The Resolution Law Group: Both Sides Rest in Ex-Goldman Sachs Bond Trader Fabrice Tourre’s Trial For Alleged Mortgage-Backed Securities Fraud

In federal court, both the Securities and Exchange Commission and former Goldman Sachs Group (GS) vice president Fabrice Tourre have both rested their case in the civil trial against the bond trader. Tourre is accused of MBS fraud for his alleged involvement in a failed $1 billion investment connected to the collapse of the housing market. After the SEC finished presenting its evidence, U.S. District Judge Katherine Forrest turned down Tourre’s bid to have the securities case against him thrown out. He denies wrongdoing and says that his career is in now in shambles.

According to the regulator, Tourre purposely misled participants in the Abacus 2007-AC about the involvement of John Paulson’s hedge fund Paulson and Co. The Commission contends that Tourre concealed that Paulson helped select the portfolio of the subprime MBS underlying Abacus—a $2 billion offering linked to synthetic collateralized debt obligations. The latter then shorted the deal by betting it would fail.

The SEC’s complaint points to Tourre as primarily responsible for the CDO, which it says says he devised and prepped marketing collateral for and was in direct contact with investors. The regulator believes that by failing to disclose Paulson’s role, Tourre broke the law. They also contend that instead the bond trader instead told customers that as an Abacus investor, Paulson’s hedge fund expected the securities to go up.

Tourre also is accused of misleading ACA Capital Holdings, which Goldman retained to supervise the deal, about Paulson’s role. ACA would go on to invest in Abacus and insure it.

When the mortgage securities underlying the Abacus became toxic, its investors lost $1 billion. Meantime, the short positions by Paulson made about the same.

Testifying on his own behalf at the civil trial, Tourre told jurors that after the SEC filed its securities fraud case against him in 2010, for over a year Goldman Sachs made him take a leave of absence but kept paying his $738,000 base salary. In 2007, Tourre said, his salary and bonus was $1.7 million, which was tied to profits he made for the firm.

Goldman has already paid $550 million to settle SEC charges against it over the ABACUS 2007-AC1 debacle. The Commission accused the financial firm of misleading investors about the subprime mortgage product.

As part of settling, the financial firm admitted that its marketing materials for the subprime product had incomplete data and it made a mistake when stating that ACA chose the reference portfolio without revealing Paulson’s part in the selection process or that the latter’s interests were counter to that of the collateralized debt obligation investors.

Unfortunately, when the housing market failed, a lot investors that placed their money in subprime mortgage products suffered huge losses, many of which were a result of broker misconduct, fraud, misrepresentations, omissions, and other wrongdoing. At The Resolution Law Group, our mortgage-backed securities lawyers have been helping institutional and individual investors recoup these losses.

If you feel you are the victim of Mortgage Fraud, please do not hesitate to email or call the The Resolution Law Group (203) 542-7275 for a confidential, no obligation consultation.

Lender Litigation, Unlawful Foreclosure, Tarp Money, Mortgage Backed Securities, Derivitives Lawsuits, Insider Trading Lawsuit, SEC Settlements, Ponzi Scheme Lawsuits, Intentional Misrepresentation, Securitized Mortgage, Class Action Securities Lawsuit, Robo-Signing Lawsuit, Lost Equity Litigation, Mortgage Lender Fraud, FINRA Fraud Lawsuit, Suing Banks, Fraudulent Misrepresentation, Short Sale Fraud, Fraudulent Business Practices, Mortgage Litigation, Complex Tort Litigation, Injunctive Relief, MERS Fraud

Advertisements

The Resolution Law Group: Major financial crisis trial kicks off in New York

Trial of Ex-Goldman Sachs trader Fabrice Tourre begins

Fabrice Tourre, a former Goldman Sachs mortgage trader, leaves federal court after the first day of a lawsuit being brought against him by the Securities and Exchange Commission.

NEW YORK — He’s either a duplicitous Wall Streeter, or just a scapegoat who never lied to investors.

A jury of four men and five women will decide whether Fabrice Tourre, the ex-Goldman Sachs trader dubbed “Fabulous Fab,” defrauded investors in the lead-up to the financial crisis.

Tourre’s civil securities fraud trial — considered the highest-profile case stemming from the crisis — got underway in a federal court New York on Monday.

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission claims Tourre secretly worked with a powerful hedge fund to engineer a mortgage investment doomed to fail.

“It was a billion-dollar fraud to feed Wall Street greed,” said Matthew Martens, a top SEC attorney, in his opening statement.

Tourre’s former employer, the giant investment bank Goldman Sachs, settled parallel claims against the firm for $550 million in 2010.

Pamela Chepiga, Tourre’s lawyer, said her client was merely a scapegoat.

The other large sophisticated, institutional investors involved in the deal knew the hedge fund’s role, and that it was shorting, or betting against, the investment, Chepiga said.

“Fabrice Tourre never lied to anyone,” Chepiga said.

The SEC says hedge fund Paulson & Co. made $1 billion when the investment — tied to subprime residential mortgages — tumbled at the expense of other investors.

The SEC again highlighted Tourre’s colorful emails, one of which infamously described Goldman clients buying the investment as “widows and orphans.”

But Chepiga questioned one email’s role in the case, saying it was merely a late-night personal email taken out of context.

“It’s an old-fashioned love letter to his girlfriend,” she said.

Martens said Goldman actually lost money in the ill-fated deal — but not on purpose. The New York-based bank could not find enough investors to buy the complex investment, known as a collateralized debt obligation, or CDO.

“Sometimes you get tripped up on your own fraud,” Martens said.

The trial is expected to last three weeks and include testimony from Tourre himself.

If you feel you are the victim of Securities Fraud, please do not hesitate to email or call the The Resolution Law Group (203) 542-7275 for a confidential, no obligation consultation.

Lender Litigation, Unlawful Foreclosure, Tarp Money, Mortgage Backed Securities, Derivitives Lawsuits, Insider Trading Lawsuit, SEC Settlements, Ponzi Scheme Lawsuits, Intentional Misrepresentation, Securitized Mortgage, Class Action Securities Lawsuit, Robo-Signing Lawsuit, Lost Equity Litigation, Mortgage Lender Fraud, FINRA Fraud Lawsuit, Suing Banks, Fraudulent Misrepresentation, Short Sale Fraud, Fraudulent Business Practices, Mortgage Litigation, Complex Tort Litigation, Injunctive Relief, MERS Fraud

The Resolution Law Group: Cayman Islands LLC Must Replead CLO Securities Case Against Deutsche Bank

The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York says that Arco Capital Corp. a Cayman Islands LLC, has 20 days to replead its $37M collateralized loan obligation against Deutsche Bank AG (DB) that accuses the latter of alleged misconduct related to a 2006 CLO. According to Judge Robert Sweet, even though Arco Capital did an adequate job of alleging a domestic transaction within the Supreme Court’s decision in Morrison v. National Australia Bank, its claims are time-barred, per the two-year post-discovery deadline and five-year statute of repose.

Deutsche Bank had offered investors the chance to obtain debt securities linked to portfolio of merging markets investments and derivative transactions it originated. CRAFT EM CLO, which is a Cayman Islands company created by the bank, effected the transaction and gained synthetic exposure via credit default transactions. For interest payment on the notes, investors consented to risk the principal due on them according to the reference portfolio. However, if a reference obligation, which had to satisfy certain eligibly requirements, defaulted in a way that the CDS agreements government, Deutsche Bank would receive payment that would directly lower the principal due on the notes when maturity was reached.

Arco maintains that the assets that experienced credit events did not meet the criteria. It noted that Deutsche Bank wasn’t supposed to use the transaction as a repository for lending assets that were distressed, toxic, or “poorly underwritten.”

Seeking to dismiss the claims, Deutsche Bank contended that Morrison barred the plaintiff’s 1934 Securities Exchange Act Section 10(b) claim. That ruling found that the section is only applicable to transactions in securities found on US exchanges or transactions that occur domestically. The bank argued that since Arco bought the notes offshore, the LLC is unable to allege federal securities fraud violation in relation to the transactions.

While the court was in agreement with Arco that the lawsuit and associate documents allow for the “plausible inference” that there was irrevocable liability in New York and that, for purposes of Morrison, investment in the Notes was a transaction that occurred domestically, it did say that the company could have found the facts pertaining to the violation within two years of that date that a plaintiff that was “reasonably diligent” would have sufficient data to file a case. Hence, the pleading was untimely.

Collateralized Loan Obligation
A CLO is a type of collateralized debt obligation. It is a securities backed by loans or receivables as we as a special purpose vehicle that has securitization payments as different tranches. CLOs are supposed to reduce lending costs for a business while lowering the lending risks for banks, which sell the loans to outside investors.

At The Resolution Law Group, our CLO fraud lawyers represent institutional investors throughout the United States.  If you suspect that you are the victim of Collateralized Loan Obligation, do not hesitate to email or call please contact The Resolution Law Group at (203) 542-7275 for a confidential, no obligation consultation.

Lender Litigation, Unlawful Foreclosure, Tarp Money, Mortgage Backed Securities, Derivitives Lawsuits, Insider Trading Lawsuit, SEC Settlements, Ponzi Scheme Lawsuits, Intentional Misrepresentation, Securitized Mortgage, Class Action Securities Lawsuit, Robo-Signing Lawsuit, Lost Equity Litigation, Mortgage Lender Fraud, FINRA Fraud Lawsuit, Suing Banks, Fraudulent Misrepresentation, Short Sale Fraud, Fraudulent Business Practices, Mortgage Litigation, Complex Tort Litigation, Injunctive Relief, MERS Fraud

The Resolution Law Group: Synthetic CDOs Are Once Again In Demand Among Investors

Despite the damage attributed to them during the 2008 credit market crisis, synthetic collateralized debt obligations are once again in high demand among investors. The popularity of these risky investments, with their high returns and rock-bottom interest rates, are so high that even after being denounced by investors and a lot of lawmakers back in the day, now Morgan Stanley (MS) and JPMorgan Chase (JPM ) in London are among those seeking to package these instruments.

CDOs allow investors to bet on a basket of companies’ credit worthiness. While the basic version of these instruments pool bonds and give investors an opportunity to put their money in a portion of that pool, synthetic CDOs pool the insurance-like derivatives contracts on the bonds. These latest synthetic CDOs, like their counterparts that existed during the crisis, are cut up into varying levels of returns and risks, with investors wanting the highest returns likely buying portion with the greatest risk.

Granted, synthetic CDOs do somewhat spread the risk. Yet, also can increase the financial harm significantly if companies don’t make their debt payments.

The Wall Street Journal reports that a source in the know says that Morgan Stanley and JP Morgan are attempting to draw in even more investors, which the banks need enough of if they are to actually move forward with these latest synthetic CDOs. Due to rules now in place mandating that banks put aside huge quantities of capital against possible losses against such instruments, the two giants are not expected to invest in their deals.

What makes these newer CDOs different from their credit crisis-era ones? (An investor usually buys one of the (generally) six CDO slices.) One slice has been reportedly harder to sell because its yield is not enough. Also, buyers of the slices that aren’t as high risk would now likely receive more protection against possible losses than buyers of similar slices did several years ago.

Creditflux, a data provider, reports that during 2007, financial firms put out $634 billion of synthetic CDOs. In 2009, sales plummeted to $98 billion. While certain banks and hedge funds have been working together to put together private, small deals that have packaged derivatives into trades that are custom made, those deals were usually small and credit rating firms generally haven’t assessed them.

Another source says that there is now also a differently purposed CDO in development that Citigroup (C) Inc. is selling. This CDO uses derivatives linked to the bank’s loans portfolio and involves shipping companies outside the United States. The financial firm’s purported need to make room for new loans while being able to hold less capital to cushion possible shipping loan losses is said to be the motivation for the approximately $500 million deal (expected to bring in 13-15% in yearly yields). The WSJ says that investors of this type of CDO will be “on the hook” for certain losses, reports the WSJ.

Another security that investors seem to be hungry for these days are collateralized loan obligations. CLOs are tied to corporate debt, and to date, this year, over $35 billion of CLs have been sold in this country.

At The Resolution Law Group P.C., we haven’t forgotten the massive losses investors took from synthetic CDOs during the 2008 financial crisis. We continue to represent investors that have suffered securities fraud losses linked to these investments. Contact our institutional investor fraud law firm today  at (203) 542-7275 for a confidential, no obligation consultation.

Lender Litigation, Unlawful Foreclosure, Tarp Money, Mortgage Backed Securities, Derivitives Lawsuits, Insider Trading Lawsuit, SEC Settlements, Ponzi Scheme Lawsuits, Intentional Misrepresentation, Securitized Mortgage, Class Action Securities Lawsuit, Robo-Signing Lawsuit, Lost Equity Litigation, Mortgage Lender Fraud, FINRA Fraud Lawsuit, Suing Banks, Fraudulent Misrepresentation, Short Sale Fraud, Fraudulent Business Practices, Mortgage Litigation, Complex Tort Litigation, Injunctive Relief, MERS Fraud

The Resolution Law Group Update: Standard & Poors Wants DOJ’s Mortgage Debt Lawsuit Against It Tossed

Standard Poors is asking a judge to dismiss the US Justice Department’s securities lawsuit against it. The government claims that the largest ratings agency defrauded investors when it put out excellent ratings for some poor quality complex mortgage packages, including collateralized debt obligations, residential mortgage-backed securities, and subprime mortgage-backed securities, between 2004 and 2007. The ratings agency, however, claims that the DOJ has no case.

Per the government’s securities complaint, financial institutions lost over $5 billion on 33 CDOs because they trusted S & P’s ratings and invested in the complex debt instruments. The DOJ believes that the credit rater issued its inaccurate ratings on purpose, raising investor demand and prices until the latter crashed, triggering the global economic crisis. It argues that certain ratings were inflated based on conflicts of interest that involved making the banks that packaged the mortgage securities happy as opposed to issuing independent, objective ratings that investors could rely on.

Now, S & P is claiming that the government’s lawsuit overreaches in targeting it and fails to show that the credit rater knew what the more accurate ratings should have been, which it contends would be necessary for there to be grounds for this CDO lawsuit. In a brief submitted to the United States District Court for the Central District of California, in Los Angeles, S & P’s lawyers argue that there is no way that their client, the Treasury, the Federal Reserve, or other market participants could have predicted how severe the financial meltdown would be.

S & P is also fighting over a dozen other CDO lawsuits filed by state attorneys general that make similar securities fraud allegations. The states are generally invoking their consumer-protection statutes, which carry a lower burden of proof, and the credit rating agency is seeking to have their securities lawsuits moved to federal court.

If you, your family, friends, neighbors or associates have been subjected to Mortgage Fraud, please contact The Resolution Law Group at (203) 542-7275 for a confidential, no obligation consultation.

Lender Litigation, Unlawful Foreclosure, Tarp Money, Mortgage Backed Securities, Derivitives Lawsuits, Insider Trading Lawsuit, SEC Settlements, Ponzi Scheme Lawsuits, Intentional Misrepresentation, Securitized Mortgage, Class Action Securities Lawsuit, Robo-Signing Lawsuit, Lost Equity Litigation, Mortgage Lender Fraud, FINRA Fraud Lawsuit, Suing Banks, Fraudulent Misrepresentation, Short Sale Fraud, Fraudulent Business Practices, Mortgage Litigation, Complex Tort Litigation, Injunctive Relief, MERS Fraud

Standard & Poor’s Misled Investors By Giving Synthetic Derivatives Its Highest Ratings, Rules Australian Federal Court

November 8, 2012

A ruling by the Australian Federal Court against Standard & Poor’s could give 13 NSW councils about A$30M in compensation for their about A$16M in synthetic derivative losses. According to the court, the ratings firm misled investors by giving its highest ratings to complex investment instruments that ended up failing during the worldwide economic crisis. The councils can now claim compensation from S & P and co-defendants Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS)- owned ABN Amro Bank and the Local Government Financial Services, Ltd. The three had sold the councils constant proportion debt obligation notes, promoted as Rembrandt notes, six years ago.

Specifically to this case, Australian Federal Court Justice Jayne Jagot said that Standard & Poor’s took part in conduct that was “deceptive” when it gave AAA ratings to constant proportion debt obligations that were created by ABN Amro Bank NV. The Australian townships were among those that invested what amounted to trillions of dollars in the CPDOs, as well as in collateralized debt obligations.

The projected A$30M in compensation includes not just councils’ losses, but also interest and costs. The councils are also entitled to receive compensation for breach of fiduciary duty from LGFS, which succeeded in its own claim against Standard and Poor’s and ABN Amro for Rembrandt notes that it sold to its parent company after the notes were downgraded from their triple-A rating to triple-B+.

This ruling, issued on Monday, is considered a landmark one in that it is the first judgment to be issued against a ratings firm since the worldwide financial crisis over the way it rated complex securities. The decline of synthetic derivatives during the economic collapse played a huge role in the collapse of Lehman Brothers. The decision could be an opening for similar cases elsewhere around the globe.

Yesterday, back in the United States, Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan won a ruling in circuit court allowing her to move forward with litigation against Standard & Poor’s Ratings Services. She is also accusing the rating firm of misleading investors while the economic meltdown was happening. Madigan claims that S & P sought to favor banker clients and up profits through the assignation to MBS of its highest ratings. The securities later failed. Madigan said that this ruling was key in that it was the first obstacle to pursuing the case and it has now been overcome. She said that this is a statement that S & P isn’t going to be able to use legal measures to escape the “fact that they committed fraud.”

For years, rating firms have overcome lawsuits in the US by claiming that the ratings they issue are opinions and have First Amendment protection. This Illinois lawsuit, however, appears to get around this by concentrating not on the actual ratings but on public statements S & P made about how its ratings process is autonomous and objective. Circuit Court Judge Mary Anne Mason said that First Amendment protections aren’t applicable to this case, because constitutions, both state and federal, don’t protect practices that are “false, misleading, or deceptive.”

If you, your family, friends, neighbors or associates have been subjected to Credit Rating Agencies abuse, please contact our law firm at (203) 542-7275 for a confidential, no obligation consultation.

Lender Litigation, Unlawful Foreclosure, Tarp Money, Mortgage Backed Securities, Derivitives Lawsuits, Insider Trading Lawsuit, SEC Settlements, Ponzi Scheme Lawsuits, Intentional Misrepresentation, Securitized Mortgage, Class Action Securities Lawsuit, Robo-Signing Lawsuit, Lost Equity Litigation, Mortgage Lender Fraud, FINRA Fraud Lawsuit, Suing Banks, Fraudulent Misrepresentation, Short Sale Fraud, Fraudulent Business Practices, Mortgage Litigation, Complex Tort Litigation, Injunctive Relief, MERS Fraud

SEC Antifraud Lawsuit Against Goldman Sachs Executive Fabrice Tourre Won’t Be Reinstated, Says District Court

The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York has refused the Securities and Exchange Commission’s request to reinstate its antifraud claim against Goldman Sachs & Co. (GS) executive Fabrice Tourre for alleged misstatements related to a collateralized debt obligation connected to subprime mortgages. Judge Katherine Forrest said that the facts did not offer enough domestic nexus to support applying 1934 Securities Exchange Act Section 10(b). To do so otherwise would allow a 10(b) claim to be made whenever a foreign fraudulent transaction had even the smallest link to a legal securities transaction based in the US, she said, and that this is “not the law.” The case is SEC v. Tourre.

The SEC had sued the Goldman and its VP, Tourre, over alleged omissions and misstatements connected with the ABACUS 2007-AC1’s sale and structuring. This 2007 CDO was linked to subprime residential mortgage-backed securities and their performance. The Commission claimed Goldman had misrepresented the part that Paulson & Co., a hedge fund, had played in choosing the RMBS that went into the portfolio underlying the CDO and that Tourre was primarily responsible for the CDO deal’s marketing and structuring.

In 2010, Goldman settled the SEC’s claims by consenting to pay $550M, which left Tourre as the sole defendant of this case. Last year, the court dismissed one of the Section 10(B) claims predicated on $150 million note purchases made by IKB, a German bank, because of Morrison v. National Australia Bank Ltd. In that case, the US Supreme Court had found that this section is applicable only to transactions in securities found on US exchanges or securities transactions that happen in this country. The court, however, did let the regulator move forward under Section 10(b) in regards to other ABACUS transactions, and also the 1933 Securities Act’s Section 17(a).

However, following Absolute Activist Value Master Fund Ltd. v. Facet in which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit earlier this year found that ““irrevocable liability is incurred or title passes” within the US securities transaction may be considered domestic even if trading did not occur on a US exchange, the SEC requested that the court revive the Section 10(b) claim. Although IKB was the one that had recommended the CDO to clients, including Loreley Financing, it was Goldman that obtained the title to $150 million of the notes through the Depository Trust Co. in New York. Goldman then sent the notes to the CDO trustee in Chicago before the notes were moved from the DTC to Goldman’s Euroclear account to Loreley’s account. The Commission said that, therefore, transaction that the claim was based on had closed here.

Noting in its holding that Section 10(b) places liability on any person that employs deception or manipulation related to the selling or buying of a security, the court said that the Commission was trying to premise the domestic move of the notes’ title from the CDO trustee to Goldman at the closing in New York as a “hook” to show liability under this section. The court pointed out that while the title of the transfer that took place in New York was legal and it wasn’t until later that the alleged fraud happened. The “fraud was perpetuated upon IKB/Loreley, not Goldman” so “no fraudulent US-based” title transfer related to the note purchase is “sufficient to sustain a Section 10(b) and rule 10b-5 claim against Tourre” for the transaction.

SEC v. Tourre (PDF)

Morrison v. National Australia Bank Ltd. (PDF)

If you, your family, friends, neighbors or associates have been subjected to collateralized debt obligation, please contact our securities law firm at (203) 542-7275 for a confidential, no obligation consultation.

Lender Litigation, Unlawful Foreclosure, Tarp Money, Mortgage Backed Securities, Derivitives Lawsuits, Insider Trading Lawsuit, SEC Settlements, Ponzi Scheme Lawsuits, Intentional Misrepresentation, Securitized Mortgage, Class Action Securities Lawsuit, Robo-Signing Lawsuit, Lost Equity Litigation, Mortgage Lender Fraud, FINRA Fraud Lawsuit, Suing Banks, Fraudulent Misrepresentation, Short Sale Fraud, Fraudulent Business Practices, Mortgage Litigation, Complex Tort Litigation, Injunctive Relief, MERS Fraud