Investor Lawyers Blog

Federal Reserve Board Establishes Key Rule That Will Let Regulator Identify Systemically Important Nonbank Financial Institutions

Published on: April 19, 2013 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The Federal Reserve Board has moved closer toward being able to designate certain firms as Systemically Important Nonbank Financial Institutions. Earlier this month it set up a key rule that lets the Financial Stability Oversight Council name these SIFIs. The Federal Reserve would be their consolidated supervisor.

The rule defines when a firm is “predominantly” involved in financial activities. An SIFI would need to have at least $50 billion in overall consolidated assets or have risk exposures that could harm the US financial system should it fail. Among the companies that will likely get the SIFI designation are Prudential Financial Inc., GE Financial, MetLife Inc., and American International Group Inc.

A company will be considered as primarily involved in activities that the Bank Holding Company Act deems “financial in nature,” if at least 85% of its assets or revenues are related to such activities. However, the Fed has decided that involvement in physically settled derivatives transactions would generally not be considered a financial activity. This is to protect companies, such as manufacturers and farmers, that work with derivatives to hedge against supply price modifications.

UBS Loses Appeal to Have FHFA’s $6.4 Billion MBS Fraud Lawsuit Dismissed

Published on: April 18, 2013 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit is denying UBS AG’s (UBSN) bid to dismiss the Federal Housing Finance Agency’s mortgage-backed securities lawsuit accusing the financial firm of misrepresenting the quality of the loans underlying the residential MBS that Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae bought. FHFA is the mortgage financiers’ appointed conservator.

In its appeal, UBS contended that the MBS lawsuit was filed too late under federal law. However, the 2nd circuit, affirming U.S. District Judge Denise Cote’s ruling, determined that the filing period for type of securities case was extended by the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008.

The RMBS lawsuit is one of 17 FHFA cases against large financial institutions over alleged misrepresentations involving over $200 million in mortgage-backed securities. Judge Cote is presiding over 15 of these MBS lawsuits.

Securities Fraud Roundup: 6th Circuit Affirms Ruling Affirms Broker’s Liability Over Reverse Merger, Ex-Stockbroker Pleads Guilty to Insider Trading Over IBM’s SPSS Acquisition, & Father and Son Convicted in $50M Real Estate Fraud

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

6th Circuit Affirms Ruling Affirming Broker’s Liability Over Reverse Merger

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit says that a district court was correct in granting summary judgment to the Securities and Exchange Commission over its claim that broker Aaron Tsai made disclosure and registration violations related to a “reverse merger” involving a shell company. The lower court had ordered Tsai to pay about $352,000 in disgorgement and prejudgment interest while barring him from future violations. Affirming that court’s decision, the appeals court said that the broker’s transactions in unregistered stock were not exempt, pursuant to 1933 Securities Act Rule 144(k).

Tsai was the former president and CEO MAS Acquisition XI Company, which had a reverse merger and sold shares on the OTCBB in 2000. After his initial filing was turned down, he moved shares from five former directors who were initial company shareholders, to 28 other shareholders via previously signed stock powers. Tsai then obtained approval to finish up the reverse merger with Blue Point. The SEC filed civil enforcement naming him and other defendants while alleging Securities Act and Exchange Act violations, including failure to register securities before their sale or offering and failure to reveal that he had beneficial ownership of the securities.

SEC Roundup: Number of Securities Cases Brought Against Attorneys Rises, Permission Granted to Announce Material Information Via Social Media, & Clearing Agency Rulemaking Process Gets Streamlined

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

Under Rule of Practice 102(e), SEC to File More Securities Cases Against Lawyers

According to the Commission, it intends to bring even more cases against lawyers under its Rule of Practice 102(e). The amount cases had already gone up in the wake of the 2010 Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act and the 2002 Sarbanes-Oxley Act. Now, the regulator’s Office of the General Counsel is getting referrals from its Enforcement Division about possible lawyer misconduct.

The cases being brought generally involve alleged securities violations, such as active involvement in financial fraud and the obstruction of probes, with judgment errors and close calls not included. Per rule 102(e), the SEC can bar or censure individuals from practicing or appearing before it for different reasons. Some attorneys, however, are worried about the way the regulator interprets the rule, such as what ‘active participation’ in fraud actually entails. There are also concerns that the rule could be used as a “tactical tool” against attorneys.

CtW Investment Group Wants JPMorgan Chase Shareholders To Vote Against Re-Electing Four Board of Directors

Published on: April 15, 2013 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

CtW Investment Group has announced plans to file a document with the Securities and Exchange Commission that would press shareholders to vote against reelecting four JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPM) board of directors: James Crown, Ellen Futter, Laban Jackson, and David Cote. The group, which represents pension funds that together hold approximately 6 million of the financial firm’s shares and is labor organization Change to Win’s advisory arm, also intends to make its request in writing to the shareholders.

CtW believes that these directors can no longer be depended on to deal with oversight failures and blames most of them for poor risk management oversight that they say allowed the trading fiasco to happen. Meantime, JPMorgan is seeking support among its biggest shareholders. It claims that the board isn’t to be blamed for the “London Whale,” which involved its operation in England making risky bets and losing nearly $6 billion in losses.

Meantime, in a report on the global investment banking industry, JPMorgan’s analysts pointed to Goldman Sachs (GS) and Deutsche Bank (DB) as examples of Tier 1 investment banks to stay away from. It described this tier of banks as “un-investable, with their viability in doubt.

AIG Wants to Stop Former CEO Greenberg From Naming It as a Defendant in Derivatives Lawsuit Against the US

Published on: April 13, 2013 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

American International Group is asking a federal judge to prevent Maurice Greenberg, its former chief executive, from suing the federal government on its behalf. The insurer had already decided it wasn’t going to file a lawsuit against the federal government over its bailout that took place during the economic crisis.

Greenberg, who has filed a $25 billion securities lawsuit against the US, is pursuing derivative claims for the company. He claims that the bailout’s “onerous” terms cost the insurer’s investors billions.

While AIG isn’t trying to stop Greenberg from suing on his behalf or for other shareholders, the insurance giant has made it clear that suing the government over the rescue isn’t where it wants to focus its energy and resources. In its filing, AIG notes that according to Delaware Law, Greenberg, through Starr Investment, cannot take over the right of the AIG board to make the call on whether/not to sue.

Fifth Circuit To Hear Appeal Over Whether Dodd Frank’s Whistleblower Statute Covers Informants that Report FCPA Violations

Published on: April 12, 2013 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

In June, The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit will hear oral argument in Asadi v. G.E. Energy (USA) LLC, a novel appeal over whether the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act’s whistleblower statute give protections to informants who report that there have been possible Foreign Corrupt Practices Act abroad. The lawsuit had been dismissed by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas on the grounds that the Supreme Court’s decision in Morrison v. National Australia Bank Ltd. precluded applying the anti-retaliation provisions to behavior that occurred outside this country.

The plaintiff, Khaled Asadi, is a citizen of both Iraq and the United States. He had sued GE Energy (USA) LLC, his former employer, last year claiming that the company had violated these provisions when they fired him because he allegedly told his superiors that about a possible hiring situation that could violate the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. He says that he spotted the alleged wrongdoing while working temporarily with Iraqi authorities in Jordan to obtain business for GE Energy.

After the district court in Texas threw out his case, Asadi filed his appeal, arguing that the Anti-Retaliation provisions specifically protect employees who make disclosures of any rule, law, or regulation under the Securities and Exchange Commission’s jurisdiction. He also maintains that American citizens working abroad who provide information about securities violations should be protected when those violations possess “extraterritorial applicability.”

LPL Financial Continues to Stay On Regulators’ Radar

Published on: April 10, 2013 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

According to a number of state and federal regulators, they are continuing to keep their eyes on LPL Financial (LPLA), the fourth biggest brokerage firm in the US after Wells Fargo (WFC), Morgan Stanley (MS)and Merrill Lynch (MER). With 13,300 brokers, 4.3 million customers, and 6,500 offices, it is the biggest broker-dealer in rural America.

Yet even as LPL has grown, so has the number of censures it, and its brokers have been faced with numerous allegations, including securities fraud, selling unsuitable investments to unsophisticated investors, and speculative trading in client accounts. Just in the last 18 months, regulators in Massachusetts, Illinois, Oregon, Montana, and Pennsylvania have imposed penalties on LPL for inadequate broker supervision.

LPL’s recent fast growth can in part be attributed to the 2008 economic crisis, which caused many investors to flee from more prominent brokerage firms and into the arms of independent broker-dealers. Brokers at firms such as LPL are not employees but contractors that are able to earn a huge percentage of the fees and commissions. The supposed advantage for investors is that independent broker-dealers don’t have their own investment products that they are trying to foist onto customers.

However, some analysts believe that the bigger commissions that LPL has to pay its brokers means that the firm has less cash for compliance and is more prone to draw in brokers wanting to get around the rules. Evidence of possible problems from this independent broker system can be found in Montana, where 31 LPL brokers were named in eight securities complaints in the past five years. According to the state, almost half of the LPL brokers there are registered there as their own supervisors. In Washington State, authorities filed a case against LPL last year because a broker allegedly sold nontraded real estate investment trusts to dozens of older investors.

Fast-Growing Brokerage Firm Often Tangles With Regulators, New York Times, March 21, 2013

More Blog Posts:
As Brokers Peddle Junk-Loan Funds, Franklin Square Raises Billions of Dollars, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, April 9, 2013

Federal Workers’ Privacy Rights if STOCK Act Provision Mandating Online Disclosure of Financial Data Goes Into Effect, Says District Court Judge, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, April 8, 2013 Continue Reading ›

Medical Capital Fraud Lawsuit Against Wells Fargo Must Proceed

Published on: April 10, 2013 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

U.S. District Judge David Carter has turned down Wells Fargo & Co.’s (WFC) bid to throw out a securities lawsuit filed by investors accusing the investment bank of not fulfilling its role as trustee for debt issued by Medical Capital Holdings, which failed in an approximately billion dollar fraud in 2009. His ruling removes any obstacles to a possible trial. Claims could hit the hundreds of millions of dollars.

The investors in this securities case are among those that purchased notes put out by three Medical Capital special purpose companies that named the investment bank as their trustee. They are accusing Wells Fargo of 63 breaches. Meantime, the financial firm maintains that it didn’t act in bad faith and it wasn’t negligent in the way it fulfilled its contractual duties.

Per court documents, the holding company had raised $1.7 billion from over 20,000 investors between 2003 and July 2009, which was when the SEC filed a securities fraud lawsuit against it and two of its executives. The company soon shut its doors. Later, a receiver discovered that investors had lost $839 million to $1.08 billion in a Ponzi-like scam that involved the payment of extra fees.

As Brokers Peddle Junk-Loan Funds, Franklin Square Raises Billions of Dollars

Published on: April 9, 2013 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

According to MTS Research Advisors, non-traded business-development companies, which are junk-rated debt funds, doubled their sales to a $2.8 billion high in 2012, making $134 million in revenue. Among these was Franklin Square’s FS Investment Corp., an initial $2.5 billion fund to which investors have already paid $323.5 million in commissions and fees-25% more than the $258 million that they have received, reports Wells Fargo & Co. analyst Jonathan Bock and Bloomberg. $5,000 is the minimum investment.

While Franklin Square touts its fund as having a structure that lets investors who don’t have sufficient money buy into hedge or private-equity funds to diversify into loans to smaller companies, Bloomberg notes that Morningstar Inc. analyst Sarah Bush recently observed that about 50% of the securities held by the fund overlaps with holdings found in bank-loan mutual funds, which means that Franklin Square isn’t giving investors access to anything they wouldn’t be able to obtain via other avenues.

Non-traded business-development companies lend investors’ money to companies. They can charge high interest rates on the loans because lenders are usually rated junk or aren’t rated at all. The debt usually pays a floating rate, which means investors will make more if benchmark interest rates go up.