Articles Posted in Financial Firms

JPMorgan Chase Must Pay Oil Heiress’s Trust $18M For Derivatives Investments, Account Mismanagement, and Unsuitable Investment Advice

Published on: October 12, 2012 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

JPMorgan Chase (JPM) must pay the trust of oil heiress Carolyn S. Burford $18 million for the “grossly negligent and reckless” way that the financial firm handled the account. In Tulsa County District Court in Oklahoma, Judge Linda G. Morrissey said that beneficiary Ann Fletcher was persuaded to invest in derivatives that were unsuitable for the trust, causing it to sustain significant losses. The judge is also ordering punitive damages to be determined at a later date, as well as repayment of the trust’s legal expenses.

Fletcher, now 75, is the daughter of Burford, who passed away in 1996. The trust was set up in 1955 by Burford’s parents. Burford’s dad is the founder of Kelly Oil and her mother had connections to another oil company.

Between 2000 and 2005, the trust and JPMorgan, which gained management over the trust after a number of bank mergers and oversaw it until 2006, got into a number of variable prepaid forward contracts. These derivatives were pitched to the trust as way for it to make more income. However, according to the court, Fletcher was cognitively impaired and experiencing medical problems when the bank recommended that the trust buy the derivatives. A year before, she even expressed in a written letter to the bank that she was scared about getting involved in “puts & calls.” She eventually chose to trust their recommendation that she buy them.

Judge Morrisey believes that the bank failed to properly explain the product to its client while neglecting to reveal that it stood to benefit from the transaction. She also says that when JPMorgan invested the contracts’ proceeds in its own investment products, which she described as “double dipping,” it was in breach of fiduciary duty. JPMorgan also billed the trust transaction investment fees and corporate trustee fees.

Morrisey said that because the bank gives employees incentives to make it revenue, this creates a conflict of interest for those that are advising and managing fiduciary accounts. She said that the financial misconduct that occurred in this securities case exhibits JPMorgan’s disregard of its clients, especially when it knew, or if it didn’t then was reckless in not knowing, that such conduct was occurring.

Investors that purchase variable prepaid contracts generally consent to give a number of the stock shares to the brokerage firm in the future. Such a deal can protect investors from certain losses and can be accompanied by tax benefits. However, they can also lead to additional fees. With Burford’s trust, however, the trustee is not allowed to sell its original stocks. The court said that JPMorgan failed to tell Fletcher that getting involved in the contracts could lead to the sale of that stock.
JPMorgan says it disagrees with the court’s ruling and it may appeal.

JPMorgan Must Pay $18 Million to Heiress Over Derivatives, Bloomberg, October 10, 2012

JP Morgan Ordered to Pay $18 Million to Oil Heiress’s Trust, New York Times, October 10, 2012

More Blog Posts:
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
Ex-Employee Accuses Bank of America of Securities Fraud Involving Complex Derivatives Products, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, October 29, 2010

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 Continue Reading ›

FINRA Securities Fraud Roundup: Guggenheim Securities Fined $800K For Failure to Supervise CDO Traders, Brokerage Firm Managing TIC Securities Doesn’t Have to Arbitrate Investor Claims, & Investor Award in Morgan Keegan Funds is Upheld

Published on: October 12, 2012 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

FINRA is fining Guggenheim Securities, LLC $800,000 for allegedly not supervising two collateralized debt obligation traders accused of hiding a trading loss. The traders are Alexander Rekeda and Timothy Day. Rekeda, who is the financial firm’s ex-CDO Desk head, has to pay $50,000 and is suspended for a year. Day’s fine is $20,000 and he received a four month suspension. By settling, none of the parties are denying or admitting to the FINRA securities charges.

Due to a failed trade, the CDO Desk at Guggenheim acquired a €5,000,000 junk-rated tranche of a CLO in October 2008. When the desk was unable to sell the position, Rekeda and Day convinced a hedged fund client to buy the collateralized loan obligation for $950,000 more than it had initially agreed to pay by misrepresenting the CLA. FINRA said that to conceal the CLO position’s trading loss, the two traders gave the customer order tickets that upped the CLO position’s price and lowered the price of other positions. Day, allegedly at Rekeda’s order, is accused of lying to the client when the latter asked about the price modifications by saying that the CLO position had a third-party seller that had settled the trade at a higher price and wanted the customer to pay this rate. The client agreed, and, in exchange, Day and Rekeda said that they would compensate the customer via other transactions, including waiving the fees owed related to resecuritization transactions, adjusting the prices on several other CLO trades, and providing a payment in cash. No records, however, indicate that these transactions were related to the CLO overpayment.

In other FINRA securities news, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit has affirmed a district court’s ruling that a broker-dealer that acted as the managing broker-dealer in a Tenant in Common securities cannot be compelled to arbitrate claims filed by investors of the failed enterprise. In Berthel Fisher & Co. Financial Services Inc. v. Larmon, Judge Michael Melloy agreed that for the SRO’s purposes, the investors are not the financial firm’s “customers.”

Wells Fargo and Wachovia Sued by LBBW Luxemburg Over Alleged $1.5B Securities Fraud

Published on: October 6, 2012 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

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

New York’s Attorney General Sues JP Morgan Chase & Co. Over Alleged MBS Financial Fraud by Its Bear Stearns Unit

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

NY Attorney General Eric Schneiderman is suing J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. (JPM) over MBS fraud that was allegedly committed by its Bear Stearns unit. This is the first securities lawsuit to be brought under the sponsorship of the Residential Mortgage-Backed Securities Working Group, which is made up of prosecutors and regulators and was formed by President Barack Obama. The action is seeking damages that were either a direct or an indirect result of “fraudulent and deceptive acts.”

The group is contending that investors sustained $22.5 billion in losses involving Bear Stearns Cos.-issued securities before the investment bank almost failed in 2008 and JP Morgan ended up taking it over. Mortgage securitizations involving subprime and Alt A mortgages from between 2005 and 2007 are at the center of the case.

According to the MBS fraud lawsuit, Bear Stearns committed financial fraud against investors when it packaged and sold mortgages that it knew (or should have known) had a good chance of defaulting. The lawsuit even quotes messages and emails supposedly sent internally at Bear Stearns showing that bank employees knew the investments they were selling were of poor quality. Schneiderman is alleging that the mortgage unit “systematically failed” when assessing loans, disregarded defects that were found, and failed to inform investors about review procedures or problems involving the loans.

Rather than focusing on a single transaction, the New York securities fraud lawsuit is claiming financial fraud across the firm. It also is applying New York State’s Martin Act, which doesn’t mandate that in order to win the case prosecutors must prove that a financial firm meant to commit the alleged fraud. The task force intends to use this case to bring other claims on a firm-wide basis. Schneiderman said that the group is “looking at tens of billions of dollars” in damages and not just by one financial firm.

Federal and state regulators have been working hard since 2008 to find out whether banks just made poor decisions or actually broke securities laws related to the mortgage securities that failed in the economic crisis. Recent victories against large firms include Bank of America Corp. (BAC) consenting to pay $2.43 billion to settle class action securities allegations accusing it of misleading investors about the Merrill Lynch & Co. (MER) acquisition. However, the bank settled without admitting or denying wrongdoing.

Regarding this New York MBS case against JP Morgan Chase, a spokesperson for the financial firm said it was “disappointed” with the civil action while making it clear that the alleged activities in question occurred before it bought Bear Stearns.

JP Morgan Sued on Mortgage Bonds, The Wall Street Journal, October 1, 2012

NY Attorney General Says More Suits Will Follow JPMorgan, Bloomberg, October 2, 2012

Residential Mortgage-Backed Securities Working Group Members Announce First Legal Action, Justice.gov, October 2, 2012

Residential Mortgage Backed Securities Fraud Working Group

Martin Act (PDF)

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

Morgan Keegan to Pay $9.2M to Investors in Texas Securities Fraud Case Involving Risky Bond Funds, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, October 6, 2010
Class Action MBS Securities Lawsuit Against Goldman Sachs is Reinstated by 2nd Circuit, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, September 14, 2012 Continue Reading ›

US Supreme Court Considers Hearing Stanford Ponzi Lawsuits

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

The Supreme Court’s justices are looking to the Obama administration for advice about an appeal made to a ruling allowing the victims of R. Allen Stanford’s $7 billion Ponzi fraud can pursue law firms, insurance brokers, and outside parties for damages. The defendants, third party firms, want the court to stop the securities lawsuits, which are based on Texas and Louisiana law. If the court were to hear the appeals, it would put to test the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act, which was enacted so that if a class action lawsuit comes from a misrepresentation issued “in connection” with a covered security’s sale or purchase, investors cannot go to state courts to get around federal limits placed on such claims. The appeals is asking how close that connection has to be for a state lawsuit to be barred.

Investors have been trying to get back the money they lost in Stanford’s Ponzi fraud, which involved the sale of CDs from his Antigua bank. Numerous securities lawsuits have been filed, and at Shepherd Smith Edwards and Kantas, LTD, LLP, our Texas securities fraud lawyers represent victims of the Stanford Ponzi scam and other financial schemes.

Our Texas securities fraud law firm also continues to provide updates on the different Stanford-related securities litigation on our blog sites:

Why Were Two Former Morgan Stanley Smith Barney Brokers Not Named As Defendants in Securities Lawsuit by State Regulators Over $6M Now Missing From Wisconsin Funeral Trust?

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

Wisconsin regulators are suing Wisconsin Funeral Directors Association Inc. and Fiduciary Partners Inc. for allegedly improperly investing the money from a $48 million Wisconsin Funeral Trust. With a possible long-term deficit of $21 million, close to $6 million in investor money has already been lost. However, our stockbroker fraud law firm wants to know why two former Morgan Stanley Smith Barney brokers-brothers Michael Hull and Patrick Hull-are not defendants in this case. The two brothers managed the trust until earlier this month, when a circuit court judge assigned a receiver to take charge of liquidating the fund. They now run bluepoint Investment Council, LLC.

The trust is funded by about 10,500 prepaid contracts. According to state Department of Justice officials, customers who bought prepaid funeral policy plans because they were under the impression that their money would be placed in CDs, government bonds, and low risk investments and that they would get a guaranteed, modest return rate. Instead, the trust ended up losing millions in risky investments. (The Department of Financial Institutions is now ordering a securities enforcement action after it concluded that the funds, which were in the trust, were invested in a manner that violated state law.) Fiduciary Partners Trust, the trust’s trustee, has said that it was never involved in how the trust’s investments were managed or marketed and that this was the job of the Wisconsin Funeral Directors Association and the investment management firms.

“The information which has been reported leaves us with more questions than answers as to Morgan Stanley and its former brokers,” said stockbroker fraud lawyer William Shepherd. “In any event, any claims against the firm and/or brokers would likely be excluded from court action by the trust because of a mandatory FINRA arbitration agreement.”

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

Merrill Lynch Told to Pay $3.6M to Brazilian Heiress for Brother’s Alleged $389M in Unauthorized Trading

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

A Financial Industry Regulatory Authority panel is ordering Merrill Lynch (MER), a Bank of America Corp. (BAC) unit, to pay $3.6 million to a Brazilian heiress who contends that she lost millions of dollars because of unauthorized trades that her brother made in her account. The securities arbitration case was submitted on behalf of Sophin Investments SA, which was established to manage Camelia Nasser de Kassin’s inheritance from a relative.

Sophin contended that Merrill allowed Camelia’s brother, Ezequiel Nasser, to make unauthorized trades worth $389 million using her accounts at two Merrill Lynch units. He allegedly invested in high risk securities, including naked puts in Lehman Brothers and Bear Stearns (BSC) that created a deficit of at least $8 million.

The plaintiff claimed inadequate supervision, civil fraud, unauthorized trading, and other alleged wrongdoings, and asked for compensatory damages of $21 million for the $9.5 million that had been placed in the accounts, $9.5 million as an investment return, and the rest for commissions that went to Merrill. The financial firm then submitted a counterclaim alleging that their contract together had been breached. It asked the FINRA panel for almost $2.5 million in damages for the deficit in Sophin’s retail account and close to $3 million for the swap account. Merrill also filed claims against Marc Bonnant, who is the lawyer who set up the accounts on Sophin’s behalf, as well as against Ezequiel.

The FINRA panel found both Sophin and Merrill liable. While it told Merrill to pay $6.1 million in compensatory damages to Sophin, the latter was told to pay the financial firm $2.5 million-hence the $3.6 million that Merrill was ultimately ordered to pay Sophin. Also, while the panel acknowledged that Bonnant paid less than adequate attention to his fiduciary duties to Sophin, it said that Merrill exhibited “lapses” in hits own supervising and record keeping.

The claims made against Ezequiel Nasser by Merrill were denied. The arbitration panel said Bonnant, who has been based in Europe, isn’t under its jurisdiction. (Merrill has accused him of authorizing the trades that it had made for Sophin and misrepresenting the client’s investment experience, financial state, and tolerance for risk.)

This case is just one aspect of the bigger dispute between Merrill Lynch and members of the Nasser banking family over alleged trading losses. For example, in 2008, the financial firm sued the Nassers for huge trading losses that result in a $99 million judgment. A New York appeals court upheld that ruling.

Unauthorized Trades
A broker or advisor has to get an investor’s permission to sell or buy securities for an investor. Otherwise, the trade is not authorized. When “trading authorization” is obtained to sell or buy in that client’s account, trades can be made without getting in touch with the client. However, this is a limited power of attorney.

Unfortunately, many investors suffer losses because of unauthorized trades.

Merrill Lynch must pay $3.6 million to Brazilian banking heiress, Merrill Lynch, Reuters, September 12, 2012

Merrill Lynch Ordered to Pay $3.6 Million to Brazilian Heiress, Wall Street Journal, September 12, 2012

Bonnant V. Merrill Lynch (PDF)

More Blog Posts:
Shepherd Smith Edwards and Kantas LLP Pursue Securities Fraud Cases Against Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner, & Smith, Purshe Kaplan Sterling Investments, and First Allied Securities, Inc., Stockbroker Fraud Blog, May 10, 2012

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

Shepherd Smith Edwards and Kantas LLP Pursue Securities Fraud Cases Against Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner, & Smith, Purshe Kaplan Sterling Investments, and First Allied Securities, Inc., Stockbroker Fraud Blog, May 10, 2012 Continue Reading ›

Rodman & Renshaw Exits Brokerage Business

Published on: September 19, 2012 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Rodman & Renshaw LLC is getting out of the brokerage business. It turned in its Form BDW – the Uniform Request for Withdrawal of Broker Dealer- to the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority on Friday. Just two days before, on September 12, the brokerage firm, which is a Direct Markets Holdings Subsidiary, told the SRO that it isn’t in compliance anymore with the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Net Capital Rule 15c3-1. Because of this, besides liquidating transactions, the once leading investment bank will no longer be involved in the securities business. Rodman & Renshaw may also sell its assets.

Just last month, FINRA fined Rodman & Renshaw $315,000 for alleged supervisory and information barrier violations involving interactions that took place between its investment banking and research functions. FINRA maintains that because of supervisory deficiencies, at least two incidents occurred involving a research analyst taking part in attempts to solicit investment banking business and an incident involving another research analyst trying to organize a payment from a public company happened. Both individuals have been sanctioned and will serve out suspensions.

According to Investment News, failing to meet regulatory-net-capital levels is often a sign that the end is near for a financial firm-unless it manages to recoup and stay in operation. Since the 2008 economic crisis, a number of brokers-dealers have struggled to keep their reserves up. Unfortunately, hundreds of brokerage firms have been unable to do so, and many of them have had to close down. FINRA says that in the last five year, there has been a 13% drop in the number of broker-dealers. Compare the 4,370 brokerage firms in operation last month to the 5,005 that were in business in 2007.

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)