The fallout from the collapse of the U.S. housing market is far from over. Institutional investors worldwide have suffered losses on purchases of toxic residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS) and collateralized debt obligations (CDOs) that were, in many cases, sold by Wall Street investment banks based upon false and misleading disclosures. These alleged securities law violations have already resulted in a wave of investor litigation in state and federal courts throughout the country.
Our webcast program will dissect the RMBS litigation landscape, addressing the origination and securitization process, the litigation claims and defenses in these cases, the litigation scorecard thus far, and the potential exposure for the banks. The discussion will feature a panel of experts deeply versed in this area: Senior industry analyst Joshua Rosner, who has advised regulators and institutional investors on housing and mortgage finance issues; noted author and litigator Talcott Franklin, the author of the Mortgage and Asset Backed Securities Litigation Handbook, who has also established the RMBS Investor Clearing House; leading securities litigator Scott Musoff, partner at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP & Affiliates, who represents financial institutions in multiple subprime, RMBS and CDO related cases; and BLB&G partner and moderator Gerald Silk, who is representing numerous institutional investors in RMBS related actions.
Please join us for a discussion of the issues facing RMBS investors and their legal implications. This free webcast is scheduled for Wednesday, January 26, 2011 at 2 p.m. Eastern. To attend, please register below.
Counsel for plaintiffs are barking up the wrong tree.
There is a much more efficient way to achieve what plaintiffs are seeking, and to do it quickly. Time is of the essence in these matters, as statutes of limitations are quickly running out on plaintiffs in many of their causes of action. Furthermore, by not taking the more efficient legal solution to the problem, plaintiffs, when they lose with their present legal theories, will be precluded by the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel from bringing new actions, based on more efficient and effective legal theories. The aforementioned doctrines will be applicable because it will be the same plaintiffs attempting to litigate the same facts and transactions. In will matter not that these issues were not litigated in the prior actions, only that they could have been so litigated.
So what this means for institutional investors is that they will have breached their fiduciary obligations to their beneficiaries, and their counsels will be liable for malpractice. Unfortunately, institutional investor recoveries under counsels’ malpractice policies will be a pittance of what could have been recovered by bringing suit using proper legal theories. And of course, managements of institutional investors will themselves be liable to their beneficiaries for their errors and omissions.
The net result will be across the board wins for the RMBS deal principals.