Financial Firms

FINRA Orders Merrill Lynch to Pay $7M, Including $780K in Restitution to Customers that Invested in Puerto Rico Securities

Published on: December 1, 2016 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”) has fined Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc (“Merrill Lynch”) $6.25 million and imposed a restitution penalty of $780,000 over Merrill Lynch’s inadequate supervision of its customers that employed leverage in brokerage accounts, as well as its failure to supervise the way that these customers were able use the proceeds from their loan managed accounts (“LMAs”). LMAs are credit lines that let customers use the securities in their brokerage accounts as collateral in order to borrow funds from a bank affiliate. However, these LMAs are not supposed to be used to purchase additional securities.

The $780,000 will go to customers that invested in Puerto Rico municipal bonds and Puerto Rico closed-end bond funds. By settling Merrill Lynch is not admitting or denying FINRA’s findings.

According to FINRA, Merrill Lynch did not have these adequate procedures and supervisory systems at issue in place from 1/2010 through 11/2014. FINRA found that even though Merrill Lynch’s policy and non-purpose LMA agreements barred customers from using LMA proceeds to buy different kinds of securities, there were thousands of times during the relevant period that, within two weeks of getting LMA proceeds, Merrill Lynch brokerage accounts collectively purchased hundreds of millions of dollars of securities. Merrill Lynch also set up over 121,000 LMAs, with Bank of America (“BAC”) extending over $85 Billion in aggregate credit. FINRA said that all of this was able to happen because the firm’s supervisory procedures and systems were inadequate.

UBS Ordered to Pay Older Couple $700K Over Puerto Rico Bond Sales While Institutional Investors Continue Lawsuits in Puerto Rico Over Investment Losses

Published on: November 29, 2016 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

A Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”) panel is ordering UBS Financial Services, Inc. (“UBS”) to pay Puerto Rico residents over $700,000 in damages. The FINRA panel ordered UBS to pay $549,000 in compensatory damages to a defunct car rental business belonging to Luis Vega, as well as over $165,000 to Teresa Rosas, who is Vega’s former wife. The firm must also pay over $100,000 in costs and hearing session fees.

Vega and Rosas filed their case against UBS accusing the brokerage firm of securities fraud, negligence, recklessness, and deceit. Vega, 87, invested almost $8 million through his Condado Motors with UBS broker Jose Chaves between ’06 and ’11. During that time, Chaves invested approximately 95% of the money in three of UBS’s Puerto Rico close-end funds, even taking out loans to cover some of the costs. The couple’s lawyer claims that Chavez did not disclose any risks involved other than what was noted in the funds’ prospectus. Additionally, Rosas bought over 17,000 shares of the UBS Puerto Rico Fixed Income Fund III.

The couple saw their investments lose the bulk of their value when the prices for the Puerto Rico bonds and Puerto Rico closed-end funds dropped in 2013. According to their lawyer, Condado Motors lost $3.9 million in value, as well as $823,650 in net out-of-pocket losses, during 2013. The couple said that their financial problems played a part in their decision to get a divorce.

Securities News: Goldman Sachs to Settle Reno’s Auction Rate Securities for $750K, SEC Demands Remaining $5.4MFine Owed By Maine Developer, & a Federal Judge Rules in Jay Peak Resort EB-5 Case

Published on: November 27, 2016 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Goldman Sachs and Reno, NV Settle Securities Fraud Case
According to the Reno Gazette-Journal, the city of Reno is about to settle its securities fraud lawsuit against Goldman Sachs (GS) for $750K. Nevada’s capital city claims that the firm misled it into taking on risky debt that nearly caused Reno to become insolvent. The Reno City Council will vote on approving the settlement next week. Other details of the settlement remain undisclosed at this time.

The auction-rate securities lawsuit involved over $210M in bonds issued by Reno in ’05 and ’06 to refinance the debt for an events center and another facility. The city claims that Goldman Sachs never disclosed that the ARS market was very risky or that the firm was bidding interest rates down to hold up the market.

When the financial collapse happened in 2008 and banks ceased to bid on auction rates, rates went soaring. This left Reno with a 15% debt interest rate and millions of dollars in penalties that it now owed Goldman. For example, in 2012 Reno paid the firm $2.6M. It paid the Goldman Sachs $7M the following year.

Tutor Perini’s $50M Auction-Rate Securities Lawsuit Against Bank of America is Revived

Published on: November 22, 2016 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston has resuscitated Tutor Perini Corp.’s (TPC) securities fraud lawsuit against Bank of America (BAC). Circuit Judge Ojetta Rogeriee Thompson said that a district court judge made a mistake when tossing the Massachusetts and federal securities claims accusing the bank of selling the construction company millions of dollars in auction-rate securities that it knew were about to fail.

Tutor Perini, which is estimating over $50M plus interest in losses, claims that Bank of America persuaded it to purchase auction-rate securities (ARS) prior to the financial crisis, toward the end of 2007 and the beginning of 2008, even though it knew that the securities were on the brink of becoming illiquid. It was in February 2008 that the dealer stopped supporting the $330B ARS market, leaving investors with debt that was illiquid—debt that they had been reassured time and again was liquid, like cash. Instead, investors were unable to access their funds.

In 2015, the district court judge dismissed Tutor Perini’s ARS fraud case, noting that Bank of America did not have the “duty” to reveal every fact about the risks involved to the construction company and that the bank had, in fact, already made a number of disclosures. Judge Thompson, however, said that because the auction-rate securities market was failing, this might have meant that Bank of America now had the duty to warn about the new risks, including those involving its earlier recommendations. Thompson noted that a jury could very well find that as the bank had sought to protect itself from the ARS market, it pushed the construction company toward greater exposure.

FINRA Orders Oppenheimer to Pay $3.4M Penalty For Alleged Reporting Failures and Not Giving Discounts to Mutual Fund Clients

Published on: November 21, 2016 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority says that Oppenheimer & Co. (OPY) must pay $3.4M in sanctions. According to the regulator, for eight years the firm was about four years late when submitting 365 filings about disciplinary actions that it brought against its brokers and in arbitration and litigation settlements. FINRA is also accusing Oppenheimer of not giving seven claimants the documentation they needed in their arbitration against Mark Hotton, an ex-registered representative, and of overcharging 825 customers more than $1M collectively for mutual fund shares over a six-year period.

The self-regulatory organization claims that the late filings to FINRA took place between 2008 and 2016 and that Oppenheimer failed to provide claimants the documentation related to the Mark Hotton allegations between 2010 and 2013. The failure to apply the appropriate fee waiver discount for mutual fund shares purportedly occurred between 2009 and 2015.

Already, Oppenheimer has paid over $6M to settle customer disputes alleging inadequate supervision of Hotton and another $1.25M to 22 customers who did not file arbitration cases but suffered losses, too. Oppenheimer also was ordered to pay a $2.5M fine to FINRA last year over the Hotton claims. The former broker, whom FINRA permanently barred from the securities industry three years ago, was sentenced sentenced to 11 years in prison for stealing client monies and excessively trading their brokerage accounts.

JPMorgan Chase Agrees to Pay Over $264M to Resolve Foreign Corrupt Practices Act Charges

Published on: November 17, 2016 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

To settle civil and criminal charges alleging violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, JPMorgan Chase (JPM) will pay more than $264M: $130M to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, $72M to the U.S. Department of Justice, and $61.9M to the Federal Reserve Board of Governors. The settlements come following a probe that went on for several years into the bank’s hiring practices in Asia.

As part of the agreement, JPMorgan Securities (Asia Pacific) Limited (JPMorgan APAC) admitted that it established the “Sons and Daughters” referral program in 2006 to give preference to job candidates with ties to upcoming client deals. According to authorities, the bank hired 100 interns and full-time employees because foreign officials referred them. Some of these referrals were relatives of these officials. In order to be hired, a candidate had to have direct ties with a “business opportunity.” The Justice Department has called the program “bribery.”

The DOJ’s release reports that among the admissions made related to the resolution was that in 2009, a Chinese government official told a senior JPMorgan APAC banker that if a certain referred candidate were hired this would “significantly influence” the role the bank would have in an upcoming IPO for a company owned by the Chinese state. The banker notified senior colleagues, who spent several months attempting to bring the candidate into an investment banking position in New York. Even though this referred candidate did not have the qualifications for the job, senior JPMorgan APAC bankers created a position for this individual, and the bank was granted a lead role in the initial public offering. JPMorgan APAC also admitted that referred candidates were given the same salary and titles as entry-level investment bankers even though their tasks were “ancillary,” such as proofreading.

Broker Fraud Cases: Former Newbridge Securities Broker Pleads Guilty in $131 Market Manipulation Scheme and FINRA Bars LPL Financial Broker for Depositing Client Funds Into His Own Account, and Lincoln Financial Securities is Fined $650K for Not Protecting Client Information

Published on: November 17, 2016 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Ex-Newbridge Securities Broker Involved in $131M Fraud Pleads Guilty
Gerald Cocuzzo, has pleaded guilty to securities fraud related to his involvement in a $131M market manipulation scam involving Forcefield Energy Inc. (FNRG). According to the U.S. Justice Department, between 1/2009 and 4/2015, Cocuzzo and others sought to bilk investors in the publicly traded company that globally distributes and provides LED lighting products. They did this by artificially manipulating the volume and price of the shares that were traded.

Meantime, Cocuzzo received kickbacks for buying Forcefield stock in his clients’ brokerage accounts. He did not tell the customers that he was receiving these payments. Instead, he and several others sought to hide their involvement.

Newbridge Securities fired Cocuzzo earlier this year following the federal indictment. Before working at Newbridge, he was registered with IAA Financial, previously called CBG Financial Group Inc.

Investors of $7.7B NovaStar Mortgage-Backed Securities Can Move Forward with Fraud Claims Against Wells Fargo, Deutsche Bank, and RBS Securities

Published on: November 10, 2016 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

In New York, US District Judge Deborah A. Batts has certified a class of investors to go ahead with fraud claims that they’ve brought against Wells Fargo (WFC), RBS Securities (RBS), and Deutsche Bank (DB). The banks underwrote $7.7B of NovaStar mortgage-backed securities. The lead plaintiff in the MBS fraud case is the New Jersey Carpenters Health Fund. Wells Fargo Advisors LLC was previously Wachovia Capital Markets.

The plaintiffs contend that the defendant banks lied in the securities’ offering documents. Judge Batts held that the fundamental question at issue is whether the bank did, in fact, make the allegedly misleading or materially false statements.

NovaStar issued six residential mortgage backed-securities that the banks underwrote in 2006. These RMBS collectively held over $7.7B in assets. By mid-2009, in the wake of the housing collapse, over half the mortgages backing the securities had defaulted. Investors sustained major losses.

The New Jersey Carpenters Health Fund, which sued not just the banks in 2008 but also subprime lender NovaStar and credit rating agencies Standard & Poor’s and Moody’s, had invested $100K in one of the securities. The credit raters are no longer defendants in the case as the claims against them from this mortgage-backed securities case were dismissed in 2011. Because NovaStar’s successor has filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection, the case against the subprime lender has been stayed.

Aozara Bank’s Mortgage-Backed Securities Case Against JPMorgan is Allowed to Proceed

Published on: November 7, 2016 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

In New York, the Appellate Division, First Department, a state appellate court, is allowing Aozara Bank’s (AOZOF) mortgage-backed securities fraud lawsuit against JPMorgan & Chase (JPM) to proceed. The Japanese bank, which had brought MBS claims against a number banks, is alleging aiding and abetting fraud and fraud related to the banks’ creation, marketing, and/or sale of high risk securities.

Aozara had invested close to $560M by 2009 in at least 35 collateralized debt obligations that a number of banks had structured. It sued not just JPMorgan but also Barclays Bank (BARC), Deutsche Bank Securities Inc. (DB), Credit Suisse (CS), UBS AG (UBS), Goldman Sachs Group (GS), Credit Agricole, and Morgan Stanley (MS) in 2013.

In the collateralized debt obligation lawsuit against JPMorgan, the First Department reversed a ruling issued earlier by the Manhattan Supreme Court. The appellate panel has now found that the Japanese bank had properly stated claims for breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing and also fraud. Aozora contends that JPMorgan, which is Bear Stearns successor, depicted certain CDOs as legitimate investments even as it used them to get rid of risky assets that were toxic. The appellate panel said that JPMorgan has not demonstrated that its claims in offering documents gave Aozora proper notice that JPMorgan defendants had colluded to accept the toxic CDO assets from Bear Stearns’ balance sheets. The ruling said that Aozora’s lawsuit included enough facts to support its reasonable inference that fraud and scienter had occurred.

Goldman Sachs Settles Securities Fraud Lawsuit Over Abacus CDO

Published on: November 4, 2016 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Goldman Sachs Group Inc. (GS) has arrived at a settlement with ACA Financial Guaranty Corp. The bond insurer’s securities fraud lawsuit accuses the investment bank of fraudulently persuading it to guarantee payments on the , a collateralized debt obligation, prior to the financial crisis. ACA Financial Guaranty claims that Goldman and hedge fund Paulson & Co. fooled it into insuring the CDO. Details of the CDO fraud settlement have not been disclosed.

In its $120M CDO fraud case, ACA claimed it was deceived into thinking that Paulson & Co. would hold Abacus for the long-term, when, in fact, the fund played a part in choosing the CDO’s assets before taking a short position and bet that the mortgages underlying the securities would fail. ACA alleged that Abacus was set up in a manner to allow Paulson to make “huge profits” and Goldman to earn “huge fees.”

Although a NY judge had said that the case, brought in 2011, could proceed, an appeals court reversed that decision in 2013. The New York Supreme Court reversed the appeals court’s ruling in 2015.