Class Action Lawsuits

Goldman Sachs Must Contend with Proposed Class-Action CDO Lawsuit

Published on: January 22, 2014 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

U.S. District Judge Victor Marrero says that Goldman Sachs Group Inc. (GS) must face a proposed class action securities case accusing it of defrauding customers that purchased specific collateralized debt obligations at the beginning of the financial crisis. The lead plaintiff, Dodona I LLC, contends that the firm created two Hudson CDOs that were backed by residential mortgage backed-securities even though Goldman knew that subprime mortgages were doing badly.

The hedge fund claims that Goldman tried to offset its prime risk, even betting that subprime mortgages and the securities constructed around them would lose value—essentially making the CDOs to lower its own subprime exposure and simultaneously shorting them at cost to investors. Dodona purchased $4 million of Hudson CDOs.

Meantime, Goldman said that the proposed class action case should be dropped and that instead, Hudson CDO claims should be made independently. The bank said that the current case has too many conflicts and differences. Judge Marrero, however, disagreed with the bank.

Supreme Court to Hear Texas-Based Halliburton’s Class Action Securities Fraud Case Again

Published on: November 18, 2013 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The US Supreme Court has agreed to hear Halliburton v. Erica John Fund. In it, the Texas-based multinational corporation is appealing a class action securities lawsuit that tests the fraud-on-the market theory. That doctrine became part of securities law in 1988 after the highest court’s ruling in Basic v. Levinson.

The fraud-on-the-market theory is premised upon the efficient markets hypothesis, which is that the price of a stock is a reflection of all public data. This makes it possible for plaintiff attorneys to set up a class action for all the buyers of a stock without having to first prove in court that these purchasers depended upon untrue information from the company and that this caused their losses.

Instead, the doctrine assumes that a company’s stock price can reflect corporate assertions even if they are misleading. As a result lawyers are able to submit securities fraud classes while blaming corporate executives for certain changes in the market value of a company’s stock.

Texas Judge Throws Out Verizon Retirees’ Class Action Lawsuit Over $8.4B Pension Sales to Prudential

Published on: July 9, 2013 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

In Dallas, Chief Judge Sidney A. Fitzwater of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas has thrown out the class action lawsuit filed by Verizon Communications (VZ) management retirees looking to stop their ex-employer from selling $8.4 billion of their pensions to Prudential Insurance Company of America (NYSE: PRU) . However, Fitzwater said that the plaintiffs can re-plead their case and they have 30 days to do so from June 24. He dismissed their Texas lawsuit per the federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act’s Section 404 (a) and noted that Verizon choosing to amend its management pension plan was not a fiduciary function.

Per the ruling, Verizon Communications and Prudential went into an agreement together last year involving the former’s pension plan agreeing to buy the latter’s premium group annuity. This would settle about $7.4 billion in liabilities. Also, Verizon would be handing over to Prudential the responsibility of giving pension benefits to approximately 41,000 retired employees. These transferred retirees are no longer part of the plan, while the about 50,000 beneficiaries and participants not included in the transaction are still part of the plan. The federal court in Texas had certified each group as a transferee class and the other as a non-transferee one, respectively.

According to the transferee class, Verizon didn’t reveal in the summary plan description that the annuity transaction might happen, which violates ERISA, breaches the company’s fiduciary duty, and discriminates against class members. Despite observing that choosing an annuity provider is a function that is a fiduciary one, Judge Fitzwater said that amending a plan is not a fiduciary function. He did say, however, that elements of the way Verizon executed the direct of the amendment might be considered fiduciary functions. (It was Fitzwater who earlier this year gave the 41,000 Verizon management retirees class status after he found that there were too many plaintiffs for them to each have their own lawsuit.)

Stakeholders With $55M Securities Fraud Case Against Government Over AIG Bailout Get Class Action Certification

Published on: March 19, 2013 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

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.

Houston-Based Receiver Files $1.8B Class Action Filed Against Law Firms Accused of Helping R. Allen Stanford Carry Out His $7B Ponzi Scam

Published on: December 5, 2012 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Ralph Janvey, the Stanford receiver based in Houston, has filed a putative class action lawsuit against Hunton & Williams LLP and Greenberg Traurig LLP, two law firms accused of playing roles that allowed R. Allen Stanford to execute his $7B Ponzi scam. The securities complaint, which was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, is seeking $1.8 billion in damages and $10 million that it claims Stanford gave to the law firms during their years of working together. The plaintiffs are contending Texas Securities Act violations, aiding and abetting participation in a fraud scam, aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, and conspiracy.

Also named as a defendant is Yolanda Suarez, who was not only a former Greenberg Traurig associate but also she served as Stanford Financial Group’s general counsel and later as chief of staff. Janvey says that Stanford could not have kept his scam going for over 20 years without these parties’ help.

Per the Texas securities case, Carlos Loumiet, an ex-Greenberg Traurig partner who later went to work for Hunton & Williams (he is now a DLA Piper partner and is not a defendant in this lawsuit), had a “very close personal relationship” with Stanford and played a part in helping the now convicted fraudster run his global scam. This included helping him establish sales and marketing offices in the US. Loumiet and Greenberg Traurig also allegedly helped Stanford set up the transactions that would allow the Ponzi mastermind to use the money he took from Stanford International Bank Ltd. in Antigua and invest them in “speculative venture capital” deals and property in the Caribbean. The law firm is also accused of giving Stanford securities law counsel and advice on a regularly basis.

Securities Roundup: FINRA Tells Broker Dealer to Cease-a-Desist Its Allegedly Fraudulent Sales, SEC Supports Creation of Variable Annuities Summary Prospectus, & US Supreme Court Hears Amgen & Comcast Appeals to Shut Down Class Action Lawsuits

Published on: November 15, 2012 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

FINRA has filed a temporary cease-and-desist order barring WR Rice Financial Services Inc. and Joel I. Wilson, its owner, from taking part in allegedly fraudulent sales activities and the conversion of assets or funds. The SRO is also filing a securities complaint accusing both the Michigan based-brokerage firm, Wilson, and other registered representatives of selling over $4.5 million in limited partnership interests to approximately 100 investors while leaving out or misrepresenting material facts.

Per the broker fraud case, the broker-dealer and Wilson got investors to participate by promising them that their funds would be placed in land contracts in Michigan on residential real estate and that the interest rate they would get would be 9.9%. The money was instead allegedly used for unsecured loans to companies under Wilson’s ownership or control.

In other securities news, the SEC’s Division of Investment Management director Norm Champ recently stated that the Commission’s report on retail investors and their financial literacy gives basis for creating a summary prospectus for variable annuities. Speaking via teleconference at the American Law Institute-Continuing Legal Education Group conference on life insurance products on November 1, Champ reported that investors in the study agreed that the mutual fund summary prospectuses were user-friendly. He expressed optimism that a summary prospectus for variable annuities could give significant disclosures and related benefits if designed and implemented well and that the framework used for the mutual fund summary prospectus should prove to be an effective model.

Institutional Investment Fraud Roundup: Ex-Analyst Guilty in $61.8M Insider Trading Scheme, SLUSA Precludes Investor Class Action Over Hedge Funds that Failed After Madoff Ponzi, & Dark Pool Operator Settles Subscriber Info. Breach Charges

Published on: October 18, 2012 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Jon Horvath, an ex-research analyst at a New York hedge fund, has pled guilty to two counts of securities fraud and one count of conspiracy to commit securities fraud related to a $61.8 million insider trading scheme. Several other former hedge fund managers and analysts from different investment firms and hedge funds are also accused of allegedly trading key, nonpublic information about NVIDIA Corporation (NVDA), Dell, Inc. (Dell), and other publicly traded technology companies between 2007 and 2009. The information was obtained indirectly and directly from employees that worked at these companies.

Horvath admitted that when he received the insider information from the other analysts, he knew that they were all breaching their duties of loyalty. He caused certain trades to be executed based on such information. He also provided the other analysts with insider information about publicly traded companies.

In other securities fraud news, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York has ruled that under California securities law, the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act bars a class action filed by investors in two hedge funds that failed after the Madoff Ponzi scheme was found out. The plaintiffs are contending that the defendants, investment advisor Tremont Partners and a number of affiliates, made misrepresentations and omissions connected with a covered securities’ sale. The case is Lakeview Investment LP v. Schulman.

Lehman Brothers Australia Found Liable in CDO Losses of 72 Councils, Charities, and Churches

Published on: September 25, 2012 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

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.

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

Class Action MBS Securities Lawsuit Against Goldman Sachs is Reinstated by 2nd Circuit

Published on: September 14, 2012 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

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)

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

Published on: August 30, 2012 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

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

More Blog Posts:

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