Preview
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 08/04/2022 07:39 PM INDEX NO. 650337/2013
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 2346 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/04/2022
Exhibit 2
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 08/04/2022 07:39 PM INDEX NO. 650337/2013
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 2346 Nancy Prahofer Confidential RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/04/2022
02/26/2018 5
·1· · · · · ·- NANCY PRAHOFER - CONFIDENTIAL -
·2· ·(Cont'd)
· · ·----------------------------------- X
·3· ·NOMURA HOME EQUITY LOAN, INC., HOME
· · ·EQUITY LOAN TRUST, SERIES 2007-2, by
·4· ·HSBC Bank USA, National Association,
· · ·as Trustee,
·5· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·Index No.
· · · · · · · · · · Plaintiff,· · · · · · ·650337/2013
·6
· · · · · - against -
·7
· · ·NOMURA CREDIT & CAPITAL, INC.,
·8
· · · · · · · · · · Defendant,
·9· ·----------------------------------- x
· · ·NOMURA CREDIT & CAPITAL, INC.,
10
· · · · · · · · · Third-Party Plaintiff,
11
· · · · · - against -
12
· · ·WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. and OCWEN LOAN
13· ·SERVICING, LLC,
14· · · · · · · · Third-Party Defendants.
· · ·----------------------------------- X
15· ·(Caption Cont'd)
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT
(877) 479-2484
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 08/04/2022 07:39 PM INDEX NO. 650337/2013
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 2346 Nancy Prahofer Confidential RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/04/2022
02/27/2018 290
·1· · · · · ·-· NANCY PRAHOFER - CONFIDENTIAL -
·2· ·(Cont'd)
· · ·----------------------------------- X
·3· ·NOMURA HOME EQUITY LOAN, INC., HOME
· · ·EQUITY LOAN TRUST, SERIES 2007-2, by
·4· ·HSBC Bank USA, National Association,
· · ·as Trustee,
·5· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·Index No.
· · · · · · · · · · Plaintiff,· · · · · · ·650337/2013
·6
· · · · · - against -
·7
· · ·NOMURA CREDIT & CAPITAL, INC.,
·8
· · · · · · · · · · Defendant,
·9· ·----------------------------------- x
· · ·NOMURA CREDIT & CAPITAL, INC.,
10
· · · · · · · · · Third-Party Plaintiff,
11
· · · · · - against -
12
· · ·WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. and OCWEN LOAN
13· ·SERVICING, LLC,
14· · · · · · · · Third-Party Defendants.
· · ·----------------------------------- X
15· ·(Caption Cont'd)
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT
(877) 479-2484
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 08/04/2022 07:39 PM INDEX NO. 650337/2013
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 2346 Nancy Prahofer Confidential RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/04/2022
02/26/2018 262 to 265
Page 262 Page 264
·1· · · · · ·- NANCY PRAHOFER - CONFIDENTIAL - ·1· · · · · ·- NANCY PRAHOFER - CONFIDENTIAL -
·2· ·their colleagues' previous work. ·2· · · · · · · ·MR. CHERNOV:· Objection.
·3· · · · · · · ·So it was sometimes problematic to ·3· · · · A.· · ·A mere indication, no.· We might ask
·4· ·get someone who was coming right out of a place ·4· ·for further evidence.
·5· ·that had underwritten loans that were now subject ·5· · · · Q.· · ·What sort of further evidence might
·6· ·to the same kinds of claims and expecting those ·6· ·you ask for?
·7· ·people to respond to those claims. ·7· · · · A.· · ·Something to back up a bare
·8· · · · Q.· · ·Did Nomura consider not retaining AMC ·8· ·assertion.
·9· ·for that reason? ·9· · · · Q.· · ·Well, you testified that fraud was,
10· · · · A.· · ·Yes. 10· ·or is, a material misstatement made with scienter,
11· · · · Q.· · ·And ultimately, what was Nomura's 11· ·intended to induce the lender to lend, do you
12· ·decision? 12· ·recall that?
13· · · · A.· · ·That we would give them a try. 13· · · · A.· · ·I do.
14· · · · Q.· · ·And did you find that they were 14· · · · Q.· · ·So was it the case that Nomura
15· ·ineffective at their job? 15· ·required concrete evidence of -- withdrawn.
16· · · · A.· · ·Ineffective may be an overstatement. 16· · · · · · · ·Was it the case that Nomura required
17· · · · Q.· · ·Did Nomura terminate AMC from 17· ·concrete evidence to meet that standard in order
18· ·performing the function that it was performing? 18· ·to discover borrower fraud?
19· · · · · · · ·MR. CHERNOV:· Objection. 19· · · · · · · ·MR. CHERNOV:· Objection.
20· · · · A.· · ·It wasn't a question of termination. 20· · · · A.· · ·No.· I think we saw from some of the
21· ·We just didn't hire them for subsequent 21· ·claims that we went over, if the claimant
22· ·assignments. 22· ·established that there was a material
23· · · · Q.· · ·With respect to the Atrius Group, 23· ·misrepresentation, we certainly took further steps
24· ·though, Nomura did hire The Atrius Group for 24· ·at that point.
25· ·subsequent assignments? 25· · · · Q.· · ·You said you took further steps.
Page 263 Page 265
·1· · · · · ·- NANCY PRAHOFER - CONFIDENTIAL - ·1· · · · · ·- NANCY PRAHOFER - CONFIDENTIAL -
·2· · · · A.· · ·Yes. ·2· ·Prior to taking the further steps, did Nomura
·3· · · · Q.· · ·You didn't have the same kind of ·3· ·discover that there was a breach with respect to
·4· ·concerns with respect to the Atrius Group? ·4· ·that loan?
·5· · · · A.· · ·Mr. Scampoli had been working for us ·5· · · · A.· · ·We took --
·6· ·during the relevant period.· So, no, I didn't have ·6· · · · · · · ·MR. CHERNOV:· Objection.
·7· ·the same concern. ·7· · · · A.· · ·We took the position in those where
·8· · · · Q.· · ·The mere fact that there was an ·8· ·there was an established material
·9· ·allegation that a breach had occurred, was that ·9· ·misrepresentation, and I don't know now what the
10· ·sufficient for Nomura to determine that it had 10· ·claim consisted of, but we acknowledged that there
11· ·discovered that a material and adverse breach had 11· ·appeared to be a breach, yeah.
12· ·taken place? 12· · · · Q.· · ·You testified that Nomura took
13· · · · · · · ·MR. CHERNOV:· Objection. 13· ·certain steps to verify the misrepresentation; is
14· · · · A.· · ·No. 14· ·that right?
15· · · · Q.· · ·And why is that? 15· · · · A.· · ·In some cases.
16· · · · · · · ·MR. CHERNOV:· Objection. 16· · · · Q.· · ·I'm asking you about the period prior
17· · · · A.· · ·As you noted, I said earlier anyone 17· ·to taking those steps.· So after there was the
18· ·can lob in an allegation that has no factual 18· ·allegation but before you took the steps to verify
19· ·underpinning and could be false, could be 19· ·it.· Do you understand?
20· ·frivolous.· It doesn't constitute discovery of a 20· · · · · · · ·MR. CHERNOV:· Can you rephrase the
21· ·breach. 21· · · · question, Stan.· I think I lost it.
22· · · · Q.· · ·So if there was an indication of 22· · · · · · · ·MR. CHELNEY:· Sure.
23· ·potential borrower fraud, did that mean that 23· · · · A.· · ·Yeah, maybe not.
24· ·Nomura had discovered a material and adverse 24· · · · Q.· · ·At the time that Nomura received an
25· ·breach? 25· ·allegation of borrower fraud, had Nomura
U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT
(877) 479-2484 YVer1f
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 08/04/2022 07:39 PM INDEX NO. 650337/2013
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 2346 Nancy Prahofer Confidential RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/04/2022
02/26/2018 270 to 273
Page 270 Page 272
·1· · · · · ·- NANCY PRAHOFER - CONFIDENTIAL - ·1· · · · · ·- NANCY PRAHOFER - CONFIDENTIAL -
·2· ·subsequent valuation, did Nomura need evidence ·2· ·debts, would Nomura then make the further
·3· ·that the appraiser who performed the original ·3· ·determination as to whether they were of a
·4· ·appraisal did not believe the appraisal to be ·4· ·material and adverse effect?
·5· ·accurate at the time that it was made? ·5· · · · A.· · ·Whether the -- whether the breach
·6· · · · · · · ·MR. CHERNOV:· Objection. ·6· ·was -- yes, was of material and adverse effect,
·7· · · · A.· · ·In addition to evidence that it was ·7· ·yes.
·8· ·objectively unreasonable, yes. ·8· · · · Q.· · ·What about with respect to the change
·9· · · · Q.· · ·So you would need both? ·9· ·in income, would Nomura need to make the
10· · · · A.· · ·Yes. 10· ·determination that that breach had a material and
11· · · · Q.· · ·And then you would need to make the 11· ·adverse effect?
12· ·determination that the discrepancy was material 12· · · · A.· · ·With respect to DTI, that's two
13· ·and adverse; is that correct? 13· ·pieces of the -- it's the same thing.· It wouldn't
14· · · · A.· · ·Correct. 14· ·matter if one of them was off by a substantial
15· · · · Q.· · ·How about if Nomura was presented 15· ·amount in the wrong direction, the number's going
16· ·with the indication that a particular value with 16· ·to be off by a substantial amount in the wrong
17· ·respect to a loan such as a DTI or a CLTV was 17· ·direction.
18· ·different than what was reflected at the time of 18· · · · Q.· · ·So what you're saying is that
19· ·the origination of the loan, would that 19· ·presentation to Nomura of a ratio that is alleged
20· ·presentation lead Nomura to conclude that it had 20· ·to be incorrect does not lead necessarily to the
21· ·discovered a breach of a representation and 21· ·conclusion by Nomura that a breach has occurred?
22· ·warranty? 22· · · · · · · ·MR. CHERNOV:· Objection.
23· · · · · · · ·MR. CHERNOV:· Objection. 23· · · · A.· · ·Absent some evidence to support that,
24· · · · A.· · ·I don't know what you mean by an 24· ·that's right.
25· ·"indication," but assuming it's something short of 25· · · · Q.· · ·And what kind of evidence would need
Page 271 Page 273
·1· · · · · ·- NANCY PRAHOFER - CONFIDENTIAL - ·1· · · · · ·- NANCY PRAHOFER - CONFIDENTIAL -
·2· ·any evidence, with respect to a DTI, it would not; ·2· ·to support that?
·3· ·and a CLTV turns on the appraisal question we just ·3· · · · · · · ·MR. CHERNOV:· Objection.
·4· ·discussed. ·4· · · · A.· · ·With respect to income, I think we
·5· · · · Q.· · ·To clarify, what I was asking about ·5· ·talked earlier of subsequent bankruptcy filing,
·6· ·was a circumstance where Nomura's presented with a ·6· ·some sort of a litigation document.
·7· ·claim, where the claimant states that a metric ·7· · · · · · · ·With respect to undisclosed debts,
·8· ·relating to a specific loan such as DTI is ·8· ·some kinds of -- some kinds of credit reports,
·9· ·different than what was in the origination file. ·9· ·although it's -- it's unclear whether that would
10· · · · · · · ·Do you understand the circumstance 10· ·always be the case, but a credit report could
11· ·I'm proposing? 11· ·disclose a previously undisclosed debt.
12· · · · A.· · ·That is a factual matter that DTI 12· · · · Q.· · ·Isn't it true that just because a
13· ·that was in the file is just not right? 13· ·borrower makes a statement in a bankruptcy filing
14· · · · Q.· · ·Correct. 14· ·that may differ from what the borrower had stated
15· · · · A.· · ·And what would be the evidence 15· ·at origination, that that discrepancy alone does
16· ·submitted with that to make that allegation? 16· ·not lead Nomura to conclude that a breach has
17· · · · Q.· · ·Well, does the allegation alone lead 17· ·occurred?
18· ·Nomura to conclude that discovery of a breach has 18· · · · · · · ·MR. CHERNOV:· Objection.
19· ·occurred? 19· · · · A.· · ·It's necessary but not sufficient, is
20· · · · A.· · ·No. 20· ·that what you're asking?
21· · · · Q.· · ·So what would need to be presented to 21· · · · Q.· · ·Right.· So in what way is it not
22· ·Nomura for Nomura to reach that conclusion? 22· ·sufficient?
23· · · · A.· · ·Evidence of undisclosed debts and/or 23· · · · A.· · ·It might be sufficient, it might not
24· ·evidence of difference in income. 24· ·be sufficient.· It might not be a material
25· · · · Q.· · ·And with respect to undisclosed 25· ·difference.· There might be some indication that
U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT
(877) 479-2484 YVer1f
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 08/04/2022 07:39 PM INDEX NO. 650337/2013
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 2346 Nancy Prahofer Confidential RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/04/2022
02/27/2018 307 to 310
Page 307 Page 309
·1· · · · · ·-· NANCY PRAHOFER - CONFIDENTIAL - ·1· · · · · ·-· NANCY PRAHOFER - CONFIDENTIAL -
·2· ·"Substantively, the described basis for the ·2· ·you're not looking at what was submitted and is
·3· ·potential fraud isn't sufficient.· First, the ·3· ·being responded to, but it appears that this was
·4· ·claim relies solely on unproven allegations." ·4· ·inadequate to establish any attempt by the
·5· · · · · · · ·Do you see that? ·5· ·borrower to defraud the lender.
·6· · · · A.· · ·Yes. ·6· · · · Q.· · ·Right.· Now I think you testified
·7· · · · Q.· · ·And was it Nomura's view that a claim ·7· ·yesterday that in certain cases there were
·8· ·relying on unproven allegations was insufficient ·8· ·numerous bases for a potential repurchase provided
·9· ·to establish discovery by Nomura of a breached rep ·9· ·to Nomura; is that right?
10· ·and warranty? 10· · · · A.· · ·I don't recall that but -- sometimes
11· · · · · · · ·MR. CHERNOV:· Objection. 11· ·there are.
12· · · · A.· · ·Clearly with respect to this loan and 12· · · · Q.· · ·Well, if Nomura rejects -- withdrawn.
13· ·more generally, yes, a bare allegation with 13· · · · · · · ·What you're testifying to is that may
14· ·nothing supporting it, we would not find to be 14· ·have been the case here when you say, "I'm not
15· ·discovery. 15· ·sure that's the only basis for rejection."
16· · · · Q.· · ·And here, in this instance, it's not 16· · · · · · · ·MR. CHERNOV:· Objection.
17· ·that nothing was presented as support, but rather 17· · · · A.· · ·The intent element, I don't know what
18· ·unproven allegations, correct? 18· ·this was.· It seems that they provided a mortgage
19· · · · A.· · ·Well, no -- 19· ·document and I'm not sure what the mortgage
20· · · · · · · ·MR. CHERNOV:· Objection. 20· ·document was, how material it was to the
21· · · · A.· · ·-- it says -- I'm sorry. 21· ·borrower's financial situation, whether it was
22· · · · · · · ·It says that none of the allegations 22· ·subsequently discharged.· This is only one side of
23· ·relate to any party to the origination of the 23· ·the conversation, so to speak, and I don't see
24· ·loan.· So it's sort of beyond just that they're 24· ·what was submitted.
25· ·allegations, they're allegations that don't even 25· · · · Q.· · ·Right.· Nomura's rejection states,
Page 308 Page 310
·1· · · · · ·-· NANCY PRAHOFER - CONFIDENTIAL - ·1· · · · · ·-· NANCY PRAHOFER - CONFIDENTIAL -
·2· ·concern the parties to the loan. ·2· ·"In this case the only documents provided were the
·3· · · · Q.· · ·So Nomura would require proof of the ·3· ·mortgage documents related to the debt that was
·4· ·fraud in this instance? ·4· ·allegedly undisclosed at the time the subject loan
·5· · · · · · · ·MR. CHERNOV:· Objection. ·5· ·was originated.· Merely providing a copy of the
·6· · · · A.· · ·I think we discussed yesterday Nomura ·6· ·allegedly undisclosed mortgage documents is not
·7· ·would require some sort of evidence strongly ·7· ·enough to support a claim that the borrower
·8· ·suggesting that there had been a fraud, and ·8· ·intended to commit fraud."
·9· ·clearly with respect to this loan, whatever was ·9· · · · · · · ·Do you see that?
10· ·submitted did not constitute that at all. 10· · · · A.· · ·I do.
11· · · · Q.· · ·Could you look at the page ending in 11· · · · Q.· · ·So Nomura's position here is that the
12· ·7006.· With respect to this loan, the document 12· ·evidence of the undisclosed mortgage is not
13· ·states, "The documentation provided as support for 13· ·sufficient to show that the borrower actually
14· ·the claim does not provide evidence of each of the 14· ·intended to commit fraud; is that right?
15· ·legal elements of fraud.· By way of example, 15· · · · · · · ·MR. CHERNOV:· Objection.
16· ·intent is a necessary element that must be proven 16· · · · A.· · ·That's what this says about whatever
17· ·in a fraud claim." 17· ·was submitted.
18· · · · · · · ·Do you see that? 18· · · · Q.· · ·And that's the position Nomura took,
19· · · · A.· · ·I see that. 19· ·at least in part to deny this claim, correct?
20· · · · Q.· · ·And so is this an instance where 20· · · · A.· · ·On the basis of the original
21· ·Nomura is rejecting a claim on the basis that 21· ·submission.· I don't know whether the -- whether
22· ·proof of a borrower's intent to defraud was absent 22· ·the servicer came back with a rebuttal document,
23· ·from the claim? 23· ·which was common for some people making claims was
24· · · · A.· · ·I'm not sure that that's the only 24· ·to see our response and provide a rebuttal with
25· ·basis for the rejection.· It's hard to know when 25· ·additional documentation.
U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT
(877) 479-2484 YVer1f
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 08/04/2022 07:39 PM INDEX NO. 650337/2013
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 2346 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/04/2022
ERRATA SHEET
NAMES OF CASES:
• Nomura Asset Acceptance Corporation Alternative Loan Trust, Series 2006-S3 v.
Nomura Credit & Capital, Inc., Case No. 652619/2012 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.)
• Nomura Asset Acceptance Corporation Alternative Loan Trust, Series 2006-S4 v.
Nomura Credit & Capital, Inc., Case No. 653390/2012 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.)
• Nomura Home Equity Loan, Inc., Series 2006-FM2 v. Nomura Credit & Capital, Inc.,
Case No. 653783/2012 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.)
• Nomura Home Equity Loan, Inc., Series 2007-3 v. Nomura Credit & Capital, Inc., Case
No. 651124/2013 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.)
• Nomura Asset Acceptance Corporation Alternative Loan Trust, Series 2007-1 v. Nomura
Credit & Capital, Inc., Case No. 652842/2014 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.)
• Nomura Home Equity Loan, Inc., Home Equity Loan Trust, Series 2007-2 v. Nomura
Credit & Capital, Inc., Case No. 650337/2013 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.)
• Nomura Asset Acceptance Corporation Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series
2006-AF2 Trust v. Nomura Credit & Capital, Inc., Case No. 652614/2012 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.)
DATES OF DEPOSITION: February 26, 2018; February 27, 2018
NAME OF DEPONENT: Nancy Prahofer
I wish to make the following changes:
Page Line From To Reason for Correction
9-11 All [delete] Correction
24 24 That’s correct? That’s correct. Transcription Error
42 16 Litigation. [delete] Transcription Error
44 13 having to have needing to have Clarification
54 7-8 You almost got the [delete] Clarification
standing objection.
1
CONFIDENTIAL
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 08/04/2022 07:39 PM INDEX NO. 650337/2013
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 2346 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/04/2022
Page Line From To Reason for Correction
59 20 witnesses that people who Clarification
60 15 expertise and that expertise in that Transcription Error
67 19 I heard it I’ve heard that Transcription Error
74 23-25 I’m certainly familiar I’ve certainly become Clarification
with the -- over time, familiar over time with
with the underlying the types of underlying
types of transactions transactions involved.
involved.
82 7 to meet that. to respond to that claim. Clarification
96 11 Ms. Buck Ms. Prahofer Clarification
98 3 Did you want direct me Do you want to direct Clarification,
to. me to it? Transcription Error
102 22 I don’t see what’s I don’t see what’s Clarification
attached so -- I attached, but I
103 21 was notice pursuant was not notice pursuant Transcription Error
104 12-13 a party receiving -- a a party discovering Clarification
party discovering
104 23 certificate holders alone certificate holders in the Transcription Error
loan
107 11 I don’t -- [delete] Clarification
107 24 to tell the Trustee to the to tell the Trustee the Transcription Error
2
CONFIDENTIAL
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 08/04/2022 07:39 PM INDEX NO. 650337/2013
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 2346 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/04/2022
Page Line From To Reason for Correction
113 16-18 But with groups of But with groups of Clarification
thousands, 90 days is, thousands, it certainly
certainly couldn’t be could not be done in
done in much less time. much less than 90 days.
120 22-23 And certainly it would And certainly it would Clarification
depend if depend, but if
148 24 whether that’s an whether that’s in the Transcription Error
MLPA MLPA
154 5 In many case it is In many cases the Transcription Error,
originator originator Clarification
154 7 T servicer the servicer Transcription Error
154 8-9 they 0 often they often Transcription Error
154 10 we were only Nomura Nomura was only Clarification
was only
154 11 required mortgage file required mortgage Transcription Error
the collateral file -- the collateral
documents. documents.
154 18 The note, the mortgage The note, the mortgage, Transcription Error
any relevant any relevant
155 18 what is e what’s in what’s in Transcription Error
157 20-21 one of the people who -- one of the entities that Clarification
one of the entities that
157 22 may have did some may have done some Clarification
176 13 So it would have caused So it would have caused Clarification
default. a default.
3
CONFIDENTIAL
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 08/04/2022 07:39 PM INDEX NO. 650337/2013
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 2346 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/04/2022
Page Line From To Reason for Correction
191 20 Am I not -- [delete] Clarification
194 6 scienter -- scienter scienter Clarification
197 9-14 No. I think -- No. Can you read it Clarification,
Can you read it back? I back? I lost the form of Transcription Error
lost the form of the the question. Can I just
question. Can you just read the question?
read the question?
201 19 Litigation. Correct. Clarification
205 11 I’m not sure what the -- I’m not sure what was Clarification
meant by
209 5 I’m assume I’m assuming Transcription Error
210 8 I believe that would I believe Clarification
be -- I believe
212 10 In some instances I In some instances, yes. Transcription Error
don’t.
213 12 problem issue Clarification
215 10-12 That it was some kind That it was some kind Transcription Error
of service that would of service that would
look at something, I look at something (I
don’t know what the don’t know what the
something is to draw “something” is) to draw
some conclusion. some conclusion.
217 9 thought it thought of it Transcription Error
219 21-22 I must have done the I must have done the Clarification,
one takes referenced one that you just Transcription Error
that you just referenced referenced
4
CONFIDENTIAL
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 08/04/2022 07:39 PM INDEX NO. 650337/2013
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 2346 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/04/2022
Page Line From To Reason for Correction
228 11 Well, I don’t -- [delete] Clarification
233 14 would suggest that would suggest that you Clarification
there -- you were were
235 17-18 to reference -- reference to reference Clarification
238 2-3 shouldn’t be purchased shouldn’t be purchased Transcription Error
data test tax out -- it has tax
implication. implications.
239 20 I don’t, but I -- your I don’t, but your Clarification
question question
241 19-20 And I can’t -- she She Clarification
247 13 It had been in the It had been the Transcription Error
251 22 That would be the case. My knowledge is based Clarification
on my work in
managing litigation.
260 4-5 I don’t -- I’m not sure I’m not sure Clarification
261 16 that Who Clarification
265 23 Yeah, maybe not. I may not understand. Clarification
266 14 Apparently not -- or not Apparently not in all Clarification
in all
267 2 misrepresenting misrepresentation Transcription Error
267 13 borrower’s borrower is Transcription Error
269 10 I don’ t -- I’m not I’m not Clarification
5
CONFIDENTIAL
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 08/04/2022 07:39 PM INDEX NO. 650337/2013
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 2346 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/04/2022
Page Line From To Reason for Correction
272 5-7 Whether the -- whether Whether the breach had Clarification
the breach was -- yes, a material and adverse
was of material and effect, yes.
adverse effect, yes.
272 12-13 that’s two pieces of the it’s the same thing. Clarification
-- it’s the same thing.
273 5 of subsequent of a subsequent Clarification
bankruptcy filing bankruptcy filing
273 8-9 some kinds of -- some some kinds of credit Clarification
kinds of credit reports, reports, although it’s
although it’s -- it’s unclear whether
unclear whether
275 20 The -- would They would Transcription Error
276 12 course of its function. course of its function, if Transcription Error
If a a
280 11 having any made any having made any Clarification
294- All [delete] Correction
296
301 2-3 other than to -- you other than with regard Clarification,
know -- with regard to to each of the servicers’ Transcription Error
each of the servicer’s responsibilities.
responsibilities.
301 17 at default in default Transcription Error
304 5-6 It’s not -- I got it. I It has the same Clarification
don’t -- it’s got the attachment.
same attachment.
6
CONFIDENTIAL
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 08/04/2022 07:39 PM INDEX NO. 650337/2013
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 2346 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/04/2022
Page Line From To Reason for Correction
307 14-15 we would not find to be we would not find Clarification
discovery. sufficient to establish
discovery.
309 17 The intent element With the intent element Transcription Error
310 21-23 I don’t know whether I don’t know whether Clarification
the -- whether the the servicer came back
servicer came back with with a rebuttal. It was
a rebuttal document, common for some
which was common for people making claims
some people making
claims was
311 5-6 I don’t think -- did I say If I said that, that was a Clarification
that? That was a mistake.
mistake.
312 11 that there -- the that the borrower Clarification
borrower
312 20-21 does not strongly -- lead does not lead to a strong Clarification
to a strong inference inference
323 6 No, but -- doesn’t No, but does it matter? Transcription Error
matter.
324 23-24 mortgage, that’s -- mortgage -- that’s it. Clarification
that’s it.
328 2-3 That, in fact -- the The response Clarification
response
329 4 guidelines in guidelines and Transcription Error
330 10 That’s a fair That’s fair Transcription Error
7
CONFIDENTIAL
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 08/04/2022 07:39 PM INDEX NO. 650337/2013
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 2346 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/04/2022
Page Line From To Reason for Correction
330 16-17 I think -- I think this I believe from the Clarification
formatting are the formatting that these are
responses likely responses
330 16-22
Preview
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 08/04/2022 07:39 PM INDEX NO. 650337/2013 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 2346 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/04/2022 Exhibit 2 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 08/04/2022 07:39 PM INDEX NO. 650337/2013 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 2346 Nancy Prahofer Confidential RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/04/2022 02/26/2018 5 ·1· · · · · ·- NANCY PRAHOFER - CONFIDENTIAL - ·2· ·(Cont'd) · · ·----------------------------------- X ·3· ·NOMURA HOME EQUITY LOAN, INC., HOME · · ·EQUITY LOAN TRUST, SERIES 2007-2, by ·4· ·HSBC Bank USA, National Association, · · ·as Trustee, ·5· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·Index No. · · · · · · · · · · Plaintiff,· · · · · · ·650337/2013 ·6 · · · · · - against - ·7 · · ·NOMURA CREDIT & CAPITAL, INC., ·8 · · · · · · · · · · Defendant, ·9· ·----------------------------------- x · · ·NOMURA CREDIT & CAPITAL, INC., 10 · · · · · · · · · Third-Party Plaintiff, 11 · · · · · - against - 12 · · ·WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. and OCWEN LOAN 13· ·SERVICING, LLC, 14· · · · · · · · Third-Party Defendants. · · ·----------------------------------- X 15· ·(Caption Cont'd) 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT (877) 479-2484 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 08/04/2022 07:39 PM INDEX NO. 650337/2013 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 2346 Nancy Prahofer Confidential RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/04/2022 02/27/2018 290 ·1· · · · · ·-· NANCY PRAHOFER - CONFIDENTIAL - ·2· ·(Cont'd) · · ·----------------------------------- X ·3· ·NOMURA HOME EQUITY LOAN, INC., HOME · · ·EQUITY LOAN TRUST, SERIES 2007-2, by ·4· ·HSBC Bank USA, National Association, · · ·as Trustee, ·5· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·Index No. · · · · · · · · · · Plaintiff,· · · · · · ·650337/2013 ·6 · · · · · - against - ·7 · · ·NOMURA CREDIT & CAPITAL, INC., ·8 · · · · · · · · · · Defendant, ·9· ·----------------------------------- x · · ·NOMURA CREDIT & CAPITAL, INC., 10 · · · · · · · · · Third-Party Plaintiff, 11 · · · · · - against - 12 · · ·WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. and OCWEN LOAN 13· ·SERVICING, LLC, 14· · · · · · · · Third-Party Defendants. · · ·----------------------------------- X 15· ·(Caption Cont'd) 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT (877) 479-2484 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 08/04/2022 07:39 PM INDEX NO. 650337/2013 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 2346 Nancy Prahofer Confidential RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/04/2022 02/26/2018 262 to 265 Page 262 Page 264 ·1· · · · · ·- NANCY PRAHOFER - CONFIDENTIAL - ·1· · · · · ·- NANCY PRAHOFER - CONFIDENTIAL - ·2· ·their colleagues' previous work. ·2· · · · · · · ·MR. CHERNOV:· Objection. ·3· · · · · · · ·So it was sometimes problematic to ·3· · · · A.· · ·A mere indication, no.· We might ask ·4· ·get someone who was coming right out of a place ·4· ·for further evidence. ·5· ·that had underwritten loans that were now subject ·5· · · · Q.· · ·What sort of further evidence might ·6· ·to the same kinds of claims and expecting those ·6· ·you ask for? ·7· ·people to respond to those claims. ·7· · · · A.· · ·Something to back up a bare ·8· · · · Q.· · ·Did Nomura consider not retaining AMC ·8· ·assertion. ·9· ·for that reason? ·9· · · · Q.· · ·Well, you testified that fraud was, 10· · · · A.· · ·Yes. 10· ·or is, a material misstatement made with scienter, 11· · · · Q.· · ·And ultimately, what was Nomura's 11· ·intended to induce the lender to lend, do you 12· ·decision? 12· ·recall that? 13· · · · A.· · ·That we would give them a try. 13· · · · A.· · ·I do. 14· · · · Q.· · ·And did you find that they were 14· · · · Q.· · ·So was it the case that Nomura 15· ·ineffective at their job? 15· ·required concrete evidence of -- withdrawn. 16· · · · A.· · ·Ineffective may be an overstatement. 16· · · · · · · ·Was it the case that Nomura required 17· · · · Q.· · ·Did Nomura terminate AMC from 17· ·concrete evidence to meet that standard in order 18· ·performing the function that it was performing? 18· ·to discover borrower fraud? 19· · · · · · · ·MR. CHERNOV:· Objection. 19· · · · · · · ·MR. CHERNOV:· Objection. 20· · · · A.· · ·It wasn't a question of termination. 20· · · · A.· · ·No.· I think we saw from some of the 21· ·We just didn't hire them for subsequent 21· ·claims that we went over, if the claimant 22· ·assignments. 22· ·established that there was a material 23· · · · Q.· · ·With respect to the Atrius Group, 23· ·misrepresentation, we certainly took further steps 24· ·though, Nomura did hire The Atrius Group for 24· ·at that point. 25· ·subsequent assignments? 25· · · · Q.· · ·You said you took further steps. Page 263 Page 265 ·1· · · · · ·- NANCY PRAHOFER - CONFIDENTIAL - ·1· · · · · ·- NANCY PRAHOFER - CONFIDENTIAL - ·2· · · · A.· · ·Yes. ·2· ·Prior to taking the further steps, did Nomura ·3· · · · Q.· · ·You didn't have the same kind of ·3· ·discover that there was a breach with respect to ·4· ·concerns with respect to the Atrius Group? ·4· ·that loan? ·5· · · · A.· · ·Mr. Scampoli had been working for us ·5· · · · A.· · ·We took -- ·6· ·during the relevant period.· So, no, I didn't have ·6· · · · · · · ·MR. CHERNOV:· Objection. ·7· ·the same concern. ·7· · · · A.· · ·We took the position in those where ·8· · · · Q.· · ·The mere fact that there was an ·8· ·there was an established material ·9· ·allegation that a breach had occurred, was that ·9· ·misrepresentation, and I don't know now what the 10· ·sufficient for Nomura to determine that it had 10· ·claim consisted of, but we acknowledged that there 11· ·discovered that a material and adverse breach had 11· ·appeared to be a breach, yeah. 12· ·taken place? 12· · · · Q.· · ·You testified that Nomura took 13· · · · · · · ·MR. CHERNOV:· Objection. 13· ·certain steps to verify the misrepresentation; is 14· · · · A.· · ·No. 14· ·that right? 15· · · · Q.· · ·And why is that? 15· · · · A.· · ·In some cases. 16· · · · · · · ·MR. CHERNOV:· Objection. 16· · · · Q.· · ·I'm asking you about the period prior 17· · · · A.· · ·As you noted, I said earlier anyone 17· ·to taking those steps.· So after there was the 18· ·can lob in an allegation that has no factual 18· ·allegation but before you took the steps to verify 19· ·underpinning and could be false, could be 19· ·it.· Do you understand? 20· ·frivolous.· It doesn't constitute discovery of a 20· · · · · · · ·MR. CHERNOV:· Can you rephrase the 21· ·breach. 21· · · · question, Stan.· I think I lost it. 22· · · · Q.· · ·So if there was an indication of 22· · · · · · · ·MR. CHELNEY:· Sure. 23· ·potential borrower fraud, did that mean that 23· · · · A.· · ·Yeah, maybe not. 24· ·Nomura had discovered a material and adverse 24· · · · Q.· · ·At the time that Nomura received an 25· ·breach? 25· ·allegation of borrower fraud, had Nomura U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT (877) 479-2484 YVer1f FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 08/04/2022 07:39 PM INDEX NO. 650337/2013 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 2346 Nancy Prahofer Confidential RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/04/2022 02/26/2018 270 to 273 Page 270 Page 272 ·1· · · · · ·- NANCY PRAHOFER - CONFIDENTIAL - ·1· · · · · ·- NANCY PRAHOFER - CONFIDENTIAL - ·2· ·subsequent valuation, did Nomura need evidence ·2· ·debts, would Nomura then make the further ·3· ·that the appraiser who performed the original ·3· ·determination as to whether they were of a ·4· ·appraisal did not believe the appraisal to be ·4· ·material and adverse effect? ·5· ·accurate at the time that it was made? ·5· · · · A.· · ·Whether the -- whether the breach ·6· · · · · · · ·MR. CHERNOV:· Objection. ·6· ·was -- yes, was of material and adverse effect, ·7· · · · A.· · ·In addition to evidence that it was ·7· ·yes. ·8· ·objectively unreasonable, yes. ·8· · · · Q.· · ·What about with respect to the change ·9· · · · Q.· · ·So you would need both? ·9· ·in income, would Nomura need to make the 10· · · · A.· · ·Yes. 10· ·determination that that breach had a material and 11· · · · Q.· · ·And then you would need to make the 11· ·adverse effect? 12· ·determination that the discrepancy was material 12· · · · A.· · ·With respect to DTI, that's two 13· ·and adverse; is that correct? 13· ·pieces of the -- it's the same thing.· It wouldn't 14· · · · A.· · ·Correct. 14· ·matter if one of them was off by a substantial 15· · · · Q.· · ·How about if Nomura was presented 15· ·amount in the wrong direction, the number's going 16· ·with the indication that a particular value with 16· ·to be off by a substantial amount in the wrong 17· ·respect to a loan such as a DTI or a CLTV was 17· ·direction. 18· ·different than what was reflected at the time of 18· · · · Q.· · ·So what you're saying is that 19· ·the origination of the loan, would that 19· ·presentation to Nomura of a ratio that is alleged 20· ·presentation lead Nomura to conclude that it had 20· ·to be incorrect does not lead necessarily to the 21· ·discovered a breach of a representation and 21· ·conclusion by Nomura that a breach has occurred? 22· ·warranty? 22· · · · · · · ·MR. CHERNOV:· Objection. 23· · · · · · · ·MR. CHERNOV:· Objection. 23· · · · A.· · ·Absent some evidence to support that, 24· · · · A.· · ·I don't know what you mean by an 24· ·that's right. 25· ·"indication," but assuming it's something short of 25· · · · Q.· · ·And what kind of evidence would need Page 271 Page 273 ·1· · · · · ·- NANCY PRAHOFER - CONFIDENTIAL - ·1· · · · · ·- NANCY PRAHOFER - CONFIDENTIAL - ·2· ·any evidence, with respect to a DTI, it would not; ·2· ·to support that? ·3· ·and a CLTV turns on the appraisal question we just ·3· · · · · · · ·MR. CHERNOV:· Objection. ·4· ·discussed. ·4· · · · A.· · ·With respect to income, I think we ·5· · · · Q.· · ·To clarify, what I was asking about ·5· ·talked earlier of subsequent bankruptcy filing, ·6· ·was a circumstance where Nomura's presented with a ·6· ·some sort of a litigation document. ·7· ·claim, where the claimant states that a metric ·7· · · · · · · ·With respect to undisclosed debts, ·8· ·relating to a specific loan such as DTI is ·8· ·some kinds of -- some kinds of credit reports, ·9· ·different than what was in the origination file. ·9· ·although it's -- it's unclear whether that would 10· · · · · · · ·Do you understand the circumstance 10· ·always be the case, but a credit report could 11· ·I'm proposing? 11· ·disclose a previously undisclosed debt. 12· · · · A.· · ·That is a factual matter that DTI 12· · · · Q.· · ·Isn't it true that just because a 13· ·that was in the file is just not right? 13· ·borrower makes a statement in a bankruptcy filing 14· · · · Q.· · ·Correct. 14· ·that may differ from what the borrower had stated 15· · · · A.· · ·And what would be the evidence 15· ·at origination, that that discrepancy alone does 16· ·submitted with that to make that allegation? 16· ·not lead Nomura to conclude that a breach has 17· · · · Q.· · ·Well, does the allegation alone lead 17· ·occurred? 18· ·Nomura to conclude that discovery of a breach has 18· · · · · · · ·MR. CHERNOV:· Objection. 19· ·occurred? 19· · · · A.· · ·It's necessary but not sufficient, is 20· · · · A.· · ·No. 20· ·that what you're asking? 21· · · · Q.· · ·So what would need to be presented to 21· · · · Q.· · ·Right.· So in what way is it not 22· ·Nomura for Nomura to reach that conclusion? 22· ·sufficient? 23· · · · A.· · ·Evidence of undisclosed debts and/or 23· · · · A.· · ·It might be sufficient, it might not 24· ·evidence of difference in income. 24· ·be sufficient.· It might not be a material 25· · · · Q.· · ·And with respect to undisclosed 25· ·difference.· There might be some indication that U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT (877) 479-2484 YVer1f FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 08/04/2022 07:39 PM INDEX NO. 650337/2013 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 2346 Nancy Prahofer Confidential RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/04/2022 02/27/2018 307 to 310 Page 307 Page 309 ·1· · · · · ·-· NANCY PRAHOFER - CONFIDENTIAL - ·1· · · · · ·-· NANCY PRAHOFER - CONFIDENTIAL - ·2· ·"Substantively, the described basis for the ·2· ·you're not looking at what was submitted and is ·3· ·potential fraud isn't sufficient.· First, the ·3· ·being responded to, but it appears that this was ·4· ·claim relies solely on unproven allegations." ·4· ·inadequate to establish any attempt by the ·5· · · · · · · ·Do you see that? ·5· ·borrower to defraud the lender. ·6· · · · A.· · ·Yes. ·6· · · · Q.· · ·Right.· Now I think you testified ·7· · · · Q.· · ·And was it Nomura's view that a claim ·7· ·yesterday that in certain cases there were ·8· ·relying on unproven allegations was insufficient ·8· ·numerous bases for a potential repurchase provided ·9· ·to establish discovery by Nomura of a breached rep ·9· ·to Nomura; is that right? 10· ·and warranty? 10· · · · A.· · ·I don't recall that but -- sometimes 11· · · · · · · ·MR. CHERNOV:· Objection. 11· ·there are. 12· · · · A.· · ·Clearly with respect to this loan and 12· · · · Q.· · ·Well, if Nomura rejects -- withdrawn. 13· ·more generally, yes, a bare allegation with 13· · · · · · · ·What you're testifying to is that may 14· ·nothing supporting it, we would not find to be 14· ·have been the case here when you say, "I'm not 15· ·discovery. 15· ·sure that's the only basis for rejection." 16· · · · Q.· · ·And here, in this instance, it's not 16· · · · · · · ·MR. CHERNOV:· Objection. 17· ·that nothing was presented as support, but rather 17· · · · A.· · ·The intent element, I don't know what 18· ·unproven allegations, correct? 18· ·this was.· It seems that they provided a mortgage 19· · · · A.· · ·Well, no -- 19· ·document and I'm not sure what the mortgage 20· · · · · · · ·MR. CHERNOV:· Objection. 20· ·document was, how material it was to the 21· · · · A.· · ·-- it says -- I'm sorry. 21· ·borrower's financial situation, whether it was 22· · · · · · · ·It says that none of the allegations 22· ·subsequently discharged.· This is only one side of 23· ·relate to any party to the origination of the 23· ·the conversation, so to speak, and I don't see 24· ·loan.· So it's sort of beyond just that they're 24· ·what was submitted. 25· ·allegations, they're allegations that don't even 25· · · · Q.· · ·Right.· Nomura's rejection states, Page 308 Page 310 ·1· · · · · ·-· NANCY PRAHOFER - CONFIDENTIAL - ·1· · · · · ·-· NANCY PRAHOFER - CONFIDENTIAL - ·2· ·concern the parties to the loan. ·2· ·"In this case the only documents provided were the ·3· · · · Q.· · ·So Nomura would require proof of the ·3· ·mortgage documents related to the debt that was ·4· ·fraud in this instance? ·4· ·allegedly undisclosed at the time the subject loan ·5· · · · · · · ·MR. CHERNOV:· Objection. ·5· ·was originated.· Merely providing a copy of the ·6· · · · A.· · ·I think we discussed yesterday Nomura ·6· ·allegedly undisclosed mortgage documents is not ·7· ·would require some sort of evidence strongly ·7· ·enough to support a claim that the borrower ·8· ·suggesting that there had been a fraud, and ·8· ·intended to commit fraud." ·9· ·clearly with respect to this loan, whatever was ·9· · · · · · · ·Do you see that? 10· ·submitted did not constitute that at all. 10· · · · A.· · ·I do. 11· · · · Q.· · ·Could you look at the page ending in 11· · · · Q.· · ·So Nomura's position here is that the 12· ·7006.· With respect to this loan, the document 12· ·evidence of the undisclosed mortgage is not 13· ·states, "The documentation provided as support for 13· ·sufficient to show that the borrower actually 14· ·the claim does not provide evidence of each of the 14· ·intended to commit fraud; is that right? 15· ·legal elements of fraud.· By way of example, 15· · · · · · · ·MR. CHERNOV:· Objection. 16· ·intent is a necessary element that must be proven 16· · · · A.· · ·That's what this says about whatever 17· ·in a fraud claim." 17· ·was submitted. 18· · · · · · · ·Do you see that? 18· · · · Q.· · ·And that's the position Nomura took, 19· · · · A.· · ·I see that. 19· ·at least in part to deny this claim, correct? 20· · · · Q.· · ·And so is this an instance where 20· · · · A.· · ·On the basis of the original 21· ·Nomura is rejecting a claim on the basis that 21· ·submission.· I don't know whether the -- whether 22· ·proof of a borrower's intent to defraud was absent 22· ·the servicer came back with a rebuttal document, 23· ·from the claim? 23· ·which was common for some people making claims was 24· · · · A.· · ·I'm not sure that that's the only 24· ·to see our response and provide a rebuttal with 25· ·basis for the rejection.· It's hard to know when 25· ·additional documentation. U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT (877) 479-2484 YVer1f FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 08/04/2022 07:39 PM INDEX NO. 650337/2013 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 2346 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/04/2022 ERRATA SHEET NAMES OF CASES: • Nomura Asset Acceptance Corporation Alternative Loan Trust, Series 2006-S3 v. Nomura Credit & Capital, Inc., Case No. 652619/2012 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.) • Nomura Asset Acceptance Corporation Alternative Loan Trust, Series 2006-S4 v. Nomura Credit & Capital, Inc., Case No. 653390/2012 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.) • Nomura Home Equity Loan, Inc., Series 2006-FM2 v. Nomura Credit & Capital, Inc., Case No. 653783/2012 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.) • Nomura Home Equity Loan, Inc., Series 2007-3 v. Nomura Credit & Capital, Inc., Case No. 651124/2013 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.) • Nomura Asset Acceptance Corporation Alternative Loan Trust, Series 2007-1 v. Nomura Credit & Capital, Inc., Case No. 652842/2014 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.) • Nomura Home Equity Loan, Inc., Home Equity Loan Trust, Series 2007-2 v. Nomura Credit & Capital, Inc., Case No. 650337/2013 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.) • Nomura Asset Acceptance Corporation Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2006-AF2 Trust v. Nomura Credit & Capital, Inc., Case No. 652614/2012 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.) DATES OF DEPOSITION: February 26, 2018; February 27, 2018 NAME OF DEPONENT: Nancy Prahofer I wish to make the following changes: Page Line From To Reason for Correction 9-11 All [delete] Correction 24 24 That’s correct? That’s correct. Transcription Error 42 16 Litigation. [delete] Transcription Error 44 13 having to have needing to have Clarification 54 7-8 You almost got the [delete] Clarification standing objection. 1 CONFIDENTIAL FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 08/04/2022 07:39 PM INDEX NO. 650337/2013 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 2346 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/04/2022 Page Line From To Reason for Correction 59 20 witnesses that people who Clarification 60 15 expertise and that expertise in that Transcription Error 67 19 I heard it I’ve heard that Transcription Error 74 23-25 I’m certainly familiar I’ve certainly become Clarification with the -- over time, familiar over time with with the underlying the types of underlying types of transactions transactions involved. involved. 82 7 to meet that. to respond to that claim. Clarification 96 11 Ms. Buck Ms. Prahofer Clarification 98 3 Did you want direct me Do you want to direct Clarification, to. me to it? Transcription Error 102 22 I don’t see what’s I don’t see what’s Clarification attached so -- I attached, but I 103 21 was notice pursuant was not notice pursuant Transcription Error 104 12-13 a party receiving -- a a party discovering Clarification party discovering 104 23 certificate holders alone certificate holders in the Transcription Error loan 107 11 I don’t -- [delete] Clarification 107 24 to tell the Trustee to the to tell the Trustee the Transcription Error 2 CONFIDENTIAL FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 08/04/2022 07:39 PM INDEX NO. 650337/2013 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 2346 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/04/2022 Page Line From To Reason for Correction 113 16-18 But with groups of But with groups of Clarification thousands, 90 days is, thousands, it certainly certainly couldn’t be could not be done in done in much less time. much less than 90 days. 120 22-23 And certainly it would And certainly it would Clarification depend if depend, but if 148 24 whether that’s an whether that’s in the Transcription Error MLPA MLPA 154 5 In many case it is In many cases the Transcription Error, originator originator Clarification 154 7 T servicer the servicer Transcription Error 154 8-9 they 0 often they often Transcription Error 154 10 we were only Nomura Nomura was only Clarification was only 154 11 required mortgage file required mortgage Transcription Error the collateral file -- the collateral documents. documents. 154 18 The note, the mortgage The note, the mortgage, Transcription Error any relevant any relevant 155 18 what is e what’s in what’s in Transcription Error 157 20-21 one of the people who -- one of the entities that Clarification one of the entities that 157 22 may have did some may have done some Clarification 176 13 So it would have caused So it would have caused Clarification default. a default. 3 CONFIDENTIAL FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 08/04/2022 07:39 PM INDEX NO. 650337/2013 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 2346 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/04/2022 Page Line From To Reason for Correction 191 20 Am I not -- [delete] Clarification 194 6 scienter -- scienter scienter Clarification 197 9-14 No. I think -- No. Can you read it Clarification, Can you read it back? I back? I lost the form of Transcription Error lost the form of the the question. Can I just question. Can you just read the question? read the question? 201 19 Litigation. Correct. Clarification 205 11 I’m not sure what the -- I’m not sure what was Clarification meant by 209 5 I’m assume I’m assuming Transcription Error 210 8 I believe that would I believe Clarification be -- I believe 212 10 In some instances I In some instances, yes. Transcription Error don’t. 213 12 problem issue Clarification 215 10-12 That it was some kind That it was some kind Transcription Error of service that would of service that would look at something, I look at something (I don’t know what the don’t know what the something is to draw “something” is) to draw some conclusion. some conclusion. 217 9 thought it thought of it Transcription Error 219 21-22 I must have done the I must have done the Clarification, one takes referenced one that you just Transcription Error that you just referenced referenced 4 CONFIDENTIAL FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 08/04/2022 07:39 PM INDEX NO. 650337/2013 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 2346 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/04/2022 Page Line From To Reason for Correction 228 11 Well, I don’t -- [delete] Clarification 233 14 would suggest that would suggest that you Clarification there -- you were were 235 17-18 to reference -- reference to reference Clarification 238 2-3 shouldn’t be purchased shouldn’t be purchased Transcription Error data test tax out -- it has tax implication. implications. 239 20 I don’t, but I -- your I don’t, but your Clarification question question 241 19-20 And I can’t -- she She Clarification 247 13 It had been in the It had been the Transcription Error 251 22 That would be the case. My knowledge is based Clarification on my work in managing litigation. 260 4-5 I don’t -- I’m not sure I’m not sure Clarification 261 16 that Who Clarification 265 23 Yeah, maybe not. I may not understand. Clarification 266 14 Apparently not -- or not Apparently not in all Clarification in all 267 2 misrepresenting misrepresentation Transcription Error 267 13 borrower’s borrower is Transcription Error 269 10 I don’ t -- I’m not I’m not Clarification 5 CONFIDENTIAL FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 08/04/2022 07:39 PM INDEX NO. 650337/2013 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 2346 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/04/2022 Page Line From To Reason for Correction 272 5-7 Whether the -- whether Whether the breach had Clarification the breach was -- yes, a material and adverse was of material and effect, yes. adverse effect, yes. 272 12-13 that’s two pieces of the it’s the same thing. Clarification -- it’s the same thing. 273 5 of subsequent of a subsequent Clarification bankruptcy filing bankruptcy filing 273 8-9 some kinds of -- some some kinds of credit Clarification kinds of credit reports, reports, although it’s although it’s -- it’s unclear whether unclear whether 275 20 The -- would They would Transcription Error 276 12 course of its function. course of its function, if Transcription Error If a a 280 11 having any made any having made any Clarification 294- All [delete] Correction 296 301 2-3 other than to -- you other than with regard Clarification, know -- with regard to to each of the servicers’ Transcription Error each of the servicer’s responsibilities. responsibilities. 301 17 at default in default Transcription Error 304 5-6 It’s not -- I got it. I It has the same Clarification don’t -- it’s got the attachment. same attachment. 6 CONFIDENTIAL FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 08/04/2022 07:39 PM INDEX NO. 650337/2013 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 2346 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/04/2022 Page Line From To Reason for Correction 307 14-15 we would not find to be we would not find Clarification discovery. sufficient to establish discovery. 309 17 The intent element With the intent element Transcription Error 310 21-23 I don’t know whether I don’t know whether Clarification the -- whether the the servicer came back servicer came back with with a rebuttal. It was a rebuttal document, common for some which was common for people making claims some people making claims was 311 5-6 I don’t think -- did I say If I said that, that was a Clarification that? That was a mistake. mistake. 312 11 that there -- the that the borrower Clarification borrower 312 20-21 does not strongly -- lead does not lead to a strong Clarification to a strong inference inference 323 6 No, but -- doesn’t No, but does it matter? Transcription Error matter. 324 23-24 mortgage, that’s -- mortgage -- that’s it. Clarification that’s it. 328 2-3 That, in fact -- the The response Clarification response 329 4 guidelines in guidelines and Transcription Error 330 10 That’s a fair That’s fair Transcription Error 7 CONFIDENTIAL FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 08/04/2022 07:39 PM INDEX NO. 650337/2013 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 2346 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/04/2022 Page Line From To Reason for Correction 330 16-17 I think -- I think this I believe from the Clarification formatting are the formatting that these are responses likely responses 330 16-22