 | ||
|
| Home Annual/Quarterly Updates About Us
|
HarborView Mortgage Loan Trust Summary: This lawsuit, originally filed on May 15, 2008 in the New York Supreme was removed to the federal district court on June 2, 2008. The class action charges violations of the 1933 Act.
As summarized in Kevin LaCroix’s D&O Diary blog, the three trusts were issuers of mortgage pass-through certificates created by Royal Bank of Scotland’s subsidiaries, Greenwich Capital, and collateralized with loans underwritten by Countrywide Home Loan. The complaint alleges that the Registration Statement issued in connection with the offerings failed to disclose “the true impaired and defective quality of the loans collateralizing the Bonds” and that the “loans were not originated pursuant to the underwriting guidelines stated in the Registration Statement.”
The complaint also alleges that the rating agency defendants “failed to conduct due diligence and willingly assigned the highest ratings to such impaired instruments since they received substantial fees from the issuer.” The complaint alleges further that the rating agencies “issued the ratings based on an outdated methodology designed in about 2002.” The ratings were alleged to be misleading because the rating agencies “presumed that the loans were of high credit quality issues in compliance with the stated underwriting guidelines, when, in fact, Countrywide had systematically disregarded its stated Underwriting Guidelines.”
Mr. LaCroix notes in his blog, “As far as I am aware, the plaintiffs’ complaint in the HarborView Mortgage Loan Trust lawsuit represents the first occasion as part of the current subprime litigation wave where subprime investors have sought to hold the rating agencies liable for their ratings.”
On December 03, 2008, an Appellate Order was granted allowing the plaintiff to petition for leave to appeal is Plaintiffs' motion to remand.
On October 2, 2008, an Order was granted allowing plaintiff leave to petition the order denying motion to remand.
On September 24, 2008, an Opinion and Order was entered by the court denying the Plaintiffs' motion to remand.
On May 19, 2009, a Consolidated First Amended Securities Class Action Complaint and a Stipulation And Proposed Order Regarding Briefing Schedule was filed with the court.
INDUSTRY CLASSIFICATION:
SIC Code: 6189
Sector: Financial
Industry: Other (Mutual Fund)
| COMPANY/ISSUER NAME: | HarborView Mortgage Loan Trust |
| COMPANY/ISSUER TICKER: | |
| COMPANY WEBSITE: |
| FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT IN THE DATABASE | |||||||||||||||||
| New Jersey Carpenters Vacation Fund, et al. v. HarborView Mortgage Trust, et al. | |||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||
| DOCUMENTS FOR THE FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT | |||
| Class Action Complaint For Violations Of The Federal Securities Laws | |||
| Type: Complaint | Date on the document: 6/2/2008 | ||
| Opinion and Order | |||
| Type: Order | Date on the document: 09/24/2008 | ||
| Order | |||
| Type: Order | Date on the document: 10/02/2008 | ||
| Appellate Order | |||
| Type: Order | Date on the document: 12/03/2008 | ||
| U.S. District Court Docket | |||
| Type: Docket | Date on the document: 12/03/2008 | ||
| REFERENCE COMPLAINT | |||||||||||||||||
| New Jersey Carpenters Vacation Fund And Boilermaker Blacksmith National Pension Trust, et al. v. HarborView Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-4, et al. | |||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||
| DOCUMENTS FOR THE REFERENCE COMPLAINT | |||
| Consolidated First Amended Securities Class Action Complaint | |||
| Type: Complaint | Date on the document: 05/19/2009 | ||
| Stipulation And Proposed Order Regarding Briefing Schedule | |||
| Type: Other | Date on the document: 05/19/2009 | ||
| U.S. District Court Civil Docket | |||
| Type: Docket | Date on the document: 09/21/2009 | ||
| 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