Mutual Funds

Securities Claims Over Morgan Stanley Mutual Funds Dismissed by Appeals Court

Published on: February 5, 2010 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Upholding a lower court’s decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed that investors’ securities claims in two Morgan Stanley (MS) mutual funds-the Morgan Stanley Technology Fund and the Morgan Stanley Information Fund-should be dismissed. The claimants had accused the investment firm of failing to disclose conflicts of interest between investment banking arms and its research analysts.

The court ruled that mutual fund offering statements are not necessary to disclose possible conflicts of interest that occur due to the dismantling of the “information barrier” between stock researchers and investment bankers. The appellate panel also found that there are two class actions against the open-ended mutual funds that fail to identify illegal omissions in the funds’ prospectuses or registration statements.

According to investors, they should have been notified that objectivity could be compromised because the managers of the mutual funds heavily depended on broker-dealers for their stock research. Citing the Securities Act of 1933, they filed a securities fraud lawsuit against Morgan Stanley. The plaintiffs contended that the brokerage firm’s offering documents omitted the possible conflict of interest. The plaintiffs claimed that these omissions cost them $500,000 and that the combined losses for the class were over $1 billion.

A federal judge dismissed their broker fraud complaints, citing a failure to prove that the law mandates disclosure of possible conflicts of interest. The second circuit affirmed the lower court’s ruling, saying it agreed with the SEC’s amicus curiae stating that both Form 1-A and the Securities Act do not require defendants to reveal that the information the plaintiffs’ claimed had been left out and that what the plaintiffs considered to be risks specific to the Morgan Stanley funds were in fact ones that every investor faces.

Among the defendants: Morgan Stanley, Morgan Stanley DW Inc. (MSDWI), MS & Co, the Technology Fund, the Information Fund, Morgan Stanley Investment Management Inc. (MSIM), Morgan Stanley Investment Advisors Inc. (MSIA), and Morgan Stanley Distributors Inc.

Related Web Resources:
Second Circuit Rules Morgan Stanley Mutual Funds Not Liable for Failing to Disclose Conflicts of Interest with Stock Analysts, Law.com, February 1, 2010
Court Nixes Class Actions Against Morgan Stanley, Courthouse News, January 29, 2010 Continue Reading ›

Morgan Keegan Again Ordered by Arbitrators to Pay Bond Fund Losses to Investors

Published on: October 27, 2009 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Morgan Keegan & Co. has been ordered to pay $51,000 to Larry and Diane Papasan. Larry Papasan is Memphis Light, Gas and Water Division’s former president.

The Papasans filed their arbitration claim against Morgan Keegan last year after they lost about $80,000 in the account they had with the investment firm. The Papasans’ claim is one of many arbitration cases and securities fraud lawsuits filed by Morgan Keegan investors who sustained RMK fund losses. The general accusation is that the broker-dealer misrepresented the volatility of the bond funds, which they allegedly were not managing conservatively.

Larry Papasan, who is retired, opened his account because he knew John Wilfong, a former Morgan Keegan financial adviser. Wilfong felt so confident about the bond funds that he even sold them to his mother, Joyce Wilfong, who also went on to suffer financial losses from her investment. Her friend Maxine Street also suffered bond fund losses.

The two women filed a joint arbitration claim against Morgan Keegan. Joyce was awarded $68,000, while Street settled for an undisclosed sum.

According to the Papasans, John Wilfong spoke with Jim Kelsoe, the RMK funds’ manager, prior to leaving Morgan Keegan for UBS. Kelsoe allegedly told Wilfong not to liquidate because the funds were safe. The Morgan Keegan fund manager is named in other cases for allegedly failing to disclose the risks associated with the mutual fund investments.

Related Web Resources:
Latest RMK Award Goes to Ex- MLGW Head, Memphis Daily News, October 27, 2009
Two Morgan Keegan Funds Crash and Burn, Kiplinger, December 2007 Continue Reading ›

Market Timing Violations Against AG Edwards & Sons Inc. Supervisors and Broker Upheld by the SEC

Published on: October 17, 2009 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The US Securities and Exchange Commission is upholding the market timing violations against two AG Edwards and Sons Inc. supervisors and one of its stockbrokers. Billions of dollars were involved in the mutual fund market timing transactions.

While market timing, which involves the buying and selling of mutual fund shares in a manner that takes advantage of price inefficiencies, is not illegal, a violation of 1934 Securities Exchange Act Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5. can arise when there is intent to deceive.

Last year, the ALJ found that AG Edwards and Sons brokers Charles Sacco and Thomas Bridge intentionally violated antifraud provisions when they engaged in market timing activities even though they had been restricted from doing so. The ALJ also found that supervisors Jeffrey Robles and James Edge failed to properly supervise the stockbrokers.

The antifraud charges filed against Bridge by the SEC Enforcement Division involved 1,352 trades (representing $1.126 billion) he executed over a two-year period for companies belonging to client Martin Oliner. The Enforcement Division accused Sacco of entering 25,533 market timing trades (representing $4.036 billion) for two hedge fund clients between 5/02 – 9/03.

The SEC determined that Edge, who was Bridge’s supervisor, knew and was complicit in the latter’s actions. Although Robles was not considered to have been complicit in Sacco’s alleged broker fraud, the commission said he should have noticed there were problems.

The SEC ordered Bridge to cease and desist from future violations. He is also barred from associating with any dealers or brokers for five years. Sacco has already settled his broker-fraud case.

Edge is barred from acting in a supervisory role over any dealer or broker for five years. Robles received a similar bar lasting three years. All three men were ordered to pay penalties, while Bridge was ordered to disgorge almost $39,000 plus $16,665.57 in prejudgment interest.

Related Web Resources:
Read the SEC’s Opinion regarding this matter

Commission Sanctions Thomas C. Bridge for Violations of the Antifraud Provisions of the Securities Laws and James D. Edge and Jeffrey K. Robles for Failing to Supervise Reasonably, Trading Markets, September 29, 2009 Continue Reading ›

SEC Wants to Know Why Target-Date Mutual Funds are Growing Riskier

Published on: July 8, 2009 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The US Labor Department and the Securities and Exchange Commission want to know why target-date mutual funds, which were supposed to get safer as investors aged, have become more high risk. Large mutual fund firms, including Vanguard and Fidelity , promised that as investors approached their retirement target-date funds would automatically shift from high-growth investments to safer ones, such as bonds. These funds were supposed to be a safe bet for retirement.

In 2007, the Labor Department issued a ruling protecting employers that automatically sent workers 401(k) funds to target funds if the employees later lost money. This decision released a lot of money into the funds. Approximately $182 billion has gone into target-date funds. Yet as the stock market fell in 2008, a number of 2010 funds lost 40% value.

Now, SEC Chairman Mary Shapiro wants to know whether companies misled investors about the risks involved with target-date funds. The SEC has gathered data that reveal that no clear standards exist for how target-date funds should operate and that they can vary when it comes to investment risks even if their names or target dates are similar. According to Shapiro, the SEC is worried that funds with even the same target date can vary a great deal when it comes to investment and returns. Funds invested in safer bonds appeared to perform better. Last year:

Fidelity Freedom 2010 Fund: Invested 50% in stocks; it lost 25% of its value last year.
Wells Fargo 2010 Fund: Lost 11% and is heavy in bonds.
AllianceBernstein 2010: Dropped by 1/3rd; 57% invested in stocks.
Deutsche Bank Fund: 4% down; favors fixed-income investments.

Now, Congress wants workers that want to invest in target-date funds and other 401(k) funds to receive accurate marketing, better disclosure fees, and better financial advice. Envestnet Asset Management and Behavioral Research Associations conducted a study that brought to light a number of misconceptions about target-date funds. For example, employees believed target-date funds offer a guaranteed return, faster money growth, and the ability to invest less and still be able to retire.

Related Web Resources:
Target-Date Mutual Funds May Miss Their Mark, NY Times, June 24, 2009
Target-Date Funds That Hit the Mark, Smart Money, January 17, 2008 Continue Reading ›

Morgan Keegan Settlement with Children’s Wish Fund Shows the Impact Recouping Investment Losses Can Have On The Little People

Published on: March 14, 2009 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

In 2007, Morgan Keegan settled an arbitration claim with the Indiana Children’s Wish Fund for an undisclosed amount. The charity had reported losing $48,000 in a mutual fund it had invested in with the brokerage firm.

The Wish Fund became involved in mortgage securities after a local banker persuaded the charity’s executive director, Terry Ceaser-Hudson, to invest money in a bond fund through Morgan Keegan. Ceaser-Hudson was put in touch with broker Christopher Herrmann. When she asked him about the risks of investing in the fund, she says he assured her that investing it would be as safe as investing in a CD or a money market account.

In June 2007, the Wish Fund invested nearly $223,000 in the fund. That week, two Bear Stearns funds collapsed.

Less than three weeks after investing the charity’s money in the Morgan Keegan fund, Ceaser-Hudson says she was surprised to see a $5,000 loss. As the bond fund’s net asset value fell in September, she ordered the sale of the stakes to be sold. She got back about $174,000 of the $223,000 she had invested on behalf of the Wish Fund-that’s a 22% loss in just three months. Ceaser-Hudson filed an arbitration claim against Morgan Keegan and accused Herrmann of breach of duty when he making an unsuitable recommendation to the Wish Fund.

It appears as if the Regions Morgan Keegan mutual fund board members, like many investment professionals, did not properly assess the risks that came with investing in mortgage securities. Most of the brokerage firm’s directors do not own shares in the bond funds that were devastated, which means that the majority of them were not impacted by their decline.

For a charity like the Children’s Wish Fund, however, the losses it incurred had been preventing nine sick children from having their wishes granted.

Related Web Resources:
The Debt Crisis, Where It’s Least Expected, New York Times, December 30, 2007
The Indiana Children’s Wish Fund
Continue Reading ›

SEC Adopts Rules to Streamline Mutual Funds Disclosures But Delays Making Decision on Credit Ratings’ Final Rules

Published on: November 26, 2008 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

In a unanimous vote, the Securities and Exchange Commission agreed to adopt rule amendments to improve mutual fund disclosures. This includes letting investors receive a summary prospectus written in simple English. The SEC also adopted revisions to the mutual funds’ registration form known as form N-1A, including amendments that let exchange-traded funds use summary prospectuses.

Summary Prospectus

The summary prospectuses, which are voluntary, may include important information about investment strategies and goals, past fund performance, risks, and fees. As long as the statutory prospectus, summary prospectus, and other essential data can be accessed online, mutual funds that send investors a summary prospectus will be fulfilling their prospectus delivery requirements. Key data, such as selling and buying procedures, financial intermediary compensation, and tax consequences must also be included. The SEC expects approximately 75% of all mutual funds to use summary prospectuses.

Banorte Securities International Agrees to $1.1 Million Fine Over Charges It Recommended Class B Mutual Fund Shares Instead of Class A

Published on: October 22, 2008 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Banorte Securities International, Ltd. has agreed to a $1.1 million fine to settle charges that it recommended to customers that they buy Class B off-shore mutual fund shares even though they would have benefited more financially by buying Class A shares. The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority announced the settlement agreement last week.

By agreeing to settle, Banorte is not admitting to or denying the charges. The company also agreed to a plan that would address more than 1,400 transactions involving accounts in over 300 customer households.

Banorte had been accused of having inadequate supervisor systems to oversee the sales of off-shore mutual fund shares, including guidelines that failed to properly advise registered representatives that Class A share purchases eligible for front-end loans were more affordable than Class B Shares.

According to FINRA enforcement head Susan L. Merrill, firms are obligated to consider all share classes and pricing features that would most benefit a customer-regardless of whether or not that clients reside in the United States or abroad. The majority of Banorte’s customers reside in Mexico. Merrill also said that firms must take all relevant factors into considerations when making mutual fund recommendations to clients.

Class A Shares

These mutual fund shares come with a front-end sales charge and lower ongoing fees that are asset-based.

Class B Shares

While these mutual fund shares usually do not come with a front-end sales fee, their asset-based fees are usually higher than Class A Shares’ fees.

FINRA alleges that from 2003 until May 2004, the majority of Banorte mutual fund sales involved Class B shares even though investing in Class A Shares could have resulted in higher returns for clients.

Related Web Resources:

FINRA Fines Banorte Securities International $1.1 Million for Improper Sales of Class B Mutual Fund Shares, FINRA, October 16, 2008 Continue Reading ›

Investigation Underway of Asset Management Fund’s (“AMF”) Ultra Short Fund (AULTX) and the Role of Shay Asset Management

Published on: August 27, 2008 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

When investors placed funds in The Ultra Short Fund (Nasdaq: AULTX), managed by The Asset Management Fund (“AMF”), they believed their funds were safely on the sidelines in a money market alternative. Later surprised by substantial losses in this fund, many now seek legal representation.

On its website, AMF describes itself as a no-load mutual fund complex managed by Shay Assets Management, Inc., a privately-held investment adviser registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”). The AMF Funds are distributed by Shay Financial Services, Inc., a member of FINRA and SIPC. Shay Asset Management’s corporate headquarters are located in Chicago, Illinois.

The Ultra Short Fund’s objective is listed as “current income with a very low degree of share-price fluctuation.” However, the fund has declined more than 15% year to date. For investors seeking modest income and very low degree of price fluctuation, such losses are unacceptable, said Kirk G. Smith, a partner of the law firm Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas LTD LLP (SSEK).

Seven Mutual Fund Horror Stories for Investors!

Published on: August 12, 2008 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

A recent Morningstar article outlines seven mutual fund horror stories. In addition to the Legg Mason Value Fund (symbol LMVTX) and Schwab YieldPlus Fund (symbol SWYPX) and the Regions Morgan Keegan funds, which are the subject of stories we have reported recently, several other hard-hit mutual funds are discussed.

For example, the Eaton Vance Greater India fund (symbol ETGIX) has lost over 44%! The article, found in the Morningstar Fund Investor’s “Annual Guide on Where Not to Invest”, reminds investors to be especially wary of international funds, particularly those focusing on securities issued in China and India.

Also mentioned in the report is the Kinetics Market Opportunities fund (symbol KMKNX) which has lost over 30% this year. While this same fund gained 34% the previous year, its very narrow focus made it particularly susceptible to volatility. Large holdings of NASDAQ, CME, NYSE, and Legg Mason caused the fund to plummet.

Mutual Funds Misrepresented as Safe: SSgA Yield Plus, Fidelity Ultra-Short Bond (FUSFX) & Regions Morgan Keegan Select High Income (MKHIX)

Published on: August 11, 2008 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Just as auction rate securities were sold by most investment firms as safe alternatives to money market funds which paid a higher rate, so also were a number of mutual funds. Packaged and sold as ultra-short term bond funds and a safe haven for funds which were to be secure and assessable, many of these funds were really invested into high-risk and or potentially far from liquid assets.

Three of these funds are the SSgA Yield Plus fund, which was liquidated in June, the Fidelity Ultra-Short Bond (symbol: FUSFX), and Regions Morgan Keegan Select High Income (symbol MKHIX). All three, it has been learned, were actually actually “junk bond” funds. As problems in the credit markets surfaced over the past year, these funds have lost up to 80% of their value

The portfolios of these funds had structured debt instruments tied to subprime mortgages and other assets that do not trade frequently. This prevented the volatility of the assets from being properly reflected, consequently masking the risks of investing into the funds. The recent changes in the values have greatly altered the risk parameters, but too late for those invested in the funds who have sustained significant losses.