HSBC Settles RMBS Claims with FHFA

On September 12, the FHFA and several HSBC affiliates and certain of their current and former officers (collectively, HSBC) announced a US$550 million settlement of claims that the FHFA had brought against HSBC in the Southern District of New York.  FHFA, acting as conservator for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, alleged that HSBC made false and misleading statements in offering documents issued in connection with 19 RMBS securitizations.  It brought claims for violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as well as the Virginia and Washington, D.C., Securities Acts.  HSBC did not admit liability or wrongdoing.  Settlement Agreement.

BofA and Countrywide Settle RMBS Lawsuit with National Integrity

On August 28, in light of a settlement reached between the parties, Judge Mariana R. Pfaelzer of the United States District Court for the Central District of California dismissed a lawsuit brought by National Integrity Life Insurance Company against various Bank of America and Countrywide entities in connection with more than US$447 million in RMBS.  The complaint alleged claims under the Securities Act of 1933, the Ohio Securities Act, the Ohio Corrupt Activities Act, and various common law causes of action arising out of alleged misstatements made in the RMBS offering documents.  The amount and terms of the settlement were not disclosed.  Order.

FDIC RMBS Suit Dismissed as Time-Barred

On August 29, Judge Louis L. Stanton of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted a motion by JPMorgan, Citigroup and several other banks for judgment on the pleadings, dismissing a lawsuit filed by the FDIC, as receiver for Colonial Bank, involving US$388 million in RMBS.  Defendants sought judgment on the pleadings that the FDIC’s claims under the Securities Act of 1933 were time barred by the three-year statute of repose applicable to such claims.  FDIC argued that the Extender Statute, which extends the limitation period for the FDIC to assert claims to three years after the FDIC is appointed as receiver, tolled the time within which it had to assert its claims.  Judge Stanton agreed with the defendants, holding that under the Supreme Court’s decision in CTS Corp. v. Waldburger, the FDIC Extender Statute applied only to statutes of limitation and did not alter the applicable statute of repose.  Order.

Breach of Contract Claims against J.P. Morgan and EMC Dismissed as Time-Barred

On August 19, in an oral ruling from the bench, Vice Chancellor J. Travis Laster of the Delaware Chancery Court dismissed as time-barred loan repurchase claims brought by U.S. Bank as trustee of an RMBS trust against JPMorgan and EMC Mortgage.  U.S. Bank alleged that EMC misrepresented the quality of more than US$500 million worth of mortgages that were sold to the trust in 2006 and that both EMC and JPMorgan, which took over as the servicers of the trust in 2011, failed to notify the trustee of the faulty loans.  Vice Chancellor Laster, following the Delaware Chancery Court’s 2012 decision in Central Mortgage Co. v. Mortgage Stanley Capital Holdings LLC., held that Delaware’s three-year statute of limitations for breach of contract claims began to run on the day the allegedly false representations were made.  He held that the contract’s accrual provision could not extend the statute of limitations and that no other tolling doctrines applied to render plaintiff’s claims timely.  He also held that the alleged failure to notify claim was derivative of the underlying claim for breach of representation and subject to the same limitations period.  Vice Chancellor Laster did not dismiss U.S. Bank’s claims for unjust enrichment and failure to provide documents, finding them well pled and not time barred.  Hearing Transcript.

Guaranty Bank RMBS Lawsuits Dismissed As Time-Barred

Judge Sam Sparks of the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas granted judgment to defendants in two related cases filed by the FDIC on behalf Guaranty Bank (now defunct) arising out of Guaranty Bank’s purchases in 2004 and 2005 of US$2.1 billion in RMBS.  Defendants Goldman Sachs, Deutsche Bank, Merrill Lynch and RBS Securities sought judgment on the pleadings that the FDIC’s claims were time barred under the Texas Securities Act’s five-year statute of repose.  The court agreed, holding that under the Supreme Court’s recent decision in CTS Corp. v. Waldburger the FDIC Extender Statute did not preempt the Texas statute of repose.  Goldman/DB OrderMerrill/RBS Order.

FHFA Wins Summary Judgment That It Did Not Have Actual Knowledge of RMBS Misrepresentations

On July 30, Judge Denise Cote of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted the motion for partial summary judgment brought by FHFA, as conservator for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.  FHFA initiated securities fraud cases against a number of banks alleging false statements made in the offering documents for RMBS purchased by the GSEs between 2005 and 2007.  FHFA’s action remains pending against HSBC, Goldman Sachs, RBS Securities and others.  In its motion for summary judgment, FHFA sought a ruling that no reasonable jury could find that the GSEs knew the banks’ statements were false.  The defendants argued seven categories of circumstantial evidence illustrated the GSEs’ awareness of the information that they now allege was concealed.  These included the GSEs’ knowledge about loan originators, participation in the subprime and Alt-A markets, knowledge of risk associated with reduced documentation programs, and anti-predatory lending reviews.  The court held that these categories were not enough to prove that the GSEs had actual knowledge that any representation was false, as required by Sections 11 and 12(a)(2) and the Blue Sky Laws.  The court therefore granted summary judgment for FHFA on that issue.  Decision.

Morgan Stanley Settles RMBS Charges with SEC

On July 24, the SEC announced that it had charged three Morgan Stanley entities with misleading investors with regard to two RMBS securitizations that the firms underwrote, sponsored and issued and that the firm agreed to settle the charges.  In the cease and desist order memorializing the settlement, the SEC alleged that Morgan Stanley misrepresented the current and historical delinquency status of the mortgage loans underlying the securitizations.  The SEC alleged that these misrepresentations violated Sections 17(a)(2) and 17(a)(3) of the Securities Act of 1933.  Morgan Stanley agreed to settle the charges without admitting or denying wrongdoing.  As part of the settlement, Morgan Stanley agreed to cease and desist further violations of §§ 17(a)(2)-(3) and to pay US$275 million in disgorgement, prejudgment interest and penalties, which will be placed in a Sarbanes-Oxley Fair Fund for distribution to investors.  Press Release.  Order.

EMC Obtains Partial Dismissal of Repurchase Action

On May 29, Justice Eileen Bransten of the New York County Supreme Court denied in part and granted in part defendants’ motion to dismiss a loan repurchase lawsuit brought at the direction of certain certificate holders of four RMBS.  The complaint alleged that EMC Mortgage breached certain representations and warranties concerning loans in the trusts and also sought to hold certain JPMorgan entities vicariously liable for EMC’s alleged breaches.  Justice Bransten dismissed without prejudice the claims against the JPMorgan entities for failure to properly plead successor liability or parent liability.  As to EMC, the Court rejected EMC’s argument that the claims were limited to certain loans identified in timely repurchase demands, holding that the content of the specific repurchase demands at issue sufficiently and timely notified EMC of its alleged obligation to repurchase all allegedly breaching loans in the trusts.  Justice Bransten also relied on Plaintiff’s allegation that EMC discovered allegedly breaching loans during its pre-closing due diligence to hold that Plaintiff’s claims as to all allegedly breaching loans in the transaction were timely.  Justice Bransten refused to dismiss plaintiff’s unjust enrichment claims, which were based upon allegations that EMC withheld settlement funds received from loan originators that properly belonged to the Trust, holding that the PSA’s sole remedy clause does not preclude these claims.  Finally, Justice Bransten dismissed claims for consequential and rescissory damages as barred by the sole remedy provision, and dismissed plaintiff’s reimbursement claim because the PSA did not unmistakably provide for attorney’s fees in first-party actions.  Order.

UBS Motion to Dismiss RMBS Suit Granted in Part

On June 10, Judge Denise Cote of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York granted in part and denied in part UBS’s motion to dismiss a lawsuit filed against it by the National Credit Union Administration, as liquidating agent for Southwest Corporate Federal Credit Union and Members United Corporate Federal Credit Union.  The credit unions each owned certain RMBS issued by UBS.  Following her ruling in an earlier case NCUA brought against Morgan Stanley, Judge Cote dismissed NCUA’s federal Securities Act claims as time barred.  Judge Cote denied UBS’s motion to dismiss NCUA’s claims under Illinois and Texas Blue Sky Laws, holding that NCUA had satisfied the liberal pleading standard by making the requisite “originator-specific allegations” to support its claims that UBS made material misrepresentations regarding whether the originators had complied with underwriting guidelines.  Order.

UBS Settles RMBS Lawsuit

On April 21, Union Central Life Insurance Co., Ameritas Life Insurance Corp. and Acacia Life Insurance Company, on the one hand, and UBS AG, UBS Securities LLC and Mortgage Asset Securitization Transactions, Inc., (collectively, UBS), on the other, filed a motion in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York seeking voluntary dismissal based on the fact that they had reached a settlement.  The settled action related to alleged misstatements by UBS relating to RMBS sold to the three insurance company plaintiffs.  The settlement agreement was reached on March 5, 2014, and the parties now seek, in addition to voluntary dismissal, a bar order relating to UBS.  The terms of the settlement were not disclosed.  Motion.