April 10, 2014
Reiss on Dimming of FIRREA
Inside MBS & ABS quoted me in Judge Recommends Dismissal of DOJ’s Fraud Case Against BofA, But It May Not End FIRREA Claims (behind paywall). It reads,
A North Carolina federal magistrate has recommended that a Justice Department fraud case against Bank of America be dismissed, but he also said a separate Securities and Exchange Commission lawsuit against the bank based on a different federal law should proceed.
The DOJ last August filed suit against BofA under the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act, accusing the bank of defrauding investors in the sale of $855 million of nonagency MBS. Last week, U.S. Magistrate David Cayer of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina found that the government failed to prove the bank made “material” false statements to the former Federal Housing Finance Board.
The DOJ claimed that BofA “willfully” misled investors, including the Federal Home Loan Bank of San Francisco and Wachovia Corp. – now owned by Wells Fargo – about the risks in the 2008 offering by failing to fully disclose the risk of 1,191 jumbo adjustable-rate mortgages backing the deal.
FIRREA allows the government to seek civil penalties equal to losses suffered by federally insured financial institutions, with a maximum of $1.1 million per violation. The 1989 law was a little used relic of the savings and loan aftermath until government lawyers began recently to invoke it widely in addition to other charges.
The law gives agency lawyers the ability to tap grand jury material and to subpoena documents. FIRREA also has a 10-year statute of limitations, longer than the typical five years for fraud cases, allowing government lawyers more time to pursue cases related to the 2007-2008 financial crisis.
The magistrate rejected the government’s claim that BofA’s statements were in violation of FIRREA because the FHLBank of San Francisco was within the jurisdiction of the FHFB. Cayer found that policing such statements did not fall within the agency’s purview and there was no indication that either the FHFB or the FHLBank ever complained about the MBS.
The magistrate recommended the DOJ’s case be dismissed without prejudice, although District Judge Max Cogburn will have the final word. Cayer allowed a parallel complaint filed by the SEC to move forward.
David Reiss, a professor at Brooklyn Law School, noted that U.S. district judges often give deference to reports from magistrate judges. But even if Cogburn opts to dismiss the DOJ’s case, it’s less an indictment against the use of FIRREA and more an indication that the government filed its case incorrectly, he said.
“Is it a harbinger that all other judges are going to change their minds about the broad reading of FIRREA? I don’t see that at all,” Reiss told Inside MBS & ABS. “I see judges in New York and in other jurisdictions continuing to allow the government to broadly interpret FIRREA based on its plain language. They are reading the text of the statute and saying the government can act.”
April 10, 2014 | Permalink | No Comments
April 9, 2014
GSE Litigation Through Corporate Law Lens
Adam Badawi and Anthony Casey have posted The Fannie and Freddie Bailouts Through the Corporate Lens to SSRN. The paper takes a look at the bailouts as if they were simple insolvent private firms. This is a helpful thought experiment even though the two federally chartered and heavily regulated firms are anything but simple, private firms. They write that while it is politically controversial to wipe out the shareholder equity in the two firms, doing so
is consistent with what often happens to stockholders of distressed companies. Indeed that is the more likely outcome when a corporation is sold or reorganized under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code. There remains little doubt that the Entities [Fannie and Freddie] were highly distressed at the time of the PSPAs [Preferred Stock Purchase Agreements] and Amendments [to the PSPAs]. Thus, while procedurally suspect, these actions did not substantively violate the norms of corporate law and finance that would apply to private companies in the same position. To the contrary, in the private context there may have been no action available that would have legally allocated any future interest in the Entities to the (junior) preferred and common shareholders. (1, footnotes omitted)
They add, that in “the private context, there would have been pressure to file for bankruptcy to liquidate the assets and eliminate the risk to creditors. And once in bankruptcy, the directors would have been entirely barred from taking actions to benefit equity at the expense of creditors.” (3) And they conclude that “the substance of Treasury’s and the Entities’ actions – in September 2008 and August 2012 – were generally in line with acceptable actions of creditors and debtors involved in restructuring distressed corporations in Chapter 11 bankruptcy or in out-of-court reorganizations.” (3-4)
I could excerpt selection after selection, but instead, I recommend that you read this interesting paper for yourself!
April 9, 2014 | Permalink | No Comments
April 8, 2014
Reiss on New Residential Real Estate Exchange
NationSwell quoted me in Can’t Afford a Down Payment? Let Investors Help You Buy Your Home. It reads in part,
Enter PRIMARQ, the world’s first residential real-estate equity exchange — a soon-to-launch venture of San Francisco entrepreneur Steve Cinelli. Can’t afford a down payment? Let investors put together the capital you can’t, without relinquishing all your clout as a homeowner. By letting “co-owners” buy shares in your home, you’re able to put down a bigger down payment, which means you end up carrying less debt and can get a loan free of mortgage insurance, which is commonly tacked on for down payments of less than 20 percent. “I think the market is overly dependent on mortgage-debt financing,” Cinelli says. “The application of debt has gone way too far.”
Investors can bet on housing without having to deal with the actual house. They’ll get their money back (plus profits if there are any), under one of several circumstances: when you sell your home, when you decide to buy back your shares, or when the investor sells his shares back to the PRIMARQ exchange itself, which offers a “liquidity guaranteed” 90 percent of their value. So, if an investor puts up $10,000, and then wants to cash out for any reason before you sell your home, they’ll walk away with no less than $9,000 (unless the home price drops) — and it doesn’t affect you either way.
Not all homebuyers and not all houses can qualify for PRIMARQ funding. If there’s a mortgage involved, the buyer has to meet strict credit-score criteria, and the home has to have a certain expected price appreciation — meaning it’s got to be a decent property in a good location. That doesn’t necessarily rule out homes in lower-income neighborhoods, but it does stand to reason that unless those neighborhoods are deemed “up-and-coming,” the homes there might not qualify for PRIMARQ.
* * *
To be sure, the PRIMARQ model involves risks for both investors and homeowners — not the least of which is a gaming of the system by nefarious investors, says David Reiss, a professor of law at Brooklyn Law School in New York who researches and writes about the American housing-finance sector. While Reiss calls PRIMARQ a “supercool idea” for all the aforementioned reasons, he could imagine various ways for unsophisticated homeowners to get fleeced without proper consumer protection regulations (the program has not yet been reviewed by a government regulatory agency). Unscrupulous investors could demand fees or increased equity in exchange for agreeing to help fund a second mortgage, for example. By participating in PRIMARQ as a homeowner, “you are not the master of your own destiny,” Reiss says.
April 8, 2014 | Permalink | No Comments
April 7, 2014
Reiss on Housing Shortgage
MainStreet.com quoted me in Housing Shortage Presents Challenges for Buyers. It reads in part,
While the housing demand continues to outpace supply in various urban pockets around the U.S., potential homeowners are faced with competing bids from other buyers.
The pent-up demand has created bidding wars from New York to San Francisco, putting additional pressure on homebuyers, many who are buying their first home in an unprecedented climate.
Despite weaker job growth, there remains a shortage in housing supply to satisfy current demand, said Jeff Meyers, president of Meyers Research, a Beverly Hills, Calif. data provider for real estate. Job growth is expected to pick up throughout this year, which will only increase demand. Unemployment will finish at 6.4% in 2014, which will be its fourth consecutive year of improvement, according to a forecast from Zonda, a mobile application for the residential homebuilding industry.
While all local markets experience their own dynamics and quirks, areas such as San Mateo county in California have more demand for housing because of a strong job market and limited development activity compared to weak demand in Wayne County in Michigan due to poor labor market conditions and an embattled housing market, he said.
Consumers with extra cash have the upper hand in trying to win a bid, especially in markets such as Manhattan where demand for a two-to-three bedroom apartment has pushed prices up to the $1.5 million to $3 million range, said Kinnaird Fox, director of development at Fenwick Keats Real Estate in New York which specializes in residential properties.
“This fierce competition created bidding wars with nearly every new listing since the beginning of 2014,” she said. “Cash rules for obvious reasons in a market like this.”
The bidding war frenzy has turned off many qualified buyers who are wary of the increase in prices, Fox said.
“Despite what seems like a booming sellers’ market, many qualified buyers may be looking, but choose not to jump in,” she said. “With buyers losing out on their bids, buyer fatigue sets in and some withdraw from the market. One could say the lack of inventory masks the actual demand.”
While some cities have a weak demand for housing, many have an even weaker supply, which yields in a housing shortage, said David Reiss, professor of law at Brooklyn Law School in New York.
“Some communities place severe restrictions on new housing construction so even modest upticks in demand can push rents and prices higher,” he said.
Buyers should not forget the fundamental rule of real estate. Location can have far reaching effects, especially if you are moving a significant distance, said Reiss.
“Perhaps first and foremost, ask whether the house you are considering is the right one for your family,” he said. “If the answer is yes, then you are probably on the right track because a house is first and foremost a home and secondly an investment.”
April 7, 2014 | Permalink | No Comments
April 4, 2014
Mortgage Sustainability Tool Launched
Freddie Mac has created a useful new tool, the Multi-Indicator Market Index(SM) (MiMi(SM)).The press release states that it is
a new publicly-accessible tool that monitors and measures the stability of the nation’s housing market, as well as the housing markets of all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the top 50 metro markets.
MiMi combines proprietary Freddie Mac data with current local market data to calculate a range of equilibrium for each single-family housing market covered. Monthly, MiMi uses this data to show, at a glance, where each market stands relative to its own stable range. MiMi also indicates how each market is trending — whether it is moving closer to, or further away from, its stable range. A market can fall outside its stable range by being too weak to generate enough demand for a well-balanced housing market or by overheating to an unsustainable level of activity.
* * *
In today’s first release of MiMi, several key findings emerged that highlight the current state of the nation’s housing market as of January 2014:
- The national MiMi value stands at -3.08 points indicating a weak housing market overall. From December to January the national MiMi improved by 0.03 points and by 0.81 points from one year ago. The nation’s housing market is improving based on its 3-month trend of +0.17 points and moving closer to its stable and in range status. The nation’s all-time MiMi low of -4.49 was in November 2010 when the housing market was at its weakest.
- Eleven of the 50 states plus the District of Columbia are stable and in range with North Dakota, the District of Columbia, Wyoming, Alaska, and Louisiana ranking in the top five.
- Four of the 50 metros are stable and in range, San Antonio, Houston, Austin and New Orleans.
- The five most improving states from December to January were Florida (+0.11), Tennessee (+0.11), Michigan (+0.09), Louisiana (+0.07), Nevada (+0.07), and Texas (+0.07). From one year ago the most improving states were Florida (+2.12), Nevada (+1.84), California (+1.26), Texas (+1.06) and D.C. (+1.05).
- The five most improving metros were Miami (+0.11), Detroit (+0.10), Orlando (+0.09), San Antonio (+0.09), and Chicago (+0.08). From one year ago the most improving metros were Miami (+2.54), Orlando (+2.08), Riverside (+1.87), Las Vegas (+1.81), and Tampa (+1.77).
- Overall, in January of 2014, 25 of the 50 states plus the District of Columbia are improving based on their 3-month trend and 35 of the 50 metros are improving.
April 4, 2014 | Permalink | No Comments
April 3, 2014
Ohio Court of Appeals Finds that BAC had Failed to Demonstrate that it had Standing to Accelerate the Note and Foreclose the Mortgage
The court in deciding BAC Home Loans Servicing, L.P. v. Blythe, 2013-Ohio-5775 (Ohio Ct. App., Columbiana County, 2013) reversed the lower court’s judgment.
Appellant Walter J. Blythe appealed the lower court’s decision granting summary judgment in favor of Appellee, BAC Home Loans Servicing, L.P., in this foreclosure action.
Blythe challenged the lower court’s finding that BAC Home Loans Servicing had standing to foreclose in the absence of evidence that BAC was the holder of the note creating the obligation. Blythe relied on the material submitted by BAC in support of this claim. Because the copy of the note filed by BAC was specifically indorsed to Countrywide Bank, FSB, not BAC, and there was nothing to indicate otherwise, BAC had failed to demonstrate that it had standing to accelerate the note and foreclose the mortgage. Thus this court reversed the judgment of the lower court and dismissed the suit for lack of standing.
This court held that a note that had been specially indorsed to a bank under R.C. 1303.25(A) could not be enforced by a loan servicing company (LSC) that was not the transferee or successor in interest of the bank. This court also held that the LSC was not the holder of the note under R.C. 1303.32(A)(1) by virtue of the merger of the bank and a national association (NA). Further, the LSC was not a non-holder in possession entitled to enforce under R.C. 1303.31 as it had not acquired the bank’s right to the note under R.C. 1303.21.
This court noted that even if the NA had filed the foreclosure suit, there was no evidence of the transaction, merger, or mergers that gave rise to an its interest in the note. Lastly, the court held that the note was not bearer paper and could only be enforced by the bank since the note was payable to the bank, as such the bank was the real party in interest in the foreclosure action. Thus the LSC lacked standing to foreclose.
April 3, 2014 | Permalink | No Comments
Washington Court Dismisses Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and Washington Deed of Trust Act Violation Claims
By Ebube Okoli
The court in deciding Dietz v. Quality Loan Serv. Corp., 2014 U.S. Dist. (W.D. Wash. Jan. 3, 2014) granted Wells Fargo and MERS’ motion to dismiss.
This action involved is a post-sale wrongful foreclosure case. Plaintiff Timothy Dietz alleged causes of action for violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA)(Counts I and IV) and violation of the Washington Deed of Trust Act (DTA)(Counts II and III).
The court in deciding this case noted that Dietz’s first and fourth causes of action were for violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692g(b) and 1692e(5) respectively. These causes of action did not mention MERS and there was no allegation in the complaint that MERS engaged in any activities that could be construed as a “debt collection.” As such, this court dismissed the FDCPA causes of action against MERS.
Similarly, the court found that Dietz had not alleged facts that gave rise to a violation of the debt validation notice requirements. Dietz’s claim that that Wells Fargo violated 15 U.S.C. § 1641(g) by failing to notify him within 30 days after it purchased the Loan. Wells Fargo purchased the Loan in 2008 and the assignment was recorded in 2011. The court found that under either date, the claim was barred by FDCPA‘s one year statute of limitations, 15 U.S.C. § 1640(e), as this lawsuit was not filed until 2013.
Share this:
Like this:
April 4, 2014 | Permalink | No Comments