Investor Lawyers Blog

Broker News: J.P. Morgan Firms to Pay $1M Fine, FINRA Bans Broker For Money Laundering, and Former Maine Broker Gets 3-Years in Prison for Fraud

Published on: April 27, 2016 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Two J.P. Morgan Firms Fined over Deficiencies
J.P. Morgan Securities and J.P. Morgan Clearing Corp. have been fined $775K and $250K respectively for several deficiencies. J.P. Morgan Securities is a broker-dealer of the bank JPMorgan Chase (JPM). .J.P. Morgan Clearing is the custodian, clearing, lending, and settlement arm of the bank. The fines were imposed by FINRA.

According to the self-regulatory organization, the firms committed a number of breaches that violated FINRA and SEC rules. The alleged violations by the brokerage firm mostly affect clients of J.P. Morgan Private Bank and JPMS Heritage Private Client Services, which are two JPMS Global Wealth Management businesses.

From 9/07 to 2014, JPMS purportedly did not send letters to clients confirming modifications to their investment goals within 30 days of the changes. JPMS also allegedly did not collect and check the outside brokerage account statements of nearly 2,000 representatives from ’12 – ’13. Morgan Clearing Corp. is accused of, from ’11-’13, not sending out yearly privacy notices to hundreds of thousands of account holders at the broker-dealers where it provides clearing and custody.

Broker Banned by FINRA for Money Laundering
The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority said that it is barring James Van Doren. The broker was sentenced to 15 months behind bars for a money laundering scam.

According to FINRA, Van Doren took part in unethical behavior by helping to make it possible for a childhood friend and business associate to avoid certain legal duties. The former broker invested in a number of real estate deals with the friend’s company and helped conceal assets when the company couldn’t fulfill its duties.

He also accepted $244K from the friend to hide the assets that his creditors were looking for. He eventually returned most of the funds to the friend while keeping some for financial losses he sustained.

Hedge Fund Investors Want to Withdraw $1.4 Billion from Brevan Howard Master Fund

Published on: April 26, 2016 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

According to Bloomberg sources say that investors in Brevan Howard Asset Management’s primary hedge fund are asking to withdraw about $1.4M from the fund in the wake of successive yearly declines and losses from the first quarter.The fund is the Brevan Howard Master Fund, which invests in different asset classes.

As of the end of March the fund managed $17.6M, which is an approximately a $27B decline from two years ago. Brevan Howard has until the end of June to meet investors’ redemption requests.

Its investors aren’t the only ones seeking their money back. According to Hedge Fund Research Inc., many other investors were not happy with the way a number of hedge funds have performed recently when there was trouble in the markets. Last quarter, investors pulled more money from the funds than they have since the end of the financial crisis.

Recently, reports New York City’s pension for its civil employees voted to take out $1.5B from hedge funds. The New York City Employees Retirement System took its investment out of a number of hedge funds due to unsatisfactory performances. Meantime, Tudor Investment Corp.’s clients asked to take out over $1.B from the firm in the wake of unimpressive results over the last three years.

Judge Dismisses Scottsdale Capital Advisor’s Lawsuit Challenging FINRA’s Enforcement Authority

Published on: April 26, 2016 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

U.S. District Judge Deborah K. Chasanow has dismissed Scottsdale Capital Advisors’ securities case claiming that the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority did not have legal authority to enforce securities laws. The self-regulatory organization had filed an administrative case against the financial firm, accusing it of selling unregistered penny stock shares.

In March, Scottsdale filed its complaint, contending that the claims brought by the regulator came out of violations of the Securities Act of 1933, which it believes that the Securities and Exchange Commission, and not FINRA, has purview over when it comes to enforcing it the act. However, Scottsdale also said that both the SEC and FINRA did not have the “realm of expertise” to make a ruling in the SRO’s case against it.

Judge Chasanow dismissed Scottsdale’s lawsuit citing lack of subject matter jurisdiction. She said that the allegations brought by FINRA as they pertain to the penny stock trades should not be in heard in federal court.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren Calls Out the SEC for Not Stopping Hedge Fund Billionaire Steven Cohen From Starting New Hedge Fund

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

U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren chastised the Securities and Exchange Commission for not barring billionaire Steven Cohen from starting a new hedge fund just months after the regulator scolded him for not properly overseeing an ex-employee convicted of securities fraud.

In 2013, Cohen’s SAC Capital consented to pay $1.8 million and pleaded guilty to fraud charges accusing the hedge fund of allowing insider trading to take place. It wasn’t until January of this year, however, that the SEC told Cohen that he was barred from managing the money of other people until 2018. Now, however, he is already involved in efforts to start Stamford Harbor Capital, a new hedge fund, of which he owns 25%.

Criticizing the SEC in a letter to its chairperson, Mary Jo White, Senator Warren said that Cohen’s application to start the new hedge fund, which the Commission approved, is just another example of the regulator’s enforcement actions failing to properly punish parties that are guilty, not protecting investors, and failing to impede future wrongdoing. It was just this January that Warren said that she believed that U.S. companies manage to commit crimes in part because of poor enforcement. She pointed to the SEC as an agency that often does not succeed in using the full scope of its enforcement powers.

In its case against Cohen, the SEC accused him of not properly supervising Mathew Martoma, who was convicted in of insider trading that allowed SAC to make gains and avoid losses of $276M. (Martoma is appealing his conviction.) While Cohen did not admit to wrongdoing when settling the SEC case, he did retain an independent consultant to ensure legal compliance.

Texas-Based Linn Energy Extends Deadline for Exchanging LINE Units for LNCO Shares

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

Linn Energy (LINE) says that its unit holders have until April 25 to exchange their units for LinnCo shares. According to SeekingAlpha.com, the Texas-based company is making the deal to avoid CODI (cancellation of debt income).

As it stands, Linn Energy has suspended its distribution and is making interest payments on its unsecured debt just in time before its 30-day grace period to make the payments ends in order to avoid a default. According to Nasdaq.com, the energy player paid interest of $60M on senior debt. At some point, Linn Energy may have to file for bankruptcy.

This month, Zach Investment Research downgraded Linn Energy shares from a buy rating to a hold one. It sent investors a research report with this new information. Stifel Nicolaus (SF) also lowered shares of the oil and gas company from a hold rating to a sell one in February. In March, Robert Baird lowered its target price on Linn Energy shares and established a neutral rating for the company in its research note. In December, Barclays (BARC) reaffirmed its hold rating of the shares. Ladenburg Thalmann downgraded Linn Energy from neutral to a sell rating and Citigroup (C) did the same in its research note.

Wine Mogul Accuses Fidelity of Fraud, Seeks up to $500M in FINRA Arbitration

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

Wine merchant Peter Deutsch has filed a FINRA arbitration claim seeking $400 – $500M from Fidelity. He claims that he might have earned that amount of money if only the financial firm had not stopped him from obtaining a 66% share of a company in which he had already invested $40M. Meantime, Fidelity is contending that it kept Deutsch from trading because of worries that he was attempting to illegally manipulate the company’s shares.

The dispute began when Deutsch sought to purchase at least another 50 million shares of stock in China Medical Technologies in 2012. His investment efforts, however, were barred by Fidelity, which said it was “uncomfortable” with the transaction. It was in 2011 that a sales team from Fidelity Family Office Services (FFOS) had sought Deutsche out to join its group of wealthy clients.

In court papers, Deutsch alleges that while he was trying to gain control of China Medical Technologies, which is a cancer treatment device maker, FFOS was aggressively buying the stock in secret rather than helping him. He also claims that Fidelity used his shares to its benefit even though this was not what he wanted. He believes that the firm blocked him from trading to conceal its wrongdoing.

He is accusing Fidelity of inappropriate share lending. The firm, however, describes its practice of lending out shares belonging to its clients as fully paid lending. According to Bloomberg, sources said that Fidelity, which insists that the arbitration case is without merit, maintains that it didn’t lend out Deutsch’s shares under its lending program but that it used its authority to lend shares out of his margin account. Securities lending is something that Fidelity clients consent to when they set up a margin account.

Indiana Investment Adviser Sentenced for Bilking Older and Disabled Clients of Over $680K

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

Cindy L. Lampkins is sentenced to five years behind bars. The Bloomington, Indiana investment adviser stole over $680,000 in retirement money from elderly investors and disabled clients. Lampkins was convicted on count of money laundering and one count of wire fraud.

Lampkins was the VP of Kern Financial Group, which offers financial and insurance services. The investment firm belongs to her and her father.

According to investigators, between 2/10 and 11/13, Lampkins persuaded clients to pay Kern Financial Group for nonexistent products. The Internal Revenue conducted a probe, as did state police, who discovered that Lampkins lied to clients, gave them doctored financial statements, and concealed her actions from them. Investors thought their money was going into annuities with high interest rates or to buy a product that would cover funeral costs in the future.

SEC Files Financial Fraud Cases Against Logitech and Ener1

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

The Securities and Exchange Commission has filed financial fraud cases against Logitech International and Ener1. Logitech, a technology manufacturer, will pay $7.5M to resolve the charges. Its former controller, Michael Doktorczyk and ex-accounting director, Sherallyn Bolles, will pay $50K and $25K penalties, respectively.

The SEC said that the two companies and their former executives committed accounting-related violations that caused investors to not have an accurate portrayal of what was going on financially at Logitech and Ener1.

According to the regulator, Logitech fraudulently inflated its financial results for the 2011fiscal year to satisfy earnings guidance, as well as committed other accounting violations over five years. The SEC also filed charges against the technology company’s former CFO, Erik Bardman, and ex-controller Jennifer Wolf, accusing them of purposely minimizing the write-down of millions of dollars of extra component parts for a product that had inventory in excess.

For the company’s financial statements, Bardman and Wolf are accused of falsely assuming that the company would construct the components into complete products even though they knew of contrary events and facts. Also, ex-CEO Gerald Quindlen, who is not accused of misconduct, gave back $194,487 in stock sale profits and incentive-based compensation that was given to him during a time when alleged accounting violations were taking place.

In the Ener1 financial fraud case, the battery manufacturer consented to pay penalties for its materially overstated assets and revenues for year-end 2010, as well as overstated assets from 2011’s first quarter. The SEC said that the financial misstatements were a result of management’s failure to impair certain receivables and investments. Ex-CFO Jeffrey A. Seidel, ex-CEO Charles Gassenheimer, and ex-chief accounting officer Robert Kamische consented to pay $50K, $100K, and $30K, respectively.

The SEC said that Robert Hesselgesser, who was the engagement partner of Price Waterhouse Coopers LLP’s audit of Ener1’s financial statements of 2010, violated auditing standards when he did not conduct the proper procedures to back his audit findings that Ener1’s management had properly accounted for revenues and assets.

Former UBS Puerto Rico Employees Brought $25M Lawsuit Against the Firm

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

Over the last two years, more than 1,000 investors have sued UBS Puerto Rico (UBS-PR) in FINRA arbitration or other forums over mounting losses from the collapse of the Puerto Rico bond market. However, investors are not the only ones suing UBS-PR over its sale of risky bonds. Siblings Jorge and Teresa Bravo have sued UBS for $10 million in FINRA arbitration along with UBS-PR customers.

The Bravos, both ex-senior VPs at the brokerage firm, said management fooled not just customers but also UBS employees. They said they were coerced and threatened into selling Puerto Rico close-end bond funds and they were mistreated before being forced out.

Along with the Bravos, seven former UBS Puerto Rico employees have filed claims against UBS-PR seeking $25 million from their former employer. That group of former UBS-PR brokers claim UBS management made misleading statements to them, as well as customers, about the closed-end mutual funds. The brokers also said management pressured brokers at the firm to sell these Puerto Rico securities. News of the seven former brokers’ lawsuit broke last year around the time that Reuters disclosed the existence of a UBS letter noting that the collateral value of closed-end funds would be reduced to zero—an indication of their riskiness.

At Shepherd Smith Edwards and Kantas, LTD LLP, our Puerto Rico bond fraud lawyers have been working with investors to recoup their money. Too many investors lost much of the money they invested with UBS-PR and other brokerage firms on the island when these securities began to fail three years ago. Our securities lawyers on the island and the U.S. mainland are representing clients who have FINRA arbitration claims.

Bancorp-UBS Trial over $2.1B of Mortgage-Backed Securities Begins

Published on: April 18, 2016 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

UBS (UBS) is on trial in Manhattan federal court. According to Reuters, the civil case was brought by UBS Bancorp (USB) for three trusts. The trusts claim that in their contract with the Swiss banking giant, UBS agreed that the mortgages backing the securities would satisfy certain standards. However, they contend, when it became clear the mortgages were faulty, UBS would not repurchase them. Now, the trusts want back the $2.1B that they lost.

UBS’s legal defense team argued that the lawyers of the trust are assessing the loans from the perspective of “hindsight bias.” They want U.S. District Judge Kevin Catel to evaluate whether when the loans were considered defective at the time that they were issued in 2006 and 2007.

According to the mortgage-backed securities lawsuit, over 17,000 loans were pooled into three trusts, which issued securities granting investors the right to borrower-made payments. The problem was, contend the plaintiffs, over 9,600 of the loans were defective, primarily because of borrower fraud or because they did not meet underwriting requirements. The trusts believe that UBS did not properly vet the loans, which it obtained through shady lenders that would go on to fail.