Investor Lawyers Blog

Texas Securities Act Control Person Claims against Merrill Lynch Pierce Fenner & Smith Inc. is Revived by Appeals Court

Published on: January 20, 2011 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The Texas Court of Appeals has reinstated the Texas Securities Act control person claims against Merrill Lynch Pierce Fenner & Smith Inc. related to its former broker Terry Christopher Bounds’s allegedly fraudulent outside sales transactions.
According to the appeals court, Bounds, who owned two “outside” direct-marketing corporations, solicited David Fernea, who is now the appellant of this Texas securities case, to buy shares in both businesses. The latter purchased 50% interest in each company.

Fernea claims that after he bought into the companies, Bounds refused to uphold his part of the agreement and concealed his actions with the delivery of a fake stock certificate. He also contends that the ex-Merrill Lynch broker had made misrepresentations and omissions to persuade him to buy the stock. Among the alleged omissions was failing to disclose that Bounds’s companies were involved in a consumer protection dispute with the Texas Attorney General and that the stocks that Fernea had purchased were not registered with the Texas State Securities Board. The appellant also claims that Bounds tried to secretly resell the corporations he had already bought from him to other parties.

Fernea is suing Merrill Lynch for Texas securities fraud because he says that that Bounds’s working relationship with the investment bank had played an important part in his decision to buy into the broker’s companies. He is accusing the broker-dealer of violations of its own internal polices regarding its employees’ outside transactions, violating the Texas Securities Act’s Section 33, negligent supervision of Bounds related to his outside transactions, “control person” liability under the Texas Securities Act, and violation of several NASD and NYSE internal rules.

While the appeals court initially remanded the control person claim to a lower court, it has now reinstated the claim. The court says that it is up to the plaintiff to bear the initial burden of proving control, including that the alleged control person actually had influence or power of the controlled person and that this power to influence or control the specific activity or transaction led to the violation in question. The court has found that there is evidence that Merrill Lynch’s policies gave it control or issue over the “transaction at issue.”

Related Web Resources:
Texas Securities Act

BNA Securities Daily Law

Fernea v. Merrill Lynch Pierce Fenner & Smith Inc.
Continue Reading ›

CFTC Files Charges in Alleged California Ponzi Scam Involving the Fraudulent Solicitation of $14 million in Commodity Futures

Published on: January 18, 2011 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The Commodity Futures Trading Commission is charging Increase Investments Inc., Spirit Investments, and Scott Bottolfson with securities fraud. The CFTC contends that the defendants solicited about $14 million from 30 individuals for investments in two commodity trading pools that traded options on commodity futures and commodity futures contracts. Increase and Spirit allegedly ran the pools. The commission is seeking restitution for the investment fraud victims, fines, the return of ill-gotten gains, trading and registration bans, and permanent injunctions against future violations of federal commodities laws.

The CFTC contends that from 2002 through August 2010, Bottolfson made false and misleading statements to draw in prospective investors. He is accused of promising a 20% fixed-rate return and making it appear as if the commodity futures investments were not only guaranteed, but also that they protected, risk-free, and profitable.

Investors went on to sustain about $845,000 in trading losses. About $2.97 million had been placed in the commodity pool trading accounts. The CFTC is accusing Bottolfson of allegedly misappropriating about $11 million of investors’ money to pay pool participants their “profits,” as well as cover some of his personal expenses.

JPMorgan Chase & Co. CEO Warns Municipal Bond Investors to Expect More Bankruptcies

Published on: January 18, 2011 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

According to JPMorgan Chase & Co. (NYSE: JPM) Chief Executive Officer Jamie Dimon, investors of the municipal bond market can expect expect more bankruptcies. He spoke at the investment bank’s annual healthcare conference and called for those investing in the $2.9 trillion public dept market to be cautious. Dimon is not alone in his prediction. Cities, such as Harrisburg, Pennsylvania and Detroit, Michigan, have also talked about possibly filing for bankruptcy.

Dimon’s statements come even as the number of bankruptcy filings has gone down. Bloomberg.com reports that while 10 municipal entities sought bankruptcy protection in 2009, just five bankruptcy filings were made last year. The largest last year was a South Carolina toll road that had over $300 million in debt. Also, in 2008, Vallejo California sought bankruptcy protection after it didn’t win union pay cuts.

Now, Liberty Mutual Holding Co. has reduced its municipal debt holdings in California, Connecticut, and Illinois. At the end of 2009, it had about $15.5 billion in municipal securities. As of last September, it had about $13.7 billion in municipal securities, or about 20% in invested assets. Moody’s Investors Service has given Liberty Mutual’s holdings in Illinois an A1 rating. Its holdings in Connecticut have been rated Aa2. Insurer Allstate also has had to reduce its municipal securities holdings.

Schwab Settles for $119M SEC Charges It Allegedly Misled YieldPlus Fund Investors

Published on: January 17, 2011 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The Charles Schwab Corp. has agreed to settle for $119 million Securities and Exchange Commission securities fraud charges that it misled investors about the risks involved in its Schwab YieldPlus Fund. By agreeing to settle, Schwab is not denying or admitting wrongdoing.

In 2008, the YieldPlus Fund dropped to $1.8 billion in assets after a peak of $13.5 billion in 2007. The decline happened because, rather than sticking with its stated policy, the fund invested over 25% of assets in private-issuer mortgage-backed securities. According to SEC Division of Enforcement Associate Director Antonia Chion, Schwab promoted the fund as a cash alternative that was supposed to be just slightly riskier than a money market fund even though at one point half the assets were in securities with credit quality and maturity that were very different from the type of investments that money market funds make.

Per the fund’s 1999 registration statement, YieldPlus was to only invest no more than 25% of its assets in one industry. The SEC contends that without obtaining shareholder approval, in 2006 Schwab changed the statement to say that it no longer thought of mortgage-backed securities as an industry. Last year, Schwab agreed to pay $200 million to settle with plaintiffs over the Schwab YieldPlus Fund.

The SEC has also filed a securities fraud complaint against Schwab executives Randall Merk and Kimon Daifotis over the offering, managing, and selling of the Schwab fund. Both men say that they will contest the allegations.

Related Web Resources:
Schwab to Pay $119 Million to Settle SEC Probe Over Misleading Statements, Bloomberg, January 11, 2011
Schwab Settles SEC Charges Over Allegations it Misled YieldPlus Fund Investors for $119M, ThirdAge, January 12, 2011
Class Members of Charles Schwab Corporation Securities Litigation Can Still Opt Out to File Individual Securities Claim, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, December 6, 2010
Read the SEC Complaint against Merk and Daifotis (PDF) Continue Reading ›

Securities Fraud Lawsuit Against UBS Securities LLC by Detroit Pension Funds Won’t Be Remanded to State Court, Says District Court

Published on: January 17, 2011 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan says it won’t be remanding the securities fraud lawsuit accusing UBS Securities LLC and related entities of inducing two Detroit pension plans into taking an equity position in a collateralized loan obligation and then breaching their fiduciary duties through the improper liquidation of the securities. As a result of the alleged defrauding, the Detroit Police and Fire Retirement System of Detroit and the Detroit General Retirement System, also known together as the “Systems,” claim they were deprived of their $40 million investment.

The securities fraud lawsuit, which seeks rescission of contracts and damages, alleges violations of the Michigan Uniform Securities Act and numerous Michigan statutory and common law wrongs. The plaintiffs contend that the $20 billion in CLOs that UBS had obtained through subsidiary Dillon Read Capital Management had deteriorated so badly by May 2007 that UBS sought to unload them. They claim that the broker-dealer not only misrepresented the risks involved with CLOs and its ability to control them, but also, the misrepresentations were part of a scam to get rid of the loans.

While the defendants sought to remove the action to federal district court on the grounds of diversity jurisdiction, the plaintiffs wanted to remand the case to state court. They argued that diversity jurisdiction was lacking. The court, however, refused to send the securities lawsuit back.

Related Web Resource:

Securities Fraud Attorneys

Broker Settles SEC Charges He Defrauded Elderly Nuns

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

Broker Paul Chironis has agreed to settle charges that he defrauded the Sisters of Charity. The US Securities and Exchange Commission is accusing the broker of churning of millions of dollars in mortgage-backed securities in the congregation of elderly nuns’ two accounts. One account supports the nuns’ charitable efforts. The other helps take care of nuns living in nursing homes.

The SEC says that Chironis defrauded the nuns between January 2007 and January 2008. The accounts that he allegedly churned held mostly mortgage-backed securities that Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae, and Ginnie Mae had issued, as well as closed-end bonds. The SEC contends that the broker charged the nuns’ account undisclosed and excessive markups and markdowns in riskless principal transactions.

The federal agency says that Chironis’s actions violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder and Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933. By agreeing to settle, Chironis is not admitting to or denying the charges. He has, however, consented to a permanent bar from the securities industry. He also has agreed to disgorge $250,000 in illegal gains and pay a $100,000 civil penalty. The money, which will be put in a Fair Fund, will be distributed to the congregation of nuns.

Churning
Churning is an act of securities fraud that involves a broker making excessive trades to make commissions and other revenue regardless of whether such transactions fulfills the clients’ investment objectives. Our securities fraud lawyers can help you determine whether you were a victim of churning.

Related Web Resources:
SEC Settles With Broker for Allegedly Defrauding Bronx Nuns, Wall Street Journal, January 6, 2011
Broker Accused of Defrauding Elderly Nuns Settles Case With SEC, SEC, January 6, 2011
Read the SEC Litigation (PDF)
Continue Reading ›

SEC Extends Temporary Rule Allowing Principal Trades by Investment Advisers Registered as Broker-Dealers

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

The US Securities and Exchange Commission has adopted amendments to delay the expiration date of Rule 206(3)-3T under the 1940 Investment Advisers Act. The temporary rule, which was supposed to expire on December 31, 2010, will now stay in effect until December 31, 2012.

Rule 206(3)-3T gives investment advisers that are also broker-dealers who are registered with the SEC another way to satisfy the Advisers Act’s Section 206(3) requirements when they work in a principal capacity with certain advisory clients. Section 206(3) does not allow investment advisers to effect or take part in a transaction for a client while acting either as broker for a person besides the client or as principal for its own account unless the client has been informed of the role that the adviser is playing and has given his or her consent. The SEC says it is completing its study on broker-dealers and investment advisers, per the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act mandate, and it will deliver the report to Congress by January 21.

Under Rule 206(3)-3T, an adviser is allowed to comply with Section 206(3) of the Advisers Act by, among other things:

• Providing written prospective disclosure about principal trade conflicts.
• Getting revocable written consent from the client that prospectively gives the adviser the authority to enter into principal transactions.
• Making certain written or oral disclosures and getting the client’s consent prior to each principal transaction.
• Sending the client confirmation statements that disclose that the adviser notified the client that it could act in a principal capacity and it has the client’s consent.
• Giving the client an annual report that itemizes the principal transactions.

Related Web Resources:

The “New” SEC is Acting Just Like The “Old” SEC by Protecting the Securities Industry from Responsibility for its Actions, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, December 9, 2010

R. Allen Stanford’s Criminal Trial Over $7 Billion Ponzi Scam Delayed So He Can Detoxify from Medication Addiction

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

U.S. District Judge David Hittner has postponed the criminal trial of Texas financier R. Allen Stanford so that he can undergo detoxification from his medication addiction. Three psychiatrists had testified that he is incompetent to stand trial after getting hooked on anti-depressant and anti-anxiety medications.

Stanford, the ex-head of Stanford Financial Group, is accused of running a $7 billion Ponzi scam. He, his companies, and other ex-executives, allegedly bilked investors through Stanford International Bank Ltd’s sale of certificate deposits. Stanford has been indicted on 21 criminal counts of wrongdoing. The US Securities and Exchange Commission also has a Texas securities fraud case against Stanford. Others who were named defendants in that case: Stanford International Bank (SIB), which is located in Antigua, Stanford Group Company (SGC), an investment adviser and broker-dealer located in Houston, Stanford Capital Management, an investment adviser, Stanford Financial Group chief investment officer, Laura Pendergest-Holt, and SIB chief financial officer James Davis.

Stanford has been in federal custody without bail because he is considered a flight risk. According to Stanford’s criminal defense team, prison doctors gave him the meds.

Psychiatrist Victor Scarano, who was retained by Stanford’s team, was among those who testified. He said that for a year Stanford has been taking 3 milligrams of clonazepam daily and that this has caused the 60-year-old to feel drowsy and suffer from lack of energy. He has also had a difficult time concentrating on his tasks. Usually, the normal dosage for this anti-anxiety drug is 1 milligrams a day and for no more than two weeks. Stanford is also taking the anti-depressant mirtazapine.

Scarano contends that Stanford sustained a traumatic brain injury when a prisoner assaulted him in September 2009. The psychiatrist believes that Stanford will need anymore from three to six months to kick his anti-anxiety drug addiction. Meantime, federal prosecutor Andrew A. Warren has suggested that Stanford faked his symptoms.

Prosecutors believe that Stanford can receive the treatment he needs while in federal prison, but Stanford’s criminal defense team wants him hospitalized at a private facility in the Houston area. His lawyers want his criminal trial delayed for two years so that they have enough time to prepare his defense.

Related Web Resources:
Read the SEC’s complaint (PDF)

Judge orders Stanford get drug treatment, Houston Chronicle, January 11, 2011
Financier Is Described as Addicted to Medicine, NY Times, January 7, 2011
Stanford Group. Co., Stockbroker Fraud Blog, February 22, 2009
Texas Securities Fraud, Stockbroker Fraud Blog Continue Reading ›

Morgan Stanley Failed to Disclose Financial Adviser’s Felony Charge to FINRA, Claims Car Accident Victim’s Attorney

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

According to Harold Haddon, the civil attorney for car accident victim Dr. Steven Milo, Morgan Stanley (MS) failed to disclose to the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority that financial adviser Martin Erzinger had been charged with a felony. Securities firms have 30 days from the time anyone working for them is charged with a felony to file a “Form U4” notifying FINRA.

Erzinger, who works with approximately $1 billion in accounts, was charged with a felony after he struck bicyclist Steven Milo in a car crash last July and then fled the collision site. Milo sustained serious injuries in the traffic crash. In December, the Morgan Stanley Smith Barney financial adviser struck a plea agreement. The felony charge against him was dropped and he pleaded guilty to misdemeanors. Erzinger claimed that at the time of the auto accident, he was suffering from undiagnosed sleep apnea, fell asleep at the steering wheel, and did not realize that he had hit anyone with his vehicle.

Erzinger was sentenced to community service and probation. Judge Fred Gannett also ordered him to tell FINRA about the felony charge. Attorney Haddon, however, says the court-ordered disclosure, which was submitted on December 22, doesn’t meet requirements because it only reveals that Erzinger was charged with a felony crime that was later dropped but does not mention the financial adviser’s misdemeanor guilty pleas or the sentence he must now serve.

Milo had opposed the plea agreement. Dow Jones Newswires reports that in court, Milo’s father-in-law Tom Marisco, who founded Marisco Funds and used to manage Janus mutual funds, blamed Morgan Stanley for not making the disclosures, which are mandatory. Morgan Stanley, however, says it contacted FINRA about the issue last July and believes that it satisfied all reporting requirements.

FINRA spokesperson Nancy Condon says the only way to notify FINRA about a reporting requirement is to electronically submit a Form U4.

Related Web Resources:
Lewis: Simple question tough for Morgan Stanley to answer, Denver Post/Dow Jones, January 8, 2010
Financial manager Martin Erzinger to accept plea bargain in Vail hit-and-run, 9News, November 2010
Form U4 Checklist, FINRA
Institutional Investors Securities Blog
Continue Reading ›

Goldman Sachs Sued by ACA Financial Guaranty Over Failed Abacus Investment for $120M

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

ACA Financial Guaranty Corporation is seeking $90 million in punitive damages and $30 million in compensatory damages from Goldman Sachs over its failed Abacus investment. The insurer contends that the broker-dealer sold a mortgage-backed investment that was designed to fail, causing investors to lose $1 billion.

ACA says that not only did it spend $15 million insuring Abacus, but also that the investment caused it to lose $30 million. The insurer contends that Goldman deceived it into thinking that hedge fund manager John Paulson also had invested in Abacus, when allegedly, the point of the flawed investment was so that Paulson & Co. could make huge profits by shorting the portfolio and the broker-dealer would then earn large investment banking fees.

ACA says that the Abacus 2007-AC1 collateralized debt obligation investment was already “was worthless” when Goldman marketed it to the insurer. Not only did ACA insure the underlying portfolio’s super-senior parts for $909 million, but also it purchased Abacus notes worth millions of dollars. Goldman hired ACA asset-management unit ACA Management LLC as “portfolio selection agent” to choose the securities for the Abacus deal.

Goldman has already settled for $550 million the Securities and Exchange Commission’s securities case against it over the failed collateralized-debt obligation investment. SEC had accused the federal agency the investment bank and its employee Fabrice Tourre of failing to tell investors that Paulson was involved in choosing the securities for Abacus and wanted to bet against the portfolio. Goldman has since acknowledged that it had provided incomplete marketing materials and agreed to business practice reforms.

Related Web Resources:

UPDATE: ACA Financial Sues Goldman For Alleged Abacus-Related Fraud, Wall Street Journal/Dow Jones, January 6, 2011

Goldman Sach’s $550 Million Securities Fraud Settlement Not Tied to Financial Reform Bill, Says SEC IG, Institutional Investor Blog, October 27, 2010

$1 Billion Goldman Sachs Synthetic CDO Debacle a Reminder that Even Highly Sophisticated Investors Can Be Defrauded, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, April 30, 2010