 | ||
|
| Home Annual/Quarterly Updates About Us
|
J.P. Morgan Acceptance Corporation Summary: According to the docket, the case was removed from the State Court to the Federal District Court system on April 25, 2008 after being filed on March 26, 2008.
The complaint alleges that J.P. Morgan Acceptance Corporation 1 issued false and misleading Registration Statements and Prospectus Supplements during the class period. JP Morgan Acceptance and the Defendant Issuers caused Registration Statements to be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with the issuance of billions of dollars of Certificates. The Certificates were issued pursuant to Prospectus Supplements, each of which was incorporated into the Registration Statements. The Certificates included several classes or trenches, which had various priorities of payment, exposure to default, interest payment provisions and/or levels of seniority. These Certificates were supported by large pools of mortgage loans. The Registration Statements represented that the mortgage pools would primarily consist of loan groups generally secured by first liens on residential properties, including conventional, adjustable rate and negative amortization mortgage loans.
The complaint continues its allegations, stating that investors purchased the Certificates based upon two primary factors: return (in the form of interest payments), including timing of principal and interest payments, and safety (risk of default of the underlying mortgage loan assets). The Registration Statements discussed the underwriting standards purportedly used in connection with the underwriting of the underlying mortgage loans and included numerous representations about the loan-to-value ratios used to qualify borrowers, the appraisals of properties underlying the mortgages and the maximum debt-to-income ratios permitted on the mortgage loans.
Also alleged by the plaintiffs, the Registration Statements omitted and/or misrepresented the fact that the sellers of the underlying mortgages to JP Morgan Acceptance were issuing many of the mortgage loans to borrowers who: (i) did not meet the prudent or maximum debt-to-income ratio purportedly required by the lender; (ii) did not provide adequate documentation to support the income and assets required for the lenders to approve and fund the mortgage loans pursuant to the lenders' own guidelines; (iii) were steered to stated income, asset and low documentation mortgage loans by lenders, lenders' correspondents or lenders' agents, such as mortgage brokers, because the borrowers could not qualify for mortgage loans that required full documentation; and (iv) did not have the income required by the lenders' own guidelines to afford the required mortgage payments which resulted in a mismatch between the amount loaned to the borrower and the capacity of the borrower. The Registration Statements failed to disclose that the lenders or the lenders' agents knew that the borrowers either could not provide the required documentation or refused to provide it.
Finally, the complaint alleges that the Registration Statements did not disclose that the underwriting, quality control and due diligence practices utilized in connection with the approval and funding of the mortgage loans were so weak that some borrowers were given mortgage loans based on stated income in the loan applications with purported income amounts that could not possibly be reconciled with the jobs claimed on the loan application or through a check of free "online" salary databases.
As a result of these alleged misstatements and omissions, the Certificates sold to plaintiffs and the Class were secured by assets that had a much greater risk profile in the form of a statistically significant difference between the expected versus actual performance of such assets than represented in the Registration Statements, and defendants offered superior credit ratings on the Certificates as a result of defendants' failure to disclose the underwriting defects and appraisal manipulations.
On October 21, 2009, Senior Judge Edward R. Korman granted the plaintiff’s motion to consolidate cases.
INDUSTRY CLASSIFICATION:
SIC Code: 6189
Sector: Financial
Industry: Money Center Banks
| COMPANY/ISSUER NAME: | J.P. Morgan Acceptance Corporation |
| COMPANY/ISSUER TICKER: | |
| COMPANY WEBSITE: |
| FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT IN THE DATABASE | |||||||||||||||||
| Plumbers' & Pipefitters' Local #562 Supplemental Plan & Trust, et al. v. JP Morgan Acceptance Corporation, et al. | |||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||
| DOCUMENTS FOR THE FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT | |||
| Notice of Removal | |||
| Type: Complaint | Date on the document: 04/25/2008 | ||
| U.S. District Court Civil Docket | |||
| Type: Docket | Date on the document: 10/21/2009 | ||
| OTHER DOCUMENTS | |||
| Class Action Complaint for Violation of §§ 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 | |||
| Case Name and/or Number: Plumbers' & Pipefitters' Local #562 Supplemental Plan & Trust, et al. v. JP Morgan Acceptance Corporation, et al. | |||
| Type: Complaint | Date on the document: 03/26/2008 | ||
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