KEKER & VAN NEST LLP JOHN KEKER (SBN 49092) jkeker@kvn ...

0 downloads 115 Views 199KB Size Report
Sep 3, 2013 - Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1989, ... and sold RMBS and CDO tranches t
Case 2:13-cv-00779-DOC-JCG Document 53 Filed 09/03/13 Page 1 of 72 Page ID #:1223

1 2 3 4 5

KEKER & VAN NEST LLP JOHN KEKER (SBN 49092) [email protected] ELLIOT R. PETERS (SBN 158708) [email protected] 633 Battery Street San Francisco, CA 94111-1809 Telephone: 415 391 5400 Facsimile: 415 397 7188

CAHILL GORDON & REINDEL LLP FLOYD ABRAMS (pro hac vice) 7 [email protected] S. PENNY WINDLE (pro hac vice) 8 [email protected] 80 Pine Street 9 New York, New York 10005-1702 Telephone: 212 701 3000 10 Facsimile: 212 269 5420 6

KELLER RACKAUCKAS UMBERG ZIPSER LLP JENNIFER L. KELLER (SBN 84412) 12 [email protected] 18300 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 930 13 Irvine, CA 92612-1057 Telephone: 949 476 8700 14 Facsimile: 949 476 0900 11

15

Attorneys for Defendants MCGRAW-HILL COMPANIES, INC., and 16 STANDARD & POOR’S FINANCIAL SERVICES LLC 17

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

18

FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

19 20

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,

21

- against -

22

MCGRAW-HILL COMPANIES, INC., AND STANDARD & POOR’S 24 FINANCIAL SERVICES LLC, 23

Defendants.

25

) CASE NO.: CV13-00779 (DOC) ) ) ) ) CORRECTED ANSWER AND ) DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL ) ) ) ) ) )

26 27 28 CORRECTED ANSWER CASE NO. CV13-00779 (DOC) 778956.01

Case 2:13-cv-00779-DOC-JCG Document 53 Filed 09/03/13 Page 2 of 72 Page ID #:1224

1

Defendants McGraw Hill Financial and Standard & Poor’s Financial

2

Services, LLC (collectively, “S&P”) answer Plaintiff United States of America’s

3

Complaint as follows:

4

I.

INTRODUCTION 1.

5

S&P denies that the Complaint states a claim under any section of the

6 Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1989, 12 U.S.C. 7 § 1833a (“FIRREA”).

2.

8

S&P admits that Standard & Poor’s Ratings Services (“S&P Ratings”)

9 issued credit rating opinions with respect to RMBS and CDOs between September 10 2004 and October 2007 (“the Time Period at Issue”), avers that each security had its 11 own unique collateral, structure and features and otherwise denies the allegations in 12 Paragraph 2.

3.

13

S&P admits that sponsors, arrangers and/or other non-rating agency

14 entities were responsible for arranging and structuring RMBS and/or CDOs, 15 including creating classes (or “tranches”) of notes to be issued, and that these 16 entities often sought credit ratings for some or all of the tranches from S&P Ratings 17 and/or other credit rating agencies. S&P otherwise denies the allegations in 18 Paragraph 3.

4.

19

S&P admits that credit ratings are forward-looking opinions about

20 credit risk, that S&P Ratings typically expresses its ratings on long-term debt 21 securities in the form of letter grades that range from ‘AAA’ to ‘D’, reflecting its 22 opinion with respect to the relative likelihood of default and the issuer’s ability to 23 pay timely principal and interest, and that S&P Ratings typically announces its 24 credit ratings and publishes them on its website. S&P otherwise denies the 25 allegations in Paragraph 4.

5.

26

S&P admits upon information and belief that other entities marketed

27 and sold RMBS and CDO tranches to financial institutions and other investors, that 28

-2CORRECTED ANSWER CASE NO. CV13-00779 (DOC) 778956.01

Case 2:13-cv-00779-DOC-JCG Document 53 Filed 09/03/13 Page 3 of 72 Page ID #:1225

1 some of those financial institutions may have been federally-insured, and that some 2 RMBS and CDO tranches could only be marketed or sold to “qualified institutional 3 buyers” by reason of rules promulgated by the United States Securities and 4 Exchange Commission (“SEC”). S&P otherwise denies the allegations in 5 Paragraph 5.

6.

6

S&P avers that S&P Ratings’ credit ratings are not indicators of

7 investment merit, are not recommendations to buy, sell or hold any security, and 8 should not be relied upon as investment or financial advice. S&P further avers, on 9 information and belief, that several of the financial institutions identified in the 10 Complaint were themselves involved (directly or through affiliates) in arranging, 11 structuring, evaluating, marketing and/or selling the RMBS and/or CDOs 12 referenced in the Complaint and that S&P’s credit ratings were not and could not 13 have been material to such institutions. S&P otherwise denies the allegations in 14 Paragraph 6. 15

7.

S&P denies the allegations in Paragraph 7.

16

8.

S&P denies the allegations in Paragraph 8.

17

9.

S&P denies the allegations in Paragraph 9 and avers as follows:

18

S&P Ratings’ ratings opinions were independent and based upon a good

19

faith assessment of, among other things, the performance of residential mortgages

20

during a tumultuous time in the market. Like nearly every other market

21

participant, analyst, and interested government entity, S&P Ratings did not

22

anticipate the full speed, severity, and breadth of the collapse of the housing

23

market and its impact on the economy as whole. S&P Ratings was not alone.

24

Other rating agencies that have not been charged with fraud or misconduct by the

25

United States issued ratings similar to and often identical with those of S&P

26

Ratings. Indeed, every CDO tranche cited in the Complaint received identical

27

ratings from S&P Ratings and at least one other rating agency.

28

-3CORRECTED ANSWER CASE NO. CV13-00779 (DOC) 778956.01

Case 2:13-cv-00779-DOC-JCG Document 53 Filed 09/03/13 Page 4 of 72 Page ID #:1226

Moreover senior officials of the United States who were reviewing the same

1 2

data that S&P Ratings was reviewing throughout 2007 proved no more prescient

3

than S&P Ratings. When Ben S. Bernanke, then Chairman of the Board of

4

Governors of the Federal Reserve System, stated in March 2007, that “the central

5

scenario that housing will stabilize sometime during the middle of the year remains

6

intact,” his views (and those of other Governors) were similar to those of S&P

7

Ratings. Similarly, when Secretary of the Treasury Henry M. Paulson stated in

8

April 2007 that “subprime is obviously an outgrowth of the housing market,” that

9

“in terms of the systemic risks, the economic risks, you know, the macro risk, I

10

don’t see it posing a serious problem” and that “I think it’s going to be largely

11

contained,” his views were consistent with those of S&P. And when Mr.

12

Bernanke, looking back with several years of hindsight in December 2009 said, “I

13

did not anticipate a crisis of this magnitude and this severity,” that was also true of

14

S&P Ratings. With respect to the period from September 2004 through October 2007

15 16

specified in Paragraph 9(a) of the Complaint, S&P Ratings did not weaken the

17

criteria and analytical models it used in rating RMBS and CDOs in order to

18

increase its revenue or market share. S&P incorporates herein and refers to its

19

specific responses to Paragraphs 125 to 198 of the Complaint. The final decisions

20

regarding updates to S&P Ratings’ assumptions and criteria, and its ultimate rating

21

opinions, reflected S&P Ratings’ good faith analytical judgment and opinion as

22

determined by a committee of analysts. With respect to the period between March 2007 and October 2007 specified

23 24

in Paragraph 9(b) of the Complaint, S&P did not issue or confirm credit rating

25

opinions on CDOs backed by non-prime RMBS with knowledge that the ratings

26

underestimated the creditworthiness of the CDOs. S&P Ratings strengthened its

27

standards for conducting surveillance of RMBS during this time period, which

28

-4CORRECTED ANSWER CASE NO. CV13-00779 (DOC) 778956.01

Case 2:13-cv-00779-DOC-JCG Document 53 Filed 09/03/13 Page 5 of 72 Page ID #:1227

1

resulted in S&P taking CreditWatch or rating actions on increasing numbers of

2

non-prime RMBS in the first half of 2007, ahead of the other rating agencies.

3

These actions reflected and updated S&P Ratings’ credit rating opinion with

4

respect to both the RMBS and any CDO backed by the RMBS. S&P Ratings

5

conducted these analyses independently and in good faith during a period of

6

unprecedented performance issues in the residential mortgage market. Although in

7

hindsight it is now known that the speed, severity and depth of the deterioration in

8

the residential mortgage market was far beyond what S&P Ratings expected at the

9

time, this is also true of every other Nationally Recognized Statistical Rating

10

Organization (“NRSRO”) (and many agencies and high-ranking officials in the

11

federal government who were reviewing the same data at the same time).

12

10.

S&P denies the allegations in Paragraph 10.

13

11.

To the extent Paragraph 11 contains a legal conclusion, S&P makes

14 no response to those allegations, except admits that the Plaintiff purports to institute 15 proceedings pursuant to 12 U.S.C. § 1833a, and otherwise denies the allegations in 16 Paragraph 11.

12.

17

To the extent Paragraph 12 contains a legal conclusion, S&P makes

18 no response to those allegations, except admits that the Plaintiff purports to institute 19 proceedings pursuant to 12 U.S.C. § 1833a, and otherwise denies the allegations in 20 Paragraph 12.

13.

21

To the extent Paragraph 13 contains a legal conclusion, S&P makes

22 no response to those allegations, except admits that the Plaintiff purports to institute 23 proceedings pursuant to 12 U.S.C. § 1833a, and otherwise denies the allegations in 24 Paragraph 13.

14.

25

To the extent Paragraph 14 contains a legal conclusion, S&P makes

26 no response to those allegations, except admits that the Plaintiff purports to institute 27 proceedings pursuant to 12 U.S.C. § 1833a, and otherwise denies the allegations in 28

-5CORRECTED ANSWER CASE NO. CV13-00779 (DOC) 778956.01

Case 2:13-cv-00779-DOC-JCG Document 53 Filed 09/03/13 Page 6 of 72 Page ID #:1228

1 Paragraph 14.

15.

2

To the extent Paragraph 15 contains a legal conclusion, S&P makes

3 no response to those allegations, except admits that the Plaintiff purports to institute 4 proceedings pursuant to 12 U.S.C. § 1833a, and otherwise denies the allegations in 5 Paragraph 15. 6

16.

S&P admits the allegations in Paragraph 16.

7

17.

S&P does not dispute that venue is appropriate in this judicial district,

8 but denies that a substantial part of the events alleged in the Complaint occurred in 9 this district. 10

18.

S&P admits the allegation in Paragraph 18.

11

19.

S&P admits the allegation in Paragraph 19.

12

20.

S&P admits the allegation in Paragraph 20, except denies that S&P

13 LLC, as defined in the Complaint, is a successor to Standard & Poor’s Ratings 14 Services.

21.

15

S&P avers that each security had its own unique collateral, structure

16 and features and otherwise denies the allegations in Paragraph 21.

22.

17

S&P admits that sponsors, arrangers and/or other non-rating agency

18 entities were responsible for arranging and structuring RMBS, including creating 19 classes (or “tranches”) of notes to be issued, avers that each security had its own 20 unique collateral, structure and features, and otherwise denies the allegations in 21 Paragraph 22.

23.

22

S&P avers that each security had its own unique collateral, structure

23 and features and otherwise denies the allegations in Paragraph 23.

24.

24

S&P avers that each security had its own unique collateral, structure

25 and features and otherwise denies the allegations in Paragraph 24.

25.

26

S&P avers that each security had its own unique collateral, structure

27 and features and otherwise denies the allegations in Paragraph 25. 28

-6CORRECTED ANSWER CASE NO. CV13-00779 (DOC) 778956.01

Case 2:13-cv-00779-DOC-JCG Document 53 Filed 09/03/13 Page 7 of 72 Page ID #:1229

26.

1

S&P avers that each security had its own unique collateral, structure

2 and features and otherwise denies the allegations in Paragraph 26.

27.

3

S&P avers that each security had its own unique collateral, structure

4 and features and otherwise denies the allegations in Paragraph 27.

28.

5

S&P avers that each security had its own unique collateral, structure

6 and features and otherwise denies the allegations in Paragraph 28.

29.

7

S&P avers that each security had its own unique collateral, structure

8 and features and otherwise denies the allegations in Paragraph 29.

30.

9

S&P avers that each security had its own unique collateral, structure

10 and features and otherwise denies the allegations in Paragraph 30.

31.

11

S&P admits that sponsors, arrangers and/or other non-rating agency

12 entities were responsible for arranging and structuring CDOs, including creating 13 classes (or “tranches”) of notes to be issued, avers that each security had its own 14 unique collateral, structure and features, and otherwise denies the allegations in 15 Paragraph 31.

32.

16

S&P avers that each security had its own unique collateral, structure

17 and features and otherwise denies the allegations in Paragraph 32.

33.

18

S&P avers that each security had its own unique collateral, structure

19 and features and otherwise denies the allegations in Paragraph 33.

34.

20

S&P admits that, during the Time Period at Issue, many RMBS

21 tranches that were referenced in credit default swaps and/or included in pools that 22 provided collateral for CDOs rated by S&P Ratings were tranches of RMBS backed 23 predominantly by non-prime residential mortgages, and that many such tranches 24 were rated lower than AAA. S&P otherwise denies the allegations in Paragraph 34.

35.

25

S&P admits that S&P Ratings was in the business of providing credit

26 rating opinions, among other things, during the Time Period at Issue and that S&P 27 Ratings typically charged fees in connection with its ratings services. S&P admits 28

-7CORRECTED ANSWER CASE NO. CV13-00779 (DOC) 778956.01

Case 2:13-cv-00779-DOC-JCG Document 53 Filed 09/03/13 Page 8 of 72 Page ID #:1230

1 upon information and belief that S&P Ratings was one of the largest credit rating 2 agencies in the world during the Time Period at Issue. S&P otherwise denies the 3 allegations in Paragraph 35. 4

36.

S&P admits the allegations in Paragraph 36.

5

37.

S&P admits the allegations in Paragraph 37.

6

38.

S&P admits the allegations in Paragraph 38, except to the extent the

7 allegations refer to Paragraph 115, and refers to its response to Paragraph 115. 8

39.

S&P admits the allegations in Paragraph 39.

9

40.

S&P admits the allegations in Paragraph 40.

10

41.

S&P refers to its published ratings definitions for their full content.

11 S&P otherwise denies the allegations in Paragraph 41.

42.

12

S&P refers to its published ratings definitions for their full content.

13 S&P otherwise denies the allegations in Paragraph 42.

43.

14

S&P admits the allegations in Paragraph 43, and refers to its published

15 ratings definitions for their full content.

44.

16

S&P admits that securities rated BBB- and higher on its scale were

17 generally referred to as “investment grade” by market participants, that securities 18 with ratings below BBB- were generally referred to as “non-investment grade” or 19 “speculative grade” by market participants, and that securities rated in the range 20 between A and BB were sometimes referred to as “mezzanine” securities by market 21 participants. S&P otherwise denies the allegations in Paragraph 44.

45.

22

S&P denies the allegations in Paragraph 45 and incorporates herein its

23 response to Paragraph 5 above.

46.

24

S&P denies the allegations in Paragraph 46 and incorporates herein its

25 response to Paragraph 6 above.

47.

26

S&P admits that 12 C.F.R. § 704.6(d) exists, avers that regulation §

27 704.6 further requires federally-chartered credit unions to “operate according to a 28

-8CORRECTED ANSWER CASE NO. CV13-00779 (DOC) 778956.01

Case 2:13-cv-00779-DOC-JCG Document 53 Filed 09/03/13 Page 9 of 72 Page ID #:1231

1 credit risk management policy that is commensurate with the investment risks and 2 activities it undertakes,” refers to the full regulation for its complete content, and 3 otherwise denies the allegations in Paragraph 47.

48.

4

S&P denies the allegations in Paragraph 48 and incorporates herein its

5 response to Paragraph 6 above.

49.

6

S&P denies the allegations in Paragraph 49, except as set forth in its

7 responses to the subparagraphs below, and incorporates herein its response to 8 Paragraph 6 above.

a.

9

S&P admits that the language quoted in Paragraph 49(a) appears in

10

S&P Ratings’ 2006 CDO Strategic Plan, avers that the allegations are a selective

11

quote from the document that do not reflect its true content, refers to the full

12

document for its complete content, and otherwise denies the allegations in

13

Paragraph 49(a). S&P incorporates herein its response to Paragraph 6 above. b.

14

S&P admits that the language quoted in Paragraph 49(b) appears in

15

S&P Ratings’ 2006 CDO Strategic Plan, avers that the allegations are a selective

16

quote from the document that do not reflect its true content, refers to the full

17

document for its complete content, and otherwise denies the allegations in

18

Paragraph 49(b). S&P incorporates herein its response to Paragraph 6 above. c.

19

S&P admits that the language quoted in Paragraph 49(c) appears in a

20

February 16, 2007 publication entitled, “25 Years of Credit: The Structured

21

Finance Market’s Accumulated Wisdom,” avers that the allegations are a selective

22

quote from the publication that do not reflect its true content, refers to the full

23

publication for its complete content, and otherwise denies the allegations in

24

Paragraph 49(c). S&P incorporates herein its response to Paragraph 6 above. d.

25

S&P admits that the language quoted in Paragraph 49(d) appears in an

26

August 23, 2007 publication entitled, “The Fundamentals of Structured Finance

27

Ratings,” avers that the allegations are a selective quote from the publication that

28

-9CORRECTED ANSWER CASE NO. CV13-00779 (DOC) 778956.01

Case 2:13-cv-00779-DOC-JCG Document 53 Filed 09/03/13 Page 10 of 72 Page ID #:1232

1

do not reflect its true content, refers to the full publication for its complete content,

2

and otherwise denies the allegations in Paragraph 49(d). S&P incorporates herein

3

its response to Paragraph 6 above. 50.

4

S&P admits that S&P Ratings’ reputation for the quality of its rating

5 opinions is important to S&P, admits that the language quoted in Paragraph 50 6 appears in S&P Ratings’ 2006 CDO Strategic Plan, avers that the allegations are a 7 selective quote from the document that do not reflect its true content, refers to the 8 full document for its complete content, and otherwise denies the allegations in 9 Paragraph 50. S&P also admits that more than one credit rating agency typically 10 rated the same security and avers that each CDO identified in the Complaint was 11 rated by more than one credit rating agency.

51.

12

S&P avers that issuers (as defined in the Complaint) sometimes

13 retained tranches or equity portions of the RMBS or CDOs they arranged, 14 structured, marketed or sold and that the alleged “loss to investors” identified in 15 Paragraphs 238(a), 238(b), 238(c), 241(e), 261(a), 269(c) and 277 in fact refers to 16 losses allegedly incurred by issuers of the identified securities in many instances, 17 and otherwise denies the allegations in Paragraph 51.

52.

18

S&P admits on information and belief that the financial institutions

19 identified in the Complaint, and others, purchased RMBS and CDO tranches rated 20 by S&P Ratings (and/or other NRSROs) and issued during the Time Period at Issue 21 and otherwise denies the allegations in Paragraph 52.

53.

22

S&P admits that S&P Ratings had a Structured Finance department

23 and otherwise denies the allegations in Paragraph 53.

54.

24

S&P admits that, between 2004 and 2007, Joanne Rose was the

25 Executive Managing Director in charge of the Structured Finance Group, reported 26 to the Executive Vice President for Credit Market Services, and was a member of 27 the Structured Finance Leadership Team. S&P otherwise denies the allegations in 28

- 10 CORRECTED ANSWER CASE NO. CV13-00779 (DOC) 778956.01

Case 2:13-cv-00779-DOC-JCG Document 53 Filed 09/03/13 Page 11 of 72 Page ID #:1233

1 Paragraph 54.

55.

2

S&P admits that, between 2005 and 2007, the Managing Director in

3 charge of the Global ABS/RMBS/New Assets group reported to Rose and was a 4 member of the Structured Finance Leadership Team. S&P otherwise denies the 5 allegations in Paragraph 55.

56.

6

S&P admits that, between 2006 and 2007, the Managing Director in

7 charge of the RMBS North America group reported to the Managing Director in 8 charge of the Global ABS/RMBS/New Assets group. S&P otherwise denies the 9 allegations in Paragraph 56.

57.

10

S&P admits that, between February 2005 and 2007, Patrice Jordan

11 was the Managing Director in charge of the Global CDO group, reported to Rose, 12 and was a member of the Structured Finance Leadership Team. S&P otherwise 13 denies the allegations in Paragraph 57.

58.

14

S&P admits that the managing director who was head of Global CDO

15 prior to Jordan was a member of the SFLT and head of the Center of Excellence 16 Quantitative Analytics Group through November 2006. S&P otherwise denies the 17 allegations in Paragraph 58.

59.

18

S&P admits that David Tesher was a managing director in charge of

19 the Cash CDO group, that Andrea Bryan was a managing director in charge of the 20 Synthetic CDO group, and that both reported to Jordan during the Time Period at 21 Issue. S&P otherwise denies the allegations in Paragraph 59.

60.

22

S&P admits that the managing director who was head of the

23 surveillance group reported to Rose and was a member of the SFLT and that the 24 heads of the RMBS Surveillance group and CDO Surveillance group reported to the 25 head of the Structured Finance Surveillance group during the Time Period at Issue. 26 S&P otherwise denies the allegations in Paragraph 60.

61.

27 28

S&P admits that Thomas Gillis was head of the Research and Criteria - 11 CORRECTED ANSWER CASE NO. CV13-00779 (DOC)

778956.01

Case 2:13-cv-00779-DOC-JCG Document 53 Filed 09/03/13 Page 12 of 72 Page ID #:1234

1 group, reported to Rose, and was a member of the SFLT during the Time Period at 2 Issue. S&P otherwise denies the allegations in Paragraph 61.

62.

3

S&P admits that S&P Ratings typically charges a fee to issuers in

4 connection with its engagement to rate RMBS and that in 2007 the fee for rating 5 RMBS securities could range from $25,000 to $150,000. S&P otherwise denies the 6 allegations in Paragraph 62.

63.

7

S&P admits that S&P Ratings typically charges a fee to issuers in

8 connection with its engagement to rate CDOs and that in 2007 the fee for rating 9 cash flow CDOs could range from $150,000 to $500,000 and for synthetic CDOs 10 could range from $30,000 to $700,000, avers that the new issue rating fees charged 11 in connection with the 26 CDOs identified in Paragraphs 277 and 278 totaled less 12 than $12 million, and avers that the new issue rating fees charged in connection 13 with all 33 CDOs identified anywhere in the Complaint totaled less than $15 14 million. S&P otherwise denies the allegations in Paragraph 63.

64.

15

S&P admits that S&P Ratings typically charges a fee to issuers in

16 connection with its surveillance of CDOs and that in 2007 the fee for annual 17 surveillance of cash flow CDOs could range from $35,000 to $50,000 and for 18 synthetic CDOs could range from $10,000 to $50,000 and otherwise denies the 19 allegations in Paragraph 64.

65.

20

S&P admits that S&P Ratings may not receive the full fee for rating a

21 structured finance security if a rating is not issued and otherwise denies the 22 allegations in Paragraph 65.

66.

23

S&P admits that the language quoted in Paragraph 66 appears in S&P

24 Ratings’ 2006 CDO Strategic Plan, avers that the allegations are a selective quote 25 from the document that do not reflect its true content, avers that S&P Ratings was 26 typically engaged to rate CDOs during the Time Period at Issue through the 27 arranger of the CDO, refers to the full document for its complete content, and 28

- 12 CORRECTED ANSWER CASE NO. CV13-00779 (DOC) 778956.01

Case 2:13-cv-00779-DOC-JCG Document 53 Filed 09/03/13 Page 13 of 72 Page ID #:1235

1 otherwise denies the allegations in Paragraph 66.

67.

2

S&P denies the allegations in Paragraph 67. S&P further avers that

3 the operative documents cited in Paragraphs 67(a) and 67(b) do not state, in words 4 or substance, that any rating fee was to be paid out of the proceeds of sales “to 5 investors.” 6

68.

S&P denies the allegations in Paragraph 68.

7

69.

S&P denies the allegations in Paragraph 69.

8

70.

S&P denies the allegations in Paragraph 70.

9

71.

S&P admits that the language quoted in Paragraph 71 appears in a

10 2005 annual report, avers that the allegations are a selective quote from the 11 document that do not reflect its true content, refers to the full document for its 12 complete content, and otherwise denies the allegations in Paragraph 71.

72.

13

S&P admits that the language quoted in Paragraph 72 appears in a

14 2006 annual report, avers that the allegations are a selective quote from the 15 document that do not reflect its true content, refers to the full document for its 16 complete content, and otherwise denies the allegations in Paragraph 72.

73.

17

S&P avers that the specific rating process for each security may vary

18 or differ as a result of the security’s unique collateral, structure and features and 19 otherwise denies the allegations in Paragraph 73.

74.

20

S&P admits that versions of the LEVELS model were used during the

21 Time Period at Issue in connection with requests for ratings on new issue U.S. 22 RMBS, avers that the specific rating process for each security may vary or differ as 23 a result of the security’s unique collateral, structure and features and otherwise 24 denies the allegations in Paragraph 74. 25

75.

S&P denies the allegations in Paragraph 75.

26

76.

S&P denies the allegations in Paragraph 76.

27

77.

S&P admits that S&P Ratings’ decision to issue an RMBS rating was

28

- 13 CORRECTED ANSWER CASE NO. CV13-00779 (DOC) 778956.01

Case 2:13-cv-00779-DOC-JCG Document 53 Filed 09/03/13 Page 14 of 72 Page ID #:1236

1 typically conveyed both by publication and in a rating letter to the RMBS issuer, 2 refers to the specific terms and contents of any such letter for its actual contents, 3 and otherwise denies the allegations in Paragraph 77.

78.

4

S&P admits that, during the Time Period at Issue, requests for U.S.

5 RMBS ratings were sometimes withdrawn and that S&P Ratings had a practice of 6 preparing a “lost deal” memo in such circumstances, and otherwise denies the 7 allegations in Paragraph 78.

79.

8

S&P avers that the specific rating process for each security may vary

9 or differ as a result of the security’s unique collateral, structure and features and 10 otherwise denies the allegations in Paragraph 79.

80.

11

S&P admits that the language quoted in Paragraph 80 appears in a

12 June 8, 2007 publication entitled, “An Introduction to CDOs and Standard & Poor’s 13 Global CDO Ratings,” avers that the allegations are a selective paraphrase of the 14 publication that do not reflect its true content, refers to the full publication for its 15 complete content, and otherwise denies the allegations in Paragraph 80.

81.

16

S&P admits that versions of the CDO Evaluator model were used

17 during the Time Period at Issue in connection with the rating of CDOs, avers that 18 the specific rating analysis for each security may vary or differ as a result of the 19 security’s unique collateral, structure and features and otherwise denies the 20 allegations in Paragraph 81.

82.

21

S&P admits that Q-Ramp reports typically included a comparison of a

22 break-even default rate (“BDR”) calculated with the Genesis model and a scenario 23 default rate (“SDR”) calculated with the CDO Evaluator model, admits that a BDR 24 reflected a projected rate of default on the underlying collateral that could occur 25 before a particular CDO tranche was expected to experience a default, admits that 26 the SDR reflected a projected rate of default at a particular rating level, and 27 otherwise denies the allegations in Paragraph 82. 28

- 14 CORRECTED ANSWER CASE NO. CV13-00779 (DOC) 778956.01

Case 2:13-cv-00779-DOC-JCG Document 53 Filed 09/03/13 Page 15 of 72 Page ID #:1237

1

83.

S&P denies the allegations in Paragraph 83.

2

84.

S&P avers that the specific rating process for each security may vary

3 or differ as a result of the security’s unique collateral, structure and features and 4 otherwise denies the allegations in Paragraph 84.

85.

5

S&P avers that the specific rating process for each security may vary

6 or differ as a result of the security’s unique collateral, structure and features and 7 otherwise denies the allegations in Paragraph 85.

86.

8

S&P avers that the specific rating process for each security may vary

9 or differ as a result of the security’s unique collateral, structure and features and 10 otherwise denies the allegations in Paragraph 86.

87.

11

S&P avers that the specific rating process for each security may vary

12 or differ as a result of the security’s unique collateral, structure and features and 13 otherwise denies the allegations in Paragraph 87.

88.

14

S&P avers that the specific rating process for each security may vary

15 or differ as a result of the security’s unique collateral, structure and features and 16 otherwise denies the allegations in Paragraph 88.

89.

17

S&P admits that S&P Ratings at times prepared Pre-Sale Reports in

18 connection with structured finance ratings and otherwise denies the allegations in 19 Paragraph 89.

90.

20

S&P admits that S&P Ratings’ decision to issue a CDO rating was

21 typically conveyed both by publication and in a rating letter to the CDO issuer, 22 refers to the specific terms and contents of any such letter for its actual contents, 23 and otherwise denies the allegations in Paragraph 90.

91.

24

S&P admits that S&P Ratings’ analysis for new CDOs backed by

25 assets it rated used S&P Ratings’ then-current rating of those assets as inputs in the 26 analysis conducted using CDO Evaluator, and otherwise denies the allegations in 27 Paragraph 91. 28

- 15 CORRECTED ANSWER CASE NO. CV13-00779 (DOC) 778956.01

Case 2:13-cv-00779-DOC-JCG Document 53 Filed 09/03/13 Page 16 of 72 Page ID #:1238

92.

1

S&P avers that it was the longstanding practice of S&P Ratings, since

2 prior to 2006, that its CDO group would use the rating assigned by its RMBS group 3 to any RMBS used as collateral for a CDO in conducting its CDO credit rating 4 analysis, that this practice included taking into account any CreditWatch action that 5 the RMBS group had determined to take on such underlying collateral, avers that it 6 was not its practice to have CDO analysts “re-rate” or otherwise change the rating 7 assigned by the RMBS group to such collateral, and otherwise denies the 8 allegations in Paragraph 92.

93.

9

S&P admits that it was the longstanding practice of S&P Ratings,

10 since prior to 2006, to use its ratings on underlying collateral backing a CDO, 11 including any RMBS, in conducting its rating analysis of that CDO, avers that 12 pursuant to this longstanding practice the rating used for any underlying RMBS that 13 was on CreditWatch Negative would be adjusted down by one “notch” and the 14 rating used for any underlying RMBS that was on CreditWatch Positive would 15 adjusted up one “notch,” avers that it was not S&P’s practice prior to July 2007 to 16 make such adjustments if the RMBS group had not decided to place the underlying 17 RMBS on CreditWatch, and otherwise denies the allegations of Paragraph 93.

94.

18

S&P avers that S&P Ratings’ longstanding practice for rating CDOs,

19 since prior to 2006, took into account whether any underlying RMBS assets were 20 on CreditWatch for a potential downgrade or upgrade and otherwise denies the 21 allegations of Paragraph 94.

95.

22

S&P avers that S&P Ratings’ longstanding practice for rating CDOs,

23 since prior to 2006, took into account whether any underlying RMBS assets were 24 on CreditWatch for a potential downgrade or upgrade and otherwise denies the 25 allegations in Paragraph 95.

96.

26

S&P admits that S&P Ratings sometimes received requests during the

27 Time Period at Issue to issue an “Effective Date Rating Agency Confirmation” 28

- 16 CORRECTED ANSWER CASE NO. CV13-00779 (DOC) 778956.01

Case 2:13-cv-00779-DOC-JCG Document 53 Filed 09/03/13 Page 17 of 72 Page ID #:1239

1 confirming its rating as of a specified date in connection with cash and hybrid 2 CDOs it had rated and otherwise denies the allegations in Paragraph 96.

97.

3

S&P avers that the specific rating process for each security may vary

4 or differ as a result of the security’s unique collateral, structure and features and 5 otherwise denies the allegations in Paragraph 97.

98.

6

S&P avers that the specific rating process for each security may vary

7 or differ as a result of the security’s unique collateral, structure and features and 8 otherwise denies the allegations in Paragraph 98.

99.

9

S&P avers that the specific rating process for each security may vary

10 or differ as a result of the security’s unique collateral, structure and features and 11 otherwise denies the allegations in Paragraph 99.

100. S&P avers that it used a model called CDO Monitor in connection

12

13 with the rating of certain structured finance securities and otherwise denies the 14 allegations in Paragraph 100.

101. S&P admits that versions of the CDO Monitor model were used in

15

16 connection with reviewing requests for Effective Date RAC letters during the Time 17 Period at Issue, avers that S&P Ratings’ analysis in connection with such requests 18 was conducted on a case-by-case basis and depended upon specific collateral and 19 structural features of the particular CDO, avers that the effect of an issuer’s failure 20 to obtain an Effective Date RAC letter was described in the operative legal 21 documents for each particular CDO, and otherwise denies the allegations in 22 Paragraph 101.

102. S&P admits that the language quoted in Paragraph 102 appears in a

23

24 1999 publication entitled, “U.S. Residential Subprime Mortgage Criteria,” avers 25 that the allegations are a selective quote from the publication that do not reflect its 26 true content, refers to the full publication for its complete content, and otherwise 27 denies the allegations in Paragraph 102. 28

- 17 CORRECTED ANSWER CASE NO. CV13-00779 (DOC) 778956.01

Case 2:13-cv-00779-DOC-JCG Document 53 Filed 09/03/13 Page 18 of 72 Page ID #:1240

103. S&P admits that the language quoted in Paragraph 103 appears in a

1

2 2005 Code of Conduct, avers that the allegations are a selective quote from the 3 document that do not reflect its true content, refers to the full document for its 4 complete content, and otherwise denies the allegations in Paragraph 103.

104. S&P admits that the language quoted in Paragraph 104 appears in a

5

6 2005 Code of Conduct, avers that the allegations are a selective quote from the 7 document that do not reflect its true content, refers to the full document for its 8 complete content, and otherwise denies the allegations in Paragraph 104.

105. S&P admits that the language quoted in Paragraph 105 appears in an

9

10 August 7, 2007 publication entitled, “CreditWatch and Rating Outlooks Provide 11 Powerful Warning Signals,” avers that the allegations are a selective paraphrase of 12 the publication that do not reflect its true content, refers to the full publication for 13 its complete content, and otherwise denies the allegations in Paragraph 105.

106. S&P admits that the language quoted in Paragraph 106 appears in an

14

15 August 7, 2007 publication entitled, “CreditWatch and Rating Outlooks Provide 16 Powerful Warning Signals,” avers that the allegations are a selective paraphrase of 17 the publication that do not reflect its true content, refers to the full publication for 18 its complete content, and otherwise denies the allegations in Paragraph 106.

107. S&P admits that S&P Ratings typically received data on a monthly

19

20 basis regarding the performance of pools of mortgages that backed RMBS it rated, 21 that during the Time Period at Issue S&P Ratings used this data as well as other 22 data to monitor the performance of outstanding RMBS, that S&P Ratings’ 23 monitoring activity included the use of “exception reports” of various types and for 24 various purposes, and that between February and July 2007 S&P Ratings used 25 exception reports as one method for identifying RMBS tranches for further review 26 for potential CreditWatch action. S&P avers that the appearance of an RMBS 27 tranche on such an exception report was not, by itself, an indication that the tranche 28

- 18 CORRECTED ANSWER CASE NO. CV13-00779 (DOC) 778956.01

Case 2:13-cv-00779-DOC-JCG Document 53 Filed 09/03/13 Page 19 of 72 Page ID #:1241

1 was then under consideration for potential downgrade, that the data it relied on 2 regarding delinquency rates of residential mortgages was available to the 3 government and the marketplace through third party data providers and elsewhere, 4 and that throughout the first half of 2007 there was public discussion and analysis 5 of that data in the marketplace. S&P avers upon information and belief, the Federal 6 Open Market Committee of the Federal Reserve reviewed and discussed the same 7 or similar data in meetings in 2007 that were attended by, among others, Ben S. 8 Bernanke, Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and 9 Timothy F. Geithner, then President of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. 10 S&P otherwise denies the allegations in Paragraph 107.

108. S&P admits that S&P Ratings at times referred to mortgages that were

11

12 more than 90 days delinquent, REO or in foreclosure as “severe delinquencies,” 13 admits that S&P Ratings referred to the amount of support that it expected an 14 RMBS tranche to receive over time that could be used to absorb losses as “credit 15 support” but that the use of the phrase “credit support” may not always have 16 referred to all forms of credit support during the Time Period at Issue. S&P admits 17 that S&P Ratings at various times during the Time Period at Issue conducted 18 analyses comparing the amount of severe delinquencies in an RMBS pool to the 19 expected credit support for particular tranches backed by that pool, and avers that 20 such a “SD versus CS” calculation was not used to determine whether an RMBS 21 tranche should be downgraded but rather as one among many monitoring methods 22 to help identify RMBS tranches that might need to be further reviewed for potential 23 CreditWatch action. S&P otherwise denies the allegations in Paragraph 108.

109. S&P avers that the specific rating process for each security may vary

24

25 or differ as a result of the security’s unique collateral, structure and features and 26 otherwise denies the allegations in Paragraph 109.

110. S&P admits that S&P Ratings has publicly recognized and disclosed

27 28

- 19 CORRECTED ANSWER CASE NO. CV13-00779 (DOC) 778956.01

Case 2:13-cv-00779-DOC-JCG Document 53 Filed 09/03/13 Page 20 of 72 Page ID #:1242

1 the potential conflict of interest that could arise, or could be perceived to arise, 2 when its rating fees are paid by the entity that is being rated and that this was 3 common knowledge in the marketplace, avers that its credit ratings reflected its 4 independent and good faith opinions, and otherwise denies the allegations in 5 Paragraph 110.

111. S&P admits that the language quoted in Paragraph 111 appears in a

6

7 2004 Code of Practices and Procedures, avers that the allegations are a selective 8 quote from the document that do not reflect its true content, refers to the full 9 document for its complete content, and otherwise denies the allegations in 10 Paragraph 111.

112. S&P admits that the language quoted in Paragraph 112 appears in a

11

12 2005 Code of Conduct, avers that the allegations are a selective quote from the 13 document that do not reflect its true content, refers to the full document for its 14 complete content, and otherwise denies the allegations in Paragraph 112.

113. S&P admits that the language quoted in Paragraph 113 appears in the

15

16 IOSCO Code, avers that the allegations are a selective quote from the document 17 that do not reflect its true content, refers to the full document for its complete 18 content, and otherwise denies the allegations in Paragraph 113.

114. S&P admits that language similar to that quoted in Paragraph 114

19

20 appears in the IOSCO Code, avers that the allegations are a selective quote from the 21 document that do not reflect its true content, refers to the full document for its 22 complete content, and otherwise denies the allegations in Paragraph 114.

115. S&P admits that the language quoted in Paragraph 115 appears in a

23

24 2005 Code of Conduct, avers that the allegations are a selective quote from the 25 document that do not reflect its true content, refers to the full document for its 26 complete content, and otherwise denies the allegations in Paragraph 115.

116. S&P admits that the language quoted in Paragraph 116 appears in the

27 28

- 20 CORRECTED ANSWER CASE NO. CV13-00779 (DOC) 778956.01

Case 2:13-cv-00779-DOC-JCG Document 53 Filed 09/03/13 Page 21 of 72 Page ID #:1243

1 S&P Ratings’ 2005 Analytic Firewalls Policy, avers that the allegations are a 2 selective quote from the document that do not reflect its true content, refers to the 3 full document for its complete content, and otherwise denies the allegations in 4 Paragraph 116.

117. S&P admits that the language quoted in Paragraph 117 appears in the

5

6 February 2006 “Report On Implementation of S&P’s Rating Services Code of 7 Conduct,” avers that the allegations are a selective quote from the document that do 8 not reflect its true content, refers to the full document for its complete content, and 9 otherwise denies the allegations in Paragraph 117.

118. S&P admits that the language quoted in Paragraph 118 appears in the

10

11 referenced Annual Reports, avers that the allegations are selective quotations from 12 the documents that do not reflect their true content, refers to the full documents for 13 their complete content, and otherwise denies the allegations in Paragraph 118.

119. S&P admits that the language quoted in Paragraph 119(a) appears in a

14

15 July 28, 2003 letter to the SEC written by an S&P Ratings employee, admits that 16 the language quoted in Paragraph 119(b) appears in June 2004 congressional 17 testimony by an S&P Ratings employee, admits that the language quoted in 18 Paragraph 119(c) appears in February 2005 congressional testimony by an S&P 19 Ratings employee, admits that the language quoted in Paragraph 119(d) appears in 20 April 2007 congressional testimony by an S&P Ratings employee, avers that the 21 allegations are selective quotations from the documents that do not reflect their true 22 content, refers to the full documents for their complete content, and otherwise 23 denies the allegations in Paragraph 119.

120. S&P admits that the language quoted in Paragraphs 120(a) and 120(b)

24

25 appears in an August 23, 2007 publication entitled, “The Fundamentals of 26 Structured Finance Ratings,” admits that the language quoted in Paragraph 120(c) 27 appears in an August 31, 2007 OpEd piece written by an S&P Ratings employee 28

- 21 CORRECTED ANSWER CASE NO. CV13-00779 (DOC) 778956.01

Case 2:13-cv-00779-DOC-JCG Document 53 Filed 09/03/13 Page 22 of 72 Page ID #:1244

1 and published in the Wall Street Journal entitled, “Don’t Blame the Rating 2 Agencies,” avers that the allegations are selective quotations from the publications 3 that do not reflect their true content, refers to the full publications for their complete 4 content, and otherwise denies the allegations in Paragraph 120.

121. S&P admits that the language quoted in Paragraph 121(a) appears in

5

6 S&P Ratings letters for structured finance securities, admits that the language 7 quoted in Paragraph 121(b) appears in a 2005 Code of Conduct , admits that the 8 language quoted in Paragraph 121(c) appears in a June 8, 2007 publication entitled, 9 “An Introduction to CDOs and Standard & Poor’s Global CDO Ratings,” admits 10 that the language quoted in Paragraph 121(d) appears in September 2007 11 congressional testimony by an S&P Ratings employee, avers that the allegations are 12 selective quotations from the documents that do not reflect their true content, refers 13 to the full documents for their complete content, and otherwise denies the 14 allegations in Paragraph 121.

122. S&P admits that the language quoted in Paragraph 122(a) appears in a

15

16 November 2006 presentation, admits that the language quoted in Paragraph 122(b) 17 appears in a February 2007 presentation, admits that language similar to that quoted 18 in Paragraph 122(c) appears in a transcript of statements made by an S&P Ratings 19 employee on a March 29, 2007 conference call, admits that the language quoted in 20 Paragraph 122(d) appears in a publication originally published on April 2, 2007, 21 and republished on April 5, 2007 entitled, “Standard & Poor’s Weighs in on the 22 U.S. Subprime Mortgage Market,” admits that the language quoted in Paragraph 23 122(e) appears in April 2007 congressional testimony by an S&P Ratings 24 employee, admits that the language quoted in Paragraph 122(f) appears in a June 8, 25 2007 publication entitled, “An Introduction to CDOs and Standard & Poor’s Global 26 CDO Ratings,” avers that the allegations are selective quotations from the 27 documents that do not reflect their true content, and otherwise denies the allegations 28

- 22 CORRECTED ANSWER CASE NO. CV13-00779 (DOC) 778956.01

Case 2:13-cv-00779-DOC-JCG Document 53 Filed 09/03/13 Page 23 of 72 Page ID #:1245

1 in Paragraph 122.

123. S&P denies the allegations in Paragraph 123 and incorporates herein

2

3 its response to Paragraph 9 above.

124. S&P denies the allegations in Paragraph 124 and incorporates herein

4

5 its response to Paragraph 9 above.

125. S&P admits that language quoted in Paragraph 125 appears in a draft

6

7 document that was circulated in preparation for a meeting scheduled for April 20, 8 2004, avers that the allegations are a selective paraphrase of the document that do 9 not reflect its true content, avers that seeking input and feedback from various 10 market participants regarding, and assessing the rating implications of, a proposed 11 criteria change was permissible under and consistent with S&P Ratings’ policies 12 and procedures, refers to the full document for its complete content, and otherwise 13 denies the allegations in Paragraph 125.

126. S&P admits that the language quoted in Paragraph 126 appears in an

14

15 email sent by an S&P Ratings employee, avers that the allegations are a selective 16 quote from the document that do not reflect its true content, avers that seeking input 17 and feedback from various market participants regarding, and assessing the rating 18 implications of, a proposed criteria change was permissible under and consistent 19 with S&P Ratings’ policies and procedures, refers to the full document for its 20 complete content, and otherwise denies the allegations in Paragraph 126.

127. S&P admits that the language quoted in Paragraph 127 appears in a

21

22 2004 document entitled, “Global Structured Finance Criteria Process,” avers that 23 the allegations are a selective quote from the document that do not reflect its true 24 content, refers to the full document for its complete content, and otherwise denies 25 the allegations in Paragraph 127.

128. S&P admits that the language quoted in Paragraph 128 appears in a

26

27 2004 document entitled, “Global Structured Finance Criteria Process,” avers that 28

- 23 CORRECTED ANSWER CASE NO. CV13-00779 (DOC) 778956.01

Case 2:13-cv-00779-DOC-JCG Document 53 Filed 09/03/13 Page 24 of 72 Page ID #:1246

1 the allegations are a selective quote from the document that do not reflect its true 2 content, refers to the full document for its complete content, and otherwise denies 3 the allegations in Paragraph 128. 4

129. S&P denies the allegations in Paragraph 129.

5

130. S&P admits that the language quoted in Paragraph 130 appears in

6 emails dated August 17 and 18, 2004 sent by S&P Ratings employees, avers that 7 the document cited in Paragraph 130 was also cited in the Summary Report of 8 Issues Identified in the Commission Staff’s Examination of Select Credit Rating 9 Agencies publicly issued by the SEC in July 2008 and that the SEC stated, in the 10 same section of the report, that “there is no evidence that decisions about rating 11 methodology or models were made based on attracting or losing market share,” 12 avers that the communication did not reflect or result in any change to S&P Ratings 13 criteria that was not determined to be analytically appropriate by an S&P Ratings 14 committee, and avers that the allegations are a selective paraphrase of the document 15 that do not reflect its true content. S&P refers to the full document for its complete 16 content and otherwise denies the allegations in Paragraph 130.

131. S&P admits that language similar to that quoted in Paragraph 131

17

18 appears in a Credit Market Services Global Structured Finance Ratings 2006 19 Strategic Plan, avers that the allegations are selective quote from the document that 20 do not reflect its true content, refers to the full document for its complete content, 21 and otherwise denies the allegations in Paragraph 131.

132. S&P admits that the language quoted in Paragraph 132 appears in a

22

23 2006 CDO Strategic Plan, avers that the allegations are a selective quote from the 24 document that do not reflect its true content, refers to the full document for its 25 complete content, and otherwise denies the allegations in Paragraph 132.

133. S&P admits that S&P Ratings used versions of the LEVELS model as

26

27 part of its rating analysis for new issue U.S. RMBS during the Time Period at Issue, 28

- 24 CORRECTED ANSWER CASE NO. CV13-00779 (DOC) 778956.01

Case 2:13-cv-00779-DOC-JCG Document 53 Filed 09/03/13 Page 25 of 72 Page ID #:1247

1 that the LEVELS model was used in part to assess the amount of expected losses to 2 a particular pool in various rating scenarios, and otherwise denies the allegations in 3 Paragraph 133. 4

134. S&P denies the allegations in Paragraph 134.

5

135. S&P denies the allegations in Paragraph 135.

6

136. S&P admits upon information and belief that originations of mortgage

7 loans variously categorized as “Alt-A” and “subprime” increased between 1999 and 8 2006, admits that such Alt-A and subprime mortgages were included in the 9 collateral pools backing certain RMBS issued during the same time period, admits 10 that some CDOs issued during the same time period were backed by pools of 11 collateral that included some portion of RMBS backed in whole or in part by such 12 Alt-A or subprime mortgages, and otherwise denies the allegations in Paragraph 13 136.

137. S&P admits that language quoted in Paragraph 137 appears in a

14

15 November 5, 2003 publication entitled, “Refinements in Standard & Poor’s 16 LEVELS and DACSS Keep Pace with Fast-Moving U.S. RMBS Market,” avers 17 that the allegations are a selective quote from the document that do not reflect its 18 true content, refers to the full publication for its complete content, and otherwise 19 denies the allegations in Paragraph 137. 20

138. S&P denies the allegations in Paragraph 138.

21

139. S&P admits that S&P Ratings acquired a data set concerning

22 approximately 643,000 residential mortgages in or about 2002, admits that the data 23 set included adjustable rate loans in addition to fixed rate loans, avers that the data 24 was purchased and analyzed in connection with an ongoing research effort toward 25 the development of an econometric equation for predicting potential mortgage 26 defaults (the “Equation”), avers that the results of those efforts were deemed to be 27 insufficiently reliable to be incorporated into S&P Ratings’ models, and otherwise 28

- 25 CORRECTED ANSWER CASE NO. CV13-00779 (DOC) 778956.01

Case 2:13-cv-00779-DOC-JCG Document 53 Filed 09/03/13 Page 26 of 72 Page ID #:1248

1 denies the allegations in Paragraph 139.

140. S&P admits that, during 2004, S&P Ratings considered potentially

2

3 incorporating the Equation referenced in Paragraph 139 into a new version of the 4 LEVELS model that would be called LEVELS 6.0, avers that the incorporation of 5 the Equation into the proposed model produced results that were deemed to be 6 insufficiently reliable for incorporation into any actual S&P Ratings model, and 7 otherwise denies the allegations in Paragraph 140.

141. S&P avers that the proposed new model was not approved as

8

9 analytically appropriate and otherwise denies the allegations in Paragraph 141.

142. S&P admits that S&P Ratings released an April 26, 2004 publication

10

11 entitled, “Taking U.S. Mortgage Analytics to New LEVELS,” admits that at some 12 point after its publication the article was removed from the website, avers that the 13 proposed model described in the publication was never approved as analytically 14 appropriate and was therefore never released, and otherwise denies the allegations 15 in Paragraph 142.

143. S&P avers that the effect of the unreleased LEVELS 6.0 model that

16

17 was being considered in 2004 would have varied from transaction to transaction, 18 depending upon the specific characteristics of the loans in any particular pool of 19 collateral. For example, some testing of a test model that included the Equation 20 showed that it would have estimated a lower probability of default for certain 21 adjustable rate and hybrid mortgages than for certain fixed-rate mortgages. This 22 was among the reasons that the results of the Equation, and the proposed LEVELS 23 version that would have included it, were deemed insufficiently reliable to be 24 included in an S&P Ratings model. S&P otherwise denies the allegations in 25 Paragraph 143.

144. S&P admits that language similar to that quoted in Paragraph 144

26

27 appears in an email dated May 25, 2004 sent by an S&P Ratings employee, avers 28

- 26 CORRECTED ANSWER CASE NO. CV13-00779 (DOC) 778956.01

Case 2:13-cv-00779-DOC-JCG Document 53 Filed 09/03/13 Page 27 of 72 Page ID #:1249

1 that the email cited in Paragraph 144 was also cited in the Summary Report of 2 Issues Identified in the Commission Staff’s Examination of Select Credit Rating 3 Agencies publicly issued by the SEC in July 2008 and that the SEC stated, in the 4 same section of the report, that “there is no evidence that decisions about rating 5 methodology or models were made based on attracting or losing market share,” 6 avers that the email states that S&P’s criteria was significantly more conservative 7 than Moody’s, avers that no change to S&P Ratings’ criteria in fact occurred as a 8 result of the communication (which related to a Japanese RMBS issuance and did 9 not relate to the LEVELS model), and avers that the allegations are a selective 10 quote from the document that do not reflect its true content. S&P refers to the full 11 document for its complete content and otherwise denies the allegations in Paragraph 12 144. 13

145. S&P denies the allegations in Paragraph 145.

14

146. S&P admits that the version of LEVELS under consideration in 2004,

15 to be called LEVELS 6.0, was never released by S&P Ratings in part because it 16 included the Equation which was deemed insufficiently reliable to be included in an 17 S&P Ratings model, admits that S&P Ratings updated LEVELS model multiple 18 times between 2004 and 2006, and throughout the Time Period at Issue, avers that 19 the impact of any version of the LEVELS model on any particular RMBS issuance 20 could only be determined on a case-by-case basis using the specific characteristics 21 of the loans providing collateral for the issuance, and otherwise denies the 22 allegations of Paragraph 146.

147. S&P admits on information and belief that a PowerPoint presentation

23

24 was shown to the SFLT at an offsite meeting in February 2005, refers to that 25 presentation for its actual content, but otherwise denies the allegations in Paragraph 26 147.

148. S&P denies the allegations in Paragraph 148.

27 28

- 27 CORRECTED ANSWER CASE NO. CV13-00779 (DOC) 778956.01

Case 2:13-cv-00779-DOC-JCG Document 53 Filed 09/03/13 Page 28 of 72 Page ID #:1250

1

149. S&P denies the allegations in Paragraph 149.

2

150. S&P admits that the language quoted in Paragraph 150 appears in an

3 email dated March 23, 2005 written by an S&P Ratings employee, avers that the 4 allegations are a selective quote from the document that do not reflect its true 5 content, refers to the full document for its complete content, and otherwise denies 6 the allegations in Paragraph 150.

151. S&P admits that the language quoted in Paragraph 151 appears in an

7

8 email dated March 23, 2005 written by an S&P Ratings employee, avers that the 9 allegations are a selective quote from the document that do not reflect its true 10 content, avers that the communication neither reflected nor resulted in any decision 11 to not adopt criteria that was believed to be analytically appropriate, refers to the 12 full document for its complete content, and otherwise denies the allegations in 13 Paragraph 151.

152. S&P admits that the language quoted in Paragraph 152 appears in a

14

15 June 1, 2006 publication entitled, “Standard & Poor’s Enhances LEVELS® 5.7 16 Model,” avers that the allegations are a selective paraphrase of the document that do 17 not reflect its true content, avers that the impact of any version of the LEVELS 18 model on any particular RMBS issuance could only be determined on a case-by19 case basis using the specific characteristics of the loans providing collateral for the 20 issuance, refers to the full publication for its complete content, and otherwise denies 21 the allegations in Paragraph 152.

153. S&P avers that no executive could have or did make any change to the

22

23 LEVELS 5.7 model unilaterally, avers that the version of LEVELS 5.7 that was 24 released in 2006 did not, in fact, prevent S&P Ratings from issuing lower ratings 25 than Moody’s, and otherwise denies the allegations in Paragraph 153.

154. S&P admits that the language quoted in Paragraph 154 appears in a

26

27 February 14, 2007 document entitled, “Global ABS/RMG February 2007 Activity 28

- 28 CORRECTED ANSWER CASE NO. CV13-00779 (DOC) 778956.01

Case 2:13-cv-00779-DOC-JCG Document 53 Filed 09/03/13 Page 29 of 72 Page ID #:1251

1 Report,” avers that the allegations are a selective quote from the document that do 2 not reflect its true content, refers to the full document for its complete content, avers 3 that the document also states “[g]ood news from the Fed about rate stability and 4 positive signs for housing and inflation,” and otherwise denies the allegations in 5 Paragraph 154.

155. S&P admits that a February 21, 2007 document entitled, “Activity

6

7 Report: Feb. 2007,” was sent to Rose that discusses LEVELS, avers that the 8 referenced document did not contain all of the language quoted in Paragraph 154, 9 and otherwise denies the allegations in Paragraph 155.

156. S&P admits that Paragraph 156 references a March 1, 2007

10

11 publication entitled, “Standard & Poor’s Enhances LEVELS® 6.0 Model,” avers 12 that the allegations are a selective paraphrase of that publication that do not reflect 13 its true content, avers that the impact of any version of the LEVELS model on any 14 particular RMBS issuance could only be determined on a case-by-case basis using 15 the specific characteristics of the loans providing collateral for the issuance, refers 16 to the full publication for its complete content, and otherwise denies the allegations 17 in Paragraph 156.

157. S&P admits that the language quoted in Paragraph 157 appears in an

18

19 April 2007 document entitled, “Global ABS/RMBS April 2007 Activity Report,” 20 avers that the allegations are a selective quote from the document that do not reflect 21 its true content, avers that the document also contains the following statements:

 “As expected, the Federal Open Market Committee left the federal

22 23

funds rate unchanged at 5.25 percent for the sixth consecutive

24

meeting. . . . Long-term yields declined in response to the drop in the

25

tightening bias but later reversed following the stronger-than-expected

26

existing home sales.”; and  “Federal Reserve Board Chairman Ben Bernake [sic] spoke before

27 28

- 29 CORRECTED ANSWER CASE NO. CV13-00779 (DOC) 778956.01

Case 2:13-cv-00779-DOC-JCG Document 53 Filed 09/03/13 Page 30 of 72 Page ID #:1252

1

Congress on February 28, 2007 and stated ‘there’s not much

2

indication that subprime issues have spread into the broader mortgage

3

market.’”

4

S&P refers to the full document for its complete content and otherwise denies the

5

allegations in Paragraph 157.

6

158. S&P denies the allegations in Paragraph 158.

7

159. S&P denies the allegations in Paragraph 159.

8

160. S&P admits that versions of the CDO Evaluator model were used by

9 S&P Ratings in connection with the rating of cash, synthetic and hybrid CDOs and 10 the model was updated several times after 2003, and otherwise denies the 11 allegations in Paragraph 160. 12

161. S&P denies the allegations in Paragraph 161.

13

162. S&P denies the allegations in Paragraph 162.

14

163. S&P admits that S&P Ratings employees proposed updates to the

15 CDO Evaluator model in the first half of 2004 and otherwise denies the allegations 16 in Paragraph 163. 17

164. S&P denies the allegations in Paragraph 164.

18

165. S&P denies the allegations in Paragraph 165.

19

166. S&P denies the allegations in Paragraph 166.

20

167. S&P denies the allegations in Paragraph 167.

21

168. S&P admits that S&P Ratings tested a proposed default table for

22 corporate assets and otherwise denies the allegations in Paragraph 168.

169. S&P admits that S&P Ratings decided not to use the proposed

23

24 corporate default table after concluding that it was not analytically justified, and 25 otherwise denies the allegations in Paragraph 169. 26

170. S&P denies the allegations in Paragraph 170.

27

171. S&P denies the allegations in Paragraph 171.

28

- 30 CORRECTED ANSWER CASE NO. CV13-00779 (DOC) 778956.01

Case 2:13-cv-00779-DOC-JCG Document 53 Filed 09/03/13 Page 31 of 72 Page ID #:1253

172. S&P admits that the language quoted in Paragraph 172 appears in an

1

2 email dated February 15, 2005 written by an S&P Ratings employee, avers that the 3 allegations are a selective paraphrase of the document that do not reflect its true 4 content, avers that the communication neither reflected nor resulted in any decision 5 to adopt criteria that was not believed to be analytically appropriate, refers to the 6 full document for its complete content, and otherwise denies the allegations in 7 Paragraph 172.

173. S&P admits that the language quoted in Paragraph 173 appears in an

8

9 email dated June 10, 2005 written by an S&P Ratings employee, avers that the 10 allegations are a selective paraphrase of the document that do not reflect its true 11 content, avers that the communication neither reflected nor resulted in any decision 12 to adopt criteria that was not believed to be analytically appropriate, refers to the 13 full document for its complete content, and otherwise denies the allegations in 14 Paragraph 173.

174. S&P admits that the language quoted in Paragraph 174 appears in an

15

16 email dated June 17, 2005 written by an S&P Ratings employee, avers that the 17 allegations are a selective quote from the document that do not reflect its true 18 content, avers that the communication neither reflected nor resulted in any decision 19 to adopt criteria that was not believed to be analytically appropriate, refers to the 20 full document for its complete content, and otherwise denies the allegations in 21 Paragraph 174.

175. S&P admits that Paragraph 175 references a July 2005 memorandum

22

23 entitled, “CDO Credit and Cash Flow Methodologies,” avers that the allegations are 24 a selective paraphrase of that document that do not reflect its true content, avers that 25 the “business impact” assessed in the memorandum related to the impact on 26 outstanding ratings (whether they would be subject to potential upgrade or 27 downgrade if certain proposed assumptions were applied), avers that it is necessary 28

- 31 CORRECTED ANSWER CASE NO. CV13-00779 (DOC) 778956.01

Case 2:13-cv-00779-DOC-JCG Document 53 Filed 09/03/13 Page 32 of 72 Page ID #:1254

1 to understand the potential impact of updated assumptions on outstanding ratings in 2 order to assess whether those results would be analytically appropriate, and avers 3 that the memorandum neither reflected nor resulted in any decision to adopt criteria 4 that was not believed to be analytically appropriate. S&P avers that this internal 5 memorandum also contains the following statement: “Overall, the belief is that 6 current ratings and credit enhancements are adequate, and the update to the CDO 7 Evaluator assumptions should not lead to significant changes in our requirements.” 8 S&P refers to the full document for its complete content and otherwise denies the 9 allegations in Paragraph 175.

176. S&P admits that the language quoted in Paragraph 176 appears in a

10

11 July 2005 memorandum entitled, “CDO Credit and Cash Flow Methodologies,” 12 avers that the allegations are a selective paraphrase of the document that do not 13 reflect its true content, avers that the memorandum neither reflected nor resulted in 14 any decision to adopt criteria that was not believed to be analytically appropriate, 15 and avers that this internal memorandum also contains the following statement: 16 “Overall, the belief is that current ratings and credit enhancements are adequate, 17 and the update to the CDO Evaluator assumptions should not lead to significant 18 changes in our requirements.” S&P refers to the full document for its complete 19 content and otherwise denies the allegations in Paragraph 176. 20

177. S&P denies the allegations in Paragraph 177.

21

178. S&P admits that the language quoted in Paragraph 178 appears in a

22 July 20, 2005 document entitled “Global CDO Activity Report,” avers that the 23 allegations are a selective quote from the document that do not reflect its true 24 content, avers that the document neither reflected nor resulted in any decision to 25 adopt criteria that was not believed to be analytically appropriate, refers to the full 26 document for its complete content, and otherwise denies the allegations in 27 Paragraph 178. 28

- 32 CORRECTED ANSWER CASE NO. CV13-00779 (DOC) 778956.01

Case 2:13-cv-00779-DOC-JCG Document 53 Filed 09/03/13 Page 33 of 72 Page ID #:1255

179. S&P admits that the language quoted in Paragraph 179 appears in a

1

2 July 20, 2005 document entitled “Global CDO Activity Report,” avers that the 3 allegations are a selective quote from the document that do not reflect its true 4 content, avers that the document neither reflected nor resulted in any decision to 5 adopt criteria that was not believed to be analytically appropriate, refers to the full 6 document for its complete content, and otherwise denies the allegations in 7 Paragraph 179.

180. S&P admits that the language quoted in Paragraph 180 appears in an

8

9 email dated August 18, 2005 written by an S&P Ratings employee, avers that the 10 allegations are a selective quote from the document that do not reflect its true 11 content, avers that the deal referenced in the communication is not a CDO of 12 RMBS, refers to the full document for its complete content and otherwise denies the 13 allegations in Paragraph 180.

181. S&P avers that “E3 Low” was not an alternative version of CDO

14

15 Evaluator, but rather one of several stress scenarios utilized in the analysis of 16 certain CDOs that was publicly disclosed, including in a December 19, 2005 17 publication entitled, “S&P Launches Latest Version Of CDO Modeling Tool” 18 (“December 19 Press Release”) and a December 27, 2005 publication entitled, 19 “CDO Spotlight: Release of CDO Evaluator 3.0 To Have Limited Ratings Impact 20 On U.S. Synthetic CDO Transactions,” refers to those publications for their 21 complete content, and otherwise denies the allegations in Paragraph 181.

182. S&P admits that S&P Ratings publicly announced the launch of CDO

22

23 Evaluator Version 3.0 in the December 19 Press Release, avers that “E3 Low” was 24 not an alternative version of CDO Evaluator, but rather one of several stress 25 scenarios utilized in the analysis of a CDO tranche and was publicly disclosed in 26 the publications referenced in its response to Paragraph 181, and avers that the 27 December 19 Press Release also contains the following statement: “We recognize 28

- 33 CORRECTED ANSWER CASE NO. CV13-00779 (DOC) 778956.01

Case 2:13-cv-00779-DOC-JCG Document 53 Filed 09/03/13 Page 34 of 72 Page ID #:1256

1 that transactions are often structured for some time before ultimately reaching our 2 pipeline. We therefore felt that a reasonable period is required to ensure an orderly 3 transition in the market. Until March 31, 2006, arrangers, managers, and investors 4 can use either version of the model to obtain a rating from us. During this period, 5 we will internally be using both E2.4.3 and E3.0 in parallel, and may request 6 additional credit enhancement if the gap between the models is outside a certain 7 level of tolerance.” S&P refers to that publication for its complete content and 8 otherwise denies the allegations in Paragraph 182.

183. S&P admits that the December 19 Press Release states: “We

9

10 recognize that transactions are often structured for some time before ultimately 11 reaching our pipeline. We therefore felt that a reasonable period is required to 12 ensure an orderly transition in the market. Until March 31, 2006, arrangers, 13 managers, and investors can use either version of the model to obtain a rating form 14 us. During this period, we will internally be using both E2.4.3 and E3.0 in parallel, 15 and may request additional credit enhancement if the gap between the models is 16 outside a certain level of tolerance.” S&P avers that the allegations are a selective 17 paraphrase of the document that do not reflect its true content, refers to that 18 publication for its complete content, and otherwise denies the allegations in 19 Paragraph 183.

184. S&P admits that the language referenced in Paragraph 184 appears in

20

21 a December 2005 presentation entitled, “E3: Updating the CDO Evaluator,” avers 22 that the allegations are a selective quote from the document that do not reflect its 23 true content, refers to the full document for its complete content, and otherwise 24 denies the allegations in Paragraph 184.

185. S&P admits that the December 19 Press Release states that “E3.0 will

25

26 not be used for cash CDOs until early 2006,” admits that language quoted in the 27 second sentence of Paragraph 185 appears in a “FAQ” circulated within S&P 28

- 34 CORRECTED ANSWER CASE NO. CV13-00779 (DOC) 778956.01

Case 2:13-cv-00779-DOC-JCG Document 53 Filed 09/03/13 Page 35 of 72 Page ID #:1257

1 Ratings in and around December 2005, avers that the allegations are a selective 2 paraphrase of the documents that do not reflect their true content, refers to the full 3 documents for their complete content, and otherwise denies the allegations in 4 Paragraph 185.

186. S&P avers that the analysis of cash flow CDOs requires additional

5

6 assumptions that were incorporated in CDO Evaluator Version 3.0 and that CDO 7 Evaluator Version 3.0 was used to rate cash flow CDOs when these assumptions 8 were approved, and otherwise denies the allegations in Paragraph 186.

187. S&P admits the language quoted in Paragraph 187 appears in emails

9

10 dated April 2, 2007, avers that the allegations are a selective paraphrase of the 11 documents that do not reflect their true content, avers that the communication 12 neither reflected nor resulted in any decision to adopt criteria that was not believed 13 to be analytically appropriate, refers to the full documents for their complete 14 contents, and otherwise denies the allegations in Paragraph 187.

188. S&P admits that S&P Ratings utilized an outside consultant to assist

15

16 in the development of some assumptions that were used in its CDO rating models 17 and otherwise denies the allegations in Paragraph 188. 18

189. S&P denies the allegations in Paragraph 189.

19

190. S&P admits that the language quoted in Paragraph 190 appears in an

20 April 2007 presentation entitled, “A New Approach to Estimating ABS PDs,” avers 21 that the allegations are a selective paraphrase of the document that do not reflect its 22 true content, avers that the document neither reflected nor resulted in any decision 23 to adopt criteria that was not believed to be analytically appropriate, and otherwise 24 denies the allegations in Paragraph 190.

191. S&P admits that the language quoted in Paragraph 191 appears in an

25

26 April 2007 presentation entitled, “A New Approach to Estimating ABS PDs,” avers 27 that the allegations are a selective paraphrase of the document that do not reflect its 28

- 35 CORRECTED ANSWER CASE NO. CV13-00779 (DOC) 778956.01

Case 2:13-cv-00779-DOC-JCG Document 53 Filed 09/03/13 Page 36 of 72 Page ID #:1258

1 true content, avers that the document neither reflected nor resulted in any decision 2 to adopt criteria that was not believed to be analytically appropriate, and otherwise 3 denies the allegations in Paragraph 191.

192. S&P admits that the language quoted in Paragraph 192 appears in an

4

5 April 2007 presentation entitled, “A New Approach to Estimating ABS PDs,” avers 6 that the allegations are a selective paraphrase of the document that do not reflect its 7 true content, avers that the document neither reflected nor resulted in any decision 8 to adopt criteria that was not believed to be analytically appropriate, and otherwise 9 denies the allegations in Paragraph 192.

193. S&P admits that the language quoted in Paragraph 193 appears in an

10

11 April 2007 presentation entitled, “A New Approach to Estimating ABS PDs,” avers 12 that the allegations are a selective paraphrase of the document that do not reflect its 13 true content, avers that the document neither reflected nor resulted in any decision 14 to adopt criteria that was not believed to be analytically appropriate, and otherwise 15 denies the allegations in Paragraph 193.

194. S&P avers that a meeting appears to have been held on May 14, 2007

16

17 concerning a proposed default matrix and otherwise denies the allegations in 18 Paragraph 194.

195. S&P admits that the language quoted in Paragraph 195 appears in an

19

20 email dated June 20, 2007 written by an S&P Ratings employee, avers that the 21 allegations are a selective paraphrase of the document that do not reflect its true 22 content, avers that the statement does not accurately describe any testing that took 23 place, and otherwise denies the allegations in Paragraph 195.

196. S&P admits that the language quoted in Paragraph 196 appears in an

24

25 email dated August 2, 2007 written by an S&P Ratings employee, avers that the 26 allegations are a selective paraphrase of the document that do not reflect its true 27 content, avers that the statement does not accurately describe any testing that took 28

- 36 CORRECTED ANSWER CASE NO. CV13-00779 (DOC) 778956.01

Case 2:13-cv-00779-DOC-JCG Document 53 Filed 09/03/13 Page 37 of 72 Page ID #:1259

1 place, refers to the full document for its complete content, and otherwise denies the 2 allegations in Paragraph 196.

197. S&P admits that the language quoted in Paragraph 197 appears in an

3

4 email dated August 2, 2007 written by an S&P Ratings employee, avers that the 5 allegations are a selective quote from the document that do not reflect its true 6 content, avers that the statement does not accurately describe any criteria or rating 7 process, refers to the full document for its complete content, otherwise denies the 8 allegations in Paragraph 197.

198. S&P admits that Jordan approved a contract to engage an outside

9

10 consultant concerning a default matrix project on or about September 13, 2007 and 11 otherwise denies the allegations in Paragraph 198.

199. S&P hereby incorporates its responses to Paragraphs 200 through 269,

12

13 and otherwise denies the allegations in Paragraph 199.

200. S&P admits that RMBS Surveillance analysts were monitoring

14

15 delinquencies in the mortgage pools underlying non-prime RMBS that S&P Ratings 16 had rated throughout 2006, 2007 and thereafter, admits that by the fall of 2006 17 RMBS Surveillance was observing rising delinquency rates in those mortgage pools 18 and met on numerous occasions to discuss those delinquencies and their potential 19 impact on RMBS rated by S&P Ratings, and otherwise denies the allegations in 20 Paragraph 200. 21

201. S&P denies the allegations in Paragraph 201.

22

202. S&P denies the allegations in Paragraph 202.

23

203. S&P admits that RMBS Surveillance analysts were monitoring

24 delinquencies in the mortgage pools underlying non-prime RMBS that S&P Ratings 25 had rated throughout 2006, 2007 and thereafter, admits that by the fall of 2006 26 RMBS Surveillance was observing rising delinquency rates in those mortgage pools 27 and met on numerous occasions to discuss those delinquencies and their potential 28

- 37 CORRECTED ANSWER CASE NO. CV13-00779 (DOC) 778956.01

Case 2:13-cv-00779-DOC-JCG Document 53 Filed 09/03/13 Page 38 of 72 Page ID #:1260

1 impact on RMBS rated by S&P Ratings, denies knowledge and information 2 sufficient to form a belief as to the private, subjective reaction of any particular 3 individual, and otherwise denies the allegations in Paragraph 203.

204. S&P admits that by the fall of 2006 RMBS Surveillance was

4

5 observing delinquency rates in pools of mortgages underlying non-prime RMBS 6 that S&P Ratings had rated at levels that exceeded their expectations and that 7 realized losses were also materializing faster than expected (although much more 8 slowly than delinquencies and in very low amounts at that point in time), avers that 9 S&P Ratings’ surveillance of these pools resulted in it taking rating actions earlier 10 than it historically would have, and otherwise denies the allegations in Paragraph 11 204.

205. S&P admits that the language quoted in Paragraph 205 appears in a

12

13 September 24, 2006 document entitled, “Rating Quality & Knowledge Management 14 Activity Report,” avers that the allegations are a selective paraphrase of the 15 document that do not reflect its true content, and avers that the document also states 16 that the “[RMBS] Surveillance group is actively reviewing and heightening our 17 surveillance procedures to ensure that our RMBS remain as timely as possible 18 during the current weakening in the property markets,” and that the “good news so 19 far is that: 1) there isn’t any undue concentration in a limited number of RMBS 20 bonds (i.e., the CDO of ABS managers haven’t all piled into the same high spread 21 RMBS bonds), and 2) on the whole the CDOs of ABS are holding higher rated 22 RMBS tranches (70% of the RMBS bonds held in CDOs of ABS are rated ‘A-’ or 23 higher).” S&P refers to the full document for its complete content and otherwise 24 denies the allegations in Paragraph 205. 25

206. S&P denies the allegations in Paragraph 206.

26

207. S&P denies the allegations in Paragraph 207.

27

208. S&P denies the allegations in Paragraph 208.

28

- 38 CORRECTED ANSWER CASE NO. CV13-00779 (DOC) 778956.01

Case 2:13-cv-00779-DOC-JCG Document 53 Filed 09/03/13 Page 39 of 72 Page ID #:1261

209. S&P admits that the language quoted in Paragraph 209 appears in an

1

2 email dated November 14, 2006 written by an S&P Ratings employee, refers to the 3 full document for its complete content, and otherwise denies the allegations in 4 Paragraph 209.

210. S&P admits that Paragraph 210 references a spreadsheet attached to

5

6 an email dated November 14, 2006 written by an S&P Ratings employee, avers that 7 the spreadsheet may not take into account all potentially available sources of credit 8 support for the listed tranches since the use of the phrase “credit support” may not 9 always have referred to all forms of credit support, refers to the full document for 10 its complete content, and otherwise denies the allegations in Paragraph 210.

211. S&P avers that the allegations in Paragraph 211 are contradicted by

11

12 the allegation in Paragraph 218 that as early as February 3, 2007 Gillis asked 13 Executive F to “begin discussing taking rating actions earlier on the poor 14 performing deals” and otherwise denies the allegations in Paragraph 211.

212. S&P admits that the language quoted in Paragraph 212 appears in

15

16 personal notes entitled, “Confidential Working Notes,” avers that the allegations are 17 a selective quote from the document that do not reflect its true content, refers to the 18 full document for its complete content, and otherwise denies the allegations in 19 Paragraph 212.

213. S&P admits that a RMBS Surveillance meeting occurred on or about

20

21 January 11, 2007, admits that the language quoted in Paragraph 213 appears in an 22 email dated January 10, 2007 and the attached agenda, avers that the allegations are 23 selective quotations from the documents that do not reflect their true content, refers 24 to the full documents for their complete content, and otherwise denies the 25 allegations in Paragraph 213.

214. S&P admits that language similar to that quoted in Paragraph 214

26

27 appears in a January 11, 2007 document entitled, “Surveillance Staff Meeting 28

- 39 CORRECTED ANSWER CASE NO. CV13-00779 (DOC) 778956.01

Case 2:13-cv-00779-DOC-JCG Document 53 Filed 09/03/13 Page 40 of 72 Page ID #:1262

1 Minutes,” avers that the allegations are a selective paraphrase of the document that 2 do not reflect its true content, refers to the full document for its complete content, 3 and otherwise denies the allegations in Paragraph 214.

215. S&P admits that the language quoted in Paragraph 215 appears in a

4

5 January 23, 2007 document entitled, “Global CDO Activity Report,” avers that the 6 allegations are a selective quote from the document that do not reflect its true 7 content, refers to the full document for its complete content, and otherwise denies 8 the allegations in Paragraph 215.

216. S&P admits that the language quoted in Paragraph 216 appears in a

9

10 January 26, 2007 publication entitled, “CDO Spotlight: U.S. Cash Flow CDO 11 Rating Performance Hit New Highs In 2006, While Synthetics Showed Mixed 12 Results; Outlook For 2007 Varies By Deal Type,” avers that the allegations are a 13 selective paraphrase of the publication that do not reflect its true content, refers to 14 the full publication for its complete content, and otherwise denies the allegations in 15 Paragraph 216.

217. S&P admits that the language quoted in Paragraph 217 appears in an

16

17 email dated February 3, 2007 written by an S&P Ratings employee, avers that the 18 allegations are a selective paraphrase of the document that do not reflect its true 19 content, and avers that in the Summary Report of Issues Identified in the 20 Commission Staff’s Examination of Select Credit Rating Agencies publicly issued 21 by the SEC in July 2008 the SEC stated that “each rating agency’s staffing increase 22 approximately matched the percentage increase in [RMBS] deal volume.” S&P 23 refers to the full document for its complete content and otherwise denies the 24 allegations in Paragraph 217.

218. S&P admits that RMBS Surveillance was asked to discuss taking

25

26 rating actions earlier than they might historically have done given the performance 27 trends that were emerging, admits that the language quoted in Paragraph 218 28

- 40 CORRECTED ANSWER CASE NO. CV13-00779 (DOC) 778956.01

Case 2:13-cv-00779-DOC-JCG Document 53 Filed 09/03/13 Page 41 of 72 Page ID #:1263

1 appears in an email dated February 3, 2007 written by an S&P Ratings employee, 2 avers that the allegations are a selective quote from the document that do not reflect 3 its true content, refers to the full document for its complete content, and otherwise 4 denies the allegations in Paragraph 218.

219. S&P admits that a meeting occurred on February 7, 2007 during

5

6 which analysts considered a list of 52 RMBS tranches, generally rated BBB and 7 below, admits that some analysts at the meeting recommended that 30 of the 8 tranches be placed on CreditWatch Negative and 22 others be placed on an Internal 9 Watch list, avers that the RMBS tranches on the list would not have been 10 considered appropriate for CreditWatch action under the surveillance 11 methodologies that had been applied prior to the meeting, and otherwise denies the 12 allegations in Paragraph 219.

220. S&P admits that the language quoted in Paragraph 220 appears in an

13

14 agenda from a February 7, 2007 meeting concerning RMBS Surveillance, avers that 15 the allegations are selective paraphrase of the document that do not reflect its true 16 content, refers to the full document for its complete content, and otherwise denies 17 the allegations in Paragraph 220.

221. S&P admits that it was S&P Ratings’ then-existing practice to “notch”

18

19 the ratings of RMBS tranches included in pools of collateral backing new CDOs if 20 those RMBS tranches were on CreditWatch Negative, admits that all other things 21 being equal such notching would increase S&P Ratings’ estimated probability of 22 default for that RMBS tranche, which may or may not have had an impact on its 23 rating opinion with respect to any tranche of the CDO, and otherwise denies the 24 allegations in Paragraph 221. 25

222. S&P denies the allegations in Paragraph 222.

26

223. S&P admits that the language quoted in Paragraph 223 appears in an

27 email dated February 7, 2007 written by an S&P Ratings employee and otherwise 28

- 41 CORRECTED ANSWER CASE NO. CV13-00779 (DOC) 778956.01

Case 2:13-cv-00779-DOC-JCG Document 53 Filed 09/03/13 Page 42 of 72 Page ID #:1264

1 denies the allegations in Paragraph 223.

224. S&P admits that the language quoted in Paragraph 224 appears in an

2

3 email dated February 7, 2007 written by an S&P Ratings employee, avers that the 4 allegations are a selective quote from the document that do not reflect its true 5 content, and avers that the document also states that Gillis “is eager to put 6 something on Credit [W]atch that will achieve this objective and have reasonable 7 answers to literally the hundreds of phone calls he expects after this action as to our 8 expectations of the future and rationale behind the action.” S&P refers to the 9 complete document for its full content and otherwise denies the allegations in 10 Paragraph 224.

225. S&P admits that a meeting occurred on February 12, 2007 concerning

11

12 RMBS Surveillance and otherwise denies the allegations in Paragraph 225.

226. S&P admits that the language quoted in Paragraph 226 appears in an

13

14 agenda from a February 12, 2007 meeting concerning RMBS Surveillance, refers to 15 the full document for its complete content, and otherwise denies the allegations in 16 Paragraph 226.

227. S&P avers that a committee agreed on February 12, 2007 to place

17

18 RMBS tranches from 11 transactions on CreditWatch Negative, avers that it was 19 not determined at the February 12, 2007 meeting (or at any time) that RMBS 20 surveillance criteria should permit downgrades of RMBS solely on the basis of 21 observed delinquencies, but rather by measuring deal performance against the 22 stressed time to disposition of the loans and a reinstatement rate assumption of zero 23 for all severely delinquent loans, and otherwise denies the allegations in Paragraph 24 227.

228. S&P admits that the language quoted in Paragraph 228 appears in a

25

26 February 14, 2007 publication entitled, “19 Subprime, Alt-A, Closed-End Second27 Lien Ratings From 2006 Vintage Deals Put On Watch Neg,” avers that the 28

- 42 CORRECTED ANSWER CASE NO. CV13-00779 (DOC) 778956.01

Case 2:13-cv-00779-DOC-JCG Document 53 Filed 09/03/13 Page 43 of 72 Page ID #:1265

1 allegations are a selective paraphrase of the publication that do not reflect its true 2 content, refers to the full publication for its complete content, and otherwise denies 3 the allegations in Paragraph 228.

229. S&P admits that the language quoted in Paragraph 229 appears in a

4

5 February 27, 2007 email written by an S&P Ratings employee, avers that the 6 allegations are a selective quote from the document that do not reflect its true 7 content, refers to the full document for its complete content, and otherwise denies 8 the allegations in Paragraph 229.

230. S&P denies the allegations in Paragraph 230.

9

231. S&P admits that starting in April 2007 Executive F sent weekly

10

11 reports to, among others, Gillis, Rose, Bryan, and Jordan concerning CreditWatch 12 and other rating actions being taken by RMBS Surveillance, admits that exception 13 reports were generated for RMBS pools relating to the months of February 2007 14 through June 2007 and were used by RMBS Surveillance to conduct surveillance, 15 resulting in increasing numbers of CreditWatch actions during that time period 16 which were communicated to S&P Ratings managers and publicly, and otherwise 17 denies the allegations in Paragraph 231.

232. S&P makes no response to the allegations in Paragraph 232 because

18

19 these allegations call for a legal conclusion. To the extent Paragraph 232 contains 20 factual allegations, S&P denies the allegations in Paragraph 232.

233. S&P denies the allegations in Paragraph 233, except as set forth in its

21

22 responses to the subparagraphs below. 23

a.

S&P denies the allegations in Paragraph 233(a).

24

b.

S&P admits that the language quoted in the first sentence of

25

Paragraph 233(b) appears in a March 1, 2007 instant message exchange between

26

S&P Ratings employees, avers that the allegations are a selective paraphrase of the

27

document that do not reflect its true content, refers to the full document for its

28

- 43 CORRECTED ANSWER CASE NO. CV13-00779 (DOC) 778956.01

Case 2:13-cv-00779-DOC-JCG Document 53 Filed 09/03/13 Page 44 of 72 Page ID #:1266

1

complete content, and otherwise denies the allegations in Paragraph 233(b). c.

2

S&P admits that the language quoted in Paragraph 233(c) appears in a

3

March 1, 2007 instant message exchange between S&P Ratings employees, avers

4

that the allegations are a selective quote from the document that do not reflect its

5

true content, refers to the full document for its complete content, and otherwise

6

denies the allegations in Paragraph 233(c). d.

7 8

S&P denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to

the content of a telephone conversation of any particular individual. e.

9

S&P admits that Paragraph 233(e) references a slide entitled, “CDOs

10

Have Increasingly Been Collateralized by RMBS Subprime” from a March 2007

11

presentation. To the extent that Paragraph 233(e) purports to describe the

12

referenced document, S&P avers that the allegations are a selective paraphrase of

13

the document that do not reflect its true content, refers to the full document for its

14

complete content, and otherwise denies the allegations in Paragraph 233(e). f.

15

S&P admits that the language quoted in Paragraph 233(f) appears in a

16

March 19, 2007 document entitled, “The Fixed Income CDO Group, Monthly

17

Activity Report, March 2007,” avers that the allegations are a selective quote from

18

the document that do not reflect its true content, refers to the full document for its

19

complete content, and otherwise denies the allegations in Paragraph 233(f). g.

20

S&P admits that the language quoted in Paragraph 233(g) appears in

21

emails dated March 12, 2007 written by S&P Ratings employees, avers that the

22

allegations are selective quotations from the documents that do not reflect their

23

true content, avers that the analysis discussed was a scenario analysis, not a rating

24

analysis, refers to the full documents for their complete content, and otherwise

25

denies the allegations in Paragraph 233(g). h.

26 27

S&P admits that the language quoted in Paragraph 233(h) appears in a

document created on or around March 19, 2007, avers that the allegations are a

28

- 44 CORRECTED ANSWER CASE NO. CV13-00779 (DOC) 778956.01

Case 2:13-cv-00779-DOC-JCG Document 53 Filed 09/03/13 Page 45 of 72 Page ID #:1267

1

selective quote from the document that do not reflect its true content, avers that the

2

document relates to a scenario analysis, not a rating analysis, refers to the full

3

document for its complete content, and otherwise denies the allegations in

4

Paragraph 233(h). i.

5

S&P admits that the language quoted in Paragraph 233(i) appears in a

6

March 2007 presentation entitled, “Structured Finance Ratings: Overview and

7

Impact of the Residential Subprime Market,” avers that the allegations are a

8

selective quote from the document that do not reflect its true content, avers that the

9

presentation also states that “[w]e expect losses to be only slightly worse than 2000

10

vintage [RMBS] ratings” and “[s]ubprime downgrades will continue to increase

11

moderately,” refers to the full document for its complete content, and otherwise

12

denies the allegations in Paragraph 233(i). j.

13

S&P admits that the language quoted in Paragraph 233(j) appears in

14

an email dated March 19, 2007 written by an S&P Ratings employee, avers that the

15

allegations are a selective quote from the document that do not reflect its true

16

content, refers to the full document for its complete content, and otherwise denies

17

the allegations in Paragraph 233(j). k.

18

S&P admits that the language quoted in Paragraph 233(k) appears in

19

an email dated March 19, 2007 written by an S&P Ratings employee, avers that the

20

allegations are a selective quote from the document that do not reflect its true

21

content, refers to the full document for its complete content, and otherwise denies

22

the allegations in Paragraph 233(k). l.

23

S&P admits that the language quoted in Paragraph 233(l) appears in

24

an email dated March 21, 2007 written by an S&P Ratings employee, avers that the

25

allegations are a selective quote from the document that do not reflect its true

26

content, refers to the full document for its complete content, and otherwise denies

27

the allegations in Paragraph 233(l).

28

- 45 CORRECTED ANSWER CASE NO. CV13-00779 (DOC) 778956.01

Case 2:13-cv-00779-DOC-JCG Document 53 Filed 09/03/13 Page 46 of 72 Page ID #:1268

m.

1

S&P admits that language similar to that quoted in Paragraph 233(m)

2

appears in a draft presentation dated March 21, 2007, avers that the allegations are

3

a selective quote from the document that do not reflect its true content, avers that

4

the document also states that there is a “[h]eightened sensitivity around

5

surveillance” at S&P Ratings, that RMBS “[d]eals with high risk profiles are being

6

flagged and scrutinized shortly after issuance,” and that “[s]ubprime downgrades

7

will continue to increase moderately,” refers to the full document for its complete

8

content, and otherwise denies the allegations in Paragraph 233(m). n.

9

S&P admits that the language quoted in Paragraph 233(n) appears in a

10

March 22, 2007 publication entitled, “A Comparison of 2000 and 2006 Subprime

11

RMBS Vintages Sheds Light On Expected Performance,” avers that the allegations

12

are a selective quote from the document that do not reflect its true content, avers

13

that the referenced publication also states that “[i]f the country experiences a

14

recession, or if home prices fall dramatically, losses may exceed the 7.75%

15

threshold,” refers to the full publication for its complete content, and otherwise

16

denies the allegations in Paragraph 233(m). o.

17

S&P admits that the language quoted in the first sentence of

18

Paragraph 233(o) appears in an email dated March 23, 2007 written by an S&P

19

Ratings employee, avers that the allegations are a selective quote from the

20

document that do not reflect its true content, and refers to the full document for its

21

complete content. To the extent Paragraph 233(o) quotes language that appears in

22

a Fortune magazine article, S&P refers to the referenced publication for its

23

complete content. S&P otherwise denies the allegations in Paragraph 233(o). p.

24

S&P admits that language similar to that quoted in Paragraph 233(p)

25

appears in an email dated March 23, 2007 written by an S&P Ratings employee,

26

avers that the allegations are a selective quote from the document that do not

27

reflect its true content, refers to the full document for its complete content, and

28

- 46 CORRECTED ANSWER CASE NO. CV13-00779 (DOC) 778956.01

Case 2:13-cv-00779-DOC-JCG Document 53 Filed 09/03/13 Page 47 of 72 Page ID #:1269

1

otherwise denies the allegations in Paragraph 233(p). q.

2

S&P admits that Paragraph 233(q) appears to reference an email dated

3

March 26, 2007 written by an S&P Ratings employee, avers that Jordan describes

4

the attached scenario analysis as “preliminary,” and refers to full document for its

5

complete content. S&P incorporates its response to Paragraph 233(g) above and

6

otherwise denies the allegations in Paragraph 233(q). 234. S&P denies the allegations in Paragraph 234, except as set forth in its

7

8 responses to the subparagraphs below.

a.

9

S&P admits that S&P Ratings issued a rating letter for Gemstone

10

CDO VII Ltd. on or about March 15, 2007 and refers to the full document for its

11

complete content. S&P avers that the ratings on Gemstone CDO VII were not

12

impacted by the CreditWatch or downgrades taken on RMBS in July 2007. S&P

13

avers upon information and belief that all tranches of the Gemstone VII CDO rated

14

AAA by S&P Ratings were rated Aaa by Moody’s, and that the tranche of the

15

Gemstone CDO VII that S&P Ratings rated AA was rated Aa2 by Moody’s. S&P

16

further avers upon information and belief that the “loss” alleged in the Complaint

17

relates to a decision by M&T Bank to take a write-off relating to the CDO, and that

18

it has since recovered at least $55 million related to that CDO. S&P otherwise

19

denies the allegations in Paragraph 234(a). b.

20

S&P admits that S&P Ratings issued a rating letter for Sorin CDO VI,

21

Ltd. on or about March 27, 2007, refers to the full document for its complete

22

content, and admits that the primary analyst for the transaction received the

23

referenced email, asked whether he could forward the email on to others, and later

24

received the video. S&P avers that the ratings on Sorin CDO VI were not

25

impacted by the CreditWatch or downgrades taken on RMBS in July 2007. S&P

26

avers upon information and belief that all tranches of the Sorin CDO VI rated

27

AAA by S&P Ratings were rated Aaa by Moody’s, that the “loss” alleged in the

28

- 47 CORRECTED ANSWER CASE NO. CV13-00779 (DOC) 778956.01

Case 2:13-cv-00779-DOC-JCG Document 53 Filed 09/03/13 Page 48 of 72 Page ID #:1270

1

Complaint relates to a decision by Western Corporate Federal Credit Union

2

(“WesCorp”) to take a write-off relating to the CDO, and that the National Credit

3

Union Administration (“NCUA”) found as part of its Material Loss Review of

4

WesCorp that the credit union’s management “implemented an aggressive

5

investment strategy with unreasonable limits in place . . . left WesCorp

6

increasingly vulnerable to significant credit risk, market risk, and liquidity risk

7

through the portfolio’s exposure to economic conditions in the residential sector.”

8

S&P otherwise denies the allegations in Paragraph 234(b). c.

9

S&P admits that S&P Ratings issued a rating letter for Cairn Mezz

10

ABS CDO III Ltd. on or about March 29, 2007 and refers to the full document for

11

its complete content. S&P avers that the ratings on Cairn Mezz ABS CDO III

12

were not impacted by the CreditWatch or downgrades taken on RMBS in July

13

2007. S&P avers upon information and belief that all tranches of the Cairn Mezz

14

ABS CDO III that were rated AAA by S&P Ratings were rated Aaa by Moody’s.

15

S&P further avers upon information and belief that the “loss” alleged in the

16

Complaint relates to a decision by M&T Bank to take a write-off relating to the

17

CDO. S&P otherwise denies the allegations in Paragraph 234(c). d.

18

S&P admits that S&P Ratings issued a rating letter for Charles Fort

19

CDO I, Ltd. on or about March 29, 2007 and refers to the full document for its

20

complete content. S&P avers that the ratings on Charles Fort CDO I were not

21

impacted by the CreditWatch or downgrades taken on RMBS in July 2007. S&P

22

avers upon information and belief that all tranches of the Charles Fort CDO I that

23

were rated AAA by S&P Ratings were rated Aaa by Moody’s, that the “loss”

24

alleged in the Complaint relates to the decision by WesCorp to take a write-off

25

relating to the CDO, and that the NCUA found as part of its Material Loss Review

26

of WesCorp that the credit union’s management “implemented an aggressive

27

investment strategy with unreasonable limits in place . . . left WesCorp

28

- 48 CORRECTED ANSWER CASE NO. CV13-00779 (DOC) 778956.01

Case 2:13-cv-00779-DOC-JCG Document 53 Filed 09/03/13 Page 49 of 72 Page ID #:1271

1

increasingly vulnerable to significant credit risk, market risk, and liquidity risk

2

through the portfolio’s exposure to economic conditions in the residential sector.”

3

S&P otherwise denies the allegations in Paragraph 234(d). 235. S&P denies the allegations in Paragraph 235, except as set forth in its

4

5 responses to the subparagraphs below.

a.

6

S&P admits that the language quoted in Paragraph 235(a) appears in

7

an April 5, 2007 instant message exchange between two S&P Ratings employees,

8

avers that the instant message purportedly cited in Paragraph 235(a) was also cited

9

in the Summary Report of Issues Identified in the Commission Staff’s Examination

10

of Select Credit Rating Agencies publicly issued by the SEC in July 2008 and that

11

the SEC’s report, after citing the instant message and other materials, stated that

12

“there is no evidence that decisions about rating methodology or models were

13

made based on attracting or losing market share,” avers that the cited instant

14

message exchange did not refer to “S&P’s CDO rating model” at all but rather to a

15

modeling proposal submitted by an entity seeking a rating on a CLO, and avers

16

that S&P Ratings did not issue a rating on the CLO until the analysts were satisfied

17

that the model did capture what they believed to be the risk. S&P refers to the full

18

document for its complete content and otherwise denies the allegations in

19

Paragraph 235(a).

20

b.

S&P denies the allegations in Paragraph 235(b).

21

c.

S&P admits that language similar to that quoted in the first sentence

22

of Paragraph 235(c) appears in an email dated April 10, 2007, admits that the

23

language referenced in the second sentence of Paragraph 235(c) appears in a

24

presentation attached to an email dated April 18, 2007, avers that the allegations

25

are selective quotations from the documents that do not reflect their true content,

26

refers to the full documents for their complete content, and otherwise denies the

27

allegations in Paragraph 235(c).

28

- 49 CORRECTED ANSWER CASE NO. CV13-00779 (DOC) 778956.01

Case 2:13-cv-00779-DOC-JCG Document 53 Filed 09/03/13 Page 50 of 72 Page ID #:1272

d.

1

S&P avers that an S&P Ratings employee conducted internal scenario

2

analyses of the 2005 and 2006 vintage RMBS in April 2007, avers that such a

3

scenario analysis is not a ratings analysis and does not reflect a change in rating

4

opinion by S&P Ratings, avers that the assumptions used for the scenario analysis

5

were neither “conservative” nor reasonable, avers that the analysis was never

6

validated, approved or endorsed by any other S&P Ratings analyst, and otherwise

7

denies the allegations in Paragraph 235(d). e.

8 9

S&P admits the language quoted in Paragraph 235(e) appears in an

April 25, 2007 “RMBS & CDO Surveillance Weekly Subprime Update”

10

memorandum, avers that the allegations are a selective quote from the document

11

that do not reflect its true content, refers to the full document for its complete

12

content, and otherwise denies the allegations in Paragraph 235(e). f.

13

S&P admits that language similar to that quoted in Paragraph 235(f)

14

appears in an April 30, 2007 “RMBS & CDO Surveillance Weekly Subprime

15

Update” memorandum, avers that the allegations are a selective quote from the

16

document that do not reflect its true content, avers that the document also describes

17

significant surveillance actions taken that week, refers to the full document for its

18

complete content, and otherwise denies the allegations in Paragraph 235(f). 236. S&P denies the allegations in Paragraph 236, except as set forth in its

19

20 responses to the subparagraphs below.

a.

21

S&P admits that S&P Ratings issued a rating letter for Vertical ABS

22

2007-1, Ltd. on or about April 10, 2007 and refers to the full document for its

23

complete content. S&P avers that the ratings on Vertical ABS 2007-1 were not

24

impacted by the CreditWatch or downgrades taken on RMBS in July 2007. S&P

25

avers upon information and belief that all tranches of the Vertical ABS 2007-1

26

CDO that were rated AAA by S&P Ratings were rated Aaa by Moody’s and that

27

the “loss” alleged in the Complaint relates to alleged “hung warehouse credit risk

28

- 50 CORRECTED ANSWER CASE NO. CV13-00779 (DOC) 778956.01

Case 2:13-cv-00779-DOC-JCG Document 53 Filed 09/03/13 Page 51 of 72 Page ID #:1273

1

exposure” of Citibank. S&P otherwise denies the allegations in Paragraph 236(a). b.

2

S&P admits that S&P Ratings issued a rating letter for Corona

3

Borealis CDO Ltd. on or about April 24, 2007 and refers to the full document for

4

its complete content. S&P avers that the ratings on Corona Borealis CDO were not

5

impacted by the CreditWatch or downgrades taken on RMBS in July 2007. S&P

6

avers upon information and belief that all tranches of the Corona Borealis CDO

7

that were rated AAA by S&P Ratings were rated Aaa by Moody’s and all tranches

8

that were rated AA by S&P Ratings were rated Aa2 by Moody’s, that the “loss”

9

alleged in the Complaint relates to a decision by Eastern Financial Florida Credit

10

Union (“EFFCU”) to take a write-off relating to the CDO, and that the NCUA

11

found as part of its Material Loss Review of Eastern Financial Florida Credit

12

Union that the credit union’s management did not “adjust[ ] the Board and

13

management’s ability to handle the growth and sophistication of the Credit Union’s

14

activities, including complex CDO investments and construction and development

15

(C&D) lending” and that “[m]anagement allowed the CDO investment exposure to

16

represent a significant concentration compared to net worth over a short period of

17

time and failed to impose practical limits in the complex and risky investments.”

18

S&P otherwise denies the allegations in Paragraph 236(b). 237. S&P denies the allegations in Paragraph 237, except as set forth in its

19

20 responses to the subparagraphs below.

a.

21

S&P avers that the methodology used to create the exception report

22

referenced therein was different from the methodology applied in prior months and

23

does not take into account all potentially available forms of credit support and is

24

thus not comparable to the result of other exception reports, and otherwise denies

25

the allegations in Paragraph 237(a). b.

26 27

S&P admits that the language quoted in Paragraph 237(b) appears in a

May 7, 2007 “RMBS & CDO Surveillance Weekly Subprime Update”

28

- 51 CORRECTED ANSWER CASE NO. CV13-00779 (DOC) 778956.01

Case 2:13-cv-00779-DOC-JCG Document 53 Filed 09/03/13 Page 52 of 72 Page ID #:1274

1

memorandum, avers that the allegations are a selective quote from the document

2

that do not reflect its true content, refers to the full document for its complete

3

content, and otherwise denies the allegations in Paragraph 237(b). c.

4

S&P admits that Paragraph 237(c) references an email dated May 9,

5

2007 written by an S&P Ratings employee and attached report, refers to the full

6

documents for their complete content, and otherwise denies the allegations in

7

Paragraph 237(c). d.

8

S&P admits that language similar to that quoted in Paragraph 237(d)

9

appears in a document entitled, “Residential Mortgage Surveillance, Activity

10

Report – May 2007,” avers that the allegations are a selective quote from the

11

document that do not reflect its true content, avers that the document also states

12

that the analyst “[c]ontinued to meet with the CDO Surveillance Group to keep

13

them up to date on the various issues affecting outstanding RMBS transactions,”

14

refers to the full document for its complete content, and otherwise denies the

15

allegations in Paragraph 237(d). e.

16

S&P admits that the language quoted in Paragraph 237(e) appears in a

17

May 14, 2007 “RMBS & CDO Surveillance Weekly Subprime Update”

18

memorandum, avers that the allegations are a selective quote from the document

19

that do not reflect its true content, avers that the document also states that there has

20

not been “any significant increase in CDO exposure to Subprime RMBS bonds that

21

have seen ratings lowered or placed on CreditWatch negative,” refers to the full

22

document for its complete content, and otherwise denies the allegations in

23

Paragraph 237(e). f.

24

S&P admits that the language quoted in Paragraph 237(f) appears in a

25

May 21, 2007 document entitled, “Global CDO Activity Report,” avers that the

26

allegations are a selective paraphrase of the document that do not reflect its true

27

content, refers to the full document for its complete content, and otherwise denies

28

- 52 CORRECTED ANSWER CASE NO. CV13-00779 (DOC) 778956.01

Case 2:13-cv-00779-DOC-JCG Document 53 Filed 09/03/13 Page 53 of 72 Page ID #:1275

1

the allegations in Paragraph 237(f). g.

2

S&P admits that the language quoted in Paragraph 237(g) appears in a

3

May 21, 2007 “RMBS & CDO Surveillance Weekly Subprime Update”

4

memorandum, avers that the allegations are a selective quote from the document

5

that do not reflect its true content, avers that the document also confirms that

6

increasing numbers of RMBS had been put on CreditWatch so far that year, refers

7

to the full document for its complete content, and otherwise denies the allegations

8

in Paragraph 237(g). h.

9

S&P admits that the language quoted in Paragraph 237(h) appears in a

10

May 29, 2007 “RMBS & CDO Surveillance Weekly Subprime Update”

11

memorandum, avers that the allegations are a selective quote from the document

12

that do not reflect its true content, avers that the “negative rating performance”

13

referenced therein refers to CreditWatch and downgrade actions already taken by

14

S&P, refers to the full document for its complete content, and otherwise denies the

15

allegations in Paragraph 237(h). 238. S&P denies the allegations in Paragraph 238, except as set forth in its

16

17 responses to the subparagraphs below.

a.

18

S&P admits that S&P Ratings issued a rating letter for Stack 2007-1

19

Ltd. on or about May 3, 2007, and an Effective Date RAC letter on or about June

20

27, 2007, and refers to the full documents for their complete content. S&P avers

21

that the ratings on Stack 2007-1 were not impacted by the CreditWatch or

22

downgrades taken on RMBS in July 2007. S&P avers upon information and belief

23

that all tranches of the Stack 2007-1 CDO that were rated AAA by S&P Ratings

24

were rated Aaa by Moody’s, that Citigroup Global Markets, Inc. served as the

25

underwriter for the CDO, and that the “loss” alleged in the Complaint relates to

26

“hung warehouse credit risk exposure” of Citibank. S&P otherwise denies the

27

allegations in Paragraph 238(a).

28

- 53 CORRECTED ANSWER CASE NO. CV13-00779 (DOC) 778956.01

Case 2:13-cv-00779-DOC-JCG Document 53 Filed 09/03/13 Page 54 of 72 Page ID #:1276

b.

1

S&P admits that S&P Ratings issued a letter on or about May 9, 2007

2

affirming, as of the effective date of May 2, 2007, the ratings issued on March 6,

3

2007 for Octonion I CDO, Ltd., and refers to the full document for its complete

4

content. S&P avers that the ratings on Octonion I CDO were not impacted by the

5

CreditWatch or downgrades taken on RMBS in July 2007. S&P further avers upon

6

information and belief that all tranches of the Octonion I CDO that were rated

7

AAA by S&P Ratings were rated Aaa by Moody’s that the tranche of the Octonion

8

I CDO that S&P Ratings rated AA was rated Aa2 by Moody’s, that Citigroup

9

Global Markets, Inc. was the arranger for the CDO, and that the “loss” alleged in

10

the Complaint relates to “hung warehouse credit risk exposure” of Citibank. S&P

11

otherwise denies the allegations in Paragraph 238(b). c.

12

S&P admits that S&P Ratings issued a letter on or about May 9, 2007

13

affirming, as of the effective date of March 18, 2007, the ratings issued on March

14

8, 2007 for Plettenberg Bay CDO Limited, and refers to the full document for its

15

complete content. S&P avers that the ratings on Plettenberg Bay CDO were not

16

impacted by the CreditWatch or downgrades taken on RMBS in July 2007. S&P

17

further avers upon information and belief that all tranches of the Plettenberg Bay

18

CDO rated AAA by S&P Ratings were rated Aaa by Moody’s and that the tranches

19

rated A- and BBB were rated A3 and Baa2 respectively by Moody’s, that

20

Citigroup Global Markets, Inc. served as the underwriter for the CDO, and that the

21

“loss” alleged in the Complaint relates to “hung warehouse credit risk exposure” of

22

Citibank. S&P otherwise denies the allegations in Paragraph 238(c). d.

23

S&P admits that S&P Ratings issued a rating letter for Acacia Option

24

ARM 1 CDO, Ltd. on or about May 17, 2007, and an Effective Date RAC letter on

25

or about October 3, 2007, and refers to the full documents for their complete

26

content. S&P avers that the ratings on Acacia Option ARM 1 CDO were not

27

impacted by the CreditWatch or downgrades taken on RMBS in July 2007. S&P

28

- 54 CORRECTED ANSWER CASE NO. CV13-00779 (DOC) 778956.01

Case 2:13-cv-00779-DOC-JCG Document 53 Filed 09/03/13 Page 55 of 72 Page ID #:1277

1

avers upon information and belief that all tranches of the Acacia Option ARM

2

1CDO rated AAA by S&P Ratings were rated Aaa by Moody’s and that the

3

tranche rated A by S&P was rated A2 by Moody’s, and that the “loss” alleged in

4

the Complaint relates to a decision by First Midwest Bank to take a write-off

5

relating to the CDO. S&P otherwise denies the allegations in Paragraph 238(d). 239. S&P denies the allegations in Paragraph 239, except as set forth in its

6

7 responses to the subparagraphs below.

a.

8 9

S&P admits that the language quoted in Paragraph 239(a) appears in

an email dated June 1, 2007 written by an S&P Ratings employee, avers that the

10

allegations are a selective quote from the document that do not reflect its true

11

content, avers that the document also states that “[e]ach week, as RMBS

12

Surveillance is taking negative rating actions on Subprime and other RMBS, we’re

13

monitoring the list of CDOs that have exposure. . . .[and] CDO Surveillance

14

analysts are reviewing transactions with significant exposure to

15

downgraded/CreditWatched RMBS,” refers to the full document for its complete

16

content, and otherwise denies the allegations in Paragraph 239(a). b.

17

S&P admits that the language quoted in Paragraph 239(b) appears in a

18

June 4, 2004 “RMBS & CDO Surveillance Weekly Subprime Update”

19

memorandum, avers that the allegations are a selective quote from the document

20

that do not reflect its true content, avers that the document also states that “[e]ach

21

week, as RMBS Surveillance is taking negative rating actions on Subprime and

22

other RMBS, we’re monitoring the list of CDOs that have exposure. . . . [and]

23

CDO Surveillance analysts are reviewing transactions with significant exposure to

24

downgraded/CreditWatched RMBS,” refers to the full document for its complete

25

content, and otherwise denies the allegations in Paragraph 239(b). c.

26 27

S&P admits that the language quoted in Paragraph 239(c) appears in a

June 11, 2007 “RMBS & CDO Surveillance Weekly Subprime Update”

28

- 55 CORRECTED ANSWER CASE NO. CV13-00779 (DOC) 778956.01

Case 2:13-cv-00779-DOC-JCG Document 53 Filed 09/03/13 Page 56 of 72 Page ID #:1278

1

memorandum, avers that the allegations are a selective paraphrase of the document

2

that do not reflect its true content, and avers that such a “SD versus CS”

3

calculation was not used to determine whether an RMBS tranche should be

4

downgraded but rather to help identify RMBS tranches that might need to be

5

further reviewed, using different methodologies, for potential CreditWatch. S&P

6

refers to the full document for its complete content and otherwise denies the

7

allegations in Paragraph 239(c). d.

8 9

S&P admits that the language quoted in Paragraph 239(d) appears in a

June 17, 2004 document entitled, “Rating Quality & Knowledge Management

10

Activity Report,” avers that the allegations are a selective paraphrase of the

11

document that do not reflect its true content, avers that the document also states

12

that S&P Ratings employees were “actively trying to determine the shape and peak

13

of this current loss cycle.” S&P refers to the full document for its complete

14

content and otherwise denies the allegations in Paragraph 239(d). e.

15

S&P admits that the language quoted in Paragraph 239(e) appears in a

16

June 18, 2007 “RMBS & CDO Surveillance Weekly Subprime Update”

17

memorandum, avers that the allegations are a selective paraphrase of the document

18

that do not reflect its true content, and avers that the document also states that

19

increasing numbers of RMBS had been put on CreditWatch so far that year. S&P

20

refers to full document for its complete content, and otherwise denies the

21

allegations in Paragraph 239(e). f.

22

S&P admits that language similar to that quoted in Paragraph 239(f)

23

appears in a June 20, 2007 email written by an S&P Ratings employee, avers that

24

the allegations are a selective quote from the document that do not reflect its true

25

content, refers to the full document for its complete content, and otherwise denies

26

the allegations in Paragraph 239(f). g.

27 28

S&P admits that Paragraph 239(g) references an email dated June 25, - 56 CORRECTED ANSWER CASE NO. CV13-00779 (DOC)

778956.01

Case 2:13-cv-00779-DOC-JCG Document 53 Filed 09/03/13 Page 57 of 72 Page ID #:1279

1

2007 written by an S&P Ratings employee, admits that Paragraph 239(g)

2

references a list attached to that email, and admits that language similar to that

3

quoted in Paragraph 239(g) appears in a June 25, 2007 “RMBS & CDO

4

Surveillance Weekly Subprime Update” memorandum. S&P avers that the

5

allegations are a selective paraphrase of the documents that do not reflect their true

6

content, avers that only four CDOs rated during 2007 appeared on the referenced

7

list of cash flow and hybrid CDOs with exposure to RMBS tranches downgraded

8

or on CreditWatch Negative so far that year, refers to the full documents for their

9

complete content, and otherwise denies the allegations in Paragraph 239(g). h.

10

S&P admits that language similar to that quoted in Paragraph 239(h)

11

appears in minutes of a June 27, 2007 SFLT meeting, avers that the allegations are

12

a selective paraphrase of the document that do not reflect its true content, refers to

13

the full document for its complete content, and otherwise denies the allegations in

14

Paragraph 239(h). i.

15

S&P admits that the language quoted in Paragraph 239(i) appears in

16

emails dated June 27, 2007 written by S&P Ratings employees, avers that the

17

allegations are a selective paraphrase of the documents that do not reflect their true

18

content, refers to the full documents for their complete content and otherwise

19

denies the allegations in Paragraph 239(i).

20

240. S&P denies the allegations of Paragraph 240.

21

241. S&P denies the allegations in Paragraph 241, except as set forth in its

22 responses to the subparagraphs below.

a.

23

S&P admits that S&P Ratings issued a letter on or about June 13,

24

2007 affirming, as of the effective date of May 9, 2007, the ratings issued on

25

February 8, 2007 for NovaStar ABS CDO I, Ltd., and refers to the full document

26

for its complete content. S&P avers that the ratings on NovaStar ABS CDO I were

27

not impacted by the CreditWatch or downgrades taken on RMBS in July 2007.

28

- 57 CORRECTED ANSWER CASE NO. CV13-00779 (DOC) 778956.01

Case 2:13-cv-00779-DOC-JCG Document 53 Filed 09/03/13 Page 58 of 72 Page ID #:1280

1

S&P avers upon information and belief that all tranches of the NovaStar ABS CDO

2

I rated AAA by S&P Ratings were rated AAA by Fitch, that the “loss” alleged in

3

the Complaint relates to a decision by WesCorp to take a write off relating to the

4

CDO, and that the NCUA found as part of its Material Loss Review of WesCorp

5

that the credit union’s management “implemented an aggressive investment

6

strategy with unreasonable limits in place . . . left WesCorp increasingly vulnerable

7

to significant credit risk, market risk, and liquidity risk through the portfolio’s

8

exposure to economic conditions in the residential sector.” S&P otherwise denies

9

the allegations in Paragraph 241(a). b.

10

S&P admits that S&P Ratings issued a rating letter for Acacia CDO

11

12 Ltd. on or about June 14, 2007 and refers to the full document for its complete

12

content. S&P avers that the ratings on Acacia CDO 12 were not impacted by the

13

CreditWatch or downgrades taken on RMBS in July 2007. S&P avers upon

14

information and belief that all tranches of the Acacia CDO 12 rated AAA by S&P

15

Ratings were rated the equivalent Aaa by Moody’s, that the “loss” alleged in the

16

Complaint relates to a decision by WesCorp to take a write-off relating to the

17

CDO, and that the NCUA found as part of its Material Loss Review of WesCorp

18

that the credit union’s management “implemented an aggressive investment

19

strategy with unreasonable limits in place . . . left WesCorp increasingly vulnerable

20

to significant credit risk, market risk, and liquidity risk through the portfolio’s

21

exposure to economic conditions in the residential sector.” S&P otherwise denies

22

the allegations in Paragraph 241(b). c.

23

S&P admits that S&P Ratings issued a letter on or about June 15,

24

2007 affirming, as of the effective date of May 11, 2007, the ratings issued on

25

March 6, 2007 for Pyxis ABS CDO 2007-1 Ltd., and refers to the full document

26

for its complete content. S&P avers that the ratings on Pyxis ABS CDO 2007-1

27

were not impacted by the CreditWatch or downgrades taken on RMBS in July

28

- 58 CORRECTED ANSWER CASE NO. CV13-00779 (DOC) 778956.01

Case 2:13-cv-00779-DOC-JCG Document 53 Filed 09/03/13 Page 59 of 72 Page ID #:1281

1

2007. S&P avers upon information and belief that all tranches of the Pyxis ABS

2

CDO 2007-1 rated AAA by S&P Ratings were rated Aaa by Moody’s. S&P

3

otherwise denies the allegations in Paragraph 241(c). d.

4

S&P admits that S&P Ratings issued a letter on or about June 20,

5

2007 affirming, as of the effective date of February 2, 2007, the ratings issued on

6

November 2, 2006 for IXIS ABS CDO 3 Ltd., and refers to the full document for

7

its complete content. S&P avers that the ratings on IXIS ABS CDO 3 were not

8

impacted by the CreditWatch or downgrades taken on RMBS in July 2007. S&P

9

avers upon information and belief that all tranches of the IXIS ABS CDO 3 that

10

were rated AAA by S&P Ratings were rated Aaa by Moody’s. S&P otherwise

11

denies the allegations in Paragraph 241(d). e.

12

S&P admits that S&P Ratings issued a letter on or about June 27,

13

2007 affirming, as of the effective date of June 18, 2007, the ratings it issued on

14

May 3, 2007 for Stack 2007-1 Ltd., and refers to the full document for its complete

15

content. S&P avers that the ratings on Stack 2007-1 were not impacted by the

16

CreditWatch or downgrades taken on RMBS in July 2007. S&P avers upon

17

information and belief that all tranches of the Stack 2007-1 CDO that were rated

18

AAA by S&P Ratings were rated Aaa by Moody’s, that Citigroup Global Markets,

19

Inc. served as the underwriter for the CDO, and that the “loss” alleged in the

20

Complaint relates to “hung warehouse credit risk exposure” of Citibank. S&P

21

otherwise denies the allegations in Paragraph 241(e).

22

242. S&P denies the allegations in Paragraph 242.

23

243. S&P denies the allegations in Paragraph 243.

24

244. S&P denies the allegations in Paragraph 244, except as set forth in its

25 responses to the subparagraphs below.

a.

26 27

S&P admits that S&P Ratings issued a letter on or about June 28,

2007 affirming, as of the effective date of May 27, 2007, the ratings it issued on

28

- 59 CORRECTED ANSWER CASE NO. CV13-00779 (DOC) 778956.01

Case 2:13-cv-00779-DOC-JCG Document 53 Filed 09/03/13 Page 60 of 72 Page ID #:1282

1

March 28, 2007 for Laguna Seca Funding I, Ltd., and refers to the full document

2

for its complete content. S&P avers that the ratings on Laguna Seca Funding I

3

were not impacted by the CreditWatch or downgrades taken on RMBS in July

4

2007. S&P avers upon information and belief that all tranches of the Laguna Seca

5

Funding I CDO that were rated AAA by S&P Ratings were rated Aaa by Moody’s.

6

S&P otherwise denies the allegations in Paragraph 244(a). b.

7

S&P admits that S&P Ratings issued a rating letter for Ridgeway

8

Court Funding II Ltd. on or about June 27, 2007 and refers to the full document for

9

its complete content. S&P avers that the ratings on Ridgeway Court Funding II

10

were not impacted by the CreditWatch or downgrades taken on RMBS in July

11

2007. S&P avers upon information and belief that all tranches of the Ridgeway

12

Court Funding II CDO that were rated AAA by S&P Ratings were rated Aaa by

13

Moody’s, and that the “loss” alleged in the Complaint relates to a decision by

14

EFFCU to take a write down relating to the CDO. S&P otherwise denies the

15

allegations in Paragraph 244(b).

16

245. S&P denies the allegations in Paragraph 245.

17

246. S&P admits that the language quoted in Paragraph 246 appears in an

18 email dated June 29, 2007 written by an S&P Ratings employee, avers that the 19 allegations are a selective quote from the document that do not reflect its true 20 content, refers to the full document for its complete content, and otherwise denies 21 the allegations in Paragraph 246.

247. S&P admits that the language quoted in Paragraph 247 appears in an

22

23 email dated June 29, 2007 written by an S&P Ratings employee, avers that the 24 allegations are a selective quote from the document that do not reflect its true 25 content, refers to the full document for its complete content, and otherwise denies 26 the allegations in Paragraph 247. 27 28

- 60 CORRECTED ANSWER CASE NO. CV13-00779 (DOC) 778956.01

Case 2:13-cv-00779-DOC-JCG Document 53 Filed 09/03/13 Page 61 of 72 Page ID #:1283

248. S&P admits that the language quoted in Paragraph 248 appears in an

1

2 email dated July 1, 2007 written by an S&P Ratings employee, avers that the 3 allegations are a selective quote from the document that do not reflect its true 4 content, and avers that the spreadsheet identifying RMBS tranches to be reviewed 5 had not been finalized at the time, as Gillis acknowledges in the referenced email: 6 “The list needs some additional work.” S&P refers to the full document for its 7 complete content, and otherwise denies the allegations in Paragraph 248.

249. S&P admits that language similar to that quoted in Paragraph 249

8

9 appears in emails dated July 3 through July 11, 2007, including emails written by an 10 S&P Ratings employee, avers that the allegations are a selective quote from the 11 document that do not reflect its true content, avers that the author of the email had 12 no personal knowledge regarding the statements quoted from July 5, refers to the 13 full documents for their complete content, and otherwise denies the allegations in 14 Paragraph 249.

250. S&P avers that S&P Ratings held a meeting on July 5, 2007

15

16 concerning the timing for the implementation of certain proposed procedures for 17 RMBS Surveillance, that S&P Ratings held a meeting on July 5, 2007 concerning 18 proposed criteria changes regarding RMBS Surveillance, and otherwise denies the 19 allegations in Paragraph 250.

251. S&P admits that language similar to that quoted in Paragraph 251

20

21 appears in an email dated July 6, 2007 written by an S&P Ratings employee, avers 22 that the allegations are a selective quote from the document that do not reflect its 23 true content, refers to the full document for its complete content, and otherwise 24 denies the allegations in Paragraph 251.

252. S&P admits that S&P Ratings issued a July 10, 2007 publication

25

26 entitled, “612 U.S. Subprime RMBS Classes Put On Watch Neg; Methodology 27 Revisions Announced,” avers that S&P Ratings issued a corrected version of this 28

- 61 CORRECTED ANSWER CASE NO. CV13-00779 (DOC) 778956.01

Case 2:13-cv-00779-DOC-JCG Document 53 Filed 09/03/13 Page 62 of 72 Page ID #:1284

1 press release on July 11, 2007, refers to the full documents for their complete 2 content, and otherwise denies the allegations in Paragraph 252.

253. S&P admits that Paragraph 253 references a July 10, 2007 publication

3

4 entitled, “612 U.S. Subprime RMBS Classes Put On Watch Neg; Methodology 5 Revisions Announced,” avers that the allegations are a selective paraphrase of the 6 publication that do not reflect its true content and are inaccurate, refers to the 7 corrected version of the full document issued on July 11, 2007 for its complete 8 content, and otherwise denies the allegations in Paragraph 253.

254. S&P admits that language similar to that quoted in Paragraph 254

9

10 appears in an email dated July 11, 2007 written by an S&P Ratings employee, avers 11 that the allegations are a selective quote from the document that do not reflect its 12 true content, refers to the full document for its complete content, and otherwise 13 denies the allegations in Paragraph 254.

255. S&P admits that Paragraph 255 references a July 12, 2007 publication

14

15 entitled, “Various U.S. First-Lien Subprime RMBS Classes Downgraded,” refers to 16 the full publication for its complete content, and otherwise denies the allegations in 17 Paragraph 255. 18

256. S&P denies the allegations in Paragraph 256.

19

257. S&P denies the allegations in Paragraph 257.

20

258. S&P admits that Paragraph 258 references a July 12, 2007 email

21 written by an S&P Ratings employee, avers that the allegations are a selective 22 paraphrase of the document that do not reflect its true content, refers to the full 23 document for its complete content, and otherwise denies the allegations in 24 Paragraph 258.

259. S&P admits that an S&P Ratings employee forwarded an email on

25

26 July 13, 2007 attaching the cartoon referenced in Paragraph 259 to two non-S&P 27 employees, avers that the allegations describe this document inaccurately, avers that 28

- 62 CORRECTED ANSWER CASE NO. CV13-00779 (DOC) 778956.01

Case 2:13-cv-00779-DOC-JCG Document 53 Filed 09/03/13 Page 63 of 72 Page ID #:1285

1 the referenced cartoon appears to have originated from outside S&P, refers to the 2 full document for its complete content, and otherwise denies the allegations in 3 Paragraph 259.

260. To the extent that Paragraph 260 purports to describe S&P Ratings’

4

5 criteria and methodologies in the connection with its analysis of structured finance 6 securities, S&P refers to its published criteria, including the July 18, 2007 7 publication entitled, “S&P Comments On Process For Rating New CDOs With U.S. 8 RMBS Exposure” (“July 18 Press Release”), for its complete content. S&P 9 otherwise denies the allegations in Paragraph 260.

261. S&P denies the allegations in Paragraph 261, except as set forth in its

10

11 responses to the subparagraphs below.

a.

12

S&P admits that S&P Ratings issued a rating letter for Pinnacle Peak

13

CDO I, Ltd. on or about July 3, 2007, and an Effective Date RAC letter on or about

14

October 15, 2007, and refers to the full documents for their complete content. S&P

15

avers upon information and belief that all tranches of the Pinnacle Peak CDO I that

16

were rated AAA by S&P Ratings were rated Aaa by Moody’s, that Citigroup

17

Global Markets, Inc. served as the underwriter for the CDO, and that the “loss”

18

alleged in the Complaint relates to a credit line extended by Citibank to the CDO.

19

S&P otherwise denies the allegations in Paragraph 261(a). b.

20

S&P admits that S&P Ratings issued a letter on or about July 6, 2007

21

affirming, as of the effective date of June 15, 2007, the ratings it issued on March

22

29, 2007 for Charles Fort CDO I, Ltd., and refers to the full document for its

23

complete content. S&P avers that the ratings on Charles Fort CDO I were not

24

impacted by the CreditWatch or downgrades taken on RMBS in July 2007. S&P

25

avers upon information and belief that all tranches of the Charles Fort CDO I that

26

were rated AAA by S&P Ratings were rated Aaa by Moody’s, that the “loss”

27

alleged in the Complaint relates to a decision by WesCorp to take a write-off with

28

- 63 CORRECTED ANSWER CASE NO. CV13-00779 (DOC) 778956.01

Case 2:13-cv-00779-DOC-JCG Document 53 Filed 09/03/13 Page 64 of 72 Page ID #:1286

1

respect to the CDO, and that the NCUA found as part of its Material Loss Review

2

of WesCorp that the credit union’s management “implemented an aggressive

3

investment strategy with unreasonable limits in place . . . left WesCorp

4

increasingly vulnerable to significant credit risk, market risk, and liquidity risk

5

through the portfolio’s exposure to economic conditions in the residential sector.”

6

S&P otherwise denies the allegations in Paragraph 261(b). c.

7

S&P admits that S&P Ratings issued a rating letter for Pine Mountain

8

CDO III, Ltd. on or about July 11, 2007 and refers to the full document for its

9

complete content. S&P avers that the ratings on Pine Mountain CDO III were not

10

impacted by the CreditWatch or downgrades taken on RMBS in July 2007. S&P

11

avers upon information and belief that all tranches of Pine Mountain CDO III that

12

were rated AAA by S&P Ratings were rated Aaa by Moody’s. S&P otherwise

13

denies the allegations in Paragraph 261(c). d.

14

S&P admits that S&P Ratings issued a rating letter for Ballyrock ABS

15

CDO 2007-1 Limited on or about July 12, 2007 and refers to the full document for

16

its complete content. S&P avers that the ratings on Ballyrock ABS CDO 2007-1

17

were not impacted by the CreditWatch or downgrades taken on RMBS in July

18

2007. S&P avers upon information and belief that all tranches of the Ballyrock

19

ABS CDO 2007-1 that were rated AAA by S&P Ratings were rated Aaa by

20

Moody’s. S&P otherwise denies the allegations in Paragraph 261(d).

21

e.

S&P denies the allegations in Paragraph 261(e).

22

262. S&P admits that Paragraph 262 references the July 18 Press Release,

23 avers that the allegations are a selective paraphrase of the publication that do not 24 reflect its true content and are inaccurate, and avers that the July 18 Press Release 25 contains the following statement: “These guidelines are intended to increase levels 26 of credit support for new CDO transactions to help mitigate the impact of future 27 changes in the ratings on the underlying U.S. RMBS collateral and CDO collateral.” 28

- 64 CORRECTED ANSWER CASE NO. CV13-00779 (DOC) 778956.01

Case 2:13-cv-00779-DOC-JCG Document 53 Filed 09/03/13 Page 65 of 72 Page ID #:1287

1 S&P refers to the full publication for its complete content and otherwise denies the 2 allegations in Paragraph 262.

263. To the extent that Paragraph 263 purports to describe S&P Ratings’

3

4 criteria and methodologies in the connection with its analysis of structured finance 5 securities, S&P refers to its published criteria, including the July 18 Press Release, 6 for its complete content. S&P avers that the July 18 Press Release contains the 7 following statement: “[S&P Ratings] will continue to evaluate proposed 8 transactions on a case-by-case basis (including those that consist of a mix of the 9 Affected U.S. RMBS and CDO Collateral, and other types of collateral), taking into 10 consideration the proposed structure, collateral, and desired rating.” S&P otherwise 11 denies the allegations in Paragraph 263.

264. S&P admits that S&P Ratings issued a closing date rating letter for

12

13 Delphinus CDO 2007-1 on or about July 19, 2007 and refers to that document for 14 its complete content. S&P avers that on July 18, 2012 the SEC charged the 15 structurer of Delphinus CDO 2007-1 and three of its former employees with 16 misleading investors by providing false information about the collateral backing the 17 CDO to S&P in order to “inflate” S&P’s credit rating opinion. The SEC 18 specifically alleged, among other things, that the structurer and employees knew 19 that “if they had supplied S&P with the true asset portfolio on July 18, 2007, 20 Delphinus would not have received the necessary ratings and thus could not have 21 closed as planned.” S&P otherwise denies the allegations in Paragraph 264. 22

265. S&P denies the allegations in Paragraph 265.

23

266. S&P denies the allegations in Paragraph 266.

24

267. S&P admits that S&P Ratings issued press releases on October 15, 17

25 and 19, 2007 announcing ratings actions on certain RMBS securities and refers to 26 the full publications for their complete content. S&P denies knowledge or 27 information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the allegations 28

- 65 CORRECTED ANSWER CASE NO. CV13-00779 (DOC) 778956.01

Case 2:13-cv-00779-DOC-JCG Document 53 Filed 09/03/13 Page 66 of 72 Page ID #:1288

1 concerning the pricing of CDOs, and otherwise denies the allegations in Paragraph 2 267.

268. S&P admits that S&P Ratings issued press releases on October 15, 17

3

4 and 19, 2007 announcing ratings actions on certain RMBS securities and refers to 5 the full publications for their complete content. S&P otherwise denies the 6 allegations in Paragraph 268. 7

269. S&P denies the allegations in Paragraph 269.

8

270. S&P repeats and restates its responses set forth in Paragraphs 45

9 through 52, inclusive, as if fully set forth herein, incorporates herein its responses to 10 Paragraphs 5 and 6, and otherwise denies the allegations in Paragraph 270.

271. S&P repeats and restates its responses set forth in Paragraphs 123

11

12 through 269, inclusive, as if fully set forth herein, incorporates herein its response 13 to Paragraph 9, and otherwise denies the allegations in Paragraph 271.

272. S&P repeats and restates its responses set forth in Paragraphs 110

14

15 through 122, inclusive, as if fully set forth herein, incorporates herein its response 16 to Paragraph 9, and otherwise denies the allegations in Paragraph 272.

273. S&P repeats and restates its responses set forth in Paragraphs 91

17

18 through 95, inclusive, as if fully set forth herein, and otherwise denies the 19 allegations in Paragraph 273.

274. S&P repeats and restates its responses set forth in Paragraphs 200

20

21 through 269, inclusive, as if fully set forth herein, incorporates herein its response 22 to Paragraph 9, and otherwise denies the allegations in Paragraph 274.

275. S&P avers on information and belief that the “losses . . . in excess of

23

24 $5 billion” referenced in Paragraph 275 include more than $4.6 billion of losses 25 allegedly incurred by Bank of America and Citibank (or their affiliates) with respect 26 to CDOs (or related issuances) that they or their affiliates arranged, structured, 27 marketed and/or sold, and avers upon information and belief that some or all of the 28

- 66 CORRECTED ANSWER CASE NO. CV13-00779 (DOC) 778956.01

Case 2:13-cv-00779-DOC-JCG Document 53 Filed 09/03/13 Page 67 of 72 Page ID #:1289

1 losses alleged did not arise from “investment decisions” by these entities, but rather 2 from their roles as arranger, structurer, counterparty, or underwriter of the CDOs or 3 issuances related to the CDOs. S&P further avers upon information and belief that 4 more than $1 billion of the alleged losses relate to notes that were never issued. 5 S&P otherwise denies the allegations in Paragraph 275.

276. S&P repeats and restates its responses set forth in Paragraphs 110

6

7 through 275, inclusive, as if fully set forth herein and otherwise denies the 8 allegations in Paragraph 276. 9

277. S&P denies the allegations in Paragraph 277.

10

278. S&P denies the allegations in Paragraph 278.

11

279. S&P denies the allegations in Paragraph 279 and repeats and restates

12 its responses set forth in Paragraphs 1 through 278, inclusive, as if fully set forth 13 herein.

280. To the extent Paragraph 280 contains a legal conclusion, S&P makes

14

15 no response to those allegations, except admits that the Plaintiff purports to institute 16 proceedings pursuant to 12 U.S.C. § 1833a, and otherwise denies the allegations in 17 Paragraph 280.

281. S&P repeats and restates its responses set forth in Paragraphs 1

18

19 through 278, inclusive, as if fully set forth herein.

282. To the extent Paragraph 282 contains a legal conclusion, S&P makes

20

21 no response to those allegations, except admits that the Plaintiff purports to institute 22 proceedings pursuant to 12 U.S.C. § 1833a, and otherwise denies the allegations in 23 Paragraph 282.

283. S&P repeats and restates its responses set forth in Paragraphs 1

24

25 through 278, inclusive, as if fully set forth herein.

284. To the extent Paragraph 284 contains a legal conclusion, S&P makes

26

27 no response to those allegations, except admits that the Plaintiff purports to institute 28

- 67 CORRECTED ANSWER CASE NO. CV13-00779 (DOC) 778956.01

Case 2:13-cv-00779-DOC-JCG Document 53 Filed 09/03/13 Page 68 of 72 Page ID #:1290

1 proceedings pursuant to 12 U.S.C. § 1833a, and otherwise denies the allegations in 2 Paragraph 284.

285. S&P repeats and restates its responses set forth in Paragraphs 1

3

4 through 278, inclusive, as if fully set forth herein.

286. To the extent Paragraph 286 contains a legal conclusion, S&P makes

5

6 no response to those allegations, except admits that the Plaintiff purports to institute 7 proceedings pursuant to 12 U.S.C. § 1833a, and otherwise denies the allegations in 8 Paragraph 286.

DEFENSES

9 10

Defendants assert the following Defenses in response to the allegations set

11

forth in the Complaint. Defendants reserve the right to amend this Answer, to

12

amend, modify and/or supplement its Defenses, and to plead and assert additional

13

Defenses as they become known and appropriate during the course of the litigation.

14

The statement of any Defense does not assume the burden of proof on any issue as

15

to which applicable law places the burden on Plaintiff. To the extent that any of

16

the Defenses asserted herein or to be asserted in the future is mutually exclusive

17

with another Defense asserted herein or to be asserted in the future, such Defense

18

is asserted in the alternative to the other.

19

FIRST DEFENSE

20 21

Defendants are not liable because the statements challenged in the Complaint were not false or misleading.

22

SECOND DEFENSE

23 24

Defendants are not liable because any actions they took with respect to the matters alleged in the Complaint were taken in good faith.

25

THIRD DEFENSE

26

Defendants are not liable because they did not possess the intent required to

27 28

establish the violations alleged. - 68 CORRECTED ANSWER CASE NO. CV13-00779 (DOC) 778956.01

Case 2:13-cv-00779-DOC-JCG Document 53 Filed 09/03/13 Page 69 of 72 Page ID #:1291

FOURTH DEFENSE

1

Defendants are not liable because the financial institutions referenced in the

2 3 4

Complaint did not act in reliance on any of the statements challenged in the Complaint. FIFTH DEFENSE

5

Defendants are not liable because the statements challenged in the

6 7

Complaint were not material.

8

SIXTH DEFENSE Defendants are not liable, in whole or in part, because the “bespeaks

9 10

caution” doctrine applies to the forward-looking statements challenged in the

11

Complaint.

12

SEVENTH DEFENSE

13 14

Defendants are not liable, in whole or in part, because the alleged damage, injury, or loss, if any, is a result of the comparative fault of third parties.

15

EIGHTH DEFENSE

16 17 18 19

Defendants are not liable, in whole or in part, because the financial institutions referenced in the Complaint, and/or their regulators or administrators, failed to use reasonable care to prevent or diminish any alleged damage, injury or loss.

20

NINTH DEFENSE

21

Defendants are not liable, in whole or in part, because their alleged acts and 22

omissions were not the proximate cause of any damage, loss, injury or gain to any 23

financial institution referenced in the Complaint and the conduct of persons or 24

entities other than Defendants was superseding or intervening cause of any alleged 25

damage, loss, injury or gain. 26

TENTH DEFENSE

27

Defendants are not liable because the financial institutions referenced in the

28

- 69 CORRECTED ANSWER CASE NO. CV13-00779 (DOC) 778956.01

Case 2:13-cv-00779-DOC-JCG Document 53 Filed 09/03/13 Page 70 of 72 Page ID #:1292

1

Complaint had actual knowledge of all or some of the facts allegedly

2

misrepresented. In many cases, the financial institutions referenced in the

3

complaint themselves acted as originator, arranger, warehouse facility, structurer,

4

sponsor, counterparty, lender, underwriter and/or marketer of the CDOs and/or

5

RMBS at issue.

6

ELEVENTH DEFENSE

7

Plaintiff commenced this action in retaliation for Defendants’ exercise of

8

their free speech rights with respect to the creditworthiness of the United States of

9

America. Such free speech is protected under the First Amendment to the United

10

States Constitution and the retaliation, causing and embodied in the

11

commencement of this impermissibly selective, punitive and meritless litigation, is

12

unconstitutional. Only S&P Ratings downgraded the United States and only S&P

13

Ratings has been sued by the United States, even though the S&P ratings

14

challenged by the United States were no different than those of at least one other

15

rating agency and other rating agencies have made the same assertions of

16

“independence” that are challenged in the Complaint as against S&P.

17

TWELFTH DEFENSE

18 19 20

Plaintiff does not have standing to bring a FIRREA claim for violations of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341 or 1343 because no federally-insured financial institution was affected by any such violation within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 1833a.

21

THIRTEENTH DEFENSE

22 23

Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

24

FOURTEENTH DEFENSE

25

Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, because the damage, loss,

26 27 28

injury or gain alleged did not result from any violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341, 1343 or 1344. - 70 CORRECTED ANSWER CASE NO. CV13-00779 (DOC) 778956.01

Case 2:13-cv-00779-DOC-JCG Document 53 Filed 09/03/13 Page 71 of 72 Page ID #:1293

FIFTEENTH DEFENSE

1

Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, because the financial

2 3 4

institutions described in the Complaint have recovered, in whole or in part, on their damages, injuries and/or losses. SIXTEENTH DEFENSE

5

Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrine of

6 7

ratification to the extent that the financial institutions referenced in the Complaint,

8

and/or their regulators or administrators, have continued to use S&P’s ratings

9

services after first learning of the information that forms the basis for the

10

allegations in the Complaint.

11

SEVENTEENTH DEFENSE Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, based upon the doctrine of

12 13

unclean hands on the part of those allegedly “affected” by the alleged scheme.

14

EIGHTEENTH DEFENSE

15 16

Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, based upon the doctrine of assumption of risk by those allegedly “affected” by the alleged scheme.

17

NINETEENTH DEFENSE

18 19 20

Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, because an award of the civil penalties sought by the Plaintiff would violate the Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution.

21

WHEREFORE, Defendants respectfully request that a final judgment be

22 23

entered in their favor dismissing the Complaint with prejudice; awarding

24

Defendants the reasonable costs of this action, including reasonable attorneys’

25

fees; and granting Defendants such other and further relief as the Court deems just

26

and proper.

27 28

- 71 CORRECTED ANSWER CASE NO. CV13-00779 (DOC) 778956.01

Case 2:13-cv-00779-DOC-JCG Document 53 Filed 09/03/13 Page 72 of 72 Page ID #:1294

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

1 2 3

Defendants hereby demand a jury trial. Dated: September 3, 2013

KEKER & VAN NEST LLP

4 5

By: /s/ John W. Keker John W. Keker

6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

- 72 CORRECTED ANSWER CASE NO. CV13-00779 (DOC) 778956.01