Litigation

Bank of New York Mellon’s Motion to Dismiss Denied in Part in Trustee RMBS Suit by Royal Park Investments

On March 2, Judge Gregory H. Woods of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York issued an Opinion and Order denying in part and granting in part the Bank of New York Mellon’s (“BNYM”) motion to dismiss an action brought by Royal Park Investments SA/NV (“Royal Park”) claiming damages of $1.12 billion arising from failures by BNYM, in its capacity as trustee, to protect the interests of investors in certain RMBS trusts.  Judge Woods denied arguments by BNYM that Royal Park had failed to plausibly allege BNYM’s discovery and knowledge of (i) breaches of representations and warranties in securitized loans; and (ii) events of defaults committed by servicers of the relevant trusts.  Judge Woods did, however, dismiss Royal Park’s claims against the bank for breach of trust, a violation of section 315(a) of the Trust Indenture Act, and the Streit Act.  Opinion and Order.

Claims Against RMBS Trustee U.S. Bank Partially Dismissed

On February 26, Judge Katherine B. Forrest of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York denied U.S. Bank N.A.’s (“U.S. Bank”) motion to dismiss claims for breach of contract and violation of the Trust Indenture Act (“TIA”) with regard to the 27 trusts that remain before the Court after it previously declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over claims arising from an additional 810 trusts.  Orrick covered that decision here. The Court dismissed plaintiffs’ claims for breach of fiduciary duty and extra-contractual duties under the economic loss doctrine, but did not dismiss plaintiffs’ TIA-based claim, holding that the statute provides plaintiffs with a private right of action.  Judge Forrest also held that the Indentures’ no-action clauses have no effect in suits against RMBS trustees, rejecting U.S. Bank’s attempt to dismiss all claims against it on the basis of plaintiffs’ non-compliance with those provisions.  Opinion and Order.

National Credit Union Administration Board Accepts UBS Securities LLC Offer of Judgment

On February 25, the National Credit Union Administration Board (“NCUA”) accepted an offer of judgment tendered by UBS Securities LLC (“UBS”) in the amount of $33,014,285 plus prejudgment interest, which will be calculated by the court. NCUA and UBS will attempt to agree on costs and fees also to be paid by UBS.  Acting as the liquidating agent for Southwest Corporate Federal Credit Union and Members United Corporate Federal Credit Union, NCUA’s complaint alleged that UBS made material misstatements in connection with the sale of 20 RMBS certificates, alleging more than $918 million in actual gross losses.  UBS specified in the offer of judgment that its offer should not be construed as an admission of liability. Offer of Judgment. Complaint.

Morgan Stanley Agrees to Settlement with DOJ and NYAG Totaling $3.15 Billion

On February 11, the U.S. Department of Justice and the Attorney General of State of New York announced dual settlement agreements with Morgan Stanley providing for the payment of $3.2 billion. The settlements relate to Morgan Stanley’s marketing, underwriting, and issuance of RMBS from 2005-2007.

In its agreement with the U.S. Department of Justice, Morgan Stanley acknowledged that it had failed to disclose that certain securitized loans did not comply with applicable underwriting guidelines, and that Morgan Stanley’s due diligence practices did not conform to those described in presentations to RMBS investors. Morgan Stanley will pay $2.6 billion to the U.S. Department of Justice, $150 million to the State of New York, and an additional $400 million in relief directly to consumers.  Payment to the U.S. Department of Justice releases Morgan Stanley from any civil claim brought under FIRREA. DOJ Settlement Agreement. State of New York Settlement Agreement.

RMBS Trustee Seeks Court Guidance on Distribution of Settlement Proceeds

On February 5, 2016, the Bank of New York Mellon (“BNY Mellon”), in its capacity as trustee of 530 RMBS trusts, filed an Article 77 petition with the Supreme Court of the State of New York requesting instruction as to how it should distribute proceeds from an upcoming $8.5 billion settlement payment from Bank of America Corporation. The settlement payment relates to a 2011 settlement of claims arising from representations and warranties made by Countrywide Financial Corporation and Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. in connection with the 530 RMBS trusts at issue.

The petition highlights a dispute among Certificateholders in the 530 trusts regarding how settlement proceeds should most fairly be disseminated to investors. Among other consideration, the petition concerns the application of “write up” provisions—by which the principal balance on previously written-down certificates is increased—and how these provisions could affect the allocation of proceeds in over-collateralized trusts.  The petition states that the distribution process may create the artificial appearance that a trust’s overcollateralization target was hit, resulting in the unintended “leakage” of settlement proceeds to subordinated Certificateholders, at the expense of the senior tranches.

Petitioners request the court clarify whether BNY Mellon must: (a) pay disbursements first and subsequently adjust the overcollateralization calculation to prevent leakage; (b) pay disbursements first and make no adjustment to the overcollateralization calculation, thereby permitting leakage; or (c) change its settlement disbursement operations to “write up first and pay second.” As BNY Mellon puts it: “the resolution of this question has significant consequences . . . affecting the distribution of potentially billions of dollars.” Verified Petition.

Judge Mostly Denies Deutsche Bank National Trust Co.’s Motion to Dismiss in RMBS Class Action

On February 3, Judge Alison Nathan of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York largely denied Deutsche Bank National Trust Co.’s (the “Trustee’s”) motion to dismiss in a proposed class action brought by Royal Park Investments SA/NV over $3.1 billion in losses in residential mortgage-backed securities.  Royal Park alleged that the Trustee failed to require the loan sellers to repurchase or substitute loans when it became aware that the underlying mortgages were defaulting.  Judge Nathan rejected the Trustee’s argument that Royal Park failed to make a written demand to initiate a repurchase action as required in the trusts’ pooling and service agreements, holding that the Trustee had an obligation to provide notice to the other parties when it independently discovered breaches of representations and warranties.  Judge Nathan did, however, dismiss Royal Park’s derivative claims on behalf of 10 trusts that held the loans because the suit was direct rather than derivative in nature.  Order.

Morgan Stanley Settles RMBS Litigation with FDIC for $63M

On January 29, Morgan Stanley and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation agreed to settle five suits encompassing state and federal claims alleging that Morgan Stanley made misrepresentations in offering residential mortgage-backed securities to three now-defunct banks.  Morgan Stanley will pay $63 million to the FDIC, as receiver for Colonial Bank of Montgomery, Alabama, Security Savings Bank of Henderson, New York, and United Western Bank of Denver, Colorado.  Morgan Stanley denied all liability regarding the claims, and the settlement agreement specified that the parties settled in order to avoid further litigation.  The settlement was reached in coordination with the Department of Justice.  Settlement and Release Agreement.

Ambac and J.P. Morgan Reach $995M RMBS Settlement

On Monday, January 25, 2016, monoline insurer Ambac Assurance Corporation (“Ambac”) reached a $995 million settlement with J.P. Morgan, resolving two RMBS actions pending before Justice Ramos in the Supreme Court of the State of New York and Ambac’s objections to J.P. Morgan’s $4.5 billion global settlement with RMBS trustees.  We previously covered Ambac’s actions against J.P. Morgan here, here and here.  In those actions, Ambac brought claims against J.P. Morgan as the successor to EMC Mortgage and Bear Stearns for alleged misrepresentation of the quality the loans underlying eleven RMBS transactions.  The settlement also resolves Ambac’s objections to J.P. Morgan’s 2014 settlement with RMBS trustees of claims for alleged breaches of representations and warranties and servicing deficiencies. The adequacy of that settlement is currently the subject of an Article 77 proceeding before Justice Friedman of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, which we previously covered herePress Release.  Stipulation of Withdrawal.

Eleven Banks Reach Settlement with Commonwealth of Virginia on RMBS Claims

On Friday, January 22, 2016, eleven banks, including Merrill Lynch, RBS, and Barclays, agreed to settle claims brought by the Commonwealth of Virginia in a 2014 action alleging misrepresentations as to the nature, quality, characteristics, and risk profile of RMBS certificates. The certificates were purchased by the Virginia Retirement System, an agency of the Virginia Commonwealth.  In its complaint, the Commonwealth alleged injury of $383.91 million and demanded treble damages of $1.15 billion, plus a civil penalty of $5,000-$11,000 per violation.  The settlement announced on January 22 is for $63 million.  Press ReleaseComplaint.

Trustees Seek Approval of $4.5 Billion Settlement

On January 20, trial commenced before Justice Marcy Friedman in New York County Supreme Court to determine whether Deutsche Bank, U.S. Bank, and the other trustees of 330 RMBS trusts acted reasonably when they reached a $4.5 billion settlement of claims against JP Morgan in its capacity as sponsor of those trusts.  Under the proposed agreement, JP Morgan would make a $4.5 billion payment to be distributed among the trusts and perform certain mortgage loan servicing improvements in exchange for a release of claims related to mortgage loan representations and warranties and mortgage loan servicing.  There are two objectors that have challenged the validity and fairness of the settlement:  Ambac, which insured eight of the trusts, and W&L Investments, LLC, a certifcateholder in two of the trusts. The trial is expected to last roughly two weeks.  Amended Petition.