Investor Lawyers Blog

SEC Commissioner Aguilar Calls For the Abolishment of Mandatory Arbitration Agreements

Published on: April 21, 2013 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission member Luis Aguilar is pressing the government to think about adopting rules that would limit or bar investment advisers and brokers from making customers sign away their right to file a securities fraud case. He made his statements in front of the he North America Securities Administrators Association’s yearly conference.

Aguilar spoke about how it was important to advocate for investor choice. He said that by giving investors the chance to choose how they wish to protect their legal rights and file their legal claims, the government would be enhancing federal securities laws while creating better investor protections.

The 2010 Dodd-Frank Act gives the Commission new powers to strengthen investor protections, including the authority to restrict pre-dispute arbitration agreements, which brokers routinely use. The agreements bar an investor from being able to sue the financial firm should a disagreement arise. Meantime, corporations generally remain in favor of arbitration as a venue for resolution because they believe this is less costly.

OmniVision Technologies Investors’ Securities Lawsuit Can Proceed, Says District Court

Published on: April 20, 2013 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California says that OmniVision Technologies investors can move forward with their securities fraud lawsuit as to two challenged statements that were made by one of the company’s senior officials. The statements pertain to the smart phone sensor maker’s alleged competition with Sony to provide Apple smart phones with image sensors.

The defendants In re OmniVision Technologies Inc. Securities Litigation are senior company officials. The court says that OmniVision was successful in getting its sensors in Apple’s ’09 and ’10 iPhone products. Yet, although OmniVision was contracted by Apple to not disclose their working relationship, the former allegedly was able to let the markets know.

The plaintiffs argued that such statements caused the market to think that OmniVision was Apple’s only image sensor supplier when actually it was Sony that was its dominant supplier. Rumors eventually surfaced that OmniVision had lost business to its rival. This information, along with less than favorable financial results, are what they believe caused OmniVision’s stock price to go down.

Per the district court, it saw two statements that might be “potentially actionable.” The court said that although the remarks don’t mention Apple, they might be viewed as “false or misleading” if Apple had already chosen Sony as its image sensor provider for the iPhone 4S.

The court also said that the securities lawsuit alleges details about Sony that could suggest that OmniVision was losing ground to Sony. It determined that there were allegations that “at least establish an inference” that sometime during the Class Period Apple was seriously considering going with Sony instead of OmniVision for certain parts it wanted to buy. The court denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss.

In re OmniVision Technologies Inc. Securities Litigation (PDF)

More Blog Posts:
Former Merrill Lynch, Oppenheimer, Deutsche Bank Broker is Ordered by FINRA To Pay Investor $11M Over Alleged Securities Fraud, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, April 19, 2013

RMBS Lawsuit Against Deutsche Bank Can Proceed, Says District Court, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, April 4, 2013 Continue Reading ›

Former Merrill Lynch, Oppenheimer, Deutsche Bank Broker is Ordered by FINRA To Pay Investor $11M Over Alleged Securities Fraud

Published on: April 19, 2013 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

A FINRA arbitration panel is ordering ex-broker Karl Hahn, who previously worked with Bank of America Corp’s (BAC) Merrill Lynch (MER), Oppenheimer & Co. (OPY), and Deutsche Bank AG’s (DB) Deutsche Bank Securities, to pay investor Chase Bailey $11 million because he sustained about $6 million in losses allegedly caused by securities fraud. Bailey contends that Hahn made excessive trades and misrepresented securities related to transactions involving a number of investments, including a variable annuity, approximately $2.3 million in fraudulent real estate financing involving East Coast properties, and covered calls.

In the filmmaker/Internet entrepreneur’s securities arbitration claim, Bailey named the three financial firms where Hahn previously worked. It is during this period that Bailey was allegedly defrauded. (He had moved his funds from one brokerage firm to the other each time Hahn was hired by that employer.) Bailey settled his case with Merrill for $700,000, while claims against Deutsche Bank and Oppenheimer were tossed out.

Per the FINRA arbitration ruling, Bailey is awarded $6.4 million in punitive damages and $4.1 million in compensatory damage. Ordering brokers to pay punitive damages is uncommon.

Federal Reserve Board Establishes Key Rule That Will Let Regulator Identify Systemically Important Nonbank Financial Institutions

Published on: April 19, 2013 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The Federal Reserve Board has moved closer toward being able to designate certain firms as Systemically Important Nonbank Financial Institutions. Earlier this month it set up a key rule that lets the Financial Stability Oversight Council name these SIFIs. The Federal Reserve would be their consolidated supervisor.

The rule defines when a firm is “predominantly” involved in financial activities. An SIFI would need to have at least $50 billion in overall consolidated assets or have risk exposures that could harm the US financial system should it fail. Among the companies that will likely get the SIFI designation are Prudential Financial Inc., GE Financial, MetLife Inc., and American International Group Inc.

A company will be considered as primarily involved in activities that the Bank Holding Company Act deems “financial in nature,” if at least 85% of its assets or revenues are related to such activities. However, the Fed has decided that involvement in physically settled derivatives transactions would generally not be considered a financial activity. This is to protect companies, such as manufacturers and farmers, that work with derivatives to hedge against supply price modifications.

UBS Loses Appeal to Have FHFA’s $6.4 Billion MBS Fraud Lawsuit Dismissed

Published on: April 18, 2013 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit is denying UBS AG’s (UBSN) bid to dismiss the Federal Housing Finance Agency’s mortgage-backed securities lawsuit accusing the financial firm of misrepresenting the quality of the loans underlying the residential MBS that Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae bought. FHFA is the mortgage financiers’ appointed conservator.

In its appeal, UBS contended that the MBS lawsuit was filed too late under federal law. However, the 2nd circuit, affirming U.S. District Judge Denise Cote’s ruling, determined that the filing period for type of securities case was extended by the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008.

The RMBS lawsuit is one of 17 FHFA cases against large financial institutions over alleged misrepresentations involving over $200 million in mortgage-backed securities. Judge Cote is presiding over 15 of these MBS lawsuits.

Securities Fraud Roundup: 6th Circuit Affirms Ruling Affirms Broker’s Liability Over Reverse Merger, Ex-Stockbroker Pleads Guilty to Insider Trading Over IBM’s SPSS Acquisition, & Father and Son Convicted in $50M Real Estate Fraud

Published on: April 16, 2013 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

6th Circuit Affirms Ruling Affirming Broker’s Liability Over Reverse Merger

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit says that a district court was correct in granting summary judgment to the Securities and Exchange Commission over its claim that broker Aaron Tsai made disclosure and registration violations related to a “reverse merger” involving a shell company. The lower court had ordered Tsai to pay about $352,000 in disgorgement and prejudgment interest while barring him from future violations. Affirming that court’s decision, the appeals court said that the broker’s transactions in unregistered stock were not exempt, pursuant to 1933 Securities Act Rule 144(k).

Tsai was the former president and CEO MAS Acquisition XI Company, which had a reverse merger and sold shares on the OTCBB in 2000. After his initial filing was turned down, he moved shares from five former directors who were initial company shareholders, to 28 other shareholders via previously signed stock powers. Tsai then obtained approval to finish up the reverse merger with Blue Point. The SEC filed civil enforcement naming him and other defendants while alleging Securities Act and Exchange Act violations, including failure to register securities before their sale or offering and failure to reveal that he had beneficial ownership of the securities.

SEC Roundup: Number of Securities Cases Brought Against Attorneys Rises, Permission Granted to Announce Material Information Via Social Media, & Clearing Agency Rulemaking Process Gets Streamlined

Published on: April 16, 2013 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Under Rule of Practice 102(e), SEC to File More Securities Cases Against Lawyers

According to the Commission, it intends to bring even more cases against lawyers under its Rule of Practice 102(e). The amount cases had already gone up in the wake of the 2010 Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act and the 2002 Sarbanes-Oxley Act. Now, the regulator’s Office of the General Counsel is getting referrals from its Enforcement Division about possible lawyer misconduct.

The cases being brought generally involve alleged securities violations, such as active involvement in financial fraud and the obstruction of probes, with judgment errors and close calls not included. Per rule 102(e), the SEC can bar or censure individuals from practicing or appearing before it for different reasons. Some attorneys, however, are worried about the way the regulator interprets the rule, such as what ‘active participation’ in fraud actually entails. There are also concerns that the rule could be used as a “tactical tool” against attorneys.

CtW Investment Group Wants JPMorgan Chase Shareholders To Vote Against Re-Electing Four Board of Directors

Published on: April 15, 2013 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

CtW Investment Group has announced plans to file a document with the Securities and Exchange Commission that would press shareholders to vote against reelecting four JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPM) board of directors: James Crown, Ellen Futter, Laban Jackson, and David Cote. The group, which represents pension funds that together hold approximately 6 million of the financial firm’s shares and is labor organization Change to Win’s advisory arm, also intends to make its request in writing to the shareholders.

CtW believes that these directors can no longer be depended on to deal with oversight failures and blames most of them for poor risk management oversight that they say allowed the trading fiasco to happen. Meantime, JPMorgan is seeking support among its biggest shareholders. It claims that the board isn’t to be blamed for the “London Whale,” which involved its operation in England making risky bets and losing nearly $6 billion in losses.

Meantime, in a report on the global investment banking industry, JPMorgan’s analysts pointed to Goldman Sachs (GS) and Deutsche Bank (DB) as examples of Tier 1 investment banks to stay away from. It described this tier of banks as “un-investable, with their viability in doubt.

AIG Wants to Stop Former CEO Greenberg From Naming It as a Defendant in Derivatives Lawsuit Against the US

Published on: April 13, 2013 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

American International Group is asking a federal judge to prevent Maurice Greenberg, its former chief executive, from suing the federal government on its behalf. The insurer had already decided it wasn’t going to file a lawsuit against the federal government over its bailout that took place during the economic crisis.

Greenberg, who has filed a $25 billion securities lawsuit against the US, is pursuing derivative claims for the company. He claims that the bailout’s “onerous” terms cost the insurer’s investors billions.

While AIG isn’t trying to stop Greenberg from suing on his behalf or for other shareholders, the insurance giant has made it clear that suing the government over the rescue isn’t where it wants to focus its energy and resources. In its filing, AIG notes that according to Delaware Law, Greenberg, through Starr Investment, cannot take over the right of the AIG board to make the call on whether/not to sue.

Fifth Circuit To Hear Appeal Over Whether Dodd Frank’s Whistleblower Statute Covers Informants that Report FCPA Violations

Published on: April 12, 2013 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

In June, The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit will hear oral argument in Asadi v. G.E. Energy (USA) LLC, a novel appeal over whether the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act’s whistleblower statute give protections to informants who report that there have been possible Foreign Corrupt Practices Act abroad. The lawsuit had been dismissed by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas on the grounds that the Supreme Court’s decision in Morrison v. National Australia Bank Ltd. precluded applying the anti-retaliation provisions to behavior that occurred outside this country.

The plaintiff, Khaled Asadi, is a citizen of both Iraq and the United States. He had sued GE Energy (USA) LLC, his former employer, last year claiming that the company had violated these provisions when they fired him because he allegedly told his superiors that about a possible hiring situation that could violate the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. He says that he spotted the alleged wrongdoing while working temporarily with Iraqi authorities in Jordan to obtain business for GE Energy.

After the district court in Texas threw out his case, Asadi filed his appeal, arguing that the Anti-Retaliation provisions specifically protect employees who make disclosures of any rule, law, or regulation under the Securities and Exchange Commission’s jurisdiction. He also maintains that American citizens working abroad who provide information about securities violations should be protected when those violations possess “extraterritorial applicability.”