Securities Fraud

Goldman Sachs Reports $3.4 Billion in “Reasonably Possible” Losses from Legal Claims

Published on: March 2, 2011 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

In its latest 10-K filing with the US Securities and Exchange Commission, Goldman Sachs Group Inc. says that its “reasonably possible” losses from legal claims may be as high as $3.4 billion. The investment bank’s admission comes after the SEC told corporate finance chiefs that the should disclose losses “when there is at least a reasonable possibility” they may be incurred regardless of whether the risk is so low that reserves are not required.

Goldman admits that it hasn’t put side a “significant” amount of funds against such possible losses and its estimate doesn’t factor in possible losses for cases that are in their beginning stages. The $3.4 billion figure comes from a calculation of three categories of possible liability. Also factored in were the number of securities sold in cases where purchasers of a deal underwritten by Goldman Sachs are now suing the financial firm and cases involving parties calling for Goldman Sachs to repurchase securities.

Between 2009 and 2010, the financial firm reported a 38% decline in net income from $13.4 billion to $8.35 billion. Trading revenue dropped while non-compensation expenses, which were affected by regulatory proceedings and litigation, went up 14%. It was just last year that the investment bank paid $550 million to settle SEC charges that it misled investors when selling a mortgage-linked investment in 2007. Goldman Sachs is still contending with state and federal securities complaints alleging improper disclosure related to mortgage-related products. As of the end of 2010, estimated plaintiffs’ aggregate cumulative losses in active cases against Goldman Sachs was at approximately $457 million.

Related Web Resources:
Goldman Sachs Puts ‘Possible’ Legal Losses at $3.4 Billion, Bloomberg Businessweek, March 1, 2011

Form 10-K, SEC

Goldman Sachs Settles SEC Subprime Mortgage-CDO Related Charges for $550 Million, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, July 30, 2010

Order to Freeze Assets in $53M Fund Fraud Allegedly Involving Michael Kenwood Asset Management LLC Obtained by SEC

Published on: February 21, 2011 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The SEC has obtained an order to freeze the assets of investment adviser Michael Kenwood Capital Management LLC and firm principal Francisco Illarramendi, who is accused of taking at least $53M from a hedge fund and fraudulently transferring investor money from several funds to bank accounts he controlled. Illarramendi then allegedly took that money and placed it in private-equity investments.

The SEC’s securities fraud complaint charges the investment adviser and Illarramendi with violating the 1940 Investment Advisers Act. Rather than using the money to benefit investors, Illarramendi allegedly used the money to his benefit and for the benefit of the entities under his control. The SEC says that it sought emergency relief because it was afraid that Illarramendi was going to make additional, unauthorized investments.

The largest private equity investment Illarramendi made was in an unnamed West Coast nuclear energy company. The SEC says he used $23 million in investor funds. A foreign company pension fund that was his biggest investor contributed 90% of the money in his funds.

In December 2009, Illarramendi allegedly authorized for $3.5 million to be transferred from an account to a Spanish company that makes rolled steel. In May 2010, he approved the transfer of $20 million from the financial firm’s $540 million Short Term Liquidity Fund to pay for shares in a clean-tech manufacturing company. He transferred another $4 million from the short-term fund to purchase shares in a development stage energy company. Another $3.1 million was transferred from different funds to the Spanish steel company.

The SEC is accusing Illarramendi of using clients’ money as if they were his and diverting millions of the investors’ funds. The commission says he breached his responsibilities as an investment adviser and abused clients’ trust. The SEC is seeking disgorgement of ill-gotten gains, permanent injunction, plus prejudgment interest.

Named as relief defendants that received investor money that they weren’t entitled are Michael Kenwood Asset Management LLC, MKEI Solar LP., and Kenwood Energy and Infrastructure LLC. Illarramendi, who is the majority owner of Michael Kenwood Group LLC, managed several hedge funds. One of the hedge funds has held up to $540 million in assets.

Related Web Resources:
SEC Charges Connecticut-Based Hedge Fund Manager for Fraudulent Misuse of Investor Assets, SEC, January 28, 2011
Read the SEC Complaint (PDF)

1940 Investment Advisers Act

Related Blog Posts:
Fontana Capital LLC Founder Violated Short-Selling Rule, Says SEC, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, February 2, 2011
3 Hedge Funds Raided by FBI in Insider Trading Case, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, November 23, 2010
$2.6M Texas Securities Fraud Settlement: Hedge Fund Adviser Settles SEC Allegations Involving Violations Related to Improper Public Stock Offering Participation After Short Selling, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, October 5, 2010 Continue Reading ›

Ex-Gilford Securities Broker Indicted in International Stock Fraud Scam Involving Pump and Dump of Israeli and Chinese Securities

Published on: February 19, 2011 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Gregg M. Berger, an ex-Gilford Securities broker, has been indicted for conspiracy over his alleged involvement in a global pump and dump stock fraud scheme involving thinly traded Israeli and Chinese securities. He is charged with wire fraud and securities fraud. The SEC has also filed related civil securities fraud charges against Berger, a number of other individuals, and three companies. The commission is seeking permanent injunctions, civil penalties, disgorgement, and a penny stock bar against Berger. Federal investors discovered the pump and dump scam following a multi-year probe.

According to prosecutors, between January 2005 and December 2007, Berger allegedly conspired with How Wai Hui, Francis A. Tribble, Scott Bradley, Alan Ralsky, and others to execute a stock scam that resulted in the sale of about 30 million shares of stock. Berger made over $600,000 in commissions and his co-conspirators generated about $30 million.

Defendants are accused of using spam emails to manipulate the thinly traded stocks. The recipients who bought the stock would drive the share price up and that is when Berger and co-conspirators would sell their shares at the new prices.

The indictment says that Berger was the stockbroker for the scam. He set up the brokerage accounts, arranged it so that stocks could be transferred to the accounts, executed the stock trades, transferred proceeds to specific bank accounts, provided confidential account information details to co-conspirators that were not supposed to receive this data, and did not obtain account holders’ consent. Stocks sold in the pump and dump scheme included those from Pingchuan Pharmaceutical Inc., China World Trade Corporation, World Wide Biotech and Pharmaceutical Co., China Digital Media Corporation, m-Wise, and China Mobility Solutions.

Related Web Resources:
SEC v. Berger, United States District Court, E.D. Michigan

Securities and Exchange Commission v. Gregg M.S. Berger, et al., Case No., 2:11-CV-10403 (RHC-PJK) (E.D. Mich.), SEC, February 1, 2011

More Blog Posts:
Dallas Securities Attorney and Former SEC Litigator Convicted of Fraud in Pump and Dump Stock Scam, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, February 11, 2010
Pump and Dump Scheme Involving Prime Time Stores Inc. Sends Global Spam Levels Up 30%, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, September 5, 2007
“Pump and Dump”, Annuities, Real Estate, Affinity Fraud and “Free Lunch Seminars” Are Top Scams in 2007 Say State Securities Regulators, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, May 21, 2007 Continue Reading ›

Ex-Goldman Sachs Broker’s Request for SEC Help in Obtaining Documents from Germany Denied by District Court

Published on: February 17, 2011 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York says it will not direct the Securities and Exchange Commission to contact German authorities on behalf ex-Goldman Sachs & Co. (GS) executive Fabrice Tourre, who is seeking to obtain certain documents related to the securities fraud case against him. Per Magistrate Judge Michael Dolinger’s ruling, a discovery request based on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34(a) doesn’t “extend” to having a
“government agency make requests to a foreign government under the terms of” a memorandum of understanding between both parties. Dolinger notes that while MOU between the SEC and its German equivalent allows both regulators to help each other in the enforcement of their respective securities laws, “there is no indication” that the MOU is supposed to offer a right or a benefit to a private party, such as allowing a securities fraud litigant to obtain discovery in Germany.

The SEC charged Goldman Sachs and Tourre over alleged misstatements and omissions related to collateralized debt obligations called Abacus 2007-AC1, a derivative product linked to subprime mortgages. The broker-dealer settled its securities case for $550 million. Meantime, Tourre, who is accused of giving Goldman Sachs “substantial assistance” in its alleged efforts to mislead investors, is seeking to have the SEC case against him dismissed. He is pointing to Morrison v. National Australia Bank Ltd., a US Supreme Court decision that was issued two months after the SEC filed charges against him.

This week, his lawyers argued that the SEC was attempting to circumvent the Supreme Court ruling, which limits the reach of civil claims over acts that occurred outside the country. The transactions involving Tourre that are under dispute took place abroad.

Goldman’s Tourre Shouldn’t Face SEC Lawsuit, His Lawyers Say, Bloomberg Businessweek, February 15, 2011

The SEC Complaint (PDF)

TD Ameritrade Inc. Settles SEC Securities Fraud Charges Over Reserve Yield Plus Fund Shares for $10M

Published on: February 14, 2011 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

TD Ameritrade Inc. (AMTD) has settled Securities and Exchange Commission charges that it failed to reasonably supervise its representatives, some who sold shares of the Reserve Yield Plus Fund to clients. As part of the settlement, TD Ameritrade will pay $10 million to eligible customers who are still fund shareholders.

According to the SEC, TD Ameritrade representatives offered and sold Reserve Yield Plus Fund shares to customers before September 16, 2008. The SEC contends that the representatives “mischaracterized” the fund as a money market fund, making it seem as if the fund had guaranteed liquidity while allegedly failing to discloses the risks involved with this type of investment. In September 2008, the fund “broke the buck” when its assets’ value fell lower than the level required to cover each dollar that had been invested in the fund.

The SEC also claims that TD Ameritrade lacked an adequate supervisory system or policies to stop its representatives’ misconduct that led to investors’ losses. Clients eligible to receive money from the settlement should get receive 1.2 cents per share.

The SEC says that it is essential that customers are given adequate information about investment instruments and that broker-dealers must properly train and supervise their representatives to give clients this important information. The SEC said that thousands of TD Ameritrade customers still hold most of the Yield Plus Funds shares. They got approximately 95% of its original investments after the fund liquidated its assets.

By agreeing to settle, the TD Ameritrade Inc. is not denying or admitting to the misconduct.

Related Web Resources:
SEC announces $10M settlement with TD Ameritrade, AP/Yahoo, February 3, 2011
SEC Charges TD Ameritrade for Failing to Supervise Its Representatives Who Sold Shares of the Reserve Yield Plus Fund, SEC, February 3, 2011
Securities Fraud Attorneys

Related Blog Posts on SEC Settlements:
AXA Rosenberg Entities Settle Securities Fraud Charges Over Computer Error Concealment for Over $240M, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, February 10, 2011
Ex-Portfolio Managers to Pay $700K to Settle SEC Charges that They Defrauded the Tax Free Fund for Utah, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, January 22, 2011
Schwab Settles for $119M SEC Charges It Allegedly Misled YieldPlus Fund Investors, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, January 17, 2011 Continue Reading ›

AXA Rosenberg Entities Settle Securities Fraud Charges Over Computer Error Concealment for Over $240M

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

AXA Rosenberg Investment Management LLC (ARIM), AXA Rosenberg Group LLC (ARG), and Barr Rosenberg Research Center LLC (BRRC) have agreed to pay over $240 million to settle administrative securities fraud charges that they hid an important error in the computer code of the quantitative investment model used for managing client assets. The Securities and Exchange Commission says the error resulted in investor losses worth $217 million. As part of the settlement, the three Axa Rosenberg entities will repay the investors who sustained financial losses, as well as a $25 million penalty.

The SEC says that the institutional money manager’s concealment of “material error in its computer code” from investors was a violation of federal securities laws. The commission also claims that the three entities made material misrepresentations, such as failing to disclose the error or its effect and did not properly represent “the model’s ability to control risks.”

Per the charges, the error, which was discovered by ARG and BRRC senior managers in June 2009, disabled a key risk-management component. Instead of fixing the problem right away, senior management told others not to reveal the error, which they did not remedy at the time.

The SEC says that quantitative investment managers have been known to “isolate their complex computer models from the firm’s compliance and risk management function” in an attempt to protect trade secrets.” The SEC also claims that BRRC failed to implement and adopt compliance procedures and policies to make sure the model would work as intended. Although the error was eventually remedied, ARG’s Global CEO was not notified of it until five months after its discovery.

As of last December, Axa Rosenberg Group LLC said that as “the specialist active global equity investment management firm” managed over $31 billion in assets. ARG is the holding company of investment advisers ARIM, which used the investment model to manage client portfolios, and BRRC, which developed the quantitative investment model’s code.

Related Web Resources:
SEC Charges AXA Rosenberg Entities for Concealing Error in Quantitative Investment Model, SEC, February 3, 2011
Read the corrected SEC order (PDF)

More Blogs on SEC Enforcement:
Ex-Portfolio Managers to Pay $700K to Settle SEC Charges that They Defrauded the Tax Free Fund for Utah, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, January 22, 2011
Schwab Settles for $119M SEC Charges It Allegedly Misled YieldPlus Fund Investors, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, January 17, 2011
Broker Settles SEC Charges He Defrauded Elderly Nuns, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, January 13, 2011 Continue Reading ›

CalPERS Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit Against Lehman Brothers

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

The California Public Employees’ Retirement System is suing Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc., its ex-executives, and a number of bond underwriters for fraud and of making materially false statements about mortgage-backed securities losses. CalPERS, a $229 billion public pension fund, owned about $700 million Lehman bonds and 3.9 million shares of Lehman bonds when Lehman filed for bankruptcy in September 2008. Because of the economic crisis, CalPERS funds lost $100 billion in value from September 2008 and March 2009.

In its securities fraud complaint, CalPERS accused Lehman of “dramatically” borrowing to fund its real estate investments from 2004 to 2007—high-risk activity that investors were not told about. Other defendants include ex-Lehman Chief Executive Richard S. Fuld Jr., ex-Lehman Chief Financial Officers Erin Callan and Christopher O’Meara, 9 Lehman directors, and 33 others firms, including Wells Fargo Securities, Citigroup Global Markets Inc., and Mellon Financial Markets. The defendants allegedly failed to disclose not just Lehman’s exposure to Alt-A lending and subprime, but also its mortgage-related assets’ true value.

This securities complaint is CalPERS second action against members of Wall Street that sold mortgage-backed securities. In July 2009, CAlPERS sued Standard & Poor’s, Moody’s Investors Services Inc., and Fitch Inc. The complaint accused the financial rating companies of giving top grades to bonds that ended up sustaining huge financial losses when the subprime mortgage securities market collapsed.

Also, CalPERS has a shareholder lawsuit against Bank of America Corp. (BAC) over its Merrill Lynch acquisition. The pension fund also has a case against BofA’s Countrywide Financial.

Related Web Resources:

CalPERS suit accuses Lehman Bros. of fraud, Los Angeles Times, February 9, 2011

CalPERS

Financial Fraud Verdict: Jury Orders BDO Seidman to Pay Aviation Pioneer George Batchelor’s Estate and Foundation $91M

Published on: February 2, 2011 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Nine years after the death of aviation pioneer and philanthropist George Batchelor, a circuit court verdict has issued a jury awarding his estate and foundation $91 million in its financial fraud case against BDO Seidman. The lawsuit, which was filed in 2002, accused BDO Seidman of covering up inaccurate financial statements when Grand Court Lifestyles, a company that Batchelor had invested tens of millions of dollars in, was audited.

Of the $91 million verdict, $36 million is compensatory damages, $55 million is punitive damages. All of the award will go to the Foundation, which means that the dozens of organizations that it supports may get more funds. Prior to his death, Batchelor, who founded Batch Air and Arrow Air, gave about $100 million to causes related animals, kids, medical facilities, and the environment.

The law firm that represents Batchelor’s estate says that until the end, BDO “denied it had a public duty” and “was willing to look the other way” for Grand Court, which let go of another accounting firm that wanted to know how the manager/owner of “senior” communities valued certain properties. Deloitte & Touche, which was the original accounting firm for Grand Court, has settled its securities case with the Batchelor Foundation.

Financial fraud and its concealment are against the law. If you are a victim of financial fraud you may have grounds for a civil case.

Related Web Resources:

Jury Rules Against BDO, The Wall Street Journal, February 1, 2011

SEC Staff Wants an SRO to Oversee Investment Advisers

Published on: January 31, 2011 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Earlier this month, the members of the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Division of Investment Management recommended that Congress either set up at least one self-regulatory organization that oversees investment advisers, impose “user fees” to fund examinations by the Office of Compliance Inspections and Examinations, or make investment adviser oversight the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority’s responsibility. Under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act’s Section 914, the SEC is supposed to assess itself and make recommendations for improvement.

Per the SEC’s report, there is at this time inadequate resources for examining the over 11,000 registered investment advisers-a number that will likely go down by 3,350 in July when Dodd Frank’s Section 410 goes into effect and advisers with assets under management valued at $100 million or less will have to register with the state where their main place of business is located. That said, the growth in the industry is such that by fiscal year 2021 there may be up to 13,908 registered advisors with a collective worth greater than $70 trillion.

However, while industry groups will likely endorse a more influential FINRA or a new SRO, investment advisers believe that self-regulation’s rules-based nature is not compatible with their business model and government oversight and regulation would be better for them. FINRA believes that an SRO will be able to “augment” government oversight. In the past, FINRA has expressed willingness to take on this role.

Yet Another Securities Case Against a Financial Firm Alleged to Have Aided Enron in its Scams is Dismissed Without Liability in Texas!

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

Many financial firms settled claims filed by those defrauded in the Enron debacle. Meanwhile, many more Enron securities fraud cases have been dismissed by a court system riddled with special interest influence. No financial firm has been held liable and certain individuals at those firms were held liable only to have their convictions reversed. Thus, perhaps the largest, most notorious and most brazen fraud ever perpetuated by a publicly traded firm against its own shareholders will end not with a bang, but with a whimper.

Earlier this month, securities charges against Deutsche Bank Securities Inc. were dropped in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas. The financial firm was accused of fraudulently getting two entities to buy beneficial ownership interests in Osprey Trust. The special purpose entity was allegedly secured using worthless investments bought from Enron. The plaintiffs contend that the assets were “dumped” into Osprey as part of a bigger scheme to defraud investors and manipulate Enron’s financial statements.

The court said that because the plaintiffs did not specify any affirmative misrepresentation made by a Deutsche Bank official, they did not and “cannot plead with particularity either scienter on the part of a Deutsche Bank speaker or writer or reasonable reliance … on a claimed misrepresentation.” The court also said that the financial firm’s stated motive for alleged defraud, which allegedly was for tax benefits and high fees, is a common incentive among financial firms and their officers and therefore is not enough for stating “a claim for fraud” under the laws of Texas and New York.

Related Web Resources:
Newby, et al v. Enron Corporation, et al., U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas
The Fall of Enron, Chron.com Continue Reading ›