Investor Lawyers Blog

FINRA Sees 10% Rise in Arbitration Cases, Puerto Rico Bond Claims A Factor

Published on: April 27, 2014 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

According to statistics put together by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, the number of securities arbitration cases brought by the self-regulatory agency is on target to exceed last year’s total. A likely contributor to the increase can be attributed to the numerous Puerto Rico municipal bond cases already filed by investors who sustained huge losses. More of these are inevitable, especially as FINRA just increased its arbitrator pool to deal with cases involving muni bonds from the US territory.

The broker-dealer regulator said that during this first quarter alone, 1,011 FINRA arbitration cases were submitted-a definite increase from the 919 securities arbitration claims filed during 2013’s first three months. However, the number of arbitration cases that were closed during this first quarter is less than in two years prior, with just 946 resolved. Compare that to the over 4,400 and 4,800 cases in 2013 and 2012, respectively.

That said, 5O% of arbitration cases decided during this initial quarter rendered damage awards, which is more than in the last two years. The most common claim in FINRA arbitration cases filed in 2014 so far is breach of fiduciary duty. Negligence, failure to supervise, and breach of contract are the other leading claims.

Ex-Bank of America CFO to Pay $7.5M to Settle with NY Over Merrill Lynch Acquisition Allegations

Published on: April 26, 2014 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Joe Price, the ex-chief finance officer of Bank of America Corp. (BAC) has consented to pay $7.5 million to settle allegations by the state of New York that the bank and its ex-executives misled investors over losses that were happening at Merrill Lynch even as shareholders were getting ready to approve its acquisition by the bank.

Bank of America’s decision to purchase Merrill as Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. was collapsing was initially seen by many as a positive. However, after the deal was made public and Merrill’s problems soon became known, speculation over how much information was kept from those approving the deal mounted.

The state contended that Bank of America misled shareholders about Merrill’s losses to get the $18.5 billion deal approved. They then got the federal government to contribute bailout money from the Troubled Asset Relief Program to complete the sale. The bank has since become the subject of regulatory investigations and securities lawsuits over their actions. It even consented to pay $2.43 billion in 2012 to resolve a class action securities fraud case filed by investors over the Merrill acquisition. Settlements in total have to date surpassed $50 billion.

Charles Schwab’s Barring of Customers from Joining Class Actions Violated FINRA Rules, Says Board of Governors

Published on: April 25, 2014 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

In a victory for the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, its Board of Governors has determined that Charles Schwab & Co. (SCHW) violated the self-regulatory organization’s rules when it added waiver language to agreements that prohibited customers from becoming part of any class action cases against the financial firm. Schwab has agreed to settle these claims with a fine of $500,000. Also, it will tell all its customers that the requirement is no longer in effect.

Schwab made amendments to the customer account agreement of over 6.8 million investors in 2011. The move came after it settled a class action securities case accusing the broker-dealer of misleading thousands of customers about its YieldPlus money market fund. (The fund sustained huge losses during the 2008 economic crisis, and to resolve the claims, Schwab agreed to pay $235 million.)

Included in the amendments were waiver provisions mandating that customers consent that any claims against the firm could only be arbitrated individually. Also, arbitrators would not be able to consolidate consolidated claims for more than one party.

Barclays Must Face Shareholder Lawsuit Over Libor Manipulation

Published on: April 25, 2014 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York says that Barclays Plc (BARC) shareholders can go ahead with their securities lawsuit claiming that the British bank caused them to suffer financial losses over manipulation of Libor. The ruling reverses a lower court’s decision.

The London Interbank Offered Rate is used to set interest rates on mortgages, credit cards, and student loans. It is also the average interest rate that banks can use to estimate what they would be charged if they borrowed from other banks. Regulators in Europe and the US have been investigating whether banks manipulated Libor when the 2008 financial crisis was happening.

In 2012, Barclays consented to pay British and American regulators $453 million and admitted that between August 2007 and January 2009 it frequently made Libor submissions that were artificially depressed. (Other big financial institutions that have settled Libor manipulation allegations included UBS AG (UBS), ICAP Plc (IAB), Rabobank, and Royal Bank of Scotland Group (RBS)).

Ex-Sentinel CEO is Convicted of $500M Fraud

Published on: April 24, 2014 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Eric Bloom, the CEO of Sentinel Management Group, Inc., the now bankrupt hedge fund, has been convicted of bilking over 70 customers of more than $500 million prior to the firm’s collapse. According to the U.S. Department of Justice, Bloom misappropriated securities that belonged to customers when he used the financial instruments as collateral to get a loan for Sentinel from Bank of New York Mellon Corp. (BK). The loan was partially used to buy risky illiquid securities for a trading portfolio to benefit Bloom, other Sentinel officers, corporations controlled by his family, and his relatives.

Also, says the DOJ, even though Bloom knew that Sentinel was at risk of defaulting on the loan from the bank, he caused the hedge fund to take over $100 million from customers while hiding its true financial state. A federal jury returned guilty verdicts against him on one count of investment adviser fraud and 18 counts of wire fraud.

The guilty verdict comes six months after Charles K. Mosley, Sentinel’s former head trader, pleaded guilty to two counts of investment adviser fraud related to the charges filed against Bloom. Mosely admitted to covering up their actions. In his plea agreement, he said that customers were sent statements according to interest income rates that he and Bloom had calculated rather than the performance of investment portfolios.

U.S. Wants Bank of America to Pay Over $13B Over Residential Mortgage-Backed Securities

Published on: April 24, 2014 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Bloomberg is reporting that U.S. prosecutors want Bank of America Corp. (BAC) to settle state and federal investigations into the lender’s sale of home loan-backed bonds leading up to the 2008 financial crisis by paying over $13 billion. The bank is one of at least eight financial institutions that the Department of Justice and state attorneys general are investigating for misleading investors about the quality of the loans that were backing mortgages just as housing prices fell.

A lot of Bank of America’s loans came from its purchase of Countrywide Financial Corp., a subprime lender, and Merrill Lynch & Co., which packaged a lot of the loans into bonds.

If there ends up being no deal, the government could sue the bank.

Texas Man Gets 25 years in Prison for $11M Ponzi Scam

Published on: April 21, 2014 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

After a federal jury convicted Gary Lynn McDuff of conspiring to defraud investors, a U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas judge sentenced the 58-year-old to 25 years behind bar for the $11 million investment scam. McDuff’s co-conspirators, Robert Reese and Gary Lancaster, had both pleaded guilty-Reese has since died. They too received prison terms.

The three men lied to investors when they told them their funds would be invested in top rated bonds that carried low risk. Instead, the fraudsters laundered investor money.

They solicited investments from customers throughout the U.S. while working at Lancorp Investment Fund. The indictment says that McDuff claimed that Lancaster was a registered adviser and the fund was properly registered.

Institutional Investors Sue BP for Securities Fraud

Published on: April 21, 2014 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

A number of pension funds in the US are suing BP (BP) for fraud. The institutional investors, including funds for public workers in Texas, Louisiana, and Maryland, and Bank of America’s (BAC) private pension plan, claim, that the corporation bilked them when it made misstatements about the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in 2010. Also bringing securities fraud causes against the oil company, just within the statute of limitations, are a number of foreign institutions.

The oil spill claimed the lives of 11 people. It is considered the worst offshore spill in US history. According to Reuters, BP is now the defendant in numerous securities fraud cases filed by at least 20 institutional investors contending that their investment managers were influenced by misrepresentations the company made when they deciding whether to purchase BP shares. The securities lawsuits claim that BP violated British securities and fraud laws when misrepresenting it safety record and the extent of the oil spill.

It was in 2010, when the Supreme Court issued its decision in Morrison v. National Australia Bank that foreign-based companies in general obtained immunity from securities fraud claims. In that lawsuit, the nation’s highest court held that American securities laws couldn’t be applied beyond the borders of the United States. Trial courts took this to mean that companies found on foreign exchanges cannot be sued for fraud under the Exchange Act of 1934—save for claims made by investors that traded in American Depository Shares.

The Brokerage Industry Responds to FINRA’s Broker Compensation Proposal

Published on: April 19, 2014 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

A number brokerage firms, including Morgan Stanley Wealth Management, LPL Financial (LPLA), and Stifel Nicolaus (SF) have responded to the Securities and Exchange Commission’s request for comments about FINRA-proposed rule about broker compensation. Proposed rule 2243 would require greater disclosure about the financial incentives that is offered to representatives who change jobs. The information would need to be conveyed to the self-regulatory agency.

Under Rule 2243, clients who go with a broker to a new firm would have to be apprised of any recruiting compensation the representative gets if the amount is $100,000 or greater. This would include bonuses at the front and back ends, signing bonuses, transition assistance, and accelerated payouts. The disclosure would be applicable for one year after the representative begins association or employment with the new broker-dealer.

The rule also would apply if the brokerage firm expects total compensation paid during the representative’s first year of association to result in a $100,000 or 25% increase in compensation from the year prior. Firms also would have to notify FINRA about such a rise in compensation. (The SRO wants to use the data to look for signs of potentially related sales abuses.)

SEC Charges Total Wealth Management With Securities Fraud, Receiving Undisclosed Kickbacks

Published on: April 18, 2014 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The Securities and Exchange Commission has filed a financial fraud case against Total Wealth Management Inc., an investment advisory firm based in Southern California. The regulator is accusing the firm of getting undisclosed kickbacks over investments recommended to clients. It is also alleging breach of fiduciary duty.

According to the SEC’s complaint, Total Wealth placed about 75% of 481 client accounts into Altus Funds, which is a family of proprietary funds. The investment advisory firm has a revenue-sharing deal that allows them to get kickbacks. The regulator says this was a conflict of interest because customers did not know about the agreement.

The Wall Street Journal reports that according to the SEC, Altus invested 92% of all its investments-$32 million-in funds that had revenue sharing deals with Total Wealth. The agency says that clients likely wouldn’t have put their money with Total Wealth if they had known that the majority of the Altus funds were paying the firm.