Financial Firms

Securities Fraud Lawsuit Against Citigroup Involving Mortgage-Related Risk Results in Mixed Ruling

Published on: November 30, 2010 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

According to a district court ruling, investors can proceed with certain securities fraud charges against Citigroup and a number of its directors over the alleged misrepresenting of the risks involved in mortgage-related investments (including auction-rate securities, collateralized debt obligations, Alt-A residential mortgage-backed securities, and structured investment vehicles). However, the majority of claims involving pleading inadequacies have been dismissed. The securities lawsuit seeks to represent persons that bought Citigroup common stock between January 2004 and January 15, 2009.

Current and ex-Citigroup shareholders have said that as a result of the securities fraud, which involved the misrepresentation of the risks involved via exposure to collateralized debt obligations, they ended up paying an inflated stock price. The plaintiffs are accusing several of the defendants of selling significant amounts of Citigroup stock during the class period. They also say that seven of the individual defendants certified the accuracy of certain Securities and Exchange Commission filings that were allegedly fraudulent. They plaintiffs are claiming that there were SEC filings that violated accounting rules because of the failure to report CDO exposure and value such holdings with accuracy.

The plaintiffs claim that the defendants intentionally hid the fact that billions of dollars in CDOs hadn’t been bought. They also said that defendants made misleading statements that did not properly make clear the subprime risks linked to the Citigroup CDO portfolio.

The defendants submitted a dismissal motion, which the court granted for the most part. Although the court is letting certain CDO-related claims to move forward, it agrees with the defense that because the plaintiffs failed to raise an inference of scienter before February 2007 (when the investment bank started buying insurance for its most high risk CDO holdings), the claims for that period cannot be maintained. The court also held that the plaintiffs failed to plead that seven of the individual defendants had been aware of Citigroup’s CDO operations. As a result, the court determined that there can be no finding of scienter in regards to the individuals.

The court, however, did that the plaintiffs adequately pleaded securities fraud claims against Citigroup, Gary Crittenden, Charles Prince, Thomas Maheras, Robert Druskin, David C. Bushnell, Michael Stuart Klein, and Robert Rubin for misstatements made about the bank’s CDO exposure between February and November 3, 2007. The plaintiffs also adequately pleaded securities fraud claims against Citigroup and Crittenden for Nov. 4, 2007, to April 2008 period.

Non-Customers of Wachovia Cannot Bring Stock Loan Related Claim to FINRA, Says Court

Published on: November 21, 2010 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California has ruled that a married couple and their investment vehicles are not Wachovia “customers” and, therefore, they are not entitled to bring their stock loan related claims against Wachovia Securities Financial Network LLC and financial adviser George Gordon III to Financial Industry Regulatory Authority arbitration. Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong granted Wachovia and Gordon’s request for a preliminary injunction.

Per the statement of claim submitted to FINRA, Gregory and Susan Raifman initiated arbitration as trustees of a family trust, as Gekko Holdings Inc. members, and as the beneficial owners and assignees in interest of Helicon Investments Ltd. The Raifmans accused Wachovia and Gordon of committing securities fraud, breach of fiduciary duties, and violations of the California Securities Act and the rules of both the New York Stock Exchange and National Association of Securities Dealers.

The Raifmans contended that Gekko and Helicon each went into three separate stock loan transactions that Derivium Capital LLC, a third party, had promoted so they could borrow up to 90% of their stock holdings’ value without triggering capital gain on the stock sale. After the three-year loan term ended, the Raifmans were to pay the loan balance and get back or surrender their collateral or renew their loan.

To execute their plan, the Raifmans opened a Wachovia account for the trust in 2003 and transferred nearly $3 million in ValueClick (VLCK) shares into an account owned by a Derivium affiliate. Almost 12 months later, Helicon placed 300,000 ValueClick shares into another Derivium affiliate’s Wachovia account under a 90 percent stock loan agreement. Gekko later deposited 200,000 ValueClick shares in the same account (and also under a 90 percent stock loan agreement).

It wasn’t until 2007 that the Raifmans found out that their Value Click shares had been sold as soon as they were placed in the Derivium affiliates’ accounts. They also had not known that the sales proceeds had been loaned back to them while Wachovia and Derivium kept 10 – 14% of the sales proceeds.

The Raifmans attempted to start the arbitration process in July but Gordon and Wachovia filed their complaint seeking enjoinment against the couple, Helicon, and Gekko. They also requested a stay of the arbitration proceedings. The financial firm and investment adviser contended that they did not have an agreement with the defendants, who were not their customers and therefore not entitled to FINRA arbitration. The district court agreed.

Related Web Resources:
Wachovia Securities LLC v. Raifman

Arbitration and Mediation, FINRA Continue Reading ›

LPL Financial Management and Private Equity Backers TPG and Hellman & Friedman Could Make Over $450M from IPO

Published on: November 19, 2010 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Investors are jumping on LPL Financial Management’s initial public offering debut. At midafternoon on Wednesday, shares were up 8% at $32 plus change. (This, compared this to the 6% increase in GM’s IPO.) According to CNN, the Boston-based brokerage service and private equity backers TPG and Helllman & Friedman may make than $450 million from the deal.

LPL provides research, technology, and financial services to 12,000 independent financial advisers in small and medium-sized shops. This allows them to provide services, including financial advice that is supposed to be free from conflict or bias, to retail investors. Seeing as there have been so many alleged incidents recently reported of bankers trying to earn fees by pressing clients to take part in certain deals, LPL says in its IPO prospectus that it make sense that today more investors are drawn to independent advisers. The brokerage service company also says that over the last decade, as rich individuals and brokers have started to question the benefits of dealing with the larger banks, its broker clientele as gone up at a 13% compound annual rate.

That said, the investment adviser system-whether involving independent advisers or those with ties to investment banks-is far from perfect. As Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas LTD LLP founder and securities fraud lawyer William Shepherd points out, “We have seen a number of complaints regarding LPL which seemed to stem from failure to supervise. Perhaps this is because LPL has so many advisor/agents in one or two person offices having somewhat detached contact with their supervisor(s). It was recently reported that LPL may have sought to hire another firm to handle its supervisory duties.”

LPL CEO Mark Casady and President COO Esther Stearns are expected to make millions from the IPO-almost $58 million for Casady and $35.1 million for Stearns. LPL executive William Dwyer could make $8.24 million, while the shares that General Counsel Stephanie Brown plans to sell could make her $3.77 million.

Related Web Resources:
LPL Financial IPO outpaces GM, CNN Money, November 18, 2010
LPL Executives Likely To Reap Millions In Public Offering, The Wall Street Journal, November 18, 2010
LPL Investment IPO Faces Struggle, The Street, November 15, 2010 Continue Reading ›

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

Published on: November 12, 2010 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority says it is fining Goldman Sachs $650,000 for failing to disclose that the government was investigating two of its brokers. One of the brokers was Goldman vice president Fabrice Tourre. FINRA says Goldman did not have the proper procedures in place to make sure that this disclosure was made.

The SEC had accused Tourre of being “principally responsible” for Abacus 2007-AC1, a synthetic collateralized debt obligation, and selling the bonds to investors, who ended up losing more than $1 billion while Goldman yielded profits and hedge fund manager John A. Paulson made money from bets he placed against specific mortgage bonds. The SEC contends that Goldman failed to notify investors that Paulson had taken a short position against Abacus 2007-AC1. This summer, Goldman settled for $550 million SEC charges that it misled investors about this CDO, just as the housing market was collapsing.

Regarding Goldman’s failure to disclose that the SEC was investigating two of its brokers, even though investment firms are required to file a Form U4 within 30 days of finding out that a representative has received a Wells notice about the probe, FINRA says that Tourre’s U4 wasn’t amended until May 3, 2010. This date is more than 7 months after Goldman learned about his Well Notice and after the SEC filed its complaint against the investment bank and Tourre. FINRA also says that Goldman’s “employee manual” for brokers does not even specifically mention Wells Notices or the need for disclosure after one is received.

By agreeing to settle with FINRA, Goldman is not admitting to or denying the charges.

Goldman Sachs to Pay $650,000 for Failing to Disclose Wells Notices, FINRA, November 9, 2010
Related Web Resources:
Goldman Fined $650,000 for Lack of Disclosure, New York Times, November 9, 2010
Goldman Sachs Settles SEC Subprime Mortgage-CDO Related Charges for $550 Million,
Stockbroker Fraud Blog, July 30, 2010
Goldman Sachs, Institutional Investor Securities Blog Continue Reading ›

Citigroup Global Markets to Pay Back $95.5M Over ARS Sold to LandAmerica Exchange Fund

Published on: November 11, 2010 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

A federal bankruptcy judge has approved a settlement involving Citigroup Global Markets Inc. agreeing to repay $95.5 million to clients who sustained auction-rate securities related-losses. The ARS were told by Citigroup to LandAmerica 1031 Exchange Services Inc. before the latter folded in 2008. The ARS had been valued at about $120 million. The repurchase rate that clients are getting is reportedly better than what the ARS can be sold for now.

Under the approved securities settlement, these creditors should recover a little over 50% of their financial losses. The distribution of the money should begin taking place in December.

LandAmerica 1031 Exchange Services Inc. and parent company LandAmerica Financial Group Inc. filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in November 2008. Over 250 clients had placed proceeds from investment property sales in the exchange. Their intention was to defer capital gains taxes while searching for other properties to purchase.

Unfortunately, because the exchange company invested some of the funds in ARS, when the market froze and LandAmerica filed for bankruptcy, the investors became unable to access their money. At the time of the bankruptcy, Landmark held $201.7 million in ARS. $30 million of the securities had sold.

Meantime, the US Securities and Exchange Commission has received complaints claiming that Citigroup engaged in misrepresentation and securities fraud related to the credit worthiness and liquidity of the securities.

Related Web Resources:

Stockbroker Fraud Blog

Court Rejects Defendants’ Challenge to Poptech LP’s Lead Plaintiff Status in Class Securities Fraud Lawsuit

Published on: November 10, 2010 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut has rejected defendants Stewardship Investment Advisors LLC and Marlon Quan’s challenge to the appointment of Poptech LP as the lead plaintiff in a class securities fraud lawsuit filed by investors. The plaintiffs are accusing the investment firm and Quan of violating federal securities law antifraud proscriptions by allegedly misrepresenting that the fund would employ certain investment strategies. The fund is also accused of investing the majority of its assets in a Thomas Petters-operated Ponzi scam. Poptech, not long after filing its class securities lawsuit, published notice in Business Wire stating that there wasn’t a dispute that the notice appropriately notified members of the proposed class about the pending action and the purported class period.

In their challenge, the defendants argued that the notice did not satisfy Private Securities Litigation Reform Act requirements, including failing to completely and “adequately” notify proposed class members of all the claims asserted in the complaint, not providing enough details about the defendants’ alleged misrepresentations, and failing to “adequately facilitate” additional action and inquiry by potential members. The court, however, found that the PSLRA requires just a “reasonably detailed summary” of claims made.

Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas LTD LLP Founder and Securities Fraud Lawyer William Shepherd had this to say about the ruling: “If this Court’s decision survives appeal, it could be helpful to victims of securities fraud. Some courts have carried ‘pleading securities fraud with particularity’ to extremes before discovery could even begin. Also, while these pleading requirements apply to class action litigation, many judges have been requiring absurd pleading requirements in all types of securities actions. Hopefully, fewer defrauded investors will be thrown out of court in the future based on pleading technicalities.”

UBS Must Pay Couple $530,000 for Lehman Brothers-Backed Structured Notes

Published on: November 5, 2010 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

A Financial Industry Regulatory Authority arbitration panel has ordered UBS AG to pay two clients $529,688 over their purchase of Lehman Brothers Holdings notes. The investors, Steven and Ellen Edelson, were told that they were buying “structured products, some of which were “principal protected.”

Between 2006 and 2008, the Edelsons, who used to own a plumbing supply company, purchased some $3.5 million in structured products—$529,688 of which came from Lehman. They even purchased the Lehman notes as late as August 2008, just a month before the bank failed.

Some of the Lehman notes that they bought were called “Return Optimization Securities with Partial Protection,” and “100% Principal Protection Notes” (PPN). According to the couple’s securities fraud lawyer, the Lehman notes are now valued at pennies on the dollar). Their attorney contends that by calling the notes “principal protected,” UBS misrepresented the risks involved in investing in the structured notes.

According to Forbes.com, Lehman’s structured notes were supposed to perform like an S&P 500 index or a basket of securities. However, the PPN should be different from either in that the investments—in return for the financial security—would be capped. Unfortunately, as investors found out in September 2008, there were “principal protected” investments that did not live up to their name because they lacked that inferred protection.

UBS maintains that it followed “regulatory requirements” when it sold Lehman notes and that it could not have foreseen the latter’s financial collapse. Meantime, FINRA has ordered the investment bank to repurchase the notes from the retired couple.

Securities Fraud Against UBS Over Lehman Products
UBS has reportedly sold $1 billion of Lehman products to US investors. In six of the seven cases alleging securities fraud that were decided through FINRA, UBS must now repay some or all of the losses sustained by the investors.

Related Web Resources:

UBS Having Hard Time With Lehman Structured Products Arbitration, Forbes, April 26, 2010

UBS Loses Lehman Arbitration Note Claim by Small Investor, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, December 9, 2010

Brokers Renew Push for Investors to Buy Structured Products, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, June 12, 2009

Securities Claims Against Goldman Sachs Over Mortgage-Backed Certificates are Partially Dismissed by Court Due to Lack of Injury

Published on: October 30, 2010 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York has ruled that without an injury, a mortgage-backed certificates holder cannot maintain a securities claim against MBS underwriter Goldman Sachs & Co. (GS) and related entities for allegedly misstating the risks involved in the certificates in their registration statement. Judge Miriam Goldman Cedarbaum says that plaintiff NECA-IBEW Health & Welfare Fund knew that the investment it made could be illiquid and, therefore, cannot allege injury based on the certificates hypothetical price on the secondary market at the time of the complaint. The court, however, did deny Goldman’s motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s claims brought under the 1933 Securities Act’s Section 12(a)(2) and Section 15.

The Fund had purchased from Goldman a series of MBS certificates with a face value of $390,000 in the initial public offering on Oct. 15, 2007. The fund then bought another series of MBS certificates with a $49,827.56 face value from Goldman, which served as underwriter, creator of the mortgage loan pools, sponsor of the offerings, and issuer of the certificates after securitizing the loans and placing them in trusts.

Per the 1933 Act’s Section 11, the Fund alleged that in the resale market the certificates were valued at somewhere between “‘between 35 and 45 cents on the dollar.” However, instead of alleging that it did not get the distributions it was entitled to, the plaintiff contended that it was exposed to a significantly higher risk than what the Offering Documents represented. The court said that NECA failed to state any allegation of an injury in fact. The court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss.

Following the court’s decision, Shepherd Smith Edwards and Kantas Founder and Securities Fraud Attorney William Shepherd said, “It is sad that large and small investors have little clout in the processes of selecting judges. Thus, Wall Street continues to gain advantages in court—especially federal court.”

Related Web Resources:

NECA-IBEW

Ex-Employee Accuses Bank of America of Securities Fraud Involving Complex Derivatives Products

Published on: October 29, 2010 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

A former Bank of America employee is accusing the investment bank of aggressively recommending complex derivatives products to investors while at the same time failing to tell them of the risks involved. In a letter to Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman Mary Schapiro, the whistleblower said that the sales of these structured notes were so important to the BofA’s brokerage unit during the economic collapse that workers were threatened with termination if they warned clients against investing in the products or did not meet their quotas.

The ex-employee writes that another employee’s job was threatened after he told clients to liquidate their notes because of the possibility that BofA might become “nationalized,” which would make the notes worthless. The whistleblower claims to have been notified that aggressive sale of the notes was the only way the brokerage unit could fulfill its revenue goals at that time.

Bill Halldin, a Bank of America spokesperson, says that the investment firm has not heard about any such complaint regarding these allegations. He maintains that the investment bank has a policy abiding by “applicable laws and industry practices” when conducting business.

Broker Misconduct
Broker-dealers are obligated to notify investors of risks involved in an investment. They must also make sure that any investment that they recommend is appropriate for a client. Failure to fulfill these duties of care can be grounds for a securities fraud case.

Structured Notes
These derivative-like contracts allow investors to bet on bonds, stocks, or other securities. While some notes are “guaranteed” and promise a return on principal upon expiration, there are still those, such has Lehman Brothers’ notes, that fail to meet that guarantee. This can leave the holders to deal with the financial consequences. Banks may also stop trading the notes at any time.

Related Web Resources:
Informer: BofA hawked risky deals to customers, NY Post, October 29, 2010
Informer: Bofa Hawked Risky Deals to Customers, iStockAnalyst
Bank of America Blog Posts, Stockbroker Fraud Blog
Whistleblower Lawsuits, Stockbroker Fraud Blog Continue Reading ›

Goldman Sach’s $550 Million Securities Fraud Settlement Not Tied to Financial Reform Bill, Says SEC IG

Published on: October 27, 2010 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

According Securities and Exchange Commission Inspector General H. David Kotz, there is no evidence that the SEC’s enforcement action against Goldman Sachs or the $550 million securities fraud settlement that resulted are tied to the financial services reform bill. Kotz also noted that it does not appear that any agency person leaked any information about the ongoing investigation to the press before the case was filed last April. The SEC says that the IG’s report reaffirms that the complaint against Goldman was based only on the merits.

That said, Kotz did find that SEC staff failed to fully comply with the administrative requirement that they do everything possible to make sure that defendants not find out about any action against them through the media. Kotz notes that this, along with the failure to notify NYSE Reg[ulation] before filing the action and the fact that the action was filed during market hours caused the securities market to become more volatile that day. Goldman had settled the SEC’s charges related to its marketing of synthetic collateralized debt obligation connected to certain subprime mortgage-backed securities in 2007 on the same day that the Senate approved the financial reform bill.

Last April, several Republican congressman insinuated that politics may have been involved because the announcement of the case came at the same time that Democrats were pressing for financial regulatory reform. SEC Chairman Mary Schapiro denied the allegation.

Earlier this month, Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) wrote Schapiro asking to see an unredacted copy of the internal investigative report by the IG. Issa is the one who had pressed Kotz to examine the decision-making process behind the Goldman settlement. Issa’s spokesperson says the lawmaker is concerned that the SEC can redact parts of its IG reports before the public and Congress can see them. However, at a Senate Banking Committee last month, Kotz, said that the SEC redacts information because the data could impact the capital markets.

Related Web Resources:

Goldman Settles With S.E.C. for $550 Million, The New York Times, July 15, 2010

SEC’s Inspector General to Investigate Timing of Suit Against Goldman Sachs, Fox News, April 25, 2010

General H. David Kotz, SEC