Financial Firms

Ex-Goldman Sachs Board Member Accused of Insider Trading with Galleon Group Co-Founder Seeks to Have SEC Administrative Case Against Him Dropped

Published on: April 19, 2011 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Our securities fraud attorneys had previously reported on the Securities and Exchange Commission’s case against Rajat Gupta, an ex-Goldman Sachs board member accused of passing on confidential information to Galleon Group Co-Founder Raj Rajaratnam about Berkshire Hathaway Inc.’s $5 billion investment in Goldman Sachs. Rajaratnam is accused of making $45 million from the scheme, which has been the target of what is being called one of the largest insider trading crackdowns involving a hedge fund. As part of its Galleon probe, the SEC has filed insider trading lawsuits against at least two dozen businesses and individuals.

The SEC is accusing Gupta of sharing with Rajaratnam details about the respective quarterly earnings of the investment bank and Proctor and Gamble, where Gupta also served as a director. Last month, agency filed its charges insider trading allegations against Gupta in administrative forum—a move that he is contesting.

On March 18, the ex-Goldman Sachs board member filed a lawsuit against the SEC denying the insider trading allegations and asking the federal court to block the SEC’s administrative claims and grant him a jury trial. Gupta contends that the SEC allegations took place at least a year and a half before the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act gave regulators permission to file such an action.

The Dodd-Frank Act has given the SEC the authority to use administrative proceedings to get monetary penalties from all individuals, regardless of whether or not they are connected to regulated entities. The SEC’s administrative trial in the Gupta case is scheduled for July 18. Gupta is the only defendant in the Galleon case that the SEC is pursuing administratively. He is a non-regulated person.

Related Web Resources:
Gupta Says U.S. Judge in New York Should Handle Suit to Block SEC’s Action, Bloomberg, April 11, 2011

Ex-Goldman director charged with insider trading, CBS News, March 1, 2011

Gupta v. Securities and Exchange Commission, Justia Docket Filings

U.S. v. Rajaratnam, SD New York 2011

More Blog Posts:
A Texan is Among Those Arrested in Insider Trading Crackdown Involving Apple Inc., Dell, and Advanced Micro Devices’ Confidential Data, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, December 16, 2010

3 Hedge Funds Raided by FBI in Insider Trading Case, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, November 23, 2010

Ex-Goldman Sachs Associate Will Serve Nearly Five Years in Prison for Insider Trading, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, January 10, 2008

FINRA Orders UBS Financial Services to Pay $8.25M for Misleading Investors About Security of Lehman Brothers Principal Protected Notes

Published on: April 15, 2011 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority is ordering UBS Financial Services to pay $8.25 million in restitution and a $2.5 million fine for misleading investors about Lehman Brothers principal protected notes (PPNs). The SRO says that the financial firm presented the investments in a way that caused clients to think that the notes came with 100% principal protection. Many brokers said that the notes, which were a hybrid financial product made up of currencies, bonds, stocks, commodities, and derivatives, were low-risk investments even though they knew (or should have known) that Lehman Brothers was in financial trouble. Also, investors did not know that the notes were only protected to the extent that Lehman Brothers was capable of paying. When Lehman Brothers filed for bankruptcy in September 2008, the PPNs became virtually worthless.

FINRA claims that UBS issued statements and made omissions that did not stress that the PPN’s were unsecured obligations of Lehman Brothers. The SRO is also questioning whether UBS fully understood the complexity of the notes and if this caused some of their mistakes when selling the financial product. FINRA says that not only did UBS lack the adequate supervisory system to overseee its financial advisers that were handling the Lehman notes, but also, the investment firm did not have appropriate suitability procedures to determine whether certain investors could handle the risks involved with the PPNs.

Numerous individual securities fraud arbitration claims and lawsuits have been submitted for investors over the Lehman Brothers structured notes. There was also a UBS class action complaint filed for all Lehman brothers PPN investors in 2008.

Our stockbroker fraud law firm want to remind you that filing your individual claim through FINRA arbitration increases your chances of recovering more than if you were a member of a securities class action case. If you sustained financial losses after investing in Lehman Brothers Principal Protected Notes, do not hesitate to contact Shepherd Smith Edward and Kantas, LLP and ask for your free case evaluation.

UBS Financial Services Fined $2.5M and Ordered to Pay $8.25M Over Lehman Brothers-Issued 100% Principal-Protection Notes, Institutional Investor Securities Blog , April 12, 2011
UBS to Pay $2.2M to CNA Financial Head for Lehman Brothers Structured Product Losses, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, January 4, 2011
Lehman Brothers Lawsuit Claims Its Bankruptcy Was In Part Due to JP Morgan Chase’s Seizure of $8.6 Billion in Cash Reserves, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, June 14, 2010 Continue Reading ›

Goldman Sachs Group Made Money From Financial Crisis When it Bet Against the Subprime Mortgage Market, Says US Senate Panel

Published on: April 15, 2011 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The Senate’s Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations says that because Goldman Sachs Group Inc. bet billions against the subprime mortgage market it profited from the financial crisis. The panel’s findings come following a two-year bipartisan probe and were released in a 639-page report on Wednesday.

The subcommittee released documents and emails that show executives and traders attempting to get rid of their subprime mortgage exposure, which was worth billions of dollars, and short the market for profit. Their actions ended up costing their clients that purchased the financial firm’s mortgage-related securities.

The panel says that Goldman allegedly deceived the investors when failing to tell them that the investment bank was simultaneously shorting or betting against the same investments. The subcommittee estimates that Goldman’s bets against the mortgage markets in 2007 did more than balance out the financial firm’s mortgage losses, causing it to garner a $1.2 billion profit that year in the mortgage department alone. Also, when Goldman executives, including Chief Executive Lloyd Blankfein appeared before the committee in 2010, the panel says that they allegedly misled panel members when they denied that the financial firm took an a position referred to as being “net short,” which involves heavily tilting one’s investments against the housing market.

It was just last year that the Securities and Exchange Commission ordered Goldman to pay $550 million to settle securities fraud charges over its actions related to the mortgage-securities market. The allegations in this report go beyond the claims covered by the SEC case. The report also names mortgage lender Washington Mutual, credit rating firms, the Office of Thrift Supervision, and a federal bank regulator as among those that contributed to the financial crisis.

Goldman is denying many of the subcommittee’s claims and says its executives did not mislead Congress.

Related Web Resources:
Goldman Sachs shares drop on Senate report, Reuters, April 14, 2011

Senate Panel: ‘Goldman Sachs Profited From Financial Crisis’, Los Angeles Times, April 14, 2011

Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations

More Blog Posts:
Goldman Sachs Sued by ACA Financial Guaranty Over Failed Abacus Investment for $120M, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, January 10, 2011

Goldman Sachs Settles SEC Subprime Mortgage-CDO Related Charges for $550 Million, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, July 30, 2010

Goldman Sachs COO Says Investment Firm Shorted 1% of CDOs Mortgage Bonds But Didn’t Bet Against Clients, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, July 14, 2010

Citigroup Ordered by FINRA to Pay $54.1M to Two Investors Over Municipal Bond Fund Losses

Published on: April 13, 2011 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

In what is being called the largest award that a major Wall Street broker-dealer has been ordered to pay individual investors, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority has ordered Citigroup to pay $54.1 million to investors Suzanne Barlyn and Randall Smith over investment losses they sustained on high risk municipal bond funds that lost 77% of their value during the financial crisis.

Richard Zinman, formerly of Citi’s Smith Barney unit, was the broker for Murdock, a venture capital investor, and Hosier, a retired patent lawyer. Zinman left Citi soon after the funds blew up. During the arbitration hearing, he testified on behalf of the two men, saying that Citi did not tell its brokers how risky and volatile the funds in fact were. Zinman now works for Credit Suisse Group.

Citigroup has been under fire for awhile now over its municipal bond funds. Geared towards wealthier clients, investments were a minimum of $500,000. The bond funds were supposed to deliver returns a few percentage points above that of municipal bonds by borrowing up to $7 for every $1 invested. The proceeds were placed in mortgage debt and municipal bonds. Unfortunately, the municipal bond funds’ value dropped when the mortgage market started to fail. After Citi brokers complained, however, the financial firm offered share buybacks that lowered investor losses to approximately 61%.

As part of this case, Citi must pay $17 million in punitive damages, $3 million in legal fees, and $21,600 for the hearing free expense, which is normally divided between the parties involved. Prior to this award, the largest one Citi was ordered to pay against a bond-fund claimant was $6.4 million.

Related Web Resource:
Citigroup Loses Muni Case, The Wall Street Journal, April 13, 2011
Muni bonds hit by more selling on default fears, Los Angeles Times, January 12, 2011

More Blog Posts:
SEC to Examine Muni Bond Market Issues During Hearings in Texas and Other States, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, February 9, 2011
Ex-Portfolio Managers to Pay $700K to Settle SEC Charges that They Defrauded the Tax Free Fund for Utah, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, January 22, 2011
Federal Judge to Approve Citigroup’s $75M Securities Settlement with SEC Over Bank’s Subprime Mortgage Debt Reporting to Investors, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, September 29, 2010 Continue Reading ›

UBS Financial Services Fined $2.5M and Ordered to Pay $8.25M Over Lehman Brothers-Issued 100% Principal-Protection Notes

Published on: April 12, 2011 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority is fining UBS Financial Services, Inc. $2.5 million and ordering it to pay $8.25 million in restitution for allegedly misleading investors about the “principal protection” feature of 100% Principal-Protection Notes. Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. issued the PPNs Holdings Inc. before it filed for bankruptcy in 2008.

FINRA contends that even as the credit crisis was getting worse, between March and June 2008 UBS advertised and described the notes as investments that were principal-protected while failing to make sure clients knew that they PPNs were unsecured obligations of Lehman and that the principal protection feature was subject to issuer credit risk. UBS also allegedly failed to:

• Properly notify its financial advisers of the impact the widening of credit default swaps was having on Lehman’s financial strength
• Sufficiently analyze how appropriate the Lehman-issued PPNs were for certain clients
• Set up a proper supervisory system for the sale of the Lehman-issued PPNs
• Provide proper training or appropriate written supervisory procedures and policies
• Provide adequate suitability procedures for determining who should invest

FINRA also says that UBS developed and used advertising collateral about the PPNs that misled certain clients, such as the suggestion that a return of principal was certain as long as clients held the product until it matured. FINRA claims that the reason that some UBS financial advisers gave incorrect information to customers was because they themselves didn’t fully understand the product.

FINRA says that because UBS’s suitability procedures were inadequate and certain PPN’s lacked risk profile requirements, the product was sold to investors who were not willing or shouldn’t have been allowed to take on the risks involved. More often than not it was these investors who were likely to depend on the Lehman PPNs’ “100% principal protection” feature that were “risk averse.”

By agreeing to settle, UBS is not denying or admitting to the charges.

UBS to shell out $10.75M to settle Lehman-related row, Investment News, April 11, 2011

More Blog Posts:
UBS to Pay $2.2M to CNA Financial Head for Lehman Brothers Structured Product Losses, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, January 4, 2011

UBS Must Pay Couple $530,000 for Lehman Brothers-Backed Structured Notes, Institutional Investors Securities Blog, November 5, 2010

Lehman Brothers’ “Structured Products” Investigated by Stockbroker Fraud Law Firm Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas LTD LLP, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, September 30, 2008

Dow Corning Corp.’s $165M Securities Fraud Lawsuit Against Merrill Lynch & Co. Can Proceed, Says District Court Judge

Published on: April 7, 2011 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York’s Chief Judge Loretta A. Preska says that Dow Corning Corp. can sue Merrill Lynch & Co. for securities fraud. Dow Corning is claiming $165 million in auction-rate securities losses. Dow Corning says that it still has not been able to sell its ARS. The company and two affiliates, its Devonshire Underwriters unit and Hemlock Semiconductor Corp., had filed their complaint against the Bank of America-owned Merrill for falsely misrepresenting the ARS, for which Merrill acted as managing broker and underwriter.

Preska denied Merrill’s motion to dismiss the complaint, noting that this securities fraud lawsuit is different from other ARS lawsuits, in which motions to the defendants’ motions to dismiss were granted. Unlike other ARS cases, Dow Corning is challenging certain omissions and statements that Merrill allegedly made to reassure the company that the investments were safe even while knowing the ARS market was failing. The court says that for purposes of its ruling, it is taking the allegations to be true.

Dow Corning says Merrill’s actions violated the Michigan Uniform Securities Act, the 1934 Securities Exchange Act’s Section 10(b), and breached a number of common law duties. The contends that Merrill knew as far back as early 2007 that trouble was brewing with the ARS market yet the broker allegedly stepped up efforts to sell ARS to investors. Even though Dow Corning asked questions about possible issues with the market, the broker is accused of not revealing the information it had and, instead, making reassuring statements that were actually misleading misstatements. The court says Merrill was obligated to “speak truthfully.”

Related Web Resources:
Merrill Loses Bid to Throw Out Dow Corning Auction-Rate Lawsuit, Bloomberg, March 30, 2011
Dow Corning Suit Against Merrill Lynch Over ARS Losses Survives Motion to Dismiss, BNA Securities, April 4, 2011

More Blog Posts:
Akamai Technologies Inc’s ARS Lawsuit Against Deutsche Bank Can Proceed, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, March 4, 2011
Citigroup Global Markets to Pay Back $95.5M Over ARS Sold to LandAmerica Exchange Fund, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, November 11, 2010
Class Auction-Rate Securities Lawsuit Against Raymond James Financial Survives Dismissal, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, September 27, 2010 Continue Reading ›

Wells Fargo Settles SEC Securities Fraud Allegations Over Sale of Complex Mortgage-Backed Securities by Wachovia for $11.2M

Published on: April 7, 2011 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

For a payment of $11.2 million, Wells Fargo & Co. will settle US Securities and Exchange Commission allegations that Wachovia Capital Markets LLC misled investors and improperly sold two collateralized debt obligations in 2007 and 2006. Wachovia was bought by Wells Fargo in 2008.

Wells Fargo Securities now manages Wachovia. By agreeing to settle, the investment bank is not admitting to or denying the findings.

According to the SEC, Wachovia Capital Markets LLC, now called Wells Fargo Securities, violated securities law anti-fraud provisions when it sold the complex mortgage-backed securities to investors despite the red flags indicating that there was trouble brewing with the US housing market.

The SEC says that Wachovia charged excessive markups in the sale of part of a $1.5 billion CDO called Grand Avenue II. Unable to sell the CDOs $5.5 million equity portion in October 2006, it kept the shares on the trading desk while dropping their value to 52.7 cents on the dollar. Wachovia later sold the shares for 90 and 95 cents on the dollar to an individual investor and the Zuni Indian tribe. Both did not know that they had purchased the shares at a price that was 70% above their accounting value. The transaction went into default in 2008.

The SEC claims that in 2007, Wachovia Capital Markets misrepresented to investors in Longshore 3, a $1.3 billion CDO, that assets had been acquired from Wachovia affiliates on an “arms’-length basis” when actually, 40 residential mortgage-backed securities were transferred at $4.6 million over market prices. The SEC contends that Wachovia was trying to avoid sustaining losses by transferring the assets at “stale” prices.

Related Web Resources:

Wells Fargo-Wachovia settles CDO claim with SEC for $11 million, Housing Wire, April 5, 2011

CDO News, New York Times

Mortgage-Backed Securities, SEC.gov

More Blog Posts:

Houston Man Indicted in Alleged $17M Texas Securities Fraud, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, December 23, 2010

Goldman Sachs COO Says Investment Firm Shorted 1% of CDOs Mortgage Bonds But Didn’t Bet Against Clients, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, July 14, 2010

AIG Reorganizes Property and Casualty Insurer Chartis

Published on: March 31, 2011 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

American International Group Inc. is reorganizing Chartis, its property and casual insurer, into two global groups—one consumer and one commercial. AIG executive vice president, finance, risk and investments Peter D. Hancock has been named Chartis’s chief executive officer, while current Chartis CEO Kristian P. Moor is to become vice chairman.

John Q. Doyle, who was formerly Chartis US’s CEO will head the global commercial business, while current chief administrative officer Jeffrey L. Hayman will be in charge of the global consumer business group. Both men will report to Hancock. The reorganization will section Chartis into four regions: U.S./Canada, Europe, Growth Economies, and Far East.

It was just this February that Chartis had to put aside $4.2 billion for loss reserve increases. According to AIG CEO Robert Benmosche, strengthening claims management, underwriting, risk management, and reserving so that the right risk-adjusted returns are earned remain top priorities. Benmosche promised to rebuild businesses needed to pay back the firm’s $182.3 billion government rescue. Benmosche, who is undergoing treatment for cancer, intends to step down in 2012.

Chartis has over 45 million clients internationally located in over 160 nations. Last year, the insurer wrote $31.6 billion in net premiums. Meantime, AIG’s stock performance has been less than stellar with a 26% drop since the start of the year.

Related Web Resources:
AIG Revamps Chartis, Makes Hancock Head After Reserve Boost, Bloomberg, March 31, 2011

FINRA Panel Orders Wedbush Securities to Pay $233,000 in Securities Fraud Damages

Published on: March 28, 2011 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

A Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) arbitration panel says Wedbush Securities Incorporated must pay Karen E. Ray $233,000 in damages. Ray had accused the brokerage firm of numerous causes of action, including negligence, purposely negligent misrepresentations, and violating FINRA Rules of Fair Practices.

Rays case isn’t the first one against the broker-dealer. FINRA’s broker report on the financial firm noted that Wedbush has been at the center of a number of customer complaints and over 40 regulatory inquiries brought by the Securities and Exchange Commission, FINRA (previously NASD), the NYSE Division of Enforcement, as well as regulatory bodies in Colorado, Washington, New Jersey, Georgia, Idaho, and Oregon.

Among the allegations are those involving supervisory failures and market timing. The broker report also noted that Wedbush had received over 40 securities arbitration claims by customers alleging unsuitability, negligence, excessive margin, churning, misrepresentation, and/or breach of fiduciary duty. Their cases involved different kinds of securities, such as mutual funds, bonds, stocks, municipal securities, annuities, and options.

FINRA Wants Amerivet Securities Inc.’s Lawsuit Seeking to Inspect the SRO’s Records Dismissed

Published on: March 26, 2011 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority wants the District of Columbia Court of Appeals to reverse the D.C. Superior Court’s decision to not dismiss Amerivet Securities Inc.’s lawsuit against the SRO. The broker-dealer wants to inspect FINRA’s records and books.

Amerivet Securities filed its complaint in August 2009 under the Delaware General Corporation Law’s Section 220, which lets a shareholder examine a company’s records and books for “any proper purpose.” The broker-dealer says it needs to inspect FINRA’s books and documents in order to expose the corporate wrongdoing related to the SRO’s 2008 investment losses and and allegedly inflated executive pay practices.

When our securities fraud attorneys covered this case more than a year ago, we noted that Amerivet had accused FINRA of failing to supervise and regulate a number of its larger member firms, including Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch, Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities Inc., Bear Stearns and Co, and Stanford Financial Group. The broker-dealer also claimed that FINRA recklessly pursued high-risk investment strategies that were not appropriate for preserving capital. (Read our previous Stockbroker Fraud Blog post to find out more.) Last month, Judge John Mott ruled in favor of Amerivet and noted that pursuant to Section 220, the broker-dealer had asserted a proper purpose for wanting to make its inspection.