Investor Lawyers Blog

Institutional Investor Securities Blog: Putnam Advisory Accused of Massachusetts Securities Fraud in $3B CDO Offerings, SEC Claims Yorkville Advisors Fixed Books To Attract Investors, and FINRA Seeks Comments on Revised Proposal Over Bond Market Research

Published on: October 29, 2012 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The Massachusetts Securities Division is claiming that Putnam Advisory Co. deceived investors about its actual involvement in Pyxis 2006 and Pyxis 2007, two $1.5 billion collateralized debt obligations comprised of midprime and subprime mortgage-backed securities. In its administrative complaint, the state contends that Putnam represented to investors that it would act as an independent advisor when to the Pyxis CDOs when, in fact, Magnetar Capital, a hedge fund, was also involved creating in and structuring key aspects of both and even recommended that certain collateral to be included in them while then proceeding to take a substantial short position on that collateral. Putnam denies the allegations.

The state says that Magnetar proceeded to benefit from the downgrades of subprime assets in the two CDOs while making a net gain of about $67 million on aggressive positions and equity investments linked to the two of them. Meantime, Putnam earned $8.81 million in collateral management fees for the Pyxis CDOs. Massachusetts Secretary of Commonwealth William F. Galvin says that his office will continue to look at how banks misled the buyers of subprime mortgage-backed securitized debt instruments.

In other securities news, the SEC is accusing Yorkville Advisors LLC, its president and founder Mark Angelo, and CFO Edward Schinik of revising certain books to appeal to potential investors and succeeded in getting pension funds and funds of funds to invest $280 million into two Yorkville hedge funds. This allegedly let Yorkville charge at least $10 million in excessive fees. All three three defendants are denying the allegations.

If SEC JOBS Act Rule 506 Proposal is Made Final, Legal Challenges Are Likely

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

Officials representing consumers, union, and state groups are threatening legal proceedings should the Securities and Exchange Commission’s proposed Rule 506 of the Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act becomes final. They strongly opposed the proposed rule, which is supposed to implement the JOBS Act’s Section 201, which takes away the bars on general solicitations and general advertising for securities offerings that are exempt from registration, per Regulation D’s Rule 506, as long as certain provisions are satisfied. The group officials say that they considered the proposal so flawed that they want the SEC to withdraw the rule, amend it, and propose it again.

Proposed rule 506 gives a safe harbor for Section 4(2) of the Securities Act of 1933’s private offering exemption. Companies that avail of the exemption can raise an unlimited sum of investor funds as long as they are in compliance with certain provisions. However, the groups’ officials don’t believe that the proposed rule gets specific enough about the reasonable steps that issuers must execute to make sure that only accredited investors are the ones that buy the issued securities. They also don’t think that it protect investors enough from the greater fraud risk related to the implementation of the law. (For example, they want private funds to be subject to more restrictions when it comes to seeking capital and advertising to the public.) The group leaders also said that the term “accredited investors” is not defined in a manner that protects the investing public.

Recently, both the SEC and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission had the experience of having the rulemakings they implemented, per the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, vacated by federal court judges. Questions that were raised included those involving the thoroughness of one rule’s cost benefit analysis and whether an appropriate enough job of comprehending Congressional intent was done when developing regulation. Even the North American Securities Administrators, which considers the SEC to be its partner, would consider a lawsuit against the Commission if proposed Rule 506 were to go through.

Morgan Stanley Must Pay CFTC $200K for Supervisory Violations, Sued for Bias by Detroit Owners Over New Century Loans

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

The CFTC is ordering Morgan Stanley Smith Barney LLC (MS) to pay a civil monetary penalty of $200,000 for alleged supervisory failures related to customer account handling by employees, which is a violation of CFTC regulation 166.3. Its Order maintains that Morgan Stanley did not have adequate supervisory and internal controls in place that would have allowed it to successfully discourage and detect CFTC and CEA regulation violations.

Per the CFTC, the financial firm had a customer that acted as a futures commission merchant even though it wasn’t registered as one. (This is a Commodity Exchange Act violation.) The agency contends that by failing to look into suspect transactions that indicated this client was engaging in unlawful behavior, Morgan Stanley was committing a CFTC regulation 166.3 violation.

The CFTC says that even after Morgan Stanley discovered in January 2010that the client had been improperly carrying its proprietary futures trading account since 2006, it let the customer keep on in the role as a futures commission merchant through May 2010.

In other Morgan Stanley related news, five Detroit, Michigan homeowners are suing the financial firm for what they are claiming is racial bias over the way the firm finances and funds mortgage loans. They believe that this statistically increased African Americans’ exposure to foreclosure. The case, which is being presented as a class action lawsuit, could involve up to 6,000 plaintiffs.

The lead plaintiffs are alleging Michigan civil rights statute and federal anti-bias law violations in Morgan Stanley’s securitizing of mortgage loans that it was aware would expose borrowers to a higher foreclosure risk. Per their lawsuit, the investment bank’s sale and packaging of New Century loans to investors was closely linked to how it funded and financed New Century even before the loans were made.

Between 2004 and 2007, Morgan Stanley gave New Century billions of dollars in credit lines and issued procedures and policies that resulted in loans with high debt-to-income ratios, teaser rates that were low, hardly, if any, income verification, and other features. The plaintiffs believe that the financial firm dictated the kinds of loans that New Century issued, even requiring, as a condition of their profitable business relationship, that a huge percentage of the loans come with “dangerous” traits. Such obligations, they contend, negatively impacted African-American borrowers in the Detroit area who got their loans from New Century. In 2007, New Century sought bankruptcy protection.

According to the attorneys that filed the complaint, this is the first lawsuit to claim a connection between racial discrimination and securitization, as well as the first one involving homeowners accusing an investment bank, rather than the lender, of causing borrowers harm.

CFTC Orders Morgan Stanley Smith Barney LLC to Pay $200,000 for Supervision Violations, CFTC, October 22, 2012

Adkins, et al. vs. Morgan Stanley, ACLU, October 15, 2012

More Blog Posts:
Texas Securities Roundup: Morgan Stanley Smith Barney Sued Over Financial Adviser’s Ponzi Scam, Judge Dismisses Ex-GE Executive Whistleblower’s Lawsuit Over His Firing, & Ex-Stanford Financial Group CIO Pleads Guilty to Obstructing the SEC’s Probe, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, July 3, 2012

Why Were Two Former Morgan Stanley Smith Barney Brokers Not Named As Defendants in Securities Lawsuit by State Regulators Over $6M Now Missing From Wisconsin Funeral Trust?, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, September 27, 2012

Ex-Morgan Stanley Smith Barney Broker Settles with FINRA for Allegedly Failing to Notify Firm of Previous Arrest, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, June 16, 2012 Continue Reading ›

Texas Securities Fraud: Investors Bilked $68M Dallas Ponzi Scam Hoping To Recover Funds Via Rare Guitar Auction

Published on: October 25, 2012 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

One year after The Rand Family pled guilty to bilking over 200 investors in $68M Dallas Ponzi scam, a number of their expensive instruments are going up for auction. The money from the sales will go towards paying back their victims.

The Rand Family, who owned oil and gas owned Aspen Exploration, scammed investors into financing the operation and drilling of a number of Texas oil wells. At least a 40% return was promised. However, not all of the investors’ monies went to drilling oil. Instead, US Postal investigators discovered that the family was using some of the funds to pay for their expensive lifestyle, which included private jets, yachts, country club membership, and the purchase of real estate, jewelry, musical instruments, and an original Picasso.

Their company, Aspen, sold net revenue interests and working interests in a number of wells in the Rancho Blanco Corporation State Gas Unit in Texas. Prosecutors accused the Rands of making false representations, such as telling them that their money, which would only be commingled when necessary, would go toward testing, drilling, and completion of a well and that they would managerial rights. Instead, the money was moved out of Aspen’s bank accounts as the defendants spent it on personal expenses and to drill and pay for the operation of other wells.

Bank of America Corp. Sued for Over $1B By US Government For Mortgage Fraud Against Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae

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

The United States is suing Bank of America Corporation (BAC) for more than $1 billion over alleged mortgage fraud involving the sale of defective loans to Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. The federal government contends that Countrywide, and then later Bank of America, following its acquisition of the former, executed the “Hustle,” a loan origination process intended to swiftly process loans without the use of quality checkpoints.

This allegedly resulted in thousands of defective and fraudulent residential mortgage loans, which were sold to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, that later defaulted, leading to innumerable foreclosures and over $1 billion in losses.

The US claims that between 2007 and 2009, mortgage company Countrywide Financial Corp. got rid of checks and quality control on loans, including opting not to use underwriters, giving unqualified personnel incentives to cut corners, and hiding defects, and then proceeded to falsely keep claiming that these loans were qualified to be insured by Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. The result, says U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York Preet Bharara, was that taxpayers were left to foot the bill from these “disastrously bad loans.”

Broadway Musical “Rebecca’s” Producers File $100M New York Fraud Lawsuit Against Broker Accused of Scamming Them

Published on: October 23, 2012 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The producers of the Broadway musical “Rebecca” have filed a $100 million fraud lawsuit against former Oppenheimer & Co. broker Mark Hotton because they say he scammed them by pretending to raise $4.5 million from investors for the play while they paid him and his entities $60,000. Hotton was arrested earlier last week and charged with wire fraud not just in this alleged financial scam, but also for his supposed involvement in a separate scheme in which he is accused of using similar deceptive practices to con a real estate company into paying $750,000 to him and the entities.

In the financial fraud involving “Rebecca,” which is based on Daphne Du Maurier’s novel, Hotton allegedly made fake investors and businesses to deceive the producers, who were about $4 million short of making their budget. They signed a deal with his TM Consulting Inc. earlier this year in an agreement that gave Hotton a $7,500 fee and an 8% guarantee on any money he raised above $250,000.

Hotton made it seem as if he had found four investors to put in the $4.5 million-yet these supposed individuals didn’t actually exist. Instead, he allegedly pretended to be them. When the producers asked him for the money, Hotton even claimed that one of the investors, Paul Abrams, had died abruptly from malaria.

David Lerner Associates Must Pay $14M Over Apple REIT Ten Sales and Allegedly Excessive Markups Involving CMOs and Municipal Bonds—$12M to Go to Investors

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

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority is ordering David Lerner Associates, Inc. to pay $14M for allegedly engaging in unfair sales practices involving its Apple REIT Ten and charging clients excessive markups. $12 million of this will be restitution to the investors that bought shares in the $2 billion non-traded real estate investment trust, as well as to clients that were overcharged. $2.3 million is FINRA’s fine against the brokerage firm for charging unfair prices on collateralized mortgage obligations (CMOs) and municipal bonds.

According to the SRO, David Lerner Associates solicited thousands of clients to get them to buy shares in the Apple REIT TEN, of which it is the sole distributor. Elderly and unsophisticated investors were among its sales targets, even as it failed to do enough due diligence to make sure these investments were appropriate for these clients. Instead, the financial allegedly used marketing collateral that was misleading and showed customers performance results for closed Apple REITs without revealing that their incomes were not enough to support distributions to unit owners.

As part of the settlement, the financial firm has agreed to modify its advertising procedures. For example, for three years it will video record sales seminars involving 50 or more participants. It will also prefile its sales literature and ads with FINRA at least 10 days before they are made available for use. Additionally, per FINRA mandate, the brokerage firm will bring in independent consultants to look at proposed modifications to its supervisory system, as well as the training involving the pricing of municipal bonds and CMOs and the sale of non-traded REITs.

Securities Fraud Roundup: EKN Financial Services Expelled from FINRA, SRO’s CEO Says Complex Products Should Be Subject to Stricter Scrutiny, and Federal Regulators Now Paying Closer Attention to Securities Law Violations that Lead to Victim Hardships

Published on: October 20, 2012 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority has expelled EKN Financial Services for a number of compliance violations and for letting firm CEO Anthony Ottimo act in the capacity of supervisor even after the Securities and Exchange Commission had barred him from doing so in 2008. FINRA has barred Ottimo from the securities industry, in addition to barring ex-EKN President Thomas Giugliano from working in a principal role. The SRO contends that through Ottimo and Giugliano, EKN violated a number of SEC and NASD/FINRA rules and federal securities laws, including those involving net capital deficiencies, anti-money laundering violations, and reporting failures.

According to FINRA, from 2008 to 2011 Ottimo took on a supervisory role despite the SEC bar. He also continued to serve as CEO even though he wasn’t a registered principal. Meantime, Giugliano and the financial firm are accused of misrepresenting to FINRA that Ottimo wasn’t serving in these roles. The SRO also found that EKN made numerous anti-money laundering violations, such as not setting up a satisfactory AML compliance program to identify and report suspect activity, preparing net capital computations that were not accurate, failing to properly report net capital deficiencies, not accurately detailing liabilities and cost in its records and books, and neglecting to tell FINRA that Giugliano and Ottimo had hundreds of thousands of dollars in liens and judgments that hadn’t been satisfied.

Federal regulators have lately been more alert to potential securities law violations because of the devastating effect such misconduct can have on the lives of victims. Other examples include boiler room scams, affinity fraud, accounting fraud, misappropriation, and Ponzi schemes, which are just some of the violations that target individual investors, including the elderly and the sick, draining many of them of their life savings. Many such violations that impact investors directly are ones generally involving more low profile incidents that the public doesn’t usually hear about.

Annuity Assets are Hot Commodities Among Investment Managers Private-Equity Groups, and Hedge Fund-Controlled Entities

Published on: October 20, 2012 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

According to the Wall Street Journal, Guggenheim Partners, Harbinger Capital Partners, and Apollo Global Management are just some of the money managers who have begun to acquire fixed annuities. These investments, which were sold by life insurance companies to conservative savers for decades, are now being seen by these newest buyers as a way to increase money under management. Many of these entities, which are controlled by private-equity groups, hedge funds, and other investment managers, believe that their investment savvy will allow them to discover profits where traditional insurance companies were unable to do so. Such acquisitions could provide a more stable income source.

For example, following its acquisition of a couple of midsize insurers this summer by its affiliates, Guggenheim, the $160 billion money manager. won credit-ratings upgrades. Meantime, Athene Annuity & Life, which said it would pay $415 million for Presidential Life Corp., will add about $3.5 billion in assets if Presidential shareholders approve the deal. As for Apollo Global Management, it is seeking to establish a retirement-savings company that is a market leader.

Some of these new annuity owners are offering products that come with terms that are now more generous for clients, while others want to make money off the business blocks they’ve acquired. The National Organization of Life & Health Insurance Guaranty Associations says that to get US consumers to buy annuities, firms have to set up state-based insurance units that are governed by the same risk-based-capital rules that other insurers have to follow.

Texas Securities Fraud: District Court Says Houston-Based Private Equity Firm Can Proceed with Claim Over $10M Film Financing Investment

Published on: October 19, 2012 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas is allowing Small Ventures USA LP, a private equity firm based in Houston, to move forward with its Delaware fraud claim against the promoters that solicited its $10 million investment in RT Newbridge III LLC, a film financing venture. Judge Ewing Werlein Jr. also decided that the plaintiff could proceed with its Texas securities fraud claim against MLRT Film Holdings LLC, Rizvi Traverse Management LLC, and a number of individual defendants.

Small Ventures contends that the defendants made false representations that most of Newbridge’s investments, including independent movie Tekken (comprising about 30% of its portfolio), were financially healthy, when in fact they were not. Meantime, they also allegedly hid or did not reveal material facts, such as the fact that this particular film’s producer had defaulted on an $11 million loan from Newbridge and the movie wasn’t commercially viable and had received poor reviews at the Cannes Film Festival.

The plaintiff claims that to persuade the private equity firm to invest, in 2008 defendant Suhail Rizvi told Small Ventures founder William O. Perkins III that the loan Newbridge had made to produce the film was low risk because of having been over-collateralized with tax credits or foreign pre-sales. Spreadsheets were also passed on to the Small Ventures to make it appear as if the Newbridge portfolio was doing well. Several months after investment discussions began, Small Ventures decided to invest $10 million in return for a membership interest in Newbridge.

When Newbridge failed and the defendants did not collect on the Tekken loan, Small Ventures lost its investment. The plaintiff contends that if it had known the truth about the state of Tekken, it would have taken action to sell its interest so that damages could be mitigated. Small Ventures also believes that the defendants were negligent in the way that they managed the Tekken loan due to their failure to comply with the terms mandated for collection of the completion guaranty bond.

The plaintiff wants damages for what it claims was tortious conduct related to the sale, solicitation, and management of its $10 million investment. It is also contending fraud, grossly negligent and negligent misrepresentation, fraud by nondisclosure, gross negligence and negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, and claims under the Texas Securities Act.

Per the court, Small Ventures stated a fraud claim under Delaware law, which is applicable to the fraud claim, per a choice of law clause that can be found in the agreement between the parties. The court turned down the defendants’ contention that the fraud claims should be thrown out due to “no other representations” and “no reliance” clauses that could be found in the subscription agreements. It did, however, dismiss Small Ventures’ fiduciary duty claims.

Small Ventures USA, L.P. v. Rizvi Traverse Management, LLC et al, Justia Dockets and Filings

More Blog Posts:
US Supreme Court Considers Hearing Stanford Ponzi Lawsuits, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, October 3, 2012

Texas Securities Fraud: Investor Sues Behringer Harvard REIT I Stockbroker Fraud Blog, September 26, 2012

Texas Securities Fraud: Ex-Stanford Chief Investment Officer Gets 3-Year Prison Term for Her Part in $7 Billion Ponzi Scam, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, September 18, 2012 Continue Reading ›