Investor Lawyers Blog

Sale of Interest in Private Placement Offerings by Medical Capital Holdings, Provident Royalties DBSI Leads to FINRA Order that Investors Get $3.2M in Restitution

Published on: November 29, 2011 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority has ordered another 10 individuals and 8 financial firms to pay $3.2M in restitution to clients who were sold interest in risky private placements that were issued by DBSI, Inc., Medical Capital Holdings, Inc., and Provident Royalties, LLC. The parties that were sanctioned allegedly sold the interests without having reasonable grounds to recommend the securities to customers. The SRO believes there were inadequate supervisory systems in place.

FINRA fined the following parties for allegedly failing to reasonably investigate the private placement offerings to ensure that the firms making the sales were fulfilling their obligation to customers.

• NEXT Financial Group, Inc.: $2 million in restitution and a $50,000 fine. VP Steven Lynn Nelson was fined $10,000 related Provident Royalties private placements sales.

• Investors Capital Corporation: About $400,000 in restitution over Provident Royalties private placement sales and a CIP Leveraged Fund Advisors-offering.

• Garden State Securities, Inc.: $300,000 related to a Medical Capital private placement. Kevin John DeRosa was fined $25,000. Vincent Michael Bruno, who is chief compliance officer, will pay a $10,000 fine.

• Capital Financial Services: Clients will get $200,000. Ex-principal Brian W. Boppre is fined $10,000. Private placements from both Medical Capital and Provident Royalties were involved.

• National Securities Corporation: $175,000 in restitution related to the sale of Provident Royalties and Medical Capital private placements. Director Matthew G. Portes was suspended and fined $10,000.

• Equity Services, Inc.: Nearly $164,000 in restitution and a $50,000 fine. Sr. VP Stephen Anthony Englese was fined $10,000 while representative Anthony Paul Campagna must pay $25,000.

• Securities America, Inc.: Fined $250,000.

• Newbridge Securities Corporation: A $25,000 fine related to private placements sold by DBSI and Medical Capital. Ex-Chief Compliance Officer Robin Fran Bush was fined $15,000.

• Former Meadowbrook Securities CEO and President of LLC Leroy H. Paris II must pay a $10,000 fine related to the sale of Medical Capital and Provident Royalties private placements.

• Michael D. Shaw was barred from the securities industry. He was previously associated with VSR Financial Services, Inc.

Between ’01-’09, Medical Capital Holdings was able to raise about $2.2 billion through the private placement offerings of promissory notes. Over 20,000 investors participated. Meantime, from September ’06 to January ’09, Provident Asset Management, LLC sold and marketed limited partnerships and stock in 23 private placements issued by Provident Royalties. More than $485 million was raised from over 7,700 investors who made their purchases through over 50 retail broker-dealers. Last year, however, a number of the private placement deals soured, causing a number of broker-dealers that sold them to shut down, while the investors sustained financial losses.

FINRA Sanctions Eight Firms and 10 Individuals for Selling Interests in Troubled Private Placements, Including Medical Capital, Provident Royalties and DBSI, Without Conducting a Reasonable Investigation, FINRA, November 29, 2011

FINRA fines eight firms for private placement sale, Reuters, November 29, 2011

More Blog Posts:
FINRA Wants Brokers Selling Regulation D Private Placements to Take Part in Tougher Due Diligence Process, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, June 7, 2011

Boogie Investment Group Inc. Fails Because of Fraudulent Private Placements by Provident Royalties LLC and Medical Capital Holdings Inc., Stockbroker Fraud Blog, October 27, 2011

Citigroup’s $285M Settlement With the SEC Is Turned Down by Judge Rakoff

Published on: November 28, 2011 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

U.S. District Judge Jed S. Rakoff has turned down the proposed $285M settlement between the SEC and Citigroup Global Markets Inc. However, unlike with the SEC’s tentative $33M settlement with Bank of America that he rejected, eventually approving a $150 million settlement between both parties-this time, Rakoff is ordering the SEC and Citigroup to trial.

The SEC claimed Citigroup sold Class V Funding III right as the housing market fell apart in 2007 and then bet against the $1 billion mortgage-linked collateralized debt obligation. Meantime, the financial firm allegedly failed to tell clients about this conflict of interest. Investors would go on to lose nearly $700 million over the CDO, while Citigroup ended up making about $160 million.

To many observers, Rakoff’s decision doesn’t come as a surprise. He has expressed concern with the SEC’s handling of securities cases for some time. In his ruling today, Rakoff was very clear in stating that he didn’t believe the tentative agreement was “fair… reasonable… adequate, nor in the public interest.” He also called for the “underlying facts” and made it clear that the SEC’s typical boilerplate settlement, which usually involves the other party agreeing to the terms but not admitting to or denying wrongdoing, was not going to suffice.

Until now, the SEC’s settlement policy has allowed the Commission to declare a victory while letting defendants get away with not acknowledging any wrongdoing so that private plaintiffs cannot use such an outcome in litigation against them. Now, however, Rakoff wants the court and the public to actually learn whether or not Citigroup acted improperly.

Also in his opinion, Rakoff spoke about how the current settlement doesn’t do anything for the investors that Citigroup allegedly defrauded of hundreds of millions of dollars. Not only that but the SEC isn’t promising to compensate the alleged securities fraud victims.

For now, the trial between Citigroup and the SEC is scheduled for July 2012. However, the Commission could decide to appeal Rakoff’s ruling and ask an appellate court to either make him accept the $285 million settlement or appoint a new judge to the case. According to the New York Times, however, this could prove challenging because a writ of mandamus would be required.

Our securities fraud law firm has had it with financial firms defrauding investors and then getting away with this type of misconduct. It is our job to help our clients recoup their losses whether via arbitration or in court.

Behind Rakoff’s Rejection of Citigroup Settlement, NY Times, November 28, 2011
Judge to SEC: Stop settling, start really suing, OC Register, November 28, 2011
Read Judge Rakoff’s Opinion

More Blog Posts:
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
Bank of America To Settle SEC Charges Regarding Merrill Lynch Acquisition Proxy-Related Disclosures for $150 Million, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, February 15, 2010
Ex-Goldman Sachs Director Rajat Gupta Pleads Not Guilty to Insider Trading Charges, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, October 26, 2011 Continue Reading ›

FINRA May Put Forward Another Proposal About Possible SEC Rule Regarding Fiduciary Duty

Published on: November 28, 2011 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

According to FINRA CEO and Chairman Richard G. Ketchum, the SRO may put out a second concept proposal about its stance regarding disclosure obligations related to a possible Securities and Exchange Commission rulemaking about formalizing a uniform fiduciary duty standard between broker-dealers and investment advisers. Currently, the 1940 Investment Advisers Act defines the investment advisers’ fiduciary obligation to their clients, while broker-dealers are upheld to suitability rules that will be superseded next August by two FINRA rules regarding broker-dealer suitability standards.

The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act’s Section 913, however, said that it is SEC’s responsibility to determine whether these current regulatory and legal standards s are still effective and if any regulatory shortcomings that exist need to be filled. In July 2010, the SEC asked stakeholders for feedback about this mandates. After receiving over 3,000 public comments, it issued a study recommending that there be a uniform fiduciary standard for both types of representatives when giving advice to retail clients. The SEC could put out its proposed rule by the end of this year.

FINRA is working with the Commission on this and plans to stay involved in the process. It was just last year that the SRO put out a concept proposal seeking public comment about the idea that broker-dealers should have to provide retail investors with certain disclosures at the start of a business relationship. These clients would be required to give a written statement detailing the kids of services and accounts they provide, any conflicts of interests, and limits on duties that they are entitled to expect. FINRA said that regardless of what a unified fiduciary standard would look like, retail investors would benefit from getting this disclosure document at the start and that such a mandate is an “outright necessity.

MF Global Shortfall May Be More than $1.2B, Says Trustee

Published on: November 26, 2011 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

According to trustee James Giddens, MF Global Inc. may have a greater than $1.2B shortfall in US segregated customer accounts. Giddens has been tasked with overseeing the failed company’s liquidation.

Previously, the estimated shortfall had been $593 million. Now, however, that estimate has likely changed. Giddens says that it will take $1.3 billion to $1.6 billion dollars to distribute 60% of what should have been found in the accounts of customers. He has noted that how much of the assets he can access is not the same as the shortfall amount. Giddens is reportedly close to exhausting the money that he does control.

$5.45 billion in money from customer accounts were frozen on the last day of October, one day after an MF Global unit reported that client funds (Commodity Futures Trading Commission rules say these should have been segregated) had experienced a material shortfall. Parent company MF Global Holdings Inc. then sought bankruptcy protection.

Bonds Defeat Stocks For the First Time Since Prior to the Civil War

Published on: November 26, 2011 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

According to Bloomberg.com, the largest gains in bonds in nearly 10 years have overtaken returns on stocks over the last 3 decades. This is the first time that this has occurred since before the American Civil War. Bonds reportedly have become assets to buy because the US inflation rate had a 1.5% average this year and the Federal Reserve made the decision to keep target interest rates for overnight loans between banks at close to 0 through 2013.

Bianco Research reports that long-term government bonds have added 11% annually on average over the last thirty years—defeating the S & P 500’s 10.8% rise. Prior to this last 30-year period, stocks had been outperforming bonds over every 3-decade period since 1861.

More 2011 facts as reported by Bloomberg:

Former Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC Employee Faces SEC Charges for Creating Fake Trades to Enable Ponzi Scam

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

David Kugel, who was a long time Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC (BMIS), has been charged by the Securities and Exchange Commission with fraud. Kugel is accused of making fake trades to keep Madoff’s multi-billion dollar Ponzi scam running. He has consented to settling the securities fraud charges.

The SEC claims that Kugel, who worked for Madoff for nearly 40 years, was asked by the Ponzi mastermind to turn backdated arbitrage trade information into fake trades. Kugel’s own BMIS account included backdated trades. While some of the trades imitated successful ondx made by Kugel for BMIS, others were founded on historical facts that he got from old newspapers.

Over a number of years Kugel even withdrew almost $10 million in profits from these bogus trades in his own BMIS. SEC New York Regional Office George S. Canellos claims that Kugel knew such profits were fake.

Two other people accused of setting up fake trades from the information that Kugel provided were Joann Crupi and Annette Bongiorno. Both allegedly asked him for backdated data about trades that added up to millions of dollars. They would then take the information and design trades that equaled those figures. These bogus trades showed up as trade confirmations on investors’ account statements.

The SEC filed securities charges against the two women last year. The Commission claims that Bongiorno regularly set up bogus books and records and misled investors via phone calls, trade confirmations, and account statements. She also is accused of setting up false trades in her own BMIS counts that allowed her to cash out millions of dollars more than what was put in. Meantime, Crupi was accused of deciding what accounts to cash out and which investors should receive checks as Madoff’s scam stood on the brink of collapse. The two women are facing criminal charges over their alleged involvement. They have denied any wrongdoing.

Prosecutors have filed parallel criminal charges against Kugel. On Monday, he pleaded guilty to six criminal counts, including securities fraud, conspiracy, and bank fraud. He will be sentenced in May.

Meantime, Irving Picard, who has been appointed as the trustee in charge of helping Madoff’s Ponzi victims from recouping their losses, is seeking at least $22.2 million from Kugel and his family.

Ponzi Scams
A Ponzi scheme can be described as a multi-level marketing operation. The director solicits investments while promising clients a given return rate. However, rather than paying investors from real profits, the principal from new investors is used to compensate earlier investors. Ponzi scams can result in devastating losses for investors once the money dries up.

SEC Charges Longtime Madoff Employee With Creating Fake Trades, SEC, November 21, 2011
Read the SEC Complaint (PDF)

Bernie Madoff Cronies Arrested, ABC News, November 18, 2010
More Blog Posts:
SEC Files Charges in $27M Washington DC Ponzi Scam, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, November 21, 2011
Former Texan and First Capital Savings and Loan To Pay $4.5M for Alleged Foreign Currency Ponzi Scheme, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, November 11, 2011
SEC Issues Emergency Order to Stop $26M “Green” Ponzi Scam, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, October 13, 2011 Continue Reading ›

Wells Investment Securities Agrees to $300,000 Fine by FINRA for Alleged Use of Misleading Marketing Materials for REIT Offerings

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

To settle FINRA accusations that it used misleading marketing materials when selling Wells Timberland REIT, Inc., Wells Investment Securities, Inc. has agreed to pay a $300,000 fine, as well as to an entry of the findings. However, it is not denying or admitting to the securities charges.

FINRA claims that as the wholesaler and dealer-manager of the non-traded Real Estate Investment Trust’s public offering, Wells approved, reviewed, and distributed 116 sales and marketing materials that included statements that were misleading, exaggerated, or unwarranted.The SRO contends that not only did most of the REIT’s sales literature and advertisements neglect to disclose the meaning of Wells Timberland’s non-REIT status, but also it implied that Wells Timberland qualified as an REIT during a time when it didn’t. (Although its initial offering prospectus reported that it planned to qualify as an REIT for the tax year finishing up at the end of 2006, it did not qualify until the one ending on December 31, 2009.) Also, FINRA believes that Wells Timberland’s communications about portfolio diversification, redemptions, and distributions included misleading statements and that the financial firm lacked supervisory procedures for making sure the proprietary data and sensitive customer information were properly protected with working encryption technology.

While non-traded REITs are usually illiquid for approximately 8 years or longer, certain tax ramifications can be avoided if specific IRS requirements are met. FINRA says that the Wells ads failed to ensure that investors clearly understood that an investment that is not yet an REIT couldn’t offer them those tax benefits.

Last month, FINRA put out an alert notifying investors about the risks of public non-traded REITs. Non-exchange traded real estate investment trusts are not traded on a national securities exchange. Early redemption is usually limited and fees related to their sale can be high, which can erode one’s overall return. Risks involved include:

• No guarantee on distributions, which can exceed operating cash flow.
• REIT status and distributions that come with tax consequences
• Illiquidity and valuation complexities
• Early redemption that is limited and likely costly
• Fees that can grow
• Unspecified properties
• Limited diversification
• Real Estate risk

FINRA wants investors considering non-traded REITs to:

• Watch out for sales literature or pitches giving you simple reasons for why you should invest.
• Find out how much the seller is getting in commissions and fees.
• Know how investing in this type of REIT will help you meet your goals.
• Carefully study the accompanying prospectus and its supplements.

Public Non-Traded REITs—Perform a Careful Review Before Investing, FINRA

More Blog Posts:

Morgan Stanley Faces $1M FINRA Fine for Excessive Markups and Markdowns on Corporate and Municipal Bond Transactions, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, September 17, 2011

Citigroup Global Markets Inc. Sues Two Saudi Investors in an Attempt to Block Their FINRA Arbitration Claim Over $383M in Losses, Stockbroker Fraud, October 22, 2011

SEC Files Charges in $27M Washington DC Ponzi Scam

Published on: November 21, 2011 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The Securities and Exchange Commission has charged Garfield M. Taylor and a number of his relatives and friends with running a DC-area Ponzi scam. The more than $27 million financial fraud targeted investors in the area.

Taylor and his partners allegedly defrauded about 130 investors between 2005 and 2010. The scam fell apart when the money dried up as a result of trading losses and the interest payments that were made to investors.

According to the Commission, Taylor convinced mainly middle-class clients to refinance their houses and use their money, including their retirement and savings, to invest in promissory notes that were put out by his two companies, which were supposedly taking part in low-risk trading options. He touted returns of up to 20% and provided investors with false assurances that their investments were protected by either a “covered call” trading strategy or a “reserve account.”

To keep new investor money coming, Taylor is said to have persuaded current investors and others to refer prospective clients to him in exchange for commission fees that were calculated according to how much the new investors put in. Although he is not a licensed securities broker, Taylor convinced a number of investors to give him access to their brokerage accounts and he used this privilege to make trades. He promised them a portion of the profits.

The SEC contends that contrary to his promises, Taylor actually was taking part in risky options trading, which then resulted in the financial losses. He also allegedly took $5 million to pay relatives and friends and cover his kids’ education.

Also charged with securities fraud bu the SEC (allegations against the parties vary, but include: violation of federal securities’ laws anti-fraud provisions, offering registration requirements, and broker-dealer registration requirements):

• Gibraltar Asset Management Group LLC • Garfield Taylor Inc.
• Maurice G. Taylor. He is Taylor’s sibling and is Gibraltar’s chief investment officer • Randolph M. Taylor. Taylor’s sibling who was Gibraltar’s VP of organizational development.
• Benjamin C. Dalley. He formerly served as VP of operations at Gibraltar.
• Jeffrey A. King. Taylor’s brother-in-law and Gibraltar’s former COO and President.
• William B. Mitchell. He was a senior executive at both companies
These individuals and entities, along with Taylor, are accused of jointly putting together a Gibraltar PowerPoint presentation that contained false and misleading statements and giving these to prospective clients. The SEC says the documents misrepresented the financial firm’s options trading strategy, the protections offered, the expected return rate, and degree of risk involved. Institutional investors and charities, including a Baptist church, were even pursued as prospective clients.

The SEC is seeking enjoinment from future violations, the payment of penalties, and disgorgement.

SEC Charges Perpetrator of Washington-Area Ponzi Scheme, SEC, November 18, 2011
Read the SEC’s Complaint

More Blog Posts:
Former Texan and First Capital Savings and Loan To Pay $4.5M for Alleged Foreign Currency Ponzi Scheme, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, November 11, 2011
SEC Charges Filed in $22M Ponzi Scam that Targeted Florida Teachers and Retirees, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, August 29, 2011
SEC Issues Emergency Order to Stop $26M “Green” Ponzi Scam, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, October 13, 2011 Continue Reading ›

Ex-AIG CEO Sues Government For $25B Over 2008 Takeover of Insurance Giant

Published on: November 21, 2011 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Maurice R. “Hank” Greenberg, the former CEO of American International Group Inc., is suing the federal government for taking over the insurance giant in 2008. Greenberg is seeking $25 billion.

Greenberg’s Star International, which was AIG’s largest stakeholder when the government rescue took place, filed his lawsuit in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. He contends that the government bailout and takeover of AIG was unconstitutional. The amount of damages he is seeking was arrived at from the value of the 80% AIG stake that the government got for its $182 billion bailout.

The money let AIG pay off Goldman Sachs and other counterparties, as well as compensate its executives with $182 million in bonuses. The public, however, was outraged when AIG executives were still awarded excessive compensation packages—especially considering that AIG lost $61.7 during the fourth quarter of 2008 alone. The insurer had to sell off some assets to repay the government, and Greenberg’s stake in the company suffered as a result.

Now, he is claiming that the federal government used AIG to get money to the insurance company’s trading partners. He contends that by obtaining an almost 80% stake in the insurer for bailing it out, the government took valuable property from AIG shareholders and that this violates the Fifth Amendment, which prevents the taking of private property for public use without appropriate compensation.

Greenberg’s opposition to the government bailout comes as no surprise. Earlier this year, he wrote in the Wall Street Journal that the government overstepped when it took preferred stock with the option to change these into common stock. Such transactions were performed without the approval of shareholders, which he believes violates Delaware law. AIG was incorporated there.

Last year, the Treasury Department upped its stake in AIG to 92.1% when it turned preferred shares into common shares. However, it sold some of its shares to investors in May so its ownership percentage in AIG is now at 77%. It is still trying to recover over $41 billion from the sale of the rest of its stake.

AIG Bailout
The government seized control of AIG not long after it became clear that Lehman Brothers Inc. was going to have to shut down. Per the terms of the agreement, the Fed said it would lend AIG $85 billion, and the government was given the substantial equity stake. The takeover came on the heels of the government also seized Freddie Mac and Freddie Mae as they stood on the brink of collapse. Merrill Lynch & Co, which was also in trouble, agreed to let Bank of America Corp. buy it.

U.S. to Take Over AIG in $85 Billion Bailout; Central Banks Inject Cash as Credit Dries Up, The Wall Street Journal, September 16, 2008

Oppenheimer Funds Investors Can Proceed with Their Securities Fraud Lawsuit

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

A federal court has decided that Oppenheimer municipal bond fund holders can go ahead with their securities fraud complaint against Oppenheimer Funds. The plaintiffs of In re Oppenheimer Rochester Funds Group Securities Litigation are alleging federal securities law violations. Funds involved included:

• AMT-Free Municipals Fund • Rochester National Municipals Fund • AMT-Free New York Municipals Fund • Rochester Fund Municipals • California Municipal Fund • Pennsylvania Municipal Fund • New Jersey Municipal Fund
The shareholders of seven municipal bonds had their securities fraud lawsuits consolidated into one case in two years ago. They are claiming that the Oppenheimer Funds neglected to reveal in their registration and prospectus statements that risks were being taken that weren’t in line with their declared strategy and investment goals. The investors argued that even as the funds explicitly said that preserving capital was a clear investment goal, the true objective was one of “high-risk, high-return.” Seeing as certain market conditions were foreseeable, the shareholders believe this placed their capital at great, undisclosed risk, which did come to fruition during the credit crisis of 2007-2008. This is when the Funds’ holding in highly leveraged, complex securities set off cash reserve and payment duties that required for the assets be sold under conditions that most likely were not to the funds’ advantage. The plaintiffs say that because of this, the funds underperformed compared to other municipal bond funds.

They are also claiming that the significant drop in the Funds’ shares’ values can be linked to the deviations between the stated and actual objectives. After investors were notified in October and November 2008 via prospectus supplements of what the Funds’ investments true liquidity risks were, share prices then went crashing. The net asset value of the 7 funds dropped by about 30-50% that year while similar municipal bonds only went down by 10-15%.

The defendants moved to dismiss the consolidate case, claiming that the investors’ losses were triggered by the credit crisis and not because of what was written (or not included) in the funds’ prospectuses. They also argued that they were making a forward-looking statement when they made the “preservation of capital” a goal and had adequately disclosed the risks involved.

In the U.S. District Court, District of Colorado, the federal judge turned down the Defendants’ motion to toss out the consolidated lawsuits. Judge John L. Kane, Jr. also rejected their claim that federal securities laws exempts mutual funds from liability because drops in those funds’ value are a result of corresponding downturns in the funds’ investments’ value and not of statements (whether true or false) in their prospectuses.

Oppenheimer Rochester Funds Lose Dismissal Bid, Face Trial, Bloomberg/Business Week, October 25, 2011
Oppenheimer Muni Bond Investors May Sue Over Alleged Misstatements in Prospectuses, BNA Securities Law Daily, October 26, 2011

More Blog Posts:
8/31/11 is Deadline for Opting Out of $100M Oppenheimer Mutual Funds Class Action Settlement, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, August 17, 2011
Oppenheimer Champion Income Fund Resulted In Significant Financial Losses for Investors from Citigroup, UBS, Merrill Lynch, and Other Large Financial Firms, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, August 16, 2010
Chase Investment Services Corporation Ordered by FINRA to Pay Back $1.9M for Unsuitable Sales of Floating-Rate Loan Funds and UITs, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, November 19, 2011 Continue Reading ›