Kann mich ja irren, aber der CEO hatte das mal gesagt.
Es geht hier gerade darum, dass das Gericht ein Irrtum in seiner Entscheidung gefällt hatte und AMBAC dagegen am 6.6. argumentiert hatte. Wenn AMBAC recht bekommt, dann darf Countrywide bei Vertragsbrüchen von bis zu $ 25 Milliarden gerade stehen.
Hier der öffentliche TEXT vom Gericht:
To be argued Wednesday, June 6, 2018 No. 79 Ambac Assurance Corporation v Countrywide Home Loans, Inc.
From 2004 to 2006, Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. sponsored 17 residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS) transactions by pooling more than 375,000 residential mortgage loans, with a total principal balance of about $25 billion, and then selling the securities to investors. Countrywide obtained unconditional and irrevocable insurance policies for the transactions from Ambac Assurance Corporation, after providing the insurer with representations and warranties about the quality of the underlying mortgage loans and about its own business practices. Ambac's policies guaranteed payment of principal and interest owed to the investors, in the event borrowers of the underlying loans missed payments. If there were a breach of the representations and warranties that "materially and adversely affects the interests of" Ambac, the insurance and indemnity agreements required Countrywide to repurchase or substitute non-conforming mortgage loans. When a severe recession struck in 2007 and 2008, the RMBSs performed poorly as the underlying borrowers began to default, and Ambac was required to pay claims from a growing number of investors. In 2010, Ambac filed this suit to recover its claim payments from Countrywide, alleging that Countrywide breached its contractual representations and warranties and that it fraudulently induced Ambac to issue the insurance policies by making false statements about the quality of the underlying loans and Countrywide's operations. Supreme Court ruled Ambac was not required to show that it justifiably relied on Countrywide's warranties or that its losses were caused by breaches of those warranties in order to establish its fraudulent inducement claim. In insurance cases, it said, Insurance Law § 3105 does not require such proof. It said Ambac could not recover for all claims paid under its policy, but only losses it could attribute to nonconforming loans. The court said the repurchase provision in one section of the insurance agreements was Ambac's sole remedy only for breaches of warranties in that section, but did not limit its remedies for breaches of other sections to the repurchase of non-conforming loans. It dismissed Ambac's claim for attorneys' fees, saying the parties did not make "unmistakably clear" they intended to permit such recovery. The Appellate Division, First Department modified, saying Ambac must show both that it justifiably relied on the warranties and that its losses were a direct result of their breach. Justifiable reliance and loss causation are "essential" elements of any fraud claim, it said. Insurance Law § 3105 does not apply here and, in any case, it "contains no language suggesting that the legislature intended to relax the well-settled elements of a common-law fraud cause of action." It agreed with the lower court that Ambac was not entitled to recover all of its payments on claims, which would amount to "rescissory damages.... Ruling otherwise would inequitably allow Ambac to recoup the money it paid out for loans that complied with all warranties..., but which resulted in default due to the housing market collapse or other risks Ambac insured against." However, it said the lower court erred on the issue of remedies because, under the "plain language" of the agreements, Ambac's "sole remedy" for any breach is Countrywide's obligation to repurchase non-conforming loans. It affirmed the denial of attorneys' fees.
For appellant Ambac: Philippe Z. Selendy, Manhattan (212) 849-7000 For respondent Countrywide: Joseph M. McLaughlin, Manhattan (212) 455-2000
http://www.nycourts.gov/ctapps/summaries/Daily/2018/June6.pdf |
