" All of which raises the immediate question: why did Bransten stop short? I have a theory, but obviously this is just speculation on my part. By way of the first 3/4 of the Order, Bransten provided MBIA with a shorter, cheaper and more complete pathway to recovery than putbacks by allowing it to seek rescissory damages. Now, instead of having to go loan-by-loan (at least through a sample of some 6,000+ loans), and being able to recover only those losses on loans it can prove were defective, MBIA can just prove that it was induced to issue the policies by a misrepresentation and thereby recover all of its losses."
MBIA will recover all of their losses anyway. Since the proportion of breached loans is so huge it is clear that without these loans all of the deals would not breach the MBIA attachment point. i.e. the threshold were MBIA starts to pay. Either put back or rescissory damages would give the same result.