On March 27, DBRS released its updated methodology for rating North American commercial mortgage-backed securities (CMBS). Report.
On March 27, Fitch released its updated criteria for analyzing U.S. wireless tower transactions. Report.
On March 31, Fitch released its updated criteria for analyzing loans securing residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS) under the ability-to-repay and qualified mortgage standards that the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection adopted as part of its amendments to Regulation Z under the Truth in Lending Act. Report.
On April 1, DBRS released its updated methodology for the surveillance of European structured finance and covered bonds transactions. Report.
On January 21, 2015, the SEC suspended Standard & Poor’s Rating Services (S&P) from rating conduit/fusion CMBS for one year as part of a settlement between McGraw-Hill Financial Inc., S&P’s parent company, and the SEC. The settlement stems from S&P’s disclosures in 2011 that it would utilize a certain methodology to rate six CMBS transactions and provide a preliminary rating for two others, when it actually used a different methodology, forcing S&P to pull a rating on a $1.5 billion bond that same year. In addition, S&P agreed to retract an allegedly untrue and misleading article that it published in 2012 and settled another claim that it failed to maintain and enforce internal controls regarding changes to its monitoring standards for certain RMBS. S&P further agreed to parallel settlements with New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman and Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey. The rating agency has also agreed to pay more than $77 million to settle these claims with the federal and state regulators ($58 million to the SEC and another $19 million to New York and Massachusetts). SEC Settlement Order 1. SEC Settlement Order 2. SEC Settlement Order 3.
On June 6, Judge Shira A. Scheindlin of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York denied Dexia Real Estate Capital Markets’ (Dexia) motion to dismiss breach of contract claims brought by U.S. Bank National Association (U.S. Bank), in its capacity as trustee for a CMBS trust. U.S. Bank alleges that Dexia breached a representation concerning the enforceability of all agreements related to a particular loan and then refused to repurchase the loan when notified of the breach. Moving to dismiss, Dexia argued that U.S. Bank’s claim was untimely because it was filed more than 6 years after the governing agreements were entered into and the representation at issue was made. Rejecting Dexia’s argument, Judge Scheindlin concluded that under the terms of the governing agreements, U.S. Bank was only entitled to make a repurchase demand upon Dexia once a breach had “materially and adversely” affected a loan. She further found that U.S. Bank’s complaint pled facts sufficient to suggest, in connection with the particular representation breach alleged by U.S. Bank, that there was no material and adverse effect until a 2011 Minnesota state court decision holding that a guaranty securing the loan was unenforceable. Order.
On November 14, S&P requested comments on its proposal to revise its hybrid capital criteria for corporate issuers. Comments must be submitted by December 16. S&P Release.
On November 14, DBRS published its CMBS North American surveillance methodology. DBRS Report.
On November 14, DBRS published its European CMBS rating methodology. DBRS Report.
On November 13, Fitch published a report summarizing feedback received on its updated covered bonds rating criteria. Fitch Report.
On November 13, Fitch updated its corporate recovery ratings criteria. Fitch Report.
Note: Free registration is required for rating agency releases and reports.
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.