Investor Lawyers Blog

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 ›

Institutional Investment Fraud Roundup: Ex-Analyst Guilty in $61.8M Insider Trading Scheme, SLUSA Precludes Investor Class Action Over Hedge Funds that Failed After Madoff Ponzi, & Dark Pool Operator Settles Subscriber Info. Breach Charges

Published on: October 18, 2012 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Jon Horvath, an ex-research analyst at a New York hedge fund, has pled guilty to two counts of securities fraud and one count of conspiracy to commit securities fraud related to a $61.8 million insider trading scheme. Several other former hedge fund managers and analysts from different investment firms and hedge funds are also accused of allegedly trading key, nonpublic information about NVIDIA Corporation (NVDA), Dell, Inc. (Dell), and other publicly traded technology companies between 2007 and 2009. The information was obtained indirectly and directly from employees that worked at these companies.

Horvath admitted that when he received the insider information from the other analysts, he knew that they were all breaching their duties of loyalty. He caused certain trades to be executed based on such information. He also provided the other analysts with insider information about publicly traded companies.

In other securities fraud news, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York has ruled that under California securities law, the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act bars a class action filed by investors in two hedge funds that failed after the Madoff Ponzi scheme was found out. The plaintiffs are contending that the defendants, investment advisor Tremont Partners and a number of affiliates, made misrepresentations and omissions connected with a covered securities’ sale. The case is Lakeview Investment LP v. Schulman.

FINRA Arbitration Panel Tells Merrill Lynch to Pay $1.34M to Florida Couple Over Allegedly Misrepresenting Fannie Mae Preferred Shares’ Risks

Published on: October 17, 2012 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

A Financial Industry Regulatory Authority panel says that Merrill Lynch (MER) has to pay Michele and Robert Billings $1.34 million for allegedly misrepresenting the risks involved in preferred shares of Fannie Mae. The couple, who used to own a pest control business, placed $2.3 million in the shares in 2008 on the recommendation of their broker, Miles Pure.

The Billings claim that Pure told them them that their investment was “safe,” backed by the government, and came with an attractive yield, when, actually, contends the couple, at the time Fannie Mae’s exposure to the residential real estate market that was failing was causing Fannie Mae to lose billions of dollars. Even as the stock’s price went down, they say that Pure discouraged them from selling. They also claim that he didn’t let them know that the financial firm’s own research showed that Fannie Mae was becoming more beleaguered. Not long after, the Billings’ shares lost their value when Fannie Mae went into government conservatorship.

They filed their FINRA arbitration claim contending civil fraud, negligent supervision, and other alleged wrongdoing. The couple, who are now retired, sought $1 million from Merrill Lynch, in addition to other relief. The $1.34 million award includes punitive damages.

While a spokesman for Merrill says that the brokerage firm doesn’t agree with the panel’s ruling, the Billings’ securities attorney expressed approval of the outcome. Meantime, the FINRA panel has denied Pure’s request to have the disclosure about this arbitration taken out of public record. Although he was not involved in this case, per the securities industry, all securities brokers who are license must have their connection to any arbitration claim noted in their public records regardless of whether/not if he/she was party to it. (The panel, however, did remove the arbitration disclosure from the record of a brokerage manager who didn’t deal directly/daily with the Billings.)

Pure is now a Morgan Keegan broker. Morgan Keegan is a Raymond James Financial Inc. (RJF) unit. Merrill Lynch is a Bank of America (BAC) subsidiary.

This securities case is an example of some of the repercussions that are still happening for investors and brokers in the wake of the economic crisis. The Billings are just two of many investors that have sustained financial losses because a brokerage firm allegedly misrepresented the risks involved in an investment. Meantime, more arbitration claims over such losses are still pending.

Merrill Lynch ordered to pay couple $1.34 million over Fannie Mae Preferred Shares, Reuters/Chicago Tribune, October 16, 2012

Bank of America Merrill Lynch hit with $1.3 million arbitration order, Investment News, October 17, 2012

More Blog Posts:
Ex-Fannie Mae Executives Have to Defend Against SEC Lawsuit Over Their Alleged Involvement in Understating Mortgage Company’s Exposure Risk, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, August 25, 2012

Merrill Lynch Told to Pay $3.6M to Brazilian Heiress for Brother’s Alleged $389M in Unauthorized Trading, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, September 22, 2012

Freddie Mac and Fannie May Drop After They Delist Their Shares from New York Stock Exchange, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, June 25, 2010 Continue Reading ›

Citigroup Inc. CEO Vikram Pandit Resigns

Published on: October 16, 2012 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

After months of tensions with Citigroup’s (C) board of directors, Chief Executive Officer Vikram Pandit has turned in his resignation. Taking his place as CEO will be Michael Corbat.

According to several sources, Pandit’s decision to leave comes after months of tension with Chairman Michael O’Neill over numerous issues, including the role of Chief Operating Officer John Havens and regarding compensation. Havens stepped down on the same day as Pandit. (Reuters reports that one person familiar with the investment bank says that this means that O’Neill is now in full control.) During a conference call with analysts and investors, O’Neill offered reassurances while noting that outside candidates had been considered before Corbat’s appointment.

With Pandit’s departure, Citigroup shares rose up to 2%, with some investors expressing relief that he is gone. Pandit was at the helm when the financial firm took a loss when it had to sell the stake it had left in its retail brokerage business to Morgan Stanley (MS). He also opposed breaking up the bank in any way, which some believed could have raised shareholder value. Proposals for these changes could come back onto the table now that he is gone.

Pandit’s relationship with the board wasn’t helped after shareholders recently turned down the CEO pay package. While he was awarded over $15 million in compensation last year, 55% of shareholders did not approve it.

According to Reuters, Pandit, who says he is leaving of his own accord, believes he has accomplished his aims since becoming Citigroup CEO in December 2007 and that putting his successor in place now makes sense because plans are in development for 2013 when a new strategy will be executed.

Meantime, Havens’ departure also isn’t a surprise to many, as he and Pandit have close career ties. They worked together at Morgan Stanley and Old Lane Partners LP. Some inside Citigroup considered their relationship to be an obstacle. Pandit moved to Citigroup after Old Lane Partners, which was his private equity firm and hedge fund, was acquired by the bank for $800 million.

Since the mortgage crisis, banks are under pressure regarding their profits, which haven’t been helped by unimpressive investment returns and unspectacular capital market activities. The Wall Street Journal reports that according to private equity firm JC Flowers & Co., the return on equity among financials should “normalize to historic levels” even though the economic crisis has resulted in a “major long-term evolution.”

In the firm’s mid-year report to investors, Chairman J. Christopher Flowers said this normalization would occur because financial service companies are needed if the economy is to work properly. He stressed that with economic growth, financial service companies will periodically need more capital to stimulate this, and, as a result, they won’t be able to attract new capital unless ROEs and valuations adjust accordingly. Flowers said that this would occur via price changes and business mix shifts. Also per the WSJ, his view is in contrast to that of KKR & Co. global macro and asset allocation head Henry McVey, who recently reported that while the financial services industry is experiencing changes, more intense regulation will likely cause the firms’ performance and returns to keep lagging.

Citi’s CEO Pandit exits abruptly after board clash, Reuters, October 16, 2012

Pandit Is Forced Out at Citi, The Wall Street Journal, October 17, 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

Citigroup Inc.’s $590M CDO Putative Class Action Settlement Gets Preliminary Approval from District Court, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, September 13, 2012

Institutional Investor Securities Roundup: FHFA Can Start Discovery in MBS Litigation Against Banks, SEC Sues Puerto Rico Man Over Alleged $7M Scam, and Assets of Two Colorado Men are Temporarily Frozen Over Alleged Promissory Note Ponzi Scheme, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, August 31, 2012

JPMorgan Chase Must Pay Oil Heiress’s Trust $18M For Derivatives Investments, Account Mismanagement, and Unsuitable Investment Advice

Published on: October 12, 2012 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

JPMorgan Chase (JPM) must pay the trust of oil heiress Carolyn S. Burford $18 million for the “grossly negligent and reckless” way that the financial firm handled the account. In Tulsa County District Court in Oklahoma, Judge Linda G. Morrissey said that beneficiary Ann Fletcher was persuaded to invest in derivatives that were unsuitable for the trust, causing it to sustain significant losses. The judge is also ordering punitive damages to be determined at a later date, as well as repayment of the trust’s legal expenses.

Fletcher, now 75, is the daughter of Burford, who passed away in 1996. The trust was set up in 1955 by Burford’s parents. Burford’s dad is the founder of Kelly Oil and her mother had connections to another oil company.

Between 2000 and 2005, the trust and JPMorgan, which gained management over the trust after a number of bank mergers and oversaw it until 2006, got into a number of variable prepaid forward contracts. These derivatives were pitched to the trust as way for it to make more income. However, according to the court, Fletcher was cognitively impaired and experiencing medical problems when the bank recommended that the trust buy the derivatives. A year before, she even expressed in a written letter to the bank that she was scared about getting involved in “puts & calls.” She eventually chose to trust their recommendation that she buy them.

Judge Morrisey believes that the bank failed to properly explain the product to its client while neglecting to reveal that it stood to benefit from the transaction. She also says that when JPMorgan invested the contracts’ proceeds in its own investment products, which she described as “double dipping,” it was in breach of fiduciary duty. JPMorgan also billed the trust transaction investment fees and corporate trustee fees.

Morrisey said that because the bank gives employees incentives to make it revenue, this creates a conflict of interest for those that are advising and managing fiduciary accounts. She said that the financial misconduct that occurred in this securities case exhibits JPMorgan’s disregard of its clients, especially when it knew, or if it didn’t then was reckless in not knowing, that such conduct was occurring.

Investors that purchase variable prepaid contracts generally consent to give a number of the stock shares to the brokerage firm in the future. Such a deal can protect investors from certain losses and can be accompanied by tax benefits. However, they can also lead to additional fees. With Burford’s trust, however, the trustee is not allowed to sell its original stocks. The court said that JPMorgan failed to tell Fletcher that getting involved in the contracts could lead to the sale of that stock.
JPMorgan says it disagrees with the court’s ruling and it may appeal.

JPMorgan Must Pay $18 Million to Heiress Over Derivatives, Bloomberg, October 10, 2012

JP Morgan Ordered to Pay $18 Million to Oil Heiress’s Trust, New York Times, October 10, 2012

More Blog Posts:
New York’s Attorney General Sues JP Morgan Chase & Co. Over Alleged MBS Financial Fraud by Its Bear Stearns Unit, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, October 4, 2012
Ex-Employee Accuses Bank of America of Securities Fraud Involving Complex Derivatives Products, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, October 29, 2010

Barclays LIBOR Manipulation Scam Places Citigroup, Credit Suisse, Deutsche Bank, JP Morgan Chase, and UBS Under The Investigation Microscope, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, July 16, 2012 Continue Reading ›

FINRA Securities Fraud Roundup: Guggenheim Securities Fined $800K For Failure to Supervise CDO Traders, Brokerage Firm Managing TIC Securities Doesn’t Have to Arbitrate Investor Claims, & Investor Award in Morgan Keegan Funds is Upheld

Published on: October 12, 2012 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

FINRA is fining Guggenheim Securities, LLC $800,000 for allegedly not supervising two collateralized debt obligation traders accused of hiding a trading loss. The traders are Alexander Rekeda and Timothy Day. Rekeda, who is the financial firm’s ex-CDO Desk head, has to pay $50,000 and is suspended for a year. Day’s fine is $20,000 and he received a four month suspension. By settling, none of the parties are denying or admitting to the FINRA securities charges.

Due to a failed trade, the CDO Desk at Guggenheim acquired a €5,000,000 junk-rated tranche of a CLO in October 2008. When the desk was unable to sell the position, Rekeda and Day convinced a hedged fund client to buy the collateralized loan obligation for $950,000 more than it had initially agreed to pay by misrepresenting the CLA. FINRA said that to conceal the CLO position’s trading loss, the two traders gave the customer order tickets that upped the CLO position’s price and lowered the price of other positions. Day, allegedly at Rekeda’s order, is accused of lying to the client when the latter asked about the price modifications by saying that the CLO position had a third-party seller that had settled the trade at a higher price and wanted the customer to pay this rate. The client agreed, and, in exchange, Day and Rekeda said that they would compensate the customer via other transactions, including waiving the fees owed related to resecuritization transactions, adjusting the prices on several other CLO trades, and providing a payment in cash. No records, however, indicate that these transactions were related to the CLO overpayment.

In other FINRA securities news, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit has affirmed a district court’s ruling that a broker-dealer that acted as the managing broker-dealer in a Tenant in Common securities cannot be compelled to arbitrate claims filed by investors of the failed enterprise. In Berthel Fisher & Co. Financial Services Inc. v. Larmon, Judge Michael Melloy agreed that for the SRO’s purposes, the investors are not the financial firm’s “customers.”

$18.7M Securities Fraud Case Involving Former Linkbrokers Derivatives Brokers is A Prime Example of How Trade Markups Involving Pennies Can Eventually Cost Investors Millions

Published on: October 10, 2012 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Two former Linkbrokers Derivatives brokers have been arrested on criminal charges of securities fraud, wire fraud, and conspiracy to commit securities fraud. Benjamin Chouchane and Marek Leszczynski, along with others, are accused of taking part in a securities scam that cost customers $18.7 million. It involved the brokers secretly raising the price of trades, in some instances by just pennies, or lowering them, and then concealing the actual cost from clients. The Securities and Exchange Commission, which is also filing civil charges against the two men, as well as against brokers Henry Condron and Gregory Reyftmann, says that they executed over 36,000 trades with these types of price discrepancies between 2005 and 2009. Condron has already pleaded guilty to criminal charges of conspiracy and securities fraud.

The alleged manipulations usually occurred when the market was more volatile and the prices were more likely to fluctuate, which made it easier for the mispricings to go undetected. While profits may have been minimal-for example, in one trade Leszczynski allegedly marked up 20,000 shares’ buying price by 1.2 cents/share, resulting in a $240 profit-pennies do add up. As SEC Division of Enforcement Director Robert Khuzami noted, by overcharging clients for stock trades, the brokers ultimately bilked customers of millions of dollars.

Linkbrokers executes high-volume trades for institutional clients. It is an interdealer broker firm that usually executes these large trades for low commissions. However, institutional investors are not the only ones to be impacted by such scams.

CFTC Securities Fraud Roundup: Commissioner Bart Chilton Wants Financial System to Adopt Risk-Based Compensation System, Agency Nets $3M in Four Speculative Limits Cases, & Two Registered Futures Entities Pay $539K Over Inadequate Supervision Allegations

Published on: October 9, 2012 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

According to Commodity Futures Trading Commission Bart Chilton, the financial system needs to undergo a “cultural shift” that should include employing a risk-based compensation structure instead of one that is “purely profit-based.” Speaking at the Hard Assets Investment Conference last month, Chilton said that bonus systems and incentives create a “poisonous” system in “our financial corporate culture,” compelling individuals to make earning as money as they can as quickly as they can their main priority.

Chilton also talked about how the system inadequately, if at all, uses “puny penalties” to deal with “bad behaviors” and that short-term profiteering is rewarded. He blames both results on the current compensation system employed by many financial firms. Risk management comes second under profit motive, with inducements generated to increase high risk trading, leverage, and the exploitation of funds. Chilton is recommending the implementation of a compensation system based on risk tolerance, with additional compensation and bonuses to be rewarded gradually. He believes that this will lead to longer-term strategies and actions, as well as “longer-serving employees.” He said that while the government may not be able to obligate financial firms to practice morality, it can takes steps to discourage misconduct by creating rules and laws that mandate good behavior.

In other CFTC news, the agency recently settled four separate speculative limits violation cases for $3 million. On September 21, Citigroup Inc. (C) and affiliate Citigroup Global Markets Ltd. consented to pay $525K to settle allegations that on the Chicago Board of Trade they went beyond the speculative position limits in wheat futures contracts. Four days later, Sheenson Investments Ltd., which is located in China, and its owner Weidong Ge consented to pay $1.5 million over allegations that they violated speculative limits in soybean and cotton futures.

Securities Roundup: SLUSA Bars Investors’ State Securities Case Alleging Trust Account Management Negligence, Blocks Investors From Remanding Fraud Case to Puerto Rico & FINRA Enhances Proposed Rules’ Cost-Benefit Analysis, Looks at Non-Traded REIT Ads

Published on: October 8, 2012 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

According to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act bars state law breach of contract and negligence claims related to the way the plaintiffs’ trust accounts were managed. The appeals court’s ruling affirms the district court’s decision that the claims “amounted to allegations” that the defendants did not properly represent the way investments would be determined and left out a material fact about the latters’ conflicts of interest that let them invest in in-house funds.

SLUSA shuts a loophole in the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act that allows plaintiffs to sue in state court without having to deal with the latter’s more stringent pleading requirements. In Daniels v. Morgan Asset Management Inc., the plaintiffs sued Regions Trust, Morgan Asset Management, and affiliated entities and individuals in Tennessee state court. Per the court, Regions Trust, the record owner of shares in a number of Regions Morgan Keegan mutual funds, had entered into two advisory service agreements with Morgan Asset Management, with MAM agreeing to recommend investments to be sold or bought from clients’ trust accounts. The plaintiffs are claiming that MAM was therefore under obligation to continuously assess whether continued investing in the RMK fund, which were disproportionately invested in illiquid mortgage-backed securities that they say resulted in their losses, was appropriate.

The defendants were able to remove the action to federal district court, which, invoking SLUSA, threw out the lawsuit. The appeals court affirms this dismissal.