Mortgage-Backed Securities

California Sues Morgan Stanley for Purportedly Selling Bad Investments

Published on: March 31, 2016 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The State of California is suing Morgan Stanley (MS) for allegedly selling bad residential mortgaged backed securities. According to lawmakers, the firm sold residential mortgage-backed securities as risky loans to subprime lenders while downplaying or hiding the risks and at times encouraging credit raters to bestow the securities with high ratings that were not warranted. Because of these RMBS sales, contends the state, the California Public Employees’ Retirement System (CALPERS) and California State Teachers Retirement System (CalSTRS) sustained devastating losses.

California claims that the firm violated the state’s False Claims Act and securities laws. A significant part of the case challenges Morgan Stanley’s behavior when marketing the Cheyne SIV, which was a structured investment vehicle that failed nine years ago. State Attorney General Kamala Harris is seeking $700M from the firm, as well as over $600M in damages.

Meantime, Morgan Stanley has argued that the case is meritless. It contends that the RMBSs were sold and marketed to institutional investors who were sophisticated enough to understand the investments. They claim that the RBMBs performed in a manner that was in line with the sector to which it belonged.

It was just recently that Moody’s Corp. reached an agreement with CalPERS to pay the California pension fund $130M to resolve allegations that the credit rating agency may have acted negligently by giving high ratings to toxic investments. CalPERS contended that its purchase of the investments cost it hundreds of millions of dollars.

Mortgage Securities News: Supreme Court Rejects Banks’ FDIC Case, Credit Suisse to Pay NCUA $29M in MBS Case Involving Credit Unions, & Former Fannie Mae CEO Must Contend With SEC Fraud Claims

Published on: March 26, 2016 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

US Supreme Court Turns Down Banks’ Bid that It Examine FDIC Case
The U.S. Supreme Court has decided not to review the 2015 ruling made by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals that revived the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation’s (FDIC) securities case accusing Goldman Sachs (GS), Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS), and Deutsche Bank (DB) of misrepresenting the quality of securities it sold to Guaranty Bank, which later failed. The FDIC took the Texas bank into receivership in 2009 and sued the banks in 2014.

A judge in Austin, Tx. dismissed the case, citing a state law requiring that lawsuits be brought within five years of a mortgage-backed security’s sale. The complaint had been filed at least 9 years after the MBSs were sold.

Last August, the Fifth Circuit cited a 1989 federal law and revived the case. The appeals court said that the FDIC is allowed an extended time period to file complaints for institutions that it insures and have gone into receivership. Circuit Judge Carolyn Dineen King wrote that it was this federal law that made it possible for the FDIC to concentrate on dealing with bank failures rather than worrying about possible statutes and their limitations.

RBS, Goldman, and Deutsche then filed their petitioned with the U.S. Supreme Court. The banks pointed to a past holding by the highest court that barred other courts from preempting state law unless the U.S. Congress has made such a preemption clear.

Credit Suisse Resolves MBS Case for $29M
Credit Suisse (CS) must pay $29M to settle the National Credit Union Administration’s claim that it sold bad mortgage-backed-securities to credit unions. NCUA’s lawsuit revolves around MBSs that UBS (UBS) underwrote and sold to Members United Corporate Federal Credit Union and the Southwest Corporate Federal Credit Union for over $228M from ’06 to ’07. Both credit unions have since failed.

Bank of New York Mellon Must Face $1.12B RMBS Lawsuit

Published on: March 3, 2016 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

U.S. District Judge Judge Gregory Woods in Manhattan says that Bank of New York Mellon Corp. (BK) must face a residential mortgage-backed securities fraud lawsuit holding the bank liable for $1.12B of investor losses. Royal Park Investments SA/NV, which is a Belgian investment fund, may now proceed with its claims, including those alleging breach of trust, breach of contract, and Federal Trust Indenture Act violations.

In its case against BNY Mellon, Royal Park wants class action status for other investors. It claims that its RMBS in the trusts at issue are now “”completely worthless.”

The investment fund contends that BNY Mellon, in its role of trustee for five trusts, disregarded the abuse occurring in the way the underlying loans were serviced and underwritten and did not mandate that bad loans be bought back. Royal Park believes that BNY Mellon breached its obligations out of fear it would lose business or make other financial service companies angry.

Over the past year, the investment fund has been allowed to pursue similar cases against HSBC Holdings Plc. (HSBC) And Deutsche Bank AG (DB). In the investment fund’s case against Deutsche Bank. U.S. District Judge Alison J. Nathan in New York recently denied the bank’s bid to get the proposed class action over $3.1B in RMBS losses dismissed. She did, however, dismiss derivative claims. Royal Park claims that Deutsche Bank knew by April 2011 that loans involved were highly defective but refused to force loan sellers to buy back the loans or replace them when it became clear that the mortgages backing the bonds were defaulting. Nathan also said that the plaintiffs detailed claims of significant losses, high default rates, and widespread probes into RMBS securitization were sufficient that the court was able to draw “reasonable inference” that loan guarantees had been breached.

Securities News: UBS To Pay $33M to NCUA For Mortgage-Backed Securities, CFTC, FCA May File More Civil Charges Against Banks for Libor Rigging, Moody’s Waits for end of DOJ’s Subprime Mortgage Probe

Published on: February 26, 2016 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

UBS to Pay $33M to NCUA Related to MBS Sold to Credit Unions
UBS AG (UBS) will pay $33 million to resolve a lawsuit filed by the National Credit Union Administration accusing the bank of selling toxic mortgage-backed securities to credit unions. The case revolves around MBS that were underwritten and sold by UBS. The securities were purchased by Members United Corporate Federal Credit Union and Southwest Corporate Federal Credit Union for almost $432.4M from ’06 to ’07.

NCUA alleged that offering documents for the securities sold included untrue statements claiming that the loans were originated in a manner that abided by underwriting guidelines when, in fact, the loans’ originators had “systematically abandoned” said guidelines. The false statements made the securities riskier than what was represented to the credit unions. Eventually, the MBS failed, resulting in substantial losses.

To date, NUCA has recovered almost $2.46B from banks over MBS sales that occurred prior to the 2008 financial crisis.

US, UK Regulators May Pursue More Banks Over Libor
According to the The Wall Street Journal, the US Commodity Futures Trading Commission and the UK Financial Conduct Authority are working on pressing the last civil charges against a number of banks for alleged rigging of the London interbank offered rate. LIBOR is the benchmark that underpins interest rates on trillions of dollars of financial contracts around the globe.

Sources tell WSJ that the firms under scrutiny include Citigroup (C), J.P. Morgan Chase & Co (JPM)., and HSBC Holdings (HSBC)—although the FCA has already dismissed its probe into J.P. Morgan.

RMBS Cases and Institutional Fraud: Morgan Stanley to Pay $62.9M, Hedge Funds File Lawsuit Against TWC Asset Management, and Deutsche Bank Must Contend With Allegations Claiming Investor Losses of $3.1B

Published on: February 3, 2016 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Morgan Stanley Settles RMBS Case with FDIC
Morgan Stanley (MS) will pay $62.9M to resolve allegations that it misrepresented residential mortgage-backed securities prior to the 2008 financial crisis. The deal was reached with the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., which sued the investment bank on behalf of Colonial Bank in Alabama, Security Savings Bank in Nevada, and United Western Bank in Colorado. All three banks failed after or during the crisis. By settling, Morgan Stanley is not denying or admitting liability.

According to the FDIC, in offering documents Morgan Stanley misrepresented claims for 14 RMBS mortgage backed securities. This is not the first time the investment bank has reached a deal over RMBS with the FDIC. In 2015, the firm resolved similar claims brought on behalf of Franklin Bank in Texas for $24M.

Also last year, Morgan Stanley arrived at a deal for $2.6B to resolve a U.S. Department of Justice probe into mortgage bonds. The government accused the investment bank of misrepresenting the quality of home loans packed into bonds.

Assett Management Firm Must Face RMBS Lawsuit Brought by Hedge Funds
A New York Court refused to grant TCW Asset Management Company’s motion to dismiss RMBS fraud claims brought Basis Yield Alpha Fund and Basis Pac-Rim Opportunity Fund. The Cayman Island hedge funds claim that TWC Asset Management marketed a system for dealing with the RMBS market that it claimed could determine which were the good investments. The purported strategy involved the collateralized debt obligation Dutch Hill Funding II, Ltd., which took a net long position on high-risk RMBS.

The two hedge funds invested over $28.1M in Dutch Hill in May 2007. By July, their investment had become worthless. They sued TCW Asset Management Company in 2012, accusing the firm of fraudulent misrepresentations and a failure to choose Dutch Hill’s RMBS collateral in the ways that it promised. The Basis Funds contended that the defendant knew that the investment strategy couldn’t get the job done.

Senator Warren Accuses the SEC of Poor Enforcement

Published on: January 31, 2016 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren has issued a report in which she claims that the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and the U.S. Department of Justice have been doing a poor job on enforcement when it comes to going after companies and individuals for corporate crimes.

In Rigged Justice: How Weak Enforcement Lets Corporate Offenders off Easy, Warren takes a closer look at what she describes as the 20 worst federal enforcement failures of 2015. The Senator noted that that when federal agencies caught large companies in illegal acts, they failed to take substantial action against them. Instead, companies were fined for sums that in some cases could be written off as tax deductions.

Some of the 2015 cases that Warren Mentions:
• Standard & Poor’s consented to pay $1.375B to the DOJ, DC, and 19 states to resolve charges that it bilked investors by putting out inflated ratings misrepresenting the actual risks involved in collateral debt obligations and residential mortgage-backed securities. Warren Points out that the amount the credit rater paid is less than one-sixth of the fine the government and states had sought against it, and at S & P did not have to admit wrongdoing. No individuals were prosecuted in this case.

• Citigroup (C), Barclays (BARC), JPMorgan Chase (JPM), Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS), and UBS AG (UBS) paid the DOJ $5.6B to resolve claims that their traders colluded together to rig exchange rates. As a result, the firms made billions of dollars while investors and clients suffered. While admissions of guilt were sought, no individuals were prosecuted. Also, the SEC gave the banks waivers so they wouldn’t have to deal with collateral damages from pleading guilty.

Citigroup, Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs, and Other Big Banks to pay $63M to Virginia to Settle RMBS Fraud Claims

Published on: January 26, 2016 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The state of Virginia has arrived at a $63M settlement with 11 banks to resolve claims that they bilked the state’s retirement system by purportedly misrepresenting the quality of residential mortgage-backed securities in the run up to the 2008 financial crisis. The resolution settles all claims against the financial firms accused of causing financial harm to the Virginia Retirement system and its taxpayers and pensioners.

The banks involved will pay the following amounts respectively to settle, including:

· UBS Securities for $850K
· Bank of America’s Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. and Countrywide Securities Corp. (BAC) for $19.5M
· Credit Suisse Securities (CS) for $1.2M
· RBS Securities (RBS) for $10M
· HSBC Securities (HSBC) For $2.5M
· Barclays Capital (BARC) for $9M
· Goldman Sachs & Co. (GS) for $2.9M
· Morgan Stanley & Co. (MS) for $6.9M
· Citigroup Global Markets (C) for $4.8M
· Deutsche Bank Securities (DB) for $5.6M

The state lost $383M over RMBS it purchased from 2004 to before 2010 and it had to sell most of these securities, which were toxic and constructed on junk mortgages. The settlement is the largest non-healthcare related financial recovery in a case involving Virginia Fraud Against Taxpayers Act-related violations. However, according to the state’s Attorney General Mark Herring, even though the firm is settling it is not denying or admitting liability.

Securities Fraud Headlines: Ne-Yo Sues Citibank, SEC Awards Whistleblower $700K, U.S. Supreme Court Takes on Insider Trading, and Morgan Stanley Must Deal with $500M CDO Case

Published on: January 19, 2016 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Performer Ne-Yo Files Countersuit Against Citibank Over Alleged $5.4M Securities Fraud
Singer Ne-Yo is suing Citibank (C), claiming that the financial institution should have had the proper safeguards and procedures in place that could have prevented his ex-money manager Kevin Foster from allegedly bilking him of $4.5M. The performer had filed a securities case against Foster and the latter’s employer, V. Brown & Co., in 2014.

Ne-Yo sought $8M. $4.5M of which Foster had purportedly swindled by moving funds out of the singer’s accounts to the money manager’s own accounts and the accounts of others. Ne-Yo sought $3.5M for service payments he says that he paid Foster and V. Brown between ’05 and ’13.

The performer claims that Foster forged his name on loan documents and took the money, including $1.4M from Citibank that the singer claims he never signed off on. Right before Ne-Yo sued his ex-manager, however, Citi filed its own lawsuit against him for the loan.

Now, Ne-Yo is saying that Citibank never told him of the numerous transactions made by Kevin, some of which involved his overdrawn account at the bank.

Sec Issues Over $700K Award to Whistleblower
The Securities and Exchange Commission is issuing an over $700K award to an individual who blew the whistle on a company. The information that the person provided led to a successful enforcement action. The whistleblower, an industry expert, was not employed at the company. This is the first time a company outsider has been issued this type of award since the SEC opened its whistleblower office in 2011.

Because the regulator protects the confidentiality of whistleblowers, the individual’s identity has not been revealed. SEC Enforcement Division Director Andrew Ceresney said that the agency values voluntary submissions by industry experts with ‘first-hand” information of wrongdoing committed by company insiders.”

Goldman Sachs to Pay $5.1B in Mortgage-Backed Securities Investigation, $15M Over Purported Improper Securities Lending Practices

Published on: January 15, 2016 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Goldman Sachs Group Inc. (GS) has consented to pay approximately $5.1B to resolve a government investigation into the way it dealt with mortgage-backed securities leading up to the 2008 financial crisis. The settlement was reached in principal with the Residential Mortgage-Backed Securities Working Group of the U.S. Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force. It must be finalized, still, with definitive documentation to be agreed upon by the parties involved.

The settlement resolves potential and current claims made by attorneys general in Illinois and New York, the US Justice Department, Federal Home Loan Banks of Chicago and Seattle, and the National Credit Union Administration. Goldman is accused of packaging mortgage securities it knew would do badly and selling them off to investors. At issue are the bank’s underwriting, securitization, and sale of bonds from ’05 to ’07.

As part of the settlement, Goldman will pay a $2.39B civil penalty, $1.8B in consumer relief, and $875 million in cash payments. The consumer relief includes loan forgiveness for beleaguered borrowers and homeowners, affordable housing support, construction financing, debt restructuring support, improvement programs related to housing quality, and foreclosure prevention.

Wells Fargo Sued by Commerz Bank in Mortgage-Backed Securities Case

Published on: December 29, 2015 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Commerzbank is suing Wells Fargo (WFC) for losses sustained on failed mortgage-backed securities (MBS). The German finance firm claims the California lending giant did not properly supervise MBS during the housing bubble, which Commerzbank argues, led to hundreds of millions of dollars in losses.

Commerzbank alleges that Wells Fargo caused it over $100 million in losses because of Wells Fargo’s purported lack of action. The German firm invested over $290 million in MBSs and Wells Fargo was the trustee of 19 of the MBSs. A lot of the securities were backed by mortgages from subprime lender Option One.

The German bank believes that Wells Fargo and other trustees should have ensured that the loans backing the securities satisfied certain standards, notified investors when loans defaulted, and forced mortgage lenders to compensate investors for the poor quality loans. Instead, Wells Fargo did not do any of these actions.