Camille Joanne Rosca

Partner

New York

crosca@orrick.com

Read full biography at www.orrick.com

Camille Joanne Rosca helps investment banks, corporations, and other financial services companies navigate complex and high-value disputes. As a litigator based in New York, she has advised clients in all stages of litigation, from responding to pre-suit demands to preparing over nine-figure cases for trial. Camille brings broad experience in litigating high-stakes disputes, with a focus on defending clients in the financial services industry. In particular, Camille has spent a number of years litigating cases arising out of the 2008 financial crisis relating to residential mortgage-backed securities (“RMBS”) and was a key member of the trial teams involved in two of the few RMBS cases that have been tried to completion.

Camille has represented public companies and other large national and multinational enterprises in financial services-related litigation in federal and state court proceedings across the country. She has extensive experience defending clients in litigation alleging fraud, breach of contract, tort claims, and securities law violations, including:

  • Defending sponsors and underwriters of residential mortgage-backed securities against breach of contract and securities fraud actions brought by institutional investors, securitization trustees, and regulators in federal and state courts across the United States.
  • Defending one of the largest mortgage servicers in the country against complex breach of contract claims brought by an investment management firm.
  • Defending and advising companies with class action lawsuits against consumer protection claims.
  • Defending one of the largest private equity firms in the country against breach of contract and statutory claims.

Camille is active in pro bono matters, including representing immigrants and veterans. She has represented clients in partnership with the National Veterans Legal Services Program and Veterans Advocacy Project. An advocate for diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) at Orrick and in the legal profession, she co-leads Orrick’s DEI committee in New York. Camille also co-chairs Orrick’s DiversAbility Network.

Camille is also one of the co-chairs of the Financial Services Network for the National Asian Pacific American Bar Association.

Prior to joining Orrick, Camille served as a law clerk to Justice Anne M. Patterson of the New Jersey Supreme Court.

Posts by: Camille Joanne Rosca

Delaware Federal Court Grants RMBS Trustee’s Motion to Dismiss

and Posted on

 

On May 14, 2018, Judge John E. Jones III of the United States District Court for the District of Delaware granted the Trustee-Defendant Wilmington Trust Company’s (“Wilmington Trust”) motion to dismiss in IKB International, S.A. v. Wilmington Trust Co. Plaintiffs IKB International, S.A. (“IKB S.A.“) and IKB Deutsche Industriebank, A.G. (“IKB A.G.“) are holders of certain securities issued by various RMBS trusts, and they sued Wilmington Trust, as Owner Trustee of the various trusts, for breach of contract and the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The Court first dismissed the claims asserted by IKB S.A., holding that IKB S.A. lacked standing to assert claims under the governing agreements because it transferred all of its claims to third parties. The Court next held that IKB A.G. failed to adequately state its claims. The Court found that Wilmington Trust’s obligations were limited by the terms of the governing agreements, and thus had no extra-contractual duties to ensure that the Indenture Trustees and Sellers complied with their obligations regarding the mortgage loan files, notify any other parties of breaches of Sellers’ representations and warranties, or address uncured servicing defaults. The Court also rejected IKB A.G.’s claim that Wilmington Trust breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing as duplicative of the breach of contract claim. Memorandum & Order

New York Supreme Court Grants in Part and Denies in Part Cross Motions for Summary Judgment in RMBS Action

and Posted on

 

On May 16, 2018, Justice Shirley W. Kornreich of the New York Supreme Court granted in part and denied in part the parties’ summary judgment motions in Merrill Lynch Mortgage Investors Trust Series 2006-RM4 v. Merrill Lynch Mortgage Lending, Inc. Defendants Merrill Lynch Mortgage Lending, Inc. (“Merrill“) and Bank of America National Association (“BANA“) and Plaintiff-Trustee U.S. Bank National Association (“Trustee“) cross-moved for partial summary judgment regarding the scope and enforceability of an allocation agreement between Merrill and BANA and certain provisions therein about the release of Merrill’s contractual liability to the Trustee (the “Release”). Justice Kornreich granted summary judgment for Defendants with respect to the Release language being unambiguous but denied summary judgment as to its enforceability. Justice Kornreich concluded that material questions of fact exist as to whether Merrill’s and BANA’s negotiation and execution of the Release was a true arm’s length transaction and whether the Release was unconscionable. Justice Kornreich also denied the Trustee’s motion for a ruling that Merrill provided a backstop to originator ResMAE Mortgage Corporation’s putback liability. The Court granted summary judgment to the Trustee regarding the meaning of certain sections of the mortgage loan purchase agreement, the existence of warranty breaches on certain loans, and Defendants’ causation defenses. In addition, Justice Kornreich granted the Trustee’s motion for leave to amend to add a “breach of trust” cause of action against BANA. Decision & 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.