Morgan Stanley Mortgage Capital Holdings LLC et al., pending in the Supreme Court of NY. The complaint asserted claims for breach of contract and alleged, among other things, that the loans in the trust, which had an original principal balance of approximately $516 million, breached various representations and warranties. The complaint sought, among other relief, unspecified damages, attorneys’ fees, interest and costs. On February 28, 2014, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, which was granted in part and denied in part on June 14, 2016. Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal of that order on August 17, 2016. On July 11, 2017, First Department affirmed in part and reversed in part an order granting in part and denying in part MS&Co.’s motion to dismiss. On August 10, 2017, plaintiff filed a motion for leave to appeal that decision. On September 26, 2017, the First Department denied plaintiff’s motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals. On October 31, 2018, the parties entered into an agreement to settle the litigation. On September 10, 2019, the court entered a final judgment and order granting final approval of the settlement. On November 11, 2019, the parties filed a stipulation of voluntary discontinuance, dismissing the action with prejudice.
On September 19, 2014, FGIC filed a complaint against MS&Co. in the Supreme Court of NY, styled Financial Guaranty Insurance Company v. Morgan Stanley ABS Capital I Inc. et al. relating to a securitization issued by Basket of Aggregated Residential NIMS 2007-1 Ltd. The complaint asserted claims for breach of contract and alleges, among other things, that the net interest margin securities (“NIMS”) in the trust breached various representations and warranties. FGIC issued a financial guaranty policy with respect to certain notes that had an original balance of approximately $475 million. The complaint sought, among other relief, specific performance of the NIMS breach remedy procedures in the transaction documents, unspecified damages, reimbursement of certain payments made pursuant to the transaction documents, attorneys’ fees and interest. On November 24, 2014, MS&Co. filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, which the court denied on January 19, 2017. On February 24, 2017, MS&Co. filed a notice of appeal of the denial of its motion to dismiss the complaint and perfected its appeal on November 22, 2017. On September 13, 2018, the court affirmed the lower court’s order denying MS&Co.’s motion to dismiss the complaint. On November 13, 2019, the parties entered into an agreement to settle the litigation. On December 4, 2019, the parties filed a stipulation of voluntary discontinuance, dismissing the action with prejudice.
Beginning on March 25, 2019, MS&Co. was named as a defendant in a series of putative class action complaints filed in the Southern District of New York, the first of which is styled Alaska Electrical Pension Fund v. BofA Secs., Inc., et al. Each complaint alleges a conspiracy to fix prices and restrain competition in the market for unsecured bonds issued by the following Government-Sponsored Enterprises: the Federal National Mortgage Associate; the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation; the Federal Farm Credit Banks Funding Corporation; and the Federal Home Loan Banks. The purported class period for each suit is from January 1, 2012 to June 1, 2018. Each complaint raises a claim under Section 1 of the Sherman Act and seeks, among other things, injunctive relief and treble compensatory damages. On May 23, 2019, plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended class action complaint styled In re GSE Bonds Antitrust Litigation, with a purported class period from January 1, 2009 to January 1, 2016. On June 13, 2019, the defendants filed a joint motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint. On August 29, 2019, the court denied MS&Co.’s motion to dismiss. On December 15, 2019, MS&Co. and certain other defendants entered into a stipulation of settlement to resolve the action as against each of them in its entirety. On February 3, 2020, the court granted preliminary approval of that settlement.
Additional or replacement Commodity Brokers may be appointed in respect of the Fund in the future.
Conflicts of InterestThe Managing Owner has not established formal procedures to resolve all potential conflicts of interest. Consequently, investors may be dependent on the good faith of the respective parties subject to such