Articles Posted in Financial Firms

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 ›

UBS, Citigroup FINRA Arbitration with Nonprofit Over ARS Cannot Be Halted, Said District Court

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

The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia said that Citigroup (C) and UBS (UBS)cannot preliminarily enjoin Financial Industry Regulatory Authority arbitration over an auction-rate securities offering that did not succeed. The case is UBS Financial Services Inc. v. Carilion Clinic. Carilion is a nonprofit health care and the two financial services firms had provided it with services, including underwriting, for an issuance of auction rate securities that ended up failing.

Per Judge John Gibney, Jr., in 2005, the nonprofit had looked to Citigroup and UBS for help in raising raise $308.465 million to renovate and grow its medical facilities. The two financial firms allegedly recommended that Carilion issue $72.24 million of bonds as variable demand rate obligations. The nonprofit then issued the rest of the funds—$234 million—as ARS, which are at the center of the case.

After the ARS market failed in 2008, the interest rates on Carillion’s ARS went up, forcing the nonprofit to refinance its debt so it wouldn’t have to contend with even higher rates. The auctions then started failing.

Carilion contends that it didn’t know that UBS and Citigroup had been helping to hold up the ARS market prior to its collapse (which they then stopped doing) and said it wouldn’t have issued the securities if they had known that this was the case. The nonprofit filed FINRA arbitration proceedings against the two financial firms and said it could submit the dispute as a “customer” of both even though arbitration isn’t a provision of their written agreements.

Citigroup and UBS sought to bar the arbitration with their motion for a preliminary injunction. The district court, however, rejected their contention that the nonprofit is not a customer of theirs (if this had been determined to be true, then Carilion would not be able to arbitrate against them in front of FINRA). It said that the nonprofit was a “customer,” to both UBS and Citigroup, seeing as both firms provided it with numerous financial services and were paid accordingly.

The court also turned down the financial firms’ argument that Carilion had waived its right to arbitration when it consented to a mandatory forum selection clause that requires for disputes to go through the litigation in front of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. It pointed out that the “forum selection clause” could only be found in the agreements with one of the parties and that language used, as it relates to arbitration, is ambiguous and would not be interpreted as a waiver of Carillion’s arbitration rights.

Carilion can therefore go ahead and have FINRA preside over its arbitration dispute.

UBS Financial Services Inc. v. Carilion Clinic, Reuters, July 30, 2012

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

Securities Claims Accusing Merrill Lynch of Concealing Its Auction-Rate Securities Practices Are Dismissed by Appeals Court, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, November 20, 2012

The 11th Circuit Revives SEC Fraud Lawsuit Against Morgan Keegan Over Auction-Rate Securities, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, May 8, 2012

Remaining Defendants in $50M Amerifirst Securities Fraud are Sentenced in Texas

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

Five years after the US Securities and Exchange Commission issued an emergency action to stop the Amerifirst securities fraud, all of the defendants accused of defrauding more than 500 investors-many of them senior citizens-of over $50 million in Texas and Florida have now been sentenced for their crimes. The last defendant, Jason Porter Priest, was sentenced to one year in federal prison last week.

The 43-year-old Ocala man had pleaded guilty in 2010 to involvement in the Secured Capital Trust Scam in 2010. He has to pay $4.7 million in restitution. Also recently sentenced was Dennis Woods Bowden, who was previously chief operating officer of COO of Amerifirst Acceptance Corp. and Amerifirst Funding Corp. He used to manage American Eagle Acceptance Corp., a company located in Dallas that sold and bought used cars, bought and serviced used car notes, and financed the purchase of used vehicles. His sentence is 192 months in prison and $23 million in restitution after a jury convicted him on several counts of securities fraud and mail fraud.

The other defendants:
Jeffrey Charles Bruteyn: Amerifirst’s former managing director was convicted by a jury on nine counts of securities fraud in 2010. He is serving a 25-year prison term. According to the evidence, Burteyn and Bowden were the ones behind the secured debt obligation offerings that were at the center of the Amerifirst securities fraud.

Vincent John Bazemore: The former Texas broker is serving 60-months behind bars after pleading guilty to the securities case against him. The broker, who previously sold the secured debt obligations, has to pay nearly $16 million in restitution.

Gerald Kingston: He was sentenced to two years probation and fined $50,000 last year after he pleaded guilty in 2007 to conspiracy to commit securities fraud. He helped Bruteyn manipulate Interfinancial Holdings Corporation’s (IFCH) stock price, bought and sold hundreds of thousands of theses shares, and affected matching trades to make it falsely appear that there was a lot of interest in the stock. He made over $1.6 million in fraudulent sale proceeds.

Eric Hall: His securities fraud guilty plea in 2008 stemmed from his involvement in defrauding investors in Secured Capital Trust. He was sentenced this April to two years in probation and told to pay restitution of about $4.7M.

Fred Howard: Last month, he was sentenced to five years in prison and also ordered to pay approximately $4.7 million in restitution for his involvement in the Securities Capital Trust scam.

Elder financial fraud is a serious problem, and it is depriving many seniors of the ability to retire in peace. Unfortunately, retirees who have worked a lifetime to save their money are among securities fraudsters’ favorite targets.

It was in 2009 that Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force was created to aggressively investigate and prosecute financial fraud crimes. Over 20 federal agencies, state and local partners, and 94 US attorneys’ offices are working together as a coalition. In the last three fiscal years, the Justice Department has submitted over 10,000 financial fraud cases against close to 15,000 defendants.

Last of Seven Defendants Sentenced in AmeriFirst Securities Fraud Case, FBI, July 27, 2012

Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force

More Blog Posts:
AmeriFirst Funding Corp. Owner Convicted of Texas Securities Fraud, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, February 3, 2012

Ex-Stanford Group Compliance Officer, Now MGL Consulting CEO, Says SEC’s Delay Over Whether to Charge Him in Ponzi Scam is Denying Him Right to Due Process, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, July 24, 2012
Reform the Municipal Bond Market, Says the SEC, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, July 31, 2012 Continue Reading ›

Peregrine Financial Group Customers Were Victims of the “System,” Says CFTC Chairman Gensler

Published on: July 26, 2012 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

According to Commodity Futures Trading Commission Chairman Gary Gensler, the customers of Peregrine Financial Group, also called PFG Best, were failed by the system, which neglected to protect them. Peregrine’s owner Russell R. Wasendorf Sr. is accused of embezzling close to $220M and defrauding clients. You can read an earlier post written by our investment fraud law firm about the CFTC’s lawsuit against Peregrine and Wasendorf on our site.

Per the Regulator’s securities case, the futures commission merchant and Wasendorf allegedly misappropriate client monies and submitted untrue statements in the financial statements they turned in to the CFTC. They also are accused of misrepresenting, during a National Futures Association audit, that Peregrine held over $200M in client funds when that figure was actually close to around $5.1 million. The regulator is not sure what happened to the rest of the money and is accusing both Wasendorf and the futures commission merchant of violating fund segregation laws with their alleged intentional deception of the NFA.

Gensler says that the CFTC will look at how NFA handles its responsibilities as they relate to the FCM and whether the CFTC does a good job in regulating the SRO. However, while noting during testimony front of the Senate Agriculture Committee on July 17 that the allegations against Wasendorf and Peregrine, if true, are crimes, he said that is not possible for market regulators to “prevent all financial fraud.” Gensler also talked about how the SRO system is part of the Commodity Exchange Act but that the CFTC doesn’t have enough funds to act as front-line regulator over the NFA, which is funded by dues.

The CFTC will review how NFA dealt with Peregrine examinations. NFA has hired a law firm to conduct its own review of audit procedures and practices, particularly those involving the exams for Peregrine.

Meantime, Peregrine’s bankruptcy trustee, Ira Bodenstein, has retained forensic accountants from PricewaterhouseCoopers to assist in determining how much of customers’ money is left. These clients have expressed frustration at the delays in their being able to recover even some of their funds. According to Michael Eidelman, who is the receiver for the assets of Wasendorf, a portion of the missing cash may be in property that can be sold so that some Peregrine customers can get their money back. (These clients haven’t tried to sell their claims against Peregrine because they still don’t know the extent of the firm’s liabilities and assets.)

The Peregrine securities fraud was confirmed after Wasendorf tried to kill himself on July 9. In his suicide note, he talked about how he bilked clients of over $100 million during a period lasting close to 20 years. He admitted that he used a rented PO box, inkjet printers, and Photoshop software to execute his scam. He also forged documents to hide the missing funds.

Scandal Shakes Trading Firm, The Wall Street Journal, July 11, 2012

More Blog Posts:

Texas Securities: SEC’s Bid To Get Stanford Ponzi Scam Victims SIPC Coverage is Denied by District Court, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, July 9, 2012

Stanford Ponzi Scam Investors File Class Action Lawsuit Suing The Securities and Exchange Commission

Published on: July 25, 2012 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Accusing The SEC of negligent supervision and failure to act, a number of Stanford investors have filed a putative class action seeking damages from the Commission. In Anderson v. United States, the plaintiffs submitted an amended complaint to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana earlier this month. They are bringing their securities case under the Federal Tort Claims Act.

They contend that the losses they sustained in Stanford’s $7 billion Ponzi scam occurred because the SEC was negligent in supervising Spencer Barasch, who is the former enforcement director of the SEC’s Forth Worth Regional Office. They also are arguing that there was enough information available about R. Allen Stanford for the SEC to merit bringing an enforcement action or a referral to other agencies. The investors believe that an alleged failure to act by Barasch and the SEC let Stanford’s Ponzi scheme go undetected for years. They especially blame Barasch.

According to an April 2010 report by the Commission’s Office of the Inspector General, although the SEC’s Dallas office was aware as far back as 1997 that Stanford was running a Ponzi scam, it was unable to persuade the SEC’s Enforcement Division to investigate the scheme. The report also concluded that Barasch played a key part in a number of decisions to squelch the possible probes against Stanford.

After Barasch left the SEC, he represented Stanford on more than one occasion until 2006 when the SEC Office of Ethics told him that this was not appropriate. Earlier this year, he settled US Department of Justice civil charges over this alleged conflict of interest restrictions violation by paying a $50,000 penalty and consenting to a yearlong ban from SEC practice. (He did not, however, admit or deny wrongdoing.)

Now, the investor plaintiffs want the government to compensate them for their losses: Reuel Anderson is seeking $1,295,481.37, Timothy Ricketts wants $353,216.31, and Gary Greene is asking for his $443,302.09. The plaintiffs believe their class action securities complaint represents approximately 2,000 members.

This class action case comes more than a year after another group of plaintiff investors brought a similar securities lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas. In Robert Juan Dartez LLC v. United States the plaintiffs sought to hold the government liable for losses they sustained in Stanford’s Ponzi scam. The district court, however, dismissed the case without prejudice due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction in that it found that the plaintiffs’ claims landed in the discretionary function exception of the Federal Tort Claims Act.

Approximately 30,000 investors bought fraudulent CD’s from Stanford International Bank in Antigua. That’s a lot of customers getting hurt financially by one scam.

Stanford Investors Sue SEC Over Losses, Citing Negligent Supervision, Failure to Act, Bloomberg BNA, July 16, 2012

Anderson v. United States (PDF)

Robert Juan Dartez LLC v. United States

More Blog Posts:
Texas Financier Allen Stanford’s Ponzi Scam: SIPC Asks District Court to Toss Out SEC Lawsuit Seeking to Reimburse Fraud Victims, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, March 5, 2012

Texas Securities: SEC’s Bid To Get Stanford Ponzi Scam Victims SIPC Coverage is Denied by District Court, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, July 9, 2012
Goldman Sachs Execution and Clearing Must Pay $20.5M Arbitration Award in Bayou Ponzi Scam, Upholds 2nd Circuit, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, July 14, 2012 Continue Reading ›

Ex-Stanford Group Compliance Officer, Now MGL Consulting CEO, Says SEC’s Delay Over Whether to Charge Him in Ponzi Scam is Denying Him Right to Due Process

Published on: July 24, 2012 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

According to Reuters, Bernerd Young, a former compliance officer for the Texas-based Stanford Group. Co., contends that the Securities and Exchange Commission’s lack of decision over whether to charge him in R. Allen Stanford’s $7 billion Ponzi scam is not only a denial of his right to due process but also has hurt his professional life. Young, who is now the CEO of MGL Consulting, also used to work as a regulator with the National Association of Securities Dealers in Dallas. NASD is now the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority.

While Stanford has already been sentenced to 110 years in prison over his use of bogus CDs from his Stanford International Bank in Antigua to defraud his victims, the SEC has been constructing cases against a number of executives and financial advisers that worked for Stanford Group. However, legal disagreements and recusals between SEC officials and commissioners have reportedly caused delays to these probes that have left not just the bilked investors but also certain possible defendants waiting for resolution one way or another.

Young maintains that he didn’t know about the Ponzi scam. He says that the SEC came after him in Houston about one year after he was told by other Stanford executives that the Antigua bank’s portfolio was comprised of at least $1.6 billion in personal loans to Stanford himself. The Commission contended that it had evidence linking his actions to investors who were wrongly led believe that their CD’s were insured. Young received a Wells notice in June 2010 notifying him that the SEC intended to recommend that charges be filed against him.

Although the 2010 Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act gives the Commission six months to decide on a Wells notice, SEC lawyers are allowed to file extensions, which they have done in their potential case against Young. The Commission’s current extension of 180-days on the case will expire in September.

Meantime, Young believes that MLG Consulting losing 20% of its clients, regulators terminating the firms’ plans to expand, and its need to file for bankruptcy is a result of the stigma associated with the Stanford Ponzi scam probe. As for the investors who were victimized by the fraud and who have expressed dismay at the SEC’s delay in deciding whether/not to charge certain ex-Stanford employees, their worry is that these same individuals could go on to defraud other investors in the meantime.

These Investors have also had to deal with a federal district judge’s recent decision to reject the SEC’s request that the Securities Investor Protection Corporation start liquidation proceedings to compensate Stanford’s victims, some of whom sustained millions of dollars in losses. SIPC had argued that it only protects customers against losses involving missing securities or cash that had been in the in custody of insolvent or failing brokerage firms members of the protection corporation. While Stanford Group was a SIPC member, Stanford International Bank in Antigua was not.

Former Stanford executive says in limbo as SEC case drags, Reuters, July 22, 2012

More Blog Posts:
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

Texas Securities: SEC’s Bid To Get Stanford Ponzi Scam Victims SIPC Coverage is Denied by District Court, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, July 9, 2012

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 ›

Institutional Investor Roundup: Ex-IndyMac Executives Class Action Securities Case for $6.5M, New York Fed Sells $828M of Mortgage Debt Securities from AIG Bailout, and Survey Says That 25% of Wall Street Employees Believe Cheating is Necessary to Succeed

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

The former executives of IndyMac Banccorp have consented to settle class-action securities lawsuit related to bank holding company’s collapse when the housing bubble burst. Per the settlement terms, the financial firm’s insurer will pay investors $6.5 million in cash.

IndyMac shareholders had gone after ex-CEO Michael Perry and ex-finance officer Scott Keys in 2008, contending that they had misled investors about the mortgage lender’s poor financial condition. A month later, federal bank regulators closed down IndyMac Bank. Although the two of them are settling, they were not required to admit to any wrongdoing.

“Again, no jail time for anyone,” commented Shepherd Smith Edwards and Kantas, LTD, LLP Founder and Stockbroker Fraud Lawyer William Shepherd.

Barclays LIBOR Manipulation Scam Places Citigroup, Credit Suisse, Deutsche Bank, JP Morgan Chase, and UBS Under The Investigation Microscope

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

The London Inter-Bank Offer Rate (LIBOR) manipulation scandal involving Barclays Bank (BCS-P) has now opened up a global probe, as investigators from the United States, Europe, Canada, and Asia try to figure out exactly what happened. While Barclays may have the settled the allegations for $450 million with the UK’s Financial Services Authority, the US Department of Justice, and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, now a number of other financial firms are under investigation including UBS AG (UBS), JPMorgan Chase (JPM), Deutsche Bank AG, Credit Suisse Group (CS), Citigroup Inc., Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi UFJ, HSBC Holdings PLC (HBC-PA), Lloyds Banking Group PLC (LYG), Rabobank Groep NV, Mizuho Financial Group Inc. (MFG), Societe Generale SA, RP Martin Holdings Ltd., Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corp., and Royal Bank of Scotland PLC (RBS).

In the last few weeks, the accuracy of LIBOR, which is the average borrowing cost when banks in Britain loan money to each other, has come into question in the wake of allegations that Barclays and other big banks have been rigging it by submitting artificially low borrowing estimates. Considering that LIBOR is a benchmark interest rates that affects hundreds of trillions of dollars in financial contracts, including floating-rate mortgages, interest-rate swaps, and corporate loans globally, the fact that this type of financial fudging may be happening on a wide scale basis is disturbing.

“It’s my understanding the total financial paper effected by LIBOR is close to $500 trillion dollars. This is a half-quadrillion dollars if you are wondering about the next step up,” said Shepherd Smith Edwards and Kantas, LTD, LLP Founder and Institutional Investment Fraud Attorney William Shepherd.

Goldman Sachs Execution and Clearing Must Pay $20.5M Arbitration Award in Bayou Ponzi Scam, Upholds 2nd Circuit

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

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit is allowing a $20.5M award issued by a Financial Industry Regulatory Authority arbitration panel against Goldman Sachs Execution & Clearing LP to stand. The court turned down Goldman’s claim that the award should be vacated because it was issued in “manifest disregard of the law” and said that the clearing arm must pay this amount to the unsecured creditors of the now failed Bayou hedge fund group known as the Bayou Funds, which proved to be a large scale Ponzi scam.

Goldman was the prime broker and only clearing broker for the funds. After the scheme collapsed in 2005, the Bayou Funds sought bankruptcy protection the following year. Regulators would go on to sue the fund’s funders over the Ponzi scam and the losses sustained by investors. Meantime, an Official Unsecured Creditors’ Committee of Bayou Group was appointed to represent the debtors’ unsecured debtors. Blaming Goldman for not noticing the red flags that a Ponzi fraud was in the works, the committee proceeded to bring its arbitration claims against the clearing firm through FINRA. In 2010, the FINRA arbitration panel awarded the committee $20.58M against Goldman.

In affirming the arbitration award, the 2nd Circuit said that in this case, Goldman did not satisfy the manifest disregard standard. As an example, the court pointed to the $6.7M that was moved into the Bayou Funds from outside accounts in June 2005 and June 2004. While the committee had contended during arbitration that these deposits were “fraudulent transfers” and could be recovered from Goldman because they were an “initial transferee” under 11 U.S.C. §550(a), Goldman did not counter that the deposits weren’t fraudulent or that it was on inquiry notice of fraud. Instead, it claimed the deposits were not an “initial transferee” under 11 U.S.C. §550 and the panel had ignored the law by finding that it was.