Financial Firms

Morgan Stanley Settles Margin Account-Related Violations with FINRA & The SEC for $10.3M

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

Two US regulators have fined Morgan Stanley (MS) for margin account violations that purportedly resulted in the firm using customer funds and securities for its benefit. The US Securities and Exchange Commission fined the firm $7.5M, while the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority imposed a $2.75M fine.

According to the SEC, Morgan Stanley used trades that involved customer money to decrease its borrowing costs. The Commission said that this violates the agency’s Customer Protection rule, which is meant to keep customer money and securities safe so that they can be given back to customers in the event that a brokerage firm were to fail.

The SEC said that from 5/2013 to 5/2015, the firm’s broker-dealer in the US used transactions with an affiliate to decrease the amount it had to deposit in its customer reserve account. Under the Customer Protection Rule, brokerage firms are not allowed to use affiliates to lower their customer reserve account deposit requirements.

Goldman Sachs Pays $120M Penalty to Settle USD ISDAFIX Rigging Allegations

Published on: December 18, 2016 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Goldman Sachs Group and Goldman, Sachs & Co. (GS) will pay a $120M penalty to settle Commodity Futures Trading Commission Charges accusing the firm of trying to manipulate the U.S. Dollar International Swaps and Derivatives Association Fix, as well as of falsifying related reports to enhance its derivatives positions. The USD ISDAFIX is the global benchmark is for interest rate products. Its rates and spreads are tied to benchmarks for interest swaps and related derivatives, which in turn impact a number or currencies’ daily market rate. A number of local and state governments in this country, as well as pension funds, depend on instruments determined by USD ISDAFIX when hedging against certain interest rate changes.

Now, the CFTC wants Goldman to not only pay the civil penalty but also to cease and desist from the violations charged. The regulator contends that multiple Goldman traders, including the firm’s Interest Rate Products Trading Group head in the US, were involved in the alleged misconduct.

The CFTC said that Goldman, via its traders, engaged in transactions involving US treasuries, interest rate swap spreads, and Eurodollar futures contracts in a way specifically designed to impact the published interest rate benchmark. Goldman also purportedly tried to rig and make false reports about the USD ISDAFIX through these employees’ actions. These alleged acts were at the expense of clients and derivatives counterparties.

Deutsche Bank Ends Dark Pool Probe with $37M Settlement to the NY AG and the SEC, as well as a $3.25M Fine to FINRA

Published on: December 15, 2016 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Deutsche Bank AG (DB) has agreed to pay $37M to conclude the US government probes into its handling of trades in dark pool trading venues. The German bank also admitted that between 1/2012 and 2/2014 traders were misled about the way the it ranked its SuperX dark pool and other trading venues. The government settlements were reached with the US Securities and Exchange Commission and the New York Attorney General. Meantime, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority fined Deutsche Bank $3.25M, noting “deficient disclosures” involving dark pool trading.

According to the NY AG and the SEC, Deutsche Bank told investors that it ranked its dark pools according to a number of factors, including transaction costs. However, some its technology purportedly wasn’t functioning correctly which means that the order-routing choices were not organized according to the factors noted. The German bank also is accused of disregarding its own method for ranking dark pools and placing its own dark pool in a preferred tier.

The government believes that between 1/2012 and 2/2013, Deutsche Bank employed outdated dark-pool rankings to decide how to route orders rather than updating its ranking model on a regular basis.The bank discovered the technical glitch in 2013, but did not fully correct the issue and waited until the following year to notify clients.

Former LPL Financial Adviser/North Carolina Broker Is Sentenced in $1.4M Ponzi Scam

Published on: December 14, 2016 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Charles Caleb Fackrell is sentenced 63 months behind bars and three years of court supervision. The 36-year-old former North Carolina financial adviser, who worked with LPL Financial (LPLA), pleaded guilty to one count of securities fraud earlier this year. He now must pay his victims nearly $820K in restitution.

According to court documents, Fackrell ran an investment scam from approximately 5/2012 to 12/2014. During this time, he solicited about $1.4M from at least 20 investors. The companies he ran included Robin Hood LLC, Robin Hood Holdings LLC, Robinhood LLC, and Robinhood Holdings LLC.

Prosecutors contend that instead of using investors’ money as intended, Fackrell enriched himself in what North Carolina Secretary of State Elaine Marshall has described as “one of the most vicious financial crimes” the state has seen.

$11B RMBS Fraud Lawsuit Against Credit Suisse to Proceed

Published on: December 13, 2016 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

According to the Appellate Division, First Department in New York, the state’s attorney general can move forward with his $11B investor fraud case against Credit Suisse (CS). The state appeals court decided that in this residential mortgage-backed securities lawsuit, a six-year statute of limitations and not a three-year one was applicable.

The civil case was brought in Manhattan Supreme Court four years ago. It accuses the several of the bank’s units of wrongly persuading investors to buy toxic residential mortgage-backed-securities in 2006 and 2007. The complaint states that 24% of Credit Suisse’s loans that were tied to RMBS from those two years were liquidated. Investors went on to sustain $11.2B in losses.

In a 3-2 ruling, the justice’s panel said that NY AG Eric Schneiderman’s fraud claims are ones that may have been brought prior to the writing of the statute. As a result, wrote the justices, the lengthier statute of limitations is to what this case is subject.

Prudential Stops Selling My Term Life Insurance Policies Through Wells Fargo

Published on: December 12, 2016 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

This week, Prudential Financial Inc. (PRU) announced that is no longer distributing certain term life insurance policies, including its My Term product, through Wells Fargo’s (WFC) retail bank. The decision comes after Prudential employees filed a complaint claiming they were let go because they reported certain sales practices related to insurance policies. The insurer says it intends to probe the “full extent of abuses” that may have resulted from the Wells Fargo-related transactions. Prudential sold about 15,000 My Term accounts through the bank.

The employee lawsuit is Julie Han Broderick et al v. The Prudential Insurance Co. of America et al. The three plaintiffs, which include Han Broderick, Thomas Schreck, and Darron Smith, are seeking unspecified damages for wrongful termination. Prudential, however, claims that the reasons they were let go have nothing to do with its business with Wells Fargo but, rather, were related to an ethics complaint.

According to the NY Times, the ex-employees filed their complaint against Prudential and a regulatory officer, contending the following:

They were let go as retaliation for their whistleblowing activities involving Wells Fargo’s allegedly fraudulent practices around the sales of My Term insurance policies
The plaintiffs (formerly supervisors in Prudential’s investigative division of its legal department) believe the purported fraud was due to Wells Fargo cross-selling programs
They were fired because they would not take part in PRudential’s alleged cover-up of fraudulent and unlawful business practices it engages in with Wells Fargo Bank

FINRA Anti-Money Laundering Cases Render Huge $1M Fine for Wells Fargo and $16.5M Fine for Credit Suisse

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

Wells Fargo Fined $1M Over Supervision of Consolidated Client Reports

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority says that Wells Fargo (WFC) must pay a $1M fine for not having reasonable supervisory systems in place to oversee the generation of consolidated reports for clients. The broker-dealers that were specifically cited were Wells Fargo Advisors Financial Network (WFAFN) and Wells Fargo Advisors (WFA), also referred to as Wells Fargo Clearing Services.They agreed to settle but did not admit or deny the settlement’s findings.

FINRA’s rules mandate that consolidated reports, which are documents that include information about a customer’s financial holdings, even if they are held in different places, must be accurate, clear, and not misleading. According to the regulator, between 6/2009 and 6/2015, the brokerage firms did not enforce supervisory systems for the use of consolidated reports that registered representatives generated via a specific application. During the relevant period, Wells Fargo advisers used the application to create over five million company reports.

Massachusetts Regulator Sues LPL Financial Over Broker’s Alleged Variable Annuity Abuses Involving Retirees

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

Secretary of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Galvin has filed charges against LPL Financial (LPLA) for its alleged failure to supervise one of its brokers. Roger Zullo is accused of bilking clients for years by selling variable annuities to retirees even though the investments were not suitable for them.

In his complaint, Galvin contends that Zullo lied to supervisors and generated false client financial suitability profiles so he could sell scores of high-commission, illiquid VAs to make money for himself and the firm. Because of these investments, said the state regulator, many older clients were unable to access their funds for years.

The complaint notes that for three years, Zullo and LPL received over $1.8M in VA commissions from sales. The Polarius Platinum III (B Shares) VA appeared to be the source of a large chunk of the commissions. Galvin said that of the more than $1.8M in VA annuity commissions that Zullo was able to generate, over $1.7M of it came from this particular variable annuity, which paid a 7% commission. 90% of this went to Zullo, while his firm received the rest. Also, clients whom Zullo could convince to move to the Polaris Platinum variable annuity usually had to pay surrender charges.

UBS Ordered To Pay More Than $18 million in Puerto Rico Closed-End Bond Fraud Arbitration Award

Published on: December 6, 2016 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

A Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) arbitration panel says that UBS Financial Services (UBS) must pay $18.6 million to customers Rafael Vizcarrondo and Mercedes Imbert De Jesus for their losses from investing in Puerto Rico closed-end bond funds. The two investors, both UBS clients, accused the broker-dealer of breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and other securities violations. They claim that UBS placed their money in unsuitable investments and did not properly supervise the broker who worked with them. As part of the award, Impert De Jesus and Vizcarrondo will receive $12.7 million in compensatory damages, $2.5 million of interest, $3.2 million in legal fees and $163,000 in expert witness fees.

Vizcarrondo is a prominent lawyer in Puerto Rico. His legal team said that UBS had attempted to portray him as a “sophisticated” investor, someone who should have known what he was getting involved in when he invested in the territory’s bonds. The firm described Vizcarrondo as having been “fully informed” when he decided to concentrate his investments in UBS’s Puerto Rico closed-end funds. However, as Vizcarrondo’s attorney noted, not all professionals are “sophisticated investors.” Based on its decision, the FINRA arbitration panel obviously agreed with the claimant.

This is the largest FINRA arbitration award issued over Puerto Rico bond funds to date. There are over a thousand cases still pending. These claims were brought by investors seeking to recover the financial losses they suffered from investing in the island’s beleaguered securities. Although a number of firms, including Banco Santander (SAN), Banco Popular, Merrill Lynch and others have been named in Puerto Rico bond and closed-end bond fraud claims, UBS and affiliate UBS Financial Services Inc. of Puerto Rico (UBS-PR) have been the largest target of these claims. In fact, the TheStreet.com reports that on November 2, UBS AG, the parent company of UBS and UBS-PR, notified the U. S. Securities and Exchange Commission in a filing that about $1.9 billion in Puerto Rico municipal bond funds and closed-end fund claims have been brought against it. The firm has already paid out $740 million to claimants.

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.