The D & O Diary : Directors and Officers Liability and Insurance : The D & O Diary : Kevin LaCroix : Securities Laws, Corporate Fraud, D & O Litigation

There are a variety of different ways that the subprime-related litigation might be categorized. For example, the lawsuits might be grouped by type of defendant (as in my prior discussion of lawsuits against the mortgage-backed asset securitzers, here). The lawsuits might also be grouped by type of mortgage-backed asset involved (as in my discussion of lawsuits involving auction rate securities, here). Still another approach might be to look at lawsuits involving certain kinds of mortgages (as in my discussion of Option ARM mortgages, here).

An entirely different way to look at subprime-related litigation might be to follow the developments involving just a single mortgage related financial structure and to trace the litigation in which allegations relating to the structure have been raised. As shown below, just one financial structure has produced significant investor losses and left a spate of litigation in its wake.

The Mantoloking CDO: When the Mantoloking CDO 2006-1 was created in November 2006, it appeared as just one of many collateralized debt obligations (CDOs) listed in the December 4, 2006 Nomura Securities research report (here) describing recent structured finance pricings. As described in the report, the Mantoloking CDO was a $765 million CDO holding asset backed securities (ABS), on which the lead underwriter as Merrill Lynch.

Metro PCS: According to its subsequent court filing, on May 25, 2007, Metro PCS acquired $20 million in auction rate securities “consisting of Class A-2 Senior Priority Floating Notes from the Mantoloking CDO 2006-1, Ltd.” Metro PCS acquired the securities when Merrill Lynch, acting on as the company’s investment advisor, made the investment, as part of what eventually became approximately $134 million of CDO-related auction rate securities in which Merrill invested on the company’s behalf.

In the company’s October 18, 2007 Petition against Merrill Lynch filed in the Dallas County (TX) District Court (here), Metro PCS alleged that Merrill Lynch failed to advise of the company of the intended purchases prior to the acquisition of the Mantoloking securities. The company also alleges that the securities themselves were not authorized under the company’s investment guidelines. The company also alleged that Merrill Lynch had undisclosed conflicts of interest, in that it not only underwrote the initial CDO issuance, but continued to act as the sole dealer for the CDO. The company further alleges that Merrill Lynch itself had significant investments in the CDO and therefore had a vested interest in trying to maintain a market for the CDO’s securities, as a way to protect its investment.

In its February 27, 2008 financial release (here), Metro PCS disclosed that as a result of the latest round of write-downs, it was as of December 31, 2007 carrying the auction rate CDO securities investments for which it paid $134 million at a balance sheet valuation of only $36 million.

The Bear Stearns Hedge Funds: Investors in the Mantoloking CDO apparently also included the two now-bankrupt Bear Stearns hedge funds that are the center of so much controversy (and litigation). The October 22, 2007 Business Week cover article about the hedge fund’s collapse (here) reports that as the hedge funds’ condition and results deteriorated, the hedge funds’ managers “sought out increasingly esoteric bonds and other lightly traded securities that offered higher yields.” As a result, the hedge funds “were big buyers of so-called CDOs-squared – CDOs that invest in other CDOs.” The article reports specifically that “the funds at one time held $135 million of securities issued by the Mantoloking CDO, a CDO-squared.”

On December 19, 2007, when the hedge funds’ largest equity investor, Barclays Bank, sued Bear Stearns Asset Management and the two hedge funds’ individual managers (complaint here), Barclays alleged, among other things, that the hedge funds’ managers had caused the hedge funds “to become a dumping ground for especially risky assets, including numerous CDO-squared securities and other toxic assets.”

MIND C.T.I. Ltd.: The effects of the Mantoloking CDO spread far and wide, its reach including Israel-based communication services provider MIND C.T.I. Ltd.. In its February 27, 2008 filing on Form 6-K (here), MIND reported among other things that the company has as much as $20.3 million invested in asset-backed auction rate securities, on which the company had been unable to obtain third-party valuations, and for which the company may be taking asset-impairment charges in its forthcoming audited financial statements. The company noted that “the complexity of the valuation is derived from the fact that this security is collateralized by 126 structured finance transactions.”

The company’s 6-K also reports that on February 20, 2008, the company had filed a Statement of Claim with the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) and commenced an arbitration “against the international bank and certain employees thereof that invested …funds on behalf of the company.” According to the 6-K, the claim alleges, among other things, that:

the bank was supposed to invest the funds in highly liquid, highly safe, 28-day auction-rate securities, but -- without the Company's authorization -- invested the funds in collateralized debt obligations (CDOs). In particular, the claim alleges that the bank invested the funds in a security called "Mantoloking CDO" without telling the Company that this was a CDO investment until after the purchase had already occurred. The claim also describes how, after the fact, the bank advised that the security, which has a stated maturity date in the year 2046, had been rolled "due to failed auction."

According to the 6-K, the FINRA claim includes causes of action for fraud, violation of NASD rules (in particular NASD rules relating to suitability), violation of Section 10 of the ’34 Act, misrepresentation, and breach of fiduciary duty. The 6-K reports that the claim seeks “damages and other relief from all the respondents, including return of all funds plus compensatory and punitive damages.” The 6-K does not identify the “international bank” named in the FINRA arbitration claim.

While the Mantoloking CDO seems to have generated considerable pain for its investors, the CDO was just one of many hundreds of CDOs launched into the marketplace in the last several years. Some of the investors in these other CDOs undoubtedly have experienced some of the same kind of pain the Mantoloking CDO investors have felt, and there likely will be more pain to come. If the sequence of events surrounding the Mantoloking CDO is any indication, the investors in other CDOs can also be expected to pursue litigation to redress their grievances. Just looking at how much litigation the Mantoloking CDO alone has spawned or contributed to, it certainly appears that a formidable amount of CDO-related litigation activity could be involved.

A prior post in which I discuss CDOs squared in much greater length, including the increased risk associated with CDOs squared, can be found here.

Very special thanks to Uri Ronnen of AccountingClues for the links above regarding the Mantoloking CDO.

More UBS Lawsuits: According to news reports (here), on March 5, 2008, Pursuit Partners, a Connecticut-based hedge fund, has initiated a Connecticut state court lawsuit against UBS alleging that the hedge fund made CDO investments last year based on “fraudulent concealment of material information.” The suit alleges that UBS had been in talks with Moody’s and as a result knew that changes in the rating agency’s rating methodology were imminent, yet UBS continued to market the CDOs as if the change would not occur.

The hedge fund contends that when the new rating methodology was announced on October 10, 2007, the $50 million in CDO securities in which the hedge fund has invested were “reduced to junk status,” which triggered a default clause in the underlying derivatives contract, and the hedge fund lost its entire investment. The hedge fund says that “UBS took both sides of a derivatives contract, allowing it to liquidate the CDOs without sustaining a loss of its own.”

The hedge fund’s allegations are similar to the allegations raised against UBS by HSH Nordbank (about which I previously wrote, here), in which HSH Nordbank claimed that UBS had structured a CDO-related transaction so that UBS could profit to the investor’s detriment. HSH Nordbank also claims that UBS’s Dillon Read unit had stuffed the CDO with troubled loans as a way to reduce its own losses.

In addition to the Pursuit Parnters and HSH Nordbank lawsuits, UBS has also been sued by a physician who claims that UBS sold him auction rate securities from a closed end mutual fund, Eaton Vance Limited Duration Funds. According to the March 9, 2008 New York Times article entitled "As Good as Cash Until It's Not" (here), UBS put all of the doctor's charitable foundation's $1.35 million cash in auction rate securities.  The doctor claims that the foundation now can no longer "help prevent AIDS in Africa or provide indigent people with laser vision correction ."

You certainly do start to get the impression that there are a lot of angry investors out there.

Subprime-Related Derivative Complaint: As I documented elsewhere (here), shareholders’ derivative lawsuits were a significant part of the options backdating-related litigation. By contrast, there have been relatively few shareholders’ derivative lawsuits filed in connection with the subprime meltdown. Perhaps the most notable subprime-related derivative lawsuit so far is the action filed last year against AIG, as nominal defendant, and certain of its directors and officers (about which refer here).

On March 4, 2008, an investment fund manager filed a shareholders’ derivative lawsuit in Delaware Chancery Court against Bank of America, as nominal defendant, and certain of its directors and officers. The complaint (here) relates to the company’s January 22, 2008 announcement (here) that it would take a fourth-quarter 2007 write-down of $5.44 billion due to the devaluation of the company’s mortgage-backed securities, primarily CDOs.

The complaint alleges that the company underwrote and invested in CDOs but failed to inform investors of the associated risks, and failed to set aside adequate reserves for possible losses. The complaint also alleges that the company issued misleading disclosures about its exposure to subprime-related losses. The complaint further alleges that the company soft-pedaled its exposure to subprime mortgages.

The complaint alleges that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties, engaged in reckless and gross mismanagement, and wasted corporate assets.

It is not entirely clear why this lawsuit was brought as a derivative lawsuit rather than as a direct claim for damages. As a derivative claim, the lawsuit will be subject to certain defenses, including in particular the demand requirement.

Hat tip to the Courthouse News Service (here) for the copy of the complaint.

Now This: In addition to being the name of a CDO, Mantoloking is also the name of an oceanfront community in New Jersey, population 423 (2000 Census).  According to Wikipedia (here), Mantoloking is "the wealthiest community in the state of New Jersey," and its past residents included Katherine Hepburn and Richard Nixon. The current surfing conditions at Mantoloking can be viewed here.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Synthetic CDOs-squared offer investors higher spreads than single-layer CDOs but also may present additional risks. These two-layer structures somewhat increase exposures to certain risks by creating performance "cliffs." That is, seemingly small changes in the performance of underlying reference credits can cause larger changes in the performance of a CDO-squared.

Of particular interest to bond insurers (and investors in a bond insurer that happens to insure CDOs squared) is that CDOs squared "display particular sensitivity" to "frequency of defaults." Based on a very detailed analysis, the Nomura article concludes that "higher default rates affect a CDO-squared tranche much more dramatically than the underlying CDO tranche." The report goes on to state, among other things that, that "for example, the probability of a [CDO squared] tranche wipeout goes from 0.6% to 41.2% as the [CDO tranche] default rate goes from 1.0% to 1.5%."

Snakes and Ladders: The Nomura article's discussion of the risks involved with CDOs squared brings to mind Warren Buffett's frequent diatribes against derivative securities. For example, in his letter to shareholders in the 2002 Berkshire Hathaway Annual Report (here), Buffett referred to derivatives as "time bombs" and as "financial weapons of mass destruction, carrying dangers that, while now latent, are potentially lethal." (Full disclosure: I own Class B Berkshire shares, although not nearly as many as I wish I did.)

I have struggled over the years to understand the vehemence of Buffett's condemnation of derivatives, but I gained fresh insight recently when I read Roger Lowenstein's excellent book When Genius Failed, which recounts the formation, growth and dramatic collapse of Long-Term Capital Management. The events described in the book took place a decade ago, but many of the same events, circumstances, complications, and even many of the same people, were involved then as are involved in the current subprime meltdown.

LTCM's story is far more complicated than can easily be recounted here, but the most critical facts are that at the beginning of 1998, the firm had equity of $4.72 billion, but as a result of leverage, carried balance sheet assets of around $129 billion. Even more astonishing were the firm's off-balance sheet derivative positions, which had a notional value of $1.25 trillion. Adverse global financial circumstances in August and September 1998 put LTCM on the wrong side of a huge number of arbitrage bets, and put the firm in a position where it had to liquidate positions, only to find that there were no willing buyers. Lack of liquidity and the firm's highly leveraged position not only threatened the firm with failure, but, owing to LTCM's massive indebtedness, threatened a constellation of financial institutions with enormous losses. The Federal Reserve became concerned that the ensuing fallout could cause panic and damage the financial markets.

The scramble to protect the financial markets from an LTCM meltdown involved a veritable who's who of the financial world, including the redoubtable Mr. Buffett. Reading about Buffett's role in the LTCM crisis gave me some insight into his loathing of derivative securities.

First, the book makes it clear that in connection with Berkshire's then-pending acquisition of General Reinsurance Corporation (which ultimately closed in December 1998), Buffett was worried about Gen Re's involvement in certain LTCM investments on which Gen Re had counterparty exposure or for which Gen Re had provided financing. (Full disclosure: At the time, I was an employee of a Gen Re operating subsidiary.)

In addition, Buffett was also deeply involved in a Goldman Sachs-led proposed buyout of LTCM, that would have given the acquirers control of LTCM's assets for $250 million, a small fraction of the assets' putative (and as events turned out, ultimate) value. The potential buyout did not come off, in part because of Buffett's inaccessibility at critical moments while he was vacationing in the Pacific Northwest with Bill Gates.

As a result of these events, Buffett apparently had a window into LTCM's portfolio and apparently came away with an unfavorable view of derivative securities. Indeed, Buffett specifically references LTCM's near meltdown and disparages some of LTCM's derivative investments ( particularly "total return swaps") in the 2002 Berkshire shareholders letter linked above.

As an aside, it is worth noting that Buffett is only one of a host of people now prominent in the subprime crisis who played one role or another in the LTCM bailout. For example, John Thain, recently given the assignment of turning around Merrill Lynch, was deeply involved in the LTCM bailout efforts as CFO of Goldman Sachs. Jon Corzine, now the democratic governor of New Jersey, was also involved in many of the discussions. James Cayne, who just this past week resigned as head of Bear Stearns as a result of that company's subprime woes, played a significant although not particularly constructive role in the LTCM bailout as well.

Although Lowenstein's book refers to events from ten years ago, it rewards reading now, because it shows how some of the same recurring behaviors drive occasional excesses and trigger periodic crises in the financial markets. Indeed, the recurrence of many of the same circumstances and names today gives the impression that the global financial marketplace represents nothing more than an elaborate game of Snakes and Ladders, where the same money, investments and people slide around in certain prescribed paths and wind up ahead or behind as the game unfolds.

There is also a certain symmetry between the events surrounding LTCM's near-demise and the current subprime crisis; once again, for example, Buffett is cast in the role of potential rescuer, in particular now with respect to bond insurers (about which refer here). But the more important connection between the two sets of circumstances is the role of complicated derivative securities in contributing to the respective crises. Indeed, given the role that these immensely complicated derivative securities, such as CDOs squared , are playing in the current subprime crisis, Buffett's comments in the 2002 shareholders letter about the dangers of derivative securities may be required reading for anyone who wants to understand what is going on today.

 

A Reflection on Winter in the Suburbs: Am I the only one who thinks the very idea of "decorative cabbages" is ridiculous?

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link