Author Archives: David Reiss

Show Me The Note, NY Style

Posted on by

Steiner, Goldstein & Sohn published a short article in the New York Law Journal, Clearing The Confusion:  Misplaced Notes and Allonges (Sept. 18, 2012) (behind a paywall). While intended to address commercial real estate finance, it relies on an interesting residential real estate finance case, Bank of N.Y. Mellon v. Deane, 2013 Slip Op. 23244 (Sup. Ct. Kings Country July 11, 2013). The authors write that

Mortgage assignments, when properly drafted, assign both the mortgage and the note. Assuming the chain of mortgage assignments is intact, lenders can gain comfort knowing that under New York case law they have standing to enforce the full amount of the debt evidenced by these assignments. Nevertheless, defendants in foreclosure proceedings often challenge the lenders’ standing to enforce the note, demanding that lenders demonstrate physical possession of the note to initiate a foreclosure despite the fact that physical possession is not required by the law.

They conclude:

New York courts in the cases described herein consistently follow well-established precedent permitting standing in a foreclosure action without the plaintiff having physical possession of the original notes. New York case law makes clear that physical possession of all notes in a chain of loan assignments and refinancings is unnecessary for standing in a foreclosure action and that proper execution of a [Consolidated Extension and Modification Agreement] is sufficient to confer standing when missing notes have been consolidated. Likewise, inclusion of an allonge or other endorsement for every note transfer is not required under New York law for standing in a foreclosure action when the note has been assigned by other means, such as through a properly drafted assignment of mortgage.

The article’s discussion of Deane is most interesting:

the court found physical possession of the note to be determinative regardless of whether a written assignment was executed. The court criticized the approach followed by case law in New York, stating that allowing an assignee to have standing without possession of the note “would be inconsistent with Revised Article 3, and put New York out-of-step with the 49 states that have adopted the revision[.]” Notably, however, New York has opted not to adopt those proposed revisions to Article 3. The court continued, “that misstep, however, if such it is, has apparently already been taken. The case law quoted and cited above clearly speaks, in the disjunctive, of standing obtained by ‘assignment’ or ‘physical delivery’ of the note[.]”

I will return to Deane in a later post.

Moody Misrepresentation

Posted on by

Judge Daniels (SDNY) granted Moody’s motion for summary judgment in In re Moody’s Corporation Securities Litigation, No. 07 Civ. 8375 (Aug. 23, 2013). This is a big win for Moody’s, but I did find the following passage striking in its tone:

Moody’s own emphasis on the importance of its independence weakens its case for summary judgment on the issue of materiality. Moody’s 2005 and 2006 Annual Reports, as well as their Forms 10-K from the same timeframe, are replete with pronouncements of Moody’s independence and integrity.  For example, Moody’s stated in its 2005 Annual Report that it “is committed to reinforcing among all relevant stakeholders a sense of trust in the accuracy, independence and reliability of Moody’s products and services . . ..’ Likewise, in its Code of Professional Conduct dated June 2005, Moody’s stated that it “will use care and professional judgment to maintain both the substance and appearance of independence and integrity”, and that the ratings it issues “will not be affected by the existence of, or potential for, a business relationship between Moody’s (or its affiliates) and the Issuer (or its affiliates) or any other party . . ..” In light of the great lengths to which Moody’s has gone to tout its independence and integrity, it is inconsistent for Moody’s to simultaneously argue that a reasonable investor would not find such statements to be material. Moody’s thus fails to demonstrate that no reasonable jury could find the alleged misrepresentation at issue to be material. (13, citations omitted)

We are starting to see judges hold rating agencies to the standards they set for themselves (here, for example), although we have not yet seen a court hold one of them liable for violating them.  That may yet come as more of these cases wend their way through the courts.

Misrepresentation and Wholesale Misrepresentation

Posted on by

Federal Judge Lungstrum (D. Kan.) issued a Memorandum and Order in National Credit Union Administrative Board v. RBS Securities, Inc. et al., No. 11-2340 (Sept. 12, 2013).  The Board, as conservator and liquidating agent of the U.S. Central Federal Credit Union, alleged that the defendants made “untrue statements or omissions of material facts relating to” a number of RMBS. The main allegation is that  “the originators for the loans underlying the [RMBS] certificates systematically abandoned underwriting guidelines, and that the certificates’ offering documents failed to disclose that fact or misrepresented that guidelines were followed.” (3) The court found that

plaintiff’s forensic analysis, based on the particular loans underlying the six dismissed offerings, support a plausible claim of misrepresentations involving the LTV and owner-occupancy ratios. Not only are those alleged misrepresentations independently actionable, they provide a connection to the particular certificates at issue and thus support a plausible claim based on the abandonment of underwriting guidelines.  That is true for claims based on these six offerings, even without originator-specific allegations.  Accordingly, the Court denies the motion by RBS and Wachovia to dismiss certain claims on this basis. (7)

Courts have been increasingly willing to draw a distinction between run of the mill misrepresentation and systemic misrepresentation (see here and here for instance).  This will have a big impact on how reps and warranties are drafted going forward as well as, obviously, the scope of theories of liability for breach of contract in the context of securities offerings.

Round One to California in Suit Against S&P

Posted on by

California Superior Court Judge Karnow issued a Memorandum Order Overruling Defendants’ Demurrers in California v. The McGraw-Hill Cos. et al., CGC-13-528491 (Aug. 14, 2013 San Francisco County).   California Attorney General Harris alleged “that S&P intentionally inflated its ratings for the investments and that these knowingly false ratings were material to the investment decisions of [California Public Employees’ Retirement System (PERS) and the California State Teachers’ Retirement System (STRS)], in violation of the False Claims Act and other statutes.” (2)

S&P demurred to the False Claims Act causes of action [asked for the causes of action to be dismissed], because, among other reasons,

(l) the complaint does not plead that any ‘claims’ were ever “presented” to the state;

(2) if claims were presented, they did not involve ‘state funds’ . . .. (4)

S&P asserts, among other things, that because it “was not the seller, it did not “present” any claims for payment.” (4) The Court stated, however, that the False Claims Act “imposes liability on any person who ’causes’ a false or fraudulent claim to be presented or ’causes to be made or used a false . . . statement material to a false or fraudulent claim.’ C. 12651(a)(1)-(a}(2).” (4, citation omitted) The Court inferred “from the complaint that S&P ’caused’ PERS and STRS to purchase the securities. This is good enough for present purposes.” (4, citation omitted)

I am a longstanding critic of the rating agencies, but I have to say that I am struck by how broadly courts have interpreted statutes relied upon by the federal government and the states as they pursue alleged wrongdoing by financial institutions involved in financial crisis. In the courts’ defense, they typically rely on the plain language of the statutes, but, boy, do they interpret them broadly.

In this case, giving a rating can “cause” someone to purchase a security — is there any limit on what is a sufficient “cause” to trigger the statute? In DoJ’s case against Bank of America, a financial institution may be liable under FIRREA for a fraud it perpetrates even if the only entity affected by the fraud is — Bank of America! Similar broad interpretations of NY’s Martin Act make it relatively easy for NY government to bring a securities fraud case against a financial institution because our normal intuitions about intent are not relevant under that act.

Pursuing alleged wrongdoers: good.

Pursuing alleged wrongdoers with broad, ambiguous and powerful tools:  worrisome.

Just Shoot Me

Posted on by

Florida Twelfth Judicial Circuit Magistrate Bailey issued a Recommended Order in HSBC Bank USA, National Association, et al. v. Marra, No. 2008 CA 000630 NC (Aug. 14, 2013) that makes you want to give up.  Not because of the judge, but  because of what she documents in what is in all likelihood a run of the mill foreclosure in Florida.

Somewhat amazingly, the defendant was unrepresented but was able to get the Court to focus on various inconsistencies in the court filings and implausible assertions made by the Plaintiff, particularly those relating to whether the plaintiff owned and held the note and mortgage as it alleged in the complaint.

It would require about as many words to summarize the opinion as are in it, so I refer you to the link above if you want to see it in all of its glory. Let me leave you with the Court’s conclusion:

After taking into consideration the above-cited information from the [Pooling and Servicing Agreement], it appears that the transfers that have been variously asserted by the Plaintiff in several Motions and/or documents attached to those Motions as conferring standing upon it could  not possibly have occurred as the Plaintiff represents. Further, the Magistrate cannot  conceive of any manner in which the Plaintiff could possibly create additional  documentation in an effort to manufacture standing in this action. (5)

Said less politely, the Plaintiff appear to have lied to the Court or at least been unbelievably negligent in preparing its papers.  The Court also had these things to say about the Plaintiff’s filings:

  • the procedural history recounted by the Plaintiff in its Motion is inaccurate. (4)
  • it is not even likely that GreenPoint was the “owner and holder” of Marra’s loan documents at the time this case was filed in 2008, as was alleged in the original Complaint. (4)

As a law professor, I teach students about the importance of procedure to the functioning and legitimacy of our system of adjudication.  Reading cases like this, replete with a factual summary of obfuscation and possibly outright lies, I wonder what the lesson is that we should take away from the foreclosure epidemic.

One lesson is that you can say anything you want in court and you are unlikely to be punished even if you are caught.  If that is the lesson we are left with, just shoot me now.

An alternative lesson is that we should severely punish those who treat the courthouse as no better than a white-collar fight cage where trained mercenaries lord it over ill-prepared amateurs, with no holds barred. If that is the one we take, lower your gun, roll up your sleeves and start thinking about what a well-functioning judicial system would look like for unrepresented parties in civil suits, such as homeowners in foreclosure and consumers facing debt collectors.

[HT April Charney]

Reiss on the Future of Fannie and Freddie

Posted on by

I will be speaking at NYU Law next week on

The Future of Fannie and Freddie

Friday, September 20, 2013
9:00 am – 5:00pm
Reception to follow

Greenberg Lounge, NYU School of Law
40 Washington Square South
New York, NY 10012

Jointly sponsored by:
The Classical Liberal Institute & NYU Journal of Law & Business

 

This conference will bring together leaders in law, finance, and economics to explore the challenges to investment in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and the future possibilities for these government-sponsored entities (GSEs).  Panels will focus on the reorganization of Fannie and Freddie, as well as the recent litigation surrounding the Treasury’s decision to “wind down” these GSEs.  Panelists will explore the legal issues at stake in the wind down, including the administrative law and Takings Clause arguments raised against the Treasury and Federal Housing Finance Agency.  Panelists will also look at economic policy and future prospects for Fannie and Freddie in light of legislation proposed in the House and the Senate.

Conference Panels:

  • The Reorganization of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac
  • Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and Administrative Law
  • Conservatorship and the Takings Clause
  • The Future of Fannie and Freddie

Confirmed Participants:

  • Professor Barry Adler (NYU)
  • Professor Adam Badawi (Washington University)
  • Professor Anthony Casey (Chicago)
  • Charles Cooper (Cooper & Kirk PLLC)
  • Professor Richard Epstein (NYU)
  • Randall Guynn (Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP)
  • Professor Todd Henderson (Chicago)
  • Professor Troy Paredes (former SEC Commissioner)
  • Professor David Reiss (Brooklyn)
  • Professor Lawrence White (NYU Stern)

Borden and Reiss on High-Stakes MBS Litigation

Posted on by

Brad and I posted Goliath Versus Goliath in High-Stakes MBS Litigation on SSRN (and BePress).  The abstract reads,

The loan-origination and mortgage-securitization practices between 2000 and 2007 created the housing and mortgage-backed securities bubble that precipitated the 2008 economic crisis and ensuing recession. The mess that the loan-origination and mortgage-securitization practices caused is now playing out in courts around the world. MBS investors are suing banks, MBS sponsors and underwriters for misrepresenting the quality of loans purportedly held in MBS pools and failing to properly transfer loan documents and mortgages to the pools, as required by the MBS pooling and servicing agreements. State and federal prosecutors have also filed claims against banks, underwriters and sponsors for the roles they played in creating defective MBS and for misrepresenting the quality of the assets purportedly held in MBS pools. This commentary focuses on the state of this upstream litigation. It reviews claims of several complaints and discusses some decisions on motions for summary judgment in several of the cases. The commentary is not a comprehensive review of all the activity in this area, but it does provide an overview of the issues at stake in this litigation. The litigation in this area is still relatively new, but with hundreds of billions of dollars at stake, it will likely last for years to come and should reshape the MBS landscape.