Investor Lawyers Blog

FINRA Cannot Enforce Disciplinary Actions Through the Courts, Says Federal Appeals Court

Published on: October 6, 2011 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit says that the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority does not have the authority to take its members to court in order to enforce disciplinary actions. The ruling comes after a years-long legal battle involving penny stock brokerage firm Fiero Brothers and owner John J. Fiero.

Fiero and his financial firm were expelled from FINRA and ordered to pay a $1 million fine for naked short selling and other violations of federal fraud statutes. It was in 1998 that NASD Regulation Inc. filed a complaint accusing Fiero and co-conspirators of engaging in the illegal short-selling of securities to purposely push down the price 10 NASDAQ securities. The financial scam eventually led to the collapse of both Hanover Sterling, which served as the securities’ underwriter and Adler, Coleman Clearing Corp. A NASD hearing panel found that Fiero committed extortion and violated short selling rules. The $1 million fine and expulsion were imposed in 2001.

Fiero Brothers and its owner refused to pay. FINRA took them to court to obtain payment. The SRO first brought its case to New York state court, where the state’s highest court eventually threw out a ruling in FINRA’s favor. Fiero then brought the case to federal court. There, he sought a declaratory judgment that FINRA did not have the power to pursue the fine in court. FINRA then counter-sued.

Now, however, the three-judge panel is saying that FINRA’s housekeeping rule from 1990, which gave it the right to go to court to go after monetary sanctions and the country’s foundational securities laws, does not give the SRO the right to collect disciplinary fines through the court system. The federal appeals court’s ruling overturns a lower court’s decision.

Some are saying that the court’s ruling reduces FINRA’s power and vindicates complaints that have been made accusing the SRO of going beyond its statutory power and abusing the process of rule making. Even ex-FINRA enforcement head Susan Merrill believes that the ruling casts a shadow on FINRA’s housekeeping rules. The court said the 1990 rule needs to be more formally examined because rather than just being a matter of housekeeping, it impacts the rights of members that have been suspended or barred.

Banned brokers are not allowed to reenter the industry unless the pay all fines. As a result, obtaining fines is not usually a problem for FINRA. Now, however, seeing as FINRA doesn’t have the right to enforce payment in court, an action that it has taken over the last two decades, it will be interesting to see how other barred brokers may choose to respond to fine demands.

Meantime, FINRA has said that this latest ruing will not limit its ability to enforce securities laws and FINRA rules, protect investors, or discipline financial firms.

Court: FINRA cannot use lawsuits to collect fines, Reuters, October 5, 2011
Court Says Regulator Exceeded Its Power, New York Times, October 6, 2011
NASD Regulation Bars John Fiero, Expels Fiero Brothers, Inc., and Imposes $1 Million Fine For Illegal Short Sales, Market Manipulation and Extortion, NASD/FINRA, January 8, 2011

More Blog Posts:
Five Broker-Dealers Fined by FINRA Over Allegedly Misrepresenting Commissions as Fees to Clients, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, September 16, 2011
Texas Securities Fraud: FINRA Fines Bluechip Securities for Ex-Employee’s Alleged Churning of Public Customer Accounts, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, August 28, 2011
Wedbush Ordered By FINRA Panel To Pay $3.5M to Trader Over Withheld Compensation, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, July 16, 2011 Continue Reading ›

SEC & DOJ File Charges Against San Francisco Investment Adviser For Alleged “Soft Dollar” Fraud

Published on: October 5, 2011 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The Securities and Exchange Commission is suing investment adviser Kurt Hovan for allegedly misappropriating $178K in “soft dollars” that he claimed was used for investment research. The federal agency contends that, in fact, the money was used to cover other business-related expenses. When Kurt, as Hovan Capital Management president, was asked to provide documents supporting this, he generated bogus research reports. Meantime, the US Department of Justice is charging the 43-year-old with obstruction and mail fraud.

Soft dollars are rebates or credits. They come from brokerage firms on commissions for trades made in investment adviser’s client accounts. If the soft dollar credits are disclosed appropriately, the IA may keep the credits and use them to cover expenses related to a specific area research and brokerage services benefiting clients.

The SEC contends, however, that Kurt didn’t solely use the soft dollars for research services. Instead, $166,667 was used to pay for the salary of his brother Edward Hovan. Soft dollars were also used to pay for computer hardware and office rent. Edward and Kurt’s wife Lisa Hovan (Hovan Capital Management’s chief financial officer) are also named in the SEC’s complaint. The SEC is accusing all three of them for violating federal securities laws’ antifraud provisions. Kurt Hovan and HCM are also accused of recordkeeping violations.

The securities lawsuit also claims that conceal their soft dollar-related activities, Kurt, Lisa, and Edward set up a “Bolton Research,” which was a shell company that Edward Hovan secretly controlled. The company then billed Hovan Capital Management’s brokerage companies for research that was never conducted. Edward allegedly kicked back $65,000 of payments to Kurt and Lisa.

The allegedly false reporting to the SEC is said to have taken place during a January 2010 examination of HCM. Staff requested that the financial firm give over copies of the research reports that Bolton Research had prepared. Instead, Kurt allegedly gave the SEC phony research reports and doctored materials.

The SEC is seeking disgorgement with prejudgment interest, injunctive relief, and other financial penalties.

Securities Fraud
As you can see, securities charges and criminal charge can be filed against an investment adviser that commits securities fraud. You may want to file your own securities fraud lawsuit to recover your losses if you lost money because investment adviser misconduct was a factor.

Our securities fraud law firm knows that the thought of pursuing a financial firm to get your money back can be an overwhelming process, which is why you want to retain an experienced investment fraud lawyer that knows how to successfully pursue your recovery while protecting your rights.

SEC CHARGES BAY AREA INVESTMENT ADVISER FOR DEFRAUDING CLIENTS AND FALSIFYING DOCUMENTS DURING SEC EXAM, SEC, September 28, 2011
Belvedere investment adviser faces criminal charges in fraud case, Marin Independent Journal, September 28, 2011

More Blog Posts:
New Jersey Investment Adviser Who Pleaded Guilty to $11.5M Financial Fraud Gets 168-Month Prison Sentence, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, September 29, 2011
Investors Working with Incompetent Registered Investment Advisers Have Few Protections, Reports Bloomberg, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, August 11, 2011
Custodial Firms Get Tougher About Registered Investment Adviser Compliance, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, December 28, 2010 Continue Reading ›

Two Texas Men Sentenced For $100 Million Life Settlement Scam that Bilked Over 800 Investors

Published on: October 4, 2011 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Adley Abdulwahab and Christian Allmendinger, both principals of A&O Resource Management Ltd., must now serve decades prison for their involvement in a $100M life settlement scheme. Both defendants are from Houston, Texas. The Texas State Securities Board, the SEC, the IRS, the U.S. Postal Inspection Service, the FBI, and the Virginia Corporation Commission all investigated this life settlement scam. Over 800 investors in the US and Canada were defrauded
Allmendinger, who is vice-president and co-founder of A & O, was orderd to serve 45 years in prison, while Abdulwahab, who is part owner of A & O and a hedge fund manager is to serve 60 years. Both men were indicted on 18 counts. Also pleading guilty to the life settlement scheme was ex-A & O president David White and four others.

According to the US Justice Department, investors, who wanted conservative investments, were misled into thinking that investing in A & O was a no-risk, safe bet when in fact, it was a “sham.” Among the victims were hundreds of retirees who lost their savings because they invested in A & O. Almendinger and Abdulwahab used investors’ money to pay for expensive cars, luxury homes, and extravagant jewelry.

Abdulwahab and Allmendinger both marketed A & O life settlement investment products to investors. Per the court, the principals misrepresented A & O’s prior success to investors, while also exaggerating its size as a business. Abdulwahab also not only lied about his credentials but also did not disclose that he had pleaded guilty to a Texas felony charge of forgery of a commercial instrument.

When state regulators started looking into A & O’s financial instruments, the fraudsters made up a bogus sales transaction to “sell” the company to shell corporate entity Blue Dymond and Physician’s Trust, also a shell corporate entity. While the sale ended Allmendinger’s ties with the life settlement scam, Abdullah and his co-fraudsters still secretly controlled and continued the financial scheme until September 2009. The majority of the investors were seniors and most of them lost everything they’d invested. For many, this was their entire retirement.

It is unfortunate when an investor loses money because he/she was the victim of financial fraud. Recently, the North American Securities Administrators Association added securitized life settlement contracts on its list of practices and products that are a threat to investors. In many instances, schemes involve “worthless paper” that doesn’t keep up enough assets so that there is a guaranteed fixed return in a fixed time period.

Texas Fund Managers Sentenced Over Life-Settlement Scheme, The Wall Street Journal, September 28, 2011
Life settlements just one more potential scam in recent troubled times, San Diego Source, September 6, 2011
Principals Of A&O Entities Sentenced In Virginia For $100 Million Fraud Scheme, Justice.gov, September 28, 2011

Financial Scammers Are Now Using YouTube, Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter, and Other Websites to Target Investors, Warns Texas Securities Commissioner, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, September 22, 2011
Ex-UBS Financial Adviser Pleads Guilty to Defrauding Private Fund Investors, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, July 13, 2011
AIG Trying to Get More Investors to Buy Life Settlements, Institutional Investors Securities Blog, April 26, 2011 Continue Reading ›

Govt.’s Mortgage-Backed Securities Case Against JPMorgan Case Leads to Lawsuit Against 23 Former Washington Mutual Employees

Published on: October 4, 2011 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The federal government has filed a securities lawsuit against 23-ex Washington Mutual employees and a number of WaMu’s subsidiaries. The complaint contends that these persons signed off on documents that included misleading and false information that was used to sell billions of dollars in mortgage-backed securities. The case stems from the government’s MBS lawsuit against JPMorgan Chase, which acquired nearly all of WaMu’s banking assets and liabilities a few years ago. That securities complaint is one more than a dozen brought by the Federal Housing Finance Agency last month against the large banks that packaged and sold MBS at the height of the housing boom.

In this latest lawsuit, the government contends that when Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac bought their 35 issues of securities worth $12.9 billion during the bubble, they depended on the registration statements, prospectuses, and other documents that WaMu and its subprime unit Long Beach Mortgage had filed. Unfortunately, the documents that Fannie and Freddie depended on included omissions and misstatements that misrepresented that the underlying mortgage loans were in compliance with certain underwriting standards and guidelines, including representations that “significantly overstated” the borrowers’ ability to pay back their mortgage loans.

One example cited involves the LBMLT 2006-1, which is a subprime security. Standard & Poor’s and Moody’s had both given it an AAA rating and the offering document noted that almost 73% of the underlying mortgages had an 80% or lower loan-to-value ratio. Less than 25% were supposedly on non-owner occupied homes.

The government is now saying, however, that WaMu pressed appraisers to raise property values so that these lower LTV ratios could be obtained and that, in fact, only 50% of underlying loans in LBMLT 2006-1 had LTV ratios of 80% or lower. Also, the government believes that almost one third of LBMLT 2006-1 loans were on nonowner occupied homes and not the lower percentage that was quoted. Close to 56% of LBMLT 2006-1 have since defaulted, gone into foreclosure, or become delinquent.

Most of the ex-WaMu and Long Beach officers named in the complaint, save for ex-chief financial officer Thomas Case and ex-Home Loans group head Craig Davis, were midlevel employees. It was just earlier this year that the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. sued three ex-WaMu executives for allegedly gambling billions of the bank’s money on risky home loans while they lined their own pockets.

Defendants named then were ex-Chief Executive Kerry Killinger, ex-Chief Operating Officer Stephen Rotella, and ex-WaMu home loans division president David Schneider. The three men are accused of earning $95 million in compensation between 2005 and 2008.

US banking regulators have sued over 150 bank officials in their efforts to get back at least $3.6 billion in losses linked to the 2007-2009 economic crisis.

If you are an investor that suffered losses related to mortgage-backed securities when the housing bubble burst, you might have grounds for a securities fraud case.

Ex-WaMu Execs Sued By FDIC For Gross Negligence Over Bank’s Collapse – READ The Lawsuit, Huffington Post, March 17, 2011

More Blog Posts:

NCUA Sues Goldman Sachs for $491M Over $1.2B of Mortgage-Back Securities Sales That Caused Credit Unions’ Failure, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, August 23, 2011

Prospective Securities Class Action Lawsuit Accuses David Lerner Associates Inc. Accused of Recycling Investor Capital and Using a Credit Line to Meet Dividend Payout

Published on: September 30, 2011 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

According to Investment News, the amended complaint of a prospective securities class action case is claiming that the nontraded REITs sold by David Lerner Associates Inc. used investor distributions and borrowed from a credit line to fulfill the targeted dividend payout. The broker-dealer is accused by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority of giving out performance figures for its APPLE REITs while implying that investments in the future would likely render similar result. FINRA is suing financial firm for securities fraud and marketing unsuitable products to investors. The investors filed their securities fraud complaints soon after. They are now waiting for their class action status to be approved.

Per the amended complaint, David Lerner brokers told clients that Apple REITs were low risk investments that would shield their savings from any stock market turbulence. Also, not only was the amount of distribution that investors were paid not equal the income earned from the Apple REITs, which had mostly invested in Hilton and Marriott hotels that offered extended stays, but also, clients were allegedly promised consistent yearly returns of 7-8%.

Although David Lerner had represented that cash flow would be the basis for distributions, offering documents said that distributions from other sources could only occur on occasion and in “certain circumstances.” The complaint accuses the broker-dealer and other defendants of issuing distributions without taking profitability into account while obtaining properties at prices that could not be justified considering the distributions that were being paid.

David Lerner Associates denies the plaintiffs’ allegations. The broker-dealer and its brokers earned $341.5 million in commissions and Apple REITs sales. They also earned a 2.5% marketing expense.

Investors had filed two class actions against David Lerner this summer. They had purchased $5.7 billion in Apple REIT offerings from the financial firm’s brokers. Plaintiffs are accusing the broker-dealer of targeting inexperienced and elderly investors, leaving out key information about how the trusts were run, misrepresenting the REITs value, and failing to reveal the risks involved.

Nontraded REITs
Nontraded real-estate investment trusts gather cash from investors to purchase property. They pay the rental income as a regular dividend. Last year alone, they took in approximately $8.3 billion in investments.

Earlier this month, FINRA put out a warning to investors that they carefully consider the risks involved in investing in nontraded REITs. The SRO cautioned that some risks are not immediately obvious and may not properly explained by financial firms.

The Apple REITs were sold and written by David Lerner, which has opened and sold over 120,000 accounts involving these.

Read the Complaint (PDF)

Lerner resorted to tricks to plump up Apple distributions: Suit, Investment News, October 14, 2011
Apple REIT investors could trade bad for worse, MarketWatch, July 21, 2011
Finra Sues David Lerner Firm, The Wall Street Journal, June 1, 2011
Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas LTD LLP Investigates Claims Concerning David Lerner Associates’ Sale of Apple REITs, Globnewswire, August 3, 2011

More Blog Posts:
David Lerner & Associates Ignored Suitability of REITs When Recommending to Investors, Claims FINRA, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, June 8, 2011
Ameriprise Must Pay $17 Million for REIT Fraud, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, July 12, 2009
W.P. Carey & Co Settles SEC Charges Over Payments of Undisclosed REIT Compensation, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, March 25, 2008 Continue Reading ›

Standard & Poors Receives SEC Wells Notice Over CDO Rating

Published on: September 30, 2011 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Standard & Poor’s Ratings Services has received a Wells Notice from the Securities and Exchange Commission notifying the credit rating agency that it ma be subject to possible enforcement action over alleged violations of federal securities laws. The allegations involve S & P’s ratings for the Delphinus CDO 2007-1, a collateralized debt obligation.

The $1.6 billion hybrid CDO was downgraded just a few months after it received AAA ratings from both S & P and Moody’s Investor Services—the two biggest credit rating agencies in the country—by the end of 2008 its securities that were rated AAA had been downgraded to junk status. S & P’s parent company McGraw-Hill says that the credit rating agency is cooperating with the Commission’s examination into this matter. If the SEC were to file an enforcement action against S & P, it would be its first one against a credit rating agency for the rating of a mortgage-backed security.

Just today, the SEC staff expressed concern that despite changes that were implemented at credit rating agencies to better their operations, the Commission is still concerned about certain deficiencies. The SEC voiced its concerns in its first yearly report on Nationally Recognized Statistical Rating Organizations. Alleged deficiencies include:

• Not always following ratings procedures or methodologies.
• Failure to make accurate and timely disclosures.
• Improper management of conflict of interest.
• Lack of effective internal control structures for the rating process.

The new annual reports was mandated by the 2010 Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection, which is seeking better oversight and regulation of credit rating agencies. 10 credit rating agencies registered as NRSROs were examined. The names of the NRSROs weren’t published.

It was just earlier this year that the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations issued its bipartisan report noting that the most “immediate cause” of the financial crisis three years ago was the “mass ratings downgrades” of securities in 2007 that were made by Moody’s and S & P. Per the report, credit rating agencies were aware that their ratings wouldn’t “hold” and held back on putting up more strict ratings criteria. When they did modify their risk models that noted there were high-risk mortgages being issued, the revised models were not applied to existing securities. All of this allowed investment banks to push out high-risk investments before the tougher criteria were implemented.

Credit ratings changes can impact not just a company’s bond prices but also its stock price. The market can also be impacted.

For the time ever, S & P downgraded the US credit rating a notch lower than AAA. The credit agency expressed concern about the federal government’s ability to take care of its finances. S & P noted that the bipartisan agreement to look for at least $2.1 trillion in budget savings was not enough to quell the nation’s debt in the long run. Now, the SEC is looking into whether news of S & P’s downgrade of the country’s debt was leaked and the info used for trading before it was officially made known.

S&P downgrades U.S. credit rating for first time, Washington Post, August 5, 2011

S.E.C. Faults Credit Raters, but Doesn’t Name Them, NY Times, September 30, 2011

SEC Staff Issues Summary Report of Commission Staff’s Examinations of Each Nationally Recognized Statistical Rating Organization, SEC, September 30, 2011

More Blog Posts:
Moody’s, Fitch, and Standard and Poor’s Were Exercising Their 1st Amendment Rights When They Gave Inaccurate Subprime Ratings to SIVs, Says Court, Institutional Investment Fraud Blog, December 30, 2010

Standard and Poor’s Ratings Lawsuit to Go Forward, Says Judge, Institutional Investment Fraud Blog, September 16, 2010

SEC’s Handling of Credit Rating Agencies Oversight and Failure to Detect Madoff and Stanford Ponzi Scams Questioned at Senate Appropriations Financial Services Subcommittee, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, May 8, 2010

New Jersey Investment Adviser Who Pleaded Guilty to $11.5M Financial Fraud Gets 168-Month Prison Sentence

Published on: September 29, 2011 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Sandra Venetis, a New Jersey investment adviser has been sentenced to 168 months behind bars. Venetis had entered guilty pleas to che charges of securities fraud and transacting in criminal property. She also must pay $11,579,781 in restitution to the investors she defrauded.

The government had accused Venetis, who owns Systematic Financial Associates Inc., of soliciting her financial firm’s clients so that they would put their money in an “alternative investment program” that she ran separate from her registered investment advisory business. This was between 1997 and 2010. To get these clients to invest, she falsely told them the money was being used to pay for loans for doctors’ quarterly pension funds. There were even occasions when Venetis would tell these clients to liquidate their positions in securities so they could take part in her alternate program. 114 clients sent her about $16.7M.

None of the investors’ money went to any doctors-although she did make up fictitious physicians and forged real doctors’ names on promissory notes to make it look as if she was using her clients’ money in the manner promised. Venetis has admitted that not only did she not run a legitimate alternative investment program, but also that she created Systematic Financial Services Inc. so that she could run her financial scam. She acknowledges that she used some of the investor money to help cover her advisory’s operation costs.

It was last year that Venetis and three of her firms, Systematic Financial Services, LLC, Systematic Financial Services, Inc., and Systematic Financial Associates, Inc., settled SEC charges over the multimillion-dollar financial fraud. The Commission said that Venetis and her companies violated sections of the Securities Act of 1933, Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, and the Investment Advisers Act of 1940. Relief defendants included Venetis LLC, which Venetis also owned and operated, her brother Kevin Persley, and her daughter Jennifer Venetis.

The Commission accused Venetis of telling investors that the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation had guaranteed promissory notes that would make about 6-11% tax-free interest annually. Although investors believed their investments were paying for loans to doctors the money paid for Venetis’s business debts and personal spending, including travel abroad, property taxes, home mortgages, gambling, and money for relatives.

Venetis and the companies settled the charges and all agreed to the relief sought by the SEC, including enjoinment from future securities law violation, payment of disgorgement of ill-gotten gains with prejudgment interest, financial penalties, and appointment of an independent monitor.

N.J. IA Sentenced to 168 Months After Pleading Guilty in $11.5M Fraud, BNA Securities Law Daily, September 12, 2011
SEC CHARGES NEW JERSEY INVESTMENT ADVISER IN MULTI-MILLION DOLLAR OFFERING FRAUD, SEC, September 2, 2010

More Blog Posts:
FINRA Tells Congress It Is Ready to Act as SRO for Investment Advisors, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, September 13, 2011
Investors Working with Incompetent Registered Investment Advisers Have Few Protections, Reports Bloomberg, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, August 11, 2011
Harvest Managers, Benchmark Asset Managers, and Investment Advisor to Pay $11.6 Million to Settle SEC Charges Over Allegedly Mishandled Client Funds, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, July 23, 2011
SEC Extends Temporary Rule Allowing Principal Trades by Investment Advisers Registered as Broker-Dealers, Institutional Investment Fraud Blog, January 13, 2011 Continue Reading ›

EagleEye Asset Management LLC Sued by SEC and CFTC for Alleged Forex Trading Scam

Published on: September 28, 2011 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

In separate securities lawsuits, the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission are both suing EagleEye Asset Management LLC, which a Massachusetts asset management firm, and Jeffrey A. Liskov, its principal.

The CFTC is accusing the two defendants of defrauding at least one US-based client while trading forex on a margined or leveraged basis for her. Per the CFTC’s lawsuit, the client decided to grant permission to EagleEye and Liskov to trade part of her retirement money because Liskov allegedly advised her that this type of trading was appropriate for her conservative investment objects.

However, Liskov allegedly did not warn her of the risks involved or tell her that he did not have a successful track record with forex trading. While the trading did generate short-term profits for the woman, she lost most of the money that she invested. The CFTC contends that instead of revealing the trading losses, Liskov allegedly forged the client’s name and set up a new account opening documents and on more than $3 million in secret wire transfers from her mutual fund account to her forex account so that trading wouldn’t have to stop. The woman client lost more than $3.24 million, while Liskov and EagleEye made about $235,000 in performance incentive fees.

Per the SEC, between 4/08 and 8/10, Liskov made misrepresentations to clients to persuade them to move funds they’d placed in securities investments into forex trading. The SEC contends that these investments were not appropriate for elderly clients that had conservative investment objectives and that this caused them to sustain significant financial losses totaling almost $4 million. EagleEye and Liskov allegedly earned performed fees of over $300K, plus management fees. The Commission believes that having clients make short-term investment gains and then earning performance fees before these gains were lost was the defendants’ plan.

Liskov allegedly did not even help some investors understand the nature of forex trading. With other clients, he deemphasized the degree of investment risk involved. The SEC also says that Liskov made false statements with claims that he had achieved success with forex trades when, in fact, the opposite was the case.

Meantime, Massachusetts Secretary of the Commonwealth William Francis Galvin (D) has also filed administrative charges against the investment advisor firm and Liskov. Galvin is accusing them of violating Massachusetts’s Uniform Securities Act.

Our securities fraud law firm has helped thousand of investors recoup their losses caused by broker misconduct and investment adviser fraud. Working with a stockbroker fraud law firm is the best way to help you get back your lost investment.

Read the SEC’s Complaint (PDF)

CFTC Charges Massachusetts Man Jeffrey Liskov and His Company, EagleEye Asset Management, LLC, with Committing a $3 Million Forex Fraud, CFTC, September 8, 2011
State files complaint against local investment advisor, WickedLocal, September 13, 2011
Mass. Adviser Sued by Regulators Over Alleged Forex Trading Scheme, BNA Securities Law Daily, September 9, 2011

More Blog Posts:
Texas Commodity Trading Advisor FIN FX LLC Now Subject to NFA Emergency Enforcement Action, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, April 27, 2011
Commodity Options Fraud Charges by CFTC Prompts District Court to Freeze Assets and Records of 20/20 Trading Co. Inc. & 20/20 Precious Metals Inc., Stockbroker Fraud Blog, May 6, 2011
$63 Million Mortgage-Backed Securities Lawsuit Against Bank of America is Second One Filed by Western and Southern Life Insurance Co. Against the Financial Firm, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, August 29, 2011 Continue Reading ›

Class Action Securities Case Accusing SunTrust Banks of Faulty Financial Disclosures Can Proceed

Published on: September 27, 2011 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

A district court has ruled that Belmont Holdings Corp. v. SunTrust Banks Inc., a putative class securities action claiming that a 2008 SunTrust (STI) securities’ offerings documents contained faulty financial disclosures, can proceed. According to Judge William Duffey Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, investors’ claims made against SunTrust and affiliates, and a number of underwriters, and Sections 11 and 12(a)(2) of the 1933 Securities Act are enough for moving forward with the case. The statutory provisions place liability on specific participants in a securities offering where these documents have material omissions and misstatements.

Per the court, SunTrust put out securities that were pursuant to a registration statement. This was done as amended by a prospectus supplement, which incorporates by reference SunTrust’s 2007 Form 10-K. In their initial securities lawsuit, the plaintiffs argued that when the offering was made three years ago, the US housing market was in chaos. To raise funds, SunTrust allegedly put out the securities and a prospectus supplement that included misleading and false information about is reserves, capital, and ability to manage risk.

As a result, investors were misled about the degree of risky loans that SunTrust was exposed to in the housing market. An amended complaint was submitted by the plaintiff pushing forward similar claims that were made in the first lawsuit. However, clarifying allegations supporting the claim that the prospectus supplement was misleading because it failed to adequately disclose SunTrust’s ALLL and because the financial firm’s loss reserves were not enough to cover its loan losses were also included with this lawsuit.

The plaintiff contends that SunTrust knew that it used flaw financial information that would lead to misleading information being added to its prospectus supplement. This flawed information was allegedly used to determine loan loss reserves, ALLL, and loan loss.

Because the court determined that there is sufficient grounds to allege that SunTrust defendants “did not truly believe” the Provision and ALLL that were disclosed, the plaintiff was able to sufficiently allege plausible claims. The court said that claims against the underwriter defendants can also proceed. Except for a few exceptions, claims against outsider auditor Ernst & Young can also move forward.

If you have been the victim of securities fraud, you may be able to recover your losses from the negligent party. The best way to do this is to work with an experienced securities fraud attorney. Your case may be able to be resolved in arbitration or in court.

More Blog Posts:
Investor May Proceed With Suit Alleging Faulty Financial Disclosures by SunTrust, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, August 6, 2011

Wells Fargo Settles Mortgage-Backed Securities Class Action Case for $125M, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, July 19, 2011

8/31/11 is Deadline for Opting Out of $100M Oppenheimer Mutual Funds Class Action Settlement, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, August 17, 2011

Measure Banning Insider Trading Gains Support of Congress Members

Published on: September 24, 2011 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

According to Bloomberg Businessweek, both Republicans and Democrats appear to be getting behind a House measure that forbids insider trading by lawmakers. The legislation would consider any trading on legislation done by lawmakers or their staffers as securities fraud. Also, trades over $1,000 would have to be reported within three months.

The measure mandates that regulators draft rules preventing intelligence firms and individuals from selling nonpublic data that they receive from federal employees. Individuals and firms taking part in political intelligence would have to register just the way federal lobbyists do.

US Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY)’s bipartisan legislation would revise the definition of insider trading to include information obtained from congressional work. Her bill also calls for new reporting requirements for transactions.

The issue of lawmakers engaging in insider trading grew after 60 Minutes reported that Congressional members purchased companies’ stock during debates on laws that could affect the businesses. The report said that the investments under scrutiny weren’t illegal. Following the airing of the CBS News program, however, the measure, which is called the STOCK (Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge) Act and was first introduced in 2006, saw its number of co-sponsors rise to 171 House members.

Meantime, the Securities and Exchange Commissioning is cautioning against this type of insider trading ban for lawmakers over concern that this prohibition might narrow certain existing laws. SEC Enforcement Director Robert Khuzami cautioned that any revisions should be “carefully calibrated” so that insider trading prosecutions that don’t involve Congressional members are not negatively impacted. Currently, the SEC uses general anti-fraud provisions to pursue those engaged in insider trading. These laws have never been applied to prosecuting lawmakers.

Rather than a congressional insider trading ban, Khuzami suggested the establishment of an explicit fiduciary obligation among Congress members to keep information obtained while on the job confidential and off limits for purposes of personal gain. General duty would then be used to pursue those that engage in insider trading.

House and Senate panels are expected to vote on an insider-trading ban, possibly as early as next year. The House Financial Services Committee and the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee will vote on the STOCK Act this year.

Our stockbroker fraud attorneys work victims of insider trading. We have successfully helped thousands of investors throughout the country in recouping their money. We also have represented investors located abroad that have claims against investment firms based in the US.

Congressional Insider-Trading Ban Gains Bipartisan Support, Bloomberg Businessweek, December 7, 2011
SEC warns on congressional insider trading ban, Reuters, December 6, 2011

More Blog Posts:
Fiduciary Standard in Securities Industry Doesn’t Need New Definition, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, November 26, 2010
Hedge Fund Manager Raj Rajaratnam Ordered by SEC to Pay $92.8M Penalty for Insider Trading, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, November 12, 2011
Insider Trading: Former FrontPoint Partners Hedge Fund Manager Pleads Guilty to Criminal Charges, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, August 20, 2011
**This post has been backdated for publication
Continue Reading ›