The Special Challenges of LIBOR Transition for Residential Mortgage-Backed Securities and Other LIBOR-Indexed Securitizations
This article addresses the challenging issue of LIBOR transition—that is, moving from LIBOR to another benchmark rate—for asset-backed securities such as residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS).
May 25, 2021 at 11:30 AM
9 minute read
Much has been written over the past decade, in this journal and elsewhere, about the manipulation of the London Inter-Bank Offered Rate (LIBOR) and the subsequent decision to end its use as a benchmark interest rate. This article addresses the challenging issue of LIBOR transition—that is, moving from LIBOR to another benchmark rate—for asset-backed securities such as residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS). RMBS is one of a class of assets that face the complication of two levels of transition: LIBOR-indexed mortgage notes that are assets of an RMBS securitization trust, and LIBOR-indexed interest rates paid on the securities issued by the securitization trust.
|LIBOR-Indexed Mortgage Lending and Securitization
To understand the challenge, first consider how residential mortgages are securitized into RMBS trusts. When a lender makes a home loan, the loan typically is secured by note and a mortgage. The notes often have variable interest rates. In the run-up to the 2008 financial crisis, residential mortgage notes—and particularly sub-prime residential mortgage notes—often were indexed to LIBOR. This means that the annual interest rate the borrower paid was not set at a fixed number but instead as LIBOR plus an additional percentage, such as LIBOR plus 3%. As LIBOR changed, the rate the borrower paid was (at agreed time intervals) changed.
In an RMBS securitization, these notes and mortgages (among other rights relating to the loans) are transferred to a securitization trust. The trust pays for the loans by issuing securities entitling holders to a share of the revenue generated by the loans. Generally, the interest paid to investors in a securitization trust is not tied to (although it certainly correlates to) the interest rate borrowers agreed to pay in their mortgage notes. Rather, the rates paid to investors are set in the securitization document and vary by the amount of risk an investor is willing to take using sometimes-complex payment waterfalls. For many older trusts, the interest rate paid to investors was indexed to LIBOR.
This content has been archived.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 AllDoctrine of ‘Practical Location,’ Breach of a Commercial Lease: This Week in Scott Mollen’s Realty Law Digest
US Supreme Court Justices Pass on Landlord Challenge to NY Rent Stabilization
2 minute readThe Legal Landscape for Condominium Sponsor Defects Cases: Acting Before Time Runs Out
8 minute readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Judicial Ethics Opinion 24-61
- 2Decision of the Day: School District's Probe Was a 'Sham'; Title IX Administrator Showed Sex-Based Bias
- 3US Magistrate Judge Embry Kidd Confirmed to 11th Circuit
- 4Shaq Signs $11 Million Settlement to Resolve Astrals Investor Claims
- 5McCormick Consolidates Two Tesla Chancery Cases
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