Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
ahartman@goo dinmacbride.com F I L E D
SanFrandiscoCountySuperlorCourt
505Sansome Street,Suite900
5 SanFrancisco,Califomia 94lll HAR1 5 2010
Telephone: (415)392-7900
6 Facsimile: (415)398-4321 CLERKOFTH
7 GRAIS& ELLSWORTHLLP
w.
DAVID J. GRAIS (pro hac application submittedherewith)
KATHRYN C. ELLSWORTH Qtro hac app. submittedherewith)
OWEN L. CYRULNIK(pro hac application submittedherewith)
70 East55th Street
New York, New York 10022
4c
Telephone: (212)755-0100 CASE
MANAGEMENT
CONFERENCE
SET
Facsimile: (212)755-0052
13Z01llgruAM
AUG
Attomeysfor Plaintiff urrAlilMLNT212
FederalHomeLoanBank of SanFrancisco
los
10 , Ag7 819
No.cGC.
ur
COMPLAINT
1 RBSACCEPTANCE,INC.,FIWA (s) RESCTSSTON OF CONTRACTS
GREENWICHCAPITAL ACCEPTANCE. UNDER $ 1689ET SEQ.OF THE
) INC.;
RBSHOLDINGSUSA,INC., F/IVA CALIFORNIA CIVL CODE
GREENWICHCAPITAL HOLDINGS.
ww
J
INC.;
4 MORGAN STANLEY & CO.
INCORPORATED;
5 UBS SECURITIES,
LLC;
MORTGAGEASSETSECURITIZATION
6 TRANSACTIONS,INC.;
MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE,FENNER&
7 SMITH,INC.;AND,
w.
DOES1-50,
8
Defendants.
9
4c
10
11 Plaintiff, FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK OF SAN FRANCISCO (refened to in this
I2 complaint as the Bank), alleges,basedupon its continuing investigation, including the continuing
los
t4 evidentiary support or, where specifically identified as being pled oooninformation and belief" are
t6 discovery.
ur
20 California Civil Code, and the common law. As alleged in detail below, the Defendantssold or
22 The Bank paid more than $5.4 billion for those certificates.When they offered and then sold
au
23 thesecertificatesto the Bank, the Defendantsmade numerousstatementsto the Bank about the
24 certificatesand the credit quality of the mortgage loans that backedthem. On information and
25 belief, many of those statementswere untrue. Moreover, on information and beliel the
d.o
26 Defendantsomitted to statemany material facts that were necessaryin order to make their
28 important information, about such material facts as the percentageof equity that borrowers had in
-2-
rg
COMPLAINT
I their homes,the number of borrowers who actually lived in the housesthat securedtheir loans,
2 the credit scoresof the borrowers, and the businesspracticesof the lendersthat made the loans.
6 Acts, the California Civil Code, and the common law, the Bank is entitled to rescind its purchase
7
w.
of the certificatesor to be paid damagesfor its losseson the certificates.
11 Bear Steams& Co. Inc. (four securitizations,Nos. 5 through 8), Countrywide Securities
I4 17 through l9), Morgan Stanley& Co. Inc. (two securitizations,Nos. 20 and2l), UBS Securities,
15 LLC (seven securitizations,Nos. 22 through 28), and Menill Lynch, Pierce,Fenner & Smith, Inc.
t6 (five securitizations,Nos. 29 through 33). The other Defendantsnamed in this complaint are
ur
l7 liable to the Bank becausethey were the issuersof some of those certificates or becausethey
I9 PARTIES
20 3. Plaintiff is a bank createdby the FederalHome Loan Bank Act. The headquarters
2l of the Bank are in the City and County of San Francisco.Under its Organization Certificate, the
au
23 Arizona, Califomia, and Nevada. The Bank does operatein each of those three States.
25 organizedunder the laws of Delaware. Deutschesold the Bank four of the certificates.
d.o
27 corporation organizedunder the laws of Delaware. DeutscheAlt-A was the issuerof one of the
COMPLAINT
I 6. Defendant DB Structured Products,Inc. is a corporation organizedunder the
4 is liable to the Bank jointly and severally with, and to the sameextent as, DeutscheAlt-A.
6 Inc. and referred to as Bear Stearns) is a corporation organizedunder the laws of Delaware. Bear
7
w.
Stearnssold the Bank four of the certificates.
9 is a corporation organizedunder the laws of Delaware. SAMI II was the issuer of three of the
4c
l0 certificatesthat Bear Stearnssold to the Bank.
l3 of Delaware. The Bear SteamsCompanies,Inc. controls or controlled SAMI II. Under Section 15
I4 of the SecuritiesAct of 1933 The Bear SteamsCompanies,Inc. therefore is liable to the Bank
l5 jointly and severally with, and to the sameextent as, SAMI II.
T7 corporation organizedunder the laws of California. Countrywide sold the Bank two of the
l8 certificates.
efr
20 First Boston LLC and referred to as Credit Suisse)is a limited liability company organizedunder
2l the laws of Delaware. Credit Suissesold the Bank eight of the certificates.
au
27 under the laws of Delaware. Greenwich Capital Acceptancewas the issuer of the three certificates
COMPLAINT
I 14. DefendantRBS Holdings USA, Inc. (formerly known as and referred to as
5 the Bank jointly and severally with, and to the sameextent as, Greenwich Capital Acceptance.
7
w.
a corporation organizedunder the laws of Delaware. Morgan Stanley sold the Bank two of the
8 certificates.
11 17. DefendantMortgageAssetSecuritizationTransactions,
Inc. (referredto asMAS
t2 is a corporationorganizedunderthe lawsof Delaware.MAST wasthe issuerof threeof the
los
18 Does l-50, inclusive, and therefore suestheseDefendantsby such fictitious rurmes.Plaintiff will
efr
2l is responsiblein some manner for the occurrencesalleged herein and proximately caused
au
22 Plaintiffs damages.
24 20. This Court has subject-matterjurisdiction of this action. The Superior Court is a
27 its contractsto purchasethe certificates,all of which relief this Court hasjurisdiction to grant.
28 Under Section22(a) of the SecuritiesAct of 1933,l5 U.S.C. $ 77v(a),this Court also has
-5-
rg
COMPLAINT
I jurisdictionovertheBank'scauses
of actionfor violationof Sections11, l2(a)(2),and l5 of that
2 Act, 15U.S.C.$ 771.
a
ww
J 2I. UnderSection22(a)of the SecuritiesAct of 1933,"no casearisingunderthis title
4 jurisdictionshallbe removedto any courtof the
andbroughtin any Statecourtof competent
5 UnitedStates."Becauseits activitiesarenot localizedin onestate,the Bank is not a citizenof any
6 stateunder28 U.S.C.$ 1332(c),sotheFederalcourtshavenojurisdictionof this actionunder28
7 U.S.C.$ 1332(a).
w.
This actionis not removable
to Federalcourt.
8 22. This CourthaspersonaljurisdictionoverDeutscheo
DB StructuredProducts,Inc.,
9 BearStearns,Countrywide,CreditSuisse,GreenwichCapital,MorganStanley,UBS, andMenill
4c
l0 Lynch becauseeachof themis registeredto do businessin Califomia.This Courthaspersonal
11 jurisdictionoverall of the Defendants
becausethey offeredandsoldthe certificatesto the Bank
l2 "in California"within the meaningof Section25008of the CaliforniaCorporateSecuritiesAct.
los
COMPLAINT
I receivethe cash flow from them) to a trust. The trust pays the originator cash for the loans. The
) trust raisesthe cashto pay for the loans by selling bonds, usually called certificates, to investors
such as the Bank. Each certificate entitles its holder to an agreedpart of the cashflow from the
ww
J
6
1. Investorspay money to the trust.
7
w.
2. The trust issuescertificatesto the investors.
8 The trust pays money to the originator.
9 4. The originator sells to the trust the loans in the collateral pool, including
the right to receive the cashflow from those loans.
4c
l0 5. The trust collects cash flow from paymentson the loans in the
collateralpool.
ll
6. The trust pays each certificateholderits agreedpart of the cashflow that
T2 the trust receivesfrom paymentson loans in the collateral pool.
los
t3 *
l9 originators, aggregatesthem into a collateral pool, sells them to a trust, and securitizesthem. The
20 sponsorarrangesfor title to the loans to be transferredto an entity known as the depositor, which
22
au
28. The obligor of the certificatesin a securitization is the trust that purchasesthe
23 loans in the collateral pool. Becausea trust has no assetsother than the loans that it purchased,it
24 may not be able to satisff the liabilities of an issuerof securities(the certificates).The law
26 ,1.
27 29. Securities dealers, like the eight that sold the certificatesto the Bank, play a
28 critical role in the processof securitization.They underwrite the sale of the certificates,that is,
rg
COMPLAINT
I they purchasethe certificates from the trust and then sell them to investors.Equally important,
4 30. Becausethe cashflow from the loans in the collateral pool of a securitizationis the
5 sourceof funds to pay the holders of the certificatesissuedby the trust, the credit quality of those
6 certificates is dependentupon the credit quality of the loans in the collateral pool. The most
7 important information about the credit quality of those loans is containedin the files that the
w.
8 originator developswhile making the loans,the so-calledloan files. For residential mortgage
9 loans, each loan file normally containsthe information in such important documentsas the
4c
10 borrower's application for the loan, credit reports on the borrower, and an appraisalof the
13 reviewing thousandsof loan files, the securitiesfirms that will underwrite the sale of the
l5 investorsthe information about the credit quality of the loans that will be depositedinto the trust.
t6 As will be alleged in detail below, the information that the Defendantspresentedto the Bank
ur
l7 about the credit quality of the loans in the collateral pools of the 33 trusts containedmany
18 statementsthat were material to the credit quality of those loans, but, on information and belief,
efr
t9 were untrue or misleading. Moreover, on information and belief the Defendantswere negligent
22 32. The Bank is a member of the proposedclassesin New Jersey Carpenters Vacation
23 Fund v. The Royal Bank of Scotland Group, PLC, United StatesDistrict Court for the Southern
27 Health Fund v. Bear StearnsMortgage Funding Trust 2006-AR1,United StatesDistrict Court for
COMPLAINT
I IndyMac Mortgage Backed SecuritiesLitigation,United StatesDistrict Court for the Southern
2 Dishict of New York No. 09-cv-04583,filed on May 14,2009,the pendencyof which actionshas
a
tolled the running of the statuteof limitations on causesof action alleged in this complaint.
ww
J
6 33. Details of eachtrust and each certificate arestatedin Item 33 of Schedules1 through 33 of
7 this complaint, which correspondto SecuritizationsNos. 1 through 33. The Bank incorporates
w.
8 into this paragraph33, and allegesas though fully set forth in this paragraph,the contentsof Item
9 33 ofthe schedules.
4c
10 MATERIAL UNTRUE OR MISLEADING STATEMENTS
11 ABOUT THE CERTIFICATES
12 34. In connectionwith their offers and salesof the certificatesto the Bank, each of the
los
l3 eight dealerssent numerousdocumentsto the Bank at its offrce in San FranciscoCounty. In each
l5 was filed with the SEC, drafts of someof the statisticaltables to be included in the prospectus
t6 supplement,and a computer model of the financial structureof the securitization.In each of these
ur
t7 documents,eachdealer made statementsof material fact about the certificate that it offered and
18 sold to the Bank.l A true copy of the prospectussupplementfor each securitization is available
efr
20 35. On information and belief, many of the statementsof material fact that each dealer
23
24 I Two of the certificates
thatthe Bankpurchased werecertificatesin re-securitizations
of existing
25 certificatesof mortgage-backed securities.In connectionwith the saleof thosetwo certificates,the dealeis
d.o
COMPLAINT
I A. Untrue or Misleading Statementsabout the Loan-to-Value Ratios (LTVs) and
Combined Loan-to-Value Ratios (CLTVs) of the Mortgage Loans in the Collateral
2 Pools of these Securitizations
a
ww
J l. The materiality of LTVs and CLTVs
5 the mortgage loan to the value of the mortgagedproperty when the loan is made. For example,a
7 on the sameproperty has an LTV of 90%o.LTV is one of the most important measuresof the risk
w.
8 of a mortgage loan, and the LTVs of the mortgage loans in the collateral pool of a securitization
9 are likewise one of the most important measuresof the risk of certificates sold in that
4c
l0 securitization.LTV predicts the likelihood of default (the lower the LTV, the less likely that a
1l decline in the value of the property will wipe out the owner's equity, and thereby give the owner
T2 an incentive to stop making mortgagepaymentsand abandonthe propeny). LTV also predicts the
los
l3 severity of loss in the event of default (the lower the LTV, the greaterthe "cushion," so the
t4 greaterthe likelihood that the proceedsof foreclosurewill cover the unpaid balanceof the
15 mortgage loan).
t9 higher than the value of the property, and an appraisalshould ensurethat the LTV is calculated
20 using the actual value as the denominator.Sometimesin a purchase,the denominatoris the lower
24 above, if the property whose actual value is $500,000is appraisedinsteadat $550,000,then the
25 LTV of the $300,000loan falls from 60% to 54.5Yo,and the LTV of the $450,000loanfalls from
d.o
26 90Yoto 8I.8%.In either case,the LTV basedon the incorrect appraisalunderstatesthe risk of the
27 loan. It is also important to note that, the higher the correct LTV, the more the risk is understated
28 by an incorrect appraisalof any given magnitude.In the example above,there is little difference
-10-
rg
COMPLAINT
I in the risk of a loan with an LTV of 60Yoand one with an LTV of 54.5o/o;both are safe loans with
2 large equity cushions.But there is a very large difference in the risk of a loan with an LTV of
90% and one with an LTV of 81.8%. In the latter case,there is an equity cushion of l8.2Yoof the
ww
J
4 value of the property, in the former, only l}Yo,just over half as much. Thus, an appraisalthat
5 overvaluesa property by just l0% producesan overstatementof more than 80% in the
6 homeowner'sequity.
7 39.
w.
LTV is an important measureof the risk of a mortgage loan, and the LTVs of the
9 risk of certificates sold in that securitization.LTV helps to predict both the likelihood of default
4c
10 and the severity of loss in caseof default. A reasonableinvestor considersLTV important to the
t2 differencesin the weighted averz;geLTV of the mortgage loans in the collateral pool of a
los
l3 securitizationhave a significant effect on the risk of each certificate sold in that securitization,
t4 and thus, are important to the decision of a reasonableinvestor whether to purchaseany such
l5 certificate.
,1.
t6
ur
t7 40. Residentialpropertiescan securemore than one mortgage loan, a senior (or first)
18 and one or more junior mortgageloans. The combined loan-to-valueratio (CLTV) is the ratio of
efr
19 the total outstandingprincipal balanceof all loans (mortgagesor home equity lines of credit) that
22
au
24 41. Like LTV, CLTV is an important measureof the risk of a mortgage loan, and the
25 CLTVs of the mortgage loans in the collateral pool of a securitization are likewise an important
d.o
26 measnreof the risk of certificates sold in that securitization.CLTV helps to predict the likelihood
COMPLAINT
I the weighted averageCLTV of the mortgageloans in the collateral pool of a securitizationhave a
2 significant effect on the risk of each certificate sold in that securitization,and thus, are important
7 Defendantsmade statementsabout the LTVs and CLTVs of the mortgage loans in the collateral
w.
8 pools of thesesecuritizations.Some of thesestatementswere in so-calledcollateral stratification
9 tables.Those tables divided the mortgageloans into severalcategoriesof LTV and CLTV and
4c
10 presentedquantitative information about the loans in each category.All of the statementsin each
ll prospectussupplementabout the LTVs and CLTVs of the mortgage loans in the collateral pools
t4 because(i) the statedLTVs and CLTVs of a significant number of those mortgage loans were
15 lower than the actual LTVs or CLTVs; (ii) the Defendantsomitted to statethat the appraisalsof a
t6 significant number of the propertiesthat securedthe mortgage loans in the collateral pools were
ur
t7 biasedupward, so that statedLTVs and CLTVs basedon those appraisalswere lower than the
18 true LTVs and CLTVs of those mortgage loans; or (iii) the statedCLTVs did not reflect second
efr
20 collateralpools.
2l 44. Since the datesof SecuritizationsNos. I through 33, loans in the collateral pools
22 of each securitizationhave been foreclosedupon. In nearly all of the pools, the propertiesthat
au
23 securedthose foreclosedloans were sold for much less than the value ascribedto those same
24 propertiesin the LTV and CLTV data reported in the prospectussupplementsand other
25 documentsthat the Defendantssentto the Bank. The large difference cannot be explained by the
d.o
26 declinesin houseprices in the areasin which thosepropertieswere located, even after taking
27 account of the fact that propertiesin foreclosuresometimessell for less than their fair market
COMPLAINT
I almostall of Securitizations
Nos. I through33,that the differencesbetweenthe valuesascribed
2 thesepropertiesandthepricesat whichthe propertiesweresoldin foreclosurearesignificantly
greaterthanthe declinesin housepricesin the samegeographical
ww
J areasoverthe sameperiods
4 (that is, betweenthe making of each mortgageloan and the correspondingforeclosuresale).This
6 propertiesin the collateral pools, in the LTV and CLTV data reported in the prospectus
7 supplementsand other documentsthat the Defendantssent to the Bank were too high, the
w.
8 resulting LTVs and CLTVs were too low, and thus that the statementsin the prospectus
9 supplementsand other documentssentto the Bank about the LTVs and CLTVS were untrue or
4c
10 misleading. The results of this analysisfor nearly all of SecuritizationsNos. I through 33 arc
ll statedin Item 44 of SchedulesI through 33 of this complaint. The Bank incorporatesinto this
t2 paragraph44, and allegesas though fully set forth in this paragraph,the contentsof Item 44 of the
los
13 schedules.
15 Defendantsmaterially understatedthe risk of every certificate that any of them sold to the Bank,
22
au
47. Occupancystatus(that is, whether the property that securesa mortgage is to be the
24 measureof the risk of a mortgage loan, and the percentageof loans in the collateral pool of a
27 securitization.Other things being equal, the higher the percentageof loans securedby primary
COMPLAINT
I important to the decision whether to purchasea certificate in a securitization of mortgage loans.
4 certificate sold in that securitization and thus are important to the decision of a reasonable
6 48. Becausethey are less risky than other mortgage loans, mortgage loans on primary
7 residencesusually have more favorable terms, including lower interest rates,than mortgage loans
w.
8 on secondhomes and investmentproperties.Applicants for loans on secondhomes and
t3 49. In the prospectussupplementsand other documentsthat they sent to the Bank, the
16 called collateral stratification tables. Those tables divided the mortgage loans into several
ur
20 incorporatedherein by reference.
22
au
because(i) the statednumber of mortgage loans that were securedby primary residenceswas
23 higher than the actual number of loans in that category; (ii) the statednumber of mortgage loans
24 that were securedby secondhomes was lower than the actual number of loans in that category;
25 (iii) the statednumber of mortgage loans that were securedby investmentpropertieswas lower
d.o
26 than the actual number of loans in that category; or (iv) the Defendantsomitted to statethat the
COMPLAINT
I 51. On information and belief, by theseuntrue and misleading statements,the
,)
Defendantsmaterially understatedthe risk of every certificate that any of them sold to the Bank.
ww
J C. Failure to Disclosethe Substantial Deterioration of LTV and Credit Score as
Predictors of the Performance of Mortgage Loans Securitized by the Defendant
4 Dealers
) 52. Investors in mortgage-backedsecurities,including the Bank, rely extensively on
6 certain characteristicsof the mortgageloans in the collateral pool of a securitizationto predict the
7 performanceof those loans and thereby to determinethe risk both of those loans and of the
w.
8 certificates sold in that securitization.Reasonableinvestors consider information about these
l3 Defendantsmade statementsabout the LTVs and credit scoresof the mortgage loans in the
l5 incorporatedherein by reference.
16 54. During the time before eachof SecuritizationsNos: I through 35, the power of
ur
t7 LTV and credit scoreto predict the performanceof otherwise similar mortgage loans deteriorated,
18 even after taking account of declinesin houseprices and other macroeconomicfactors. Put
efr
20 loans were made in2007 than if they were made in2006,worse if made in 2006 than if made in
2l 2005,etc.
22
au
55. On information and belief, all statementsthat the Defendantsmade about the
23 LTVs and credit scoresof the mortgageloans in the collateral pools of thesesecuritizationswere
26 LTV and weighted-averagecredit score,yet performed worse if the loans were made in 2007 than
27 if they were made in2006, worse if made in 2006 than if made in 2005, etc.
28
-l 5-
rg
COMPLAINT
I 56. On information and beliel by thesemisleading statements,the Defendants
2 materially understatedthe risk of every certificate that any of them offered and sold to the Bank.
ww
D. Untrue or Misleading Statementsabout the Underwriting Guidelines of the
Originators of the Mortgage Loans in the Collateral Pooli of these Securitizations
4
1. The materiality of underwriting guidelines and the extent of compliance with
5 them
6 57. Most or all originators of mortgage loans had written guidelines by which they
9 originator and of certificates sold in a securitizationin which mortgage loans made by that
4c
l0 originator are a substantialpart of the collateral pool. A reasonableinvestor considersthe
t2 collateral pool of a securitization,and the extent to which the originator complied with its
los
T4 Differences in those guidelines or in the extent to which an originator complied with them have a
l5 significant effect on the risk of each certificate sold in that securitization and thus are important to
l9
20 58. In the prospectussupplements,the Defendantsmade statementsabout the
23 through 33 of this complaint. The Bank incorporatesinto this paragraph58, and allegesas though
26 becausethe Defendantsomitted to statethat (a) the originators were making frequent, and
27 increasingly frequent, exceptionsto those underwriting guidelines; (b) the originators were
28 making frequent, and increasingly frequent, exceptionsto those underwriting guidelines when no
-16-
rg
COMPLAINT
I compensatingfactor was present;and (c) the originators were failing frequently, and increasingly
4 Defendantsmaterially understatedthe risk of every certificate that any of them offered and sold to
5 the Bank.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
6
UNTRUE OR MISLEADING STATEMENTS IN THE SALE OF SECURITIES
7
w.
(Cal.CorporationsCodeSS25401,25501)
8 Against Defendant: In connection with Securitizations :
9 Deutsche SecuritizationsNos. I throush 4
Bear Stearns SecuritizationsNos.5.7.and 8
4c
10
Credit Suisse SecuritizationsNos.11 throueh 16
ll Greenwich Canital SecuritizationsNos.18 and 19
Morsan Stanlev SecuritizationsNos.20 and2l
t2 UBS SecuritizationsNos.22 throash2T
Merrill Lvnch SecuritizationsNos.29throueh 33
los
13
t4 61. The Bank hereby incorporatesby reference,as though fully set forth, paragraphsI
15 through 60.
T6 62. In doing the acts alleged, the Defendantsnamed above violated Sections25401
ur
t7 and 25501 of the California CorporationsCode in the saleto the Bank of the certificatesin the
18 securitizationsreferred to above.
63. This action is brought within two years after the discovery of the untrue and
efr
t9
20 misleading statementsin the prospectussupplementsand other documentsthat the Defendants
2l sentto the Bank, and within five years of the Bank's purchaseof thesecertificates,or within any
22 applicable period as tolled by the pendencyof the classactions referred to above or others.
au
Despite having exercisedreasonablediligence, the Bank did not and could not reasonablyhave
23
24 discoveredearlier the untrue and misleading statementsin the prospectussupplementsand other
25 documents.
d.o
27 considerationthat it paid for each ofthese certificates,plus interest at the legal rate from the date
of purchaseto the date on which it recoversthe purchaseprice, minus the amount of income it has
28
rg
COMPLAINT
I receivedon the certificate.Pursuantto $ 25501,the Bankwill tendereachcertificatebeforeentry
2 ofjudgment.
SECONDCAUSEOF ACTION
ww
J
t2 65. The Bank hereby incorporatesby reference,as though fully set forth, paragraphsI
los
l3 through 64.
t4 66. In doing the acts alleged,the Defendantsnamed above violated Section 11 of the
15 SecuritiesAct of 1933 in the saleto the Bank of the certificates in the securitizationsreferred to
I6 above.
ur
COMPLAINT
1 Despite having exercisedreasonablediligence, the Bank did not and could not reasonablyhave
4 omitted to statematerial facts necessaryin order to make the statements,in the light of the
5 circumstancesunder which they were made, not misleading. Theseuntrue and misleading
7 through 60.
w.
8 71. The Bank expresslyexcludesfrom this causeof action any allegation that could be
t2 Bank purchasedthesecertificates.
los
l3 73. The Bank did not know when it purchasedthesecertificatesthat the statementsin
t7
18
efr
T9
20
2l
22
au
23
24
25
d.o
26
27
28
rg
COMPLAINT
1 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
2 UNTRUE OR MISLEADING STATEMENTSIN THE SALE OF SECURITIES
(Sectionl2(a)Q) of the SecuritiesAct of 1933)
a
ww
J
t3 the SecuritiesAct of 1933 in the saleto the Bank of the certificatesin the securitizationsreferred
T4 to above.
l5 78. This action is brought within one year after the discovery of the untrue and
I6 misleading statementsin the prospectussupplements,and within three years of thesecertificates
ur
I7 having been sold to the public, or within any applicableperiod as tolled by the pendencyof the
l8 class actions referred to above or others.Despite having exercisedreasonablediligence, the Bank
efr
t9 did not and could not reasonablyhave discoveredearlier the untrue and misleading statementsin
20 the prospectussupplements.
2l 79. DeutscheAlt-A, SAMI II, and Greenwich Capital Acceptanceare depositorsof the
22
au
securitizationslisted above and therefore are the issuersof the certificates in those securitizations.
23 In connectionwith the offer and sale of thesecertificatesto the Bank, the issuersalso made all of
24 the statementsof material fact about thesecertificatesthat were in the prospectussupplementand
25
d.o
COMPLAINT
I 80. The Bank expresslyexcludesfrom this causeof action any allegation that could be
4 81. The Defendantsnamed above, for their own financial gain, solicited the Bank to
6 supplements.
t2 84. The Bank did not know when it purchasedthesecertificatesthat the statementsin
los
15 86. The Bank is entitled to recover the considerationthat it paid for each of these
T6 certificates,plus interest at the legal rate from the date of purchaseto the date on which it
ur
t7 recoversthe purchaseprice, minus the amount of income it has received on each certificate. The
25
d.o
87. The Bank hereby incorporatesby reference,as though fully set forth, paragraphsI
26 through 86.
27
28
rg
COMPLAINT
I 88. The Defendantsnamed above are liable because,in doing the acts alleged,persons
2 they controlled violated Sections11 and l2(a)(2) of the SecuritiesAct of 1933 in the saleto the
a
ww
J Bank of the certificates in the securitizationsreferred to above.
7
w.
otherwise, controlled SAMI II within the meaning of Section I 5 of the SecuritiesAct of 1933.
ll 92. In doing the acts alleged, each controlled personnamed in paragraphs89 through
t2 9l is liable under Sections11 and I2(a)(2) of the SecuritiesAct of 1933for the reasonsallegedin
los
l4 93. Each Defendantnamed above is thereforejointly and severally liable with and to
16 FIFTH CAUSEOF'ACTION
ur
t7
NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION
18 (Cal. Civil Code$S1572et seq.and 1709et seq.,and CommonLaw)
efr
COMPLAINT
I 95. As alleged above,the Defendantsnamed above made untrue or misleading
2 representationsregarding the LTVs and CLTVs of the mortgage loans in the collateral pools of
l1 on the mortgage loans in the collateral pools for thesesecuritizations,and, had the Defendants
t2 inspectedthose files, they would have leamed that the information they gave the Bank contained
los
13 unkue or misleading statements.In addition, upon information and beliei the Defendantshired
I4 one or more "due-diligence contractors"to ascertainwhether the mortgage loans in the collateral
l5 pools complied with the representationsand wananties made about those loans, and these
t6 contractorsreportedto the Defendantsthat a material number of the loans in the collateral pools
ur
l7 were materially different from the descriptionsof those loans in the prospectussupplements.
18 Thus, on information and belief, the Defendantshad accessto information that either did make
efr
t9 the Defendantsaware, or would or could have made them aware had they heededthat
20 information, that the representationsthey made to the Bank contained materially untrue or
25 99. When it purchasedthesecertificates,the Bank did not know about the untrue and
d.o
COMPLAINT
I SIXTH CAUSEOF ACTION
2 RESCISSIONOF CONTRACT
(CaliforniaCivil CodeSS1689and 1710,and CommonLaw)
ww
J
5 Deutsche Securitizations
Nos.I throueh 4
Bear Stearns SecuritizationsNos. 5 throush 8
6 Countrywide Securitization No. 9
Credit Suisse SecuritizationsNos. l0 throush 16
7 Greenwich Canital SecuritizationsNos. 17 throush 19
w.
Morsan Stanlev SecuritizationsNos. 20 and2l
8 UBS Securitizations Nos. 22 throus.h 28
Merrill Lvnch SecuritizationsNos.29 throush 33
9
4c
10 101. The Bank hereby incorporatesby reference,as though fully set forth, paragraphs1
l1 through 100.
13 Bank and the dealer from which it purchasedthat certificate. Each contract statedthe
t7 those statementswere untrue or misleading,the Bank was mistaken about its basic assumptions
18 underlying its purchaseof each certificate, and this mistake had a material adverseeffect on the
efr
2I supplements,the Bank did not assume,nor does it bear,the risk of the fundamentalmistake
23 104. The Defendantsnamed above obtainedthe consentof the Bank to the contractsto
24 purchasethe certificates by meansof their assertion,as facts, of that which was not true, when
26 105. Pursuantto Cal. Civil Code.$ 1689et seq.,the Bank is entitledto rescind,and
27 doeshereby demandthe rescissionof, each contract for the sale and purchaseof thesecertificates.
28
-24-
rg
COMPLAINT
I The Bank offers to restoreall benefits that it has received under those contractsand is entitled to
5 On the first causeof action, the considerationthat the Bank paid for each certificate with
6 interestthereon,less the amount of any income that the Bank has received thereon,upon the
9 On the third causeof action, the considerationthat the Bank paid for each certificate with
4c
10 interestthereon,less the amount of any income that the Bank has received thereon,upon the
t2 On the fourth causeof action, the considerationthat the Bank paid for each certificate
los
l3 with interest thereon,less the amount of any income that the Bank has received thereon,upon the
t6 On the sixth causeof action, the considerationthat the Bank paid for each certificate with
ur
t7 interestthereon,less the amount of any income that the Bank has received thereon,upon the
19 All togetherwith the costs of this action, the reasonablefees of the Bank's attornevsin
20 this action, and such other and further relief as the court may deemjust.
2I lt/
22
au
23
24
25
d.o
26
27
28
-25-
rg
COMPLAINT
I JURY DEMAND
13
t4
t5
t6
ur
t7
l8
efr
t9
20
2l
au
22
23
24
25
d.o
26
27
28
-26-
rg
COMPLAINT