Financial Firms

Institutional Investment Roundup: Madoff Ponzi Victims to Get 2nd Payout, Insurer’s MBS Lawsuit Against UBS Can Proceed, SEC Charges 2 in $10M Penny Stock Scam, & Hedge Fund Manager Found Guilty in $900K Insider Trading Scheme

Published on: August 29, 2012 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District has issued an order giving Irving Picard, the Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC liquidation trustee, permission to issue a second interim distribution to the victims of the Madoff Ponzi scam. Picard had asked to add $5.5 billion to the customer fund and issue a second payout of $1.5 billion to $2.4 billion to the investors that were harmed.

According to Bloomberg Businessweek, a $2.4 billion payout would be seven times more than what the bilked investors have been able to get back since Madoff, who is serving a 150-year prison term for his crimes, defrauded them. A huge part of the customer fund is on reserve because there are investors who have filed securities lawsuits contending they should be getting more.

Meantime, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York has decided that the mortgage-backed securities lawsuit filed by insurance company Assured Guaranty Municipal Corp. against UBS Real Estate Securities Inc. can proceed. The plaintiff contends that UBS misrepresented the quality of the loans that were underlying the MBS it insured in 2006 and 2007.

Merrill Lynch Agrees to Pay $40M Proposed Deferred Compensation Class Action Settlement to Ex-Brokers

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

Merrill Lynch (MER) has arrived at an “agreement in principle” to resolve the class action lawsuit filed by John Burnette and Scott Chambers over deferred compensation that they contend that the brokerage firm refused to pay them after it merged with Bank of America (BAC) in 2008 and they left its employ. About 1,400 brokers are part of this class. However, some 3,300 ex-Merrill brokers have submitted deferred compensation claims against the brokerage firm for the same reason.

Merrill had refused to give these employees their deferred compensation, which is what a broker usually gets paid for staying with a financial firm for a specific number of years, when they resigned after the merger. These brokers, however, cited “good reason” for their departure, which is another cause they can claim to receive this.

The class action settlement was presented to U.S. District Judge Alison Nathan at Manhattan federal court on Friday. She will decide whether to approve it, as well as certify the class according to the parties’ definition. However, it is not known at this time how many brokers will go for this settlement if it is approved.

It is not unusual for many to opt not to be part of a class action settlement and instead seek to obtain more money via an individual arbitration claim. Having an arbitration lawyer personally representing your case generally leads to bigger results. Already, over a thousand ex-Merrill brokers have filed their FINRA claims. Also, for an ex-Merrill broker whose deferred compensation was above six figures, they are likely to get much less by going the class action route. Meantime, ex-Merrill brokers with revenues that exceeded $500,000 during a certain timeframe before they left the financial firm cannot participate in a class action settlement. Neither can those that accepted bonuses and waived certain rights related to deferred compensation claims from Merrill after the deal with Bank of America.

That said, even the ex-Merrill brokers that decide to opt out of the class are likely to benefit from this settlement because it establishes a floor for payouts while serving as Merrill’s public acknowledgement that it had a financial duty to pay the former brokers upon their departure.

Under the class action settlement, the majority of advisers would get 40-60% of the value of their account. According to OnWallStreet.com, for a broker to receive 60%, advisors must have already made a request for reimbursement, whether via lawsuit, arbitration, or some other way and left the financial firm prior to January 30, 2010. To be eligible to receive 50%, these advisers too will have had to have made some type of legal action and resigned by June 30, 2010. If no action was taken, and the former broker still wants to opt in, they would turn in a form and seek 40% of compensation–dependent upon when they exited the firm. Other ex-advisors might also be able to receive 40 to 60% of payment depending on when they left Merrill, whether they had filed a deferred compensation claim, and in what compensation plans they were participants. Ex-dvisers that had an agreement with the Advisor Transition Program, however, would not be able to participate.)

Merrill to Make Good on Former Brokers’ Deferred Comp, On Wall Street, August 24, 2012
Merrill to pay $40 mln in deferred compensation suit, Reuters, August 25, 2012

More Blog Posts:
Merrill Lynch to Pay Brokers Over $10M for Alleged Fraud Over Deferred Compensation Plans, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, April 5, 2012

Advanced Equities Ordered by FINRA Arbitration Panel to Pay $4.5M to Ex-Broker, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, June 12, 2012

Claims Continue over MasterShare – Prudential Securities’ Deferred Compensation Plan, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, August 13, 2008 Continue Reading ›

2nd Circuit Affirms Dismissal of $18.5M Auction-Rate Securities Lawsuit Against Merrill Lynch Filed by Anschutz Corp.

Published on: August 23, 2012 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has affirmed a lower court’s ruling to dismiss the ARS lawsuit filed against Merrill Lynch (MER), Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner, and Smith Inc. ( MLPF&S), Moody’s Investor Services (MCO), and the McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. (MHP). Pursuant to state and federal law, plaintiff Anschutz Corp., which was left with $18.95 million of illiquid auction-rate securities when the market failed, had brought claims alleging market manipulation, negligent misrepresentation, and control person liability. The case is Anschutz Corp. v. Merrill Lynch & Co. Inc.

According to the court, Merrill Lynch underwrote a number of the Anchorage Finance ARS and Dutch Harbor ARS offerings in which Anschutz Corp. invested. To keep auction failures from happening, Merrill was also involved as a seller and buyer in the ARS auctions and had its own account. Placing these support bids in both ARS auctions allowed Merrill to make sure that they would clear regardless of the orders placed by others. The financial firm is said to have been aware that the ARS demand was not enough to “feed the auctions” unless it too made bids and that its clients did not know of the full extent of these practices.

Per its securities complaint, Anschutz contends that the description of Merrill’s ARS practices, which were published on the financial firm’s website beginning in 2006, were misleading, untrue, and “inadequate.” The plaintiff accused the credit rating agency defendants of giving the ARS offerings ratings that also were misleading and false and should have been lowered (at the latest) in early 2007 when Merrill knew or should have known that the ratings they did receive were unwarranted.

Amerigroup Shareholders Claim Goldman Sachs Advisers’ Had Conflicts of Interest That Influenced $4.5B Sale of Company to WellPoint

Published on: August 21, 2012 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Amerigroup Corp (AGP) shareholders are suing its board and Goldman Sachs Group (GS) because they say that the defendants’ conflicts of interest got in the way of other bids being considered before they agreed to let WellPoint Inc. (WLP) buy the managed care company for $4.9B.

The shareholders’ securities lawsuit was filed by the Louisiana Municipal Police Employees Retirement System and the City of Monroe Employees Retirement System in Michigan in the Delaware Court of Chancery, which has seen an increase in cases over whether certain deals shouldn’t go through because of questions surrounding whether the advisors involved had conflicts of interest.

According to the plaintiffs, a complex derivative transaction with Amerigroup created a financial incentive for Goldman to execute a deal quickly even if was not in the best interests of shareholders. The financial firm is accused of pushing for the WellPoint purchase instead of one with another company that was willing to pay more albeit bringing more regulatory issues with it that would take time to resolve.

The WellPoint deal, contend the pension funds, allowed for the possibility that Goldman would get a windfall profit on the derivative deal that would obligate Amerigroup to pay the financial firm $233.7M if an agreement on the sale was reached by August 13, as well as another “substantial” financial figure if by October 22 it was closed.

Now, Amerigroup’s shareholders want to block the sale of the company until the board improves the deal’s terms. They believe that the process that led to the deal, which could nearly double WellPoint’s Medicaid business, prevented the highest price possible from being considered and was “flawed.” They said that the derivative transaction was a conflict for Goldman because Amerigroup would be it much more than the $18.7M it was supposed to get from the WellPoint deal.

Although not defendants in this shareholder complaint, the firm’s management and Barclays (BCS) also had conflicts when arranging the company’s sale, claim the plaintiffs. They said that one could argue that WellPoint bought Amerigroup executives’ loyalty by indicating that they could stay in their positions after the acquisition and that following the merger they would be given $12M worth of WellPoint stock.

Under President Barack Obama’s health-care law, up to 17 million patients would be added under Medicaid. The sale would make WellPoint the largest provider of Medicaid coverage for the impoverished. UnitedHealth Group Inc. (UNH) would be the second largest. More healthcare company acquisitions are expected as competition for the growing Medicaid market continues.

Goldman ‘conflicted’ in Amerigroup/WellPoint deal-lawsuit, Reuters, August 17, 2012

WellPoint dragged into Goldman Sachs suit, IBJ.com, August 20, 2012

More Blog Posts:

Ex-Goldman Sachs Director Rajat Gupta Pleads Not Guilty to Insider Trading Charges, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, October 20, 2011

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, November 12, 2010

Shareholder Lawsuit Against Goldman Sachs CEO and Other Financial Firm Executives is Dismissed

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

In the US District Court for the Southern District of New York, the shareholder complaint against a number of Goldman Sachs Group (GS) executives, including CEO Lloyd Blankfein, COO Gary Cohn, CFO David Viniar, and ex-director Rajat Gupta, has been dismissed. The lead plaintiffs of this derivatives lawsuit are the pension fund Retirement Relief System of the City of Birmingham, Alabama and Goldman shareholder Michael Brautigam. They believe that the investment bank sponsored $162 billion of residential mortgage-backed securities while knowing that the loans backing them were in trouble. They say that Goldman then proceeded to sell $1.1 billion of the securities to Freddie Mac and Fannie May. Their securities complaint also accuses the defendants of getting out of the Troubled Asset Relief Program early so they could get paid more.

According to Judge William Pauley, the plaintiffs did not demonstrate that “red flags” had existed for bank directors to have been able to detect that there were problems with the “controls” of mortgage servicing business or that problematic loans were being packaged with RMBS. He also said that the shareholders did not prove that firm directors conducted themselves in bad faith when they allowed Goldman to pay back the $10 billion it had received from TARP early in 2009, which then got rid of the limits that had been placed on executive compensation.

Even with this shareholder complaint against Goldman tossed out, however, the investment bank is still dealing with other shareholder lawsuits. For example, they can file securities lawsuits claiming that they suffered financial losses after Goldman hid that there were conflicts of interest in the way several CDO transactions were put together.

Even With Securities Lawsuits Over MF Global’s $1.6 Billion Customer Funds Loss, Don’t Expect Criminal Charges

Published on: August 16, 2012 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The criminal probe into brokerage firm MF Global’s collapse and its inability to account for approximately $1.6 billion in customer funds will likely end with no criminal charges filed against anyone. Sources involved in the case are reportedly saying that investors are finding that not fraud, but “porous risk controls” and “chaos” caused the money to go missing.

At the time of MF Global’s bankruptcy filing almost 10 months ago, then-MF Global CEO Jon S. Corzine apologized to everyone saying that he also didn’t know what happen to the money. Meantime, thousands of customers saw their assets frozen.

According to a report by bankruptcy trustee James Giddens’, the brokerage company improperly used customer money that they are forbidden to tap so that it could stay in business and meet margin calls. Yet, still, is no one likely to be charged with wrongdoing?

Wells Fargo Securities Settles for Over $6.5M SEC Charges Over Allegedly Improper Sale of ABCP Investments with Risky MBS and CDOs

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

The SEC is charging Wells Fargo Securities, formerly known as Wells Fargo Brokerage Services, and former VP Shawn McMurtry for selling complex investments to institutional investors without fully comprehending the investments’ level of sophistication or disclosing all of the risks involved to these clients. To settle the securities charges, Wells Fargo will pay a penalty of over 6.5 million, $16,571.96 in prejudgment interest, and $65,000 in disgorgement.

According to the Commission, Wells Fargo engaged in the improper sale of asset-backed commercial paper that had been structured with risky collateralized debt obligations and mortgage-backed securities to non-profits, municipalities, and other clients. The SEC contends that the financial firm did not secure enough information about the instruments, even failing to go through the investment private placement memoranda (and the risk disclosures in them), and instead relied on credit ratings. With this alleged lack of comprehension of the actual nature of these investment vehicles and the risks and volatility involved, as well as having no basis for making such recommendations, Wells Fargo’s Institutional Brokerage and Sales Division representatives went ahead and recommended the instruments to certain investors who had generally conservative investment objectives.

These allegedly improper sales happened between January and August 2007 when representatives recommended to certain institutional investors that they buy ABCP that were structured investment vehicles that were primarily CDO and MBS-backed (SIVs and SIV-Lites). Unfortunately, a number of the investors that did buy the SIV-issued ABCP, per Wells Fargo’s recommendation, lost money when 3 of these programs defaulted that same year.

Stockbroker Securities Roundup: Criminal Convictions Vacated Against Six Charged in Front Running Scam and Citigroup Broker Cleared in $1B CDO Deal SEC Case

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

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second has vacated the convictions of six brokers who were criminally charged in a front-running scam to give day traders privileged information via brokerage firms’ squawk boxes. The case is United States v. Mahaffy.

Judge Barrington Parker said that confidence in the jury’s verdict was undermined because the government did not disclose a number of SEC deposition transcripts “pursuant to Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963).” Also, noting that there were flaws in the instructions that the jury was given, the second circuit vacated the honest-services fraud convictions that they had issued against the defendant.

The brokers, who were employed by different brokerage firms, had been charged for conspiring to provide A.B. Watley day traders confidential data about securities transactions. This entailed putting phone receivers close to the broker-dealers internal speaker systems so that the traders could make trades in the securities that were squawked before the customer orders were executed.

Morgan Stanley May Have To Shut Down Brokerage Offices, Say Sources

Published on: August 8, 2012 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Reuters is reporting that sources aware of internal talks taking place at Morgan Stanley (MS) are saying that the financial firm is thinking about shutting down brokerage offices as part of its efforts to increase profit margins in its retail brokerage arm. It also is reportedly considering laying off support employees and making branch managers work as revenues to bring in more money.

Already, Morgan Stanley has consolidated regional manager ranks down from 19, and last week, it narrowed its regions from 16 to 12. More measures to reduce expenses are likely.

Also, last month, the financial firm announced more layoffs when it said that its payroll would likely shrink by another 1,000 employees in 2012 so that it could employ staff levels that were 7% lower than what they were in December 2011. The news came after its second–quarter earnings showed a step decline, while revenue in its asset management, wealth management, and investment banking business saw a large drop, with overall revenue declining 24% to $6.95 billion
The financial firm appears determined to cut spending in its brokerage division now that its close to 17,000 brokers were moved to a common technology platform. Offices from the Morgan Stanley and Smith Barney networks that are considered redundant will likely be the ones shut down, which could affect up to 100 offices. (As of the end of June 2012, Morgan Stanley Smith Barney had 740 offices. Consider that in the middle of 2009, it had over 950 branches in the US alone.) Its bond trading business performed the worst, dropping in revenue by 60% to $770 million-a significantly larger descent than other big banks on Wall Street.

The financial firm is trying, by December 2014, to reduce its risk weighted assets by 30% from the $346.79 billion levels where they were last September. As of June 30, Morgan Stanley had $319.19 billion in risk-weighted assets. It also is contending with its bond trading business declining because there had been the threat of a severe debt rating downgrade, as well as criticism over the way it handled the Facebook (FB) IPO. Fortunately for the financial firm, Moody’s Investors Service only downgraded the bank to “Baa1,” which is three steps over junk.

Morgan Stanley is not the only big bank to have to cut costs after quarterly results were reported. Goldman Sachs Group. Inc. (GS) (now with a $500 million cost-saving target), Deutsche Bank AG (DBK), and Bank of America Corp. (BAC) also made staff cuts in their underwriting and trading businesses. 2011 was the first time that banks didn’t give some employees bonuses.

With so much uncertainty, now, more than ever financial representatives must make sure that they invest their clients’ money wisely and refrain from any type of misconduct or poor decisions that could cause huge losses. At Shepherd Smith Edwards and Kantas, LTD, LLP, we are here to fight for our clients’ recovery from losses stemming from securities fraud.

Morgan Stanley Considers Shutting Offices, Cutting Staff: Sources, CNBC/Reuters, August 8, 2012

Morgan Stanley plans further staff cuts on weak outlook, Reuters, July 19, 2012

Deutsche Bank Said To Consider Staff Cuts At Investment Bank, Bloomberg, July 19, 2012

More Blog Posts:
Plaintiff Says Morgan Stanley Fired Him for Calling out Investment Adviser Who Was Churning Accounts and Bilking Investors, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, August 7, 2012

Morgan Stanley Smith Barney Ordered by FINRA Arbitration Panel to Pay $5M Over Allegedly False Promises Made To Brokers Recruited from UBS AG, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, June 22, 2012

Ex-Morgan Stanley Smith Barney Broker Settles with FINRA for Allegedly Failing to Notify Firm of Previous Arrest, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, June 16, 2012 Continue Reading ›

Plaintiff Says Morgan Stanley Fired Him for Calling out Investment Adviser Who Was Churning Accounts and Bilking Investors

Published on: August 7, 2012 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Clifford Jagodzinski has filed a lawsuit against Morgan Stanley & Co. (MS), Morgan Stanley Smith Barney, and Citigroup (C). He claims that he was fired from his job at Morgan Stanley as a complex risk officer because he reported that an investment adviser was churning accounts and earning tens of thousands of dollars while defrauding clients. Jagodzinski filed his case in federal court.

He contends that even though he always received excellent job evaluations during the six years he worked for Morgan Stanley, he was terminated as an employee 10 days after he told supervisors that unless the financial firm started reporting unauthorized trades it would be violating SEC regulations. Jagodzinski said that the financial firm told him to sign a confidentiality agreement with a non-disparagement clause and then proceeded to hurt his career by claiming that he was let go because of poor performance. He wants reinstatement and punitive and compensatory damages of over $1 million for whistleblower violations.

Jagodzinski believes that his trouble started after he told his supervisors, Ben Firestein and David Turetzky, that Harvey Kadden, one of the firm’s new wealth managers, was allegedly flipping preferred securities so that he could make tens of thousands of dollars in commissions, while causing his clients to sustain financial losses or make little gains as he exposed them to risks that could have been avoided. Jagodzinski said that while he was initially praised for identifying the alleged misconduct, his supervisors told him not to look into the matter further. He believes this is because Morgan Stanley had given Kadden a $25 million guarantee, and due to their high expectations of him, they didn’t want to hurt his book of business.

Jagodzinski said that he encountered similar resistance when he notified the financial firm of other violations, including those involving Bill Siegel, another financial adviser that he accused of making unauthorized trades. Once again, he says he was told not to investigate or report the alleged violations further-even though (he says) Siegel admitted to making 80 unauthorized trades for one client and other ones for other clients. Although Turetsky allegedly told him that this was because he didn’t want Siegel fired, Jagodzinski suspects that his supervisor was more concerned that the defendants would have to pay penalties and fines. He also said that when he reported his concerns that yet another financial adviser was not just engaging in improper treasury trades but also abusing drugs, his worries were again brushed aside.

An employee who gets fired for blowing the whistle on a company or a coworker can have grounds for filing a wrongful termination lawsuit. If the wronged employee is a whistleblower, he is entitled to certain protections, which include being shielded from retaliation on the job for stepping forward and doing what is right.

Worker Says He Caught Morgan Stanley in the Act, Courthouse News Service, August 3, 2012

Ex-Morgan Stanley Risk Officer Sues Bank Over Firing, Bloomberg, August 1, 2012

More Blog Posts:
Dodd-Frank Whistleblower Protection Amendment Must Be Applied Retroactively, Said District Court, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, July 21, 2012

SEC’s Office of the Whistleblower In Early Phase of Evaluating Reward Claims, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, March 23, 2012

District Court Denies UBS Summary Judgment in Sarbanes-Oxley Whistleblower Lawsuit, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, June 27, 2012 Continue Reading ›