Federal Home Loan Bank of San Francisco v Credit Suisse Securities USA LLC Et Al

8/9/2019 Federal Home Loan Bank of San Francisco v Credit Suisse Securities USA LLC Et Al

1/26

I2J

456789

l0l1l213I415t6t7l8t9202T22232425262728

999PA,M4CBRIDE, SQUERI, AY& LAMPREY,LPROBERT . GOODIN, tate [email protected]. RADFORD,State arNo. 168269fradford@oodinm cbri e. omANNE H. HARTMAN,State arNo. I84556ahartman@goodinmacbrie. om505Sansometreet, uite900SanFrancisco, alifomia94lllTelephone: (415)392-7900Facsimile: (415)398-4321 CLEEff:

CASEANAGEMENTONFERENCEETAU(j 3Ttlitr $NAMDLPAATMENT2I2

cGC.10 497840No.COMPLAINT FOR RESCISSIONANDDAMAGESFOR:(1) VTOLATTONSOF $$ 2s40rAND2550TOF THE CALIF'ORNIACORPORATESECURITIESACT;(2) VTOLATTONSOF $S11 AND ls OFTHE SECURITIESACT OF 1933;(3) vIoLATIoNS oF $$ rz(a)Q) AND15OF THE SECURITIESACT OF1933;(4) VTOLATTONSOF $$1s72AND 1710OF THE CALIFORNIA CIVICODE (NEGLIGENTMISREPRESENTATION) and

"4"*&*r#,-f,lAR 5 ?010

GRAIS& ELLSWORTH LPp+Yl-D_J gBAf q @:g ltgSgppI ca on subm ed he ew h)KATHRYN C. ELLS_WQRT$Qtrohacapp.submitted eiewith)OWENL. CYRULNIKQtTohacapplication ubmitted erewithj70 East55thStreetNew York,New York 10022Telephone: (212)755-0100Facsimile: (212)755-0052Attomeys or PlaintiffFederalHomeLoanBankof SanFrancisco

FEDERALHOME LOAN BANK OF SANFRANCISCO, Plaintiff.v.CREDITSUISSESECURITIESUSA)LLC,F/KIA CREDITSUISSE IRSTBOSTONLLC;CREDITSUISSE IRSTBOSTONMORTGAGESECURITIES ORP.:DEUTSCHE ANK SECURITIES.NC.:DEUTSCHE LT-A SECURITIBS.WC.:J.P.MORGANSECURITIES,NC;FIW'ABEARSTEARNS CO.,INC.;STRUCTURED SSETMORTGAGEINVESTMENTSI. INC.:THE BEAR STEARNSCbITIPENIES. LC.FlKlA THE BEARSTEARNSCOMPANIES.INC.;RBSSECURITIES,NC.,FlWAGREENWICHCAPITALMARKETS, NC.;

IN THE SUPERIORCOURTOF THE STATEOF CALIFORNIAIN AND FORTHECITY AND COUNTYOF SANFRANCISCO

RBSACCEPT INC.F/K/A

COMPLAINT


2/26

I2J

4)6789

l011t213t4l5t6t718l9202T22232425262728

GREENWICHCAPITAL ACCEPTANCE.INC.;MORGANSTANLEY& CO.INCORPORATED;UBSSECURITIES,LC;MORTGAGEASSETSECURITIZATIONTRANSACTIONS,NC.;BANC OF AMERICASECUzuTIESLC:BANC OF AMERICA FUNDINGCORPORATION;BANC OF AMEzuCA MORTGAGESECUzuTIES,INC.;COUNTRYWIDESECURITIESCORPORATION;CWALT,INC.;COUNTRYWIDEFINANCIALCORPORATION; ND,DOES -50.

(s) RESCTSSTONF CONTRACTSUNDERS1689ET SEQ.OF THECALIFORNIA CIVL CODE

Defendants.

Plaintiff,FEDERALHOME LOAN BANK oF SAN FRANCISCo(referredo inthis complaint as he Bank), alleges,basedupon its continuing investigation, ncluding thecontinuing investigationof its counsel, hat the following allegationsand other factualhaveevidentiary supportor, wherespecifically identified as beingpled "on information andbelief," are ikely to haveevidentiary support aftera reasonableopportunity for furtherinvestigationor discovery.

NATURE OF THIS ACTIONl. This is an action for rescissionand damagesas a result of the violation by the

Defendantsof the California CorporateSecuritiesAct, the federal SecuritiesAct of 1933, heCalifornia Civil Code, and the common aw. As alleged n detail below, the Defendantssold orissued o the Bank 98 certificates n 80 securitization rusts backedby residentialmortgage oans.The Bank paid more than $13.7billion for those certificates.When they offered and then soldthesecertificates o the Bank, the Defendantsmadenumerousstatementso the Bank aboutthecertificatesand the credit quality of the mortgage oans hat backed hem. On information andbelief many of those statementswere untrue. Moreover, on information and belief theDefendantsomitted to statemany material facts that were necessaryn order to maketheir-2-

COMPLAINT


3/26

I2J

4)6789

l0

statements ot misleading.For example, he Defendantsmadeuntrue statements, r omittedimportant information, about suchmaterial factsas he percentage f equity that borrowershad intheir homes, he numberof borrowerswho actually lived in the houses hat secured heir loans,the credit scoresof the borrowers,andthe businesspracticesof the lenders hat made he loans.The Bank reasonablyand ustifiably relied on theseuntrue statements ndomissionsof importantinformation in deciding to purchase he certificates.The certificatesare'osecurities"within themeaningof the Califomia CorporateSecuritiesAct and the SecuritiesAct of 1933.Under thoseActs, the California Civil Code, andthe common law, the Bank is entitled to rescind ts purchaseof the certificatesor to be paid damages or its losseson the certificates.

2. Eight securitiesdealerssold thesecertificates o the Bank. ThosedealersareDefendantsCredit SuisseSecurities USA) LLC (which sold to the Bank certificates n l0securitization rusts,which are referred o in this complaint as SecuritizationsNos. I through 10),DeutscheBank Securities,nc. (21 securitizations, os. I I through31), BearSteams& Co. Inc.(10 securitizations,Nos. 32 through 41), GreenwichCapital Markets, Inc. (threesecuritizations,Nos. 42 through 44), Morgan Stanley& Co. Inc. (threesecuritizations,Nos. 45 through 47), UBSSecurities, LC (12 securitizations, os. 48 through59), Bancof America Securities LC (15securitizations,Nos. 60 through 74), andCountrywide SecuritiesCorporation (six securitizations,Nos. 75 through 80). The other Defendantsnamed n this complaint are iable to the Bankbecausehey were the issuersof someof thosecertificatesor becausehey controlled one of thoseissuers.

PARTIES3. Plaintiff is a bank createdby the FederalHome Loan Bank Act. The headquarters

of the Bank are n the City andCounty of San Francisco.Under its OrganizationCertificate, theBank is to operate n FederalHome Loan Bank District 11,which comprises he StatesofArizona,Califomia, and Nevada.The Bank does operate n eachof those hree States.

4. DefendantCredit SuisseSecurities USA) LLC (formerly known asCredit SuisseFirst Boston LLC and referred o as Credit Suisse) s a limited liability companyorganizedunderthe laws of Delaware. Credit Suissesold the Bank l0 of the certificates.

11I2l3T4l5t6t718t9202l22232425262728

COMPLAINT


4/26

I2J

456789

1011t213t415l6I718l9202 l22232425262728

5. DefendantCredit SuisseFirst BostonMortgage SecuritiesCorp. (referred o asCSFB Mortgage Securities) is a corporationorganizedunderthe laws of Delaware.CSFBMortgage Securitieswas the issuerof five of the certificates hat Credit Suissesold to the Bank.

6. DefendantDeutscheBank Securities, nc. (refened to as Deutsche) s acorporationorganizedunderthe laws of Delaware.Deutschesold the Bank 2l of the certificates.

7. DefendantDeutscheAlt-A Securities, nc. (referred o as DeutscheAlt-A) is acorporationorganizedunder the laws of Delaware.DeutscheAlt-A was the issuerof five of thecertificates hat Deutschesold to the Bank.

8. DefendantJ.P. Morgan Securities, nc. (formerly known as BearoSteams& Co.Inc. and referred o as Bear Stearns) is a corporationorganizedunder the laws of Delaware.BearStearnssold the Bank 10 of the certificates.

9. DefendantStructuredAssetMortgage Investments I, Inc. (referred o as SAMI II)is a corporationorganizedunderthe laws of Delaware.SAMI II was the issuerof six of thecertificates hat Bear Stearnssold to the Bank.

10. DefendantThe Bear StearnsCompaniesLLc(formerly known asand referred oas The Bear Stearns Companiesr lnc.) is a limited liability companyorganizedunder the lawsof Delaware.The Bear StearnsCompanies, nc. controls or controlled SAMI II. Under Section l5of the SecuritiesAct of 1933,15U.S.C.$77o,TheBearSteamsCompanies,nc. therefore sliable to the Bank ointly and severallywith, andto the sameextentas, SAMI II.

I 1. DefendantRBS Securities, nc. (formerly known as GreenwichCapital Markets,Inc. and referred o as Greenwich Capital) is a corporationorganized rnder he laws ofDelaware.GreenwichCapital sold the Bank threeof the certificates.

t2. DefendantRBS.{cceptance,Inc. (formerly known as GreenwichCapitalAcceptance, nc. and referred o as Greenwich Capital Acceptance) is a corporationorganizedunder the laws of Delaware.GreenwichCapital Acceptancewas the issuerof one of thecertificates hat GreenwichCapital sold to the Bank.

-4-COMPLAINT


5/26

I23456789

10ill 213t415t6I718l9202 l22232425262728

l3' DefendantMorganStanley& Co. ncorporatedrefened o asMorgan Stanley) sa corporation rganized nder he awsof Delaware.MorganStanley old he Bank hreeof thecertificates.

14. Defendant BS Securities,LC (referredo asUBS) s a limited iability companyorganized nder he awsof Delaware.UBSsold heBank 2 of the certificates.

15. DefendantMortgage AssetSecuritizationTransactions, nc. (referred o as MASis a corporationorganizedunderthe laws of Delaware.MAST was the issuerof six of thecertificates hat UBS sold to the Bank.

16. DefendantBanc of America SecuritiesLLC (referred o as Banc of America) is alimited liability companyorganizedunder the laws of Delaware.Banc of America sold the Bankl5 of the certificates.

17. DefendantBanc of America Funding Corporation (referred o as Banc of AmericaFunding) is a corporationorganizedunderthe laws of Delaware.Banc of America Funding wasthe issuerof sevenof the certificates hat Banc of America sold to the Bank.

18. Defendant Banc of America Mortgage Securities, nc. (referred o as Banc ofAmerica Mortgage Securities) is a corporationorganizedunder the laws of Delaware.Banc ofAmerica Mortgage Securitieswas the issuerof sevenof the certificates hat Banc of America soldto the Bank.

19. DefendantCountrywide SecuritiesCorporation (referred o as Countryrvide) is acorporationorganizedunderthe laws of Califomia. Countrywide sold the Bank six of thecertificates.

20. DefendantCWALT, Inc. (referred o asCWALT) is a corporationorganizedunder the laws of Delaware.CWALT was the issuerof threeof the certificates hat Credit Suissesold to the Bank, I 5 of the certificates hat Deutschesold to the Bank, one of the certificates hatBear Steamssold to the Bank, two of the certificates hat GreenwichCapital Markets sold to theBank, three of the certificates hat Morgan Stanley sold to the Bank, six of the certificates hatUBS sold to the Bank, one of the certificates hat Banc of America sold to the Bank. and five ofthe certificates hat Countrywide sold to the Bank.

COMPLAINT


6/26

I2aJ

456789

l0l lt 2l3T415t6I7l8t9202 l22232425262728

21. DefendantCountrywide Financial Corporation is a corporationorganizedunderthe laws of Delaware.Countrywide Financial Corporationcontrols or controlled CWALT. UnderSection 15of the SecuritiesAct Countrywide Financial Corporation herefore s liable to theBank ointly and severallywith, and to the sameextentas,CWALT.

22. Plaintiff is ignorantof the true namesand capacitiesof Defendantssuedherein asDoes l-50, inclusive, and thereforesues heseDefendantsby such fictitious names.Plaintiff willamend his complaint to allege he true namesand capacitiesof theseDefendantswhenascertained.Plaintiff is informed andbelieves hat eachof the fictitiously namedDefendantsis responsible n somemanner or the occurrencesallegedhereinandproximately causedPlaintiffs damages.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE23. This Court hassubject-matterurisdiction of this action. The SuperiorCourt is a

court of generalurisdiction. The Bank seeks escissionunder Sections25401and 25501of theCalifomia CorporateSecuritiesAct, damages or negligentmisrepresentation, nd rescissionofits contracts o purchase he certificates,all of which relief this Court has urisdiction to grant.UnderSection22(a)of theSecuritiesAct of 1933,15U.S.C.g 77v(a), his Court alsohasjurisdiction over the Bank's causes f action or violation of Sections l, l2(a)(2), and 15of thatAct, l5 U.S.C.$ 771.

24. Under Section 22(a) of the SecuritiesAct of 1933,"no casearising underthis titleand brought in any Statecourt of competenturisdiction shall be removed o any court of theUnited States."Because ts activities are not localized in one state, he Bank is not a citizen of anystateunder28 U.S.C.$ 1332(c), o he Federal ourtshaveno urisdiction of this actionunder28U.S.C.$ 1332(a).This action s not removable o Federalcourt.

25. This Court has personalurisdiction over Credit Suisse,Deutsche,Bear Steams,GreenwichCapital, Morgan Stanley,UBS, Banc of America, Countrywide, and CWALT becauseeachof them is registered o do businessn California. This Court haspersonalurisdiction overall of the Defendantsbecause hey offeredand sold the certificates o the Bank "in California"within the meaningof Section25008 of the Califomia CorporateSecuritiesAct.

-6 -COMPLAINT


7/26

I2J

456789

l0l1t2l3t4l5I6t7l8t9202 l22232425262728

26. Venue is proper in this County becausehe Defendantsofferedand sold thecertificates o the Bank in this County, and becausehe violations of law alleged n thiscomplaint, including the making of materially untrue or misleadingstatements, ccurred n thisCounty.

SECURITIZATION OF MORTGAGE LOANS27. The securities hat the Defendantssold the Bank are so-calledasset-backed

securities, or ABS, created n a processknown as securitization. Securitizationbeginswith loans(for example, oanssecuredby mortgageson residentialproperties,credit card loans,etc.) onwhich the borrowersare to makepayments,usually monthly. The entity that makes he loans sknown as he originator of the loans.The processby which the originator decideswhethertomakeparticular loans s known as he undenvriting of loans. n the loan underwriting process,the originator appliesvarious criteria to try to ensure hat the loan will be repaid.Until the loansare securitized, he borrowerson the loans maketheir loan payments o the originator.CollectivelY, the paymentson the loansare known as he cash flow from the loans.

28. In a securitization,a largenumberof loans,usually of a similar type, axegroupedinto a collateral pool. The originator of those oanssells hem (and,with them, the right toreceivehe cash low fromthem) o a trust. The rustpays heoriginator ash or the oans.Thetrust aiseshecasho pay or the oansby sellingbonds,usuallycalledcertificates,o investorssuchas he Bank.Eachcertificate ntitles ts holder o an agreed artof thecash low fromtheloans n thecollateral ool.

29. Thus,schematically,herearesix stepsn a securitization.1. Investorspay money to the trust.2. The trust issuescertificates o the investors.3. The trust paysmoney to the originator.4. The originator sells o the trust the loans n the collateral pool, includingthe right to receive he cash low from those oans.5. The trust collectscash low from paymentson the loans n thecollateral pool.6. The trust payseachcertificateholder ts agreedpart of the cash low thatthe trust receives rom paymentson loans n the collateral pool.

COMPLAINT


8/26

12J

456789

1011t2l3T4l516l718t9202 l22232425262728

30. A few other aspectsof securitizationaresignificant to the allegationsof thiscomplaint. Eachsecuritizationhasa sponsor, he prime mover of the securitization.Sometimesthe sponsor s the originator or an affiliate. In originator-sponsored ecuritizations, he collateralpool usually contains oansmadeby the originator that is sponsoring he securitization.Othertimes, the sponsormay be an investmentbank,which purchasesoansfrom oneor moreoriginators, aggregateshem into a collateral pool, sellsthemto a trust, andsecuritizes hem. Thesponsorarranges or title to the loans o be transferred o an entity known as he depositor, whichthen transfers itle to the loans o the trust.

3 1. The obligor of the certificates n a securitization s the trust that purchasesheloans n the collateralpool. Becausea trust hasno assetsotherthan the loans hat it purchased,tmay not be ableto satisff the liabilities of an issuerof securities the certificates).The lawtherefore reats he depositoras he issuer ofan asset-backed ertificate.

rl.

32. Securitiesdealers,ike the eight hatsold hecertificateso the Bank,playacritical role n theprocess f securitization.heyunderwritehe saleof the certificates,hat s,theypurchasehecertificatesromthe rustand hensell hem o investors. qually mportant,securities nderwritersrovide o potentialnvestorshe nformationhat heyneed o decidewhethero purchaseertificates.

33. Becausehe cash low fromthe oansn the collateral ool of a securitizations thesource f funds o pay he holdersof thecertificatesssued y the rust, he creditqualityof thosecertificatess dependentpon hecreditqualityof the oans n thecollateral ool.Themostimportantnformationabout he creditqualityof thoseoans s containedn the ilesthat heoriginatordevelopswhilemaking he oans,he so-calledoan iles.For residentialmortgageloans,each oan ile normallycontainshe nformationn suchmportantdocumentss heborrower'sapplication or the oan,credit eportson heborrower, ndan appraisal f thepropertyhat will securehe oan.

-8-COMPLAINT


9/26

I2J

4)678

o34. Collateralpoolsusually nclude housands f loans. nsteadof potential nvestors

reviewing thousandsof loan files, the securities irms that will underwrite the saleof thecertificates n a securitizationareresponsible or gathering,verifring, andpresenting o potentialinvestors he information about he credit quality of the loans hat will be deposited nto the trust.As will be alleged n detail below, the information that the Defendantspresented o the Bankabout he credit quality of the loans n the collateral pools of the 80 trustscontainedmanystatementshat were material to the credit quality of those oans,but, on information and belief,were untrue or misleading.Moreover, on information and belief, the Defendantswere negligentin making thoseuntrue or misleadingstatementso the Bank.

TOLLING OF' THE STATUTE OF' LIMITATIONS35. The Bank is a memberof the proposedclassesn Luther v. CountrywideFinancial

Corporation, SuperiorCourt for the Stateof California County of Los AngelesNo. BC 380698,filed on November 11,2007, New JerseyCarpentersHealth Fund v. ResidentialCapital LLC,United StatesDistrict Court for the SouthemDistrict of New York No. 08-cv-8781, iled onSeptember22,2008, andNew JerseyCarpentersHealth Fund v. Beqr StearnsMortgage FundingTrust2006-AR1,United StatesDistrict Court for the SouthernDistrict of New York No. 08-cv-08093, filed on August 20,2008, the pendencyof which actionshas olled the running of thestatuteof limitations on causesof action alleged n this complaint.

THE SALES OF THE CERTIFICATES36. The Defendantssold to the Bank 93 certificates n SecuritizationsNos. I through

80. Details of each rust andeachcertificateare stated n Item 36 of Schedules through80 ofthis complaint, which correspond o SecuritizationsNos. I through 80. The Bank incorporatesinto this paragraph36, and allegesas hough fully set forth in this paragraph, he contentsof Item36 ofthe schedules.

MATERIAL UNTRUE OR MISLEADING STATEMENTSABOUT THE CERTIFICATES

37. In connectionwith their offers and salesof the certificates o the Bank, each of theelevendealerssent numerousdocuments o the Bank at its office in San FranciscoCounty. In

-9-

9l0l lI 213t4l5t6t718t9202l22232425262728

COMPLAINT


10/26

I23456789

l0l lI 2l3I415t6t7l819202 I22232425262728

eachcase, hesedocuments ncluded a term sheet, he prospectussupplement or the certificatesthat was filed with the SEC,draftsof someof the statistical ables o be included n the prospectussupplement,and a computermodel of the financial structureof the securitization. n eachof thesedocuments,eachdealermadestatements f material fact about he certificatethat it offeredandsold to the Bank.I A true copy of the prospectussupplement or eachsecuritization s availablefrom the SecuritiesExchangeCommissionwebsite.2

38. On information and belief, many of the statements f material fact that eachdealermade n thesedocumentswereuntrue or misleading.Theseuntrue or misleadingstatementsincluded the followins.A. Untrue or Misleading Statementsabout the Loan-to-Value Ratios (LTVs) and

Combined Loan-to-Value Ratios (CLTVs) of the Mortgage Loans in tne ColateralPoolsof theseSecuritizationsl. The materiality of LTVs and CLTVs39. The loan-to-value atio of a mortgage oan, or LTV, is the ratio of the amountof

the mortgage oan to the value of the mortgagedproperty when the loan is made.For example,aloanof $300,000secured y propertyvaluedat $500,000hasan LTV of 600/o; loanof $450,000on the sameproperty has an LTV of 90o/o. TV is one of the most important measures f the riskof a mortgage oan, and the LTVs of the mortgage oans n the collateral pool of a securitizationare ikewise one of the most important measures f the risk of certificatessold in thatsecuritization.LTV predicts the likelihood of default (the lower the LTV, the less ikely thatadecline n the value of theproperty will wipe out the owner's equity, andtherebygive the owneran incentiveto stop making mortgagepaymentsand abandon he property). LTV alsopredicts heseverity of loss in the eventof default (the lower the LTV, the greater he "cushion," so the

' Three of the certificates hat the Bank purchasedwere certificates n re-securitizationsof existingcertificatesof mortgage-backed ecurities. n connectionwith the saleof those hreecertificates, hedealerssent o the Bank a private placementmemorandum or the re-securitizationand prospectussupplements iled with the SEC for the underlying securitizations.Details of the re-securitizationsareincluded in their respectiveschedules.2A uniform resource ocator for eachprospectussupplement s included in Item 36 of eachschedule.-10-

COMPLAINT


11/26

I23456789

10l lt 213t4l5T6I7l8t9202 l22232425262728

greater he likelihood that the proceedsof foreclosurewill cover the unpaidbalanceof themortgage oan).

40. The denominator n LTV (value of the mortgagedproperty) is determinedbyeither an appraisalor by the purchaseprice of the property.In a refinancing or home-equity oan,there s no purchaseprice to use as he denominator.For a purchase, he agreedprice may behigher than the value of the property, and an appraisalshouldensure hat the LTV is calculatedusing the actualvalue as he denominator.Sometimes n a purchase, he denominator s the lowerofthe purchaseprice or the appraisedvalue.

4I. Thus, an accurateappraisal s essential o an accurateLTV. In particular, a too-high appraisalwill understate, ometimesgreatly, the risk of a loan. To return to the exampleabove, f the property whoseactualvalue is $500,000 s appraised nsteadat $550,000, hen theLTV of the $300,000loan alls from 60%to 54.5Yo,andhe LTV of the $450,0001oanalls from90Yoo 81.8%. In either case, he LTV basedon the incorrectappraisalunderstateshe risk of theloan. It is also mportant to note that, the higher the correct LTV, the more the risk is understatedby an incorrectappraisalof any given magnitude. n the exampleabove, here s liule differencein the risk of a loan with an LTV of 60% and onewith an LTV of 54.5%; both are safe oanswithlarge equity cushions.But there s a very largedifference n the risk of a loan with an LTV of90%o nd onewith an LTV of 8 .8%. In the latter case, here s an equity cushion of 18.2%;of thevalue of the property, in the former, only llo/o,just over half as much. Thus,an appraisal hatovervaluesa property by just l0% producesan overstatement f more than 80% in thehomeowner'sequity.

42. LTV is an important measureof the risk of a mortgage oan, andthe LTVs of themortgage oans n the collateralpool of a securitizationare ikewise an important measureof therisk of certificatessold in that securitization.LTV helps o predict both the likelihood of defaultand the severityof loss in caseof default.A reasonablenvestor considersLTV important to thedecisionwhether to purchasea certificate n a securitizationof mortgage oans. Even smalldifferences n the weighted averageLTV of the mortgage oans n the collateral pool of asecuritizationhave a significant effect on the risk of each certificate sold in that securitization,

COMPLAINT


12/26

I2aJ

456789

l011t2l3t415t6t7l8t9202t22232425262728

and thus,are mportant to the decisionof a reasonablenvestorwhether to purchaseany suchcertificate.

43. Residentialpropertiescan securemore than one mortgage oan, a senior(or first)and one or more unior mortgage oans.The combined oan-to-value atio (CLTV) is the ratio ofthe total outstandingprincipal balanceof all loans(mortgagesor home equity lines of credit) thatthe property secureso the appraisedvalue of mortgagedproperty.To return to the example nparagraph39, if a property valued at $500,000securesa first mortgage oan of $300,000and asecondmortgage oanof $50,000, hen t hasa CLTV of 70%o.Ifhe first mortgage oanon thesameproperty s $450,000and he second s $50,000, hen he CLTV is 100%.

44. Like LTV, CLTV is an important measureof the risk of a mortgage oan, and theCLTVs of the mortgage oans n the collateral pool of a securitizationare ikewise an importantmeasureof the risk of certificatessold in that securitization.CLTV helpsto predict the likelihoodof default of a mortgage oan.A reasonablenvestor considersCLTV important to the decisionwhetherto purchasea certificate n a securitizationof mortgage oans.Even small differences nthe weighted averageCLTV of the mortgage oans n the collateralpool of a securitizationhaveasignificant effect on the risk of each certificatesold in that securitization,and thus,are mportantto the decisionof a reasonablenvestor whether o purchaseany such certificate.

2. Untrue or misleadingstatementsabout the LTVs and CLTVs of the mortgageloans in the collateral pools of thesesecuritizations45. In the prospectussupplementand otherdocuments hey sent o the Bank, the

Defendantsmadestatements bout he LTVs and CLTVs of the mortgage oans n the collateralpools of thesesecuritizations.Some of thesestatementswere in so-calledcollateral stratificationtables.Those ables divided the mortgage oans nto severalcategoriesof LTV and CLTV andpresentedquantitative nformation about he loans n eachcategory.All of the statementsn eachprospectussupplementabout he LTVs and CLTVs of the mortgage oans n the collateral poolsof SecuritizationNos. I through 80 are ncorporatedhereinby reference.

-t2-COMPLAINT


13/26

12aJ

456789

l0l lI 213I415T6l7l8t9202 I22232425262728

46. On information and belief, thesestatementswere materially untrueor misleadingbecause i) the statedLTVs and CLTVs of a significant numberof thosemortgage oanswerelower than the actual LTVs or CLTVs; (ii) the Defendantsomitted to state hat the appraisalsof asignificant numberof the properties hat secured he mortgage oans n the collateral pools werebiasedupward, so that statedLTVs and CLTVs basedon thoseappraisalswere lower than thetrue LTVs and CLTVs of thosemortgage oans;or (iii) the statedCLTVs did not reflect secondmortgageson a significant numberof the properties hat secured he mortgage oans n thecollateral pools.

47. Since he datesof SecuritizationsNos. I through 80, loans n the collateral poolsof each securitizationhavebeen oreclosedupon. In nearly all of the pools, the properties hatsecured hoseforeclosed oanswere sold for much less han the value ascribed o thosesameproperties n the LTV and CLTV data reported n the prospectussupplementsand otherdocumentshat heDefendantsent o theBank.The argedifference annotbeexplained y thedeclinesn house rices n theareasn which hoseproperties ere ocated, venafter akingaccount f the act hatpropertiesn foreclosureometimesell or less han heir fair marketvalue.Analysisof data n an ndustry-standardatabasef securitizedmortgageoansshows,oralmostall of Securitizationsos. I through80, hat he differencesetweenhevaluesascribedthese roperties nd hepricesat which hepropertiesweresold n foreclosure resignificantlygreaterhan hedeclinesn house ricesn the same eographicalreas ver he same eriods(that is, between he making of eachmortgage oan andthe corresponding oreclosuresale).Thisunexplaineddifference s evidence hat the valuesascribed o thoseproperties,and to allproperties n the collateral pools, in the LTV and CLTV data reported n the prospectussupplementsand other documents hat the Defendantssent o the Bank were too high, theresulting LTVs and CLTVs were too low, and thusthat the statementsn the prospectussupplementsand other documentssent o the Bank about he LTVs and CLTVs were untrueormisleading.The resultsof this analysis or nearly all of SecuritizationsNos. I through 80 arestated n Item 47 of Schedules through 80 of this complaint. The Bank incorporates nto this

COMPLAINT


14/26

I2aJ

4

6789

l0l lt213t4l5I6t71819202 l22232425262728

para$aph 47, andallegesas hough fully set forth in this paragraph, he contentsof Item 47 of theschedules.

48. On information and belief, by theseuntrueand misleadingstatements,heDefendantsmaterially understatedhe risk of every certificatethat any of them sold to the Bank.B. Untrue or Misleading Statementsabout the Occupancy Status of the properties ThatSecured he Mortgage Loans in the Collateral Poolsofthese Securitizatidns

1. The materiality of occupancystatus49. Residential eal estates usually divided into primary residences, econdhomes,

and nvestmentproperties.Mortgageson primary residences re essrisky than mortgagesonsecondhomesand investmentproperties.

50. Occupancystatus that is, whether he property that securesa mortgage s to be theprimary residenceof the borrower, a secondhome,or an investmentproperty) is an importantmeasureof the risk of a mortgage oan, and the percentageof loans n the collateral pool of asecuritization hat are securedby mortgageson primary residences atherthan on secondhomesor investmentproperties s an importantmeasureof the risk of certificatessold in thatsecuritization.Other things being equal, he higher the percentageof loanssecuredby primaryresidences,he lower the risk of the certificates.A reasonablenvestorconsidersoccupancystatusimportant to the decisionwhether o purchasea certificate n a securitizationof mortgage oans.Differences n the percentageof the mortgage oans n the collateral pool of a securitization hatare securedby mortgageson primary residences avea significant effect on the risk of eachcertificatesold in that securitizationand thus are mportant to the decisionof a reasonableinvestor whether o purchaseany suchcertificate.

51. Because hey are essrisky thanothermortgage oans,mortgage oanson primaryresidences sually havemore favorable erms, ncluding lower interestrates, han mortgage oanson secondhomesand investmentproperties.Applicants for loanson secondhomes andinvestmentproperties hereforehavean incentiveto state hat the property will be their primaryresidenceeven when it will not.

COMPLAINT


15/26

I2J

456789

l01 lT2l3l415l6I718t9202 I22232425262728

2. Untrueor mis-leadingtatements.abouthe occu_pancytatusof thepropertiesthat securedhe mortgageoans n the collateral^poolsi th"r;;;;il.itizations52. In the prospectussupplementsand other documents hat they sent o the Bank, the

Defendantsmade statements bout he occupancystatusof the properties hat secured hemortgage oans n the collateral pool of this securitization.Someof thesestatementswere in so-called collateral stratificationtables.Those ablesdivided the mortgage oans nto severalcategoriesof occupancystatusand presentedquantitative nformation aboutthe loans n eachcategory.All of the statementsn the prospectussupplementand other documentsabout heoccupancystatusof the mortgage oans n the collateral pool of this securitizationareincorporatedhereinby reference.

53. On information andbelief, thesestatementswere materially untrue or misleadingbecause i) the statednumberof mortgage oans hat were securedby primary residenceswashigher than the actualnumberof loans n that category;(ii) the statednumber of mortgage oansthat were securedby secondhomeswas lower than the actualnumberof loans n that category;(iii) the statednumberof mortgage oans hat were securedby investmentpropertieswas lowerthanthe actualnumberof loans n that category;or (iv) the Defendantsomitted to state hat theoccupancystatusof a significant numberof the properties hat secured he mortgage oans n thecollateral pool was misstatedbecauseof fraud.

54. On information andbelief, by theseuntrue and misleadingstatements,heDefendantsmaterially understatedhe risk of every certificatethat any of them sold to the Bank.C. Failure to Disclose he Substantial Deterioration of LTV and Credit ScoreasPredictors of the Performanceof Mortgage Loans Securitizedby the DefendantDealers

55. Investors n mortgage-backed ecurities, ncluding the Bank, rely extensivelyoncertaincharacteristicsof the mortgage oans n the collateral pool of a securitizationto predict theperformanceof those oansand thereby o determine he risk both of those oansand of thecertificatessold in that securitization.Reasonablenvestorsconsider nformation about hesecharacteristicsmportant to the decisionwhether o purchasea certificate n a securitizationof

COMPLAINT


16/26

I2aJ

456789

l0l lt 2l3I415t6l718t9202 l22232425262728

mortgage oans.Among the most important of thesecharacteristicsare LTV, describedabove.and the credit scoreof the borrower.

56. In the prospectussupplementsand other documents hey sent o the Bank, theDefendantsmadestatements bout he LTVs and credit scoresof the mortgage oans n thecollateral pools of eachof SecuritizationsNos. I through S0.All of thosestatements reincorporatedhereinby reference.

57 During the time beforeeachof SecuritizationsNos. I through 80, the power ofLTV and credit score o predict the performanceof otherwisesimilar mortgage oansdeteriorated,evenafter taking accountof declines n houseprices and other macroeconomic actors.putsomewhatdifferently, loans hat were very similar in thesecharacteristicsperformedworse f theloanswere made in2007 than if they weremade in2006,worse if made in2006 than if made n2005,etc.

58. On information and belief all statementshat the Defendantsmadeabout heLTVs and credit scoresof the mortgage oans n the collateral pools of thesesecuritizationsweremisleadingbecausehe Defendantsomitted to state hat, in the time before thesesecuritizations,loans hat they or their affiliates securitizedwere nearly constant n reportedweighted-averageLTV andweighted-average redit score,yet performedworse f the loanswere made in}007 thartif they were made n 2006,worse if made in2006 than if made n 2005,etc.

59. On information and beliel by thesemisleading statements,he Defendantsmaterially understated he risk of every certificatethat any of them offeredand sold to the Bank.D. Untrue or Misle,adingStatementsabout the Underwriting Guidelinesof theOriginators of the Mortgage Loans in the Collateral Pooli of theseSecuritizations

1. The materiality of underwriting guidetinesand the extent of compliancewiththem60. Most or all originatorsof mortgage oans hadwritten guidelinesby which they

evaluatedapplications or loans.An originator's guidelines,and the extent to which the originatorcomplieswith them,are mportant indicatorsof the risk of mortgage oansmadeby thatoriginator and of certificatessold in a securitization n which mortgage oansmadeby thatoriginator are a substantialpart of the collateralpool. A reasonablenvestor considers he

-16-COMPLAINT


17/26

I2J

456789

l0l112l3t415t6l71819202 l22232425262728

underwriting guidelinesof eachoriginator of a substantialpart of the mortgage oans n thecollateral pool of a securitization,andthe extent to which the originator complied with itsguidelines, mportant to the decisionwhether o purchasea certificate n that securitization.Differences n those guidelinesor in the extent o which an originator complied with them haveasignificant effect on the risk of eachcertificatesold in that securitizationand thus are mportant tothe decisionof a reasonablenvestorwhether o purchaseany suchcertificate.

2. Untrue or n{sleading statementsby the Defendantsabout the underwritingg_uidelinesf-the-origina_torsf the mortgage oans n the collateral pools oithesesecuritizationsand about the extent of their compliancewith t'hoseguidelines61. In the prospectussupplements,he Defendantsmadestatements bout he

underwriting guidelinesof the originators of the mortgage oans n the collateral pools ofSecuritizationsNos. 1 through 80. Thosestatements redescribed n Item 6l of Schedulesthrough 80 of this complaint. The Bank incorporates nto this paragraph61, andallegesas houghfully set forth in this paragraph, he contentsof Item 61 of the schedules.

62. On information andbelief, thesestatementswere materially untrue or misleadingbecausehe Defendantsomitted to state hat (a) the originatorswere making frequent,andincreasingly frequent,exceptions o thoseunderwriting guidelines;(b) the originatorsweremaking frequent,and increasinglyfrequent,exceptions o thoseunderwriting guidelineswhen nocompensating actor was present;and (c) the originators were failing frequently, and ncreasinglyfrequently, to follow quality-assurance ractices ntended o detect andprevent fraud.

63. On information and beliee by theseuntrue and misleadingstatements,heDefendantsmaterially understatedhe risk of everycertificatethat any of them offeredand sold tothe Bank.

COMPLAINT


18/26

I2aJ

456789

l01 lt213I 4t5t6t7l8t9202l22232425262728

FIRST CAUSEOF ACTIONUNTRUE OR MISLEADING STATEMENTS IN TTTNS.q.LEOF SECURITIES(Cal.Corporations odeSg25401,25501)AgainstDefendanr In connectionwith SeCuW

Credit Suisse Securitizations os. @lhrough 10Deutsche SecuritizationsNos. 11 through 16,and 18through 31Bear Stearns SecuritizationsNos.32 through 35r40, and4lGreenwich Canital SecuritizationsNos.42 aid44Morqan Stanlev SecuritizationsNos.45 throush 47UBS Securitizations os.48 hrough51,and53through59Banc of America SecuritizationsNos.60 throueh 70Countrvwide SecuritizationsNos.75 throueh 8064. TheBankherebyncorporatesy reference,s hough ully set orth,paragraphsthrough63.65. In doing he actsalleged,heDefendantsamed bove iolatedSections 5401

and25501of theCaliforniaCorporations ode n thesale o the Bankof the certificatesn thesecuritizationseferredo above.

66. This action s broughtwithin two yearsafter he discovery f theuntrueandmisleading tatementsn theprospectusupplementsndotherdocumentshat heDefendantssent o the Bank,andwithin five yearsof the Bank'spurchase f these ertificates, r within anyapplicable eriodas olledby thependency f the classactionseferredo aboveor others.Despite avingexercisedeasonableiligence,he Bankdid notandcouldnot reasonablyavediscoveredarlier heuntrueandmisleading tatementsn theprospectusupplementsndotherdocuments.

67. UnderCal.Corp.Code$$25401and25501,,theank sentitledo recoverheconsideration hat it paid for eachof thesecertificates,plus interestat the legal rate from the dateof purchase o the dateon which it recovers he purchaseprice, minus the amountof income treceivedon the certificate.Pursuant o $ 25501,the Bank will tendereachcertificatebeforeentryofjudgment.

-18-COMPLAINT


19/26

I2J

456789

l011I213l4l5l6t7l819202 I22232425262728

SECONDCAUSEOF ACTIONUNTRUE OR MISLEADING STATEMENTSIN REGISTRATIONSTATEMENTS(Section 1of theSecurities ct of 1933)

AgainstDefendant: In connectionwithSecifrlzatmCredit Suisse Securitizations os.7 throush 10Deutsche Securitizations os.18 hiouEE3lBearStearns SecuritizationsNos.40 anil4lSAMI II Securitization No.40Greenwich Canital Securitization No. 44Morgan Stanley SecuritizationsNos.45 throueh 47UBS SeculitizationsNos.54 throush 59Countnwide Securitizations os.76 hroueh80CWALT SecuritizationsNos.7, 9, 10, &lhroug[3l;4l,44through 47,54 hrough59,76through80

68. The Bank hereby ncorporatesby reference,as hough fully set forth, paragraphs1through 67.

69. In doing the actsalleged, he Defendantsnamedaboveviolated Section11 of theSecuritiesAct of 1933 n the sale o the Bank of the certificates n the securitizations eferred oabove.

70. The cenificates n thesesecuritizationswere issuedpursuantor traceable oregistrationstatements.Details of each egistrationstatementand eachcertificateare stated nItem 36 ofSchedules1 through80.

71. SAMI II andCWALT are depositorsof the securitizations istedaboveandthereforeare the issuersof the certificates n thosesecuritizations.Credit Suisse,Deutsche,BearStearns,GreenwichCapital, Morgan Stanley,UBS andCountrywide actedas underwritersof thecertificates isted above.

72. This action is broughtwithin oneyear after the discovery of the untrueandmisleadingstatementsn the registrationstatements, s amendedby the prospectussupplements,and within threeyearsof thesecertificateshaving beensold to the public, or within anyapplicableperiod as olled by the pendencyof the classactionsreferred o above or others.

-19-COMPLAINT


20/26

I2aJ

456789

l0l lI 213t415l6t71819202 l22232425262728

Despitehaving exercised easonablediligence, he Bank did not and could not reasonablyhavediscoveredearlier the untrueand misleadingstatementsn the prospectussupplements.

73. The prospectussupplements ontaineduntrue statements f material fact andomitted to statematerial factsnecessaryn order to makethe statements,n the light of thecircumstances nderwhich they were made,not misleading.Theseuntrue and misleadingstatementsncluded all of the untrueandmisleadingstatements escribed n paragraphs37through 63.

74. The Bank expresslyexcludes rom this causeof action any allegation hat could beconstruedasalleging fraud or intentional or recklessconduct.This causeof action is basedsolelvon claimsof strict iability or negligence nder he securitiesAct of 1933.

75. Basedupon the truth of the statementsmade n the prospectussupplements,heBank purchased hesecertificates.

76. The Bank did not know when it purchased hesecertificates hat the statementsnthe prospectussupplementswere untrueor misleading.

77. The Bank hassuffereda losson eachof thesecertificates.78. The Bank is entitled o recoverdamages s describedn l5 U.S.C.g 77k(e).

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTIONUNTRUE OR MISLEADING STATEMENTS IN THE SALE OF SECURITIES(Section 2(a)Q) of the SecuritiesAct of 1933)

AgainstDefendant: In connection with Securitizations :CreditSuisse Securitizations os.7 throueh10Deutsche Securitizations os.18 hroueh31Bear Stearns SecuritizationsNos.40 and 41SAMI II Securitization No. 40Greenwich Capital Securitization No. 44

Morgan Stanley Securitizations os.45 hroueh47UBS Securitizations os.54 throueh59Countrvwide SecuritizationsNos. 76 throush 80CWALT Securitizationsos.7r9,10r18 hroughSl,41,44 hrough47,54 hrough59,76throush8079. TheBank herebyncorporatesy reference,s hough ully set orth,paragraphs

through78.-20-

COMPLAINT


21/26

I2J

456789

l0l1I213t415l6t7l8t9202 l22232425262728

80. In doing the actsalleged, he Defendantsnamedaboveviolated Section 2(a)(2)theSecurities ct of 1933n thesaleo theBankof the certificatesn the securitizationseferredto above.

81. This action is broughtwithin one yearafter the discovery of the untrueandmisleadingstatementsn the prospectussupplements, ndwithin threeyearsof thesecertificateshaving beensold to the public, or within any applicableperiod as olled by the pendencyof theclassactionsreferred o aboveor others.Despitehaving exercised easonablediligence, the Bankdid not andcould not reasonablyhavediscoveredearlier the untrueand misleadingstatementsnthe prospectussupplements.

82. SAMI II and CWALT are depositorsof the securitizations isted aboveandthereforeare the issuersof the certificates n thosesecuritizations. n connectionwith the offerand sale of thesecertificates o the Bank, the issuersalso madeall of the statements f materialfact aboutthesecertificates hat were in the prospectussupplementand otherdocuments hat thedealerssent o the Bank.

83. The Bank expresslyexcludes rom this causeof action any allegation hat could beconstruedas alleging fraud or intentional or recklessconduct.This causeof action is basedsolelvon claimsof strict iability or negligence nder he securitiesAct of 1933.

84. The Defendantsnamedabove, or their own financial gain, solicited the Bank topurchase hesecertificates,and sold the certificates o the Bank, by meansof the prospectussupplements.

85. Basedupon the truth of the statementsmade n the prospectussupplements,heBank purchased hesecertificates.

86. The prospectussupplements ontaineduntrue statements f material fact andomitted to statematerial factsnecessaryn order to makethe statements,n the light of thecircumstances nder which they were made,not misleading.

87. The Bank did not know when it purchased hesecertificates hat the statementsnthe prospectussupplementswere untrueor misleading.

88. The Bank hassuffereda losson eachof thesecertificates.

COMPLAINT


22/26

I2a

4)6789

1011t213I4l5t6t718l9202 l22232425262728

89. The Bank is entitled to recover he consideration hat it paid for eachof thesecertificates,plus interestat the legal rate from the dateof purchase o the dateon which itrecovers he purchaseprice, minus the amountof income it hasreceivedon eachcertificate. TheBank will tendereachcertificatebeforeentry ofjudgment.

FOURTH CAUSEOF ACTIONLIABILITY OF CONTROLLING PERSON(Section 5of theSecurities ct of 1933)Against Defendant: In connectionwith SeciW

'l'he Bear StearnsComnanies. nc.. Securitization No. 40CountrywideFinancialCorporation Securitizationsos.7r9,l0r lS througE 1,41,44 hrough47,54 hrough59,76through8090. TheBankherebyncorporatesy reference,s hough ully set orth,paragraphs

through89.91. TheDefendantsamedaboveare iablebecause,n doing heactsalleged, ersons

theycontrolled iolatedSections I and 2(a)(2)of theSecurities ct of 1933n thesale o theBankof the certificatesn thesecuritizationseferredo above.

92. TheBearStearns ompanies,nc.by or throughstockownership, gency, rotherwise,ontrolledSAMI II within the meaning f Section 5 of theSecurities ct of 1933.

93. Countrywide inancialCorporation y or throughstockownership, gency, rotherwise, ontrolledCWALT within the meaning f Section 5 of the Securities ct of I 933.

94. In doing heactsalleged, ach ontrolled erson amedn paragraphs2through93 s liableunderSections 1and 2(a)(2)of theSecuritiesct of 1933 or the easonsllegednparagraphs through89.

95. EachDefendant amed boves thereforeointly andseverallyiablewith and othe same xtentas hepersont controlled.

COMPLAINT


23/26

12aJ

4)6789

1011t2l3t4l5T6t7l8I9202 l22232425262728

FIFTH CAUSEOF ACTIONNEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION(cat. civil code gS1572etseq.and1709etseq.,andcommon Law)

AgainstDefendant: In connection with Securitizationi :CreditSuisse SecuritizationsNffiCSFB Mortsase Securities Securitizations os. thiouEf,3.s. andTDeutsche Secufitizations os.1f t[roush 3lDeutsche lt-A SecuritizationsNos. 12 throueh 16BearStearns SecuritizationsNos.32 throueh 41SAMI II SecuritizationsNos. 32, 33, 35, 37,39, and40GreenwiahCapital $gcuritizationsNos.42 th:ioush44Greenwich Capital Acceptance SecuritizationNo. 42Morsan Stanlev Securitizations os.45 hroueh47UBS Securitizations Nos. 48 throueh 59MAST $ecuritizations os.48 hroueh53Banc of America Securitizations os.60 throush74Bancof AmericaFunding SecuritizationsNos.60 through 63, 68,7I,and 73lfanc of America Mortgage Securities SecuritizationsNos. 64 through 67169170,and72Countrvwide SecuritizationsNos. 75 throueh 80CWALT SecuritizationsNos. 7, 9, 10, 7 through31r41,43 through 47r54 hrough 59,14,and 76 throueh 80

96. The Bank hereby ncorporatesby reference,as hough fully set forth, paragraphsthrough 95.97. As allegedabove, he Defendantsnamedabove madeuntrueor misleadingrepresentationsegarding he LTVs and CLTVs of the mortgage oans n the collateral pools ofthesesecuritizations, he occupancystatusof properties hat secured he mortgage oans n thesesecuritizations,underwriting guidelinesof the originators, andrelatedmatters.

98. In making the representationseferred o above, he Defendants ntended o inducethe Bank to rely on those representationsn making its decision o purchase hesecertificates nthesesecuritizations.The Defendantsexpected hat the Bank would rely on those representationsin deciding whetherto purchase hesecertificates.

99. When the Defendantsmade hese epresentations,hey had no reasonablegroundfor believing them to be true. Upon information andbelief, the Defendantshad accesso the fileson the mortgage oans n the collateral pools for thesesecuritizations,and,had the Defendants

COMPLAINT


24/26

I2aJ

456789

l0l1T213t415l6l7l819202 l22232425262728

inspected hose iles, they would have earned hat the information they gave he Bank containeduntrueor misleadingstatements.n addition, upon information and beliel the Defendantshiredone or more "due'diligence contractors" o ascertainwhether the mortgage oans n the collateralpools complied with the representations ndwarrantiesmadeaboutthose oans,and thesecontractors eported o the Defendants hat amaterial numberof the loans n the collateral poolswerematerially different from the descriptionsof those oans n the prospectussupplements.Thus, on information and belief, the Defendantshad accesso information that either did makethe Defendantsaware,or would or could havemade hem awarehad they heeded hatinformation, that the representationshey made o the Bank containedmaterially untrueormisleadingstatements boutthe mortgage oans n the collateralpools.

100. The Bank reasonablyand ustifiably relied on the representations escribedabovein analyzingand deciding to purchase hesecertificates.Had the Defendantsnot made hese alseand misleadingrepresentations,he Bank would not havepurchased hesecertificates.

l0l. When it purchased hesecertificates, he Bank did not know aboutthe untrueandmisleadingstatements llegedherein.

102. As a direct andproximate result of the negligentmisrepresentations y theDefendants, he Bank was damaged n an amountto be proved at trial.

SIXTH CAUSEOF ACTIONRESCISSIONOF CONTRACT

(CaliforniaCivil CodeSS1689and1710,and CommonLaw)

-24-

Against Defendant: In connectionwith SecuritizationsCredit Suisse Securitizations os. throueh 10

Deutsche Securitizations os.11 hroush31Bear Stearns SecuritizationsNos.32 throush 4lGreenwich Capital Securitizations Nos. 42 throueh 44Morgan Stanley Securitizations os.45 hroueh 47UBS SecuritZations Nos.4E throueh 59Banc of America SecuritizationsNos.60 throush 74Countnrwide SecuritizationsNos.75 throueh 80

COMPLAINT


25/26

I2J

4)6789

l011t2l 3I4l5I6t7l819202 l22232425262728

103' The Bank hereby ncorporatesby reference,as hough fully set forth, paragraphsthrough102.

104. The Bank purchasedeachcertificate pursuant o a contract n writing between heBank and the dealer rom which it purchased hat certificate.Eachcontract stated heconsideration hat the Bank paid eachdealer or eachcertificate.

105' In making eachcontract o purchase he certificates, he Bank relied on the truth ofthe statementshat the Defendantsnamedabovemade n the prospectussupplements.Becausethosestatementswere untrue or misleading, he Bank was mistakenabout ts basicassumptionsunderlying its purchaseof eachcertificate,and this mistakehad a material adverseeffect on theagreed-uponexchange epresented y the Bank's purchaseofeach certificate.Because heDefendantsnamedabovewere responsible o provide accurate nformation in the prospectussupplements,he Bank did not assume,nor does t bear, he risk of the fundamentalmistakeunderlying its decision o purchase hesecertificates.

106. The Defendantsnamedaboveobtained he consentof the Bank to the contracts opurchase he certificatesby meansof their assertion,as facts,of that which was not true,whenthoseDefendantshad no reasonableground for believing thoseassertions o be true.

107. Pursuant o Cal. Civil Code.$ 1639et seq., he Bank is entitled to rescind,anddoesherebydemand he rescissionof, eachcontract for the saleand purchaseof thesecertificates.The Bank offers to restoreall benefits hat it has receivedunder thosecontractsand is entitled torecoverall consideration hat it paid underthem.

PRAYER FOR RELIEFWHEREFORE, the Bank respectfully demandsudgment as follows:On the first causeof action, the consideration hat the Bank paid for each certificatewith

interest hereon, ess he amountof any incomethat the Bank hasreceived hereon,upon theBank's tenderof each certificate;

On the secondcauseof action, damages n an amountto be determinedat trial;

-25-COMPLAINT


26/26

I2aJ

456789

l011t2l 3I415t6t718t9202 l22232425262728

On the third causeof action,the consideration hat the Bank paid for eachcertificatewithinterest hereon, ess he amountof any incomethat the Bank hasreceived hereon,upon theBank's tenderof eachcertificate;

On the fourth causeof action, the consideration hat the Bank paid for eachcertificatewith interest hereon, ess he amountof any incomethat the Bank hasreceived hereon,upon theBank's tenderof eachcertificate;

On the fifth causeof action, damagesn an amountto be determined attial;On the sixth causeof action,the consideration hat the Bank paid for eachcertificatewith

interest hereon, ess he amountof any incomethat the Bank hasreceived hereon,upon theBank's tenderof eachcertificate;

All togetherwith the costsof this action,the reasonableeesof the Bank's attomevs nthis action, and suchother andfurther relief as he court may deem ust.

JURY DEMANDTHE BANK DEMANDSTRIAL BY ruRY OF ALL ISSUESSO TRIABLE.

March 5,2010 GOODIN,MACBRIDE,SQUERI,DAY & LAMPREY.LLPGRAIS& H LLP

ByAttomeys for PlaintiffFederalHome Loan Bank of San Francisco

3428/0OllXl17M3.vl

-26-COMPLAINT

Federal Home Loan Bank of San Francisco v Credit Suisse Securities USA LLC Et Al

Documents

Transcript of Federal Home Loan Bank of San Francisco v Credit Suisse Securities USA LLC Et Al