Aaron M. Rubin

Senior Associate

Orange County


Read full biography at www.orrick.com

Aaron M. Rubin is a Senior Associate in the Orange County office and a member of the Complex Litigation and Dispute Resolution group.

Aaron has experience with a wide array of matters, including securities and commercial litigation, accountants’ liability, mass torts, and insurance. He has represented clients in federal and state courts. He is also active in pro bono matters.  Prior to working in Orrick's Orange County office, Aaron worked in Orrick's New York office.

Posts by: Aaron Rubin

RMBS Trustee Defeats Motion to Certify Class

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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.

Deutsche Bank Settles DOJ RMBS Claims for $7.2 Billion

 

On December 23, 2016, Deutsche Bank AG (“Deutsche Bank“) announced that it had reached a settlement in principle with the United States Department of Justice (“DOJ“) to resolve possible civil claims arising from Deutsche Bank’s issuance and underwriting of RMBS in the years leading up to the financial crisis. The $7.2 billion settlement includes a $3.1 billion civil penalty, with an additional $4.1 billion paid in the form of consumer relief (including loan modifications and other types of borrower assistance).

RBS Settles RMBS Suit for $1.1 Billion

On September 27, 2016, the Royal Bank of Scotland (“RBS”) announced a $1.1 billion settlement with the National Credit Union Administration (“NCUA”) in connection with two federal securities litigations concerning RBS’s underwriting and sale of RMBS. The NCUA, as liquidating agent for Western Corporate Federal Credit Union and U.S. Central Federal Credit Union, brought these actions against RBS and other defendants, claiming that the defendants had misled the credit unions about the risks of RMBS and made various misrepresentations in the offering documents.  Further details of the settlement are not publicly available.

U.S. Bank and WMC Settle Four RMBS Lawsuits

On September 22, 2016, RMBS Trustee U.S. Bank National Association (“U.S. Bank”) and loan originator WMC Mortgage LLC (“WMC”) filed a stipulation of dismissal in four RMBS lawsuits in light of a settlement reached between the parties. The details of the settlement are not publicly available.  The settlement resolves three lawsuits initiated by U.S. Bank, alleging that WMC misrepresented the quality of loans it sold in 2006 and 2007 RMBS offerings, as well as a lawsuit brought by WMC against U.S. Bank, seeking a declaratory judgment regarding WMC’s performance under the governing agreements of an RMBS deal.  Two of U.S. Bank’s lawsuits include claims against loan originator Equifirst Corporation, but these claims are not part of the settlement. Stipulation of Dismissal.

MassMutual and RBS Settle RMBS Litigation

On August 12, 2016, Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Co. (“MassMutual”) and RBS jointly moved to dismiss MassMutual’s $235 million RMBS claim, stating that the parties had reached a confidential settlement agreement. MassMutual filed the lawsuit in 2011, alleging violations of the Massachusetts Uniform Securities Act.  MassMutual claimed that the defendants made material misrepresentations about the characteristics of mortgage loans that RBS securitized in transactions in which MassMutual invested between 2005 and 2007.  The court entered a final dismissal order on August 15, 2016.  Joint Motion of Dismissal. Order of Dismissal. MassMutual settled similar claims against Barclays Capital Inc. on March 29, 2016 (covered here).

Ninth Circuit Revives RMBS Claims against Nomura

On August 15, 2016, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the Central District of California’s order dismissing claims brought by the National Credit Union Administration Board (“NCUA”), as liquidating agent of Western Corporate Federal Credit Union (“Wescorp”), against Nomura Home Equity Loan, Inc. (“Nomura”) under the Securities Act of 1933.  In 2014, the district court granted Nomura’s motion to dismiss claims that it had made materially false and misleading statements in the offering documents in respect of certificates sold to Wescorp in 2006 and 2007, holding that the NCUA’s claims were barred by the statute of repose established in Section 13 of the 1933 Act, which runs three years after the securities were offered or sold.  The Ninth Circuit disagreed with the district court, concluding that both the text and the legislative purpose of the Extender Statute in the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1989 (“FIRREA”) indicate that Congress intended it to supplant the 1933 Act statute of repose and to further a policy of “protecting the government’s right to recovery.” Opinion at 13.  The Ninth Circuit further concluded that, although the text of the Extender Statute only mentions contract and tort claims, because its dictate is to cover “all actions” brought by the NCUA, it also applies to statutory claims, such as the 1933 Act claims at issue in this case.  Thus, the Ninth Circuit held that the NCUA’s claims against Nomura are not time-barred and remanded the case to the Central District for further proceedings. Summary.

 

New York Court of Appeals Hears Arguments on RMBS Put-Back Claim Statute of Limitations

On April 30, 2015, New York’s highest court heard arguments in ACE Securities Corp. v. DB Structured Products Inc. regarding the accrual date for RMBS put-back claims – i.e., the date on which the statute of limitations begins to run.  Plaintiff ACE appealed an intermediate appellate court’s ruling that claims for breaches of representations and warranties are time-barred unless brought within six years of the transaction’s closing date.  ACE argued that the claim does not accrue, and the statute of limitations does not begin to run, until a demand for cure or repurchase has been made and rejected, contending that investors may not know of the alleged representation and warranty breaches within six years of closing.  The defendant argued that if the Court adopted plaintiff’s approach and ruled that a put-back claim does not accrue until demand is made, plaintiffs would be able to tactically take a “wait and see” attitude.  Depending on how the deal performs, they potentially could wait for decades after a transaction was entered into before making a repurchase demand, and only then bring suit if the demand is rejected.