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

October 17, 2021
By Michael J. McCormick, Esq., McCalla Raymer Leibert Pierce, LLC (Roswell, GA) Escrow 101 - Part 1 Escrow 101 - Part 2 Escrow 101 - Part 3 Escrow 102 - Part 1
Members
Copy of Hildebrand-2016
November 5, 2023
Bankruptcy Court has authority to compel implementation of a confirmed Chapter 13 plan which, at its end required the release of a junior lien which had been given no value; attorney’s fees would be awarded to debtors’ counsel for pursuing the release.
Members
April 28, 2019
By William Houston Brown, Co-chair of the Commission and Adviser to the Academy for Consumer Bankruptcy Education The Report of the Commission on Consumer Bankruptcy for improvements to the consumer bankruptcy system was made public on April 11, 2019. The full report is available free by download from the American Bankruptcy Institute’s website, www.abi.org. The following Foreward to the Report...
Members
February 10, 2019
Jan M. Sensenich graduated from Windham College in Putney, Vermont in 1978 and Vermont Law School in 1983. He served as Core Faculty Member and Director of the Woodbury College Legal Clinic from 1983 to 1987and from 1990 to 1992. Jan was an Associate with Jerome I. Meyers, P.C. from 1987 to 1990 when he opened his own practice concentrating...
November 24, 2019
By Henry E. Hildebrand, III, Chapter 13 Standing Trustee (Nashville, TN) One of the most confusing elements in consumer bankruptcy practice is the effect of electing the option given in § 1325(a)(5)(C) or § 521(a)(2). Section 521(a)(2) requires every debtor to file a statement of intent that indicates whether the debtor intends to “surrender or retain” estate property which secured...
Members
September 27, 2020
By The Honorable William Houston Brown (Retired) Debtors’ attorney fees not authorized under Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA). Although the Chapter 13 debtors had prevailed before the Ninth Circuit, In re Sisk, 962 F.3d 1133 (9th Cir. 2020), their application for attorney fees as prevailing parties under EAJA was denied. That Act did not authorize awards of attorney fees...
Members
August 11, 2019
By Selwyn D. Whitehead, Esq. Because inquiring minds need to know; below is a discussion of the Johnson Publishing Company, LLC’s Chapter 7 Liquidation Bankruptcy, Case No. 19-10236, which was filed in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division in Chicago on April 9, 2019, and its week-long auction from July 22-24, 2019. Here's...
Members
BEKOFSKE
October 8, 2023
How do you acknowledge such an accomplished man; especially one who is also the consummate gentleman; a man of integrity; a community leader; the sharer of wisdom and knowledge? Of course, you list his impressive biographical accomplishments. But you also think about his influence on you and others in your circle. You reach out to those you know who were...
Danielle headshot (2)
January 30, 2022
Gambling is inherently risky, but that rings even more true when a bankruptcy is involved. Section 727(a)(5) allows for denial of discharge if “the debtor has failed to explain satisfactorily, …. any loss of assets or deficiency of assets to meet the debtor’s liabilities.” 11 U.S.C. §727(a)(5). Recently, Bankruptcy Judge Timothy A. Barnes in Chicago wrote an opinion in which...
Members
March 24, 2019
By Wm. Houston Brown, United States Bankruptcy Judge (Retired) Discharge - Direct mortgage payments unpaid by debtor were not “provided for” in plan. The confirmed plan stated that the debtor would directly pay two home mortgages to the credit union, but there was no specification of payment terms or other treatment of those mortgages. At the time of confirmation, the...
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: