United States: Credit Crisis Litigation Update: It Is Settlement Time

Last Updated: November 11 2013

Article by Dr. Faten Sabry, Eric Wang, and Joseph Mani*

INTRODUCTION

It has been more than six years since the onset of the credit crisis and we have documented for the first time in the past few months a significant increase in the number and size of settlements. Meanwhile, the pace of new filings has slowed as housing markets continue to improve and delinquencies and defaults decline. However, litigation arising from the credit crisis is far from over.

In this article, we discuss the recent trends of settlement activity and review some of the major settlements in credit crisis litigation.1 We also discuss mortgage settlements that are related to repurchase demands mainly between mortgage sellers and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.2 We then examine the current trends in filings, including the types of claims made, the nature of defendants and plaintiffs in the litigation, and the financial products involved.

Our main findings, which are discussed in greater detail below, include the following:

Findings Related to Credit Crisis-Related Settlements:

  • We have documented four categories of settlements: 1) settlements related to credit crisis securities lawsuits;3 2) other proposed settlements that are yet to be finalized; 3) settlements related to the repurchase demands by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac; and 4) settlements with regulatory agencies that are related to foreclosure proceedings and other consumer finance issues.
  • Settlements of credit crisis-related litigation between 2007 and October 2013 total more than $32 billion, about 22% of which is related to settlements of securities class action lawsuits. The five largest securities litigation settlements to date total $19 billion (59% of total credit crisis litigation settlements). These are:

    • the tentative $13.0 billion settlement between JPMorgan and the US Department of Justice (DOJ) resolving several civil suits and investigations regarding mortgage securitizations in October 20134;
    • the $2.4 billion settlement in In re: Bank of America Corp. Securities, Derivative and ERISA Litigation in September 20125;
    • the $1.7 billion settlement in MBIA v. Countrywide et al. in May 20136;
    • the $1.1 billion settlement related to MBIA v. Morgan Stanley et al. and Morgan Stanley et al. v. MBIA et al. in December 20117; and
    • the $885 million settlement in FHFA (as conservator for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac) v. UBS Americas Inc. et al. in July 2013.8
  • There are proposed settlements that are currently before the courts for approval to resolve claims related to representations and warranties for mortgage loan collateral in RMBS trusts.9 These include a proposed $8.5 billion settlement in relation to Countrywide that is currently being reviewed by Justice Barbara Kapnick of the New York State Supreme Court in an Article 77 proceeding, and a $7.3 billion proposed settlement (with an estimated recovery value of $672 million) relating to representation and warranty claims in respect of 392 RMBS trusts issued by entities related to Residential Capital LLC (ResCap) which is currently in Chapter 11 bankruptcy.10
  • Settlements related to mortgage repurchase claims by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have exceeded $18 billion to date.
  • Finally, the US government has recovered more than $34 billion in settlements of its claims against various banks in relation to allegations of improper foreclosure proceedings and other consumer finance issues such as fairness in mortgage lending.

Findings Related to Credit Crisis Litigation Filings:

  • There have been a total of 927 credit crisis filings from January 2007 through the end of June 2013, but the pace at which new cases are being filed has fallen sharply: only 30 new cases were filed in the first half of 2013, less than half of the 78 cases filed during the first half of 2012.
  • Consistent with the broad trend, filings of new credit crisis-related cases involving 10b-5 and ERISA allegations have declined markedly since 2007. In contrast, filings of breach of contract cases have increased since 2012.
  • In lawsuits filed in 2012 and the first half of 2013, the most commonly named defendants were issuers and underwriters and the allegations were mainly related to structured products such as asset- and mortgage-backed securities (ABS and MBS, respectively).

The impact of the record-setting regulatory settlements on private litigation remains to be seen and the litigation seems to be moving to a new phase.

CREDIT CRISIS LAWSUITS: METHODOLOGY USED TO COMPILE THE DATABASE

For the purposes of this article, we define "credit crisis lawsuits" as securities cases (i.e., cases in which the allegations relate to the purchase, ownership, or sale of securities) related to the downturn in the financial markets and mortgage markets that began in 2007. Our count of credit crisis lawsuits includes, among others, ERISA claims, shareholder derivative actions, individual state and federal cases, international cases, and state and federal shareholder class actions.11 We compile data from various sources including Law360, Bloomberg, Factiva, RiskMetrics Group/Securities Class Action Services, SEC filings, and case dockets from January 2007 to June 2013. If any cases are consolidated, the duplicate filings are removed and the data are adjusted.

THE SETTLEMENTS

Credit Crisis-Related Litigation Settlements: Record Activity with $19 Billion in Settlements for 2013, through October

Credit crisis-related litigation settlements from 2007 through October 2013 have exceeded $32 billion, of which 22% is related to securities class actions. In 2013, we have observed a significant acceleration in credit crisis-related litigation settlements with about $19 billion in settlements through the first 10 months (January to October). Of the $19 billion in settlements, $13 billion reflects the tentative settlement between JP Morgan and the DOJ. In 2013 through October, total settlements have increased 267% from total settlements in 2012 (17% when not including the JP Morgan / DOJ settlement). Exhibit 1 below presents the total dollar value of settlements, recorded by year of settlement.

Exhibit 2 shows the breakdown of settlements by type of litigation. The tentative $13 billion settlement between the US DOJ and JPMorgan makes up 40% of the $32 billion in total settlements and is by far the largest settlement to date.

There have been 547 decisions and settlements in 409 credit crisis cases from January 2007 through October 2013, which account for 44% of the credit crisis filings to date. NERA's database documents decisions and settlements associated with the credit crisis filings, but the decisions do not necessarily indicate the final status of these lawsuits. We have recorded 179 settlements12, 159 dismissals granted, 72 dismissals denied, 92 partial dismissals, 35 voluntary dismissals, and 10 other miscellaneous decisions.

Recent Credit Crisis-Related Litigation Settlements: A Review

Some of the largest settlements to date involve claims that were brought by the monoline insurers, investors in ABS or MBS securities, and shareholders. See Exhibit 3 for a list of the 10 largest settlements arising from credit crisis-related litigation.

The largest credit crisis-related litigation settlement occurred in October 2013, when JPMorgan reached a tentative settlement with the US DOJ regarding civil suits and investigations into JPMorgan's mortgage securitization business.13 The settlement includes $4.0 billion to settle claims brought by the Federal Housing Finance Agency regarding alleged misrepresentations about collateral underlying MBS notes purchased by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.14 The remainder will represent additional penalties as well as an allocation for consumer mortgage relief.15 The settlement, if approved by the court, will also resolve a case brought by New York Attorney Eric Schneiderman over mortgage securitization practices at Bear Stearns and EMC Mortgage.16

The second largest settlement is in In re: Bank of America Corp. Securities, Derivatives, and ERISA Litigation, with a value of $2.4 billion, announced in September 2012.17 The settlement was approved in April 2013.18 Bank of America shareholders alleged that Bank of America and its directors and officers made misleading statements about the financial health of Bank of America and Merrill Lynch at the time of its acquisition.19 According to a press release from Bank of America, the company "denie[d] the allegations and [entered] into this settlement to eliminate the uncertainties, burden and expense of further protracted litigation."20

The third largest settlement is the $1.7 billion paid by Bank of America to MBIA Insurance Corporation in the MBIA v. Countrywide et al. case, announced on May 6, 2013 – nearly five years after it was originally filed.21 In that case, MBIA alleged misrepresentations and breaches of contract in connection with financial guarantees on fifteen RMBS sponsored by Countrywide. Specifically, MBIA alleged that Countrywide falsely represented the underlying mortgages and its underwriting standards to MBIA and that Countrywide refused to repurchase non-compliant mortgage loans.22 The $1.7 billion settlement consisted of approximately $1.6 billion in cash and the remittance of MBIA's senior notes (due 2034) with a principal amount totaling $137 million that Bank of America had previously held. In addition, Bank of America received fiveyear warrants to purchase shares of MBIA common stock and MBIA entered into a $500 million three-year secured revolving credit agreement with Bank of America. Bank of America also agreed to terminate outstanding credit default swap (CDS) agreements with MBIA and dismiss its claims in litigation regarding MBIA's restructuring. Based on a press release from MBIA, the settlement eliminated $7.4 billion of insured exposure.23

Cases brought by MBS and ABS investors have been very active, with 8 such cases settling in 2012, and 17 settling in 2013 through October for a total value of $6.6 billion.24 While the allegations in these cases vary, a large majority of the cases involved claims under Sections 11 and 12 of the Securities Act of 1933. Much of the recent settlement activity in 2013 has also occurred in cases where the plaintiffs are monoline insurers of MBS and ABS securities. In addition to the $1.7 billion settlement between MBIA and Countrywide, 18 similar cases with monoline insurers settled in 2013 through October. See Exhibit 4 for a list of these cases.

Other Major Credit Crisis Settlements

In addition to settlements directly related to securities litigation (i.e., those that resolved a pre-existing securities lawsuit), there have been other major credit-crisis related settlements. We discuss these settlements below.

Proposed Settlements for Countrywide MBS and ResCap MBS

In addition to the settlements arising from credit crisis securities litigation, there is the proposed $8.5 billion Countrywide settlement currently being reviewed by Justice Barbara Kapnick of the New York State Supreme Court in an Article 77 proceeding. In June 2011, institutional investors that held certificates in these trusts requested that Bank of New York Mellon (BNYM) enter into a settlement with Countrywide and Bank of America. BNYM subsequently filed a petition in the Supreme Court of the State of New York to begin a proceeding under Article 77 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules (CPLR) to request judicial approval of the proposed settlement.25 The proposed settlement, if approved by the Court, would resolve repurchase exposure, among other issues, for 530 Countrywide-issued first-lien RMBS trusts with an original principal balance of $424 billion.

Another similar proposed settlement regarding representation and warranty claims is the $7.3 billion settlement for over 392 RMBS trusts issued by entities related to Residential Capital LLC (ResCap). In June 2012, ResCap submitted a motion in its bankruptcy proceeding to approve an $8.7 billion settlement, which it had negotiated with a group of institutional investors.26 In a May 2013 motion submitted by ResCap to enter into a plan support agreement, the claim amount was revised to $7.3 billion, with an estimated recovery value of $672 million.27

Strong Settlement Activity for Repurchase Demands by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac

In addition to the settlements described above, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have recovered more than $18 billion from several financial institutions to resolve mortgage repurchase claims. These recoveries include the following:

  • A $1.1 billion settlement agreement reached in October 2013 between JPMorgan and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac regarding mortgage repurchase claims.28
  • A $438 million settlement agreement reached in October 2013 between SunTrust and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac regarding mortgage repurchase claims.29
  • An $869 million settlement reached in September 2013 between Wells Fargo and Freddie Mac, resolving nearly all repurchase claims related to loans sold to Freddie Mac through 2008.30
  • A $395 million settlement reached in September 2013 between Citigroup and Freddie Mac, regarding repurchase claims for about 3.7 million loans sold to Freddie Mac from 2000 to 2012.31
  • A $968 million settlement reached in July 2013 between Citigroup and Fannie Mae resolving repurchase claims related to 3.7 million residential first-lien mortgages.32
  • An $11.6 billion settlement reached in January 2013 between Bank of America and Fannie Mae, resolving Fannie Mae's repurchase claims related to mortgages sold to Fannie Mae between 2000 and 2008. The settlement also included the payment of fees related to foreclosure delays by Bank of America.33
  • A $2.8 billion settlement reached in January 2011 between Bank of America and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac ($1.5 billion to Fannie Mae and $1.3 billion to Freddie Mac), relating to mortgage repurchase demands.34

Settlements Related to Mortgage Lending and Servicing

In addition to the settlements in the securities litigation and repurchase demands discussed above, there have been over $34 billion of settlements between the US government and various financial institutions, related to foreclosure procedures and consumer finance issues such as fairness in mortgage lending. On January 7, 2013, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and the Federal Reserve Board announced an $8.5 billion agreement with various banks such as Bank of America and Citibank regarding foreclosure practices and mortgage loan servicing deficiencies.35 The agreement was subsequently increased to $9.3 billion in February 2013, with $3.6 in cash payments and $5.7 in homeowner assistance, including loan modifications and forgiveness of deficiency judgments.36 In February 2012, Bank of America, Citigroup, JPMorgan, Wells Fargo, and Ally Financial had agreed to a $25 billion settlement with 49 state attorneys general and federal agencies such as the US Department of Justice regarding mortgage loan servicing and foreclosure problems. The settlement included approximately $5 billion in cash penalties, with the remaining $20 billion to be provided as relief to homeowners.37 In December 2011, the US Department of Justice also settled with Bank of America and Countrywide over alleged mortgage lending discrimination from 2004 to 2008, providing $335 million in compensation.38

Summary of Settlement Activity

From 2007 through October 2013, defendants have agreed to pay a total of $32 billion to settle various credit crisis-related lawsuits. This total does not include the proposed $8.5 billion settlement of Countrywide MBS litigation and the $7.3 billion proposed settlement ($672 million estimated recovery value) in the ResCap bankruptcy. In addition, financial institutions have settled repurchase demands by Fannie and Freddie for a total of $18 billion. Settlements and agreements between the US government and various banks and servicers related to mortgage lending and loan servicing issues arising from the credit crisis have exceeded $34 billion.

NEW FILINGS: NEW FILINGS HAVE DECLINED AS HOUSING MARKETS SHOW SIGNS OF RECOVERY

There have been a total of 927 credit crisis-related filings over the period January 2007 through the end of June 2013, with 158 filings in 2012 and 30 filings in the first half of 2013 (60 annualized). In terms of class action matters, there were eight filings in 2012 and two filings in 2013 through June (four annualized). For non-class action matters, there were 150 filings in 2012 and 28 filings in 2013 through June (56 annualized).39 As the housing markets have started to show signs of improvement, leading to fewer delinquencies and defaults, the pace of new filings has fallen to a fraction of that seen in prior years. This trend is illustrated in Exhibit 5 which presents credit crisis filings by quarter, divided into securities class action lawsuits and other types of lawsuits, along with the seasonally adjusted Case-Shiller national home price index indexed to 1Q2007.

Credit Crisis-Related Breach of Contract Lawsuits Increased Sharply Since 2012

We classify filings by the type of claims. Categories include cases involving claims pursuant to: Rule 10b-5, Sections 11 and 12 from the Securities Act of 1933, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), breaches of fiduciary duty, and breaches of contract. Many cases involve allegations under more than one of these statutes. Exhibit 6 below presents the share of annual filings by type of claims from 2007 through the first half of 2013.

Rule 10b-5, promulgated under Section 10b of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, governs investors who purchased or sold securities of a company which allegedly made "untrue statements of a material fact" or "omit[ted] to state a material fact necessary in order to make the statements... not misleading."40 Credit crisis-related 10b-5 lawsuits have decreased from 38 cases in 2007 (or 48% of the credit crisis cases filed in that year) to 11 cases (or 7% of cases) in 2012 and 4 cases (or 13% of cases) in the first half of 2013.

Sections 11 and 12 claims are brought pursuant to the Securities Act of 1933 for alleged material misstatements or omissions in a registration statement or prospectus, respectively. Many of the cases involving claims under Sections 11 and 12 relate to registration statements or prospectuses for mortgage pass-through securities, mutual fund shares, and secondary public stock offerings. Such claims were made in 15 cases (or 19% of cases) filed in 2007 and 30 cases (or 19% of cases) in 2012, but were made in only one of the 30 cases (or 3% of cases) filed so far in the first half of 2013.

The Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) is a federal statute that governs the benefits of pension plans and employee benefit rights. The majority of ERISA cases involve suits brought by plan participants against asset managers, or cases against a company and its executives for offering the company's stock to plan participants. Credit crisis-related claims alleging a violation of ERISA peaked in 2008 with 18 filings, or 9% of cases filed in that year. None of the credit crisis-related claims filed in 2012 or the first half of 2013 involve ERISA claims.

There were 30 cases involving allegations of breaches of fiduciary duty (or 38% of cases) filed in 2007, 7 cases (or 4%) filed in 2012, and 3 cases (or 10%) filed in the first half of 2013. Allegations of breaches of contract surged from 12 cases (or 15%) filed in 2007 to 65 cases (or 41%) filed in 2012 and 11 cases (or 37%) filed in the first half of 2013, in large part due to filing activity related to investors and insurers of ABS and MBS securities alleging contract claims.

Issuers and Underwriters Continue to Be the Most Frequently Named Defendants in Recent Filings

We classify the primary defendants in the credit crisis filings by reviewing complaints and other legal documents. Our classification of the defendants is based on the allegations and the role of the defendants in each case. For example, one firm may be categorized as an issuer/underwriter in a particular lawsuit for packaging and selling mortgage-backed securities. The same firm may then be categorized as a broker/dealer for marketing and selling auction-rate securities ("ARS") to an investor. Asset management firm defendants may include hedge funds, private equity firms, and investment advisors, among others. Insurers include mortgage and bond insurers. We classify the defendants as securities issuers/underwriters, asset management firms, mortgage lenders, insurers, home builders, broker/dealers, rating agencies, REITs, or others. A breakdown of defendant types by filing year is presented in Exhibit 7.

There has been a noticeable shift in the type of defendants as credit crisis-related litigation has progressed. In 2007, mortgage lenders, home builders, and REITs were named as defendants in 43% of filings. In 2008, mortgage lenders, home builders, and REITs were named in only 20% of filings. Such businesses were named as defendants in just 3% of filings in 2012 and 2013 through June.

Although securities issuers/underwriters were defendants in only 24% and 23% of filings in 2007 and 2008, respectively, filings against these types of defendants increased in both 2009 and 2010. In 2009, securities issuers/underwriters were named in 33% of the filings. In 2010, 44% of filings targeted securities issuers/underwriters, in part due to the wave of litigation against Goldman Sachs and its involvement in synthetic CDOs. By 2011 and 2012, the percentage of credit crisis litigation filed against securities issuers / underwriters rose to 60% and 75%, respectively. In the first half of 2013, 43% of filings were against securities issuers / underwriters.

Filing of Shareholder Suits Has Decreased Since 2008; Lawsuits by MBS/ABS Investors Maintain Strong Share of Activity in 2012 and 2013YTD

We also classify the types of plaintiffs in the credit crisis filings as shareholders, ARS investors, MBS/other investors, trustees on behalf of investors, plan participants, insurers, swap contract claimants, government/regulators, and other plaintiffs. A breakdown of filings by type of plaintiff by filing year is shown in Exhibit 8.

We define shareholders as common stock owners. ARS investors are those who invested in long-term variable-rate instruments (usually municipal or corporate bonds) whose interest rates are reset through auctions. MBS/other investors are those who invested in MBS, ABS, preferred securities, corporate bonds, mutual funds, and money market funds. Plan participants are generally employees that file ERISA claims. Swap contract claimants are most commonly parties that bring suits regarding disputes over CDS. The government/regulator claims include cases brought by the SEC, state attorneys' general, cities, and municipalities.

Similar to the trends in the types of defendants named in credit crisis-related cases, the plaintiffs involved in cases have shifted towards investors in MBS and other mortgage-related securities. The share of cases involving MBS/other investors has increased over time, with 39% of cases in 2010, 60% of cases in 2011, 63% of cases in 2012, and 43% of cases in the first half of 2013. Insurers, in particular those who insured MBS and ABS, have also increased filing activity, from 8% of cases in 2010 to 13% of cases in the first half of 2013. See Exhibit 8.

Most Recent Filings Relate to ABS and MBS

We also classify credit crisis filings according to the type of product or security at issue in the case. These categories are not mutually exclusive and, in many instances, multiple types of securities are involved in each filing. Cases filed in 2007, which tended to involve lenders, originators, and home builders, largely involved claims related to increased accounting provisions (i.e., increases in reserves) for mortgage loans and mortgage loan charge-offs due to impairment. In fact, in 2007, 38% of credit crisis claims involved allegations relating to mortgage loans. By comparison, in 2012, only 3% of claims involved mortgage loans. In the first half of 2013, 13% of claims involved mortgage loans.42 The majority of recent credit crisis securities lawsuits involve products such as ABS/MBS. In 2012 and the first half of 2013, 81% and 80% of claims involved ABS/MBS, respectively. See Exhibit 9.

CONCLUSION

We have documented a significant increase in settlement activity related to the credit crisis litigation as well as settlements of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac's repurchase demands in recent months. Notwithstanding, many cases remain active and continue to be litigated. Given the recent surge in regulatory settlements and investigations against financial institutions on various issues related to the credit crisis, it is not clear that we have seen the end of this litigation.

Footnotes

* The authors would like to thank Brad Heys, Drew Claxton, and Sungi Lee for their insightful comments. All errors and omissions are ours.

1 See Credit Crisis Lawsuits: Methodology Used to Compile the Database Section on page 3.

2 Mortgage repurchase demands are typically made by purchasers of whole loans or investors in mortgage backed securities, for example as a method of remedying alleged defects or breaches in mortgage loan quality. In a repurchase, the mortgage loans are bought back by the mortgage seller.

3 The other listed types of settlements are credit crisis-related, but we do not classify them in our database as directly related to securities lawsuits.

4 Devlin Barrett, "JPMorgan Reaches $13 Billion Tentative Deal with DOJ," Dow Jones Top News & Commentary (October 21, 2013).

5 Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint, In re: Bank of America Corp. Securities, Derivative, and ERISA Litigation, No. 09-MDL-2058 (S.D. N.Y.) filed September 25, 2009.

6 Complaint, MBIA Insurance Corp. v. Countrywide Home Loans Inc. et al., No. 602825-2008 (N.Y. Sup.) filed September 30, 2008.

7 Complaint, MBIA Insurance Corp. v. Morgan Stanley et al., No. 29951-10 (N.Y. Sup.) filed December 6, 2010. Also Complaint, Morgan Stanley et al. v. MBIA et al., No. 9601475 (N.Y. Sup.) filed May 13, 2009.

8 Complaint, Federal Housing Finance Agency as Conservator for the Federal National Mortgage Association and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation v. UBS Americas Inc. et al., No. 1:11-CV-05201 (S.D. N.Y.) filed July 27, 2011.

9 Because these settlements did not resolve pre-existing cases, but rather claims that had not been brought in court, we have accounted for them separately in our credit crisis litigation settlement totals.

10 The $7.3 billion reflects a settled upon, allocated amount in the ResCap bankruptcy proceeding for RMBS trust claims related to representation and warranty and cure claims. Because the amount of claims exceeds the available distributable funds in the ResCap bankruptcy proceeding, the proposed settlement value will result in a smaller recovery value. See Annex I of the Debtors' Motion for an Order Under Bankruptcy Code Section 105(A) and 363(B) Authorizing the Debtors to Enter Into and Perform Under a Plan Support Agreement with Ally Financial Inc., the Creditors' Committee, and Certain Consenting Claimants, In re: Residential Capital LLC, et al., No. 12-12020 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y.) filed May 23, 2013.

11 We do not include cases related to predatory lending, consumer finance, foreclosure proceedings, Ponzi schemes, or arbitration claims.

12 We record a settlement for each case that is settled, i.e., if a settlement agreement covers multiple cases, a settlement is counted for each case.

13 Tom Schoenberg, Dawn Kopecki, Hugh Son, and Dakin Campbell, "JPMorgan Said to Reach Record $13 Billion U.S. Settlement," Bloomberg (October 20, 2013). See also Chris DiMarco, "J.P. Morgan Closing in on Agreement with DOJ over Mortgage Probes," Inside Counsel (October 21, 2013). See also Clea Benson and Dawn Kopecki, "JPMorgan to Pay $5.1 Billion to Settle Mortgage Claims," Bloomberg (October 25, 2013).

14 Complaint, Federal Housing Finance Agency as Conservator for the Federal National Mortgage Association and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation v. JPMorgan Chase & Co. et al, No. 11-cv- 06188 (S.D.N.Y.) filed September 2, 2011.

15 Tom Schoenberg, Dawn Kopecki, Hugh Son, and Dakin Campbell, "JPMorgan Said to Reach Record $13 Billion U.S. Settlement," Bloomberg (October 20, 2013). See also Chris DiMarco, "J.P. Morgan Closing in on Agreement with DOJ over Mortgage Probes," Inside Counsel (October 21, 2013).

16 Complaint, People of the State of New York by Eric T. Schneiderman v. J.P. Morgan Securities LLC et al., No. 451556/2012 (N.Y. Sup.) filed October 1, 2012.

17 The case is In re: Bank of America Corp. Securities, Derivative, and ERISA Litigation, No. 09-MDL-2058 (S.D. N.Y.).

18 The Bank of America Securities Litigation website, available at: http://www.boasecuritieslitigation.com/.

19 Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint, In re: Bank of America Corp. Securities, Derivative, and ERISA Litigation, No. 09-MDL-2058 (S.D. N.Y) filed on September 25, 2009.

20 Bank of America, "Bank of America Reaches Settlement in Merrill Lynch Acquisition-Related Class Action Litigation," September 28, 2012.

21 The case is MBIA Insurance Corp. v. Countrywide Home Loans Inc. et al., No. 602825-2008 (N.Y. Sup.).

22 Complaint, MBIA Insurance Corp. v. Countrywide Home Loans Inc. et al., No. 602825-2008 (N.Y. Sup.) filed September 30, 2008.

23 MBIA, "MBIA Announces Comprehensive Settlement with Bank of America," May 6, 2013.

24 This includes $4.0 billion of the tentative JPMorgan / DOJ settlement that has reportedly been set aside for the FHFA litigation matter. See Clea Benson and Dawn Kopecki, "JPMorgan to Pay $5.1 Billion to Settle Mortgage Claims," Bloomberg (October 25, 2013).

25 Verified Petition at 4, 5, In the matter of the application of The Bank of New York Mellon (as Trustee under various Pooling and Servicing Agreements and Indenture Trustee under various Indentures), for an order pursuant to CPLR §7701, seeking judicial instructions and approval of a proposed settlement, No. 651786/2011 (N.Y. Sup.) filed June 29, 2011.

26 Debtors' Motion Pursuant to Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9019 for Approval of the RMBS Trust Settlement Agreements, In re: Residential Capital LLC, et al., No. 12-12020 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y.) filed June 12, 2012.

27 The $7.3 billion reflects a settled upon, allocated amount in the ResCap bankruptcy proceeding for RMBS trust claims related to representation and warranty and cure claims. Because the amount of claims exceeds the available distributable funds in the ResCap bankruptcy proceeding, the proposed settlement value will result in a smaller recovery value. See Annex I of Debtors' Motion for an Order Under Bankruptcy Code Section 105(A) and 363(B) Authorizing the Debtors to Enter Into and Perform Under a Plan Support Agreement with Ally Financial Inc., the Creditors' Committee, and Certain Consenting Claimants, In re: Residential Capital LLC, et al., No. 12-12020 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y.) filed May 23, 2013.

28 Clea Benson and Dawn Kopecki, "JPMorgan to Pay $5.1 Billion to Settle Mortgage Claims," Bloomberg (October 25, 2013).

29 Of the $438 million, $170 million was credited as having already been repurchased by SunTrust. SunTrust also reached a $968 million settlement with the US Department of Housing and Urban Development and Department of Justice for claims regarding SunTrust's origination of FHA-insured mortgage loans and its mortgage servicing and origination practices. See SunTrust Banks, Inc. Form 8-K, October 10, 2013.

30 Wells Fargo, "Wells Fargo Reaches Agreement Resolving Freddie Mac Repurchase Demands on Loans Sold Prior to 2009," September 30, 2013.

31 Citigroup, "Citigroup Announces Agreement with Freddie Mac to Resolve Potential Future Mortgage Repurchase Claims," September 25, 2013.

32 Citigroup, "Citigroup Announces Agreement with Fannie Mae to Resolve Potential Future Mortgage Repurchase Claims," July 1, 2013.

33 Bank of America, "Bank of America Announces Settlement with Fannie Mae to Resolve Agency Mortgage Repurchase Claims on Loans Originated and Sold Directly to Fannie Mae Through December 31, 2008," January 7, 2013. The Federal Housing Finance Agency also allowed the transfer of the mortgage servicing rights from Bank of America to other servicers, related to about 1 million mortgage loans.

34 Bank of America, "Bank of America Announces Fourth Quarter Actions with respect to Its Home Loans & Insurance Business," January 3, 2011.

35 Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, "Independent Foreclosure Review to Provide $3.3 Billion in Payments, $5.2 Billion in Mortgage Assistance," January 7, 2013.

36 Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, "Amendments to Consent Orders Memorialize $9.3 Billion Foreclosure Agreement," February 28, 2013.

37 Nick Timiraos, Dan Fitzpatrick, and Ruth Simon, "U.S., Banks Agree on Foreclosure Pact," Wall Street Journal, February 9, 2012. Dawn Kopecki, David McLaughlin, and Lorraine Woellert, "U.S. Mortgage Servicers in $25B Settlement," Bloomberg, February 10, 2012.

38 Department of Justice, "Justice Department Reaches $335 Million Settlement to Resolve Allegations of Lending Discrimination by Countrywide Financial Corporation," December 21, 2011.

39 Cases that bring ERISA claims are included in the non-class action category.

40 Rule 10b-5, § 240.10b-5, Employment of Manipulative and Deceptive Devices.

41 Percentages reflect the portion of credit crisis filings that contain a given type of claim for a given filing year. A filing may contain multiple claims.

42 Cases involving alleged misrepresentations about the collateral of ABS and MBS notes are classified under ABS & MBS.

43 Percentages reflect the portion of credit crisis filings that contain a given product type for a given filing year. A filing may contain multiple product types.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Related Articles
 
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions