Law360, Los Angeles (August 29, 2014, 4:41 PM ET) — Bank of America Corp.’s mortgage lending unit reached a deal Thursday to end a lawsuit over an insurer’s $447 million purchase of mortgage-backed securities from Countrywide Financial Corp., according to filings in California federal court.
National Integrity Life Insurance Co., Countrywide and the other parties agreed to end the suit, part of multidistrict litigation alleging the mortgage company ripped off investors by lying about the quality of the loans that were folded into the securities, court records show.
BofA, former Countrywide CEO Angelo Mozilo and other…
The owner of a bankrupt student housing company sued Royal Bank of Scotland Group Plc, saying the lender sold hedging products linked to Libor while trying to rig the interest-rate benchmark.
Stuart Wall, owner of Opal Property Group Ltd., added the Libor allegations to an existing lawsuit, according to documents filed at a London court in June and released this month. It’s at least the third U.K. case where bank clients have sought damages based on benchmark manipulation.
Revelations that traders tried to manipulate benchmark interest rates have led to regulatory fines of more than $6 billion and lawsuits from clients and counterparties who say they lost out. RBS agreed to pay about $600 million to U.S. and U.K. regulators over Libor-rigging charges, and was among six financial institutions fined a record 1.7 billion euros ($2.2 billion) by the European Union in December.
(Reuters) – Bank of America Corp on Thursday asked a federal judge to throw out a jury verdict finding it liable for fraud over defective mortgages sold by its Countrywide unit that resulted in a $1.27 billion penalty.
The bank urged U.S. District Judge Jed Rakoff in Manhattan to rule for it as a matter of law or order a new trial, arguing that the evidence at trial did not support the jury’s October 2013 verdict.
Bank of America said prosecutors were required at trial to prove that loans originated by Countrywide Financial Corp in a process called “Hustle” that were then sold to government mortgage finance giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were not as good as the lender represented.
“The trial evidence, even viewed in the light most favorable to the government, did not prove fraud under this standard,” the bank’s lawyers wrote.
A spokeswoman for Manhattan U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara, whose office brought the case in 2012, declined comment. Bharara’s office is expected to respond Sept. 18.