{"id":5602,"date":"2014-05-15T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2014-05-15T05:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/institutionalinvestorsecuritiesblog.blawgcloud.com\/2014\/05\/prudentials_rmbs_lawsuit_again"},"modified":"2021-11-12T13:09:06","modified_gmt":"2021-11-12T19:09:06","slug":"prudentials-rmbs-lawsuit-again","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/prudentials-rmbs-lawsuit-again\/","title":{"rendered":"Prudential\u2019s RMBS Lawsuit Against Bank of America Survives Motion to Dismiss"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Prudential Insurance Co.\u2019s (PRU) residential mortgage-backed securities lawsuit <\/a>against Bank of America (BAC)<\/a> made it through a motion to dismiss with most of the claims made intact. The insurance company is accusing BofA of selling it $2 billion in bogus RMBS.<\/p>\n

Prudential contends that based on its own analysis of close to 21,000 of the mortgage loans backing the RMBS certificates, they don\u2019t see a match up with the representations that the bank and Merrill Lynch made about the certificates. Several subsidiaries are also making similar claims against BofA and its Merrill Lynch entities.<\/p>\n

Prudential says that Merrill and Lynch and Bank of America abided by underwriting guidelines that established the rules to determine whether to securitize or grant a particular loan. However, the insurer says that while the other two said they would only exempt loans with compensating factors, they granted loan exceptions repeatedly even when these factors didn\u2019t exist. In its securities fraud case, Prudential contends that if exceptions were given when compensating factors were lacking, then that the quality of the collateral behind the certificates was badly compromised.<\/p>\n

Continue Reading \u203a<\/a><\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Prudential Insurance Co.\u2019s (PRU) residential mortgage-backed securities lawsuit against Bank of America (BAC) made it through a motion to dismiss with most of the claims made intact. The insurance company is accusing BofA of selling it $2 billion in bogus RMBS. Prudential contends that based on its own analysis of close to 21,000 of the […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3757],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-5602","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-mortgagebacked-securities"],"yoast_head":"\nPrudential\u2019s RMBS Lawsuit Against Bank of America Survives Motion to Dismiss — Investor Lawyers Blog — May 15, 2014<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Prudential Insurance Co.\u2019s (PRU) residential mortgage-backed securities lawsuit against Bank of America (BAC) made it through a motion to dismiss with — May 15, 2014\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/prudentials-rmbs-lawsuit-again\/\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:title\" content=\"Prudential\u2019s RMBS Lawsuit Against Bank of America Survives Motion to Dismiss — Investor Lawyers Blog — May 15, 2014\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:description\" content=\"Prudential Insurance Co.\u2019s (PRU) residential mortgage-backed securities lawsuit against Bank of America (BAC) made it through a motion to dismiss with — May 15, 2014\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"2 minutes\" \/>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Prudential\u2019s RMBS Lawsuit Against Bank of America Survives Motion to Dismiss — Investor Lawyers Blog — May 15, 2014","description":"Prudential Insurance Co.\u2019s (PRU) residential mortgage-backed securities lawsuit against Bank of America (BAC) made it through a motion to dismiss with — May 15, 2014","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/prudentials-rmbs-lawsuit-again\/","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_title":"Prudential\u2019s RMBS Lawsuit Against Bank of America Survives Motion to Dismiss — Investor Lawyers Blog — May 15, 2014","twitter_description":"Prudential Insurance Co.\u2019s (PRU) residential mortgage-backed securities lawsuit against Bank of America (BAC) made it through a motion to dismiss with — May 15, 2014","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP","Est. reading time":"2 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/prudentials-rmbs-lawsuit-again\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/prudentials-rmbs-lawsuit-again\/"},"author":{"name":"Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP","@id":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/e0240e0754684b69f7d6a7de1b9f1431"},"headline":"Prudential\u2019s RMBS Lawsuit Against Bank of America Survives Motion to Dismiss","datePublished":"2014-05-15T05:00:00+00:00","dateModified":"2021-11-12T19:09:06+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/prudentials-rmbs-lawsuit-again\/"},"wordCount":430,"articleSection":["Mortgage-Backed Securities"],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/prudentials-rmbs-lawsuit-again\/","url":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/prudentials-rmbs-lawsuit-again\/","name":"Prudential\u2019s RMBS Lawsuit Against Bank of America Survives Motion to Dismiss — Investor Lawyers Blog — May 15, 2014","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/#website"},"datePublished":"2014-05-15T05:00:00+00:00","dateModified":"2021-11-12T19:09:06+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/e0240e0754684b69f7d6a7de1b9f1431"},"description":"Prudential Insurance Co.\u2019s (PRU) residential mortgage-backed securities lawsuit against Bank of America (BAC) made it through a motion to dismiss with — May 15, 2014","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/prudentials-rmbs-lawsuit-again\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/prudentials-rmbs-lawsuit-again\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/prudentials-rmbs-lawsuit-again\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Prudential\u2019s RMBS Lawsuit Against Bank of America Survives Motion to Dismiss"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/","name":"Investor Lawyers Blog","description":"Published By Investment Fraud Attorneys \u2014 Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/e0240e0754684b69f7d6a7de1b9f1431","name":"Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/c7f8f04990816cd4044977eb59908da8c8d1ae487cc919cebd7027b74a0740a3?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/c7f8f04990816cd4044977eb59908da8c8d1ae487cc919cebd7027b74a0740a3?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/c7f8f04990816cd4044977eb59908da8c8d1ae487cc919cebd7027b74a0740a3?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/"]}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/pedX9K-1sm","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5602","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=5602"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5602\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":20956,"href":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5602\/revisions\/20956"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5602"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=5602"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=5602"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}