Citigroup Mortgage Loan Trust Inc. : Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates and Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates

Company and Case Information

IMPORTANT INFORMATION | INDEX OF FILINGS | SEARCH

Home

Index of Filings

News and Press Releases

Filings

Decisions

Settlements

Litigation Activity Indices

Top Ten List

Annual/Quarterly Updates

Clearinghouse Research

Articles & Papers

Search

Related Sites

About Us

Local Rules

Sponsors

Register

_______________
Copyright (c) 2001
Stanford Law School

Citigroup Mortgage Loan Trust Inc. : Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates and Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates Summary: According to the complaint originally filed on March 19, 2008, in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, this is a securities class action on behalf of all persons or entities who acquired the Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates and Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates (collectively, the "Certificates") of Citigroup Mortgage Loan Trust Inc. ("Citigroup Mortgage" or the "Depositor") pursuant and/or traceable to the false and misleading Registration Statement and Prospectus Supplements issued during 2007 (collectively, the "Registration Statement"). This action involves solely strict liability and negligence claims brought pursuant to the Securities Act of 1933 ("1933 Act").

Citigroup Mortgage is a Delaware corporation formed for the purpose of acquiring, owning and transferring mortgage loan assets and selling interests in them. Citigroup Mortgage is an affiliate of Citigroup Global Markets Inc. ("Citigroup Global"). The issuers ofthe various offerings(the "Defendant Issuers") are the Trusts identified in 1112, established by Citigroup Mortgage to issue billions of dollars worth of Certificates in 2007.

On December 12, 2006, Citigroup Mortgage and the Defendant Issuers caused a Registration Statement to be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") in connection with and for the purpose of issuing billions of dollars of Certificates. The Certificates were issued pursuant to Prospectus Supplements, each of which was incorporated into the Registration Statement. The Certificates were supported by pools of mortgage loans. The Registration Statement represented that the mortgage pools would primarily consist of loans generally secured by liens on residential properties, including conventional and adjustable-rate mortgage loans.

Investors purchased the Certificates based upon three primary factors: return (in the form of interest payments), timing of principal and interest payments, and safety (risk ofdefault of the underlying mortgage loan assets). The Registration Statement included false statements and/or omissions about: (i) the underwriting standards purportedly used in connection with the origination of the underlying mortgage loans; (ii) the maximum loan-to-value ratios used to qualify borrowers; (iii) the appraisals of properties underlying the mortgage loans; and (iv) the debt-to-income ratios permitted on the loans.

As a result, the Certificates sold to plaintiff and the Class were secured by assets that had a much greater risk profile than represented in the Registration Statement. In this way, defendants were able to obtain superior ratings on the tranches or classes of Certificates, when in fact these tranches or classes were not equivalent to other investments with the same credit ratings.

By the Fall of 2007, the truth about the performance of the mortgage loans that secured the Certificates began to be revealed to the public, increasing the risk of the Certificates receiving less absolute cash flow in the future and the likelihood that investors would not receive it on a timely basis. The credit rating agencies also began to put negative watch labels on the Certificate tranches or classes, ultimately downgrading many, As an additional result, the Certificates are no longer marketable at prices anywhere near the price paid by plaintiff and the Class and the holders of the Certificates are exposed to much more risk with respect to both the timing and absolute cash flow to be received than the Registration Statement/Prospectus Supplements represented.

On April 7, 2008, the case was transferred from the Supreme Court of the State of New York to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York.

On March 26, 2009, Judge Leonard D. Wexler granted the motion to appoint the City of Ann Arbor Employees' Retirement System and the Greater Kansas City Laborers Pension Fund as lead plaintiff and approved the selection of Coughin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP as lead counsel. On April 6, 2009, an Amended Complaint was filed with the court. On October 30, 2009, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss.

On April 06, 2010, the Court issued a Memorandum and Order granting in part and denying in part the Defendants Motion to Dismiss

On May 24, 2010, a Second Amended Complaint For Violation Of §§11, 12 And 15 Of The Securities Act Of 1933 was filed against the Defendants.

On December 12, 2010, the Court issued an Order and Memorandum denying the defendant's motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint.

INDUSTRY CLASSIFICATION:
SIC Code: 6189
Sector: Financial
Industry: Misc. Financial Services

COMPANY/ISSUER NAME:	Citigroup Mortgage Loan Trust Inc.
COMPANY/ISSUER TICKER:
COMPANY WEBSITE:

FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT IN THE DATABASE

City Of Ann Arbor Employees' Retirement System, et al. v. Citigroup Mortgage Loan Trust Inc., et al.

COURT: E.D. New York	DOCKET NUMBER: 08-CV-1418
JUDGE NAME: Hon. Leonard D. Wexler
DATE FILED: 04/07/2008	SOURCE: Notice of Filing
CLASS PERIOD START: 01/01/2007	CLASS PERIOD END: 10/31/2007
TYPE OF COMPLAINT: Complaint (Unamended and Unconsolidated)
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (Melville) 58 South Service Road, Suite 200, Melville, NY, 11747 (voice) 631.367.7100, (fax) 631.367.1173, info@csgrr.com/ Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (San Diego) 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900, San Diego, CA, 92101 (voice) 619.231.1058, (fax) 619.231.7423, info@csgrr.com/ VanOverbeke Michaud & Timmony, P.C. 79 Alfred Street, Detroit, MI, 48201 (voice) 313.578.1200, (fax) 313.578.1200, _____________________________________________ TOTAL NUMBER OF PLAINTIFF FIRMS: 3

DOCUMENTS FOR THE FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT
Notice of Removal
Type: Notice		Date on the document: 4/7/2008
Memorandum and Order
Type: Order		Date on the document: 10/06/2008
Report and Recommendation
Type: Other		Date on the document: 03/09/2009
Memorandum And Order
Type: Memorandum		Date on the document: 03/26/2009

REFERENCE COMPLAINT

City Of Ann Arbor Employees' Retirement System, et al. v. Citigroup Mortgage Loan Trust Inc., et al.

COURT: E.D. New York	DOCKET NUMBER: 08-CV-1418
JUDGE NAME:
DATE FILED: 04/06/2009	SOURCE: Docket
CLASS PERIOD START: 01/01/2007	CLASS PERIOD END: 10/31/2007
TYPE OF COMPLAINT: First Amended
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (Melville) 58 South Service Road, Suite 200, Melville, NY, 11747 (voice) 631.367.7100, (fax) 631.367.1173, info@csgrr.com/ Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (San Diego) 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900, San Diego, CA, 92101 (voice) 619.231.1058, (fax) 619.231.7423, info@csgrr.com/ _____________________________________________ TOTAL NUMBER OF PLAINTIFF FIRMS: 2

DOCUMENTS FOR THE REFERENCE COMPLAINT
Amended Complaint For Violation Of §§11, 12 And 15 Of The Securities Act Of 1933
Type: Complaint		Date on the document: 04/06/2009
U.S. District Court Civil Docket
Type: Docket		Date on the document: 02/01/2010
Memorandum And Order
Type: Order		Date on the document: 04/06/2010
U.S. District Court Civil Docket
Type: Docket		Date on the document: 04/06/2010
Second Amended Complaint For Violation Of §§11, 12 And 15 Of The Securities Act Of 1933
Type: Complaint		Date on the document: 05/24/2010
U.S. District Court Civil Docket
Type: Docket		Date on the document: 05/24/2010
Memorandum And Order
Type: Order		Date on the document: 12/23/2010
U.S. District Court Civil Docket
Type: Docket		Date on the document: 07/21/2011
U.S. District Court Civil Docket
Type: Docket		Date on the document: 11/18/2011

OTHER DOCUMENTS

Case Name and/or Number:
Type:		Date on the document:

WARNING AND DISCLAIMER OF LIABILITY:
The information included on this Web site, whether provided by personnel employed by Stanford Law School or by third parties, is provided for research and teaching purposes only. Neither Stanford University, Stanford Law School, nor any of their employees, agents, contractors, or affiliates warrant the accuracy or completeness of the information or analyses displayed herein, and we caution all readers that inclusion of any information on this site does not constitute an endorsement of the truthfulness or accuracy of that information. In particular, this Web site contains complaints and other documents filed in federal and state courts, which make allegations that may or may not be accurate. No reader should, on the basis of information contained in or referenced by this Web site, assume that any of these allegations are truthful.

Go to Search page | Go to Case Index page | Back to Top

�