SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW ... - New York Times

More documents

Recommendations

Info

35. Plaintiff American Home Assurance Company is a New York corporation with its principal offices at 175 Water Street, New York, New York, 10038. It provides property and casualty insurance products to businesses, including public entities, educational institutions, and transportation and construction companies. It is an indirect, wholly-owned subsidiary of AIG Parent. 36. Plaintiff American International Group Retirement Plan is a retirement plan for AIG’s employees. The plan is administered in New York. 37. Plaintiff Chartis Property Casualty Company is a Pennsylvania corporation with principal offices at 175 Water Street, New York, New York, 10038. It provides property and casualty lines of insurance and is an indirect, wholly-owned subsidiary of AIG Parent. 38. Plaintiff Chartis Select Insurance Company is a Delaware corporation with principal offices in New York, New York. It provides excess casualty and financial insurance and is an indirect, wholly-owned subsidiary of AIG Parent. 39. Plaintiff Chartis Specialty Insurance Company is an Illinois corporation with principal offices in New York, New York. It offers property and casualty insurance and is an indirect, wholly-owned subsidiary of AIG Parent. 40. Plaintiff Commerce and Industry Insurance Company is a New York corporation with principal offices at 70 Pine Street, New York, New York, 10270. It offers insurance brokerage services and is an indirect, wholly-owned subsidiary of AIG Parent. 41. Plaintiff First SunAmerica Life Insurance Company is a New York corporation with principal offices in New York, New York. It provides tax-deferred annuities for retirement savings through financial institutions, and is an indirect, wholly-owned subsidiary of AIG Parent. 16
42. Plaintiff Lexington Insurance Company is a surplus lines insurer. It is a Delaware corporation with principal offices in Boston, Massachusetts, and is an indirect, wholly-owned subsidiary of AIG Parent. 43. Plaintiff National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, Pa. is a Pennsylvania corporation with its principal offices at 175 Water Street, New York, New York, 10038. It is an insurance company and an indirect, wholly-owned subsidiary of AIG Parent. 44. Plaintiff New Hampshire Insurance Company provides property and casualty insurance services. Founded in 1869, it is a Pennsylvania corporation with principal offices at 175 Water Street, New York, New York, 10038. It is an indirect, wholly-owned subsidiary of AIG Parent. 45. Plaintiff SunAmerica Annuity and Life Assurance Company is an issuer of variable annuities. It is an Arizona corporation, has its principal offices in Phoenix, Arizona, and is an indirect, wholly-owned subsidiary of AIG Parent. 46. Plaintiff SunAmerica Life Insurance Company is an indirect, wholly-owned subsidiary of AIG Parent engaged in the business of selling life insurance. It is an Arizona corporation with its principal offices in Los Angeles, California. 47. Plaintiff The Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania is an insurance company incorporated in Pennsylvania, with its principal offices at 175 Water Street, New York, New York, 10038. It is an indirect, wholly-owned subsidiary of AIG Parent. 48. Plaintiff The United States Life Insurance Company in the City of New York (“USL”) is a New York insurance company incorporated in New York in 1850. USL’s principal offices are at One World Financial Center, 200 Liberty Street, New York, New York, 10281 and it is an indirect, wholly-owned subsidiary of AIG Parent. 17
Page 1 and 2: SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW Y
Page 3 and 4: TABLE OF CONTENTS Page NATURE OF AC
Page 5 and 6: (b) (c) Merrill Instructed Subprime
Page 7 and 8: Plaintiffs American International G
Page 9 and 10: losses as a result of Defendants’
Page 11 and 12: underwritten by Bank of America and
Page 13 and 14: America face both Martin Act liabil
Page 15 and 16: Heretofore that has been a challeng
Page 17 and 18: 19. Intense industry competition le
Page 19 and 20: America’s “aggressive move into
Page 21: program (the “Global Securities L
Page 25 and 26: California with its principal place
Page 27 and 28: mortgage-backed certificates purcha
Page 29 and 30: offerings at issue, as detailed in
Page 31 and 32: the issuer of the certificates with
Page 33 and 34: 81. The issuing trust then “secur
Page 35 and 36: 87. The Wall Street Journal has sum
Page 37 and 38: III. DEFENDANTS OPERATED ON EVERY L
Page 39 and 40: Home Loans thus knew that its loans
Page 41 and 42: Exhibits 1 to 349 set forth the dat
Page 43 and 44: B. Defendants’ Misrepresentations
Page 45 and 46: Defendant Misrepresentations made i
Page 47 and 48: CLTVs based on the relevant underwr
Page 49 and 50: Defendant Misrepresentations cannot
Page 51 and 52: its investments. Some investors, li
Page 53 and 54: the samples AIG tested is clear evi
Page 55 and 56: 132. Defendants’ aggregated mortg
Page 57 and 58: 12.7 percentage points to 82.3 perc
Page 59 and 60: Asset Weighted Average LTV Ratio as
Page 61 and 62: 144. Further, the Offering Material
Page 63 and 64: evidence that the borrower does not
Page 65 and 66: y misrepresenting to the rating age
Page 67 and 68: 160. In her testimony to the SPSI,
Page 69 and 70: which Defendants demanded be rated
Page 71 and 72: omitted that they were systematical
Page 73 and 74:
• In State of Indiana v. Countryw
Page 75 and 76:
“Going for 30% mortgage share her
Page 77 and 78:
184. In November 2007, Countrywide
Page 79 and 80:
chief concern on [the matching stra
Page 81 and 82:
195. According to the SEC, Countryw
Page 83 and 84:
performing so much worse is strong
Page 85 and 86:
2007 internal memo from Countrywide
Page 87 and 88:
Non-Conforming 1st lien loans that
Page 89 and 90:
216. In addition to outright fabric
Page 91 and 92:
the normal underwriting process. Fo
Page 93 and 94:
229. According to Francisco San Ped
Page 95 and 96:
encounter resistance to my efforts
Page 97 and 98:
subsidiaries or otherwise subject t
Page 99 and 100:
maintained a database titled the
Page 101 and 102:
using properties outside of the imm
Page 103 and 104:
(i) Countrywide Developed Toxic “
Page 105 and 106:
put a bigger percentage of our pay
Page 107 and 108:
defective loans, the investment ban
Page 109 and 110:
that Countrywide omitted material i
Page 111 and 112:
income would have produced a debt-t
Page 113 and 114:
285. With its securitization operat
Page 115 and 116:
years. (Id. at 194.) These huge pro
Page 117 and 118:
296. Former Merrill executives have
Page 119 and 120:
elationship” with the appraisers.
Page 121 and 122:
favorable (and overstated) appraisa
Page 123 and 124:
y the seller to the prospective buy
Page 125 and 126:
intense to approve as many loans as
Page 127 and 128:
were subprime and Alt-A mortgages,
Page 129 and 130:
324. In May 2011, the New York Atto
Page 131 and 132:
2005 and 2006, Bank of America’s
Page 133 and 134:
predatory lending laws related to t
Page 135 and 136:
show that the Borrower acquired a m
Page 137 and 138:
Transaction Number of Months Since
Page 139 and 140:
and 191, also shows that the compan
Page 141 and 142:
345. According to a former employee
Page 143 and 144:
350. Countrywide’s attempt to con
Page 145 and 146:
357. Merrill’s relationships with
Page 147 and 148:
362. In addition to showing that Ba
Page 149 and 150:
characteristics of these securities
Page 151 and 152:
373. An active secondary market for
Page 153 and 154:
credit characteristics that were un
Page 155 and 156:
subsidiary of the Corporation . . .
Page 157 and 158:
from CHL to the Bank.” By transfe
Page 159 and 160:
America. However, Countrywide’s o
Page 161 and 162:
stated that the bank “anticipates
Page 163 and 164:
America website, while the integrat
Page 165 and 166:
New York Times article published in
Page 167 and 168:
419. On June 28, 2011, Bank of Amer
Page 169 and 170:
usiness, and (e) Bank of America as
Page 171 and 172:
easonably and justifiably relied on
Page 173 and 174:
mortgage banking remained Countrywi
Page 175 and 176:
directors and officers. Revenues fl
Page 177 and 178:
10-K for the years ended December 2
Page 179 and 180:
securities in its financial stateme
Page 181 and 182:
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION (Violation of
Page 183 and 184:
482. The Section 11 Defendants caus
Page 185 and 186:
Defendants”) arising from AIG’s
Page 187 and 188:
498. Each of the Section 12(a)(2) D
Page 189 and 190:
to influence and control, and did i
Page 191 and 192:
518. AIG reasonably relied on the i
show all

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW ... - New York Times

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?