UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
FEDERAL HOUSING FINANCE AGENCY, etc.,
Plaintiff,
v.
JPMORGAN CHASE & CO., et al.,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OF LAW
IN SUPPORT OF
SECTION 11 INDIVIDUAL
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION
FOR PARTIAL JUDGMENT
ON THE PLEADINGS
11 Civ. 6188 (DLC)
FEDERAL HOUSING FINANCE AGENCY, etc.,
Plaintiff,
v.
HSBC NORTH AMERICA HOLDINGS, INC., et al.,
Defendants.
11 Civ. 6189 (DLC)
FEDERAL HOUSING FINANCE AGENCY, etc.,
Plaintiff,
v.
BARCLAYS BANK PLC, et al.,
Defendants.
11 Civ. 6190 (DLC)
FEDERAL HOUSING FINANCE AGENCY, etc.,
Plaintiff,
v.
DEUTSCHE BANK AG, et al.,
Defendants.
11 Civ. 6192 (DLC)
Case 1:11-cv-06189-DLC Document 457 Filed 08/13/13 Page 1 of 16
FEDERAL HOUSING FINANCE AGENCY, etc.,
Plaintiff,
v.
BANK OF AMERICA CORP., et al.,
Defendants.
11 Civ. 6195 (DLC)
FEDERAL HOUSING FINANCE AGENCY, etc.,
Plaintiff,
v.
GOLDMAN, SACHS & CO., et al.,
Defendants.
11 Civ. 6198 (DLC)
FEDERAL HOUSING FINANCE AGENCY, etc.,
Plaintiff,
v.
CREDIT SUISSE HOLDINGS (USA), INC., et al.,
Defendants.
11 Civ. 6200 (DLC)
FEDERAL HOUSING FINANCE AGENCY, etc.,
Plaintiff,
v.
NOMURA HOLDING AMERICA, INC., et al.,
Defendants.
11 Civ. 6201 (DLC)
Case 1:11-cv-06189-DLC Document 457 Filed 08/13/13 Page 2 of 16
FEDERAL HOUSING FINANCE AGENCY, etc.,
Plaintiff,
v.
MERRILL LYNCH & CO., INC., et al.,
Defendants.
11 Civ. 6202 (DLC)
FEDERAL HOUSING FINANCE AGENCY, etc.,
Plaintiff,
v.
SG AMERICAS, INC., et al.,
Defendants.
11 Civ. 6203 (DLC)
FEDERAL HOUSING FINANCE AGENCY, etc.,
Plaintiff,
v.
MORGAN STANLEY, et al.,
Defendants.
11 Civ. 6739 (DLC)
Case 1:11-cv-06189-DLC Document 457 Filed 08/13/13 Page 3 of 16
-i-
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT .....................................................................................................1
RELEVANT BACKGROUND .......................................................................................................2
ARGUMENT ...................................................................................................................................4
I. Judgment on the Pleadings Is an Appropriate and Timely Mechanism to Address
FHFA’s Failure to State Section 11 Claims Against the Section 11 Individual
Defendants. ..........................................................................................................................4
II. The Section 11 Claims Against the Section 11 Individual Defendants Are
Meritless Under Rule 430(b). ..............................................................................................5
CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................................8
Case 1:11-cv-06189-DLC Document 457 Filed 08/13/13 Page 4 of 16
-ii-
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Page(s)
CASES
Burnette v. Carothers,
192 F.3d 52 (2d Cir. 1999).........................................................................................................4
Burns Int’l Sec. Servs., Inc. v. Int’l Union,
47 F.3d 14 (2d Cir. 1995)...........................................................................................................4
Fed. Hous. Fin. Agency v. UBS Ams., Inc.,
No. 1:11-cv-5201-DLC, 2012 WL 2400263 (S.D.N.Y. June 26, 2012) ....................................6
Fed. Hous. Fin. Agency v. UBS Ams., Inc.,
No. 1:11-cv-5201-DLC, 2013 WL 3284118 (S.D.N.Y. June 28, 2013) ....................................3
George C. Frey Ready-Mixed Concrete, Inc. v. Pine Hill Concrete Mix Corp.,
554 F.2d 551 (2d Cir. 1977).......................................................................................................4
In re Countrywide Fin. Corp. Mortg.-Backed Sec. Litig.,
No. 2:12-cv-1059-MRP, 2013 WL 1189311 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 15, 2013) ......................... passim
Irish Lesbian & Gay Org. v. Giuliani,
143 F.3d 638 (2d Cir. 1988).......................................................................................................4
Sellers v. M.C. Floor Crafters, Inc.,
842 F.2d 639 (2d Cir. 1988).......................................................................................................4
Shapiro v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc.,
495 F.2d 228 (2d Cir. 1974).......................................................................................................4
STATUTES
15 U.S.C. § 77k(a) ...........................................................................................................................5
Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 ............................................................................... passim
OTHER AUTHORITIES
17 C.F.R. § 230.430B ............................................................................................................ passim
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) ........................................................................................4
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c) .........................................................................................1, 4
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(2) ........................................................................................4
Securities Offering Reform, SEC Rel. 33-8591, 2005 WL 1692642 ..........................................5, 6
Case 1:11-cv-06189-DLC Document 457 Filed 08/13/13 Page 5 of 16
The Individual Defendants identified in Appendix A (collectively, the “Section 11
Individual Defendants”) respectfully submit this memorandum of law in support of their motion
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c) for judgment on the pleadings as to the Section
11 claims brought against them by Plaintiff Federal Housing Finance Agency (“FHFA”).
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
The Section 11 Individual Defendants are current or former employees or
independent directors who held positions as directors or officers in issuing entities identified in
Appendix A. In its Complaints, FHFA alleges that the Section 11 Individual Defendants are
liable under Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 because they allegedly signed shelf
registration statements pertaining to the deals at issue in these Actions, even though the alleged
misstatements on which FHFA bases its claims are found in prospectus supplements that the
Section 11 Individual Defendants did not sign.
1
Pursuant to SEC Rule 430B, individual
defendants who sign shelf registration statements for offerings of residential mortgage-backed
securities are not liable under Section 11 for alleged misstatements in later prospectus
supplements that they themselves did not sign. See 17 C.F.R. § 230.430B(f)(4); In re
Countrywide Fin. Corp. Mortg.-Backed Sec. Litig., No. 2:12-cv-1059-MRP, 2013 WL 1189311,
at *15-17 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 15, 2013). This is so because, for directors and those who sign a shelf
registration statement, “the date the prospectus supplements become part of the registration
statement is not a new ‘effective date’”; instead, the “only effective date . . . is the filing date of
the registration statements,” when “the registration statements were ‘blank.’” In re Countrywide,
1
See JPM AC ¶¶ 108, 125-130, 144-52, 170-76, 190-95, 291-93, 294-300, 301-06, 307-12,
313-19, 325-334, 565; HSBC AC ¶¶ 47, 176, 181; Barclays AC ¶¶ 39, 94, 160-173; DB
AC ¶¶ 42-43, 220, 224, BOA AC ¶¶ 50, 190, 194; GS AC ¶¶ 48-49, 268, 272; CS AC
¶¶ 52, 201, 205; Nom AC ¶¶ 42, 139, 142; ML AC ¶¶ 45, 253, 258; SG AC ¶¶ 47, 111,
127, 174, 181-82; MS AC ¶¶ 47, 239, 242.
Case 1:11-cv-06189-DLC Document 457 Filed 08/13/13 Page 6 of 16
-2-
at *16. Accordingly, FHFA’s Section 11 claims against the Section 11 Individual Defendants
should be dismissed on the pleadings.
RELEVANT BACKGROUND
In its Amended Complaints (“Complaints” or “ACs”), FHFA alleges violations of
Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 by the Section 11 Individual Defendants.
2
The
Complaints allege that the Section 11 Individual Defendants are liable under Section 11 because
they allegedly signed shelf registration statements for the deals at issue in these Actions.
3
The
alleged misstatements on which FHFA bases its claims, however, were not made in the shelf
registration statements, but rather in prospectus supplements that FHFA does not allege the
Section 11 Individual Defendants signed. For example, in all Actions, FHFA alleges that the
“Prospectus Supplement for each Securitization describes the underwriting guidelines that
purportedly were used in connection with the origination of the underlying mortgage loans” and
includes “statistics regarding the mortgage loans in each group, including . . . the ranges of and
weighted average loan-to-value ratios of the loans” and “whether the loans were secured by a
property to be used as a primary residence . . . .” (GS AC ¶ 49; see also JPM AC ¶ 109 (same);
HSBC AC ¶ 42 (same); Barclays AC ¶ 39 (same); DB AC ¶ 43 (same); BOA AC ¶ 50 (same);
CS AC ¶ 52 (same); Nom AC ¶ 42 (same); ML AC ¶ 45 (same); SG AC ¶ 47 (same); MS AC
¶ 47 (same); see also Part IV of the Amended Complaints (titled “Falsity of Statements in the
2
See JPM AC ¶¶ 563-80, 585, 588; HSBC AC ¶¶ 176, 181; Barclays AC ¶¶ 161, 165; DB
AC ¶¶ 220, 224; BOA AC ¶¶ 190, 194; GS AC ¶¶ 268, 272; CS AC ¶¶ 201, 205; Nom
AC ¶¶ 138-39, 142; ML AC ¶¶ 253, 258; SG AC ¶¶ 174, 181-82; MS AC ¶¶ 238-39, 242.
3
See JPM AC ¶¶ 563-80, 585, 588; HSBC AC ¶¶ 3, 21-25, 47, 59-63, 176, 181; Barclays
AC ¶¶ 3, 9, 44, 161, 165; DB AC ¶¶ 3, 22-24, 42, 59-61, 220, 224; BOA AC ¶¶ 3, 21-26,
28, 30-32, 49, 55, 72-77, 79, 81-83, 190, 194; GS AC ¶¶ 3, 25-30, 48, 71-76, 268, 272;
CS AC ¶¶ 3, 22-25, 28-29, 31-33, 51, 68-71, 74-75, 77-79, 201, 205; Nom AC ¶¶ 3, 20-
24, 62-66, 142; ML AC ¶¶ 3, 22-27, 44, 50, 62-67, 253, 258; SG AC ¶¶ 10, 24-27, 174,
181-82; MS AC ¶¶ 3, 24-27, 46, 51, 66-68, 238-39, 242.
Case 1:11-cv-06189-DLC Document 457 Filed 08/13/13 Page 7 of 16
-3-
Prospectus Supplements”); Fed. Hous. Fin. Agency v. UBS Ams., Inc., No. 1:11-cv-5201-DLC,
2013 WL 3284118, at *14 (S.D.N.Y. June 28, 2013) (“To make out its case in chief under
Sections 11 and 12(a)(2), the plaintiff will therefore have the not inconsiderable burden in this
litigation of proving that representations in the prospectus supplements regarding the quality of
the Supporting Loan Groups for each Certificate that the GSEs purchased were false.”)
(emphasis added).)
In separate opinions, the Court denied or granted in part and denied in part the
Section 11 Individual Defendants’ motions to dismiss.
4
Neither the Defendants’ briefing on the
motions to dismiss nor the opinions deciding those motions discussed or determined the question
at issue here: the effective date for purposes of Section 11 liability under Rule 430B, for
directors and those who sign shelf registration statements.
Between December 2012 and February 2013, the Section 11 Individual
Defendants filed their Answers, which denied that they were liable under Section 11 for the
alleged misstatements in the prospectus supplements.
5
4
JPM Op. & Order, Nov. 5, 2012, 11-cv-6188 ECF No. 200; HSBC Op. & Order, Nov. 28,
2012, 11-cv-6189 ECF No. 171; Barclays Op. & Order, Nov. 19, 2012, 11-cv-6190, ECF
No. 145; DB Op. & Order, Nov. 12, 2012, 11-cv-6192 ECF No. 140; BOA Op. & Order,
Nov. 28, 2012, 11-cv-6195 ECF No. 170; GS Op. & Order, Nov. 12, 2012, 11-cv-6198
ECF No. 156; CS Op. & Order, Nov. 28, 2012, 11-cv-6200 ECF No. 162; Nom Op. &
Order, Nov. 27, 2012, 11-cv-6201 ECF No. 165; ML Op. & Order, Nov. 8, 2012, 11-cv-
6202 ECF No. 135; SG Op. & Order, Nov. 27, 2012, 11 Civ. 6203 ECF No. 182; MS Op.
& Order, Nov. 19, 2012, 11-cv-6739 ECF No. 183.
5
See JPM Answer, Dec. 17, 2012, 11-cv-6188 ECF No. 267, at ¶ 565; HSBC Answer, Jan.
11, 2013, 11-cv-6189 ECF No. 209, at ¶ 173; Barclays Answer, Jan. 2, 2013, 11-cv-6190
ECF No. 194, at ¶¶ 50-52; DB Answer, Dec. 26, 2012, 11-cv-6192 ECF. No. 200, at
¶ 224; BOA Answer, Feb. 1, 2013, 11-cv-6195 ECF No. 221, at ¶ 194; GS Answer, Dec.
26, 2012, 11-cv-6198 ECF. No. 216, at ¶ 272; CS Answer, Jan. 11, 2013, 11-cv-6200
ECF. No. 203, at ¶ 205; Nom Answer, Jan. 10, 2013, 11-cv-6201 ECF No. 201, at ¶ 142;
ML Answer, Dec. 26, 2012, 11-cv-6202 ECF No. 215, at ¶ 258; SG Answer, Jan. 10,
2013, 11 Civ. 6203 ECF. No. 224, at ¶ 177, 181-82, 184; MS Answer, Jan. 28, 2013, 11-
cv-6739 ECF. No. 247, at ¶ 242.
Case 1:11-cv-06189-DLC Document 457 Filed 08/13/13 Page 8 of 16
-4-
The Section 11 Individual Defendants now bring this motion under Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 12(c) for judgment on the pleadings on FHFA’s Section 11 claims against
them in an attempt to narrow the issues in dispute for trial and to decide the fundamentally legal
question of the “effective date” for Section 11 liability of individual directors and signers under
Rule 430B.
ARGUMENT
I. JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS IS AN APPROPRIATE AND TIMELY
MECHANISM TO ADDRESS FHFA’S FAILURE TO STATE SECTION 11
CLAIMS AGAINST THE SECTION 11 INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c) provides that “[a]fter the pleadings are
closed—but early enough not to delay trial—a party may move for judgment on the pleadings.”
Judgment on the pleadings is “appropriate where material facts are undisputed and where a
judgment on the merits is possible merely by considering the contents of the pleadings.” Sellers
v. M.C. Floor Crafters, Inc., 842 F.2d 639, 642 (2d Cir. 1988); see Burns Int’l Sec. Servs., Inc. v.
Int’l Union, 47 F.3d 14, 16 (2d Cir. 1995) (per curiam) (judgment on the pleadings appropriate
“if, from the pleadings, the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law”). “Pursuant
to Rule 12(h)(2), a Rule 12(c) motion may be used to raise the ‘defense of failure to state a claim
upon which relief can be granted.’” George C. Frey Ready-Mixed Concrete, Inc. v. Pine Hill
Concrete Mix Corp., 554 F.2d 551, 553 n.2 (2d Cir. 1977); see also Shapiro v. Merrill Lynch,
Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., 495 F.2d 228, 231 n.2 (2d Cir. 1974).
In deciding a Rule 12(c) motion, a court applies “the same standard as that
applicable to a motion under Rule 12(b)(6).” Burnette v. Carothers, 192 F.3d 52, 56 (2d Cir.
1999); see also Irish Lesbian & Gay Org. v. Giuliani, 143 F.3d 638, 644 (2d Cir. 1988) (“The
test for evaluating a 12(c) motion [for judgment on the pleadings] is the same as that applicable
to a motion to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 12(b)(6).”).
Case 1:11-cv-06189-DLC Document 457 Filed 08/13/13 Page 9 of 16
-5-
Because the alleged misstatements did not exist at the time of the “effective date”
for director and signer Section 11 liability, the Amended Complaints fail to state a claim under
Section 11 against the Section 11 Individual Defendants, and judgment on the pleadings should
therefore be granted.
II. THE SECTION 11 CLAIMS AGAINST THE SECTION 11 INDIVIDUAL
DEFENDANTS ARE MERITLESS UNDER RULE 430(B).
Individual defendants who sign registration statements are not liable under
Section 11 for alleged misstatements in later prospectus supplements that the defendants did not
sign. See 17 C.F.R. § 230.430B(f)(4); In re Countrywide Fin. Corp. Mortg.-Backed Sec. Litig.,
No. 2:12-cv-1059-MRP, 2013 WL 1189311, at *15-17 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 15, 2013). The Section
11 claims against the Section 11 Individual Defendants are thus legally meritless and should be
dismissed.
For Section 11 liability to exist, a statement must be false at the time the part of
the registration statement in which it is contained “became effective.” 15 U.S.C. § 77k(a). The
precise date a statement becomes “effective” depends on a party’s status, and “specific SEC
regulations clearly limit the Section 11 liability of directors and signers.” In re Countrywide,
2013 WL 1189311, at *17. Specifically, Rule 430B states that “the date a form of prospectus is
deemed part of and included in the registration statement . . . shall not be an effective date” for
directors or signers of the registration statement.
6
17 C.F.R. § 230.430B(f)(4) (emphasis added).
In promulgating Rule 430B, the SEC explained that it had “establishe[d] a new
effective date for a shelf registration statement for Section 11 liability purposes only for the
issuer and for a person that is at the time an underwriter.” See Securities Offering Reform, SEC
Release No. 33-8591, 2005 WL 1692642, at *85 (July 19, 2005) (“SEC Rel. 33-8591”). Having
6
There are two exceptions to this rule, neither of which applies here. 17 C.F.R. § 230.430B(f)(4).
Case 1:11-cv-06189-DLC Document 457 Filed 08/13/13 Page 10 of 16
-6-
explained its treatment of issuers and underwriters, the SEC found it worthwhile to emphasize
that “the prospectus filing will not create a new effective date for directors or signing officers of
the issuer.” Id. at *86; see also Fed. Hous. Fin. Agency v. UBS Ams., Inc., No. 1:11-cv-5201-
DLC, 2012 WL 2400263, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. June 26, 2012) (quoting the SEC release). The SEC
created this exemption based on its “belie[f] that for other persons, including directors, signing
officers, and experts, the filing of a form of prospectus should not result in a later Section 11
liability date than that which applied prior to our new rules.” See SEC Rel. 33-8591, 2005 WL
1692642, at *86.
FHFA attempted to circumvent these regulations in In re Countrywide by arguing
“that the term ‘effective date’ in Rule 430B(f)(2) and (f)(4) is actually the date of the initial bona
fide offering, which commences the statute of repose.” In re Countrywide, 2013 WL 1189311, at
*17. Judge Pfaelzer emphatically rejected this argument as inconsistent with the text and
purpose of the Rule, concluding that FHFA’s “interpretation is wrong.” Id. As Judge Pfaelzer
noted, “[t]here is no mention of the ‘initial bona fide offering’ date in Rule 430B(f)(4) or the
SEC guidance documents.” Id. Instead, Rule 430B(f) makes clear that the effective dates apply
“for purposes of liability under section 11 of the Act,” 17 C.F.R. § 230.430B(f)(2), and that the
Rule “will not create a new effective date for directors or signing officers of the issuer.” SEC
Rel. 33-8591, 2005 WL 1692642, at *86.
“[T]he date the prospectus supplements become part of the registration statement
is not a new ‘effective date’ for directors or signers of the registration statement” and, instead,
the “only effective date . . . is the filing date of the registration statements,” when “the
registration statements were ‘blank.’” In re Countrywide, 2013 WL 1189311, at *16. As such,
for the Section 11 Individual Defendants, “the registration statements did not contain
Case 1:11-cv-06189-DLC Document 457 Filed 08/13/13 Page 11 of 16
-7-
misstatements on their effective dates” and the “Individual Defendants cannot be held liable
under Section 11.” Id.
As in In re Countrywide, the Amended Complaints here rely on alleged
“misrepresentations and misstatements in the prospectus supplements, which were filed after the
registration statements [allegedly] signed by” the Section 11 Individual Defendants. In re
Countrywide, 2013 WL 1189311, at *15. Those registration statements “contained only an
illustrative form of a prospectus supplement,” and not “the final prospectus supplement[s] filed
with the SEC . . . that contained a description of the mortgage pool[s] underlying the Certificates
and the underwriting standards by which the mortgages were originated.” Id. (citation and
internal quotation marks omitted).
Consequently, the Section 11 claims against the Section 11 Individual Defendants
are legally meritless and should be dismissed on the pleadings.
7
7
Certain of the Section 11 Individual Defendants previously requested that FHFA voluntarily
dismiss the Section 11 claims against them. (See Letter from Richard H. Klapper to Philippe Z.
Selendy, June 4, 2013, attached as Exhibit A to the August 13, 2013 Declaration of Bradley A.
Harsch (“Harsch Decl.”).) FHFA refused on the basis of arguments the Countrywide court
rejected. (See Letter from Adam M. Abensohn to Richard H. Klapper, June 17, 2013, attached as
Exhibit B to the Harsch Decl.)
Case 1:11-cv-06189-DLC Document 457 Filed 08/13/13 Page 12 of 16
-8-
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth herein, the Court should grant the motion for judgment
on the pleadings on the Section 11 claims brought against the Section 11 Individual Defendants.
Dated: New York, New York
August 13, 2013
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Richard H. Klapper
Richard H. Klapper (klapperr@sullcrom.com)
Theodore Edelman (edelmant@sullcrom.com)
Michael T. Tomaino, Jr. (tomainom@sullcrom.com)
Tracy Richelle High (hight@sullcrom.com)
SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP
125 Broad Street
New York, NY 10004-2498
Telephone: 212-558-4000
Facsimile: 212-558-3588
Attorneys for Kevin Gasvoda, Michelle Gill,
David J. Rosenblum, Jonathan S. Sobel,
Daniel L. Sparks and Mark Weiss
Case 1:11-cv-06189-DLC Document 457 Filed 08/13/13 Page 13 of 16
-9-
/s/ Theresa Trzaskoma
Theresa Trzaskoma (ttrzaskoma@bruneandrichard.com)
David Elbaum (delbaum@bruneandrichard.com)
Jessica Holloway (jholloway@bruneandrichard.com)
BRUNE & RICHARD LLP
One Battery Park Plaza
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: 212-668-1900
Facsimile: 212-668-0315
Attorneys for Defendants Keith Johnson, Kim
Lutthans and John F. Robinson
/s/ Steven L. Holley
Steven L. Holley (holleys@sullcrom.com)
Robert A. Sacks (sacksr@sullcrom.com)
Penny Shane (shanep@sullcrom.com)
Sharon L. Nelles (nelless@sullcrom.com)
Jonathan M. Sedlak (sedlakj@sullcrom.com)
Yavar Bathaee (bathaeey@sullcrom.com)
SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP
125 Broad Street
New York, NY 10004
Attorneys for Defendants David M. Duzyk,
Louis Schioppo, Jr., Christine E. Cole, Edwin
F. McMichael, William A. King, Brian
Bernard, Joseph T. Jurkowski, Jr., Katherine
Garniewski, Richard Careaga, David Beck,
Diane Novak, Rolland Jurgens, Thomas G.
Lehmann, Stephen Fortunato, Donald
Wilhelm, David H. Zielke, Suzanne Krahling,
Thomas Casey and Larry Breitbarth
/s/ Richard A. Edlin
Richard A. Edlin (edlinr@gtlaw.com)
Ronald D. Lefton (leftonr@gtlaw.com)
Candace Camarata (camaratac@gtlaw.com)
GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
200 Park Avenue,
New York, NY 10166
Telephone: 212-801-9200
Attorneys for Defendant Jeffrey Mayer
/s/ Joel C. Haims
Joel C. Haims (jhaims@mofo.com)
James J. Beha II (jbeha@mofo.com)
MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
1290 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10104
Telephone: 212-468-8000
Facsimile: 212-468-7900
Attorneys for Thomas Marano and Michael
Nierenberg
/s/ Pamela Rogers Chepiga
Pamela Rogers Chepiga (pamela.chepiga@allenovery.com)
Josephine A. Cheatham (allie.cheatham@allenovery.com)
ALLEN & OVERY LLP
1221 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10020
Telephone: 212-610-6300
Facsimile: 212-610-6399
Attorneys for Defendant Samuel L. Molinaro, Jr.
/s/ Dani R. James
Dani R. James (djames@kramerlevin.com)
Jade A. Burns (jburns@kramerlevin.com)
KRAMER LEVIN NAFTALIS & FRANKEL LLP
1177 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10036
Telephone: 212-715-9100
Facsimile: 212-715-8000
Attorneys for Defendant Jeffrey L. Verschleiser
Case 1:11-cv-06189-DLC Document 457 Filed 08/13/13 Page 14 of 16
-10-
/s/ Sandra D. Hauser
Sandra D. Hauser (sandra.hauser@dentons.com)
Patrick E. Fitzmaurice (patrick.fitzmaurice@dentons.com)
Lauren Perlgut (lauren.perlgut@dentons.com)
DENTONS US LLP
1221 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10020
Telephone: 212-768-6700
Facsimile: 212-768-6800
Attorneys for Defendant Matthew E. Perkins
/s/ John M. Conlon
John M. Conlon (jconlon@mayerbrown.com)
Mark G. Hanchet (mhanchet@mayerbrown.com)
Mike O. Ware (mware@mayerbrown.com)
MAYER BROWN LLP
1675 Broadway
New York, NY 10019
Attorneys for Defendants Neal Leonard,
Gerard Mattia, Todd White and Jon Voigtman
/s/ David H. Braff
David H. Braff (braffd@sullcrom.com)
Brian T. Frawley (frawleyb@sullcrom.com)
Jeffrey T. Scott (scottj@sullcrom.com)
SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP
125 Broad Street
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: 212-558-4000
Attorneys for Defendants Barclays Bank PLC,
Barclays Capital Inc., Securitized Asset Backed
Receivables LLC, Michael Wade, John Carroll
and Paul Menefee
/s/ Thomas C. Rice
Thomas C. Rice (trice@stblaw.com)
David J. Woll (dwoll@stblaw.com)
SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT LLP
425 Lexington Avenue
New York, NY 10017-3954
Telephone: 212-455-2000
Facsimile: 212-455-2502
Attorneys for Douglas K. Johnson, Evelyn
Echevarria and Juliana C. Johnson
/s/ Daniel C. Zinman
Daniel C. Zinman (dzinman@rkollp.com)
H. Rowan Gaither IV (rgaither@rkollp.com)
Matthew M. Riccardi (mriccardi@rkollp.com)
RICHARDS KIBBE & ORBE LLP
One World Financial Center
New York, NY 10281
Attorneys for Defendants George C. Carp, Robert
Caruso, George E. Ellison, Adam D. Glassner,
Daniel B. Goodwin, Juliana Johnson, Michael J.
Kula, William L. Maxwell, Mark I. Ryan, Antoine
Schetritt, Matthew Whalen, Brian Sullivan,
Michael McGovern, Donald Puglisi, Paul Park
and Donald Han
/s/ Richard W. Clary
Richard W. Clary (rclary@cravath.com)
Richard J. Stark (rstark@cravath.com)
Michael T. Reynolds (mreynolds@cravath.com)
Lauren A. Moskowitz (lmoskowitz@cravath.com)
CRAVATH SWAINE & MOORE LLP
Worldwide Plaza
825 Eighth Avenue
New York, NY 10019-7475
Telephone: 212-474-1000
Facsimile: 212-474-3700
Attorneys for Andrew A. Kimura, Jeffrey A.
Altabef, Evelyn Echevarria, Michael A.
Marriott, Thomas Zingalli, Carlos Onis,
Joseph M. Donovan, Juliana Johnson and
Greg Richter
Case 1:11-cv-06189-DLC Document 457 Filed 08/13/13 Page 15 of 16
-11-
/s/ Bruce E. Clark
Bruce E. Clark (clarkb@sullcrom.com)
SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP
125 Broad Street
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: 212-558-4000
Facsimile: 212-558-3588
Amanda F. Davidoff (davidoffa@sullcrom.com)
SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP
1701 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C. 20006
Telephone: 202-956-7500
Facsimile: 202-956-6993
Attorneys for Defendants David Findlay, John
McCarthy, John P. Graham, Nathan Gorin and N.
Dante LaRocca
/s/ Jay B. Kasner
Jay B. Kasner (jay.kasner@skadden.com)
Scott Musoff (scott.musoff@skadden.com)
George Zimmerman (george.zimmerman@skadden.com)
Robert A. Fumerton (robert.fumerton@skadden.com)
SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP
Four Times Square
New York, NY 10036
Attorneys for Defendants Arnaud Denis, Abner
Figueroa, Tony Tusi and Orlando Figueroa
/s/ James P. Rouhandeh
James P. Rouhandeh (rouhandeh@davispolk.com)
Brian S. Weinstein (brian.weinstein@davispolk.com)
Daniel J. Schwartz (daniel.schwartz@davispolk.com)
Nicholas N. George (nicholas.george@davispolk.com)
Jane M. Morril (jane.morril@davispolk.com)
DAVIS POLK & WARDWELL LLP
450 Lexington Avenue
New York, NY 10017
Attorneys for Defendants Gail P. McDonnell,
Howard Hubler, David R. Warren and Steven S.
Stern
Case 1:11-cv-06189-DLC Document 457 Filed 08/13/13 Page 16 of 16
