Mortgage-Backed Securities

Nomura & Royal Bank of Scotland Must Pay $806M in Mortgage-Backed Securities Case

Published on: May 18, 2015 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Nomura Holdings (NMR) and Royal Bank of Scotland group Plc (RBS) must pay $806 million in the mortgage-backed securities lawsuit filed against them by the Federal Housing Finance Agency. $779.4 million will go to mortgage lender Freddie Mac (FMCC) while $26.6 million will go to Fannie Mae (FNMA).

Judge Denise L. Cote of the Federal District Court in Manhattan was the one who found the two banks liable for making false statements when selling the securities to the two lending giants. The banks will also take back the mortgage bonds that are the basis of this lawsuit. As of the end of March, these bonds were worth up to $479 million.

It was Nomura that sponsored $2 billion of the securities purchased by Freddie and Fannie. RBS was the underwriter on four of the deals.

Nomura Holdings and Royal Bank Scotland Lose FHFA’s Mortgage-Backed Securities Case

Published on: May 11, 2015 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

A U.S. District Court judge said that Royal Bank of Scotland Group Plc (RBS) and Nomura Holdings Inc. (NMR) misled Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae when it sold them faulty mortgage-backed securities in 2008. The two banks are the only financial firms who opted to go to trial rather than settle the claims against them. Over a dozen other firms, including Bank of America (BAC) and Goldman Sachs (GS), decided to resolve their cases filed by the Federal Housing Finance Agency. They collectively have paid close to $18 billion in penalties.

In her 361- page ruling, Judge Denise L. Cote of Federal District Court in Manhattan wrote that the extent of falsity committed by the two banks was “enormous.” She told the FHFA to propose how much Royal Bank of Scotland and Nomura should pay in the wake of her decision. The agency had initially sought approximately $1.1 billion.

The FHFA accused Nomura of cheating the two mortgage lenders when it sold them $2 billion of bonds that were backed by defective mortgages. It was RBS that underwrote more than half of the securitizations involved.

SEC Settles With Ex-Freddie Mac Executives Over Allegations They Mislead Investors Over Mortgage Risks

Published on: April 15, 2015 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The Securities and Exchange Commission has reached as settlement with three ex-Freddie Mac executives accusing them of knowingly misleading investors about the quality of high-risk mortgages that the company bought heading into the end of the housing boom several years ago. The former executives are ex-Freddie Mac (FMCC) CEO Richard Syron, ex-chief business officer Patricia Cook, and former senior VP of credit policy and portfolio management Donald Bisenius. The SEC accused the three executives of saying that there was little subprime exposure for Freddie even as they bought more loans with subprime qualities.

Under the agreement, the three ex-executives agreed that they wouldn’t sign certain reports that are required by finance chiefs or chief executives for a certain period of time, and would pay $310,000 to a fund to pay back bilked investors. Insurance from Freddie Mac will cover the amount.

Considering that the regulator tried to get bars to prevent the three of them from serving as company directors or officers, as well as pay financial penalties, the agreements reached highlight the challenges the U.S. has had in bringing and winning cases against individual executives over the 2008 economic crisis.

DOJ Gets Ready to Wrap Mortgage Bond Case Against Standard & Poor’s, Probes Moody’s

Published on: January 31, 2015 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

According to the Wall Street Journal, the U.S. Department of Justice has been meeting with ex-Moody’s Investor Service (MCO) executives to talk about the way the credit ratings agency rated complex securities prior to the 2008 financial crisis. Sources say that the probe is still in its early stages and it is not certain at the moment whether the government will end up filing a bond case against the credit rater.

DOJ officials are trying to find out whether the company compromised its standards in order to garner business. The government’s focus is on residential mortgage deals that took place between 2004 and 2007.

Moody’s and credit rating agency Standard and Poor’s gave triple A ratings to the deals so that even conservative investors were buying the subprime loan-backed securities. The investments later proved high risk. When the housing market failed, the bond losses cost investors billions of dollars.

Standard & Poor’s to Pay Almost $80 Million to Resolve SEC Charges Over Ratings Fraud Involving CMBSs

Published on: January 21, 2015 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Standard & Poor’s has agreed to settle U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission charges accusing the credit rating agency of fraudulent misconduct when rating certain commercial mortgage-backed securities. As part of the settlement, S & P will pay close to $80 million—$58 million to resolve the regulator’s case, plus $12 million to settle a parallel case by the New York Attorney General’s Office, and $7 million to resolve the Massachusetts Attorney General’s case.

The SEC put out three orders to institute resolved administrative proceedings against the credit rater. One order dealt with S & P’s practices involving conduit fusion SMBS ratings methodology. The Commission said that the credit rating agency’s public disclosures misrepresented that it was employing one approach when a different one was applied to rate several conduit fusion CMBS transactions, as well for putting out preliminary ratings on two transactions. To resolve these claims S & P will not rate conduit fusion CMBSs for a year.

The SEC’s second order said that after S & P was frozen out of the market for its conduit fusion ratings in 2011, the credit rating agency published a misleading and false article claiming to show that it’s overhauled credit ratings criteria enhancement levels could handle economic stress equal to “Great Depression-era levels.” The Commission said that S & P’s research was flawed, were made based on inappropriate assumptions, and the data used was decades off from the Depression’s serious losses. Without denying or admitting to the findings, S & P has consented to publicly retract the misleading and false data about the Depression era-related study and rectify inaccurate descriptions that were published about its criteria.

Credit Suisse Ordered to Face $10B Mortgage-Backed Securities Fraud Lawsuit by NY AG

Published on: December 26, 2014 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

A New York State Supreme Court justice says that Credit Suisse Group AG (CSGN) must face a $10 billion securities lawsuit accusing the bank of mortgage-backed securities fraud. Justice Marcy Friedman refused to dismiss the case, saying that a trial will take place. She said that the state has shown that the Swiss financial institution may have engaged in misconduct.

New York sued Credit Suisse in 2012, accusing it of misrepresenting the risks involved in investing in mortgage-backed securities. The bank tried to claim that the state missed the three-year deadline it had for filing such a claim. NY, however, countered that it had six years to pursue its claim.

The state’s Attorney General, Eric Schneiderman, has been going after banks while helping beleaguered homeowners and trying to keep the number of foreclosures from going up. His office has used the Martin Act, which is the NY’s anti-fraud statute to make its cases. Under that law, it is illegal for sellers to make false promises about the securities they are selling. Schneiderman contends that Credit Suisse told investors that the mortgage securities were safe even though the bank knew that the residential loans backing them had “pervasive flaws.”

Whistleblower Earns $57M Payout in Second Lawsuit Against Bank of America

Published on: December 17, 2014 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Edward O’Donnell, an ex-Countrywide Financial executive, will receive $57 million for a second whistleblower lawsuit accusing parent company Bank of America Corp. (BAC) of fraud. In this case, O’Donnell accused a Countrywide unit of bilking Freddie Mac (FMCC) and Fannie Mae (FNMA) through the sale of home loans. Bank of America consented to settle the case for $350 million as part of a wider $17 billion deal to settle mortgage fraud claims.

For filing his whistleblower lawsuit, O’Donnell’s share is 16% of the recovery plus another $1.6 million. His award comes from the part of the settlement that the bank reached with federal prosecutors and the states of Illinois, New York, California, Maryland, Delaware, and Kentucky.

He has yet to collect money from the other case, in which a jury found Bank of America liable for shoddy mortgage sales. That lawsuit revolved around the “hustle,” which was a program that rewarded employees for producing loans even if their quality was poor.

$13B JPMorgan Chase Mortgage Settlement Was Not Sufficient, Says Whistleblower

Published on: November 15, 2014 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

According to Alayne Fleischmann, the whistleblower who gave the evidence which helped resident in a $13 billion mortgage settlement from JPMorgan Chase(JPM) to the U.S. Department of Justice last year, that amount was not enough. Fleischmann, a lawyer, joined the financial firm as a deal manager in 2006.

She says that not long after she started working there she noticed that about half of the loans in a multimillion-loan pool included overstated incomes. Such loans, she said, were likely at risk for default—a precarious position for both the investors and the securities. Fleischmann said that she notified management about how the bank was re-selling subprime mortgages to customers without letting them know about the risks. She also spoke about how one bank manager wanted to put in place a non-email policy so there would be no paper trail to show that the firm was aware that such activities were happening.

It was the sale of toxic sub-prime loans by JPMorgan and other US banks that incited the US housing market crisis, which eventually spurred the global financial meltdown of 2008. Repackaged loans were sold to pension funds and other institutional investors, with many buyers unaware of the high default risks involved.

SEC, Federal Reserve, HUD Approve Laxer Mortgage-Lending Rule

Published on: October 22, 2014 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Federal Reserve, the Federal Housing Finance Agency, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency have jointly approved a new rule for mortgage-backed securities and collateralized loan obligations. The regulation completes what had been a delayed provision of the 2010 Dodd Frank Act.

The rules are supposed to enhance the quality of loans by providing banks with a financial impetus to make sure the mortgages can be repaid. An earlier version of the proposed rule had obligated banks to retain either 5% of the risks of mortgages sold and packaged to investors or require a 20% borrower down payment.

Regulators, however, were concerned that these stipulations could hurt the housing market and they have since rescinded that 20% down payment requirement. The 5% of the risk on banks’ books when securitizing loans, however, still stands. And banks can get around the 5% risk retention requirement as long as they confirm the borrower’s ability to repay the loan and remain in compliance with other requirements, including debt payments that aren’t above 43% of income.

Judge Rakoff Approves Citigroup’s $285M Mortgage Securities Fraud Deal with the SEC

Published on: August 5, 2014 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Two months after the Second U.S. Circuit of Appeals ruled that he had made a mistake in blocking the $285 million mortgage securities fraud settlement between Citigroup (C) and the SEC, U.S. District Judge Jed Rakoff has approved the deal. Rakoff had originally refused to allow the agreement to go through in 2011, chastising the regulator for letting the firm settle without having to admit wrongdoing.

Following his decision, other judges followed his lead and began questioning certain SEC settlements. The regulator went on to modify a longstanding, albeit unofficial, policy of letting companies settle without having to deny or admit wrongdoing.

Even though Rakoff is approving the deal now, he was clear to articulate his reluctance. In his latest opinion he wrote that he worries that because of the Second Circuit’s ruling, settlements with governmental regulatory bodies, and enforced by the contempt powers of the judiciary, will not have to contend with any meaningful oversight. However, Rakoff said that if he were to ignore the Court of Appeals’ dictates this would be a “dereliction of duty.” Nonetheless, he noted that approving this settlement has left his court with “sour grapes.”