Securities Fraud

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.

Morgan Keegan & Co., Inc., Morgan Asset Management, and Two Employees Face Subprime Mortgage Securities Fraud Charges by SEC

Published on: April 8, 2010 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The Securities and Exchange Commission has filed claims against Morgan Keegan & Co, Morgan Asset Management and employees James C. Kelsoe, Jr. and Joseph Thomas Weller for securities fraud that allegedly involved inflating the value of subprime mortgage-backed securities.

According to investors and a number of state regulators, RMK Funds (RMK Advantage Income Fund, RMK High Income Fund, RMK Multi-Sector High Income Fund, RMK Select High Income Fund, RMK Strategic Income Fund, and the RMK Select Intermediate Fund) were marketed and recommended as funds that would provide a consistent income level while the actual risks involved were misrepresented and the funds’ net asset value pricing was manipulated.

The SEC’s enforcement division is accusing Morgan Keegan of failing to put into place reasonable procedures to internally price the portfolio securities in five funds, and as a result, being unable to accurately calculate the funds’ “net asset values.” These inaccurate daily NAVs were published while investors bought shares at inflated prices.

The enforcement division is also accusing fund portfolio manager Kelsoe of acting arbitrarily when he told Morgan Keegan’s Fund Accounting department to adjust prices in a manner that would make certain portfolio securities’ fair value go up. He had his assistant send about 262 “price adjustments” to Fund Accounting between at least January and July 2007.

On numerous occasions, adjustments were arbitrary, disregarded lower values that other dealers had quoted for the same securities, and neglected to reflect fair value. They were entered into a spreadsheet to determine the funds’ NAVs-even though there were no supporting documents. Kelsoe also is accused of regularly telling Fund Accounting to disregard broker-dealers’ month-end quotes that should have been used to validate the prices Morgan Keegan had assigned to the securities in the funds, as well as manipulated pricing quotes he received from at least one broker-dealer.

The Division of Enforcement is accusing Weller, a CPA who belonged to the Valuation Committee and served as the Fund Accounting Department head, of failing to fix the deficiencies in the valuation procedures, as well as not ensuring that fair-valued securities were accurately priced or that NAVs were correctly calculated.

Related Web Resources:
SEC Charges Morgan Keegan and Two Employees With Fraud Related to Subprime Mortgages, SEC.gov, April 7, 2010
SEC Order (PDF)

Morgan Keegan, 2 Employees Face SEC Fraud Charges, The Wall Street Journal, April 7, 2010 Continue Reading ›

Senate Bill 1551 Allows Securities Fraud Lawsuits Against Those Accused of Aiding and Abetting Primary Violators

Published on: March 23, 2010 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Our stockbroker fraud law firm is hoping that Senate Bill 1551, introduced last July by Senator Arlen Specter, will resurface in the upcoming regulatory reform bill. If passed into law, the “Liability for Aiding and Abetting Securities Violations Act of 2009” would allow secondary actors that aided and abetted the primary violators of securities laws to also be sued for securities fraud.

The bill is trying to overturn the US Supreme Court rulings Stoneridge Investment Partners v. Scientific-Atlanta and Central Bank of Denver v. First Interstate Bank. Both decisions held that a private plaintiff cannot file a securities fraud claim against secondary actors. Under current law, only the US Congress has the sole authority to bring such claims with the US Securities and Exchange Commission.

With Senate Bill 1551, the Securities Exchange Act of 1934’s Section 20 would be amended so that anyone that recklessly or knowingly gave substantial help to a party that violated securities law could be held liable through a civil lawsuit to the same extent as the primary actor. Accountants, securities analysts, investment banks, law firms, credit rating agencies, and private companies are some of the possible secondary actors that could be sued as securities fraud defendants.

Related Web Resources:
Liability for Aiding and Abetting Securities Violations Act of 2009, Govtrack.us
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (PDF)

Stoneridge Investment Partners v. Scientific-Atlanta, Oyez.org
Central Bank of Denver v. First Interstate Bank
Continue Reading ›

LC Wegard Clients that Purchased Relevant Securities May Be Entitled to Distribution from Litigation Estate

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

If you are a LC Wegard & Co, Inc. customer who bought any of the securities listed below from the firm between October 1, 1991 and September 30, 1994, you may be entitled to distribution from the Litigation Estate.

Relevant Securities (includes Common Stock, Zero Coupon Subordinated Debentures, Warrants, Subordinated Pay in Kind Debentures, Subordinated Convertible Debentures):

• Chefs International Inc.
• AGP & Co.
• Diamond Entertainment Corp.
• Consolidated Technology Group, Ltd.
• Futurebiotics, Inc.
• Great American Recreation, Inc.
• Gates/FA Distributing Inc.
• Gentner Communications Corp.
• Immunotherapies Corp.
• Linkon Corp.
• Lafayette Industries Inc.
• Metalclad Corp.
• Primedex Health Systems Inc.
• Nacoma Cosolidated Industries, Inc.
• Officeland Inc.
• Non-Invasive Monitoring Systems Inc.
• PDK Lambs, Inc.
• Process Equipment, Inc.
• US Transportation Systems, Inc.
• Sanyo Industries, Inc.
• Site Holdings, Inc.

All LC Wegard clients that bought any of these securities during the Relevant Period have to submit the original, signed proof of claim and any supporting or accompanying documents to:

Claims Administration C/O Donald F. Conway Receiver PO Box 8329 Princeton, New Jersey 08543-8329
Deadline: The Claims administration must receive your claim by 5pm EST on May 4, 2010. Failure to meet this deadline will result in a perpetual bar from receiving any distribution.

Our stockbroker fraud attorneys represent investment fraud victims throughout the US.

Related Web Resource:
Proof of Claim Form (PDF)
Continue Reading ›

Citigroup Ordered to Defend Against Securities Fraud Allegations by Terra Securities of Norway and Several Norwegian Municipalities

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

A district court judge has denied Citigroup‘s motion that the securities fraud lawsuit filed against it by Terra Securities of Norway and seven Norwegian municipalities be dismissed. The plaintiffs claim that Citi misrepresented the risk involved in the $115 million in securities they bought in May and June 2007. They are seeking over $200 million in compensatory damages.

Judge Victor Morrero rejected Citibank’s claim that the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York lacked jurisdiction over the case because the financial losses happened in Norway. The plaintiffs had argued that their securities fraud claims are a result of Citigroup’s conduct in New York.

In their securities fraud complaint, the plaintiffs are claiming that Citigroup sold fund-linked securities as if they were conservative, safe investments. In fact, the notes, which were tied to the Citi Tender Option Bond Fund, are very high risk.
The municipalities bought the derivatives through Terra.

In the months following their purchase, the notes would go on to significantly drop in value. Terra went bankrupt and the municipalities had to reduce funding that was intended for hospitals, libraries, schools, and social services. One of the plaintiffs, the municipality of Narvik, was forced to turn off street and road lights at night. This is an area experiences limited daylight hours during the winter. The other municipalities that are plaintiffs of this securities fraud lawsuit are Bremanger, Hemnes, Hattfjelldal, Rana, Kvinesdal, and Vik.

The plaintiffs’ securities fraud lawyer says that the judge’s ruling affirms foreign plaintiffs’ right to sue Citigroup for alleged fraud that occurred in NY over notes that were marketed abroad. Citigroup, which had pushed to have the case heard in Norway or England, denies any wrongdoing. The investment bank says it will vigorously defend against the charges.

Related Web Resources:
Citigroup Must Defend Norwegians’ Lawsuit Over Notes, BusinessWeek, February 17, 2010

Citigroup Must Defend Suit Over Derivatives Sales In Norway, Wall Street Journal, February 17, 2010 Continue Reading ›

Morgan Keegan Ordered by FINRA Panel to Pay Investor $2.5 Million for Bond Fund Losses

Published on: February 23, 2010 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

A Financial Industry Regulatory Authority panel has ordered Morgan Keegan & Co. to pay investor Andrew Stein $2.5 million because the bond funds that he invested in had bet poorly on mortgage-related holdings. Panel members found Morgan Keegan liable for failure to supervise, negligence, and for selling investments that were unsuitable for Stein and his companies. The claimants, who sustained financial losses, had initially sought $12 million.

Stein’s arbitration claim is just one of over 400 securities claims that have been filed against Morgan Keegan over its bond funds that had invested in subprime-related securities, such as CDO’s (collateralized debt obligations). When the US housing market collapsed, the funds went down in value by up to 82%.

Stein contends that Morgan Keegan did not reveal the kinds of risks involved in investing in the bond funds. He and his companies claim that Morgan Keegan artificially increased the fund assets’ value so that the funds would appear more stable and investors wouldn’t be able to see the actual risks involved.