Investor Lawyers Blog

JPMorgan, Goldman Sachs, Bank of New York Mellon, Charles Schwab Disclose Market-Based NAVs of Money Market Mutual Funds

Published on: February 7, 2013 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

While regulators continue pondering whether to impose more regulations on money market mutual funds, a number of financial institutions, including Goldman Sachs Group Inc. (GS), JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPM), Fidelity Investments, BlackRock Inc. (BLK), Bank of New York Mellon Corp. (BK), Federated Investors Inc. (FII), and Charles Schwab Corp.,(SCHW), started disclosing the market-based net asset values of these funds last month. Reasons given for these disclosures included offering greater transparency and giving investors more information about the market. However, some believe there are firms are issuing these disclosures because that is what their competitors are doing.

Currently, money market funds have a $1/share stable net asset value for all investor transactions. The underlying assets of the funds, which are debt securities with high ratings, however, can undergo periodic, small value changes that may slightly affect a fund’s per share market value. This is also called the shadow price, which are reasonable estimates/fair valuations of the price that an instrument could be sold at in a current trade.

A few years ago, the Securities and Exchange Commission approved modifications to its Rule 2a-7 and other rules about money market funds mandating that managers of the funds reveal changes to portfolio holdings and give the regulator the market-based net asset values of the funds. Fund information for each month has to be given to the SEC at a succeeding month. The Commission then makes the information available to the public 60 days after the month to which the data pertains has concluded. These Daily disclosures would make the data more immediate (and relevant) for investors.

Corporate Reform Coalition Praises SEC for Considering Political Spending Mandate Disclosure Rule

Published on: February 7, 2013 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The Corporate Reform Coalition is pleased that the SEC has indicated that its staff is looking at whether to proceed with a rule that mandates disclosing corporate political spending. The group says that by including this possible rulemaking in its semi-yearly regulatory agenda, the Commission has made a critical move to protect investors, tackle the influx of secret corporate spending that has occurred since the US Supreme Court’s ruling in Citizens United, and help in the disclosure of key political spending information.

The CRC is comprised of over 80 pension funds, socially conscious investors, and consumer associations that seek greater accountability and transparency in corporate political spending. According to CRC co-chair Lisa Gilbert, that the regulatory agency has indicated that it intends to put out a notice of proposed rulemaking by April is “one step further” toward its commitment to a rule. However, some disclosure attorneys are reportedly skeptical that the SEC will actually take on this rulemaking.

Following the US Supreme Court’s ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission in 2010, shareholders have been wanting more transparency related to how companies spend their lobbying money. In 2011, the Committee on Disclosure of Corporate Political Spending turned in a rulemaking petition to the SEC seeking regulations that would mandate disclosures. 322,000 comment letters have since followed—most from investors supporting mandated disclosure.

Texas Securities Criminal Case Against Oil and Gas Company Executive Can Proceed, Rules Fifth Circuit

Published on: February 6, 2013 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit says it will not dismiss the Texas investment fraud case filed by the US Department of Justice against Joshua Wayne Bevill on the grounds of collateral estoppel and double jeopardy. The court held that although the Texas man previously pleaded guilty to securities fraud in a case that was related, he has not succeeded in showing collateral estoppel, or how, for double jeopardy purposes, the two cases’ respective “offenses are in law and in fact the same offense.'”

In this criminal case, Bevill is accused of committing financial fraud through a third company, Progressive Investment Partners. He allegedly took on a false identity and stole investor money (to pay for his expensive lifestyle) under the guise of getting them to invest in a supposed oil and gas venture. According to the government, he pleaded guilty to effecting a monetary transaction involving funds that were criminally derived.

Meantime, in the other Texas securities case to which Bevill already has pleaded guilty, he used his two companies, North Texas Partners and United Star Petroleum, which are based in Dallas, to bring in millions of dollars from investors by claiming to sell interests in purported oil and gas development projects.The government says that the defendant was actually just stealing their money.

Bevill has since tried to argue that the securities fraud charges from the two criminal cases are for the same offense. The Fifth Circuit, however, disagrees. The court determined that while Bevill committed the same type of investment scam on the two occasions, the actual acts involved are different and precludes the Double Jeopardy clause from being applied. Also, the court said that since the government has to now show that Bevill made statements to the victims that were fraudulent and this was not shown in the other case, he therefore did not show collateral estoppel.

Related Web Resources:
Northern District of Texas Successfully Prosecuted Numerous Individuals for Fraud in Connection with Oil and Gas Investments in Recent Years, US Department of Justice, January 12, 2012

5th Cir. Rejects Double Jeopardy Bid for Dismissal, Bloomberg/BNA, January 24, 2013

Double Jeopardy Clause, Cornell University Law School

More Blog Posts:
Alleged Houston, Texas Affinity Fraud Scam Targeting Druze and Lebanese Communities Leads to SEC Charges Against Day Trader, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, January 28, 2013
District Court in Texas Dismisses Securities Fraud Case Against Sports Franchisor, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, December 15, 2012

Reviving Antifraud Lawsuit Over Alleged Market-Timing Practices From Over Five Years Ago is Not the Answer, Say Ex-SEC Officials, Institutional Investor Securities Fraud, December 22, 2012 Continue Reading ›

US Justice Department Sues Standard and Poor’s Over Allegedly Fraudulent Ratings of Collateralized Debt Obligations

Published on: February 5, 2013 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The US Department of Justice and has filed civil fraud charges against Standard & Poor’s Ratings Service, contending that credit rating agency’s fraudulent ratings of mortgage bonds played a role in causing the economic crisis. Settlement talks with Justice Department reportedly broke down after the latter indicated that it wanted at least $1 billion. S & P was hoping to pay around $100 million. Also, there was disagreement between both sides as to whether or not the credit rater could agree to settle without having to admit to any wrongdoing.

The securities case against S & P involves over 30 collateralized debt obligations, which were created in 2007 when the housing market was at its height. The government believes that between September 2004 and October 2007 the credit rater disregarded the risks that came along with the investments, giving them too high ratings in the interest of profit and gaining market share. The ratings agency allegedly wanted the large financial firms and others to select it to rate financial instruments. Meantime, S & P continued to tout its ratings as objective, misleading investors as a result. S & P would go on to make record profits, and the complex home loan bundles eventually failed.

Although there have been questions for some time now about the credit ratings agencies’ role in creating a housing bubble, this is the first securities lawsuit brought by the government against one of these firms over the financial crisis. It was in 2010 that a Senate probe revealed that from 2004 to 2007 S & P and Moody’s Investors Service (MC) both applied rating models that were inaccurate, which caused them to fail to predict exactly how well the risky mortgages would do. The lawmakers believed that the credit rating agencies let competition between each other affect how well they did their jobs.

Federal Records Act Lawsuit Seeking to Make the SEC Reconstruct About 9,000 Enforcement-Related Documents is Dismissed

Published on: February 5, 2013 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia has decided to dismiss the last two counts in the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington’s Federal Records Act lawsuit against the Securities and Exchange Commission. The public interest group wants to make the SEC reconstruct about 9,000 documents related to certain enforcement probes.

Judge James E. Boasberg said that to the degree that the act’s section 3106 mandates an affirmative duty to act when I comes to destroying records, the Commission has not taken advantage of its discretion in taking internal remedial steps and, as a result, has satisfied any “duty to imposed.”

It was in August 2011 when allegations surfaced that the SEC may have improperly destroyed files related to MUIs—matters under inquiry. Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) began questioning the agency after a whistleblower drew the matter to his attention. SEC General Counsel Mark Cahn then proceeded to order the Enforcement Division to cease from destroying documents from closed cases until notice was given to do otherwise. Then, after a probe, then-SEC Inspector General H. David Kotzlater determined that the division did not behave improperly when it got rid of such files. CREW, however, went on to file its Federal Records Act case in the hopes of obtaining a declaratory judgment noting that the destruction of the documents had violated the FRA.

Goldman Sachs Cleared in Securities Fraud Case Against Dragon Systems for Losses Related to $250M Loss in Sale to Lernout & Haspie

Published on: January 31, 2013 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

In US District Court in Boston, a federal jury has decided that Goldman Sachs (GS) isn’t at fault for the $250M sustained by the owners of Dragon Systems Inc. after they sold their speech recognition company to Lernout & Hauspie Speech Products for $580M. Goldman had served as adviser to Dragon over the deal.

L & H, which is based in Belgium, went bankrupt after the acquisition amidst reports that it was inflating its sales figures and revenue and fabricating customers. The company’s top executives went to jail.

Plaintiffs Janet and James Baker, who own Dragon, had accused Goldman of negligence for failing to detect the fraud that was taking place L & H. Their lawyer claims that the financial firm took the job despite lacking the experience needed to properly sell this type of technology company. Dragon paid Goldman $5 million for its services. (The Bakers have already settled other cases related to the L & H acquisition of Dragon for $70M.

UBS & Citi Do Have to Arbitrate Auction-Rate Securities Case Filed by Health Care Nonprofit Carilion Clinic

Published on: January 31, 2013 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

According to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, a district court was right when it decided not to stop Carilion Clinic’s arbitration proceeding against Citigroup Global Markets (C) and UBS Financial Services (UBS) for an ARS issuance that proved unsuccessful. The financial firms had served the healthcare nonprofit in a number of capacities, including providing underwriting services.

Carilion had retained UBS and Citi in 2005 to raise over $308M so that it could redo its medical facilities. They are accused of recommending that Carilion put out over $72M of bonds in the form of variable demand rate obligations and $234 million in ARS.

When the auction-rate securities market took a huge dive in February 2008, Citi and UBS ended their policy of supporting the market and the auctions started to fail. As a result, result, Carilion allegedly was forced to refinance what it owed to avoid higher interest rates and it sustained losses in the millions of dollars. The nonprofit later began auction-rate securities arbitration proceedings with FINRA against both firms.

Advisory Firm Metropolitan West Asset Management LLC Doesn’t Have to Pay Solicitor in Fee Dispute, Rules California Court

Published on: January 30, 2013 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

According to the California Court of Appeal, Metropolitan West Asset Management LLC indeed does not have to pay a solicitor it hired to bring in clients for its business. The ruling affirms the trial court’s summary judgment that favored the advisory firm on the grounds that the plaintiff Bruce Lloyd had failed to comply with the Cash Solicitation rule, which would make paying him unlawful.

Metropolitan West Asset Management is registered under the 1940 Investment Advisers Act and Securities and Exchange Commission rules, which mandate that those that solicit clients for investment advisers who are subject to the Act must make certain disclosures. The Cash Solicitation Rule generally requires for solicitors to give prospective clients two disclosure forms: Part 2 of SEC Form ADV and a second one that asks for information about the solicitor, his/her relationship to the investment advisory form, the compensation amount, and any extra charges that the client has to pay.

The agreement, which was signed between Metro and Lloyd was signed in March 2005, generally did not prove successful. The solicitor later proceeded to sue the investment advisory firm for not continuing to pay him a monthly retainer after 2006 and refusing to pay him a referral fee for bringing in business from Pictet & Cie to Metro, which is a Swiss financial firm.

Investment Opportunities to Get More Advertising Exposure Because of JOBS Act Mandate Lifting Ban on General Solicitation

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

Now that the Securities and Exchange Commission has been ordered by the US Congress to remove the ban on general solicitation, companies will be able to more easily offer their private offerings to the masses for the first time since the 1930’s. The purpose of this is to assist small businesses and start-ups to raise capital.

The lifting of the ban is part of the wider mandate established under the Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act. Firms will be able to advertise to anyone. However, only “accredited investors” in possession of a certain amount of income ($200,000 or $300,000 if married) or with net worth greater than $1 million (primary residence not included) can buy the private offerings.

While the private equity industry says that this change will liberate firms from limitations that restrict entrepreneurship, advocates are worried that investors will be even more at risk of falling victim to high-pressure sales tactics and fraud. They are calling for the SEC to mandate related protections. Even the North American Securities Administrators Association, which represents state securities regulators, reportedly expects private placement fraud cases to go up once the lifting of the ban actually happens.

US Seeking to File Criminal Charges Against Royal Bank of Scotland Group in Interest-Rate-Rigging Settlement Involving Libor

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

Authorities in the United States want to reach a settlement with Royal Bank of Scotland Group (RBS.L) that would require that the British bank plead guilty to criminal charges and pay about $790M in penalties to Britain and America over its alleged involvement in last year’s Libor-rigging scandal. RBS would be the third bank to settle over interest-rate-rigging allegations. UBS AG (UBS) and Barclays PLC (BCS) reached settlements last year that together totaled almost $2 billion. They both admitted to committing wrongdoing.

Prosecutors want an RBS unit where some of the alleged rate-rigging occurred to plead guilty to attempting to manipulate the rates. Currently, reports The Wall Street Journal, RBS executives are balking at making such an admission, especially because it could make exposure to securities lawsuits greater. However, ultimately the decision is up to the US Justice Department.

Meantime, at least a dozen other banks around the world are still under investigation for trying to manipulate Libor and Euribor. Bloomberg reports that it has obtained documents that show that for years traders at numerous banks worked with colleagues tasked with establishing the Libor benchmark to rig the price of money. The traders reportedly knew each other from work or from trips involving interdeal brokers. The manipulation of the Libor is believed to have gone on for years.