Investor Lawyers Blog

US Supreme Court Considers Hearing Stanford Ponzi Lawsuits

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

The Supreme Court’s justices are looking to the Obama administration for advice about an appeal made to a ruling allowing the victims of R. Allen Stanford’s $7 billion Ponzi fraud can pursue law firms, insurance brokers, and outside parties for damages. The defendants, third party firms, want the court to stop the securities lawsuits, which are based on Texas and Louisiana law. If the court were to hear the appeals, it would put to test the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act, which was enacted so that if a class action lawsuit comes from a misrepresentation issued “in connection” with a covered security’s sale or purchase, investors cannot go to state courts to get around federal limits placed on such claims. The appeals is asking how close that connection has to be for a state lawsuit to be barred.

Investors have been trying to get back the money they lost in Stanford’s Ponzi fraud, which involved the sale of CDs from his Antigua bank. Numerous securities lawsuits have been filed, and at Shepherd Smith Edwards and Kantas, LTD, LLP, our Texas securities fraud lawyers represent victims of the Stanford Ponzi scam and other financial schemes.

Our Texas securities fraud law firm also continues to provide updates on the different Stanford-related securities litigation on our blog sites:

Securities Lawsuit Over Excessive AXA Mutual Fund Management Fees in Variable Annuity Program Can Proceed, Says NJ District Court

Published on: October 2, 2012 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

According to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, plaintiff Mary Ann Sovolella can sue AXA Equitable Life Insurance Co. on behalf of eight mutual funds that belong to a variable annuity program for excessive management fees. Per Judge Peter Sheridan, the economic realities and a broad interpretation the 1940 Investment Company Act Section 36(b) gives her standing. The defendants are AXA Equitable Funds Management Group LLC (collectively AXA) and AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company (AXA Equitable).

Sovolella is suing on behalf of the AXA Funds, EQ Advisors Trust and those that paid investment management fees. She alleges that charging the funds management fees that were excessive violates ICA’s Section 36(b). The defendants’ sought to have the securities lawsuit dismissed on the grounds of lack of statutory standing.

The plaintiff joined the EQUI-VEST Deferred Variable Annuity Program after the opportunity was offered to her by her employer, Newark School System (due to a group annuity contract involving AXA Equitable). The eight AXA Funds in the EQ Trust are part of the portfolios that were made available to Sovolella through the program. AXA charges the funds an investment management fee that is taken out of the fund balance, which lowers the “value of the Plaintiff’s investment.”

While ICA’s Section 36(b) includes the provision that investment advisers have a fiduciary obligation regarding the “receipt of compensation for services” that they give to mutual funds, there are limits as to who can pursue a claim. An action can only be brought by the Securities and Exchange Commission or a security holder for a mutual fund that is allegedly charging fees that are excessive. However, per the court, ICA doesn’t provide a definition for the term “security holder.” While the defendants argued that Sovolella is not a “security holder” the plaintiff, maintains that she is one as this pertains to the funds.

Denying the defendants’ motion to dismiss, the court said that while it doesn’t make “sense to limit standing” in in order to enforce Section 36(b) to AXA or any entity that didn’t pay the fees that were allegedly excessive, Sovolella and other investors that are similarly situated are accountable for and did pay all challenged fees while bearing the complete risk of “poor investment performance,” entitled to direct AXA on how to vote their shares, and when the plaintiff opts to take out her investment in the fund it will be her responsibility to pay the investment taxes. Plaintiff, therefore, possesses an “economic stake” in these transactions.

Sivolella v. AXA Equitable Life Insurance Co., Justia (PDF)

1940 Investment Company Act (PDF)

More Blog Posts:
Stockbroker Fraud News Roundup: UBS Puerto Rico Settles SEC Action for $26M, Morgan Keegan’s Bid to Get $40K Award Over Marketing of RMK Advantage Income Fund Vacated is Denied, and SEC Settles with Attorney Involved in $1B Viaticals Scam, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, May 11, 2012

Securities Fraud: Mutual Funds Investment Adviser Cannot Be Sued Over Misstatement in Prospectuses, Says US Supreme Court, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, June 16, 2011

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 Continue Reading ›

LIBOR Oversight-Related Changes Announced by FSA Chief

Published on: October 2, 2012 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Britain’s Financial Services Authority managing director Martin Wheatley says that oversight of Libor should become the UK regulator’s job. He made his statements on Friday, proposing that over 100 Libor rates tied to maturities and currencies that lack enough trading information to be set properly should be eliminated right away. He also said that submissions by banks should be grounded in “hard data.”

Questions were raised about the London Inter-Bank Offer Rate’s accuracy a few months ago following allegations that Barclays (BCS) and other large banks had been rigging it by turning in borrowing estimates that were artificially low. Considering that LIBOR is the average borrowing cost for banks in Britain for when they are lending each other money, as well as a benchmark interest rate that impacts financial contracts and corporate loans globally, such manipulation cannot happen. Barclays later admitted that it had tried to rig rates to boost its own derivative trading, hide actual lending costs, and create the impression of better financial health during the economic crisis. The bank would go on to settle over these securities allegations: $453 million to the FSA, $200 million to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, and $160 million to the US Department of Justice. However, several other banks are still under investigation related to the LIBOR scandal.

“Many regional banks and other financial institutions are seeking to recover losses based on fraudulently manipulated Libor rates,” said Securities Fraud Attorney William Shepherd. “Most lenders have abandoned the ‘prime’ rate formula and now base their rates on the widely accepted (and trusted) Libor rate. Our law firm represents financial institutions in claims for damages.”

Acknowledging that Libor governance has been a complete failure, Wheatley, who is expected to become the Financial Conduct Authority’s chief executive when the FSA breaks up into two agencies, acknowledged that inadequate regulation and a “comprehensive mechanism” to retaliate against those that attempt to “manipulate the system” has made resulting problems worse. He wants FSA to be given additional authorities, including vetting power over rate-submitters and the ability to prosecute rate manipulation efforts.

According to Advisen.com, with regulatory actions and securities litigation over the LIBOR manipulation scandal growing every day, through the first week of September it had counted 88 actions against 20 banks—that’s 20 regulatory probes and 68 complaints. Among the defendants, besides Barclays, are JP Morgan Chase Bank (JPM), Citibank (C), Royal Bank of Scotland Group (RBS), Bank of America (BAC), Credit Suisse Group AG (CS), UBS (UBS), HSBC, Deutsche Bank AG (DB), Bank of Tokyo Mitsubishi, Royal Bank of Canada (RY), and others. More actions over pension fund losses are likely.

FSA to Oversee Libor in Streamlining of Tarnished Interest Rate, SF Gate, September 28, 2012

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

Burger King Structure Could Activate Certain 1934 Securities Exchange Act Prohibitions, Says SEC’s Special Counsel

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

According to Attorney Daniel Duchovny, who is the special counsel to the Securities and Exchange Commission Corporation Finance Division’s Office of Mergers and Acquisitions, a two-track merger and acquisition structure known as the Burger King structure could cause certain 1934 Securities Exchange Act provisions to be triggered. Named after the burger chain’s private acquisition equity that took place in 2010, the Burger King structure allows companies to go after a traditional one-step merger and a tender offer at the same time. Firms involved in such deals have to agree that if the company that is doing the acquiring is unable to arrive at the majority of shares (usually 90%) through the tender offer, midway through the process they can choose to do a one-step merger instead. Duchovny, who spoke during the Practising Law Institute webcast on September 6, made clear to emphasize that these views are his own.

At issue, says Duchovny, is that this dual structure may conflict with the 1934 Act’s Rule 14e-5, which, reports BNA, “prohibits buying or offering to buy the target company’s securities outside a tender offer.” The one-step merger path could activate this prohibition because the acquiring company has to submit a preliminary proxy statement with the Commission. Duchovny noted that this filing could be viewed as a deal to buy securities “outside the tender offer.”

The SEC is currently trying to see whether the transaction structure does actually violate rule 14e-5. Meantime, Commission staff intend to get in touch with acquiring firms that exhibit plans to submit a preliminary proxy statement related to a Burger King-style transaction, warn about the possible “application of the rule,” and ask for a hold off on the submission of a definitive proxy statement before the expiration of the tender offer period. However, bidders looking for no-action relief from the Commission to submit a definitive proxy statement should be ready to tackle the agency’s concerns, said Duchovny, including that this type of solicitation is only speculative, the filer may not have to complete it, there may be a possible exception that the deal is one that not many shareholders support, there may be potential shareholder confusion, and that, seeing as there are other deal tools, there may not be a compelling enough need for the exception. Duchovny said that although the SEC has granted no-action relief before under Rule 14e-5, he emphasized that companies shouldn’t assume that this relief exists for general reliance.

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

Published on: September 28, 2012 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The Securities and Exchange Commission has reached a settlement with three men accused of trading on insider information about the acquisition between Mercer Insurance Group Inc. and United Fire & Casualty Co. (UFCS), with the latter to obtain the former. Per the SEC, in or around June 2010, Mercer Insurance director H. Thomas Davis Jr. found out about the talks between the two insurance companies and then allegedly tipped business associate/friend Mark W. Baggett, who then allegedly tipped golfing partner Kenneth Wrangell. Baggett and Wrangell then bought Mercer stock that they sold when the merger became public in November of that year. The Commission says they made over $83,000 in illegal profits.

Wrangell, who reportedly went into a cooperation deal with SEC investigators right away when they approached him about the insider trading, saw his penalty reduced to $11,380.39. His disgorgement remains at is $42,521.55. This agreement led to the quick gathering of evidence and settlements against the other two men. In addition to a bar from working for a public company as a director or officer, Davis has consented to be severally and jointly liable for the disgorgement of $41,584.45, which were Baggett’s profits, in addition to a $41,584.45 penalty and prejudgment interest.) Baggett will also pay disgorgement and a penalty.

In a Pennsylvania insider trading case, a district court has decided not to dismiss criminal securities fraud charges against Timothy McGee, who allegedly traded securities in a merger target using information that he obtained from a fellow Alcoholics Anonymous member. Judge Tim Savage found that the prosecution alleged enough facts to support that there was a relationship of confidence/trust between the defendant and his tipster.

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?

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

Wisconsin regulators are suing Wisconsin Funeral Directors Association Inc. and Fiduciary Partners Inc. for allegedly improperly investing the money from a $48 million Wisconsin Funeral Trust. With a possible long-term deficit of $21 million, close to $6 million in investor money has already been lost. However, our stockbroker fraud law firm wants to know why two former Morgan Stanley Smith Barney brokers-brothers Michael Hull and Patrick Hull-are not defendants in this case. The two brothers managed the trust until earlier this month, when a circuit court judge assigned a receiver to take charge of liquidating the fund. They now run bluepoint Investment Council, LLC.

The trust is funded by about 10,500 prepaid contracts. According to state Department of Justice officials, customers who bought prepaid funeral policy plans because they were under the impression that their money would be placed in CDs, government bonds, and low risk investments and that they would get a guaranteed, modest return rate. Instead, the trust ended up losing millions in risky investments. (The Department of Financial Institutions is now ordering a securities enforcement action after it concluded that the funds, which were in the trust, were invested in a manner that violated state law.) Fiduciary Partners Trust, the trust’s trustee, has said that it was never involved in how the trust’s investments were managed or marketed and that this was the job of the Wisconsin Funeral Directors Association and the investment management firms.

“The information which has been reported leaves us with more questions than answers as to Morgan Stanley and its former brokers,” said stockbroker fraud lawyer William Shepherd. “In any event, any claims against the firm and/or brokers would likely be excluded from court action by the trust because of a mandatory FINRA arbitration agreement.”

Texas Securities Fraud: Investor Sues Behringer Harvard REIT I

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

In her Texas securities lawsuit, investor Lillian Hohenstein is suing Behringer Harvard REIT I, one of the biggest nontraded real estate investment trusts. Hohenstein, who purchased 1,275 shares from the trust between 2004 and 2008, claims that the REIT, Behringer Harvard Holdings LLC, President and Chief Executive Robert Aisner, other company executives, and its board members of breach of fiduciary duty and negligence. Aisner and board members also are accused of making allegedly misleading and false statements when they recommended that investors turn down outside fund offers from those wanting to pay the REIT’s shares for as low as $180/share.

According to Hohenstein ‘s Texas REIT lawsuit, the REIT attempted to conceal its poor performance by using investors’ own money to pay them, while simultaneously depleting the company of millions of dollars even as top executives benefited. Behringer Harvard REIT I is among the nontraded REITs that have seen their value drop significantly following the collapse of the real estate market.

The REIT complaint contends that for a certain period of time, HPT Management Services LP and Behringer Advisors respectively collected fees of $77 million and $104 million, which, per the securities lawsuit, over the life of the trust is about 4% of the REITs existing assets. Behringer Harvard COO Jason Mattox, who says Hohenstein ‘s case is meritless, says the company has since lowered his fees, even waiving asset management fees of over $30 million.

Institutional Investment Fraud Roundup: Ex-Hedge Fund Managers’ Guilty Plea Over Bilking Investors of Almost $1M Get 3-Year Prison Term, SEC Sues Investment Adviser Over Alleged $37M Ponzi, and SEC Files Lawsuit Over Purported “Fund of Funds” Scam

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

Ex-hedge fund managers Christopher Fardella and Michael Katz have been sentenced to three years in prison after they pleaded securities fraud and conspiracy charges for defrauding investors of nearly $1 million. Per court documents, between April 2005 and November 2006, the two men, along with two co-conspirators, were partners in KMFG International LLC, which is a hedge fund.

They cold called investors throughout the US and provided them with misleading information about the fund, its principals, and financial performance even though KMFG actually lacked a track record and never generated any profit for investors. The defendants and co-conspirators lost and spent $981,000 of the $1,031,086 that was given to them by investors.

Meantime, another hedge fund manager, Oregon-based investment advisor Yusaf Jawad, is being sued by the Securities and Exchange Commission over an alleged $37 million Ponzi scam. The securities lawsuit against him and attorney Robert Custis was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon.

Lehman Brothers Australia Found Liable in CDO Losses of 72 Councils, Charities, and Churches

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

Lehman Brothers subsidiary Lehman Brothers Australia has been found liable for collateralized debt obligation losses sustained by 72 councils, churches, and charities during the global economic crisis. The class action securities lawsuit was led by three Australian counsels—Wingecarribee, Parkes and Swan City. A fixed settlement amount, however, has not yet been reached. The parties will have to meet to figure out the damages, and their submissions will then be presented to the Federal Court later this year. (Because the defendant, previously known as Grange Securities, is in liquidation, it cannot make any payments right now). The three lead plaintiffs had sought up to $209M (US dollars), which is how much they say was lost from the CDOs.

The majority of the CDOs that caused the investors losses had been purchased from Grange Securities before Lehman Brothers Australia acquired the firm in 2007, which is the year when the bond world started to fall apart as the global economic crisis began to unfold. The plaintiffs are claiming alleged breach of fiduciary duty, misconduct, and negligence for how the defendant marketed the synthetic derivative investments.

Federal Court Justice Steven Rares, who issued the ruling, said the CDOs were presented as if they were liquid like cash and safe investments even though they were, in fact, a risky, “sophisticated bet.” He said the plaintiffs were told that they would get their money back if they held on to the CDO’s until maturity and that high credit ratings placed the securities in the same arena as the AAA-rated Australian government’s debts. They also presented the investments that it recommended or made for the plaintiffs as suitable for investors that had conservative goals.

The judge noted that although that each of the three councils that were the lead plaintiffs had different complaints, in relation to two councils, the defendant was negligent in the advice and recommendation it offered them. Also, as financial advisor to two of the councils, the financial firm breached its fiduciary duty and took part in deceptive and misleading behavior when it pushed the CDOs as suitable for them.

More Blog Posts:
Stockbroker Securities Roundup: Criminal Convictions Vacated Against Six Charged in Front Running Scam and Citigroup Broker Cleared in $1B CDO Deal SEC Case, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, August 11, 2012

Some of the SEC Charges Against Investment Adviser Over Alleged Involvement In J.P. Morgan Securities LLC Collateralized Debt Obligation Are Dismissed, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, September 24, 2011

Lehman Brothers’ “Structured Products” Investigated by Stockbroker Fraud Law Firm Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas LTD LLPn, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, September 30, 2008

Securities Roundup: FINRA Heightens Focus on Options Industry & Wants More Investors to Use BrokerCheck, Lawmaker Hopes SEC is Taking Closer Look at National Exchanges, and US Senator Calls For Reform of Money Market Mutual Fund Industry

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

At the Security Traders Association’s yearly market conference in DC, Richard Ketchum, Financial Industry Regulatory Authority’s chief executive officer and chairman, said that due to growing problems the SRO is heightening its surveillance and exam focus on the options industry. He noted that there has been an increase in complaints about the use of algorithmic activities to perform possible manipulations to “move underlying equity” and that this could cause a financial firm to “take advantage” of options positions that were pre-established.

Per BNA, Ketchum said that FINRA has set up surveillance alerts to catch too much messaging traffic from algorithms that update quotes at vicious rates when options are involved. It is also looking at firms to make sure they have adequate controls related to algorithms and it will keep checking for options orders that may have possibly inaccurate coding.

The week before, Ketchum reported that the FINRA Board of Governors had given the SRO’s staff the authority to propose to the SEC rule changes to promote greater investors use of BrokerCheck. This free tool allows investors to look up former and current firms and brokers that are registered with the SRO, and representatives and investment advisers, to decide whether the should work with them. (This information would also have to be available on websites that were maintained by/for an individual associated with these firms.) Per amendments that have been proposed to the FINRA Rule 2267, which covers the education and protection of investors, member firms would have to make sure that their company sites provide a direct link to BrokerCheck. Meantime, a change has also been proposed to FINRA Rule 8312 that would give the public permanent access to information available through BrokerCheck about foreign and state cases against associated persons who were let go after a settlement was reached. It would also per the board’s approval, make downloads of BrokerCheck information available.