Investor Lawyers Blog

Former Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC Employee Faces SEC Charges for Creating Fake Trades to Enable Ponzi Scam

Published on: November 23, 2011 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

David Kugel, who was a long time Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC (BMIS), has been charged by the Securities and Exchange Commission with fraud. Kugel is accused of making fake trades to keep Madoff’s multi-billion dollar Ponzi scam running. He has consented to settling the securities fraud charges.

The SEC claims that Kugel, who worked for Madoff for nearly 40 years, was asked by the Ponzi mastermind to turn backdated arbitrage trade information into fake trades. Kugel’s own BMIS account included backdated trades. While some of the trades imitated successful ondx made by Kugel for BMIS, others were founded on historical facts that he got from old newspapers.

Over a number of years Kugel even withdrew almost $10 million in profits from these bogus trades in his own BMIS. SEC New York Regional Office George S. Canellos claims that Kugel knew such profits were fake.

Two other people accused of setting up fake trades from the information that Kugel provided were Joann Crupi and Annette Bongiorno. Both allegedly asked him for backdated data about trades that added up to millions of dollars. They would then take the information and design trades that equaled those figures. These bogus trades showed up as trade confirmations on investors’ account statements.

The SEC filed securities charges against the two women last year. The Commission claims that Bongiorno regularly set up bogus books and records and misled investors via phone calls, trade confirmations, and account statements. She also is accused of setting up false trades in her own BMIS counts that allowed her to cash out millions of dollars more than what was put in. Meantime, Crupi was accused of deciding what accounts to cash out and which investors should receive checks as Madoff’s scam stood on the brink of collapse. The two women are facing criminal charges over their alleged involvement. They have denied any wrongdoing.

Prosecutors have filed parallel criminal charges against Kugel. On Monday, he pleaded guilty to six criminal counts, including securities fraud, conspiracy, and bank fraud. He will be sentenced in May.

Meantime, Irving Picard, who has been appointed as the trustee in charge of helping Madoff’s Ponzi victims from recouping their losses, is seeking at least $22.2 million from Kugel and his family.

Ponzi Scams
A Ponzi scheme can be described as a multi-level marketing operation. The director solicits investments while promising clients a given return rate. However, rather than paying investors from real profits, the principal from new investors is used to compensate earlier investors. Ponzi scams can result in devastating losses for investors once the money dries up.

SEC Charges Longtime Madoff Employee With Creating Fake Trades, SEC, November 21, 2011
Read the SEC Complaint (PDF)

Bernie Madoff Cronies Arrested, ABC News, November 18, 2010
More Blog Posts:
SEC Files Charges in $27M Washington DC Ponzi Scam, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, November 21, 2011
Former Texan and First Capital Savings and Loan To Pay $4.5M for Alleged Foreign Currency Ponzi Scheme, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, November 11, 2011
SEC Issues Emergency Order to Stop $26M “Green” Ponzi Scam, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, October 13, 2011 Continue Reading ›

Wells Investment Securities Agrees to $300,000 Fine by FINRA for Alleged Use of Misleading Marketing Materials for REIT Offerings

Published on: November 23, 2011 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

To settle FINRA accusations that it used misleading marketing materials when selling Wells Timberland REIT, Inc., Wells Investment Securities, Inc. has agreed to pay a $300,000 fine, as well as to an entry of the findings. However, it is not denying or admitting to the securities charges.

FINRA claims that as the wholesaler and dealer-manager of the non-traded Real Estate Investment Trust’s public offering, Wells approved, reviewed, and distributed 116 sales and marketing materials that included statements that were misleading, exaggerated, or unwarranted.The SRO contends that not only did most of the REIT’s sales literature and advertisements neglect to disclose the meaning of Wells Timberland’s non-REIT status, but also it implied that Wells Timberland qualified as an REIT during a time when it didn’t. (Although its initial offering prospectus reported that it planned to qualify as an REIT for the tax year finishing up at the end of 2006, it did not qualify until the one ending on December 31, 2009.) Also, FINRA believes that Wells Timberland’s communications about portfolio diversification, redemptions, and distributions included misleading statements and that the financial firm lacked supervisory procedures for making sure the proprietary data and sensitive customer information were properly protected with working encryption technology.

While non-traded REITs are usually illiquid for approximately 8 years or longer, certain tax ramifications can be avoided if specific IRS requirements are met. FINRA says that the Wells ads failed to ensure that investors clearly understood that an investment that is not yet an REIT couldn’t offer them those tax benefits.

Last month, FINRA put out an alert notifying investors about the risks of public non-traded REITs. Non-exchange traded real estate investment trusts are not traded on a national securities exchange. Early redemption is usually limited and fees related to their sale can be high, which can erode one’s overall return. Risks involved include:

• No guarantee on distributions, which can exceed operating cash flow.
• REIT status and distributions that come with tax consequences
• Illiquidity and valuation complexities
• Early redemption that is limited and likely costly
• Fees that can grow
• Unspecified properties
• Limited diversification
• Real Estate risk

FINRA wants investors considering non-traded REITs to:

• Watch out for sales literature or pitches giving you simple reasons for why you should invest.
• Find out how much the seller is getting in commissions and fees.
• Know how investing in this type of REIT will help you meet your goals.
• Carefully study the accompanying prospectus and its supplements.

Public Non-Traded REITs—Perform a Careful Review Before Investing, FINRA

More Blog Posts:

Morgan Stanley Faces $1M FINRA Fine for Excessive Markups and Markdowns on Corporate and Municipal Bond Transactions, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, September 17, 2011

Citigroup Global Markets Inc. Sues Two Saudi Investors in an Attempt to Block Their FINRA Arbitration Claim Over $383M in Losses, Stockbroker Fraud, October 22, 2011

SEC Files Charges in $27M Washington DC Ponzi Scam

Published on: November 21, 2011 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The Securities and Exchange Commission has charged Garfield M. Taylor and a number of his relatives and friends with running a DC-area Ponzi scam. The more than $27 million financial fraud targeted investors in the area.

Taylor and his partners allegedly defrauded about 130 investors between 2005 and 2010. The scam fell apart when the money dried up as a result of trading losses and the interest payments that were made to investors.

According to the Commission, Taylor convinced mainly middle-class clients to refinance their houses and use their money, including their retirement and savings, to invest in promissory notes that were put out by his two companies, which were supposedly taking part in low-risk trading options. He touted returns of up to 20% and provided investors with false assurances that their investments were protected by either a “covered call” trading strategy or a “reserve account.”

To keep new investor money coming, Taylor is said to have persuaded current investors and others to refer prospective clients to him in exchange for commission fees that were calculated according to how much the new investors put in. Although he is not a licensed securities broker, Taylor convinced a number of investors to give him access to their brokerage accounts and he used this privilege to make trades. He promised them a portion of the profits.

The SEC contends that contrary to his promises, Taylor actually was taking part in risky options trading, which then resulted in the financial losses. He also allegedly took $5 million to pay relatives and friends and cover his kids’ education.

Also charged with securities fraud bu the SEC (allegations against the parties vary, but include: violation of federal securities’ laws anti-fraud provisions, offering registration requirements, and broker-dealer registration requirements):

• Gibraltar Asset Management Group LLC • Garfield Taylor Inc.
• Maurice G. Taylor. He is Taylor’s sibling and is Gibraltar’s chief investment officer • Randolph M. Taylor. Taylor’s sibling who was Gibraltar’s VP of organizational development.
• Benjamin C. Dalley. He formerly served as VP of operations at Gibraltar.
• Jeffrey A. King. Taylor’s brother-in-law and Gibraltar’s former COO and President.
• William B. Mitchell. He was a senior executive at both companies
These individuals and entities, along with Taylor, are accused of jointly putting together a Gibraltar PowerPoint presentation that contained false and misleading statements and giving these to prospective clients. The SEC says the documents misrepresented the financial firm’s options trading strategy, the protections offered, the expected return rate, and degree of risk involved. Institutional investors and charities, including a Baptist church, were even pursued as prospective clients.

The SEC is seeking enjoinment from future violations, the payment of penalties, and disgorgement.

SEC Charges Perpetrator of Washington-Area Ponzi Scheme, SEC, November 18, 2011
Read the SEC’s Complaint

More Blog Posts:
Former Texan and First Capital Savings and Loan To Pay $4.5M for Alleged Foreign Currency Ponzi Scheme, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, November 11, 2011
SEC Charges Filed in $22M Ponzi Scam that Targeted Florida Teachers and Retirees, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, August 29, 2011
SEC Issues Emergency Order to Stop $26M “Green” Ponzi Scam, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, October 13, 2011 Continue Reading ›

Ex-AIG CEO Sues Government For $25B Over 2008 Takeover of Insurance Giant

Published on: November 21, 2011 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Maurice R. “Hank” Greenberg, the former CEO of American International Group Inc., is suing the federal government for taking over the insurance giant in 2008. Greenberg is seeking $25 billion.

Greenberg’s Star International, which was AIG’s largest stakeholder when the government rescue took place, filed his lawsuit in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. He contends that the government bailout and takeover of AIG was unconstitutional. The amount of damages he is seeking was arrived at from the value of the 80% AIG stake that the government got for its $182 billion bailout.

The money let AIG pay off Goldman Sachs and other counterparties, as well as compensate its executives with $182 million in bonuses. The public, however, was outraged when AIG executives were still awarded excessive compensation packages—especially considering that AIG lost $61.7 during the fourth quarter of 2008 alone. The insurer had to sell off some assets to repay the government, and Greenberg’s stake in the company suffered as a result.

Now, he is claiming that the federal government used AIG to get money to the insurance company’s trading partners. He contends that by obtaining an almost 80% stake in the insurer for bailing it out, the government took valuable property from AIG shareholders and that this violates the Fifth Amendment, which prevents the taking of private property for public use without appropriate compensation.

Greenberg’s opposition to the government bailout comes as no surprise. Earlier this year, he wrote in the Wall Street Journal that the government overstepped when it took preferred stock with the option to change these into common stock. Such transactions were performed without the approval of shareholders, which he believes violates Delaware law. AIG was incorporated there.

Last year, the Treasury Department upped its stake in AIG to 92.1% when it turned preferred shares into common shares. However, it sold some of its shares to investors in May so its ownership percentage in AIG is now at 77%. It is still trying to recover over $41 billion from the sale of the rest of its stake.

AIG Bailout
The government seized control of AIG not long after it became clear that Lehman Brothers Inc. was going to have to shut down. Per the terms of the agreement, the Fed said it would lend AIG $85 billion, and the government was given the substantial equity stake. The takeover came on the heels of the government also seized Freddie Mac and Freddie Mae as they stood on the brink of collapse. Merrill Lynch & Co, which was also in trouble, agreed to let Bank of America Corp. buy it.

U.S. to Take Over AIG in $85 Billion Bailout; Central Banks Inject Cash as Credit Dries Up, The Wall Street Journal, September 16, 2008

Oppenheimer Funds Investors Can Proceed with Their Securities Fraud Lawsuit

Published on: November 19, 2011 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

A federal court has decided that Oppenheimer municipal bond fund holders can go ahead with their securities fraud complaint against Oppenheimer Funds. The plaintiffs of In re Oppenheimer Rochester Funds Group Securities Litigation are alleging federal securities law violations. Funds involved included:

• AMT-Free Municipals Fund • Rochester National Municipals Fund • AMT-Free New York Municipals Fund • Rochester Fund Municipals • California Municipal Fund • Pennsylvania Municipal Fund • New Jersey Municipal Fund
The shareholders of seven municipal bonds had their securities fraud lawsuits consolidated into one case in two years ago. They are claiming that the Oppenheimer Funds neglected to reveal in their registration and prospectus statements that risks were being taken that weren’t in line with their declared strategy and investment goals. The investors argued that even as the funds explicitly said that preserving capital was a clear investment goal, the true objective was one of “high-risk, high-return.” Seeing as certain market conditions were foreseeable, the shareholders believe this placed their capital at great, undisclosed risk, which did come to fruition during the credit crisis of 2007-2008. This is when the Funds’ holding in highly leveraged, complex securities set off cash reserve and payment duties that required for the assets be sold under conditions that most likely were not to the funds’ advantage. The plaintiffs say that because of this, the funds underperformed compared to other municipal bond funds.

They are also claiming that the significant drop in the Funds’ shares’ values can be linked to the deviations between the stated and actual objectives. After investors were notified in October and November 2008 via prospectus supplements of what the Funds’ investments true liquidity risks were, share prices then went crashing. The net asset value of the 7 funds dropped by about 30-50% that year while similar municipal bonds only went down by 10-15%.

The defendants moved to dismiss the consolidate case, claiming that the investors’ losses were triggered by the credit crisis and not because of what was written (or not included) in the funds’ prospectuses. They also argued that they were making a forward-looking statement when they made the “preservation of capital” a goal and had adequately disclosed the risks involved.

In the U.S. District Court, District of Colorado, the federal judge turned down the Defendants’ motion to toss out the consolidated lawsuits. Judge John L. Kane, Jr. also rejected their claim that federal securities laws exempts mutual funds from liability because drops in those funds’ value are a result of corresponding downturns in the funds’ investments’ value and not of statements (whether true or false) in their prospectuses.

Oppenheimer Rochester Funds Lose Dismissal Bid, Face Trial, Bloomberg/Business Week, October 25, 2011
Oppenheimer Muni Bond Investors May Sue Over Alleged Misstatements in Prospectuses, BNA Securities Law Daily, October 26, 2011

More Blog Posts:
8/31/11 is Deadline for Opting Out of $100M Oppenheimer Mutual Funds Class Action Settlement, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, August 17, 2011
Oppenheimer Champion Income Fund Resulted In Significant Financial Losses for Investors from Citigroup, UBS, Merrill Lynch, and Other Large Financial Firms, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, August 16, 2010
Chase Investment Services Corporation Ordered by FINRA to Pay Back $1.9M for Unsuitable Sales of Floating-Rate Loan Funds and UITs, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, November 19, 2011 Continue Reading ›

Chase Investment Services Corporation Ordered by FINRA to Pay Back $1.9M for Unsuitable Sales of Floating-Rate Loan Funds and UITs.

Published on: November 19, 2011 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

FINRA says that Chase Investment Services Corporation will pay back investors for losses sustained from the unsuitable recommendation made that they buy floating rate loan funds and unit investment trusts. In addition to paying back clients $1.9M, Chase must also pay a $1.7M fine.

According to FINRA, brokers with Chase recommended these financial instruments to clients even though the investments were not suitable for them—either because they had hardly any investment experience or only wanted to take conservative risks. The SRO also says that the Chase brokers had no reasonable grounds to think the financial products would be a right fit for these investors.

FINRA believes that Chase failed to properly train its brokers or give them guidance about the suitability of floating-rate loan funds and UITs, as well as the risks involved. For example, there were UITs that contained a significant portion of assets in closed-end funds with high-yield or junk bonds. Yet, despite the risks involved, brokers from Chase made about 260 recommendations that were not suitable for clients who had little (if any) investment experience or were averse to high-risk investments. These investors ended up losing about $1.4 million.

Also subject to substantial credit risk and illiquidity were the floating-rate loan funds. Despite the fact that concentrated positions in the fund were unsuitable for specific clients, FINRA says that Chase brokers still recommended these to clients who wanted low risk, very liquid investments or preferred to preserve principal. Because of these allegedly unsuitable recommendations, investors lost almost $500K.

FINRA says that WaMu, Investments Inc., also recommended that customers by floating-rate loan funds, even though these were not appropriate for the investors. The financial firm, which had merged with Chase in 2009, is also accused of not properly training or supervising its employees that sold the investments.

More About UITs
Unit investment trusts involve diversified securities baskets that may contain high-yield bonds. While junk bonds can make greater returns for investors than investment-grade bonds, they also come with a high degree of risk.

More About Floating-Rate Loan Funds
These mutual funds are invested in short-term bank loans for companies with a below investment grade crediting rating. What investors earn will fluctuate depending on what interest rates the banks happen to be charging on the loans.

In the wake of the allegations against Chase, FINRA Executive Vice President and Chief of Enforcement Brad Bennett said that it was key that financial firms provide the proper guidance and training to brokers about product sales while supervising sales practices.

JPMorgan unit fined $1.7M over investment sales, Bloomberg Business Week/AP, November 15, 2011

FINRA Orders Chase to Reimburse Customers $1.9 Million for Unsuitable Sales of UITs and Floating-Rate Loan Funds, FINRA, November 15, 2011

More Blog Posts:
Morgan Stanley Faces $1M FINRA Fine for Excessive Markups and Markdowns on Corporate and Municipal Bond Transactions, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, September 17, 2011

Wedbush Ordered By FINRA Panel To Pay $3.5M to Trader Over Withheld Compensation, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, July 16, 2011

Bank of America Merrill Lynch to Settle UIT Sales-Related FINRA Charges for $2.5 Million, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, August 22, 2010

Morgan Stanley Investment Management Settles SEC Charges Over Allegedly Inappropriate Fee Deal for Over $3.3M

Published on: November 17, 2011 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The Securities and Exchange Commission says Morgan Stanley Investment Management (MSIM) set up a fee arrangement that charged a fund (as well as its investors) for services that they weren’t actually getting from another party. MSIM has agreed to pay over $3.3M to settle the charges that it violated securities laws.

As the main investment adviser to The Malaysia Fund, MSIM told the fund’s board of directors and investors that a sub-adviser, an AM Bank Group subsidiary, had been contracted to provide research, advice, and support even though according to the SEC, the sub-adviser did not actually provide these services. Rather, AMMB issued just two monthly reports stemming from information that was available to the public. MSIM did not ask for the reports nor did it use the data provided to manage the fund. Still, the fund’s board renewed the contract with this sub-adviser each year from 1996 to 2007 and this cost investors $1.845 million.

The SEC contends that MSIM failed in its obligation to let board members know information that could help them properly assess the terms of the fund’s contract with the sub-adviser. The Commission also says that MSIM’s involvement and oversight with AMMB was inappropriate. Not only did the investment adviser lack the written procedures to properly oversee its sub-advisers, but also, it lacked the procedures to review the work that AMMB did.

The SEC also claims that since no advisory services were actually provided by AMMB, MSIM ended up submitting false information in its semi-yearly and yearly reports. Per the Commission’s order, MSIM violated sections of the Investment Company Act and Investment Advisers Act of 1940 and Rule 206(4)-7 thereunder.

By agreeing to settle, MSIM isn’t denying or agreeing to the SEC’s findings. It has, however, agreed to a cease and desist from future violations of both acts and Rule 206(4)-7 thereunder. Of the $3.3 million settlement, $1.5 million is a penalty.

Background:
The Malaysia Fund is a closed-end company belonging to Morgan Stanley’s funds complex. MSIM and the Fund entered into a written advisory agreement in 1987. MSIM gives the Fund investment management services, as well as serves as Fund administrator.

Per Section 15(a) of the Investment Company Act, no person can act as a registered investment company’s investment adviser without a written contract that meets certain requirements and has been approved by most voting securities. The original contract can continue to be renewed as long as the Board or most of the outstanding voting securities approves it.

SEC Charges Morgan Stanley Investment Management for Improper Fee Arrangement, SEC, November 16, 2011

More Blog Posts:
Retirement Fund’s CDO Lawsuit Against Morgan Stanley is Dismissed by District Court, Institutional Investor Securities Fraud, October 27, 2011

Morgan Stanley Faces $1M FINRA Fine for Excessive Markups and Markdowns on Corporate and Municipal Bond Transactions, Institutional Investor Securities Fraud, September 17, 2011

Morgan Stanley Smith Barney Employee Fined and Suspended by FINRA Over Unauthorized Signatures, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, September 19, 2011

MF Global Holdings Clients Unable to Access Their Money Following Chapter 11 Bankruptcy

Published on: November 16, 2011 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The Wall Street Journal reports that in the wake of MF Global Holdings Ltd. filing for bankruptcy protection, about 33,000 of the securities firm’s clients are finding that they can’t access their cash until trustee James Giddens gives them permission. Giddens is the trustee overseeing the liquidation of MF Global Holdings’ broker-dealer unit, MF Global Inc.

Giddens had asked court permission to move about 60% of the $869 million that has been frozen-that’s about $520 million. He is hoping that if the court says, then the distributions would soon follow. However, a spokesman for Giddens has warned that because of MF Global’s financial woes, customers might not be able to get all of their money back.

MF Global Holdings sought Chapter 11 protection last month after a number of credit downgrades and a steep drop in its stock price. Some $600 million also appears to have gone missing. While this bankruptcy is not considered as big a debacle as that of Lehman Brothers Holdings, for traders, investors, and brokers that sold and bought derivatives via MF Global, the repercussions have been devastating.

AARP Offers Older Investors 5 Warning Signs for Avoiding the Next Major Ponzi Scam

Published on: November 15, 2011 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The AARP has issued a fraud protection bulletin warning investors how to avoid becoming the victim of whoever happens to be peddling the next Ponzi scheme. Unfortunately, older investors are among the favorite prey of financial fraudsters. According Investor Protection Trusts CEO Don Blandin, one in five people in the 65 and over age group have already been exploited. Millions more are at risk.

To help investors, AARP has put out a description of five red flags warning of a possible financial scam:

1) The broker-adviser tells you that you wouldn’t be able to access your money during a “lock-up” period.

Jefferson County, Alabama Declares Municipal Bankruptcy

Published on: November 15, 2011 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

In the biggest municipal bankruptcy in this country to date, Alabama’s Jefferson County has sought Chapter 9 bankruptcy protection. The filing comes after the failure of state lawmakers to support an agreement with JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPM) and other creditors to lower its over $3B debt tied to a sewer system. Now, Jefferson County’s creditors must contend losses in the hundreds of millions of dollars. There is also once more the worry that defaults may go up in the municipal bond market. This sewer-debt crisis has stalled economic progress in Alabama.

The accord that had been tentatively reached with creditors offered $1.1 billion in concessions and yearly sewer-raises of up to 8.2% for the first three years. Lawmakers, however, worried that these terms would take a toll on the poor, while creditors wouldn’t commit in writing to the agreement.

Jefferson County’s leading unsecured creditors are Bayerische Landesbank, a JPMorgan unit, and Depository Trust Co. In addition to sewer debt, the county owes approximately $1 billion. This includes $801M in school-construction bonds and $201M in general-obligation securities.

JPMorgan, which had over $1.2B of the county’s sewer debt as of May, didn’t want Jefferson County to file for Chapter 9. It was just two years ago that the financial firm consented to pay $722M to settle SEC charges that its bankers issued payments to people affiliated with Jefferson County politicians to garner business. Larry Langford, a former county commissioner, was even convicted of receiving bribes.

It is up now to Jefferson County to demonstrated to a federal judge that it cannot cover its bills. It must also set up a plan for how to fulfill its commitments.

Municipal bankruptcies are different from corporate ones in that creditors are not allowed to sell or seize the county’s assets. A trustee also cannot be appointed to run the county. Just recently, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania also filed for bankruptcy. The state capital noted that it had millions of dollars in late bond payments linked to a trash-to-energy incinerator. In August, Central Falls Rode Island filed for bankruptcy protection. The city has nearly $21 million in outstanding debt, not to mention unaffordable pension costs.

Although municipal bankruptcies don’t happen as often as corporate bankruptcies, Jefferson County is the eleventh one this year. Prior to this bankruptcy, the largest one was in 1994 when $1.7B in interest-rate bets losses and approximately $2.2 billion in outstanding debt promoted Orange County, California to file in 1994.

Our securities fraud attorneys are committed to fighting institutional investor fraud by helping municipalities and other clients that have sustained losses recoup their losses.

Jefferson County, Alabama, Votes to Declare Biggest Municipal Bankruptcy, Bloomberg.com, November 9, 2011

Jefferson County, Alabama to file for largest municipal bankruptcy, CNN, November 9, 2011

More Blog Posts:
Jefferson County, Alabama Votes to Settle its $3.14B Bond Debt with JPMorgan and Other Creditors, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, September 7, 2011

UBS Financial Reaches $160M Settlement with the SEC and Justice Department Over Securities Fraud, Antitrust, and Other Charges Related to Municipal Bond Market, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, May 16, 2011

JPMorgan Chase to Pay $211M to Settle Charges It Rigged Municipal Bond Transaction Bidding Competitions, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, July 9, 2011