Investor Lawyers Blog

Alternative Fund Manager Faces SEC Case, Criminal Charges Alleging $16M Fraud Involving Fake Loans and GL Beyond Income Fund

Published on: January 9, 2015 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission has filed a civil case against alternative fund manager Daniel Thibeault accusing him of taking some $16 million in assets from the GL Beyond Income Fund (GLBFX). Thibeault was arrested on securities fraud charges over the same matter last month.

According to the SEC, Thibeault took out faked loans using Taft Financial Services, which is an intermediary that he allegedly controlled, to steal money from the funds. The purported securities scam is said to have begun in 2013, after the GL fund started losing money. The Commission says that in certain cases documents for the loans that were withdrawn via Taft are missing or had errors in them, including inaccurate birth dates for borrowers.

The regulator’s complaint also names GL Investment Services, which Thibeault indirectly owns. The registered investment adviser, which had about $130 million in assets from approximately 700 clients, is accused of advising customers to put money in the GL fund.

FINRA Orders Pershing to Pay $3M Fine for Customer Protection Rule Violations

Published on: January 7, 2015 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority Inc. says that Pershing, a Bank of New York Mellon Corp. (BK) unit, must pay $3 million for violations involving the Customer Protection Rule. According to the self-regulatory organization, for about nine months between ’10 and ’11, the clearing firm did not put aside the money needed for a reserve account, per FINRA’s deposit requirements.

The SRO said that deficiencies, from $4 million to $220 million, came from Pershing’s “misinterpretation” of aspects of the rule, as well as inadequate supervision over the way the firm calculated what needed to be put in reserve. Also, over a certain time period, Pershing did not promptly get or keep up physical possession or control of certain customers’ margin securities. This resulted in nearly four dozen new control or possession deficits, while significantly raising the number of existing control or possession deficits.

The Customer Protection Rule mandates that brokerage firms maintain custody of customer cash and securities in order to comply with the following requirements: keep a cash reserve or qualified securities in a bank account that has at least the equivalent value of the net cash the broker-dealer owes customers, as well as obtain and keep up control or physical possession over customers’ excess and fully paid margin securities.

Ambac Files Mortgage Bond Lawsuit Against Bank of America

Published on: January 7, 2015 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Ambac Assurance filed a mortgage bond lawsuit against Bank of America (BAC) for what it claims were losses of hundreds of millions of dollars from insuring over $1.6B of securities. The holding company says that the loans were at least partially backed by high-risk mortgages from the bank’s Countrywide Home Loans unit.

According to the mortgage bond lawsuit, Ambac contends that Countrywide lied about the quality of its underwriting of loans that were backing the securities, which were issued in several transactions over a two-year period prior to the acquisition of the unit by Bank of America in 2008. The holding company said that it could be facing potential claims greater than $600 million. It claims that the loan pools backing the certificates it insured have lost billions of dollars. Ambac said that if it had known Countrywide lied it would have never guaranteed payments.

This is not the first time that Ambac has sued Bank of America Corp. In 2010, the company filed a $16.7 billion mortgage-backed securities case against the bank. In that securities case, Ambac claimed that Countrywide fraudulently persuaded Ambac to insure bonds with loans that were not properly made.

FINRA Releases Priorities for 2015, Gets SEC Approval for Background Check Rule

Published on: January 6, 2015 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The Securities and Exchange Commission has approved a Financial Industry Regulatory Authority proposal mandating that broker-dealers conduct more rigorous background checks on new hires. Per the new rule, brokerage firms must implement written procedures for confirming the completeness and accuracy of a broker’s registration data on a Form U4.

Firms will have to search “reasonably available public records” of both new hires and new registrants within 30 days of a U4’s submission to FINRA.

In other FINRA news, the self-regulatory organization has just released its exam and regulatory priorities for 2015. The regulator stated that the majority of compliance problems could be worked out if only broker-dealers always acted in their clients’ best interests. The statement was a significant one, considering that brokers are currently just obligated to make sure that they investments they recommend are suitable for clients.

Beneficiaries of Puerto Rico Trust File Securities Fraud Lawsuit Seeking Over $4.5M From UBS Financial Services

Published on: January 5, 2015 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Plaintiffs in Puerto Rico who say they are the beneficiaries of a trust have filed a securities lawsuit against UBS Financial Services (UBS). The beneficiaries’ complaint asserts that UBS in Puerto Rico breached its duty to properly manage funds linked to UBS’s proprietary closed-end Puerto Rico bond funds.

The beneficiaries of Nellie Sánchez Carmona’s estate claim that the brokerage firm acted against their best interests when it opted to keep the trust invested in the proprietary funds-a move that earned UBS underwriting and management fees, along with commissions, and interest. The beneficiaries contend that UBS and its subsidiaries purposely prevented Sánchez Carmona from collecting benefits she was owed so that the firm could keep investing her money in the closed-end funds, which were issued by the firm, and continue to collect fees.

Also, according to the plaintiffs, for 10 years UBS prevented Sánchez Carmona from finding out that she was a beneficiary of the trust, which was set up by her husband Robert Hargen. Even though he passed away several years ago, UBS, in federal filings up to at least 2010, represented that Hargen was still alive and in possession of the trust.

Morgan Stanley Fires Wealth Management Group Employee For Stealing Client Data

Published on: January 5, 2015 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Morgan Stanley (MS) has let go of Galen Marsh, a 30-year-old financial adviser in its wealth management group, for stealing client information and allegedly making some of the data that he took available online. Some 350,000 of the brokerage firm’s 3.5 million wirehouse clients were affected. About 900 clients’ account names and numbers were briefly posted on the Internet.

Morgan Stanley discovered that Marsh had downloaded the client data, including account numbers, names, states of residence, and asset values. In a statement, the firm said that there is no proof of any financial loss sustained by the clients whose information was stolen. (Social security numbers and account passwords were not taken.)

The firm says it is notifying the clients who were affected. It has also reached out to regulators and law enforcement.

Securities Fraud News: SEC Charges NY Firm With Stealing Investor Funds, Stock Promoter Accused of Bilking Clients Over Twitter, Facebook Pre-IPO Shares, and NY Lawyer Under Fire for Alleged Ponzi Scam

Published on: December 31, 2014 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

SEC Charges NY Firm, Fund Managers With Securities Fraud

The Securities and Exchange Commission is charging VERO Capital Management, its CFO Steven Downey, President Robert Geiger, and General Counsel George Barbaresi with secretly taking investor money to support a side business. The three men ran funds with offering documents that touted their objective as making good returns via mortgage-backed securities investments. Instead, after winding down the funds, the officers allegedly diverted around $4.4 million to undocumented bridge loans to an affiliate company that was supposedly in risk management. Investors and the funds’ directors were purportedly not notified that these unauthorized loans were taking place.

The SEC Enforcement Division also claims that VERO Capital and the three men compelled the funds to buy three notes totalling $7 million from an affiliate, which is a principal transaction that requires written notice and consent of a client before the transaction can be finished. The division claims that no attempt was made to get this mandatory notice. The regulator is alleging multiple violations of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 and other rules.

Avon, Bruker Corp. Face FCPA Charges by the SEC

Published on: December 30, 2014 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The Securities and Exchange Commission is charging Avon Products Inc. with Foreign Corrupt Practices Act violations. The regulator claims that the global beauty products company did not put into place controls that could have allowed it to detect and stop gifts and payments made to Chinese government officials. To settle the SEC charges, as well as a parallel case brought by the U.S. Justice Department, Avon entities have consented to pay $135M.

According to the SEC, Avon’s Chinese subsidiary made $8 million of payments in gifts, money, travel, and entertainment to obtain access to government officials involved in direct selling regulations in China. Avon wanted to be the first to test the regulations and in 2006 it was the first to obtain a direct selling business license in that country. Improper payments were purportedly made by the company to prevent negative news stories and fines that could have affected its image. Such payments allegedly included paid travel within China or to Europe or the US, expensive designer gifts, and corporate box tickets to the China Open.

The improper payments allegedly happened from 2004 to 2008. After discovering the possible FCPA issues at the Chinese subsidiary in 2015 and looking further into the matter, no reforms were made. It wasn’t until 2008 that a full internal probe was conducted and only after a whistleblower sent Avon’s CEO a letter.

Financial Firm News: NH Regulator Fines Merrill Lynch $400K for Telemarketing Compliance Shortfalls, Court Orders Vasquez Global Investments to Pay More Than $1.3M for Commodity Pool Fraud, and FINRA Sanctions Monex Securities Inc.

Published on: December 29, 2014 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

New Hampshire Says Merrill Lynch Must Pay $400,000 For Not Complying with Telemarketing Rules

Bank of America (BAC) Merrill Lynch has consented to pay $400,000 to resolve claims made by the New Hampshire Bureau of Securities Regulation accusing the firm of improperly soliciting business when it called people who were on do-not-call lists and were not clients. As part of the deal, Merrill Lynch will improve its telemarketing procedures and policies. A spokesperson for the brokerage firm says it has already enhanced internal controls to avoid making inappropriate calls moving forward.

According to the regulator, not only did the broker-dealer fail to fully comprehend how to comply with the state’s rules for telemarketing but also the firm did not reasonably supervise its agents’ telemarketing activities in New Hampshire.

Standard & Poor’s on the Verge of Civil Settlement Over Real-Estate Bond Ratings, Reports WSJ

Published on: December 29, 2014 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

According to The Wall Street Journal, Standard & Poor’s Ratings Services is close to arriving at a securities settlement with regulators over the way they graded real-estate bonds. The agreement would resolve claims by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley, and New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman.

The proposed deal is over six commercial real estate bond ratings issued by the credit rater in 2011. In July of that year, S & P withdrew a preliminary rating on a $1.5 billion security comprised of commercial real-estate loans. The decision made debt issuers and investors very angry. (The deal was later partially overhauled and eventually went to market.)

S & P discovered discrepancies in the way its ratings methodology applied for commercial real estate deals. However, it said the incongruence was not outside what is considered an acceptable range. Still, investigators were compelled to look at the withdrawn rating and other deals from that period.