Investor Lawyers Blog

Municipal Bond Violations: J.P. Turner to pay $140K to FINRA, SEC Fines Underwriters $4.58M Over False Statements

Published on: February 5, 2016 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority is sanctioning J.P. Turner & Co. for violating a rule mandating that brokers must make sure that municipal securities transactions between a customer’s account and the firm’s account occur at a price that is “fair and reasonable.” The SRO contends that the firm’s supervisory system did not provide the kind of supervision that could achieve compliance with securities regulations involving fair pricing

As part of the settlement, J.P. Turner will pay a $140K fine and over $76K plus interest in customer restitution.

The brokerage firm will also pay a $75k fine related to the ongoing use of a third-party telemarketer, which continued after it made the decision to stop using the marketing firm. Because the telemarketer stopped getting a do-not-call list from the firm, it continued to call people on the registry.

J.P. Turner agreed to settle both cases without denying or admitting to the charges.

In other news, the Securities and Exchange Commission is charging and fining 14 muni bond underwriting firms for issuing inaccurate information to investors. Collectively, the firms will pay about $4.58M for federal securities law violations that purportedly occurred between ’11 and ’14. The alleged violations involved the sale of municipal debt that used offering documents with materially false statements or omissions about borrower compliance as they pertain to disclosure duties. The SEC said that the firms did not perform proper due diligence to identify issues before selling the bonds.Barclays Capital Inc. (BARC), which will pay $500K, Wells Fargo Bank (WFC) N.A. Municipal Products Group, which will pay $440K, Jefferies LLC (JEF), which will pay $500K, and TD Securities USA LLC, which will pay $500K.

Plummet in Oil Prices is a Worry to Investors

Published on: February 4, 2016 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

With oil prices plummeting, investors may have reason for concern. This week, ConocoPhilip cut its dividend by two-thirds because of the drop in oil prices to $30/barrel. Its dividend went from 74 cents/share to 25 cents/share
And Conoco isn’t the only company whose dividends are in trouble because of cheap oil. In January, Noble Energy slashed dividend payout by 44%. Last year, Eni (E) in Italy also made a substantial dividend cut, as did pipeline company Kinder Morgan with a 75% cut in December. Investors are worried that big oil companies, such as Chevron (CVX) and ExxonMobil (XOM), may be next.

Such speculation wasn’t helped by the abrupt liquidation of a $600M leveraged fund bet on falling prices. According to Reuters, unknown investors in the VelocityShares 3x Inverse Crude Oil Exchange Traded Note left the fund after jumping in just last month. Over 1.8M shares of $602M were redeemed, which, according to FactSet Research data, is the largest ETN outflow over the past year. Credit Suisse (CS), the ETN’s issuer, was forced to repurchase short positions in quick measure.
Continue Reading ›

RMBS Cases and Institutional Fraud: Morgan Stanley to Pay $62.9M, Hedge Funds File Lawsuit Against TWC Asset Management, and Deutsche Bank Must Contend With Allegations Claiming Investor Losses of $3.1B

Published on: February 3, 2016 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Morgan Stanley Settles RMBS Case with FDIC
Morgan Stanley (MS) will pay $62.9M to resolve allegations that it misrepresented residential mortgage-backed securities prior to the 2008 financial crisis. The deal was reached with the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., which sued the investment bank on behalf of Colonial Bank in Alabama, Security Savings Bank in Nevada, and United Western Bank in Colorado. All three banks failed after or during the crisis. By settling, Morgan Stanley is not denying or admitting liability.

According to the FDIC, in offering documents Morgan Stanley misrepresented claims for 14 RMBS mortgage backed securities. This is not the first time the investment bank has reached a deal over RMBS with the FDIC. In 2015, the firm resolved similar claims brought on behalf of Franklin Bank in Texas for $24M.

Also last year, Morgan Stanley arrived at a deal for $2.6B to resolve a U.S. Department of Justice probe into mortgage bonds. The government accused the investment bank of misrepresenting the quality of home loans packed into bonds.

Assett Management Firm Must Face RMBS Lawsuit Brought by Hedge Funds
A New York Court refused to grant TCW Asset Management Company’s motion to dismiss RMBS fraud claims brought Basis Yield Alpha Fund and Basis Pac-Rim Opportunity Fund. The Cayman Island hedge funds claim that TWC Asset Management marketed a system for dealing with the RMBS market that it claimed could determine which were the good investments. The purported strategy involved the collateralized debt obligation Dutch Hill Funding II, Ltd., which took a net long position on high-risk RMBS.

The two hedge funds invested over $28.1M in Dutch Hill in May 2007. By July, their investment had become worthless. They sued TCW Asset Management Company in 2012, accusing the firm of fraudulent misrepresentations and a failure to choose Dutch Hill’s RMBS collateral in the ways that it promised. The Basis Funds contended that the defendant knew that the investment strategy couldn’t get the job done.

Citigroup to Pay $23M to Resolve Yen Libor and Euroyen Tibor Rigging Claims

Published on: February 2, 2016 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Citigroup (C) Inc. has agreed to pay $23M in an institutional investor fraud lawsuit accusing the bank of conspiring to manipulated the Euroyen Tibor and yen Libor benchmark interest rates and Euroyen Tibor futures contracts. Plaintiff investors included hedge fund Hayman Capital Management LP and the California State Teachers’ Retirement System. They contend that Citigroup and other banks benefited their trading positions from ‘06 through at least ’10 when they conspired to manipulate rates. As part of the settlement Citigroup said it would cooperate with the plaintiffs, whose lawsuits are still pending against other banks.

Also settling but without having to anything is broker-dealer RP Martin. Defendants that have yet to settle include Barclays Plc (BARC), JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPM), Deutsche Bank AG (DB), UBS AG (UBS), HSBCA Holdings Plc (HSBC), Sumitomo Mitsui Trust Holdings Inc., and Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group Inc.

Texas Securities Commissioner Orders Firm To Stop Selling Pension Streams

Published on: February 1, 2016 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

John Morgan, the Texas securities commissioner, is ordering SoBell Corp. and its owner Andrew Gamber to stop selling its Pension Income Stream Program in the state of Texas. SoBell, which is based in Mississippi, executes agreements with pension benefits recipients to sell their income stream to investors for $35K to over $1K, while offering 7-8% in yearly returns.

Morgan says that the company and Gamber committed fraud by selling unregistered securities and making statements to investors that were “misleading and deceiving.” SoBell also is accused of executing agreements with pension benefit recipients that gave the company authority to sell pension-sourced income to investors.

As for Gamber, he allegedly did not disclose that he had been subject to sanctions in Pennsylvania, Arkansas, New Mexico, and California. The four states had issued cease and desist orders against Voyager Financial Group, LLC, Gamber, and people who sold the unregistered securities. They also are accused of misleading investors about the risks involved in certain investment products, including default rates involving pension income stream sales made by companies that Gamber controlled, and they purportedly did not disclose that making pension payment assignments is against federal law.

Disabled persons, veterans, military members, and federal government employees are among those that typically get involved in pension-sourced income. The Texas Securities Board says that often these investors are solicited while they are under “financial distress.”
Continue Reading ›

Diversified Stock Funds Drop in Value

Published on: January 31, 2016 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

A number of diversified stock funds posted significant losses at the end of the January. For example, funds seeking underpriced stocks saw their holdings lose value as did value funds. Here is a list (From Morningstar):

· PIMCO RAE Fundamental Plus EMG (PEFIX)

· Templeton Foreign A

Senator Warren Accuses the SEC of Poor Enforcement

Published on: January 31, 2016 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren has issued a report in which she claims that the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and the U.S. Department of Justice have been doing a poor job on enforcement when it comes to going after companies and individuals for corporate crimes.

In Rigged Justice: How Weak Enforcement Lets Corporate Offenders off Easy, Warren takes a closer look at what she describes as the 20 worst federal enforcement failures of 2015. The Senator noted that that when federal agencies caught large companies in illegal acts, they failed to take substantial action against them. Instead, companies were fined for sums that in some cases could be written off as tax deductions.

Some of the 2015 cases that Warren Mentions:
• Standard & Poor’s consented to pay $1.375B to the DOJ, DC, and 19 states to resolve charges that it bilked investors by putting out inflated ratings misrepresenting the actual risks involved in collateral debt obligations and residential mortgage-backed securities. Warren Points out that the amount the credit rater paid is less than one-sixth of the fine the government and states had sought against it, and at S & P did not have to admit wrongdoing. No individuals were prosecuted in this case.

• Citigroup (C), Barclays (BARC), JPMorgan Chase (JPM), Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS), and UBS AG (UBS) paid the DOJ $5.6B to resolve claims that their traders colluded together to rig exchange rates. As a result, the firms made billions of dollars while investors and clients suffered. While admissions of guilt were sought, no individuals were prosecuted. Also, the SEC gave the banks waivers so they wouldn’t have to deal with collateral damages from pleading guilty.

Morgan Stanley Pays Widow Over $95K for Puerto Rico Securities Losses

Published on: January 30, 2016 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

A Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) arbitration Panel has ordered brokerage firm Morgan Stanley to pay Morrisa Schiffman (Schiffman) $95,632 for the losses she sustained from investing in Puerto Rico securities. Schiffman, who is a widow from New Jersey, had been using the income from the Puerto Rico investments to supplement her retirement. She accused the firm of making unsuitable recommendations and engaging in negligent supervision and disclose failures.

Bloomberg reports this is one of the first cases involving an investor in the U.S mainland seeking financial recovery related to the Commonwealth’s debt. More than 1,300 FINRA arbitration cases have already been filed in Puerto Rico for residents of the island who sustained heavy losses when Puerto Rico bonds began their fall in 2013.

Puerto Rico bonds were a big draw for investors in and out of Puerto Rico for a number of years because the securities are tax-exempt in the U.S. However, since these bonds dramatically declined in value nearly three years ago, investors have come forward to file arbitration claims against brokerage firms who recommended the bonds to them.

Our securities firm’s analysis has shown that, despite their tax advantages, most Puerto Rico bonds were not suitable for many customers’ investment goals or their portfolios. Brokers should have steered customers away from the Puerto Rico securities instead of toward them. Because of their negligence, there are investors who have lost all of their money in these bonds.

Firms named in recent Puerto Rico muni bond fraud cases include UBS Financial Services Incorporated of Puerto Rico (UBS), Banco Santander, Banco Popular, Stifel Nicolaus & Co. (SF), Bank of America’s (BA) Merrill Lynch, and others.

Puerto Rico owes $70 billion in debt. The Commonwealth recently defaulted on $37 million of payments that were due to certain creditors so that it could pay more of the general obligation debt that the island owes.

Insurers Ambac Assurance Corporation (AMBAC), Financial Guaranty Insurance Company (FGIC), and Assured Guaranty Corp. (Assured) are now suing the territory over the default, for which they’ve had to pay millions of dollars on claims.
Continue Reading ›

Credit Suisse and Barclays Settle Dark Pool Cases for $150M

Published on: January 30, 2016 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC (CS) and Barclays Capital Inc. (BARC) will settle their respective cases brought against them by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and the New York Attorney General. The firms are accused of violating federal securities laws will running dark pools. At issue is whether the banks disclosed enough information to clients about the trading that took place in their dark pools.

Barclays will pay $35M to the SEC and $70M to the NY AG. It has admitted wrongdoing in the Commission’s case. The bank had said that a Liquidity Profiling feature in its LX dark pool was going to “continuously police” the alternative trading system. The firm also stated that it would conduct weekly surveillance reports to look for order flow that was toxic.

Instead, contends the SEC, Barclays did not continuously regulate the dark pool with the tools it promised it would use nor did it conduct the surveillance runs. The firm also failed to properly disclose that it occasionally overrode the Liquidity Profiling feature when it transferred subscribers from categories that were the most aggressive to the ones that were the least aggressive. Because of this, said the regulator, subscribers that chose to block trading with subscribers that were aggressive ended up dealing with them anyways. Barclays is also accused of misrepresenting the kinds and amounts of market data feeds that it utilized to determine the Best Bid and Offer in the dark pool.

Meantime, Credit Suisse, which is not denying or admitting to the charges against it, will pay $84.3M I total—$24.3M to the SEC as disgorgement and prejudgment interest, along with a $30M penalty, and $30M to the NY AG.

Hedge Fund Manager to Repay Investors $2.87M for Losses

Published on: January 29, 2016 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

QED Benchmark Management LLC and its hedge fund manager Peter Kuperman will resolve U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission charges accusing them of misleading investors about the QED Benchmark LP hedge fund’s historical performance and investment strategy. As part of their settlement they will pay back investors $2.8M in losses. However, by settling they are not admitting or denying the charges.

According to the SEC, the investment advisory firm and Kuperman did not disclose to investors that there were heavy trading losses. They purportedly did this by using a combination of real and hypothetical returns when giving out information about performance history. Marketing strategy included proposing to abide by a scientific stock-selection strategy using algorithms to concentrate on over 280 metrics in the areas of value, momentum, risk, growth, and estimates. The fund was supposed to select investments using the metrics to determine which ones would do better in the market.

QED’s offering memorandum and its limited partnership agreement said that no more than 20% of assets could be invested in any one security, while no more than 5% could be invested in a security that was illiquid. The SEC said that none of these agreements were honored.

Because of these alleged misrepresentations, QED Benchmark and Kuperman were able to secure millions of dollars from investors. The two of them are accused of not following the fund’s stated investment plan and placing most of the assets into one penny stock. Misleading and incomplete disclosures about the investment’s liquidity and value were also purportedly made. In just the first quarter that stock earned a 79% loss. When Kuperman presented potential investors with 2009 results, he did not disclose the bad returns and used hypothetical returns instead.
Continue Reading ›