Articles Posted in Financial Firms

Dismissal of Double Derivative Delaware Securities Lawsuits Over The Bank of America-Merrill Lynch Merger is Affirmed by the Second Circuit

Published on: December 22, 2012 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has affirmed the dismissal of Lambrecht v. O’Neal and Sollins v. O’Neal, two double derivative actions that were brought under Delaware law for Bank of America Corp. (BAC) and its subsidiary Merrill Lynch & Co. The cases were brought by Merrill shareholders contending wrongdoing. (Because Bank of America acquired Merrill, following the stock-for-stock swap, these shareholders are now BofA shareholders.)

The actions were an attempt to make Bank of America board of directors mandate that Merrill sue some of the subsidiary’s officials over allegedly reckless investments that were made. Finding that the actions were a result of unprecedented losses experienced by Merrill because it had invested aggressively in mortgage-baked securities (including collateralized debt obligations) before it was acquired by Bank of America, the district law court dismissed both actions for different but related reasons under Delaware law. In Sollins, the court said that the plaintiff’s predecessor-in-interest submitted the action without making presuit demand on the board yet did not demand futility. As for the Lambrecht action, while that lawsuit made three demands on the Bank of America board, it did not demonstrate that the bank had wrongfully denied the request that claims be made against ex-Merrill officials.

The Second Circuit, in its unpublished summary order, said that it sees no error in the rulings made by the district court. The appeals court noted that while Sollins suggested that Bank of America was “complicit” in Merrill’s alleged pre-merger wrongdoing involving the subprime market by letting the latter issue bonuses at 2007 levels, consenting to indemnify Merrill directors over pre-merger wrongdoing, approving the merger without figuring out Merrill’s growing losses, sealing the deal despite serious misgivings about the firm’s financial state, and not doing a good enough job of notifying investors about losses, his arguments are not properly placed. The district court was therefore correct in stating that the plaintiff cannot “boostrap” his claims against Merrill related to the subprime market onto the merger-related allegations against Bank of America to get around the demand request.

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

Published on: December 17, 2012 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

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

CFTC Securities Headlines: Goldman Sachs Fined For Inadequate Broker Supervision in $118M Fraud, Firms Named in Precious Metal Scam, & Defendants to Pay $1.8M Over Off-Exchange Foreign Currency Scheme

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

Goldman Sachs Fined$1.5 Inadequate Supervision in $118M Fraud
The Commodity Futures Trading Commission says that Goldman Sachs (GS) must pay $1.5M because it did not properly supervise trader Matthew Marshall Taylor, who allegedly got around internal systems to manually make fabricated trades that went straight to the financial firms’ records and books and not the exchange. Taylor is accused of defrauding the bank, which lost about $118.4M.

The agency says that Goldman failed to make sure that its risk management, supervision, and compliance programs were in alignment with its duties to diligently oversee its business as a registrant of the Commission. However, CFTC commissioner Bart Chilton has criticized the $1.5M fine, describing it as a wrist slap.

CFTC Names Firms and Individuals in Precious Metal Scam The Commission has filed a civil injunctive enforcement action against a number of firms, including Hunter Wise Credit, LLC, Lloyds Commodities Credit Company, Hard Asset Lending Group, Blackstone Metals Group, LLC, CD Hopkins Financial, Newbridge Alliance Inc., Harold Edward Martin Jr., United States Capital Trust, LLC, as well as related entities, and Fred Jager, Frank Gaudino, James Burbage, Chadewick Hopkins, Baris Keser, David A. Moore, and John King. They are accused of fraudulently marketing off-exchange commodity contracts that were illegal. Also, Hunter Wise Commodities, which allegedly orchestrated the fraud, is accused of having gotten least $46M in client funds since July of last year.

The defendants allegedly claimed that they were selling physical metals to retail clients in retail commodity transactions and that they would arrange loans for the balance of the purchase price. Customers were supposed to make down payments at 25% of the complete buying price for certain quantities of metal, which were to be placed in a safe depository. The CFTC contends, however, says that not only were certain statements found in the investment contract untrue, but also the transactions were merely paper transactions with no actual metals involved.

Defendants to Pay $1.8M in Off-Exchange Foreign Currency Scheme
Following a CFTC anti-fraud enforcement action, a permanent injunction order and default judgment has been issued against Forex Capital Trading Partners, Inc., Forex Capital Trading Group Inc., and Highland Stone Capital Management, LLC requiring that they pay a penalty of over $1.3M and disgorge $450,764 to benefit clients who were defrauded. The Commission says that the three firms made fraudulent solicitations to 106 clients that invested over $2.8M in forex trading.

These solicitations were allegedly made with false claims that they were engaging in this type of trading had been profitable for several years, including a falsely reported 51.94% customer gain in 2010, which was a year when the investors actually lost over 1.2M. In fact, says the Commission, customers actually lost over 93% of total invested principal via the defendants’ customer trading.

CFTC Press Room

More Blog Posts:
CFTC Commissioner Proposes Plan to Give Futures Customers SIPC-Like Protections, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, August 14, 2012

CFTC Files Texas Securities Fraud Against TC Credit Services and its Houston Owner Over $1.4M Commodity Pool Scam, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, July 17, 2012
SEC and CFTC Say They Found Out About JPMorgan’s $2B Trading Loss Through Media, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, May 31, 2012 Continue Reading ›

Securities Headlines: Credit Suisse & J.P. Morgan to Pay $400M Over RMBS Misstatements, Fox Network’s FOIA Request for AIG Emails Granted, Expedited Discovery Approved in Real Estate ‘Flipper’ Case, & NY Brokerage Owner is Linked to Affinity Scam

Published on: December 13, 2012 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Credit Suisse & J.P. Morgan to Pay $400M Over RMBS Misstatements

In SEC v. J.P. Morgan, the financial firm is accused of allegedly misstating information related to approximately 620 subprime mortgage loans’ delinquency status. The loans gave collateral for a $1.8M residential mortgage-backed securities offering that J.P. Morgan (JPM) underwrote six years ago and from which it was paid over $2.7 million in fees while investors lost at least $37 million. Now, the firm has agreed to pay nearly $297M to settle the allegations (without denying or admitting to them). The Commission is also accusing J.P. Morgan-owned Bear Stearns Cos. LLC of failing to disclose from 2005 to 2007 that it kept financial settlements from mortgage loan originators on problem loans that it sold into RMBS trusts.

Also settling RMBS Misstatement allegations with the regulator is Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC. In an administrative order, the SEC claims that between 2005 and 2010 the financial firm did not accurately disclose that it would keep cash from claims it settled against mortgage loan originators for issues involving loans that it had sold into RMBS trusts. Credit Suisse also allegedly misled investors about when it intended to buy back loans from trusts if those that borrowed did not make the initial payment. The firm has agreed to settle for $120M and is also not denying or admitting to the allegedly negligent conduct.

LIBOR Investigation Leads to Three Arrests

Published on: December 11, 2012 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

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.

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.

Goldman Sachs Ordered to Arbitrate Underwriting Dispute Involving $210M in Auction-Rate Securities

Published on: December 4, 2012 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada has rejected Goldman Sachs & Co.’s (GS) bid to arbitrate its dispute with the city of Reno, Nevada. The financial firm had sought to stop a Financial Industry Regulatory Authority proceeding over its underwriting of $210 million in ARS. Per Judge Robert Jones, even though there was no arbitration agreement, that the city paid Goldman to facilitate the securities’ auctions makes Reno a customer of a FINRA firm member for the purposes of arbitration. The case is Goldman Sachs & Co. v. City of Reno.

Recounts the court, Reno had issued about $210 million in auction-rate securities to fund a number of projects in 2005 and 2006. Pursuant to their underwriter and broker-dealer agreements together, Goldman was to underwrite and broker the ARS. While the broker-dealer arrangement included a forum selection clause allowing for any lawsuits stemming from the agreement to be heard in Nevada district court, it did not (nor did the underwriter agreement), come with an arbitration provision.

Reno began FINRA arbitration proceedings against the brokerage firm in early 2012 claiming that Goldman had committed wrongdoing under the terms of the agreements. Goldman countered with this case, requesting that the court find that the FINRA forum was inappropriate for resolving this dispute, per the forum selection clause, and because there was no arbitration clause between the two parties. Goldman also sought preliminary injunction against the proceedings.

The district court said no to the request for relief, observing that a party that wants injunctive relief has to show that success on the merits was likely, which it said Goldman did not do. It also said that, according to FINRA arbitration code, parties have to arbitrate any dispute between a member and its customer that involves the member’s business activities. As for the forum selection clauses found in the broker-dealer agreement, the court said that although these don’t directly address the matter of arbitration, they also don’t disallow for arbitration if that is what is needed.

The court disagreed with Goldman’s contention that FINRA rules don’t apply because the ARS are municipal securities and therefore influenced by Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board rules, which don’t include muni issuers under the customer definition. It pointed out that, according to the SEC, MSRB members are also subject to FINRA arbitration just like FINRA members. Also, Goldman is both an MSRB member and a FINRA member.

Judge Jones noted that even if FINRA finds that Reno’s claims have more to do with the brokerage firm’s underwriting than its auction facilitation services, the issue of arbitrability is for the arbitrator and not the court.

Goldman Sachs & Co. v. City of Reno, D. Nev, Dockets, Justia

Goldman Must Arbitrate Dispute With City of Reno Over ARS Underwriting, Bloomberg BNA, November 30, 2012

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

Texas Securities Fraud: BNY Mellon Capital Markets LLC Settles Allegations of Rigged Bond Bidding for $1.3M, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, January 24, 2012 Continue Reading ›

SEC’s Antifraud Claim Against Goldman Sachs Executive Fabrice Tourre Won’t Be Reinstated, Says District Court

Published on: December 3, 2012 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

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.

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

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

Published on: November 27, 2012 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

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

More Blog Posts:

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

Securities Roundup: BP Settles for $525M SEC Lawsuit Over Deepwater Horizon Spill Disclosures, Ex-OIG Official Says He Was Fired for Exposing Misconduct, Ex-Merrill Lynch Advisor Accused of Defrauding Elderly Client, & Trader Pleads Guilty to $28M Fraud

Published on: November 22, 2012 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

BP Plc. has consented to settle for $525 million Securities and Exchange Commission allegations that it gave the agency and investors misleading information about the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill. If approved, this would be the third biggest penalty in SEC history.

According to the Commission, during the crisis the oil giant issued fraudulent statements about how much oil was flowing on a daily basis from the Deepwater Horizon rig into the Gulf of Mexico, including underestimating this rate by up to 5,000 oil barrels a day even though it allegedly had internal data noting that possible flow rates could be up to 146,000 barrels daily. Even after a government task force later determined that 52,700 to 62,200 oil barrels were flowing out a day, BP allegedly never modified the omissions or misrepresentations it made in SEC filings.

In other SEC news, David Weber, one of its ex-Office of Inspector General officials, is suing the agency and Chairman Mary Schapiro for allegedly getting back at him for disclosing misconduct that had been taking place at the Commission. Weber contends that SEC staff spoke about him to the media in a “malicious and defamatory” manner and leaked his personal information because he not only disclosed that ex-SEC Inspector General H. David Kotz had engaged in misconduct that placed several OIG investigations at peril, but also he revealed that there were cyber security breaches at the agency.