Financial Firms

Sonoma County Files Securities Lawsuit Over Libor Banking Debacle

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

Sonoma County, CA is suing Citigroup (C), JPMorgan (JPM), Bank of America (BAC), UBS (UBS), Barclays (BCS), and a number of other former and current LIBOR members over the infamous international-rate fixing scandal that it claims caused it to suffer substantial financial losses. The County’s securities lawsuit contends that the defendants made billions of dollars when they understated and overstated borrowing costs and artificially established interest rates.

Sonoma County is one of the latest municipalities in California to sue over what it claims was rate manipulation that led to lower interest payments on investments linked to the London Interbank Offered Rate. Also seeking financial recovery over the LIBOR banking scandal are the Regents of the University of California, San Mateo County, San Diego Association of Governments, East Bay Municipal Utility District, City of Richmond, City of Riverside, San Diego County, and others.

The County of Sonoma is alleging several causes of action, including unjust enrichment, fraud, and antitrust law violations involving transactions that occurred between 2007 and 2010, a timeframe during which Barclays already admitted to engaging in interest manipulation. The county invested $96 million in Libor-type investments in 2007 and $61 million in 2008. Jonathan Kadlec, the Assistant Treasurer at Sonoma County, says that an investigation is ongoing to determine how much of a financial hit was sustained. Kadlec supervises an investment pool that is valued at about $1.5 billion for the county. He said that LIBOR-type investments, which involve floating securities with interests that are index-based, make up a small portion of the pool.

SEC Tells Financial Firms That Settling Without Denying or Admitting to Wrongdoing is No Longer Allowed in Certain Securities Cases

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

Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman Mary Jo White recently announced that defendants in certain securities cases would no longer be allowed to accompany an agreement to settle with the statement that they are doing so but without admitting or denying wrongdoing. Speaking to a columnist with The New York Times, White said that in certain instances, admissions are necessary for there to be public accountability. However, White also did say that most SEC cases still would be settled under the “nether admit nor deny standard,” which provides the accused incentive to settle while compensation to victims sooner.

The new policy was announced to SEC enforcement staff last week in a memo from George Canellos and Andrew Ceresney, the regulator’s enforcement division co-leaders. They went on to say that in cases that warrant such an admission, if the accused were to refuse then a securities lawsuit might be the next step.

Securities cases that require admissions of wrongdoing will have to satisfy certain criteria, such as intentional misconduct that was egregious, wrongdoing that hurt a lot of investors or put them at risk of serious financial harm, or unlawful obstruction of the Commission’s investigation.

“This policy change is long overdue,” said SSEK Founder and Stockbroker Fraud Lawyer William Shepherd. “Over the past decade, the SEC has accommodated the targets it has been investigating far too often. Only rarely is there the requirement of admission of wrongdoing, and almost never for large financial firms and their management. When one is caught with a hand in the cookie jar, it’s time to say ‘I did it and I’m sorry, rather than “I neither admit nor deny it was my hand.”

The change policy comes in the wake of complaints that the SEC has been to lax with its enforcement, especially when it came to pursuing securities fraud cases against large financial institutions involved in the economic crisis, such as JPMorgan Chase (JPM), Bank of America (BAC) and Citigroup (C), which all settled cases against them without denying or admitting guilt. Having to admit wrongdoing potentially could hurt financial firms because plaintiffs in private securities cases and class action fraud litigation may then cite the acknowledgement of culpability, thereby strengthening their claims. This could force banks to have to pay out millions of dollars than if they hadn’t admitted to doing anything wrong.

S.E.C. Has a Message for Firms Not Used to Admitting Guilt, Stockbroker Fraud Law Firm, NY Times, June 22, 2013

Securities and Exchange Commission

More Blog Posts:
Controversial Democratic Appointee Pushes SEC for Less Talk About Investor and Securities Market Protections and More Action, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, April 28, 2013

Financial Firms Securities News: Bear Stearns Can Bid for $160M Insurance Coverage, Deloitte Pays NY $10M, Fraud Sentences Against Two Ex-Brokers Are Affirmed

Published on: June 24, 2013 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Bear Stearns Allowed $160M Insurance Settlement Coverage Bid

The New York Court of Appeals said that JP Morgan Chase & Co’s (JPM), Bear Stearns & Co. (BSC) can go ahead with its attempt to obtain insurance coverage for the $160 million it disgorged in an SEC case over alleged wrongdoing involving mutual fund practices. Justice Victoria Graffeo says the evidence presented is not a decisive repudiation of Bear Stearn’s claim that the payment amount was largely determined by the profits of others and therefore the case cannot be dismissed at this time.

The SEC accused Bear Stearns of helping certain clients, mostly big hedge funds, take part in deceptive market timing and late trading, which let them reap profits of hundreds of millions of dollars at cost to mutual fund shareholders. The financial firm settled by consenting to pay $160 million in disgorgement and $90 million in civil penalties.

Cayman Islands LLC Must Replead CLO Securities Case Against Deutsche Bank

Published on: June 24, 2013 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York says that Arco Capital Corp. a Cayman Islands LLC, has 20 days to replead its $37M collateralized loan obligation against Deutsche Bank AG (DB) that accuses the latter of alleged misconduct related to a 2006 CLO. According to Judge Robert Sweet, even though Arco Capital did an adequate job of alleging a domestic transaction within the Supreme Court’s decision in Morrison v. National Australia Bank, its claims are time-barred, per the two-year post-discovery deadline and five-year statute of repose.

Deutsche Bank had offered investors the chance to obtain debt securities linked to portfolio of merging markets investments and derivative transactions it originated. CRAFT EM CLO, which is a Cayman Islands company created by the bank, effected the transaction and gained synthetic exposure via credit default transactions. For interest payment on the notes, investors consented to risk the principal due on them according to the reference portfolio. However, if a reference obligation, which had to satisfy certain eligibly requirements, defaulted in a way that the CDS agreements government, Deutsche Bank would receive payment that would directly lower the principal due on the notes when maturity was reached.

Arco maintains that the assets that experienced credit events did not meet the criteria. It noted that Deutsche Bank wasn’t supposed to use the transaction as a repository for lending assets that were distressed, toxic, or “poorly underwritten.”

Securities Lending Trial Against Wells Fargo & Co. is Underway

Published on: June 21, 2013 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

It will be up to 11 jurors to determine if Wells Fargo & Co. (WFC) is guilty of grossly mismanaging a securities lending program and lying about the degree of risk involved or whether the economic crisis was actually at fault. The program was marketed to institutional clients, including pension funds. According to investors, the bank committed fraud by taking huge risks with what they were under the impression was a conservative program. Nearly 15% of the portfolio’s by 2007’s fall season had defaulted or was distressed. (Citigroup (C) has since bought most of Wells Fargo’s Clearland securities lending business.)

The plaintiffs contend that rather than investing money in higher grade market instruments and other safe investments, which is what they thought was being done), managers bet on structured investment vehicles and other high-risk financial instruments. Cheyne Finance, one SIV involving subprime mortgages that the bank invested in, was placed in receivership. The securities case, filed in 2011, focuses on cash collateral investments primarily made by Wells Fargo between 2005 and 2008.

Wells Fargo denies the allegations. Contrary to the attorneys for the investors, the bank’s lawyers are arguing that the securities lending business’s investments were conservative and safe and that it’s track record was pretty solid until the economic crisis. Even then, contend the attorneys, the losses suffered were not a big portion of the program. Also, claims Wells Fargo, the securities lending program was overseen at a level that was “extraordinarily high” and the investors’ best interests were primary. The banks’ legal team noted that investors were given written warnings that losses were likely.

LPL Securities Names Ex-SEC Official As Its New General Counsel

Published on: June 19, 2013 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

LPL Securities has hired the Securities and Exchange Commission Division of Enforcement’s ex-acting deputy director David Bergers as LPL Financial Holdings Inc.’s (LPLA) general counsel and managing director for government and legal relations. Following news of the appointment, LPL CEO and Chairman Mark Casady was quick to point out that the firm didn’t choose Bergers because it recently has been in trouble with regulators. That said, Casady did acknowledge that Bergers’ 13 years of SEC experience was one reason he became the top contender for the post. Because of SEC rules, Bergers is not allowed to appear before the Commission as an LPL representative until June 2014.

A source close to our securities fraud law firm says that there are at least seven complaints against Bergers at the moment, with the majority of them involving large seven-figure. Before working at the SEC, Bergers served as assistant general counsel and vice president for Tucker Anthony Inc., a regional brokerage firm.

In regards to LPL’s recent trouble’s with regulators, there was the $7.5 million that the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority ordered the financial firm to pay over nearly three dozen key e-mail system failures (including retention issues) that occurred between 2007 and 2013 involving 28 million business emails and thousands of independent contractor representatives. The SRO accused LPL of inadequate supervision, failure to capture emails and respond to regulator requests, and making misstatements during the SRO’s investigation. In addition to the fine, LPL has to establish a $1.5 million fund for customer compensation.

Financial Firm Roundup: Citigroup Settles $3.5B MBS Lawsuit with FHFA, JPMorgan Unit Fined $4.64M, Court Won’t Dismiss USB Whistleblower’s Action, & Ex-Goldman Sachs Executive to Pay $100K Over Pay-To-Play Scam

Published on: June 8, 2013 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Citigroup (C) Settle $3.5B securities lawsuit Over MBS Sold to Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae

Citigroup has settled the $3.5 billion mortgage-backed securities filed with the Federal Housing Finance Agency. The MBS were sold to Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae and both sustained resulting losses. This is the second of 18 securities fraud cases involving FHFA suing banks last year over more than $200B in MBS losses by Fannie and Freddie. The lawsuit is FHFA v. Citigroup.

J.P. Morgan International Bank Ltd. Slapped with $4.64M Fine by UK Regulator

Securities Criminal Roundup: Mail Fraud Charges Against Investment Company Owner, Ex-Bank of the Commonwealth Execs Convicted, Broker’s Elder Financial Fraud Sentence is Affirmed, and Ex-Fund President Goes to Prison for Ponzi Scam

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

Flatiron Systems LLC Owner Pleads Guilty to Mail Fraud

In United States v. Howard, investment company owner David Eugene Howard has pleaded guilty to mail fraud charges. He is accused of engaging in a financial scam that obtained about $1.8 million from investors.

Prosecutors say that Howard, who owns Flatiron Systems, used operating agreements, letters, and account statements to make false representations that his company used a proprietary system named “Pathfinder” to trade pooled equity accounts. The Securities and Exchange Commission has submitted an enforcement action against Howard.

AIG Drops RMBS Lawsuit Against New York Fed, Fights Bank of America’s $8.5B MBS Settlement

Published on: June 5, 2013 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

American International Group (AIG) and Maiden Lane II dismissing lawsuit against the Federal Reserve Bank of New York regarding the $182.3 billion financial bailout that the insurer received during the 2008 economic crisis. In dispute was whether AIG still had the right to pursue a lawsuit over residential mortgage-backed securities losses and if the company had moved $18 billion of litigation claims to Maiden Lane, which is a New York Fed-created entity.

An AIG spokesperson said that in the wake of a recent ruling by a district judge in California that the company did not assign $7.3 billion of the claims to Maiden Lane, both are dropping their action without prejudice. This means that AIG can now pursue Bank of America (BAC) for these claims, which is what the insurer wants to do.

Bank of America had said that AIG could not sue it over the allegedly fraudulent MBS because the latter transferred that right when the New York Fed bought the instruments in question 2008. However, according to Judge Mariana R. Pfaelzer, even if the New York Fed meant for Maiden Lane II to have these claims, that intention was not made clear.

FINRA Orders Wells Fargo & Banc of America’s Merrill Lynch Ordered to Pay $5.1M for Floating-Rate Bank Loan Funds Sales

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

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority Inc. says that Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated (MER) and Wells Fargo Advisors LLC must pay $5.1 million for losses sustained by customers who bought floating-rate bank loan funds.

According to the SRO, brokers at Banc of America and Merrill recommended the purchase of floating-rate bank loan funds to customers who didn’t have investment goals, risks tolerance, or financial conditions that were consistent with the features and risks of these kinds of mutual funds. Instead, these were customers whose risk tolerance levels were conservative and wanted to preserve principal. FINRA says that the sale recommendations were made even though there wasn’t reason to believe that floating-rate bank loan funds would be suitable for these investors.

In regards to the allegations against Wells Fargo, FINRA, in its acceptance, waiver and consent letter, said that brokers there warned about the funds but that the firm failed to act on their worries. The SRO says that the brokers had even confused the funds with bank certificates of deposit and other less risky investments.