SEC Close to Settling Subprime Mortgage Risk Disclosure Claims Against Fannie and Freddie

On September 8, 2011, the New York Times reported that the Securities and Exchange Commission is close to settling claims that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac failed to adequately disclose their subprime mortgage risk.  The SEC investigation centers on whether the GSEs misled its regulators and the public regarding the nature and extent of risk they carried in connection with subprime mortgage purchases.  According to the report, the civil settlement under discussion would not include any monetary penalty or admission of fraud. 

The report of the settlement comes one week after Fannie and Freddie's regulatory, the Federal Housing Finance Agency, sued 17 firms to recover losses allegedly tied to mortgage-backed securities packed with subprime loans that were sold to Fannie and Freddie.  (See FHFA press release.)   A significant issue in the FHFA's case is whether Fannie and Freddie were aware of  the risk associated with the subprime loans purchased from the 17 firms.   As attorney Andrew Sandler recently noted in a Wall Street Journal article ("What Did Fannie, Freddie Know?", 9/6/2011), the firms sued by the FHFA will likely argue that Fannie and Freddie knew that the loans were risky when they were acquired, and that losses were due to economic conditions, not faulty underwriting.  "It will become clear that the plaintiffs knew as much as the defendants about the quality of these loan portfolios," Sandler said in the article.

It remains to be seen whether the SEC settlement, which may include terms suggesting that Fannie and Freddie were aware of subprime loan risk in their portfolio, will impact or conflict with the FHFA's case.

Fed Fines Wells Fargo & Co. $85MM for Subprime Loan Problems

On July 20, 2011 the Federal Reserve Board issued a cease and desist order, including an $85 million fine against Wells Fargo & Co. in connection with its subprime mortgage lending.   The Fed's Press Release stated that the action is the largest consumer-protection action of this kind ever by the central bank, and the first major FRB enforcement action related to subprime mortgage lending. The Fed's order addresses allegations that Wells Fargo steered potential prime borrowers into more costly subprime loans.  There are also allegations that Wells employees falsified income information in mortgage applications. In addition to the civil money penalty, the order requires that Wells Fargo compensate affected borrowers. 

 

 

 

Investor Lawsuits Over MBS Loan Quality Continue to Mount

Litigation by investors regarding the quality of loans in Mortgage Backed Securities continue to pile up.  In an April 4, 2011 complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, Union Central Life Insurance Co. alleged that Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC and affiliated entities made false statements and omitted information about the quality of loans included in its MBS pools.  According to a Law360 article, the suit claims that  Credit Suisse First Boston Mortgage Securities Corp. and certain of its directors ignored consultants who found that 37% of the loans in the pools failed to conform to stated loan underwriting guidelines.  According to the Complaint, the lenders originating the underlying mortgages regularly granted exceptions to loan guidelines; pressed appraisers to inflate home values; and failed to verify borrowers' income and monitor loan officer activity.  The suit advances claims of fraud, negligent misrepresentation, unjust enrichment and purported violations of securities law.

The Union Central Life Insurance  case is yet another example of continued litigation surrounding subprime lending.  While the first wave of litigation primarily concerned consumer claims, more recent litigation brought by MBS investors have attacked the institutions who underwrote the securitized vehicles. 



 

Illinois AG Sues Countrywide, Alleges Lending Discrimination

The Associated Press reports that Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan has sued Countrywide Home Loans, alleging the company discriminated against African American and Latino borrowers in Illinois between 2005 and 2007.  The complaint includes allegations that Countrywide charged African American and Latino borrowers higher rates and fees compared to similarly situated white borrowers.   The complaint states that Countrywide engaged "in practices that resulted in a disparate impact and disparate treatment of African American and Latino borrowers.  The complaint also alleges that Countrywide utilized lending standards that had no economic basis and were discriminatory in effect..."

While the complaint includes allegations not unfamiliar in lending discrimination cases, it may spark important legal analysis regarding the use of the disparate impact theory as the sole basis to provide lending discrimination.  See prior posting  - "AAG Perez Reiterates DOJ's Emphasis on Lending Discrimination Enforcement," June 24, 2010.