Securities Fraud

Wells Fargo to Pay $30M in Compensatory Damages to Four Nonprofits for Securities Fraud

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

A jury has ordered Wells Fargo to pay four Minnesota nonprofits $30 million in securities fraud damages. The Minnesota Medical Foundation, the Minneapolis Foundation, the Minnesota Workers’ Compensation Reinsurance Association, and the Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi Foundation for Children had accused the investment bank of investing their funds in high risk securities and then failing to disclose until it was too late that the investments were going down in value. The same jury has yet to decide the issue of punitive damages
The jury found that Wells Fargo violated the Minnesota Consumer Fraud Act and breached its fiduciary duty to the nonprofits. In the investment program that the Minnesota nonprofits participated in, Wells Fargo would hold its clients’ securities in custodial accounts and use the money to issue temporary loans to brokerage firms for their trading activities. Each brokerage firm posted collateral of at least 102% the worth of the borrowed securities’ value.

While the investment bank had promised that the nonprofits money would be placed in liquid, safe investments, the plaintiffs contend that Wells Fargo put their money in high-risk securities, including asset-backed and mortgage-backed securities. They say that even as the collateral investments’ value became less stable in 2007, the investment bank continued to place more of the nonprofits’ securities out on loan. The nonprofits also claim that when two of the SIV’s went into receivership and they asked Wells Fargo to either redeem their interests or return the securities, the investment bank refused to do so until the collateral investments were sold and the nonprofits made up a shortfall in value.

While the nonprofits are asking for over $400 million in damages, Wells Fargo’s lawyers argue that the actual damages to the plaintiffs was just $14.3 million. According to the bank, “the investments made by Wells Fargo on behalf of our clients in the securities lending program were in accordance with investment guidelines and were prudent and suitable at the time of purchase.” Apparently ignoring the claim or puntive damages, the investment bank says it is pleased that the plaintiffs were denied the full amount of damages they had sought. Wells Fargo continues to maintain that it didn’t invest in high-risk securities and that the nonprofits had the choice to get out of the investments if they were willing to pay 102% of the collateral.

Related Web Resources:
Wells Fargo ordered to pay $30 million for fraud, MRNewsQ, June 3, 2010
Continue Reading ›

Citigroup to Pay $1.5 M for Supervisory Violations Related to Broker’s Handling of Trust Funds

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

According to the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Citigroup Global Markets Inc. has consented to pay $1.5 million in disgorgement and fines for failing to properly supervise broker Mark Singer and his handling of trust funds belonging to two cemeteries. By agreeing to settle, Citigroup is not denying or admitting to the charges. Also, the disgorgement amount of $750,000 will be given back to the cemetery trusts as partial restitution.

FINRA says that from September 2004 and October 2006, Singer and his clients Craig Bush and Clayton Smith were engaged in securities fraud. Their scheme involved misappropriating some $60 million from cemetery trust funds. Bush and Smart were the successive owners of the group of cemeteries in Michigan that the funds are believed to have been stolen from. Smart bought the cemeteries from Bush in August 2004 using trust funds that were improperly transferred from the cemeteries to a company that Smart owned.

When Singer went to work for Citigroup as a branch manager in September 2004, he brought Bush’s cemetery trust accounts with him. FINRA says that Singer then helped Smart and Bush open a number of Citigroup accounts in their names and in the names of corporate entities that the two men controlled or owned. The broker also helped them deposit cemetery trust funds into some of the accounts, as well as effect improper transfers to third parties. Some of the fund transfers were disguised as fictitious investments made for the cemeteries.

FINRA says that Citigroup failed to properly supervise Singer when it did not respond to “red flags” and that this lack of action allowed the investment scheme to continue until October 2006. As early as September 2004, Singer’s previous employer warned Citigroup of irregular fund movements involving the Michigan cemetery trusts. Within a few months, Citigroup management also noticed the unusual activity.

Citigroup failed to “conduct an adequate inquiry” even after finding out in February 2005 that Smart may have been making misrepresentations about his acquisition of hedge fund investments that belonged to the Michigan cemetery trusts and had used the hedge funds as collateral for a $24 million credit line. Although the investment bank had received a whistleblower letter in May 2006 accusing Singer of broker misconduct related to his handling of the cemetery trusts, it still failed to restrict Singer’s activities or more strictly supervise him.

Related Web Resources:
Citi Sanctioned $1.5M By Finra In Supervisory Lapse, The Wall Street Journal, May 26, 2010
Stealing from the dead, CNN Money, August 13, 2007 Continue Reading ›

Deutsche Bank Securities & National Financial Services Fined $925,000 for Regulation SHO Short Sale Restrictions & Supervisory Violations

Published on: May 22, 2010 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority says that Deutsche Bank Securities and National Financial Services LLC have consented to be fined $925,000 in total for supervisory violations, as well as Regulation SHO short sale restrictions violations. By agreeing to settle, the broker-dealers are not denying or admitting to the charges.

FINRA claims that the two investment firms used Direct Market Access order sytems to facilitate client execution of short sales and that they violated the Reg SHO “locate” requirement, which the Securities and Exchange Commission adopted in 2004 to discourage “naked” short selling. FINRA says that while the two broker-dealers put into effect DMA trading systems that were supposed to block short sale order executions unless a locate was documented, the two investment banks submitted short sale orders that lacked evidence of these locates.

FINRA says that during the occasional outages in Deutsche Bank’s systems, short sale orders were automatically rejected even though a valid documented locate had been obtained. This is when the the investment bank would disable the automatic block in its system, which allowed client short sales to automatically go through without first confirming that there were associated locates.

As for NFS, FINRA contends that the investment bank set up a separate locate request and approval process for 12 prime clients that preferred to get locates in multiple securities prior to the start of trading day. With this separate system, the requests and approvals for the numerous locates did not have to be submitted through the firm’s stock loan system at approval time. Instead, the clients could enter and execute orders through automated platforms that lacked the capacity to automatically block short sale order executions that didn’t have proper, documented locates.

JP Morgan Chase & Co. Accused of Securities Violations Involving Guaranteed Investment Contracts and Derivatives

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

In a May 10 Securities and Exchange Commission filing, JP Morgan Chase & Co. says that an SEC regional office intends to recommend that the agency file charges against the investment bank for securities violations involving the selling or bidding of derivatives and guaranteed investment contracts (GICs). JP Morgan says the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and a group of state attorneys general are looking into the allegations. The investment bank is cooperating with investigators.

JP Morgan’s Form 10-Q details the bank’s activities during the first quarter of 2010. The investment bank says that Bear Stearns is also under investigation for possible securities and antirust violations involving the sale or bidding of GICs and derivatives. JP Morgan acquired Bear Stearns in 2008.

Guaranteed Investment Contract
GICs are sold by insurance companies. Other names for GIC include stable value fund, capital-preservation fund, fixed-income fund, and guaranteed fund. GICs are considered safe investments with a value that remains stable. They usually pay interest from one to five years and when a GIC term ends, it can be renewed at current interest rates.

Related Web Resources:
US Securities and Exchange Commission

Guaranteed Investment Contracts, Financial Web Continue Reading ›

State of Connecticut Retirement and Trust Funds to Get Back $795,000 Lost in Securities Fraud Carried by Former Connecticut State Senate Fresident

Published on: May 18, 2010 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The Securities and Exchange Commission says that the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut has approved a Fair Fund distribution that will give back $795,000 to the State of Connecticut Retirement and Trust Funds, which suffered financial losses because of an investment scam involving William A. DiBella, the former president of the Connecticut State Senate. The SEC’s 2004 complaint had accused DiBella and his consulting firm North Cove of taking part in an investment scheme with former Treasurer of the State of Connecticut Paul Silvester, who had invested $75 million in state pension funds with private equity firm Thayer Capital Partners.

The SEC claims that Silvester arranged for DiBella to receive a percentage of the investment from Thayer. Silvester is also accused of increasing the pension fund’s investment with Thayer by at least $25 million so that DiBella could receive a larger fee. In total, Thayer paid $374,500 to DiBella through North Cove.

A jury found DiBella liable for abetting and aiding in the securities fraud, and the trial court ordered him to pay $374,500 in disgorgement, $307,127 in prejudgment interest, and $110,000 in penalties. The SEC had to instigate contempt proceedings with the federal court because of DiBella’s continued nonpayment. He finally completed payment of over $795,000 in March 2010, and the SEC fair fund was then set up.

Private Equity Firm Onyx Capital Advisors LLC Charged with Securities Fraud by SEC

Published on: May 13, 2010 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The SEC has filed securities fraud charges against the private equity firm, Onyx Capital Advisors LLC, its founder Roy Dixon Jr., and his friend Michael Farr. The agency is accusing the defendants of stealing over $3 million from three area public pension funds.

According to the SEC, Onyx Capital Advisors and Dixon raised $23.8 million from the pension funds for a start-up private equity fund that was to invest in private companies. Dixon and Farr, who controlled three of the companies that the Onyx fund had invested in, then illegally took out money that the pension funds had invested and used the cash to cover their own expenses.

While Onyx Capital and Dixon allegedly took more than $2.06 million under the guise of management fees, Farr allegedly helped divert approximately $1.05 million through the companies under his control. He is also accused of diverting part of the over $15 million that Onyx capital invested in SCM Credit LLC, Second Chance Motors, and SCM Finance LLC to 1097 Sea Jay LLC, which is another company that he controls. Farr then allegedly took money from Sea Jay, gave most of it to Dixon, and kept some for himself.

The SEC is accusing Onyx Capital and Dixon of making misleading and false statements to pension fund clients about the private equity fund and the investments they were making. The agency claims that the private equity firm and its founder violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Rule 10b-5 thereunder, Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, and Sections 206(1), 206(2) and 206(4) of the Investment Advisers Act, and Rule 206(4)-8 thereunder. The SEC claims that Farr aided and abetted in the other two defendants’ violations of Sections 206(1) and 206(2) of the Investment Advisers Act.

Related Web Resources:
SEC charges private equity firm and money manager for defrauding Detroit-area public pension funds, SEC, April 23, 2010
Read the SEC Complaint, SEC (PDF)
Continue Reading ›

Supreme Court Nominee Elana Kagan Took Investors Side on Two Significant Securities Cases

Published on: May 12, 2010 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The Wall Street Journal reports that as Solicitor General of the United States, US Supreme Court nominee Elana Kagan has sided with investor interests in two high profile lawsuits. In one securities fraud complaint that looked at when shareholders can sue mutual–fund mangers that had allegedly charged fees that were excessive, her office submitted a legal brief supporting investors. Kagan contended that a lower-court ruling make sure that there was enough of a check on potentially exorbitant fees. In another securities case, the Solicitor General’s office argued that Merck & Co. Inc. shareholders did not wait too long to file lawsuits accusing the pharmaceutical company of misrepresenting the safety of VIoxx. This spring, the US Supreme Court unanimously agreed with Kagan’s position in both cases.

However, The solicitor general’s office is siding with the business side in another investor lawsuit that awaiting resolution by the Supreme Court. She is contending that foreign investors shouldn’t be able to file a US securities lawsuit against National Australia Bank Ltd, which is a foreign company.

The Wall Street Journal says that by choosing Kagan as the latest Supreme Court nominee, the Obama administration is taking “a friendlier approach” when it comes to investor cases.

Related Web Resources:
Kagan Sided With Investors in Two Notable Securities Cases, The Wall Street Journal, May 10, 2010
Does Elena Kagan Support Shareholder Rights?, The Big Money, May 11, 2010
A Climb Marked by Confidence and Canniness, NY TImes, May 10, 2010
Office of the Solicitor General
Continue Reading ›

$1 Billion Goldman Sachs Synthetic CDO Debacle a Reminder that Even Highly Sophisticated Investors Can Be Defrauded

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

Although the Senate hearing over Goldman Sachs, & Co.’s role in structuring a collateralized loan obligation that caused investors to lose about $1 billion in losses has ended, the case against the investment bank is far from over. The SEC’s securities fraud lawsuit filed earlier this month makes numerous disturbing allegations against Goldman Sachs, and now lawmakers are calling on the Justice Department to begin a criminal probe into the CDO transaction that is a focus of the SEC case.

The SEC says Goldman Sachs and one of its vice presidents defrauded investors by structuring and marketing a synthetic collateralized debt obligation that was dependent on the performance of subprime residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS), while at the same time failing to tell investors about certain key information, such as the role that a major hedge fund played in portfolio selection or that the hedge fund had taken a short position against the CDO.

The hedge fund, Paulson & Co, is one of the largest in the world. The SEC says that Paulson & Co. paid Goldman to allow it to set up a transaction that let it take these short positions. The SEC contends that Goldman acted wrongfully when it let a client that was betting against the mortgage market heavily influence which securities should be part of an investment portfolio, while at the same time telling other investors that ACA Management LLCS (ACA), an objective, independent third party was choosing the securities. Investors, therefore, did not know about Paulson & Co’s role in choosing the RMBS or that the hedge fund would benefit if the RMBS defaulted.

SEC alleges that Paulson & Co. shorted the RMBS portfolio it helped choose by taking part in credit default swaps (CDS) with Goldman Sachs to purchase protection on specific layers of the ABACUS capital structure. Because of its financial short interest, Paulson & Co had reason to choose RMBS that it thought would undergo credit events in the near future. In the term sheet offering memorandum, flip book, or marketing materials that it gave investors, Goldman did not reveal Paulson & Co’s short position or the part the hedge fund played in the collateral selection process.

The SEC is also accusing Goldman Sachs Vice President Fabrice Tourre of being principally responsible for ABACUS. He structured the transaction, prepared the marketing materials, and dealt directly with investors. The SEC claims that Tourre knew about Paulson & Co’s role and misled ACA into thinking that the hedge fund invested about $200 million in the equity of ABACUS, while indicating that Paulson & Co’s interests in the collateralized selection process were closely in line with ACA’s interests.

Six months after the deal closed on April 26, 2007 and Paulson & Co had paid Goldman Sachs about $15 million for structuring and marketing Abacus, 83% of the RMBS in the ABACUS portfolio was downgraded and 17% was on negative watch. By Jan 29, 2008, 99% of the portfolio had been downgraded.

“Synthetic derivative investments are so highly complex that even highly sophisticated investors can be defrauded,” says Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas LTD LLP Founder and Stockbroker Fraud Attorney William Shepherd. ” Any other investor being sold these is simply “fair game” for Wall Street. Our securities fraud law firm represents five school districts that lost over $200 million in what they were told were very low-risk investments into bonds. Not only were these not “bonds” but the risk to them was enormous.”

Goldman CEO says has board’s support: report, Reuters, April 27, 2010
Blankfein Says He Was ‘Humbled’ By Senate Hearing, NPR, April 29, 2010
What’s Next for Goldman Sachs?, New York Times, April 29, 2010
SEC Charges Goldman Sachs With Fraud in Structuring and Marketing of CDO Tied to Subprime Mortgages, SEC.gov, April 16, 2010
Read the SEC Complaint (PDF)
Continue Reading ›

Former Delphi Executive’s Motion for Summary Judgment in SEC Securities Fraud Case is Denied

Published on: April 14, 2010 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

A district court judge has denied James Blahnik’s motion for summary judgment in the United States Securities and Exchange Commission’s securities fraud cause against Delphi Corporation, a number of its senior officers, other employees, and an individual who worked for a third party.

The SEC had accused the defendants of misstating its operating results and financial condition in its offering documents and SEC filings. A number of the defendants have already settled with the SEC, leaving Blahnik, Paul Free, Paul Free, Catherine Rozanski, and Milan Belans to request summary judgment.

During a February 3 hearing, Blahnik’s lawyer said his client, who formerly served as a Delphi Treasurer before being promoted to Vice President of Treasury, Mergers and Acquisitions, intended to depend on the argument that he could not be held primarily liable for violating § 10(b) of the Securities and Exchange Act or Rule 10b-5 because he did not directly issue false statements to the investing public. The Court told Blahnik to make his case in a letter. Yet even after letters were exchanged Blahnik and the SEC, his motion for summary judgment was denied.

The SEC has accused the former Delphi executive of being involved in the following schemes: European Factoring, the PGM Transaction with Bank One, and the Cores and Batteries Transaction with BBK. The SEC contends that a number of Blahnik’s activities resulted in false statements made in the company’s 2001 and 2003 offering documents, 2000 Form 10-K, 2002-2004 Forms 8-K, and the incorporation of the 2000 Form 10K.

The Court noted that Blahnik, in his letters, failed to persuade that he can’t be held primarily liable under the law for the theory put forth by the SEC. The matter must therefore be resolved during trial.

Linsco Private Ledger Clients File FINRA Arbitration Claims Accusing Former Financial Adviser Raymond Londo of Running Multi-Million Dollar Ponzi Scam

Published on: April 13, 2010 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

A number of FINRA arbitration claims have been filed accusing former Linsco Private Ledger (LPL) financial advisor Raymond Londo of running a multi-million dollar Ponzi scheme to defraud investors. The claims allege fraud, conversion, misrepresentation and omissions, and negligence. LPL is accused of failing to supervise, discover, and stop the investment fraud scheme within a reasonable amount of time even though there were numerous signs, such as red flags and customer complaints, to indicate that Londo should have been more closely supervised or even fired.

Per the FINRA statement of claim, for nearly 10 years Londo accepted funds from LPL clients. He told them that he was investing their money in an LPL account where he could help them avail of exclusive investment opportunities. The former LPL financial adviser would then take the money he was supposed to invest and used it to support his lavish lifestyle and gambling addiction.

Linsco finally fired Londo in March 2008, but by then funds belonging to 95% of the victims had been stolen. Londo’s victims, located in different parts of the US, included his own neighbours, family members, and fellow country club members.

Soon after the Ponzi scam was discovered, Londo died.

LPL is one of the largest brokerage firms in the US. The alleged Ponzi scam surrounding Londo is not the first time the broker-dealer has been linked to securities fraud allegedly committed by one of its employees. In 2002, FINRA awarded more than $500,000 to an investor who claimed investment losses because LPL did not properly supervise one of its independent brokers.

In 2008, LPL Financial and Michael McClellan, one of its ex-brokers, lost a $1.8 million arbitration claim accusing them of securities fraud, violation of securities laws, unauthorized tradings, breach of fiduciary duties, and other violations.