Investor Lawyers Blog

Two Investors File Securities Arbitration Claim Against Santander Securities Over Puerto Rico Municipal Bonds

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

Two investors, seeking to recover the investment losses they sustained in Puerto Rico municipal bonds, are pursuing a FINRA arbitration claim against Santander Securities LLC. According to the case, the Puerto Rican investors are claiming breach of fiduciary duty, violation of common law fraud, negligent supervision, and the unsuitable investment of their money in the Puerto Rico Public Finance Corporation RFDG Commonwealth Appropriation Series A Bond. Santander Securities is a Banco Santander (SAN) subsidiary.

These investors are among the thousands seeking to recover the money they lost in Puerto Rico bonds and Puerto Rico closed-end bonds after brokerage firms, such as Santander Securities, Banco Popular, and UBS Puerto Rico (UBS-PR) recommended that they invest in these securities. Many investors were never equipped to handle the risks involved in Puerto Rico bonds yet their broker encouraged them to invest, ignoring suitability rules and often misrepresenting the investment.

Last October, Santander agreed to pay $6.4 million to settle allegations related to Puerto Rico bonds, including $4.3 million in restitution to clients in the U.S. territory, as well as a $2 million fine. FINRA, which announced the settlement, said the brokerage unit would repurchase the Puerto Rico bonds from a group of customers that were still holding them. The self-regulatory organization had pursued an enforcement action against Santander Securities because of the way the firm’s brokers sold and bought the bonds during a more than three-year period beginning in 2010.

For many investors, Puerto Rico bonds seemed like a good investment because of the tax benefits they offered, along with a yield that was higher than comparable bonds that were issued by U.S. cities and states. Unfortunately, when the price of the Puerto Rico municipal bonds dropped in 2013, many investors sustained huge losses.

CFTC and FINRA File Charges Against Deutsche Bank Over Swap Data and Information Transmitted Over Squawk Boxes

Published on: August 20, 2016 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission has filed a civil case against Deutsche Bank AG (DB). According to the regulator, for five days the firm, which is a provisionally registered Swap Dealer, did not report any swap data for a number of asset classes, turned in untimely and unfinished swap information, failed to supervise the staff responsible for the reporting of the swap data, and had an inadequate Business and Continuity and Disaster Recovery Plan.

The bank’s swap data reporting system had suffered a System Outage. The CFTC said that the swap data reported prior to and after the outage showed that there had been ongoing problems with specific data fields and their integrity. As a result, the market data issued to the public was affected. Some of it purportedly continues to be affected to this day. The CFTC said that a reason for the System Outage and the reporting problems is that Deutsche Bank lacked an adequate Business Continuity and Disaster Recovery Plan or another supervisory system that was equally satisfactory.

Earlier this month, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority fined Deutsche Bank $12.5M for substantive supervisory failures involving trading-related information and research that the firm had issued to employees over internal speakers, also referred to as squawk boxes. The self-regulatory organization said that even though there were red flags related to this matter, Deutsche Bank neglected to set up supervision that was adequate over both the access that registered representatives had to the “squawk,” or “hoots,” which is the information issue through the squawk boxes, and the communication of this data to customers.

Tax Whistleblowers Are Entitled to Award When There Are Civil Forfeitures and Criminal Fines, Rules Court

Published on: August 19, 2016 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The U.S. Tax Court has ruled that tax whistleblowers are entitled to a reward when criminal fines and penalties are collected. The ruling in this particular case found that two whistleblowers had a right to receive a $17.7M reward in the wake of the $54M in civil forfeitures and criminal fines that resulted.

The Internal Revenue Service had argued that the fines and forfeitures were not under the realm of the IRS Whistleblower Program. The IRS and the U.S. Treasury Department had been seeking to approve a rule that would not award whistleblowers if the violation they reported ends up being criminally prosecuted. The rule would allow tax whistleblowers to be reward only for resulting administrative or civil penalties.

The IRS had previously decided that “collected proceeds” in a tax whistleblower case was only limited to taxes paid under Title 26. This decreased the incentive for whistleblowers to come forward and inform on criminal tax activities and illegal offshore accounts. Now, however, the Tax Court has said that “collected proceeds” in a tax whistleblower case includes not only Title 26 taxes but also civil forfeitures and criminal penalties.

In other whistleblower news, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission has imposed a $340K penalty against Health Net Inc. for using severance agreements that obligated outgoing employees to waive their right to receive monetary rewards under the regulator’s whistleblower program. The SEC said that the requirement is illegal and violates federal securities laws.

Mortgage Company President Charged With Defrauding Ginnie Mae

Published on: August 19, 2016 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

U.S. prosecutors are charging Robert Pena with fraud. Pena, who is the founder and president of Mortgage Security— a mortgage company that is no longer in operation—was indicted on wire fraud and conspiracy charges.

Court documents state that Mortgage Security was contracted with the Government National Mortgage Association, also known as Ginnie Mae. Its job was to pool eligible residential mortgage loans and sell mortgage bonds that were backed by Ginnie Mae to investors. Mortgage Security also was supposed service the loans, including collecting payments plus interest from the borrower ( in addition to loan payoffs) and putting the money in accounts that Ginnie Mae held in trust. The funds were to eventually go to investors.

However, contends the indictment, starting in 2011, Pena allegedly started moving the funds that borrowers sent to Mortgage Security into secret accounts without Ginnie Mae’s knowledge. He purportedly used the money for business and personal expenses, eventually taking close to $3M. He allegedly tried to conceal his scam through false reports that he issued to Ginnie Mae regarding the loans. Ginnie Mae wound up having to pay investors because it had guaranteed their investments.

Ex-Perella Weinberg Partners Managing Director is Convicted of Insider Trading, Giving Tips to His Dad

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

A jury has Sean Stewart, the ex-managing director of Perella Weinberg Partners LP of insider trading. Stewart is accused of giving his dad confidential tips about five health-care deals.

According to prosecutors, Stewart started giving his dad insider information in 2011 while he was VP of J.P. Morgan Chase & Co.’s (JPM) healthcare investment banking group. He continued to tip his dad when he went to work for Perella. As a result of the insider information, Stewart’s dad, Robert Stewart, and Richard Cunniffe made over $1M in illegal profits. The elder Stewart has already pleaded guilty to the charges against him.

During the trial, the younger Stewart testified that his dad had betrayed him by using the information that he had shared with him during casual conversation. He testified that he lied to compliance lawyers at JPMorgan in 2011 to protect his reputation and his father. He claimed that he never thought that his dad would use the information to make trades.

Robert has already been sentenced to four years of probation for his role after pleading guilty to securities fraud. Also, he had to forfeit $150K in ill-gotten gains. The elder Stewart shared the tips he received from his son with two others, including Cunniffee, who testified that they used the tips to buy stock options. Cunniffee had earlier pleaded guilty to insider trading.

Securities Fraud News: Hedge Fund Manager Accused of Securities Fraud Involving Payoffs to the Terminally Ill, SEC Halts Trading in Neruomama Shares, and Commodity Pool Fraud Leads to More than $10M in Penalties and Restitution

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

Investment Advisor Firm Accused of Paying Off Terminally Ill Patients to Commit Fraud
The SEC has filed fraud charges against Donald Lathen and his Eden Arc Capital Management. Lathen is accused of recruiting at least 60 individuals who had less than six months to live and agreeing to pay them $10K each for the use of their names on joint brokerage accounts. When one of these individuals would die, he would allegedly redeem the investments by falsely representing that he and the terminally individual person were joint account holders.

Lathen recruited the terminally ill patients through contacts he had at hospices and nursing homes. In reality, it was Lathen’s hedge fund that owned the option investments.

As a result, of the purported omissions and misrepresentations, issuers paid over $100M in early redemptions. Lathen is accused of violating the custody rule by not properly putting the securities and money from the hedge fund in an account under the name of the fund or in one that held only client money and securities.

SEC Stops Trading in Neromamam Ltd.
The SEC has stopped the trading of Neuromama Ltd. (NERO) shares. The shares trade on the mostly unregulated over-the-counter markets and the regulator is concerned about transactions that may be “potentially manipulative, as well as other red flags that have purportedly been cropping up for years.

Neruomama’s paper value went up times four to $35B this year despite not much volume. The company’s shares went up by four times to $56/share. (On January 15, ’14, its value was $4.73B.)

Ex-Goldman Sachs Trader to Pay $400K Fine to Settle RMBS Fraud Case

Published on: August 16, 2016 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Edwin Chin, an ex-Goldman Sachs Group Inc. (GS) senior trader, will pay $400K to resolve U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission charges accusing him of misleading the bank’s customers when he sold them residential mortgage-backed securities at prices that were higher than they should have been. Even though he is settling, Chin is not denying or admitting to the regulator’s findings. He has, however, agreed to the entry of the order stating that he violated the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5.

According to the Commission’s order, from 2010 until 2012, which is when Chin left the bank, the former Goldman trader made extra money for the firm by concealing the prices that it had paid for different RMBSs and reselling the securities at higher prices to customers. The difference in cost would go to Goldman.

The SEC said Chin made over $1.5M in additional trading profits. Because Goldman made more money, Chin did as well.

The regulator accused Chin of sometimes misleading buyers by suggesting that he was in the process of negotiating a transaction between customers when he was merely selling residential mortgage-backed securities from Goldman’s inventory. In one alleged incident, Chin earned an additional $200K by telling a hedge fund client that he would sell a bond at cost price and without compensation. Unfortunately, he purportedly neglected to tell the hedge fund that he had already bought the security, had it in inventory, and was charging the fund a worse price than what Goldman paid earlier that day. The SEC said that Chin misled the same client about the price of a different security the following day, resulting in an additional $100K in profit.

UBS to Pay $250K For Not Waiving Mutual Fund Fees

Published on: August 13, 2016 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority said that a UBS Group AG (UBS) unit will pay $250K to resolve charges accusing it of not waiving certain fees for mutual fund customers that were eligible for the reduction. FINRA said that the broker-dealer overcharged customers $277,636 to invest in mutual funds. The failure to wave these fees purportedly took place from 9/09 to 6/13.

The self-regulatory organization cited alleged supervisory failures. According to the settlement notice, UBS depended largely on its registered representatives to identify when sales charge waivers were warranted and identifying them. These waivers were linked to the reinstatement rights that let investors get around having to pay front-end sales charges.

Under these rights, individual investors are generally allowed to reinvest money made from selling class A mutual fund shares in the same fund family or the same fund without having to pay fees at the front end. They are given 90-120 days to reinvest for the waiver to be applicable.

401(K) Lawsuits Brought Against Franklin Templeton and Neuberger Berman

Published on: August 12, 2016 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Two more 401(K) lawsuits alleging self-dealing have been brought against asset management firms. In Cryer V. Franklin Resources, Inc. et al, the employees of Franklin Resources Inc. are suing their employer. Franklin Resources (BEN) operates under the name Franklin Templeton Investments.

According to the plaintiffs, the asset management firm engaged in self-dealing in its 401(k) plan. They believe that individuals overseeing the retirement plan were in breach of duty under ERISA when they chose costly, proprietary funds that performed poorly instead of selecting less expensive funds that performed better. The plaintiffs are also accusing their employer of charging excessive fees for administrative services.

In the 401(K) lawsuits, they noted that the plan had invested in hundreds of millions of dollars in mutual funds that Franklin Templeton and its subsidiaries managed even though there were many other choices available. These entities manage all of the mutual funds in the Franklin Templeton 401(K) retirement plan. The plaintiffs said that Franklin Templeton chose these funds so that it could receive fees and make money.

Texas Securities Fraud: State Fines The Investment Center and A Local Man Is Accused of Bilking Investors

Published on: August 12, 2016 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

A New Jersey financial firm must pay $50,000 in Texas for allegedly not properly supervising one its brokers who loaded up too many energy stocks in his clients’ accounts. The Investment Center Inc. has been reprimanded by the Texas State Securities Board, which also imposed the fine.

It was an investor that brought the Texas securities case against the securities dealer and one of its ex-brokers. According to the state regulator’s consent order, between ’10 and ’14, some clients at The Investment Center held 95% of total investible assets in energy sector equities. The recommended securities were typically low-priced and publicly traded. There were purportedly periods when some clients’ accounts were invested in just one company instead of holding investments in different energy companies at the same time. Also, said the state regulator, with certain clients, their equity positions were 100% concentrated in the energy sector.

The Texas State Securities Board said that clients that could not sustain a lot of risk were among those affected by this broker’s investment choices.

Although the former financial representative’s actions in investing so much of his clients’ money in concentrated equity positions raised red flags when some of these accounts dropped in value, The Investment Center purportedly failed to act on the warning signs. The firm has since paid the investor who filed the Texas securities fraud complaint $98,000.