On July 23, 2008, the City of Los Angeles filed a separate complaint in the Superior Court, County of Los Angeles, naming as defendants MBIA and other financial institutions, and alleging fraud and violations of California’s antitrust laws through bid-rigging in the sale of guaranteed investment contracts and what plaintiffs call “municipal derivatives” to municipal bond issuers. The case was removed to federal court and transferred by order dated November 26, 2008, to the Southern District of New York for inclusion in the multidistrict litigation In re Municipal Derivatives Antitrust Litigation, M.D.L. No. 1950. Complaints making the same allegations against MBIA and nearly all of the same co-defendants were then, or subsequently, filed by the County of San Diego, the City of Stockton, the County of San Mateo, the County of Contra Costa, Los Angeles World Airports, the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Stockton, the Public Financing Authority of the City of Stockton, the County of Tulare, the Sacramento Suburban Water District, Sacramento Municipal Utility District, the City of Riverside, the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Riverside, the Public Financing Authority of the City of Riverside, Redwood City, the East Bay Municipal Utility District, the Redevelopment Agency of the City and County of San Francisco, the City of Richmond, the City of San Jose, the San Jose Redevelopment Agency, the State of West Virginia, Los Angeles Unified School District and three not-for-profit retirement community operators, Active Retirement Community, Inc. d/b/a Jefferson’s Ferry, Kendal on Hudson, Inc. and Paconic Landing at Southhold Inc. These cases have all been added to the multidistrict litigation. Plaintiffs in all of the cases assert federal and either California or New York state antitrust claims. As of May 31, 2011, MBIA has answered all of the existing complaints.
On March 12, 2010, the City of Phoenix, Arizona filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona against MBIA Corp., Ambac Assurance Corp. and Financial Guaranty Insurance Company relating to insurance premiums charged on municipal bonds issued by the City of Phoenix between 2004 and 2007. Plaintiff’s complaint alleges pricing discrimination under Arizona insurance law and unjust enrichment. MBIA Corp. filed its answer on May 28, 2010.
On April 5, 2010, Tri-City Healthcare District, a California public healthcare legislative district, filed a complaint in the Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco, against MBIA, MBIA Corp., National, certain MBIA employees (collectively for this paragraph, “MBIA”) and various financial institutions and law firms. Tri-City subsequently filed three amended complaints. The Third Amended Complaint, filed on January 26, 2011, purports to state 10 causes of action against MBIA for, among other things, fraud, negligent misrepresentation, breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing and violation of the California False Claims Act arising from Tri-City Healthcare District’s investment in auction rate securities. On June 13, 2011, Tri-City Healthcare District filed its Fourth Amended Complaint against MBIA Inc., MBIA Corp. and National, which purports to state seven causes of action against MBIA for fraud in the inducement, concealment, negligent misrepresentation, negligence, breach of contract, duress, and breach of the covenant of good faith arising from Tri-City Healthcare District’s investment in auction rate securities. On September 8, 2011, the court granted in part and denied in part MBIA’s demurrer to Tri-City’s Fourth Amended Complaint. On October 4, 2011, MBIA filed its answer to the remaining causes of action.
The Company cannot predict the impact, if any, that any of the matters concerning Corporate Litigation, described above, may have a material adverse effect on the Company’s ability to implement its strategy and on its business, results of operations, cash flows, and financial condition. At this stage of the litigation, there has not been a determination as to the amount, if any, of damages. Accordingly, the Company is not able to estimate any amount of loss or range of loss.
On September 30, 2008, MBIA Corp. commenced an action in New York State Supreme Court, New York County, against Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., Countrywide Securities Corp. and Countrywide Financial Corp. (collectively, “Countrywide”). An amended complaint, adding Bank of America as successor to Countrywide’s liabilities, and Countrywide Home Loans Servicing LP as defendants was filed on August 24, 2009. The amended complaint alleges that Countrywide fraudulently induced MBIA to provide financial guarantee insurance on securitizations of HELOCs and closed-end second-liens by misrepresenting the true risk profile of the underlying collateral and Countrywide’s adherence to its strict underwriting standards and guidelines. The complaint also alleges that Countrywide breached its representations and warranties and its contractual obligations, including its obligation to cure or repurchase ineligible loans as well as its obligation to service the loans in accordance with industry standards. On April 29, 2010, the court denied Bank of America’s motion to dismiss and allowed MBIA Corp.’s claims for successor and vicarious liability to proceed. On December 22, 2010, the court granted MBIA Corp.’s motion in limine allowing it to offer evidence relating to statistically valid random samples of loans from each of the Countrywide securitizations in support of its contract and fraud cases of action for purposes of determining liability and damages. On June 30, 2011, the Appellate Division of the New York State Supreme Court unanimously affirmed the lower court’s denial of Countrywide’s motion to dismiss MBIA Corp.’s fraud claim. On October 31, 2011, the court denied Bank of America’s motion to consolidate and/or sever the successor liability claims (allowing deposition and expert discovery on the successor liability claim to proceed but reserving decision on whether to sever and consolidate the successor liability claim). Bank of America has appealed this ruling. On January 3, 2012, the court granted in part and denied in part MBIA Corp.’s motion for partial summary judgment regarding proof of causation, holding that MBIA is not required to establish a direct causal link between Countrywide’s misrepresentations and MBIA’s claims payments made pursuant to the insurance policies at issue, but reserving judgment on the causation burden for the contractual repurchase claims. On January 25, 2012, Bank of America filed a Notice of Appeal against the January 3 order, and MBIA filed a Notice of Cross-Appeal on February 6, 2012.
On July 10, 2009, MBIA Corp. commenced an action in Los Angeles Superior Court against Bank of America Corporation, Countrywide Financial Corporation, Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., Countrywide Securities Corporation, Angelo Mozilo, David Sambol, Eric Sieracki, Ranjit Kripalani, Jennifer Sandefur, Stanford Kurland, Greenwich Capital Markets, Inc., HSBC Securities (USA) Inc., UBS Securities, LLC, and various Countrywide-affiliated Trusts. The complaint alleges that Countrywide made numerous misrepresentations and omissions of material fact in connection with its sale of certain RMBS, including that the underlying collateral consisting of mortgage loans had been originated in strict compliance with its underwriting standards and guidelines. MBIA commenced this action as subrogee of the purchasers of the RMBS, who incurred severe losses that have been passed on to MBIA as the insurer of the income streams on these securities. On June 21, 2010, MBIA Corp. filed its second amended complaint. The court has allowed limited discovery to proceed while otherwise staying the case pending further developments in the New York Countrywide action described in the prior paragraph.
On October 15, 2008, MBIA Corp. commenced an action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against Residential Funding Company, LLC (“RFC”). On December 5, 2008, a notice of voluntary dismissal without prejudice was filed in the Southern District of New York and the complaint was re-filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County. The complaint alleges that RFC fraudulently induced MBIA Corp. to provide financial guarantee policies with respect to five RFC closed-end home equity second-lien and HELOC securitizations, and that RFC breached its contractual representations and warranties, as well as its obligation to repurchase ineligible loans, among other claims. On December 23, 2009, the court denied in part RFC’s motion to dismiss MBIA’s complaint with respect to MBIA’s fraud claims. On March 19, 2010, MBIA Corp. filed its amended complaint. On May 14, 2010, RFC filed a motion to dismiss only the renewed negligent misrepresentation claim, which was granted on November 8, 2010. On December 7, 2010, RFC filed its answer to the remaining claims in MBIA Corp.’s amended complaint.