Tom Kidera guides clients through crisis. A Chambers-ranked litigator (General Commercial Litigation, New York (Band 6)), Tom brings a dogged dedication and creative energy to his clients and their needs. His clients attest that he applies "a real cerebral approach to whatever it is we're trying to accomplish," and that "you can tell he has gone down all the potential paths and thought through them."
A partner in the firm's Complex Litigation and Dispute Resolution group, and the Head of Orrick's New York Office, Tom represents the Firm's energy and infrastructure, financial services, and professional services clients in complex commercial litigations, arbitrations, and regulatory proceedings.
He is particularly sought-after on issues regarding force majeure and catastrophic market disruption, having served on a team of Orrick lawyers whose force majeure-related victory on behalf of long-time client, Hemlock Semiconductor LLC, was declared a Top 10 Business Case of 2010-2019 by the Michigan Bar Journal.
Tom represents Orrick's renewable energy and infrastructure clients in a vast array of commercial, warranty, and construction litigation matters throughout the U.S. and around the globe, previously having served as a member of the Orrick team that represented Hemlock Semiconductor (a leading producer of solar-grade polycrystalline silicon) in a host of litigations and proceedings arising from the breach of its long-term supply agreements by counterparties. His practice touches all types of renewable energy disputes from PPA litigation, to development and construction claims, to component supply and performance disputes, and everything in between.
In addition to representing his clients in courts and confidential arbitrations, Tom regularly provides pre-litigation counseling to Orrick's renewable energy and infrastructure clients, helping them manage their enterprise liability and pursue and defend claims through mediation and pre-dispute procedures, often resolving matters amicably before they devolve into full litigation or arbitration.
Tom also has litigated structured finance issues for his entire career, representing securitization sponsors and loan servicers in an array of litigations from securities fraud and loan repurchase disputes to ERISA and consumer class actions, also consulting and advising on the interpretation of securitization documents and events of default.
In addition, Tom represents audit firms and accountants in regulatory proceedings commenced by the SEC and the PCAOB along with related civil litigations. He has experience managing and conducting large scale internal investigations, liaising with regulators, remediating problems, and managing risk and liability in delicate circumstances.
Tom maintains an active pro bono practice representing asylum seekers and U.S. veterans seeking discharge status upgrades.
On November 14, 2016, plaintiff Federal Home Loan Bank of Boston (“FHLBB“) and defendants RBS Securities Inc., RBS Acceptance, Inc., RBS Financial Products, Inc., and RBS Holdings, USA (Inc.) (together, “RBS“) filed a joint stipulation seeking the dismissal of certain securities fraud claims alleged by FHLBB in connection with the marketing and sale of 10 RMBS certificates. The stipulation of dismissal does not affect FHLBB’s claims against RBS arising from the sale of two other RMBS certificates, or FHLBB’s claims against any other defendant. FHLBB brought this litigation against RBS and dozens of other defendants in 2011, alleging violations of Massachusetts securities laws and claiming the defendants made untrue statements and omitted material facts about the quality of the loan pools underlying the securities. Further details of the dismissal are not publicly available. Stipulation.
On September 20, 2016, Judge Shelley Chapman of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York approved the $37 million settlement of $1.3 billion in claims asserted against the estates of two defunct Lehman Brothers’ entities by Syncora Guarantee Inc. in its capacity as the insurer for certain certificates issued from the GMFT 2006-1 RMBS trust. After being sued by the GMFT 2006-1 Trustee for payment under the insurance policy, Syncora filed its own claim for indemnification against Lehman as sponsor of the securitization. In addition to settling Syncora’s claim, the agreement also releases Lehman from all potential claims brought by the GMFT 2006-1 Trustee, U.S. Bank NA, in exchange for Lehman’s cooperation in a separate lawsuit arising from GreenPoint Mortgage Funding Inc.’s alleged failure to repurchase defective loans. Settlement Order. Settlement Agreement Submitted For Approval.
On September 6, 2016, following a 3-week long bench trial in May, U.S. District Judge P. Kevin Castel of the Southern District of New York held that he will appoint a Lead Master to determine whether there are “material breaches” in 9,300 loans at issue in putback litigation against UBS. In its 239-page post-trial decision, after addressing a number of issues and discussing 20 loans, the Court appointed a Lead Master to examine each loan on an individual basis and prepare recommended findings and conclusions on liability.
The Court outlined Plaintiff’s burden of proof for breach of underwriting guidelines, holding that the Plaintiff must demonstrate it is more likely than not that the loan was not originated in compliance with the relevant underwriting guidelines, unless an exception was actually exercised, in a reasonable manner, at the time of origination. Plaintiffs will then be required to prove a breach has a “material and adverse” effect at the time UBS’s repurchase obligation was triggered. The Court held this can be shown: (1) by proving an increased risk of loss to certificateholders; (2) with evidence that a breach resulted in altered loan terms; or (3) through a showing of layered risk and/or the cumulative effect of multiple breaches. The Court held that discovery of a breach cannot be based on constructive knowledge. Instead, Plaintiffs must show actual knowledge, which may be established by circumstantial evidence, or willful blindness. Memorandum and Court Order.
On September 1, 2016, Judge John W. Lungstrum of the U.S. District of Kansas denied cross-motions for summary judgment on the issue of timeliness brought by RBS, Nomura and the NCUA in NCUA v. RBS Securities, et al. NCUA alleges in its 2011 complaint that it suffered losses of $800 million on 2006-2007 vintage RMBS certificates based on misstatements by the defendants. Defendants RBS and Nomura argued on summary judgment that NCUA’s claims must be dismissed because they were not brought within one year after discovering the allegedly untrue statement or omission, or after such discovery should have been reasonably made. NCUA argued in opposition that it did not have constructive notice of the facts underlying its claims by the relevant dates and that its claims were timely. The Court found that “a jury could reasonably find in favor” of either party as to what a “reasonably diligent investor would have known and done in 2007 and 2008 on the timeliness issue” and that as a result fact questions remained precluding summary judgment for either side. Memorandum and Court Order.
On August 11, 2016, the First Department of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York affirmed dismissal of an action brought by Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as RMBS Trustee, against Quicken Loans, Inc. Following the New York Court of Appeals decision in the closely-followed case of ACE Securities Corp., Home Equity Loan Trust, Series 2006-SL2 v. DB Structured Products, Inc. (covered here) – which held that a breach of contract claim in an RMBS putback action accrues on the date the representations and warranties are made – the First Department concluded Deutsche Bank’s action was time-barred, notwithstanding the presence of an accrual provision in the transaction documents that might have otherwise delayed the accrual of putback claims indefinitely. The decision holds that such accrual provisions are unenforceable attempts to extend the statute of limitations. Order.
On August 11, 2016, the First Department of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York affirmed a trial court ruling that investor-plaintiff IKB International to proceed with claims that RMBS sponsor and underwriter Morgan Stanley knowingly misrepresented loans’ credit quality and characteristics. The Court affirmed a ruling that justifiable reliance was adequately pleaded as the complaint contained allegations that (i) plaintiffs hired investment advisors to analyze the offering documents for the 18 RMBS deals at issue; and (ii) plaintiffs lacked the access to (and the ability to demand) loan files prior to purchase.
Additionally, the Court agreed that the plaintiffs adequately pleaded the fraud element of scienter by alleging that Morgan Stanly learned about the loans’ defects during the course of its own due diligence reviews, and in its role as underwriter. Order.
On August 11, 2016, the First Department of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York reversed the lower court, allowing RMBS Trustee U.S. Bank to proceed with claims against Morgan Stanley in connection with alleged losses of $140 million resulting from the sale of allegedly defective loans. Following its own ruling from last year (covered here), the First Department again concluded that the alleged failure to notify securitization counterparties of breaches of representations and warranties constitutes a viable cause of action independent from claims arising from the alleged breaches themselves. The First Department also reversed dismissal of the plaintiff’s gross negligence claims noting that – notwithstanding language in the governing contract’s sole remedy provision – the law does not permit a party to insulate itself from paying for damages arising from its grossly negligent conduct. Order.
On August 9, 2016, RMBS trustee Deutsche Bank National Trust Company and WMC Mortgage, LLC, filed a joint motion to stay an appeal pending in the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The parties requested the stay to allow them time to finalize the settlement of a lawsuit alleging that WMC misrepresented the quality of loans it sold in a $1 billion 2006 RMBS offering. The trial court had previously dismissed the lawsuit in 2015 (covered here) as time-barred under New York’s six-year statute of limitations. Joint Motion.
On July 25, 2016, Justice Marcy Friedman of the New York Supreme Court dismissed a $619 million suit brought by U.S. Bank in its capacity as Trustee of an RMBS trust against the originator of the loans, Equifirst, Barclays’ now-defunct mortgage originator. The Federal Housing Finance Agency (“FHFA”), as conservator of an RMBS certificateholder, initially filed the summons with notice on February 28, 2013, the six-year anniversary of the securitization’s closing date. U.S. Bank waited another six months before filing the complaint on October 28, 2013. U.S. Bank brought claims for breach of contract for Equifirst’s alleged misrepresentations regarding the quality of the underlying mortgage loans, and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing arising from an alleged failure to notify contractual counterparties of Equifirst’s alleged breaches. Relying on a recent intermediate appellate decision and her orders in similar cases, Justice Friedman dismissed those claims holding that FHFA, as a certificateholder, lacked standing to commence the action, and that the Trustee’s complaint, which was filed after the passage of the statute of limitations, did not relate back to FHFA’s summons with notice. The court granted U.S. Bank leave to replead its failure to notify claims. Order.
On July 5, 2016, the First Department of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York affirmed the partial grant of Bank of New York Mellon’s (“BNY”) motion to dismiss certain claims brought by RMBS investors arising from BNY’s alleged failure to perform its duties as RMBS trustee. While the court affirmed partial denial of BNY’s motion to dismiss the negligence claims as duplicative of the contract claims, it also affirmed that portion of the trial court’s order granting BNY’s motion to dismiss portions of those negligence claims to the extent they are predicated on the incorrect assumption that a trustee owes a duty to (i) monitor other PSA counterparties’ performance of basic non-ministerial tasks; and/or (ii) put its “nose to the source” to uncover improper counterparty conduct. The First Department also held that the trial court should have dismissed contract claims against BNY alleging a breach of the alleged duty to notify PSA counterparties of loan seller representation and warranty breaches, as they had not been sufficiently alleged. It also affirmed dismissal of all breach of fiduciary duty claims. Decision.
