Current Investigations

The FBI and NY Regulators Raid GPB Capital Holdings’ Trash Hauling Company

Published on: March 26, 2019 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Just days after InvestmentNews reported that the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) is now investigating alternative investment management firm GPB Capital Holdings, ProPublica is reporting that the FBI and regulators from New York City’s Business Integrity Commission (BIC) have raided the corporate offices of GPB Waste NY, which is the private trash hauling company once known as Five Star Carting that GPB Capital Holdings acquired in 2017. The raid reportedly involved a search warrant from the US Attorney’s Office to gather materials.

Aside from the FBI, GPB Capital Holdings is already under investigation by the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA), the New Jersey Bureau of Securities, and Massachusetts Secretary of the Commonwealth William Galvin, who is investigating more than 60 brokerage firms that sold GPB Capital Holdings-related private placements to investors. However, public filings submitted to the SEC note that there were about 80 brokerage firms in the US at least authorized to sell investments to clients on behalf of GPB.

GPB Capital Holdings primarily invests in auto dealerships. However, it also purchases private trash hauling companies. NYC’s BIC is responsible for looking into possible misconduct or corruption involving the private trash industry in the city. Five Star, according to ProPublica, had previously dealt with a “troubled labor and safety record,” including government inspections that found that the company used unsafe trucks.

NorthStar Healthcare REIT Investors Suffer Losses as Income Distributions Are Suspended

Published on: March 22, 2019 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

If you are an investor in NorthStar Healthcare Income, you very likely received a letter last month notifying you that monthly distributions from this investment have been suspended. According to NorthStar’s board, the publicly registered nontraded real estate investment trust’s (nontraded REIT) portfolio has been undergoing “operational and performance challenges” that as of the end of June 2017 has resulted in a “lower estimated value/share” of the NorthStar Healthcare’s common stock. The nontraded REIT has since determined that in order to protect both capital and its financial state, suspension of these distribution payments is necessary.

The NorthStar Healthcare Inc. nontraded REIT was set up to originate, acquire, and oversee healthcare industry-related investments, including debt, equity, and securities investments involving healthcare real estate. Sources note that between 2013 and 2018, it raised about $2B and set up a portfolio involving more than 650 properties.

However, NorthStar Healthcare Income began reducing distribution rates in December 2017. By October of last year, it had notified investors that it would only buy back shares from an investor if qualifying disability or death were factors. In December 2018, the nontraded REIT reduced its net asset value from $8.50/share to $7.10/share. Now, with the distribution suspension, some investors are standing to lose not just their monthly distributions, but also they could see a substantial decline in value on their principal that they originally invested.

Wedbush Securities To Pay $250K Over Inadequate Supervision of Ex-Broker Accused of Fraud

Published on: March 15, 2019 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

According to the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), Wedbush Securities has settled allegations accusing the brokerage firm of failing to supervise one of its former registered representatives, Timary Delorme, who is accused of engaging in a pump-and-dump fraud that harmed retail investors. As part of the settlement, Wedbush consented to a censure and will pay a $250K penalty.

The SEC filed this civil securities case against Wedbush a year ago, accusing the broker-dealer of not properly investigating red flags indicating that Delorme might have been defrauding investors. The former Wedbush broker is accused of, from 2008 to 2014, receiving payments, which were issued to her husband, in exchange for recommending to investors that they make certain trades that were then used in the pump-and-dump fraud.

The regulator said that Wedbush even disregarded an email from a customer reporting the fraud, as well as a number of Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) arbitrations claims and inquiries over Delorme’s trading activities involving penny stocks. Instead, contends the Commission, Wedbush performed two inadequate probes into the allegations against its former broker but didn’t take proper action.

Former Alexander Capital Broker Accused of Churning Must Pay Over $302K

Published on: March 12, 2019 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has secured a final judgment against ex-Alexander Capital broker William Gennity, who is accused of excessive churning in clients’ brokerage accounts. Gennity, whom the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) had earlier suspended, will pay nearly $128K in disgorgement, nearly $15K in prejudgment interest, and a $160K civil penalty.

The SEC’s complaint accused Gennity of recommending costly, “in-and-out trading” to four clients between 7/2012 and 8/2014 without having any reasonable grounds for thinking that doing so would cause them to make money. Instead, they lost money as a result, while Gennity made money. The alleged churning purportedly took place while he was an Alexander Capital broker.

Churning typically involves a broker engaging in trades in order to earn more commissions.

Securities-Backed Lines of Credit Are Not For Every Investor

Published on: March 6, 2019 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

In an Investor Alert, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority and the US Securities and Exchange Commission’s Office of Investor Education and Advocacy (OIEA) sought to inform investors about the risks involved in securities-backed lines of credit (SBLOCs). These loans are usually touted as a hassle-free, low-cost way for investors to gain access to money by borrowing against their investment portfolio’s assets without needing to liquidate the investments. Popular among a growing number of securities firms, SBLOCs, however, are not a good match for every investor.

Securities-Backed Lines of Credit – SBLOCs

Typically, to qualify for an SBLOC, an investor must have assets with a “market value of at least $100K.” He or she can then usually borrow anywhere from 50-95% of the value of assets in the portfolio.

FBI Is Investigating GPB Capital Holdings

Published on: March 5, 2019 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

InvestmentNews reports that the Federal Bureau of Investigation is investigating GPB Capital Holdings. The alternative investment management firm said that the FBI stopped by unannounced to its New York offices last week. The visit took place a few months after both the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (Finra) launched separate probes into the firm, which claims to have raised $1.8B from accredited, high net worth investors via private placement funds invested in waste management and car dealerships. WealthManagement.com reports that GPB Capital Holdings-sold private placements that are risky, illiquid alternative investments. However, there is growing concern that not all of these investors, were, in fact, sophisticated, accredited, high net worth parties.

In September, Massachusetts Secretary of the Commonwealth William Galvin announced it was investigating 63 brokerage firms for selling GPB Capital Holdings-issued private placements. Among the broker-dealers that sold these investments were Advisor Group firms Sagepoint Financial Inc, Royal Alliance Associates, Inc., Woodbury Financial Services, Inc., and FSC Securities Corp. News of Secretary

Galvin’s probe came just a month after GPB Capital Holdings announced that it was pausing its efforts to raise investor funds to deal with accounting and financial reporting issues involving two of its largest funds, the GPB Holdings II and the GPB Automotive Portfolio, which together reportedly raised almost $1.3B of investor money while paying brokers over $100M in commissions. Both funds missed an earlier deadline to file statements with the SEC.

Investors Claims Against Santander for Puerto Rico Bond Fraud Losses are Increasing

Published on: March 2, 2019 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Although many of the thousands of cases investors in Puerto Rico bonds and closed-end funds have brought over the last five years have focused on UBS Financial Services Incorporated of Puerto Rico (“UBS-PR”), other brokerage firms in the Commonwealth engaged in the same wrongful sales practices. One such firm that has also been the subject of many new FINRA arbitrations and other lawsuits is Santander Securities, LLC (“Santander”), a division of Banco Santander Puerto Rico. The large number of cases against Santander are not a surprise given the public information about Santander. For example, Bloomberg reports that between the ends of 2012 and 2013, Santander marketed and sold over $280 million in Puerto Rico municipal bonds and close-end funds while reportedly selling its own holdings of these same securities.

Santander also has a regulatory history that suggests ongoing problems with the Puerto Rico operations for the bank. For example, in 2011, Santander settled allegations from FINRA of deficiencies in Santander’s structured product business, including those involving the sale of reverse-convertible securities to Puerto Rican retail customers when such investments were often unsuitable for them. FINRA also accused the brokerage firm of inadequate supervision of structured product sales. Santander agreed to pay a $2 million fine for these alleged deficiencies. More recently, in 2015, FINRA fined Santander $2 million and ordered restitution to Santander customers of an additional $4.3 million for Santander’s sales practices related to Puerto Rico bonds and closed-end funds. In particular, FINRA found that Santander’s supervisory system did not accurately reflect the risk of Puerto Rico investments in the period leading up to the collapse of the Puerto Rico market in 2013 and 2014. However, Santander was aware of the increased risk, and according to FINRA, instead of informing its clients of these increased risks, used that knowledge to sell its entire inventory of Puerto Rico investments by the end of October 2013, and thus missing much of the losses Santander’s own clients suffered.

In other Puerto Rico news, the 1st Circuit court of invalidated the PROMESA board which provides oversight for restructuring local debt. After the board placed Puerto Rico in a bankruptcy like process, many hedge funds and institutional corporate investors were unhappy as their investments were now in jeopardy. These entities filed a constitutional challenge to the way the board was appointed and eventually won on appeal. The ruling was not much of a win however, as the 1st Circuit refused to invalidate the board’s prior actions, which included placing Puerto Rico in the bankruptcy like proceedings, even though they invalidated the board itself.

Big Banks Are Accused of Rigging Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae Bonds

Published on: February 27, 2019 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The City of Birmingham Retirement and Relief System and the Electrical Workers Pension System Local 103 have filed a proposed class action securities fraud lawsuit accusing a number of big banks of colluding with one another to rig the prices of Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp. (Freddie Mac) and Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) unsecured bonds. The defendants in the case include JP Morgan (JPM), Bank of America (BAC), Citigroup (C), Barclays Bank (BARC), Deutsche Bank (DB), Credit Suisse (CS), UBS (UBS), Merrill Lynch, BNP Paribas Securities Corp., FTN Financial Securities, Goldman Sachs (GS), and First Tennessee Bank.

According to Law360, the plaintiffs contend that the bank took advantage of the dark market nature of the “private, ‘over the counter’ (OTC) market” where these bonds are bought and sold to get investors to buy the Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae bonds at prices that were “artificially high.”

Fannie and Freddie are both government-backed mortgage-finance companies. They are typically known for converting mortgages into mortgage-backed securities. This investor fraud lawsuit, however, is focused on their unsecured bonds. The proposed class contends that investors purchased the bonds because they thought they were safe, liquid, low risk, and likely to make returns. Their complaint states that the plaintiffs and other investors had not expected the “overcharges and underpayments” that resulted because of the banks’ alleged collusion.

Philadelphia Sues Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, Bank of America and Other Big Banks, Alleges Municipal Bond Rigging

Published on: February 21, 2019 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The city of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania is suing Bank of America (BAC), Goldman Sachs (GS), Citigroup (C), Wells Fargo & Co. (WFC), Barclays Plc (BAR), JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPM), and Royal Bank of Canada (RBC) for allegedly rigging rates for variable-rate demand obligations (VRDOs). Philadelphia had issued over $1.6B of these bonds.

VRDOs are tax-exempt municipal securities that can be redeemed by investors early because they are tendered to banks. The banks can then remarket the bonds to other investors while charging issuers a fee.

According to InvestmentNews, the city is looking to represent a number of hospitals, municipalities, and universities with its lawsuit. The complaint contends that the banks worked with each other to manipulate the VRDO rates in secret so they could make hundreds of millions of dollars in unearned fees. The alleged rigging occurred between 2/2008 and 6/2016. The collusion purportedly involved the banks agreeing not to compete against each other for re-marketing services.

U.S. First Circuit Court of Appeals Invalidates PROMESA Board

Published on: February 18, 2019 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

On Friday, February 15, the First Circuit Court of Appeals issued its ruling on Judge Laura Swain’s prior decision that had affirmed the PROMESA Board as constitutional.

In a surprise finding, the Court of Appeals overruled Judge Swain, finding that the PROMESA Board members were not appropriately appointed.

The issue in dispute is whether the members of the PROMESA Board are required to receive the consent of the U.S. Senate. In particular, under PROMESA, President Obama appointed the seven members of the PROMESA Board by using a list of board members the U.S. Congress recommended. At the time, since all stakeholders appeared to have been given a vote in the appointment process, there was little objection to the PROMESA Board members. Then, in May 2017, the PROMESA Board placed Puerto Rico in a bankruptcy-like proceeding under Title III of the Act. Prior to the enactment of PROMESA, many investors – both retail and institutional – had relied on the fact that Puerto Rico could not file for Title 9 bankruptcy as insurance against ever receiving anything less than the par value of their bonds from Puerto Rico. PROMESA, with its Title III bankruptcy-like process, changed that insurance policy for many investors.