Financial Firms

VSR Financial Services Agrees to Pay FINRA $550,000 Fine Over Inadequate Supervision Allegations Involving Non-Conventional Investments

Published on: September 11, 2013 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority is fining VSR Financial Services Inc. $550,000 over claims that the firm did not set up, keep up, and enforce a supervisory system that was reasonable over its sale of non-conventional investments. The SRO says that the firm did not properly monitor concentrated client positions of alternative investments. Also fined was VSR owner Donald Joseph Beary, who also received a suspension from associating with other FINRA members for 45 days.

According to the SRO, the firm’s written supervisory procedures stipulated that just up to 40-50% of a client’s exclusive net worth could be cumulatively invested in alternative investments-that is, except for when there was a reason that justified going beyond the guidelines. VSR, through Beary, also set up procedures that gave a discount to certain instruments that were non-conventional, lowering the percentage of how much liquid net worth a customer had invested. It was Beary’s job to implement and oversee the discount program.

However, in a letter to the financial firm, the SEC said that it found that the SRO did not have proper written procedures for the program and that this same deficiency remained even two years after the regulator notified VSR about the problem. The Commission said that Beaury failed to take reasonable action to make sure the WSPs were implemented or to shut down the discount program if not.

Five Years After Lehman’s Bankruptcy, How is the US Financial System Doing Now?

Published on: September 10, 2013 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

It was nearly five years ago on September 15, 2008 when the public learned that Lehman Brothers had gone bankrupt, resulting in billions of dollars of losses on a financial system already struggling with a housing market that was failing, as well as a growing credit crisis. Also, Merrill Lynch (MER) would be forced to join with Bank of America (BAC), the US car industry was in trouble, and insurer AIG stood on the brink of collapse. Now, while there has the economy has somewhat recovered, many Americans can’t help but worry that such a financial meltdown could happen again.

Back then, Wachovia (WB) was also in peril of going down and Washington Mutual (WAMUQ) was failing miserably—to become the biggest US banking failure to date—and government and financial industry leaders scrambled to save what they could. Bailouts were issued and emergency measures taken including: a federal takeover of housing finance giants Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, which kept the housing market going by allaying worries that the two entities would default on bonds,the guaranteeing of money market mutual funds that the then-trillion dollar industry depended on for the business short-term funding as well as retirement, and the setting up of the Troubled Asset Relief Program (allowing the Treasury to help put back confidence in banks via the buying of equities of securities in many of these banks and recapitalizing the system.

In a USA Today article, ex-US senator Christopher Dodd said that he believes there will be another crisis; only this one could also involve China, Brazil, and India—not just the US and the European continent. Meantime, while US Chamber of Commerce’s Center for Capital Markets Competitiveness CEO and President David Hirschmann said that a crisis as big as the one in 2008 is not as likely, he predicts there will still be failures. He also said that it is unclear whether we’ve established a better system for identifying problems and risks.

Morgan Keegan to Pay $60,000 Fine Over Inadequate Supervision Over SBA Pools and Sales

Published on: September 7, 2013 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Morgan Keegan & Co. has agreed to pay the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority $60,000 over allegations that its Small Business Administration Desk bought small business loans guaranteed by the gov’t from regional banks in this country and then pooled together the loans with qualities that were similar, securitizing them into SBA pools and then selling them to institutional clients.

When the demand for these pools started to go down, the inventory at the Desk went up a lot and stayed over Morgan Keegan’s allowable levels so that they seemed lower than what was actual and therefore in compliance with what was allowed. As a result, the head trader went into fake pool trades totaling about $82 million.

Per FINRA’s findings, because of the fake trades, Morgan Keegan thought its SBA loan levels went down down by $75 million. Also, aside from allegedly making the false trades happen, the trader moved forward the dates of settlement on a repeated basis, continuing to move the date ahead whenever a settlement date was approaching. This gave him more time so he could sell the SBA pools, leading to the generation of correct and cancel tickets for trades that went on for several months. The head trader later admitted his wrongdoing and Morgan Keegan fired him.

The SRO found that Morgan Keegan’s supervisory system and written supervisory procedures (WSP) for government loans were not adequate enough that they were able to prevent the fictitious trading that the head trader engaged in. FINRA also said that the firm lacked a way to monitor SBA loans that were more than four months old, as well as aged SMA pools, nor did it have a system for comparing and confirming ex-clearing transactions or one to assess transactions that were modified or cancelled to determine if they were reasonable.

FINRA says that Morgan Keegan did not properly address the SBA Desk inventory positions’ marking because the firm’s WSPs mandated that SBA pools get marked monthly, rather than daily. The WSPs did not properly prevent the head trader from approving his own transactions without a supervisor overseeing his actions.

Even as it submitted its Letter of Acceptance, Waiver, and Consent to FINRA, accepting the fine and ensure and consenting to the sanctions described, Morgan Keegan did not deny or admit to any wrongdoing.

Financial Industry Regulatory Authority

More Blog Posts:
Previous Dissent by Arbitrator is Not Reason to Vacate Award Morgan Keegan Was Ordered to Pay Investors, Says District Court, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, April 8, 2013

Court Upholds Ex-NBA Star Horace Grant’s $1.46M FINRA Arbitration Award from Morgan Keegan & Co. Over Mortgage-Backed Bond Losses, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, October 30, 2012

Morgan Keegan Must Buy Back Auction-Rate Securities and Pay $110,500, Says District Judge, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, February 12, 2013

Securities America & Ameriprise Among Independent Broker-Dealers Charged $10.75M by Massachusetts for Non-traded REIT Sales

Published on: September 4, 2013 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Massachusetts Secretary of the Commonwealth William Galvin just announced that independent broker-dealers Ameriprise Financial Services (AMP), Securities America Inc., Commonwealth Financial Network, Lincoln Financial Advisors, and Royal Alliance Associates have consented to pay another $10.75 million in restitution over non-traded REITs that were sold to clients between 2005 and now. The added charge comes four months after the five independent brokerage firms consented to pay $6.1 million in restitution and $975,000 in fines. It was investors’ complaints that spurred the regulator’s investigation into the REITs.

Along with LPL Financial (LPLA) consenting to pay $4.8 million in restitution to clients for its sale of non-traded REITs, that’s a total of $21.6 million in restitution and fines of nearly $1.5 million from the six IBDs. In a statement, Galvin acknowledged the popularity of these risky investments. The regulator noted that the state’s probe discovered problems pertaining to firms adhering to their own policies and that this was a widespread matter. He also said that there appeared to be issues related to brokerage firms abiding by the state rule that investors cannot buy REITs that are over 10% of an individual’s liquid net worth.

Our REIT lawyers represent investors that have sustained huge losses because of the negligence of brokerage firms, investment advisors, and their representatives. Contact our securities fraud law firm today. We work with clients throughout the US, as well as investors based abroad with claims against firms based in the country.

NCUA Accuses Morgan Stanley Of $556M Mortgage-Backed Securities Fraud

Published on: September 2, 2013 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The National Credit Union Administration is suing Morgan Stanley (MS) for mortgage-backed securities fraud. In its MBS lawsuit, the NCUA said that it misrepresented $556 million of the securities that it sold to two credit unions, Western Corporate Federal Credit Union and U.S. Central Federal Credit Union, which are now no longer in operation.

Morgan Stanley is just one of several banks, including Barclays (BCS) and Goldman Sachs (GS) to get hit by securities cases accusing them of strapping such unions with millions of dollars in beleaguered loans. The bank and its affiliates are being blamed for purportedly making misleading statements about the risks involved, as well as about the underwriting standards for originating home loan securities that sold between 2006 and 2007.

According to the regulatory agency’s MBS lawsuit, the originators were systematic about moving away from the underwriting guidelines stated in the offering documents and that the securities were headed toward failure from “inception.” Because of this, contends the complaint, WesCorp and US Central suffered losses in the million dollars as the housing market collapsed and they eventually became insolvent. They both were put into conservatorship and later liquidated.

Securities Headlines: UBS to Pay $4.5M Over Unregistered Assistants, $6M Ponzi Scam Allegedly Funded Reality Show, & Cherry Picking Allegations Lead to SEC Charges

Published on: August 30, 2013 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

UBS Settles Unregistered Assistant Allegations for $4.5M

UBS AG (UBS) has agreed to pay $4.5 million to settle state regulator allegations that its assistants may not have been licensed in the states where they conducted business. The New Jersey Bureau of Securities, which led the securities case, contends that for about six years, the financial had “client service associations” that lacked the necessary state registrations take orders.

An unknown amount of unsolicited trades were reportedly involved in these transactions between 2004 through 2010 when UBS had about 2,277 sales assistants on staff. The fine will be divided between the 50 States, DC, Virgin Islands, and Puerto Rico. By settling, the Zurich-based bank is not denying or admitting to the allegations. However, in late 2010 it modified its order-entry system so that employee state-registration statuses could be validated.

NY AG’s ARS Lawsuit Against Charles Schwab & Co. is Revived by Appeals Court

Published on: August 29, 2013 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

A New York Appellate Division’s panel has unanimously agreed to revive the state attorney general’s auction-rate securities lawsuit against Charles Schwab and Co. (SCHW). The 2009 securities case accuses the financial firm of committing fraud in its sale and marketing of the financial instruments. The decision reverses a state judge’s ruling to throw out the complaint.

According to the NY ARS lawsuit, the broker-dealer’s brokers made false representations that the securities were safe and liquid. In a 4-0 decision, the appeals panel said that the state had given enough evidence to merit a trial on two claims submitted per its Martin Act, a 1921 law that gives the attorney general of New York the ability to prosecute fraud without proof of intent. Under the law fraud is defined as acts that involve misleading or fooling the public.

Per the panel’s ruling, the claims are revived only as it pertains Schwab’s alleged misconduct before 9/5/07, which is when the first ARS sold by Schwab failed. The state wants the company to repurchase securities from customers and pay civil penalties and restitution.

JPMorgan Found Liable in Billionaire’s Subprime Mortgage Lawsuit for Over $50M in Damages

Published on: August 28, 2013 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

In the State Supreme Court in Manhattan, Justice Melvin Schweitzer found JPMorgan Chase (JPM) liable for breach of contract when it put high-risk subprime mortgages in an account held by investor Leonard Blavatnik. Now, the financial firm must pay the Russsian-American billionaire more than $50 million in damages–$42.5 million for the breach and 5% interest from beginning May 2008. However, JPMorgan was not found liable for negligence.

Blavatnik, who Forbes magazine says is the 44th wealthiest person in the world, filed his securities fraud case against JPMorgan in 2009. He contended that the investment bank lost over $100 million on about a $1 billion investment made by CMMF L.L.C., which is a fund that Access Industries, his company, created. He says JPMorgan promised him that the money would be invested conservatively but instead breached a 20% mortgage-backed securities limit when it misclassified securities that were backed by a subprime loans pool—ABS home-equity loans—as asset-backed instead of as MBSs.

Access, Blavatnik’s company, claims that the bank kept holding the securities even though it knew that they were not right for the portfolio. In May 2008, CMMF shut down the account.

Lloyds, Barclays, to Set Aside Hundreds of Millions of Dollars for Allegedly Mis-Selling to Victims

Published on: August 27, 2013 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Britain’s largest banks expected to set aside hundreds of millions of dollars to compensate customers that were the alleged victims of mis-selling. As of the end of July, the Big Four Banks reportedly had budgeted at least $20.2 billion (the figure was converted from pounds) to pay back clients that were mis-sold insurance policies. Lloyds Banking Group (LLOY) and Barclays (BCS) are among the institutions needing to pay such provisions.

According to the Financial Conduct Authority, in April and May both, banks across Britain paid just over $642.6 million in compensation. This is a significant jump from February, when they paid $625.7 million and in March when the amount as $573.75 million U.S. dollars.

Borrowers bought payment protection insurance (PPI) policies, which were supposed to guarantee that they could pay back loans if they were no longer able to work or became unemployed. That said, the policies were purportedly sold to customers that either would not have been able to avail of the coverage because they were either on benefits or self-employed or people that didn’t want to be covered.

FINRA Enhances Its Arbitrator Vetting Policy

Published on: August 26, 2013 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority is refining its new policy for looking into its arbitrators. The move is seen as even more essential in the wake of a court’s decision to dismiss an arbitration ruling that was decided on in part by someone who was indicted during a case against financial firm Goldman Sachs (GS).

Among the steps to be implemented is the use of Google to run searches on arbitrators right before they are appointed to a FINRA arbitration case. The SRO is also preparing to run annual background checks on its 6,500 arbitrators even after being checked when they applied for the arbitrator position.

The industry-funded watchdog’s actions are coming into effect at the same time as lawmakers are upping the pressure to put a stop to broker-dealers making investors arbitrate disputes-an agreement they consent to when they agree to work with the brokerage firm. This causes customers to forfeit their right to go to court over the disagreement. Meantime, consumer groups have been pressing the SEC to place restrictions on the arbitration agreement practice, and a new bill introduced by US Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN) would modify the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act so that these mandatory agreements are banned.