Investor Lawyers Blog

Municipal Bond Fraud: Two Firms Are Accused of Deceptive Practices When Working with California School Districts & Ex-CEO of Charter School Operator Settles Charges

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

The Securities and Exchange Commission has settled its fraud case with two municipal advisory firms and their executives. They are accused of using deceptive practices when trying to solicit business from five school districts in California. The advisory firms, School Business Consulting Inc. and Keygent LLC, resolved the administrative proceedings without denying or admitting to the charges.

According to the regulator, School Business Consulting gave Keygent LLC confidential information that allowed it to win municipal advisory contracts from the school districts. School Business Consulting had advised districts about their process for hiring financial professionals.

The SEC said that without the district’s consent School Business Consulting shared the confidential information with Keygent, including questions asked in interviews with the districts and what competitor candidates were proposing and charging. The Commission believes that the unauthorized disclosure of this information gave Keygent an “improper advantage” over competitors.

Municipal entities are entitled to be able to trust that their choice of a municipal advisor is not blemished by any breach of fiduciary duty. As part of the settlement, School Business Consulting will pay a $30K penalty and it has consented to a censure. The company’s president, Terrance Bradley, was ordered to pay a $20K penalty and is barred from acting as a municipal advisor. Keygent is also censured and will pay a $100K penalty. Its principals, Chet Wang and Anthony Hsieh, will pay $20K and $30K penalties, respectively.

HSBC Holdings to Pay $1.575B In Mortgage Lending Lawsuit

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

HSBC Finance Corp., an HSBC Holdings Plc. (HSBC) unit, will pay $1.575B to settle a shareholder class action securities case that was brought in 2002. The case involves Household International, the consumer finance business that HSBC purchased in 2003. Household International is now HSBC Finance.

Household shareholders accused the company of inflating its share price by hiding its poor mortgage lending practices and bad quality loans. When Household consented to pay U.S. state regulators $484M to resolve predatory lending claims in 2011, its share price dropped by over 50%.

HSBC became the defendant against claims by Household shareholders when it purchased the company for $14.2B. That deal eventually led to write-downs for tens of billions of dollars for bad loans in the wake of the subprime mortgage crisis.

Shareholders won a $2.46B judgment against the British Bank in 2013. In May 2015, however, a federal appeals court tossed the award and demanded a new trial to decide whether “nonfraud factors” that were specific to the firm played a part in the Household’s share price dropping.

Securities Headlines: FINRA Enforcement Officials Say They Are Keeping Their Eyes on Variable Annuities, Massachusetts Goes Looking for Rogue Brokers, and Man is Accused of Scamming Women He Met Online

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

FINRA Takes a Closer Look at Variable Annuities
At a recent Insured Retirement Institute Conference, Financial Industry Regulatory Authority Inc. enforcement officials said that even though variable annuities are not on the regulator’s list of examination priorities for 2016 this doesn’t mean it isn’t scrutinizing them. FINRA Sr. VP/deputy enforcement chief Russ Ryan said that variable annuities often are involved in its cases.

It was just recently that FINRA charged MetLife (MET) $25M for making misrepresentations and omissions related to variable annuity sales. New products were marketed as less costly and better than the variable annuities that clients already owned when, in truth, said the regulator, the clients should have stayed with these older investments. The alleged misrepresentations and omissions were found in 72% of 35,500 applications for variable annuity replacements that were approved by MetLife.

FINRA said that training and supervision were a key factor in the case, which is what they are also seeing in other variable annuity cases. The regulator is also looking at L-share variable annuities, which offer greater liquidity and a shorter surrender-penalty period.

With a variable annuity contract, an insurer consents to pay the investor periodic payments either right away or in the future. The investor buys the contract with a single payment or a series of payments. The VA’s value will depend on performance and the investment options selected by the investor.

Massachusetts Targets Rogue Brokers
The Massachusetts Securities Division is going after rogue brokers. The regulator sent a letter to more than 240 firms that have a higher than average number of reps who have been reported for misconduct. The state says it wants the firms’ hiring information and is interested in learning about brokerage firms’ hiring procedures and policies. The letter was issued to financial firms where over 15% of their current representatives have at least one current disclosure incident documented.

US Supreme Court Strikes Down Law That Would Have Let Puerto Rico Public Utilities Restructure Their Debt

Published on: June 15, 2016 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The U.S. Supreme Court struck down a Puerto Rico law that would have let its public utilities restructure $20 billion of debt. The territory’s officials enacted the Recovery Act in 2014 in an attempt to help it deal with its $70 billion of debt. Puerto Rico’s large public utilities owe about $26 billion to bondholders and banks. It was their creditors that challenged the law in federal court.

Puerto Rico is not allowed to file for bankruptcy protection. The Commonwealth is excluded from Chapter 9, which is the section of the bankruptcy code that usually applies to local governments, including cities, public utilities, counties, and other branches that have become insolvent and need help. (Puerto Rico has tried to convince the U.S. congress to get rid of the 1984 rule that excluded it from Chapter 9. No reason has been provided for why it was deliberately left out.)

Writing for the majority in the Supreme Court ruling, Justice Clarence Thomas reminded us that the federal bankruptcy code does not let lower government units and states enact their own bankruptcy laws. However, U.S. legislators are looking for ways to potentially help Puerto Rico.

A bill passed by the U.S. House of Representatives to help the territory deal with its debt crisis has gone to the Senate for consideration. If passed into law, the bill would establish a board to manage the restructuring of Puerto Rico’s debt and oversee the territory’s finances. The Commonwealth sure could use the help.

Securities Crimes: Ex-Pharmaceutical Executive Martin Shkreli Pleads Not Guilty to New Criminal Charge & Andrew Caspersen’s Lawyer Says Former Wall Street Trader is a Gambling Addict

Published on: June 14, 2016 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Martin Shkreli, the former chief executive of Retrophin Inc., has pleaded not guilty to a new charge of conspiracy. Shkreli was arrested last year for allegedly plotting to bilk the pharmaceutical company to cover up losses sustained by investors in his hedge funds. He was let go as CEO two years ago.

Shkreli had already been charged with seven counts of fraud and conspiracy. This latest charge of securities fraud conspiracy accuses him of not disclosing to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that he owned certain Retrophin shares. Prosecutors claim that he concealed the fact that he was in control of a number of free trading or unrestricted shares in Retrophin by distributing the shares to contractors and employees so that the 5% ownership threshold, which would have required for him to notify the SEC, would not be triggered. Shkreli also is accused of allegedly telling employees to move chunks of their Retrophin shares to cover debts that he owed.

Also pleading not guilty to this latest charge is Shkreli’s ex-attorney Evan Greebel who was the outside counsel of Retrophin at the time of the alleged scheme. Greebel also faces numerous criminal charges.

The two men are accused of allegedly lying to investors about the poor performances of MSMB Capital Management, Elea Capital Management, and MSMB Healthcare, all hedge funds, from ’06 to ’12. They also allegedly took money from Retrophin to pay bad market bets of the MSMB funds.

Libyan Fund Accuses Goldman Sachs of Financial Exploitation

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

In the High Court in London, the trial in the lawsuit brought by the Libyan Investment Authority (LIA) against Goldman Sachs (GS) is under way. The sovereign wealth fund claims that in 2008 the Wall Street bank misled it about a number of derivatives transactions, causing it to lose $1.2B when the contracts matured five years ago. The transactions are tied to Citigroup (C) stock and other companies’ stmck.

Court filings state that LIA had wanted to buy stakes in global companies that it could potentially partner up with in the future for development. The sovereign wealth fund was set up in 2006 to manage money from the country’s oil fields after Libya was taken off the U.S. government’s list of states that were considered terrorist sponsors.

Goldman made over $200M on the transactions. Meantime, the Libyan fund lost its investment when the economic crisis caused stock prices to drop.

Goldman disputes the allegations made by the Libyan Investment Authority, which claims that it was an unsophisticated investor that the firm took advantage of, persuading it to invest in transactions that it didn’t want or understand. In court, a lawyer for the sovereign wealth fund accused Goldman of using gifts, trips to Morocco, London, and Dubai, training programs, and an internship for the brother of the deputy executive officer of the fund to get the fund to invest.

Ex-NBA and NFL Players Win $819K Arbitration Award in FINRA Arbitration Case Against Morgan Stanley Smith Barney

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

A Financial Industry Regulatory Authority arbitration panel has awarded former NBA basketball player Keyon Dooling and ex-NFL athlete John St. Clair $819,000 in damages in their securities case against Morgan Stanley (MS). The two men accused the firm of negligent supervision of a former broker whom they blame for their investment losses.

The rogue broker, Aaron Parthemer, has since been barred from the securities industry. It was Parthemer who recommended that the former professional athletes put money into two businesses. Dooling invested $700K in apparel company Global Village Concerns and Miami Beach night spot Club Play. St. Clair invested $200,000 in Global Village Concerns. According to the ex-pro athletes’ securities fraud lawyers, the two investments proved worthless.

Now, the FINRA arbitration panel says that Morgan Stanley must pay Dooling and his spouse over $608K while St. Clair and his wife are to get over $200K. Meantime, Morgan Stanley disagrees with the panel’s ruling, contending that that it was Parthemer who failed to let the firm know that he was engaged in external investment activities. This was the alleged reason that FINRA barred him from the industry.

For instance, Parthemer is accused of lending $400K to three clients without getting his firm’s consent, giving former employers Wells Fargo (WFC) and Morgan Stanley, as well as FINRA, false information, presenting private securities transactions that went undisclosed and involved clients that invested over $3M, running a nightclub, operating a marketing firm, and winning a contract to promote a tequila brand.

SEC Bond Cases: Illinois Mayer Settles Municipal Bond Fraud Charges for $10K, Ethiopia’s Electric Utility Pays Over $6M to Resolve Bond Offering Violations, and Miami , Fla. Likely to Come Under Scrutiny in Civil Trial

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

Mayor of Harvey, Illinois Barred From Future Involvement In Muni Bond Offerings
Eric J. Kellog, the mayor of Harvey, Illinois, will pay $10K to resolve the Securities and Exchange Commission’s case accusing him of municipal bond fraud. As part of the settlement, Kellog has agreed to never take part in a muni bond offering again.

According to the Commission, Mayor Kellogg was tied to a number of fraudulent bond offerings made by the city of Harvey. Investors thought their money would go toward building a Holiday Inn hotel when, instead, at least $1.7M in bond proceeds were diverted to cover the city’s payroll and pay for operational costs that had nothing to do with the hotel construction project.

Kellogg was in charge of Harvey’s operations. His signature was on key offering documents used by the city of Harvey to sell and offer the municipal bonds. The SEC said that the mayor was liable for fraud as a control person under the Securities Exchange Act.

By settling, Kellog is not denying or admitting to the SEC findings.

Ethiopia’s Electric Utility Pays Over $6M to Settle SEC Municipal Bond Case
In other bond fraud news, the SEC has reached a settlement with the Ethiopian Electric Power over charges that the foreign electric utility did not register the bonds that it sold and offered to U.S. residents who were of Ethiopian descent. EEP will pay almost $6.5M to resolve the case accusing it of violating U.S. securities laws.

U.S. House Passes Puerto Rico Debt Rescue Bill

Published on: June 10, 2016 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The U.S. House of Representatives passed PROMESA, a bill to help Puerto Rico deal with its recession and its over $70 billion debt, in a landslide vote of 297-to-127. The island has been in financial trouble for some time now, with many of its residents leaving because the situation has gotten so bad. Already, Puerto Rico has defaulted three times in the last year on the debt payments that it owes.

PROMESA would establish an Oversight Board that will regulate the U.S. territory’s finances. The Oversight Board would be able to sell Puerto Rican government assets, let the island reduce the minimum wage for certain workers on a temporary basis, and decide whether to restructure the island’s debt. PROMESA is not a “bailout” of Puerto Rico as no taxpayer money would be used to pay off Puerto Rico’s debt and no federal funds would be committed under the bill.

Congress’s passage of PROMESA comes as the island is encountering new financial problems, including that the Commonwealth owes $2 billion on July 1 of this year. If the U.S. Senate were to pass PROMESA before then, however, Puerto Rico may not have to pay the full amount in July. The bill gives the Commonwealth a grace period through at least February 2017.

Under that “grace period” provision, Puerto Rico would be able to pay just interest on its debts and creditors wouldn’t be allowed to go after the Commonwealth with lawsuits. The grace period would hopefully give the board time to devise a plan.

Even though a solution is clearly needed, there are those who oppose the measure, including some creditors, interest groups, and bondholders. Puerto Rico’s $7 billion debt is held by local residents, financial institutions, U.S. hedge funds, and mutual fund firms, which means that there are investors on the mainland who are also holding Puerto Rico debt.

Oppenheimer to Pay $2.9M for Unsuitable Non-Traditional Exchange-Traded Fund Sales

Published on: June 9, 2016 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

FINRA is fining Oppenheimer & Co. Inc. (OPY) $2.2M for the sale of non-traditional exchange-traded funds, including inverse, leveraged, and inverse-leveraged ETFs, to retail customers without proper supervision and for suggesting them to clients even though they were not appropriate investments for them. The self-regulatory organization is also making the firm pay over $716,000 to the customers who were impacted.

FINRA said that even though Oppenheimer put into place policies barring representatives from both selling non-traditional ETFs to retail customers and executing non-traditional ETF purchases that were unsolicited for said customers unless they met certain requirements—including liquid assets greater than $50OK—the firm did not do a reasonable job of making sure that these policies were properly enforced. (The firm had put them into effect after FINRA issued a notice advising brokerage firms of the risks involved in non-traditional ETFs.) Because of this, Oppenheimer continued to market non-traditional ETFs to retail customers and effect transactions that were unsolicited for those who failed to meet the requirements.