Case 1:05-cv-01483-JDB Document 33-13 Filed 06/21/2007 Page 1 of 11

EXHIBIT K


Case 1:05-cv-01463-JDB Document33-13 Filed 66/21/2007 Page z2ofti

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

MARIALICE BATHRUS WILLIAMS, Civil Action No. 1:05CV01483
Plaintiff, Judge John D. Bates
vs.
: PLAINTIFF MARIALICE
FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE : BATHRUS WILLIAMS
ASSOCIATION, ef ai. : ANSWER TO
: INTERROGATORIES
Defendants.

PLAINTIFF’S ANSWERS TO DEFENDANTS’ INTERROGATORIES
INTERROGATORY NO. 1: Describe in detail each and every fact or

statement made by any Defendant that supports your allegation that Defendants

denied you the opportunity to make and enforce a contract on the basis of race
with respect to the May 2001 Proposal. —

ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 1: This answer is based ona
search of my own memory and on documents in my possession. | did not have
the benefit of my computer records, because it crashed and none of the
documents on it could be recovered. Examination of documents in the
possession or under custody and control of Defendants, which were requested
by me and which have not yet been produced, | expect should permit me to
further elaborate on this answer.

No statements were made other than one by Defendant Richard Lawch. Mr.
Lawch made the statement in the doorway of his office after Plaintiff was in a
meeting with the Senior Vice President Lou Hoyes and Bert Lee, Charlotie
Holloman, and others to discuss business opportunities. Mr. Lawch stated that
he was working with an “international broker” for doing some insurance business
_ for the MBS pools.

It was the actions, not the statements that made me aware that Fannie Mae was
excluding me from the pool of insurance brokers who were doing business with


Case 1:05-cv-01463-JDB Doacument33-13 Filed 66/21/2007 Page doit

Fannie Mae at the time. Fannie Mae and these brokers were doing business in
accordance to concepts that | had developed while at Fannie Mae and was
promised that | would be allowed to develop once | left Fannie Mae.

IT AT : Describe in detail each and every fact or
statement made by any Defendant that supports your allegation that Defendants
tortiously interfered with your Joint Venture or Co-Brokerage Agreement or any
other business relationship with CAM Financial.

ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 2: This answer is based ona
search of my own memory and on documents in my possession. | did not have
the benefit of my computer records, because it crashed and none of the
documents on it could be recovered. Examination of documents in the
possession or under custody and control of Defendants, which were requested
by me and which have not yet been produced, | expect should permit me to
further elaborate on this answer. /

The facts supporting my allegation that Defendants tortiously interfered with my
Joint Venture or Co-Brokerage Agreement with CAM is the letter that | was asked
to write by Grace Huebscher and Rhoda Newman. | was told to write a letter to
Fannie Mae indicating that | was not in business with CAM Financial. | was told
that until that letter was forthcoming, | would have no more meetings with Fannie
Mae regarding business development.

J RR RY NO. 3: Describe in detail the May 2001
Proposal, including any expected financial arrangement and benefits to you
associated with that Proposal.

ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 3: This answer is based on a
search of my own memory and on documents in my possession. | did not have
the benefit of my computer records, because it crashed and none of the
documents on it could be recovered. Examination of documents in the
possession or under custody and control of Defendants, which were requested
by me and which have not yet been produced, | expect should permit me to
further elaborate on this answer. | a a

The May 2001 Proposal entailed the laying off of risk associated with the
Delegated Underwriting and Servicing Program. Many of the lenders in this
prestigious program were having problems with their balance sheet because they
were carrying a substantial amount of risk on the loans that they were selling or
securitizing with Fannie Mae. The idea was that while the first 1% of the risk was


Case 1:05-cv-01463-JDB Document33-13 Filed 66/21/2007 Page 4of ti

carried by the lender, the next level of risk was shared on a parri passu basis by
Fannie Mae and the lender, up to 20% of the amount of the loan. | contacted
numerous insurance companies, came up with alternative proposals including
the use of a captive insurance company in order to lay off that risk for both
Fannie Mae and the lender.

We obtained quotes from the insurance companies indicating that the insurance
would range up to 25 basis points per annum for the lender but that if Fannie
Mae were to opt in to the insurance; the cost would be reduced to the lender.
The commission on that insurance cost would be approximately 10% or 2.5 basis
points on the amount of the loan. At that time Fannie Mae had approximately $9
billion of DUS loans and if the program had been okayed by Fannie Mae we
would have earned $22 million. -

INTERROGATORY NO, 4: Describe in detail each and every

meeting (including, but not limited to, the time, place, attendees, and topics
discussed), correspondence, or communication you had with Defendants
concerning the May 2001 Proposal.

ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 4: This answer is based on a
search of my own memory and on documents in my possession. | did not have
the benefit of my computer records, because it crashed and none of the
documents on it could be recovered. Examination of documents in the
possession or under custody and control of Defendants, which were requested
by me and which have not yet been produced, | expect should permit me to
further elaborate on this answer.

| did not meet regularly with the Defendant regarding the May 2001 proposal.
We talked on the phone and wrote e-mails. The point is that my job was to
secure the insurance and the DUS lenders as clients and bring the deal back to
Fannie Mae. We worked with Washington Mortgage, Lend Lease, Red Capital
Mortgage, and others. We only contacted Fannie Mae for information requested
by the insurance companies or the lenders.

INTERROGATORY NO. 5: Describe in detail how the business or

contracts proposed by you in the May 2001 Proposal were awarded to Craig Ott,
including exactly what business or contracts were awarded to Craig Ott and how

they were the same or similar to the business or contracts proposed by you.


Case 1:05-cv-O01463-JDB Document3g-13 Filed 06/21/2007 Page Sof 14

ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 5: This answer is based on a
search of my own memory and on documents in my possession. | did not have
the benefit of my computer records, because it crashed and none of the
documents on it could be recovered. Examination of documents in the
possession or under custody and control of Defendants, which were requested
by me and which have not yet been produced, | expect should permit me to
further elaborate on this answer.

| cannot testify at this time about what business or how much business that
Fannie Mae gave to Craig Ott. This matter is within the knowledge of Fannie
Mae and | await Defendants’ discovery responses.

INTERROGATORY NO. 6: Describe in detail each and every

correspondence or communication between you and Fannie Mae between 2001
and the present, including date, location, parties to the correspondence or

communication and subject of the correspondence or communication.

ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 6: This answer is based ona
search of my own memory and on documents in my possession. | did not have
the benefit of my computer records, because it crashed and none of the
documents on it could be recovered. Examination of documents in the
possession or under custody and control of Defendants, which were requested
by me and which have not yet been produced, | expect should permit me to
further elaborate on this answer.

Most of my communication with Fannie Mae was by phone or by e-mail. | have
had two computer crashes since | began working with Fannie Mae in 1998 to
bring these opportunities to fruition.

INTERROGATORY NO. 7: Describe in detail the contents and

scope of your Joint Venture or Co-Brokerage Agreement.

ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 7: This answer is based ona
search of my own memory and on documents in my possession. | did not have
the benefit of my computer records, because it crashed and none of the
documents on it could be recovered. Examination of documents in the
possession or under custody and control of Defendants, which were requested
by me and which have not yet been produced, | expect should permit me to
further elaborate on this answer.


Case 1:05-cv-01463-JDB Document33-13 Filed 66/21/2007 Pages of ti

i had a simple, common co-brokerage agreement with CAM Financial that
entailed paying them a commission in the event that they secured the insurance
that | needed on any of the proposais that | was working on. These proposals
ranged from insuring pools of automobile loans, charter school loans, captive |
insurance and reinsurance, etc.

INTERROGATORY NO. 8: Describe in detail each and every

correspondence or communication between you and CAM Financial concerning
the Joint Venture or Co-Brokerage Agreement.

ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 8: The detail of the co-brokerage
with CAM was a co-brokerage agreement.

INTERROGATORY NO. 9: Describe in detail each and every
communication or correspondence evidencing that Defendants “actively
discouraged” CAM Financial from dealing with you, as referenced in Paragraph
61 of your Amended Complaint, including how, when and from whom you
learned of this communication or correspondence.

ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 9: This answer is based on a
search of my own memory and on documents in my possession. | did not have
fhe benefit of my computer records, because it crashed and none of the
documents on it could be recovered. . Examination of documents in the
possession or under custody and control of Defendants, which were requested
by me and which have not yet been produced, | expect should permit me to
further elaborate on this answer.

| learned of Defendant actively discouraging CAM Financial from doing business
with me as a result of phone conversations from Bob Jones, President of CAM
Financial. | cannot recall the dates of these conversations.

INTERROGATORY NO. 10: Describe in detail each and every

communication or correspondence of “knowingly false and defamatory


Case 4:05-ev-01483-JDB Document 33-13 Filed 66/21/2007 Page 7 of 1%

information” about you by Defendants to CAM Financial, as referenced in
Paragraph 62 of your Amended Complaint, including how, when and from whom
you learned of this communication or correspondence.

ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 10: This answer is based ona
search of my own memory and on documents in my possession. | did not have
the benefit of my computer records, because it crashed and none of the
documents on it could be recovered. Examination of documents in the
possession or under custody and control of Defendants, which were requested
by me and which have not yet been produced, | expect should permit me to
further elaborate on this answer.

| learned of false and defamatory information about me being communicated to
CAM Financial through telephone conversations with Bob Jones, President of
CAM Financial. | cannot recall the dates of these conversations.

INTERROGATORY NO. 11: Describe in detail the circumstances

through which the Joint Venture or Co-Brokerage Agreement was terminated
(including, but not limited to, how notification occurred and by whom.)
ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 11:
The Co-Brokerage Agreement expired with CAM.

INTERROGATORY NO. 12: Describe in detail the circumstances

through which you learned of CAM Financial's lawsuit against Fannie Mae
(including, but not limited to, how and when you were notified and by whom.)

ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO, 12: | learned of CAM Financial's
lawsuit against Fannie Mae from Bob Jones, President, CAM Financial. Fannie
Mae was not originally a defendant in the lawsuit by CAM Financial against the
insurance companies. Fannie Mae was added to the lawsuit later by the judge |
believe. | cannot recall the dates.


Case 1:05-cv-01463-JDB Document33-13 Filed 66/21/2007 Page dof ti

INTERROGATORY NO. 13: Describe in detail how you caiculate your

losses and damages at the amounts listed in Paragraph 86 of your Amended
Complaint, and specify whether such losses and damages relate to the May
2001 Proposal, or the Joint Venture or Co-Brokerage Agreement, or both.

ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 13: This answer is based on a
search of my own memory and on documents in my possession. | did not have
the benefit of my computer records, because it crashed and none of the
documents on it could be recovered. Examination of documents in the
possession or under custody and control of Defendants, which were requested
by me and which have not yet been produced, | expect should permit me to
further elaborate on this answer.

Losses were calculated based upon the amount of potential business that Fannie
Mae did using structures developed by me. Generally speaking, the fees ranged
about 25 basis points annually for the insurance. In some instances, the fees
were as high as 56 basis points (Metropolitan Savings Bank MBS transaction)
and the broker's fee is approximately 10% of the premium fee. Annual reports
from Fannie Mae reflect that about 2 billion of MBS one off transactions were
closed annually. Substantially more MBS were issued with the DUS portfolio. |
would have no way of knowing exactly what the credit enhancement
arrangements were for all of these transactions and the extent to which
insurance was used. Fannie Mae would know this.

INTERROGATORY NO. 14: List and describe each and every

expense you incurred in reliance on Fannie Mae’s alleged promises and
assurances to conduct business with you, and identify for each expense whether
the expense was for the May 2001 Proposal, the Joint Venture or Co-Brokerage
Agreement, both, or neither, and also identify whether each expense was used
solely for the identified project or agreement or for other business purposes as

well, with Fannie Mae or otherwise.


Case 1:05-cv-01463-JDB Document33-13 Filed 66/21/2007 Page9of ti

ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 14: | left Fannie Mae after a lengthy
discussion with Lou Hoyes, the then Vice President of Multifamily for Fannie
Mae. Based upon discussion and the letter that Mr. Hoyes had sent to CAM
Financial, it was expected that nearly $1 billion of multifamily business would be
done using the insurance credit enhancement that | developed for Fannie Mae
over the next year after | left. On the strength of those promises, | spent:

e Rent at $1,450.00 per month

e Phone and office equipment at $1,000.00 per month

e Travel to visit DUS lenders, conferences, especially MBA conferences

and insurance companies at $1,500.00 per month

e Office assistant at first $2,000.00 and then at $3,000.00 per month

INTERROGATORY NO. 15: List the name, address, and telephone

number of each individual likely to have information that you may use to support
your claims, describing fully for each individual the information they will likely

have.

ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 15: Names of individuals who can
attest to these efforts:
e Harvey Hartsfield, 742 Aspen Street NW; Washington, DC 20011; 202-
352-6964
Conway Downing
Chris Tawa, Lend Lease, no address
Bob Jones, President, CAM Financial, Gulfport, Mississippi
Rhoda Newman, Fannie Mae
Jane Harrison
Grace Huebscher, Fannie Mae
Jeff Webb and others at AIG Insurance
JK Larsen, Lend Lease Bovis
Eric Rosenfield
Stephen Noble, Zurich Re
Marsh Mac
Red Mortgage Capital
Aries Capital
Swiss Re
The DC Department of Insurance Securities and Banking
Richard Lawch, Fannie Mae

e*eeee#?%e8%#%8e#ee##ee#¢e#8*e% ¢


Case 1:05-cv-01463-JDB Document33-16 Filed 06/21/2007 Page 10 0f14

All of the companies and individuals above had extensive dealings with me while
| was trying to develop credit enhancement and risk reduction techniques using
insurance products. The ultimate goal for all of the clients and insurance
companies was to lay off the risk to lenders while insuring losses to protect

investors including to protect Fannie Mae.
i ~—— ,

Marialice Balthrus Williams
January 8, 2006

AFFIRMATION OF PLAINTIFF’S ANSWERS

Subscribed and sworn before a Notary Public in Washington, District of
Columbia, this 8th day of January 2007, |, Marialice Bathrus Williams, Plaintiff,
state that | believe that the answers stated in response to Defendants’
Interrogatories are true and accurate, to the best of my knowledge and

information.
Vea pee ( Brin a2

Marialice Bathrus Williams
| / itary Public
My Commission expires: Jl, | Gy \\


Case 1:05-cv-01463-JDB Document33-16 Filed 06/21/2007 Page Ti ofl

Certificate of Service

| certify that a copy of Plaintiffs Affirmed Answers to Defendants’ Interrogatories
was hand delivered on January 8, 2007, to counsel for Defendants, Sarah
Goldfrank, Evelyn Becker and Kyra Grundeman, O'Melveny & Myers LLP
1625 Eye Street, NW, Washington, DC 20006-4001.

Brian Lederer

10