RMBS

S.D.N.Y. Allows NCUA to Amend RMBS Suit Against Deutsche Bank and Grants in Part and Denies in Part Motion to Dismiss

and Posted on

 

Judge Sidney H. Stein in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York allowed the National Credit Union Administration (NCUA) to amend its complaint to add a new plaintiff to attempt to establish standing and proceed with its lawsuit against Deutsche Bank National Trust Company (DBNTC), while granting in part DBNTC’s motion to dismiss, which limited the proceeding to NCUA’s breach of contract claims.

Originally filed November 10, 2014 (as covered here), NCUA’s complaint alleges that DBNTC failed in its duties as trustee for 37 RMBS trusts, resulting in losses to those trusts and their investors, including five failed credit unions that were taken over by NCUA. Judge Stein allowed NCUA to amend its complaint to insert a different plaintiff—Graeme W. Bush, a specially-appointed trustee selected by Bank of New York Mellon—with direct standing for a variety of NCUA Guaranteed Note Trusts (NGN Trusts) that were created from the assets of five failed credit unions after the financial crisis. Because Bank of New York Mellon serves as the trustee for the NGN Trusts, NCUA does not have direct standing, and courts had not settled on whether NCUA had derivative standing on behalf of the NGN Trusts. The NCUA’s substitution followed a Second Circuit decision in a similar case affirming the dismissal of NCUA’s derivative claims for lack of standing. NCUA also successfully substituted itself as a direct plaintiff for NGN Trusts that have “unwound” and whose underlying certificates have been returned to NCUA.

After allowing the amendment, Judge Stein went on to grant in part and deny in part DBNTC’s motion to dismiss the amended complaint. While Judge Stein found that NCUA had stated a claim for breach of contract, he found that NCUA’s negligence and breach of fiduciary duty claims were barred by the economic loss doctrine. Further, Judge Stein stayed NCUA’s claims regarding DBNTC’s use of trust funds for indemnification, finding that DBNTC may be required to return the trust funds if there is a negligence finding against it, pursuant to the terms of the governing agreements. Opinion & Order.

Nearly All Claims Against U.S. Bank Dismissed in Ambac RMBS Trustee Suit

and Posted on

 

On July 16, Judge Schofield in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed four out of five claims in a suit filed by Ambac Assurance Corp. (Ambac) against U.S. Bank National Association (U.S. Bank), challenging the Bank’s actions as trustee for a Harborview Mortgage Loan Trust. Ambac insured certain certificateholders against low cashflow from the Trust, which was backed by Countrywide-originated mortgages. In August 2011, U.S. Bank filed suit in New York state court against Countrywide and Bank of America, as its successor, alleging failure to comply with representations and warranties. When U.S. Bank agreed to stay the state suit after Countrywide proposed a $56.96 million settlement, Ambac sued U.S. Bank in the S.D.N.Y. to enjoin the settlement, alleging that the Bank breached its obligations to trust beneficiaries by accepting a low settlement amount. In March 2017, U.S. Bank initiated a trust instruction proceeding (TIP) in Minnesota to address its claims against Countrywide; meanwhile, Judge Stein in the S.D.N.Y. found in the Ambac-led suit that, because of the ongoing TIP, U.S. Bank had not yet breached its duties, and therefore Ambac’s claims were not yet ripe. On June 1, 2018, U.S. Bank disclosed its $94 million settlement with Countrywide, conditioned on approval by the Minnesota court.

In the case before Judge Schofield, Ambac alleged that U.S. Bank accepted an unreasonably low settlement, that it improperly released other lucrative claims, and that by agreeing to stay the New York state court action and bringing the TIP, U.S. Bank had wasted trust funds, harming trust beneficiaries. Judge Schofield dismissed four of Ambac’s five claims based on these facts, finding that any alleged injury was hypothetical and far too speculative, and that Ambac had not adequately alleged that U.S. Bank taking different actions would have resulted in a more favorable settlement or negotiation position. She also rejected Ambac’s counts for declaratory judgment, because such a finding would serve no useful purpose and would not resolve all of the outstanding cases. Judge Schofield let Ambac’s breach of contract claim continue, finding that Ambac sufficiently alleged that U.S. Bank’s improper accounting of recoveries under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement harmed Ambac, because it affected the amount and timing of the insurance payments that it made. Opinion and Order.

S.D.N.Y. Grants in Part and Denies in Part Trustee Bank of New York Mellon’s Motion for Summary Judgment in Suit Brought by Certificateholder Phoenix Light

Posted on

 

On September 7, 2017, Judge Valerie Caproni in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted the majority of RMBS trustee Bank of New York Mellon’s (“BNYM“) summary judgment motion and denied certificateholder Phoenix Light SF Ltd.’s (“Phoenix Light“) cross motion in its entirety in Phoenix Light SF Ltd. v. Bank of New York Mellon. Judge Caproni’s decision significantly curtailed Phoenix Light’s Complaint, which alleged various breaches of the trustee’s duties in connection with 21 RMBS trusts. For eight of the trusts at issue, Judge Caproni rejected Phoenix Light’s breach-of-contract claims alleging that BNYM failed to notify other parties upon discovery of breaches of representations and warranties due to lack of evidence that BNYM actually discovered any breaches. Judge Caproni also rejected the breach claims in connection with another eight trusts due to Phoenix Light’s failure to support the claims with evidence on a “loan-by-loan and trust-by-trust” basis. Only Phoenix Light’s breach-of-contract claims related to trusts where BNYM had notice of a specific breach or an event of default survived, as did Phoenix Light’s Trust Indenture Act claims for three trusts (because BNYM did not address the claims in its reply brief). The Court also granted BNYM’s motion with respect to Plaintiffs’ negligence, gross negligence, and negligent misrepresentation claims, finding that Plaintiffs’ tort-based arguments were duplicative of their breach-of-contract allegations.

Ratings Agency Developments

Posted on

 

On April 26, 2017, Fitch issued a report entitled U.S. Public Finance College and University Rating Criteria. Report.

On April 26, 2017, Fitch published an update to its methodology for rating insurance companies. Release.

On April 24, 2017, DBRS issued a report entitled Representations and Warranties Criteria for U.S. RMBS Transactions. Report.

On April 24, 2017, DBRS issued a report entitled Master European Residential Mortgage-Backed Securities Rating Methodology and Jurisdictional Addenda. Report.

On April 24, 2017, DBRS issued a report entitled European RMBS Insight: Dutch Addendum. Report.

On April 21, 2017, DBRS issued a report entitled DBRS Criteria: Financial Ratio Definitions and Accounting Adjustments — Non-Financial Companies. Report.

On April 21, 2017, DBRS issued a report entitled Rating Entities in the Real Estate Industry. Report.

On April 21, 2017, DBRS issued a report entitled Rating Canadian Covered Bonds. Report.

On April 21, 2017, S&P issued a report entitled Foreign Exchange Risk In Structured Finance–Methodology And Assumptions. Report.

On April 20, 2017, DBRS issued a report entitled Rating Canadian Structured Finance Transactions. Report.

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

and Posted on

 

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.

Rating Agency Developments

Posted on

 

On April 4, 2017, DBRS updated its methodology for rating U.S. residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS). Report.

On April 4, 2017, DBRS published its methodology for rating U.S. Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) securitizations. Report.

On April 4, 2017, DBRS published its methodology for rating structured finance CDO restructurings. Report.

On April 4, 2017, Moody’s published its ratings methodology for assessing companies in the equipment and transportation rental industry. Report.

On March 31, 2017, DBRS published its master methodology for assessing European structured finance. Report.

On March 30, 2017, Fitch updated its rating criteria for U.S. public finance tender option bonds. Report.

On March 30, 2017, Moody’s updated its ratings methodology for market value collateralized loan obligations (MV CLOs). Report.

Rating Agency Developments

Posted on

 

On March 29, 2017, Moody’s published its approach to assessing credit risk for multilateral development banks and other supranational entities. Report.

On March 28, 2017, DBRS published its methodology for rating Canadian ABCP and related enhancement features. Report.

On March 28, 2017, Fitch published its U.K. income-contingent student loans rating criteria. Report.

On March 28, 2017, Fitch published an update to its rating criteria for trust preferred collateralized debt obligations (TruPS CDOs). Release.

On March 28, 2017, KBRA published its U.S. consumer loan ABS rating methodology. Report.

On March 24, 2017, DBRS published its methodology for rating companies in the forest products industry. Report.

On March 24, 2017, DBRS published its methodology for rating companies in the radio broadcasting industry. Report.

On March 24, 2017, DBRS published its methodology for rating companies in the television broadcasting industry. Report.

On March 24, 2017, DBRS published its methodology for rating companies in the printing industry. Report.

On March 24, 2017, DBRS published its methodology for rating companies in the publishing industry. Report.

On March 24, 2017, Moody’s published an update to its local currency country risk ceiling for bonds and other local currency obligations. Report.

On March 23, 2017, DBRS published its North American CMBS multi-borrower rating methodology. Report.

On March 23, 2017, Fitch published an update to its criteria for estimating losses on U.S. mortgage pools for RMBS transactions. Report.

First Department Grants Summary Judgment Against RMBS Collateral Manager for Failure to Raise Issue of Fact Regarding Loss Causation

and Posted on

 

On March 2, 2017, the New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department reversed a decision from the New York Supreme Court and dismissed a complaint filed by two hedge funds against the collateral manager of a $400 million collateralized debt obligation (“CDO“) investment. Plaintiff hedge funds Basis PAC-Rim Opportunity Fund (Master) and Basis Yield Alpha Fund (Master) (together, “Basis“) filed a lawsuit asserting fraud claims against defendant TCW Asset Management Company (“TCW“), which had served as the collateral manager for the Dutch Hill II CDO. Dutch Hill II was created to serve as an investment vehicle for the purpose of taking a net long position on extremely risky RMBS; TCW selected the assets for the Dutch Hill II portfolio and made representations to Basis about the viability of the subprime RMBS market. Basis purchased over $27 million of Dutch Hill II notes in 2007, but the notes were all but valueless following the housing crisis. In moving for summary judgment, TCW submitted expert evidence showing that the housing market crash would have caused Basis’s losses even if the collateral underlying the CDO had not been misrepresented, as Basis alleged. In response, Basis did not submit sufficient evidence rebutting that opinion or showing that any of the particular misrepresentations by TCW caused its losses. The Supreme Court had denied summary judgment, holding that there were issues of fact as to loss causation. The First Department reversed, concluding that by failing to rebut TCW’s evidence, Basis had not raised an issue of fact as to loss causation.  Opinion.