Judge Rules Lawsuit, First To Link Bundling Of Mortgage-Backed Securities And Racial Discrimination, Can Proceed

National Consumer Law Center Contact: Jan Kruse, [email protected] or 617-542-8010

(BOSTON) – A federal court has ruled that a landmark discrimination lawsuit against Morgan Stanley can move forward. Judge Harold Baer denied in part the investment bank’s motion to dismiss the case, which alleges Morgan Stanley violated the Fair Housing Act (FHA) by encouraging lenders to push high-risk mortgage loans on African-American borrowers.

The National Consumer Law Center, the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Michigan, and the firm of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein filed the lawsuit last October on behalf of Michigan Legal Services and five African-American homeowners in Detroit who were victims of Morgan Stanley’s practice of purchasing and financing predatory mortgages, which were later bundled into mortgage-backed securities. Stuart Rossman, director of litigation at the National Consumer Law Center, said, “This ruling gives us the opportunity to present our civil rights claims under the Fair Housing Act against Morgan Stanley in further judicial proceedings. We look forward to proving that investment banks, like Morgan Stanley, cannot maximize their profits at the expense of communities which are victimized by the toxic loans which the banks funded.”

The lawsuit is the first to connect racial discrimination to the securitization of mortgage-backed securities. It is also the first case where the plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and an entire class of victimized homeowners, are suing an investment bank directly rather than the subprime lender whose loans the bank bought. Morgan Stanley was the principal financier of the now-defunct New Century Mortgage Corp., and orchestrated New Century’s focus on dangerous loans that placed many homeowners on a path to foreclosure. “Targeting communities of color with predatory loans is not acceptable. Morgan Stanley is not above the law,” said ACLU Executive Director Anthony D. Romero. “This ruling affirms that Wall Street banks must comply with civil rights laws, and that they will be held accountable if they do not.”

Rubbie McCoy, a plaintiff in the case, is among those pushed into harm’s way. In the lawsuit, she describes how her mortgage broker guided her toward a predatory New Century loan, placing her home and family’s well-being in jeopardy. McCoy, a single mother of four, has experienced firsthand the devastation that banks like Morgan Stanley have wreaked upon largely African-American neighborhoods, where huge swaths of once-occupied homes now stand abandoned and stripped. “I am happy the judge is allowing the case to move forward,” McCoy said. “This was and continues to be my dream home and neighborhood, yet because of banks’ unfair targeting of people like me this has turned into a living nightmare. Anyone with children knows how important it is that they live in a stable environment. There is nothing stable about having your family uprooted or living beside vacant homes.”

Baer’s decision bolsters the principle that when Wall Street banks interact with home mortgage finance, they must comply with federal civil rights laws such as the Fair Housing Act, which prohibits discrimination in housing transactions, including unfair lending practices.

In his ruling, the judge said that “Detroit’s recent bankruptcy filing only emphasizes the broader consequences of predatory lending and the foreclosures that inevitably result.” The judge ruled that “Morgan Stanley—as a loan purchaser and mortgage securitizer—falls within the scope of the FHA. And as such, the FHA prohibits Morgan Stanley both from discriminating in ‘making available’ real-estate related transactions as well as discriminating ‘in the terms or conditions of such a transaction.’”

Rachel Geman, a partner at Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, said, “African-American homeowners harmed by Morgan Stanley’s securitization policies now have the chance to develop evidence to support their classwide claims of discrimination and to request the disgorgement of the bank’s ill-gotten gains. A bank cannot cause the sale of toxic mortgage loans as a future profit stream for itself and then avoid any potential responsibility whatsoever for the disastrous impact of those loans on actual homeowners.”

Kary L. Moss, executive director of the ACLU of Michigan, called the ruling “an important step forward” for the people of Detroit who have been victimized by predatory lending practices. “This case shows that Detroit’s economic woes cannot simply be blamed on Detroit residents and that enforcement of our civil rights laws can be an important tool in Detroit’s economic recovery,” she said.

The case, Adkins et al. v. Morgan Stanley, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

The ruling is at: http://www.nclc.org/images/pdf/litigation/michigan/opinion-and-order-7-25-13.pdf

More information on the case:
http://www.nclc.org/issues/mortgage-securitization-discrimination-litigation.html

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:         JULY 26, 2013

No Author Biography has been linked to this Article.

Related Articles

bonapfel2
November 9, 2022
Click here to see PDF – SBRA Guide June 2022 Compilation FINAL Click here to see PDF – SBRA May-June Supplement Final
March 14, 2021
By Mark S. Wheeler, Staff Attorney to M.O. Marshall, Standing Chapter 13 Trustee (Chicago, IL) (Used with expressed permission. Published February 2021 in the Northern District of Illinois Bankruptcy Court Liaison Committee Newsletter.) Despite appearing before the Senior Bankruptcy Judge for the Northern District of Illinois perhaps hundreds of times over the last 29 years, I was uncharacteristically nervous to...
September 8, 2019
By Cathy Moran, Esq. (Redwood City, CA) The Federal Reserve reported that 40% of Americans couldn’t meet a $400 emergency without borrowing. A significant slice of them couldn’t pay it at all. So, a Bloomberg economist devoted his column to deconstructing how the press and political figures, in his opinion, misused that finding. OMGoodness. The guy was too caught up...
Copy of Hildebrand-2016
June 26, 2022
Even though the Model Plan in the district provides that the applicable commitment period starts from confirmation, the debtor may not apply pre-confirmation payments toward payments made during the applicable commitment period but must apply those payments in addition to the applicable commitment period payments. (Applebaum) In re Batoha, 2022 WL 1310943 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. May 2, 2022) Case Summary...
Members
March 24, 2019
By Lawrence R. Ahern III, Brown & Ahern (Nashville, TN) PART IV: What's an Attorney to Do? Considerations for Counsel on all Sides of the Arbitration Question Click here for Part I Click here for Part II
Members
Jennifer Crusetuner Photo
October 15, 2023
(Yep, there are lots of them right now!!) Jennifer K. Cruseturner currently serves as a Chapter 13 Standing Trustee in the Western District of Tennessee, Western Division. After an extended retirement process for George Stevenson (he never could do anything in ‘normal’ fashion!), Jennifer was appointed as Stevenson’s successor on May 1, 2023.   Jennifer graduated from Newcomb College of...
October 20, 2019
(First published here on August 19, 2019. Used with permission.) By Daniel Cohn, Esq., Legal Department, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. General Rule: No Primary Residence Mortgage Changes The general rule in bankruptcy is that debtors cannot cram down loans secured only by mortgages on their primary residences. But wait, “what’s a cram down?” you ask. For non-bankruptcy folks, a cram...
Members
June 30, 2019
By Henry E. Hildebrand, III, Chapter 13 Standing Trustee (Nashville, TN) Over the past twenty years, the judicial estoppel doctrine has had a significant impact on people who file bankruptcy. Judicial estoppel has grown to be a significant issue within the consumer bankruptcy system. The Commission was asked to address it. Judicial estoppel is a doctrine created to protect the...
Members
tonydiab
June 25, 2023
Litigation Practice Group Lawsuits: 4 Cases to Know (This is the only free article we could find on Litigation Practice Group a/k/a Phoenix Law and disbarred Tony Diab.  He has been disbarred from both Nevada and California.)
ahern_larry_regular
April 10, 2022
Larry Ahern this week begins a two-part examination of whether a Chapter 13 trustee may retain fees paid without a confirmed plan before dismissal. Part 1 is a detailed analysis of McCallister v. Evans, a recent case accepting the trustee's position considering a division in the caselaw and analyzing in detail the relevant statutes. May the Chapter 13 Trustee Keep...
Members

Looking to Become a Member?

ConsiderChapter13.org offers a forum to advance continuing education of consumer bankruptcy via access to insightful articles, informative webinars, and the latest industry news. Join now to benefit from expert resources and stay informed.

Webinars

These informative sessions are led by industry experts and cover a range of consumer bankruptcy topics.

Member Articles

Written by industry experts, these articles provide in-depth analysis and practical guidance on consumer bankruptcy topics.

Industry News

The Academy is the go-to source for the latest news and analysis in the Chapter 13 bankruptcy industry.

To get started, please let us know which of these best fits your current position: