Investor Lawyers Blog

Morgan Keegan & Co. Inc. Must Pay $250K to Couple that Lost Investments in Hedge Fund with Ties to Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities

Published on: March 16, 2011 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Financial Industry Regulatory Authority says that Morgan Keegan & Co, Inc. must pay over $250,000 in punitive and compensatory damages to Jeffrey and Marisel Lieberman. The couple suffered financial losses after investing in Greenwich Sentry LLP, a hedge fund whose assets were funneled to Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities. FINRA contends that the brokerage firm failed to due enough due diligence on the Madoff feeder fund, and was “grossly negligent.”

The Lieberman, who are accusing the Regions Financial unit of fraudulent misrepresentation, negligence breach of fiduciary duty, and violations of Florida and Tennessee statutes, claim that Morgan Keegan and Julio Almeyda, one of its registered representatives, invested $200,000 of their money with Greenwich Sentry. The fund ended up filing for bankruptcy last November.

Per Morgan Keegan’s internal compliance rules, investors should only be allowed to place money in hedge funds if “speculation” is one among their main objectives when opening an account. “Speculation” was the last objective on the couple’s list. FINRA says that not only must the broker-dealer repay the couple’s entire loss of $200,000, but also they must also give them 6% annual interest from when the investment was made, $50,000 in punitive damages, and $14,000 in expert witness fees.

Meantime, the FINRA panel cleared Almeyda of wrongdoing, finding that he did not know that Morgan Keegan had not provided sufficient due diligence nor was he aware that he had given the Lieberman’s false and misleading information about their investments’ risks.

Over the last year, Morgan Keegan has found itself dealing with hundreds of arbitration cases nvolving mutual fund investors alleging securities fraud related to the significant losses they sustained during the subprime mortgage crisis.

Related Web Resources:
Morgan Keegan Fined $250,000 Over Madoff Fund, Reuters, March 7, 2011

More Blog Posts:
Morgan Keegan to Pay $9.2M to Investors in Texas Securities Fraud Case Involving Risky Bond Funds, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, October 6, 2010
Morgan Keegan & Co., Inc., Morgan Asset Management, and Two Employees Face Subprime Mortgage Securities Fraud Charges by SEC, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, April 8, 2010
Morgan Keegan Ordered by FINRA Panel to Pay Investor $2.5 Million for Bond Fund Losses, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, February 23, 2010 Continue Reading ›

SEC Needs to Keep a Closer Eye on FINRA, Says Report

Published on: March 15, 2011 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

According to the Boston Consulting Group, the US Securities and Exchange Commission should step up its oversight efforts over the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority. The BCG released its findings following a six-month review of the SEC’s internal operations, an examination that was ordered under the new Dodd-Frank law. The consulting group’s job was to examine the SEC’s structure, internal operations, personnel, resources, relationships with self-regulatory organizations, and technology.

BCG notes that with FINRA now providing the majority of market surveillance for most US equity trading, the SEC’s scrutiny of the SRO is now more important than ever. BCG also believes that the SEC should keep a closer watch on FINRA’s member regulation and enforcement units.

Currently, the SEC’s Office of Compliance Inspections and Examinations employs about 50 people tasked with inspecting 12 SROs. Still, BCG says that these SROs are under no obligation to regularly disclose information about their regulatory operations to the SEC. BCG believes that this disclosure of data should become a formal requirement. Also, even though there are over 100 staff attorneys at the SEC’s Division of Trading and Markets looking at SRO filings, the consulting group believes these employees could stand to deepen their understanding of the markets.

SEC Files Securities Charges Against DHB Industries and Three Ex-Board Members

Published on: March 15, 2011 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The Securities and Exchange Commission has filed and settled securities charges against DHB Industries Inc. without the US defense contractor receiving any penalty. The maker of bulletproof vests for US law enforcement and military agencies, now called Point Blank Solutions, has consented to not committing the alleged violations in the future. SEC charges, however, are still pending against ex-DHB Industries board members Gary Nadelman, Cary Chasin, and Jerome Krantz.

The SEC claims that between 2003 and 2005, the three men let senior managers overstate data in financial reports. The federal agency also contends that as a result of the ex-board members’ “willful blindness,” ex-DHB Industries CEO David Brooks was able to take $10 million from the company and move the funds into another company under his control. Brooks, who is also accused of using another $4.7 million for personal expenses, and ex-DHB Industries COO Sandra Hatfield, were convicted of securities fraud and other charges in criminal court last year.

The SEC wants restitution and civil fines from Krantz, Chasin, and Nadelman. According to the New York Times, it is surprising that the federal regulator has actually filed civil charges against the three men. Save for perhaps a tarnished reputation, corporate directors tend to remain unscathed in cases of securities fraud. For example, no financial firms’ outside directors were named as defendants in SEC cases related to the credit crisis.

While some are expressing hope that the SEC is charting a new course with this case, it is difficult to discern at this point whether this is a one-time deal or the start of a new trend. For a while, there were concerns that the independent director post, assigned specific duties under the Sarbanes-Oxley law in 2002, might be harder to fill because of fear of liability. However, the SEC has only filed cases against them in incidents of alleged severe recklessness. Also, in an attempt to bring in good directors, companies have been offering better pay.

Are board directors held to too low of a standard that allows them to get away with too much?

Related Web Resources:

SEC charges defense contractor, 3 ex-directors, Bloomberg, February 28, 2011

For Directors at DHB Securities, SEC Keeps the Bar Low, New York Times, March 3, 2011

More Blog Posts:
Former DHB Industries CEO and COO Found Guilty of Nearly $200M Securities Fraud Scam, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, September 16, 2010

FINRA Orders Charles Schwab to Pay $18M to Fair Fund for YieldPlus Investors

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

The Financial Industry Regulation Authority wants Charles Schwab & Company, Inc. to pay $18 million to a Fair Fund set up by the SEC to payback investors of the Schwab YieldPlus Funds. FINRA found that even after changes to the fund’s portfolio resulted in it being affected by the mortgage-backed securities market crisis, Schwab did not change its marketing of the fund and instead provided inaccurate material.

The FINRA order was announced just as the Securities and Exchange Commission revealed that $119 million settlement was reached with Charles Schwab & Co., Inc. and Charles Schwab Investment Management for their alleged misleading of Schwab YieldPlus Fund investors and failure prevent nonpublic information from being misused. According to the SEC, investors were not adequately told about the risks associated with the Schwab fund. Instead, they were provide with allegedly misleading statements, such as those claiming that investing in the ultra-short bond funds was only slightly riskier than investing in a money market fund. Read our earlier stockbroker fraud blog post for more information.

Schwab has said that it is still facing about 20 individual securities arbitration claims asking for $3 million in damages related to the YieldPlus Fund. Last year, it resolved federal and California state law claims-for $200 million and $35 million, respectively, over the fund.

In other recent Charles Schwab Corp. news, FINRA has announced that it isn’t going to recommend disciplinary action over the firm’s auction-rate securities sales to clients. Charles Schwab had received two Wells notices in 2009 indicating that regulators were recommending enforcement actions.

Related Web Resources:
UPDATE: Finra Won’t Discipline Schwab For Auction-Rate Securities-Filing, The Wall Street Journal, February 25, 2011
SEC Reaches $119 Million Settlement with Charles Schwab, The Blog of Legal Times, January 11, 2011
FINRA Orders Schwab to Pay $18 Million to Investors for Improper Marketing of YieldPlus Bond Fund, FINRA, January 11, 2011

More Blog Posts:
Schwab Settles for $119M SEC Charges It Allegedly Misled YieldPlus Fund Investors, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, January 17, 2011
Class Members of Charles Schwab Corporation Securities Litigation Can Still Opt Out to File Individual Securities Claim, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, December 6, 2010
Charles Schwab & Co. Defendant in Class-Action Securities Fraud Lawsuit Filed on Behalf of Schwab Total Bond Market Fund Investors Over CMOs and Mortgage-Backed Securities, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, September 7, 2010 Continue Reading ›

Wall Street Targeting Older Investors With Structured Product Sales, Reports AARP

Published on: March 11, 2011 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Unfortunately, there are elderly investors who end up suffering financial losses because a broker placed their money in investments that are unsuitable for their needs. Many of these investors don’t realize that they may have grounds for a securities fraud claim.

The AARP says that for many elderly Americans, the prospect of running out of money is scarier to them than the thought of dying-especially for those who are too old or sick to go back to work and rebuild their nest eggs. Although broker-dealers and investment advisers know how important it is for older investors to make sure that their money is placed in investments that are low risk, this isn’t always what happens, such as with structured products.

While highly profitable for sellers, structured products aren’t always a great benefit to buyers who could stand to lose everything on an illiquid investment that has limited potential gain. Already, investors have lost about $164 billion in such risky investment. Yet structured product sales continue to grow.

Countrywide Finance. Corp, UBS Securities LLC, and JPMorgan Securities LLC Settle Mortgage-Backed Securities Lawsuit Filed by New Mexico Institutional Investors for $162M

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

New Mexico’s State Investment Council and Public Employees Retirement Association have settled their securities lawsuit with Countrywide Finance Corp. and two underwriters for $162 million. These details, from the confidential settlement agreement, were was obtained by the Albuquerque Journal through an Inspection of Public Records request.

The Countrywide investments were made up of mortgage-backed securities that the company had written. JPMorgan Securities and UBS Securities LLC were the two underwriters.

The securities were obtained through securities lending, which involved the SIC lending one batch of securities in return for another batch that paid a slightly higher interest rate. Although securities lending is generally considered safe for institutional investors like the SIC and PERA, mortgage-backed securities played a key role in the recent financial collapse. Even now, since the market has rebounded, the Countrywide securities are still worth less than what the state got.

In their institutional investment fraud lawsuit, the SIC and PERA accuse the defendants of disregarding their own underwriting guidelines and dumping the securities on investors, including the state of New Mexico, “to generate high volume loan business regardless of credit risk.” The New Mexico agencies opted to file their complaint in state court instead of taking part in a class-action lawsuit with other US states.

Of the $162 million, $149 million goes to SIC, PERA gets $6 million, the Educational Retirement Board receives $100,000, and the lawyers hired by the state are to receive $7 million. Bank of America bought out Countrywide in 2008.

Related Web Resources:

Countrywide sued by 3 New Mexico funds, Pensions & Investments, Pension and Investments, August 20, 2008

New Mexico State Investment Council

New Mexico Educational Retirement Board

More Blog Posts:
Bank of America and Countrywide Financial Sued by Allstate over $700M in Bad Mortgaged-Backed Securities, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, December 29, 2010

Countrywide Financial, Merrill Lynch, and Citigroup Executives Defend Their Hefty Compensations Following Subprime Mortgage Crisis, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, March 12, 2008

Texas Congressmen Seek Answers from SEC Chairwoman Regarding Conflict of Interest Related to Madoff Debacle

Published on: March 8, 2011 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Texas Congressman Jeb Hensarling is one of four Republican members of the House Financial Services Committee wanting to know more about Securities and Exchange Commission Chairwoman Mary Schapiro’s role in managing the conflict of interest presented by appointing David M. Becker as the SEC’s general counsel. Becker, who is no longer in this post, is with someone with a financial interest in a Bernard Madoff investment account. As a senior policy director for the SEC involved in dealing with Madoff Ponzi scam, he played a role determining how victims would be compensated.

Becker’s ties with Madoff didn’t come to light until trustee Irving H. Picard sued him and his two brothers to get back more than $1million of the $2 million they had inherited from their late mother’s Madoff investment. The former SEC general counsel claims that he told Schapiro and the chief ethics officer of his Madoff-related financial interest. Now, however, SEC inspector general H. David Kotz says he wants to probe possible conflicts of interest related to Becker’s role with the SEC as someone who stood to benefit from decisions involving Madoff Ponzi scam victims. According to the New York Times, two unnamed sources say while the SEC agreed to return to investors only the funds they had placed in their Madoff accounts, Becker had pushed for allowing the victims to keep some of their investment gains.

Lawmakers say they want details of Schapiro’s talks with Becker about his Madoff ties. They also want to know whether she followed all the steps delineated in government ethics rules. Also getting into the mix is Texas Representative and Republican Randy Neugebauer, who is quoted in the New York Times as stating that he believes the SEC should be held to the same high standard of “transparency and disclosure” as it holds other companies.

Securities Lawsuit Accusing Merrill Lynch of Facilitating Sale of Mortgage-Backed Securities to King County, Washington Can Proceed, Says Court

Published on: March 8, 2011 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington says that King County, Washington has pleaded sufficient facts to continue with its securities fraud lawsuit accusing Merrill Lynch, Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner and Smith Inc. and Merrill Lynch Money Markets Inc. of facilitating its purchase of allegedly toxic mortgage-backed securities and violating the Washington State Securities Act. The defendants had sought to dismiss the securities fraud complaint.

Per the plaintiff, the defendants sold more than $100 million of the toxic assets to King County through the entities Mansail II and Victoria Finance in 2007. At the time, the county had wanted to make conservative investments. Not long after, Mansail failed and Victoria was downgraded to “junk” and placed on negative credit watch.

The county, claiming $60 million in losses, contends that the defendants played the role of seller or dealer of the commercial paper but did not fulfill its responsibility of ensuring there were sufficient procedures in place so that unwise investments were avoided and adequate warning of investment risks were provided. The county also contends that Merrill Lynch and its subsidiaries knew that the securities it was selling were toxic and had even made efforts to get rid of its MBS.

SROs Immune from Broker-Dealer’s Lawsuit Over Bylaw Changes Related to Creation of FINRA, Says Appeals Court

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

Recently, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit dismissed Standard Investment Chartered Inc.’s lawsuit against the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, New York Stock Exchange Group Inc., and NASD over alleged misstatements in a proxy to obtain member approval for bylaw changes that ultimately resulted in the creation of FINRA. In a per curiam decision, the court held that self-regulatory organizations and their officers are immune from lawsuits over bylaw amendments because these are “inextricable” from the SRO’s regulatory roles.

The plaintiff, broker-dealer and former NASD member Standard Investment Chartered Inc., claims that NASD and certain officials issued material misrepresentations in the proxy statement that solicited approval of bylaw amendments so that the merger between NASD and parts of NYSE Regulation Inc. that became FINRA would take place. The broker-dealer contends that the proxy statement misrepresented that $35,000 was the most that the Internal Revenue Service had authorized NASD to pay members over the union.

Last March, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed Standard Investment Chartered Inc.’s lawsuit, as well as a similar claim submitted by NASD member Benchmark Financial Services Inc. The court said that the union between the SROs was “entitled to absolute immunity” because it was part of their delegated regulatory functions. Standard Investment Chartered appealed the ruling.

Now, the Second Circuit has affirmed the district court’s ruling. The court also noted that NASD can’t change its bylaws without Securities and Exchange Commission approval.

Other defendants in the lawsuit include Securities and Exchange Commission chairman Mary Schapiro, who was NASD’s CEO when the regulatory body merged with NYSE, Pershing LLC Chairman Richard Brueckner, and FINRA senior vice president Howard Schloss.

Related Web Resources:
Appeals Court Upholds Lower Court Ruling on Finra Damage Suits, Bloomberg, February 23, 2011
Court Finds SROs Immune From Lawsuit Over Bylaw Changes to Effect FINRA Creation, BNA – Securities Law Daily, February 23, 2011
Continue Reading ›

Ameriprise Financial Inc. to Pay $27M to Settle Securities Fraud Lawsuits of Securities America Clients Bilked in Ponzi Scams

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

To settle securities fraud complaints by investors that bought private placements in Provident Royalties and Medical Capital through its independent-brokerage unit Securities America, Ameriprise Financial Inc. will pay $27 million. It was just two weeks ago that Securities America agreed to pay $21 million to settle the same class of approximately 2,000 investors who lost about $300 million through Ponzi scams. Unfortunately, private placements, which should be restricted to rich “accredited ” investors, were offered to a wider range of investors that likely did not fully understand the risks involved.

In its annual report, Ameriprise revealed that Securities America clients sustained nearly $400 million in financial losses from the private placements. The financial planning and wealth management firm has about $40 million in reserves. Aside from the class action lawsuits, Securities America and Ameriprise face lawsuits in Massachusetts and a “significant” number of individual securities claims in arbitration.

To avail of the class-action settlements, an investor would have to drop his/her arbitration case. However, as the proposed settlements are greater than Securities America’s “net worth,” claimants may not get all of the money that they are owed. According to Shepherd Smith Edwards and Kantas Founder and Securities Fraud Lawyer William Shepherd, “With the class legal fees and expenses not yet revealed, this is-at best-nine cents on the dollar for the victims. This would actually be a bit better than most securities class action cases, in which the average paid to victims is closer to seven percent of their losses. Our firm represents securities fraud victims one at a time. These are investors who have losses substantial enough to support their own case. While they have to ‘opt-out’ of the class action in order to file their individual claims, gambling 7% of losses to seek a far higher recovery is often a wise decision.”

Related Web Resources:
Ameriprise settles investor suit for $27 million: lawyer, Reuters, March 3, 2011
Lawsuits suck air out of Securities America’s cash cushion, Investment News, March 1, 2011
Texas Securities Fraud: Three FINRA Cases Against Securities America Over Sale of Private Placements Halted, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, February 22, 2011
Securities America Inc. to Pay $1.2M in Compensatory and Punitive Damages Over Allegedly Fraudulent Medical Capital Notes, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, January 6, 2011 Continue Reading ›