12-3207-cv IN THE United States Court of Appeals FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT FEDERAL HOUSING FINANCE AGENCY , as Conservator for THE FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION and THE FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTGAGE CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Appellee, —against— UBS AMERICAS INC., UBS REAL ESTATE SECURITIES INC., UBS SECURITIES, LLC, MORTGAGE ASSET SECURITIZATION TRANSACTIONS, INC., DAVID MARTIN, PER DYRVIK, HUGH CORCORAN, PETER SLAGOWITZ, Defendants-Appellants. ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK EMERGENCY MOTION TO RECALL MANDATE TO AMEND JUDGMENT AND FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE d David H. Braff Brian T. Frawley Jeffrey T. Scott Joshua Fritsch SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP 125 Broad Street New York, New York 10004 (212) 558-4000 Attorneys for Barclays Capital Inc., Barclays Bank PLC, and Securitized Asset Backed Receivables LLC (Counsel continued on inside cover) Case: 12-3207 Document: 228-2 Page: 1 07/15/2013 989365 40
40
Embed
00000 SULLCROM Br Cv-Modified NOH - Reutersblogs.reuters.com/alison-frankel/files/2013/07/... · 12-3207-cv in the united states court of appeals for the second circuit federal housing
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
12-3207-cvIN THE
United States Court of AppealsFOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
FEDERAL HOUSING FINANCE AGENCY, as Conservator forTHE FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION andTHE FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTGAGE CORPORATION,
Plaintiff-Appellee,—against—
UBS AMERICAS INC., UBS REAL ESTATE SECURITIES INC., UBS SECURITIES, LLC,MORTGAGE ASSET SECURITIZATION TRANSACTIONS, INC., DAVID MARTIN,
PER DYRVIK, HUGH CORCORAN, PETER SLAGOWITZ,
Defendants-Appellants.
ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
EMERGENCY MOTION TO RECALL MANDATE TO AMEND JUDGMENT AND FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE
d
David H. BraffBrian T. FrawleyJeffrey T. ScottJoshua FritschSULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP125 Broad StreetNew York, New York 10004(212) 558-4000
Attorneys for Barclays CapitalInc., Barclays Bank PLC, andSecuritized Asset BackedReceivables LLC
Michael O. WareMAYER BROWN LLP1675 BroadwayNew York, New York 10019(212) 506-2500
Catherine A. Bernard1999 K St., N.W.Washington, D.C. 20006(202) 263-3000
Attorneys for Ally Financial Inc. andGMAC Mortgage Group, Inc.
Matthew SolumKIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP601 Lexington AvenueNew York, New York 10022(212) 446-4800
Robert J. KopeckyBrian D. Sieve300 North LaSalle StreetChicago, Illinois 60654(312) 862-2000
Attorneys for Ally Securities, LLC
David BlattKannon K. ShanmugamJohn McNicholsWILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP725 Twelfth Street, N.W.Washington, DC 20005(202) 434-5000
Attorneys for Bank of America Corp.,Bank of America, N.A., Asset BackedFunding Corp., Banc of AmericaFunding Corp., Merrill Lynch & Co.,Inc., Merrill Lynch Mortgage Lending,Inc., Merrill Lynch Mortgage CapitalInc., First Franklin Financial Corp.,Merrill Lynch Mortgage Investors,Inc., Merrill Lynch GovernmentSecurities, Inc., and Merrill Lynch
Richard W. ClaryRichard J. StarkMichael T. ReynoldsLauren A. MoskowitzCRAVATH, SWAINE & MOORE LLPWorldwide Plaza825 Eighth AvenueNew York, New York 10019(212) 474-1000
Attorneys for Credit Suisse Securities(USA) LLC, Credit Suisse Holdings(USA), Inc., Credit Suisse (USA), Inc.,DLJ Mortgage Capital, Inc., CreditSuisse First Boston MortgageSecurities Corp., Asset BackedSecurities Corp., and Credit SuisseFirst Boston Mortgage AcceptanceCorp.
Thomas C. RiceDavid J. WollAlan C. TurnerSIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT LLP425 Lexington AvenueNew York, New York 10017(212) 455-2000
Attorneys for Deutsche Bank AG,Taunus Corporation, Deutsche BankSecurities Inc., DB StructuredProducts, Inc., ACE Securities Corp.,Mortgage IT Securities Corp.
Attorneys for RBS Securities Inc.
Bruce ClarkSULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP125 Broad StreetNew York, New York 10004(212) 558-4000
Amanda F. Davidoff1701 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.Washington, DC 20006(202) 956-7500
Attorneys for First Horizon NationalCorp., First Tennessee Bank NationalAssociation, FTN Financial SecuritiesCorp., and First Horizon AssetSecurities, Inc.
Attorneys for Nomura SecuritiesInternational, Inc., Nomura HoldingAmerica Inc., Nomura AssetAcceptance Corp., Nomura HomeEquity Loan, Inc., and Nomura Credit& Capital, Inc.
Richard H. KlapperTheodore EdelmanMichael T. Tomaino, Jr.Tracy Richelle HighSULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP125 Broad StreetNew York, New York 10004(212) 558-4000
John M. ConlonMark G. HanchetMichael O. WareMAYER BROWN LLP1675 BroadwayNew York, New York 10019(212) 506-2500
Attorneys for HSBC North AmericaHoldings Inc., HSBC USA Inc., HSBCMarket (USA) Inc., HSBC Securities(USA) Inc., HSBC Bank USA, N.A.,and HSI Asset Securitization Corp.
Penny ShaneSharon L. NellesJonathan M. SedlakYavar BathaeeSULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP125 Broad StreetNew York, New York 10004(212) 558-4000
Attorneys for JPMorgan Chase & Co.,JPMorganChase Bank, N.A., J.P. Morgan Mortgage AcquisitionCorp., J.P. Morgan Securities LLC,J.P. Morgan Acceptance Corp. I, BearStearns & Co., Inc., EMC MortgageLLC, Structured Asset MortgageInvestments II Inc., Bear Stearns AssetBacked Securities I LLC, WaMu AssetAcceptance Corp., WaMu CapitalCorp., Washington Mutual MortgageSecurities Corp., and Long BeachSecurities Corp.
James P. RouhandehBrian S. WeinsteinDaniel J. SchwartzNicolas N. GeorgeJane M. MorrilDAVIS POLK & WARDWELL LLP450 Lexington AvenueNew York, New York 10017(212) 450-4000
Attorneys for Morgan Stanley, Morgan Stanley & Co. Incorporated(n/k/a Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC),Morgan Stanley Mortgage CapitalHoldings LLC (successor-in-interest toMorgan Stanley Mortgage CapitalInc.), Morgan Stanley ABS Capital I Inc., Morgan Stanley Capital I Inc.,Saxon Capital, Inc., Saxon FundingManagement LLC, and Saxon AssetSecurities Co.
Jay B. KasnerScott MusoffGeorge ZimmermanRobert A. FumertonSKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE,
MEAGHER & FLOM LLPFour Times SquareNew York, New York 10036(212) 735-3000Attorneys for SG Americas, Inc., SGAmericas Securities Holdings, LLC,SG Americas Securities, LLC, SGMortgage Finance Corp., and SGMortgage Securities, LLC.
I. THE COURT SHOULD RECALL THE MANDATE TO PERMIT MOVANTS TO INTERVENE AND SEEK CERTIORARI .......................... 8
II. THE EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES WARRANT INTERVENTION .......................................................................................... 11
A. Movants Have Standing to Intervene .................................................. 11
B. Intervention Will Further the Efficient Resolution of the FHFA Actions and the Policies Underlying Intervention .............................. 13
1. This Motion Is Timely .............................................................. 15
2. The Non-UBS Actions Share with the UBS Action Common Questions of Law ...................................................... 16
3. Intervention Will Not Unduly Delay or Prejudice the Parties ........................................................................................ 16
4. The Present Circumstances Favor Intervention ........................ 18
Arizonans for Official English v. Arizona, 520 U.S. 43 (1997) .............................................................................................. 11
Christian Louboutin S.A. v. Yves Saint Laurent Am. Holding, Inc., 709 F.3d 140 (2d Cir. 2013) ................................................................................ 8
City of Detroit v. Grinnell Corp., 575 F.2d 1009 (2d Cir. 1977) ............................................................................... 8
Clark v. Putnam County, 168 F.3d 458 (11th Cir. 1999) ............................................................................ 19
Commonwealth Land Title Ins. Co. v. Corman Constr., Inc., 508 U.S. 958 (1993) ............................................................................................ 14
Consumer Energy Council v. FERC, 673 F.2d 425 (D.C. Cir. 1982) ............................................................................ 14
Coopers & Lybrand v. Livesay, 437 U.S. 463 (1978) ............................................................................................ 16
Hurd v. Ill. Bell Tel. Co., 234 F.2d 942 (7th Cir. 1956) .............................................................................. 13
In re Nevada-Utah Mines & Smelters Corp., 204 F. 982 (2d Cir. 1913) ................................................................................... 13
In re Union Nacional de Trabajadores, 527 F.2d 602 (1st Cir. 1975) ............................................................................... 11
Int’l Union v. Scofield, 382 U.S. 205 (1965) ...................................................................................... 11, 14
Jie Hin Shu v. Dep’t of Justice, 282 F. App’x 879 (2d Cir. 2008) ...................................................................... 8-9
Mass. Sch. of Law at Andover, Inc. v. United States, 118 F.3d 776 (D.C. Cir. 1997) ............................................................................ 19
Mullaney v. Anderson, 342 U.S. 415 (1952) ............................................................................................ 19
NAACP v. New York, 413 U.S. 345 (1973) ............................................................................................ 15
Newman-Green, Inc. v. Alfonzo-Larrain, 490 U.S. 826 (1989) ...................................................................................... 13, 14
Oneida Indian Nation of N.Y. v. County of Oneida, 617 F.3d 114 (2d Cir. 2010) ............................................................................... 12
Rogers v. Paul, 382 U.S. 198 (1965) ...................................................................................... 14, 19
Sargent v. Columbia Forest Prods., Inc., 75 F.3d 86 (2d Cir. 1996) ............................................................................... 8, 10
Sierra Club v. Leavitt, 488 F.3d 904, 911 (11th Cir. 2007) .................................................................... 19
Spangler v. Pasadena City Bd. of Educ., 552 F.2d 1326 (9th Cir. 1977) ............................................................................ 18
Tachiona v. United States, 386 F.3d 205 (2d Cir. 2004) ............................................................................... 12
TM Patents v. IBM, 107 F. Supp. 2d 352 (S.D.N.Y. 2000) ................................................................ 12
Turner v. Rogers, 131 S. Ct. 504 (2010) .......................................................................................... 14
U.S. Postal Serv. v. Brennan, 579 F.2d 188 (2d Cir. 1978) ............................................................................... 17
United States v. Hinds, No. 99-4605, 2002 WL 32076932 (4th Cir. Oct. 17, 2002) ................................. 9
United States v. Pitney Bowes, Inc., 25 F.3d 66 (2d Cir. 1994) ................................................................................... 17
United States v. Terminal R.R. Ass’n, 236 U.S. 194 (1915) ............................................................................................ 14
Weisshaus v. Swiss Bankers Ass’n (In re Holocaust Victim Assets Litig.), 225 F.3d 191 (2d Cir. 2000) ............................................................................... 17
Wilkins v. United States, 441 U.S. 468 (1979) ............................................................................................ 11
CONSTITUTION, STATUTES & RULES
U.S. Constitution .................................................................................................. 4, 11
By this emergency motion, Movants respectfully request this Court to
enter an Order (a) recalling the mandate issued in this action on April 26, 2013 (the
“Mandate”), and (b) granting Movants leave to intervene as Appellants-Defendants
to this Court’s April 5, 2013 opinion and judgment (the “April 5 Judgment”) in this
action (the “UBS Action”). Movants also seek entry of an amended judgment
reflecting this relief. Movants bring this motion to protect their legal rights, to
preserve appellate review of the April 5 Judgment, and to avoid the potential
mootness of these proceedings before the filing of (or during the pendency of) a
forthcoming petition for writ of certiorari, currently due on September 3, 2013.
For the reasons set forth below, compelling and unique circumstances warrant this
relief.
Movants are defendants in thirteen actions 1 filed by the Federal
Housing Finance Agency (“FHFA”) on September 2, 2011 (the “Non-UBS
Actions,” and together with the UBS Action, the “FHFA Actions”) that, like the
present action, arise from the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation’s
(“Freddie Mac”) and the Federal National Mortgage Association’s (“Fannie Mae”)
purchases of over $130 billion dollars of certificates in over 400 residential
1 See Declaration of David H. Braff in Support of Emergency Motion to Recall Mandate to Amend Judgment and for Leave to Intervene (“Braff Decl.” or “Braff Declaration”) ¶ 1 n.1 (July 15, 2013). Citations to “Ex.” are to the exhibits appended to the Braff Declaration.
law. Similarly, if FHFA lacks standing to sue, FHFA’s claims against all
defendants in the FHFA Actions would be dismissed.
In a May 4, 2012 decision, the District Court largely denied the UBS
Defendants’ motion to dismiss. FHFA v. UBS Ams., Inc., 858 F. Supp. 2d 306
(S.D.N.Y. 2012). The District Court ruled, among other things, that (i) the
Extender Statute applied to statutes of repose despite the fact that the statute, by its
terms, referred only to statutes of limitations, and (ii) FHFA had standing to sue.
Id. at 317, 322. The District Court subsequently certified two questions for
interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) relating to the application of the
Extender Statute, explaining that “the Court’s decision to certify is driven
primarily by the prospect that an immediate appeal may expedite the conclusion of
this litigation—whether through judicial resolution or settlement.” Id. at 340-41.
The District Court also observed:
Appellate resolution of the timeliness of plaintiff’s Securities Act claims will also remove a cloud of legal uncertainty that hangs over the other 17 actions in this suite of cases. This, in turn, will facilitate and streamline motion practice in those other cases and may affect the parties’ strategic decision-making going forward. Courts may properly consider such “system-wide costs and benefits” in determining whether to permit interlocutory review. Indeed several district courts, including this one, have opined that certification may be particularly appropriate in complex litigation involving multiple coordinated actions. In such cases, interlocutory review may be the best way to “materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation by avoiding ‘protracted litigation and multiple appeals’” of the same or similar issues.
(1986)); Tachiona v. United States, 386 F.3d 205, 211 (2d Cir. 2004). FHFA’s
lawsuits were coordinated before the District Court in an effort to streamline
litigation by, among other things, avoiding the need to resolve arguments on each
defendant’s motion to dismiss on issues common to all the FHFA Actions. (E.g.,
Ex. H, at 50.) The exact same legal questions at issue in the appeal to this Court
arise in each of the FHFA actions against Movants. In fact, the District Court has
applied its rulings in the UBS Action to Movants, including its rulings regarding
the scope of the Extender Statute and FHFA’s standing to prosecute these actions.
See supra at 4, 6, & Braff Decl. ¶ 13 n.3. Because of this coordination, Movants
were required to rely exclusively on the UBS Defendants to litigate these common
issues. 3
Consequently, this Court’s April 5 Judgment has directly affected, in
an actual, concrete, and cognizable way, Movants’ legal interests. Movants are
already, in every practical sense, subject to the April 5 Judgment to the same extent
as the UBS Defendants. Thus, they should be given the opportunity to seek review
of that judgment by the Supreme Court.
3 The Second Circuit’s opinion in the UBS Action is binding on all district courts in the Circuit, see TM Patents v. IBM, 107 F. Supp. 2d 352, 353 (S.D.N.Y. 2000), as well as any subsequent Second Circuit panel “in the absence of a decision by the Supreme Court or an en banc panel of [the Second Circuit] calling that precedent into question.” Oneida Indian Nation of N.Y. v. County of Oneida, 617 F.3d 114, 122 (2d Cir. 2010).
Moreover, various courts of appeals have allowed amici to intervene post-
judgment. See Eugene Gressman et al., Supreme Court Practice 86-87 & n.30 (9th
ed. 2007) (citing Chadha v. INS, 634 F.2d 408 (9th Cir. 1980), aff’d, 462 U.S. 919,
929-31 (1983), and Consumer Energy Council v. FERC, 673 F.2d 425 (D.C. Cir.
1982)).
Although the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure do not provide
explicitly for intervention or the addition of parties, the Supreme Court has
observed that the policies underlying the Rules may apply in appellate courts.
Scofield, 382 U.S. at 217 n.10; see also Newman-Green, 490 U.S. at 832
(“Although the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure strictly apply only in the district
courts, Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 1, the policies informing Rule 21 [granting district
courts the authority to ‘add or drop a party’] may apply equally to the courts of
appeals.”). Under Rule 24(b), intervention may be allowed where, as here, (i) the
movant has made a timely motion, and (ii) the movant “has a claim or defense that
shares with the main action a common question of law or fact.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
24(b)(1). These factors are satisfied here.
Indeed, the Supreme Court itself has granted motions to intervene. See, e.g., Turner v. Rogers, 131 S. Ct. 504 (2010); Gonzales v. Oregon, 546 U.S. 807 (2005); Hunt v. Cromartie, 525 U.S. 946 (1998); Commonwealth Land Title Ins. Co. v. Corman Constr., Inc., 508 U.S. 958 (1993); Hunter v. Ohio ex rel. Miller, 396 U.S. 879 (1969); Banks v. Chi. Grain Trimmers Ass’n, 389 U.S. 813 (1967); Rogers v. Paul, 382 U.S. 198, 199 (1965); United States v. Terminal R.R. Ass’n, 236 U.S. 194, 199 (1915).
rights.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b)(3); AT&T Corp. v. Sprint Corp., 407 F.3d 560, 561-
62 (2d Cir. 2005). This Court has found undue delay or prejudice to be the
“principal consideration” in determining whether intervention under Rule 24(b) is
appropriate. U.S. Postal Serv. v. Brennan, 579 F.2d 188, 191 (2d Cir. 1978).
Here, intervention poses no delay or prejudice to the parties or the
Court. Movants seek intervention for the sole purpose of filing a petition for writ
of certiorari on the same time frame that has been granted to the UBS Defendants.
The issues to be presented to the Supreme Court for potential review are purely
legal questions, untethered to any unique factual issues or allegations in the UBS
Action.
Further, intervention will not jeopardize any potential settlement in
the UBS Action. Any settlement of that action will implicate only the
securities issued, sponsored, and/or underwritten by the UBS Defendants, which
are independent of the securities at issue in the Non-UBS Actions.6 A settlement
will still relieve FHFA of its obligation to prepare for a January 2014 trial against
the UBS Defendants, regardless of Movants’ intervention. In short, a settlement of
6 While courts have denied motions to intervene when intervention would “prejudice the . . . existing parties by destroying” potential settlement, prolonging litigation, and raising the costs to the parties, there is no such prejudice to the parties from Movants’ intervention. See Weisshaus v. Swiss Bankers Ass’n (In re Holocaust Victim Assets Litig.), 225 F.3d 191, 202 (2d Cir. 2000); United States v. Pitney Bowes, Inc., 25 F.3d 66, 73 (2d Cir. 1994) (denying intervention because parties would have had to renegotiate settlement).
the UBS Action (or any of the individual Non-UBS Actions) will have no effect on
the issues to be presented to the Supreme Court, which concern only the purely
legal questions of whether the Extender Statute applies to statutes of repose and
whether FHFA has standing to bring these suits. Thus, Movants’ intervention
poses no harm or prejudice to either the UBS Defendants or FHFA.
4. The Present Circumstances Favor Intervention.
In considering motions to intervene, courts within this Circuit also
may look to other factors, such as (i) “the nature and extent of the [movant’s]
interests,” (ii) “the degree to which those interests are adequately represented by
other parties,”7 and (iii) “whether [the movant] will significantly contribute to full
development of the underlying factual issues in the suit and to the just and
equitable adjudication of the legal questions presented.” H.L. Hayden Co. of N.Y.,
Inc. v. Siemens Med. Sys., Inc., 797 F.2d 85, 89 (2d Cir. 1986) (quoting Spangler
v. Pasadena City Bd. of Educ., 552 F.2d 1326, 1329 (9th Cir. 1977)) (internal
quotation marks omitted).
These discretionary factors weigh strongly in favor of granting
intervention. First, as the District Court recognized in certifying the interlocutory
appeal, resolution of these issues will materially advance all of the actions that are
7 Although adequate representation is explicitly identified as a consideration under Rule 24(a) but not Rule 24(b), this Court has identified it as a factor to consider for permissive intervention as well.
coordinated with the UBS Action. UBS Ams., Inc., 858 F. Supp. 2d at 338; see
supra at 4-5. Second, given the compressed schedule in the UBS Action—motions
for summary judgment are due September 16, 2013, and trial begins January 13,
2014 (Ex. D, at 2-3)—the UBS Defendants face particularly acute pressures to
settle, in which case the UBS Defendants would not represent the interests of the
Movants at all.8 Finally, allowing Movants to intervene would promote “litigative
economy, reduced risks of inconsistency, and increased information.” Mass. Sch.
of Law at Andover, Inc. v. United States, 118 F.3d 776, 782 (D.C. Cir. 1997); see
also Rogers, 382 U.S. at 199. Indeed, the Supreme Court has granted intervention
precisely to avoid piecemeal appeals and “needless waste” of resources. Mullaney
v. Anderson, 342 U.S. 415, 416-17 (1952) (permitting addition of two new party
plaintiffs to “remove the matter from controversy” and avoid the “needless waste”
of having to start the case over again in the lower courts after defendant questioned
the standing of the original plaintiffs for the first time in the Supreme Court).
Absent prompt review of this Court’s Decision, Movants will be forced to litigate
each of their thirteen individual Non-UBS Actions to judgment before any further
appeal can be taken. Each of these appeals assuredly will raise the same two 8 Appellate courts have recognized that a named party’s “greater willingness to compromise can impede [that] party from adequately representing the interests of a nonparty.” Clark v. Putnam County, 168 F.3d 458, 462 (8th Cir. 1999) (citation omitted); see also Sierra Club v. Leavitt, 488 F.3d 904, 911 (11th Cir. 2007) (citation omitted); Daggett v. Comm’n on Governmental Ethics & Election Practices, 172 F.3d 104, 112 (1st Cir. 1999) (citation omitted).
/s/ David H. Braff David H. Braff Brian T. Frawley Jeffrey T. Scott Joshua Fritsch SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP 125 Broad Street New York, NY 10004 (212) 558-4000 Attorneys for Barclays Capital Inc., Barclays Bank PLC, and Securitized Asset Backed Receivables LLC
Michael O. Ware MAYER BROWN LLP 1675 Broadway New York, NY 10019 (212) 506-2500 Catherine A. Bernard 1999 K St., N.W. Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 263-3000 Attorneys for Ally Financial Inc. and GMAC Mortgage Group, Inc. Matthew Solum KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 601 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10022 (212) 446-4800 Robert J. Kopecky Brian D. Sieve 300 North LaSalle Street Chicago, IL 60654 (312) 862-2000 Attorneys for Ally Securities, LLC
David Blatt Kannon K. Shanmugam John McNichols WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP 725 Twelfth Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20005 (202) 434-5000 Attorneys for Bank of America Corp., Bank of America, N.A., Asset Backed Funding Corp., Banc of America Funding Corp., Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc., Merrill Lynch Mortgage Lending, Inc., Merrill Lynch Mortgage Capital Inc., First Franklin Financial Corp., Merrill Lynch Mortgage Investors, Inc., Merrill Lynch Government Securities, Inc., and Merrill Lynch Richard W. Clary Richard J. Stark Michael T. Reynolds Lauren A. Moskowitz CRAVATH, SWAINE & MOORE LLP Worldwide Plaza 825 Eighth Avenue New York, NY 10019 (212) 474-1000 Attorneys for Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC, Credit Suisse Holdings (USA), Inc., Credit Suisse (USA), Inc., DLJ Mortgage Capital, Inc., Credit Suisse First Boston Mortgage Securities Corp., Asset Backed Securities Corp., and Credit Suisse First Boston Mortgage Acceptance Corp.
Thomas C. Rice David J. Woll Alan C. Turner SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT LLP 425 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10017 (212) 455-2000 Attorneys for Deutsche Bank AG, Taunus Corp., Deutsche Bank Securities Inc., DB Structured Products, Inc., Ace Securities Corp., Mortgage IT Securities Corp. Attorneys for RBS Securities Inc. Bruce Clark SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP 125 Broad Street New York, NY 10004 (212) 558-4000 Amanda F. Davidoff 1701 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20006 (202) 956-7500 Attorneys for First Horizon National Corp., First Tennessee Bank National Association, FTN Financial Securities Corp., and First Horizon Asset Securities, Inc. Attorneys for Nomura Securities International, Inc., Nomura Holding America Inc., Nomura Asset Acceptance Corp., Nomura Home Equity Loan, Inc., and Nomura Credit & Capital, Inc.
Richard H. Klapper Theodore Edelman Michael T. Tomaino, Jr. Tracy Richelle High SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP 125 Broad Street New York, NY 10004 (212) 558-4000 Attorneys for Goldman, Sachs & Co., GS Mortgage Securities Corp., Goldman Sachs Mortgage Co., The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., and Goldman Sachs Real Estate Funding Corp. John M. Conlon Mark. G. Hanchet Michael O. Ware MAYER BROWN LLP 1675 Broadway New York, NY 10019 (212) 506-2500 Attorneys for HSBC North America Holdings Inc., HSBC USA Inc., HSBC Market (USA) Inc., HSBC Securities (USA) Inc., HSBC Bank USA, N.A., and HSI Asset Securitization Corp.
Penny Shane Sharon L. Nelles Jonathan M. Sedlak Yavar Bathaee SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP 125 Broad Street New York, NY 10004 (212) 558-4000
Attorneys for JPMorgan Chase & Co., JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., J.P. Morgan Mortgage Acquisition Corp., J.P. Morgan Securities LLC, J.P. Morgan Acceptance Corp. I, Bear Stearns & Co., Inc., EMC Mortgage LLC, Structured Asset Mortgage Investments II Inc., Bear Stearns Asset Backed Securities I LLC, WaMu Asset Acceptance Corp., WaMu Capital Corp., Washington Mutual Mortgage Securities Corp., and Long Beach Securities Corp.
James P. RouhandehBrian S. Weinstein Daniel J. Schwartz Nicolas N. George Jane M. Morril DAVIS POLK & WARDWELL LLP 450 Lexington Avenue New York, New York 10017 (212) 450-4000
Attorneys for Morgan Stanley, Morgan Stanley & Co. Incorporated (n/k/a Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC), Morgan Stanley Mortgage Capital Holdings LLC (successor-in-interest to Morgan Stanley Mortgage Capital Inc.), Morgan Stanley ABS Capital I Inc., Morgan Stanley Capital I Inc., Saxon Capital, Inc., Saxon Funding Management LLC, and Saxon Asset Securities Co. Jay B. Kasner Scott Musoff George Zimmerman Robert A. Fumerton SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP Four Times Square New York, NY 10036 (212) 735-3000 Attorneys for SG Americas, Inc., SG Americas Securities Holdings, LLC, SG Americas Securities, LLC, SG Mortgage Finance Corp., and SG Mortgage Securities, LLC.