Author Archives: David Reiss

Brooklyn’s New Center for Urban Business Entrepreneurship

Posted on by

Brooklyn Law School has announced a new venture, the Center for Urban Business Entrepreneurship (CUBE), that will encompass much of the work that Brad Borden and I do, including this very blog.  The press release reads:

Brooklyn has become a world magnet for new businesses. Today, the Brooklyn Tech Triangle (DUMBO, Downtown Brooklyn, and the Brooklyn Navy Yard) ranks second only to Silicon Alley as the largest technology hub in the nation. Brooklyn Law School is intent on playing an integral role in ensuring the borough’s promise as the home for future innovators and entrepreneurs.

The Center for Urban Business Entrepreneurship (CUBE) – an extraordinary venture launching in November – will harness this energy. CUBE will be the hub for exploring legal issues surrounding entrepreneurship, and for providing effective legal representation and support for new commercial and not-for-profit businesses – while also training the next generation of business lawyers to advise and participate in these sectors. CUBE’s express purpose is to offer the legal tools to support and help build the start-up successes of tomorrow and beyond. The Center will reinforce and capitalize on Brooklyn’s role as a haven for business, media, energy, technology, creative arts, and social enterprise innovators.

Marking CUBE’s launch will be the Entrepreneur Lawyers Showcase on Thursday, November 14. The event will bring together BLS alumni and students who are exploring new ways to represent innovative entrepreneurs; trailblazing paths for the entrepreneurial lawyer and the legally-trained entrepreneur; and embarking on ventures of their own.

In addition to its base at the Law School, CUBE will be headquartered at two locations: 55 Washington Street in the heart of DUMBO, and 15 MetroTech Center. Space has been generously provided by David and Jed Walentas, Principals of Two Trees Management Co., LLC., and Forest City Ratner Companies, respectively.

“Brooklyn has always been a place where great ideas are born and nurtured, from the start of the American Revolution up to today’s Digital Revolution,” said Dean Allard. “CUBE will be a home for the next generation of revolutionaries, pioneers, entrepreneurs, and leaders. It also reflects the very best of Brooklyn Law School. In the public sector, our pro bono, government, criminal and civil justice, and community work in the U.S. and abroad – such as through the Sparer Fellowship Program – is renowned. In the private sector, we lead in areas such as international business law, business regulation, bankruptcy, and compliance, among others. CUBE presents powerful new opportunities centered on the role of law for emerging commercial and not-for-profit businesses. It adds another component of our comprehensive curriculum for the 21st century.”

The curriculum will focus on advanced training in six specific areas: Real Estate Development; Technology; Cre­ative Arts and Media; Community Deal-Making; Energy; and Social Enterprise. A three-pronged approach will define the experience:

foundational courses focused on entrepreneurship;

in-house clinics and other skills-focused courses (including the successful Business Boot Camp) that allow hands-on training with expe­rienced attorneys; and,

industry-specific courses, workshops, pro bono opportunities, student organizations (Start-Up Club, Business Law Society, IP Law Society), panels, conferences, symposia, journals, and other activities for burgeoning entrepre­neurial attorneys.

Students completing CUBE’s coursework in all three categories will have the opportunity to graduate with an Entrepreneurship Certificate at graduation.

CUBE will also promote entrepreneurial thinking through one-year fellowships, supporting third-year students’ projects designed to improve legal representation and support of start-up companies and growing enterprises. Adding to this unique approach will be a CUBE Legal Project Competition to encourage innovation and entrepreneur­ship. Students will pitch their projects, with winners selected as Fellows by a panel of prominent judges, many of whom will be entrepreneurs themselves. Seed money will also be available to help jumpstart the winning proposals.

CUBE builds on a foundation of highly respected programs, such as the Brooklyn Law Incubator & Policy Clinic (BLIP), founded by Professor Jonathan Askin; the Corporate and Real Estate Clinic, founded by Professor Debra Bechtel; and the Community Development Clinic founded by Professor David Reiss. Earlier this year, Askin was tapped by the European Commission to help guide implementation of similar clinics world­wide, part of a European Union-funded pilot program. CUBE will serve as the U.S. “landing strip” for a European consortium of 16 academic partners, which includes Queen Mary University of London Centre for Commercial Law Studies in England, the KU Leuven Interdisciplinary Centre for Law and ICT in Belgium, and the University of Amsterdam, Institute for Information Law, in the Netherlands.

The launch of CUBE is made possible through the vision of BLS entrepreneurs: Evan B. Azriliant ’92, Partner, S & E Azriliant, P.C.; Robert B. Catell, Chairman, Advanced Energy Research & Technology Center, Stony Brook University and Former Chairman and CEO of KeySpan/National Grid; Lawrence I. Feldman ’74, Chief Executive Officer, Subway Development Corp., and Diane Feldman; Stanley M. Grossman ’67, Senior Counsel, Pomerantz, Grossman, Hufford, Dahlstrom, and Nancy Grossman; Debra G. Humphreys ’84, Founder and Chair of Board of Trustees, Thomas Jefferson Independent Day School, and David C. Humphreys, President and CEO, Tamko Building Products Inc.; and Gary M. Rosenberg ’74, Partner, Rosenberg & Estis P.C.

Wrongful Foreclosure Claim Survives Motion to Dismiss

Posted on by

Judge Conti (N.D. Cal.) issued an order granting in part and denying in part a motion to dismiss in Subramani v. Wells Fargo Bank N.A. et al., No. 13-1605 (Oct. 30, 2013).

Plaintiff Subramani received a mortgage loan from Defendant Wells Fargo secured by a deed of trust (DOT).  Subramani alleges (and these allegations are taken to be true for the purposes of a motion to dismiss)  that Wells Fargo sold the loan in 2006 to an affiliate and that it was ultimately bundled with other mortgages into a mortgage-backed security.  Subramani later defaulted on the loan and the home was sold at foreclosure.

Subramani contends that documents relating to the foreclosure were void because Wells Fargo “was no longer the valid lender in the DOT, or even an agent of a successor beneficiary after it sold the Loan in 2006 . . .. Plaintiff therefore states that after Defendant sold the Loan, neither Defendant nor anyone else had any right to or interest in the Loan, so all legal notices associated with the note and DOT — including the SOTs [substitutions of trustee] , NODs [notice of defaults], and the foreclosure sale itself — are illegal and void.” (4, citations omitted)

The Court found that at the motion to dismiss stage, Subramani “has sufficiently stated a claim for wrongful foreclosure based on his allegations that Defendant’s 2006 sale of Plaintiff’s DOT precluded Defendant from retaining a beneficial interest in the DOT. Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged that Defendant directed the wrong party to issue Notices of Default, that Defendant is not the true beneficiary, and that Defendant failed to abide by the rules regarding transference of the Loan.” (8, citations omitted)

 

[HT April Charney]

Reiss on Risk Management

Posted on by

Law360.com interviewed me in Banks Caught In Middle Of Regulators’ Fair-Lending Pursuits (behind a paywall).  The article reads in part,

Federal and state regulators are increasingly enlisting banks in their pursuit of fair-lending and other violations at payday and auto lenders and other financial services providers with which they do business, a tactic that has also increased banks’ risk of penalties for conduct by third parties.

In late October, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency was the latest to put out new guidance for banks’ responsibility to monitor the activities of third-party vendors that perform operations on behalf of the bank. Other federal and state regulators have been calling on banks with growing frequency and force in recent years in order to ensure their vendors and clients comply with fair lending and other laws.

*     *     *

The increased use of pressure on banks to indirectly go after firms that may not be subject to federal or state laws or regulations comes after banks outsourced a great deal of their mortgage-lending operations and other services during the financial crisis, according to David Reiss, a professor at Brooklyn Law School.

While many of those vendors met high standards, others, particularly in the subprime loan context, did not. And banks didn’t monitor those failings, Reiss said.

“The crazy thing about that is you’d think banks would do this on their own,” Reiss said. “Why do they need their regulators to say, ‘Check on these things’?”

Affordable Housing in the De Blasio Era

Posted on by

Mayoral candidate de Blasio’s position on affordable housing policy can be found here. The key points include:

  • Require developers to build some affordable housing when they build in neighborhoods that have been upzoned (mandatory inclusionary zoning)

  • Direct $1 billion in city pension funds to affordable housing construction

  • Apply the same tax rate to big, vacant lots as applies to commercial properties and earmark the increased revenues for affordable housing

  • Ensure that affordable housing subsidies meet the needs of lower-income families and are distributed equitably throughout the City

As I had mentioned previously, NYU’s Furman Center (and its Moelis Institute for Affordable Housing Policy) ran a great series of ten conversations on the big housing issues facing New York City’s mayor. Since then, the Furman Center has posted ten policy briefs about those issues.The ten issues are

  1. Should the next mayor commit to build or rehabilitate more units of affordable housing than the Bloomberg Administration has financed?

  2. Should the next mayor require developers to permanently maintain the affordability of units developed with public subsidies?

  3. Should the next mayor adopt a mandatory inclusionary zoning program that requires developers to build or preserve affordable housing whenever they build market-rate housing?

  4. Should the next mayor seek to expand the use of city pension funds to develop affordable housing?

  5. Should the next mayor provide a rental subsidy for moderate- and middle-income households?

  6. Should the next mayor permit more distant transfers of unused development rights to support the development of affordable housing?

  7. Should the next mayor support the New York City Housing Authority’s plan to lease its undeveloped land for the construction of market-rate rental housing?

  8. Should the next mayor allow homeless families to move to the top of the waiting list for housing vouchers or public housing?

  9. Should the next mayor offer to cap the property tax levy on 421-a rental properties in order to preserve the affordable units within those buildings?

  10. How should the next mayor prioritize the preservation of existing affordable housing units?

Mayor-Elect de Blasio and his team will have to struggle with all of these issues. There are few easy answers in New York City when it comes to housing policy.

Reiss on Mayor De Blasio’s Plans for Mandatory Inclusionary Zoning

Posted on by

Law360.com interviewed me about Mayor-Elect de Blasio’s plans for mandatory inclusionary zoning in NYC Real Estate Faces Less Friendly Market Under De Blasio (behind a paywall). It reads in part:

One of the biggest and most controversial pieces of de Blasio’s affordable housing platform is a plan to mandate inclusionary zoning — requiring developers to build affordable housing as part of their market-rate multifamily projects — when developments are being constructed in areas rezoned by the city.

Mandatory inclusionary zoning is meant to be a “hard-and-fast rule” to replace the incentives de Blasio plans to end for big developers, and he predicted on his campaign website that the strategy would create up to 50,000 new affordable housing units during the next 10 years.

But “mandatory” anything is considered an added cost when developers are weighing their options in deciding where to build, and requiring that residential developments include affordable housing could push some developers elsewhere, experts say.

“The devil is in the details,” said Brooklyn Law School professor David Reiss, noting that the way the de Blasio administration writes and implements the rule will make a big difference, either encouraging more development of affordable housing or shutting down the market to new developers.

And while de Blasio has emphasized that inclusionary zoning would only be mandatory for projects taking place in areas specifically rezoned for new development, Learner points out that the Bloomberg administration rezoned more than 30 percent of the city, so the new rule could likely affect many developers.

“When the program is designed, a lot of thought needs to go into what impact mandatory inclusionary zoning will have on the bottom line of developers,” Reiss said. “If it’s too significant of an impact, a less than optimal amount of housing will be built.”

FHA’s Net Cost of $15 Billion

Posted on by

The Congressional Budget Office posted FHA’s Single-Family Mortgage Guarantee Program: Budgetary Cost or Savings? In response to the question, “Has FHA’s Guarantee Program for Single-Family Mortgages Produced Net Savings to Taxpayers,” the CBO responds,

No. Collectively, the single-family mortgage guarantees made by FHA between 1992 and 2012 have had a net federal budgetary cost of about $15 billion, according to the most recent estimates by FHA. In contrast, FHA’s initial estimates of the budgetary impact of those guarantees sum to savings of $45 billion . . .. That swing of $60 billion from savings to cost primarily reflects higher-than-expected defaults by borrowers and lower-than-expected recoveries when the houses of defaulted borrowers have been sold—especially for loans made over the 2004-2009 period. (1)

The document contains a chart of estimates of the budgetary impact of the FHA’s single-family mortgage guarantees by year. It shows that the 2008 vintage was particularly bad, accounting for over $15 billion in losses by itself (the other years’ savings and costs would thus net out).

There are some disturbing aspects of this finding and some that are not. First, the disturbing ones. The FHA has not been transparent about its potential for losses and bailouts (see here for instance). Second, its own financial projections have been overly optimistic.

That being said, the mere fact that the FHA is expected to have losses is not in itself an indictment of the government’s strategy of using the FHA to provide liquidity to the mortgage markets during the financial crisis. If only this were done forthrightly . . . but perhaps that is too much to ask in the midst of the crisis itself.

Balancing Consumer Protection and Access to Credit

Posted on by

S&P posted U.S. RMBS Roundtable: Originators, Aggregators, and Counsel Discuss New Qualified Mortgage Rules. In summarizing the roundtable, S&P notes that

The ability-to-repay rule, ostensibly to prevent defaults and another housing crisis, is still very much open to interpretation. To that end, Standard & Poor’s Ratings Services recently held a private roundtable with several market participants. The confidential discussion offered the attendees an opportunity to share their views and interpretations of these rules, offer opinions on how to operate efficiently within the scope of the rules, and highlight perceived conflicts the rules still present.

In our view, the discussion identified some common themes, notably:

    • Most originators will focus on QM-Safe Harbor loans to avoid liability and achieve the best execution.
    • Many originators will also find attractive opportunities to originate non-QM loans.
    • Non-agency originations of QM or non-QM loans will continue to focus on super-prime borrowers as lenders find that the best defense is to limit the potential for default.
    • The documentation standards used by originators will be the key to compliance with the rule. (2)

There are a lot of interesting tidbits in this document, including speculation about the role of technology in the brave new world of mortgage lending.  The summary ended on a guardedly optimistic note:

While the rule leaves significant room for interpretation, originators generally felt that the final rule to be implemented in January 2014 is better than expected. They expressed hope that regulators will be vigilant in pursuing violations that are reasonable. Originators still see challenges for originations of non-QM loans, but they don’t believe they are insurmountable, and many expect that non-QM loans will be represented in origination volume throughout 2014. The challenges that remain are the market’s pricing of QM safe harbor, rebuttable presumption, and non-QM loans; required credit enhancement levels; the effects of risk retention rules, which have yet to be finalized; and the ultimate costs associated with the assignee liability provisions in the rule. (7)

If these industry participants are right, it will look like regulators did a pretty good job of balancing consumer protection and access to credit. Let’s hope!