Investor Lawyers Blog

Investor Complains to FINRA About Behringer Harvard Holdings, LLC-Related Real Estate Investment Losses

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

According to Investment News, an investor has written to FINRA to express her concerns about Behringer Harvard Holdings, LLC. D. Gayle Salyer says that within six years, the $50,000 that she invested in a real estate fund with them has decreased by $48,000. She has also written to the Texas State Securities Board to voice her concerns.

The real estate firm recently saw a number of its real estate funds and REITs drop in their estimated valuations. For example, ending last month the Behringer Harvard Short-Term Opportunity Fund I LP investors saw the fund’s valuation plunge to 40¢/share. Compare that to two years before when its valuation was $6.48/share. The fund used to have approximately $130 million in assets.

Salyer expressed dismay about the inadequate communication that she says she received from the real estate company regarding her losses. She claims that while the losses were recorded in her account statement, she was never given an explanation or warned that there was financial trouble.

Bob Aisner, who is Behringer’s CEO, has said that the Short-Term Opportunity Fund uses SEC filings and regular reports to make information available to the public. He noted that since the fund’s inception, investors have received $2.12/unit in total distributions. He also said that the fund got into trouble because of investments that were made in condominiums prior to the recession and due to the lack ability of financing for opportunistic assets in recent years. Aisner maintained that Behringher has been dedicated to the fund’s success, as can be seen by the $40 million in support it won’t be getting back.

FINRA has put out a proposed amendment about the valuation of illiquid investments. The revised rule would restrict for how long the initial, estimated value could be applied on the account statement of clients. It also would mandate that broker-dealers subtract the offering costs from that first valuation.

At Shepherd Smith Edwards and Kantas, LTD, LLP, our team of lawyers, consultants, and others has over a century’s worth of combined experience in securities law and the securities industry. For over two decades we have represented thousands of investors throughout the US in arbitration and in state and Federal courts.

Our clients have collectively gotten back over $100 million. Over 90% of the parties that we have represented have gotten back either part or all of their financial losses. Our securities fraud law firm also represents international clients.

Behringer Harvard client wants answers after seeing fund drop by 96%, Investment News, January 24, 2012

Real Estate Investment Trusts, Investopedia

More Blog Posts:
David Lerner & Associates Ignored Suitability of REITs When Recommending to Investors, Claims FINRA, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, June 8, 2011

Ameriprise Must Pay $17 Million for REIT Fraud, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, July 12, 2009

Jury Trial Begins in Ponzi Scammer Allen Stanford’s Criminal Case

Published on: January 23, 2012 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Two-and-a-half years after he was arrested for allegedly running a $7 billion Ponzi scam, the criminal trial of Allen Stanford has begun. The Texas financier is charged with 14 counts of fraud, conspiracy to commit money laundering, and conspiracy. He denies any wrongdoing.

Stanford is accused of issuing $7 billion in fraudulent CDs through his Antigua-based Stanford International Bank to investors in over a hundred nations. He then allegedly defrauded them.

Even since his arrest these investors have not recovered any of their money. According to Reuters, a guilty conviction won’t necessarily help his Ponzi victims recoup their losses. Hopefully, however, the Securities and Exchange Commission’s lawsuit against the Securities Investor Protection Corp. will remedy this.

Unsealed Documents in $54.4M FINRA Arbitration Case Reveal that Citigroup Did Not Disclose Municipal Bond Risks to Investors

Published on: January 21, 2012 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Last month, a US judge refused Citigroup‘s request to overturn a $54.1M arbitration award that a Financial Industry Regulatory Authority arbitration panel had ordered the financial firm to pay investors Gerald D. Hosier, Jerry Murdock Jr. and Brush Creek Capital. The award was the largest amount ever granted to individuals in a securities arbitration proceeding.

Following Citigroup’s request that a United States district court toss out the award, details from what were confidential proceedings have been unsealed. According to the New York Times, documents viewed by the arbitrators show that on a scale of 1 to 5, with 5 signifying the highest risk (usually only assigned to products that potentially carried the risk of an investor losing everything), Citigroup rated these investments as having a 5 rating for risk. Is it no wonder then that investors could and would go on to lose 80% of what they had investments.

The investments, which were municipal arbitrage portfolios, are known as ASTA/MAT. Citigroup Global Markets sold them through MAT Finance LLC.

Per internal e-mails, after the investments began declining in value in early 2008, when Citigroup wealth management head Sallie Krawcheck asked for the MAT’s risk rating,” She was told that it was “3-5.” Also, customers were never told about the 5 rating that their investments were previously given. The Times also reported that during a conference call involving brokers whose clients had sustained losses, the portfolio manager was directed to not discuss internal guidelines, which contained different information than what was in the prospectus that investors had received.

Citigroup eventually would offer to buy back the investments at a discount price but only if investors agreed to not file a securities fraud lawsuit against the financial firm. (Brokers have said they felt pressured by Citigroup to get investors on board with this. For example, a memo with the heading “Fund Rescue Options “noted that if the broker’s client let Citigroup repurchase the instruments, this would not be noted in his/her U-5 regulatory record. If, however, the client chose to sue, then this would appear in the broker’s U-5.)

In their securities fraud case, Claimants accused Citigroup of failure to supervise, fraud, and unsuitability. After the FINRA arbitration panel ordered them to pay the investors, Citigroup argued that panel members had ignored the law and contended that despite verbal statements made to investors, the latter had signed agreements acknowledging that the risk of losing everything was a possibility. Judge Christine Arguello would go on to affirm the FINRA panel’s decision. While the majority of the award was compensation for the claimants’ investment losses, about $17 million was for punitive damages.

Secrets of a Sales Machine, NY Times, January 14, 2012
Citigroup Slammed With $54 Million Award by FINRA Arbitrators in MAT/ASTA Case, Forbes, April 12, 2011

More Blog Posts:
Citigroup Request to Overturn $54.1M Municipal Bond Arbitration Ruling Denied by Judge, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, December 27, 2011
Citigroup Global Markets Settles for $725,000 FINRA Fine Over Failure to Disclose Conflicts of Interest, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, January 20, 2012
Citigroup Global Markets Inc. Sues Two Saudi Investors in an Attempt to Block Their FINRA Arbitration Claim Over $383M in Losses, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, October 22, 2012 Continue Reading ›

Citigroup Global Markets Settles for $725,000 FINRA Fine Over Failure to Disclose Conflicts of Interest

Published on: January 20, 2012 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

FINRA says that Citigroup Global Markets will pay a fine of $725K for not disclosing specific conflicts of interest during public appearances made by research analysts and in research reports. By settling, Citigroup is not denying or admitting to the charges although it has, however, consented to an entry of the findings.

According to the SRO, in research reports published between 1/07 and 3/10, the financial firm did not disclose possible conflicts of interest that existed in certain business connections, including the facts that the financial firm and its affiliates:
• Received revenue or investment banking from certain companies • Had an at least 1% or more ownership in companies that were covered • Managed public securities offerings • Made a market in certain covered companies’ securities
Also, FINRA says that Citigroup research analysts did not reveal these same conflicts when bringing up the covered companies during public appearances.

As a result of these alleged failures to disclose, FINRA contends that Citigroup kept investors from knowing of possible biases in the research recommendations that it made. FINRA says that such disclosures are essential in order to make sure that investors are given all of the information they need when making decisions about investments.

The SRO said that the reason Citigroup did not provide the required information is that the database for identifying and creating disclosures experienced technical difficulties and/or was inaccurate. FINRA also cites a lack of proper supervisory procedures that could have prevented such inaccuracies and disclosure failures. However, Citigroup did self-report a number of the deficiencies and has taken remedial steps to remedy them.

A financial firm can be held liable when failure to disclose key facts about an investment leads to an investor sustaining financial losses. In many instances, such omissions are made to hide or diminish the risk involved in the investment. While some omissions are intentional, others can occur due to inadequate supervision or the lack of proper systems and procedures to make sure such failures to disclose don’t happen.

It is a broker’s obligation to fairly disclose all the risks involved in a potential investment. (Misrepresenting material facts is another way that risks are concealed and investors end up losing money.

It doesn’t matter whether malicious intent was involved. If a broker-dealer concealed OR failed to disclose key information related to your investment and you suffered financial losses on your investment, you may have a securities fraud case on your hands that could allow you to recover your losses.

Citi settles with Finra over alleged conflicts at its brokerage, Investment News, January 20, 2012
Finra Fines Citigroup $725,000 For Alleged Research Violations, The Wall Street Journal, January 18, 2012
Financial Industry Regulatory Authority

More Blog Posts:
Citigroup’s $285M Settlement With the SEC Is Turned Down by Judge Rakoff, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, November 28, 2011
Citigroup Global Markets Inc. Sues Two Saudi Investors in an Attempt to Block Their FINRA Arbitration Claim Over $383M in Losses, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, October 22, 2011
Securities Fraud Lawsuit Against Citigroup Involving Mortgage-Related Risk Results in Mixed Ruling, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, November 30, 2010 Continue Reading ›

TD Bank Ordered to Pay Texas-Based Coquina Investments $67M Over $1.2 Billion Ponzi Scheme

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

A jury has decided than TD Bank must pay Coquina Investments $67M for playing an assisting role in attorney Scott Rothstein’s $1.2 billion Ponzi scam. Coquina Investments is located in Corpus Christi, Texas. TD Bank is the US arm of Toronto-Dominion Bank.

The Texas securities lawsuit, filed by Coquina, contends that TD Bank officers had an “active role” in the Ponzi scam. They allegedly helped keep the fraud going by meeting with victims to make it appear as if legitimate business was actually taking place. For example, investors would meet with Frank Spinosa, who was then a TD Bank vice president.

Rothstein would tell investors that they were purchasing stakes in settlements involving sexual and employment discrimination cases that his law firm Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler, PA had already gathered evidence for or confronted potential defendants. Apparently, the cases and the settlements were all bogus.

UBS Global Asset Management to Pay $300,000 to Settle SEC Charges Related to Alleged Mutual Fund Price Violations

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

The Securities and Exchange Commission says that UBS Global Asset Management will pay $300,000 to resolve charges that it did not give securities in three mutual fund portfolios the proper price. This alleged failure caused investors to receive a misstatement regarding the funds’ net asset values. By agreeing to settle the charges, UBSGAM is not admitting to or denying the findings.

The SEC start investigating UBSGAM after SEC examiners conducted a routine check of the financial firm. According to its order, in 2008 UBSGAM bought about 54-complex fixed-income securities of $22 million, which was an aggregate purchase price. The majority of the securities were part of subordinated tranches of nonagency MBS with underlying collateral, which were were mortgages that weren’t in compliance with requirements to be part of MBS-guaranteed or to have been issued by Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, or Ginnie Mae. CDO’s and asset-backed securities were among these securities.

After the securities were bought, 48 of them were priced substantially over the transaction price. This is because the pricing sources that provided the valuations to UBSGAM didn’t appear to factor in the price that the funds paid for the securities. Some quotations were not priced on a daily basis, while others were formulated using ending price from the last month. It wasn’t until over 2 weeks after UBSGAM started getting price-tolerant reports pointing out such discrepancies that it’s Global Valuation Committee finally met.

By using the prices that the 3rd party pricing service or a broker-dealer provided, the SEC contends that the mutual funds did not abide by their own valuation procedures, which mandate that the securities use the transaction price value until the financial firm makes a fair value determination or gets a response to a price challenge based on the discrepancy noted in the price tolerance report. The transaction price can be used for 5 business days, when a decision would have to be made on the fair value. The SEC concluded that by not making sure that these procedures were being followed, the financial firm caused the mutual funds to violate the Investment Company Act’s Rule 38a-1.

The SEC also determined that due to the securities not being timely or properly priced at fair value for a number of days in 2008, the funds were misstated (up to 10 cents in some cases) and they were then purchased, sold, or redeemed based on NAVs that were not accurate and higher than they should have been.

Read the SEC’s Order Against UBS (PDF)

More Blog Posts:
SIFMA Wants FINRA to Take Tougher Actions Against Brokers that Don’t Repay Promissory Notes, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, January 17, 2012

Raymond James Financial to Buy Morgan Keegan from Regions Financial for $930 Million, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, January 14, 2012

$78M Insider Trading Scam: “Operation Perfect Hedge” Leads to Criminal Charges for Seven Financial Industry Professionals, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, January 18, 2012

$78M Insider Trading Scam: “Operation Perfect Hedge” Leads to Criminal Charges for Seven Financial Industry Professionals

Published on: January 18, 2012 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Criminal charges have been filed against seven men over their alleged involvement in a $78 million insider trading scam. More arrests stemming from “Operation Perfect Hedge,” conducted by the US Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation, are likely. US Attorney for the Southern District of New York Preet Bharara has described the defendants as friends that established a criminal club with the intent of making a profit.

According to the criminal complaint, four of the men were charged with conspiracy to commit securities fraud and conspiracy fraud. The co-conspirators allegedly made close to $78 million. $61.8 million in illegal profits was trades between 2008 and 2009 involving a single stock, and $15.7 million was from Nvidia Corp.-related trades.

High-level executives at some of the country’s largest hedge funds were involved. One of the people arrested was Anthony Chiasson, who co-founded Level Global Investors. Because of insider information that a hedge fund analyst allegedly gave him about a soon-to-be issued announcement regarding Dell Inc.’s 2008 earnings for the first two quarters, he and others at the hedge fund were able to earn about $57 million in illegal trading profits. (The $53 million that Chiasson is accused of pocketing is the largest single illegal trade to be ever cited in a criminal case in Manhattan federal court.)

The insider tip on Dell’s earnings also led to $1M in illegal profits for another hedge fund and $3.8 million at a third one. Meantime, an investment firm was able to use the insider information to prevent about $78,000 in financial losses.

Also arrested were Sigma Capital Management analyst Jon Horvath, hedge fund portfolio manager Todd Newman, who used to work at Diamondback Capital Management LLC, and analyst Danny Kuo. Sandeep Goyal, who is a former Dell employee, has already pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit securities fraud and securities fraud. He had gotten the insider information from other Dell employees after he started working at a global asset management firm as an associate analyst. According to authorities, a hedge fund even paid Goyal $175,000 for insider information about Dell.

Two people identified as co-conspirators were Jesse Tortora, who allegedly used tip information from Goyal to tip others and Spyridon (Sam) Adondaki, the Level Global Investors analyst who is accused of tipping Chiasson, who was his manager.
In the past few years, the government has taken more aggressive measures to fight insider trading. These latest arrests raise the number of people arrested in its recent crackdown to 63. 56 convictions have resulted thus far.

‘Corruption on grand scale’ in insider trading case, CNN, January 18, 2012
7 charged in $78M record-setting inside trade case, Fox News/AP, January 18, 2012

More Blog Posts:
Texas Securities Fraud: SEC Charges Life Partners Holdings Inc. in Life Settlement Scam, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, January 4, 2012
Hedge Fund Manager Raj Rajaratnam Ordered by SEC to Pay $92.8M Penalty for Insider Trading, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, November 12, 2011
Insider Trading: Former FrontPoint Partners Hedge Fund Manager Pleads Guilty to Criminal Charges, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, August 20, 2011 Continue Reading ›

SIFMA Wants FINRA to Take Tougher Actions Against Brokers that Don’t Repay Promissory Notes

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

The Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association wants the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority Inc. to prevent brokers from being able to plead poverty to escape arbitration payment orders. The promissory notes provide money for retention and recruiting incentives, and as long as a broker agrees to stay with a financial firm for an agreed up on time, they are structured as forgivable notes.

Many brokers obtained such deals following the economic crisis. Since then, financial firms have gotten more active about submitting arbitration claims to get brokers to pay them back. In 2011 alone, 778 promissory note cases were filed. 1,152 such cases were filed the year before. In most cases, it is the financial firm that ends up winning.

When a broker won’t pay an arbitration award, FINRA files an action against him/her that could lead to suspension. However, if the broker demonstrates that he/she can’t pay it, then suspension may be avoided.

Many SIFMA members believe that FINRA should take more aggressive measures to get brokers to pay up. The trade group wants the SRO to prevent brokers from being able to claim that they cannot pay when slapped with a case from an industry claimant.
Such a move would likely mean that if a broker were unable to repay a promissory note, he/she would likely be suspended or have to file for bankruptcy. SIFMA also wants enhanced disclosure of awards that brokers don’t pay, because it believes that the consequence of having this failure made public is incentive for the broker to make good on the matter.

In a letter to FINRA that it sent last November, SIFMA voiced members’ concerns that the inability-to-pay defense was being abused and that not only was this resulting in compliance and regulatory risks, but also it was creating an unnecessary risk to investors. SIFMA claimed that FINRA Rule 9554 discriminates against industry claimants, who aren’t given the same protections as customer claimants, who don’t have to contend with the inability-to-pay defense from a broker. The trade organization noted that the Securities and Exchange Commission obligates FINRA to take appropriate disciplinary action against defendants that use this defense in bad faith.

SIFMA, Finra clash over deadbeat brokers, Investment News, January 15, 2012

FINRA Rules

Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association

More Blog Posts:
SIFMA Offers Up Best Practices for How Financial Firms Can Interact with Expert Networks, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, October 16, 2011

SEC and SIFMA Divided Over Whether Merrill Lynch Can Be Held Liable for Alleged ARS Market Manipulation, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, July 29, 2011

Micah S. Green, Expected New CEO of Largest Securities Industry Group, Resigns During Scandal, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, May 18, 2007

Raymond James Financial to Buy Morgan Keegan from Regions Financial for $930 Million

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

This week, Regions Financial Corp. (NYSE: RF) issued a statement announcing that Raymond James Financial Inc. (RJF) will be paying it $930 million to purchase Morgan Keegan & Company, Inc. and related affiliates in a stock purchase agreement. (Regions Morgan Keegan Trust and Morgan Asset Management, however, are not part of the sale.) Prior to closing, Morgan Keegan will pay Regions $250 million. This agreement, of course, will have to receiver regulatory approvals and meet closing conditions.

Also per the agreement:
• For all litigation matters connected to pre-closing activities, Regions will protect Raymond James against these losses. Meantime, Regions will benefit from already existing reserves by Regions at Morgan Keegan.

• Raymond James’ Public Finance and Fixed Income businesses will be headquartered in Memphis, Tennessee, which is also Morgan Keegan’s main base.

• Raymond James and Regions will become involved in a number of business relationships that will benefit both parties.

Regions placed Morgan Keegan on the market last June.

The sale is expected to close during the first quarter of 2012. This stock purchase agreement would allow Raymond James to grow its retail brokerage network, turning it into one of the largest firms in the US.

According to Regions, the deal would give it additional revenue opportunities, as a result of its solid partnership with Raymond James, for loan referrals, processing relationships, and deposits. The sale would also help Regions pay the federal government back some of the $3.5 billion that it received during the height of the economic crisis in 2008. However, Regions also anticipates a $575 million to $745 million impairment charge from the deal.

The Wall Street Journal says that to keep some Morgan Keegan management and financial advisers from leaving in the wake of the sale, Raymond James intends to offer up to $215 million in retention payments (restricted stock units and cash) as part of the acquisition deal. Already, a number of key Morgan Keegan employees have placed their signatures to employment contracts with Raymond James. The deal ups Raymond James headcount of financial advisers to 6000—a 60% increase and a 1000 more than prior to the deal. This will rank it third behind Morgan Stanley Smith Barney and just under Bank of America Corp.’s (BAC) Merrill Lynch.

It’s Official: Raymond James Buys Morgan Keegan, for $930 Million, The Wall Street Journal, January 11, 2012

Raymond James Said to Near $930 Million Purchase of Broker Morgan Keegan, Bloomberg, January 11, 2012

More Blog Posts:
Raymond James Must Pay $925,000 Over Auction-Rate Securities Dispute, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, September 1, 2010

Morgan Keegan & Company Ordered by FINRA to Pay $555,400 in Texas Securities Case Involving Morgan Keegan Proprietary Funds, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, September 6, 2011

Claims Filed Against Morgan Keegan Division of Regions Financial Causes Shortage of Arbitrators, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, February 8, 2010

Ex-SEC Lawyer to Settle DOJ Charges Accusing Him of Inappropriately Representing Ponzi Fraudster Allen Stanford

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

Spencer Barasch, a former Securities and Exchange Commission attorney, will reportedly settle the civil charges filed against him by the Department of Justice by paying a $50,0000 fine. He is accused of inappropriately representing Allen Stanford, the ex-billionaire who is facing trial for masterminding a $7B Ponzi scam. Per the planned settlement, Barasch will settle the DOJ charges by paying a $50,000 fine.

It was in 2010 that SEC Inspector General David Kotz issued a report finding that while Barasch was still at the commission he played a part in decisions that were made to quell investigations of Stanford. After Barasch vacated his post at the SEC, he made several attempts to try to represent Stanford. Although the SEC refused each request, Barasch eventually ended up providing Stanford with about seven billable hours in legal counsel.

Federal conflict of interest laws permanently bar ex-government lawyers from appearing in front of or communicating with the US government in certain situations. However, to bring a criminal conflict-of-interest case prosecutors have to prove that the ex-employee contacted the government on behalf of the defendant. As there has been no evidence that this occurred in the matter of Barasch representing Stanford, this is likely why the DOJ opted to pursue a civil case.

Barasch is also expected to settle the Security and Exchange Commission’s disciplinary action against him by consenting to a 6-month ban from being able to practice in front of the commission. He will likely settle this without admitting to or denying wrongdoing.

Meantime, prosecutors are continuing to prepare their criminal case against Stanford, who allegedly bilked thousands of investors when he persuaded them to purchase CDs from his bank in Antigua. He was arrested in 2009. Stanford continues to deny the charges.

Jury selection is scheduled to begin later this month in the criminal trial against him. This week, however, two of Stanford’s lawyers asked a judge to let them quit the ex-billionaire’s case. Robert Scardino and Ali Fazel say that budget limitations are preventing them from doing their job as his defense team. A court has frozen Stanford’s assets.

In addition to the criminal case filed case against Stanford, he also faces SEC civil charges, along with Stanford International Bank (SIB), investment adviser Stanford Capital Management, investment adviser and broker-dealer Stanford Group Company (SGC), Stanford Financial Group (SFG), and two senior company officials. According to regulators, the defendants misrepresented certain CDs as safe investments. Meantime, client’s money was placed in illiquid equities and real estate instead of diversified liquid assets.

Exclusive: Ex-SEC lawyer said to settle Stanford-linked case, Chicago Tribune, January 10, 2012
Ex-SEC Enforcer Settles Stanford Ethics Dispute With U.S., Bloomberg, January 13, 2012

More Blog Posts:
Securities Fraud Lawsuit Names NRP Financial Inc. in $150M Minnesota Ponzi Scam, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, January 10, 2012
SEC Sues SIPC Over R. Allen Stanford Ponzi Payouts, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, December 20, 2011
SEC Issues Emergency Order to Stop $26M “Green” Ponzi Scam, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, October 13, 2011 Continue Reading ›