Investor Lawyers Blog

FDIC Approves New Swaps Rules for Banks

Published on: October 22, 2015 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. has adopted new rules mandating that banks collect more collateral, also known as margin, for swaps transactions. This would serve as a type of insurance in the event that trades were to fail.

Swaps involve two parties swapping price swing risks in interest rates, currencies, commodities, and other matters. Manufacturers, financial firms, energy firms, and farmers use swaps to hedge and bet against these swings. Swap dealers and significant swap participants should be registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. They typically take part in over $8 billion in swaps yearly.

Swaps are part of a multi-trillion-dollar global market of contracts. They let counterparties trade a benchmark or fixed price for one that fluctuates. This allows companies to hedge exposure to the changes in the market in terms of its values and process. The new rules come in the wake of the 2010 Dodd-Frank Act, which required such regulations to lower the risks involved in derivatives.

According to The Wall Street Journal, the FDIC’s new rules seek to prevent the kind of risk-taking that led to the government having to bail out certain firms, such as American International Group Inc. Prior to the financial crisis AIG establish a huge derivatives book. When the trades failed, counterparties demanded that collateral be increased. Because the insurer couldn’t pay, the government had to get involved. If the new rules were in place back then, AIG would have been required to put aside more collateral before getting involved in the contracts. This would have placed a limit on its portfolio’s growth.

FINRA Orders 12 Financial Firms to Pay $6.7M for Not Charging UIT Purchase Discounts

Published on: October 20, 2015 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Twelve financial firms will pay over $4 million in restitution and fines of over $2.6M for purportedly not applying sales charge discounts to the sale of Unit Investment Trusts. The fines are also for supposed supervisory failures.

The firms and the payments they will make include:

• First Allied Securities, Inc., which will pay over $689K in restitution and a $325K fine.

Morgan Stanley, JPMorgan, Barclays and Other Banks To Pay $1.86B to Settle Credit Default Swaps Price Fixing Claims

Published on: October 20, 2015 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Details of the settlement involving a dozen big banks accused of conspiring to rig prices and restrict competition in the credit default swaps market have been released. According to papers filed in federal court in Manhattan last week, the following firms will collectively pay nearly $1.9 billion:

· JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPM): $595M

· Morgan Stanley (MS): $230M

· Barclays Plc (BARC): $178M

· Goldman Sachs (GS): $164M

· Credit Suisse (CS): $159M

· Bank of America Corp. (BAC): $90M

· Deutsche Bank (DB): $120M

· BNP Paribas (BNP): $89M

· Citigroup (C): $60M

· Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS): $33M

· HSBC Holdings Plc (HSBC): $25M

UBS Advisory Firms To Pay Investors $13M For Failure to Disclose Closed-End Fund Strategy Modification

Published on: October 19, 2015 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

UBS Fund Advisor LLC and UBS Willow Management LLC will pay $17.5M, including $13 million to investors that were hurt to resolve Securities and Exchange Commission charges accusing them of failing to disclose that there was a change in an investment strategy involving closed-end fund UBS Willow Fund LLC. The two UBS (UBS) advisory firms have advised the fund.

The SEC contends that from 2000 through 2008, UBS Willow Management – which was a joint venture between an outside portfolio manager and UBS Fund Advisor – invested the assets of the Willow Fund in line with the strategy discussed in marketing collateral and offering documents. However, according to the regulator’s order that instituted a settled administrative proceeding, in 2008, the fund advisor changed tactics and went from focusing on investments in debt put out by beleaguered companies to buying big amounts of credit default swaps.

The Willow fund started to sustain huge losses because of the credit default swaps, which went from 2.6% of the fund’s market value in ’08 to over 25% by March ’09. The fund was eventually liquidated three years later.

The SEC says that UBS Willow Management failed to notify its board of directors or the fund’s investors that the investment strategy had changed. For a time, a marketing brochure given to prospective investors misstated the strategy of the fund, and letters to investors included misleading or false information about credit default swap exposure.
Continue Reading ›

Barclays Resolves RMBS Lawsuits for $325M

Published on: October 19, 2015 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Barclays (BARC) will pay $325M to resolve two civil cases related to residential mortgage-backed securities sales that took place during the housing boom. The plaintiff of both securities lawsuits is the National Credit Union Administration, which regulates federal credit unions.

A number of credit unions under NCUA’s purview failed after they invested in mortgage-backed securities. The union believes that the banks that underwrote the securities misled buyers.

RMBS are investments that pool the returns and risks of personal mortgages. The quality of these securities came into question several years ago when homeowners began to default on the mortgages backing them. NCUA believes that it is its statutory duty to obtain recoveries for credit unions while making sure that customers are protected.

By settling, Barclays is not admitting fault. According to The New York Times, the bank sponsored and underwrote approximately $35M in mortgage securitizations in the US and sold $19.4B in loans that were originated and sold to third parties by affiliates of an entity that it had acquired. Upon completion of this settlement, NCUA will dismiss pending litigation against Barclays in district court in Kansas and New York.

CFTC Charges Guardian Asset Group With Illegal Off-Exchange Precious Metal Transactions

Published on: October 17, 2015 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission has submitted a civil injunctive enforcement action against Guardian Asset group LLC and its owner Andrew Kurzbard. The regulator claims the defendants took part in illegal-off-exchange transactions involving precious metals. The transactions purportedly involved retail customers and took place on a financed, margined, or leveraged basis.

According to the regulator, from February 2012 through at least February of the following year, Guardian and Kurzbard solicited customers by phone to get them involved in precious metal transactions. The company was able to collect at least $1.7 from its customers related to the transactions while earning over $434K in commissions.

The CFTC said that Guardian accepted customer funds and orders, acting as a Futures Commission Merchant but was not registered with the regulator as an FCM. The regulator says that because Kurzbard is Guardian’s control person, he is liable for its Commodity Exchange Act violations.

The CFTC’s complaint also claims that Guardian executed illegal precious metal transactions using AmeriFirst Management LLC. It was two years ago that the regulator filed an enforcement action against that company, accusing it and others of illegal, off-exchange precious metal transactions. AmeriFirst was charged with numerous violations, including fraud. The agency entered a consent order resolving the claims against AmeriFirst later that year after finding it liable for fraud and of engaging in illegal off-exchange precious metal transactions.
Continue Reading ›

Ex-Edward Jones Advisor Gets Five Years Behind Bars for Bilking 56-Year-Old Disabled Woman

Published on: October 15, 2015 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Jason Wade Cox, a former advisor for Edward Jones, was sentenced to five years in prison after pleading guilty to charges of mail fraud, wire fraud, and money laundering involving the account of a 56-year-old disabled woman. Cox had been managing the account of Jodene Beaver ever since the death of her father three years ago.

Beaver, who has mental and physical impairments, was left a trust by her father, who chose Cox as her financial adviser. Unfortunately, rather than helping Beaver, Cox stole thousands of dollars, taking money from the original account, moving the funds into her checking account, and then spending a lot of the cash on gambling. Not only did Cox spend all of Beaver’s money, but also he recommended that she sell her condominium and transfer to an apartment that had bed bugs.

According to the Internal Revenue Service, Cox got around federal banking rules by taking out from Beaver’s account just under the amount that would have required him to file currency transaction reports. When bank officials asked Beaver about the money she was withdrawing for the financial adviser, she replied that they were business partners but wasn’t sure what kind of business they were involved in. Her bank closed her accounts and notified the police.

In addition to the prison sentence, Cox must serve three years supervised release and pay over $412,000 in restitution.
Continue Reading ›

Ex-Rabobank Traders on Trial for Libor Rigging in the US

Published on: October 15, 2015 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

In New York City, the first criminal trial in the US involving traders accused of rigging the London interbank offered rate is underway. Anthony Conti and Anthony Allen, both former Rabobank traders, are accused of conspiring to turn in fraudulent rate reports for Libor to help others make money off the trades.

According to prosecutor Carol Sipperly, from ’06 to ’11 the two men gave Rabobank and themselves “unfair advantage” with their actions. Sipperly cited messages, emails, and testimony from three other ex-Rabobank traders who pleaded guilty to similar criminal charges.

Defense attorneys for Allen and Conti contended that the rate submissions were presented in good faith and that it was the traders who already pleaded guilty who had engaged in wrongdoing. Allen’s lawyer argued that his client never got compensation for the profits made by the other traders.

Libor rates are established daily in London based on submissions made by 16 banks. The four lowest and highest rates are eliminated with the remaining eight averaged. The benchmark that results represents the rates that banks can borrow from each other for specific periods. However, numerous banks, including Barclays (BARC), JPMorgan Chase (JPM) Rabobank, and Citigroup (c) have had to pay billions of dollars to regulators to settle charges of Libor rigging.

UBS To Pay $19.5M Over Notes Tied to Currency Index

Published on: October 14, 2015 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

UBS AG (UBS) has agreed to pay $19.5 million to resolve SEC charges accusing the firm of making misleading or false statements and omissions in offering materials for structured notes connected to a proprietary strategy for foreign exchange trading. The firm is accused of falsely stating to investors in the United States the structured notes linked to the V10 Currency Index with Volatility Cap were dependent upon a systematic and transparent strategy for currency trading that employed market prices to calculate the financial instruments that were underlying the index. The SEC said that UBS made undisclosed hedging trades, which lowered the index price by as much as 5%. The firm is settling without denying or admitting to the regulator’s findings.

About 1900 US investors purchased approximately $19M of structured notes connected to the index from December ’09 to November ’10. The SEC contends UBS did not have an effective procedure, policy, or process for making sure that the individuals mainly responsible for the offering documents for the notes in the US knew that UBS employees in Switzerland were taking part in practices that could hurt the price inputs for calculating the V10 Index. The firm also purportedly did not disclose that it took unwarranted markups on hedging trades, hedged trades with non-systemic spreads, and traded prior to certain hedging transactions.
Continue Reading ›

SEC Charges Against Six Firms For Stock Offering-Related Short Sale Violations Results In Over $2.5M in Sanctions

Published on: October 14, 2015 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The Securities and Exchange Commission has filed charges against J.P. Morgan Investment Management Inc., War Chest Capital Partners LLC, Harvest Capital Strategies LLC, Omega Advisors, Inc., Auriga Global Investors, Sociedad de Valores, S.A., and, Sabby Management LLC. All six firms settled the enforcement actions, which allege short selling violations ahead of stock offerings. They will collectively pay over $2.5 million in sanctions.

Under rule 105, firms are not allowed to participate in public stock offerings after they’ve sold short the same stock. The prohibition is for five days. To do otherwise could lead to illicit profits for the trader while lowering the offering proceeds for a company via the artificial depression of the market price right before that company puts a price on the stock. The SEC contends that all six firms took part in short selling certain stocks right before buying shares from a broker, underwriter, or dealer that participated in a follow-on public offering.

Per the settlements:

• Auriga Global Investors will pay disgorgement of nearly $437K, a penalty of over $179K, and a prejudgment interest of over $2K.

• War Chest Capital Partners will pay disgorgement of over $169K, prejudgment interest of over $22K, and a penalty of $150K.

• Harvest Capital Strategies will pay over 418K of disgorgement, prejudgment interest of $619, and a $65K penalty.

• Sabby Management will pay disgorgement of over $184K, prejudgment interest of over $2300, and a penalty of over $91,600.

• JPMorgan Investment Management will pay disgorgement of over $662K, prejudgment interest of over $56,700, and a penalty of over $364K.

• Omega Advisors will pay disgorgement of $68K, prejudgment interest of $686K, and a penalty of $65K.