Securities and Exchange Commission

SEC’s Use of In-House Judge in Insider Trading Case is Likely Unconstitutional, Rules Federal Judge

Published on: June 9, 2015 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

A federal judge has ruled that the decision by the Securities and Exchange Commission to have an in-house judge in an insider trading case was “likely unconstitutional.” In the wake of his decision, U.S. District Judge Leigh Martin May agreed to put a temporary stop to the regulator’s administrative case against Charles Hill unless the case is presided over by a judge who fulfills the requirement for constitutional appointment. The hearing in the insider trading case against Hill was scheduled to begin next week.

Hill, a self-employed Atlanta real estate developer, disputes the regulator’s allegations that he made illicit gains of $744K from trading on a tip a friend purportedly provided about the takeover of Radiant Systems Incorporated. The company was about to be acquired by NCR Corp. for $1.2 billion in 2011.

Hill filed his own lawsuit against the SEC, challenging its decision to have in-house administrative law judge James Grimes preside over his case. Grimes was retained through the SEC’s office of in-house judges instead of having the appointment approved by the regulator’s commissioners. Now Judge May is saying, per Hill’s argument, that the Commission may have broken constitutional protections.

SEC Files Insider Trading Charges Involving Secondary Stock Offerings

Published on: June 3, 2015 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The Securities and Exchange Commission is filing insider trading charges against four persons accused of stealing confidential data from investment banks and public company clients so they could trade prior to secondary stock offerings. The four of them allegedly made over $4.4 million in illegal trading profits. Some 15 stocks were reportedly involved. The insider trading scam purportedly went on for three years, from 6/10 to 7/13.

According to the regulator, Steven Fishoff, a former day trader, conspired with his brother-in-law Steven Costantin and friends Ronald Chernin and Paul Petrello. The four of them pretended to be portfolio managers and they allegedly persuaded investment bankers to share confidential information about secondary offerings that were going to take place. Essentially, after agreeing not to tell anyone about the offering or trade in the securities, the defendants were made privy to private data.

The defendants allegedly broke their promises not to tell others about the information, tipping one another with their insider knowledge so they could lower the issuer’s stock price. They would short the stock before the offering was made public. This allowed them to earn short sale profits after the stock price had plunged.

Merrill Lynch to Settle Short-Selling Case for $11M, Admits to Wrongdoing

Published on: June 2, 2015 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The SEC said that Merrill Lynch (MER) would pay $11 million to resolve allegations of short-selling-related noncompliance. The regulator said that the wirehouse executed short sales in certain securities when the supply for this type of transaction was restricted.

Customers frequently ask brokerage firms to “locate” stock that can be used for short selling. The financial firms generate easy-to-borrow lists made up of the stock they believe is accessible for such locates. However, contends the SEC, from January 2008 through January 2014 Merrill used information that was dated to create these ETB lists.

For example, there were times when certain securities that were placed on the ETB list in the morning were no longer as easily available for borrowing later in the trading day. Yet Merrill’s platforms were set up so that they continued to process short sale orders according to the now-dated list—even as firm personnel appropriately stopped using the list for sourcing locates when certain shares’ availability had become restricted.

Deutsche Bank Ordered to Pay $55M for Misstating Financial Reports During the Economic Crisis

Published on: May 26, 2015 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission is ordering Deutsche Bank AG (DB) to pay $55M to resolve charges accusing the firm of misstating financial reports during the peak of economic crisis. The regulator believes that the financial institution did not factor the material risk for possible losses of billions of dollars.

According to the regulator, in its order instituting a resolved administrative proceeding, Deutsche Bank overvalued a derivatives portfolio the bank had used to buy protection against losses involving credit default. Due to the to the Leveraged Super Senior trades’ “leveraged” nature the collateral for the positions was minimal compared to the $98 billion in purchased protections.

This generated a “gap risk” that the protection’s market value could potentially go beyond the available collateral. Also, because the sellers that put down the collateral could choose to unwind the trade instead of putting more collateral down in such a situation, this meant that technically the bank was protected only up to its collateral level and not its credit protection’s full market value.

Gray Financial is Charged with Bilking Georgia Pension Funds

Published on: May 21, 2015 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The SEC is accusing investment advisory firm Gray Financial, its co-CEO Robert C. Hubbard IV, and president/founder Laurence O. Gray with fraud. The regulator claims that the three of them of breached their duty to clients by directing certain pension funds to invest in a firm-offered alternative investment even while knowing that the investments were not in compliance with Georgia law.

The SEC’s order said that Gray Financial made the inappropriate recommendations to Atlanta’s:

• Firefighters’ Pension Fund

More than $600K Whistleblower Award to Be Issued in SEC’s First Retalitation Case

Published on: April 30, 2015 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The Securities and Exchange Commission will award a whistleblower more than $600,000 for providing original information that resulted in a successful enforcement action. That’s 30% of the total monies collected related to the case,

In the Matter of Paradigm Capital Management, Inc. and Candace King Weir. It’s also the maximum percentage of funds that a whistleblower can get in in such an action.

The Commission charged Paradigm with taking retaliatory action against the whistleblower for reporting the possible misconduct. Retaliatory actions included removing the person from their position and changing their job duties, making the individual investigate the wrongdoing that was alleged, and other acts that caused the whistleblower to feel marginalized.

SEC Investigates Bank of America Merrill Lynch

Published on: April 28, 2015 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

According to The Wall Street Journal, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission is investigating Bank of America Corp. (BAC) and its Merrill Lynch unit to find out if the lender broke rules established to protect customers accounts. According to sources in the know, over a three-year period, Merrill Lynch used different kinds of big, complex trades and loans to save on funding expenses and free up billions of dollars in money and securities for trading that it otherwise would have needed to keep off-limits.

Bank of America put a halt to the trades in 2012 in the wake of internal dialogue over possible risks involved. The trades involved strategies that existed when the bank purchased Merrill Lynch in 2009.

Now, the SEC wants to know if the strategies violated the protection rules and if regulators were misled about the bank’s actions. It also is trying to determine if retail brokerage funds were placed at risk for the purpose of making more money.

BlackRock Advisors Settles SEC Charges Over Conflict of Interest Disclosures for $12M

Published on: April 25, 2015 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

BlackRock Advisors (BLK) has consented to be pay $12M resolve Securities and Exchange Commission charges claiming that a conflict of interest that occurred because a former portfolio manager’s outside business activity was not disclosed. Additionally, the firm agreed to a censure and will retain an independent compliance consultant to perform a review.

According to the regulator, when Daniel J. Rice III founded Rice Energy, an oil and natural gas company, he was also managing energy-focused funds and separately managed accounts at the firm. Also, he’d invested $50M in Rice Energy and was general partner.

The oil and natural gas company eventually went into a joint venture that became the biggest holding in the BlackRock Energy & Resources Portfolio. This also happened to be the biggest fund managed by Rice.

SEC Files First Enforcement Action Protecting Whistleblower Confidentiality Agreements

Published on: April 8, 2015 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The SEC has brought its first case for whistleblower protection violations involving Rule 21F-17. The Commission claims that KBR Inc. used language in confidentiality agreements that were improperly restrictive and could potentially impede the whistleblower process.

According to the regulator, KBR required that witnesses involved in certain internal investigative interviews sign confidentiality statements that contained language warning about potentially disciplinary action, including termination, if the matters involved were discussed with an external party without the legal department’s approval. Such probes typically involved claims of possible securities law violations. Because of this, the agency said the terms violated the rule, which bars companies from getting in the way of whistleblowers being able to report securities law violations to the Commission.

To settle, KBR will pay a $130,000 penalty. The company, however, is not denying or admitting to the charges. It did voluntarily consented to modify its confidentiality statement to include language that lets employees know they can report possible violations to federal agencies without the company’s approval or fear of reprisal. KBR also agreed to cease and desist from future Rule 21F-17 violations.

SEC Examines Whether Banks Are Complying With Capital Rules

Published on: February 20, 2015 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The Securities and Exchange Commission is looking at efforts by banks to comply with capital rules. The regulator is searching for improper activities involving the way these financial institutions value complicated assets, as well as transactions used to transfer risks to other entities.

Following the financial crisis, when governments were compelled to rescue banks, regulators have increased how much capital lenders must hold in relation to assets. It has been the job of publicly traded banks to conform to new regulations. However, these new pressures may be compelling some to engage in certain behaviors, such as inaccurate valuations of the holdings of traders to improve profits.

Since the 2008 economic crisis, banks have upped capital requirements by keeping earnings and putting out shares. They’ve also reduced assets according to the rules that weight assets by risks. According to Bloomberg data, the five biggest Wall Street banks have gotten rid of over $200 billion—nearly 25% of risk-weighted assets linked to trading books in the eighteen months through September 2014. Banks have also modified models, lowered trading positions, and incorporated new rules.