Powell v. Ocwen Fin. Corp.

── Powell v. Ocwen Fin. Corp. ── Case No.: 23-999 Court: Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Date: March 26, 2026 Category: General 23-999 Powell v. Ocwen Fin. Corp. United States Court of Appeals For the Second Circuit August Term 2024 Argued: September 5, 2024 Decided: March 26, 2026 No. 23-999 RONALD E. POWELL, as Trustee of The United Food & Commercial Workers Union & Employers Midwest Pension Fund, ROBERT O’TOOLE, as Trustee of The United Food & Commercial Workers Union & Employers Midwest Pension Fund, ROBERT WILSON, as Trustee of The United Food & Commercial Workers Union & Employers Midwest Pension Fund, BRIAN JORDAN, as Trustee of The United Food & Commercial Workers Union & Employers Midwest Pension Fund, DONALD G. SCHAPER, as Trustee of The United Food & Commercial Workers Union & Employers Midwest Pension Fund, WILLIAM R. SEEHAFER, as Trustee of The United Food & Commercial Workers Union & Employers Midwest Pension Fund, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. OCWEN FINANCIAL CORPORATION, OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, LLC, OCWEN MORTGAGE SERVICING, INC., ALTISOURCE PORTFOLIO SOLUTIONS, S.A., ALTISOURCE RESIDENTIAL CORPORATION, ALTISOURCE ASSET MANAGEMENT CORPORATION, ASSURANT, INC., STANDARD GUARANTY INSURANCE COMPANY, AMERICAN SECURITY INSURANCE COMPANY, VOYAGER INDEMNITY INSURANCE COMPANY, AMERICAN BANKERS INSURANCE COMPANY OF FLORIDA, HOMESURE SERVICES, INC., CROSS COUNTRY HOMES SERVICES, INC., HOMESURE OF AMERICA, INC., HOMESURE PROTECTION OF VIRGINIA INC., WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., ALTISOURCE SOLUTIONS, INC., REALHOME SERVICES AND SOLUTIONS, INC., ALTISOURCE ONLINE AUCTIONS, INC., SOUTHWEST BUSINESS CORPORATION,  Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York No. 18-cv-1951, Vernon S. Broderick, Judge. Before: CHIN, CARNEY, and SULLIVAN, Circuit Judges. The Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”) imposes fiduciary duties on those who control retirement-plan assets. In this case, the trustees of an ERISA-regulated plan invested in residential mortgage-backed securities (“RMBSs”) issued by six RMBS trusts. Some of the RMBSs were issued as notes pursuant to indenture agreements while others were issued as trust certificates. The plan trustees sued the servicers of the underlying mortgages for breach of fiduciary duties under ERISA. The district court (Broderick, J.) granted summary judgment for the servicers and denied the trustees’ cross-motion for partial summary judgment. It held that the controlling regulation defined only the RMBSs themselves – and not the mortgages backing them – as plan assets regulated by ERISA. With respect to the notes issued pursuant to the indenture agreements, we agree with the district court that the underlying mortgages are not plan assets because they lack substantial equity features. But the mortgages underlying the trust certificates are plan assets because (1) the certificates represent beneficial interests in the particular RMBS trusts, and (2) the controlling regulation defines the assets of a trust in which a plan holds a beneficial interest as plan assets. We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment in part, reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings. AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED. R. BRADLEY MILLER, R. Bradley Miller Law, Alexandria, VA, for Plaintiffs-Appellants. 2  Gary A. Gotto, Ron Kilgard, Keller Rohrback L.L.P., Phoenix, AZ, for Plaintiffs-Appellants. YAAKOV