My old American Lawyer boss Steve Brill, now writing a provocative Reuters column called Stories I'd Like to See, recently dubbed the Federal Housing Finance Agency's securities suits against 17 banks that issued almost $200 billion in mortgage-backed securities the "litigators' world series." (Thanks for the shout-out, Steve!) You remember the FHFA MBS suits: The all-at-once filings by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac's conservator sent the markets into a brief tizzy right after Labor Day. Since then, however, we haven't heard much about the litigation. Brill's column prompted me to check the FHFA dockets, and I'm glad I did: U.S. District Judge Denise Cote of Manhattan federal court, who's now overseeing all but one of the FHFA MBS suits, has put the litigation on a fast track. And UBS, the first defendant FHFA sued, has already teed up a dismissal motion based on an obscure issue that could decimate the FHFA's cases against every defendant.

The Housing Agency, as you surely recall, claims Fannie and Freddie were duped into purchasing mortgage-backed securities that didn't measure up to representations by issuers and underwriters. The cases assert various federal and state-law theories, from strict liability claims under the Securities Act of 1933 to common law fraud. The cases were originally split between Manhattan state and federal courts, but defendants in the four state-court suits removed them to federal court. (FHFA has moved to remand.)

The Southern District's infamous assignment wheel dispersed the suits to an array of judges, including Victor Marrero, Jed Rakoff, Kevin Castel, and Lewis Kaplan, who signed the September orders coordinating the suits. Then, according to the transcript of a Dec. 2 hearing before Cote, the federal judges conferred and decided one of them should oversee the entire litigation. Cote said she volunteered. (Only the FHFA's suit against Countrywide is before another judge; the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation conditionally transferred that case to Los Angeles federal court judge Mariana Pfaelzer, who's overseeing the Countrywide MBS securities litigation.)

Cote is wasting no time. Several weeks before the FHFA's mass filing, the agency's lawyers at Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan had filed a single suit against UBS, presaging the assertions to come against the other defendants. In October, the FHFA and the defendants filed proposed plans for coordinating all of the FHFA MBS litigation. Less than a month later, Cote issued an order that essentially designated the UBS case as a test of the MBS issuers' common defenses. (Here's the FHFA proposal, signed by Quinn Emanuel and Kasowitz Benson Torres & Friedman; and here's the joint defense plan, signed by a cast of dozens of big-name securities lawyers.)

The judge's order put UBS's lawyers at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom in charge of the issue that could wipe out most of the FHFA's claims with a single ruling. As Skadden explained in a Dec. 2 motion to dismiss the case against UBS, the 2008 federal law that sent Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac into conservatorship did not extend the three-year statute of repose, which sets an absolute time bar on securities claims. The law, known as the Housing and Economic Recovery Act, explicitly extended the statute of limitations on Fannie and Freddie's state law tort and contract claims, but according to the Skadden brief, does not address the statute of repose -- which cannot be extended by a tolling agreement -- at all.

FHFA "inexplicably sat on its claims until July 2011 nearly four years after the last purchase (and over six years after the first purchase) of the RMBS certificates at issue," the UBS brief said. "On their face, plaintiff's claims are time-barred under the applicable statutes of repose."

FHFA, you won't be surprised to hear, takes a different view of the statute of repose, arguing that the clock began ticking not when Fannie and Freddie purchased the MBS certificates at issue in the litigation, but when Fannie and Freddie went into conservatorship. The agency argues that because it filed its suits within three years of the effective date of the Housing and Economic Recovery Act, its claims are not time-barred.

If Cote agrees with UBS's interpretation, the housing agency will have essentially no remaining claims against UBS, since it didn't assert fraud counts in that case. The judge has said that even if she grants UBS's motion to dismiss the other defendants will have to file their own motions. But the statute of repose defense applies to all of the MBS issuers, so there's no reason to think she wouldn't rule the same way in the other cases.

The judge also said that if she denies UBS's motion to dismiss -- which also raises defenses based on the statute of limitations and on FHFA's supposed failure to show any misrepresentations -- FHFA can begin discovery against all of the defendants. In the meantime, Cote ordered both sides to submit case management plans next week, including discovery schedules and trial dates.

FHFA filed an amended complaint against UBS on Dec. 21. (It's not available on PACER.) UBS has until Jan. 20 to file a revised motion to dismiss, although its arguments on the key statute of repose issue aren't likely to change much.

For the folks keeping score on the inside-baseball defense game, Skadden also represents Societe Generale. Different Sullivan & Cromwell teams represent JPMorgan Chase; First Horizon and related defendants; Barclays; Nomura; and Goldman Sachs. Simpson Thacher & Bartlett has RBS and Deutsche Bank. Mayer Brown is defending HSBC and Ally Financial. Defense firms with one client in the case include Cravath, Swaine & Moore (Credit Suisse); Davis Polk & Wardwell (Morgan Stanley); Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison (Citigroup); Williams & Connolly (Bank of America); Weil, Gotshal & Manges (General Electric); and Richards Kibbe & Orbe (individual defendants).

(Reporting by Alison Frankel)