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

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.

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.

According to Investment News, along with the much publicized-UBS Puerto Rican Bond Funds, the municipal bond funds of OppenheimerFunds appear to have also been hit by Puerto Rico’s financial problems. The Oppenheimer Rochester Virginia Municipal Bond Fund (ORVAX), valued at $125 million, is down by over 15%, which places it last in the lineup of single-state municipal bond funds.

Such losses could prove an unpleasant surprise for investors in Virginia. The media publication blames the fund’s poor performance on the huge bet is placed on the Puerto Rican bond funds, which have not done very well in the wider municipal bond market because of the territory’s financial issues and the bonds’ low rating.

Investment research firm Morningstar Inc. says that the single-state municipal bond funds with over 25% of assets in the beleaguered bonds are The Oppenheimer Rochester North Carolina, Massachusetts, Arizona, and Maryland funds, with each fund down through last week by over 11%. A median single-state municipal bond fund usually holds no more than 2.38% of assets in the bonds from Puerto Rico.

The Massachusetts Securities Division has written inquiry letters to UBS Financial Services (UBS), Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Co.’s Oppenheimer Funds, and Fidelity’s FMR Co. Inc. about the sales of Puerto Rican municipal debt obligations that were made investors in the state.

The regulator wants to know exactly to what extent these customers were exposed to the bonds’ risks, whether they were adequately warned of the risks involved, and if the bonds were correctly priced. The debt obligations were usually sold via mutual funds.

The bond funds at issue are heavily invested in Puerto Rican-backed municipal bonds and many were very highly leveraged. Due to tax and benefits and favorable yields, a lot of state-specific municipal bond funds in Massachusetts, and other states, are heavily concentrated in Puerto Rican debt. For example, close to 17% of the Oppenheimer Rochester Massachusetts Municipal Fund’s assets ($69M) are in Puerto Rico debt. These bonds are often low rated (BBB or lower) and carry significant risks.

The Securities and Exchange Commission has published answers to frequently asked questions as guidance about liability that may come out of the Exchange Act related to the responsibilities of chief compliance officers and other legal and compliance staff at broker-dealers. The advisory was issued so firms could consider which circumstances and facts may result in grounds for supervisory liability.

In the FAQ, the SEC notes that for purposes of the Exchange Act Sections 15(b)(4) and (6), a person is a supervisor depending on the specifics of a case and whether he/she had the required ability, responsibility, or authority to impact the behavior of the employee(s) whose conduct is in question. There are, however, legal personnel and compliance staff who can assume a key role without assuming such supervision.

The Commission said that brokerage firms are responsible for establishing compliance programs that make sure compliance with regulations and laws occurs. Firms may want to include processes to identify incidents of noncompliance, a robust monitoring system, and procedures delineating who is tasked with what responsibility and/or supervisory role. The regulator says that compliance and legal staff do play a key part in broker-dealers efforts to create and put into effect a compliance system that works.

Hope that the US Treasury will save ailing Puerto Rico bonds does not appear to be warranted. According to a spokesperson for the department, who did not wish to be named, the Treasury will not be providing help to the US territory over the municipal bond fund debacle.

However, reports Fox News, the federal government is expected to provide incentives to enhance Puerto Rico’s failing economy. Right now, Puerto Rico’s debt, which is mostly in mutual funds, is at about $70 billion. That’s close to 2% of the $3.7 trillion municipal bond market. This is significantly higher than Detroit’s $18 billion debt that forced that city to file for municipal bankruptcy earlier this year.

Yet even as Puerto Rico’s debt continues to grow, it won’t be allowed to file for Chapter 9 bankruptcy because like US states, territories cannot seek such protection. That said, officials in Puerto Rico maintain that it isn’t bankrupt yet.

The securities attorneys with Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas are investigating claims of investors who purchased Puerto Rico municipal bonds. Many of the largest brokerage firms that operate in Puerto Rico, including UBS, Banco Popular, and Banco Santander, have been selling huge amounts of securities which directly or indirectly were supposed to be investments in Puerto Rico municipal bonds. Those bonds have been viewed as attractive investments by many investors for years as a result of their tax incentives and relatively high yield.

Interest paid by municipal bonds issued by Puerto Rico is exempt from taxation of any type in the United States. This is a significant incentive over municipal bonds issued by United States government entities, which are typically only exempt from Federal income tax, and would still be considered income by state and/or local income taxes. (The exception for the State and local taxes is that most states exempt their own issuances from income taxes, but tax municipal bonds issued by other states.) Additionally, municipal bonds issued by Puerto Rico have, for years, carried relatively high-interest rates. Those high rates, coupled with the preferential tax treatments, have made it easy for brokers to convince their clients, particularly in Puerto Rico, to invest heavily in these securities.

However, even as early as 2009 there were strong indications, as well as publicly available information, that these bonds were in trouble. In 2009, Puerto Rico’s governor declared a state of fiscal emergency. At the time, the territory carried approximately $47 billion in debt and was already bordering on junk-bond/high-risk credit ratings. Yet at the same time, Puerto Rico’s economy shrank by roughly 5.5% in the same year, marking huge challenges for Puerto Rico’s ability to support such a level of debt.

The SSEK Partners Group is investigating claims by investors who bought Puerto Rico municipal bonds from UBS (UBS), Banco Santander (SAN.MC), Banco Popular and other brokerage firms. We are also looking into claims involving other muni funds that have been exposed to Puerto Rico, including the:

• Franklin Double Tax-Free Income A (ticker: FPRTX): 65% of its holdings involve Puerto Rico obligations.

• Oppenheimer Rochester VA Municipal A (ORVAX): 33% of its holdings in Puerto Rico bonds.

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority intends to weigh whether to mandate that brokerage firms have insurance covering payments for possible arbitration awards issued to investors. The SRO is aware that there has been frustration among claimants who have not received their awards.

It can be a problem when a brokerage firm closes its doors without paying legal claims and awards it owes customers. Making broker-dealers carry insurance could lower the amount of awards that go unpaid. Unfortunately, some firms have such a small financial cushion that they can be forced to close shop over just one arbitration award.

According to SNL Financial, which conducted an analysis for The Wall Street Journal, over 940 firms reported having a net capital of under $50,000 in financial reports from as recent as July. FINRA says that 11% of all arbitration awards issued in 2011 have yet to be paid-that’s $51 million. This is 4% increase from what was unpaid from 2009 and 2010.

In a case preceding the credit crisis, a Financial Industry Regulatory Authority panel has awarded Michael Farah, an ex-star broker at Wedbush Securities Inc, a $4.2M arbitration award against the brokerage firm. Farah had accused the broker-dealer of making misrepresentations and omissions related to the collateralized-mortgage-obligation investments he recommended to clients, which he contends resulted in him losing not just customers but also yearly income.

He was the firm’s leading producer for a long time, working there from 1995 to 2005. Farah filed his securities claim against Wedbush Securities, formerly known as Wedbush Morgan Securities Inc., in 2005 and then submitted an amended case last year.

Farah sold millions of dollars in CMOs. He claimed that he was told that the securities were bond replacements. However, he contends that the plunging of CMOs price in early 2003 was not in line with what the bond desk had informed him about the securities’ volatility.

Contact Information