It's not perjury if it's not willful; the issue with what you're describing is proving that the factual errors were willful misrepresentations and not, as I'm sure the banks claim, honest mistakes that they made a good-faith effort to correct once discovered.
I can imagine that filing documents with errors in them would really annoy the hell out of a judge, but it doesn't seem on its face like it necessarily crosses into perjury.
The securities fraud seems much stronger, maybe via some sort of breach of duty claim by the bondholders who got stuck holding the bag? They pretty much got sold a bill of goods, so they would seem to have the clearest path to getting their pound of flesh out of the originators.
Regarding the perjury, you're right. I find it somewhat upsetting that after a few years of courts responding to these organizations "accidentally" filing factually incorrect documents by allowing them to foreclose anyway the most we can do is prevent them from gaining anything through further "accidents," but what I think is immaterial to the law.
On the securities fraud side, some action is being taken along those lines. My impression from what I've read is that a group of bondholders whose combined share is a large portion of the offering has to be assembled before they can take any action, so it's moving fairly slowly.
I can imagine that filing documents with errors in them would really annoy the hell out of a judge, but it doesn't seem on its face like it necessarily crosses into perjury.
The securities fraud seems much stronger, maybe via some sort of breach of duty claim by the bondholders who got stuck holding the bag? They pretty much got sold a bill of goods, so they would seem to have the clearest path to getting their pound of flesh out of the originators.