Financial Firms

UBS Sued by New Orleans Employees’ Retirement System for Alleged Tax Scam that Helped the Rich While Causing Investor Losses

Published on: February 13, 2009 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

In the US District Court for the Southern District of New York, UBS AG was named as a defendant in a class action lawsuit alleging that the company engaged in a tax scam designed to help rich US investor avoid federal taxes. The plaintiff in the case is the New Orleans Employees Retirement System, which includes purchasers that publicly traded UBS securities between May 4, 2004 and January 26, 2009.

The 120-page complaint says that UBS would encourage analysts and investors to consider “new net money” that came to the investment bank during each reporting period as a major indicator of the company’s performance and future prospect. The securities fraud class action lawsuit, however, contends that UBS employed a fraudulent scam to lure a material amount of this “new net money.” This scheme also helped extremely rich US investors avoid federal taxes by placing billions of their dollars in undeclared Swiss bank accounts.

The New Orleans Employees’ Retirement System claims the investment bank’s Swiss bankers acted improperly and violated Securities and Exchange Commission regulations when they sold securities in the United States even though they lacked the necessary licensing. The plaintiff contends that UBS’s fraudulent actions led to the firm generating fees worth hundreds of millions of dollars each year and that these funds were used to create more loans through fractional lending.

The lawsuit also accuses UBS of taking action to conceal the tax scam from investors, the Internal Revenue Service, and the Department of Justice while purposely making it appear that the firm’s Wealth Management division was growing at an unprecedented pace.

The plaintiff says UBS’s claims that it had “robust internal controls” and “state of the art risk management tactics” were misleading and false because while UBS was providing these reassurances to investors, it was in fact engaged in its tax evasion scam.

In addition to UBS, defendants in the class action case include Marcel Ospel, Phillip Lofts, Peter Wuffli, Mark Branson, Peter Kurer, Martin Liechti, Peter Kurer, and Raoul Weil.

The putative Class is seeking billions of dollars in damages.

Related Web Resources:
UBS AG

New Orleans Employees’ Retirement System v. UBS AG, Justia Docket Continue Reading ›

Merrill Lynch Pierce Fenner & Smith Does Not Have to Halt Redemption of ARS Clients, Says Court

Published on: February 11, 2009 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

In the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, Judge Shira Scheindlin said that TGS- GS-NOPEC Geophysical Co failed to convince the court that the institutional investor would suffer irreparable harm if Merrill Lynch Pierce Fenner & Smith Inc. continues redeeming clients’ ARS under the investment firm’s current procedures. The judge refused to stop the redemptions and said that the geographical exploration company has admitted that any harm caused by an improper redemption procedure can later be remedied.

Following the collapse of the auction-rate securities market, Merrill Lynch devised a redemption plan to help restore some liquidity to investors, whose ARS were now frozen. The scheme allows the investment bank to redeem partial liquidity to its clients. Anytime an issuer declared a partial redemption, Merrill would note a $25,000 share from each client account before giving out the remaining shares through a proportionate lottery.

Since October 2008, GS-NOPEC Geophysical Co held some $64.5 million in ARS accounts with Merrill. The company claims that Merrill’s redemption scheme is not in its favor.

TGS began FINRA arbitration proceedings against Merrill in November. The company wants to repurchase its ARS with interest, recession purchases, or the actual damages of its holdings’ par value. TGS later filed for injunction pending arbitration and asked the court to mandate that Merrill Lynch allocate prior and future partial redemptions solely in proportion to holdings.

The court refused. The judge said that any harm that TGS incurs can be remedied financially, which is what the company is seeking via arbitration.

TGS-NOPEC Geophysical Company v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., Federal District Court Filings and Dockets, Justia

Related Web Resources:
TGS-NOPEC Geophysic Continue Reading ›

Merrill Lynch, J.P. Morgan and Others fail to Obtain Dismissal of IPO Case by Houston Judge

Published on: February 9, 2009 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

In Texas, a Houston judge has ruled that a would-be class securities lawsuit filed against JP Morgan Securities, Inc., Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner and Smith and a number of other defendants can move forward. The plaintiffs were investors in Superior Offshore International Inc., a company that collapsed following a failed initial public offering. The four other defendants are former Superior company executives.

In the US District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Judge Nancy Atlas found that the plaintiffs met their burden when pleading material misrepresentations and omissions in Superior’s registration statement. She denied the defendants’ request to dismiss the complaint.

Superior Offshore International Inc. had provided commercial diving services and subsea construction to the natural gas and crude oil industry in the Gulf of Mexico. The company began IPO proceedings of about 10.2 million commercial shares at $15/share in April 2007. Merrill Lynch and JP Morgan acted as the primary underwriters. It was after this that Superior experienced major losses and its price dropped until it reached $1.08/share in April 2008. Soon after, Superior announced that it was shutting down operations.

In their consolidated class action, the plaintiffs claimed that while the registration statement revealed that the Superior board chairperson’s two sons were receiving salaries of $48,000 and $120,000, it failed to note that the two men weren’t doing any significant tasks for their respective incomes. The plaintiffs also questioned Superior’s claims that there was a high demand for its services and that certain hurricane-related projects were expected to continue for a number of years when, in fact, that work had declined significantly. They challenged Superior’s claim that it had multiple customers and maintained that the company had provided materially misleading data about its management team.

The defendants had tried dismissing the complaint by citing a failure to state a claim. They said they could not be held liable for events that transpired after the IPO. While the Texas court said it recognized that Superior’s registration statement included warnings about possible risks that could arise, it determined that the plaintiffs were not questioning the accuracy of the potential risks that were noted. Rather, the court said they were challenging the completeness and accuracy of the information Superior had provided about its current state at the time of the IPO. Continue Reading ›

Merrill Lynch Ends Investor and Employee Class Action Lawsuits with $550 Million Settlement

Published on: February 2, 2009 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Last month, Merrill Lynch & Co. reached a $550 million settlement with investors and employees over losses related to investments in subprime mortgage-backed assets. A court must approve the proposed settlements.

In the securities class action case, the plaintiffs have accused Merrill Lynch of using statements on collateralized debt obligations and other assets to inflate the market price of its own shares. As a result, the plaintiffs contend, investors lost money.

The Ohio State Teachers Retirement System is the lead plaintiff in the class action lawsuit, which represents investors who bought preferred shares between October 17, 2007 and December 31, 2008. The agreed upon settlement is $475 million in cash.

Plaintiffs of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act class action have agreed to settle for $75 million in cash. Participants in the ERISA lawsuit are Merrill Lynch employees with Merrill Lynch stock in specific retirement plans. The plaintiffs have accused Merrill of failing to adequately reveal subprime-related losses that impacted its retirement accumulation plan, its savings and investment plan, and its employee stock ownership plan.

By agreeing to settle, Merrill Lynch says it is not admitting to any wrongdoing.

Fallout from the Subprime Mortgage Crisis
The subprime mortgage crisis has resulted in millions of dollars in losses for investors. If you believe that you were a victim of investor fraud or broker dealer misrepresentation and that these inappropriate actions caused you to sustain investor losses, you may be entitled to the recovery of those losses.

Related Web Resources:
Ohio announces $475M Merrill Lynch settlement, Forbes.com, January 16, 2009 Continue Reading ›

Wachovia Corp Sued by Carolinas Health Care System for More than $19 Million in “Bad” Investments

Published on: January 19, 2009 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Carolinas Healthcare System (CHS) is suing Wachovia Corp for alleged bad investments that resulted in losses valued at over $19 million. CHS is also accusing the bank of “directly misleading” it, misrepresenting the risks associated with the investments, and failing to follow the hospital system’s orders that it be withdrawn from the securities-lending program. Wachovia spokesperson Mary Eshet says that the company disagrees about the allegations, was always in compliance, and only made appropriate investments for CHS.

In 2003, according to the investment fraud lawsuit, Wachovia recommended that CHS take part in a securities-lending program. As a participant, a third party would borrow securities from CHS’s portfolio in return for collateral that would be invested by Wachovia until the securities were returned. This would also hopefully result in additional returns.

Per the agreement, Wachovia was only supposed to invest in safe, liquid, quality securities. Any time CHS opted to withdraw from the program, the hospital system was supposed to get all of its investments back within five business days. Also, Wachovia would be allowed to keep 40% of the profits on one account and 35% on the other account.

Last summer, CHS determined that the securities-lending program was proving too risky, especially with the markets collapsing. In September, CHS notified Wachovia to return all borrowed securities right away.

Wachovia couldn’t return all of the securities immediately. Wachovia had invested for CHS $14.9 million in Sigma Finance Corp-issued floating rate notes (now worth $750,000) and $5 million in Pricoa Global Funding floating-rate notes (now worth $4.95 million).

The lawsuit contends that Wachovia never notified Carolinas HealthCare System that the investments were not appropriate until CHS decided to end its participation in the securities-leading program. 5 days after Sigma went into receivership last October, Wachovia told the hospital system for the first time that its investment was, at that time, worth just $1.8 million. CHS says there is now no market for the Pricoa-related securities.

CHS contends that Wachovia gained 40% of the profits but did not suffer any of the losses. The hospital system is solely responsible for returning the lost collateral to its borrowers.

CHS files suit vs. Wachovia over losses on investments, Charlotte Business Journal, January 9, 2009

Related Web Resources:
Carolinas HealthCare System

Wachovia Corp
Continue Reading ›

UBS and Citigroup to Pay Nearly $30 Billion to Tens of Thousands of ARS Investors

Published on: December 22, 2008 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

UBS Financial Services, Inc., UBS Securities, LLC, and Citigroup have reached finalized settlements with the Securities and Exchange Commission to pay tens of thousands of ARS investors almost $30 billion. The settlements will resolve SEC charges that the companies misled investors about the risks involved with auction rate securities.

The SEC’s complaint accused UBS and Citigroup of misleading customers by telling them ARS were liquid, safe investments and failing to warn them of the growing dangers when the market started to fail. When the ARS market froze in February, the SEC says both firms left tens of thousands of clients holding billions of dollars in illiquid ARS.

These finalized settlements will restore about $22.7 billion in liquidity to UBS clients who invested in ARS and some $7 billion to Citigroup investors. SEC Chairman Christopher Cox says investors will get back “100 cents on the dollar on their ARS investments.” Both firms will buy ARS from affected customers at PAR. Customers that sold their ARS under the par difference will be paid between par and the ARS sale price. This is the largest settlement in SEC history.

UBS and Citigroup are not admitting to or denying the SEC’s allegations by agreeing to settle. Both investment firms, however, have agreed to enjoinment from future violations.

The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York still needs to approve the settlements, and additional SEC penalties could still arise for UBS and Citi. The SEC is also waiting to finalize the settlements-in-principle it reached with Merrill Lynch, Bank of America, Wachovia, and RBC Capital Markets.

Related Web Resources:
SEC Finalizes ARS Settlements With Citigroup And UBS, Providing Nearly $30 Billion in Liquidity to Investors, SEC, December 11, 2008
SEC Complaint Against UBS (PDF)

SEC Complaint Against Citigroup (PDF)
Continue Reading ›

Senior Investor’s Claim Against Wells Fargo is Remanded on Fraud in Execution by California Court of Appeal

Published on: December 19, 2008 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The California Court of Appeal has remanded a lawsuit filed by an elderly woman accusing Wells Fargo of defrauding her and her husband. The case now goes back to the Los Angeles Superior Court, where a judge must determine whether Wells Fargo engaged in fraud when its employees executed its agreement with the couple.

Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Shook had previously concluded that the arbitration clause in the brokerage agreement between Ronnie and Ira Brown and Wells Fargo Bank, NA was unconscionable. However, he had decided that it was up to a jury to decide whether constructive fraud occurred. If Shook now decides that Wells Fargo did engage in the alleged fraud, the arbitration clause and any other portion of the agreement could then be determined unenforceable.

Sometime between 2003 and 2004, Wells Fargo assigned company vice president and trust administrator Lisa Jill Tepper to serve as Ira and Ronnie Brown’s “relationship manager.” Ira Brown, who was 93 at the time and suffering from health issues (he has passed away since), founded the Save-On Drug chain. His wife, Ira, was 81.

Tepper, who is now a defendant in this case, visited the Browns regularly to assist with their financial paperwork. She eventually began providing the couple with investment advice. At one point, she recommended that they open a Wells Fargo brokerage account because she believed that their other investments were inappropriate due to their advanced age. Through Tepper, the couple began working with Wells Fargo stockbroker Jack Harold Keleshian, who is now also a defendant in the case.

With Tepper and Keleshian’s help, the couple opened up a number of investment accounts, including a “Brown Family Trust.” An arbitration clause was included among the documents.

In 2006, Ronnie sued Wells Fargo. She claimed that when she was under duress while caring for her ailing husband, the bank pressured her into selling nearly 75,000 stock shares at $24.71. She says Keleshian told her that if she didn’t sell, the stock’s value would drop dramatically.

Instead, the stocks increased in value while Ronnie experienced an increase in capital gains taxes. Ronnie claims her damages were over $1 million (including Wells Fargo’s commission from the stock sale). Wells Fargo wants to resolve the dispute through arbitration.

Related Web Resources:

C.A. Orders Hearing on Claim Bank Defrauded Drug Chain Founder, MetNews.com, November 26, 2008
Brown v. Wells Fargo Bank N.A., Cal. Ct. App., No. B196258 (PDF)
Continue Reading ›

Former NEXT Financial Group Stockbroker’s Claim that He Was Fired for Refusing to Conceal Churning is Subject to Arbitration

Published on: December 16, 2008 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The Texas Supreme Court says that former NEXT Financial Group Inc. stockbroker Michael Clements’s claim that the brokerage firm fired him for refusing to cover up churning activity must be arbitrated. Clements was hired as a NEXT Financial regional supervisor in September 2006. Nearly a year later, the brokerage firm fired him because he allegedly failed to perform his required broker responsibilities related to an NASD audit.

Clements filed a lawsuit against the company, claiming he was terminated from his job because he refused to conceal the fact that a NEXT trader had violated federal securities laws by churning client accounts. NEXT pushed for arbitration, claiming that Clements had signed a Form U-4 when he was hired, which requires that he resolve any claims with the brokerage firm through arbitration-per the Federal Arbitration Act.

Clements has maintained that because his claim was based on at-will employment and wrongful termination, rather than a contract connected to a commercial transaction, his claim is exempt from the FAA’s arbitration requirement. He also asserted that his claim resulted from NEXT’s alleged illegal behavior, not its business dealings, and that a recent change in NASD code (following the National Association of Securities Dealers’s merger with the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority) indicated an intent to exclude disagreements involving employment matters from arbitration. Clements noted Sabine Pilot Services v. Hauck, (1 687 S.W.2d 733, 1985), a case where the Texas Supreme Court held that an employer had to pay an ex-employee damages because the worker was fired for refusing to perform an illegal act.

The Texas Supreme Court, however, upheld that the FAA was applicable in this case, NEXT could compel arbitration, and the NASD rule 13200 (a) did not exclude employment and termination-related claims. The court’s decision reverses the trial court’s ruling, which denied NEXT’s request, as did the court of appeals.

Related Web Resources:

Next Financial Group Inc.
Continue Reading ›

Do Broker-Dealers Hire Brokers Already Suspected of Securities Fraud?

Published on: December 11, 2008 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Even though regulators are calling on broker-dealers to employ stricter hiring standards when it comes to screening brokers who have already gotten in trouble for alleged broker misconduct, many firms continue to hire these suspect workers. It doesn’t help that broker-dealers have a tendency to not reveal key details when a registered representative leaves the company under suspect circumstances in order limit the firm’s liability from potential investor lawsuits and arbitration claims.

For example, in 2003, Jeffrey Southard was working for American Express Financial Advisers (now Ameriprise Financial Inc.) when he was accused of selling unregistered securities and combining client funds with his own money. At the time, Southard accused American Express Financial Advisors of falsely accusing him of misdeeds and acting unprofessionally by violating his personal confidentiality. He left the firm to join Gunn-Allen Financial Inc. In July 2008, GunnAllen fired him.

Last month, the New Jersey Bureau of Securities accused the former GunnAllen broker of stealing $1.3 million from 16 senior investors. The state regulators also barred Southard from the securities business and ordered him to pay $50,000 in restitution.

The New Jersey regulators say American Express Financial Advisors failed to properly disclose to clients the problems that could have arisen from working with Southard. The regulators’ order also accuses Southard of misleading his clients. Many of them switched to GunAllen when he left American Express Financial Advisors after he told them that he was leaving was to pursue better opportunities. The New Jersey regulators say that while working with GunnAllen, Southard continued to engage in broker misconduct by selling fake bonds as tax-free investments.

Opinions among industry members are mixed about whether broker-dealers are doing enough to weed out broker candidates with already questionable performance records.

Related Web Resources:

Busted brokers continue bilking clients at new firms, Investment News, December 7, 2008
Ex-GunnAllen broker bilked $1.3M from seniors, Investment News,
Continue Reading ›

Stockbroker Fraud Law Firm Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas LTD LLP Investigate Securities Fraud Claims Involving Former World Group Securities Representatives David Olson and Edward Allen

Published on: December 9, 2008 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority says that former World Group Securities representative David Olson was named in a customer complaint filed in October 2008. The customer claims Olson persuaded him to buy real estate, which was leased back to the representative. The customer alleges that Olson agreed to pay the customer mortgage payments plus interest.

The customer says Olson defaulted on their deal and stopped making payments. The customer is also accusing the representative of soliciting three promissory notes for purchase and earmarking proceeds to buy other real estate properties.

It is considered improper for a FINRA registered representative to issue promissory notes, borrow money from clients, or engage in undisclosed, outside business.

Shepherd Smith and Edwards is investigating securities fraud claims involving David Olson and business partner Edward Allen, as well as their business entities WFG and A&O Companies. Allen also used to work for World Group Securities.

World Group Securities
World Group Securities brokers have been in the headlines recently following news that the US Securities and Exchange Commission was suing five of them due to allegations that they persuaded investors to use subprime mortgages to refinance their homes. The brokers allegedly were compensated for securities sales and mortgage refinancings.

Related Web Resources:

Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas LTD LLP Investigates Claims for Clients of David Olson, Edward Allen and World Group Securities, Inc., Marketwatch.com, December 3, 2008
Securities and Exchange Commission Sues Five World Group Securities Brokers For Persuading Clients to Refinance Homes With Subprime Mortgages, Stokbroker Fraud Blog, October 16, 2008 Continue Reading ›