Mortgage-Backed Securities

Mortgage-Backed Securities News: Former Standard & Poor Executive On Trial in SEC Case Over Mortgage Bond Ratings & Royal Bank of Scotland and Nomura Try to Overturn $839M MBS Fraud Ruling

Published on: November 25, 2016 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Barbara Duka, the ex-head of Standard & Poor’s commercial mortgage-backed securities, is on trial before a Securities and Exchange Commission administrative law judge. Duka is accused of inflating the ratings of commercial mortgage-backed securities and not telling investors that she and her team had changed the way they formulated ratings for the securities in 2011.

The SEC contends that Duka implemented the change after the credit rating agency lost market shares for rating commercial-backed securities using “more conservative criteria” in the wake of the 2008 economic collapse. The regulator believes that Duka began to rate the securities in a way that favored the issuers so S & P could bring in more business.

Meantime, investors continued to believe that the ratings were conservatively-based. Now, the Commission wants to bar Duka from associating with ratings organizations. It also wants her to pay financial penalties.

The SEC brought its case against Duka last year around the time that the Commission and two state attorneys general announced that they had reached a $77M settlement with S &P. The regulator’s case was brought after Citigroup Inc.(C) and Goldman Sachs Group(GS) had to withdraw a $1.5B commercial mortgage-backed securities offering because S & P told them about an internal review of the securities ratings. Duka, meantime, sued the SEC, questioning whether it had the right to pursue cases in-house before its own judge instead of in court. Although a district court judge ruled that the SEC could not move forward with its case against Duka, a federal appeals court decided otherwise.

Ally Financial Will Pay $52M To Settle RMBS Fraud Allegations Involving Subsidiary ResCap

Published on: November 23, 2016 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

According to the U.S. Department of Justice, Ally Financial (ALLY) will pay $52M to resolve allegations accusing its subsidiary Residential Capital (ResCap) of purposely marketing mortgage bonds even though it knew that the mortgages backing the bonds were toxic. At issue are Residential Capital LLC mortgage-backed securities.

10 subprime residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS) were issued in ’06 and ’07 with Ally Financial’s brokerage firm, Ally Securities, previously known as Residential Funding Securities, in the role of lead underwriter. The government contends that even though Ally Securities purportedly noticed that mortgage loan pools in RASC-EMX securities were deteriorating because of deficiencies in both the underwriting guidelines for the subprime mortgage loans and the diligence employed to the collateral before securitization, the firm took great pains to set up the RASC-EMX brand, secure investors for the RMBS offerings, and direct third-part due diligence to test if the loans were in compliance with disclosures made in public offering documents to investors.

The U.S. Attorney’s Office claims that the firm continued to market the securities to investors even though it knew that the toxic subprime mortgages were likely to become delinquent. The government is alleging that Ally Financial made misstatements about the RMBSs.

Investors of $7.7B NovaStar Mortgage-Backed Securities Can Move Forward with Fraud Claims Against Wells Fargo, Deutsche Bank, and RBS Securities

Published on: November 10, 2016 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

In New York, US District Judge Deborah A. Batts has certified a class of investors to go ahead with fraud claims that they’ve brought against Wells Fargo (WFC), RBS Securities (RBS), and Deutsche Bank (DB). The banks underwrote $7.7B of NovaStar mortgage-backed securities. The lead plaintiff in the MBS fraud case is the New Jersey Carpenters Health Fund. Wells Fargo Advisors LLC was previously Wachovia Capital Markets.

The plaintiffs contend that the defendant banks lied in the securities’ offering documents. Judge Batts held that the fundamental question at issue is whether the bank did, in fact, make the allegedly misleading or materially false statements.

NovaStar issued six residential mortgage backed-securities that the banks underwrote in 2006. These RMBS collectively held over $7.7B in assets. By mid-2009, in the wake of the housing collapse, over half the mortgages backing the securities had defaulted. Investors sustained major losses.

The New Jersey Carpenters Health Fund, which sued not just the banks in 2008 but also subprime lender NovaStar and credit rating agencies Standard & Poor’s and Moody’s, had invested $100K in one of the securities. The credit raters are no longer defendants in the case as the claims against them from this mortgage-backed securities case were dismissed in 2011. Because NovaStar’s successor has filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection, the case against the subprime lender has been stayed.

Aozara Bank’s Mortgage-Backed Securities Case Against JPMorgan is Allowed to Proceed

Published on: November 7, 2016 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

In New York, the Appellate Division, First Department, a state appellate court, is allowing Aozara Bank’s (AOZOF) mortgage-backed securities fraud lawsuit against JPMorgan & Chase (JPM) to proceed. The Japanese bank, which had brought MBS claims against a number banks, is alleging aiding and abetting fraud and fraud related to the banks’ creation, marketing, and/or sale of high risk securities.

Aozara had invested close to $560M by 2009 in at least 35 collateralized debt obligations that a number of banks had structured. It sued not just JPMorgan but also Barclays Bank (BARC), Deutsche Bank Securities Inc. (DB), Credit Suisse (CS), UBS AG (UBS), Goldman Sachs Group (GS), Credit Agricole, and Morgan Stanley (MS) in 2013.

In the collateralized debt obligation lawsuit against JPMorgan, the First Department reversed a ruling issued earlier by the Manhattan Supreme Court. The appellate panel has now found that the Japanese bank had properly stated claims for breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing and also fraud. Aozora contends that JPMorgan, which is Bear Stearns successor, depicted certain CDOs as legitimate investments even as it used them to get rid of risky assets that were toxic. The appellate panel said that JPMorgan has not demonstrated that its claims in offering documents gave Aozora proper notice that JPMorgan defendants had colluded to accept the toxic CDO assets from Bear Stearns’ balance sheets. The ruling said that Aozora’s lawsuit included enough facts to support its reasonable inference that fraud and scienter had occurred.

Nomura To Pay Over $3M to Settle RMBS Fraud Claims brought by NCUA for Credit Unions

Published on: November 2, 2016 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Nomura Home Equity Loan, Inc. and Nomura Asset Acceptance Corporation have agreed to jointly pay over $3M to settle allegations that they engaged in the sale of faulty residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS) to the Western Corporate Federal Credit Union and the U.S. Central Federal Credit Union. The National Credit Union Administration brought the RMBS fraud case on behalf of the two corporate credit unions.

It was in 2011 that the NCUA Board, while serving as liquidating agent for both financial institutions, brought the claims against the Nomura entities. The RMBS lawsuit was brought in federal district courts in Kansas and California.

The $3M settlement dismisses NCUA’s pending cases against the two firms. By settling, neither firm is denying or admitting to the alleged wrongdoing.

DOJ to Sue Moody’s Over Mortgage-Backed Securities

Published on: October 21, 2016 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

According to a letter written by prosecutors to Moody’s (MCO), the U.S. Department of Justice intends to sue the credit rating agency and its Moody’s Investors Services unit over valuations that the latter assigned to mortgage-backed securities leading up to the 2008 financial crisis. The MBS fraud case is expected to make claims about the way the agency rated collateralized debt obligations and residential mortgage-backed securities, as well as allege violations of the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act as it pertains to rating RMBSs and CDOs. Moody’s disclosed the expected case in an update that also included third quarter earning results.

Aside from the DOJ case, several states’ Attorney Generals are expected to pursue their own claims against Moody’s, except that their cases would be brought under state law.

A number of ratings companies have come under fire over their alleged failure to provide accurate warnings about the risks involved in investing in MBSs and CDOs leading up to the economic crisis. In 2013, the DOJ sued Standard & Poor’s over similar allegations, along with the claim that the agency misled investors for its own profit while misrepresenting the actual risks involved in the securities. Last year, S & P settled with the DOJ, the District of Columbia, and 19 states for almost $1.4B. The government and the states took issue with the way S & P rated the CDOs and RMBSs that it issued from ’04 to ’07.

RBS Securities Settles MBS Fraud Case With Connecticut for $120M

Published on: October 10, 2016 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS) subsidiary RBS Securities Inc. will pay the state of Connecticut $120M to settle allegations related to its dealings with mortgage-backed securities leading up to the 2008 financial crisis. According to state officials, RBS played a part in the crisis when it neglected to do the proper due diligence around certain tools for mortgage-backed investments. They accused the subsidiary of unethical and dishonest behavior, as well as of making false statements.

They contend that RBS, which was one of the largest underwriters of residential mortgage-backed securities, did not make sure that the information it offered about RMBS deals was accurate. Connecticut Attorney General George Jepsen said that he and the state’s Department of Banking worked together in investigating this matter.

RBS doesn’t securitize newly originated RMBSs anymore. It was, however, the lead underwriter for approximately 250 residential mortgage-backed securities between ’05 and ’08. Part of its job was to perform the due diligence on mortgage loans used for collateral. However, Connecticut claims that RBS’s due diligence was “inadequate,” causing “omissions and misstatements” to be made to the public and investors. They even contend that in certain instance, RBS rated certain loans that had already been lower rated by third-party vendors with higher-grade ratings.

RBS Will Pay NCUA $1.1B in Mortgage-Backed Securities Probe

Published on: September 28, 2016 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Royal Bank of Scotland Group (RBS) will settle two civil residential mortgage-backed securities lawsuits for $1.1B. The payment will go to the National Credit Union Administration (NCUA) and resolves claims accusing the bank of selling faulty MBSs to two corporate credit unions, causing their failure. The federal actions were brought in California and Kansas, respectively. This is one of the largest settlements reached in mortgage-backed securities cases brought against banks.

The allegedly toxic RMBSs were sold to Western Corporate Federal Credit Union and the Central Federal Credit Union. By settling, however, RBS is not admitting fault.

It was just last year that Royal Bank of Scotland agreed to pay $129.6M to NCUA to resolve claims over its sale of mortgage-backed securities to Members United Corporate Federal Credit Union and Southwest Corporate Federal Credit Union. Both are now defunct, too.

Deutsche Bank and DOJ Still In Negotiations Over Mortgage-Backed Securities Case

Published on: September 16, 2016 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Deutsche Bank (DB) and the U.S. Department of Justice have yet to reach a settlement over allegations about the way that the German lender packaged toxic mortgages leading up to the 2008 financial crisis. According to The Wall Street Journal, The DOJ wants the bank to pay $14B. Deutsche Bank, however, said it has no plans to pay “anywhere near the number cited” and sees that figure as a starting point in negotiations.

In a statement, the firm said that it expected the final figure to be much lower and closer to what other banks have paid over similar allegations. InvestmentNews reports that it has not been uncommon for the DOJ in its investigation into MBSs to first put forward higher penalties than the eventual settlement that is reached.

Other firms and their deals over their mortgage lending activities include Bank of America (BAC) for $16.7B, Citigroup (C) for $7B, JPMorgan Chase (JPM) for $9B, Goldman Sachs (GS) for $5.1B, and Morgan Stanley (MS) for $3.2B. Goldman Sachs admitted to wrongdoing when it settled claims that it did not properly vet MBS before selling them as quality debt to investors.

Ex-Goldman Sachs Trader to Pay $400K Fine to Settle RMBS Fraud Case

Published on: August 16, 2016 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Edwin Chin, an ex-Goldman Sachs Group Inc. (GS) senior trader, will pay $400K to resolve U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission charges accusing him of misleading the bank’s customers when he sold them residential mortgage-backed securities at prices that were higher than they should have been. Even though he is settling, Chin is not denying or admitting to the regulator’s findings. He has, however, agreed to the entry of the order stating that he violated the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5.

According to the Commission’s order, from 2010 until 2012, which is when Chin left the bank, the former Goldman trader made extra money for the firm by concealing the prices that it had paid for different RMBSs and reselling the securities at higher prices to customers. The difference in cost would go to Goldman.

The SEC said Chin made over $1.5M in additional trading profits. Because Goldman made more money, Chin did as well.

The regulator accused Chin of sometimes misleading buyers by suggesting that he was in the process of negotiating a transaction between customers when he was merely selling residential mortgage-backed securities from Goldman’s inventory. In one alleged incident, Chin earned an additional $200K by telling a hedge fund client that he would sell a bond at cost price and without compensation. Unfortunately, he purportedly neglected to tell the hedge fund that he had already bought the security, had it in inventory, and was charging the fund a worse price than what Goldman paid earlier that day. The SEC said that Chin misled the same client about the price of a different security the following day, resulting in an additional $100K in profit.