Investor Lawyers Blog

House Financial Services Committee Hears Arguments Over Who Should Oversee Investment Advisers

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

Last week, the House Financial Services Committee held a hearing about the Investment Adviser Oversight Act of 2012, a bill introduced by the committee’s chairman, Rep. Spencer Bachus (R-Ala.), and Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y.). The two lawmakers had come up with (HR 4624) because they believe that the US Securities and Exchange Commission, which has been supervising investment advisers, doesn’t have the resources to do this job effectively.

While there has long been discussion over this issue, the 2008 financial crisis and the discovery of Bernard Madoff’s multibillion-dollar Ponzi scam, which had been going on for years, served to some as evidence that the SEC wasn’t doing a thorough enough job of detecting financial fraud. Last year, the Securities and Exchange Commission issued a study acknowledging that its resources were limited. It too recommended that the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority or a new SRO be given the responsibility of overseeing investment advisers. Or, if it were to continue this oversight, then the Commission suggested that it work with an enhanced oversight program paid for with user fees.

While all sides involved in the debate are in agreement that registered investment advisers are not being examined on a regular basis, they can’t seem agree on how to make additional exams happen or on who should facilitate them. Unlike broker-dealers, investment advisers don’t have a self-policing group. They are usually examined by the states or the US.

Investor Fraud Claims Against Prescott City, AZ are Dismissed by District Court

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

In the wake of the US Supreme Court’s ruling in Janus Capital Group Inc. v. First Derivative Traders, the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona is now saying that investors did not succeed in stating a securities fraud claim against Prescott City, Arizona related to the $35 million in revenue bond sales that paid for the construction of a 5,000 seat event center. The case is Allstate Life Insurance Co. Litigation, D. Ariz.

Allstate Life Insurance Co. and other investors had bought the bonds in accordance with the offering documents. Because the official statements failed to include key information that only the defendants knew, the plaintiffs contend that these omissions made parts of what was stated misleading and false. As a result, they are claiming that the defendants violated Section 10(b) of the 1934 Securities Exchange Act.

The district court, in a 2010 order, had said that case law indicates that a party could be held liable under Section 10(b) for “making” a statement that was untrue. Liability could also be held under this section of the Act if a party was involved in “substantially” taking part in preparing, creating, editing, or drafting a statement that was materially false or misleading even without saying or signing the statement in question. However, in the wake of the US Supreme Court’s Janus decision last June that rejected the “substantial participation” approach and found that under Role 10b-5, the statement’s maker is the one with the final authority over the statement, the defendants asked the district court to reconsider.

Now, after Janus, the district court is saying that the plaintiffs have failed to make valid Section 10(b) claims against Prescott City and the securities fraud claims against the town are therefore dismissed. Per the court, the plaintiffs did not allege any facts to make it plausible that Prescott City is the one that made the misleading statements or any of the alleged misrepresentations in the official statements.

Commenting on the district court’s May 24 ruling, Institutional investor securities lawyer William Shepherd said: “The Janus case and this one demonstrate further erosion of the liability standards for investors’ claims. Almost 20 years ago, courts decided that Wall Street and other defendants cannot be held liable for ‘aiding and abetting’ in federal securities fraud cases. (Those who assist in other kinds of wrongdoing are not granted this kind of get-out-of-jail-free card.) Because of this free pass, most of those that assisted Enron in defrauding the public were not held liable for their actions. The Janus case is proving to be yet another case of ‘judicial activism’ to help big shots escape responsibility for their misdeeds and omissions.”

Janus Capital Group Inc. v. First Derivative Traders

Prescott Valley loses motion to dismiss investor lawsuit against events center, The Daily Courier, October 26, 2011

More Blog Posts:
Bank of America and Countrywide Financial Sued by Allstate over $700M in Bad Mortgaged-Backed Securities, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, December 20, 2010

Morgan Stanley Sued by MetLife for Securities Fraud Over $757 Million in Residential Mortgage-Backed Securities, Institutional Investor Securities Fraud, April 28, 2012

Not All Municipal Bond Issuers Are Adjusting Well to the SEC’s Efforts to Make the Market More Transparent, Institutional Investor Securities Fraud, February 22, 2012

District Court Denies UBS Summary Judgment in Sarbanes-Oxley Whistleblower Lawsuit

Published on: June 7, 2012 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut has decided not to grant summary judgment to UBS AG (UBS) and UBS Securities LLC in Mary Barker’s lawsuit claiming that her firing violated the whistleblower provision of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. Judge Janet Hall found that UBS failed to show that there was “clear and convincing evidence” that the plaintiff would have been let go “regardless of any protected activity.”

Barker, who started working for UBS in 1998, was terminated from her job in 2008 during a “large-scale” layoff. At the time, she was working in the Business Management Group of the Equities Chief Operating Officer’s office as an associate director. Barker filed her complaint the following year contending that she was actually let go because she “discovered reporting discrepancies” while working on a project to “reconcile” UBS’s New York Stock Exchange holdings. Barker contended that after this, she was “retaliated against or constructively discharged.” She also said that one of her bosses not only failed to adequately support her, but also had been “overlooking her for projects.”

Seeking summary judgment, UBS said that Barker failed to show that her “protected” behavior led to her termination. The district court, however, disagreed with UBS, countering that although the financial firm showed that it was undergoing “extreme financial hardship,” this does not show why the plaintiff, in particular, was let go.

Institutional Investor Securities Roundup: SEC Sues Investment Adviser Over $60M Ponzi Scam, Michigan Investment Club Manager Gets Prison Term for Defrauding Over 900 Investors, & IOSCO Seeks Comments on Report About Credit Raters’ Conflicts & Controls

Published on: June 7, 2012 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The SEC is suing investment adviser John Geringer for allegedly running a $60M investment fund that was actually a Ponzi scheme. Most of Geringer’s fraud victims are from the Santa Cruz, California area.

According to the Commission, Geringer used information in his marketing materials for GLR Growth Fund (including the promise of yearly returns in the double digits) that was allegedly “false and misleading” to draw in investors. He also implied that the fund had SEC approval.

While investors thought the fund was making these supposed returns by placing 75% of its assets in investments connected to major stock indices, per the SEC claims, Geringer’s trading actually resulted in regular losses and he eventually ceased to trade. To hide the fraud, Geringer allegedly paid investors “returns” in the millions of dollars that actually came from the money of new investors. Also, after he stopped trading in 2009, he is accused of having invested in two illiquid private startups and three entities under his control. The SEC is seeking disgorgement of ill-gotten gains, financial penalties, preliminary and permanent injunctions, and other relief.

In an unrelated securities case, this one resulting in criminal charges, Michigan investment club manager Alan James Watson has been sentenced to 12 years behind bars for fraudulently soliciting and accepting $40 million from over 900 investors. Watson, who pleaded guilty to the criminal charges, must also forfeit over $36 million.

Watson ran and funded Cash Flow Financial LLC. According to the US Justice Department, he lost all of the money on risky investments—even as he told investors that their money was going to work through an equity-trading system that would give them a 10% return every month. In truth, Watson only put $6 million in the system, while secretly investing the rest in the undisclosed investments. He would go on to also lose the $6 million when he moved this money into risky investments, too.

Watson ran the club as a Ponzi scam so investors wouldn’t know what he was doing. He is still facing related charges in a securities case brought by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

In other institutional investments securities news, the International Organization of Securities Commissions’ technical committee is asking for comments about a new consultation report describing credit rating agencies’ the internal controls over the rating process and the practices they employ to minimize conflicts of interest. The deadline for submitting comments is July 9.

The report was created following the financial crisis due to concerns about the rating process’s integrity. 9 credit rating agencies were surveyed about their internal controls, while 10 agencies were surveyed on how they managed conflict.

IOSCO’s CRA code guides credit raters on how to handle conflict and make sure that employees consistently use their methodologies. Two of the report’s primary goals were to find out how get a “comprehensive and practical understanding” of how these agencies deal with conflict when deciding ratings and find out whether credit ratings agencies have implemented IOSCO’s code and guiding principals.

Read the SEC’s complaint against Geringer (PDF)

Investment Club Manager Sentenced To 12 Years In Prison For $40 Million Fraud, Justice.gov, May 24, 2012

Credit Rating Agencies: Internal Controls Designed to Ensure the Integrity of the Credit Rating Process and Procedures to Manage Conflicts of Interest, IOSCO (PDF)

More Blog Posts:
FINRA Initiatives Addressing Market Volatility Approved by the SEC, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, June 5, 2012

Several Claims in Securities Fraud Lawsuit Against Ex-IndyMac Bancorp Executives Are Dismissed by Federal Judge, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, May 30, 2012

Leave The 2nd Circuit Ruling Upholding Madoff Trustee’s “Net Equity” Method for Investor Recovery Alone, Urges SEC to the US Supreme Court, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, June 5, 2012

Leave The 2nd Circuit Ruling Upholding Madoff Trustee’s “Net Equity” Method for Investor Recovery Alone, Urges SEC to the US Supreme Court

Published on: June 5, 2012 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The Securities and Exchange Commission wants the US Supreme Court to leave standing the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit’s decision upholding Irving Picard’s “net equity” approach to compensating victims of Bernard Madoff’s Ponzi scam. Picard is the Securities Investor Protection Act trustee of Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC. Madoff defrauded investors in a multibillion-dollar Ponzi scam.

SIPA lets investors get back their “net equity,” and Picard’s formula for compensation is to calculate a victim’s net losses-how much they put in, minus how much they got from the failed brokerage firm. He then gives these net losers a portion of the available money. Investors that have net gains-meaning they took out more funds than they invested-must wait until the net losers are fully paid. It is these clients with net gains that are appealing the Second Circuit’s decision and contending that their losses should instead be calculated from the last account statement issued by Madoff’s financial firm.

The SEC disagrees with them. In fact, the Commission doesn’t believe that these Madoff investors should be allowed to appeal a decision that won’t let them receive payment for bogus Ponzi profits that were noted on account statements. In its opposition brief to the nation’s highest court, the SEC said the Second Circuit ruling was “correct” and doesn’t conflict with past decisions. It also said that considering the circumstances and the “relevant statutory language,” the “net equity” approach “was legally sound.”

FINRA Initiatives Addressing Market Volatility Approved by the SEC

Published on: June 5, 2012 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The Securities and Exchange Commission has approved a one-year pilot for a plan meant to shield equity markets from volatile price changes. The plan is based on two initiatives from the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority and the national securities exchanges.

One initiative involves a “limit up-limit down” proposal that would not allow for trades in US listed stocks beyond a certain range to be determined by recent prices. This will replace single-stock circuit breakers.

With the new mechanism, trades in individually listed equity securities wouldn’t be able to take place beyond a certain price band, which would be a percentage level lower and higher than the price of the security in the most recent five minutes. For securities that are more liquid, set levels would be 5% or 10%, with percentages doubling during closing and opening periods. For securities priced at $3/share or lower, there will be wider price bands.

SEC and CFTC Say They Found Out About JPMorgan’s $2B Trading Loss Through Media

Published on: May 31, 2012 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

According to Commodity Futures Trading Commission Chairman Gary Gensler and Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman Mary Schapiro, the two federal agencies didn’t know that JPMorgan & Chase (JPM) had sustained $2 billion in trading losses until they heard about it through the press in April. Schapiro and Gensler testified in front of the Senate Banking Committee on May 22. Both agency heads noted that trading activities aren’t within the purview of the CFTC and the SEC. They also pointed out that the risky derivatives trading did not happen through JPMorgan’s futures commission merchant arm or broker-dealer arm.

The SEC has no authority over the credit default index derivatives that were involved in the trades, and although, per the 2010 Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, the CFTC will eventually regulate the swap dealing activities of banks, the rules to make this authority law have not yet been written.

Now, the CFTC is probing JPMorgan’s trading transactions. It recently issued subpoenas asking for the firm’s internal documents related to the financial firm’s massive loss. The probe is being run by the agency’s enforcement division and, according to Reuters, will revolve around what JPMorgan traders told internal management staff and their supervisors as the bets began to sour. (However, per the Wall Street Journal, the inquiry is in the beginning phases and not limited to what traders said or didn’t say. It also doesn’t necessarily mean that JPMorgan or certain individuals will be subject to any civil enforcement action.)

Meantime, Schapiro has said that the SEC is also looking into whether JPMorgan’s financial reporting and public disclosure were accurate in regards to what the financial firm knew and when it had this knowledge. She told Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) that it was too early to tell whether JPMorgan’s activity would have violated the Volcker rule, which calls for banks to have their proprietary trading activity limited to risk-mitigation hedging. While JPMorgan has said that its transactions were hedges, experts are divided over this assessment. (The Volcker rule, which is part of Dodd-Frank, has not yet been implemented and there are critics fighting its current incarnation.) Menendez, in turn, said that Schapiro should look to JPMorgan’s trading loss as a reason for constructing strong verbiage when implementing the rule. However, Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), who was also at the hearing, wondered whether employing this approach might backfire-initially causing the legislation to “look good,” while ultimately creating a situation where highly complex institutions would be placed situations to “not appropriately hedge their activity.”

IMPLEMENTING DERIVATIVES REFORM: REDUCING SYSTEMIC RISK AND IMPROVING MARKET OVERSIGHT, Banking.Senate.gov, May 22, 2012

Regulators Say They Learned Of J.P. Morgan Losses from news reports, Los Angeles Times, May 22, 2012

CFTC subpoenas JPMorgan over trading loss: WSJ, The Republic, May 31, 2012

More Blog Posts:
Senate Democrats Want Volcker Rule’s “JP Morgan Loophole” Allowing Portfolio Hedging Blocked, Institutional Investor Securities Fraud, May 22, 2012

JPMorgan Chase Had No Treasurer When Chief Investment Office Made Trades Resulting In More than $2B Loss, Reports WSJ, Institutional Investor Securities Fraud, May 19, 2012

JP Morgan Chase To Pay $150M to Settle Securities Lawsuit Over Lending Program Losses of Union Pension Funds, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, March 26, 2012 Continue Reading ›

ABA Presses for Self-Funding for SEC and CFTC

Published on: May 31, 2012 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The American Bar Association is in strong favor of self-funding for both the Commodity Futures Trading Commission and the Securities and Exchange Commission. It is calling on Congress to quickly deal with this need to increase the agencies’ resources.

In a letter to lawmakers on the House Financial Services Committee and the Senate Banking Committee, ABA Task Force on Financial Markets Regulatory Reform co-chairs William Kroener III and Giovanni Prezioso talked about how not having sufficient funding sources for the SEC and the CFTC is going to substantially hurt the regulators’ ability to complete their assigned regulatory missions. The ABA believes that self-funding would effectively deal with this problem.

Both the CFTC and SEC have acknowledged that they are short on funds. The two regulators have partially attributed this to the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, which doesn’t authorize self-funding despite the fact that SEC Chairman Mary Schapiro, past SEC chairmen, certain senators, and securities lawyers had pressed for it.

FINRA Enforcement Actions in 2012 Likely to Equal The Record Number Brought Last Year

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

According to a senior FINRA enforcement official, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority appears on schedule this year to bring about 1,500 enforcement actions-that’s about the same amount a last year, when this was then considered a record number. He said that the actions tend to be “isolated cases,” with dishonesty playing a factor.

The FINRA enforcer, who spoke at an enforcement panel during the SRO’s yearly conference in DC on May 23 (panelists were not identified by name), also noted that the self-regulatory organization is concentrating on complex products. He talked about how important it was for firms to fully comprehend the products that they are selling.

Meantime, another FINRA enforcer encouraged brokerage firms to pay attention to recent actions involving four firms that consented to pay $9.1 million to settle allegations that without supervision they sold leveraged and inverse exchange-traded funds valued at billions of dollars. (The SRO had accused the Wall Street broker-dealers of not having “reasonable” grounds for recommending these instruments to retail clients.) The FINRA official said that similar FINRA cases are expected-a clear indicator that it is integral for financial firms to supervise the products that they sell. She also talked about how when examining real estate investment trusts and private placements under regulation D, FINRA is looking at the areas of supervision, advertising, due diligence, suitability, misstatements, training, risk disclosure, and product understanding.

Several Claims in Securities Fraud Lawsuit Against Ex-IndyMac Bancorp Executives Are Dismissed by Federal Judge

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

In U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, federal judge Manuel Real threw out five of the seven securities claims made by the Securities and Exchange Commission in its fraud lawsuit against ex-IndyMac Bancorp chief executive Michael Perry and former finance chief Scott Keys. The Commission is accusing the two men of covering up the now failed California mortgage lender’s deteriorating liquidity position and capital in 2008. Real’s bench ruling dilutes the SEC’s lawsuit against the two men.

The Commission contends that Keys and Perry misled investors while trying to raise capital and preparing to sell $100 million in new stock before July 2008, which is when thrift regulators closed IndyMac Bank, F.S.B and the holding company filed for bankruptcy protection. They are accusing Perry of letting investors receive misleading or false statements about the company’s failing financial state that omitted material information. (S. Blair Abernathy, also a former IndyMac chief financial officer, had also been sued by the SEC. However, rather that fight the lawsuit, he chose to settle without denying or admitting to any wrongdoing.)

Attorneys for Perry and Keys had filed a motion for partial summary judgment, arguing that five of the seven filings that the SEC is targeting cannot support the claims. Real granted that motion last month, finding that IndyMac’s regulatory filings lacked any misleading or false statements to investors and did not leave out key information.

The remaining claims revolve around whether the bank properly disclosed in its 2008 first-quarter earnings report (and companion slideshow presentation) the financial hazards it was in at the time. The judge also ruled that Perry could not be made to pay back allegedly ill-gotten gains.

Real’s decision substantially narrows the Commission’s securities case against Perry and Keys. According to Reuters, the ruling also could potentially end the lawsuit against Keys because he was on a leave of absence during the time that the matters related to the filings that are still at issue would have occurred.

Before its collapse in 2008, Countrywide spinoff IndyMac was the country’s largest issuers of alt-A mortgage, also called “liar loans.” These high-risk home loans are primarily based on simple statements from borrowers of their income instead of tax returns. Unfortunately, loan defaults ended up soaring and a mid-2008 run on deposits at IndyMac contributed to its collapse. The Federal Deposit Insurance Corp, which places its IndyMac losses at $13 billion, went on to sell what was left of the bank to private investors. IndyMac is now OneWest bank.

Judge dismisses parts of IndyMac fraud case, Los Angeles Times, May 23, 2012

Read the SEC Complaint (PDF)

More Blog Posts:

Citigroup’s $75 Million Securities Fraud Settlement with the SEC Over Subprime Mortgage Debt Approved by Judge, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, October 23, 2010