Allstate securities case suffers setback
Apparently a little “mayhem” has caught up with Northbrook, Ill.-based Allstate Insurance Co.
June 16, 2011 at 09:29 AM
6 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
Apparently a little “mayhem” has caught up with Northbrook, Ill.-based Allstate Insurance Co.
In its quest to recoup losses after having purchased $700 million worth of mortgage-backed securities from a Countrywide Financial in the years leading up to the financial crisis, Allstate's case took an undesired turn when a New York judge granted a motion by Countrywide to move the case to the Western Division of the Central District of California.
The move is significant given similar, ongoing litigation over similar issues have been brought before the California court since January 2010.
According to a ruling by U.S. District Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein, the coordination of Allstate's suit with a class-action case filed by the Maine State Retirement System will maximize the efficiency of judicial resources and prevent any potential inconsistencies from having the same litigation before differing courts and judges.
Allstate sued Countrywide in New York federal court last December, alleging that the company had misrepresented the $700 million in mortgage-backed securities that Allstate had purchased between March 2005 and June 2007. At the time of purchase, the mortgage-backed securities market was soaring.
The insurer said that the excessively high default rates on the underlying loans proves that Countrywide ignored its underwriting guidelines to “match the worst features of mortgage products” that were offered by its competitors.
“Whereas Allstate was made to believe it was buying highly rated, safe securities backed by pools of loans with specifically-represented risk profiles, in fact the [Countrywide executives] knew the loans they offloaded onto Allstate were a toxic mix of loans given to borrowers that could not afford the properties and, thus were highly likely to default,” according to the original complaint.
Countrywide's lawyers had asked Hellerstein earlier this year to dismiss the complaint. They claimed the suit mimics unsubstantiated allegations from other lawsuits regarding its loan origination practices, and that the insurer had been given all necessary information to accurately assess the credit risk of the securities.
Bank of America bought Countrywide for $4.2 billion in July 2008, and assumed most of its liabilities at the time.
Allstate also filed a suit against J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. in February for similar practices.
Apparently a little “mayhem” has caught up with Northbrook, Ill.-based
In its quest to recoup losses after having purchased $700 million worth of mortgage-backed securities from a
The move is significant given similar, ongoing litigation over similar issues have been brought before the California court since January 2010.
According to a ruling by U.S. District Judge
Allstate sued Countrywide in
The insurer said that the excessively high default rates on the underlying loans proves that Countrywide ignored its underwriting guidelines to “match the worst features of mortgage products” that were offered by its competitors.
“Whereas Allstate was made to believe it was buying highly rated, safe securities backed by pools of loans with specifically-represented risk profiles, in fact the [Countrywide executives] knew the loans they offloaded onto Allstate were a toxic mix of loans given to borrowers that could not afford the properties and, thus were highly likely to default,” according to the original complaint.
Countrywide's lawyers had asked Hellerstein earlier this year to dismiss the complaint. They claimed the suit mimics unsubstantiated allegations from other lawsuits regarding its loan origination practices, and that the insurer had been given all necessary information to accurately assess the credit risk of the securities.
Allstate also filed a suit against
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllLululemon Faces Legal Fire Over Its DEI Program After Bias Complaints Surface
3 minute readOld Laws, New Tricks: Lawyers Using Patchwork of Creative Legal Theories to Target New Tech
Lawsuit Against Amazon Could Reshape E-Commerce Landscape
Trending Stories
- 1Gibson Dunn Sued By Crypto Client After Lateral Hire Causes Conflict of Interest
- 2Trump's Solicitor General Expected to 'Flip' Prelogar's Positions at Supreme Court
- 3Pharmacy Lawyers See Promise in NY Regulator's Curbs on PBM Industry
- 4Outgoing USPTO Director Kathi Vidal: ‘We All Want the Country to Be in a Better Place’
- 5Supreme Court Will Review Constitutionality Of FCC's Universal Service Fund
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250