On January 8, 2015, plaintiffs in a class action lawsuit against JP Morgan Chase informed the court that the parties had an agreement in principle to settle the case. The suit was initially commenced against Bear Stearns in August of 2008, and alleged that the bank misrepresented the underwriting process and the quality of the underlying loans in connection with $17.6 billion in RMBS. The settlement will be subject to approval by Judge Swain of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Preliminary papers seeking such approval are scheduled to be filed on February 2, 2015. Endorsed Status Report.
On January 12, 2015, Vice Chancellor Laster of the Delaware Chancery Court granted the plaintiff’s motion for reargument and revived the breach of contract claims that the court had previously held to be untimely in Bear Stearns Mortgage Funding Trust 2006-SL1 v. EMC Mortgage Corp. and JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.. First, the court concluded that a controlling Delaware Supreme Court decision the parties had not previously identified required application of New York’s six year statute of limitations, rather than Delaware’s three-year limitation period. The lawsuit was commenced within six years of the alleged breach, rendering it timely under New York law. Second, the court alternatively reasoned (in dicta) that even assuming Delaware law applied, the action would be timely due to the contract’s accrual provision, which stated that the repurchase claims would not accrue until the plaintiff’s demands were refused. This constituted a “condition precedent” to the action that tolled accrual under Delaware law, a position New York courts have to date rejected. The Court further concluded that the accrual provision validly extended the statute of limitations as permitted by a recent Delaware statute, which permits parties to extend the period up to 20 years (under New York law, parties are not permitted to extend the limitations period by agreement). Order.
On December 23 and 24, Phoenix Light SF Limited and other RMBS certificateholders filed suit against HSBC, Wells Fargo, Deutsche Bank, Bank of New York Mellon, U.S. Bank, and Bank of America in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York regarding $2.4 billion in RMBS. The complaints assert causes of action under the Trust Indenture Act and a provision of the New York Real Property Law known as the Streit Act, as well as under state law for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, negligence, gross negligence, and negligent misrepresentation. Plaintiffs allege that the trustees breached their duties under the governing trust agreements by failing to notify the investors of deficiencies in the loans, failing to take action to address those alleged deficiencies, and failing to require the repurchase of defective loans. Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages and unspecified equitable relief. HSBC Complaint. Wells Fargo Complaint. Deutsche Bank Complaint. BNY Mellon Complaint. U.S. Bank and Bank of America Complaint.
On December 16, National Credit Union Administration filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against U.S. Bank N.A. and Bank of America N.A., in their capacity as trustees for 99 RMBS trusts. NCUA filed the suit as liquidating agent for five failed credit unions collectively alleged to have purchased certificates in the trusts at issue. NCUA alleges that U.S. Bank and Bank of America breached their duties under the governing trust agreements by failing to properly review and monitor the loans backing the RMBS, failing to notify the investors of deficiencies in the loans, failing to take action to address those alleged deficiencies, and failing to require the repurchase of defective loans. The complaint asserts causes of action under the Trust Indenture Act and the Streit Act, a New York statute that governs administration of mortgage trusts, and seeks compensatory damages and unspecified equitable relief. Complaint.
On December 17, the parties in Oklahoma Police Pension and Retirement System v. U.S. Bank, N.A., No. 11-cv-8066 (S.D.N.Y.) asked the court to approve a $6 million settlement of class action claims asserted against U.S. Bank in its capacity as trustee for five RMBS trusts sponsored by Bear Stearns. The class consisted of 1,800 investors who had bought certificates in the trusts. Claims related to nine other trusts had been dismissed earlier in the litigation and were not included in the settlement. The complaint included claims for breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and violation of the federal Trust Indenture Act. Motion for Approval. Settlement Agreement.
On December 18, Judge Katherine B. Forrest of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York approved a $95 million settlement to end a class action brought by RMBS investors against Morgan Stanley. The complaint alleged that Morgan Stanley made material misrepresentations regarding its appraisals and underwriting standards of the underlying mortgages in the marketing and sale of the RMBS. Judge Forrest also granted lead plaintiffs’ application for approximately $17.2 million in attorneys’ fees and expenses. Final Judgment. Order Granting Attorneys’ Fees and Expenses.
On December 22, National Credit Union Administration sued Wells Fargo, as an RMBS trustee, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. NCUA filed the suit in its capacity as liquidating agent for five credit unions, collectively alleged to have purchased $2.4 billion in 27 RMBS trusts for which Wells Fargo served as trustee. NCUA alleges that Wells Fargo breached its duties under the governing trust agreements by failing to properly review and monitor the loans underlying the RMBS, failing to notify the investors of deficiencies in the loans, failing to take action to address those alleged deficiencies, and failing to require the repurchase of defective loans. The complaint asserts causes of action under the Trust Indenture Act and a provision of the New York Real Property Law known as the Streit Act. Complaint.
On December 27, Ambac Assurance Corporation filed a complaint against several Countrywide entities and Bank of America Corporation in New York state court, seeking to recover at least $600 million in damages in connection with claims payments Ambac allegedly made under insurance policies it issued on eight RMBS trusts. Ambac alleges that between 2005 and 2007, Countrywide made false and misleading statements at meetings with Ambac and in prospectus supplements and loan tapes issued in connection with the trusts that induced Ambac to issue its insurance policies. Ambac asserts a cause of action for fraudulent inducement against the Countrywide entities and a cause of action for successor liability against Bank of America. Complaint.
On December 23, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit dismissed claims against Bank of New York Mellon, as trustee, by four pension funds in a putative class action relating to 530 Countrywide RMBS trusts worth $424 billion. The Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s holding that the plaintiffs did not have standing to assert claims related to certificates issued by trusts in which no plaintiff ever invested. The court further held that the Trust Indenture Act (TIA) does not apply to the trusts because they are “certificate[s] of interest or participation in two or more securities having substantially different rights and privileges” and therefore within an exemption to the TIA. As a result, the court reversed the district court’s decision denying the bank’s motion to dismiss claims under the TIA. Decision.
On December 22 and 23, U.S. Bank National Association, as trustee for three RMBS trusts, filed three separate summonses with notice in the Supreme Court of the State of New York. U.S. Bank alleges that Citigroup misrepresented the quality of mortgage loans underlying $528 million in RMBS, and that it breached its duties as servicer by failing to notify the trustee of representation and warranty breaches that it discovered. The trustee seeks compensatory and rescissory damages, along with repurchase of loans not complying with the applicable representations and warranties. Summons with Notice (2007-AMC2). Summons with Notice (2007-AHL2). Summons with Notice (2007-AR7).