SEC Approves New Securitization Risk Retention Rule with Broad Exception for Qualified Residential Mortgages
November 26, 2014 —
Neil P. Casey & Lori S. Smith – White and Williams LLPThe Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and five other federal agencies recently approved a joint rule (the “Risk Retention Rule”) mandating that sponsors of certain types of securitizations retain a minimum level of credit risk exposure in those transactions and prohibiting such sponsors from transferring or hedging against that retained credit risk.[i]The final Risk Retention Rule will be effective one year after its publication in the Federal Register for securitizations of residential mortgages, and two years after publication for securitizations of all other asset types. The SEC vote was 3-2, with sharp dissents from Commissioners Gallagher and Piwowar concluding that the adopting agencies had missed a prime opportunity to rein in risky mortgage lending practices that had precipitated the 2008 financial crisis.
Background
Following the meltdown of the securitization markets in 2007 (particularly subprime residential mortgage-backed securities), and the resulting global financial crisis, the Dodd-Frank Act mandated that the U.S. federal banking, securities and housing agencies adopt and implement rules to require sponsors of most new securitizations to retain not less than five percent of the credit risk of any assets that the securitizer, through the issuance of an asset-backed security, transfers, sells or conveys to a third party. It was thought that requiring securitization sponsors to keep “skin in the game” would align the interests of the sponsors with the interests of investors and thereby incentivize the sponsors to ensure the quality of the assets underlying the securitization through appropriate due diligence and underwriting procedures when selecting assets for securitization. Although the Dodd-Frank Act explicitly exempted securitizations of certain types of mortgage loans called “qualified residential mortgages” (or “QRMs”) from this risk retention requirement, it invited the rulemaking agencies to define that key term, provided that their definition could be no broader than the definition of “qualified mortgage”adopted by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) pursuant to the Truth in Lending Act.[ii] In considering how to define QRM, the rulemaking agencies were directed by the Dodd-Frank Act to take into consideration “underwriting and product features that historical loan performance data indicate result in a lower risk of default.”[iii]
Reprinted courtesy of
Neil P. Casey, White and Williams LLP and
Lori S. Smith, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Casey may be contacted at caseyn@whiteandwilliams.com; Ms. Smith may be contacted at smithl@whiteandwilliams.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Delaware Supreme Court Choice of Law Ruling Vacates a $13.7 Million Verdict Against Travelers
August 07, 2018 —
Gregory Capps & Zachery Roth - White and Williams LLPOn July 16, 2018, the Delaware Supreme Court held in Travelers Indemnity Company v. CNH Industrial America, LLC, No. 420, 2017 (Del. Jul. 16, 2018), that a court’s choice of law inquiry in an insurance coverage dispute should focus on the contacts most relevant to the insurance contract rather than the location of the underlying claims. In Travelers, CNH Industrial America, LLC (CNH), sought coverage for asbestos liabilities associated with J.I. Case, Inc., a subsidiary it had acquired, under policies issued to J.I. Case and its former parent company, Tenneco, Inc. The issue before the Delaware Supreme Court was whether the anti-assignment clause in three Travelers policies issued to Tenneco, Inc. precluded the assignment of the policies to CNH. The validity of the assignment turned on which state’s law governed the dispute. (Under Wisconsin law, the parties agreed that the assignment was valid, while under Texas law, the parties agreed the assignment was invalid.)
Reprinted courtesy of
Gregory Capps, White and Williams LLP and
Zachery Roth, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Capps may be contacted at cappsg@whiteandwilliams.com
Mr. Roth may be contacted at rothz@whiteandwilliams.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Appeals Court Finds Manuscript Additional Insured Endorsements Ambiguous Regarding Completed Operations Coverage for Additional Insured
September 07, 2017 —
Christopher Kendrick & Valerie A. Moore – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPIn Pulte Home Corp. v. American Safety Indemnity Co. (No. D070478; filed 8/30/17), a California appeals court found that manuscript additional insured endorsements on construction subcontractors’ policies were ambiguous regarding additional insured coverage for the developer, and that substantial evidence supported a finding that the insurer’s refusal to defend the developer was in bad faith. The court also approved awarding punitive damages on a one-to-one basis with the general damages. But the appeals court remanded the case for a further determination on the amount of Brandt fees, based on the developer’s change from a contingency to an hourly agreement.
The Pulte case arose from the development of two residential housing projects beginning in 2003 and sold in 2005-2006. Subcontractors were required to name Pulte as additional insured on their policies, some of them issued by American Safety. In 2013, homeowners sued Pulte based in part on the work of subcontractors insured by American Safety, which then denied coverage to Pulte because the construction had taken place years earlier.
Reprinted courtesy of
Christopher Kendrick, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and
Valerie A. Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Mr. Kendrick may be contacted at ckendrick@hbblaw.com
Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Homeowner Sues Brick Manufacturer for Spalling Bricks
October 22, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFA Columbia, South Carolina homeowner has sued Kinney Brick Co., alleging that the bricks used in his home were defective and are now crumbling. The lawsuit alleges that the manufacturer and the distributor were both aware that the bricks would retain moisture and crumble.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Forget Palm Springs—Santa Fe Is the New Mecca for Modern Architecture
November 19, 2021 —
James Tarmy - BloombergThe writer Helen Thompson had been a lifelong visitor to Santa Fe, but when she arrived at Georgia O’Keeffe’s home at Ghost Ranch 30 years ago, “I was shocked,” Thompson says. “Everything there was modern: Her furniture was modern; her light fixtures were modern; her art, of course, was modern. And in this rustic setting, the landscape is so powerful, it was all so elemental. That shock stayed with me.”
It was an experience, Thompson says, that led her to the conclusion that Santa Fe, long understood as a city filled with vernacular, decorative architecture, was ripe for a rethinking. “I kept wondering, why does something like that look so right here?” she says. “The landscape is so distinctive, and so not-modern, and yet these very precise pieces of furniture looked so right.”
Now, with her new book Santa Fe Modern: Contemporary Design in the High Desert (Monacelli, $50), Thompson has cracked the code. “Modern ideas are site-specific, and tied into what’s right for the landscape and the environment,” she says. Naturally, she continues, this conceptual framework works well in a place like New Mexico, where the dramatic horizon meets an even more dramatic sky.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
James Tarmy, Bloomberg
Cerberus, Blackstone Loosening Credit for U.S. Landlords
July 09, 2014 —
Heather Perlberg and John Gittelsohn – BloombergU.S. property owners with just one rental house can now get cash from Wall Street to buy more.
Cerberus Capital Management LP, which initially targeted landlords with multimillion-dollar loans, is financing low-volume deals for small investors through its FirstKey Lending, with looser terms than government-backed mortgages from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, said Randy Reiff, the business’s chief executive officer. Blackstone Group LP (BX)’s rental lending arm, B2R Finance LP, is making a similar push to mom-and-pop landlords.
“Our premise has always been to be able to lend to the middle market and entrepreneurial borrowers in the space, not just the institutional borrowers,” Reiff said. “The biggest guys have always enjoyed access to capital. The largest part of this market is really the entrepreneurial owners.”
The companies are competing to lend to owners of the almost 14 million rental houses in the U.S. at a time when many Americans are struggling to get a mortgage and homeownership is declining. Cerberus and Blackstone, along with Colony Capital LLC, also are racing to package debt on homes managed by separate landlords for the first multiborrower bond sale.
Ms. Perlberg may be contacted at hperlberg@bloomberg.net; Mr. Gittelsohn may be contacted at johngitt@bloomberg.net
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Heather Perlberg and John Gittelsohn – Bloomberg
Remodel Gets Pricey for Town
December 30, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFUsually when home gets remodeled, it’s the homeowners who encounter unexpected expenses, but in Clearwater, Florida, it’s the town. Clearview has spent about $40,000 trying to determine if changes to a home are a “substantial improvement,” and the bill could get bigger, according to TBNweekly.com.
The home in question, that of David and Aileen Blair, is in a flood zone, and city rules would require the alterations to comply with flood drainage-resistance provisions, but only if it is a “substantial improvement.” The Blairs applied for the remodel permit in April 2001, and it was granted more than 10 years later, in July 2011. Work started soon after until the city put a stop to it.
The Blairs sued, claiming that as the city issued the permit, they assumed the plans were approved, and that the partially-completed renovation now diminishes the value of their home. The city has approved an additional $160,000 in outside legal counsel to respond to the Blair’s lawsuit.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Skipping Depositions does not Constitute Failure to Cooperate in New York
March 09, 2020 —
Ryan G. Nelson - Saxe Doernberger & VitaInsurance policies typically impose, on the insured, a duty to cooperate with the insurer during investigation and litigation of a claim. Non-cooperation can be grounds for denying coverage. This begs the question: what constitutes non-cooperation?
Recently, a New York appellate court affirmed a trial court’s decision that failure by an employee of the insured to show up for three court-ordered depositions did not rise to the level of “willful and avowed obstruction” and therefore, the insurer could not deny coverage on the basis of non-cooperation. See Foddrell v. Utica First Insurance Co., 178 A.D.3d 901 (N.Y. App. Div. 2019). In so holding, the Foddrell court applied the Thrasher test: “To effectively deny coverage based upon lack of cooperation, an insurance carrier must demonstrate (1) that it acted diligently in seeking to bring about the insured’s cooperation, (2) that the efforts employed by the insured were reasonably calculated to obtain the insured’s cooperation, and (3) that the attitude of the insured, after his or her cooperation was sought, was one of willful and avowed obstruction.” Id.; see Thrasher v. U. S. Liab. Ins. Co., 19 N.Y.2d 159, 167 (1967).
Thomas Foddrell’s suit against Utica First Insurance Company (“Utica First”) stemmed from his personal injury suit against Janey & Rana Construction Corporation (“J&R” (Utica First’s insured). During that lawsuit, J&R’s principal, Gardeep Singh, failed to appear for two court-ordered depositions. After his failure to appear at those depositions, Utica First sent an investigator to inform Singh that he was scheduled for a third deposition. Singh responded to the investigator that he would speak with J&R’s attorneys about the matter. Ultimately, Singh did not appear for the third court-ordered deposition. In response to Singh’s repeated failure to appear for the depositions, Utica First sent Singh a letter advising him that because of his lack of cooperation, Utica would no longer agree to indemnify J&R.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Ryan G. Nelson, Saxe Doernberger & VitaMr. Nelson may be contacted at
rgn@sdvlaw.com
