INDEX OF DEFINED TERMS - Banca di Legnano

Level: 2 – From: 2 – Wednesday, July 21, 2010 – 13:20 – eprint6 – 4247 Section 10
General Information
2010, the Superior Court lifted the stay entered on June 15, 2009 and dismissed plaintiffs’ consolidated
complaint with prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. On January 14, 2010, one of the plaintiffs
in the Luther case, the Maine State Retirement System, filed a new putative class action complaint in the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California entitled Maine State Retirement System v.
Countrywide Financial Corporation, et al. The complaint names CFC, certain other Countrywide entities,
certain former CFC officers and directors, as well as BAS and MLPF&S as defendants. Plaintiff’s
allegations, claims and remedies sought are substantially similar and concern the same offerings of MBS at
issue in the Luther case that was dismissed by the Superior Court.
On August 15, 2008, a complaint, entitled New Mexico State Investment Council, et al. v.
Countrywide Financial Corporation, et al., was filed in the First Judicial Court for the County of Santa Fe
against CFC, certain other CFC entities and certain former officers and directors of CFC by three New
Mexico governmental entities that allegedly acquired certain of the MBS also at issue in the Luther case.
The complaint initially asserted claims under the Securities Act and New Mexico state law and seeks
unspecified compensatory damages and rescission. On March 25, 2009, the court denied the motion to
dismiss the complaint. The individual defendants were dismissed based on lack of personal jurisdiction.
On November 13, 2009, plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the New Mexico state law claims. Trial is
scheduled for October 2010.
On October 13, 2009, the Federal Home Loan Bank of Pittsburgh (“FHLB Pittsburgh”) filed a
complaint, entitled Federal Home Loan Bank of Pittsburgh v. Countrywide Securities Corporation et al., in
the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County Pennsylvania against CFC, CSC, CHL, CWALT, Inc.
and CWMBS, Inc., among other defendants, alleging violations of the Securities Act and the Pennsylvania
Securities Act of 1972, as well as fraud and negligent misrepresentation under Pennsylvania common law
in connection with various offerings of MBS. The complaint asserts, among other things, misstatements
and omissions concerning the credit quality of the mortgage loans underlying the securities and the loan
origination practices associated with those loans and seeks unspecified damages and rescission, among
other relief. The Countrywide defendants moved to dismiss the complaint on February 26, 2010.
On December 23, 2009, the Federal Home Loan Bank of Seattle (“FHLB Seattle”) filed three
complaints in the Superior Court of Washington for King County alleging violations of the Securities Act
of Washington in connection with various offerings of MBS and makes allegations similar to those in the
FHLB Pittsburgh matter. The complaints seek rescission, interest, costs and attorneys’ fees. The case,
entitled Federal Home Loan Bank of Seattle v. Banc of America Securities LLC, et al., was filed against
CFC, CWALT, Inc., BAS, Banc of America Funding Corporation, and the Issuer. The case, entitled
Federal Home Loan Bank of Seattle v. Countrywide Securities Corporation, et al., was filed against CFC,
CSC, CWALT, Inc., Merrill Lynch Mortgage Investors, Inc., and Merrill Lynch Mortgage Capital, Inc. The
case, entitled Federal Home Loan Bank of Seattle v. UBS Securities LLC, et al., was filed against CFC,
CWMBS, Inc., CWALT, Inc., and UBS Securities LLC.
On March 15, 2010, the Federal Home Loan Bank of San Francisco (“FHLB San Francisco”) filed
two complaints in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Francisco. The case entitled
Federal Home Loan Bank of San Francisco v. Deutsche Bank Securities Inc., et al. was filed against CSC,
MLPF&S and other defendants. The case entitled Federal Home Loan Bank of San Francisco v. Credit
Suisse Securities (USA) LLC, et al. was filed against BAS, Banc of America Funding Corp., Banc of
America Mortgage Securities, Inc., CSC, CWALT, Inc., CFC and other defendants. The complaints allege
violations of the California Corporate Securities Act, the Securities Act, the California Civil Code and
common law in connection with various offerings of mortgage-backed securities. The complaints assert,
among other things, misstatements and omissions concerning the credit quality of the mortgage loans
underlying the securities and the loan origination practices associated with those loans. The complaints
seek unspecified damages and rescission, among other relief.
203