Impac Funding Corp.

Impac Settles RMBS Suit Brought by Citigroup for $3.1 Million

On January 24, Impac Funding Corp. settled a lawsuit brought by Citigroup Global Markets Inc. alleging violations of Sections 18 and 20 of the Securities Exchange Act and negligent misrepresentation based on alleged misstatements in the Pooling and Servicing Agreement for an RMBS trust.  Judge Mariana R. Pfaelzer of the Federal District Court for the Central District of California approved the settlement, which requires Impac to pay Citigroup $3.1 million in cash or securities of Impac Mortgage Holdings.  Motion for Approval of Settlement.  Order Approving Settlement.

California District Court Grants Partial Summary Judgment in Citigroup’s Suit Against Impac

On May 4, Judge Pfaelzer of the Central District of California granted partial summary judgment to Citigroup establishing that Impac Funding Corp. was liable to Citigroup on two of Citigroup’s three claims against Impac. Citigroup’s suit alleges that Impac Funding misled investors by filing a Pooling and Servicing Agreement (“PSA”) that incorrectly described the payment waterfall for the relevant securitization trust, and which Impaq waited six weeks to correct. Citigroup brought claims pursuant to Sections 18 (material false statement in an Exchange Act filing) and 20(a) (control person liability) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as well as a common law claim for negligent misrepresentation. The court rejected Impac’s argument that the discrepancies between the PSA and the Prospectus Supplement should have raised a red flag for the trader who purchased the securities on Citigroup’s behalf. The court also held that Impac was not entitled to a good faith “safe harbor” defense because Impac knew in 2007 that the PSA was incorrect and, as a general matter, a corporate entity is deemed to have knowledge of its own public statements. Judge Pfaelzer denied Citigroup’s motion for summary judgment on its negligent misrepresentation claim, concluding that Impac did not make the false statements itself but caused its subsidiaries to make them, and that California law does not extend negligent misrepresentation liability where one merely “causes” a misstatement to be made.  Decision.