CIFG Assurance North America, Inc. (CIFG) filed a summons with notice against Goldman, Sachs & Co. (Goldman) in New York State Supreme Court on December 4, 2012. CIFG alleges that Goldman fraudulently induced CIFG to provide a financial guaranty insurance policy on a credit default swap in connection with the Fortius II CDO. CIFG alleges that Goldman did not disclose that the CDO manager, Aladdin Capital Management, was acting at Goldman’s behest to include in the CDO particular collateral, including RMBS that Goldman wanted to sell. CIFG asserts claims for fraud and for material misrepresentation in the inducement of an insurance contract. It is seeking reimbursement of the nearly $34 million dollars it allegedly paid under the policy it issued when the Fortius II CDO failed. Summons.
On May 22, 2012, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”) fined Citigroup $35 million for alleged rule violations, including providing investors with inaccurate information in connection with several RMBS offerings. Citigroup consented to the $35 million fine, but neither admitted nor denied FINRA’s findings. FINRA found that between January of 2006 and October of 2007, Citigroup posted inaccurate performance data and static pool information on its website after receiving information indicating that the data was incorrect. The agency further found that the errors in the information were significant enough potentially to have affected prospective investors’ assessments of six subprime and Alt-A RMBS offerings. Additionally, the organization found that Citigroup failed to maintain required books and records and failed to supervise the pricing of certain CDO securities, violating, among other things, SEC Rules 17(a)-3(a)(8) and 17a-4. AWC Letter.
On April 24, 2012, New York State Court Judge Barbara Kapnick denied a motion brought by Goldman Sachs Group Inc. (“Goldman Sachs”) to dismiss an action brought by ACA Financial Guaranty Corp. (“ACA”) arising out of ACA’s provision of financial guaranty insurance wrapping the Abacus 2007-ACI CDO issued by Goldman Sachs. ACA alleged that Goldman Sachs misrepresented material facts about the economic interest of the hedge fund Paulson & Co. Inc. (“Paulson”), an investor in the CDO. According to ACA, Paulson, which participated in the selection of the portfolio of mortgage loans backing the CDO, was represented to be a long investor but in fact took a short position against the deal. Judge Kapnick found ACA’s allegations sufficient to state a claim that Goldman Sachs fraudulently concealed the information about Paulson’s position and thus fraudulently induced ACA to insure the CDO. Order.
On April 19, 2012, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed a lower court’s dismissal of a lawsuit brought by Landesbank Baden-Wurttemberg (“Landesbank”) lawsuit against Goldman Sachs & Co. (“Goldman Sachs.”) Landesbank asserted claims for fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and unjust enrichment, alleging that Goldman Sachs misstated the quality of the mortgages underlying the collateral that backed a CDO and secretly took a position to profit from the CDO’s failure. In affirming the lower court, the Second Circuit determined that Landesbank failed to allege a specific motive for Goldman to commit fraud and failed to allege the existence of any special relationship between Goldman and Landesbank sufficient to support a negligent misrepresentation claim. Order.
On March 9, Fitch updated its dual-party pay criteria for long-term ratings on letter of credit-supported U.S. public finance bonds. Fitch Report.
On March 9, Fitch announced that senior secured ratings of corporate property bonds issued by EMEA REITs or property investment companies (PICs) could attract an additional single notch above their senior unsecured ratings. Fitch Release.
On March 9, S&P gave advance notice of proposed CDO criteria changes for securitizations backed predominantly by emerging market corporate debt. S&P Release.
On March 8, S&P released its methodology for rating U.S. and Canadian stand-along and large loan CMBS. S&P Report.
On March 6, S&P requested comments by June 6 on revised methodology and assumptions for rating U.S.local governments. S&P Report.
On March 5, Fitch updated its non-U.S.public sector entities criteria. Fitch Report.
Note: Free registration is required for Fitch and S&P releases and reports.
On January 24, 2012, several Loreley Financing Ltd. entities filed a complaint in New York state court against several Citigroup affiliates over nearly $1 billion in CDO investments backed by subprime mortgages, purchased in 2006 and 2007. Loreley alleges that Citigroup knowingly misrepresented the quality of the mortgage loans in order to transfer risk from its balance sheet. Loreley further accuses Citigroup of concealing the role of Magnetar in designing certain CDOs. Loreley asserts claims for common law fraud, rescission of contract, fraudulent conveyance, and unjust enrichment, and seeks rescission, disgorgement, injunctive relief, and damages. Complaint.
On December 28, S&P updated its methodology for analyzing corporate profitability when determining issuer credit ratings for global corporate issuers. S&P Release.
On December 27, S&P issued an advance notice of criteria change for its methodology for rating second-lien U.S. RMBS transactions. S&P Release.
On December 22, S&P released its outlook assumptions for the U.S. residential mortgage market. S&P Release.
On December 20, S&P updated its project finance construction and operations counterparty methodology. S&P Release.
On December 19, DBRS released its methodology for rating global structured finance CDO restructurings. DBRS Release.
On December 19, DBRS released its unified interest rate model for global structured finance CDO restructurings. DBRS Release.
*Note: Free Registration is required for S&P releases.
Please do not include any confidential, secret or otherwise sensitive information concerning any potential
or actual legal matter in this e-mail message. Unsolicited e-mails do not create an attorney-client
relationship and confidential or secret information included in such e-mails cannot be protected from
disclosure. Orrick does not have a duty or a legal obligation to keep confidential any information that
you provide to us. Also, please note that our attorneys do not seek to practice law in any jurisdiction
in which they are not properly authorized to do so.
By clicking "OK" below, you understand and agree that Orrick will have no duty to keep confidential any
information you provide.