Tag Archives: Financial Institutions Reform Recovery Enforcement Act

S&P’s Fightin’ Words

Posted on by

S&P filed a memorandum in support of its motion to compel discovery in the FIRREA case that the United States brought against S&P last year. S&P comes out fighting in this memorandum, arguing that the “lawsuit is retaliation for S&P’s decision to downgrade the credit rating of the United states in August 2011.” (1)

S&P argues that the “most obvious explanation” for the United States’ “decision to pursue a FIRREA action against S&P alone” among the major rating agencies “is apparent:”   “S&P alone among the major rating agencies downgraded the securities issued by the United States.” (17) This is not obvious to me, particularly given the various explanations for this disparate treatment that have appeared in outlets like the WSJ over the last couple of years. But it may be true nonetheless.

In any case, I do not find the “chronology of events relating to the downgrade and the commencement of this lawsuit” to provide “powerful evidence linking the two.” (17) The chronology ends with the following entries:

  • S&P’s downgrade of the United States occurred on Friday, August 5, 2011. That Sunday, August 7, Harold McGraw III, the Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and President of McGraw Hill (of which S&P was a unit), received a telephone message from a high-ranking official of the New York Federal Reserve Bank; when the call was returned, the official conveyed the personal displeasure of the Secretary of the Treasury with S&P’s rating action.
  • This was followed on Monday by a call to Mr. McGraw from the Secretary of the Treasury, Timothy Geithner, in which Secretary Geithner stated that S&P had made a “huge error” for which it was “accountable.” He said that S&P had done “an enormous disservice to yourselves and your country,” that S&P’s conduct would be “looked at very carefully,” and that such behavior could not occur without a response.
  • The McClatchy Newspapers subsequently reported in a piece authored by Kevin G. Hall and Greg Gordon that while the United States’ original investigation included S&P and Moody’s, “[i]nvestigator interest in Moody’s apparently dropped off around the summer of 2011, about the same time S&P issued the historic downgrade of the United States’ creditworthiness because of mounting debt and deficits.” A source familiar with the investigations was quoted as stating: “After the U.S. downgrade, Moody’s is no longer part of this.”
  • In the year preceding S&P’s downgrade of the United States, two states, Mississippi and Connecticut, had initiated proceedings alleging deceptive practices based specifically on an alleged lack of independence. Each of those states named both Moody’s and S&P as defendants. After the downgrade, additional state lawsuits were commenced, with allegations nearly identical to those of the Connecticut and Mississippi complaints. Drafted after coordination and consultation with the U.S. Department of Justice, none of those lawsuits named Moody’s. (19, footnotes omitted)

This is surely no smoking gun and lots of dots remain to be connected.  How did DoJ get involved? Are the state Attorneys General in on the conspiracy? Why would DoJ stop an investigation of Moody’s to punish S&P? Sounds a bit like cutting off your nose to spite your face?

That being said, S&P might be right about the motivation for this suit and their allegations may be enough to win this motion to compel discovery. But whoever wins this round, this should be a fight worth watching.

Is Banks’ $200 Billion Payout from RMBS Lawsuits Enough?

Posted on by

S&P issued a brief, The Largest U.S. Banks Should Be Able To Withstand The Ramifications Of Legal Issues, that quantifies the exposure that big banks have from litigation arising from the Subprime Crisis:

Since 2009, the largest U.S. banks (Bank of America, Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase, Morgan Stanley, and Wells Fargo) together have paid or set aside more than $45 billion for mortgage representation and warranty (rep and warranty) issues and have incurred roughly $50 billion in combined legal expenses .  . . This does not include another roughly $30 billion of expenses and mortgage payment relief to consumers to settle mortgage servicing issues. We estimate that the largest banks may need to pay out an additional $55 billion to $105 billion to settle mortgage-related issues, some of which is already accounted for in these reserves. (2)

S&P believes “that the largest banks have, in aggregate, about a $155 billion buffer, which includes a capital cushion, representation and warranty reserves, and our estimate of legal reserves, to absorb losses from a range of additional mortgage-related and other legal exposures.” (2) As far as their ratings go, S&P has already incorporated “heightened legal issues into our ratings, and we currently don’t expect legal settlements to result in negative rating actions for U.S. banks.” (2) But it warns, “an immediate and unexpected significant legal expense could result in the weakening of a bank’s business model through the loss of key clients and employees, as well as the weakening of its capital position.” (2) S&P also acknowledges that there are some not yet quantifiable risks out there, such as DoJ’s FIRREA suits.

As the endgame of the financial crisis begins to take shape and financial institutions are held accountable for their actions, one is left wondering about a group who is left relatively unscathed: financial institution employees who received mega bonuses for involving these banks in these bad deals. As we think about the inevitable next crisis, we should ask if there is a way to hold those individuals accountable too.

Reiss on Countrywide Verdict

Posted on by

Law360 interviewed me in DOJ’s Countrywide Win Could Force More Bank Settlements (behind a paywall).  The story opens

The U.S. Department of Justice’s victory in a case against Bank of America Corp.’s Countrywide subsidiary over a housing-bubble-era mortgage program shows the power of a 1980s fraud statute, and could further encourage banks to settle future financial crisis cases, attorneys say.

A federal jury in New York on Wednesday unanimously found that Countrywide Financial Corp. and one of its former executives defrauded Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac through a program designed to speed up mortgage issuing in 2007 and 2008.

The court victory was significant in part because of U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara’s use of the Financial Institutions Reform Recovery and Enforcement Act, a law that grew out of the 1980’s savings-and-loan crisis, to bring a case over the 2007-09 financial crisis. With a fairly low standard of proof and a 10-year statute of limitations, a jury’s verdict based on FIRREA bodes well for future government cases, said Brooklyn Law School professor David Reiss.

“This successful use of FIRREA makes it much more likely that financial institutions are going to settle with the government,” he said.

Judge Rakoff Is All FIRREA-ed Up

Posted on by

Law360 quoted me in a story, Rakoff Gives DOJ License To Be Bold In Bank Crackdown (behind a paywall), that reads in part,

U.S. District Judge Jed S. Rakoff’s expansive Monday opinion backing the federal government’s $1 billion mortgage fraud suit against Bank of America Corp. leaves the U.S. Department of Justice wide latitude to use its favorite financial fraud tools in cases linked to the recent financial crisis.

Judge Rakoff’s opinion expanded his May decision allowing the Justice Department’s October suit against Bank of America over lending practices during the housing bubble and financial crisis to move forward under the Financial Institutions Reform Recovery Enforcement Act, while also explaining why portions of its case using the False Claims Act failed.

The ruling, which accepted the government’s broad view of which federally insured financial institutions can be sued under FIRREA and on what grounds, gives the government further ammunition to bring such cases in the future, said Brooklyn Law School professor David Reiss.

“The federal government has taken an expansive view of this phrase, and Judge Rakoff agrees that it can be read broadly in certain circumstances, such as when the affected federally insured financial institution is the alleged wrongdoer itself,” he said.

* * *

[T]he Second Circuit will look closely at other appellate rulings related to interpreting congressional intent, as well as any rulings dealing specifically with FIRREA should an appeal come its way, as many observers expect.

However, it is likely to look closely at Judge Rakoff’s opinion when rendering an ultimate decision, which is why he considered those issues, Reiss said.

“Judge Rakoff stated that this result clearly flowed from the plain language of FIRREA, so the defendants may have a hard time on appeal,” he said.

DoJ All FIRREA-ed Up With S&P Suit

Posted on by

Law360 quoted me in a story, Prosecutors Unleashed As $5B S&P Action Rolls On (behind a paywall), about DoJ’s success in fending off S&P’s motion to dismiss its FIRREA case. It reads in part

While the latest ruling against S&P was lighter on substance, Brooklyn Law School professor David Reiss called it “a very big deal.”

“It adds to a body of law that gives the government another powerful tool to go after alleged misdeeds by financial institutions,” he said.

The suit, launched in February to much fanfare, targets S&P’s top-notch ratings for complex mortgage-backed securities that later failed. As part of a controversial, widespread practice known as the “issuer pays” model, banks created the securities, paid S&P to rate them and then sold them to investors. The DOJ claims S&P mismarked the securities on purpose to keep clients happy and boost profits.

In its motion to dismiss, the firm argued its public statements touting the ratings as objective, based on solid data and unaffected by potential conflicts of interest amounted to “puffery” and therefore could not form the basis of a fraud suit against S&P and parent company McGraw-Hill Cos. Inc.

But Judge Carter ruled Tuesday that the DOJ had sufficiently alleged S&P’s statements were not general, subjective claims, but were based on specific policies and procedures governing how the firm “shall” or “must not” rate securities. The judge called the firm’s puffery argument “deeply and unavoidably troubling when you take a moment to consider its implications.”

“Despite defendants’ protestations to the contrary, the court cannot find that all of these ‘shalls’ and ‘must nots’ are the mere aspirational musings of a corporation setting out vague goals for its future,” the judge wrote in an 18-page order. “Rather, they are specific assertions of current and ongoing policies that stand in stark contrast to the behavior alleged by the government’s complaint.”

Judge Carter also found the DOJ had sufficiently claimed S&P defrauded investors who had relied upon the ratings in determining the credit risk of certain investments. And the judge ruled the government did not have to plead “with a high degree of particularity” that S&P intentionally issued false ratings because the suit was filed under FIRREA. Tougher pleading requirements set out in the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act, which governs many securities suits, therefore do not apply, the judge ruled.

S&P spokesman Ed Sweeney noted Wednesday that the ruling did not address the merits of the case, as the judge was required to accept the government’s factual allegations as true during the early stages of litigation.

“We now welcome the opportunity to demonstrate the lack of merit to the Department of Justice’s complaint,” Sweeney said. “We firmly believe S&P’s ratings were and are independent, and expect to show just that in court.”

The decision followed a tentative July 8 ruling by Judge Carter. And indeed, given the sheer amount of resources the government has devoted to the case, the finding should have come as no surprise, according to Jacob Frenkel, an attorney at Shulman Rogers Gandal Pordy & Ecker PA who chairs the firm’s securities enforcement practice.

“When you have a deep-pocketed client that is willing to fight, a good lawyer will exhaust all options and remedies,” Frenkel said of S&P’s motion. “It would have been unreasonable to believe it stood any chance of success, but that does not mean you don’t try.”

Still, Judge Carter’s takedown should give the firm pause as it weighs whether to fight the claims or strike a settlement, according to Reiss, the Brooklyn professor.

“We now have a sense that the judge’s take on the guts of the case is pretty favorable to the government,” Reiss said. “And we’re now seeing the rating agencies start to crumble a little bit after their decades-long run of avoiding either settling or losing at trial.”

What Was S&P Puffing?

Posted on by

I have been closely following DoJ’s suit against S&P since the complaint was filed in February (and see here, here and here).  DoJ alleges that S&P “issued or confirmed ratings that did not accurately reflect true credit risks” and seeks to obtain civil penalties pursuant to FIRREA. (4) Yesterday, Judge Carter issued a doozy of an order, denying S&P’s motion to dismiss the case.

Let’s remember that for the purposes of a motion to dismiss, the judge takes as true all of the facts alleged in the plaintiff’s complaint.  So, if a complaint survives a motion to dismiss, it means that the legal theory of the case is sound and that the plaintiff can win if the facts are as it alleges.

This should be the scariest passage in the order, as far as S&P is concerned:

Defendants lead off with a proposition that is deeply and unavoidably troubling when you take a moment to consider its implications.  They claim that, out of all the public statements that S&P made to investors, issuers, regulators, and legislators regarding the company’s procedures for providing objective, data-based credit ratings that were unaffected by potential conflicts of interest, not one statement should have been relied upon by investors, issuers, regulators, or legislators who needed to be able to count on objective, data-based credit ratings. (7-8)

This is repudiation of S&P’s “puffery” defense: their statements about their objectivity and rigorous methodology were merely “non-actionable puffery” along the lines of Charmin’s claim that it is the softest of all toilet papers. (8)

The Court follows this line of thought through to its logical conclusion:

if no investor believed in S&P’s objectivity, and every bank had access to the same information and models as S&P, is S&P asserting that, as a matter of law, the company’s credit ratings service added absolutely zero material value as a predictor of creditworthiness? (12)

One wonders how S&P executives responded to their lawyers when they proposed this argument — were they thinking about anything else other than winning this motion?  Did they consider how regulators might react to this argument?

And, while this goes beyond the matter at hand, the Court’s reaction to S&P’s argument is an implicit indictment of the business model of the major rating agencies: they are really in the business of selling licenses to access the capital markets more than they are in the business of issuing mini-editorials about the creditworthiness of securities, as they have successfully argued in previous cases challenging their ratings.

The Devil is in the Statute of Limitations

Posted on by

NY Supreme Court Justice Kornreich (N.Y. County) issued an opinion ACE Securities Corp. v. DB Structured Products Inc., No. 650980/2012 (May 13, 2013) that diverges in approach from an earlier SDNY opinion as to whether the statute of limitations runs “from the execution of the contract.” (5) The case concerns allegations that an MBS securitizer made false representations about the loans that underlay the MBS.

Kornreich held that the statute of limitations begins to run when the MBS securitizer (a Deutsche Bank affiliate) “improperly rejected the Trustee’s repurchase demand” so long as the Trustee did not “wait an unreasonable time to make the demand.” (7) (On a side note, Kornreich also held that the plaintiff in such a case is not required “to set forth which of the specific loans are affected by false” representations in a breach of contract claim. (7))

This really opens up the statute of limitations under NY law. There has been a lot of speculation that the flood of lawsuits arising from the Subprime Boom would have to come to an end because the statute of limitations covering many of the claims was six years.  A variety of developments has extended the possibility of filing a suit.  There is FIRREA‘s ten year statute of limitations. There is NY’s Martin Act, with its lengthy statutes of limitation. And now there is this expansive reading of NY’s statute of limitations for breach of contract actions.

Although one might think that all of the good cases have been filed already, you never know. And with the ACE Securities Corp. case, we can see how a case can be filed more than six years after the contract was entered into, under certain circumstances.