Investor Lawyers Blog

Shareholders Settle with Fannie Mae for $170M

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

Fannie Mae (FNMA) and its shareholders have reached a $170M settlement in a lawsuit accusing the entity of misleading the plaintiffs about its risk management, finances, and mortgage exposure prior to its seizure by the U.S. government during the financial crisis of 2008. Now, a court must approve the agreement.

The lead plaintiffs are the Tennessee Consolidated Retirement System, the State-Boston Retirement Board, and the Massachusetts Pension Reserves Investment Management Board, which are trying to obtain class action securities status for their case. The shareholders claim that Fannie Mae defrauded them, as well as inflated its stock via misleading and false statements about capitalization, internal controls, exposure to low-documentation “Alt-A” mortgages, subprime mortgages, and accounting.

Per the agreement, $123.8 million would go to common stockholder and Preferred stockholders would get $46.2 million. The stockholders would come from the period running from 11/8/06 to 9/5/08. During that time, Fannie Mae’s market value hit a peak of over $60 billion. Its current market value is $2.71 million.

Investors File Close to $1B of Puerto Rico Bond Fraud Claims against UBS

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

In its third-quarter earnings reports this week, UBS noted that claims involving its Puerto Rico closed-end municipal bond funds are reaching close to $1 billion. That is a significant jump from the $600M mark those cases reached during the second quarter of this year, and this shows that the number of cases being filed against UBS continue to grow. According to multiple reports, the investors seeking almost $1 billion in losses are alleging unsuitability, fraud, and misrepresentation.

The third quarter has been a rough one for the Swiss banking giant. Reuters reports that the entity has put aside $1.9 billion for possible legal costs.

In the past year, UBS has been in the spotlight over claims that brokers in UBS’s Puerto Rico unit persuaded customers to get involved in the proprietary bond funds even if the funds were not suitable for the investors’ portfolios. Some clients reportedly were even encouraged to borrow so they could invest more.

SEC Adds Children and Spouses of Texas Wyly Brothers to Securities Fraud Case Following $187M Verdict

Published on: October 28, 2014 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission has added the children and wives of Texans Charles and Samuel Wily to the fraud case that has already rendered a $187.7M award, plus interest, in its favor. The move would come following Sam Wiley’s decision to file for bankruptcy earlier this month.

Over a dozen relatives are now on the lawsuit, including Caroline Wyly, who is the widow of Charles Wyly. He died in a car crash in 2011. Carolyn also has filed for bankruptcy. Also now included are the children of both Charles and Sam.

Regulators say the family members needed to be added to stop the dissipation of the two men’s assets. However, they noted that the relatives possess no legal rights or are traceable to the defendants ill-gotten gains.

FINRA Fines Merrill Lynch $6M For Supervisory Failures and REG SHO Violations

Published on: October 28, 2014 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority is fining and censuring Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated $2.5M for not setting up, maintaining, and enforcing supervisory procedures and systems related to certain areas, including Regulation SHO. The self-regulatory organization is fining Merrill Lynch Professional Clearing Corp. $3.5M, also for Reg SHO violations. Bank of America (BAC), which acquired Merrill Lynch in 2008, will pay the $6M fines to FINRA.

Reg SHO is an SEC rule governing short sales. One of its purposes is to curb abusive naked short selling. The regulation also seeks to lower the incidents of sellers neglecting to deliver securities in a timely manner by requiring firms to timely “close out” fail-to-deliver positions by purchasing or borrowing securities of similar type and quantity. It lets firms reasonably allocate fail-to-deliver positions to brokerage firm clients that contributed or caused those positions.

According to the SRO, from 9/08 through 7/12, Merrill Lynch PRO failed to close out certain fail-to-deliver position, and, for most of that period, lacked the necessary procedures and systems to handle REG Show close-out requirements. FINRA said that from 09/08 through 3/011, the firm’s supervisory systems and procedures were not sufficient, making it possible for the firm to improperly allocate fail-to-deliver positions to the brokerage firm’s clients on the basis of clients’ short positions while not having to heed clients played a part in the fail-to-deliver positions.

Investment Adviser Pleads Guilty to Involvement in $2M Cherry Picking Securities Scam

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

Noah Myers waved his right to indictment and pleaded guilty to defrauding clients of over $2M. The investment adviser admitted to his involvement in a cherry picking scam. Myers, 43, owns MiddleCove Capital LLC, which is located in Connecticut. He faces up to 20 years behind bars and a maximum fine of $5 million.

As part of his guilty plea, Myers admitted to taking profits from investments for himself and other accounts he favored. Losses were distributed to accounts he did not favor. He accomplished this imbalanced distribution by waiting to assign a trade to an account until after he was able to determine whether it was profitable.

Because of his securities scam, clients lost over $2 million. Meantime, he made $460,000 in profits. A lot of the investors he bilked were retired and had asked MiddleCove to involve them in investments that were low risk.

European Commission Takes Action Against JPMorgan, UBS, RBS & Credit Swiss for Cartel Conduct

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

The European Commission has found that Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS), JPMorgan (JPM), UBS AG (UBS) and Credit Suisse (CS) engaged in cartel behavior. Except for RBS, which received immunity from having to pay any fines by disclosing the cartel conduct, the other banks were fined $120 million for their activities. For cooperating, UBS and JPMorgan received fine reductions. Along with Credit Suisse, both banks got a 10% reduction for consenting to settle.

All four financial institutions are accused of running a cartel involving bid-ask spreads of Swiss franc interest-rate derivatives in the European Economic Area. Banks and companies typically use interest rate derivatives to manage interest rate fluctuation risks. A “bid-ask spread” is the difference between how much a market maker is willing to sell and purchase a product.

According to the European Commission, between May and September ’07, the four banks agreed to quote to third parties wider fixed bid-ask spreads on certain short-term, over-the-counter Swiss franc interest rate derivatives while keeping narrower spreads for trades between them. The purpose was to reduce their transaction costs and keep liquidity among themselves, as well as keep other market makers from competing on equal terms in the Swiss franc derivatives market. In one action, JPMorgan Chase (JPM) was fined €61.7 million euros for purportedly manipulating the Swiss franc Libor benchmark interest rate in an illegal cartel with RBS, which, again, had immunity from fees.

SEC Fines E*TRADE Subsidiaries Over $1M Penalty for Unregistered Microcap Securities Sales, Puts Out Risk Alert Regarding Broker-Dealer Duties To Clients

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

Earlier this month, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission put out a Risk Alert reminding brokerage firms about their duties when they take part in unregistered transactions for customers. The guidance came, along with the announcement that the agency had filed an enforcement action against former and current E*TRADE Financial Corporation (ETFC) brokerage subsidiaries that did not successfully act as gatekeepers and improperly engaged in the unregistered sales of microcap stock for customers.

According to the SEC, E*TRADE Capital Markets and E*TRADE Securities sold billions of penny stock shares for customers between 2007 and 2011. During this time, there were numerous occasions when they disregarded red flags indicating that the offerings were taking place without an applicable exemption from federal securities laws’ registration provisions.

The two brokerage firms consented to repay over $1.5 million in disgorgement plus prejudgment interest from commissions they made on the improper sales. They also have to pay a $1 million combined penalty.

73 Swiss Banks Want the US to Modify Proposed Tax Amnesty Deals

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

Lawyers for 73 Swiss banks are questioning the terms of self-disclosure program that would allow them to achieve amnesty for having helped Americans avoid paying taxes to the U.S. government. In a request to the Justice Department, the attorneys objected to certain terms while recommending changes to the model accord.

The program wins bank participants a guarantee that they won’t be prosecuted if they disclose accounts belonging to Americans that had previously gone undeclared. While the bank could still be slapped with penalties the equivalent of up to half of what was in the hidden funds, they might be able to negotiate the amount down.

One of the requirements under the plan is that banks have to cooperate with other foreign or domestic law enforcement agencies that become involved in any probe over a tax evasion matter. However, Bloomberg reports, according to a number of the lawyers, this requirement wasn’t in the program when some 100 firms signed up so they could win non-prosecution deals in exchange for their cooperation. The banks claim that such a stipulation turns a program having to do with U.S. tax issues into a global agreement that doesn’t include guarantees or safeguards for them.

Rajaratnam Brother Settles Insider Trading Charges Involving Hedge Fund Advisory Firm Galleon Management

Published on: October 23, 2014 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Rajarengan “Rengan” Rajaratnam, the brother of Raj Rajaratnam, has consented to pay over $840,000 to settle insider trading charges filed, against him by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Rengan, who has not admitted to or denied wrongding, also has agreed to an industry bar. A court must still approve the settlement.

Rengan was a portfolio manager at Galleon. He also co-founded Sedna Capital Management, which is another hedge fund advisory firm. Raj was convicted of insider trading in 2011.

It was in 2013 that the SEC filed charges against him for his involvement in the insider trading scam conducted by his brother Raj and Galleon Management.

SEC to Reject BlackRock Inc. Proposal for Nontransparent Exchange-Traded Fund

Published on: October 23, 2014 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

In a preliminary ruling, The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission said it expects to reject BlackRock Inc.’s (BLK) proposal to put out a nontransparent exchange-traded fund. BlackRock sought permission to sell the ETF from the regulator in 2011.

The fund wants to keep its investments secret, which go against SEC rules. BlackRock proposed using a blind trust to manage the securities of a portfolio without revealing the contents. It sought exemption from the agency’s rules, which mandate that disclosure be provided daily. Instead, BlackRock would have disclosed its holdings with the nontransparent ETF on a quarterly basis. One reason that certain fund managers are pushing for less frequent disclosure is their worry that daily disclosures could allow investors to imitate the trades.

Now, however, the SEC is saying that without portfolio transparency such as a plan does not guarantee that that the ETF would trade consistently or near net asset value. The regulator said that the proposed structure sets up substantive risk that ETF share market prices might materially deviate from the ETF’s NAV/share, especially during stressful periods in the market. This could “inflict substantial cost on investors,” noted the Commission.