JP Morgan Acceptance Corp (RMBS Settlement)
Warning: Illegal string offset 'class' in /homepages/43/d258393870/htdocs/liquidclaims/wp-content/themes/min/Minimal/epanel/custom_functions.php on line 61
Warning: Illegal string offset 'alt' in /homepages/43/d258393870/htdocs/liquidclaims/wp-content/themes/min/Minimal/epanel/custom_functions.php on line 62
Warning: Illegal string offset 'title' in /homepages/43/d258393870/htdocs/liquidclaims/wp-content/themes/min/Minimal/epanel/custom_functions.php on line 63
JP Morgan Acceptance Corp (RMBS Settlement) Securities Settlement
The lawsuit was settled for $280 million in cash. The following is a summary of the proceedings in the lawsuit: ‘On March 26, 2008, a class action complaint was filed against Defendants and certain other defendants in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Nassau County, Index No. 5675/08, on behalf of all persons or entities who acquired mortgage pass-through certificates and asset-backed pass-through certificates pursuant and/or traceable to certain registration statements and prospectus supplements, asserting certain claims under the Securities Act of 1933 (the Securities Act). On April 25, 2008, the action was removed to the United States District Court, Eastern District of New York, Case No. 08-cv-1713. On July 24, 2009, the Public Employees Retirement System of Mississippi (MissPERS) filed a related action in the United States District Court, Eastern District of New York, Case No. 09-cv-3209, which was then consolidated into Case No. 08-cv-1713 on November 17, 2009. On November 24, 2009, the Court adopted the Report and Recommendation of U.S. Magistrate Judge Wall, and appointed MissPERS as Lead Plaintiff and its choice of counsel as Lead Counsel over the Action. On March 8, 2010, Lead Plaintiff filed the consolidated class action complaint (the Complaint), alleging claims against the Defendants and certain rating agencies. Defendants and the rating agencies served their motions to dismiss the Complaint on May 7, 2010. MissPERS filed its oppositions to the motions to dismiss on June 21, 2010, and Defendants and the rating agencies served their replies in further support of the motions to dismiss on July 21, 2010. On July 7, 2011, the claims against the rating agencies in the Complaint were voluntarily dismissed with prejudice. On December 13, 2011, the Court granted in part and denied in part Defendants motion to dismiss, including dismissal of certain claims on the basis that MissPERS lacked standing to pursue claims concerning certificates it did not purchase. The Court order was subsequently corrected on February 23, 2012, and modified by order dated September 14, 2012. 20. On January 11, 2012, Lead Plaintiff requested certification for interlocutory review of the Court ruling on standing, which the Court stayed on May 4, 2012. Following the Second Circuit decision in NECA-IBEW Health & Welfare Fund v. Goldman Sachs & Co., Case No. 11-cv-02762 (2d Cir. Sept. 6, 2012), the Court modified its motion to dismiss order on September 14, 2012, and Lead Plaintiff has since prosecuted the Action on behalf of purchasers of the Certificates sold in the 26 Offerings included in the Class. On November 13, 2012, the Court entered an initial case management order, setting forth a pre-trial schedule and deadlines for, among other things, class certification, fact discovery, expert discovery and summary judgment. Thereafter, the parties engaged in document and deposition discovery in accordance with the case management orders. On November 30, 2012, Defendants filed their Answer to the Complaint. On April 11, 2013, Lead Plaintiff served Defendants with its Motion for Class Certification and Appointment of Class Representative and Class Counsel. In connection with the prosecution of the Action, Lead Plaintiff: conducted an extensive investigation into the alleged untrue statements and omissions; filed a consolidated complaint; opposed Defendants motion to dismiss; researched and prepared briefing in support of a motion for class certification; and undertook significant fact discovery, including the review and analysis of more than 28 million pages of documents produced by Defendants and third parties and took depositions of witnesses affiliated with Defendants; and consulted with multiple experts and consultants on the issues raised in the litigation. On December 13, 2013, after a mediation process and additional extensive arm-length negotiations conducted with the assistance of the Honorable Daniel Weinstein (Retired) as mediator, the Settling Parties executed a Term Sheet reflecting an agreement in principle to settle the Action for $280 million, subject to satisfaction of conditions and negotiation of a complete set of settlement terms. The conditions and negotiation of a Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement (the Stipulation) were subsequently satisfied, and the parties thereafter executed the Stipulation and filed it with the Court. On January 14, 2014, the Settling Parties jointly filed a letter motion requesting entry of an amendment to the Third Amended Case Management Order and informing the Court of their settlement in principle. The Court granted that motion and so ordered entry of the Fourth Amended Case Management Order on January 15, 2014. Lead Plaintiff and Lead Counsel agree that the proposed Settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate, and in the best interests of the Class. After a hearing on May 1, 2014, the Court preliminarily approved the Settlement, authorized this Notice to be sent to potential Class Members, and scheduled the Final Approval Hearing to consider whether to grant final approval to the Settlement.’