My favorite POS Bank that has been over hyped for years on how clean, nimble and conservative they are...HA HA HA!! Just wait, I don't think the ugly news is over for them on several fronts. On the earnings side, All their growth WAS acquired over the last many years...now the music stops and are too big to purchase growth going forward, so they resorted to try an boost earnings with funny paper.
Another classic management blunder there....IMHO
===================================================
M&T sues German bank
Deutsche Bank AG accused of impropriety
By Jonathan D. Epstein NEWS BUSINESS REPORTER
Updated: 06/17/08 7:10 AM
SAVE EMAIL PRINT POPULAR Digg it del.icio.us + Larger Font Google Yahoo - Smaller Font
M&T Bank Corp. sued German banking giant Deutsche Bank AG Monday evening, accusing the global investment banking powerhouse of knowingly selling M&T unsafe mortgage investments. M&T is seeking to recover $182 million in losses and punitive damages.
The legal action represents an attempt by Buffalo-based M&T to recoup most of the damage it suffered on a trio of mortgage-backed securities in the fourth quarter of last year. That’s when mortgage delinquencies and foreclosures were soaring nationwide, causing vast losses not only for lenders but also for the holders of investments.
The fraud lawsuit, filed Monday in State Supreme Court in Erie County, concerns two investment securities M&T purchased from Deutsche Bank in February 2007. At the time, M&T had hoped to earn higher returns than it could on U. S. Treasury bills and high-grade commercial debt issued by a company like General Electric Co.
Known as “collateralized debt obligations,” the complex layered securities were ultimately backed by “subprime mortgages,” which are loans to borrowers with bad credit. But the investments were highly rated by two of the nation’s major debt-ratings agencies, Standard & Poor’s and Moody’s Corp., giving the bank some comfort.
In its lawsuit, M&T claims Deutsche Bank deceived M&T by claiming the two securities it sold were “safe, secure, and nearly risk-free” — even safer than corporate debt and nearly as safe as Treasury bills.
In fact, the suit says, Deutsche Bank knew that its underwriting standards and due diligence had deteriorated, and bank officials were already experiencing problems with subprime loans and collateral “under their control” in 2006 and early 2007.
Also, M&T claims the ratings from Moody’s and S&P were also “fraudulent and false” because Deutsche Bank allegedly withheld information from the ratings firms, including about fraud with some of the loans and the refusal by the loan originators to stand behind them.
In the end, M&T cut the value of all three investments from $132 million to just $4.4 million less than a year after buying them.
“If M&T had been aware of the true facts . . . M&T would not have purchased the notes,” the bank said in the 51-page suit.
The bank is seeking to recover the original cost of the two Deutsche Bank securities, about $82 million, plus interest and $100 million in damages. The lawsuit does not cover the third security investment, originally valued at $50 million and sold to M&T by another party.
“We think that we have an incredibly strong case on the facts,” said Robert Lane, partner and head of the litigation department for Buffalo law firm Hodgson Russ LLP, which is handling the bank’s case.
The action by M&T represents the latest effort by an investor that purchased mortgage- backed securities and related bonds to go after the lender or brokerage that sold the investments in the first place.
Several such investor lawsuits have been filed by unions, pension funds, hospitals and municipalities such as Springfield, Mass., alleging they were sold inappropriate investments.
All of those suits are still in the early stages of litigation, with no sign of immediate resolution. But Lane said M&T was confident because its case is based on “very basic, accepted legal theories of fraud and negligent misrepresentation.”
The lawsuit also shines a light into the inner workings of “securitizations,” in which a multitude of loans are packaged by an investment bank into a legal trust, whose cash flow from the loans is then broken into pieces and sold to investors. Ratings agencies bestow their blessings in the form of evaluations such as “AAA,” which Wall Street then touts to sell the securities.
The two securities M&T purchased were “collateralized debt obligations,” which are pieces of debt that in turn are backed by other debt, such as mortgage-backed securities. Cash flow from one is used to repay the debt from the next higher level. And investors can buy into different levels of risk, accepting a bigger chance of default for higher returns. Many CDOs also have used derivatives known as “credit default swaps” to supplement loans.
M&T historically stuck to conservative investments, but opted to buy CDOs for the first time in February 2007. Relying on Deutsche Bank’s marketing, it chose two bonds from the Gemstone VII trust, which Deutsche Bank put together, sold, and administered, with Texas-based HBK Investments LP as collateral manager, the lawsuit said.
The first security, for $42 million, was rated AAA by S&P, while the second, for $40 million, was AA. The Gemstone marketing materials touted HBK’s experience and record, and the historically stable performance of similar investments, while a Deutsche Bank salesman repeatedly reassured M&T.
But within months after the purchase, the loans deteriorated, defaults soared, the bonds behind the CDOs were downgraded, and Gemstone itself was up for downgrade. M&T also learned for the first time that HBK had had claims against one of its biggest lenders, and was fighting with five over loans in default since 2006.
By October, half the bonds in Gemstone were downgraded, and one-fourth were in default. Gemstone itself was next.
Ultimately, M&T cut the Gemstone bonds to just under $2 million. They’re now $1 million.
buffalonews.com |
