For many years, the Firm has been at the forefront of structured finance litigation, including claims relating to residential mortgage-backed securities (“RMBS”), commercial mortgage-backed securities (“CMBS”), and collateralized debt obligations (“CDOs”). We have brought billions of dollars of claims on behalf of institutional investors against RMBS issuers, trustees, underwriters, and rating agencies. We have also appeared in actions involving challenges to the interpretation of complex priority of payment rules (known colloquially as “the waterfall”) set forth in the transaction’s governing agreements. Our clients in these matters have included insurance companies, hedge funds, CDO issuers, foreign banks, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, and other entities tasked with liquidating banks.

The members of the structured litigation group have unique expertise and experience, which has enabled our clients to prevail and obtain substantial recoveries against defendants represented by large, multi-national law firms.

Representative matters for the Structured Finance Litigation group include:

• In the Matter of the Application of U.S. Bank et. al, Index No. 652382/2014 (N.Y. Sup.). The Firm served as trial counsel for Ambac Assurance Corporation in its objection to the petition for judicial approval of JPMorgan’s global RMBS settlement via a highly publicized Article 77 proceeding in New York state court, resulting in a nearly $1 billion settlement of Ambac’s objection and other disputes against JPMorgan (which amount was publicly disclosed at the time).

• RMBS trustee actions. The Firm represents several clients in actions pending in state and federal courts, including Commerzbank AG, Pacific Life Insurance Company, Phoenix Light SF DAC (as successor to a German bank formerly known as WestLB), and the National Credit Union Administration in more than twenty actions against banks that served as trustees of RMBS. These actions assert claims relating to the RMBS trustees’ failures to satisfy their contractual, statutory and common law duties. Among other things, the lawsuits allege that the trustees failed to take action to protect the assets of the trusts and to remedy defaults under the relevant transaction documents before the statute of limitations on those claims expired.

• RMBS fraud actions. The Firm represented The Western & Southern Life Insurance Company and its affiliates in 10 cases against the sponsors, underwriters of Residential Mortgage-Backed Securities (“RMBS”). Western & Southern asserted claims under the Ohio Securities Act, and for common law fraud, arising out of its purchase of RMBS. With the exception two actions filed in federal court, these actions were filed in the Ohio Court of Common Pleas. All the cases were resolved through settlement, prior to trial.

• In re U.S. Bank N.A. as Paying Agent of Morgan Stanley Capital I Trust 2007-IQ14, Index No. 150183/2018 (N.Y. Sup.). The Firm represents a hedge fund in an ongoing dispute with a Paying Agent and other holders over treatment of loan modifications under CMBS waterfall.

• Lehman Brothers Special Financing Inc. v. Bank of America, N.A. et al., Adv. Pro. No. 10-03547 (S.D.N.Y. Bankr.). The Firm represented Lehman Brothers in pursuing claims against major financial institutions in connection with the termination of synthetic credit default obligations, leading to substantial settlement recoveries for the Lehman estate.

• In the Matter of Bank of New York Mellon, Index No. 651786/11 (N.Y. Sup.). The Firm represented major institutional investor in objecting to Article 77 proceeding relating to Countrywide RMBS. The client reached a settlement after a bench trial, but before the court’s decision.

• In re Residential Capital, LLC (ResCap), Case No. 12-12020 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y.). The Firm represented monoline financial guarantor Syncora Guarantee Inc. in the ResCap bankruptcy proceedings concerning hundreds of millions of dollars in payouts on defaulted RMBS. Litigation before the bankruptcy court focused on the allowance and amount of Syncora’s claims against the bankruptcy estate, and Syncora’s objections to the debtors’ proposed Chapter 11 plan. Syncora ultimately settled all ResCap litigation.