Financial Firms

$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.

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.