View
402
Download
0
Category
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
wells fargo, orix
Citation preview
5/13/2018 Wells Fargo and ORIX Motion Claiming No Fiduciary Duty - slidepdf.com
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/wells-fargo-and-orix-motion-claiming-no-fiduciary-duty 1/35
Page 21 Shortcut Q ®
CAUSE NO. 02-2849
ORIX CAPITA L MARK ET S, L .L .C ., as Master §
Servicer and Special Servicer of the Trust for the §
Certificateholders of the Merrill Lynch §
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
Mo rtg ag e In ve sto rs, L Ile .Mortg ag e P ass -
Through Certificates, Series 1999-C, Suing on
behalf of the Trust and in the Name of WELLS
FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOC IATION ,
as Trustee of the Trust,
and
O RIX CAPITAL M ARK ETS, L .LC.,
and
WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION, as Trustee of the Trust/or the
Certificateholders of the Merrill Lynch
Mortgage Investors, Inc. Mortgage Pass-
Through Certificates, Series 1999-C,
Plaintiffs,
vs,
UBS W ARBURG REAL ESTATE
SECURITIES, INC. and UBS PAINEWEBBER,
INC.
Defendants.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF
DALLAS COUNTY, T EXAS
192 ND JUDIC IA L D IS TR ICT
PLAINTIFFS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR DISCLOSURE
TO: Defendants UBS W A RBURG REAL ESTATE SECURITIES, INC. and UBS PA IN E
WEBBER, INC., by and through their attorneys of record, Scott Davis, Gardere Wynne
Sewell, LLP, 3000 Thanksgiving Tower, 1601 Elm Street, Dallas, Texas 75201 and
William B. Chaney, Conant, French & Chaney, 1717 Main Street, Suite 3880, Dallas,Texas 75201,
In accordance with Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 194.2, Plaintiffs, Wells Fargo Bank
Min ne so ta , N atio nal A ss oc ia tio n and ORIX Capital Markets, L.LC., make this supplemental
response to Defendant's Requests for Disclosure as follows:
PLAINTIFFS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR DISCLOSURE - PAGE 1
5/13/2018 Wells Fargo and ORIX Motion Claiming No Fiduciary Duty - slidepdf.com
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/wells-fargo-and-orix-motion-claiming-no-fiduciary-duty 2/35
194.2(c): The legal theories and, in general, the factual bases of Plaintiffs' claims and/or defenses;
RESPONSE:
As explained in more detail inPiaintiffs' Seventh Amended Petition, underthe Ml.Px, Paine
Webber Real Estate Securities, Inc. ("Paine Webber") made representations and warranties about
the characteristics of the loans it transferred to the Trust. Paine Webber agreed that these
representations and warranties were for the Certificateholders' benefit, and that ORIX, as Master
Servicer and as Special Servicer, could enforce th e representations and warranties on the
Certificateholders' behalf. Under the term s of the M LPA and PSA, Paine Webber also agreed that
it would cure any breach of any representation or warranty which materially and adversely affect[ s]
th e value of the related Mortgage Loan or th e interest o fth e C ertif ic ate ho ld ers th er ein w ith in 9 0 d ay s
of its notice of the breach. Any such cure includes payment of losses and expenses. If it could
not cure within the requisite 90-day period, it could seek a 90-day extension in accordance with the
conditions set forth in the MLP A. On or before the expiration ofthe cure period, Paine Webber was
required to substitute a Qualified Substitute Mortgage Loan, as that term is defined within the PSA,
or repurchase th e d efe ctiv e Mo rtg ag e Loan from the Trust. The formula for calculating that
repurchase price is also set forth within the MLPA.
On multiple occasions dating back to 2000, Plaintiffs have identified breaches of
representations and warranties with regard to the nine loans at issue and brought such breaches to
the attention of Defendants. To Plaintiffs' knowledge, Defendants have not made any actual attempt
to cure these breaches, much less effected an actual cure of any of the breaches at issue within the
90-day cure period. Moreover, under the terms of the MLPA, Defendants were entitled to a 90-day
extension of the time to cure if the breach could be cured but not within the original 90 days, and
PL AIN TIFFS' SU PPL EM EN TA L R ESPO NSES T O R EQUE STS FO R D ISC LO SU RE - PA GE 2
5/13/2018 Wells Fargo and ORIX Motion Claiming No Fiduciary Duty - slidepdf.com
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/wells-fargo-and-orix-motion-claiming-no-fiduciary-duty 3/35
provided further that Defendants were proceeding diligently with the cure of such breach. While
some of the breaches may be of such a nature that they cannot be cured, it is·now apparent that
Defendants made no effort to even attempt a cure of their breaches, much less an attempt that
proceeded diligently after their own discovery of the breaches. Despite the fact that certain breaches
were capable of cure by the Defendants' payment of a sum of money to the Trust, Defendants wholly
failed to cure any breaches within the applicable time period. With respect to each of the nine loans
that suffers from a defect that cannot be cured, Plaintiffs are entitled to the repurchase or substitution
of the Mortgage Loans in question in accordance with the terms of the MLPA, as set forth more fully
below.
Similarly, despite the Plaintiffs' demand for substitution of Qualified Substitute Mortgage
Loan, Defendants made little or no effort to locate or acquire any Qualified Substitute Mortgage
Loans as required by the MLP A and the PSA. Because Defendants unilaterally decided with
virtually no investigation that it would be too expensive for them to comply with their obligations
to tender Qualified Substitute Mortgage Loans to replace the defective loans at issue, Defendants
J
turned their backs on the interests of the.Certificateholders and their own obligations made in the
express representations and warranties. At the same time that UBS disingenuously claimed that
ORIX was not acting in the best interests of the Certificateholders, UBS refused to provide a
substitution remedy or its equivalent through a defeasance or yield maintenance payment.
The importance of the Defendants' representations and warranties traces back to discussions
that occurred between Jim Thompson of ORIX and Jack Taylor of Paine Webber prior to the closing
of the MLMI securitization. Concerned with the quality of several of the loans that-Paine Webber
was proposing to sell into the pool, including but not limited to the Arlington Apartments loan,
ORIX requested that certain loans be removed from the pool. Paine Webber defended the inclusion
PLAINTIFFS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR DISCLOSURE ~PAGE 3
5/13/2018 Wells Fargo and ORIX Motion Claiming No Fiduciary Duty - slidepdf.com
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/wells-fargo-and-orix-motion-claiming-no-fiduciary-duty 4/35
of the loans in the pool, including the Arlington Apartments loan; and said that ORIX's assessment-
of the loan was incorrect, that Paine Webber's underwriters were more familiar with the loans inthe
pool, and that ORIX should defer to the Paine Webber assessment. Moreover, Paine Webber needed
the Arlington Apartments and Lee Hall loans in th e tvILMI pool in order to meet the 30% threshold
of multifamily properties in the pool, which would result in a greater profit to Paine Webber by
meeting the investment criteria for-certain institutional investors such as Fannie Mae and Freddie
Mac to purchase the MLMI certificates. Most importantly, Mr. Taylor gave Mr. Thompson his
assurance that if the loans were not everything that the Paine Webber underwri ters represented them
to be, ORlX and the other Certifieateholders had strong representations and warranties from Paine
Webber, representations that Paine Webber would stand behind, at thatORIX was given the standing
to fully enforce the terms of the contract, ORlX specifically negotiated for these strong
representations and warranties; the warranties were so important to orux that it delayed its purchase
of the B-piece certificates until appropriate revisions were made to the representations and
warranties, During the negotiation process, attorneys hired by Paine Webber repeatedly hindered
ORIX's ability to timely review the securitization documents. Although Paine Webber relied in part
upon atto rn ey s to tell it whether the loans that it was selling to the MLMl Trust actually met all of
the representations and warranties, it is now evident that neither Paine Webber nor its attorneys
actually verified the accuracy of all of the representations and warranties made by Paine Webber.
The first test of Mr. Taylor's commitment that Paine Webber would stand behind its
representations and warranties came shortly after the closing of the securitization, when ORIX
asserted a breach o r a representation and warranty on the Parbhu Loan. The Parbhu Loan.was a
$1,400,000 loan secured by the Travel Lodge South in Nashville, Tennessee. On February 3,2000,
ORIX representatives sent a letter to Defendants demanding that they repurchase the Parbhu Loan~ ~ ~
PLAINTIFFS1 SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR DISCLOSURE - PAGE 4
5/13/2018 Wells Fargo and ORIX Motion Claiming No Fiduciary Duty - slidepdf.com
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/wells-fargo-and-orix-motion-claiming-no-fiduciary-duty 5/35
because Paine Webber had breached its ''No Default" warranty.' The ''No Default" warranty was
b re ac hed b ec au se , p rio r to s ec uritiz atio n, th e b orrower's fra nc his e a gre em en t w ith th e T ra ve l L od ge
com pan y w as in default due to the b orrower's fa ilu re to pay f ra nc his e f ee s. In t ha t c ir cumstance ,
u nlik e th e m an ne r in which tJBS has dishonored its obligations under the MLPA , Defendants agreed
to buy back the loan, and did so in early March of2000.2 Tellingly, Defendants did not a ss e rt in that
case that they lacked=knowledge" of the default, or that such.lackofknowledge somehow absolved
their breach, or that ORlX was not entitled to assert a breach of a representation and warranty claim
on a loan that was not in payment default, as they have done here. They simply acknowledged their
error and acted as required under th e MLP A.
Later in 2000, Paine Webber w as acquired by UBS Warburg. UBS quickly engaged ina full
housecleaning of the Paine Webber conduit loan department, terminating the employment of many
key employees of the Paine Webber conduit group, including Jack Taylor, Ron Wechsler, Frank
Pomar, and Steve Plust. Once UBS cleaned house ofthe former Paine Webber employees, it refused
to stand behind the commitments made by Taylor, and failed to honor its obligations to cure,
repurchase, or substitute defective loans as required by the MLPA.
In response to the demands made for cure or, if cure was not possible, repurchase or
Although the Parbhu Loan was part of another securitization, it was contemporaneous with the transaction at
issue and the "No Default" warranty in that securitization contained identical language to the "No Default" warranty at
issue here:
There is no material default, breach, violation or event of acceleration existing
under the related Mortgage or Mortgage Note, and to the Mortgage Loan Seller'sknowledge, there is no event (other than payments due but not yet delinquent)
which, with the passage of time or with notice and the expiration of any grace or
cure period, would constitute such a default, breach, violation or event of
acceleration. See MLPA Schedule I (vii);
1 To be more precise, because Defendants. were afraid of the adverse publicity that would be caused by their
repurchase of a loan they had so recently placed into a securitization, Defendants and Plaintiff ORIX agreed to a deal
whereby Paine WebberprovidedPJaintiffOIUX with the required funds andPlaintiffORIX, not Defendants, repurchased
the Parbhu Loan, and Paine Webber quietly purchased the loan from ORJX.
PLAINTIFFS' SUPPLEMENT AI.. RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR DISCLOSURE - PAGE 5
5/13/2018 Wells Fargo and ORIX Motion Claiming No Fiduciary Duty - slidepdf.com
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/wells-fargo-and-orix-motion-claiming-no-fiduciary-duty 6/35
substitution' of the defective loans at issue, UBS has disavowed its responsibility fo r the
representations and warranties made by-Paine Webber. Infact, Mr. Taylor has indicated in testimony
that, had he still been at UBS/ Paine Webber, many, if not all, of the disputes at issue could have
been resolved without protracted litigation. Not only has UBS breached its obligations under the
parties' agreements, it has violated the duty of good faith and fair dealing under the :MLPA by
engaging in acts designed to thwart ORJX's ability to enforce UBS' obligations under the
agreements. These tactics include, but are not limited to, UBS' engaging in scorched-earth litigation
tactics and other improper means to pressure ORJX into relenting from its efforts to enforce the
representations and warranties. In fact,UBS has expended more in litigation costs than it would
have cost in 2002 to repurchase the Lee Hall and Arlington Apartments loans. UBS conspired with
other loan sellers to pressure trustees of the securitization tmsts by asserting frivolous claims against
the trustees, to pressure ratings agencies that rate ORIX as a servicer, and to freeze-out ORlX from
obtaining new servicing business, either by purchasing the B-piece of a securitization at issuance or
by purchasing B-piece securities on the secondary market. UBS took these actions In direct response
to and in retaliation for the claims brought by ORIX on behalf of the Certificateholders,
Under the term s of the MLP A , P aine Webber a lso conveyed all its rig ht, title , a nd in te re st
to any docum ents w ith respect to the related Mortgage Loan prepared by or which come into the
possession of Paine Webber. The right to these documents was assigned to the Trust under the
terms of the PSA. Under the MLPA, Paine Webber also undertook the duty of delivering all
docum ents and records in its possession relating to the M ortgage Loans to the M aster Serv icer on
or before the Closing Date. The obligation to deliver documents did not exclude themany electronic
documents and e-mails in the possession of Paine Webber that related to the Mortgage Loans.
Moreover, under the :MLPA, Paine Webber specifically agreed to deliver such other documents,
PLAINTIFFS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR DISCLOSURE - PAGE 6
5/13/2018 Wells Fargo and ORIX Motion Claiming No Fiduciary Duty - slidepdf.com
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/wells-fargo-and-orix-motion-claiming-no-fiduciary-duty 7/35
instruments, and agreements relating to the Mortgage Loans as the Purchaser, the Trustee, the
Custodian, the Master Servicerand.the Special Servicer may reasonable request.
Although under n o obligation to demand that Paine Webber perform it s obligation todeliver
all doculllents and records related to the Mortgage Loans, ORIX (in its capacity as Master Servicer)
has requested on at least two occasions that the Defendants immediately deliver to ORIX all
documents and records pertaining to the mortgage loans that were inthe possession or control of
Paine Webber as of the Closing Date. The documents that Defendants have refused to deliver
con ta in informat ion important to the ability of ORIX as Master and Special Servicer to perform its
obligations under the MLPA and PSA. Defendants failed and refused to furnish or deliver the
requested documents. Paine Webber/ UBS' s failure to deliver the documents and records asrequired
Even after the lawsuit was filed, Defendants still failed and refused to produce all documents
and records, including electronic documents and records, related to the Mortgage Loans. Despite
multiple orders requiring them to do so, Defendants have steadfastly refused to tender to the
Plaintiffs all documents and recordsrelated to the Mortgage Loans that Paine Webber sold to the
Trust, including electronic documents and records that exist on the Defendants' back-up tapes,
archives, and electronic document retention systems.
Defendants' failure to deliver all documents required by the MLPA is due, at least in part,
to a "purge file" policy implemented by Paine Webber, whereby senior executives in the Paine
Webber conduit department instructed junior members ofthe conduit group to systematically destroy
or "purge" their files of critical documents related to the Mortgage Loans. Defendants actively
concealed this purge policy from orux, from the Trust, from the Trustee, and from the ratings
agencies that rated the MLMI securitization.
PLAINTIFFS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR DISCLOSURE - PAGE 7
5/13/2018 Wells Fargo and ORIX Motion Claiming No Fiduciary Duty - slidepdf.com
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/wells-fargo-and-orix-motion-claiming-no-fiduciary-duty 8/35
The above paragraphs set forth the primary factual basis for the causes of action Plaintiffs have
brought against Defendants,' as follows:
Claim I: Breach ofthe l\.fl..,PA- Delivery of Documents. As set forth above, Paine Webber was
required to deliver "[ajll documents and records in the Mortgage Loan Seller's possession relating
to the Mortgage Loans (including financial statements, operating statements and any other
information provided by the respective Mortgagor from time to time) or copies thereof, that are not
required to be a part of a Mortgage File," Defendants have failed and refused to produce all
documents within their possession, custody, and control. That refusal constitutes a breach of the
MLPA.
Claim II: Breach of tbe MLPA and PSA - Deliyery of Documents. Under Section 2.4(a) of the
lYfLPA, in pertinent part; "the Mortgage Loan Seller hereby agrees to deliver to each afthe Trustees,
the Custodian, the Master Servicer and the Special Servicer (x) all documents, instruments and
agreements required to be delivered by the Purchaser to such parties pursuant to Section 2.01 of the
Pooling and Servicing Agreement, and meeting all the requirements of Section 2.01 of the Pooling
and Servicing Agreement, and (y) such other documents, instruments and agreements relating to the
Mortgage Loans as the Purchaser, the Trustee, the Custodian, the Master Servicerand the Special
Servicer may reasonable request."
Section 3.6 of the MLPA obligates Defendants to take any further action reasonably
requested "to effectuate the purpose and to carry out the terms of this Agreement and to effectuate
the securitization of the Mortgage Loans pursuant to the Pooling and Servicing Agreement and to
carry out its obligations under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement." Section 2.01(d) of the PSA
mandates that "[ajll documents and records in the possession of ... [Paine Webber] that relate to the
Mortgage Loans a.nd Lhat are not required to be a part of a Mortgage File in accordance with the
PLAINTIFFS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR DISCLOSURE· PAGE 8
5/13/2018 Wells Fargo and ORIX Motion Claiming No Fiduciary Duty - slidepdf.com
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/wells-fargo-and-orix-motion-claiming-no-fiduciary-duty 9/35
definition thereof shall be delivered t o the Master ServicerIat the expense of the Depositor or the
applicable Mortgage Loari Seller.as-applicableron or before the Closing Date and shall be held by
the Mas te r Se rv ic er on behalf of the Trustee int rus t fo r the benefit ofthe Cert if ica teho lder s. " Despite
these many obligations to deliver all documents and records relating to the Mortgage Loans,
Defendants have failed and refused to deliver those documents. That refusal constitutes a breach of
both the Mortgage Loan PurchaseAgreement and Pooling. and Servicing Agreement as set forth
above.
Claim III: Breach of Contract - Representations and Warranties. A s noted abov e, und er the
MLP A, Paine Webber Real Estate made representations an d warranties about the characteristics of
the loans transferred. See MLPA § 3.2(b) and Schedule I. Paine Webber agreed that these
Servicer and as Special Servicer, could enforce the representations and warranties on the
Certi ficateholders' behalf. MLP A § 3.3. Those representations and warranties have been breached.
As required by Section 3.3 of the :MLPA, Paine Webber Real Estate had to cure such defects within
90 days of prune Webber's discovery of such breaches or its receipt of notice of same. Ifcure could
not be effected within 90 days, then P aine W e bber R eal E state w as obligated und er the MLPA to
replace th e defective loans with Quali fied Substitute Mortgage Loans, a s th at term is defined within
the PSA, or repurchase the defective loans from the Trust under a formula set forth within the
MLPA.
To the extent Paine Webber Real Estate discovered the breached representations and
warranties in the course of its origination and underwriting of the loans, Paine Webber Real Estate
had 90 days from the s ecur iti za tion c lo s ing date, November 4, 1999, to cure the breaches or
substitute or repurchase. To the extent Paine Webber Real Estate discovered the breached
PLAINTIFFS' SUPPLEMENT ALRESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR DISCLOSURE - PAGE 9
5/13/2018 Wells Fargo and ORIX Motion Claiming No Fiduciary Duty - slidepdf.com
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/wells-fargo-and-orix-motion-claiming-no-fiduciary-duty 10/35
representations and warranties subsequent to securitization and before the notice. given on.or about
July 31, 2003, they had 90 days to cure, substitute or repurchase .: Inaddition, orux gave formal,
written notice of those breaches by letter and by f il ing t he F ede ra l Court a cti on s ty le d ORIX Capital
Markets, LLC v. UBS Warburg Real Estate Securities, Inc., UBS Warburg, Inc. and UBS Paine
Webber, Inc., 3-02-CV-2213-K, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Texas. ORIX's noti fi ca ti on to Defendants took.place in2000,2001,2002, and most recently, in July.
of 2003. Despite this notice, Defendants did not comply With its obligation to cure these breaches
within the requisite 90-dayperiod, not did they ask for any additional90-period to affect such a cure.\
As such, under the MLP A and PSA, Defendants were required to repurchase or substitute the
Mortgage Loans in question, asset forth above. Defendants have refused to do so. This refusal
constitutes an independent breach of the MLPA.
Plaintiffs seek relief for breached representations and warranties on nine ofthe thirty-seven
or so loans that Paine Webber Real Estate sold to the Trust. Those loans are identified as Lee Hall,
PW Loan # 8703; Arlington Apartments, PWLoan#6132, Red Lion Apartments, PW Loan # 7395;
Smithtown Bypass, PW Loan # 7790; 401 N. Broad, PW Loan # 7562; Eckerd's Building, PW Loan
# 8694; G atew ay Plaza, PW Loan #6410; Lexus Training Center, PW Loan # 7789; and
Shadowbrook Apartments, PW Loan #6376.
Claim IV: Texas Securities Act. Tex. Rev. Civ. Stat. Ann. Art. 581-33A(2). Plaintiffs plead this
claim in the alternative. The Certificates Plaintiff ORIX purchased are securities that were offered
and sold by means of untrue statements of material facts in documents provided to PlaintiffORlX
and/or omissions of material facts necessary in order to make the statements made, in light of the
circumstances in which they were made, not misleading, Alternatively, each Defendant, with the
requisite intent, either controlled and/or aided and abetted the Seller ofllie Certificates to Plaintiff
PLAINTIFFS' SUPFLEMENTALRESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR DISCLOSURE - PAGE 10
5/13/2018 Wells Fargo and ORIX Motion Claiming No Fiduciary Duty - slidepdf.com
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/wells-fargo-and-orix-motion-claiming-no-fiduciary-duty 11/35
ORIX and are each therefore jointly and severally liable. Under the Texas Securities Act, Plaintiff
ORIX is therefore entitled to rescission. Plaintiff ORIX (inaddition to the other claims herein) is
ready, willing, an d able to rescind its purchase of certain unrated Certificates th at OR IX purchased.
Claim V: Breach of the Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing. Under New York Law,
implicit in the MLPA and PSA is a covenant of good faith and fair dealing in the course of contract
performance. Pursuant to this covenant, Paine Webber implicitly pledged that it would not do
anything that would have th e effect of injuring the rights under the lvILPA or PSA. Defendants, as
successors to the various obligations of Paine Webber, are liable for the breaches of the covenant of
good faith and fair dealing for, among other things: (a) withholding and refusing to deliver all
required documents regarding the Mortgage Loans; indestroying documents required to be turned
over under the tenus of the MLP A and PSA; Cb) failing to honor the obligations to cure and to
substitute or repurchase those Mortgage Loans that did not meet the representations and warranties;
(c) failing to follow prudent underwriting standards with regard to the Mortgage Loans; (d)
withholding material information regarding its underwriting and thereb y interfering with the Parties'
performance of their duties under the PSA;(e) preventing or delaying discovery of the breaches of
representations and. warr an ti es by numerous actions, including the purging or destruction of
d ocume nts an d rec ord s, in clud ing ele ctro nic d ocume nts an d re co rd s, d ue to be deli ve red to P la in tif fs
under the terms ofthe contracts at issue; and (f ) unconscionably and unreasonably delaying both cure
and substitution and/or repurchase of the loans to the detriment of the Trust.
Claim VI: Declaratory Jud&ment. Under Texas Civil Practice &Remedies Code § 37.001, et
seq., Plaintiffs seek a declaration from this Court that all Defendants are jointly and severally liable
for all damages suffered by Plaintiffs by virtue of the allegations made herein because: (a) in
perf OfTIling th e acts described herein, all Defendan ts ( and /o r the ir p re de ce ss ors ) a cte d or caused
PLAINTIFFS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR DISCLOSURE - PAGE 11
5/13/2018 Wells Fargo and ORIX Motion Claiming No Fiduciary Duty - slidepdf.com
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/wells-fargo-and-orix-motion-claiming-no-fiduciary-duty 12/35
others to act for the purpose of perpetuating - and did perpetuate - a fraud upon Plaintiffs herein for
their own benefit; (b) Defendants herein associated together for the purpose of carrying on a single
or common business enterprise such that this court can and should look through the forms to the
realities of the relationship between them and determine that their commingled affairs are such as
to constitute them, one integrated and single business enterprise; (c) Paine Webber Real Estate is
Paine Webber, Inc .' s agent or (d ) Paine Webber, Inc ..is estopped to deny liability.
Claim VII: Attorneys:' Fees. As a result of Defendants' conduct, Plaintiffs have retained legal
counsel to prosecute these claims. Plaintiffs may recover from Defendants all reasonable and
necessary attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses perm itted by the statutes and agreements.applicable
to this action, including, but not limited to, the T ex. Civ, Prac. & Rem. -Code and the M LPA and
PSA.
Claim VIII: Declaratory Judgmegt. PlaintiffORIX seeks a declaratory judgment under Texas
Civil Practice &Remedies Code § 37.001, e t s eq . that ORIX. by itself, has the standing and capacity
to bring claims on behalf of'the Trust without the Trustee, Wells Fargo, being a named party to the
litigation. ORlX believes that, in accordance with the tenus contained in the PSA and MLP A, it has
the full right and power to prosecute this litigation in its own name as Master Servicer and Special
Servicer for the Trust. Accordingly, ORIX filed Plaintiffs' Motion For Partial Summary Judgment
Regarding. Standing and Brief In Support Thereof seeking a ruling that it may prosecute this
litigation without the participation of Wells Fargo and not in the name of Wells Fargo.
Alter Ego. At the time of the MLMI transaction, there was no meaningful distinction between
the Paine Webber entities involved in CMBS securitizations. Paine Webber Real Estate Securities,
Inc, is, and at all times since its incorporation has been. the alter ego of Paine Webber, Inc ..
Furthermore, there exists, and at all times since Paine Webber Real Estate's Incorporation has
PLAlNTIFFS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FORDISCLOSURE - PAGE 12
5/13/2018 Wells Fargo and ORIX Motion Claiming No Fiduciary Duty - slidepdf.com
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/wells-fargo-and-orix-motion-claiming-no-fiduciary-duty 13/35
ex isted, a unity of interest and ow nership betw een these tw o d efendants such that any separateness
b etwe en th em has ceased to ex ist if it ever existed. Since the inception of P aine We bbe r R eal E state
Securities, Inc., Paine W e bber, Inc. has completely co ntro lled, d om inated , m anaged and o perated
P aine We bber R eal E state S ecurities, Inc. f or its b en ef it.
Anex ample o f P aine We bb er In c. 's to tal co ntro l o f P aine We bb er R ea l E state S ecu rities , In c,
is th e f ac t th at D efe nd an ts h av e re pe ate dly p ro cla ime d th at Paine Webber Real Estate Securi ties , Inc.
has never had a single employee. As Defendants are quick to point out, all of the ind ividuals
involved in the MLMI transaction w orked for Paine We bber, Inc. In fact, S tev en Plust, th e
indiv idual w ho signed the M LPA on behalf of Paine W ebber R eal Estate Securities, Inc, testified
that, although he w as a M anaging D irector for Paine W ebber, Inc., he is unsure of w hat position, if
any, he ev er held w ith Paine Webber Real E sta te S ec uritie s, In c. Mr. Plust further acknowledged
th at it s o d ifficult to d istin gu is h P ain e We bber R eal E state S ecurities , Inc., from P ain e We bber, Inc .,
and that he him self cannot draw such a distinction. Further, even though the M LM I transaction
involvedapoo l of M ortgage L oans w ith an initial principal balance - and co rresponding po tential
liability to Paine W ebber R eal Estate Securities, Inc.- of over $592 m illion, Paine W ebber R eal
E sta te S ec uritie s, In c.'s c orp or ate re pr es en ta tiv e, Brian Harris (als o an em plo yee of U BS Paine
Webber Inc., P ain e We bbe r, Inc . 's successor) was unable to say w hether P aine W e bber R eal E state
Securities, Inc. had ev er had $400,000 in n et a ss ets .
M r. P lus t als o tes tified th at if P aine We bber, In c. had no t app ro ved th e s ecu ritizatio n at is su e
here, P aine W e bber R eal E state S ecurities, Inc. could no t hav e been inv olv ed in it. Pain e Webb er
R eal E state S ecu rities , Inc. is , and at all time s h er ein mentione d was, a mere shell, instrumentally
a nd condu it th rough which d efe nd an t P ain e Webb er, Inc. c ar rie d o n its comme rc ia l mo rtg ag e backed
securities conduit business. In.other words, Paine Webber Real Estate S ecurities , Inc. an d P aine
PLAINTIFFS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR DISCLOSURE - PAGE 13
5/13/2018 Wells Fargo and ORIX Motion Claiming No Fiduciary Duty - slidepdf.com
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/wells-fargo-and-orix-motion-claiming-no-fiduciary-duty 14/35
I
Webber, Inc. were, for all practical purposes, the same entity.
Additionally, Paine Webber Real Estate Securities, Inc. acted as agent for Paine Webber, Inc.
In performing the acts described herein, P aine We bb er R eal E state S ecu rities , Inc. ac te d w ith in th e
course and scope of their agency, and acted with the consent, permission and authorization of Paine
Webber, Inc. All of Paine Webber Real Estate Securities, Inc.'s actions alleged were ratified and
approved by the officers or managing agents of Paine Webber, Inc. And, since, as stated above,
Paine Webber Real Estate Securities, Inc. did n ot h av e a s in gle emp lo ye e, a ll a ctio ns , omissions, an d
decisions a t is su e in this case were tak en or made by Paine Webber, Inc . emp loyee s .
Lack of Sufficient Financial Resources. Paine Webber, Inc., purposely created the impression that
Paine Webber Real Estate Securities, Inc. was a division through which it conducted its conduit
business an d Paine Webber, Inc. lent its nam e to Paine Webber Real Estate Securities, Inc. for
ma rk etin g p urp os es . A dd itio na lly , P ain e Webb er, In c. had Paine W ebber R eal Estate Securities, Inc.
assume over hundreds of millions in potential liabilities for breaches of representations and
warranties. As stated above, however, Brian Harris, the corporate representative for Paine Webber
Rea l E sta te Secur itie s, In c., testified that he did not know whether Paine Webber Real Estate
Secu rit ie s , Inc . had e ver h ad more than $400,000 in total assets at anytim e. T o the extent that P aine
Webber Real Estate does not have sufficient financial resources to satisfy its cure or repurchase
ob ligations under the MLP A or PSA, Paine Webber, Inc. has been aware of that fact from Paine
Webber Real Estate Securities, Inc's inception, yet and did not inform P laintiffs - or any other
parties to the transaction +ofthat situtation, It would be fundamentally unfair to permit Paine
Webber, Inc. to escape liability on the basis that it did not assume any of Paine Webber Real Estate's
obligations under the MLPA or the PSA.
PLAINTIFFS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR DISCLOSURE- PAGE 14
5/13/2018 Wells Fargo and ORIX Motion Claiming No Fiduciary Duty - slidepdf.com
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/wells-fargo-and-orix-motion-claiming-no-fiduciary-duty 15/35
Standing. The MLP A, clearly contemplates that interests in the Mortgage Loans will be distributed
to third parties who will rely on and be entitled to enforce the'Defendants' obligations under the
MLP A. For example, in Section 3 .3 ( d ) , the Defendants acknowledge that the representations and
warranties under th e :r v1LPA and the ob l ig atio ns to cure or repurchase Defective Mortgage L oans are
being assigned to the Trustee. Defendants further agree that "[t]he Trustee or its designee may
enforce such obligation as provided in Section 5.3 hereof." MLPA §,3.3(d) (Exhibit 2) (emphasis
added).
Section 5 .3 prov ides that Defendan ts ' r ep re sen ta tions and warranties will survive the :MLMI
transaction and may be enforced "by or on behalf-of the Trustee and the Holders of Certificates.
MLP A § 5.3 (Exhibit 2) (emphasis added). Furthermore, insection 3.3( e) ofthe MLPA, Defendants
specifically acknowledge and agree that th e Servicer has t he r igh t to enforce such obligations under
theMLPA. That section provides as follows:
The Mortgage Loan Seller hereby acknowledges and agrees that,
pursuant to Section 2. 03(b) o fth e Poolin g and Servic in g Agreement,
the Master Servicer and the Special Servicer (in the case of SpeciallyServiced Mortgage Loans) have the right, fo r the benefit of the
Certificateholders, to enforce the obligations of the Mortgage Loan
Seller under this Section 3.3. The Master Servicer and the Special
Servicer, as the case may be, shall be reimbursed for the reasonable
costs of such enforcement in accordance with the Pooling and
Servicing Agreement.
See id. (emphasis added).
Defendants' Response on this issue amounts to a curious assertion that, because a pooling
and servicing agreement from a different securitization contained a Section 2.3(e) specifically
designating the Servicer as the Trustee's representative for enforcement of Defendants , obligations,
th e fact that the PSA at issue here does not have a Section 2.3(e) is outcome determinative.
Defendants argue that the absence 0f a Section 2.3( e) somehow means that the Servicer has not been
PLAINTIFFS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR DISCLOSURE -PAGE 15
5/13/2018 Wells Fargo and ORIX Motion Claiming No Fiduciary Duty - slidepdf.com
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/wells-fargo-and-orix-motion-claiming-no-fiduciary-duty 16/35
designated as the Trustee's representative to enforce the Defendants' obligations under the MLPA
D efen dants' arg um ent 'conv en ien tly ·igno res the fact that the Section 6.03 of the PSA in this
securitization transaction does clearly designate th e S erv ic er a s th e Trustee's re pre se nta tiv e f or such
purposes.
[T]he Master Servicer or the Special Servicer may in its .
d i sc re tion under take any su ch ac tio n whic h it may deem necessary or
desirable with respect to the en forcem ent an d/or protection of th e
rights and duties of the parties hereto and the interests of the
Cert if icat eho lde rs her eunde r.
PSA § 6.03.
And , m oreo ver, w hen read together (as .intend ed ), the ML PA and the·P SA expressly
and unambiguously provide for the Servicer, in this case ORIX, to prosecute and enforce
Defendants' duties tothe Trust. It is only through a spurious sleight-of-hand argument that
Defendants are able to come to an y other conclusion.
Amended Answer and Verified Denial. Plaintiffs incorporate the their verified denial
already on file with the Court and v erified o n June 25, 2004. Plaintiffs gen erally d eny each and
every allegation made inPaine We bber R eal Estate's Counterclaim in accordance wi th T exas R ule
of Civil Procedure 92. In addition, Plaintiffs assert that Paine Webber Real Estate's claims are
barred, in whole or in part, because, under the tenus of the MLP A and PSA, it does not have
standing to sue.
Defenses. Plaintiffs have the following defenses toDefendants' Counterclaims, which were
filed after the discovery deadline:
Failure to Properly State Causes of ActiQn. Paine Webber Real Estate Securities Inc.'s
PLAINTIFFS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR DISCLOSURE - PAGE 16
5/13/2018 Wells Fargo and ORIX Motion Claiming No Fiduciary Duty - slidepdf.com
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/wells-fargo-and-orix-motion-claiming-no-fiduciary-duty 17/35
claims.are barred, in whole or in part, because Paine Webber Real Estate Securities, Inc. fails to
state each and every Cause of Action and therein fails to state a Cause of Action.
Prompt Notice. Defendants' claim that Plaintiffs did not give prompt notice under the
terms of the M LP A and PSA has no merit. The breaches set forth by Plaintiffs in this case were
found based on a review of documents which-were and have been within Defendants' possession,
custody and control since the November 4, 1999 securitization date. So Defendants had actual
knowledge of these breaches, regardless of whether they were notified of them by Plaintiffs.
Infact, under both Section 3.3(b) of the MLPA.and Section 2.03(a) of the PSA, a s parties
to the securitization transaction, Defendants were required to notify Plaintiffs of the existence of
breaches that they should have discovered by review of documents that had been in their possession
for years. Their failure to do so constitutes breach on their part, as does their attempt, a s set forth
within this document, to a ff irma ti ve ly concea l the existence of such breaches. At the very least,
such actions and omissions by Defendants clearly preclude any claim they may assert regarding
Plaintiffs failure to give them prompt notice.
Moreover, the rights of the Certificateholders to remedies for Defendants' breaches of
representations and warranties cannot be waived, byPlaintiffs or anyone else, except as prescribed
by the MLPA. Under MLPA Section 5.6(a), no term of the agreement (including Defendants'
representations and warranties) may be changed, waived, discharged, or terminated except by
signed writing. No such signed writing waiving the representations and warranties exists, and
Defendants have in fact never asserted the existence of such a document.
Interim Servicing, Defendants' claims that ORlX somehow breached the interim servicing
agreement are Wholly without merit. Unlike the role of the Master and Special Servicer following
securitization, ORIX did not have the same discretion or responsibilities of a Master or Special
PLAINTIFFS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR DISCLOSURE - PAGE 17
5/13/2018 Wells Fargo and ORIX Motion Claiming No Fiduciary Duty - slidepdf.com
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/wells-fargo-and-orix-motion-claiming-no-fiduciary-duty 18/35
Servicer under the PSA when servicing loans for Paine. Webber under the interim servicing
agreement. Oru:x: denies that it ever failed to take any action requested by Paine Webber as an
interim servicer. In fact, Paine Webber often failed to respond to requests from ORIX for direction
and instruction regarding loans for which ORIK was acting as interim servicer. illmost instances,
th e f ew loans a t is sue for which ORIX acted as interim s e rv ic er we re not even transferred to ORIX
until shortly before he securitization. Despite the fact thatPaine Webber had in it s possession
numerous documents related to the Mortgage Loans for which ORlX provided interim servicing,
it is now apparent that Paine Webber withheld these documents and records, including electronic
documents, fromORIX as interim servioer. The fact that UBS has not asserted any claim against
the interim servicers of the loans for Arlington Apartments, Lee Hall, 401 N. Broad, Smithtown
Bypass, or Shadowbrook Apartments demonstrates that UBS's meritless claim has been asserted
a s p art ofUBS's campaign to pressure ORlX into dropping claims for breaches of representations
and warranties made by Paine Webber.
N o Right to A Duplicative Declaratory Judgm..ent. To the extent that Defendants seek a
declaratory judgment, it is wholly duplicative of the claims already filed by Plaintiffs, and should
be dismissed.
Indemnity. Wi~h respect to Defendants' .claim fo r indemnity, the indemnity language inthe
agreements at issue cannot be interpreted under New York law to create and indemnity for
Defendants' own breaches. Indemnity for an action brought by the alleged indemnitor against the
proposed indemnitee must be unmistakably clear from the language of the indemnity clause;
because the agreements at issue do not explicitly contemplate indemnifying Defendants for their
own liability for the complaints alleged in this suit against them, Defendants are not entitled to any
in de nl.n itj from th e Plaintiffs as a m atter of law.
PLAINTIFFS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO·REQUESTS FOR DISCLOSURE - PAGE 18
5/13/2018 Wells Fargo and ORIX Motion Claiming No Fiduciary Duty - slidepdf.com
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/wells-fargo-and-orix-motion-claiming-no-fiduciary-duty 19/35
W aiver under the SRPSA. Defendants m aintain that OR lX 's execution ofthe SRPSA -
an agreem ent betw een Paine W ebber R eal Estate-Securities, Inc., and ORIX - waived ORIX's
right to enforce Defendants' document delivery-obligations on behalf of the Trust. Contrary to
Defendants' assertions, however, the terms ofthe SRPSA do not in any manner waive Plaintiffs'
right to enforce Defendants' document-delivery obligations under the MLP A and the PSA on behalf
o f t he ,T r us t.
Defendants do not contest the fact that sections 2.3 and 2.4 of the MLP A expressly obligate
th em to d eliv er all d ocuments re la tin g to the M ortgage L oan s. See MLPA §§ 2.3 , 2.4. It is also
clear that D efendants .hav e failed to comply w ith this express con tra ctu al obli ga tio n . S ee , e .g .;
December 18, 2003 Deposition of Defendants, by and through their corporate representative Brian
Harris ("Harris Deposition") Vol. 1, at 221:12 - 222:1. Ina transparent attempt to avoid the
consequences oftheir breach, however, Defendants now contend that Plaintiffs' document delivery
claim was somehow waived by ORIX' s execution of the SRPSA - an entirely separate agreement.
As a matter of law, the SRPSA cannot have such preclusive effect.
Defendants' entire argument relies upon a misreading of the SRPSA. T he S RP SA
sets forth certain "conditions to closing." W ith respect to each of these conditions, the SRPSA
states th at OR IX could waive the occurrence of any of these events as a condition to itsobligation
to close the SRPSA;
(a) Purchaser's obligation to complete its purchase of theServicing Rights pursuant to this Agreement is subject to the
satisfaction or waiver on or prior to the Transfer Date (except as set
forth in subsection (vi) hereof) of the following conditions, which
Seller hereby represents are true and accurate or completed, as
applicable, as of the Transfer date:
(i) Seller shall have performed, or shall have caused the
performance of, in all material respects of its covenants and
agreements contained herein that are required to be performed by it
PLAINTIFFS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR DISCLOSURE - PAGE 19
5/13/2018 Wells Fargo and ORIX Motion Claiming No Fiduciary Duty - slidepdf.com
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/wells-fargo-and-orix-motion-claiming-no-fiduciary-duty 20/35
on or prior to the Transfer Date, including the taking of such actions,
delivery of such documents and files and the execution and delivery
of such duly authorized instruments as Purchaser shall have
reasonably requested for the purpose of effecting the transfer of the
Servicing Rights;
****
(iv) consistent with the oral understanding. between the
parties, Seller shall have delivered, or shall have caused the delivery,
to Purchaser of the agreed upon files and records relating to the
Mortgage Loans;
SRPSA § 2.04 (emphasis added).
The SRPSA does not even mention the rvILPA - and so cannot possibly act to waive any
terms of the MLPA, a separate agreement between different parties that do not include ORIX.3
Thus, as a matter of law, ORIX's execution of the SRPSA could not waive any provision in the
MLPA.
Not surprisingly, Defendants have not offered any summary judgment evidence that MLMI
waived Defendants' document delivery obligations or that the Trustee approved such a waiver.
Furthermore, even if ORIX had the authority to waiver the MLPA's provisions, Defendants'
corporate representative, Brian Harris, admitted that ORIX has not waived any of Defendants'
document-delivery obligations. Mr. Harris testified:
13 Q. Look at S .6A. "Ne ith er th is agreement, nor
14 any term hereof, may be changed, waived, discharged
15 or terminated except by inwriting signed by the
16 party against whom enforcement of such change,
17 waiver, discharge or termination is sought."
18 Do you see that, sir?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q . Does the word "term" in the first line.of
J Moreover, neither the oral agreement nor the documents referenced in the SRPSA are defined. Therefore,
there is no way to ascertain whether the parties meant to refer the term "documents" to refer to the documents
that Defendants are obligated to deliver under the MLP A and the PSA
PLAINTIFFS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR DISCLOSURE - PAGE 20
5/13/2018 Wells Fargo and ORIX Motion Claiming No Fiduciary Duty - slidepdf.com
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/wells-fargo-and-orix-motion-claiming-no-fiduciary-duty 21/35
21 5.6A in Exhibit 100 include the representations and
22 warranties in this agreement?
23 A . It saysvany term ," so I w ould assum e so,
24 yes.
25 Q . Is UBS aware of any change, w aiver,
1 discharge, or term ination of any term by ORIX or the2 trustee subsequent to the execution of Exhibit 100?
3 MR. DAVIS: Objection to form.
4 A . I don 't believe so.
H arris D eposition at 196:13 - 197:4.
F urth ermo re , e ve n if s uc h a w aiv er d id ta ke p la ce , it wa s f ra ud ule ntly in du ce d b y De fe nd an ts .
Inexecu ting t he MLP A, D efen dants p led ged to d eliv er all d ocum ents relating to th e m ortgage loans
to P laintiffs. P laintiff O RlX entered .into the SR PSA partly in r el iance . ..on that prom ise, w hich
Defendants promptly broke.
No Fiduciary D uty . Defendants have asserted that P laintiff O RIX ow es a fiduciary d uty to
the C ertificateh old ers and to th e D efen dants them selv es . T his is sim ply not true. O RIX 's d uties are
purely contractual, as the PSA m akes clear. A s Section 3.01(c) prov ides: ~
The relationship of the M aster Serv icer to the Trustee under thisA greem ent is intended by the parties to be that of an independent
contractor and not that of ajoint ven tu re r, pa rtne r or agent.
PSA § 3.01(c)
T hu s, sin ce ORIX . is an ind epen dent con tractor to the T rus tee, its relatio nsh ip to the T rus t
and the Certificateholders is purely contractual, as is the relationship between ORIX and
Defendants . And, since nowhere in the contract does orux undertake a fiduciary duty to
D efend an ts , D efend ants' ass ertio n that O RIX somehow has a fid uciary res pon sib ility to them IS
c urio us at b es t.
P rior B reach. O ne or m ore of D efendants', claim s or defenses are barred and/or fail due to
~LA.INTIFFS· SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR DISCLOSURE - PAGE 21
5/13/2018 Wells Fargo and ORIX Motion Claiming No Fiduciary Duty - slidepdf.com
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/wells-fargo-and-orix-motion-claiming-no-fiduciary-duty 22/35
Defendants' prior breach of the very contract or contracts at issue including the SERVICING RIGHTS
PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT' C'SRPSA"), MORTGAGE LOAN PURCHASE AGREEMENT
("MLPA"), and/or THE POOLfNG AND SERVICING AGREEMENT ("PSA"), and alleged Interim
Serv ic ing ...Agreement, O ne or m ore o f th e De fendants ha ve m is re pr es en te d ma te ria l fa ct s r eg ardin g
the loans associated with each of the foregoingcontracts. Furthermore, Defendants' alleged defense
of "exclusive" rem ed ies fa il based upon Defendants' f ailu re to address and/or rem ed y its breaches
in the manner s et f or th in ce rt ain con tr ac ts .
Estoppel. D efendants have taken positions and /or courses of conduct inconsis tent w ith
th eir o rig in al re pre se ntatio ns .a nd /o r a ss ertio n o f rig hts p urs ua nt to th e SRPSA and o ther contr ac ts '
as well as its claims that plaintiffs committed various torts and are therefore estopped from enforcing
such alleged duties, contracts, and/or are equitably estopped from asserting any breach on the part
of plaintiffs.
E sto pp el a nd Waiver re N otic e. D efe nd an ts are s pe cifica lly e sto pp ed from asserting they did
not receive prompt notice and/or an opportunity to cure by their inequitable actions with regard to
the subject matter at issue, their prior possession of sufficient information that put them on notice,
th eir m is re pre se ntatio ns w ith re ga rd to th e s ub jec t matter at issue, and their course and conduct in
this litigation. For these reasons, an d o thers D efen dants h av e w aiv ed any alleg ed d efen se of notice
an dJo r any righ t they may allegedly have to assert the lack of timely notice, Defendants ar e
estopped, as way of example, from claiming that any alleged lack of notice under the MLPA or PSA
can waive any rights of the Certificateholders given Defendants' express representation that there
could be no such waiver absent an express writing that waived such performance and other such
representations, Defendants are likewise estopped from claiming waiver with regard to the rights
ofCertificateholders vis-a-vis document defects and the requests for document delivery. Defendants
PLAINTIFFS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR DISCLOSURE· PAGE 22
5/13/2018 Wells Fargo and ORIX Motion Claiming No Fiduciary Duty - slidepdf.com
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/wells-fargo-and-orix-motion-claiming-no-fiduciary-duty 23/35
are also estopped by their participation in the MLPA from claiming that the SRPSA effected some
waiver of Certificateholders rights.
Unclean Hands. Each and every of Defendants , requests for equitable relief, remedy,
or defense fail as they have unclean hands with regard to the subject matter at issue. For example,
Defendants' have acted inequitably with.regard to theirknowing breaches of representation and/or
cover-ups of the same vis-a-vis the::MLPA, PSA, the alleged Interim Servicing Agreement, and the
SRPSA . Any request for disgorgement by De fe nd an ts fa ils due to their inequitable conduct and
unclean hands.
Fraudulent Inducement. To the extent that Defendants' claims for breach of any
contractual or common law d uty arising from the SRPSA is th e source of any damages or avoidances
by Defendants, such claims or alleged damages are unavailable as Defendants conunitted fraud in
the inducement and/or misrepresentations regarding the SRPSA.
Ambiguity. One or more provisions of the SRPSA or associated agreements are
ambiguous and therefore one or more of Defendants' claims or defenses are barred and/or fail.
Failure to State a Claim or Defense. One or more of Defendants , claims fail as they do not
set forth e ach .e lemen t necessary to assert a recognized cause of action and/or are otherwise
unavailable as a matter of applicable law. One or more of Defendants' defenses are likewise
defective and fail. For example, lack of knowledge is not a defense to violation of an express
warranty.
One or more claims of Defendants and/or any alleged associated damages are
reduced or eliminated by Plaintiffs' right of offset. This right includes their ability to reduce an y of
Defendants' claim byan amount of Plaintiffs' damage and remedy claims and/or awards arising from
the PSA , the 1v.IL P... . , ~ .~ \'vell as an . a . . . ' 1 1 0 u . . . ' 1 t equal to the value of the services Plaintiffs' provided
PLAINTIFFS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR DISCLOSURE - PAGE 23
5/13/2018 Wells Fargo and ORIX Motion Claiming No Fiduciary Duty - slidepdf.com
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/wells-fargo-and-orix-motion-claiming-no-fiduciary-duty 24/35
pursuant to any and all servicing agreements. Defendants' request for a remedy of disgorgement,
althoughunrecognized by the causes of action pled. is subject to set off from the value ofORlX's
services provided as interim servicer of certain loans at issue. Inaddition, any damages awarded to
Plaintiffs in this litigation will act as an offset to any alleged damages of Defendants.
SetOff One or more claims of Defendants' and!or any alleged associated damages are
reduced oreliminated by Plaintiffs' rights to set off their damage and remedy claims and/or awards
arising from the PSA, the M LPA, and the value of P la in tif fs ' s er vic es pursuant to any and all
se rv i cing ag reemen ts . Defendants' request for a remedy of disgorgement, although unrecognized
by the causes of action pled, is subject to set off from the. value ofORJX's services provided as
interim services of certain loans a t is su e.
W::.iver. Defendants have waived one or more of their claims andior defenses or an
essential element of one or more of the same.
Statute of Frauds. One or more of the Defendants' claims are barred or fail as a matter
of law based upon the statute of frauds including, but not limited to, any alleged oral agreement
associated with the SRPSA and any interim servicing agreement.-
Accord an d Satisfaction. One ormore of Defe nd an ts , c la im s (in clu ding Count II a nd any
claim or defense th at r ela te s to the alleged Interim Servicing Agreem ent) fail due to accord and
satisfaction.
Limitations and Laches. One or more of Defendants' claims (including those based
upon an y alleged duties of an interim servicerandior pursuant to the SRPSA) are barred by or tail
due to the law of laches and/or the applicable limitations period.
Self Impos ed Damages . Defendants caused their own a lle ged damage s, if any, through
their own acts or omissions and therefore such damages are not recoverable from plaintiffs.
PLAINTIFFS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR DISCLOSURE - PAGE 24
5/13/2018 Wells Fargo and ORIX Motion Claiming No Fiduciary Duty - slidepdf.com
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/wells-fargo-and-orix-motion-claiming-no-fiduciary-duty 25/35
Failure to Mitigate. To the extent Defendants' have suffered any damages, those
damages are reduced or eliminated by Defendants' failure. to mitigate.
PLA.1}\fTIFFS'SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR DISCLOSURE - PAGE 25
5/13/2018 Wells Fargo and ORIX Motion Claiming No Fiduciary Duty - slidepdf.com
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/wells-fargo-and-orix-motion-claiming-no-fiduciary-duty 26/35
(d) 194.2( d) the amount and any meth od of calcu lating econ om ic d am ages;
P la in tiffs ' d am ag es a re ca lcu la ted a s fo llows :
CLAIMS I AND II:
P laintiffs are entitled to the costs to d ate of P laintiffs ' efforts to recov er docum ents related to
the M ortgage loans from other sources, in am ount not less than the follow ing:"
Sm ith town Bypa ss $ 13,346
Lee Ha ll Po rtf ol io 38,397
Ar ling ton Apartment s 106,495
Ga tew ay P la za 50,245
TOTAL $ 208,483
In'ad dition to the d am ages set forth abov e, P laintiffs are entitled to their reasonable and
necessary attorney fees and costsin a to tal am ount not less than $5,747,330, as set forth below in
conn ectio n w ith C laim s V I, V IT , and Vill
4These damages are primarily inthe form of attorney fees. Thus, to the extent that Plaintiffs receive
their full measure of attorney fees and costs, the amounts set forth herein should not represent an
additional recovery for Piaintiffs.
PLAINTIFFS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR DISCLOSURE - PAGE 26
5/13/2018 Wells Fargo and ORIX Motion Claiming No Fiduciary Duty - slidepdf.com
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/wells-fargo-and-orix-motion-claiming-no-fiduciary-duty 27/35
CLAIMS III AND V:
Plaintiffs' damages for the breach of representations and warranties under the MLPA and PSA are
largely set forth within the contracts in question. They are as follows:
Specific Performance. As set forth in more detail above, because Defendants failed to cure within
the requisite 90-day period set forth in the :MLPA and PSA, they were required to substitute the
mortgage loans inquestion with Qualified Substitute Mortgage Loans, as that term is defined
with in th e PSA. This rem edy is by far the m ost equitable, because it causes no harm to any of the
Certificateholders, Plaintiffs are therefore entitled to,specific performance of Defendants', duty to, ,
substitute on eight of the nine loans at issue.
The ninth loan, Smithtown By-Pass - 1V.1L:MILoan790, has already been foreclosed, sold
and removed from the pool, As such, due to the servicing efforts ofPlaintiffORIX, much of the
damage caused by Defendants' representations and warranties with regard to that loan have been
mitigated. Thus, specific performance is inapplicable to that loan. and Plaintiffs instead are
entitled to payment of the remaining loss on that loan in the amount of $794, I71.
Inaddition to specific performance, Plaintiffs are entitled to their reasonable and necessary
attorney fees and costs in an amount not less than $5,747,330, as set forth below in connection
with C laim s V I, V II, and vrn.
PLAINTIFFS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR DISCLOSURE - PAGE 27
5/13/2018 Wells Fargo and ORIX Motion Claiming No Fiduciary Duty - slidepdf.com
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/wells-fargo-and-orix-motion-claiming-no-fiduciary-duty 28/35
Rep la cem en t V alu e. A lternativ ely , in the unlik ely ev ent that the C ourt accepts an argum ent by
De fe nd an ts th at they a re unable to a ffe ct s pe cific performance and substitute Qualified Substitute
Mortgage loans for the nin e loans at issu e, P laintiffs are en titled to an am ount su fficient to replace
the cash flow s lost due to D efendants' breaches. This "replacem ent value" cure is not less than
as fo llows : '
401 N. Broad Street
Lee Ha ll Po rt fo li o
Arlington Apartments
Shadow brook Apar tment s
G a tew ay P la za
Sm ith town By -P as s
Eckerd's Building
Lexus Training Center
Red Lion Apartments
$ 7,496,928
22,678,568
10,714,517
7,000,536
6,633,050
794,171
4,042,920
3,308,095
2,949,175
TOTAL $ 65,617,960
In addition to the replacement value damages set forth above, Plaintiffs are entitled to their
reasonable and necessary attorney fees and costs ina total amount not less than $5,747,330, as set
forth below in c onne ctio n w ith Claims V I, V ll, and V ffi.
5/13/2018 Wells Fargo and ORIX Motion Claiming No Fiduciary Duty - slidepdf.com
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/wells-fargo-and-orix-motion-claiming-no-fiduciary-duty 29/35
T his amo un t is d iffe re nt from th e reme dy o f "fu ll d efe as an ce ," which w ould result in a
substantially h ig her re co very fo r th e Trust. The d am ag es fo r Smithtown By-Pass - M LM I Loan
779 0, are, for th e reason s stated abo ve, o nly the rem aining lo ss to the T ru st cau sed b y D efendan ts '
b re ac h, n ot full replacem en t v alue. M oreov er, three o f th e loans set forth h erein (L ee H aIl
P ortfolio - M LM I L oan 8703; Ar li ng ton Apartment s, MLMI Loan 6132; and Red Lion
A pa rtm en ts , MLM I L oa n # 7 39 5) a re in full default, thus the only m ethod of m aking the T rust
w hole (o th er than su bstitutio n o f a Q ualified S ubstitu te M ortgage L oan u nd er th e P SA ) is ten der o f
th e fu ll re pu rc ha se p rice a s s et fo rth inth e MLP A. T hu s fo r th os e th ree lo an s, th e fig ure in clu ded
in this ta ble is th at fo r f u l l repurchase.
PLAINTIFFS' SUFPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR DISCLOSURE - PAGE 28
5/13/2018 Wells Fargo and ORIX Motion Claiming No Fiduciary Duty - slidepdf.com
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/wells-fargo-and-orix-motion-claiming-no-fiduciary-duty 30/35
Overpayment. Alternatively, Plaintiffs are entitled to damages related to the overpayment by the
Trust for the loans in question, which are not less than those calculated in the March 1O~2004 report
of James DUlUl, as revised, as follows:"
401 N. Broad Street
Lee Hall Portfolio
Arlington Apartments
Shadowbrook Apartments
Gateway Plaza
Smithtown By-PassEckerd's Building
Lexus Training Center
Red Lion Apartments
$ 5,285,000
22,678,568
10,714,517
1,015,000
540,000
587,000
101,500
71,000
2,949,175
TOTAL $ 43,941,760
In addition to the overpayment damages set forth above, Plaintiffs are entitled to their
reasonable and necessary attorney fees and costs in a total amount not less than $5,747,330, as set
forth below in connection with Claims VI, VII, and VIII.
6F or s im ila r re as on s a s th os e s ta te d inthe p rev io us fo otn ote, fo r th ree o f th e lo an s set fo rt h he re in
(Lee Hall Portfolio - MLMI Loan 8703; Arlington Apartments, MLMI Loan 6132; and Red Lion
Apartments, MLMI Loan if 7395), the "overpayment" calculation is inapposite because the loans
are already in full default Thus the figure included herein is that for full repurchase - the only
remaining option (other than substitution of a Qualified Substitute Mo rtg ag e L oa .'1 un de r th e P SA )
f or s uc h lo an s.
PLAINTIFFS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR DISCLOSURE - PAGE 29
5/13/2018 Wells Fargo and ORIX Motion Claiming No Fiduciary Duty - slidepdf.com
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/wells-fargo-and-orix-motion-claiming-no-fiduciary-duty 31/35
Repurchase. Alternatively, Plaintiffs are entitled to not.less than the full repurchase price of each
loan as calculated under the formula set forth. within the PSAJ
401 N- Broad Street $ 8,207,792
Lee Hall Por tfo li o 22,678,568
Arlington Apartments 10,714,517,.
Shadowbrook Apartments 7,620,687
Gateway Plaza 7,266,047
Smithtown By-Pass 794,171 . .Eckerd's Bu ild in g 4,431,161.
Lexu s T ra in in g Center 3,625,832
Red Lion Apartments 2,949,175
TOTAL $ 68,287,950
In addition to the repurchase damages set forth above, Plaintiffs are entitled to their
re as on ab le a nd necessary attom ey fees and costs in a total amount not less th an $ 5,74 7,3 30, as set
forth below in connection with Claims VI, VII, and VIll.
CLAlMIV:
Alternatively, and additionally, Plaintiff ORIX is entitled to the full value of their
r6cessionary damages for the Class K certificates that ORIX bought at securitization and still holds.II
+ 3 measured under the statutory formula set forth within the Texas Securities Act, that amount is
J833, 795.46, including interest on the investment amount at 6% as sp ecified inthe Texas Securi tiest • .
I
lct.
With the exception of the three loans already infull default (Lee Hall Portfolio - MLMI Loan
8703; Arlington Apartments, MLMI Loan 6132; and Red Lion Apartments, MLMI Loan # 7395),
P la in tiff s b elie ve th at, w h ile re pu rc ha se re su lts in th e h ig he st d olla r re co ve ry for the Trust, it is
nonetheless the least equitable of the options set forth herem because it does not replace the future
cash flows the Certificateholders would receive. Despite this fact, and despite clear contractual
language to the contrary, it must be noted that Defendants have repeatedly asserted that full
repurchase is the only measure of damages to which Plaintiffs are entitled (see. e.g., Defendants'
Special Exceptions to Plaintiffs' Seventh Amended Petition),
PLAINTIFFS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR DISCLOSURE - PAGE 30
5/13/2018 Wells Fargo and ORIX Motion Claiming No Fiduciary Duty - slidepdf.com
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/wells-fargo-and-orix-motion-claiming-no-fiduciary-duty 32/35
In addition to the rescissionary damages set forth above, Under-the terms of the Texas
Securities Act, Plaintiffs are entitled to their reasonable and.necessary attorney fees and costs ina
total amount not less than $5,747,330, as set forth below in connection with Claims VI, VII, and
VITI.
CLA IM S V I. YII A ND V III:
In addition to the claims set forth under the Texas Securities Act (Claim IV, above),
Plaintiffs are also entitled to their reasonable attorney fees and costs under other claims set forth
herein, including Claims VI and vrn, which are brought under the Texas Declaratory Judgments
Act, Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code §37.001, e t s eq . Plaintiffs" reasonable and necessary
attorney fees and costs are in an amount not less than $5,747,330.
PLAINTIFFS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR DISCLOSURE - PAGE 31
5/13/2018 Wells Fargo and ORIX Motion Claiming No Fiduciary Duty - slidepdf.com
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/wells-fargo-and-orix-motion-claiming-no-fiduciary-duty 33/35
(e) 194.2( e): the name; address, and telephone number of persons having know ledge ofrelevant
facts, and a brief statement of each identified person's connection with the case;
RESPONSE:
See Exhibits "A-I" and "A-2," attached.
PLAINTIFFS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR DISCLOSURE - PAGE 32
5/13/2018 Wells Fargo and ORIX Motion Claiming No Fiduciary Duty - slidepdf.com
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/wells-fargo-and-orix-motion-claiming-no-fiduciary-duty 34/35
ragalone
tate B ar N o. 0 28 55 77 5
Paul illiams
Texas State B ar N o. 00798586
McKOOL SMITH, P.C.
300 Crescent Court, Suite 1500
Dallas. Texas 75201
Telephone: (214) 978-4000
Fax: (214) 978-4044
Terrell W. Oxford
Texas State Bar No. 15390500SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P.
901 Main Street, Suite 4100
Dallas. Texas 75202Telenhone: f"J 1iI\71;:A 1('I(VI" ' " . . . . . .. . 1 " " . . .. t J &_ L~ . \ . .I.""T) I ...J...,." .lJVU
Fax: (214) 754-1933
Ta lcott J . F ra nk lin
Texas Bar No. 24010629
PATTON BOGG S. LLP
2001 R oss A venue, Suite 3 000
Dallas, Texas 75201
ATTORNEYS FOR ORlX eAPIT AL M ARKETS,
L.L.C., AsMaster Servicer and Special Servicer of
the Trust for the Certificateholders of Merrill
Lynch Mortgage Investors, Inc. Mortgage
Pass-Through Certificates Series 1999-Cl, Suing
In The Name Of WELLS FARGO )lANK,
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, Trustee, and ORIX
eAPIT ALMARKETS, L.LC., individually.
PLAINTIFFS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR DISCLOSURE - PAGE 33
5/13/2018 Wells Fargo and ORIX Motion Claiming No Fiduciary Duty - slidepdf.com
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/wells-fargo-and-orix-motion-claiming-no-fiduciary-duty 35/35
·~/S$fm,__
Susan SheltonTexas State Bar No. 08996750
SULLN AN PARKER & COOK, L.L.C.
2911 Turtle Creek
1200 Park Place Building
Dallas , Texas 75219Telephone: (214) 520-7494
Fax: (214) 528-6925
ATTORNEYS FOR \VELLSFARGO BANK,
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, in its individual
capacity and in its capacity as trustee of the Trust
for the Certificateholders of the Merrill Lynch
Mortgage Investors, Inc. Mortgage Pass-Through
Certificates Series J999-Cl.
PLAINTIFFS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR DISCLOSURE - PAGE 34
Recommended