Aaron M. Rubin

Partner

Orange County

amrubin@orrick.com

Read full biography at www.orrick.com

Aaron Rubin helps financial services clients navigate all stages of high-stakes litigation. In particular, Aaron's practice primarily focuses on two types of investments: pursuing and defending claims for fund clients related to life insurance investments and defending mortgage servicers in litigation related to RMBS.

An accomplished litigator, Aaron advises leading investment banks, financial institutions, mortgage servicers, non-bank lenders, and alternative asset managers on the unique issues impacting the finance sector, from major commercial disputes to securities litigation and enforcement actions. Leveraging his dispute resolution expereince, Aaron serves as a trusted partner to clients, advising on best practices for mitigating risk long before there is the threat of litigation.

In 2018, Aaron moved to the firm’s Orange County office from New York. The move served his New York-based traditional financial institution clients needing counsel on the West Coast, while also expanding his practice.

Posts by: Aaron Rubin

SDNY Grants Trustees’ Motion to Dismiss Triaxx CDOs’ RMBS Claims with Prejudice

and Posted on

 

On March 8, 2018, Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York issued a Memorandum and Order granting Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ Third Amended Complaint in its entirety in Triaxx Prime CDO 2006-1, Ltd., et al. v. The Bank of New York Mellon and U.S. Bank, N.A., and forbidding Plaintiffs from amending the Complaint any further. In dismissing Plaintiffs’ breach of contract claims for lack of standing, the Court found that Plaintiffs failed to remedy the deficiencies that previously resulted in dismissal of these same claims, covered here (“Triaxx I“), because Plaintiffs assigned away their right to sue under the contracts. Judge Buchwald also dismissed Plaintiffs’ negligence and breach of fiduciary duty claims because Plaintiffs failed to allege that Defendants owed them any duty of care or fiduciary duty. Additionally, the Court held that the fiduciary duty claims were an improper attempt to re-plead claims already dismissed as abandoned in Triaxx I, and in any event, the claims were barred by New York’s economic loss doctrine. Plaintiffs’ claim for equitable relief directing U.S. Bank to assign Plaintiffs the authority to sue was also dismissed as inappropriate and unsupported by law. [Memorandum and Order]

S.D.N.Y. Grants in Part and Denies in Part Trustee Bank of New York Mellon’s Motion for Summary Judgment in Suit Brought by Certificateholder Phoenix Light

Posted on

 

On September 7, 2017, Judge Valerie Caproni in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted the majority of RMBS trustee Bank of New York Mellon’s (“BNYM“) summary judgment motion and denied certificateholder Phoenix Light SF Ltd.’s (“Phoenix Light“) cross motion in its entirety in Phoenix Light SF Ltd. v. Bank of New York Mellon. Judge Caproni’s decision significantly curtailed Phoenix Light’s Complaint, which alleged various breaches of the trustee’s duties in connection with 21 RMBS trusts. For eight of the trusts at issue, Judge Caproni rejected Phoenix Light’s breach-of-contract claims alleging that BNYM failed to notify other parties upon discovery of breaches of representations and warranties due to lack of evidence that BNYM actually discovered any breaches. Judge Caproni also rejected the breach claims in connection with another eight trusts due to Phoenix Light’s failure to support the claims with evidence on a “loan-by-loan and trust-by-trust” basis. Only Phoenix Light’s breach-of-contract claims related to trusts where BNYM had notice of a specific breach or an event of default survived, as did Phoenix Light’s Trust Indenture Act claims for three trusts (because BNYM did not address the claims in its reply brief). The Court also granted BNYM’s motion with respect to Plaintiffs’ negligence, gross negligence, and negligent misrepresentation claims, finding that Plaintiffs’ tort-based arguments were duplicative of their breach-of-contract allegations.

NCUA Enters $445 Million Settlement with UBS in Lawsuit Alleging Untrue Statements in Connection with Sale of RMBS

Posted on

 

On April 25, 2017, the National Credit Union Administration (“NCUA“), as liquidating agent for U.S. Central Federal Credit Union and Western Corporate Federal Credit Union, voluntarily dismissed its complaint against UBS Securities, LLC (“UBS“) and Mortgage Asset Securitization, Inc., in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas following a settlement between the parties. Under the terms of the settlement, UBS agreed to pay $445 million to end the NCUA’s five-year old lawsuit (the filing of the lawsuit was covered here). The NCUA’s suit involved claims for losses suffered by the two failed credit unions from allegedly untrue statements and omissions of fact by UBS regarding RMBS that it underwrote and sold. This settlement is in addition to the $79.3 million the NCUA also recovered from UBS in April 2016 for RMBS losses suffered by two other defunct credit unions. Voluntary Dismissal.

SDNY Grants Defendant GreenPoint Mortgage Summary Judgment

and Posted on

 

On March 29, 2017, Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr., of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted Defendant GreenPoint Mortgage Funding, Inc.’s (“GreenPoint“) motion for summary judgment, dismissing all causes of action against it as time-barred and terminating the case in Lehman XS Trust et al. v. GreenPoint Mortgage Funding, Inc.

Plaintiff Trustee U.S. Bank National Association, on behalf of the Lehman XS Trust, Series 2006-GP2 (“GP2“), Lehman XS Trust, Series 2006-GP3 (“GP3“), and Lehman XS Trust, Series 2006-GP4 (“GP4“) (collectively, the “Trusts“), and Freddie Mac Conservator Federal Housing Finance Agency (collectively, “Plaintiffs“) brought consolidated claims against GreenPoint regarding GP2, GP3, and GP4. Plaintiffs alleged breach of contract and indemnification claims for specific performance and damages arising out of GreenPoint’s alleged breach of certain representations and warranties.

Citing N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 214(3), the Court first found that Plaintiffs’ breach of contract claims under the mortgage loan purchase agreements (“MLPA“) for all three Trusts were time-barred under New York state’s six-year statute of limitations for breach of contract actions. The Trusts’ respective MLPAs required GreenPoint to cure or repurchase the defective loans in the event that any of the mortgage loans breached these representations and warranties. The closing dates for the Trusts were as follows: GP2 on May 15, 2006; GP3 on June 15, 2006; and GP4 on July 17, 2006. FHFA filed summons with notice for GP2 on May 30, 2012; for GP3 on June 29, 2012; and for GP4 on July 30, 2012.

Judge Carter then rejected Plaintiffs’ indemnification claims arising out of GreenPoint’s alleged breaches of representations and warranties. Plaintiffs sought indemnification for its losses, costs, fees, and expenses arising out of and related to the breaches of GreenPoint’s representations and warranties. Since Plaintiffs did not face liability to a third party as a result of the alleged breaches, the Court held that Plaintiffs’ indemnification cause of action was “more appropriately characterized as one to recover losses incurred by breach of contract” and therefore also barred by the statute of limitations.

Finally, the Court dismissed as time-barred Plaintiffs’ newly alleged causes of action for breach of GreenPoint’s representations and warranties made in the Trusts’ Indemnification Agreements, which provide for indemnity to the Trusts and other entities for claims arising out of breaches of the representations and warranties made in the information provided by or on behalf of GreenPoint for inclusion in the Prospectus Supplements. Opinion.

SDNY Finds Three of Commerzbank AG’s RMBS Claims Against The Bank of New York Mellon Timely Under German Three-Year Statute of Limitations

Posted on

 

On March 21, 2017, Judge George Daniels of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York partially granted and partially denied defendant’s motion to dismiss in Commerzbank AG v. The Bank of New York Mellon. With respect to the central breach of contract claims, Judge Daniels held that The Bank of New York Mellon (“BNYM”) had not carried its burden for dismissal under applicable German law, as it had failed to prove that Commerzbank AG had sufficient knowledge of each element of each of its claims with respect to each Trust, “such that it could have commenced [the] action with an expectation, or some prospect, of success,” three years prior to filing. The court also denied the BNYM’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim with respect to Commerzbank’s claims for breach of contract, and negligence for failure to avoid conflicts of interest. It granted BNYM’s motion to dismiss Commerzbank AG’s claims for the violation of the covenant of good faith, violation of the Streit Act, and breach of fiduciary duty. Memorandum Decision and Order.

SDNY Grants Trustees’ Motion to Dismiss Triaxx CDOs’ RMBS Claims for Lack of Standing

Posted on

 

On March 21, 2017, Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York issued a Memorandum and Order granting defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint in Triaxx Prime CDO 2006-1, Ltd., et al. v. The Bank of New York Mellon and U.S. Bank, for lack of standing. In dismissing the claims, the court held that the plaintiff CDOs – certificateholders in several RMBS trusts for which the defendants, U.S. Bank and Bank of New York Mellon, serve as RMBS trustees – had ceded any right to initiate litigation on their own behalf when they assigned away “all . . . right, title and interest” in the underlying assets to their respective CDO indenture trustees. Judge Buchwald granted leave to file an amended complaint within thirty days so long as any such amended complaint explains how the plaintiffs’ cured the standing issue. Order and Memorandum.

RMBS Trustee Defeats Motion to Certify Class

Posted on

 

On March 21, 2017, Judge Alison Nathan of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York denied plaintiff’s Motion to Certify Class without prejudice in Royal Park Investments SA/NV v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company. In a text-only Order, Judge Nathan wrote that Royal Park failed to carry its burden to show that the proposed class is sufficiently ascertainable. The full Memorandum and Order will remain under seal for ten days while the parties confer as to which portions should be redacted prior to public filing. Order.

First Department Grants Summary Judgment Against RMBS Collateral Manager for Failure to Raise Issue of Fact Regarding Loss Causation

and Posted on

 

On March 2, 2017, the New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department reversed a decision from the New York Supreme Court and dismissed a complaint filed by two hedge funds against the collateral manager of a $400 million collateralized debt obligation (“CDO“) investment. Plaintiff hedge funds Basis PAC-Rim Opportunity Fund (Master) and Basis Yield Alpha Fund (Master) (together, “Basis“) filed a lawsuit asserting fraud claims against defendant TCW Asset Management Company (“TCW“), which had served as the collateral manager for the Dutch Hill II CDO. Dutch Hill II was created to serve as an investment vehicle for the purpose of taking a net long position on extremely risky RMBS; TCW selected the assets for the Dutch Hill II portfolio and made representations to Basis about the viability of the subprime RMBS market. Basis purchased over $27 million of Dutch Hill II notes in 2007, but the notes were all but valueless following the housing crisis. In moving for summary judgment, TCW submitted expert evidence showing that the housing market crash would have caused Basis’s losses even if the collateral underlying the CDO had not been misrepresented, as Basis alleged. In response, Basis did not submit sufficient evidence rebutting that opinion or showing that any of the particular misrepresentations by TCW caused its losses. The Supreme Court had denied summary judgment, holding that there were issues of fact as to loss causation. The First Department reversed, concluding that by failing to rebut TCW’s evidence, Basis had not raised an issue of fact as to loss causation.  Opinion.

Moody’s to Pay $864 Million to U.S. Department of Justice & 21 States in Credit Rating Settlement

and Posted on

 

On January 13, 2017, Moody’s Corporation agreed to pay $864 million in a settlement with the U.S. Department of Justice and 21 states in connection with the ratings agency’s credit rating work on residential mortgage‑backed securities and other products during the years leading up to the financial crisis. The settlement is comprised of a $437.5 million payment to the Department of Justice and $426.3 million to 21 states. The Statement of Facts accompanying the Settlement Agreement states that from 2004‑2010, Moody’s issued credit ratings of RMBS and CDOs, but that there were potential conflicts of interest in Moody’s “issuer‑fee‑based” business model, in which issuers paid Moody’s for their credit opinions. The settlement agreement does not constitute sanctions “for any act or practice of Moody’s.” In accordance with the settlement agreement, Moody’s agrees to maintain and adopt certain compliance measures that “promote the integrity and independence of Moody’s credit ratings” for a period of five years. Settlement Agreement. Statement of Facts. Moody’s Compliance Commitments.

First Department Affirms Partial Dismissal of RMBS Repurchase Claims

and Posted on

 

On December 29, 2016, the New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, in a 4‑1 decision, affirmed a 2015 New York Supreme Court order dismissing certain claims in an RMBS action brought by Trustee U.S. Bank National Association, solely in its capacity as Trustee of the J.P. Morgan Alternative Loan Trust 2007-A2 (the “Trustee“) against originator Greenpoint Mortgage Funding (“Greenpoint“). On May 31, 2013, the last day before the statute of limitations expired, the Trustee filed suit alleging that Greenpoint had breached certain representations and warranties with respect to mortgage loans that it originated. The Trustee, however, did not send out any breach notices until after it filed its action, and none of the breach notices provided for a 60‑day cure period, as required under the applicable Mortgage Loan Sale Agreement. The First Department affirmed the Supreme Court’s order dismissing the Trustee’s claims that Greenpoint was notified of breaching mortgages, but failed to cure. The panel held that the breach notices and the 60‑day cure period were conditions precedent to filing the lawsuit, and the breach notices could not “relate back because the inherent nature of a condition precedent to bringing suit is that it actually precedes the action.” The First Department, however, also affirmed the Supreme Court’s denial of Greenpoint’s motion to dismiss to the extent that the Trustee’s breach of contract claims were predicated on allegations of Greenpoint’s independent discovery of breaches. The First Department held that such allegations do not require breach notices to be sent before an action is commenced. The panel also held that allegations that Greenpoint created and had full access to the loan files, and therefore knew or should have known of the breaches, were sufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss. Order.