Credit Suisse

Barclays Resolves RMBS Lawsuits for $325M

Published on: October 19, 2015 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Barclays (BARC) will pay $325M to resolve two civil cases related to residential mortgage-backed securities sales that took place during the housing boom. The plaintiff of both securities lawsuits is the National Credit Union Administration, which regulates federal credit unions.

A number of credit unions under NCUA’s purview failed after they invested in mortgage-backed securities. The union believes that the banks that underwrote the securities misled buyers.

RMBS are investments that pool the returns and risks of personal mortgages. The quality of these securities came into question several years ago when homeowners began to default on the mortgages backing them. NCUA believes that it is its statutory duty to obtain recoveries for credit unions while making sure that customers are protected.

By settling, Barclays is not admitting fault. According to The New York Times, the bank sponsored and underwrote approximately $35M in mortgage securitizations in the US and sold $19.4B in loans that were originated and sold to third parties by affiliates of an entity that it had acquired. Upon completion of this settlement, NCUA will dismiss pending litigation against Barclays in district court in Kansas and New York.

Credit Suisse to Pay $4.25M Over Blue Sheet Trading Data that Was Deficient

Published on: September 28, 2015 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The SEC is charging Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC (CS) with submitting deficient blue sheet data to the regulator about customer trades. The financial firm is settling the charges by paying a $4.25 million penalty. It has admitted to violating federal securities laws. Credit Suisse acknowledged that it made at least 593 deficient blue sheet submissions to the Commission while leaving out 553,400 reportable trades that represented 1.3 billion shares between 2012 and 2014.

Blue sheet data refers to the color of the forms this type of information used to be placed on before being mailed from a broker-dealer to the SEC. The agency uses the trades when conducting investigations and doing other work. The process by which the regulator now procures this information is electronic but the “blue sheet” name has stuck.

The deficiencies at the firm were related to a probe in which the SEC was looking at blue sheet data and comparing them to data that came from the National Securities Clearing Corp. Credit Suisse has identified the cause of the deficient blue sheet submissions as human and technological errors. The firm has since put into place a number of changes to make sure its blue sheets are accurate from now on.

Credit Suisse To Pay Over $80M to Settle Dark Pool Allegations, Says Source

Published on: September 14, 2015 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Bloomberg.com reports that according to someone familiar with the matter, Credit Suisse Group AG (CS) will pay over $80 million to resolve federal and state authorities’ claims that it failed to fully disclose information to clients about how it ran its dark pool. Over $50 million of the payment is expected to take the forms of fines and disgorgement in a settlement with the SEC, while about $30 million would resolve the allegations made by the New York Attorney General.

Credit Suisse’s dark pool, Crossfinder, is the biggest alternative trading system in the country. The source said that the Swiss bank is accused of misrepresenting certain aspects about the way it runs the platform.

In dark pools, demand and supply remain private. Only specifics about executed trades are disclosed. Dark pools comprise one-fifth of trading in the U.S. stock market. Large investors, high frequency traders, and hedge funds are among those that trade on these alternative trading systems. There is concern that some traders are able to exploit and profit, sometimes with the help of dark pool operators. Meantime, ordinary investors may be suffering because of their inability to avail of such benefits.

Bank of America, Deutsche Bank, Citigroup, & Other Big Banks Settle $1.87B Settlement Over Swaps Price-Fixing Case

Published on: September 12, 2015 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

$1.87B securities settlement has been reached with 12 major banks. The case resolves investor claims that the financial firms conspired to rig prices to hold back competition in the credit default market. For now, the resolution is an agreement in principal and the parties have two weeks to work out the details before turning the deal over to U.S. District Judge Denise Cote in Manhattan for preliminary approval.

The defendants in this credit default case are:

· Bank of America Corp. (BAC)

· UBS AG (UBS)

· Goldman Sachs Group Inc., (GS)

· Barclays (BARC)

· Royal Bank of Scotland Group Plc (RBS)

· BNP Paribas SA (BNP)

· Morgan Stanley (MS)

· Citigroup (C)

· JPMorgan Chase (JPM)

· Credit Suisse Group AG (CS)

· Deutsche Bank AG (DB)

· HSBC Holdings Plc (HSBC)

Markit Ltd and the International Swaps and Derivatives Association are also defendants.

Credit Suisse Ordered to Face $10B Mortgage-Backed Securities Fraud Lawsuit by NY AG

Published on: December 26, 2014 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

A New York State Supreme Court justice says that Credit Suisse Group AG (CSGN) must face a $10 billion securities lawsuit accusing the bank of mortgage-backed securities fraud. Justice Marcy Friedman refused to dismiss the case, saying that a trial will take place. She said that the state has shown that the Swiss financial institution may have engaged in misconduct.

New York sued Credit Suisse in 2012, accusing it of misrepresenting the risks involved in investing in mortgage-backed securities. The bank tried to claim that the state missed the three-year deadline it had for filing such a claim. NY, however, countered that it had six years to pursue its claim.

The state’s Attorney General, Eric Schneiderman, has been going after banks while helping beleaguered homeowners and trying to keep the number of foreclosures from going up. His office has used the Martin Act, which is the NY’s anti-fraud statute to make its cases. Under that law, it is illegal for sellers to make false promises about the securities they are selling. Schneiderman contends that Credit Suisse told investors that the mortgage securities were safe even though the bank knew that the residential loans backing them had “pervasive flaws.”

Credit Suisse Ordered to Pay $40M Verdict to Highland Capital

Published on: December 19, 2014 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

A jury is ordering Credit Suisse (CS) to pay a $40 million verdict to Highland Capital Management LP. The hedge fund firm, based in Texas, accused the bank of duping it into refinancing a real-estate development that wasn’t solid. According to the ruling, issued in state court in Dallas, Credit Suisse is 65% at fault.

Highland’s Claymore Holdings LLC claimed that the bank knew it was employing a flawed appraisal to garner investments in Lake Las Vegas, which was a massive residential and resort community of over 3,500 acres that filed for bankruptcy six years ago. Credit Suisse said the investment did not go well not because it misled Highland but because of the recession.

The hedge fund company, however, contends that the flawed appraisal used by Credit Suisse inflated the value of collateral behind $540 million in loans to refinance the community in 2007. Highland says that the motivation was the fees made by Credit Suisse to underwrite the transaction.

Citigroup, Credit Suisse, Deutsche Bank, Merrill Lynch, & Other Firms Ordered by FINRA to Pay $43.5M Over Activities Related to Toys “R” Us IPO

Published on: December 11, 2014 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority is fining 10 firms $43.5 million in total for letting their equity research analysts solicit investment business and offering favorable research coverage related to the the planned Toys “R” Us initial public offering. The firms were fined: $2.5 million for Needham & Co. LLC; $4 million for Wells Fargo Securities, LLC (WFC), Deutsche Bank Securities Inc. (DB), Morgan Stanley & Co., LLC (MS), and Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc. respectively; and $5 million each for JP Morgan Securities LLC (JPM), Barclays Capital Inc. (BARC), Goldman Sachs & Co. (GS), Citigroup Global Markets Inc. (C), and Credit Suisse Securities USA LLC (CS). FINRA rules state that firms are not allowed to use research analysts or promise favorable research to garner investment banking business.

In 2010, Toys “R” Us and its private equity owners asked the ten firms to compete for involvement in an initial public offering. The self-regulatory organization said that all of the institutions used equity research analysts when soliciting for this role.

The company asked the analysts to create presentations to determine what their views were on certain issues and if they matched up with the perspectives of the firms’ investment bankers. The firms knew that how well their analysts did with this would impact whether or not they would be given the underwriting role in the IPO.

European Commission Takes Action Against JPMorgan, UBS, RBS & Credit Swiss for Cartel Conduct

Published on: October 27, 2014 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The European Commission has found that Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS), JPMorgan (JPM), UBS AG (UBS) and Credit Suisse (CS) engaged in cartel behavior. Except for RBS, which received immunity from having to pay any fines by disclosing the cartel conduct, the other banks were fined $120 million for their activities. For cooperating, UBS and JPMorgan received fine reductions. Along with Credit Suisse, both banks got a 10% reduction for consenting to settle.

All four financial institutions are accused of running a cartel involving bid-ask spreads of Swiss franc interest-rate derivatives in the European Economic Area. Banks and companies typically use interest rate derivatives to manage interest rate fluctuation risks. A “bid-ask spread” is the difference between how much a market maker is willing to sell and purchase a product.

According to the European Commission, between May and September ’07, the four banks agreed to quote to third parties wider fixed bid-ask spreads on certain short-term, over-the-counter Swiss franc interest rate derivatives while keeping narrower spreads for trades between them. The purpose was to reduce their transaction costs and keep liquidity among themselves, as well as keep other market makers from competing on equal terms in the Swiss franc derivatives market. In one action, JPMorgan Chase (JPM) was fined €61.7 million euros for purportedly manipulating the Swiss franc Libor benchmark interest rate in an illegal cartel with RBS, which, again, had immunity from fees.

73 Swiss Banks Want the US to Modify Proposed Tax Amnesty Deals

Published on: October 25, 2014 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Lawyers for 73 Swiss banks are questioning the terms of self-disclosure program that would allow them to achieve amnesty for having helped Americans avoid paying taxes to the U.S. government. In a request to the Justice Department, the attorneys objected to certain terms while recommending changes to the model accord.

The program wins bank participants a guarantee that they won’t be prosecuted if they disclose accounts belonging to Americans that had previously gone undeclared. While the bank could still be slapped with penalties the equivalent of up to half of what was in the hidden funds, they might be able to negotiate the amount down.

One of the requirements under the plan is that banks have to cooperate with other foreign or domestic law enforcement agencies that become involved in any probe over a tax evasion matter. However, Bloomberg reports, according to a number of the lawyers, this requirement wasn’t in the program when some 100 firms signed up so they could win non-prosecution deals in exchange for their cooperation. The banks claim that such a stipulation turns a program having to do with U.S. tax issues into a global agreement that doesn’t include guarantees or safeguards for them.

Credit Suisse, Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan, and 16 Other Banks Agree to Swaps Contract Modifications to Assist Failed Firms

Published on: October 11, 2014 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPM), HSBC Holdings Plc (HSBA), Goldman Sachs Group Inc. (GS), Credit Suisse (CS), and fourteen other big banks have agreed to changes that will be made to swaps contracts. The modifications are designed to assist in the unwinding of firms that have failed.

Under the plan, which was announced by the International Swaps and Derivatives Association, banks’ counterparties that are in resolution proceedings will postpone contract termination rights and collateral demands. According to ISDA CEO Scott O’Malia, the industry initiative seeks to deal with the too-big-to-fail issue while lowing systemic risks.

Regulators have pressed for a pause in swaps collateral collection. They believe this could allow banks the time they need to recapitalize and prevent the panic that ensued after Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. failed in 2008. Regulators can then move the assets of a failing firm, as well as its other obligations, into a “bridge” company so that derivatives contracts won’t need to be unwound and asset sales won’t have to be conducted when the company is in trouble. Delaying when firms can terminate swaps after a company gets into trouble prevents assets from disappearing and payments from being sent out in disorderly, too swift fashion as a bank is dismantled.