Financial Firms

California AG Files Lawsuit Against JP Morgan Chase Alleging Debt Collection Abuse Over 100,000 Credit Card Cases

Published on: May 16, 2013 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

According to California Attorney General Kamala Harris, JP Morgan Chase (JPM) filed about 100,000 credit card debt collection lawsuits between 2008 and 2011 without conducting sufficient research to properly assess the cases’ merits. The bank reportedly submitted 200 lawsuits over 15 weeks in 2011, including 32 lawsuits on January 5, 2011. Now, Harris is suing the banking giant, accusing it of “debt collection abuse” while victimizing tens of thousands of state residents.

Per the complaint, Chase prioritized saving money and speed, even “robo-signing” legal documents without sufficiently evaluating the evidence and engaging in other “unlawful practices.” The state points to questionable documents and incomplete records that were purportedly used to back up the cases. Harris, who contends that JPMorgan’s “debt collection mill” abused the state’s judicial process, wants damages for borrowers.

Meantime, JPMorgan is cooperating regulators, including the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, which is getting ready to file an enforcement action against it ,also over its handling of credit card debt collection. The firm reviewed its debt collection procedures in 2011 and it is no longer filing credit card lawsuits.

SEC Roundup: Regulator Addresses CDS Portfolio Margin Program & Ex-Commission Officials Want DC Circuit to Grant SIPC Protection to Stanford Ponzi Scam Victims

Published on: May 14, 2013 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Ex-Commission Officials, Others Want DC Circuit to Grant Stanford Ponzi Scam Victims SIPC Protection

Former SEC Officials, law professors, and trade groups are among those pressing the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to reject the regulator’s bid to compel Securities Investor Protection Corporation coverage for the investors who were bilked in R. Allen Stanford’s $7 billion Ponzi scam. Inclusion under the Securities Investor Protection Act would allow the fraud victims to obtain reimbursement for losses.

However, SIPC, which is a federally mandated non-profit corporation, doesn’t believe that the Stanford investors, who purchased certificates of deposit from Stanford International Bank Ltd. in Antigua, fall under this protection. Following a failure to act on the SEC’s request to initiate liquidation proceedings for brokerage firm Stanford Group Co., the regulator asked the court for a novel order that would make the organization comply.

Wells Fargo Settles Securities Lawsuit Over Medical Capital Holdings Ponzi Scam for $105M

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

Wells Fargo & Co. (WFC) has consented to pay $105M to investors of the now failed Medical Capital Holdings Inc. The bank had served as trustee for Medical Capital securities.

The medical receivables financing company got about $2.2 billion from thousands of investors between 2001 and 2009 via the private placement offerings that were promissory notes. The private placement was a high commission financial instrument that promised annual returns of 8.5% to 10.5%. Per court filings, investors paid Medical Capital nearly $325 million in administrative fees. Dozens of independent brokerage firms sold the notes.

It was in 2009 that the SEC accused affiliates of Medical Capital of committing securities fraud against investors. The financial scam was quickly shut down and the company soon entered receivership but investors got back just half their money. Many of them would go on to file a securities lawsuit against trustees Bank of New York Mellon Corp. (BK) and Wells Fargo accusing the financial firms of failing to fulfill their role as trustees by neglecting to detect the fraud. Meantime, many of the brokerage firms that sold the MedCap notes are no longer in business because they sank from the securities arbitration payments and legal costs that followed as a result.

$500M MBS Settlement Reached Between Countrywide and Investors

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

Class action securities plaintiffs, led by the Iowa Public Employees’ Retirement System, have settled their mortgage-backed securities lawsuit against Countrywide for $500 million. This is the largest federal class action MBS securities case in the US that has been resolved to date, even exceeding the $315 million settlement reached with Bank of America’s (BAC) Merrill Lynch (MER) last year.

Per the investors, Countryside, which was acquired by BofA, sold them billions of dollars in MBS certificates that were backed by defective loans. Toward the end of 2008, nearly all of the certificates were relegated to junk bond status.

The plaintiffs allege that offering documents for the mortgage-backed bonds failed to disclose that Countrywide was ignoring its own guidelines regarding home loan originating. In their consolidated class action securities case, investors sought over $351 billion of the Countrywide MBS that had been downgraded after the subprime collapse in 2007. (A district judge would go on to narrow the mortgage-backed securities lawsuit to $2.6 billion in bonds and Bank of America was dismissed as a defendant.)

Merrill Lynch Settles New Jersey Securities Fraud Lawsuit over State’s Stock Purchase for $45 Million

Published on: May 9, 2013 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Bank of America Corp’s (BAC) Merrill Lynch & Co. (MER) will pay the state of New Jersey $45 million to settle securities charges that it committed misconduct related to a stock purchase that the latter made in 2008. The investment bank is accused of breaching a contract provision that determined how the state was to exchange Merrill Lynch preferred stock for common stock.

New Jersey’s Division of Investments had purchased $300 million in preferred Merrill Lynch stock (Merrill Series 1 9% Mandatory Convertible Preferred Shares) in 2008. In 2009, the state’s attorney general at that time filed a NJ securities case against the financial firm contending that it had given “better terms” to at least another investor over the conversion of shares and issued misleading information about its financial state. By settling, Merrill Lynch is not denying or admitting to committing any wrongdoing.

If you think you may have been the victim of securities fraud, contact our Shepherd Smith Edwards and Kantas, LTD, LLP right right away. SSEK represents both individuals and institutions with arbitration claims and lawsuits against financial firms, brokers, investment advisers, and others.

Investor Files Securities Case Against Fidelity Over Float Income Investments Involving 401(K)s

Published on: May 6, 2013 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Investor Korine Brown is seeking class action status on behalf of those that also participated in General Motors Inc.’s Personal Savings Plan for hourly employees in her securities case against Fidelity Investments Institutional Operations Co. Inc. and Fidelity Management and Research Co. She is alleging breach of fiduciary duty. This is just the latest investment fraud case over Fidelity’s handling of money that came from planned assets, as well as against other 401k providers.

As of the end of 2011, the plan Brown has been a participant in contained about $46 billion in assets for over 100,000 account holders. The plaintiff claims that Fidelity Research breached its duty when it invested float income into Fidelity funds found in the plan menu.

Float income is money generated from redemptions, contributions, and transfers of planned assets when they are briefly put in in interest bearing accounts. Brown believes that Fidelity Investments Institutional Operations breached its duty when it used the float income, which she says is a plan asset, to take care of operating costs. She claims that Fidelity didn’t let participants and the fiduciaries tasked with administrating the plan know about how the float income was being used.

MF Global Holdings Bankruptcy Trustee Files Lawsuit Against Ex-CEO Corzine and Other Former Executives

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

According to bankruptcy trustee Louis Freeh, former MF Global Holdings (MFGLQ) CEO Jon Corzine and other former executives did not act in good faith when they were in charge of the company. The ex-FBI director is suing them in bankruptcy court for gross negligence and breach of fiduciary duty. (Corzine is also a former Goldman Sachs (GS) CEO and he previously served as a US Senator and the Governor of New Jersey). Also named as defendants are the firm’s ex-COO Bradley I. Abelow and ex-CFO Henri J. Steenkam. MF Global’s collapse left customers wondering where about $1.6 billion dollars of their funds had gone missing.

Per Freeh’s lawsuit, after becoming CEO, Corzine and the other executives “dramatically changed” MF Global’s business plan but failed to update certain systems, including poor controls that made it impossible for the company to figure out liquidity levels. Corzine then allegedly made the company place large bets on bonds put out by countries in Europe. Freeh believes that the executives knew the risks involved but ignored them.

The case comes after Freeh submitted a report about Corzine and other executives. The former FBI director had said he was going to hold off and try resolving the securities claims via mediation, but even with this process still ongoing, Freeh believes that moving ahead with the lawsuit is in creditors’ best interest.

Police Retirement System of St. Louis Also Suing JPMorgan Chase Executives Over “London Whale” Scandal

Published on: April 25, 2013 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The Police Retirement System of St. Louis is suing JPMorgan Chase (JPM) CEO Jamie Dimon and several other senior bank officers over the “London Whale” scandal. The pension fund, which owns 39,000 of the investment bank, is one of numerous investors seeking compensation. Dimon and the other JPMorgan executives are accused of disregarding the red flags indicating that the London-based operation was engaged in taking large scale risks that ultimately resulted in close to $6 billion in losses last year.

In its derivatives lawsuit, the Police Retirement System of St. Louis contends that the defendants “eviscerated” the risk controls of JPMorgan’s London unit to up profits. Even after the media reported that one of the bank’s traders in London was making big bets (that trader was eventually dubbed the “London Whale”), Dimon downplayed the news to investors. The pension fund contends that the executives and others breached their duties to shareholders by not stopping the risky trades.

In March, US lawmakers sought to understand the multimillion-dollar trading loss. At a hearing before Congress, they questioned past and current JPMorgan executives about the financial scandal. Their interrogation came a day after the release of a damning 300-page Congressional report that blamed the bank’s lax culture while also criticizing the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency for also failing to follow up on warning signs.

The executives tried to defend themselves, saying their attempts to lower risks were countered by traders that purposely undervalued bets to conceal an increase in losses. Among the executives that gave testimony was ex-JPMorgan chief investment office head Ina Drew, whose group was in the middle of the debacle. She too blamed lower-level traders and others, while contending that she had been given inaccurate information. Drew said she didn’t know that traders were upping their bets.

Withering Questions at Senate Hearing on JPMorgan Loss, New York Times, March 15, 2013

JPMorgan hit with new investor lawsuit over “Whale” losses, Reuters, April 15, 2013

More Blog Posts:
JP Morgan Sued by Dexia in $1.7B MBS Lawsuit, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, February 11, 2013

JPMorgan, Goldman Sachs, Bank of New York Mellon, Charles Schwab Disclose Market-Based NAVs of Money Market Mutual Funds, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, February 7, 2013

New Hampshire Regulators Accuse Edward Jones of “Questionable Marketing” to Recruit Customers

Published on: April 23, 2013 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The New Hampshire Bureau of Securities Regulation says Edward Jones & Co. employed “questionable marketing” to bring in customers. Seeking up to $3 million, the brokerage firm is accused of making 20,000 calls to residents that were on NH’s National Do Not Call Registry.

According to regulators, no other broker-dealer has been named in as many complaints about unsolicited phone calls. A spokesperson for Edward Jones, however, disputes this contention.

With over 12,000 financial advisers and approximately 11,400 offices throughout the US-mostly there is just one broker per locale-the brokerage firm tries to work around telemarketing rules by getting brokers to go door-to-door. Training materials talk about how when a potential customer asks to be added to the do-not call list, the broker is supposed to respond by saying he/she respects the former’s decision but that another visit may be likely if something that could be of possible interest to the prospective client arises.

Lehman Brothers Australia Wants Federal Court to Approve $248M Settlement Payment Plan to Creditors

Published on: April 23, 2013 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The liquidators of Lehman Brothers Australia want the Federal Court there to approve their plan that would allow the bank to pay $248M in securities losses that were sustained by 72 local charities, councils, private investors, and churches. Although the court held Lehman liable, no compensation has been issued because the financial firm went bankrupt.

Per that ruling, the Federal Court found that Lehman’s Australian arm misled customers during the sale of synthetic collateralized debt obligations. The court also said that Lehman Brothers subsidiary Grange Securities was in breach of its fiduciary duty and took part in deceptive and misleading behavior when it put the very complex CDOs in the councils’ portfolio. (Lehman had acquired Grange Securities and Grange Asset Management in early 2007, thereby also taking charge of managing current and past relationships, including the asset management and transactional services for the councils.) The court determined that the council clients’ “commercial naivety” in getting into these complex transactions were to Grange’s advantage.

Via the liquidators’ plan, creditors would get a portion of a $211 million payout. This is much more than the $43 million that Lehman had offered to pay. The payout would include $45 million from American professional indemnity insurers to Lehman, which would then disburse the funds to those it owes.