bureaus as a “short sale”. Mortgagees will be responsible for filing a Form 1099-A (Acquisition or Abandonment of Secured Property) with the Internal Revenue Service and reporting any discharge of indebtedness, in accordance with the Internal Revenue Code.
HUD will reimburse the mortgagee for reasonable and customary costs of the appraisal, title search (if not included in the settlement statement), and the allowable percentage of legal fees for a postponed foreclosure, pending completion of the PFS.
Disbursements for taxes, assessments, hazard insurance and other allowable items payable before the date of the PFS closing are reimbursable only if they are not satisfied at closing. HUD will not pay property-related costs which were incurred after the PFS closing date.
HUD will monitor mortgagees by selecting and reviewing appraisals for risk assessment purposes. Electronic appraisals will be reviewed for accuracy and to ensure that FMVs were used in lieu of distressed sale values. HUD is now requiring mortgagees to enter the FMV in Block 30 on Part A of Form HUD-27011.
The consideration paid to the mortgagor and allowable amounts (i.e., which do not exceed $2,500) paid to release all junior liens must be reflected on the Form HUD-1 and must not be included on the Form HUD-27011. The mortgagee’s incentive fee must be entered on line 129 of Part B of the Form HUD-27011.
Upon receipt of the portion of the sales proceeds designated for mortgage satisfaction, the mortgagee will satisfy the mortgage obligation and file a PFS claim for FHA insurance benefits via Form HUD-27011. The mortgagee must not submit an FHA insurance termination to the Department if a PFS claim will be filed.
If the mortgagee began the PFS process timely, then HUD will grant the mortgagee an automatic extension of 90 days after termination of the PFS to initiate another loss mitigation action or undertake the first legal action to institute foreclosure as described in Section “N” of this ML. To receive the extension, the ending date of the terminated or failed PFS transaction must be entered in Block 21 of Part A of the Form HUD-27011. A date that is no more than 90 days after the date listed in Block 21 must be entered in Block 19, to receive this extension. The claim for insurance benefits, (Parts A and B of Form HUD-27011), should be received by HUD within 30 days after the settlement date of the PFS transaction. If the sale proceeds have not been received from the closing agent, an extension must be requested from the NSC. The expiration date of the approved extension must be recorded in Block 20 on Part A of Form HUD-27011.
HUD will hold mortgagees, submitting excessive claims that do not meet the aforementioned required minimum allowable tiered-thresholds of 88%, 86%, or 84%, liable for excessive claim amounts. Claim filing instructions are located in Appendix A and these instructions supersede those found in Chapter 8 of HUD Handbook 4330.1 rev 1 (FHA Single Family Claims) For questions about filing a claim, please send an email to [email protected] Mortgagees must include their Servicer Number, FHA Case Number, and a keyword phrase, such as “claim filing,” “claims status,” etc., in the e-mail subject line.
Status Code 17 to indicate that the PFS transaction has been completed.
Mortgagees must update SFDMS with Status Code 15 in the month that the mortgagor is approved to participate in the PFS Program. Mortgagees must continue to report the account under Status Code 15 during the entire time that the mortgagor is participating in the PFS Program. Once a PFS is complete (i.e., settlement has occurred and all funds have been received), mortgagees must report the account as Status Code 17 within 30 days of the PFS closing date. However, if no successful PFS transaction occurs and a DIL is obtained, the account should be reported as Status Code 47 in the month the DIL is recorded. Information on additional status codes along with instructions referring to bankruptcy, foreclosure, etc. are included in Mortgagee Letter 2006-15.
Mortgagees will be in compliance with HUD’s reporting requirements when reporting codes are entered into the SFDMS within the above-prescribed timeframes. If reporting codes are not provided within the prescribed timeframes, the mortgagee will be subject to interest curtailment. Mortgagees are subject to interest curtailment if they do not initiate the PFS transaction or report the initiation of the PFS transaction to HUD via SFDMS timely.
A mortgagee must not submit a Mortgage Insurance Termination in situations where the mortgagee has filed or intends to file a claim for FHA insurance benefits. HUD can only pay FHA mortgage insurance benefits when the mortgage insurance is in an “active” status. Mortgagees may direct questions or concerns regarding the Department’s PFS procedures to the NSC’s Customer Service Call Center. The center’s toll free number is 1-888-297-8685.
The regulations for the PFS Program are codified in 24 CFR 203.370.
High foreclosure rates continue to have devastating effects on families and neighborhoods. The Federal Housing Administration (FHA) remains committed to taking actions to help families avoid foreclosure. Since being introduced as a national program in 1994, the PFS Program has helped thousands of mortgagors in default to avoid foreclosure and transition to more affordable housing. The PFS Program can help many families who today are facing foreclosure. The PFS loss mitigation option allows a mortgagor in default to sell his or her home and use the sale proceeds in satisfaction of the mortgage debt when the proceeds are less than the amount owed.
This entry was posted on Friday, January 13th, 2012 at 2:52 pm	and is filed under Options To Foreclosure, Sacramento Short Sale and Sacramento Foreclosure News, Short Sale FAQ's, Short Sale Process 101. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.


text:
Jus in bello, law concerning acceptable conduct in war.
Jus ad bellum, law concerning acceptable justifications to use armed force.
Attempts to define and regulate the conduct of individuals, nations, and other agents in war and to mitigate the worst effects of war have a long history. In medieval Europe the Roman Catholic Church promulgated teachings on just war, reflected to some extent in movements such as the Peace and Truce of God. The impulse to restrict the extent of warfare, and especially protect the lives and property of non-combatants continued with Hugo Grotius and his attempts to write laws of war.
In addition, the Nuremberg War Trial judgment on "The Law Relating to War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity" held, under the guidelines Nuremberg Principles, that treaties like the Hague Convention of 1907, having been widely accepted by "all civilised nations" for about half a century, whereby then part of the customary laws of war and binding on all parties whether the party was a signatory to the specific treaty or not.
Interpretations of international humanitarian law change over time and this also affects the laws of war. For example Carla Del Ponte, the chief prosecutor for the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia pointed out in 2001 that although there is no specific treaty ban on the use of depleted uranium projectiles, there is a developing scientific debate and concern expressed regarding the impact of the use of such projectiles and it is possible that, in future, there will be a consensus view in international legal circles that use of such projectiles violate general principles of the law applicable to use of weapons in armed conflict. This is because in future it may be the consensus view that depleted uranium projectiles breaches one or more of the following treaties: The Universal Declaration of Human Rights; the Charter of the United Nations; the Genocide Convention; the United Nations Convention Against Torture; the Geneva Conventions including Protocol I; the Convention on Conventional Weapons of 1980; the Chemical Weapons Convention; and the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material.
It has often been commented that creating laws for something as inherently crimeful and lawless as war seems like a lesson in absurdity. However, based on the adherence to what amounted to customary international law by warring parties through the ages, it was felt that codifying laws of war would be beneficial.
Among other issues, the laws of war address declaration of war, acceptance of surrender and the treatment of prisoners of war; military necessity along with distinction and proportionality; and the prohibition of certain inhumane weapons which cause unnecessary suffering.
It is a violation of the laws of war to engage in combat without meeting certain requirements, among them the wearing of a distinctive uniform or other distinctive signs visible at a distance, and the carrying of weapons openly. Impersonating soldiers of the other side by wearing the enemy's uniform is allowed, though fighting in that uniform, like fighting under a white flag, is perfidy which is forbidden, as is the taking of hostages.
The Law of Land Warfare is that part of the Laws of War applicable to the conduct of warfare on land (territory) and to relationships between belligerents and neutral states. This article, derived from public domain government sources, generally describes the law as internationally understood. The conduct of armed hostilities on land is regulated by the law of land warfare which is both written and unwritten.
The law of war places limits on the exercise of a belligerent’s power mentioned under Purposes and requires that belligerents refrain from employing any kind or degree of violence which is not actually necessary for military purposes and that they conduct hostilities with regard for the principles of humanity and chivalry.
The law of war is binding not only upon States as such but also upon individuals and, in particular, the members of their armed forces.
Custom. Not all the law of war derives from or has been incorporated in such treaties, which can refer to the continuing importance of customary law. (see Martens Clause). Such customary international law is established by the general practice of nations together with their acceptance that such practice is required by law.
Some treaties, notably the UN charter (1945) Article 2, and some other articles in the charter, seek to curtail the right of member states to declare war; as does the older Kellogg-Briand Pact of 1928 for those nations who ratified it. The Kellogg-Briand Pact was used against those charged at the Nuremberg War Trials in Germany post-WW2 for waging an aggressive war.
Parties are bound by the laws of war to the extent that such compliance does not interfere with achieving legitimate military goals. For example, they are obliged to make every effort to avoid damaging people and property not involved in combat, but they are not guilty of a war crime if a bomb mistakenly hits a residential area.
Well-known examples of such laws include the prohibition on attacking doctors or ambulances displaying a Red Cross, a Red Crescent or other emblem related to the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement (this sometimes leads to confusion when the British military is involved, where certain regiments use the English flag, which is also a red cross). It is also prohibited to fire at a person or vehicle bearing a white flag, since that indicates an intent to surrender or a desire to communicate. In either case, the persons protected by the Red Cross or white flag are expected to maintain neutrality, and may not engage in warlike acts; in fact, engaging in war activities under a white flag or red cross is itself a violation of the laws of war known as perfidy.
Soldiers who break specific provisions of the laws of war lose the protections and status afforded as prisoners of war but only after facing a "competent tribunal" (GC III Art 5). At that point they become an unlawful combatant but they must still be "treated with humanity and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial", because they are still covered by GC IV Art 5. For example in 1976 foreign soldiers fighting for FNLA were captured by the MPLA in the civil war that broke out when Angola gained independence from Portugal in 1975. After "a regularly constituted court" found them guilty of being mercenaries, three Britons and an American were shot by a firing squad on July 10, 1976. Nine others were imprisoned for terms of 16 to 30 years.
If someone is (or is suspected to be) a citizen or soldier of a nation which has signed or abides by the Fourth Geneva Convention (see Art. 2 and Art. 4 citations above), or is (or is suspected to be) a "prisoner of war" (POW) per the definitions of such "protected persons" in the Third Geneva Convention (see Art. 4 and Art. 5), the following applies: A POW who breaks specific provisions of the laws of war may be penalized, but not penalized worse than the tribunal would penalize its own soldiers for the same offense (and usually a disciplinary, not judicial, punishment if its own soldiers normally wouldn't be brought to trial for a particular offense) and POW's may not be penalized based on rank or gender, nor with corporal punishment, collective punishments for individual acts, lack of daylight, or torture/cruelty (GC IV, Art. 82 through Art. 88).
History has shown that the laws of war are traditionally more strictly applied to those defeated, as the victorious faction are placed in the role of policing themselves. While it can be argued that the victors may be less strict on their own forces, it can also be argued that the signing of the treaties involved in the laws of war implies a good-faith promise to adhere to them equally. As with many facets of war, the aftermath and subsequent legal proceedings depend heavily on circumstance, and are different for each conflict.
There is an emerging trend in the US to hold private corporations civilly liable for aiding and abetting in war crimes, by knowingly providing substantial assistance in the commission of the crimes. Under international law, the mens rea element is knowledge, not intent that the crimes be carried out. This opens the door not only to hold private security contractors liable, but also other kinds of corporations which employ violent mercenary or terrorist groups as private security forces. Although conflict zones often lack functioning legal systems, and government may even have passed laws immunizing private mercenaries from criminal liability, aiding and abetting a war crime can still be the basis for civil liability in a foreign court with jurisdiction over the defendant corporation.
1864 First Geneva Convention "for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field"
1928 League of Nations declaration for the "Protection of Civilian Populations Against Bombing From the Air in Case of War"
1928 Amsterdam Draft Convention for the Protection of Civilian Populations Against New Engines of War.
A Brief History Of The Laws Of War.
For the Sake of Warriors: Accepting the Limits of the Law of War.
The Yearbook of International Humanitarian Law and free access to a Documentation Database of primary source materials..
Trial of Otto Skorzeny and Others, General Military Government Court of the U.S. Zone of Germany, 18th August to 9th September, 1947.
When the Law of War Becomes Over-lawyered, JURIST.
A Brief Primer on International Law, 2007. With cases and commentary. (Nathaniel Burney).
Sharon cannot be tried in Belgium, says court The Guardian 15 February, 2002 (Andrew Osborn).
reviews of Michael Byers, War Law, and David Kennedy, Of War and Law, Democratiya, Autumn 2007 (Irfan Khawaja).
Judgement : The Law Relating to War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity contained in the Avalon Project archive at Yale Law School.
Joan T. Phillips. List of documents and web links relating to the law of armed conflict in air and space operations, May 2006. Bibliographer, Muir S. Fairchild Research Information Center Maxwell (United States) Air Force Base, Alabama.
a b Brussels Conference of 1874 ICRC cites D.Schindler and J.Toman, The Laws of Armed Conflicts, Martinus Nihjoff Publisher, 1988, pp.22-34.
Protocol for the Prohibition of the Use of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or Other Gases, and of Bacteriological Methods of Warfare. Geneva, 17 June 1925.

matches:
Art 5
Art 5
Art. 2
Art. 4
Art. 4
Art. 5
Art. 82
Art. 88