Official Statement from US Bank Regarding City Attorney’s Lawsuit

We are extremely disappointed that the City Attorney’s office has chosen to file
this lawsuit. The city attorney has chosen the wrong party - we are not the
owners of the properties, nor are we responsible for the servicing of the
properties. The homes are owned by trusts, consisting of investors, and are
serviced by other companies. Those companies are responsible for maintenance
of the properties and compliance with city ordinances. Our role as trustee is
purely administrative.

We have had extensive discussions with the City Attorney’s staff in an effort
to identify and resolve any issues.

· We have made multiple requests of the City over the past couple of years to
obtain detailed information on properties they considered to be in disrepair in
order to immediately identify and work with the responsible servicer to address
outstanding issues. Until very recently, the City has refused to provide us with
that information.

·We believe that each of the properties identified in the complaint are part of
residential mortgage-backed securities trusts where mortgages originated by
other lenders were packaged into securities and sold to investors.

·The only reason U.S. Bank’s name is associated with these properties is
because we serve as trustee for the trusts. Foreclosure actions are taken by the
servicers on behalf of the trusts and merely in the name of the trustee.

·Only the servicer of the home – the company the homeowner sends their
mortgage payment to each month – can foreclose or initiate a mortgage
modification. In addition, the servicer is responsible for the upkeep of homes
and properties and for interacting with homeowners and/or tenants.

·Our role as trustee is to hold title to the assets on behalf of the trusts and for
the benefit of the investors in the mortgage-backed security, and perform
certain other administrative duties for the trust. The city attorney refers to the
compensation we receive as trustee, but the level of compensation reflects the
fact that our duties as trustee are limited and that servicers have additional
duties for which they are compensated.

·Because it is the servicers, not the trustee, who have the duty to maintain
foreclosed properties, we intend to bring them into this lawsuit.
·It is clear from the complaint that the city does not understand our role with
respect to mortgage-backed securities. For example, contrary to the claims
made by the city attorney in the complaint, we did not purchase and then
bundle residential mortgage loans into securities.

·Like the City Attorney, we are troubled by properties that are not maintained,
which have a corrosive impact on neighborhoods and communities.

· As trustee, U.S. Bank has limited (if any) information on the loans or status of
properties in the trusts.

·We have worked collaboratively with other cities to engage servicers to

address property-specific and general foreclosure related concerns. We have
made similar offers to the City Attorney’s office, and we continue to stand
ready to implement such an approach with the city of Los Angeles.