Securities Fraud

“High Yield” Investment Scam Costing Investors Over $50 Million Results in Conviction of Four

Published on: June 11, 2007 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

A federal jury in Denver found four participants guilty of securities fraud and other charges in connection with a “high-yield investment scheme” in which hundreds of investors lost $56 million.

Norman Schmidt, of Denver was found guilty of conspiracy to commit securities fraud, mail fraud, and wire fraud in addition to money laundering. Charles Lewis, of Littleton, Colo., was found guilty of conspiracy, mail fraud, wire fraud, securities fraud and money laundering. George Alan Weed, of Benton, Ill., was convicted of mail fraud, wire fraud, and securities fraud, and Michael Duane Smith, of Colbert, Wash., was convicted securities fraud. Schmidt is seeking appeal.

Two others have pleaded guilty in the scheme: Janice McClain Schmidt, of Denver, sentenced to nine years in prison, and George Beros of Shaker Heights, Ohio, who awaits sentencing. One other alleged participant in the fraud, Peter A. W. Moss, was indicted but is apparently in the United Kingdom. The U.S. Attorney’s Office is attempting to extradite him.

California Can Not Require Higher Standards for NASD Arbitration

Published on: June 11, 2007 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The California Supreme Court and a U.S. Court of Appeals have both determined that securities arbitration standards do not violate the California Constitution. The courts have instead decided that The Federal Arbitration Act preempts (is superior to) California’s ability to govern securities arbitration.

Rapidly growing arbitration is forcing consumers to, often unknowingly, forego their right to go to court. To protect its citizens from injustices in arbitration the California legislature passed legislation in 2001 ordering the California court system to create ethical standards for commercial arbitrators. Comprehensive standards were then created regarding arbitrators, including disclosure and conflict-of-interest checks.

The NASD’s Arbitration Code is not consistent with these new standards and the NASD refused to make adjustments to comply with the California requirements. It instead sued members of the California court system in federal court seeking a ruling that California could not set standards regarding securities arbitration. In November 2002, the US Court dismissed the lawsuit holding the US Constitution barred the suit in federal court.

Former Wood River Partners LP Hedge Fund Manager Pleads Guilty to $88 Million Securities Fraud Scheme

Published on: June 8, 2007 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

John H. Whittier, a former hedge fund manager and the founder of Wood River Partners LP and its offshore company in the Cayman Island, has pled guilty to carrying out a securities fraud scheme that cost investors $88 million. Whittier had been charged with four counts of securities fraud for his part in the scheme that mislead investors into thinking that he was keeping risks minimal while pursuing a broad and diverse investment strategy when in fact, he was doing the opposite.

He knowingly failed to make the mandatory public filings that would have revealed his concentrated holdings with one stock. In addition, after acquiring 80% of Endwave Corp’s common stock, he hid any interest earned by not making beneficial-ownership disclosures to the SEC. He also placed 80% of his U.S. hedge fund’s $127 million portfolio in Endwave, instead of placing the money in different investments as he had promised investors. He had vowed that only 10% of the fund’s money would be invested in an one stock.

Aside from owning the hedge funds in the U.S. and abroad, Whittier also owned and controlled a capital management company, which served as the investment adviser to the funds.

Survey Shows 43% of Investors Can Easily be Scammed

Published on: May 30, 2007 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

A large percentage of U.S. investors could be convinced to invest into a “guaranteed return” investment scam, according to a poll by “Money-Track,” a public-television series, and Investor Protection Trust, an investor education group.

The poll surveyed investors regarding eight basic investment principles, such as the definition of diversification and inquiring into to the background of financial professionals. When presented with questions to determine their fraud tolerance only 1% of the 1255 persons surveyed responded correctly on all eight principles.

Given investment swindle scenarios, such as the opportunity to invest into an options-trading system which guaranteed returns of at least 100%, 43% of investors responded indicating they would take the bait.

Disputes With Former Brokerage Firms and Brokers Must be Arbitrated

Published on: May 30, 2007 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

In two related decisions the a New York U.S. Bankruptcy Court determined that a failed broker-dealer must arbitrate (under the NASD Code of Arbitration) its differences with a former registered representative and the firm that hired him — even though the defunct firm is no longer is an NASD member — and that an arbitration agreement is even enforced when the party seeking recovery is in bankruptcy.

According court records, in 2000, M. Carleton Boothe went to work for NASD member firm Continental Broker-Dealer Corp. and received $300,000 he was to repay if he left the firm within five years other than through death or disability. Boothe resigned in 2004 and joined Gunnallen Financial Inc. Continental soon closed and was expelled from the securities industry.

After Continental was then thrown into bankruptcy, the bankruptcy court trustee for Continental sought to recover the unpaid balance of the note from Boothe and to obtain damages from Gunnallen Financial for claims including “raiding” its brokers and stealing its clients. Boothe and Gunnallen then sought to enforce certain arbitration agreements to move these actions from bankruptcy court to NASD arbitration. The bankrultcy court agreed.

Citigroup, Merrill Lynch and Lehman Ex-Brokers Face Retrial in Eavesdropping Case

Published on: May 27, 2007 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Three former brokers of Citigroup, Merrill Lynch and Lehman Brothers face a second trial on charges they conspired to commit fraud by allowing day traders to eavesdrop on orders being discussed on investment firms’ internal “squawk boxes.” Four current and former executives at the day trading firm A. B. Watley Group will also be retried for their alleged roles in the scheme.

After a seven-week trail seven defendants including these former brokers were acquitted of securities fraud and other charges, but the jury deadlocked on the conspiracy charges opening the door to a retrial.

Prosecutors assert the brokers conspired to give Watley traders access to large orders broadcast over intercoms, or “squawk boxes”, in exchange for cash and commissions. The traders bought or sold stock ahead of the orders in anticipation of share-price swings, prosecutors say.

All Sides Want SEC Support In Case Involving Liability Of Second Parties

Published on: April 25, 2007 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

William S. Lerach, a prominent plaintiffs’ attorney, met with SEC staff members last week to try to convince the agency to support investor lawsuits filed against banks accused of helping corporate executives engage in fraud.

Recently, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear a case that will look at the liability of secondary parties, including lawyers, bankers, and accountants, who did not say anything even though they knew that corporate officials were misleading shareholders. The case involves Charter Communications, a cable television provider, and is said to be the most important securities law case to reach the Supreme Court in twenty years. The decision could have major consequences and will affect investors’ ability to recover losses from companies that have engaged in fraud.

Trade groups that want to limit banks’ liability and consumer advocates that want to expand it are working to garner support for their sides. Both sides are also courting federal and state regulators.

Goldman Sachs Affiliate Agrees To Pay $2 Million in Fines and Penalties Over Short-Sale Scheme Charges by NYSER and the SEC

Published on: March 27, 2007 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

NYSE Regulation Inc. and the Securities and Exchange Commission say that a clearing affiliate and prime broker of Goldman Sachs Group will pay $2 million in fines and penalties over its alleged role in an illegal short-sale trading scheme that was executed by Goldman Sachs customers through their accounts with the brokerage. Goldman Sachs Execution and Clearing, LP has not admitted to or denied any wrongdoing by agreeing to the censure. They are, however, agreeing to cease and desist from future violations.

The SEC charges that firm customers unlawfully sold securities short right before public offerings of the companies’ securities. It is accusing Goldman of violating the rules that mandate that brokers must mark sales short or long, while restricting stock loans on long sales. Both NYSER and SEC say that if Goldman had proper procedures in place, it would have discovered via its own records this illegal activity by its customers. Two Goldman customers have already settled SEC charges connected to their alleged participation in these activities.

SEC Chairman Christopher Cox told the U.S. Chamber of Commerce on the day of this announcement that the commission and its senior staff members are very concerned about abusive naked short-selling. He admitted that Regulation SHO had not properly addressed these issues and that the commission will now eliminate the regulation’s grandfather provision. Cox said that naked short-selling was connected to settlement and clearance systems and that the SEC would use technology to further deal with this issue. He said the action against Goldman was important.

In $1 Billion Viatical Scheme Connected To Mutual Benefits Corp., A Doctor From South Florida Pleads Guilty

Published on: January 11, 2007 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Clark Mitchell, a South Florida physician, has pleaded guilty to two criminal counts related to a $1 billion viatical sales scheme connected to death benefits company Mutual Benefits Corp. The company has been shut down by state and federal authorities.

In a plea agreement announced at the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Mitchell pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit health care fraud and one count of securities fraud.

The South Florida physician faces a 10-year prison sentence-to be determined in March. He is being ordered to pay a fine of more than $5 million. Also as part of the plea agreement, Mitchell will be responsible for some $367 million in restitution to Mutual Benefits Corp. investors, as well as over $500,000 in health care fraud restitution.

Hampton Porter Investment Bankers’s Stockbrokers, Convicted For Securities Fraud In Pump-And-Dump Scheme, To Be Sentenced This Year

Published on: January 9, 2007 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

In California, four stockbrokers who were convicted for securities fraud and conspiracy because of their roles in a “pump-and-dump” scheme that cost investors over $5 million will be sentenced this year.

According to the U.S. Attorney’s Office, the four men worked for Hampton Porter Investment Bankers LLC, a San Diego-based company that failed to disclose the company’s financial interests in certain stocks when it sold these particular stocks to clients.

Hampton Porter allegedly held sales meetings where co-owner John Laurienti and former Hampton Porter retail manager James Green pressured brokers to sell “house stocks.” Brokers who sold these stocks were paid “special incentive” compensation that customers didn’t know about. Hampton Porter also had a “no net-sales” policy that prevented customers from selling their house stocks’ shares because brokers delayed or failed to make sell orders. Brokers from Hampton Porter also engaged in cross-trading, which consists of selling one client’s shares to another client.