Financial Firms

J.P. Morgan Targeted in Possible Cyber Attack

Published on: August 29, 2014 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. (JPM) and up to four other banks were the victims of a possible cyber attack. According to the media, the financial institution is working with law enforcement authorities to figure out what happened.

Reuters reports that sources say the firm began its own probe after malicious software was found in its network, which indicates there had likely been a cyber attack. The Federal Bureau of Investigation is looking to see whether Russian hackers may have been involved. A possible motive for them could be retaliation for sanctions against Russia because of its role in the Ukraine military conflict. It is not unusual for Russian organized crime to target big financial institutions. Also looking into the matter is the U.S. Secret Service.

According to the Wall Street Journal, the hackers appear to have gotten in through the personal computer of employee and penetrated the bank’s inner systems. Gigabytes of customer and employee data may have been targeted. Authorities are trying to determine whether any data that might have been stolen has been used to move funds.

MF Global Wants to Pay $925M to Creditors

Published on: August 28, 2014 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Now that it has repaid the majority of its customers, MF Global Inc. wants the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Manhattan to let it pay $295 million to its creditors. Most of the funds would go toward unsecured creditors, who would get a first distribution of approximately 20%. Holders of priority claims, as well as administrative and secured claims that were resolved, would get all of the money owed to them.

Giddens is also seeking to set up a reserve fund of over $400 for unresolved claims while placing a cap on how much each claim would get. MF Global has paid back the majority of its customers. Most of them got everything owed to them.

The brokerage firm and parent company MF Global Holdings Ltd. went into crisis when investors left after finding out that Jon S. Corzine, the CEO at the time and formerly a Goldman Sachs (GS) chairman and ex-governor of New Jersey, made big bets on European sovereign debt. Their departure created an approximately $1.6 billion shortfall in the accounts of customers that should have been kept separate from the firm’s money pool. The shortfall has since been recovered.

Citigroup Global Markets Fined $1.85M By FINRA, Must Pay $638K Restitution Over Non-Convertible Preferred Securities Transaction Valuations

Published on: August 27, 2014 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority says that Citigroup Global Markets Inc. (C) will pay a fine of $1.85 million for not providing best execution in about 22,000 customer transactions of non-convertible preferred securities, as well as for supervisory deficiencies that went on for over three years. Affected customers are to get over $638,000 plus interest.

A firm and its registered persons have to exercise reasonable diligence to make sure that the sale/buying price the customer pays is the most favorable one under market conditions at that time. FINRA says that instead a Citigroup trading desk used a pricing methodology for the securities that failed to properly factor in the securities’ National Best Bid and Offer. Because of this, contends the self-regulatory organization, over 14,800 customer transactions were priced inferior to the NBBO. The SRO also claims that because Citigroup’s BondsDirect system for order execution used a faulty pricing logic, over 7,200 customers transactions were priced at less than NBBO.

FINRA says that Citigroup’s written supervisory procedures and supervisory system related to best execution in these securities were lacking. It claims that the firm did not review customer transactions for the securities at issue, which were either executed manually by the trading desk or on BondsDirect. Such an assessment could have ensured compliance with Citigroup’s best execution duties. (FINRA noted that it had sent the firm inquiry letters about the reviews.)

Goldman to Buy Back $3.15B in RMBS to Resolve FHFA Claims

Published on: August 26, 2014 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Goldman Sachs Group Inc. (GS) will pay $3.15 billion to buy back residential mortgage-backed securities related to bonds that were sold to Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. The repurchase represents an approximately $1. 2billion premium and makes the mortgage companies whole on the securities. The RMBS case was brought by the Federal Housing Finance Agency.

It was in 2011 that FHFA sued 18 firms to get back taxpayer money from when the U.S. took control of Freddie and Fannie after the economy tanked in 2008. Goldman is the fifteenth bank to settle.

The firm will pay Fannie May $1 billion and $2.15 billion to Freddie Mac for the securities. The two had purchased $11.1 billion from Goldman Sachs. A few of the other banks that have settled with the FHFA include Morgan Stanley (MS), JPMorgan Chase (JPM), and Bank of America Corp. (BAC). The agency’s remaining RMBS fraud cases still pending are those against RBS Securities Inc. (RBS), HSBC North America Holdings Inc., (HSBC), and Nomura Holding America Inc. (NMR).

FINRA Claims Wedbush Securities Engaged in Supervisory and Anti-Money Laundering Violations

Published on: August 26, 2014 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority has filed a disciplinary complaint against Wedbush Securities Inc. that accuses the firm of violations related to anti-money laundering and systemic supervision. The self-regulatory organization says that from January 2008 through August 2013, Wedbush did not put enough of its resources towards supervisory systems, risk-management controls, and procedures. At the time, the firm was one of the largest market access providers, making millions of dollars from the business.

Because of purported violations, contends FINRA, market-access customers, including non-registered participants, were able to permeate U.S. exchanges and make thousands of trades that could have been manipulative and may have even involved spoofing and manipulative layering. The agency says that even though it was Wedbush’s duty to look out for suspect and possibility manipulative trades, the firm depended mostly on its market access customers to self-report such trading, as well as self-monitor.

FINRA contends that even though Wedbush received notice about the risks involved in its market access business, the firm ‘s supervisory procedures and risk management controls were not reasonably designed to deal with these factors. Wedbush even established incentives for compensation to be based on the value of market customer access trading. FINRA says that Wedbush should have set up, kept up, and enforced satisfactory AML policies and procedures, and it purportedly failed to report suspect transactions.

Bank of America to Pay $16.65 Billion to Settle DOJ Mortgage Probe

Published on: August 23, 2014 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Bank of America (BAC) and the U.S. Department of Justice have arrived at a $16.65 billion mortgage settlement. Under the agreement, the lender will pay $9.65 billion to the DOJ, the SEC, other government agencies, and six states. The remaining $7 billion will be paid in the form of aid to struggling consumers. This is the largest settlement between the U.S. and just one company. It resolves claims not just against Bank of America, but also against its current and past subsidiaries, including Merrill Lynch and Countrywide Financial Corporation.

The numerous probes now resolved involve the packaging, sale, marketing, structuring, and issuance of collateralized debt obligations and residential mortgage-backed securities, as well as mortgage loan origination and underwriting practices. As part of the settlement, the bank issued a statement of facts acknowledging that it did not disclose key information to investors about the quality of billions of dollars of RMBS that it sold to them. When the securities failed, investors, including financial institutions that were federally insured, lost billions of dollars. Bank of America acknowledges that it originated mortgage loans that were high-risk and made misrepresentations about the loans to the Federal Housing Administration, Freddie Mac, and Fannie Mae.

Merrill Lynch and Countrywide made a lot of the loans at issue before Bank of America purchased both entities in 2008. However, the government also had a problem with Bank of America’s own mortgage securities, as well as the latter’s attempts to circumvent internal underwriting standards by revising the financial data of applicants.

Lehman Brothers’ Unsecured Creditors to Get $4.6B Payout

Published on: August 21, 2014 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Pension funds, former employees, investment firms, and banks with unsecured claims against Lehman Brothers Holdings are finally getting an initial payout of $4.6 billion. That’s about 71% of the unsecured claims against the broker-dealer to be recovered. These creditors of the firm have waited years to get their money back, ever since investment bank went into bankruptcy in 2008 with $613 billion in liabilities.

Lehman’s collapse helped instigate the global financial crisis and it was Barclays (BARC) that bought the brokerage business. It’s trustee, James W. Giddens has already paid back brokerage customers the over $10 billion they were owed.

In total, the Lehman parent company and its units have paid $57.1 billion to unsecured creditors. The majority of creditors are expected to get back up to 35 cents on the dollar.

SEC Charges Linkbrokers Derivatives in $18M Securities Fraud

Published on: August 18, 2014 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission is charging Linkbrokers Derivatives LLC with involvement in an $18 million fraud scam . The New York-based firm, which is no longer a broker-dealer, is settling the charges by paying $14 million.

According to the regulator, brokers at Linkbrokers secretly manipulated the costs of securities trades that it processed. They promised low commission fees and then charged fees that were 1,000% more than what they misrepresented they would be.

Over 36,000 transactions were involved in the securities fraud, which took place between 2005 and 2009. The SEC has already charged a number of brokers at Linkbrokers’ cash equities desk over this matter.

UBS Wealth, OppenheimerFunds Take Financial Hit From Puerto Rico Muni Bonds

Published on: August 15, 2014 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Even though UBS Wealth Management Americas (UBS) has been generating record revenue, the financial firm saw its profits drop upon reporting that had it put aside $44 million for litigation costs primarily related to Puerto Rico bond fraud cases. UBS’s second quarter earnings of $238 million are 3% lower than last year.

Already, UBS clients have filed hundreds of arbitration cases and a number of securities class action lawsuits contending that the brokerage firm put investors’ money in highly leveraged and unsuitable Puerto Rico municipal bond funds that dropped in value last year. These funds begun to lose value again recently.

OppenheimerFunds Inc. (OPY), which is the biggest mutual fund to hold Puerto Rico debt, has also taken a financial hit. Bloomberg reports that in the past year, the firm has seen a loss of close to a third of its funds’ assets. For example, the Oppenheimer Rochester Maryland Municipal Fund (ORMDX) directed approximately 35% of its holdings to the islands as of the end of June. As of August 4, its assets had dropped to $64.9 million. At this time last year, the fund had $96.1 million in assets.

FINRA Panel Orders Morgan Stanley Unit to Pay Banamex Unit $4.5M Over Alleged Unauthorized Third Party Loans

Published on: August 15, 2014 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

According to a Financial Industry Regulatory Authority arbitration panel, Morgan Stanley & Co. (MS) must pay Banco Nacional de Mexico SA unit $4.5 million for allegedly letting funds from a family’s trust account be utilized for paying back third-party loans without authorization. The Mexican bank, also known as Banamex, was trustee to the account. It filed its securities arbitration case in 2012.

The trust was established in 2007 with proceeds from a property that members of a family had inherited and decided to sell. Banamex and the beneficiaries of the trust worked with a Morgan Stanley (MS) broker, who ran their accounts. The trust accounts were at a Morgan Stanley banking unit. They were set up in such a way that the assets were not supposed to be used as guarantees to pay third-party loans that another family member’s account had taken.

Morgan Stanley is accused of compelling the trust accounts to guarantee payment of a third-party loan without getting Banamex’s consent. According to the plaintiffs, the brokerage firm improperly guaranteed or recorded the trust assets for the relative, who did not belong to the trust.