Investor Lawyers Blog

Massachusetts Securities Regulators Fine Merrill Lynch $500,000 For Alleged Failure to Stop Rogue Broker

Published on: October 29, 2013 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Merrill Lynch Pierce Fenner & Smith Inc. (MER) must now pay Massachusetts securities regulators a fine for allegedly failing to supervise a broker who went on to defraud customers. According to regulators and prosecutors, when she was with Merrill, now ex-broker Jane E. O’Brien borrowed over $2 million of clients’ funds. She pleaded guilty to fraud charges last year and is barred from the securities industry.

O’Brien received a thirty-three month prison term and was told to pay restitution of $240,000. She was the top producer at the firm’s Boston office, where she brought in close to $154 million in client assets and earned $903,734 in revenue during her first year with Merrill. Massachusetts Secretary of the Commonwealth William Galvin, whose office oversees the regulators there, said that this was another example of top producers “being held to a different standard” because of the money they make for their firms.

Although Merrill agreed to pay the “failure to supervise” fine, it has not admitted to violating any laws. A firm spokesperson says that as soon as they knew there might be a problem, an internal investigation was conducted and O’Brien resigned.

Is JPMorgan on the Verge of Settling A $5.75 Billion Mortgage-Backed Securities Case Filed by BlackRock & Neuberger Berman Group?

Published on: October 29, 2013 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

After its tentative $13 billion residential mortgage-backed securities settlement with the US Department of Justice, now JPMorgan Chase & Co (JPM) looks like it could be getting ready to settle yet another MBS fraud case, this time with bondholders, such as Neuberger Berman Group LLC, Allianz SE’s Pacific Investment Management, and BlackRock Inc. (BLK). Investors want at least $5.75 billion dollars.

The group of over a dozen bondholders already had reached a settlement in 2011 in an $8.5 billion mortgage-backed securities case against Bank of America Corp (BAC) over similar allegations. Now, the institutional investors want restitution over bonds that JPMorgan sold—those from the firm itself and also from Washington Mutual (WAMUQ) and Bear Stearns (BSC).

JPMorgan has been settling a lot of securities cases lately. Its $13B RMBS deal with the DOJ resolves a number of matters, including Federal Housing Finance Agency claims for $4 billion. The FHFA believes that J.P. Morgan gave Fannie Mae (FNMA) and Freddie Mac (FMCC) inaccurate information about the quality of the loans they bought from the bank ahead of the decline of the economy in 2008. $5 billion of the proposed RMBS settlement is for penalties and the remaining $4 billion is for the relief of consumers.

J.P. Morgan’s $13B Residential Mortgage-Backed Securities Deal with the DOJ Stumbles Into Obstacles

Published on: October 28, 2013 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Reuters is reporting that according to a source in the know, J.P. Morgan Chase & Co.’s (JPM) tentative $13 billion residential mortgage-backed securities settlement with the US Justice Department has hit a couple of stumbling blocks. The firm is reportedly trying to include a provision that would close any criminal probes into its packaging and sale of mortgage securities-except for an inquiry by California prosecutors. This counters the bank’s earlier decision to agree to keep criminal investigations out of the deal.

The settlement, preliminarily reached last week, includes $4 billion to resolve claims made by the Federal Housing Finance Agency, which contends that J.P. Morgan misled Freddie Mac (FMCC) and Fannie Mae (FNMA) about the quality of loans the latter two bought from the investment bank before the 2008 economic crisis. Another $4 billion is for consumer relief, while $5 billion is for penalties.

The agreement also would settle a separate mortgage securities lawsuit filed separately by NY AG Eric Schneiderman against the firm over Bear Stearns (BSC)-packaged mortgage bonds. The state’s top prosecutor contended that Bear Stearns misled investors about the faulty loans behind the securities, neglected to complete assess the debt, disregarded defects that were found, and concealed its failure to properly examine the loans or reveal their risks.

Puerto Rican Labor Groups Want the US Territory to Sue UBS over the Bond Debacle

Published on: October 28, 2013 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

UBS Financial Services, Inc. and its Puerto Rican divisions (UBS) continue to feel the heat in the Puerto Rico Bond crisis, as labor groups in the US territory call on its government to file a bond fraud claim against the bank. They are claiming that the financial firm “tricked” the Puerto Rican government into issuing products that they knew would fail.

Also, lawmakers from the New Progressive Party want the government to investigate UBS’ practices in Puerto Rico. Already Rep. Ricardo Llerandi Cruz is asking for a Capital Inquiry into the firm, while Rep. Ángel Muñoz Suárez announced he would file a bond fraud case with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Meantime, Carlos Ubiñas, the CEO of UBS Puerto Rico, maintains that the firm is not accountable for “market events.” Issuing a statement, Ubiñas said that the loss in the Puerto Rico bonds’ value has more to do with the market and the lingering questions about the US Commonwealth’s credit.

Merrill Lynch, Morgan Stanley Call A Broker Recruiting Truce

Published on: October 26, 2013 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Bank of America Corp. (BAC) and Morgan Stanley (MS), which own the largest brokerage firms in the world, are declaring a cease-fire when it comes to using big bonuses to keep their own brokers and lure each other’s brokers away. Bank of America Corp. owns Merrill Lynch (MER).

After payments tied to Bank of America’s purchase of Merill Lynch expire in approximately two years, new retention bonuses will no longer be offered to the latter’s lead performers. Also, Morgan Stanley’s chief executive James Gorman has said that with brokers seeking to switch firms less often, compensation costs could fall.

A decline in recruiting could push up broker-dealer profits, which has been held back because of the fight between firms for the leading advisers. Some brokers have even been offered multiple times their yearly salary to move and bring their client roster with them.

FINRA Arbitration Panel Issues $1.2M in Awards in Case Against BBVA Securities of Puerto Rico, Inc.

Published on: October 25, 2013 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

In a FINRA arbitration case filed by claimants Felix Bernard-Diaz, Julian Rodriguez and Luz Rodriguez against BBVA Securities of Puerto Rico, Inc., Jorge Bravo, Rafael Colon Ascar, Julio Cayere, and Sonia Marbarak, a Financial Industry Regulatory Authority Panel has awarded $1.2M to the claimants. The Rodriguezes and Felix Bernard-Diaz asserted unsuitable investments, breach of fiduciary duty, gross negligence related to an allegedly unsuitable naked option trading strategy, excessive trading, margin use, and churning.

The respondents denied the accusations and asserted a number of affirmative defenses. They also asked for the CRD files of two of the respondents, Bravo and Marbarak, to be expunged. Last year, respondent Cayere sought bankruptcy protection. The arbitrators did not issue a determination against him.

The FINRA panel said Ascar and BVA were liable, severally and jointly. Now, the respondents must pay Bernard-Diaz $635K in damages and $15K in expenses. The Rodriguezes were awarded $547K in damages and $15K in costs.

SEC Wants Comments About FINRA’s Proposed Rules About Broker-Dealer Supervision

Published on: October 24, 2013 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The Securities and Exchange Commission wants comments on a proposed amendment to the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority’s broker-deal supervision rules. The latter wants to change the rules by consolidating some of them, including NASD Rule 3010 and NASD Rule 3012 into its proposed Rules 3110 and 3120 that have to do with supervisory controls and the supervision of supervisory jurisdictions’ office and branch offices. The proposed rule change would eliminate NYSE Rule 342, which is related to supervision, approval, and controls, Rule 401 about business conduct, and Rule 354 regarding control persons, Rule 351e about reporting requirements. The consolidation is taking place because the SEC says some of the rules are duplicative.

FINRA also wants to eliminate proposed Rule 3110.03, which is a provision about the supervision and control of registered principals at one-person OSJs by a designated senior principal on the site. The SRO also is proposing to amend rule 3110.05 so that an Investment Banking and Securities Business member doesn’t have to perform detailed reviews of transaction if the member is using risk-based review system that is designed in a way so it can focus on areas that have the greatest risks of violation.

Meantime, proposed Rule 3110(b)(6)(D) will be changed so that it is clear that the rule doesn’t establish a strict liability to identify and get rid of all conflicts as they relate to an associated person that is supervised by supervisory personnel. There will have to be procedures to make sure that conflicts of interest don’t compromise the supervisory system.

North American Securities Administrators Association Releases 2013 List of Top Threats to Investors

Published on: October 22, 2013 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The North American Securities Administrators Association has issued its yearly list of the top investor threats. The list is compiled through a poll of its member state securities administrators. With the enactment of Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act, which takes away the advertising restrictions when it comes to soliciting securities and other investments, now more than ever investors should be cautious.

The List:
Private Offerings (especially fraudulent private placement offerings, also known as Reg D/Rule 506 offerings): These are limited investment offers that are very liquid, poorly regulated, and have very little transparency. They are risky and might not be suitable for individual investors. Now, with the JOBS Act, these private placement offerings can be promoted to the general public, which means ads for them may be placed on billboards, social media, and other platforms even though not everyone who sees them is qualified to invest.

REITs: Real estate investment scams may involve new development projects or buying, or beleaguered properties. Non-traded real estate investment trusts that are owned by banks or waiting for foreclosure or short-sale can be problematic for customers, as can investment funds purportedly tied to interest in real property that has no equity and is very leveraged.

Ponzi Scams and High-Yield Investments: High-yield typically translates to greater risk. This type of investment program and Ponzi scams promise great returns and low risk while justifying why the opportunity is so great. Financial fraudsters will typically tout bogus credentials or belong to a certain organization or group and early investors get a return as they market to new investors. Such financial scams eventually collapse.

Affinity Fraud: This type of financial fraud targets members of a particular organization or group. Often, the fraudster is trusted because of the shared affiliation (ie. age demographic, membership, alma mater, ethnicity, religion, etc.)

Self-Directed IRAs Used to Cover up Fraud: Self-directed individual retirement accounts, which are typically safe investments, can be used to conceal a financial scam. Fraudsters may claim that the custodian of an account has more obligations than actual to investors, causing the latter to wrongly believe that their investments are protected from loss and/or legitimate.

High Risk Oil and Gas Drilling Programs: Energy investments that for some investors are becoming a preference over traditional bonds, stock, and mutual funds. They are very risky and really only appropriate for investors that can take huge losses. Unfortunately, some promoters will hide these risks and pressure customers to invest.

Proxy Trading Accounts: This can involve allowing individuals who say that they are experienced traders to manage or set up a trading account for you. It is not recommended for investors to let unlicensed persons have access to your brokerage account information or set up an account for you. Anyone who manages such an account for an investor should be properly registered and have a clean record.

Digital Currency: Virtual money such as PP Coin, Bitcoin, and others. Such coinage isn’t backed by tangible assets, not subject to a lot of regulation, and not government issued. Digital currencies’ value can be very volatile.

NASAA’s Top Investor Threats, North American Securities Administrators Association
Securities and Exchange Commission

Financial Industry Regulatory Authority

More Blog Posts:
SEC Looking to Simplify Disclosure Rules to Minimize “Information Overload” for Investors, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, October 16, 2013

Puerto Rican Bond Crisis Places Oppenheimer Funds at Risk, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, October 15, 2013
Detroit Becomes Largest US City to File Bankruptcy Protection, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, July 18, 2013 Continue Reading ›

US Supreme Court Hears Oral Argument on the Impact of SLUSA on the Stanford Ponzi Scams

Published on: October 17, 2013 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The US Supreme Court has just listened to oral argument about how the Fifth Circuit appeals court interprets the breadth of the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act’s (SLUSA), which precludes the majority of state class action cases involving plaintiffs claiming misrepresentations related to the buying or selling of a security that it covers. The case stems from Allen Stanford’s $7B Ponzi scam, in which one of his banks put out certificates of deposit that were supposedly safe, liquid investments when, in reality, the investments did not exist. The bank used money from new CD sales to issue redemption payments and interest on older CDs.

Following the discovery of the Stanford securities shame, two sets of investors filed securities fraud cases in Louisiana court against several Stanford companies and employees contending law had been violated. The defendants got the cases sent to federal court.

The securities lawsuits were then sent to the Northern District of Texas, which threw out the fraud lawsuits on the grounds that SLUSA precluded them. That court said that the CDs weren’t covered but that the investors had alleged misrepresentations having to do with securities that were covered. The Stanford bank had claimed it invested in securities that were issued by multinational companies and solid governments and led investors to think investments SLUSA-covered securities at least partially backed the CDs. he Fifth Circuit then reversed that decision.

SEC Looking to Simplify Disclosure Rules to Minimize “Information Overload” for Investors

Published on: October 16, 2013 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The Securities and Exchange Commission will review corporate disclosure rules to possibly get rid of disclosure rules that are creating “information overload” for investors. Speaking to the National Association of Corporate Directors, SEC Chairwoman Mary Jo White said that as the quantity and types of issues that companies have to disclose become greater and “more detailed,” she wonders whether investors need or benefit from all that information-or if ‘information overload’ makes it hard for customers to glean what they should know to make the best investment choices for them.

Commission rules, company efforts, and congressional mandates seeking to prevent lawsuits are what have led to such extensive disclosures. Now, the SEC may consider a possible overhaul after a study of company filing-rules, which was mandated by the 2012 Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act, is released. The JOBS Act mandates that the regulator figure out how to simplify rules for smaller companies.

White said that certain disclosure details are no longer necessary in the wake of such information that is now widely available online, including via social media. She pointed to examples of information being disclosed that may not be as relevant now as before, such as the ratio of earnings to fixed charges or dilution disclosure requirements. White also spoke about how it might be prudent to begin getting certain information to investors sooner than what current rules and forms mandate for timeframes or whether this could become an added burden to companies.