Information about borrowers, like employment and income levels, that Countrywide (now owned by Bank of America) wants sealed during the well-known MBIA v. Countrywide case are likely to become a matter of court record, according to a new filing from Judge Eileen Bransten with the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
The judge’s response, which is mostly in favor of MBIA’s push to reveal certain information, stems from an MBIA (MBI) case in which the bond insurer is suing Countrywide for allegedly making erroneous representations about mortgages backing bonds guaranteed by MBIA.
The two parties couldn’t agree over whether the following information should be sealed: borrower employment information, borrower loan numbers, transcripts subject to other protective orders in litigation, documents revealing Countrywide non-public financial information as well as documents and transcripts related to Countrywide repurchase analysis and polices and procedures on loss reserves.
The court’s verdict was to allow for the disclosure of most of the information with certain restrictions to protect the privacy of borrowers.
The judge agreed to protect information that would identify borrower’s personal or financial information, but said the motion to seal the “voluminous spreadsheets in their entirety is denied.”
As far as borrower occupational and employment information, the judge permitted the revelation of general employment information with certain information redacted to protect the borrower’s identities. Borrower loan numbers will be permitted, but with truncated numbers so they are untraceable back to certain borrowers, the judge said.
The court decided to not seal current non-public financial information, saying Countrywide failed to make a showing of good cause and said that any Countrywide analysis about how it validates repurchase requests should not be revealed. However, the judge is allowing the revelation of repurchase-statistics including claim volumes that MBIA wanted sealed.
Countrywide declined to comment on the judge’s ruling.
