FINRA

Goldman Sachs & Co. Clearing Unit Must Pay Unsecured Creditors of Bayou Hedge Funds $20.5M FINRA Arbitration Award, Says District Court

Published on: December 14, 2010 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

A district court has rejected Goldman Sachs & Co.’s (GS ) challenge to a $20.5 million securities fraud award for unsecured creditors of the failed Bayou hedge funds. The unsecured creditors are blaming the investment bank of failing to look at certain red flags and, as a result, facilitating the massive scam. The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York said it was sustaining the award issued by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority arbitration panel.

The court said that contrary to Goldman’s argument, the FINRA panel “did not ‘manifestly disregard the law’ when reaching its conclusion. Also, the court noted that the panel had found that Goldman Sachs Execution and Clearing unit was not innocent of wrongdoing in that it failed to take part in a “diligent investigation” that could have uncovered the fraud.

The Bayou Hedge Funds group collapsed in 2005. According to regulators, investors lost over $450 million as a result of the false performance data and audit opinions that were issued. The Securities and Exchange Commission and the Justice Department sued the group’s founders, Daniel Marino and Samuel Israel III over the investors’ financial losses and the firm’s collapse. Both men have pleaded guilty to criminal charges and are behind bars.

The court not only disagreed with the Goldman Sachs clearing unit that the panel was not in manifest disregard of the law, but also, it found that as Goldman’s client agreements with the Bayou funds provided it with “broad discretion” over the use of securities and money in the funds’ accounts, it was not unusual for a “reasonable arbitrator” to find that Goldman’s rights in relation to the accounts provided it with “sufficient dominion and control to create transferee liability.”

Related Web Resources:

Court Rebuffs Goldman ChallengeTo $20.5M Bayou Arbitration Award, BNA, December 9, 2010

Goldman Sachs, Stockbroker Fraud Blog

Citigroup Seeking to Dismiss $11.6 Million Securities Arbitration Award to “Dallas” TV Star Larry Hagman

Published on: November 30, 2010 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

TV star Larry Hagman, best known for playing the roles of Texas oil tycoon JR Ewing on “Dallas” and Major Anthony Nelson on “I Dream of Jeannie,” recently won an $11.6 million securities fraud arbitration award against Citigroup. The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority says that the award is the largest that has been issued to an individual investor for 2010 and the ninth largest ever. Citi Global Markets is now seeking to dismiss the award.

The investment firm contends that the arbitration panel’s chairman did not disclose a possible conflict of interest. In its petition, Citi cites a FINRA rule obligating arbitrators to reveal such conflicts that could prevent them from issuing an impartial ruling. The financial firm claiming that because the arbitration panel head was once a plaintiff in a lawsuit that dealt with the same type of claims and subject matter, he had an undisclosed potential conflict. Hagman’s legal team have since responded with a memo arguing that the arbitrator’s lawsuit was not related to this complaint and did not involve a securities investment, the same parties, or the same facts.

Hagman and his wife Maj had accused Citigroup of securities fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, and other allegations. They claimed financial losses on bonds and stocks and a life insurance policy. In addition to the arbitration award, which consists of $1.1 million in compensatory damages and $10 million in punitive damages that will go to a charity of Hagman’s choice, Citigroup must also pay a 10% interest on the award.

Related Web Resources:
Messing With J.R., Take Four, NY Times, November 23, 2010
Actor Larry Hagman Wins $12 Million in Finra Case With Citigroup, Bloomberg, October 7, 2010

Citigroup’s petition to dismiss award to Larry Hagman

Citigroup, Stockbroker Fraud Blog Continue Reading ›

Fiduciary Standard in Securities Industry Doesn’t Need New Definition

Published on: November 26, 2010 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Financial Industry Regulatory Authority Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Richard Ketchum says that there should be just one flexible, fiduciary standard for investment advisers and broker-dealers who offer personalized investment advice. Ketchum spoke at a conference earlier this month.

Ketchum noted that seeing as investment advisers and broker-dealers essentially work in the same business, it “doesn’t make sense” to act as if they work in different ones. He supports a flexible fiduciary standard that comes with a “few basic, simple rules.”

As to whether FINRA could play a part in supervising the imposition of a future fiduciary standard on broker-dealers, Ketchum said that if FINRA were to play this role it would do so with a discreet board that would include a minority of investment adviser professionals, as well as members of the public. While investment advisers currently have to comply with a fiduciary standard and are regulated under the 1940 Investment Advisers Act, broker-dealers must be in compliance with other standards, including an obligation to make sure that their recommendations to clients are “suitable” ones.

Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman Mary L. Schapiro has also shown a preference for a uniform fiduciary standard between the two groups. Under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, the SEC has until January 21, 2011 to turn in a report to the House Financial Services Committee about this matter. After completing its study, the SEC can write rules to establish a uniform standard of conduct for professionals who give retail clients personalized investment advice. However, the rule cannot be “less stringent” than current investment adviser standards.

Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas LTD LLP Founder and Stockbroker Fraud Attorney William Shepherd had this to say about a fiduciary duty: “There is no need for disagreement over what kind of language should be use to define fiduciary duty in the securities industry. The term ‘fiduciary’ comes from the Latin word fides, which means faith, and fiducia, which means trust. English Common law, upon which our legal system was founded, long ago defined a fiduciary duty as a duty of loyalty and care, in which the fiduciary must put the interest of his client before that of himself. Courts all across our nation today recognize this same duty in a variety of relationships. The meaning of ‘fiduciary duty’ has been established for hundreds of years, so why would Wall Street need to have its own special definition? If it ain’t broke, why fix it?”

Related Web Resources:
Fiduciary Standard, More Adviser Oversight Likely -Finra Chief, The Wall Street Journal, November 16, 2010
Investment Advisers Act of 1940
Continue Reading ›

Non-Customers of Wachovia Cannot Bring Stock Loan Related Claim to FINRA, Says Court

Published on: November 21, 2010 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California has ruled that a married couple and their investment vehicles are not Wachovia “customers” and, therefore, they are not entitled to bring their stock loan related claims against Wachovia Securities Financial Network LLC and financial adviser George Gordon III to Financial Industry Regulatory Authority arbitration. Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong granted Wachovia and Gordon’s request for a preliminary injunction.

Per the statement of claim submitted to FINRA, Gregory and Susan Raifman initiated arbitration as trustees of a family trust, as Gekko Holdings Inc. members, and as the beneficial owners and assignees in interest of Helicon Investments Ltd. The Raifmans accused Wachovia and Gordon of committing securities fraud, breach of fiduciary duties, and violations of the California Securities Act and the rules of both the New York Stock Exchange and National Association of Securities Dealers.

The Raifmans contended that Gekko and Helicon each went into three separate stock loan transactions that Derivium Capital LLC, a third party, had promoted so they could borrow up to 90% of their stock holdings’ value without triggering capital gain on the stock sale. After the three-year loan term ended, the Raifmans were to pay the loan balance and get back or surrender their collateral or renew their loan.

To execute their plan, the Raifmans opened a Wachovia account for the trust in 2003 and transferred nearly $3 million in ValueClick (VLCK) shares into an account owned by a Derivium affiliate. Almost 12 months later, Helicon placed 300,000 ValueClick shares into another Derivium affiliate’s Wachovia account under a 90 percent stock loan agreement. Gekko later deposited 200,000 ValueClick shares in the same account (and also under a 90 percent stock loan agreement).

It wasn’t until 2007 that the Raifmans found out that their Value Click shares had been sold as soon as they were placed in the Derivium affiliates’ accounts. They also had not known that the sales proceeds had been loaned back to them while Wachovia and Derivium kept 10 – 14% of the sales proceeds.

The Raifmans attempted to start the arbitration process in July but Gordon and Wachovia filed their complaint seeking enjoinment against the couple, Helicon, and Gekko. They also requested a stay of the arbitration proceedings. The financial firm and investment adviser contended that they did not have an agreement with the defendants, who were not their customers and therefore not entitled to FINRA arbitration. The district court agreed.

Related Web Resources:
Wachovia Securities LLC v. Raifman

Arbitration and Mediation, FINRA Continue Reading ›

Goldman Sachs Ordered by FINRA to Pay $650K Fine For Not Disclosing that Broker Responsible for CDO ABACUS 2007-ACI Was Target of SEC Investigation

Published on: November 12, 2010 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority says it is fining Goldman Sachs $650,000 for failing to disclose that the government was investigating two of its brokers. One of the brokers was Goldman vice president Fabrice Tourre. FINRA says Goldman did not have the proper procedures in place to make sure that this disclosure was made.

The SEC had accused Tourre of being “principally responsible” for Abacus 2007-AC1, a synthetic collateralized debt obligation, and selling the bonds to investors, who ended up losing more than $1 billion while Goldman yielded profits and hedge fund manager John A. Paulson made money from bets he placed against specific mortgage bonds. The SEC contends that Goldman failed to notify investors that Paulson had taken a short position against Abacus 2007-AC1. This summer, Goldman settled for $550 million SEC charges that it misled investors about this CDO, just as the housing market was collapsing.

Regarding Goldman’s failure to disclose that the SEC was investigating two of its brokers, even though investment firms are required to file a Form U4 within 30 days of finding out that a representative has received a Wells notice about the probe, FINRA says that Tourre’s U4 wasn’t amended until May 3, 2010. This date is more than 7 months after Goldman learned about his Well Notice and after the SEC filed its complaint against the investment bank and Tourre. FINRA also says that Goldman’s “employee manual” for brokers does not even specifically mention Wells Notices or the need for disclosure after one is received.

By agreeing to settle with FINRA, Goldman is not admitting to or denying the charges.

Goldman Sachs to Pay $650,000 for Failing to Disclose Wells Notices, FINRA, November 9, 2010
Related Web Resources:
Goldman Fined $650,000 for Lack of Disclosure, New York Times, November 9, 2010
Goldman Sachs Settles SEC Subprime Mortgage-CDO Related Charges for $550 Million,
Stockbroker Fraud Blog, July 30, 2010
Goldman Sachs, Institutional Investor Securities Blog Continue Reading ›

Morgan Stanley’s Motion to Bar Ex-Hedge Fund Promoter Conrad Seghers from Pursuing FINRA Arbitration in Texas Securities Case is Granted by District Court

Published on: October 27, 2010 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

A district court has granted plaintiff Morgan Stanley’s motion that Conrad Seghers, a former hedge fund promoter, be preliminarily barred from pursuing Financial Industry Regulatory Authority arbitration proceeding against the broker-dealer over the way over his accounts were allegedly mishandled. Judge Denise L. Cote said that Seghers waved the right to arbitrate by proceeding with his Texas securities lawsuit when he litigated with earlier action. The dispute between the investment bank and Seghers has been going on for nearly a decade.

According to the court, a number of hedge funds and related entities run by Seghers and his associates opened accounts with Morgan Stanley in 1999. In 2001, Seghers and his partners accused the broker-dealer of serious errors that allegedly caused the funds’ value to sustain huge financial hits. A major investor in a Segher hedge fund would go on to file a Texas securities fraud complaint against the fund promoter, the funds, and his partners.

The following year, a number of the funds sued Morgan Stanley in court. The Texas securities dispute went to NASD (now FINRA) arbitration and the case was eventually settled.

When Seghers sued Morgan Stanley for $35 million in federal court over the investment bank’s allegedly fraudulent misstatements that led to the funds to drop in value, the lawsuit was dismissed as untimely under the Texas limitations period of four years. Seghers chose not to appeal the ruling.

However, not long after, one of the funds founded by Seghers that had traded assets through the Morgan Stanley accounts filed NASD arbitration proceedings accusing the investment bank of breach of contract and fraud related to the same alleged misconduct as the federal district court action. A court in New York dismissed the case as untimely.

This April, Seghers commenced a FINRA arbitration against Morgan Stanley. In July, the investment bank filed a complaint seeking declaratory judgment that the hedge fund promoter waived his right to arbitrate because of his earlier lawsuit, as well as due to the fact that the Texas arbitration was time-barred. The court granted Morgan Stanley’s motion.

Related Web Resources:
Arbitration and Mediation, FINRA Continue Reading ›

RBC Wealth Management Unit Ferris Baker Watts to Pay Investors Restitution Over Reverse Convertible Notes Allegations, Says FINRA

Published on: October 23, 2010 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority and the RBC Wealth Management-acquired Ferris, Baker Watts LLC have agreed to settle charges that the latter engaged in the unsuitable sales of reverse convertibles to elderly clients in the 85 and over group, well as in the inadequate supervision of such notes to retail customers. By agreeing to settle, the investment firm is not agreeing with or denying the allegations.

The alleged misconduct took place prior to RBC acquiring Ferris, Baker Watts. As part of the settlement, the brokerage firm will pay close to $190,000 in restitution to 57 account holders for financial losses related to their purchase of reverse convertibles.

FINRA says that between January 2006 and July 2008, Ferris, Baker Watts allegedly sold reverse convertible notes to about 2,000 retail investors while failing to properly supervise and guide its supervising managers and brokers on how to determine whether their recommendations of the notes were suitable for clients. The investment firm is also accused of not having a system in place that could effectively monitor, detect, and handle possible reverse convertible over-concentrations.

In its release announcing the settlement, FINRA cites one example involving Ferris, Baker Watts selling five reverse convertibles in the amount of $10,000 each to an 86-year-old retired social worker. These notes represented between 15% to 25% of her investment portfolio at different times. FINRA says that for another client, the investment firm sold five notes to a 20-year-old who was making under $25,000 a year. This investment was 51% of the client’s retirement account.

Related Web Resources:
FINRA Orders Ferris, Baker Watts to Pay Nearly $700,000 for Inappropriate Sales of Reverse Convertible Notes, FINRA, October 20, 2010

Finra fines RBC Wealth unit over brokers’ sales of ‘unsuitable’ investments, Investment News, October 20, 2010 Continue Reading ›

FINRA Wants to Make All-Public Arbitration Panel for Investors Permanent

Published on: October 7, 2010 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority says it wants investors with securities claims against broker-dealers to have the right to an arbitration panel that doesn’t include industry representatives. FINRA will file its proposal with the Securities and Exchange Commission for approval.

Under the new rule, investors would have the option of choosing between a panel comprised of one industry arbitrator and two public arbitrators and a panel made up of three public arbitrators. FINRA is hoping this will create a greater perception of fairness in the mandatory arbitration system, which it oversees.

During the last two years, FINRA has run a pilot program that gave investors the option between the two types of panels. The program was created to test whether all-public panels gave investors a fairer shake in their disputes with broker-dealers. 14 investment firms took part in the program. According to FINRA, investors chose to have their securities case heard by an all-public panel 60% of the time. 50% of the time they chose the panel that included one industry member. The pilot has been extended for another year. As of September 28, nearly 560 cases have been part of this program.

Now that the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act has been enacted, the SEC can limit or ban mandatory arbitration clauses, which can be found in contracts between broker-dealers and their clients. Investor advocates are hoping for this.

Related Web Resources:
Finra asks SEC to OK all-public panels for arbitration disputes, Investment News, September 28, 2010
FINRA Proposes to Permanently Give Investors the Option of All-Public Arbitration Panels, September 28, 2010
Number of FINRA Arbitration Claims Rose in 2009 Following Market Crisis, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, January 13, 2010 Continue Reading ›

Plan by FINRA and CHX to Re-Allocate Regulatory Tasks Approved by SEC

Published on: September 23, 2010 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The Securities and Exchange Commission has approved the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority and Chicago Stock Exchange Inc. proposed agreement to re-allocate certain regulatory duties that deal with firms that belong to the two self-regulatory organizations.

Under the plan, FINRA is to assume specific enforcement and examination functions for common members when the applicable CHX rules and FINRA rules involved are “substantially similar.” Also, with respect to certain federal securities laws and rules and regulations and as specified by the agreement, FINRA is to take regulatory responsibility for common members.

The SEC says the plan will cut down “unnecessary regulatory duplication” when common members are involved. While FINRA will take charge of certain responsibilities that the two SROs would otherwise have both performed, CHX will remain in charge of examination, surveillance, investigation, and enforcement when it comes to trading practices and activities in its marketplace. The latest agreement supercedes the one from 1977. It has no impact on CHX’s operations or its market oversight functions.

However, according to Securities Fraud Attorney William Shepherd, “Considering the abysmal job that these self-regulatory organizations (SRO’S) have done in regulating, for example, the lack of regulation of the Madoff securities firm, perhaps a little duplication would be perfectly acceptable!”

Related Web Resources:
SEC Approves Plan by FINRA, CHX To Re-Allocate Certain Regulatory Duties, BNA Securities Law Daily, September 13, 2010
FINRA

Chicago Stock Exchange

SEC
Continue Reading ›

Illegal High Frequency Trading: Trillium Brokerage Services LLC and 11 individuals agree to settle FINRA Charges for $2.27M

Published on: September 22, 2010 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority says that it is fining and censuring Trillium Brokerages LLC and 11 individuals $2.27 million for their involvement in an illegal high frequency trading strategy and supervisory failures. It is the first enforcement action to target this type of improper trading behavior.

FINRA claims that through the traders, Trillium entered a number of layered, non-bona fide market moving orders in more than 46,000 instances to purposely make it appear that there was substantial selling and buying in NASDAQ and NYSE Arca stocks. Because of the high frequency trading, others in the industry submitted orders to execute against those that the Trillium traders had placed. However, after the Trillium traders submitted their orders they would immediately cancel them.

FINRA Market Regulation Executive Vice President Thomas Gira says that Trillium purposely and “improperly baited unsuspecting market participants” into making trades at illegitimate prices and to the advantage of Trillium’s traders. Gira says that FINRA will continue to “aggressively pursue disciplinary action” against those involve in illegal high frequency trading activity that undermines legitimate trades, abusive momentum ignition strategies, and other illegal conduct.

Regarding the FINRA fines, the New York-based broker-dealer has agreed to pay $1 million for using a trading technique involving the placement of a number of nonauthentic orders to make it falsely appear as if there was market activity for specific NASDAQ and NYSE Arca stocks. Trillium also must disgorge $173,000 in illegal profits.

Nine Trillium traders, the brokerage company’s chief compliance officer, and its trading director have agreed to pay a total of $805,500. They have been told to disgorge $292,000. The individuals are temporarily suspended from the securities industry or as principals.

The SEC also is looking into high frequency trading- and “quote stuffing,” which involves the placement and then immediate cancellation of bulk stock orders. The SEC wants to see whether such practices have allowed for improper or fraudulent conduct.

Related Web Resources:
FINRA Investigating Whether Broker-Dealers Providing Adequate Risk Controls to High-Frequency Traders, Institutionalinvestorsecuritiesblog.com, September 19, 2010

FINRA Sanctions Trillium Brokerage Services, LLC, Director of Trading, Chief Compliance Officer, and Nine Traders $2.26 Million for Illicit Equities Trading Strategy, FINRA, September 13, 2010

Trillium Fined by Finra for Illegal Trading Strategy, BusinessWeek, September 13, 2010