Judge Clears Insurer's $2B Fraud Suit Against BoA for Trial
Bank of America and Countrywide Home Loans are appealing a Manhattan judge's ruling to allow a $2 billion lawsuit filed by an underwriter for residential mortgage-backed securities that eventually tanked during the 2008 financial crisis to move forward to trial.
January 04, 2019 at 06:05 PM
3 minute read
The original version of this story was published on New York Law Journal
Bank of America and Countrywide Home Loans are appealing a Manhattan judge's ruling to allow a $2 billion lawsuit filed by an underwriter for residential mortgage-backed securities that eventually tanked during the 2008 financial crisis to move forward to trial.
In addition to preserving the fraud claim by Ambac Assurance Corp., a financial guaranty insurer that underwrote 17 securities backed by more than 375,000 individual mortgage loans, Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Eileen Bransten also denied a motion by Bank of America, which acquired Countrywide in 2008, to be tried separately.
Bransten's ruling, one of her final acts as a Commercial Division judge prior to her Dec. 31 retirement, sets the stage for a jury trial in the case. That trial is now on the docket for late February.
“We are pleased with the decision of the New York Supreme Court and look forward to proceeding to trial,” said Ganfer Shore Leeds & Zauderer name partner Mark Zauderer, who is part of the team representing Ambac.
Joseph McLaughlin of Simpson Thacher & Bartlett, who represents Countrywide, did not respond to a request for comment.
The long-running legal spat between Ambac and Countrywide began in 2010, when Ambac filed suit alleging that, between 2004 and 2006, Countrywide induced Ambac to insure the faulty securities by way of fraudulent representations and that the home-loan provider breached a number of contractual representations, such as that Countrywide was supposed to repurchase breaching loans
According to a recent ruling in the case by the New York Court of Appeals, in 2007, the housing market was beginning to slide, mortgage defaults were increasing, and Ambac was paying out more claims than anticipated.
The insurer claims that it reviewed originating files of defaulting loans and allegedly found that 7,900 of 8,800 loans reviewed contained material breaches of the insurance agreements brokered between Ambac and Countrywide.
Countrywide has enjoyed some victories in the case so far: in 2015, Bransten ruled that, under New York insurance statutes, Ambac did not have to prove that it relied solely on Countrywide's allegedly fraudulent statements to recover its $2 billion in insurance payments.
But the Appellate Division, First Department reversed Bransten's decision, ruling that Ambac should be held to a higher standard on the fraud claim; specifically that it must prove the elements of common-law fraud. The Manhattan-based appeals court also found that Ambac was not entitled to attorney fees
In June, the Court of Appeals affirmed the First Department and also found that Ambac is limited to the repurchase protocol contained in its insurance contracts with Countrywide as the remedy for breach of contract claims.
Back at the trial level, Bransten said Ambac will be allowed to use a statistical sample of 7,200 to prove liability or damages for breach of contract.
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 AllAn ‘Indiana Jones Moment’: Mayer Brown’s John Nadolenco and Kelly Kramer on the 10-Year Legal Saga of the Bahia Emerald
Travis Lenkner Returns to Burford Capital With an Eye on Future Growth Opportunities
Legal Speak's 'Sidebar With Saul' Part V: Strange Days of Trump Trial Culminate in Historic Verdict
1 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Alex Spiro Accuses Prosecutors of 'Unethical' Comments in Adams' Bribery Case
- 2Cannabis Took a Hit on Red Wednesday, but Hope Is On the Way
- 3Ben Brafman Defending Celebrity Rabbi in Lawsuit by Miami Hotel
- 4People in the News—Dec. 23, 2024—Barley Snyder, Marshall Dennehey
- 5How I Made Office Managing Partner: 'Be a Lawyer First, Foremost and Always,' Says Matthew McLaughlin of Venable
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