Financial Firms

Allegations Against Goldman Sachs in $56M Securities Fraud Lawsuit Meet Morrison Standard, Says Australian Hedge Fund

Published on: September 14, 2010 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Basis Yield Alpha Fund says that its $56 million securities fraud lawsuit against Goldman Sachs Group Inc. should go to trial. The Australian hedge fund contends that its securities complaint, which accuses the investment bank of inflating certain collateralized debt obligations’ value, meet the standard recently articulated by the US Supreme Court in Morrison v. National Australia Bank. Goldman, however, contends that the transactions and securities under dispute do not meet the Morrison standard.

In the Supreme Court’s ruling, The judges limited Section 10(b) of the 1934 Securities Exchange Act’s extraterritorial reach by determining that the law was applicable only to transactions involving securities that took place in the United States or were listed on US exchanges. Following the decision, a district court ordered Goldman and Basis to use Morrison for determining whether there is grounds to drop the case. Goldman submitted its motion to dismiss and noted that the securities in the CDOs were not included on any US exchange list and that the underlying agreements were subject to English law and executed in Australia.

Meantime, Basis is arguing that its case is a “quintessential” securities fraud case involving a US sales transaction. The Australian hedge fund, which invested $42 million in “Timberwolf,” an AAA-rated tranche, and $36 million in an AA-rated tranche of CDOs, maintains that the CDO assembled mortgage-backed securities in Timberwolf came from the subprime real estate market in the US and was a New York sales transaction from beginning to end. The hedge fund was forced into insolvency when after investing in Timberwolf the CDOs value dropped dramatically and the fund sustained over $50 million in losses.

Basis contends that Goldman’s effort to make the transaction an Australian one that is not subject to federal securities laws has no legal or factual basis. It argues that adopting Goldman’s theory would nullify US securities law whenever a US seller committed securities fraud when effecting the sale of a security to a foreign buyer.

Related Web Resources:
Basis Yield Alpha Fund v Goldman Sachs Complaint, Scribd

Timberwolf Lawsuit: Goldman Sachs Sued By Australian Hedge Fund Over ‘Sh–ty Deal, Huffington Post, June 9, 2009

Read the Supreme Court Ruling (PDF)

Goldman Sachs Permanently Exempted from Company Act Disqualification Provision, Says SEC

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

The Securities and Exchange Commission has decided to permanently exempt Goldman & Sachs Co. from a 1940 Investment Company Act provision that would have disqualified the financial firm from serving as a principal underwrite. Goldman and several of its affiliates applied for exemption from ICA Section 9(a) after settling for $550 million SEC securities fraud charges that it made material misrepresentations related to the 2007 structuring and sale of derivative product connected to subprime mortgages.

Under the provision, a person cannot act as a principal underwriter or investment adviser for an investment firm if, due to misconduct, the party in question is enjoined from taking part in any practice or conduct related to the purchase or sale of any security. Goldman, in its application, noted that since the district court had barred it and its affiliates from violating federal securities laws moving forward, the provision would apply to disqualify them from giving advisory services to investment companies.

After granting the broker-dealer a temporary exemption in July, the SEC issued Goldman a permanent one. The SEC noted that the applicants’ behavior did not make it against the “public interest or protection of investors” to grant the permanent exemption.

Regarding the $550 million securities fraud settlement, which is the largest penalty that the SEC has ordered a financial firm to pay, Goldman was accused of misleading investors about a synthetic collateralized debt obligation as the housing market was collapsing. Investors suffered more than $1 billion in financial losses. The brokerage firm admitted that it provided incomplete marketing information for the product and has agreed to reform its business practices.

Related Web Resources:
Investment Company Act of 1940

Goldman Sachs, SEC Reach $550 Million Settlement, PBS News, July 15, 2010 Continue Reading ›

Morgan Stanley, UBS, Wells Fargo, and Merrill Lynch Recruit Other Investment Firms’ Brokers

Published on: September 9, 2010 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

UBS AG unit UBS Wealth Management Americas recently recruited Bank of America Corp.’s Merrill Lynch financial adviser Nina Hakim to join its Westfield, New Jersey office. Hakim, who reportedly managed $300 million in client assets and generated $1.5 million in commissions and fees, will now report to UBS branch Manager Erik Gaucher.

Another new addition to the UBS team is Morgan Stanley Smith Barney adviser Raymond Schmidtke, who will be based in Seattle, Washington. According to regulatory records, Schmidtke, was employed by Citigroup Inc. for over two decades and stayed at the MS joint venture for a year. He reportedly had close to $100 million in assets under management and $1 million in annual production. He now reports to UBS branch manager Shawn MacFarlan.

In other investment adviser news, a team of now former Wells Fargo Advisors advisers has joined Morgan Stanley Smith Barney. Francis Schiavetti and Ben Dembin’s base will be the Boca Raton, Florida office. The team reportedly manages $107 million in client assets and produces approximately $1.2 million in commissions and annual fees. The two men both were employed by Wells Fargo and predecessor firm Wachovia Securities before joining the Morgan Stanley Smith Barney team.

In August, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority fined and censured Morgan Stanley $800,000 for not making public disclosures, which is required under the SRO’s rules that oversee research-analyst conflicts of interest. FINRA claims that the financial firm also did not comply with a key 2003 Research Analyst Settlement provision when it failed to disclose independent research availability in customer account statements. Every six months, for the next two years, Morgan Stanley must now review a sample of its research reports and certify that they are in compliance with FINRA’s rules.

Related Web Resources:
Hires Merrill Lynch, Morgan Stanley Brokers, Fox Business, August 24, 2010
Morgan Stanley Adds Team From Wells Fargo, Faces FINRA Fine, Investment Advisor, August 24, 2010
FINRA Fines Morgan Stanley $800,000 for Deficient Conflict of Interest Disclosures in Equity Research Reports and Public Appearances by Research Analysts, FINRA, August 10, 2010 Continue Reading ›

Charles Schwab & Co. Defendant in Class-Action Securities Fraud Lawsuit Filed on Behalf of Schwab Total Bond Market Fund Investors Over CMOs and Mortgage-Backed Securities

Published on: September 7, 2010 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

A class-action securities complaint has been filed against Charles Schwab & Co. on behalf of investors that own Schwab Total Bond Market Fund (Nasdaq: SWBLX) shares that were purchased after May 31, 2007. The securities fraud lawsuit accuses Charles Schwab of causing the fund to deviate from its fundamental business objective, which was to track the Lehman Brothers U.S. Aggregate Bond Index, and of violating the California Business & Professions Code.

According to the plaintiffs’ legal representation, the defendant caused investors to suffer financial losses when it started investing in high-risk mortgage backed securities without letting shareholders know. Per the fund’s prospectus, Charles Schwab is supposed to obtain shareholder approval through a vote.

The plaintiffs contend that by investing 25% of the fund’s portfolio assets in high-risk, non-agency collateralized mortgage obligations (CMO’s) and mortgage-backed securities that were not part of Lehman’s US Aggregate Bond Index, Charles Schwab failed to stay true to its stated fundamental investment objective. They claim that this deviation led to tens of millions of dollars in shareholder losses because of the decline in the non-agency mortgage-backed securities value. According to their lawyers, the investors ended up experiencing a negative 12.64% in differential in total return for the fund compared to the Lehman Bros. U.S. Aggregate Bond Index from August 31, 2007 to February 27, 2009.

The investor plaintiffs are seeking restitution for all class members and for the return of management and other associated fees collected after the fund’s alleged deviation from its fundamental business objective.

Related Web Resources:
Class Action Lawsuit Filed Against Charles Schwab & Co., Star Global Tribune, September 7, 2010
Plaintiffs charge Total Bond Market Fund deviated from stated investment strategy, Investment News, September 7, 2010

Related Blog Stories Resources:
Schwab Must Pay SSEK Client $604,094 Over California Yield Plus Fund Investments, Says FINRA Arbitration Panel, https://www.stockbrokerfraudblog.com, April 22, 2010
Securities Law Firm Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas LTD LLP Investigates Investor Claims Related to Short Term Bond Funds, https://www.stockbrokerfraudblog.com, August 9, 2008 Continue Reading ›

Raymond James Loses Texas Auction Rate Securities Case and is Ordered by FINRA to Pay Couple $925K

Published on: September 4, 2010 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Raymond James and Associates Inc. and financial advisor Larry Milton must pay Rex and Sherese Glendenning $925,000, says a Financial Industry Regulatory Authority panel. The Texas securities case involved an auction-rate securities dispute. brokerage firm advisor Milton has been accused of misrepresenting that the ARS the couple invested in was extremely liquid.

The Glendennings opened their Raymond James (NYSE: RJF) account in 2008 right before the ARS market failed. They claim that Milton, who had invested $1.4 million of their funds in an ARS that consisted of sewer revenue bonds, did not tell them that there was an inherent possibility that the securities might fail. Instead, they allege, he lead them to believe that the ARS could be easily sold. You can imagine their dismay when Raymond James refused their request to repurchase the ARS at full value.

The Gleddenings are not the only ones that the broker-dealer has been ordered to compensate. In just the last two months, Raymond James has been ordered to buy back $3.5 million in ARS from investors. A FINRA panel ordered the brokerage firm to repurchase $2.5 million in ARS from investor Greg Merdinger, who claims that not only was he told that auction-rate securities were safe and very liquid (even more than market funds), but also he contends that no one apprised him that there was an illiquidity risk. Raymond James affiliates Raymond James & Associates Inc. and Raymond James Financial Services Inc. were ordered to make the ARS repurchase.

Related Web Stories:
FINRA: Raymond James must pay $925,000 to couple, Reuters, August 25, 2010
Raymond James faces $2.5 million payback ruling, Tampa Biz, July 26, 2010

Related Blog Posts:
Raymond James Ordered to Buy Back $2.5M in ARS by FINRA, https://www.stockbrokerfraudblog.com, July 28, 2010
Raymond James and RBC Capital Markets Fined $1.4 Million in Total Over Improper Stock Lending Activities, https://www.stockbrokerfraudblog.com, June 22, 2009 Continue Reading ›

Eaton Vance and Closed-End Trusts Sued for Breach of Fiduciary Duty Related to Redemption of Auction Preferred Securities

Published on: September 3, 2010 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Eaton Vance Management says that five of the closed-end management investment companies that it advises have each received a demand letter on behalf of a putative common shareholder of the “Trusts” alleging breach of fiduciary duty related to the redemption of auction preferred securities after the auction markets failed in February 2008.

The “Trusts”:
• Eaton Vance Floating-Rate Income Trust (NYSE:EFR – News)
• Eaton Vance Tax-Advantaged Global Dividend Income Fund (NYSE:ETG – News)
• Eaton Vance Limited Duration Income Fund (NYSE Amex: EVV)
• Eaton Vance Insured Municipal Bond Fund (NYSE Amex: EIM)
• Eaton Vance New Jersey Municipal Income Trust (NYSE Amex: EVJ)

The letters seeks to have the Trusts’ Board of Trustees take certain steps to remedy the alleged breaches of duty. Eaton Vance Management is an Eaton Vance Corp. subsidiary.

Also, purported class action complaints have been filed against ETG and EVV on behalf of a putative common shareholder of each Trust. The securities lawsuits are claiming breach of fiduciary duty related to the redemption of auction preferred securities. Eaton Vance Management, Eaton Vance Corp., and the Trustees of the Trusts also are defendants. Eaton Vance provides institutional and individual investors with a wide range of wealth management solutions and investment strategies.

Our securities fraud lawyers represent institutional investors throughout the US. We are here to help you recoup your investment losses.

Related Web Resources:

Institutional Investors, Eaton Vance

Closed-End Management Company, Investopedia

Read our Stockbroker Fraud Blog

Raymond James Must Pay $925,000 Over Auction-Rate Securities Dispute

Published on: September 1, 2010 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

A Financial Industry Regulatory Authority panel says that Raymond James and financial advisor Larry Milton must pay Sherese and Rex Glendenning $925,000 over an auction-rate securities dispute. This is the third time this summer that Raymond James Financial Inc. (NYSE: RFJ) subsidiaries have been involved in an ARS dispute that was decided in FINRA arbitration. Since July 1, independent broker-dealer Raymond James Financial Services Inc. and brokerage firm Raymond James & Associates have been ordered to repurchase $3.5 million in ARS from clients.

The Glendennings set up their account with Raymond James in January 2008 before the market meltdown. Milton placed the couple’s $1.4 million in an ARS that contained sewer revenue bonds while failing to tell them about the risk involved.

The couple contends that Milton’s behavior wrongly gave them the impression that their investment was highly liquid and could be easily sold. However, Raymond James turned down their request to buy the ARS back at full value.

According to the Glendennings’ securities fraud attorney, the timing of the purchase was key to winning the award. The securities that they bought came up for auction for the first time thirty five days after they made the purchase. The auction failed and the couple were never able “ to go to auction.”

At the time of the ARS market crash in February 2008, Raymond James Financial clients held $1.9 billion in auction rate debt—now down to $600 million. To date, none of the securities regulators have sued the firm over ARS sales. Other financial firms, including Oppenheimer & Co. Inc. and Charles Schwab & Co. haven’t been as lucky.

Related Web Resources:
Raymond James pays more auction rate claims, Investment News, August 26, 2010

FINRA rules against Raymond James in auction rate securities case, Tampa Bay Business Journal, August 26, 2010

Stockbroker-Fraud Blog

Former Bank of America CEO Denies Allegations of Securities Fraud During Merrill Lynch Acquisition

Published on: August 31, 2010 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Kenneth D. Lewis, Bank of America‘s former chief executive, says that New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo’s securities fraud allegations in connection with the bank’s merger with Merrill Lynch are without merit. Lewis is accused of purposely withholding information from the shareholders who approved Bank of America’s acquisition of Merrill.

In his filing with the state supreme court, Lewis claims that Cuomo’s securities lawsuit places blame “where it does not belong.” Lewis contends that all decisions he made regarding the acquisition were done in “good faith” and with the shareholders’ best interests in mind.

Cuomo’s securities fraud complaint charged BofA, Lewis, and ex-CFO Joe Price of concealing from shareholders the fact that Merrill brought with it billions of dollars in debt. The NY Attorney General contends that the information was withheld so that the shareholders would approve the merger between the two financial institutions. He also has accused the defendants of exaggerating the degree of Merrill’s losses so that federal help would be provided through the Troubled Asset Relief Program.

Zions Direct Inc. to Pay $225K for FINRA Securities Fraud Charges Related to CD Auctions

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

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority has ordered Zions Direct Inc., Zions Bancorp’s (ZION) brokerage unit, to pay $225,000 to settle securities fraud allegations that it failed to disclose conflicts of interest in online certificate-of-deposits auctions. According to the SRO, from February 2007 to November 2008, the Utah broker-dealer failed to make public in its online CD auctions that Liquid Asset Management took part in auctions to retail investors.

FINRA contends that if LAM hadn’t been involved some bidders could have had higher yields in some auctions. Instead, they may have received lower yields.

Zions Direct began “generally” disclosing LAM’s involvement in November 2008 but still failed to mention the relationship between Zions-affiliated banks and the customers that took part in the auctions and any potential conflicts of interest. Issuing banks may have benefited from LAM’s involvement because they otherwise might have ended up paying higher yields on the CDs bought through the auctions.

FINRA also contends that the brokerage firm sent “exaggerated” and “misleading” ads to current and potential customers that promised CD yields that were not realistic and published market clearing yields on its Web site without adequately disclosing that the figures did not typically reflect the closing yields of auctions. According to FINRA acting enforcement chief and executive vice president James Shorris, investment firms have to tell prospective clients and customers about material information related to their services and products.

By agreeing to settle the securities fraud case, Zions Direct is not admitting to or denying the charges. It has, however, agreed to an entry of FINRA’s findings.

Related Web Resources:
Zions Fined $225,000 For Insufficient Disclosure In CD Auctions, Wall Street Journal, August 25, 2010
FINRA Fines Zions Direct $225,000 for Failure to Disclose Potential Conflict of Interest in its Online CD Auctions, FINRA, August 25, 2010 Continue Reading ›

HSBC Securities to Pay $375K to Settle FINRA Allegations that It Recommended Unsuitable Collateralized Mortgage Obligations to Retail Clients

Published on: August 25, 2010 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

HSBC Securities has agreed to pay $375,000 to settle Financial Industry Regulatory Authority charges that it recommended the unsuitable sale of inverse floating rate collateralized mortgage obligation to retail clients. The SRO is also accusing the investment bank HSBC of inadequate supervision of the suitability of the CMO sales and failure to fully explain the risks involved in CMO investments to clients. The investment bank has already reimbursed clients $320,000.

Per FINRA, six HSBC brokers made 43 unsuitable inverse floater sales to “unsophisticated” retail clients. Even though HSBC requires that a supervisor approve all retail clients sales larger than $100,000, 25 of the sales were larger than this amount. 5 resulted in $320,000 in losses for clients. According to FINRA executive vice-president and acting enforcement chief James S. Shorris, the clients’ financial losses could have been prevented.

FINRA contends that HSBC brokers were not given enough training and guidance about the risks involved with CMOs. They also were not specifically told that inverse floaters were only suitable for investors with high-risk profiles.

FINRA also says that HSBC was not in incompliance with a rule requiring brokerage firms to offer specific educational collateral prior to a CMO sale to anyone that is not an institutional investor. FINRA says that not only did HSBC’s registered representatives not know that they were required to offer this material, but also the brochures that were offered did not meet content standards regarding required educational information.

By agreeing to settle, HSBC is not admitting or denying the allegations.
Related Web Resources:
FINRA Fines HSBC $375,000, On Wall Street, August 19, 2010
FINRA fines HSBC for unsuitable sales of CMOs, Banking Business Review, August 20, 2010
FINRA

Collateralized mortgage obligation, SEC Continue Reading ›