Tag Archives: Hockett

Reiss on Toxic Debt Claims

Posted on by

Bloomberg quoted me in Nomura First to Fight U.S. Toxic Debt Claims at Trial. The article reads in part,

Nomura Holdings Inc. will defend claims by a U.S. regulator that it sold defective mortgage-backed securities to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac before the 2008 financial crisis, becoming the first bank to take such a case to trial.

The Federal Housing Finance Agency, suing on behalf of the two government-owned companies, claims Nomura sold them $2 billion of bonds backed by faulty mortgages. The agency seeks more than $1 billion in damages in the trial, which is set to start Monday in Manhattan federal court.

Nomura, the Tokyo-based investment bank, is choosing to fight claims that 16 other banks settled after the blow-up of toxic mortgage bonds led to the global credit crunch. FHFA has reached $17.9 billion in settlements from banks including Bank of America Corp., JPMorgan Chase & Co. and Goldman Sachs & Co. If Nomura prevails at trial, it may embolden other firms facing mortgage-related suits to defend themselves rather than settle.

*     *     *

For Nomura and RBS to succeed, they will have to overcome Cote’s rulings as well as the widely held perception that banks packaged toxic debt and pushed it off on unsuspecting investors, said David Reiss, a professor at Brooklyn Law School.

Reiss said Nomura may believe it can show it was more careful than other banks in structuring mortgage-backed bonds and stands a good chance of winning.

As the trial approaches, a settlement becomes less likely, Bloomberg Intelligence analysts Elliott Stein and Alison Williams said yesterday. Stein said a resolution this late in the proceedings may exceed his earlier estimate of $100 million to $300 million, particularly if Cote’s rulings continue to favor FHFA.

Hockett on Postliberal Finance

Posted on by

Bob Hockett has posted Preliberal Autonomy and Postliberal Finance to SSRN. The abstract reads,

Even American Founders whose views diverged as dramatically as those of Jefferson and Hamilton shared a view of finance and of enterprise that one might call “productive republican.” Pursuant to this vision, financial and other forms of market activity are instrumentally rather than intrinsically good — and for that very reason are of interest to the public qua public rather than to the public qua aggregate of “private” individuals. Citizens are best left free to engage in financial and other market activities, per this understanding, only insofar as these are consistent with sustainable collective republic-making. And the republic — the res publica or “thing of the public” — for its part devotes many of its energies to the task of fostering and maintaining a materially independent republican citizenry. State and citizen are thus mutually constituting and mutually supporting, per this vision, and finance is important primarily in its capacity to nurture that symbiosis.

The productive republican view of finance can be illuminatingly contrasted with another view of more recent vintage, which one might call “liberal.” The liberal view takes market activity to be an intrinsic good, if not indeed a matter of inherent political-cum-moral right. Markets on this view are as it were natural social outgrowths of and aggregated counterparts to inherently “free” individual choices — choices that all of us, in both our individual and our collective capacities, are ethically bound to respect insofar as they don’t impose illegitimate costs upon others. So-called “public” interventions in “private” markets are accordingly fit subjects of suspicion and scrutiny per the liberal view. They are presumptively problematic unless and until proven otherwise, while “proof otherwise” for its part typically takes the form of proof that the intervention protects putatively pre-political freedom itself.

I claim in this article, a solicited symposium contribution, that American financial law, and economic law more generally, were once highly productive-republican in character, and that many financial, economic and, in consequence, political dysfunctions with which we have become familiar in recent decades stem from those laws’ having become steadily more liberal in character over time. I also argue that a number of essays, articles, and monographs published over the last twenty years or so under the rubrics of “banking the poor,” “alternative banking,” or “democratized finance” are, in effect if not self-conscious intention, attempts at partial recovery of the productive republican tradition — at least in the realm of finance. They are in this sense what might be called “post-liberal” in sensibility, if not quite in self-conscious aim. Their project can accordingly be aided, I aim to show, by affording them a form of reflective project-consciousness. That consciousness, however, once attained, will not be satisfied with post-liberal finance alone. It will demand a post-liberal economics.

This symposium piece is particularly compelling because it includes a personal story about Bob’s involvement with a “homeless kibbutz.” No spoilers, so you’ll have to read it yourself.

Welds on Eminent Domain for Underwater Mortgages

Posted on by

One of the great joys of being a professor is being able to brag about your students’ accomplishments.  Brooklyn Law School just posted this about Leanne Welds on our website:

Leanne Welds ’14 has been awarded the 2014 Brown Award by The Judge John R. Brown Scholarship Foundation for her paper “Giving Local Municipalities the Power to Affect the National Securities Market.” The Brown Award recognizes excellence in legal writing in American law schools. This is the first time a BLS student has taken first place in the national competition, which awards a $10,000 stipend to the winner.

Welds is currently an associate at Simpson Thatcher & Bartlett LLP in its Real Estate Group. As a student, she served as Executive Articles Editor for the Brooklyn Law Review and was the recipient of the Lorraine Power Tharp Scholarship from the New York State Bar Real Property Section. She was a member of the Community Development Clinic taught by Professor David Reiss, and externed with Enterprise Community Partners, an affordable housing firm. She also served as secretary of the Black Law Students Association.

“It is truly gratifying to have my work recognized in this way,” Welds said. “I picked this topic for my Law Review Note because of my combined interests in both the real estate and social justice aspects of the issue, but I never once thought I could be writing an award-winning paper. I am especially thankful to Professor David Reiss for believing in my work and sponsoring me for this competition, as well as both Professor Brian Lee and Professor Reiss for their detailed and thoughtful comments throughout the drafting process.”

Welds’ winning paper evaluates the constitutionality and wisdom of plans by local governments to condemn underwater mortgages without also condemning the land that is attached to the mortgages. These plans are in response to the foreclosure crisis that has hit certain communities particularly hard. If successful, these plans would result in refinanced and smaller mortgages on homes that have seen their values drop dramatically since the start of the financial crisis. The financial industry opposes these plans because they would reduce the face value of the existing mortgages.

“Leanne is a perfect candidate for this prize,” said Professor David Reiss. “Her passion for the law is complemented by an excellent work ethic, good legal judgment, and serious intellectual firepower. Leanne is a rising star of the bar. I have no doubt she will not only be a valuable member of the bar, but that she will also play a leadership role in the community.”

Hockett on NYC Eminent Domain

Posted on by

Bob Hockett has posted ‘We Don’t Follow, We Lead’: How New York City Will Save Mortgage Loans by Condemning Them to SSRN. The abstract reads,

This brief invited essay lays out in summary form the eminent domain plan for securitized underwater mortgage loans that the author has been advocating and helping to implement for some years now. It does so with particular attention in this case to New York City, which is now actively considering the plan. The essay’s first part addresses the plan’s necessity. Its second part lays out the plan’s basic mechanics. The third part then systematically addresses and dispatches the battery of remarkably weak legal and policy arguments commonly proffered by opponents of the plan.

Hockett has been advocating this plan for some time in the face of concerted opposition from the financial industry. One industry argument that I have found to be over the top is that lenders will refuse to lend in communities that employ eminent domain to address the foreclosure crisis. Hockett writes,

Another policy argument made by some members of the securitization industry is that using eminent domain to purchase loans will dry up the sources of mortgage credit, rendering the American dream of homeownership unattainable. The financial services industry and its legislative supporters have made this kind of claim against regulatory and consumer protection proposals emerging from national, state, or municipal legislatures.

One problem with this argument is that private credit has not flowed to non-wealthy mortgage borrowers since the crash. Federal lenders and guarantors are nearly the only game in town, and they are likely to remain so until the underwater PLS loan logjam is cleared.

Another problem with the credit withdrawal argument is that it characterizes a benefit as a burden. The housing bubble was, like most of the more devastating bubbles through history, the upshot of an over-extension of credit. Lenders extended excess credit through reverse redlining and other predatory lending practices perpetrated or aided and abetted by participants in the securitization industry itself. Hence the securitization industry’s warning that credit might not be overextended in the future is a warning of something that might well be desirable. (142-43, footnotes omitted)

Given that lenders always rush to lend to countries that have recently defaulted on their sovereign debt, I don’t find the credit withdrawal argument to be particularly convincing here. But it may succeed in convincing some local governments not to proceed with their eminent domain strategies. I do hope, however, that at least one locality will follow through during the current foreclosure crisis. That way, we will at least have a proof of concept for the next foreclosure crisis.

 

Reiss on Citigroup Settlement

Posted on by

Law360 quoted me in Feds Deploy Potent Bank Fraud Law In $7B Citi Pact (behind a paywall). It reads in part:

The U.S. Department of Justice’s $7 billion mortgage bond settlement with Citigroup Inc. on Monday may not have been possible without the help of a once-obscure fraud law that has become a legal magic wand for prosecutors.

Citigroup’s settlement included a $4 billion civil fine under the Financial Institutions Reform Recovery and Enforcement Act, the largest such penalty in history. FIRREA was passed in the wake of the 1980s savings-and-loan crisis but has been dusted off in recent years as prosecutors have targeted major Wall Street banks that packaged and sold toxic residential mortgage-backed securities before the 2008 economic collapse.

The law’s government-friendly provisions are well-documented. FIRREA contains a 10-year statute of limitations, rather than the typical five-year window for fraud suits. That has permitted the government to comfortably sue banks over conduct that occurred in 2006 and 2007, when many of the shoddy loans implicated in the crisis were securitized. Prosecutors can use tolling agreements to keep potential claims alive even longer.

*     *     *

The sheer size of the government’s FIRREA fines thus far, combined with the lack of case law underpinning the statute, has placed banks and their defense counsel in a difficult negotiating position, according to David Reiss, a professor at Brooklyn Law School.

“The message for people in negotiations is: Expect to pay a lot, or else, the government is going to call your bluff,” Reiss said. “It’s the Wild West for civil penalties.”

Monday’s settlement relates to Citigroup’s due diligence on loans that were packaged into securities and sold to investors for tens of billions of dollars. According to an agreed-upon statement of facts, the bank “received information indicating that, for certain loan pools, significant percentages of the loans reviewed did not conform to the representations provided to investors about the pools of loans to be securitized.”

In one case, a Citigroup trader wrote an internal email questioning the quality of loans in mortgage-backed securities issued in 2007. The trader said that he “went through the diligence reports and think that we should start praying … I would not be surprised if half of these loans went down.”

The bank did not admit to breaking any particular law, and neither it nor any individual employees were criminally charged. At the same time, DOJ officials were quick to point out that the settlement did not release Citigroup or any individuals from potential criminal liability.

Reiss said the threat of criminal prosecution could become a hallmark of FIRREA cases, giving banks another cause for concern.

“That again demonstrates a lot of leverage on the side of the government,” Reiss said. “It’s a powerful tool to keep in your back pocket.”

Eminent Distraction?

Posted on by

The Urban Institute posted Eminent Domain:  The Debate Distracts from Pressing Problems. The issue brief concludes

The negative indicators shared by municipalities that have considered the eminent domain solution (e.g., high unemployment, low incomes, high proportions of underwater homeowners, slower HPI recovery, etc.) indicate that their shared problems extend beyond housing. These cities have traditionally suffered from lack of investment, high crime rates, concentrated poverty, and other general barriers to opportunity. These factors contributed to their poor performance during and after the housing crash, and the relief efforts to date, both from lenders and policymakers, have been modest relative to the scale of the problem.

Yet it is unclear that seizing loans through eminent domain will produce the desired outcomes: preventing foreclosures and, thus, ensuring that the community fabric and the municipality’s economy remain intact. For example, Richmond is targeting performing loans in PLS, and while the eminent domain plan is designed to help underwater mortgage holders, investors assert that nearly a third of target loans are above water. In contrast, a much wider universe of nonperforming, underwater loans is in private-label and agency securities that are, arguably, at more immediate risk of default. Additionally, implementing eminent domain will likely have repercussions in the housing finance markets that will lead to higher interest rates and down payments.(14)

www.crackerjackcharters.com/images/gallery/data/

The conclusion then outlines “some less disruptive alternatives.” (14) I am not sure that I agree with all of the conclusions of the report.  For instance, I doubt that there would be higher interest rates and down payments as a result of the use of eminent domain by municipalities.  Lenders have notoriously short memories (for a survey of short lender memories, see This Time Is Different.) But this issue brief is important because it is not looking at the legality of the use of eminent domain — others have done that — but at the practicality of this approach. And it raises serious concerns that will need to be addressed by its proponents.

Underwater Mortgages Eminent Domain Battle Gears up

Posted on by

I was quoted in a recent story in www.thestreet.com, Eminent Domain Mortgage Battle Is a Lose-Lose Situation.  It reads in part,

The move by Richmond, Calif., to seize “underwater mortgages” from private investors using its powers of eminent domain has drawn controversy and consternation within the mortgage industry.

The law has mostly been used to seize property for public purposes such as building roads, highways or schools and other critical infrastructure.

Richmond is now testing whether the rule can be applied to seizing underwater mortgages.

Home prices in Richmond, a city with a population of a little more than 100,000 and a significant Hispanic and African-American presence, are still far below peak levels. More than half of its homeowners are underwater — they owe more than their homes are worth.

Richmond Mayor Gayle Mclaughlin said eminent domain is the only way to help borrowers and repair the local economy, as investors of private-label mortgages have been either reluctant or too slow to provide relief to borrowers.

The city, partnering with San Francisco-based Mortgage Resolution Partners (MRP), began sending letters to owners and servicers of 624 underwater mortgages this week.

If the investors do not agree to sell at the negotiated price, the city will seize the property through eminent domain.

The mortgage industry is, predictably, threatening a legal battle.

* * *

“The constitutional challenges for this proposal are weak,” according to David Reiss, law professor at the Brooklyn Law School.

* * *

The bigger source of legal conflict, according to Reiss and other experts, would be on determining what is fair compensation for a mortgage, especially one that is still current.

* * *

“Courts tend to overcompensate properties taken under eminent domain as a general rule,” said Reiss. “The proponents of this rule may be underestimating how these mortgages will be valued.”

* * *

Eminent domain is “theoretically a great idea,” said Reiss. “States certainly have the legal authority to try this experiment. But it is not clear whether the outcome of all this is beneficial.”