What a twist on this mess that would be!  It IS equally interesting that "MERS" has made so many different arguments about who it is in different litigation, including MERS v Nebraska Dept of Finance to avoid licensing wherein it disavowed any interest in anything.  That certainly stands in stark contrast to claims in other litigation.   

It's my understanding that much more often than not, the member was compelled to bear the expense of litigation against a homeowner. In most of those cases,  it was the member's hired attorney making the arguments in MERS' name in defense of actions taken by the member in MERS' name.  But with all the class-action suits now, MERS most likely is incurring the costs of defense and I suppose that's getting right up there.   

But really, MERS inarguably has no interest in the debt obligation, despite the fact that millions of assignments of the collateral instrument done in MERS' name purport to assign the note as well.  Even a bk trustee with the bona fide interest powers couldn't get at the debt. But then again, a court might actually find otherwise based on the routine purported assignment of the notes, the debt obligation, by MERS.