Nina Trovato

Managing Associate

New York


Read full biography at www.orrick.com

Nina Trovato focuses her practice on complex commercial disputes at all stages of litigation including matters involving product liability, intellectual property, commercial contracts, and securities. 

Nina specializes in coordinating national medical and scientific defenses for clients in all stages of litigation, including trial and appeal.  She represents industry leading clients in the manufacturing, technology, and financial sectors, often in difficult jurisdictions with significant financial or reputational harm at stake.  Nina understands the importance of developing thoughtful and cohesive defenses for our clients, and she excels at distilling complicated scientific principles for courts and jurors alike to achieve the best possible results in her engagements.  

Posts by: Nina Trovato

FHFA Sues Wells Fargo Regarding Underwriting of RMBS

 

On June 3, the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA), as conservator for the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac), filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against Wells Fargo Securities, LLC (Wells Fargo) (as successor to Wachovia Capital Markets, LLC (Wachovia)), alleging a violation of Section 11 of the Securities Act. FHFA’s lawsuit alleges losses resulting from Wachovia’s underwriting of two NovaStar securitizations purchased in 2006. FHFA alleges that Freddie Mac was misled about the quality of the loans in the bond deals, and that Wachovia, which Wells Fargo acquired in 2008, participated in drafting the registration statements at issue. These registration statements allegedly contained material misstatements and omissions. FHFA further alleges that its claims are timely because of various tolling agreements entered into between FHFA, Freddie Mac and Wells Fargo. The two deals at issue in FHFA’s Complaint are among six securitizations subject to a $165 million class-action settlement between investors and underwriters, including Wells Fargo, from 2017. FHFA has made multiple unsuccessful bids to be excluded from the settlement, including an appeal that the Second Circuit denied in January of this year, where it argued that the settlement would infringe on the agency’s statutorily-authorized conservatorship powers. FHFA has since filed another appeal, which the agency contends permits it to pursue the claims in this Complaint against Wells Fargo.

SDNY Dismisses FDIC Claims for Lack of Standing Again

 

The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) as receiver for Guaranty Bank brought claims against The Bank of New York Mellon, U.S. National Bank Association, and Citibank, N.A. alleging breach of contract, violation of the Streit Act, and violation of the Trust Indenture Act for allegedly failing to carry out their duties as trustees. Judge Carter dismissed the same claims in September of 2016 for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, holding that the FDIC lacked standing to sue because the FDIC had sold its ownership of the certificates at issue in 2010 to Wilmington Trust Co., as owner trustee, with Citibank acting in as indenture trustee. The Court had held that after that sale, the plaintiff’s claims had travelled with the securities to the resecuritized trust and thus the plaintiff no longer had standing to bring the claims it asserted. The Court had granted leave to amend the complaint to permit FDIC to resolve the standing issues by seeking ratification of the claims by the trust pursuant to FRCP 17(a)(3). After the 2016 dismissal, Wilmington Trust ratified the claims, but Citibank refused to ratify the claims without indemnity from FDIC. As a result, the standing issues remained unresolved, and the court dismissed the claims once again for lack of subject matter jurisdiction without prejudice. Decision.

Nomura Settles DOJ RMBS Claims for $480 Million

 

Nomura Holdings, Inc. (“Nomura”) and its U.S. affiliates agreed to pay $480 million to resolve claims brought by the United States Department of Justice (“DOJ“) for alleged misrepresentations in connection with RMBS offerings made prior to 2009. The DOJ alleged that Nomura violated the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act by misleading investors about the risks associated with over $13 billion in RMBS securities that Nomura marketed, sold, and issued. Although Nomura reportedly represented its due diligence process as robust and extensive, the DOJ alleged that Nomura ignored those findings and securitized loans that did not meet underwriting guidelines and continually transacted with loan originators with questionable practices. Nomura disputes the DOJ’s characterization of its practices, and released a statement advising that it settled the dispute to avoid incurring additional legal expense related to the transactions at issue in the investigation. DOJ Press Release. Nomura Press Release. Settement Agreement.

New York High Court Affirms Dismissal of Repurchase Claims As Untimely

 

On October 16, the New York Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of the RMBS repurchase action brought by Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, in its capacity as Trustee of the Harborview Mortgage Loan Trust Series 2007-7, against Quicken Loans Inc., the originator of the loans at issue. Although the Court of Appeals’ earlier decision in ACE found that causes of action for breaches of representations and warranties contained in an RMBS contract accrue on the closing date, the Trustee here relied on language in the Mortgage Loan Purchase and Warranties Agreement (“MLPWA“) that it claimed extended the statute of limitations. Specifically, the Trustee cited language in the MLPWA stating that a cause of action arising from a breach of a representation or warranty shall accrue upon the discovery of a breach by the purchaser and the failure by the seller to repurchase the defective loan at issue. The Court of Appeals affirmed the First Department’s holding that the Trustee’s claims were time-barred, rejecting the Trustee’s argument that the MLPWA created a substantive condition precedent. The Court of Appeals held the provision at issue merely set forth a remedy for a preexisting wrong, the breach of representations and warranties at the time of sale. It further found that an agreement to postpone the accrual of the cause of action would be inconsistent with New York law and public policy, which does not allow for parties to enter into an agreement that would preemptively extend the statute of limitations in this manner.

New York Court Dismisses Royal Park’s RMBS Cases for Lack of Standing

 

On April 12, 2017, Judge Charles E. Ramos of the New York State Supreme Court for New York County dismissed Royal Park’s RMBS lawsuits alleging fraud and other tort causes of action against Morgan Stanley, Deutsche Bank, Credit Suisse and UBS due to lack of standing. Royal Park had acquired the RMBS certificates from another entity via a portfolio transfer agreement (“PTA“), which transferred the “right, title and interest in and to” the certificates. The defendants argued that New York procedural law governed the issue of standing and that under New York law, the right to bring tort claims would not automatically transfer with the certificates absent an outward expression of an intent to do so. Royal Park argued that the court should apply Belgium procedural law to the standing issue because Belgium law governed the PTA. The court held that New York law governed the issue of standing and that since the PTA unambiguously only transferred the “right, title and interest in and to” the certificates, it did not expressly assign the right to bring tort claims, and Royal Park thus lacked standing to bring its claims. Order.