CONTAINS HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF:
CYNTHIA SIMANTEL
FRIDAY, AUGUST 24, 2012
9:08 A.M.
VOLUME III
(PAGES 866-1218)

Transcript after the jump

~~~

~~~

~~~

Transcript after the jump

10:34:04 8 BY MR. CALAMARI:
10:34:06 9 Q. You recall giving testimony to the SEC.
10:34:06 10 Correct?
10:34:09 11 A. Yes.
10:34:09 12 Q. Do you recall when that was?
10:34:13 13 A. When I did the SEC?
10:34:14 14 Q. Yes.
10:34:15 15 A. Not an exact date, no.
10:34:17 16 Q. Was it a few years ago?
10:34:19 17 A. I think so.
10:34:21 18 Q. Would your memory have been better when you
10:34:24 19 gave the SEC testimony?
10:34:26 20 MR. TANDY: Objection.
10:34:28 21 THE WITNESS: Well, it could have been
10:34:29 22 closer to the time frame or, you know, I may have
10:34:31 23 seen something that helped me, you know, a document
10:34:34 24 as far as an org chart or something. So it’s
10:34:36 25 possible.

Q. Do you feel you accurately gave your view
15:32:42 15 about severe unsatisfactory designations to the SEC?
15:32:49 16 A. To the best of my knowl- — yes. I mean,
15:32:51 17 absolutely. I had a ratings grid.

15:53:15 23 MS. BEA: This will be marked as 4035.
15:53:20 24 And just so the record’s clear, this was
15:53:22 25 previously marked in what appears to be the SEC case.
Page 1136
15:53:30 1 MR. CALAMARI: So we’re going to separately
15:53:32 2 mark it.
15:53:33 3 MS. BEA: For purposes of this case, yes.

15:56:04 23 Q. Did you see this document at the SEC
15:56:06 24 deposition, by the way?
15:56:08 25 A. You know, I — I honest- — I just can’t
15:56:10 1 remember.

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF NEW YORK
—————————————–x
MBIA INSURANCE CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
Index No. 08/602825
vs.
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC.,
COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL CORP.,
COUNTRYWIDE SECURITIES CORP.,
COUNTRYWIDE BANK, F.S.B., and
BANK OF AMERICA CORP.,
Defendants.
—————————————–x
HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL
August 29, 2012
9:45 a.m.
Continued Videotaped Deposition of
MICHAEL W. SCHLOESSMANN

17:27:36 15 Q. Did Countrywide make a
17:27:37 16 presentation to the SEC about its repurchase
17:27:39 17 practices in the spring of 2010?
17:27:43 18 MR. BURTON: Objection.
17:27:48 19 A. This note refreshes my
17:27:49 20 recollection that we provided the SEC with
17:27:56 21 some claims related data that they had
17:27:59 22 requested around this time. And I think
17:28:01 23 this email string was developed in
17:28:08 24 connection with us trying to be responsive
17:28:11 25 to that request by the SEC.
Page 1117
1 MICHAEL SCHLOESSMAN-HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL
17:28:14 2 Q. Was there a meeting that
17:28:16 3 followed upon the provision of this data?
17:28:19 4 MS. CONCANNON: Objection.
17:28:22 5 A. I’m not sure if a meeting
17:28:26 6 followed this, you know, the production of
17:28:28 7 this data.
17:28:30 8 I do recall personally being
17:28:32 9 involved in a meeting with the SEC around
17:28:36 10 related topics. But I can’t recall when
17:28:40 11 that was, whether it was before or after, or
17:28:43 12 whether it had anything to do with this.
17:28:44 13 Q. Had the SEC requested the
17:28:46 14 meeting?
17:28:47 15 MS. CONCANNON: Objection.
17:28:47 16 A. Pardon me?
17:28:48 17 Q. Had the SEC requested the
17:28:50 18 meeting?
17:28:51 19 A. Yes.
17:28:51 20 Q. And what was the subject of the
17:28:53 21 meeting?
17:28:55 22 A. The rep and warrant process and
17:28:58 23 reserves, including reserves, rather.
17:29:01 24 Q. Do you recall what you
17:29:02 25 presented to the SEC?
17:29:04 2 MS. CONCANNON: Objection.
17:29:08 3 A. I recall having produced a
17:29:12 4 document that we presented to the SEC. The
17:29:17 5 particulars of which I can’t recall
17:29:19 6 specifically.
17:29:22 7 Q. Do you recall whether the SEC
17:29:23 8 had expressed concerns about how Countrywide
17:29:28 9 or Bank of America was processing repurchase
17:29:30 10 demands?
17:29:31 11 MS. CONCANNON: Objection.
17:29:32 12 MR. BURTON: Objection.
17:29:34 13 A. Do I recall concerns expressed
17:29:35 14 by the SEC as to how –
17:29:37 15 Q. Yes.
17:29:38 16 A. I don’t recall them expressing,
17:29:39 17 you know, concerns about the manner in which
17:29:42 18 we were processing the claims.
17:29:50 19 Q. Do you know whether there was
17:29:51 20 any follow-up meeting with the SEC after
17:29:52 21 that?
17:29:57 22 MS. CONCANNON: Objection.
17:29:57 23 A. I can’t recall the sequence of
17:30:00 24 events. I do recall related to a provision
17:30:02 25 of information. I recall a meeting, at
Page 1119
1 MICHAEL SCHLOESSMAN-HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL
17:30:05 2 least one meeting with the SEC. I can’t say
17:30:07 3 when it was.
17:30:11 4 There may have been other
17:30:12 5 discussions that I wasn’t a party to. I
17:30:17 6 can’t remember if there was a meeting I
17:30:19 7 participated in other than the one that I
17:30:22 8 recollect.
17:30:26 9 Q. You said there may have been
17:30:27 10 other discussions with the SEC you were not
17:30:30 11 a party to. Do you know in fact whether
17:30:31 12 there were such discussions?
17:30:33 13 A. No.
17:30:39 14 (Deposition Schloessmann
17:30:39 15 Exhibit 4063 for identification, email
17:30:39 16 string dated 4/16/10 production numbers
17:30:39 17 BACMBIA-X 0000017741 through 744.)
17:30:39 18 BY MR. SELENDY:
17:30:39 19 Q. I’d like to mark as
17:30:42 20 Exhibit 4063 a document from Michael Sands
17:30:47 21 to Susan Welsh and yourself listing the top
17:30:52 22 five reasons that we have approved
17:30:56 23 repurchase on the monolines.
17:31:28 24 My first question for you do
17:31:30 25 you know why this document was created?
17:31:34 2 A. Give me just a minute so I can
17:31:36 3 read the string.
17:31:38 4 Q. Yes.
17:32:31 5 A. The string, note from me
17:32:34 6 references a meeting the next day and I
17:32:36 7 can’t remember what the meeting was.
17:32:40 8 Q. That is a meeting with the SEC;
17:32:41 9 is it?
17:32:42 10 A. I can’t recall what the meeting
17:32:46 11 was.
17:32:47 12 Q. Okay. If you look at the
17:32:51 13 second page of the email, at the bottom of
17:32:53 14 your email to Shareef Abdou, among others
17:32:57 15 you say, “James, please work this into a
17:33:01 16 grid for inclusion into the SEC
17:33:04 17 presentation.”
17:33:04 18 Does that help?
17:33:05 19 A. Yes, it does. I overlooked
17:33:06 20 that. I’m sorry.
17:33:09 21 Q. So was this data put together
17:33:11 22 for presentation to the SEC?
17:33:12 23 MS. CONCANNON: Objection.
17:33:16 24 MR. BURTON: Objection.
17:33:22 25 Objection to the extent this contains
Page 1121
1 MICHAEL SCHLOESSMAN-HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL
17:33:23 2 privileged information.
17:33:33 3 A. It clearly is indicating the
17:33:35 4 intent to include it in the SEC
17:33:37 5 presentation. So I’m not going to take
17:33:40 6 issue or I don’t have a basis here today to
17:33:42 7 take issue with a note that I sent.
17:33:44 8 Q. Okay. If we go through the
17:33:45 9 chart at the top it lists the top five
17:33:50 10 reasons that Bank of America — does “we”
17:33:56 11 refer to Countrywide or Bank of America, by
17:33:57 12 the way?
17:33:57 13 MS. CONCANNON: Objection.
17:33:58 14 MR. BURTON: Objection.
17:34:01 15 A. Where?
17:34:01 16 Q. If the first sentence “Below is
17:34:05 17 the top five reasons we have approved
17:34:10 18 repurchase on the monolines.”
17:34:11 19 A. I can’t tell you. All I can
17:34:13 20 tell you CHL is the party that consummated
17:34:16 21 all repurchase transactions with respect to
17:34:17 22 the CHL sponsored deals.
17:34:19 23 Q. Okay. For the CHL repurchases,
17:34:21 24 the top five reasons that are listed are in
17:34:25 25 order, income, stated income unreasonable.
17:34:28 2 Misrepresentation, income. Then
17:34:35 3 documentation missing acceptable employment,
17:34:41 4 income documentation. 4, program guidelines
17:34:45 5 violation, LTV, CLTV exceeds guidelines.
17:34:49 6 And 5, documentation, missing sufficient
17:34:52 7 asset documentation.
17:34:53 8 Are those the five the
17:34:54 9 categories?
17:34:55 10 A. That is what is listed in
17:35:04 11 Shane’s email, yes.
17:35:04 12 Q. I take it each of these basis
17:35:06 13 would be a material and adverse breach such
17:35:13 14 that Countrywide Home Loans determined a
17:35:15 15 repurchase was appropriate?
17:35:17 16 MS. CONCANNON: Objection.
17:35:19 17 Q. Is that fair?
17:35:19 18 A. My understanding is to the
17:35:26 19 extent we repurchased loans we would have
17:35:28 20 first satisfied ourselves that the claimant
17:35:33 21 had demonstrated satisfactorily there was a
17:35:37 22 breach and the breach had a material adverse
17:35:40 23 effect consistent with the terms of the
17:35:41 24 contract.
17:35:42 25 I think the mere labeling of
Page 1123
1 MICHAEL SCHLOESSMAN-HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL
17:35:43 2 loans with these issues, however does not,
17:35:45 3 it does not necessarily follow because the
17:35:50 4 loans are tagged with this issue they are
17:35:52 5 necessarily repurchases.
17:35:53 6 We have claims in pipeline that
17:35:55 7 would be appropriately or also labeled
17:35:57 8 similarly where the burden was not sustained
17:36:01 9 by the claimant.
17:36:02 10 So, the labels themselves don’t
17:36:04 11 tell you whether you have a breach of
17:36:08 12 materially and adversely effects the
17:36:12 13 investors.
17:36:13 14 Q. These are the top five reasons
17:36:14 15 for which the repurchases were made by
17:36:17 16 Countrywide Home Loans; correct?
17:36:21 17 MR. BURTON: Objection.
17:36:23 18 A. That is what Shane Sands is
17:36:25 19 purporting to convey here based on my
17:36:28 20 request.
17:36:28 21 Q. Is that Michael Sands?
17:36:30 22 A. Yes.
17:36:31 23 Q. Michael Shane Sands, okay.
17:36:32 24 Understood.
17:36:34 25 Therefore if it is categorized
17:36:36 2 in this way the driving reason for the
17:36:41 3 repurchase will be the reason that is listed
17:36:44 4 here in this chart; right?
17:36:47 5 MS. CONCANNON: Objection.
17:36:53 6 A. My experience with the data we
17:36:56 7 capture in our PAT database at the time is
17:37:04 8 that, you know, it is not perfect in that we
17:37:08 9 get claims in that have multiple reasons.
17:37:12 10 There is a judgment made by the
17:37:16 11 person logging in the claims as to primary
17:37:20 12 finding. So it is, you know, I think it is
17:37:25 13 probably directionally correct, but I
17:37:27 14 wouldn’t, you know, suggest that it is
17:37:30 15 perfect because it does require judgment in
17:37:33 16 how someone characterizes an issue might
17:37:35 17 vary from person to person who is logging in
17:37:37 18 claims.
17:37:37 19 It doesn’t impact how the
17:37:39 20 decisioning that that loan is done. It
17:37:43 21 really is more around how the reporting that
17:37:45 22 we’re able, you know, to capture from the
17:37:47 23 data.
17:37:49 24 Q. Okay. I understand there could
17:37:51 25 be multiple defects that give rise to the
Page 1125
1 MICHAEL SCHLOESSMAN-HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL
17:37:54 2 determination the loan is eligible for
17:37:55 3 repurchase. Is that basically what you’re
17:37:57 4 saying?
17:37:58 5 MR. BURTON: Objection.
17:37:59 6 A. Yes. In that the data
17:38:00 7 presented here is based on running a data
17:38:05 8 query against the database. And basically
17:38:08 9 identifying loans by their, quote, “primary
17:38:13 10 finding,” unquote type.
17:38:14 11 And that that is — that is
17:38:19 12 itself subjective. So if we put another
17:38:22 13 issue in this primary finding, it may have
17:38:26 14 neglected some loans.
17:38:29 15 Conversely, we may have
17:38:30 16 overstated others. Again, I think it is
17:38:32 17 directionally correct. I just wanted to
17:38:35 18 point out, you know, there are, you know,
17:38:39 19 imperfections, you know, inherent
17:38:42 20 imperfections in the process.
17:38:43 21 Q. Okay. When you refer to
17:38:45 22 primary finding, is that the primary reason
17:38:47 23 why the loan would have been repurchased?
17:38:52 24 A. Typically it, as I understand
17:38:54 25 the process, a primary finding is determined
17:38:59 2 at the time we get the claim. And the
17:39:03 3 information on the claim is input in the
17:39:04 4 system.
17:39:05 5 I also seem to recall that as
17:39:08 6 the claim got processed, if an issue became,
17:39:12 7 you know, that wasn’t identified as a
17:39:14 8 primary became the prominent finding and
17:39:16 9 basis for repurchase, that field would have
17:39:18 10 been updated.
17:39:21 11 I can’t be sure if that in fact
17:39:23 12 is an accurate statement of the process or
17:39:25 13 if in fact it was regularly done. I just
17:39:28 14 don’t have enough specific knowledge around
17:39:31 15 how the data was captured.
17:39:33 16 Q. If you look at the five
17:39:34 17 categories here, would you agree any of
17:39:39 18 these misrepresentations, falling in these
17:39:42 19 categories — strike that.
17:39:43 20 Would you agree any of these
17:39:44 21 problems, whether they are
17:39:48 22 misrepresentations or documentation problems
17:39:51 23 or guideline violations may be sufficient
17:39:56 24 for a breach to be material and adverse?
17:40:01 25 MS. CONCANNON: Objection.
Page 1127
1 MICHAEL SCHLOESSMAN-HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL
17:40:06 2 A. Very difficult to say. I think
17:40:08 3 the way I would describe this is, again, go
17:40:12 4 back to the specific representations and
17:40:15 5 warranties we were making on a particular
17:40:20 6 deal and you’re going to have to make that
17:40:24 7 determination based on what facts were
17:40:26 8 demonstrated and whether they amounted to a
17:40:29 9 breach.
17:40:29 10 And I would just say as it
17:40:31 11 relates to your question under — this goes
17:40:34 12 to the inherent imperfections of the data
17:40:37 13 collection process, misrepresentation of
17:40:39 14 income in and of itself is not a basis for
17:40:44 15 repurchase.
17:40:45 16 So often times when we talked
17:40:47 17 about how claims get identified on the
17:40:51 18 system, that — we have some people who
17:40:54 19 input information that may have been a
17:40:55 20 stated income unreasonable, right. That
17:40:59 21 necessarily starts out with proving first of
17:41:01 22 all the income was misstated and secondly
17:41:05 23 misstated income that it was unreasonable.
17:41:07 24 Some of those loans in my
17:41:08 25 experience get categorized in income
17:41:12 2 misrepresentation. So, again, it’s difficult
17:41:14 3 to draw definitive conclusions.
17:41:19 4 I would again say this gives
17:41:21 5 you I think a good directional sense of the
17:41:24 6 claims we saw most often or at least that
17:41:26 7 were the basis for repurchase. But
17:41:29 8 imperfect.
17:41:30 9 Q. So you’re saying that some of
17:41:33 10 the loans listed here as misrepresentation
17:41:36 11 as to income may in fact be stated income
17:41:39 12 unreasonable?
17:41:41 13 MS. CONCANNON: Objection.
17:41:42 14 A. Yeah, where a prerequisite to
17:41:45 15 finding a breach would be first proving that
17:41:47 16 the income was in fact misstated before you
17:41:50 17 even talk about gauging reasonableness of
17:41:53 18 income. That would be the approach we would
17:41:56 19 apply in stated income.
17:41:57 20 Q. Is this how the data was
17:41:58 21 reported to the SEC, do you know?
17:42:00 22 MS. CONCANNON: Objection.
17:42:01 23 Q. In these categories?
17:42:02 24 A. I don’t know.
17:42:03 25 MR. BURTON: Objection.
Page 1129
1 MICHAEL SCHLOESSMAN-HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL
17:42:05 2 Q. Okay. I take it, however, for
17:42:06 3 any of these categories they may be
17:42:08 4 sufficient to there to be a material and
17:42:11 5 adverse effect on the loan, even if the loan
17:42:16 6 hadn’t yet defaulted; is that fair?
17:42:18 7 MS. CONCANNON: Objection.
17:42:26 8 A. Are you asking whether any of
17:42:28 9 these loans that we have flagged as
17:42:30 10 repurchases had not yet defaulted?
17:42:32 11 Q. I’m saying any of these
17:42:34 12 categories of problems that were listed as
17:42:39 13 the reasons for which Countrywide approved a
17:42:42 14 repurchase, could be sufficient to
17:42:45 15 constitute a material and adverse effect,
17:42:48 16 even if the loan had not yet defaulted;
17:42:53 17 right?
17:42:53 18 MS. CONCANNON: Objection.
17:42:55 19 A. That’s — I would not
17:42:56 20 characterize it that way. I believe the
17:43:00 21 material and adverse effect requirement in
17:43:05 22 what I believe is all of the pooling and
17:43:08 23 servicing agreements, the governing
17:43:11 24 contracts with respect to the deals the
17:43:13 25 monolines wrapped means something.

Category: Legal, Think Tank

Please use the comments to demonstrate your own ignorance, unfamiliarity with empirical data and lack of respect for scientific knowledge. Be sure to create straw men and argue against things I have neither said nor implied. If you could repeat previously discredited memes or steer the conversation into irrelevant, off topic discussions, it would be appreciated. Lastly, kindly forgo all civility in your discourse . . . you are, after all, anonymous.

Comments are closed.