Investor Lawyers Blog

FINRA Fines AXA Advisors $100,000 For Allegedly Not Firing Broker who Ran Ponzi Scam Sooner

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

AXA Advisors LLC will pay a $100,000 fine to settle Financial Industry Regulatory Authority allegations that it delayed too long before firing a broker who was also the mastermind of a Ponzi scam. The financial firm turned in a Letter of Acceptance, Waiver, and Consent prior to there having to be a regulatory hearing, without denying or admitting to the findings, and without an adjudication of any issue. AXA Advisors is a subsidiary of AXA Financial, Inc., which is an AXA Group member.

Kenneth Neely, a former registered representative, started working with AXA in its Clayton, Missouri office in August 2007. FINRA contends that already by then, Neely had been the subject of four client complaints. Three of these were securities arbitrations over business practices he employed with previous employees. (Prior to working at AXA, he was registered with Stifel, Nicolaus & Co., Inc. and UBS PaineWebber, Inc.) The SRO believes that AXA also knew that Neely was having financial problems at the time.

Neely was permanently barred by FINRA in 2009 for running the Ponzi scam, which bilked its victims of $600,000. Many of the investors he defrauded belonged to his church. According to the SRO, Neely to conceal his financial scheme by having investors pay $2K to $3K to his wife. He also created fake invoices to make them appear as if they were actual ownership certificates. He did pay investors about $300,000. A lot of his investors’ money went toward supporting his extravagant lifestyle. Neely eventually pleaded guilty to the federal crime of mail fraud. He was sentenced to 37 months in months in prison and ordered to pay restitution in the amount of $618,270.

Per the AWC, Neely started running a Ponzi scam in 2001 while he was still working at UBS. He continued his fraud operation while at Stifel and when he went to go work with AXA. He persuaded AXA clients, Stifel customers, and others to take part in the St. Louis Investment Club, which was a fake club and put their money in the St. Charles REIT, which was a bogus real estate investment trust. After he admitted to converting and commingling funds. AXA fired him in July 2009.

However, it was as early as 2008, when AXA conducted its yearly audit of Neely, that a review of his computer brought up an Excel spreadsheet noting eight people’s payment schedules. Per the AWC, these people were investors in Neely’s fraud. An AXA examiner asked Neely to explain the spreadsheet and the broker claimed that the figures were for showing a potential client/friend, who wanted to start a business, how to handle his finances. The AWC alleges that this explanation was a false one.

FINRA found that AXA failed to properly supervise or investigate Neely by not responding appropriately to the spreadsheet, his excuses, or the fact that he had a questionable history. AXA has now been both sanctioned and fined.

AXA Fined $100,000 For Not Axing Ponzi Broker Sooner, Forbes, March 15, 2012

Ex-AXA Broker Barred by Finra After Ponzi Scheme, New York Times, July 28, 2009

More Blog Posts:
Stifel, Nicolaus & Co. and AXA Advisors Broker Charged in Ponzi Scheme Victimizing Church Members, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, November 5, 2009
AXA Rosenberg Entities Settle Securities Fraud Charges Over Computer Error Concealment for Over $240M, February 10, 2011 Continue Reading ›

SEC Chairman Mary Schapiro Stands By Agency’s 2011 Enforcement Record

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

Batting away criticism that many of the Security and Exchange Commission’s enforcement actions for fiscal year 2011 were actually follow-on administrative proceedings and not new actions, Chairman Mary Schapiro stood by the agency’s record. She also noted that in some instances, follow-ons are key to enforcing federal securities laws. Schapiro made her statements to a House Appropriations panel.

Per recent media findings, over 30% of the SEC’s FY 2011 735 enforcement actions (the agency has never filed this many in a fiscal year before) were follow-on administrative proceedings. Schapiro, who was testifying in front of the House Appropriations Financial Services Subcommittee on the White House’s proposed $1.566 billion FY2013 budget for the SEC, noted that some of the enforcement actions were the most complex to ever occur and included those involving municipal securities market-related bid rigging, misleading sales practices related to structured products, Foreign Corrupt Practices Act-related violations, and insider trading. She also pointed to the number of senior level people that have been the target of many of last year’s SEC enforcements.

Schapiro said that even as the SEC has already proposed or adopted regulations for over three-fourths of the duties it was tasked with under the 2010 Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, the most challenging ones, including proposals to enhance disclosures for companies that use conflict minerals or pay governments for access to natural gas, minerals, and oil, are still on the horizon. So is the SEC’s joint proposal with banking regulators on the Volcker rule, which exempts insurance firms from proprietary trading restrictions while preventing financial institutions and affiliated insurers from being able to invest in private equity and hedge funds. She said stated the SEC is “rethinking” how it deals with its Volcker rulemaking.

SEC Looks Likely to Win Appeal in $285M Securities Settlement that Judge Rakoff Rejected

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

In a primarily procedural decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has ruled that the Securities and Exchange Commission’s case against Citigroup, which resulted in a proposed $285M securities fred settlement, be stayed pending a joint appeal of U.S. Senior District Judge Jed Rakoff’s ruling that the civil lawsuit proceed to trial. Rakoff had rejected the settlement on the grounds that he didn’t believe that it was “adequate.” He also questioned the Commission’s practice of letting parties settle securities causes without having to admit or deny wrongdoing. The trial in SEC v. Citigroup Global Markets, Inc. had been scheduled for July 2012.

In December, the SEC filed a Notice of Appeal to the 2nd Circuit contending that the district court judge made a legal mistake in declaring an unprecedented standard that the Commission believes hurts investors by not allowing them to avail of “benefits that were immediate, substantial, and definite.” The notice also stated that it considered it incorrect for the district court to require an admission of facts or a trial as terms of condition for approving a proposed consent judgment—especially because the SEC provided Rakoff with information demonstrating the “reasoned basis” for its findings.

The 2nd circuit’s ruling deals a blow to Rakoff’s decision, which other federal judges have cited when asking if the public’s interest is being served when federal agencies propose settlements. The three-judge panel’s appellate ruling, which was a per curiam (unsigned) decision, found that the SEC and Citi would likely win their contention that Rakoff was in error when he turned down the securities settlement. The appeals court justices said that they had to defer to an executive agency’s evaluation of what is best for the public and that there was no grounds to question the SEC’s claim that the $285M securities settlement with Citigroup is in that interest.

The 2nd circuit said that Rakoff “misinterpreted” precedent related to his discretion to determine public interest and went beyond his judicial authority. Also, per the appellate panel, while district court judges should not merely rubber stamp on behalf of federal agencies it is not their job to define the latter’s policies.

It is important to note, however, that the 2nd circuit’s ruling only tackles the preliminary issue of whether the securities case should be stayed pending the completion of the appeal. The panel said it would be up to the justices that hear the appeal to resolve all matters and that this ruling should not have any “preclusive” impact. Counsel would also be appointed to argue Rakoff’s side during the appeal.

Ruling Gives Edge to U.S. in Its Appeal of Citi Case, NY Times, March 15, 2012

Second Circuit: Rakoff, Mind, Wall Street Journal, March 15, 2012

More Blog Posts:
Citigroup’s $285M Settlement With the SEC Is Turned Down by Judge Rakoff, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, November 28, 2011

Citigroup’s $285M Mortgage-Related CDO Settlement with Raises Concerns About SEC’s Enforcement Practices for Judge Rakoff, Institutional investor Securities Blog, November 9, 2011

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

Texas Securities Fraud: District Court Holds Ex-Dell Administrative Assistant and Her Stockbroker Spouse Liable for Insider Trading

Published on: March 13, 2012 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

In the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, Judge James R. Nowlin entered summary judgment against Marleen and John Jantzen. In SEC v. Jansen, the Securities and Exchange Commission had charged the couple with Texas securities fraud for using insider information about Dell Inc. to buy Perot Systems Corp. securities. Marleen is a former Dell administrative assistant. John is a registered stockbroker.

The SEC submitted the allegations against couple in October 2010 and contended that Marleen gave material, nonpublic information about Dell’s upcoming tender offer for Perot shares to her husband. The Commission claimed that on September 18, 2009, which was the final day of trading prior to the announcement of the Perot acquisition, Marleen, who was given “explicit orders” by her employer “not to trade, ” made a cash transfer to the Jantzens’ brokerage account. Within minutes of the money being moved over, John bought 24 Perot call options contracts and 500 shares of Perot common stock. He cashed in on September 21, 2009, which is the same day that Perot Systems and Dell announced the tender offer. (The stock price had immediately gone from $17.91 to $29.56, allowing the couple to make $26,920.50 in trading profits in a single day.)

According to the Court, the Jantzens violated sections 14(e) and 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rules 14e-3(a) and 10b-5 thereunder, and Marleen also violated Rule 14e-3(d). The couple is enjoined from future violations of these provisions. They must also pay $26,920.50 in ill-gotten gains, as well as prejudgment interest. The Court also found that per evidence, there was a “high degree of scienter” especially involving John, who, as a licensed securities broker, was most certainly cognizant of his actions and their meaning. The district court, however, has deferred a final ruling on the SEC’s request for monetary penalties pending further briefing by both sides.

The Jantzens are not the only ones to settle with the SEC over insider trading related to the Dell-Perot Systems deal. In 2010, Texas resident Reza Saleh agreed to give back over $8.6M in illicit profits he made after he made illegal trades in Perot Systems call options before the merger was made public.

Saleh, who used to work for companies owned by the Perot family, settled the Texas securities claim without deny or admitting to the allegations. He also consented to an SEC administrative order that says he cannot associate with any investment advisers ever again. He also agreed to a permanent enjoinment that would prevent him from violating the Securities Exchange Act of 1934’s anti-fraud provisions in the future.

COURT ENTERS SUMMARY JUDGMENT AGAINST INSIDER TRADING DEFENDANTS JOHN JANTZEN AND WIFE, MARLEEN JANTZEN, SEC, March 1, 2012

SEC settles insider trading case involving Perot acquaintance Reza Saleh, Dallas News, January 6, 2010

More Blog Posts:
Texan R. Allen Stanford Convicted on 13 Criminal Counts Over $7.2B Ponzi Fraud, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, March 7, 2012

NFA Enforcement Action Filed Naming Texas Financial Firm J Hansen Investments, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, February 26, 2012

US Sentencing Commission is Open to Public Comment on Proposed Amendments that Could Impact Insider Trading Convictions, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, February 29, 2012 Continue Reading ›

As the US House Passes Package of Bills to Open Capital Market Flow to Small Businesses, the Senate Prepares Similar Legislation

Published on: March 13, 2012 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

It’s been less than one week since US House passed a package of six bills that would open up capital flow to small businesses. Now, it is the Senate is preparing to introduce its own version of legislation to assist small businesses in raising capital. Both Republican and Democrat senators are expected to work together to push forward the bills package, which would ease up the restrictions of SEC regulations to attract investors and help out startups and small businesses.

The legislation, which made it through the House by a 390-23 vote, has President Barack Obama’s support. Called the Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act (H.R. 3606), the bills would allow crowdfunding (this involves raising capital from a bigger pool of small-scale investors that the Commission has not classified as “accredited.”), increase the shareholder reporting trigger for all community banks and companies, set up an initial public offering “on-ramp” for emerging growth companies, increase the Regulation A offering cap to $50 million, and eliminate the general solicitation ban.

The House also approved several amendments to the package. Among these was one that would up the shareholder threshold for all firms to $2,000. The original bill had only increased the threshold to 1,000. Per the amendment, only 500 shareholders under the 2,000 limit can be non-accredited. Another amendment mandates that the Securities and Exchange Commission conduct a study regarding whether it can enforce the Exchange Act’s Rule 12g5-1.

SIPC Modernization Task Force Recommends Increasing SIPA Protection Level for Failed Brokerage Firm’s Clients from $500K to $1.3M

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

The SIPC Modernization Task Force, which was created by the Securities Investor Protection Corporation, has made 15 recommendations to update SIPC and Securities Investor Protection Act provisions. Among the 15 recommendations:

• Raising coverage protection for customers of failed brokerage firms from $500K to $1.3M.
• Getting rid of the distinction between protection levels for securities and cash.
• Providing pension fund protections for participants on a pass-through basis.
• Amending the current minimum assessment to whichever is greater-a) the amount established by SIPC Bylaw to not go over 0.2% of the member’s gross revenues from the securities business or b)$1,000.
• When total amount of claims aggregates is $5 million, allowing for direct payment procedures.
• Mandating that SIPC members’ auditors submit audit report copies with SIPC.
• Affirming banks and other custodians’ duty to protect Rule 15c3-3 accounts; reaffirming that the accounts will have to contend with trustee control should the broker-dealer enter liquidation proceedings.
• Granting the same avoidance powers to the SIPA trustee and a trustee dealing with a case under the bankruptcy code.
• Continuing to allow reverse purchase agreement and repurchase related claims to be treated as general creditor claims.

SIPC’s board is now evaluating the recommendations, some of which will require congressional action (ie. rule making).

Meantime, investors of Bernie Madoff have submitted two petitions requesting that the US Supreme Court review the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit’s ruling, which upheld Irving Picard’s method of calculating “net equity” under SIPA in which customers are allowed to get back their “net equity.” However, how that amount is calculated is not specified.

Picard is the Madoff trustee and is overseeing the liquidation of the Ponzi mastermind’s brokerage firm, Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC. Contending that BLMIS created false profits, Picard Is suing “net winners” that allegedly took more money than they deposited into their accounts. The money retrieved would pay back “net losers.”

In a certiorari petition submitted on February 3, lawyers for hundreds of investors contended that the appeals court made a mistake in giving SIPA trustees “unlimited discretion” to determine “net equity” according to whatever circumstances are involved. The investors argued that SIPA defines “net equity” in a manner that mandates that SIPC insurance coverage be issued according to the amount the broker owes to customers. This figure the reflected on the last statement.

A few days later, Massachusetts School of Law Dean Lawrence Vevel, who is also an investor, filed his certiorari petition accusing the Second Circuit of disregarding congressional intent when it upheld in favor of Picard’s approach to “net equity.” He argued that Congress obviously meant to replace client securities even if the securities had never been bought.

The Madoff trustee has refused to pay back claimants according to their final BLMIS accounts. Instead, he has said that customer claims have to be based on the withdrawals and deposits that are noted in BLMIS’ books and records.

Diverse Group of Securities Experts Make Recommendations For Future of Organization, SIPC, February 21, 2012
Madoff Investors Ask High Court to Review Affirmance of Trustee’s ‘Net Equity’ Method, Bloomberg BNA, February 22, 2012

More Blog Posts:
Appeals Court affirm SEC Finding that Broker Acted “Willfully” When Keeping IRS Lien Information from FINRA, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, February 24, 2012
FINRA Says Charles Schwab Corp. is Making Customers Waive Right to Pursue Class Action Lawsuits, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, February 8, 2012
Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Ordered to Pay $1M FINRA Fine for Not Arbitrating Employee Disputes Over Retention Bonuses, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, January 6, 2012 Continue Reading ›

Look Out for Rule Recommendations on Consolidated Audit Trail, Market-Wide Circuit Breaker Changes, and Limit Up-Limit Down Mechanisms

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

Securities and Exchange Commission’s Division of Trading and Market Associate Director David Shillman reported that the staff is almost ready to recommend three market rules for adoption. He noted that the Commission would likely bundle recommendations dealing with consolidated audit trail, market-wide circuit breaker changes, and limit up-limit down mechanisms. Schillman made his comments at SEC Speaks, which was sponsored by the Practising Law Institute, on February 24.

FINRA and the national securities exchanges submitted the proposal on limit up-limit down last year. Per the proposal, trades in listed securities would need to be executed within a range connected to recent instrument prices. The limits are set up to take the place of single stock circuit breakers (pilot basis-approval was given). Shillman noted that although single stock circuit breakers “have worked relatively well,” they are a “relatively blunt instrument” and a wrong trade can happen prior to the break’s activation. Such mistakes would be avoided with limit up-limit-down.

The exchanges and FINRA also proposed to update current market-wide circuit breakers, which would tighten the trigger-window for a market-wide stoppage to a 7% index from a 10% price movement. The pause that occurs in trading would also be shortened. Meantime, in 2010, the SEC had proposed a “consolidated audit trail,” which would be a national database for capturing in real time details on the National Market System securities and listed options. The customer’s identity would be included in the data.

FINRA May Surrender Proprietary BrokerCheck Lock 1

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

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority Inc. is thinking of giving up its proprietary lock on BrokerCheck information. This would allow for greater examination of a broker’s disciplinary data, including regulatory and arbitration actions, as well as customer complaints. The SRO is currently seeking public comment on this matter through April 6.

Opening up access to BrokerCheck data would allow commercial users to make the reports, known for being pretty dense, friendlier for users. (Some people have said that the information available is “convoluted” and uses language that can be hard for an investor to comprehend.) This could help investors more easily find information about a broker. Also, vendors might be able to establish comparison data and some complaint data on the firm-level could become accessible.

Up until this point, FINRA has been protective about keeping its disciplinary information confidential. Not only has it prevented the automatic downloading of the BrokerCheck database, but also, this information has only been available through one-off data requests by individuals.

Texan R. Allen Stanford Convicted on 13 Criminal Counts Over $7.2B Ponzi Fraud

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

Nearly three years after he was indicted for defrauding investors in a $7.2 billion Ponzi scam involving certificates of deposit that are now worthless, a Houston jury has convicted R. Allen Stanford of 13 of 14 criminal counts, including fraud, conspiracy to commit money laundering, conspiracy to commit wire or mail fraud, wire fraud (from April 24, 2006, December 24, 2008, January 5, 2009, and February 12, 2009), mail fraud, and obstructing investigators. The only count jury members found him not guilty of was wire fraud (from February 2, 2006). Collectively, the Texas financier’s convictions carry prison sentences totaling up to 230 years.

Prosecutors depicted Stanford, 61, as a con man that used investors’ money to get very rich and pay for his businesses. (At one point, his net worth was over $2 billion.) They also say he bribed regulators so he could get away with his scam.

During his criminal trial, financial statements e-mails that were presented as evidence and ex-employees who testified helped paint a picture of the Texan as someone who spent 20 years defrauding investors by selling CDs through his bank in Antigua. James M. Davis, who served as former CFO for Stanford’s different companies, also was a witness for the prosecution. He stated that he and Stanford together falsified annual reports, bank records, and other documents to hide the fraud. Prosecutors contended that Stanford lied to depositors from over 100 nations by claiming that their cash was being invested in bonds, stocks, and other securities.

US Supreme Court’s Janus Ruling May Compel SEC to File More Aiding, Abetting, and Control Person Liability Securities Claims

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

According to the Securities and Exchange Commission Enforcement Division’s Chief Counsel Joseph Brennan, the US Supreme Court’s ruling in Janus Capital Group Inc. v. First Derivative Traders is impacting the types of violations the federal regulator is now filing against defendants. Brennan says to look out for more possible control person liability and aiding and abetting claims. Speaking at the SEC Speaks conference by the Practising Law Institute in Washington, Brenner said the views he was expressing are his own.

In the high court’s 2011 ruling, the decision honored, under Rule 10b-5 of the 1934 Securities Exchange Act, a narrow perspective of primary liability in a private lawsuit. The majority held that an investment adviser who was a legally separate entity from the mutual fund that submitted an allegedly prospectus couldn’t be held primarily liable in a private action even if that adviser had played a key role in developing the statement. Justice Clarence Thomas wrote that the statement’s maker is the entity or person with final authority over the statement (including its content and how it should be communicated).

The Exchange Act’s SEC Rule 10-b5(b) makes it illegal to either issue any statement of material fact that is untrue or leave out a key fact. The Supreme Court’s ruling establishes an even higher pleading bar in private securities fraud cases where the plaintiff wants to hold defendants liable for other’s misstatements.

The ruling, however, has not had a big impact on who the SEC can charge. It also hasn’t had a big influence on SEC enforcement decisions involving other statutes and provisions.

Also discussing Janus at the same gathering was SEC Deputy Solicitor John Avery. He noted while that the decision signified a significant “change” and the “narrowing” of how primary liability for issuing false or misleading statements is defined, it remains unclear whether SEC actions are covered under the ruling. While some district courts have found that Janus applies to SEC actions, federal appellate courts have not issued any decisions related to this matter.

Avery said that the ruling has, however, changed the way the SEC files charges. The federal agency, which is authorized to pursue aiders and abbettors accused of violative conduct, might now charge those that played a role in creating the statement as abbettors and aiders even though they wouldn’t be liable per Janus. However, in certain cases, this authority won’t work too well.

Meantime, federal courts are starting to deal with whether Janus is applicable beyond the context of Rule 10b-5. In four out of five SEC cases, the courts have ruled against applying Janus outside the rule.

Contact our securities fraud law firm to request your free case evaluation.

Janus Capital Group Inc. v. First Derivative Traders and the Law of Unintended Consequences, Forbes, September 21, 2011

Read the Supreme Court’s Opinion (PDF)

More Blog Posts:
Securities Fraud: Mutual Funds Investment Adviser Cannot Be Sued Over Misstatement in Prospectuses, Says US Supreme Court, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, June 16, 2011

Janus Avoids Responsibility to Mutual Fund Shareholders for Alleged Role in Widespread Market Timing Scandal, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, June 11, 2007