Financial Firms

Ex-MF Global CEO John Corzine Says Bankruptcy Trustee’s Bid to Join Investors’ Class Action Securities Litigation is Hurting His Defense

Published on: September 5, 2012 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

According to Jon Corzine, the ex-CEO of MF Global Holdings Ltd. (MFGLQ), bankruptcy trustee James Giddens’s efforts to be part of some of the investor class action lawsuits against the firm’s former and current executives are negatively impacting his defense. Corzine, who is also Goldman Sachs Group Inc.’s (GS) (GS) former co-chairman, left his position at MF Global last year, mere days after the brokerage giant failed in the wake of losses it sustained on European sovereign debt and its overwhelming inability to account for about $1.6 billion in customer funds. MF Global would go on to file for bankruptcy protection.

Rather than file his own securities lawsuit, Giddens has decided to work with the lawyers of the firm’s customers. He won’t join them as a plaintiff but he will “assign” his legal claims to their attorneys and fully participate in their cases. Giddens considers it totally “appropriate” for his office to join forces with the plaintiffs’ securities fraud lawsuits, and he believes that this cooperation agreement is the “most efficient, expedited and cost-effective” means of getting back additional assets for MF Global clients and creditors.

Meantime, Corzine and other ex- and current MF Global executives are complaining that this arrangement would give Giddens complete and total authority over the documents and books they would be able to get in their defense and that this unfairly limits them. Per the former executives’ lawyers, restricting the objectors’ rights to obtain discovery deprives them of the chance to a proper defense, violates due process principals, and is not in line with the goals and requirements of the federal rules that preside over civil litigation. (Also opposing Giddens’s cooperation agreement with the plaintiffs and their lawyers is ex-FBI director Louis Freeh, who is tasked with wrapping up MF Global Holdings Ltd.’s affairs. He believes that the deal oversteps Giddens’s authority and that the bankruptcy trustee is moving claims that belong to the holding company’s creditors and not the brokerage’s customers.)

Citigroup to Pay $590M to Settle Shareholder Class Action CDO Lawsuit Over Subprime Mortgage Debt

Published on: August 30, 2012 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Citigroup (C) has agreed to pay $590 million settle a shareholder class action collateralized debt obligation lawsuit filed by plaintiffs claiming it misled them about the bank’s subprime mortgage debt exposure right before the 2008 economic collapse By settling, Citigroup is not admitting to denying any wrongdoing. A federal judge has approved the proposed agreement.

Plaintiffs of this CDO lawsuit include pension funds in Illinois, Ohio, and Colorado led by ex-employees and directors of Automated Trading Desk. They obtained Citigroup shares when the bank bought the electronic trading firm in July 2007. The shareholders are accusing bank and some of its former senior executives of not disclosing that Citigroup’s CDOs were linked to mortgage securities until the bank took a million dollar write down on them that year. Citigroup would later go on to write down the CDOs by another tens of billions of dollars.

The plaintiffs claim that Citigroup used improper accounting practices so no one would find out that its holdings were losing their value, and instead, used “unsupportable marks” that were inflated so its “scheme” could continue. They say that the bank told them it had sold billions of dollars in collateralized debt obligations but did not tell them it guaranteed the securities against losses. The shareholders claim that to conceal the risks, Citi placed the guarantees in separate accounts.

Prior to the economic collapse of 2008, Citi had underwritten about $70 billion in CDOs. It, along with other Wall Street firms, had been busy participating in the profitable, growing business of packaging loans into complex securities. When the financial crisis happened, the US government had to bail Citigroup out with $45 billion, which the financial firm has since paid back.

This is not the first case Citigroup has settled related to subprime mortgages and the financial crisis. In 2010, Citi paid $75 million to settle SEC charges that it had issued misleading statements to the public about the extent of its subprime exposure, even acknowledging that it had misrepresented the exposure to be at $13 billion or under between July and the middle of October 2007 when it was actually over $50 billion. Citigroup also consented to pay the SEC $285 million to settle allegations that it misled investors when it didn’t reveal that it was assisting in choosing the mortgage securities underpinning a CDO while betting against it.

This week, Citi agreed to pay a different group of investors a $25 million MBS settlement to a securities lawsuit accusing it of underplaying the risks and telling lies about appraisal and underwriting standards on residential loans of two MBS trusts. The plaintiffs, Greater Kansas City Laborers Pension Fund and the ‪City of Ann Arbor Employees’ Retirement System,‬ had sued Citi’s Institutional Clients Group. ‬

This $590 million settlement of Citigroup’s is the largest one reached over CDOs to date and one of the largest related to the economic crisis. According to The Wall Street Journal, the two that outsize this was the $627 million that Wachovia Corp. (WB) agreed to pay over allegations that investors were misled about its mortgage loan portfolio’s quality and the $624 million by Countrywide Financial (CFC) in 2010 to settle claims that it misled investors about its high risk mortgage practices.

Citigroup in $590 million settlement of subprime lawsuit, The New York Times, August 29, 2012

Citi’s $590 million settlement: Where it ranks, August 29, 2012

Citigroup Said To Pay $75 Million To Settle SEC Subprime Case, Bloomberg, July 29, 2010

More Blog Posts:

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

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.