Justia Lawyer Rating
Super Lawyers - Rising Stars
Super Lawyers
Super Lawyers William S. Shephard
Texas Bar Today Top 10 Blog Post
Avvo Rating. Samuel Edwards. Top Attorney
Lawyers Of Distinction 2018
Highly Recommended
Lawdragon 2022
AV Preeminent

Austin-based medical device manufacturer ArthroCare Corporation (ARTC) will pay $30 million to settle allegations that its senior executives were involved in a Texas securities scam that caused shareholders to lose over $400M. The company’s former senior VPs, David Applegate and John Raff, have already pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit wire fraud and securities fraud over the financial scam.

As part of the deferred prosecution settlement, the US Justice Department has filed a complaint in the Western District of Texas charging the company with one count of conspiracy to commit securities fraud. The medical device maker will continue to cooperate with the government in its ongoing probe and pursuit of the individuals involved in the financial fraud. ArthroCare’s ex-CEO and CFO are scheduled to stand trial later this year.

In this Texas securities settlement, the company admitted that its executives inflated its revenues by tens of million of dollars, hid the nature and financial importance of its relationship with certain distributors, and engaged in bogus transactions to manipulate earnings and revenue. ArthroCare also acknowledged that these executives caused it to “park” millions of dollars worth of medical devices at distributors during the end of each relevant quarter to make it appear as if these were shipments (meaning supposed sales).

Gary Gensler has stepped down as the chairman of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. Timothy G. Massad, an official from the US Treasury, is his successor.

A former Goldman Sachs (GS) trader and later also a Treasury Department official, Gensler became, according to Reuters, the regulator that Wall Street became most afraid of following the economic crisis. His tough reforms have gained him numerous admirers, as well as critics who believe that he hurt the markets.

During his 5-year tenure as head of the CFTC, the Commission finished 70% of the rules it was supposed to write—way more than any other US regulator. He also took the most stringent stance regarding rules to get swaps trading onto exchange-like platforms and just recently he brought through a plan mandating that foreign banks follow CFTC rules when dealing with US clients even though foreign regulators wanted otherwise.

According to new research from a consulting group, the losses of investors who purchased UBS Puerto Rico closed-end municipal bond funds is now in the billions of dollars. During the first nine months of 2013 alone, reports InvestmentNews.com, 19 of UBS’s Puerto Rico closed-end funds lost $1.6 billion. The ones that lost the most were reportedly the funds with big muni bond holdings that were underwritten by UBS.

UBS Financial Services, Inc.’s Puerto Rico unit put together and sold roughly $10 billion in closed-end bond funds between 2002 and 2012. As the funds were only registered to be sold in Puerto Rico, they were largely composed of Puerto Rico municipal bonds and could be sold only to Puerto Rican residents, who have now been hit with huge losses as the value of Puerto Rican debt has fallen sharply over the last few months.

In addition to UBS’s bond funds, other bond funds that have purchased Puerto Rican debt and investors holding individual Puerto Rican bonds in the US have been significantly impacted. In fact, if Puerto Rico were to default on its debt, the impact would be far reaching. According to Forbes.com, a default in Puerto Rico would change the price of the whole $3.7 trillion US municipal bond market, which could cost municipalities and states in the US billions of dollars in interest rate charges. Already, investors on the mainland found themselves paying close to $10 billion last year because Puerto Rico’s $52 billion in bonds were down 20% on average.

The federal district court in Manhattan has turned down former Goldman Sach’s (GS) trader Fabrice Tourre’s request that he get a new civil securities fraud trial after he was found liable on seven counts of federal securities law violations related to his involvement in the firm’s sale of the Abacus 2007-AC1, which is a synthetic collateralized debt obligation that was backed by residential mortgage-backed securities. Goldman has already paid a $550 million fine over the matter.

The district court is saying that his claim that there was no evidence backing a finding that he violated Section 17(a)(20) of the Securities Act by getting property or money via the alleged fraud can’t be supported. The court noted that to prove liability this section of the Act does not make it necessary for the SEC to show that Tourre got a “fraud bonus”—only that he got the property or money through omission or material statement. The court said Tourre could have given evidence to show that the compensation he received from Goldman would have been the same without such a transaction, but since he didn’t put on a case during his trial the jury was free to infer otherwise.

The court noted that there was sufficient evidence backing the jury’s finding that the ex-Goldman Sachs trader’s conduct abetted and aided violations of SEC regulations. Also, the court is rejecting Tourre’s contention that he should get a new trial because he believes that the other court acted inappropriately when it took away from the jury the question of whether the swaps agreements involved were security based swap agreements within the meaning of securities law. This court said that for securities law purposes, the swap agreements were security-based swap agreements, and it granted summary judgment to the SEC on this.

The Securities and Exchange Commission’s Division of Corporation Finance has given relief to Nomura Holdings, Inc. over an entry in the final judgment issued against its subsidiary Instinet, LLC last month. The staff said that Nomura made a good cause showing under 1933 Securities Act Rule 405(2), and now the SEC says it won’t consider the company an ineligible issuer even with the entry of that final judgment.

The SEC opened up an administrative proceeding action against Instinet, accusing it of purposely abetting and aiding and violating sections of the Investment Advisers Act. The claims involved purported soft dollar payments.

J.S. Oliver Capital Management, L.P., an Instinet customer, had asked for the payments for expenses it did not tell clients about. The Commission says that Instinet made the payments per JS Oliver’s request, even though there were red flags indicating that the requests for payment approval were improper. The Nomura subsidiary turned in a settlement offer that led to a cease-and-desist order against the brokerage firm, & the regulator accepted the settlement offer.

JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPM) will pay around $2.6 billion in penalties to settle criminal and civil allegations accusing the bank of failing to warn that Bernard L. Madoff was engaged in a multibillion-dollar Ponzi scam. $2.24 billion will go toward compensating the scheme’s victims-$1.7 billion will be forfeited via the US Department of Justice and $543 million will go to the bankruptcy trustee who is collecting funds for plaintiffs and other Madoff victims. $350 million will settle U.S. Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) claims.

The penalties are just the latest in the numerous securities settlements that JPMorgan has agreed to pay. The bank recently resolved cases over mortgage bond sales and the “London Whale” trading debacle, among other matters. This latest deal over the Madoff scam would up the total that the firm has paid to resolve government probes to $20 billion in the last year.

Federal prosecutors and the FBI had been trying to determine whether JPMorgan failed to notify regulators about Madoff’s activities even though there were a number of red flags. For example, why did the bank not formally raise worries about Madoff here when it submitted such a complaint in the UK? (The former financial manager kept primary checking accounts at JPMorgan for years.) This, even though US law mandates that banks turn in a SAR (suspicious activity report) when they detect that their might be suspected or definite activities violating federal law.

A US judge has ordered Royal Bank of Scotland Group Plc’s (RBS) banking unit in Japan to pay a $50 million fine over its involvement in manipulating LIBOR. RBS Securities Japan Ltd. entered a guilty plea to wire fraud as part of its parent company’s $612 million securities settlements to resolve civil and criminal charges over the rate manipulation.

On December 31, RBS Securities Japan and the US government turned in a joint court filing stating that from at least between 2006 and 2010 some of the bank’s traders tried to move Libor in a manner that would benefit their positions. The attempted manipulation of over a hundred Yen Libor submissions was reportedly involved.

Authorities say that as a result traders profited at counterparties’ expense. The filing noted that investigations uncovered wrongful behavior involving Libor submission for the yen and another currency and that about 20 RBS traders, including four at the RBS unit in Japan were involved.

The Securities and Exchange Commission has filed securities charges and ordered an asset freeze against Janniece S. Kaelin and Robert A. Helms, who are both accused of running a Texas-based Ponzi scam involving purported investments in oil and gas projects. The regulator contends that Kaelin and Helms misled investors about their industry experience, even as they raised close to $18 million for what was supposed to be royalty interests in oil and gas. The SEC says that the two of them used most of the money to run a Ponzi scam and pay for business costs and personal spending.

Per the Commission’s complaint, Helms and Kaelin started offering investments through Vendetta Royalty Partners in 2011. They brought in at least 80 investors from numerous states.

In offering documents, they promised that over 99% of investment proceeds would be used to obtain a solid portfolio filled with oil and gas royalty interests. Instead, claims the regulator, the Kaelin and Helms put in only 10% of this money in the projects. The result was very small returns.

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority is setting up a team made up of six members to look at stockbrokers with long records of investor complaints and violations, as well as those that engage in “cockroaching”-which involves brokers moving among beleaguered firms. The crack down comes amidst pressure from lawmakers on Capitol Hill.

According to an analysis of state securities records by The Wall Street Journal last year, between 2005 and 2012 there were over 5,000 licensed securities brokers who had worked with at least or more firms that had been expelled by FINRA. The analysis also revealed that there were brokers who, even in the wake of being targeted by numerous arbitration claims or having declared bankruptcy more than once, have managed to keep working in the industry.

FINRA announced this new initiative this week in a letter to approximately 4,180 broker-dealers that are registered with the SRO. It said it would use the Broker Migration model, a computerized analytic system, to look at brokers who have gone from an expelled brokerage firm to other firms.

Deutsche Bank AG (DB) has settled a securities lawsuit filed by shareholders accusing the financial institution of misrepresenting the degree of risk it could manage related to mortgage debt before the financial crisis of 2008. The deal, of which the terms have not yet been revealed, were disclosed in a filing made by the firm’s lawyers in the U.S. District Court in Manhattan.

Shareholders, including two mutual funds and the Building Trades United Pension Trust Fund of Elm Grove, claim Deutsche Bank misled them about the management of risk and the underwriting on the mortgage debt that it put together and sold. They also contend that the firm was too slow to take write-downs. They believe that this resulted in an 87% decline in the bank’s share price between May 2007 and January 2009.

They also claim that Deutsche Bank maximized its profit at risk to investors, even as it failed to appraise these customers of the risks they were taking on. When the financial markets failed, it was investors that ended up paying the price.

Contact Information