UBS (NYSE:UBS) has filed a lawsuit against Bank of America (NYSE:BAC) seeking $200 million in damages related to crisis-era mortgage costs. This lawsuit stems from a series of settlements that UBS reached in the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis, particularly those related to mortgage-backed securities originated by Countrywide Financial, which was acquired by Bank of America in 2008.
The Legal Battle Over Mortgage Costs
UBS’s lawsuit was filed in a New York state court in Manhattan, accusing Bank of America of failing to honor its indemnification obligations. According to UBS, the Charlotte-based bank has refused to cover $200 million in costs that UBS incurred through settlements with various government entities. These settlements include an $885 million agreement with the U.S. Federal Housing Finance Agency in 2013 and a confidential settlement with the Federal Home Loan Bank of San Francisco in 2016.
UBS claims that Bank of America is responsible for these costs because they are directly tied to the subprime mortgage loans originated by Countrywide, a company known for its risky lending practices. Despite extensive negotiations, UBS asserts that Bank of America has refused to comply with its indemnification obligations, including coverage for approximately $53 million in legal costs.
Background on Countrywide and the Financial Crisis
Countrywide Financial, once the largest U.S. mortgage lender, played a significant role in the events leading up to the 2008 financial crisis. Under the leadership of Angelo Mozilo, Countrywide aggressively expanded its market share by catering to subprime borrowers—individuals who were often unable to afford traditional mortgages. The company offered loans with low initial monthly payments and minimal documentation requirements, contributing to a housing bubble that eventually burst.
When home prices began to plummet, the value of residential mortgage-backed securities, which had been considered safe investments, plunged as well. This collapse triggered a wave of litigation aimed at holding lenders accountable for the massive losses incurred by investors. Bank of America’s acquisition of Countrywide in July 2008 for $2.5 billion at a fire-sale price ultimately saddled the bank with tens of billions of dollars in legal and regulatory costs.
UBS Seeks Coverage for Crisis-Era Settlements
UBS’s lawsuit against Bank of America is noteworthy because it seeks indemnification for settlements related to mortgage-backed securities, rather than direct damages from the securities themselves. UBS argues that the costs it incurred through these settlements are a direct result of Countrywide’s lending practices, for which Bank of America is now responsible.
Bank of America, which has been embroiled in numerous legal battles stemming from its acquisitions of Countrywide and Merrill Lynch, has not yet publicly responded to UBS’s lawsuit. The bank has faced substantial legal and financial fallout from these acquisitions, including settlements with the U.S. Department of Justice and other regulatory bodies.
The Broader Implications of the Lawsuit
This latest legal action highlights the ongoing consequences of the 2008 financial crisis, particularly the long-lasting impact on major financial institutions like UBS and Bank of America. Despite the passage of more than a decade, the fallout from the crisis continues to affect these institutions, both financially and reputationally.
For UBS, the lawsuit represents an effort to recover a portion of the significant costs it has incurred as a result of its involvement in the subprime mortgage market. For Bank of America, the lawsuit adds to the extensive list of legal challenges it has faced related to its acquisitions during the crisis.
The case, UBS Americas et al v. Countrywide Home Loans Inc. et al, will be closely watched by industry analysts and legal experts alike. It serves as a reminder that the legal and financial repercussions of the 2008 financial crisis are far from over, with new claims and lawsuits continuing to emerge as institutions seek to mitigate their losses.
As the lawsuit progresses, it could have broader implications for other financial institutions that were similarly impacted by the crisis. The outcome of this case may influence future litigation related to crisis-era financial transactions and the responsibilities of acquiring companies to cover the liabilities of their acquisitions.
Featured Image: Freepik
