Investor Lawyers Blog

Galleon Group LLC Co-Founder Raj Rajaratnam Sentenced to 11 Years in Prison Over Insider Trading Scam

Published on: October 13, 2011 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Raj Rajaratnam, a billionaire investor and co-founder of Galleon Group LLC, has been ordered to pay a $10 million fine and serve 11 years in jail for his key role in an insider trading scam that resulted in $63.8M in illegal profits. He must now forfeit $53.8M.

A jury had found the hedge fund tycoon guilty of nine counts of securities fraud and five counts of conspiracy. Rajaratnam would obtain illegal tips from bankers, executives, traders, consultants, and directors of public companies (Goldman Sachs is one). He would then use that insider information to make trades prior to public announcements about mergers, forecasts, earnings, and spinoffs involving a number of companies, including Hilton Hotels, Integrated Circuit, Akamai, and Xilinix)

Rajaratnam’s attorneys are planning to appeal. For now, however, they are requesting that he be confined at the Butner Federal Correctional Complex, which is where Bernard Madoff is in jail. Madoff was sentenced to 150 years behind bars for his multibillion-dollar Ponzi scam.

Rajaratnam, who is originally from Sri Lanka was educated in England and the US. He established the Galleon hedge fund in the 1990’s and it became one of the biggest in the world. In 2008, Galleon was managing about $7 billion.

Federal securities investigators began to suspect trouble when, in the Rajaratnam gave the SEC documents for another investigation into the activities of his younger brother-no charges were ever brought t here-a text message was included from an ex-Intel Corp. employee warning to hold off on purchasing Polycom’s stock. The former employee, Rommy Khan, was already suspected of giving out insider information.

In 2007, Khan consented to help the authorities with their probe. He and several others served as cooperating witnesses that helped the government convict Rajaratnam, who was arrested in 2009.

The 11-year sentence against him is shorter than the 24 years and five months that prosecutors wanted. That said, it is still the longest prison sentence ever issued for insider trading.

Still under investigation in connection with the scam is Rajat Gupta, who used to work as a Goldman Sachs director. According to the Wall Street Journal and Bloomberg, criminal charges against him seem likely. Prosecutors consider him a “co-conspirator” in the insider trading case against Rajaratnam.

The SEC, which dropped its civil administrative proceeding against Gupta, plans to refile its charges in federal court. Meantime, Kamal Ahmed, who was also linked to the insider trading scam, has been fired by Morgan Stanley because he had disclosed confidential information. The government has not accused him of wrongdoing.

The SEC also filed a number of securities lawsuits against at least two dozen individuals and businesses in light of the Galleon investigation.

Trader Draws Record Sentence, The Wall Street Journal, October 14, 2011
U.S. Prosecutors ‘Close to Charging’ Rajat Gupta, Bloomberg, September 20, 2011
Accused Rajaratnam Tipster Fired By Morgan Stanley, FIN Alternatives, October 7, 2011

More Blog Posts:
Ex-Goldman Sachs Board Member Accused of Insider Trading with Galleon Group Co-Founder Seeks to Have SEC Administrative Case Against Him Dropped, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, April 19, 2011
A Texan is Among Those Arrested in Insider Trading Crackdown Involving Apple Inc., Dell, and Advanced Micro Devices’ Confidential Data, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, December 16, 2010
3 Hedge Funds Raided by FBI in Insider Trading Case, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, November 23, 2010 Continue Reading ›

SEC Issues Emergency Order to Stop $26M “Green” Ponzi Scam

Published on: October 13, 2011 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The Securities and Exchange Commission has received an emergency order to stop a Ponzi scam that bilked victims of about $26 million. Investors in PermaPave Companies were promised significant returns if they would place their money behind water-filtering natural stone pavers. According to the SEC, which has filed a securities complaint, Eric Aronson, a convicted felon, is the mastermind behind the scheme.

Aronson, who pleaded guilty to fraud in another case more than 10 years ago, is now accused of persuading about 140 people to buy promissory notes from PermaPave Companies and promising up to 33% in returns. Between 2006 and 2010, Aronson and company executives Robert Kondratick and Vincent Buonauro Jr., allegedly used new investor money to pay older clients while spending some of the Ponzi funds on gambling trips to Las Vegas, jewelry, and expensive cars. He also allegedly misappropriated about $2.6 million to repay victims of the earlier securities scam to which he entered a guilty plea.

Some of the investors’ funds that went into the Ponzi scam were also allegedly used to buy Interlink-US-Network, Ltd., which was a publicly traded company. Interlink later put out a Form 8-K falsely stating that LED Capital Corp. had said it would put $6 million into it. LED Capital did not have the money and never made such an agreement.

The SEC says that when investors began demanding that they be paid the money they were owed, Aronson accused them of committing a felony because they lent PermaPave Companies money at interest rates that were exorbitant—even though he was the one who promised them such high percentages. The Commission is accusing both Aronson and attorney Frederic Aaron of making false statements to get investors to change their securities into ones that would defer payments owed for several years.

U.S. District Court Judge Jed S. Rakoff is granting the SEC’s request that the defendants and relief defendants’ assets be frozen. Meantime, the Commission wants to bar Aronson, Buonauro, and Kondratick from being able to work as directors and officers of public companies and keep them from taking part in penny-stock offerings. The SEC also wants permanent and preliminary injunctions against the defendants, the return of illicit profits plus prejudgment interest, and civil monetary penalties.

Aronson, Kondratick, and Buonauro have been arrested in connection with the Ponzi scam.

Ponzi Scams
To succeed, Ponzi schemes need to bring in new clients so that their money that they invest can be used to pay older clients their promised returns. Unfortunately, with hardly any legitimate earnings, Ponzi scams can fall apart when it becomes a challenge to recruit new investors or too many investors ask to cash out.

SEC Files Emergency Action to Halt Green-Product Themed Ponzi Scheme, SEC.gov, October 6, 2011

SEC Claims Author Used Ponzi Scheme to Repay Prior Fraud Victims, Bloomberg Businessweek, October 6, 2011

More Blog Posts:
SEC Chairman Criticized For Allowing Ex-Commission Official that Benefited from the Bernard Madoff Ponzi Scam to Help Craft Policy Regarding Victims’ Compensation, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, September 23, 2011

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

SEC Says Former United Commercial Bank Executives Concealed Millions of Dollars in Losses that Caused Bank’s Failure

Published on: October 12, 2011 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The Securities and Exchange Commission has filed securities fraud charges against former United Commercial Bank executives accusing them of concealing loss from assets and loans from auditors that resulted in UCBH Holdings Inc., its public holding company, to understate its operating losses in 2008 by at least $65 million. As the bank’s loans continued to go down in value, the financial firm went on to fail and the California Department of Financial Institutions was forced to shut it down. This resulted in a $2.5 billion loss to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation’s insurance fund.

Per the SEC’s complaint, former chief operating officer Ebrahim Shabudi, chief executive officer Thomas Wu, and senior officer Thomas Yu were the ones that hid the bank’s losses. All three men are accused of delaying the proper recording of the loan losses and making misleading and false statements to independent auditors and investors and concealing from them that there had been the major losses on a number of large loans, property appraisals had gone down, property appraisals had been reduced, and loans were secured by worthless collateral.

Also accused of securities fraud by the SEC is former United Commercial Bank chief financial officer Craig On. The Commission said that he aided in the filing of false financial statements and misled outside auditors. To settle the SEC charges, On has agreed to pay a $150,000 penalty. He also agreed to an order suspending him from working before the SEC as an accountant for five years. He is permanently enjoined from future violations of specific recordkeeping, reporting, anti-fraud, and internal controls provisions of federal securities laws.

Criminal charges have also been filed against Shabudi and Wu. A grand jury indicted both men of conspiring to conceal loan losses, misleading regulators and investors, and lying to external auditors. Wu and Shabudi allegedly used accounting techniques and financial maneuvers, including concealing information that would have shown its decline, understating loan risks, and falsifying books, to hide the fact that that the bank was in trouble.

This is the first time such charges have been made against executives who worked at a bank that obtained government money—$298 million from TARP—to keep it running during the economic collapse.

Prior to its demise, United Commercial Bank, which was the first US bank to acquire a bank in China was considered a leader in the industry. It amassed assets of up to $13.5 billion in 2008. However, it also soon $67.7 million—way down from its $102.3 million profit in 2007. East West Bank acquired United Commercial Banks after regulators took it over in 2009.

Meantime, the FDIC is taking steps to bar 10 former United Commercial Bank officers from ever taking part in the banking industry.

SEC Charges Bank Executives With Hiding Millions of Dollars in Losses During 2008 Financial Crisis, SEC, October 11, 2011

Read the SEC Complaint (PDF)

Feds file charges against execs of failed United Commercial Bank, Mercury News, October 11, 2011

More Blog Posts:

Merrill Lynch Faces $1M FINRA Fine Over Texas Ponzi Scam by Former Registered Representative

Published on: October 10, 2011 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Two years after San Antonio broker was sentenced to prison for Texas securities fraud, FINRA has fined Merrill Lynch $1M for not properly supervising its former employer. These failures allegedly allowed Bruce Hammonds to run a Ponzi scam that defrauded investors of $1.4M.

Hammonds persuaded 11 people to invest in the Texas Ponzi scam, which he operated under the name B&J Partnership. It was supervisors at Merrill Lynch that gave the green light for him to open an account for B & J. The supervisors also are accused of not monitoring the funds that moved between customers and Hammonds.

Rather than putting investors’ money in a Merrill Lynch fund, he put $1.4 million of their funds in his working capital account. He even gave clients charts showing how the B & J fund was performing even though the fund wasn’t real. Hammonds used the money to pay for his personal spending, including a supposed house-flipping business.

He later pleaded guilty to federal securities charges. In addition to five years behind bars and three year supervised release. Hammond has been barred from the securities industry. All investors have been paid back in full for their losses.

In deciding to fine Merrill Lynch, FINRA found that the financial firm did not have a supervisory system that did a satisfactory enough job of monitoring accounts of employees for signs of possible misconduct. The system was only able to immediately capture accounts opened by an employee if he/she used his/her social security number as the main tax identification number. The SRO also said that between 1/06 and 6/10 Merrill Lynch did not monitor another 40,000 employee/employee-interested accounts.

By agreeing to settle, Merrill is not denying or admitting to the charges.

Failure to Supervise
It is a brokerage firm’s responsibility to establish written procedures for how to properly supervise its employees’ activities. These procedures must then be implemented to prevent broker fraud. When misconduct does arise and failure to supervise played a role in allowing the incident to happen, the financial firm can be held liable for securities fraud.

Brokerage companies have to supervise every broker that they license to work for them. Even if an accused broker is later found not liable, there is still a possibility that the brokerage firm or supervisor can be held liable for failure to supervise and be ordered to pay damages. For example, a broker may not have received the proper training or was given the wrong information by the financial firm, and this resulted in Texas securities fraud that caused an investor to suffer losses.

FINRA Fines Merrill Lynch $1 Million for Supervisory Failures That Allowed a Registered Representative to Operate a Ponzi Scheme, FINRA, October 4, 2011
Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas LTD LLP is Investigating Merrill Lynch in Light of Recent FINRA Fines Against the Firm for Failure to Supervise, MarketWatch, October 5, 2011
More Blog Posts:
Former Merrill Lynch Employee, Guilty of $1.4 Million Texas Securities Fraud Scheme, Receives Prison Term, Stock Broker Fraud Blog, October 5, 2009
Wedbush Securities Ordered by FINRA to Pay $2.8M in Senior Financial Fraud Case Over Variable Annuities, Stock Broker Fraud Blog, August 31, 2011
Actions of Former Ferris, Baker Watts, Inc. General Counsel Accused of Supervising Rogue Broker to be Reviewed by SEC, Institutional Investors Securities Blog, December 9, 2010 Continue Reading ›

Don’t Create Uniform Fiduciary Standard for Broker-Dealers and Investment Advisers, Say Some Republicans to the SEC

Published on: October 7, 2011 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

House Financial Services subcommittee Chairman Scott Garrett (R-N.J.) is encouraging the Securities and Exchange Commission to refrain from rulemaking for establishing a uniform fiduciary standard that would apply to both broker-dealers and investment advisers unless the federal agency can come up with adequate evidence to support this action. Garrett made his views known at a Subcommittee on Capital Markets and Government Sponsored Enterprises oversight hearing. Committee Chairman Spencer Bachus (R-Ala.) and Rep. Ed Royce (R-Calif.) also echoed these same sentiments.

Says Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas LTD LLP Founder and Securities Fraud Attorney William Shepherd, “Washington is again bowing to Wall Street pressure to exempt them from liability for their wrongful acts. It is incredible that, considering the unmitigated investment fraud perpetrated on the American public in the last decade, Congress would even consider thwarting the very investors who elected them from receiving the justice they deserve!”

Under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act’s Section 913, the SEC has the authority to start up the rulemaking for this uniform fiduciary standard but is under no obligation. Earlier this year, the SEC put out a report recommending that it take up this rulemaking.

While Garrett questioned whether “hard factual data” existed demonstrating that a suitability standard is not enough to protect investors, others noted that it is a fiduciary standard and not a suitability standard that addresses cost, which impacts investors’ long-term performance. The majority of those that testified at the hearing also supported a uniform fiduciary standard that would apply to both investment advisers and broker-dealers. Consumer Federation of America director of investor protection Barbara Roper said that investors lose money when the person giving them investment advice must only meet a suitability standard and not a fiduciary one.

Meantime, while financial industry representatives have expressed support for a uniform fiduciary standard for investment advisers and broker-dealers, they don’t believe that it could be properly executed under the 1940 Investment Advisers Act.

Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association senior managing director and general counsel Ira Hammerman has said that the Act is unable to work with the business models for broker-dealer, while Financial Services Institute government affairs director and general counselor David Bellaire said that imposing a 1940 Act fiduciary duty on broker-dealers would decrease investor choice and decrease services, which would all significantly affect the market.

Currently, broker-dealers have to abide by a suitability standard, which is more lenient than the fiduciary duty standard for investment advisers. SEC Chairman Mary Schapiro has told staff that they need to recommend a proposal before the year is over.

Also up for discussion was the draft that Senator Bachus released last month mandating that there be at least one self-regulatory organization tasked with overseeing investment advisers. The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority is a top candidate for the role and has expressed interest in taking on this new responsibility. However, not everyone is a supporter of FINRA becoming SRO.

More Blog Posts:
Most Investors Want Fiduciary Standard for Investment Advisers and Broker-Dealers, Say Trade Groups to SEC, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, October 12, 2010

Fiduciary Standard in Securities Industry Doesn’t Need New Definition, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, November 26, 2010

FINRA Will Customize Oversight to Investment Adviser Industry if Chosen as Its SRO, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, April 8, 2011

FINRA Cannot Enforce Disciplinary Actions Through the Courts, Says Federal Appeals Court

Published on: October 6, 2011 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit says that the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority does not have the authority to take its members to court in order to enforce disciplinary actions. The ruling comes after a years-long legal battle involving penny stock brokerage firm Fiero Brothers and owner John J. Fiero.

Fiero and his financial firm were expelled from FINRA and ordered to pay a $1 million fine for naked short selling and other violations of federal fraud statutes. It was in 1998 that NASD Regulation Inc. filed a complaint accusing Fiero and co-conspirators of engaging in the illegal short-selling of securities to purposely push down the price 10 NASDAQ securities. The financial scam eventually led to the collapse of both Hanover Sterling, which served as the securities’ underwriter and Adler, Coleman Clearing Corp. A NASD hearing panel found that Fiero committed extortion and violated short selling rules. The $1 million fine and expulsion were imposed in 2001.

Fiero Brothers and its owner refused to pay. FINRA took them to court to obtain payment. The SRO first brought its case to New York state court, where the state’s highest court eventually threw out a ruling in FINRA’s favor. Fiero then brought the case to federal court. There, he sought a declaratory judgment that FINRA did not have the power to pursue the fine in court. FINRA then counter-sued.

Now, however, the three-judge panel is saying that FINRA’s housekeeping rule from 1990, which gave it the right to go to court to go after monetary sanctions and the country’s foundational securities laws, does not give the SRO the right to collect disciplinary fines through the court system. The federal appeals court’s ruling overturns a lower court’s decision.

Some are saying that the court’s ruling reduces FINRA’s power and vindicates complaints that have been made accusing the SRO of going beyond its statutory power and abusing the process of rule making. Even ex-FINRA enforcement head Susan Merrill believes that the ruling casts a shadow on FINRA’s housekeeping rules. The court said the 1990 rule needs to be more formally examined because rather than just being a matter of housekeeping, it impacts the rights of members that have been suspended or barred.

Banned brokers are not allowed to reenter the industry unless the pay all fines. As a result, obtaining fines is not usually a problem for FINRA. Now, however, seeing as FINRA doesn’t have the right to enforce payment in court, an action that it has taken over the last two decades, it will be interesting to see how other barred brokers may choose to respond to fine demands.

Meantime, FINRA has said that this latest ruing will not limit its ability to enforce securities laws and FINRA rules, protect investors, or discipline financial firms.

Court: FINRA cannot use lawsuits to collect fines, Reuters, October 5, 2011
Court Says Regulator Exceeded Its Power, New York Times, October 6, 2011
NASD Regulation Bars John Fiero, Expels Fiero Brothers, Inc., and Imposes $1 Million Fine For Illegal Short Sales, Market Manipulation and Extortion, NASD/FINRA, January 8, 2011

More Blog Posts:
Five Broker-Dealers Fined by FINRA Over Allegedly Misrepresenting Commissions as Fees to Clients, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, September 16, 2011
Texas Securities Fraud: FINRA Fines Bluechip Securities for Ex-Employee’s Alleged Churning of Public Customer Accounts, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, August 28, 2011
Wedbush Ordered By FINRA Panel To Pay $3.5M to Trader Over Withheld Compensation, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, July 16, 2011 Continue Reading ›

SEC & DOJ File Charges Against San Francisco Investment Adviser For Alleged “Soft Dollar” Fraud

Published on: October 5, 2011 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The Securities and Exchange Commission is suing investment adviser Kurt Hovan for allegedly misappropriating $178K in “soft dollars” that he claimed was used for investment research. The federal agency contends that, in fact, the money was used to cover other business-related expenses. When Kurt, as Hovan Capital Management president, was asked to provide documents supporting this, he generated bogus research reports. Meantime, the US Department of Justice is charging the 43-year-old with obstruction and mail fraud.

Soft dollars are rebates or credits. They come from brokerage firms on commissions for trades made in investment adviser’s client accounts. If the soft dollar credits are disclosed appropriately, the IA may keep the credits and use them to cover expenses related to a specific area research and brokerage services benefiting clients.

The SEC contends, however, that Kurt didn’t solely use the soft dollars for research services. Instead, $166,667 was used to pay for the salary of his brother Edward Hovan. Soft dollars were also used to pay for computer hardware and office rent. Edward and Kurt’s wife Lisa Hovan (Hovan Capital Management’s chief financial officer) are also named in the SEC’s complaint. The SEC is accusing all three of them for violating federal securities laws’ antifraud provisions. Kurt Hovan and HCM are also accused of recordkeeping violations.

The securities lawsuit also claims that conceal their soft dollar-related activities, Kurt, Lisa, and Edward set up a “Bolton Research,” which was a shell company that Edward Hovan secretly controlled. The company then billed Hovan Capital Management’s brokerage companies for research that was never conducted. Edward allegedly kicked back $65,000 of payments to Kurt and Lisa.

The allegedly false reporting to the SEC is said to have taken place during a January 2010 examination of HCM. Staff requested that the financial firm give over copies of the research reports that Bolton Research had prepared. Instead, Kurt allegedly gave the SEC phony research reports and doctored materials.

The SEC is seeking disgorgement with prejudgment interest, injunctive relief, and other financial penalties.

Securities Fraud
As you can see, securities charges and criminal charge can be filed against an investment adviser that commits securities fraud. You may want to file your own securities fraud lawsuit to recover your losses if you lost money because investment adviser misconduct was a factor.

Our securities fraud law firm knows that the thought of pursuing a financial firm to get your money back can be an overwhelming process, which is why you want to retain an experienced investment fraud lawyer that knows how to successfully pursue your recovery while protecting your rights.

SEC CHARGES BAY AREA INVESTMENT ADVISER FOR DEFRAUDING CLIENTS AND FALSIFYING DOCUMENTS DURING SEC EXAM, SEC, September 28, 2011
Belvedere investment adviser faces criminal charges in fraud case, Marin Independent Journal, September 28, 2011

More Blog Posts:
New Jersey Investment Adviser Who Pleaded Guilty to $11.5M Financial Fraud Gets 168-Month Prison Sentence, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, September 29, 2011
Investors Working with Incompetent Registered Investment Advisers Have Few Protections, Reports Bloomberg, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, August 11, 2011
Custodial Firms Get Tougher About Registered Investment Adviser Compliance, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, December 28, 2010 Continue Reading ›

Two Texas Men Sentenced For $100 Million Life Settlement Scam that Bilked Over 800 Investors

Published on: October 4, 2011 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Adley Abdulwahab and Christian Allmendinger, both principals of A&O Resource Management Ltd., must now serve decades prison for their involvement in a $100M life settlement scheme. Both defendants are from Houston, Texas. The Texas State Securities Board, the SEC, the IRS, the U.S. Postal Inspection Service, the FBI, and the Virginia Corporation Commission all investigated this life settlement scam. Over 800 investors in the US and Canada were defrauded
Allmendinger, who is vice-president and co-founder of A & O, was orderd to serve 45 years in prison, while Abdulwahab, who is part owner of A & O and a hedge fund manager is to serve 60 years. Both men were indicted on 18 counts. Also pleading guilty to the life settlement scheme was ex-A & O president David White and four others.

According to the US Justice Department, investors, who wanted conservative investments, were misled into thinking that investing in A & O was a no-risk, safe bet when in fact, it was a “sham.” Among the victims were hundreds of retirees who lost their savings because they invested in A & O. Almendinger and Abdulwahab used investors’ money to pay for expensive cars, luxury homes, and extravagant jewelry.

Abdulwahab and Allmendinger both marketed A & O life settlement investment products to investors. Per the court, the principals misrepresented A & O’s prior success to investors, while also exaggerating its size as a business. Abdulwahab also not only lied about his credentials but also did not disclose that he had pleaded guilty to a Texas felony charge of forgery of a commercial instrument.

When state regulators started looking into A & O’s financial instruments, the fraudsters made up a bogus sales transaction to “sell” the company to shell corporate entity Blue Dymond and Physician’s Trust, also a shell corporate entity. While the sale ended Allmendinger’s ties with the life settlement scam, Abdullah and his co-fraudsters still secretly controlled and continued the financial scheme until September 2009. The majority of the investors were seniors and most of them lost everything they’d invested. For many, this was their entire retirement.

It is unfortunate when an investor loses money because he/she was the victim of financial fraud. Recently, the North American Securities Administrators Association added securitized life settlement contracts on its list of practices and products that are a threat to investors. In many instances, schemes involve “worthless paper” that doesn’t keep up enough assets so that there is a guaranteed fixed return in a fixed time period.

Texas Fund Managers Sentenced Over Life-Settlement Scheme, The Wall Street Journal, September 28, 2011
Life settlements just one more potential scam in recent troubled times, San Diego Source, September 6, 2011
Principals Of A&O Entities Sentenced In Virginia For $100 Million Fraud Scheme, Justice.gov, September 28, 2011

Financial Scammers Are Now Using YouTube, Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter, and Other Websites to Target Investors, Warns Texas Securities Commissioner, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, September 22, 2011
Ex-UBS Financial Adviser Pleads Guilty to Defrauding Private Fund Investors, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, July 13, 2011
AIG Trying to Get More Investors to Buy Life Settlements, Institutional Investors Securities Blog, April 26, 2011 Continue Reading ›

Govt.’s Mortgage-Backed Securities Case Against JPMorgan Case Leads to Lawsuit Against 23 Former Washington Mutual Employees

Published on: October 4, 2011 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The federal government has filed a securities lawsuit against 23-ex Washington Mutual employees and a number of WaMu’s subsidiaries. The complaint contends that these persons signed off on documents that included misleading and false information that was used to sell billions of dollars in mortgage-backed securities. The case stems from the government’s MBS lawsuit against JPMorgan Chase, which acquired nearly all of WaMu’s banking assets and liabilities a few years ago. That securities complaint is one more than a dozen brought by the Federal Housing Finance Agency last month against the large banks that packaged and sold MBS at the height of the housing boom.

In this latest lawsuit, the government contends that when Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac bought their 35 issues of securities worth $12.9 billion during the bubble, they depended on the registration statements, prospectuses, and other documents that WaMu and its subprime unit Long Beach Mortgage had filed. Unfortunately, the documents that Fannie and Freddie depended on included omissions and misstatements that misrepresented that the underlying mortgage loans were in compliance with certain underwriting standards and guidelines, including representations that “significantly overstated” the borrowers’ ability to pay back their mortgage loans.

One example cited involves the LBMLT 2006-1, which is a subprime security. Standard & Poor’s and Moody’s had both given it an AAA rating and the offering document noted that almost 73% of the underlying mortgages had an 80% or lower loan-to-value ratio. Less than 25% were supposedly on non-owner occupied homes.

The government is now saying, however, that WaMu pressed appraisers to raise property values so that these lower LTV ratios could be obtained and that, in fact, only 50% of underlying loans in LBMLT 2006-1 had LTV ratios of 80% or lower. Also, the government believes that almost one third of LBMLT 2006-1 loans were on nonowner occupied homes and not the lower percentage that was quoted. Close to 56% of LBMLT 2006-1 have since defaulted, gone into foreclosure, or become delinquent.

Most of the ex-WaMu and Long Beach officers named in the complaint, save for ex-chief financial officer Thomas Case and ex-Home Loans group head Craig Davis, were midlevel employees. It was just earlier this year that the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. sued three ex-WaMu executives for allegedly gambling billions of the bank’s money on risky home loans while they lined their own pockets.

Defendants named then were ex-Chief Executive Kerry Killinger, ex-Chief Operating Officer Stephen Rotella, and ex-WaMu home loans division president David Schneider. The three men are accused of earning $95 million in compensation between 2005 and 2008.

US banking regulators have sued over 150 bank officials in their efforts to get back at least $3.6 billion in losses linked to the 2007-2009 economic crisis.

If you are an investor that suffered losses related to mortgage-backed securities when the housing bubble burst, you might have grounds for a securities fraud case.

Ex-WaMu Execs Sued By FDIC For Gross Negligence Over Bank’s Collapse – READ The Lawsuit, Huffington Post, March 17, 2011

More Blog Posts:

NCUA Sues Goldman Sachs for $491M Over $1.2B of Mortgage-Back Securities Sales That Caused Credit Unions’ Failure, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, August 23, 2011

Prospective Securities Class Action Lawsuit Accuses David Lerner Associates Inc. Accused of Recycling Investor Capital and Using a Credit Line to Meet Dividend Payout

Published on: September 30, 2011 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

According to Investment News, the amended complaint of a prospective securities class action case is claiming that the nontraded REITs sold by David Lerner Associates Inc. used investor distributions and borrowed from a credit line to fulfill the targeted dividend payout. The broker-dealer is accused by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority of giving out performance figures for its APPLE REITs while implying that investments in the future would likely render similar result. FINRA is suing financial firm for securities fraud and marketing unsuitable products to investors. The investors filed their securities fraud complaints soon after. They are now waiting for their class action status to be approved.

Per the amended complaint, David Lerner brokers told clients that Apple REITs were low risk investments that would shield their savings from any stock market turbulence. Also, not only was the amount of distribution that investors were paid not equal the income earned from the Apple REITs, which had mostly invested in Hilton and Marriott hotels that offered extended stays, but also, clients were allegedly promised consistent yearly returns of 7-8%.

Although David Lerner had represented that cash flow would be the basis for distributions, offering documents said that distributions from other sources could only occur on occasion and in “certain circumstances.” The complaint accuses the broker-dealer and other defendants of issuing distributions without taking profitability into account while obtaining properties at prices that could not be justified considering the distributions that were being paid.

David Lerner Associates denies the plaintiffs’ allegations. The broker-dealer and its brokers earned $341.5 million in commissions and Apple REITs sales. They also earned a 2.5% marketing expense.

Investors had filed two class actions against David Lerner this summer. They had purchased $5.7 billion in Apple REIT offerings from the financial firm’s brokers. Plaintiffs are accusing the broker-dealer of targeting inexperienced and elderly investors, leaving out key information about how the trusts were run, misrepresenting the REITs value, and failing to reveal the risks involved.

Nontraded REITs
Nontraded real-estate investment trusts gather cash from investors to purchase property. They pay the rental income as a regular dividend. Last year alone, they took in approximately $8.3 billion in investments.

Earlier this month, FINRA put out a warning to investors that they carefully consider the risks involved in investing in nontraded REITs. The SRO cautioned that some risks are not immediately obvious and may not properly explained by financial firms.

The Apple REITs were sold and written by David Lerner, which has opened and sold over 120,000 accounts involving these.

Read the Complaint (PDF)

Lerner resorted to tricks to plump up Apple distributions: Suit, Investment News, October 14, 2011
Apple REIT investors could trade bad for worse, MarketWatch, July 21, 2011
Finra Sues David Lerner Firm, The Wall Street Journal, June 1, 2011
Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas LTD LLP Investigates Claims Concerning David Lerner Associates’ Sale of Apple REITs, Globnewswire, August 3, 2011

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
W.P. Carey & Co Settles SEC Charges Over Payments of Undisclosed REIT Compensation, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, March 25, 2008 Continue Reading ›