Investor Lawyers Blog

US Sentencing Commission is Open to Public Comment on Proposed Amendments that Could Impact Insider Trading Convictions

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

The U.S. Sentencing Commission is welcoming public comment on amendments that have been proposed to its sentencing guidelines, which would ramp up the offense level for certain insider trading cases. Also, there are other proposals, related to amendments to the guidelines that get specific about determining loss in fraud cases, dealing with the rehabilitative efforts of offenders, and assessing the harm related to bank and mortgage fraud.

The proposed amendment to Section 2B1.4 of the US Sentencing Guidelines calls for an offense-level enhancement if the defendant accused of insider training had occupied a position of trust (four levels) or used sophisticated means (two levels), with the latter requiring a minimum base offense level of 12. Right now, insider trading’s base offense level is eight.

Under the proposed amendment, the term “sophisticated” would mean a very complex offense conduct as it relates to hiding or executing the offense. Factors that courts would take into account to determine whether sophisticated means were applied by the inside trader include how many transactions were made, the monetary value of each transaction, the number of securities involved, the duration of time that the offense took place for, whether shell companies, fake entities, or offshore accounts were used to hide the transactions, and if auditing mechanisms, internal compliance policies, and compliance and ethics programs were undermined to cover up the insider trading scam.

The proposed amendment as it relates to mortgage fraud and other financial institution-related frauds would deal with foreseeable pecuniary harm (including costs the lending institution involved with foreclosure on the mortgaged property would have to pay), as long as the institution had applied due diligence during initiation, monitoring, the processing of the loan, and collateral disposal.

The US Sentencing Commission also wants to look at making clear what method or methods would be used to figure out securities fraud losses. Commission members are hoping this will stop sentencing disparities from occurring. Methods that have been used to figure out loss have included the modified rescissory method, the simple rescissory method, the market-adjusted method, and market capitalization.

Modified rescissory method: Concentrates on the difference between the average security price after market disclosure and the average security price while the fraud was occurring.

Simple rescissory method: Looks at the price paid for the security and what that was after the fraud was uncovered.

Market-adjusted method: Can turn according to changes in the values of the securities (but doesn’t include changes related to external market forces.)

Market capitalization: Looks at the difference between the price after disclosure and beforehand.

The commission is looking into providing a loss-causation standard not unlike the one for civil securities fraud cases.

More Blog Posts:

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

SEC Wants Proposed Securities Settlements with Bear Stearns Executives to Get Court Approval

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

The Securities and Exchange Commission wants the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York to approve the proposed securities settlements that it reached with Matthew Tannin and Ralph Cioffi, two former Bear Stearns & Co. portfolio managers. The SEC says the deals are “fair, adequate, and reasonable.”

The settlements are to resolve SEC allegations that the two men misled bank counterparts and investors about two hedge funds’ financial states. Subprime mortgage-backed securities exposure caused the funds to collapse in 2007 and investors lost about $1.8 billion. (Bear Stearns’ hedge funds were some of the first to fail when the housing bubble popped.)

According to federal prosecutors, Cioffi and Tannen promoted the prospects of the funds even though they knew that their portfolio and the housing market were in dire straights. In the process, they earned millions of dollars.

A jury acquitted both of them criminal charges in these matters in 2009. This was a criminal case filed separate from the SEC’s securities fraud complaint against them. The proposed securities fraud settlement with the Commission allows Tannin and Cioffi to not have to go through a second trial.

As part of the settlement, Tannin and Cioffi have agreed to pay $1 million-Cioffi’s portion would be $700,000 in disgorgement plus a fine of $100,000 and Tannin would pay $200,000 in disgorgement and a $50,000 fine. Also, Cioffi wouldn’t be allowed to associate with any municipal securities dealers, investment advisers, or other financial industry professionals for three years. The ban for Tannin would be two years. Both of them would not have to admit wrongdoing.

Federal Judge Frederic Block, who will decide whether or not to approve the securities fraud settlement, has referred to the money the two men have agreed to pay as “chump change.” He has, however, indicated that he will likely sign off on it.

That said, as our securities fraud lawyers have reported in recent blog posts, the SEC recently came under fire for allowing parties to settle securities fraud cases by paying fines that some don’t believe reflect the true damages sustained by investors and others. Critics have also taken issue with the SEC’s practice of letting financial firms, brokers, and investment advisers settle without having to admit to any wrongdoing.

In response to Block’s concerns, the SEC noted that although courts should just approve Commission settlements, they also shouldn’t replace their own judgments with what the parties involved have agreed upon. The regulatory agency says that as long as the settlements reached don’t ignore any state or federal laws that apply and fail to create a burden on judicial resources, there is no reason why a court shouldn’t approve these agreements. The SEC pointed out that the financial settlement reached with Cioffi and Tannen is in the range of what might have been arrived at had the case gone to court.

Bear Stearns Ex-Managers to Pay $1 Million to Settle Fraud Case, New York TImes, February 13, 2012

SEC Charges Two Former Bear Stearns Hedge Fund Portfolio Managers with Securities Fraud, SEC, June 19, 2008

More Blog Posts:
Motion for Class Certification in Lawsuit Against J.P. Morgan Securities Inc. Over Alleged Market Manipulation Scam Granted in Part by Court, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, July 23, 2010
Bear Stearns Sold to JP Morgan – One Firm’s Trash Is Another Firm’s Treasure!, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, March 17, 2008
Insurer Claims that JP Morgan and Bear Stearns Bilked Clients Of Billions of Dollars with Handling of Mortgage Repurchases, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, February 3, 2011 Continue Reading ›

Investment Adviser Roundup: Two Firms Pay Over $47M For Alleged Failure to Properly Disclose Allegations, District Court Allows Claims Involving Excessive Mutual Fund Fees, and Conn. Firm to Settle CDO Misrepresentation Allegations for $1.62M

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

Investment Advisory Firms Settle SEC’s Failure to Disclose Mutual Fund Risk Allegations for Over $47M

Claymore Advisors LLC and Fiduciary Asset Management LLC have agreed to pay over $47 million to settle SEC proceedings related to the roles that they allegedly played in failing to properly disclose the risky derivative strategies of a closed-end mutual fund. The strategies are partially to be blame for the collapse of the

Fiduciary/Claymore Dynamic Equity Fund (HCE) during the economic crisis. The two firms are resolving the claims without denying or admitting to wrongdoing, and some of the money will go toward reimbursing shareholders.

Democrats Want to Volcker Rule to Be Clear About Banks Being Allowed to Invest in Venture Capital Funds

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

With regulators tasked with finalizing the Volcker rule, Democratic lawmakers want them to make sure that the rule makes clear that banks are allowed to invest in venture capital funds. The proposed rule is geared toward lowering financial system risk by not letting banks to take part in proprietary trading, while limiting how much they can invest in private equity and hedge funds.

The lawmakers, 26 of whom have written to the federal agencies working on the rule, noted that venture capital firms are not as high risk as private equity and hedge funds. The Volcker rule would be an implementation of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act’s Section 619. Once finalized, it will go into effect on July 21.

Meantime, European Union Council of Ministers President Margrethe Vestager wants to make sure that the Volcker rule treats non-U.S. sovereign debt and US government securities the same. Vestager wrote to Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke making her case that the federal agencies need to make sure the extraterritorial application of the Volcker rule doesn’t happen. Vestager is concerned that otherwise the competition for non-US banks would be impeded.

SEC Warning to Investors: Watch Out for Fraudsters Posing As Regulators

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

The Securities and Exchange Commission wants investors to watch out for scammers pretending to be SEC employees who are soliciting investments. The warning is an update of a previous alert. The Commission is issuing it once again in the wake of a rise in the number complaints about this type of fraud.

In its alert, the SEC said that it does not endorse financial solicitation offers, help in the sale or purchase of securities, or take part in money transfers. The agency also noted that it isn’t associated with any drawings, sweepstakes, lotteries, or other events involving prizes, winnings, or money windfalls.

Fraudsters have been known to solicit targets by phone, e-mail, and other means, and they are likely to ask for detailed financial and personal information. The SEC says to watch out for anyone claiming to be affiliated with the federal agency and who claims to be looking for help with a fund transfer, wants to send over an investment offer, offers to provide advise about securities or financial assistance (for an upfront fee), or tells you that you are eligible for disbursements from a class action settlement or an investor claim fund.

SEC Chairwoman Defends ‘No Wrongdoing’ Settlements

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

Securities and Exchange Commission Chairwoman Mary L. Schapiro said that the agency’s practice of reaching settlements with financial firms without them having to admit wrongdoing has “deterrent value” despite the fact that some of these firms have been charged more than once for violating the same securities laws. Schapiro noted that the commission ends up bringing a lot of the same kinds of securities cases so that people don’t forget their obligations or that they are being watched by an entity that will hold them responsible.

The SEC will often settle securities fraud cases with a financial firm my having the latter pay a fine and not denying (or admit) that any wrongdoing was done. Expensive court costs are avoided and a resolution is reached.

The SEC has said that financial firms won’t settle if they have to acknowledge wrongdoing because this could make them liable in civil cases filed against them over the same matters. Schapiro says the SEC only settles when the amount it is to receive by settling is about the same as it would likely get if the commission were to win the lawsuit in court.

NFA Enforcement Action Filed Naming Texas Financial Firm J Hansen Investments

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

The National Futures Association has put out an emergency enforcement action against J Hansen Investments LLC and Jonathan Hansen, who is the financial firm’s principal. The Houston, Texas financial firm is a commodity pool operator and an NFA member.

NFA actions taken against JHI and Hansen are the Associate Responsibility Action and the Member Responsibility Action. The Houston financial firm and its principal are accused of failing to cooperating with NFA during a firm examination.

NFA began an unannounced exam of JHI following the latter’s submission of its yearly questionnaire. On it, the financial firm noted that it was running as a commodity pool despite the fact that it had no commodity pools listed with the NFA, never turned in a disclosure document with the association, and lacks CFTC exemptions.

SEC Revises Dollar Amount Thresholds Determining Whether to An Advisory Client Would Have to Pay Performance Fees

Published on: February 25, 2012 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The Securities and Exchange Commission is adopting changes to the dollar amount thresholds, under the 1940 Investment Advisers Act, that are used to determine whether an advisory clients can be made to pay a performance fee. Per the current provision, an adviser has to be managing at least $750k of the client’s money or the adviser must have reasonable grounds for believing that the client’s net worth is over $1M. However, per the 2010 Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act’s Section 418, the SEC has directed that inflation adjustments to the dollar amount tests would be made every five years.

Last year the SEC put out an order modifying the “qualified client” assets management test from $750K to $1M. The test for net worth was changed from $1M to $2M. On February 15, 2012, the SEC said it was adopting these amendments to the Advisers Act’s Rule 205-3.

Per the amended rule, an individual’s primary residence worth and specific debt related to property would not be included when determining the net worth calculation. The amended rule comes with a grandfather provision that lets advisers keep charging clients who were qualified clients prior to the rule change performance fees. The amendments will be in effect 90 days after they are published in the Federal Register.

Private REITs: The Need for Tougher Oversight?

Published on: February 25, 2012 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Our institutional investment fraud lawyers have reported often on real estate investment trusts (REITs). Today we’d like to talk about private REITs.

An REIT is a trust, corporation, or association that owns income-producing real estate. Investors’ capital is pooled by REITs to buy a portfolio of properties. There are public REITs, which include ones traded on a national securities exchange and those that are not traded but are publicly registered. Then there are non-traded REITs, which cannot be found on a national securities exchange, but may be traded in a limited capacity in a secondary market. There is also another kind of REIT known as the private-placement, or private, REIT.

Private REITs, like their non-traded counterparts, are not traded on an exchange. They also come with significant risks. They are not subject to the disclosure requirements that public non-traded REITs have to honor. The fact that they are unlisted makes them difficult to value and insufficient disclosure documents makes it challenging for investors to make educated choices about their investment.

Appeals Court affirm SEC Finding that Broker Acted “Willfully” When Keeping Tax Liens Information from FINRA

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

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit says that the Securities and Exchange Commission did not abuse its discretion when it determined that broker Scott Mathis “willfully” withheld information from the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority about tax liens. Mathis had submitted a petition seeking for the court to review the SEC order. However, the court, denying the request, found that there was “substantial evidence” backing up the SEC’s findings that he did, in fact, hold back information in a willful manner.

Between 1985 and 2002, Mathis was a principal or broker at numerous financial firms. He had submitted three Form U-4 registrations with FINRA. It was after 1996 that the IRS put in five tax liens against him. The federal agency accused him of not paying his personal income taxes over a several-year period. Mathis is accused of not noting the liens in filings with FINRA even though he is purported to have known about them.

According to the court, in 2003 FINRA asked Mathis to explain why he didn’t reveal the liens. He told the SRO he wasn’t aware that they existed or that he had an obligation to note them down on his Form U-4. FINRA then began proceedings against the broker, ultimately holding that he acted “willfully” in failing to report the tax liens. He was suspended for three months and fined $10,000.