Exhibit,Appendix: Hsbc Bank Usa, National Association, In Its Capacity As Trustee Of Nomura Home Equity Loan, Inc., Asset Backed Certificates, Series 2007-2 v. Nomura Credit & Capital, Inc.

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

						
                                
Preview
                                FILED:         NEW     YORK       COUNTY        CLERK        08/04/2022             06:34        PM                 INDEX    NO.   650337/2013
   NYSCEF     DOC.   NO.   2197                                                                               RECEIVED      NYSCEF:     08/04/2022




                                            EXHIBIT                                            111
   FILED:         NEW     YORK       COUNTY        CLERK        08/04/2022             06:34        PM                 INDEX    NO.   650337/2013
   NYSCEF     DOC.   NO.   2197                                                                               RECEIVED      NYSCEF:     08/04/2022

                                                                 September 16, 2020

                  VIA EMAIL

                  Amianna Stovall
                  Constantine Cannon LLP
                  335 Madison Avenue
                  New York, New York 10017

                  Re:      Nomura’s Responses to the Servicers’ Contention Interrogatories Regarding Third-
                           Party Failure to Notify Claims

                  Dear Amianna:

                           We write on behalf of Ocwen and Wells Fargo (the “Servicers”) to memorialize the
                  parties’ September 2, 2020 meet and confer call and request that Nomura revise its August 12,
                  2020 supplemental responses to the Servicers’ contention interrogatories so that they are
                  consistent with both the representations you made during our call and the Special Master’s May
                  28, 2020 Order (the “Order”).        For the reasons stated in our August 28, 2020 letter and during
                  our call, Nomura’s August 12 responses do not comply with the Order.                   However, if Nomura is
                  willing to revise and supplement its responses as described further below or in a substantially
                  similar manner, we can avoid further motion practice before the Special Master.

                           There is no dispute that to prevail on its failure to notify (“FTN”) claims against the
                  Servicers, Nomura must, among other things, prove an R&W breach and “discovery” of that
                  breach by Ocwen and Wells Fargo on a loan-by-loan basis.                Based on your statements during our
                  call, the Servicers understand that Nomura intends to rely on the following evidence to
                  demonstrate an R&W breach and “discovery” at the summary judgment and, if necessary, the
                  trial phases of this action.

                           First, to show existence of a R&W breach, we understand that Nomura intends to rely
                  solely on the Trustee’s re-underwriting experts’ narrative explanations as to each loan listed in
                  Nomura’s August 12 supplemental responses.

                           Second, to show loan-level “discovery” of those material R&W breaches by Ocwen
                  and/or Wells Fargo, we understand that Nomura intends to rely upon two categories of evidence,
                  in addition to the previously-referenced narrative explanations:             (1) the documents produced by
                  Ocwen and/or Wells Fargo that the Trustee’s re-underwriting experts specifically identify by
                  Bates number in their reports as part of establishing the existence of material R&W breaches;
                  and (2) for a limited number of loans, the borrowers’ “bankruptcy filing[s]” in bankruptcy
                  proceedings identified by their case numbers.           You represented that there was no third category
                  of evidence upon which Nomura intends to rely at summary judgment or trial.                    That said, we
                  understand that you have reserved Nomura’s right to rely upon additional documents
                  subsequently identified by the Trustee’s re-underwriting experts to further support the Trustee’s
                  claims. 1

                           In light of your representations that Nomura intends to rely on specific information listed
                  in the Trustee’s re-underwriting reports or specific bankruptcy filings, we believe that the parties
                           1
                            The Servicers don’t agree that the Trustee has the right to amend its re-underwriting reports to add
                  additional cited evidence at this time.We understand Nomura’s position is the same.
   FILED:         NEW     YORK       COUNTY        CLERK        08/04/2022             06:34        PM                 INDEX    NO.   650337/2013
   NYSCEF     DOC.   NO.   2197                                                                               RECEIVED      NYSCEF:     08/04/2022
                  Amianna Stovall
                  September 16, 2020
                  Page 2


                  are close to resolution, and can avoid further motion practice.            To that end, we propose that
                  Nomura serve revised, formal interrogatory responses consistent with the representations that
                  you made to the Servicers during our call.

                           More specifically, we propose that Nomura serve sworn interrogatory responses that
                  eliminate language, that, in our view, is vague (such as “post-closing documents”) or implies that
                  Nomura intends to rely upon information not included or cited in the Trustee’s experts’ reports
                  (such as “see, e.g.,” and “including, without limitation”).           We further propose that Nomura list
                  the specific information cited by the Trustee’s expert witnesses that Nomura intends to rely
                  upon.   In Appendix A to this letter, we have provided a proposed disclosure for an exemplar
                  loan, derived from the Trustee’s re-underwriting report, that we believe is consistent with both
                  the your representations during the parties’ September 2 call and the Order.                We ask that Nomura
                  prepare similar disclosures for each loan listed in its August 12 supplements.

                           With regard to the second category of documents Nomura intends to rely upon, i.e.,
                  borrowers’ “bankruptcy filing[s]” in bankruptcy proceedings that Nomura identifies by their case
                  numbers, the Servicers propose that Nomura identify the specific filing that Nomura intends to
                  rely upon, the page number of that filing, and to the extent Nomura intends to rely upon a
                  narrative, to provide a narrative explaining when and how Nomura contends (as based on the
                  filing) that the Servicers discovered the R&W breach at issue.

                           Finally, as you know, Nomura’s August 12 supplemental responses significantly reduce
                  the number of loans at issue for Nomura’s FTN claims.               In your June 16, 2020 e-mail, Nomura
                  represented that it would update its damages expert reports by August 31, 2020 “so as to reflect
                  the updated loan count involved in the prompt notice analysis.”              As we understand from our
                  September 2 call, Nomura no longer intends to update those reports, at least in part because
                  Nomura believes the damages amounts reflected in those reports will change based on what
                  loans are found to be breaching at trial.

                           Nomura’s position is inconsistent with the guidance the Special Master provided in the
                  Order.   Just as the Special Master required Nomura to disclose “more granular analysis related to
                  the Servicers’ purported knowledge of the alleged loan-level material breaches[,]” to the extent
                  Nomura intends to present such information at summary judgment or trial, so too must Nomura
                  disclose the expert testimony it intends to offer concerning the quantum of the resulting
                  damages.     Nomura cannot disclose one calculation of its alleged damages, based on one set of
                  loans, in its damages reports and then subsequently present a different calculation of damages,
                  based on a much smaller—but currently known—set of loans at summary judgment or trial.

                           Moreover, Nomura’s position is also inconsistent with its ongoing obligation to revise the
                  damages disclosures associated with its FTN claims to accurately reflect the fact that it has
                  narrowed its claims by excluding hundreds of loans previously at issue.                See CLPR §3101(h).
                  The discovery rules and fundamental principles of fair play require that Nomura disclose the
                  quantum of damages it claims it actually suffered, as opposed to the now clearly inflated
                  numbers in its damages reports.

                           The fact that Nomura believes that its calculation of damages may change as a result of
                  future court rulings does not excuse its obligation to provide timely disclosures.               Indeed, there is
   FILED:         NEW     YORK       COUNTY        CLERK        08/04/2022             06:34        PM                 INDEX    NO.   650337/2013
   NYSCEF     DOC.   NO.   2197                                                                               RECEIVED      NYSCEF:     08/04/2022
                  Amianna Stovall
                  September 16, 2020
                  Page 3


                  an obvious difference between damages figures that may change based on who wins future court
                  rulings or at trial and damages figures that have actually changed based on a plaintiff’s decision
                  to narrow its own case.      Accordingly, we ask that Nomura update its damages expert reports
                  consistent with its June 16 representation that it would do so.

                                                                   *        *        *

                           Sincerely,

                            /s/ Jeffrey Baltruzak                                      /s/ Stan Chelney

                            Jeffrey Baltruzak                                          Stan Chelney
                            Jones Day                                                  Chelney Law Group PLLC
                            Counsel for Third Party Defendant                          Counsel for Third Party Defendant
                            Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.                                     Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC

                  cc:      Counsel of record
   FILED:         NEW     YORK       COUNTY        CLERK        08/04/2022             06:34        PM                                                                                                                    INDEX    NO.   650337/2013
   NYSCEF     DOC.   NO.   2197                                                                                                                                                                                  RECEIVED      NYSCEF:     08/04/2022



                                                                                                                   NHELI 2007-2 Trust
                                                                                                                                                                      Evidence of "How" and "When" of Discovery by Ocwen and/or Wells
             Loan No.           Alleged R&W Breach (Per Payne Revised Appendix A)
                                                                                                                                                                      Fargo that Nomura Intends to Rely Upon at Trial

                                Nomura represented and warranted that no fraud had taken place on the part of the borrower or any other party involved in the origination or servicing of
                                the mortgage loan.

                                Nomura also represented and warranted that there was no default, breach, violation event or event of acceleration existing under the mortgage or the
                                related mortgage note, and that there was no event which, with the passage of time and the expiration of any grace or cure period, would constitute the
                                same, and that neither Nomura nor its predecessors had waived the same.

                                Under the terms of the mortgage, it is a default, breach, violation event or acceleration event if the borrower at any time engages in any fraud or material
                                                                                                                                                                      OCW_NLI2_003091416,OCW_NLI2_003091417
                                misrepresentation in connection with the mortgage loan, including in any loan application.
                                                                                                                And as part of the loan application, the borrower was
                     171476037                                                                                                                                        OCW_NLI2_003091498
                                required to state her employment.
                                                                                                                                                                      OCW_NLI2_003091138
                                Here, the loan application indicated the borrower had been employed with Royal’s Inc., as a Maintenance Supervisor, for 9.42 years earning $5,225.00
                                per month.

                                However, the following facts support the conclusion the borrower misrepresented the employment stated on the loan application:

                                The borrower filed a Chapter 7 Bankruptcy Petition on 12/31/2010 with the U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Southern District of Florida. The Schedule I –
                                Current Income reflected the borrower had been a Receptionist for 18 years and not a Maintenance Supervisor.




             Appendix A                                                                                                                                                                                                                 2007-2
   FILED:         NEW     YORK       COUNTY        CLERK        08/04/2022             06:34        PM                                                                                                                    INDEX    NO.   650337/2013
   NYSCEF     DOC.   NO.   2197                                                                                                                                                                                  RECEIVED      NYSCEF:     08/04/2022


                                                                                                                                                                      Evidence of "How" and "When" of Discovery by Ocwen and/or Wells
             Loan No.           Alleged R&W Breach (Per Payne Revised Appendix A)
                                                                                                                                                                      Fargo that Nomura Intends to Rely Upon at Trial


                                Nomura represented and warranted that no fraud had taken place on the part of the borrower or any other party involved in the origination or servicing of
                                the mortgage loan.

                                Nomura also represented and warranted that there was no default, breach, violation event or event of acceleration existing under the mortgage or the
                                related mortgage note, and that there was no event which, with the passage of time and the expiration of any grace or cure period, would constitute the
                                same, and that neither Nomura nor its predecessors had waived the same.

                                Under the terms of the mortgage, it is a default, breach, violation event or acceleration event if the borrower at any time engages in any fraud or material
                                misrepresentation in connection with the mortgage loan, including in any loan application.
                                                                                                                And as part of the loan application, the borrower was
                                required to submit information regarding her income.
                                                                                                                                                                      OCW_NLI2_003091416, OCW_NLI2_003091417
                                                                                                                                                                      OCW_NLI2_003091498
                                Here, the loan application indicated the borrower was employed with Royal’s Inc., as a Maintenance Supervisor, for 9.42 years earning $5,225.00 per
                     171476037                                                                                                                                        OCW_NLI2_003091138
                                month.
                                                                                                                                                                      OCW_NLI2_003091469,OCW_NLI2_003091470,OCW_NLI2_003091472
                                The following facts support the conclusion that the borrower misrepresented the disclosed income:

                                The borrower filed a Chapter 7 Bankruptcy Petition on 12/31/2010 with the U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Southern District of Florida.
                                                                                                                                                  The Statement of
                                Financial Affairs, paragraph 1, and 2008 W-2 form reflected a total of $19,622.16 in annual income, or $1,635.18 per month in 2008.

                                It is unlikely that the borrower’s income would have decreased considering the borrower was employed with the same employer in the same line of work
                                for 12 years.

                                Additionally, the DTI ratio listed in the loan file was 49.80%. A recalculation of the DTI ratio based on the borrower’s verified income yields a DTI ratio
                                of 116.25%, which exceeds the guideline maximum of 55.00%.




             Appendix A                                                                                                                                                                                                                 2007-2