RMBS Tag Archives — Investor Lawyers Blog

Ex-Nomura Head Traders Charged With Securities Fraud

Published on: May 18, 2017 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The US Securities and Exchange Commission is charging two-ex Nomura (NMR) head traders with fraud. Kee Chan and James Im ran Nomura Securities International Inc.’s commercial mortgage-backed securities desk. The regulator claims that they purposely lied to customers to inflate profits for themselves and the firm. As a result, said the SEC, the two of them made an additional over $750K in trading profits for the desk. They received healthy bonuses as a result.

Commercial Mortgage-Backed Securities
CMBSs are asset-backed securities that have commercial real estate loans as their underlying assets. These debt obligations are often called bonds. CMBSs are illiquid securities.

According to the Commission, while serving as trade intermediaries with customers seeking to sell and buy CMBSs on the secondary market, Im and Chan made it seem as if they were working out bond purchases with a third-party seller at more than what Nomura paid to obtain the bonds. Im even allegedly told a customer that he had sought to deceive on purpose. Meantime, Chan is accused of modifying a customer email to protect his lie regarding a bond’s bid price.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Bank of America Settles RMBS Allegations with AIG for $650M

Published on: July 18, 2014 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Bank of America Corp. (BAC) has paid American International Group Inc. (AIG) $650 million to settle residential mortgage-backed securities fraud claims. The insurer had originally asked for $10 billion when it filed its RMBS fraud lawsuit in 2011.

According to the complaint, Bank of America’s mortgage company Countrywide Financial, misrepresented the quality of mortgage securities it was selling to investors. The settlement resolves the securities fraud litigation brought by the insurer against the bank. This includes lawsuits in California and New York accusing Bank of America of fraudulently causing billions of dollars in losses.

It also takes away the largest obstacle to Bank of America’s $8.5 billion mortgage securities settlement with institutional investors over the financial instruments that Countrywide issued. The investors in that case are 22 institutions, including BlackRock Inc. (BLK.N), and MetLife Inc. (MET.N).

RBS Securities Inc. Settles SEC’s Subprime RMBS Lawsuit for $150M

Published on: November 20, 2013 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

RBS Securities Inc., which is a Royal Bank of Scotland PLC. Subsidiary (RBS), has agreed to pay $150 million to settle Securities and Exchange Commission allegations that it misled investors in a $2.2 billion subprime residential mortgage-backed security offering in 2007. The money will be used to pay back investors who were harmed.

The SEC claims the RBS said that the loans backing the offering “generally” satisfied underwriting guidelines even though close to 30% of them actually were so far off from meeting them that they should not have been part of the offering. As lead underwriters, RBS (then known as Greenwich Capital Markets,) had only (and briefly) looked at a small percentage of the loans while receiving $4.4 million as the transaction’s lead underwriter.

SEC Division Enforcement co-director George Cannellos said that inadequate due diligence by RBS was involved. The Commissions also says that because RBS was in a hurry to meet a deadline established by the seller, the firm misled investors about not just the quality of the loans but also regarding their chances for repayment.

NCUA Sues Morgan Stanley, JPMorgan, UBS, & Other Banks Over $2.7B in Allegedly Fraudulent RMBS Sales to Credit Unions

Published on: September 27, 2013 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The National Credit Union Administration has filed residential mortgage-backed securities lawsuits against JPMorgan (JPM), Morgan Stanley (MS), UBS (UBS), Royal Bank of Scotland Group (RBS), Barclays (BARC), and Credit Suisse (CS) accusing the financial firms of selling $2.7 billion of these fraudulent securities to the credit unions. The Members United Corporate Federal Credit Union and Southwest Corporate Federal Credit Union paid over $416 million for the RMBS in the case against Morgan Stanley and $1.9 billion from the other defendants. One of the credit unions contends that Wachovia (WB), Goldman Sachs (GS), Ally Securities and Wells Fargo (WFC) also defrauded it.

According to the NCUA’s RMBS fraud lawsuits, the investment banks issued misrepresentations related to the underwriting and sale of the securities. Offering documents allegedly contained false statements or omitted facts that were material. The government regulator is accusing the originators of systematically ignoring underlying guidelines in offering documents, which made the mortgage-backed securities’ risks higher than what was presented.

The MBS fraud lawsuits make claims under state and federal securities laws. Whatever is recovered will go toward the Temporary Corporate Credit Union Stabilization Fund.

Standard Poors Wants DOJ’s Mortgage Debt Lawsuit Against It Tossed

Published on: April 24, 2013 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Standard Poors is asking a judge to dismiss the US Justice Department’s securities lawsuit against it. The government claims that the largest ratings agency defrauded investors when it put out excellent ratings for some poor quality complex mortgage packages, including collateralized debt obligations, residential mortgage-backed securities, and subprime mortgage-backed securities, between 2004 and 2007. The ratings agency, however, claims that the DOJ has no case.

Per the government’s securities complaint, financial institutions lost over $5 billion on 33 CDOs because they trusted S & P’s ratings and invested in the complex debt instruments. The DOJ believes that the credit rater issued its inaccurate ratings on purpose, raising investor demand and prices until the latter crashed, triggering the global economic crisis. It argues that certain ratings were inflated based on conflicts of interest that involved making the banks that packaged the mortgage securities happy as opposed to issuing independent, objective ratings that investors could rely on.

Now, S & P is claiming that the government’s lawsuit overreaches in targeting it and fails to show that the credit rater knew what the more accurate ratings should have been, which it contends would be necessary for there to be grounds for this CDO lawsuit. In a brief submitted to the United States District Court for the Central District of California, in Los Angeles, S & P’s lawyers argue that there is no way that their client, the Treasury, the Federal Reserve, or other market participants could have predicted how severe the financial meltdown would be.