On November 21, Judge Mariana Pfaelzer of the United States District Court for the Central District of California dismissed as time-barred an RMBS action brought against Countrywide by the FDIC as receiver for Strategic Capital Bank (SCB). The court held that SCB was on notice of Countrywide’s alleged misrepresentations over a year before the FDIC became its receiver, thus barring the claims under the applicable one year statute of limitations. Judge Pfaelzer further held that the November 2007 filing of a state court investor class action concerning Countrywide RMBS did not toll the statute of limitations because the plaintiff in that case did not have standing to sue on the tranches SCB allegedly purchased, and because a state court class action does not toll the statute of limitations for claims brought later in federal court. Decision.
Strategic Capital Bank
FDIC Brings Two RMBS Lawsuits Against Several Investment Banks and Related Entities
On May 18, 2012, the FDIC, in its capacity as receiver for two failed banks, filed two actions in the Southern District of New York arising out of the banks’ alleged purchase of RMBS. In the first suit, the FDIC asserts claims on behalf of Citizens National Bank and Strategic Capital Bank that arise out of the banks’ investment in ten RMBS certificates worth $140.5 million issued and/or underwritten by the defendants, including Bear Stearns, Citigroup, Credit Suisse, Merrill Lynch, and Deutsche Bank. Complaint. In the second suit, the FDIC asserts claims on behalf of Strategic Capital Bank arising out of the bank’s investment in five RMBS certificates worth $31 million underwritten by JP Morgan, Citigroup, Bank of America, and Deustche Bank. Complaint. In both suits, the FDIC alleged that the defendant banks violated Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 by making material misstatements and omissions in the certificates’ registration statements regarding, among other things, the loan to value ratios of the mortgages underlying the certificates, the appraisal standards used in connection with the appraisals of the underlying properties, whether the borrowers intended to occupy the properties as their primary residences, and whether the originators complied with their underwriting guidelines when originating the underlying mortgages. The FDIC seeks a combined total of $77 million in damages, plus attorneys’ fees and costs.