Investor Lawyers Blog

Insider Trading Roundup: Ex-MLB Player Indicted on Fraud Charges, Former Brokers Indicted in Scam Involving IBM Acquisition, & Health Care Company Execs. Charged Over Alleged Tippee Ring

Published on: December 5, 2012 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

MLB player Douglas DeCinces has been indicted by a federal grand jury
In California with 42 counts of securities fraud (including insider trading and tender offering fraud charges) related to the 2009 acquisition by Abbott Laboratories (ABT) of Advanced Medical Optics Inc. His friends Fred Scott Jackson, David Parker, and Roger Wittenbach have also been charged.

DeCinces is accused of made about $1.3 million from a tip that Advanced Medical Optics Inc. was thinking about letting Abbott Laboratories acquire it. Prosecutors say that the tip came from an Advanced Medical executive and DeCinces purchased nearly 100 shares of that company and sold it after the tender was announced. He also allegedly told his three friends, who traded the stock and made about $690,000 combined.

In another alleged insider trading scam, a grand jury in New York has indicted two ex-stockbrokers on securities fraud and conspiracy charges involving tips related to the acquisition of software manufacturer SPSS Inc. by IBM Corp. (IBM). The brokers are David Weishaus and Thomas Conradt.

The inside information is said to have come from a lawyer on IBM’s legal team during the deal, which took place in 2009. The attorney allegedly told a friend, who then told Conradt. Both that friend and Conradt then allegedly bought SPSS shares, as did Weishaus after Conradt told him about it. The two of them also allegedly tipped other colleagues.

Communication about the scam is said to have occurred via instant messaging. After the acquisition was announced, the participants allegedly made over $1 million.

Criminal charges against Conradt and Weishaus include conspiracy to commit securities fraud and securities fraud. They also face SEC civil charges.

In two other securities cases, one civil and one criminal, charges have been filed against three health-care company officials and their colleagues and friends that are accused of making over $1.7 million in kickbacks and illegal profits by trading on insider information related to technology and drug companies. The defendants in the Justice Department case are Celegene Corp. (CELG) financial official John Lazorchak, Sanofi (SNY) finance officer Mark Cupo, Stryker Corp. (SYK) marketing official Mark Foldy, Cuop friend Michael Castelli, Michael Pendolino, and Lawrence Grum. All six of them and James Deprado are named in the SEC fraud lawsuit.

According to the commission, Lazorchak, Cupo, and Foldy gave the others tips about their companies so that they could engage in insider trading. The defendants allegedly tried to avoid detection by making sure there was no direct contact between the traders and the insiders. One person would be designated to act as the non-trading middle person, who would get the tip from the insider and notify the others. Cash payments would then be made to the insiders as compensation. Grum and Castelli, who were allegedly the main traders, are also accused of by putting together binders of research activity as a “false basis” for trades that they made in an effort to hide their illegal conduct.

SEC CHARGES RING OF HIGH SCHOOL BUDDIES WITH INSIDER TRADING IN HEALTH CARE STOCKS, SEC, November 19, 2012

Ex-Orioles Player DeCinces Charged With Insider Trading, Bloomberg, November 29, 2012

SEC v. Conradt & Weishaus (PDF)

More Blog Posts:
Insider Trading Roundup: SEC Settlement Reached Over Alleged Tips In Insurers’ Merger, Court Won’t Throw Out Criminal Charges Related to Info From AA Member, & Asset Freeze Approved Against Broker In Burger King Acquisition, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, September 28, 2012

Texas Securities Case: Mark Cuban Asks District Court To Reconsider Compelling the SEC to Produce Documents Related to Insider Trading Allegations Over Mamma.com Stock Offering, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, June 19, 2012

Insider Trading: Former FrontPoint Partners Hedge Fund Manager Pleads Guilty to Criminal Charges, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, August 20, 2012

Goldman Sachs Ordered to Arbitrate Underwriting Dispute Involving $210M in Auction-Rate Securities

Published on: December 4, 2012 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada has rejected Goldman Sachs & Co.’s (GS) bid to arbitrate its dispute with the city of Reno, Nevada. The financial firm had sought to stop a Financial Industry Regulatory Authority proceeding over its underwriting of $210 million in ARS. Per Judge Robert Jones, even though there was no arbitration agreement, that the city paid Goldman to facilitate the securities’ auctions makes Reno a customer of a FINRA firm member for the purposes of arbitration. The case is Goldman Sachs & Co. v. City of Reno.

Recounts the court, Reno had issued about $210 million in auction-rate securities to fund a number of projects in 2005 and 2006. Pursuant to their underwriter and broker-dealer agreements together, Goldman was to underwrite and broker the ARS. While the broker-dealer arrangement included a forum selection clause allowing for any lawsuits stemming from the agreement to be heard in Nevada district court, it did not (nor did the underwriter agreement), come with an arbitration provision.

Reno began FINRA arbitration proceedings against the brokerage firm in early 2012 claiming that Goldman had committed wrongdoing under the terms of the agreements. Goldman countered with this case, requesting that the court find that the FINRA forum was inappropriate for resolving this dispute, per the forum selection clause, and because there was no arbitration clause between the two parties. Goldman also sought preliminary injunction against the proceedings.

The district court said no to the request for relief, observing that a party that wants injunctive relief has to show that success on the merits was likely, which it said Goldman did not do. It also said that, according to FINRA arbitration code, parties have to arbitrate any dispute between a member and its customer that involves the member’s business activities. As for the forum selection clauses found in the broker-dealer agreement, the court said that although these don’t directly address the matter of arbitration, they also don’t disallow for arbitration if that is what is needed.

The court disagreed with Goldman’s contention that FINRA rules don’t apply because the ARS are municipal securities and therefore influenced by Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board rules, which don’t include muni issuers under the customer definition. It pointed out that, according to the SEC, MSRB members are also subject to FINRA arbitration just like FINRA members. Also, Goldman is both an MSRB member and a FINRA member.

Judge Jones noted that even if FINRA finds that Reno’s claims have more to do with the brokerage firm’s underwriting than its auction facilitation services, the issue of arbitrability is for the arbitrator and not the court.

Goldman Sachs & Co. v. City of Reno, D. Nev, Dockets, Justia

Goldman Must Arbitrate Dispute With City of Reno Over ARS Underwriting, Bloomberg BNA, November 30, 2012

More Blog Posts:
Class Action MBS Securities Lawsuit Against Goldman Sachs is Reinstated by 2nd Circuit, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, September 14, 2012

Amerigroup Shareholders Claim Goldman Sachs Advisers’ Had Conflicts of Interest That Influenced $4.5B Sale of Company to WellPoint, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, August 21, 2012

Texas Securities Fraud: BNY Mellon Capital Markets LLC Settles Allegations of Rigged Bond Bidding for $1.3M, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, January 24, 2012 Continue Reading ›

SEC’s Antifraud Claim Against Goldman Sachs Executive Fabrice Tourre Won’t Be Reinstated, Says District Court

Published on: December 3, 2012 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York has refused the Securities and Exchange Commission’s request to reinstate its antifraud claim against Goldman Sachs & Co. (GS) executive Fabrice Tourre for alleged misstatements related to a collateralized debt obligation connected to subprime mortgages. Judge Katherine Forrest said that the facts did not offer enough domestic nexus to support applying 1934 Securities Exchange Act Section 10(b). To do so otherwise would allow a 10(b) claim to be made whenever a foreign fraudulent transaction had even the smallest link to a legal securities transaction based in the US, she said, and that this is “not the law.” The case is SEC v. Tourre.

The SEC had sued the Goldman and its VP, Tourre, over alleged omissions and misstatements connected with the ABACUS 2007-AC1’s sale and structuring. This 2007 CDO was linked to subprime residential mortgage-backed securities and their performance. The Commission claimed Goldman had misrepresented the part that Paulson & Co., a hedge fund, had played in choosing the RMBS that went into the portfolio underlying the CDO and that Tourre was primarily responsible for the CDO deal’s marketing and structuring.

In 2010, Goldman settled the SEC’s claims by consenting to pay $550M, which left Tourre as the sole defendant of this case. Last year, the court dismissed one of the Section 10(B) claims predicated on $150 million note purchases made by IKB, a German bank, because of Morrison v. National Australia Bank Ltd. In that case, the US Supreme Court had found that this section is applicable only to transactions in securities found on US exchanges or securities transactions that happen in this country. The court, however, did let the regulator move forward under Section 10(b) in regards to other ABACUS transactions, and also the 1933 Securities Act’s Section 17(a).

However, following Absolute Activist Value Master Fund Ltd. v. Facet in which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit earlier this year found that ““irrevocable liability is incurred or title passes” within the US securities transaction may be considered domestic even if trading did not occur on a US exchange, the SEC requested that the court revive the Section 10(b) claim. Although IKB was the one that had recommended the CDO to clients, including Loreley Financing, it was Goldman that obtained the title to $150 million of the notes through the Depository Trust Co. in New York. Goldman then sent the notes to the CDO trustee in Chicago before the notes were moved from the DTC to Goldman’s Euroclear account to Loreley’s account. The Commission said that, therefore, transaction that the claim was based on had closed here.

Noting in its holding that Section 10(b) places liability on any person that employs deception or manipulation related to the selling or buying of a security, the court said that the Commission was trying to premise the domestic move of the notes’ title from the CDO trustee to Goldman at the closing in New York as a “hook” to show liability under this section. The court pointed out that while the title of the transfer that took place in New York was legal and it wasn’t until later that the alleged fraud happened. The “fraud was perpetuated upon IKB/Loreley, not Goldman” so “no fraudulent US-based” title transfer related to the note purchase is “sufficient to sustain a Section 10(b) and rule 10b-5 claim against Tourre” for the transaction.

More Blog Posts:
Goldman Sachs Ordered by FINRA to Pay $650K Fine For Not Disclosing that Broker Responsible for CDO ABACUS 2007-ACI Was Target of SEC Investigation, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, November 12, 2010

Goldman Sachs Settles SEC Subprime Mortgage-CDO Related Charges for $550 Million, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, November 12, 2010

After SCOTUS Overturns Oklahoma Supreme Court Decision Over Enforceability of an Arbitration Agreement’s Non-Complete Cause, Case Now Goes to Houston, Texas

Published on: November 30, 2012 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

For the third time in two years, the US Supreme Court has stood up for arbitration agreements, overturning yet another decision by a state court. The case is Nitro-Lift Technologies v. Howard. The Oklahoma State Court had ruled that the non-compete provision in an employment arbitration agreement was unenforceable because it is unconscionable.

Per the specifics of the case, Nitro-Lift Technologies, an oil well servicing company based in Louisiana, had given two of its ex-Oklahoma employees a demand for arbitration after they resigned and went to work for a competitor. Nitro contended that the former employees had violated a non-compete clause and that because of this they must now arbitrate. Meantime, the two ex-employees filed a lawsuit in Oklahoma state court seeking a declaratory judgment that the non-compete provisions could not be enforced.

The Oklahoma Supreme Court would go on to rule in the ex-Nitro employees’ favor, finding that state precedent allows the court jurisdiction over arbitration agreement provisions and that the non-compete clause is a violation of public policy there. Therefore, the court found, the clauses could not be enforced and are void.

“Tone” of SEC Probe Can May Be Affected by Self-Reporting, Says Enforcement Division Official

Published on: November 30, 2012 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

According to Securities and Exchange Commission Stephen Cohen, when an entity self-reports possible wrongdoing, the “tone” of the SEC investigation into the matter may be impacted in a manner that benefits that party. Cohen, who spoke while participating at a Securities Docket’s Securities Enforcement Forum panel in DC last month (he made it clear that his views are his own), said that this is very important to the SEC when figuring out how much of a penalty to impose.

Cohen noted that although in the past the SEC hasn’t done a stellar job about making public what credits are given to the entities that have self-reported violations, he says the regulator has been doing a better job. For example, in 2010 the Commission announced that it had entered into a non-prosecution deal with Carter’s Inc. (CRI) after the kids’ clothing marketing company did a thorough job of self-reporting the insider trading and financial fraud incidents involving its ex-EVP of Sales Joseph M. Elles. Carter’s also implemented complete remedial action and thoroughly cooperated with the SEC’s probe.

There was also the deferred prosecution of Tenaris S.A. (TN) last year over allegations that the steel pipe products manufacturer bribed Uzbekistan officials during a bidding process over supplying pipeline and made nearly $5 million in profits. Such misconduct is a violation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and Tenaris agreed to pay $5.4 million in disgorgement in addition to prejudgment interest.

SEC Chairwoman Mary Schapiro to Leave Job

Published on: November 27, 2012 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

SEC Chairwoman Mary Schapiro announced this week that she plans to vacate the position on December 14. According to The New York Times, she leaves behind a stronger SEC that underwent an overhaul because of her focus on “detail and meticulous preparation.”

Schapiro became SEC chairwoman following the tenure of former SEC chairman Christopher Cox. Following her appointment in 2009, Schapiro, who is the first woman to serve as SEC head, revamped the agency’s management and obtained it more Congressional funding (an approximately 50% budget bump). She also has been credited with reviving the enforcement unit, speeding up the investigative process by eliminating a policy mandating that enforcement attorneys get the SEC’s permission before they can begin a probe, getting the enforcement division to combine over 70 tip lines into one, and selecting former federal prosecutor Robert Khuzami to head up the unit. Also, in just the last two years of her tenure, the SEC’s enforcement division has filed a record number of enforcement actions against firms and individuals, even winning a securities fraud case against Goldman Sachs (GS) that required the firm to pay a $550 million fine.

Commenting on Schapiro’s departure, Shepherd Smith Edwards Kantas founder and stockbroker fraud lawyer William Shepherd said: “Any credit given Ms. Schapiro can only be as a comparison to her deplorable predecessor. She has been an instrument of the investment community her entire career. Proof of this lies a single statistic: Her SEC filed actions against 129 people and firms tied to the financial crisis – yet no top banking official was ever named.”

Judge that Dismissed Regulators’ Claims Against Morgan Keegan to Rule on ARS Lawsuit Again After His Ruling Was Reversed on Appeal

Published on: November 27, 2012 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Almost a year and a half after US District Judge William Duffey Jr. dismissed the SEC’s lawsuit accusing Morgan Keegan & Co. of misleading thousands of auction-rate securities investors about the risks involved with these investments, he must now rule on the same case again. This latest trial in federal court comes after the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Montgomery, Alabama dismissed Duffey’s decision on the grounds that he erred when he concluded that the verbal comments made by brokers to four clients were immaterial because of disclosures that were on the retail brokerage firm’s website. Morgan Keegan is a Raymond James Financial (RJF.N) unit.

In SEC v. Morgan Keegan & Company Inc., regulators are claiming that the brokerage firm told its clients that over $2B securities came with no risk, even as the ARS market was failing, and that the investments were short-term and liquid. The commission filed its ARS fraud lawsuit against the broker-dealer in 2009.

During opening statements at this latest trial, prosecutors again contended that the brokers did not tell the investors that their cash could become frozen indefinitely. Reports Bloomberg News, orange grower John Tilis, who is a witness in this case, said that he decided to invest $400K in ARS in 2007 because he thought they were a safe place to keep his money until he had to pay taxes in April the next year. Tilis claims that the firm’s broker had informed him that he would be easily able to get his funds when he needed them. Yet when Tilis attempted to do so, he said that all the broker would tell him is that the ARS couldn’t be sold. (Morgan Keegan later refunded his principal.)

The SEC is arguing that Morgan Keegan found out about a number of failed auctions in November of 2007. In March 2008, one month after even more auctions had begun failing, the brokerage company started mandating that customers that wanted to buy ARS sign statements noting that they were aware that it might be some time before the investments became liquid again.

Meanwhile, Morgan Keegan is maintaining that it did not fail to inform clients about the risks involved in auction-rate securities, which had a history of being very “safe and liquid.” The firm contends that not being able to predict the future is not the same as securities fraud (Duffey noted this same logic when he dismissed the SEC lawsuit last year), and that even prior to the SEC lawsuit, it bought back $2B in ARS from clients. Morgan Keegan says that those who took part in the buyback program did not lose any money.

Morgan Keegan Trial Judge to Decide SEC Case He Dismissed, Bloomberg, November 26, 2012

More Blog Posts:

Court Upholds Ex-NBA Star Horace Grant $1.46M FINRA Arbitration Award from Morgan Keegan & Co. Over Mortgage-Backed Bond Losses, Stockbroker fraud Blog, October 30, 2012

Morgan Keegan & Company Ordered by FINRA to Pay $555,400 in Texas Securities Case Involving Morgan Keegan Proprietary Funds, Stockbroker fraud Blog, September 6, 2011

Securities Fraud Roundup: FINRA Examiners See Rise in Brokers Engaging in Improper Activities, SEC Chairman Backs Stronger Enforcement of Civil Penalties Act, & About 800 Investor Fraud Scam Defendants Accounted for Since 2011

Published on: November 26, 2012 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

According to Financial Industry Regulatory Authority EVP Susan Axelrod, the SRO’s examiners are reporting an increase in how many brokers appear to be taking part in questionable actions outside their firms or improperly selling securities. Speaking at the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association’s complex products forum, she pressed brokerage firms to make sure its compliance programs will sniff out such violations.

Axelrod also said that FINRA examiners are noticing issues with the firms’ complex product sales, including those involving reverse convertibles and non-traded real estate investment trusts. For example, several firms did not conduct reasonable due diligence before selling non-traded REITs or make sure they were suitable for the investors. As for the reverse convertibles, examiners reportedly discovered an overconcentration of products in certain investor portfolios primarily due to poor recommendations. Failure to detect such problems appeared to have played a factor in this happening. Other problems discovered included inadequate training regarding products, product misrepresentation via sales and advertising, and failure to notify investors well in advance that products’ per-share estimated values had been repriced at figures significantly lower than the offering price.

In other securities news, Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman Mary Schapiro wants Congress to grant the SEC the power to impose penalties that are more reflective of the losses sustained by investors. Right now, the agency can only pursue ill-gotten gains’ disgorgement and impose per-violation penalties. Schapiro said that the Stronger Enforcement of Civil Penalties Act of 2012, which was introduced by Senators Jack Reed and Charles Grassley, would give the Commission the authority it needs to make violators “think twice” about abusing investors’ funds while allowing the regulator to recover significantly more for victims. She expressed her views at the New England Securities Conference last month.

SEC Clawback Lawsuit Against Two Former Arthrocare Corp. Executives Over Fraud Scheme Can Proceed, Says District Court in Texas

Published on: November 24, 2012 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas says that the Securities and Exchange Commission’s clawback lawsuit against two Arthrocare Corp. (ARTC) executives who received bonuses and compensation following accounting irregularities made by two other company officials can move forward. The defendants, ex-CEO Michael A. Baker and ex-CFO Michael Gluck, have not been charged with misconduct, and the district court said they do not need to have done anything wrong to be sued under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act’s Section 304.

This Texas securities case is one of many resulting from an alleged revenue recognition scam at the medical device manufacturer that was executed by two of its senior executives. (Arthrocare has since restated its financials for 2006 through 2008’s first quarter.) The SEC had argued that even though Baker and Gluck weren’t the charged with wrongdoing, under SOX’s Section 304, they must pay ArthroCare back their stock profits and bonuses that they received during the period of the accounting fraud.

The two men had filed a dismissal motion contending that the statute cannot be interpreted to make CFOs and CEOs with no scienter elements liable. They also claimed that statute’s vagueness not only makes it void but also it has other constitutional deficiencies. Now, however, the district court has denied their motion, finding that no separate misconduct or scienter by the defendants was necessary.

The court said that without ambiguity, the statute’s words “are dispositive” and Section 304 is unambiguous in mandating that CFOs and CEOs pay back the issuer for compensation that qualifies within a year of a filing that the issuer must restate because of misconduct by it or its agents. The district court also rejected the constitutional challenges made by the defendants and disagreed that the statute is constitutionally vague because it doesn’t clarify whose misconduct compels reimbursement. Referring to the statutory language, the court said that the ‘misconduct’ at issue in this case is misconduct by the issuer, and, since issuers include business entities and corporations, their agents, acting within the scope and course of their jobs, are also included within the definition of issuer.

The district court also disagreed with the two men’s contention that Section 304 is unconstitutionally vague. It said that the requirements for CFOs and CEOs are “crystal clear” when read along with the rest of SOX. It also noted that Section 302 tells executives exactly what they have to do to avoid reimbursement liability under Section 304, which is to ensure that the issuer submits financial statements that are accurate.

SEC v. Baker (PDF)

Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

More Blog Posts:
Texas Securities RoundUp: Provident Royalties CEO Pleads Guilty in $485M Ponzi Scam and District Court Upholds $100K Arbitration Award in Adviser Fee Dispute, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, November 10, 2012

Texas Securities Fraud: Investors Bilked in $68M Dallas Ponzi Scam Hope To Recover Some Funds Via Rare Guitar Auction, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, October 25, 2012

Govt. Not Prepared for Next Inevitable Financial Crisis, Says Ex-SEC Chair, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, July 30, 2012 Continue Reading ›

Securities Roundup: BP Settles for $525M SEC Lawsuit Over Deepwater Horizon Spill Disclosures, Ex-OIG Official Says He Was Fired for Exposing Misconduct, Ex-Merrill Lynch Advisor Accused of Defrauding Elderly Client, & Trader Pleads Guilty to $28M Fraud

Published on: November 22, 2012 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

BP Plc. has consented to settle for $525 million Securities and Exchange Commission allegations that it gave the agency and investors misleading information about the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill. If approved, this would be the third biggest penalty in SEC history.

According to the Commission, during the crisis the oil giant issued fraudulent statements about how much oil was flowing on a daily basis from the Deepwater Horizon rig into the Gulf of Mexico, including underestimating this rate by up to 5,000 oil barrels a day even though it allegedly had internal data noting that possible flow rates could be up to 146,000 barrels daily. Even after a government task force later determined that 52,700 to 62,200 oil barrels were flowing out a day, BP allegedly never modified the omissions or misrepresentations it made in SEC filings.

In other SEC news, David Weber, one of its ex-Office of Inspector General officials, is suing the agency and Chairman Mary Schapiro for allegedly getting back at him for disclosing misconduct that had been taking place at the Commission. Weber contends that SEC staff spoke about him to the media in a “malicious and defamatory” manner and leaked his personal information because he not only disclosed that ex-SEC Inspector General H. David Kotz had engaged in misconduct that placed several OIG investigations at peril, but also he revealed that there were cyber security breaches at the agency.