{"id":5942,"date":"2016-03-26T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2016-03-26T05:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/institutionalinvestorsecuritiesblog.blawgcloud.com\/2016\/03\/mortgage_securities_news_credi"},"modified":"2022-05-17T14:22:54","modified_gmt":"2022-05-17T19:22:54","slug":"mortgage-securities-news-credi","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/mortgage-securities-news-credi\/","title":{"rendered":"Mortgage Securities News: Supreme Court Rejects Banks’ FDIC Case, Credit Suisse to Pay NCUA $29M in MBS Case Involving Credit Unions, & Former Fannie Mae CEO Must Contend With SEC Fraud Claims"},"content":{"rendered":"

US Supreme Court Turns Down Banks\u2019 Bid that It Examine FDIC Case<\/strong>
\nThe U.S. Supreme Court has decided not to review the 2015 ruling made by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals that revived the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation\u2019s (FDIC) securities case accusing Goldman Sachs (GS), Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS), and Deutsche Bank (DB) of misrepresenting the quality of securities it sold to Guaranty Bank, which later failed. The FDIC took the Texas bank into receivership in 2009 and sued the banks in 2014.<\/p>\n

A judge in Austin, Tx. dismissed the case, citing a state law requiring that lawsuits be brought within five years of a mortgage-backed security\u2019s sale. The complaint had been filed at least 9 years after the MBSs were sold.<\/p>\n

Last August, the Fifth Circuit cited a 1989 federal law and revived the case. The appeals court said that the FDIC is allowed an extended time period to file complaints for institutions that it insures and have gone into receivership. Circuit Judge Carolyn Dineen King wrote that it was this federal law that made it possible for the FDIC to concentrate on dealing with bank failures rather than worrying about possible statutes and their limitations.<\/p>\n

RBS, Goldman, and Deutsche then filed their petitioned with the U.S. Supreme Court. The banks pointed to a past holding by the highest court that barred other courts from preempting state law unless the U.S. Congress has made such a preemption clear.<\/p>\n

Credit Suisse Resolves MBS Case for $29M<\/strong>
\nCredit Suisse (CS) must pay $29M to settle the National Credit Union Administration\u2019s claim that it sold bad mortgage-backed-securities to credit unions. NCUA\u2019s lawsuit revolves around MBSs that UBS (UBS) underwrote and sold to Members United Corporate Federal Credit Union and the Southwest Corporate Federal Credit Union for over $228M from \u201906 to \u201907. Both credit unions have since failed.<\/p>\n

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

US Supreme Court Turns Down Banks\u2019 Bid that It Examine FDIC Case The U.S. Supreme Court has decided not to review the 2015 ruling made by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals that revived the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation\u2019s (FDIC) securities case accusing Goldman Sachs (GS), Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS), and Deutsche Bank (DB) […]<\/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":[3817,3818,3752,3947,3757,4036,3755],"tags":[3600],"class_list":["post-5942","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-credit-suisse","category-deutsche-bank","category-financial-firms","category-goldman-sachs","category-mortgagebacked-securities","category-royal-bank-of-scotland","category-ubs","tag-collateralized-debt-securities"],"yoast_head":"\nMortgage Securities News: Supreme Court Rejects Banks' FDIC Case, Credit Suisse to Pay NCUA $29M in MBS Case Involving Credit Unions, & Former Fannie Mae CEO Must Contend With SEC Fraud Claims — Investor Lawyers Blog — March 26, 2016<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"US Supreme Court Turns Down Banks\u2019 Bid that It Examine FDIC Case The U.S. Supreme Court has decided not to review the 2015 ruling made by the Fifth — March 26, 2016\" \/>\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\/mortgage-securities-news-credi\/\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:title\" content=\"Mortgage Securities News: Supreme Court Rejects Banks' FDIC Case, Credit Suisse to Pay NCUA $29M in MBS Case Involving Credit Unions, & Former Fannie Mae CEO Must Contend With SEC Fraud Claims — Investor Lawyers Blog — March 26, 2016\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:description\" content=\"US Supreme Court Turns Down Banks\u2019 Bid that It Examine FDIC Case The U.S. Supreme Court has decided not to review the 2015 ruling made by the Fifth — March 26, 2016\" \/>\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=\"3 minutes\" \/>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Mortgage Securities News: Supreme Court Rejects Banks' FDIC Case, Credit Suisse to Pay NCUA $29M in MBS Case Involving Credit Unions, & Former Fannie Mae CEO Must Contend With SEC Fraud Claims — Investor Lawyers Blog — March 26, 2016","description":"US Supreme Court Turns Down Banks\u2019 Bid that It Examine FDIC Case The U.S. Supreme Court has decided not to review the 2015 ruling made by the Fifth — March 26, 2016","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\/mortgage-securities-news-credi\/","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_title":"Mortgage Securities News: Supreme Court Rejects Banks' FDIC Case, Credit Suisse to Pay NCUA $29M in MBS Case Involving Credit Unions, & Former Fannie Mae CEO Must Contend With SEC Fraud Claims — Investor Lawyers Blog — March 26, 2016","twitter_description":"US Supreme Court Turns Down Banks\u2019 Bid that It Examine FDIC Case The U.S. Supreme Court has decided not to review the 2015 ruling made by the Fifth — March 26, 2016","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP","Est. reading time":"3 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/mortgage-securities-news-credi\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/mortgage-securities-news-credi\/"},"author":{"name":"Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP","@id":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/e0240e0754684b69f7d6a7de1b9f1431"},"headline":"Mortgage Securities News: Supreme Court Rejects Banks’ FDIC Case, Credit Suisse to Pay NCUA $29M in MBS Case Involving Credit Unions, & Former Fannie Mae CEO Must Contend With SEC Fraud Claims","datePublished":"2016-03-26T05:00:00+00:00","dateModified":"2022-05-17T19:22:54+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/mortgage-securities-news-credi\/"},"wordCount":666,"keywords":["collateralized debt securities"],"articleSection":["Credit Suisse","Deutsche Bank","Financial Firms","Goldman Sachs","Mortgage-Backed Securities","Royal Bank of Scotland","UBS"],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/mortgage-securities-news-credi\/","url":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/mortgage-securities-news-credi\/","name":"Mortgage Securities News: Supreme Court Rejects Banks' FDIC Case, Credit Suisse to Pay NCUA $29M in MBS Case Involving Credit Unions, & Former Fannie Mae CEO Must Contend With SEC Fraud Claims — Investor Lawyers Blog — March 26, 2016","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/#website"},"datePublished":"2016-03-26T05:00:00+00:00","dateModified":"2022-05-17T19:22:54+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/e0240e0754684b69f7d6a7de1b9f1431"},"description":"US Supreme Court Turns Down Banks\u2019 Bid that It Examine FDIC Case The U.S. Supreme Court has decided not to review the 2015 ruling made by the Fifth — March 26, 2016","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/mortgage-securities-news-credi\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/mortgage-securities-news-credi\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/mortgage-securities-news-credi\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Mortgage Securities News: Supreme Court Rejects Banks’ FDIC Case, Credit Suisse to Pay NCUA $29M in MBS Case Involving Credit Unions, & Former Fannie Mae CEO Must Contend With SEC Fraud Claims"}]},{"@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-1xQ","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5942","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=5942"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5942\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":27861,"href":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5942\/revisions\/27861"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5942"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=5942"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=5942"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}