Investor Lawyers Blog

Institutional Investor Fraud Roundup: SEC Seeks Approval of Settlement with Ex-Bear Stearns Portfolio Managers, Credits Ex-AXA Rosenberg Executive for Help in Quantitative Investment Case; IOSCO Gets Ready for Global Hedge Fund Survey

Published on: March 29, 2012 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The Securities and Exchange Commission is seeking district court approval of its proposed securities fraud settlement with two ex-Bear Stearns & Co. portfolio managers. The SEC presented its second plea to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York earlier this month.

In a letter to the court, the SEC cited the Second Circuit Appeals Court’s decision earlier this month to stay a district court judge’s ruling turning down the Commission’s proposed $285M settlement with Citigroup Global Markets Inc. It said that the order in that matter “supports approval and entry” of this pending consent judgment.

If the settlement is approved, former Bear Stearns portfolio managers Matthew and Tannin and Ralph Cioffi would settle SEC charges accusing them of misleading bank counterparties and investors about the financial condition of two hedge funds that failed because of subprime mortgage-backed securities in 2007. Per the terms of the proposed settlement, Tannin would pay $200,000 in disgorgement plus a $50,000 fine and Cioffi would pay $700,000 in disgorgement and a $100,000 fine.

This is the second attempt by the SEC and the defendants to the court for settlement approval after District Court Judge Frederic Block cited concerns made by Judge Rakoff, who is the one who threw out the proposed $285M settlement in the SEC-Citigroup case and ordered both parties to trial. The Second Circuit has since stayed those proceedings. (In the securities case between the SEC and Citigroup, the regulator had accused the financial firm of misrepresenting its involvement in a $1 billion collateralized debt obligation that the latter and structured and marketed five years ago.)

In other SEC news, the Commission has honored its commitment to providing greater transparency when it comes to cooperation credit by notifying the public that it credited an ex-AXA Rosenberg senior executive for his substantial help in an enforcement action against the quantitative investment firm. AXA Rosenberg is accused of concealing a material error in the computer code of the model it used to manage client assets.

The SEC said it would not take action against the former executive not just because of the help he provided, but also because the alleged misconduct in question was one that mattered so much. Fortunately, the SEC was able to give clients back the $217 million they lost, as well is impose penalties of $27.5 million. This was the Commissions first case over mistakes in a quantitative investment model.

Meantime, the International Organization of Securities Commissions’ Technical Committee says it has updated the data categories for information it plans to collect in a global survey of hedge funds that will take place later this year. Modified reporting categories include general information about firms, funds, and advisors, geographical focus, market and product exposure for strategy assets, leverage and risk, trading and clearing.

According to IOSCO, responses to the survey will bring together an array of hedge fund information that regulators can look at to determine systemic risk. The committee believes that having securities regulators regularly monitor hedge funds for systemic risk indicators/measures will be beneficial and provide necessary insight into possible issues hedge funds might create for the global financial system. This will be IOSCO’s second survey on hedge funds.

SEC Credits Former Axa Rosenberg Executive for Substantial Cooperation during Investigation, SEC, March 19, 2012

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

Texas Securities Fraud: State Law Class Action in R. Allen Stanford’s Ponzi Scam Not Barred by SLUSA

Published on: March 28, 2012 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

In a reversal of a district court’s decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled that the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act does not bar the investor state law class action lawsuit that was filed by victims of R. Allen Stanford’s Ponzi scheme. The case is Roland v. Green.

The appeals court said that the state court securities lawsuits, which are claiming common law and statutory violations, could go forward because the alleged fraud is only tangentially related to the buying and selling of covered securities under SLUSA. Four complaints are on appeal. In each case, investors submitted state court actions that charged a number of defendants with misleading them into using their individual retirement accounts to invest in Stanford International Bank-issued certificate of deposits that have since proved worthless. Investors have lost $7 billion in Stanford’s Ponzi scam.

The defendants had the lawsuits moved to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, which found that SLUSA precluded the claims because of their connection to a covered security. Under SLUSA, state class actions claiming fraud related to the sale or purchase of a covered security are barred. The district court judge in Dallas had dismissed the cases because Stanford marketed the CDs as regulated and securities-backed and because certain investors had sold securities to finance their purchase of the CDs, this, placed the CD-related suits under SLUSA.

Citigroup Ordered by FINRA to Pay $1.2M Over Bond Markups and Markdowns

Published on: March 27, 2012 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

FINRA says that Citigroup Inc. subsidiary Citi International Financial Services LLC must pay over $1.2M in restitution, fines, and interest over alleged excessive markdowns and markups on agency and corporate bond transactions and supervisory violations. The financial firm must also pay $648,000 in restitution and interest to over 3,600 clients for the alleged violations. By settling, Citi International is not denying or admitting to the allegations.

According to FINRA, considering the state of the markets at the time, the expense of making the transactions happen, and the value of services that were provided, from July ’07 through September ’10 Citi International made clients pay too much (up to over 10%) on agency/corporate bond markups and markdowns. (Brokerages usually make clients that buy a bond pay a premium above the price that they themselves paid to obtain the bond. This is called a “markup.”) Also, from April ’09 until June ’10, the SRO contends that Citi International did not put into practice reasonable due diligence in the sale or purchase of corporate bonds so that customers could pay the most favorable price possible.

The SRO says that during the time periods noted, the financial firm’s supervisory system for fixed income transactions had certain deficiencies related to a number of factors, including the evaluation of markups/markdowns under 5% and a pricing grid formulated on the bonds’ par value rather than their actual value. Citi International will now also have to modify its supervisory procedures over these matters.

In the wake of its order against Citi International, FINRA Market Regulation Executive Vice-President Thomas Gira noted that the SRO is determined to make sure that clients who sell and buy securities are given fair prices. He said that the prices that Citi International charged were not within the standards that were appropriate for fair pricing in debt transactions.

If you believe that you were the victim of securities misconduct or fraud, please contact our stockbroker fraud law firm right away. We represent both institutional and individual investors that have sustained losses because of inadequate supervision, misrepresentations and omissions, overconcentration, unsuitability, failure to execute trades, churning, breach of contract, breach of promise, negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, margin account abuse, unauthorized trading, registration violations and other types of adviser/broker misconduct.

Before deciding to work with a brokerage firm that is registered with FINRA, you can always check to see if they have a disciplinary record by using FINRA’s BrokerCheck. Last year, 14.2 million reviews of the records of financial firms and brokers were conducted on BrokerCheck.

FINRA BrokerCheck®

More Blog Posts:
Securities Claims Accusing Merrill Lynch of Concealing Its Auction-Rate Securities Practices Are Dismissed by Appeals Court, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, November 30, 2011

Merrill Lynch Faces $1M FINRA Fine Over Texas Ponzi Scam by Former Registered Representative, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, October 10, 2011

Bank of America’s Merrill Lynch Settles for $315 million Class Action Lawsuit Over Mortgage-Backed Securities, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, December 6, 2011

JP Morgan Chase To Pay $150M to Settle Securities Lawsuit Over Lending Program Losses of Union Pension Funds

Published on: March 26, 2012 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

To settle a securities lending lawsuit filed by the AFTRA Retirement Fund, the Investment Committee of the Manhattan and Bronx Surface Transit Operating System, and the Imperial County Employees’ Retirement System, JPMorgan Chase & Co. will pay $150 million. The union pension funds are blaming the financial firm for losses that they sustained through its securities lending program. A district court will have to approve the settlement.

JPMorgan had invested their money in Sigma Finance Corp. medium term notes, which is a financial instrument that has since failed. However, billions of dollars of repurchase financing was extended to Sigma in the process.

The securities claims accused JPMorgan of violating the Employee Retirement Income Security Act and its state-imposed fiduciary obligations when it invested in Sigma. The plaintiffs contend that financial firm should have known that the investment was a poor one.

Per the union pension funds’ contracts with JPMorgan, the investment bank is only supposed to put their money in investment vehicles that are low-risk and conservative. They believe that the Sigma vehicle did not meet that standard.

The consolidated class action alleges that JPMorgan foresaw Sigma’s impending failure, took part in predatory repo arrangements with significant discounts in order to pick the best of Sigma’s assets in its portfolio, and reduced the quality and quantity of these assets by taking title to assets in an amount that was nearly a billion dollars more than the financing it gave.

The Board of Trustees of the American Federation of Television and Radio Artists (AFTRA) Retirement Fund, which initially brought the class action case, contended that JPMorgan made close to $2 billion profit, even as the notes were left with almost no value. Last year, a year after the court certified the class action case, a judge gave partial summary judgment to the financial firm.

The plaintiffs believe that the securities lawsuit brought up a number of key factual and legal matters under New York common law and ERISA and that this made the case very hard to litigate. They say the $150 million proposed settlement is a representation of 30 – 100% of the potential provable losses if liability were to be set up for a certain breach date. Therefore, seeing as a trial could have led to a wide range of potential damage results, the settlement figure represents an appropriate range of recovery

JPMorgan Agrees to Pay $150M To Settle Securities Lending Lawsuit, Bomberg, March 20, 2012

JPMorgan to pay $150 million over failed Sigma SIV, Reuters, March 20, 2012

More Blog Posts:
JPMorgan Chase to Pay $211M to Settle Charges It Rigged Municipal Bond Transaction Bidding Competitions, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, July 9, 2011

JP Morgan Chase Agrees to Pay $861M to Lehman Brothers Trustee, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, June 28, 2011

Investors Want JP Morgan Chase & Co. To Explain Over $95B of Mortgage-Backed Securities, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, December 17, 2011 Continue Reading ›

Some Former Pro-Athletes Regain the Spotlight But This Time For Financial Fraud

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

A number of former professional athletes have been accused of parlaying their hero/celebrity status and the credibility built on their names to commit securities fraud. According to USA Today, the adulation of celebrities, including sports heroes, in our culture makes high-profile athletes “naturals” for investment fraud.

“Success in too many occupations is more about who you know than what you know. The best talent for selling investments involves getting clients through the front door. Sports stars have a greater opportunity than most to do that,” said Shepherd Smith Edwards and Kantas, LTD, LLP Founder and Stockbroker Fraud Lawyer William Shepherd.

Among the famous ex-athletes to be targeted by the US Securities and Exchange Commission over financial fraud allegations is Willie Gault, the former National Football League member of the Chicago Bears. Known as one of the fastest wide receiver ever and for playing a key part in his team’s victory over the New England Patriots during the 1986 Super bowl, Gault was also a former member of the US Olympic team.

Institutional Investor Fraud Roundup: Decline in Securities Class Action Settlements, ESMA Recognizes US Credit Rating Agency Framework, and Court Dismisses Securities Lawsuit Against Mecox Lane

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

According to a report published by Cornerstone Research, there has been a decline not just in the number of securities class action settlements that the courts have approved, but also in the value of the settlements. There were 65 approved class action settlements for $1.4 billion in 2011, which, per the report, is the lowest number of settlements (and corresponding dollars) reached. That’s 25% less than in 2010 and over 35% under the average for the 10 years prior. The report analyzed agreed-upon settlement amounts, as well as disclosed the values of noncash components. (Attorneys’ fees, additional related derivative payments, SEC/other regulatory settlements, and contingency settlements were not part of this examination.)

The average reported settlement went down from $36.3 million in 2010 to $21 million last year. The declines are being attributed to a decrease in “mega” settlements of $100 million or greater. There was also a reported 40% drop in media “estimated damages,” which is the leading factor in figuring out settlement amounts. Also, according to the report, over 20% of the cases that were settled last year did not involve claims made under the 1934 Securities Exchange Act Rule 10b-5, which tends to settle for higher figures than securities claims made under Sections 11 or 12(a)(2).

Our securities fraud law firm represents institutional investors with individual claims against broker-dealers, investment advisors, and others. Filing your own securities arbitration claim/lawsuit and working with an experienced stockbroker fraud lawyer gives you, the claimant, a better chance of recovering more than if you had filed with a class.

SEC’s Office of the Whistleblower In Early Phase of Evaluating Reward Claims

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

Securities and Exchange Commission’s Office of the Whistleblower Chief Sean McKessy says that the preliminary stage for processing claims stemming from whistleblower cases that resulted in over $1 million in sanctions is underway. McKessy spoke before an Investment Adviser Association-hosted panel earlier this month. He said that the share that an eligible whistleblower can receive would depend on the amount that is actually collected, which might be different from how much a party has been ordered to pay. McKessy made sure to say that the views expressed were his alone and did not reflect those of the SEC or other staff members.

The first reward under the SEC’s whistleblower program, implemented under the

2010 Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, has yet to be issued. Per the program, whistleblowers that provide “original information” of their own accord that leads to the government recovering over $1 million in monetary penalties are entitled to 10-30% of what is paid. SEC staff can also investigate and prosecute employers that retaliate against an employee who stepped forward, regardless of whether or not the federal regulator decided to bring a case based on the information that this person provided.

Three Oil Service Executives Face SEC Charges in Texas Court For Allegedly Bribing Nigerian Customs Officials

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

In the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, the SEC has charged three oil services executives that were allegedly involved in a scam to bribe Nigerian customs officials with Foreign Corrupt Practices Act violations. The men are accused of using these payments to seek illicit permits for oil rigs.

The three men charged are former Noble Corp. controller Thomas F. O’Rourke, ex-CEO Mark Jackson, and former Noble Nigerian subsidiary manager James Ruehlen. Jackson and Ruehlen allegedly are the ones that bribed the officials to get them to process the bogus paperwork that was supposed to demonstrate re-import and export of the oil rigs even though the rigs were “never moved.”

According to the SEC, the purpose of the scam was to prevent Noble from losing business and suffering substantial costs for exporting rigs from Nigeria and requiring new permits to re-import them. O’Rourke, who was also in charge of Noble’s internal audit, is accused of playing a hand in approving the bribes and letting them fall under the area of legitimate operating expenses.

Insurance Agent Convicted in Annuity Case Involving 83-Year-Old Dementia Patient

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

Independent insurance agent Glenn A. Neasham has been convicted for felony theft for selling a complex annuity to an elderly woman who was suffering from dementia. Neasham, who maintains that the woman seemed fine when the transaction was made in 2008, contends and that he acted appropriately. Now, other insurance agents say they are having second thoughts about offering this financial product.

“Indexed” annuities are savings products that pay interest tied to how the stock- and bond-market indexes perform. An insurance agent gives the buyer a guarantee that the latter won’t lose any principal as long as the investor doesn’t withdraw his/her money early when steep penalties would otherwise ensue.

A lot of insurance agents like annuities because they can earn high commissions (12% or greater of the amount invested).from insurance companies. Annuity sales have increased by over four times in the last 10 years as a volatile stock market and low interest rates attracted buyers.

SEC Chairman Schapiro Says Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act Needs Better Investor Protections

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

Earlier this month, Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman Mary Schapiro wrote a letter to Senate Banking Committee Chairman Tim Johnson (D-S.D.) over her concerns that modifications needed to be made to the Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act to make sure that investor protections are enhanced. The US Senate is heading toward a final vote on the Start-Up Focused JOBS Act. The Republican-introduced bundle of bills is geared toward helping along capital growth by loosening reporting requirements and securities law registration. The US House passed its version of the legislation on March 8.

Today, the Senate’s version passed by a 76-22 vote through a procedural process to end debating over the Act. However, before the final vote can be made, the senators must first vote on two amendments, including one that would toughen the limits on how much money a very small investor may place in a crowd-funding offering.

The SEC is also working on a number of capital formation initiatives. In her letter, Schapiro wrote about what she considered were problems with HR 3606, including what she considered its too broad of a definition an “emerging growth company,” which are firms with under $700 million in public float and less than $1 billion in yearly gross revenue. She believes that this very expansiveness could get rid of important investor protections in even very big companies. Schapiro also thinks that the JOBS Act would “weaken” key protections by getting rid of safeguard that were implemented after the dot-com era-related research scandals, while reversing SRO-established rules that put into place “mandatory quiet periods” for stopping banks from using conflicted research as a reward to insiders that chose a particular bank as an underwriter.