Close X
Attorney Spotlight

How does Jordana Nelson's prior experience as a general counsel inform her work with firm clients? Read more>

Search

Close X

Experience

Search our Experience

Experience Spotlight

The M&A Advisor Winner 2017The M&A Advisor announced the winners of the 16th Annual M&A Advisor Awards on Monday, November 13 at the 2017 M&A Advisor Awards. Bass, Berry & Sims was named a winner in the two categories related to the following deals:

M&A Deal of the Year (from $1B-$5B) – Acquisition of CLARCOR Inc. by Parker Hannifin Corporation

Corporate/Strategic Deal of the Year (over $1B) – Acquisition of BNC Bancorp by Pinnacle Financial Partners

Close X

Thought Leadership

Enter your search terms in the relevant box(es) below to search for specific Thought Leadership.
To see a recent listing of Thought Leadership, click the blue Search button below.

Thought Leadership Spotlight

Regulation A+

It seems that lately there has been a noticeable uptick in Regulation A+ activity, including several recent Reg A+ securities offerings where the stock now successfully trades on national exchanges. In light of this activity, we have published a set of FAQs about Regulation A+ securities offerings to help companies better understand this "mini-IPO" offering process, as well as pros and cons compared to a traditional underwritten IPO.

Read now

Chris Lazarini Examines Case Seeking Rescission of RMBS Trades

Securities Litigation Commentator

Publications

November 21, 2017

Bass, Berry & Sims attorney Chris Lazarini examined a case in which plaintiffs sued a broker dealer, seeking to rescind the purchase of 12 RMBS certificates. While expressing that it would be difficult to find a broker responsible where there was mutual mistake with its buyer, the Court nevertheless denied Defendant's summary judgment motion, finding the decision on rescissionary relief better made on a complete trial record. 

Chris provided the analysis for Securities Litigation Commentator (SLC). The full text of the analysis is below and used with permission from the publication. If you would like to receive additional content from the SLC, please visit the SLC website to sign up for the newsletter.

CMFG Life Insurance Company vs. Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC, No. 14-cv-249 (W.D. Wis., 10/12/17)

Rescission is a remedy when there is a mutual mistake, meaning that neither party is culpable, and the question for the trier of fact is whether it is equitable to leave the loss with the plaintiff or transfer it to the defendant. 

Plaintiffs sued Defendant broker-dealer, seeking to rescind purchases of twelve RMBS certificates. Defendant moved for partial summary judgment (a) dismissing the claims for one certificate sold to Plaintiffs which Defendant did not underwrite, (b) preventing Plaintiffs from claiming the aggregated loan data in all the certificates was false and (c) preventing Plaintiffs from offering multiple pre-judgment interest calculations. For the motion, the parties agreed that Plaintiffs generally could not perform due diligence on the quality of the underlying securitized loans, unlike the issuers and underwriters.

On the certificate it did not underwrite, Defendant argued it could not be culpable because it did not acquire the loans, securitize them or make any representations in the offering documents. Defendant also highlighted testimony from Plaintiffs' corporate representative who acknowledged that Defendant and Plaintiffs had the same information about the certificate. Finally, Defendant relied on Plaintiffs' inability to identify any misrepresentations or omissions by Defendant. Plaintiffs countered that Defendant was a significant participant in the RMBS market and touted the quality of its due diligence practices and unique perspectives on loan originators. Plaintiffs also argued that Defendant ignored mounting evidence of material flaws in the RMBS market generally and in Bear Stearns certificates particularly.

The Court questions Plaintiffs' focus on culpability, when the basis for rescission is mutual mistake and the equitable transference of loss to Defendant; however, it also recognizes undisputed facts suggesting Defendant knew or should have known the poor quality of some loans securing the certificate. While the Court states it is "hard-pressed" to see why a broker should be responsible for a mutual mistake with its buyer, the Court concludes that the decision is best made on a complete trial record and denies this part of the motion.

On the aggregated loan data, Defendant challenged Plaintiffs' expert’s extrapolation of alleged errors in random samples of loans to the full loan pools. Plaintiffs countered that the trier of fact can draw reasonable inferences from errors identified in the samples. The Court denies this part of the motion, but instructs the parties to prepare proffers and counter-proffers on the statistical reliability of Plaintiffs' expert's extrapolations.

Finally, on prejudgment interest, Plaintiffs' expert calculated pre-judgment interest three ways. First, he calculated pre-judgment interest on Plaintiffs' cost basis, without considering principal and interest payments received. Next, he accounted for only the principal payments received. Finally, he accounted for both principal and interest received. Defendant argued that the first two methodologies should be excluded because they over-compensated Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs acknowledged rescission restores a party to its original position, but argued the motion is premature and asked the Court to allow the evidence to inform its ruling on the damages presentation. The Court finds no persuasive reason to defer its ruling or award prejudgment interest using a method that does not recognize payments received and grants this part of the motion.


Related Professionals

Related Services

Notice

Visiting, or interacting with, this website does not constitute an attorney-client relationship. Although we are always interested in hearing from visitors to our website, we cannot accept representation on a new matter from either existing clients or new clients until we know that we do not have a conflict of interest that would prevent us from doing so. Therefore, please do not send us any information about any new matter that may involve a potential legal representation until we have confirmed that a conflict of interest does not exist and we have expressly agreed in writing to the representation. Until there is such an agreement, we will not be deemed to have given you any advice, any information you send may not be deemed privileged and confidential, and we may be able to represent adverse parties.