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.
New York Supreme Court
Justice Friedman of the New York Supreme Court Dismisses Two FHFA Repurchase Actions
On April 12, 2016, Justice Marcy Friedman of the New York Supreme Court granted motions to dismiss in two RMBS breach of contract actions filed by FHFA against Morgan Stanley ABS Capital I Inc. (“MSAC”) and Morgan Stanley Mortgage Capital Holdings LLC (“Morgan Stanley”). In the decisions, he Court dismissed the actions on similar grounds and granted the parties the opportunity to brief claims for failure to notify, in light of the October 13, 2015 First Department’s decision in Nomura Home Equity Loan Inc. Series 2006-FM2 et al. v. Nomura Credit & Capital Inc.
Like Justice Friedman’s ruling last month in ACE Securities v. DB Structured Products, Inc., which we previously covered, the Court held that both actions were not rendered untimely by the Plaintiff’s failure to file repurchase demand condition precedent prior to the filing of the summons with notice. However, the FHFA, as certificate holder, lacked standing to commence the action and thus the Trustee’s cause of action was untimely because it did not relate back to the FHFA’s summons with notice. In so holding, the Court rejected the Trustee’s arguments in both cases that the action was timely commenced, and also that the accrual clause in the RMBS extended the statute of limitations, and that the federal Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008, applicable to certain actions brought by FHFA, extended the limitations period. Finally, the Court also held that no tolling agreements saved Trustee’s claims, and also dismissed the causes of action for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, breach of repurchase obligations, and anticipatory breach. Decision 116. Decision 134.
New York Supreme Court Dismisses ACE Action Re-Asserting Repurchase Claims against DB Structured Products
On March 29, 2016, Justice Marcy Friedman of the New York Supreme Court rejected the trustee’s attempt to renew previously dismissed claims in ACE Securities v. DB Structured Products, Inc. As we previously reported, the trustee re-filed this action after the First Department dismissed the prior lawsuit related to the same trust, a dismissal that the Court of Appeals later affirmed.
In granting the motion to dismiss, the court rejected the trustee’s reliance on CPLR 205(a) as grounds for reviving the previously dismissed lawsuit. The Court held that CPLR 205(a) allows only the same plaintiff that commenced the prior action to re-commence a second action under the terms of that rule. Because the prior action had been commenced by the certificateholders, not the trustee, the trustee was not the same plaintiff and could not take advantage of CPLR 205(a). The Court rejected the trustee’s argument that it and the certificateholders were attempting to litigate identical interests, holding that the certificateholders in the prior action did not possess a cause of action to which the trustee succeeded. The court also considered the defendant’s alternative argument that CPLR 205(a) was not available because the prior lawsuit was untimely. The prior lawsuit was filed on the six-year anniversary of the allegedly breached representations and warranties, but neither the trustee nor the certificateholders had complied with the contract’s notice and cure “repurchase protocol” at the time of filing, a failing that both the First Department and Court of Appeals relied upon in dismissing the prior case. The Court held that to the extent the dismissal was based on the non-compliance with the repurchase protocol, it should properly be characterized as a dismissal for failure to comply with a condition precedent, not a dismissal on timeliness grounds. However, the First Department also held that the trustee’s complaint in the prior lawsuit had been untimely because it did not relate back to the certificateholders’ summons with notice. Therefore, the trustee’s failure to file a timely complaint in the first lawsuit provided a second basis for why the trustee could not rely on CPLR 205(a) to re-file the previously dismissed lawsuit. Order.
MBIA Allowed to Pursue Fraudulent Inducement Claim Against J.P. Morgan
On September 19, Justice Alan D. Scheinkman of the New York Supreme Court for Westchester County granted in part MBIA’s motion for leave to amend its complaint against J.P. Morgan in an action related to a Bear Stearns RMBS transaction that MBIA insured. In May, the court granted summary judgment in favor of J.P. Morgan on the sole claim of fraud in the original complaint. In that decision, however, the court noted that while MBIA could not demonstrate fraud, there may have been unpleaded causes of action for fraudulent concealment and/or relief available under Section 3105 of the New York Insurance Law. MBIA then sought to file an amended complaint containing those two new claims and an amended fraud claim. As all of these claims were viable at the time of the original complaint, J.P. Morgan argued that the claims were precluded by the doctrine of res judicata based on the court’s summary judgment decision. The court rejected this argument and held that res judicata only applied to the pleaded fraud claim and not to the new claims. As to the substance of MBIA’s amended claims, the court granted leave to file an amended complaint on the fraudulent concealment claim alone, dismissing the previously pleaded fraud claim and MBIA’s Section 3105 claim. Order.
New York Appellate Court Orders Dismissal of Repurchase Claims Against DB Structured Products as Time-Barred
On December 19, the Appellate Division, First Department of the New York Supreme Court held that repurchase claims brought by an RMBS trust against DB Structured Products were barred by the statute of limitations, reversing the trial court’s denial of DB’s motion to dismiss. The court rejected plaintiff-appellee’s argument that the statute of limitations for breach of representations and warranties begins to run when the bank fails to cure or repurchase a defective loan. Instead, the claims accrued when the representations and warranties first were breached. Plaintiff-appellee’s complaint did not relate back to an earlier summons with notice filed by the trust’s certificate holders, for two reasons. First, the court held that the summons with notice filed was a nullity because the certificate holders failed to comply with the contractual repurchase protocol by not waiting for the expiration of the requisite 60- and 90-day periods for cure or repurchase before attempting to commence the action. Second, the court held that the certificate holders did not have standing to sue, and that the subsequent complaint filed by plaintiff-appellee could not relate back to a summons with notice filed by a party without standing. Decision.
Goldman Sachs Motion to Dismiss RMBS Fraud Suit Granted in Part, Denied in Part
On November 26, Justice Melvin Schweitzer of the New York Supreme Court granted in part and denied in part Goldman Sachs’s motion to dismiss a lawsuit brought by HSH Nordbank. Justice Schweitzer dismissed claims arising out of alleged misstatements regarding assignment and transfer of the mortgages underlying the RMBS at issue and the credit ratings assigned to the RMBS, holding that HSH Nordbank had not adequately alleged such statements were knowingly false when made. Justice Schweitzer also dismissed HSH Nordbank’s negligent misrepresentation claim, finding no special duty between Goldman Sachs and HSH Nordbank that could support such a cause of action. Justice Schweitzer allowed the remaining claims and allegations to proceed, including claims for fraud, fraudulent concealment, aiding and abetting fraud and rescission. In particular, he denied Goldman Sachs’s argument that the lawsuit was time-barred under German law, hold that HSH Nordbank’s knowledge of the existence of its claims was a question of fact not capable of resolution at the pleading stage. Justice Schweitzer also held that the complaint adequately alleged misrepresentations concerning compliance with underwriting guidelines, loan to value ratios and occupancy status. Order.
Liquidators of Bear Stearns Hedge Funds Accuse Rating Agencies of Fraud
On November 12, the liquidators for two Bear Stearns overseas hedge funds filed their complaint against McGraw Hill, Standard & Poor’s, Moody’s, and Fitch (collectively the rating agencies) in an action in New York Supreme Court alleging that fraudulent ratings led to over $1 billion in losses for the funds’ investors. According to the complaint, the funds invested in a portfolio of high-grade structured finance products, including CDOs and RMBS, where “at least 90% had the highest rating available,” and therefore depended heavily on ratings in making investment decisions. The complaint alleges that the rating agencies knew that the ratings assigned to the securities in which the funds invested were false. Plaintiffs claim that the rating agencies lacked independence from the issuers of the securities and that their ratings were tainted by a desire to maintain market share in a profitable industry. The funds also allege that the rating agencies used relaxed standards in their initial ratings and subsequently failed to conduct proper ongoing surveillance of rated securities, leading to delays in downgrading ratings for allegedly faulty securities. The liquidators initially commenced the action in July through New York’s summons with notice procedure. Complaint.
Trustee Brings Putback Action Against Merrill Lynch
On December 18, 2012, U.S. Bank, acting in its capacity as Trustee for two Merrill Lynch RMBS trusts that issued over $1 billion in RMBS certificates, filed a complaint in New York Supreme Court against Merrill Lynch. The Trustee alleges that Merrill Lynch breached representations and warranties concerning the borrowers’ income and employment, the borrowers’ debts and debt-to-income ratio at the time the mortgages were originated, property value and loan-to-value ratios, and the owner-occupancy rates of the underlying properties. The Trustee asserts seven causes of action for breach of contract, anticipatory breach, and declaratory judgment, and seeks to require Merrill Lynch to repurchase the loans. Complaint.
IKB Brings Two RMBS Lawsuits Against Bank of America and Related Entities
On May 15, 2012, IKB Deutsche Industriebank AG and an IKB affiliate filed two lawsuits against Bank of America and related entities in the New York Supreme Court. The first, in which several Countrywide entities are also defendants, arises out of IKB’s alleged investment in 29 RMBS certificates worth $200.3 million issued by Countrywide. The second, in which several Merrill Lynch entities are also defendants, arises out of IKB’s alleged investment in 13 RMBS certificates worth $56.2 million issued by Bank of America and Merrill Lynch. The summonses with notice filed in the suits are substantively identical. In each, IKB alleges that the offering materials for the RMBS in which it invested contained material misrepresentations and omissions regarding the underwriting standards used to originate the underlying mortgage loans, the statistical characteristics of the loans, the securities’ credit ratings, the legal validity of the assignment of the underlying mortgage loans to the issuing trusts, and the entitlement of the trusts to receive principal and interest payments on the loans. IKB asserts causes of action for common-law fraud, fraudulent inducement, negligent misrepresentation, aiding and abetting fraud, declaratory judgment, and contract claims. IKB seeks actual and punitive damages, rescissory damages, and fees and costs. IKB-BofA/Merrill Summons. IKB-BofA/Countrywide Summons.
German Bank Sues Merrill Lynch In Connection With Sale of $324 Million in RMBS
German bank Bayerische Landesbank (“BayernLB”) filed suit against Merrill Lynch on May 2 in New York Supreme Court, claiming that Merrill Lynch knowingly made misrepresentations in its offering materials relating to $324 million in residential mortgage-backed securities. The complaint alleges that the offering materials falsely claimed that the mortgage loans had been underwritten to strict underwriting standards, and that Merrill Lynch misrepresented that it had conducted due diligence on the underlying loans before purchasing and securitizing them. BayernLB asserts claims for common law fraud, fraudulent inducement, and aiding and abetting fraudulent inducement, and seeks compensatory, rescissory, and punitive damages. Complaint.