Financial Firms

NASAA Says Investors with Frozen Auction-Rate Securities Should Ask Investment Firms About Buyback Opportunities

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

The North American Securities Administrators Association is reminding investors to ask the investment firms that sold them any now-frozen auction-rate securities about repurchase opportunities. Following the ARS market collapse, securities regulators in 12 US states joined together to form a multi-state Task Force dedicated to finding out whether Wall Street investment firms had misled investors when persuading them to invest in the ARS market.

As part of their settlement agreements reached with the firms in question, 11 major Wall Street investment banks have said they will buy back over $51 billion in ARS from charities, retail investors, and small companies. However, these repurchase offers may not be available indefinitely.

NASAA President Fred Joseph says the best way to avail of any redemption offers is to contact the investment firms as soon as possible. So far, 11 firms have agreed in principle to buy back over $50 billion in ARS. NASAA says additional repurchase opportunities are expected to become available in the coming months.

Investment Firms with ARS Hotlines:

Bank of America 1-866-638-4183 Deutsche Bank 1-866-926-1437 Citi 1-866-720-4802 JP Morgan 1-866-450-8470 Goldman Sachs 1-888-350-2857 Merrill Lynch 1-888-706-1381 UBS 1-800-253-1974 Morgan Stanley 1-800-566-2273 Wachovia 1-866-283-794
Meantime, more investigations are under way into the sales practices of US firms that marketed and sold auction-rate securities to investors. Unfortunately, many investors who were told ARS were liquid investments are now dealing with frozen securities and cannot access their funds.

If you invested in the auction-rate securities industry and your ARS became frozen during the market’s collapse, you may be the victim of securities fraud.

Related Web Resources:
Small firms caught in ARS buyback vise, November 16, 2008 Continue Reading ›

Citigroup Global Markets Ordered to Pay FINRA Fine for Inadequate Supervision

Published on: November 17, 2008 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority Inc. says it is fining Citigroup Global Markets Inc. $300,000 for its failure to reasonably supervise the commissions that clients were charged for stock and options trades. Citigroup Global Markets is Citigroup Inc’s brokerage and securities arm.

FINRA says that between April 2002 and January 2006, then-Citigroup representative Juan Carlos Hernandez charged 27 clients unreasonable commissions that substantially exceeded the firm’s calculated rate for appropriate charges. One client was reportedly overcharged about $1.2 million.

Citigroup let Hernandez go in February 2006 and one month later, without admitting to or denying FINRA charges, he consented to the findings made against him and was barred by FINRA.

FINRA contends that Hernandez was able to overcharge clients because Citigroup neglected to properly supervise him. FINRA also found that it wasn’t until October 2007 that Citigroup told its brokers about its calculated commission rates or that they weren’t allowed to charge commissions higher than these rates. In the cases when commissions were greater than Citigroup’s calculated rates, FINRA says the firm lacked the proper procedures and policies for determining whether a commission was inappropriate.

By agreeing to settle, Citigroup is consenting to FINRA’s findings but is not admitting or denying the charges. The firm offered to reimburse customers who were affected.

District Court Confirms Merrill Lynch Arbitration Award in Investor Dispute

Published on: November 12, 2008 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. and a number of its workers have won an arbitration dispute filed by a couple that invested in a money market mutual fund. In U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, Judge George Daniels confirmed the award.

Konstantinos Karetsos and Greta Rothstein began their New York Stock Exchange arbitration in February 2006. The married couple accused Merrill Lynch and several of its employees of alleged deceit, fraud, conspiracy, deceptive practices, misrepresentation, obstruction of justice, material omissions, unauthorized transactions, unsuitable investments, gross negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, and account management related to their money market fund purchase.

Arbitration proceedings took place over a six-day period. On the 4th day, the arbitration panel dismissed claims against three Merrill Lynch employees with prejudice. At the end of the proceedings, more claims against Merrill Lynch and a fourth employee were dismissed with prejudice.

The arbitration panel also found that claims against one Merrill Lynch employee were obviously erroneous and that the couple had filed claims against another employee who did not take part in the “alleged investment-related sales practice violations.”

According to the district court, the opposition that was noted in the couple’s pro se pleadings appeared to be based on many of the arguments they made in arbitration. Judge Daniels also said that the couple’s “vague and conclusory” terms” impugned the arbitration panel’s “integrity and neutrality.”

Commenting on Merrill Lynch’s arbitration award, Securities Arbitration Attorney William Shepherd said, “Investors who do not hire a lawyer, or hire one without experience in securities arbitration, fare very poorly in claims against brokerage firms. While securities arbitration has less formalities than court cases, investors simply cannot alone understand how to properly present their claims to the arbitrators.”

Related Web Resources:

Rothstein et al v. Fung et al, Justia
Change in Arbitration Panels Will Allow Investors Only, NY Times, July 25, 2008 Continue Reading ›

Protestors in Asia Decrying Lehman Brothers “Mini-Bond” Collapse Could Be A Sign of More Lawsuits and Claims Against US Broker-Dealers

Published on: November 10, 2008 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Angry investors in Hong Kong and Singapore began protesting last month over losses they suffered due to the collapse of Lehman Brothers credit-linked notes. Also known as mini-bonds, their value is now at pennies on the dollar, and investors want banks to buy the credit-linked notes back from them.

Investors of Lehman mini-bonds have experienced devastating losses. Reports indicate that financial service firms told Asian investors that Lehman Brothers mini-bonds were a safe alternative to fixed deposits.

Over 30,000 Hong Kong investors suffered losses in Lehman Brothers mini-bonds. Close to 10,000 investors in Singapore could lose more than $338 million dollars as a result of the mini-bond collapse. Last month, 600 Singaporean investors attended a public meeting to ask banks why they sold them Lehman Brothers credit-linked notes. Now, investors in the US that also were influenced by similar marketing messages about Lehman Brothers bonds and other “safe” investments are contacting investment fraud attorneys about filing arbitration claims and lawsuits.

Some lawyers are asking how such an overconcentration of mini-bonds, as well as Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae shares, managed to end up in the portfolios of senior investor who cannot afford to take the kind of financial hits that have come with the market collapse. For example, since July, some Fannie Mae shares have dropped in price from $19.50 to $1.40.

While investor claims against broker-dealers had dropped steadily since 2003 (the lowest number of claims ever, at 3,228, was in 2007), FINRA has already received at at least 3,469 claims this year.

Related Web Resources:

Hong Kong Investors Grapple with Effects of Lehman Collapse

Financial Crisis Politically Awakens Singapore Investors, Reuters, November 7, 2008 Continue Reading ›

J.P. Turner & Co. Will Pay $250,000 to Settle FINRA Charges Related to Inadequate Supervision of Stock Trade Commissions

Published on: November 5, 2008 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority and J.P. Turner & Co. have reached a settlement agreement over charges that the broker-dealer failed to put in place a proper supervisory system for making sure that its registered representatives charged clients reasonable and fair commissions on stock trades. By agreeing to settle, JP Turner is not admitting to or denying the charges involving inadequate supervision.

FINRA says that between January 2002 and March 2005, JP Turner failed to take certain relevant factors into consideration when determining how much commission they should charge clients for equity securities transactions. Instead, FINRA says that the broker-dealer let its brokers charge commissions of up to 4.5% on nearly every stock trade, with discretion on what commission to charge solely limited by whether the security’s price was higher or lower than $25/share. If the security’s price was under $25/share, FINRA says that JP Turner representatives could charge commission of up to 4.5%. They could charge commissions of up to 3.5% if the security price was higher than $25.

FINRA requires brokerage firms to put in place systems and “reasonable procedures” for determining what commission fee a customer should be charged for such transactions, while taking into consideration certain relevant factors. The SRO’s mark-up policy provides a list of these relevant factors, including: the kind of security, the price of the security, the transaction size, the order execution cost, and the availability of the security.

During the review period, FINRA says that 91% of JP Turner’s transactions involved securities priced under $25/share. While the broker dealer’s trading manager was in charge of reviewing and approving trades to make sure charges were reasonable and fair, the SRO says the reviews actually consisted of checking transactions to make sure that commissions did not go above the company’s 4.5% and 3.5% guidelines.

As part of its settlement with FINRA, JP Turner will pay $250,000. The broker-dealer has also agreed to retain an independent consultant who will evaluate for adequacy the company’s systems, policies, procedures, and training related to FINRA’s fair price ruling.
Continue Reading ›

SunTrust Investment Services to Pay $700,000 Fine to Settle FINRA Charges of Excessive Commission and Supervisory Violations Involving Fee-Based Brokerage Business

Published on: October 23, 2008 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority has announced that SunTrust Investment Services Inc. has agreed to pay a $700,000 fine to settle allegations that it engaged in supervisory violations involving its fee-based brokerage business and charged excessive commissions on low-priced stocks. By agreeing to settle, the investment firm is not admitting to or denying the charges.

SunTrust terminated its Portfolio Choice accounts, which were fee-based accounts, in 2006. The charges by FINRA involve the period between November 2002 and December 2005 when SunTrust opened more than 2,644 Portfolio Choice accounts without properly evaluating whether the accounts were the appropriate fit for customers. According to FINRA, SunTrust neglected to properly monitor the Portfolio Choice accounts to make sure that they continued to be the appropriate account choice for clients.

FINRA found that at least 36 Portfolio Choice accounts that did not engage in any trades for at least eight quarters-yet these accounts were charged more than $129,000 in fees during the last four quarters. FINRA also says that a number of SunTrust Portfolio Choice clients paid an asset-based fee and transaction commission on the same assets.

FINRA was able to identify over 900 incidents when SunTrust neglected to exclude a customer asset that was purchased with a commission from the asset base that is used to determine the account fee. The error resulted in customers being charged twice, leading to about $437,500 in commissions and excess fees for SunTrust clients.

FINRA also accused the investment firm of acting inappropriately when it let a number of customers keep their accounts and pay for them even though they had not traded for years. Between January 2002 and September 2, 2005, FINRA says SunTrust did not establish a supervisor system that could make sure that registered representatives would charges clients fair commissions on securities transactions. The firm used an automated commission system that charged commission of more than 5% when low quantities and/or low-priced stocks were sold or purchased. Because of this, some clients were billed excess commissions nearing $100,000 in total.

Also as part of its settlement, SunTrust said it would certify that it returned $713,362 in interest and fees to clients that were affected by the alleged violations. FINRA says it took this voluntary refund into account when assessing its fine against SunTrust.

Related Web Resources:

SunTrust Investment Services

FINRA
Continue Reading ›

Banorte Securities International Agrees to $1.1 Million Fine Over Charges It Recommended Class B Mutual Fund Shares Instead of Class A

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

Banorte Securities International, Ltd. has agreed to a $1.1 million fine to settle charges that it recommended to customers that they buy Class B off-shore mutual fund shares even though they would have benefited more financially by buying Class A shares. The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority announced the settlement agreement last week.

By agreeing to settle, Banorte is not admitting to or denying the charges. The company also agreed to a plan that would address more than 1,400 transactions involving accounts in over 300 customer households.

Banorte had been accused of having inadequate supervisor systems to oversee the sales of off-shore mutual fund shares, including guidelines that failed to properly advise registered representatives that Class A share purchases eligible for front-end loans were more affordable than Class B Shares.

According to FINRA enforcement head Susan L. Merrill, firms are obligated to consider all share classes and pricing features that would most benefit a customer-regardless of whether or not that clients reside in the United States or abroad. The majority of Banorte’s customers reside in Mexico. Merrill also said that firms must take all relevant factors into considerations when making mutual fund recommendations to clients.

Class A Shares

These mutual fund shares come with a front-end sales charge and lower ongoing fees that are asset-based.

Class B Shares

While these mutual fund shares usually do not come with a front-end sales fee, their asset-based fees are usually higher than Class A Shares’ fees.

FINRA alleges that from 2003 until May 2004, the majority of Banorte mutual fund sales involved Class B shares even though investing in Class A Shares could have resulted in higher returns for clients.

Related Web Resources:

FINRA Fines Banorte Securities International $1.1 Million for Improper Sales of Class B Mutual Fund Shares, FINRA, October 16, 2008 Continue Reading ›

Securities Fraud Law Firm Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas LTD LLP Investigates Ray Londo, Londo Financial Group, and Linsco Private Ledger For Improper Lending/Borrowing of Client Funds

Published on: October 20, 2008 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Securities fraud attorneys at the stockbroker fraud law firm of Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas LTD LLP are investigating claims for clients of Ray Londo, Londo Financial Group, and Linsco Private Ledger (LPL). The firm is asking any clients of Ray Londo that lent him or anyone else in his company money to call (800) 259-9010.

According to the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Ray Londo was fired from LPL this year because of his failure to abide by company policy related to borrowing from or lending money to clients. FINRA registered representatives are not supposed to borrow money from clients or accept checks issued directly to a broker.

FINRA Rule 2370

Securities and Exchange Commission Sues Five World Group Securities Brokers For Persuading Clients to Refinance Homes With Subprime Mortgages

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

This month, the US Securities and Exchange Commission filed a civil lawsuit against five World Group Securities brokers for allegedly pushing investors into refinancing their homes with subprime mortgages. The SEC is accusing the mortgage brokers of taking advantage of the clients’ lack of education, modest financial means, and poor fluency in English to fraudulently sell them unsuitable securities-primarily variable universal life policies.

Because most of the investors who were persuaded to purchase the securities lacked the funds or income to do so, the defendants allegedly persuaded them to come up with the money through the refinancing of their fixed-rate mortgages into subprime adjustable-rate negative amortization mortgages. The brokers received compensation from the securities sale and the mortgage refinancings.

The defendants in the case are Guillermo Haro, Jesus Gutierrez Kederio Ainsworth, Angel Romo, and Gabriel Paredes. The Commission says that the brokers violated the antifraud provisions of the securities laws.

The SEC says the men misrepresented the returns the investors would get back from the securities, the nature and liquidity of the variable universal life policies, and the new mortgages’ terms, as well as failed to reveal key facts to the investors. The Commision’s complaint also accuses the brokers of falsifying customer account forms and placing inaccurate securities sales information on order tickets.

The SEC calls the men’s actions and their willingness to allow their clients to risk the potential loss of their homes “egregious” conduct that will not be tolerated. The Commission is seeking disgorgement, injunctions, and financial fines against the defendants.

If you are a victim of investor fraud, it is important that you find out about the legal remedies available to you.

Commission Charges Five Registered Representatives with Fraudulent Sales of Unsuitable Securities Funded Through Subprime Mortgage Refinancings, SEC, October 3, 2008
World Group Securities brokers charged with fraud, Bizjournals.com, October 13, 2008

Related Web Resource:

Subprime Mortgage, Investopedia Continue Reading ›

Goldman Sachs Applies for New York Bank Charter

Published on: October 15, 2008 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Goldman Sachs is applying for a New York bank charter. The application is one of the steps the New York-based investment bank is making in its move to become a commercial bank.

Goldman’s competitors, Bank of America, Citigroup, Morgan Stanley, and JP Morgan Chase are banks that have a national charter, which allows banks to open branches in different states without needing to apply for separate charters in each state. Having a New York charter, however, will not prevent Goldman Sachs from opening branches outside the state.

Goldman’s move to obtain a state charter is a sign that the company may not want a consumer-oriented business that operates on a national level. Rather than focusing on retail banking services, the firm will likely concentrate on managing rich people’s assets.