Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
EXHIBIT 1
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/20/2012 INDEX NO. 602825/2008
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1974 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/20/2012
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK CITY
MBIA Insurance Corporation,
Plaintiff,
Index No. Ogi Gt:i:2.. ~ l.s
COMPLAINT
-against-
Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., Countrywide Securities Corp., and Countrywide Financial Corp.
Defendants.
-NEWYO.'l'
COUNTY ctEfh.,
ISfP 30 2U06
"'01 COiv:f-'ARED • WITH COpy FiLED . .. -... ,,~.
• > '" """. ~ ••
Plaintiff MBIA lm;urance Corporation ("MBIA"), by its attorneys, Quinn
Emanuel Urquhart Oliver & Hedges LLP, faT its Complaint herein against Countrywide Home
Loans, Inc. ("Countrywide Home"), Countrywide Securities Corporation ("Countrywide
Securities") and Countrywide Financial Corporation ("Countrywide Financial") (collectively,
"Countrywide"), alleges as follows:
NATURE OF ACTION
1. This action arises Qut of the fraudulent acts and breaches of contract of
Countrywide in connection with the securitizations of pools of home equity loans (the "Mortgage
Loans")_ Countrywide, the largest residential mortgage originator and servicer in the country,
originated and sold (or otherwise conveyed) Mortgage Loans to trusts that in tum issued and sold
residential mortgage~backed securities ("RMBS") to investors. To make these securitizations
more marketable, Countrywide induced MBIA to provide billions of dollars of credit
enhancements in the form of guarantees of the trust obligations on particular classes of RMBS.
In order to do so, Countrywide falsely represented to both MBIA and the trust investors that
, ,.
Countrywide had originated the Mortgage LOtH1S in strict compliance with its umkrwritill!!
standards, and guidelines, which were dcvciop •. xi over lime 10 sen .. 'CIl the creditworthincss or
borrowers and the likelihood that mortgage loans would h .... · rl']Xlid.
2. In reality, as it fought aggressively to expand its already enormous market share
in the mortgage lending boom of the past few years, COlllltrywid .... "-,-undcr tho diro.)ctioll or !tlrll1l,,!f
Chief Executive OHiccr Angelo Mozilo and former President and Chief Operating omccr David
SaI11bol~eveloped a systematic pattern and practice of abandoning its own guidelines for loan
origination: knowingly lending to borrowers who could not afford to repay the loans, Or who
committed fraud in loan applications, or who otherwise did not satisfy the basic risk criteria for
prudent and responsible lending that Countrywide claimed to usc.
3. From at least 2005 through 2007, in securitization after securitiz.ation, these
practices fundamentally changed the risk profile of the Mortgage Loans from that represented by
Countrywide. As a direct result of Countrywide's deliberate misconduct as a loan originator, and
its fraudulent representations as to the characteristks of the loan pools in the securitizations for
which MBIA provided guar.mtees, thousands of Mortgage Loans are in default and/or
foreclosure, while MBIA has already paid out over $459 million on its guarantees and is exposed
to claims in excess of several hundred m.illion dollars more.
4. Further, compounding the harms of its original fraud, Countrywide has refused to
repurchase or replace non-compliant. Mortgage Loans with eligible loans that do meet
Countrywide)s ovvn guidelines j thereby breaching express representations and warranties in its
contracts with MBIA. If Countrywide had truthfully represented its deliberate deviation from
guidelines and past practice in loan origination, MBIA never would have issued guarantees on
2
!
the RMBS notes, and MBIA would not have surk'n:d the related dl!clines in ilS market \,(lhl~ <lnd
other losses.
5. As alleged by the Attorney General J()f the State of Calilorniu: "Countrywide: 's
deceptive scheme had one primary goal-to supply the secondary rnarket with ,IS many loans as
possible, ideally loans that would earn the highest premiums. Over a period of ~cvcl"al years,
Defendants constantly expanded Countrywide's share of the consumer market lor mortgage
loans through a ",ide variety of deceptive practices, undertaken with the direction, authorization;
and ratification of Sambo] and Mozilo. in order to maximize its profits from the sale of those
loans to the secondary market."
6. In short, Countrywide deliberately abandoned its own guidelines to drive up
revenues from increased origination fees, securitization fees, and servicing fees-no matter the
cost to borrowers, investors. or guarantors like MBLA.
7. Accordingly, MBIA now brings this action against Countrywide for fraud,
negligent misrepresentation and breach of contract.
PARTIES
8. PlaintiffMBIA Insurance Corporation is a New York corporation with its
principal place of business at 113 King Street, Armonk, New York. MBIA is one of the nation's
oldest and largest monoline insurers, and provides financial guarantee insurance and other forms
of credit protection, generally on financial obligations which are sold in the new issue and
secondary markets.
9. Defendanl Countrywide Financial Corporation is it Delaware corporation with its
principal executive offices in Calabasas, California. Countrywide Financial, itself or through its
3
subsidiaries, is engaged in mortgage lending und other rcal c~tatc financl'-rl'!(lt~d hU.'iil1~SSl·S.
including mortgage banking, securities OL"lling, and inslIr..incc undcnvriting.
10. Defendant Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of
Countrywide Financial, is a New York corporation with its principal executiw ol1iccs in
Calabasas, California. Countrywide Home originates and services residential home mortgage
loans.
11. Defendant Countrywide Securities Corporation, a wholly-owned subsidiary of
Countrywide Financial, is a Delaware corporation with executive offices in Calabasas, California
and in New York, New York. Countrywide Securities is a registered broker-dealer and
underwrites offerings of mortgage-backed securities.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
12, This Court has jw'isdiction over this proceeding pursuant to CPLR § 30 I,
COWltrywide Home is a New York corporation, and has appointed an agent for service of process
and has consented to the jurisdiction of Courts within the State, In addition, each of Defendants
Countrywide Financial1 COWltrywide Home and Countrywide Securities expressly consented to
the jurisdiction of this Court over contractual and all other claims arising out of the transactions
that give rise to the claims in the Complaint. Each is registered and/or licensed to do business
within the State and has agreed to the jurisdiction of the Courts v.rithin the State over matters
arising out of its activities vvithin the State. Each has offices and regularly transacts business
within the State. Each participated in negotiations and other activities within the State which led
to the transactions that give rise to the claims in the Complaint, and the transactions themselves
occurred within the State.
4
,
13. Venue is proper in this Courl pursuant to CPLI{ ~ 503(1.'). Each or f)dendants
Countrywide- Financial, Countrywide I lome. and Countrywide Sl'cliril ics expn ... 'sl-lly <Igrccd that
the Courts within the County and State or New York arc an appropriate vcnuc lor all actions
arising Qut of the transactions that give risc to the claims in the Complaint. In addition,
negotiations and other substantial activities rdating to the transactions that give fist..: to the claims
in the Complaint occurred within the State.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
I. Countrywide Promotes Itself As a Reputable and Conservative Loan Originator.
14. Co-founded in 1969 by Angelo Mozilo, Countrywide is an industry leader of the
residential mortgage lending industry. As of Manoh 31,2008, Countrywide was the largest
originator of residential mortgage loans in the country, and also the largest servicer of mortgage
loans in the country. In the first quarter of2008 alone, despite a sharp decline in residential
home sales, Countrywide originated $73 billion in mortgage loans. During that same quarter,
Countrywide serviced and administered approximately $1.5 trillion of residentjalloans
originated by itself and other lenders, generating $1.4 billion in revenues.
15. In addition to origination and servicing of residential mortgage loans.
Countrywide, itself or through affiliates, purchases and sells mortgage loans, provides loan
closing services, provides residential real estate and home appraisal services in connection with
loan origination and servicing, manages a captive mortgage reinsurance company, packages and
arranges securitizations of mortgage loan pools, and undel""Nrites public offerings of mortgage~
backed securities in the secondary market.
16. On infonnation and belief, prior to 2004, the substantial majority of mortgage
loans that Countrywide originated each year were traditional long term, fixed-rate, first lien
5
mortgage loans to prime horrowcrs whJch mCllhc guiuL'linl..'s Ii.lr sale In 11ll' Federal National
Mortgage Association ("l,'annie M ae'l) Of the Federal 110m..: I ,tKI',} M nrtgug~ C orporat'loll
("Freddie Mac"). Fannie Mac and Freddie Mac arc authorizt:d to purchase only mortgage luans
that conform to speciJic regulatory guidelines (known in th",' induslfY uS "conforming loans')
Conforming loans, if properly undcnvritten and serviced, historically wert: the most conservative
loans) with the lowest rales of delinquency and default, in the residential mortgage industry.
Mortgage loans which fail to meet the regulatory guidelines arc known in the industry as "non-
conforming loans."
17. Countrywide extolled its conservative Credit Policy, which it proclaimed was
"designed to produce high quality loans through a rigorous pre-loan screening procedure and
post-loan aUditing and appraisal and l.U1derwriting reviews." In its 2004 annual report,
Countrywide summarized the comprehensive standards and procedures of its Credit Policy:
Our Credit Policy establishes standards for the determination of acceptable credit risks. Those standards encompass borrower and collateral quality, underwriting guidelines and loan origination standards and procedures. Borrower quality includes consideration of the borrower's credit and capacity to pay. We assess credit and capacity to pay through ... manual or automated underwriting of additional credit characteristics. Our loan origination standards and procedures are designed to produce high quality loans. These standards and procedures encompass underwriter qualifications and authority levels, appraisal review requirements> fraud prevention, funds disbursement controls, training of our employees and ongoing review of their work ... In addition, we employ proprietary underwriting systems in our loan origination process that improve the consistency of underwriting standards~ assess collateral adequacy and help to prevent fraud, while at the same time increasing produc'tivity.
In addition, CountIYWide described the extensive post~origin.ation Credit Policy procedures that
had been implemented to ensure consistency. accuracy and fraud detection:
In addition to OUf pre~funding controls and procedures, we employ an extensive post-funding quality control process. Our Quality Control Department, under the direction of the Chief Credit Oflicer, is responsible for completing comprehensive loan audits that consist of a re~verit1cation of loan documentation, an in-depth underwriting and appraisal review, and if necessary, a fraud investigation.
6
}
18. Countrywide claimed that its disciplined underwriting standards not only
distinguished it from other lenders in the industry. but rdl~ctcd best-in-class prw::lkc:~; 10 be
emulated. For example, in an investor forum hosted by ('~)Untrywide in Scptcmb..:r 2006, Mozi 10
explained that Countrywide not only led the industry in developing effidencit.'::>, hut also in
responsible lending:
Not only did we drive efficiency in the marketplace, but as an industry leader we served as a role model to others in tenus of responsible lending. We take seriously the role of a responsible lender for all of our constituencies .... To help protect our bond holder customers, we engage in prudent underwriting guidelines. (Emphasis added.)
19. At the Same forum, Sambol added that:
We're extremely competitive in terms of OUr desire to win, and we have a particular focus on offense, which at the same time is supplemented by a strong defense as well. meaning that we have an intense and ongoing focus on share growth while at the same time maintaining a very strong internal control environment and what we believe is best-of-class governance, , , ,[OJur culture is also characterized by a very high degree of ethics and integrity in everything that we do, (Emphasis added,)
II. Countrywide Seeks More Market Share But Pledges Continued Rigorous Underwriting.
20. In or around 2003, there was rising demand on Wall Street for "private label"
securitizations ofnon~contbrming loans. Private label securitizations are arranged and
underwritten by ptivate firms (i.e., not government-sponsored entities) and are comprised of non-
conforming loans that cannot be purchased by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Because they may
be comprised of riskier loans than those meeting Fannie Mae and Freddie MaC'S criteria, private
label securitizations generate higher returns for investors, as well as greater revenues for
originators.
21. Increased securitizations required increased loan origination to generate the
underlying pools of loans. Countrywide pledged, however, that the growth in originations would
7
.'
not compromise its strict underwriting standards. In a Janu~ll')' 2004 call ... vill) an~dys{~" Mo/jlo
announced that Countryvltide~ already thl.: intiu:::{ry 10adcr with nl'i.lrly u J 5% Illan origination
market share) planned to double its market shan.! within four years: "()or goal is market
dominance, and we are talking 30% origination market share by 2008," Mozilu pledged,
however, that Countrywide would target the safest borrowers in this market in order to maintain
its commitment to quality. "'Going/or 30% mortgage share here is fOMlly unrelated to quality of
loans we go after.". There will be no compromise in that as we grow market share. Nor is there a
necessity to do that." (Emphasis added.)
22. Starting in 2004 and accelerating in 2005, Countrywide expanded its origination
and securitization ofriskier lines ofproducts~ including subprime mortgages, interest-only loans,
Pay Option ARMs (an adjustable rate mortgage loan that allows a borrower to make initial
minimum monthly payments less than monthly ac·ctued interest), closed-end second liens
("CES"), and home equity lines of credit ("HELOCs"), with a much broader base of potential
borrowers. A HELOC is a second lien on residential property. The borrower's equity in the
property (i.e .• the value of the property that is not used as collateral for the first lien)
collateralizes a specified line of credit that may be drawn down by the borrower. A CES is also
collateralized by the borrower's equity, but the loan is of a fixed amount Because they are both
second liens, HELOCs and CESs are junior in priority to the first lien. As a consequence, if the
property is foreclosed, the proceeds must be used to fully satisfy the first Hen before the sc-cond
lien is paid.
23 _ At the same time, Countrywide reassured investors and credit enhancers, such as
MBIA, that its underwriting procedures and credit risk management remained highly rigorous.
8
For example, in its 2005 IO~K and thereafter, and incorporated ill thl' Prosp!:elus lil!' each
securitization for which MBIA provided a gU31"'.mtCC, CoulllrywiJl' rcprl'scntl.'cJ th<.ll:
(Countrywide] ensurels1." ongoing access to the s~conJary mortgage murkct by consistently producing quality mortgages and servicing those mortgages ill levels that meet or exceed secondary mortgage market standards .... 1 W Ie have a mujor fi:)CU~ t)J1
ensuring the quality of our mortgage loan production and we make significant investments in personnel and technology in this regard.
24. In particular. Countrywide touted its underwriting guidelines, claiming to
ascertain facts about '''borrower and collateral quality" including applicant assets and liabilities.
income, employment history, and other demographics and personal information, as well as a full
property appraisal. Countrywide claimed that it obtained alJ applicable income, liability, asset,
employment, credit, and property infonnation, on the basis of which it ascertained debt-to-
income ratios (the ratio ofa borrower's total monthly debt obligations to gross monthly income)
and combined loan-to-value ratios (the ratio of the total outstanding value of the senior and
subordinate loans on a property to the value of such property). Because the guidelines are
ostensibly designed to ensure that loans perform over time) Countrywide knew that the quality of
its guidelines-and its adherence to them-woulQ materially affect the risks of investing in or
guaranteeing its securitizations,
25. Throughout Countrywide's expansion, Mozilo consistently represented that
Countrywide would not sacrifice the strict and disciplined underwriting standards that had made
it an industry leader in responsible lending. During a March 15,2005 conference with analysts,
Mozilo responded to a question aboul CountryWide's strategy for increasing market share, and
again assured Countrywide's constituents:
Your question is 30 percent; is that realistic, the 30 percent goal that we set for ourselves 2008? ... Is it achievable? Absolutely ... But I will say this to you, that under no circumstances will Countrywide ever sacrifice sound lending and
9
margins/i)r the sake o/getting fa thaI 30 pan'f1tmarkel sliurI:. (Emphasis added.)
26. Other Countrywide senior oOi<.::(;rs J.:chocd Ihut Countrywide had not, <lnd \V(luld
not, loosen its underwriting standards. For exampk, in an April 2005 conference c;:lll with
analysts, Eric Sicmcki. Countrywide'S: Chief' Financial Officer, responding to a question asking
whether Countrywide had changed its underwriting protocols, said: ") think they 11;leO scores,
combined loan-to-value and debt-to-income ratiosl will remain ... consistent with t.he !irst
quarter and most of what we did in 2004. We don', see any change in our protocol relative /(J
the volume [ofl/oans that we're originating." Sieracki added that, as to the Countrywide-
originated HELOCs: "The credit quality of our home equities should be emphasized here as
well. We are 730 FICO on these home equities. and that's eXTraordinary throughout the
industry" (emphases added).
III. Nature of the SecuritizatioDs at Issue.
27. This case concerns ten RMBS securitizations ofHEWCs and CESs reflecting
over $14 billion ofMortgnge Loans: CWHEQ 2005·E, CWHEQ 2005·1, CWHEQ 2005·M,
CWHEQ 2006-E, CWHEQ 2006-G, CWHEQ 2006·S8, CWHEQ 2007-E, CWHEQ 2007·SI,
CWHEQ 2007·S2, CWHEQ 2007·S3 (together, the "Securitizations").
28. An RMBS is an entity (typically a trust) that issues notes securitized by a pool of
residential mortgage loans. The cashflows from these loans (in the form of payments of interest
and principal) are used to pay obligations on the RMBS notes. A purchase of an RMBS is thus
the purchase of a right to participate in the cashfIows generated by the pool of mortgages.
Because the mortgages are the only collateral supporting the RMBS, their credit quality is of
critical importance to an RMBS noteholder.
10
29. Countrywide acted in several I.:apndtics on (he Sccliriliz<ltions, Ill1,'Uch or whil.:h it
stood to profit First, Countrywide Home originatr..:d or :Jxquired all the M()ftg,agl.' J .oam J~~I" each
Securiti:r..ation, and sold (or otherwise convcYL'c.l) the Mortgage Loans to the Trust!' that issued the
RMBS. Second. Countrywide Securities arranged and underwrote each Sccuriliztltion.
structuring and marketing the transaction as well as making SEC filings. Third. ('oulltrywidc
Home acted as servicer for the Mortgage Loans in each Securitization, contracting with each of
the Trusts that it caused to be created to issue the RMBS.
30. To increase the marketability of the Notes. Countrywide also engaged MBIA to
provide credit enhancement OD the R.M:BS. The credit enhancement-in the form of a guarantee
of repayment of principal and interest for the RMBS notes in each Securitization--..allowed the
guaranteed, or wrapped, tranches ofRMBS to have higher credit quality (reflected by a "AAA"
or equivalent credit rating) than the underlying collateraL Because the trust obligations are
backed by MBIA, in its capacity as insurer, any shortfalls in trust payments of principal or
interest are covered -by MBIA. That allowed Countryvvide to market the Notes on the basjs of
MBIA's then-AAA credit rating, rather than the lower credit quality implied by the collateral and
the RMBS structure alone.
31. For each Securitization, Cowltrywide generally solicited bids from several
monoline insurers, requiring responses within a short time period. Each securitization generally
comprised one or two pools of mortgage loans of between approximately 8,000 and 48,000
mortgage loans. As part of its solicitation of bids, Countrywide enc.ouraged insurers to rely; and
was aware that insurers in fact relied, on COWltrywide's public commitment to conservative
Wlderwriting and historical record of strong loan perfonnance. including lower rates of
delinquencies and defaults than that of most lenders in the industry.
11
32. To induce MBIA to guarantee these Sccuriti:rlltions. Countrywide went well
beyond its representations in each Prospectus regarding its umJerwriling guiddim:s and proi.:L'ss.
It also made a large number orcontntctuaI representations and W<lIT:.mticl:i to MBiA concerning
the origination and quality of the Mortgage Loans, including that the MortgagL' I,oans had bL"Cn
underwritten pursuant to its extensive set of approved guidelines. Countrywide further
represented that the Mortgage Loans would be selected from among the outstanding home equity
loan agreements in its portfolio that met stated criteria, and that "fo]o selection will be made in a
maimer that adversely affects the interests of the Noteholders or 1MBIA)" in the Securitizations.
33. Countrywide backed up its representations by agreeing that, in the event of a
breach of any representation or warranty related to a Mortgage Loan (a "Defective Loan"),
Countrywide would either cure the breach Or repurchase or substitute eligible MQrtgage Loans
for the Detective Loan. Because identifying Defective Loans is itself costly and time-
conswning, this "put-back" remedy was intended to address situations where only a small
nwnber of loans failed to satisfy eligibility requirements. As set forth in greater detail below.
MBIA relied upon Countrywide's guidelines~ representations, and warranties in evaluating the
risks presented by the Securitization, and ill agreeing to guarantee the obligations to the Notes.
34. From 2002 through 2007, MBIA provided credit enhancement in a total of 17
second-tier Countrywide securitizations of mortgage loans. This action concerns the MBIA~
guaranteed Securitizations underwritten by Countrywide for the period from 2005 through 2007,
after Countrywide's adoption of the corrupt practices alleged herein. In an eITort to induce
MBIA to guarantee dIe Securiti7..ations~ Countrywide made available to MBIA, in addition to the
representations alleged above, a summary of its underwriting procedures for each Securitization,
and represented that its underwriting of the Mortgage Loans confonned to its stated underwriting
12
procedures as well as industry standards. Countrywitk pruvtd..:d MHIA with specilic d(lhl point~
for each loan in what is known as a loan tape. The h)all tapt" reported inl()fJllatioll such m; the
loan-to-value ratio (LTV) for each loan and the debt-hl-incomc (1)'1'1) ratio for each bormv'i0r, a.s
well as each borrower's FICO score> which is a measure of creditworthiness. Countrywide also
represented that it was not aware of any reason why a borrower would not be able to repay a
mortgage loan.
35. Countrywide further provided MBIA with shadow credit ratings on the pmposed
pool of mortgage loans intended tor Securitization. On information and belief: Countrywide
solicited the shadow ratings from credit rating agencies based on information and representations
provided by Countrywide as to the credit quality ofthe mortgage loans and the amount of
overcollatera1izatiQll in the deal. All of the Securitizations had shadow ratings of at least BBB
or the equivalent. Absent credit quality rtflected by a shadow rating of at least BBB-, MBIA
would not have agreed to provide credit enhancement.
36. Countrywide also provided, or referenced, the December 14,2004 Prospectus
filed with the SEC in connection with each public offering of mortgage-backed securities
(including the Securitizations). In that Prospectus, Countrywide described its business and
operations, its purportedly disciplined underwriting standards, and the quality of the mortgage
loans it originated. Countrywide also provided Supplemental Prospectuses that would be filed
with the SEC shortly before the securities for each deal were issued to the public. The
Supplemental Prospectuses prDvided more specific infonnation about, among other things, the
Mortgage Loans backing the securities in each Securitization.
37. Countrywide also made regular presentations to MBlA at MBIA's offices in New
York, including on June 23, 2004 and in May 2005, and at Countrywide's offices in California in
13
March 2007, During these meetings, Countrywid!.: louh.::d its expertise ~n1d capahililics in 1n:.111
origination and servicing, and repeatedly represented that its risk management syskms W\.'ff..' stat!.:
of the art-both in its origination of loans and in its servicing of mortgages.
IV. The Contractual Provisions of Each Securitization.
38. Countrywide arranged and securitized each of the ten Sccllriti:l..<ltiol1s through a
similar series of contracts, including: (a) a PUrchase Agreement which provided for the sale of
mortgage loans to a Countrywide affiliate created to effect the securitizations; (b) a Sale and
Servicing Agreement which transferred the mortgage loans to a single purpose Trust, and
confirmed the terms of Countrywide's engagement by the Trust to service the mortgage loans;
(c) a Prospectus and Supplemental Prospectus filed by the Trust, which Countrywide used to sell
the mortgage-backed securities: and (d) a Trust Indenture. which. among other things,
established the rights of holders of securities and the obligations of the Trustee (collectively, the
'~Transaction Documents").
39, Countrywide, the Trust and MBIA then entered into an Insurance Agreement
which provided the terms for the issuance of an MBIA Iinancial guaranty policy (a "Policy") that
would be issued to the Trust. In each transaetion~ the Insurance Agreement incorporated the
representations and warranties and the obligations of the parties in the Transaction Documents.
and gave MBIA the right to rely on representations in the Transaction Documents, to enforce
their tenns, and to exercise remedies for any breach.
40, The Iirst transaction, CWHEQ 2005,E, is described in greater detail below. Each
of the subsequent transactions is substantially similar in every material respect.
14
(a) The Purchafe Agreemen.t
4 L On or abollt August 30, 2005, Countrywide cl1ter~d into the Purchase Agreement
with its affiliate CWHEQ, Inc. C'CWHEQ") for the 2005-E transactioll. ill which Countrywide
agreed to sell the pool of Mortgage Loans to CWHEQ. In the Purchase Agreement
Countrywide made extensive representations and warranties, including representations Lind
warranties relating to the Mortgage Loans in Section 3.02 of the Purchase Agreement (the
"Mortgage Loan Representations"). The representations included that: (i) the mortgage file
relating to each Mortgage Loan was complete; (ii) information provided by Countrywide
regarding the Mortgage Loans was true and correct in ail material respects; (iii) each Mortgage
Loan complied with applicable local, state and federal laws; (iv) the Mortgage Loans,
individually and in the aggregate, complied with underwriting criteri~ such as the ratio of total
unpaid balance ofloans On the mortgaged property to the value of the mortgaged property, the
ratio of borrower debt to income, and borrower credit scores; (v) the nature of tile property was
as specified in the Mortgage Loan; and (vi) Countrywide did not have knowledge of any fact that
would cause a reasonable originator of mortgage loans to conclude that the Mortgage Loan
would not be paid in full when due.
42. The Purchase Agreement provides that, if a Mortgage. Loan Representation was
inaccurate at the time when made, and such inaccuracy materially and adversely affected the
interests ofMBIA, the inaccuracy constitutes a breach regardless of Countrywide's knowledge
of the inaccuracy at the time of the representation, If Countrywide fails to cure a breached
Mortgage Loan Representation, Countrywide can be compelled to cure the breach by
repurchasing each Mortgage Loan that is inconsistent with the Mortgage Loan Representation (a
IIDefective Loan") or by substituting an eligible loan in place of a Defective Loan,
15
(h) The ,\'ale and Servicing Agr(,(,IIIt'11f
43, On or about August 30, 2005, CWIII~Q, ('nunll")'\vidco CWIII:Q Revolving Iloml..'
Equity Loan Trost, St'til':-; 2005-E (the "Trust") and JPMorgnl1 Cha:-;c Bank, N.A. (the "Indenture
Trustee") entered into the Sale and Servicing Agrecment. (,WI lEO agreed to convey all right.
title and interest in the Mortgage Loans to the Trust for the purpose of using the ,Mortgage I,nans
as collateral for asset-backed securities to be sold to investors.
44. The Mortgage Loan Representations were incorporated by referene\: into the Sale
and Servicing Agreement. Like the Purchase Agreement the Sale and Servicing Agreement
states that if a Mortgage Loan Representation was inaccurate al the time it was made, and the
inaccuracy materially and adversely affects the interests ofMBIA, the inaccuracy is a breach of
the applicable representation or warranty even if Count.ry\\ride had no knowledge that the
representation was inaccurate at the time it was made. If Countrywide fails to cure a breached
Mortgage Loan Representation, Countrywide ean be compelled to repurehase each Defective
Loan or substitute an ellgible loan for the Defective Loan.
45. The Sale and Servicing Agreement also defines the obligations of Countrywide
with respect to servicing the Mortgage Loans, including covenants (i) to administer the Mortgage
Loans consistently with industry practiee, (ii) to use reasonable efforts to collect all payments
owed on the Mortgage Loans, and to follow the same collection procedures it follows for
servicing mortgage loans in its own portfolio, and (iii) to allow MBIA access to information
regarding the Mortgage Loans and its rights.
(c) The Prospectus and Supplemental PrOjpeClu$
46. The Prospectus describes Countrywide's business and operations. The Prospectus
provides a description of Countrywide's pwportedly disciplined and conservative underwriting
16
standards as well as a description of the Mortgag!.:' Loans, ilnd advises that a Suppkm~!ltal
Prospectus will be filed with the SEC at the tilll!..' of c;]{.:h oflL'rillg of mortgag!..·-hw:h'd s>:(;uritil.!'}>.
47. The Supplemental Prospecttl:) pnwidcs more specific information about the
Mortgage Loans backing the securities. The Supplelllcnt<iI Prosp(.'Ctus represents thul each
Mortgage Loan was evaluated in accordance with Countrywide's traditional und0rwriting
standards. The Supplemental Prospectus also states that appraisals were conducted on home
equity loans. Although the specific type of appraisal might vary, the appraisals were conducted
by an "independent third-party" appraiser, and "completed on forms approved by Fannie Mae or
Freddie Mac."
(d) The Insurance AgreemenJ
48. MBIA's agreement to provide a financial guarantee policy to the Trust is reflected
in the Insurance Agreement, a contract that was entered into by MBIA, Countrywide, the Trust
and the other parties to the Transaction Documents.
49. On or about August 30, 2005, MBIA, COIilltrywide, CWHEQ, Inc., the Trust, and
the Indenture Trustee entered into the Insurance Agreement with respect to the 2005-E
transaction. In the event that defaults in the Mortgage Loan pool result in a shOltfall of funds for
the Trust to make required payments on the securities, the Trustee is to submit a claim on the
Policy, and MBIA is to fund the shortfall.
50. Under the Insurance Agreement, MBIA has standing to seek recovery for
breaches, and to enforce the obligations o[parties to the other contracts related to the 2005-E
transaction (including contracts to which MBIA is not a party), including the Purchase
Agreement j Sale and Service Agreement, Indenture. Trust Agreement, the Unden:vriting
Agreement, the Securities issued by the Trust, and other documents associated with the
transaction.
17
51. Countrywide expressly represents and warrants in th~ lnsunmcl' !\grl'cmcnt that:
u. The Countrywide Financial Statements arc compktc and correct in all
material respects~ and Countrywide is not aware of any undisclosed contingcnlliabililics that
could reasonably be expected to cause a Material Adverse Change;
b. No practice, procedure or policy in the conduct of business \'iolates any
law, reguJalion, judgment, agreement, order or decree that, if enforced, reasonably could be
expected to result in a Material Adverse Change;
c. Neither the Transaction Documents nor other material infonnation relating
to the Mortgage Loans, the operations of Countrywide (including servicing or origination of
loans) or the financial condition of Countrywide. Or any other information furnished to MBIA~
contains any statement of a material fact which was untrue or misleading in any material adverse
respect when made; and
d. The offer and sale of the Securities complies with all securities laws~ and
the Prospectus and Supplemental Prospectus do not contain any untrue statement of a material
fact and do not omit to state a material fact.
52. Countrywide also agreed to perfonn various oblig.tions throughout the tenn of
the insllrdl1ce Agreement, including the following:
a. Countrywide shall allow MBIA access to infonnation, including, on .an
annual basis as well as in the event of a Material Adverse Change or default: (i) to inspect books
and records relating to the Securities, the obligations, and the transaction; (ii) to discuss the
affairs, finances and accounts with corporate officers, and (iii) to discuss the affairs, finances and
accounts with their independent accountants;
18
b. Countrywide shall pClform such ~\dj()lls as an.: required by or provided il1
the Sale and Servicing Agreemcnt~
c. Countrywide shall not take any action, or 1~li! 10 wke tmy uc1ion, if such
could reasonably be expected to result in a material adverse chang.c in ability to perform
obligations under the Transaction !)ocuments; and
d_ Except as otherwise permitted, Countrywide shall not alter or amend any
Mortgage Loan, collection policies or charge-off policies in a manner that materially adversely
affects MBIA ,
53. Under the Insurance Agreement, an Event of Dcfault is defined to include a
breached representation or warranty, or a failure to materially perfonn an obHgatioIl, by a party
to any Transaction Document.
54, Like CWHEQ 2005-E, the other nine transactions (CWHEQ 2005-1, CWHEQ
2005-M, CWHEQ 2006-E, CWHEQ 2006-G, CWHEQ 2006-88, CWHEQ 2007-E, CWHEQ
2007-S I, CWHEQ 2007-S2, and CWHEQ-S3) were securitized through the use of similar types
of agreement<; that contained substantially similar tenns, representations, warranties andlor
obligations. In addition, Countrywide, the Trust, and MBIA entered into similar Insurance
Agreements incorporating the representations, warranties and obligations of the parlies sel forth
in the Transaction Documents. The dates of the remaining nine transactions are as follows:
CWHEQ 2005-1
CWHEQ 2005-M
CWHEQ 2006-E
CWHEQ 2006-G
CWHEQ 2006-S8
December 28, 2005
December 29, 2005
June 29, 2006
August 30, 2006
December 28, 2006
19
CWIIEQ 2007-E May J 1_ 20117
CWIIEQ 2007-81 Fehruary :::X. :2007
CWIIEQ 2007-82 Mardi }O_ 2007
CWHEQ 2007-S3 March 30_ 2007
v. The Countnrwidc Mortgage Loans Show I<:xccssive Defaults and J ncurahle Breaches.
55. Starting in the summer 0[2007, the Sccurili:.r..alions began experiencing an
increase in delinquencies. A material increase in delinquencies and subsequent chal'gc~ons did
not occur until November 2007, Because of the inordinate number of Joan delinquencies, the
total cash flow from the mortgage payments in several of the Securitizations was insufficient for
the Trusts to meet their payment obligations to holders of the RMBS notes. These deficiencies
caused the Trusts to submit claims on MBIA 's insurance policies, demanding that MB1A cover
the shortage of funds. Many ofthe delinquent loans resulted in defaults, which led to further
Josses on the loans. despite the availability offorecIosure and other remedies. These defaulted
loans were subsequently charged off, increasing MBIA's exposure to even greater claims.
56. By the fourth quarter of2007, the Securitizations experienced Significant
deterioration in enhancement levels. As these events occurred, MBIA diligently complied with
its obligations under the Insurance Agreements, and in November 2007, paid claims of $2.49
million on the CWHEQ 2006-E transaction and $11.3 million on the CWHEQ 2006-G
transaction. As of September 2008, while reserving its rights, MBTA has paid over $459 million
on the Policies issued by MBIA that covered Countrywide's Securitizations. As result of the
problems in connection with the loans, MBIA also made a series of requests for approximately
19,000 loan files from Countrywide for review in order to determine the cause of defaults.
20
57. Despite its contractual obligation to do so under the Tnmsactioll J)ocullK'nts,
however, Countrywide has failed promptly to provide responses and inf<m11<.lIiOIl 011 all ortht:
requested loan files to MBrA. To the contrary, Countrywide has stonewalled MBJA's u!.!t:c$s and
review of these files by persistent delay and refusal to provide complete informHtion. Moreover.
the loan files it has provided, sometimes many monlhs after MBIA's request, ollen have been
incomplete, TIlis has forced MBIA to make supplemental requests regarding the same loan Jiles.
Countrywide's responses to these supplemental requests likewise have been dilatory. I~vcn now,
over seven months since MBIA made its first requests, Countrywide stili has not provided all of
the requested files.
58. But even the loan files obtained to date reveal substantial breaches of Mortgage
Loan Representations, including an extraordinarily high incidence of material deviations from
the underwriting guidelines Countrywide represented it would follow. A material discrepancy
from underwriting guidelines is very serious, and means that the loan should never have been
made. For example, the loan application may: lack key documentation, such as a verification of
borrower assets or income; include an invalid 01' incomplete appraisal; demonstrate fraud by the
borrower on the face of the application; or reflect that any of borrower income, FICO score, or
debt, or DII or CLTV, fails to meet stated Cowltrywide guidelines (without any permissible
exception).
59. In fact, MBIA's re-underwriting review has revealed that almost 90% of defaulted
or delinquent loans in the Countrywide Securitizations show material discrepancies. ll1at high
level of material discrepancies clearly evidences Countrywide's deliberate or reckless disregard
of the very underwriting guidelines it touted to sell its loans and the Securitizations. and to
induce MBIA to issue its guarantees. The tight correlation between material discrepancies and
21
defaults/delinquencies further makes plain that Countrywide's misconduct is hoth ;\ stthshmtial
and direct cause of the non-perfonnancc or Mortgage Loans in the Sl'curitiztlti()t)s. W1J -bCC.lllSC
large nwnbers of delinquencies or defaults trigger MBJA~s payment obligntions under the
guarantees---a proximate cause ofMBJA 's harm.
60. On May 9, and August 7, 2008, MBIA provided notices orbrcach or Mortgage
Loan Representations relating to the Defective Loans from MBIA's initial reviews. Pursuant to
the remedies provided in the Transaction Documents. MBJA demanded that Countrywide
repurchase the following Defective Loans:
CWHEQ 2005-E 362 loans with an original unpaid principal balance of$27.6 million,
CWHEQ 2005-1 476 loans with an original unpaid principal balance of $41.7 million.
CWHEQ 2006-E 569 loans with an original unpaid principal balance of$61.4 million.
CWHEQ 2006-G 489 loans with an original unpaid principal balance of$57 million.
CWHEQ 2006-S8 85 loans with an original unpaid principal balance 0[$5.6 million.
CWHEQ 2007-E l3lloans with an original unpaid principal balance of$13.9 million.
CWHEQ 2007-SI 114 loans with an original unpaid principal balance 0[$10.1 million.
CWHEQ 2007 -S2 32 loans with an original unpaid principal balance of$3.3 million.
CWHEQ 2007-S3 34 loans with an original unpaid principal balance 0[$33 million,
Toml: 1,192 loans with an original unpaid principal balance of $224 million.
22
Significantly, the Defective Loans run across Countrywide's SL't:uritizatiollS Ihllll 2005-()7,
demonstrating the consistency ofCounlrywidc's disregard for it$ own underwriting guidelines
during this period. Further, based upon thc extraordinarily high incidC:l1cc of Hwtcrial
discrepancies in the loan files reviewed to dale. the trut: number of Defedivc I,oalls in lhe
Securitizations is far higher than the 2,292 loans already identilicd by MiliA.
61. MBIA's initial notices reflect Countrywide's material discrepancies in two
primary respects: (i) that each Defective Loan "was originated in accordance with the Sponsor's
underwriting guidelines"-where in fact the Defective Loans had debHo-income ratios or
combined loan-to-value ratios exceeding maximum guideline levels, Or (ii) that the "Sponsor had
no knowledge of any fact that would have caused a reasonabJe originator of morlgage loans to
conclude on the date of origination of each Mortgage Loan that each such Mortgage Loan would
not be paid in full when due"~where in fact the Defective Loans were approved on the basis of
unverified borrower stated income that was patently unreasonable. Each breach described in the
Notice materially and adversely affects the interests ofMBlA.
62. Notwithstanding MiliA's Notices, Countrywide to date has failed to repurchase
or replace any of the Defective Loans. As alleged below, Countrywide was aware that the Loans
were Defective at the time they were sold to the Trusts-and thus the loans never should have
been included in the Securitizations at all. Moreover, even if Countrywide had not been so
aware, the Transaction Documents provide that the breaches must be cured within no more than
90 days of written notice. MBIA provided notice that $136.5 million of these loans constituted
Defective Loans on May 9, 2008, well over 90 days ago. Any cure period for the $136.5 million
in loans, even if available, has passed. Countrywide'S improper selection and failure to
23
repurchase the Defective Loans therefore constitutes an EveJl! ur rk'rauit under the n:srl~ctiye
Insurance Agreements.
63. In addition, Countrywide Home has breached its obligations under each oCthe
Sale and Servicing Agreements-which breaches also constitute Event:;; of Default under thl'
related Insurance Agreements. Fundamentally. Countrywide has I~lilcd to provide service and
adm.inistration of the Mortgage Loans consistent with the standards in the industry, as
contractually required. Countrywide has failed to allocate sufficient resources to service and
administer the Mortgage Loans, with (1) inadequate staff to address custOmer inquiries and to
conduct follow-up efforts and call out programs to delinquent borrowers, and (ii) inadequate
resources for work-out plans and updated software programs. TIlat failure is exacerbated by its
break-neck origination of loans in disregard of its own undenvriting guidelines, which led to an
extraordinary increase in delinquencies, defauJts~ foreclosures, bankruptcies, litigation and other
proceedings-aIl of which place greater demands on COlmtrywide Home itself in its capacity as
servicer.
64. Countrywide Home also has exploited its role as agent for the owner of the
Mortgage Loans for its own gain and at the expense ofMBlA. For example, Countrywide has
continued to service loans-and charge servicing fees as well as late fees that it retains as
compensation-long after any reasonable expectation that defaulted Mortgage Loans could still
result in payments. It is standard in the industry to charge off a loan after it has been delinquent
for 180 days, as Countrywide itself acknowledged on page S·9 of the Supplemental Prospectus
forCWHEQ 2007·SI, in which it defined a charged·offloan as one that had been delinquent for
more than 180 days. In some cases, however~ Countrywide has continued to service Mortgage
Loans more than 270 days after the last payment on amounts owed on the Mortgage Loans had
24
been received. Countrywide further has faik-d to scrviCi! the Mortgage Loans consistently with
the standards of the industry, including, for exam pl\:, rdusing to accept partiul puyml..'nls hom
borrowers (ostensibly because of the added accounling and administrative burdens ofaccounting
for partial payments). COlUltrywide has also charged 011' loans where the borrower hJS made
payments after the date of the charge-off, (0 the direct detriment ofMBIA.
65. Countrywide Home's improper servicing of the loans has enabled it to rcap the
benefit of additional service and late payment fees without bearing the risk of losses from
delinquencies and defaults, all at the expense ofMBlA, which it fraudulently induced (o.cocpt
that risk.
VI. Countrvwide's Pattern and Practice of Fraud.
66. At the time of the Securitizations. Countrywide knew that its statements regarding
its underwriting guidelines and credit risk management process were false, and Countrywide had
nO intention of abiding by its contractual representations and warranties. Under the direction of
Mozilo and Sambol. Countrywide adopted a new "corporate culture" of writing as many
mortgage loans as possible-<md at the highest interest rates and fees possible-regardless of the
creditworthiness or evident fraud of the borrower, Once Mozilo and Sambol had detennined that
profit growth through securitization required accelerating loan origination, Countrywide
motivated its loan officers and external brokers to drive up loan volume regardless of material
deviations from stated underwriting guidelines.
67, Countryvvide's deteriorating undetwriting practices enabled loan applications that
reflected blatant borrower frdud, inadequate documentation, missing verifications (for example,
of borrower assets and income), title defects, excessive DTl ratios, inadequate FICO scores, and
25
other material violations of guidelines. These violations mZ\Lk Coulltrywide's rdated
representations regarding the Mortgage: Loans materially Jidsc and misk·ading.
68. The incidence of material discrepancies is so cXlraordinarily high·~-clo$c to 90
percent of the applications reviewed by MBJA for currently non-performing loans~~that it could
not have been the result of human error. Instead, Countrywide was clearly ignoring sound
underwriting methodology, and it knew that its failure to follow its underwriting guidelines
would result in the origination of loans in which the bOrrOwer would not be able to rcpay.
69. For each of the ten Securitizations, these failures to adhere to the underwriting
guidelines fundamentally changed the risk profile that COtmtrywide represenled 10 MBIA and, as
Countrywide knew, raised the likelihood oflosses through defaul[s.-and thus payments by
MBIA as the credit enhancement provider-to lcvelsthat far exceeded the value of the premiums
payable to MBIA.
70. These material breaches further call into question the integrity of the shadow
ratings assigned to the collateral pools by the ratings agencies. Each of these pools was assigned
a rating ofBBB- or the equivalent. Yet the presence of such a large percentage of loans that fail
to meet underwriting guidelines renders those ratings false and misleading because they
materially understate the true risk profile of the pool. Countrywide, as originator of the loans,
knew but failed to disclose these facts either to MBIA or to the ratings agencies. One of the
consequences of Countrywide's material breaches was that the amount of overcollateralization is
insufficient to protect MBIA from delinquencies and defaults in the mortgage pools, as
Countrywide was well aware. Had MBlA been aware of these facts, it would not have entered
into any of these tnUlsactions.
26
Countrywide Misrepresented its Acllw/ (/1u/l'r1l'I'itillg ,\'fandards
71. Countrywide promoted the Secliritizatiotls hased in lurge purt on Counll')'widl'"s
reputation for disciplined underwriting standards, its cUlllmitment to high quality mortgl.lg~ loans
to prime borrowers, and its comprehensive Credit PoliL:Y. COllntrywide intentionally induced
MBIA to believe that the same commitment, expertise and practices, and specifically the
disciplined application of Countrywide's Credit Policy, would be applied to the Mortgage Loans.
72. Countrywide, however, had adopted an aggressive strategy to drive up revenues,
which prompted significant changes to its underwriting standards and other aspects of its Credit
Policy. Countrywide knew that these changes, both in formal policy and in practical application,
would result in origination of mortgage loans that were materially inconsistent with its
representations. By contrast, MBIA was deprived of material information, and therefore never
had the opportunity to make such a determination.
73. Countrywide also adopted policies and practices that reduced their relevance. On
infonnation and belief. Countrywide's senior management approved compensation plans that
offered incentives tor new mortgage loan originations, with higher incentives for riskier
nonprime mortgage loans. According to the Attorney General ofCalifomia, Countrywide's
senior management imposed intense pressure on underwriters to approve mortgage loans, in
some instances requiring underwriters to process 60 to 70 mortgage loan applications in a single
day and to justifY each rejection. This created an incentive not to review loans thoroughly but
instead simply to approve them. Senior management expanded the authority of underwriters and
other employees to granl exceptions to mortgage loans that faiJed to meet Countrywide's
underwriting standards, which made it easier to accept a mortgage loan and move on.
74. On information and beliefj Mozilo and Sambol authorized the establishment of
the Structured Loan Desk in Plano, Texas, which was created specifically to grant underwriting
27
exceptions for nonprime mortgage loan applicutions. According to the Cali j()fllia Attorney
General's complaint against Countrywide and Mnzilo, bascd on information provided hy tI
fonner COtUltrywide employee, during 2006, th .... Struclured Loan Desk procl'sscd 15.00010
20.000 mortgage loan applications a month, which represented approximately 75% to 10(% of all
mortgage loans actually originated.
Countrywide ,Failed to Disclose [he EX1en1to Which Fraudulent Applk:alions Were Processed Through Reduced Documentation Application Programs
75. Countrywide adopted reduced documentation application programs which excuse
qualified borrowers from the general requirement of submitting documentation to confirm
income and assets, Countrywide itself has publicly admitted that the failure to maintain rigorous
standards for such loans will result in higher delinquencies. In a July 2007 call with analysts,
Johu McMurray, Countrywide's Chief Risk Officer, acknowledged that the reduced
docwnentation programs lead to higher delinquencies absent adequate controls:
~~[D]ocwnentation matters. The less docwnentation, the higher the serious delinquency, all else
equal."
76. But Countrywide failed to use a.dequat.e contr-ols. While it claimed these "low~
doc)) applications were designed for self.-employed professionals and business owners with high
credit scores, it made its reduced documentation applications widely available without careful
oversight, a material risk it failed to disclose to MBIA or the market at large.
77. For example, Countrywide falsely represented that it verified employment and
current salary for every loan applicant before approving a Mortgage Loan. In the Supplemental
Prospectus, Countrywide represented that even for loan applications under the Super-
Streamlined Documentation Program. Countrywide obtained telephonic verification of
empJoyment, which~ according to the Prospectus, "is obtained from an independent source
28
(typically the borrower's employer) landl whit.:h verification n.:porls. mnollg other things, the
length of employment with thal organization and 'he borrower ',\' ('//rteJl/ .mlllry" (emphasis
added). That representation was false. MBIA later discovered thut C~HU1trywide often did 110t
obtain independent verification of income thr borrowers who applied under the Supcr
Streamlined Documentation Program, which constituted a significant percentage oflbe total
number ofMm1gage Loans.
78. Countrywide also approved Mortgage Loans in which the borrower's stated
income was Wlfeasonable on its face and could not have been accurately reported. Countrywide
was required to exercise meaningful oversight, On infonnation and belief: pursuant to its Credit
Policy and the standards in the industry. It is standard practice among mortgage lenders
genemlly (0 try to verify employment income that appears suspicious. A borrower who inflates
his income is less likely to be able to repay his loan, which leads to a higher incidence of
delinquencies and defaults in the Mortgage Loans, to the direct detriment of MBIA. Despite the
prevalence of a substantial number of loan applications that contained highly suspicious reported
employment income, CQuntrywide failed to take sufficient, if any, corrective action.
79. On infonnation and belief, Countrywide's seDlor management was aware that
Countrywide loan officers participated in submitting fraudulent applications through the reduced
documentation application programs. According to Mark Zachary, a fonner Countrywide
executive who has filed suit against Countrywide for wrongful termination, in and around 2006,
Countrywide loan officers engaged in a practice known within Countrywide as "flipping" an
application. Loan officers who learned that a loan application submitted under the Full
Docwnentation Program was tmlikcly to be approved would ~'flip" the application for
consideration under a reduced documentation application program. According to Zachary,loan
29
officers would coach applicants on the level of employment iIH.:O!lli; needed to quali!"y for a
mortgage loan, and then would accept a revised loan application c:.'ont<-lining an inflated rl'l1l,lrtcd
income. The loan officer would submit the revised loan appllcl.ltiot) under a reduced
docwnentation program for consideration by the subprimc mortgage Joun operations unit in
Plano, Texas, According to Zachary. he complained to Countrywide's regional management, but
his complaints were ignored.
Countywide Misrepresented That if Obtained independent Apprai~illls
80. 1n the Supplemental Prospectus. Countrywide represented that one or more
appraisals were obtained for nearly every Mortgage Loao. The type of appraisal obtained for a
Mortgage Loall varied; however, Countrywide assured MBiA and others that every appraisal
was detennined "on the basis for an originator-approved, independent third-party, fee-based
appraisal."
81. On infonnation and belief, Countrywide's representations that the Mortgage
Loans were appraised by independent third-parties were also untrue. Countrywide regularly
engaged appraisers which were affiliated with Country\:vide, including, on information and
belief, appraisers that were owned or controlled by Countrywide, either directly or indirectly
through intemlediate subsidiaries and/or subject to influence by Countrywide, This
misrepresentation caused hann to MBIA because it created a conflict of interest for
Countrywide, As originator and securitizer of the loans, Countrywide had an incenti ve to inflate
the value of properties if that inflation would allow a loan to be approved when it otherwise
would not be. But loans based on inflated appraisals are more likely to default and less likely to
produce sufficient assets to repay the second lien holder in foreclosure. both of which directly
hann the credit enhancement provider. An independent appraisal is necessary to ensure that
appraisals are not inflated.
30
VII. Countrywide's Corrupt Practices Arc Revealed.
82. The impact of the Mozilo-Sambol plan on Countrywide has been u di~aSICr.
Countrywide's market capitalization declined by more than 90% injllst one year, losing $25
billion in value. Bank of America has now acquired Countrywide for just 27%1 or Countrywide's
stated $15.3 billion book value.
83. The scope and breadth of Countrywide's fraudulent schemes and other unlawful
conduct have prompted a substantial number of public and private inquiries, investigations and
actions. The actions are based, in part, upon actions and misconduct by Countrywide that arc
inconsistent \\iitb its representations, warranties and covenants in the Insurance Agreements.
84. 011 information and belief, the Department of lustice aod the SEC are
investigating potential securities fraOOs in the securitizations of mortgage loans and offerings of
mortgage-backed securities in the secondary market, as well as allegations that false aod
misleading disclosures were made to influence the stock trading price and allegations of insider
trading by Mozilo and Sambal.
85. A number of States and municipalities have announced investigations of
Countrywide's lending practices, and several commenced actions against Countrywide,
including:
a. In People of the State of California v. Countrywide Financial Corp., the
Attorney General for the State of California has filed a civil action on behalf of Countrywide
borrowers in California against Countrywide, Mozilo and Sambol, asserting statutory claims for
false advertising and unfair competition based on a plan by MoziIo and Sambol to increase the
volume of mortgage loans for securitization without regard to borrower creditworthiness.
31
b. In People (?ltl1l! Stale (~r Illinois v. CoUnl!:J'll,it/e Filllllldaf ('orp., lh-e
Attorney General for the State of Illinois has filed a civil suit on bdlaJ r or Illinois borrowers
against Countrywide and Mozilo, and asserts state consumer prolC'ctioll and unJ~lir competition
statutory claims, alleging that beginning in or around 2004, Coulltryvvidc engaged in unfair and
deceptive practices, including loo::;ening underwriting standards, structuring unfair loan products
with risky features, and engaging in misleading marketing and sales practices.
c. In State a/Connecticut v. Countrywide Finandal Corp., the Connecticut
Insurance Commissioner commenced a civil action asserting that Countrywide violated state
unfair and deceptive practices statutory law by deceiving consumers into obtaining mortgage
loans for which they were not suited and could not afford.
d. In Office of the Attorney General for the Slate of Florida v. Countrywide
Financial Corp., the Florida Attorney General commenced a civil action against Countrywide
and Mozilo, asserting state unfuir practices statutory claims, alleging that since January 2004,
Countrywide promoted a deceptive scheme to originate subprime mortgage loans to unqualified
. borrowers. and a related fraudulent scheme to sell securities. The Attorney General alleges that
Countrywide violated state statutory lender laws by falsely representing that Countrywide
originated each mortgage loan in accordance with its underwriting guidelines and that each
borrower had the ability to repay the mortgage loan. The Attorney General also asserts state
securities law claims, alleging that Countrywide sold mortgage-backed securities based on
fraudulent misrepresentations.
e. In Stale a/Washington v. Countrywide fInancial Corp., the Washington
Attorney General filed a civil action asserting that Countrywide violated state anti-discrimination
laws in 2005 and 2006 by engaging in racially discriminatory lending.
32
f. In Slate (J{'Indiana v. COUnll}'l1'it/1' Fil1cmdal ('orp., the St<ltc or Indi'lIla
filed a civil acti(lJ1 asserting {hal Countrywide violalt:d the state's lInn,!r and d(;ccptivc practices
law from 2005 through 2008 by deceiving consumers into ub(uining 1ll00igagc loans lor whkh
they were not suitc:d and could not afford.
g, In Stale of West Virginia v. Coullfryw;d" Financial Corp .. (hc West
Virginia Attorney General has asserted civil claims t-lgainst Countrywide alleging violations of
state unfair competition statutes.
h. In City olCleveland v. Counlr,plvide Financial Corp .. the City has asserted
claims against Countrywide for, among other things, extending loans to horrowers it knew could
not afford to repay them.
i. In City a/San Diego v, Countrywide Financial Corp., the City has
assened claims against Countrywide for engaging in predatory lending practices in violation of
consumer protection statutes.
86. The Depamnent of Justice and the U.S. Trustees for federal bankruptcy courts in
several judicial districts, including the Districts of Rhode Island, Western Pennsylvania, Texas,
Florida and Georgia, have commenced investigations of Countrywide's alleged fraudulent
foreclosure practices. For example, in the Western District of Pennsylvania, on information and
belief, within the last year, Countrywide'S practices were tmder investigation in connection with
at least 300 deblors' proceedings in that district. Similarly, the Assistant U.S. Trustee for the
District of Rhode Island, in testimony about his investigation, explained that after reviewing
cases filed sinc·e 2002, "we have a specific and grave concern that Countrywide" is trying to
obtain money and property from debtors "under false pretenses," The U,S, Trustee for the
District of Georgia filed suit against Countrywide, and likewise noted: "Countrywide's failure to
33
ensure the accuracy of its pleadings and Ut:COllnts in this case is flot Wl isoli\tl.:d illddcnL, ." In
recent years, COWltrywide and its representatives have becn sunctioncd for liIillg in!lccura1l'
pleadings and other similar abuses within the bankruptcy system."
87. In addition, a number of privute actions have been commcoced against
Countrywide, including shareholder actions challenging the accuracy and completeness of
Countrywide'S statements in and at'{)Wld the period between 2004 and 2007, pt:lrticularly
allegations that Cotmtrywide failed to disclose the expansion of its origination of subprimc and
other higher-risk mortgage loans; and consumer actions challenging Countrywide's lending
practices,
VIII. MBlA Has Been Substantially Damaged by Countrywide's Fraud.
88. Countrywide's misconduct bas caused mauifold bann to MBIA. Because
Countrywide originated and sold to the Securitizations an extremely large number of Mortgage
Loans that materially failed to comply with its underwriting guidelines, the number of
delinquencies and defaults in those Securitizations has been extremely high. as those loans were
therefore made to borrowers who were unlikely to be able to repay. Yet, despite its knowledge
of these material breaches ofits underwriting guidelines, and MBIA's notices to that effect with
respect to the first sets of files reviewed (for $136.5 million and $87.4 million), Countrywide has
refused to repurchase those loans) contrary to its clear contractual obligations,
89. In addition, tbe delinquenc,jes and defaults those loans have suftered have greatly
reduced Ibe casbflows available to pay notebolders, aud the levels of overeollatemlization have
not been sufficient to absorb those losses. As a direct consequence, MBIA has been forced
through the Insurance Agreements to pay those shortfalls to the Trusts~ resulting in hundreds of
34
millions of dollars oflossc$ to MBIA. MBL\ '::; losses bcar]}o rl'asonahk rl'ialiollship to the
risks that MBIA intended to assume or lhl.! premiums p:.tid by COlllllrywiul.:.
90, As a direct result of Countrywide's misn:prcscntations anJ brcadu:s of contract.
MBIA is therefore exposed to enOnTIOUS risks of payments under the Insurance Agreements for
which it is not being adequately compensated. This exposure h<1.':> decreased MIJIA '$ revenues
significantly, forced it to take substantial reserves, and caused it to suOer other losses.
35
CAUSlcS OF ACTION
FIRST CAliSE OF ACTION (FRAUD)
91. MBfA incorporates by reference ulllilL' il.)fcgoing allegations <IS though Illll}' set
tbrth herein.
92. This is a claim for fraud against Countrywide.
93. As set forth above, Countrywide has made unlwc statements of material fact and
has omitted to state material facts necessary in order to make the statements, in light of the
circumstances under which they were made, not misleading.
94. Countrywide'S business primarily involved residential mortgage banking.
Countrywide Financial, COWltry'Wide Home. and Countrywide Securities each had a distinct and
specific role in the administration of a securitization of a portfolio of mortgage loans.
a. Defendant Countrywide Financial is engaged primarily in the residential
mortgage banking business. As part of its business, Counuywide Financial is responsible for the
origination, purchase, securitization, and servicing of residential mortgage loans across the
United States. As the corporate parent of Countrywide Home and Countrywide Securities, two
wholly-owned subsidiaries. Countrywide Financial directed the activities of Countrywide Home
and Countrywide Securities.
b. Defendant Countrywide Home-which advertises itself as ~~the nation's
leading independent home loan lender"-is specifical1y responsible for the production and
servicing of residential mortgage loans through a variety of channels on a national scale.
c. Both Defendants Countrywide Financial and Countrywide Home are
responsible for selecting the mortgage loans for securitization. generally selecting from among
36
mortgage loans that had been originated by Countrywide Home, and also selecting from among
mortgage loans acquired from other mortgage lenders. Additionally, Defcndanl ('ollotrywide
Home is responsible for transferring the mortgage loans into the Trusts lor ~L'cul"ilization, and
entering into servicing agreements with the Trusts to service the mortgage IO~IIl$.
d. Defendant Countrywide Securities is a brokcr~dcalcr lhat primarily
specializes in underwriting and tTading in residential mortgage-backed securities. These
securities are then sold in the national market. As such, Countrywide Securities is responsible
for underwriting and managing the offering of each Trust's securities to buyers in the secondary
mortgage market.
e. The Trusts distribute payments on the mortgage loans collected and
remitted by Countrywide Home to the securities holders. Each Trust, along willI Countrywide
Home, also entered into the Insurance Agreement with the credit enhancer" MBIA, who
guaranteed the obligations of each Trust to the securities holders. The Trusts are responsible for
filing claims against MBIA's insurance policies in the event of shortfalls in principal or interest
payments.
95. As part ofCoWltrywide's fraud, Countrywide Financial and Countrywide Home
expanded their origination of mortgage loans in order to increase overall origination revenues, as
well as to increase the inventory of mortgage loans available to securitize and sell in the
secondary mortgage market. Many oflhese mortgage loans had significant but undisclosed
credit risk, in violation of Countrywide's underwriting guidelines and standards.
96, Countrywide Home then transferred the portfolio of mortgage loans originated to
the Trust. Through the Trust, CowltIywide Securities, securitized the mortgage loans, and then,
through offerings of securities, ollloaded the risks associated with the mortgage loans that
37
COlU1tryv.ride Home had originatcd. Although thl' securities m.:n: l'nll,lkralizcd hy Il1l' risk
challenged mortgage loans, Countrywide SccuriLks murkt:tcd Ik ~C'n!riliC'~ by rruuuuk'lllly
representing that the mortgage loans had been originated consistently with ('oul1try\vidL'
Financial and Countrywide I lome's traditional underwriting standards, and the strength of their
reputation for conservative lending practices and high quality loans.
97. A critical component of the fraud required the procurement of credit cnhanct':tllcnt
on the securitization, including from MBIA, as described in detail above. Countrywide needed
credit enhancement to improve marketability and reduce intereslliabilities of the securities, and
importantly to further disperse the risks of defaults on the mortgage loans among the investors in
the secondary mortgage market. Although Countrywide still held the residuals, it had elTectively
transferred the risks of default through securitization, and therefore it was protected from the
impact of mortgage loan defaults. further, the higher credit rating obtained through credit
enhancement allowed Countrywide to sell a greater number of securities in a wider market. By
obtaining credit enhancement, usually by fraudulently misrepresenting the risk profile of the
portfolio of mortgage loans to the credit enhancer, Countrywide transferred economic risk of
defaults on the mortgage loans, generally at a fraudulently low premium, and improved the
marketability and pricing of the securities. The proceeds from the offering of securities we·re
used to finance new originations of mortgage loans, thereby further perpetuating the fraud,
98. In an etfort to fraudulently induce MBIA to provide credit enhancement for each
of the ten securitizations, Countrywide made the following representations with respect to and at
the time of execution of each Insurance Agreement and that, inter alia, were untrue:
38
u. All of the Mortgage '.oans had bc,,'n I.:valuated pursuant tt> ('tHlIIlt) \vide
Financial and Countrywide Home's underwriting standards and policies and complk'd with ,Ill
applicable local, state and federal laws;
b, Countrywide did not have knowledge of any fact that would haw caused a
reasonable originator to conclude that a borrower would not be able to repay the loan;
c. Each of the Mortgage Loalls hud btien evaluated pursuant to a meaningful
application of Countrywide's undenvriting standards, c..;ollducted in good failh, and lhallhc
Mortgage Loan Schedule accurately reflected Countrywide's good failh belief as [0 lhe
underwriting criteria of the Mortgage Loans;
d. Countrywide disclosed to MBIA its underwriting guidelines, including
any material changes to the guidelines;
e. Each mortgaged property had been appraised by an independent third-
party appraiser;
f. Countrywide Home obtained. or least sought to obtain, verification of
employment and current salary for each Mortgage Loan borrower; and
g. Countrywide operated in compliance with all relevant federal, state and
locallaws~ regulations and rules,
99. On numerous occasions, between at least 2005 and the present, Countrywide
knowingly and with the intent to defraud, caused its employees and agents to submit materially
false and misleading mortgage loan documentation to MBIA in order to procure credit
enhancement.
100. Countrywide Home delivered to MBIA materially false and misleading loan
documentation, including requests for bids, loan tapes, and Transaction Documents, for each of
39
the below Securitizations insured by MBIA. Among other things, ('oulltry",idc 1100111 . .'·S
representations regarding the Mortgage '.oans, including information :)w.:h as the loan-til-value
ratio, the debt-lo-income ratio, and the borrower's FICO score, were iH<llerially raise and
misleading.
a. On August 2, 2005, David Andersen of Countrywide Ilome sent MB IA a
materially false and misleading request for bids for the 2005-E transaction. including a materially
false and misleading 200S-E loan tape, bye-mail.
b. On November 4, 2005, Garrett Galati of Countrywide Home sent MBiA a
materially false and misleading request for bids for the 2005-1 transaction, including a materially
false and misleading 2005-1 loan tape~ bye-mail.
c, On December 12.2005, Garrett Galati of Countrywide Home sent MBIA
a materiaUy false and misleading request for bids for the 20()S-M transaction, including a
materially false and misleading 2005-M loan tape, bye-mail.
d. On May 29, 2006 Garrett Galati of Countrywide Home sent MBIA a
materially false and misleading request for bids for the 2006-E transaction, including a materially
false and misleading 2006-E loan tape. bye-maiL
e. On July 27,2006 Garrett Galati of Countrywide Home sent MBIA a
materiaUy false and misleading request for bids for the 2006-G transactiol~ including a
materially false and misleading 2006-G loan tape, bye-mail.
f. On December 4, 2006 Garrett Galati of Countrywide Home sent MBIA a
materially false and misleading request for bids for the 2006~S8 transaction, including a
materially false and misleading 2006-S8 loan tape. bye-mail.
40
g. On February 15,2007 Garrett (jalati of( 'tllUllrywidt: Ilome Sl'nt MiliA a
materially false and misleading request for bids for lhe 2007-S I transaction, including II
materially false and misleading 2007-S1 loan tape, by c~maiL
h. On March 13.2007 Garretl Galati tlf('ountrywidl' I fome sent MBI;\ <I
materially false and misleading request lor bids for the 2007 -S2 transaction. including a
materially false and misleading 2007-S2 loan tape, bye-mail.
1. On March 19,2007 Garrett Galati OfCouI11rywide Horne sent MBIA a
materially false and misleading request fur bids for the 2007-S3 transaction, including a
materially false and misleading 2007-S3 loan tape, bye-mail.
j. On May 21, 2007 Garrett Galati of Countrywide Home sent MBIA a
materially false and misleading request for bids for the 2007-E transaction, including a materially
false and misleading 2007-E loan tape, bye-mail.
101. Countrywide Securities also provided materially false and misleading information
to MBIA regarding the Securitizations when it transmitted the Prospectuses and Supplemental
Prospectuses for each Securitization to MBIA as detailed below: Among other things,
Countrywide Securities' representations regarding Countrywide's compliance with its
underwriting guidelines; Countrywide's knowledge of facts that would have caused a reasonable
originator to conclude that a borrower would not be able to repay the loan; and Countrywide's
infonnation regarding the Mortgage Loanst including the loan~to~value ratio j the debt· to-income
ratio~ and the borrower's FICO score, were materially false and misleading.
a. Countrywide Securities provided materially false information to MBIA
concerning the 2005-E transaction in an August 30, 2005 e-mail from Mahsa Kazeminy of
Countrywide transmitting the ftnal version of the Prospectus for the 2005-E transaction.
41
b. Countrywide Securities providL'd llIi.tll:rially false inform,l{ion 10 MBIA
concerning the 2005~f transaction in a December 2J, 2005 l:-mail from its all('II"/H'::YS transmitting
the final version of the Prospectus for the 2005-1 tr:lIlsat'tion.
c. Countrywide Securities provided materially false inlcH"l11Htioll 10 MHIA
concerning the 2005-M transaction in a December 28, 2005 e-mail from its auorneys
transmitting the final version of the Prospectus tor the 2005-M transaction.
d. Countrywide Securities provided materially false information to MBIA
concerning the 2006-E transaction in a July J I, 2006 e-mail from its attorneys transmitting the
final version of the Prospectus for the 2006-E transaction.
e. Countrywide Securities provided materially false infonnation to MBIA
concerning the 2006-G transaetion in an August 30, 2006 e-mail from its attorneys, transmitting
the tinaJ version of the Prospectus for the 2006-G transaction.
f Countrywide Securities provided materially false information to MBIA
concerning the 2006-S8 transaction in a December 28, 2006 e-mail from its attorneys,
transmitting the final version of the Prospectus for the 2006-88 transaction. A December 28,
2006 e-mail from Miranda Wang of Countrywide apprised Melissa Brice ofMBIA that the same
PrOspectus was available from Countrywide Securities via an internet portal controlled by
Countrywide Securities.
g. Countrywide Securities provided materially false information to MBIA
concerning the 2007-S1 transaction in a February 28, 2007 e-mail from its attorneys, transmitting
the final version of the Prospectus for the 2007-51 transaction. A February 28, 2007 e-mail from
Sean Daily of Countrywide apprised Melissa Brice ofMBlA that the same Prospectus was
42
available from Countrywide Securities via 1.111 internet portal controll~J by Countrywide
Securities.
h. Countrywide Securities provided materially false infimualion to MBIA
concerning the 2007-S2 transaction in a March 30, 2007 e-mail from its attornGYs, transmitting
the final version of the Prospectus for the 2007-S2 transaction. A March 30, 2007 c-mail from
Sean Daily of Countrywide apprised Carl Webb ofMBIA that the same Prospectus was available
from Countrywide Securities via an internet portal controlled by Countrywide Securities.
i. Countrywide Securities provided materially false infonnation to MBIA
concerning the 2007-S3 transaction in a March 30, 2007 e-mail from its attorneys, transmitting
the final version of the Prospectus for the 2007-S3 transaction. A March 30, 2007 e-mail from
Sean Daily o[Countrywide apprised Melissa Brice ofMBlA that the same Prospectus was
available from Countrywide Securities via an internet portal controlled by Countrywide
Securities.
j. Countrywide Securities provided materially false information 10 MBIA
concerning the 2007-E transaction in a May 31, 2007 e-mail from its a!lorneys, transmitting the
final version of the Prospectus for the 2007-E transaction.
102. Countrywide failed to disclose material facts, which they were obliged to disclose
and which, in the absence of disclosure, caused other representations to be misleading in a
material way, including that:
a. CountIywide Financial and Countrywide Home had adopted a strategy of
increasing origination of mortgage loans, including mortgage loans that increased credit risk
compared to the mortgage loans it traditionally had originated; and
43
b, Countrywide Financial and CountrywidL' IlolllL' l'XPl'ctcd tn rcdu\.:c its
underwriting standards and guidelines to facl1itatc im:rcl.Iscd uriJJ.ination of mortgage loans.
103. MBIA or its predecessors justiJiably. rCllsonahly and !()fcsccably rdicd on these
representations and false statements.
104. Countrywide) s misrepresentations of facts. and omissions of tact that caused other
statements of fact to be misleading, related to contemporaneous matters and to the state of alTairs
as of and then existing at the time MBIA was induced to enter into an Insurance Agreement.
105. Countrywide's misrepresentations of facts, and omissions of fact that caused other
statements of fact to be misleading, relate to its own acts and omissions, and it was only by
making such representations that Countrywide was able to obtain the credit enhancement from
MBIA for the Securitizations.
106. Countrywide Home knew at the time it entered into e""h Insurance Agreement
that the above statements were false Ot, at the very least. made recklessly, without any belief in
the truth of the statements.
107. Countrywide intended to defraud MBIA and induce reliance by MBIA in this
regard, as Countrywide sought to securitize the Mortgage Loans and transfer the risk of such
loans to other parties, including (as d=ribed above) MBIA. Countrywide knew that the
securities issued by the Trusts would be mted higher by rating agencies and would be more
attractive to investors, and therefore would likely be sold at a higher price and/or lower cost to
Countrywide, if MBIA agreed to guaruntee payments on the securities.
108. Countrywide knew that MBIA was relying on Countrywide's expertise, and
Countrywide encouraged such reliance. COWltrywide knew that its representations described
above would be relied upon by MBIA in cOIlilection -with its decision to enter into each Insurance
44
Agreement. Based on its expertise and specialized knowledge, and in light or its J:1L,,1.: and
misleading representations, Countrywide owed a duty to M BIA to di::;du$L' Ilwtcrial !lIds ahout
the Securitizations.
109. Countrywide's representations substantially influenced MBIA '$ dL'dslon to enter
into each Insurance Agreement MBIA would new!' have agreed to pn)Vidc <lny of the Pol ides
had it known that Countrywide's representations about thc Mortgage Loans wen: false and that
Countrywide had omitted material infonnation.
110. As a result of Countrywide's false and misleading statements and omissions as
alleged herein, lvlBIA has suffered, and is reasonably certain to continue suffering, damages,
including, but not limited to. paying out claims on the Insurance Agreements caused by the
excessively high default rates within the pools of Mortgage Loans. MBlA is further entitled to
rescission of the Insurance Agreements because of Countrywide's fraudu1ent inducement.
111. Because Countrywide committed these acts and omissions maliciously, wantonly
and oppressively, and because the consequences of CountTywide's acts knowingly affected the
general public, including but not limited to all persons with interests in the Securitizations,
MBIA is entitled to recover punitive damages.
herein,
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION (NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION)
112, MBIA incorporates by reference all the foregoing allegations as if fully set forth
113. This is a claim for negligent misrepresentation against Countrywide.
114, CountJ:Yl'1de was aware that MBIA relied on Countrywide's expertise and
experience and depended upon Countrywide for accurate and truthful infonnation, Countrywide
45
also knew that the facts regarding Countrywide's compliance with its undl.'l"wrililll,t standards
were exclusively vvithin Countrywide's knowledge,
J 15, Countrywide had a duty to provide MBIA complck. <leCunl!!.!, and timely
infonnation regarding the Mortgage Loans and the Sccuriti7.ations. Countrywide breached its
duty to provide such information (0 Ml3JA.
116. MBIA reasonably relied on the infonnation Countrywide did provide and was
damaged as a result ofCoWltrywide's misrepresentations.
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION (BREACH OF CONTRACT: INSURANCE AGREEMENT)
117. MBIA incorporates by reference all the foregoing allegations as though fully set
forth herein.
118. This is a claim for breach of contract against Countrywide.
I 19. The Insurance Agreement is a valid and enforceable contract that gives rise to
certain obligations on the part of Countrywide with respect to the Mortgage Loans. Each Sale
and Servicing Agreement provides that MBIA is a third-party heneficiary with the right to
enforce the covenants and obligations of the parties thereto.
120. META has perfonned and continues to perfonn all conditions, covenants, and
promises required on its part to be perfonned in accordance with the tenus and conditions of the
Insurance Agreement.
121. Countrywide's express representations and warranties in the Insurance
Agreement, and representations and warranties incorporated by reference within the Insurance
Agreement, are untrue and inaccurate in material ways as of the date of the Insurance
46
Agreement. The untrue and inaccurate representations and warwnliL's m<ll\.·ri.dly .llld 'Idu,·rsely
affect MBIA's intcrl!st~ with respect to tmnsw'::lions in 11t~ Transaction Doculll!.:nts.
122, In addition to others described abov!.:, the !i.)lIowln~ express representations and
warranties were untrue and inaccurate as of the date of each applit:ubk Insurance AgrcL'lnl.'nt:
a, Countrywide's representation that: ··Ncith~r the Transaction Documents
nor other material information relating to the Mortgage Loans. th~ operations of the Master
Servicer, the Sponsor or the Depositor (including servicing or origination of loans) or thL'
financial condition of the Master Servicer, the Sponsor Or the Depositor Or any other information
(collectively, the 'Documents') fumished to the Insurer contains any statement ofa material fact
which was untrue or misleading in any material adverse respect when made." Among other
things, the Prospectuses and Supplemental Prospectuses contain statements of material facts
which are Wltrue and/or misleading in material adverse respects;
b. Countrywide's representation that "[NJo practice, procedure or policy
employed, or proposed to be employed, by the Servicer, Sponsor or Depositor in the conduct of
its business violates any law~ regulation) judgment, agreement, order or decree that, if enforced.
could reasonably be expected to result in a Material Adverse Change to the Servicer, Sponsor or
Depositor." On infOlmation and belief, and based on the publicly-filed actions commenced by
States and acknowledgments by other States' representatives of investigations of alleged
unlawful conduct by Countrywide, Countrywide knew or should have known that it employed
practices, procedures and policies that violated,. among other things, state conswner protection
and predatory lending laws in cOlUlection with the origination of mortgages and servicing of
mortgage loans, state nondiscrimination lending lam, state banking laws, and federal and state
47
securities Jaws. At the time of the Insurance AgrcCflll:nts. cnJon.:cmcnl of such l41w~ n.:axoJ1ably
could be expected to result, and has resulted. in a Material Adverse Change to Countrywidl!.
c. Countrywide's representation that: '"'T.lh0 sale and oiler ofSl:t:urilics
complies with all requirements ofIaw~ including registration requirements and that the Offering
Document does not contain any untrue statement of material fact or omit to state a material fact."
Among other things, the Supplemental Prospectus contains untrue statements of muterial fact and
omits to state material facts, and the sale of Securities olhef\\/ise failed to cOl'nply with the
requirements of laws.
d. Cotllltrywide's representations that: HFinancial Statements of Sponsor and
Master Servicer (i) are complete and conect in all material respects, (ii) present fairly financial
condition and results. There has been no Material Adverse Change and no tmdisclosed
contingent liabilities that, individually or in the aggregate, could cause a Material Adverse
Change." At the time of Countrywide's representation, the Financial Statement'), inter alia, were
not complete and correct in all material respects, and did not present fairly the financial condition
and results, and did not disclose contingent liabilities which Countrywide knew, or reasonably
should have known, could (and did) cause a Material Adverse Change.
123. CotUltrywide's representations and warranties were material to each decision by
MBIA to enter into an Insurance Agreement. MBIA relied on Countrywide'S express and
incorporated representations and warranties, and was induced thereby to enter into each
Insurance Agreement and to perfonn its obligations and covenants: thereundcc
124. Countrywide also breached a Mortgage Loan Representation in the Purchase
Agreement, which is incorporated within the Insurance Agreement. Under the Purchase
Agreement, Countrywide represented that the Mortgage Loans had been originated in accordance
48
with Countrywide's underwriting guidelines, and also consistently with Ih!..' shmdards in the
industry. In addition~ COWltrywide represented and warranted it was not awan: orany
infonnation that would suggest that a Mortgage Loan would not be repaid. On inli:mnati()I1 and
belief, Countrywide had not applied its undcnvriting guidelines to any of the Mortgage Loans.
125. Under the Purchase Agreement, Countrywide Illso was to provide a Mortgage
Loan Schedule that accurately reflected the Mortgage Loans. The Mortgage Loan Schedule
accurately reflected the results of Countrywide's purported underwriting exercise; however, it
failed to accurately reflect the Mortgage Loans.
126. . Countrywide's representations and warranties in the Purchase Agreement were
untrue and accurate, and therefore constitute an Event of Default under the Insurance Agreement.
127. Countrywide is further in breach or the Mortgage Loan Representations with
respect to a substantial number of Defective Loans, and ha.., breached its obligations, under each
Insurance Agreement and the applicable Purchase Agreement and the Sale and Servicing
Agreement, to cure, repurchase or substitute for each of the Defective Loans.
128. Each Insurance Agreement and other relevan t Transaction Document further
requires Countrywide, after becoming aware of defective or missing documentation in the
Mortgage Loan files, or of another breach by Countrywide of a Mortgage Loan Representation
contained in a Transaction Document. to cure such breach within ninety days from the date that
Countrywide was notified of such breach or not later than the business day prior to the payment
date in which such cure period expired (the "Cure Date"), or to repurchase and/or substitute an
eligible loan for the Defective Loan in accordance with the applicable Sale and Servicing
Agreement
49
129. MBlA's written notice of Defective Loans constitut~,s notice ofbrl'uch oj' 1111.'
Mortgage Loan Representation, and commences the running Oflhl' cure period. The ('Ul"(,' Dak'
has long passed. As of the date of this filing, Countrywidl: has Ittikd and refused. and continues
to fail and refuse, to perform its obligations under erich Insurance AgreC'ment and the applicable
Purchase Agreement and the Sale and Servicing Agreement. in that Countrywide refuses it) t'urc
the breaches of the Mortgage Loan Representations, repurchase the Defective Loans. and/or
substitute qualified mortgage loans in their place.
130, Countrywide has also breached the covenants in Article 2 of the Insurance
Agreement, including;
a. Countrywide was obliged to comply with all material requirements. laws,
rules and regulations where noncompliance could reasonably be expected to result in a Material
Adverse Change, On information and belief, and based on the publicly-filed actions commenced
by States and acknowledgments by other States of investigations of alleged unlawful conduct by
Countrywide, Countrywide knew or should have known that it employed practices, procedures
and policies that violated, among other things, state consumer protection and predatory lending
laws in connection with the origination of mortgage and servicing of mortgage loans. state
nondiscrimination lending laws~ state banking laws, and federal and state securities laws,
b, Countrywide was obliged not to take any actioll, or fail to take any action,
that "could reasonably be expected to result in a Material Adverse Change to the Master
Servicer, Sponsor or Depositor," As described above, Countrywide engaged in actions that at
the time could reasonably be expected to result in a Material Adverse Change~ including its
failure to originate mortgage loans consistently with prudent undetwriting standards and
consistently with states' laws; tailure to disclose material infOImation to shareholders and others
50
in cormection with the purchase or sale of stock; Ilnd failure to administer pt..:nsion funds
consistent with ERISA and its fiduciary dutil~s.
131. At the time ofCountrywidc'~ action Or inaclion in breach or tl t'tlVl..'llaJlt in Artick
2 of the Insurance Agreement, it could reasomlbly be expected to, and" as described ahovc, did,
result in a Material Adverse Change to COutllrywidc's business:, financial condition, rl..'sults of
operations or properties; and also Countrywide's ability to perform its obligations under any of
the Transaction Documents. Countrywide's breach of covenants has led to substantial
impairment of Countrywide's business and financial condition, nearly fordng it into bankruptcy,
and of Countrywide's ability to perfonn its obligations, including to repurchase Defective Loans.
to service the Mortgage Loans and to provide MBIA with access to informatjon.
132. Countrywide has also breached its covenant in the Insurance Agreement to not
take any action, or fail to take any action, that may «interfere with the enforcement of any rights
ofllie Insurer under or with respect to the Transaction Documents,"
a. Countrywide has interfered with the enforcement of MBIA 's rights under
the Purchase Agreement, including by failing to repurchase the Defective Loans, and by failing
to provide full and timely access to Mortgage Loan files, records and infonnation.
b. CountryWide has breached its obligations under the Sale and Servicing
Agreement to service the Mortgage Loans consistently with the standards in the industry) and to
refrain from altering its collection and charge-off policies in ways that materially and adversely
affect MBIA.
133. MBIA is entitled to rescission of the Insurance Agreement based on
Countrywide's untrue and inaccurate representations and warranties.
134. In the alternative, MBIA is entitled to damages in an amount to be proved at trial.
51
FOURTH ('AliSE OF A<;:T10N (BREACH OF CONTRACT: SAU; ANI) SEIWI('ING A<;REEMENT)
135, MBIA incorporates by rcfcn .. 'lIcc all the l(m~g()illg alk:ga!iol1s as though fully s~t
forth herein.
136. This is a daim for breach of contract against COlll1trywid~.
137. Each Sale and Servicing Agreement is a valid ano cnfi)f(.'cabk contract that gives
rise to certain obligations on the part of Countrywide.
138. Each Sale and Servicing Agreement expressly provides that MBfA is a lhird-party
beneficiary thereunder, with the right to enforce the covenants and the obligations of the parties
thereto.
139. Under the Sale and Servicing Agreement, Countrywide is obligated, among other
things, to provide service and administration consistent with the standards in the industry.
Countrywide has failed to perfonn service and administration at industry standards.
140. Countrywide has failed to commit adequate resources even to perfonn its
obligations) such as staff to respond to customer inquiries, conduct follow-up efforts and call out
programs to delinquent borrowers, and resources for work-out plans and updated softvvare
programs. This inadequate resource commitment has been exacerbated by Countrywide's blatant
disregard of its own underwriting guidelines, which hal) led to substantial increases in
delinquencies and defaults,
141. Countrywide also has exploited its role as agent for the owner of the Mortgage
Loans for its own gain at the expense of MBIA. For example, Countrywide has continued to
service loans-and collect serviCing fees-even where it has become reasonably certain that it
defaulted Mortgage Loan will not produce any further payments to reduce amounts of accrued
interest or outstanding principal. It is standard in the industry to charge off a loan after it has
52
been delinquent for 180 day::), as Countrywide itsdf adnowbl),!,\..·d on pag\..· S-9 or the
Supplemental Prospectus forCWHEQ 2007-S1, in whid1 it ddincd u chargl'd-ofrloan ,.is one
that had been delinquent for more than 180 days. In SOI1lI.: cas!..:s, however. Countrywide has
continued to service Mortgage Loans more than 270 d,tys allcr the last payment 011 amounts
owed on the Mortgage Loans had been received. Countfy"vidc has contiI1t1ed to service such
Mortgage Loans for the sole purpose of continuing to collect service, late payment and other fec::;
that it retains as compensation. When a payment on a Mortgage I,oan is delinquent a latc
payment fee is accrued on the account. Countrywide, as Master Servicer, is entitled to retain all
such late payment fees and senrice charges and any interest thereon as its compensation.
142. Countrywide has otherwise failed to service the Mortgage Loans consistently with
the standards of the industry, including, for example, refusing to accept partjai payments from
borrowers ostensibly because of the added accounting and administrative burdens of accounting
for partial payments, Countrywide has also charged o!floans where the borrower has made
payments after the date of the charge-off, to the direct detriment ofMBlA.
143, Countrywide's breach of the Sale and Servicing Agreement has caused substantial
harm and damages to MBIA~ in an amount to be proved at trial, but at a minimwn including
substantially higher claims on Policies and other losses and expenses.
FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION (BREACH OF IMPLIED DUTY OF GOOD FAITII AND FAIR DEALING)
144. MBlA incorporates by reference all the foregoing allegations as though fully set
forth herein,
145. This is a claim for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing
against Countrywide.
53
•
146. The Insurance Agreement and the Tmnsw.:tion Documents incorporated therein
were built on the premise that. as Countrywide aftirma{ivdy represented, the Mortgage Loans
had been evaluated consistently with the underwriting slundanJs tlUll led Countrywide to be an
industry leader. COlU1trywide encouraged trust and rcliancl.! nil its underwriting precisely
because of its expertise and experience.
147. The implied duty of good faith and fairdealing required application of
underwriting standards consistent with MBIA's understanding, and with Countrywide's
awareness of what MBIA had understood.
148. Countrywide's breach has caused substantial hann and danlages to MBIA, in an
amowlt to be proved at trial. At a minimum, Countrywide's breach has caused:
a. Damages representing the aggregate amount of actual and future claims on
its Policies substantially in excess of the aggregate amount of claims that would have been made
in the absence of Countrywide's breach;
h. Damages representing losses sustained by MBIA because of its credit risk
and exposure on the Policies, which are substantially greater than the parties bargained, and has
led to loss of business and other losses and expenses.
SIXTH CAUSE OF ACJ10N QNDEMNIFICA nON)
149. MBIA repeats incOlporates by reference all the foregoing allegations as iffully
stated herem.
150. This is a claim for indemnification against Countrywide,
151. In addition to the obligation to repurchase or substitute eligible loans for the
Defective Loans, each Insurance Agreement requires Countrywide to indemnify MBlA for any
54
•
losses) costs, and expenses resulting from the breach of any n:pn:sl'lll;ttioIlS Hnd warranties
contained in the Transaction Documents.
152. Countrywide is further obliged to indemnily MBIA for its attorllcys' lees ~lJld
costs associated with enfon:ing its legal rights under the agreements.
55
,
. , .
PRA YEn FOR RELI EF
WHEREFORE MBIA prays for relief as follows:
An award of damages against Countrywide, in an amount to be proven at trial, but
including at a minimum representing:
a. MBIA IS payments on current and future claims under the Policic:l, including draw
downs on guarantees;
b. MBIA's losses, including lost profits and opportunities;
c. Indemnification for MBIA)s attorneys' fees and costs associated with enforcing
its legal rights under the Transaction Docwnents;
d. PWlitive damages;
e. Prejudgment interest at the maximum legal rate; and
f. Such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
DATED: New York, New York September 30, 2008
56
QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART OLIVER & HED
eter E. Calamari Philippe Z. Selendy
51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor New York, New York 10010-1601 (212) 849-7000
Attorneys for Plaintiff
t ., v
, Index No, <.,,~ /6 (\?. l)J~~ ~
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK CITY
MBIA Insurance Corporation,
Plaintiff,
-against-
Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., Countrywide Securities Corp.~ and Countrywide Financial Corp.,
Defendants.
COMPLAINT
QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART OLIVER & HEDGES, LLP 51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor New York, New York 10010 (212) 849-7000
Couf/Sel for Plaintiff MBlA Insurance Ct)rpQratio~
EXHIBIT 2
1
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK
MBIA Insurance Corporation,
Plaintiff,
-against- Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., Countrywide Securities Corp., Countrywide Financial Corp., Countrywide Home Loans Servicing, LP and Bank of America Corp.,
Defendants.
Index No. 08/602825 IAS Part 3 (Bransten, J.) AMENDED COMPLAINT
Plaintiff MBIA Insurance Corporation (“MBIA”), by its attorneys, Quinn
Emanuel Urquhart Oliver & Hedges LLP, for its Complaint herein against Countrywide Home
Loans, Inc. (“Countrywide Home”), Countrywide Home Loans Servicing, LP (“Countrywide
Servicing”), Countrywide Securities Corporation (“Countrywide Securities”), Countrywide
Financial Corporation (“Countrywide Financial”) (collectively, “Countrywide” or “Countrywide
Defendants”) and Bank of America Corporation (“BofA” or “Bank of America”) (collectively
“Defendants”) alleges as follows:
NATURE OF ACTION
1. This action arises out of the fraudulent acts and breaches of contract of
Countrywide in connection with fifteen securitizations of pools of residential second-lien
mortgages (the “Mortgage Loans”). Countrywide, the largest residential mortgage originator and
servicer in the country, originated or acquired and then sold (or otherwise conveyed) the
Mortgage Loans to trusts that in turn issued and sold residential mortgage-backed securities
(“RMBS”) to investors. To make these securitizations more marketable, Countrywide induced
MBIA to provide billions of dollars of credit enhancement in the form of financial guarantees of
2
the trust obligations on particular classes of RMBS. In order to do so, Countrywide falsely
represented to both MBIA and the investors that Countrywide had originated the Mortgage
Loans in strict compliance with its underwriting standards and guidelines, which were developed
over time to screen the creditworthiness of borrowers and the likelihood that the Mortgage Loans
would be repaid.
2. In reality, as it fought aggressively to expand its already enormous market share
in the mortgage lending boom of the past few years, Countrywide—under the direction of former
Chief Executive Officer Angelo Mozilo and former President and Chief Operating Officer David
Sambol—developed a systematic pattern and practice of abandoning its own guidelines for loan
origination and underwriting by knowingly lending to borrowers who could not afford to repay
the loans, who committed fraud in loan applications, or who otherwise did not satisfy the basic
risk criteria for prudent and responsible lending that Countrywide claimed to use.
3. From at least 2004 through 2007, in securitization after securitization, these
practices fundamentally changed the risk profile of the Mortgage Loans from that represented by
Countrywide. Countrywide’s deliberate misconduct as a loan originator and its fraudulent
representations as to the characteristics of the loan pools in the securitizations for which MBIA
provided guarantees has caused thousands of Mortgage Loans to default and go into foreclosure.
As a direct result of Countrywide’s actions, MBIA has already paid out over $1.4 billion on its
guarantees and is exposed to claims in excess of hundreds of millions of dollars more.
4. Further, compounding the harms of its original fraud, Countrywide has refused to
repurchase or replace non-compliant Mortgage Loans with eligible loans that do meet
Countrywide’s own guidelines, thereby breaching express representations and warranties in its
contracts with MBIA. If Countrywide had truthfully represented its deliberate deviation from
3
guidelines and past practice in loan origination, MBIA never would have issued guarantees on
the RMBS notes, and MBIA would not have suffered the related declines in its market value and
other losses.
5. As alleged by the Attorney General for the State of California in a complaint
against Countrywide Financial and Countrywide Home: “Countrywide’s deceptive scheme had
one primary goal—to supply the secondary market with as many loans as possible, ideally loans
that would earn the highest premiums. Over a period of several years, Countrywide constantly
expanded its share of the consumer market for mortgage loans through a wide variety of
deceptive practices, undertaken with the direction, authorization, and ratification of Sambol and
Mozilo, in order to maximize its profits from the sale of those loans to the secondary market.”
6. In short, Countrywide deliberately abandoned its own guidelines to drive up
revenues from increased origination fees, securitization fees, and servicing fees—no matter the
cost to borrowers, investors, or guarantors like MBIA.
7. Accordingly, MBIA now brings this action against Countrywide for fraud,
negligent misrepresentation and breach of contract.
PARTIES
8. Plaintiff MBIA Insurance Corporation is a New York corporation with its
principal place of business at 113 King Street, Armonk, New York. MBIA is one of the nation’s
oldest and largest monoline insurers, and provides financial guarantee insurance and other forms
of credit protection, generally on financial obligations which are sold in the new issue and
secondary markets.
9. Defendant Countrywide Financial Corporation is a Delaware corporation with its
principal place of business in Calabasas, California. Countrywide Financial, itself or through its
subsidiaries, is engaged in mortgage lending and other real estate finance-related businesses,
4
including mortgage banking, securities dealing, and insurance underwriting. On July 1, 2008,
Countrywide Financial merged with Bank of America. As of April 27, 2009, Countrywide
Financial ceased operating under the brand name Countrywide. Now combined with Bank of
America’s pre-existing mortgage and home loan business, Countrywide Financial operates as
Bank of America Home Loans, a division of Bank of America.
10. Defendant Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of
Countrywide Financial, is a New York corporation with its principal place of business in
Calabasas, California. Countrywide Home originates and services residential home mortgage
loans. Countrywide Home was acquired by Bank of America on July 1, 2008, and is now doing
business as Bank of America Home Loans, a division of Bank of America.
11. Defendant Countrywide Home Loans Servicing LP, a wholly-owned subsidiary of
Countrywide Financial, is a limited partnership organized under the laws of Texas with offices in
Plano, Texas and Calabasas, California. Countrywide Servicing services residential home
mortgage loans. Countrywide Servicing was acquired by Bank of America on July 1, 2008, and
is now doing business as BAC Home Loan Servicing, LP.
12. Defendant Countrywide Securities Corporation, a wholly-owned subsidiary of
Countrywide Financial, is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in
Calabasas, California and in New York, New York. Countrywide Securities is a registered
broker-dealer and underwrites offerings of mortgage-backed securities. Countrywide Securities
was acquired by Bank of America on July 1, 2008.
13. Defendant Bank of America Corporation is a Delaware Corporation with its
principal place of business in Charlotte, North Carolina and offices and branches in Manhattan.
Bank of America is one of the world’s largest financial institutions, serving individual
5
consumers, small- and middle-market businesses and large corporations with a full range of
banking, investing, asset-management and other financial and risk-management products and
services. Countrywide merged with Bank of America on July 1, 2008. As explained more fully
below, Bank of America is a successor-in-interest to the Countrywide Defendants. It is thus
vicariously liable for the conduct of the Countrywide Defendants alleged herein.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
14. This Court has jurisdiction over this proceeding pursuant to CPLR §§ 301 and
302. Countrywide Home is a New York corporation, and has appointed an agent for service of
process and has consented to the jurisdiction of the courts within the State. In addition, each of
the Countrywide Defendants expressly consented to the jurisdiction of this Court over
contractual and all other claims arising out of the transactions that give rise to the claims in the
Complaint. Moreover, Countrywide participated in negotiations and other activities within the
State which led to the transactions that give rise to the claims in the Complaint, and the
transactions themselves occurred within the State. Bank of America is registered and/or licensed
to do business within the State and has agreed to the jurisdiction of the Courts within the State
over matters arising out of its activities within the State. Countrywide and Bank of America
have offices and/or regularly transact or have transacted business within the State.
15. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to CPLR § 503(c). Each of the
Countrywide Defendants expressly agreed that the Courts within the County and State of New
York are an appropriate venue for all actions arising out of the transactions that give rise to the
claims in the Complaint. In addition, negotiations and other substantial activities relating to the
transactions that give rise to the claims in the Complaint occurred within the State.
6
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
I. Countrywide Promotes Itself As a Reputable and Conservative Loan Originator.
16. Co-founded in 1969 by Angelo Mozilo, Countrywide was an industry leader of
the residential mortgage lending industry. As of March 31, 2008, Countrywide was the largest
originator of residential mortgage loans in the country, and also the largest servicer of mortgage
loans in the country. In the first quarter of 2008 alone, despite a sharp decline in residential
home sales, Countrywide originated $73 billion in mortgage loans. During that same quarter,
Countrywide serviced and administered approximately $1.5 trillion of residential loans
originated by itself and other lenders, generating $1.4 billion in revenues.
17. In addition to the origination and servicing of residential mortgage loans,
Countrywide, itself or through affiliates, purchases and sells mortgage loans, provides loan
closing services, provides residential real estate and home appraisal services in connection with
loan origination and servicing, manages a captive mortgage reinsurance company, packages and
arranges securitizations of mortgage loan pools, and underwrites public offerings of mortgage-
backed securities in the secondary market.
18. On information and belief, prior to 2004, the substantial majority of mortgage
loans that Countrywide originated each year were traditional long term, fixed-rate, first lien
mortgage loans to prime borrowers which met the guidelines for sale to the Federal National
Mortgage Association (“Fannie Mae”) or the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation
(“Freddie Mac”). Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are authorized to purchase only mortgage loans
that conform to specific regulatory guidelines (known in the industry as “conforming loans”).
Conforming loans, if properly underwritten and serviced, historically were the most conservative
loans, with the lowest rates of delinquency and default, in the residential mortgage industry.
7
Mortgage loans which fail to meet the regulatory guidelines are known in the industry as “non-
conforming loans.”
19. Countrywide extolled its conservative Credit Policy, which it proclaimed was
“designed to produce high quality loans through a rigorous pre-loan screening procedure and
post-loan auditing and appraisal and underwriting reviews.” In its 2004 annual report,
Countrywide summarized the comprehensive standards and procedures of its Credit Policy:
Our Credit Policy establishes standards for the determination of acceptable credit risks. Those standards encompass borrower and collateral quality, underwriting guidelines and loan origination standards and procedures. Borrower quality includes consideration of the borrower’s credit and capacity to pay. We assess credit and capacity to pay through . . . manual or automated underwriting of additional credit characteristics. Our loan origination standards and procedures are designed to produce high quality loans. These standards and procedures encompass underwriter qualifications and authority levels, appraisal review requirements, fraud prevention, funds disbursement controls, training of our employees and ongoing review of their work . . . In addition, we employ proprietary underwriting systems in our loan origination process that improve the consistency of underwriting standards, assess collateral adequacy and help to prevent fraud, while at the same time increasing productivity.
In addition, Countrywide described the extensive post-origination Credit Policy procedures that
had been implemented to ensure consistency, accuracy and fraud detection:
In addition to our pre-funding controls and procedures, we employ an extensive post-funding quality control process. Our Quality Control Department, under the direction of the Chief Credit Officer, is responsible for completing comprehensive loan audits that consist of a re-verification of loan documentation, an in-depth underwriting and appraisal review, and if necessary, a fraud investigation.
20. Countrywide claimed that its disciplined underwriting standards not only
distinguished it from other lenders in the industry, but reflected best-in-class practices to be
emulated. For example, in an investor forum hosted by Countrywide in September 2006, Mozilo
explained that Countrywide not only led the industry in developing efficiencies, but also in
responsible lending:
8
Not only did we drive efficiency in the marketplace, but as an industry leader we served as a role model to others in terms of responsible lending. We take seriously the role of a responsible lender for all of our constituencies. . . . To help protect our bond holder customers, we engage in prudent underwriting guidelines. (Emphasis added.)
21. At the same forum, Sambol added that:
We’re extremely competitive in terms of our desire to win, and we have a particular focus on offense, which at the same time is supplemented by a strong defense as well, meaning that we have an intense and ongoing focus on share growth while at the same time maintaining a very strong internal control environment and what we believe is best-of-class governance. . . . [O]ur culture is also characterized by a very high degree of ethics and integrity in everything that we do. (Emphasis added.)
II. Countrywide Seeks More Market Share But Pledges Continued Rigorous Underwriting.
22. In or around 2003, there was rising demand on Wall Street for “private label”
securitizations of non-conforming loans. Private label securitizations are arranged and
underwritten by private firms (i.e., not government-sponsored entities) and are comprised of non-
conforming loans that cannot be purchased by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Because they may
be comprised of riskier loans than those meeting Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac’s criteria, private
label securitizations generate higher returns for investors, as well as greater revenues for
originators.
23. Increased securitizations required increased loan origination to generate the
underlying pools of loans. In a January 2004 call with analysts, Mozilo announced that
Countrywide, already the industry leader with nearly a 15% loan origination market share,
planned to double its market share within four years: “Our goal is market dominance, and we are
talking 30% origination market share by 2008.” Countrywide pledged, however, that the growth
in originations would not compromise its strict underwriting standards. Indeed Mozilo stated
that Countrywide would target the safest borrowers in this market in order to maintain its
9
commitment to quality. “Going for 30% mortgage share here is totally unrelated to quality of
loans we go after.... There will be no compromise in that as we grow market share. Nor is there a
necessity to do that.” (Emphasis added.)
24. Starting in 2004 and accelerating in 2005, Countrywide expanded its origination
and securitization of riskier lines of products, including subprime mortgages, interest-only loans,
Pay Option ARMs (an adjustable rate mortgage loan that allows a borrower to make initial
minimum monthly payments less than monthly accrued interest), closed-end second liens
(“CES”), and home equity lines of credit (“HELOCs”), with a much broader base of potential
borrowers. A HELOC is a second lien on residential property. The borrower’s equity in the
property (i.e., the value of the property that is not used as collateral for the first lien)
collateralizes a specified line of credit that may be drawn down by the borrower. A CES is also
collateralized by the borrower’s equity, but the loan is of a fixed amount. Because they are both
second liens, HELOCs and CESs are junior in priority to the first lien. As a consequence, if the
property is foreclosed, the proceeds must be used to fully satisfy the first lien before the second
lien is paid.
25. At the same time, Countrywide reassured investors and credit enhancers, such as
MBIA, that its underwriting procedures and credit risk management remained highly rigorous.
For example, in its 2005 10-K and thereafter, and incorporated in the Prospectus for each
securitization for which MBIA provided a guarantee, Countrywide represented that:
[Countrywide] ensure[s] . . . ongoing access to the secondary mortgage market by consistently producing quality mortgages and servicing those mortgages at levels that meet or exceed secondary mortgage market standards . . . . [W]e have a major focus on ensuring the quality of our mortgage loan production and we make significant investments in personnel and technology in this regard.
10
26. In particular, Countrywide touted its underwriting guidelines, claiming to
ascertain facts about “borrower and collateral quality” including applicant assets and liabilities,
income, employment history, and other demographics and personal information, as well as a full
property appraisal. Countrywide claimed that it obtained all applicable income, liability, asset,
employment, credit, and property information, on the basis of which it ascertained debt-to-
income ratios (the ratio of a borrower’s total monthly debt obligations to gross monthly income)
and combined loan-to-value ratios (the ratio of the total outstanding value of the senior and
subordinate loans on a property to the value of such property). Because the guidelines are
ostensibly designed to ensure that loans perform over time, Countrywide knew that the quality of
its guidelines—and its adherence to them—would materially affect the risks of investing in or
guaranteeing its securitizations.
27. Throughout Countrywide’s expansion, Mozilo consistently represented that
Countrywide would not sacrifice the strict and disciplined underwriting standards that had made
it an industry leader in responsible lending. During a March 15, 2005 conference with analysts,
Mozilo responded to a question about Countrywide’s strategy for increasing market share, and
again assured Countrywide’s constituents:
Your question is 30 percent, is that realistic, the 30 percent goal that we set for ourselves 2008? . . . Is it achievable? Absolutely . . . But I will say this to you, that under no circumstances will Countrywide ever sacrifice sound lending and margins for the sake of getting to that 30 percent market share. (Emphasis added.)
28. Other Countrywide senior officers echoed that Countrywide had not, and would
not, loosen its underwriting standards. For example, in an April 2005 conference call with
analysts, Eric Sieracki, Countrywide’s Chief Financial Officer, responding to a question asking
whether Countrywide had changed its underwriting protocols, said: “I think they [FICO scores,
combined loan-to-value and debt-to-income ratios] will remain . . . consistent with the first
11
quarter and most of what we did in 2004. We don’t see any change in our protocol relative to
the volume [of] loans that we’re originating.” In a July 2005 conference call, Sieracki further
stated that as to the Countrywide-originated HELOCs: “The credit quality of our home equities
should be emphasized here as well. We are 730 FICO on these home equities, and that’s
extraordinary throughout the industry.” (emphases added).
III. Nature of the Securitizations.
29. From 2002 through 2007, MBIA provided credit enhancement for a total of 17
Countrywide securitizations of second-lien mortgage loans. This action concerns the following
fifteen securitizations of HELOCs and CESs: CWABS 2004-I, CWABS 2004-P, CWHEQ
2005-A, CWHEQ 2005-E, CWHEQ 2005-I, CWHEQ 2005-M, CWHEQ 2006-E, CWHEQ
2006-G, CWHEQ 2006-S8, CWHEQ 2006-S9, CWHEQ 2006-S10, CWHEQ 2007-E, CWHEQ
2007-S1, CWHEQ 2007-S2, and CWHEQ 2007-S3 (the “Securitizations”). Each securitization
generally comprised one or two pools of mortgage loans of between approximately 8,000 and
48,000 mortgage loans.
30. For each of the Securitizations, Countrywide Home originated, or acquired
through external mortgage brokers or correspondent banks, the underlying second-lien
residential mortgages. Countrywide Home or Countrywide Servicing acted as servicer for the
mortgage loans in each Securitization. Countrywide Home then conveyed pools of these
mortgage loans to a depositor, also a Countrywide entity, in exchange for cash. The depositor in
turn conveyed the pools of mortgage loans to the Countrywide-created Trusts for the purpose of
using the mortgage loans as collateral for asset-backed securities that would be sold to investors.
The Countrywide-created Trusts then worked with the underwriters, including Countrywide
Securities, to price and sell the RMBS Notes to investors.
31. The notes were purchased originally through public offerings of mortgage-backed
securities issued by the Trusts. Countrywide Securities acted as an underwriter for each of the
Securitizations, and offered the notes to the public. Investors were able to purchase notes,
12
representing an undivided interest in pools of underlying mortgage loans. The cashflows from
these underlying loans (in the form of payments of interest and principal) are used to pay
obligations on the notes. A purchase of an RMBS note is thus the purchase of a right to
participate in the cashflows generated by the pool of mortgages.
IV. Relying on Countrywide’s Unique and Special Knowledge Regarding the Underlying Mortgages and its Representations as to its Conservative Underwriting Standards, MBIA Agreed to Provide Credit Enhancement for the Securitizations.
32. To increase the marketability of the notes, Countrywide engaged MBIA to
provide credit enhancement on the RMBS. The credit enhancement—in the form of a guarantee
of repayment of principal and interest for the RMBS notes in each Securitization—allowed the
guaranteed, or wrapped, tranches of RMBS to have higher credit quality (reflected by a “AAA”
or equivalent credit rating) than the underlying collateral. Because the Trust’s obligations are
backed by MBIA, in its capacity as insurer, any shortfalls in trust payments of principal or
interest are covered by MBIA. That allowed Countrywide to market the notes on the basis of
MBIA’s then-AAA credit rating, rather than the lower credit quality implied by the collateral and
the RMBS structure alone.
33. For each securitization, Countrywide generally solicited bids from several
monoline insurers, requiring responses within a short time period.
34. In connection with each securitization, Countrywide generally provided a
description of the structure of the deal and specific data points for each loan in what is known as
a loan tape. The loan tape generally included information such as the loan-to-value ratio (LTV)
for each loan, the debt-to-income (DTI) ratio for each borrower, and the measurement of each
borrower’s creditworthiness as reflected in the borrower’s FICO score.
13
35. In an effort to induce MBIA to guarantee the securitizations, Countrywide also
made available to MBIA a summary of its underwriting procedures for each Securitization, and
represented that its underwriting of the Mortgage Loans conformed to its stated underwriting
procedures as well as industry standards. Countrywide also represented that it was not aware of
any reason why a borrower would not be able to repay a mortgage loan.
36. Countrywide further provided MBIA with shadow credit ratings on the proposed
pool of mortgage loans intended for securitization. On information and belief, Countrywide
solicited the shadow ratings from credit rating agencies based on information and representations
provided by Countrywide as to the credit quality of the mortgage loans and the amount of
overcollateralization in the deal. All of the Securitizations had shadow ratings of at least BBB-
or the equivalent. Absent credit quality reflected by a shadow rating of at least BBB-, MBIA
would not have agreed to provide credit enhancement.
37. Countrywide also provided, or referenced, the original Prospectus filed with the
SEC in connection with each public offering of mortgage-backed securities (including the
Securitizations). In that Prospectus, Countrywide described its business and operations, its
purportedly disciplined underwriting standards, and the quality of the mortgage loans it
originated.
38. Countrywide also provided Supplemental Prospectuses that would be filed with
the SEC shortly before the securities for each deal were issued to the public. The Supplemental
Prospectuses provided more specific information about, among other things, the Mortgage Loans
underlying the securities in each Securitization.
39. In addition to and separate from the information provided in connection with each
Securitization, Countrywide also made regular presentations to MBIA at MBIA’s offices in New
14
York, including on June 23, 2004 and in May 2005, and at Countrywide’s offices in California
on May 19, 2004, March 15, 2005, November 1 and 2, 2006, and in March 2007. During these
meetings, Countrywide touted its expertise and capabilities in loan origination and servicing, and
repeatedly represented that its risk management systems were state of the art—both in its
origination of loans and in its servicing of mortgages.
40. As part of its solicitation of bids, Countrywide encouraged MBIA to rely, and was
aware that MBIA in fact relied, on the information set forth above as well as Countrywide’s
public commitment to conservative underwriting and historical record of strong loan
performance, including lower rates of delinquencies and defaults than that of most lenders in the
industry.
41. Because Countrywide arranged the Securitizations, originated or acquired,
underwrote, and serviced all of the underlying mortgage loans, Countrywide had unique and
special knowledge and expertise regarding the loans in the Securitizations. In particular,
Countrywide had unique and special knowledge and expertise regarding the quality of the
underwriting of those loans as well as the servicing practices employed as to such loans.
Because MBIA could not evaluate the underwriting quality or the servicing practices of the
mortgage loans in the Securitizations on a loan-by-loan basis, it relied on Countrywide’s unique
and special knowledge and expertise regarding the underlying mortgage loans when determining
whether to provide credit enhancement for each of the Securitizations. Moreover, although
MBIA conducted its own due diligence of the securitizations, MBIA was entirely reliant on
Countrywide to provide accurate information regarding the loans to conduct that analysis.
42. To induce MBIA to guarantee the payment of principal and interest on the
RMBSs, Countrywide also made numerous contractual representations and warranties to MBIA
15
concerning the origination and quality of the Mortgage Loans, including that the Mortgage Loans
had been underwritten pursuant to its extensive set of approved guidelines. Countrywide further
represented that the Mortgage Loans would be selected from among the outstanding home equity
loan agreements in its portfolio that met stated criteria, and that “[n]o selection will be made in a
manner that adversely affects the interests of the Noteholders or [MBIA]” in the Securitizations.
43. Countrywide backed up its representations by agreeing that, in the event of a
breach of any representation or warranty related to a Mortgage Loan (a “Defective Loan”),
Countrywide would either cure the breach or repurchase or substitute eligible Mortgage Loans
for the Defective Loan. Because identifying Defective Loans is itself costly and time-
consuming, this “put-back” remedy was intended to address situations where only a small
number of loans failed to satisfy eligibility requirements.
44. As set forth in greater detail below, MBIA relied upon Countrywide’s guidelines,
representations, and warranties in evaluating the risks presented by the Securitizations and in
agreeing to guarantee the obligations to the Notes.
45. The longstanding relationship between Countrywide and MBIA coupled with
Countrywide’s unique and special knowledge and expertise as to the loans underlying the
RMBSs created a “special relationship” of trust and confidence between Countrywide and
MBIA.
V. The Contractual Provisions of Each Securitization.
46. Countrywide arranged and securitized the Securitizations.
47. Of the fifteen Securitizations, the following nine securitizations involve HELOCs:
CWABS 2004-I, CWABS 2004-P, CWHEQ 2005-A, CWHEQ 2005-E, CWHEQ 2005-I,
16
CWHEQ 2005-M, CWHEQ 2006-E, CWHEQ 2006-G, and CWHEQ 2007-E (the “HELOC
Securitizations”).
48. The remaining six securitizations involve CESs: CWHEQ 2006-S8, CWHEQ
2006-S9, CWHEQ 2006-S10, CWHEQ 2007-S1, CWHEQ 2007-S2 and CWHEQ 2007-S3 (the
“CES Securitizations”).
49. Each of the fifteen Securitizations are governed by a set of transaction documents
that provide for among other things: (a) the sale of the mortgages by Countrywide Home to a
Countrywide-affiliated special purpose vehicle; (b) the servicing of those mortgages by
Countrywide Home or Countrywide Servicing; and (c) the rights of the noteholders.
50. For the HELOC Securitizations, there are three documents that primarily govern
the rights and obligations of the parties: (a) a Mortgage Loan Purchase Agreement (the
“Purchase Agreement”) which provides for the sale of mortgage loans by Countrywide Home to
a Countrywide affiliate created to effect the Securitizations; (b) a Sale and Servicing Agreement
which transferred the mortgage loans to a single purpose Trust, and confirmed the terms of
Countrywide Home’s engagement by the Trust to service the mortgage loans; and (c) a Trust
Indenture, which, among other things, established the rights of holders of securities and the
obligations of the Trustee.
51. For the CES Securitizations, the rights and obligations of the parties are governed
primarily by a Pooling and Servicing Agreement.
52. Each of the Securitizations has a master servicer. Countrywide Home is the
master servicer for the HELOC Securitizations. Countrywide Servicing is the master servicer for
the CES Securitizations.
17
53. For each of the Securitizations, Countrywide Home and/or Countrywide
Servicing, the Trust and MBIA also entered into an Insurance Agreement which provided the
terms for the issuance of an MBIA financial guaranty policy (a “Policy”) that would be issued to
the Trust. In each transaction, the Insurance Agreement incorporated the representations and
warranties and the obligations of the parties in the Transaction Documents (as defined below),
and gave MBIA the right to rely on representations in the Transaction Documents, to enforce
their terms, and to exercise remedies for any breach.
54. In addition to these documents, for each Securitization, Countrywide issued a
Supplemental Prospectus that purported to summarize the terms of the transaction documents.
The Supplemental Prospectus was issued at or around the time of the closing of each
Securitization and was a supplement to the original Prospectus for each Securitization.
55. Collectively, for each Securitization, these documents (along with other
documents executed by the parties at the time of the closing of each transaction) are the
“Transaction Documents.”
56. One transaction, the CWHEQ 2005-E securitization, is described in greater detail
below. It provides a representative example of the rights and obligations of the parties under all
the Securitizations. Although the 2005-E securitization is a HELOC securitization, the rights
and obligations of the parties under the governing documents for the CES securitizations are
materially the same. For the CES Securitizations, in addition to Countrywide Home,
Countrywide Servicing is a party to the Transaction Documents.
(a) The Purchase Agreement
57. On or about August 30, 2005, Countrywide Home entered into the Purchase
Agreement with its affiliate CWHEQ, Inc. (“CWHEQ”) for the 2005-E transaction, in which
18
Countrywide Home agreed to sell the pool of Mortgage Loans to CWHEQ. In the Purchase
Agreement, Countrywide Home made extensive representations and warranties, including
representations and warranties relating to the Mortgage Loans in Section 3.02 of the Purchase
Agreement (the “Mortgage Loan Representations”).
58. The representations included that: (i) the mortgage file relating to each Mortgage
Loan was complete; (ii) information provided by Countrywide Home regarding the Mortgage
Loans was true and correct in all material respects; (iii) each Mortgage Loan complied with
applicable local, state and federal laws; (iv) the Mortgage Loans, individually and in the
aggregate, complied with underwriting criteria, such as the ratio of total unpaid balance of loans
on the mortgaged property to the value of the mortgaged property, the ratio of borrower debt to
income, and borrower credit scores; (v) the nature of the property was as specified in the
Mortgage Loan; and (vi) Countrywide Home did not have knowledge of any fact that would
cause a reasonable originator of mortgage loans to conclude that the Mortgage Loan would not
be paid in full when due.
59. The Purchase Agreement provides that, if a Mortgage Loan Representation was
inaccurate at the time when made, and such inaccuracy materially and adversely affected the
interests of MBIA, the inaccuracy constitutes a breach regardless of Countrywide Home’s
knowledge of the inaccuracy at the time of the representation. If Countrywide Home fails to
cure a breached Mortgage Loan Representation, Countrywide Home can be compelled to cure
the breach by repurchasing each Mortgage Loan that is inconsistent with the Mortgage Loan
Representation (a “Defective Loan”) or by substituting an eligible loan in place of a Defective
Loan.
19
(b) The Sale and Servicing Agreement
60. On or about August 30, 2005, CWHEQ, Countrywide Home, CWHEQ Revolving
Home Equity Loan Trust, Series 2005-E (the “Trust”) and JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (the
“Indenture Trustee”) entered into the Sale and Servicing Agreement. CWHEQ agreed to convey
all right, title and interest in the Mortgage Loans to the Trust for the purpose of using the
Mortgage Loans as collateral for asset-backed securities to be sold to investors.
61. The Mortgage Loan Representations were incorporated by reference into the Sale
and Servicing Agreement. Like the Purchase Agreement, the Sale and Servicing Agreement
states that if a Mortgage Loan Representation was inaccurate at the time it was made, and the
inaccuracy materially and adversely affects the interests of MBIA, the inaccuracy is a breach of
the applicable representation or warranty even if Countrywide Home had no knowledge that the
representation was inaccurate at the time it was made. If Countrywide Home fails to cure a
breached Mortgage Loan Representation, Countrywide Home can be compelled to repurchase
each Defective Loan or substitute an eligible loan for the Defective Loan.
62. The Sale and Servicing Agreement also defines the obligations of Countrywide
Home with respect to servicing the Mortgage Loans, including covenants (i) to administer the
Mortgage Loans consistently with industry practice, (ii) to use reasonable efforts to collect all
payments owed on the Mortgage Loans, and to follow the same collection procedures it follows
for servicing mortgage loans in its own portfolio, and (iii) to allow MBIA access to information
regarding the Mortgage Loans and its rights.
(c) The Prospectuses and Supplemental Prospectus
63. The Prospectus describes Countrywide’s business and operations. The Prospectus
provides a description of Countrywide’s purportedly disciplined and conservative underwriting
20
standards as well as a description of the Mortgage Loans, and advises that a Supplemental
Prospectus will be filed with the SEC at the time of each offering of mortgage-backed securities.
The Prospectus was issued by Countrywide prior to the closing of the transaction.
64. The Supplemental Prospectus provides more specific information about the
Mortgage Loans backing the securities. It was issued at around the time of the closing of the
transaction.
65. The Supplemental Prospectus represents that each Mortgage Loan was evaluated
in accordance with Countrywide’s traditional underwriting standards. The Supplemental
Prospectus also states that appraisals were conducted on home equity loans. Although the
specific type of appraisal might vary, the appraisals were conducted by an “independent third-
party” appraiser, and “completed on forms approved by Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac.”
(d) The Insurance Agreement
66. MBIA’s agreement to provide a financial guarantee policy to the Trust is reflected
in the Insurance Agreement, a contract that was entered into by MBIA, Countrywide Home, the
Trust and the other parties to the Transaction Documents.
67. On or about August 30, 2005, MBIA, Countrywide Home, CWHEQ, Inc., the
Trust, and the Indenture Trustee entered into the Insurance Agreement with respect to the 2005-E
transaction. In the event that defaults in the Mortgage Loan pool result in a shortfall of funds for
the Trust to make required payments on the securities, the Trustee is to submit a claim on the
Policy, and MBIA is to fund the shortfall.
68. Under the Insurance Agreement, MBIA has standing to seek recovery for
breaches, and to enforce the obligations of parties to the other contracts related to the 2005-E
transaction (including contracts to which MBIA is not a party), including the Purchase
Agreement, Sale and Servicing Agreement, Indenture, Trust Agreement, the Underwriting
21
Agreement, the Securities issued by the Trust, and other documents associated with the
transaction.
69. Countrywide Home expressly represents and warrants in the Insurance Agreement
that:
a. The Countrywide Home’s financial statements are complete and correct in
all material respects, and Countrywide is not aware of any undisclosed contingent liabilities that
could reasonably be expected to cause a Material Adverse Change;
b. No practice, procedure or policy in the conduct of business violates any
law, regulation, judgment, agreement, order or decree that, if enforced, reasonably could be
expected to result in a Material Adverse Change;
c. Neither the Transaction Documents nor other material information relating
to the Mortgage Loans, the operations of Countrywide Home (including servicing or origination
of loans) or the financial condition of Countrywide Home, or any other information furnished to
MBIA, contains any statement of a material fact which was untrue or misleading in any material
adverse respect when made; and
d. The offer and sale of the Securities complies with all securities laws, and
the Prospectus and Supplemental Prospectus do not contain any untrue statement of a material
fact and do not omit to state a material fact.
70. Countrywide Home also agreed to perform various obligations throughout the
term of the Insurance Agreement, including the following:
a. Countrywide Home shall allow MBIA access to information, including, on
an annual basis as well as in the event of a Material Adverse Change or default: (i) to inspect
books and records relating to the Securities, the obligations, and the transaction; (ii) to discuss
22
the affairs, finances and accounts with corporate officers, and (iii) to discuss the affairs, finances
and accounts with their independent accountants;
b. Countrywide Home shall perform such actions as are required by or
provided in the Sale and Servicing Agreement;
c. Countrywide Home shall not take any action, or fail to take any action, if
such could reasonably be expected to result in a material adverse change in ability to perform
obligations under the Transaction Documents; and
d. Except as otherwise permitted, Countrywide Home shall not alter or
amend any Mortgage Loan, collection policies or charge-off policies in a manner that materially
adversely affects MBIA.
71. Under the Insurance Agreement, an Event of Default is defined to include a
breached representation or warranty, or a failure to materially perform an obligation, by a party
to any Transaction Document.
72. Like CWHEQ 2005-E, the other fourteen securitizations (CWABS 2004-I,
CWABS 2004-P, CWHEQ 2005-A, CWHEQ 2005-I, CWHEQ 2005-M, CWHEQ 2006-E,
CWHEQ 2006-G, CWHEQ 2006-S8, CWHEQ 2006-S9, CWHEQ 2006-S10, CWHEQ 2007-E,
CWHEQ 2007-S1, CWHEQ 2007-S2 and CWHEQ 2007-S3) were securitized through the use of
similar types of agreements that contained substantially similar terms, representations, warranties
and/or obligations. In addition, Countrywide, the Trust, and MBIA entered into similar
Insurance Agreements incorporating the representations, warranties and obligations of the parties
set forth in the Transaction Documents.
73. The dates of the remaining securitizations are as follows:
CWABS 2004-I September 29, 2004
23
CWABS 2004-P October 29, 2004
CWHEQ 2005-A February 24, 2005
CWHEQ 2005-I December 28, 2005
CWHEQ 2005-M December 29, 2005
CWHEQ 2006-E June 29, 2006
CWHEQ 2006-G August 30, 2006 CWHEQ 2006-S8 December 28, 2006 CWHEQ 2006-S9 December 29, 2006 CWHEQ 2006-S10 December 29, 2006 CWHEQ 2007-E May 31, 2007 CWHEQ 2007-S1 February 28, 2007 CWHEQ 2007-S2 March 30, 2007 CWHEQ 2007-S3 March 30, 2007
VI. The Countrywide Mortgage Loans Show Excessive Defaults and Incurable Breaches.
74. In the late fall of 2007, a material increase in delinquencies, defaults, and
subsequent charge-offs of the loans underlying the Securitizations became apparent. Because of
the number of loan delinquencies and defaults, and subsequent charge-offs, the total cash flow
from the mortgage payments in several of the Securitizations was insufficient for the Trusts to
meet their payment obligations to holders of the RMBS Notes.
75. In November 2007, the charge-offs resulting from the deficiencies and defaults
caused the Trusts to submit claims on MBIA’s note guaranty insurance policies, demanding that
MBIA cover the shortage of funds. Many of the delinquent loans defaulted and were
subsequently charged off, increasing MBIA’s exposure to even greater claims.
24
76. To date, while reserving its rights, MBIA has paid over $1.4 billion in claims on
its guarantees and is exposed to claims in excess of hundreds of millions of dollars more.
77. On May 9, 2008, August 7, 2008, and December 17, 2008, MBIA provided
notices of breach of representations relating to the defective loans from fifteen of the seventeen
Countrywide securitizations.
78. The loan files obtained to date reveal substantial breaches of Mortgage Loan
Representations, including an extraordinarily high incidence of material deviations from the
underwriting guidelines Countrywide represented it would follow. A material discrepancy from
underwriting guidelines is very serious, and means that the loan should never have been made.
79. For example, the loan application may: (i) lack key documentation, such as a
verification of borrower assets or income; (ii) include an invalid or incomplete appraisal; (iii)
demonstrate fraud by the borrower on the face of the application; or (iv) reflect that any of
borrower income, FICO score, debt, DTI or CLTV ratios, fails to meet stated Countrywide
guidelines (without any permissible exception).
80. In fact, MBIA’s re-underwriting review has revealed that 91% of defaulted or
delinquent loans in these fifteen Countrywide Securitizations show material discrepancies from
underwriting guidelines. That high level of material discrepancies clearly evidences
Countrywide’s deliberate or reckless disregard of the very underwriting guidelines it touted to
induce MBIA to provide financial guaranty insurance in connection with the Securitizations.
The tight correlation between material discrepancies and defaults/delinquencies further makes
plain that Countrywide’s misconduct is both a substantial and direct cause of the non-
performance of Mortgage Loans in the Securitizations, and—because large numbers of
25
delinquencies or defaults trigger MBIA’s payment obligations under the guarantees—a
proximate cause of MBIA’s harm.
81. Pursuant to the remedies provided in the Transaction Documents, MBIA has
demanded that Countrywide repurchase the following Defective Loans:
a.. 166 loans with an original unpaid principal balance of approximately $5.611 million from the CWABS 2004-I securitization; b. 155 loans with an original unpaid principal balance of approximately $10.056 million from the CWABS 2004-P securitization; c. 193 loans with an original unpaid principal balance of approximately $10.611 million from the CWHEQ 2005-A securitization; d. 528 loans with an original unpaid principal balance of approximately $38.445 million from the CWHEQ 2005-E securitization; e. 786 loans with an original unpaid principal balance of approximately $66.085 million from the CWHEQ 2005-I securitization; f. 687 loans with an original unpaid principal balance of approximately $53.385 million from the CHWEQ 2005-M securitization; g. 715 loans with an original unpaid principal balance of approximately $74.202 million from the CWHEQ 2006-E securitization; h. 688 loans with an original unpaid principal balance of approximately $74.435 million from the CWHEQ 2006-G securitization; i. 85 loans with an original unpaid principal balance of approximately $5.551 million from the CWHEQ 2006-S8 securitization; j. 86 loans with an original unpaid principal balance of approximately $5.771 million from the CWHEQ 2006-S9 securitization; k. 100 loans with an original unpaid principal balance of approximately $6.261 million from the CWHEQ 2006-S10 securitization; l. 234 loans with an original unpaid principal balance of approximately $22.524 million from the CWHEQ 2007-E securitization; m. 159 loans with an original unpaid principal balance of approximately $13.649 million from the CWHEQ 2007-S1 securitization;
26
n. 64 loans with an original unpaid principal balance of approximately $6.397 million from the CWHEQ 2007-S2 securitization; and o. 43 loans with an original unpaid principal balance of approximately $3.898 million from the CWHEQ 2007-S3 securitization.
Total: 4,689 loans with an original unpaid principal balance of approximately
$396.881 million.
82. Significantly, the Defective Loans run across Countrywide’s Securitizations from
2004-2007, demonstrating the consistency of Countrywide’s disregard for its own underwriting
guidelines during this period. Further, based upon the extraordinarily high incidence of material
discrepancies in the loan files reviewed to date, the true number of Defective Loans in the
Securitizations is far higher than the 4,689 loans already identified by MBIA.
83. MBIA’s initial notices reflect Countrywide’s material discrepancies in two
primary respects: (i) that each Defective Loan “was originated in accordance with the Sponsor’s
underwriting guidelines”—where in fact the Defective Loans had debt-to-income ratios or
combined loan-to-value ratios exceeding maximum guideline levels, or (ii) that the “Sponsor had
no knowledge of any fact that would have caused a reasonable originator of mortgage loans to
conclude on the date of origination of each Mortgage Loan that such Mortgage Loan would not
be paid in full when due”—where in fact the Defective Loans were approved on the basis of
unverified borrower stated income that was patently unreasonable. Each breach described in the
Notice materially and adversely affects the interests of MBIA.
84. Notwithstanding MBIA’s Notices, to date, Countrywide has failed to repurchase
or replace all but a small percentage of the Defective Loans. As alleged below, Countrywide
was aware that the Loans were Defective at the time they were sold to the Trusts—and thus the
loans never should have been included in the Securitizations at all. Moreover, even if
27
Countrywide had not been so aware, the Transaction Documents provide that the breaches must
be cured within no more than 90 days of written notice. To date, MBIA has provided notice on
May 9, 2008, August 7, 2008 and December 17, 2008 that a total of 4,689 loans constituted
Defective Loans. Any cure period for these $396.881 million in loans, even if available, has
passed. Countrywide’s improper selection and failure to repurchase the Defective Loans
therefore constitutes an Event of Default under the respective Insurance Agreements.
VII. Breaches of Countrywide’s Servicing Obligations.
85. In addition, Countrywide Home and Countrywide Servicing have breached their
obligations under the Sale and Servicing Agreements and Pooling and Servicing Agreements,
respectively—which breaches also constitute Events of Default under the related Insurance
Agreements. Fundamentally, Countrywide Home and Countrywide Servicing have failed to
provide service and administration of the Mortgage Loans consistent with the standards in the
industry, as contractually required. Countrywide Home and Countrywide Servicing have failed
to allocate sufficient resources to service and administer the Mortgage Loans, with (i) inadequate
staff to address customer inquiries and to conduct follow-up efforts and call out programs to
delinquent borrowers, and (ii) inadequate resources for work-out plans and updated software
programs. That failure is exacerbated by Countrywide’s break-neck origination of loans in
disregard of its own underwriting guidelines, which led to an extraordinary increase in
delinquencies, defaults, foreclosures, bankruptcies, litigation and other proceedings—all of
which place greater demands on Countrywide Home and Countrywide Servicing in their
capacities as master servicers.
86. Countrywide Home and Countrywide Servicing also have exploited their roles as
agents for the owner of the Mortgage Loans for their own gain and at the expense of MBIA. For
28
example, Countrywide Home and Countrywide Servicing have continued to service loans—and
charge servicing fees as well as late fees that they retain as compensation—long after any
reasonable expectation that defaulted Mortgage Loans could still result in payments. It is
standard in the industry to charge off a loan after it has been delinquent for 180 days, as
Countrywide itself acknowledged on page S-9 of the Supplemental Prospectus for CWHEQ
2007-S1, in which it defined a charged-off loan as one that had been delinquent for more than
180 days. In some cases, however, Countrywide Home and Countrywide Servicing have
continued to service Mortgage Loans more than 270 days after the last payment on amounts
owed on the Mortgage Loans had been received.
87. Countrywide Home and Countrywide Servicing further have failed to service the
Mortgage Loans consistently with the standards of the industry, including, for example, refusing
to accept partial payments from borrowers (ostensibly because of the added accounting and
administrative burdens of accounting for partial payments). Countrywide Home and
Countrywide Servicing also prematurely charged off loans to the direct detriment of MBIA by
charging off loans where the borrower was able to and in fact, made payments after the date of
the charge-off. Moreover, Countrywide has failed to seek recourse against borrowers whose
loans have been charged off for full satisfaction of their loans subsequent to the completion of
foreclosure proceedings.
88. Countrywide Home and Countrywide Servicing’s improper servicing of the loans
has enabled it to reap the benefit of additional service and late payment fees without bearing the
risk of losses from delinquencies and defaults, all at the expense of MBIA, which it fraudulently
induced to accept that risk.
29
VIII. Countrywide’s Pattern and Practice of Fraud.
89. At the time of the Securitizations, Countrywide knew that its statements regarding
its underwriting guidelines and credit risk management process were false, and that it had no
intention of abiding by its contractual representations and warranties. Under the direction of
Mozilo and Sambol, Countrywide adopted a new “corporate culture” of writing as many
mortgage loans as possible—and at the highest interest rates and fees possible—regardless of the
creditworthiness or evident fraud of the borrower. Once Mozilo and Sambol had determined that
profit growth through securitization required accelerating loan origination, Countrywide
motivated its loan officers and external brokers to drive up loan volume regardless of material
deviations from stated underwriting guidelines.
90. Countrywide’s deteriorating underwriting practices enabled loan applications that
reflected blatant borrower fraud, inadequate documentation, missing verifications (for example,
of borrower assets and income), title defects, excessive DTI ratios, inadequate FICO scores, and
other material violations of guidelines. These violations made Countrywide’s related
representations regarding the Mortgage Loans materially false and misleading.
91. The incidence of material discrepancies is so extraordinarily high—91 percent of
the applications reviewed by MBIA for currently non-performing loans—that it could not have
been the result of human error. Instead, Countrywide was clearly ignoring sound underwriting
methodology, and it knew that its failure to follow its underwriting guidelines would result in the
origination of loans in which the borrower would not be able to repay.
92. For each Securitization, these failures to adhere to the underwriting guidelines
fundamentally changed the risk profile that Countrywide represented to MBIA and, as
Countrywide knew, raised the likelihood of losses through defaults—and thus payments by
30
MBIA as the credit enhancement provider—to levels that far exceeded the value of the premiums
payable to MBIA.
93. These material breaches further call into question the integrity of the shadow
ratings assigned to the collateral pools by the ratings agencies. Each of these pools was assigned
a rating of BBB- or the equivalent. Yet the presence of such a large percentage of loans that fail
to meet underwriting guidelines renders those ratings false and misleading because they
materially understate the true risk profile of the pool. Countrywide, as originator of the loans,
knew but failed to disclose these facts either to MBIA or to the ratings agencies. One of the
consequences of Countrywide’s material breaches was that the amount of overcollateralization is
insufficient to protect MBIA from delinquencies and defaults in the mortgage pools, as
Countrywide was well aware. Had MBIA been aware of these facts, it would not have entered
into any of these transactions.
Countrywide Misrepresented Its Actual Underwriting Standards.
94. Countrywide promoted the Securitizations based in large part on Countrywide’s
reputation for disciplined underwriting standards, its commitment to high quality mortgage loans
to prime borrowers, and its comprehensive Credit Policy. Countrywide intentionally induced
MBIA to believe that the same commitment, expertise and practices, and specifically the
disciplined application of Countrywide’s Credit Policy, would be applied to the Mortgage Loans.
95. Countrywide, however, had adopted an aggressive strategy to drive up revenues,
which prompted significant changes to its underwriting standards and other aspects of its Credit
Policy. Countrywide knew that these changes, both in formal policy and in practical application,
would result in origination of mortgage loans that were materially inconsistent with its
representations. By contrast, MBIA was deprived of material information, and therefore never
had the opportunity to make such a determination.
31
96. On information and belief, Mozilo and Sambol authorized the establishment of
the Structured Loan Desk in Plano, Texas and Calabasas, California, which was created
specifically to grant underwriting exceptions for nonprime mortgage loan applications.
According to the California Attorney General’s complaint against Countrywide and Mozilo,
based on information provided by a former Countrywide employee, during 2006, the Structured
Loan Desk processed 15,000 to 20,000 mortgage loan applications a month, which represented
approximately 7.5% to 10% of all mortgage loans actually originated.
Countrywide Failed to Disclose the Extent to Which Fraudulent Applications Were Processed Through Reduced Documentation Application Programs.
97. Countrywide adopted reduced documentation application programs which excuse
qualified borrowers from the general requirement of submitting documentation to confirm
income and assets. Countrywide itself has publicly admitted that the failure to maintain rigorous
standards for such loans will result in higher delinquencies. In a July 2007 call with analysts,
John McMurray, Countrywide’s Chief Risk Officer, acknowledged that the reduced
documentation programs lead to higher delinquencies absent adequate controls:
“[D]ocumentation matters. The less documentation, the higher the serious delinquency, all else
equal.”
98. But Countrywide failed to use adequate controls. While it claimed these “low-
doc” applications were designed for self-employed professionals and business owners with high
credit scores, it made its reduced documentation applications widely available without careful
oversight, a material risk it failed to disclose to MBIA or the market at large.
99. For example, Countrywide falsely represented that it verified employment and
current salary for every loan applicant before approving a Mortgage Loan. In the Supplemental
Prospectus, Countrywide represented that even for loan applications under the Super-
32
Streamlined Documentation Program, Countrywide obtained telephonic verification of
employment, which, according to the Prospectus, “is obtained from an independent source
(typically the borrower’s employer) [and] which verification reports, among other things, the
length of employment with that organization and the borrower’s current salary” (emphasis
added). That representation was false. MBIA later discovered that Countrywide often did not
obtain independent verification of income for borrowers who applied under the Super-
Streamlined Documentation Program, which constituted a significant percentage of the total
number of Mortgage Loans.
100. Countrywide also approved Mortgage Loans in which the borrower’s stated
income was unreasonable on its face and could not have been accurately reported. Countrywide
was required to exercise meaningful oversight, on information and belief, pursuant to its Credit
Policy and the standards in the industry. It is standard practice among mortgage lenders
generally to try to verify employment income that appears suspicious. A borrower who inflates
his income is less likely to be able to repay his loan, which leads to a higher incidence of
delinquencies and defaults in the Mortgage Loans, to the direct detriment of MBIA. Despite the
prevalence of a substantial number of loan applications that contained highly suspicious reported
employment income, Countrywide failed to take sufficient, if any, corrective action.
101. On information and belief, Countrywide’s senior management was aware that
Countrywide loan officers participated in submitting fraudulent applications through the reduced
documentation application programs. According to Mark Zachary, a former Countrywide
executive who has filed suit against Countrywide for wrongful termination, in and around 2006,
Countrywide loan officers engaged in a practice known within Countrywide as “flipping” an
application. Loan officers who learned that a loan application submitted under the Full
33
Documentation Program was unlikely to be approved would “flip” the application for
consideration under a reduced documentation application program. According to Zachary, loan
officers would coach applicants on the level of employment income needed to qualify for a
mortgage loan, and then would accept a revised loan application containing an inflated reported
income. The loan officer would submit the revised loan application under a reduced
documentation program for consideration by the Structured Loan Desk in Plano, Texas and
Calabasas, California. According to Zachary, he complained to Countrywide’s regional
management, but his complaints were ignored.
Countrywide Misrepresented That it Obtained Independent Appraisals.
102. In each Supplemental Prospectus, Countrywide represented that one or more
appraisals were obtained for nearly every Mortgage Loan. Although, the type of appraisal
obtained for a Mortgage Loan varied, Countrywide assured MBIA and others that every
appraisal was determined “on the basis [of] an originator-approved, independent third-party, fee-
based appraisal.”
103. On information and belief, Countrywide’s representations that the Mortgage
Loans were appraised by independent third-parties were also untrue. Countrywide regularly
engaged appraisers which were affiliated with Countrywide, including, on information and
belief, appraisers that were owned or controlled by Countrywide, either directly or indirectly
through intermediate subsidiaries and/or subject to influence by Countrywide. This
misrepresentation caused harm to MBIA because it created a conflict of interest for
Countrywide. As originator and securitizer of the loans, Countrywide had an incentive to inflate
the value of properties if that inflation would allow a loan to be approved when it otherwise
would not have been. But loans based on inflated appraisals are more likely to default and less
likely to produce sufficient assets to repay the second lien holder in foreclosure, both of which
34
directly harm the credit enhancement provider. An independent appraisal is necessary to ensure
that appraisals are not inflated.
Countrywide Changed The Compensation Structure and Incentive Programs to Encourage Origination and Approval of Greater Number of Riskier Loans.
104. On information and belief, Countrywide’s senior management approved
compensation plans that offered incentives for new mortgage loan originations, with higher
incentives for riskier nonprime mortgage loans. According to the Attorney General of
California, Countrywide’s senior management imposed intense pressure on underwriters to
approve mortgage loans, in some instances requiring underwriters to process 60 to 70 mortgage
loan applications in a single day and to justify each rejection. This created an incentive not to
review loans thoroughly but instead simply to approve them. Senior management expanded the
authority of underwriters and other employees to grant exceptions to mortgage loans that failed
to meet Countrywide’s underwriting standards, which made it easier to approve a mortgage loan
and move on to the next application.
IX. Countrywide’s Corrupt Practices Are Revealed.
105. The impact of the Mozilo-Sambol plan on Countrywide has been a disaster.
Countrywide’s market capitalization declined by more than 90% in 2007, losing $25 billion in
value. Bank of America acquired Countrywide for just 27% of Countrywide’s stated $15.3
billion book value.
106. The scope and breadth of Countrywide’s fraudulent schemes and other unlawful
conduct have prompted a substantial number of public and private inquiries, investigations and
actions. The actions are based, in part, upon acts and misconduct by Countrywide that are
inconsistent with its representations, warranties and covenants in the Insurance Agreements.
35
107. On information and belief, the Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of
Investigation are investigating Countrywide’s loan origination practices to determine whether
Countrywide committed securities fraud through misrepresentations in its securities filings
regarding the quality of its mortgage loans.
108. Additionally, on June 4, 2009, the United States Securities and Exchange
Commission (the “SEC”) filed a civil complaint against Countrywide former executives Mozilo,
Sambol, and Sieracki for their fraudulent disclosures relating to Countrywide’s purported
adherence to conservation loan origination and underwriting guidelines, as well as insider trading
by Mozilo.
109. According to the SEC’s complaint, “[t]he credit losses experienced by
Countrywide in 2007 not only were foreseeable by [Mozilo and Sambol], they were in fact
foreseen at least as early as September 2004.” At that time, “Risk Management warned
Countrywide’s senior officers that several aggressive features of Countrywide’s guidelines (e.g.
high loan to value programs, ARM loans, interest only loans, reduced documentation loans, and
loans with layered risk factors) significantly increased Countrywide’s credit risk.”
110. Moreover, according to the SEC’s complaint, “both Mozilo and Sambol were
aware as early as June 2006 that a significant percentage of borrowers who were taking out
stated income loans were engaged in mortgage fraud.” On June 1, 2006, “Mozilo advised
Sambol” that many Countrywide originated loans were “underwritten on a reduced
documentation basis and that there was evidence that borrowers were lying about their income in
the application process.” Further, on June 2, 2006, “Sambol received an email reporting on the
results of a quality control audit at Countrywide Bank that showed that 50% of the stated income
36
loans audited by the bank showed a variance in income from the borrowers’ IRS filings of
greater than 10%. Of those, 69% had an income variance of greater than 50%.”
111. A number of States and municipalities have also announced investigations of
Countrywide’s lending practices, and several commenced actions against Countrywide,
including:
a. In People of the State of California v. Countrywide Financial Corp., the
Attorney General for the State of California filed a civil action on behalf of Countrywide
borrowers in California against Countrywide, Mozilo and Sambol, asserting statutory claims for
false advertising and unfair competition based on a plan by Mozilo and Sambol to increase the
volume of mortgage loans for securitization without regard to borrower creditworthiness.
b. In People of the State of Illinois v. Countrywide Financial Corp., the
Attorney General for the State of Illinois filed a civil suit on behalf of Illinois borrowers against
Countrywide and Mozilo, asserting state consumer protection and unfair competition statutory
claims, alleging that beginning in or around 2004, Countrywide engaged in unfair and deceptive
practices, including loosening underwriting standards, structuring unfair loan products with risky
features, and engaging in misleading marketing and sales practices.
c. In State of Connecticut v. Countrywide Financial Corp., the Connecticut
Insurance Commissioner commenced a civil action asserting that Countrywide violated state
unfair and deceptive practices statutory law by deceiving consumers into obtaining mortgage
loans for which they were not suited and could not afford.
d. In Office of the Attorney General for the State of Florida v. Countrywide
Financial Corp., the Florida Attorney General commenced a civil action against Countrywide
and Mozilo, asserting state unfair practices statutory claims, alleging that since January 2004,
37
Countrywide promoted a deceptive scheme to originate subprime mortgage loans to unqualified
borrowers, and a related fraudulent scheme to sell securities. The Attorney General alleges that
Countrywide violated state statutory lender laws by falsely representing that Countrywide
originated each mortgage loan in accordance with its underwriting guidelines and that each
borrower had the ability to repay the mortgage loan. The Attorney General also asserts state
securities law claims, alleging that Countrywide sold mortgage-backed securities based on
fraudulent misrepresentations.
e. In State of Washington v. Countrywide Financial Corp., the Washington
Attorney General filed a civil action asserting that Countrywide violated state anti-discrimination
laws in 2005 and 2006 by engaging in racially discriminatory lending.
f. In State of Indiana v. Countrywide Financial Corp., the State of Indiana
filed a civil action asserting that Countrywide violated the state’s unfair and deceptive practices
law from 2005 through 2008 by deceiving consumers into obtaining mortgage loans for which
they were not suited and could not afford.
g. In State of West Virginia v. Countrywide Financial Corp., the West
Virginia Attorney General has asserted civil claims against Countrywide alleging violations of
state unfair competition statutes.
112. On October 6, 2008, these seven states, plus 23 others, all joined in a settlement
with Bank of America, pursuant to which Bank of America (as the successor-in-interest to the
Countrywide Defendants) agreed to pay $150 million for state foreclosure relief programs and
loan modifications for borrowers totaling $8.4 billion.
113. The Department of Justice and the U.S. Trustees for federal bankruptcy courts in
several judicial districts, including the Districts of Rhode Island, Western Pennsylvania, Texas,
38
Florida and Georgia, have also commenced investigations of Countrywide’s alleged fraudulent
foreclosure practices. For example, in the Western District of Pennsylvania, on information and
belief, within the last year, Countrywide’s practices were under investigation in connection with
at least 300 debtors’ proceedings in that district. Similarly, the Assistant U.S. Trustee for the
District of Rhode Island, in testimony about his investigation, explained that after reviewing
cases filed since 2002, “we have a specific and grave concern that Countrywide” is trying to
obtain money and property from debtors “under false pretenses.” The U.S. Trustee for the
District of Georgia filed suit against Countrywide, and likewise noted: “Countrywide’s failure to
ensure the accuracy of its pleadings and accounts in this case is not an isolated incident. . . . In
recent years, Countrywide and its representatives have been sanctioned for filing inaccurate
pleadings and other similar abuses within the bankruptcy system.”
114. Furthermore, dozens of private actions have been commenced against
Countrywide, including shareholder actions challenging the accuracy and completeness of its
statements in and around the period between 2004 and 2007—particularly allegations that
Countrywide failed to disclose the expansion of its origination of subprime and other higher-risk
mortgage loans—as well as consumer actions challenging Countrywide’s lending practices.
Plaintiffs have defeated Countrywide’s motions to dismiss in at least four litigations brought
under the federal securities laws: In Re CFC Securities Litigation, 588 F.Supp.2d 1132 (C.D.
Cal. 2008) (order denying motions to dismiss with regard to certain claims); In re CFC
Derivatives Litigation, 2:07-CV-06923-MRP (C.D. Cal. May 14, 2008) (order denying motions
to dismiss securities claims); Argent Classic Convertible Arbitrage Fund L.P. v. Countrywide
Financial Corp., 2:07-CV-07097-MRP (C.D. Cal. March 19, 2009) (order denying all
defendants’ motions to dismiss except for Bank of America’s); and New Mexico State Investment
39
Council v. Countrywide Financial Corp., D-0101-CV-2008-02289 (1st Judicial Dist. Ct. April 14,
2008) (order denying defendants’ motion to dismiss but granting motion to dismiss for lack of
personal jurisdiction).
115. In one of these actions, the United States District Court in the Central District of
California concluded, in denying a motion to dismiss by Countrywide, that the plaintiffs’
“allegations present the extraordinary case where a company’s essential operations were so at
odds with the company’s public statements” that many statements that would not be actionable in
the vast majority of cases are rendered cognizable in that case. In re Countrywide Fin. Corp.
Secs. Litig., 2008 WL 5100124, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 1, 2008). The court further concluded that
“[p]laintiffs have created a cogent and compelling inference of a company obsessed with loan
production and market share with little regard for the attendant risks, despite the company’s
repeated assurances to the market.” Id. at *39.
X. MBIA Has Been Substantially Damaged by Countrywide’s Fraud.
116. Countrywide’s misconduct has caused manifold harm to MBIA. Because
Countrywide originated and sold to the Trusts an extremely large number of Mortgage Loans
that materially failed to comply with its underwriting guidelines, the number of delinquencies
and defaults in the Securitizations has been extremely high, as those loans were therefore made
to borrowers who were unlikely to be able to repay. Yet, despite its knowledge of these material
breaches of its underwriting guidelines, and MBIA’s notices to that effect for over 4,680 loans,
Countrywide has refused to repurchase the vast majority of those loans, contrary to its clear
contractual obligations.
117. In addition, the delinquencies and defaults those loans have suffered have greatly
reduced the cashflows available to pay noteholders, and the levels of overcollateralization have
40
not been sufficient to absorb those losses. As a direct consequence, MBIA has been forced
through the Insurance Agreements to pay those shortfalls to the Trusts, resulting in over $1.4
billion in payments by MBIA. MBIA’s losses bear no reasonable relationship to the risks that
MBIA intended to assume or the premiums paid by Countrywide.
118. As a direct result of Countrywide’s misrepresentations and breaches of contract,
MBIA is therefore exposed to enormous risks of payments under the Insurance Agreements for
which it is not being adequately compensated. This exposure has decreased MBIA’s revenues
significantly, forced it to take substantial reserves, and caused it to suffer other losses.
XI. Bank of America Has Merged with Countrywide Financial and Become the Successor in Liability to All the Countrywide Defendants.
119. On July 1, 2008, Bank of America acquired Countrywide Financial and the other
Countrywide Defendants through an all-stock transaction involving a Bank of America
subsidiary that was created for the sole purpose of facilitating the acquisition of Countrywide.
Bank of America has described the transaction as a merger, and has made clear that it intends to
fully integrate Countrywide into Bank of America by the end of 2009.
120. In a July 2008 Bank of America press release, Barbara Desoer, identified as the
head of the “combined mortgage, home equity and insurance businesses” of Bank of America
and Countrywide, said: “Now we begin to combine the two companies and prepare to introduce
our new name and way of operating.” The press release stated that the bank “anticipates
substantial cost savings from combining the two companies. Cost reductions will come from a
range of sources, including the elimination of positions announced last week, and the reduction
of overlapping technology, vendor and marketing expenses. In addition, the company is
expected to benefit by leveraging its broad product set to deepen relationships with existing
Countrywide customers.”
41
121. In its 2008 Annual Report, Bank of America confirmed that “[o]n July 1, 2008,
we acquired Countrywide,” and it stated that the merger “significantly improved our mortgage
originating and servicing capabilities, making us a leading mortgage originator and servicer.” In
the Q&A section of the same report, the question was posed: “How do the recent acquisitions of
Countrywide and Merrill Lynch fit into your strategy?” Bank of America responded that by
acquiring Countrywide it became the “No. 1 provider of both mortgage originations and
servicing” and “as a combined company,” it would be recognized as a “responsible lender who is
committed to helping our customers become successful homeowners” (emphasis added).
122. Similarly, in a July 1, 2008 Countrywide press release, Mozilo stated that “the
combination of Countrywide and Bank of America will create one of the most powerful
mortgage franchises in the world.” (emphasis added).
123. On April 27, 2009, Bank of America announced in a press release that “[t]he
Countrywide brand has been retired.” Instead, Bank of America will operate its home loan and
mortgage business through a new division named Bank of America Home Loans, which
“represents the combined operations of Bank of America’s mortgage and home equity business
and Countrywide Home Loans.” The press release makes clear that Bank of America plans to
complete its integration of Countrywide Financial into Bank of America “later this year.”
124. In the interim, according to the Bank of America website, “Countrywide
customers . . . have access to Bank of America’s 6,100 banking centers.” The old Countrywide
website redirects customers to the mortgage and home loans section of Bank of America’s
website. And, according to press reports, Bank of America Home Loans will operate out of
Countrywide’s offices in Calabasas, California with substantially the same employees as the
former Countrywide entities.
42
125. Desoer, the head of Bank of America’s combined mortgage business, was also
interviewed for the May 2009 issue of Housing Wire magazine. The article reported that
While the move to shutter the Countrywide name is essentially complete, the operational effort to integrate across two completely distinct lending and service systems is just getting under way. One of the assets BofA acquired with Countrywide was a vast technology platform for originating and servicing loans, and Desoer says that the bank will be migrating some aspects of BofA’s mortgage operations over to Countrywide’s platforms.
Desoer was quoted as follows: “We’re done with defining the target, and we’re in the middle of
doing the development work to prepare us to be able to do the conversion of the part of the
portfolio going to the legacy Countrywide platforms.” Desoer explained that the conversion
would happen in the “late fall” of 2009, and that the integration of the Countrywide and Bank of
America platforms was a critical goal.
126. Following its merger with Countrywide Financial, Bank of America has also
taken steps to expressly and impliedly assume Countrywide’s liabilities. Substantially all of
Countrywide’s assets were transferred to Bank of America on November 7, 2008, “in connection
with Countrywide’s integration with Bank of America’s other businesses and operations,” along
with certain of Countrywide’s debt securities and related guarantees. Countrywide Financial
ceased filing its own financial statements in November 2008, and instead its assets and liabilities
have been included in Bank of America’s recent financial statements.
127. Additionally, Bank of America has paid to restructure certain of Countrywide’s
home loans on its behalf, including settling predatory-lending lawsuits brought by state attorneys
general by agreeing to modify up to 390,000 Countrywide loans, an agreement valued at up to
$8.4 billion. Bank of America restructured 300,000 home loans in 2008, of which 87% had been
made or serviced by Countrywide.
43
128. Moreover, in an interview published on February 22, 2008 in the legal publication
Corporate Counsel, a Bank of America spokesperson admitted that the company had assumed
Countrywide’s liabilities:
Handling all this litigation won’t be cheap, even for Bank of America, the soon-to-be largest mortgage lender in the country. Nevertheless, the banking giant says that Countrywide’s legal expenses were not overlooked during negotiations. “We bought the company and all of its assets and liabilities,” spokesman Scott Silvestri says. “We are aware of the claims and potential claims against the company and have factored these into the purchase.” (Emphasis added).
Thus, Bank of America has officially acknowledged that it has assumed Countrywide’s assets
and liabilities. In purchasing Countrywide for 27% of its book value, Bank of America was fully
aware of the pending claims and potential claims against Countrywide and factored them into the
transaction.
129. Bank of America has made additional statements reflecting its assumption of the
liabilities of Countrywide. In a January 11, 2008 press release announcing the merger, Bank of
America’s former Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Kenneth D. Lewis stated that he was
aware of the “issues within the housing and mortgage industries” and said that “the transaction
[with Countrywide] reflects those challenges,”—statements implicitly acknowledging that Bank
of America was taking on Countrywide’s liabilities in the merger.
130. Similarly, Mr. Lewis was recently quoted in a January 23, 2009 New York Times
article reporting on the acquisition of Countrywide, in which he showed that Bank of America
knew of Countrywide’s legal liabilities and impliedly accepted them as part of the cost of the
acquisition:
“We did extensive due diligence. We had 60 people inside the company for almost a month. It was the most extensive due diligence we have ever done. So we feel comfortable with the valuation,” Mr. Lewis said. “We
44
looked at every aspect of the deal, from their assets to potential lawsuits and we think we have a price that is a good price.” (Emphasis added).
131. Because Bank of America has merged with Countrywide Financial, and acquired
substantially all of the assets of all the Countrywide Defendants, it is the successor in liability to
Countrywide and is jointly and severally liable for the wrongful conduct, as alleged herein, of the
Countrywide Defendants.
45
CAUSES OF ACTION
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION (FRAUD)
(against Countrywide Financial, Countrywide Home and Countrywide Securities)
132. MBIA incorporates by reference all the foregoing allegations as though fully set
forth herein.
133. This is a claim for fraud against Countrywide Financial, Countrywide Home and
Countrywide Securities.
134. As set forth above, Countrywide has made untrue statements of material fact and
has omitted to state material facts necessary in order to make the statements, in light of the
circumstances under which they were made, not misleading.
135. Countrywide’s business primarily involved residential mortgage banking.
Countrywide Financial, Countrywide Home, and Countrywide Securities each had a distinct and
specific role in the administration of a securitization of a portfolio of mortgage loans.
a. Defendant Countrywide Financial is engaged primarily in the residential
mortgage banking business. As part of its business, Countrywide Financial is responsible for the
origination, purchase, securitization, and servicing of residential mortgage loans across the
United States. As the corporate parent of Countrywide Home and Countrywide Securities, two
wholly-owned subsidiaries, Countrywide Financial directed the activities of Countrywide Home
and Countrywide Securities.
b. Defendant Countrywide Home—which advertises itself as “the nation’s
leading independent home loan lender”—is specifically responsible for the production and
servicing of residential mortgage loans through a variety of channels on a national scale.
46
c. Both Defendants Countrywide Financial and Countrywide Home are
responsible for selecting the mortgage loans for securitization, generally selecting from among
mortgage loans that had been originated by Countrywide Home, and also selecting from among
mortgage loans acquired from other mortgage lenders. Additionally, Defendant Countrywide
Home is responsible for transferring the mortgage loans into the Trusts for securitization, and
entering into servicing agreements with the Trusts to service the mortgage loans.
d. Defendant Countrywide Securities is a broker-dealer that primarily
specializes in underwriting and trading in residential mortgage-backed securities. These
securities are then sold in the national market. As such, Countrywide Securities is responsible
for underwriting and managing the offering of each Trust’s securities to buyers in the secondary
mortgage market.
e. The Trusts distribute payments on the mortgage loans collected and
remitted by Countrywide Home to the securities holders. Each Trust, along with Countrywide
Home, also entered into the Insurance Agreement with the credit enhancer, MBIA, who
guaranteed the obligations of each Trust to the securities holders. The Trusts are responsible for
filing claims against MBIA’s insurance policies in the event of shortfalls in principal or interest
payments.
136. As part of Countrywide’s fraud, Countrywide Financial and Countrywide Home
expanded their origination of mortgage loans in order to increase overall origination revenues, as
well as to increase the inventory of mortgage loans available to securitize and sell in the
secondary mortgage market. Many of these mortgage loans had significant but undisclosed
credit risk, in violation of Countrywide’s underwriting guidelines and standards.
47
137. Countrywide Home then transferred the portfolio of mortgage loans originated to
the Trust. Through the Trust, Countrywide Securities securitized the mortgage loans, and then,
through offerings of securities, offloaded the risks associated with the mortgage loans that
Countrywide Home had originated. Although the securities were collateralized by the risk-
challenged mortgage loans, Countrywide Securities marketed the securities by fraudulently
representing that the mortgage loans had been originated consistently with Countrywide
Financial and Countrywide Home’s traditional underwriting standards, and the strength of their
reputation for conservative lending practices and high quality loans.
138. A critical component of the fraud required the procurement of credit enhancement
on the securitization, including from MBIA, as described in detail above. Countrywide needed
credit enhancement to improve marketability and reduce interest liabilities of the securities, and
importantly to further disperse the risks of defaults on the mortgage loans among the investors in
the secondary mortgage market. Although Countrywide still held the residuals, it had effectively
transferred the risks of default through securitization, and therefore it was protected from the
impact of mortgage loan defaults. Further, the higher credit rating obtained through credit
enhancement allowed Countrywide to sell a greater number of securities in a wider market. By
obtaining credit enhancement, usually by fraudulently misrepresenting the risk profile of the
portfolio of mortgage loans to the credit enhancer, Countrywide transferred economic risk of
defaults on the mortgage loans, generally at a fraudulently low premium, and improved the
marketability and pricing of the securities. The proceeds from the offering of securities were
used to finance new originations of mortgage loans, thereby further perpetuating the fraud.
48
139. In an effort to fraudulently induce MBIA to provide credit enhancement for each
of the fifteen Securitizations, Countrywide made the following representations with respect to
and at the time of execution of each Insurance Agreement and that, inter alia, were untrue:
a. All of the Mortgage Loans had been evaluated pursuant to Countrywide
Financial and Countrywide Home’s underwriting standards and policies and complied with all
applicable local, state and federal laws;
b. Countrywide did not have knowledge of any fact that would have caused a
reasonable originator to conclude that a borrower would not be able to repay the loan;
c. Each of the Mortgage Loans had been evaluated pursuant to a meaningful
application of Countrywide’s underwriting standards, conducted in good faith, and that the
Mortgage Loan Schedule accurately reflected Countrywide’s good faith belief as to the
underwriting criteria of the Mortgage Loans;
d. Countrywide disclosed to MBIA its underwriting guidelines, including
any material changes to the guidelines;
e. Each mortgaged property had been appraised by an independent third-
party appraiser;
f. Countrywide Home obtained, or at least sought to obtain, verification of
employment and current salary for each Mortgage Loan borrower; and
g. Countrywide operated in compliance with all relevant federal, state and
local laws, regulations and rules.
140. Countrywide’s representations and warranties were material to each decision by
MBIA to enter into an Insurance Agreement. MBIA relied on Countrywide’s express and
49
incorporated representations and warranties, and was induced thereby to enter into each
Insurance Agreement and to perform its obligations and covenants thereunder.
141. On numerous occasions, between at least 2005 and the present, Countrywide
knowingly and with the intent to defraud, caused its employees and agents to submit materially
false and misleading mortgage loan documentation to MBIA in order to procure credit
enhancement.
142. Countrywide Home delivered to MBIA materially false and misleading loan
documentation, including requests for bids, loan tapes, and Transaction Documents, for each of
the below Securitizations insured by MBIA. Among other things, Countrywide Home’s
representations regarding the Mortgage Loans, including information such as the loan-to-value
ratio, the debt-to-income ratio, and the borrower’s FICO score, were materially false and
misleading.
a. On or about August 3, 2004, Ted Bouloukos of Countrywide Home sent
MBIA a materially false and misleading request for bids for the 2004-I transaction, including a
materially false and misleading 2004-I loan tape, by e-mail.
b. On or about October 19, 2004, David Andersen of Countrywide Home
sent MBIA a materially false and misleading request for bids for the 2004-P transaction,
including a materially false and misleading 2004-P loan tape, by e-mail.
c. On or about January 14, 2005, David Andersen of Countrywide Home
sent MBIA a materially false and misleading request for bids for the 2005-A transaction,
including a materially false and misleading 2005-A loan tape, by e-mail.
50
d. On or about August 2, 2005, David Andersen of Countrywide Home sent
MBIA a materially false and misleading request for bids for the 2005-E transaction, including a
materially false and misleading 2005-E loan tape, by e-mail.
e. On or about November 3, 2005, Garrett Galati of Countrywide Home sent
MBIA a materially false and misleading request for bids for the 2005-I transaction, including a
materially false and misleading 2005-I loan tape, by e-mail.
f. On or about December 12, 2005, Garrett Galati of Countrywide Home
sent MBIA a materially false and misleading request for bids for the 2005-M transaction,
including a materially false and misleading 2005-M loan tape, by e-mail.
g. On or about May 29, 2006, Garrett Galati of Countrywide Home sent
MBIA a materially false and misleading request for bids for the 2006-E transaction, including a
materially false and misleading 2006-E loan tape, by e-mail.
h. On or about July 7, 2006, Garrett Galati of Countrywide Home sent MBIA
a materially false and misleading request for bids for the 2006-G transaction, including a
materially false and misleading 2006-G loan tape, by e-mail.
i. On or about December 4, 2006, Garrett Galati of Countrywide Home sent
MBIA a materially false and misleading request for bids for the 2006-S8 transaction, including a
materially false and misleading 2006-S8 loan tape, by e-mail.
j. On or about December 12, 2006, Garrett Galati of Countrywide Home
sent MBIA a materially false and misleading request for bids for the 2006-S9 transaction,
including a materially false and misleading 2006-S9 loan tape, by e-mail.
51
k. On or about December 13, 2006, Garrett Galati of Countrywide Home
sent MBIA a materially false and misleading request for bids for the 2006-S10 transaction,
including a materially false and misleading 2006-S10 loan tape, by e-mail.
l. On or about February 15, 2007, Garrett Galati of Countrywide Home sent
MBIA a materially false and misleading request for bids for the 2007-S1 transaction, including a
materially false and misleading 2007-S1 loan tape, by e-mail.
m. On or about March 13, 2007, Garrett Galati of Countrywide Home sent
MBIA a materially false and misleading request for bids for the 2007-S2 transaction, including a
materially false and misleading 2007-S2 loan tape, by e-mail.
n. On or about March 19, 2007, Garrett Galati of Countrywide Home sent
MBIA a materially false and misleading request for bids for the 2007-S3 transaction, including a
materially false and misleading 2007-S3 loan tape, by e-mail.
o. On or about May 21, 2007, Garrett Galati of Countrywide Home sent
MBIA a materially false and misleading request for bids for the 2007-E transaction, including a
materially false and misleading 2007-E loan tape, by e-mail.
143. Countrywide Securities also provided materially false and misleading information
to MBIA regarding the Securitizations when it transmitted or caused to be transmitted the
Prospectuses and Supplemental Prospectuses for each Securitization to MBIA as detailed below:
Among other things, Countrywide Securities’ representations regarding Countrywide’s
compliance with its underwriting guidelines; Countrywide’s knowledge of facts that would have
caused a reasonable originator to conclude that a borrower would not be able to repay the loan;
and Countrywide’s information regarding the Mortgage Loans, including the loan-to-value ratio,
the debt-to-income ratio, and the borrower’s FICO score, were materially false and misleading.
52
a. Countrywide Securities provided or caused to be provided materially false
information to MBIA concerning the 2004-I transaction in a September 27, 2004 e-mail
transmitting the final version of the Prospectus for the 2004-I transaction.
b. Countrywide Securities provided or caused to be provided materially false
information to MBIA concerning the 2004-P transaction in a October 27, 2004 email
transmitting the final version of the Prospectus for the 2004-P transaction.
c. Countrywide Securities provided or caused to be provided materially false
information to MBIA concerning the 2005-A transaction in a February 24, 2005 email
transmitting the final version of the Prospectus for the 2005-A transaction.
d. Countrywide Securities provided or caused to be provided materially false
information to MBIA concerning the 2005-E transaction in an August 30, 2005 e-mail from
Mahsa Kazeminy of Countrywide transmitting the final version of the Prospectus for the 2005-E
transaction.
e. Countrywide Securities provided or caused to be provided materially false
information to MBIA concerning the 2005-I transaction in a December 23, 2005 e-mail
transmitting the final version of the Prospectus for the 2005-I transaction.
f. Countrywide Securities provided materially false information to MBIA
concerning the 2005-M transaction in a December 28, 2005 e-mail transmitting the final version
of the Prospectus for the 2005-M transaction.
g. Countrywide Securities provided or caused to be provided materially false
information to MBIA concerning the 2006-E transaction in a July 11, 2006 e-mail transmitting
the final version of the Prospectus for the 2006-E transaction.
53
h. Countrywide Securities provided or caused to be provided materially false
information to MBIA concerning the 2006-G transaction in an August 30, 2006 e-mail,
transmitting the final version of the Prospectus for the 2006-G transaction.
i. Countrywide Securities provided or caused to be provided materially false
information to MBIA concerning the 2006-S8 transaction in a December 28, 2006 e-mail,
transmitting the final version of the Prospectus for the 2006-S8 transaction. A December 28,
2006 e-mail from Miranda Wang of Countrywide apprised Melissa Brice of MBIA that the same
Prospectus was available from Countrywide Securities via an internet portal controlled by
Countrywide Securities.
j. Countrywide Securities provided or caused to be provided materially false
information to MBIA concerning the 2006-S9 transaction in a December 29, 2006 e-mail
transmitting the final version of the Prospectus for the 2006-S9 transaction.
k. Countrywide Securities provided or caused to be provided materially false
information to MBIA concerning the 2006-S10 transaction in a December 29, 2006 transmitting
the final version of the Prospectus for the 2006-S10 transaction.
l. Countrywide Securities provided or caused to be provided materially false
information to MBIA concerning the 2007-S1 transaction in a February 28, 2007 e-mail,
transmitting the final version of the Prospectus for the 2007-S1 transaction. A February 28, 2007
e-mail from Sean Daily of Countrywide apprised Melissa Brice of MBIA that the same
Prospectus was available from Countrywide Securities via an internet portal controlled by
Countrywide Securities.
m. Countrywide Securities provided or caused to be provided materially false
information to MBIA concerning the 2007-S2 transaction in a March 30, 2007 e-mail,
54
transmitting the final version of the Prospectus for the 2007-S2 transaction. A March 30, 2007 e-
mail from Sean Daily of Countrywide apprised Carl Webb of MBIA that the same Prospectus
was available from Countrywide Securities via an internet portal controlled by Countrywide
Securities.
n. Countrywide Securities provided or caused to be provided materially false
information to MBIA concerning the 2007-S3 transaction in a March 30, 2007 e-mail
transmitting the final version of the Prospectus for the 2007-S3 transaction. A March 30, 2007 e-
mail from Sean Daily of Countrywide apprised Melissa Brice of MBIA that the same Prospectus
was available from Countrywide Securities via an internet portal controlled by Countrywide
Securities.
o. Countrywide Securities provided or caused to be provided materially false
information to MBIA concerning the 2007-E transaction in a May 31, 2007 e-mail transmitting
the final version of the Prospectus for the 2007-E transaction.
144. Countrywide failed to disclose material facts, which they were obliged to disclose
and which, in the absence of disclosure, caused other representations to be misleading in a
material way, including that:
a. Countrywide Financial and Countrywide Home had adopted a strategy of
increasing origination of mortgage loans, including mortgage loans that increased credit risk
compared to the mortgage loans it traditionally had originated; and
b. Countrywide Financial and Countrywide Home expected to reduce its
underwriting standards and guidelines to facilitate increased origination of mortgage loans.
145. MBIA or its predecessors justifiably, reasonably and foreseeably relied on these
representations and false statements.
55
146. Countrywide’s misrepresentations of facts, and omissions of fact that caused other
statements of fact to be misleading, related to contemporaneous matters and to the state of affairs
as of and then existing at the time MBIA was induced to enter into an Insurance Agreement.
147. Countrywide’s misrepresentations of facts, and omissions of fact that caused other
statements of fact to be misleading, relate to its own acts and omissions, and it was only by
making such representations that Countrywide was able to obtain the credit enhancement from
MBIA for the Securitizations.
148. Countrywide Home knew at the time it entered into each Insurance Agreement
that the above statements were false or, at the very least, made recklessly, without any belief in
the truth of the statements.
149. Countrywide intended to defraud MBIA and induce reliance by MBIA in this
regard, as Countrywide sought to securitize the Mortgage Loans and transfer the risk of such
loans to other parties, including (as described above) MBIA. Countrywide knew that the
securities issued by the Trusts would be rated higher by rating agencies and would be more
attractive to investors, and therefore would likely be sold at a higher price and/or lower cost to
Countrywide, if MBIA agreed to guarantee payments on the securities.
150. Countrywide knew that MBIA was relying on Countrywide’s expertise, and
Countrywide encouraged such reliance. Countrywide knew that its representations described
above would be relied upon by MBIA in connection with its decision to enter into each Insurance
Agreement. Based on its expertise and specialized knowledge, and in light of its false and
misleading representations, Countrywide owed a duty to MBIA to disclose material facts about
the Securitizations.
56
151. Countrywide’s representations substantially influenced MBIA’s decision to enter
into each Insurance Agreement. MBIA would never have agreed to provide any of the Policies
had it known that Countrywide’s representations about the Mortgage Loans were false and that
Countrywide had omitted material information.
152. As a result of Countrywide’s false and misleading statements and omissions as
alleged herein, MBIA has suffered, and is reasonably certain to continue suffering, damages,
including, but not limited to, paying out claims on the Insurance Agreements caused by the
excessively high default rates within the pools of Mortgage Loans. MBIA is further entitled to
rescissory damages in connection with the Insurance Agreements because of Countrywide’s
fraudulent inducement.
153. Because Countrywide committed these acts and omissions maliciously, wantonly
and oppressively, and because the consequences of Countrywide’s acts knowingly affected the
general public, including but not limited to all persons with interests in the Securitizations,
MBIA is entitled to recover punitive damages.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION (NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION)
(against Countrywide Financial, Countrywide Home and Countrywide Securities)
154. MBIA incorporates by reference all the foregoing allegations as if fully set forth
herein.
155. This is a claim for negligent misrepresentation against Countrywide Financial,
Countrywide Home and Countrywide Securities.
156. From 2002 through 2007, MBIA provided credit enhancement for 17
securitizations for which Countrywide acted as the arranger. Countrywide also originated or
acquired, underwrote, and serviced all the loans held by the Trusts.
57
157. Because Countrywide arranged the Securitizations, and originated or acquired,
underwrote, and serviced all of the underlying mortgage loans, Countrywide had unique and
special knowledge about the loans in the Securitizations. In particular, Countrywide had unique
and special knowledge and expertise regarding the quality of the underwriting of those loans as
well as the servicing practices employed as to such loans. Because MBIA could not evaluate the
underwriting quality or the servicing practices of the mortgage loans in the Securitizations on a
loan-by-loan basis, it relied on Countrywide’s unique and special knowledge regarding the
underlying mortgage loans when determining whether to provide credit enhancement for each of
the Securitizations. Moreover, although MBIA engaged in its own due diligence of the
Securitizations, MBIA was entirely reliant on Countrywide to provide accurate information
regarding the loans in engaging in that analysis. Accordingly, Countrywide thus was uniquely
situated to evaluate the economics of each Securitization.
158. For at least a five year period, MBIA relied on Countrywide’s unique and special
knowledge regarding the quality of the underlying Mortgage Loans and their underwriting when
determining whether to provide credit enhancement for each of the Securitizations.
159. This longstanding relationship coupled with Countrywide’s unique and special
knowledge about the loans held by the RMBSs created a “special relationship” of trust and
confidence between Countrywide and MBIA.
160. Countrywide was aware that MBIA relied on Countrywide’s unique and special
expertise and experience and depended upon Countrywide for accurate and truthful information.
Countrywide also knew that the facts regarding Countrywide’s compliance with its underwriting
standards were exclusively within Countrywide’s knowledge.
58
161. Countrywide had a duty to provide MBIA complete, accurate, and timely
information regarding the Mortgage Loans and the Securitizations. Countrywide breached its
duty to provide such information to MBIA.
162. MBIA reasonably relied on the information Countrywide did provide and was
damaged as a result of Countrywide’s misrepresentations.
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION (BREACH OF CONTRACT: INSURANCE AGREEMENT)
(against Countrywide Home and Countrywide Servicing)
163. MBIA incorporates by reference all the foregoing allegations as though fully set
forth herein.
164. This is a claim for breach of contract against Countrywide Home and
Countrywide Servicing.
165. The Insurance Agreement is a valid and enforceable contract that gives rise to
certain obligations on the part of Countrywide Home and Countrywide Servicing with respect to
the Mortgage Loans. Each Sale and Servicing Agreement and Pooling and Servicing Agreement
provides that MBIA is a third-party beneficiary with the right to enforce the covenants and
obligations of the parties thereto.
166. MBIA has performed and continues to perform all conditions, covenants, and
promises required on its part to be performed in accordance with the terms and conditions of the
Insurance Agreement.
167. Countrywide’s express representations and warranties in the Insurance
Agreement, and representations and warranties incorporated by reference within the Insurance
Agreement, are untrue and inaccurate in material ways as of the date of the Insurance
Agreement. The untrue and inaccurate representations and warranties materially and adversely
affect MBIA’s interests with respect to transactions in the Transaction Documents.
59
168. In addition to others described above, the following express representations and
warranties were untrue and inaccurate as of the date of each applicable Insurance Agreement:
a. Countrywide’s representation that: “Neither the Transaction Documents
nor other material information relating to the Mortgage Loans, the operations of the Master
Servicer, the Sponsor or the Depositor (including servicing or origination of loans) or the
financial condition of the Master Servicer, the Sponsor or the Depositor or any other information
(collectively, the ‘Documents’) furnished to the Insurer contains any statement of a material fact
which was untrue or misleading in any material adverse respect when made.” Among other
things, the Prospectuses and Supplemental Prospectuses contain statements of material facts
which are untrue and/or misleading in material adverse respects;
b. Countrywide’s representation that “[N]o practice, procedure or policy
employed, or proposed to be employed, by the Servicer, Sponsor or Depositor in the conduct of
its business violates any law, regulation, judgment, agreement, order or decree that, if enforced,
could reasonably be expected to result in a Material Adverse Change to the Servicer, Sponsor or
Depositor.” On information and belief, and based on the publicly-filed actions commenced by
States and acknowledgments by other States’ representatives of investigations of alleged
unlawful conduct by Countrywide, Countrywide knew or should have known that it employed
practices, procedures and policies that violated, among other things, state consumer protection
and predatory lending laws in connection with the origination of mortgages and servicing of
mortgage loans, state nondiscrimination lending laws, state banking laws, and federal and state
securities laws. At the time of the Insurance Agreements, enforcement of such laws reasonably
could be expected to result, and has resulted, in a Material Adverse Change to Countrywide;
60
c. Countrywide’s representation that: “[T]he sale and offer of Securities
complies with all requirements of law, including registration requirements and that the Offering
Document does not contain any untrue statement of material fact or omit to state a material fact.”
Among other things, the Supplemental Prospectus contains untrue statements of material fact and
omits to state material facts, and the sale of Securities otherwise failed to comply with the
requirements of laws;
d. Countrywide’s representations that: “Financial Statements of Sponsor and
Master Servicer (i) are complete and correct in all material respects, (ii) present fairly financial
condition and results. There has been no Material Adverse Change and no undisclosed
contingent liabilities that, individually or in the aggregate, could cause a Material Adverse
Change.” At the time of Countrywide’s representation, the Financial Statements, inter alia, were
not complete and correct in all material respects, and did not present fairly the financial condition
and results, and did not disclose contingent liabilities which Countrywide knew, or reasonably
should have known, could (and did) cause a Material Adverse Change.
169. Countrywide also breached a Mortgage Loan Representation in the Purchase
Agreement, which is incorporated within the Insurance Agreement. Under the Purchase
Agreement, Countrywide represented that the Mortgage Loans had been originated in accordance
with Countrywide’s underwriting guidelines, and also consistently with the standards in the
industry. In addition, Countrywide represented and warranted it was not aware of any
information that would suggest that a Mortgage Loan would not be repaid. On information and
belief, Countrywide had not applied its underwriting guidelines to the vast majority of the
Mortgage Loans.
61
170. Under the Purchase Agreement, Countrywide also was to provide a Mortgage
Loan Schedule that accurately reflected the Mortgage Loans. The Mortgage Loan Schedule
accurately reflected the results of Countrywide’s purported underwriting exercise; however, it
failed to accurately reflect the Mortgage Loans.
171. Countrywide’s representations and warranties in the Purchase Agreement were
untrue and inaccurate, and therefore constitute an Event of Default under the Insurance
Agreement.
172. Countrywide is further in breach of the Mortgage Loan Representations with
respect to a substantial number of Defective Loans, and has breached its obligations, under each
Insurance Agreement and the applicable Purchase Agreement and the Sale and Servicing
Agreement, to cure, repurchase or substitute for each of the Defective Loans.
173. Each Insurance Agreement and other relevant Transaction Document further
requires Countrywide, after becoming aware of defective or missing documentation in the
Mortgage Loan files, or of another breach by Countrywide of a Mortgage Loan Representation
contained in a Transaction Document, to cure such breach within ninety days from the date that
Countrywide was notified of such breach or not later than the business day prior to the payment
date in which such cure period expired (the “Cure Date”), or to repurchase and/or substitute an
eligible loan for the Defective Loan in accordance with the applicable Sale and Servicing
Agreement.
174. MBIA’s written notice of Defective Loans constitutes notice of breach of the
Mortgage Loan Representation, and commences the running of the cure period. The Cure Date
has long passed. As of the date of this filing, Countrywide has failed and refused, and continues
to fail and refuse, to perform its obligations under each Insurance Agreement and the applicable
62
Purchase Agreement and the Sale and Servicing Agreement, in that Countrywide refuses to cure
the breaches of the Mortgage Loan Representations, repurchase the vast majority of the
Defective Loans, and/or substitute qualified mortgage loans in their place.
175. Countrywide has also breached the covenants in Article 2 of the Insurance
Agreement, including:
a. Countrywide was obliged to comply with all material requirements, laws,
rules and regulations where noncompliance could reasonably be expected to result in a Material
Adverse Change. On information and belief, and based on the publicly-filed actions commenced
by States and acknowledgments by other States of investigations of alleged unlawful conduct by
Countrywide, Countrywide knew or should have known that it employed practices, procedures
and policies that violated, among other things, state consumer protection and predatory lending
laws in connection with the origination of mortgage and servicing of mortgage loans, state
nondiscrimination lending laws, state banking laws, and federal and state securities laws.
b. Countrywide was obliged not to take any action, or fail to take any action,
that “could reasonably be expected to result in a Material Adverse Change to the Master
Servicer, Sponsor or Depositor.” As described above, Countrywide engaged in actions that at
the time could reasonably be expected to result in a Material Adverse Change, including its
failure to originate mortgage loans consistently with prudent underwriting standards and
consistently with states’ laws; failure to disclose material information to shareholders and others
in connection with the purchase or sale of stock; and failure to administer pension funds
consistent with ERISA and its fiduciary duties.
176. At the time of Countrywide’s action or inaction in breach of a covenant in Article
2 of the Insurance Agreement, it could reasonably be expected to, and, as described above, did,
63
result in a Material Adverse Change to Countrywide’s business, financial condition, results of
operations or properties; and also Countrywide’s ability to perform its obligations under any of
the Transaction Documents. Countrywide’s breach of covenants has led to substantial
impairment of Countrywide’s business and financial condition, nearly forcing it into bankruptcy,
and of Countrywide’s ability to perform its obligations, including to repurchase Defective Loans,
to service the Mortgage Loans and to provide MBIA with access to information.
177. Countrywide has also breached its covenant in the Insurance Agreement to not
take any action, or fail to take any action, that may “interfere with the enforcement of any rights
of the Insurer under or with respect to the Transaction Documents.”
a. Countrywide has interfered with the enforcement of MBIA’s rights under
the Purchase Agreement and/or Pooling and Servicing Agreement, including by failing to
repurchase the Defective Loans, and by failing to provide full and timely access to Mortgage
Loan files, records and information.
b. Countrywide has breached its obligations under the Sale and Servicing
Agreement and/or Pooling and Servicing Agreement to service the Mortgage Loans consistently
with the standards in the industry, and to refrain from altering its collection and charge-off
policies in ways that materially and adversely affect MBIA.
178. MBIA is entitled to rescissory damages based on Countrywide’s untrue and
inaccurate representations and warranties.
179. In the alternative, MBIA is entitled to damages in an amount to be proved at trial.
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION (BREACH OF CONTRACT: SALE AND SERVICING AGREEMENT)
(against Countrywide Home and Countrywide Servicing)
180. MBIA incorporates by reference all the foregoing allegations as though fully set
forth herein.
64
181. This is a claim for breach of contract against Countrywide Home and
Countrywide Servicing.
182. Each Sale and Servicing Agreement and Pooling and Servicing Agreement is a
valid and enforceable contract that gives rise to certain obligations on the part of Countrywide.
183. Countrywide Home Loans is the master servicer for the following securitizations:
CWABS 2004-I, CWABS 2004-P, CWHEQ 2005-A, CWHEQ 2005-E, CWHEQ 2005-I,
CWHEQ 2005-M, CWHEQ 2006-E, CWHEQ 2006-G, and CWHEQ 2007-E.
184. Countrywide Servicing is the master servicer for the following securitizations:
CWHEQ 2006-S8, CWHEQ 2006-S9, CWHEQ 2006-S10, CWHEQ 2007-S1, CWHEQ 2007-
S2 and CWHEQ 2007-S3.
185. Each Sale and Servicing Agreement and Pooling and Servicing Agreement
expressly provides that MBIA is a third-party beneficiary thereunder, with the right to enforce
the covenants and the obligations of the parties thereto.
186. Under both servicing agreements, Countrywide is obligated, among other things,
to provide service and administration consistent with the standards in the industry. Countrywide
has failed to perform service and administration at industry standards.
187. Countrywide has failed to commit adequate resources even to perform its
obligations, such as staff to respond to customer inquiries, conduct follow-up efforts and call out
programs to delinquent borrowers, and resources for work-out plans and updated software
programs. This inadequate resource commitment has been exacerbated by Countrywide’s blatant
disregard of its own underwriting guidelines, which has led to substantial increases in
delinquencies and defaults.
65
188. Countrywide also has exploited its role as agent for the owner of the Mortgage
Loans for its own gain at the expense of MBIA. For example, Countrywide has continued to
service loans—and collect servicing fees—even where it has become reasonably certain that a
defaulted Mortgage Loan will not produce any further payments to reduce amounts of accrued
interest or outstanding principal. It is standard in the industry to charge off a loan after it has
been delinquent for 180 days, as Countrywide itself acknowledged on page S-9 of the
Supplemental Prospectus for CWHEQ 2007-S1, in which it defined a charged-off loan as one
that had been delinquent for more than 180 days. In some cases, however, Countrywide has
continued to service Mortgage Loans more than 270 days after the last payment on amounts
owed on the Mortgage Loans had been received. Countrywide has continued to service such
Mortgage Loans for the sole purpose of continuing to collect service, late payment and other fees
that it retains as compensation. When a payment on a Mortgage Loan is delinquent, a late
payment fee is accrued on the account. Countrywide, as Master Servicer, is entitled to retain all
such late payment fees and service charges and any interest thereon as its compensation.
189. Countrywide has otherwise failed to service the Mortgage Loans consistently with
the standards of the industry, including, for example, refusing to accept partial payments from
borrowers ostensibly because of the added accounting and administrative burdens of accounting
for partial payments. Countrywide has also charged off loans where the borrower has made
payments after the date of the charge-off, to the direct detriment of MBIA.
190. Countrywide’s breaches of the servicing agreements has caused substantial harm
and damages to MBIA, in an amount to be proved at trial, but at a minimum including
substantially higher claims on Policies and other losses and expenses.
66
FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION (BREACH OF IMPLIED DUTY OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING)
(against Countrywide Home and Countrywide Servicing)
191. MBIA incorporates by reference all the foregoing allegations as though fully set
forth herein.
192. This is a claim for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing
against Countrywide Home and Countrywide Servicing.
193. The Insurance Agreement and the Transaction Documents incorporated therein
were built on the premise that, as Countrywide affirmatively represented, the Mortgage Loans
had been evaluated consistently with the underwriting standards that led Countrywide to be an
industry leader. Countrywide encouraged trust and reliance on its underwriting precisely
because of its expertise and experience.
194. The implied duty of good faith and fair dealing required application of
underwriting standards consistent with MBIA’s understanding, and with Countrywide’s
awareness of what MBIA had understood.
195. Countrywide’s breach has caused substantial harm and damages to MBIA, in an
amount to be proved at trial. At a minimum, Countrywide’s breach has caused:
a. Damages representing the aggregate amount of actual and future claims on
its Policies substantially in excess of the aggregate amount of claims that would have been made
in the absence of Countrywide’s breach;
b. Damages representing losses sustained by MBIA because of its credit risk
and exposure on the Policies, which are substantially greater than the parties bargained, and has
led to loss of business and other losses and expenses.
67
SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION (INDEMNIFICATION)
(against Countrywide Home and Countrywide Servicing)
196. MBIA incorporates by reference all the foregoing allegations as if fully stated
herein.
197. This is a claim for indemnification against Countrywide Home and Countrywide
Servicing.
198. In addition to the obligation to repurchase or substitute eligible loans for the
Defective Loans, each Insurance Agreement requires Countrywide to indemnify MBIA for any
losses, costs, and expenses resulting from the breach of any representations and warranties
contained in the Transaction Documents.
199. Countrywide is further obliged to indemnify MBIA for its attorneys’ fees and
costs associated with enforcing its legal rights under the agreements.
SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION (SUCCESSOR AND VICARIOUS LIABILITY)
(against Bank of America)
200. MBIA incorporates by reference all the foregoing allegations as if fully stated
herein.
201. Bank of America is jointly and severally liable for any and all damages resulting
from the wrongful actions of Countrywide, as alleged herein, because it is the successor in
liability to all of the Countrywide Defendants.
202. On July 1, 2008, Bank of America acquired Countrywide Financial and the other
Countrywide Defendants through an all-stock transaction. Bank of America has described the
transaction as a merger, and is actively incorporating the Countrywide mortgage business into
Bank of America.
68
203. On April 27, 2009, Bank of America announced that “[t]he Countrywide brand
has been retired.” Instead, Bank of America will operate its home loan and mortgage business
through a new division named Bank of America Home Loans, which “represents the combined
operations of Bank of America’s mortgage and home equity business and Countrywide Home
Loans.” The integration of Countrywide into Bank of America is expected to be completed by
the end of the year. According to press reports, Bank of America Home Loans will operate out
of Countrywide’s offices in Calabasas, California.
204. On November 7, 2008, Bank of America acquired substantially all of the assets of
Countrywide. And, at that time, Countrywide ceased submitting filings to the SEC, which are
now submitted as part of Bank of America’s filings.
205. Bank of America has also taken responsibility for Countrywide’s pre-merger
liabilities, including restructuring hundreds of thousands of loans created and serviced by
Countrywide. As a spokesperson for Bank of America admitted: “We bought the company and
all of its assets and liabilities.”
206. Moreover, in each of the Transaction Documents, each of the Countrywide
Defendants is defined to include its “successors and assigns.”
207. Because Bank of America has merged with Countrywide Financial, and acquired
substantially all of the assets of all the Countrywide Defendants, it is the successor in liability to
the Countrywide, and is jointly and severally or otherwise vicariously liable for the wrongful
conduct, as alleged herein, of the Countrywide Defendants.
69
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE MBIA prays for relief as follows:
An award of damages against the Defendants, in an amount to be proven at trial, but
including at a minimum representing:
a. MBIA’s payments on current and future claims under the Policies, including draw
downs on guarantees;
b. MBIA’s losses, including lost profits and business opportunities;
c. Indemnification for MBIA’s attorneys’ fees and costs associated with enforcing
its legal rights under the Transaction Documents;
d. Punitive damages;
e. Prejudgment interest at the maximum legal rate; and
f. Such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
DATED: New York, New York August 24, 2009
QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART OLIVER &
HEDGES, LLP
By: s/ Philippe Z. Selendy Peter E. Calamari
Philippe Z. Selendy
51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor New York, New York 10010-1601 (212) 849-7000
Attorneys for Plaintiff MBIA Insurance Corporation
EXHIBIT 3
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK
MBIA INSURANCE CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
-against-
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., COUNTRYWIDE SECURITIES CORP., COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL CORP., COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP, and BANK OF AMERICA CORP.
Defendants.
Index No.: 08/602825
IAS Part 3 (Bransten, J.)
CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL-SUBJECT TO STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR THE PRODUCTION AND EXCHANGE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
This envelope, containing documents which are filed in this case by MBIA Insurance Corporation, is not to be opened nor are the contents thereof to be displayed or revealed other
than to the Court, the parties and their counsel of record, except by order of the Court or consent of the parties.
EXHIBIT 4
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK
MBIA INSURANCE CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
-against-
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., COUNTRYWIDE SECURITIES CORP., COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL CORP., COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP, and BANK OF AMERICA CORP.
Defendants.
Index No.: 08/602825
IAS Part 3 (Bransten, J.)
CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL-SUBJECT TO STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR THE PRODUCTION AND EXCHANGE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
This envelope, containing documents which are filed in this case by MBIA Insurance Corporation, is not to be opened nor are the contents thereof to be displayed or revealed other
than to the Court, the parties and their counsel of record, except by order of the Court or consent of the parties.
EXHIBIT 5
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK
MBIA INSURANCE CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
-against-
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., COUNTRYWIDE SECURITIES CORP., COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL CORP., COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP, and BANK OF AMERICA CORP.
Defendants.
Index No.: 08/602825
IAS Part 3 (Bransten, J.)
CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL-SUBJECT TO STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR THE PRODUCTION AND EXCHANGE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
This envelope, containing documents which are filed in this case by MBIA Insurance Corporation, is not to be opened nor are the contents thereof to be displayed or revealed other
than to the Court, the parties and their counsel of record, except by order of the Court or consent of the parties.
EXHIBIT 6
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK
MBIA INSURANCE CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
-against-
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., COUNTRYWIDE SECURITIES CORP., COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL CORP., COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP, and BANK OF AMERICA CORP.
Defendants.
Index No.: 08/602825
IAS Part 3 (Bransten, J.)
CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL-SUBJECT TO STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR THE PRODUCTION AND EXCHANGE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
This envelope, containing documents which are filed in this case by MBIA Insurance Corporation, is not to be opened nor are the contents thereof to be displayed or revealed other
than to the Court, the parties and their counsel of record, except by order of the Court or consent of the parties.
EXHIBIT 7
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK
MBIA INSURANCE CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
-against-
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., COUNTRYWIDE SECURITIES CORP., COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL CORP., COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP, and BANK OF AMERICA CORP.
Defendants.
Index No.: 08/602825
IAS Part 3 (Bransten, J.)
CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL-SUBJECT TO STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR THE PRODUCTION AND EXCHANGE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
This envelope, containing documents which are filed in this case by MBIA Insurance Corporation, is not to be opened nor are the contents thereof to be displayed or revealed other
than to the Court, the parties and their counsel of record, except by order of the Court or consent of the parties.
EXHIBIT 8
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK
MBIA INSURANCE CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
-against-
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., COUNTRYWIDE SECURITIES CORP., COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL CORP., COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP, and BANK OF AMERICA CORP.
Defendants.
Index No.: 08/602825
IAS Part 3 (Bransten, J.)
CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL-SUBJECT TO STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR THE PRODUCTION AND EXCHANGE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
This envelope, containing documents which are filed in this case by MBIA Insurance Corporation, is not to be opened nor are the contents thereof to be displayed or revealed other
than to the Court, the parties and their counsel of record, except by order of the Court or consent of the parties.
EXHIBIT 9
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK
MBIA INSURANCE CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
-against-
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., COUNTRYWIDE SECURITIES CORP., COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL CORP., COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP, and BANK OF AMERICA CORP.
Defendants.
Index No.: 08/602825
IAS Part 3 (Bransten, J.)
CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL-SUBJECT TO STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR THE PRODUCTION AND EXCHANGE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
This envelope, containing documents which are filed in this case by MBIA Insurance Corporation, is not to be opened nor are the contents thereof to be displayed or revealed other
than to the Court, the parties and their counsel of record, except by order of the Court or consent of the parties.
EXHIBIT 10
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK
MBIA INSURANCE CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
-against-
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., COUNTRYWIDE SECURITIES CORP., COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL CORP., COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP, and BANK OF AMERICA CORP.
Defendants.
Index No.: 08/602825
IAS Part 3 (Bransten, J.)
CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL-SUBJECT TO STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR THE PRODUCTION AND EXCHANGE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
This envelope, containing documents which are filed in this case by MBIA Insurance Corporation, is not to be opened nor are the contents thereof to be displayed or revealed other
than to the Court, the parties and their counsel of record, except by order of the Court or consent of the parties.
EXHIBIT 11
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK
MBIA INSURANCE CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
-against-
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., COUNTRYWIDE SECURITIES CORP., COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL CORP., COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP, and BANK OF AMERICA CORP.
Defendants.
Index No.: 08/602825
IAS Part 3 (Bransten, J.)
CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL-SUBJECT TO STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR THE PRODUCTION AND EXCHANGE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
This envelope, containing documents which are filed in this case by MBIA Insurance Corporation, is not to be opened nor are the contents thereof to be displayed or revealed other
than to the Court, the parties and their counsel of record, except by order of the Court or consent of the parties.
EXHIBIT 12
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK
MBIA INSURANCE CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
-against-
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., COUNTRYWIDE SECURITIES CORP., COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL CORP., COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP, and BANK OF AMERICA CORP.
Defendants.
Index No.: 08/602825
IAS Part 3 (Bransten, J.)
CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL-SUBJECT TO STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR THE PRODUCTION AND EXCHANGE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
This envelope, containing documents which are filed in this case by MBIA Insurance Corporation, is not to be opened nor are the contents thereof to be displayed or revealed other
than to the Court, the parties and their counsel of record, except by order of the Court or consent of the parties.
EXHIBIT 13
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK
MBIA INSURANCE CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
-against-
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., COUNTRYWIDE SECURITIES CORP., COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL CORP., COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP, and BANK OF AMERICA CORP.
Defendants.
Index No.: 08/602825
IAS Part 3 (Bransten, J.)
CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL-SUBJECT TO STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR THE PRODUCTION AND EXCHANGE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
This envelope, containing documents which are filed in this case by MBIA Insurance Corporation, is not to be opened nor are the contents thereof to be displayed or revealed other
than to the Court, the parties and their counsel of record, except by order of the Court or consent of the parties.
EXHIBIT 14
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK
MBIA INSURANCE CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
-against-
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., COUNTRYWIDE SECURITIES CORP., COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL CORP., COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP, and BANK OF AMERICA CORP.
Defendants.
Index No.: 08/602825
IAS Part 3 (Bransten, J.)
CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL-SUBJECT TO STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR THE PRODUCTION AND EXCHANGE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
This envelope, containing documents which are filed in this case by MBIA Insurance Corporation, is not to be opened nor are the contents thereof to be displayed or revealed other
than to the Court, the parties and their counsel of record, except by order of the Court or consent of the parties.
EXHIBIT 15
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK
MBIA INSURANCE CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
-against-
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., COUNTRYWIDE SECURITIES CORP., COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL CORP., COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP, and BANK OF AMERICA CORP.
Defendants.
Index No.: 08/602825
IAS Part 3 (Bransten, J.)
CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL-SUBJECT TO STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR THE PRODUCTION AND EXCHANGE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
This envelope, containing documents which are filed in this case by MBIA Insurance Corporation, is not to be opened nor are the contents thereof to be displayed or revealed other
than to the Court, the parties and their counsel of record, except by order of the Court or consent of the parties.
EXHIBIT 16
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK
MBIA INSURANCE CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
-against-
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., COUNTRYWIDE SECURITIES CORP., COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL CORP., COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP, and BANK OF AMERICA CORP.
Defendants.
Index No.: 08/602825
IAS Part 3 (Bransten, J.)
CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL-SUBJECT TO STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR THE PRODUCTION AND EXCHANGE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
This envelope, containing documents which are filed in this case by MBIA Insurance Corporation, is not to be opened nor are the contents thereof to be displayed or revealed other
than to the Court, the parties and their counsel of record, except by order of the Court or consent of the parties.
EXHIBIT 17
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK
MBIA INSURANCE CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
-against-
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., COUNTRYWIDE SECURITIES CORP., COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL CORP., COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP, and BANK OF AMERICA CORP.
Defendants.
Index No.: 08/602825
IAS Part 3 (Bransten, J.)
CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL-SUBJECT TO STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR THE PRODUCTION AND EXCHANGE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
This envelope, containing documents which are filed in this case by MBIA Insurance Corporation, is not to be opened nor are the contents thereof to be displayed or revealed other
than to the Court, the parties and their counsel of record, except by order of the Court or consent of the parties.
EXHIBIT 18
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK
MBIA INSURANCE CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
-against-
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., COUNTRYWIDE SECURITIES CORP., COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL CORP., COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP, and BANK OF AMERICA CORP.
Defendants.
Index No.: 08/602825
IAS Part 3 (Bransten, J.)
CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL-SUBJECT TO STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR THE PRODUCTION AND EXCHANGE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
This envelope, containing documents which are filed in this case by MBIA Insurance Corporation, is not to be opened nor are the contents thereof to be displayed or revealed other
than to the Court, the parties and their counsel of record, except by order of the Court or consent of the parties.
EXHIBIT 19
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK
MBIA INSURANCE CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
-against-
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., COUNTRYWIDE SECURITIES CORP., COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL CORP., COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP, and BANK OF AMERICA CORP.
Defendants.
Index No.: 08/602825
IAS Part 3 (Bransten, J.)
CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL-SUBJECT TO STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR THE PRODUCTION AND EXCHANGE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
This envelope, containing documents which are filed in this case by MBIA Insurance Corporation, is not to be opened nor are the contents thereof to be displayed or revealed other
than to the Court, the parties and their counsel of record, except by order of the Court or consent of the parties.
EXHIBIT 20
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK
MBIA INSURANCE CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
-against-
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., COUNTRYWIDE SECURITIES CORP., COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL CORP., COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP, and BANK OF AMERICA CORP.
Defendants.
Index No.: 08/602825
IAS Part 3 (Bransten, J.)
CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL-SUBJECT TO STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR THE PRODUCTION AND EXCHANGE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
This envelope, containing documents which are filed in this case by MBIA Insurance Corporation, is not to be opened nor are the contents thereof to be displayed or revealed other
than to the Court, the parties and their counsel of record, except by order of the Court or consent of the parties.
EXHIBIT 21
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK
MBIA INSURANCE CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
-against-
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., COUNTRYWIDE SECURITIES CORP., COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL CORP., COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP, and BANK OF AMERICA CORP.
Defendants.
Index No.: 08/602825
IAS Part 3 (Bransten, J.)
CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL-SUBJECT TO STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR THE PRODUCTION AND EXCHANGE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
This envelope, containing documents which are filed in this case by MBIA Insurance Corporation, is not to be opened nor are the contents thereof to be displayed or revealed other
than to the Court, the parties and their counsel of record, except by order of the Court or consent of the parties.
EXHIBIT 22
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK
MBIA INSURANCE CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
-against-
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., COUNTRYWIDE SECURITIES CORP., COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL CORP., COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP, and BANK OF AMERICA CORP.
Defendants.
Index No.: 08/602825
IAS Part 3 (Bransten, J.)
CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL-SUBJECT TO STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR THE PRODUCTION AND EXCHANGE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
This envelope, containing documents which are filed in this case by MBIA Insurance Corporation, is not to be opened nor are the contents thereof to be displayed or revealed other
than to the Court, the parties and their counsel of record, except by order of the Court or consent of the parties.
EXHIBIT 23
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK
MBIA INSURANCE CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
-against-
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., COUNTRYWIDE SECURITIES CORP., COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL CORP., COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP, and BANK OF AMERICA CORP.
Defendants.
Index No.: 08/602825
IAS Part 3 (Bransten, J.)
CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL-SUBJECT TO STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR THE PRODUCTION AND EXCHANGE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
This envelope, containing documents which are filed in this case by MBIA Insurance Corporation, is not to be opened nor are the contents thereof to be displayed or revealed other
than to the Court, the parties and their counsel of record, except by order of the Court or consent of the parties.
EXHIBIT 24
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK
MBIA INSURANCE CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
-against-
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., COUNTRYWIDE SECURITIES CORP., COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL CORP., COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP, and BANK OF AMERICA CORP.
Defendants.
Index No.: 08/602825
IAS Part 3 (Bransten, J.)
CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL-SUBJECT TO STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR THE PRODUCTION AND EXCHANGE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
This envelope, containing documents which are filed in this case by MBIA Insurance Corporation, is not to be opened nor are the contents thereof to be displayed or revealed other
than to the Court, the parties and their counsel of record, except by order of the Court or consent of the parties.
EXHIBIT 25
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK
MBIA INSURANCE CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
-against-
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., COUNTRYWIDE SECURITIES CORP., COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL CORP., COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP, and BANK OF AMERICA CORP.
Defendants.
Index No.: 08/602825
IAS Part 3 (Bransten, J.)
CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL-SUBJECT TO STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR THE PRODUCTION AND EXCHANGE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
This envelope, containing documents which are filed in this case by MBIA Insurance Corporation, is not to be opened nor are the contents thereof to be displayed or revealed other
than to the Court, the parties and their counsel of record, except by order of the Court or consent of the parties.
EXHIBIT 26
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK
MBIA INSURANCE CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
-against-
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., COUNTRYWIDE SECURITIES CORP., COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL CORP., COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP, and BANK OF AMERICA CORP.
Defendants.
Index No.: 08/602825
IAS Part 3 (Bransten, J.)
CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL-SUBJECT TO STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR THE PRODUCTION AND EXCHANGE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
This envelope, containing documents which are filed in this case by MBIA Insurance Corporation, is not to be opened nor are the contents thereof to be displayed or revealed other
than to the Court, the parties and their counsel of record, except by order of the Court or consent of the parties.
EXHIBIT 27
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK
MBIA INSURANCE CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
-against-
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., COUNTRYWIDE SECURITIES CORP., COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL CORP., COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP, and BANK OF AMERICA CORP.
Defendants.
Index No.: 08/602825
IAS Part 3 (Bransten, J.)
CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL-SUBJECT TO STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR THE PRODUCTION AND EXCHANGE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
This envelope, containing documents which are filed in this case by MBIA Insurance Corporation, is not to be opened nor are the contents thereof to be displayed or revealed other
than to the Court, the parties and their counsel of record, except by order of the Court or consent of the parties.
EXHIBIT 28
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK
MBIA INSURANCE CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
-against-
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., COUNTRYWIDE SECURITIES CORP., COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL CORP., COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP, and BANK OF AMERICA CORP.
Defendants.
Index No.: 08/602825
IAS Part 3 (Bransten, J.)
CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL-SUBJECT TO STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR THE PRODUCTION AND EXCHANGE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
This envelope, containing documents which are filed in this case by MBIA Insurance Corporation, is not to be opened nor are the contents thereof to be displayed or revealed other
than to the Court, the parties and their counsel of record, except by order of the Court or consent of the parties.
EXHIBIT 29
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK
MBIA INSURANCE CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
-against-
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., COUNTRYWIDE SECURITIES CORP., COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL CORP., COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP, and BANK OF AMERICA CORP.
Defendants.
Index No.: 08/602825
IAS Part 3 (Bransten, J.)
CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL-SUBJECT TO STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR THE PRODUCTION AND EXCHANGE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
This envelope, containing documents which are filed in this case by MBIA Insurance Corporation, is not to be opened nor are the contents thereof to be displayed or revealed other
than to the Court, the parties and their counsel of record, except by order of the Court or consent of the parties.
EXHIBIT 30
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK
MBIA INSURANCE CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
-against-
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., COUNTRYWIDE SECURITIES CORP., COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL CORP., COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP, and BANK OF AMERICA CORP.
Defendants.
Index No.: 08/602825
IAS Part 3 (Bransten, J.)
CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL-SUBJECT TO STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR THE PRODUCTION AND EXCHANGE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
This envelope, containing documents which are filed in this case by MBIA Insurance Corporation, is not to be opened nor are the contents thereof to be displayed or revealed other
than to the Court, the parties and their counsel of record, except by order of the Court or consent of the parties.
EXHIBIT 31
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK
MBIA INSURANCE CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
-against-
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., COUNTRYWIDE SECURITIES CORP., COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL CORP., COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP, and BANK OF AMERICA CORP.
Defendants.
Index No.: 08/602825
IAS Part 3 (Bransten, J.)
CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL-SUBJECT TO STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR THE PRODUCTION AND EXCHANGE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
This envelope, containing documents which are filed in this case by MBIA Insurance Corporation, is not to be opened nor are the contents thereof to be displayed or revealed other
than to the Court, the parties and their counsel of record, except by order of the Court or consent of the parties.
EXHIBIT 32
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK
MBIA INSURANCE CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
-against-
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., COUNTRYWIDE SECURITIES CORP., COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL CORP., COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP, and BANK OF AMERICA CORP.
Defendants.
Index No.: 08/602825
IAS Part 3 (Bransten, J.)
CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL-SUBJECT TO STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR THE PRODUCTION AND EXCHANGE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
This envelope, containing documents which are filed in this case by MBIA Insurance Corporation, is not to be opened nor are the contents thereof to be displayed or revealed other
than to the Court, the parties and their counsel of record, except by order of the Court or consent of the parties.
EXHIBIT 33
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK
MBIA INSURANCE CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
-against-
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., COUNTRYWIDE SECURITIES CORP., COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL CORP., COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP, and BANK OF AMERICA CORP.
Defendants.
Index No.: 08/602825
IAS Part 3 (Bransten, J.)
CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL-SUBJECT TO STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR THE PRODUCTION AND EXCHANGE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
This envelope, containing documents which are filed in this case by MBIA Insurance Corporation, is not to be opened nor are the contents thereof to be displayed or revealed other
than to the Court, the parties and their counsel of record, except by order of the Court or consent of the parties.
EXHIBIT 34
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK
MBIA INSURANCE CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
-against-
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., COUNTRYWIDE SECURITIES CORP., COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL CORP., COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP, and BANK OF AMERICA CORP.
Defendants.
Index No.: 08/602825
IAS Part 3 (Bransten, J.)
CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL-SUBJECT TO STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR THE PRODUCTION AND EXCHANGE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
This envelope, containing documents which are filed in this case by MBIA Insurance Corporation, is not to be opened nor are the contents thereof to be displayed or revealed other
than to the Court, the parties and their counsel of record, except by order of the Court or consent of the parties.
EXHIBIT 35
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK
MBIA INSURANCE CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
-against-
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., COUNTRYWIDE SECURITIES CORP., COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL CORP., COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP, and BANK OF AMERICA CORP.
Defendants.
Index No.: 08/602825
IAS Part 3 (Bransten, J.)
CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL-SUBJECT TO STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR THE PRODUCTION AND EXCHANGE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
This envelope, containing documents which are filed in this case by MBIA Insurance Corporation, is not to be opened nor are the contents thereof to be displayed or revealed other
than to the Court, the parties and their counsel of record, except by order of the Court or consent of the parties.
EXHIBIT 36
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK
MBIA INSURANCE CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
-against-
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., COUNTRYWIDE SECURITIES CORP., COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL CORP., COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP, and BANK OF AMERICA CORP.
Defendants.
Index No.: 08/602825
IAS Part 3 (Bransten, J.)
CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL-SUBJECT TO STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR THE PRODUCTION AND EXCHANGE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
This envelope, containing documents which are filed in this case by MBIA Insurance Corporation, is not to be opened nor are the contents thereof to be displayed or revealed other
than to the Court, the parties and their counsel of record, except by order of the Court or consent of the parties.
EXHIBIT 37
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK
MBIA INSURANCE CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
-against-
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., COUNTRYWIDE SECURITIES CORP., COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL CORP., COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP, and BANK OF AMERICA CORP.
Defendants.
Index No.: 08/602825
IAS Part 3 (Bransten, J.)
CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL-SUBJECT TO STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR THE PRODUCTION AND EXCHANGE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
This envelope, containing documents which are filed in this case by MBIA Insurance Corporation, is not to be opened nor are the contents thereof to be displayed or revealed other
than to the Court, the parties and their counsel of record, except by order of the Court or consent of the parties.
EXHIBIT 38
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK
MBIA INSURANCE CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
-against-
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., COUNTRYWIDE SECURITIES CORP., COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL CORP., COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP, and BANK OF AMERICA CORP.
Defendants.
Index No.: 08/602825
IAS Part 3 (Bransten, J.)
CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL-SUBJECT TO STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR THE PRODUCTION AND EXCHANGE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
This envelope, containing documents which are filed in this case by MBIA Insurance Corporation, is not to be opened nor are the contents thereof to be displayed or revealed other
than to the Court, the parties and their counsel of record, except by order of the Court or consent of the parties.
EXHIBIT 39
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK
MBIA INSURANCE CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
-against-
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., COUNTRYWIDE SECURITIES CORP., COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL CORP., COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP, and BANK OF AMERICA CORP.
Defendants.
Index No.: 08/602825
IAS Part 3 (Bransten, J.)
CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL-SUBJECT TO STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR THE PRODUCTION AND EXCHANGE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
This envelope, containing documents which are filed in this case by MBIA Insurance Corporation, is not to be opened nor are the contents thereof to be displayed or revealed other
than to the Court, the parties and their counsel of record, except by order of the Court or consent of the parties.
EXHIBIT 40
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK
MBIA INSURANCE CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
-against-
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., COUNTRYWIDE SECURITIES CORP., COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL CORP., COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP, and BANK OF AMERICA CORP.
Defendants.
Index No.: 08/602825
IAS Part 3 (Bransten, J.)
CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL-SUBJECT TO STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR THE PRODUCTION AND EXCHANGE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
This envelope, containing documents which are filed in this case by MBIA Insurance Corporation, is not to be opened nor are the contents thereof to be displayed or revealed other
than to the Court, the parties and their counsel of record, except by order of the Court or consent of the parties.
EXHIBIT 41
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK
MBIA INSURANCE CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
-against-
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., COUNTRYWIDE SECURITIES CORP., COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL CORP., COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP, and BANK OF AMERICA CORP.
Defendants.
Index No.: 08/602825
IAS Part 3 (Bransten, J.)
CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL-SUBJECT TO STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR THE PRODUCTION AND EXCHANGE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
This envelope, containing documents which are filed in this case by MBIA Insurance Corporation, is not to be opened nor are the contents thereof to be displayed or revealed other
than to the Court, the parties and their counsel of record, except by order of the Court or consent of the parties.
EXHIBIT 42
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK
MBIA INSURANCE CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
-against-
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., COUNTRYWIDE SECURITIES CORP., COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL CORP., COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP, and BANK OF AMERICA CORP.
Defendants.
Index No.: 08/602825
IAS Part 3 (Bransten, J.)
CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL-SUBJECT TO STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR THE PRODUCTION AND EXCHANGE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
This envelope, containing documents which are filed in this case by MBIA Insurance Corporation, is not to be opened nor are the contents thereof to be displayed or revealed other
than to the Court, the parties and their counsel of record, except by order of the Court or consent of the parties.
EXHIBIT 43
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK
MBIA INSURANCE CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
-against-
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., COUNTRYWIDE SECURITIES CORP., COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL CORP., COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP, and BANK OF AMERICA CORP.
Defendants.
Index No.: 08/602825
IAS Part 3 (Bransten, J.)
CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL-SUBJECT TO STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR THE PRODUCTION AND EXCHANGE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
This envelope, containing documents which are filed in this case by MBIA Insurance Corporation, is not to be opened nor are the contents thereof to be displayed or revealed other
than to the Court, the parties and their counsel of record, except by order of the Court or consent of the parties.
EXHIBIT 44
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK
MBIA INSURANCE CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
-against-
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., COUNTRYWIDE SECURITIES CORP., COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL CORP., COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP, and BANK OF AMERICA CORP.
Defendants.
Index No.: 08/602825
IAS Part 3 (Bransten, J.)
CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL-SUBJECT TO STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR THE PRODUCTION AND EXCHANGE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
This envelope, containing documents which are filed in this case by MBIA Insurance Corporation, is not to be opened nor are the contents thereof to be displayed or revealed other
than to the Court, the parties and their counsel of record, except by order of the Court or consent of the parties.
EXHIBIT 45
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK
MBIA INSURANCE CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
-against-
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., COUNTRYWIDE SECURITIES CORP., COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL CORP., COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP, and BANK OF AMERICA CORP.
Defendants.
Index No.: 08/602825
IAS Part 3 (Bransten, J.)
CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL-SUBJECT TO STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR THE PRODUCTION AND EXCHANGE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
This envelope, containing documents which are filed in this case by MBIA Insurance Corporation, is not to be opened nor are the contents thereof to be displayed or revealed other
than to the Court, the parties and their counsel of record, except by order of the Court or consent of the parties.
EXHIBIT 46
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK
MBIA INSURANCE CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
-against-
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., COUNTRYWIDE SECURITIES CORP., COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL CORP., COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP, and BANK OF AMERICA CORP.
Defendants.
Index No.: 08/602825
IAS Part 3 (Bransten, J.)
CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL-SUBJECT TO STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR THE PRODUCTION AND EXCHANGE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
This envelope, containing documents which are filed in this case by MBIA Insurance Corporation, is not to be opened nor are the contents thereof to be displayed or revealed other
than to the Court, the parties and their counsel of record, except by order of the Court or consent of the parties.
EXHIBIT 47
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK
MBIA INSURANCE CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
-against-
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., COUNTRYWIDE SECURITIES CORP., COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL CORP., COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP, and BANK OF AMERICA CORP.
Defendants.
Index No.: 08/602825
IAS Part 3 (Bransten, J.)
CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL-SUBJECT TO STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR THE PRODUCTION AND EXCHANGE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
This envelope, containing documents which are filed in this case by MBIA Insurance Corporation, is not to be opened nor are the contents thereof to be displayed or revealed other
than to the Court, the parties and their counsel of record, except by order of the Court or consent of the parties.
EXHIBIT 48
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK
MBIA INSURANCE CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
-against-
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., COUNTRYWIDE SECURITIES CORP., COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL CORP., COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP, and BANK OF AMERICA CORP.
Defendants.
Index No.: 08/602825
IAS Part 3 (Bransten, J.)
CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL-SUBJECT TO STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR THE PRODUCTION AND EXCHANGE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
This envelope, containing documents which are filed in this case by MBIA Insurance Corporation, is not to be opened nor are the contents thereof to be displayed or revealed other
than to the Court, the parties and their counsel of record, except by order of the Court or consent of the parties.
EXHIBIT 49
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK
MBIA INSURANCE CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
-against-
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., COUNTRYWIDE SECURITIES CORP., COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL CORP., COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP, and BANK OF AMERICA CORP.
Defendants.
Index No.: 08/602825
IAS Part 3 (Bransten, J.)
CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL-SUBJECT TO STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR THE PRODUCTION AND EXCHANGE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
This envelope, containing documents which are filed in this case by MBIA Insurance Corporation, is not to be opened nor are the contents thereof to be displayed or revealed other
than to the Court, the parties and their counsel of record, except by order of the Court or consent of the parties.
EXHIBIT 50
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK
MBIA INSURANCE CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
-against-
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., COUNTRYWIDE SECURITIES CORP., COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL CORP., COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP, and BANK OF AMERICA CORP.
Defendants.
Index No.: 08/602825
IAS Part 3 (Bransten, J.)
CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL-SUBJECT TO STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR THE PRODUCTION AND EXCHANGE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
This envelope, containing documents which are filed in this case by MBIA Insurance Corporation, is not to be opened nor are the contents thereof to be displayed or revealed other
than to the Court, the parties and their counsel of record, except by order of the Court or consent of the parties.
EXHIBIT 51
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK
MBIA INSURANCE CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
-against-
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., COUNTRYWIDE SECURITIES CORP., COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL CORP., COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP, and BANK OF AMERICA CORP.
Defendants.
Index No.: 08/602825
IAS Part 3 (Bransten, J.)
CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL-SUBJECT TO STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR THE PRODUCTION AND EXCHANGE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
This envelope, containing documents which are filed in this case by MBIA Insurance Corporation, is not to be opened nor are the contents thereof to be displayed or revealed other
than to the Court, the parties and their counsel of record, except by order of the Court or consent of the parties.
EXHIBIT 52
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK
MBIA INSURANCE CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
-against-
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., COUNTRYWIDE SECURITIES CORP., COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL CORP., COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP, and BANK OF AMERICA CORP.
Defendants.
Index No.: 08/602825
IAS Part 3 (Bransten, J.)
CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL-SUBJECT TO STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR THE PRODUCTION AND EXCHANGE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
This envelope, containing documents which are filed in this case by MBIA Insurance Corporation, is not to be opened nor are the contents thereof to be displayed or revealed other
than to the Court, the parties and their counsel of record, except by order of the Court or consent of the parties.
EXHIBIT 53
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK
MBIA INSURANCE CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
-against-
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., COUNTRYWIDE SECURITIES CORP., COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL CORP., COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP, and BANK OF AMERICA CORP.
Defendants.
Index No.: 08/602825
IAS Part 3 (Bransten, J.)
CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL-SUBJECT TO STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR THE PRODUCTION AND EXCHANGE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
This envelope, containing documents which are filed in this case by MBIA Insurance Corporation, is not to be opened nor are the contents thereof to be displayed or revealed other
than to the Court, the parties and their counsel of record, except by order of the Court or consent of the parties.
EXHIBIT 54
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK
MBIA INSURANCE CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
-against-
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., COUNTRYWIDE SECURITIES CORP., COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL CORP., COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP, and BANK OF AMERICA CORP.
Defendants.
Index No.: 08/602825
IAS Part 3 (Bransten, J.)
CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL-SUBJECT TO STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR THE PRODUCTION AND EXCHANGE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
This envelope, containing documents which are filed in this case by MBIA Insurance Corporation, is not to be opened nor are the contents thereof to be displayed or revealed other
than to the Court, the parties and their counsel of record, except by order of the Court or consent of the parties.
EXHIBIT 55
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK
MBIA INSURANCE CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
-against-
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., COUNTRYWIDE SECURITIES CORP., COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL CORP., COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP, and BANK OF AMERICA CORP.
Defendants.
Index No.: 08/602825
IAS Part 3 (Bransten, J.)
CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL-SUBJECT TO STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR THE PRODUCTION AND EXCHANGE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
This envelope, containing documents which are filed in this case by MBIA Insurance Corporation, is not to be opened nor are the contents thereof to be displayed or revealed other
than to the Court, the parties and their counsel of record, except by order of the Court or consent of the parties.
EXHIBIT 56
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK
MBIA INSURANCE CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
-against-
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., COUNTRYWIDE SECURITIES CORP., COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL CORP., COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP, and BANK OF AMERICA CORP.
Defendants.
Index No.: 08/602825
IAS Part 3 (Bransten, J.)
CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL-SUBJECT TO STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR THE PRODUCTION AND EXCHANGE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
This envelope, containing documents which are filed in this case by MBIA Insurance Corporation, is not to be opened nor are the contents thereof to be displayed or revealed other
than to the Court, the parties and their counsel of record, except by order of the Court or consent of the parties.
EXHIBIT 57
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK
MBIA INSURANCE CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
-against-
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., COUNTRYWIDE SECURITIES CORP., COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL CORP., COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP, and BANK OF AMERICA CORP.
Defendants.
Index No.: 08/602825
IAS Part 3 (Bransten, J.)
CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL-SUBJECT TO STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR THE PRODUCTION AND EXCHANGE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
This envelope, containing documents which are filed in this case by MBIA Insurance Corporation, is not to be opened nor are the contents thereof to be displayed or revealed other
than to the Court, the parties and their counsel of record, except by order of the Court or consent of the parties.
EXHIBIT 58
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK
MBIA INSURANCE CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
-against-
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., COUNTRYWIDE SECURITIES CORP., COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL CORP., COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP, and BANK OF AMERICA CORP.
Defendants.
Index No.: 08/602825
IAS Part 3 (Bransten, J.)
CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL-SUBJECT TO STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR THE PRODUCTION AND EXCHANGE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
This envelope, containing documents which are filed in this case by MBIA Insurance Corporation, is not to be opened nor are the contents thereof to be displayed or revealed other
than to the Court, the parties and their counsel of record, except by order of the Court or consent of the parties.
EXHIBIT 59
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK
MBIA INSURANCE CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
-against-
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., COUNTRYWIDE SECURITIES CORP., COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL CORP., COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP, and BANK OF AMERICA CORP.
Defendants.
Index No.: 08/602825
IAS Part 3 (Bransten, J.)
CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL-SUBJECT TO STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR THE PRODUCTION AND EXCHANGE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
This envelope, containing documents which are filed in this case by MBIA Insurance Corporation, is not to be opened nor are the contents thereof to be displayed or revealed other
than to the Court, the parties and their counsel of record, except by order of the Court or consent of the parties.
EXHIBIT 60
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK
MBIA INSURANCE CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
-against-
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., COUNTRYWIDE SECURITIES CORP., COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL CORP., COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP, and BANK OF AMERICA CORP.
Defendants.
Index No.: 08/602825
IAS Part 3 (Bransten, J.)
CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL-SUBJECT TO STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR THE PRODUCTION AND EXCHANGE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
This envelope, containing documents which are filed in this case by MBIA Insurance Corporation, is not to be opened nor are the contents thereof to be displayed or revealed other
than to the Court, the parties and their counsel of record, except by order of the Court or consent of the parties.
EXHIBIT 61
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK
MBIA INSURANCE CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
-against-
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., COUNTRYWIDE SECURITIES CORP., COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL CORP., COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP, and BANK OF AMERICA CORP.
Defendants.
Index No.: 08/602825
IAS Part 3 (Bransten, J.)
CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL-SUBJECT TO STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR THE PRODUCTION AND EXCHANGE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
This envelope, containing documents which are filed in this case by MBIA Insurance Corporation, is not to be opened nor are the contents thereof to be displayed or revealed other
than to the Court, the parties and their counsel of record, except by order of the Court or consent of the parties.
EXHIBIT 62
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK
MBIA INSURANCE CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
-against-
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., COUNTRYWIDE SECURITIES CORP., COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL CORP., COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP, and BANK OF AMERICA CORP.
Defendants.
Index No.: 08/602825
IAS Part 3 (Bransten, J.)
CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL-SUBJECT TO STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR THE PRODUCTION AND EXCHANGE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
This envelope, containing documents which are filed in this case by MBIA Insurance Corporation, is not to be opened nor are the contents thereof to be displayed or revealed other
than to the Court, the parties and their counsel of record, except by order of the Court or consent of the parties.
EXHIBIT 63
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK
MBIA INSURANCE CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
-against-
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., COUNTRYWIDE SECURITIES CORP., COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL CORP., COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP, and BANK OF AMERICA CORP.
Defendants.
Index No.: 08/602825
IAS Part 3 (Bransten, J.)
CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL-SUBJECT TO STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR THE PRODUCTION AND EXCHANGE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
This envelope, containing documents which are filed in this case by MBIA Insurance Corporation, is not to be opened nor are the contents thereof to be displayed or revealed other
than to the Court, the parties and their counsel of record, except by order of the Court or consent of the parties.
EXHIBIT 64
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK
MBIA INSURANCE CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
-against-
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., COUNTRYWIDE SECURITIES CORP., COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL CORP., COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP, and BANK OF AMERICA CORP.
Defendants.
Index No.: 08/602825
IAS Part 3 (Bransten, J.)
CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL-SUBJECT TO STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR THE PRODUCTION AND EXCHANGE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
This envelope, containing documents which are filed in this case by MBIA Insurance Corporation, is not to be opened nor are the contents thereof to be displayed or revealed other
than to the Court, the parties and their counsel of record, except by order of the Court or consent of the parties.
EXHIBIT 65
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK
MBIA INSURANCE CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
-against-
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., COUNTRYWIDE SECURITIES CORP., COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL CORP., COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP, and BANK OF AMERICA CORP.
Defendants.
Index No.: 08/602825
IAS Part 3 (Bransten, J.)
CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL-SUBJECT TO STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR THE PRODUCTION AND EXCHANGE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
This envelope, containing documents which are filed in this case by MBIA Insurance Corporation, is not to be opened nor are the contents thereof to be displayed or revealed other
than to the Court, the parties and their counsel of record, except by order of the Court or consent of the parties.
EXHIBIT 66
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK
MBIA INSURANCE CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
-against-
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., COUNTRYWIDE SECURITIES CORP., COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL CORP., COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP, and BANK OF AMERICA CORP.
Defendants.
Index No.: 08/602825
IAS Part 3 (Bransten, J.)
CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL-SUBJECT TO STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR THE PRODUCTION AND EXCHANGE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
This envelope, containing documents which are filed in this case by MBIA Insurance Corporation, is not to be opened nor are the contents thereof to be displayed or revealed other
than to the Court, the parties and their counsel of record, except by order of the Court or consent of the parties.
EXHIBIT 67
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK
MBIA INSURANCE CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
-against-
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., COUNTRYWIDE SECURITIES CORP., COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL CORP., COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP, and BANK OF AMERICA CORP.
Defendants.
Index No.: 08/602825
IAS Part 3 (Bransten, J.)
CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL-SUBJECT TO STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR THE PRODUCTION AND EXCHANGE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
This envelope, containing documents which are filed in this case by MBIA Insurance Corporation, is not to be opened nor are the contents thereof to be displayed or revealed other
than to the Court, the parties and their counsel of record, except by order of the Court or consent of the parties.
EXHIBIT 68
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK
MBIA INSURANCE CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
-against-
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., COUNTRYWIDE SECURITIES CORP., COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL CORP., COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP, and BANK OF AMERICA CORP.
Defendants.
Index No.: 08/602825
IAS Part 3 (Bransten, J.)
CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL-SUBJECT TO STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR THE PRODUCTION AND EXCHANGE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
This envelope, containing documents which are filed in this case by MBIA Insurance Corporation, is not to be opened nor are the contents thereof to be displayed or revealed other
than to the Court, the parties and their counsel of record, except by order of the Court or consent of the parties.
EXHIBIT 69
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK
MBIA INSURANCE CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
-against-
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., COUNTRYWIDE SECURITIES CORP., COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL CORP., COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP, and BANK OF AMERICA CORP.
Defendants.
Index No.: 08/602825
IAS Part 3 (Bransten, J.)
CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL-SUBJECT TO STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR THE PRODUCTION AND EXCHANGE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
This envelope, containing documents which are filed in this case by MBIA Insurance Corporation, is not to be opened nor are the contents thereof to be displayed or revealed other
than to the Court, the parties and their counsel of record, except by order of the Court or consent of the parties.
EXHIBIT 70
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK
MBIA INSURANCE CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
-against-
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., COUNTRYWIDE SECURITIES CORP., COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL CORP., COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP, and BANK OF AMERICA CORP.
Defendants.
Index No.: 08/602825
IAS Part 3 (Bransten, J.)
CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL-SUBJECT TO STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR THE PRODUCTION AND EXCHANGE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
This envelope, containing documents which are filed in this case by MBIA Insurance Corporation, is not to be opened nor are the contents thereof to be displayed or revealed other
than to the Court, the parties and their counsel of record, except by order of the Court or consent of the parties.
EXHIBIT 71
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK
MBIA INSURANCE CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
-against-
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., COUNTRYWIDE SECURITIES CORP., COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL CORP., COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP, and BANK OF AMERICA CORP.
Defendants.
Index No.: 08/602825
IAS Part 3 (Bransten, J.)
CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL-SUBJECT TO STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR THE PRODUCTION AND EXCHANGE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
This envelope, containing documents which are filed in this case by MBIA Insurance Corporation, is not to be opened nor are the contents thereof to be displayed or revealed other
than to the Court, the parties and their counsel of record, except by order of the Court or consent of the parties.
EXHIBIT 72
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK
MBIA INSURANCE CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
-against-
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., COUNTRYWIDE SECURITIES CORP., COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL CORP., COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP, and BANK OF AMERICA CORP.
Defendants.
Index No.: 08/602825
IAS Part 3 (Bransten, J.)
CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL-SUBJECT TO STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR THE PRODUCTION AND EXCHANGE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
This envelope, containing documents which are filed in this case by MBIA Insurance Corporation, is not to be opened nor are the contents thereof to be displayed or revealed other
than to the Court, the parties and their counsel of record, except by order of the Court or consent of the parties.
EXHIBIT 73
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK
MBIA INSURANCE CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
-against-
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., COUNTRYWIDE SECURITIES CORP., COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL CORP., COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP, and BANK OF AMERICA CORP.
Defendants.
Index No.: 08/602825
IAS Part 3 (Bransten, J.)
CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL-SUBJECT TO STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR THE PRODUCTION AND EXCHANGE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
This envelope, containing documents which are filed in this case by MBIA Insurance Corporation, is not to be opened nor are the contents thereof to be displayed or revealed other
than to the Court, the parties and their counsel of record, except by order of the Court or consent of the parties.
EXHIBIT 74
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK
MBIA INSURANCE CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
-against-
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., COUNTRYWIDE SECURITIES CORP., COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL CORP., COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP, and BANK OF AMERICA CORP.
Defendants.
Index No.: 08/602825
IAS Part 3 (Bransten, J.)
CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL-SUBJECT TO STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR THE PRODUCTION AND EXCHANGE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
This envelope, containing documents which are filed in this case by MBIA Insurance Corporation, is not to be opened nor are the contents thereof to be displayed or revealed other
than to the Court, the parties and their counsel of record, except by order of the Court or consent of the parties.
EXHIBIT 75
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK
MBIA INSURANCE CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
-against-
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., COUNTRYWIDE SECURITIES CORP., COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL CORP., COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP, and BANK OF AMERICA CORP.
Defendants.
Index No.: 08/602825
IAS Part 3 (Bransten, J.)
CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL-SUBJECT TO STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR THE PRODUCTION AND EXCHANGE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
This envelope, containing documents which are filed in this case by MBIA Insurance Corporation, is not to be opened nor are the contents thereof to be displayed or revealed other
than to the Court, the parties and their counsel of record, except by order of the Court or consent of the parties.
EXHIBIT 76
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK
MBIA INSURANCE CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
-against-
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., COUNTRYWIDE SECURITIES CORP., COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL CORP., COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP, and BANK OF AMERICA CORP.
Defendants.
Index No.: 08/602825
IAS Part 3 (Bransten, J.)
CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL-SUBJECT TO STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR THE PRODUCTION AND EXCHANGE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
This envelope, containing documents which are filed in this case by MBIA Insurance Corporation, is not to be opened nor are the contents thereof to be displayed or revealed other
than to the Court, the parties and their counsel of record, except by order of the Court or consent of the parties.
EXHIBIT 77
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK
MBIA INSURANCE CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
-against-
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., COUNTRYWIDE SECURITIES CORP., COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL CORP., COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP, and BANK OF AMERICA CORP.
Defendants.
Index No.: 08/602825
IAS Part 3 (Bransten, J.)
CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL-SUBJECT TO STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR THE PRODUCTION AND EXCHANGE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
This envelope, containing documents which are filed in this case by MBIA Insurance Corporation, is not to be opened nor are the contents thereof to be displayed or revealed other
than to the Court, the parties and their counsel of record, except by order of the Court or consent of the parties.
EXHIBIT 78
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK
MBIA INSURANCE CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
-against-
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., COUNTRYWIDE SECURITIES CORP., COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL CORP., COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP, and BANK OF AMERICA CORP.
Defendants.
Index No.: 08/602825
IAS Part 3 (Bransten, J.)
CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL-SUBJECT TO STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR THE PRODUCTION AND EXCHANGE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
This envelope, containing documents which are filed in this case by MBIA Insurance Corporation, is not to be opened nor are the contents thereof to be displayed or revealed other
than to the Court, the parties and their counsel of record, except by order of the Court or consent of the parties.
EXHIBIT 79
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK
MBIA INSURANCE CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
-against-
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., COUNTRYWIDE SECURITIES CORP., COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL CORP., COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP, and BANK OF AMERICA CORP.
Defendants.
Index No.: 08/602825
IAS Part 3 (Bransten, J.)
CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL-SUBJECT TO STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR THE PRODUCTION AND EXCHANGE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
This envelope, containing documents which are filed in this case by MBIA Insurance Corporation, is not to be opened nor are the contents thereof to be displayed or revealed other
than to the Court, the parties and their counsel of record, except by order of the Court or consent of the parties.
EXHIBIT 80
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK
MBIA INSURANCE CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
-against-
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., COUNTRYWIDE SECURITIES CORP., COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL CORP., COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP, and BANK OF AMERICA CORP.
Defendants.
Index No.: 08/602825
IAS Part 3 (Bransten, J.)
CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL-SUBJECT TO STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR THE PRODUCTION AND EXCHANGE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
This envelope, containing documents which are filed in this case by MBIA Insurance Corporation, is not to be opened nor are the contents thereof to be displayed or revealed other
than to the Court, the parties and their counsel of record, except by order of the Court or consent of the parties.
EXHIBIT 81
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK
MBIA INSURANCE CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
-against-
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., COUNTRYWIDE SECURITIES CORP., COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL CORP., COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP, and BANK OF AMERICA CORP.
Defendants.
Index No.: 08/602825
IAS Part 3 (Bransten, J.)
CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL-SUBJECT TO STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR THE PRODUCTION AND EXCHANGE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
This envelope, containing documents which are filed in this case by MBIA Insurance Corporation, is not to be opened nor are the contents thereof to be displayed or revealed other
than to the Court, the parties and their counsel of record, except by order of the Court or consent of the parties.
EXHIBIT 82
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK
MBIA INSURANCE CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
-against-
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., COUNTRYWIDE SECURITIES CORP., COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL CORP., COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP, and BANK OF AMERICA CORP.
Defendants.
Index No.: 08/602825
IAS Part 3 (Bransten, J.)
CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL-SUBJECT TO STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR THE PRODUCTION AND EXCHANGE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
This envelope, containing documents which are filed in this case by MBIA Insurance Corporation, is not to be opened nor are the contents thereof to be displayed or revealed other
than to the Court, the parties and their counsel of record, except by order of the Court or consent of the parties.
EXHIBIT 83
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK
MBIA INSURANCE CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
-against-
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., COUNTRYWIDE SECURITIES CORP., COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL CORP., COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP, and BANK OF AMERICA CORP.
Defendants.
Index No.: 08/602825
IAS Part 3 (Bransten, J.)
CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL-SUBJECT TO STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR THE PRODUCTION AND EXCHANGE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
This envelope, containing documents which are filed in this case by MBIA Insurance Corporation, is not to be opened nor are the contents thereof to be displayed or revealed other
than to the Court, the parties and their counsel of record, except by order of the Court or consent of the parties.
EXHIBIT 84
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK
MBIA INSURANCE CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
-against-
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., COUNTRYWIDE SECURITIES CORP., COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL CORP., COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP, and BANK OF AMERICA CORP.
Defendants.
Index No.: 08/602825
IAS Part 3 (Bransten, J.)
CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL-SUBJECT TO STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR THE PRODUCTION AND EXCHANGE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
This envelope, containing documents which are filed in this case by MBIA Insurance Corporation, is not to be opened nor are the contents thereof to be displayed or revealed other
than to the Court, the parties and their counsel of record, except by order of the Court or consent of the parties.
EXHIBIT 85
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK
MBIA INSURANCE CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
-against-
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., COUNTRYWIDE SECURITIES CORP., COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL CORP., COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP, and BANK OF AMERICA CORP.
Defendants.
Index No.: 08/602825
IAS Part 3 (Bransten, J.)
CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL-SUBJECT TO STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR THE PRODUCTION AND EXCHANGE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
This envelope, containing documents which are filed in this case by MBIA Insurance Corporation, is not to be opened nor are the contents thereof to be displayed or revealed other
than to the Court, the parties and their counsel of record, except by order of the Court or consent of the parties.
EXHIBIT 86
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK
MBIA INSURANCE CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
-against-
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., COUNTRYWIDE SECURITIES CORP., COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL CORP., COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP, and BANK OF AMERICA CORP.
Defendants.
Index No.: 08/602825
IAS Part 3 (Bransten, J.)
CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL-SUBJECT TO STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR THE PRODUCTION AND EXCHANGE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
This envelope, containing documents which are filed in this case by MBIA Insurance Corporation, is not to be opened nor are the contents thereof to be displayed or revealed other
than to the Court, the parties and their counsel of record, except by order of the Court or consent of the parties.
EXHIBIT 87
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK
MBIA INSURANCE CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
-against-
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., COUNTRYWIDE SECURITIES CORP., COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL CORP., COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP, and BANK OF AMERICA CORP.
Defendants.
Index No.: 08/602825
IAS Part 3 (Bransten, J.)
CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL-SUBJECT TO STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR THE PRODUCTION AND EXCHANGE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
This envelope, containing documents which are filed in this case by MBIA Insurance Corporation, is not to be opened nor are the contents thereof to be displayed or revealed other
than to the Court, the parties and their counsel of record, except by order of the Court or consent of the parties.
EXHIBIT 88
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK
MBIA INSURANCE CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
-against-
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., COUNTRYWIDE SECURITIES CORP., COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL CORP., COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP, and BANK OF AMERICA CORP.
Defendants.
Index No.: 08/602825
IAS Part 3 (Bransten, J.)
CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL-SUBJECT TO STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR THE PRODUCTION AND EXCHANGE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
This envelope, containing documents which are filed in this case by MBIA Insurance Corporation, is not to be opened nor are the contents thereof to be displayed or revealed other
than to the Court, the parties and their counsel of record, except by order of the Court or consent of the parties.
EXHIBIT 89
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK
MBIA INSURANCE CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
-against-
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., COUNTRYWIDE SECURITIES CORP., COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL CORP., COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP, and BANK OF AMERICA CORP.
Defendants.
Index No.: 08/602825
IAS Part 3 (Bransten, J.)
CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL-SUBJECT TO STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR THE PRODUCTION AND EXCHANGE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
This envelope, containing documents which are filed in this case by MBIA Insurance Corporation, is not to be opened nor are the contents thereof to be displayed or revealed other
than to the Court, the parties and their counsel of record, except by order of the Court or consent of the parties.
EXHIBIT 90
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK
MBIA INSURANCE CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
-against-
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., COUNTRYWIDE SECURITIES CORP., COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL CORP., COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP, and BANK OF AMERICA CORP.
Defendants.
Index No.: 08/602825
IAS Part 3 (Bransten, J.)
CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL-SUBJECT TO STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR THE PRODUCTION AND EXCHANGE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
This envelope, containing documents which are filed in this case by MBIA Insurance Corporation, is not to be opened nor are the contents thereof to be displayed or revealed other
than to the Court, the parties and their counsel of record, except by order of the Court or consent of the parties.
EXHIBIT 91
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK
MBIA INSURANCE CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
-against-
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., COUNTRYWIDE SECURITIES CORP., COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL CORP., COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP, and BANK OF AMERICA CORP.
Defendants.
Index No.: 08/602825
IAS Part 3 (Bransten, J.)
CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL-SUBJECT TO STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR THE PRODUCTION AND EXCHANGE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
This envelope, containing documents which are filed in this case by MBIA Insurance Corporation, is not to be opened nor are the contents thereof to be displayed or revealed other
than to the Court, the parties and their counsel of record, except by order of the Court or consent of the parties.
EXHIBIT 92
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK
MBIA INSURANCE CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
-against-
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., COUNTRYWIDE SECURITIES CORP., COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL CORP., COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP, and BANK OF AMERICA CORP.
Defendants.
Index No.: 08/602825
IAS Part 3 (Bransten, J.)
CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL-SUBJECT TO STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR THE PRODUCTION AND EXCHANGE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
This envelope, containing documents which are filed in this case by MBIA Insurance Corporation, is not to be opened nor are the contents thereof to be displayed or revealed other
than to the Court, the parties and their counsel of record, except by order of the Court or consent of the parties.
EXHIBIT 93
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK
MBIA INSURANCE CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
-against-
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., COUNTRYWIDE SECURITIES CORP., COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL CORP., COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP, and BANK OF AMERICA CORP.
Defendants.
Index No.: 08/602825
IAS Part 3 (Bransten, J.)
CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL-SUBJECT TO STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR THE PRODUCTION AND EXCHANGE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
This envelope, containing documents which are filed in this case by MBIA Insurance Corporation, is not to be opened nor are the contents thereof to be displayed or revealed other
than to the Court, the parties and their counsel of record, except by order of the Court or consent of the parties.
EXHIBIT 94
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK
MBIA INSURANCE CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
-against-
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., COUNTRYWIDE SECURITIES CORP., COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL CORP., COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP, and BANK OF AMERICA CORP.
Defendants.
Index No.: 08/602825
IAS Part 3 (Bransten, J.)
CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL-SUBJECT TO STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR THE PRODUCTION AND EXCHANGE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
This envelope, containing documents which are filed in this case by MBIA Insurance Corporation, is not to be opened nor are the contents thereof to be displayed or revealed other
than to the Court, the parties and their counsel of record, except by order of the Court or consent of the parties.
EXHIBIT 95
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK
MBIA INSURANCE CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
-against-
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., COUNTRYWIDE SECURITIES CORP., COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL CORP., COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP, and BANK OF AMERICA CORP.
Defendants.
Index No.: 08/602825
IAS Part 3 (Bransten, J.)
CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL-SUBJECT TO STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR THE PRODUCTION AND EXCHANGE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
This envelope, containing documents which are filed in this case by MBIA Insurance Corporation, is not to be opened nor are the contents thereof to be displayed or revealed other
than to the Court, the parties and their counsel of record, except by order of the Court or consent of the parties.
EXHIBIT 96
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK
MBIA INSURANCE CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
-against-
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., COUNTRYWIDE SECURITIES CORP., COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL CORP., COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP, and BANK OF AMERICA CORP.
Defendants.
Index No.: 08/602825
IAS Part 3 (Bransten, J.)
CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL-SUBJECT TO STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR THE PRODUCTION AND EXCHANGE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
This envelope, containing documents which are filed in this case by MBIA Insurance Corporation, is not to be opened nor are the contents thereof to be displayed or revealed other
than to the Court, the parties and their counsel of record, except by order of the Court or consent of the parties.
EXHIBIT 97
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK
MBIA INSURANCE CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
-against-
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., COUNTRYWIDE SECURITIES CORP., COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL CORP., COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP, and BANK OF AMERICA CORP.
Defendants.
Index No.: 08/602825
IAS Part 3 (Bransten, J.)
CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL-SUBJECT TO STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR THE PRODUCTION AND EXCHANGE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
This envelope, containing documents which are filed in this case by MBIA Insurance Corporation, is not to be opened nor are the contents thereof to be displayed or revealed other
than to the Court, the parties and their counsel of record, except by order of the Court or consent of the parties.
EXHIBIT 98
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK
MBIA INSURANCE CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
-against-
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., COUNTRYWIDE SECURITIES CORP., COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL CORP., COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP, and BANK OF AMERICA CORP.
Defendants.
Index No.: 08/602825
IAS Part 3 (Bransten, J.)
CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL-SUBJECT TO STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR THE PRODUCTION AND EXCHANGE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
This envelope, containing documents which are filed in this case by MBIA Insurance Corporation, is not to be opened nor are the contents thereof to be displayed or revealed other
than to the Court, the parties and their counsel of record, except by order of the Court or consent of the parties.
EXHIBIT 99
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK
MBIA INSURANCE CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
-against-
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., COUNTRYWIDE SECURITIES CORP., COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL CORP., COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP, and BANK OF AMERICA CORP.
Defendants.
Index No.: 08/602825
IAS Part 3 (Bransten, J.)
CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL-SUBJECT TO STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR THE PRODUCTION AND EXCHANGE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
This envelope, containing documents which are filed in this case by MBIA Insurance Corporation, is not to be opened nor are the contents thereof to be displayed or revealed other
than to the Court, the parties and their counsel of record, except by order of the Court or consent of the parties.
EXHIBIT 100
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK
MBIA INSURANCE CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
-against-
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., COUNTRYWIDE SECURITIES CORP., COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL CORP., COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP, and BANK OF AMERICA CORP.
Defendants.
Index No.: 08/602825
IAS Part 3 (Bransten, J.)
CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL-SUBJECT TO STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR THE PRODUCTION AND EXCHANGE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
This envelope, containing documents which are filed in this case by MBIA Insurance Corporation, is not to be opened nor are the contents thereof to be displayed or revealed other
than to the Court, the parties and their counsel of record, except by order of the Court or consent of the parties.
EXHIBIT 101
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK
MBIA INSURANCE CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
-against-
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., COUNTRYWIDE SECURITIES CORP., COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL CORP., COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP, and BANK OF AMERICA CORP.
Defendants.
Index No.: 08/602825
IAS Part 3 (Bransten, J.)
CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL-SUBJECT TO STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR THE PRODUCTION AND EXCHANGE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
This envelope, containing documents which are filed in this case by MBIA Insurance Corporation, is not to be opened nor are the contents thereof to be displayed or revealed other
than to the Court, the parties and their counsel of record, except by order of the Court or consent of the parties.
EXHIBIT 102
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK
MBIA INSURANCE CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
-against-
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., COUNTRYWIDE SECURITIES CORP., COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL CORP., COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP, and BANK OF AMERICA CORP.
Defendants.
Index No.: 08/602825
IAS Part 3 (Bransten, J.)
CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL-SUBJECT TO STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR THE PRODUCTION AND EXCHANGE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
This envelope, containing documents which are filed in this case by MBIA Insurance Corporation, is not to be opened nor are the contents thereof to be displayed or revealed other
than to the Court, the parties and their counsel of record, except by order of the Court or consent of the parties.
EXHIBIT 103
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK
MBIA INSURANCE CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
-against-
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., COUNTRYWIDE SECURITIES CORP., COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL CORP., COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP, and BANK OF AMERICA CORP.
Defendants.
Index No.: 08/602825
IAS Part 3 (Bransten, J.)
CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL-SUBJECT TO STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR THE PRODUCTION AND EXCHANGE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
This envelope, containing documents which are filed in this case by MBIA Insurance Corporation, is not to be opened nor are the contents thereof to be displayed or revealed other
than to the Court, the parties and their counsel of record, except by order of the Court or consent of the parties.
EXHIBIT 104
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK
MBIA INSURANCE CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
-against-
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., COUNTRYWIDE SECURITIES CORP., COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL CORP., COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP, and BANK OF AMERICA CORP.
Defendants.
Index No.: 08/602825
IAS Part 3 (Bransten, J.)
CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL-SUBJECT TO STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR THE PRODUCTION AND EXCHANGE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
This envelope, containing documents which are filed in this case by MBIA Insurance Corporation, is not to be opened nor are the contents thereof to be displayed or revealed other
than to the Court, the parties and their counsel of record, except by order of the Court or consent of the parties.
EXHIBIT 105
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK
MBIA INSURANCE CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
-against-
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., COUNTRYWIDE SECURITIES CORP., COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL CORP., COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP, and BANK OF AMERICA CORP.
Defendants.
Index No.: 08/602825
IAS Part 3 (Bransten, J.)
CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL-SUBJECT TO STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR THE PRODUCTION AND EXCHANGE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
This envelope, containing documents which are filed in this case by MBIA Insurance Corporation, is not to be opened nor are the contents thereof to be displayed or revealed other
than to the Court, the parties and their counsel of record, except by order of the Court or consent of the parties.
EXHIBIT 106
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK
MBIA INSURANCE CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
-against-
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., COUNTRYWIDE SECURITIES CORP., COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL CORP., COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP, and BANK OF AMERICA CORP.
Defendants.
Index No.: 08/602825
IAS Part 3 (Bransten, J.)
CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL-SUBJECT TO STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR THE PRODUCTION AND EXCHANGE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
This envelope, containing documents which are filed in this case by MBIA Insurance Corporation, is not to be opened nor are the contents thereof to be displayed or revealed other
than to the Court, the parties and their counsel of record, except by order of the Court or consent of the parties.
EXHIBIT 107
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK
MBIA INSURANCE CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
-against-
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., COUNTRYWIDE SECURITIES CORP., COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL CORP., COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP, and BANK OF AMERICA CORP.
Defendants.
Index No.: 08/602825
IAS Part 3 (Bransten, J.)
CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL-SUBJECT TO STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR THE PRODUCTION AND EXCHANGE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
This envelope, containing documents which are filed in this case by MBIA Insurance Corporation, is not to be opened nor are the contents thereof to be displayed or revealed other
than to the Court, the parties and their counsel of record, except by order of the Court or consent of the parties.
EXHIBIT 108
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK
MBIA INSURANCE CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
-against-
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., COUNTRYWIDE SECURITIES CORP., COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL CORP., COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP, and BANK OF AMERICA CORP.
Defendants.
Index No.: 08/602825
IAS Part 3 (Bransten, J.)
CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL-SUBJECT TO STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR THE PRODUCTION AND EXCHANGE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
This envelope, containing documents which are filed in this case by MBIA Insurance Corporation, is not to be opened nor are the contents thereof to be displayed or revealed other
than to the Court, the parties and their counsel of record, except by order of the Court or consent of the parties.
EXHIBIT 109
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK
MBIA INSURANCE CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
-against-
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., COUNTRYWIDE SECURITIES CORP., COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL CORP., COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP, and BANK OF AMERICA CORP.
Defendants.
Index No.: 08/602825
IAS Part 3 (Bransten, J.)
CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL-SUBJECT TO STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR THE PRODUCTION AND EXCHANGE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
This envelope, containing documents which are filed in this case by MBIA Insurance Corporation, is not to be opened nor are the contents thereof to be displayed or revealed other
than to the Court, the parties and their counsel of record, except by order of the Court or consent of the parties.
EXHIBIT 110
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK
MBIA INSURANCE CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
-against-
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., COUNTRYWIDE SECURITIES CORP., COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL CORP., COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP, and BANK OF AMERICA CORP.
Defendants.
Index No.: 08/602825
IAS Part 3 (Bransten, J.)
CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL-SUBJECT TO STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR THE PRODUCTION AND EXCHANGE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
This envelope, containing documents which are filed in this case by MBIA Insurance Corporation, is not to be opened nor are the contents thereof to be displayed or revealed other
than to the Court, the parties and their counsel of record, except by order of the Court or consent of the parties.
EXHIBIT 111
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK
MBIA INSURANCE CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
-against-
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., COUNTRYWIDE SECURITIES CORP., COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL CORP., COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP, and BANK OF AMERICA CORP.
Defendants.
Index No.: 08/602825
IAS Part 3 (Bransten, J.)
CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL-SUBJECT TO STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR THE PRODUCTION AND EXCHANGE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
This envelope, containing documents which are filed in this case by MBIA Insurance Corporation, is not to be opened nor are the contents thereof to be displayed or revealed other
than to the Court, the parties and their counsel of record, except by order of the Court or consent of the parties.
EXHIBIT 112
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK
MBIA INSURANCE CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
-against-
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., COUNTRYWIDE SECURITIES CORP., COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL CORP., COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP, and BANK OF AMERICA CORP.
Defendants.
Index No.: 08/602825
IAS Part 3 (Bransten, J.)
CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL-SUBJECT TO STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR THE PRODUCTION AND EXCHANGE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
This envelope, containing documents which are filed in this case by MBIA Insurance Corporation, is not to be opened nor are the contents thereof to be displayed or revealed other
than to the Court, the parties and their counsel of record, except by order of the Court or consent of the parties.
EXHIBIT 113
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK
MBIA INSURANCE CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
-against-
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., COUNTRYWIDE SECURITIES CORP., COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL CORP., COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP, and BANK OF AMERICA CORP.
Defendants.
Index No.: 08/602825
IAS Part 3 (Bransten, J.)
CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL-SUBJECT TO STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR THE PRODUCTION AND EXCHANGE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
This envelope, containing documents which are filed in this case by MBIA Insurance Corporation, is not to be opened nor are the contents thereof to be displayed or revealed other
than to the Court, the parties and their counsel of record, except by order of the Court or consent of the parties.
EXHIBIT 114
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK
MBIA INSURANCE CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
-against-
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., COUNTRYWIDE SECURITIES CORP., COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL CORP., COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP, and BANK OF AMERICA CORP.
Defendants.
Index No.: 08/602825
IAS Part 3 (Bransten, J.)
CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL-SUBJECT TO STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR THE PRODUCTION AND EXCHANGE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
This envelope, containing documents which are filed in this case by MBIA Insurance Corporation, is not to be opened nor are the contents thereof to be displayed or revealed other
than to the Court, the parties and their counsel of record, except by order of the Court or consent of the parties.
EXHIBIT 115
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK
MBIA INSURANCE CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
-against-
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., COUNTRYWIDE SECURITIES CORP., COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL CORP., COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP, and BANK OF AMERICA CORP.
Defendants.
Index No.: 08/602825
IAS Part 3 (Bransten, J.)
CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL-SUBJECT TO STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR THE PRODUCTION AND EXCHANGE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
This envelope, containing documents which are filed in this case by MBIA Insurance Corporation, is not to be opened nor are the contents thereof to be displayed or revealed other
than to the Court, the parties and their counsel of record, except by order of the Court or consent of the parties.
EXHIBIT 116
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK
MBIA INSURANCE CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
-against-
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., COUNTRYWIDE SECURITIES CORP., COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL CORP., COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP, and BANK OF AMERICA CORP.
Defendants.
Index No.: 08/602825
IAS Part 3 (Bransten, J.)
CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL-SUBJECT TO STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR THE PRODUCTION AND EXCHANGE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
This envelope, containing documents which are filed in this case by MBIA Insurance Corporation, is not to be opened nor are the contents thereof to be displayed or revealed other
than to the Court, the parties and their counsel of record, except by order of the Court or consent of the parties.
EXHIBIT 117
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK
MBIA INSURANCE CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
-against-
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., COUNTRYWIDE SECURITIES CORP., COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL CORP., COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP, and BANK OF AMERICA CORP.
Defendants.
Index No.: 08/602825
IAS Part 3 (Bransten, J.)
CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL-SUBJECT TO STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR THE PRODUCTION AND EXCHANGE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
This envelope, containing documents which are filed in this case by MBIA Insurance Corporation, is not to be opened nor are the contents thereof to be displayed or revealed other
than to the Court, the parties and their counsel of record, except by order of the Court or consent of the parties.
EXHIBIT 118
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK
MBIA INSURANCE CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
-against-
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., COUNTRYWIDE SECURITIES CORP., COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL CORP., COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP, and BANK OF AMERICA CORP.
Defendants.
Index No.: 08/602825
IAS Part 3 (Bransten, J.)
CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL-SUBJECT TO STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR THE PRODUCTION AND EXCHANGE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
This envelope, containing documents which are filed in this case by MBIA Insurance Corporation, is not to be opened nor are the contents thereof to be displayed or revealed other
than to the Court, the parties and their counsel of record, except by order of the Court or consent of the parties.
EXHIBIT 119
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK
MBIA INSURANCE CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
-against-
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., COUNTRYWIDE SECURITIES CORP., COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL CORP., COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP, and BANK OF AMERICA CORP.
Defendants.
Index No.: 08/602825
IAS Part 3 (Bransten, J.)
CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL-SUBJECT TO STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR THE PRODUCTION AND EXCHANGE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
This envelope, containing documents which are filed in this case by MBIA Insurance Corporation, is not to be opened nor are the contents thereof to be displayed or revealed other
than to the Court, the parties and their counsel of record, except by order of the Court or consent of the parties.
EXHIBIT 120
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK
MBIA INSURANCE CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
-against-
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., COUNTRYWIDE SECURITIES CORP., COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL CORP., COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP, and BANK OF AMERICA CORP.
Defendants.
Index No.: 08/602825
IAS Part 3 (Bransten, J.)
CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL-SUBJECT TO STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR THE PRODUCTION AND EXCHANGE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
This envelope, containing documents which are filed in this case by MBIA Insurance Corporation, is not to be opened nor are the contents thereof to be displayed or revealed other
than to the Court, the parties and their counsel of record, except by order of the Court or consent of the parties.
EXHIBIT 121
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK
MBIA INSURANCE CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
-against-
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., COUNTRYWIDE SECURITIES CORP., COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL CORP., COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP, and BANK OF AMERICA CORP.
Defendants.
Index No.: 08/602825
IAS Part 3 (Bransten, J.)
CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL-SUBJECT TO STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR THE PRODUCTION AND EXCHANGE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
This envelope, containing documents which are filed in this case by MBIA Insurance Corporation, is not to be opened nor are the contents thereof to be displayed or revealed other
than to the Court, the parties and their counsel of record, except by order of the Court or consent of the parties.
EXHIBIT 122
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK
MBIA INSURANCE CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
-against-
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., COUNTRYWIDE SECURITIES CORP., COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL CORP., COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP, and BANK OF AMERICA CORP.
Defendants.
Index No.: 08/602825
IAS Part 3 (Bransten, J.)
CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL-SUBJECT TO STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR THE PRODUCTION AND EXCHANGE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
This envelope, containing documents which are filed in this case by MBIA Insurance Corporation, is not to be opened nor are the contents thereof to be displayed or revealed other
than to the Court, the parties and their counsel of record, except by order of the Court or consent of the parties.
EXHIBIT 123
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK
MBIA INSURANCE CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
-against-
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., COUNTRYWIDE SECURITIES CORP., COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL CORP., COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP, and BANK OF AMERICA CORP.
Defendants.
Index No.: 08/602825
IAS Part 3 (Bransten, J.)
CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL-SUBJECT TO STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR THE PRODUCTION AND EXCHANGE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
This envelope, containing documents which are filed in this case by MBIA Insurance Corporation, is not to be opened nor are the contents thereof to be displayed or revealed other
than to the Court, the parties and their counsel of record, except by order of the Court or consent of the parties.
EXHIBIT 124
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK
MBIA INSURANCE CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
-against-
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., COUNTRYWIDE SECURITIES CORP., COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL CORP., COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP, and BANK OF AMERICA CORP.
Defendants.
Index No.: 08/602825
IAS Part 3 (Bransten, J.)
CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL-SUBJECT TO STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR THE PRODUCTION AND EXCHANGE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
This envelope, containing documents which are filed in this case by MBIA Insurance Corporation, is not to be opened nor are the contents thereof to be displayed or revealed other
than to the Court, the parties and their counsel of record, except by order of the Court or consent of the parties.
EXHIBIT 125
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK
MBIA INSURANCE CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
-against-
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., COUNTRYWIDE SECURITIES CORP., COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL CORP., COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP, and BANK OF AMERICA CORP.
Defendants.
Index No.: 08/602825
IAS Part 3 (Bransten, J.)
CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL-SUBJECT TO STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR THE PRODUCTION AND EXCHANGE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
This envelope, containing documents which are filed in this case by MBIA Insurance Corporation, is not to be opened nor are the contents thereof to be displayed or revealed other
than to the Court, the parties and their counsel of record, except by order of the Court or consent of the parties.
EXHIBIT 126
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK
MBIA INSURANCE CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
-against-
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., COUNTRYWIDE SECURITIES CORP., COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL CORP., COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP, and BANK OF AMERICA CORP.
Defendants.
Index No.: 08/602825
IAS Part 3 (Bransten, J.)
CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL-SUBJECT TO STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR THE PRODUCTION AND EXCHANGE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
This envelope, containing documents which are filed in this case by MBIA Insurance Corporation, is not to be opened nor are the contents thereof to be displayed or revealed other
than to the Court, the parties and their counsel of record, except by order of the Court or consent of the parties.
EXHIBIT 127
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK
MBIA INSURANCE CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
-against-
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., COUNTRYWIDE SECURITIES CORP., COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL CORP., COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP, and BANK OF AMERICA CORP.
Defendants.
Index No.: 08/602825
IAS Part 3 (Bransten, J.)
CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL-SUBJECT TO STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR THE PRODUCTION AND EXCHANGE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
This envelope, containing documents which are filed in this case by MBIA Insurance Corporation, is not to be opened nor are the contents thereof to be displayed or revealed other
than to the Court, the parties and their counsel of record, except by order of the Court or consent of the parties.
EXHIBIT 128
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK
MBIA INSURANCE CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
-against-
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., COUNTRYWIDE SECURITIES CORP., COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL CORP., COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP, and BANK OF AMERICA CORP.
Defendants.
Index No.: 08/602825
IAS Part 3 (Bransten, J.)
CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL-SUBJECT TO STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR THE PRODUCTION AND EXCHANGE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
This envelope, containing documents which are filed in this case by MBIA Insurance Corporation, is not to be opened nor are the contents thereof to be displayed or revealed other
than to the Court, the parties and their counsel of record, except by order of the Court or consent of the parties.
EXHIBIT 129
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK
MBIA INSURANCE CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
-against-
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., COUNTRYWIDE SECURITIES CORP., COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL CORP., COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP, and BANK OF AMERICA CORP.
Defendants.
Index No.: 08/602825
IAS Part 3 (Bransten, J.)
CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL-SUBJECT TO STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR THE PRODUCTION AND EXCHANGE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
This envelope, containing documents which are filed in this case by MBIA Insurance Corporation, is not to be opened nor are the contents thereof to be displayed or revealed other
than to the Court, the parties and their counsel of record, except by order of the Court or consent of the parties.
EXHIBIT 130
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK
MBIA INSURANCE CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
-against-
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., COUNTRYWIDE SECURITIES CORP., COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL CORP., COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP, and BANK OF AMERICA CORP.
Defendants.
Index No.: 08/602825
IAS Part 3 (Bransten, J.)
CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL-SUBJECT TO STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR THE PRODUCTION AND EXCHANGE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
This envelope, containing documents which are filed in this case by MBIA Insurance Corporation, is not to be opened nor are the contents thereof to be displayed or revealed other
than to the Court, the parties and their counsel of record, except by order of the Court or consent of the parties.
EXHIBIT 131
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK
MBIA INSURANCE CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
-against-
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., COUNTRYWIDE SECURITIES CORP., COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL CORP., COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP, and BANK OF AMERICA CORP.
Defendants.
Index No.: 08/602825
IAS Part 3 (Bransten, J.)
CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL-SUBJECT TO STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR THE PRODUCTION AND EXCHANGE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
This envelope, containing documents which are filed in this case by MBIA Insurance Corporation, is not to be opened nor are the contents thereof to be displayed or revealed other
than to the Court, the parties and their counsel of record, except by order of the Court or consent of the parties.
EXHIBIT 132
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK
MBIA INSURANCE CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
-against-
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., COUNTRYWIDE SECURITIES CORP., COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL CORP., COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP, and BANK OF AMERICA CORP.
Defendants.
Index No.: 08/602825
IAS Part 3 (Bransten, J.)
CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL-SUBJECT TO STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR THE PRODUCTION AND EXCHANGE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
This envelope, containing documents which are filed in this case by MBIA Insurance Corporation, is not to be opened nor are the contents thereof to be displayed or revealed other
than to the Court, the parties and their counsel of record, except by order of the Court or consent of the parties.
EXHIBIT 133
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK
MBIA INSURANCE CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
-against-
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., COUNTRYWIDE SECURITIES CORP., COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL CORP., COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP, and BANK OF AMERICA CORP.
Defendants.
Index No.: 08/602825
IAS Part 3 (Bransten, J.)
CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL-SUBJECT TO STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR THE PRODUCTION AND EXCHANGE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
This envelope, containing documents which are filed in this case by MBIA Insurance Corporation, is not to be opened nor are the contents thereof to be displayed or revealed other
than to the Court, the parties and their counsel of record, except by order of the Court or consent of the parties.
EXHIBIT 134
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK
MBIA INSURANCE CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
-against-
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., COUNTRYWIDE SECURITIES CORP., COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL CORP., COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP, and BANK OF AMERICA CORP.
Defendants.
Index No.: 08/602825
IAS Part 3 (Bransten, J.)
CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL-SUBJECT TO STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR THE PRODUCTION AND EXCHANGE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
This envelope, containing documents which are filed in this case by MBIA Insurance Corporation, is not to be opened nor are the contents thereof to be displayed or revealed other
than to the Court, the parties and their counsel of record, except by order of the Court or consent of the parties.
EXHIBIT 135
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK
MBIA INSURANCE CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
-against-
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., COUNTRYWIDE SECURITIES CORP., COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL CORP., COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP, and BANK OF AMERICA CORP.
Defendants.
Index No.: 08/602825
IAS Part 3 (Bransten, J.)
CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL-SUBJECT TO STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR THE PRODUCTION AND EXCHANGE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
This envelope, containing documents which are filed in this case by MBIA Insurance Corporation, is not to be opened nor are the contents thereof to be displayed or revealed other
than to the Court, the parties and their counsel of record, except by order of the Court or consent of the parties.
EXHIBIT 136
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK
MBIA INSURANCE CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
-against-
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., COUNTRYWIDE SECURITIES CORP., COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL CORP., COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP, and BANK OF AMERICA CORP.
Defendants.
Index No.: 08/602825
IAS Part 3 (Bransten, J.)
CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL-SUBJECT TO STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR THE PRODUCTION AND EXCHANGE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
This envelope, containing documents which are filed in this case by MBIA Insurance Corporation, is not to be opened nor are the contents thereof to be displayed or revealed other
than to the Court, the parties and their counsel of record, except by order of the Court or consent of the parties.
EXHIBIT 137
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK
MBIA INSURANCE CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
-against-
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., COUNTRYWIDE SECURITIES CORP., COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL CORP., COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP, and BANK OF AMERICA CORP.
Defendants.
Index No.: 08/602825
IAS Part 3 (Bransten, J.)
CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL-SUBJECT TO STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR THE PRODUCTION AND EXCHANGE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
This envelope, containing documents which are filed in this case by MBIA Insurance Corporation, is not to be opened nor are the contents thereof to be displayed or revealed other
than to the Court, the parties and their counsel of record, except by order of the Court or consent of the parties.
EXHIBIT 138
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK
MBIA INSURANCE CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
-against-
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., COUNTRYWIDE SECURITIES CORP., COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL CORP., COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP, and BANK OF AMERICA CORP.
Defendants.
Index No.: 08/602825
IAS Part 3 (Bransten, J.)
CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL-SUBJECT TO STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR THE PRODUCTION AND EXCHANGE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
This envelope, containing documents which are filed in this case by MBIA Insurance Corporation, is not to be opened nor are the contents thereof to be displayed or revealed other
than to the Court, the parties and their counsel of record, except by order of the Court or consent of the parties.
EXHIBIT 139
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK
MBIA INSURANCE CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
-against-
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., COUNTRYWIDE SECURITIES CORP., COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL CORP., COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP, and BANK OF AMERICA CORP.
Defendants.
Index No.: 08/602825
IAS Part 3 (Bransten, J.)
CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL-SUBJECT TO STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR THE PRODUCTION AND EXCHANGE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
This envelope, containing documents which are filed in this case by MBIA Insurance Corporation, is not to be opened nor are the contents thereof to be displayed or revealed other
than to the Court, the parties and their counsel of record, except by order of the Court or consent of the parties.
EXHIBIT 140
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK
MBIA INSURANCE CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
-against-
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., COUNTRYWIDE SECURITIES CORP., COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL CORP., COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP, and BANK OF AMERICA CORP.
Defendants.
Index No.: 08/602825
IAS Part 3 (Bransten, J.)
CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL-SUBJECT TO STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR THE PRODUCTION AND EXCHANGE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
This envelope, containing documents which are filed in this case by MBIA Insurance Corporation, is not to be opened nor are the contents thereof to be displayed or revealed other
than to the Court, the parties and their counsel of record, except by order of the Court or consent of the parties.
EXHIBIT 141
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK
MBIA INSURANCE CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
-against-
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., COUNTRYWIDE SECURITIES CORP., COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL CORP., COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP, and BANK OF AMERICA CORP.
Defendants.
Index No.: 08/602825
IAS Part 3 (Bransten, J.)
CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL-SUBJECT TO STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR THE PRODUCTION AND EXCHANGE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
This envelope, containing documents which are filed in this case by MBIA Insurance Corporation, is not to be opened nor are the contents thereof to be displayed or revealed other
than to the Court, the parties and their counsel of record, except by order of the Court or consent of the parties.
EXHIBIT 142
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK
MBIA INSURANCE CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
-against-
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., COUNTRYWIDE SECURITIES CORP., COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL CORP., COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP, and BANK OF AMERICA CORP.
Defendants.
Index No.: 08/602825
IAS Part 3 (Bransten, J.)
CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL-SUBJECT TO STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR THE PRODUCTION AND EXCHANGE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
This envelope, containing documents which are filed in this case by MBIA Insurance Corporation, is not to be opened nor are the contents thereof to be displayed or revealed other
than to the Court, the parties and their counsel of record, except by order of the Court or consent of the parties.
EXHIBIT 143
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK
MBIA INSURANCE CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
-against-
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., COUNTRYWIDE SECURITIES CORP., COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL CORP., COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP, and BANK OF AMERICA CORP.
Defendants.
Index No.: 08/602825
IAS Part 3 (Bransten, J.)
CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL-SUBJECT TO STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR THE PRODUCTION AND EXCHANGE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
This envelope, containing documents which are filed in this case by MBIA Insurance Corporation, is not to be opened nor are the contents thereof to be displayed or revealed other
than to the Court, the parties and their counsel of record, except by order of the Court or consent of the parties.
EXHIBIT 144
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK
MBIA INSURANCE CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
-against-
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., COUNTRYWIDE SECURITIES CORP., COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL CORP., COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP, and BANK OF AMERICA CORP.
Defendants.
Index No.: 08/602825
IAS Part 3 (Bransten, J.)
CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL-SUBJECT TO STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR THE PRODUCTION AND EXCHANGE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
This envelope, containing documents which are filed in this case by MBIA Insurance Corporation, is not to be opened nor are the contents thereof to be displayed or revealed other
than to the Court, the parties and their counsel of record, except by order of the Court or consent of the parties.
EXHIBIT 145
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK
MBIA INSURANCE CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
-against-
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., COUNTRYWIDE SECURITIES CORP., COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL CORP., COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP, and BANK OF AMERICA CORP.
Defendants.
Index No.: 08/602825
IAS Part 3 (Bransten, J.)
CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL-SUBJECT TO STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR THE PRODUCTION AND EXCHANGE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
This envelope, containing documents which are filed in this case by MBIA Insurance Corporation, is not to be opened nor are the contents thereof to be displayed or revealed other
than to the Court, the parties and their counsel of record, except by order of the Court or consent of the parties.
EXHIBIT 146
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK
MBIA INSURANCE CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
-against-
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., COUNTRYWIDE SECURITIES CORP., COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL CORP., COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP, and BANK OF AMERICA CORP.
Defendants.
Index No.: 08/602825
IAS Part 3 (Bransten, J.)
CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL-SUBJECT TO STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR THE PRODUCTION AND EXCHANGE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
This envelope, containing documents which are filed in this case by MBIA Insurance Corporation, is not to be opened nor are the contents thereof to be displayed or revealed other
than to the Court, the parties and their counsel of record, except by order of the Court or consent of the parties.
EXHIBIT 147
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK
MBIA INSURANCE CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
-against-
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., COUNTRYWIDE SECURITIES CORP., COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL CORP., COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP, and BANK OF AMERICA CORP.
Defendants.
Index No.: 08/602825
IAS Part 3 (Bransten, J.)
CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL-SUBJECT TO STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR THE PRODUCTION AND EXCHANGE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
This envelope, containing documents which are filed in this case by MBIA Insurance Corporation, is not to be opened nor are the contents thereof to be displayed or revealed other
than to the Court, the parties and their counsel of record, except by order of the Court or consent of the parties.
EXHIBIT 148
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK
MBIA INSURANCE CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
-against-
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., COUNTRYWIDE SECURITIES CORP., COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL CORP., COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP, and BANK OF AMERICA CORP.
Defendants.
Index No.: 08/602825
IAS Part 3 (Bransten, J.)
CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL-SUBJECT TO STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR THE PRODUCTION AND EXCHANGE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
This envelope, containing documents which are filed in this case by MBIA Insurance Corporation, is not to be opened nor are the contents thereof to be displayed or revealed other
than to the Court, the parties and their counsel of record, except by order of the Court or consent of the parties.
EXHIBIT 149
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK
MBIA INSURANCE CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
-against-
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., COUNTRYWIDE SECURITIES CORP., COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL CORP., COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP, and BANK OF AMERICA CORP.
Defendants.
Index No.: 08/602825
IAS Part 3 (Bransten, J.)
CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL-SUBJECT TO STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR THE PRODUCTION AND EXCHANGE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
This envelope, containing documents which are filed in this case by MBIA Insurance Corporation, is not to be opened nor are the contents thereof to be displayed or revealed other
than to the Court, the parties and their counsel of record, except by order of the Court or consent of the parties.
EXHIBIT 150
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK
MBIA INSURANCE CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
-against-
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., COUNTRYWIDE SECURITIES CORP., COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL CORP., COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP, and BANK OF AMERICA CORP.
Defendants.
Index No.: 08/602825
IAS Part 3 (Bransten, J.)
CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL-SUBJECT TO STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR THE PRODUCTION AND EXCHANGE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
This envelope, containing documents which are filed in this case by MBIA Insurance Corporation, is not to be opened nor are the contents thereof to be displayed or revealed other
than to the Court, the parties and their counsel of record, except by order of the Court or consent of the parties.
EXHIBIT 151
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK
MBIA INSURANCE CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
-against-
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., COUNTRYWIDE SECURITIES CORP., COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL CORP., COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP, and BANK OF AMERICA CORP.
Defendants.
Index No.: 08/602825
IAS Part 3 (Bransten, J.)
CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL-SUBJECT TO STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR THE PRODUCTION AND EXCHANGE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
This envelope, containing documents which are filed in this case by MBIA Insurance Corporation, is not to be opened nor are the contents thereof to be displayed or revealed other
than to the Court, the parties and their counsel of record, except by order of the Court or consent of the parties.
EXHIBIT 152
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK
MBIA INSURANCE CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
-against-
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., COUNTRYWIDE SECURITIES CORP., COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL CORP., COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP, and BANK OF AMERICA CORP.
Defendants.
Index No.: 08/602825
IAS Part 3 (Bransten, J.)
CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL-SUBJECT TO STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR THE PRODUCTION AND EXCHANGE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
This envelope, containing documents which are filed in this case by MBIA Insurance Corporation, is not to be opened nor are the contents thereof to be displayed or revealed other
than to the Court, the parties and their counsel of record, except by order of the Court or consent of the parties.
EXHIBIT 153
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK
MBIA INSURANCE CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
-against-
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., COUNTRYWIDE SECURITIES CORP., COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL CORP., COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP, and BANK OF AMERICA CORP.
Defendants.
Index No.: 08/602825
IAS Part 3 (Bransten, J.)
CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL-SUBJECT TO STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR THE PRODUCTION AND EXCHANGE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
This envelope, containing documents which are filed in this case by MBIA Insurance Corporation, is not to be opened nor are the contents thereof to be displayed or revealed other
than to the Court, the parties and their counsel of record, except by order of the Court or consent of the parties.
EXHIBIT 154
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK
MBIA INSURANCE CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
-against-
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., COUNTRYWIDE SECURITIES CORP., COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL CORP., COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP, and BANK OF AMERICA CORP.
Defendants.
Index No.: 08/602825
IAS Part 3 (Bransten, J.)
CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL-SUBJECT TO STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR THE PRODUCTION AND EXCHANGE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
This envelope, containing documents which are filed in this case by MBIA Insurance Corporation, is not to be opened nor are the contents thereof to be displayed or revealed other
than to the Court, the parties and their counsel of record, except by order of the Court or consent of the parties.
EXHIBIT 155
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK
MBIA INSURANCE CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
-against-
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., COUNTRYWIDE SECURITIES CORP., COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL CORP., COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP, and BANK OF AMERICA CORP.
Defendants.
Index No.: 08/602825
IAS Part 3 (Bransten, J.)
CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL-SUBJECT TO STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR THE PRODUCTION AND EXCHANGE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
This envelope, containing documents which are filed in this case by MBIA Insurance Corporation, is not to be opened nor are the contents thereof to be displayed or revealed other
than to the Court, the parties and their counsel of record, except by order of the Court or consent of the parties.
EXHIBIT 156
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK
MBIA INSURANCE CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
-against-
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., COUNTRYWIDE SECURITIES CORP., COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL CORP., COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP, and BANK OF AMERICA CORP.
Defendants.
Index No.: 08/602825
IAS Part 3 (Bransten, J.)
CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL-SUBJECT TO STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR THE PRODUCTION AND EXCHANGE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
This envelope, containing documents which are filed in this case by MBIA Insurance Corporation, is not to be opened nor are the contents thereof to be displayed or revealed other
than to the Court, the parties and their counsel of record, except by order of the Court or consent of the parties.
EXHIBIT 157
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK
MBIA INSURANCE CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
-against-
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., COUNTRYWIDE SECURITIES CORP., COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL CORP., COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP, and BANK OF AMERICA CORP.
Defendants.
Index No.: 08/602825
IAS Part 3 (Bransten, J.)
CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL-SUBJECT TO STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR THE PRODUCTION AND EXCHANGE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
This envelope, containing documents which are filed in this case by MBIA Insurance Corporation, is not to be opened nor are the contents thereof to be displayed or revealed other
than to the Court, the parties and their counsel of record, except by order of the Court or consent of the parties.
EXHIBIT 158
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK
MBIA INSURANCE CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
-against-
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., COUNTRYWIDE SECURITIES CORP., COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL CORP., COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP, and BANK OF AMERICA CORP.
Defendants.
Index No.: 08/602825
IAS Part 3 (Bransten, J.)
CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL-SUBJECT TO STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR THE PRODUCTION AND EXCHANGE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
This envelope, containing documents which are filed in this case by MBIA Insurance Corporation, is not to be opened nor are the contents thereof to be displayed or revealed other
than to the Court, the parties and their counsel of record, except by order of the Court or consent of the parties.
EXHIBIT 159
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK
MBIA INSURANCE CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
-against-
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., COUNTRYWIDE SECURITIES CORP., COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL CORP., COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP, and BANK OF AMERICA CORP.
Defendants.
Index No.: 08/602825
IAS Part 3 (Bransten, J.)
CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL-SUBJECT TO STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR THE PRODUCTION AND EXCHANGE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
This envelope, containing documents which are filed in this case by MBIA Insurance Corporation, is not to be opened nor are the contents thereof to be displayed or revealed other
than to the Court, the parties and their counsel of record, except by order of the Court or consent of the parties.
EXHIBIT 160
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK
MBIA INSURANCE CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
-against-
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., COUNTRYWIDE SECURITIES CORP., COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL CORP., COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP, and BANK OF AMERICA CORP.
Defendants.
Index No.: 08/602825
IAS Part 3 (Bransten, J.)
CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL-SUBJECT TO STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR THE PRODUCTION AND EXCHANGE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
This envelope, containing documents which are filed in this case by MBIA Insurance Corporation, is not to be opened nor are the contents thereof to be displayed or revealed other
than to the Court, the parties and their counsel of record, except by order of the Court or consent of the parties.
EXHIBIT 161
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK
MBIA INSURANCE CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
-against-
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., COUNTRYWIDE SECURITIES CORP., COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL CORP., COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP, and BANK OF AMERICA CORP.
Defendants.
Index No.: 08/602825
IAS Part 3 (Bransten, J.)
CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL-SUBJECT TO STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR THE PRODUCTION AND EXCHANGE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
This envelope, containing documents which are filed in this case by MBIA Insurance Corporation, is not to be opened nor are the contents thereof to be displayed or revealed other
than to the Court, the parties and their counsel of record, except by order of the Court or consent of the parties.
EXHIBIT 162
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK
MBIA INSURANCE CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
-against-
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., COUNTRYWIDE SECURITIES CORP., COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL CORP., COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP, and BANK OF AMERICA CORP.
Defendants.
Index No.: 08/602825
IAS Part 3 (Bransten, J.)
CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL-SUBJECT TO STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR THE PRODUCTION AND EXCHANGE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
This envelope, containing documents which are filed in this case by MBIA Insurance Corporation, is not to be opened nor are the contents thereof to be displayed or revealed other
than to the Court, the parties and their counsel of record, except by order of the Court or consent of the parties.
EXHIBIT 163
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK
MBIA INSURANCE CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
-against-
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., COUNTRYWIDE SECURITIES CORP., COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL CORP., COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP, and BANK OF AMERICA CORP.
Defendants.
Index No.: 08/602825
IAS Part 3 (Bransten, J.)
CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL-SUBJECT TO STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR THE PRODUCTION AND EXCHANGE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
This envelope, containing documents which are filed in this case by MBIA Insurance Corporation, is not to be opened nor are the contents thereof to be displayed or revealed other
than to the Court, the parties and their counsel of record, except by order of the Court or consent of the parties.
EXHIBIT 164
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK
MBIA INSURANCE CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
-against-
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., COUNTRYWIDE SECURITIES CORP., COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL CORP., COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP, and BANK OF AMERICA CORP.
Defendants.
Index No.: 08/602825
IAS Part 3 (Bransten, J.)
CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL-SUBJECT TO STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR THE PRODUCTION AND EXCHANGE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
This envelope, containing documents which are filed in this case by MBIA Insurance Corporation, is not to be opened nor are the contents thereof to be displayed or revealed other
than to the Court, the parties and their counsel of record, except by order of the Court or consent of the parties.
EXHIBIT 165
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK
MBIA INSURANCE CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
-against-
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., COUNTRYWIDE SECURITIES CORP., COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL CORP., COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP, and BANK OF AMERICA CORP.
Defendants.
Index No.: 08/602825
IAS Part 3 (Bransten, J.)
CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL-SUBJECT TO STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR THE PRODUCTION AND EXCHANGE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
This envelope, containing documents which are filed in this case by MBIA Insurance Corporation, is not to be opened nor are the contents thereof to be displayed or revealed other
than to the Court, the parties and their counsel of record, except by order of the Court or consent of the parties.
EXHIBIT 166
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK
MBIA INSURANCE CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
-against-
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., COUNTRYWIDE SECURITIES CORP., COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL CORP., COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP, and BANK OF AMERICA CORP.
Defendants.
Index No.: 08/602825
IAS Part 3 (Bransten, J.)
CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL-SUBJECT TO STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR THE PRODUCTION AND EXCHANGE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
This envelope, containing documents which are filed in this case by MBIA Insurance Corporation, is not to be opened nor are the contents thereof to be displayed or revealed other
than to the Court, the parties and their counsel of record, except by order of the Court or consent of the parties.
EXHIBIT 167
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK
MBIA INSURANCE CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
-against-
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., COUNTRYWIDE SECURITIES CORP., COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL CORP., COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP, and BANK OF AMERICA CORP.
Defendants.
Index No.: 08/602825
IAS Part 3 (Bransten, J.)
CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL-SUBJECT TO STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR THE PRODUCTION AND EXCHANGE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
This envelope, containing documents which are filed in this case by MBIA Insurance Corporation, is not to be opened nor are the contents thereof to be displayed or revealed other
than to the Court, the parties and their counsel of record, except by order of the Court or consent of the parties.
EXHIBIT 168
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK
MBIA INSURANCE CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
-against-
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., COUNTRYWIDE SECURITIES CORP., COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL CORP., COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP, and BANK OF AMERICA CORP.
Defendants.
Index No.: 08/602825
IAS Part 3 (Bransten, J.)
CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL-SUBJECT TO STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR THE PRODUCTION AND EXCHANGE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
This envelope, containing documents which are filed in this case by MBIA Insurance Corporation, is not to be opened nor are the contents thereof to be displayed or revealed other
than to the Court, the parties and their counsel of record, except by order of the Court or consent of the parties.
EXHIBIT 169
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK
MBIA INSURANCE CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
-against-
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., COUNTRYWIDE SECURITIES CORP., COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL CORP., COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP, and BANK OF AMERICA CORP.
Defendants.
Index No.: 08/602825
IAS Part 3 (Bransten, J.)
CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL-SUBJECT TO STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR THE PRODUCTION AND EXCHANGE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
This envelope, containing documents which are filed in this case by MBIA Insurance Corporation, is not to be opened nor are the contents thereof to be displayed or revealed other
than to the Court, the parties and their counsel of record, except by order of the Court or consent of the parties.
EXHIBIT 170
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK
MBIA INSURANCE CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
-against-
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., COUNTRYWIDE SECURITIES CORP., COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL CORP., COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP, and BANK OF AMERICA CORP.
Defendants.
Index No.: 08/602825
IAS Part 3 (Bransten, J.)
CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL-SUBJECT TO STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR THE PRODUCTION AND EXCHANGE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
This envelope, containing documents which are filed in this case by MBIA Insurance Corporation, is not to be opened nor are the contents thereof to be displayed or revealed other
than to the Court, the parties and their counsel of record, except by order of the Court or consent of the parties.
EXHIBIT 171
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK
MBIA INSURANCE CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
-against-
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., COUNTRYWIDE SECURITIES CORP., COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL CORP., COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP, and BANK OF AMERICA CORP.
Defendants.
Index No.: 08/602825
IAS Part 3 (Bransten, J.)
CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL-SUBJECT TO STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR THE PRODUCTION AND EXCHANGE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
This envelope, containing documents which are filed in this case by MBIA Insurance Corporation, is not to be opened nor are the contents thereof to be displayed or revealed other
than to the Court, the parties and their counsel of record, except by order of the Court or consent of the parties.
EXHIBIT 172
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK
MBIA INSURANCE CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
-against-
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., COUNTRYWIDE SECURITIES CORP., COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL CORP., COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP, and BANK OF AMERICA CORP.
Defendants.
Index No.: 08/602825
IAS Part 3 (Bransten, J.)
CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL-SUBJECT TO STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR THE PRODUCTION AND EXCHANGE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
This envelope, containing documents which are filed in this case by MBIA Insurance Corporation, is not to be opened nor are the contents thereof to be displayed or revealed other
than to the Court, the parties and their counsel of record, except by order of the Court or consent of the parties.
EXHIBIT 173
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK
MBIA INSURANCE CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
-against-
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., COUNTRYWIDE SECURITIES CORP., COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL CORP., COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP, and BANK OF AMERICA CORP.
Defendants.
Index No.: 08/602825
IAS Part 3 (Bransten, J.)
CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL-SUBJECT TO STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR THE PRODUCTION AND EXCHANGE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
This envelope, containing documents which are filed in this case by MBIA Insurance Corporation, is not to be opened nor are the contents thereof to be displayed or revealed other
than to the Court, the parties and their counsel of record, except by order of the Court or consent of the parties.
EXHIBIT 174
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK
MBIA INSURANCE CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
-against-
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., COUNTRYWIDE SECURITIES CORP., COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL CORP., COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP, and BANK OF AMERICA CORP.
Defendants.
Index No.: 08/602825
IAS Part 3 (Bransten, J.)
CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL-SUBJECT TO STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR THE PRODUCTION AND EXCHANGE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
This envelope, containing documents which are filed in this case by MBIA Insurance Corporation, is not to be opened nor are the contents thereof to be displayed or revealed other
than to the Court, the parties and their counsel of record, except by order of the Court or consent of the parties.
EXHIBIT 175
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK
MBIA INSURANCE CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
-against-
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., COUNTRYWIDE SECURITIES CORP., COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL CORP., COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP, and BANK OF AMERICA CORP.
Defendants.
Index No.: 08/602825
IAS Part 3 (Bransten, J.)
CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL-SUBJECT TO STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR THE PRODUCTION AND EXCHANGE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
This envelope, containing documents which are filed in this case by MBIA Insurance Corporation, is not to be opened nor are the contents thereof to be displayed or revealed other
than to the Court, the parties and their counsel of record, except by order of the Court or consent of the parties.
EXHIBIT 176
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK
MBIA INSURANCE CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
-against-
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., COUNTRYWIDE SECURITIES CORP., COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL CORP., COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP, and BANK OF AMERICA CORP.
Defendants.
Index No.: 08/602825
IAS Part 3 (Bransten, J.)
CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL-SUBJECT TO STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR THE PRODUCTION AND EXCHANGE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
This envelope, containing documents which are filed in this case by MBIA Insurance Corporation, is not to be opened nor are the contents thereof to be displayed or revealed other
than to the Court, the parties and their counsel of record, except by order of the Court or consent of the parties.
EXHIBIT 177
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK
MBIA INSURANCE CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
-against-
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., COUNTRYWIDE SECURITIES CORP., COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL CORP., COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP, and BANK OF AMERICA CORP.
Defendants.
Index No.: 08/602825
IAS Part 3 (Bransten, J.)
CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL-SUBJECT TO STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR THE PRODUCTION AND EXCHANGE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
This envelope, containing documents which are filed in this case by MBIA Insurance Corporation, is not to be opened nor are the contents thereof to be displayed or revealed other
than to the Court, the parties and their counsel of record, except by order of the Court or consent of the parties.
EXHIBIT 178
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK
MBIA INSURANCE CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
-against-
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., COUNTRYWIDE SECURITIES CORP., COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL CORP., COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP, and BANK OF AMERICA CORP.
Defendants.
Index No.: 08/602825
IAS Part 3 (Bransten, J.)
CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL-SUBJECT TO STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR THE PRODUCTION AND EXCHANGE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
This envelope, containing documents which are filed in this case by MBIA Insurance Corporation, is not to be opened nor are the contents thereof to be displayed or revealed other
than to the Court, the parties and their counsel of record, except by order of the Court or consent of the parties.
EXHIBIT 179
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK
MBIA INSURANCE CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
-against-
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., COUNTRYWIDE SECURITIES CORP., COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL CORP., COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP, and BANK OF AMERICA CORP.
Defendants.
Index No.: 08/602825
IAS Part 3 (Bransten, J.)
CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL-SUBJECT TO STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR THE PRODUCTION AND EXCHANGE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
This envelope, containing documents which are filed in this case by MBIA Insurance Corporation, is not to be opened nor are the contents thereof to be displayed or revealed other
than to the Court, the parties and their counsel of record, except by order of the Court or consent of the parties.
EXHIBIT 180
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK
MBIA INSURANCE CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
-against-
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., COUNTRYWIDE SECURITIES CORP., COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL CORP., COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP, and BANK OF AMERICA CORP.
Defendants.
Index No.: 08/602825
IAS Part 3 (Bransten, J.)
CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL-SUBJECT TO STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR THE PRODUCTION AND EXCHANGE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
This envelope, containing documents which are filed in this case by MBIA Insurance Corporation, is not to be opened nor are the contents thereof to be displayed or revealed other
than to the Court, the parties and their counsel of record, except by order of the Court or consent of the parties.
EXHIBIT 181
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK
MBIA INSURANCE CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
-against-
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., COUNTRYWIDE SECURITIES CORP., COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL CORP., COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP, and BANK OF AMERICA CORP.
Defendants.
Index No.: 08/602825
IAS Part 3 (Bransten, J.)
CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL-SUBJECT TO STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR THE PRODUCTION AND EXCHANGE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
This envelope, containing documents which are filed in this case by MBIA Insurance Corporation, is not to be opened nor are the contents thereof to be displayed or revealed other
than to the Court, the parties and their counsel of record, except by order of the Court or consent of the parties.
EXHIBIT 182
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK
MBIA INSURANCE CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
-against-
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., COUNTRYWIDE SECURITIES CORP., COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL CORP., COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP, and BANK OF AMERICA CORP.
Defendants.
Index No.: 08/602825
IAS Part 3 (Bransten, J.)
CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL-SUBJECT TO STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR THE PRODUCTION AND EXCHANGE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
This envelope, containing documents which are filed in this case by MBIA Insurance Corporation, is not to be opened nor are the contents thereof to be displayed or revealed other
than to the Court, the parties and their counsel of record, except by order of the Court or consent of the parties.
EXHIBIT 183
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK
MBIA INSURANCE CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
-against-
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., COUNTRYWIDE SECURITIES CORP., COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL CORP., COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP, and BANK OF AMERICA CORP.
Defendants.
Index No.: 08/602825
IAS Part 3 (Bransten, J.)
CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL-SUBJECT TO STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR THE PRODUCTION AND EXCHANGE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
This envelope, containing documents which are filed in this case by MBIA Insurance Corporation, is not to be opened nor are the contents thereof to be displayed or revealed other
than to the Court, the parties and their counsel of record, except by order of the Court or consent of the parties.
EXHIBIT 184
Print Page | Close Window
Press Release Bank of America Announces Agreement on Mortgage Repurchase Claims With Monoline Insurer Assured Guaranty
Fully Addresses Assured Guaranty’s Outstanding and Potential Repurchase Claims Representing Original Collateral Exposure of Approximately $35.8 Billion
CHARLOTTE – Bank of America Corporation today announced that the company, including its legacy Countrywide Financial Corporation affiliates, has reached an agreement with Assured Guaranty Ltd. and its subsidiaries to resolve all of the monoline insurer’s outstanding and potential repurchase claims related to alleged representations and warranties breaches involving 29 first- and second-lien residential mortgage-backed securitization (RMBS) trusts where Assured provided financial guarantee insurance. The agreement also resolves historical loan servicing issues and other potential liabilities with respect to these trusts. "This agreement is an important step towards resolving non-Government Sponsored Enterprise legacy issues on terms beneficial to our company," said Terry Laughlin, Legacy Asset Servicing executive. "As we have said on numerous occasions, our goals remain the same: focus on serving customers and clients, continue to help distressed homeowners facing difficult times and address our legacy issues." The agreement covers 21 first-lien RMBS trusts and eight second-lien RMBS trusts, representing total original collateral exposure of approximately $35.8 billion, with total principal at risk (which is the sum of outstanding principal balance on severely delinquent loans and principal balance on previously defaulted loans) of approximately $10.9 billion, which includes principal at risk previously resolved. The agreement includes a cash payment of approximately $1.1 billion to Assured Guaranty, as well as a loss-sharing reinsurance arrangement that has an expected value of approximately $470 million, and other terms. The total cost of the agreement is currently estimated to be approximately $1.6 billion, which the company has fully provided for in its accounts as of March 31, 2011. Bank of America Bank of America is one of the world's largest financial institutions, serving individual consumers, small- and middle-market businesses and large corporations with a full range of banking, investing, asset management and other financial and risk management products and services. The company provides unmatched convenience in the United States, serving approximately 58 million consumer and small business relationships with approximately 5,800 retail banking offices and approximately 18,000 ATMs and award-winning online banking with 30 million active users. Bank of America is among the world's leading wealth management companies, and is a global leader in corporate and investment banking and trading across a broad range of asset classes, serving corporations, governments, institutions and individuals around the world. Bank of America offers industry-leading support to approximately 4 million small business owners through a suite of innovative, easy-to-use online products and services. The company serves clients through operations in more than 40 countries. Bank of America Corporation stock (NYSE: BAC) is a component of the Dow Jones Industrial Average and is listed on the New York Stock Exchange. Forward-Looking Statements Certain statements in this press release are forward-looking statements within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 with respect to future events, including the impact of the Assured agreement and its cost, including the expected loss value of the reinsurance arrangement. These statements are not guarantees and involve certain risks, uncertainties and assumptions that are difficult to predict and often are beyond Bank of America’s control. Actual outcomes and results may differ materially from those expressed in, or implied by, the forward-looking statements. You should not place undue reliance on any forward-looking statement and should consider the following uncertainties and risks, as well as the risks and uncertainties more fully
Page 1 of 2Bank of America Corporation | Newsroom | Press ReleaseBank ...
9/17/2012http://mediaroom.bankofamerica.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=234503...
discussed under Part 1, Item 1A. “Risk Factors” of Bank of America’s 2010 Annual Report on Form 10-K and in any of Bank of America’s other subsequent Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filings: the potential assertion and impact of additional claims not addressed by the agreement and the accuracy and variability of estimates and assumptions in determining the expected loss value of the reinsurance arrangement and the total cost of the agreement to the company. Forward-looking statements speak only as of the date they are made, and Bank of America undertakes no obligation to update any forward-looking statement to reflect the impact of circumstances or events that arise after the date the forward-looking statement was made.
www.bankofamerica.com
###
Investors May Contact: Kevin Stitt, Bank of America, 1.980.386.5667 Lee McEntire, Bank of America, 1.980.388.6780 Reporters May Contact: Jerry Dubrowski, Bank of America, 1.980.388.2840 [email protected]
"Safe Harbor" Statement under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995: Statements in this press release regarding Bank of America Corporation's business which are not historical facts are "forward-looking statements" that involve risks and uncertainties. For a discussion of such risks and uncertainties, which could cause actual results to differ from those contained in the forward-looking statements, see "Risk Factors" in the Company's Annual Report or Form 10-K for the most recently ended fiscal year.
Page 2 of 2Bank of America Corporation | Newsroom | Press ReleaseBank ...
9/17/2012http://mediaroom.bankofamerica.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=234503...
EXHIBIT 185
Press Release
Search
Investor Relations
Stock Information
Financial Information
Ratings
SEC Filings
Proxies
Corp. Governance
Analyst Coverage
Investor Events
Presentations
Email Alerts
Investor Contacts
<< Back
Syncora Guarantee Settles its Countrywide Litigation
Announces Completion of Additional Remediations NEW YORK, July 17, 2012 /PRNewswire/ -- Syncora Holdings Ltd. ("Syncora") today announced that its wholly owned, New York financial guarantee insurance subsidiary, Syncora Guarantee Inc. ("Syncora Guarantee" or the "Company"), had settled its RMBS-related claims and other claims, with Countrywide Financial Corporation, Bank of America Corporation and affiliates thereof. In return for releases of all claims the Company has against Countrywide and Bank of America Corporation arising from its provision of insurance in relation to five second lien transactions that were the subject of litigation and all of the Company's claims in relation to nine other first and second lien transactions, the Company received a cash payment of $375 Million. In addition, in an effort to terminate other relationships between the parties, the Company transferred assets to subsidiaries of Bank of America Corporation and subsidiaries of Bank of America Corporation transferred or agreed to transfer to the Company certain of the Company's and Syncora's preferred shares, surplus notes and other securities. In addition, and unrelated to the foregoing, since the posting of the Company's first quarter 2012 statutory financial statements, the Company has remediated several credits with total cash disbursements by the Company of approximately $96 Million. The combined effects of the foregoing are expected to have a materially positive effect on the Company's surplus as regards policyholders that will be reflected or noted in its second quarter statutory financial statements, which the Company expects to post on or about August 15, 2012. Despite these developments, the Company continues to face significant risks and uncertainties, as described in the Company's financial statements. About Syncora Holdings Ltd. Syncora Holdings Ltd. (OTC: SYCRF) is a Bermuda-domiciled holding company. Each of Syncora Guarantee Inc. and Syncora Capital Assurance Inc. are wholly owned subsidiaries of Syncora Holdings Ltd. For more information, please visit www.syncora.com. Investor and Media Contact: Michael Corbally +1 212-478-3400 [email protected] FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS This release contains statements about future results, plans and events that may constitute "forward-looking" statements. You are cautioned that these statements are not guarantees of future results, plans or events and such statements involve risks and uncertainties that may cause actual results to differ materially from those set forth in these statements. Forward-looking statements are subject to a number of risks and uncertainties, many of which are beyond the Company's control. These factors include, but are not limited to: the performance of invested assets; payment of claims on guaranteed obligations, including Jefferson County, Alabama and residential mortgage-backed securities ("RMBS"); and actions that may be required in order to meet anticipated liquidity and surplus needs; the Company's ability to maintain minimum policyholders' surplus; higher losses and adverse development of reserves on guaranteed obligations due to continued deterioration in the credit and mortgage markets; reduced availability of funds due to the purchase of certain RMBS and the potential inability to convert those assets to cash at their carrying value; reduced availability of funds due to capitalization of Syncora Capital Assurance Inc.; reduced availability of funds due to consideration paid in connection with the master transaction agreement between the Company and certain financial counterparties to the Company's CDS contracts (the "2009 MTA"); the suspension of writing all new business; uncertainty as to the fair value of credit default swap ("CDS") contracts and liabilities thereon; decision by the Company's
Page 1 of 3Syncora Holdings Ltd. - Press Release
9/17/2012http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=198015&p=irol-new...
regulators to take regulatory action such as rehabilitation or liquidation of the Company at any time; Syncora Capital Assurance Inc. being required to make mark-to-market termination payments under its CDS contracts; the Company's ability to continue as a going concern; bankruptcy events involving counterparties to CDS contracts; the potential loss of certain control rights under certain financial guarantee insurance; non-payment of premium and make wholes owed or cancellation of policies; impact of the non-payment of dividends on Syncora's series A preference shares on the composition of Syncora's Board of Directors; uncertainty in portfolio modeling which makes it difficult to estimate potential paid claims and loss reserves; potential adverse developments at Syncora Capital Assurance Inc. and recapture of business to be ceded to Syncora Capital Assurance Inc. under the 2009 MTA; the financial condition of Syncora Guarantee (U.K.) Limited and action by the Financial Services Authority; requirement of the Company to provide Syncora Guarantee (U.K.) Limited with sufficient funds to maintain its minimum solvency margin; challenges to related 2009 MTA and any commutations and releases; defaults by counterparties to reinsurance arrangements; the interconnectedness of risks that affect the Company's reinsurance and insurance portfolio and financial guarantee products; termination payments related to less traditional products, including CDS contracts, possibly in excess of current resources; nonpayment of premiums by policyholders; changes in accounting policies or practices or the application thereof; changes in officers or key employees; further deterioration in general economic conditions, including as a result of the financial crisis as well as inflation or deflation, interest rates, foreign currency exchange rates and other factors and the effects of disruption or economic contraction due to catastrophic events or terrorist acts; the commencement of new litigation or investigations or the outcome of current and new litigation or investigations; legislative or regulatory developments, including changes in tax laws and regulation of mortgages; losses from fraudulent conduct due to unconditional and irrevocable nature of financial guarantee insurance; problems with the transaction servicers in relation to structured finance transactions; limitations on the availability of net operating loss carryforwards; uncertainty as to federal income tax treatment of CDS contracts; liquidity risks including due to timing of claims payments and reduced availability of funds undertakings with the NYDFS; conflicts of interests with significant shareholders of Syncora; limitations on the transferability of the common shares of Syncora and other additional factors, risks or uncertainties described in Syncora's historical filings with the New York State Department of Financial Services or the Securities and Exchange Commission, including in its Annual Report on Form 10K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2008, as amended and in Syncora's, SGI's and Syncora Capital Assurance Inc.'s financial statements posted on its website at www.syncora.com. Readers are cautioned not to place undue reliance on forward-looking statements which speak only as of the date they are made. Syncora does not undertake to update forward-looking statements to reflect the impact of circumstances or events that arise after the date the forward-looking statements are made. SOURCE Syncora Holdings Ltd.
Page 2 of 3Syncora Holdings Ltd. - Press Release
9/17/2012http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=198015&p=irol-new...
Page 3 of 3Syncora Holdings Ltd. - Press Release
9/17/2012http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=198015&p=irol-new...
EXHIBIT 186
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK
MBIA INSURANCE CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
-against-
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., COUNTRYWIDE SECURITIES CORP., COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL CORP., COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP, and BANK OF AMERICA CORP.
Defendants.
Index No.: 08/602825
IAS Part 3 (Bransten, J.)
CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL-SUBJECT TO STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR THE PRODUCTION AND EXCHANGE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
This envelope, containing documents which are filed in this case by MBIA Insurance Corporation, is not to be opened nor are the contents thereof to be displayed or revealed other
than to the Court, the parties and their counsel of record, except by order of the Court or consent of the parties.
EXHIBIT 187
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK
MBIA INSURANCE CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
-against-
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., COUNTRYWIDE SECURITIES CORP., COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL CORP., COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP, and BANK OF AMERICA CORP.
Defendants.
Index No.: 08/602825
IAS Part 3 (Bransten, J.)
CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL-SUBJECT TO STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR THE PRODUCTION AND EXCHANGE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
This envelope, containing documents which are filed in this case by MBIA Insurance Corporation, is not to be opened nor are the contents thereof to be displayed or revealed other
than to the Court, the parties and their counsel of record, except by order of the Court or consent of the parties.
EXHIBIT 188
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK
MBIA INSURANCE CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
-against-
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., COUNTRYWIDE SECURITIES CORP., COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL CORP., COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP, and BANK OF AMERICA CORP.
Defendants.
Index No.: 08/602825
IAS Part 3 (Bransten, J.)
CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL-SUBJECT TO STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR THE PRODUCTION AND EXCHANGE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
This envelope, containing documents which are filed in this case by MBIA Insurance Corporation, is not to be opened nor are the contents thereof to be displayed or revealed other
than to the Court, the parties and their counsel of record, except by order of the Court or consent of the parties.
EXHIBIT 189
CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT PANEL
NOVEMBER OVERSIGHT REPORT *
EXAMINING THE CONSEQUENCES OF MORTGAGE IRREGULARITIES FOR FI-NANCIAL STABILITY AND FORE-CLOSURE MITIGATION
NOVEMBER 16, 2010.—Ordered to be printed
* Submitted under Section 125(b)(1) of Title 1 of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, Pub. L. No. 110–343
VerDate Mar 15 2010 02:17 Dec 02, 2010 Jkt 061835 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6012 Sfmt 6012 E:\HR\OC\A835.XXX A835 E:\S
eals
\Con
gres
s.#1
3
tjam
es o
n D
SK
G8S
OY
B1P
RO
D w
ith R
EP
OR
TS
CO
NG
RE
SS
ION
AL
OV
ER
SIG
HT
PA
NE
L N
OV
EM
BE
R O
VE
RS
IGH
T R
EP
OR
T
VerDate Mar 15 2010 02:17 Dec 02, 2010 Jkt 061835 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6019 Sfmt 6019 E:\HR\OC\A835.XXX A835tjam
es o
n D
SK
G8S
OY
B1P
RO
D w
ith R
EP
OR
TS
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON :
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office,http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center,
U.S. Government Printing Office. Phone 202–512–1800, or 866–512–1800 (toll-free). E-mail, [email protected].
1
61–835 2010
CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT PANEL
NOVEMBER OVERSIGHT REPORT *
EXAMINING THE CONSEQUENCES OF MORTGAGE IRREGULARITIES FOR FI-NANCIAL STABILITY AND FORE-CLOSURE MITIGATION
NOVEMBER 16, 2010.—Ordered to be printed
* Submitted under Section 125(b)(1) of Title 1 of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, Pub. L. No. 110–343
VerDate Mar 15 2010 02:17 Dec 02, 2010 Jkt 061835 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 5012 Sfmt 5012 E:\HR\OC\A835.XXX A835 E:\S
eals
\Con
gres
s.#1
3
tjam
es o
n D
SK
G8S
OY
B1P
RO
D w
ith R
EP
OR
TS
(II)
CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT PANEL
PANEL MEMBERS
SEN. TED KAUFMAN, Chairman
RICHARD H. NEIMAN
DAMON SILVERS
J. MARK MCWATTERS
KENNETH TROSKE
VerDate Mar 15 2010 02:17 Dec 02, 2010 Jkt 061835 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 5904 Sfmt 5904 E:\HR\OC\A835.XXX A835tjam
es o
n D
SK
G8S
OY
B1P
RO
D w
ith R
EP
OR
TS
(III)
C O N T E N T S
Page
Executive Summary ................................................................................................. 1 Section One:
A. Overview ....................................................................................................... 4 B. Background .................................................................................................. 5 C. Timeline ........................................................................................................ 6 D. Legal Consequences of Document Irregularities ....................................... 10
1. Potential Flaws in the Recording and Transfer of Mortgages and Violations of Pooling and Servicing Agreements ................................. 12
2. Possible Legal Consequences of the Document Irregularities to Various Parties ...................................................................................... 19
3. Additional Considerations .................................................................... 27 E. Court Cases and Litigation ......................................................................... 28
1. Fraud Claims ......................................................................................... 29 2. Existing and Pending Claims under Various Fraud Theories .......... 33 3. Other Potential Claims ......................................................................... 35 4. Other State Legal Steps ....................................................................... 36 5. Other Possible Implications: Potential ‘‘Front-end’’ Fraud and Doc-
umentation Irregularities ...................................................................... 38 F. Assessing the Potential Impact on Bank Balance Sheets ........................ 42
1. Introduction ........................................................................................... 42 2. Foreclosure Irregularities: Estimating the Cost to Banks ................. 48 3. Securitization Issues and Mortgage Put-backs ................................... 52
G. Effect of Irregularities and Foreclosure Freezes on Housing Market ..... 59 1. Foreclosure Freezes and their Effect on Housing ............................... 59 2. Foreclosure Irregularities and the Crisis of Confidence .................... 64
H. Impact on HAMP ......................................................................................... 65 I. Conclusion ..................................................................................................... 68
Section Two: Correspondence with Treasury ........................................................ 71 Section Three: TARP Updates Since Last Report ................................................. 72 Section Four: Oversight Activities .......................................................................... 96 Section Five: About the Congressional Oversight Panel ...................................... 97 Appendices:
APPENDIX I: LETTER FROM CHAIRMAN TED KAUFMAN TO SPE-CIAL MASTER PATRICIA GEOGHEGAN, RE: FOLLOW UP TO EX-ECUTIVE COMPENSATION HEARING, DATED NOVEMBER 1, 2010 ................................................................................................................ 98
VerDate Mar 15 2010 02:17 Dec 02, 2010 Jkt 061835 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 5904 Sfmt 0483 E:\HR\OC\A835.XXX A835tjam
es o
n D
SK
G8S
OY
B1P
RO
D w
ith R
EP
OR
TS
VerDate Mar 15 2010 02:17 Dec 02, 2010 Jkt 061835 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 5904 Sfmt 0483 E:\HR\OC\A835.XXX A835tjam
es o
n D
SK
G8S
OY
B1P
RO
D w
ith R
EP
OR
TS
* The Panel adopted this report with a 5–0 vote on November 15, 2010.
NOVEMBER OVERSIGHT REPORT
NOVEMBER 16, 2010.—Ordered to be printed
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY *
In the fall of 2010, reports began to surface alleging that compa-nies servicing $6.4 trillion in American mortgages may have by-passed legally required steps to foreclose on a home. Employees or contractors of Bank of America, GMAC Mortgage, and other major loan servicers testified that they signed, and in some cases backdated, thousands of documents claiming personal knowledge of facts about mortgages that they did not actually know to be true.
Allegations of ‘‘robo-signing’’ are deeply disturbing and have given rise to ongoing federal and state investigations. At this point the ultimate implications remain unclear. It is possible, however, that ‘‘robo-signing’’ may have concealed much deeper problems in the mortgage market that could potentially threaten financial sta-bility and undermine the government’s efforts to mitigate the fore-closure crisis. Although it is not yet possible to determine whether such threats will materialize, the Panel urges Treasury and bank regulators to take immediate steps to understand and prepare for the potential risks.
In the best-case scenario, concerns about mortgage documenta-tion irregularities may prove overblown. In this view, which has been embraced by the financial industry, a handful of employees failed to follow procedures in signing foreclosure-related affidavits, but the facts underlying the affidavits are demonstrably accurate. Foreclosures could proceed as soon as the invalid affidavits are re-placed with properly executed paperwork.
The worst-case scenario is considerably grimmer. In this view, which has been articulated by academics and homeowner advo-cates, the ‘‘robo-signing’’ of affidavits served to cover up the fact
VerDate Mar 15 2010 02:17 Dec 02, 2010 Jkt 061835 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A835.XXX A835tjam
es o
n D
SK
G8S
OY
B1P
RO
D w
ith R
EP
OR
TS
2
that loan servicers cannot demonstrate the facts required to con-duct a lawful foreclosure. In essence, banks may be unable to prove that they own the mortgage loans they claim to own.
The risk stems from the possibility that the rapid growth of mortgage securitization outpaced the ability of the legal and finan-cial system to track mortgage loan ownership. In earlier years, under the traditional mortgage model, a homeowner borrowed money from a single bank and then paid back the same bank. In the rare instances when a bank transferred its rights, the sale was recorded by hand in the borrower’s county property office. Thus, the ownership of any individual mortgage could be easily dem-onstrated.
Nowadays, a single mortgage loan may be sold dozens of times between various banks across the country. In the view of some market participants, the sheer speed of the modern mortgage mar-ket has rendered obsolete the traditional ink-and-paper recordation process, so the financial industry developed an electronic transfer process that bypasses county property offices. This electronic proc-ess has, however, faced legal challenges that could, in an extreme scenario, call into question the validity of 33 million mortgage loans.
Further, the financial industry now commonly bundles the rights to thousands of individual loans into a mortgage-backed security (MBS). The securitization process is complicated and requires sev-eral properly executed transfers. If at any point the required legal steps are not followed to the letter, then the ownership of the mort-gage loan could fall into question. Homeowner advocates have al-leged that frequent ‘‘robo-signing’’ of ownership affidavits may have concealed extensive industry failures to document mortgage loan transfers properly.
If documentation problems prove to be pervasive and, more im-portantly, throw into doubt the ownership of not only foreclosed properties but also pooled mortgages, the consequences could be se-vere. Clear and uncontested property rights are the foundation of the housing market. If these rights fall into question, that founda-tion could collapse. Borrowers may be unable to determine whether they are sending their monthly payments to the right people. Judges may block any effort to foreclose, even in cases where bor-rowers have failed to make regular payments. Multiple banks may attempt to foreclose upon the same property. Borrowers who have already suffered foreclosure may seek to regain title to their homes and force any new owners to move out. Would-be buyers and sellers could find themselves in limbo, unable to know with any certainty whether they can safely buy or sell a home. If such problems were to arise on a large scale, the housing market could experience even greater disruptions than have already occurred, resulting in signifi-cant harm to major financial institutions. For example, if a Wall Street bank were to discover that, due to shoddily executed paper-work, it still owns millions of defaulted mortgages that it thought it sold off years ago, it could face billions of dollars in unexpected losses.
Documentation irregularities could also have major effects on Treasury’s main foreclosure prevention effort, the Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP). Some servicers dealing with Treas-ury may have no legal right to initiate foreclosures, which may call
VerDate Mar 15 2010 02:17 Dec 02, 2010 Jkt 061835 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A835.XXX A835tjam
es o
n D
SK
G8S
OY
B1P
RO
D w
ith R
EP
OR
TS
3
into question their ability to grant modifications or to demand pay-ments from homeowners. The servicers’ use of ‘‘robo-signing’’ may also have affected determinations about individual loans; servicers may have been more willing to foreclose if they were not bearing the full costs of a properly executed foreclosure. Treasury has so far not provided reports of any investigation as to whether documenta-tion problems could undermine HAMP. It should engage in active efforts to monitor the impact of foreclosure irregularities, and it should report its findings to Congress and the public.
In addition to documentation concerns, another problem has aris-en with securitized mortgage loans that could also threaten finan-cial stability. Investors in mortgage-backed securities typically de-manded certain assurances about the quality of the loans they pur-chased: for instance, that the borrowers had certain minimum cred-it ratings and income, or that their homes had appraised for at least a minimum value. Allegations have surfaced that banks may have misrepresented the quality of many loans sold for securitization. Banks found to have provided misrepresentations could be required to repurchase any affected mortgages. Because millions of these mortgages are in default or foreclosure, the result could be extensive capital losses if such repurchase risk is not ade-quately reserved.
To put in perspective the potential problem, one investor action alone could seek to force Bank of America to repurchase and absorb partial losses on up to $47 billion in troubled loans due to alleged misrepresentations of loan quality. Bank of America currently has $230 billion in shareholders’ equity, so if several similar-sized ac-tions—whether motivated by concerns about underwriting or loan ownership—were to succeed, the company could suffer disabling damage to its regulatory capital. It is possible that widespread challenges along these lines could pose risks to the very financial stability that the Troubled Asset Relief Program was designed to protect. Treasury has claimed that based on evidence to date, mort-gage-related problems currently pose no danger to the financial system, but in light of the extensive uncertainties in the market today, Treasury’s assertions appear premature. Treasury should ex-plain why it sees no danger. Bank regulators should also conduct new stress tests on Wall Street banks to measure their ability to deal with a potential crisis.
The Panel emphasizes that mortgage lenders and securitization servicers should not undertake to foreclose on any homeowner un-less they are able to do so in full compliance with applicable laws and their contractual agreements with the homeowner.
The American financial system is in a precarious place. Treas-ury’s authority to support the financial system through the Trou-bled Asset Relief Program has expired, and the resolution authority created by the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Pro-tection Act of 2010 remains untested. The 2009 stress tests that evaluated the health of the financial system looked only to the end of 2010, providing little assurance that banks could withstand sharp losses in the years to come. The housing market and the broader economy remain troubled and thus vulnerable to future shocks. In short, even as the government’s response to the financial crisis is drawing to a close, severe threats remain that have the po-tential to damage financial stability.
VerDate Mar 15 2010 02:17 Dec 02, 2010 Jkt 061835 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A835.XXX A835tjam
es o
n D
SK
G8S
OY
B1P
RO
D w
ith R
EP
OR
TS
4
SECTION ONE:
A. Overview
In the fall of 2010, with the Troubled Asset Relief Program’s (TARP) authority expiring, reports began to surface of problems with foreclosure documentation, particularly in states where fore-closures happen through the courts. GMAC Mortgage, a subsidiary of current TARP recipient Ally Financial, announced on September 24, 2010 that it had identified irregularities in its foreclosure docu-ment procedures that raised questions about the validity of fore-closures on mortgages that it serviced. Similar revelations soon fol-lowed from Bank of America, a former TARP recipient, and others. Employees of these companies or their contractors have testified that they signed, and in some cases backdated, thousands of docu-ments attesting to personal knowledge of facts about the mortgage and the property that they did not actually know to be true. Mort-gage servicers also appeared to be cutting corners in other ways. According to these banks, their employees were having trouble keeping up with the crush of foreclosures, but additional training and employees would generally suffice to get the process in order again.
At present, the reach of these irregularities is unknown. The irregularities may be limited to paperwork errors among certain servicers in certain states; alternatively, they may call into ques-tion aspects of the securitization process that pooled and sold inter-ests in innumerable mortgages during the housing boom. Depend-ing on their extent, the irregularities may affect both Treasury’s ongoing foreclosure programs and the financial stability that Treas-ury, under the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (EESA), was tasked with restoring. Further, the mortgage market faces ongoing risks related to the right of mortgage-backed securi-ties to force banks to repurchase any loans. Losses stemming from these repurchases would compound any risks associated with docu-mentation irregularities.
Under EESA, the Congressional Oversight Panel is charged with reviewing the current state of the financial markets and the regu-latory system. The Panel’s oversight interest in foreclosure docu-mentation irregularities stems from several distinct concerns: If Severe Disruptions in the Housing Market Materialize, Fi-nancial Stability and Taxpayer Funds Could Be Imperiled. If document irregularities prove to be pervasive and, more impor-tantly, throw into question ownership of not only foreclosed prop-erties but also pooled mortgages, the result could be significant harm to financial stability—the very stability that the TARP was designed to protect. In the worst case scenario, a clear chain of title—an essential element of a functioning housing market—may be difficult to establish for properties subject to mortgage loans that were pooled and securitized. Rating agencies are already cau-tious in their outlook for the banking sector, and further blows could have a significant effect. The implications could also be dire for taxpayers’ recovery of their TARP investments. Treasury still has $66.8 billion invested in the banking sector generally, and as the Panel discussed in its July report, ‘‘Small Banks in the Capital
VerDate Mar 15 2010 02:17 Dec 02, 2010 Jkt 061835 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A835.XXX A835tjam
es o
n D
SK
G8S
OY
B1P
RO
D w
ith R
EP
OR
TS
5
1 Taxpayers may also be at risk for losses related to Treasury’s investment in AIG. The Maid-en Lane II and Maiden Lane III vehicles, which the Federal Reserve Bank of New York (FRBNY) created to hold assets purchased from AIG, hold substantial amounts of residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBSs), most of which are either sub-prime or Alt-A mortgages originated during the housing boom. Treasury’s ability to recover the funds it has put into AIG depends in significant part on FRBNY’s ability to collect on these investments, and uncertainty associated with the investments could hinder that process.
Purchase Program,’’ the prospects for repayment from smaller banks are still uncertain and dependent, in great part, on a sector healthy enough to attract private investment.1 HAMP May Rely on Uncertain Legal Authority and Inac-curate Foreclosure Cost Estimates, Potentially Posing a Risk to Foreclosure Mitigation Efforts. If irregularities in the foreclosure process reflect deeper failures to document properly changes of ownership as mortgage loans were securitized, then it is possible that Treasury is dealing with the wrong parties in the course of the Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP). This could mean that borrowers either received or were denied modifica-tions improperly. Some servicers dealing with Treasury may have no legal right to initiate foreclosures, which may call into question their ability to grant modifications or to demand payments from homeowners, whether they are part of a foreclosure mitigation pro-gram or otherwise. The servicers’ tendency to cut corners may also have affected the determination to modify or foreclose upon indi-vidual loans. Because the net present value (NPV) model compares the net present value of the modification to a foreclosure, improper procedures that cut corners might have affected the foreclosure cost calculation and thus might have affected the outcome of the NPV test. TARP-Recipient Banks May Have Failed to Meet Legal Obli-gations. Many of the entities implicated in the recent document irregularities, including Ally Financial, Bank of America, and JPMorgan Chase, are current or former TARP recipients. Ally Fi-nancial, notably, remains in TARP and is in possession of $17.2 bil-lion in taxpayer funds. Bank of America received funds not only from TARP’s Capital Purchase Program (CPP) but also what Treas-ury deemed ‘‘exceptional assistance’’ from TARP’s Targeted Invest-ment Program (TIP). Some of the banks involved were also subject to the Supervisory Capital Assessment Program (SCAP), also known as the stress tests: Treasury’s and the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve’s (Federal Reserve) efforts to determine the health of the largest banks under a variety of stressed scenarios.
The Congressional Oversight Panel will continue to monitor Treasury’s engagement with these ongoing events, not only to pro-tect the taxpayers’ existing TARP investments and to oversee its foreclosure mitigation programs, but also to meet the Panel’s statu-tory mandate to ‘‘review the current state of the financial markets and the regulatory system.’’
B. Background
In the fall of 2010, a series of revelations about foreclosure docu-mentation irregularities hit the housing markets. The transfer of a property’s title from the mortgagor (the homeowner) to the mort-gagee (typically a bank or a trust) necessary for a successful fore-
VerDate Mar 15 2010 02:17 Dec 02, 2010 Jkt 061835 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A835.XXX A835tjam
es o
n D
SK
G8S
OY
B1P
RO
D w
ith R
EP
OR
TS
6
2 These steps depend on whether a state is a judicial foreclosure state or a non-judicial fore-closure state, as further described below, in footnote 17.
3 If mortgage documentation has errors or misrepresentations, buyers of the mortgage paper can ‘‘put-back’’ the mortgage to its originator and require them to repurchase the mortgage. For a more complete discussion of this possibility, see Sections D.1.b and D.2.
Several analysts and experts have speculated on the potential for widespread impact. Morgan Stanley, Housing Market Insights: Washington, We Have a Problem (Oct. 12, 2010); Amherst Mortgage Insight, The Affidavit Fiasco—Implications for Investors in Private Label Securities (Oct. 12, 2010); FBR Capital Markets, Conference Call: Foreclosure Mania: Big Deal or Not? (Oct. 15, 2010) (hereinafter ‘‘FBR Foreclosure Mania Conference Call’’). In a conference call with investors, Jamie Dimon, CEO of JPMorgan Chase, speculated that the issue could either be a ‘‘blip’’ or a more extended problem with ‘‘a lot of consequences, most of which will be adverse on everybody.’’ Cardiff Garcia, JPM on Foreclosures, MERS, Financial Times Alphaville Blog (Oct. 13, 2010) (online at ftalphaville.ft.com/blog/2010/10/13/369406/jpm-on-foreclosures-mers/) (hereinafter ‘‘JPM on Foreclosures, MERS’’) (‘‘If you talk about three or four weeks it will be a blip in the housing market. If it went on for a long period of time, it will have a lot of con-sequences, most of which will be adverse on everybody.’’).
closure requires a series of steps established by state law.2 As fur-ther described below, depositions taken in a variety of cases in which homeowners were fighting foreclosure actions indicated that mortgage servicer employees—who were required to have personal knowledge of the matters to which they were attesting in their affi-davits—were signing hundreds of these documents a day. Other documents appeared to have been backdated improperly and inef-fectively or incorrectly notarized. While these documentation irreg-ularities may sound minor, they have the potential to throw the foreclosure system—and possibly the mortgage loan system and housing market itself—into turmoil. At a minimum, in certain cases, signers of affidavits appear to have signed documents attest-ing to information that they did not verify and without a notary present. If this is the extent of the irregularities, then the issue may be limited to these signers and the foreclosure proceedings they were involved in, and in many cases, the irregularities may potentially be remedied by reviewing the documents more thor-oughly and then resubmitting them. If, however, the problem is re-lated not simply to a limited number of foreclosure documents but also to irregularities in the mortgage origination and pooling proc-ess, then the impact of the irregularities could be far broader, af-fecting a vast number of investors in the mortgage-backed securi-ties (MBS) market, already completed foreclosures, and current homeowners. This latter scenario could result in extensive litiga-tion, an extended freeze in the foreclosure market, and significant stress on bank balance sheets arising from the substantial repur-chase liability that can arise from mistakes or misrepresentations in mortgage documents.3
C. Timeline
After the housing market started to collapse in 2006, the effects rippled through the financial sector and led to disruptions in the credit markets in 2008 and 2009. In an economy that had been hit hard by the financial crisis and soon settled into a deep recession, the housing market declined, dragging down housing prices and in-creasing the likelihood of default. This put pressure on a variety of parties involved in the mortgage market. During the boom, there were many players involved in the process of lending, securitizing,
VerDate Mar 15 2010 02:17 Dec 02, 2010 Jkt 061835 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A835.XXX A835tjam
es o
n D
SK
G8S
OY
B1P
RO
D w
ith R
EP
OR
TS
7
4 For example, it was not uncommon for a commercial bank to perform both lending and serv-icing functions, and to have established separate lending and servicing arms of its organization. As discussed later in this report, the securitization process begins with a lender/originator, often but not always a commercial bank. Next, the mortgage is securitized by an investment bank. Finally, the mortgage is serviced, often also by a commercial bank or its subsidiary. Even where the same banks are listed as doing both lending and servicing, they did not necessarily service only the mortgages they originated. Source: Inside Mortgage Finance.
5 See Office of the Special Inspector General for the Troubled Asset Relief Program, Quarterly Report to Congress, at 157 (Oct. 26, 2010) (online at www.sigtarp.gov/reports/congress/2010/ October2010_Quarterly_Report_to_Congress.pdf) (hereinafter ‘‘October 2010 SIGTARP Report’’).
6 Servicer duties included fielding borrower inquiries, collecting mortgage payments from the borrowers, and remitting mortgage payments to the trust. See Id. at 157, 164. See also Congres-sional Oversight Panel, March Oversight Report: Foreclosure Crisis: Working Toward a Solution, at 40–42 (Mar. 6, 2009) (online at cop.senate.gov/documents/cop-030609-report.pdf) (hereinafter ‘‘March 2009 Oversight Report’’).
7 See March 2009 Oversight Report, supra note 6, at 40. 8 See March 2009 Oversight Report, supra note 6, at 40–42. See also October 2010 SIGTARP
Report, supra note 5, at 158. 9 See October 2010 SIGTARP Report, supra note 5, at 157–158. In the spring of 2009, when
Treasury announced its Making Home Affordable program, the centerpiece of which was HAMP, servicers took on the additional responsibility of processing all HAMP modifications.
10 See March 2009 Oversight Report, supra note 6, at 39. 11 Mortgages that are more than 90 days past due are concentrated in certain regions and
states of the country, including California, Nevada, Arizona, Florida, and Georgia. See Federal Reserve Bank of New York, Q3 Credit Conditions (Nov. 8, 2010) (online at www.newyorkfed.org/ creditconditions/). Similarly, foreclosures are concentrated in certain states, including the so- called ‘‘sand states’’: Arizona, California, Nevada, and Florida. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Report to Congress on the Root Causes of the Foreclosure Crisis, at vi (Jan. 2010) (online at www.huduser.org/Publications/PDF/Foreclosure_09.pdf). The Panel’s field hear-ings in Clark County, Nevada, Prince George’s County, Maryland, and Philadelphia, Pennsyl-vania, also touched on the subject of high concentrations of foreclosures in those regions. See Congressional Oversight Panel, Clark County, NV: Ground Zero of the Housing and Financial Crises (Dec. 16, 2008) (online at cop.senate.gov/hearings/library/hearing-121608- firsthearing.cfm); Congressional Oversight Panel, COP Hearing: Coping with the Foreclosure Crisis in Prince George’s County, Maryland (Feb. 27, 2009) (online at cop.senate.gov/hearings/ library/hearing-022709-housing.cfm); Congressional Oversight Panel, Philadelphia Field Hearing on Mortgage Foreclosures (Sept. 24, 2009) (online at cop.senate.gov/hearings/library/hearing- 092409-philadelphia.cfm).
12 The details of ‘‘robo-signers’’ actions surfaced on the Internet in September 2010, including video and transcriptions of depositions filed by robo-signers. See, e.g., The Florida Foreclosure Fraud Weblog, Jeffrey Stephan Affidavits ‘Withdrawn’ by Florida Default Law Group (Sept. 15, 2010) (online at floridaforeclosurefraud.com/2010/09/jeffrey-stephan-affidavits-withdrawn-by-flor-ida-default-law-group/). Some of this information was made public in court documents. For in-
Continued
and servicing mortgages, and many of these players took on mul-tiple roles.4
The initial role of servicers was largely administrative.5 They were hired by the MBS investors to handle all back-office functions for existing loans, and generally acted as intermediaries between borrowers and MBS investors.6 However, when the housing bubble burst, and the number of delinquencies began to rise, the role of servicers evolved correspondingly.7 Servicer focus shifted from per-forming purely administrative tasks to engaging in active loss miti-gation efforts.8 Servicers found themselves responsible for proc-essing all defaults, modifications, short sales, and foreclosures.9 The servicers themselves have admitted that they were simply not prepared for the volume of work that the crisis generated.10 Thus, many servicers began subcontracting out much of their duties to so-called ‘‘foreclosure mills,’’ contractors that had significant incen-tives to move foreclosures along quickly.
Thus, as the boom in the housing market mutated into a boom in foreclosures,11 banks rushed to move delinquent borrowers out of their homes as quickly as possible, leading, apparently, to proce-dures of which the best that can be said is that they were sloppy and cursory. Concerns with foreclosure irregularities first arose when depositions of so-called ‘‘robo-signers’’ came to light.12 In a
VerDate Mar 15 2010 02:17 Dec 02, 2010 Jkt 061835 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A835.XXX A835tjam
es o
n D
SK
G8S
OY
B1P
RO
D w
ith R
EP
OR
TS
8
stance, in an order issued by a state court in Maine on September 24, 2010, the judge noted that it was undisputed that Jeffrey Stephan had signed an affidavit without reading it and that he had not been in the presence of a notary when he signed it. Order on Four Pending Motions at 3, Federal National Mortgage Assoc. v. Nicolle Bradbury, No. BRI–RE–09–65 (Me. Bridgton D. Ct. Sept. 24, 2010) (online at www.molleurlaw.com/themed/molleurlaw/files/uploads/ 9_24_10%20Four%20Motions%20Order.pdf) (hereinafter ‘‘Federal National Mortgage Assoc. v. Nicolle Bradbury’’).
13 GMAC Mortgage is a subsidiary of Ally Financial. The Panel examined Ally Financial, then named GMAC, in detail in its March 2010 report. See Congressional Oversight Panel, March Oversight Report: The Unique Treatment of GMAC Under TARP (Mar. 11, 2010) (online at cop.senate.gov/documents/cop-031110-report.pdf).
14 Federal National Mortgage Assoc. v. Nicolle Bradbury, supra note 12. There are two pri-mary concerns with affidavits. First: are the affidavits accurate? For example, even if the home-owner is indebted, the amount of the indebtedness is a part of the attestation. The amount of the indebtedness must be accurate because there might be a subsequent deficiency judgment against the homeowner, which would require the homeowner to cover the remaining amount owed to the lender. And even if there was no deficiency judgment, an inflated claim would in-crease the recovery of the mortgage servicer from the foreclosure sale proceeds to the detriment of other parties in the process. Second, even if the information in the affidavit is correct, it must be sworn out by someone with personal knowledge of the indebtedness; otherwise it is hearsay and generally not admissible as evidence. See, e.g., Transcript of Court Proceedings, GMAC Mortgage, LLC v. Debbie Viscaro, et al., No. 07013084CI (Fla. Cir. Ct. Apr. 7, 2010) (online at floridaforeclosurefraud.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/040710.pdf) (discussing whether affected affidavits were admissible). See generally Congressional Oversight Panel, Written Testimony of Katherine Porter, professor of law, University of Iowa College of Law, COP Hearing on TARP Foreclosure Mitigation Programs (Oct. 27, 2010) (online at cop.senate.gov/documents/testimony- 102710-porter.pdf) (hereinafter ‘‘Written Testimony of Katherine Porter’’).
15 Federal National Mortgage Assoc. v. Nicolle Bradbury, supra note 12. In addition, a Florida court admonished GMAC for similar problems in 2006. Plaintiff’s Notice of Compliance with this Court’s Order Dated May 1, 2006, TCIF RE02 v. Leibowitz, No. 162004CA004835XXXXMA (June 14, 2006) (detailing GMAC’s policies on affidavits filed in foreclosure cases). These actions, if true, would be inconsistent with the usual documentation requirements necessary for proper processing of a foreclosure, giving rise to concerns that the foreclosure was not legally sufficient. See generally Written Testimony of Katherine Porter, supra note 14.
16 Bank of America Corporation, Statement from Bank of America Home Loans (Oct. 8, 2010) (online at mediaroom.bankofamerica.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=234503&p=irol- newsArticle&ID=1480657&highlight=) (hereinafter ‘‘Statement from Bank of America Home Loans’’). At the same time, Bank of America agreed to indemnify Fidelity National Financial, a title insurer, for losses directly incurred by ‘‘failure to comply with state law or local practice on both transactions in which foreclosure has already occurred or been initiated and those to be initiated in the future.’’ See Fidelity National Financial, Fidelity National Financial, Inc., Re-ports EPS of $0.36 (Oct. 20, 2010) (online at files.shareholder.com/downloads/FNT/ 1051799117x0x411089/209d61a9-8a05-454c-90d1-4a78e0a7c4ae/ FNF_News_2010_10_20_Earnings.pdf). As further described below in Section D.2, title insur-ance is a critical piece of the mortgage market. Generally, title insurance insures against the possibility that title is encumbered or unclear, and thereby provides crucial certainty in trans-actions involving real estate. The insurance is retrospective—covering the history of the property until, but not after the sale, and is issued after a review of the land title records. For a buyer, title insurance therefore insures against the possibility that a defect in the title that is not ap-parent from the public records will affect their ownership. Industry sources conversations with Panel staff (Nov. 9, 2010). A title insurer’s refusal to issue insurance can significantly hamper the orderly transfer of real estate and interests collateralized by real estate. Bank of America’s indemnity agreement with Fidelity National Financial shifts the risk of covered losses arising from the foreclosure irregularities from Fidelity National to Bank of America.
17 Twenty-two states require judicial oversight of foreclosure proceedings. In these judicial foreclosure states the mortgagee must establish its claim—show that a borrower is in default— before a judge. In non-judicial states a foreclosure can proceed upon adequate and timely notice
June 7, 2010, deposition, Jeffrey Stephan, who worked for GMAC Mortgage 13 as a ‘‘limited signing officer,’’ testified that he signed 400 documents each day. In at least some cases, he signed affida-vits without reading them and without a notary present.14 He also testified that in doing so, he acted consistently with GMAC Mort-gage’s policies.15 Similarly, faced with revelations that robo-signers had signed tens of thousands of foreclosure documents without ac-tually verifying the information in them, Bank of America an-nounced on October 8, 2010, that it would freeze foreclosure sales in all 50 states until it could investigate and address the irregular-ities.16 GMAC Mortgage took similar action, announcing that while it would not suspend foreclosures, it had ‘‘temporarily suspended evictions and post-foreclosure closings’’ in 23 states.17 In a state-
VerDate Mar 15 2010 02:17 Dec 02, 2010 Jkt 061835 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A835.XXX A835tjam
es o
n D
SK
G8S
OY
B1P
RO
D w
ith R
EP
OR
TS
9
to the borrower, as defined by statute. In non-judicial states, a power of sale clause included in a deed of trust allows a trustee to conduct a non-judicial foreclosure. Non-judicial foreclosures can proceed more quickly since they do not require adjudication. Mortgage Bankers Association, Judicial Versus Non-Judicial Foreclosure (Oct. 26, 2010) (online at www.mbaa.org/files/ ResourceCenter/ForeclosureProcess/JudicialVersusNon-JudicialForeclosure.pdf). Typically, states that rely on mortgages are judicial foreclosure states, while states that rely on deeds of trust are non-judicial foreclosure states. Standard & Poor’s, Structured Finance Research Week: How Will the Foreclosure Crisis Affect U.S. Home Prices? (Oct. 21, 2010) (hereinafter ‘‘S&P on Fore-closure Crisis’’).
18 Ally Financial, Inc., GMAC Mortgage Provides Update on Mortgage Servicing Process (Sept. 24, 2010) (online at media.ally.com/index.php?s=43&item=417).
19 To date, GMAC Mortgage and Bank of America have only resumed foreclosures in judicial foreclosure states and are still reviewing their procedures in non-judicial foreclosure states.
20 Ally Financial, Inc., GMAC Mortgage Statement on Independent Review and Foreclosure Sales (Oct. 12, 2010) (online at media.ally.com/index.php?s=43&item=421) (hereinafter ‘‘GMAC Mortgage Statement on Independent Review and Foreclosure Sales’’).
21 Bank of America Corporation, Statement from Bank of America Home Loans (Oct. 18, 2010) (online at mediaroom.bankofamerica.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=234503&p=irol- newsArticle&ID=1483909&highlight=) (hereinafter ‘‘Statement from Bank of America Home Loans’’).
22 See Written Testimony of Katherine Porter, supra note 14, at 10 (‘‘In the wake of these par-ties’ longstanding allegations and findings of inappropriate and illegal practices, I am unable to give weight to recent statements by banks such as Bank of America that only 10 to 25 of the first several hundred loans that it has reviewed have problems.’’).
23 Wells Fargo & Company, Wells Fargo Provides Update on Foreclosure Affidavits and Mort-gage Securitizations (Oct. 27, 2010) (online at www.wellsfargo.com/press/2010/ 20101027_Mortgage) (hereinafter ‘‘Wells Fargo Update on Affidavits and Mortgage Securitizations’’).
ment, it referred to the issue as a ‘‘procedural error . . . in certain affidavits’’ and stated that ‘‘we are confident that the processing er-rors did not result in any inappropriate foreclosures.’’ GMAC also announced that the company had taken three remedial steps to ad-dress the problem: additional education and training for employees, the release of a ‘‘more robust policy’’ to govern the process, and the hiring of additional staff to assist with foreclosure processing.18
These voluntary, privately determined suspensions were brief.19 On October 12, 2010, GMAC Mortgage released a statement indi-cating that in cases in which it had initiated a review process for its foreclosure procedures, it would resume foreclosure proceedings once any problems had been identified and, where necessary, ad-dressed. It also noted that it ‘‘found no evidence to date of any in-appropriate foreclosures.’’ 20 On October 18, Bank of America an-nounced that it had completed its review of irregularities in the 23 states that require judicial review of foreclosure proceedings and that it would begin processing foreclosure affidavits for 102,000 foreclosure proceedings in those states. It stated that it would re-view proceedings in the remaining 27 states on a case-by-case basis and that foreclosure sales in those states would be delayed until those reviews are complete. It further stated that in all states, it appeared that the ‘‘basis of our foreclosure decisions is accurate.’’ 21 Various commentators, however, have questioned Bank of Amer-ica’s ability to make such determinations in such a short time-frame.22 Then, on October 27, another large bank entered the fray when Wells Fargo announced that it had uncovered irregularities in its foreclosure processes and stated that it would submit supple-mental affidavits in 55,000 foreclosure actions.23
Meanwhile, as the revelations of irregularities quickly multiplied, some argued that over and above the banks’ and servicers’ vol-untary actions, the federal government should impose a nationwide
VerDate Mar 15 2010 02:17 Dec 02, 2010 Jkt 061835 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A835.XXX A835tjam
es o
n D
SK
G8S
OY
B1P
RO
D w
ith R
EP
OR
TS
10
24 See, e.g., Office of Senator Harry Reid, Reid Welcomes Bank of America Decision, Calls On Others To Follow Suit (Oct. 8, 2010) (online at reid.senate.gov/newsroom/ pr_101008_bankofamerica.cfm) (hereinafter ‘‘Reid Welcomes Bank of America Decision’’); Dean Baker, Foreclosure Moratorium: Cracking Down on Liar Liens, Center for Economic and Policy Research (Oct. 18, 2010) (online at www.cepr.net/index.php/op-eds-&-columns/op-eds-&-columns/ foreclosure-moratorium-cracking-down-on-liar-liens) (hereinafter ‘‘Foreclosure Moratorium: Cracking Down on Liar Liens’’).
25 Shaun Donovan, secretary, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, How We Can Really Help Families (Oct. 18, 2010) (online at portal.hud.gov/portal/page/portal/HUD/press/ blog/2010/blog2010-10-18).
26 National Association of Attorneys General, 50 States Sign Mortgage Foreclosure Joint State-ment (Oct. 13, 2010) (online at www.naag.org/joint-statement-of-the-mortgage-foreclosure- multistate-group.php) (hereinafter ‘‘50 States Sign Mortgage Foreclosure Joint Statement’’).
27 Cases involved suits against Bank of America (as the parent of loan originator Countrywide) claiming violations of representations and warranties and sought to enforce put-back provisions. Greenwich Financial Services Distressed Fund 3 L.L.C. vs. Countrywide Financial Corp, et al., 1:08-cv-11343–RJH (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 15, 2010); Footbridge Limited Trust and OHP Opportunity Trust vs. Bank of America, CV00367 (S.D.N.Y. Oct 1, 2010).
28 See Stephen R. Buchenroth and Gretchen D. Jeffries, Recent Foreclosure Cases: Lenders Be-ware (June 2007) (online at www.abanet.org/rppt/publications/ereport/2007/6/ OhioForeclosureCases.pdf); Wells Fargo v. Jordan, 914 N.E.2d 204 (Ohio 2009) (‘‘If plaintiff has offered no evidence that it owned the note and mortgage when the complaint was filed, it would not be entitled to judgment as a matter of law.’’); Christopher Lewis Peterson, Foreclosure, Subprime Mortgage Lending, and the Mortgage Electronic Registration System, University of Cincinnati Law Review, Vol. 78, No. 4, at 1368–1371 (Summer 2010) (online at papers.ssrn.com/ sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1469749) (hereinafter ‘‘Cincinnati Law Review Paper on Fore-closure’’); MERSCORP, Inc. v. Romaine, 861 N.E. 2d 81 (N.Y. 2006). Accordingly, a second set
moratorium on foreclosures.24 Housing and Urban Development Secretary Shaun Donovan rejected the idea, arguing that ‘‘a na-tional, blanket moratorium on all foreclosure sales would do far more harm than good.’’ 25 At the same time, on October 13, attor-neys general from all 50 states 26 announced a bipartisan effort to look into the possibility that documents or affidavits were improp-erly submitted in their jurisdictions.
Although the public focus today lies generally on foreclosures, the possibility of document irregularities in mortgage transactions has expanded beyond their significance to foreclosure proceedings. Re-cently, investors have begun to claim that similar irregularities in origination and pooling of loans should trigger actions against enti-ties in the mortgage origination, securitization, and servicing in-dustries.27
D. Legal Consequences of Document Irregularities
The possible legal consequences of the documentation irregular-ities described above range from minor, curable title defects for cer-tain foreclosed homes in certain states to more serious con-sequences such as the unenforceability of foreclosure claims and other ownership rights that rely on the ability to establish clear title to real property, forced put-backs of defective mortgages to originators, and market upheaval. The severity and likelihood of these various possible consequences depend on whether the irreg-ularities are pervasive and when in the process they occurred.
Effective transfers of real estate depend on parties’ being able to answer seemingly straightforward questions: who owns the prop-erty? how did they come to own it? can anyone make a competing claim to it? The irregularities have the potential to make these seemingly simple questions complex. As a threshold matter, a party seeking to enforce the rights associated with the mortgage must have standing in court, meaning that a party must have an inter-est in the property sufficient that a court will hear their claim and can provide them with relief.28 For a mortgage, ‘‘[a] mortgage may
VerDate Mar 15 2010 02:17 Dec 02, 2010 Jkt 061835 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A835.XXX A835tjam
es o
n D
SK
G8S
OY
B1P
RO
D w
ith R
EP
OR
TS
11
of problems relates to the chain of title on mortgages and the ability of the foreclosing party to prove that it has legal standing to foreclose. While these problems are not limited to the securitization market, they are especially acute for securitized loans because there are more complex chain of title issues involved.
29 Restatement (Third) of Prop. (Mortgages) § 5.4(c) (1997). Only the proven mortgagee may maintain a foreclosure action. The requirement that a foreclosure action be brought only by the actual mortgagee is at the heart of the issues with foreclosure irregularities. If the homeowner or the court challenges the claim of the party bringing a foreclosure action that it is the mort-gagee (and was when the foreclosure was filed), then evidentiary issues arise as to whether the party bringing the foreclosure can in fact prove that it is the mortgagee. The issues involved are highly complex areas of law, but despite the complexity of these issues, they should not be dismissed as mere technicalities. Rather, they are legal requirements that must be observed both as part of due process and as part of the contractual bargain made between borrowers and lenders.
30 That party must either own the mortgage and the note or be legally empowered to act on the owner’s behalf. Servicers acting on behalf of a trust or an originator do not own the mort-gage, but by contract are granted the ability to act on behalf of the trust or the originator. See Federal Trade Commission, Facts for Consumers (online at www.ftc.gov/bcp/edu/pubs/consumer/ homes/rea10.shtm) (accessed Nov. 12, 2010) (‘‘In today’s market, loans and the rights to service them often are bought and sold. In many cases, the company that you send your payment to is not the company that owns your loan.’’). See also October 2010 SIGTARP Report, supra note 5, at 160 (describing clients of servicers).
31 Laws governing the remedies available to a lender foreclosing on a property vary consider-ably. States also differ markedly in how long it takes the lender to foreclose depending on the available procedures. In general, claimants can seek to recover loan amounts by foreclosing on the property securing the debt. If the loan is ‘‘non-recourse,’’ the lender only may foreclose upon the property, but if the loan is ‘‘recourse,’’ the lender may foreclose upon the property and other borrower assets. Most states are recourse states. A loan in a recourse state allows a mortgagee to foreclose upon property securing a promissory note and, if that property is insufficient to dis-charge the debt, move against the borrower’s other assets. In non-recourse states, recovery of the loan amount is limited to the loan collateral. Put another way, the lender cannot go after the borrower’s other assets in a non-recourse state if the property is insufficient to discharge the debt. It is worth noting that even in recourse states, given the current economic climate, the mortgagees’ recourse to the borrower’s personal assets may be somewhat illusory since they may be minimal relative to the costs and delay in pursuing and collecting on a deficiency judg-ments. See Andra C. Ghent and Marianna Kudlyak, Recourse and Residential Mortgage Default: Theory and Evidence from U.S. States, Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond Working Paper, No. 09–10, at 1–2 (July 7, 2009) (online at www.fhfa.gov/webfiles/15051/website_ghent.pdf).
32 Christopher Lewis Peterson, associate dean for academic affairs and professor of law, S.J. Quinney College of Law, University of Utah, conversations with Panel staff (Nov. 8, 2010).
be enforced only by, or in behalf of, a person who is entitled to en-force the obligation the mortgage secures.’’ 29 Thus, the only party that may enforce the rights associated with the mortgage, with standing to take action on a mortgage in a court, must be legally able to act on the mortgage.30 Accordingly, standing is critical for a successful foreclosure, because if the party bringing the fore-closure does not have standing to enforce the rights attached to the mortgage and the note, that party may not be able to take the property with clear title that can be passed on to another buyer.31 Thus, if prior transfers of the mortgage were unsuccessful or im-proper, subsequent transfers of the property, such as a foreclosure or even an ordinary sale, could be affected. Further, failure to fore-close properly—whether because the foreclosing party did not actu-ally hold the mortgage and the note, or because robo-signing af-fected the homeowner’s due process rights—means that the prior homeowner may be able to assert claims against a subsequent owner of the property.32 In this way, documentation irregularities can affect title to a property at a number of stages, as further de-scribed below.
VerDate Mar 15 2010 02:17 Dec 02, 2010 Jkt 061835 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A835.XXX A835tjam
es o
n D
SK
G8S
OY
B1P
RO
D w
ith R
EP
OR
TS
12
33 Black’s Law Dictionary, at 1522 (2004). 34 See Cincinnati Law Review Paper on Foreclosure, supra note 28. 35 There are two documents that need to be transferred as part of the securitization process—
a promissory note and the security instrument (the mortgage or deed of trust). The promissory note embodies the debt obligation, while the security instrument provides that if the debt is not repaid, the creditor may sell the designated collateral (the house). Both the note and the mort-gage need to be properly transferred. Without the note, a mortgage is unenforceable, while with-out the mortgage, a note is simply an unsecured debt obligation, no different from credit card debt. See FBR Foreclosure Mania Conference Call, supra note 3. The rules for these transfers are generally governed by the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), although one author states that the application of the UCC to the transfer of the note is not certain. See Dale A. Whitman, How Negotiability Has Fouled Up the Secondary Mortgage Market, and What to Do About It, Pepperdine Law Review, Vol. 37, at 758–759 (2010).
States adopt articles of and revisions to the UCC individually, and so there can be variation among states in the application of the UCC. This report does not attempt to identify all of the possible iterations. Rather, it describes general and common applications of the UCC to such transactions.
There are two methods by which a promissory note may be transferred. First, it may be trans-ferred by ‘‘negotiation,’’ the signing over of individual promissory notes through indorsement, in the same way that a check can be transferred via indorsement. See UCC §§ 3–201, 3–203. The pooling and servicing agreements (PSAs) for securitized loans generally contemplate transfer through negotiation. Typical language in PSAs requires the delivery to the securitization trust of the notes and the mortgages, indorsed in blank. Alternatively, a promissory note may be transferred by a sale contract, also governed by whether a state has adopted particular revisions to the UCC. In many states, in order for a transfer to take place under the relevant portion of the UCC, there are only three requirements: the buyer of the promissory note must give value, there must be an authenticated document of sale that describes the promissory note, and the seller must have rights in the promissory note being sold. UCC § 9–203(a)-(b).
1. Potential Flaws in the Recording and Transfer of Mort-gages and Violations of Pooling and Servicing Agree-ments
a. Mortgage Recordation, Perfecting Title, and Trans-ferring Title
i. Title The U.S. real property market depends on a seller’s ability to
convey ‘‘clear title’’: an assurance that the purchaser owns the property free of encumbrances or competing claims.33 Laws gov-erning the transfer of real property in the United States were de-signed to create a public, transparent recordation system that sup-plies reliable information on ownership interests in property. Each of the 50 states has laws governing title to land within its legal boundaries. Every county in the country maintains records of who owns land there, of transfers of ownership, and of related mort-gages or deeds of trust. While each state’s laws have unique fea-tures, their basic requirements are the same, consistent with the notion that the purpose of the recording system is to establish cer-tainty regarding property ownership. In order to protect ownership interests, fully executed, original (commonly referred to as ‘‘wet ink’’) documents must be recorded in a grantor/grantee index at a county recording office.34 In the case of a purchaser or transferee, a properly recorded deed describing both the property and the par-ties to the transfer establishes property ownership.
ii. Transfer In a purchase of a home using a mortgage loan, required docu-
ments include (a) a promissory note establishing the mortgagor’s personal liability, (b) a mortgage evidencing the security interest in the underlying collateral, and (c) if the mortgage is transferred, proper assignments of the mortgage and the note.35 There are a
VerDate Mar 15 2010 02:17 Dec 02, 2010 Jkt 061835 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A835.XXX A835tjam
es o
n D
SK
G8S
OY
B1P
RO
D w
ith R
EP
OR
TS
13
The first two requirements should be easily met in most securitizations; the transfer of the mortgage loans at each stage of the securitization involves the buyer giving the seller value and a document of sale (a mortgage purchase and sale agreement or a PSA) that should include a schedule identifying the promissory notes involved. The third requirement, however, that the seller must have rights in the promissory note being sold, is more complicated, as it requires an unbroken chain of title back to the loan’s originator. While the loan sale documents plus their schedules are evidence of such a chain of title, they cannot establish that the loan was not pre-viously sold to another party.
Further, this discussion only addresses the validity of transfers between sellers and buyers of mortgage loans. It does not address the enforceability of those loans against homeowners, which requires physical possession of the original note. Thus, for both securitized and non- securitized loans, it is necessary for a party to show that it is entitled to enforce the promissory note (and therefore generally that it is a holder of the physical original note) in order to com-plete a foreclosure successfully.
Perhaps more critically, parties are free to contract around the UCC. UCC § 1–302. This raises the question of whether PSAs for MBS provide for a variance from the UCC by agreement of the parties. The PSA is the document that provides for the transfer of the mortgage and notes from the securitization sponsor to the depositor and thence to the trust. The PSA is also the document that creates the trust. The transfer from the originator to the sponsor is typically gov-erned by a separate document, although sections of it may be incorporated by reference in the PSA.
If a PSA is considered a variation by agreement from the UCC, then there is a question of what the PSA itself requires to transfer the mortgage loans and whether those requirements have been met. In some cases, PSAs appear to require a complete chain of indorsements on the notes from originator up to the depositor, with a final indorsement in blank to the trust. A com-plete chain of indorsements, rather than a single indorsement in blank with the notes trans-ferred thereafter as bearer paper, is important for establishing the ‘‘bankruptcy remoteness’’ of the trust assets. A critical part of securitization is to establish that the trust’s assets are bank-ruptcy remote, meaning that they could not be claimed by the bankruptcy estate of an upstream transferor of the assets. Without a complete chain of indorsements, it is difficult, if not impos-sible, to establish that the loans were in fact transferred from originator to sponsor to depositor to trust, rather than directly from originator or sponsor to the trust. If the transfer were directly from the originator or sponsor to the trust, the loans could possibly be claimed as part of the originator’s or sponsor’s bankruptcy estate. The questions about what the transfers required, therefore, involve both the question as to whether the required transfers actually happened, as well as whether, if they happened, they were legally sufficient.
number of ways for a mortgage originator to proceed upon entering into a loan secured by real property. They may keep the loan on their own books; these are so-called ‘‘whole loans.’’ However, if the loan is sold in a secondary market—either as a whole loan or in a securitization process—the loan must be properly transferred to the purchaser. To be transferred properly, both the loan and ac-companying documentation must be transferred to the purchaser, and the transfer must be recorded.
VerDate Mar 15 2010 02:17 Dec 02, 2010 Jkt 061835 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A835.XXX A835tjam
es o
n D
SK
G8S
OY
B1P
RO
D w
ith R
EP
OR
TS
14
36 FBR Foreclosure Mania Conference Call, supra note 3. 37 For an overview of REMICs, see Federal National Mortgage Association, Basics of REMICs
(June 16, 2009) (online at www.fanniemae.com/mbs/mbsbasics/remic/index.jhtml). See also Inter-nal Revenue Service, Final Regulations Relating to Real Estate Mortgage Investment Conduits, 26 CFR § 1 (Aug. 17, 1995) (online at www.irs.gov/pub/irs-regs/td8614.txt). Only the MBS inves-tors are taxed on their income from the trusts’ payments on the MBS. REMICs are supposed to be passive entities. Accordingly, with few exceptions, a REMIC may not receive new assets after 90 days have passed since its creation, or there will be adverse tax consequences. Thus, if a transfer of a loan was not done correctly in the first place, proper transfer now could endan-ger the REMIC status. For an overview of residential mortgage-backed securities in general, see American Securitization Forum, ASF Securitization Institute: Residential Mortgage-Backed Secu-rities (2006) (online at www.americansecuritization.com/uploadedFiles/RMBS%20Outline.pdf).
38 See Section D.1.a.ii, supra.
iii. Mortgage Securitization Process
FIGURE 1: TRANSFER OF RELEVANT PAPERWORK IN SECURITIZATION PROCESS 36
Securitizations of mortgages require multiple transfers, and, ac-cordingly, multiple assignments. Mortgages that were securitized were originated through banks and mortgage brokers—mortgage originators. Next they were securitized by investment banks—the sponsors—through the use of special purpose vehicles, trusts that qualify for Real Estate Mortgage Investment Conduit (REMIC) sta-tus. These trusts are bankruptcy-remote, tax-exempt vehicles that pooled the mortgages transferred to them and sold interests in the income from those mortgages to investors in the form of shares. The pools were collateralized by the underlying real property, be-cause a mortgage represents a first-lien security interest on an asset in the pool—a house.37 A governing document for securitizations called a pooling and servicing agreement (PSA) in-cludes various representations and warranties for the underlying mortgages. It also describes the responsibilities of the trustee, who is responsible for holding the recorded mortgage documents, and of the servicer, who plays an administrative role, collecting and dis-bursing mortgage and related payments on behalf of the investors in the MBS.
As described above, in order to convey good title into the trust and provide the trust with both good title to the collateral and the income from the mortgages, each transfer in this process required particular steps.38 Most PSAs are governed by New York law and
VerDate Mar 15 2010 02:17 Dec 02, 2010 Jkt 061835 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A835.XXX A835 inse
rt gr
aphi
c fo
lio 2
3 61
835C
.001
tjam
es o
n D
SK
G8S
OY
B1P
RO
D w
ith R
EP
OR
TS
15
39 FBR Foreclosure Mania Conference Call, supra note 3. 40 N.Y. Est. Powers & Trusts Law § 7–2.4; FBR Foreclosure Mania Conference Call, supra note
3. 41 FBR Foreclosure Mania Conference Call, supra note 3. 42 Amended Complaint at Exhibit 5, page 13, Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Fed-
eral Deposit Insurance Corporation, No. 09–CV–1656 (D.D.C. Sept. 8, 2010) (hereinafter ‘‘Deut-sche Bank v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation’’).
43 See FBR Foreclosure Mania Conference Call, supra note 3. 44 See, e.g., FBR Foreclosure Mania Conference Call, supra note 3. 45 Restatement (Third) of Prop. (Mortgages) § 5.4 cmt. B (1997). 46 Christopher Lewis Peterson, associate dean for academic affairs and professor of law, S.J.
Quinney College of Law, University of Utah, conversations with Panel staff (Nov. 8, 2010). 47 MERS conversations with Panel staff (Nov. 10, 2010). See Christopher Lewis Peterson, Two
Faces: Demystifying the Mortgage Electronic Registration System’s Land Title Theory, Real Prop-erty, Probate, and Trust Law Journal (forthcoming) (online at papers.ssrn.com/sol3/pa-pers.cfm?abstract_id=1684729).
create trusts governed by New York law.39 New York trust law re-quires strict compliance with the trust documents; any transaction by the trust that is in contravention of the trust documents is void, meaning that the transfer cannot actually take place as a matter of law.40 Therefore, if the transfer for the notes and mortgages did not comply with the PSA, the transfer would be void, and the as-sets would not have been transferred to the trust. Moreover, in many cases the assets could not now be transferred to the trust.41 PSAs generally require that the loans transferred to the trust not be in default, which would prevent the transfer of any non-per-forming loans to the trust now.42 Furthermore, PSAs frequently have timeliness requirements regarding the transfer in order to en-sure that the trusts qualify for favored tax treatment.43
Various commentators have begun to ask whether the poor rec-ordkeeping and error-filled work exhibited in foreclosure pro-ceedings, described above, is likely to have marked earlier stages of the process as well. If so, the effect could be that rights were not properly transferred during the securitization process such that title to the mortgage and the note might rest with another party in the process other than the trust.44
iv. MERS In addition to the concerns with the securitization process de-
scribed above, a method adopted by the mortgage securitization in-dustry to track transfers of mortgage servicing rights has come under question. A mortgage does not need to be recorded to be en-forceable as between the mortgagor and the mortgagee or subse-quent transferee, but unless a mortgage is recorded, it does not provide the mortgagee or its subsequent transferee with priority over subsequent mortgagees or lien holders.45
During the housing boom, multiple rapid transfers of mortgages to facilitate securitization made recordation of mortgages a more time-consuming, and expensive process than in the past.46 To al-leviate the burden of recording every mortgage assignment, the mortgage securitization industry created the Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (MERS), a company that serves as the mortgagee of record in the county land records and runs a database that tracks ownership and servicing rights of mortgage loans.47 MERS created a proxy or online registry that would serve as the mortgagee of record, eliminating the need to prepare and record subsequent transfers of servicing interests when they were trans-
VerDate Mar 15 2010 02:17 Dec 02, 2010 Jkt 061835 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A835.XXX A835tjam
es o
n D
SK
G8S
OY
B1P
RO
D w
ith R
EP
OR
TS
16
48 MERS conversations with Panel staff (Nov. 10, 2010); John R. Hodge and Laurie Williams, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc.: A Survey of Cases Discussing MERS’ Authority to Act, Norton Bankruptcy Law Adviser, at 2 (Aug 2010) (hereinafter ‘‘A Survey of Cases Dis-cussing MERS’ Authority to Act’’).
49 Members pay an annual membership fee and $6.95 for every loan registered, versus ap-proximately $30 in fees for filing a mortgage assignment at a local county land office. MERSCORP, Inc., Membership Kit (Oct. 2009) (online at www.mersinc.org/membership/ WinZip/ MERSeRegistryMembershipKit.pdf); Cincinnati Law Review Paper on Foreclosure, supra note 28, at 1368–1371. See also MERSCORP, Inc. v. Romaine, 861 N.E. 2d 81 (N.Y. 2006).
50 MERS conversations with Panel staff (Nov. 10, 2010). 51 Cincinnati Law Review Paper on Foreclosure, supra note 28, at 1362. 52 See A Survey of Cases Discussing MERS’ Authority to Act, supra note 48, at 3. 53 For instance, in a question-and-answer session during a recent earnings call with investors,
Jamie Dimon, CEO and chairman of JPMorgan Chase, said that the firm had stopped using MERS ‘‘a while back.’’ JPMorgan Chase & Co., Q3 2010 Earnings Call Transcript (Oct. 13, 2010) (online at www.morningstar.com/earn-0/ earnings_18244835-jp-morgan-chase-co-q3- 2010.aspx.shtml) (hereinafter ‘‘Q3 2010 Earnings Call Transcript’’). See also JPM on Fore-closures, MERS, supra note 3. This, however, related only to the use of MERS to foreclose. MERS conversations with Panel staff (Nov. 10, 2010).
54 See generally Cincinnati Law Review Paper on Foreclosure, supra note 28. Cases addressed questions as to standing and as to whether, by separating the mortgage and the note, the mort-gage had been rendered invalid (thus invalidating the security interest in the property). See A Survey of Cases Discussing MERS’ Authority to Act, supra note 48, at 20–21 (‘‘These interpre-tive problems and inconsistencies have provoked some courts to determine the worst possible fate for secured loan buyers—that their mortgages were not effectively transferred or even that the mortgages have been separated from the note and are no longer enforceable. . . . Whether the MERS construct holds water is being robustly tested in a variety of contexts. Given the per-vasiveness of MERS, if the construct is not viable, if MERS cannot file foreclosures, and, per-haps most importantly, cannot even record or execute an assignment of a mortgage, what then?’’).
55 See, e.g., Mortg. Elec. Registry Sys. v. Azize, 965 So. 2d 151 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2007). See also A Survey of Cases Discussing MERS’ Authority to Act, supra note 48, at 9.
56 Mortg. Elec. Registry Sys. v. Johnston, No. 420–6–09 Rdcv (Rutland Superior Ct., Vt., Oct. 28, 2009) (determining that MERS did not have standing to initiate the foreclosure because the note and mortgage had been separated).
ferred from one MERS member to another.48 In essence, it at-tempted to create a paperless mortgage recording process overlying the traditional, paper-intense mortgage tracking system, in which MERS would have standing to initiate foreclosures.49
MERS experienced rapid growth during the housing boom. Since its inception in 1995, 66 million mortgages have been registered in the MERS system and 33 million MERS-registered loans remain outstanding.50 During the summer of 2010, one expert estimated that MERS was involved in 60 percent of mortgage loans origi-nated in the United States.51
Widespread questions about the efficacy of the MERS model did not arise during the boom, when home prices were escalating and the incidence of foreclosures was minimal.52 But as foreclosures began to increase, and documentation irregularities surfaced in some cases and raised questions about a wide range of legal issues, including the legality of foreclosure proceedings in general,53 some litigants raised questions about the validity of MERS.54 There is limited case law to provide direction, but some state courts have rendered verdicts on the issue. In Florida, for example, appellate courts have determined that MERS had standing to bring a fore-closure proceeding.55 On the other hand, in Vermont, a court deter-mined that MERS did not have standing.56
In the absence of more guidance from state courts, it is difficult to ascertain the impact of the use of MERS on the foreclosure proc-ess. The uncertainty is compounded by the fact that the issue is rooted in state law and lies in the hands of 50 states’ judges and legislatures. If states adopt the Florida model, then the issue is likely to have a limited effect. However, if more states adopt the
VerDate Mar 15 2010 02:17 Dec 02, 2010 Jkt 061835 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A835.XXX A835tjam
es o
n D
SK
G8S
OY
B1P
RO
D w
ith R
EP
OR
TS
17
57 MERS was used by the most active participants in the securitization market including the largest banks (for example, Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase, Wells Fargo, Citigroup, and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac), and processed 60 percent of all MBS. See MERSCORP, Inc., SunTrust Becomes Third Major Mortgage Provider in Recent Months to Require MERS System (Mar. 18, 2010) (online at www.mersinc.org/newsroom/press_details.aspx?id=235). According to MERS, it has acted as the party foreclosing for one in five of the delinquent mortgages on its system. MERS conversations with Panel staff (Nov. 10, 2010).
58 See S&P on Foreclosure Crisis, supra note 17. 59 Christopher Lewis Peterson, associate dean for academic affairs and professor of law at the
S.J. Quinney College of Law at the University of Utah, conversations with Panel staff (Nov. 8, 2010).
60 This section attempts to provide a general description of put-backs. Put-backs have been an issue throughout the financial crisis, typically in the context of questions about underwriting standards. See, e.g., Federal National Mortgage Association, Form 10–K for the Fiscal Year Ended December 31, 2009, at 9 (Feb. 26, 2010) (online at www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/ 310522/000095012310018235/w77413e10vk.htm) (‘‘As delinquencies have increased, we have ac-cordingly increased our reviews of delinquent loans to uncover loans that do not meet our under-writing and eligibility requirements. As a result, we have increased the number of demands we make for lenders to repurchase these loans or compensate us for losses sustained on the loans, as well as requests for repurchase or compensation for loans for which the mortgage insurer rescinds coverage.’’). Documentation irregularities may provide an additional basis for put-backs, although the viability of these put-back claims will depend on a variety of deal-specific issues, such as the particular representations and warranties that were incorporated into the PSA, which in turn often are related to whether the MBSs are agency or private-label securities. Al-though private-label MBS PSAs typically included weaker representations regarding the quality of the loans and underwriting, they still contain representations regarding proper transfer of the documents to the trust.
61 Failure to transfer the loans properly would create two sources of liability: one would be in rendering the owner of the mortgage and the note uncertain, and the other would be a breach of contract claim under the PSA. For an example of typical language in representations and warranties contained in PSAs or incorporated by reference from mortgage loan purchase agree-ments executed by the mortgage originator, see Deutsche Bank v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, supra note 42 (‘‘. . . and that immediately prior to the transfer and assignment
Continued
Vermont model, then the issue may complicate the ability of var-ious players in the securitization process to enforce foreclosure liens.57 If sufficiently widespread, these complications could have a substantial effect on the mortgage market, inasmuch as it would destabilize or delegitimize a system that has been embedded in the mortgage market and used by multiple participants, both govern-ment and private. Although it is impossible to say at present what the ultimate result of litigation on MERS will be, holdings adverse to MERS could have significant consequences to the market.
If courts do adopt the Vermont view, it is possible that the im-pact may be mitigated if market participants devise a viable workaround. For example, according to a report released by Stand-ard & Poor’s, ‘‘most’’ market participants believe that it may be possible to solve any MERS-related problems by taking the mort-gage out of MERS and putting it in the mortgage owner’s name prior to initiating a foreclosure proceeding.58 According to one ex-pert, the odds that the status of MERS will be settled quickly are low.59
b. Violations of Representations and Warranties in the PSA 60
Residential mortgage-backed securities’ PSAs typically contain or incorporate a variety of representations and warranties. These rep-resentations and warranties cover such topics as the organization of the sponsor and depositor, the quality and status of the mort-gage loans, and the validity of their transfers.
More particularly, PSAs, whose terms are unique to each MBS, include representations and warranties by the originator or seller relating to the conveyance of good title,61 documentation for the
VerDate Mar 15 2010 02:17 Dec 02, 2010 Jkt 061835 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A835.XXX A835tjam
es o
n D
SK
G8S
OY
B1P
RO
D w
ith R
EP
OR
TS
18
of the Mortgage Loans to the Trustee, the Depositor was the sole owner and had good title to each Mortgage Loan, and had full right to transfer and sell each Mortgage Loan to the Trustee free and clear.’’).
62 See Deutsche Bank v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, supra note 42 (‘‘Each Mort-gage Note, each Mortgage, each Assignment and any other document required to be delivered by or on behalf of the Seller under this Agreement or the Pooling and Servicing Agreement to the Purchaser or any assignee, transferee or designee of the Purchaser for each Mortgage Loan has been or will be . . . delivered to the Purchaser or any such assignee, transferee or designee. With respect to each Mortgage Loan, the Seller is in possession of a complete Mortgage File in compliance with the Pooling and Servicing Agreement . . . The Mortgage Note and the re-lated Mortgage are genuine, and each is the legal, valid and binding obligation of the Mortgagor enforceable against the Mortgagor by the mortgagee or its representative in accordance with its terms, except only as such enforcement may be limited by bankruptcy, insolvency . . . .’’). These representations and warranties generally state that the documents submitted for loan under-writing were not falsified and contain no untrue statement of material fact or omit to state a material fact required to be stated therein and are not misleading and that no error, omission, misrepresentation, negligence, or fraud occurred in the loan’s origination or insurance.
63 See Deutsche Bank v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, supra note 42 (‘‘Each Mort-gage Loan was underwritten in accordance with the Seller’s underwriting guidelines as de-scribed in the Prospectus Supplement as applicable to its credit grade in all material respects.’’). Many concerns over underwriting standards have surfaced in the wake of the housing boom, such as lack of adequate documentation, lack of income verification, misrepresentation of income and job status, and haphazard appraisals. Even before the more recent emergence of the issue of document irregularities, institutions were pursuing put-back actions to address concerns over underwriting quality. See Federal National Mortgage Association, Form 10–Q for the Quarterly Period Ended June 30, 2010, at 95 (Aug. 5, 2010) (online at www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/ 310522/000095012310073427/w79360e10vq.htm) (‘‘Our mortgage seller/servicers are obligated to repurchase loans or foreclosed properties, or reimburse us for losses if the foreclosed property has been sold, if it is determined that the mortgage loan did not meet our underwriting or eligi-bility requirements or if mortgage insurers rescind coverage.’’).
64 See Deutsche Bank v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, supra note 42 (‘‘Each Mort-gage Loan at origination complied in all material respects with applicable local, state and fed-eral laws, including, without limitation, predatory and abusive lending, usury, equal credit op-portunity, real estate settlement procedures, truth-in-lending and disclosure laws, and con-summation of the transactions contemplated hereby, including without limitation the receipt of interest does not involve the violation of any such laws.’’).
65 See Deutsche Bank v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, supra note 42. 66 For examples of representations and warranties, see New Century Home Equity Loan Trust,
Form 8–K for the Period Ending February 16, 2005, at Ex. 99.2 (Mar. 11, 2005) (online at www.secinfo.com/dqTm6.zEy.a.htm#hm88).
67 See, e.g., Citigroup, Inc., Form 10–K for the Fiscal Year Ended December 31, 2009, at 131 (Feb. 26, 2010) (online at www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/831001/000120677410000406/ citi_10k.htm) (hereinafter ‘‘Citigroup Form 10–K’’). However, since every deal is different, there are a number of different methods for extinguishing a repurchase claim that may not necessarily require the actual repurchasing of the loan. Industry experts conversations with Panel staff (Nov. 9, 2010).
68 See Citigroup Form 10–K, supra note 67, at 131.
loan,62 underwriting standards,63 compliance with applicable law,64 and delivery of mortgage files,65 among other things.66 In addition, the mortgage files must contain specific loan and mortgage docu-ments and notification of material breaches of any representations and warranties.
If any of the representations or warranties are breached, and the breach materially and adversely affects the value of a loan, which can be as simple as reducing its market value, the offending loan is to be ‘‘put-back’’ to the sponsor, meaning that the sponsor is re-quired to repurchase the loan for the outstanding principal balance plus any accrued interest.67
If successfully exercised, these put-back clauses have enormous value for investors, because they permit the holder of a security with (at present) little value to attempt to recoup some of the lost value from the originator (or, if the originator is out of business, the sponsor or a successor). Put-backs shift credit risk from MBS investors to MBS sponsors (typically, as noted above, investment banks): the sponsor now has the defective loan on its balance sheet, and the trust has cash for the full unpaid principal balance of the loan plus accrued interest on its balance sheet.68 This means that
VerDate Mar 15 2010 02:17 Dec 02, 2010 Jkt 061835 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A835.XXX A835tjam
es o
n D
SK
G8S
OY
B1P
RO
D w
ith R
EP
OR
TS
19
69 Wells Fargo & Company, Together We’ll Go Far: Wells Fargo & Company Annual Report 2008, at 127 (2009) (online at www.wellsfargo.com/downloads/pdf/invest_relations/ wf2008annualreport.pdf) (‘‘In certain loan sales or securitizations, we provide recourse to the buyer whereby we are required to repurchase loans at par value plus accrued interest on the occurrence of certain credit-related events within a certain period of time.’’).
70 Compass Point Research & Trading, LLC, Mortgage Repurchases Part II: Private Label RMBS Investors Take Aim—Quantifying the Risks (Aug. 17, 2010) (online at api.ning.com/files/ fiCVZyzNTkoAzUdzhSWYNuHv33*Ur5ZYBh3S08zo*phy T79SFi0TOpPG7klHe3h8 RXKKyphNZqqyt ZrXQKbMxv4R3F6fN5dI/ 36431113MortgageFinance RepurchasesPrivateLabel08172010.pdf).
71 Amherst Mortgage Insight, PMI in Non-Agency Securitizations, at 4 (July 16, 2010) (‘‘PMI companies have become more assertive in rescinding insurance . . . In fact, since early 2009, option ARM recoveries have averaged 40%, Alt-A recoveries averaged 45%, prime recoveries averaged 58%, and subprime recoveries 67%.’’).
72 Securitization trustees do not examine and monitor loan files for representation and war-ranty violations and generally exercise very little oversight of servicers. Securitization trustees are not general fiduciaries; so long as there has not been an event of default for the securitization trust, the trustee has narrowly defined contractual duties, and no others. Securitization trustees are also paid far too little to fund active monitoring; trustees generally receive 1 basis point or less on the outstanding principal balance in the trust. In addition, securitization trustees often receive substantial amounts of business from particular sponsors, which may provide a disincentive for them to pursue representation and warranty violations vig-orously against those parties. See Nixon Peabody LLP, Caught in the Cross-fire: Securitization Trustees and Litigation During the Subprime Crisis (Jan. 29, 2010) (online at www.nixonpeabody.com/publications_detail3.asp?ID=3131) (discussing the perceived role of the trustee in mortgage securities litigation).
73 See Section D.2, infra. 74 See Section D.2, infra.
the sponsor may have to increase its risk-based capital and will bear the risk of future losses on the loan, while the trust receives 100 cents on the dollar for the loan.69 Not surprisingly, put-back actions are very fact-specific and can be hotly contested.70
Servicers do not often pursue representation and warranties vio-lations. A 2010 study by Amherst Mortgage Securities showed that while private mortgage insurers were rescinding coverage on a sub-stantial percentage of the loans they insured because of violations of very similar representation and warranties, there was very little put-back activity by servicers, even though one would expect rel-atively similar rates.71 One explanation for the apparent lack of servicer put-back activity may be the possibility of servicer conflicts of interest. Servicers are often affiliated with securitization spon-sors and therefore have disincentives to pursue representation and warranty violations. Trustees have disincentives to remove servicers because they act as backup servicers and bear the costs of servicing if the servicer is terminated from the deal. Finally, in-vestors are poorly situated to monitor servicers. Whereas a securitization trustee could gain access to individual loan files—but typically do not 72—investors cannot review loan files without sub-stantial collective costs.73 On the other hand, investor lawsuits have the potential to be lucrative for lawyers, so it is possible that some investor groups may take action despite their limited access to information.74
2. Possible Legal Consequences of the Document Irregular-ities to Various Parties
In addition to fraud claims, discussed further below, and claims arising from whether the loans in the pool met the underwriting standards required (which is primarily relevant to investors’ rights of put-back and bank liability), the other primary concern arising out of document irregularities is the potential failure to convey
VerDate Mar 15 2010 02:17 Dec 02, 2010 Jkt 061835 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A835.XXX A835tjam
es o
n D
SK
G8S
OY
B1P
RO
D w
ith R
EP
OR
TS
20
75 Most PSAs are governed by New York trust law and contain provisions that override UCC Article 9 provisions on secured transactions. This report does not attempt to describe every pos-sible legal defect that may arise out of the irregularities, particularly given the rapidly devel-oping nature of the problem, but addresses arguments common to the current discussions. In addition, the Panel takes no position on whether any of these arguments are valid or likely to succeed.
clear title to the property and ownership of the mortgage and the note.
There are two separate but interrelated forms of conveyance that may be implicated by documentation irregularities: conveyance of the mortgage and the note, and conveyance of the property secur-ing the mortgage. The foreclosure documentation irregularities af-fect conveyance of the property: if the foreclosure was not done cor-rectly, the bank or a subsequent buyer may not have clear title to the property. But these foreclosure irregularities may also be fur-ther compromised by a failure to convey the mortgage and the note properly earlier in the process. If, during the securitization process, required documentation was incomplete or improper, then owner-ship of the mortgage may not have been conveyed to the trust. This could have implications for the PSA—inasmuch as it would violate any requirement that the trust own the mortgages and the notes— as well as call into question the holdings of the trust and the collat-eral underlying the pools under common law, the UCC, and trust law.75 The trust in this situation may be unable to enforce the lien through foreclosure because only the owner of the mortgage and the note has the right to foreclose. If the owner of the mortgage is in dispute, no one may be able to foreclose until ownership is clear-ly established.
If it is unclear who owns the mortgage, clear title to the property itself cannot be conveyed. If, for example, the trust were to enforce the lien and foreclose on the property, a buyer could not be sure that the purchase of the foreclosed house was proper if the trust did not have the right to foreclose on the house in the first place. Similarly, if the house is sold, but it is unclear who owns the mort-gage and the note and, thus, the debt is not properly discharged and the lien released, a subsequent buyer may find that there are other claimants to the property. In this way, the consequences of foreclosure documentation irregularities converge with the con-sequences of securitization documentation irregularities: in either situation, a subsequent buyer or lender may have unclear rights in the property.
These irregularities may have significant bearing on many of the participants in the mortgage securitization process:
• Parties to Whom a Mortgage and Note Is Transferred— If a lien was not ‘‘perfected’’—filed according to appropriate procedures—participants in the transfer process may no longer have a first-lien interest in the property and may be unable to enforce that against third-parties (and, where the property has little value, particularly in non-recourse jurisdictions, may not be able to recover any money). Similarly, if the notes and mort-gages were not properly transferred, then the party that can enforce the rights attached to the note and the mortgage— right to receive payment and right to foreclose, among others— may not be readily identifiable. If a trust does not have proper
VerDate Mar 15 2010 02:17 Dec 02, 2010 Jkt 061835 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A835.XXX A835tjam
es o
n D
SK
G8S
OY
B1P
RO
D w
ith R
EP
OR
TS
21
76 The competing claims about MERS can also factor into these issues. If MERS is held not to be a valid recording system, then mortgages recorded in the name of MERS may not have first priority. Similarly, if MERS does not have standing to foreclose, it could cast into question foreclosures done by MERS.
77 It should be noted that while no claims have been made yet based on an alleged breach of representations and warranties related to the transfer of title, claims have been made based on allegations of poor underwriting and loan pool quality. See Buckingham Research Group, Conference Takeaways on Mortgage Repurchase Risk, at 2 (Nov. 4, 2010) (hereinafter ‘‘Bucking-ham Research Group Conference Takeaways’’). However, there is a possibility that there will be put-back demands for breaches of representations and warranties relating to mortgage trans-fers.
78 Because the REMIC status and avoidance of double taxation (trust level and investor level) is so critical to the economics of securitization deals, the PSAs that govern the securitization trusts are replete with instructions to servicers and trustees to protect the REMIC status, in-cluding provisions requiring that the transfers of the mortgage loans occur within a limited time after the trust’s creation. See, e.g., Agreement Among Deutsche Alt-A Securities, Inc., Depositor, Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, Master Servicer and Securities Administrator, and HSBC Bank USA, National Association, Trustee, Pooling and Servicing Agreement (Sept. 1, 2006) (online at www.secinfo.com/d13f21.v1B7.d.htm#1stPage).
79 If a significant number of loan transfers failed to comply with governing PSAs, it would mean that sizeable losses on mortgages would rest on a handful of large banks, rather than being spread among MBS investors. Sometimes the securitization sponsor is indemnified by the originator for any losses the sponsor incurs as a result of the breach of representations and war-ranties. See Id. at section 10.03. This indemnification is only valuable, however, to the extent that the originator has sufficient assets to cover the indemnification. Many originators are thin-ly capitalized and others have ceased operating or filed for bankruptcy. Therefore, in many cases, any put-back liability is likely to rest on the securitization sponsors. Although these put- back rights sometimes entitle the trust only to the value of the loan less any payments already received, plus interest, the value the trust would receive is still greater than the current value of many of these loans. As a number of originators and sponsors were acquired by other major financial institutions during 2008–2009, put-back liability has become even more focused on a relatively small number of systemically important financial institutions. Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, Preliminary Staff Report: Securitization and the Mortgage Crisis, at 13 (Apr. 7, 2010) (online at www.fcic.gov/reports/pdfs/2010-0407-Preliminary_Staff_Report_- _Securitization_and_the_Mortgage_Crisis.pdf) (table showing that five of the top 25 sponsors in 2007 have since been acquired). Overall, recovery is likely to be determined on a deal-by-deal basis.
ownership to the notes and the mortgage, it is unclear what assets are actually in the trust, if any.76
• Sponsors, Servicers, and Trustees—Failure to follow rep-resentations and warranties found in PSAs can lead to the re-moval of servicers or trustees and trigger indemnification rights between the parties.77 Failure to record mortgages can result in the trust losing its first-lien priority on the property. Failure to transfer mortgages and notes properly to the trust can affect the holdings of the trust. If transfers were not done correctly in the first place and cannot be corrected, there is a profound implication for mortgage securitizations: it would mean that the improperly transferred loans are not trust as-sets and MBS are in fact not backed by some or all of the mortgages that are supposed to be backing them. This would mean that the trusts would have litigation claims against the securitization sponsors for refunds of the value given by the trusts to the sponsors (or depositors) as part of the securitization transaction.78 If successful, in the most extreme scenario this would mean that MBS trusts (and thus MBS in-vestors) could receive complete recoveries on all improperly transferred mortgages, thereby shifting the losses to the securitization sponsors.79 Successful put-backs to these entities would require them to hold those loans on their books. Even if the mortgage loans are still valid, enforceable obligations, the sponsors would (if regulated for capital adequacy) be re-quired to hold capital against the mortgage loans, and might have to raise capital. If these banks were unable to raise cap-
VerDate Mar 15 2010 02:17 Dec 02, 2010 Jkt 061835 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A835.XXX A835tjam
es o
n D
SK
G8S
OY
B1P
RO
D w
ith R
EP
OR
TS
22
80 As noted above, the servicer does not own the mortgage and the note, but has a contractual ability to enforce the legal rights associated with the mortgage and the note.
81 The concept of ‘‘bona-fide purchaser for value,’’ which exists in both common and statutory law, may protect the later buyer. If the later buyer records an interest in the property and had no notice of the competing claim, that interest in the property will be protected. Industry sources conversations with Panel staff (Nov. 9, 2010).
82 See Section E.1, infra. 83 The majority of PSAs were created under the laws of New York state. Under New York
law, there are four requirements for creating a trust: (1) a designated beneficiary; (2) a des-ignated trustee; (3) property sufficiently identified; and (4) and the delivery of the property to the trustee. Joshua Rosner of Graham Fisher, an investment research firm, has noted that there may not have always been proper delivery of the property to the trustee. ‘‘In New York it is not enough to have an intention to deliver the property to the trust, the property must actually be delivered. So, what defines acceptable delivery? The answer appears to lie with the ‘governing
ital, it might, again, subject them to risks of insolvency and threaten the system.
• Borrowers/homeowners—Borrowers may have several avail-able causes of action. They may seek to reclaim foreclosed properties that have been resold. They may also refuse to pay the trustee or servicer on the grounds that these parties do not own or legitimately act on behalf of the owner of the mortgage or the note.80 In addition, they may defend themselves against foreclosure proceedings on the claim that robo-signing irreg-ularities deprived them of due process.
• Later Purchasers—Potential home-buyers may be concerned that they are unable to determine definitively whether the home they wish to purchase was actually conveyed with clear title, and may be unwilling to rely on title insurance to protect them.81 Financial institutions that may have been interested in buying mortgages or mortgage securities may worry that the current holder of the mortgage did not actually receive the loan through a proper transfer.
• Investors—Originators of mortgages destined for mortgage se-curities execute mortgage loan purchase agreements, incor-porated into PSAs, that, as mentioned earlier, make represen-tations and warranties the breach of which can result in put- back rights requiring that the mortgage originator repurchase defective mortgages. MBS investors may assert claims regard-ing issues that arose during the origination and securitization process. For instance, they may assert that violations of under-writing standards or faulty appraisals were misrepresentations and material omissions that violate representations and war-ranties and may, in some cases where the necessary elements are established, raise fraud claims.82 They may also raise issues about the validity of the REMIC, the bankruptcy-re-mote, tax-exempt conduit that is central to the mortgage securitization process. A potential investor claim is that mort-gage origination violations and title defects prevented a ‘‘true sale’’ of the mortgages, consistent with Internal Revenue Serv-ice (IRS) regulations and as required by the New York State trust law, invalidating the REMIC. Some commentators believe that inquiries by investors could uncover untimely attempts to cure the problem by substituting complying property more than 90 days after formation of the REMIC, a prohibited trans-action that could cause loss of REMIC status, resulting in the loss of pass-through taxation status and taxation of income to the trust and to the investor.83 Loss of REMIC status would
VerDate Mar 15 2010 02:17 Dec 02, 2010 Jkt 061835 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A835.XXX A835tjam
es o
n D
SK
G8S
OY
B1P
RO
D w
ith R
EP
OR
TS
23
instrument,’ the Pooling and Servicing Agreement (PSA). Thus, in order to have proper delivery the parties to the PSA must do that which the PSA demands to achieve delivery.’’ Joshua Rosner, note to Panel staff (Nov. 8, 2010). To the extent that a PSA requires that property be conveyed to the trust within a certain timeframe, such conveyance would be void. N.Y. Estates, Powers, and Trusts Law § 7–2.4 (McKinney’s 2006).
84 Although title insurers appear to be poised for potential risk, one observer has noted that title insurance lobbyists and trade groups have instead played down the possible effects of these legal issues. Christopher Lewis Peterson, professor of law, S.J. Quinney School of Law, Univer-sity of Utah, conversations with Panel staff (Nov. 8, 2010). Title insurers state that they do not presently believe that these legal issues will have much effect. Industry sources conversations with Panel staff (Nov. 10, 2010). Professor Peterson suggested that the insurers may earn suffi-cient remuneration from various fees to offset any potential risk. On the other hand, title insur-ers could stand to suffer significant losses if some of the matters presently discussed in the mar-ket, such as widespread invalidation of MERS, come to pass. It is too soon to say if such events are likely, but title insurers would be one of the primary parties damaged by such an action.
85 Christopher Lewis Peterson, professor of law, S.J. Quinney School of Law, University of Utah, conversations with Panel staff (Nov. 8, 2010). If the mortgages were created at different times, the mortgage created first would take precedence.
provide substantial grounds for widespread put-backs. More-over, this type of litigation could be extremely lucrative for the lawyers representing the investors. It may be expected that, for this type of action, the investors’ counsel would have strong incentives to litigate forcefully.
• Title Insurance Companies—In the United States, pur-chasers of real property (i.e., land and/or buildings) typically purchase title insurance, which provides a payment to the pur-chaser if a defect in the title or undisclosed lien is discovered after the sale of the property is complete. Given the potential legal issues discussed in this section, title insurance companies could face an increase in claims in the near future. The threat of such issues may also lead insurers to require additional doc-umentation before issuing a policy, increasing the costs associ-ated with buying property.84
• Junior Lien Holders—Second and third liens are not as com-monly securitized as first liens; therefore, their holders may not face the same direct risk as first lien holders. Junior lien holders may, however, face an indirect risk if the rights of the first lien holder cannot be properly established. If the property securing the lien is sold, all senior liens must be paid first. If the senior liens cannot be paid off because it is impossible to determine who holds those liens, the junior lien holder may not be able to claim any of the proceeds of the sale until the iden-tity of the senior lien holder is settled. On the other hand, doc-ument irregularities may offer a windfall for some junior liens. If the first mortgage has not been perfected, the first lien hold-er loses its priority over any other, perfected liens. Therefore, if a second lien was properly recorded, it could take priority over a first lien that was not properly recorded. The majority of second liens, however, were completed using the same sys-tem as first liens and therefore face the same potential issues. Moreover, many mortgages that were created during the hous-ing boom were created with an 80 percent/20 percent ‘‘piggy- back’’ structure in which a first and second lien were created simultaneously and using the same system. If neither lien was perfected, there may be a question as to which would take pri-ority over the other.85
• Local Actions—Despite the state attorneys’ general national approach to investigating document irregularities, there may
VerDate Mar 15 2010 02:17 Dec 02, 2010 Jkt 061835 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A835.XXX A835tjam
es o
n D
SK
G8S
OY
B1P
RO
D w
ith R
EP
OR
TS
24
86 Cincinnati Law Review Paper on Foreclosure, supra note 28, at 1386–1371. 87 Institutional holders of RMBS include pension funds, hedge funds and other asset man-
agers, mutual funds, life insurance companies, and foreign investors. Data provided by Inside Mortgage Finance (Nov. 12, 2010).
88 See Buckingham Research Group Conference Takeaways, supra note 77, at 2. 89 Also, to the extent that these MBSs have been turned into collateralized debt obligations
(CDOs), the collateral manager overseeing the CDOs may need to weigh actions that pose con-flicts among the tranche holders because of obligations to act in the best interests of all the securities classes. Panel staff conversations with industry sources (Nov. 8, 2010).
90 Greenwich Fin. Serv. v. Countrywide Fin. Corp., No. 650474/08 (N.Y. Supp. Oct. 7, 2010); Footbridge Ltd. Trust and OHP Opportunity Ltd. Trust v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., No. 09 CIV 4050 (S.D.N.Y. Sep. 28, 2010).
91 Based on conversations between Panel staff and the company, RMBS Clearing House claims to represent more than 72 percent of the certificate holders of 2,300 mortgage-backed securities,
be separate state initiatives. Under traditional mortgage re-cording practices, each time a mortgage is transferred from a seller to a buyer, the transfer must be recorded and a fee paid to the local government. Although each fee is not large—typi-cally around $30—the fees for the rapid transfers inherent in the mortgage securitization process could easily add up to hun-dreds of dollars per securitization. The MERS system was in-tended in part to bypass these fees.86 Local jurisdictions, de-prived of mortgage recording tax revenue, may file lawsuits against originators, servicers, and MERS.
The primary private litigation in this area is likely to come from investors in MBS. These investors are often institutional investors, a group that has the resources and expertise to pursue such claims.87 A major obstacle to investor lawsuits seeking put-backs has been a provision in PSAs that limits private investor action in the case of breaches of representations and warranties to certificate holders with some minimum percentage of voting rights, often 25 percent.88 Investors also suffer from a collective-action problem in trying to achieve these thresholds, not least because they do not know who the other investors are in a particular deal, and many investors are reluctant to share information about their holdings. Furthermore, the interests of junior and senior tranche holders may not be aligned.89
When investors do achieve the collective-action threshold, it is only the first step in a complicated process. For example, if the trustee declines to declare the servicer in default, then investors can either bring suit against the trustee to force it to remove the servicer, attempt to remove the trustee (which often requires a 51 percent voting threshold), or remove the servicer directly (with a two-thirds voting threshold). It bears emphasis that the collective- action thresholds required vary from deal to deal. Two recent in-vestor lawsuits started with a view to enforce put-back provisions resulted in dismissals based on the plaintiffs’ failure to adhere to 25-percent threshold requirements.90 The practical effect of such decisions is that the hurdle of meeting this relatively high thresh-old of certificate holders can limit investors’ ability to examine the documents that would support their claims.
Recently, however, investors are beginning to take collective ac-tion, suggesting that the 25-percent threshold may not be an enor-mous burden for organized investors. A registry created by RMBS Clearing House is providing a confidential data bank whose pur-pose is to identify and organize certificate holders into groups that can meet threshold requirements.91 Using the registry data, a law-
VerDate Mar 15 2010 02:17 Dec 02, 2010 Jkt 061835 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A835.XXX A835tjam
es o
n D
SK
G8S
OY
B1P
RO
D w
ith R
EP
OR
TS
25
more than 50 percent of holders of 900 mortgage-backed securities, and more than 66 percent of the holders of 450 mortgage-backed securities representing, in the aggregate, a face amount of $500 billion, or approximately one-third of the private label mortgage-backed securities mar-ket. One industry participant likened them to a dating site for investors. RMBS Clearing House conversations with Panel staff (Oct. 24, 2010).
92 See Deutsche Bank v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, supra note 42. 93 Gibbs & Bruns represents eight institutional investors who collectively hold more than 25
percent of the voting rights in more than $47 billion in Countrywide mortgage-backed securities issued in 115 offerings in 2006 and 2007. On Oct 20, 2010, FRBNY became a signatory to the letter.
94 Under the PSA, the trustee is entitled to a satisfactory indemnity prior to allowing such a process to continue. The trustee for the securities, Bank of New York, did not find the indem-nity offered acceptable and refused to allow the parties to proceed. The various trustees for these securities may therefore form an additional barrier between investors and review of the loan files. For example, Fannie Mae explains in a prospectus for mortgage-backed securities (REMIC certificates) that, ‘‘We are not required, in our capacity as trustee, to risk our funds or incur any liability if we do not believe those funds are recoverable or if we do not believe adequate indemnity exists against a particular risk.’’ See Federal National Mortgage Associa-tion, Single-Family REMIC Prospectus, at 44 (May 1, 2010) (online at www.efanniemae.com/syn-dicated/documents/mbs/remicpros/SF_FM_May_1_2010.pdf).
95 Letter from Gibbs & Bruns LLP on behalf of BlackRock Financial Management, Inc. et al. to Countrywide Home Loans Servicing LP, The Bank of New York, and counsel, Re: Holders’ Notice to Trustee and Master Servicer (Oct. 18, 2010) (hereinafter ‘‘Letter from Gibbs & Bruns LLP to Countrywide’’). The group including FRBNY alleges generally that the loans in the pools did not meet the quality required by the PSA and have not been prudently serviced.
96 Jamie Dimon, CEO of JPMorgan Chase, commented during a recent quarterly earnings call that litigation costs in foreclosure cases will be so large as to become a cost of doing business and that, in anticipation of such suits JPMorgan Chase has raised its reserves by $1.3 billion. Transcript provided by SNL Financial (Nov. 3, 2010). See also JPM on Foreclosures, MERS, supra note 3.
97 Chuck Noski, chief financial officer for Bank of America, stated during an earnings call for the third quarter of 2010: ‘‘This really gets down to a loan-by-loan determination and we have, we believe, the resources to deploy against that kind of a review.’’ Bank of America Corporation, Q3 2010 Earnings Call Transcript (Oct. 19, 2010) (online at www.morningstar.com/earnings/ 18372176-bank-of-america-corporation-q3-2010.aspx?pindex=1) (hereinafter ‘‘Bank of America Q3 2010 Earnings Call Transcript’’).
98 For a discussion of litigation risk, see Section F.2, infra.
suit has been initiated against JPMorgan Chase and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC),92 both of which have as-sumed liabilities of failed bank Washington Mutual, seeking to en-force put-backs and document disclosure. Recently, an investor group composed of eight institutional investors, including the Fed-eral Reserve Bank of New York (FRBNY), representing more than 25 percent of the voting rights in certain Countrywide MBSs,93 made a request of securitization trustee Bank of New York to ini-tiate an investigation of the offerings originated by Countrywide prior to its acquisition by Bank of America. After Bank of New York refused to act,94 the group petitioned Bank of America di-rectly in an effort to review the loan files in the pool.95 Some be-lieve that the difficulty faced by investors in gaining access to the loan files that support their claims of contractual breaches and the cost of auditing them will make widespread litigation economically unrealistic.96 Even as put-back demands from investors are appear-ing, unless the investors can review loan documents, they lack the information to know what level of put-backs should be occurring. Moreover, at least one bank CEO has stated that his bank will challenge any determination that underwriting standards were not met on a loan-by-loan basis, creating further hurdles.97 At present, it is unclear what litigation risk these proceedings are likely to pose for the banks.98 There is good reason to assume, however, that the litigation will attract sophisticated parties interested in the deep pockets of the sponsors.
Given the complexity of the legal issues, the numerous parties involved, and the relationships between many of them, it is likely
VerDate Mar 15 2010 02:17 Dec 02, 2010 Jkt 061835 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A835.XXX A835tjam
es o
n D
SK
G8S
OY
B1P
RO
D w
ith R
EP
OR
TS
26
99 See Section D.1.b, supra. 100 See discussion of collective action thresholds in this section, supra. 101 In its latest filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), Citigroup acknowl-
edged that hedge fund Cambridge Place Investment Management, The Charles Schwab Corpora-tion, the Federal Home Loan Bank of Chicago, and the Federal Home Loan Bank of Indianapolis have filed actions related to underwriting irregularities in RMBS. See Citigroup, Inc., Form 10– Q for the Quarterly Period Ended September 30, 2010, at 204 (Nov. 5, 2010) (online at www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/831001/000104746910009274/a2200785z10-q.htm) (hereinafter ‘‘Citigroup 10–Q for Q2 2010’’). In addition, the hedge fund community has begun coalescing around their investments in RMBS, forming a lobbying group called the Mortgage Investors Co-alition. See Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, Written Testimony of Curtis Glovier, managing director, Fortress Investment Group, Preserving Homeownership: Progress Needed To Prevent Foreclosures (July 16, 2009) (online at banking.senate.gov/public/ index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=18f542f2-1b61-4486-98d0-c02fc74ea2c5).
102 See MERSCORP, Inc., MERS Shareholders (online at www.mersinc.org/about/ shareholders.aspx) (accessed Nov. 12, 2010) (‘‘Shareholders played a critical role in the develop-ment of MERS. Through their capital support, MERS was able to fund expenses related to de-velopment and initial start-up.’’). See also Letter from R.K. Arnold, president and chief executive officer, MERSCORP, Inc., to Elizabeth M. Murphy, secretary, Securities and Exchange Commis-sion, Comments on the Commission’s Proposed Rule for Asset-Backed Securities, at Appendix B (July 30, 2010) (online at www.sec.gov/comments/s7-08-10/s70810-58.pdf) (attaching as an Ap-pendix letters from both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which include the Fannie Mae statement
that any litigation will be robust, costly, and lengthy. Nonetheless, it is possible that banks may see a financial advantage to delaying put-backs through litigation and other procedural hurdles, if only to slow the pace at which they must be completed and to keep the loans off of their books a little longer. In addition, as discussed above, conflicts of interest in the industry may further complicate an assessment of litigation risk: Servicers, trustees, sponsors, and originators are often affiliated with each other, meaning that each has a disincentive to proceed with an action against another lest it harm its own bottom line.99 Moreover, there is the possibility that those who foresee favorable results from such litigation, and who have the resources and stamina for complex litigation (such as hedge funds), will purchase affected assets with the intent to par-ticipate as plaintiffs, intensifying the legal battle further. TARP re-cipients, of course, were and are at the center of many of these transactions, and predicting all of the possible litigation to which they might be subject as a result of the irregularities (known and suspected) is virtually impossible. It is not unlikely that, on the heels of highly publicized actions initiated by major financial insti-tutions and the increasing likelihood that investors can meet the 25 percent threshold requirements for filing lawsuits, sophisticated institutional investors may become more interested in pursuing liti-gation or even in investing in MBS in order to position themselves for lawsuits.100 Some security holders, such as large endowments and pension plans, have fiduciary duties to their own investors that may lead them to try and enforce repurchase rights. In addition, if investors such as hedge funds that have the resources to support protracted litigation initiate lawsuits, that could intensify the legal battles that banks will face.101 If litigation based on significant doc-ument irregularities is successful, it may throw the large banks back into turmoil.
Similarly, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac may become embroiled in the controversies. Fannie and Freddie have already been ac-tively engaged in efforts to put-back nonconforming loans to the originators/sponsors of the loans they guarantee. But they may also find themselves on the other side, as targets of litigation. In addi-tion to being embedded in the entire securitization process, they are part owners of MERS,102 which is becoming a litigation target.
VerDate Mar 15 2010 02:17 Dec 02, 2010 Jkt 061835 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A835.XXX A835tjam
es o
n D
SK
G8S
OY
B1P
RO
D w
ith R
EP
OR
TS
27
that ‘‘As you are aware, Fannie Mae has been an advocate and strong supporter of the efforts of MERS since its formation in 1996. The mission of MERS to streamline the mortgage process through paperless initiatives and data standards is clearly in the best interests of the mortgage industry, and Fannie Mae supports this mission.’’).
103 See Federal National Mortgage Association, Miscellaneous Servicing Policy Changes, at 3 (Mar. 30, 2010) (Announcement SVC–2010–05) (online at www.efanniemae.com/sf/guides/ssg/ annltrs/pdf/2010/svc1005.pdf) (‘‘Effective with foreclosures referred on or after May 1, 2010, MERS must not be named as a plaintiff in any foreclosure action, whether judicial or non-judi-cial, on a mortgage loan owned or securitized by Fannie Mae.’’).
104 On November 2, 2010, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac terminated their relationships with a Florida foreclosure attorney David J. Stern, who had processed thousands of evictions on their behalf and faces allegations by the Florida Attorney General’s office of improper foreclosure practices including false and misleading documents. See Office of Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum, Florida Law Firms Subpoenaed Over Foreclosure Filing Practices (Aug. 10, 2010) (on-line at www.myfloridalegal.com/newsrel.nsf/newsreleases/ 2BAC1AF2A61BBA398525777B0051BB30); Office of Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum, Active Public Consumer-Related Investigation, No. L10–3–1145 (online at www.myfloridalegal.com/__85256309005085AB.nsf/0/ AD0F010A43782D96852577770067B68D?Open&Highlight=0,david,stern) (accessed Nov. 10, 2010); Nick Timiraos, Fannie, Freddie Cut Ties to Law Firm, Wall Street Journal (Nov. 3, 2010) (online at online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704462704575590342587988742.html) (‘‘A spokeswoman for Freddie Mac, Sharon McHale, said it took the rare step on Monday of begin-ning to remove loan files after an internal review raised ‘concerns about some of the practices at the Stern firm. She added that Freddie Mac took possession of its files ‘to protect our interest in those loans as well as those of borrowers.’ ’’).
105 The Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) placed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac into conservatorship on September 7, 2008, in order to preserve each company’s assets and to restore them to sound and solvent condition. Treasury has guaranteed their debts, and FHFA has all the powers of the management, board, and shareholders of the GSEs. House Financial Services, Subcommittee on Capital Markets, Insurance, and Government-Sponsored Enterprises, Written Testimony of Edward J. DeMarco, acting director, Federal Housing Finance Agency, The Future of Housing Finance: A Progress Update on the GSEs, at 2 (Sept. 15, 2010) (online at financialservices.house.gov/Media/file/hearings/111/DeMarco091510.pdf). One of the questions that has arisen is whether there are likely to be differences in the quality of securitization proc-essing for government-sponsored entity (GSE) MBS compared to private-label MBS. Some indus-try sources believe that the process underlying GSE securitizations is likely to have been more rigorous, but it is presently impossible to determine if this is correct, and, accordingly, this re-port does not attempt to distinguish between GSE and private-label deals. However, if GSE securitizations prove to have been done improperly, it might result in additional litigation for the GSEs—either as targets, or as the GSEs try to pursue indemnification rights.
Both Fannie and Freddie have recently ceased allowing MERS to bring foreclosure actions.103 Further, Fannie and Freddie used at least one of the law firms implicated in the irregularities to handle foreclosures.104 Given that these two government-supported firms are perceived as the ultimate ‘‘deep pocket,’’ it is likely that inter-ested litigants will attempt to find a way to attach liability to them, which, if successful, could further affect the taxpayers.105
3. Additional Considerations The participants described above are by no means the only par-
ties affected by these issues. Lenders may be reluctant to make new loans on homes that could have title issues. Investors may likewise be reluctant to invest in mortgages and MBS that may be affected. Uncertainty about the actions that federal and state gov-ernments may take to address the documentation issues, how these actions will affect investment returns, and concerns that these problems may be widespread in the mortgage industry may also discourage investors. Until there is more clarity on the legal issues surrounding title to affected properties, as well as on the extent of any title transfer issues, it may also become more difficult or ex-pensive to get title insurance, an essential part of any real estate transaction. In addition, put-backs of mortgages, damages from lawsuits, and claims against title companies, mortgage servicers, and MBS pooling and securitization firms have the potential to drive these firms out of business. Should these and other compa-
VerDate Mar 15 2010 02:17 Dec 02, 2010 Jkt 061835 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A835.XXX A835tjam
es o
n D
SK
G8S
OY
B1P
RO
D w
ith R
EP
OR
TS
28
106 See Standard & Poor’s Global Credit Portal, Ratings Direct, Mortgage Troubles Continue To Weigh On U.S. Banks (Nov. 4, 2010) (online at www2.standardandpoors.com/spf/pdf/events/ FITcon11410Article5.pdf) (hereinafter ‘‘Standard & Poor’s on the Impact of Mortgage Troubles on U.S. Banks’’) (discussion of best and worst case scenarios).
107 Hernando de Soto, The Mystery of Capital: Why Capitalism Triumphs in the West and Fails Everywhere Else, at 5–6, 174 (2000) (‘‘Formal property titles allowed people to move the fruits of their labor from a small range of validation into that of an expanded market.’’).
108 The few foreclosed homes where a single bank originated the mortgage, serviced it, held it as a whole loan, and processed the foreclosure documents themselves are very unlikely to be affected. The effect of the irregularities on other types of loans and homes are, as discussed in this report, presently very difficult to predict.
109 See, e.g., Agreement Among Deutsche Alt-A Securities, Inc., Depositor, Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, Master Servicer and Securities Administrator, and HSBC Bank USA, Na-tional Association, Trustee, Pooling and Servicing Agreement (Sept. 1, 2006) (online at www.secinfo.com/d13f21.v1B7.d.htm) (‘‘Section 2.03: Repurchase or Substitution of Loans. (a) Upon discovery or receipt of notice . . . of a breach by the Seller of any representation, warranty or covenant under the Mortgage Loan Purchase Agreement . . . the Trustee shall enforce the obligations of the Seller under the Mortgage Loan Purchase Agreement to repurchase such Loan’’); Trust Agreement Between GS Mortgage Securities Corp., Depositor, and Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, Trustee, Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series 2006–FM1 (Apr.
nies that provide services to the mortgage market either decide to exit the market or go bankrupt, and no other companies opt to take their place in the current environment, the housing market would likely suffer. Even the mere possibility of such losses in the future could have a chilling effect on the risk tolerance of these firms, and could dim the housing market expectations of prospective home buyers and mortgage investors, further reducing housing demand and raising the cost of mortgages.106
More generally, however, and as noted below, the efficient func-tioning of the housing market is highly dependent on the existence of clear property rights and a level of trust that various market participants have in each other and in the integrity of the market system.107 If the current foreclosure irregularities prove to be wide-spread, they have the potential to undermine trust in the legit-imacy of many foreclosures and hence in the legality of title on many foreclosed properties.108 In that case, it is possible that buy-ers will avoid purchasing properties in foreclosure proceedings be-cause they cannot be sure that they are purchasing a clean title. Protections in the law, such as those for a bona-fide purchaser for value, may not ease their anxiety if they are concerned that they will become embroiled in litigation when prior owners appeal fore-closure rulings. These concerns would be likely to continue until the situation is resolved, or at least until the legal issues sur-rounding title to foreclosed properties have been clarified. Those buyers who remain will likely face less competition and will offer very low bids. Even foreclosed homes that have already been sold are at risk, since homes sold before these documentation issues came to light cannot be assumed to have a legally provable chain of title. These homes will therefore likely be difficult to resell, ex-cept at low prices that attract risk-tolerant buyers.
E. Court Cases and Litigation
The foreclosure documentation irregularities unquestionably show a system riddled with errors. But the question arises: Were they merely sloppy mistakes, or were they fraudulent? Differing answers to this question may not affect certain remedies available to aggrieved parties—put-backs, for example, are available for both mistakes and for fraud—but would affect potential damages in a lawsuit.109 It is important to note that the various parties who may
VerDate Mar 15 2010 02:17 Dec 02, 2010 Jkt 061835 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A835.XXX A835tjam
es o
n D
SK
G8S
OY
B1P
RO
D w
ith R
EP
OR
TS
29
1, 2006) (online at www.secinfo.com/dRSm6.v1Py.c.htm#1stPage) (‘‘Upon discovery or notice of any breach by the Assignor of any representation, warranty, or covenant under this Assignment Agreement . . . the Assignee may enforce the Assignor’s obligation hereunder to purchase such Mortgage Loan from the Assignee.’’).
110 See Nobelpharma AB v. Implant Innovations, Inc., 141 F.3d 1059, 1069 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (citing W. Prosser, Law of Torts, §§ 100–05 (3d ed. 1964) and 37 C.J.S. Fraud § 3 (1943)).
111 See, e.g., Lynn Y. McKernan, Strict Liability Against Homebuilders for Material Latent De-fects: It’s Time, Arizona, Arizona Law Review, Vol. 38, at 373, 382 (Spring 1996) (‘‘Although its recovery options are attractive, common law fraud is generally difficult to prove.’’); Teal E. Luthy, Assigning Common Law Claims for Fraud, University of Chicago Law Review, Vol. 65, at 1001, 1002 (Summer 1998) (‘‘Fraud is a difficult claim to prove’’); Jonathan M. Sobel, A Rose May Not Always Be a Rose: Some General Partnership Interests Should Be Deemed Securities Under the Federal Securities Acts, Cardozo Law Review, Vol. 15, at 1313, 1318 (Jan. 1994) (‘‘Common law fraud is inadequate as a remedy because it is often extremely difficult to prove.’’).
112 See Seth Lipner & Lisa A. Catalano, The Tort of Giving Negligent Investment Advice, Uni-versity of Memphis Law Review, Vol. 39, at 697 n.181 (2009); Jack E. Karns & Jerry G. Hunt, Can Portfolio Damages Be Established in a Churning Case Where the Plaintiff’s Account Garners a Profit Rather Than a Loss, Oklahoma City University Law Review, Vol. 24, at 214 (1999).
be able to bring lawsuits may choose different causes of action for very similar sets of facts depending on standing and a host of other factors. For example, on the same facts, an investor may try to pur-sue a civil suit alleging violations of representations and warran-ties relating to underwriting standards in a PSA instead of pur-suing a securities fraud case where the burden of proof would be higher. Put another way, plaintiffs will pursue as many or as few causes of action as they believe serves their purpose, and one case does not necessarily preclude another.
1. Fraud Claims
a. Common Law Fraud Property law is principally a state issue, and the foreclosure
irregularities first surfaced in depositions filed in state courts. Ac-cordingly, one option for plaintiffs may be to pursue a common law fraud claim. The bar for proving common law fraud, however, is fairly high. In order to prove common law fraud, the plaintiff must establish five elements: (1) That the respondent made a material statement; (2) that the statement was false; (3) that the respondent made the statement with the intent to deceive the plaintiff; (4) that the plaintiff relied on the statement; and (5) that the plaintiff suf-fered injury as a result of that reliance.110
Traditionally, in order to prove common law fraud under state laws, each element detailed above has to be satisfied to the highest degree of rigor. Each state’s jurisprudence has somewhat different relevant interpretive provisions, and common law fraud is gen-erally perceived as a fairly difficult claim to make.111 In particular, the requirement of intent has been very difficult to show, since it requires more than simple negligence.112
b. Securities Fraud
i. Foreclosure Irregularities In the wake of the revelations about foreclosure irregularities, a
number of government agencies have gotten involved. The Securi-ties and Exchange Commission (SEC) is reviewing the mortgage securitization process and market participants for possible securi-ties law violations. It has also provided specific disclosure guidance
VerDate Mar 15 2010 02:17 Dec 02, 2010 Jkt 061835 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A835.XXX A835tjam
es o
n D
SK
G8S
OY
B1P
RO
D w
ith R
EP
OR
TS
30
113 SEC conversations with Panel staff (Nov. 15, 2010). In addition, the SEC’s Division of Cor-poration Finance has provided disclosure guidance for the upcoming quarterly reports by af-fected companies. U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, Sample Letter Sent to Public Com-panies on Accounting and Disclosure Issues Related to Potential Risks and Costs Associated With Mortgage and Foreclosure-Related Activities or Exposures (Oct. 2010) (online at www.sec.gov/ divisions/corpfin/guidance/cfoforeclosure1010.htm) (hereinafter ‘‘Sample SEC Letter on Disclo-sure Guidelines’’). If the disclosure proves misleading, it could provide the basis for another cause of action.
114 17 CFR 240.10b–5. It is important to note that other causes of action are available under the Securities Act of 1933 for registered offerings: Under Section 11, a claim may be made for a false or misleading statement in the registration statement, and the issuer of the security, the special purpose vehicle, underwriters, and auditors will all be subject to potential Section 11 liability (with the latter two groups having due diligence defenses). With respect to other communications made during the registered offering process, misleading statements can give rise to Section 12(a)(2) liability. See 15 U.S.C. §§ 77k, 77m.
115 See Dura Pharms., Inc. v. Broudo, 544 U.S. 336, 341–42 (2005). The SEC can bring en-forcement claims under a variety of theories, but private litigants typically litigate under Rule 10b–5. See Scott J. Davis, Symposium: The Going-Private Phenomenon: Would Changes in the Rules for Director Selection and Liability Help Public Companies Gain Some of Private Equity’s Advantages, University of Chicago Law Review, Vol. 76, at 104 (Winter 2009); Palmer T. Heenan, et al., Securities Fraud, American Criminal Law Review, Vol. 47, at 1018 (Spring 2010).
116 For an extensive analysis of subprime mortgage-related litigation up to 2008 and potential legal issues surrounding such litigation, see Jennifer E. Bethel, Allen Ferrel, and Gang Hu, Law and Economics Issues in Subprime Litigation, Harvard Law School John M. Olin Center For Law, Economics, and Business Discussion Paper (Mar. 21, 2008) (online at lsr.nellco.org/har-vard_olin/612) (hereinafter ‘‘Harvard Law School Discussion Paper on Subprime Litigation’’). A list of class action lawsuits filed up to February 28, 2008 is included in Table 1 of the article, at 67–69.
117 See, e.g., Peter H. Hamner, The Credit Crisis and Subprime Mortgage Litigation: How Fraud Without Motive ‘Makes Little Economic Sense’, UPR Business Law Journal, Vol. 1 (2010) (online at www.uprblj.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/1-UPRBLJ-103-Hamner-PH.pdf).
118 A recent update on subprime and credit crisis-related litigation summarizes a number of cases and analyzes why many of them failed (for example, lack of standing and lack of wrongful intent). Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, 2010 Mid-Year Securities Litigation Update (Aug. 9, 2010) (online at gibsondunn.com/Publications/Pages/SecuritiesLitigation2010Mid- YearUpdate.aspx#_toc268774214). The update also references a report by NERA Economic Con-sulting on a decrease in securities law filings since 2009. See National Economic Research Asso-ciates, Inc. Trends 2010 Mid-Year Study: Filings Decline as the Wave of Credit Crisis Cases Sub-sides, Median Settlement at Record High (July 27, 2010) (online at www.nera.com/67_6813.htm).
to public companies for their quarterly reports.113 Since many of the mortgages potentially affected by faulty documentation prac-tices were put into securitization pools, there is an increased poten-tial for lawsuits by investors, including securities law claims.
In order for MBS investors to state a securities fraud claim against investment or commercial bank sponsors under the Securi-ties Exchange Act of 1934’s Rule 10b–5,114 the most common pri-vate litigant cause of action, the investors must prove: (1) A mate-rial misrepresentation or omission; (2) wrongful intent; (3) connec-tion to the purchase or sale of the security; (4) reliance by the pur-chaser on the information; (5) economic loss to the plaintiff; and (6) causation.115
To be sure, private investor lawsuits have been ongoing since the end of 2006 without much success.116 Some argue that securities fraud was not at the heart of the financial crisis, and securities fraud claims are bound to fail because of the typically extensive disclosure on risks associated with these transactions.117 A number of judges seem to agree: some important cases ‘‘suggest judicial skepticism to claims arising from the mortgage and financial cri-ses.’’ 118 The main hurdle in these securities claims—beyond estab-lishing that the misrepresentations were so material that without them the investment would not have been made—is to establish ‘‘loss causation,’’ i.e., that the misrepresentations caused the inves-tor’s losses directly. Any losses caused by unforeseeable external factors such as ‘‘changed economic circumstances’’ or ‘‘new indus-
VerDate Mar 15 2010 02:17 Dec 02, 2010 Jkt 061835 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A835.XXX A835tjam
es o
n D
SK
G8S
OY
B1P
RO
D w
ith R
EP
OR
TS
31
119 See Dura Pharms., Inc. v. Broudo, 544 U.S. 336, 342–43 (2005). 120 For a more complete discussion of this theory, see Harvard Law School Discussion Paper
on Subprime Litigation, supra note 116, at 42–44. 121 Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, Written Testimony of Vicki Beal, senior vice presi-
dent, Clayton Holdings, Impact of the Financial Crisis—Sacramento, at 2 (Sept. 23, 2010) (on-line at www.fcic.gov/hearings/pdfs/2010-0923-Beal.pdf) (hereinafter ‘‘Written Testimony of Vicki Beal before the FCIC’’).
122 Id. at 2. A sample size of only around 10 percent of the total loans in the pool was low by historical standards. In the past, sample sizes were between 50 percent and 100 percent. Fi-nancial Crisis Inquiry Commission, Testimony of Keith Johnson, former president, Clayton Holdings, Transcript: Impact of the Financial Crisis—Sacramento, at 183 (Sept. 23, 2010) (on-line at fcic.gov/hearings/pdfs/2010-0923-transcript.pdf) (hereinafter ‘‘Testimony of Keith Johnson before the FCIC’’). In his letter to the FCIC after Mr. Johnson’s testimony, the current president of Clayton Holdings, Paul T. Bossidy, contested some of Mr. Johnson’s testimony. Calling the testimony ‘‘inaccurate,’’ he corrected Mr. Johnson on three points. First, Mr. Johnson testified during the hearing about meetings he had had with the rating agencies in which he showed them Clayton’s Exception Tracking reports. Mr. Bossidy stated that Clayton had never disclosed client data during these meetings and that Clayton had never expressed concerns about the securitization process or the ratings being issued. Second, Mr. Bossidy cautioned that the excep-tion tracking data provided to the FCIC was from ‘‘beta’’ reports. These reports contain valid client-level data, but are not standardized across clients. Different clients have different stand-ards and guidelines, leading to different exception rates. Thus, the aggregated results do not form a meaningful basis for comparison between clients and the data cannot be used to draw conclusions. Finally, Mr. Johnson had stated that Clayton examined a number of prospectuses to determine if the information from Clayton’s due diligence reports had been included. Mr. Bossidy clarified that Clayton was not actively reviewing prospectuses but had begun only in 2007 in response to specific questions from regulators. Letter from Paul T. Bossidy, president and chief executive officer, Clayton Holdings, LLC, to Phil Angelides, chairman, Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, Re: September 23, 2010 Sacramento Hearing (Sept. 30, 2010) (online at fcic.gov/news/pdfs/2010-1014-Clayton-Letter-to-FCIC.pdf) (hereinafter ‘‘Letter from Paul Bossidy to Phil Angelides’’).
try-specific conditions’’ will not be recoverable.119 Defendants in subprime litigation cases are likely to argue that the crash of the housing market, for example, was just such an unexpected new in-dustry-specific condition.120 Losses occurring as a result of the mar-ket’s crash would be non-recoverable even if there was a material misrepresentation. It remains to be seen how securities fraud cases would play out in the context of the current documentation irreg-ularities.
Of course, the SEC has other tools at its disposal should it choose to pursue action against any of the financial institutions involved in potential documentation irregularities. For example, if a formal SEC investigation finds evidence of wrongdoing, the SEC may order an administrative hearing to determine responsibility for the violation and impose sanctions. Administrative proceedings can only be brought against a person or firm registered with the SEC, or with respect to a security registered with the SEC. Many times these actions end with a settlement, but the SEC often seeks to publish the settlement terms.
ii. Due Diligence Firms There is also the possibility of distinct claims against the institu-
tions that acted as securitization sponsors for their use of third- party due diligence firms. Specifically, before purchasing a pool of loans to securitize, the securitization sponsors, usually banks or in-vestment firms, hired a third-party due diligence firm to check if the loans in the pool adhered to the seller’s underwriting guidelines and complied with federal, state, and local regulatory laws.121 The sponsor would select a sample of the total loan pool, typically around 10 percent,122 for the due diligence firm to review. The due diligence firm reviewed the sample on a loan-by-loan basis and cat-egorized each as not meeting the guidelines, not meeting the guide-
VerDate Mar 15 2010 02:17 Dec 02, 2010 Jkt 061835 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A835.XXX A835tjam
es o
n D
SK
G8S
OY
B1P
RO
D w
ith R
EP
OR
TS
32
123 This description is just a summary. For a more complete description of one due diligence firm’s process, see Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, Testimony of Vicki Beal, senior vice president, Clayton Holdings, Transcript: Impact of the Financial Crisis—Sacramento, at 156– 158 (Sept. 23, 2010) (online at fcic.gov/hearings/pdfs/2010-0923-transcript.pdf) (hereinafter ‘‘Tes-timony of Vicki Beal before the FCIC’’).
124 Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, All Clayton Trending Reports: 1st Quarter 2006— 2nd Quarter 2007, Impact of the Financial Crisis—Sacramento (Sept. 23, 2010) (online at www.fcic.gov/hearings/pdfs/2010-0923-Clayton-All-Trending-Report.pdf). Eighteen percent of sampled loans did not meet guidelines but had compensating factors. Eleven percent of loans were non-compliant loans, but objections were waived. Seventeen percent of the loans in the sample were rejected. In his letter to the FCIC noted above, Mr. Bossidy cautioned the FCIC from relying on aggregated exception information. The exception tracking data provided to the FCIC was from ‘‘beta’’ reports which contain valid client-level data, but are not standardized across clients. Different clients use different standards and guidelines, leading to different ex-ception rates. Letter from Paul Bossidy to Phil Angelides, supra note 122.
125 Testimony of Keith Johnson before the FCIC, supra note 122, at 177–78; Testimony of Vicki Beal before the FCIC, supra note 123, at 177.
126 Testimony of Keith Johnson before the FCIC, supra note 122, at 183, 210–211. 127 Written Testimony of Vicki Beal before the FCIC, supra note 121, at 3. 128 17 CFR 240.10b5. 129 17 CFR 240.10b5. 130 Written Testimony of Vicki Beal before the FCIC, supra note 121, at 3 (‘‘The work product
produced by Clayton is comprised of reports that include loan-level data reports and loan excep-tion reports. Such reports are ‘works for hire,’ the property of our clients and provided exclu-sively to our clients.’’).
131 15 U.S.C. § 77q(a).
lines but having compensating factors, or meeting the guidelines. Those specific loans that did not meet the guidelines, called excep-tions, were returned to the sellers unless the securitization spon-sors waived their objections.123 One due diligence firm found that, from the first quarter 2006 to second quarter 2007, only 54 percent of the loans they sampled met all underwriting guidelines.124
Rejected loans from the sample were returned to the seller. The sample, though, was only approximately 10 percent of the loans in the pool, and the low rate of compliance indicated that there were likely other non-compliant loans in the pool. The securitization sponsors did not then require due diligence on a larger sample to identify non-compliant loans.125 Instead, some assert that the spon-sors used the rate of non-compliant loans to negotiate a lower price for the pool of loans.126 These loan pools were subsequently sold to investors but, reports claim, the results of the due diligence were not disclosed in the prospectuses except for standard language that there might be underwriting exceptions.127
This behavior raises at least two potential securities fraud claims. The first is a Rule 10b–5 violation.128 Rule 10b–5 prohibits ‘‘omit[ting] to state any material fact necessary to make the state-ments made, in the light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading.’’ 129 If the sponsors used the due dili-gence reports to negotiate a lower price, the information may have been material. In addition, the reports were not publicly avail-able.130 On the other hand, the courts may find the standard dis-closures, that there might be underwriting exceptions, to be suffi-cient disclosure. As yet, the 10b–5 claim is untested in the courts, and the facts are still unproven.
Another potential claim is based on Section 17 of the Securities Act of 1933, which makes it unlawful in the ‘‘offer or sale of any securities . . . to obtain money or property by means of any untrue statement of a material fact or any omission to state a material fact necessary in order to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which they were made, not mis-leading.’’ 131 This claim also depends on unproved facts, but if the
VerDate Mar 15 2010 02:17 Dec 02, 2010 Jkt 061835 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A835.XXX A835tjam
es o
n D
SK
G8S
OY
B1P
RO
D w
ith R
EP
OR
TS
33
132 Gretchen Morgenson, Raters Ignored Proof of Unsafe Loans, Panel is Told, The New York Times (Sept. 26, 2010) (online at www.nytimes.com/2010/09/27/business/ 27ratings.html?pagewanted=all); Gretchen Morgenson, Seeing vs. Doing, The New York Times (July 24, 2010) (online at www.nytimes.com/2010/07/25/business/25gret.html?ref=fair_game).
133 Congressional Oversight Panel, Testimony of Guy Cecala, chief executive officer and pub-lisher, Inside Mortgage Finance Publications, Inc., Transcript: COP Hearing on TARP Fore-closure Mitigation Programs (Oct. 27, 2010) (publication forthcoming) (online at cop.senate.gov/ hearings/library/hearing-102710-foreclosure.cfm) (hereinafter ‘‘Testimony of Guy Cecala’’).
134 Consumer lawyers conversations with Panel staff (Nov. 9, 2010). Several state class actions have been filed alleging wrongful foreclosures and fraud on the court, see, e.g., Defendant Wil-liam Timothy Stacy’s Answer, Affirmative Defenses and Individual and Class Action Counter-claims, Wells Fargo Bank NA, as Trustee for National City Mortgage Loan Trust 2005–1, Mort-gage-Backed Certificates, Series 2005–1 vs. William Timothy Stacy, et al., No. 08–CI–120 (Com-monwealth of Kentucky Bourbon Circuit Court Division 1 Oct. 4, 2010) See also Class Action Complaint, Geoffrey Huber, Beatriz D’Amico-Souza, and Michael and Tina Unsworth, for them-selves and all persons similarly situated v. GMAC, LLC, n/k/a Ally Financial, Inc., No. 8:10- cv-02458–SCB–EAJ (United States District Court Middle District of Florida Tampa Division Nov. 4, 2010).
135 Consumer lawyers conversations with Panel staff (Nov. 9, 2010). 136 50 States Sign Mortgage Foreclosure Joint Statement, supra note 26.
securitization sponsors used the due diligence reports to negotiate a lower price for the loan pools, the information is arguably mate-rial. As such, the sponsors may have violated Section 17 when they omitted the results of the due diligence reports from the prospectuses, though the proposition has not yet been ruled on by a court. Section 17, however, can only be enforced by the SEC, and not by private litigants.
There are suggestions in the press that authorities are exam-ining the issue, with several news reports referencing discussions with investigators or prosecutors.132
2. Existing and Pending Claims under Various Fraud Theo-ries
Currently, these issues are being explored at the state level and, as discussed above, the private investor level. The recent disclo-sures about robo-signing may provide additional causes of action and additional arguments for private lawsuits asking for put-backs of deficient loans. In response to a question at the Panel’s most re-cent hearing on housing issues, however, one of the witnesses indi-cated that he was not aware of any successful put-backs for fore-closure procedure problems alone.133 According to some consumer lawyers who are significantly involved in these proceedings, while it is very unlikely that a national class action lawsuit based on wrongful foreclosure claims could be successfully filed, it may be possible on a state-by-state basis.134 The outcome in these cases is uncertain, and consumer lawyers said that at this point it would be difficult to quantify potential losses arising out of these actions or any similar challenges in individual foreclosure procedures.135
Various states are proceeding under a variety of theories. As noted above, on October 13, 2010, all 50 state attorneys general, as well as state bank and mortgage regulators, announced that they would pursue a ‘‘bi-partisan multistate group’’ to investigate fore-closure irregularities.136 They are working together to investigate allegations of questionable and potentially fraudulent foreclosure documentation practices, and may design rules to improve fore-closure practices. They also may begin individual actions against some of the implicated institutions. On October 6, 2010, Ohio At-torney General Richard Cordray filed a suit against GMAC Mort-gage and its parent Ally Financial, alleging that the companies
VerDate Mar 15 2010 02:17 Dec 02, 2010 Jkt 061835 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A835.XXX A835tjam
es o
n D
SK
G8S
OY
B1P
RO
D w
ith R
EP
OR
TS
34
137 Complaint, State of Ohio ex rel. Richard Cordray v. GMAC Mortgage, CI0201006984 (Lucas Cnty Ohio Ct. Common Pleas Oct. 6, 2010) (online at www.ohioattorneygeneral.gov/ GMACLawsuit). The complaint also named Jeffrey Stephan as a defendant. It was Jeffrey Stephan’s testimony in a Maine foreclosure case that he signed thousands of affidavits without verifying their content that ignited the foreclosure documentation scandal.
138 Ally Financial, Inc., GMAC Mortgage Statement on Ohio Lawsuit (Oct. 6, 2010) (online at media.ally.com/index.php?s=43&item=420).
139 The Ohio attorney general argues that the statements in the foreclosure affidavits were material and false, and the employees making them were aware that they were false and were making them anyway to induce Ohio courts and opposing parties to rely upon them, which, in turn, justifiably did so. He further argues that Ally and GMAC financially benefitted from these fraudulent practices by completing foreclosures that should not have been allowed to proceed, and the ‘‘system of justice in Ohio and Ohio borrowers have suffered and are suffering irrep-arable injury.’’ The Ohio attorney general also argues that Ally and GMAC ‘‘engaged in a pat-tern and practice of unfair, deceptive and unconscionable acts’’ in violation of the Ohio Con-sumer Sales Practices Act when their employees signed false affidavits and when they at-tempted to assign mortgage notes on behalf of MERS. Complaint, State of Ohio ex rel. Richard Cordray v. GMAC Mortgage, CI0201006984 (Lucas Cnty Ohio Ct. Common Pleas Oct. 6, 2010) (online at www.ohioattorneygeneral.gov/GMACLawsuit).
140 See Section E.3. 141 See, e.g., Deposition of Xee Moua, Wells Fargo Bank v. John P. Stipek, No. 50 2009 CA
012434XXXXMB AW (Fla. 15th Cir. Ct. Mar. 9, 2010). 142 Congressional Oversight Panel, Written Testimony of Phyllis Caldwell, chief of the Home-
ownership Preservation Office, U.S. Department of the Treasury, COP Hearing on TARP Fore-closure Mitigation Programs, at 13 (Oct. 27, 2010) (online at cop.senate.gov/documents/testi-mony-102710-caldwell.pdf) (hereinafter ‘‘Written Testimony of Phyllis Caldwell’’). In addition to
committed common law fraud and violated the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act.137 In response, GMAC referred to the irreg-ularities as ‘‘procedural mistakes’’ and maintained that it would de-fend itself ‘‘vigorously.’’ 138 The Ohio state attorney general alleges that ‘‘GMAC and its employees committed fraud on Ohio con-sumers and Ohio courts by signing and filing hundreds of false affi-davits in foreclosure cases.’’ He argues that the defendants’ actions were both against the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act and con-stituted common law fraud.139 The attorney general has asked the court to halt affected foreclosures until defendants remedy their faulty practices and to require them to submit written procedures to the attorney general and the court to ensure that no employee signs documentation without personal knowledge.
Although Ohio is the first state to take action, it would not be surprising if others follow.140 Depositions have been taken in var-ious foreclosure cases around the country that point to questionable practices by employees at a number of banks.141 Most of the large financial institutions that service mortgages maintain that docu-mentation issues can be fixed relatively easily by re-submitting af-fidavits where appropriate and that based on their internal reviews there is no indication that the mortgage market is severely flawed. Many of the banks that temporarily suspended foreclosures have now resumed them. However, in their most recent earnings state-ments, many of these institutions have indicated that they set aside additional funds for repurchase reserves and potential litiga-tion costs resulting from the foreclosure documentation irregular-ities.
In addition to these potential lawsuits, the Administration’s Fi-nancial Fraud Enforcement Task Force (FFETF) is in the early stages of an investigation into whether banks and other companies that submitted flawed paperwork in state foreclosure proceedings may also have violated federal laws. Treasury’s representative in-formed the Panel that through Treasury’s Financial Crimes En-forcement Network (FinCEN) they are actively participating in the work of the FFETF led by the Department of Justice.142 Treasury
VerDate Mar 15 2010 02:17 Dec 02, 2010 Jkt 061835 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A835.XXX A835tjam
es o
n D
SK
G8S
OY
B1P
RO
D w
ith R
EP
OR
TS
35
their participation in FFETF, Treasury is coordinating efforts with other federal agencies and regulators, including the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), the Federal Housing Administration (FHA), the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA), the Federal Re-serve System, the Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS), the Office of the Comptroller of the Cur-rency (OCC), the FDIC, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), and the SEC.
143 Congressional Oversight Panel, Testimony of Phyllis Caldwell, chief of the Homeownership Preservation Office, U.S. Department of the Treasury, Transcript: COP Hearing on TARP Fore-closure Mitigation Programs (Oct. 27, 2010) (publication forthcoming) (online at cop.senate.gov/ hearings/library/hearing-102710-foreclosure.cfm) (hereinafter ‘‘Testimony of Phyllis Caldwell’’).
144 For example, the federal perjury statute states ‘‘Whoever—(1) having taken an oath before a competent tribunal, officer, or person, in any case in which a law of the United States author-izes an oath to be administered, that he will testify, declare, depose, or certify truly, or that any written testimony, declaration, deposition, or certificate by him subscribed, is true, willfully and contrary to such oath states or subscribes any material matter which he does not believe to be true; or (2) in any declaration, certificate, verification, or statement under penalty of per-jury as permitted under section 1746 of title 28, United States Code, willfully subscribes as true any material matter which he does not believe to be true; is guilty of perjury and shall, except as otherwise expressly provided by law, be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.’’ 18 U.S.C. § 1621.
145 Black’s Law Dictionary, at 62 (8th ed. 2004). 146 A Florida Law Firm, The Ticktin Law Group, P.A. has taken hundreds of depositions in
which employees or contractors of various banks admitted to not knowing what they were sign-ing or lying regarding their personal knowledge of information in affidavits. See, e.g., Deposition of Ismeta Dumanjic, La Salle Bank NA as Trustee for Washington Mutual Asset-Backed Certifi-cates WMABS Series 2007–HE2 Trust v. Jeanette Attelus, et al., No. CACE 08060378 (Fla. 17th Cir. Ct. Dec. 8, 2009).
147 For testimony attesting to signing hundreds of affidavits a day, see Deposition of Xee Moua, at 28–29, Wells Fargo Bank v. John P. Stipek, No. 50 2009 CA 012434XXXXMB AW (Fla. 15th Cir. Ct. Mar. 9, 2010); Deposition of Renee Hertzler, at 25, In re: Patricia L. Starr, No. 09–41903–JBR (D. Mass. Feb. 19, 2010).
148 Bureau of Justice Statistics, Federal Justice Statistics, 2008—Statistical Tables, at Table 4.1 (Nov. 2008) (online at bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/html/fjsst/2008/tables/fjs08st401.pdf).
has otherwise indicated that they are not presently engaged in any independent investigative efforts.143 To date, little has been dis-closed about the investigation.
3. Other Potential Claims Beyond the various fraud claims, there are also several other po-
tential claims. For example, those who signed false affidavits may be guilty of perjury. Perjury is the crime of intentionally stating any fact the witness knows to be false while under oath, either in oral testimony or in a written declaration.144 Though the exact def-inition varies from state to state, perjury is universally prohibited. Affidavits such as the ones involved in the foreclosure irregularities are statements made under oath and thus clearly fall within the scope of the perjury statutes.145 Moreover, there are reports of robo-signers admitting in depositions that they knew they were lying when they signed the affidavits.146 As a result, it is possible that these individuals at least are guilty of perjury. Even without such an explicit admission, it is possible that a court could find that a robo-signer was intentionally and knowingly lying by signing hundreds of affidavits a day that attested to personal knowledge of loan documents.147 It is important to note, however, that perjury prosecutions are rare. For example, of the 91,835 federal cases com-menced in fiscal year 2008, at most, only 342 charged perjury as the most serious offense.148 It is thus possible that robo-signers, though potentially guilty, will not be charged.
By contrast, the state attorneys general are already investigating whether foreclosure irregularities such as the use of robo-signers violated state unfair or deceptive acts or practices (UDAP) laws. Each state has some form of UDAP law, and most generally, they prohibit practices in consumer transactions that are deemed to be
VerDate Mar 15 2010 02:17 Dec 02, 2010 Jkt 061835 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A835.XXX A835tjam
es o
n D
SK
G8S
OY
B1P
RO
D w
ith R
EP
OR
TS
36
149 Shaun K. Ramey and Jennifer M. Miller, State Attorneys General Strong-Arm Mortgage Lenders, 17 Business Torts Journal 1, at 1 (Fall 2009) (online at www.sirote.com/tyfoon/site/ members/D/6/E/D/0/7/0/4/3/C/file/S%20Ramey/Ramey-Miller_REPRINT.pdf).
150 Carolyn L. Carter, Consumer Protection in the United States: A 50-State Report on Unfair and Deceptive Acts and Practices Statutes (Feb. 2009) (online at www.nclc.org/images/pdf/udap/ report_50_states.pdf).
151 50 States Sign Mortgage Foreclosure Joint Statement, supra note 26. 152 This list is not a comprehensive list of state actions. States are becoming involved at a
rapid pace, in a variety of ways, and from a variety of levels. 153 New York State Unified Court System, Attorney Affirmation-Required in Residential Fore-
closure Actions (Oct. 20, 2010) (online at www.courts.state.ny.us/attorneys/foreclosures/affirma-tion.shtml); New York State Unified Court System, Sample Affirmation Document (online at www.courts.state.ny.us/attorneys/foreclosures/Affirmation-Foreclosure.pdf) (accessed Nov. 12, 2010).
154 Letter from Edmund G. Brown, Jr., attorney general, State of California, to Steve Stein, SVP channel director, Homeownership Preservation and Partnerships, JPMorgan Chase (Sept. 30, 2010) (online at ag.ca.gov/cms_attachments/press/pdfs/n1996_ jp_morganchase_letter_.pdf).
155 Office of California Attorney General Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Brown Calls on Banks to Halt Foreclosures In California (Oct. 8, 2010) (online at ag.ca.gov/newsalerts/release.php?id=2000&).
unfair or deceptive.149 Individual state laws, however, can be as broad as generally prohibiting deceptive or unfair conduct or as narrow as prohibiting only a discrete list of practices or exempting all acts by banks.150 As a result, whether there has been a UDAP violation will depend heavily on the particularities of each state’s law. The state attorneys general, though, are already examining the matter. In announcing their bipartisan multistate group, the attorneys general explicitly stated that they ‘‘believe such a process [robo-signing] may constitute a deceptive act and/or an unfair prac-tice.’’ 151
4. Other State Legal Steps In addition to the Ohio lawsuit described above and the ongoing
joint investigation, some other state officials have taken concrete steps to address the foreclosure irregularities, including but not limited to: 152
• In New York, the court system now requires that those initi-ating residential foreclosure actions must file a new affirmation to certify that an appropriate employee has personally reviewed their documents and papers filed in the case and confirmed both the fac-tual accuracy of these court filings and the accuracy of the notarizations contained therein.153
• In California, a non-judicial foreclosure state, the attorney general sent a letter to JPMorgan Chase demanding that the firm stop all foreclosures unless it could demonstrate that all fore-closures had been conducted in accordance with California law.154 The attorney general also called on all other lenders to halt fore-closures unless they can demonstrate compliance with California law.155
• In Arizona, which is also a non-judicial foreclosure state, the attorney general sent letters on October 7, 2010 to several servicers implicated in the robo-signing scandals to demand a description of their practices and any remedial actions taken to address potential paperwork irregularities. The attorney general wrote that if any employees or agents used any of the questionable practices in con-nection with conducting a trustee’s sale or a foreclosure in Arizona, such use would likely constitute a violation of the Arizona Con-
VerDate Mar 15 2010 02:17 Dec 02, 2010 Jkt 061835 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A835.XXX A835tjam
es o
n D
SK
G8S
OY
B1P
RO
D w
ith R
EP
OR
TS
37
156 Letter from Terry Goddard, attorney general, State of Arizona, to mortgage servicers, Re: ‘‘Robo-Signing’’ of Foreclosure Documents in Arizona (Oct. 7, 2010) (online at www.azag.gov/ press_releases/oct/2010/Mortgage%20Loan%20Servicer%20Letter.pdf).
157 Brief for Richard Cordray, Ohio attorney general, as Amici Curiae, US Bank, National As-sociation v. James W. Renfro, No. CV–10–716322 (Cuyahoga Cty Ohio Ct. Common Pleas Oct. 27, 2010); Office of Ohio Attorney General Richard Cordray, Cordray Outlines Fraud in Cleve-land Foreclosure Case (Oct. 27, 2010) (online at www.ohioattorneygeneral.gov/Briefing-Room/ News-Releases/October-2010/Cordray-Outlines-Fraud-in-Cleveland-Foreclosure-Ca).
158 Letter from Richard Cordray, attorney general, State of Ohio, to Judges, State of Ohio (Oct. 29, 2010).
159 Letter from Richard Cordray, attorney general, State of Ohio, to David Moskowitz, deputy general counsel, Wells Fargo (Oct. 29, 2010).
160 Office of District of Columbia Attorney General Peter J. Nickles, Statement of Enforcement Intent Regarding Deceptive Foreclosure Sale Notices (Oct. 27, 2010) (online at newsroom.dc.gov/ show.aspx?agency=occ§ion=2&release= 20673&year=2010&file=file.aspx%2frelease%2f20673%2fforeclosure%2520statement.pdf).
161 MERSCORP, Inc., MERS Response to D.C. Attorney General’s Oct. 28, 2010 Statement of Enforcement (Oct. 28, 2010) (online at www.mersinc.org/news/details.aspx?id=250). The state-ment emphasizes that ‘‘[w]e will take steps to protect the lawful right to foreclose that the bor-rower contractually agreed to if the borrower defaults on their mortgage loan.’’ The law firm K&L Gates has also published a legal analysis critical of the attorney general’s actions. See K&L Gates LLP, DC AG Seeks to Stop Home Loan Foreclosures Based on Incomplete Legal Analysis, Mortgage Banking & Consumer Financial Products Alert (Nov. 1, 2010) (online at www.klgates.com/newsstand/detail.aspx?publication=6737).
162 Office of Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal, Attorney General Investigating Defective GMAC/Ally Foreclosure Docs, Demands Halt To Its CT Foreclosures (Sept. 27, 2010) (online at www.ct.gov/ag/cwp/view.asp?A=2341&Q=466312).
163 Office of Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal, Attorney General Asks CT Courts To Freeze Home Foreclosures 60 Days Because of Defective Docs (Oct. 1, 2010) (www.ct.gov/ag/cwp/view.asp?A=2341&Q=466548).
164 Letter from Judge Barbara M. Quinn, chief court administrator, State of Connecticut Judi-cial Branch, to Richard Blumenthal, attorney general, State of Connecticut (Oct. 14, 2010).
sumer Fraud Act, and the attorney general would have to take ap-propriate action.156
• In Ohio, in addition to his lawsuit against GMAC, the attor-ney general filed an amicus curiae brief in an individual foreclosure case asking the court to consider evidence that GMAC committed fraud that tainted the entire judicial process and to consider sanc-tioning GMAC.157 The attorney general also sent a letter to 133 Ohio judges asking them for information on any cases involving the robo-signer Xee Moua.158 In addition, he asked Wells Fargo Bank to vacate any foreclosure judgments in Ohio based on documents that were signed by robo-signers and to stop the sales of repos-sessed properties.159
• In The District of Columbia, Attorney General Peter Nickles announced on October 27, 2010 that foreclosures cannot proceed in the District of Columbia unless a mortgage deed and all assign-ments of the deed are recorded in public land records, and that foreclosures relying on MERS would not satisfy the requirement.160 MERS responded the next day by issuing a statement that their procedures conform to the laws of the District of Columbia and en-couraged their members to contact them if they experience prob-lems with their foreclosures.161
• In Connecticut, the attorney general started investigating GMAC/Ally and demanded that the company halt all foreclosures. He also asked the company to provide specific information relating to its foreclosure practices.162 In addition, the attorney general asked the state Judicial Department on October 1, 2010 to freeze all home foreclosures for 60 days to allow time to institute meas-ures to assure the integrity of document filings.163 The Judicial De-partment refused this request.164
VerDate Mar 15 2010 02:17 Dec 02, 2010 Jkt 061835 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A835.XXX A835tjam
es o
n D
SK
G8S
OY
B1P
RO
D w
ith R
EP
OR
TS
38
165 See, e.g., Federal National Mortgage Assoc. v. Nicolle Bradbury, supra note 12 (requiring that the plaintiff provide, among other things, the book and page number of the mortgage, as well as the street address and stating that failure to provide a street address is sufficient to preclude summary judgment in a foreclosure proceeding).
166 See Section C, supra, discussing strains on servicers. 167 Deposition of Tammie Lou Kapusta, In re: Investigation of Law Offices of David J. Stern,
P.A. (Sept. 22, 2010). 168 Federal National Mortgage Association, Foreclosure Time Frames and Compensatory Fees
for Breach of Servicing Obligations, at 3 (Aug. 31, 2010) (Announcement SVC–2010–12) (online at www.efanniemae.com/sf/guides/ssg/annltrs/pdf/2010/svc1012.pdf) (stating that Fannie Mae might pursue compensatory fees based on ‘‘the length of the delay, and any additional costs that are directly attributable to the delay.’’).
5. Other Possible Implications: Potential ‘‘Front-End’’ Fraud and Documentation Irregularities
Until the full scope of the problem is determined, it will be dif-ficult to assess whether banks, servicers, or borrowers knew of the irregularities in the market. However, there are several signs that the problem was at least partially foreseeable. For example, numer-ous systems had been developed to circumvent the slow, paper- based property system in the United States. MERS, discussed in more detail above, represented an attempt to add speed and sim-plification to the property registration process, which in turn would allow property to be transferred more quickly and easily. MERS arose in reaction to a clash: during the boom, originations and securitizations moved extremely quickly. But the property law sys-tem that governed the underlying collateral moves slowly, and is heavily dependent on a variety of steps memorialized on paper and thus inefficient at processing enormous lending volume. While sys-tems like MERS appeared to allow the housing market to accel-erate, the legal standards underpinning the market did not change substantially.165 In some respects, the irregularities and the mounting legal problems in the mortgage system seem to be the consequence of the banks asking the property law system to do something that it may be largely unequipped to do: process millions of foreclosures within a relatively short period of time.166 The Panel emphasizes that mortgage lenders and securitization servicers should not undertake to foreclose on any homeowner un-less they are able to do so in full compliance with applicable laws and their contractual agreements with the homeowner. If legal un-certainty remains, foreclosure should cease with respect to that homeowner until all matters are objectively resolved and vetted through competent counsel in each applicable jurisdiction. Satisfac-tion of applicable legal standards and legal certainty is in the best interests of homeowners as well as creditors and will enable all concerned parties to exercise properly their legal and contractual rights and remedies.
This combination of factors—a demand for speed, the use of sys-tems designed to streamline a legal regime that was viewed as out- of-date, and a slow, localized legal system—may have substantially increased the likelihood that documentation would be insufficient. As discussed above, some authorities are taking direct aim at MERS and the validity of its processes. Coupled with business pressure exerted on law firms 167 and contractors 168 to process rap-idly foreclosure documents, the system had clear risks of encour-aging corner-cutting and creating substantial legal difficulties. Fur-thermore, even if these problems were not foreseeable from the
VerDate Mar 15 2010 02:17 Dec 02, 2010 Jkt 061835 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A835.XXX A835tjam
es o
n D
SK
G8S
OY
B1P
RO
D w
ith R
EP
OR
TS
39
169 See, e.g., Hernando de Soto, Toxic Assets Were Hidden Assets, Wall Street Journal (Mar. 25, 2009) (online at online.wsj.com/article/SB123793811398132049.html) (‘‘The real villain is the lack of trust in the paper on which [subprime mortgages]—and all other assets—are printed. If we don’t restore trust in paper, the next default—on credit cards or student loans—will trig-ger another collapse in paper and bring the world economy to its knees.’’).
170 Federal National Mortgage Assoc. v. Nicolle Bradbury, supra note 12 (‘‘The Court is par-ticularly troubled by the fact that Stephan’s deposition in this case is not the first time that GMAC’s high-volume and careless approach to affidavit signing has been exposed. . . . The ex-perience of this case reveals that, despite the Florida Court’s order, GMAC’s flagrant disregard apparently persists. It is well past time for such practices to end.’’). See also Section C, supra. It is worth noting that the rights of a bona-fide purchaser for value are affected by whether the purchaser had notice of a competing claim at the time of purchase. One possible source of conflict will be what, under these circumstances, constitutes adequate notice. Panel staff con-versations with industry sources (Nov. 9, 2010).
171 For example, in her testimony submitted to the Congressional Oversight Panel, Julia Gor-don of the Center for Responsible Lending writes: ‘‘The recent media revelations about ‘‘robo- signing’’ highlight just one of the many ways in which servicers or their contractors elevate prof-its over customer service or duties to their clients, the investors. Other abuses include misapplying payments, force-placing insurance improperly, disregarding requirements to evalu-ate homeowners for nonforeclosure options, and fabricating documents related to the mortgage’s ownership or account status.’’ See Congressional Oversight Panel, Written Testimony of Julia Gordon, senior policy counsel, Center for Responsible Lending, COP Hearing on TARP Fore-closure Mitigation Programs, at 3 (Oct. 27, 2010) (online at cop.senate.gov/documents/testimony- 102710-gordon.pdf) (hereinafter ‘‘Written Testimony of Julia Gordon’’).
vantage point of the housing boom, the downturn in the housing market and the foreclosure crisis made them much more likely. In 2008 and 2009, a vast amount of attention was given to the dif-ficulty of determining liability in the securitization market because of problems with documentation and transparency.169 At this time, servicers could have had notice of the types of documentation prob-lems that could affect the transfer of mortgage ownership. In some cases, even when servicers were explicitly made aware of the shod-dy documentation, they did little to correct the problem. One judge determined that ‘‘[r]ather than being an isolated or inadvertent in-stance of misconduct . . . GMAC has persisted in its unlawful doc-ument signing practices’’ even after it was ordered to correct its practices.170
Some observers argue that current irregularities were not only foreseeable, but that they mask a range of potential irregularities at the stage in which the mortgages were originated and pooled. According to that view, current practices simply added to and mag-nified problems with the prior practices. The legal consequences of foreclosure irregularities will be magnified if the problems also plagued originations: after all, foreclosures are still a relatively lim-ited portion of the market. If all securitizations or performing whole loans were to be affected, the consequences could be signifi-cantly greater. At this point, answers as to what exactly is the source of the problems at the front end and how severe the con-sequences may be going forward depend to a large degree on who is evaluating the problem. The Panel describes below the perspec-tives of various stakeholders in the residential mortgage market.
a. Academics and Advocates for Homeowners Many lawyers and stakeholders who have worked with borrowers
and servicers on a regular basis over the past few years, primarily in bankruptcy and foreclosure cases, maintain that documentation problems, including potentially fraudulent practices, have been per-vasive and apparent.171 These actors, including academics who study the topic, argue that bankruptcy and foreclosure procedures have been revealing major deficiencies in mortgage servicing and
VerDate Mar 15 2010 02:17 Dec 02, 2010 Jkt 061835 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A835.XXX A835tjam
es o
n D
SK
G8S
OY
B1P
RO
D w
ith R
EP
OR
TS
40
172 Written Testimony of Katherine Porter, supra note 14, at 9 (referencing her paper: Kath-erine M. Porter, Misbehavior and Mistake in Bankruptcy Mortgage Claims, Texas Law Review, Vol. 87 (2008) (Nov. 2008) (online at www.mortgagestudy.org/files/Misbehavior.pdf)). The paper gives an in-depth analysis of how mortgage servicers frequently do not comply with bankruptcy law.
173 Written Testimony of Julia Gordon, supra note 171, at 11. 174 Legalprise Inc., Report on Lost Note Affidavits in Broward County, Florida (Oct. 2010).
Legalprise is a Florida legal research firm that uses and analyzes public foreclosure court records.
175 Written Testimony of Katherine Porter, supra note 14, at 9. 176 Consumer lawyers conversations with Panel staff (Oct. 28, 2010). 177 Consumer lawyers conversations with Panel staff (Nov. 9, 2010).
documentation for quite some time. Professor Katherine M. Porter, a professor of law who testified at the Panel’s most recent hearing, wrote: ‘‘The robo-signing scandal should not have been a surprise to anyone; these problems were being raised in litigation for years now. Similarly, I released a study in 2007—three years ago—that showed that mortgage companies who filed claims to be paid in bankruptcy cases of homeowners did not attach a copy of the note to 40% of their claims.’’ 172 According to this view, the servicing process was severely flawed, and ‘‘servicers falsify court documents not just to save time and money, but because they simply have not kept the accurate records of ownership, payments, and escrow ac-counts that would enable them to proceed legally.’’ 173 In 2008– 2009 over 1,700 lost note affidavits were filed in Broward County, Florida alone.174 These affidavits claim that the original note has been lost or destroyed and cannot be produced in court. It is impor-tant to recognize, however, that a lost note affidavit may not actu-ally mean that the note has been lost. In her written testimony to the Panel, Professor Katherine Porter points out that her study of lost notes in bankruptcies ‘‘does not prove . . . whether the mort-gage companies have a copy of the note and refused to produce it to stymie the consumers’ rights or to cut costs, whether the mort-gage companies or their predecessors in a securitization lost the note, or whether someone other than the mortgage company is the holder/bearer of the note.’’ 175
If the lawyers’ and advocates’ assertions of widespread irregular-ities are correct, it could mean that potentially millions of shoddily documented mortgages have been pooled improperly into securitization trusts. Lawyers are using a lack of standing by the servicers due to ineffective conveyance of ownership of the mort-gage as a defense in foreclosure cases. Some of these lawyers argue that the disconnect between what was happening on the ‘‘street level,’’ i.e., with the origination and documentation of mortgages, and the transfer requirements in the PSAs, is so huge that no cre-dence can be given to the banks’ argument that the issues are merely technical.176 However, commentators who believe that the problem is widespread also believe that investors in these securitization pools, rather than homeowners, may be the best placed to pursue the cases on a larger scale successfully.177
b. Servicers and Banks Since the foreclosure irregularities have surfaced, the banks in-
volved have maintained that the problems are largely procedural and technical in nature. Banks have temporarily suspended fore-closures in judicial foreclosure states in particular and looked into
VerDate Mar 15 2010 02:17 Dec 02, 2010 Jkt 061835 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A835.XXX A835tjam
es o
n D
SK
G8S
OY
B1P
RO
D w
ith R
EP
OR
TS
41
178 Bank of America Q3 2010 Earnings Call Transcript, supra note 97, at 6. 179 Bank of America Q3 2010 Earnings Call Transcript, supra note 97, at 6. 180 JPMorgan Chase & Co., Financial Results 3Q10, at 15 (Oct. 13, 2010) (online at
files.shareholder.com/downloads/ONE/1051047839x0x409164/e27f1d82-ef74-429e-8ff1- 7d6706634621/3Q10_Earnings_Presentation.pdf) (hereinafter ‘‘JPMorgan Q3 2010 Financial Re-sults’’) (‘‘Based on our processes and reviews to date, we believe underlying foreclosure decisions were justified by the facts and circumstances.’’); Wells Fargo Update on Affidavits and Mortgage Securitizations, supra note 23 (‘‘The issues the company has identified do not relate in any way to the quality of the customer and loan data; nor does the company believe that any of these instances led to foreclosures which should not have otherwise occurred.’’).
181 For example, the American Securitization Forum issued a statement questioning the legit-imacy of concerns raised about securitization practices: ‘‘In the last few days, concerns have been raised as to whether the standard industry methods of transferring ownership of residen-tial mortgage loans to securitization trusts are sufficient and appropriate. These concerns are without merit and our membership is confident that these methods of transfer are sound and based on a well-established body of law governing a multi-trillion dollar secondary mortgage market.’’ See American Securitization Forum, ASF Says Mortgage Securitization Legal Struc-tures & Loan Transfers Are Sound (Oct. 15, 2010) (online at www.americansecuritization.com/ story.aspx?id=4457) (hereinafter ‘‘ASF Statement on Mortgage Securitization Legal Structures and Loan Transfers’’). ASF will issue a white paper in the coming weeks to elaborate further on this statement.
182 See Letter from Gibbs & Bruns LLP to Countrywide, supra note 95. As noted above, the letter predominantly alleges problems with loan quality and violation of prudent servicing obli-gations. See also Gibbs & Bruns LLP, Institutional Holders of Countrywide-Issued RMBS Issue Notice of Non-Performance Identifying Alleged Failures by Master Servicer to Perform Covenants and Agreements in More Than $47 Billion of Countrywide-Issued RMBS (Oct. 18, 2010) (online
Continued
their practices, but they state that they do not view these problems as fundamental either in the foreclosure area or in the origination and pooling of mortgages. The CEO of Bank of America, Brian Moynihan, noted in the company’s most recent earnings call that Bank of America has resumed foreclosures, but ‘‘it’s going to take us three or five weeks to get through and actually get all the judi-cial states taken care of. The teams reviewing data have not found information which was inaccurate, would affect the frame factors of the foreclosure; i.e., the customer’s delinquency, etcetera.’’ 178 He fo-cused on the faulty affidavits and argued that ‘‘[they] fixed the affi-davit signing problem or will be fixed in very short order.’’ 179 Many of the other large banks have issued statements in the same vein.180 Most of these banks have either not commented on the issues around the transfer of ownership of the mortgage or main-tain that alleged ownership transfer problems are without merit or exaggerated.181
c. Investors As discussed above, securitization investors have been involved
in lawsuits regarding underwriting representations and warranties for some time. Investors in MBS or collateralized debt obligation (CDO) transactions have a variety of options to pursue a claim. Claims alleging violations of representations and warranties have typically focused on violations of underwriting standards regarding the underlying loans pooled into the securities. Another option may be to pursue similar claims relating to violations of representations and warranties with respect to the transfer of mortgage ownership. In the wake of the current documentation controversies, it appears that private investors may become more emboldened to pursue put- back requests and potentially file lawsuits. For example, and as discussed above, a group of investors—including FRBNY in its ca-pacity as owner of RMBS it obtained from American International Group, Inc. (AIG)—sent a letter to Bank of America as an initial step to be able to demand access to certain loan files.182 Direct con-
VerDate Mar 15 2010 02:17 Dec 02, 2010 Jkt 061835 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A835.XXX A835tjam
es o
n D
SK
G8S
OY
B1P
RO
D w
ith R
EP
OR
TS
42
at www.gibbsbruns.com/files/Uploads/Documents/Press_Release_Gibbs%20&%20Bruns%20 _10_18_10.pdf); Gibbs & Bruns LLP, Countrywide RMBS Initiative (Oct. 20, 2010) (online at www.gibbsbruns.com/countrywide-rmbs-initiative-10-20-2010/).
183 FRBNY staff conversations with Panel staff (Oct. 26, 2010). 184 For further discussion of these obstacles, see Section D.2. In addition, see description of
PSAs in Section D.1, supra. 185 For example, the investors taking action have to consider costs associated with their litiga-
tion such as indemnifications to be given to trustees when those are directed to initiate a law-suit on the bondholders’ behalf. Another consideration is that non-participating investors may also ultimately benefit from legal actions without contributing to the costs.
186 For example, in some PSAs, trustees are not required to investigate any report or, in many agreements, request put-backs, unless it is requested by 25 percent of investors. See Pooling and Servicing Agreement by and among J.P. Morgan Acceptance Corporation I, Depositor, et al., at 122 (Apr. 1, 2006) (online at www.scribd.com/doc/31453301/Pooling-Servicing-Agreement- JPMAC2006-NC1-PSA). Absent that threshold being met, the trustee has discretion to act. For further discussion, see Section D.2.
187 Amherst Securities Group LP, Conference Call: ‘‘Robosigners, MERS, And The Issues With Reps and Warrants’’ (Oct. 28, 2010). If the investors wished to act against trustees they believe are not independent, there are some legal avenues they could pursue. For example, the investors could remove the trustee using provisions that are typically in PSAs that allow for such a re-moval. Such provisions, however, often require 51 percent of investors to act. In addition, to the extent that the trustees are found to be fiduciaries, if the trustee takes a specific action that the investors believe not to be in their best interest, they may be able to sue the trustee. If successful, investors could be awarded a number of possible remedies, including damages or re-moval of the trustee. Greenfield, Stein, & Senior, Fiduciary Removal Proceedings (online at www.gss-law.com/PracticeAreas/Fiduciary-Removal-Proceedings.asp) (accessed Nov. 12, 2010); Gary B. Freidman, Relief Against a Fiduciary: SCPA § 2102 Proceedings, NYSBA Trusts and Es-tates Law Section Newsletter, at 1–2, 4 (Oct. 13, 2003) (online at www.gss-law.com/CM/Articles/ SCPA%202102%20Proceedings%20-%20Revised.pdf) (‘‘The failure of the fiduciary to comply with a court order directing that the information be supplied can be a basis for contempt under SCPA § 606, 607–1 and/or suspension or removal of the fiduciary under SCPA § 711.’’).
188 There are also risks for holders of second lien loans, but these loans are not as directly impacted by foreclosure irregularities as first-lien mortgages, since most second liens were not securitized, and are held on the balance sheets of banks and other market participants. As dis-cussed above, if second liens were perfected and first liens were not, they may actually take priority. See Section D.2 for further discussion of effects on second lien holders.
An analyst report from January 2010, values securitized second liens only at $32.5 billion of the $1.053 trillion of the total second liens outstanding. Amherst Securities Group LP, Amherst Mortgage Insight, 2nd Liens—How Important, at 12 (Jan. 29, 2010).
tact with the bank was initiated because the securitization trustee (Bank of New York) had refused to comply with the initial request in accordance with the PSA. FRBNY, as an investor, is on equal footing with all the other investors, and according to FRBNY’s rep-resentatives, they view this action and any potential participation in a future lawsuit as one way to attempt to recover funds for the taxpayers.183
While there may be a growing appetite for pursuing such law-suits, these lawsuits still have to overcome a fair number of obsta-cles built in to the PSAs,184 as well as problems inherent in any legal action that requires joint action by many actors.185 As a gen-eral matter, what appears to be a significant problem is that the operating documents for these transactions generally give signifi-cant discretion to trustees in exercising their powers,186 and these third parties may not be truly independent and willing to look out for the investors.187
F. Assessing the Potential Impact on Bank Balance Sheets
1. Introduction A bank’s exposure to the current turmoil in the residential real
estate market stems from its role as the originator of the initial mortgage, its role as the issuer of the packaged securities, its role as the underwriter of the subsequent mortgage trusts to investors, and/or its role as the servicer of the troubled loan.188 Through
VerDate Mar 15 2010 02:17 Dec 02, 2010 Jkt 061835 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A835.XXX A835tjam
es o
n D
SK
G8S
OY
B1P
RO
D w
ith R
EP
OR
TS
43
At the end of the second quarter of 2010, the four largest U.S. commercial banks—Bank of America, Citigroup, JPMorgan Chase, and Wells Fargo—reported $433.7 billion in second lien mortgages while having total equity capital of $548.8 billion. Amherst Securities Group LP data provided to Panel staff (Sept. 2, 2010); Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Statistics of De-pository Institutions (online at www2.fdic.gov/sdi/) (accessed Nov. 12, 2010). This figure is based on reporting by the banks, not their holding companies, and therefore may not include all second liens held by affiliates.
189 FBR Foreclosure Mania Conference Call, supra note 3. 190 See Section F.2 for further discussion on costs stemming from a foreclosure moratorium. 191 However, to the extent that banks hold MBSs originated/issued by non-affiliates, they may
themselves benefit from put-backs. 192 Credit Suisse, U.S. Banks: Mortgage Put-back Losses Appear Manageable for the Large
Banks, at 4 (Oct. 26, 2010) (hereinafter ‘‘Credit Suisse on Mortgage Put-back Losses’’); Deutsche Bank, Revisiting Putbacks and Securitizations, at 7 (Nov. 1, 2010) (hereinafter ‘‘Deutsche Bank Revisits Putbacks and Securitizations’’); FBR Capital Markets, Repurchase-Related Losses Roughly $44B for Industry—Sensationalism Not Warranted (Sept. 20, 2010) (hereinafter ‘‘FBR on Repurchase-Related Losses’’); Standard & Poor’s on the Impact of Mortgage Troubles on U.S. Banks, supra note 106.
193 There are other mortgage risks that are difficult to quantify, such as the potential effect mortgage put-backs may have on holders of interests in CDOs and the banks that serve as counterparties for synthetic CDOs. A synthetic CDO is a privately negotiated financial instru-ment that is generally made up of credit default swaps on a referenced pool of fixed-income as-sets, in these cases often including the mezzanine tranches of RMBSs. Large banks served as intermediaries for clients wishing to shift risk and therefore structure a synthetic CDO. These banks packaged and underwrote synthetic CDOs and may have retained a certain amount of liquidity risk. It is nearly impossible, however, to measure the possible effect of this issue due to the fact that there is no reliable data that estimates the size of the CDO market, and the
Continued
these various roles in the mortgage market, the banking sector’s vulnerability to the current turmoil in the market generally encom-passes improper foreclosures, related concerns regarding title docu-mentation, and mortgage repurchase risk owing to breaches in rep-resentations and warranties provided to investors.
Many investment analysts believe that potential costs associated with bank foreclosure irregularities are manageable, with potential liabilities representing a limited threat to earnings, rather than bank capital.189 Market estimates stemming from foreclosure irreg-ularities to a potential prolonged foreclosure moratorium range from $1.5 to $10.0 billion for the entire industry.190 However, while the situation remains fluid, the emerging consensus in the market is that the risk from mortgage put-backs is a potentially bigger source of instability for the banks.191 Using calculations based on current market estimates of investment analysts, the Panel cal-culates a consensus exposure for the industry of $52 billion. Aside from the potential for costs to far exceed these market estimates (or be materially lower), the wild card here is the impact of broader title documentation concerns across the broader mortgage market. In any case, the fallout from the foreclosure crisis and ongoing put- backs to the banks from mortgage investors are likely to continue to weigh on bank earnings, but are, according to industry analysts, unlikely to pose a grave threat to bank capital levels.192
However, there are scenarios whereby wholesale title and legal documentation problems for the bulk of outstanding mortgages could create significant instability in the marketplace, leading to potentially significantly larger effects on the balance sheets of banks. Under significantly more severe scenarios that would engulf the broader mortgage market—encompassing widespread legal un-certainty regarding mortgage loan documentation as well as the prospect of extensive put-backs impacting agency and private label mortgages—bank capital levels could conceivably come under re-newed stress, particularly for the most exposed institutions.193 It
VerDate Mar 15 2010 02:17 Dec 02, 2010 Jkt 061835 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A835.XXX A835tjam
es o
n D
SK
G8S
OY
B1P
RO
D w
ith R
EP
OR
TS
44
fact that counterparty risk in synthetic CDOs is agreed to under a private contract and there-fore no data is publicly available. Panel staff conversations with industry sources (Nov. 4, 2010).
For general information on the counterparty risk involved in synthetic CDOs, see Michael Gib-son, Understanding the Risk of Synthetic CDOs (July 2004) (online at www.curacao-law.com/ wp-content/uploads/2008/10/federal-reserve-cdo-analysis-2004.pdf).
194 Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, The Supervisory Capital Assessment Program: Design and Implementation (Apr. 24, 2009) (online at www.federalreserve.gov/ newsevents/press/bcreg/bcreg20090424a1.pdf).
195 See Section D for a discussion on legal considerations of foreclosure document irregular-ities.
196 Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Statistics & Historical Data: Mortgage Debt Outstanding (Sept. 2010) (online at www.federalreserve.gov/econresdata/releases/ mortoutstand/current.htm).
197 Id.
is unclear whether severe mortgage scenarios were modeled in the Federal Reserve’s 2009 stress tests, which, in any event, did not ex-amine potential adverse scenarios beyond 2010.194
While the situation is still uncertain, the worst-case scenarios would have to presuppose at a minimum a systemic breakdown in documentation standards, the consequences of which would likely grind the mortgage market to a halt. However, it is important to note that, so far, many of the experts who have spoken to the ques-tion (and the banks themselves) believe that securities documenta-tion concerns are unlikely to trigger meaningful broad-based losses. These experts state that although put-backs owing to breaches of representations and warranties will continue to exert a toll on the banks, it will largely be manageable, with costs covered from ongo-ing reserves and earnings. Furthermore, as noted in Section D, there are a considerable number of legal considerations that will likely lead to losses being spread out over time.195
Residential U.S. mortgage debt outstanding was $10.6 trillion as of June 2010.196 Of this amount, $5.7 trillion is government-spon-sored enterprise (GSE) or agency-backed paper, $1.4 trillion is pri-vate label (or non-GSE issued) securities, and $3.5 trillion is non- securitized debt held on financial institution balance sheets.197
VerDate Mar 15 2010 02:17 Dec 02, 2010 Jkt 061835 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A835.XXX A835tjam
es o
n D
SK
G8S
OY
B1P
RO
D w
ith R
EP
OR
TS
45
198 Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Federal Reserve Statistical Release: Flow of Funds Accounts of the United States: Data Download Program (Instrument: Home Mort-gages, Frequency: Annually, L.218) (online at www.federalreserve.gov/datadownload/ Choose.aspx?rel=Z.1) (accessed Nov. 12, 2010).
199 Mortgage Bankers Association, National Delinquency Survey, Q2 2010 (Aug. 26, 2010) (hereinafter ‘‘MBA National Delinquency Survey, Q2 2010’’). See also Mortgage Bankers Associa-tion, Delinquencies and Foreclosure Starts Decrease in Latest MBA National Delinquency Survey (Aug. 26, 2010) (online at www.mbaa.org/NewsandMedia/PressCenter/73799.htm) (hereinafter ‘‘MBA Press Release on Delinquencies and Foreclosure Starts’’).
200 Delinquency rates include loans that are 30 days, 60 days, and 90 days or more past due. Foreclosure rates include loans in the foreclosure process at the end of each quarter. See Id.
FIGURE 2: RESIDENTIAL (1–4 FAMILY) MORTGAGE DEBT OUTSTANDING, 1985–2009 198
[Dollars in millions]
Industry-wide, 4.6 percent of mortgages are classified as in the foreclosure process. In addition, 9.4 percent of mortgages are at least 30 days past due, approximately half of which are more than 90 days past due.199
FIGURE 3: DELINQUENCY AND FORECLOSURE RATES (2006–2010) 200
VerDate Mar 15 2010 02:17 Dec 02, 2010 Jkt 061835 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A835.XXX A835 Inse
rt gr
aphi
c fo
lio 5
9 61
835C
.002
Inse
rt of
fset
folio
60
here
618
35C
.003
tjam
es o
n D
SK
G8S
OY
B1P
RO
D w
ith R
EP
OR
TS
46
a. Leading Market Participants Troubled mortgages were largely originated in 2005–2007, when
underwriting standards were most suspect, particularly for subprime, Alt-A and other loans to low-credit or poorly documented borrowers. Figure 4 below outlines the largest mortgage originators during this period, ranked by volume and market share.
FIGURE 4: LARGEST U.S. MORTGAGE ORIGINATORS, 2005–2007 201 [Dollars in billions]
Company Volume Market Share
(Percent)
Bank of America .............................................................................................................................. 1,880 22.1 Countrywide Financial ............................................................................................................ 1,362 16.0 Bank of America Mortgage & Affiliates ................................................................................. 518 6.1
Wells Fargo ...................................................................................................................................... 1,324 15.5 Wells Fargo Home Mortgage ................................................................................................... 1,062 12.4 Wachovia Corporation ............................................................................................................. 262 3.1
JPMorgan Chase .............................................................................................................................. 1,151 13.5 Chase Home Finance .............................................................................................................. 566 6.6 Washington Mutual ................................................................................................................. 584 6.9
Citigroup .......................................................................................................................................... 506 5.9 Top Four Aggregate ........................................................................................................................ 4,861 57.0
Total Mortgage Originations (2005–2007) .................................................................................... 8,530 201 Inside Mortgage Finance.
The four largest banks accounted for approximately 60 percent of all loan originations between 2005 and 2007. Totals for Bank of America, Wells Fargo, JPMorgan Chase, and Citigroup include vol-umes originated by companies that these firms subsequently ac-quired. As Figure 4 indicates, a significant portion of Bank of America’s mortgage loan portfolio is comprised of loans assumed upon its acquisition of Countrywide Financial. Similarly, JPMorgan Chase more than doubled its mortgage loan portfolio with its acqui-sition of Washington Mutual.
Figure 5, below, details the largest originators of both Alt-A and subprime loans between 2005 and 2007. The five leading origina-tors of Alt-A and subprime loans represented approximately 56 per-cent and 34 percent, respectively, of aggregate issuance volume for these loan types. Alt-A and subprime loans represented approxi-mately 30 percent of all mortgages originated from 2005 to 2007.
FIGURE 5: LEADING ORIGINATORS OF SUBPRIME AND ALT-A LOANS, 2005–2007 202 [Dollars in billions]
Company Volume Market Share
(Percent)
ALT-A ORIGINATIONS
Countrywide Financial (Bank of America) ....................................................................................... 172 16.2 IndyMac ............................................................................................................................................ 145 13.6 JPMorgan Chase .............................................................................................................................. 102 9.6
Washington Mutual ................................................................................................................. 40 3.8 EMC Mortgage ........................................................................................................................ 38 3.5 Chase Home Financial ............................................................................................................ 25 2.3
GMAC ............................................................................................................................................... 98 9.2 GMAC–RFC .............................................................................................................................. 77 7.3 GMAC Residential Holding ...................................................................................................... 21 1.9
VerDate Mar 15 2010 02:17 Dec 02, 2010 Jkt 061835 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A835.XXX A835tjam
es o
n D
SK
G8S
OY
B1P
RO
D w
ith R
EP
OR
TS
47
FIGURE 5: LEADING ORIGINATORS OF SUBPRIME AND ALT-A LOANS, 2005–2007 202—Continued [Dollars in billions]
Company Volume Market Share
(Percent)
Lehman Brothers 203 ........................................................................................................................ 79 7.4 Top Five Aggregate ........................................................................................................................ 596 56.0
Total Alt-A Originations (2005–2007) ............................................................................................ 1,065
SUBPRIME ORIGINATIONS
Ameriquest Mortgage ....................................................................................................................... 112 7.7 New Century ..................................................................................................................................... 109 7.5 Countrywide Financial (Bank of America) ....................................................................................... 102 7.0 JPMorgan Chase .............................................................................................................................. 99 6.8
Washington Mutual ................................................................................................................. 66 4.5 Chase Home Finance .............................................................................................................. 33 2.3
Option One Mortgage ....................................................................................................................... 80 5.5 Top Five Aggregate ........................................................................................................................ 502 34.4
Total Subprime Origination (2005–2007) ...................................................................................... 1,458 202 Inside Mortgage Finance. 203 Includes Alt-A originations from Lehman Brothers subsidiary, Aurora Loan Services, LLC.
As shown in Figure 6, below, the five leading underwriters (pro forma for acquisitions) of non-agency MBS between 2005 and 2007 accounted for 58 percent of the total underwriting volume for the period. It is of note that the three firms with the largest under-writing volumes during this period, Lehman Brothers, Bear Stearns, and Countrywide Securities, have either failed or been ac-quired by another company.
FIGURE 6: LEADING UNDERWRITERS OF NON-AGENCY MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITIES, 2005– 2007 204
[Dollars in billions]
Company Volume Market Share
(Percent)
JPMorgan Chase .............................................................................................................................. 593 19.5 JPMorgan Chase ..................................................................................................................... 143 4.7 Bear Stearns ........................................................................................................................... 298 9.8 Washington Mutual ................................................................................................................. 152 5.0
Bank of America .............................................................................................................................. 371 12.2 Merrill Lynch ........................................................................................................................... 94 3.1 Countrywide Securities ........................................................................................................... 277 9.1
Lehman Brothers ............................................................................................................................. 322 10.6 RBS Greenwich Capital ................................................................................................................... 273 9.0 Credit Suisse ................................................................................................................................... 203 6.7 Top Five Aggregate ........................................................................................................................ 1,762 58.0
Total Underwriting Volume (2005–2007) ...................................................................................... 3,044 204 Inside Mortgage Finance.
As noted above, banks either retain or securitize—market condi-tions permitting—the mortgage loans they originate. In terms of mortgages retained on bank balance sheets, Figure 7 below lists banks with the largest mortgage loan books, as well as the con-centration of foreclosed mortgage loans, ranked by volume and as a percentage of overall residential mortgage balance sheet assets.
VerDate Mar 15 2010 02:17 Dec 02, 2010 Jkt 061835 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A835.XXX A835tjam
es o
n D
SK
G8S
OY
B1P
RO
D w
ith R
EP
OR
TS
48
207 Bank of America is frequently mentioned by analysts as having potentially high exposure, in part because of its purchase of Countrywide Financial and Merrill Lynch, which was heavily involved in CDOs, and its assumption of successor liability. During the Panel’s October 27, 2010 hearing, Guy Cecala of Inside Mortgage Finance noted that Bank of America was one of the
FIGURE 7: BANK HOLDING COMPANIES WITH 1–4 FAMILY LOANS IN FORECLOSURE PROCEEDINGS, JUNE 2010 205 [Dollars in billions]
Company Total 1–4
Family Loans
1–4 Family Loans in
Foreclosure
Percent of 1–4 Family Loans
in Foreclosure (Percent)
Bank of America ................................................................................. 427.1 18.8 4.4 Wells Fargo ......................................................................................... 370.7 17.6 4.7 JPMorgan Chase .................................................................................. 259.9 19.5 7.5 Citigroup ............................................................................................. 178.4 6.0 3.3 HSBC North America ........................................................................... 72.9 6.6 9.0 U.S. Bancorp ....................................................................................... 58.1 2.5 4.4 PNC Financial Services Group ............................................................ 54.9 2.7 5.0 SunTrust Banks ................................................................................... 47.9 2.4 5.0 Ally Financial (GMAC) ......................................................................... 21.5 2.2 10.2 Fifth Third Bancorp ............................................................................. 21.4 0.7 3.2
Total for All Bank Holding Companies ............................................. 2,152.2 87.7 4.1 205 SNL Financial. These data include revolving or permanent loans secured by real estate as evidenced by mortgages (FHA, FMHA, VA, or
conventional) or other liens (first or junior) secured by 1–4 family residential property.
The leading mortgage servicers are ranked below by loan volume serviced and market share, including the percentage of the overall portfolio in foreclosure. During the second quarter of 2010, the 10 largest servicers in the United States were responsible for servicing 67.2 percent of all outstanding residential mortgages.
FIGURE 8: LARGEST U.S. MORTGAGE SERVICERS, JUNE 2010 206 [Dollars in billions]
Company Servicing Portfolio Amount
Percent of Total Loans
Serviced
Percent of Portfolio in Foreclosure
Bank of America ......................................................................................... 2,135 20.1 3.3 Wells Fargo ................................................................................................. 1,812 17.0 2.0 JPMorgan ..................................................................................................... 1,354 12.7 3.6 Citigroup ..................................................................................................... 678 6.4 2.3 Ally Financial (GMAC) ................................................................................. 349 3.3 n/a U.S. Bancorp ............................................................................................... 190 1.8 n/a SunTrust Banks ........................................................................................... 176 1.7 4.9 PHH Mortgage ............................................................................................. 156 1.5 1.8 OneWest Bank, CA (IndyMac) ..................................................................... 155 1.5 n/a PNC Financial Services Group .................................................................... 150 1.4 n/a 10 Largest Mortgage Servicers Aggregate .............................................. 7,155 67.2
Total Residential Mortgages Outstanding ................................................ 10,640 206 As a point of reference, as of June 2010, 63 percent of foreclosures occurred on homes where the loan was either owned or guaranteed
by government investors such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, while the remaining 37 percent of foreclosures were on homes owned by pri-vate investors. Data on percentage of portfolio in foreclosure unavailable for Ally Financial, U.S. Bancorp, OneWest Bank, and PNC Financial Services Group. Inside Mortgage Finance.
2. Foreclosure Irregularities: Estimating the Cost to Banks Assessing the potential financial impact of foreclosure irregular-
ities, including a prolonged foreclosure moratorium, on bank sta-bility is complicated by the extremely fluid nature of current devel-opments. For example, after unilaterally halting foreclosure pro-ceedings, both Bank of America 207 and Ally Financial (GMAC) an-
VerDate Mar 15 2010 02:17 Dec 02, 2010 Jkt 061835 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A835.XXX A835tjam
es o
n D
SK
G8S
OY
B1P
RO
D w
ith R
EP
OR
TS
49
few major mortgage lenders to steer away from the subprime market. Upon the bank’s acquisi-tion of Countrywide in 2008, however, Bank of America became the holder of the largest subprime mortgage portfolio (in the industry). See Testimony of Guy Cecala, supra note 133.
208 Bank of America Q3 2010 Earnings Call Transcript, supra note 97, at 6 (‘‘On the fore-closure area . . . we changed and started to reinitiate the foreclosures . . . ’’); GMAC Mortgage Statement on Independent Review and Foreclosure Sales, supra note 20 (‘‘In addition to the na-tionwide measures, the review and remediation activities related to cases involving judicial affi-davits in the 23 states continues and has been underway for approximately two months. As each of those files is reviewed, and remediated when needed, the foreclosure process resumes. GMAC Mortgage has found no evidence to date of any inappropriate foreclosures.’’).
209 See Section F.3 for further discussion on potential bank liabilities from securitization title irregularities and mortgage repurchases or put-backs.
210 In October 2010, the SEC sent a letter to Chief Financial Officers of certain public compa-nies to remind them of their disclosure obligations relating to the foreclosure documentation irregularities. See Sample SEC Letter on Disclosure Guidelines, supra note 113. The letter noted that affected public companies should carefully consider a variety of issues relating to fore-closure documentation irregularities, including trends, known demands, commitments and other similar elements that might ‘‘reasonably expect to have a material favorable or unfavorable im-pact on your results of operations, liquidity, and capital resources.’’ Although the letter notes a variety of areas that would require disclosure, the quality of disclosure will depend on what the companies in question are able to determine about the effect of the irregularities on their operations. Genuine uncertainty will result in less useful disclosure. Once the information is provided in a report, however, companies have a duty to update it if it becomes inaccurate or misleading.
211 Bank of America Corporation, 3Q10 Earnings Results, at 10–11 (Oct. 19, 2010) (online at phx.corporate-ir.net/Exter-nal.File?item=UGFyZW50SUQ9NjY0MDd8Q2hpbGRJRD0tMXxUeXBlPTM=&t=1); Bank of America Q3 2010 Earnings Call Transcript, supra note 97, at 6.
212 It was recently reported that Bank of America found errors in 10 to 25 foreclosure cases out of the first several hundred the bank has examined. Written Testimony of Katherine Porter, supra note 14, at 10); Jessica Hall & Anand Basu, Bank of America Corp Acknowledged Some Mistakes in Foreclosure Files as it Begins to Resubmit Documents in 102,000 Cases, the Wall Street Journal Said, Reuters (Oct. 25, 2010) (online at www.reuters.com/article/ idUSTRE69O04220101025). Bank of America expects increased costs related to irregularities in its foreclosure affidavit procedures during the fourth quarter of 2010 and into 2011. Costs asso-ciated with reviewing its foreclosure procedures, revising affidavit filings, and making other operational changes will likely result in higher noninterest expense, including higher servicing costs and legal expenses. Furthermore, Bank of America anticipates higher servicing costs over the long term if it must make changes to its foreclosure process. Finally, the time to complete foreclosure sales may increase temporarily, which may increase nonperforming loans and serv-icing advances and may impact the collectability of such advances, as well as the value of the bank’s mortgage servicing rights. Bank of America Corporation, Form 10–Q for the Quarterly
Continued
nounced their intention to resume foreclosure proceedings in the wake of internal reviews that did not uncover systemic irregular-ities, according to both firms.208 Looking ahead, the chief variables are the extent and duration of potential foreclosure disruptions or an outright moratorium, which would impact servicing and fore-closure costs and housing market prices (and recovery values). Such scenarios would also likely increase litigation and legal risks, including potential fines from state attorneys general, as well as raising questions regarding the extent to which title irregularities may permeate the system.209
During recent conference calls for third quarter 2010 earnings and subsequent investor presentations, the five largest mortgage servicers addressed questions regarding foreclosure irregularities and potential liabilities stemming from these issues.210
• Bank of America 211—Bank of America initially suspended fore-closure sales on October 8, 2010 across all 50 states after reviewing its internal foreclosure procedures. On October 18, 2010, the bank began amending and re-filing 102,000 foreclosure affidavits in 23 judicial foreclosure states, a process expected to take three to five weeks to complete. While asserting that it is addressing issues sur-rounding affidavit signatures, the company claims that it has not been able to identify any improper foreclosure decisions.212
VerDate Mar 15 2010 02:17 Dec 02, 2010 Jkt 061835 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A835.XXX A835tjam
es o
n D
SK
G8S
OY
B1P
RO
D w
ith R
EP
OR
TS
50
Period Ended September 30, 2010, at 95 (Nov. 5, 2010) (online at sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/ 70858/000095012310101545/g24513e10vq.htm).
213 Citigroup, Inc., Transcript: Citi Third Quarter 2010 Earnings Review, at 6–7 (Oct. 18, 2010) (online at www.citigroup.com/citi/fin/data/qer103tr.pdf?ieNocache=128).
214 Citigroup 10–Q for Q2 2010, supra note 101, at 52. 215 JPMorgan Q3 2010 Financial Results, supra note 180, at 14–15; Q3 2010 Earnings Call
Transcript, supra note 53. JPMorgan Chase anticipates additional costs from implementation of these new procedures,
as well as expenses associated with maintaining foreclosed properties, re-filing documents and foreclosure cases, or possible declining home prices during foreclosure suspensions. These costs are dependent on the length of the foreclosure suspension. JPMorgan Chase & Co., Form 10– Q for the Quarterly Period Ended September 30, 2010, at 93 (Nov. 9, 2010) (online at www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/19617/000095012310102689/y86142e10vq.htm) (hereinafter ‘‘JPMorgan Chase Form 10–Q’’).
216 JPMorgan Chase Form 10–Q, supra note 215, at 93, 200. 217 JPMorgan Chase & Co., BancAnalysts Association of Boston Conference, Charlie Scharf,
CEO, Retail Financial Services, at 33 (Nov. 4, 2010) (online at files.shareholder.com/downloads/ ONE/967802442x0x415409/c88f9007-6b75-4d7c-abf6-846b90dbc9e3/ BAAB_Presentation_Draft_11-03-10_FINAL_PRINT.pdf) (hereinafter ‘‘JPM Presentation at BancAnalysts Association of Boston Conference’’).
218 JPMorgan Chase Form 10–Q, supra note 215, at 93. 219 Wells Fargo & Company, 3Q10 Quarterly Supplement, at 26 (Oct. 20, 2010) (online at
www.wellsfargo.com/downloads/pdf/press/3Q10_Quarterly_Supplement.pdf); Wells Fargo & Com-pany, Q3 2010 Earnings Call Transcript (Oct. 20, 2010) (online at www.morningstar.com/earn- 023/earnings—earnings-call-transcript.aspx/WFC/en-US.shtml).
220 Wells Fargo Update on Affidavits and Mortgage Securitizations, supra note 23. The company has stated that it could incur significant legal costs if its internal review of its
foreclosure procedures causes the bank to re-execute foreclosure documents, or if foreclosure ac-tions are challenged by a borrower or overturned by a court. Wells Fargo & Company, Form 10–Q for the Quarterly Period Ended September 30, 2010, at 42–43 (Nov. 5, 2010) (online at sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/72971/000095012310101484/f56682e10vq.htm).
221 Ally Financial Inc., 3Q10 Earnings Review, at 10 (Nov. 3, 2010) (online at phx.corporate- ir.net/Exter-nal.File?item=UGFyZW50SUQ9MzQ2Nzg3NnxDaGlsZElEPTQwMjMzOHxUeXBlPTI=&t=1).
• Citigroup 213—Citigroup has not announced plans to halt its foreclosure proceedings. The bank has nonetheless initiated an in-ternal review of its foreclosure process due to increased industry- wide focus on foreclosure processes. It has not identified any issues regarding its preparation and transfer of foreclosure documents thus far. However, Citigroup noted in a recent filing that its cur-rent foreclosure processes and financial condition could be affected depending on the results of its review or if any industry-wide ad-verse regulatory or judicial actions are taken on foreclosures.214
• JPMorgan Chase 215—Beginning in late September to mid-Oc-tober 2010, JPMorgan Chase delayed foreclosure sales across 40 states, suspending approximately 127,000 loan files currently in the foreclosure process.216 While the company, similar to Bank of America, has identified issues relating to foreclosure affidavits, it does not believe that any foreclosure decisions were improper. On November 4, 2010, JPMorgan Chase stated that it will begin re-filing foreclosures within a few weeks.217 The firm also stated in a recent filing that it is developing new processes to ensure it satis-fies all procedural requirements related to foreclosures.218
• Wells Fargo 219—Wells Fargo expressed confidence in its fore-closure documentation practices and reiterated that the firm has no plans to suspend foreclosures. The bank added that an internal review identified instances where the final affidavit review and some aspects of the notarization process were not properly executed. Accordingly, Wells Fargo is submitting sup-plemental affidavits for approximately 55,000 foreclosures in 23 judicial foreclosure states.220
• Ally Financial (GMAC) 221 — As of November 3, 2010, GMAC Mortgage reviewed 9,523 foreclosure affidavits, with review
VerDate Mar 15 2010 02:17 Dec 02, 2010 Jkt 061835 PO 00000 Frm 00056 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A835.XXX A835tjam
es o
n D
SK
G8S
OY
B1P
RO
D w
ith R
EP
OR
TS
51
222 Ally Financial Inc., Form 10–Q for the Quarterly Period Ended September 30, 2010, at 75– 76 (Nov. 9, 2010) (online at www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/40729/000119312510252419/ d10q.htm).
223 A Credit Suisse research note estimated that Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase, and Wells Fargo could each face $500 million-$600 million in increased servicing costs and write- downs on foreclosed homes, assuming a three-month foreclosure delay and associated costs and write-downs approximating 1 percent per month. An FBR Capital Markets research note esti-mated $6 billion-$10 billion in potential losses from a three-month foreclosure moratorium across the entire banking industry. This estimate assumes that there are approximately 2 mil-lion homes currently in the foreclosure process, and that the costs of a delay on each foreclosed property is $1,000 per month. Credit Suisse, Mortgage Issues Mount, at 10 (Oct. 15, 2010) (here-inafter ‘‘Credit Suisse on Mounting Mortgage Issues’’); FBR Foreclosure Mania Conference Call, supra note 3.
224 FBR Foreclosure Mania Conference Call, supra note 3. 225 Treasury conversations with Panel staff (Oct. 21, 2010). 226 Third Way staff conversations with Panel staff (Oct. 29, 2010). 227 Jason Gold and Anne Kim, The Case Against a Foreclosure Moratorium, Third Way Domes-
tic Policy Memo, at 3–4 (Oct. 20, 2010) (online at content.thirdway.org/publications/342/ Third_Way_Memo_-_The_Case_Against_a_Foreclosure_Moratorium.pdf) (hereinafter ‘‘Third Way Domestic Policy Memo on the Case Against a Foreclosure Moratorium’’).
pending on an additional 15,500 files. The company noted that its review to date has not identified any instances of improper foreclosures. Where appropriate, GMAC re-executed and refiled affidavits with the courts. GMAC stated that it has modified its foreclosure process, increased the size of its staff involved in foreclosures, provided more training, and enlisted a ‘‘special-ized quality control team’’ to review each case. The company expects to complete all remaining foreclosure file reviews by the end of the year. Furthermore, GMAC recently implemented supplemental procedures for all new foreclosure cases in order to ensure that affidavits are properly prepared.222
While a market-wide foreclosure moratorium appears less likely following comments from the Administration and internal reviews by the affected banks, state attorneys general have yet to weigh in on the issue. Market estimates of possible bank losses related to a foreclosure moratorium have varied considerably, from $1.5 billion to $10 billion.223 Industry analysts have noted that a three-month foreclosure delay could increase servicing costs and losses on fore-closed properties. In addition, banks could also face added litigation costs associated with resolving flawed foreclosure procedures.224 However, these estimates can of course become quickly outdated in the current environment. As noted, firms that previously sus-pended foreclosures are now beginning to re-file and re-execute foreclosure affidavits, and market estimates accounting for shorter foreclosure moratoriums are currently unavailable.
Although they have not been implicated in the recent news of foreclosure moratoriums, thousands of small to mid-level banks also face some risk from foreclosure suspensions if they act as servicers for larger banks.225 Generally, small community banks, as well as credit unions, are more likely to keep mortgage loans on their books as opposed to selling them in the secondary market. They primarily use securitization to hedge risk and increase lend-ing power.226 Accordingly, foreclosure moratoriums would prevent small banks and credit unions from working through nonper-forming loans on their balance sheets, limiting their capacity to originate new loans.227 As of June 2010, residential mortgages
VerDate Mar 15 2010 02:17 Dec 02, 2010 Jkt 061835 PO 00000 Frm 00057 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A835.XXX A835tjam
es o
n D
SK
G8S
OY
B1P
RO
D w
ith R
EP
OR
TS
52
228 Small banks are those with under $1 billion in total assets. Congressional Oversight Panel, July Oversight Report: Small Banks in the Capital Purchase Program, at 74 (July 14, 2010) (on-line at cop.senate.gov/documents/cop-071410-report.pdf); SNL Financial. Credit union residential mortgage loan portfolios include first and second lien mortgages and home equity loans. Credit Union National Association, U.S. Credit Union Profile: Mid-Year 2010 Summary of Credit Union Operating Results, at 6 (Sept. 7, 2010) (online at www.cuna.org/research/download/ uscu_profile_2q10.pdf).
229 A deed-in-lieu permits a borrower to transfer their interest in real property to a lender in order to settle all indebtedness associated with that property. A short sale occurs when a servicer allows a homeowner to sell the home with the understanding that the proceeds from the sale may be less than is owed on the mortgage. U.S. Department of the Treasury, Home Affordable Foreclosure Alternatives (HAFA) Program (online at makinghomeaffordable.gov/ hafa.html) (accessed Nov. 12, 2010).
made up 31 percent of small banks’ loan portfolios and 55 percent of credit union portfolios.228
3. Securitization Issues and Mortgage Put-backs Foreclosure documentation issues highlight other potential—and
to some degree, related—mortgage market risks to the banking sec-tor. Questions regarding document standards in the foreclosure process are tangential to broader concerns impacting bank’s rep-resentations and warranties to mortgage investors, as well as con-cerns regarding proper legal documentation for securitized loans.
Given the lack of transparency into documentation procedures and questions as to the capacity of disparate investor groups to centralize claims against the industry, market estimates of poten-tial bank liabilities stemming from securitization documentation issues vary widely.
a. Securitization Title As discussed above, documentation standards in the foreclosure
process have helped shine a light on potential questions regarding the ownership of loans sold into securitization without the proper assignment of title to the trust that sponsors the mortgage securi-ties. There are at least three points at which the mortgage and the note must be transferred during the securitization process in order for the trust to have proper ownership of the mortgage and the note and thereby the authority to foreclose if necessary. Concerns that the proper paperwork was not placed in the securitization trust within the 90-day window stipulated by law have created un-certainty in MBS markets.
Any lack of clarity regarding the securitization trust’s clear own-ership of the underlying mortgages creates an atmosphere of uncer-tainty in the market and a bevy of possible problems. A securitization trust is not legally capable of taking action on mort-gages unless it has clear ownership of the mortgages and the notes. Therefore, possible remedies for loans that are seriously delin-quent—such as foreclosure, deed-in-lieu, or short sale—would not be available to the trust.229 Litigation appears likely from pur-chasers of MBS who have possible standing against the trusts that issued the MBS. Claimants will contend that the securitization trusts created securities that were based on mortgages which they did not own. Since the nation’s largest banks often created these securitization trusts or originated the mortgages in the pool, in a worst-case scenario it is possible that these institutions would be
VerDate Mar 15 2010 02:17 Dec 02, 2010 Jkt 061835 PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A835.XXX A835tjam
es o
n D
SK
G8S
OY
B1P
RO
D w
ith R
EP
OR
TS
53
230 ASF Statement on Mortgage Securitization Legal Structures and Loan Transfers, supra note 181. Some observers question whether, even if the procedures in the PSA were legally sound, they were actually accomplished. Consumer lawyers conversations with Panel staff (Nov. 9, 2010).
231 The non-agency figure includes both residential and commercial mortgage-backed securi-ties. Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association, US Mortgage-Related Outstanding (online at www.sifma.org/uploadedFiles/Research/Statistics/StatisticsFiles/SF-US-Mortgage-Re-lated-Outstanding-SIFMA.xls) (accessed Nov. 12, 2010).
232 Federal National Mortgage Association, Selling Guide: Fannie Mae Single Family, at Chap-ters A2–2, A2–3 (Mar. 2, 2010) (online at www.efanniemae.com/sf/guides/ssg/sg/pdf/ sg030210.pdf).
233 It is unlikely that earlier vintages will pose a repurchase risk given the relatively more seasoned nature of these securities.
forced to repurchase the MBS the trusts issued, often at a signifi-cant loss.
On October 15, 2010, the American Securitization Forum (ASF) asserted that concerns regarding the legality of loan transfers for securitization were without merit. The statement asserted that the ASF’s member law firms found that the ‘‘conventional process for loan transfers embodied in standard legal documentation for mort-gage securitizations is adequate and appropriate to transfer owner-ship of mortgage loans to the securitization trusts in accordance with applicable law.’’ 230
b. Forced Mortgage Repurchases/Put-backs In the context of the overall $7.6 trillion mortgage securitization
market, approximately $5.5 trillion in MBS were issued by the GSEs and $2.1 trillion by non-agency issuers.231 As discussed above, and distinct from the foreclosure irregularities and securitization documentation concerns, banks make representations and warranties regarding the mortgage loans pooled and sold into GSE and private-label securities. A breach of these representations or warranties allows the purchaser to require the seller to repur-chase the specific loan.
While these representations and warranties vary based on the type of security and customer, triggers that may force put-backs in-clude undisclosed liabilities, income or employment misrepresenta-tion, property value falsification, and the mishandling of escrow funds.232 Thus far, loans originated in 2005–2008 have the highest concentration of repurchase demands. Repurchase volumes stem-ming from older vintages have not had a material effect on the na-tion’s largest banks, and due to tightened underwriting standards implemented at the end of 2008, it appears unlikely that loans originated after 2008 will have a high repurchase rate, although the enormous uncertainty in the market makes it difficult to pre-dict repurchases with any degree of precision.233
There are meaningful distinctions between the capacity of GSEs and private-label investors to put-back loans to the banks. This helps explain why the vast majority of put-back requests and suc-cessful put-backs relate to loans sold to the GSEs. This also helps estimate the size of the potential risks to the banks from non-agen-cy put-backs. GSEs benefit from direct access to the banks’ loan files and lower hurdles for breaches of representations and warran-ties due to the relatively higher standard of loan underwriting. Pri-vate label investors, on the other hand, do not have access to loan files, and instead must aggregate claims to request a review of loan
VerDate Mar 15 2010 02:17 Dec 02, 2010 Jkt 061835 PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A835.XXX A835tjam
es o
n D
SK
G8S
OY
B1P
RO
D w
ith R
EP
OR
TS
54
234 For further discussion, please see Section D, supra. 235 Wells Fargo & Company, BancAnalysts Association of Boston Conference, at 13 (Nov. 4,
2010) (online at www.wellsfargo.com/downloads/pdf/invest_relations/presents/nov2010/ baab_110410.pdf) (‘‘Repurchase risk is mitigated because approximately half of the securitizations do not contain typical reps and warranties regarding borrower or other third party misrepresentations related to the loan, general compliance with underwriting guidelines, or property valuations’’).
236 JPM Presentation at BancAnalysts Association of Boston Conference, supra note 217, at 24 (‘‘∼70% of loans underlying deals were low doc/no doc loans’’); Bank of America Corporation, BancAnalysts Association of Boston, at 13 (Nov. 4, 2010) (online at phx.corporate-ir.net/Exter-nal.File?item=UGFyZW50SUQ9Njg5MDV8Q2hpbGRJRD0tMXxUeXBlPTM=&t=1) (hereinafter ‘‘Bank of America Presentation at BancAnalysts Association of Boston Conference’’) (‘‘Contrac-tual representations and warranties on these deals are less rigorous than those given to GSEs. These deals had generally higher LTV ratios, lower FICOs and less loan documentation by pro-gram design and Disclosure’’).
237 Credit Suisse, Mortgage Put-back Losses Appear Manageable for the Large Banks, at 10 (Oct. 26, 2010).
238 Id. at 10. 240 Loans either owned or guaranteed by the GSEs have performed materially better than
loans owned or securitized by other investors. For example, loans owned or guaranteed by the GSEs that are classified as seriously delinquent have increased from 3.8 percent in June 2009 to 4.5 percent in June 2010. In comparison, the percentage of loans owned by private investors that are classified as seriously delinquent has increased from 10.5 percent in June 2009 to 13.1
files.234 Moreover, and perhaps more importantly, private label se-curities often lack some of the representations and warranties com-mon to agency securities. For example, Wells Fargo indicated that approximately half of its private label securities do not contain all of the representations and warranties typical of agency securi-ties.235 Also, given that private label securities are often composed of loans to borrowers with minimal to non-existent supporting loan documentation, many do not contain warranties to protect inves-tors from borrower fraud.236
Since the beginning of 2009, the four largest banks incurred $11.4 billion in repurchase expenses, with the group’s aggregate re-purchase reserve increasing to $9.9 billion as of the third quarter 2010.237 Bank of America incurred a total of $4.5 billion in ex-penses relating to representations and warranties during this pe-riod—nearly 40 percent of the $11.4 billion total that the top four banks have reported.238
FIGURE 9: ESTIMATED REPRESENTATION AND WARRANTIES EXPENSE AND REPURCHASE RESERVES AT LARGEST BANKS 239
[Dollars in millions]
Estimated Representation and Warranty Expense
Estimated Ending Repurchase Reserves
FY 2009 Q1 2010 Q2 2010 Q3 2010 FY 2009 Q1 2010 Q2 2010 Q3 2010
Bank of America ......................... $1,900 $526 $1,248 $872 $3,507 $3,325 $3,939 $4,339 Citigroup ..................................... 526 5 351 358 482 450 727 952 JP Morgan ................................... 940 432 667 1,464 1,705 1,982 2,332 3,332 Wells Fargo ................................. 927 402 382 370 1,033 1,263 1,375 1,331
Total ............................................ $4,293 $1,365 $2,648 $3,064 $6,727 $7,020 $8,373 $9,954 239 Id. at 10.
GSE Put-backs As of June 2010, 63 percent of foreclosures occurred on homes
where the loan was either owned or guaranteed by government in-vestors such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, while the remaining 37 percent of foreclosures were on homes owned by private inves-tors.240 A large portion of these loans were originated and sold by
VerDate Mar 15 2010 02:17 Dec 02, 2010 Jkt 061835 PO 00000 Frm 00060 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A835.XXX A835tjam
es o
n D
SK
G8S
OY
B1P
RO
D w
ith R
EP
OR
TS
55
percent in June 2010. The same dichotomy is seen in the number of loans in the process of fore-closure. As of June 2010, 2.3 percent of loans owned or guaranteed by the GSEs were in the foreclosure process, whereas 8.0 percent of loans owned by private investors were classified as such. Staff calculations derived from Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and Office of Thrift Supervision, OCC and OTS Mortgage Metrics Report: Second Quarter 2010, at Tables 9, 10, 11 (Sept. 2010) (online at www.ots.treas.gov/_files/490019.pdf) (hereinafter ‘‘OCC and OTS Mortgage Metrics Report’’); Foreclosure completion information provided by OCC/OTS in re-sponse to Panel request.
241 Credit Suisse on Mounting Mortgage Issues, supra note 223. 242 Standard & Poor’s on the Impact of Mortgage Troubles on U.S. Banks, supra note 106, at
2. 243 Bank of America Presentation at BancAnalysts Association of Boston Conference, supra
note 236, at 12. 244 Bank of America Presentation at BancAnalysts Association of Boston Conference, supra
note 236, at 12 (‘‘We estimate we are roughly two-thirds through with GSE claims on 2004– 2008 vintages.’’).
245 JPM Presentation at BancAnalysts Association of Boston Conference, supra note 217, at 22 (‘‘More recent additions to 90 DPD [days past due] have longer histories of payment; we be-lieve loans going delinquent after 24 months of origination are at lower risk of repurchase.’’).
246 JPM Presentation at BancAnalysts Association of Boston Conference, supra note 217, at 24 (‘‘45% of losses-to-date from loans that paid for 25+ months before delinquency’’); Bank of America Merrill Lynch, R&W: Investor hurdles mitigate impact; GSE losses peaking (Nov. 8, 2010) (‘‘Delinquency after 2 years of timely payment materially reduces the likelihood of repur-
Continued
the nation’s largest banks. As Figure 10 illustrates, the nation’s four largest banks sold a total of $3.1 trillion in loans to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac from 2005–2008.
FIGURE 10: LOANS SOLD TO FANNIE MAE AND FREDDIE MAC, 2005–2008 241
GSEs have already forced banks to repurchase $12.4 billion in mortgages.242 Bank of America, which has the largest loan portfolio in comparison to its peers, has received a total of $18.0 billion in representation and warranty claims from the GSEs on 2004–2008 vintages. Of this total, Bank of America has resolved $11.4 billion, incurring $2.5 billion in associated losses.243 However, the bank be-lieves that it has turned the corner in terms of new repurchase re-quests from the GSEs.244 Further, the passage of time is appar-ently on the banks’ side here, as JPMorgan Chase noted that breaches of representations and warranties generally occur within 24 months of the loan being originated.245 JPMorgan Chase noted that delinquencies or foreclosures on loans aged more than two years generally reflect economic hardship of the borrower.246
VerDate Mar 15 2010 02:17 Dec 02, 2010 Jkt 061835 PO 00000 Frm 00061 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A835.XXX A835 Inse
rt of
fset
folio
72
here
618
35C
.004
tjam
es o
n D
SK
G8S
OY
B1P
RO
D w
ith R
EP
OR
TS
56
chase from GSEs (or others, for that matter), since the likelihood of default being caused by origination problems is much lower; instead, default was likely triggered by loss of employment, decline in home value, and the like.’’).
247 Standard & Poor’s on the Impact of Mortgage Troubles on U.S. Banks, supra note 106, at 4.
248 Standard & Poor’s on the Impact of Mortgage Troubles on U.S. Banks, supra note 106, at 4. (‘‘[W]e believe that the representation and warranties were not standard across all private- label securities and may have provided differing levels of protection to investors. They do not appear to have the same basis on which to ask the banks to buy back the loans because the banks did not, in our view, make similar promises in the representation and warranties.’’).
249 As of June 2010, the OCC/OTS reports that 11.4 percent of the Alt-A and 19.4 percent of the subprime loans it services are classified as seriously delinquent as compared to an overall rate of 6.2 percent. OCC and OTS Mortgage Metrics Report, supra note 240. Also, for example, JPMorgan Chase noted that 41 percent and 32 percent of its private-label subprime and Alt- A securities, respectively, issued between 2005 and 2008 had been 90 days or more past due at one point as compared to only 13 percent of its prime mortgages. JPM Presentation at BancAnalysts Association of Boston Conference, supra note 217, at 24 .
250 Bank of America Presentation at BancAnalysts Association of Boston Conference, supra note 236.
251 As part of its MBS purchase program, the Federal Reserve currently owns approximately $1.1 trillion of agency MBS. Due to the nature of the government guarantee attached to agency MBS, loans that are over 120 days past due are automatically bought back at par by the govern-ment agencies such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that guaranteed them. Therefore the Fed-eral Reserve’s $1.1 trillion in MBS holdings do not pose a direct put-back risk to the banking industry, however, if the loans are bought back by the agency guarantors, these agencies have the right to take action against the entities that originally sold the loans if there were breaches
Private-Label Put-backs In comparison with the GSEs, private-label investors do not ben-
efit from the same degree of protection through the representations and warranties common in the agency PSAs.247 There were, how-ever, representations and warranties in private-label securities that, if violated, could provide an outlet for mortgage put-backs. In theory, systemic breaches in these securities could prove a bigger and potentially more problematic exposure, although market ob-servers have cited logistical impediments to centralizing claims, in addition to the higher hurdles necessary to put-back securities suc-cessfully to the banks.248 Since the majority of subprime and Alt- A originators folded during the crisis, the bulk of the litigation is directed at the underwriters and any large, surviving originators. Thus far, however, subprime and Alt-A repurchase requests have been slow to materialize. Relative to subprime and Alt-A loans, jumbo loans to higher-net borrowers—which were in turn sold to private label investors—have performed substantially better.249
Bank of America offers a window into the comparatively slow rate at which private-label securities have been put-back to banks. Between 2004 and 2008, Bank of America sold approximately $750 billion of loans to parties other than the GSEs.250 As of October 2010, Bank of America received $3.9 billion in repurchase requests from private-label and whole-loan investors. To date, Bank of America has rescinded $1.9 billion in private-label and whole-loan put-back claims and approved $1.0 billion for repurchase, with an estimated loss of $600 million.
This level of actual put-back requests highlights the difficulty in maneuvering the steps necessary to put-back a loan, which begins with a group of investors in the same security or tranche of a secu-rity banding together to request access to the underlying loan docu-ments. For example, the group of investors petitioning for paper-work relating to $47 billion in Bank of America loans remain a number of steps away from being in a position to request formally a put-back.251 Figure 11, below, illustrates the dollar amount of
VerDate Mar 15 2010 02:17 Dec 02, 2010 Jkt 061835 PO 00000 Frm 00062 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A835.XXX A835tjam
es o
n D
SK
G8S
OY
B1P
RO
D w
ith R
EP
OR
TS
57
or violations. The Federal Reserve Bank of New York also owns private-label RMBS in its Maid-en Lane vehicles created under its 13(3) authority.
FRBNY’s holdings of private-label RMBS are concentrated in the Maiden Lane II vehicle cre-ated as part of the government’s intervention in American International Group (AIG). As of June 30, 2010, the fair value of private-label RMBS in Maiden Lane II was $14.8 billion. The sector distribution of Maiden Lane II was 54.6 percent subprime, 30.8 percent Alt-A adjustable rate mortgage (ARM), 6.8 percent option ARM, and the remainder was classified as ‘‘other.’’ The $47 billion action that FRBNY joined involves only the private-label RMBS it holds in the Maid-en Lane vehicles, and is primarily localized within Maiden Lane II. FRBNY staff conversations with Panel staff (Oct. 26, 2010); Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System staff con-versations with Panel staff (Nov. 10, 2010); Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Federal Reserve System Monthly Report on Credit and Liquidity Programs and the Balance Sheet, at 19 (Oct. 2010) (online at www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/ files/ monthlyclbsreport201010.pdf) (hereinafter ‘‘Federal Reserve Report on Credit and Liquidity Pro-grams and the Balance Sheet’’); Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Factors Af-fecting Reserve Balances (H.4.1) (Nov. 12, 2010) (online at www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h41/) (hereinafter ‘‘Federal Reserve Statistical Release H.4.1’’). For more information on the Federal Reserve’s section 13(3) authority, please see 12 U.S.C. § 343 (providing that the Federal Reserve Board ‘‘may authorize any Federal reserve bank . . . to discount . . . notes, drafts, and bills of exchange’’ for ‘‘any individual, partnership, or corporation’’ if three conditions are met). See also Congressional Oversight Panel, June Oversight Report: The AIG Rescue, Its Impact on Mar-kets, and the Government’s Exit Strategy, at 79–83 (June 10, 2010) (online at cop.senate.gov/doc-uments/cop-061010-report.pdf).
252 There were no sales in 2009. Credit Suisse on Mounting Mortgage Issues, supra note 223.
non-agency loans originated by the nation’s four largest banks be-tween 2005 and 2008.
FIGURE 11: NON-AGENCY ORIGINATIONS, 2005–2008 252
Put-back Loss Estimates Losses stemming from mortgage put-backs are viewed as the big-
gest potential liability of the banking sector from the foreclosure crisis. While it is difficult to quantify the impact this issue may have on bank balance sheets, a number of analysts have compiled estimates on potential risks to the sector.
The first step in estimating the industry’s exposure is identifying the appropriate universe of loans, within the $10.6 trillion mort-gage debt market. The 2005–2008 period is the starting point for this analysis. Of the loans originated during this period, $3.7 tril-lion were sold by banks to the GSEs and $1.5 trillion were sold to
VerDate Mar 15 2010 02:17 Dec 02, 2010 Jkt 061835 PO 00000 Frm 00063 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A835.XXX A835 Inse
rt gr
aphi
c fo
lio 7
5 61
835C
.005
tjam
es o
n D
SK
G8S
OY
B1P
RO
D w
ith R
EP
OR
TS
58
253 Nomura Equity Research, Private Label Put-Back Concerns are Overdone, Private Investors Face Hurdles (Nov. 1, 2010) (hereinafter ‘‘Nomura Equity Research on Private Label Put-Back Concerns’’); Goldman Sachs, Assessing the Mortgage Morass (Oct. 15, 2010) (hereinafter ‘‘Gold-man Sachs on Assessing the Mortgage Morass’’).
254 Subsequent estimates—loan delinquencies, put-back requests, successful put-backs, and loss severity—are surveyed from the following research reports: Bernstein Research, Bank Stock Weekly: Return to Lender? Sizing Rep and Warranty Exposure (Sept. 24, 2010) (hereinafter ‘‘Bernstein Research Report on Sizing Rep and Warranty Exposure’’); Barclays Capital, Focus on Mortgage Repurchase Risk (Sept. 2, 2010); J.P. Morgan, Putbacks and Foreclosures: Fact vs. Fiction (Oct. 15, 2010) (hereinafter ‘‘Barclays Capital Research Report on Putbacks and Fore-closures’’); Goldman Sachs on Assessing the Mortgage Morass, supra note 253; Nomura Equity Research on Private Label Put-Back Concerns, supra note 253; Citigroup Global Markets, R&W Losses Manageable, but Non-Agency May be Costly Wildcard (Sept. 26, 2010) (hereinafter ‘‘Citigroup Research Report on Non-Agency Losses’’); Compass Point Research & Trading, LLC, GSE Mortgage Repurchase Risk Poses Future Headwinds: Quantifying Losses (Mar. 15, 2010); Deutsche Bank Revisits Putbacks and Securitizations, supra note 192; JPM Presentation at BancAnalysts Association of Boston Conference, supra note 217, at 26.
255 Four analyst estimates were used for the blended private-label loan losses percentage of 30%: Goldman Sachs—28%, Bernstein Research—25%, Nomura Equity Research—25%, and Credit Suisse—40%. Goldman Sachs on Assessing the Mortgage Morass, supra note 253; Nomura Equity Research on Private Label Put-Back Concerns, supra note 253; Bernstein Re-search Report on Sizing Rep and Warranty Exposure, supra note 254; Credit Suisse on Mort-gage Put-back Losses, supra note 192.
private label investors.253 Accordingly, this $5.2 trillion in agency and non-agency loans and securities sold by the banks during the 2005–2008 period is the starting point for a series of assumptions— loan delinquencies, put-back requests, successful put-backs, and loss severity—that ultimately drive estimates of potential bank losses.
The Panel has averaged published loss estimates from bank ana-lysts in order to provide a top-level illustration of the cost mortgage put-backs could inflict on bank balance sheets. The estimate below represents a baseline sample of five analyst estimates for the GSE portion and six analyst estimates for the private-label approxima-tion. Accordingly, realized losses could be significantly higher or meaningfully lower.
As outlined below, there are numerous assumptions involved in estimating potential losses from put-backs.254
• Projected Loan Losses—Delinquent or non-performing mort-gage loans provide the initial pipeline for potential mortgage put-backs. Accordingly, estimates of cumulative losses on loans issued between 2005 and 2008 govern the aggregate put-back risk of the banks. The blended estimate for GSE loans is 13 percent, and the blended private label estimate is 30 per-cent.255
• Gross Put-backs—The next step is projecting what percent-age of these delinquent or nonperforming loans holders will choose to put-back to the banks. The average estimate for gross put-backs for the GSEs is 30 percent, and private label loans is 24 percent.
• Successful Put-backs—Of these put-back requests, analysts estimate that 50 percent of GSE loans and 33 percent of pri-vate label loans are put-back successfully to the banks.
• Severity—The calculation involves the loss severity on loans that are successfully put-back to the banks (i.e., how much the banks have to pay to make the aggrieved investors whole). The blended average severity rate used by analysts for both GSE and the private label loans is 50 percent.
Using the assumptions outlined above, the estimated loss to the industry from mortgage put-backs is $52 billion (see Figure 12
VerDate Mar 15 2010 02:17 Dec 02, 2010 Jkt 061835 PO 00000 Frm 00064 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A835.XXX A835tjam
es o
n D
SK
G8S
OY
B1P
RO
D w
ith R
EP
OR
TS
59
256 This range is comprised of a number of base-case or mid-point estimates for potential losses across the industry from put-backs: Standard & Poor’s—$43 billion, Deutsche Bank—$43 billion, FBR Capital Markets—$44 billion in potential losses, Citigroup—$50.1 billion, J.P Mor-gan—$55 billion, Goldman Sachs—$71 billion, Credit Suisse—$65 billion, The Deutsche Bank estimate is for $31 billion in remaining losses, the $12 billion in realized losses thus far was added to create a consistent metric. FBR on Repurchase-Related Losses, supra note 192; Credit Suisse on Mortgage Put-back Losses, supra note 192; Deutsche Bank Revisits Putbacks and Securitizations, supra note 192; Standard & Poor’s on the Impact of Mortgage Troubles on U.S. Banks, supra note 106, at 4; Citigroup Research Report on Non-Agency Losses, supra note 254; Barclays Capital Research Report on Putbacks and Foreclosures, supra note 254; Goldman Sachs on Assessing the Mortgage Morass, supra note 253.
259 It is worth noting, however, that Bank of America and JPMorgan Chase are the more meaningful contributors, accounting for approximately 50 percent of the industry’s total pro-jected losses by analysts. The mid-point of each of these estimates was used to compute the range. Deutsche Bank Revisits Putbacks and Securitizations, supra note 192, at 7; Credit Suisse on Mounting Mortgage Issues, supra note 223; FBR on Repurchase-Related Losses, supra note 192.
260 The $11.4 billion in estimated expenses at the top four banks has been since the first quar-ter of 2009. Credit Suisse on Mortgage Put-back Losses, supra note 192, at 10.
261 Deutsche Bank Revisits Putbacks and Securitizations, supra note 192.
below). This compares to industry-wide estimates of base-case losses from mortgage put-backs of $43 billion to $65 billion.256
FIGURE 12: PUT-BACK LOSS ESTIMATES 257 [Dollars in billions]
Agency MBS Private Label MBS Total
(%) ($) (%) ($)
2005–2008 MBS Sold 258 .......................................................... $3,651 $1,358 $5,009 Projected Loan Losses ............................................................... 13 475 30 407 882 Gross Put-backs (Requests) ..................................................... 30 142 24 98 240 Successful Put-backs ................................................................ 50 71 33 32 103 Put-back Severity ...................................................................... 50 50
Total Put-back Losses ............................................................. $36 $16 $52
257 JPM Presentation at BancAnalysts Association of Boston Conference, supra note 217, at 26. 258 These figures represent the value of the MBS sold either to the GSEs or private-label investors during this period that are still currently
outstanding. Nomura Equity Research on Private Label Put-Back Concerns, supra note 253; Goldman Sachs on Assessing the Mortgage Mo-rass, supra note 253.
The estimated $52 billion would be borne predominantly by four firms (Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase, Wells Fargo, and Citigroup), accounting for the majority of the industry’s total expo-sure and projected losses.259 In the aggregate these four banks have already reserved $9.9 billion for future representations and warranties expenses, which is in addition to the $11.4 billion in ex-penses already incurred.260 Thus, of this potential liability, $21.3 billion has either been previously expensed or reserved for by the major banks.261 Given the timing associated with put-back re-quests and associated accounting recognition, it is not inconceivable that the major banks could recognize future losses over a 2–3 year period.
G. Effect of Irregularities and Foreclosure Freezes on Housing Market
1. Foreclosure Freezes and their Effect on Housing In previous reports, the Panel has noted the many undesirable
consequences that foreclosures, especially mass foreclosures, have on individuals, families, neighborhoods, local governments, and the
VerDate Mar 15 2010 02:17 Dec 02, 2010 Jkt 061835 PO 00000 Frm 00065 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A835.XXX A835tjam
es o
n D
SK
G8S
OY
B1P
RO
D w
ith R
EP
OR
TS
60
262 March 2009 Oversight Report, supra note 6, at 9–11. 263 See, e.g., Written Testimony of Julia Gordon, supra note 171, at 1–2. 264 See, e.g., Statement from Bank of America Home Loans, supra note 21. 265 See, e.g., Office of Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley, Governor Martin O’Malley, Mary-
land Congressional Delegation Request Court Intervention in Halting Foreclosures (Oct. 8, 2010) (online at www.governor.maryland.gov/pressreleases/101009b.asp).
266 See, e.g., Reid Welcomes Bank of America Decision, supra note 24; Foreclosure Moratorium: Cracking Down on Liar Liens, supra note 24.
267 March 2009 Oversight Report, supra note 6, at 62–63 (Discussing foreclosure freezes: ‘‘Again, this raises the question of whether the economic efficiency of foreclosures should be viewed in the context of individual foreclosures or in the context of the macroeconomic impact of widespread foreclosures. If the former, then caution should be exercised about foreclosure moratoria and other forms of delay to the extent it prevents efficient foreclosures. But if the latter is the proper view, then it may well be that some individually efficient foreclosures should nonetheless be prevented in order to mitigate the macroeconomic impact of mass foreclosures.’’).
268 March 2009 Oversight Report, supra note 6, at 37 (Discussing loan modification programs: ‘‘As an initial matter, however, it must be recognized that some foreclosures are not avoidable and some workouts may not be economical. This should temper expectations about the scope of any modification program.’’).
economy as a whole.262 Additionally, housing experts testifying at Panel hearings have emphasized that mass foreclosures cause dam-age to the economy and social fabric of the country.263 Certainly, the injection over the past several years of millions of foreclosed- upon homes into an already weak housing market has had a dele-terious effect on home prices. These effects are especially relevant in examining what repercussions foreclosure freezes would have on the housing market, and the advisability of such freezes.
Questions remain as to how broadly the current foreclosure irreg-ularities will affect the housing market, and the scale of the losses involved. The immediate effect of the foreclosure document irreg-ularities has been to cause many servicers to freeze all foreclosure processings, although some freezes have been temporary.264 Some states have encouraged these foreclosure freezes,265 and govern-ment-imposed, blanket freezes on all foreclosures have been under discussion.266 The housing market may not be seriously affected by the current freezes on pending foreclosures, which may actually cause home prices of unaffected homes to rise. Any foreclosure mor-atorium that is not accompanied by action to address the under-lying issues associated with mass foreclosures and the irregular-ities, however, will add delays but will not provide solutions. Be-yond the effects of the current freezes, mortgage documentation irregularities may increase home buyers’ and mortgage investors’ perceptions of risk and damage confidence and trust in the housing market, all of which may drive down home prices.
In considering the possible effects foreclosure freezes may have on the housing market, it is important to distinguish, as the Panel has in previous reports, between the effects these foreclosures and foreclosure freezes may have on individuals versus effects that are more systemic or macroeconomic, as these interests may come into conflict at times.267 The Panel has also repeatedly acknowledged that the circumstances surrounding some mortgages make fore-closure simply unavoidable.268 Additionally, the current housing market has, among other difficult problems, a severe oversupply of housing in relation to current demand, which has fallen substan-tially since the peak bubble years due to higher unemployment and other economic hardships. This fundamental supply/demand imbal-ance has driven down home prices nationwide, but especially in
VerDate Mar 15 2010 02:17 Dec 02, 2010 Jkt 061835 PO 00000 Frm 00066 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A835.XXX A835tjam
es o
n D
SK
G8S
OY
B1P
RO
D w
ith R
EP
OR
TS
61
269 The oversupply of homes can be clearly seen from ‘‘for sale’’ inventory statistics, which the Panel has discussed in previous reports. See, e.g., March 2009 Oversight Report, supra note 6, at 107–108. September 2010 for-sale housing inventory stands at 4.04 million homes, a 10.7 month supply at current sales rates, up from the 3.59 million homes representing an 8.6 month supply cited in the Panel’s April report on foreclosures. National Association of Realtors, Sep-tember Existing-Home Sales Show Another Strong Gain (Oct. 25, 2010) (online at www.realtor.org/press_room/news_releases/2010/10/sept_strong).
270 The Panel has discussed some of the pros and cons of foreclosure freezes in prior reports, but not in the context of the irregularities. March 2009 Oversight Report, supra note 6, at 61– 63.
271 March 2009 Oversight Report, supra note 6, at 61. 272 See, e.g., March 2009 Oversight Report, supra note 6, at 9–11. 273 John Campbell, Stefano Giglio, and Parag Pathak, Forced Sales and House Prices, at 10,
18, 21, Unpublished manuscript (July 2010) (online at econ-www.mit.edu/files/5694) (‘‘. . . the typical foreclosure during this period lowered the price of the foreclosed house by $44,000 and the prices of neighboring houses by a total of $477,000, for a total loss in housing value of $520,000.’’ and ‘‘Our preferred estimate of the spillover effect suggests that each foreclosure that takes place 0.05 miles away lowers the price of a house by about 1%.’’).
areas such as Nevada or Florida, where a great many new homes were constructed.269
There are numerous arguments both for and against foreclosure freezes at this time.270 Freezing foreclosures may allow time for servicers, state governments, and courts to sort out the irregularity situation and may avoid illegal or erroneous foreclosures in some cases. Voluntary, limited freezes may be sensible for particular servicers. The costs associated with a mandatory foreclosure freeze may also pressure servicers to resolve frozen foreclosures through modifications.271 Further, foreclosure freezes can temporarily re-duce the number of real estate owned by banks and pre-foreclosure homes coming to market, reducing excess supply, which can be beneficial for home prices in the short term. The longer-term con-sequences of freezes depend on the ultimate solution to the issues giving rise to the freezes.
In addition, foreclosures have many well-documented negative fi-nancial and social consequences on families and neighborhoods that might be mitigated by a foreclosure freeze.272 Vacant homes can at-tract thieves and vandals. If not maintained by the lender, prop-erties foreclosed upon and repossessed by the lender—properties also known as real-estate owned (REOs), often become eyesores, de-tracting from the appearance of the neighborhood and reducing local home values. The drop in the value of neighboring homes has been corroborated by a recent study. Although the authors found that the impact of foreclosed homes on each individual neighboring home is relatively small, these losses can amount to a considerable total loss in value to the neighborhood. Not surprisingly, the re-searchers found a more dramatic decline in value for the foreclosed home itself. The study indicated that foreclosure lowers a home’s value by an average of 27 percent, much more than other events, such as personal bankruptcy, that also lead to forced home sales. The researchers attribute these losses primarily to the urgency with which lenders dispose of REOs and to damage inflicted on va-cant, lender-owned homes.273
In addition to lowering the value of the home itself, a foreclosure affects the surrounding neighborhood, especially if the home is clearly marked with a sale sign that says ‘‘foreclosure.’’ A reduction in price from a foreclosed property can affect the values of sur-rounding homes if the low price is used as a comparable sale for valuation purposes. Even if foreclosure sales are excluded as com-
VerDate Mar 15 2010 02:17 Dec 02, 2010 Jkt 061835 PO 00000 Frm 00067 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A835.XXX A835tjam
es o
n D
SK
G8S
OY
B1P
RO
D w
ith R
EP
OR
TS
62
274 Zillow does not include foreclosure data in its home price estimates; however, a person can click on a home, including foreclosed homes, and see its sales price.
275 See, e.g., Vicki Bean, Ingrid Gould Ellen, et al., Kids and Foreclosures: New York City (Sept. 2010) (online at steinhardt.nyu.edu/scmsAdmin/media/users/lah431/Fore-closures_and_Kids_Policy_Brief_Sept_2010.pdf); Vanesa Estrada Correa, The Housing Downturn and Racial Inequality, Policy Matters, Vol. 3, No. 2 (Fall 2009) (online at www.policymatters.ucr.edu/pmatters-vol3-2-housing.pdf).
276 Congressional Oversight Panel, Testimony of Julia Gordon, senior policy council, Center for Responsible Lending, Transcript: COP Hearing on TARP Foreclosure Mitigation Programs (Oct. 27, 2010) (publication forthcoming) (online at cop.senate.gov/hearings/library/hearing-102710- foreclosure.cfm) (‘‘African American and Latino families are much more likely than whites to lose their homes, and we estimate that communities of color will lose over $360 billion worth of wealth.’’).
277 First American CoreLogic, ‘‘Shadow Housing Inventory’’ Put At 1.7 Million in 3Q According to First American CoreLogic (Dec. 17, 2009) (online at www.facorelogic.com/uploadedFiles/News-room/RES_in_the_News/FACL_Shadow_Inventory_121809.pdf); Laurie Goodman, Robert Hunter, et al., Amherst Securities Group LP, Amherst Mortgage Insight: Housing Overhang/ Shadow Inventory = Enormous Problem, at 1 (Sept. 23, 2009) (online at ma-trix.millersamuel.com/wp-content/3q09/Amherst%20Mortgage%20Insight%2009232009.pdf).
278 James J. Saccacio, chief executive officer of the online foreclosure marketplace RealtyTrac, expects that ‘‘if the lenders can resolve the documentation issue quickly, then we would expect the temporary lull in foreclosure activity to be followed by a parallel spike in activity as many of the delayed foreclosures move forward in the foreclosure process. However, if the documenta-tion issue cannot be quickly resolved and expands to more lenders we could see a chilling effect on the overall housing market as sales of pre-foreclosure and foreclosed properties, which ac-count for nearly one-third of all sales, dry up and the shadow inventory of distressed properties grows—causing more uncertainty about home prices.’’ RealtyTrac, Foreclosure Activity Increases 4 Percent in Third Quarter (Oct. 14, 2010) (online at www.realtytrac.com/content/press-releases/ q3-2010-and-september-2010-foreclosure-reports-6108) (hereinafter ‘‘RealtyTrac Press Release on Foreclosure Activity’’).
parable sales from appraisals, as is often the case, these sale prices are readily accessible public information. For example, considering the popularity of real estate sites such as Zillow and Trulia that show home sale prices, buyers can easily see these low foreclosure sale prices and are likely to reduce their offers accordingly.274 Fur-thermore, as Julia Gordon of the Center for Responsible Lending and several academic studies observe,275 minority communities are disproportionately affected by foreclosures and their con-sequences.276 These negative externalities from foreclosures are borne not by any of the parties to the mortgage, but by the neigh-bors and the community, who are innocent bystanders.
One of the most common arguments against foreclosure freezes concerns the effect that freezes could have on shadow inventory— properties likely to be sold in the near future that are not currently on the market, and are therefore not counted in supply inventory statistics. A prolonged freeze on foreclosures without a diminution in the number of homes in foreclosure would add to the already substantial problem of shadow inventory. Of course, increased shadow inventory can be addressed either by foreclosing and sell-ing the homes, or by creating circumstances that allow current homeowners to stay in their homes. Although there are no reliable measures (or definitions) of shadow inventory, estimates range from 1.7 million to 7 million homes.277 These homes represent ad-ditional supply that the market will eventually have to accommo-date, so long as the homes are not removed from the shadow inven-tory due to circumstances such as loan modifications or an im-provement in the financial condition of borrowers.278
Beyond shadow inventory, foreclosure sales consist of sales of homes immediately prior to foreclosure and sales of REOs. In the 12 months between September 2009 and August 2010, 4.13 million existing homes were sold in the United States, approximately 30
VerDate Mar 15 2010 02:17 Dec 02, 2010 Jkt 061835 PO 00000 Frm 00068 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A835.XXX A835tjam
es o
n D
SK
G8S
OY
B1P
RO
D w
ith R
EP
OR
TS
63
279 National Association of Realtors, Existing-Home Sales Move Up in August (Sept. 23, 2010) (online at www.realtor.org/press_room/news_releases/2010/09/ehs_move); HOPE Now Alliance, Appendix—Mortgage Loss Mitigation Statistics: Industry Extrapolations (Monthly for Dec 2008 to Nov 2009) (online at www.hopenow.com/industry-data/ HOPE%20NOW%20National%20Data%20July07%20to%20Nov09%20v2%20(2).pdf); HOPE Now Alliance, Industry Extrapolations and Metrics (May 2010) (online at www.hopenow.com/industry- data/HOPE%20NOW%20Data%20Report%20(May)%2006-21-2010.pdf); HOPE Now Alliance, In-dustry Extrapolations and Metrics (Aug. 2010) (online at hopenow.com/industry-data/ HOPE%20NOW%20Data%20Report%20(August)%2010-05-2010%20v2b.pdf).
280 RealtyTrac Press Release on Foreclosure Activity, supra note 278. 281 MBA National Delinquency Survey, Q2 2010, supra note 199. See also MBA Press Release
on Delinquencies and Foreclosure Starts, supra note 199. 282 Zach Fox, Credit Suisse: $1 Trillion worth of ARMs still face resets, SNL Financial (Feb.
25, 2010). The Panel addressed the impact of interest rate resets in its April 2010 Report on foreclosures. Congressional Oversight Panel, April Oversight Report: Evaluating Progress of TARP Foreclosure Mitigation Programs, at 111–115, 123 (Apr. 14, 2010) (online at cop.senate.gov/documents/cop-041410-report.pdf) (hereinafter ‘‘April 2010 Ovesright Report’’).
283 Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac would be impacted directly by a freeze because they would have to continue advancing coupon payments to bondholders while not receiving any revenue from disposal of foreclosed properties, upon which they are already not receiving mortgage pay-ments. These costs would almost certainly be borne by taxpayers, and depending on the dura-tion of the freeze and how the housing market responds to it, they could be substantial.
Press reports and Panel staff discussions with industry sources have indicated that, as part of an effort to restart foreclosures, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were until recently negotiating an indemnification agreement with servicers and title insurers. This would have been along the lines of the recent agreement between Bank of America and Fidelity National Financial, men-tioned above in Section C, in which Bank of America agreed to indemnify Fidelity National (a title insurer) for losses incurred due to servicer errors. However, industry sources stated that the GSEs had recently cooled to this effort. Industry sources conversations with Panel staff (Nov. 9, 2010); Nick Timiraos, Fannie, Freddie Seek End to Freeze, Wall Street Journal (Oct. 23, 2010) (online at online.wsj.com/article/ SB10001424052702304354104575568621229952944.html); see also Statement from Bank of America Home Loans, supra note 16.
284 Third Way Domestic Policy Memo on the Case Against a Foreclosure Moratorium, supra note 227.
285 See Section F.2, supra.
percent of which were foreclosure sales.279 Further, lenders are es-timated to own 290,000 properties as REOs.280 Currently, approxi-mately 2 million homes, or 4.6 percent of all mortgaged properties, are classified as in the foreclosure process. Another 2 million, or 4.5 percent of mortgaged properties, are more than 90 days past due.281 The level of foreclosures is, further, expected to rise: more than $1 trillion in adjustable-rate mortgages are expected to expe-rience interest rate resets between 2010 and 2012, an event that is positively correlated with delinquency and foreclosure.282 Fore-closure sales therefore represent a very substantial portion of hous-ing market activity, with many more foreclosures either in the pipeline or likely to enter the pipeline in the coming years.
Opponents of mandatory foreclosure freezes have also argued that a widespread freeze would encourage defaults by eliminating the negative consequences of default; that foreclosure freezes are bad for mortgage investors (including taxpayers, as owners of the GSEs) 283 because they reduce investment returns by delaying the payment of foreclosure sale proceeds; and that they would dis-proportionately harm smaller banks and credit unions, which are heavily invested in home mortgages.284 Further, when smaller banks and credit unions service loans, payments to investors on non-performing loans must come from significantly smaller cash cushions than they do for the largest banks and servicers.285 James Lockhart, former regulator of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, has stated that freezes will also extend the time that homes in fore-closure proceedings will be left vacant, with attendant negative ef-
VerDate Mar 15 2010 02:17 Dec 02, 2010 Jkt 061835 PO 00000 Frm 00069 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A835.XXX A835tjam
es o
n D
SK
G8S
OY
B1P
RO
D w
ith R
EP
OR
TS
64
286 Bloomberg News, Interview with WL Ross & Co.’s James Lockhart (Oct. 27, 2010) (online at www.bloomberg.com/video/64040362/).
287 JPMorgan Chase estimates that approximately one-third of the homes upon which it fore-closes are already vacant by the time the foreclosure process commences. Stephen Meister, Foreclosuregate is Quickly Spinning Out of Control, RealClearMarkets (Oct. 22, 2010) (online at www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2010/10/22/foreclosure- gate_is_quickly_spinning_out_of_control.html). Similarly, there are reports about a type of stra-tegic default, commonly known as ‘‘jingle mail,’’ where the delinquent borrower vacates the home and mails the servicer the keys in the hope that the servicer will accept the act as a deed- in-lieu-of-foreclosure, or simply to get the foreclosure process over with.
288 David H. Stevens, commissioner, Federal Housing Administration, Remarks at the Mort-gage Bankers Association Annual Convention, at 7, 20 (Oct. 26, 2010).
fects on the surrounding neighborhood.286 Such cases would pre-sumably involve already vacant, foreclosed-upon homes, and homes with impending or ongoing foreclosure proceedings where the bor-rower has chosen to vacate early, as occasionally happens.287
2. Foreclosure Irregularities and the Crisis of Confidence The apparently widespread nature of the foreclosure irregular-
ities that have come to light has the potential to reduce public trust substantially in the entire real estate industry, especially in the legitimacy of important legal documents and the good faith of other market participants. Under these circumstances, either buy-ing or lending on a home will appear to be substantially more risky than before. If buyers suspect that homes, especially foreclosed homes, may have unknown title and legal problems, they may be less likely to buy, or at least they may lower their offers to account for the increased risks. Since foreclosure sales currently account for such a large portion of market activity, in the absence of solutions that reduce foreclosures, a reduction in demand for previously fore-closed-upon properties would have negative effects on the overall housing market. David Stevens, commissioner of the Federal Hous-ing Administration, recently noted that the mortgage industry now faces an ‘‘enormous trust deficit’’ that risks ‘‘scaring’’ off an entire generation of young people from homeownership.288
Similar dynamics may impact the availability and cost of mort-gages as well, as mortgage investors, who provide the capital that ultimately supports home prices, reassess their perceptions of risk. The exposure of foreclosure irregularities has raised a host of po-tential risks for investors, such as the possibility that MBS trusts may not actually own the underlying loans they claim to own, that servicers may not be able to foreclose upon delinquent borrowers and thus recover invested capital, that borrowers who have already been foreclosed upon may sue, or that other currently unknown li-ability issues exist. These new risks could cause some mortgage in-vestors to look for safer alternative investments or to increase their investment return requirements to compensate for the increased risks. With wary investors making less capital available for mort-gages, and reevaluating the risk of residential lending, mortgage interest rates could rise, in turn decreasing the affordability of homes and depressing home prices, as the same monthly payment now supports a smaller mortgage.
Additionally, both the foreclosure freezes and the legal wrangling between homeowners, servicers, title companies, and investors that appears inevitable at this point, and in the absence of a solution to the problem of mass foreclosures could extend the time it will
VerDate Mar 15 2010 02:17 Dec 02, 2010 Jkt 061835 PO 00000 Frm 00070 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A835.XXX A835tjam
es o
n D
SK
G8S
OY
B1P
RO
D w
ith R
EP
OR
TS
65
289 Cf. The White House, Press Briefing (Oct. 12, 2010) (online at www.whitehouse.gov/the- press-office/2010/10/12/press-briefing-press-secretary-robert-gibbs-10122010) (‘‘We also have pointed out, though, that the idea of a national moratorium would impact the recovery in the housing sector, as anybody that wished to enter into a contract or execute a contract to purchase a home that had previously been foreclosed on, that process stops. That means houses and neighborhoods remain empty even if there are buyers ready, willing and able to do so.’’).
290 In prior reports, the Panel has acknowledged that the delays caused by foreclosure freezes create additional costs for servicers, but also have possibly beneficial effects for borrowers. March 2009 Oversight Report, supra note 6, at 61–63.
291 Mortgage lenders who make loans on formerly foreclosed homes where the legal ownership of the property is uncertain due to foreclosure irregularities risk the possibility that other credi-tors could come forward with competing claims to the collateral.
292 Servicers of GSE mortgages are required to participate in HAMP for their GSE portfolios. Servicers of non-GSE mortgages may elect to sign a Servicer Participation Agreement in order to participate in the program. Once an agreement has been signed, the participating servicer must evaluate all mortgages under HAMP unless the participation contract is terminated. See Congressional Oversight Panel, October Oversight Report: An Assessment of Foreclosure Mitiga-tion Efforts After Six Months, at 44–45 (Oct. 9, 2009) (online at cop.senate.gov/documents/cop- 100909-report.pdf).
take for the inventory of homes for sale to be cleared from the sys-tem, and thus could potentially delay the recovery of the housing market.289 Further, general uncertainty about the scope of these problems and how they will be addressed by market participants and governments could have a chilling effect on both home sales and mortgage investment, as people adopt a ‘‘wait and see’’ atti-tude. On the other hand, some delay could be beneficial in that it would provide the time necessary to arrive at a more comprehen-sive solution to the many complex issues involved in, or underlying, this situation.290
The recent and developing nature of the foreclosure irregularities means that predicting their effects, as well as those of any result-ing foreclosure freezes, on the housing market necessarily involves a high degree of speculation. Actual housing market movements will depend on, among other things, the scope and severity of the foreclosure irregularities, the resolution of various legal issues, gov-ernment actions, and on the reactions of homeowners, home buy-ers, servicers, and mortgage investors. It seems clear, however, that the many unknowns, uncertain solutions, and potential liabil-ity for fraud greatly add to the risk inherent in owning or lending on affected homes.291
H. Impact on HAMP
HAMP is a nationwide mortgage modification program estab-lished in 2009, using TARP funds, as an answer to the growing foreclosure problem. HAMP is designed to provide a mortgage modification to homeowners in those cases in which modification, from the perspective of the mortgage holder, is an economically preferable outcome to foreclosure. The program provides financial incentives to servicers to modify mortgages for homeowners at risk of default, and incentives for the beneficiaries of these modifica-tions to stay current on their mortgage payments going forward.292 Participation in the program by servicers is on a voluntary basis. Once a servicer is in HAMP, though, if a borrower meets certain eligibility criteria, participating servicers must run a test, known as a net present value (NPV) test, to evaluate whether a fore-closure or a loan modification would yield a higher value. If the value of the modified mortgage is greater than the potential fore-
VerDate Mar 15 2010 02:17 Dec 02, 2010 Jkt 061835 PO 00000 Frm 00071 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A835.XXX A835tjam
es o
n D
SK
G8S
OY
B1P
RO
D w
ith R
EP
OR
TS
66
293 Written Testimony of Phyllis Caldwell, supra note 142, at 1. 294 Testimony of Phyllis Caldwell, supra note 143. 295 Treasury conversations with Panel staff (Oct. 21, 2010). 296 Testimony of Phyllis Caldwell, supra note 143 (‘‘KAUFMAN: So you’re not sending anyone
out to actually find out whether they hold the mortgages? . . . [O]r any kind of physical (ph) follow-up on the fact that there are mortgages out there—do they actually have the mortgages and they actually have title to the land that they are trying to foreclose on? CALDWELL: At this point, we are supporting all of the agencies that are doing investigations of those servicers, including the GSEs, and are monitoring closely, and will take follow-up action when there are facts that we get from those reviews. KAUFMAN: So . . . Treasury’s not doing anything inde-pendently to determine that mortgages modified under HAMP have all necessary loan docu-mentation and a clear chain of title? You’re just taking the word of the people—of the folks at the banks and financial institutions you’re dealing with that they do have a—they have loan documentation and a clear chain of title? . . . CALDWELL: . . . I think that . . . it’s an impor-tant issue and something that . . . at least at this point in time . . . we’re looking at the fore-closure prevention process separate from the actual foreclosure sale process. And to modify a mortgage, there is not a need to have clear title. . . . you need information from the note, but you don’t need a physical note to modify a mortgage.’’). See also Treasury conversations with Panel staff (Oct. 21, 2010).
297 Testimony of Phyllis Caldwell, supra note 143. 298 Treasury conversations with Panel staff (Oct. 21, 2010). 299 Testimony of Phyllis Caldwell, supra note 143.
closure value, then the servicer must offer the borrower a modifica-tion.
Treasury asserts that the foreclosure irregularities have no direct impact on HAMP. With regard to false affidavits, Phyllis Caldwell, chief of Treasury’s Homeownership Preservation Office, noted that HAMP is a foreclosure-prevention program and therefore is sepa-rate from the actual foreclosure sale process. As a result, HAMP ‘‘is not directly affected by ‘robo-signers’ or false affidavits filed with state courts.’’ 293
With regard to the issues around the transfer of ownership of the mortgage, Ms. Caldwell testified that ‘‘to modify a mortgage, there is not a need to have clear title.’’ 294 In addition, Treasury stated that it has not reviewed mortgage ownership transfer issues be-cause the modifications are private contracts between the servicer and the borrower.295 Perhaps as a result, Treasury is not doing anything independently to determine if the mortgages the servicers in HAMP are modifying have been properly transferred into the trusts the servicers represent. It is supporting other agencies in their efforts, but is taking no action on its own.296 According to Ms. Caldwell, there is an ‘‘assumption that the servicer is following the laws. [ . . .] If we learn something after the fact that contradicts that, we do have the ability to go in and claw back the incen-tive.’’ 297 Treasury echoed this opinion in conversations with Panel staff.298
The Panel questions Treasury’s position that HAMP is unaffected by the foreclosure irregularities. Although it is difficult to assess the exact consequences of the foreclosure documentation crisis on HAMP at this point, there are several strong potential links which Treasury should carefully consider. For example, if trusts have not properly received ownership of the mortgage, they may not be the legal owner of the mortgage. If the trust does not own the mort-gage, the servicer cannot foreclose on it, and HAMP, a foreclosure prevention program, is paying incentives to parties with no legal right to foreclose. At present, Treasury has no way to determine if such payments are being made.299 Treasury may well be paying in-centives to servicers that have no right to receive them.
Treasury has justified its relative inaction by noting that if own-ership of the mortgage has not been properly transferred, the legal
VerDate Mar 15 2010 02:17 Dec 02, 2010 Jkt 061835 PO 00000 Frm 00072 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A835.XXX A835tjam
es o
n D
SK
G8S
OY
B1P
RO
D w
ith R
EP
OR
TS
67
300 Treasury conversations with Panel staff (Oct. 21, 2010). 301 Treasury conversations with Panel staff (Oct. 21, 2010). 302 Written Testimony of Katherine Porter, supra note 14, at 8. 303 It is unclear what would happen if the true owner were also in HAMP. Under the HAMP
standards, the individual servicer should not matter, and a loan that qualified for a modification with one servicer should qualify with another. The borrower, however, might have to reapply for a modification and enter a new trial modification. It is also possible that Treasury could fa-cilitate the transfer and not require a borrower to reapply.
304 Testimony of Phyllis Caldwell, supra note 143. 305 See Sections D and F, supra.
owner will eventually appear, and at that time, Treasury can claw back any incentive payments made to the wrong party.300 Such a solution, however, may not be feasible. It optimistically assumes that legal owners will be able to identify clearly the mortgages they own, despite all of the potential litigation and complex transactions many mortgages have been part of, and then navigate the bureauc-racy to bring the matter before Treasury. Inevitably, not all legal owners will manage this, in which case Treasury will be giving money to parties that are not entitled to it. Moreover, if this is oc-curring, even in cases where the legal owners do come forward, Treasury is essentially providing interest-free loans to the wrong parties in the meantime. In addition, Treasury’s inactivity may give rise to a double standard in which borrowers must provide ex-tensive documentation before benefiting from HAMP, while servicers are allowed public money without having to prove their right to foreclose.
In addition, although Treasury maintains that HAMP is unaf-fected by transfer of mortgage ownership issues because modifica-tions are private contracts between servicers and borrowers,301 a servicer cannot modify a loan unless it is authorized to do so by the mortgage’s actual owner.302 If legal owners then begin to come forward, as Treasury is relying on them to do in order to clarify in-centive payments, the legal owners will not be bound by the modi-fications.303 Abruptly, borrowers would no longer benefit from the reduced interest rates of a HAMP modification. As a result, the length of time that a modification provides a borrower to recover and become current on payment, which Treasury cites as one of HAMP’s principal successes,304 would be cut short. Indeed, bor-rowers may even suffer penalties for not having been paying the monthly payments required prior to the modification.
Another concern involves how HAMP servicers have been calcu-lating the costs of foreclosure under the program’s NPV test. Fore-closures carry significant costs leading up to the acquisition of a property’s title. If, by cutting corners in the foreclosure process, servicers were able to lower the cost of foreclosure artificially, their own internal cost comparison analysis might have differed from the official NPV analysis. In such instances, servicers would have an incentive to lose paperwork or otherwise deny modifications that they would be compelled to make under the program standards.
Conversely, foreclosure irregularities could have the perverse ef-fect of encouraging servicers to modify more loans through HAMP. If foreclosure irregularities lead to additional litigation and delays in foreclosure proceedings, they will increase the costs of fore-closure.305 Treasury may then update the HAMP NPV model to re-flect these new realities. With the costs of foreclosure higher, the
VerDate Mar 15 2010 02:17 Dec 02, 2010 Jkt 061835 PO 00000 Frm 00073 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A835.XXX A835tjam
es o
n D
SK
G8S
OY
B1P
RO
D w
ith R
EP
OR
TS
68
NPV model will find more modifications to be NPV-positive, result-ing in more HAMP modifications.
I. Conclusion
Allegations of documentation irregularities remain in flux, and their consequences remain uncertain. The best-case scenario, a pos-sibility embraced by the financial services industry, is that current concerns over foreclosure irregularities are overblown, reflecting mere clerical errors that can and will be resolved quickly. If this view proves correct, then the irregularities might be fixed with lit-tle to no impact on HAMP or financial stability.
The worst-case scenario, a possibility predominantly articulated by homeowners and plaintiffs’ lawyers, is considerably grimmer. In this view, the irregularities reflect extensive misbehavior on the part of banks and loan servicers that extends throughout the entire securitization process. Such problems could throw into question the enforceability of legal rights related to ownership of many loans that have been pooled and securitized. Given that 4.2 million home-owners are currently in default and facing potential foreclosure, in-cluding 729,000 who have been rejected from HAMP, the implica-tions for the foreclosure market alone would be immense. Much larger, of course, would be the implications of such irregularities for the broader market in MBS, which totals $7.6 trillion in value. Losses related to documentation issues could be compounded by losses related to MBS investors exercising put-back rights due to poor underwriting of securitized loans.
Several investigations of irregularities are now underway, includ-ing a review by the 50 states’ attorneys general; an investigation by the Federal Fraud Enforcement Task Force; an effort to review documentation for certain Countrywide loans led by PIMCO, BlackRock, and FRBNY; and numerous other inquiries by private investors. These and similar efforts may ultimately uncover the full extent of irregularities in mortgage loan originations, transfers, and foreclosures, but the final picture may not emerge for some time if these actions founder in protracted litigation.
In the meantime, the Panel raises several concerns that policy-makers should carefully consider as these issues evolve.
Treasury Should Monitor Closely the Impact of Fore-closure Irregularities. Treasury so far has expressed relatively little concern that foreclosure irregularities could reflect deeper problems that would pose a threat to financial stability. According to Phyllis Caldwell, Chief of the Homeownership Preservation Of-fice for Treasury, ‘‘We’re very closely monitoring any litigation risk to see if there is any systemic threat, but at this point, there’s no indication that there is [any threat].’’ This statement appears pre-mature. Potential threats are by definition those that have not yet fully materialized, but their risks remain real. Despite assurances by banks and Treasury to the contrary, great uncertainty remains as to whether the stability of banks and the housing market might be at risk if the legal underpinnings of the real estate market should come into question. Treasury should closely monitor these issues as they develop, both for the sake of its foreclosure mitiga-tion programs and for the overall health of the banking system, and Treasury should report its findings to the public and to Con-
VerDate Mar 15 2010 02:17 Dec 02, 2010 Jkt 061835 PO 00000 Frm 00074 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A835.XXX A835tjam
es o
n D
SK
G8S
OY
B1P
RO
D w
ith R
EP
OR
TS
69
gress. Further, Treasury should develop contingency plans to pre-pare for the potential worst-case scenario.
Treasury and the Federal Reserve Should Stress Test Banks to Evaluate Their Ability to Weather a Crisis Related to Mortgage Irregularities. The potential for further instability among the largest banks raises the specter of another acute crisis like the one that hit the markets in the autumn of 2008. If inves-tors come to doubt the entire process underlying securitizations, they may grow unwilling to lend money to even the largest banks without implicit or explicit assurances that taxpayers will bear any losses. Further, banks could, in the worst-case scenario, suffer se-vere direct capital losses due to put-backs. Bank of America holds $230.5 billion in equity, yet the PIMCO and FRBNY action alone could ultimately seek up to $47 billion in put-backs. If several simi-lar-sized actions were to succeed, Bank of America could suffer a major dent in its regulatory capital. In effect, a bank forced to ac-cept put-backs would be required to buy back troubled mortgage loans that in many cases had already defaulted or had been poorly underwritten. As the Panel has noted in the past, some major banks have had extensive exposure to troubled mortgage-related assets. Widespread put-backs could destabilize financial institu-tions that remain exposed and could lead to a precarious situation for those that were emerging from the crisis. Further, banks and loan servicers could be vulnerable to state-based class-action law-suits initiated by homeowners who claim to have suffered improper foreclosures. Even the prospect of such losses could damage a bank’s stock price or its ability to raise capital.
The Panel has recommended in the past that, when policymakers are faced with uncertain economic or financial conditions, they should employ ‘‘stress tests’’ as part of the regular bank super-visory process to identify possible outcomes and to measure the robustness of the financial system. Treasury and the Federal Re-serve last conducted comprehensive stress tests in 2009, but be-cause those tests predated the current concerns about documenta-tion irregularities and projected banks’ capitalization only through the end of 2010, they offer limited reassurance that major banks could survive further shocks in the months and years to come. Fed-eral banking regulators should re-run stress tests on the largest banks and on at least a sampling of smaller institutions, using re-alistic macroeconomic and housing price projections and stringent assumptions about realistic worst-case scenario bank losses. Any assumptions about the ultimate costs of documentation irregular-ities would be necessarily speculative and the contours of the prob-lem are still murky. Stress tests may therefore need to account for a wide range of possibilities and acknowledge their own limitations. Such testing, however, would nonetheless illuminate the robustness of the financial system and help prepare for a worst-case scenario.
Policymakers Should Evaluate System-Wide Consequences of Documentation Irregularities. As disturbing as the potential implications of documentation irregularities may be for ‘‘too big to fail’’ banks, the consequences would not be limited to the largest banks in the market. Among other concerns:
• Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Present Significant Risks. Already Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac play an enormous role
VerDate Mar 15 2010 02:17 Dec 02, 2010 Jkt 061835 PO 00000 Frm 00075 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A835.XXX A835tjam
es o
n D
SK
G8S
OY
B1P
RO
D w
ith R
EP
OR
TS
70
in the market for MBS. If investors develop new concerns about the safety of the MBS market, then Fannie and Freddie—backed by their government guarantee—could be forced to maintain or even expand their dominant role for years to come. Because the American people ultimately stand behind every guarantee made by these companies, the result could be greater and prolonged financial risk to taxpayers.
• Homeowners May Lose Confidence in the Housing Mar-ket. Buyers and sellers, in foreclosure or otherwise, may find themselves unable to know with any certainty whether they can safely buy or safely sell a home. Widespread loss of con-fidence in clear ownership of mortgage loans would throw fur-ther sand in the gears of the already troubled housing mar-ket—especially since 31 percent of the homes currently on the market are foreclosure sales, which may already have under-gone an improper legal process.
• Public Faith in Due Process Could Suffer. If the public gains the impression that the government is providing conces-sions to large banks in order to ensure the smooth processing of foreclosures, the people’s fundamental faith in due process could suffer.
In short, actions by some of the largest financial institutions may have the potential to threaten the still-fragile economy. The risk is uncertain, but the danger is significant enough that Treasury and all other government agencies with a role to play in the mortgage market must focus on preventing another such shock.
VerDate Mar 15 2010 02:17 Dec 02, 2010 Jkt 061835 PO 00000 Frm 00076 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A835.XXX A835tjam
es o
n D
SK
G8S
OY
B1P
RO
D w
ith R
EP
OR
TS
71
306 See Appendix I of this report, infra.
SECTION TWO: CORRESPONDENCE WITH TREASURY
The Panel’s Chairman, Senator Ted Kaufman, sent a letter on behalf of the Panel on November 1, 2010 to Patricia Geoghegan, the Special Master for TARP Executive Compensation under EESA.306 The letter presents a series of questions to the Special Master, requesting additional information and data following the Panel’s October 21, 2010 hearing on TARP and executive com-pensation.
VerDate Mar 15 2010 02:17 Dec 02, 2010 Jkt 061835 PO 00000 Frm 00077 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A835.XXX A835tjam
es o
n D
SK
G8S
OY
B1P
RO
D w
ith R
EP
OR
TS
72
SECTION THREE: TARP UPDATES SINCE LAST REPORT
A. GM To Repurchase AIFP Preferred Stock
On October 27, 2010, Treasury accepted an offer by General Mo-tors Company (New GM) to repurchase 83.9 million shares of New GM’s Series A preferred stock at $25.50 per share provided that the company’s proposed initial public offering (IPO) is completed. These preferred shares were issued, along with 60.8 percent of the company’s common stock, in July 2009 in exchange for extin-guishing the debtor-in-possession loan extended to General Motors Corporation (Old GM). The repurchase price represents 102 percent of the liquidation preference. After the IPO is completed, New GM will repurchase the Series A preferred shares on the first dividend payment date of the preferred stock. Following this transaction, Treasury’s total return from New GM through debt repayments, the preferred stock repurchase, and interest and dividends will total $9.5 billion.
B. AIG: AIA Initial Public Offering and ALICO Sale
As part of its plan to repay the federal government’s outstanding investments, AIG completed an IPO for AIA Group Limited (AIA) and sold American Life Insurance Company (ALICO) to MetLife, Inc. The AIA IPO raised $20.5 billion in cash proceeds and the ALICO sale generated $16.2 billion in total proceeds. Of this amount, $7.2 billion represents cash proceeds. The $36.7 billion in aggregate proceeds will be used to pay down the outstanding bal-ance on the revolving credit facility from FRBNY.
C. Sales of Citigroup Common Stock
On October 19, 2010, Treasury began a fourth period of sales for 1.5 billion shares of Citigroup common stock. Treasury received 7.7 billion common shares in July 2009 in exchange for its initial $25 billion investment in the company under the CPP. As of October 29, 2010, Treasury has sold 4.1 billion shares (approximately fifty percent of its stake) for $16.4 billion in gross proceeds. Of this amount, approximately $13.4 billion represents a repayment for Citigroup’s CPP funding, while the remaining $3 billion represents a net profit for taxpayers. Morgan Stanley will act as Treasury’s sales agent for the fourth selling period, which will end on Decem-ber 31, 2010 or upon the sale of the full allotment of 1.5 billion shares.
D. Legacy Securities Public-Private Investments Program Quarterly Report
On October 20, 2010, Treasury released its fourth quarterly re-port on the Legacy Securities Public-Private Investments Program (PPIP). This program is intended to support market functioning and facilitate price discovery in MBS markets through equity and debt capital commitments in eight public-private investment funds (PPIFs). As of September 30, 2010, the purchasing power of these
VerDate Mar 15 2010 02:17 Dec 02, 2010 Jkt 061835 PO 00000 Frm 00078 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A835.XXX A835tjam
es o
n D
SK
G8S
OY
B1P
RO
D w
ith R
EP
OR
TS
73
307 The total purchasing power published in the PPIP quarterly report does not include the purchasing power within UST/TCW Senior Mortgage Services Fund, L.P., which was wound up and liquidated on January 4, 2010. See endnote xlvi, infra, for details on the liquidation of this fund. U.S. Department of the Treasury, Legacy Securities Public-Private Investment Program, at 3 (Oct. 20, 2010) (online at financialstability.gov/docs/External%20Report%20-%2009- 10%20vFinal.pdf).
308 Bureau of Economic Analysis, Table 1.1.6.: Real Gross Domestic Product, Chained Dollars (online at www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb/TableView.asp?SelectedTable=6&Freq=Qtr&FirstYear= 2008&LastYear=2010) (hereinafter ‘‘Bureau of Economic Analysis Table 1.1.6’’) (accessed Nov. 3, 2010). Until the year-over-year decrease from 2007 to 2008, nominal GDP had not decreased on an annual basis since 1949. Bureau of Economic Analysis, Table 1.1.5.: Gross Domestic Prod-uct (online at www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb/TableView.asp?SelectedTable=5&Freq=Qtr&First Year=2008&LastYear=2010) (accessed Nov. 3, 2010).
309 The Economics and Statistics Administration within the U.S. Department of Commerce es-timated that the spending associated with the 2010 Census would peak in the second quarter of 2010 and could boost annualized nominal and real GDP growth by 0.1 percent in the first quarter of 2010 and 0.2 percent in the second quarter of 2010. As the boost from the Census is a one-time occurrence, continuing increases in private investment and personal consumption expenditures as well as in exports will be needed to sustain the resumption of growth that has occurred in the U.S. economy over the past year. It was expected that the drop in 2010 Census spending would then reduce GDP growth by similar amounts in Q3 and Q4 2010. Economics and Statistics Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, The Impact of the 2010 Census Operations on Jobs and Economic Growth, at 8 (online at www.esa.doc.gov/02182010.pdf).
funds totaled $29.4 billion.307 Of this amount, $7.4 billion rep-resents equity commitments from private-sector fund managers and investors and $22.1 billion represents both debt and equity commitments from Treasury. The total market value of securities held by participating PPIFs was approximately $19.3 billion, with 82 percent of investments concentrated in non-agency RMBS and 18 percent in commercial mortgage-backed securities (CMBS).
To date, cumulative gross unrealized equity gains for both Treas-ury and private investors total $1.5 billion. The net internal rate of return for each PPIF is currently between 19.3 percent and 52.0 percent.
E. Metrics
Each month, the Panel’s report highlights a number of metrics that the Panel and others, including Treasury, the Government Ac-countability Office (GAO), Special Inspector General for the Trou-bled Asset Relief Program (SIGTARP), and the Financial Stability Oversight Board, consider useful in assessing the effectiveness of the Administration’s efforts to restore financial stability and accom-plish the goals of EESA. This section discusses changes that have occurred in several indicators since the release of the Panel’s Octo-ber 2010 report.
1. Macroeconomic Indices The post-crisis rate of real GDP growth quarter-over-quarter
peaked at an annual rate of 5 percent in the fourth quarter of 2009, but the rate has decreased during 2010. Real GDP increased at an annualized rate of 2.0 percent in the third quarter of 2010, increasing from 1.7 percent in the second quarter of 2010.308 The third quarter growth rate was unaffected by the spike in employ-ment resulting from the 2010 U.S. Census.309 The year-over-year increase from third quarter 2009 to third quarter 2010 was 3.1 per-cent, from 12.9 billion to 13.3 billion dollars.
VerDate Mar 15 2010 02:17 Dec 02, 2010 Jkt 061835 PO 00000 Frm 00079 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A835.XXX A835tjam
es o
n D
SK
G8S
OY
B1P
RO
D w
ith R
EP
OR
TS
74
310 Bureau of Economic Analysis Table 1.1.6, supra note 308 (accessed Nov. 3, 2010). 311 It is important to note that the measures of unemployment and underemployment do not
include people who have stopped actively looking for work altogether. While the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) does not have a distinct metric for ‘‘underemployment,’’ the U–6 category of Table A–15 ‘‘Alternative Measures of Labor Underutilization’’ is used here as a proxy. BLS de-fines this measure as: ‘‘Total unemployed, plus all persons marginally attached to the labor force, plus total employed part time for economic reasons, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus all persons marginally attached to the labor force.’’ U.S. Department of Labor, International Comparisons of Annual Labor Force Statistics (online at www.bls.gov/webapps/legacy/ cpsatab15.htm) (accessed Nov. 3, 2010).
FIGURE 13: REAL GDP 310
Since the Panel’s October report, underemployment has in-creased from 16.7 percent to 17.1 percent, while unemployment has remained constant. Median duration of unemployment has in-creased by half a week.
FIGURE 14: UNEMPLOYMENT, UNDEREMPLOYMENT, AND MEDIAN DURATION OF UNEMPLOYMENT 311
VerDate Mar 15 2010 02:17 Dec 02, 2010 Jkt 061835 PO 00000 Frm 00080 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A835.XXX A835 Inse
rt gr
aphi
c fo
lio 9
3 61
835C
.006
Inse
rt gr
aphi
c fo
lio 9
4 61
835C
.007
tjam
es o
n D
SK
G8S
OY
B1P
RO
D w
ith R
EP
OR
TS
75
312 Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, Series STLFSI: Business/Fiscal: Other Economic Indi-cators (Instrument: St. Louis Financial Stress Index, Frequency: Weekly) (online at re-search.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/STLFSI) (accessed Nov. 3, 2010). The index includes 18 weekly data series, beginning in December 1993 to the present. The series are: effective federal funds rate, 2-year Treasury, 10-year Treasury, 30-year Treasury, Baa-rated corporate, Merrill Lynch High Yield Corporate Master II Index, Merrill Lynch Asset-Backed Master BBB-rated, 10-year Treasury minus 3-month Treasury, Corporate Baa-rated bond minus 10-year Treasury, Merrill Lynch High Yield Corporate Master II Index minus 10-year Treasury, 3-month LIBOR-OIS spread, 3-month TED spread, 3-month commercial paper minus 3-month Treasury, the J.P. Mor-gan Emerging Markets Bond Index Plus, Chicago Board Options Exchange Market Volatility Index, Merrill Lynch Bond Market Volatility Index (1-month), 10-year nominal Treasury yield minus 10-year Treasury Inflation Protected Security yield, and Vanguard Financials Exchange- Traded Fund (equities). The index is constructed using principal components analysis after the data series are de-meaned and divided by their respective standard deviations to make them comparable units. The standard deviation of the index is set to 1. For more details on the con-struction of this index, see Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, National Economic Trends Appen-dix: The St. Louis Fed’s Financial Stress Index (Jan. 2010) (online at research.stlouisfed.org/pub-lications/net/NETJan2010Appendix.pdf).
2. Financial Indices
a. Overview Since the Panel’s October report, the St. Louis Financial Stress
Index, a proxy for financial stress in the U.S. economy, has contin-ued its downward trend, decreasing by a quarter.312 The index has fallen by over half since the post-crisis peak in June 2010. The re-cent trend in the index suggests that financial stress continues moving toward its long-run norm. The index has decreased by more than three standard deviations since October 2008, the month when the TARP was initiated.
FIGURE 15: ST. LOUIS FEDERAL RESERVE FINANCIAL STRESS INDEX
Stock market volatility has decreased recently. The Chicago Board Options Exchange Volatility Index (VIX) has fallen by more than half since the post-crisis peak in May 2010 and has fallen 7 percent since the Panel’s October report. However, volatility is still 40 percent higher than its post-crisis low on April 12, 2010.
VerDate Mar 15 2010 02:17 Dec 02, 2010 Jkt 061835 PO 00000 Frm 00081 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A835.XXX A835 Inse
rt gr
aphi
c fo
lio 9
5 61
835C
.008
tjam
es o
n D
SK
G8S
OY
B1P
RO
D w
ith R
EP
OR
TS
76
313 Data accessed through Bloomberg data service on November 3, 2010. The CBOE VIX is a key measure of market expectations of near-term volatility. Chicago Board Options Exchange, The CBOE Volatility Index—VIX, 2009 (online at www.cboe.com/micro/vix/vixwhite.pdf) (accessed Nov. 3, 2010).
314 Data accessed through Bloomberg data service on November 3, 2010. 317 Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Federal Reserve Statistical Release
H.15: Selected Interest Rates: Historical Data (Instrument: Conventional Mortgages, Frequency: Weekly) (online at www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h15/data/Weekly_Thursday/ H15_MORTG_NA.txt) (hereinafter ‘‘Federal Reserve Statistical Release H.15’’) (accessed Nov. 3, 2010).
FIGURE 16: CHICAGO BOARD OPTIONS EXCHANGE VOLATILITY INDEX 313
b. Interest Rates, Spreads, and Issuance As of November 3, 2010, the 3-month and 1-month London Inter-
bank Offer Rates (LIBOR), the prices at which banks lend and bor-row from each other, were 0.29 and 0.25, respectively.314 Rates have fallen by nearly half since post-crisis highs in June 2010 and have remained nearly constant since the Panel’s October report. Over the longer term, however, interest rates remain extremely low relative to pre-crisis levels, indicating both efforts of central banks and institutions’ perceptions of reduced risk in lending to other banks.
FIGURE 17: 3-MONTH AND 1-MONTH LIBOR RATES (AS OF NOVEMBER 3, 2010)
Indicator Current Rates (as of 11/3/2010)
Percent Change from Data Available at Time of Last
Report (10/4/2010)
3-Month LIBOR 315 ............................................................... 0.29 (1.6) 1-Month LIBOR 316 ............................................................... 0.25 (1.2)
315 Data accessed through Bloomberg data service on November 3, 2010. 316 Data accessed through Bloomberg data service on November 3, 2010.
Since the Panel’s October report, interest rate spreads have de-creased slightly. Thirty-year mortgage interest rates have de-creased very slightly and 10-year Treasury bond yields have in-creased very slightly. The conventional mortgage spread, which measures the 30-year mortgage rate over 10-year Treasury bond yields, has decreased slightly since late September.317
The TED spread serves as an indicator for perceived risk in the financial markets. While it has increased by about three basis points since the Panel’s October report, the spread is still currently
VerDate Mar 15 2010 02:17 Dec 02, 2010 Jkt 061835 PO 00000 Frm 00082 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A835.XXX A835 Inse
rt gr
aphi
c fo
lio 9
6 61
835C
.009
tjam
es o
n D
SK
G8S
OY
B1P
RO
D w
ith R
EP
OR
TS
77
318 Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, Measuring Perceived Risk—The TED Spread (Dec. 2008) (online at www.minneapolisfed.org/publications_papers/pub_display.cfm?id=4120).
319 Data accessed through Bloomberg data service on November 3, 2010. 320 Data accessed through Bloomberg data service on November 3, 2010. 321 Data accessed through Bloomberg data service on November 3, 2010.
lower than pre-crisis levels.318 The LIBOR–OIS spread reflects the health of the banking system. While it increased over threefold from early April to July, it has been falling since mid-July and is now averaging pre-crisis levels.319 LIBOR–OIS remained fairly con-stant since the Panel’s October report. Decreases in the LIBOR– OIS spread and the TED spread suggest that hesitation among banks to lend to counterparties has receded.
FIGURE 18: TED SPREAD 320
FIGURE 19: LIBOR–OIS SPREAD 321
The interest rate spread for AA asset-backed commercial paper, which is considered mid-investment grade, has fallen by more than a tenth since the Panel’s October report. The interest rate spread
VerDate Mar 15 2010 02:17 Dec 02, 2010 Jkt 061835 PO 00000 Frm 00083 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A835.XXX A835 Inse
rt gr
aphi
c fo
lio 9
8 61
835C
.010
Inse
rt gr
aphi
c fo
lio 9
9 61
835C
.011
tjam
es o
n D
SK
G8S
OY
B1P
RO
D w
ith R
EP
OR
TS
78
on A2/P2 commercial paper, a lower grade investment than AA asset-backed commercial paper, has fallen by nearly 11 percent since the Panel’s October report. This indicates healthier fund-raising conditions for corporations.
FIGURE 20: INTEREST RATE SPREADS
Indicator Current Spread (as of 11/1/2010)
Percent Change Since Last Report
(9/30/2010)
Conventional mortgage rate spread 322 .................................................. 1.56 (13.3) TED Spread (basis points) ...................................................................... 15.59 20.0 Overnight AA asset-backed commercial paper interest rate spread 323 0.07 (11.2) Overnight A2/P2 nonfinancial commercial paper interest rate
spread 324 ............................................................................................ 0.14 (11.0) 322 Federal Reserve Statistical Release H.15, supra note 317 (accessed Nov. 3, 2010); Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System,
Federal Reserve Statistical Release H.15: Selected Interest Rates: Historical Data (Instrument: U.S. Government Securities/Treasury Constant Maturities/Nominal 10-Year, Frequency: Weekly) (online at www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h15/data/Weekly_Friday_/H15_TCMNOM_Y10.txt) (accessed Nov. 3, 2010).
323 Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Federal Reserve Statistical Release: Commercial Paper Rates and Outstandings: Data Download Program (Instrument: AA Asset-Backed Discount Rate, Frequency: Daily) (online at www.federalreserve.gov/DataDownload/Choose.aspx?rel=CP) (accessed Nov. 3, 2010); Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Federal Reserve Statistical Release: Commercial Paper Rates and Outstandings: Data Download Program (Instrument: AA Nonfinancial Discount Rate, Frequency: Daily) (online at www.federalreserve.gov/DataDownload/Choose.aspx?rel=CP) (accessed Nov. 3, 2010). In order to provide a more complete comparison, this metric utilizes the average of the interest rate spread for the last five days of the month.
324 Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Federal Reserve Statistical Release: Commercial Paper Rates and Outstandings: Data Download Program (Instrument: A2/P2 Nonfinancial Discount Rate, Frequency: Daily) (online at www.federalreserve.gov/DataDownload/Choose.aspx?rel=CP) (accessed Nov. 3, 2010). In order to provide a more complete comparison, this met-ric utilizes the average of the interest rate spread for the last five days of the month.
The spread between Moody’s Baa Corporate Bond Yield Index and 30-year constant maturity U.S. Treasury Bond yields doubled from late April to mid-June 2010. Spreads have trended down since mid-June highs and have fallen over 6 percent since the Panel’s October report. This spread indicates the difference in perceived risk between corporate and government bonds, and a declining spread could indicate waning concerns about the riskiness of cor-porate bonds.
VerDate Mar 15 2010 02:17 Dec 02, 2010 Jkt 061835 PO 00000 Frm 00084 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A835.XXX A835tjam
es o
n D
SK
G8S
OY
B1P
RO
D w
ith R
EP
OR
TS
79
325 Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, Series DGS30: Selected Interest Rates (Instrument: 30- Year Treasury Constant Maturity Rate, Frequency: Daily) (online at research.stlouisfed.org/ fred2/) (hereinafter ‘‘Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Series DGS30’’) (accessed Nov. 3, 2010). Corporate Baa rate data accessed through Bloomberg data service on November 3, 2010.
326 Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association, U.S. Corporate Bond Issuance (on-line at www.sifma.org/uploadedFiles/Research/Statistics/StatisticsFiles/Corporate-US-Corporate- Issuance-SIFMA.xls) (accessed Nov. 3, 2010).
327 For the purposes of its analysis, the Panel uses four categories based on bank asset sizes: Large banks (those with over $100 billion in assets), medium banks (those with between $10 billion and $100 billion in assets), smaller banks (those with between $1 billion and $10 billion in assets), and smallest banks (those with less than $1 billion in assets).
FIGURE 21: MOODY’S BAA CORPORATE BOND INDEX AND 30-YEAR U.S. TREASURY YIELD 325
Corporate bond market issuance data corroborate this analysis, with investment grade issuance increasing over 50 percent between August and September 2010.326
c. Condition of the Banks Since the Panel’s last report, 10 additional banks have failed,
with an approximate total asset value of $4.2 billion. With 139 fail-ures from January through October 2010, the year-to-date rate has nearly reached 140, the level for all of calendar year 2009. In gen-eral, banks failing in 2009 and 2010 have been small- and medium- sized institutions; 327 while they are failing in high numbers, their aggregate asset size has been relatively small.
VerDate Mar 15 2010 02:17 Dec 02, 2010 Jkt 061835 PO 00000 Frm 00085 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A835.XXX A835 Inse
rt of
fset
folio
101
her
e 61
835C
.012
tjam
es o
n D
SK
G8S
OY
B1P
RO
D w
ith R
EP
OR
TS
80
328 The disparity between the number of and total assets of failed banks in 2008 is driven pri-marily by the failure of Washington Mutual Bank, which held $307 billion in assets. The 2010 year-to-date percentage of bank failures includes failures through August. The total number of FDIC-insured institutions as of March 31, 2010 is 7,932 commercial banks and savings institu-tions. As of November 12, 2010, there have been 143 institutions that failed. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Failures and Assistance Transactions (online at www2.fdic.gov/hsob/ SelectRpt.asp?EntryTyp=30) (accessed Nov. 12, 2010). Asset totals have been adjusted for defla-tion into 2005 dollars using the GDP implicit price deflator. The quarterly values were averaged into a yearly value. Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Series DGS30, supra note 325 (accessed Nov. 3, 2010).
329 RealtyTrac Press Release on Foreclosure Activity, supra note 278. 330 Hardest-hit cities are defined as those in California, Florida, Nevada, and Arizona. Chi-
cago, Houston, and Seattle posted the largest increases in foreclosure activity. RealtyTrac, Third Quarter Foreclosure Activity Up in 65 Percent of U.S. Metro Areas But Down in Hardest-Hit Cit-ies (Oct. 28, 2010) (online at www.realtytrac.com/content/press-releases/third-quarter-fore-closure-activity-up-in-65-percent-of-us-metro-areas-but-down-in-hardest-hit-cities-6127).
331 Sales of new homes in May 2010 were 276,000, the lowest rate since 1963. It should be noted that this number likely reflects a shifting of sales from May to April prompted by the April expiration of tax credits designed to boost home sales. U.S. Census Bureau and U.S. De-partment of Housing and Urban Development, New Residential Sales in June 2010 (July 26, 2010) (online at www.census.gov/const/newressales.pdf); U.S. Census Bureau, New Residential Sales—New One-Family Houses Sold (online at www.census.gov/ftp/pub/const/sold_cust.xls) (accessed Nov. 3, 2010).
332 The most recent data available is for July 2010. See Standard and Poor’s, S&P/Case- Shiller Home Price Indices (Instrument: Case-Shiller 20-City Composite Seasonally Adjusted, Frequency: Monthly) (online at www.standardandpoors.com/indices/sp-case-shiller-home-price-in-
FIGURE 22: BANK FAILURES AS A PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL BANKS AND BANK FAILURES BY TOTAL ASSETS (1990–2010) 328
3. Housing Indices Foreclosure actions, which consist of default notices, scheduled
auctions, and bank repossessions, increased 2.5 percent in Sep-tember to 347,420. This metric is over 24 percent above the fore-closure action level at the time of the EESA enactment.329 While the hardest hit states still account for 19 out of 20 of the highest metro foreclosure rates, foreclosure activity grew less in the hard-est-hit cities than in other states.330 Sales of new homes increased to 307,000, but remain low.331 The Case-Shiller Composite 20-City Composite decreased very slightly, while the FHFA Housing Price Index increased very slightly in August 2010. The Case-Shiller and FHFA indices are 6 percent and 5 percent, respectively, below their levels of October 2008.332
VerDate Mar 15 2010 02:17 Dec 02, 2010 Jkt 061835 PO 00000 Frm 00086 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A835.XXX A835 Inse
rt of
fset
folio
102
her
e 61
835C
.013
tjam
es o
n D
SK
G8S
OY
B1P
RO
D w
ith R
EP
OR
TS
81
dices/en/us/?indexId=spusa-cashpidff- -p-us- - - -) (hereinafter ‘‘S&P/Case-Shiller Home Price Indi-ces’’) (accessed Nov. 3, 2010); Federal Housing Finance Agency, U.S. and Census Division Monthly Purchase Only Index (Instrument: USA, Seasonally Adjusted) (online at www.fhfa.gov/ Default.aspx?Page=87) (hereinafter ‘‘U.S. and Census Division Monthly Purchase Only Index’’) (accessed Nov. 3, 2010). S&P has cautioned that the seasonal adjustment is probably being dis-torted by irregular factors. These factors could include distressed sales and the various govern-ment programs. See Standard and Poor’s, S&P/Case-Shiller Home Price Indices and Seasonal Adjustment, S&P Indices: Index Analysis (Apr. 2010). For a discussion of the differences be-tween the Case-Shiller Index and the FHFA Index, see April 2010 Ovesright Report, supra note 282, at 98.
333 A Metropolitan Statistical Area is defined as a core area containing a substantial popu-lation nucleus, together with adjacent communities having a high degree of economic and social integration with the core. U.S. Census Bureau, About Metropolitan and Micropolitan Statistical Areas (online at www.census.gov/population/www/metroareas/aboutmetro.html) (accessed Nov. 3, 2010).
334 Data accessed through Bloomberg data service on November 3, 2010. The Case-Shiller Fu-tures contract is traded on the CME and is settled to the Case-Shiller Index two months after the previous calendar quarter. For example, the February contract will be settled against the spot value of the S&P Case-Shiller Home Price Index values representing the fourth calendar quarter of the previous year, which is released in February one day after the settlement of the contract. Note that most close observers believe that the accuracy of these futures contracts as forecasts diminishes the farther out one looks.
Additionally, Case-Shiller futures prices indicate a market expec-tation that home-price values for the major Metropolitan Statistical Areas 333 (MSAs) will hold constant through 2011.334 These futures are cash-settled to a weighted composite index of U.S. housing prices in the top ten MSAs, as well as to those specific markets. They are used to hedge by businesses whose profits and losses are related to any area of the housing industry, and to balance port-folios by businesses seeking exposure to an uncorrelated asset class. As such, futures prices are a composite indicator of market information known to date and can be used to indicate market ex-pectations for home prices.
FIGURE 23: HOUSING INDICATORS
Indicator Most Recent Monthly Data
Percent Change from Data Available
at Time of Last Report
Percent Change Since October 2008
Monthly foreclosure actions 335 ...................................... 347,420 2 .5 24 .3 S&P/Case-Shiller Composite 20 Index 336 ...................... 146 .99 (0 .3) (5 .9) FHFA Housing Price Index 337 ......................................... 192 .83 0 .4 (4 .5)
335 RealtyTrac, Foreclosures (online at www.realtytrac.com/home/) (accessed Nov. 3, 2010). The most recent data available is for September 2010.
336 S&P/Case-Shiller Home Price Indices, supra note 332 (accessed Nov. 3, 2010). The most recent data available is for August 2010. 337 U.S. and Census Division Monthly Purchase Only Index, supra note 332 (accessed Nov. 3, 2010). The most recent data available is for
August 2010.
VerDate Mar 15 2010 02:17 Dec 02, 2010 Jkt 061835 PO 00000 Frm 00087 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A835.XXX A835tjam
es o
n D
SK
G8S
OY
B1P
RO
D w
ith R
EP
OR
TS
82
338 All data normalized to 100 at January 2000. Futures data accessed through Bloomberg data service on November 3, 2010. S&P/Case-Shiller Home Price Indices, supra note 332 (accessed Nov. 3, 2010).
339 U.S. Department of the Treasury, Cumulative Dividends, Interest and Distributions Report as of September 30, 2010 (Oct. 11, 2010) (online at financialstability.gov/docs/dividends-interest- reports/September%202010%20Dividends%20&%20Interest%20Report.pdf) (hereinafter ‘‘Treas-ury Cumulative Dividends, Interest and Distributions Report); U.S. Department of the Treasury, Troubled Asset Relief Program Transactions Report for the Period Ending October 29, 2010 (Nov. 2, 2010) (online at financialstability.gov/docs/transaction-reports/10-4- 10%20Transactions%20Report%20as%20of%209-30-10.pdf) (hereinafter ‘‘Treasury Transactions Report’’).
340 The original $700 billion TARP ceiling was reduced by $1.26 billion as part of the Helping Families Save Their Homes Act of 2009. 12 U.S.C. § 5225(a)–(b); Helping Families Save Their Homes Act of 2009, Pub. L. No. 111–22 § 40. On June 30, 2010, the House-Senate Conference Committee agreed to reduce the amount authorized under the TARP from $700 billion to $475 billion as part of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act that was signed into law on July 21, 2010. See Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, Pub. L. No. 111–203 (2010); The White House, Remarks by the President at Signing of Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (July 21, 2010) (online at www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/remarks-president-signing-dodd-frank-wall-street-reform- and-consumer-protection-act).
FIGURE 24: CASE-SHILLER HOME PRICE INDEX AND FUTURES VALUES 338
F. Financial Update
Each month, the Panel summarizes the resources that the fed-eral government has committed to the rescue and recovery of the financial system. The following financial update provides: (1) An updated accounting of the TARP, including a tally of dividend in-come, repayments, and warrant dispositions that the program has received as of September 30, 2010; and (2) an updated accounting of the full federal resource commitment as of October 27, 2010.
1. The TARP
a. Program Updates 339
Treasury’s spending authority under the TARP officially expired on October 3, 2010. Though it can no longer make new funding commitments, Treasury can continue to provide funding for pro-grams for which it has existing contracts and previous commit-ments. To date, $395.1 billion has been spent under the TARP’s $475 billion ceiling.340 Of the total amount disbursed, $209.5 bil-lion has been repaid. Treasury has also incurred $6.1 billion in
VerDate Mar 15 2010 02:17 Dec 02, 2010 Jkt 061835 PO 00000 Frm 00088 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A835.XXX A835 Inse
rt gr
aphi
c fo
lio 1
04 6
1835
C.0
14
tjam
es o
n D
SK
G8S
OY
B1P
RO
D w
ith R
EP
OR
TS
83
341 For its CPP investments in privately held financial institutions, Treasury also received warrants to purchase additional shares of preferred stock, which it exercised immediately. Simi-larly, Treasury also received warrants to purchase additional subordinated debt that were also immediately exercised along with its CPP investments in subchapter S corporations. Treasury Transactions Report, supra note 339, at 14.
342 U.S. Department of the Treasury, Capital Purchase Program (Oct. 3, 2010) (online at www.financialstability.gov/roadtostability/capitalpurchaseprogram.html).
343 U.S. Department of the Treasury, Targeted Investment Program (Oct. 3, 2010) (online at www.financialstability.gov/roadtostability/targetedinvestmentprogram.html).
344 Treasury Cumulative Dividends, Interest and Distributions Report, supra note 339; Treas-ury Transactions Report, supra note 339. Treasury also received an additional $1.2 billion in participation fees from its Guarantee Program for Money Market Funds. U.S. Department of the Treasury, Treasury Announces Expiration of Guarantee Program for Money Market Funds (Sept. 18, 2009) (online at www.ustreas.gov/press/releases/tg293.htm).
losses associated with its CPP and Automotive Industry Financing Program (AIFP) investments. A significant portion of the $179.7 billion in TARP funds currently outstanding includes Treasury’s in-vestments in AIG and assistance provided to the automotive indus-try.
CPP Repayments As of October 29, 2010, 112 of the 707 banks that participated
in the CPP have fully redeemed their preferred shares either through capital repayment or exchanges for investments under the Community Development Capital Initiative (CDCI). During the month of October, Treasury received a $12 million full repayment from 1st Constitution Bancorp, and a $100 million partial repay-ment from Webster Financial Corporation. A total of $152.9 billion has been repaid under the program, leaving $49.5 billion in funds currently outstanding.
b. Income: Dividends, Interest, and Warrant Sales In conjunction with its preferred stock investments under the
CPP and TIP, Treasury generally received warrants to purchase common equity.341 As of October 29, 2010, 45 institutions have re-purchased their warrants from Treasury at an agreed upon price. Treasury has also sold warrants for 15 other institutions at auc-tion. To date, income from warrant dispositions have totaled $8.1 billion.
In addition to warrant proceeds, Treasury also receives dividend payments on the preferred shares that it holds under the CPP, 5 percent per annum for the first five years and 9 percent per annum thereafter.342 For preferred shares issued under the TIP, Treasury received a dividend of 8 percent per annum.343 In total, Treasury has received approximately $25.7 billion in net income from war-rant repurchases, dividends, interest payments, and other proceeds deriving from TARP investments (after deducting losses).344 For further information on TARP profit and loss, see Figure 26.
VerDate Mar 15 2010 02:17 Dec 02, 2010 Jkt 061835 PO 00000 Frm 00089 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A835.XXX A835tjam
es o
n D
SK
G8S
OY
B1P
RO
D w
ith R
EP
OR
TS
84
c. TARP Accounting
FIGURE 25: TARP ACCOUNTING (AS OF OCTOBER 29, 2010) [Dollars in billions]
Program Maximum Amount Allotted
Actual Funding
Total Repayments/
Reduced Exposure
Total Losses
Funding Currently
Outstanding Funding Available
Capital Purchase Program (CPP) ................................ $204.9 $204.9 ii $(152 .9) iii $(2 .6) $49 .5 $0
Targeted Investment Pro-gram (TIP) ........................ 40.0 40.0 (40 .0) 0 0 0
Asset Guarantee Program (AGP) ................................ 5.0 iv 5.0 v (5 .0) 0 0 0
AIG Investment Program (AIGIP) .............................. 69.8 vi 47.5 0 0 47 .5 22 .3
Auto Industry Financing Pro-gram (AIFP) ...................... 81.3 81.3 (10 .8) vii (3 .5) viii 67 .1 0
Auto Supplier Support Pro-gram (ASSP) ix ................. 0.4 0.4 (0 .4) 0 0 0
Term Asset-Backed Securi-ties Loan Facility (TALF) .. x 4.3 xi 0.1 0 0 0 .1 4 .2
Public-Private Investment Program (PPIP) xii ............ 22.4 xiii 14.2 xiv (0 .4) 0 13 .8 8 .2
SBA 7(a) Securities Purchase 0.4 xv 0.4 0 0 0 .4 xvi 0 Home Affordable Modifica-
tion Program (HAMP) ....... 29.9 0.6 0 0 0 .6 29 .3 Hardest Hit Fund (HHF) ........ xvii 7.6 xviii 0.1 0 0 0 .1 7 .5 FHA Refinance Program ....... 8.1 xix 0.1 0 0 0 .1 8 .0 Community Development
Capital Initiative (CDCI) .. 0.8 xx 0.6 0 0 0 .6 0
Total ..................................... $475.0 $395.1 $(209 .5) $(6 .1) $179 .7 $79 .5
i Figures affected by rounding. Unless otherwise noted, data in this table are from the following source: U.S. Department of the Treasury, Troubled Asset Relief Program Transactions Report for the Period Ending October 29, 2010 (Nov. 2, 2010) (online at financialstability.gov/docs/transaction-reports/11-2-10%20Transactions%20Report%20as%20of%2010-29-10.pdf).
ii Total amount repaid under CPP includes $13.4 billion Treasury received as part of its sales of Citigroup common stock. As of October 29, 2010, Treasury had sold 4.1 billion Citigroup common shares for $16.4 billion in gross proceeds. Treasury has received $3 billion in net profit from the sale of Citigroup common stock. In June 2009, Treasury exchanged $25 billion in Citigroup preferred stock for 7.7 billion shares of the company’s common stock at $3.25 per share. U.S. Department of the Treasury, Troubled Asset Relief Program Transactions Report for the Period Ending October 29, 2010, at 13–15 (Nov. 2, 2010) (online at financialstability.gov/docs/transaction-reports/11-2-10%20Transactions%20Report%20as%20of%2010-29-10.pdf); U.S. Department of the Treas-ury, Troubled Asset Relief Program: Two-Year Retrospective, at 25 (Oct. 2010) (online at www.financialstability.gov/docs/TARP%20Two%20Year%20Retrospective_10%2005%2010_transmittal%20letter.pdf).
Total CPP repayments also include amounts repaid by institutions that exchanged their CPP investments for investments under the CDCI, as well as proceeds earned from the sale of preferred stock and warrants issued by South Financial Group, Inc. and TIB Financial Corp.
iii On the TARP Transactions Report, Treasury has classified the investments it made in two institutions, CIT Group ($2.3 billion) and Pa-cific Coast National Bancorp ($4.1 million), as losses. In addition, Treasury sold its preferred ownership interests, along with warrants, in South Financial Group, Inc. and TIB Financial Corp. to non-TARP participating institutions. These shares were sold at prices below the value of the original CPP investment. Therefore, Treasury’s net current CPP investment is $49.5 billion due to the $2.6 billion in losses thus far. U.S. Department of the Treasury, Troubled Asset Relief Program Transactions Report for the Period Ending October 29, 2010, at 13–14 (Nov. 2, 2010) (online at financialstability.gov/docs/transaction-reports/11-2-10%20Transactions%20Report%20as%20of%2010-29-10.pdf).
iv The $5 billion AGP guarantee for Citigroup was unused since Treasury was not required to make any guarantee payments during the life of the program. U.S. Department of the Treasury, Troubled Asset Relief Program: Two-Year Retrospective, at 31 (Oct. 2010) (online at www.financialstability.gov/docs/TARP%20Two%20Year%20Retrospective_10%2005%2010_transmittal%20letter.pdf).
v Although this $5 billion is no longer exposed as part of the AGP, Treasury did not receive a repayment in the same sense as with other investments. Treasury did receive other income as consideration for the guarantee, which is not a repayment and is accounted for in Figure 26.
vi AIG has completely utilized the $40 billion that was made available on November 25, 2008, in exchange for the company’s preferred stock. It has also drawn down $7.5 billion of the $29.8 billion made available on April 17, 2009. This figure does not include $1.6 billion in accumulated but unpaid dividends owed by AIG to Treasury due to the restructuring of Treasury’s investment from cumulative preferred shares to non-cumulative shares. AIG expects to draw down up to $22 billion in outstanding funds from the TARP as part of its plan to repay the revolving credit facility provided by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. American International Group, Inc., Form 10–Q for the Fiscal Year Ended September 30, 2010, at 119 (Nov. 5, 2010) (online at sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/5272/000104746910009269/a2200724z10-q.htm); American International Group, Inc., AIG Announces Plan To Repay U.S. Government (Sept. 30, 2010) (online at www.aigcorporate.com/newsroom/2010_September/AIGAnnouncesPlantoRepay30Sept2010.pdf); U.S. Department of the Treasury, Troubled Asset Relief Program Transactions Report for the Period Ending October 29, 2010, at 21 (Nov. 2, 2010) (online at financialstability.gov/docs/transaction-reports/11-2-10%20Transactions%20Report%20as%20of%2010-29-10.pdf).
VerDate Mar 15 2010 02:17 Dec 02, 2010 Jkt 061835 PO 00000 Frm 00090 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A835.XXX A835tjam
es o
n D
SK
G8S
OY
B1P
RO
D w
ith R
EP
OR
TS
85 vii On May 14, 2010, Treasury accepted a $1.9 billion settlement payment for its $3.5 billion loan to Chrysler Holding. The payment rep-
resented a $1.6 billion loss from the termination of the debt obligation. U.S. Department of the Treasury, Chrysler Financial Parent Company Repays $1.9 Billion in Settlement of Original Chrysler Loan (May 17, 2010) (online at www.financialstability.gov/latest/pr_05172010c.html). Also, following the bankruptcy proceedings for Old Chrysler, which extinguished the $1.9 billion debtor-in-possession (DIP) loan provided to Old Chrysler, Treasury retained the right to recover the proceeds from the liquidation of specified collateral. To date, Treasury has collected $40.2 million in proceeds from the sale of collateral, and it does not expect a significant recovery from the liquidation proceeds. Treasury includes these proceeds as part of the $10.8 billion repaid under the AIFP. U.S. Department of the Treasury, Troubled Assets Relief Program Monthly 105(a) Report—September 2010 (Oct. 12, 2010) (online at financialstability.gov/docs/105CongressionalReports/September 105(a) re-port_FINAL.pdf); Treasury conversations with Panel staff (Aug. 19, 2010); U.S. Department of the Treasury, Troubled Asset Relief Program Transactions Report for the Period Ending October 29, 2010, at 18 (Nov. 2, 2010) (online at financialstability.gov/docs/transaction-reports/11-2-10%20Transactions%20Report%20as%20of%2010-29-10.pdf).
viii On the TARP Transactions Report, the $1.9 billion Chrysler debtor-in-possession loan, which was extinguished April 30, 2010, was de-ducted from Treasury’s AIFP investment amount. U.S. Department of the Treasury, Troubled Asset Relief Program Transactions Report for the Period Ending October 29, 2010, at 18 (Nov. 2, 2010) (online at financialstability.gov/docs/transaction-reports/11-2-10%20Transactions%20Report%20as%20of%2010-29-10.pdf). See note vii, supra, for details on losses from Treasury’s investment in Chrysler.
ix On April 5, 2010, Treasury terminated its commitment to lend to the GM SPV under the ASSP. On April 7, 2010, it terminated its com-mitment to lend to the Chrysler SPV. In total, Treasury received $413 million in repayments from loans provided by this program ($290 million from the GM SPV and $123 million from the Chrysler SPV). Further, Treasury received $101 million in proceeds from additional notes associ-ated with this program. U.S. Department of the Treasury, Troubled Asset Relief Program Transactions Report for the Period Ending October 29, 2010, at 19 (Nov. 2, 2010) (online at financialstability.gov/docs/transaction-reports/11-2-10%20Transactions%20Report%20as%20of%2010-29-10.pdf).
x For the TALF program, one dollar of TARP funds was committed for every $10 of funds obligated by the Federal Reserve. The program was intended to be a $200 billion initiative, and the TARP was responsible for the first $20 billion in loan-losses, if any were incurred. The loan was incrementally funded. When the program closed in June 2010, a total of $43 billion in loans was outstanding under the TALF pro-gram, and the TARP’s commitments constituted $4.3 billion. The Federal Reserve Board of Governors agreed that it was appropriate for Treas-ury to reduce TALF credit protection from TARP to $4.3 billion. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Federal Reserve Announces Agreement With the Treasury Department Regarding a Reduction of Credit Protection Provided for the Term Asset-Backed Securities Loan Facil-ity (TALF) (July 20, 2010) (online at www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/press/monetary/20100720a.htm).
xi As of October 27, 2010, Treasury had provided $105 million to TALF LLC. This total includes accrued payable interest. Federal Reserve Bank of New York, Factors Affecting Reserve Balances (H.4.1) (Oct. 28, 2010) (online at www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h41/20101028/).
xii As of September 30, 2010, the total value of securities held by the PPIP managers was $19.3 billion. Non-agency Residential Mortgage-Backed Securities represented 82 percent of the total; CMBS represented the balance. U.S. Department of the Treasury, Legacy Secu-rities Public-Private Investment Program, Program Update—Quarter Ended September 30, 2010, at 4 (Oct. 20, 2010) (online at financialstability.gov/docs/External%20Report%20-%2009-10%20vFinal.pdf).
xiii U.S. Department of the Treasury, Troubled Assets Relief Program Monthly 105(a) Report—September 2010, at 6 (Oct. 12, 2010) (online at financialstability.gov/docs/105CongressionalReports/September 105(a) report_FINAL.pdf).
xiv As of October 29, 2010, Treasury has received $428 million in capital repayments from two PPIP fund managers. U.S. Department of the Treasury, Troubled Asset Relief Program Transactions Report for the Period Ending October 29, 2010, at 23 (Nov. 2, 2010) (online at financialstability.gov/docs/transaction-reports/11-2-10%20Transactions%20Report%20as%20of%2010-29-10.pdf).
xv As of October 29, 2010, Treasury’s purchases under the SBA 7(a) Securities Purchase Program totaled $324.9 million. U.S. Department of the Treasury, Troubled Asset Relief Program Transactions Report for the Period Ending October 29, 2010, at 22 (Nov. 2, 2010) (online at financialstability.gov/docs/transaction-reports/11-2-10%20Transactions%20Report%20as%20of%2010-29-10.pdf).
xvi Treasury will not make additional purchases pursuant to the expiration of its purchasing authority under EESA. U.S. Department of the Treasury, Troubled Asset Relief Program: Two-Year Retrospective, at 43 (Oct. 2010) (online at www.financialstability.gov/docs/TARP%20Two%20Year%20Retrospective_10%2005%2010_transmittal%20letter.pdf).
xvii As part of its revisions to TARP allocations upon enactment of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, Treas-ury allocated an additional $2 billion in TARP funds to mortgage assistance for unemployed borrowers through the Hardest Hit Fund (HHF). U.S. Department of the Treasury, Obama Administration Announces Additional Support for Targeted Foreclosure-Prevention Programs to Help Homeowners Struggling With Unemployment (Aug. 11, 2010) (online at www.ustreas.gov/press/releases/tg823.htm). Another $3.5 billion was al-located among the 18 states and the District of Columbia currently participating in HHF. The amount each state received during this round of funding is proportional to its population. U.S. Department of the Treasury, Troubled Asset Relief Program: Two Year Retrospective, at 72 (Oct. 2010) (online at www.financialstability.gov/docs/TARP%20Two%20Year%20Retrospective_10%2005%2010_transmittal%20letter.pdf).
xviii As of November 10, 2010, a total of $63.6 million has been disbursed to seven state Housing Finance Agencies (HFAs). Data provided by Treasury staff (Nov. 10, 2010).
xix This figure represents the amount Treasury disbursed to fund the advance purchase account of the letter of credit issued under the FHA Short Refinance Program. Data provided by Treasury staff (Nov. 10, 2010).
xx Seventy-three Community Development Financial Institutions (CDFIs) entered the CDCI in September. Among these institutions, 17 banks exchanged their CPP investments for an equivalent investment amount under the CDCI. U.S. Department of the Treasury, Troubled Asset Relief Program Transactions Report for the Period Ending October 29, 2010, at 1–13, 16–17 (Nov. 2, 2010) (online at financialstability.gov/docs/transaction-reports/11-2-10%20Transactions%20Report%20as%20of%2010-29-10.pdf). Treasury closed the program on September 30, 2010, after investing $570 million in 84 CDFIs. U.S. Department of the Treasury, Treasury Announces Special Financial Sta-bilization Initiative Investments of $570 Million in 84 Community Development Financial Institutions in Underserved Areas (Sept. 30, 2010) (online at financialstability.gov/latest/pr_09302010b.html).
VerDate Mar 15 2010 02:17 Dec 02, 2010 Jkt 061835 PO 00000 Frm 00091 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A835.XXX A835tjam
es o
n D
SK
G8S
OY
B1P
RO
D w
ith R
EP
OR
TS
86
FIGURE 26: TARP PROFIT AND LOSS [Dollars in millions]
TARP Initiative xxi
Dividends xxii
(as of 9/30/2010)
Interest xxiii
(as of 9/30/2010)
Warrant Disposition
Proceeds xxiv
(as of 10/29/2010)
Other Proceeds
(as of 9/30/2010)
Losses xxv
(as of 10/29/2010)
Total
Total ......................... $16,721 $1,052 $8,160 $5,833 ($6,034) $25,732 CPP ........................... 9,859 49 6,904 xxvi 3,015 (2,576) 17,250 TIP ............................. 3,004 – 1,256 – – 4,260 AIFP ........................... xxvii 3,418 931 – xxviii 15 (3,458) 906 ASSP ......................... – 15 – xxix 101 – 116 AGP ........................... 440 – – xxx 2,246 – 2,686 PPIP .......................... – 56 – xxxi 180 – 236 SBA 7(a) ................... – 1 – – – 1 Bank of America
Guarantee ............. – – – xxxii 276 – 276
xxi AIG is not listed on this table because no profit or loss has been recorded to date for AIG. Its missed dividends were capitalized as part of the issuance of Series E preferred shares and are not considered to be outstanding. Treasury currently holds non-cumulative preferred shares, meaning AIG is not penalized for non-payment. Therefore, no profit or loss has been realized on Treasury’s AIG investment to date.
xxii U.S. Department of the Treasury, Cumulative Dividends, Interest and Distributions Report as of September 30, 2010 (Oct. 12, 2010) (on-line at financialstability.gov/docs/dividends-interest-reports/September%202010%20Dividends%20&%20Interest%20Report.pdf).
xxiii U.S. Department of the Treasury, Cumulative Dividends, Interest and Distributions Report as of September 30, 2010 (Oct. 12, 2010) (online at financialstability.gov/docs/dividends-interest-reports/September%202010%20Dividends%20&%20Interest%20Report.pdf).
xxiv U.S. Department of the Treasury, Troubled Asset Relief Program Transactions Report for the Period Ending October 29, 2010 (Nov. 2, 2010) (online at financialstability.gov/docs/transaction-reports/11-2-10%20Transactions%20Report%20as%20of%2010-29-10.pdf).
xxv In the TARP Transactions Report, Treasury classified the investments it made in two institutions, CIT Group ($2.3 billion) and Pacific Coast National Bancorp ($4.1 million), as losses. Treasury has also sold its preferred ownership interests and warrants from South Financial Group, Inc. and TIB Financial Corp. This represents a $241.7 million loss on its CPP investments in these two banks. Two TARP recipients, UCBH Holdings, Inc. ($298.7 million) and a banking subsidiary of Midwest Banc Holdings, Inc. ($89.4 million), are currently in bankruptcy proceedings. U.S. Department of the Treasury, Troubled Asset Relief Program Transactions Report for the Period Ending October 29, 2010 (Nov. 2, 2010) (online at financialstability.gov/docs/transaction-reports/11-2-10%20Transactions%20Report%20as%20of%2010-29-10.pdf). Finally, Sonoma Valley Bancorp, which received $8.7 million in CPP funding, was placed into receivership on August 20, 2010. Federal Deposit Insur-ance Corporation, Westamerica Bank, San Rafael, California, Assumes All of the Deposits of Sonoma Valley Bank, Sonoma, California (Aug. 20, 2010) (online at www.fdic.gov/news/news/press/2010/pr10196.html).
xxvi This figure represents net proceeds to Treasury from the sale of Citigroup common stock to date. For details on Treasury’s sales of Citigroup common stock, see note ii, supra. U.S. Department of the Treasury, Troubled Asset Relief Program Transactions Report for the Period Ending October 29, 2010, at 15 (Nov. 2, 2010) (online at financialstability.gov/docs/transaction-reports/11-2-10%20Transactions%20Report%20as%20of%2010-29-10.pdf); U.S. Department of the Treas-ury, Troubled Asset Relief Program: Two-Year Retrospective, at 25 (Oct. 2010) (online at www.financialstability.gov/docs/TARP%20Two%20Year%20Retrospective_10%2005%2010_transmittal%20letter.pdf).
xxvii This figure includes $815 million in dividends from GMAC preferred stock, trust preferred securities, and mandatory convertible pre-ferred shares. The dividend total also includes a $748.6 million senior unsecured note from Treasury’s investment in General Motors. Data provided by Treasury.
xxviii Treasury received proceeds from an additional note connected with the loan made to Chrysler Financial on January 16, 2009. U.S. De-partment of the Treasury, Troubled Asset Relief Program Transactions Report for the Period Ending October 29, 2010, at 18 (Nov. 2, 2010) (online at financialstability.gov/docs/transaction-reports/11-2-10%20Transactions%20Report%20as%20of%2010-29-10.pdf).
xxix This represents the total proceeds from additional notes connected with Treasury’s investments in GM Supplier Receivables LLC and Chrysler Receivables SPV LLC. U.S. Department of the Treasury, Troubled Asset Relief Program Transactions Report for the Period Ending Octo-ber 29, 2010, at 19 (Nov. 2, 2010) (online at financialstability.gov/docs/transaction-reports/11-2-10%20Transactions%20Report%20as%20of%2010-29-10.pdf).
xxx As a fee for taking a second-loss position of up to $5 billion on a $301 billion pool of ring-fenced Citigroup assets as part of the AGP, Treasury received $4.03 billion in Citigroup preferred stock and warrants. Treasury exchanged these preferred stocks for trust preferred securities in June 2009. Following the early termination of the guarantee in December 2009, Treasury cancelled $1.8 billion of the trust pre-ferred securities, leaving Treasury with $2.23 billion in Citigroup trust preferred securities. On September 30, 2010, Treasury sold these securi-ties for $2.25 billion in total proceeds. At the end of Citigroup’s participation in the FDIC’s TLGP, the FDIC may transfer $800 million of $3.02 billion in Citigroup Trust Preferred Securities it received in consideration for its role in the AGP to Treasury. U.S. Department of the Treasury, Troubled Asset Relief Program Transactions Report for the Period Ending October 29, 2010, at 20 (Nov. 2, 2010) (online at financialstability.gov/docs/transaction-reports/11-2-10%20Transactions%20Report%20as%20of%2010-29-10.pdf); U.S. Department of the Treas-ury, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, and Citigroup Inc., Termination Agreement, at 1 (Dec. 23, 2009) (online at www.financialstability.gov/docs/Citi%20AGP%20Termination%20Agreement%20-%20Fully%20Executed%20Version.pdf); U.S. Department of the Treasury, Treasury Announces Further Sales of Citigroup Securities and Cumulative Return to Taxpayers of $41.6 Billion (Sept. 30, 2010) (on-line at financialstability.gov/latest/pr_09302010c.html); Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, 2009 Annual Report, at 87 (June 30, 2010) (on-line at www.fdic.gov/about/strategic/report/2009annualreport/AR09final.pdf).
xxxi As of September 30, 2010, Treasury has earned $159.1 million in membership interest distributions from the PPIP. Additionally, Treas-ury has earned $20.6 million in total proceeds following the termination of the TCW fund. See U.S. Department of the Treasury, Cumulative Dividends, Interest and Distributions Report as of September 30, 2010, at 14 (Oct. 12, 2010) (online at financialstability.gov/docs/dividends-interest-reports/September%202010%20Dividends%20&%20Interest%20Report.pdf); U.S. Department of the Treasury, Troubled Asset Relief Program Transactions Report for the Period Ending October 29, 2010, at 23 (Nov. 2, 2010) (online at financialstability.gov/docs/transaction-reports/11-2-10%20Transactions%20Report%20as%20of%2010-29-10.pdf).
xxxii Although Treasury, the Federal Reserve, and the FDIC negotiated with Bank of America regarding a similar guarantee, the parties never reached an agreement. In September 2009, Bank of America agreed to pay each of the prospective guarantors a fee as though the guarantee had been in place during the negotiations period. This agreement resulted in payments of $276 million to Treasury, $57 million to the Federal Reserve, and $92 million to the FDIC. U.S. Department of the Treasury, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, and Bank of America Corporation, Termination Agreement, at 1–2 (Sept. 21, 2009) (online at www.financialstability.gov/docs/AGP/BofA%20-%20Termination%20Agreement%20-%20executed.pdf).
VerDate Mar 15 2010 02:17 Dec 02, 2010 Jkt 061835 PO 00000 Frm 00092 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A835.XXX A835tjam
es o
n D
SK
G8S
OY
B1P
RO
D w
ith R
EP
OR
TS
87
345 Treasury Cumulative Dividends, Interest and Distributions Report, supra note 339, at 20. 346 Does not include banks with missed dividend payments that have either repaid all delin-
quent dividends, exited TARP, gone into receivership, or filed for bankruptcy. 347 Includes institutions that have either (a) fully repaid their CPP investment and exited the
program or (b) entered bankruptcy or its subsidiary was placed into receivership. Treasury Cu-mulative Dividends, Interest and Distributions Report, supra note 339, at 20.
348 U.S. Department of the Treasury, Frequently Asked Questions Capital Purchase Program (CPP): Related to Missed Dividend (or Interest) Payments and Director Nomination (online at www.financialstability.gov/docs/CPP/CPP%20Directors%20FAQs.pdf) (accessed Nov. 12, 2010).
d. CPP Unpaid Dividend and Interest Payments 345 As of September 30, 2010, 120 institutions have at least one divi-
dend payment on preferred stock issued under CPP outstanding.346 Among these institutions, 95 are not current on cumulative divi-dends, amounting to $114.8 million in missed payments. Another 25 banks have not paid $8 million in non-cumulative dividends. Of the $49.5 billion currently outstanding in CPP funding, Treasury’s investments in banks with non-current dividend payments total $3.5 billion. A majority of the banks that remain delinquent on div-idend payments have under $1 billion in total assets on their bal-ance sheets. Also, there are 21 institutions that no longer have out-standing unpaid dividends, after previously deferring their quar-terly payments.347
Six banks have failed to make six dividend payments, while one bank has missed all seven quarterly payments. These institutions have received a total of $207.1 million in CPP funding. Under the terms of the CPP, after a bank fails to pay dividends for six peri-ods, Treasury has the right to elect two individuals to the com-pany’s board of directors.348 Figure 27 below provides further de-tails on the distribution and the number of institutions that have missed dividend payments.
In addition, eight CPP participants have missed at least one in-terest payment, representing $3.6 million in cumulative unpaid in-terest payments. Treasury’s total investments in these non-public institutions represent less than $1 billion in CPP funding.
VerDate Mar 15 2010 02:17 Dec 02, 2010 Jkt 061835 PO 00000 Frm 00093 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A835.XXX A835tjam
es o
n D
SK
G8S
OY
B1P
RO
D w
ith R
EP
OR
TS
88
350 Calculation of the internal rate of return (IRR) also includes CPP investments in public institutions not repaid in full (for reasons such as acquisition by another institution) in the Transaction Report, e.g., The South Financial Group and TIB Financial Corporation. The Panel’s total IRR calculation now includes CPP investments in public institutions recorded as a loss on the TARP Transaction Report due to bankruptcy, e.g., CIT Group Inc. Going forward, the Panel will continue to include losses due to bankruptcy when Treasury determines any associated con-tingent value rights have expired without value. When excluding CIT Group from the calcula-tion, the resulting IRR is 10.4 percent. Treasury Transactions Report, supra note 339.
FIGURE 27: CPP MISSED DIVIDEND PAYMENTS (AS OF SEPTEMBER 30, 2010) 349
Number of Missed Payments 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Total
Cumulative Dividends Number of Banks, by asset size 29 19 17 17 10 3 0 95
Under $1B .......................... 20 15 12 11 5 1 0 64 $1B–$10B .......................... 8 4 4 6 5 2 0 29 Over $10B .......................... 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 2
Non-Cumulative Dividends Number of Banks, by asset size 2 5 6 3 5 3 1 25
Under $1B .......................... 1 5 5 3 5 3 1 23 $1B–$10B .......................... 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 Over $10B .......................... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total Missed Payments ............. .............. .............. .............. .............. .............. .............. .............. 120 349 Treasury Cumulative Dividends, Interest and Distributions Report, supra note 339, at 17–20. Data on total bank assets compiled using
SNL Financial data service. (accessed Nov. 3, 2010).
e. Rate of Return As of November 4, 2010, the average internal rate of return for
all public financial institutions that participated in the CPP and fully repaid the U.S. government (including preferred shares, divi-dends, and warrants) remained at 8.4 percent, as no institutions exited the program in October.350 The internal rate of return is the annualized effective compounded return rate that can be earned on invested capital.
VerDate Mar 15 2010 02:17 Dec 02, 2010 Jkt 061835 PO 00000 Frm 00094 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A835.XXX A835tjam
es o
n D
SK
G8S
OY
B1P
RO
D w
ith R
EP
OR
TS
89
f. Warrant Disposition
FIGURE 28: WARRANT REPURCHASES/AUCTIONS FOR FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS WHO HAVE FULLY REPAID CPP FUNDS (AS OF NOVEMBER 4, 2010)
Institution Investment Date
Warrant Repurchase
Date
Warrant Repurchase/ Sale Amount
Panel’s Best Valuation
Estimate at Disposition
Date
Price/ Esti-mate Ratio
IRR (Percent)
Old National Bancorp ..................... 12/12/2008 5/8/2009 $1,200,000 $2,150,000 0 .558 9 .3 Iberiabank Corporation ................... 12/5/2008 5/20/2009 1,200,000 2,010,000 0 .597 9 .4 Firstmerit Corporation ..................... 1/9/2009 5/27/2009 5,025,000 4,260,000 1 .180 20 .3 Sun Bancorp, Inc ............................ 1/9/2009 5/27/2009 2,100,000 5,580,000 0 .376 15 .3 Independent Bank Corp. ................. 1/9/2009 5/27/2009 2,200,000 3,870,000 0 .568 15 .6 Alliance Financial Corporation ........ 12/19/2008 6/17/2009 900,000 1,580,000 0 .570 13 .8 First Niagara Financial Group ........ 11/21/2008 6/24/2009 2,700,000 3,050,000 0 .885 8 .0 Berkshire Hills Bancorp, Inc. .......... 12/19/2008 6/24/2009 1,040,000 1,620,000 0 .642 11 .3 Somerset Hills Bancorp .................. 1/16/2009 6/24/2009 275,000 580,000 0 .474 16 .6 SCBT Financial Corporation ............ 1/16/2009 6/24/2009 1,400,000 2,290,000 0 .611 11 .7 HF Financial Corp. .......................... 11/21/2008 6/30/2009 650,000 1,240,000 0 .524 10 .1 State Street ..................................... 10/28/2008 7/8/2009 60,000,000 54,200,000 1 .107 9 .9 U.S. Bancorp ................................... 11/14/2008 7/15/2009 139,000,000 135,100,000 1 .029 8 .7 The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. ..... 10/28/2008 7/22/2009 1,100,000,000 1,128,400,000 0 .975 22 .8 BB&T Corp. ..................................... 11/14/2008 7/22/2009 67,010,402 68,200,000 0 .983 8 .7 American Express Company ............ 1/9/2009 7/29/2009 340,000,000 391,200,000 0 .869 29 .5 Bank of New York Mellon Corp ....... 10/28/2008 8/5/2009 136,000,000 155,700,000 0 .873 12 .3 Morgan Stanley ............................... 10/28/2008 8/12/2009 950,000,000 1,039,800,000 0 .914 20 .2 Northern Trust Corporation ............. 11/14/2008 8/26/2009 87,000,000 89,800,000 0 .969 14 .5 Old Line Bancshares Inc. ............... 12/5/2008 9/2/2009 225,000 500,000 0 .450 10 .4 Bancorp Rhode Island, Inc. ............ 12/19/2008 9/30/2009 1,400,000 1,400,000 1 .000 12 .6 Centerstate Banks of Florida Inc. .. 11/21/2008 10/28/2009 212,000 220,000 0 .964 5 .9 Manhattan Bancorp ........................ 12/5/2008 10/14/2009 63,364 140,000 0 .453 9 .8 CVB Financial Corp ......................... 12/5/2008 10/28/2009 1,307,000 3,522,198 0 .371 6 .4 Bank of the Ozarks ......................... 12/12/2008 11/24/2009 2,650,000 3,500,000 0 .757 9 .0 Capital One Financial ..................... 11/14/2008 12/3/2009 148,731,030 232,000,000 0 .641 12 .0 JPMorgan Chase & Co. ................... 10/28/2008 12/10/2009 950,318,243 1,006,587,697 0 .944 10 .9 CIT Group Inc. ................................. 12/31/2008 – – 562,541 – (97 .2) TCF Financial Corp ......................... 1/16/2009 12/16/2009 9,599,964 11,825,830 0 .812 11 .0 LSB Corporation .............................. 12/12/2008 12/16/2009 560,000 535,202 1 .046 9 .0 Wainwright Bank & Trust Company 12/19/2008 12/16/2009 568,700 1,071,494 0 .531 7 .8 Wesbanco Bank, Inc. ...................... 12/5/2008 12/23/2009 950,000 2,387,617 0 .398 6 .7 Union First Market Bankshares Cor-
poration (Union Bankshares Cor-poration) ..................................... 12/19/2008 12/23/2009 450,000 1,130,418 0 .398 5 .8
Trustmark Corporation .................... 11/21/2008 12/30/2009 10,000,000 11,573,699 0 .864 9 .4 Flushing Financial Corporation ....... 12/19/2008 12/30/2009 900,000 2,861,919 0 .314 6 .5 OceanFirst Financial Corporation ... 1/16/2009 2/3/2010 430,797 279,359 1 .542 6 .2 Monarch Financial Holdings, Inc. ... 12/19/2008 2/10/2010 260,000 623,434 0 .417 6 .7 Bank of America ............................. 10/28/2008 351
1/9/2009 352 1/14/2009 353
3/3/2010 1,566,210,714 1,006,416,684 1 .533 6 .5
Washington Federal Inc./Wash-ington Federal Savings & Loan Association ................................. 11/14/2008 3/9/2010 15,623,222 10,166,404 1 .537 18 .6
Signature Bank ............................... 12/12/2008 3/10/2010 11,320,751 11,458,577 0 .988 32 .4 Texas Capital Bancshares, Inc. ...... 1/16/2009 3/11/2010 6,709,061 8,316,604 0 .807 30 .1 Umpqua Holdings Corp. .................. 11/14/2008 3/31/2010 4,500,000 5,162,400 0 .872 6 .6 City National Corporation ............... 11/21/2008 4/7/2010 18,500,000 24,376,448 0 .759 8 .5 First Litchfield Financial Corpora-
tion ............................................. 12/12/2008 4/7/2010 1,488,046 1,863,158 0 .799 15 .9 PNC Financial Services Group Inc. 12/31/2008 4/29/2010 324,195,686 346,800,388 0 .935 8 .7 Comerica Inc. .................................. 11/14/2008 5/4/2010 183,673,472 276,426,071 0 .664 10 .8 Valley National Bancorp ................. 11/14/2008 5/18/2010 5,571,592 5,955,884 0 .935 8 .3 Wells Fargo Bank ............................ 10/28/2008 5/20/2010 849,014,998 1,064,247,725 0 .798 7 .8 First Financial Bancorp .................. 12/23/2008 6/2/2010 3,116,284 3,051,431 1 .021 8 .2 Sterling Bancshares, Inc./Sterling
Bank ........................................... 12/12/2008 6/9/2010 3,007,891 5,287,665 0 .569 10 .8
VerDate Mar 15 2010 02:17 Dec 02, 2010 Jkt 061835 PO 00000 Frm 00095 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A835.XXX A835tjam
es o
n D
SK
G8S
OY
B1P
RO
D w
ith R
EP
OR
TS
90
FIGURE 28: WARRANT REPURCHASES/AUCTIONS FOR FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS WHO HAVE FULLY REPAID CPP FUNDS (AS OF NOVEMBER 4, 2010)—Continued
Institution Investment Date
Warrant Repurchase
Date
Warrant Repurchase/ Sale Amount
Panel’s Best Valuation
Estimate at Disposition
Date
Price/ Esti-mate Ratio
IRR (Percent)
SVB Financial Group ....................... 12/12/2008 6/16/2010 6,820,000 7,884,633 0 .865 7 .7 Discover Financial Services ............ 3/13/2009 7/7/2010 172,000,000 166,182,652 1 .035 17 .1 Bar Harbor Bancshares .................. 1/16/2009 7/28/2010 250,000 518,511 0 .482 6 .2 Citizens & Northern Corporation ..... 1/16/2009 8/4/2010 400,000 468,164 0 .854 5 .9 Columbia Banking System, Inc. ..... 11/21/2008 8/11/2010 3,301,647 3,291,329 1 .003 7 .3 Hartford Financial Services Group,
Inc. .............................................. 6/26/2009 9/21/2010 713,687,430 472,221,996 1 .511 30 .3 Lincoln National Corporation .......... 7/10/2009 9/16/2010 216,620,887 181,431,183 1 .194 27 .1 Fulton Financial Corporation .......... 12/23/2008 9/8/2010 10,800,000 15,616,013 0 .692 6 .7 The Bancorp, Inc./The Bancorp
Bank ........................................... 12/12/2008 9/8/2010 4,753,985 9,947,683 0 .478 12 .8 South Financial Group, Inc./Caro-
lina First Bank ........................... 12/5/2008 9/30/2010 400,000 1,164,486 0 .343 (34 .2) TIB Financial Corp/TIB Bank .......... 12/5/2008 9/30/2010 40,000 235,757 0 .170 (38 .0)
Total ................................................ $8,148,332,166 $7,999,843,254 1 .019 8 .4
351 Investment date for Bank of America in CPP. 352 Investment date for Merrill Lynch in CPP. 353 Investment date for Bank of America in TIP.
FIGURE 29: VALUATION OF CURRENT HOLDINGS OF WARRANTS (AS OF NOVEMBER 4, 2010) [Dollars in millions]
Financial Institutions with Warrants Outstanding
Warrant Valuation
Low Estimate
High Estimate
Best Estimate
Citigroup, Inc.354 ........................................................................................ $71.57 $1,479.30 $206.88 SunTrust Banks, Inc. .................................................................................. 17.34 356.98 123.78 Regions Financial Corporation .................................................................... 5.94 172.60 63.27 Fifth Third Bancorp ..................................................................................... 96.96 390.18 170.52 KeyCorp ....................................................................................................... 20.90 158.08 64.62 AIG ............................................................................................................... 419.89 2,062.45 909.42 All Other Banks ........................................................................................... 379.97 1,210.32 812.63 Total ............................................................................................................ $1,012.57 $5,829.91 $2,351.12
354 Includes warrants issued under CPP, AGP, and TIP.
2. Federal Financial Stability Efforts
a. Federal Reserve and FDIC Programs In addition to the direct expenditures Treasury has undertaken
through the TARP, the federal government has engaged in a much broader program directed at stabilizing the U.S. financial system. Many of these initiatives explicitly augment funds allocated by Treasury under specific TARP initiatives, such as FDIC and Fed-eral Reserve asset guarantees for Citigroup, or operate in tandem with Treasury programs, such as the interaction between PPIP and TALF. Other programs, like the Federal Reserve’s extension of credit through its Section 13(3) facilities and special purpose vehi-cles (SPVs) and the FDIC’s Temporary Liquidity Guarantee Pro-gram (TLGP), operate independently of the TARP.
VerDate Mar 15 2010 02:17 Dec 02, 2010 Jkt 061835 PO 00000 Frm 00096 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A835.XXX A835tjam
es o
n D
SK
G8S
OY
B1P
RO
D w
ith R
EP
OR
TS
91
355 Congressional Oversight Panel, November Oversight Report: Guarantees and Contingent Payments in TARP and Related Programs, at 36 (Nov. 6, 2009) (online at cop.senate.gov/docu-ments/cop-110609-report.pdf).
356 National Credit Union Administration, Corporate System Resolution: Corporate Credit Unions Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs), at 1 (online at www.ncua.gov/Resources/ CorporateCU/CSR/CSR-6.pdf).
357 National Credit Union Administration, Corporate System Resolution: National Credit Union Administration Virtual Town Hall, at 14 (Sept. 27, 2010) (online at www.ncua.gov/Re-sources/CorporateCU/CSR/10-0927WebinarSlides.pdf); National Credit Union Administration, Fact Sheet: Corporate Credit Union Conservatorships (Sept. 14, 2010) (online at www.ncua.gov/ Resources/CorporateCU/CSR/CSR-14.pdf).
b. Total Financial Stability Resources Beginning in its April 2009 report, the Panel broadly classified
the resources that the federal government has devoted to stabi-lizing the economy through myriad new programs and initiatives as outlays, loans, or guarantees. With the reductions in funding for certain TARP programs, the Panel calculates the total value of these resources to be over $2.5 trillion. However, this would trans-late into the ultimate ‘‘cost’’ of the stabilization effort only if: (1) as-sets do not appreciate; (2) no dividends are received, no warrants are exercised, and no TARP funds are repaid; (3) all loans default and are written off; and (4) all guarantees are exercised and subse-quently written off.
With respect to the FDIC and Federal Reserve programs, the risk of loss varies significantly across the programs considered here, as do the mechanisms providing protection for the taxpayer against such risk. As discussed in the Panel’s November 2009 re-port, the FDIC assesses a premium of up to 100 basis points on TLGP debt guarantees.355 In contrast, the Federal Reserve’s liquid-ity programs are generally available only to borrowers with good credit, and the loans are over-collateralized and with recourse to other assets of the borrower. If the assets securing a Federal Re-serve loan realize a decline in value greater than the ‘‘haircut,’’ the Federal Reserve is able to demand more collateral from the bor-rower. Similarly, should a borrower default on a recourse loan, the Federal Reserve can turn to the borrower’s other assets to make the Federal Reserve whole. In this way, the risk to the taxpayer on recourse loans only materializes if the borrower enters bank-ruptcy.
c. Credit Union Assistance Apart from the assistance credit unions have received through
the CDCI, the National Credit Union Administration (NCUA), the federal agency charged with regulating federal credit unions (FCUs), has also made efforts to stabilize the corporate credit union (CCU) system. Corporate credit unions provide correspondent serv-ices, as well as liquidity and investment services to retail (or con-sumer) credit unions.356 Since March 2009, the NCUA has placed five CCUs into conservatorship due to their exposure to underper-forming private-label MBS. The NCUA estimates that these five in-stitutions, which have $72 billion in assets and provide services for 4,600 retail credit unions, hold more than 90 percent of the MBS in the corporate credit union system.357
To assist in the NCUA’s stabilization efforts, the Temporary Cor-porate Credit Union Stabilization Fund (‘‘Stabilization Fund’’) was created to help cover costs associated with CCU conservatorships
VerDate Mar 15 2010 02:17 Dec 02, 2010 Jkt 061835 PO 00000 Frm 00097 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A835.XXX A835tjam
es o
n D
SK
G8S
OY
B1P
RO
D w
ith R
EP
OR
TS
92
358 National Credit Union Administration, Board Action Memorandum (June 15, 2010) (online at www.ncua.gov/GenInfo/BoardandAction/DraftBoardActions/2010/Jun/ Item6aBAMSFAssessmentJune2010(1%20billion)FINAL.pdf).
359 National Credit Union Administration, Remarks as Prepared for Delivery by Board Member Gigi Hyland at Grand Hyatt Washington (Sept. 20, 2010) (online at www.ncua.gov/GenInfo/ Members/Hyland/Speeches/10-0920HylandNAFCUCongrCaucus.pdf).
360 U.S. Department of the Treasury, FY2011 Budget in Brief, at 138 (Feb. 2010) (online at www.treas.gov/offices/management/budget/budgetinbrief/fy2011/FY%202011%20BIB%20(2).pdf).
361 U.S. Department of the Treasury, MBS Purchase Program: Portfolio by Month (online at www.financialstability.gov/docs/October%202010%20Portfolio%20by%20month.pdf) (accessed Nov. 12, 2010). Treasury has received $65.7 billion in principal repayments and $14.3 billion in interest payments from these securities. See U.S. Department of the Treasury, MBS Purchase Program Principal and Interest Received (online at www.financialstability.gov/docs/ October%202010%20MBS%20Principal%20and%20Interest%20Monthly%20Breakout.pdf) (accessed Nov. 12, 2010).
362 Federal Reserve Report on Credit and Liquidity Programs and the Balance Sheet, supra note 251, at 5.
363 Federal Reserve Report on Credit and Liquidity Programs and the Balance Sheet, supra note 251, at 5.
364 Federal Reserve Statistical Release H.4.1, supra note 251. 365 Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Press Release—FOMC Statement (Nov.
3, 2010) (online at www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/press/monetary/20101103a.htm); Federal Reserve Bank of New York, Statement Regarding Purchases of Treasury Securities (Nov. 3, 2010) (online at www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/press/monetary/monetary20101103a1.pdf).
366 On August 10, 2010, the Federal Reserve began reinvesting principal payments on agency debt and agency MBS holdings in longer-term Treasury securities in order to keep the amount of their securities holdings in their System Open Market Account portfolio at their then-current level. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, FOMC Statement (Aug. 10, 2010) (on-line at www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/press/monetary/20100810a.htm).
and liquidations. The Stabilization Fund was established on May 20, 2009, as part of the Helping Families Save Their Homes Act of 2009, and allows the NCUA to borrow up to $6 billion from Treasury on a revolving basis.358 The NCUA had drawn a total of $1.5 billion from the Stabilization Fund, and repaid the balance at the end of September.359
d. Mortgage Purchase Programs On September 7, 2008, Treasury announced the GSE Mortgage
Backed Securities Purchase Program. The Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 provided Treasury with the authority to pur-chase MBS guaranteed by GSEs through December 31, 2009. Treasury purchased approximately $225 billion in GSE MBS by the time its authority expired.360 As of October 2010, there was ap-proximately $154.6 billion in MBS still outstanding under this pro-gram.361
In March 2009, the Federal Reserve authorized purchases of $1.25 trillion MBS guaranteed by Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and Ginnie Mae, and $200 billion of agency debt securities from Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the Federal Home Loan Banks.362 The in-tended purchase amount for agency debt securities was subse-quently decreased to $175 billion.363 All purchasing activity was completed on March 31, 2010. As of November 10, the Federal Re-serve held $1.05 trillion of agency MBS and $150 billion of agency debt.364
e. Federal Reserve Treasury Securities Purchases 365 On November 3, 2010, the Federal Open Market Committee
(FOMC) announced that it has directed FRBNY to begin pur-chasing an additional $600 billion in longer-term Treasury securi-ties. In addition, FRBNY will reinvest $250 billion to $350 billion in principal payments from agency debt and agency MBS in Treas-ury securities.366 The additional purchases and reinvestments will
VerDate Mar 15 2010 02:17 Dec 02, 2010 Jkt 061835 PO 00000 Frm 00098 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A835.XXX A835tjam
es o
n D
SK
G8S
OY
B1P
RO
D w
ith R
EP
OR
TS
93
367 Federal Reserve Bank of New York, FAQs: Purchases of Longer-term Treasury Securities (Nov. 3, 2010) (online at www.newyorkfed.org/markets/lttreas_faq.html).
368 Federal Reserve Statistical Release H.4.1, supra note 251.
be conducted through the end of the second quarter 2011, meaning the pace of purchases will be approximately $110 billion per month. In order to facilitate these purchases, FRBNY will temporarily lift its System Open Market Account per-issue limit, which prohibits the Federal Reserve’s holdings of an individual security from sur-passing 35 percent of the outstanding amount.367 As of November 10, 2010, the Federal Reserve held $853 billion in Treasury securi-ties.368
FIGURE 30: FEDERAL GOVERNMENT FINANCIAL STABILITY EFFORT (AS OF OCTOBER 27, 2010) xxxiii
[Dollars in billions]
Program Treasury (TARP)
Federal Reserve FDIC Total
Total ............................................................................... $475 $1,378.0 $690.9 $2,544.0 Outlays xxxiv .......................................................... 232.2 1,226.8 188.9 1,648.0 Loans ..................................................................... 23.4 151.2 0 174.6 Guarantees xxxv .................................................... 4.3 0 502 506.3 Repaid and Unavailable TARP Funds ................... 215.1 0 0 215.1
AIG xxxvi ......................................................................... 69.8 83.1 0 152.9 Outlays .................................................................. xxxvii 69.8 xxxviii 26.1 0 95.9 Loans ..................................................................... 0 xxxix 57.1 0 57.1 Guarantees ............................................................ 0 0 0 0
Citigroup ........................................................................ 11.6 0 0 11.6 Outlays .................................................................. xl 11.6 0 0 11.6 Loans ..................................................................... 0 0 0 0 Guarantees ............................................................ 0 0 0 0
Capital Purchase Program (Other) .............................. 37.8 0 0 37.8 Outlays .................................................................. xli 37.8 0 0 37.8 Loans ..................................................................... 0 0 0 0 Guarantees ............................................................ 0 0 0 0
Capital Assistance Program ......................................... N/A 0 0 xlii N/A TALF ................................................................................ 4.3 38.7 0 43.0
Outlays .................................................................. 0 0 0 0 Loans ..................................................................... 0 xliv 38.7 0 38.7 Guarantees ............................................................ xliii 4.3 0 0 4.3
PPIP (Loans) xlv ............................................................ 0 0 0 0 Outlays .................................................................. 0 0 0 0 Loans ..................................................................... 0 0 0 0 Guarantees ............................................................ 0 0 0 0
PPIP (Securities) ........................................................... xlvi 22.4 0 0 22.4 Outlays .................................................................. 7.5 0 0 7.5 Loans ..................................................................... 14.9 0 0 14.9 Guarantees ............................................................ 0 0 0 0
Making Home Affordable Program/Foreclosure Miti-gation ........................................................................ 45.6 0 0 45.6
Outlays .................................................................. xlvii 45.6 0 0 45.6 Loans ..................................................................... 0 0 0 0 Guarantees ............................................................ 0 0 0 0
Automotive Industry Financing Program ..................... xlviii 67.1 0 0 67.1 Outlays .................................................................. 59.0 0 0 59.0 Loans ..................................................................... 8.1 0 0 8.1 Guarantees ............................................................ 0 0 0 0
Automotive Supplier Support Program ........................ 0.4 0 0 0.4 Outlays .................................................................. 0 0 0 0 Loans ..................................................................... xlix 0.4 0 0 0.4 Guarantees ............................................................ 0 0 0 0
SBA 7(a) Securities Purchase ...................................... 0.36 0 0 0.36 Outlays .................................................................. 0.36 0 0 0.36 Loans ..................................................................... 0 0 0 0
VerDate Mar 15 2010 02:17 Dec 02, 2010 Jkt 061835 PO 00000 Frm 00099 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A835.XXX A835tjam
es o
n D
SK
G8S
OY
B1P
RO
D w
ith R
EP
OR
TS
94
FIGURE 30: FEDERAL GOVERNMENT FINANCIAL STABILITY EFFORT (AS OF OCTOBER 27, 2010) xxxiii—Continued
[Dollars in billions]
Program Treasury (TARP)
Federal Reserve FDIC Total
Guarantees ............................................................ 0 0 0 0 Community Development Capital Initiative ................. li 0.57 0 0 0.57
Outlays .................................................................. 0 0 0 0 Loans ..................................................................... 0.57 0 0 0.57 Guarantees ............................................................ 0 0 0 0
Temporary Liquidity Guarantee Program .................... 0 0 502.0 502.0 Outlays .................................................................. 0 0 0 0 Loans ..................................................................... 0 0 0 0 Guarantees ............................................................ 0 0 lii 502.0 502.0
Deposit Insurance Fund ............................................... 0 0 188.9 188.9 Outlays .................................................................. 0 0 liii 188.9 188.9 Loans ..................................................................... 0 0 0 0 Guarantees ............................................................ 0 0 0 0
Other Federal Reserve Credit Expansion .................... 0 1,256.1 0 1,256.1 Outlays .................................................................. 0 liv 1,200.7 0 1,200.7 Loans ..................................................................... 0 lv 55.4 0 55.4 Guarantees ............................................................ 0 0 0 0
xxxiii Unless otherwise noted, all data in this figure are as of October 27, 2010. xxxiv The term ‘‘outlays’’ is used here to describe the use of Treasury funds under the TARP, which are broadly classifiable as purchases of
debt or equity securities (e.g., debentures, preferred stock, exercised warrants, etc.). These values were calculated using (1) Treasury’s actual reported expenditures, and (2) Treasury’s anticipated funding levels as estimated by a variety of sources, including Treasury statements and GAO estimates. Anticipated funding levels are set at Treasury’s discretion, have changed from initial announcements, and are subject to fur-ther change. Outlays used here represent investment and asset purchases—as well as commitments to make investments and asset purchases—and are not the same as budget outlays, which under section 123 of EESA are recorded on a ‘‘credit reform’’ basis.
xxxv Although many of the guarantees may never be exercised or will be exercised only partially, the guarantee figures included here rep-resent the federal government’s greatest possible financial exposure.
xxxvi U.S. Department of the Treasury, Treasury Update on AIG Investment Valuation (Nov. 1, 2010) (online at financialstability.gov/latest/prl11012010.html). AIG values exclude accrued dividends on preferred interests in the AIA and ALICO SPVs and accrued interest payable to FRBNY on the Maiden Lane LLCs.
xxxvii This number includes investments under the AIGIP/SSFI Program: a $40 billion investment made on November 25, 2008, and a $30 billion investment made on April 17, 2009 (less a reduction of $165 million representing bonuses paid to AIG Financial Products employees). As of November 1, 2010, AIG had utilized $47.5 billion of the available $69.8 billion under the AIGIP/SSFI. U.S. Department of the Treasury, Treasury Update on AIG Investment Valuation (Nov. 1, 2010) (online at www.financialstability.gov/latest/prl11012010.html); U.S. Department of the Treasury, Troubled Asset Relief Program Transactions Report for the Period Ending October 29, 2010, at 13 (Nov. 2, 2010) (online at financialstability.gov/docs/transaction-reports/11-2-10%20Transactions%20Report%20as%20of%2010-29-10.pdf).
xxxviii As part of the restructuring of the U.S. government’s investment in AIG announced on March 2, 2009, the amount available to AIG through the Revolving Credit Facility was reduced by $25 billion in exchange for preferred equity interests in two special purpose vehicles, AIA Aurora LLC and ALICO Holdings LLC. These SPVs were established to hold the common stock of two AIG subsidiaries: American International Assurance Company Ltd. (AIA) and American Life Insurance Company (ALICO). As of October 27, 2010, the book value of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York’s holdings in AIA Aurora LLC and ALICO Holdings LLC was $26.1 billion in preferred equity ($16.7 billion in AIA and $9.4 billion in ALICO). Federal Reserve Bank of New York, Factors Affecting Reserve Balances (H.4.1) (Oct. 28, 2010) (online at www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h41/20101028/).
xxxix This number represents the full $29.3 billion made available to AIG through its Revolving Credit Facility (RCF) with FRBNY ($18.9 bil-lion had been drawn down as of October 27, 2010) and the outstanding principal of the loans extended to the Maiden Lane II and III SPVs to buy AIG assets (as of October 27, 2010, $13.5 billion and $14.3 billion, respectively). The amounts outstanding under the Maiden Lane II and III facilities do not reflect the accrued interest payable to FRBNY. Income from the purchased assets is used to pay down the loans to the SPVs, reducing the taxpayers’ exposure to losses over time. Federal Reserve Bank of New York, Factors Affecting Reserve Balances (H.4.1) (Oct. 27, 2010) (online at www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h41/20101028/).
The maximum amount available through the RCF decreased from $34.4 billion to $29.3 billion between March and September 2010, as a result of the sale of two AIG subsidiaries, as well as the company’s sale of CME Group, Inc. common stock. The reduced ceiling also reflects a $3.95 billion repayment to the RCF from proceeds earned from a debt offering by the International Lease Finance Corporation (ILFC), an AIG subsidiary. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Federal Reserve System Monthly Report on Credit and Liquidity Programs and the Balance Sheet, at 18 (Oct. 2010) (online at www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/files/monthlyclbsreport201010.pdf).
xl This figure represents Treasury’s $25 billion investment in Citigroup, minus $13.4 billion applied as a repayment for CPP funding. The amount repaid comes from the $16.4 billion in gross proceeds Treasury received from the sale of 4.1 billion Citigroup common shares. See note ii, supra for further details of the sales of Citigroup common stock to date. U.S. Department of the Treasury, Troubled Asset Relief Pro-gram Transactions Report for the Period Ending October 29, 2010, at 13 (Nov. 2, 2010) (online at financialstability.gov/docs/transaction-reports/11-2-10%20Transactions%20Report%20as%20of%2010-29-10.pdf).
xli This figure represents the $204.9 billion Treasury disbursed under the CPP, minus the $25 billion investment in Citigroup identified above, $139.5 billion in repayments (excluding the amount repaid for the Citigroup investment) that are in ‘‘repaid and unavailable’’ TARP funds, and losses under the program. This figure does not account for future repayments of CPP investments and dividend payments from CPP investments. U.S. Department of the Treasury, Troubled Asset Relief Program Transactions Report for the Period Ending October 29, 2010, at 13 (Nov. 2, 2010) (online at financialstability.gov/docs/transaction-reports/11-2-10%20Transactions%20Report%20as%20of%2010-29-10.pdf).
xlii On November 9, 2009, Treasury announced the closing of the CAP and that only one institution, GMAC, was in need of further capital from Treasury. GMAC, however, received further funding through the AIFP. Therefore, the Panel considers CAP unused. U.S. Department of the Treasury, Treasury Announcement Regarding the Capital Assistance Program (Nov. 9, 2009) (online at www.financialstability.gov/latest/tgl11092009.html).
VerDate Mar 15 2010 02:17 Dec 02, 2010 Jkt 061835 PO 00000 Frm 00100 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A835.XXX A835tjam
es o
n D
SK
G8S
OY
B1P
RO
D w
ith R
EP
OR
TS
95 xliii This figure represents the $4.3 billion adjusted allocation to the TALF SPV. However, as of October 27, 2010, TALF LLC had drawn only
$105 million of the available $4.3 billion. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Factors Affecting Reserve Balances (H.4.1) (Sept. 30, 2010) (online at www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h41/20100930/); U.S. Department of the Treasury, Troubled Asset Relief Program Trans-actions Report for the Period Ending October 29, 2010, at 21 (Nov. 2, 2010) (online at financialstability.gov/docs/transaction-reports/11-2-10%20Transactions%20Report%20as%20of%2010-29-10.pdf). On June 30, 2010, the Federal Reserve ceased issuing loans collateralized by newly issued CMBS. As of this date, investors had requested a total of $73.3 billion in TALF loans ($13.2 billion in CMBS and $60.1 billion in non-CMBS) and $71 billion in TALF loans had been settled ($12 billion in CMBS and $59 billion in non-CMBS). Earlier, it ended its issues of loans collateralized by other TALF-eligible newly issued and legacy ABS (non-CMBS) on March 31, 2010. Federal Reserve Bank of New York, Term Asset-Backed Securities Loan Facility: Terms and Conditions (online at www.newyorkfed.org/markets/talflterms.html) (accessed Nov. 12, 2010); Federal Reserve Bank of New York, Term Asset-Backed Securities Loan Facility: CMBS (online at www.newyorkfed.org/markets/cmbsloperations.html) (accessed Nov. 12, 2010); Federal Reserve Bank of New York, Term Asset-Backed Securities Loan Facility: CMBS (online at www.newyorkfed.org/markets/CMBSlrecentloperations.html) (accessed Nov. 12, 2010); Federal Reserve Bank of New York, Term Asset-Backed Securities Loan Facility: non-CMBS (online at www.newyorkfed.org/markets/talfloperations.html) (accessed Nov. 12, 2010); Federal Reserve Bank of New York, Term Asset-Backed Securities Loan Facility: non-CMBS (online at www.newyorkfed.org/markets/TALFlrecentloperations.html) (accessed Nov. 12, 2010).
xliv This number is derived from the unofficial 1:10 ratio of the value of Treasury loan guarantees to the value of Federal Reserve loans under the TALF. U.S. Department of the Treasury, Fact Sheet: Financial Stability Plan, at 4 (Feb.10, 2009) (online at www.financialstability.gov/docs/fact-sheet.pdf) (describing the initial $20 billion Treasury contribution tied to $200 billion in Federal Reserve loans and announcing potential expansion to a $100 billion Treasury contribution tied to $1 trillion in Federal Reserve loans). Since only $43 billion in TALF loans remained outstanding when the program closed, Treasury is currently responsible for reimbursing the Federal Reserve Board only up to $4.3 billion in losses from these loans. Thus, the Federal Reserve’s maximum potential exposure under the TALF is $38.7 billion. See Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Factors Affecting Reserve Balances (H.4.1) (Oct. 28, 2010) (online at www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h41/20101028/).
xlv It is unlikely that resources will be expended under the PPIP Legacy Loans Program in its original design as a joint Treasury-FDIC pro-gram to purchase troubled assets from solvent banks. In several sales described in FDIC press releases, it appears that there is no Treasury participation, and FDIC activity is accounted for here as a component of the FDIC’s Deposit Insurance Fund outlays. See, e.g., Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, FDIC Statement on the Status of the Legacy Loans Program (June 3, 2009) (online at www.fdic.gov/news/news/press/2009/pr09084.html).
xlvi This figure represents Treasury’s final adjusted investment amount in the Legacy Securities Public-Private Investment Program (PPIP). As of October 29, 2010, Treasury reported commitments of $14.9 billion in loans and $7.5 billion in membership interest associated with PPIP. On January 4, 2010, Treasury and one of the nine fund managers, UST/TCW Senior Mortgage Securities Fund, L.P. (TCW), entered into a ‘‘Winding-Up and Liquidation Agreement.’’ Treasury’s final investment amount in TCW totaled $356 million. Following the liquidation of the fund, Treasury’s initial $3.3 billion obligation to TCW was reallocated among the eight remaining funds on March 22, 2010. See U.S. Depart-ment of the Treasury, Troubled Asset Relief Program Transactions Report for the Period Ending October 29, 2010, at 23 (Nov. 2, 2010) (online at financialstability.gov/docs/transaction-reports/11-2-10%20Transactions%20Report%20as%20of%2010-29-10.pdf).
On October 20, 2010, Treasury released its fourth quarterly report on PPIP. The report indicates that as of September 30, 2010, all eight investment funds have realized an internal rate of return since inception (net of any management fees or expenses owed to Treasury) above 19 percent. The highest performing fund, thus far, is AG GECC PPIF Master Fund, L.P., which has a net internal rate of return of 52 percent. U.S. Department of the Treasury, Legacy Securities Public-Private Investment Program, at 7 (Oct. 20, 2010) (online at financialstability.gov/docs/External%20Report%20-%2009-10%20vFinal.pdf).
xlvii As of October 29, 2010, the total cap for HAMP was $29.9 billion. The total amount of TARP funds committed to HAMP is $29.9 bil-lion. However, as of October 30, 2010, only $597.2 million in non-GSE payments has been disbursed under HAMP. U.S. Department of the Treasury, Troubled Asset Relief Program Transactions Report for the Period Ending October 29, 2010, at 43 (Nov. 2, 2010) (online at financialstability.gov/docs/transaction-reports/11-2-10%20Transactions%20Report%20as%20of%2010-29-10.pdf); U.S. Department of the Treas-ury, Troubled Assets Relief Program Monthly 105(a) Report—September 2010, at 6 (Oct. 1, 2010) (online at financialstability.gov/docs/105CongressionalReports/September%20105(a)%20reportlFINAL.pdf). Data provided by Treasury staff (Nov. 10, 2010).
xlviii A substantial portion of the total $81.3 billion in loans extended under the AIFP has since been converted to common equity and pre-ferred shares in restructured companies. $8.1 billion has been retained as first lien debt (with $1 billion committed to old GM and $7.1 bil-lion to Chrysler). This figure ($67.1 billion) represents Treasury’s current obligation under the AIFP after repayments and losses. U.S. Depart-ment of the Treasury, Troubled Asset Relief Program Transactions Report for the Period Ending October 29, 2010, at 18 (Nov. 2, 2010) (online at financialstability.gov/docs/transaction-reports/11-2-10%20Transactions%20Report%20as%20of%2010-29-10.pdf).
xlix This figure represents Treasury’s total adjusted investment amount in the ASSP. U.S. Department of the Treasury, Troubled Asset Relief Program Transactions Report for the Period Ending October 29, 2010, at 19 (Nov. 2, 2010) (online at financialstability.gov/docs/transaction-reports/11-2-10%20Transactions%20Report%20as%20of%2010-29-10.pdf).
l U.S. Department of the Treasury, Troubled Asset Relief Program: Two Year Retrospective, at 43 (Oct. 2010) (online at www.financialstability.gov/docs/TARP%20Two%20Year%20Retrospectivel10%2005%2010ltransmittal%20letter.pdf).
li U.S. Department of the Treasury, Troubled Asset Relief Program Transactions Report for the Period Ending October 29, 2010, at 17 (Nov. 2, 2010) (online at financialstability.gov/docs/transaction-reports/11-2-10%20Transactions%20Report%20as%20of%2010-29-10.pdf).
lii This figure represents the current maximum aggregate debt guarantees that could be made under the program, which is a function of the number and size of individual financial institutions participating. $286.8 billion of debt subject to the guarantee is currently outstanding, which represents approximately 57.1 percent of the current cap. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Monthly Reports on Debt Issuance Under the Temporary Liquidity Guarantee Program: Debt Issuance Under Guarantee Program (Sept. 30, 2010) (online at www.fdic.gov/regulations/resources/tlgp/totallissuance09-10.html). The FDIC has collected $10.4 billion in fees and surcharges from this pro-gram since its inception in the fourth quarter of 2008. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Monthly Reports Related to the Temporary Li-quidity Guarantee Program: Fees Under Temporary Liquidity Guarantee Debt Program (Sept. 30, 2010) (online at www.fdic.gov/regulations/resources/tlgp/fees.html).
liii This figure represents the FDIC’s provision for losses to its deposit insurance fund attributable to bank failures in the third and fourth quarters of 2008, the first, second, third, and fourth quarters of 2009, and the first and second quarters of 2010. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Chief Financial Officer’s (CFO) Report to the Board: DIF Income Statement—Second Quarter 2010 (online at www.fdic.gov/about/strategic/corporate/cfolreportl2ndqtrl10/income.html). For earlier reports, see Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Chief Financial Officer’s (CFO) Report to the Board (online at www.fdic.gov/about/strategic/corporate/index.html) (accessed Nov. 12, 2010). This figure includes the FDIC’s estimates of its future losses under loss-sharing agreements that it has entered into with banks acquiring assets of insolvent banks during these eight quarters. Under a loss-sharing agreement, as a condition of an acquiring bank’s agreement to purchase the assets of an insolvent bank, the FDIC typically agrees to cover 80 percent of an acquiring bank’s future losses on an initial portion of these assets and 95 percent of losses on another portion of assets. See, e.g., Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Purchase and Assump-tion Agreement—Whole Bank, All Deposits—Among FDIC, Receiver of Guaranty Bank, Austin, Texas, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and Compass Bank, at 65–66 (Aug. 21, 2009) (online at www.fdic.gov/bank/individual/failed/guaranty-txlplandlalwladdendum.pdf).
liv Outlays are comprised of the Federal Reserve Mortgage Related Facilities. The Federal Reserve balance sheet accounts for these facilities under Federal agency debt securities and mortgage-backed securities held by the Federal Reserve. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Factors Affecting Reserve Balances (H.4.1) (Oct. 27, 2010) (online at www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h41/20100930/). Although the Federal Reserve does not employ the outlays, loans, and guarantees classification, its accounting clearly separates its mortgage-related pur-chasing programs from its liquidity programs. See, e.g., Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Factors Affecting Reserve Balances (H.4.1), at 2 (Oct. 28, 2010) (online at www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h41/20101028) (accessed Nov. 3, 2010).
lv Federal Reserve Liquidity Facilities classified in this table as loans include primary credit, secondary credit, central bank liquidity swaps, Asset-Backed Commercial Paper Money Market Mutual Fund Liquidity Facility, loans outstanding to Commercial Paper Funding Facility LLC, seasonal credit, term auction credit, the Term Asset-Backed Securities Loan Facility, and loans outstanding to Bear Stearns (Maiden Lane LLC). Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Factors Affecting Reserve Balances (H.4.1) (Oct. 28, 2010) (online at www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h41/20101028/) (accessed Nov. 3, 2010).
VerDate Mar 15 2010 02:17 Dec 02, 2010 Jkt 061835 PO 00000 Frm 00101 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A835.XXX A835tjam
es o
n D
SK
G8S
OY
B1P
RO
D w
ith R
EP
OR
TS
96
SECTION FOUR: OVERSIGHT ACTIVITIES
The Congressional Oversight Panel was established as part of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act (EESA) and formed on November 26, 2008. Since then, the Panel has produced 24 over-sight reports, as well as a special report on regulatory reform, issued on January 29, 2009, and a special report on farm credit, issued on July 21, 2009. Since the release of the Panel’s October oversight report, the following developments pertaining to the Pan-el’s oversight of the TARP took place:
• The Panel held a hearing in Washington on October 21, 2010, discussing restrictions on executive compensation for compa-nies that received TARP funds. The Panel heard testimony from Kenneth R. Feinberg, the former Special Master for TARP Executive Compensation, as well as from industry and academic experts.
• The Panel held a hearing in Washington on October 27, 2010. The Panel heard testimony from Phyllis Caldwell, chief of Treasury’s Homeownership Preservation Office, as well as from industry and academic experts about Treasury’s HAMP pro-gram and the effects of recent foreclosure documentation irreg-ularities on Treasury’s ability to maintain systemic financial stability and effective foreclosure mitigation efforts under the TARP.
Upcoming Reports and Hearings The Panel will release its next oversight report in December. The
report will discuss HAMP, the most expansive of Treasury’s fore-closure mitigation initiatives under the TARP, assessing its effec-tiveness in meeting the TARP’s legislative mandate to ‘‘protect home values’’ and ‘‘preserve homeownership.’’ This will be the Pan-el’s fourth report addressing Treasury’s foreclosure mitigation ef-forts under the TARP.
Acknowledgements The Panel would like to thank the following individuals for shar-
ing their thoughts and suggestions: Roger Ashworth, MBS Analyst, Amherst Securities; Guy Cecala, CEO and Publisher, Inside Mort-gage Finance; Chris Gamaitoni, Vice President, Compass Point Re-search & Trading; Jason Gold, Senior Fellow for Housing and Fi-nancial Services Policy, Third Way; Laurie Goodman, Senior Man-aging Director, Amherst Securities; Anne Kim, Domestic Policy Program Director, Third Way; Paul Miller, Managing Director and Group Head of Financial Services Research, FBR Capital Markets; Matthew O’Connor, Research Analyst, Deutsche Bank Securities; Christopher Peterson, Associate Dean for Academic Affairs and Professor of Law, University of Utah; Robert Placet, Associate Ana-lyst, Deutsche Bank Securities; Joshua Rosner, Managing Director, Graham Fisher & Co.; and, Jason Stewart, Managing Director, Compass Point Research & Trading.
The Panel also wishes to acknowledge and thank the many indi-viduals from the academic, legal, consumer, analyst, and other communities who provided useful information and views for this re-port.
VerDate Mar 15 2010 02:17 Dec 02, 2010 Jkt 061835 PO 00000 Frm 00102 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A835.XXX A835tjam
es o
n D
SK
G8S
OY
B1P
RO
D w
ith R
EP
OR
TS
97
SECTION FIVE: ABOUT THE CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT PANEL
In response to the escalating financial crisis, on October 3, 2008, Congress provided Treasury with the authority to spend $700 bil-lion to stabilize the U.S. economy, preserve home ownership, and promote economic growth. Congress created the Office of Financial Stability (OFS) within Treasury to implement the TARP. At the same time, Congress created the Congressional Oversight Panel to ‘‘review the current state of financial markets and the regulatory system.’’ The Panel is empowered to hold hearings, review official data, and write reports on actions taken by Treasury and financial institutions and their effect on the economy. Through regular re-ports, the Panel must oversee Treasury’s actions, assess the impact of spending to stabilize the economy, evaluate market trans-parency, ensure effective foreclosure mitigation efforts, and guar-antee that Treasury’s actions are in the best interests of the Amer-ican people. In addition, Congress instructed the Panel to produce a special report on regulatory reform that analyzes ‘‘the current state of the regulatory system and its effectiveness at overseeing the participants in the financial system and protecting consumers.’’ The Panel issued this report in January 2009. Congress subse-quently expanded the Panel’s mandate by directing it to produce a special report on the availability of credit in the agricultural sector. The report was issued on July 21, 2009.
On November 14, 2008, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and the Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi appointed Richard H. Neiman, Superintendent of Banks for the State of New York, Damon Silvers, Director of Policy and Special Counsel of the Amer-ican Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL–CIO), and Elizabeth Warren, Leo Gottlieb Professor of Law at Harvard Law School, to the Panel. With the appointment on No-vember 19, 2008, of Congressman Jeb Hensarling to the Panel by House Minority Leader John Boehner, the Panel had a quorum and met for the first time on November 26, 2008, electing Professor Warren as its chair. On December 16, 2008, Senate Minority Lead-er Mitch McConnell named Senator John E. Sununu to the Panel. Effective August 10, 2009, Senator Sununu resigned from the Panel, and on August 20, 2009, Senator McConnell announced the appointment of Paul Atkins, former Commissioner of the U.S. Secu-rities and Exchange Commission, to fill the vacant seat. Effective December 9, 2009, Congressman Jeb Hensarling resigned from the Panel and House Minority Leader John Boehner announced the ap-pointment of J. Mark McWatters to fill the vacant seat. Senate Mi-nority Leader Mitch McConnell appointed Kenneth Troske, Sturgill Professor of Economics at the University of Kentucky, to fill the va-cancy created by the resignation of Paul Atkins on May 21, 2010. Effective September 17, 2010, Elizabeth Warren resigned from the Panel, and on September 30, 2010, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid announced the appointment of Senator Ted Kaufman to fill the vacant seat. On October 4, 2010, the Panel elected Senator Kaufman as its chair.
VerDate Mar 15 2010 02:17 Dec 02, 2010 Jkt 061835 PO 00000 Frm 00103 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A835.XXX A835tjam
es o
n D
SK
G8S
OY
B1P
RO
D w
ith R
EP
OR
TS
98
APPENDIX I: LETTER FROM CHAIRMAN TED KAUFMAN TO SPECIAL MASTER PATRICIA GEOGHEGAN, RE: FOL-LOW UP TO EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION HEARING, DATED NOVEMBER 1, 2010
VerDate Mar 15 2010 02:17 Dec 02, 2010 Jkt 061835 PO 00000 Frm 00104 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A835.XXX A835tjam
es o
n D
SK
G8S
OY
B1P
RO
D w
ith R
EP
OR
TS
99
VerDate Mar 15 2010 02:17 Dec 02, 2010 Jkt 061835 PO 00000 Frm 00105 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A835.XXX A835 Inse
rt of
fset
folio
132
her
e 61
835C
.015
tjam
es o
n D
SK
G8S
OY
B1P
RO
D w
ith R
EP
OR
TS
100
VerDate Mar 15 2010 02:17 Dec 02, 2010 Jkt 061835 PO 00000 Frm 00106 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A835.XXX A835 Inse
rt of
fset
folio
133
her
e 61
835C
.016
tjam
es o
n D
SK
G8S
OY
B1P
RO
D w
ith R
EP
OR
TS
EXHIBIT 190
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK
MBIA INSURANCE CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
-against-
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., COUNTRYWIDE SECURITIES CORP., COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL CORP., COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP, and BANK OF AMERICA CORP.
Defendants.
Index No.: 08/602825
IAS Part 3 (Bransten, J.)
CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL-SUBJECT TO STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR THE PRODUCTION AND EXCHANGE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
This envelope, containing documents which are filed in this case by MBIA Insurance Corporation, is not to be opened nor are the contents thereof to be displayed or revealed other
than to the Court, the parties and their counsel of record, except by order of the Court or consent of the parties.
EXHIBIT 191
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK
MBIA INSURANCE CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
-against-
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., COUNTRYWIDE SECURITIES CORP., COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL CORP., COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP, and BANK OF AMERICA CORP.
Defendants.
Index No.: 08/602825
IAS Part 3 (Bransten, J.)
CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL-SUBJECT TO STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR THE PRODUCTION AND EXCHANGE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
This envelope, containing documents which are filed in this case by MBIA Insurance Corporation, is not to be opened nor are the contents thereof to be displayed or revealed other
than to the Court, the parties and their counsel of record, except by order of the Court or consent of the parties.
EXHIBIT 192
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/03/2012 INDEX NO. 602825/2008
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1404 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/03/2012
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK: lAS PART 3
----------------------------------------------------------------x MBIA INSURANCE CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
-against-
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., COUNTRYWIDE SECURITIES CORP., COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL CORP., COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP and BANK OF AMERICA CORP.,
Defendants.
----------------------------------------------------------------x PRESENT: HON. EILEEN BRANSTEN
Index No.: 602825/08 Motion Date: 10/6/11 Motion Seq. No.: 037
PlaintiffMBIA Insurance Corporation's ("MBIA") moves pursuant to CPLR 3212 (e)
for partial summary judgment against defendants Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. ("CHL");
Countrywide Securities Corporation ("CSC"), Countrywide Financial Corporation ("CFC")
and Countrywide Home Loans Servicing, LP ("CHLS", and, with CHL, CSC and CFC,
"Countrywide") collectively and CHL separately.
MBIA seeks judgment first that on its claim for fraud against Countrywide, MBIA
need establish only that Countrywide's alleged misrepresentations inducedMBIA to issue
insurance policies on terms it would not have agreed to had MBIA known of the alleged
misrepresentations, and that MBIA need not show a causal connection between '- ~
Countrywide's alleged misrepresentations and MBIA's claims payments made pursuant to
MBIA's insurance policies.
MBIA v. Countrywide, et al. Index No. 602825/08 Page 2
Second, MBIA seeks judgment on its claim against CHL for breach of the insurance
agreement. Specifically, MBIA wants the court to declare that MBIA need establish only
that CHL's alleged warranty breaches increased the risk of the insurance that MBIA
provided, and that MBIA need not show a causal connection between CHL's alleged
warranty breaches and MBIA's claims payments made pursuant to MBIA's insurance
policies. Third, MBIA seeks judgment on its claim for CHL's breach of its alleged
repurchase obligation under various transaction documents. Specifically, MBIA seeks
judgment that it need establish only that a loan breached a representation or warranty in a
way that materially affects MBIA' s interests, and that MBIA need not show that the allegedly
non-compliant loan was non-performing or that the non-performance was caused by
Countrywide's breaches of representations and warranties in respect of that loan.
MBIA further seeks, pursuant to CPLR 3211 (b) to strike Countrywide's and Bank
of America Corporation's ("BAC") Fourteenth and Fifteenth Affirmative Defenses, wherein
Countrywide asserts that it was not the cause of any alleged injury, loss or damages suffered
by MBIA (fourteenth) and that MBIA 's claims are barred, in whole or in part, by superseding
or intervening causes of any alleged damages, and that any damages MBIA did suffer result
directly from causes other than Countrywide's alleged acts or omissions.
Countrywide opposes.
MBIA v. Countrywide, et at.
BACKGROUND
Index No. 602825/08 Page 3
The facts of this matter have been discussed extensively in previous decisions of this
court. Thus, only details necessary to this motion are referenced herein.
MBIA brought the instant action on September 30, 2008 against the Countrywide
defendants. MBIA alleged, and alleges, that Countrywide fraudulently induced MBIA to
insure the securitizations and that Countrywide breached the representations and warranties
in the transaction documents. On August 24,2009, MBIA filed an amended complaint (the
"Amended Complaint").
This action stems out of fifteen residential mortgage-backed securitizations (the
"Securitizations"). Each securitization is comprised of a group of mortgage loans
("Mortgage Loans"), originated or acquired by Countrywide. Countrywide sold or conveyed
the Mortgage Loans Securitizations to trusts. The trusts, in turn, issued notes and certificates
backed by the loans to investors. The investors were promised a return of principal with
interest. Payments of interest and principal depended on an ongoing stream of principal and
interest payments on the Mortgage Loans held by the trusts.
The rights and obligations of the parties to the Securitizations are set forth in contracts
(the "Transaction Documents"). The Transaction Documents provide for the sale of the
Mortgage Loans to the trusts (the "Purchase Agreements"); the servicing of the Mortgage
Loans by CHL or CHLS (the "Sales and Servicing Agreement" or "SSA") and a Pooling and
Servicing Agreement ("PSA") for closed-end second liens. Further, the trusts issued the
MBIA v. Countrywide, el al. Index No. 602825/08 Page 4
Securitizations through an Indenture and sold the Securitizations pursuant to a Prospectus
and Prospectus Supplement. The Transactions closed between September 2004 and
May 2007.
MBIA, for premiums received, insured that payments to the Securitizations' investors
would be made. For each Securitization, MBIA issued a Note or Certificate Guaranty
Insurance Policy to the trusts that provided the terms for an MBIA-issued financial guaranty
policy ("Insurance Policy"). Each Insurance Policy guarantees that should the payments
received from the Mortgage Loans be insufficient to cover payments due under the
Securities, MBIA would pay the shortfall. The terms of each Insurance Policy were stated
in an Insurance Agreement ("Insurance Agreement").
The Insurance Agreements contain and incorporate representations and warranties
regarding the individual loans that comprise the Securities. Countrywide asserts that the
Insurance Agreements contain many of the provisions found in the other Transac~ion
Documents. Countrywide'S Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Plaintiffs Motion for
Partial Summary Judgment and Motion to Strike Defenses ("Countrywide Opp. Memo."),
p. 3. MBIA asserts that the representations and warranties in the Insurance Agreements were
comprehensive, and that it relied upon those representations and warranties when evaluating
the risk associated with insuring the Securitizations. Plaintiffs Memorandum of Law in
Support of Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and Motion to Strike Defenses ("MBIA
Memo."), p. 5.
MBIA v. Countrywide, et al. Index No. 602825/08 Page 5
MBIA states that the Insurance Agreements contain two types of representations and
warranties, the "Transactional Warranties" and the "Loan-Level Warranties." MBIA Memo,
pp.6-7.
MBIA states that the Transactional Warranties contain a representation about the
accuracy of the information provided to MBIA by Countrywide. Specifically, the
Transactional Warranties state that "[ n ]either the Transaction Documents nor other material
information relating to the Mortgage Loans ... contains any statement or a material fact by
the Master Servicer, the Sponsor or Depositor which was untrue or misleading in any
material respect when made." Sheth Affirm., I Ex. 6, Insurance Agreement for HELOC
securitization, § 2.01 U); Ex. 7, Insurance Agreement for CES securitization, § 2.01 U).
The Loan-Level Warranties are alleged to contain a "comprehensive array of
representations and warranties by Countrywide about the characteristics of the underlying
loan pools and of individual loans." MBIA Memo., p. 6. MBIA alleges that the
representations and warranties consist of those made by Countrywide in other Transaction
Documents, (id., citing Sheth Affirm., Ex. 8, Mortgage Loan Purchase Agreement
("MLPA"); Ex. 9, Sales and Servicing Agreement; Ex. 10, Pooling and Servicing
Agreement), which are incorporated into the Insurance Agreement. Sheth Affirm., Ex. 6,
§ 2.01(1); Ex. 2 § 2.01(1); see also Ex. 6, §§ 2.04 U), 2.07 (g).
I Affinnation of Manisha M. Sheth in Support of Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and Motion to Strike Defenses ("Sheth Affirm.").
MBIA v. Countrywide, et at. Index No. 602825/08 Page 6
Relevant to the pending motion, MBIA's Amended Complaint asserts: (1) fraud
against CFC, CHL and CSC; (2) breach of the express representations and warranties in the
Insurance Agreement by CHL and CHLS; (3) breach of the obligation to repurchase non-
compliant mortgage loans by CHL; and (4) breach of the loan servicing covenants in the
SSA's and PSA's by CHL and CSC.
MBIA moves for summary judgment that it need not establish a causal connection
between Countrywide's alleged misrepresentations and MBIA's claim payments made
pursuant to MBIA's issued insurance policies. MBIA also seeks judgment that MBIA's
claim against Countrywide for breach of the repurchase obligations does not require a
showing that a non-compliant loan is actually in default or that CHL's alleged
misrepresentations were the actual cause of default of a particular loan.
ANALYSIS
I. Standard of Law
CPLR 3212( e) provides, in relevant part, that "summary judgment may be granted as
to one or more causes of action, or part thereof, in favor of anyone or more parties, to the
extent warranted, on such terms as may be just."
The standards for summary judgment are well settled. The movant must tender
evidence, by proof in admissible form, to establish the cause of action "sufficiently to
warrant the court as a matter oflaw in directing judgment." CPLR 3212(b); Zuckerman v.
MBIA v. Countrywide, et at. Index No. 602825/08 Page 7
City of New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557, 562 (1980). "Failure to make such showing requires
denial ofthe motion, regardless of the sufficiency of the opposing papers." Winegradv. New
York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 N.Y.2d 851,853 (1985). Once such proof has been offered, to
defeat summary judgment "the opposing party must show facts sufficient to require a trial
of any issue of fact." CPLR 3212(b); Zuckerman, 49 N.Y.2d at 562. MBIA here moves on
legal issues.
CPLR 3211(b) states that "[a] party may move for judgment dismissing one or more
defenses, on the ground that a defense is not stated or has no merit." When moving to
dismiss an affirmative defense, the plaintiff bears the burden of demonstrating that the
affirmative defense is without merit as a matter oflaw because it either does not apply under
the factual circumstances of the case or fails to state a defense. Bank of America, NA. v. 414
Midland Ave. Assocs., LLC, 78 A.D.3d 746, 748 (2nd Dep't 2010).
II. Arguments
A. MBIA's Claims for Fraud and Breach of Warranty
MBIA contends that to succeed on an insurance fraud claim, the insurer must prove
only that the application for insurance made a material misrepresentation that, had the insurer
known of the true facts, would have led the insurer to either not issue the policy or issue the
policy on different terms. MBIA also asserts that to succeed on a breach of warranty claim,
the insurer must prove only that the breach of warranty materially increased the insurer's risk.
MBIA argues that it is not required to establish a causal link between Countrywide's alleged
MBIA v. Countrywide, et at. . Index No. 602825/08 Page 8
misrepresentations and claims MBIA made under the insurance policies. MBIA supports its
argument with N.Y. Insurance Law §§ 3105 and 3106, respectively.
Countrywide, in opposition, contends that MBIA must establish that the claims
payments it made pursuant to its issued policies were caused by Countrywide's alleged
misrepresentations and not by another cause, including the economic downturn that began
in late 2007. Countrywide further argues that N.Y. Insurance Law § 3105 does not apply to
MBIA's common law claim for fraud, and sections 3105 and 3106 do not provide for
rescissory damages, the remedy which MBIA seeks.
B. Causation
The base issue before the court in this motion is when causation occurs in claims for
insurance fraud and breach of representations and warranties. MBIA asserts that causation
occurred, and liability results, when Countrywide made misrepresentations that were material
and which induced MBIA to issue financial guaranty insurance policies when, had it known
the true facts, it may have either declined to issue the policies or issued the policies on
different terms. MBIA contends that it was denied the opportunity to examine the facts
based on proper infonnation, and, thus, all payments it has made pursuant to the policies
result from Countrywide's alleged misrepresentations.
Countrywide argues that MBIA, having chosen to seek damages for all payments it
has or will make pursuant to the Insurance Policies, must prove that its claims payments were
directly and proximately caused by Countrywide's alleged misrepresentations. Countrywide
MBIA v. Countrywide, et at. Index No. 602825108 Page 9
argues that N.Y. Insurance Law §§ 3105 and 3106 do not provide for damages, but only that
MBIA may avoid the insurance contracts should MBIA prove a material misrepresentation
was made. Further, Countrywide contends that an insurance company may only invoke N.Y.
Insurance Law Sections 3105 and 3106 in a declaratory action or as an affirmative defense
or counterclaim.
(i.) The First Department Decision of June 30, 2011
Countrywide asserts that this court and the First Department have both held that
MBIA must prove that Countrywide's alleged wrongdoing caused MBIA's losses. This is
correct; that wrongdoing causing loss must be proven before damages are levied has never
been an issue for debate. It is further axiomatic that proximate cause is inherent in causation.
"[T]here must be some reasonable connection between the act or omission of the defendant
and the damage which plaintiff has suffered." Prosser and Keaton on Torts, § 41 at p. 263
(5th Ed.).
However, the court disagrees with Countrywide's characterization of this court's
holding and the Appellate Division's June 30, 2011 decision with regard to causation. See
MBIA Ins. Corp. v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. et al., 87 A.D.3d 287 (1st Dep't 2011).
The Appellate Division decision did not hold, as Countrywide argues, that this court must
determine which ofMBIA's losses were caused by Countrywide's alleged wrongdoing and
which were caused by the "Mortgage Market Meltdown." Countrywide Memo, p. 7. Rather,
in the section that Countrywide quotes, the First Department rejected Countrywide's
MBIA v. Countrywide, et al. Index No. 602825/08 Page 10
contention that MBIA's fraud claim must be dismissed for failure to plead a causal link
between Countrywide's alleged misrepresentations and MBIA's alleged damages. The First
Department held that MBIA's pleading sufficiently alleged loss causation to avoid
Countrywide's motion to dismiss, as "it was foreseeable that MBIA would suffer losses as
a result of relying on Countrywide's alleged misrepresentations about the mortgage loans."
MBIA Ins. Corp. v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 87 A.D.3d at 296. The First Department
further held that "[i]t cannot be said, on this pre-answer motion to dismiss, that MBIA's
losses were caused, as a matter of law, by the 2007 housing and credit crisis." Id. The
appellate court did not hold that MBIA's claims payments must be directly shown to be
caused by Countrywide's alleged misrepresentations. Countrywide's quotation of the First
Department's parenthetical explanation to In re Countrywide Fin. Corp. Sec. Litig., 588
F. Supp. 2d 1132, 1174 (C.D. Cal. 2008) does not lend support to its argument. See
Countrywide Memo., p. 7.
Countrywide's reliance upon this court's April 27, 20102 Decision and Order is
similarly unavailing. See Countrywide Memo., p. 7. Therein, in response to Countrywide'S
arguments, this court merely stated that it was premature on a motion based on pleadings to
determine "whether an economic downturn constituted an intervening cause in the link
between Countrywide's alleged conduct and MBIA['s]" alleged injury. Decision and Order
of April 27, 2010 ("4/27/10 Order"). The court did not state that it must make such a
determination in the future.
2 Incorrectly dated as April 27, 2009.
:'
MBIA v. Countrywide, et al. Index No. 602825/08 Page 11
Neither the First Department nor this court addressed the determination of causation,
and therefore no decision exists thereon that must be the law of the case. Baldasano v Bank
a/NY, 199A.D.2d 184,185 (lstDep't 1993).
(ii.) NY Insurance Law §§ 3105 and 3106
MBIA asserts its claims as informed by New York Insurance Law Sections 3105 and
3106. New York Insurance Law § 3105, titled "Representations by the insured", states, in
pertinent part:
(a) A representation is a statement as to past or present fact, made to the insurer by, or by the authority of, the applicant for insurance or the prospective insured, at or before the making of the insurance contract as an inducement to the making thereof. A misrepresentation is a false representation, and the facts misrepresented are those facts which make the representation false.
(b)( 1) No misrepresentation shall avoid any contract of insurance or defeat recovery thereunder unless such misrepresentation was material. No misrepresentation shall be deemed material unless knowledge by the insurer of the facts misrepresented would have led to a refusal by the insurer to make such contract.
Section 3106, titled "Warranty defined, effect of breach", states, again in pertinent part:
(a) In this section "warranty" means any provision of an insurance contract which has the effect of requiring, as a condition precedent of the taking effect of such contract or as a condition precedent of the insurer's liability thereunder, the existence of a fact which tends to diminish, or the non-existence of a fact which tends to increase, the risk of the occurrence of any loss, damage, or injury within the coverage of the contract. The term "occurrence of loss, damage, or injury" includes the occurrence of death, disability, injury, or any other contingency insured against, and the term "risk" includes both physical and moral hazards.
MBIA v. Countrywide, et at. Index No. 602825/08 Page 12
(b) A breach of warranty shall not avoid an insurance contract or defeat recovery thereunder unless such breach materially increases the risk of loss, damage or injury within the coverage of the contract. If the insurance contract specified two or more distinct kinds ofloss, damage or injury which are within its coverage, a breach of warranty shall not avoid such contract or defeat recovery thereunder with respect to any kind or kinds ofloss, damage or injury other than the kind or kinds to which such warranty relates and the risk of which is materially increased by the breach of such warranty.
MBIA bases its claims on New York common law as informed and influenced by
these sections.
(iii.) MBIA 's Assertions Based on N.Y Insurance Law §§ 3105 and 3106
Countrywide asserts that New York Insurance Law sections 3105 and 3106 may be
asserted only in a declaratory judgment action or as an affirmative defense. While
Countrywide cites cases which illustrate a party seeking declaratory judgment to void a
policy (Sun Ins. Co. olN. Y v Hercules Sec. Unlimited, 195 A.O.2d 24,27 [2d Oep't 1993]),
and a party seeking to void a policy for breach of condition precedent as a defense (Glickman
v. New York Life Ins. Co., 291 N.Y. 45, 49 [1943]), these cases do not hold that avoidance
and rescission may only be asserted in these manners. Countrywide has made no showing
that MBIA may only use Sections 3105 and 3106 in a request for declaratory judgment or as
an affirmative defense and New York insurance statutes make no such statement.
(iv.) MBIA's Claims Against Countrywide versus the Trusts
Countrywide next asserts that MBIA' s failure to name the Trusts as defendants is fatal
to its claims under sections 3105 and 3106. Countrywide contends that the Trusts are the
MBIA v. Countrywide, et al. Index No. 602825108 Page 13
actual insured under the Insurance Policies, and that this court will "assume the role of the
legislature" should it hold that the sections "authorize an insurer to sue an entity other than
its insured to recover damages." Countrywide Memo., pp. 10-11.
The issue of recovery of damages is addressed below. However, it is clear from the
very language of N.Y. Insurance Law § 3105 that the section applies to statements made "by,
or by the authority of, the applicant for insurance or the prospective insured .... " N.Y.
Insurance Law § 3105 (a). The statute speaks in the disjunctive between "applicant for
insurance" or "prospective insured" and therefore clearly differentiates between the two.
The court reads the statute as applying to statements made "by ... the applicant."
New York common law has correspondingly held that a broker for insurance may be
held responsible for damages caused by misrepresentations. See, e.g., Panepinto v. Allstate
Ins. Co., 108 Misc. 2d 1079, 1081 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Monroe County March 20, 1981) citing
Harnett, Responsibilities ofInsurance Agents and Brokers, §§ 4.03( 1) and 4.08; Liberty Mut.
Ins. Co. v. Grand Transp.,Inc., No. 06 CV 3433(10),2007 WL 764542, *3 (E.D.N.Y. March
12, 2007). MBIA thus prevails against this portion of Countrywide's arguments.
Countrywide is a proper defendant for alleged misrepresentations made.
(v.) Causation
MBIA posits common law claims for fraud and breach of warranty. The court fmds
that in this insurance context, with MBIA as an insurance company and Countrywide as an
applicant for insurance (see § I.B.iv., supra), the claims are informed by New York common
law and Insurance Law Sections 3105 and 3106.
MBJA v. Countrywide, et al. Index No. 602825/08 Page 14
Both New York common law and Insurance Law are clear that a material
misrepresentation made at the time an insurance policy is being procured may lead to a policy
being rescinded and/or avoided. See BW Sportswear, Inc. v. Those Certain Underwriters at
Lloyd's o/London, 32 Misc. 3d 1245(A), *2 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., N.Y. County 2011) (Oing, J.)
citing Kiss Construction NY, Inc. v. Rutgers Casualty Ins. Co., 61 A.D.3d 412 (1st Dep't
2009); N.Y. Ins. Law § 3105. This corresponds to a standard claim for fraud, in which fraud
is complete when a misrepresentation is made that induces a party to take action and that
party suffers damages as a result. See, e.g., Eurycleia Partners, LP v. Seward & Kissel, LLP,
12 N.Y.3d 553, 559 (2009). The court therefore finds that no basis in law exists to mandate
that MBIA establish a direct causal link between the misrepresentations allegedly made by
Countrywide and claims made under the policy.
In order to prove its claims for fraud and breach of warranty, MBIA must prove all
elements of its claims. Small v. Lorillard Tobacco Co., Inc., 94 N.Y.2d 43, 57 (1999)
(fraud); Ainger v. Michigan General Corp., 476 F. Supp. 1209, 1223-24 (S.D.N.Y. 1979)
(discussing breach of warranty). Of particularly importance here, MBIA must prove that
Countrywide made misrepresentations that were material to its decisions to issue the
Insurance Policies. In order to show materiality, as defined by N.Y. Insurance Law
§ 31 05(b) and case law, MBIA must show that it relied on Countrywide's alleged
misrepresentations in that the alleged statements induced MBIA to take action which MBIA
might otherwise not have taken, or would have taken in a different manner. See Greer v.
MBIA v. Countrywide, et at. Index No. 602825/08 Page 15
Union Mutual Life Ins. Co., 273 N.Y. 261, 269 (1937); Interested Underwriters at Lloyd's,
Subscribing to Policy of Insurance No. 7071NP 2641G v. H.D.I. III Associates, 213 A.D.2d
246,247 (1st Dep't 1995). "For purposes of determining materiality, there need not be a
causal connection between the misrepresented condition and the loss suffered." Greene v.
United Mutual Life Insurance Co., 38 Misc. 2d 728, 730-31 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Bronx County
1963), aff'd, 23 A.D.2d 720 (1st Dep't 1965).
MBIA must prove for its fraud claim that it issued the Insurance Policies on
representations made in the policies' applications, and that it would not have done so or
would have issued the policies on different terms had the alleged misrepresentations not been
made. Similarly, MBIA must prove for its breach of warranty claim that Countrywide's
alleged misrepresentations materially increased MBIA's risk of loss. See Star City
Sportswear, Inc. v. The Yasuda Fire & Marine Insurance Company of America, 1 A.D.3d 58,
62 (Ist Dep't 2003); N.Y. Insurance Law § 3106(b).
MBIA must then prove that it was damaged as a direct result of the material
misrepresentations. As has been aptly pointed out by Countrywide, this will not be an easy
task. Upon reaching its burden of proof for each claim, MBIA must then prove the amount
of its damages.
The question therefore becomes whether MBIA's claim for rescissory damages is
valid in this instance, or if, having chosen to inform its claims as per New York Insurance
Law, MBIA is limited to rescission.
MBIA v. Countrywide, et al.
(vi.) Rescission versus Rescissory Damages
Index No. 602825/08 Page 16
Countrywide asserts that under N.Y. Insurance Law Sections 3105 and 3106, MBIA
may only seek to rescind or avoid the Insurance Policies. MBIA contends that to void or
rescind the Insurance Policies would be unfair to the Trusts, and is prohibited by binding
contract. Thus, MBIA moves for recognition that it may recover its alleged economic injury
through rescissory damages.
Though traditionally directed toward breach of contract and tort, elementary damages
theory is instructive to the case at bar.
Compensatory damages are intended to make the victim of wrongdoing whole. The
damages are to place the wronged victim in the same position as it was prior to the
wrongdoing, without providing the recovery of any windfall. Ross v. Louise Wise Servs.,
Inc., 8 N.Y.3d 478,489 (2007); New York City Economic Development Corporation v. TC.
Foods Import and Export Co., Inc., 11 Misc.3d 1087(A), *3 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Queens Co.
2006) (Weiss, J.); see 4 N.Y. Prac., Com. Lit. in New York State Courts § 46:2 (3d ed.)
("Whether arising from a breach of contract or a tort, compensatory damages are intended
to compensate the injured party for its losses caused by the breach or tortious conduct.
Compensatory damages "proceed from a sense of natural justice" to repair the losses caused
to one by the wrong of another. ").
Rescissory damages, while not often used in New York, are far from an unknown
form of relief. While rescission will bring the parties back to base point prior to contract
MBIA v. Countrywide, et al. Index No. 602825/08 Page 17
fonnation and in effect "unmake" the contract, as the Delaware chancery court stated in " , .
2003: "Rescissory damages are designed to be the economic equivalent of rescission in a
circumstance in which rescission is warranted, but not practicable. A solid body of case law
so holds." Gotham Partners, L. P. v. Hallwood Realty Partners, L. P., 855 A.2d 1059, 1072
(Del. Ch. 2003) string citing, inter alia, Cinerama, Inc. v. Technicolor, Inc., 663 A.2d 1134,
1144-47 (Del. Ch. 1994); see also Telstra Corp Ltd. v. Dynegy, Inc, Civ.A. 19369,2003 WL
1016984, at *8 (Del. Ch. Mar, 4, 2003) (holding against granting rescissory damages, but
stating that "[a]t equity, rescissory damages should only be awarded where the 'equitable
remedy of rescission is impractical' but otherwise warranted. ") (citation omitted).
Here, rescission may be warranted should MBIA prove its claims, but it is impractical.
First, to rescind the Insurance Policies would be to hann the policies' beneficiaries, the
Noteholders, and may lead to greater economic hann. Second, rescission is further
impractical, if not impossible under the governing Transaction Documents. See Sheth
Affinn., Ex. 4 at 1, Ex. 5 at 1 (Insurance Policies providing that MBIA "unconditionally and
irrevocably guarantees" payments under the policies). Based upon the impracticability of
rescission, and the fact that rescissory damages are the financial equivalent of rescission, see,
e.g., St. Clair Shores General Employees Retirement System v. Eibeler, 745 F. Supp. 2d 303,
315 (S.D.N.Y. 2010); Outdoor Life Network, LLCv. EMTA Corp., No. 2:06-CV-00463 JWS,
2006 WL 3834287, *5 (D. Ariz. December 29,2006); In re MAXXAM, Inc., 659 A.2d 760,
775 n.15 (Del. Ch. 1995), the court holds that rescissory damages are appropriate in this
MBIA v. Countrywide, et al. Index No. 602825/08 Page 18
instance under persuasive case law and this court's power to award relief. See CPLR
3017(a) and case law, supra.
MBIA seeks rescissory damages in the amount that it has been required to pay
pursuant to the Insurance Policies, less premiums MBIA recei~ed under the policies. The
court notes that, should MBIA prove its case, rescissory damages minus premiums received
will make MBIA whole without providing a windfall. Rescissory damages, if found
warranted, will thus serve the goal of damages theory and justification. See also Equitable
Life Assur. Soc. o/U.s. v. Kushman, 276 N.Y. 178, 184 (1937) ("Damages may be recovered
as incident to an action in equity for a rescission.").
MBIA has, relevant to this motion, made claims for fraud and breach of warranty.
MBIA bases both claims upon alleged misrepresentations made by Countrywide that
purportedly cause MBIA to enter into the Insurance Policies and were in violation of stated
representations and warranties. It is without basis in case law to require MBIA to provide
a causal link between the alleged misrepresentations and payments made pursuant to the
policies. The elements of the claims are well-established and make no such holding; it is
well-settled that it is upon the misrepresentation that induces action resulting in damages that
fraud or breach occurs. See supra. Further, the court finds that rescissory damages may
make MBIA whole for any wrongdoing which it is able to prove. The court therefore grants
MBIA's motion for summary judgment. However, the court does not find that this disposes
of Countrywide's fourteenth and fifteenth affirmative defenses. The burden of proof remains
MBIA v. Countrywide, et al. Index No. 602825/08 Page 19
upon MBIA to prove all elements of its causes of action. Defendants' fourteenth and
fifteenth affirmative defenses are not dismissed.
C. MBIA's Claims for Breach of the Repurchase Obligation
MBIA also moves for summary judgment that its claim for breach of the repurchase
obligation is not limited to non-performing loans and does not require MBIA to demonstrate
that CHL's alleged breach of representations and warranties caused the non-performance of
loans.
MBIA supports its argument by first pointing to the HELOC Series 2006-E Sales and
Servicing Agreement (SSA) § 2.04(d), which states, in relevant part as quoted and relied
upon by MBIA, that:
The cure for any breach of a representation and warranty relating to the characteristics of the Mortgage Loans in the related Loan Group in the aggregate shall be a repurchase of or substitution for only the Mortgage Loans necessary to cause the characteristics to comply with the related representation or warranty.
Sheth Affirm., Ex. 9, SSA, § 2.04(d). MBIA contends that, had the parties intended that
repurchase only be required if a Mortgage Loan was in default, the parties would have put
that requirement in this portion of the contract. MBIA Memo., p. 22.
MBIA further relies on Section 2.10 of the same SSA in support of its argument.
Section 2.10 directly refers to Mortgage Loans which are not in default or in danger of
imminent default, stating, in pertinent part, that:
Notwithstanding any contrary provision ofthis Agreement, with respect to any Mortgage Loan that is not in default or as to which default is not imminent, no
MBIA v. Countrywide, et al. Index No. 602825/08 Page 20
repurchase or substitution pursuant to Section 2.02, 2.03, 2.04, or 2.06 shall be made unless the party repurchasing or substituting delivers to the Indenture Trustee an Opinion of Counsel to the effect that the repurchase or substitution would not result in [tax implications].
Sheth Affirm., Ex. 9, SSA, § 2.10. MBIA argues that section 2.10 provides that a loan need
not be in default to be repurchased, but only that an opinion be provided as to tax
implications of the repurchase or substitution of the loan. Based upon this provision, MBIA
states that if a loan not be in default for repurchase or substitution, but only that a tax opinion
be provided, then MBIA need not demonstrate causation with respect to a default. MBIA
Memo., p. 23; Tr. of October 5, 2011, p. 33.
MBIA concludes its argument by stating that Countrywide's alleged
misrepresentations regarding loans underlying the Securitizations breached Countrywide's
repurchase obligations as ofthe.time of the misrepresentation, and the contract language is
clear that Countrywide must repurchase all misrepresented loans. Finally, MBIA argues that
its interest in the Mortgage Loans is materially and adversely affected by Countrywide's
misrepresentations upon which MBIA relied in its decision to insure the Securitizations.
Countrywide asserts that the plain language of the Transaction Documents controvert
MB lA's argument, and that MB IA has merely selectively quoted from a provision found only
in the HELOC contracts.
Countrywide counters MBIA's argument based upon Section 2.04(d) of the HELOC
Series 2006-E Sales and Servicing Agreement by noting that MBIA's quoted language
MBIA v. Countrywide, et al. Index No. 602825/08 Page 21
applies to breaches "in the related Loan Group in the aggregate," and not individually.
Countrywide contends that repurchase or substitution of loans is necessary under section
2.04(d) only to the extent "necessary to cause the characteristics [of the Mortgage Loans in
the aggregate] to comply with the related representation or warranty." Countrywide Opp.
Memo., p. 19; Sheth Affirm., Ex. 9, SSA, § 2.04(d). Countrywide argues that section 2.04(d)
thus does not apply to individual loans, but only that, should loans be found to be in breach
of a representation or warranty, then loans may be substituted or repurchased to fix the
representations of the loan group as a whole. Countrywide Opp. Memo., p. 19. Countrywide
next contends that nothing in Section 2.10 of the SSA counters its argument, below, that a
breach must have material and adverse effect before the breaching loan is subject to
repurchase or substitution.
Countrywide further argues that no repurchase obligation exists under the governing
documents unless a misrepresentation and/or breach of warranty materially and adversely
affects the interests of the insured or MBIA. Countrywide notes that the Pooling and
Servicing Agreement (PSA) for the CES securitization states, at § 2.03(f), that:
[u ]pon discovery by any of the parties hereto of a breach of a representation or warranty set forth in Section 2.03(a) through (e) that materially and adversely affects the interests of the Certificateholders or the Certificate Insurer in any Mortgage Loan
then the party discovering the breach is to provide notice and the loan will be repurchased.
Holland Affirm.,3 Ex. 6, PSA, § 2.03(f) (emphasis added). Countrywide asserts that as per
3 Affirmation of Mark Holland in Support of Countrywide's Opposition to Plaintiffs Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and Motion to Strike Defenses.
MBIA v. Countrywide, et al. Index No. 602825/08 Page 22
this provision, notice of a breach of representation or warranty is only required for breaches
that materially and adversely affect Certificateholders or MBIA and that Countrywide need
only cure breaches that materially and adversely affect Certificateholders or MBIA.
Countrywide further asserts that it need only cure breaches in all "material respects" and that
only if a breach is not cured does a repurchase obligation arise. Countrywide Memo., pp. 16-
17.
Countrywide also argues that the HELOC Trusts' breach and repurchase provisions
are similarly controlled by the phrase "materially and adversely affects." Countrywide
alleges that under the HELOC Sales and Servicing Agreement (SSA), notice of a breach of
representations and warranties is required upon discovery if that breach "materially and
adversely affects the interests of the Trust, the Indenture Trustee under the Indenture, the
Noteholders, or the Credit Enhancer in the l\1ortgage Loan." Holland Affirm., Ex. 5, 2006-E
SSA, § 2.04(c).
MBIA asserts in reply that the language of the HELOC Series 2006-E SSA makes
clear that MBIA's "interest" in the loans it insured was affected upon Countrywide's
misrepresentations regarding the loans. MBIA states that these misrepresentations directly
lead to a material and adverse affect on MBIA's risk in insuring the securitization. MBIA
further argues that, contrary to Countrywide'S contention, it does rely upon the phrase
"materially and adverse affects" phase in the transaction documents, and the parties only
differ as to that phrase's effect. MBIA Reply Memo., pp. 13-14, citing MBIA Memo., p. 22.
MBIA v. Countrywide, et al. Index No. 602825/08 Page 23
MBIA contends that its interest in the loans may be affected prior to the loans' non-
performance if MBIA's risk of loss materially increased as a result of Countrywide's
misrepresentations. Id. MBIA also argues that the HELOC SSA provides concrete basis for
repurchase remedy for loans that were misrepresented but may not yet be in default.
It is a well-established that a written agreement which is complete, clear and
unambiguous on its face must be enforced according to the plain meaning of its terms. This
court is obliged to interpret such a contract so as to give meaning to all of its terms. See
Excel Graphics Technologies, Inc. v. CFGIAGSCB 75 Ninth Ave., L.L.C, 1 A.D.3d 65,69
(1st Dep't 2003).
Under New York law, upon motion for summary judgment based on contract,
summary judgment is only appropriate where the language of the contract is unambiguous
and reasonable minds could not differ as to its meaning. Cf State o/New York v. Peerless
Ins. Co., 108 A.D.2d 385, 390 (1st Dep't 1995). If the contract is reasonably susceptible of
more than one interpretation, summary judgment is inappropriate. NFL Enterprises LLC v.
Comcast Cable Communications, 51 A.D.3d 52, 58 (1st Dep't 2008).
The court finds that summary judgment is not here appropriate. While MBIA has
posited a strong argument, its contention is wholly based upon the Revolving Home Equity
Loan Asset Backed Notes, Series 2006-E, and that securitization's Sales and Servicing
Agreement. MBIA's Rule 19-a statement of material facts states that this SSA is "applicable
to several of the HELOC Securitizations .... " MBIA's Rule 19-a Statement, statement 19.
MBIA v. Countrywide, et al. Index No. 602825/08 Page 24
It is not sufficient to overcome all issues of contract interpretation to state that the "MLP A
[is] applicable to all of the HELOC Securitizations, and the PSA, which governs the CES
Securitizations, similarly grants a repurchase remedy to MBIA" as per section 2.04( d) of the
SSA. MBIA's Rule 19-a Statement, Statements 19, 20; Sheth Affirm., Ex. 9. MBIA's
argument based upon the SSA is insufficient to be extrapolated to all of the Securitizations.
Finally, this court finds that the applicable provisions of the SSA and the PSA are
subject to varying interpretations regarding "interest" and affect on interest, as well as
varying and equally valid interpretations of how the "aggregate" in SSA § 2.04(d) must be
defined. The issue is therefore unripe for summary judgment. NFL Enterprises LLC v.
Comcast Cable Communications, 51 A.D.3d at 58.
MBIA's motion for summary judgment that its claim for breach of the repurchase
obligation is not limited to non-performing loans and that MBIA is not required to show that
CHL's breach of the representations and warranties in the Transaction Documents caused the
non-performance of the loan is denied. The court notes that it does not hold, by implication,
that MBIA must show that a breach of a representation or warranty caused a loan's non-
performance, or that Countrywide is not contractually obligated to repurchase misrepresented
loans. The holding is limited solely to the to MBIA's burden of proof on its motion for
summary judgment.
MBIA v. Countrywide, et al.
Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDER
Index No. 602825/08 Page 25
ORDERED that MBIA Insurance Corporation's motion for partial summary judgment
is granted to the extent that MBIA Insurance Corporation ("MBIA") must establish for its
claim of fraud that misrepresentations by the defendant(s) induced MBIA to issue insurance
policies on terms to which it otherwise would not have agreed and that MBIA is not required
to establish a direct causal link between defendant(s) misrepresentations and MBIA's claims
payments made pursuant to the insurance policies at issue; and it is further
ORDERED that MBIA Insurance Corporation's motion for partial summary judgment
is granted to the extent that MBIA must establish for its claim for breach of the Insurance
Agreement against Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. ("CHL") that CHL's breach of warranties
in the issued insurance policies' transaction documents increased the risk profile of the issued
insurance policies and MBIA is not required to establish a direct causal connection between
proven warranty breaches by CHL and MBIA's claims payments made pursuant to the
insurance policies at issue; and it is further
ORDERED that MBIA Insurance Corporation's motion for partial summary judgment
is granted to the extent that MBIA Insurance Corporation may seek rescissory damages upon
proving all elements of its claims for fraud and breach of representation andlor warranty; and
it is further
MBIA v. Countrywide, et at. Index No. 602825/08 Page 26
ORDERED that MBIA Insurance Corporation's motion for partial summary judgment
is otherwise denied.
This constitutes the decision and order of the court.
Dated: New York, New York January 3, 2012
ENTER
Cl\OP ~~~ Hon. Eileen Bransten, J.S.C.
EXHIBIT 193
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK
MBIA INSURANCE CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
-against-
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., COUNTRYWIDE SECURITIES CORP., COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL CORP., COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP, and BANK OF AMERICA CORP.
Defendants.
Index No.: 08/602825
IAS Part 3 (Bransten, J.)
CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL-SUBJECT TO STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR THE PRODUCTION AND EXCHANGE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
This envelope, containing documents which are filed in this case by MBIA Insurance Corporation, is not to be opened nor are the contents thereof to be displayed or revealed other
than to the Court, the parties and their counsel of record, except by order of the Court or consent of the parties.
EXHIBIT 194
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK
MBIA INSURANCE CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
-against-
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., COUNTRYWIDE SECURITIES CORP., COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL CORP., COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP, and BANK OF AMERICA CORP.
Defendants.
Index No.: 08/602825
IAS Part 3 (Bransten, J.)
CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL-SUBJECT TO STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR THE PRODUCTION AND EXCHANGE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
This envelope, containing documents which are filed in this case by MBIA Insurance Corporation, is not to be opened nor are the contents thereof to be displayed or revealed other
than to the Court, the parties and their counsel of record, except by order of the Court or consent of the parties.
EXHIBIT 195
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK
MBIA INSURANCE CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
-against-
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., COUNTRYWIDE SECURITIES CORP., COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL CORP., COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP, and BANK OF AMERICA CORP.
Defendants.
Index No.: 08/602825
IAS Part 3 (Bransten, J.)
CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL-SUBJECT TO STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR THE PRODUCTION AND EXCHANGE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
This envelope, containing documents which are filed in this case by MBIA Insurance Corporation, is not to be opened nor are the contents thereof to be displayed or revealed other
than to the Court, the parties and their counsel of record, except by order of the Court or consent of the parties.
EXHIBIT 196
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK
MBIA INSURANCE CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
-against-
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., COUNTRYWIDE SECURITIES CORP., COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL CORP., COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP, and BANK OF AMERICA CORP.
Defendants.
Index No.: 08/602825
IAS Part 3 (Bransten, J.)
CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL-SUBJECT TO STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR THE PRODUCTION AND EXCHANGE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
This envelope, containing documents which are filed in this case by MBIA Insurance Corporation, is not to be opened nor are the contents thereof to be displayed or revealed other
than to the Court, the parties and their counsel of record, except by order of the Court or consent of the parties.
EXHIBIT 197
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK
MBIA INSURANCE CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
-against-
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., COUNTRYWIDE SECURITIES CORP., COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL CORP., COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP, and BANK OF AMERICA CORP.
Defendants.
Index No.: 08/602825
IAS Part 3 (Bransten, J.)
CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL-SUBJECT TO STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR THE PRODUCTION AND EXCHANGE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
This envelope, containing documents which are filed in this case by MBIA Insurance Corporation, is not to be opened nor are the contents thereof to be displayed or revealed other
than to the Court, the parties and their counsel of record, except by order of the Court or consent of the parties.
EXHIBIT 198
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK
MBIA INSURANCE CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
-against-
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., COUNTRYWIDE SECURITIES CORP., COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL CORP., COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP, and BANK OF AMERICA CORP.
Defendants.
Index No.: 08/602825
IAS Part 3 (Bransten, J.)
CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL-SUBJECT TO STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR THE PRODUCTION AND EXCHANGE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
This envelope, containing documents which are filed in this case by MBIA Insurance Corporation, is not to be opened nor are the contents thereof to be displayed or revealed other
than to the Court, the parties and their counsel of record, except by order of the Court or consent of the parties.
EXHIBIT 199
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK
MBIA INSURANCE CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
-against-
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., COUNTRYWIDE SECURITIES CORP., COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL CORP., COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP, and BANK OF AMERICA CORP.
Defendants.
Index No.: 08/602825
IAS Part 3 (Bransten, J.)
CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL-SUBJECT TO STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR THE PRODUCTION AND EXCHANGE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
This envelope, containing documents which are filed in this case by MBIA Insurance Corporation, is not to be opened nor are the contents thereof to be displayed or revealed other
than to the Court, the parties and their counsel of record, except by order of the Court or consent of the parties.
EXHIBIT 200
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK
MBIA INSURANCE CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
-against-
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., COUNTRYWIDE SECURITIES CORP., COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL CORP., COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP, and BANK OF AMERICA CORP.
Defendants.
Index No.: 08/602825
IAS Part 3 (Bransten, J.)
CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL-SUBJECT TO STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR THE PRODUCTION AND EXCHANGE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
This envelope, containing documents which are filed in this case by MBIA Insurance Corporation, is not to be opened nor are the contents thereof to be displayed or revealed other
than to the Court, the parties and their counsel of record, except by order of the Court or consent of the parties.
EXHIBIT 201
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 12/22/2010 INDEX NO. 602825/2008
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 276 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/22/2010
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK: PART THREE - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - • - - • - •. _,-J(
MBIA INSURANCE CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
-against-
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., COUNTRYWIDE SECURITIES CORP., and COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL CORP.,
Defendants.
Index No.: 602825/08 Motion Date: October 13, 20 I 0 Motion Sequence No.: 015
------------------------------------ -x PRESENT: HON. EILEEN BRANSTEN, J.S.C.
Plaintiff MBIA Insurance Corporation ("MBIA") moves in limine for a decision
allowing MBIA to use statistical sampling to present evidence to prove its causes of action
for fraud and breach of contract and to prove damages. Defendants Countrywide Home
Loans, Inc., Countrywide Securities Corp. and Countrywide Financial Corp. (collectively,
"Countrywide") oppose. f
BACKGROUND \
The facts of this matter have been discussed extensively in previous decisions ofthis
- court. Thus, only details necessary to this motion are referenced herein.
Plaintiff filed the instant motion on April 30, 2010. After oral argument on June 16, , ,
'2010, the parties held the motion pending additional discussions. The parties filed I,
supplemental memoranda of law of law in August 2011°. An evidentiary hearing was held
MBIA v Countrywide Index No. 602825/08 Page 2
on September 27, 2010, at which Plaintiff presented its expert witn~ss, statistician Charles
D. Cowan, Ph.D., for direct and cross-examination. Dr. Cowan testified about his proposed
method of sampling the fifteen residential-mortgage-backed securitizations ("RMBS") at
issue in this matter. By request of the court, the parties submitted additional arguments by
letter on October 13, 20 I O,the final submissions of this motion.
ANALYSIS
I. Timeliness of Plaintiffs Motion
A. New York Statute and Code Does Not Preclude the Instant Motion
Defendants first contest Plaintiffs motion on grounds of timeliness. Defendants
claim that the motion is premature, that the timing of the instant motion is not contemplated
by New York law and that New York courts have held that it is premature to rule on the
admissibility of evidence prior to the determination of that evidence's relevance.
Defendants' arguments are unavailing ..
First, the governing rules of this court do not mandate an outside time limit for a
movant to initiate a motion in limine. The Rules ofthe Commercial Division of the Supreme
Court state that:
The parties shall make all motions in limine no later than ten days prior to the scheduled pre-trial conference date, and the motions shall be returnable on the date of the pre-trial conference, unless otherwise directed by the court.
(22 NYCRR 202.70, Rule 27).
MBIA v Countrywide Index No. 602825/08 Page 3
PlaintifFs motion was made rather well in advance of the pre-trial conference date,
and this court has not mandated other times or limits for motions in limine. While the
majority of motions in limine are made close to or during trial, neither New York statute nor
code prevents a party from bringing a motion as their litigation strategy dictates. Neither
does New York statute or code prevent the court from deciding that motion. I
B. New York Common Law Does Not Preclude the Instant Motion
Defendants cite second to New York cases Speed v Avis Rent-A-Car, 172 AD2d 267
(1 st Dept 1991) and Grant v Richard, 222 AD2d 1014 (4th Dept 1995) for the proposition
that the instant motion must be decided closer to or at time of trial (Defendants'
Memorandum of Law in Opposition to PlaintifFs Motion In Limine Regarding Sampling
["Defendants' Opp. Memo."], pp. 8-10). Both Speed and Grant address the admissibility of
specific items of evidence. The court in Speed found that the relevance of the particular
evidence at issue, notice of recall of the automobile central to the case, was best determined
at trial (Speed, 172 AD2d at 268). Grant, relying on Speed, similarly found that deciding the
question of admissibility of unspecified evidence and testimony "should await the trial, when
the determination maybe made 'in context'" (Grant, 222 AD2d at 1014, quoting Speed, 172
AD2d at 268).
I Defendants' argument regarding the timing of pretrial conferences under 22 NYCRR 202.26 is not relevant to the issue at bar, and is disregarded.
MBIA v Countrywide Index No. 602825108 Page 4
The court does not find these cases persuasive. The court sees no question, and
Defendants do not argue, that proof regarding the securitiiations and Plaintiffs contention
of breach and/or fraud therein is relevant to this action. Plaintiff will present evidence to
attempt to prove its contentions, and the trier of fact will hear that evidence and make its
decision based thereon. The question is not of admissibility and relevance, but of the form
that the relevant and admissible evidence will take at trial. New York common law does not
prevent decision upon the current motion.
C. Alleged Factual Issues Do Not Preclude the Instant Motion
Defendants further contend that legal and factual issues prevent decision upon
Plaintiffs motion (Supplemental Memorandum of Law in opposition to Plaintiffs Motion
In Limine Regarding Sampling ["Defendants' Supp. Opp. Memo."], pp. 3-11). ,
Defendants first allege numerous "threshold disputed issues," (id. at. 4-6), which they
contend must be resolved prior to the use of sampling. Defendants contend that should the
court grant Plaintiffs motion, the court would then improperly "resolve myriad threshold
legal questions not fully briefed by the parties or properly before the Court" (id. at 4).
While the finder of fact may need to resolve the listed issues, Defendants provide no
basis' for its current contention that resolution must occur prior to decision upon the instant /
motion or that decision upon this:motion would resolve the listed issues. Defendants do not
argue how resolution, or non-resolution, of any of their purported issues will be affected by
MBIA v Countrywide Index No. 602825/08 Page 5
a statistically significant sampling of the securitizations at issue, nor do Defendants attempt
to link the list of issues with their other arguments. Defendants simply state that if Plaintiff
does not prevail upon all of the listed issues "MBIA's proposal will not work" (id. at 6).
Conversely, Defendants do not argue or show how a sample will be affected by resolution
of the alleged issues.
Defendants' footnoted federal case, in which a magistrate judge denied a motion in
limine to exclude a criminal record, is unpersuasive (id. at 3, n.4). As stated above, this
motion is not premature and enough is known about the shape of trial to allow this motion.
Defendants' list of purported issues may be resolved upon summary judgment or at trial.
Second, Defendants argue that Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate how sampling will
be useful at trial. Defendants claims that Plaintiff has not shown how it may use sampling
to prove its claims for breach of contract and fraud or ho~ it may use sampling to prove its
alleged damages. Defendants contend that Plaintiffhas failed to show explain what elements
of its claims it will show through sampling or how sampling will prove those elements.
The use of sampling does not obviate Plaintiffs need to prove each element of its
claims for breach of contract or fraud, and Plaintiffmust prove entitlement to any damages.
Should sampling be used, Plainti ffretains its obligation to demonstrate to the trier of fact that
each element of each cause of action has been met. Plaintiffs possible use of sampling does
not change Plaintiffs ultimate burden of proof, only how Plaintiff may present that proof.
MBIA v Countrywide Index No. 602825/08 Page 6
Plaintiff has generally stated how it will use sampling of the securitizations at issue
to demonstrate its claims fot breach of contract and fraud as well as for damages (Plaintiffs
Supplemental Reply Memorandum of Law in Further Support of Motion In Limine
Regarding Sampling ["Plaintiffs Supp. Memo."], pp. 4-8; Memorandum of Law in Support
of Plaintiffs Motion in Limine Regarding Sampling ["Plaintiffs Memo."], pp. 14-19).
Plaintiff must prove its claims and actual damages. Defendants will have the ability to
contest Plaintiffs proofs, and the trier of fact will decide the issues. Defendant has cited no
authority to force Plaintiff to divulge its specific litigation strategy to prove its claims, nor
any authority that Plaintiff should be required to do so in order to utilize sampling.
Defendants' argument is unsupported and unavailing.
The court finds that Plaintiffs motion is timely and ready for decision on its merits.
II. Methodology of Plaintifrs Proposed Sampling Method
Defendants argue that Plaintiffs proposed sampling is improper for the case at bar
and is methodologically infirm.
A. Sampling is Appropriate for the Case at Bar
As a preliminary matter, Defendants first argue that Plaintiff has not shown that
sampling is appropriate for this matter (Defendants' Supp. Opp. Memo., p. 12; citing People
v Wesley, 83 NY2d 417, 436 (1994] [Kaye, Chief Judge, concurring]). Defendants appear
to misread Wesley.
MB/A v Countrywide Index No. 602825/08 Page 7
Defendants cite to former )Chief Judge Kaye's concurring opinion in Wesley. In
relevant part, Chief Judge Kaye reiterates the primary opinion's holding that, in each inquiry
as to the validity of scientific evidence, upon finding general acceptance of a scientific
technique a foundational inquiry must then be completed to determine whether the generally
accepted scientific techniques were actually used (Wesley, 83 NY2d at 436). While Chief
Judge Kaye stated that this must be done "in each case," Chief Judge Kaye did not imply or
state that scientific evidence was to be applied only in certain cases. Rather, she stated that
the review was to ensure that when a generally accepted technique was used, the technique
in question was correctly applied (id.). If the foundational inquiry revealed "infirmities in
collection and analysis of the evidence not affecting its trustworthiness" then the weight of
the evidence was affected;... not its admissibility (id.). The evidence is then to be weighed
by the trier of fact ..
The admission of scientific evidence is not limited to certain cases. As mortgage-
backed securities are a relatively new device, it is not surprising that Plaintiff did not cite a
directly analogous New york case allowing the use of statistical evidence. It is also not
surprising that Defendants' do not cite a case disallowing such evidence. Scientific evidence
is to reviewed of its own accord (see, generally, Frye v United Stales, 293 FlO 13 [DC Cir
1923]; Wesley, supra), and it will be so reviewed here.
MBIA v Countrywide
B. Plaintiffs Methodology is Acceptable
Index No. 602825/08 Page 8
Plaintiffproposes to use expert testimony based upon a statistically significant sample
of the residential mo~gage-backed securities.
, New York uses the "general acceptance" test of the reliability and admissibility of
expert testimony using scientific evidence (Frye, supra; see Nonnan v City o/New York, 32
AD3d 91, 102 n.18 [1 st Dept 2006]). Frye requires that expert testimony be based on
scientific principal or procedure that has been "sufficiently established to have gained general
acceptance in the particular field in which it belongs" (Frye, 293 F at 1114).
The court must first de~ermine whether the proffered scientific evidence at issue in the
matter, here, statistical sampling, is novel (see People v Wernick, 89 NY2d Ill, 115-16
[1996] citing Wesley, 83 NY2d at 422). Should statistical sampling be determined novel,
then the court must find whether the sampling is generally accepted in the particular field in
which it belongs (Frye, 293 Fat 1114). The court must also determine whether the scientific ,
evidence is reliable (Parker v Mobil Oil Corp., 7 NY3d 434, 446-47 [2006]; Wesley, 83
NY2d at 422,424).
1. Statistical Sampling Is Not Novel
Statistical sampling is a widely used method to present evidence from a large
popUlation of data. Fo~ example, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
has used statistical sampling to show gender-based salary disparity (Lavin-McEleney v Marist
MBIA v Countrywide Index No. 602825108 Page 9
College, 239 F 3d 476 [2d Cir 2001J [allowing for both liability and damages]); and
n~merous other courts have simil.arly accepted the use of statistical sampling, including our
own Court of Appeals in 1856 (see Muller v Eno, 14 NY 597, 598-99 [1856] [allowing
sampling of "several" of fourteen bales of cotton to be used as evidence as to the state of all
fourteen bales]; see also Ratanasen v State o/Cal., Dept. o/Health Services, 11 F 3d 1467
[9th Cir 1993] [allowing random sampling to prove fraud, "provided the aggrieved party has
an opportunity to rebut such evidence"]; Evans v Fenty, 714 F Supp 2d 116 [D DC 2010]
[allowing the use ofstatisiically significant samples, over objection by expert witness]; CBS
Broadcasting v Primetime 24 Joint Venture, 48 F Supp 2d 1342 [SD Fla 1998] [approving
the use of stratified sampling]. Further, New York statute expressly recognizes the use of
statistical sampling in certain administrative hearings (see, e.g., Mercy Hasp. a/Watertown
V. New YorkSlale Dept. a/Social Servs., 79 NY2d 197,203-04 [1992]).
The court finds that statistical sampling of large populations is not a novel concept.
2. Statistical Sampling Is Generally Accepted in the Scientific Community
It is undisputed that the use of statistical sampling is generally accepted in the
scientific community. The court notes that while Defendants contest Plaintiffs specific
methodology, Defendants contest neither the novelty nor the general acceptance in the
scientific field of statistical sampling. As Plaintiffs expert, Dr. Cowan, provides, acceptance
of statistical sampling is widespread (see Affidavit of Dr. Charles D. Cowan in Further
MBJA v Countrywide Index No. 602825/08 Page 10
Support of Plaintiffs Motion In Limine Regarding Sampling [HCowan Aff."], ~ 36).
Scientific literature and testing is replete with the use of statistical sampling; the validity of
properly conducted sampling is not a question for debate. Sampling has also been used in
examining pools of loans (id., pp. 14-14, Ex. 3), a fact that Defendants do not contest.
Statistical sampling- is not novel and is generally accepted. The court thus focuses
upon whether Plaintiffs proposed sampling methodology is reliable (Wesley, 83 NY2d.at
422).
3. Plaintiff's Methodology is Acceptable
Plaintiff has explained its proposed methodology in open court, in Plaintiffs
Supplemental Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion In Limine Regarding Sampling
and in Dr. Cowan's affidavit. Defendants put forward significant opposition to Plaintiffs
m.ethodology in its own memoranda oflaw as well as the Affidavit of Dr. Christopher M.
James ("James Afr.) and the Affidavit of Roy Welsch, Ph.D. ("Welsch Aff.").
In suf!1, Plaintiff has stated that for each of the fifteen securitizations here at issue it
will take the following actions: First, for each securitization Plaintiffs method will select
400 loans. Plaintiff asserts that a. sample of 400 loans per population will provide a
confidence level of approximatety 95%, with a 5% margin of err or (Plaintiffs Supp. Memo.,
p. 17; Cowan Aff. ~~ 56~58). Plaintiff's method will stratify the samples of 400 loans
selected into mutually exclusive subgroups {Plaintiffs Supp. Memo., p. 18-19; see Cowan
- I
MBIA v Countrywide Index No. 602825/08 Page II
Aff. ~~ 59-61). Plaintiff asserts that doing so will ensure that subgroups in each
securitization will be properly represented in the sample. Plaintiff will stratify the loan
. samples for Plaintiffs fraud claim, insurance contract claim and repurchase contract through
the use three variables: the borrower's credit score, combined loan to value ratio (HCL TV")
and Countrywide's documentation program). Each ofthese stratum will then be divided into
further subgroups (Plaintiffs Supp. Memo., p. 20; Cowan Aff. ~~ 69, 71, 74-78). Plaintiff
will stratify the loan samples for Plaintiffs servicing contract claim and implied covenant
claim using delinquency status (Cowan Aff., ~ 86).
Defendants respond with detailed criticism of Plaintiffs proposed methodology.
Defendants assert, through Drs. Welsch and James, that Plaintiffs methodology flawed.
Defendants state, inter alia, that Plaintiff has failed to establish that the proposed samples
are of sufficient size to be reliable, that the method relies on the assumption that the outcome
of the sampled loans will be binary (Le., either "yes" or "no" answer with regard to breach),
and that the representations and warranties at issue contain subjective elements and may not
,
be easily reviewed for compliance (Defendants' Supp. Memo., p. 15-16 citing Welsch Aff.
and James Aff.). Defendants further assert that Plaintiffs proposed methodology to
extrapolate results from the proposed sample to prove liability and damages is flawed (id. At
16-21). Defendants' assertions, and the assertions of their experts, are not without merit.
MBIA v Countrywide Index No. 602825/08 Page 12
The court finds that Plaintiffs proposed methodology of statistical sampling may be
used at trial. Plaintiff has shown its methodology to be scientifically accepted, valid and
reliable under the Frye standard. However, in so deciding, the court makes no finding that
Plaintiff s proposed method is the only method by which Plaintiff( or Defendant) may present
evidence or that Plaintiff s method is without flaw or unsusceptible to challenge. Defendants
have raised significant valid challenges to Plaintiff s methodology; however the court finds
that such challenges are premature to decide here. Defendants cited issues will be decided
by the trier of fact as pertaining to the weight, rather than the acceptability, of the evidence.
That decision will be made at trial?
III. Conclusion
This court has inherent power to regulate trial before it (see CPLR 40 11 ["court may
, ... regulate the' conduct ofthe trial in order to achieve a speedy and unprejudiced disposition
of the matters at issue"]). Deciding the current motion is completed within the court's
2 The court notes that Defendants have argued that the instant motion "effectively attempt[s] to co-opt the Court as co-counsel for Plaintiff' (Defendants' Supp. Opp. Memo., p. 3). Defendants thus imply that should this decision not proceed as they would prefer, the court has then merely "assist[ ed Plaintiff] in devising its sample" and has acted . inappropriately in its rule as overseer, and has become advocate. Defendants further state that for its opposition to fail is this court's "blessing" (Defendants' Supp. Opp. Memo., pp. 2, 4) of Plaintiffs sampling motion. Defendants' hyperbole is more than troubling to the court, as the court would prefer that all parties focus upon the merits of the arguments before it, rather than impugning any part in the arguments to the court. The court welcomes questions, conferences should Defendants have issues with what the _court considers its own utmost impartiality.
MBIA V Countrywide Index No. 602825108 Page 13
inherent power. The court notes that the decision of the motion in limine has the possibility.
of saving the parties and the court from significant litigation time and may significantly
streamline the action without compromising either party from proving its case (see Orange
and Rockland Utilities, Inc. v Assessor of Town of Haverstraw, 12 Misc 3d 1194[A], *6 n.37
[NY Sup. Ct., Richmond Co. 2006]). The court does not find any prejudice in deciding the
motion before it and allowing the use of statistically significant samples ofthe securitizations
at issue. No authority prevents the court from doing so, and the use of sampling is
widespread as a valid method to prove cases with large amounts of underlying data.
As Plaintiff may present its case as it chooses, so may Defendants rebut Plaintiffs
proffered arguments through Defendants own sampling chosen in a statistically valid manner ..
As is the nature of and proper in litigation, each party will then challenge the other's proofs.
The ultimate trier of fact will then decide the issue. The court expects both Plaintiff and
Defendants to be forthcoming to the other party in notifying and providing evidence of
chosen loans in any sample undertaken to effectuate the fairness of these challenges.
Finally, while Plaintiffis permitted to present evidence as itso chooses, and the court
will' permit Plaintiff to present evidence of its claims through its chosen sampling
methodology, the court does not necessarily endorse the Plaintiff s method as better or worse
than any other method. Plaintiff must convince the trier of fact, whether it be a jury or this
court, that it has proven each element of its separate claims. Plaintiffmust then further show
MBIA v Countrywide Index No. 602825/08. Page 14
the trier of fact that the sample chosen is actually statistically significal1t and is applicable to
each securitization as a whole. Proof of dall'\ages must then follow. Sampling itself is not
proof, but merely a vehicle to present evidence.
(Order on following page.)
ME/A v Counl/)l\vide
Accordingly, it is
lndex No. 602825108 Page'S
ORDERED that MBIA's motion in/imine to be allo\\'ed to usc and present evidence
for Its case through·statistical Saml)jing is granted. ""'" . - ~
Dated: Nevl York,Ncw York December zz.., 2010
ENTER
C,.L.~.~~ .I Ion. Etleen Bransten, .l.S.C. .
EXHIBIT 202
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK
MBIA INSURANCE CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
-against-
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., COUNTRYWIDE SECURITIES CORP., COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL CORP., COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP, and BANK OF AMERICA CORP.
Defendants.
Index No.: 08/602825
IAS Part 3 (Bransten, J.)
CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL-SUBJECT TO STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR THE PRODUCTION AND EXCHANGE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
This envelope, containing documents which are filed in this case by MBIA Insurance Corporation, is not to be opened nor are the contents thereof to be displayed or revealed other
than to the Court, the parties and their counsel of record, except by order of the Court or consent of the parties.
EXHIBIT 203
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK
MBIA INSURANCE CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
-against-
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., COUNTRYWIDE SECURITIES CORP., COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL CORP., COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP, and BANK OF AMERICA CORP.
Defendants.
Index No.: 08/602825
IAS Part 3 (Bransten, J.)
CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL-SUBJECT TO STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR THE PRODUCTION AND EXCHANGE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
This envelope, containing documents which are filed in this case by MBIA Insurance Corporation, is not to be opened nor are the contents thereof to be displayed or revealed other
than to the Court, the parties and their counsel of record, except by order of the Court or consent of the parties.
EXHIBIT 204
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK
MBIA INSURANCE CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
-against-
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., COUNTRYWIDE SECURITIES CORP., COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL CORP., COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP, and BANK OF AMERICA CORP.
Defendants.
Index No.: 08/602825
IAS Part 3 (Bransten, J.)
CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL-SUBJECT TO STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR THE PRODUCTION AND EXCHANGE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
This envelope, containing documents which are filed in this case by MBIA Insurance Corporation, is not to be opened nor are the contents thereof to be displayed or revealed other
than to the Court, the parties and their counsel of record, except by order of the Court or consent of the parties.
EXHIBIT 205
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK
MBIA INSURANCE CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
-against-
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., COUNTRYWIDE SECURITIES CORP., COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL CORP., COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP, and BANK OF AMERICA CORP.
Defendants.
Index No.: 08/602825
IAS Part 3 (Bransten, J.)
CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL-SUBJECT TO STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR THE PRODUCTION AND EXCHANGE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
This envelope, containing documents which are filed in this case by MBIA Insurance Corporation, is not to be opened nor are the contents thereof to be displayed or revealed other
than to the Court, the parties and their counsel of record, except by order of the Court or consent of the parties.
EXHIBIT 206
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK
MBIA INSURANCE CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
-against-
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., COUNTRYWIDE SECURITIES CORP., COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL CORP., COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP, and BANK OF AMERICA CORP.
Defendants.
Index No.: 08/602825
IAS Part 3 (Bransten, J.)
CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL-SUBJECT TO STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR THE PRODUCTION AND EXCHANGE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
This envelope, containing documents which are filed in this case by MBIA Insurance Corporation, is not to be opened nor are the contents thereof to be displayed or revealed other
than to the Court, the parties and their counsel of record, except by order of the Court or consent of the parties.
EXHIBIT 207
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK
MBIA INSURANCE CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
-against-
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., COUNTRYWIDE SECURITIES CORP., COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL CORP., COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP, and BANK OF AMERICA CORP.
Defendants.
Index No.: 08/602825
IAS Part 3 (Bransten, J.)
CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL-SUBJECT TO STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR THE PRODUCTION AND EXCHANGE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
This envelope, containing documents which are filed in this case by MBIA Insurance Corporation, is not to be opened nor are the contents thereof to be displayed or revealed other
than to the Court, the parties and their counsel of record, except by order of the Court or consent of the parties.
EXHIBIT 208
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK
MBIA INSURANCE CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
-against-
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., COUNTRYWIDE SECURITIES CORP., COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL CORP., COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP, and BANK OF AMERICA CORP.
Defendants.
Index No.: 08/602825
IAS Part 3 (Bransten, J.)
CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL-SUBJECT TO STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR THE PRODUCTION AND EXCHANGE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
This envelope, containing documents which are filed in this case by MBIA Insurance Corporation, is not to be opened nor are the contents thereof to be displayed or revealed other
than to the Court, the parties and their counsel of record, except by order of the Court or consent of the parties.
EXHIBIT 209
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK
MBIA INSURANCE CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
-against-
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., COUNTRYWIDE SECURITIES CORP., COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL CORP., COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP, and BANK OF AMERICA CORP.
Defendants.
Index No.: 08/602825
IAS Part 3 (Bransten, J.)
CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL-SUBJECT TO STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR THE PRODUCTION AND EXCHANGE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
This envelope, containing documents which are filed in this case by MBIA Insurance Corporation, is not to be opened nor are the contents thereof to be displayed or revealed other
than to the Court, the parties and their counsel of record, except by order of the Court or consent of the parties.
EXHIBIT 210
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK
MBIA INSURANCE CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
-against-
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., COUNTRYWIDE SECURITIES CORP., COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL CORP., COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP, and BANK OF AMERICA CORP.
Defendants.
Index No.: 08/602825
IAS Part 3 (Bransten, J.)
CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL-SUBJECT TO STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR THE PRODUCTION AND EXCHANGE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
This envelope, containing documents which are filed in this case by MBIA Insurance Corporation, is not to be opened nor are the contents thereof to be displayed or revealed other
than to the Court, the parties and their counsel of record, except by order of the Court or consent of the parties.
EXHIBIT 211
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK
MBIA INSURANCE CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
-against-
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., COUNTRYWIDE SECURITIES CORP., COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL CORP., COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP, and BANK OF AMERICA CORP.
Defendants.
Index No.: 08/602825
IAS Part 3 (Bransten, J.)
CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL-SUBJECT TO STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR THE PRODUCTION AND EXCHANGE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
This envelope, containing documents which are filed in this case by MBIA Insurance Corporation, is not to be opened nor are the contents thereof to be displayed or revealed other
than to the Court, the parties and their counsel of record, except by order of the Court or consent of the parties.
EXHIBIT 212
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK
MBIA INSURANCE CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
-against-
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., COUNTRYWIDE SECURITIES CORP., COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL CORP., COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP, and BANK OF AMERICA CORP.
Defendants.
Index No.: 08/602825
IAS Part 3 (Bransten, J.)
CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL-SUBJECT TO STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR THE PRODUCTION AND EXCHANGE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
This envelope, containing documents which are filed in this case by MBIA Insurance Corporation, is not to be opened nor are the contents thereof to be displayed or revealed other
than to the Court, the parties and their counsel of record, except by order of the Court or consent of the parties.
EXHIBIT 213
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK
MBIA INSURANCE CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
-against-
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., COUNTRYWIDE SECURITIES CORP., COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL CORP., COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP, and BANK OF AMERICA CORP.
Defendants.
Index No.: 08/602825
IAS Part 3 (Bransten, J.)
CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL-SUBJECT TO STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR THE PRODUCTION AND EXCHANGE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
This envelope, containing documents which are filed in this case by MBIA Insurance Corporation, is not to be opened nor are the contents thereof to be displayed or revealed other
than to the Court, the parties and their counsel of record, except by order of the Court or consent of the parties.
EXHIBIT 214
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK
MBIA INSURANCE CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
-against-
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., COUNTRYWIDE SECURITIES CORP., COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL CORP., COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP, and BANK OF AMERICA CORP.
Defendants.
Index No.: 08/602825
IAS Part 3 (Bransten, J.)
CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL-SUBJECT TO STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR THE PRODUCTION AND EXCHANGE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
This envelope, containing documents which are filed in this case by MBIA Insurance Corporation, is not to be opened nor are the contents thereof to be displayed or revealed other
than to the Court, the parties and their counsel of record, except by order of the Court or consent of the parties.
EXHIBIT 215
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK
MBIA INSURANCE CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
-against-
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., COUNTRYWIDE SECURITIES CORP., COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL CORP., COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP, and BANK OF AMERICA CORP.
Defendants.
Index No.: 08/602825
IAS Part 3 (Bransten, J.)
CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL-SUBJECT TO STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR THE PRODUCTION AND EXCHANGE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
This envelope, containing documents which are filed in this case by MBIA Insurance Corporation, is not to be opened nor are the contents thereof to be displayed or revealed other
than to the Court, the parties and their counsel of record, except by order of the Court or consent of the parties.
EXHIBIT 216
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK
MBIA INSURANCE CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
-against-
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., COUNTRYWIDE SECURITIES CORP., COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL CORP., COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP, and BANK OF AMERICA CORP.
Defendants.
Index No.: 08/602825
IAS Part 3 (Bransten, J.)
CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL-SUBJECT TO STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR THE PRODUCTION AND EXCHANGE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
This envelope, containing documents which are filed in this case by MBIA Insurance Corporation, is not to be opened nor are the contents thereof to be displayed or revealed other
than to the Court, the parties and their counsel of record, except by order of the Court or consent of the parties.
EXHIBIT 217
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK
MBIA INSURANCE CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
-against-
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., COUNTRYWIDE SECURITIES CORP., COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL CORP., COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP, and BANK OF AMERICA CORP.
Defendants.
Index No.: 08/602825
IAS Part 3 (Bransten, J.)
CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL-SUBJECT TO STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR THE PRODUCTION AND EXCHANGE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
This envelope, containing documents which are filed in this case by MBIA Insurance Corporation, is not to be opened nor are the contents thereof to be displayed or revealed other
than to the Court, the parties and their counsel of record, except by order of the Court or consent of the parties.
EXHIBIT 218
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK
MBIA INSURANCE CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
-against-
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., COUNTRYWIDE SECURITIES CORP., COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL CORP., COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP, and BANK OF AMERICA CORP.
Defendants.
Index No.: 08/602825
IAS Part 3 (Bransten, J.)
CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL-SUBJECT TO STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR THE PRODUCTION AND EXCHANGE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
This envelope, containing documents which are filed in this case by MBIA Insurance Corporation, is not to be opened nor are the contents thereof to be displayed or revealed other
than to the Court, the parties and their counsel of record, except by order of the Court or consent of the parties.
