{"id":6149,"date":"2017-05-16T15:50:33","date_gmt":"2017-05-16T20:50:33","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.institutionalinvestorsecuritiesblog.com\/?p=1572"},"modified":"2022-05-17T14:17:11","modified_gmt":"2022-05-17T19:17:11","slug":"court-upholds-ambac-assurance-higher-burden-proof-mrbs-fraud-case-countrywide","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/court-upholds-ambac-assurance-higher-burden-proof-mrbs-fraud-case-countrywide\/","title":{"rendered":"Court Upholds Ambac Assurance to Higher Burden of Proof in MRBS Fraud Case Against Countrywide"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>In Manhattan appeals court, a panel for the Appellate Division, First Department ruled that Ambac Assurance Corp. must prove all common law fraud elements in its mortgage-backed securities case against Countrywide Home Loans. The insurer, which underwrote 17 residential mortgage-backed securitizations, filed its RMBS fraud lawsuit against<a href=\"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/bank-of-america-background-information.html\"> Bank of America\u2019s (BAC) <\/a>Countrywide in 2010.<\/p>\n<p>Bank of America purchased Countrywide in 2008. That same year, the bank settled civil fraud charges related to questionable mortgage practices from before the 2008 financial crisis by agreeing to pay $16.65B to state and federal authorities.<\/p>\n<p>According to the RMBS fraud case, Ambac put out insurance policies that were irrevocable and without conditions when it guaranteed a number of principal payments plus interest to investors that backed Countrywide RMBSs. The financial guaranty insurer is now accusing Countrywide of breaking warranties and contractual representations involving securitizations and its business practices, as well as of putting out false statements about its loans and operations and, as a result, fraudulently compelling Ambac to issue certain policies.<\/p>\n<p> <a href=\"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/court-upholds-ambac-assurance-higher-burden-proof-mrbs-fraud-case-countrywide\/#more-6149\" class=\"more-link\">Continue Reading \u203a<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>In Manhattan appeals court, a panel for the Appellate Division, First Department ruled that Ambac Assurance Corp. must prove all common law fraud elements in its mortgage-backed securities case against Countrywide Home Loans. The insurer, which underwrote 17 residential mortgage-backed securitizations, filed its RMBS fraud lawsuit against Bank of America\u2019s (BAC) Countrywide in 2010. Bank [&hellip;]<\/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":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-6149","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.4 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Court Upholds Ambac Assurance to Higher Burden of Proof in MRBS Fraud Case Against Countrywide &#8212; Investor Lawyers Blog &#8212; May 16, 2017<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"In Manhattan appeals court, a panel for the Appellate Division, First Department ruled that Ambac Assurance Corp. must prove all common law fraud elements &#8212; May 16, 2017\" \/>\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\/court-upholds-ambac-assurance-higher-burden-proof-mrbs-fraud-case-countrywide\/\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:title\" content=\"Court Upholds Ambac Assurance to Higher Burden of Proof in MRBS Fraud Case Against Countrywide &#8212; Investor Lawyers Blog &#8212; May 16, 2017\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:description\" content=\"In Manhattan appeals court, a panel for the Appellate Division, First Department ruled that Ambac Assurance Corp. must prove all common law fraud elements &#8212; May 16, 2017\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Shepherd Smith Edwards &amp; 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":"Court Upholds Ambac Assurance to Higher Burden of Proof in MRBS Fraud Case Against Countrywide &#8212; Investor Lawyers Blog &#8212; May 16, 2017","description":"In Manhattan appeals court, a panel for the Appellate Division, First Department ruled that Ambac Assurance Corp. must prove all common law fraud elements &#8212; May 16, 2017","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\/court-upholds-ambac-assurance-higher-burden-proof-mrbs-fraud-case-countrywide\/","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_title":"Court Upholds Ambac Assurance to Higher Burden of Proof in MRBS Fraud Case Against Countrywide &#8212; Investor Lawyers Blog &#8212; May 16, 2017","twitter_description":"In Manhattan appeals court, a panel for the Appellate Division, First Department ruled that Ambac Assurance Corp. must prove all common law fraud elements &#8212; May 16, 2017","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Shepherd Smith Edwards &amp; Kantas, LLP","Est. reading time":"2 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/court-upholds-ambac-assurance-higher-burden-proof-mrbs-fraud-case-countrywide\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/court-upholds-ambac-assurance-higher-burden-proof-mrbs-fraud-case-countrywide\/"},"author":{"name":"Shepherd Smith Edwards &amp; Kantas, LLP","@id":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/e0240e0754684b69f7d6a7de1b9f1431"},"headline":"Court Upholds Ambac Assurance to Higher Burden of Proof in MRBS Fraud Case Against Countrywide","datePublished":"2017-05-16T20:50:33+00:00","dateModified":"2022-05-17T19:17:11+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/court-upholds-ambac-assurance-higher-burden-proof-mrbs-fraud-case-countrywide\/"},"wordCount":344,"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/court-upholds-ambac-assurance-higher-burden-proof-mrbs-fraud-case-countrywide\/","url":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/court-upholds-ambac-assurance-higher-burden-proof-mrbs-fraud-case-countrywide\/","name":"Court Upholds Ambac Assurance to Higher Burden of Proof in MRBS Fraud Case Against Countrywide &#8212; Investor Lawyers Blog &#8212; May 16, 2017","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/#website"},"datePublished":"2017-05-16T20:50:33+00:00","dateModified":"2022-05-17T19:17:11+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/e0240e0754684b69f7d6a7de1b9f1431"},"description":"In Manhattan appeals court, a panel for the Appellate Division, First Department ruled that Ambac Assurance Corp. must prove all common law fraud elements &#8212; May 16, 2017","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/court-upholds-ambac-assurance-higher-burden-proof-mrbs-fraud-case-countrywide\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/court-upholds-ambac-assurance-higher-burden-proof-mrbs-fraud-case-countrywide\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/court-upholds-ambac-assurance-higher-burden-proof-mrbs-fraud-case-countrywide\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Court Upholds Ambac Assurance to Higher Burden of Proof in MRBS Fraud Case Against Countrywide"}]},{"@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 &amp; 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 &amp; 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 &amp; Kantas, LLP"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/"]}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/pedX9K-1Bb","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6149","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=6149"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6149\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":27842,"href":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6149\/revisions\/27842"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=6149"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=6149"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=6149"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}