Articles Posted in Securities Fraud

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 ›

Securities Fraud Plaintiffs Don’t Have to Show Loss Causation to Obtain Class Action Status, Rules US Supreme Court

Published on: July 9, 2011 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

In Erica P. John Fund Inc. v. Halliburton Co., the US Supreme Court said that securities fraud plaintiffs don’t have to demonstrate loss causation to receive class certification. The unanimous ruling reinstated claims made by investors that defendant Halliburton Inc. (HAL) made material misrepresentations and misstatements.

In its securities complaint, Archdiocese of Milwaukee Supporting Fund Inc.—now known as Erica P. John Fund Inc.—wanted to certify as a class all investors who had obtained Halliburton stock between June 3, 1999 and December 7, 2001. The plaintiff contends that investors in the proposed class lost money because of securities fraud committed by the defendant, including making material misstatements about litigation expenses, a merger’s benefits, and accounting methodology changes, making misrepresentations in order to up Halliburton stocks’ price rise, and making corrective disclosures to make the price fall.

The district court, however, refused to give class certification on the ground that the plaintiff did not demonstrate loss causation regarding the claims it made. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed that ruling.

The Supreme Court, however, said that even though private securities plaintiffs must show that the defendant’s misconduct was the cause of their economic loss, loss causation does not have to be demonstrated to obtain class certification. Chief Justice John G Roberts authored the decision, which also said that the court didn’t have to address questions related to its in 1988 ruling Basic Inc. v. Levinson, 485 U.S. 224.

Related Web Resources:
Erica P. John Fund Inc. v. Halliburton Co. (PDF)

More Blog Posts:
Securities Fraud: Mutual Funds Investment Adviser Cannot Be Sued Over Misstatement in Prospectuses, Says US Supreme Court, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, June 16, 2011

Number of Securities Class Action Settlements Reached in 2010 Hit Lowest Level in a Decade, Says Report, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, March 31, 2011

Sonoma Valley Bank Shareholders File Both a Class Action Lawsuit and An Insurance Claim Seeking to Recoup Millions, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, June 30, 2011

Two Years of Wall Street Executives’ Pay To Be Seized For Role Played in a Financial Firm’s Collapse, Says FDIC

Published on: July 8, 2011 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Federal regulators have approved a plan that would make Wall Street executives forfeit two years’ pay if it was discovered that he/she played a part in a major financial firm’s collapse. Executives who are considered “negligent” and “substantially responsible” are subject to this rule, which clarifies that “negligence,” rather than “gross negligence,” is the standard.

Banks had complained that an earlier version of the rule, which said that any executive who had made strategic decisions could be found responsible for a financial firm’s failure. They were worried that key executives would quit upon initial signs of trouble rather than risk their pay.

The provision is part of a Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation rule, which is supposed to help retain stability within the economy by unwinding beleaguered firms in a manner that is less disruptive than major bankruptcies and taxpayer-financed bailouts. The rule lets the government take over a failing financial company, break it apart, and sell it off.

The liquidation authority is a significant part of the Dodd-Frank financial oversight law. It also designates the order that creditors will be paid whenever a government liquidates a large financial firm. For example, FDIC or the receiver that carried part of the expense of taking over a firm, administrative costs, and employees that are owed money for benefits are among those that would top the list. General creditors fall lower down in order of priority.

It is not enough that a Wall Street executive pay the government or other entities for any misconduct that caused a financial firm to fail. There are also the investors who sustained financial losses as a result of his/her negligence. Here is where our securities fraud attorneys step in. We are committed to helping institutional investors recoup their money.

Related Web Resources:

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation

More Blog Posts:

SEC Needs to Keep a Closer Eye on FINRA, Says Report, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, March 15, 2011

SEC is Finalizing Its Whistleblower Rules, Says Chairman Schapiro, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, April 28, 2011

Ex-Colonial Bank Chairman is Sentenced to 30 Years in Prison Over $2.9B Bank Fraud

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

A federal judge has sentenced ex- Taylor, Bean & Whitaker chairman Lee Farkas to 30-years behind bars for heading up a $2.9 billion financial scheme that led to the downfall of both mortgage lender Taylor Bean and Colonial Bank. The bank fraud cheated the government and investors of billions.

Farkas, who was convicted by a jury of numerous criminal counts, conspiracy to bank fraud, wire fraud, and securities fraud, is accused of making $40 million from the scam. He must now turn over about $35 million.

Also paying a price for her involvement in the fraud is ex-Colonial Bank senior vice president Catherine Kissick. The 50-year-old former head of Colonial’s’ mortgage-warehouse lender pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit bank fraud, wire fraud, and securities fraud.

The SEC is accusing Kissick of enabling the sale of impaired and bogus securities and mortgage loans to Taylor Bean. She also is accused of mischaracterizing the securities as liquid, quality assets to investors.

Assistant Attorney General Lanny Breuer has said that not only did Kissick assist in the execution of the largest bank fraud ever, but also she used her position at Colonial to purchase hundreds of million dollars in assets from TBW that were worthless to fool investors, shareholders, and regulators. Kissick is sentenced to 8-years in prison.

Several others have pleaded guilty to the financial scam, including Teresa Kelly, a former operations supervisor who worked under Kissick. Kelly, who pleaded guilty to the same charge as Kissick, is sentenced to three months behind bars. She is accused of abusing her access to the accounting systems at Colonial Bank to perpetuate the fraud.

Others who have pleaded guilty for their involvement are ex-Taylor Bean president Raymond E. Bowman and former firm treasurer Desiree Brown. Former chief executive Paul Allen was sentenced to 40 months for his participation in the bank scam.

Related Web Resources:
Mortgage Executive Receives 30-Year Sentence, The New York Times, June 30, 2011

Ex-Colonial Bank Executive Kelly Admits to Conspiracy in Taylor Bean Fraud, Bloomberg, March 16, 2011

More Blog Posts:
Washington Mutual Bank Bondholders’ Securities Fraud Lawsuit Against J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. is Revived by Appeals Court, Institutional Investors Securities Blog, June 29, 2011

JP Morgan Chase Agrees to Pay $861M to Lehman Brothers Trustee, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, June 28, 2011

Texas Securities Fraud: Planmember Securities Corp. Registered Representatives Accused of Improperly Selling Life Settlement Notes, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, June 27, 2011

Securities Fraud: Mutual Funds Investment Adviser Cannot Be Sued Over Misstatement in Prospectuses, Says US Supreme Court

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

In a 5-4 ruling, the US Supreme Court placed specific limits on securities fraud lawsuits this week when it ruled in Janus Capital Group v. First Derivative Traders, No. 09-525 that the mutual funds investment adviser could not be sued over misstatements in fund prospectuses. Justice Clarence Thomas, who wrote for the majority, said that only the fund could be held liable for violating an SEC rule that makes it unlawful for a person to make a directly or indirectly untrue statement of material fact related to the selling or buying of securities.

The fund and its adviser were closely connected. Janus Capital Group, which is a public company, created Janus Investment Fund, which then retained Janus Capital Management to deal with management, investment, and administrative services. However, in its appeal to the nation’s highest court, Janus argued that the funds are separate legal entities. He said that the parent company and subsidiary are not responsible for the prospectuses, and they therefore cannot be held liable. The investors filed their securities fraud lawsuit after the New York attorney general sued the adviser in 2003.

The plaintiffs claimed that the funds disclosure documents falsely indicated that the adviser would implement policies to curb strategies based on fund valuation delays. At issue was whether it could be said that the adviser issued misleading statements that the SEC rule addressed. Justice Thomas said no. He noted although the adviser wrote the words under dispute, the fund was the one that issued them. Meantime, Justice Stephen G. Breyer, who wrote the dissent, said that there is nothing in the English language stopping someone from saying that if several different parties that each played a part in producing a statement then they all played a role in making it.