Financial Firms

LPL Subject to Lawsuits In the Wake of Stock Drop

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

A number of lawsuits have been brought against LPL Financial (LPLA) after its stock price fell. There is the securities case brought by the Charter Township of Clinton Police and Fire Retirement System, which is a Michigan pension fund. Also, in New York last March, a number of lawyers filed a shareholder lawsuit.

Both securities cases want damages that shareholders of record would have sustained between 12/8/15 and 2/11/16. A major allegation is that LPL misled investors to raise its stock price while putting through a $250M share buyback plan that benefited one private equity investor.

According to the Michigan pension fund, LPL CFO Matthew Audette and LPL CEO Mark Casady took part in a scam to let private equity investment firm TPG Capital sell LPL shares at a price that was artificially inflated. The NY shareholder lawsuit is accusing the independent brokerage firm of issuing statements that were materially false and misleading to investors and not disclosing that its clients’ assets and gross profits were becoming weaker.

Addressing the allegation, Casady downplayed the share buyback program’s timing and execution that allowed the private equity investor to sell 4.3M million stock shares back to the firm soon before the shares, as described by InvestmentNews, “went into a tailspin.” He said the stock buyback happened under a set of expectations that was reasonable.

Judge Dismisses Scottsdale Capital Advisor’s Lawsuit Challenging FINRA’s Enforcement Authority

Published on: April 26, 2016 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

U.S. District Judge Deborah K. Chasanow has dismissed Scottsdale Capital Advisors’ securities case claiming that the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority did not have legal authority to enforce securities laws. The self-regulatory organization had filed an administrative case against the financial firm, accusing it of selling unregistered penny stock shares.

In March, Scottsdale filed its complaint, contending that the claims brought by the regulator came out of violations of the Securities Act of 1933, which it believes that the Securities and Exchange Commission, and not FINRA, has purview over when it comes to enforcing it the act. However, Scottsdale also said that both the SEC and FINRA did not have the “realm of expertise” to make a ruling in the SRO’s case against it.

Judge Chasanow dismissed Scottsdale’s lawsuit citing lack of subject matter jurisdiction. She said that the allegations brought by FINRA as they pertain to the penny stock trades should not be in heard in federal court.

Wine Mogul Accuses Fidelity of Fraud, Seeks up to $500M in FINRA Arbitration

Published on: April 20, 2016 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Wine merchant Peter Deutsch has filed a FINRA arbitration claim seeking $400 – $500M from Fidelity. He claims that he might have earned that amount of money if only the financial firm had not stopped him from obtaining a 66% share of a company in which he had already invested $40M. Meantime, Fidelity is contending that it kept Deutsch from trading because of worries that he was attempting to illegally manipulate the company’s shares.

The dispute began when Deutsch sought to purchase at least another 50 million shares of stock in China Medical Technologies in 2012. His investment efforts, however, were barred by Fidelity, which said it was “uncomfortable” with the transaction. It was in 2011 that a sales team from Fidelity Family Office Services (FFOS) had sought Deutsche out to join its group of wealthy clients.

In court papers, Deutsch alleges that while he was trying to gain control of China Medical Technologies, which is a cancer treatment device maker, FFOS was aggressively buying the stock in secret rather than helping him. He also claims that Fidelity used his shares to its benefit even though this was not what he wanted. He believes that the firm blocked him from trading to conceal its wrongdoing.

He is accusing Fidelity of inappropriate share lending. The firm, however, describes its practice of lending out shares belonging to its clients as fully paid lending. According to Bloomberg, sources said that Fidelity, which insists that the arbitration case is without merit, maintains that it didn’t lend out Deutsch’s shares under its lending program but that it used its authority to lend shares out of his margin account. Securities lending is something that Fidelity clients consent to when they set up a margin account.

Former UBS Puerto Rico Employees Brought $25M Lawsuit Against the Firm

Published on: April 19, 2016 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Over the last two years, more than 1,000 investors have sued UBS Puerto Rico (UBS-PR) in FINRA arbitration or other forums over mounting losses from the collapse of the Puerto Rico bond market. However, investors are not the only ones suing UBS-PR over its sale of risky bonds. Siblings Jorge and Teresa Bravo have sued UBS for $10 million in FINRA arbitration along with UBS-PR customers.

The Bravos, both ex-senior VPs at the brokerage firm, said management fooled not just customers but also UBS employees. They said they were coerced and threatened into selling Puerto Rico close-end bond funds and they were mistreated before being forced out.

Along with the Bravos, seven former UBS Puerto Rico employees have filed claims against UBS-PR seeking $25 million from their former employer. That group of former UBS-PR brokers claim UBS management made misleading statements to them, as well as customers, about the closed-end mutual funds. The brokers also said management pressured brokers at the firm to sell these Puerto Rico securities. News of the seven former brokers’ lawsuit broke last year around the time that Reuters disclosed the existence of a UBS letter noting that the collateral value of closed-end funds would be reduced to zero—an indication of their riskiness.

At Shepherd Smith Edwards and Kantas, LTD LLP, our Puerto Rico bond fraud lawyers have been working with investors to recoup their money. Too many investors lost much of the money they invested with UBS-PR and other brokerage firms on the island when these securities began to fail three years ago. Our securities lawyers on the island and the U.S. mainland are representing clients who have FINRA arbitration claims.

Bancorp-UBS Trial over $2.1B of Mortgage-Backed Securities Begins

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

UBS (UBS) is on trial in Manhattan federal court. According to Reuters, the civil case was brought by UBS Bancorp (USB) for three trusts. The trusts claim that in their contract with the Swiss banking giant, UBS agreed that the mortgages backing the securities would satisfy certain standards. However, they contend, when it became clear the mortgages were faulty, UBS would not repurchase them. Now, the trusts want back the $2.1B that they lost.

UBS’s legal defense team argued that the lawyers of the trust are assessing the loans from the perspective of “hindsight bias.” They want U.S. District Judge Kevin Catel to evaluate whether when the loans were considered defective at the time that they were issued in 2006 and 2007.

According to the mortgage-backed securities lawsuit, over 17,000 loans were pooled into three trusts, which issued securities granting investors the right to borrower-made payments. The problem was, contend the plaintiffs, over 9,600 of the loans were defective, primarily because of borrower fraud or because they did not meet underwriting requirements. The trusts believe that UBS did not properly vet the loans, which it obtained through shady lenders that would go on to fail.

Broker Violations & FINRA: PNC Investments to Pay $225K for Overcharging for Mutual Funds and Stifel Nicolaus is Fined $750K For Not Following Reserve Requirements

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

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority has announced that PNC Investments will pay nearly $225K in restitution for charging retirement clients too much for mutual fund investments. According to the regulator, the brokerage firm did not apply waivers for investors in certain Class A share mutual funds even though there was a waiver for front-end charges for eligible customers.

Instead, said FINRA, PNC Investments sold Class A shares customers with a front-end load or other shares that had a back-end load and higher fees and expenses, some of which were charged on an ongoing basis. Because of this, certain customers were charged excessive fees and paid them.

FINRA said that PNC Investments charged 121 customer accounts in excess of $191,740 for mutual funds—although the actual amount, with interest, was closer to $224,750. PNC will pay restitution to eligible investors.

The brokerage firm self-reported the overcharges after reviewing its own conduct last year to assess whether it was issuing the sales waiver to those that were eligible. FINRA said that the broker-dealer experienced lapses in supervision, did not keep up written policies and procedures that were adequate, and failed to help advisers assess when to waive the sales charges.

Judge Refuses to Totally Dismiss $1B Mortgage Fraud Case Against Credit Suisse Unit

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

A judge has ruled that the $1B mortgage fraud case brought against Credit Suisse (CS) unit DLJ Mortgage Capital can be resubmitted. This ruling reiterated U.S. Bank National Association’s contention that a six-year statute of limitations did not bar its claims, which it brought as a trustee.

In 2015, New York Supreme Court Judge Marcy S. Friedman had dismissed the case because the trustee had not made a repurchase demand of Ameriquest, the loan’s originator, according to the pre-suit requirement. However, she rejected DLJ’s claim that because these conditions were not met prior to the statute of limitations they were time barred. Friedman said that if U.S. National were to refile the case, then the issue of the repurchase demand’s impact on the trustee’s ability to file litigation in this matter would be determined on a “fully developed record.”

U.S. National sued DLJ Mortgage Capital in 2013, accusing the securitizer of not complying with its duty to buyback loans that breached of a number of warranties and representations that DLJ made in a contract presiding over the sale of 4,534 residential mortgage loans. The loans, originated by Ameriquest Mortgage Co., were securitized by the trust, sold by DLJ to investors, and came with multiple assurances about their quality. Such guarantees were supposed to place any risks from faulty mortgages with the originator.

The plaintiff contends that rather than construct a loan pool with quality mortgages, Ameriquest, which is no longer in operation, used faulty loans. As a result, contends U.S. National, the trust lost $227M.

The FCA Bars Ex-Royal Bank of Scotland Trader Over Libor Rigging

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

U.K.’s Financial Conduct Authority is barring Paul White, an ex-Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS) trader, for misconduct involving the rigging of the London interbank offered rate. The FCA said that White behaved with recknlessness and was not in integrity when he would submit information about Libor related to the Swiss frank and the Japanese yen.

According to the British regulator, from 5/07 to 11/10, White improperly considered requests that came from derivatives traders at two banks when issuing Libor submissions. If any of the information he turned in wasn’t been accurate, this could have changed the rate for Libor in a manner benefitting White and others. In a news release, the FCA said that White had a duty to make sure his submissions were correct and not influenced by his own financial interests or the interests of others.

The regulator provided a transcript that included electronic messages between a broker at another bank and White. The messages indicated that they worked together to rig Libor.

White was the recipient of 68 communications from RBS derivatives traders for Libor submissions. In the exchanges, said the FCA, the traders sought to help their trading positions. There was also a Swiss franc trader that purportedly made such requests verbally for twenty months. White also received requests from a yen derivatives trader who did not work at the firm.

The FCA’s final notice states that White claims that although he took into account trading positions when issuing Libor submissions, his entries were always “correct” and within a range that was acceptable according Libor’s definition. White claimed that he engaged in seemingly improper communications only to “appease.” FCA, however, rejects White’s account of what happened. Yet despite imposing an industry bar against him, the regulator waived what could have been a $354,000 fine because White is undergoing financial difficulties.

Morgan Stanley Still Embroiled in $147M RMBS Lawsuit Brought by IKB Deutsche Industriebank

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

More than three years after IKB Deutsche Industriebank AG sued Morgan Stanley (MS) for over $147.1M in residential mortgage-backed securities, the brokerage firm is asking the New York appeals court to dismiss the case. Morgan Stanley claims that it was the German lender that did not conduct the necessary due diligence.

IKB claims the Morgan Stanley provided offering documents that left out or did not properly characterize different underwriting standards involving the loans that were underlying the securities. The bank claims there were misrepresentations and omissions regarding loan-to value ratios.

The lender says it received inaccurate information about the underlying loans related to how much homeowners had borrowed, the securities’ credit ratings, and the percentage of properties that were occupied by the owners. IKB cited purportedly incorrect statements made about trusts, loans, and mortgages. It accused Morgan Stanley of taking the loans from different originators and bundling them together to package the securities despite knowing there were issues that could make the RMBS problematic.

Goldman Sachs Will Pay $5.06B Over Mortgage-Backed Securities Practices

Published on: April 9, 2016 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Goldman Sachs (GS) has settled a mortgage case brought by the U.S. Department of Justice accusing the firm of deceptive mortgage practices leading up to the 2008 financial crisis. As part of the deal, Goldman will pay $5.06B to resolve the charges. According to the DOJ, the bank also admitted that it issued representations that were “false and misleading” to prospective investors about the MBS that were up for sale. Details of the deal were announced in January after an agreement was reached in principal.

In a statement of facts, Goldman said that “significant percentages” of the mortgages it bundled with securities sold between ’05 and ’07 were not in line with the information provided to investors about the loans. The bank’s Mortgage Capital Committee approved every residential mortgage-backed security it assesses between December ’05 and ’07 even though they were aware that a lot of the home loans contained compliance and credit defects.

The settlement shows that Goldman was aware that a lot of the subprime loans it was packaging into securities could be defective, including an RMBS it created in ’06 using loans made by Countrywide Financial, which was the largest subprime loan provider. It was during this time that a Goldman manager issued an equity research report recommending that the stock be brought. Responding to the report, the bank’s due diligence head that had supervised the scrutiny of several Countrywide mortgage pools replied, “If only they knew.”

The government said that 70% of total loan pools were not examined for problems even though in one bond pool about 25% of loans that were examined were dropped because their quality was poor. For example, in 2006, Goldman notified investors via marketing materials that one underwriter in particular was dedicated to “quality over volume” when it came to the loans even though its own analysis determined that the underwriter, a Fremont General Corp unit, applied “off market” guidelines. In early 2007, the Fremont unit was shut down after the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. said that the lender allowed people who couldn’t afford to pay back the mortgages to have them anyways.