Investor Lawyers Blog

Securities Cases: Minnesota Adviser Goes to Prison Over Ponzi Scam, Ex-Morgan Stanley Broker Accused of soliciting $2.7 M from Elderly Investors After He is Barred from the Securities Industry, and 808 Renewable Energy Faces Fraud Charges

Published on: November 25, 2016 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Minnesota-Based Investment Adviser Gets Six-Year Jail Term
According to the Minnesota Department of Commerce, Levi David Lindemann was ordered to serve a 74-month prison sentence—that’s six years—for bilking clients in a Ponzi scam. Lindemann owned Gershwin Financial, which did business using the name Alternative Wealth Solutions. He pleaded guilty to money laundering and federal mail fraud charges.

Minnesota Commerce Commissioner Mike Rothman said that Lindemann abused his position as a financial adviser when he defrauded clients, including older investors. He did this by promising to invest their funds in safe investments but instead used their money to make Ponzi-type payments to clients and pay for his own expenses.

Lindemann’s guilty plea states that he solicited money from about 50 investors. He attempted to hide the securities fraud by generating fake secured notes as supposed evidence of the clients’ investments. The SEC permanently barred him from the securities industry earlier this year.

SEC Accuses Barred Broker of Selling Securities to Older Investors
According to the SEC, ex-Morgan Stanley (MS) broker Rafael Calleja solicited $2.7M from 10 retiree and elderly investors after he had already been barred from the securities industry. The regulator claims that Calleja told investors their principal was insured and they would get a fixed return rate in a year. Meantime, he allegedly used at least $12K of their funds to pay for cruises, golf outings, and other personal expenses. He also purportedly failed to tell investors that his broker license had been revoked.

Mortgage-Backed Securities News: Former Standard & Poor Executive On Trial in SEC Case Over Mortgage Bond Ratings & Royal Bank of Scotland and Nomura Try to Overturn $839M MBS Fraud Ruling

Published on: November 25, 2016 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Barbara Duka, the ex-head of Standard & Poor’s commercial mortgage-backed securities, is on trial before a Securities and Exchange Commission administrative law judge. Duka is accused of inflating the ratings of commercial mortgage-backed securities and not telling investors that she and her team had changed the way they formulated ratings for the securities in 2011.

The SEC contends that Duka implemented the change after the credit rating agency lost market shares for rating commercial-backed securities using “more conservative criteria” in the wake of the 2008 economic collapse. The regulator believes that Duka began to rate the securities in a way that favored the issuers so S & P could bring in more business.

Meantime, investors continued to believe that the ratings were conservatively-based. Now, the Commission wants to bar Duka from associating with ratings organizations. It also wants her to pay financial penalties.

The SEC brought its case against Duka last year around the time that the Commission and two state attorneys general announced that they had reached a $77M settlement with S &P. The regulator’s case was brought after Citigroup Inc.(C) and Goldman Sachs Group(GS) had to withdraw a $1.5B commercial mortgage-backed securities offering because S & P told them about an internal review of the securities ratings. Duka, meantime, sued the SEC, questioning whether it had the right to pursue cases in-house before its own judge instead of in court. Although a district court judge ruled that the SEC could not move forward with its case against Duka, a federal appeals court decided otherwise.

Ally Financial Will Pay $52M To Settle RMBS Fraud Allegations Involving Subsidiary ResCap

Published on: November 23, 2016 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

According to the U.S. Department of Justice, Ally Financial (ALLY) will pay $52M to resolve allegations accusing its subsidiary Residential Capital (ResCap) of purposely marketing mortgage bonds even though it knew that the mortgages backing the bonds were toxic. At issue are Residential Capital LLC mortgage-backed securities.

10 subprime residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS) were issued in ’06 and ’07 with Ally Financial’s brokerage firm, Ally Securities, previously known as Residential Funding Securities, in the role of lead underwriter. The government contends that even though Ally Securities purportedly noticed that mortgage loan pools in RASC-EMX securities were deteriorating because of deficiencies in both the underwriting guidelines for the subprime mortgage loans and the diligence employed to the collateral before securitization, the firm took great pains to set up the RASC-EMX brand, secure investors for the RMBS offerings, and direct third-part due diligence to test if the loans were in compliance with disclosures made in public offering documents to investors.

The U.S. Attorney’s Office claims that the firm continued to market the securities to investors even though it knew that the toxic subprime mortgages were likely to become delinquent. The government is alleging that Ally Financial made misstatements about the RMBSs.

Securities Fraud Cases: VFG Securities Settles With FINRA Over Nontraded REIT Sales, Massachusetts Seeks To Ban Trader and His Software Company, and Utah Man Who Bilked Over 5,700 in $25M Fraud Gets Prison Sentence

Published on: November 22, 2016 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Broker-Dealer Owner and His Firm Settle SEC Case Alleging Overconcentration of Investor Money In Illiquid Investments

Jason Vanclef and his brokerage firm VFG Securities Inc. have settled the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority’s case accusing them of not adequately supervising their brokers so that clients’ portfolios did not end up concentrated in illiquid investments. Vanclef and VFG Securities, however, are not denying or admitting to the claims made in the complaint.

According to FINRA, from 11/2010 to 6/2012, nearly 95% of the broker-dealer’s revenue came from direct participation programs (DPP) and nontraded real estate investment trusts (nontraded REIT) sales. The illiquid investments were sold retail customers.

FINRA claimed that Vanclef had used “The Wealth Code,” which was the book that he authored, as a sales tool to promote investing in DPPs and nontraded REITs and to attract potential investors. The settlement with the regulator notes that in the book Vanclef repeatedly touted both types of illiquid investments as offering capital preservation and better returns—claims that FINRA said are “inaccurate and misleading” and conflict with information that the firm offered in prospectuses for the nontraded REITs and DPPs.

Tutor Perini’s $50M Auction-Rate Securities Lawsuit Against Bank of America is Revived

Published on: November 22, 2016 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston has resuscitated Tutor Perini Corp.’s (TPC) securities fraud lawsuit against Bank of America (BAC). Circuit Judge Ojetta Rogeriee Thompson said that a district court judge made a mistake when tossing the Massachusetts and federal securities claims accusing the bank of selling the construction company millions of dollars in auction-rate securities that it knew were about to fail.

Tutor Perini, which is estimating over $50M plus interest in losses, claims that Bank of America persuaded it to purchase auction-rate securities (ARS) prior to the financial crisis, toward the end of 2007 and the beginning of 2008, even though it knew that the securities were on the brink of becoming illiquid. It was in February 2008 that the dealer stopped supporting the $330B ARS market, leaving investors with debt that was illiquid—debt that they had been reassured time and again was liquid, like cash. Instead, investors were unable to access their funds.

In 2015, the district court judge dismissed Tutor Perini’s ARS fraud case, noting that Bank of America did not have the “duty” to reveal every fact about the risks involved to the construction company and that the bank had, in fact, already made a number of disclosures. Judge Thompson, however, said that because the auction-rate securities market was failing, this might have meant that Bank of America now had the duty to warn about the new risks, including those involving its earlier recommendations. Thompson noted that a jury could very well find that as the bank had sought to protect itself from the ARS market, it pushed the construction company toward greater exposure.

Edward Jones is Sued Over 401(K) Excessive Fees—Again

Published on: November 21, 2016 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Another group of plaintiffs is suing Edward Jones, accusing the firm of charging excessive fees and self-dealing in its 401(K) Plan. In the complaint, the brokerage firm and a number of its employees, including managing partner James Weddle and financial adviser Brett Bayston, are accused of breach of fiduciary duty related to their decision to choose costlier mutual funds when there were less expensive, equivalent funds available. Edwards Jones and its employees are also accused of choosing an “unreasonable” amount of risky investment choices and engaging in self-dealing.

The purported self-dealing allegedly occurred through its distribution deals with a number of fund companies, including Franklin Templeton Investments, American Funds, BlackRock (BLK), and Goldman Sachs (GS). The plaintiffs claim that the fund companies paid Edward Jones revenue-sharing fees for access to its “captive market,” which included 401(K) participants, and “shelf space” in its brokerage business that targeted retail investors. As part of the distribution relationship, Edward Jones offered the fund companies’ investment options in its Edward D. Jones & Co. Profit Sharing and 401(K) Plan.

The plaintiffs believe that these distribution relationships affected the decisions made by the fiduciaries and ended up costing participants millions of dollars in excessive fees. An Edward Jones spokesperson says that the allegations are false and that the broker-dealer would mount a “vigorous defense.”

Edward Jones is Sued Over 401(K) Excessive Fees—Again

Published on: November 21, 2016 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Another group of plaintiffs is suing Edward Jones, accusing the firm of charging excessive fees and self-dealing in its 401(K) Plan. In the complaint, the brokerage firm and a number of its employees, including managing partner James Weddle and financial adviser Brett Bayston, are accused of breach of fiduciary duty related to their decision to choose costlier mutual funds when there were less expensive, equivalent funds available. Edwards Jones and its employees are also accused of choosing an “unreasonable” amount of risky investment choices and engaging in self-dealing.

The purported self-dealing allegedly occurred through its distribution deals with a number of fund companies, including Franklin Templeton Investments, American Funds, BlackRock (BLK), and Goldman Sachs (GS). The plaintiffs claim that the fund companies paid Edward Jones revenue-sharing fees for access to its “captive market,” which included 401(K) participants, and “shelf space” in its brokerage business that targeted retail investors. As part of the distribution relationship, Edward Jones offered the fund companies’ investment options in its Edward D. Jones & Co. Profit Sharing and 401(K) Plan.

The plaintiffs believe that these distribution relationships affected the decisions made by the fiduciaries and ended up costing participants millions of dollars in excessive fees. An Edward Jones spokesperson says that the allegations are false and that the broker-dealer would mount a “vigorous defense.”

FINRA Orders Oppenheimer to Pay $3.4M Penalty For Alleged Reporting Failures and Not Giving Discounts to Mutual Fund Clients

Published on: November 21, 2016 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority says that Oppenheimer & Co. (OPY) must pay $3.4M in sanctions. According to the regulator, for eight years the firm was about four years late when submitting 365 filings about disciplinary actions that it brought against its brokers and in arbitration and litigation settlements. FINRA is also accusing Oppenheimer of not giving seven claimants the documentation they needed in their arbitration against Mark Hotton, an ex-registered representative, and of overcharging 825 customers more than $1M collectively for mutual fund shares over a six-year period.

The self-regulatory organization claims that the late filings to FINRA took place between 2008 and 2016 and that Oppenheimer failed to provide claimants the documentation related to the Mark Hotton allegations between 2010 and 2013. The failure to apply the appropriate fee waiver discount for mutual fund shares purportedly occurred between 2009 and 2015.

Already, Oppenheimer has paid over $6M to settle customer disputes alleging inadequate supervision of Hotton and another $1.25M to 22 customers who did not file arbitration cases but suffered losses, too. Oppenheimer also was ordered to pay a $2.5M fine to FINRA last year over the Hotton claims. The former broker, whom FINRA permanently barred from the securities industry three years ago, was sentenced sentenced to 11 years in prison for stealing client monies and excessively trading their brokerage accounts.

JPMorgan Chase Agrees to Pay Over $264M to Resolve Foreign Corrupt Practices Act Charges

Published on: November 17, 2016 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

To settle civil and criminal charges alleging violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, JPMorgan Chase (JPM) will pay more than $264M: $130M to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, $72M to the U.S. Department of Justice, and $61.9M to the Federal Reserve Board of Governors. The settlements come following a probe that went on for several years into the bank’s hiring practices in Asia.

As part of the agreement, JPMorgan Securities (Asia Pacific) Limited (JPMorgan APAC) admitted that it established the “Sons and Daughters” referral program in 2006 to give preference to job candidates with ties to upcoming client deals. According to authorities, the bank hired 100 interns and full-time employees because foreign officials referred them. Some of these referrals were relatives of these officials. In order to be hired, a candidate had to have direct ties with a “business opportunity.” The Justice Department has called the program “bribery.”

The DOJ’s release reports that among the admissions made related to the resolution was that in 2009, a Chinese government official told a senior JPMorgan APAC banker that if a certain referred candidate were hired this would “significantly influence” the role the bank would have in an upcoming IPO for a company owned by the Chinese state. The banker notified senior colleagues, who spent several months attempting to bring the candidate into an investment banking position in New York. Even though this referred candidate did not have the qualifications for the job, senior JPMorgan APAC bankers created a position for this individual, and the bank was granted a lead role in the initial public offering. JPMorgan APAC also admitted that referred candidates were given the same salary and titles as entry-level investment bankers even though their tasks were “ancillary,” such as proofreading.

Broker Fraud Cases: Former Newbridge Securities Broker Pleads Guilty in $131 Market Manipulation Scheme and FINRA Bars LPL Financial Broker for Depositing Client Funds Into His Own Account, and Lincoln Financial Securities is Fined $650K for Not Protecting Client Information

Published on: November 17, 2016 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Ex-Newbridge Securities Broker Involved in $131M Fraud Pleads Guilty
Gerald Cocuzzo, has pleaded guilty to securities fraud related to his involvement in a $131M market manipulation scam involving Forcefield Energy Inc. (FNRG). According to the U.S. Justice Department, between 1/2009 and 4/2015, Cocuzzo and others sought to bilk investors in the publicly traded company that globally distributes and provides LED lighting products. They did this by artificially manipulating the volume and price of the shares that were traded.

Meantime, Cocuzzo received kickbacks for buying Forcefield stock in his clients’ brokerage accounts. He did not tell the customers that he was receiving these payments. Instead, he and several others sought to hide their involvement.

Newbridge Securities fired Cocuzzo earlier this year following the federal indictment. Before working at Newbridge, he was registered with IAA Financial, previously called CBG Financial Group Inc.