Securities Fraud

“Flash Crash” – Why is This So Hard to Understand?

Published on: November 9, 2010 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

“On May 6, 1010, the New York Stock Exchange was intentionally shut down for 90 seconds by those in charge,” recounts Shepherd Smith Edwards and Kantas Founder and Securities Fraud Lawyer William Shepherd. “When this happened there was no market (bid and ask quotes) for many large cap stocks, except on small exchanges and the ‘third market.’ Meanwhile trading programs continued to submit market orders.” Shepherd continued, “Market orders in a ‘thin’ market are always a recipe for disaster. The question people should be asking is: Who decided to stop trading on the NYSE without warning and why? Imagine how much money could have been made by anyone who knew of this shutdown in advance!”

Shepherd’s observations come in the wake of NYSE Euronext chief executive officer Duncan Niederauer’s address to attendees at a recent National Association of Corporate Directors conference. Niederauer acknowledged that there is more that needs to be done to understand the events leading up to the flash crash. He said that while the Commodity Futures Trading Commission and the Securities and Exchange Commission had put out a “very well done” report that explained why markets dropped 4 or 5% that day, the reason why prices for some individual stocks plummeted by almost 100% remain unclear.

The Dow Jones Industrial Average dropped by over 573 points during five minutes of trading that day before taking 90 seconds to reverse and regain 543 points. Although the CFTC and the SEC have determined that the flash crash was started by a mutual fund complex that used computer algorithms to quickly sell $4 billion in futures contracts, Niederauer has said that there is still both information and misinformation. He contends that to bar high-speed electronic trading is impractical despite the fact that the US market structure is “more vulnerable than we thought.” He said the NYSE stands behind a model that comes with market maker obligations that are clearly outlined and that this can be used to determine whether the market maker is “doing a good job.” More market structure rules are expected in January.

Related Web Resources:
Flash crash’ shows need for price discovery and safeguards, NYSE
CFTC And SEC Release “Flash Crash” Report, FuturesMag.com
Read the SEC and CFTC Report (PDF)
Continue Reading ›

San Diego Officials Settle SEC Municipal Bond Charges for $80,000

Published on: November 3, 2010 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Four ex- San Diego officials will pay $80,000 in fines to resolve municipal bond charges by the US Securities and Exchange Commission for allegedly misleading investors. Never before has the SEC obtained financial penalties against a city’s officials for municipal securities fraud. By agreeing to settle, ex-San Diego City Manager Michael Uberuaga, ex-Deputy City Manager for Finance Patricia Frazier, ex-Auditor and Comptroller Edward Ryan, and ex-City Treasurer Mary Vattimo are not denying or admitting to the charges. There are still charges pending against San Diego’s ex-Assistant Auditor and Comptroller Teresa Webster.

The SEC filed its securities fraud charges against the former city officials in 2008. The officials are accused of knowing that the city of San Diego had purposely underfunded its pension obligations to increase benefits will deferring costs. The SEC also contends that the ex- officials understood that without cuts to city services, employee benefits, or new revenues, it would be difficult to fund future retirement obligations. Yet the former officials allegedly did not let investors know about the serious funding problems and made false and misleading statements in 2002 and 2003.

Regulators contend that when San Diego sold over $260 million in bonds, city officials did not disclose that the pension deficit was expected to hit $2 billion in 2009. According to Rosalind Tyson, the director of the SEC’s Los Angeles Regional Office, municipal officials are obligated to make sure that investors get accurate and full information about the financial condition of an issuer.

Related Web Resources:

Former San Diego officials settle with SEC, The San Diego Union Tribune, October 26, 2010.

Former San Diego Officials to Pay Penalties in SEC Municipal Bond Fraud Case, Asset International October 29, 2010
More Municipal Bond Blog Posts Continue Reading ›

Should Global Securities Fraud Lawsuits By Private Litigants Be Allowed? The SEC Wants To Know

Published on: November 3, 2010 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The Securities and Exchange Commission is seeking comments on whether amendments should be made to federal securities laws so that private litigants can file transnational securities fraud lawsuits. Comments are welcomed until February 18, 2011. The SEC says to refer to File No. 4-617.

In its request, the SEC points to the US Supreme Court’s ruling in Morrison v. National Australia Bank. The decision placed significant limits on Section 10(b) antifraud proscriptions’s extraterritorial reach. That said, Congress, through Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act’s Section 929Y, gave back to the government its ability to file transnational securities fraud charges. It is under the new financial reform law that Congress has ordered the SEC to determine whether a private remedy should apply to just institutional investors or all private actors and/or others.

Included in what the study will analyze are how this right of action could impact international comity, the economic benefits and costs of extending such a private right of action, and whether there should be a narrow extraterritorial standard. The SEC also wants to know if it makes a difference whether:

• The security was issued by a non-US company or a US firm.
• A firm’s securities are traded only outside the country.
• The security was sold or bought on a foreign stock exchange or a non-exchange trading platform or another alternating trading system based abroad.

Related Web Resources:
Morrison v. National Australia Bank (PDF)

US Securities and Exchange Commission

Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, SEC (PDF)

Securities Claims Against Goldman Sachs Over Mortgage-Backed Certificates are Partially Dismissed by Court Due to Lack of Injury

Published on: October 30, 2010 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York has ruled that without an injury, a mortgage-backed certificates holder cannot maintain a securities claim against MBS underwriter Goldman Sachs & Co. (GS) and related entities for allegedly misstating the risks involved in the certificates in their registration statement. Judge Miriam Goldman Cedarbaum says that plaintiff NECA-IBEW Health & Welfare Fund knew that the investment it made could be illiquid and, therefore, cannot allege injury based on the certificates hypothetical price on the secondary market at the time of the complaint. The court, however, did deny Goldman’s motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s claims brought under the 1933 Securities Act’s Section 12(a)(2) and Section 15.

The Fund had purchased from Goldman a series of MBS certificates with a face value of $390,000 in the initial public offering on Oct. 15, 2007. The fund then bought another series of MBS certificates with a $49,827.56 face value from Goldman, which served as underwriter, creator of the mortgage loan pools, sponsor of the offerings, and issuer of the certificates after securitizing the loans and placing them in trusts.

Per the 1933 Act’s Section 11, the Fund alleged that in the resale market the certificates were valued at somewhere between “‘between 35 and 45 cents on the dollar.” However, instead of alleging that it did not get the distributions it was entitled to, the plaintiff contended that it was exposed to a significantly higher risk than what the Offering Documents represented. The court said that NECA failed to state any allegation of an injury in fact. The court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss.

Following the court’s decision, Shepherd Smith Edwards and Kantas Founder and Securities Fraud Attorney William Shepherd said, “It is sad that large and small investors have little clout in the processes of selecting judges. Thus, Wall Street continues to gain advantages in court—especially federal court.”

Related Web Resources:

NECA-IBEW

Imperia Invest IBC’s Assets are Frozen Following SEC Allegations of British Viatical Settlements Scam That Targeted Deaf Investors

Published on: October 28, 2010 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

A district court issued an emergency order this month to freeze the assets of Imperia Invest IBC. The order came after the Securities and Exchange Commission accused the internet-based investment company of operating a securities scam involving the British version of viatical settlements.

According to the SEC, Imperia Invest IBC had raised over $7 million from more than 14,000 investors located in different parts of the world with the promise that they would earn returns of just above 1% a day. More than half of the money raised came from deaf investors in the US. The agency is seeking disgorgement of fraudulent gains, penalties, an injunction from future violations, and emergency relief for investors.

The SEC claims that the investment company solicited investors through its Web site, which stated that returns could only be accessed through a Visa credit card and purchased from Imperia for a few hundreds dollars. The company, however, did not have a business tie with the credit card company. Imperia also listed bogus addresses in Vanuatu and the Bahamas.

Goldman Sach’s $550 Million Securities Fraud Settlement Not Tied to Financial Reform Bill, Says SEC IG

Published on: October 27, 2010 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

According Securities and Exchange Commission Inspector General H. David Kotz, there is no evidence that the SEC’s enforcement action against Goldman Sachs or the $550 million securities fraud settlement that resulted are tied to the financial services reform bill. Kotz also noted that it does not appear that any agency person leaked any information about the ongoing investigation to the press before the case was filed last April. The SEC says that the IG’s report reaffirms that the complaint against Goldman was based only on the merits.

That said, Kotz did find that SEC staff failed to fully comply with the administrative requirement that they do everything possible to make sure that defendants not find out about any action against them through the media. Kotz notes that this, along with the failure to notify NYSE Reg[ulation] before filing the action and the fact that the action was filed during market hours caused the securities market to become more volatile that day. Goldman had settled the SEC’s charges related to its marketing of synthetic collateralized debt obligation connected to certain subprime mortgage-backed securities in 2007 on the same day that the Senate approved the financial reform bill.

Last April, several Republican congressman insinuated that politics may have been involved because the announcement of the case came at the same time that Democrats were pressing for financial regulatory reform. SEC Chairman Mary Schapiro denied the allegation.

Earlier this month, Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) wrote Schapiro asking to see an unredacted copy of the internal investigative report by the IG. Issa is the one who had pressed Kotz to examine the decision-making process behind the Goldman settlement. Issa’s spokesperson says the lawmaker is concerned that the SEC can redact parts of its IG reports before the public and Congress can see them. However, at a Senate Banking Committee last month, Kotz, said that the SEC redacts information because the data could impact the capital markets.

Related Web Resources:

Goldman Settles With S.E.C. for $550 Million, The New York Times, July 15, 2010

SEC’s Inspector General to Investigate Timing of Suit Against Goldman Sachs, Fox News, April 25, 2010

General H. David Kotz, SEC

$35.2 Million Shareholder Settlement Against DHB Industries Overturned by Circuit Court

Published on: October 21, 2010 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit overturned the $32.5 million Shareholder settlement against DHB Industries because the agreement improperly released, under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, the body-armor maker’s former CEO and CFO from liability. The case involves a shareholder complaint that was filed against DHB and a number of executives in 2005.

Company officers agreed to settle but only on the condition that CFO Dawn M. Schlegel and ex-CEO CEO David H. Brooks be released from liability. A district judge approved the settlement, but then the government objected on the grounds that only the Securities and Exchange Commission can “exempt” executives from requirements under Sarbanes-Oxley. The three-judge panel agreed.

Judge Peter Hall wrote that allowing the settlement to move forward would be “flying in the face of” lawmakers and their efforts to hold senior corporate officers of public companies directly liable for their actions that have “caused material noncompliance with financial reporting requirements.”

Last month, a jury found Brooks and former DHB Industries COO Sandra Hatfield guilty of insider trading, obstruction of justice, and fraud. Brooks was also found guilty of lying to auditors. The two defendants were accused of conspiring to loot DHB for personal gain, falsely inflating inventory at a subsidiary so that reported profits could be artificially boosted, lying to auditors, concealing Brooks’ control of a related company that would then funnel funds toward his thoroughbred horse-racing business, and accounting fraud. The Justice Department say the defendants reaped close to $200 million.

Related Web Resources:
Court Tosses $35.2 Million Body-Armor Settlement, Courthouse News Service, September 30, 2010

David H. Brooks, Founder and Former Chief Executive Officer of DHB Industries, Inc. and Sandra Hatfield, Former Chief Operating Officer, Convicted of Insider Trading, Fraud, and Obstruction of Justice, FBI, September 14, 2010

Oregon Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit Against University of Phoenix Parent Company Apollo Group Inc. of Arizona

Published on: October 19, 2010 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

This week, Oregon Attorney General John Groger and Treasurer Ted Wheeler announced that the state is suing University of Phoenix’s parent company, Apollo Group Inc. of Arizona, and several of its executives for securities fraud. The state officials claim that the plaintiffs misled investors in the firm’s financial statements about the for-profit college’s revenue.

The alleged misconduct is said to involve the school’s revenue between 2007 and 2010. Because of the misrepresentation, the Oregon Public Employee Retirement Fund lost approximately $10 million. Oregon’s securities lawsuit, which joins a class action case while seeking lead plaintiff status, accuses the defendants of violating securities law with materially false and misleading statements that misrepresented or did not disclose information that could have helped investors determine their investments’ risk levels.

The state contends that Oregonians seeking higher education were also injured by the Apollo Group’s financial practices. For example, the company is accused of not taking the proper steps when handling federal student loans. The firm also is accused of improperly dealing with canceled loans, causing students to be held financially responsible for classes that they didn’t take.

After the company’s alleged misconduct was disclosed in an October 2009 filing and the SEC investigation became publicly known, shares of Apollo dropped 17.7% in one day. With the pre-disclosure price sinking from $72.97/share to $60.06/share, almost $2 billion in market capitalization was wiped out.

Apollo’s stock price continued to drop this year, following calls for greater oversight over the for-profit college industry. Apollo’s improper business practices were also brought to light during Congressional hearings. Recently, a Senate probe and a Government Accountability Office report revealed that Apollo also committed fraud when marketing its services to prospective students. Apollo shares were trading at $38.94 on August 13, 2010.

Related Web Resources:

Oregon Public Employee Retirement Fund

Wall Street Complains Financial Reform Will Mean More Lawsuits. Is This Bad?

Published on: October 16, 2010 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Public companies and employers may have to contend with an unlimited number of expensive securities lawsuits under the whistleblower provision of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, which not only includes provisions for an expanded statute of limitations under which employees can sue employers for discriminatory action but also sets up a new Securities and Exchange Commission bounty program. Labor and Employment Attorney Goldsmith recently spoke about this possibility while participating in a Practicing Law Institute panel. Goldsmith also noted that Dodd-Frank extends the whistleblower protections of the 2002 Sarbanes-Oxley Act to companies’ affiliates or subsidiaries and nationally recognized statistical rating organizations’ employees.

Goldsmith contends that by enacting Dodd-Frank, Congress was showing “overt hostility” toward predispute arbitration agreements by not having them apply to whistleblower issues. He notes that while the Dodd-Frank provisions are supposed to make up for the limitations and loopholes of SOX, certain questions have arisen that have yet to be addressed.

Under section 922 of Dodd-Frank, the SEC is allowed to award whistleblowers between 10% and 30% of any penalty that above $1 million. Cases may include those brought by the Justice Department, the SEC, other federal agencies, and state attorneys general. The SEC started getting tips and complaints even before the statute was enacted.

With its new bounty program, the SEC is expected to increase its enforcement efforts. This could result in huge payments to whistleblowers, who can also receive cooperation credit if they were violators. However, former Chief Litigation Counsel Luis Mejia, who recently spoke at a DC bar event, said that he believes that Dodd-Frank’s whistleblower provision is “the most dangerous” of issues and could undermine corporate compliance programs. Rather than reporting problems internally, giving the company a chance to self-remediate or weed out old or unfounded claims, an individual might be more likely to “blow the whistle” because of the financial rewards.

Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas LTD LLP Founder and Stockbroker Fraud Lawyer William Shepherd had a different perspective to offer: “Regulation of Wall Street and business – or the lack of it – has obviously been a disaster over the last decade. Meanwhile the business community clamors for privatization to cure government waste and ineptness. From the birth of this nation lawsuits have been a form of privatization of government power. Why hire more police when lawyers can handle the job much more efficiently and at no cost to the taxpayers? The same is true of whistleblowers. Why use taxpayer dollars to investigate when those on the inside already understand the problem? Believe me, white collar criminals are more afraid of lawyers and whistleblowers than they are of regulators, many of whom they own! That is why they are afraid of the proposed reforms.”

According to a recent Senate report, whistleblowers can take credit for exposing 54.1% of fraud scams in public companies. Meantime, the SEC and auditors reportedly have uncovered just 4.1% of the schemes.

Related Web Resources:
Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (PDF)

SEC Charges Investment Adviser With Allegedly Making Unsuitable Hedge Fund Recommendations to Elderly Clients

Published on: October 15, 2010 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The Securities and Exchange Commission has charged investment adviser Neal Greenberg with securities fraud and breach of fiduciary duty related to the making of recommendations and marketing of hedge funds to investors. According to the SEC, Greenberg, who was the CEO of Tactical Allocation Services LLP and also the portfolio manager of Agile Group LLC, made unsuitable recommendations to clients, many of whom were elderly and/or retired or close to retirement, when he suggested that they invest in the hedge funds run by his firms.

The SEC contends that the investment adviser issued misstatements when he said that the hedge funds were suitable for older and conservative clients, many of whom were seeking low-risk investments that came with significant capital protection. For example, Greenberg allegedly “falsely stated that the Agile hedge funds” were low risk, highly diversified, and offered liquidity when in fact, the funds, which held approximately $174 million from over 100 clients, were non-diversified in their holdings and used leverage. Greenberg also is accused of claiming that the Agile funds “used leverage” in a manner that did not “significantly increase” their risk profile. Yet, says the SEC, for 2007 and 2008 the risk disclosures in private placement memoranda for the hedge funds from Agile contradicted the “false and misleading” misrepresentations made by Greenberg.

The SEC is also accusing Greenberg of failing to make sure that adequate compliance procedures and policies were put in place for determining whether certain investments were suitable for clients’ specific needs. The commission says Greenberg failed to tell clients that they were going to have to pay management and performance fees on the leveraged part of their investments. Between 2003 and 2006, investors paid about $2 million in these undisclosed fees.

Related Web Resource:
Read the SEC Order Against Greenberg (PDF)
Continue Reading ›