Investor Lawyers Blog

SEC Files Insider Trading Charges Involving Secondary Stock Offerings

Published on: June 3, 2015 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The Securities and Exchange Commission is filing insider trading charges against four persons accused of stealing confidential data from investment banks and public company clients so they could trade prior to secondary stock offerings. The four of them allegedly made over $4.4 million in illegal trading profits. Some 15 stocks were reportedly involved. The insider trading scam purportedly went on for three years, from 6/10 to 7/13.

According to the regulator, Steven Fishoff, a former day trader, conspired with his brother-in-law Steven Costantin and friends Ronald Chernin and Paul Petrello. The four of them pretended to be portfolio managers and they allegedly persuaded investment bankers to share confidential information about secondary offerings that were going to take place. Essentially, after agreeing not to tell anyone about the offering or trade in the securities, the defendants were made privy to private data.

The defendants allegedly broke their promises not to tell others about the information, tipping one another with their insider knowledge so they could lower the issuer’s stock price. They would short the stock before the offering was made public. This allowed them to earn short sale profits after the stock price had plunged.

Merrill Lynch to Settle Short-Selling Case for $11M, Admits to Wrongdoing

Published on: June 2, 2015 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The SEC said that Merrill Lynch (MER) would pay $11 million to resolve allegations of short-selling-related noncompliance. The regulator said that the wirehouse executed short sales in certain securities when the supply for this type of transaction was restricted.

Customers frequently ask brokerage firms to “locate” stock that can be used for short selling. The financial firms generate easy-to-borrow lists made up of the stock they believe is accessible for such locates. However, contends the SEC, from January 2008 through January 2014 Merrill used information that was dated to create these ETB lists.

For example, there were times when certain securities that were placed on the ETB list in the morning were no longer as easily available for borrowing later in the trading day. Yet Merrill’s platforms were set up so that they continued to process short sale orders according to the now-dated list—even as firm personnel appropriately stopped using the list for sourcing locates when certain shares’ availability had become restricted.

Sage Advisory Group Must Pay Over $1M for Two Securities Fraud Cases

Published on: June 1, 2015 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts has ordered Sage Advisory Group and principal Benjamin Lee Grant (“Lee Grant”) to pay over $1M for two SEC fraud cases. The ruling comes after a federal jury found both of them liable.

In the first case, the regulator is accusing Lee Grant of using allegedly false and misleading statements to fraudulently persuade brokerage customers to move their assets to Sage, which was the firm he was starting in 2005. He purportedly told clients that the 2% wrap fee they would have to pay Sage for transaction, management, and advisory services would not cost as much in the long run as the 1% fee and trading commissions that his former employer, brokerage firm Wedbush Morgan Securities, charged them.

The SEC said that Lee Grant claimed it was First Wilshire Securities Management Inc. that was recommending that clients move their assets to Sage with him. Wilshire Securities Management was the investment adviser managing the assets of these clients at Wedbush. The regulator contends, however, that First Wilshire Securities never made such a recommendation.
Continue Reading ›

Thousands More Investors in Bernard Madoff Ponzi Scam Could Get Financial Recovery

Published on: May 31, 2015 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

According to Richard Breeden, the special master of the Madoff Victim Fund, about 11,000 more investors who sustained losses in the Bernard Madoff Ponzi scam could recover some of their funds. He also said that the number could possibly double as the U.S. government assesses more of the claims.

Breeden said that as of the middle of this month his office had looked at over 34,000 of the more than 63,700 claims it had received from investors who were claiming $77.3 billion of losses. They are from 135 countries.

The Madoff Victim Fund is holding $4.05 billion in investor compensation and is separate from the compensation being distributed by Irving Picard, who is the trustee of Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC. While Picard has been compensating investors who directly placed their funds with Madoff, Breeden is working to compensate investors who had accounts at feeder funds and other entities that then sent their money to Madoff for investment.

FINRA on BrokerCheck and Broker Compensation

Published on: May 30, 2015 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority has sent its proposed rule change regarding BrokerCheck links to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Per the new measure, a broker-dealer would have to make sure that a BrokerCheck link is made accessible on its home page. The firm would also have to make sure links to the FINRA database are visible on the profile pages of its brokers.

The Commission will have to approve the rule, which was modified after concerns were raised about the original version, which called for BrokerCheck links to also be included in posts on social media websites, including Twitter. A broker would also have had to provide direct links to his/her individual BrokerCheck profile pages.

The revised version doesn’t require providing the links on social media, and any links to BrokerCheck only must take people to the home page of the firm’s site and not an individual rep’s profile.

Ex-Trident Partners Compliance Director Faces SEC Charges for Allegedly Defrauding Investors And Stealing Broker-Dealer Assets

Published on: May 29, 2015 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission’s Enforcement Division has filed fraud charges against William Quigley, the former compliance director of Trident Partners Ltd. According to the regulator, Quigley solicited investors to purchase stock in start-ups that were supposedly about to go public, as well as well-known companies, but never actually bought the investments. Instead, he put their money in brokerage and bank accounts in the Philippines or used ATM machines to take out the funds.

Quigley is accused of working with two brothers in the Philippines. He and his co-conspirators allegedly transferred over $500,000 of investor funds to the accounts in that country.

The SEC claims that Quigley set up three brokerage accounts, including a secret account at Trident Partners, to conduct the scam. As compliance director, he was supposed to open and correctly route incoming correspondence and wires and report suspect transfers. Instead, he stole commission checks written to the brokerage firm and put the money in outside accounts.

Ohio Stockbroker Jerry Cicolani Finally Barred From Financial Industry

Published on: May 28, 2015 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

After pleading guilty to two criminal counts of selling unregistered securities, The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”), the agency primarily charged with regulating the nation’s stockbrokers, finally barred former stockbroker, Jerry A. Cicolani, Jr. (“Cicolani”) from the securities industry. According to FINRA’s website, “FINRA has permanently barred [Cicolani] from acting as a broker or otherwise associating with firms that sell securities to the public.”

Sadly, the bar came much too late for many of Cicolani’s former clients. For years, FINRA, had largely overlooked numerous customer complaints and other accusations of bad conduct in Cicolani’s formal record. By the time he was barred, Cicolani had amassed nearly 70 complaints over a 13 year period. The final straw seemed to be the suit brought by the U.S. Securities & Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) in May 2014 for Cicolani’s alleged role in a Ponzi scheme that defrauded dozens of investors out of roughly $7 million. Four months after the suit was filed, FINRA finally took action and barred Cicolani.

For the affected customers, FINRA did not take action fast enough, especially given the warning signs. A FINRA spokesperson, Michelle Ong, seemingly recognized this sentiment when noting, “[W]e regret that we did not bring a formal action against Mr. Cicolani earlier.” Many of Cicolani’s complaints originated from his time working for Merrill Lynch. From 1991 to his resignation from Merrill Lynch in 2010, Cicolani was named in over 60 customer complaints during that time period. Yet, time and time again, these complaints were largely overlooked by both his employer and regulators. In 2004, Cicolani was subject to an SEC inquiry based on his handling of customer accounts, yet Merrill Lynch did not terminate his employment because the SEC never sanctioned Cicolani for his conduct. Instead, Cicolani resigned years later after another investigation, this time initiated by Merrill Lynch.

Dallas Trader is Sentenced in $3.5M Texas Securities Fraud Case Involving Institutional Investors

Published on: May 28, 2015 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

A Texas man was sentenced to 30 months in prison after pleading guilty to securities fraud. At the time of the fraud, Daniel Lutz Bergin was an equity trader for Cushing MLP Asset Management, which is located in Dallas.

While at the registered investment adviser, Bergin had discretionary assets under management of about $2.5B. He serviced institutional investors and high net worth individuals through portfolio and advisory management services.

However, from 2010 until he was fired in May 2013, Bergin engaged in a front-running scam involving the misuse of inside information when making trades in his wife’s brokerage account. He would use non-public, material data about big orders that he was able to access from Cushing. The information was supposed to be used for making trades on behalf of his clients. Instead, he also used the information to make trades through his wife’s account.

Massachusetts Securities Regulator Sues the SEC Over New Rules Affecting Small Company Stock Offerings

Published on: May 26, 2015 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

William Galvin, the securities regulator of Massachusetts, is suing the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Galvin is seeking to stop new rules that he believes restricts state oversight of stock offerings made by emerging and small companies.

With the newly adopted rules, offerings starting at $20 million would only need to be filed with the SEC and not the states. With smaller deals, companies can opt for state-level assessment-or not, and contend with stricter disclosure requirements.

State regulators have long felt that the new rules pre-empt their oversight of a market at which they are the ones who can do the best job at overseeing. These SEC rules are not specific about who or what would qualify as the kind of investor that could buy these offerings. Because no salary restrictions or net worth is imposed, local businesses could easily target retail investors.

Deutsche Bank Ordered to Pay $55M for Misstating Financial Reports During the Economic Crisis

Published on: May 26, 2015 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission is ordering Deutsche Bank AG (DB) to pay $55M to resolve charges accusing the firm of misstating financial reports during the peak of economic crisis. The regulator believes that the financial institution did not factor the material risk for possible losses of billions of dollars.

According to the regulator, in its order instituting a resolved administrative proceeding, Deutsche Bank overvalued a derivatives portfolio the bank had used to buy protection against losses involving credit default. Due to the to the Leveraged Super Senior trades’ “leveraged” nature the collateral for the positions was minimal compared to the $98 billion in purchased protections.

This generated a “gap risk” that the protection’s market value could potentially go beyond the available collateral. Also, because the sellers that put down the collateral could choose to unwind the trade instead of putting more collateral down in such a situation, this meant that technically the bank was protected only up to its collateral level and not its credit protection’s full market value.