COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL CORP. v.BUNDY Part-II
<script src="http://www.google-analytics.com/urchin.js" type="text/javascript"> </script> <script type="text/javascript"> _uacct = "UA-1698443-1"; urchinTracker(); </script> <html ><br /> <head><br /> <title>COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL CORP</title><br /> </head><br /> <body><br /> <div><br /> <br/><b >COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL CORP. v.BUNDY</b><br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/>Filed 8/6/10<br /> <br/><b > </b><br /> <br/><b > </b><br /> <br/><b > </b><br /> <br/><b > </b><br /> <br/><b > </b><br /> <br/><b > </b><br /> <br/><b > CERTIFIED FOR<br /> PUBLICATION</b><br /> <br/> <br /> <br/>IN THE COURT OF<br /> APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/>SECOND APPELLATE<br /> DISTRICT<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/>DIVISION FIVE<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <table class=MsoNormalTable border=0 cellspacing=0 cellpadding=0<br /> ><br /> <tr ><br /> <td width=319 valign=top ><br /> <br/>COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL<br /> CORP. et al.,<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> Plaintiffs and Respondents,<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> v.<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/>THOMAS BUNDY et al.,<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> Defendants and Appellants.<br /> <br/> <br /> </td><br /> <td width=319 valign=top ><br /> <br/> B215912<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> (Los Angeles County<br /> <br/> Super. Ct. No. BS117996)<br /> <br/> <br /> </td><br /> </tr><br /> </table><br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/><b >STORY CONTINUE <br /> FROM PART I….</b><br /> <br/><b > </b><br /> <br/><b > </b><br /> <br/><b > </b><br /> <br/>Thus, in <i<br /> >Hall Street Associates L.L.C.</i>, the Supreme Court cast<br /> doubt on whether the manifest disregard of the law rule remains viable. But later in the opinion, the Supreme Court<br /> explained: â€