Investor Lawyers Blog

Winell Associates Inc., Maxi Partners GP, and Howard Winell Settle CTFC Charges Accusing Them of Misappropriating Funds and Unauthorized Trading of Over $5.2M

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

Howard Winell, Winell Associates Inc., and Maxie Partners GP LLC have agreed to pay over $5.2 million to settle Commodity Futures Trading Commission charges accusing them of taking part in unauthorized trading and misappropriating funds related to a commodity futures and options pool. By settling, the respondents are not denying or admitting the allegations. They have, however, agreed to a permanent ban from both trading and registering with the CFTC.

The agency says that in 2005, Winell and the two firms solicited and pooled about $20 million from approximately 25 participants to trade commodity futures and options on commodity futures through Maxie Partners LP, which is a commodity pool. In May 2007, one of the largest participants in the pool asked to redeem about $7 million. The agency says that while the respondents segregated that amount to meet this request, before the redemption was issued the pool suffered substantial losses and had margin calls of about $4 million issued by futures commission merchants that held the pool’s trading accounts. The CFTC says that to keep on trading and meet the margin calls, Winell had to transfer those segregated funds back to the pool’s trading accounts. About $3.8 million of the participant’s money was lost.

It is wrong for brokers and financial advisers to misappropriate funds when doing their job. If you believe that you have suffered financial losses because of broker misconduct, do not hesitate to contact our stockbroker fraud lawyers immediately.

Related Web Resources:
Howard Winell and Winell Associates fined USD5.2m for fraud, HedgeWeek, May 3, 2011
CFTC Sanctions New York Resident Howard Winell and His Companies, Winell Associates, Inc., and Maxie Partners GP, LLC, More than $5.2 Million for Fraud, CFTC, May 2, 2011
Commodity Futures Trading Commission

More Blog Posts:
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
Commodities Industry Fears being held to Regulatory Standards of Securities Industry, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, February 4, 2011
CFTC Files Charges in Alleged California Ponzi Scam Involving the Fraudulent Solicitation of $14 million in Commodity Futures, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, January 18, 2011 Continue Reading ›

Court Refuses McGinn Smith & Co. Owners’s Request that It Stay the FINRA Disciplinary Proceedings Until The Related SEC Civil Action Against Them Ends

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

A district court has denied the bids of Timothy McGinn and David Smith that the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority disciplinary proceedings against them be stayed until after the conclusion of the Securities and Exchange Commission’s related civil action. Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia said the court doesn’t have jurisdiction over this stay request. While noting that the judicial review of this type of FINRA proceeding is vested in the federal courts of appeal, the district court said that it did not believe that transfer, rather than dismissal, was “in the interest of justice” because the plaintiffs were not likely to succeed on their claim’s merit and had not shown that they would be irreparably harmed because of the FINRA proceedings.

McGinn and Smith are part owners of McGinn Smith & Co, Inc., as well as stockbrokers. Last year, FINRA’s Department of Enforcement submitted a complaint accusing them and their firm of taking part in four fraudulent securities offerings between September 2003 and November 2006. FINRA asked the SEC to look into the matter because it believed that the plaintiffs had violated securities law.

The SEC began its own formal probe and went on to sue the plaintiffs and their securities firm for securities fraud and other violations. A receiver was appointed by the federal court to seize control of McGinn Smith & Co. and its assets.

While a FINRA officer did stay proceedings against the financial firm, it refused to do so against the two men, who then filed their case requesting that the court stay the FINRA proceedings until the SEC case has concluded. The plaintiffs believe that the SRO violated their constitutional rights when it acted as a proxy for the SEC.

SEC seeks shutdown of McGinn and Smith venture, TimesUnion.com, November 4, 2010

More Blog Posts:

Wells Fargo Advisors LLC Agrees to $1 Million FINRA Fine for Securities Charges Related to Mutual Fund Prospectus Delivery, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, May 12, 2011

Day Trader Pleads Guilty to Securities Fraud Charges Related to Insider Trading Scam

Published on: May 25, 2011 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Day trader Daniel Corbin has pleaded guilty to a securities fraud charge accusing him of conspiring to make illegal trades based on confidential tips from the wife of an ex-Lehman Brothers salesman. He was one of five people indicted over this insider trading scam in 2008 and the last to plead guilty.

Corbin says that it was his partner, Jamil Bouchareb, who gained access to the material non-public information about Veritas DGC Inc. The information came from ex-Lehman Brothers salesman Matthew Devlin whose wife Nina Devlin worked at the public relations company Brunswick Group LLC at the time and had access to information about mergers and other deals. Devlin gave away that information without her consent.

Following the insider tip, Corbin and Bouchareb used their joint account to purchase 2,500 shares of the company on September 1, 2006. On September 5, 2006, Compagnie Generale de Geophysique SA purchased Veritas DGC. Corbin and Bouchareb made a $16,000 profit from the trade.

Goldman Sachs and Wells Fargo Investments Repurchase $26.9M in Auction-Rate Securities from New Jersey Investors

Published on: May 25, 2011 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

According to the New Jersey Bureau of Securities, Wells Fargo Investments Inc. (WFC) and Goldman Sachs & Co. (GS) has repurchased $26.9 million in ARS tosettle securities allegations that they sold auction-rate securities to New Jersey investors without disclosing the risks involved. Goldman bought back $25.5 million in ARS (it will also pay a $959,794 civil penalty), while Wells Fargo Investments repurchased $1.37 million in ARS.

The Bureau says that Goldman Sachs did not properly supervise and train its salespeople to make sure that all of its clients knew of the mechanics involved in the auction market and that the ARS could become illiquid. The financial firm also is accused of failing to disclose to investors the risks involved in buying or owning ARS even as it was becoming aware that the market was in trouble. The Bureau also accused Wells Fargo Investments of not properly supervising or training its agents that marketed the securities.

The two Consent Orders against Goldman Sachs and Wells Fargo Investments are the 11th and 12th that the state’s Bureau of Securities has reached with financial firms over ARS that were sold to investors in New Jersey. As part of the settlements, several firms that sold and marketed ARS have offered to buy back $2.8 billion of these securities.

It was in 2008 that state offices started getting complaints from investors about problems related to ARS investments. New Jersey was one of the 12 states that became part of a task force that looked into whether financial firms misled investors that bought ARS, which were sold and marketed as liquid, safe, and like cash. When the ARS market did fail, many investors were unable to access their money as the securities became illiquid.

New Jersey Bureau of Securities

More Blog Posts:
Anschutz Corp.’s Securities Fraud Lawsuit Against Deutsche Bank and Credit Rating Agencies Over Their Alleged Mishandling of Auction-Rate Securities Can Proceed, Says District Court, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, April 21, 2011

Akamai Technologies Inc’s ARS Lawsuit Against Deutsche Bank Can Proceed, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, March 4, 2011

Auction-Rate Securities Investigations by SEC and NY Attorney General Are Ongoing, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, April 21, 2011

SEC to Up Dollar Thresholds for When an Investment Adviser Can Charge Investors Performance Fees

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

The Securities and Exchange Commission says it will raise the dollar thresholds that would need to be met before an investment adviser can charge a client a performance fee. The monetary thresholds are related to two tests under the 1940 Investment Advisers Act that let investment advisers charge performance-based fees to “qualified clients.”

Under the Act’s Rule 205-3, advisers can charge performance fees in certain circumstances: The investment adviser needs to be managing at least $750,000 for the client or the advisers must reasonably believe that the client’s net worth is over $1.5 million. Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas LTD LLP founder and securities fraud lawyer William Shepherd says, “Sharing in performance is dangerous because the advisors can afford to take large risks with ‘other people’s money’ – risks that the investor may not be able to afford. A combined life savings of $750,000 is not a large sum for retirees, and what does it even mean to ‘reasonably believe’ someone has a net worth of $1.5 million?”

The SEC says that now it will issue an order to revise rule 205-3’s dollar amount tests to $1 million for assets under management and $2 million for net worth. It also proposed amendments to the rule, including:

• Excluding the individual’s primary residence when determining net worth.
• Providing a method to figure out future inflation adjustments of the dollar amount tests.
• Modifying the rule’s transition provisions to factor in account performance fee arrangements that were allowed when the client and the adviser entered into their contract.

Under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act’s Section 418, the SEC has until July 21, 2011 to adjust for inflation the dollar amount tests under Rule 205-3 of this year and after every five years from then on. The act has also directed the SEC to adjust under 1933 Securities Act the net worth standard of an “accredited investor” so that it doesn’t include that individual’s primary residence.

Related Web Resources:
SEC Issues Notice of Plan to Adjust Adviser Performance Fee Dollar Thresholds, BNA Securities Law Daily, May 13, 2011
SEC Publishes Notice Regarding Inflation Indexing of Performance Fee Rule, SEC.gov, May 10, 2011
1940 Investment Advisers Act

More Blog Posts:
Investments Advisers Told to Look at Recent SEC Enforcement Actions When Preparing for Exams, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, April 20, 2011
No Need for New SRO Overseeing Investment Advisers, Says NASAA Official to Congress, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, April 10, 2011
SEC Extends Temporary Rule Allowing Principal Trades by Investment Advisers Registered as Broker-Dealers, Institutional Investor Securities Fraud Blog, January 13, 2011 Continue Reading ›

SEC Has Lax Revolving Door Policy, Says POGO

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

According to the Project on Government Oversight, the Securities and Exchange Commission has too loose of a revolving-door policy. The independent nonprofit issued a report early this month and is calling on the agency and Congress to “strengthen and simplify” restrictions post-employment.

POGO says that even though the SEC appears to have strict restrictions when it comes to former employees representing entities that the Commission oversees, many ex-employees can start representing clients within days of resigning from the SEC as long as they submit a post-employment statement.

POGO says it reviewed five years of post-employment statements submitted by ex-SEC employees who wanted to represent a client within two years of resigning from the federal agency. Between 2006 and 2010, 789 ex-employees filed post-employment statements noting their plans to represent an outside client before the SEC. 131 employers were named on these statements. The firms that recruited the most ex-SEC employees during this time were ACA Compliance Group, Deloitte & Touche LLP, Ernst & Young, O’Melveny & Myers, LLP, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr, LLP, DLA Piper, KPMG, LLP, Morrison & Foerster, LLP, FTI Consulting, Inc., Kirkpatrick & Lockhart Preston Gates Ellis, LLP, and Sidley Austin, LLP.

In addition to simplifying and strengthening post employment restrictions, POGO says that SEC and Congress need to:

• Verify the accuracy and completeness of the statements.
• Allow post-employment statements to be made publicly accessible online.
• Publicly disclose the commission’s ethics waivers and recusal database
• Utilize and strengthen ethics enforcement authority.
• Review confidential treatment procedures and Freedom of Information Act Exemptions.
• Make post-employment restrictions also applicable to other financial regulators.

Our securities fraud attorneys represent institutional investors in the US and abroad.

More Blog Posts:

SEC to Up Dollar Thresholds for When an Investment Adviser Can Charge Investors Performance Fees, Stokbroker Fraud Blog, May 24, 2011

Texas Securities Commissioner’s Emergency Cease and Decease Order Accuses Insignia Energy Group Inc. of Misleading Teachers

Published on: May 23, 2011 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

According to the Texas State Securities Board, Insignia Energy Group Inc. and its affiliate IEG Permian Basin LLC have violated state law because they are not registered to sell Texas securities. The Texas Securities Commissioner, which is accusing the Dallas-area emergency company of targeting laid-off teachers in the fraudulent sale of gas and oil interests, has put out an emergency cease and desist order against Insignia. The state is also accusing both companies of issuing misleading statements to potential investors.

Per the order, Insignia and IEG must cease from selling securities until they are registered with the state of Texas. The securities board is also is asking for the cessation of deceptive statements.

The state contends that Insignia is telling Texas school workers, including retired and current teachers, that investing in the oil and gas interests will “replace” income during a period of impending layoffs. Insignia is also allegedly encouraging these potential investors to spend their retirement money on these supposedly “safe” investments that the state’s securities commissioner says are actually very risky.

These prospective clients were offered interests in the Sabine Partnership, which is supposed to develop well prospects in Louisiana. The investors were to receive limited partnership interests that are the equivalent of 10% of the underlying working interest, as well as 7.3% of the underlying net revenue interest in the partnership. The order says that Insignia is claiming that investors who put in $21K will get at least $5K in returns a month, while those who put in $45K will get back a minimum of $15K monthly.

Our Texas securities fraud lawyers are here to help investors recoup their losses.

Related Web Resources:
Energy company targeting teachers in scam, Texas officials say, Yahoo/Reuters, May 16, 2011
Hot air? Oil and gas company allegedly misled teachers, Investment News, May 16, 2011

More Blog Posts:
“Loser Pays” in Texas: A Very Bad Bill for 99% of Republicans!, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, May 17, 2011
Texas-Based AIG’s Largest Private Shareholder Says US Will Likely Sell Its Shares in the Insurer At Lower Price than Expected, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, May 13, 2011
Whistleblower Lawsuit Claims Taxpayers Were Defrauded When Federal Government Bailed Out Houston-Based American International Group in 2008, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, May 5, 2011 Continue Reading ›

Five Ex-Brooke Executive Settle SEC Fraud Charges Accusing Them of Concealing Financial Firm’s Deteriorating Finances

Published on: May 19, 2011 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Five of the six former Brooke executives accused of securities fraud have settled the charges filed by the US Securities and Exchange Commission. According to the SEC, the defendants misrepresented the deteriorating financial condition of Brooke, which eventually filed for bankruptcy. The agency says they employed “virtually any means necessary” to hide Brooke’s financial state, which included liquidity crises that occurred almost every week. The SEC also contends that Aleritas’s loan losses, which was in the hundreds of millions of dollars, caused a number of regional banks to fail.

Among those that settled are brother Robert and Leland Orr. Robert formerly served as Brooke Corp. chairman, while Leland was chief executive. The other three who settled were former Aleritas executives Michael S. Lowry and Michael S. Hess and former Brooke Capital and Brooke Corp. CFO Travis W. Vrbas. A sixth executive, former Brooke executive Kyle Garst, is contesting the securities fraud allegations.

By agreeing to settle the ex-Brooke executives are not admitting to or denying the allegations. The Orr brothers have consented to disgorge profit and pay fines, but the court has yet to determine the figures. Lowry has agreed to $214,500 in disgorgement, $24,004 in prejudgment interest, and a $175,000 penalty. Hess is to pay a $250,000 penalty. Vrbas has consented to a $130,000 penalty.

The SEC has also accused two Brooke affiliates, insurance agency franchisor Brooke Capital Corp. and lender Aleritas Capital Corp., of securities fraud. The fallout from the alleged fraud has had a “devastating” effect on the livelihood of “hundreds of insurance franchisees.”

Related Web Resources:
Five former Brooke execs settle SEC fraud charges, Reuters, May 4, 2011
Financial Firm Execs Misled Investors,  SEC Contends; Five of Six Settle Charges, BNA Securities Law Daily, May 5, 2011

More Blog Posts:
SEC ALJ Finds Several Brokers Liable for Unlawful Penny Stock Sales, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, May 9, 2011
Texas-Based AIG’s Largest Private Shareholder Says US Will Likely Sell Its Shares in the Insurer At Lower Price than Expected, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, May 13, 2011
Securities Practices of JPMorgan Chase & Goldman Sachs Under Investigation by Federal Investigators, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, May 19, 2011 Continue Reading ›

Securities Practices of JPMorgan Chase & Goldman Sachs Under Investigation by Federal Investigators

Published on: May 19, 2011 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Federal investigators are taking an even closer took at the securities-related practices of JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPM) and Goldman Sachs Group Inc. (GS ). In a May 6 Filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission, JPMorgan reported that an investigation into its municipal derivatives securities practices is being conducted by the SEC, the US Justice Department, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the Internal Revenue Service, and a number of state attorneys general. The investment bank and Bear Stearns are under investigation for possible tax, antitrust, and securities-related violations related to “the sale or bidding of guaranteed investment contracts and derivatives to municipal issuers.” The SEC’s Philadelphia office is recommending that the commission file civil charges against JPMorgan.

Meantime, in its May 9 filing to the SEC Goldman Sachs revealed that the Commodity Futures Trading Commission is looking at the clearing-services practices that Goldman subsidiary Goldman Sachs Execution and Clearing LP provided to a broker-dealer. Goldman is also being investigated by the Justice Department over matters “similar” to a European Commission probe into anti-competitive practices involving credit default swap transactions.

Goldman’s filing notes that CFTC staffers verbally notified GSEC that it will recommend that the commission bring charges related to supervision, aiding and abetting, and civil fraud over the financial firm providing a broker-dealer client with clearing services. The charges are being recommended because of allegations that GSEC knew or should have known that subaccounts belonged to the broker-dealer’s customers and were not the client’s “proprietary accounts.”

Related Web Resources:

Wall Street inquiry expands beyond Goldman Sachs, Los Angeles Times, May 14, 2011

Office of the Comptroller of the Currency

Commodity Futures Trading Commission

More Blog Posts:

Motion for Class Certification in Lawsuit Against J.P. Morgan Securities Inc. Over Alleged Market Manipulation Scam Granted in Part by Court, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, July 23, 2010

Ambac Financial Group, Insurers, and Bank Underwriters to Pay $33M to Settle Securities Lawsuits Alleging Concealed Risks Related to its Bond-Insurance Business

Published on: May 18, 2011 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Ambac Financial Group Inc. (ABKFQ), a number of its bank underwriters, and its insurers will pay $33 million to settle securities lawsuits accusing the bond insurer of concealing the risks it engaged in when it guaranteed risky mortgage debt. Ambac will pay $2.5 million, four insurance companies will pay $24.5 million, and the banks that will pay $5.9 million include Citigroup Inc. (C), Goldman Sachs Group Inc. (GS), UBS AG (UBS), J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. (JPM), Merrill Lynch Pierce Fenner & Smith Inc. (now part of Bank of America Corp. (BAC)), HSBC Holdings PLC (HBC), and the former Wachovia, (now part of Wells Fargo & Co. ( WFC)). A federal court has to approve the proposed settlement. The lead plaintiffs of the securities fraud case are The Public Employees’ Retirement System of Mississippi, the Public School Teachers’ Pension and Retirement Fund of Chicago, and the Arkansas Teachers Retirement System. The investors covered those that purchased Ambac stock and bonds between October 25, 2006 and April 22, 2008.

It was in 2008 that the housing market crisis revealed the trouble that Ambac, an insurer of instruments related to risky mortgages, was in. Investors had accused Ambac of both giving misleading information to the market to inflate the prices of its securities and concealing the full scope of its involvement in the subprime loan debacle. They claim that the bond insurer and its officials made it appear as if the company was only insuring the transactions that were “safest,” when it was actually looking to profit by guaranteeing billions in high risk collateralized debt obligations and residential mortgage debt, as well as writing credit default swaps to protect investors in the debt against default.

Documents filed in the US Bankruptcy Court in Manhattan reports that the holding company in bankruptcy has $1.6 billion in unresolved debts. Financial guarantee insurer Ambac Assurance Corp., which is its chief asset, has $300 billion in potential exposure.

Related Web Resources:
Ambac, banks settle investor suits for $33 mln, Reuters, May 6, 2011
Ambac Financial In $27.1M Deal To Settle Securities Lawsuits, Dow Jones, May 9, 2011
The Public Employees’ Retirement System of Mississippi

Public School Teachers’ Pension and Retirement Fund of Chicago

Arkansas Teachers Retirement System

More Blog Posts:
Insurer Claims that JP Morgan and Bear Stearns Bilked Clients Of Billions of Dollars with Handling of Mortgage Repurchases, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, February 3, 2011
SEC to Examine Muni Bond Market Issues During Hearings in Texas and Other States, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, February 9, 2011
SEC to Examine Muni Bond Market Issues During Hearings in Texas and Other States, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, February 9, 2011 Continue Reading ›