Investor Lawyers Blog

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.

SEC Whistleblower Office Will Place More Emphasis on Anti-Retaliation Provisions and Publicity This Year

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

According to Securities and Exchange Commission Office of the Whistleblower Chief Sean McKessy, the unit will take a more aggressive approach to publicizing its activities and figuring out how to better enforce the anti-retaliation provisions of its bounty program. McKessy spoke at the DC Bar organized enforcement conference earlier this month and noted that his views were his own and not necessarily that of the SEC.

McKessy said that despite the Commission’s efforts to offer whistleblower provisions that incentivize internal reporting, some corporations have still not told employees about the bounty program. Per the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, the SEC can now offer 10-30% of a monetary penalty greater than $1 million that is collected because of “original information” voluntarily offered up by an informant.

Also, per the statute, the SEC has the authority to enforce its anti-retaliation provisions, which protects whistleblowers that provide this information, or commit certain other lawful acts, from retaliatory actions—particularly from employers. McKessy, however, noted that it is too soon to know whether the agency will incorporate an anti-retaliation action to its whistleblower program.

Alleged Houston, Texas Affinity Fraud Scam Targeting Druze and Lebanese Communities Leads to SEC Charges Against Day Trader

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

The SEC has filed securities charges against day trader Firas Hamdan for allegedly running a Texas securities scheme in the Houston area that defrauded investors from the Druze and Lebanese communities. Hamdan, who used to be the treasurer of the Houston branch of the American Druze Society, is known among members of both groups. He is accused of raising over $6 million from over 30 investors over five years. He allegedly claimed to run a high-frequency trading program that applied a proprietary trading algorithm.

According to the Commission, Hamdan promised investors 30% in yearly returns, while misrepresenting his trading program as being safe, when, in fact, it had suffered $1.5 million in losses. He also allegedly falsified brokerage records to hide huge trading losses and overstate assets.

When profits that were promised to investors didn’t come in, Hamdan is said to have told clients that the money got entangled in the MF Global debacle and the debt crisis in Greece. He also is accused of lying about a nonexistent cash reserve account and a supposed $5 million “key-man” insurance policy that made clients’ investments secure.

US Supreme Court to Hear Appeals of Petitioners Over Stanford Ponzi Lawsuits

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

Our Texas securities fraud law firm has been bringing you the latest legal news developments in the efforts of defrauded investors to recoup their losses stemming from the $7 billion Stanford Ponzi scam. While the fate of R. Allen Stanford has already been sealed-he is serving 110 years in prison, which is essentially the rest of his life-for many of his victims how and when all of them will recover their losses still remains a big question mark.

On Friday, the US Supreme Court agreed to hear three petitioners’ appeals over the sale of bogus certificates of deposits from Stanford’s Antigua bank. The requests come from insurance brokerage Willis Group Holdings Plc., which has been accused of being involved in the bogus CD sales that Stanford used to defraud his clients, and two law firms that used to represent Stanford himself. They want the court to determine whether or not under the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act plaintiffs can assert state-law class action claims against the petitioners.

While a federal judge said in 2011 SLUSA does preempt such state law cases, the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the fifth circuit later went on to revive the securities lawsuits. Now, it will be up to the nation’s highest court to make the final call.