One response to “January 26 Webcast: A Survey of the RMBS Litigation Landscape”

  1. 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.