Articles Posted in Financial Firms

Several Claims in Securities Fraud Lawsuit Against Ex-IndyMac Bancorp Executives Are Dismissed by Federal Judge

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

In U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, federal judge Manuel Real threw out five of the seven securities claims made by the Securities and Exchange Commission in its fraud lawsuit against ex-IndyMac Bancorp chief executive Michael Perry and former finance chief Scott Keys. The Commission is accusing the two men of covering up the now failed California mortgage lender’s deteriorating liquidity position and capital in 2008. Real’s bench ruling dilutes the SEC’s lawsuit against the two men.

The Commission contends that Keys and Perry misled investors while trying to raise capital and preparing to sell $100 million in new stock before July 2008, which is when thrift regulators closed IndyMac Bank, F.S.B and the holding company filed for bankruptcy protection. They are accusing Perry of letting investors receive misleading or false statements about the company’s failing financial state that omitted material information. (S. Blair Abernathy, also a former IndyMac chief financial officer, had also been sued by the SEC. However, rather that fight the lawsuit, he chose to settle without denying or admitting to any wrongdoing.)

Attorneys for Perry and Keys had filed a motion for partial summary judgment, arguing that five of the seven filings that the SEC is targeting cannot support the claims. Real granted that motion last month, finding that IndyMac’s regulatory filings lacked any misleading or false statements to investors and did not leave out key information.

The remaining claims revolve around whether the bank properly disclosed in its 2008 first-quarter earnings report (and companion slideshow presentation) the financial hazards it was in at the time. The judge also ruled that Perry could not be made to pay back allegedly ill-gotten gains.

Real’s decision substantially narrows the Commission’s securities case against Perry and Keys. According to Reuters, the ruling also could potentially end the lawsuit against Keys because he was on a leave of absence during the time that the matters related to the filings that are still at issue would have occurred.

Before its collapse in 2008, Countrywide spinoff IndyMac was the country’s largest issuers of alt-A mortgage, also called “liar loans.” These high-risk home loans are primarily based on simple statements from borrowers of their income instead of tax returns. Unfortunately, loan defaults ended up soaring and a mid-2008 run on deposits at IndyMac contributed to its collapse. The Federal Deposit Insurance Corp, which places its IndyMac losses at $13 billion, went on to sell what was left of the bank to private investors. IndyMac is now OneWest bank.

Judge dismisses parts of IndyMac fraud case, Los Angeles Times, May 23, 2012

Read the SEC Complaint (PDF)

More Blog Posts:

Citigroup’s $75 Million Securities Fraud Settlement with the SEC Over Subprime Mortgage Debt Approved by Judge, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, October 23, 2010

Institutional Investment Securities Round-Up: Citigroup Agrees to $3.5M FINRA FIne Related to Subprime RMBS, Ex-Broker Consents to $600K CFTC Fine Over Alleged Options Trading Scam, and Senate Ag Chair Presses Regulators To Fully Implement Dodd-Frank

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

Citigroup Global Markets Inc. (CLQ) has consented to pay the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority a $3.5M fine to settle allegations that he gave out inaccurate information about subprime residential mortgage-backed securities. The SRO is also accusing the financial firm of supervisory failures and inadequate maintenance of records and books.

Per FINRA, beginning January 2006 through October 2007, Citigroup published mortgage performance information that was inaccurate on its Web site, including inaccurate information about three subprime and Alt-A securitizations that may have impacted investors’ assessment of subsequent RMB. Citigroup also allegedly failed to supervise the pricing of MBS because of a lack of procedures to verify pricing and did not properly document the steps that were executed to evaluate the reasonableness of the prices provided by traders. The financial firm is also accused of not maintaining the needed books and records, including original margin call records. By settling, Citigroup is not denying or admitting to the FINRA securities charges.

In other institutional investment securities news, in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, Kent Whitney an ex-registered floor broker at the Chicago Mercantile Exchange, agreed to pay $600K to settle allegations by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission that he made statements that were “false and misleading” to the exchange and others about a scam to trade options without posting margin. The CFTC contends that between May 2008 and April 2010, Whitney engaged in the scam on eight occasions, purposely giving out clearing firms that had invalid account numbers in connection with trades made on the New York Mercantile Exchange CME trading floors. He is said to have gotten out of posting over $96 million in margin.

Apple REIT Arbitration: FINRA Rules Against David Lerner Associates in First of Hundreds of Cases

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

Financial Industry Regulatory Authority Inc. arbitrator Alvin Green is ordering David Lerner Associates Inc. to pay claimants Florence Hechtel and Joseph Graziose $24,450 for the Apple REITs that they bought from the firm. They will get the money after returning the Apple REIT 9 shares to the company. The Apple REIT is the 14th largest nontraded real estate investment trust in the US. David Lerner & Associates also will have to reimburse them their $425 FINRA claim filing fee.

According to Graziose and Hechtel, the financial firm misrepresented the Apple REIT 9, as well as breached its fiduciary duty and contract to them. Other Apple REIT investors have made similar claims. However, of the hundreds of arbitration claims (there are also securities lawsuits) that have been pending, this is the first one to go to hearing.

Per FINRA, since 1992 David Lerner & Associates has sold close to $7 billion in Apple REITs, making about $600 million in revenue from the sales (60-70% of the firm’s business since 1996). It is the only distributor of Apple REITs.

Last year, the SRO charged the financial firm with soliciting investors to buy Apple REIT Ten shares (a $2 billion non-traded REIT) without performing a reasonable investigation to make sure the REITs were suitable for these clients. Many of its Apple REIT investors are not only unsophisticated investors but also they are elderly. David Lerner & Associates also allegedly offered misleading information about the distribution online.

Several months ago, FINRA also sued firm owner David Lerner for similar alleged misconduct, including misleading clients about the valuation and risk involved in their Apple REIT Tens. The complaint against Lerner follows statements he is accused of making to investors after FINRA made its charges against the financial firm.

Per the amended complaint, Lerner wrote to over 50,000 clients to “counter negative press.” This letter also talked about a potential opportunity for Apple REIT shareholders to take part in a listing or a sale on a national exchange to get rid of their shares at a reasonable price. Also, at a seminar he hosted Lerner allegedly made statements to investors that were misleading.

For the last nine months, our REIT lawyers at Shepherd Smith Edwards and Kantas, LTD, LPP has been investigating claims on behalf of investors who sustained losses in Apple Real Estate Investment Trusts that they bought from David Lerner Associates. For many investors, these non-traded REITs were unsuitable for them.

First Apple REIT case goes against Lerner, Investment News, May 23, 2012

FINRA Charges David Lerner & Associates With Soliciting Investors to Purchase REITs Without Fully Investigating Suitability; Lerner Marketed REITs on its Website With Misleading Returns, FINRA, May 31, 2011

More Blog Posts:
David Lerner & Associates Ignored Suitability of REITs When Recommending to Investors, Claims FINRA, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, June 8, 2011

REIT Retail Properties of America’s $8 Public Offering Results in Major Losses for Fund Investors, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, April 17, 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 ›

SEC Practice of Settling Enforcement Actions Without Requiring Defendants to Deny or Admit to Allegations Gets Support from Federal Judges and Democrats

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

At a House Financial Services Committee hearing on May 17, a number of Democratic lawmakers spoke out against the Securities and Exchange Commission’s practice of settling securities enforcement actions without making defendants deny or admit to the allegations. There is concern that companies might see this solution as a mere business expense.

The hearing was spurred by U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York Judge Jed Rakoff’s rejection of the SEC’s $285 million securities settlement with Citigroup (C) over its alleged misrepresentation of its role in a collateralized debt obligation that it marketed and structured in 2007. Citigroup had agreed to settle without denying or admitting to the allegations.

Rakoff, however, refused to approve the deal. In addition to calling for more facts before the court could accurately judge whether or not to approve the agreement, he spoke out against the SEC’s policy of letting defendants off the hook in terms of not having to deny or admit to allegations when settling. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit later went on to stay Rakoff’s ruling that SEC v. Citigroup Global Markets, Inc. go to trial.

Securities Law Roundup: Ex-Morgan Stanley’s SEC Settlement Over Alleged FCPA Violations Gets Court Approval, Corruption Probe Into Wal-Mart’s Mexico Activities Continue, and Sentry Global Securities Principal Gets 20-Years for Pump-and-Dump Scam

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

A district court has approved ex-Morgan Stanley (MS) executive Garth Peterson’s civil settlement with the Securities and Exchange Commission over alleged Foreign Corrupt Practices Act violations. In SEC v. Garth Peterson, the plaintiff agreed to pay $241,589 in disgorgement and give up his interest in an apartment building in China. He is to work with an SEC-appointed receiver. Peterson has entered a guilty plea to related criminal charges.

According to the Commission, while working at Morgan Stanley’s real estate investment and fund advisory business, Peterson secretly obtained real estate investments worth millions of dollars from the financial firm’s funds not just for himself but also for others, including the ex-chairman of a Chinese state-owned entity that could influence Morgan Stanley’s real estate business in that country. Peterson, the official, and a Canadian lawyer are accused of acquiring a direct interest in the Jin Lin Tiandi Serviced Apartments. The Commission has said that Peterson violated the FCPA’s anti-bribery and internal control provisions, as well as aided and abetted violations of the 1940 Investment Advisers Act’s antifraud provisions.

In other allegations of Foreign Corrupt Practices Act violations, Wal-Mart (WMT) is accused of not just committing them but also of covering up its alleged misconduct. An investigation into the accusations was opened up in April.

Wal-Mart executives are accused of concealing possible corruption (including bribery) by company executives and officials in Mexico, where the retail chain has been working to build its presence. Now, House Energy and Commerce Committee ranking member Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) and House Oversight Committee ranking member Elijah Cummings (D-Md.) want the store’s CEO Michael Duke to let a former general counsel cooperate with their investigation.

In a letter to Duke, the two lawmakers said that there are several hundred internal documents that seem to confirm early reports of the scandal. At the time of the alleged cover up, then-Wal-Mart general counsel Maritza Munich had tried to get company’s board to expand its probe into the accusations and put into place a tough anticorruption policy. However, when she left Wal-Mart in 2006, Albert Mora, the person who replaced her, chose not to investigate further. Now, Waxman and Cummings want Wal-Mart to allow Munich to get involved in the current probe. They also are once more putting forward an earlier request that the retail giant give them a “substantive briefing” about the specific bribery allegations related to Mexico.

Meantime, Sentry Global Securities and Red Sea Management principal Jonathan Curshen has been sentenced to two decades behind bars for his conviction in a pump and dump stock manipulation scheme. He was found guilty of wire fraud, conspiracy to commit securities fraud, mail fraud, and conspiracy to commit international money laundering. He also has to forfeit about $7.3 million.

Curshen, stock promoter Nathan Montgomery, and their co-conspirators are accused in taking part in coordinated trades while with issuing false statements to the press. According to the US Department of Justice, the alleged misconduct, which is said to have occurred in 2007, was committed to raise the price of C02 Technologies stock. While co-conspirators “pumped,” Curshen and others “dumped” by selling the shares through his two Costa Rica brokerage companies. The shares then virtually lost all their value.

SEC v. Garth Peterson

Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, US DOJ
Read the letter to lawmakers’ Wal-Mart CEO Duke, BNA, (PDF)

CO2 Tech’s Curshen receives 20 years in jail, Stockwatch, May 14, 2012

More Blog Posts:
SEC Issues Alert for Broker-Dealers and Investors Over Municipal Bonds, Man Who Posed As Investment Adviser Pleads Guilty to Securities Fraud, and Citigroup Settles FINRA Claims of Excessive Markups/Markdowns, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, April 10, 2012

UBS Puerto Rico Settles SEC Action for $26M, Morgan Keegan’s Bid to Get $40K Award Over Marketing of RMK Advantage Income Fund Vacated is Denied, and SEC Settles with Attorney Involved in $1B Viaticals Scam, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, May 11, 2012

SEC Seeks Approval of Settlement with Ex-Bear Stearns Portfolio Managers, Credits Ex-AXA Rosenberg Executive for Help in Quantitative Investment Case; IOSCO Gets Ready for Global Hedge Fund Survey, Institutional Investor Fraud, March 29, 2012 Continue Reading ›

Senate Democrats Want Volcker Rule’s “JP Morgan Loophole” Allowing Portfolio Hedging Blocked

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

In a letter to the Federal Reserve Board, the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency Administrator of National Banks, and the Federal Deposit Insurance Commission, Senators Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) and Carl Levin (D-Mich.) spoke out against what they are calling the current draft of the Volcker rule’s “JPMorgan loophole,” which they say allows for the kinds of trading activities that resulted in the investment bank’s recent massive trading loss. Merkley and Levin want the regulators to make sure that the language in October’s draft version is more stringent so that “clear bright lines” exist between legitimate activities and proprietary trading activities that should be banned (including risk-mitigating hedging and market-making).

According to Levin and Merkley, who are both principal co-sponsors of the Volcker rule and its restrictions on proprietary trading, the regulation’s latest draft disregarded “clear legislative language and clear statement of Congressional intent” and left room for “portfolio hedging.” Under the law, risk-mitigating hedge activities are allowed as long as they aim to lower the “specific risks” to a financial firm’s holdings, including contracts or positions. This is supposed to let banks lower their risks by letting them to take part in actual, specific hedges. However, the senators are contending that because the language that was necessary to enforce wasn’t included in the last draft, hence the “JPMorgan loophole” (among others) that will allow proprietary trading to occur even after the law goes into effect. They blame pressure from Wall Street lobbyists for these gaps.

The senators are pressing the regulators to get rid of such loopholes and put into effect a solid Volcker Rule, with stricter language, and without further delays. They noted that despite getting trillions of dollars in public bailout money, a lot of large financial firms continue to fight against the “most basic… reforms,” which is what they believe that Wall Street has been doing with its resistance to the Volcker rule. (Also in their letter, Levin and Merkley reminded the regulators that it was proprietary trading positions that resulted in billions of dollars lost during the recent economic crisis.)

SSEK Talking to Investors About JPMorgan Trading Losses
JPMorgan Chase‘s (JPM) over $2 billion loss was on a series of complex derivative trades that it claims were made to hedge economic risks. Now, according to a number of people who work at trading desks that specialize in the kind of derivatives that the financial firm used when making its trades, the financial firm’s loss has likely grown to closer than $6 billion to $7 billion.

Volcker Rule Resource Center, SIFMA

More Blog Posts:

JPMorgan Chase Shareholders File Securities Lawsuits Over $2B Trading Loss, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, May 17, 2012

SEC Chairman Mary Schapiro Stands By Agency’s 2011 Enforcement Record https://www.investorlawyers.com/our-staff.html, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, March 15, 2012

JPMorgan Chase Had No Treasurer When Chief Investment Office Made Trades Resulting In More than $2B Loss, Reports WSJ

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

According to the Wall Street Journal, during five of the months when JPMorgan Chase’s (JPM) Chief Investment Office made the trades that has led to over $2 billion in losses, the financial firm lacked a treasurer. Also, the executive appointed to head up department’s risk management might not have had the necessary experience to do the job. A few ex- and current employees of the financial firm have alluded to poor decisions in staffing as a reason that bad positions were allowed to go unchecked.

Apparently, until the appointment of Sandie O’Connor as treasurer was announced in March, the last person to hold that position was Joseph Bonocore. He left the financial firm in October 2011, which was before trading losses soared. Prior to leaving, he expressed general worries about risks that were being made by the JPMorgan’s London office, which is where many of the questionable trades originated. (He also had previously served as the investment unit’s chief financial officer for about 11 years.) Now, questions are being raised by those on the outside as to how a bank as big as JPMorgan could go so long without a treasurer.

As for its chief risk officer, Irving Goldman, he is related by marriage to JPMorgan executive Barry Zubrow. Goldman was moved into the post this February, one month after Zubrow was made the bank’s chief of corporate regulatory affairs. Goldman’s background in trading is extensive. He previously worked for Salomon Brothers, Credit Suisse First Boston, and Cantor Fitzgerald (CANTRP), where he also was president of its asset management and debt capital markets divisions. A JPMorgan spokesperson defended Goldman’s professional background, saying it wasn’t uncommon for a risk manager to be heavy on trading experience.

JPMorgan Chase Shareholders File Securities Lawsuits Over $2B Trading Loss

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

Two securities lawsuits have been filed on behalf of shareholders and investors of JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPM) over the financial firm’s $2 billion trading loss from synthetic credit products. According to CEO Jamie Dimon, the massive loss is a result of “egregious” failures made by the financial firm’s chief investment officer and a hedging strategy that failed. Both complaints were filed on Tuesday in federal court.

One securities case was brought by Saratoga Advantage Trust — Financial Services Portfolio. The Arizona trust is seeking to represent everyone who suffered losses on the stock that it contends were a result of alleged misstatements the investment bank had made. Affected investors would have bought the stock on April 13 (or later), which is the day that Dimon had minimized any concerns about the financial firm’s trading risk during a conference call.

Per Saratoga Advantage Trust v JPMorgan Chase & Co., the week after the call, losses from the trades went up to about $200 million a day. The Arizona Trust is accusing Dimon and CFO Douglas Braunstein of issuing statements during that conversation that were misleading and “materially false,” as well as misrepresenting not just the losses but also the risks from major bets placed on “derivative contracts involving credit indexes reflecting corporate bonds interest rates.”

Charles Schwab Corp.’s Lawsuit Against FINRA to Stop Enforcement Case is Dismissed by Federal Judge

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

A federal judge has thrown out a lawsuit filed by Charles Schwab Corp. (SCHW) against the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority Inc. The financial firm had sought to stop the SRO’s enforcement case against it over an allegedly illegal arbitration agreement.

Schwab had added a new provision to over 6.8 million customer account agreement that would prevent clients from beginning or joining a class action lawsuit against the broker-dealer. Customers would also have to agree that industry arbitrators wouldn’t be able to consolidate securities claims from different investors. (Both kinds of cases typically involve investors with smaller claims that are usually less than $10,000. Lawyers who oppose Schwab’s arbitration provision have said that it leaves many of these investors without a legal process to be able to recover any financial losses.) By February, more than 50,000 clients had opened accounts with Schwab since it had implemented its new arbitration provision.

However, FINRA does not let class actions go through its arbitration system and it prevents broker-dealers from limiting the ways in which customers can file claims in court that are not allowed in arbitration. In its enforcement case against Schwab, the SRO accused the brokerage firm of violating its rules by making clients waive their right to file a class action complaint against it. Schwab immediately responded with a lawsuit against FINRA.

JPMorgan Chase $2B Trading Loss Leads to Probes by the SEC, Federal Reserve, and FBI

Published on: May 15, 2012 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

In the wake of JPMorgan Chase’s (JPM) announcement that it lost $2 billion in a trading portfolio that is supposed to hedge against the risks that it takes against its own money, the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Federal Reserve and other regulators are launching their respective investigations to find out exactly what happened. JPMorgan is the largest bank in the US.

As the financial firm’s stock plummeted nearly 7% in after-hours trading after the announcement, its CEO, Jamie Dimon, attributed the losses to “many errors, sloppiness and bad judgment.” He also said that the portfolio, which consisted of derivatives, ended up being “riskier” and not as effective as an economic hedge as the financial firm had previously thought.

Also seeing drops in their stocks following JPMorgan’s announcement of its massive trading loss were other banks, including Bank of America (BAC), Morgan Stanley (MS), Citigroup (C) and Goldman Sachs (GS).

Now, the SEC and other regulators are looking into whether possible civil violations were involved in JPMorgan’s massive loss. The Commission had recently opened a preliminary probe into the financial firm’s public disclosures about its trades and accounting practices.

According to The New York Times, questions regarding JP Morgan’s chief investment office, which is in charge of its hedging activities, were raised in April following reports that a trader in London was taking large bets that were “distorting the market.” Dimon, at the time, dismissed worries about the bank’s trading activities.

The FBI is also looking into potential wrongdoing related to the $2 trading loss.

Known for its excellence in trading until now and earning up to $5.4 billion of securities gains last year, JPMorgan’s chief investment officer has now seen a reversal of fortune. Per The New York Times, the financial firm’s problems may have begun with its bond portfolio, which was valued at $379 billion in March.

Just 30% of the portfolio had been invested in securities that the federal government had guaranteed—a change from 2010 when government guaranteed bonds made up 42% of the portfolio.

Signs of trouble with JPMorgan’s trading strategy started to brew at the end of March when the market went against corporate bonds. Yet during its first-quarter earnings call in mid-April, Dimon did not give any indication that there were problems with the bank’s trading.

Last week, however, Dimon told a different story by announcing the $2 billion trading loss. He said the investment bank’s problems were caused in part by its value-at-risk measure, which underestimated the losses on hedge funds that depended on credit derivatives. Yet were the trades even actual hedges? Banks have been known to perform elaborate trades that at first seemed to be a hedge but eventually become a bad bet.

SEC Opens Review of JP Morgan, The Wall Street Journal, May 11, 2012

F.B.I. Begins Preliminary Inquiry Into JPMorgan, The New York Times, May 15, 2012

More Blog Posts:

Washington Mutual Bank Bondholders’ Securities Fraud Lawsuit Against J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. is Revived by Appeals Court, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, June 29, 2011