The following is an observation made in the linked article:
Banks that were quick to defend unjustifiable pay deals by invoking "sanctity of contract" have no inhibition about ignoring their own contracts to pad their bottom line, and ultimately, the wallets of top executives.
Here's the final disposition from "" President Barack Obama vetoed the bill, and the House was unable to Override the veto.
Some in the US Congress allegedly tried, by voice vote (their names weren't recorded as to how they voted — which should be illegal), to smooth the way for banks and mortgage companies that forged documents and enticed borrowers to go along with "liar's loans" on a massive scale and have been trying to foreclose on homes using the fraudulent documents.
You might think that bad notarizations would be weeded out and the bad documents with them so that fraudulent foreclosures wouldn't occur. Theoretically, that should work. However, the bill's timing is very suspect and if passed, would have introduced a whole new layer of obfuscation because unthinking and bought-off courts could have, some likely would have, ruled that the law says the notarizations must be accepted regardless (whether or not the notarization was fraudulent is for another case or court to decide, blah, blah, blah). It sounds stupid, but what's new with banksters, shady courts, and lawyers with their fraudster clients?