DOCSLIB.ORG

X PUBLIC EMPLOYEES’ RETIREMENT : SYSTEM of MISSISSIPPI, Individually and : on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, : : Plaintiff, : : V

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
X PUBLIC EMPLOYEES’ RETIREMENT : SYSTEM of MISSISSIPPI, Individually and : on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, : : Plaintiff, : : V U NITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x PUBLIC EMPLOYEES’ RETIREMENT : SYSTEM OF MISSISSIPPI, Individually and : On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, : : Plaintiff, : : v. : No. 09-CV-1110 (HB) : (Dispositive Motion) GOLDMAN SACHS GROUP, INC., : GOLDMAN SACHS MORTGAGE : COMPANY, GS MORTGAGE SECURITIES : CORP., GOLDMAN, SACHS & CO., INC., : MCGRAW-HILL COMPANIES, INC., : MOODY’S INVESTORS SERVICE, INC., : FITCH INC., DANIEL L. SPARKS, MARK : WEISS, JONATHAN S. SOBEL, GSAA : HOME EQUITY TRUST 2006-2, GSAA : HOME EQUITY TRUST 2006-3 and : GSAMP TRUST 2006-S2, : : Defendants. : - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF THE GOLDMAN SACHS DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS THE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT Richard H. Klapper Michael T. Tomaino, Jr. Patrice A. Rouse Harsh N. Trivedi SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP 125 Broad Street New York, New York 10004 Telephone: (212) 558-4000 Facsimile: (212) 558-3588 Counsel for Defendants The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., Goldman, Sachs & Co., Goldman Sachs Mortgage Company, GS Mortgage Securities Corp., Jonathan S. Sobel, Daniel L. Sparks and Mark Weiss November 2, 2009 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page PRELIMINARY STATEMENT ..................................................................................................... 1 ALLEGATIONS OF THE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT ................................................ 4 A. The Parties and Claims ........................................................................................... 4 B. The Certificates Plaintiff Purchased ....................................................................... 5 C. Alleged Misrepresentations in the Offering Documents ........................................ 6 STANDARD ON THIS MOTION ................................................................................................. 7 ARGUMENT .................................................................................................................................. 7 I. PLAINTIFF LACKS STANDING TO SUE ......................................................... 7 A. Plaintiff Lacks Standing to Assert Section 11 Claims as to Securities Offered by GSAA Home Equity Trusts 2006-2 and 2006-3 .................................... 7 B. Plaintiff Lacks Standing to Assert Section 12(a)(2) Claims Even as to the GSAMP 2006-S2 Certificates that It Purchased ....................................... 10 II. PLAINTIFF DOES NOT PLEAD ANY COGNIZABLE ECONOMIC LOSS .......................................................... 11 III. THE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT DOES NOT PLEAD ANY ACTIONABLE MISREPRESENTATIONS ................................ 13 A. The Offering Documents Disclosed All the Information that Plaintiff Alleges Was Required ............................... 15 1. The Offering Documents Disclosed the Originators’ Lending Practices ............................................... 15 2. The Offering Documents Disclosed the Involvement of Independent Mortgage Brokers and Appraisers ................................................ 16 3. The Offering Documents Disclosed the Calculation of Loan-to-Value Ratios ..................................... 16 4. The Offering Documents Disclosed the Calculation of Debt-to-Income Ratios ................................... 17 -i- 5. The Offering Documents Disclosed Credit Enhancement Features ....................................................... 18 6. The Offering Documents Disclosed the Certificates’ Ratings ............................................................... 18 B. Plaintiff Does Not Adequately Allege Materiality or Violation of Any Duty to Disclose .................................... 19 IV. PLAINTIFF’S CLAIMS ARE TIME-BARRED ................................................. 22 CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................. 25 -ii- TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page(s) CASES Ashcroft v. Iqbal, No. 07-1015, 2009 WL 1361536 (U.S. May 18, 2009) ........................................................... 7 Basic Inc. v. Levinson, 485 U.S. 224 (1988) ............................................................................................................... 13 Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) ........................................................................................................... 7, 18 Conopco, Inc. v. Roll Int’l, 231 F.3d 82 (2d Cir. 2000) ....................................................................................................... 7 DeBenedictis v. Merrill Lynch & Co., 492 F.3d 209 (3d Cir. 2007) ................................................................................................... 25 DeMaria v. Andersen, 318 F.3d 170 (2d Cir. 2003) ............................................................................................... 9, 13 Dodds v. Cigna Sec., Inc., 12 F.3d 346 (2d Cir. 1993) ..................................................................................................... 22 ECA & Local 134 IBEW Joint Pension Trust of Chicago v. JP Morgan Chase Co., 553 F.3d 187 (2d Cir. 2009) ................................................................................................... 20 First Nationwide Bank v. Gelt Funding Corp., 27 F.3d 763 (2d Cir. 2002) ................................................................................................ 11-12 Garber v. Legg Mason, Inc., 537 F. Supp. 2d 597 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) .............................................................................. 20, 22 Gustafson v. Alloyd Co., 513 U.S. 561 (1995) ............................................................................................................... 10 GVA Market Neutral Master, Ltd. v. Veras Capital Partners Offshore Fund, Ltd., 580 F. Supp. 2d 321 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) .................................................................................... 25 Hoffman v. UBS-AG, 591 F. Supp. 2d 522 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) ...................................................................................... 8 -iii- Ingrassia v. County of Sullivan, 262 F. Supp. 2d 116 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) ................................................................................ 2, 24 In re Alstom SA Sec. Litig., 406 F. Supp. 2d 402 (S.D.N.Y. 2005) ............................................................................... 22-23 In re AOL Time Warner, Inc. Sec. & “ERISA” Litig., 381 F. Supp. 2d 192 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) ................................................................................ 7, 13 In re Broderbund/Learning Co. Sec. Litig., 294 F.3d 1201 (9th Cir. 2002) ................................................................................................ 13 In re Countrywide Fin. Corp. Sec. Litig., 588 F.3d 1132 (C.D. Cal. 2008) ............................................................................................... 9 In re Dynex Capital, Inc. Sec. Litig.(“Dynex I”), No. 05-CV-1897, 2006 WL 314524 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 10, 2006) ............................................... 9 In re Dynex Capital, Inc. Sec. Litig. (“Dynex II”), No. 05-CV-1897, 2009 WL 3380621 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 19, 2009) ....................................... 9, 14 In re First Union Corp. Sec. Litig., 128 F. Supp. 2d 871 (W.D.N.C. 2001) ................................................................................... 12 In re Flag Telecom Hldgs., Ltd. Sec. Litig., 352 F. Supp. 2d 429 (S.D.N.Y. 2005) .................................................................................... 20 In re Flag Telecom Hldgs., Ltd. Sec. Litig., 308 F. Supp. 2d 249 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) ........................................................................ 13, 15, 21 In re Fuwei Films Sec. Litig., 634 F. Supp. 2d 419 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) ....................................................................................... 9 In re Initial Pub. Offering Sec. Litig., 544 F. Supp. 2d 277 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) .............................................................................. 11, 13 In re Livent, Inc. Noteholders Sec. Litig., 151 F. Supp. 2d 371 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) .................................................................................... 11 In re Merrill Lynch & Co. Research Reports Sec. Litig., 272 F. Supp. 2d 243 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) .................................................................................... 11 In re Morgan Stanley Tech. Fund Sec. Litig., Nos. 02-CV-6153, 2009 WL 256005 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 2, 2009) ............................................. 21 In re N2K Inc. Sec. Litig., 82 F. Supp. 2d 204 (S.D.N.Y. 1999) ...................................................................................... 21 -iv- In re Natural Gas Commodity Litig., 358 F. Supp. 2d 336 (S.D.N.Y. 2005) .................................................................................... 22 In re Openwave Sys. Sec. Litig., 528 F. Supp. 2d 236 (S.D.N.Y. 2007) .................................................................................... 22 In re Salomon Smith Barney Mut. Fund Fees Litig., 441 F. Supp. 2d 579 (S.D.N.Y. 2006) ...................................................................................... 8 In re Ultrafem Inc. Sec. Litig., 91 F. Supp. 2d 678 (S.D.N.Y. 2000) ...................................................................................... 11 Korwek v. Hunt, 646 F. Supp. 953 (S.D.N.Y. 1986) ......................................................................................... 25 NECA-IBEW Health
Load more

Recommended publications
  • One Cheer for Credit Rating Agencies: How the Mark-To-Market Accounting Debate Highlights the Case for Rating-Dependent Capital Regulation
    South Carolina Law Review Volume 60 Issue 3 Article 8 Spring 2009 One Cheer for Credit Rating Agencies: How the Mark-to-Market Accounting Debate Highlights the Case for Rating-Dependent Capital Regulation John P. Hunt Berkeley Center for Law Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarcommons.sc.edu/sclr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation John Patrick Hunt, One Cheer for Credit Rating Agencies: How the Mark-to-Market Accounting Debate Highlights the Case for Rating-Dependent Capital Regulation, 60 S. C. L. Rev. 749 (2009). This Symposium Paper is brought to you by the Law Reviews and Journals at Scholar Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in South Carolina Law Review by an authorized editor of Scholar Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Hunt: One Cheer for Credit Rating Agencies: How the Mark-to-Market Acco ONE CHEER FOR CREDIT RATING AGENCIES: How THE MARK-TO-MARKET ACCOUNTING DEBATE HIGHLIGHTS THE CASE FOR RATING-DEPENDENT CAPITAL REGULATION JOHN PATRICK HUNT INJ. TRO D UCTIO N .......................................................................................... 750 11. MARK-TO-MARKET FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING INTHE 2007-2008 C RISIS .......................................................................... 752 A. Fair Value, or Mark-to-Market FinancialAccounting Rules ............ 752 B. The Attack on Mark-to-Market Accounting and Its Effects ................ 757 C. Mark-to-Market Accounting Critics Have Failedto M ake Their Case ....................................................... 759 1. Accounting Rules Generally Do Not "Require" M arking to M arket .................................................... 759 2. Market Marks GenerallyAre Not Binding and Do Not Require ForcedSelling ............................................ 760 3. Accounting Losses Did Not Cause Any of the Major Firm Failures in the Crisis.............................
    [Show full text]
  • Cumulative Or Discrete Numbers: Should Bloomberg Measure the Bailout? Teaching Note
    Cumulative or Discrete Numbers: Should Bloomberg Measure the Bailout? Teaching Note Case Summary Financial reporting presents formidable challenges for journalists. To begin with, the journalist must have a solid grasp of the mathematically complex products and practices of modern finance, as well as an understanding of the greater economic environment at the national and international level. Furthermore, the stories—which by nature are full of numbers—must be palatable for readers. Thus it often falls on journalists to decide how best to present the figures so that the story is not only factually correct but also easy for readers to digest. This case focuses on Bloomberg News as it covered one such story: the Federal Reserve’s bailout of major banks during the financial crisis of 2007-10. As big banks struggled to keep themselves afloat after incurring huge losses in bundled subprime mortgages, the Federal Reserve created several emergency lending programs for banks. However, key details such as borrowers’ names, amount borrowed and collateral were not disclosed. Such lack of transparency prompted reporters at Bloomberg News to file a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request in May 2008. The Fed stonewalled Bloomberg’s FOIA request, claiming that such information could undermine the effectiveness of the emergency program, because the market could interpret the loans as signs of grave financial trouble. Undaunted, Bloomberg took the issue to court in November 2008 and prevailed. Moreover, the 2010 Dodd-Frank Act on financial oversight also required that the Fed release more information about its lending. This confluence of circumstances led the Fed in late 2010 to release information sought by Bloomberg and other media outlets.
    [Show full text]
  • How Should Bloomberg Measure the Bailout?
    CSJ----13--- -0051.0 Cumulative or Discrete Numbers: How Should Bloomberg Measure the Bailout? From summer 2007 to June 2009, US financial markets flirted with disaster. The housing market had collapsed and, because many major financial institutions were heavily invested in mortgages, they lost hundreds of billions of dollars. The economy went into recession in December 2007 and contracted a full 5.1 percent in 18 months. Millions lost their jobs; other millions lost their homes. At the height of the crisis, experts and ordinary citizens alike wondered whether the nation’s banking system would survive. The US Federal Reserve System, the nation’s central bank, stepped in with a variety of programs to stabilize the banks. While the public knew that the “Fed,” as it was called, was taking action, the agency released few details about individual transactions. At Bloomberg News, investigative reporter Mark Pittman became convinced that banks were using Fed loans to disguise financial weakness. In May 2008, he filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request with the Fed to learn how much it had loaned each bank, and on what terms.1 When after six months the Fed failed to respond, Bloomberg L.P. (the parent company) in November 2008 filed a lawsuit to obtain detailed records about its massive lending activities. Over the next two years, the two parties fought a legal battle. Bloomberg won at both the district and appeals court levels, but the Fed or its proxy continued to appeal the decision until, in March 2011, the Supreme Court refused to hear the case.
    [Show full text]
  • Fordham Journal of Corporate & Financial
    Fordham Journal of Corporate & Financial Law Volume 15 Issue 1 Article 7 2010 Backdoor Bailout Disclosure: Must The Federal Reserve Disclose The Identities Of Its Borrowers Under The Freedom Of Information Act? Alexander Sellinger Follow this and additional works at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/jcfl Recommended Citation Alexander Sellinger, Backdoor Bailout Disclosure: Must The Federal Reserve Disclose The Identities Of Its Borrowers Under The Freedom Of Information Act?, 15 Fordham J. Corp. & Fin. L. 259 (2009). Available at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/jcfl/vol15/iss1/7 This Note is brought to you for free and open access by FLASH: The Fordham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. It has been accepted for inclusion in Fordham Journal of Corporate & Financial Law by an authorized editor of FLASH: The Fordham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Backdoor Bailout Disclosure: Must The Federal Reserve Disclose The Identities Of Its Borrowers Under The Freedom Of Information Act? Cover Page Footnote J.D. Candidate, 2010, Fordham University School of Law; B.A., 2007 University of Virginia. The author is deeply indebted to Prof. Caroline Gentile for her guidance, insight and patience with this Note. He is also grateful for the hard work, honest feedback, and input of fellow members of the Journal of Corporate & Financial Law, especially Noe Burgos, Nicole Conner and Gary Varnavides. This note is available in Fordham Journal of Corporate & Financial Law: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/jcfl/vol15/iss1/ 7 NOTES BACKDOOR BAILOUT DISCLOSURE: MUST THE FEDERAL RESERVE DISCLOSE THE IDENTITIES OF ITS BORROWERS UNDER THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT? Alexander Sellinger* I.
    [Show full text]
  • Rating Risk After the Subprime Mortgage Crisis: a User Fee Approach for Rating Agency Accountability
    GW Law Faculty Publications & Other Works Faculty Scholarship 2008 Rating Risk after the Subprime Mortgage Crisis: A User Fee Approach for Rating Agency Accountability Jeffrey Manns George Washington University Law School, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.gwu.edu/faculty_publications Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Jeffrey Manns, Rating Risk after the Subprime Mortgage Crisis: A User Fee Approach for Rating Agency Accountability, 87 N.C. L. Rev. 1011 (2009). This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in GW Law Faculty Publications & Other Works by an authorized administrator of Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. RATING RISK AFTER THE SUBPRIME MORTGAGE CRISIS: A USER FEE APPROACH FOR RATING AGENCY ACCOUNTABILITY* JEFFREY MANNS** This Article argues that an absence of accountability and interconnections of interest between rating agencies and their debt-issuer clients fostered a system of lax ratings that provided false assurances on the risks posed by subprime mortgage- backed securities and collateralized debt obligations. It lays out an innovative, yet practical pathway for reform by suggesting how debt purchasers—the primary beneficiaries of ratings—may bear both the burdens and benefits of rating agency accountability by financing ratings through a Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”)-administered user fee system in exchange for enforceable rights. The SEC user fee system would require rating agencies both to bid for the right to rate debt issues and to assume certification and mandatory reporting duties to creditors.
    [Show full text]
  • Anchor Savings Bank, Fsb
    In the United States Court of Federal Claims No. 95-39 C (Filed: March 14, 2008) ANCHOR SAVINGS BANK, FSB, Winstar-Related Case; Plaintiff, Foreseeability; Causation; Measure of Damages; Risk v. Assessment; Lost Profits; Mortgage-Backed Securities; Bank Branches THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant. Edwin L. Fountain, Jones Day, Washington, D.C., attorney of record for plaintiff, with whom were George T. Manning, C. Thomas Long, Joseph J. Migas, Adrian Wager-Zito, Debra L. Satinoff and Geoffrey S. Irwin. Patrick T. Murphy and Tarek Sawi, United States Department of Justice, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, Washington, D.C., with whom were Colleen Hanrahan, Brian J. Mizoguchi, John Todor, Ed Sullivan, Richard Evans, Luke Levasseur, Mark Pittman and Delisa Sanchez. OPINION AND ORDER Block, Judge. I. INTRODUCTION This case is one of the last of the Winstar-related progeny facing this court. It involves a series of contracts in which the government promised to allow the plaintiff, Anchor Savings Bank, FSB (“Anchor”) to account for “supervisory goodwill” as a capital asset that would count toward Anchor’s regulatory capital requirement and be amortized over a 25-to-40 year period. The contracts accompanied Anchor’s acquisition in the 1980s of four failing financial institutions, at the behest and under the supervision of federal thrift regulators. The government hoped those “supervisory” acquisitions would prevent its contingent deposit insurance liability from maturing. Following a change in thrift regulatory policy, however, the 1989 Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act (“FIRREA”) disallowed substantially all of Anchor’s supervisory goodwill as a capital asset.
    [Show full text]
  • Top Cop Or Regulatory Flop? the SEC at 75
    University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School Penn Law: Legal Scholarship Repository Faculty Scholarship at Penn Law 2009 Top Cop or Regulatory Flop? The SEC at 75 Jill E. Fisch University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/faculty_scholarship Part of the Administrative Law Commons, Banking and Finance Law Commons, Business Law, Public Responsibility, and Ethics Commons, Corporate Finance Commons, Law and Economics Commons, Political Economy Commons, and the Securities Law Commons Repository Citation Fisch, Jill E., "Top Cop or Regulatory Flop? The SEC at 75" (2009). Faculty Scholarship at Penn Law. 265. https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/faculty_scholarship/265 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Penn Law: Legal Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Scholarship at Penn Law by an authorized administrator of Penn Law: Legal Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. FISCH_BOOK 5/13/2009 5:50 PM TOP COP OR REGULATORY FLOP? THE SEC AT 75 Jill E. Fisch* I. INTRODUCTION OHN Coffee and Hillary Sale’s article, Redesigning the SEC: J Does the Treasury Have a Better Idea?,1 was written for a sym- posium celebrating the seventy-fifth birthday of the Securities and Exchange Commission. The celebration came at a most inoppor- tune time. The market developments of October 2008―developments that took place contemporaneous with the live presentations at the conference―reflected the most severe capital market decline since the Great Depression. Over the course of a few weeks, several of the country’s largest financial institutions suffered critical or near-critical crises, requiring the injection of unprecedented bailout funds.
    [Show full text]
  • Administrative Tracking/Processing File for Each FOIA Request & Appeal
    Description of document: Contents of the administrative tracking/processing file for each FOIA request and each FOIA Appeal received at the Federal Reserve Board from Bloomberg News Service during calendar years 2007 and 2008 Requested date: 18-November-2008 Released date: 19-February-2009 Update: 17-January-2009 Posted date: 21-February-2009 Updated 08-April-2009 Date/date range of documents: 26-August-2007 - 12-December-2008 Update: 27-September-2007 – 18-November-2008 Source of document: Freedom of Information Office Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System 20th & Constitution Avenue NW Washington, DC 20551 Note: The update consists of an additional 65 pages of email messages which have been appended to the end of this file The governmentattic.org web site (“the site”) is noncommercial and free to the public. The site and materials made available on the site, such as this file, are for reference only. The governmentattic.org web site and its principals have made every effort to make this information as complete and as accurate as possible, however, there may be mistakes and omissions, both typographical and in content. The governmentattic.org web site and its principals shall have neither liability nor responsibility to any person or entity with respect to any loss or damage caused, or alleged to have been caused, directly or indirectly, by the information provided on the governmentattic.org web site or in this file A. B. Goodman Law Firm, Ltd. 20GB APR -4 AB 10: 19 Attorney & Counselor at Law •......... :.! ..•. i .. GOODM~r:SO;'.:,:I'( 4t'• ", 'riNveMi&ilialtd.13Cficrc Pt.
    [Show full text]
  • Rakoff III 11312
    Copyright Martin Armstrong All Rights Reserved January 13th, 2012 RAKOFF v SEC –III (Mark This One is For You) As much as New York hates my guts and has done everything in their power to silence me, the twist of fate has developed where I now have largest readership in the financial industry on a global scale. So it seems that even my arch-enemies tune in just to see what I and pointing out next. Exposing this major confrontation between Judge Rakoff and the SEC and telling people to vote with their own money, has actually created a bit of a stir. Now even Bloomberg News has been forced to come out of the closet – no small task for a media organization that is part of the well-entrenched New York establishment. When Wall Street Sins, SEC Needs to Extract Confessions: View 2012-01-13 00:00:00.6 GMT By the Editors Jan. 13 (Bloomberg) -- The Securities and Exchange Commission last week said it will no longer allow individuals or companies, when settling civil lawsuits, to “neither admit nor deny” wrongdoing if they have been separately convicted in a parallel criminal case. At first glance, it seems the SEC is doing something highly commendable. But there is much less than meets the eye here. The SEC should make further changes to put real meaning behind its attempt at reform, which affects only a small fraction of SEC cases. The SEC’s enforcement chief, Robert Khuzami, says the change “eliminates language that may be construed as inconsistent with admissions or findings that have already been made in criminal cases.” This makes sense, since criminal cases require a higher standard of proof than civil ones.
    [Show full text]
  • Top Cop Or Regulatory Flop? the Sec at 75
    FISCH_BOOK 5/13/2009 5:50 PM TOP COP OR REGULATORY FLOP? THE SEC AT 75 Jill E. Fisch* I. INTRODUCTION OHN Coffee and Hillary Sale’s article, Redesigning the SEC: J Does the Treasury Have a Better Idea?,1 was written for a sym- posium celebrating the seventy-fifth birthday of the Securities and Exchange Commission. The celebration came at a most inoppor- tune time. The market developments of October 2008―developments that took place contemporaneous with the live presentations at the conference―reflected the most severe capital market decline since the Great Depression. Over the course of a few weeks, several of the country’s largest financial institutions suffered critical or near-critical crises, requiring the injection of unprecedented bailout funds. In a single week in October, 2008, the Dow Jones Industrial Average fell by more than 20%.2 In a one-year period, the Dow Jones Wilshire 5000, reflecting most U.S. publicly traded stocks, lost $8.4 trillion in value.3 More significantly, although the SEC has long been “the crown jewel of the financial regulatory infrastructure,”4 recent develop- ments have called that characterization into question. The SEC has been the target of relentless criticism ranging from claims that it mishandled derivatives regulation, oversight of securities firms, and market risk, to assertions of delays and blunders and possible in- * Professor of Law, University of Pennsylvania Law School. 1 95 Va. L. Rev. 707 (2009). 2 E.S. Browning & Annelena Lobb, Market’s 7-Day Rout Leaves U.S. Reeling: Stocks in a Slow-Motion Crash as Dow Drops Another 679 Points; After Year of De- clines, Investors Lose $8.4 Trillion of Wealth, Wall St.
    [Show full text]
  • Mortgages Loan Payments
    HARVARD JOHN M. OLIN CENTER FOR LAW, ECONOMICS, AND BUSINESS LEGAL AND ECONOMIC ISSUES IN LITIGATION ARISING FROM THE 2007-2008 CREDIT CRISIS Jennifer E. Bethel Allen Ferrell Gang Hu October 23, 2008 Discussion Paper 02/2008 Revised 10/2008 Harvard Law School Cambridge, MA 02138 This paper can be downloaded without charge from: The Harvard John M. Olin Discussion Paper Series: http://www.law.harvard.edu/programs/olin_center/ The Social Science Research Network Electronic Paper Collection: http://papers.ssrn.com/ This paper is also a discussion paper of the John M. Olin Center’s Program on Corporate Governance. LEGAL AND ECONOMIC ISSUES IN LITIGATION ARISING FROM THE 2007-2008 CREDIT CRISIS Jennifer E. Bethel* Allen Ferrell** Gang Hu*** ABSTRACT This paper explores the economic and legal causes and consequences of the 2007-2008 credit crisis. We provide basic descriptive statistics and institutional details on the mortgage origination process, mortgage-backed securities (MBS), and collateralized debt obligations (CDOs). We examine a number of aspects of these markets, including the identity of MBS and CDO sponsors, CDO trustees, CDO liquidations, MBS insured and registered amounts, the evolution of MBS tranche structure over time, mortgage originations, underwriting quality of mortgage originations, and writedowns of the commercial and investment banks. In light of this discussion, the paper then addresses questions as to whether these difficulties might have been foreseen, and some of the main legal issues that will play an important role in the extensive litigation (summarized in the paper) that is underway, including the Rule 10b-5 class actions that have already been filed against the banks, pending ERISA litigation, the causes-of-action available to MBS and CDO purchasers, and litigation against the rating agencies.
    [Show full text]
  • Bloomberg Printer-Friendly Page
    Bloomberg Printer-Friendly Page http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20670001&sid=an3k2rZMNgDw U.S. Pledges Top $7.7 Trillion to Ease Frozen Credit (Update2) Share | Email | Print | A A A By Mark Pittman and Bob Ivry Nov. 24 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. government is prepared to provide more than $7.76 trillion on behalf of American taxpayers after guaranteeing $306 billion of Citigroup Inc. debt yesterday. The pledges, amounting to half the value of everything produced in the nation last year, are intended to rescue the financial system after the credit markets seized up 15 months ago. The unprecedented pledge of funds includes $3.18 trillion already tapped by financial institutions in the biggest response to an economic emergency since the New Deal of the 1930s, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. The commitment dwarfs the plan approved by lawmakers, the Treasury Department’s $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program. Federal Reserve lending last week was 1,900 times the weekly average for the three years before the crisis. When Congress approved the TARP on Oct. 3, Fed Chairman Ben S. Bernanke and Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson acknowledged the need for transparency and oversight. Now, as regulators commit far more money while refusing to disclose loan recipients or reveal the collateral they are taking in return, some Congress members are calling for the Fed to be reined in. “Whether it’s lending or spending, it’s tax dollars that are going out the window and we end up holding collateral we don’t know anything about,” said Congressman Scott Garrett, a New Jersey Republican who serves on the House Financial Services Committee.
    [Show full text]