Rescap Liquidating Trust Mortg. Purchase Litig. Residential Funding Co. v. HSBC Mortg. Corp. (In re Residential Capital, LLC)

• Decision Date: 03 February 2015
• Docket Number: Adv. Proc. No. 14–01996 (MG),Adv. Proc. No. 14–02004 (MG),Case No. 12–12020 (MG),Adv. Proc. No. 14–07900 (MG),Adv. Proc. No. 13–01820 (MG),Adv. Proc. No. 14–01926 (MG),Adv. Proc. No. 14–01915 (MG),Adv. Proc. No. 14–01916 (MG)
• Parties: In re : Residential Capital, LLC, et al., Debtors. In re: ResCap Liquidating Trust Mortgage Purchase Litigation Residential Funding Company, LLC, Plaintiff, v. HSBC Mortgage Corp. (USA), Defendant. Residential Funding Company, LLC, v. GreenPoint Mortgage Funding, Inc., Defendant. Residential Funding Company, LLC, Plaintiff, v. UBS Real Estate Securities, Inc., Defendant. Residential Liquidating Trust, Plaintiff, v. Summit Financial Mortgage LLC et ano., Defendants. Residential Liquidating Trust, Plaintiff, v. Mortgage Investors Group, Inc., et al., Defendants. Residential Liquidating Trust, Plaintiff, v. SunTrust Mortgage, Inc., Defendant.
• Court: United States Bankruptcy Courts. Second Circuit. U.S. Bankruptcy Court — Southern District of New York

524 B.R. 563

In re : Residential Capital, LLC, et al., Debtors.

In re: ResCap Liquidating Trust Mortgage Purchase Litigation

Residential Funding Company, LLC, Plaintiff,

v.HSBC Mortgage Corp. (USA), Defendant.

Residential Funding Company, LLC,

v.GreenPoint Mortgage Funding, Inc., Defendant.

Residential Funding Company, LLC, Plaintiff,

v.UBS Real Estate Securities, Inc., Defendant.

Residential Liquidating Trust, Plaintiff,

v.Summit Financial Mortgage LLC et ano., Defendants.

Residential Liquidating Trust, Plaintiff,

v.Mortgage Investors Group, Inc., et al., Defendants.

Residential Liquidating Trust, Plaintiff,

v.SunTrust Mortgage, Inc., Defendant.

Case No. 12–12020 (MG)

Adv. Proc. No. 14–07900 (MG), Adv. Proc. No. 14–01915 (MG), Adv. Proc. No. 14–01916 (MG), Adv. Proc. No. 14–01926 (MG), Adv. Proc. No. 14–01996 (MG), Adv. Proc. No. 14–02004 (MG), Adv. Proc. No. 13–01820 (MG)

United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. New York.

Signed February 3, 2015

QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP, Attorneys for Plaintiff, 51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor, New York, New York 10010, By: Peter E. Calamari, Esq., David Elsberg, Esq., Isaac Nesser, Esq., Yelena Konanova, Esq.

WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP, Attorneys for Defendant HSBC Mortgage Corp. (USA), 725 Twelfth Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20005, By: R. Hackney Wiegmann, Esq., Andrew W. Rudge, Esq., Matthew V. Johnson, Esq., Jesse Smallwood, Esq.

MURPHY & MCGONIGLE, PC, Attorneys for Defendants GreenPoint Mortgage Funding, Inc., Summit Financial Mortgage LLC, and Summit Community Bank, Inc., 1185 Avenue of the Americas, 21st Floor, New York, New York 10036, By: James A. Murphy, Esq., Cameron S. Matheson, Esq., Theodore R. Snyder, Esq.

SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP, Attorneys for Defendant UBS Real Estate Securities, Inc., Four Times Square, New York, New York 10036, By: Scott D. Musoff, Esq., Robert A. Fumerton, Esq., Alexander C. Drylewski, Esq.

PALMER, LOMBARDI & DONOHUE, LLP, Attorneys for Defendant Mortgage Investors Group, Inc., 515 South Flower Street, Suite 2100, Los Angeles, California 90071, By: Roland P. Reynolds, Esq.

ALSTON & BIRD LLP, Attorneys for Defendant SunTrust Mortgage, Inc., 90 Park Avenue, New York, New York 10016, By: John P. Doherty, Esq., Jennifer Susan Kozar, Esq., James S. D'Ambra, Jr., Esq.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS TO DISMISS

MARTIN GLENN, UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY JUDGE

Before the Court are four motions to dismiss filed by defendants GreenPoint Mortgage Funding, Inc. (“GreenPoint”), Summit Financial Mortgage LLC (“Summit Financial”), Summit Community Bank, Inc. (“Summit Community” and, together with Summit Financial, “Summit”), Suntrust Mortgage, Inc. (“Suntrust”), HSBC Mortgage Corp. (USA) (“HSBC”), UBS Real Estate Securities, Inc. (“UBS”), and Mortgage Investors Group, Inc. (“MIG”) (collectively, the “Defendants”) in the above-captioned adversary proceedings (the “Adversary Proceedings”) ¹ commenced by the ResCap Liquidating Trust (the “Trust” or “Plaintiff”), as successor to Residential Funding Company, LLC f/k/a Residential Funding Corporation (“RFC”). These Adversary Proceedings arise out of the Defendants' sale of allegedly defective residential mortgage loans to RFC, which RFC in turn sold to whole loan purchasers or pooled and sold into residential mortgage-backed securitization (“RMBS”) trusts. RFC subsequently faced numerous lawsuits alleging that the loans RFC had securitized were defective, and, after RFC and its debtor-affiliates (the “Debtors”) filed their chapter 11 cases in May 2012, hundreds of proofs of claim were filed against RFC, alleging billions of dollars of damages. RFC resolved its RMBS-related liabilities in a global settlement (the “Bankruptcy Settlement”), which was central to the Debtors' confirmed chapter 11 plan (the “Plan”).² Now, through these Adversary Proceedings, the Trust seeks damages and indemnification for all liabilities and losses incurred by RFC as a result of the Defendants' alleged breaches of representations and warranties made in connection with their sale of mortgage loans to RFC.

The Defendants filed their motions to dismiss the Trust's Adversary Proceedings, raising the following issues: (1) whether the Trust has standing to maintainclaims against certain of the Defendants originally filed by RFC on the same date its claims were assigned to the Trust, thereby potentially divesting RFC of standing to file the original complaints; (2) whether the Plaintiff has standing to bring claims relating to securitized loans for which RFC allegedly entered into agreements assigning its rights to third parties; (3) whether the Plaintiff's general averment that all conditions precedent have been satisfied is sufficient to plead satisfaction of conditions precedent; (4) whether a “sole remedy” provision in the applicable loan sale agreement between RFC and one of the Defendants sets forth RFC's exclusive remedies in the event of breach, precluding the Plaintiff's claims for monetary damages; (5) whether the Plaintiff's breach of contract claims are timely under the applicable statutes of limitations; (6) whether the Plaintiff sufficiently pleads claims relating to loans identified on exhibits attached to each complaint, while only alleging specific defects regarding a subset of such loans; and (7) whether the Plaintiff's claims for indemnification of losses relating to securities and fraud-based claims against RFC are barred as a matter of law. Certain of these same issues have been addressed by several different judges in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota (the “Minnesota Court”) in similar cases pending there, not with uniform outcomes, while others issues have not been decided in Minnesota.³

As set forth below, the Court concludes that: (1) regardless whether RFC assigned its claims to the Trust prior to filing its original complaints against certain of the Defendants, the Trust has standing as the “real party in interest” to bring these claims; (2) the Plaintiff has adequately alleged standing to assert claims relating to securitized loans because determining whether RFC assigned its rights in such loans to third parties requiresfactual findings that cannot be made on a motion to dismiss; (3) the Plaintiff's general allegation that all conditions precedent to asserting these claims have been satisfied is sufficient at this stage of the Adversary Proceedings; (4) it is premature to resolve the factual issue of whether a “sole remedy” provision bars the Plaintiff's monetary damages claims; (5) the Plaintiff's breach of contract claims for loans purchased by RFC before May 14, 2006 are untimely, but the Plaintiff's breach of contract claims for loans sold to RFC on or after May 14, 2006 are timely; (6) the Plaintiff adequately pleads its claims notwithstanding the lack of loan-by-loan defect allegations because the Plaintiff identifies each loan underlying its claims and generally pleads facts supporting a plausible inference that the Defendants' alleged breaches extend to the entire population of loans; and (7) the Plaintiff's indemnification claims are not barred as a matter of law because RFC's liability on the relevant claims has yet to be adjudicated.

Accordingly, the Court DENIES in part and GRANTS in part the Defendants' motions to dismiss.

I. BACKGROUND

A. Factual Background

Prior to filing for bankruptcy in May 2012, RFC was in the business of acquiring and securitizing residential mortgage loans. ( See, e.g., HSBC Compl. ¶ 2, HSBC ECF Doc. # 27.) ⁴ To do so, RFC would purchase loans from lenders, such as the Defendants, and then either sell the loans to whole loan purchasers or pool the loans with other similar loans and sell them to RMBS trusts, which would subsequently sell certificates to investors. ( Id.¶ 3.) Altogether, the Defendants allegedly sold more than 42,300 loans to RFC. (Pl.'s Opp. at 5.) Through these loan sales, the Defendants made representations and warranties to RFC in various agreements governing the Defendants' sale of loans to RFC regarding the quality and characteristics of the loans. (HSBC Compl. ¶ 5; Pl.'s Opp. at 4.) Except for the sales by GreenPoint and UBS, the Defendants' representations and warranties were contained in the “Client Guide” that was incorporated into the applicable “Seller Contract” between RFC and each Defendant. ( Id.; see, e.g., “Client Guide,” HSBC Compl. Ex. B–1; “Seller Contract,” id. Ex. A.) GreenPoint's representations and warranties were set forth in the Master Loan Purchase and Warranties Agreement between RFC and GreenPoint, dated December 16, 2005 (the “GreenPoint Agreement,” GreenPoint ECF Doc. # 20–1). ( Id.) UBS's representations and warranties were set forth in the Master Seller's Purchase and Warranties Agreement between RFC and UBS, dated May 12, 2005 (the “UBS Agreement,” UBS ECF Doc. # 33–1, and together with the Client Guide, the Seller Contract, and the GreenPoint Agreement, the “Agreements”). ( Id.)

The Client Guide includes representations about the quality and characteristics of the loans ( see, e.g., HSBC Compl. ¶¶ 23(f), (h)–(j), (l)), and warrants underwriting compliance with industry standards and applicable law ( see, e.g., id. ¶¶ 23(a), (g)). The Client Guide also provides that each Defendant “will comply with all provisions of th[e] Client Guide ..., and will promptly notify GMAC–RFC of any occurrence, act, or omission regarding [Defendant], the Loan, the Mortgaged Property or the Mortgagor of which [Defendant] has knowledge, which ... may materially affect [Defendant], the Loan, the Mortgaged Property or the Mortgagor.” ( See, e.g., id. ¶ 23(b) (citing Client Guide § A201(M)).) A Defendant's failure to comply with its representations and warranties, or any other terms of the Client Guide, constitutes an “Event of Default.” ( See, e.g., id. ¶ 25 (citing Client Guide § A208).) Upon the occurrence of an Event of Default, the Client...