Articles Posted in Securities Fraud

EagleEye Asset Management LLC Sued by SEC and CFTC for Alleged Forex Trading Scam

Published on: September 28, 2011 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

In separate securities lawsuits, the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission are both suing EagleEye Asset Management LLC, which a Massachusetts asset management firm, and Jeffrey A. Liskov, its principal.

The CFTC is accusing the two defendants of defrauding at least one US-based client while trading forex on a margined or leveraged basis for her. Per the CFTC’s lawsuit, the client decided to grant permission to EagleEye and Liskov to trade part of her retirement money because Liskov allegedly advised her that this type of trading was appropriate for her conservative investment objects.

However, Liskov allegedly did not warn her of the risks involved or tell her that he did not have a successful track record with forex trading. While the trading did generate short-term profits for the woman, she lost most of the money that she invested. The CFTC contends that instead of revealing the trading losses, Liskov allegedly forged the client’s name and set up a new account opening documents and on more than $3 million in secret wire transfers from her mutual fund account to her forex account so that trading wouldn’t have to stop. The woman client lost more than $3.24 million, while Liskov and EagleEye made about $235,000 in performance incentive fees.

Per the SEC, between 4/08 and 8/10, Liskov made misrepresentations to clients to persuade them to move funds they’d placed in securities investments into forex trading. The SEC contends that these investments were not appropriate for elderly clients that had conservative investment objectives and that this caused them to sustain significant financial losses totaling almost $4 million. EagleEye and Liskov allegedly earned performed fees of over $300K, plus management fees. The Commission believes that having clients make short-term investment gains and then earning performance fees before these gains were lost was the defendants’ plan.

Liskov allegedly did not even help some investors understand the nature of forex trading. With other clients, he deemphasized the degree of investment risk involved. The SEC also says that Liskov made false statements with claims that he had achieved success with forex trades when, in fact, the opposite was the case.

Meantime, Massachusetts Secretary of the Commonwealth William Francis Galvin (D) has also filed administrative charges against the investment advisor firm and Liskov. Galvin is accusing them of violating Massachusetts’s Uniform Securities Act.

Our securities fraud law firm has helped thousand of investors recoup their losses caused by broker misconduct and investment adviser fraud. Working with a stockbroker fraud law firm is the best way to help you get back your lost investment.

Read the SEC’s Complaint (PDF)

CFTC Charges Massachusetts Man Jeffrey Liskov and His Company, EagleEye Asset Management, LLC, with Committing a $3 Million Forex Fraud, CFTC, September 8, 2011
State files complaint against local investment advisor, WickedLocal, September 13, 2011
Mass. Adviser Sued by Regulators Over Alleged Forex Trading Scheme, BNA Securities Law Daily, September 9, 2011

More Blog Posts:
Texas Commodity Trading Advisor FIN FX LLC Now Subject to NFA Emergency Enforcement Action, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, April 27, 2011
Commodity Options Fraud Charges by CFTC Prompts District Court to Freeze Assets and Records of 20/20 Trading Co. Inc. & 20/20 Precious Metals Inc., Stockbroker Fraud Blog, May 6, 2011
$63 Million Mortgage-Backed Securities Lawsuit Against Bank of America is Second One Filed by Western and Southern Life Insurance Co. Against the Financial Firm, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, August 29, 2011 Continue Reading ›

Some of the SEC Charges Against Investment Adviser Over Alleged Involvement In J.P. Morgan Securities LLC Collateralized Debt Obligation Are Dismissed

Published on: September 24, 2011 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York has thrown out some of the Securities and Exchange Commission charges against GSCP (NJ) managing director Edward Steffelin for his alleged involvement in a JP Morgan Securities LLC collateralized debt obligation deal. GSCP (NJ) was the collateral manager for the CDO transaction.

While JP Morgan Securities settled for $153.6 million the SEC’s allegations that it misled investors about the CDO deal by agreeing to pay $153.6 million, Steffelin opted to fight the charges. He claimed that there was no reason for him to think that the CDO offering documents were problematic. He argued that nothing had been left out and nobody was “defrauded.”

In district court, Judge Miriam Goldman Cedarbaum granted Steffelin’s motion to dismiss the SEC’s 1933 Securities Act Section 17(a)(3) claims against him. Per the Act, any person involved in the sale or offer of securities is prevented from taking part in any transaction or practice that would deceive or be an act of fraud against the buyer. Cedarbaum said it would be a “big stretch” to conclude that Steffelin owed the investors that bought the CDO a fiduciary duty. However, she decided not to throw out the SEC’s securities claims related to the 1940 Investment Advisers Act, which has sections that make it unlawful to sell or offer securities to get property or money as a result of an omission or material misstatement. The act also prevents investment advisers from taking part in a transaction or practice that performs a deception or fraud on a client.

The SEC’s charges revolved around a JPM-structured CDO called Squared CDO 2007-1. It mainly included credit default swaps that referred to other CDOs linked to the housing market. Per the Squared CDO’s marketing collaterals, GSCP was noted as the one choosing the portfolio’s deals. What wasn’t included in the disclosure was the fact that Magnetar Capital LLC, a hedge fund, played a key part in choosing the CDOs and had a short position in over 50% of the assets. This meant that Magneta Capital stood to gain financially if the CDO portfolio failed.

JP Morgan Securities is JP Morgan Chase affiliate. Under the terms of its $153.6 million settlement, the financial firm agreed to fully pay back all monies that investors lost. By agreeing to settle, JP Morgan Securities did not admit to or deny wrongdoing. Other large financial firms that have settled SEC securities fraud cases related to CDOs in the last 16 months include Citigroup, which recently reached a $250 million settlement and Goldman Sachs, which settled its case with the SEC last year for $550 million.

More Blog Posts:
Citigroup’s $285M Mortgage-Related CDO Settlement with Raises Concerns About SEC’s Enforcement Practices for Judge Rackoff, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, November 9, 2011

Retirement Fund’s CDO Lawsuit Against Morgan Stanley is Dismissed by District Court, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, October 27, 2011

Stifel, Nicolaus & Co. and Former Executive Faces SEC Charges Over Sale of CDOs to Five Wisconsin School Districts, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, August 10, 2011

***This post has been backdated.

Five Broker-Dealers Fined by FINRA Over Allegedly Misrepresenting Commissions as Fees to Clients

Published on: September 16, 2011 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority has issued fines against broker-dealers Pointe Capital, Inc., John Thomas Financial, First Midwest Securities, Inc., A&F Financial Securities, Inc., and Salomon Whitney LLC for allegedly mischaracterizing part of their commission charges to clients and calling them service handling fees, This caused the amount of total commissions that clients were charged to be understated. As a result, the fees for handling-related services ended up costing clients more.

FINRA says trade commissions and fee schedules should clearly reflect the actual commission charges, which shouldn’t be disguised.

Among the sanctions issued by FINRA:

• A $60,000 fine against Salomon Whitney LLC. FINRA accused the financial firm is accused of charging clients handling service fees of up to $69.95/trade plus commission. FINRA contends that Salomon Whitney did not tell its Connecticut clients that part of the transactional handling fee was a profit to the financial firm, the fee was not determined by the costs of handing a specific transaction, and certain clients were fined lower fees. FINRA believes the handling fee charged by Salmon Whitney was unreasonable. By agreeing to settle, the financial firm is not denying or admitting to the findings.

• First Midwest Securities, Inc. was fined $150,000. The financial firm is accused of charging clients up to $99.75/trade plus commission. FINRA says that this “handling fee” was in fact a commission and not reasonably connected to any direct handling services conducted by First Midwest Securities. The SRO notes that some customers even paid handling fees that were double of what other First Midwest Clients paid. FINRA also says that First Midwest Securities committed other violations, including having inadequately written supervisory procedures and “unfair and unreasonable” markdowns and markups. The financial firm has settled the securities case but is not admitting to or denying FINRA’s allegations.

• FINRA charged A&F Financial Securities, Inc. a $125,000 fine for charging clients an up to $65/trade handling fee, as well as commission. FINRA says that A & F acted inaccurately and improperly. FINRA also accused the financial firm of failing to comply with continuing education requirements, having inadequate supervisory system and procedures, and not properly assessing its training needs or developing and executing a written training plan. A & F also admitted to the findings without denying or admitting to them.

• FINRA fined John Thomas Financial A $275,000 fine for its up to $75/trade handling fee plus commissions. The SRO is also alleging other violations, including deficiencies related to complaint reporting, supervisory controls and certifications, and branch office supervision and recordkeeping. FINRA says the broker-dealer effected key changes to its business without obtaining its approval. John Thomas Financial agreed to settle but did not deny/admit to the findings.

• Pointe Capital, Inc. was fined $300,00 for charging an up to $95//trade handling fee plus commission. FINRA contends that seeing as the “handling” charge wasn’t reasonably linked to actual handling-related services/expenses, the clients were actually charged another commission. Pointe Capital has settled the case.

FINRA Fines Five Broker Dealers for Improper Handling Fees, FINRA, September 7, 2011

More Blog Posts:
FINRA Tells Congress It Is Ready to Act as SRO for Investment Advisor, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, September 13, 2011
Financial Industry Regulatory Authority Alerts Investors About Gold Stock Scams, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, August 25, 2011
Wedbush Ordered By FINRA Panel To Pay $3.5M to Trader Over Withheld Compensation, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, July 16, 2011 Continue Reading ›

“Investor’s Guide to Loss Recovery” Offers Key Information on How to Use Conflict Resolution to Get Your Assets Back

Published on: September 7, 2011 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

For many investors seeking to recover their lost assets from a Wall Street financial firm, the process can be daunting and confusing. This is why it is so important that you work with a stockbroker fraud law firm that can take you through process, knows how to successfully navigate the legal system, will protect your rights, and is committed to helping you recoup your losses. That said, any understanding you can acquire about the financial recovery process could only help your case, while also alleviating some of your concerns. The “Investor’s Guide to Loss Recovery” by Louis Straney is a reliable resource containing knowledgeable advice and guidance about the arbitration system, how it operates, and how to make it work in your favor.

The book offers detailed coverage and practical information about:

• Key litigation resources and strategies • How to file an effective claim, as well as the outcomes you can expect • Scripts of initial lawyer interviews, mediation, and arbitration • How to organize the massive amount of documents that will be exchanged between parties • Interviews with securities attorneys, investors, and experts • An explanation of how new regulatory reforms are impacting the financial recovery process, as well as the options that are available to victims of financial fraud
• Charts demonstrating the major areas of litigation • Empirical evidence about the growing awareness of investment misconduct
With over 30 years of experience working on Wall Street as a senior manager and director, Straney is an expert guide. He launched his own securities litigation consulting practice in 2007. In addition to having consulted or testified in over 200 engagements, Straney is the author of “Securities Fraud: Detection, Prevention and Control” and other works. He also is a published contributor whose writing has appeared in a number of publications, including the New York Times and the Public Investor Arbitration Bar Association Law Journal.

Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas LTD LLP Founder and Securities Fraud Attorney William Shepherd has this to say about Straney: “I have worked with Lou Straney for many years on cases representing clients who have lost money because of securities fraud and other wronging by those who sold the securities. I have also appeared with him in speaking engagements regarding securities fraud. Although we only met about five years ago, each of us had worked for decades for large Wall Street securities firms. Lou and I have discussed for many hours the steady erosion of character and standards in that industry. In his book, Lou covers this and other subjects. As a non-lawyer, his comprehension of legal issues is surprising. But, as a non-youth, Lou’s incredible level of energy is what amazes me the most.”

Securities Fraud Research and Training

By the Book on Amazon.com

More Blog Posts:
SEC Charges Filed in $22M Ponzi Scam that Targeted Florida Teachers and Retirees, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, August 29, 2011
Stifel, Nicolaus & Co. and Former Executive Faces SEC Charges Over Sale of CDOs to Five Wisconsin School Districts, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, August 10, 2011
Ex-UBS Financial Adviser Pleads Guilty to Defrauding Private Fund Investors, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, July 13, 2011 Continue Reading ›

SEC Charges Filed in $22M Ponzi Scam that Targeted Florida Teachers and Retirees

Published on: August 29, 2011 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The Securities and Exchange Commission has filed securities charges against James Davis Risher and Daniel Joseph Sebastian. The two men are accused of running a Ponzi scam that raised over $22 million from over 100 investors. Many of the victims were Florida retirees and teachers that entrusted the two men with their life savings.

Charges against Sebastian and Risher include two counts of fraud in the sale or offer of securities, unregistered securities sales, fraud related to the sale or purchase of securities, investment adviser fraud, and violations of aiding and abetting. This would include alleged violations of the Securities Act of 1933, the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

According to the SEC, the two men ran a bogus private equity fund and lured people in by promising 14-124% investment gains. The fake account was called “The Preservation of Principal Fund.” Investors fake bogus account statements claiming high returns. Also, money being brought in from new investors was used to pay the older investors. The names that Sebastian and Risher used to market the fund were Safe Harbor Private Equity Fund, Preservation of Principal Fund, and Managed Capital Fund.

From January 2007 through July 2010, Sebastian allegedly gave out materials to potential investors. $100,000 was the supposed minimum that one could invest. Even though only $3.8 million of the money they raised was actually invested, the two men allegedly paid themselves more than $16 million in bogus performance and management fees.

RIsher, who is accused of spending over $140,000 of the money on designer jewelry, cars, and artwork, allegedly told investors that he was experienced in wealth and asset management and trading equities when, in fact, he did not have this experience and had spent 11 years of the last two decades behind bars.

Meantime, Sebastian allegedly approached former customers that he worked with when he was an insurance broker. In addition to seniors and teachers, he also targeted church members, as well as investors outside Florida and in Canada.

The SEC is accusing the two men of making misrepresentations and omissions to clients about the fund’s investment strategy, returns, risks involved, audited financial statements, and Risher’s criminal past. Sebastian allegedly even told investors that they couldn’t lose their principal investments and gave some of them written guarantees that any losses would be reimbursed.

The FBI, the IRS, the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, the US Postal Inspection Service, and the State of Florida Office of Financial Regulation all investigated this Florida financial scam. In the related criminal case, Risher has pleaded guilty to money laundering and mail fraud. He faces up to 50 years in prison. However, because he cooperated with federal authorities on this case, his punishment may not be so severe.

Risher also has prior criminal convictions for securities fraud, mail fraud, and money laundering. In 1990, he pleaded guilty to violating Georgia’s securities act, as well as multiple counts of theft.

Related Web Resources:
SEC Charges Two Florida Men in Ponzi Scheme Defrauding Teachers and Retirees, SEC, August 29, 2011
James Risher pleads guilty in $21 million Florida Ponzi scheme, WTSP, August 30, 2011
Two named in $22 mil. ponzi scheme case, News Chief, August 31, 2011

More Blog Posts:
Texas Securities Fraud: Ex-Triton Financial CEO Convicted of Ponzi Scam that Bilked Ex-Heisman Trophy Winner Ty Detmer, Other Former NFL Players, and Hundreds of Other Investors of of Millions, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, August 22, 2011
Even as Ponzi Schemers Serve Time Behind Bars, Investors Are Left Coping with Millions in Financial Losses, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, January 25, 2011
Madoff Trustee Files Securities Lawsuit Against Safra National Bank of New York Seeking to Recover Almost $111.7M for Ponzi Scam Investors, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, May 12, 2011 Continue Reading ›

California Insider Trading Charges Filed by SEC Against Ex-Investment Fund Associate Accused of Making 3000% Profit on Marvel Call Options in Disney Acquisition

Published on: August 23, 2011 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The Securities and Exchange Commission has filed insider trading charges against Toby G. Scammell, who is accused of making more than $192,000 from insider trading information he received from his girlfriend about Walt Disney Company’s impending acquisition of Marvel Entertainment. Scammell, a 26-year-old ex-investment fund associate, made a more than 3000% profit in less than a month after he bought highly speculative Marvel call options for under $5500 and then sold them after the announcement of the acquisition was made on August 31, 2009 and Marvel’s stock price went up by more than 25%.

According to the SEC, Scammell’s girlfriend, who worked on the Marvel deal as an extern with Disney, found out confidential information about the deal, including when it would be announced and that Disney would pay $50/Marvel share. The Commission, however, doesn’t believe that Scammell’s girlfriend ever intended to give him insider tips or that she knew what he was doing with the information. Although the couple would talk about the acquisition as a subject of her business school application, she did not give him specific details. He also allegedly obtained information from confidential documents that he read off her Blackberry and from conversations he overheard regarding Marvel.

Scammell bought Marvel call options at $45 and $50 strike prices even though the highest that Marvel had ever traded at was $41.74. The SEC says that the Marvel options that Scammell bought were scheduled to expire soon after the Disney deal was announced and that in many cases the purchase of options represented 100% of the market. Scammell used his brother’s money to buy most of the Marvel call options. He did not, however, tell him about the alleged insider trading activities. Scammell’s brother had given him authority over his finances before going with the US army to Iraq.

The SEC says that before making the trades, Scammell used his computer to search for the terms “material non-public information,” “insider trading”, and “Rule 10b-5.” The Commission claims that Scammell not only used the insider information to garner an “unfair and illegal” advantage over others in the markets but that he exploited his romantic relationship with his girlfriend. The SEC says that after dating her exclusively for two years, he owed her a fiduciary duty, which he breached. He also allegedly acted with Scienter when he made the trades while having knowledge of the material, nonpublic data. The SEC says that when questioned, Scammell was unable to provide a believable explanation for his Marvell call options purchases.

The SEC is accusing Scammell of violating the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Section 10(b)) and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. It is seeking disgorgement of ill-gotten gains, a permanent injunction, prejudgment interest, and civil penalties.

SEC CHARGES FORMER INVESTMENT FUND ASSOCIATE WITH INSIDER TRADING, SEC, August 11, 2011
Read the SEC Complaint (PDF)

SEC Sues 26-Year Old On Charges He Made $200,000 Insider Trading Off Ex-Girlfriend’s Work Project, Business Insider, August 15, 2011

More Blog Posts:
Janney Montgomery Scott LLC to Pay $850K to Settle Securities Charges Over Alleged Failure to Prevent Inside Trading, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, July 21, 2011
“Poohster” Consultant Found Guilty of Insider Trading, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, June 23, 2011
Insider Trading: Former FrontPoint Partners Hedge Fund Manager Pleads Guilty to Criminal Charges, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, August 20, 2011 Continue Reading ›

Citigroup Global Markets Fined $500,000 by FINRA for Inadequate Supervision of Broker Accused of Bilking Sick and Elderly Investors

Published on: August 16, 2011 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Two months after a federal grand jury indicted Tamara Lanz Moon for misappropriating more than $800,000 in clients’ money, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) has fined Citigroup Global Markets $500,000 for failing to properly supervise her. Moon is charged with six counts of mail fraud. The acts of broker misconduct allegedly took place between 2001 and 2008, when the 43-year-old broker was employed by Citigroup Global Markets as a registered sales assistant with Series 7 and 63 licenses.

Court documents report that Moon targeted at least 22 Citigroup clients who were sick, elderly, or for some reason couldn’t properly monitor their accounts. Her alleged victims included an elderly client suffering from Parkinson’s disease. Moon also allegedly forged signatures, changed account documents, opened accounts with deceased clients’ social security numbers, created bogus letters of authorization, revised customer addresses, and made unauthorized trades. She was fired in 2008 after Citigroup finally discovered her alleged misconduct. FINRA would go on to permanently barred her from the industry. Moon, who was arrested by the FBI following recent indictment, is out on bail.

According to FINRA, Citigroup failed to investigate or detect a number of “red flags” that should have let the financial firm know that Moon was improperly handing client funds. The SRO is also accusing FINRA of failing to put into place reasonable controls and systems related to the supervisory review of client accounts, which allowed Moon to falsify records, and neglecting to identify suspicious activity related to disbursements and transfers in the accounts that she was using to misappropriate clients’ money.

Morgan Stanley Reports a Possible $1.7B in Mortgage-Backed Securities Losses

Published on: August 16, 2011 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Morgan Stanley says it may sustain $1.7B in losses over a number of securities fraud cases related to subprime mortgage deals. Citigroup Inc.’s (C.N) Citibank is the plaintiff of the securities lawsuit over the Capmark VI CDO and STACK 2006-1 CDO deals, while there are 15 plaintiffs seeking punitive damages over Cheyne Finance, a structured investment vehicle. Morgan Stanley is also reporting losses over a mortgage-backed security deal involving MBIA Corp.

Our securities fraud attorneys would like you to contact us if you are someone who sustained financial losses in any of these MBS deals with Morgan Stanley. Here are more details about the cases:

• Morgan Stanley says the losses in the Citibank securities fraud lawsuit may be a minimum of $269M over a credit default swap on the Capmark VI CDO deal and another one on the credit default swap involving the STACK 2006-1 CDO deal.

Stifel, Nicolaus & Co. and Former Executive Faces SEC Charges Over Sale of CDOs to Five Wisconsin School Districts

Published on: August 10, 2011 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The SEC is charging Stifel, Nicolaus & Co. and its former Senior Vice President David W. Noack with securities fraud over the sale of unsuitable, high-risk complex investments to 5 Wisconsin school districts. Stifel and Noack allegedly misrepresented the risks involved in investing $200 million in synthetic collateralized debt obligations (CDOs) and did not disclose certain material facts. The investments proved a “complete failure.”

The Five Wisconsin School Districts:
• Kimberly Area School District • Kenosha Unified School District No. 1 • School District of Waukesha • School District of Whitefish Bay • West Allis-West Milwaukee School District

All five school districts are suing Stifel and Royal Bank of Canada in civil court. Robert Kantas, partner of Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas LTD LLP, is one of the attorneys representing the school districts in their civil case against Stifel and RBC. Attorneys for the school districts issued the following statement:

“We believe that Stifel, Royal Bank of Canada and the other defendants defrauded the five Wisconsin school districts, along with trusts set up to make these investments. In 2006, these defendants devised, solicited and sold $200 million ‘synthetic collateralized debt obligations’ (CDOs), which were both volatile and complex, to these districts and trusts. While represented as safe investments, these were in fact very high risk securities, which were wholly unsuitable for the districts and trusts. In an attempt to protect taxpayers and residents, the districts hired attorneys and other professionals to investigate the investments and the potential for fraud. Then, with a goal of seeking full recovery of the monies lost in this scheme, a lawsuit was filed in Milwaukee County Circuit Court in 2008 to seek fully recovery of the losses and maintain and protect valuable credit ratings of these districts. To date, more than 3 million pages of documents have been obtained and examined by the attorneys for the districts. The districts also properly reported to the SEC the nature and extent of the wrongdoing uncovered. Over the past year, they have provided the SEC with volumes of documents and information to facilitate its investigation.”

In its complaint filed in federal court today, the SEC says that Stifel and Noack set up a proprietary program to assist the school districts in funding retiree benefits through the investments of notes linked to the performance of CDOs. The school districts invested $200 million with trusts they set up in 2006. $162.7 million was paid for with borrowed funds.

The SEC contends that Stifel and Noack, who both earned substantial fees even though the investments failed completely, took advantage of their relationships with the school districts and acted fraudulently when they sold financial products that were inappropriate for the latter. The brokerage firm and its executive also likely were aware that the school districts weren’t experienced or sophisticated enough to be able to evaluate the risks associated with investing in the CDOs. Both also likely knew that the school districts could not afford to suffer such catastrophic losses if their investments were to fail. Despite this, says the SEC, Noack and Stifel assured the school districts that for the investments to collapse there would have to be “15 Enrons.” They also allegedly failed to reveal certain material facts to the school districts, including that:

• The first transaction in the portfolio did poorly from the beginning.
• Within 36 days of closing, credit rating agencies had placed 10% of the portfolio on negative watch.
• There were CDO providers who said they wouldn’t participate in Stifel’s proprietary program because they were worried about the risks involved.

The SEC claims that Stifel and Noack violated the:

• Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Section (10b))
• The Securities Act of 1933 (Section 17(a))
• The Securities Act of 1934 (Section 15(c)(1)(A))

The Commission is seeking, permanent injunctions, disgorgement of ill-gotten gains, financial penalties, and prejudgment interest.

Related Web Resources:
SEC Charges Stifel, Nicolaus & Co. and Executive with Fraud in Sale of Investments to Wisconsin School District, SEC.gov, August 10, 2011
SEC Sues Stifel Over Wisconsin School Losses Tied to $200 Million of CDOs, Bloomberg, August 10, 2011
Read the SEC Complaint (PDF)

School Lawsuit Facts

More Blog Posts:
Wisconsin School Districts Sue Royal Bank of Canada and Stifel Nicolaus and Co. in Lawsuit Over Credit Default Swaps, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, October 7, 2008
SEC Inquiring About Wisconsin School Districts Failed $200 Million CDO Investments Made Through Stifel Nicolaus and Royal Bank of Canada Subsidiaries, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, June 11, 2010 Continue Reading ›

SEC Charges Filed Against Stifel, Nicolaus & Co. and Former Sr. VP David Noack Over CDO Sales to Wisconsin School Districts

Published on: August 10, 2011 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Three years after five Wisconsin school districts filed their securities fraud lawsuit against Stifel, Nicolaus & Company and the Royal Bank of Canada, the Securities and Exchange Commission has filed charges against the brokerage firm and former Stifel Senior Vice President David W. Noack over the same allegations. The charges stem from losses related to the sale of $200 million in high-risk synthetic collateralized debt obligations (CDOs) to the Wisconsin school districts of West Allis-West Milwaukee School District, the School District of Whitefish Bay, the Kimberly Area School District, the School District of Waukesha, and the Kenosha Unified School District No. 1.

The SEC says that not only were the CDOs inappropriate for the school districts that would not have been able to afford it if the investments failed, but also the brokerage firm did not disclose certain material facts or the risks involved. The school districts are pleased that the SEC has decided to file securities charges.

Robert Kantas, partner of Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas LTD LLP, is one of the attorneys representing the school districts in their civil case against Stifel and RBC. Attorneys for the school districts issued the following statement:

“It is our belief that the five Wisconsin school districts and the trusts established to make these investments were defrauded by Stifel, Royal Bank of Canada and the other defendants. Contrary to the way they were represented, the $200 million CDOs that were devised, solicited, and sold by the defendants to our clients in 2006 were volatile, complex, extremely high risk, and totally inappropriate for them. To protect residents and taxpayers, the districts later hired lawyers and others to investigate the investments and their fraud risk. Unfortunately, the failure of the investments did result in losses for the school districts, which in 2008 filed their Wisconsin securities fraud complaint in Milwaukee County Circuit Court. The school districts’ goal was to obtain full recovery of the monies lost in this scheme, while protecting and maintaining the districts’ valuable credit ratings. The districts’ lawyers have already examined three million pages of documents regarding in this matter. Meantime, the districts have taken the proper steps to report to the SEC the nature and extent of the wrongdoing uncovered. In the past year, the districts have given the SEC volumes of documents and information for its investigation.”

The school districts had invested the $200 million ($162.7 million was borrowed) in notes that were tied to the performance of synthetic CDOs. This was supposed to help them fund retiree benefits. According the SEC, however, Stifel and Noack set up a proprietary program to facilitate all of this even though they knew that they were selling products that were inappropriate for the school districts and their investment needs.

Stifel and Noack allegedly told the school districts it would take “15 Enrons” for the investments to fail, while misrepresenting that 30 of the 105 companies in the portfolio would have to default and that 100 of the world’s leading 800 companies would have to fail for the school districts to lose their principal. The SEC claims that the synthetic CDOs and the heavy use of leverage actually exposed the school districts to a high risk of catastrophic loss.

By 2010, the school districts’ second and third investments were totally lost and the lender took all of the trusts’ assets. In addition to losing everything they’d invested, the school districts experienced downgrades in their credit ratings because they didn’t put more money in the funds that they had set up. Meantime, despite the fact that the investments failed completely, Stifel and Noack still earned significant fees.

The SEC is alleging that Noack and Stifel violated the:
• The Securities Act of 1933 (Section 17(a))
• Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Section (10b))
• The Securities Act of 1934 (Section 15(c)(1)(A))

The Commission wishes to seek disgorgement of ill-gotten gains along with prejudgment interest, permanent injunctions, and financial penalties.

Related Web Resources:
SEC Charges Stifel, Nicolaus & Co. and Executive with Fraud in Sale of Investments to Wisconsin School Districts, SEC.gov, August 10, 2011

SEC Sues Stifel Over Wisconsin School Losses Tied to $200 Million of CDOs, Bloomberg, August 10, 2011

Read the SEC Complaint

School Lawsuit Facts

More Blog Posts:
Stifel, Nicolaus & Co. and Former Executive Faces SEC Charges Over Sale of CDOs to Five Wisconsin School Districts, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, August 10, 2011

JP Morgan Settles for $153.6M SEC Charges Over Its Marketing of Synthetic Collateralized Debt Obligation, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, June 18, 2011

Wells Fargo Settles SEC Securities Fraud Allegations Over Sale of Complex Mortgage-Backed Securities by Wachovia for $11.2, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, April 7, 2011