I’ve spent a lot of time talking about what I consider Bank of America’s risky gamesmanship in its multi-pronged litigation with the bond insurer MBIA, but it may be that I’ve underestimated that risk by focusing on the downside for the bank in MBIA’s breach of contract and fraud suit. Under a not-implausible scenario, BofA faces serious risk in its regulatory challenge to MBIA’s transformation that’s going to trial on May 14. And ironically, the risk comes not from losing the case — but from winning it.
According to a sophisticated and well-advised MBIA institutional investor that has devoted serious resources to analyzing the issue — trust me, even though the investor doesn’t want to broadcast its involvement, this is a seriously savvy player — if Bank of America and two French banks succeed in overturning MBIA’s 2009 split into separate muni bond and structured finance businesses, there’s a reasonable likelihood that BofA could wind up at the back of the line of MBIA claimants, waiting years for whatever scraps are left over from payouts to municipal bond insurance policyholders.
New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman still wants a say in whether Bank of America’s proposed $8.5 billion settlement with Countrywide mortgage-backed securities investors should be approved by a state-court judge. The AG’s new intervention motion, filed more than seven months after Schneiderman first moved to join the case, makes the exact same arguments as the old motion, which was pending before New York State Supreme Court Justice Barbara Kapnick when the settlement was removed from state court to Manhattan federal court last August. There’s just one notable exception: The AG’s office “deleted” its explosive fraud counterclaims against Countrywide MBS trustee Bank of New York Mellon. Is playing nice (or, at least, nicer) enough to win the AG a seat at the table?
Those fraud counterclaims, as you’ll surely recall, caused quite a stir when Schneiderman’s office tacked them onto its original motion to intervene. One Manhattan business development official questioned the wisdom of attacking a trustee that was at least making an effort to respond to investors’ concerns and warned that the AG was endangering the city’s standing as the preferred home of financial institutions. BNY Mellon and the institutional investors backing the proposed $8.5 billion settlement responded in kind to the AG’s intervention motion, asserting that Scheiderman didn’t have standing to intervene because he’s not a Countrywide MBS investor.
Bank of America Corp’s proposed $8.5 billion mortgage bond settlement received fresh opposition on Tuesday from New York’s attorney general, who said the accord appears unfair to investors who may deserve to recover more.
Eric Schneiderman, the attorney general, filed papers on Tuesday asking a New York State Supreme Court justice for permission to intervene.
He had made the same request last August before the case moved to federal court. It returned to the state court in February.
The settlement announced last June arose from Charlotte, North Carolina-based Bank of America’s 2008 purchase of Countrywide Financial Corp, once the nation’s largest mortgage lender.
I sure hope the Securities and Exchange Commission and other members of the new joint mortgage-backed securities task force are paying attention to the docket in MBIA’s New York State Supreme Court fraud and breach-of-contract suit against Countrywide. On Wednesday, MBIA’s lawyers at Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan sent a letter to Justice Eileen Bransten requesting that she order Countrywide to produce discovery on an internal fraud-tracking database “which MBIA had not previously known to exist.” MBIA said it needs the discovery to prepare for upcoming depositions of former Countrywide employees who tried to expose its allegedly fraudulent mortgage underwriting practices, including the well-known whistleblowers Eileen Foster and Mari Eisenman.
Abigail Field’s latest article is a must read. Forget the energizer bunny, this just keeps going and going…it does not stop.
from DailyFinance
When an LPS client has a mortgage that goes into default, Lofton explains, LPS starts managing the loan. In order to do that, the appropriate LPS employees are given login information for the bank’s database. As a security measure, each login is unique. That login grants access to the bank’s entire database of current and defaulted loans, so that the employee can address whatever problem exists. For example, if a payment that should have been applied to a defaulted mortgage was accidentally credited to a current mortgage, the LPS employee needs access to the current mortgage to fix the error.
When an employee can’t fix or reconcile data in an account, she is supposed to enlist the help of her supervisor, and if needed, her supervisor’s supervisor. Each manager also has unique login information, and each bank apparently has additional security protocols that LPS employees are supposed to follow. If the employees and supervisors were following the rules, all would be relatively well. But according to Lofton, they were not:
“…109. …most of the [LPS] Associate Team members had gained unauthorized access to the logins and passwords of their team associates and supervisors for all of the bank servicers’ computers.
110. With this unauthorized access to the Bank’s computers, the [LPS] associates could go into the banks computer files and manipulate the data….
112. I was particularly concerned that during “crunch” times …Team Associates were cutting corners….
116. When an employee cut corners, the employee left out one or more steps that should have been performed and had to make something up.
117. The problem caused by cutting corners might not come to light until six months down the road when an attorney asks questions about the billing record.”
Recent Comments