Investor Lawyers Blog

Alleged Ponzi-Like Real Estate Investment Scam that Defrauded Victims of $9M Leads to SEC Charges Against New Jersey Man

Published on: May 24, 2012 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The SEC has charged David M. Connolly with running a Ponzi-like scam involving investment vehicles that bought and managed Pennsylvania and New Jersey apartment rental buildings. According to prosecutors in New Jersey, Connolly’s alleged victims were defrauded of $9 million. He also faces criminal charges.

None of Connolly’s securities offerings were registered with the SEC. (Since 1996, he had raised more $50 million from over 200 clients who invested in over two dozen investment vehicles.)

Per the Commission’s complaint, in 2006 Connolly allegedly started misrepresenting to clients that their funds were to be solely used for the property linked to the vehicle they had in invested in when (unbeknownst to them) he actually was mixing monies in bank accounts and using their funds for other purposes. Although clients were promised monthly dividends from cash-flow profits that were to come from apartment rentals and their principal’s growth from property appreciation, these projected funds did not materialize. Instead, Connolly allegedly ran a Ponzi-like scam that involved earlier investors getting their dividend payments from the money of newer investors.

He also allegedly made materially false and misleading omissions and statements about: investors’ money being placed in escrow until a purported real estate transaction closed, the financial independence and state of each property, the amount of equity victims had in properties, and the condition of each property. (Also containing allegedly false material misrepresentations and omissions was the “offering prospectus,” which provided information about how the investment vehicles would use the investor funds, the projected investment returns, prior vehicles performances, the mortgage financials for the real estate held in the investment vehicles, and the apartment buildings’ vacancy rates.)

Connolly is accused of improperly using proceeds from refinanced properties to keep his scheme running, and he even allegedly took $2 million of investors’ funds for himself. After he stopped giving dividend payments to investors in April 2009 (when money from new investors stopped coming in and the investment vehicles’ properties went into foreclosure), Connolly allegedly kept making sure he was getting dividends and a $250,000 income from the remaining client funds.

Meantime, a federal grand jury has charged him with one count of securities fraud, three counts of wire fraud, five counts of mail fraud, and seven counts of money laundering. A conviction for securities fraud comes with a 20-year maximum prison term and a $5 million fine. The other charges also come with hefty sentences and fines.

Read the SEC Complaint (PDF)

Multimillion-Dollar Real Estate Ponzi Schemer Indicted For Fraud And Money Laundering, Justice.gov, May 17, 2012

More Blog Posts:
Dallas Man Involved in $485M Ponzi Scams, Including the Fraud Involving Provident Royalties in Texas, Gets Twenty Year Prison Term, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, May 8, 2012

JPMorgan Chase $2B Trading Loss Leads to Probes by the SEC, Federal Reserve, and FBI, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, May 15, 2012

Whistleblower Sues SEC and FBI for Documents Into Commission’s Probe of Sempra Energy

Published on: May 22, 2012 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Whistleblower Rodolfo Michelon is suing the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Securities and Exchange Commission in an effort to obtain records connected to the their probe into his employer, Sempra Energy (SRE). He believes that the SEC may have violated federal securities laws through the “outsourcing” of their investigation into Sempra’s alleged illegal activities to two law firms with “close ties” to the company.

Michelon had filed a whistleblower lawsuit with the Commission accusing Sempra of a number of record and books violations related to gas distribution clients in Mexico. Rather than conduct their own probes, he says that the two government agencies instead allowed the two law firms to investigate. After the firms found that Sempra did not violate securities laws, the FBI and the SEC ended their own investigations into the matter.

Michelon submitted Freedom of Information Act requests asking for certain documents and records related to the case last November and this January, and he says both agencies failed to satisfy his request. He is accusing the SEC of making its “Outsourcing Program” available to Fortune 500 companies,” the biggest financial institutions in the country, and their executives. Michelon contends that the program violates both mandates by Congress and public policy expressions “embodied the Securities Act of 1933,” as well as the Investment Company Act of 1940, the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, and the regulations and rules that implement the acts that direct and give the SEC the authority to handle its own probes into those suspected of violating these rules, regulations, and acts. He claims that the SEC “effectively nullified” the 2010 Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act’s whistleblower provisions with their handling of the Synergy case.

Michelon’s complaint was filed pursuant to the legal theory applied in Aguirre v. SEC. In that FOIA lawsuit, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia found that the Commission behaved improperly and public interest in disclosure was greater than the privacy interests of individuals named records related to the SEC’s probe of insider trading that allegedly occurred at Pequot Capital, a hedge fund. The court ordered the Commission to give Gary Aguirre, a former SEC enforcement lawyer, the investigative files sans redactions.

Aguirre had contended that he was let go from the SEC in 2005 as punishment for insisting that a high profile figure in the Pequot investigation be deposed. He later used the records that he obtained to make the SEC reopen its probe into Pequot. In 2010, Pequot, which is now defunct, had to pay $28 million to settle insider trading charges field against it by SEC.

Michelon v. SEC, Justia Docket, April 24, 2012

Whistleblower Sues SEC For ‘Outsourcing’ Bribery Investigation To Sempra Favorite, KPBS, April 30, 2012

Aguirre v. SEC

Freedom of Information Act

More Blog Posts:
SEC Settles Wrongful Termination Lawsuit with Whistleblower Gary Aguirre for $755,000, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, July 15, 2010
ISS Probes Allegations that a Boston Employee Sold Shareholder Information, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, February 21, 2012

SEC’s Office of the Whistleblower In Early Phase of Evaluating Reward Claims, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, March 23, 2012 Continue Reading ›

Senate Democrats Want Volcker Rule’s “JP Morgan Loophole” Allowing Portfolio Hedging Blocked

Published on: May 22, 2012 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

In a letter to the Federal Reserve Board, the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency Administrator of National Banks, and the Federal Deposit Insurance Commission, Senators Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) and Carl Levin (D-Mich.) spoke out against what they are calling the current draft of the Volcker rule’s “JPMorgan loophole,” which they say allows for the kinds of trading activities that resulted in the investment bank’s recent massive trading loss. Merkley and Levin want the regulators to make sure that the language in October’s draft version is more stringent so that “clear bright lines” exist between legitimate activities and proprietary trading activities that should be banned (including risk-mitigating hedging and market-making).

According to Levin and Merkley, who are both principal co-sponsors of the Volcker rule and its restrictions on proprietary trading, the regulation’s latest draft disregarded “clear legislative language and clear statement of Congressional intent” and left room for “portfolio hedging.” Under the law, risk-mitigating hedge activities are allowed as long as they aim to lower the “specific risks” to a financial firm’s holdings, including contracts or positions. This is supposed to let banks lower their risks by letting them to take part in actual, specific hedges. However, the senators are contending that because the language that was necessary to enforce wasn’t included in the last draft, hence the “JPMorgan loophole” (among others) that will allow proprietary trading to occur even after the law goes into effect. They blame pressure from Wall Street lobbyists for these gaps.

The senators are pressing the regulators to get rid of such loopholes and put into effect a solid Volcker Rule, with stricter language, and without further delays. They noted that despite getting trillions of dollars in public bailout money, a lot of large financial firms continue to fight against the “most basic… reforms,” which is what they believe that Wall Street has been doing with its resistance to the Volcker rule. (Also in their letter, Levin and Merkley reminded the regulators that it was proprietary trading positions that resulted in billions of dollars lost during the recent economic crisis.)

SSEK Talking to Investors About JPMorgan Trading Losses
JPMorgan Chase‘s (JPM) over $2 billion loss was on a series of complex derivative trades that it claims were made to hedge economic risks. Now, according to a number of people who work at trading desks that specialize in the kind of derivatives that the financial firm used when making its trades, the financial firm’s loss has likely grown to closer than $6 billion to $7 billion.

Volcker Rule Resource Center, SIFMA

More Blog Posts:

JPMorgan Chase Shareholders File Securities Lawsuits Over $2B Trading Loss, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, May 17, 2012

SEC Chairman Mary Schapiro Stands By Agency’s 2011 Enforcement Record https://www.investorlawyers.com/our-staff.html, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, March 15, 2012

Ex- NAPFA Chairman Indicted by Grand Jury and Sued by SEC For Allegedly Diverting $47.7M of Investors’ Funds Into His Own Start-Ups

Published on: May 19, 2012 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The Securities and Exchange Commission has filed a civil lawsuit against former National Association of Personal Financial Advisors Mark Spangler for allegedly bilking clients by secretly investing $47.7 million of their money in two start-ups that he co-founded. These were risker investments than if he had kept their money in the mostly publicly traded securities, which is where he told clients their funds were going. The investment strategy that he actually employed allegedly was not in line with their investment goals and they ended up losing millions.

Also going after Spangler is the government. A federal grand jury just Spangler indicted him over these allegations. He now faces 23 criminal counts, which include charges of fraud and money laundering. U.S. Attorney Jenny Durkan said the government was working closely with the SEC to make sure that he was held accountable.

Per the SEC’s complaint, starting around 2003 through 2011, Spangler and his advisory firm The Spangler Group (TSG) started putting most of their clients’ money, which had been in the private investment funds that he managed, into two private technology companies. He did not notify investors of this move.

JPMorgan Chase Had No Treasurer When Chief Investment Office Made Trades Resulting In More than $2B Loss, Reports WSJ

Published on: May 19, 2012 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

According to the Wall Street Journal, during five of the months when JPMorgan Chase’s (JPM) Chief Investment Office made the trades that has led to over $2 billion in losses, the financial firm lacked a treasurer. Also, the executive appointed to head up department’s risk management might not have had the necessary experience to do the job. A few ex- and current employees of the financial firm have alluded to poor decisions in staffing as a reason that bad positions were allowed to go unchecked.

Apparently, until the appointment of Sandie O’Connor as treasurer was announced in March, the last person to hold that position was Joseph Bonocore. He left the financial firm in October 2011, which was before trading losses soared. Prior to leaving, he expressed general worries about risks that were being made by the JPMorgan’s London office, which is where many of the questionable trades originated. (He also had previously served as the investment unit’s chief financial officer for about 11 years.) Now, questions are being raised by those on the outside as to how a bank as big as JPMorgan could go so long without a treasurer.

As for its chief risk officer, Irving Goldman, he is related by marriage to JPMorgan executive Barry Zubrow. Goldman was moved into the post this February, one month after Zubrow was made the bank’s chief of corporate regulatory affairs. Goldman’s background in trading is extensive. He previously worked for Salomon Brothers, Credit Suisse First Boston, and Cantor Fitzgerald (CANTRP), where he also was president of its asset management and debt capital markets divisions. A JPMorgan spokesperson defended Goldman’s professional background, saying it wasn’t uncommon for a risk manager to be heavy on trading experience.

JPMorgan Chase Shareholders File Securities Lawsuits Over $2B Trading Loss

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

Two securities lawsuits have been filed on behalf of shareholders and investors of JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPM) over the financial firm’s $2 billion trading loss from synthetic credit products. According to CEO Jamie Dimon, the massive loss is a result of “egregious” failures made by the financial firm’s chief investment officer and a hedging strategy that failed. Both complaints were filed on Tuesday in federal court.

One securities case was brought by Saratoga Advantage Trust — Financial Services Portfolio. The Arizona trust is seeking to represent everyone who suffered losses on the stock that it contends were a result of alleged misstatements the investment bank had made. Affected investors would have bought the stock on April 13 (or later), which is the day that Dimon had minimized any concerns about the financial firm’s trading risk during a conference call.

Per Saratoga Advantage Trust v JPMorgan Chase & Co., the week after the call, losses from the trades went up to about $200 million a day. The Arizona Trust is accusing Dimon and CFO Douglas Braunstein of issuing statements during that conversation that were misleading and “materially false,” as well as misrepresenting not just the losses but also the risks from major bets placed on “derivative contracts involving credit indexes reflecting corporate bonds interest rates.”

Charles Schwab Corp.’s Lawsuit Against FINRA to Stop Enforcement Case is Dismissed by Federal Judge

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

A federal judge has thrown out a lawsuit filed by Charles Schwab Corp. (SCHW) against the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority Inc. The financial firm had sought to stop the SRO’s enforcement case against it over an allegedly illegal arbitration agreement.

Schwab had added a new provision to over 6.8 million customer account agreement that would prevent clients from beginning or joining a class action lawsuit against the broker-dealer. Customers would also have to agree that industry arbitrators wouldn’t be able to consolidate securities claims from different investors. (Both kinds of cases typically involve investors with smaller claims that are usually less than $10,000. Lawyers who oppose Schwab’s arbitration provision have said that it leaves many of these investors without a legal process to be able to recover any financial losses.) By February, more than 50,000 clients had opened accounts with Schwab since it had implemented its new arbitration provision.

However, FINRA does not let class actions go through its arbitration system and it prevents broker-dealers from limiting the ways in which customers can file claims in court that are not allowed in arbitration. In its enforcement case against Schwab, the SRO accused the brokerage firm of violating its rules by making clients waive their right to file a class action complaint against it. Schwab immediately responded with a lawsuit against FINRA.

JPMorgan Chase $2B Trading Loss Leads to Probes by the SEC, Federal Reserve, and FBI

Published on: May 15, 2012 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

In the wake of JPMorgan Chase’s (JPM) announcement that it lost $2 billion in a trading portfolio that is supposed to hedge against the risks that it takes against its own money, the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Federal Reserve and other regulators are launching their respective investigations to find out exactly what happened. JPMorgan is the largest bank in the US.

As the financial firm’s stock plummeted nearly 7% in after-hours trading after the announcement, its CEO, Jamie Dimon, attributed the losses to “many errors, sloppiness and bad judgment.” He also said that the portfolio, which consisted of derivatives, ended up being “riskier” and not as effective as an economic hedge as the financial firm had previously thought.

Also seeing drops in their stocks following JPMorgan’s announcement of its massive trading loss were other banks, including Bank of America (BAC), Morgan Stanley (MS), Citigroup (C) and Goldman Sachs (GS).

Now, the SEC and other regulators are looking into whether possible civil violations were involved in JPMorgan’s massive loss. The Commission had recently opened a preliminary probe into the financial firm’s public disclosures about its trades and accounting practices.

According to The New York Times, questions regarding JP Morgan’s chief investment office, which is in charge of its hedging activities, were raised in April following reports that a trader in London was taking large bets that were “distorting the market.” Dimon, at the time, dismissed worries about the bank’s trading activities.

The FBI is also looking into potential wrongdoing related to the $2 trading loss.

Known for its excellence in trading until now and earning up to $5.4 billion of securities gains last year, JPMorgan’s chief investment officer has now seen a reversal of fortune. Per The New York Times, the financial firm’s problems may have begun with its bond portfolio, which was valued at $379 billion in March.

Just 30% of the portfolio had been invested in securities that the federal government had guaranteed—a change from 2010 when government guaranteed bonds made up 42% of the portfolio.

Signs of trouble with JPMorgan’s trading strategy started to brew at the end of March when the market went against corporate bonds. Yet during its first-quarter earnings call in mid-April, Dimon did not give any indication that there were problems with the bank’s trading.

Last week, however, Dimon told a different story by announcing the $2 billion trading loss. He said the investment bank’s problems were caused in part by its value-at-risk measure, which underestimated the losses on hedge funds that depended on credit derivatives. Yet were the trades even actual hedges? Banks have been known to perform elaborate trades that at first seemed to be a hedge but eventually become a bad bet.

SEC Opens Review of JP Morgan, The Wall Street Journal, May 11, 2012

F.B.I. Begins Preliminary Inquiry Into JPMorgan, The New York Times, May 15, 2012

More Blog Posts:

Washington Mutual Bank Bondholders’ Securities Fraud Lawsuit Against J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. is Revived by Appeals Court, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, June 29, 2011

Trading in Securities of 379 Microcap Companies Suspended in SEC’s Fraud Crackdown

Published on: May 14, 2012 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

In an effort to crack down on fraud via pump-and-dump scams and reverse mergers, the Securities and Exchange Commission is suspending trading in the securities of 379 Microcap companies that are dormant. This is the most number of companies to have trading in them suspended in one day.

As part of its heightened efforts to combat microcap shell company-related fraud, The SEC’s Microcap Fraud Working Group employed Operation Shell-Expel, which employed different agency resources to pinpoint shell companies in 6 other countries and 32 US states that were dormant and vulnerable to scams. SEC Division Director Robert Khuzami said that “empty shell companies” are to certain financial scammers “what guns are to bank robbers.”

According to the SEC, stock manipulators are willing to pay up to $750,000 to get control of a company so they can pump and dump the stock to make illegal gains while investors suffer. Now, however, because the trading suspension mandates that current financial formation must be provided, these shell companies can no longer be used by fraudsters to perpetuate their scams.

Securities laws let the SEC suspend trading in any stock for 10 days maximum. Barring exemptions and exceptions, a company whose trading privileges have been suspended can’t be quoted again unless it issues update information, including financial statements that are accurate.

The SEC chooses to suspend trading in a stock when it feels that to do so will protect investors. In an Investor Alert, the Commission listed some of the reasons for suspending trading, including:

• Insufficient or not the most up-to-date or accurate information about a company, including no current periodic report filings.

• Existing questions about whether information made available to the public is accurate, including the most current details about a company’s operational status, business transactions, or financial state.

• Potential issues over the trading in the stock, such as possible market manipulation and insider trading.

Because the SEC knows that suspending trading in a stock can cause the security’s price to dramatically go down, it is very discriminating about issuing suspensions.

Microcap companies usually have low-priced stock, which trades in low volumes, and limited assets. A pump-and-dump scam is one of the most common types of securities fraud involving these firms. Scammers will issue misleading and false statements to promote a microcap stock that is lightly traded. After buying low and then inflating the stock price by making it appear as if there is a lot of market activity, fraudsters will dump the stock by selling it into the market at the higher rate and make huge profits in the process.

Investor Bulletins: Trading Suspension, SEC (PDF)

SEC Microcap Fraud-Fighting Initiative Expels 379 Dormant Shell Companies to Protect Investors From Potential Scams, SEC, May 14, 2012

More Blog Posts:
Daniel “Rudy” Ruettiger Faces SEC Charges Over Pump-and-Dump Scam Involving Sports Drink Company, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, December 19, 2011
Business Man Pleads Guilty Plea in Florida Microcap Market Fraud Case, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, November 17, 2010
Pump & Dump Scam Alleged in $600 Million Lawsuit Against Law Firm Baker & McKenzie, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, April 13, 2011 Continue Reading ›

Dire Predictions For Wall Street Reforms: Not Complete Until 2013, Even Longer to Implement, Half May Not Survive

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

Speaking at the Council on Foreign Relations on May 2, Federal Reserve Governor Daniel K. Tarullo said he did not think that federal agencies would complete their rulemaking duties that are mandated under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act until next year. He also said that full implementation of these rules would take even more time. Tarullo is in charge of overseeing efforts by the Fed to draft and execute these regulatory reforms.

He said that the process of completing the rules is a complicated one and challenges have inevitably arisen. To finish rulemaking duties sooner would likely have resulted in “inconsistencies and open questions” that would have inevitably led to “another round of changes.” Tarullo also spoke about how the complexities of certain US regulations have posed added challenges. For example, regulatory reforms must conform to the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision’s Basel III framework.

Tarullo also said that “instability” from the shadow banking system warrants a need for more regulatory reforms. He warned of new forms of shadow banking that could be lurking on the horizon especially if greater regulation of the large financial firms leads to elements of the shadow banking system going into “largely unregulated markets.”