Beachwear and menswear collide on Brazil's runway…
Heckled Obama to students in Jerusalem: "It made me…
Wealth Strategies: Get paid to wait in biotech…
Time for a Fight: Staff Sergeant Tim Kennedy
(On Your GUARD)
13 Reasons You’re Not As Successful As You Should Be
Google to sell second-gen Nexus 7 tablet from July: sources
5:14am EDT1North Korea pressures South by halting entry to industrial zone|
6:25am EDT2U.S. deploys warship as tensions over North Korea rise
02 Apr 20133U.N. overwhelmingly approves global arms trade treaty|
02 Apr 20134''Finding Nemo'' film sequel ''Finding Dory'' gets 2015 release
02 Apr 20135
North Korea says to enter ”state of war” against South Korea: KCNA
Obama makes impassioned plea for gun control legislation
U.S. flies Stealth bomber practice raids over South Korea
Open an account with TD Ameritrade
Trade free for 60 days and get up to $600 cash. No platform or data fees.
iShares Core ETFs
Discover iShares Core Funds, the Building Blocks for Your Portfolio.
Become a more agile leader for your team
Training and certification reinforces your communication and management skills.
Ads by Marchex
REFILE-MBIA cleared to pursue fraud case vs BofA's Countrywide
Supreme Court wary of broad gay marriage ruling
Tue, Mar 26 2013
Goldman mortgage appeal rejected by Supreme Court
Mon, Mar 18 2013
MBIA wins end to banks' lawsuit over restructuring
Mon, Mar 4 2013
Analysis & Opinion
Steve Cohen’s frustrated PR machine; unlikely lobbyists; and the $600 million train station
Gay marriage, voters’ rights and the thorny Prop 8 standing problem
Regulatory News »
Bonds News »
Mutual Fund Center »
ETFs News »
Tue Apr 2, 2013 5:24pm EDT
By Karen Freifeld and Jonathan Stempel
(Reuters) - A New York state appeals court on Tuesday cleared the way for bond insurer MBIA Inc to pursue a fraud lawsuit against Bank of America Corp over toxic mortgage securities.
A panel of New York's Appellate Division said MBIA did not need to wait for loans to go into default before it could force Bank of America to buy them back.
The panel also said MBIA need not meet a particularly high burden of proof to show fraud at the former Countrywide Financial Corp, which Bank of America bought in 2008.
The panel, did, however, eliminate one means for MBIA to recover damages from Bank of America, the second-largest U.S. bank.
The case stemmed from insurance that MBIA had provided on $20 billion of securities packaged by Countrywide.
Tuesday's decision upheld much of a January 2012 ruling by New York Supreme Court Justice Eileen Bransten.
MBIA, based in Armonk, New York, said the decision allows it to seek a full recovery from Charlotte, North Carolina-based Bank of America.
Once the world's largest bond insurer, MBIA won approval from New York insurance regulators in 2009 to split into a municipal guarantee business and a structured finance unit that had suffered big mortgage losses.
Bank of America spokesman Lawrence Grayson declined to comment.
NO NEED TO WAIT
In a lawsuit that began in 2008, MBIA accused Countrywide of misrepresenting the underwriting on about 368,000 loans backing some $20 billion of securities it had insured from 2005 to 2007.
MBIA said it would not have provided the insurance had it known the truth about the securities, which it said have racked up $4 billion in losses.
In its unsigned decision, the appeals court let stand Bransten's ruling that to show fraud, MBIA need show merely that Countrywide misled it about the residential mortgage-backed securities, not that the misrepresentations caused its losses.
It also said, "There is simply nothing in the contractual language" to require MBIA to wait for loans to go into default before it could force Bank of America to repurchase them.
The appeals court said Bransten was wrong to find that MBIA could obtain a form of relief known as rescissory damages, saying MBIA "voluntarily gave up the right to seek rescission."
Rescissory damages could have served as an equivalent of rescinding or voiding MBIA's insurance policies.
MBIA spokesman Kevin Brown said the insurer is pleased with the decision, which resolves "any questions over the strength of MBIA's legal positions on the most significant issues."
Harry Fong, an MKM Partners LLC analyst with a "buy" rating and $18 share price target for MBIA, said the decision "establishes a clear path for MBIA to recover everything it has paid out on its Countrywide RMBS exposure."
The decision is separate from a March 4 ruling by another New York Supreme Court justice, Barbara Kapnick, that upheld the 2009 restructuring, in a defeat for Bank of America and France's Societe Generale. Both banks are appealing.
In its annual report on Feb. 27, MBIA said its structured finance unit could be forced into liquidation or rehabilitation if litigation with Bank of America was not settled.
MBIA shares traded as much as 4.5 percent lower after parts of the appeals court decision surfaced, but soon recovered. They closed up 4 cents at $10.18 on the New York Stock Exchange.
The case is MBIA Insurance Corp v Countrywide Home Loans Inc et al, New York State Supreme Court, Appellate Division, 1st Department, No. 9672. The lower court case is MBIA Insurance Corp v. Countrywide Home Loans Inc et al, New York State Supreme Court, New York County, No. 602825/2008.
STOCKSREGULATORY NEWSBONDS NEWS
A settlement payout from Bank of America also raised Fannie's 2012 pre-tax income by $1.3 billion. Bank of America (BAC, Fortune 500) agreed to pay the mortgage financier $3.6 billion as part of a settlement over risky mortgages that Countrywide Financial sold Fannie during the housing bubble. Countrywide was subsequently bought by Bank of America.
I beg your pardon, but as it pertains to MBIA, it would appear that it's me who has been schooling you.
And now that you've moved from spreading falsehoods to childish personal attacks, it's clear that you've run out of fodder. It's been a pleasure tearing your credibility to pieces on this board.
There were two big issues.
1) Rescission. Judge Bransten had said if certain requirements were met that MBIA would basically get all of their losses back. She was reversed.
2) Material and adverse clause. Banks had said that default was required before a loan could be required to be repurchased. Judge Bransten was sustained on this issue.
Bottom-line the decision means that they have to look at it on a loan by loan basis although stat sampling will almost certainly be allowed. Expect the stat sampling issue will wind up in appeals eventually.
Very positive. It essentially upheld Bransten's causation finding. Everybody went into a panic because the court didn't uphold granting rescissory damages, but the court noted:
"and in fact, plaintiff does not actually seek rescission".
MBIA Corp. is left to pursue its settlement via the same method as Assured Guaranty Municipal Court v. Flagstar Bank, which obviously worked out well.