Author Archives: David Reiss

Underwater Domain

Posted on by

The securitization industry is still fighting tooth and nail against the proposal to use the power of eminent domain to acquire underwater mortgages from private-label mortgage-backed security trusts.  Four California towns are considering working with Mortgage Resolution Partners LLP to take mortgages in their communities by eminent domain and then refinance them at current rates and with valuations that reflect today’s prices.

The heavy hitters in the industry — including the ABA, MBA and SIFMA — have written to the four communities  (San Joaquin letter here) warning of the consequences of proceeding.  Some of the warned of consequences appear to be thinly veiled threats such as, we are going to sue your pants off.  Some are constitutional challenges, although I think that they are overstating their case in that regard.

The letter does, however, raise some important legal, business and practical concerns that will need to be addressed if the proposal is actually acted upon.  Will the municipalities have jurisdiction over the mortgage notes if they are located out of California and is that necessary to proceed?  Will lenders punish communities that employ eminent domain in this way by making less credit available in the future?  Will the proposal be financially workable if fair market value for the mortgages is actually paid?  To what extent will “widows and orphans” be hurt by this proposal because pension funds are big holders of MBS?  These are important questions without obvious answers. Given what is at stake, it seems worth sketching out the answers a bit more before rejecting this innovative proposal out of hand.

Michigan Federal District Court Finds that Holder of Unsigned Note Can Enforce

Posted on by

The District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan affirmed the Bankruptcy Court in Mentag v. GMAC Mortgage LLC, No. 12-13350 (Feb. 8, 2013), finding that the holder of the note was entitled to enforce it and has standing to challenge the automatic stay.  The court said that the “real issue is whether GMAC Mortgage LLC [the holder] was a holder of the note on the date it filed its motion to lift the stay.” (8)

Under Michigan law, a holder is either “in possession of an unsigned note that is made out to it” or is “in possession of a signed note.” (8) Based on the evidence, the Court found that GMAC Mortgage LLC was “the holder of the note when it challenged the stay.” (8) The court also noted that “a holder of the note may enforce it, notwithstanding that the holder may have sold the note and failed to transfer it to the purchaser.” (8-9)

FIRREA Flies

Posted on by

Law360 interviewed me about the federal government’s continuing reliance on FIRREA in Prosecutors Get Last Laugh In $1B BofA Fraud Case (behind a paywall):

A controversial legal theory at the heart of a $1 billion mortgage fraud suit against Bank of America Corp. could become a go-to enforcement tool for civil prosecutors in the wake of a New York federal judge’s surprise ruling Wednesday, experts say.

U.S. District Judge Jed Rakoff pared the suit in a two-page order, granting BofA’s motion to dismiss False Claims Act allegations but keeping alive claims under the Financial Institutions Reform Recovery Enforcement Act, an anti-fraud law passed in the wake of the 1980s savings-and-loan crisis.

FIRREA allows civil prosecutors to sue entities that negatively “affect” the stability of federally insured banks. Seizing on a broad interpretation of that term, prosecutors have launched several suits in recent years accusing firms of affecting themselves, prompting an outcry from Wall Street and the defense bar.

Judge Rakoff said during an April 29 hearing that he was “troubled” by the government’s use of FIRREA to sue BofA, prompting many in the securities bar to be taken by surprise by Wednesday’s ruling. It comes two weeks after U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan refused to dismiss FIRREA claims against Bank of New York Mellon Corp. in a suit alleging the bank defrauded forex customers.

The rulings by Judges Kaplan and Rakoff suggest a consensus is beginning to form within the judiciary that FIRREA may be interpreted broadly, according to David Reiss, a professor at Brooklyn Law School. That could pose challenges for financial institutions, he said.

“There seems to be a greater interest now in pursuing financial wrongdoing,” he said. “With FIRREA, it’s a whole new game.”

And the law’s generous 10-year statute of limitations could give new life to allegations of misconduct during the financial meltdown, Reiss said.

“If FIRREA continues to be interpreted broadly, it ensures the government will still have a tool to bring claims,” he said.

Reiss on CFPB Muscle

Posted on by

Law360 interviewed me in CFPB Flexes Enforcement Muscle In 1st Criminal Referral (behind a paywall) regarding the prosecution of an alleged debt relief scam:

Criminal charges filed Tuesday against a New York debt settlement firm based on a referral from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau show that the fledgling agency’s enforcement staff will be able to successfully leverage its unique investigative powers, attorneys say.

U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara of the Southern District of New York charged Michael Levitis, his company Mission Settlement Agency and three employees of the company with mail fraud, wire fraud and conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud alleging they scammed 1,200 customers seeking debt relief out of about $2.2 million.

The case was the direct result of a referral from the CFPB, marking the first time that criminal charges have come out of a probe by the bureau. And it won’t be the last, experts said.

The bureau already has an aggressive enforcement policy and broad authority and investigative powers, and will likely use the referral tool to make its enforcement powers even more formidable, according to K&L Gates LLP partner Larry Platt.

“Most people have had the CFPB on their radar screen as an enforcement agency. But what this shows is that it’s also working as a scout,” he said.

*  *  *

But observers say the bureau may be more willing to use that power than other banking regulators.

Prudential banking regulators view their main mission as preserving the safety and soundness of the institutions they regulate, not necessarily seeking criminal actions for consumer protection violations, according to Brooklyn Law School professor David Reiss. The CFPB, by contrast, is charged solely with a mission for consumer protection, he said.

“There’s no question that the CFPB would be more aggressive on criminal investigations than other bank regulators,” Reiss said.

Reiss on FIRREA!

Posted on by

Law360 quoted me in a story, Rakoff Ruling In $1B BofA Case May Halt DOJ Hot Streak, that reflects some judicial skepticism about the federal government’s broad reading of FIRREA:

Prosecutors have seized on an obscure 1989 law to launch a series of splashy cases against banks in recent years, but a prominent New York federal judge with a penchant for scrutinizing government actions could soon reverse the trend in a $1 billion mortgage fraud suit against Bank of America Corp.

The Financial Institutions Reform Recovery Enforcement Act, enacted in the wake of the savings and loan crisis, allows the government to sue entities that negatively “affect” the stability of federally insured banks. The law was used sparingly for decades, but it has been dusted off in a series of recent complaints that seek to hold firms liable for hurting their own stability. In the BofA case, for example, the bank is accused of putting its health at risk by selling shoddy loans that were later packaged into securities.

U.S. District Judge Jed Rakoff is threatening to stem the tide. He said at an April 29 hearing that he was “troubled” by the government’s novel interpretation of FIRREA and vowed to issue a formal ruling on the issue by May 13.

*  *  *

“The federal government is searching for different theories of liability, and FIRREA is incredibly attractive right now,” said David Reiss, a professor at Brooklyn Law School. “I have no doubt this issue will rise in the court of appeals, and potentially make its way to the U.S. Supreme Court.”

Judge Rakoff’s call is expected to have a ripple effect either way. A decision allowing the government to sue banks for self-inflicted wounds may embolden prosecutors to launch even more cases, experts say.

A ruling in favor of BofA would be a coup for financial institutions as they seek to limit legal exposure from the crisis, according to Reiss.

But if the government loses FIRREA as a fraud enforcement tool, it won’t be out of options. The BofA case and some other FIRREA actions also include claims under the federal False Claims Act, which allows prosecutors to collect treble damages and penalties.

“As Judge Rakoff seems to say, I don’t think this issue has been settled,” Reiss said.

Reiss on New Limits on Lending for Fannie and Freddie

Posted on by

Law360 interviewed me in Fannie, Freddie Will Only Buy Qualified Mortgages, FHFA Says (behind a paywall) about the new limits on lending imposed on Fannie and Freddie:

The Federal Housing Finance Agency on Monday said that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac would only be allowed to purchase so-called qualified mortgages when the new standard comes into effect in January.

Under the new standard, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac will only be able to purchase and securitize mortgages that qualify to an exemption to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s ability to repay rule, which the federal consumer finance watchdog finalized in January.

* * *

Given the cautious state of mortgage lending, the change is likely to only affect Fannie, Freddie and the mortgage market along the margins, said Brooklyn Law School professor David Reiss.

“It will be interesting to see, however, whether the private-label market will step into the void and offer more of these products — and it will be interesting to see how the market prices them,” he said in an email.

Principled Forgiveness

Posted on by

The Congressional Budget Office issued a report, Modifying Mortgages Involving Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac: Options for Principal Forgiveness, that reviews where we are with principal-forgiveness loan modifications. It notes that “Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have not been allowed to implement principal forgiveness out of concerns about fairness, implementation costs, and the incentive that the approach could provide for people to become delinquent in order to obtain principal forgiveness.” (1)

The report examines how the GSEs could employ principal forgiveness. A key issue that the report addresses is how to deal with the moral hazard of homeowners “becoming delinquent in order to obtain principal forgiveness.” (3) This could result in large costs for the federal government and would be inequitable to those who are similarly situated who choose not to become delinquent.

The CBO analyzes three principal forgiveness options.  Each option would allow a GSE to choose between a standard HAMP modification or one that involved principal forgiveness, “depending on which one lowered the government’s expected costs more.” (3) CBO estimates that 1.2 million borrowers might be eligible for such a program, which would be about 40 percent of all underwater borrowers. CBO estimates that the federal government would save a modest amount of money with these options.

The CBO’s cost-benefit principle seems like a reasonable basis upon which to expand principal forgiveness loan modifications.  The FHFA should pursue these options even before its new leadership is in place.