Case Caption: In re W. Conf. of Teamsters Pension Tr. Fund v. Countrywide Fin. Corp., No. 2:12-cv-05122-MRP -MAN, and Luther v. Countrywide Fin. Corp.
Case Number: 2:12-cv-05122-MRP-MAN, and 2:12-cv-05125-MRP-MAN
Court: Central District of California
Judge: Honorable Mariana R. Pfaelzer
Plaintiffs: Vermont Pension Investment Committee, Mashreqbank, p.s.c., Pension Trust Fund for Operating Engineers, Operating Engineers Annuity Plan, Washington State Plumbing and Pipefitting Pension Trust, David H. Luther, Western Conference of Teamsters Pension Trust Fund
Defendants: Countrywide Financial Corporation, Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., CWALT, Inc., CWMBS, Inc., CWHEQ, Inc., CWABS, Inc., Countrywide Capital Markets, Countrywide Securities Corporation, Bank of America Corporation, NB Holdings Corporation, Stanford L. Kurland, David A. Spector, Eric P. Sieracki, David A. Sambol, Ranjit Kripalani, N. Joshua Adler, Jennifer S. Sandefur, Jeffrey P. Grogin, Thomas Boone, Thomas K. McLaughlin, Banc of America Securities LLC, Barclays Capital Inc., Bear, Stearns & Co. Inc., BNP Paribas Securities Corp., Citigroup Global Markets Inc., Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC, Deutsche Bank Securities Inc., Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P. d/b/a Edward Jones, Goldman, Sachs & Co., Greenwich Capital Markets, Inc. a.k.a. RBS Greenwich Capital now known as RBS Securities Inc., HSBC Securities (USA) Inc., J.P. Morgan Securities Inc., Merrill, Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated, Morgan Stanley & Co. Incorporated, and UBS Securities LLC
Overview: As co-lead counsel representing the Maine Public Employees’ Retirement System, secured a $500 million settlement for a class of plaintiffs that purchased mortgage-backed securities (MBS) issued by Countrywide Financial Corporation (Countrywide).
Plaintiffs alleged that Countrywide and various of its subsidiaries, officers and investment banks made false and misleading statements in more than 450 prospectus supplements relating to the issuance of subprime and Alt-A MBS—in particular, the quality of the underlying loans. When information about the loans became public, the plaintiffs’ investments declined in value. The ensuing six-year litigation raised several issues of first impression in the Ninth Circuit.