Articles Posted in Securities Fraud

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

SEC and SIFMA Divided Over Whether Merrill Lynch Can Be Held Liable for Alleged ARS Market Manipulation

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

In Wilson v. Merrill Lynch & Co. Inc., the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association and the Securities and Exchange Commission have submitted separate amicus curiae briefs to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit that differ on whether Merrill Lynch can be held liable for allegedly manipulating the auction-rate securities market. While SIFMA argued that an SEC order from 2006 that settled ARS charges against 15 broker-dealers affirmed the legality of the auction practices when they are properly disclosed, the SEC said that Merrill did not provide sufficient disclosures about its conduct in the ARS market and therefore what they did reveal was not enough to “preclude the plaintiff from pleading market manipulation.”

It was last year that the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed an investor claim that Merrill Lynch, which was acting as underwriter, manipulated the ARS market to attract investment. The court said that the claimant “failed to plead manipulative activity” and agreed with the brokerage firm that adequate disclosures were made. After appealing to the Second Circuit, the investor requested that the SEC provide its thoughts on five court-posed questions about the adequacy of the financial firm’s disclosures and how they impacted allegations of reliance and market manipulation.

The SEC said that the plaintiff’s claim that Merrill manipulated ARS auctions don’t preclude him from pleading, for fraud-on-the-market reliance purposes, an efficient market. SIMFA, however, said the plaintiff was precluded from claiming “manipulative acts” because investors have been made aware through “ubiquitous industry-wide disclosures about auction practices” that broker-dealers’ involvement in ARS actions is impacted by the “natural interplay” of demand and supply.

Related Web Resources:
Auction-Rate Securities UPDATE: SEC Brief May Help ARS Investors, Business Insider, July 26, 2011

More Blog Posts:

District Court in Texas Decides that Credit Suisse Securities Doesn’t Have to pay Additional $186,000 Arbitration Award to Luby’s Restaurant Over ARS, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, June 2, 2011

$629M Mortgage-Backed Securities Lawsuit Blames RBS Securities and Other Financial Firms For Bankruptcy of Western Corporate Federal Credit Union in 2009

Published on: July 26, 2011 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The National Credit Union Administration has filed a $629 million securities fraud lawsuit against RBS Securities, Wachovia Mortgage Loan Trust LLC, Nomura Home Equity Loan Inc., Greenwich Capital Acceptance Inc., Lares Asset Securitization Inc., IndyMac MBS Inc., and American Home Mortgage Assets LLC. The NCUA is accusing the financial firms of underwriting and selling subpar mortgage-backed securities, which caused Western Corporate Federal Credit Union to file for bankruptcy, as well as of allegedly violating state and federal securities laws.

The defendants are accused of misrepresenting the nature of the bonds and causing WesCorp to think the risks involved were low, which was not the case at all. NCUA says that the originators of the securities “systematically disregarded” the Offering Documents’ underwriting standards. The agency blames broker-dealers and securities firms for the demise of five large corporate credit union: WesCorp, US Central, Members United Corporate, Southwest Corporate, and Constitution Corporate.

Last month, NCUA filed separate complaints against JPMorgan Chase Securities and RBS Securities. The union believes that those it considers responsible for the issues plaguing wholesale credit unions should cover the losses that retail credit unions are having to cover. NCUA says it may file up to 10 mortgage-backed securities complaints seeking to recover billions of dollars in damages. As of now, it is seeking to recover $1.5 billion.

NCUA acts as the “liquidating agent” for failed credit unions. Wholesale credit unions provide electronic payments, check clearing, investments and other services to retail credit unions, which actively work with borrowers.

NCUA sues JPMorgan and RBS to recover losses from failed institutions, Housing Wire, June 20, 2011

NCUA seeks $629M in damages from RBS Securities, Credit Union National Association, July 19, 2011

Feds Sue Bankers Over Fall in Bonds, The Wall Street Journal, June 21, 2011

Harvest Managers, Benchmark Asset Managers, and Investment Advisor to Pay $11.6 Million to Settle SEC Charges Over Allegedly Mishandled Client Funds

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

Following SEC charges that they used material misrepresentations and omissions to misappropriate about $8.7 million from clients, family, and friends, Sam Otto Folin, Benchmark Asset Managers LLC and Harvest Managers, LLC have agreed to pay $11.6M in disgorgement, civil penalties, and prejudgment interests to settle the securities fraud allegations. By settling, however, they are not denying or admitting any misconduct.

The SEC claims that for about eight years (about ’02 – ’10) even though all three defendants sold securities in the two firms and in Safe Haven Portfolios LLC, with the promise to investors that money would go to private and public companies that possessed goals and intentions that were “socially responsible, part of these funds allegedly were diverted to pay past investors, Folin’s salary, and both firms’ expenses. Harvest and Benchmark also allegedly issued “notes” to friends, and family advisory clients that they said were safe and conservative, while promising guaranteed interest rates that were above market. They then misrepresented the notes’ value on statements.

The SEC also accuses Benchmark and Folin of forming Save Have in 2004 under the guise of offering investments to a number of portfolios. They had clients place their money in Safe Haven From ’06 – ’09. They also allegedly made Save Haven pay more than $1.7M to Harvest and Benchmark as supposed “development” expenses, which weren’t actually expenses related to Safe Haven (and were allegedly improperly amortized) and made the latter issue over $3.9 million in loans to the two investment advisory firms.

SEC Charges Philadelphia-Based Registered Investment Adviser With Fraud, Sec.gov, July 12, 2011
Recent Fraud Cases Show Investors Must Remain Vigilant, Forbes, July 13, 2011

More Blog Posts:
SEC to Up Dollar Thresholds for When an Investment Adviser Can Charge Investors Performance Fees, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, May 24, 2011
Investment Manager Accused of Securities Fraud Must Pay Defrauded Clients Over $20 Million, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, November 10, 2010
SEC Charges Investment Adviser With Allegedly Making Unsuitable Hedge Fund Recommendations to Elderly Clients, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, October 15, 2010 Continue Reading ›

Ex-Morgan Stanley Trader’s $25k Settlement Over Alleged Concealment of Proprietary Trades is Inadequate, Says SEC Commissioner Aguilar

Published on: July 20, 2011 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Jennifer Kim, an ex-Morgan Stanley (MS) trader, has consented to a $25,000 settlement to resolve SEC allegations that she hid proprietary trades that that went above and beyond the financial firm’s risk limits. The alleged misconduct resulted in approximately $24.5m in losses for Morgan Stanley. SEC Commissioner Luis Aguilar, however, is calling the terms of her settlement “inadequate.” In his written dissent, he said that Kim also should have been charged with committing antifraud provisions violations.

Kim and Larry Feinblum, who was her supervisor, are accused of employing “fake” swap orders a minimum of 32 times to conceal their risks. The swap orders they entered into were ones that they intended to cancel soon after. This let them trick the monitoring systems, which recorded lower net risk positions. This alleged maneuvering allowed them to employ a trading strategy that would let them profit from the difference in prices between foreign and US markets.

In December 2009, Feinblum, who lost $7m in a day, told his supervisor about how he and Kim had concealed their positions and went above risk limits. Feinblum, who no longer works for Morgan Stanley, has settled the related securities claims against him for $150,000.

As part of her settlement, Kim agreed to a minimum three-year bar from the brokerage industry. She also consented to cease and desist from future records and books violations.

Even in settling, Feinblum and Kim are not denying or admitting wrongdoing.

Ex-Morgan Stanley Trader Settles SEC Claims Over Hiding Risk, Bloomberg, July 12, 2011
Ex-Broker to Pay $25K Over Risky Trades; Aguilar Objects to Penalty as ‘Inadequate’, BNA Securities Law Daily, July 14, 2011
SEC Order Against Kim (PDF)

SEC Commissioner Aguilar’s Dissent (PDF)

More Blog Posts:
Ex-Morgan Stanley Trader to Settle SEC Unauthorized Swaps Trading Claims for $150,000, Stockbrroker Fraud Blog, June 13, 2011
Morgan Stanley to Pay $500,000 to Resolve SEC Charges that it Recommended Unapproved Money Managers to Clients, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, July 27, 2009
Broker Settles SEC Charges He Defrauded Elderly Nuns, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, January 13, 2011 Continue Reading ›

Holding Brokers to Investment Adviser Accountability Standards is a Bad Idea, Say Some Wall Street Executives

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

At the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association conference on Wednesday, brokerage executives cautioned against imposing the standards of accountability for investment advisers on brokers. Rather than extending the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 to broker-dealers, this year’s SIMFA chair John Taft said that it would be better to create a new standard. Taft is also the head of Royal Bank of Canada’s US brokerage.

Right now, brokers and investment advisers are upheld to separate standards-even though many investors don’t realize that the two belong to different groups. As fiduciaries, investment advisers must prioritize their clients’ interests above that of their own or that of their financial firm. It wasn’t until 2008’s financial crisis when investors lost money on financial instruments that were lucrative for brokers that the call for a higher standard for these representatives grew louder.

At a conference panel, he said that imposing investment adviser accountability standards would not only be bad for the industry, potentially preventing some sales such as IPOs, but also he that this could harm investors.

Will brokers get their way on this? According to Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas LTD LLP Founder and Stockbroker Fraud Lawyer William Shepherd, the answer is, likely, yes:
“Decades ago, the difference between a ‘stock broker’ and ‘investment advisor’ was that stock brokers simply charged commissions to execute trades. At the time, there was also no online trading so investors could not do-it-themselves. In fact, May 1, 1975 (unaffectionately called “May Day”) was the first day stock commissions became negotiable. As commissions eventually eroded to just a few dollars per trade, stock brokerage firms migrated to higher charges on hidden-fee products, options, high volume trading, etc.

More recently, ‘stock brokers’ have dropped that moniker and simply become ‘investment advisors’ (whether called ‘financial consultants’, or whatever). Now that Wall Street’s agents have actually become investment advisors, and should be subject to the Investment Advisor Act of 1940, they instead want to escape the law, which has for 70 years been successful in regulating investment advisors. Why? Simply because they do not want to be responsible to their clients for cheating them.”

Related Web Resources:
Brokers say adviser standards could harm markets, Reuters, July 13, 2011
Is Wall Street Ready for Mayday 2?, The New York Times, April 28, 1985
Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association

More Blog Posts:
Do Brokers Owe a Fiduciary Duty to Clients?, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, January 27, 2011
Most Investors Want Fiduciary Standard for Investment Advisers and Broker-Dealers, Say Trade Groups to SEC, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, October 12, 2010
House and Senate Negotiators Can’t Seem to Agree on Fiduciary Standard in Financial Regulatory Reform Bill, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, June 17, 2010 Continue Reading ›

Ex-UBS Financial Adviser Pleads Guilty to Defrauding Private Fund Investors

Published on: July 13, 2011 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Steven T. Kobayashi has pleaded guilty to money laundering and wire fraud. The former UBS financial adviser is accused of bilking his private investment fund investors. As part of his plea agreement, he will pay $5,431,600 in restitution and serve a 65-month prison term.

Per the criminal charges, beginning in 2006 Kobayashi, who regularly made financial trades authorized by clients whose account he had access to, started transferring some of these funds into his own bank accounts without the investors’ “knowledge or authorization.” In some instances, clients gave their authorization because they were told the withdrawals were necessary to make investments. On other occasions, he forged their signatures on authorization forms.

Earlier this year, the ex-UBS adviser settled SEC securities fraud charges. The agency says that Kobayashi set up Life Settlement Partners LLC, which is a fund that invested in life settlement polices. He was able to raise millions of dollars for the fund from his UBS customers. However, he also started using the money to pay for prostitutes, expensive cars, and pay off gambling debts.

The SEC says that to try and pay back the fund and investors before they discovered his misconduct, he convinced several other UBS clients to liquidate securities and transfer to the proceeds to entities under his control. This allowed him to steal more money from the investors. Kobayashi settled the SEC charges without denying or admitting to them.

Related Web Resources:
Ex-UBS Adviser Pleads Guilty To Charges He Bilked Private Fund Investors, BNA Securities Law-Daily, June 10, 2011
Ex-UBS Advisor Faces Criminal Charges, in Life Settlement Case, On Wall Street, March 3, 2011
SEC CHARGES FORMER UBS FINANCIAL ADVISER WITH DEFRAUDING LIFE SETTLEMENT FUND INVESTORS, SEC.gov, March 3, 2011

More Blog Posts:
Texas Securities Fraud: Planmember Securities Corp. Registered Representatives Accused of Improperly Selling Life Settlement Notes, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, June 27, 2011
Life Settlements or Viaticals should be Considered “Securities,” Recommends the SEC to Congress , Stockbroker Fraud Blog, August 8, 2010
AIG Trying to Get More Investors to Buy Life Settlements, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, April 26, 2011 Continue Reading ›