Institutional Investor Securities Blog

Citigroup (C) Settle $3.5B securities lawsuit Over MBS Sold to Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae
Citigroup has settled the $3.5 billion mortgage-backed securities filed with the Federal Housing Finance Agency. The MBS were sold to Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae and both sustained resulting losses. This is the second of 18 securities fraud cases involving FHFA suing banks last year over more than $200B in MBS losses by Fannie and Freddie. The lawsuit is FHFA v. Citigroup.

J.P. Morgan International Bank Ltd. Slapped with $4.64M Fine by UK Regulator
The UK Financial Conduct Authority says that JPMorgan unit (JPM) J.P. Morgan International Bank Ltd. must pay a $4.64 million fine for controls failures and systems involving its retail investment advice and portfolio investment services. Per the agency, financial firms that don’t maintain the proper records not only put their clients at risk of getting involved inappropriate investments, but also they don’t have a way to determine whether the proper advice was given. Fortunately, investors were not harmed despite the risk exposure.

The UK regulator says the problems went on for two years. Among the problems identified: outdated files, insufficient key client data, inadequate record system, inadequate suitability reports, and insufficient communication with clients about suitability. FCA says that it wasn’t until after it identified the problems and notified the JP Morgan unit about them that the necessary modifications were made.

Whistleblower’s Retaliation Action Against UBS Securities Can Go Ahead, Says Court
A district court judge made the decision not to dismiss ex-UBS Securities LLC (UBS) senior strategist Trevor Murray’s retaliatory action against his former employer. Murray was allegedly fired after he told his managers about possible securities law violations.

He contends that he was let go because he refused to write reports about UBS’s commercial MBS that were “more favorable to the financial firm.” Murray sued, arguing that the action violated the Dodd-Frank Act’s whistleblower protection provisions. UBS then tried arguing that Murray wasn’t a whistleblower because he didn’t tell the SEC about the alleged violation, but the judge said that a whistleblower is allowed to report alleged violations to governmental authorities and persons other than the regulator.

Former Goldman Sachs VP Consents to Pay $100K Payment SEC Pay-to-Play Action
Neil M. M. Morrison, an ex-Goldman Sachs & Co. (GS) vice president, will pay $100,000 to resolve an SEC action accusing him of taking part in an alleged pay-to-play scheme involving former Massachusetts state Treasurer Timothy Cahill’s gubernatorial campaign. The Commission said that he solicited the state’s underwriting business while “engaged” in Cahill’s campaign and that his use of the financial firm’s resources and work time are considered campaign contributions. By settling, Morrison is not admitting or denying the allegations.

Meantime, Goldman will pay approximately $12 million to settle the related proceedings against it, as well as $4.5 million to Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley. Even though the firm wasn’t allowed to take part in municipal underwriting business for two years after Morrison’s alleged violations, the SEC says that Goldman still took part in 30 underwriting contracts with issuers in the state and made about $7.5 million in fees.

Citi settles U.S. suit over $3.5 billion in mortgage securities, Reuters, May 28, 2013

U.K. Regulator Fines JPMorgan Unit $4.64M For Failures in Investment Systems, Controls, Bloomberg/BNA, May 28, 2013

Internal Whistleblowing Deserves Protection, Judge Tells UBS, Law360, May 22, 2013

SEC Charges Goldman Sachs and Former Vice President in Pay-to-Play Probe Involving Contributions to Former Massachusetts State Treasurer, SEC, September 27, 2012

More Blog Posts:
FINRA Orders Wells Fargo & Banc of America’s Merrill Lynch Ordered to Pay $5.1M for Floating-Rate Bank Loan Funds Sales, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, June 4, 2013

AIG Drops RMBS Lawsuit Against New York Fed, Fights Bank of America’s $8.5B MBS Settlement, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, June 5, 2013

Two Oppenheimer Investment Advisers Settle for Over $2.8M SEC Fraud Charges Over Private Equity Fund, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, March 14, 2013

American International Group (AIG) and Maiden Lane II dismissing lawsuit against the Federal Reserve Bank of New York regarding the $182.3 billion financial bailout that the insurer received during the 2008 economic crisis. In dispute was whether AIG still had the right to pursue a lawsuit over residential mortgage-backed securities losses and if the company had moved $18 billion of litigation claims to Maiden Lane, which is a New York Fed-created entity.

An AIG spokesperson said that in the wake of a recent ruling by a district judge in California that the company did not assign $7.3 billion of the claims to Maiden Lane, both are dropping their action without prejudice. This means that AIG can now pursue Bank of America (BAC) for these claims, which is what the insurer wants to do.

Bank of America had said that AIG could not sue it over the allegedly fraudulent MBS because the latter transferred that right when the New York Fed bought the instruments in question 2008. However, according to Judge Mariana R. Pfaelzer, even if the New York Fed meant for Maiden Lane II to have these claims, that intention was not made clear.

On Tuesday, in New York State Supreme Court, the insurer argued that the proposed $8.5 billion settlement reached between the bank and investors in MBS from Countrywide Financial Corp. is not enough. The judge there is trying to determine whether to approve the settlement, reached with investors who claimed that the firm had misrepresented the mortgages backing the securities.

AIG is one of a number of entities that oppose the settlement. At the hearing, one of its lawyers questioned why the settlement was merely $8.5 billion when investors initially asked for $50 billion.

AIG also is arguing that there may be a conflict of interest with those that arrived at the proposed settlement amount. The insurer is questioning whether trustee Bank of New York Mellon (BK), which does a lot of its trustee business with Bank of America, did a good enough job of researching the risks involving successor liability and investigating the loan files. Bank of NY Mellon also is the trustee for 530 trusts that are holding the securities under dispute. Another investor supporting the current proposed settlement is BlackRock Inc, which also has a strategic relationship with the bank.

Meantime, the attorney who negotiated the $8.5 billion proposed settlement between BofA 22 institutional investors says that not only is this the biggest settlement in the history of private litigation, but also it is worth almost two times as much as Countrywide, which is valued at $4.8 billion.

AIG argues against $8.5 billion settlement with BofA, Reuters, June 4, 2013

Court allows AIG to sue Bank of America for fraud, The Boston Globe, May 8, 2013

More Blog Posts:
AIG Wants to Stop Former CEO Greenberg From Naming It as a Defendant in Derivatives Lawsuit Against the US, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, April 13, 2013

Bank of New York Mellon Corp. Must Contend with Pension Fund Claims Over Countrywide Mortgage-Backed Securities, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, April 10, 2012

Bank of America Subpoenaed by Massachusetts Over Bryn Mawr CLO II Ltd. and LCM VII Ltd. CLOs that Cost Investors $150 Million, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, February 14, 2012

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority says that LPL Financial LLC must pay a $7.5 million fine for inadequately supervising more than 28 million business emails between 2007 and 2013. This is the largest fine the SRO has ever imposed over an e-mail case.

According to FINRA, LPL’s systems for overseeing and storing e-mails failed a minimum of 35 times. It contends that the firm did not succeed in fulfilling its duty to retain e-mails, supervise its representatives, and properly respond to requests by regulators. The SRO attributes these problems to the brokerage firm’s failure to put enough resources toward updating its e-mail system as its business grew quickly.

Among the e-mail failures:

• Not keeping up access to hundreds of millions of emails during migration to a less costly email archive (80 million emails were corrupted)
• Not retaining and reviewing 3.5 million Bloomberg messages over a seven-year period
• Not archiving emails received by customers via third party advertising platforms transmitted via e-mail.

In addition to the paying the fine, LPL will have to set up a $1.5 million fund to pay brokerage customers that may have been affected by the e-mail failures. However, by settling this FINRA case, the broker-dealer is not denying or admitting to wrongdoing. The financial firm maintains that it is the one that reported the e-mail issues to FINRA in 2011. It also says that it has taken on a thorough redesign of its e-mail systems, policies, and procedures while working with independent experts to make sure the proper actions are taken.

Institutional Investment Fraud Lawyer William Shepherd disagrees with LPL’s claim that no wrongdoing occurred: “Some observers claim that this firm has done nothing but carry insurance and not supervise its brokers for years. They all but said so when they asked one of their client OSJs to consider taking over conducting supervision for them. In other words they wanted to become some sort of clearing firm that also gets a piece of the commission pie. This fine and action demonstrates in no uncertain terms that they simply did not supervise.”

FINRA also claims that during its investigation into this matter, LPL made misstatements, including the statement that the e-mail problems weren’t identified in June 2011 when firm staff had information that could have allowed the issues to be sussed out in 2008. A LPL is also accused of making the misstatement that there were no red flags to help identify these e-mail issues when actually there were.

The e-mail system problems resulted in the firm’s failure to produce all the emails that state and federal regulators asked for. The SRO speculates that the brokerage firm may have even failed to give certain private litigations and FINRA arbitration claimants the emails that they needed.

LPL to Pay $9 Million for Systemic Email Failures and for Making Misstatements to FINRA, FINRA, May 21, 2013

FINRA fines LPL Financial $9 million for email violations, Reuters, May 21, 2013

More Blog Posts:
LPL Financial Continues to Stay on Regulators’ Radar, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, April 10, 2013

LPL Financial Ordered to Pay $100K for Lack of Adequate Oversight that Resulted in Unsuitable Investments for Clients, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, November 29, 2011

SEC Submits Request for Data on Whether to Make Brokers & Investment Advisers Abide by Uniform Fiduciary Standard, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, April 4, 2013

In Australia, two Morgan Stanley (MS) customers are suing the financial firm for $5 million because they say that is much their superannual accounts lost because of alleged misrepresentations made by broker Kate Kearney. Helen Sedman, 74, and Sally Middleton, 61, claim that Kearney deceived them into thinking that an option trade that they made was low risk.

Middleton and Sedman are business partners. They believe that because of the high-risk option trade and fees they had to pay, over 97% of Middleton’s account was wiped out (from $1.2 million to $34,000), while Sedman’s went down 90% (from $4.8 million to $950,000) in just eight weeks. The plaintiffs say they paid Morgan Stanley $1.1 million in fees.

According to the women’s securities attorney, the business partners wanted long-term safe investments for their super funds. Instead, what they purportedly got was an “aggressive” trading plan that cost them close to $5 million, while Kearney earned $379,000 in commissions from Sedman and $188,000 from Middelton. Their lawyer says that because of Kearney’s reassurances, their lack of knowledge about how much risk was really involved, and their difficulty in fully comprehending their trading position, they ended up moving forward with trades that they otherwise would not have gotten involved in.

The two women believe that Kearney acted in her best interests rather than theirs. They are alleging breach of duty of care, breach of contractual obligations, and failure to stop the risky trading even though the risk management division had identified that it was taking place.

If you suspect that your financial losses are due to broker misconduct or negligence, you should speak with an experienced securities lawyer right away.

Morgan Stanley sued over $5m super losses, The Age.com, May 20, 2013

Fraud, Securities and Exchange Commission (PDF)

More Blog Posts:
Two Men Sentenced in Texas Securities Case Involving $30 Million Promissory Note Fraud that Bilked Investors Via Ponzi Scam, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, May 14, 2013

Federal Records Act Lawsuit Seeking to Make the SEC Reconstruct About 9,000 Enforcement-Related Documents is Dismissed, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, February 5, 2013

Ex-Commission Officials, Others Want DC Circuit to Grant Stanford Ponzi Scam Victims SIPC Protection
Former SEC Officials, law professors, and trade groups are among those pressing the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to reject the regulator’s bid to compel Securities Investor Protection Corporation coverage for the investors who were bilked in R. Allen Stanford’s $7 billion Ponzi scam. Inclusion under the Securities Investor Protection Act would allow the fraud victims to obtain reimbursement for losses.

However, SIPC, which is a federally mandated non-profit corporation, doesn’t believe that the Stanford investors, who purchased certificates of deposit from Stanford International Bank Ltd. in Antigua, fall under this protection. Following a failure to act on the SEC’s request to initiate liquidation proceedings for brokerage firm Stanford Group Co., the regulator asked the court for a novel order that would make the organization comply.

Last year, the district court rejected the SEC’s application, finding that Stanford’s investors were not, for Securities Investor Protection Act purposes, covered. The agency then went to the DC Circuit.

Now, in an amicus brief filing, the academics and ex-SEC officials, including Paul Atkins and Joseph Grundfest, are arguing that the appeals court should turn down the regulator’s bid to expand who is “covered through SIPC” because it would not be in line with statutory history, “contravenes” the statute’s “plan language,” and is in conflict with over four decades of judicial precedent.

SEC Division of Trading and Markets Address Credit Default SwapsPortfolio Margin Program Questions
In other SEC news, its Division of Trading and Markets recently addressed questions related to temporary approvals that were given to several brokerage firms/ futures commission merchants that allow their involvement in a program that would mix and position portfolio margin customer positions in cleared credit default swaps.

The SEC is now granting conditional exemptive relief from certain 1934 Securities Exchange Act requirements related to a program that would portfolio and mix margin customer positions in certain cleared CDSs. In March, the Commission gave conditional approval to Goldman Sachs & Co. (GS), J.P. Morgan Securities LLC (JPM), and five other banks to take part in the program. They now can temporarily determine the portfolio margin figures for client positions in commingled CDs according to a model created by ICE Clear Credit, the largest credit default swaps clearing house in the world, while division staff assess the financial firms’ margin methodologies.

Now, ICE Clear Credit participants have questions. They want to know what is the margin treatment of a portfolio that has just single-name CDS positions as well as what is the clearing participants' affiliates’ margin treatment. Responding, SEC division staff said that a FCM/BD client account that has just single-name CD positions would be subject to applicable margin requirements per FINRA Rule 4240. They also said that BD/FCM clearing participants have to deal with affiliates’ single-name CD positions as if they were “customer positions” for margin purposes. SEC staff said that this is in line with FINRA and Commission broker-dealer financial responsibility rules regarding how affiliates are to be treated.

Read the SEC's Response to Questions About CDS Portfolio Margin Program (PDF)

Read the Amicus Filing to the DC Circuit

More Blog Posts:
Medical Capital Fraud Lawsuit Against Wells Fargo Must Proceed, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, April 10, 2013

FINRA Bars Former Wells Fargo Advisors Broker that Bilked Child with Cerebral Palsy, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, April 26, 2012

Standard & Poor’s Seeks Dismissal of DOJ Securities Fraud Lawsuit Over RMBS and CDO Ratings Issued During the Financial Crisis, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, May 9, 2013

Investor Korine Brown is seeking class action status on behalf of those that also participated in General Motors Inc.'s Personal Savings Plan for hourly employees in her securities case against Fidelity Investments Institutional Operations Co. Inc. and Fidelity Management and Research Co. She is alleging breach of fiduciary duty. This is just the latest investment fraud case over Fidelity’s handling of money that came from planned assets, as well as against other 401k providers.

As of the end of 2011, the plan Brown has been a participant in contained about $46 billion in assets for over 100,000 account holders. The plaintiff claims that Fidelity Research breached its duty when it invested float income into Fidelity funds found in the plan menu.

Float income is money generated from redemptions, contributions, and transfers of planned assets when they are briefly put in in interest bearing accounts. Brown believes that Fidelity Investments Institutional Operations breached its duty when it used the float income, which she says is a plan asset, to take care of operating costs. She claims that Fidelity didn’t let participants and the fiduciaries tasked with administrating the plan know about how the float income was being used.

Her securities lawsuits says that the two Fidelity units had a fiduciary duty because they possessed discretion over plan assets. Rather than putting the float income into its own funds or using the money to pay for business expenses, it should have moved the money to the plan. Brown is alleging self-dealing that violates the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.

Meantime, a Fidelity spokesperson maintains that Fidelity’s practices comply with ERISA guidelines and that float income was not retained and the company did not get fees from managing the float.

The float income lawsuits against Fidelity started coming in after a federal judge ruled that ABB Inc., a retirement plan, was in breach of fiduciary duty when Fidelity paid bank fees with float income. Fidelity was told to pay $1.7 million, while ABB was ordered to shell out $35.2 million to pay for participant losses. They are appealing that ruling.

Another investor sues Fidelity over use of temporary funds, Investment News, April 30, 2013

Brown v. Fidelity Management and Research Company et al, Justia.com

Brown v. Fidelity Management and Research Company et al, The Complaint (PDF)

More Blog Posts:
Not All Municipal Bond Issuers Are Adjusting Well to the SEC’s Efforts to Make the Market More Transparent, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, February 22, 2012

Former Fidelity Brokerage Reps Says They Were Pressured to Make Sales That Conflicted With CFP Ethic Codes, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, April 8, 2009

The Police Retirement System of St. Louis is suing JPMorgan Chase (JPM) CEO Jamie Dimon and several other senior bank officers over the “London Whale” scandal. The pension fund, which owns 39,000 of the investment bank, is one of numerous investors seeking compensation. Dimon and the other JPMorgan executives are accused of disregarding the red flags indicating that the London-based operation was engaged in taking large scale risks that ultimately resulted in close to $6 billion in losses last year.

In its derivatives lawsuit, the Police Retirement System of St. Louis contends that the defendants “eviscerated” the risk controls of JPMorgan’s London unit to up profits. Even after the media reported that one of the bank’s traders in London was making big bets (that trader was eventually dubbed the “London Whale”), Dimon downplayed the news to investors. The pension fund contends that the executives and others breached their duties to shareholders by not stopping the risky trades.

In March, US lawmakers sought to understand the multimillion-dollar trading loss. At a hearing before Congress, they questioned past and current JPMorgan executives about the financial scandal. Their interrogation came a day after the release of a damning 300-page Congressional report that blamed the bank’s lax culture while also criticizing the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency for also failing to follow up on warning signs.

The executives tried to defend themselves, saying their attempts to lower risks were countered by traders that purposely undervalued bets to conceal an increase in losses. Among the executives that gave testimony was ex-JPMorgan chief investment office head Ina Drew, whose group was in the middle of the debacle. She too blamed lower-level traders and others, while contending that she had been given inaccurate information. Drew said she didn’t know that traders were upping their bets.

Withering Questions at Senate Hearing on JPMorgan Loss, New York Times, March 15, 2013

JPMorgan hit with new investor lawsuit over "Whale" losses, Reuters, April 15, 2013

More Blog Posts:
JP Morgan Sued by Dexia in $1.7B MBS Lawsuit, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, February 11, 2013

JPMorgan, Goldman Sachs, Bank of New York Mellon, Charles Schwab Disclose Market-Based NAVs of Money Market Mutual Funds, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, February 7, 2013

Continue reading "Police Retirement System of St. Louis Also Suing JPMorgan Chase Executives Over “London Whale” Scandal " »

The liquidators of Lehman Brothers Australia want the Federal Court there to approve their plan that would allow the bank to pay $248M in securities losses that were sustained by 72 local charities, councils, private investors, and churches. Although the court held Lehman liable, no compensation has been issued because the financial firm went bankrupt.

Per that ruling, the Federal Court found that Lehman’s Australian arm misled customers during the sale of synthetic collateralized debt obligations. The court also said that Lehman Brothers subsidiary Grange Securities was in breach of its fiduciary duty and took part in deceptive and misleading behavior when it put the very complex CDOs in the councils’ portfolio. (Lehman had acquired Grange Securities and Grange Asset Management in early 2007, thereby also taking charge of managing current and past relationships, including the asset management and transactional services for the councils.) The court determined that the council clients’ “commercial naivety” in getting into these complex transactions were to Grange’s advantage.

Via the liquidators’ plan, creditors would get a portion of a $211 million payout. This is much more than the $43 million that Lehman had offered to pay. The payout would include $45 million from American professional indemnity insurers to Lehman, which would then disburse the funds to those it owes.

If the Federal Court approves the settlement, IMF will dismiss a class action securities case against Lehman.

Securities Fraud
Brokerage firms are not supposed to get unsophisticated or conservative investors involved in high risk, complex investments, even if the customers are institutions and not individuals. When doing so results in investment losses, there may be grounds for an institutional investment fraud case.

Lehman Seeks Australian Court Approval for Vote on Settlement, Bloomberg, April 14, 2013

Understanding the Federal Court’s landmark ruling against Lehman Brothers, The Conversation, September 24, 2012

More Blog Posts:
FINRA Orders UBS Financial Services to Pay $8.25M for Misleading Investors About Security of Lehman Brothers Principal Protected Notes, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, April 15, 2011

Lehman Brothers Australia Found Liable in CDO Losses of 72 Councils, Charities, and Churches, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, September 25, 2012

The US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit is denying UBS AG’s (UBSN) bid to dismiss the Federal Housing Finance Agency’s mortgage-backed securities lawsuit accusing the financial firm of misrepresenting the quality of the loans underlying the residential MBS that Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae bought. FHFA is the mortgage financiers’ appointed conservator.

In its appeal, UBS contended that the MBS lawsuit was filed too late under federal law. However, the 2nd circuit, affirming U.S. District Judge Denise Cote’s ruling, determined that the filing period for type of securities case was extended by the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008.

The RMBS lawsuit is one of 17 FHFA cases against large financial institutions over alleged misrepresentations involving over $200 million in mortgage-backed securities. Judge Cote is presiding over 15 of these MBS lawsuits.

Late last year, the lenders, including Citigroup (C), Barclays Plc (BCS), and Bank of America Corp. (BAC), told the 2nd circuit that Cote’s ruling was not only wrong but also that it would increase their exposure to federal and state securities claims. The banks involved in the mortgage-backed securities cases before the judge recently filed a request before the appeals court arguing that Cote’s pretrial rulings establish a litigation framework that they described as “grossly inequitable, clearly erroneous.” They believe that a number of her decisions are “gravely prejudicial” and not only wrongly attempted to deny them the ability to find evidence on may possible legal defenses, but also, they are meant to pressure the banks to settle the securities lawsuits.

Meantime, Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association, which submitted a separate brief, expressed concern that Judge Cote’s decision widened the housing recovery law’s time-limit provisions over what Congress had intended for it to be and that this could lead to “arbitrary decisions” being made. However, the US Justice Department has maintained that it was the lawmakers that “reset” the statute of limitations for filing securities claim. In its briefing, the DOJ said that the Housing and Economic Recovery Act allows for the creation of the FHFA to help remedy the financial problems plaguing Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae after the housing crisis dropped the values of their MBSs.

In the US, contact our MBS fraud law firm today.

UBS Bid to Dismiss FHFA Mortgage-Bond Suit Denied, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, April 5, 2013

UBS Tries Again to Block FHFA Lawsuit, MReport, November 27, 2012

More Blog Posts:
RMBS Lawsuit Against Deutsche Bank Can Proceed, Says District Court, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, April 4, 2013
Mortgage-Backed Securities Lawsuit Against Bank of America’s Merrill Lynch Now a Class Action Case, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, June 25, 2011

CtW Investment Group has announced plans to file a document with the Securities and Exchange Commission that would press shareholders to vote against reelecting four JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPM) board of directors: James Crown, Ellen Futter, Laban Jackson, and David Cote. The group, which represents pension funds that together hold approximately 6 million of the financial firm’s shares and is labor organization Change to Win’s advisory arm, also intends to make its request in writing to the shareholders.

CtW believes that these directors can no longer be depended on to deal with oversight failures and blames most of them for poor risk management oversight that they say allowed the trading fiasco to happen. Meantime, JPMorgan is seeking support among its biggest shareholders. It claims that the board isn’t to be blamed for the “London Whale,” which involved its operation in England making risky bets and losing nearly $6 billion in losses.

Meantime, in a report on the global investment banking industry, JPMorgan’s analysts pointed to Goldman Sachs (GS) and Deutsche Bank (DB) as examples of Tier 1 investment banks to stay away from. It described this tier of banks as “un-investable, with their viability in doubt.

JPMorgan’s banking analysts worry that several new, uncoordinated global banking regulation could negatively affect the firm’s future earnings. For example, they expect the average equity return for leading financial firms to drop to 9.6% after 2015.

Also, because of new capital requirements, firms will have to keep more money in reserve in case of possible loss on high-risk trades. Some are worried that a lower investment banking revenue in the wake of the financial crisis will affect financial firms’ bottom lines. How the bonus caps proposed by the 2010 Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act will be put into effect is still not clear.

Some banks have reacted to the regulatory changes that are coming by making their investment banking units smaller and concentrating on areas of the business that are more profitable. However, caution the JPMorgan analysts, shareholders will likely seek higher returns to make up for the greater risks that now exists among the global markets. They believe that banks will have to up their profits to meet shareholder demands, which may require more layoffs, pay cuts, and face calls for offloading high risk trading activities.

If you think your investment losses are due to securities fraud, contact our institutional investment fraud law firm today. We represent both individual and institutional investors, not just in the US, but also clients abroad with securities arbitration claims and lawsuits against firms based domestically. Contact Shepherd Smith Edwards and Kantas, LTD, LLP today to request your free case assessment.

WSJ Blog: Activists Turn Up the Heat on J.P. Morgan's Board, The WSJ, April 16, 2013

US Securities and Exchange Commission

More Blog Posts:
RMBS Lawsuit Against Deutsche Bank Can Proceed, Says District Court, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, April 4, 2013

Previous Dissent by Arbitrator is Not Reason to Vacate Award Morgan Keegan Was Ordered to Pay Investors, Says District Court, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, April 8, 2013

U.S. District Judge David Carter has turned down Wells Fargo & Co.'s (WFC) bid to throw out a securities lawsuit filed by investors accusing the investment bank of not fulfilling its role as trustee for debt issued by Medical Capital Holdings, which failed in an approximately billion dollar fraud in 2009. His ruling removes any obstacles to a possible trial. Claims could hit the hundreds of millions of dollars.

The investors in this securities case are among those that purchased notes put out by three Medical Capital special purpose companies that named the investment bank as their trustee. They are accusing Wells Fargo of 63 breaches. Meantime, the financial firm maintains that it didn’t act in bad faith and it wasn’t negligent in the way it fulfilled its contractual duties.

Per court documents, the holding company had raised $1.7 billion from over 20,000 investors between 2003 and July 2009, which was when the SEC filed a securities fraud lawsuit against it and two of its executives. The company soon shut its doors. Later, a receiver discovered that investors had lost $839 million to $1.08 billion in a Ponzi-like scam that involved the payment of extra fees.

The plaintiffs contend that rather than disburse funds so that the holding company could provide financing to medical care providers by buying their outstanding receivables, Wells Fargo failed to prevent Medical Capital from diverting their cash to excessive administration fees and non-medical projects. Meantime, in their February filing, attorneys for the investment bank said that even after the plaintiffs deposed its employees no evidence had surfaced to show that any of them knew of any wrongdoing on Medical Capital’s part and that any suspicion of such behavior did not arise until 2009 when payments began defaulting and the SEC began its investigation.

Judge Carter ruled in the investors’ favor on some claims, finding that noteholders demonstrated that there existed a “genuine dispute” over whether any breach committed by Wells Fargo was a “cause in fact” of losses they sustained. He also gave them permission to pursue a claim that the investment bank disbursed certain funds in bad faith. However, he threw out other claims that they made against the financial firm.

It was almost a year ago that ex- Medical Capital president Joseph J. Lampariello pleaded guilty to wire fraud related to the private placement fraud, which ended up forcing dozens of independent brokerage firms to go out of business because of the securities fraud lawsuits by investors that followed. Lampariello also was sued by the SEC in 2009 for running Medical Provider Funding Corp. VI, which was Medical Capital’s final offering. (The civil case against him, however, was closed so that the criminal case could move forward.)

Although investors were told the proceeds raised by MedCap VI would go toward making loans, buying account receivables, paying sales commissions, other expenses, and general operations, Lampariello and others “misappropriated” this money to make Ponzi-type payments to earlier noteholders and pay fees to Medical Capital. The Justice Department said that Lampariello caused MedCap VI noteholders to sustain about $39 million in losses.

Wells Fargo must face lawsuit tied to Medical Capital fraud, Reuters, April 3, 2013

Judge denies Wells Fargo bid as MedCap suit rolls on, Investments News, April 4, 2013

More Blog Posts:
Federal Workers’ Privacy Rights if STOCK Act Provision Mandating Online Disclosure of Financial Data Goes Into Effect, Says District Court Judge, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, April 8, 2013

Previous Dissent by Arbitrator is Not Reason to Vacate Award Morgan Keegan Was Ordered to Pay Investors, Says District Court, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, April 8, 2013

Goldman Sachs Execution and Clearing Must Pay $20.5M Arbitration Award in Bayou Ponzi Scam, Upholds 2nd Circuit, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, July 14, 2012

The dismissal of an Apple REIT class action lawsuit against David Lerner Associates Inc. in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York should have little effect on the Apple REIT arbitration cases that are being resolved through Financial Industry Regulatory Authority arbitration. In fact, most investors are likely to recoup their losses via this avenue.

Per Bloomberg, Investors are contending that they were defrauded in the underwriting and sale of more than $6.8 billion Apple Real Estate Investment Trusts (REITs), which were marketed as suitable for conservative investors. Meantime, Lerner Associates earned over $600 million in commissions and fees as five Apple REITs made above $6 billion.

Last year alone, FINRA told David Lerner to pay $12 million in Apple REIT Ten restitution to investors. The financial firm allegedly targeted elderly investors, misleading them while failing to properly disclose the risks involved in the securities.

In this class action case, the judge threw out the plaintiffs’ arguments that the offering materials for the Apple REITs had misrepresentations. Yet, as Shepherd Smith Edwards and Kantas, LLP Founder and REIT Attorney William Shepherd points out, it isn’t so much that Lerner made representations about the real estate investment trusts but that they were not suitable for the investors that he is currently recommending.

This means that even if the risks were properly disclosed, if the investment was unsuitable for the client it was recommended to, there could likely be grounds for a securities case and resulting recovery.

“Securities class action cases can only be pursued under federal securities fraud laws,” points out Apple REIT Attorney Shepherd. “Securities arbitration claims can be sought under state securities laws, which are usually far better for investors. As well, such claims can be sought for breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, and even negligence. More importantly, the average recovery in securities class action cases is less than 10% of the investors’ losses. For these and other reasons, many investors’ cases fare better in securities arbitration than in court.”

Big win in court for David Lerner, Investment News, April 5, 2013

Class-action suit against David Lerner Associates dismissed, Newsday, April 4, 2013

More Blog Posts:
Prospective Securities Class Action Lawsuit Accuses David Lerner Associates Inc. Accused of Recycling Investor Capital and Using a Credit Line to Meet Dividend Payout, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, September 30, 2011

David Lerner Associates Must Pay $14M Over Apple REIT Ten Sales and Allegedly Excessive Markups Involving CMOs and Municipal Bonds—$12M to Go to Investors, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, October 22, 2012

The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York is refusing to throw out the shareholder securities fraud lawsuit filed against Deutsche Bank (DB) and three individuals over their alleged role in marketing residential mortgage-backed securities and mortgage-backed securities before the economic crisis. The court found that the plaintiffs, led by Building Trades United Pension Fund, the Steward International Enhanced Index Fund, and the Steward Global Equity Income Fund, provided clear allegations that omissions and misstatements were made and there had been a scam with intent to defraud.

The RMBS lawsuit accuses Deutsche Bank of putting out misleading and false statements regarding its financial health prior to the financial crisis. The plaintiffs contend that the financial firm created and sold MBS it was aware were toxic, while overstating how well it could handle risk, and did not write down fast enough the securities that had dropped in value. Because of this, claim the shareholders, the investment bank’s stock dropped 87% in under 24 months.

U.S. District Judge Katherine Forrest said that the plaintiffs did an adequate job of alleging that even as Deutsche Bank talked in public about its low risk lending standards, senior employees at the firm were given information showing the opposite. She said that there are allegations of recklessness that are “plausible.” The district court also found that the complaint adequately alleged control person and antifraud violations involving defendants Chief Executive Officer Josef Ackermann, Chief Financial Officer Anthony Di Iorio, and Chief Risk Officer Hugo Banziger, who are accused of making material misstatements about the risks involved in investing in CDOS and RMBS while knowing they were less conservative than what investors might think. Claims against defendant ex-Supervisory Board Chairman Clemens Borsig, however, were thrown out due to the plaintiffs’ failure to allege that he made an actual misstatement.

The MBS case is looking for investors that purchased Deutsche stock between January 2007 and January 2009.

Deutsche Bank must face shareholder lawsuit: judge, Chicago Tribune, March 27, 2013

IBEW Local 90 Pension Fund v. Deutsche Bank AG (PDF)

More Blog Posts:
Deutsche Bank Settles Massachusetts CDO Case for $17.5 Million, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, April 1, 2013

Barclays LIBOR Manipulation Scam Places Citigroup, Credit Suisse, Deutsche Bank, JP Morgan Chase, and UBS Under The Investigation Microscope, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, July 16, 2012

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has reinstated New Jersey Carpenters Health Fund v. Royal Bank of Scotland Group PLC (RBS), which also includes defendants Wells Fargo Advisors (WFC), McGraw-Hill (MHP), and a number of others. The decision will ease class action mortgage-backed securities lawsuits by investors.

Holding that the plaintiff did not satisfy pleading requirements under the Securities Act of 1933 for lawsuits, a district court had thrown out the case, which was filed by the New Jersey pension fund. The 2nd circuit, however, reversed the ruling, finding that the allegations made (that an unusually high number of mortgages involving a security had defaulted, credit rater agencies downgraded the ratings of the security after modifying how they account for inadequate underwriting, and ex-employees of the relevant underwriter vouched that underwriting standards were being systematically ignored) make a plausible claim that the security’s offering documents incorrectly stated the applicable writing standards. This would be a Securities Act of 1933 violation.

Expected to benefit from the ruling are federal credit union regulators, including the National Credit Union Administration, which has submitted a number of MBS lawsuits against financial firms and banks. Last year, NCUA filed a $3.6 billion action against JP Morgan Chase (JPM) accusing the latter’s Bear Stearns & Co. unit of employing misleading documents to sell mortgage-backed securities to four corporate credit unions that went on to fail. The credit union agency contends that the mortgage in the pools collateralizing the RMBS (residential mortgage-backed securities) did not primarily adhere to underwriting standards noted in the offering statements and the securities were much riskier than what they were represented to be. NCUA has also sued a few of the defendants that the New Jersey Carpenters Health Fund is suing, as well as Goldman Sachs Group (GS) and Barclays.

Mortgage-Backed Securities Lawsuits
According to NERA Economic Consulting, about 850 mortgage-related cases have been submitted in the US since 2007. While the earlier lawsuits concentrated on the originators, with plaintiffs placing a lot of the blame on poor underwriting and bad loans, banks that created securities from residential mortgages and got investors to buy in also were eventually named as defendants. Meantime, trustees have come into the fray as either plaintiffs or defendants. For example, some have been sued for allegedly failing to make lenders buy back the faulty mortgages underlying the securities. Some mortgage bond investors have also been named as defendants in MBS cases.

At Shepherd Smith Edwards and Kantas, LTD, LLP, our RMBS lawyers represent clients in the US, as well as investors abroad that were defrauded by a firm or financial representative based here. Your first MBS case consultation with our institutional investment fraud law firm is free.

NEW JERSEY CARPENTERS HEALTH FUND v. THE ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND GROUP, PLC, Leagle.com

New Jersey Carpenters v. Royal Bank of Scotland - Second Circuit, American Bar Association

Second Circuit Rules in Favor of Investors in Multibillion Dollar NovaStar MBS Class Action, Reuters/Businesswire, March 1, 2013

More Blog Posts:
Former Jeffries Director Charged with Securities Fraud Crimes and Sued By SEC Over Alleged Residential Mortgage-Backed Securities, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, February 1, 2013

McGraw Hills, Moody’s, & Standard & Poor’s Can’t Be Held Liable by Ohio Pension Funds for Allegedly Flawed MBS Ratings, Affirms Sixth Circuit, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, December 20, 2012

Morgan Keegan Settles Subprime Mortgage-Backed Securities Charges for $200M, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, June 29, 2011

Pending court approval, Citigroup Inc. (C) will $730 million to resolve claims that it misled debt investors regarding its financial state during the economic crisis. The plaintiffs had purchased Citi preferred stock and bonds from 5/06 through 11/8. They are accusing Citigroup of misleading the buyers of 48 issues of its corporate bonds. Included among the plaintiffs of this bond lawsuit are the City of Philadelphia Board of Pensions and Retirement, the Louisiana Sheriffs’ Pension and Relief Fund, and the Minneapolis Firefighters’ Relief Association.

The bonds’ declined as the US mortgage market collapsed and the losses grew. According to Bloomberg.com, at one point, Citigroup’s $4 billion of 10-year notes declined to 79.7 cents on the dollar. It went on to lose over $29 billion in ‘08 and ’09.

Struggling from losses involving subprime mortgages, Citigroup ended up having to take a $45 million bailout in 2008, which it has since repaid. However, it is one of the Wall Street firms still coping with the aftermath of the financial crisis. Just last year, Citi consented to pay $590 million over a securities case filed by investors of stock contending that they too had been misled.

In ‘10, a district court judge rejected part of Citigroup’s motion to have this bond lawsuit tossed out. Claims that were dismissed involved the allegedly inadequate disclosure about auction-rate securities and part of the investors’ case involving structured investment vehicles.

Despite settling, the investment bank maintains that the allegations in this bond lawsuit are untrue. Citigroup contends that is only resolved the securities lawsuit to avoid the uncertainty and expense of having to go to court.

If you suspect that your investment losses were a result of securities fraud, contact our institutional investor fraud law firm today.

Citigroup to Pay $730 Million in Bond-Lawsuit Settlement, Bloomberg Businessweek, March 19, 2013

Citi To Pay $590 Million To Burned Shareholders In Toxic Asset Case, Forbes, August 29, 2012

More Blog Posts:
Citigroup Inc.’s $590M CDO Putative Class Action Settlement Gets Preliminary Approval from District Court, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, September 13, 2012

UBS & Citi Do Have to Arbitrate Auction-Rate Securities Case Filed by Health Care Nonprofit Carilion Clinic, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, January 31, 2013

The plaintiffs who are suing the US Government over losses they claim they sustained during its bailout of American International Group (AIG) have been granted class certification. Seeking $55 million, they are contending that the government behaved unconstitutionally when it rescued the company in 2008 during the economic crisis.

In their securities case, investment firm Starr International Co. is claiming that the federal government violated the Fifth Amendment via two transactions that resulted in the delivery of $182 billion in loans backed by US taxpayers and other financial facilities to the beleaguered insurance giant. Starr once was the largest shareholder of AIG, possessing a 12% stake. Judge Thomas C. Wheeler of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims certified two classes related to the two transactions.

One class is comprised of AIG shareholders from September 22, 2008, when a credit agreement granting the government a 79.9% stake in AIG went into effect. The second class is made up of shareholders from the beginning of June 30, 2009 that were not given the chance to vote on a reverse stock split that the government allegedly initiated. The plaintiffs say that both actions were an illegal taking that violated the US Constitution.

They claim that the US government effected a property taking by executing a number of actions that at the end caused the latter to acquire an over 90% interest ownership in AIG. They are also accusing the government of being in violation of the law when it took or was involved in “illegally exacting” 526 million AIG shares valued at about $23 billion without giving shareholders fair compensation. Another claim accuses the Federal Reserve Bank of New York of giving away the insurer’s legal rights and $32.5 billion of collateral to counterparties of AIG.

The government tried to argue that the proposed class did not meet the US Court of Federal Claims’ adequacy requirement for certification qualification, which has to make sure that class members don’t have interests that antagonize the other’s, and that such conflicts existed between the two classes. The court, however, found that Starr did a sufficient job of alleging that the two proposed classes interests were distinct and nonexclusive enough that there was no conflict. It also determined that a class action would be best seeing as there may be tens of thousands of class members.

Earlier this year, AIG decided not to join Starr International Co’s lawsuit after voters and Congress expressed anger that the insurer might sue the entity that came to its rescue. This, AIG repurchased warrants from the US Treasury Department. Now the US no longer has any financial stake in the insurance giant.

At Shepherd Smith Edwards and Kantas, LTD, LLP, our institutional investment fraud lawyers represent clients with individual securities cases. We find that investors stand to recover more when they file their own fraud claims or lawsuits. We have helped thousands of claimants and plaintiffs recover their investment losses.

Related Web Resources:
Starr International Co. v. United States, Law.du.edu

AIG Stakeholders Certified in Class Suit Alleging Government Bailout Unconstitutional, Bloomberg/BNA, March 18, 2013

AIG shareholders' suit certified as class-action, Chicago Tribune/Reuters, March 11, 2013

More Blog Posts:
New York Fed Bailed Out Bank of America Over Mortgage-Backed Securities Sold to AIG, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, February 20, 2013

McGraw Hills, Moody’s, & Standard & Poor’s Can’t Be Held Liable by Ohio Pension Funds for Allegedly Flawed MBS Ratings, Affirms Sixth Circuit, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, December 20, 2012

Securities Law Roundup: Ex-Sentinel Management Group Execs Indicted Over Alleged $500M Fraud, Egan-Jones Rating Wants Court to Hear Bias Claim Against SEC, and Oppenheimer Funds Pays $35M Over Alleged Mutual Fund Misstatements, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, June 13, 2012

The SEC is charging Oppenheimer Alternative Investment Management and Oppenheimer Asset Management, which are two Oppenheimer & Co. investment advisers, with misleading customers about the valuation policies and performance of a private equity fund under their management. To settle the allegations, Oppenheimer will pay over $2.8M. It has also resolved the related action that was filed by Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley.

According to the SEC, from 10/09 to 6/10, the two Oppenheimer investment advisers put out marketing collaterals and quarterly reports that were misleading and claimed that Oppenheimer Global Resource Private Equity Fund I L.P.'s holdings in private equity funds had values that were determined according to the estimated values of the underlying manager. In truth, contends the regulator, Oppenheimer’s portfolio manager actually valued the largest investment of the fund, Cartesian Investors-A LLC, at a markup that was considerable to the underlying manager’s estimated value. This discrepancy made it appear as if the fund’s performance was much better, per its internal rate of return. For example, at the conclusion of the quarter ending on June 30, 2009, the markup of the investment upped the internal return rate from 3.8% to 38.3%

Among the alleged misrepresentations made by ex-OAM employees to potential investors were:

· The rise in Cartesian’s value was because of a rise in its performance, when, actually, it was because of the new valuation method implemented by the portfolio manager.

· The false claim that a third-party valuation firm had written up Cartesian’s value.

· The false claim that independent third-party auditors had audited OGR’s underlying funds when actually Cartesian had not been audited.

Also, per the SEC, the policies and procedures of OAM were not reasonably structured to make sure that valuations given to existing and prospective clients were put forth in a way that was in line with written representations made to potential clients and actual investors. The Commission says that OAM’s conduct violated sections of the Securities Act of 1933, the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, and Rules 206(4)-8 and 206(4)-7.

Regarding the settlement with the state, the penalty there is $132,421. As for the over $2.8M to the SEC, $200,000 will go to the pension fund of the city of Quincy and $150,000 will go to the pension fund of the city of Brockton. Oppenheimer is also going to modify its internal controls and valuation policies.

If you think you may have suffered losses because your financial representative made misrepresentations and omissions that influenced or decision to make an investment, contact Shepherd Smith Edwards and Kantas, LTD LLP today. Your first securities case assessment is free.

Oppenheimer & Co. to Pay Fine Over Fund, Wall Street Journal, March 11, 2013

Oppenheimer to Pay $2.8 Million to Settle Allegations of Misrepresenting Performance of Fund to Investors, Mass.gov, March 11, 2013

Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (PDF)

Securities Act of 1933 (PDF)

More Blog Posts:
Oppenheimer Must Pay $30M to US Airways Group Over ARS Losses, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, February 9, 2013

Oppenheimer Funds Investors Can Proceed with Their Securities Fraud Lawsuit, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, November 19, 2011

8/31/11 is Deadline for Opting Out of $100M Oppenheimer Mutual Funds Class Action Settlement, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, August 17, 2011

Recently, a secret deal came to light involving the Federal Reserve Bank of New York bailing out Bank of America (BAC) that released the latter from all legal claims involving mortgage-backed securities losses that the former obtained when the government rescued American International Group (AIG) in 2008. Some believe that the bank was allowed to abscond responsibility even as AIG sought to recover $7 billion that was loss on these same MBSs.

According to The New York Times, as part of its settlement with BofA, the New York Fed obtained $43 million in a securities dispute involving two of the mortgage securities. For no compensation, the bank was released from all other legal claims.

The roots of this settlement can be traced back to 2008 when the government intervened to rescue AIG . Part of that aid involved AIG selling mortgage securities to Maiden Lane II, which the New York Fed oversees. At the time, the insurer was losing money from toxic mortgages, many of which came from BofA. AIG obtained $20.8 billion for securities valued at $39.2 billion.

In 2011, AIG sued BofA for securities fraud in attempted to obtain $10 billion in damages--$7 billion from the Maiden Lane II-related securities. Meantime, Bank of America argued that AIG had no grounds for suing it on these securities, noting that possession of the entitlement to bring a legal lawsuit against the bank had passed to Maiden Lane. New York Fed, which controlled Maiden Lane II, never brought securities claims against BofA.

However, AIG contended that under New York law, which Maiden Lain II is subject to, an entity must explicitly transfer the right to sue for fraud and that the deal between AIG and the New York Fed never specified this switch. AIG then filed a separate MBS lawsuit against Maiden Lane II in New York.

Now, AIG’s $10 billion fraud lawsuit against BofA has gone to federal court. Federal Judge Mariana R. Pfaelzer in California’s central district will rule on who is the claims’ owner.

While the New York Fed agreed in late 2011 that AIG is entitled to seek damages on instruments that it sold to Maiden Lane II, it is now aiding BofA in the latter’s legal fight against AIG, even providing a declaration that Maiden Lane II was the only one entitled to sue. Some, however, are asking why if the New York Fed meant for Maiden Lane II to possess ownership of the right to sue Bank of America it didn’t try to file its own claim for taxpayers rather than discharging the bank from liability. Meantime, the question of whether BofA should be liable for wrongdoing committed by Countrywide during economic crisis has still not been answered.

Don’t Blink, or You’ll Miss Another Bailout, The New York TImes, February 16, 2013

AIG sues NY Fed over right to

More Blog Posts:
Former Jeffries Director Charged with Securities Fraud Crimes and Sued By SEC Over Alleged Residential Mortgage-Backed Securities, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, February 11, 2013

McGraw Hills, Moody’s, & Standard & Poor’s Can’t Be Held Liable by Ohio Pension Funds for Allegedly Flawed MBS Ratings, Affirms Sixth Circuit, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, December 20, 2012

Investment Fraud Lawsuit Against BlackRock Over Exchange-Traded Funds Could Shed More Light on Securities Lending, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, February 18, 2013

A district court judge in Minnesota has ordered a $125 million auction-rate securities arbitration case filed by Allina Health System against UBS (UBS) to proceed.

U.S. District Judge Michael Davis found that claimant Allina is indeed a UBS client even though the financial firm had argued that under Financial Industry Regulatory Authority rules ARS issuers are not underwriter customers. The Minnesota non-profit healthcare system had filed its securities claim over ARS it issued in October 2007 that were part of a $475 million bond issuance to finance renovations and remodeling, as well as refinance debt. UBS was its underwriter.

Allina contends that the market collapsed in 2008 because UBS and other financial firms stopped putting in support bids to keep auctions from failing. The healthcare group says that because of this, it had to pay a great deal of money to refinance the securities and make higher bound payments after losing its bond insurance. Allina claims that UBS did not properly represent the ARS market risks, breached its fiduciary duties, and violated state and federal securities laws.

In his decision, Judge Davis noted other rulings in similar cases that rejected other banks’ contentions that the plaintiff was not considered a customer under FINRA rules. One need only look to last month’s 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decision to let Carilion Clinic proceed with its ARS arbitration case against Citigroup (C) and UBS. Davis also turned down UBS's claim that agreements it made with Allina mandated that any disputes be submitted to the New York courts or the American Arbitration Association.

Related Web Resources:
British watchdog fines UBS 9.45 mn pounds for mis-selling fund, Advisen/APF, February 12, 2013

UBS Fined $14.7 Million by U.K. on AIG Fund Sale Failings, Bloomberg, February 12, 2013

More Blog Posts:
UBS & Citi Do Have to Arbitrate Auction-Rate Securities Case Filed by Health Care Nonprofit Carilion Clinic, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, January 31, 2013

Despite Her Involvement in Dozens of Securities Cases, Brokerage Firms Continue to Clear Trades of Newport Coast Securities Broker Bambi I. Holzer, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, January 10, 2013

Morgan Stanley Smith Barney Ordered by FINRA Arbitration Panel to Pay $5M Over Allegedly False Promises Made To Brokers Recruited from UBS AG, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, January 22, 2013

A US District judge is ordering Morgan Keegan & Co. to repurchase auction-rate securities and make a payment of $110,500 in an ARS lawsuit filed by the SEC that accuses the financial firm of misleading investors about these investments’ risks. The SEC contends that the $2.2B in securities that the firm sold left clients with frozen funds when the market failed in 2008.

Even after the financial firm started buying back ARS—it has since repurchased $2B in ARS of its own accord—the SEC decided to proceed with its securities case. The Commission contends that even as the ARS market failed, Morgan Keegan told clients that the securities being sold came with “zero risk” and were short-term investments that were liquid.

Now, Judge William Duffey Jr. has found that although Morgan Keegan’s brokers did not act fraudulently, some of them acted negligently when they left out key information and made misrepresentations when selling the securities. This including not apprising investors about the risk of failure, liquidity loss, or that interest rates might vary.

Duffey is the same judge who dismissed this very case in 2011. However, last May, the US Court of Appeals in Atlanta overturned his decision after determining that he wrongly found that verbal comments made to certain customers were not material because of disclosures that could be found on the financial firm’s web site.

Morgan Keegan Trial Judge to Decide SEC Case He Dismissed, Bloomberg.com, November 26, 2012

More Blog Posts:
Morgan Keegan Founder Faces SEC Charges Over Mortgage-Backed Securities Asset Pricing in Mutual Funds, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, December 17, 2012

Judge that Dismissed Regulators’ Claims Against Morgan Keegan to Rule on ARS Lawsuit Again After His Ruling Was Reversed on Appeal, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, November 27, 2012

Court Upholds Ex-NBA Star Horace Grant $1.46M FINRA Arbitration Award from Morgan Keegan & Co. Over Mortgage-Backed Bond Losses, Stockbroker fraud Blog, October 30, 2012

Continue reading "Morgan Keegan Must Buy Back Auction-Rate Securities and Pay $110,500, Says District Judge " »

Dexia SA (DEXB) is suing JP Morgan Chase & Co. (JPM ) for over $1.7 billion. In its mortgage-backed securities lawsuit, the Belgian-French bank contends that the loans underlying the securities that the US bank sold it were riskier than what they were represented to be.

JP Morgan and its companies, Washington Mutual (WM) and Bear Stearns Co., are accused of “egregious” fraud for allegedly making and selling mortgage bonds backed by loans that they knew were “exceptionally bad.” Dexia claims it sustained substantial losses.

According to The New York Times, there are a slew of employee interviews and internal e-mails related to this MBS lawsuit that talk about how the three firms disregarded quality controls and problems—perhaps even concealing the latter—in order to make a profit from these mortgages that were packaged into complex securities. They are accused of seeking to avail of the mortgage-backed securities demand during the housing boom even as doubts began to arise about whether or not these investments were good quality. Court filings report that JPMorgan would get mortgages from lenders that didn’t have stellar records, assigning Washington Mutual and American Home Mortgage a “poor” grade on its “internal ‘due diligence scorecard.’” The loans were then swiftly sold off to investors.

Meantime, Bear Stearns and Washington Mutual are also said to have cut back on quality controls—the latter even reducing due diligence staff by 25% for the supposed purpose of upping profits. One e-mail said that executives who protested these actions were harassed.

Also, per court documents, a 2006 analysis for JP Morgan by a third party to study home loans before they were bundled into investments determined that close to half the sample pool—about 214 loans—were “defective,” meaning that they failed to satisfy underwriting standards. Meantime, considering the size of some mortgages, the incomes of its borrowers were reportedly precariously low, and per another report that year, thousands of borrowers were late on payments. Yet, contend the documents, JP Morgan would on occasion disregard or change these critical assessments while giving certain employees, including bankers that put together the mortgages, the authority to veto or turn a blind eye to these negative reviews. JP Morgan executives at times even allegedly lowered the number of loans thought delinquent or “defective.”

All of these actions were allegedly part of a plan to raise profit. One Washington Mutual employee even revealed in a deposition that making the loan defects known would have been harmful to the financial firm. Also, because some firms did not give an accurate portrayal of their investments, this impacted the way credit ratings agencies would rate the securities.

Since the financial crisis, Dexia has been bailed out twice. Court records show that it sustained $774 million in losses on MBS, which overall cost over $22.5 billion in losses from 2005 and 2007 alone.

Related Web Resources:
E-Mails Imply JPMorgan Knew Some Mortgage Deals Were Bad, The New York TImes, February 6, 2013

JPMorgan Sued by Dexia Over $1.7 Billion in Mortgage-Backed Securities, Bloomberg, January 20, 2012

More Blog Posts:
JPMorgan, Goldman Sachs, Bank of New York Mellon, Charles Schwab Disclose Market-Based NAVs of Money Market Mutual Funds, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, February 7, 2013

Texas Securities Criminal Case Against Oil and Gas Company Executive Can Proceed, Rules Fifth Circuit, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, February 6, 2013

Morgan Keegan Founder Faces SEC Charges Over Mortgage-Backed Securities Asset Pricing in Mutual Funds, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, December 17, 2012

A Financial Industry Regulatory Authority arbitration panel says that Oppenheimer & Co. has to pay US Airways Group Inc. (LCCC) $30 million for losses that the latter sustained in auction-rate securities. The securities arbitration case is related to the airline group’s contention that the financial firm and one of its former brokers misrepresented certain ARS that were structured and private placement.

US Airways had initially sought $110M in compensatory damages and $26 million in interest and legal fees. The FINRA panel, however, decided that Oppenheimer and its ex-broker, Victor Woo, owed $30 million—Woo’s part will not be greater than what he made in commissions. Oppenheimer is now thinking about whether to submit a motion to vacate the arbitration panel’s order.

The financial firm is, however, going to go ahead with the arbitration it had filed against Deutsche Bank (DB) to get back the award money and associated costs from this case. Oppenheimer’s claim against Deutsche Bank is linked to the US Airways case but became a separate proceeding in 2010.

Oppenheimer contends that if any ARS misrepresentations were made to US Airways the source of blame is Deutsche Bank and its auction process, as well as on the credit ratings that were issued by Standard and Poor’s and Fitch Ratings.

Auction-Rate Securities
ARS are debt instruments with interest rates that are supposed to reset during auctions that occur on a monthly, weekly, or daily schedule. Many investors were unpleasantly surprised to find that their money became frozen when a number of auctions failed in 2008. They claim they were told that the securities were liquid and safe like cash.

You want to speak with an experienced ARS law firm that knows how to successfully handle this type of securities case.

Oppenheimer Ordered to Pay US Airways $30M, The Wall Street Journal, February 1, 2013

Oppenheimer v. Deutsche Bank (PDF)

More Blog Posts:
Oppenheimer & Co. Must Buyback $6M in Auction-Rate Securities from Investor, Says FINRA Arbitration Panel, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, January 11, 2012

Oppenheimer Funds Investors Can Proceed with Their Securities Fraud Lawsuit, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, November 19, 2011

Investors in Oppenheimer Mutual Funds Considering Opting Out of $100M Class Action Settlement Have Until August 31, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, August 6 2011

According to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, a district court was right when it decided not to stop Carilion Clinic’s arbitration proceeding against Citigroup Global Markets (C) and UBS Financial Services (UBS) for an ARS issuance that proved unsuccessful. The financial firms had served the healthcare nonprofit in a number of capacities, including providing underwriting services.

Carilion had retained UBS and Citi in 2005 to raise over $308M so that it could redo its medical facilities. They are accused of recommending that Carilion put out over $72M of bonds in the form of variable demand rate obligations and $234 million in ARS.

When the auction-rate securities market took a huge dive in February 2008, Citi and UBS ended their policy of supporting the market and the auctions started to fail. As a result, result, Carilion allegedly was forced to refinance what it owed to avoid higher interest rates and it sustained losses in the millions of dollars. The nonprofit later began auction-rate securities arbitration proceedings with FINRA against both firms.

Although arbitration wasn’t provided for in the written agreements, Carilion contended that as the firms’ customer, it was entitled to turn in the dispute to the SRO. The district court concurred, finding that seeing as Citi and UBS provided Carilion with a number of financial services for payment, the nonprofit meets the meaning of the term of having been a ‘customer’ of both Citi and UBS for FINRA arbitration code purposes. The court disagreed that Carilion gave up being able to arbitrate when it consented to the mandatory forum selection clause that lets the court litigate such disputes.

Now, the appeals court is affirming the district court’s findings about both the term “customer” and the forum selection clause.

If you believe that your company has been the victim of institutional investment fraud, you should consult with an experienced securities law firm right away. Your case evaluation should be free.

UBS Financial Services V. Clinic (PDF)

Citi, UBS Must Arbitrate Dispute With Nonprofit, 4th Circuit Affirms, Alacra Store, January 24, 2013

More Blog Posts:
Despite Her Involvement in Dozens of Securities Cases, Brokerage Firms Continue to Clear Trades of Newport Coast Securities Broker Bambi I. Holzer, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, January 10, 2013

Judge that Dismissed Regulators’ Claims Against Morgan Keegan to Rule on ARS Lawsuit Again After His Ruling Was Reversed on Appeal, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, November 27, 2012

US Supreme Court to Hear Appeals of Petitioners Over Stanford Ponzi Lawsuits, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, January 5, 2013

Authorities in the United States want to reach a settlement with Royal Bank of Scotland Group (RBS.L) that would require that the British bank plead guilty to criminal charges and pay about $790M in penalties to Britain and America over its alleged involvement in last year’s Libor-rigging scandal. RBS would be the third bank to settle over interest-rate-rigging allegations. UBS AG (UBS) and Barclays PLC (BCS) reached settlements last year that together totaled almost $2 billion. They both admitted to committing wrongdoing.

Prosecutors want an RBS unit where some of the alleged rate-rigging occurred to plead guilty to attempting to manipulate the rates. Currently, reports The Wall Street Journal, RBS executives are balking at making such an admission, especially because it could make exposure to securities lawsuits greater. However, ultimately the decision is up to the US Justice Department.

Meantime, at least a dozen other banks around the world are still under investigation for trying to manipulate Libor and Euribor. Bloomberg reports that it has obtained documents that show that for years traders at numerous banks worked with colleagues tasked with establishing the Libor benchmark to rig the price of money. The traders reportedly knew each other from work or from trips involving interdeal brokers. The manipulation of the Libor is believed to have gone on for years.

Libor is calculated everyday. This is done with surveying banks and finding out the cost to them to borrow in 10 currencies for periods as short as overnight to as long as a year. Bottom and top quartile quotes are left out while the remaining ones are averaged and made public in London before 12p. Since estimates and not actual trade data is used, participants need to act with integrity. Unfortunately, there were derivatives traders that failed to uphold the system’s integrity.

Regulators reportedly knew as early as late 2005 that there were banks using Libor submission that were artificially low to make them seem healthier. However, the Bank of England and The New York fed have said that they didn’t do anything about it because Libor was not under their oversight.

Related Web Resources:
Libor Lies Revealed in Rigging of $300 Trillion Benchmark, Bloomberg, January 28, 2013

U.S. Wants Criminal Charges for RBS, The Wall Street Journal, January 29, 2013

More Blog Posts:
LIBOR Investigation Leads to Three Arrests, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, December 11, 2012

Barclays LIBOR Manipulation Scam Places Citigroup, Credit Suisse, Deutsche Bank, JP Morgan Chase, and UBS Under The Investigation Microscope, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, July 16, 2012

US Supreme Court to Hear Appeals of Petitioners Over Stanford Ponzi Lawsuits, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, January 25, 2013

Speaking at a panel at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Jamie Dimon, the chief executive officer of JPMorgan Chase (JPM), said that one reason many of the issues from the 2008 financial crisis have yet to be fixed is because new regulations have made things more complex. Dimon said that not only is too much being attempted too quickly, but also he believed that regulators have become too overwhelmed by the rules.

Dimon said that rather improving the system, during the last five years there has been a great deal of placing blame and exchanging misinformation. He did, however, praise the Federal Reserve, which he said saved “the system” by coming to the rescue after Lehman Brothers failed.

“It’s unbelievable that Mr. Jamie Diamond would be complaining so loudly about regulations,” said Institutional Investment Fraud Lawyer William Shepherd. “Among other gambling woes, his company just took a $6 billion loss on one of his traders bets! Look where deregulation of the financial markets got us 5 years ago! After the 1929 debacle, laws were passed to regulate these markets. One outlawed banks and securities firms being under the same umbrella. In fact, this is how Morgan Stanley (MS) was formed, as a forced spinoff of JP Morgan Bank. Lawmakers had decided that banks insured by FDIC, thus the taxpayers, should not gamble in the securities markets. Unfortunately, that law was repealed, and less than 10 years later our financial system collapsed again. Congress should have simply reinstituted the ban on such combined firms but has instead voted out far less protection. Stop your wining Jamie!

If you believe that securities fraud caused you to suffer financial losses, do not hesitate to contact Shepherd Smith Edwards and Kantas, LTD, LLP today.

Related Web Resources:
JPMorgan CEO Hits Back at Policymakers, Yahoo.com, January 23, 2013

JPMorgan slashes CEO Dimon's pay on "Whale" trade, Reuters, January 16, 2013

More Blog Posts:
JPMorgan Chase Ordered to Remedy Risk Management Breakdowns Involving “London Whale” Trades, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, January 17, 2013

New York’s Attorney General Sues JP Morgan Chase & Co. Over Alleged MBS Financial Fraud by Its Bear Stearns Unit, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, October 4, 2012

Second Circuit Dismisses Securities Fraud Lawsuit Against Citigroup
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has affirmed the district court’s decision to throw out the securities fraud lawsuit filed by a real estate developer against Citigroup (C) and its former CEO Vikram Pandit. Sheldon H. Solow had accused both of them of allegedly making omissions and misstatements that highlighted the bank’s liquidity and capitalization while downplaying financial problems. Because of this, he contends, the financial firm’s stock price became artificially inflated and then fell when the truth about the firm’s financial health became known.

The appeals court held that while Solow, in his securities lawsuit, did an adequate job of pleading alleged misstatements and omissions about Citigroup’s liquidity, he did not succeed in showing that the statements caused his financial losses. It also dismissed his control-person claim against Pandit, saying that there was a failure to plead a primary violation by the bank.

AIG Wants to File MBS-Related Cases Against Banks
American International Group (AIG) wants to be able to assert tort and fraud claims against financial institutions that marketed and securitized mortgage-backed securities that AIG bought between 2005 and 2007. The insurance corporation wants the New York Supreme Court to declare that it owns billions of dollars in these claims. The case is American International Group v. Maiden Lane II.

Per the 23-page complaint, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York had created Maiden Lane II to give the broader financial markets and AIG stability in 2008. Maiden Lane II is the possessor of contract claims related to these securities and the New York Fed believes AIG moved the tort and fraud claims to Maiden Lane II in the asset purchase agreement that was made. AIG, however, remains adamant that it owns the claims.

District Court Reconsiders Partial Dismiss of Class Action Against Morgan Stanley in Pension Fund Case
A district court in New York says it will reconsider its partial dismissal of class action allegations accusing Morgan Stanley (MS) and a number of its affiliates of violating federal securities laws involving mortgage-backed securities sales. According to Judge Laura Taylor Swain, because the 2nd Circuit’s ruling in NECA-IBEW Health & Welfare Fund v. Goldman Sachs & Co. constituted an “intervening change of controlling law,” so warrants another look of the district court’s own earlier opinion.

According to the institutional investor plaintiffs, Morgan Stanley and affiliates sold them securities backed by home mortgage loans that had almost no value or were flawed. Investor Public Employees' Retirement System of Mississippi filed a securities complaint over its certificates purchase through one of 14 offerings by Morgan Stanley.
While the district court had partially dismissed the case in 2010 noting that MissPERS did not have standing to make claims on the other offerings from which it hadn’t bought certificates, in the wake of the Goldman ruling, plaintiffs of this case can now file an now file an amended complaint. The appeals court’s decision found that a putative lead plaintiff has class standing if having “plausibly alleged” that it experienced suffering from some actual injury because of conduct by the defendant that was “putatively illegal” and implicates the same concerns as the conduct (by the same defendants) that allegedly caused injury to the other class members.

Related Web Resources:
AIG Sues The New York Fed, Reuters/Business Insider, January 12, 2013

Federal appeals court dismisses Sheldon Solow’s lawsuit against Citigroup, The Real Deal, january 15, 2013

Intervening Change' in Law Leads Court To Reconsider Standing Question in MBS Suit, BNA/Bloomberg, January 15, 2013

More Blog Posts:
Credit Suisse Must Face ARS Lawsuit Over Subsidiary Brokerage’s Alleged Misconduct, Says District Court, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, January 11, 2013

Morgan Keegan Founder Faces SEC Charges Over Mortgage-Backed Securities Asset Pricing in Mutual Funds, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, December 17, 2012

Principals of Global Arena Capital Corp. and Berthel, Fisher & Company Financial Services, Inc. Settle FINRA Securities Allegations, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, April 6, 2012

The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and The Federal Reserve is ordering JPMorgan Chase (JPM) to fix the breakdown that occurred in its risk management that resulted in the “London Whale” trades. These were outsized credit derivatives bets made by a group of traders in the UK that resulted in over $6 billion in losses for the investment bank. Due to the extremity of the some of the positions, prices in the markets became distorted. The “London Whale” is the nickname of one of the traders involved.

According to the newly issued enforcement actions, the internal controls of the bank did not succeed in spotting and preventing specific trading involving credited derivatives that Chief Investment Office Ina Drew conducted and this led to the losses. The OCC says that per investigations that were conducted, there had been certain deficiencies, such as poor risk management procedures and processes, insufficient governance and oversight for proper material risk protection, inadequate control of trade valuation, models that were not properly developed or implemented, and insufficient internal audit processes. Meantime, the Fed pointed to deficiencies of senior management letting the board of directors know about certain issues.

While JPMorgan Chase doesn’t have to pay a fine, there are steps it is going to have to take to enhance its risk management and improve its anti-money laundering procedures. The OCC says that the financial firm’s controls for anti-money laundering have key deficiencies related to the reporting of suspicious activity, the monitoring of transactions, risk assessment, customer due diligence, independent testing, and the proper placement of adequate internal control systems.

Now, JPMorgan has issued its “Whale Report” related to its 2012 CIO losses. The documents look at the complex bets on credit derivatives placed by the financial firm’s chief investment office, which started to create huge losses in early 2012. Among its conclusions:

• The CIO’s execution and judgment, and escalation of issues during 2012’s first quarter were poor.

• The financial firm failed to ensure the CIO’s controls and oversight grew along with the greater complexity and risks affecting the unit.

• CIO Risk Management didn’t have the needed staff and structure to run the portfolio

• Risks limits were lacking in granularity.

• Modifications to VaR, the risk-measurement tool, were flawed.

If you believe you were the victim of derivatives securities fraud, contact our institutional investment fraud law firm today.

Related Web Resources:
Read the JPMorgan Report

JPMorgan Chase's 'Whale' Harpooned by More Regulators, The Street, January 15, 2013

The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency

Federal Reserve

More Blog Posts:
JPMorgan Chase Must Pay Oil Heiress’s Trust $18M For Derivatives Investments, Account Mismanagement, and Unsuitable Investment Advice, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, October 12, 2012

New York’s Attorney General Sues JP Morgan Chase & Co. Over Alleged MBS Financial Fraud by Its Bear Stearns Unit, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, October 4, 2012

Barclays LIBOR Manipulation Scam Places Citigroup, Credit Suisse, Deutsche Bank, JP Morgan Chase, and UBS Under The Investigation Microscope, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, July 16, 2012

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit has reinstated the shareholder derivative claims filed by two Puerto Rican pension funds against UBS Financial Services Inc. (UBS) Judge Kermit Lepez said that following de novo review—a district court had dismissed the case on the grounds that a failure to properly plead demand futility was subject to such an examination—it seemed to him that the plaintiffs’ allegations sufficiently show reasonable doubt about six fund directors’ ability to assess the former’s demand to bring this action with the independence and disinterest mandated by Puerto Rican law.

The two pension funds are the owners of shares in closed-end funds that made investments, which were not successful, through UBS entities. Their investment adviser and fund administrator is UBS Trust, which is a UBS Financial affiliate.

According to the court, UBS Financial, which has been Puerto Rico’s Employee Retirement System (ERS) financial adviser for more than five years, underwrote $2.9B of ERS-issued bonds. Meantime, the UBS Trust bought approximately $1.5B of the ERS bonds and then sold them to funds. At issue is about $757M in bonds that the two Puerto Rican funds purchased.

Unfortunately, within a year of when they were issued, the bonds value dropped 10%, lowering the funds’ value. They then went on to file their lawsuit against UBS Trust, UBS Financial, and the director of the funds claiming that the defendants took part in a manipulative trading scam to make it look as if there was market interest when the point was to raise prices so that other investors would buy.

The defendants sought to have the case dismissed, claiming that the directors of the funds did not get a presuit demand first while the plaintiffs neglected to note why there was no point to submitting this type of demand. The lower court granted their motion. Now, however, the appeals court says that the securities case can proceed.

Union de Empleados De Muelles De Puerto Rico PRSSA Welfare Plan v. UBS Financial Services Inc., Ca1.USCourts.gov

More Blog Posts:
Dismissal of Double Derivative Delaware Securities Lawsuits Over The Bank of America-Merrill Lynch Merger is Affirmed by the Second Circuit, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, December 22, 2012

Amerigroup Shareholders Claim Goldman Sachs Advisers’ Had Conflicts of Interest That Influenced $4.5B Sale of Company to WellPoint, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, August 21, 2012

Shareholder Lawsuit Against Goldman Sachs CEO and Other Financial Firm Executives is Dismissed, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, August 18, 2012

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission has filed civil charges against Morgan Keegan founder Allen Morgan Jr. and several other former mutual fund board members for allegedly failing to supervise the managers accused of inaccurately pricing toxic mortgage-backed assets prior to the financial crisis. According to Reuters, this is a rare attempt by the regulator to hold a mutual fund’s board accountable for manager wrongdoing and it is significant. (Fund manager James Kelsoe hasconsented to pay a $500,000 penalty related to this matter and he is barred from the securities industry in perpetuity. Comptroller Joseph Thompson Weller consented to pay a $50,000 penalty.)

Last year, Morgan Keegan and Morgan Asset Management consented to pay $200 million to settle SEC subprime mortgage-backed securities fraud charges accusing them of causing the false valuations of the securities in five funds and failing to use reasonable pricing methods. (This allegedly led to “net asset values” being calculated for the funds.) The inaccurate daily NAVS would then be published and investors would buy shares at inflated prices. The funds’ value eventually declined significantly.

According to the Commission, the eight ex-board members violated laws mandating that fund directors help decide what a security’s fair value is when market quotations don’t exist. Instead of trying to figure out how fair valuation determinations work, the directors allegedly gave this task to a valuation committee but without providing “meaningful substantive guidance.”

Allen Morgan Jr., who is a Morgan Keegan cofounder, was CEO and Chairman until 2003.The seven other board members facing SEC charges include Kenneth Alderman, Mary S. Stone, W. Randall Pittman, Albert C. Johnson, James Stillman R. McFadden, Jack R. Blair, and Archie W. Willis III.

Already, Morgan Keegan is contending with over 1,000 arbitration lawsuits involving its bond funds that had invested in high risk MBS but were marketed as safe. When the subprime market collapsed, the funds lost up to 80% of their value.

Recently, Morgan Keegan and over 10,000 investors in a closed-end fund reached a $62 class million settlement. Lion Fund LP, the lead plaintiff and a Texas hedge fund, claimed that it had made a $2.1 million investment.

Morgan Keegan is owned by Raymond James (RJF), which bought the firm from Regions Financial Corporation. Other securities lawsuits still pending against it also involve conventional and open-ended funds.

Unfortunately, too many people and entities sustained huge losses because the risks of a number of types of securities leading up to the global crisis and the housing bubble’s implosion were downplayed by financial firms and their representatives. At Shepherd Smith Edwards and Kantars, our subprime mortgage-backed securities lawyers represent investors throughout the US. Contact our securities law firm today.

SEC Charges Eight Mutual Fund Directors for Failure to Properly Oversee Asset Valuation, SEC, December 10, 2012

SEC Order (PDF)

More Blog Posts:
Judge that Dismissed Regulators’ Claims Against Morgan Keegan to Rule on ARS Lawsuit Again After His Ruling Was Reversed on Appeal, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, November 27, 2012

Morgan Keegan & Company Ordered by FINRA to Pay $555,400 in Texas Securities Case Involving Morgan Keegan Proprietary Funds, Stockbroker fraud Blog, September 6, 2011

Morgan Keegan Ordered by FINRA to Pay RMK Fund Investors $881,000, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, April 24, 2011

Continue reading "Morgan Keegan Founder Faces SEC Charges Over Mortgage-Backed Securities Asset Pricing in Mutual Funds" »

Anti-fraud and police in Britain have made three arrests related to the global interest rate rigging scandal involving the London Interbank Offered Rate (LIBOR). The three men are Thomas Hayes, an ex-Citigroup Inc. (C) and UBS AG (UBSN.VX) trader, and James Gilmour and Terry Farr, who both worked at RP Martin, an interdealer broker. All of them are British nationals.

The Canadian Competition Bureau regulator claims that Hayes and others tried to manipulate yen Libor, which is the average interbank interest rates that banks are willing to lend in unsecured funds that are in Japanese yen denominations to each other. The regulator is also accusing Hayes of reaching out to traders at other banks in London and trying to persuade them to manipulate yen rates.

Regulators and prosecutors in Europe, Canada, the US, and Japan have been probing how traders have been able to rig interbank lending rates, including LIBOR, and whether banks may have changed submissions that are supposed to set benchmarks so they could make money off interest-rate derivatives-related bets or make lenders appear more financially healthy.

Dozens of people are under investigation related to the scandal, which broke out this summer after Barclays (BARC.LN) admitted that some of its traders had attempted to manipulate both LIBOR and Euribor, which is its Euro counterpart, between 2005 and 2009 and how during the economic problems of 2007 and 2008 the bank had low-balled rates. (Barclays settled with regulators both here and in the UK for $450 million.)

Now, over a dozen other banks are being examined for possible involvement in rate rigging. This has raised a number of questions, such as whether banks have been honest about the actual costs tied to borrowing and if regulators either allowed the manipulation or failed to stop it.

Settlements are also expected to be reached with Royal Bank of Scotland Group (RBS.LN) and UBS. Royal Bank of Scotland Group, which the UK government has 81% ownership stake in, has had to contend with claims that it had manipulated not just LIBOR rates but also other rates. While the bank is willing to settle, the terms of any such agreements are taking awhile because the US CFTC, UK’s FSA, the US Department of Justice, and authorities in Asia and Europe are all involved.

As for UBS, Bloomberg is reporting that according to a source that knows about the settlement talks, the bank is close to reaching deals with regulators here and in the UK and it will likely pay $466 million in fines over allegations that it attempted to manipulate global interest rates. Regulators have been looking into whether UBS traders were in collusion with other banks to manipulate rates for profits. The bank has obtained conditional community from certain antitrust authorities, such as the Swiss Competition Commission, and the Canadian Competition Bureau, and well as the US Justice Department, for being among the first to self-report wrongdoing.

Three British men arrested in UK Libor probe, Yahoo, December 11, 2012

RBS Seeks Pact on Libor, The Wall Street Journal, November 2, 2012

UBS nears deal with United States, UK over Libor, Reuters, December 3, 2012

More Blog Posts:
LIBOR Oversight-Related Changes Announced by FSA Chief, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, October 2, 2012

Barclays LIBOR Manipulation Scam Places Citigroup, Credit Suisse, Deutsche Bank, JP Morgan Chase, and UBS Under The Investigation Microscope, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, July 16, 2012

$1.2 Billion of MF Global Inc.’s Clients Money Still Missing, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, December 10, 2011

The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York has refused the Securities and Exchange Commission’s request to reinstate its antifraud claim against Goldman Sachs & Co. (GS) executive Fabrice Tourre for alleged misstatements related to a collateralized debt obligation connected to subprime mortgages. Judge Katherine Forrest said that the facts did not offer enough domestic nexus to support applying 1934 Securities Exchange Act Section 10(b). To do so otherwise would allow a 10(b) claim to be made whenever a foreign fraudulent transaction had even the smallest link to a legal securities transaction based in the US, she said, and that this is “not the law.” The case is SEC v. Tourre.

The SEC had sued the Goldman and its VP, Tourre, over alleged omissions and misstatements connected with the ABACUS 2007-AC1’s sale and structuring. This 2007 CDO was linked to subprime residential mortgage-backed securities and their performance. The Commission claimed Goldman had misrepresented the part that Paulson & Co., a hedge fund, had played in choosing the RMBS that went into the portfolio underlying the CDO and that Tourre was primarily responsible for the CDO deal’s marketing and structuring.

In 2010, Goldman settled the SEC’s claims by consenting to pay $550M, which left Tourre as the sole defendant of this case. Last year, the court dismissed one of the Section 10(B) claims predicated on $150 million note purchases made by IKB, a German bank, because of Morrison v. National Australia Bank Ltd. In that case, the US Supreme Court had found that this section is applicable only to transactions in securities found on US exchanges or securities transactions that happen in this country. The court, however, did let the regulator move forward under Section 10(b) in regards to other ABACUS transactions, and also the 1933 Securities Act’s Section 17(a).

However, following Absolute Activist Value Master Fund Ltd. v. Facet in which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit earlier this year found that ““irrevocable liability is incurred or title passes” within the US securities transaction may be considered domestic even if trading did not occur on a US exchange, the SEC requested that the court revive the Section 10(b) claim. Although IKB was the one that had recommended the CDO to clients, including Loreley Financing, it was Goldman that obtained the title to $150 million of the notes through the Depository Trust Co. in New York. Goldman then sent the notes to the CDO trustee in Chicago before the notes were moved from the DTC to Goldman's Euroclear account to Loreley's account. The Commission said that, therefore, transaction that the claim was based on had closed here.

Noting in its holding that Section 10(b) places liability on any person that employs deception or manipulation related to the selling or buying of a security, the court said that the Commission was trying to premise the domestic move of the notes’ title from the CDO trustee to Goldman at the closing in New York as a “hook” to show liability under this section. The court pointed out that while the title of the transfer that took place in New York was legal and it wasn’t until later that the alleged fraud happened. The “fraud was perpetuated upon IKB/Loreley, not Goldman” so “no fraudulent US-based” title transfer related to the note purchase is “sufficient to sustain a Section 10(b) and rule 10b-5 claim against Tourre” for the transaction.

SEC v. Tourre (PDF)

Morrison v. National Australia Bank Ltd. (PDF)

More Blog Posts:
Goldman Sachs Ordered by FINRA to Pay $650K Fine For Not Disclosing that Broker Responsible for CDO ABACUS 2007-ACI Was Target of SEC Investigation, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, November 12, 2010

Goldman Sachs Settles SEC Subprime Mortgage-CDO Related Charges for $550 Million, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, November 12, 2010

Class Action MBS Securities Lawsuit Against Goldman Sachs is Reinstated by 2nd Circuit, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, September 14, 2012

Continue reading "SEC Antifraud Lawsuit Against Goldman Sachs Executive Fabrice Tourre Won’t Be Reinstated, Says District Court " »

Almost a year and a half after US District Judge William Duffey Jr. dismissed the SEC’s lawsuit accusing Morgan Keegan & Co. of misleading thousands of auction-rate securities investors about the risks involved with these investments, he must now rule on the same case again. This latest trial in federal court comes after the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Montgomery, Alabama dismissed Duffey’s decision on the grounds that he erred when he concluded that the verbal comments made by brokers to four clients were immaterial because of disclosures that were on the retail brokerage firm’s website. Morgan Keegan is a Raymond James Financial (RJF.N) unit.

In SEC v. Morgan Keegan & Company Inc., regulators are claiming that the brokerage firm told its clients that over $2B securities came with no risk, even as the ARS market was failing, and that the investments were short-term and liquid. The commission filed its ARS fraud lawsuit against the broker-dealer in 2009.

During opening statements at this latest trial, prosecutors again contended that the brokers did not tell the investors that their cash could become frozen indefinitely. Reports Bloomberg News, orange grower John Tilis, who is a witness in this case, said that he decided to invest $400K in ARS in 2007 because he thought they were a safe place to keep his money until he had to pay taxes in April the next year. Tilis claims that the firm’s broker had informed him that he would be easily able to get his funds when he needed them. Yet when Tilis attempted to do so, he said that all the broker would tell him is that the ARS couldn’t be sold. (Morgan Keegan later refunded his principal.)

The SEC is arguing that Morgan Keegan found out about a number of failed auctions in November of 2007. In March 2008, one month after even more auctions had begun failing, the brokerage company started mandating that customers that wanted to buy ARS sign statements noting that they were aware that it might be some time before the investments became liquid again.

Meanwhile, Morgan Keegan is maintaining that it did not fail to inform clients about the risks involved in auction-rate securities, which had a history of being very “safe and liquid.” The firm contends that not being able to predict the future is not the same as securities fraud (Duffey noted this same logic when he dismissed the SEC lawsuit last year), and that even prior to the SEC lawsuit, it bought back $2B in ARS from clients. Morgan Keegan says that those who took part in the buyback program did not lose any money.

Morgan Keegan Trial Judge to Decide SEC Case He Dismissed, Bloomberg, November 26, 2012

U.S. SEC fraud lawsuit vs Morgan Keegan revived, Reuters, May 2, 2012

SEC v. Morgan Keegan & Company Inc. (PDF)

More Blog Posts:
The 11th Circuit Revives SEC Fraud Lawsuit Against Morgan Keegan Over Auction-Rate Securities, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, May 8, 2012

Court Upholds Ex-NBA Star Horace Grant $1.46M FINRA Arbitration Award from Morgan Keegan & Co. Over Mortgage-Backed Bond Losses, Stockbroker fraud Blog, October 30, 2012

Morgan Keegan & Company Ordered by FINRA to Pay $555,400 in Texas Securities Case Involving Morgan Keegan Proprietary Funds, Stockbroker fraud Blog, September 6, 2011

Continue reading " Judge that Dismissed Regulators’ Claims Against Morgan Keegan to Rule on ARS Lawsuit Again After His Ruling Was Reversed on Appeal" »

Kweku Adoboli, an ex-UBS (UBS) trader, has been convicted of fraud over bad deals he made at the Swiss Bank that resulted in $2.2 billion in losses. He has been sentenced to 7 years behind bars.

Adoboli, who had pled not guilty to the criminal charges, is accused of booking bogus hedges and storing profits in a secret account to hide the risks related to his trades and dealings involving exchange traded funds, commodities, bonds, and complex financial products that track stocks. Not only did he go beyond his trading limits but also he did not cover his losses.

Meantime, Adoboli had argued in his defense that the trading losses happened not because of fraudulent or dishonest conduct on his part but because he and other traders were asked to accomplish too much without sufficient resources and in a very volatile market. Adoboli said his manager pressured traders to take too many risks and that breaking the rules was a common occurrence at UBS’s London office. He also testified that he had been acting to help the investment bank stay in operation after the $52 billion in losses it had suffered during the global economic crisis. Adoboli was arrested in 2011 after he sent out an email admitting to making the unauthorized trades on US and German futures.

Although the 10-member jury was unanimous in its guilty verdict of one count of fraud against him, they couldn’t come to unanimous rulings on the other five counts. Eventually given the option to issue a 9-1 decision, Adoboli was found guilty of a second count of fraud going as far back as 2008. (According to one UBS investment bank executive who testified during the criminal trial last month, losses from the unauthorized trades Adoboli had made could have hit $12 billion).

In the wake of the still massive massive trading loss, at least 11 employees were either let go or resigned from UBS, including ex-CEO Oswald Gruebel, global equities co-heads Francois Gouws and Yassine Bouhara, Adoboli coworkers Simon Taylor, John Hughes, and Christopher Bertrand, and his ex-managers John DiBacco and Ron Greenidge.

The way this trading loss was able to come about shows that there are problems with UBS’s risk controls. However, it appears as if UBS is not taking on too much of the blame brunt—again.

“Once again, a soldier is sent to the penitentiary while the generals who looked the other way don’t face charges,” said Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LTD LLP Founder and Securities Lawyer William Shepherd. “The big boys of the world of finance are exempt from punishment as they call their employees ‘rogues.’ Justice is very select in the financial community.”

Prosecutors are calling this the largest fraud in UK banking history. Adoboli’s conviction comes just months after JPMorgan Chase (JPM) suffered at least $5.8 billion in losses from bad trades made at its office in London.

UBS rogue trader Kweku Adoboli found guilty of 2 counts of fraud for $2.2 billion loss, The Washington Post/AP, November 20, 2012

Kweku Adoboli Convicted, UBS 'Rogue Trader,' Convicted of Fraud Over $2.3 Billion Loss, Huffington Post, November 20, 2012

More Blog Posts:
UBS Trader Charged with Fraud Related to $2B Trading Loss, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, September 23, 2011

JPMorgan Chase $2B Trading Loss Leads to Probes by the SEC, Federal Reserve, and FBI, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, May 15, 2012

Appeal of Stockbroker Found Liable in Unauthorized Trades of Cyberonics Stock is Rejected by 7th Circuit, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, August 18, 2012

The United States is suing Bank of America Corporation (BAC) for more than $1 billion over alleged mortgage fraud involving the sale of defective loans to Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. The federal government contends that Countrywide, and then later Bank of America, following its acquisition of the former, executed the “Hustle,” a loan origination process intended to swiftly process loans without the use of quality checkpoints. This allegedly resulted in thousands of defective and fraudulent residential mortgage loans, which were sold to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, that later defaulted, leading to innumerable foreclosures and over $1 billion in losses.

The US claims that between 2007 and 2009, mortgage company Countrywide Financial Corp. got rid of checks and quality control on loans, including opting not to use underwriters, giving unqualified personnel incentives to cut corners, and hiding defects, and then proceeded to falsely keep claiming that these loans were qualified to be insured by Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. The result, says U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York Preet Bharara, was that taxpayers were left to foot the bill from these “disastrously bad loans.”

The Hustle was initiated by Countrywide in 2007 via its Full Spectrum Lending Division during a rise in loan default rates and while, in an effort to reduce risk, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were getting tougher about requirements for loan purchases. In addition to eliminating key quality control and check procedures, Hustle allegedly depended on inexperienced and unqualified loan processers to handle underwriting duties, while giving them financial incentives to place quantity over quality.

The government contends that although senior management at Full Spectrum Lending were regularly warned that getting rid of toll gates that are supposed to prevent fraud and maintain quality control could lead to disastrous consequences, they allegedly proceeded to continue disregarding such cautions. This meant that Countrywide and Bank of America like knew that the loans they were originating and then selling to the GSEs were defective and/or fraudulent. (The loans that eventually defaulted were a key reason why in September 2008 Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae had to be put into conservatorship under the Federal Housing Finance Agency, pursuant to the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008.)

The US government is filing its mortgage fraud lawsuit under the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1989 and the Federal False Claims Act, which prosecutors have been using to take banks to task over alleged mortgage-related wrongdoings. The act can result in triple damages if the government is able to prove that taxpayers were bilked. The securities case was also brought under the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act. This is the first civil fraud case that the US Department of Justice has brought regarding the sale of mortgage loans to Freddie Mac or Fannie Mae.

Manhattan U.S. Attorney Sues Bank Of America For Over $1 Billion For Multi-Year Mortgage Fraud Against Government Sponsored Entities Fannie Mae And Freddie Mac, Justice.gov, October 24, 2012

U.S. Sues BofA Over Mortgage Sales, The Wall Street Journal, October 25, 2012

More Blog Posts:
Ex-Bank of America Employee Pleads Guilty to Mortgage Fraud Scam Using Stolen Identities to Buy Homes Not For Sale, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, August 30, 2011

Bank of America to Pay $335M to Countrywide Financial Corp. Borrowers Over Allegedly Discriminating Lending Practices, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, December 21, 2011

JPMorgan Chase Must Pay Oil Heiress’s Trust $18M For Derivatives Investments, Account Mismanagement, and Unsuitable Investment Advice, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, October 12, 2012

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority is ordering David Lerner Associates, Inc. to pay $14M for allegedly engaging in unfair sales practices involving its Apple REIT Ten and charging clients excessive markups. $12 million of this will be restitution to the investors that bought shares in the $2 billion non-traded real estate investment trust, as well as to clients that were overcharged. $2.3 million is FINRA’s fine against the brokerage firm for charging unfair prices on collateralized mortgage obligations (CMOs) and municipal bonds.

According to the SRO, David Lerner Associates solicited thousands of clients to get them to buy shares in the Apple REIT TEN, of which it is the sole distributor. Elderly and unsophisticated investors were among its sales targets, even as it failed to do enough due diligence to make sure these investments were appropriate for these clients. Instead, the financial allegedly used marketing collateral that was misleading and showed customers performance results for closed Apple REITs without revealing that their incomes were not enough to support distributions to unit owners.

As part of the settlement, the financial firm has agreed to modify its advertising procedures. For example, for three years it will video record sales seminars involving 50 or more participants. It will also prefile its sales literature and ads with FINRA at least 10 days before they are made available for use. Additionally, per FINRA mandate, the brokerage firm will bring in independent consultants to look at proposed modifications to its supervisory system, as well as the training involving the pricing of municipal bonds and CMOs and the sale of non-traded REITs.

By settling, David Lerner Associates and its CEO and founder David Lerner are not denying or admitting to the FINRA charges. Even now they continue to maintain that the investments involved were suitable for their clients. They have, however, consented to an entry of FINRA’s findings. Also, Mr. Lerner has agreed to a one-year suspension from the securities industry, and then a two year-suspension from serving in a principal capacity, as well as a $250,000 fine.

Regarding the unfair prices charged on CMOs and municipal bonds, these were sold over a period of 30 months. For his alleged involvement, David Lerner Associates Head Trader William Mason has been suspended from the securities industry for half a year and sanctioned $200,000.

Meantime, dozens of investors are still waiting to resolve their Apple REIT lawsuits and arbitration claims that they’ve filed. If you are an Apple REIT investor that has sustained resulting losses, please contact our REIT law firm and ask for your free case evaluation.

Unfortunately, many investors of non-traded REIT were not been fully apprised of the illiquidity risks and other potential consequences involved, as well as the details involving commisisons, broker fees, suspended buyback programs. Our REIT lawyers at Shepherd Smith Edwards and Kantas, LTD LLP represent investors throughout the US.

FINRA Sanctions David Lerner Associates $14 Million for Unfair Practices in Sale of Apple REIT Ten and for Charging Excessive Markups on Municipal Bonds and CMOs, FINRA, October 22, 2012

David Lerner Associates Ordered to Pay $14 Million, NY Times, October 22, 2012

More Blog Posts:
Apple REIT Arbitration: FINRA Rules Against David Lerner Associates in First of Hundreds of Cases, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, May 26, 2012

David Lerner & Associates Ignored Suitability of REITs When Recommending to Investors, Claims FINRA, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, June 28, 2011

Private REITs: The Need for Tougher Oversight?, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, June 28, 2011

After months of tensions with Citigroup’s (C) board of directors, Chief Executive Officer Vikram Pandit has turned in his resignation. Taking his place as CEO will be Michael Corbat.

According to several sources, Pandit’s decision to leave comes after months of tension with Chairman Michael O’Neill over numerous issues, including the role of Chief Operating Officer John Havens and regarding compensation. Havens stepped down on the same day as Pandit. (Reuters reports that one person familiar with the investment bank says that this means that O’Neill is now in full control.) During a conference call with analysts and investors, O’Neill offered reassurances while noting that outside candidates had been considered before Corbat’s appointment.

With Pandit’s departure, Citigroup shares rose up to 2%, with some investors expressing relief that he is gone. Pandit was at the helm when the financial firm took a loss when it had to sell the stake it had left in its retail brokerage business to Morgan Stanley (MS). He also opposed breaking up the bank in any way, which some believed could have raised shareholder value. Proposals for these changes could come back onto the table now that he is gone.

Pandit’s relationship with the board wasn’t helped after shareholders recently turned down the CEO pay package. While he was awarded over $15 million in compensation last year, 55% of shareholders did not approve it.

According to Reuters, Pandit, who says he is leaving of his own accord, believes he has accomplished his aims since becoming Citigroup CEO in December 2007 and that putting his successor in place now makes sense because plans are in development for 2013 when a new strategy will be executed.

Meantime, Havens’ departure also isn’t a surprise to many, as he and Pandit have close career ties. They worked together at Morgan Stanley and Old Lane Partners LP. Some inside Citigroup considered their relationship to be an obstacle. Pandit moved to Citigroup after Old Lane Partners, which was his private equity firm and hedge fund, was acquired by the bank for $800 million.

Since the mortgage crisis, banks are under pressure regarding their profits, which haven’t been helped by unimpressive investment returns and unspectacular capital market activities. The Wall Street Journal reports that according to private equity firm JC Flowers & Co., the return on equity among financials should “normalize to historic levels” even though the economic crisis has resulted in a “major long-term evolution.”

In the firm’s mid-year report to investors, Chairman J. Christopher Flowers said this normalization would occur because financial service companies are needed if the economy is to work properly. He stressed that with economic growth, financial service companies will periodically need more capital to stimulate this, and, as a result, they won't be able to attract new capital unless ROEs and valuations adjust accordingly. Flowers said that this would occur via price changes and business mix shifts. Also per the WSJ, his view is in contrast to that of KKR & Co. global macro and asset allocation head Henry McVey, who recently reported that while the financial services industry is experiencing changes, more intense regulation will likely cause the firms’ performance and returns to keep lagging.

Citi's CEO Pandit exits abruptly after board clash, Reuters, October 16, 2012

Pandit Is Forced Out at Citi, The Wall Street Journal, October 17, 2012

More Blog Posts:
Texas Securities Roundup: Morgan Stanley Smith Barney Sued Over Financial Adviser’s Ponzi Scam, Judge Dismisses Ex-GE Executive Whistleblower’s Lawsuit Over His Firing, & Ex-Stanford Financial Group CIO Pleads Guilty to Obstructing the SEC’s Probe, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, July 3, 2012

Citigroup Inc.’s $590M CDO Putative Class Action Settlement Gets Preliminary Approval from District Court, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, September 13, 2012

Institutional Investor Securities Roundup: FHFA Can Start Discovery in MBS Litigation Against Banks, SEC Sues Puerto Rico Man Over Alleged $7M Scam, and Assets of Two Colorado Men are Temporarily Frozen Over Alleged Promissory Note Ponzi Scheme, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, August 31, 2012

Continue reading "Citigroup Inc. CEO Vikram Pandit Resigns" »

LBBW Luxemburg SA has filed a securities fraud lawsuit against Wells Fargo & Co. (WFC) and its unit Wachovia Corp. over an alleged $1.5 billion securities fraud scam. The case involves transaction in 2006 involving Wells Fargo selling what they allegedly touted as securities with high ratings to LBBW and other customers. LBBW, a Landesbank Baden-Wurttemberg subsidiary, bought $40 million of these residential mortgage-backed securities.

Now, the European bank is contending that the underlying mortgages were riskier than represented and not worth their buying price. Within a year, the securities had defaulted. LBBW is alleging common law fraud, breach of contract, constructive fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and breach of fiduciary duty.

Per the plaintiff’s attorneys, the alleged financial fraud was discovered after the SEC investigated a $5.5 million investment that the Zuni Indian Tribe's employee pension fund made. The Securities and Exchange Commission had accused Wachovia of selling overpriced equity in Grant Avenue II, a collateralized debt obligation, to the tribe and another investor. The Commission contended that after marking down some of the equity to 52.7 cents on the dollar, Wachovia charged 90 cents and 95 cents on the dollar. The bank was also accused of misleading investors in Longshore 3, another CDO, by saying that assets had been acquired from affiliates at prices that were fair market when, actually, claims the regulator, 40 securities had been moved at prices that were above market and Wachovia moved assets at prices that were stale so it wouldn’t have to report the losses.

The SEC said that while it did not consider Wachovia to have acted improperly in the way it structured the CDOs, the bank violated investment protection rules by using stale prices, even as buyers were being told the prices were fair market value, and charging excessive markups in secret. The Commission found that the Zuni Indians and other investors suffered financial losses as a result. Last year, Wachovia agreed to pay $11 million to settle charges accusing it of violating federal securities laws in its sale of MBS leading up to the collapse of the housing market.

European Bank LBBW Sues Wells Fargo Over Alleged $1.5 Billion Securities Fraud, The Sacramento Bee, October 1, 2012

German bank sues Wells Fargo alleging $1.5 billion securities fraud, San Francisco Business Times, October 2, 2012

Wells Fargo Settles Case Originating At Wachovia, The New York Times, April 5, 2012

More Blog Posts:
Lehman Brothers Australia Found Liable in CDO Losses of 72 Councils, Charities, and Churches, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, September 25, 2012

REIT Retail Properties of America’s $8 Public Offering Results in Major Losses for Fund Investors, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, April 17, 2012

Texas Securities Fraud: Investor Sues Behringer Harvard REIT I, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, September 26, 2012

Continue reading "Wells Fargo and Wachovia Sued by LBBW Luxemburg Over Alleged $1.5B Securities Fraud" »

Lehman Brothers subsidiary Lehman Brothers Australia has been found liable for collateralized debt obligation losses sustained by 72 councils, churches, and charities during the global economic crisis. The class action securities lawsuit was led by three Australian counsels—Wingecarribee, Parkes and Swan City. A fixed settlement amount, however, has not yet been reached. The parties will have to meet to figure out the damages, and their submissions will then be presented to the Federal Court later this year. (Because the defendant, previously known as Grange Securities, is in liquidation, it cannot make any payments right now). The three lead plaintiffs had sought up to $209M (US dollars), which is how much they say was lost from the CDOs.

The majority of the CDOs that caused the investors losses had been purchased from Grange Securities before Lehman Brothers Australia acquired the firm in 2007, which is the year when the bond world started to fall apart as the global economic crisis began to unfold. The plaintiffs are claiming alleged breach of fiduciary duty, misconduct, and negligence for how the defendant marketed the synthetic derivative investments.

Federal Court Justice Steven Rares, who issued the ruling, said the CDOs were presented as if they were liquid like cash and safe investments even though they were, in fact, a risky, “sophisticated bet.” He said the plaintiffs were told that they would get their money back if they held on to the CDO’s until maturity and that high credit ratings placed the securities in the same arena as the AAA-rated Australian government’s debts. They also presented the investments that it recommended or made for the plaintiffs as suitable for investors that had conservative goals.

The judge noted that although that each of the three councils that were the lead plaintiffs had different complaints, in relation to two councils, the defendant was negligent in the advice and recommendation it offered them. Also, as financial advisor to two of the councils, the financial firm breached its fiduciary duty and took part in deceptive and misleading behavior when it pushed the CDOs as suitable for them.

Court finds Lehman Brothers Australia liable in crash, AFP, September 21, 2012

Court orders Lehman Brothers Australia liable, Channel News Asia, September 21, 2012

More Blog Posts:
Stockbroker Securities Roundup: Criminal Convictions Vacated Against Six Charged in Front Running Scam and Citigroup Broker Cleared in $1B CDO Deal SEC Case, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, August 11, 2012

Some of the SEC Charges Against Investment Adviser Over Alleged Involvement In J.P. Morgan Securities LLC Collateralized Debt Obligation Are Dismissed, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, September 24, 2011

Lehman Brothers’ “Structured Products” Investigated by Stockbroker Fraud Law Firm Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas LTD LLPn, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, September 30, 2008

Continue reading "Lehman Brothers Australia Found Liable in CDO Losses of 72 Councils, Charities, and Churches " »

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has reinstated a would-be class action securities lawsuit accusing Goldman Sachs (GS) (in the role of underwriter) and related entities of misstating the risks involving mortgage-backed securities certificates. The revival is based on 7 of 17 challenged offerings, causing the appeals court to conclude that the plaintiff can sue on behalf of investors in mortgaged-back certificates whose lenders originated the mortgages backing the certificates that were bought. The 2nd Circuit said that those investors’ claims and the pension fund’s claims implicate the same concerns.

Per the court, NECA-IBEW Health & Welfare Fund is alleging violations of the Securities Act of 1933’s Sections 15, 12(a)(2), and 11 involving a would-be class of investors who bought certain certificates that were backed by mortgages that Goldman had underwritten and one of its affiliates had issued. The certificates were sold in 17 offerings pursuant to the same shelf registration statement but with 17 separate prospectus supplements that came with specific details about each offering.

In its class action securities lawsuit, the plaintiff alleged that the shelf registration statement had material misrepresentations about both the risks involving the instruments and underwriting standards that are supposed to determine the ability of a borrower to repay. A district court dismissed the lawsuit.

The Second Circuit acknowledged that NECA suffered personal injury from the defendants’ use of allegedly misleading statements in the offering documents linked to the certificates that it bought. However, whether the defendants’ behavior implicates the same concerns as their decision to include similar statements in the Offering Documents associated with other certificates is more difficult to answer.

While the plaintiff’s claims are partially based on general allegations of a deterioration in loan origination practices that is industry wide, the most specific claims link the allegedly abusive conduct to the 17 trusts’ 6 main originators. However, Wells Fargo Bank (WFC) and GreenPoint Mortgage Funding Inc., the only two entities that are the originators of the loans behind the certificates that the fund bought, are not defendants in this securities lawsuit.

That the alleged misrepresentations showed up in separate Offering Documents doesn’t alone bring up fundamentally different concerns because their location doesn’t impact a given buyer’s “assertion that the representation was misleading,” said the court. Because of this, and other reasons, the plaintiff has class standing to assert the claims of the buyers of the Certificates from the 5 other Trusts that have loans that were originated by Wells Fargo, Greenpoint, or both.

The second circuit said that the fund didn’t need to “to plead an out-of-pocket loss” to allege a cognizable diminution in the value of a security that was not liquid under that statute. Finding the “requisite inferences” in favor of the plaintiff, the appeals court said that not only was it “plausible,” but also it was obvious that mortgage-backed securities, such as the Certificates, would experience a drop in value because of ratings downgrades and uncertain cash flows. The fund “plausibly alleged” a distinction between how much it paid for the certificates, their value, and when the class action MBS lawsuit was filed.

NECA-IBEW Health & Welfare Fund v. Goldman Sachs & Co., Justia (PDF)

Appeals Court Revives Class Suit Against Goldman Over MBS Certificates, Bloomberg/BNA, September 7, 2012

Continue reading "Class Action MBS Securities Lawsuit Against Goldman Sachs is Reinstated by 2nd Circuit" »

In the largest individual federal payout in our nation’s history, the Internal Revenue Service has awarded ex-UBS AG (UBSN) Bradley Birkenfeld $104 million for acting as a whistleblower and exposing wide scale tax evasion involving the Swiss Bank. Birkenfeld, who was released from prison last month after serving 2.5 years in prison for fraud conspiracy related to this matter, is the one who revealed to the IRS how the Swiss bank helped thousands of Americans evade paying their taxes. He reported that in handling $20 billion in undeclared assets annually, UBS made $200 million a year.

The information that he provided led to UBS paying a $780 million fine so that it wouldn’t be prosecuted over the allegations. The Swiss bank also consented to an unprecedented agreement for it to give over the names of thousands of US citizens suspected of tax evasion and admitted that it fostered tax evasion between 2000 and 2007. UBS would eventually hand over information on 4,700 of its accounts.

At least 33,000 Americans have since voluntary disclosed to the IRS that they have offshore accounts. This resulted in over $5 billion.

Birkenfeld, who is from Massachusetts, had worked in Swiss banking for 15 years. He is one of the UBS bankers who traveled the US seeking out wealthy clients. He informed the IRS that UBS trained its bankers to avoid detection by regulators. They were told to use encrypted laptop computers and make false statements claiming they were coming to the country for pleasure on travel forms. (USB has admitted that it assisted clients in avoiding US securities restrictions by having them work with outside advisors with fake companies in Panama, the British Virgin Islands, and other tax havens.)

Although Birkenfeld blew the whistle on UBS to US investigators in 2007, prosecutors went ahead and charged him with committing a crime because at first he refused to describe his own involvement in the tax evasion fraud and did not reveal that he had worked with billionaire real estate developer Igor Olenicoff, who pleaded guilty to filing a false tax return that year. Birkenfeld was indicted by a federal grand jury and arrested in 2008.

Since the UBS case, it has become harder for rich Americans to avoid the IRS by going to a Swiss bank. The federal government is currently conducting a criminal investigation on at least 11 banks. Already, reports Bloomberg.com, two dozen offshore bankers, advisers and lawyers, and 50 US taxpayers have been hit with criminal charges.

Under the IRS whistleblower program, whistleblowers that bring in information about high income tax evaders are guaranteed a reward if the company involved owes at least $2 million in unpaid interest, taxes, and penalties. “Our law firm is involved in other actions, advising and representing whistleblowers,” said Shepherd Smith Edwards and Kantas, Ltd. LLP founder and securities attorney William Shepherd. “As we all see, there can be substantial rewards for those with valuable information about law and rule breakers. These can include securities related claims as well.”

UBS Whistle-Blower Secures $104 Million Award From IRS, Bloomberg, September 11, 2012

IRS pays whistleblower $104 million, Reuters/AP, September 11, 2012

Whistleblower Gets $104 Million, The Wall Street Journal, September 11, 2012

More Blog Posts:
CFTC Director Says Corporate Compliance Employees Should Have Comprehension of Dodd-Frank Whistleblower Requirements’Anti-Retaliation Provisions, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, June 14, 2012

SEC’s Office of the Whistleblower In Early Phase of Evaluating Reward Claims, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, March 23, 2012

Plaintiff Says Morgan Stanley Fired Him for Calling out Investment Adviser Who Was Churning Accounts and Bilking Investors, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, August 7, 2012

According to Jon Corzine, the ex-CEO of MF Global Holdings Ltd. (MFGLQ), bankruptcy trustee James Giddens’s efforts to be part of some of the investor class action lawsuits against the firm’s former and current executives are negatively impacting his defense. Corzine, who is also Goldman Sachs Group Inc.'s (GS) (GS) former co-chairman, left his position at MF Global last year, mere days after the brokerage giant failed in the wake of losses it sustained on European sovereign debt and its overwhelming inability to account for about $1.6 billion in customer funds. MF Global would go on to file for bankruptcy protection.

Rather than file his own securities lawsuit, Giddens has decided to work with the lawyers of the firm’s customers. He won’t join them as a plaintiff but he will “assign” his legal claims to their attorneys and fully participate in their cases. Giddens considers it totally “appropriate” for his office to join forces with the plaintiffs’ securities fraud lawsuits, and he believes that this cooperation agreement is the “most efficient, expedited and cost-effective” means of getting back additional assets for MF Global clients and creditors.

Meantime, Corzine and other ex- and current MF Global executives are complaining that this arrangement would give Giddens complete and total authority over the documents and books they would be able to get in their defense and that this unfairly limits them. Per the former executives' lawyers, restricting the objectors’ rights to obtain discovery deprives them of the chance to a proper defense, violates due process principals, and is not in line with the goals and requirements of the federal rules that preside over civil litigation. (Also opposing Giddens’s cooperation agreement with the plaintiffs and their lawyers is ex-FBI director Louis Freeh, who is tasked with wrapping up MF Global Holdings Ltd.’s affairs. He believes that the deal oversteps Giddens’s authority and that the bankruptcy trustee is moving claims that belong to the holding company’s creditors and not the brokerage’s customers.)

This week, Bankruptcy Judge Martin Glenn said the cooperation agreement needs to grant his court greater authority over approval of the way creditors and customers would share the settlement proceeds or winnings. He also said the agreement’s wording should call for any settlement to be approved by both the district court, where customers are suing the MF Global directors, and the bankruptcy court. Glenn said that upon the implementation of such changes he is willing to approve the agreement.

If you invested in the MF Global 6.25% Senior Notes that were due in 2016, contact our securities lawyers to ask for your no obligation, confidential consultation.

Corzine Says MF Global Trustee's Deal Harms His Defense, Dow Jones, August 30, 2012

MF Global Judge Seeks Changes to Trustee Lawsuit Agreement, BloombergBusinessweek, September 5, 2012

More Blog Posts:
Even With Securities Lawsuits Over MF Global’s $1.6 Billion Customer Funds Loss, Don’t Expect Criminal Charges, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, August 16, 2012

$1.2 Billion of MF Global Inc.’s Clients Money Still Missing, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, December 10, 2011

Shareholder Lawsuit Against Goldman Sachs CEO and Other Financial Firm Executives is Dismissed, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, August 18, 2012

Citigroup (C) has agreed to pay $590 million settle a shareholder class action collateralized debt obligation lawsuit filed by plaintiffs claiming it misled them about the bank’s subprime mortgage debt exposure right before the 2008 economic collapse By settling, Citigroup is not admitting to denying any wrongdoing. A federal judge has approved the proposed agreement.

Plaintiffs of this CDO lawsuit include pension funds in Illinois, Ohio, and Colorado led by ex-employees and directors of Automated Trading Desk. They obtained Citigroup shares when the bank bought the electronic trading firm in July 2007. The shareholders are accusing bank and some of its former senior executives of not disclosing that Citigroup’s CDOs were linked to mortgage securities until the bank took a million dollar write down on them that year. Citigroup would later go on to write down the CDOs by another tens of billions of dollars.

The plaintiffs claim that Citigroup used improper accounting practices so no one would find out that its holdings were losing their value, and instead, used “unsupportable marks” that were inflated so its “scheme” could continue. They say that the bank told them it had sold billions of dollars in collateralized debt obligations but did not tell them it guaranteed the securities against losses. The shareholders claim that to conceal the risks, Citi placed the guarantees in separate accounts.

Prior to the economic collapse of 2008, Citi had underwritten about $70 billion in CDOs. It, along with other Wall Street firms, had been busy participating in the profitable, growing business of packaging loans into complex securities. When the financial crisis happened, the US government had to bail Citigroup out with $45 billion, which the financial firm has since paid back.

This is not the first case Citigroup has settled related to subprime mortgages and the financial crisis. In 2010, Citi paid $75 million to settle SEC charges that it had issued misleading statements to the public about the extent of its subprime exposure, even acknowledging that it had misrepresented the exposure to be at $13 billion or under between July and the middle of October 2007 when it was actually over $50 billion. Citigroup also consented to pay the SEC $285 million to settle allegations that it misled investors when it didn’t reveal that it was assisting in choosing the mortgage securities underpinning a CDO while betting against it.

This week, Citi agreed to pay a different group of investors a $25 million MBS settlement to a securities lawsuit accusing it of underplaying the risks and telling lies about appraisal and underwriting standards on residential loans of two MBS trusts. The plaintiffs, Greater Kansas City Laborers Pension Fund and the ‪City of Ann Arbor Employees' Retirement System,‬ had sued Citi’s Institutional Clients Group. ‬

This $590 million settlement of Citigroup’s is the largest one reached over CDOs to date and one of the largest related to the economic crisis. According to The Wall Street Journal, the two that outsize this was the $627 million that Wachovia Corp. (WB) agreed to pay over allegations that investors were misled about its mortgage loan portfolio’s quality and the $624 million by Countrywide Financial (CFC) in 2010 to settle claims that it misled investors about its high risk mortgage practices.

Citigroup in $590 million settlement of subprime lawsuit, The New York Times, August 29, 2012

Citi's $590 million settlement: Where it ranks, August 29, 2012

Citigroup to Pay $25 Million to Settle MBS Lawsuit, American Banker, August 31, 2012

Citigroup Said To Pay $75 Million To Settle SEC Subprime Case, Bloomberg, July 29, 2010

More Blog Posts:
Amerigroup Shareholders Claim Goldman Sachs Advisers’ Had Conflicts of Interest That Influenced $4.5B Sale of Company to WellPoint, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, August 21, 2012

Morgan Keegan Settles Subprime Mortgage-Backed Securities Charges for $200M, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, June 29, 2011

Wells Fargo Securities Settles for Over $6.5M SEC Charges Over Allegedly Improper Sale of ABCP Investments with Risky MBS and CDOs, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, August 14, 2012

Continue reading "Citigroup to Pay $590M to Settle Shareholder Class Action CDO Lawsuit Over Subprime Mortgage Debt " »

The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District has issued an order giving Irving Picard, the Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC liquidation trustee, permission to issue a second interim distribution to the victims of the Madoff Ponzi scam. Picard had asked to add $5.5 billion to the customer fund and issue a second payout of $1.5 billion to $2.4 billion to the investors that were harmed.

According to Bloomberg Businessweek, a $2.4 billion payout would be seven times more than what the bilked investors have been able to get back since Madoff, who is serving a 150-year prison term for his crimes, defrauded them. A huge part of the customer fund is on reserve because there are investors who have filed securities lawsuits contending they should be getting more.

Meantime, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York has decided that the mortgage-backed securities lawsuit filed by insurance company Assured Guaranty Municipal Corp. against UBS Real Estate Securities Inc. can proceed. The plaintiff contends that UBS misrepresented the quality of the loans that were underlying the MBS it insured in 2006 and 2007.

Assured claims that the defendant was in breach of the pooling and servicing agreements involving three MBS certificates that it had insured. Because UBS allegedly misrepresented the quality of the underlying mortgage loans, it has to, per the contracts, repurchase them from Assured.

While Judge Harold Baer denied UBS motion to dismiss the insurer’s contention that the defendant misrepresented the loans’ quality, it agreed with the defendant that Assured cannot force UBS to repurchase them because certificate trustees are the only ones entitled to make sure the “repurchase obligation” is enforced.

In other institutional investment fraud news, the Securities and Exchange Commission has filed charges against Edward Bronson and his E-Lionheart Associates LLC. The two are accused of making over $10 million in a penny stock scam involving the reselling of billions of unregistered shares in about 100 small companies that they acquired at “deep discounts.”

Per the Commission, at Bronson’s direction, E-Lionheart would cold call penny stock companies to try to get them to obtain capital. If there was interest, the firm would offer to purchase shares in the concern at prices that were greatly lower than market value. The defendants would then start reselling the shares through brokers involved in unregistered sales.

The SEC says that while the defendants are invoking a registration exemption that exists under Rule 504(b)(1)(iii) of Regulation D, the Commission contends that this does not apply to these types of sales. The regulator is seeking disgorgement of over $10M, in addition to other penalties.

In an unrelated financial scam, this one involving a criminal case, a New York jury has convicted hedge fund manager Doug Whitman on securities fraud and conspiracy over his involvement in two insider trading schemes. Whitman, who is a Whitman Capital LLC portfolio manager, was charged with using insider trading tips to trade in Marvell Technology Group Ltd. (MRVL), Polycom Inc., (PLCM), and Google Inc. (GOOG) stocks. This allegedly caused him to generate over $900,000 in profits.

Prosecutors claim Whitman obtained the confidential information about the Marvell options and shares from an independent research consultant that received the information from the company’s employees. A colleague in the hedge fund industry gave him the information about Google and Polycom.

The SEC has also filed a civil lawsuit against Whitman and his financial firm. The securities fraud complaint is still pending.

Madoff Trustee’s Customer Payment May Reach $2.4 Billion, Bloomberg Businessweek, August 22, 2012

The Madoff Recovery Initiative

Assured Guaranty Municipal Corp. v. UBS Real Estate Securities Inc. (PDF)

Read the SEC's Complaint against E-Lionheart Associates LLC (PDF)

California Hedge Fund Manager Doug Whitman Found Guilty in Manhattan Federal Court on All Counts for Insider Trading, FBI.gov, August 20, 2012

More Blog Posts:
Merrill Lynch Agrees to Pay $40M Proposed Deferred Compensation Class Action Settlement to Ex-Brokers, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, August 27, 2012

Securities Lawsuit Against Options Clearing Corporation and Chicago Board Options Exchange Can Proceed Says Illinois Appellate Court, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, August 24, 2012

2nd Circuit Affirms Dismissal of $18.5M Auction-Rate Securities Lawsuit Against Merrill Lynch Filed by Anschutz Corp., Institutional Investor Securities Blog, August 23, 2012

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has affirmed a lower court’s ruling to dismiss the ARS lawsuit filed against Merrill Lynch (MER), Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner, and Smith Inc. ( MLPF&S), Moody’s Investor Services (MCO), and the McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. (MHP). Pursuant to state and federal law, plaintiff Anschutz Corp., which was left with $18.95 million of illiquid auction-rate securities when the market failed, had brought claims alleging market manipulation, negligent misrepresentation, and control person liability. The case is Anschutz Corp. v. Merrill Lynch & Co. Inc.

According to the court, Merrill Lynch underwrote a number of the Anchorage Finance ARS and Dutch Harbor ARS offerings in which Anschutz Corp. invested. To keep auction failures from happening, Merrill was also involved as a seller and buyer in the ARS auctions and had its own account. Placing these support bids in both ARS auctions allowed Merrill to make sure that they would clear regardless of the orders placed by others. The financial firm is said to have been aware that the ARS demand was not enough to “feed the auctions” unless it too made bids and that its clients did not know of the full extent of these practices.

Per its securities complaint, Anschutz contends that the description of Merrill’s ARS practices, which were published on the financial firm’s website beginning in 2006, were misleading, untrue, and “inadequate.” The plaintiff accused the credit rating agency defendants of giving the ARS offerings ratings that also were misleading and false and should have been lowered (at the latest) in early 2007 when Merrill knew or should have known that the ratings they did receive were unwarranted.

Last year, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed the ARS lawsuit, concluding that Merrill’s disclosures on its Web site had been “sufficient” to make Anschutz aware of Merrill’s ARS “support bidding practices.” In regards to the claims against the credit rating agency, the court found that the plaintiff did not succeed in alleging that there was any actionable misstatement under California or New York law because the challenged ratings were only “statements of opinion.”

Now, in affirming the district court’s decision to dismiss the ARS lawsuit, the appeals court has found that the “generalized and conclusory allegations” made by the plaintiff are not enough to plead that a violation of securities law occurred. The 2nd Circuit also affirmed the district court’s decision to dismiss the California statutory claims against Merrill on the basis that Anschutz did not allege that the harm it suffered occurred in that state or that the financial firm committed any behavior there that was relevant.

As for the claims against the credit ratings agency, the appeals court held that the plaintiff did not have any alleged contact or relationship with the defendants that would “remotely” meet the standard under New York law, which mandates that to make a negligent misrepresentation claim a plaintiff has to allege that because of “a special relationship” it was the defendant’s duty to provide the correct information.

If your losses are a result of a failed ARS and you believe that misconduct or negligence on the part of a financial firm or one of its advisers was a factor, please contact one of our auction-rate securities lawyers today.

Anschutz Corp. v. Merrill Lynch & Co. Inc.

More Blog Posts:
Raymond James Settles Auction-Rate Securities Case with Indiana Securities Division for $31M, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, August 27, 2011

The 11th Circuit Revives SEC Fraud Lawsuit Against Morgan Keegan Over Auction-Rate Securities, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, May 8, 2012

Securities Fraud Lawsuit Against UBS Securities LLC by Detroit Pension Funds Won’t Be Remanded to State Court, Says District Court, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, January 17, 2011

Amerigroup Corp (AGP) shareholders are suing its board and Goldman Sachs Group (GS) because they say that the defendants’ conflicts of interest got in the way of other bids being considered before they agreed to let WellPoint Inc. (WLP) buy the managed care company for $4.9B The shareholders’ securities lawsuit was filed by the Louisiana Municipal Police Employees Retirement System and the City of Monroe Employees Retirement System in Michigan in the Delaware Court of Chancery, which has seen an increase in cases over whether certain deals shouldn’t go through because of questions surrounding whether the advisors involved had conflicts of interest.

According to the plaintiffs, a complex derivative transaction with Amerigroup created a financial incentive for Goldman to execute a deal quickly even if was not in the best interests of shareholders. The financial firm is accused of pushing for the WellPoint purchase instead of one with another company that was willing to pay more albeit bringing more regulatory issues with it that would take time to resolve. The WellPoint deal, contend the pension funds, allowed for the possibility that Goldman would get a windfall profit on the derivative deal that would obligate Amerigroup to pay the financial firm $233.7M if an agreement on the sale was reached by August 13, as well as another “substantial” financial figure if by October 22 it was closed.

Now, Amerigroup’s shareholders want to block the sale of the company until the board improves the deal’s terms. They believe that the process that led to the deal, which could nearly double WellPoint’s Medicaid business, prevented the highest price possible from being considered and was “flawed.” They said that the derivative transaction was a conflict for Goldman because Amerigroup would be it much more than the $18.7M it was supposed to get from the WellPoint deal.

Although not defendants in this shareholder complaint, Amerigroup’s management and Barclays (BCS) also had conflicts when arranging the company’s sale, claim the plaintiffs. They said that one could argue that WellPoint bought Amerigroup executives’ loyalty by indicating that they could stay in their positions after the acquisition and that following the merger they would be given $12M worth of WellPoint stock.

Under President Barack Obama’s health-care law, up to 17 million patients would be added under Medicaid. The sale would make WellPoint the largest provider of Medicaid coverage for the impoverished. UnitedHealth Group Inc. (UNH) would be the second largest. More healthcare company acquisitions are expected as competition for the growing Medicaid market continues.

Goldman 'conflicted' in Amerigroup/WellPoint deal-lawsuit, Reuters, August 17, 2012

WellPoint dragged into Goldman Sachs suit, IBJ.com, August 20, 2012

More Blog Posts:
Shareholder Lawsuit Against Goldman Sachs CEO and Other Financial Firm Executives is Dismissed, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, August 18, 2012

Ex-Goldman Sachs Director Rajat Gupta Pleads Not Guilty to Insider Trading Charges, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, October 20, 2011

Goldman Sachs Ordered by FINRA to Pay $650K Fine For Not Disclosing that Broker Responsible for CDO ABACUS 2007-ACI Was Target of SEC Investigation, Stockbroker Fraud, November 12, 2010

Continue reading "Amerigroup Shareholders Claim Goldman Sachs Advisers’ Had Conflicts of Interest That Influenced $4.5B Sale of Company to WellPoint" »

In the US District Court for the Southern District of New York, the shareholder complaint against a number of Goldman Sachs Group (GS) executives, including CEO Lloyd Blankfein, COO Gary Cohn, CFO David Viniar, and ex-director Rajat Gupta, has been dismissed. The lead plaintiffs of this derivatives lawsuit are the pension fund Retirement Relief System of the City of Birmingham, Alabama and Goldman shareholder Michael Brautigam. They believe that the investment bank sponsored $162 billion of residential mortgage-backed securities while knowing that the loans backing them were in trouble. They say that Goldman then proceeded to sell $1.1 billion of the securities to Freddie Mac and Fannie May. Their securities complaint also accuses the defendants of getting out of the Troubled Asset Relief Program early so they could get paid more.

According to Judge William Pauley, the plaintiffs did not demonstrate that “red flags” had existed for bank directors to have been able to detect that there were problems with the “controls” of mortgage servicing business or that problematic loans were being packaged with RMBS. He also said that the shareholders did not prove that firm directors conducted themselves in bad faith when they allowed Goldman to pay back the $10 billion it had received from TARP early in 2009, which then got rid of the limits that had been placed on executive compensation.

Even with this shareholder complaint against Goldman tossed out, however, the investment bank is still dealing with other shareholder lawsuits. For example, they can file securities lawsuits claiming that they suffered financial losses after Goldman hid that there were conflicts of interest in the way several CDO transactions were put together.

Meantime, the US Department of Justice has officially concluded its criminal investigation into Goldman’s activities before the economic collapse. Yet, some are now wondering why the DOJ chose to issue an official statement that there was no “viable basis to bring a criminal prosecution” against the financial firm when such a public disclosure usually isn’t protocol in this type of probe.

Also, Goldman is reporting that the SEC has concluded its civil investigation into the bank’s sale of over a billion dollars of subprime mortgage debt and has decided not to take any civil action. This is a reversal from the Commission’s earlier Wells notification to Goldman notifying the bank that it would likely be the target of a civil action. The SEC had been looking into whether the bank misled investors, causing them to think that MBS were safe investments for them.

Unfortunately, the economic crisis led to massive losses for many investors of residential mortgage-backed securities, auction-rate securities, and other complex investments. You should speak to an experienced RMBS law firm to explore your legal options for recovery.

U.S. Goldman Disclosure a Rare Break in Secrecy, New York Times, August 10, 2012

Goldman execs win dismissal of mortgage, TARP lawsuit, Reuters, August 15, 2012

Troubled Asset Relief Program, Federal Reserve

More Blog Posts:
Ex-Goldman Sachs Director Rajat Gupta Pleads Not Guilty to Insider Trading Charges, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, October 26, 2011

Goldman Sachs Settles SEC Subprime Mortgage-CDO Related Charges for $550 Million, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, July 30, 2010

Goldman Sachs Execution and Clearing Must Pay $20.5M Arbitration Award in Bayou Ponzi Scam, Upholds 2nd Circuit, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, July 14, 2012

The criminal probe into brokerage firm MF Global’s collapse and its inability to account for approximately $1.6 billion in customer funds will likely end with no criminal charges filed against anyone. Sources involved in the case are reportedly saying that investors are finding that not fraud, but “porous risk controls” and “chaos” caused the money to go missing.

At the time of MF Global’s bankruptcy filing almost 10 months ago, then-MF Global CEO Jon S. Corzine apologized to everyone saying that he also didn’t know what happen to the money. Meantime, thousands of customers saw their assets frozen.

According to a report by bankruptcy trustee James Giddens’, the brokerage company improperly used customer money that they are forbidden to tap so that it could stay in business and meet margin calls. Yet, still, is no one likely to be charged with wrongdoing?

The reason that the criminal probe appears to be winding down is that, per The New York Times, there is the “most telling indication” of federal authorities now looking to interview Corzine to find out more about what was going on at MF Global. (Corzine is also a former governor of New Jersey and an ex-head of Goldman Sachs.)

“We have lamented in the past about the lack of criminal charges being brought against big shots on Wall Street but this may be the most absurd example yet!” said Shepherd Smith Edwards and Kantas, LLP Founder and Securities Lawyer William Shepherd. “Of course, Mr. Corzine is not only well-connected through his financial connections but he is also well-connected politically. That gives him not one but two ‘get out of jail free’ cards to play in the all to real Wall Street game of ‘Oligopoly.’"

Corzine, however, isn’t completely out of the woods in that he, along with other ex-MF Global executives, are being sued by the firm’s customers for securities fraud. Also, regulators may still choose to pursue civil enforcement actions against them.

Meantime, in a decision that could lead to even more securities fraud complaints over the MF Global’s collapse and the missing customer funds, Giddens has consented to work with plaintiffs’ lawyers. Although he won’t be one of the plaintiffs, he will “assign” his legal claims to these attorneys and be a full participant in the cases. Giddens will be responsible for disbursing any money that is recovered. A spokesperson for the bankruptcy trustee said that they believe this proceeding will be faster and more efficient than if Giddens were to file his own lawsuit. Meantime, plaintiffs with MF Global securities cases are seeking class action status.

Per Giddens’s office, Other MF Global securities defendants in the civil suits include ex-CFO Henri Steenkamp, ex-COO Bradley Abelow, General Counsel Laurie Ferber, and other ex-directors and firm officers. Giddens believes that there were MF global directors and officers that caused, helped, or authorized for the customer funds be drawn from segregated accounts to fulfill “proprietary debts” even though they knew this was wrong.

No Criminal Case Is Likely in Loss at MF Global, New York Times, August 15, 2012

MF Global Trustee to Join Existing Suits Against Executives, The Wall Street Journal, August 15, 2012

Criminal charges unlikely for MF Global execs, CBS News, August 16, 2012

More Blog Posts:
$1.2 Billion of MF Global Inc.’s Clients Money Still Missing, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, December 10, 2011

MF Global Shortfall May Be More than $1.2B, Says Trustee, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, November 26, 2011

Barclays LIBOR Manipulation Scam Places Citigroup, Credit Suisse, Deutsche Bank, JP Morgan Chase, and UBS Under The Investigation Microscope, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, July 16, 2012

The SEC is charging Wells Fargo Securities, formerly known as Wells Fargo Brokerage Services, and former VP Shawn McMurtry for selling complex investments to institutional investors without fully comprehending the investments’ level of sophistication or disclosing all of the risks involved to these clients. To settle the securities charges, Wells Fargo will pay a penalty of over 6.5 million, $16,571.96 in prejudgment interest, and $65,000 in disgorgement.

According to the Commission, Wells Fargo engaged in the improper sale of asset-backed commercial paper that had been structured with risky collateralized debt obligations and mortgage-backed securities to non-profits, municipalities, and other clients. The SEC contends that the financial firm did not secure enough information about the instruments, even failing to go through the investment private placement memoranda (and the risk disclosures in them), and instead relied on credit ratings. With this alleged lack of comprehension of the actual nature of these investment vehicles and the risks and volatility involved, as well as having no basis for making such recommendations, Wells Fargo’s Institutional Brokerage and Sales Division representatives went ahead and recommended the instruments to certain investors who had generally conservative investment objectives.

These allegedly improper sales happened between January and August 2007 when representatives recommended to certain institutional investors that they buy ABCP that were structured investment vehicles that were primarily CDO and MBS-backed (SIVs and SIV-Lites). Unfortunately, a number of the investors that did buy the SIV-issued ABCP, per Wells Fargo’s recommendation, lost money when 3 of these programs defaulted that same year.

Meantime, the SEC is accusing McMurtry of violating the financial firm’s internal policy and choosing a certain ABCP issuer for one longstanding municipal client. He too allegedly did not obtain enough information about the investment and only depending on its credit rating. He has agreed to pay $25,000 and serve a 6-month securities industry suspension.

The Commission says that McMurtry and Wells Fargo, who, at the very least, were negligent when they recommended the ABCP program without being informed enough about the investments (or why they should be recommended to which client), failed to reveal the material risks involved and violated the Securities Act of 1933. Both have agreed to settle without admitting to or denying the charges.

Also, the SEC’s order is reporting that since 2007, Wells Fargo has executed several remedial steps to make sure that its representatives are given enough information so that they can make recommendations that are suitable to each investor. These clients are to be given any relevant information about the securities, including the details about the involved.

It is important that your financial representative recommended investments to you that were appropriate not just for your investment goals but also for the degree of risk that you and your finances are able/want to take. Certain investments are only for sophisticated investors and even then there are high risks involved.

If you believe that your losses are a result of unsuitable investments and/or because you were not given enough information to make the right decision for you and your investment, you should speak with an experienced institutional investment fraud lawyer right away.

Read the SEC Order (PDF)

SEC Charges Wells Fargo for Selling Complex Investments Without Disclosing Risks, SEC, August 14, 2012

More Blog Posts:
Wells Fargo & Co. May Have to Pay Another $15M to Minnesota Nonprofits For Securities Fraud, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, December 24, 2010

Wells Fargo Settles for $148M Municipal Bond Bid-Rigging Charges Against Wachovia Bank, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, December 8, 2011

Morgan Stanley, Citigroup, Wells Fargo, and UBS to Pay $9.1M Over Leveraged and Inverse ETFs, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, May 3, 2012

The former executives of IndyMac Banccorp have consented to settle class-action securities lawsuit related to bank holding company’s collapse when the housing bubble burst. Per the settlement terms, the financial firm’s insurer will pay investors $6.5 million in cash.

IndyMac shareholders had gone after ex-CEO Michael Perry and ex-finance officer Scott Keys in 2008, contending that they had misled investors about the mortgage lender’s poor financial condition. A month later, federal bank regulators closed down IndyMac Bank. Although the two of them are settling, they were not required to admit to any wrongdoing.

“Again, no jail time for anyone,” commented Shepherd Smith Edwards and Kantas, LTD, LLP Founder and Stockbroker Fraud Lawyer William Shepherd.

Other litigation against ex-IndyMac executives is pending. The Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., which is overseeing the receivership of the failed mortgage lender, is also suing Perry for $600 million. FDIC says that IndyMac’s failure is expected to cost its deposit insurance fund $13 billion.

In other securities news, last week the Federal Reserve Bank of New York sold $828 million of mortgage debt securities as it proceeds to wind down a portfolio from the American International Group bailout in 2008. Acceptance of the bids made brings the total portfolio sales of Maiden Lane III to about $27.5 billion, while lowering the value of the rest of the portfolio to approximately $18.7 billion. Credit Suisse Group AG (CS) was one of the buyers.

“When the original sale was attempted the process was shut down because the bids, expected to be much higher, were for less than 10% of the face value of the securities,” said Mortgage-Backed Securities Lawyer Shepherd. “Believe me, there will be billions of profits made by those who acquire these assets no matter how toxic the waste being purchased. After the savings and loan debacle in the late 1980’s, billions were made by those who purchased the ‘bad paper’ from the Resolution Trust, which was the government bailout fund. My guess is that tens or hundreds of billions will be made on this batch of bad paper. A good collection agency could probably help the taxpayers here and put most of the difference in our government’s pocket. Oh, and who went to jail over the AIG blow up? Answer: Nobody”

Unfortunately, it looks like misconduct on Wall Street isn’t going to go away. According to a survey of 500 financial service professionals in the US and Great Britain, 24% of respondents believe that to be successful, you have to, on occasion, take part in activities that are illegal or unethical. For many, the incentive to cheat is money. 30% of those surveyed said that the impetus to engage in such activities was linked to the way their bonus and compensation plans were structured, which is where the real money comes in.

Although this leaves 76% of respondents saying that breaking the law or acting unethically is never necessary to move on up, Securities Attorney Shepherd said, “Only one in four? Is that supposed to be a good record? Over a million people are licensed to sell securities or act as financial advisors in the U.S. So, a quarter of a million financial professionals admit they feel obliged to break the rules from time to time? Most of these people work with dozens if not hundreds of clients. So, is there a question as to whether Wall Street needs tighter restrictions?”

Former IndyMac Chief Settles Suit, The Wall Street Journal, July 8, 2012

NY Fed Maiden Lane III Sales Top $27 Billion With Latest Auction, Fox Business, July 12, 2012

Many on Wall Street think cheating breeds success, MSNBC, July 10, 2012

More Blog Posts:
Institutional Investor Securities Roundup: SEC Sues Investment Adviser Over $60M Ponzi Scam, Michigan Investment Club Manager Gets Prison Term for Defrauding Over 900 Investors, & IOSCO Seeks Comments on Report About Credit Raters’ Conflicts & Controls, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, June 7, 2012

Texas Securities Roundup: Morgan Stanley Smith Barney Sued Over Financial Adviser’s Ponzi Scam, Judge Dismisses Ex-GE Executive Whistleblower’s Lawsuit Over His Firing, & Ex-Stanford Financial Group CIO Pleads Guilty to Obstructing the SEC’s Probe, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, July 3, 2012

Barclays LIBOR Manipulation Scam Places Citigroup, Credit Suisse, Deutsche Bank, JP Morgan Chase, and UBS Under The Investigation Microscope, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, July 16, 2012

The London Inter-Bank Offer Rate (LIBOR) manipulation scandal involving Barclays Bank (BCS-P) has now opened up a global probe, as investigators from the United States, Europe, Canada, and Asia try to figure out exactly what happened. While Barclays may have the settled the allegations for $450 million with the UK’s Financial Services Authority, the US Department of Justice, and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, now a number of other financial firms are under investigation including UBS AG (UBS), JPMorgan Chase (JPM), Deutsche Bank AG, Credit Suisse Group (CS), Citigroup Inc., Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi UFJ, HSBC Holdings PLC (HBC-PA), Lloyds Banking Group PLC (LYG), Rabobank Groep NV, Mizuho Financial Group Inc. (MFG), Societe Generale SA, RP Martin Holdings Ltd., Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corp., and Royal Bank of Scotland PLC (RBS).

In the last few weeks, the accuracy of LIBOR, which is the average borrowing cost when banks in Britain loan money to each other, has come into question in the wake of allegations that Barclays and other big banks have been rigging it by submitting artificially low borrowing estimates. Considering that LIBOR is a benchmark interest rates that affects hundreds of trillions of dollars in financial contracts, including floating-rate mortgages, interest-rate swaps, and corporate loans globally, the fact that this type of financial fudging may be happening on a wide scale basis is disturbing.

“It’s my understanding the total financial paper effected by LIBOR is close to $500 trillion dollars. This is a half-quadrillion dollars if you are wondering about the next step up,” said Shepherd Smith Edwards and Kantas, LTD, LLP Founder and Institutional Investment Fraud Attorney William Shepherd.

Barclays contends that its manipulation of borrowing estimates could not alone have dramatically influenced the final labor rate. The bank claims that it submitted low borrowing costs that were artificial because it suspected that this is what other banks were doing and it didn’t want to look like it was in financial trouble by comparison.

“In the US, these allegations could fall under the Sherman Anti-trust and/or the Clayton Unfair Trade Practices Acts, said Securities Lawyer Shepherd. “The recovery possible under such legislation could reach triple damages, plus legal fees and costs.”

A slew of securities lawsuits, including class actions and regulator complaints, against some of these banks under investigation, are likely. CNN reports that already, attorneys general in Massachusetts, Florida, New York, and Connecticut are investigating the LIBOR rate-setting scandal. There may be a variety of plaintiff types, including municipal governments and investment firms.

“Institutions are usually the subject of such actions, which are also federal crime statutes, but individuals can also be held liable,” said Stockbroker Fraud Attorney Shepherd. “The allegations cover more than just price-fixing or predatory pricing and involve multiple acts of price manipulation among institutions (legally an “enterprise”), such that racketeering (RICO) laws could also apply.”

Banks belonging to the LIBOR panels will likely become defendants of criminal complaints, regulator complaints, and huge class actions. For now, they in turn, have been blaming the central banks and regulators.

States weighing Libor scandal suit, CNN, July 16, 2012

Who Else Is Under Investigation for Libor Manipulation?, The Wall Street Journal, July 9, 2012

The Worst Banking Scandal Yet?, Bloomberg, July 12, 2012

More Blog Posts:
$1.2 Billion of MF Global Inc.’s Clients Money Still Missing, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, December 10, 2011

Ex-Goldman Sachs Director Rajat Gupta Pleads Not Guilty to Insider Trading Charges, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, October 26, 2011

Goldman Sachs Execution and Clearing Must Pay $20.5M Arbitration Award in Bayou Ponzi Scam, Upholds 2nd Circuit, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, July 14, 2012

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit is allowing a $20.5M award issued by a Financial Industry Regulatory Authority arbitration panel against Goldman Sachs Execution & Clearing LP to stand. The court turned down Goldman’s claim that the award should be vacated because it was issued in “manifest disregard of the law” and said that the clearing arm must pay this amount to the unsecured creditors of the now failed Bayou hedge fund group known as the Bayou Funds, which proved to be a large scale Ponzi scam.

Goldman was the prime broker and only clearing broker for the funds. After the scheme collapsed in 2005, the Bayou Funds sought bankruptcy protection the following year. Regulators would go on to sue the fund’s funders over the Ponzi scam and the losses sustained by investors. Meantime, an Official Unsecured Creditors’ Committee of Bayou Group was appointed to represent the debtors’ unsecured debtors. Blaming Goldman for not noticing the red flags that a Ponzi fraud was in the works, the committee proceeded to bring its arbitration claims against the clearing firm through FINRA. In 2010, the FINRA arbitration panel awarded the committee $20.58M against Goldman.

In affirming the arbitration award, the 2nd Circuit said that in this case, Goldman did not satisfy the manifest disregard standard. As an example, the court pointed to the $6.7M that was moved into the Bayou Funds from outside accounts in June 2005 and June 2004. While the committee had contended during arbitration that these deposits were “fraudulent transfers” and could be recovered from Goldman because they were an “initial transferee” under 11 U.S.C. §550(a), Goldman did not counter that the deposits weren’t fraudulent or that it was on inquiry notice of fraud. Instead, it claimed the deposits were not an “initial transferee” under 11 U.S.C. §550 and the panel had ignored the law by finding that it was.

Offering a rejoinder, the court agreed with the district court that Goldman’s argument for manifest disegard doesn’t succeed due to the recent case of Bear Stearns Securities Corp. v. Greddin, during which the Southern District of New York upheld the arbitration favoring the Creditors’ Committee. The court said it therefore could not conclude that arbitrators “manifestly disregarded the law” when they applied the legal principles in Greddin to impose on Goldman transferee liability.

The appeals court also found that arbitrators did not manifestly disregard the law as this relates to the $13.9M in transfers from the original Bayou fund to four new ones in March 2003. It affirmed the lower court’s decision that prejudgment interest should be awarded to the committee per the federal rate in 28 USC §961 and not the New York statutory rate.

If you are an institutional investor that was suffered financial losses due to fraud, contact our securities fraud law firm today.

Goldman Sachs Execution & Clearing LP v. Official Unsecured Creditors’ Committee of Bayou Group LLC

2d Circuit Agrees Goldman Clearing Arm Must Pay $20.5M Bayou Arbitration Award, Bloomberg/BNA, July 6, 2012

Goldman Battles Bayou Decision, The Wall Street Journal, October 15, 2011

More Blog Posts:
Goldman Sachs to Pay $22M For Alleged Lack of Proper Internal Controls That Allowed Analysts to Attend Trading Huddles and Tip Favored Clients, Institutional Investors Securities Blog, April 14, 2012

$698M MBS Lawsuit Seeking Damages from Goldman Sachs Group Can Take on Class Action Status, Says District Judge, Institutional Investors Securities Blog, February 23, 2012

Ex-Goldman Sachs Director Rajat Gupta Pleads Not Guilty to Insider Trading Charges, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, October 26, 2011

Evergreen Investment Management Co. LLC and related entities have consented to pay $25 million to settle a class action securities settlement involving plaintiff investors who contend that the Evergreen Ultra Short Opportunities Fund was improperly marketed and sold to them. The plaintiffs, which include five institutional investors, claim that between 2005 and 2008 the defendants presented the fund as “stable” and providing income in line with “preservation of capital and low principal fluctuation” when actually it was invested in highly risky, volatile, and speculative securities, including mortgage-backed securities. Evergreen is Wachovia’s investment management business and part of Wells Fargo (WFC).

The plaintiffs claim that even after the MBS market started to fail, the Ultra Short Fund continued to invest in these securities, while hiding the portfolio’s decreasing value by artificially inflating the individual securities’ asset value in its portfolio. They say that they sustained significant losses when Evergreen liquidated the Ultra Short Fund four years ago after the defendants’ alleged scam collapsed. By settling, however, no one is agreeing to or denying any wrongdoing.

Meantime, seeking to generally move investors’ claims forward faster, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority has launched a pilot arbitration program that will specifically deal with securities cases of $10 million and greater. The program was created because of the growing number of very big cases.

Under the voluntary program, parties would be able to “customize” the arbitration process. The SRO says it wants parties to have a “formal” approach that gives them greater control and flexibility over their claims, including “additional control” over choosing arbitrators and “expanded” discovery.

In other securities news, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has turned down ex-AmeriFirst Funding Inc. manager Jeffrey Bruteyn’s appeal to his criminal conviction. Bruteyn was convicted of 9 counts of securities fraud in 2010 for running a scam that used the sale of secured debt obligations to defraud investors of millions of dollars.

The SDO’s were sold to raise capital for AmeriFirst Funding, which financed used car buys. Bruteyn is accused of making the sales by generating promotional materials that overstated insurance coverage while understating investor risk and falsely telling investors that that his family, which owned Hess Corp. (HES) would cover any losses sustained. Bruteyn was ordered to pay $7.3M in restitution and sentenced to 25 years in prison and three years of supervised release.

In Europe, regulators are examining the recent decisions made by credit rating agencies Moody’s (MCO), Fitch, and Standard & Poor's to downgrade banks affected by the eurozone sovereign debt crisis and the economic contraction. The European Securities and Markets Authority says it wants make sure that “transparent” and “rigorous” analyses were part of the credit raters’ decision-making process. ESMA is especially interested in a “block” rating that Moody’s issued to a number of Spanish banks last month.

ESMA is allowed to fine credit rating agencies for not following correct methodology or applying proper resources. It can also force a credit rater’s “de-registration.”

Throughout the US, our institutional investment fraud lawyers are committed to helping our clients recoup their losses from securities fraud.

$25 Million Settlement Submitted In Re Evergreen Ultra Short Opportunities Fund Securities Class Action, Yahoo Finance, July 2, 2012

FINRA Announces Pilot Program for Large Cases, FINRA, July 2, 2012

US v. Bruteyn

EU market regulator is suspicious of rating agencies, RT, July 2, 2012

More Blog Posts:
CFTC Accuses Peregrine Financial Group of Securities Fraud Related to $200M Customer Funds Shortfall, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, July 10, 2012

Will the JOBS ACT Will Expand Private Offerings But Hurt Public Markets?, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, July 6, 2012

SEC to Push for Money Market Mutual Fund Reform Provisions Despite Opposition, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, July 6, 2012

The CFTC is accusing Peregrine Financial Group and its owner Russell R. Wasendorf, Sr. of misappropriating client monies, including statements that were untrue in financial statements submitted to the CFTC, and violating customer fund segregation laws. The Commission filed its securities fraud complaint against the registered futures commission merchant in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

Per the CFTC’s complaint, during an audit by the National Futures Association, Peregrine misrepresented that it was holding more than $200M of client funds when it only held about $5.1M. The regulator says that the whereabouts of this at least $200 million in customer fund shortfall are not known at this time. In the wake of the allegations, Peregrine has told its clients that it was being investigated for “accounting irregularities.”

The Commission contends that beginning at least 2/2010 until now, Peregrine and Wasendorf did not meet CFTC Regulations and the Commodity Exchange Act by not maintaining enough client money in accounts that were segregated. The brokerage and its owner also are accused of making false statements about the funds that were being segregated for clients that were trading on US Exchanges in required filings.

Wasendorf, who reportedly tried to kill himself on Monday is now in a coma. The NFA just recently was given information that he may have been responsible for a number of falsified bank records.

The CFTC wants a restraining order to preserve records, freeze assets,, and establish a receiver. It is seeking disgorgement, restitution, financial penalties, and other appropriate financial relief.

Yesterday, Peregrine’s clearing broker Jefferies Group Inc. said that it had started unloading positions held for the futures brokerage’s clients after a margin call was not met. Jeffries Group doesn’t expect to sustain losses.

Meantime, the NFA and “other officials, have frozen all customer funds and Peregrine is not allowed to accept or solicit new client funds or accounts or make trades for customers unless it involves liquidating positions or distributing their money. Also looking into this financial matter is the US Federal Bureau of Investigation.

It was just this year that a court-appointed receiver in Minnesota sued Peregrine over allegedly disregarding warning signs that the futures brokerage’s client Trevor Cook was running a Ponzi scam. According to the securities lawsuit, investments by Cook and others with Peregrine that were supposedly profitable sustained over $30 million in losses as the allegedly culpable participants moved about $48 million from clients to Peregrine accounts.

According to Fox Business, the fallout from these latest allegations against Peregrine could be bigger than the MF Global collapse as traders blame regulators for not doing enough and industry members fight to recapture investor confidence.

CFTC Files Complaint Against Peregrine Financial Group, Inc. and Russell R. Wasendorf, Sr. Alleging Fraud, Misappropriation of Customer Funds, Violation of Customer Fund Segregation Laws, and Making False Statements, CFTC, July 10, 2012

Peregrine Financial Allegedly Has $200 Million Shortfall, Bloomberg, July 10, 2012

PFG Scandal Deepens as CFTC Files Claim, Fox Business News/Reuters, July 10, 2012

More Blog Posts:
ABA Presses for Self-Funding for SEC and CFTC, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, May 31, 2012

CFTC and SEC May Need to Work Out Key Differences Related to Over-the-Counter Derivatives Rulemaking, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, January 31, 2012

SEC and CFTC Say They Found Out About JPMorgan’s $2B Trading Loss Through Media, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, May 31, 2012

Continue reading "CFTC Accuses Peregrine Financial Group of Securities Fraud Related to $200M Customer Funds Shortfall " »

The U.S. District Court in Manhattan's Judge Lewis A. Kaplan has approved a $40 million class action settlement in the residential mortgage-backed securities lawsuit against three individuals who used to be affiliated with Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. (LEHMQ). The plaintiffs are pension and union groups, including Locals 302 and 612 of the International Union of Operating Engineers – Employers Construction Trust Fund, Boilermakers-Blacksmith National Pension Trust, and New Jersey Carpenters Health Fund. The deadline for class members to file their settlement claims is August 20, 2012.

The defendants, Samir Tabet, James J. Sullivan, and Mark L. Zusy, had previously worked for Lehman affiliate Structured Asset Securities Corp. They are accused of filing misleading Offering Documents about the credit quality of mortgage pass-through certificates that were worth billions of dollars. The certificates were issued in 2006 and 2007.

The plaintiffs had submitted their original institutional securities lawsuit prior to Lehman’s filing for bankruptcy in September 2008. This case is one of a number of class action complaints accusing the financial firm and its ex-executives of wrongdoing and negligence.

Per the terms of the RMBS settlement, the Lehman Brothers Estate is responsible for paying $8.3 million. Dow Jones News Services reports that an insurance policy for the financial firm’s ex-directors and former officers will pay the remaining $31.7 million.

When Lehman filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy, this was considered a major catalyst for the global financial crisis that ensued. The firm, which emerged from bankruptcy protection this March, is now a liquidating company that is expected to spend the next years repaying its investors and creditors that have asserted over $300 billion in claims. Depending on the type of debt owed, a creditor may receive 21 cents/28 cents on the dollar. Also, Lehman is still a defendant in several securities lawsuits related to its bankruptcy and there are other claims against it that need to be resolved.

Last month, Judge Kaplan approved the use of $90 million in insurance to settle another lawsuit against Fuld, ex-finance chief Erin Callan, ex-president Joseph Gregory, former CFO Ian Lowitt, ex-chief risk officer Christopher O’Meara, and several former Lehman directors. The plaintiffs include pension funds, companies, and individuals located abroad. The investors had purchased $30 billion in Lehman debt and equity prior to the firm’s bankruptcy filing and their investments later failed.

Kaplan had initially refused to let the plaintiffs’ insurers pay the $90 million because he wanted to determine whether the securities settlement was a fair one. Now that the federal judge has signed off on it, the plaintiffs will not have to pay for the settlement out of pocket and they are released from the investors’ securities claims.

Judge Approves $40M Settlement with Ex-Lehman Execs, American Banker, June 22, 2012

The Lehman Settlement

Ex-Lehman Executives’ $90 Million Settlement Approved, Bloomberg, May 24, 2012

More Blog Posts:
Ex-Lehman Brothers Holdings Chief Executive Defends Request that Insurance Fund Pay Legal Bills, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, October 19, 2011

UBS Financial Services Fined $2.5M and Ordered to Pay $8.25M Over Lehman Brothers-Issued 100% Principal-Protection Notes, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, April 12, 2011

Lehman Brothers’ “Structured Products” Investigated by Stockbroker Fraud Law Firm Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas LTD LLP, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, September 30, 2008

Continue reading "Federal Judge Approves $40M Residential Mortgage-Backed Securities Settlement In Class Action Against Former Lehman Brothers Holdings Executives" »

A Financial Industry Arbitration panel has decided that ex-UBS Financial Services broker Pericles Gregoriou can keep $1 million of the signing bonus he was given when he joined the financial firm even though he left the company earlier than what the terms of the hiring agreement stipulated. Gregoriou worked for the UBS AG (UBS) unit from ’07 to ’09.

This is an unusual victory for a broker. They usually find it very challenging to contest demands by a financial firm to give back unpaid bonus money. However, the FINRA panel said that Gregoriou was not liable for the $1 million damages. Also, the
panel denied Gregoriou’s counterclaim against UBS and a number of individuals. He had sought $3.24 million.

In a securities fraud case involving two former Bear Stearns employees against the SEC, “reluctantly,” the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York approved a settlement deal involving Matthew Tannin and Ralph Cioffi. The defendants are accused of making alleged representations about two failing hedge funds.

The ex-Bear Stearns managers faced civil and criminal charges in 2008 for allegedly misleading bank counterparties and investors about the financial state of the funds, which ended up failing due to subprime mortgage-backed securities exposure in 2007. Cioffi and Tannin were acquitted of the criminal allegations in 2009.

Senior Judge Frederic Block approved the agreement wile noting that the SEC has limited powers when it comes to getting back the financial losses of investors. He asked Congress to think about whether the government should do more to help victims of “Wall Street predators.”

Per the terms of the securities settlement, Tannin will pay $200K in disgorgement and a $100K fine. Meantime, Cioffi will also pay a $100K fine and $700K in disgorgement. Although both are settling without denying or admitting to the allegations, they also have agreed to not commit 1933 Securities Act violations in the future and consented to temporary securities industry bars—Tannin for two years and Cioffi for three years.

In other securities law news, the U.S. District for the District of Columbia dismissed the lawsuit that investors in Bernard Madoff’s Ponzi scam had filed against the government. The reason for the dismissal was lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

The investors blame the SEC for allowing the multibillion dollar scheme to continue for years and they have pointed to the latter’s alleged gross negligence” in not investigating the matter. The plaintiffs contend that the Commission breached its duty to them. Judge Paul Friedman, however, sided with the government in its argument that the investors’ claims are not allowed due to the Federal Tort Claims Act’s “discretionary function exception,” which gives the SEC broad authority in terms of when to deciding when to conduct probes into alleged securities law violations.

While recognizing the plaintiffs’ “tragic” financial losses, the court found that investors failed to identify any “mandatory obligations” that were violated by SEC employees that executed discretionary tasks. The plaintiffs also did not adequately plead that the SEC’s activities lacked grounding in matters of public policy.

Meantime, the SEC has named ex-Morgan Stanley (MS) executive Thomas J. Butler the director of its new Office of Credit Ratings. The office is in charge of overseeing the nine nationally recognized statistical rating organizations that are registered, and it was created by the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. The office will conduct a yearly exam of each credit rating agency and put out a public report.

UBS loses case to recoup bonus from ex-broker, Reuters, February 6, 2012

Court Clears SEC Deal With Former Bear Execs Tannin, Cioffi, Bloomberg/BNA, June 20, 2012

Strike Four: Another Federal Court Dismisses Madoff Investor Lawsuit Against SEC, Compliance Week, June 20, 2012

Former Exec to Head Office of Credit Ratings, The Wall Street Journal, June 15, 2012

More Blog Posts:
SEC Wants Proposed Securities Settlements with Bear Stearns Executives to Get Court Approval, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, February 28, 2012

AARP, Investment Adviser Association, Among Groups Asking the SEC to Make Brokers Abide by 1940 Investment Advisers Act’s Fiduciary Duty, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, April 14, 2012

Investor Groups, Securities Lawyers, and Business Community Comment on the JOBS Act Reg D’s Investor Verification Process, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, June 24, 2012

Continue reading "Institutional Investment Roundup: FINRA Lets Ex-UBS Broker Keep $1M Signing Bonus, Court Approves Settlement Reached By Ex-Bear Stearns Hedge Fund Managers & SEC, Madoff Investors’ Securities Suit Against the Govt. is Dismissed" »

Broker Bruce Parish Hutson has turned in a Letter of Acceptance, Waver, and Consent to settle allegations of Financial Industry Regulatory Authority rule violations involving his alleged failure to advise Morgan Stanley Smith Barney (MS) of his arrest for retail theft at a store in Wisconsin. FINRA has accepted the AWC, which Hutson submitted without denying or admitting to the findings and without adjudicating any issue.

The Ex-Morgan Stanley Smith Barney broker (and before that he worked for predecessor company Citigroup Global Markets Inc. ((ASBXL)), had entered a “no contest” plea to the misdemeanor charge in February 2010. He received a jail sentence of nine months, which was reduced to 12 months probation. On August 16, 2010, Hutson, turned in a Form UT (Uniform Termination Notice for Securities Industry Registration) stating that he was voluntarily let go from Morgan Stanley Smith Barney because the financial firm accused him of not properly reporting the arrest.

Also, although Form U4 (Uniform Application for Securities Industry Registration or Transfer) doesn’t mandate the disclosure of a mere arrest but does contemplate a criminal charge (at least), many industry members obligate employees to disclose any arrests. Yet when it was time to update this form by March 18, 2010, FINRA says that Hutson did not report the misdemeanor theft plea. Then, when he filled out Morgan Stanley Smith Barney’s yearly compliance questionnaire on May 19, 2010, he again denied having been arrested or charged with a crime in the past year or that he was statutorily disqualified.

FINRA contends that Hutson willfully violated its Article V, Section 2 (C) by-laws by not disclosing the criminal charge. The SRO also says that his later “no contest” plea to the misdemeanor theft violated FINRA Rule 2010 (when he made the false statement that he hadn’t been charged with any crime in the 12 months leading up to his completion of the compliance questionnaire) and he again violated this same rule when it was time to fill out the questionnaire. Per the AWC terms, Hutson is suspended from associating with any FINRA member for five months and he must pay a $5,000 fine.

“A broker can have a dozen complaints by investors and lose a half-dozen claims of wrongdoing, in which arbitrators reimburse these investors only part of their millions in collective losses, yet the broker is neither fined nor suspended,” said Shepherd Smith Edwards and Kantas, LTD, LLP founder and Securities Attorney William Shepherd. “A shoplifting charge in one’s past - very bad. Repeated misrepresentations to investors – so what. Perhaps FINRA should get its priorities straight.”

Broker Bruce Parish Hutson, Forbes, June 27, 2012

More Blog Posts:
Investor Groups, Securities Lawyers, and Business Community Comment on the JOBS Act Reg D’s Investor Verification Process, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, June 24, 2012

SEC Wants Proposed Securities Settlements with Bear Stearns Executives to Get Court Approval, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, February 28, 2012

Accused Texas Ponzi Scammer May Have Defrauded Investors of $2M, Stockbroker Fraud, August 3, 2011

Continue reading "Ex-Morgan Stanley Smith Barney Broker Settles with FINRA for Allegedly Failing to Notify Firm of Previous Arrest" »

In U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, federal judge Manuel Real threw out five of the seven securities claims made by the Securities and Exchange Commission in its fraud lawsuit against ex-IndyMac Bancorp chief executive Michael Perry and former finance chief Scott
Keys. The Commission is accusing the two men of covering up the now failed California mortgage lender’s deteriorating liquidity position and capital in 2008. Real’s bench ruling dilutes the SEC’s lawsuit against the two men.

The Commission contends that Keys and Perry misled investors while trying to raise capital and preparing to sell $100 million in new stock before July 2008, which is when thrift regulators closed IndyMac Bank, F.S.B and the holding company filed for bankruptcy protection. They are accusing Perry of letting investors receive misleading or false statements about the company’s failing financial state that omitted material information. (S. Blair Abernathy, also a former IndyMac chief financial officer, had also been sued by the SEC. However, rather that fight the lawsuit, he chose to settle without denying or admitting to any wrongdoing.)

Attorneys for Perry and Keys had filed a motion for partial summary judgment, arguing that five of the seven filings that the SEC is targeting cannot support the claims. Real granted that motion last month, finding that IndyMac’s regulatory filings lacked any misleading or false statements to investors and did not leave out key information.

The remaining claims revolve around whether the bank properly disclosed in its 2008 first-quarter earnings report (and companion slideshow presentation) the financial hazards it was in at the time. The judge also ruled that Perry could not be made to pay back allegedly ill-gotten gains.

Real’s decision substantially narrows the Commission’s securities case against Perry and Keys. According to Reuters, the ruling also could potentially end the lawsuit against Keys because he was on a leave of absence during the time that the matters related to the filings that are still at issue would have occurred.

Before its collapse in 2008, Countrywide spinoff IndyMac was the country’s largest issuers of alt-A mortgage, also called “liar loans.” These high-risk home loans are primarily based on simple statements from borrowers of their income instead of tax returns. Unfortunately, loan defaults ended up soaring and a mid-2008 run on deposits at IndyMac contributed to its collapse. The Federal Deposit Insurance Corp, which places its IndyMac losses at $13 billion, went on to sell what was left of the bank to private investors. IndyMac is now OneWest bank.

Judge dismisses parts of IndyMac fraud case, Los Angeles Times, May 23, 2012

3 Former IndyMac Executives Are Accused of Fraud, New York Times, February 11, 2011

Read the SEC Complaint (PDF)

More Blog Posts:
SEC Looks Likely to Win Appeal in $285M Securities Settlement that Judge Rakoff Rejected, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, March 15, 2012

Citigroup’s $75 Million Securities Fraud Settlement with the SEC Over Subprime Mortgage Debt Approved by Judge, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, October 23, 2010

Alleged Ponzi-Like Real Estate Investment Scam that Defrauded Victims of $9M Leads to SEC Charges Against New Jersey Man, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, May 24, 2012

Continue reading "Several Claims in Securities Fraud Lawsuit Against Ex-IndyMac Bancorp Executives Are Dismissed by Federal Judge" »

Citigroup Global Markets Inc. (CLQ) has consented to pay the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority a $3.5M fine to settle allegations that he gave out inaccurate information about subprime residential mortgage-backed securities. The SRO is also accusing the financial firm of supervisory failures and inadequate maintenance of records and books.

Per FINRA, beginning January 2006 through October 2007, Citigroup published mortgage performance information that was inaccurate on its Web site, including inaccurate information about three subprime and Alt-A securitizations that may have impacted investors’ assessment of subsequent RMB. Citigroup also allegedly failed to supervise the pricing of MBS because of a lack of procedures to verify pricing and did not properly document the steps that were executed to evaluate the reasonableness of the prices provided by traders. The financial firm is also accused of not maintaining the needed books and records, including original margin call records. By settling, Citigroup is not denying or admitting to the FINRA securities charges.

In other institutional investment securities news, in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, Kent Whitney an ex-registered floor broker at the Chicago Mercantile Exchange, agreed to pay $600K to settle allegations by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission that he made statements that were “false and misleading” to the exchange and others about a scam to trade options without posting margin. The CFTC contends that between May 2008 and April 2010, Whitney engaged in the scam on eight occasions, purposely giving out clearing firms that had invalid account numbers in connection with trades made on the New York Mercantile Exchange CME trading floors. He is said to have gotten out of posting over $96 million in margin.

The CFTC says that before an option was about to expire, Whitney would make orders to sell front-month out-of-the-money options. By doing this, he was “implicitly” representing that the accounts were open and had enough margin to cover trades (In truth, the accounts had no margin and were closed). When the clearing firms would turn the trades down because the accounts were closed, they would give back the trades to the executing floor brokers’ clearing firms. The following day, Whitney would give account numbers that were valid to clear the trades. The CFTC says that this process allowed him to avoid the margin posting. Also, when Whitney traded, he would allegedly collect the options premium. By settling, he is not denying or admitting to the CFTC allegations.

Meantime, Senate Agriculture Committee Chairman Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) has written a letter to the heads of the Securities and Exchange Commission, the CFTC, the US Treasury Department, the Federal Reserve Board, the Comptroller of the Currency, and Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation urging them to go ahead and complete its implementation of the 2010 Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. Right now, regulators are a year behind on the deadline for most of the law’s rules.

Stabenow cited JPMorgan Chase's (JPM) recent over $2 billion trading loss and MF Global Inc.’s (MFGLQ) bankruptcy last fall as clear examples of the need to pass Dodd-Frank. She worried that there hasn't been sufficient rulemaking to enforce the act’s new derivatives laws. She said that now is the time to finish writing the rules and “fully” implementing the law.

Our institutional investment lawyers at Shepherd Smith Edwards and Kantas, LTD, LLP represents investors throughout the US. We also have clients that are located abroad.

FINRA fines Citigroup Global Markets $3.5 million, Reuters, May 22, 2012

Federal Court in New York Orders Chicago Resident and Former Floor Broker, Kent R.E. Whitney, to Pay $600,000 for Margin Call Avoidance Scheme, CFTC, May 23, 2012

Chairwoman Stabenow: It Is Time To Fully Implement Wall Street Reform, AG.Senate.gov, May 18, 2012

More Blog Posts:
SEC Practice of Settling Enforcement Actions Without Requiring Defendants to Deny or Admit to Allegations Gets Support from Federal Judges and Democrats, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, May 26, 2012

Alleged Ponzi-Like Real Estate Investment Scam that Defrauded Victims of $9M Leads to SEC Charges Against New Jersey Man, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, May 24, 2012

SEC Charges New York-Based Fund Manager and His Two Financial Firms Over Alleged $11M Ponzi Scheme, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, May 28, 2012

At a House Financial Services Committee hearing on May 17, a number of Democratic lawmakers spoke out against the Securities and Exchange Commission's practice of settling securities enforcement actions without making defendants deny or admit to the allegations. There is concern that companies might see this solution as a mere business expense.

The hearing was spurred by U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York Judge Jed Rakoff’s rejection of the SEC’s $285 million securities settlement with Citigroup (C) over its alleged misrepresentation of its role in a collateralized debt obligation that it marketed and structured in 2007. Citigroup had agreed to settle without denying or admitting to the allegations.

Rakoff, however, refused to approve the deal. In addition to calling for more facts before the court could accurately judge whether or not to approve the agreement, he spoke out against the SEC’s policy of letting defendants off the hook in terms of not having to deny or admit to allegations when settling. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit later went on to stay Rakoff’s ruling that SEC v. Citigroup Global Markets, Inc. go to trial.

At this Congressional hearing, a number of the lawmakers were “sympathetic” to Rakoff’s reasoning, said Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.). Rep. Al Green (D-Texas) stressed the importance of holding businesses accountable for alleged wrongdoings. The Democrats, however, were clearly mindful of the fact that SEC did not have the resources to take on additional, lengthy lawsuits, as well as of the delays that a change in the SEC’s current settlement policy would cause for investors seeking financial recovery, and they did not call for any actual policy change.

Meantime, SEC Enforcement Director Robert Khuzami, who was also at the hearing, talked about how not only would securities cases take longer to resolve if defendants were made to deny or admit wrongdoing when settling, but also, there would be a lot less settlements.

His views were backed by a number of attending Republican lawmakers who support the SEC’s settlement policy. Committee Chairman Spencer Bachus (R-Ala.) said he felt that agencies should have the primary discretion when it comes to deciding whether to settle or try a case, while Vice Chairman Jeb Hensarling (R-Texas) also said that eliminating the SEC’s policy would result in a huge increase in the number of securities lawsuits.

Earlier this month, at the Alan B. Levenson Symposium in Washington, current and former judges spoke for federal judges’ right to turn down settlement agreements if they didn’t think they had been given enough facts or considered the deals to be fundamentally unfair. They spoke about the importance of judicial independence and how judges shouldn’t be forced to merely rubber stamp settlement deals. For example, U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia Judge Beryl Howell said that regardless of whether parties had agreed to a settlement, a court still must be given sufficient facts to be able to determine whether a deal is reasonable.

Contact our SEC securities lawyers at Shepherd Smith Edwards and Kantas, LTD, LLP today.

Examining the Settlement Practices of U.S. Financial Regulators, House.gov, May 17, 2012

Courts Must Reject Settlement Pacts Where Necessary, Former, Current Judges Say, Bloomberg BNA, May 15, 2012

SEC v. Citigroup Global Markets, Inc., Justia (the Opinion and Summary)

More Blog Posts:
SEC Looks Likely to Win Appeal in $285M Securities Settlement that Judge Rakoff Rejected, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, March 15, 2012

Citigroup’s $285M Settlement With the SEC Is Turned Down by Judge Rakoff, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, November 28, 2012

Citigroup’s $75 Million Securities Fraud Settlement with the SEC Over Subprime Mortgage Debt Approved by Judge, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, October 23, 2010

In a letter to the Federal Reserve Board, the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency Administrator of National Banks, and the Federal Deposit Insurance Commission, Senators Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) and Carl Levin (D-Mich.) spoke out against what they are calling the current draft of the Volcker rule’s “JPMorgan loophole,” which they say allows for the kinds of trading activities that resulted in the investment bank’s recent massive trading loss. Merkley and Levin want the regulators to make sure that the language in October’s draft version is more stringent so that “clear bright lines” exist between legitimate activities and proprietary trading activities that should be banned (including risk-mitigating hedging and market-making).

According to Levin and Merkley, who are both principal co-sponsors of the Volcker rule and its restrictions on proprietary trading, the regulation’s latest draft disregarded “clear legislative language and clear statement of Congressional intent” and left room for “portfolio hedging.” Under the law, risk-mitigating hedge activities are allowed as long as they aim to lower the “specific risks” to a financial firm’s holdings, including contracts or positions. This is supposed to let banks lower their risks by letting them to take part in actual, specific hedges. However, the senators are contending that because the language that was necessary to enforce wasn’t included in the last draft, hence the "JPMorgan loophole" (among others) that will allow proprietary trading to occur even after the law goes into effect. They blame pressure from Wall Street lobbyists for these gaps.

The senators are pressing the regulators to get rid of such loopholes and put into effect a solid Volcker Rule, with stricter language, and without further delays. They noted that despite getting trillions of dollars in public bailout money, a lot of large financial firms continue to fight against the “most basic… reforms,” which is what they believe that Wall Street has been doing with its resistance to the Volcker rule. (Also in their letter, Levin and Merkley reminded the regulators that it was proprietary trading positions that resulted in billions of dollars lost during the recent economic crisis.)

SSEK Talking to Investors About JPMorgan Trading Losses
JPMorgan Chase's (JPM) over $2 billion loss was on a series of complex derivative trades that it claims were made to hedge economic risks. Now, according to a number of people who work at trading desks that specialize in the kind of derivatives that the financial firm used when making its trades, the financial firm's loss has likely grown to closer than $6 billion to $7 billion.

Read the Letter by Merkley and Levin

Volcker Rule Resource Center, SIFMA

More Blog Posts:
JPMorgan Chase Had No Treasurer When Chief Investment Office Made Trades Resulting In More than $2B Loss, Reports WSJ, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, May 19, 2012

JPMorgan Chase Shareholders File Securities Lawsuits Over $2B Trading Loss, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, May 17, 2012

SEC Chairman Mary Schapiro Stands By Agency’s 2011 Enforcement Recordhttp://www.stockbroker-fraud.com/lawyer-attorney-1132963.html, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, March 15, 2012

Continue reading "Senate Democrats Want Volcker Rule’s “JP Morgan Loophole” Allowing Portfolio Hedging Blocked" »

According to the Wall Street Journal, during five of the months when JPMorgan Chase’s (JPM) Chief Investment Office made the trades that has led to over $2 billion in losses, the financial firm lacked a treasurer. Also, the executive appointed to head up department’s risk management might not have had the necessary experience to do the job. A few ex- and current employees of the financial firm have alluded to poor decisions in staffing as a reason that bad positions were allowed to go unchecked.

Apparently, until the appointment of Sandie O’Connor as treasurer was announced in March, the last person to hold that position was Joseph Bonocore. He left the financial firm in October 2011, which was before trading losses soared. Prior to leaving, he expressed general worries about risks that were being made by the JPMorgan’s London office, which is where many of the questionable trades originated. (He also had previously served as the investment unit’s chief financial officer for about 11 years.) Now, questions are being raised by those on the outside as to how a bank as big as JPMorgan could go so long without a treasurer.

As for its chief risk officer, Irving Goldman, he is related by marriage to JPMorgan executive Barry Zubrow. Goldman was moved into the post this February, one month after Zubrow was made the bank’s chief of corporate regulatory affairs. Goldman’s background in trading is extensive. He previously worked for Salomon Brothers, Credit Suisse First Boston, and Cantor Fitzgerald (CANTRP), where he also was president of its asset management and debt capital markets divisions. A JPMorgan spokesperson defended Goldman’s professional background, saying it wasn’t uncommon for a risk manager to be heavy on trading experience.

In February, Zubrow, Goldman and now ex-chief investment officer head Ina Drew and former CFO John Wilmot reportedly told Federal Reserve officials that new regulations might impede a banking entity’s ability to properly manage its structural risks. They contended that certain types of trading (including the trading that has led to this major loss) shouldn’t be part of a proposed proprietary trading ban under the Volcker ruler.

Although JPMorgan’s Chief Executive James Dimon had announced $2 billion trading loss, additional losses have continued to accrue by up to $150 million a day since his announcement last week. The losses may eventually exceed $5 billion.

JPMorgan has acknowledged that it employed a strategy that was not only badly designed but also poorly executed. It is conducting its own internal probe in conjunction with outside auditors. Meantime, the US Justice Department and a number of regulators, including the SEC and the Federal Reserve, have opened their own investigations into the losses.

Shepherd Smith Edwards and Kantas, LTD, LLP wants to hear from individual institutional investors affected by JPMorgan Chase’s trading losses, contact our securities fraud attorneys today.

Key Void at Top for J.P. Morgan, The Wall Street Journal, May 17, 2012

JPMorgan Chase Chief Investment Office Played By Different Rules, Huffington Post, May 16, 2012

More Blog Posts:
JPMorgan Chase $2B Trading Loss Leads to Probes by the SEC, Federal Reserve, and FBI, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, May 15, 2012

JPMorgan Chase Shareholders File Securities Lawsuits Over $2B Trading Loss, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, May 17, 2012

JP Morgan Chase To Pay $150M to Settle Securities Lawsuit Over Lending Program Losses of Union Pension Funds, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, March 26, 2012

JP Morgan Chase To Pay $150M to Settle Securities Lawsuit Over Lending Program Losses of Union Pension Funds, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, March 26, 2012

Two securities lawsuits have been filed on behalf of shareholders and investors of JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPM) over the financial firm’s $2 billion trading loss from synthetic credit products. According to CEO Jamie Dimon, the massive loss is a result of “egregious” failures made by the financial firm’s chief investment office and a hedging strategy that failed. Both complaints were filed on Tuesday in federal court.

One securities case was brought by Saratoga Advantage Trust -- Financial Services Portfolio. The Arizona trust is seeking to represent everyone who suffered losses on the stock that it contends were a result of alleged misstatements the investment bank had made. Affected investors would have bought the stock on April 13 (or later), which is the day that Dimon had minimized any concerns about the financial firm’s trading risk during a conference call.

Per Saratoga Advantage Trust v JPMorgan Chase & Co., the week after the call, losses from the trades went up to about $200 million a day. The Arizona Trust is accusing Dimon and CFO Douglas Braunstein of issuing statements during that conversation that were misleading and “materially false,” as well as misrepresenting not just the losses but also the risks from major bets placed on “derivative contracts involving credit indexes reflecting corporate bonds interest rates.” As a result, when the derivate bets faltered “horribly,” the company suffered “billions of dollars in lost capital,” as well as additional losses in the billions for JPMorgan shareholders in terms of market capitalization. The securities fraud lawsuit is seeking unspecified damages for investors.

The second complaint, submitted by plaintiff James Baker, is a shareholder derivative lawsuit. He is an individual investor seeking damages on behalf of JPMorgan Chase from Dimon, Braunstein and members of the bank’s board. In JPMorgan Chase & Co. v James Dimon, Baker accuses the CEO of publicly disputing that any investment safety regulation was warranted on the grounds that JPMorgan of its own accord was “purportedly so careful” with its investments. Baker says the financial firm failed to disclose that the losses were because of a “marked shift” in its “allowable risk model” and the “clandestine conversion” of a company unit, which was supposed to provide a “conservative risk-reduction function,” into one that touted high risk, short-term trading that ended up exposing JPMorgan to huge losses.

Baker who is charging bank officers and directors with waste of corporate assets, breach of fiduciary duty, and unjust enrichment, is seeking unspecified damages from the bank officers and directors. He also wants a court order mandating that JPMorgan install two shareholder representatives on its board, let shareholders vote on proposals regarding enhancing board supervision, and test internal audit and control policies to make sure that they immediately notify management about trading risks that are not acceptable.

If you are an investor that has lost money because of JPMorgan’s $2 Billion trading loss, please contact our securities fraud lawyers at Shepherd Smith Edwards and Kantas, LTD, LLP today.

JPMorgan Shareholders Sue Dimon Over $2 Billion Loss, Bloomberg, May 16, 2012

Saratoga Advantage Trust v JPMorgan Chase & Co., Justia.com

JPMorgan Chase & Co. v James Dimon

Dimon: Investment Portfolio is 'Very Conservative’, Bloomberg, April 13, 2012

More Blog Posts:
JPMorgan Chase $2B Trading Loss Leads to Probes by the SEC, Federal Reserve, and FBI, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, May 15, 2012

Investors Want JP Morgan Chase & Co. To Explain Over $95B of Mortgage-Backed Securities, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, December 17, 2011

JP Morgan Chase To Pay $150M to Settle Securities Lawsuit Over Lending Program Losses of Union Pension Funds, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, March 26, 2012

In the wake of JPMorgan Chase’s (JPM) announcement that it lost $2 billion in a trading portfolio that is supposed to hedge against the risks that it takes against its own money, the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Federal Reserve and other regulators are launching their respective investigations to find out exactly what happened. JPMorgan is the largest bank in the US.

As the financial firm’s stock plummeted nearly 7% in after-hours trading after the announcement, its CEO, Jamie Dimon, attributed the losses to “many errors, sloppiness and bad judgment." He also said that the portfolio, which consisted of derivatives, ended up being “riskier” and not as effective as an economic hedge as the financial firm had previously thought. Also seeing drops in their stocks following JPMorgan’s announcement of its massive trading loss were other banks, including Bank of America (BAC), Morgan Stanley (MS), Citigroup (C) and Goldman Sachs (GS)http://www.securities-fraud-attorneys.com/.

Now, the SEC and other regulators are looking into whether possible civil violations were involved in JPMorgan’s massive loss. The Commission had recently opened a preliminary probe into the financial firm’s public disclosures about its trades and accounting practices. According to The New York Times, questions regarding JP Morgan’s chief investment office, which is in charge of its hedging activities, were raised in April following reports that a trader in London was taking large bets that were “distorting the market.” Dimon, at the time, dismissed worries about the bank’s trading activities.

The FBI is also looking into potential wrongdoing related to the $2 trading loss.

Known for its excellence in trading until now and earning up to $5.4 billion of securities gains last year, JPMorgan’s chief investment office has now seen a reversal of fortune. Per The New York Times, the financial firm’s problems may have begun with its bond portfolio, which was valued at $379 billion in March. Just 30% of the portfolio had been invested in securities that the federal government had guaranteed—a change from 2010 when government guaranteed bonds made up 42% of the portfolio.

Signs of trouble with JPMorgan’s trading strategy started to brew at the end of March when the market went against corporate bonds. Yet during its first-quarter earnings call in mid-April, Dimon did not give any indication that there were problems with the bank’s trading.

Last week, however, Dimon told a different story by announcing the $2 billion trading loss. He said the investment bank’s problems were caused in part by its value-at-risk measure, which underestimated the losses on hedge funds that depended on credit derivatives. Yet were the trades even actual hedges? Banks have been known to perform elaborate trades that at first seemed to be a hedge but eventually become a bad bet.

SEC Opens Review of JP Morgan, The Wall Street Journal, May 11, 2012

F.B.I. Begins Preliminary Inquiry Into JPMorgan, The New York Times, May 15, 2012

JPMorgan Chase Discloses $2 Billion Trading Loss, NPR/AP, May 11, 2012

More Blog Posts:
Investors Want JP Morgan Chase & Co. To Explain Over $95B of Mortgage-Backed Securities, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, December 17, 2011

Washington Mutual Bank Bondholders’ Securities Fraud Lawsuit Against J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. is Revived by Appeals Court, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, June 29, 2011

JP Morgan Chase To Pay $150M to Settle Securities Lawsuit Over Lending Program Losses of Union Pension Funds, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, March 26, 2012

Continue reading "JPMorgan Chase $2B Trading Loss Leads to Probes by the SEC, Federal Reserve, and FBI" »

The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has revived the US Securities and Exchange Commission’s fraud lawsuit against Morgan Keegan & Co. accusing the financial firm of allegedly misleading investors about auction-rate securities. The federal appeals court said that a district judge was in error when he found that alleged misrepresentations made by the financial firm’s brokers were immaterial. The case will now go back to district court. Morgan Keegan is a Raymond James Financial Inc. (RJF) unit.

The SEC had sued Morgan Keegan in 2009. In its complaint, the Commission accused the financial firm of leaving investors with $2.2M of illiquid ARS. The agency said that Morgan Keegan failed to tell clients about the risks involved and that it instead promoted the securities as having “zero risk” or being “fully liquid” or “just like a money market.” The SEC demanded that Morgan Keegan buy back the debt sold to these clients.

In 2011, U.S. District Judge William Duffey ruled on the securities fraud lawsuit and found that Morgan Keegan did adequately disclose the risks involved. He said that even if some brokers did make misrepresentations, the SEC had failed to present any evidence demonstrating that the financial firm had put into place a policy encouraging its brokers-dealers to mislead investors about ARS liquidity. Duffey pointed to Morgan Keegan’s Web site, which disclosed the ARS risks. He said this demonstrated that there was no institutional intent to fool investors. He also noted that a “failure to predict the market” did not constitute securities fraud and that the Commission would need to show examples of alleged broker misconduct before Morgan Keegan could be held liable.

Citing the US Supreme Court’s ruling in Basic v Levinson, the circuit court found that the misleading statements made by Morgan Keegan brokers and the alleged failure to reveal the known risks involving ARS could have easily been perceived by a reasonable investor to be a modification of the information about ARS that Morgan Keegan had made available. The 11th circuit panel also said that seeing as Morgan Keegan knew there were auctions that were failing in 2007 and early 2008, giving clients "general cautionary language" about the debt behind trading confirmations was not enough. (Although the panel agreed that a written disclosure of the risks involved could trump any sales pitch omissions, it pointed to circuit precedent, which did not allow this “as a matter of law.”)

The appeals court rejected the district judge’s narrow focus on how many alleged victims there might have been, as well as his emphasis on the Commission having to prove institutional intent.

Investors were left in a financial bind when the $330 billion ARS market froze in February 2008. They could not get their now frozen money from this largely, illiquid debt, which was a shock to them seeing as most of them were told that auction-rate securities were liquid, like cash. Morgan Keegan and other financial firms have since been pursued by regulators, as well as investors seeking financial recovery.

Over the last few years, a number of financial firms have had to pay back billions in dollars of ARS to their clients. Our auction-rate securities lawyers have been helping investors recover such losses. Contact Shepherd Smith Edwards and Kantas, LTD, LLP today.

Broker Omissions Could Doom Morgan Keegan, Courthouse News Service, May 7, 2012

Fraud lawsuit vs Morgan Keegan revived, Chicago Tribune, May 2, 2012

SEC v. Morgan Keegan & Co., 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeal (PDF)

More Blog Posts:
Oppenheimer & Co. Must Buyback $6M in Auction-Rate Securities from Investor, Says FINRA Arbitration Panel, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, January 11, 2012

Raymond James Financial to Buy Morgan Keegan from Regions Financial for $930 Million, January 14, 2012

Texas Securities Fraud: Raymond James Financial Services Pays Elderly Senior Investor About $1.8M Following Loss of Appeal, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, December 2, 2011

Metlife (MET) is suing Morgan Stanley (MS) for securities fraud. According to Bloomberg, the insurance company bought over $757 million in residential mortgage-backed securities from the financial firm in 2006 and 2007. In the institutional investment fraud lawsuit, Morgan Stanley had vouched that the properties behind the loans were “accurately appraised” and that the loans met underwriting guidelines. The insurer, however, contends that the loans’ originators were actually some of the subprime lending industry’s “worst culprits.”

The RMBS lawsuit comes right after MetLife agreed to pay half a billion dollars to settle a probe by a number of states over its payment practices. The investigation involves the Social Security "Death Master" file, which includes a list of names of people who have recently passed away. Insurance companies are accused of using the list to stop issuing to dead clients their annuity payments and not using the list to confirm that life insurance policyholders had died.

MetLife announced on Thursday that it was leaving the reverse mortgage industry. Nationstar Mortgage LLC (NSM) will buy its portfolio. The move is a big change for the insurance company, which had been the market leader.

Meantime, Morgan Stanley has been battling other residential mortgage-backed securities lawsuits. Earlier this year, Sealink Funding Ltd. filed a case against it over more than $556 million in RMBS that it purchased. Sealink Funding, a European fund, was set up to manage Landesbank Sachsen AG’s most high-risk assets.

The fund bought the securities from Morgan Stanley after the financial firm said it had done its due diligence on the lenders of the investments and that the loans satisfied underwriting standards and merited their AAA ratings. Sealink called the loans’ originators among the subprime lending industry’s “worst culprits.”

Last year, Allstate Insurance Co. (ALL) filed its RMBS lawsuit against Morgan Stanley over more than $104 million in RMBS it bought in several offerings. The insurer’s contention over reassurances the financial firm made about the securities is similar to the allegations made by Sealink and Metlife. Allstate has also filed RMBS lawsuits against other financial firms, including Merrill Lynch (MER) units, Citigroup Inc. (C), and Bank of America Corp.'s (BAC) Countrywide.

As previously noted by SEC Enforcement director Robert Khuzami, mortgage products played a crucial role in the financial crisis that began a few years ago. Unprecedented losses resulted when mortgage-backed securities failed. Many institutional investors are still trying to recover. They claim they were misled about the risks involved and they want their money back.

MetLife Pays $500 Million To Settle Probe Into Unpaid Claims For Dead Policy Holders, Huffington Post, April 23, 2012

MetLife to pay $500 million in multi-state death benefits probe, Los Angeles Times, April 23, 2012

Morgan Stanley Sued by Allstate on Mortgage Claims, Bloomberg, August 18, 2011

More Blog Posts:
H & R Block Subsidiary Option One Mortgage Corporation to Pay $28.2M to Residential Mortgage-Backed Securities Investors, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, April 25, 2012

Bank of New York Mellon Corp. Must Contend with Pension Fund Claims Over Countrywide Mortgage-Backed Securities, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, April 10, 2012

Continue reading "Morgan Stanley Sued by MetLife for Securities Fraud Over $757 Million in Residential Mortgage-Backed Securities" »

The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York has decided that investors can sue Bank of New York Mellon (BK) over its role as trustee in Countrywide Financial Corp.’s mortgage-backed securities that they say cost billions of dollars in damages. While Judge William Pauley threw out some of the clams filed in the securities fraud lawsuit submitted by the pension funds, he said that the remaining ones could proceed. The complaint was filed by the Benefit Fund of the City of Chicago, the Retirement Board of the Policemen’s Annuity, and the City of Grand Rapids General Retirement System. The retirement board and Chicago’s benefit fund hold certificates that 25 New York trusts and one Delaware trust had issued, and BNY Mellon is the indentured trustee for both. Pooling and servicing agreements govern how money is allocated to certificate holders.

In Retirement Board of Policemen's Annuity and Benefit Fund of City of Chicago v. Bank of New York Mellon, the plaintiffs are accusing BNYM of ignoring its responsibility as the investors’ trustee. They believe that the bank neglected to review the loan files for mortgages that were backing the securities to make sure that there were no defective or missing documents. The bank also allegedly did not act for investors to ensure that loans having “irregularities” were taken from the mortgage pools. As a result, bondholders sustained massive losses and were forced to experience a great deal of uncertainty about investors’ ownership interest in the mortgage loans. The plaintiffs are saying that it was BNYM’s job to perfect the assignment of mortgages to the trusts, certify that documentation was correct, review loan files, and make sure that the trust’s master servicer executed its duties and remedied or bought back defective loans. Countrywide Home Loans Inc. had originally been master servicer until it merged with Bank of America (BAC).

The district court, in granting its motion, limited the lawsuit to the trusts in which the pension fund had interests. It also held that the fund only claimed “injury in fact” in regards to the trusts in which it held certificates. The court found that the certificates from New York are debt securities and not equity and are covered under the Trust Indenture Act. The plaintiffs not only did an adequate job of pleading that Bank of America and Countrywide were in breach of the PSAs, but also they adequately pleaded that defaults of the PSAs were enough to trigger BNYM’s responsibilities under Sections 315(b) and (c). The court, however, threw out the claims that BNYM violated Section 315(a) by not performing certain duties under the PSAs and certain other agreements.

BNYM says it will defend itself against the claims that remain.

Bank of NY Mellon must face lawsuit on Countrywide, Reuters, April 3, 2012

Judge Rejects Bank Of NY Mellon Motion To Dismiss Countrywide Suit, Fox, April 3, 2012

More Blog Posts:
District Court in Texas Decides that Credit Suisse Securities Doesn’t Have to pay Additional $186,000 Arbitration Award to Luby’s Restaurant Over ARS, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, June 2, 2011

Credit Suisse Group AG Must Pay ST Microelectronics NV $431 Million Auction-Rate Securities Arbitration Award, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, April 5, 2012

Citigroup to Pay $285M to Settle SEC Lawsuit Alleging Securities Fraud in $1B Derivatives Deal, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, October 20, 2011

Continue reading "Bank of New York Mellon Corp. Must Contend with Pension Fund Claims Over Countrywide Mortgage-Backed Securities " »

A Financial Industry Arbitration panel has ordered Merrill Lynch (BAC) to pay over $10 million to two brokers who claim the financial firm wrongly denied their deferred compensation plans to vest. Per the FINRA arbitration panel, senior management at Merrill purposely engaged in a scam that was “systematic and systemic” to prevent its former brokers, Tamara Smolchek and Meri Ramazio, from getting numerous benefits, including the ones that they were entitled to under the financial firm’s deferred-compensation programs, so that it wouldn’t be liable after the acquisition. The panel accused Merrill of taking part in “delay tactics” and “discovery abuses.”

Some 3,000 brokers left Merrill after Bank of America Corp. (BAC) acquired it in 2008. A lot of these former employees are now claiming that they were improperly denied compensation.

Smolchek and Ramazio alleged a number claims related to their deferred compensation plans’ disposition. Causes of action against Merrill included breach of duty of good faith and fair dealing, breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, constructive trust, conversion, defamation, unfair competition, tortious interference with advantageous business relations, violating FINRA Rule 2010, fraud, and negligence.

Broker employment contracts usually mandate that an employee stay with a financial firm for several years before they are entitled to vest the money they are earning in their tax-deferred accounts. However, several of Merrill’s deferred compensation programs allow brokers that have left the firm for “good reason” to have their money vest.

The FINRA panel expressed shock that after the departure of 3,000 Merrill advisers following the Bank of America acquisition, the firm did not approve a single claim for vesting that cited a “good reason” under the deferred compensation programs. Per Merrill’s own analysis, had it approved the vesting requests, the financial firm might have paid anywhere from the hundreds of millions to billions of dollars in possible liability.

Per the compensation ruling, Merrill has to pay Ramazio $875,000 and Smolchek $4.3 million in compensatory damages for unpaid deferred compensation, unpaid wages, lost wages, lost book, lost reputation, and value of business. The FINRA panel also awarded $1.5 million in punitive damages to Ramazo and $3.5 million to Smolchek.

The same day that the decision was issued, Merrill filed an appeal. The financial firm wants the ruling overturned, claiming that it never received a fair hearing and that panel chairwoman Bonnie Pearce was biased. Merrill contends that Pearce did not disclose that her husband is a plaintiff’s lawyer who sued the financial firm for customers and brokers in at least five lawsuits. Merrill is accusing Pearce of “overt hostility.”

Merrill Lynch Loses $10 Million Compensation Ruling, The Wall Street Journal, April 4, 2012

Merrill Lynch Savaged by FINRA Arbitrators in Historic Employee Dispute, Forbes, April 4, 2012

More Blog Posts:
Securities Claims Accusing Merrill Lynch of Concealing Its Auction-Rate Securities Practices Are Dismissed by Appeals Court, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, November 30, 2011

Merrill Lynch Faces $1M FINRA Fine Over Texas Ponzi Scam by Former Registered Representative, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, October 10, 2011

Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Ordered to Pay $1M FINRA Fine for Not Arbitrating Employee Disputes Over Retention Bonuses, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, January 26, 2012

Continue reading "Merrill Lynch to Pay Brokers Over $10M for Alleged Fraud Over Deferred Compensation Plans" »

Morgan Stanley (MS) Smith Barney is reporting that five of its managed future funds sustained 9.5% in average losses—that’s $79.1 million—in the wake of client withdrawals last year. Only one of the funds was profitable. The largest fund by assets, Morgan Stanley Smith Barney Spectrum Select LP, faced $55.2 million in redemptions and lost $67.9 million.

Subsidiary Ceres Managed Futures LLC, the funds’ manager, had placed assets with outside trading advisers. In the wake of these losses, Ceres let go two underlying managers: John W. Henry & Co. and Sunrise Capital Partners. Spectrum Currency, which is the fund that they both managed, sustained losses of 9.8% in 2011. That fund is now called Spectrum Currency and Commodity.

Managed-future funds use futures or forwards contracts when betting on the declines or advance in securities, including bonds, commodities, stocks, and currencies. Some funds also invest in securities connected to certain events, such as changes in interest rates or the weather.

It’s been a tough time recently for Morgan Stanley. Last year, the financial firm had to give back approximately $700 million to investors in its flagship global real-estate fund. It also was forced to cut fees (both the fee charged on investments and management fees) to get them to stay. The fund’s size was also cut by $4 billion, resulting in investors getting some of their money back.

Over two-thirds of investors have consented to give Msref VII until June 2013 to invest rather than having billions of dollars returned to them sooner. Morgan Stanley’s earlier fund, which closed in 2007, suffered losses of 62% through March despite a 23% net return during that period’s last 12 months.

Also last December, media sources reported that Zynga stock purchased by Morgan Stanley’s mutual funds for $75 million in the late-stage round dropped in price from $14/share to $9/share, even as the financial firm cashed in two times: on private placement fees (if there were fees) and on fees for the IPO underwriting.

There was also the huge loss sustained by Morgan Stanley in the settlement it reached with bond insurance company MBIA. The two entities had sued one another over insurance sold on mortgage-backed securities. For a $1.1 billion payment by MBIA, Morgan Stanley agreed to give up insurance claims over guarantees on mortgage bonds. However, as a result, the financial firm took a pretax $1.8 billion charge in the fourth quarter of 2011. Morgan Stanley had purchased the insurance against bond defaults.

Meantime, MBIA dismissed its complaint against Morgan Stanley over the quality of the mortgage bonds. The insurer had accused the financial firm of misrepresenting these, which was what the insurance company was supposed to guarantee. (As MBIA’s credit-default swap bets started to falter at the start of the financial crisis, regulators were forced to divide the insurance company into a structured finance unit and a municipal guarantee business.)

Morgan Stanley Settles MBIA Suits, Will Take $1.8B Hit, Forbes, December 13, 2011

Morgan Stanley Brokerage Managed-Futures Funds Lose 9.5%, Bloomberg/Businessweek, March 28, 2012

MBIA and Morgan Stanley Settle Bond Fight, The Wall Street Journal, December 14, 2011

Morgan Stanley Managed Futures Funds Fall In '11, FINalternative, March 29, 2012

More Blog Posts:
Morgan Stanley Faces $1M FINRA Fine for Excessive Markups and Markdowns on Corporate and Municipal Bond Transactions, Institutional Investor Securities Fraud, September 17, 2011

Morgan Stanley Smith Barney Employee Fined and Suspended by FINRA Over Unauthorized Signatures, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, September 19, 2011

$63 Million Mortgage-Backed Securities Lawsuit Against Bank of America is Second One Filed by Western and Southern Life Insurance Co. Against the Financial Firm, Institutional Investor Securities Fraud, August 29, 2011

Continue reading "Five Morgan Stanley Smith Barney Managed Future Funds Report $79.1M in Losses in 2011 " »

The Securities and Exchange Commission is seeking district court approval of its proposed securities fraud settlement with two ex-Bear Stearns & Co. portfolio managers. The SEC presented its second plea to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York earlier this month.

In a letter to the court, the SEC cited the Second Circuit Appeals Court’s decision earlier this month to stay a district court judge’s ruling turning down the Commission’s proposed $285M settlement with Citigroup Global Markets Inc. It said that the order in that matter “supports approval and entry” of this pending consent judgment.

If the settlement is approved, former Bear Stearns portfolio managers Matthew and Tannin and Ralph Cioffi would settle SEC charges accusing them of misleading bank counterparties and investors about the financial condition of two hedge funds that failed because of subprime mortgage-backed securities in 2007. Per the terms of the proposed settlement, Tannin would pay $200,000 in disgorgement plus a $50,000 fine and Cioffi would pay $700,000 in disgorgement and a $100,000 fine.

This is the second attempt by the SEC and the defendants to the court for settlement approval after District Court Judge Frederic Block cited concerns made by Judge Rakoff, who is the one who threw out the proposed $285M settlement in the SEC-Citigroup case and ordered both parties to trial. The Second Circuit has since stayed those proceedings. (In the securities case between the SEC and Citigroup, the regulator had accused the financial firm of misrepresenting its involvement in a $1 billion collateralized debt obligation that the latter and structured and marketed five years ago.)

In other SEC news, the Commission has honored its commitment to providing greater transparency when it comes to cooperation credit by notifying the public that it credited an ex-AXA Rosenberg senior executive for his substantial help in an enforcement action against the quantitative investment firm. AXA Rosenberg is accused of concealing a material error in the computer code of the model it used to manage client assets.

The SEC said it would not take action against the former executive not just because of the help he provided, but also because the alleged misconduct in question was one that mattered so much. Fortunately, the SEC was able to give clients back the $217 million they lost, as well is impose penalties of $27.5 million. This was the Commissions first case over mistakes in a quantitative investment model.

Meantime, the International Organization of Securities Commissions' Technical Committee says it has updated the data categories for information it plans to collect in a global survey of hedge funds that will take place later this year. Modified reporting categories include general information about firms, funds, and advisors, geographical focus, market and product exposure for strategy assets, leverage and risk, trading and clearing.

According to IOSCO, responses to the survey will bring together an array of hedge fund information that regulators can look at to determine systemic risk. The committee believes that having securities regulators regularly monitor hedge funds for systemic risk indicators/measures will be beneficial and provide necessary insight into possible issues hedge funds might create for the global financial system. This will be IOSCO’s second survey on hedge funds.

SEC, Citing 2d Circuit Order, Asks Court To Approve Deal With Bear Stearns Execs, BNA Securities Law Daily, March 20, 2012

SEC Credits Former Axa Rosenberg Executive for Substantial Cooperation during Investigation, SEC, March 19, 2012

IOSCO publishes updated systemic risk data requirements for hedge funds, HedgeWeek, March 23, 2012

More Blog Posts:
Securities Fraud: Mutual Funds Investment Adviser Cannot Be Sued Over Misstatement in Prospectuses, Says US Supreme Court, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, June 16, 2011

Janus Avoids Responsibility to Mutual Fund Shareholders for Alleged Role in Widespread Market Timing Scandal, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, June 11, 2007

SEC Chairwoman Defends ‘No Wrongdoing’ Settlements, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, February 27, 2012

Continue reading "Institutional Investor Fraud Roundup: SEC Seeks Approval of Settlement with Ex-Bear Stearns Portfolio Managers, Credits Ex-AXA Rosenberg Executive for Help in Quantitative Investment Case; IOSCO Gets Ready for Global Hedge Fund Survey" »

FINRA says that Citigroup Inc. subsidiary Citi International Financial Services LLC must pay over $1.2M in restitution, fines, and interest over alleged excessive markdowns and markups on agency and corporate bond transactions and supervisory violations. The financial firm must also pay $648,000 in restitution and interest to over 3,600 clients for the alleged violations. By settling, Citi International is not denying or admitting to the allegations.

According to FINRA, considering the state of the markets at the time, the expense of making the transactions happen, and the value of services that were provided, from July ’07 through September ’10 Citi International made clients pay too much (up to over 10%) on agency/corporate bond markups and markdowns. (Brokerages usually make clients that buy a bond pay a premium above the price that they themselves paid to obtain the bond. This is called a “markup.”) Also, from April ’09 until June ’10, the SRO contends that Citi International did not put into practice reasonable due diligence in the sale or purchase of corporate bonds so that customers could pay the most favorable price possible.

The SRO says that during the time periods noted, the financial firm’s supervisory system for fixed income transactions had certain deficiencies related to a number of factors, including the evaluation of markups/markdowns under 5% and a pricing grid formulated on the bonds’ par value rather than their actual value. Citi International will now also have to modify its supervisory procedures over these matters.

In the wake of its order against Citi International, FINRA Market Regulation Executive Vice-President Thomas Gira noted that the SRO is determined to make sure that clients who sell and buy securities are given fair prices. He said that the prices that Citi International charged were not within the standards that were appropriate for fair pricing in debt transactions.

If you believe that you were the victim of securities misconduct or fraud, please contact our stockbroker fraud law firm right away. We represent both institutional and individual investors that have sustained losses because of inadequate supervision, misrepresentations and omissions, overconcentration, unsuitability, failure to execute trades, churning, breach of contract, breach of promise, negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, margin account abuse, unauthorized trading, registration violations and other types of adviser/broker misconduct.

Before deciding to work with a brokerage firm that is registered with FINRA, you can always check to see if they have a disciplinary record by using FINRA’s BrokerCheck. Last year, 14.2 million reviews of the records of financial firms and brokers were conducted on BrokerCheck.

Read the Letter of Acceptance, Waiver, and Consent

Citigroup Fined for Bond Markup, The Wall Street Journal, March 19, 2012

FINRA BrokerCheck®

More Blog Posts:
Securities Claims Accusing Merrill Lynch of Concealing Its Auction-Rate Securities Practices Are Dismissed by Appeals Court, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, November 30, 2011

Merrill Lynch Faces $1M FINRA Fine Over Texas Ponzi Scam by Former Registered Representative, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, October 10, 2011

Bank of America’s Merrill Lynch Settles for $315 million Class Action Lawsuit Over Mortgage-Backed Securities, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, December 6, 2011

Continue reading "Citigroup Ordered by FINRA to Pay $1.2M Over Bond Markups and Markdowns" »

In a primarily procedural decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has ruled that the Securities and Exchange Commission’s case against Citigroup, which resulted in a proposed $285M securities fred settlement, be stayed pending a joint appeal of U.S. Senior District Judge Jed Rakoff’s ruling that the civil lawsuit proceed to trial. Rakoff had rejected the settlement on the grounds that he didn’t believe that it was “adequate.” He also questioned the Commission’s practice of letting parties settle securities causes without having to admit or deny wrongdoing. The trial in SEC v. Citigroup Global Markets, Inc. had been scheduled for July 2012.

In December, the SEC filed a Notice of Appeal to the 2nd Circuit contending that the district court judge made a legal mistake in declaring an unprecedented standard that the Commission believes hurts investors by not allowing them to avail of “benefits that were immediate, substantial, and definite.” The notice also stated that it considered it incorrect for the district court to require an admission of facts or a trial as terms of condition for approving a proposed consent judgment—especially because the SEC provided Rakoff with information demonstrating the “reasoned basis” for its findings.

The 2nd circuit’s ruling deals a blow to Rakoff’s decision, which other federal judges have cited when asking if the public’s interest is being served when federal agencies propose settlements. The three-judge panel’s appellate ruling, which was a per curiam (unsigned) decision, found that the SEC and Citi would likely win their contention that Rakoff was in error when he turned down the securities settlement. The appeals court justices said that they had to defer to an executive agency’s evaluation of what is best for the public and that there was no grounds to question the SEC’s claim that the $285M securities settlement with Citigroup is in that interest.

The 2nd circuit said that Rakoff “misinterpreted” precedent related to his discretion to determine public interest and went beyond his judicial authority. Also, per the appellate panel, while district court judges should not merely rubber stamp on behalf of federal agencies it is not their job to define the latter’s policies.

It is important to note, however, that the 2nd circuit’s ruling only tackles the preliminary issue of whether the securities case should be stayed pending the completion of the appeal. The panel said it would be up to the justices that hear the appeal to resolve all matters and that this ruling should not have any “preclusive” impact. Counsel would also be appointed to argue Rakoff’s side during the appeal.

Ruling Gives Edge to U.S. in Its Appeal of Citi Case, NY Times, March 15, 2012

Second Circuit: Rakoff, Mind, Wall Street Journal, March 15, 2012

More Blog Posts:
Citigroup’s $285M Settlement With the SEC Is Turned Down by Judge Rakoff, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, November 28, 2011

Citigroup’s $285M Mortgage-Related CDO Settlement with Raises Concerns About SEC’s Enforcement Practices for Judge Rakoff, Institutional investor Securities Blog, November 9, 2011

Citigroup’s $75 Million Securities Fraud Settlement with the SEC Over Subprime Mortgage Debt Approved by Judge, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, October 23, 2010

Continue reading "SEC Looks Likely to Win Appeal in $285M Securities Settlement that Judge Rakoff Rejected" »

U.S. district judge says that Public Employees' Retirement System of Mississippi v. Goldman Sachs Group Inc., a securities fraud lawsuit, may proceed as a class action case. Some 150 investors would fall under this class plaintiff category as they seeking damages related to a $698 million mortgage-backed securities offering.

According to the complaint, loan originator New Century Financial Corp. did not abide by its own underwriting standards and overstated what the value was of the collateral backing the loans. The plaintiffs are accusing Goldman Sachs of failing to conduct the necessary due diligence when it purchased the loans seven years ago. The financial firm then structured, issued, and sold the mortgage pass-through certificates in a single offering.
Goldman attempted to fight certification on the grounds of numerosity, typicality, commonality, statute of limitations, typicality, and alleged conflicts involving buyers of different tranches, what investors knew, and other claims.

Judge Harold Baer Jr. turned down the defendants’ contention that class claims wouldn’t predominate due to individual investors’ knowledge of possibly false statements that may have been made in the offering documents when the acquisition took place. The defendants also had argued that class status should not be granted because investors, who conducted their own research and due diligence, interacted directly with loan originators, as well as had access to data that gave them information about New Century’s practices and the loan pool.

The court also turned down the defendants’ claim revolving around investors’ relying on asset managers and the change in information that was made publicly available over time. The court said that determining whether individual or common issues predominate is reliant upon whether putative class members took part in or knew about the alleged behavior and that likelihood of knowledge is not enough.

Public Employees' Retirement System of Mississippi had been seeking to certify as a Class any entity or person that bought or otherwise publicly acquired offered certificates of GSAMP Trust 2006-S2 and, as a result, sustained damages. Not included in the Class are defendants, respective officials, directors, affiliates, these parties’ immediate relatives, heirs, legal representatives, successors, assigns, and any entity that defendants had or have controlling interested in.

Goldman Sachs Mortgage-Backed Securities Suit Granted Class-Action Status, Bloomberg, February 3, 2012

$698 Million Class Can Sue Goldman, Courthouse News Service, February 7, 2012

More Blog Posts:
Goldman Sachs CEO Hires Prominent Defense Attorney in the Wake of Justice Department Probe into Mortgage-Backed Securities, Institutional Investor Securities Fraud Blog, August 24, 2011

Mortgage-Backed Securities Lawsuit Against Bank of America’s Merrill Lynch Now a Class Action Case, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, June 25, 2011

Two Ex-Credit Suisse Executives Plead Guilty to Mortgage-Backed Securities Fraud, Institutional Investor Securities Fraud Blog, February 7, 2012

Continue reading "$698M MBS Lawsuit Seeking Damages from Goldman Sachs Group Can Take on Class Action Status, Says District Judge" »

Salmaan Siddiqui and David Higgs have pled guilty to conspiracy to commit wire fraud and conspiracy to falsify books in the mortgage-backed securities fraud case against them. Higgs was former a Credit Suisse managing director while Siddiqui had been vice president.

The US Securities and Exchange Commission and the Justice Department have been conducting coordinated enforcement efforts against Higgs, Siddiqui, and Kareen Serageldin. They are charged with fraudulently inflating asset-backed bonds’ prices during late 2007 and early 2008. The bonds consisted of commercial mortgage-backed securities and subprime residential mortgage-backed securities in Credit Suisse’s trading books. Their alleged manipulation of the bond prices resulted in the financial firm getting a $2.65B write-down of its end of the year financial results for 2007. Meantime, seeing as trading book profitability determines bonuses, the three defendants obtained hefty ones.

In addition to the three men, the SEC is also suing Faisal Siddiqui as a fourth defendant. In its securities fraud complaint, the Commission accused the men of being involved in a scam to fraudulently overstate the prices of over $3B of subprime bonds. Recorded phone calls document their fraudulent actions.

Serageldin, who was Credit Suisse’s Structured Credit Trading global head, reportedly initiated the MBS fraud while Higgs, who was with the financial firm’s Hedge Trading, oversaw the operation. The Siddiquis, who are not related to each other, were brokers that allegedly falsely processed the bonds’ prices.

In August 2007, the defendants reportedly started pricing the bonds in a way that would benefit them, rather than recording the fair value. The MBS scam would continue to accelerate as the credit markets faltered. By the end of the year, they were pricing the bonds at falsely high levels. Higgs would later on get the bond prices raised beyond their year-end levels to gain favorable P & L results at the end of January.

In February, Credit Suisse reported having a 2007 net income of $7.12 billion and fourth quarter earnings of $1.16B. Seeing as these figures incorporated the false gains, the information was materially misleading and false. Their scam fell apart when Credit Suisse senior management realized that specific bonds that the defendants’ controlled had been priced abnormally high.

MBS Pricing by Credit Suisse Traders
Credit Suisse traders must price the securities that they hold at fair value, which is determined by current market price or the current price for a similar liability or asset. When there is no liquid market, the traders have to refer to other indicia to determine their assets’ fair value. Credit Suisse brokers know that the ABX indices are the benchmark for specific securities backed by home loans and that they must refer to it when placing a price on RMBS bonds and related products.

Ex-Credit Suisse bond players plead guilty to MBS fraud, Housing Wire, February 2, 2012

Manhattan U.S. Attorney and FBI Assistant Director in Charge Announce Charges Against Two Former Credit Suisse Managing Directors and Vice President for Fraudulently Inflating Subprime Mortgage-Related Bond Prices in Trading Book, FBI, February 2012

SEC Charges Former Credit Suisse Investment Bankers in Subprime Bond Pricing Scheme, SEC, February 1, 2012

More Blog Posts:
District Court in Texas Decides that Credit Suisse Securities Doesn’t Have to pay Additional $186,000 Arbitration Award to Luby’s Restaurant Over ARS, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, June 2, 2011

Credit Suisse Group AG Must Pay ST Microelectronics NV $431 Million Auction-Rate Securities Arbitration Award, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, April 5, 2012

Citigroup to Pay $285M to Settle SEC Lawsuit Alleging Securities Fraud in $1B Derivatives Deal, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, October 20, 2011

Continue reading "Two Ex-Credit Suisse Executives Plead Guilty to Mortgage-Backed Securities Fraud" »

A Financial Industry Regulatory Authority panel wants Citigroup to pay financial advisor siblings Robert Vincent Minchello and James Bryan Minchello, as well as administrator Martha Jane Sullivan, $24 million. The claimants, who were formerly employed by the financial firm, contend that they did not receive fair compensation for transactions involving an institutional investor client.

Prior to working for Citigroup they were with Banc of America Securities. When they landed at Citi, they brought a number of institutional investors with them. Transactions that the brothers conducted with one the clients, a technology incubator that at the time they already had a 10-year working relationship with, is at the center of the dispute with Citigroup.

The Claimants contend that Citi only partially paid them on a few of the initial transactions and then removed them from relationship with the client while refusing to compensate them for subsequent transactions. After leaving the financial firm in 2009 they submitted an arbitration claim with Citigroup. They had wanted $156.1 million in punitive damages and interest, as well as $78 million in compensatory damages ( and attorneys’ fees and other costs).

The FINRA panel awarded the team about $24 million for compensatory damages and 6% yearly interest for the period of December 15, 2004 through January 13, 2012. Citi must also pay the advisors $1M in sanctions. The Claimants’ securities fraud attorney says the award seem to be a “rebuke” of the practice that some investment banks engage in of not paying advisors that connect them with lucrative transactions or clients. The brothers and Sullivan are now with JP Morgan Securities LLC.

As you can read about in some of our recent blog posts, Citigroup has come under fire a lot recently over alleged violations. FINRA just fined Citigroup Global Markets $725,000 for allegedly failing to disclose certain conflicts of interest in its research reports and during research analyst public appearances. In December 2011, a judge turned down Citigroup’s request to have a $54.1M arbitration award against it overturned. That FINRA award was over Citigroup’s alleged failure to disclose to investors the risks involved in putting their money in municipal bonds.

Of course, there is also the $285 million settlement reached between Citigroup and the Securities and Exchange Commission that US District Judge Jed S. Rakoff has refused to approve. Instead, he ordered both parties to court to resolve this matter. The SEC as the housing market was collapsing in 2007, Citigroup sold Class V Funding III and then betting against the $1B mortgage-linked CDO. Clients were not told about this conflict and investors eventually lost almost $700 million. Meantime, the financial firm made approximately $160 million.

Boston financial advisors and assistant win $24 million in arbitration, Boston, January 23, 2012

Citigroup Ordered To Pay Advisor Team $24M in Arbitration Dispute, OnWallStreet, January 24, 2012

More Blog Posts:
Citigroup Request to Overturn $54.1M Municipal Bond Arbitration Ruling Denied by Judge, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, December 27, 2011

Citigroup’s $285M Mortgage-Related CDO Settlement with Raises Concerns About SEC’s Enforcement Practices for Judge Rakoff, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, November 9, 2011

Unsealed Documents in $54.4M FINRA Arbitration Case Reveal that Citigroup Did Not Disclose Municipal Bond Risks to Investors, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, January 21, 2012

Continue reading "Citigroup Woes Continue With FINRA Order to Pay Financial Adviser Team $24M Over Inadequate Compensation " »

FINRA says that Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith must pay a $1M fine because it didn’t arbitrate employee disputes about retention bonuses. Registered representatives that took part in the bonus plan had signed promissory notes stating that should such disagreements arise, they would go to New York state court and not through arbitration to resolve them. FINRA says this agreement violated its rules, which requires that financial firms and associated individuals go through arbitration if the disagreement is a result of the business activities of the associated person or the firm.

It was after merging with Bank of America that Merrill Lynch set up a bonus plan to keep high-producing registered reps. The financial firm gave over 5,000 registered representatives $2.8B in retention bonuses that were structured as loans in 2009. By agreeing that they would go to state court, the representatives were greatly hindering their ability to make counterclaims. FINRA also says that because Merrill Lynch designed the bonus program so that it would seem as if the money for it came from MLIFI, which is a non-registered affiliate, the financial firm was able to go after recovery amounts on MLIFI’s behalf in court, which allowed Merrill Lynch to circumvent the arbitration requirement. After a number of registered representatives did leave the financial firm without paying back the amounts due on the promissory notes in 2009, Merrill Lynch filed more than 90 actions in state court to collect these payments.

Since September 14, 2009, FINRA has been expediting cases involving claims made by brokerage firm over associated persons accused of not paying money owed on a promissory note. Such disputes are supposed to be resolved through arbitration.

The SRO has also been known to get involved in other types of financial firm-employee disputes. For example, in another recent FINRA proceeding, an arbitration panel ordered Citigroup to pay a former investment advisor team and their administrator $24M for not fairly compensating them for transactions involving an institutional client that they brought with them when they moved from Banc of America Securities. Robert Vincent Minchello, his brother James Bryan Minchello, and Martha Jane Sullivan claimed that Citigroup only partially compensated them for a few of the transactions before cutting them out of that business relationship.

Merrill fined $1 mln for failure to arbitrate, Reuters, January 25, 2012

SEC Approves Rule Establishing Expedited Procedures for Arbitrating Promissory Note Cases, FINRA, September 14, 2009

More Blog Posts:
Securities Claims Accusing Merrill Lynch of Concealing Its Auction-Rate Securities Practices Are Dismissed by Appeals Court, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, November 30, 2011

Merrill Lynch Faces $1M FINRA Fine Over Texas Ponzi Scam by Former Registered Representative, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, October 10, 2011

Bank of America’s Merrill Lynch Settles for $315 million Class Action Lawsuit Over Mortgage-Backed Securities, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, December 6, 2011

Continue reading "Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Ordered to Pay $1M FINRA Fine for Not Arbitrating Employee Disputes Over Retention Bonuses" »

The Securities and Exchange Commission says that UBS Global Asset Management will pay $300,000 to resolve charges that it did not give securities in three mutual fund portfolios the proper price. This alleged failure caused investors to receive a misstatement regarding the funds’ net asset values. By agreeing to settle the charges, UBSGAM is not admitting to or denying the findings.

The SEC start investigating UBSGAM after SEC examiners conducted a routine check of the financial firm. According to its order, in 2008 UBSGAM bought about 54-complex fixed-income securities of $22 million, which was an aggregate purchase price. The majority of the securities were part of subordinated tranches of nonagency MBS with underlying collateral, which were were mortgages that weren’t in compliance with requirements to be part of MBS-guaranteed or to have been issued by Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, or Ginnie Mae. CDO’s and asset-backed securities were among these securities.

After the securities were bought, 48 of them were priced substantially over the transaction price. This is because the pricing sources that provided the valuations to UBSGAM didn’t appear to factor in the price that the funds paid for the securities. Some quotations were not priced on a daily basis, while others were formulated using ending price from the last month. It wasn’t until over 2 weeks after UBSGAM started getting price-tolerant reports pointing out such discrepancies that it’s Global Valuation Committee finally met.

By using the prices that the 3rd party pricing service or a broker-dealer provided, the SEC contends that the mutual funds did not abide by their own valuation procedures, which mandate that the securities use the transaction price value until the financial firm makes a fair value determination or gets a response to a price challenge based on the discrepancy noted in the price tolerance report. The transaction price can be used for 5 business days, when a decision would have to be made on the fair value. The SEC concluded that by not making sure that these procedures were being followed, the financial firm caused the mutual funds to violate the Investment Company Act’s Rule 38a-1.

The SEC also determined that due to the securities not being timely or properly priced at fair value for a number of days in 2008, the funds were misstated (up to 10 cents in some cases) and they were then purchased, sold, or redeemed based on NAVs that were not accurate and higher than they should have been.

Read the SEC's Order Against UBS (PDF)

More Blog Posts:
SIFMA Wants FINRA to Take Tougher Actions Against Brokers that Don’t Repay Promissory Notes, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, January 17, 2012

Raymond James Financial to Buy Morgan Keegan from Regions Financial for $930 Million, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, January 14, 2012

$78M Insider Trading Scam: "Operation Perfect Hedge” Leads to Criminal Charges for Seven Financial Industry Professionals, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, January 18, 2012

Continue reading "UBS Global Asset Management to Pay $300,000 to Settle SEC Charges Related to Alleged Mutual Fund Price Violations" »

This week, Regions Financial Corp. (NYSE: RF) issued a statement announcing that Raymond James Financial Inc. (RJF) will be paying it $930 million to purchase Morgan Keegan & Company, Inc. and related affiliates in a stock purchase agreement. (Regions Morgan Keegan Trust and Morgan Asset Management, however, are not part of the sale.) Prior to closing, Morgan Keegan will pay Regions $250 million. This agreement, of course, will have to receiver regulatory approvals and meet closing conditions.

Also per the agreement:
• For all litigation matters connected to pre-closing activities, Regions will protect Raymond James against these losses. Meantime, Regions will benefit from already existing reserves by Regions at Morgan Keegan.

• Raymond James’ Public Finance and Fixed Income businesses will be headquartered in Memphis, Tennessee, which is also Morgan Keegan’s main base.

• Raymond James and Regions will become involved in a number of business relationships that will benefit both parties.

Regions placed Morgan Keegan on the market last June.

The sale is expected to close during the first quarter of 2012. This stock purchase agreement would allow Raymond James to grow its retail brokerage network, turning it into one of the largest firms in the US.

According to Regions, the deal would give it additional revenue opportunities, as a result of its solid partnership with Raymond James, for loan referrals, processing relationships, and deposits. The sale would also help Regions pay the federal government back some of the $3.5 billion that it received during the height of the economic crisis in 2008. However, Regions also anticipates a $575 million to $745 million impairment charge from the deal.

The Wall Street Journal says that to keep some Morgan Keegan management and financial advisers from leaving in the wake of the sale, Raymond James intends to offer up to $215 million in retention payments (restricted stock units and cash) as part of the acquisition deal. Already, a number of key Morgan Keegan employees have placed their signatures to employment contracts with Raymond James. The deal ups Raymond James headcount of financial advisers to 6000—a 60% increase and a 1000 more than prior to the deal. This will rank it third behind Morgan Stanley Smith Barney and just under Bank of America Corp.'s (BAC) Merrill Lynch.

It’s Official: Raymond James Buys Morgan Keegan, for $930 Million, The Wall Street Journal, January 11, 2012

Raymond James Said to Near $930 Million Purchase of Broker Morgan Keegan, Bloomberg, January 11, 2012

More Blog Posts:
Raymond James Must Pay $925,000 Over Auction-Rate Securities Dispute, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, September 1, 2010

Morgan Keegan & Company Ordered by FINRA to Pay $555,400 in Texas Securities Case Involving Morgan Keegan Proprietary Funds, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, September 6, 2011

Claims Filed Against Morgan Keegan Division of Regions Financial Causes Shortage of Arbitrators, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, February 8, 2010

Continue reading "Raymond James Financial to Buy Morgan Keegan from Regions Financial for $930 Million" »

A Financial Industry Regulatory Authority arbitration panel has ordered Oppenheimer & Co. to repurchase the $5.98 million in New Jersey Turnpike ARS that it sold Nicole Davi Perry in 2007. The investor reportedly purchased the securities through Oppenheimer Holdings Inc. (OPY).

Perry, who, along with her father, filed her ARS arbitration claim against the financial firm in 2010, accused Oppenheimer of negligence and breach of fiduciary duty. She and her father, Ronald Davi, were reportedly looking for liquidity and safety, but instead ended up placing their funds in the auction-rate securities. They contend that they weren’t given an accurate picture of the risks involved or provided with a thorough explanation of the securities’ true nature.

Oppenheimer disagrees with the panel’s ruling. In addition to buying back Perry’s ARS, the financial firm has to cover her approximately $134,000 in legal fees.

It was just in 2010 that Oppenheimer settled the ARS securities cases filed against it by the states of New York and Massachusetts. The brokerage firm consented to buy back millions of dollars in bonds from customers who found their investments frozen after the ARS market collapsed and they had no way of being able to access their funds.

Oppenheimer is one of a number of brokerage firms that had to repurchase ARS from investors. These financial firms are accused of misrepresenting the risks involved and inaccurately claiming that the securities were “cash-like.” A number of these brokerage firms' executives allegedly continued to allow investors to buy the bonds even though they already knew that the market stood on the brink of collapse and they were selling off their own ARS.

ARS
Auction rate securities are usually corporate bonds, municipal bonds, and preferred stock with long-term maturities. Investors receive interest rates or dividend yields that are reset at each successive auction.

ARS auctions take place at regular intervals—either every 7 days, 14 days, 28 days, or 5 days. The bidder turns in the lowest dividend yield or interest rate he or she is willing to go to purchase and hold the bond during the next auction interval. If the bidder wins at the auction, she/he must buy the bond at par value.

Failed auctions can happen when there are not enough bidding buyers available to acquire the entire ARS block being offered. A failed auction can prevent ARS holders from selling their securities in the auction.

There are many reasons why an auction might fail and why there is risk involved for investors. It is important that investors are notified of these risks before they buy into the securities and that they only they get into ARS if this type of investment is suitable for their financial goals and the realities of their finances.

Panel Says Oppenheimer Must Buy Back $6M In Auction-Rate Securities, Wall Street Journal, January 10, 2012

Oppenheimer settles with Massachusetts, NY, Boston, February 24, 2010

More Blog Posts:
Oppenheimer Funds Investors Can Proceed with Their Securities Fraud Lawsuit, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, November 19, 2011

Investors in Oppenheimer Mutual Funds Considering Opting Out of $100M Class Action Settlement Have Until August 31, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, August 6 2011

Raymond James Settles Auction-Rate Securities Case with Indiana Securities Division for $31M, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, August 27, 2011

Continue reading "Oppenheimer & Co. Must Buyback $6M in Auction-Rate Securities from Investor, Says FINRA Arbitration Panel" »

A US judge has denied Citigroup’s request that the $54.1M Financial Industry Regulatory Authority arbitration award issued to investors that sustained losses in municipal bond funds be overturned. This is one of the largest securities arbitration awards that a broker-dealer has been ordered to pay individual investors. Brush Creek Capital, retired lawyer Gerald D. Hosier, and investor Jerry Murdock Jr. are the award’s recipients. However, these Claimants are not the only investors to come forward contending that they were told the funds were suitable for investors that wanted to preserve their capital.

The investor losses were related to several leveraged municipal bond arbitrage funds that saw their value significantly drop between 2007 and 2008. Citigroup Global Markets had sold the municipal bond funds through MAT Finance LLC. Proceeds were invested in longer-term muni bunds while borrowing took place at low, short-term rates. The strategy proved to be unsuccessful, resulting in investors losing up to 80% of their money.

According to The Wall Street Journal, when it issued its ruling the arbitration panel appeared to reject three defenses that financial firms usually make:

• The financial crisis, and not the financial firm, is to blame for the losses.
• Sophisticated, rich investors should have known what risks were involved.
• The prospectus had warned in advance that investors could lose everything.

The Claimants alleged fraud, failure to supervise, and unsuitability. They had sought no less than $48 million in compensatory damages, fees, lost-opportunity costs, commission, lawyers’ fees, and interest.

The FINRA arbitration panel awarded $21.6 million in compensatory damages, plus 8% per annum, to Hosier, $3.9 million in compensatory damages, plus 8% per annum, to Murdock, Jr, and $8.4 million in compensatory damages, plus 8% per annum, to Brush Creek Capital LLC.

All Claimants were also awarded $3 million in lawyers’ fees, $17 million in punitive damages, $33,500 in expert witness fees, $13,168 in court reporter expenses, and $600 for the Claimant’s filing fee.

Following the FINRA ruling, Citigroup contended that the arbitration panel had ignored the law when arriving at the award. The brokerage firm also claimed that investors could not have depended on verbal statements that the financial firm had expressed about purchases because the clients had acknowledged through signed agreements that they could lose everything they invested. By denying Citigroup’s request to throw out the arbitration award, Judge Christine Arguello, however, said that the court found Citigroup’s “argument wholly unpersuasive.”

A Crack in Wall Street’s Defenses, New York Times, April 24, 2011

Citigroup Slammed With $54 Million Award by FINRA Arbitrators in MAT / ASTA Case, Municipal Bond, April 12, 2011

Citigroup loses suit to overturn $54-million ruling, Reuters, December 22, 2011

More Blog Posts:
JPMorgan Chase to Pay $211M to Settle Charges It Rigged Municipal Bond Transaction Bidding Competitions, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, July 9, 2011

Citigroup Ordered by FINRA to Pay $54.1M to Two Investors Over Municipal Bond Fund Losses, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, April 13, 2011

Citigroup’s $285M Mortgage-Related CDO Settlement with Raises Concerns About SEC’s Enforcement Practices for Judge Rakoff, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, November 9, 2011

Continue reading "Citigroup Request to Overturn $54.1M Municipal Bond Arbitration Ruling Denied by Judge" »

FINRA says that Barclays Capital Inc. will pay $3 million over charges of inadequate supervision related to the residential subprime mortgage securitizations and the misrepresentation of delinquency data. The SRO claims that between 3/07 and 10/10, Barclays misrepresented three RMBS’s historical delinquency rates.

Per industry rules, financial firms have to give investors certain performance information for securities that they issue. FINRA says that Barclay’s Capital misrepresented the historical delinquency rates for the RMBS between March 2007 and December 2010. This inaccurate data was published on the company’s website, which impacted how investors were able to evaluate other securitizations.

Historical delinquency rates, which provide historical performance information for previous securitizations with mortgage loans, are key in helping an investor determine and RMBS’s value and whether mortgage holders’ inability to make loan payments could disrupt future returns. The inaccurate information that was posted on the Barclay’s Capital website was referred to as historical delinquency rates in five subsequent residential subprime mortgage securitizations and had errors that were key enough to impact investors.

According to FINRA Enforcement Chief Brad Bennett, Barclay lacked a system that could ensure that delinquency data that was published was accurate.

Barclays has settled the case. However, the financial firm is not denying or admitting to the charges.

It was just earlier this year that FINRA fined Merrill Lynch $3 Million and Credit Suisse Securities $4.5 Million over misrepresentations involving RMBS. Both financial firms settled the allegations without denying or admitting to the charges.

According to the SRO, in 2006, 21 RMBS’s historical delinquency rates were misrepresented by Credit Suisse. The financial firm allegedly knew that this information was not accurate yet failed to adequately look into the mistakes, tell clients about the errors, or correct the information, which was published on its we site. The delinquency errors for six of the 21 securitizations were enough to impact the way investors were able to evaluate subsequent securitizations. Credit Suisse also allegedly did not define or name the methodology that was applied in determining the mortgage delinquencies in five other subprime securitizations. (Disclosing which method was issued is required because there are different standards for determining delinquencies.)

Regarding the charges against Merrill Lynch, the SRO claims 61 of the financial firm’s subprime RMBS had historical delinquency rates that were misrepresented. However, upon discovering the mistakes, Merrill Lynch published the correct data online. In eight cases, the delinquencies impacted investors’ ability to assess subsequent securitizations.

FINRA Fines Barclays Capital $3 Million for Misrepresentations Related to Subprime Securitizations, FINRA, December 22, 2011

Finra Fines Credit Suisse, Bank of America Over RMBS Errors, Bloomberg, May 26, 2011

More Blog Posts:
Morgan Keegan Settles Subprime Mortgage-Backed Securities Charges for $200M, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, June 29, 2011

Investors Want JP Morgan Chase & Co. To Explain Over $95B of Mortgage-Backed Securities, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, December 17, 2011

Federal Home Loan Banks Say Countrywide Financial Corp Mortgage Bond Investors May Be Owed Way More than What $8.5B Securities Settlement with Bank of America Corp. is Offering, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, July 22, 2011

Continue reading "Barclays Capital Ordered by FINRA to Pay $3M Fine For Alleged Subprime Mortgage Securitization-Related Misrepresentations" »

Bank of America Corp. has agreed to a record $335 million settlement to pay back Countrywide Financial Corp. borrowers who were billed more for loans because of their nationality and race, while creditworthiness and other objective criteria took a back seat. All borrowers that were discriminated against qualified to receive mortgage loans under Countrywide’s own underwriting standards.

The settlement is larger than any past fair-lending settlements (totaling $30M) that the US Justice Department has been able to obtain to date. Countrywide was acquired by Bank of America in 2008.

According to the Justice Department, Countrywide charged higher fees and interest rates to over 200,000 Hispanic and black borrowers while directing minorities to more costly subprime mortgages despite the fact that they qualified for prime loans. Meantime, the latter were given to non-Hispanic white borrowers who had similar credit profiles.

Under federal civil rights laws, a lending practice is illegal if it has a negative effect on borrowers that are minorities. The US Justice Department’s complain contends that “steering,” which involves using discrimination to place borrowers in subprime loans, was able to occur because it was Countrywide’s practice to let employees and mortgage brokers place a loan applicant in a subprime loan even when that party qualified for a prime loan. Also, mortgage brokers were allowed to use discretion when asking for exceptions to the underlying guidelines.

Subprime loans usually come with higher-cost conditions, such as exploding adjustable interest rates that can suddenly go up after a couple of years, as well as prepayment penalties. All of this can place a borrower at higher risk of foreclosure and render payments unaffordable.

Per the settlement, Countrywide will have to put in place practices and policies to bar discrimination if it decides to go back to the lending business in the next four years. Also resolved are the Justice Department’s claims that the Bank of America subsidiary violated the Equal Credit Opportunity Act.

Countrywide is accused of using marital status to discriminate against non-applicant spouses of borrowers by trying to get them to sign away their rights to home ownership through quitclaim deeds and other documents that ended up giving the borrowing spouse the interest and legal rights in property held by both of them.

A judge still has to approve the settlement. If it goes through, impacted lenders will get between several hundred to several thousand dollars.

Our securities fraud attorneys represent investors that lost money during the subprime mortgage crisis. If you believe that negligence on the part of a financial professional caused your losses, do not hesitate to contact Shepherd Smith Edwards and Kantas, LTD LLP today.

BofA Agrees Record $335M Fair-Lending Deal, Bloomberg, December 21, 2011

Countrywide Will Settle a Bias Suit, New York Times, December 21, 2011

More Blog Posts:
Federal Home Loan Banks Say Countrywide Financial Corp Mortgage Bond Investors May Be Owed Way More than What $8.5B Securities Settlement with Bank of America Corp. is Offering, Institutional Investors Securities Blog, July 22, 2011

California Investigating Whether Bank of America & Countrywide Financial Used False Pretenses to Sell Mortgage-Backed Securities to Investors, Institutional Investors Securities Blog, October 21, 2011

FDIC Objects to Bank of America’s Proposed $8.5B Settlement Over Mortgage-Backed Securities, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, August 30, 2011

Institutional investors that placed their money in over $95B in mortgage-backed securities want the trustees overseeing JP Morgan & Chase. Co.-issued securities to figure out whether certain loans shouldn’t have been included as a result of faulty underwriting. US Bank, Bank of New York Mellon, Wells Fargo & Co., HSBC, and Citibank are the trustees.

PIMCO and BlackRock Inc. are two of the institutional investors requesting the investigation. According to their legal representatives, the group of investors represent over 25% of voting rights on 243 residential mortgage-backed securities. The institutional investors want to know whether mortgages that were not eligible ended up included in the collateral backing the bonds. The investor group is the same one that reached an $8.5 billion securities settlement with Bank of America. (The 22 investors include the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, Black Rock Inc., Goldman Sachs Asset Management, MetLife Inc., and PIMCO). However, the settlement is still pending and has been challenged by other mortgage bondholders.

Related to this current requested probe, JP Morgan and its different arms put out the securities between 2005 and 2007. Included were bonds from Washington Mutual and Bear Stearns. About $450 billion in residential MBS were issued by JP Morgan to investors between 2005 and 2008. Approximately $169 billion of that principal is outstanding.

A lot of the loans were not originated at JP Morgan, but the investment bank and its other entities did buy them. JP Morgan has contented that it should be the originator that should buy back the loans that were part of the securities contract.

According to the New York Times, if investors were to settle with JP Morgan by applying the same loss ratio used in arriving at the Bank of America agreement, this figure would probably hit about $1.9 billion. Meantime, JP Morgan must contend with approximately $31 billion in securities class-action cases.

Because of mortgage-related concerns, beginning in 2010, JP Morgan placed $8.5 billion into its reserves for litigation. At the end of the third quarter, the investment bank’s mortgage repurchase reserves were $3.6 billion.

Meantime, state attorneys generals and the Federal Housing Finance Agency continue to look at how investment banks handled mortgage-backed securities leading up to the housing market. More securities litigation from investors is expected.

Investors target JPMorgan over $95 billion of RMBS, Reuters, December 16, 2011

Mortgage Investors Put J.P. Morgan in Cross Hairs, The Wall Street Journal, December 17, 2011

Bank of America in $8.5 billion settlement, CNN, June 29, 2011

More Blog Posts:
Bank of America’s Merrill Lynch Settles for $315 million Class Action Lawsuit Over Mortgage-Backed Securities, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, December 6, 2011

FDIC Objects to Bank of America’s Proposed $8.5B Settlement Over Mortgage-Backed Securities, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, August 30, 2011

Some of the SEC Charges Against Investment Adviser Over Alleged Involvement In J.P. Morgan Securities LLC Collateralized Debt Obligation Are Dismissed, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, September 24, 2011

Continue reading "Investors Want JP Morgan Chase & Co. To Explain Over $95B of Mortgage-Backed Securities" »

U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Martin Glenn says that MF Global Holdings Inc. can use approximately $21 million in cash collateral from JPMorgan Chase & Co, which is its mortgage lender. In issuing this decision, Glenn overruled customer objections that this money could be part of the $1.2B that has gone missing from their accounts. MF Global and JP Morgan have arrived at an agreement over how the cash will be used.

At the start of MF Global’s bankruptcy, JPMorgan had already consented to let the brokerage firm use $26M. This was per an agreement that would give the investment bank a lien on all MF Global assets.

It was just earlier this month that Glenn ruled that MF Global Inc. clients could recover 72% of what they lost when the broker-dealer filed for bankruptcy. Ruling against objections made by the brokerage firm’s creditors, he approved trustee James Giddens’ request. Per Glenn's decision, MF Global’s clients can receive another $2.2 billion distribution, which lets them get back .72 on the dollar.

While the majority of the transfers were to go out within a few days, some were expected to take up to four weeks. In a separate decision, the Glenn approved transferring approximately 330 MF Global client securities accounts to Perrin, Holden & Davenport Capital Corp. MF Global has already moved approximately 38,000 commodities accounts to other financial firms.

Glen plans to tackle the issue of physical goods distribution, such as silver and gold bars, next month. Clients have complained about not being able to get their share of ownership of such items, which cannot be physically divided. HSBC Holdings Plc (HSBA) has even filed a lawsuit against Giddens. The financial firm is trying to determine whois the owner of the 15 silver bars and five gold bars underlying several Comex contracts between a client and MF Global.

Previous payouts to commodity clients are already at about $2 billion. However, some customers have said they didn’t receive any money from these initial payments.

In other MF Global-related news, CME Group has stopped issuing grants through its primary foundation in the wake of the brokerage firm's bankruptcy filing. The Chicago-based commodities exchange had issued $22 million to Chicago-area schools and charities in the last five years. CME has said that it will continue to support charitable organizations through other corporate foundations and programs.

In November, CME said it would give ex- MF Global customers the $50 million that was held by CME Trust. Originally meant to assist traders, the trust had turned into a primary source of charitable giving for the exchange operator.

Exclusive: CME Trust's charity grants halt on MF failure, Reuters, December 18, 2011

MF Global Wins Permission to Use JPMorgan’s Cash as Judge Suggests Probe, Bloomberg, December 14, 2011

MF Global clients get back 72 cents on the dollar, Bloomberg/Investment News, December 9, 2011

More Blog Posts:
$1.2 Billion of MF Global Inc.’s Clients Money Still Missing, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, December 10, 2011

MF Global Shortfall May Be More than $1.2B, Says Trustee, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, November 26, 2011

MF Global Holdings Ltd. Files for Bankruptcy While Its Broker Faces Liquidation and Securities Lawsuit by SIPC, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, October 31, 2011

Continue reading "Bankruptcy Judge Grants MF Global Permission to Use $21M from JPMorgan Chase" »

Wells Fargo & Co. has agreed to settle for $148 million the civil claims and criminal charges accusing Wachovia Bank of taking part in a bid-rigging scam with other financial firms and overcharging local and state governments on their investments. The settlement resolves allegations that for eight years, Wachovia rigged at least 58 transactions involving proceeds from over $9 billion of municipal bonds. By agreeing to settle, Wells Fargo, which acquired Wachovia three years ago, is not denying or admitting to these allegations.

In its allegations against Wachovia, the SEC said the financial firm earned ill-gotten gains in the millions of dollars by using tips provided about rival bids, turning in bogus bids to give competitors an advantage, and working with some of them to rig auctions so it would benefit. The Justice Department said Wachovia’s illegal behavior corrupted the bidding system for investment contracts while preventing municipalities from getting to avail of a competitive process. However, because the financial firm admitted to the illegal conduct, cooperated with the investigation, took action to deal with anti-competitive behavior, the federal government decided not to prosecute.

Involved in investigating Wachovia were the SEC, attorneys general in more than two dozen states, and the US Justice Department. The federal agencies have been looking at how a number of Wall Street firms and local-government advisers worked together to rig competitive auctions in order to charge excessive fees to public agencies that bought the investments.

More than dozen banks have been named as alleged co-conspirators. Other financial firms that have settled similar claims over muni bond bid-rigging are Bank of America, Corp., UBS AG, and JPMorgan Chase & Co. With this latest settlement, the banks will have paid $673 million to settle the municipal bond-related allegations.

The charges against the financial firms involve investment contracts purchased by cities and state with proceeds from the municipal-bond market. At competitive auctions organized by financial advisers, these contracts should have gone to banks offering the highest return.

According to investigators, what instead ended up happening is that some of these advisers would direct business to a certain bidder in exchange for kickbacks. Meantime, other banks would purposely make bids they knew wouldn’t win to cover up the alleged conspiracy. Because governments usually have to invest bond proceeds in the short term until it is time to spend the cash on public projects, the bogus bidding practices adversely impacted what municipalities ended up paying for reinvestment products. The bid-rigging cost the US Treasury and other governments money.

Wells Fargo Pays $148 Million to Settle Wachovia Muni Bid-Rigging Charges, Bloomberg, December 8, 2011

Wells Settles Wachovia Bid-Rig Case, Wall Street Journal, December 9, 2011

More Blog Posts:
Bank of America’s Merrill Lynch Settles for $315 million Class Action Lawsuit Over Mortgage-Backed Securities, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, December 6, 2011

Former US Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson Told Hedge Funds About Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Bailouts in Advance, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, November 30, 2011

$75K FINRA Arbitration Award Against Wells Fargo Advisors LLC For Defaming an Ex-Employee in Form U-5 is Confirmed by District Court, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, November 30, 2011

Continue reading "Wells Fargo Settles for $148M Municipal Bond Bid-Rigging Charges Against Wachovia Bank" »

Bank of America, Corp. has agreed to pay investors $315 million to settle their class action claim accusing Merrill Lynch of misleading them about the risks involved in investing in mortgage-backed securities. If approved, the proposed settlement would be one of the largest reached over MBS that caused investors major losses when the housing market collapsed. The lead plaintiff in this securities case is the Public Employees' Retirement System of Mississippi pension fund.

The class action lawsuit accused Merrill of misleading investors about $16.5 billion of MBS in 18 offerings that were made between 2006 and 2007. They are claiming possible losses in the billions of dollars. (The offerings occurred before Bank of America bought Merrill.)

The plaintiffs contend that Merrill’s offering documents were misleading. They also believe that the original investment-grade ratings for the securities, which had been backed by loans from Countrywide, IndyMac Bancorp Inc., First Franklin Financial unit, and New Century Financial Corp. were unmerited. Most of these investments were later downgraded to “junk” status.

By agreeing to settle, Bank of America is not admitting to or denying wrongdoing.

This settlement must be approved by US District Judge Jed Rakoff, who just last week rejected the proposed $285M securities settlement between Citigroup Global Markets Inc. and the Securities and Exchange Commission. He ordered that the case be resolved through trial. Rakoff was also the one who refused to approve another proposed Bank of America securities settlement—the one in 2009 with the SEC—for $33 million over misstatements that were allegedly made regarding the purchase of Merrill. Rakoff would later go on to approve the revised settlement of $150 million.

Rakoff has criticized a system that allows financial firms to settle securities fraud allegations against them without having to admit or deny wrongdoing. He also has expressed frustration at the “low” settlements some investment banks have been ordered to pay considering the amount of financial losses suffered by investors.

Our securities fraud lawyers represent individual and institutional clients that sustained losses related to non-traded REITs, private placements, principal protected notes, auction-rate securities, collateralized debt obligations, mortgage-backed securities, reverse convertible bonds, high yield-notes and other financial instruments that were mishandled by broker-dealers, investment advisers, or their representatives. We also work with victims of Ponzi scams, affinity scams, elder financial fraud and other financial schemes.

BofA Merrill unit in $315 mln mortgage settlement, Reuters, December 6, 2011

Public Employees' Retirement System of Mississippi

More Blog Posts:
Citigroup’s $285M Settlement With the SEC Is Turned Down by Judge Rakoff, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, November 28, 2011

Citigroup’s $285M Mortgage-Related CDO Settlement with Raises Concerns About SEC’s Enforcement Practices for Judge Rakoff, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, November 9, 2011

Ex-Lehman Brothers Holdings Chief Executive Defends Request that Insurance Fund Pay Legal Bills, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, October 19, 2011

Continue reading "Bank of America’s Merrill Lynch Settles for $315 million Class Action Lawsuit Over Mortgage-Backed Securities " »

FINRA says that Chase Investment Services Corporation will pay back investors for losses sustained from the unsuitable recommendation made that they buy floating rate loan funds and unit investment trusts. In addition to paying back clients $1.9M, Chase must also pay a $1.7M fine.

According to FINRA, brokers with Chase recommended these financial instruments to clients even though the investments were not suitable for them—either because they had hardly any investment experience or only wanted to take conservative risks. The SRO also says that the Chase brokers had no reasonable grounds to think the financial products would be a right fit for these investors.

FINRA believes that Chase failed to properly train its brokers or give them guidance about the suitability of floating-rate loan funds and UITs, as well as the risks involved. For example, there were UITs that contained a significant portion of assets in closed-end funds with high-yield or junk bonds. Yet, despite the risks involved, brokers from Chase made about 260 recommendations that were not suitable for clients who had little (if any) investment experience or were averse to high-risk investments. These investors ended up losing about $1.4 million.

Also subject to substantial credit risk and illiquidity were the floating-rate loan funds. Despite the fact that concentrated positions in the fund were unsuitable for specific clients, FINRA says that Chase brokers still recommended these to clients who wanted low risk, very liquid investments or preferred to preserve principal. Because of these allegedly unsuitable recommendations, investors lost almost $500K.

FINRA says that WaMu, Investments Inc., also recommended that customers by floating-rate loan funds, even though these were not appropriate for the investors. The financial firm, which had merged with Chase in 2009, is also accused of not properly training or supervising its employees that sold the investments.

More About UITs
Unit investment trusts involve diversified securities baskets that may contain high-yield bonds. While junk bonds can make greater returns for investors than investment-grade bonds, they also come with a high degree of risk.

More About Floating-Rate Loan Funds
These mutual funds are invested in short-term bank loans for companies with a below investment grade crediting rating. What investors earn will fluctuate depending on what interest rates the banks happen to be charging on the loans.

In the wake of the allegations against Chase, FINRA Executive Vice President and Chief of Enforcement Brad Bennett said that it was key that financial firms provide the proper guidance and training to brokers about product sales while supervising sales practices.

JPMorgan unit fined $1.7M over investment sales, Bloomberg Business Week/AP, November 15, 2011

FINRA Orders Chase to Reimburse Customers $1.9 Million for Unsuitable Sales of UITs and Floating-Rate Loan Funds, FINRA, November 15, 2011

More Blog Posts:
Morgan Stanley Faces $1M FINRA Fine for Excessive Markups and Markdowns on Corporate and Municipal Bond Transactions, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, September 17, 2011

Wedbush Ordered By FINRA Panel To Pay $3.5M to Trader Over Withheld Compensation, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, July 16, 2011

Bank of America Merrill Lynch to Settle UIT Sales-Related FINRA Charges for $2.5 Million, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, August 22, 2010

Continue reading "Chase Investment Services Corporation Ordered by FINRA to Pay Back $1.9M for Unsuitable Sales of Floating-Rate Loan Funds and UITs. " »

The Securities and Exchange Commission says Morgan Stanley Investment Management (MSIM) set up a fee arrangement that charged a fund (as well as its investors) for services that they weren’t actually getting from another party. MSIM has agreed to pay over $3.3M to settle the charges that it violated securities laws.

As the main investment adviser to The Malaysia Fund, MSIM told the fund’s board of directors and investors that a sub-adviser, an AM Bank Group subsidiary, had been contracted to provide research, advice, and support even though according to the SEC, the sub-adviser did not actually provide these services. Rather, AMMB issued just two monthly reports stemming from information that was available to the public. MSIM did not ask for the reports nor did it use the data provided to manage the fund. Still, the fund’s board renewed the contract with this sub-adviser each year from 1996 to 2007 and this cost investors $1.845 million.

The SEC contends that MSIM failed in its obligation to let board members know information that could help them properly assess the terms of the fund’s contract with the sub-adviser. The Commission also says that MSIM’s involvement and oversight with AMMB was inappropriate. Not only did the investment adviser lack the written procedures to properly oversee its sub-advisers, but also, it lacked the procedures to review the work that AMMB did.

The SEC also claims that since no advisory services were actually provided by AMMB, MSIM ended up submitting false information in its semi-yearly and yearly reports. Per the Commission’s order, MSIM violated sections of the Investment Company Act and Investment Advisers Act of 1940 and Rule 206(4)-7 thereunder.

By agreeing to settle, MSIM isn’t denying or agreeing to the SEC’s findings. It has, however, agreed to a cease and desist from future violations of both acts and Rule 206(4)-7 thereunder. Of the $3.3 million settlement, $1.5 million is a penalty.

Background:
The Malaysia Fund is a closed-end company belonging to Morgan Stanley’s funds complex. MSIM and the Fund entered into a written advisory agreement in 1987. MSIM gives the Fund investment management services, as well as serves as Fund administrator.

Per Section 15(a) of the Investment Company Act, no person can act as a registered investment company’s investment adviser without a written contract that meets certain requirements and has been approved by most voting securities. The original contract can continue to be renewed as long as the Board or most of the outstanding voting securities approves it.

SEC Charges Morgan Stanley Investment Management for Improper Fee Arrangement, SEC, November 16, 2011

SEC charges Morgan Stanley Investment Management with violations, Miami Herald, November 16, 2011

More Blog Posts:
Retirement Fund’s CDO Lawsuit Against Morgan Stanley is Dismissed by District Court, Institutional Investor Securities Fraud, October 27, 2011

Morgan Stanley Faces $1M FINRA Fine for Excessive Markups and Markdowns on Corporate and Municipal Bond Transactions, Institutional Investor Securities Fraud, September 17, 2011

Morgan Stanley Smith Barney Employee Fined and Suspended by FINRA Over Unauthorized Signatures, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, September 19, 2011

Continue reading "Morgan Stanley Investment Management Settles SEC Charges Over Allegedly Inappropriate Fee Deal for Over $3.3M" »

Less than a month after UBS Securities, LLC agreed to pay $12M to settle Financial Industry Regulatory Authority claims of supervisory failures and violating regulation SHO in securities short sales, the broker-dealer has now consented to an $8M penalty to settle Securities and Exchange Commission charges over poor recordkeeping related to the short sales.

Under Regulation SHO, broker-dealers have to accurately record how it has given out locates. A locate is a determination of that broker-dealer’s representation that it has set up to borrow, already borrowed, or reasonably believes it is able to borrow the security to settle a short sale. The SEC contends that UBS employees regularly attached a lender’s employee name to such locates even though that person had never been contacted to confirm availability. Thousands of locates were sourced this way.

The Commission also claims that at least for the last four years, UBS’s “locate log” inaccurately showed which locates came from direct confirmation with lenders and which ones were based on electronic feeds. (Although broker-dealers employees usually can access the electronic availability feed that lenders send to broker-dealers, they can’t always depend on the feeds and need to get directly in touch with lenders to confirm the security’s actual availability.) The SEC’s probe found that UBS employed practices made it hard to determine whether it had reasonable grounds for granting locates.

While the Commission’s order did not find that the broker-dealer executed short sales without a reasonable grounds for thinking that it could borrow the stock to complete its settlement obligations, it did find that UBS violated sections of Regulation SHO and the Exchange Act. SEC Director George S. Canelllos noted that it is important that regulators be able to know that a firm’s records are accurate and can serve as evidence that the financial firm is complying with the law in addition to safeguarding “against illegal short selling.” With short sales, the security being sold doesn’t belong to the seller. The short seller must either buy or borrow the security to deliver it.

In addition to the $8M penalty, UBS greed to hire an independent consultant that will review the UBS Securities Lending Desk’s policies, practices, and procedures regarding locate requests. By settling, the broker-dealer is not denying or admitting to wrongdoing.

Regulation SHO
Under Regulation SHO, broker-dealers cannot accept short-sale orders in equity securities or a effect a short sale in one unless the dealer or broker has borrowed the security, become involved in an arrangement to borrow it, or has reasonable grounds to believe it can borrow the security to be delivered when due. Documented compliance must come with this requirement. A “locate” shows that the broker-dealer has fulfilled these requirements. It is fairly common for customers to ask for locates from broker-dealers.

With the FINRA case, the SRO contended that it was supervisory failures that allowed UBS’s employees to commit the Regulation SHO violations. Significant deficiencies with UBS aggregation units were also believed to be factors resulting in locate violations and order-marking.

SEC Charges UBS With Faulty Recordkeeping Related to Short Sales, SEC, November 10, 2011

FINRA Fines UBS Securities $12 Million for Regulation SHO Violations and Supervisory Failures, FINRA, October 25, 2011

More Blog Posts:
UBS Fined $12M for Supervisory Failures and Regulation SHO Violations in Securities Short Sales, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, October 25, 2011

UBS Financial Services Fined $2.5M and Ordered to Pay $8.25M Over Lehman Brothers-Issued 100% Principal-Protection Notes, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, April 12, 2011

UBS Trader Charged with Fraud Related to $2B Trading Loss, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, September 23, 2011

Continue reading "UBS Settles for $8M SEC Charges Over the Inaccurate Recordkeeping of Short Sales" »

In Federal District Court today, Judge Jed S. Rakoff expressed concerns about the $285M securities settlement that Citigroup had reached with the Securities Exchange Commission. The financial firm was accused selling $1B in high-risk mortgage-linked collateralized debt obligation that it allegedly knew were at risk of failing. A federal judge must approve the settlement.

Rakoff is the same judge that wouldn’t approve Bank of America’s $33M securities settlement with the SEC for allegedly misleading investors. He later approved a revised settlement of $150 million.

At today’s hearing over the Citigroup deal, Rakoff said the settlement raises issues of concerns about the SEC’s enforcement practices. Approving the agreement would close the case on regulators’ claims that the financial firm.

While Rakoff has not yet made a decision about whether he will approve the settlement, he did question whether the SEC had any genuine desire to find out exactly what happened rather than just settling up. The SEC allows parties to settle without denying or admitting to any wrongdoing. Rakoff also raised concerns about the banks often break the promise they make when settling that they won’t violate securities laws in the future. This is the fifth time that Citigroup has settled securities claims with the SEC over alleged civil fraud. Rakoff also raised questions about why the bank’s settlement involves just a $95 million penalty when investors’ are estimated to have lost $700 million on the CDO.

Even though Citigroup didn’t jump into subprime mortgage loan packaging, it got involved in the housing boom just as that was reaching its heights As the market collapsed, Citigroup sustained over $30 billion in losses, and the government had to bail the bank out twice.

Last year, the financial firm consented to pay $75 million over allegations that it intentionally didn’t notify investors that their investment in the subprime mortgage market were declining in value when the financial crisis hit. Citigroup has since reorganized its risk management function

Citigroup’s $285M Settlement
The SEC claims Citigroup misled clients over a $1 billion derivatives deal involving Class V Funding III, which is a collateralized debt obligation. Not only did the financial firm select the portfolio but it also bet against it. Investors were not told of Citigroup’s conflicting allegiances and they sustained huge losses. Meantime, Citigroup made $126 million from taking a short position against the CDO’s assets, as well as another $34 million in fees.

Judge in Citigroup Mortgage Settlement Criticizes S.E.C.’s Enforcement, NY Times, November 9, 2011

Judge Dredd may scotch $285M Citi settlement: Attorney, Investment News, November 8, 2011

More Blog Posts:
Citigroup to Pay $285M to Settle SEC Lawsuit Alleging Securities Fraud in $1B Derivatives Deal, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, October 20, 2011

FDIC Objects to Bank of America’s Proposed $8.5B Settlement Over Mortgage-Backed Securities, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, August 30, 2011

Bank of America and Countrywide Financial Sued by Allstate over $700M in Bad Mortgaged-Backed Securities, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, December 29, 2010

Continue reading "Citigroup’s $285M Mortgage-Related CDO Settlement with Raises Concerns About SEC’s Enforcement Practices for Judge Rakoff " »

In U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Manhattan, MF Global Holdings Ltd. has filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. The holding company for broker-dealer MF Global Inc., which faces liquidation, has listed assets of $41 billion and debt of $39.7 billion.

This is the fifth-largest financial industry public company bankruptcy when measured according to assets. Larger ones were those involving Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc., Conseco Inc., CIT Group Inc., and Washington Mutual Inc. Per BankruptcyData.com., of any public company, it is the eight largest bankruptcies by assets.

Meantime, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission and the Securities and Exchange Commission says that they were notified by MF Global Holdings Ltd. that there might be some deficiencies with certain customer accounts. The regulators are trying to determine whether approximately under $700 million has gone missing.

in U.S. District Court in Manhattan, Securities Investor Protection Corp. is suing MF Global. SIPC wants the united liquidated for the protection of customer assets. Because MF Global is a broker-dealer, it cannot seek bankruptcy protection and either has to liquidate or sell its assets. Sale negotiations have faltered. Potential buyers had included Jeffries & Company and Interactive Brokers. The latter was about to seal the deal but backed out after finding out about the missing monies.

Jon Corzine, who was the former co-chair of Goldman Sachs Group Inc. (GS), runs MF GLOBAL INC. . It owns $6.3 billion of Portuguese, Italian, Irish, Belgian, and Spanish debt. Worries that in light of Europe’s debt crisis it might lose money on the holdings, regulators urged it to raise capital, issue margin calls, make credit downgrades, and file for bankruptcy, which was ultimately determined to be the safest course of action for customers’ protection.

The CFTC reports that as of the end of August, MF Global had $7.2 billion of customer funds in segregated accounts. The broker dealer of equity, derivatives, commodities, and foreign exchange belongs to over 70 financial exchanges and was one of the main dealers allowed to trade US government securities with the New York Fed.

For now, Corzine and MF Global have not been accused of any wrongdoing. Regulators are still trying to determine whether sloppy internal systems caused the money from client accounts to become misallocated or if something more intentional was at play. While it isn’t rare for some funds to be MIA when a financial firm falters, the mount of money missing from the broker-dealer is disturbing.

Unsecured creditors for MF Global include JPMorgan ( less than $80 million of the debt), Headstrong Services LLC, ($3.9 million) , Sullivan & Cromwell LLP ($596,939), CNBC (845,397), Bloomberg Finance LP ($276,064), and Oracle Corp. (302,704).

Related Web Resources:
Regulators Investigating MF Global for Missing Money, NY Times, October 31, 2011

Corzine's B-D could be liquidated, Investment News, November 1, 2011

More Blog Posts:
Shareholder Securities Lawsuit Against China North East Petroleum Holdings Ltd., is Dismissed by District Court, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, October 30, 2011

Money Laundering Charges Filed Against of Houston Criminal Defense Lawyer Accused of Defrauding Defendants of Over $1M, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, October 28, 2011

UBS Fined $12M for Supervisory Failures and Regulation SHO Violations in Securities Short Sales, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, October 25, 2011

Continue reading "MF Global Holdings Ltd. Files for Bankruptcy While Its Broker-Dealer Faces Liquidation and Securities Lawsuit by SIPC " »

A district court judge has dismissed a securities fraud lawsuit filed by the Employees’ Retirement System of the Government of the Virgin Islands against Morgan Stanley (MS). The investor complaint, submitted in 2009, accused the financial firm of defrauding investors.

The pension fund had purchased the notes as part of a CDO that was marketed and set up by Morgan Stanley. The plaintiffs believe that the financial firm worked with Standard & Poor's and Moody's Investor Services to set up “false and misleading Triple-A credit ratings” for the notes. Because the high ratings, the plaintiffs bought the notes at a price that was inflated. The fund contends that the financial firm knew that in fact Morgan Stanley had insider information that the MBS underlying the notes were a lot riskier than they were led to believe and came from lenders that employed flawed underwriting standards. Many of notes were downgraded to junk by the end of 2007. The plaintiffs said the firm purposely got investors to get behind the CDO because it was taking a short position on underlying assets.

The portfolio, which was 92% residential mortgage-backed securities and was backed by $1.2 billion in assets, was exposed to $100 million from New Century Mortgage Corp. and over $130 million in loans from Option One Mortgage Corp. According to the retirement fund, the two homebuyers had poor credit scores. The Libertas collateralized debt obligation went into credit-default swaps, which referenced specific residential MBS.

Per U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, the Virgin Islands government pension fund did not adequately plead that Morgan Stanley misled it about the quality of the MBS that were underlying the Libertas CDO. Judge Barbara S. Jones, said the plaintiffs failed to state a fraud claim because its pleadings were not successful in alleging that Morgan Stanley made misstatements about the credit ratings of notes based on the underlying mortgage-backed securities. Also, the court noted that it wasn’t Morgan Stanley that issued the ratings or the statements in the CDO’s operating memorandum disclosures. Because of this, the court said that the plaintiff could not allege that Morgan Stanley had issued to it a materially false statement.

Shepherd Smith Edwards and Kantas founder and securities fraud attorney William Shepherd said, “Our law firm has been successful in maintaining similar cases in arbitration or state courts. I am curious as to just how and why this case was filed, or otherwise ended-up, in a federal court. Pleading requirements under federal securities laws are problematic, and there are a number of other hurdles one must overcome in federal court proceedings. There is no private right of action available under New York’s securities statute (The Martin Act). Other types of claims may be pursued under NY state law.”

Morgan Stanley Wins Dismissal of Virgin Islands Pension Fund’s CDO Lawsuit, Bloomberg, September 30, 2011

Morgan Stanley sued over failed $1.2 billion CDO, Reuters, December 29, 2009

More Blog Posts:
SEC Charges Against Stifel, Nicolaus & Co. and Former Sr. VP David Noack Praised by Wisconsin School Districts, Institutional Investors Securities Blog, August 10, 2011

$63 Million Mortgage-Backed Securities Lawsuit Against Bank of America is Second One Filed by Western and Southern Life Insurance Co. Against the Financial Firm, Institutional Investors Securities Blog, August 29, 2011

Stifel, Nicolaus & Co. and Former Executive Faces SEC Charges Over Sale of CDOs to Five Wisconsin School Districts, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, August 10, 2011

Continue reading "Retirement Fund’s CDO Lawsuit Against Morgan Stanley is Dismissed by District Court " »

UBS Securities has agreed to pay FINRA a $12 million fine over violations that led to millions of short sale orders of securities being mismarked or entered into the market even though there was no reasonable basis for thinking that they could be delivered or borrowed. FINRA says that UBS did not properly supervise the short sales and violated Regulation SHO. In settling, the financial firm is not denying or admitting to the charges. UBS has, however, agreed to an entry of FINRA’s findings.

Per Reg SHO, a broker must have reason to believe that a security can be delivered or borrowed before allowing a short sale order. Financial firms have to document this “locate information” prior to the sale happening so as to decrease the amount of potential failed deliveries. Broker-dealers also are supposed to designate an equity securities sale as either short or long.

Short sales involve sellers that don’t own the security that they are selling. To deliver the security, the short seller has to either borrow or buy it.

FINRA says that UBS had a flawed Reg SHO supervisory system when it came to locates and marking sale orders and that this resulted in supervisory failure, which played a role in serious regulation failures showing up throughout the investment bank’s equities trading business. In addition to putting into the marketplace millions of short order sales without locates (involving supervisory and trading systems, accounts, desks, strategies, the financial firm’s technology operations, and procedures), millions of sale orders were also mismarked—many of them as “long” —which led to more Reg SHO violations. FINRA also claims that “significant deficiencies” involving UBS’s aggregation units could have played a role in more locate violations and significant order-marking.

Because of UBS’s alleged supervisory failures, many of the violations weren’t fixed or detected until after the FINRA probe prompted the financial firm to evaluate its systems and procedures. UBS has since taken steps to upgrade these in an effort to have stricter Reg SHO controls.

Per FINRA Chief of Enforcement Brad Bennett, financial firms are responsible for making sure that they have the proper supervisory and trading systems so that naked short selling that is “potentially abusive” doesn’t happen. He noted that the violations committed by UBS could have hurt the market’s integrity.

Supervisory failures is a type of broker misconduct. It is a brokerage firm’s responsibility to create and execute written procedure that do the job of monitoring its employees’ activities so securities fraud and mistakes don’t happen that can cause investors to suffer losses and/or the market to go into chaos.

FINRA Fines UBS Securities $12 Million for Regulation SHO Violations and Supervisory Failures, FINRA, October 25, 2011

FINRA Fines UBS $12 Million Over Short Sales, AdvisorOne, October 25, 2011

FINRA

More Blog Posts:
UBS Trader Charged with Fraud Related to $2B Trading Loss, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, September 23, 2011

UBS Financial Reaches $160M Settlement with the SEC and Justice Department Over Securities Fraud, Antitrust, and Other Charges Related to Municipal Bond Market, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, May 16, 2011

UBS Financial Services Fined $2.5M and Ordered to Pay $8.25M Over Lehman Brothers-Issued 100% Principal-Protection Notes, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, April 12, 2011

Continue reading "UBS Fined $12M for Supervisory Failures and Regulation SHO Violations in Securities Short Sales" »

Not long after bowing out of talks over a possible $25 billion dollar settlement between state and federal officials and the country’s largest banks (including Bank of America Corp, Citigroup, and JP Morgan Chase & Co.) over alleged foreclosure abuses, California’s Attorney General’s office has subpoenaed BofA as part of its investigation into whether it and subsidiary Countrywide Financial employed false pretenses to get private and institutional investors to purchase risky mortgage-backed securities. By walking out of the negotiations on the grounds that the banks weren’t offering a big enough settlement, the state of California has given itself the option of arriving at a larger settlement.

California Attorney General Kamala D. Harris has called the proposed settlement “inadequate” for the homeowners in her state. She has also has set up a mortgage fraud strike force tasked with investigating all areas of mortgage fraud.

Countrywide is credited with playing a role in the housing boom and its later collapse because of subprime loans it gave clients with poor/no credit histories, mortgages that let borrowers pay such a small amount that their loan balances went up instead of down, and “liar” loans that were issued without assets and income being confirmed. Also, a lot of the most high-risk loans were bundled up to support private-label securities that became highly toxic for investors and banks.

Meantime, Federal and state officials are trying to get California to rejoin the larger talks. Just this week, they presented the possibility of helping troubled creditworthy owners refinance their loans. California’s involvement is key for any deal because the state so many borrowers that owe more than the value of their homes, are in foreclosure, or are running behind on mortgages.

New York, too, has backed out of the group—a move that proved to be another blow for negotiations, as well as for the Obama Administration. Officials from other states, such as Nevada, Delaware, Minnesota, Massachusetts, and Kentucky, have also expressed worry about the breadth of the settlement and whether all potential misconduct has been investigated.

With its acquisition of Countrywide in 2008, BofA has sustained high losses over settlements as a result of its subsidiary’s loans. According to the Los Angeles Times, these settlements include:

• A promise to forgive up to $3 billion in principal for Massachusetts Countrywide borrowers
• $600 million to former Countrywide shareholders
• Billions of dollars to Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae over buybacks of bad home loans
• $8.5 billion to institutional investors over the repurchase of Countrywide mortgage-backed bonds
• $5.5 billion reserved for mortgage bond investors with similar claims

California reportedly subpoenas BofA over toxic securities, Los Angeles Times, October 20, 2011

California Pulls Out of Foreclosure Talks, Wall Street Journal, October 1, 2011

More Blog Posts:
$63 Million Mortgage-Backed Securities Lawsuit Against Bank of America is Second One Filed by Western and Southern Life Insurance Co. Against the Financial Firm, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, August 29, 2011

Federal Home Loan Banks Say Countrywide Financial Corp Mortgage Bond Investors May Be Owed Way More than What $8.5B Securities Settlement with Bank of America Corp. is Offering, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, July 22, 2011

Bank of America and Countrywide Financial Sued by Allstate over $700M in Bad Mortgaged-Backed Securities, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, December 29, 2010

Continue reading "California Investigating Whether Bank of America & Countrywide Financial Used False Pretenses to Sell Mortgage-Backed Securities to Investors" »

Citigroup has consented to pay $285 million to settle a Securities and Exchange Commission complaint accusing the bank of misleading investors in a $1 billion derivatives deal—a collateralized debt obligation called Class V Funding III. It was Citigroup that chose the assets for the portfolio that it then bet against. Investors were not told that Citigroup’s interests were contrary to theirs. The $285 million will go to the deal’s investors.

According to the SEC, Citigroup had significant influence over the $500 million of portfolio assets that were selected. It then took a short position against the assets, standing to profit if they dropped in value. All 15 investors were not made aware of any of this and practically all of their investments (in the hundreds of millions of dollars) were lost when the CDO defaulted in under 9 months after it closed on February 28, 2007. Credit ratings agencies had downgraded over 80% of the portfolio.

Financial instrument insurer Ambac, which was the deal’s biggest investor and had taken on the role of assuming the credit risk, was forced to pay those who bet against the bonds. In 2009, Ambac sought bankruptcy protection.

Meantime, Citigroup made about $126 million in profits from the short position and earned about $34 million in fees. S.E.C.’s division of enforcement director Robert Khuzami says that under the law, Citigroup was required to give these CDO investors “more care and candor.”

Per the SEC’s civil action, Citigroup employee Brian Stoker is the one that mainly put the deal together, while Credit Suisse portfolio manager Samir H. Bhatt was primarily in charge of the transaction. Credit Suisse was the CDO transaction’s collateral manager.

Stoker is fighting the SEC’s case against him. Meantime, Bhatt has settled the SEC’s charges by agreeing to pay $50,000. He has also been suspended from associating with any investment adviser for six months. Credit Suisse Group AG settled for $2.5 million.

As part of this settlement, Citigroup will pay a $95 million fine. It was just last year that the financial firm agreed to pay $75 million over federal claims that it purposely didn’t let investor know that their subprime mortgage investments were losing value during the financial crisis. Citigroup has said that since then, it has revamped its risk management function and gone back to banking basics.

Last year, Goldman Sachs Group Inc. agreed to settle for $550 million allegations that it did tell investors that the hedge fund that helped choose a CDO’s assets also was betting against it. JPMorgan Chase & Co. settled similar allegations earlier this year for $153.6 million.

Citigroup to Pay $285 Million to Settle SEC Claims on Mortgage-Linked CDO, Bloomberg, October 19, 2011

Citigroup to Pay Millions to Close Fraud Complaint, NY Times, October 19, 2011

Related Blog Resources:
Goldman Sachs Settles SEC Subprime Mortgage-CDO Related Charges for $550 Million, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, July 30, 2010

JPMorgan Chase to Pay $211M to Settle Charges It Rigged Municipal Bond Transaction Bidding Competitions, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, July 9, 2011

Citigroup Global Markets to Pay Back $95.5M Over ARS Sold to LandAmerica Exchange Fund, Institutional Investors Securities Blog, November 11, 2010

Continue reading "Citigroup to Pay $285M to Settle SEC Lawsuit Alleging Securities Fraud in $1B Derivatives Deal " »

The Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association is recommending a number of best practices for financial firms that work with Expert Networks and their Consultants.
According to SIFMA, expert networks are entities that receive a fee to refer industry professionals, known as consultants, to third parties. Although the acknowledges how helpful these networks can be in helping broker-dealers implement and design investment strategies while offering advice, information, market expertise, analysis, or other expertise in making investment decisions, SIFMA General Counsel Ira Hammerman said in a release that these best practices should help with compliance while helping avoid what could like “impropriety.” The government has recently targeted them when investigating insider trading.

Among the recommendations:
1) Establishing policies and procedures for how to use Expert Networks and Consultants. SIFMA is recommending a risk-based approach for figuring out what controls should be put in place.

2) Providing training for associated persons that deal with Expert Networks and Consultants on matters such as insider training, information barriers, confidential information, conflicts of interest, or material, non-public information (MNPI).

3) Ensuring that supervisory oversight is integrated into a financial firm’s use of Expert Networks and associated consultants.

4) Setting up policies and procedure that mandate that financial firms act quickly on “red flags” that may indicate there is a possibility of disclosure of confidential information of conflicts of interest or MNPI.

5) Establishing written agreements with Expert Networks over arrangements that are substantial or repeating in nature, such as those involving making sure that Consultants are checked for securities law violations, preventing Consultants from revealing MNPI or Confidential Information, requiring that Consultants undergo periodic training or communication about certain restrictions, and requiring that Consultants are periodically certified as to the adherence of these limits.

6) Setting up procedures on how to advice Expert Networks-affiliated Consultants about Confidential Information and MNPI.

7) Establishing procedures for getting non-confidential, relevant information from an Expert Network or one of its Consultants about employment and arrangements where a Consultant may have access to Confidential Information or MNPI, as well as setting up appropriate controls for assessing risks of dealing with Consultants that work with Expert Networks that have Confidential Information or MNPI.

In providing these best practices, however, SIFMA wants to make clear that these are only intended as guidance and are not mandates for how financial firms must work with Expert Networks and Consultants.

If you are an investor that has suffered losses you believe were caused by broker misconduct, you should talk to a securities fraud attorney right away.

More on the SIFMA best practices, SIFMA

More Blog Posts:
SEC and SIFMA Divided Over Whether Merrill Lynch Can Be Held Liable for Alleged ARS Market Manipulation, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, July 29, 2011

Commodities Industry Fears being held to Regulatory Standards of Securities Industry, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, February 4, 2011

Micah S. Green, Expected New CEO of Largest Securities Industry Group, Resigns During Scandal, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, May 18 2007

Continue reading "SIFMA Offers Up Best Practices for How Financial Firms Can Interact with Expert Networks" »

The Securities and Exchange Commission has filed securities fraud charges against former United Commercial Bank executives accusing them of concealing loss from assets and loans from auditors that resulted in UCBH Holdings Inc., its public holding company, to understate its operating losses in 2008 by at least $65 million. As the bank’s loans continued to go down in value, the financial firm went on to fail and the California Department of Financial Institutions was forced to shut it down. This resulted in a $2.5 billion loss to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation’s insurance fund.

Per the SEC’s complaint, former chief operating officer Ebrahim Shabudi, chief executive officer Thomas Wu, and senior officer Thomas Yu were the ones that hid the bank’s losses. All three men are accused of delaying the proper recording of the loan losses and making misleading and false statements to independent auditors and investors and concealing from them that there had been the major losses on a number of large loans, property appraisals had gone down, property appraisals had been reduced, and loans were secured by worthless collateral.

Also accused of securities fraud by the SEC is former United Commercial Bank chief financial officer Craig On. The Commission said that he aided in the filing of false financial statements and misled outside auditors. To settle the SEC charges, On has agreed to pay a $150,000 penalty. He also agreed to an order suspending him from working before the SEC as an accountant for five years. He is permanently enjoined from future violations of specific recordkeeping, reporting, anti-fraud, and internal controls provisions of federal securities laws.

Criminal charges have also been filed against Shabudi and Wu. A grand jury indicted both men of conspiring to conceal loan losses, misleading regulators and investors, and lying to external auditors. Wu and Shabudi allegedly used accounting techniques and financial maneuvers, including concealing information that would have shown its decline, understating loan risks, and falsifying books, to hide the fact that that the bank was in trouble.

This is the first time such charges have been made against executives who worked at a bank that obtained government money—$298 million from TARP—to keep it running during the economic collapse.

Prior to its demise, United Commercial Bank, which was the first US bank to acquire a bank in China was considered a leader in the industry. It amassed assets of up to $13.5 billion in 2008. However, it also soon $67.7 million—way down from its $102.3 million profit in 2007. East West Bank acquired United Commercial Banks after regulators took it over in 2009.

Meantime, the FDIC is taking steps to bar 10 former United Commercial Bank officers from ever taking part in the banking industry.

SEC Charges Bank Executives With Hiding Millions of Dollars in Losses During 2008 Financial Crisis, SEC, October 11, 2011

Read the SEC Complaint (PDF)

Feds file charges against execs of failed United Commercial Bank, Mercury News, October 11, 2011

More Blog Posts:

Continue reading "SEC Says Former United Commercial Bank Executives Concealed Millions of Dollars in Losses that Caused Bank’s Failure" »

House Financial Services subcommittee Chairman Scott Garrett (R-N.J.) is encouraging the Securities and Exchange Commission to refrain from rulemaking for establishing a uniform fiduciary standard that would apply to both broker-dealers and investment advisers unless the federal agency can come up with adequate evidence to support this action. Garrett made his views known at a Subcommittee on Capital Markets and Government Sponsored Enterprises oversight hearing. Committee Chairman Spencer Bachus (R-Ala.) and Rep. Ed Royce (R-Calif.) also echoed these same sentiments.

Says Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas LTD LLP Founder and Securities Fraud Attorney William Shepherd, “Washington is again bowing to Wall Street pressure to exempt them from liability for their wrongful acts. It is incredible that, considering the unmitigated investment fraud perpetrated on the American public in the last decade, Congress would even consider thwarting the very investors who elected them from receiving the justice they deserve!”

Under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act’s Section 913, the SEC has the authority to start up the rulemaking for this uniform fiduciary standard but is under no obligation. Earlier this year, the SEC put out a report recommending that it take up this rulemaking.

While Garrett questioned whether “hard factual data” existed demonstrating that a suitability standard is not enough to protect investors, others noted that it is a fiduciary standard and not a suitability standard that addresses cost, which impacts investors’ long-term performance. The majority of those that testified at the hearing also supported a uniform fiduciary standard that would apply to both investment advisers and broker-dealers. Consumer Federation of America director of investor protection Barbara Roper said that investors lose money when the person giving them investment advice must only meet a suitability standard and not a fiduciary one.

Meantime, while financial industry representatives have expressed support for a uniform fiduciary standard for investment advisers and broker-dealers, they don’t believe that it could be properly executed under the 1940 Investment Advisers Act.

Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association senior managing director and general counsel Ira Hammerman has said that the Act is unable to work with the business models for broker-dealer, while Financial Services Institute government affairs director and general counselor David Bellaire said that imposing a 1940 Act fiduciary duty on broker-dealers would decrease investor choice and decrease services, which would all significantly affect the market.

Currently, broker-dealers have to abide by a suitability standard, which is more lenient than the fiduciary duty standard for investment advisers. SEC Chairman Mary Schapiro has told staff that they need to recommend a proposal before the year is over.

Also up for discussion was the draft that Senator Bachus released last month mandating that there be at least one self-regulatory organization tasked with overseeing investment advisers. The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority is a top candidate for the role and has expressed interest in taking on this new responsibility. However, not everyone is a supporter of FINRA becoming SRO.

Republicans Urge SEC Not to Take Up Rulemaking on Uniform Fiduciary Standard, BNA, September 14, 2011

More Blog Posts:
Most Investors Want Fiduciary Standard for Investment Advisers and Broker-Dealers, Say Trade Groups to SEC, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, October 12, 2010

Fiduciary Standard in Securities Industry Doesn't Need New Definition, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, November 26, 2010

FINRA Will Customize Oversight to Investment Adviser Industry if Chosen as Its SRO, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, April 8, 2011

Continue reading "Don’t Create Uniform Fiduciary Standard for Broker-Dealers and Investment Advisers, Say Some Republicans to the SEC" »

The federal government has filed a securities lawsuit against 23-ex Washington Mutual employees and a number of WaMu’s subsidiaries. The complaint contends that these persons signed off on documents that included misleading and false information that was used to sell billions of dollars in mortgage-backed securities. The case stems from the government’s MBS lawsuit against JPMorgan Chase, which acquired nearly all of WaMu’s banking assets and liabilities a few years ago. That securities complaint is one more than a dozen brought by the Federal Housing Finance Agency last month against the large banks that packaged and sold MBS at the height of the housing boom.

In this latest lawsuit, the government contends that when Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac bought their 35 issues of securities worth $12.9 billion during the bubble, they depended on the registration statements, prospectuses, and other documents that WaMu and its subprime unit Long Beach Mortgage had filed. Unfortunately, the documents that Fannie and Freddie depended on included omissions and misstatements that misrepresented that the underlying mortgage loans were in compliance with certain underwriting standards and guidelines, including representations that “significantly overstated” the borrowers’ ability to pay back their mortgage loans.

One example cited involves the LBMLT 2006-1, which is a subprime security. Standard & Poor’s and Moody’s had both given it an AAA rating and the offering document noted that almost 73% of the underlying mortgages had an 80% or lower loan-to-value ratio. Less than 25% were supposedly on non-owner occupied homes.

The government is now saying, however, that WaMu pressed appraisers to raise property values so that these lower LTV ratios could be obtained and that, in fact, only 50% of underlying loans in LBMLT 2006-1 had LTV ratios of 80% or lower. Also, the government believes that almost one third of LBMLT 2006-1 loans were on nonowner occupied homes and not the lower percentage that was quoted. Close to 56% of LBMLT 2006-1 have since defaulted, gone into foreclosure, or become delinquent.

Most of the ex-WaMu and Long Beach officers named in the complaint, save for ex-chief financial officer Thomas Case and ex-Home Loans group head Craig Davis, were midlevel employees. It was just earlier this year that the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. sued three ex-WaMu executives for allegedly gambling billions of the bank’s money on risky home loans while they lined their own pockets.

Defendants named then were ex-Chief Executive Kerry Killinger, ex-Chief Operating Officer Stephen Rotella, and ex-WaMu home loans division president David Schneider. The three men are accused of earning $95 million in compensation between 2005 and 2008.

US banking regulators have sued over 150 bank officials in their efforts to get back at least $3.6 billion in losses linked to the 2007-2009 economic crisis.

If you are an investor that suffered losses related to mortgage-backed securities when the housing bubble burst, you might have grounds for a securities fraud case.

23 ex-WaMu employees named in federal suit, The Seattle Times, September 8, 2011

Ex-WaMu Execs Sued By FDIC For Gross Negligence Over Bank's Collapse - READ The Lawsuit, Huffington Post, March 17, 2011

More Blog Posts:
$63 Million Mortgage-Backed Securities Lawsuit Against Bank of America is Second One Filed by Western and Southern Life Insurance Co. Against the Financial Firm, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, August 29, 2011

NCUA Sues Goldman Sachs for $491M Over $1.2B of Mortgage-Back Securities Sales That Caused Credit Unions’ Failure, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, August 23, 2011

Continue reading "Govt.'s Mortgage-Backed Securities Case Against JPMorgan Case Leads to Lawsuit Against 23 Former Washington Mutual Employees " »

A district court has ruled that Belmont Holdings Corp. v. SunTrust Banks Inc., a putative class securities action claiming that a 2008 SunTrust (STI) securities’ offerings documents contained faulty financial disclosures, can proceed. According to Judge William Duffey Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, investors’ claims made against SunTrust and affiliates, and a number of underwriters, and Sections 11 and 12(a)(2) of the 1933 Securities Act are enough for moving forward with the case. The statutory provisions place liability on specific participants in a securities offering where these documents have material omissions and misstatements.

Per the court, SunTrust put out securities that were pursuant to a registration statement. This was done as amended by a prospectus supplement, which incorporates by reference SunTrust's 2007 Form 10-K. In their initial securities lawsuit, the plaintiffs argued that when the offering was made three years ago, the US housing market was in chaos. To raise funds, SunTrust allegedly put out the securities and a prospectus supplement that included misleading and false information about is reserves, capital, and ability to manage risk.

As a result, investors were misled about the degree of risky loans that SunTrust was exposed to in the housing market. An amended complaint was submitted by the plaintiff pushing forward similar claims that were made in the first lawsuit. However, clarifying allegations supporting the claim that the prospectus supplement was misleading because it failed to adequately disclose SunTrust’s ALLL and because the financial firm’s loss reserves were not enough to cover its loan losses were also included with this lawsuit.

The plaintiff contends that SunTrust knew that it used flaw financial information that would lead to misleading information being added to its prospectus supplement. This flawed information was allegedly used to determine loan loss reserves, ALLL, and loan loss.

Because the court determined that there is sufficient grounds to allege that SunTrust defendants “did not truly believe” the Provision and ALLL that were disclosed, the plaintiff was able to sufficiently allege plausible claims. The court said that claims against the underwriter defendants can also proceed. Except for a few exceptions, claims against outsider auditor Ernst & Young can also move forward.

If you have been the victim of securities fraud, you may be able to recover your losses from the negligent party. The best way to do this is to work with an experienced securities fraud attorney. Your case may be able to be resolved in arbitration or in court.

Belmont Holdings Corp. v. SunTrust Banks Inc. , Docket (PDF)

More Blog Posts:
Investor May Proceed With Suit Alleging Faulty Financial Disclosures by SunTrust, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, August 6, 2011

Wells Fargo Settles Mortgage-Backed Securities Class Action Case for $125M, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, July 19, 2011

8/31/11 is Deadline for Opting Out of $100M Oppenheimer Mutual Funds Class Action Settlement, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, August 17, 2011

Continue reading "Class Action Securities Case Accusing SunTrust Banks of Faulty Financial Disclosures Can Proceed" »

The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York has thrown out some of the Securities and Exchange Commission charges against GSCP (NJ) managing director Edward Steffelin for his alleged involvement in a JP Morgan Securities LLC collateralized debt obligation deal. GSCP (NJ) was the collateral manager for the CDO transaction.

While JP Morgan Securities settled for $153.6 million the SEC’s allegations that it misled investors about the CDO deal by agreeing to pay $153.6 million, Steffelin opted to fight the charges. He claimed that there was no reason for him to think that the CDO offering documents were problematic. He argued that nothing had been left out and nobody was “defrauded.”

In district court, Judge Miriam Goldman Cedarbaum granted Steffelin’s motion to dismiss the SEC’s 1933 Securities Act Section 17(a)(3) claims against him. Per the Act, any person involved in the sale or offer of securities is prevented from taking part in any transaction or practice that would deceive or be an act of fraud against the buyer. Cedarbaum said it would be a “big stretch” to conclude that Steffelin owed the investors that bought the CDO a fiduciary duty. However, she decided not to throw out the SEC’s securities claims related to the 1940 Investment Advisers Act, which has sections that make it unlawful to sell or offer securities to get property or money as a result of an omission or material misstatement. The act also prevents investment advisers from taking part in a transaction or practice that performs a deception or fraud on a client.

The SEC’s charges revolved around a JPM-structured CDO called Squared CDO 2007-1. It mainly included credit default swaps that referred to other CDOs linked to the housing market. Per the Squared CDO’s marketing collaterals, GSCP was noted as the one choosing the portfolio’s deals. What wasn’t included in the disclosure was the fact that Magnetar Capital LLC, a hedge fund, played a key part in choosing the CDOs and had a short position in over 50% of the assets. This meant that Magneta Capital stood to gain financially if the CDO portfolio failed.

JP Morgan Securities is JP Morgan Chase affiliate. Under the terms of its $153.6 million settlement, the financial firm agreed to fully pay back all monies that investors lost. By agreeing to settle, JP Morgan Securities did not admit to or deny wrongdoing. Other large financial firms that have settled SEC securities fraud cases related to CDOs in the last 16 months include Citigroup, which recently reached a $250 million settlement and Goldman Sachs, which settled its case with the SEC last year for $550 million.

JPMorgan to pay $153.6M to settle fraud charges, Boston Herald, June 21, 2011

Court Tosses Some SEC Claims Against IA Exec Over Role in JPM CDO Deal, BNA Securities Law Daily, October 28, 2011

More Blog Posts:
Citigroup’s $285M Mortgage-Related CDO Settlement with Raises Concerns About SEC’s Enforcement Practices for Judge Rackoff, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, November 9, 2011

Retirement Fund’s CDO Lawsuit Against Morgan Stanley is Dismissed by District Court, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, October 27, 2011

Stifel, Nicolaus & Co. and Former Executive Faces SEC Charges Over Sale of CDOs to Five Wisconsin School Districts, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, August 10, 2011

***This post has been backdated.

Continue reading "Some of the SEC Charges Against Investment Adviser Over Alleged Involvement In J.P. Morgan Securities LLC Collateralized Debt Obligation Are Dismissed" »

The SEC has taken steps to prevent financial firms from betting against their packaged financial products that they sell to investors. Its proposal, introduced this week, also seeks to prevent the types of conflict witnessed in last year’s civil lawsuit against Goldman Sachs through a ban on third parties being able to set up an asset-backed pool allowing them to make money from losses sustained by investors.

The proposal comes following a report by US Senate investigators accusing Goldman of setting itself up to make money from investor losses sustained from complex securities that the financial firm packaged and sold. It would place into effect a provision from the Dodd-Frank Wall Reform Consumer and Protection Act, which requires that the commission ban for one year placement agents, underwriters, sponsors, and initial buyers of an asset-backed security from shorting the pool’s assets and establishing material conflict. Restrictions, however, wouldn’t apply when a firm is playing the role of market-maker or engaged in risk hedging. The SEC also wants the industry to examine how the proposal would work along with the “Volcker rule,” which would place restrictions on proprietary trading at banks and other affiliates.

SEC’s Securities Case Against Goldman
The SEC accused Goldman of creating and marketing the ABACUS 2007-AC1, a collateralized debt obligation, without letting clients know that Paulson & Co. helped pick the underlying securities that the latter then went on to bet against. Last year, Goldman settled the securities case with the SEC for $550 million.

In settlement papers, Goldman admitted that it did issue marketing materials that lacked full information for its ABACUS 2007-AC1. The financial firm said it made a mistake when it stated that ACA Management LLC “selected” the reference portfolio and did not note the role that Paulson & Co. played or that the latter’s “economic interests” were not in line with that of investors. The $550 million fine was the largest penalty that the SEC has ever imposed on a financial services firm. $250 million of the fine was designated to go to a Fair Fund distribution to pay back investors.

Volcker Rule
Named after former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker, the proposed rule is designed to limit the kinds of high-risk investments that helped contribute to the recent financial crisis. It would also restrict the financial firms’ use of their own money to trade. Bloomberg.com reports that overseas firms with businesses in the US may also be subject to these limits on proprietary trading. Per Dodd-Frank, October 18 is the deadline to establish rules to execute the provision.

Volcker Rule May Be Extended to Overseas Banks With Operations in the U.S., Bloomberg, September 16, 2011

SEC moves to limit firms' bets against clients, Reuters, September 19, 2011

Volcker Rule Delay Is Likely, Wall Street Journal, September 12, 2011

More Blog Posts:
Goldman Sachs Reports $3.4 Billion in “Reasonably Possible” Losses from Legal Claim, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, March 2, 2011

Goldman Sach’s $550 Million Securities Fraud Settlement Not Tied to Financial Reform Bill, Says SEC IG, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, October 27, 2010

Goldman Sachs Ordered by FINRA to Pay $650K Fine For Not Disclosing that Broker Responsible for CDO ABACUS 2007-ACI Was Target of SEC Investigation, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, November 12, 2010

Continue reading "SEC Proposes Restricting Financial Firms From Betting Against Financial Products Sold to Investors" »

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority has fined Morgan Stanley Smith Barney LLC and Morgan Stanley & Co. Inc. $1 million for charging excessive markdowns and markups to corporate and municipal bond transactions clients. The SRO has also ordered that the financial firm pay $371,000 plus interest in restitution to these investors. By agreeing to settle, Morgan Stanley has not denied or admitted to the securities charges.

According to FINRA, the markdowns and markups that Morgan Stanley charged ranged from under 5% to 13.8%. Considering how much it costs to execute transactions, market conditions, and the services valued, these charge were too much.

The SRO also determined that the financial firm had an inadequate supervisory system for overseeing markups and markdowns of corporate and municipal bonds. Morgan Stanley must now modify its written supervisory procedures dealing with markups and markdowns involving fixed income transactions.

FINRA Market Regulation Executive Vice President Thomas Gira has said that Morgan Stanley violated fair pricing standards. He noted is important for financial firms that sell and purchase securities to make sure that clients are given reasonable and fair prices whether/not a markdown or markup exceeds or is lower than 5%.

A Markup is what is charged above market value. It is usually charged on principal transactions involving NASDAQ and other OTC equity securities. Markups on principal transactions usually factor in the type of security, its availability, price, order size, disclosure before the transaction is effected, the type of business involved, and the general markups pattern at a firm.

A markup on an equities security that is over 5% is seldom considered reasonable or fair. Regulators have rules in place for how much registered representatives can charge customers for services rendered. Not only do the charges have to be reasonable, but also they must be fair and not show particular preferences to any clients.

The 5% policy also applies to agency transactions. Commissions for such transactions also must be “fair and reasonable.” Commissions that go above that must be justified and are often closely examined by regulators.
While most securities professionals are committed to doing their jobs fairly and ethically, there are those determined to take advantage of the system to defraud investors. There are also honest mistakes that can occur that also can result in investor losses.

Financial firms and their representatives are responsible for protecting investors and their money from unnecessary losses resulting from securities fraud or other negligence.

Morgan Stanley Fined $1M Over Muni-Bond Markups, Bloomberg, November 10, 2011

FINRA Fines Morgan Stanley $1 Million and Orders Restitution of $371,000 for Excessive Markups and Markdowns, FINRA, November 10, 2011

More Blog Posts:
Whistleblower Claims SEC is Illegally Destroying Records of Closed Enforcement Cases, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, August 31, 2011

Ex-Bank of America Employee Pleads Guilty to Mortgage Fraud Scam Using Stolen Identities to Buy Homes Not For Sale, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, August 30, 2011

Securities Lawsuits Expected to Reach Record High in ’11, Says Advisen Ltd. Report, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, April 23, 2011

**This blog has been backdated.

Continue reading "Morgan Stanley Faces $1M FINRA Fine for Excessive Markups and Markdowns on Corporate and Municipal Bond Transactions" »

Nevada Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto is accusing Bank of America of violating its fraud settlement regarding Countrywide Financial Corp. She is asking the court to “terminate our consent judgment” because she says the violation is “such a material breach.”

Masto claims that instead of honoring the terms of their agreement, Bank of America has:

• Continued to take part in fraudulent activities that allow contracts to stay in place
• Gone back on its promise to lower interest rates when revising the loans of buyers in trouble and instead has raised them.
• Failed to give qualified homeowners the promised loan modifications
• Proceeded with foreclosures even though modification requests by borrowers were still pending
• Not met the 60-day requirement to grant new loan terms

Masto says that numerous complaints have been submitted to her office over modified mortgages that come with new contracts that are more expensive than what was originally stated. Ending Nevada’s participation in the settlement agreement would let the state file a securities lawsuit against the bank over its allegedly questionably practices.

Countrywide, which was acquire by Bank of America, settled lawsuits with a number of states, including Nevada over what they contend was predatory lending practices. To settle the complaints, the bank promised to designate $8.4 billion as direct loan relief, waive tens of millions of dollars in prepayment penalties and late fees, put aside money to help people in foreclosure, help 400,000 borrowers with financial relief, and suspend foreclosure on borrowers that were delinquent and had the most high risk loans.

Unfortunately, in Nevada, where 262,622 Countrywide loans were originated, foreclosure issues piled up, as did complaints about the bank’s loan service practices. Nevada’s new complaint also accuses Bank of America of:

• Telling credit report agencies that consumers who weren’t in default were in default.
• Deceiving borrowers about the reason their requests for loan modifications were turned down.
• Incorrectly claiming that borrowers that had made payments on trial loan modifications hadn’t paid.
• Falsely claiming that loan owners wouldn’t allow changes to mortgages.
• Misleading borrowers with loan modification offers that came with one set of terms but then returning with a different deal.
• Limiting the amount of time employees could help troubled borrowers with their loan-related issues and punishing those that violated these restrictions.
• Not providing the required loan documentation when it packaged mortgage securities and sold them to investors.
• Failing to endorse a mortgage note, per the typical pool and servicing agreements made between investors and Countrywide, and not delivering it to the trustee in charge of the pool.

Nevada says that Such paperwork failures should have prevented the bank from being able to foreclose on borrowers.

Masto’s request to get out of the Countrywide settlement could impact other negotiations by other state attorneys general related to allegedly improper foreclosure practices against Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup, and Wells Fargo. These banks are being asked to put out approximately $20 billion toward loan modifications. Discussions here have been delayed because there is disagreement over whether a settlement would let state regulators sue the banks over questionable practices in the future.

Related Web Resources:
Nevada Says Bank Broke Mortgage Settlement, NY Times, August 30, 2011

Nevada's Attorney General pursues BofA, UPI, September 19, 2011

Nevada Goes to War Against Bank of America, Consumer Affairs, September 2011

More Blog Posts:
Federal Home Loan Banks Say Countrywide Financial Corp Mortgage Bond Investors May Be Owed Way More than What $8.5B Securities Settlement with Bank of America Corp. is Offering, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, July 22, 2011

Countrywide Finance. Corp, UBS Securities LLC, and JPMorgan Securities LLC Settle Mortgage-Backed Securities Lawsuit Filed by New Mexico Institutional Investors for $162M, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, March 10, 2011

Bank of America and Countrywide Financial Sued by Allstate over $700M in Bad Mortgaged-Backed Securities, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, December 28, 2010

Continue reading "Nevada Attorney General Goes After Bank of America for Allegedly Violating Countrywide Fraud Settlement" »

Once again, Western and Southern Life Insurance Co. is suing Bank of America Corporation for the alleged misrepresentation of mortgage-backed securities that the financial firm sold to the insurer. This time, the plaintiff is seeking $63 million. Western and Southern Life’s first MBS lawsuit against BofA sought $225 million in losses over securities it bought through Countrywide Financial Corp. (Bank of America acquired Countrywide in 2008.)

In this latest ARS lawsuit, Western and Southern Life says that it purchased $134 million in MBS from Bank of America between 2006 and 2008. The company contends that the securities would go on to lose 47% of their value. Western and Southern Life claims that the financial firm disregarded its own underwriting procedures and that a lot of the loans, which had AAA-ratings when they were purchased, have since foreclosed or defaulted. The insurer is also accusing Bank of America of failing to properly examine documents pertaining to the loans, which it says were based on erroneous information (including inflated appraisals, overstated incomes, and false employment verifications).

It was just last month that Western and Southern Life filed two other MBS lawsuits. In its securities case against Morgan Stanley & Co., the insurer is seeking $68.1 million for losses it claims it sustained because the financial firm allegedly misrepresented the MBS. The insurer says that in 2006 and 2007 it bought $179 million in mortgage-backed securities from Morgan Stanley.

Also in July, Western and Southern Life sued Credit Suisse Securities over the alleged loss of $107 million in MBS that the financial firm underwrote and one of its units sold. As with its securities cases against Bank of America, Western and Southern Life claims that Credit Suisse and Morgan Stanley disregarded their standards when accepting the loans. The insurer says that between 2005 and 2008 it bought $276 million in MBS from Credit Suisse.

Although Bank of America’s agreement to settle mortgage-back securities claims by 22 private investors that purchased 530 MBS valued at $424 billion covers Countrywide loans, Western and Southern Life was not part of this arrangement. Among the institutional investors to benefit from the settlement are BlackRock, Inc., PIMCO, Metlife, Inc., the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, and Goldman Sachs.

Per that settlement, Bank of America will give $8.5 billion to Bank of New York Mellon, which, as bondholder trustee, will distribute the funds to investors. However, if the court approves this settlement, investors will still be at a disadvantage because only some 2 or 3 centers on the dollar would be represented for those that suffered financial losses.

BofA Again Sued Over MBS, Yahoo, August 25, 2011

Bank of America agrees to $8.5B Countrywide settlement, Biz Journals, June 29, 2011

Western & Southern sues over investments, Business Courier, July 29, 2011

More Blog Posts:
AIG Files $10 Billion Mortgage-Backed Securities Lawsuit Against Bank of America, Institutional Investors Securities Blog, August 13, 2011

Wall Street Knew 28% of the Loans Behind Mortgage Backed Securities (MBS) Failed to Meet Basic Underwriting Standards, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, September 29, 2010

Federal Home Loan Banks Say Countrywide Financial Corp Mortgage Bond Investors May Be Owed Way More than What $8.5B Securities Settlement with Bank of America Corp. is Offering, Institutional Investors Securities Blog, July 22, 2011

Continue reading "$63 Million Mortgage-Backed Securities Lawsuit Against Bank of America is Second One Filed by Western and Southern Life Insurance Co. Against the Financial Firm" »

Now that the Justice Department is investigating Goldman Sachs (GS), Lloyd C. Blankfein, the broker-dealer’s chief executive, has retained the services of a prominent defense attorney. This move comes following allegations by the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations accusing firm executives of misleading investors and Congress about mortgage-backed securities. News of Reid Weingarten’s hiring caused Goldman Sachs’ shares to drop almost 5%. On Tuesday, Goldman Sachs lost almost $2.7 billion in market value.

The Senate panel issued a report claiming that Goldman Sachs misled investors when it failed to disclose that it was betting against securities that they were buying from the financial firm. The report also accuses the financial firm’s CEO of lying under oath when making the claim that the financial firm did not have a massive short position against the housing market.

Weingarten is a leading criminal defense attorney at Steptoe & Johnson. He previously represented ex-Enron accounting officer Richard Causey, ex-WorldCom chief executive Bernard Ebbers, ex-Duane Reade chief executive Anthony Cuity, and ex-Tyco International general counsel Mark Belnick.

The senate panel’s report, which is 639 pages long, comes after a 2-year bipartisan investigation. The subcommittee found that traders and executives tried to eliminate their exposure to the subprime mortgage market while shorting the market to make a profit.

The panel accused Goldman of misleading clients when it didn’t tell them that it was betting or shorting against their investments. In 2007, Goldman’s mortgage department made a $1.2 billion profit.

Goldman Sachs’s latest quarterly filing with the SEC reveals that the financial is under scrutiny for a number of issues, including its role as a clearing broker and its compliance with the US Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. The investment bank is also be under investigation at the state, federal, and local levels and is the recipient of subpoenas. In 2010, Goldman Sachs agreed to settle for $550 million charges by the SEC that it misled clients about a synthetic collateralized debt obligation (CDO) when the housing market was collapsing.

Recently, Allstate (ALL) sued Goldman Sachs Group for the over $123 million in MBS that it says that the financial firm fraudulently sold it. Allstate claims that Goldman issued misstatements and made omissions about the mortgages. The National Credit Union Administration also just filed its securities fraud case seeking $491 million from Goldman for the purchase of more than $1.2 billion in MBS sales. NCUA blames Goldman and other financial firms, including JPMorgan and RBS Securities, for the failure of five wholesale credit unions. NCUA says that because of the way Goldman handled the mortgage-backed securities sales, the credit unions did not know they were taking on such huge risks when they made those investments.

Why Goldman Investors Are Overreacting, New York Times, August 23, 2011

Goldman confirms Blankfein and other execs hired outside lawyers, Efinancial News, August 23, 2011

More Blog Posts:
NCUA’s Sues Goldman Sachs for $491M Over $1.2B of Mortgage-Back Securities Sales That Caused Credit Unions’ Failure, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, August 23, 2011

Goldman Sachs Settles SEC Subprime Mortgage-CDO Related Charges for $550 Million, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, July 30, 2010

Goldman Sachs Group Made Money From Financial Crisis When it Bet Against the Subprime Mortgage Market, Says US Senate Panel, Institutional Investors Securities Blog, April 15, 2011

Continue reading "Goldman Sachs CEO Hires Prominent Defense Attorney in the Wake of Justice Department Probe into Mortgage-Backed Securities" »

In its fifth MBS lawsuit seeking what is now totaling to be nearly $2 billion in compensatory damages for wholesale credit union members, the National Credit Union Administration (NCUA) wants $491 million in compensatory damages from Goldman Sachs. NCUA is accusing the financial firm of misrepresenting the MBS that were sold to member credit unions that then sustained huge losses that led to their failure.

Goldman Sachs allegedly misrepresented material facts in prospectuses, marketing collaterals, and when selling the MBS. Because of this, NCUA says that the credit unions thought that the risk of loss for their investments was low.

NCUA filed its securities complaint against Goldman Sachs in California district court. NCUA is serving as the liquidating agent for the corporate credit unions that failed. It has filed other securities lawsuits seeking nearly $2 billion in compensatory damages. Two of the other defendants that NCUA is suing are RBS Securities and JPMorgan. Both, and others, are accused of underestimating the risks involved with the MBS.

The wholesale credit unions that failed are:
• Constitution Corporate Credit Union
• Southwest Corporate Credit Union
• Members United Corporate Credit Union
• U.S. Central Corporate Credit Union.
• Western Corporate Credit Union

Because these “corporate” credit unions failed after they invested in toxic MBS that was marketed by Wall Street firms, the credit unions industry has suffered. There are also smaller credit unions that have failed, which has resulted in costs of at least another $1.3 billion. Now, the industry must contend with billions of dollars that will have to be paid over the next several years.

While the NCUA did try to prevent having to shut down the failed corporate credit unions by taking over management of US Central and WesCorp in 2009, including guaranteeing all retail credit union deposits in the corporate credit unions and borrowing up to $20 billion from the Treasury to offer liquidity (this amount has since been paid back), the five credit unions mentioned above were closed in 2010.

NCUA says it is its statutory obligation to obtain recoveries from the parties responsible for the demise of the corporate credit unions and that this will minimize the failure costs to the industry and its insurance funds. It is pursuing those who issued, soled, and underwrote the faulty MBS. NCUA contends that the credit unions.

Our securities fraud law attorneys represents institutional and individual investors throughout the US. We are appalled at all the misconduct on Wall Street that contributed to the financial crisis of 2008. We continue to help our clients’ recoup their losses while holding the negligent parties responsible through arbitration and in court.

Regulator sues Goldman Sachs over risky mortgages, AP, August 9, 2011

Mortgage-backed securities losses costing nation's credit unions, Investigative Reporting Workshop, December 22, 2010

NCUA Sues Wall Street Over Corporate Debacle, Credit Union Journal, June 20, 2011

NCUA sues JPMorgan and RBS to recover losses from failed institutions, Housing Wire, June 20, 2011

More Blog Posts:
$629M Mortgage-Backed Securities Lawsuit Blames RBS Securities and Other Financial Firms For Bankruptcy of Western Corporate Federal Credit Union in 2009, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, July 26, 2011

Morgan Stanley Reports a Possible $1.7B in Mortgage-Backed Securities Losses, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, August 16, 2011

Morgan Keegan Settles Subprime Mortgage-Backed Securities Charges for $200M, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, June 29, 2011

According to Allstate Corp., Goldman Sachs Group Inc. committed securities fraud by fraudulently selling the insurer over $123 million of mortgage-backed securities prior to the collapse of the housing market. Allstate is also accusing Goldman of making “untrue statements” and leaving out “material facts” about the mortgages.

Allstate Insurance Corp, a subsidiary of Allstate Corp, filed the securities fraud complaint in New York State Supreme Court this week. The plaintiff is accusing the broker of violating state laws and negligent misrepresentation. Allstate believes that Goldman marketed the MBS as low-risk with strict underwriting criteria even though the latter knew the lenders had stopped abiding by the guidelines and that loans were being produced without the chance of payback.

Goldman has already settled for $550 million similar securities fraud charges filed by the SEC. This was the largest penalty a Wall Street financial firm has ever been ordered to pay. The Commission claimed that Goldman encouraged investors to buy into complex mortgage investments while failing to tell them that a client who was betting against the securities had crafted them. In April, a Senate Report said that in an attempt to move risk away from Goldman and to investors, the broker marketed four complex mortgage securities.

With this latest securities lawsuit against Goldman, Allstate has now filed nine MBS lawsuits since December. The defendants of the other complaints are Countrywide Financial, Bank of America Corp., Morgan Stanley , Merrill Lynch and Co, JPMorgan Chase & Co, Citigroup Inc., Deutsche Bank AG, and Credit Suisse Group:

• The securities lawsuit against Countrywide is over $700 million of toxic MBS that the insurer purchased. Bank of America is named in the complaint because it purchased Countrywide in 2008.

• The complaint against Morgan Stanley is over Allstate’s purchase of over $104 million in residential MBS in six offerings and the broker’s “central role” in creating and selling the securities. Allstate says that Morgan Stanley either knew or “recklessly disregarded” that the lenders involved were putting out risky loans that were not in compliance with underwriting standards.

• Allstate’s lawsuit against Merrill Lynch involves the allegedly fraudulent sale of approximately $167 million of residential mortgage-backed securities.

• The insurer is accusing JP Morgan Chase of misrpersenting the risks involved in over $757 million of mortgage securities that it purchased.

• Allstate bought over $200 million of MBS from the Citigroup defendants and approximately $185 million from the Deutche bank units. Misrepresentations and omissions related underwriting standards, loan-to-value ratios, and owner occupancy data are among the allegations.

• Allstate’s securities lawsuit against Credit Suisse is over $231 million of MBS. Allstate, which bought the securities from the financial firm, says that the latter did not disclose that the underlying loans were toxic. Allstate is alleging fraudulent inducement, fraud, and negligent misrepresentation.

Our securities fraud attorneys represent investors who have suffered financial losses from investing in mortgage-backed securities.

Allstate sues Goldman Sachs over toxic investments, AP, August 16, 2011

Allstate sues Goldman over sour mortgage-backed securities, USA Today, August 16, 2011

Allstate Sues Goldman Sachs Over Toxic Mortgage Securities, Insurance Journal, August 17, 2011

More Blog Posts:
Morgan Stanley Reports a Possible $1.7B in Mortgage-Backed Securities Losses, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, August 16, 2011

Bank of America and Countrywide Financial Sued by Allstate over $700M in Bad Mortgaged-Backed Securities, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, December 29, 2010

Bank of America and Countrywide Financial Sued by Allstate over $700M in Bad Mortgaged-Backed Securities, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, December 29, 2010

Goldman Sachs Settles SEC Subprime Mortgage-CDO Related Charges for $550 Million, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, July 30, 2010

Continue reading "Allstate Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit Against Goldman Sachs Over More Than $123M of Mortgage-Backed Securities" »

Morgan Stanley says it may sustain $1.7B in losses over a number of securities fraud cases related to subprime mortgage deals. Citigroup Inc.'s (C.N) Citibank is the plaintiff of the securities lawsuit over the Capmark VI CDO and STACK 2006-1 CDO deals, while there are 15 plaintiffs seeking punitive damages over Cheyne Finance, a structured investment vehicle. Morgan Stanley is also reporting losses over a mortgage-backed security deal involving MBIA Corp.

Our securities fraud attorneys would like you to contact us if you are someone who sustained financial losses in any of these MBS deals with Morgan Stanley. Here are more details about the cases:

• Morgan Stanley says the losses in the Citibank securities fraud lawsuit may be a minimum of $269M over a credit default swap on the Capmark VI CDO deal and another one on the credit default swap involving the STACK 2006-1 CDO deal.

• The financial firm is reporting that it may possibly incur $983 million in damages over the Cheyne deal.

• At least $223M may have been lost on an insurance contract with MBIA Corp. over a mortgage-backed security deal.

Morgan Stanley’s loss forecast doesn’t include interest, legal fees, costs, and other ancillary items. There are also other securities lawsuits involving Morgan Stanley, including:

• Allstate's complaint over investment losses related to residential mortgage-backed securities. The insurer, who purchased over $104 million in MBS from the financial firm and its affiliates, claims that financial firm misrepresented the quality of the mortgages while claiming it had performed due diligence on the loans and mortgage originators. Many of these originators have since closed office or filed for bankruptcy and they are the defendants in government investigations/securities lawsuits.

• MBIA is suing Morgan Stanley over claims that the financial firm made misrepresentations regarding the underwriting standards of bonds that it would go on to insure. The underwriting standards are for securities based on about 5,000 subordinate-lien residential mortgages. The bond insurer claims it has already paid out tens of millions of dollars in claims that were never reimbursed.

Mortgage-Backed Securities
These debt obligations represent claims to the cash flow from mortgage loan pools. Mortgage companies, banks, and other originators put together these pools by a private, governmental, or quasi-governmental entity, which then issues securities representing claims on principal and interest payments that borrowers made on the pool’s loans. This process is called securitization. Types of MBS include pass-through participation certificates, collateralized mortgage obligations, or mortgage derivatives.

If you are an investor who suffered financial losses from investing in mortgage-backed securities, you may have reason to file a securities case against the financial firm that handled your MBS. Our stockbroker fraud lawyers have helped thousands of clients recoup their losses.

M. Stanley may have to pay $1.7 billion in MBS cases, MSNBC, August 8, 2011

Bond Insurer Sues Morgan Stanley—What Are the Ramifications?, CNBC, December 9, 2010

Allstate Sues Morgan Stanley Over Mortgage-Backed Securities, Property Casualty 360, July 7, 2011

More Blog Posts:
AIG Files $10 Billion Mortgage-Backed Securities Lawsuit Against Bank of America, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, August 13, 2011

Investors in Oppenheimer Mutual Funds Considering Opting Out of $100M Class Action Settlement Have Until August 31, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, August 6, 2011

Morgan Keegan Settles Subprime Mortgage-Backed Securities Charges for $200M, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, June 29, 2011

American International Group (AIG) is seeking to recover over $10 billion in mortgage-backed securities-related losses from Bank of America (BAC). The losses were allegedly sustained on $28 billion in investments.

In what may be the largest MBS-related action filed by one investor, the complaint accuses Bank of America and its units Countrywide Financial and Merrill Lynch of misrepresenting the quality of the mortgages that were in the securities that investors bought. AIG also claims that Bank of America used false data to persuade the credit rating agencies to give the MBS high ratings.

Bank of America, which contends that the disclosures that were made were robust enough for sophisticated investors and that AIG is a “seasoned investor,” is denying AIG’s allegations against it. According to Bank of America spokesperson Lawrence Di Rita, the reason AIG suffered the financial losses at issue is because it was reckless in pursing profits and high yields in the “mortgage and structured finance markets.”

Bank of America’s 2008 acquisition of Countrywide for $4 billion has cost the financial firm much more in mortgage-related fines, losses, loan buybacks, and litigation expenses. Courthouse News Service database reports that Countrywide and Bank of America have been named as defendants in 1300 lawsuits in 2011 alone. Recently, Bank of America agreed to settle investor MBS claims for $8.5 billion. Parties to the settlement included the Bank of NY Mellon, BlackRock, the Federal reserve Bank of New York, and PIMCO. However, the New York Attorney General is now calling that settlement inadequate.

As for AIG, which is still largely owned by taxpayers following its 2008 government bailout, the New York Times says that the insurer is preparing similar securities fraud complaints against JPMorgan Chase, Goldman Sachs, and Deutsche Bank to try to recover some of the billions that it lost during the economic crisis.

Government Not Proving Helpful In Pursuing Investment Banks
Contrary to investors, who are seeking to hold big banks accountable in civil court, the Justice Department closed many of its investigations into Wall Street’s big banks without filing any criminal charges. Although it has brought cases against three employees at big financial banks, no executives have been charged. However, a spokesperson for the Justice Department says that the government has pursued the cases were appropriate and that it is much more difficult to prove that a crime has been committed beyond a reasonable doubt than to find a party liable in civil court.

The New York Times reports that a person familiar with the case says that the Justice Department has concluded its investigation into Countrywide’s actions heading into the financial crises and that there will be no charges filed. The government also recently closed its probe into Washington Mutual, with the finding that there was no evidence of criminal wrongdoing. The Washington bank almost failed because of high-risk mortgages.

Related Web Resources:
A.I.G. Sues Bank of America Over Mortgage Bonds, The New York Times, August 8, 2011

AIG sues Bank of America for $10 billion over mortgages, USA Today/AP, August 8, 2011

More Blog Posts:
Federal Home Loan Banks Say Countrywide Financial Corp Mortgage Bond Investors May Be Owed Way More than What $8.5B Securities Settlement with Bank of America Corp. is Offering, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, July 22, 2011

Bank of America Cop. (BAC)’s Merrill Lynch a Defendant of Class-Action Mortgage-Backed Securities Lawsuit Against at Least 1,800 Investors, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, July 22, 2011, June 25, 2011

Bank of America and Countrywide Financial Sued by Allstate over $700M in Bad Mortgaged-Backed Securities, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, December 29, 2010

Continue reading "AIG Files $10 Billion Mortgage-Backed Securities Lawsuit Against Bank of America " »

Three years after five Wisconsin school districts filed their securities fraud lawsuit against Stifel, Nicolaus & Company and the Royal Bank of Canada, the Securities and Exchange Commission has filed charges against the brokerage firm and former Stifel Senior Vice President David W. Noack over the same allegations. The charges stem from losses related to the sale of $200 million in high-risk synthetic collateralized debt obligations (CDOs) to the Wisconsin school districts of West Allis-West Milwaukee School District, the School District of Whitefish Bay, the Kimberly Area School District, the School District of Waukesha, and the Kenosha Unified School District No. 1.

The SEC says that not only were the CDOs inappropriate for the school districts that would not have been able to afford it if the investments failed, but also the brokerage firm did not disclose certain material facts or the risks involved. The school districts are pleased that the SEC has decided to file securities charges.

Robert Kantas, partner of Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas LTD LLP, is one of the attorneys representing the school districts in their civil case against Stifel and RBC. Attorneys for the school districts issued the following statement:

“It is our belief that the five Wisconsin school districts and the trusts established to make these investments were defrauded by Stifel, Royal Bank of Canada and the other defendants. Contrary to the way they were represented, the $200 million CDOs that were devised, solicited, and sold by the defendants to our clients in 2006 were volatile, complex, extremely high risk, and totally inappropriate for them. To protect residents and taxpayers, the districts later hired lawyers and others to investigate the investments and their fraud risk. Unfortunately, the failure of the investments did result in losses for the school districts, which in 2008 filed their Wisconsin securities fraud complaint in Milwaukee County Circuit Court. The school districts' goal was to obtain full recovery of the monies lost in this scheme, while protecting and maintaining the districts’ valuable credit ratings. The districts’ lawyers have already examined three million pages of documents regarding in this matter. Meantime, the districts have taken the proper steps to report to the SEC the nature and extent of the wrongdoing uncovered. In the past year, the districts have given the SEC volumes of documents and information for its investigation.”

The school districts had invested the $200 million ($162.7 million was borrowed) in notes that were tied to the performance of synthetic CDOs. This was supposed to help them fund retiree benefits. According the SEC, however, Stifel and Noack set up a proprietary program to facilitate all of this even though they knew that they were selling products that were inappropriate for the school districts and their investment needs.

Stifel and Noack allegedly told the school districts it would take “15 Enrons” for the investments to fail, while misrepresenting that 30 of the 105 companies in the portfolio would have to default and that 100 of the world’s leading 800 companies would have to fail for the school districts to lose their principal. The SEC claims that the synthetic CDOs and the heavy use of leverage actually exposed the school districts to a high risk of catastrophic loss.

By 2010, the school districts' second and third investments were totally lost and the lender took all of the trusts’ assets. In addition to losing everything they’d invested, the school districts experienced downgrades in their credit ratings because they didn’t put more money in the funds that they had set up. Meantime, despite the fact that the investments failed completely, Stifel and Noack still earned significant fees.

The SEC is alleging that Noack and Stifel violated the:
• The Securities Act of 1933 (Section 17(a))
• Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Section (10b))
• The Securities Act of 1934 (Section 15(c)(1)(A))

The Commission wishes to seek disgorgement of ill-gotten gains along with prejudgment interest, permanent injunctions, and financial penalties.

Related Web Resources:
SEC Charges Stifel, Nicolaus & Co. and Executive with Fraud in Sale of Investments to Wisconsin School Districts, SEC.gov, August 10, 2011

SEC Sues Stifel Over Wisconsin School Losses Tied to $200 Million of CDOs, Bloomberg, August 10, 2011

Read the SEC Complaint

School Lawsuit Facts

More Blog Posts:
Stifel, Nicolaus & Co. and Former Executive Faces SEC Charges Over Sale of CDOs to Five Wisconsin School Districts, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, August 10, 2011

JP Morgan Settles for $153.6M SEC Charges Over Its Marketing of Synthetic Collateralized Debt Obligation, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, June 18, 2011

Wells Fargo Settles SEC Securities Fraud Allegations Over Sale of Complex Mortgage-Backed Securities by Wachovia for $11.2, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, April 7, 2011

Continue reading "SEC Charges Filed Against Stifel, Nicolaus & Co. and Former Sr. VP David Noack Over CDO Sales to Wisconsin School Districts" »

In Wilson v. Merrill Lynch & Co. Inc., the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association and the Securities and Exchange Commission have submitted separate amicus curiae briefs to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit that differ on whether Merrill Lynch can be held liable for allegedly manipulating the auction-rate securities market. While SIFMA argued that an SEC order from 2006 that settled ARS charges against 15 broker-dealers affirmed the legality of the auction practices when they are properly disclosed, the SEC said that Merrill did not provide sufficient disclosures about its conduct in the ARS market and therefore what they did reveal was not enough to “preclude the plaintiff from pleading market manipulation.”

It was last year that the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed an investor claim that Merrill Lynch, which was acting as underwriter, manipulated the ARS market to attract investment. The court said that the claimant “failed to plead manipulative activity” and agreed with the brokerage firm that adequate disclosures were made. After appealing to the Second Circuit, the investor requested that the SEC provide its thoughts on five court-posed questions about the adequacy of the financial firm’s disclosures and how they impacted allegations of reliance and market manipulation.

The SEC said that the plaintiff’s claim that Merrill manipulated ARS auctions don’t preclude him from pleading, for fraud-on-the-market reliance purposes, an efficient market. SIMFA, however, said the plaintiff was precluded from claiming “manipulative acts” because investors have been made aware through “ubiquitous industry-wide disclosures about auction practices” that broker-dealers’ involvement in ARS actions is impacted by the “natural interplay” of demand and supply.

Related Web Resources:
Auction-Rate Securities UPDATE: SEC Brief May Help ARS Investors, Business Insider, July 26, 2011

SEC Backs Investors in ARS Case, Squares Off With SIFMA Over Firm's Liability, BNA Broker/Dealer Compliance Report, July 27, 2011

More Blog Posts:
Credit Suisse Ordered to Pay STMicroelectronics N.V. $404M Over Improper ARS Investment, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, June 15, 2011

Goldman Sachs and Wells Fargo Investments Repurchase $26.9M in Auction-Rate Securities from New Jersey Investors, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, May 25, 2011

District Court in Texas Decides that Credit Suisse Securities Doesn’t Have to pay Additional $186,000 Arbitration Award to Luby’s Restaurant Over ARS, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, June 2, 2011

Continue reading "SEC and SIFMA Divided Over Whether Merrill Lynch Can Be Held Liable for Alleged ARS Market Manipulation " »

According to six Federal Home Loan Banks, the investors of Countrywide Financial Corp.’s mortgage bonds may be entitled to three or more times more than what the proposed $8.5 billion securities settlement reached with Bank of America Corp (BAC) is offering. Bank of America acquired Countrywide in 2008.

Under the current settlement, which was reached with Bank of New York Mellon (the trustee of 22 institutional investors), Bank of America is supposed to pay those who placed money in the 530 residential mortgage securitization trusts that Countrywide had set up. Now, however, the Federal Home Loan Banks of Chicago, Boston, Pittsburgh, Indianapolis, Seattle, and San Francisco have filed a court filing seeking more information about the deal. The home loan banks claim that they also invested over $8.5 billion in the mortgage-backed securities. While the current proposal requires that Bank of America repurchase just 40% of MBS that defaulted, the FHLBs believe there may be grounds for upping the proposed settlement amount to at least $22 billion and they may want to join the case.

The six FHLBanks are not the only ones to object to BofA’s proposed settlement. Walnut Place LLC I-XI, which represents another group of Countrywide MBS investors, also has filed a court petition. They claim that Bank of New York Mellon was only attempting to arrive at an agreement for its 22 institutional investors that the rest of the investors would just have to abide by. Walnut Place LLC I-XI wants to block the current settlement and be excluded from any agreement that is finalized between BofA and Bank of New York Mellon.

Mortgage-Backed Securities
If you or your company suffered financial losses from investing in mortgage-backed securities, an experienced securities fraud attorney may be able to determine whether you have grounds for an institutional investment fraud claim.

Related Web Resources:
BofA Mortgage-Backed Securities Settlement Hits a Snag, OnWallStreet, July 22, 2011

Mortgage Investors May Be Owed Three Times More in BofA Deal, Bloomberg, July 21, 2011

Federal Home Loan Banks

Bank Of America Hit With Massive Fraud Lawsuit Over Countrywide, Texas Stockbroker Fraud

More Blog Posts:
Countrywide Finance. Corp, UBS Securities LLC, and JPMorgan Securities LLC Settle Mortgage-Backed Securities Lawsuit Filed by New Mexico Institutional Investors for $162M, Institutional Investors Securities Blog, March 10, 2011

Bank of America and Countrywide Financial Sued by Allstate over $700M in Bad Mortgaged-Backed Securities, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, December 29, 2010

Countrywide Financial, Merrill Lynch, and Citigroup Executives Defend Their Hefty Compensations Following Subprime Mortgage Crisis, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, March 12, 2008

Continue reading "Federal Home Loan Banks Say Countrywide Financial Corp Mortgage Bond Investors May Be Owed Way More than What $8.5B Securities Settlement with Bank of America Corp. is Offering" »

A Financial Industry Regulator Authority Panel has ordered WedBush Securities Inc. to pay one of its traders over $3.5 million for refusing to properly compensate him. According to claimant Stephen Kelleher, he worked for the financial firm for years without consistently getting the incentive-base compensation that he was promised as a municipal sales trader. Kelleher started working for Wedbush in 2007 until right before the arbitration ruling was made.

Kelleher claims that Wedbush withheld nearly $5 million from him. While he regularly received his base salary, the bulk of his income, which was incentive-based compensation, was unevenly distributed and issued to him in May 2008, October 2009, and April 2010. Even then Kelleher contends that he did not receive everything he was owed.

In his FINRA arbitration claim, Kelleher alleged violation and failure to pay per labor laws, breach of contract, unfair business practices, and fraud. He sought over $6.1 million, including $4.17 million in compensation owed, close to $878,000 in interest, and penalties of $1 million and $2,100 over labor code violations. He also sought damages for civil code law violations, as well as punitive damages.

During the FINRA hearing, witnesses testified that it was Wedbush president and founder Edward W. Wedbush who made decisions about paying and withholding incentive compensation. Another Wedbush employee said that there were two years when he too didn’t get the incentive-based compensation that he was owed. The FINRA panel blamed Wedbush’s “corporate management structure” that required that Edward Wedbush, as majority shareholder, approve bonus pay at his discretion.

In addition to the $3.5 million, the FINRA panel also told Wedbush it has to give Kelleher the vested option to purchase 3,750 Wedbush shares at $20/share and another $375 shares at $26/share. Wedbush also must pay the Claimant for the $200 part of the FINRA filing fee that is non-refundable.

Wedbush intends to appeal the securities arbitration ruling.

Related Web Resources:
Wedbush ordered to pay $3.5M for ‘morally reprehensible failure', Investment News, July 11, 2011

FINRA Orders Wedbush to pay trader $3.5 million, OnWallStreet, July 1, 2011

More Blog Posts:
FINRA Panel Orders Merrill Lynch Professional Clearing Corporation to Pay $64M Over Losses Sustained by Rosen Capital Institutional LP and Rosen Capital Partners LP, Institutional Investors Securities Blog, July 14, 2011

Raymond James Must Pay $925,000 Over Auction-Rate Securities Dispute, Institutional Investors Securities Blog, September 1, 2010

Fisher Investments Inc. Ordered to Pay Retired Investor $376,075 Over Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, July 8, 2011

Continue reading "Wedbush Ordered By FINRA Panel To Pay $3.5M to Trader Over Withheld Compensation" »

Merrill Lynch Professional Clearing Corporation must pay hedge funds Rosen Capital Partners LP and Rosen Capital Institutional LP $63,665,202.00 in compensatory damages plus interest (9% from October 7, 2008). A Financial Industry Regulatory Authority arbitration panel issued the order which found the respondent liable.

In their statement of claim, made by the claimants in 2009, the hedge funds accused Merrill Lynch of reach of contract, fraud, breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing (the New York Uniform Commercial Code), and negligence related to the allegedly unexpected margin calls that caused the claimants to sustain financial losses.

Rosen Capital Partners and Rosen Capital Institutional had originally sought at least $90 million in compensatory damages, as well as punitive damages and other costs. Meantime, Merrill Lynch had sough to have the entire matter dismissed and that it be awarded all costs incurred from the suit and other relief as deemed appropriate.

Institutional Investment Fraud
Our securities fraud attorneys represent corporations, banks, partnerships, financial firms, retirement plans, large trusts, charitable organizations, municipalities, private foundations, school districts, and high net worth individuals. We seek to obtain the financial losses of our clients that were caused by securities fraud and other illegal activities committed by financial firms and their representatives, brokers, and advisers.

Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas LTD LLP represents investors in the US and abroad. Contact our institutional investment fraud law firm today.

Read the details of the FINRA dispute resolution, Wall Street Journal (PDF)

New York Uniform Commercial Code, Justia

Merrill Lynch Professional Clearing Hit With $64 Million FINRA Arbitration Award, Forbes, July 6, 2011

More Blog Posts:
Raymond James Must Pay $925,000 Over Auction-Rate Securities Dispute, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, September 1, 2010

Fisher Investments Inc. Ordered to Pay Retired Investor $376,075 Over Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, July 8, 2011

$750,000 Arbitration Award Against Stone & Youngberg LLC Confirmed by District Court, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, June 30, 2011

The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeal has revived a securities fraud lawsuit filed by bondholders of the now failed Washington Mutual Bank against JP Morgan Chase & Co. (JPM.N). The plaintiffs had accused the investment bank of causing them to suffer financial losses because it purchased the thrift’s assets at a “fire sale” price.

Per the securities complaint, insurers American National Insurance Co., Farm Family Life Insurance Co., American National Property and Casualty Insurance Co., National Western Life Insurance Co., and Farm Family Casualty Insurance Co. are accusing JP Morgan of exerting pressure on the U.S. Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. so it would force the $1.9 billion sale of Washington Mutual. They contend that as a result, what used to be the biggest savings and loan in the country with $307 billion in assets was “drastically undervalued,” which allowed the financial firm to pick out the best assets at the expense of the plaintiffs, whose bond investments lost their value.

The appeals court panel’s decision reverses a federal district judge’s ruling last year dismissing the complaint. The judge had said that the bondholders need to have pursued all administrative revenues before filing their securities fraud lawsuit, which is one of a number of complaints stemming from the FDIC’s seizure of WaMu in 2008. WaMu’s holding company immediately filed for bankruptcy and is still waiting for a judge to grant the permission required to allow it to give creditors $7 billion.

The appeals court’s decision came just one day after the WaMu bankruptcy reorganization plan was challenged by Aurelius Capital Management. The hedge fund said that WaMu was denied access to approximately $4 billion that JP Morgan was improperly holding. Aurelius claims that as a result, this settlement is currently of greater value to JP Morgan than WaMu.

Related Web Resources:
Aurelius withdraws support of WaMu bankruptcy plan, Bloomberg Businessweek/AP, June 23, 2011

Court revives WaMu bondholder suit vs JPMorgan, Reuters, June 24, 2011

American National Insurance Co.

Farm Family Life Insurance Co.

American National Property and Casualty Insurance Co.

National Western Life Insurance Co.

Farm Family Casualty Insurance Co.

More Blog Posts:
JP Morgan Chase Agrees to Pay $861M to Lehman Brothers Trustee, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, June 28, 2011

National Credit Union Administration Board Files $800M Mortgage-Backed Securities Fraud Lawsuits Against JP Morgan Securities, RBS Securities, and Other Financial Institutions, Institutional Investor Securities, June 23, 2011

Securities Practices of JPMorgan Chase & Goldman Sachs Under Investigation by Federal Investigators, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, May 19, 2011

Continue reading "Washington Mutual Bank Bondholders’ Securities Fraud Lawsuit Against J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. is Revived by Appeals Court" »

U.S. District Judge Jed S. Rakoff has ruled that Merrill Lynch must face a class action securities fraud lawsuit over mortgage-backed securities. The class of at least 1,800 investors consists of the buyers of 31 tranches of MBS in 18 different offerings that were sold between February 2006 and September 2007. Merrill Lynch is a unit of Bank of America Corp. (BAC).

The investors, who filed their litigation in 2008, are accusing Merrill of misleading them in the offering documents for certificate valued at $16.5 billion and of falsely claiming that the underlying mortgages were in compliance with underwriting guidelines. Plaintiffs include the Los Angeles County Employees Retirement Association, the Mississippi Public Employees’ Retirement System, the Wyoming state treasurer, the Connecticut Carpenters Annuity Fund, and the Connecticut Carpenters Pension Fund. The class action certification lets the investors put their claims together into one lawsuit rather than having to individually push their cases through.

Meantime, Bloomberg.com is reporting that in a separate securities fraud lawsuit, also against Bank of America, U.S. District Judge William Pauley in Manhattan consolidated three cases accusing the investment bank of hiding the risks involved in mortgage-backed securities and of not using appropriate controls in processing foreclosures. The lead plaintiff in this case is Pennsylvania Public School Employees’ Retirement System.

Securities Class Actions
“The average net recovery for victims in securities class action claims is about 8% of their losses because such claims face many problems," says Shepherd Smith Edwards and Kantas founder and securities fraud attorney William Shepherd. "For example, only federal securities fraud claims can be made in such cases, which are often difficult to prove. However, investors who “opt out” of the class in a timely manner can file their own individual claims, including under state law claims often easier to prove. Our stockbroker fraud lawyers has represented many investors who have opted-out of securities class actions."

Shepherd continues, "Unfortunately, many securities class action claims are filed with very short “opt out” dates and some of these cases are later settled on terms that arguably favor the defendants while large payments end up going to the lawyers representing the investor/ victims in the class. Many believe the true losers in such cases are the members of the investor class who suffered the losses. [We have no information at this time to suggest such a result in this matter.] ”

Related Web Resources:
Merrill Must Face Class Action Over Mortgage Securities, Bloomberg, January 20, 2011

Los Angeles County Employees Retirement Association

Mississippi Public Employees’ Retirement System

Connecticut Carpenters Annuity Fund

More Blog Posts:
National Credit Union Administration Board Files $800M Mortgage-Backed Securities Fraud Lawsuits Against JP Morgan Securities, RBS Securities, and Other Financial Institutions, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, June 23, 2011

MBIA Can Sue Morgan Stanley Over Alleged Misrepresentation of MBS Risks, Says US New York Supreme Court, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, June 14, 2011

Dow Corning Corp.’s $165M Securities Fraud Lawsuit Against Merrill Lynch & Co. Can Proceed, Says District Court Judge, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, April 7, 2011

Continue reading "Bank of America Cop. (BAC)’s Merrill Lynch a Defendant of Class-Action Mortgage-Backed Securities Lawsuit Against at Least 1,800 Investors" »

This week, the National Credit Union Administration Board filed two securities fraud lawsuits accusing a number of financial institutions of misrepresenting the risks involved in the mortgage-securities that they sold to investors. The federal credit union is seeking a combined $800 million.

JP Morgan Securities LLC, Novastar Mortgage Funding Corp, and RBS Securities Inc. are just a few of the defendants, who are accused of committing securities fraud against five wholesale credit unions. Both mortgage-backed securities lawsuits claim that large investment banks sold securities to institutional investors that held subprime loans as Triple-A rated investments. The financial firms allegedly omitted material facts, including that the securities were larded with loans issued to borrowers at high risk of default. The defendants are accused of getting the wholesale credit unions to purchase over $3 billion in mortgage-backed securities that, according to The Wall Street Journal, were “destined to perform poorly.” Subsequently, the credit unions became 5 of the over 40 in the US that have failed since 2009. It has since been up to the approximately 7,000 remaining credit unions to take on some of the loans, while charging higher interest rates to stay in operation. Meantime, the failures of the credit unions have forced NCUA to take on about $50 billion in battered bonds that are currently valued at a fraction of their original value.

When a borrower defaults on a loan payment, the value of the mortgage-backed security suffers. The NCUA’s complaint says that as a result, the credit ratings assigned too many mortgage-backed securities that the credit union purchased collapsed in short order. The NCUA plans to file more securities fraud complaints. Goldman Sachs will likely be among the new defendants.

Feds Sue Bankers Over Fall in Bonds, The Wall Street Journal, June 21, 2011

National Credit Union Administration Board sues big banks for $800M, Biz Journals, June 20, 2011

National Credit Union Administration

More Blog Posts:
MBIA Can Sue Morgan Stanley Over Alleged Misrepresentation of MBS Risks, Says US New York Supreme Court, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, June 14, 2011

“Skin in the Game” Mortgage Rule Announced by Federal Regulators, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, April 16, 2011

Ambac Financial Group, Insurers, and Bank Underwriters to Pay $33M to Settle Securities Lawsuits Alleging Concealed Risks Related to its Bond-Insurance Business, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, May 18, 2011

Continue reading "National Credit Union Administration Board Files $800M Mortgage-Backed Securities Fraud Lawsuits Against JP Morgan Securities, RBS Securities, and Other Financial Institutions" »

According to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, federal law preempts would-be class claims accusing Morgan Stanley Smith Barney LLC of having insider trading detection and deterrent policies that are illegal under California labor and unfair competition statutes. The court says that “conflict preemption” precludes the claims and that letting the plaintiffs move forward with them would create an obstacle to Congress’ objectives in enacting federal securities laws.

Per the court, Morgan Stanley set up employee trading policies to prevent and monitor insider trading. Under the ETPs, employees who had certain kinds of brokerage accounts had to either keep them in-house or disclose and get approval for the accounts to be housed at another firm. However, in 2008, because of possible “state law implications” regarding its policy, Morgan Stanley put into practice granting California employees that asked for an exeption approval as long as they gave the financial firm duplicate brokerage account confirmations and statements.

The plaintiffs of this lawsuit, who are all ex-Morgan Stanley employees, contended that under California labor statute, the firm’s policy was unlawful. Morgan Stanley’s lawyer responded by arguing that federal law preempts the plaintiffs’ claims.

The plaintiffs intend to bring their case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Their lead lawyer has said that the brokerage firm’s plan forced the securities traders to pay “huge fees for their own advice.”

Related Web Resources:
Calif. Challenge to Morgan Insider Policy Falters on Grounds of Conflict Preemption, BNA Broker/Dealer Compliance Report, June 1, 2011

Marcia Bloemendaal, et al v. Morgan Stanley Smith Barney, Justia, June 14, 2011