RMBS Suit Against Morgan Stanley Gets Resurrected On Appeal

Share This Post:

In late summer of this year, a New York appellate court revived the breach of contract and negligence suit filed against Morgan Stanley. U.S. Bank National Association, who was acting as a trustee for investors in residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS), first introduced the suit in 2012. U.S. Bank alleged that Morgan Stanley breached its contractual duty to notify the trustee of the defective loans which resulted in alleged losses of $140 million from the sale of the allegedly defective loans.

In issuing its opinion, the court stated that the lower court erred in their 2014 decision to dismiss the case, holding that the alleged failure by a seller to notify securitization counterparties of material breaches it discovers in the underlying loans constitutes an independently breached contractual obligation that allows plaintiff to pursue separate damages. The court also reversed the dismissal of the plaintiff’s gross negligence claims noting that the facts alleged in the amended complaint were sufficient to constitute a claim for gross negligence.

According to the complaint, as part of a larger securitization deal, Mortgage Stanley Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-13ARX (“Trust”), the trust holding the underlying loans, purchased over $609 million in debt from 1,873 residential mortgage loans. The RMBS pool was then offered out to investors as certificates by the Trust, which used the proceeds to pay for the underlying loans. In the agreement, Morgan Stanley was required to confirm to the trustee that the loans did not contain any default, breach or violation, and none were not in danger of being accelerated or impending foreclosure. However, it is alleged that Morgan Stanley knowingly included at least 371 loans that violated one or more of the agreed upon eligibility terms which resulted in breaches that hurt the value of the loans and the interests of the investors. It is further alleged that when the Trust notified Morgan Stanley of the violations, Morgan Stanley failed to honor its promise to repurchase the defaulted loans.

Based on these allegations and citing to a similar case, Nomura Home Equity Loan Inc. vs. Nomura Credit & Capital Inc., among others, the appellate court stated that the allegations were sufficient to support plaintiff claims for failure to notify and gross negligence at the pleading stage.

The case is Morgan Stanley Mtge. Loan Trust 2006-13ARX v. Morgan Stanley Mtge. Capital Holdings LLC, case number 2016 NY Slip Op 05781, in the New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

Questions about this article? Reach out to our team below.
RELATED

Offshore Capital Concerns: A Tactical Guide for U.S. Lenders and Fund Sponsors

Raising capital from offshore investors can unlock valuable funding opportunities for U.S. lenders and real estate funds, but it comes with added layers of tax, compliance, and regulatory complexity. From ECI exposure and withholding tax risks to strict AML/KYC requirements, sponsors must navigate challenges that go far beyond basic securities law. This article outlines key risks and practical structuring strategies, including the portfolio interest exemption and feeder-blocker models, to help sponsors attract international capital while minimizing tax burdens and compliance pitfalls.

Converting Rule 506(b) Offerings to Rule 506(c): Considerations for Fund Managers

The SEC’s 2025 clarification on Regulation D Rule 506(c) is prompting many issuers to reconsider their reliance on Rule 506(b). While the shift offers greater flexibility in solicitation, it also introduces new complexities, particularly around accredited investor verification and transitioning existing offerings. Understanding these requirements is key to maintaining compliance and avoiding operational challenges.

California’s Anti-Deficiency Rules: What Lenders Can Recover — and Where Guaranties Fit

California’s anti-deficiency statutes can significantly limit what lenders recover after a real estate loan defaults. While the rules appear straightforward, recovery rights often depend on factors such as the foreclosure method, the nature of the loan, and the structure of any guaranties. Understanding how statutes like the “one-action rule,” purchase-money protections, and trustee’s sale restrictions interact is essential for lenders evaluating their options. This article explains the framework of California’s anti-deficiency laws and examines when guaranties remain an effective path for recovery and when courts may view them as an impermissible attempt to bypass borrower protections.