Investor Lawyers Blog

Guilty Plea for Financial Adviser Who Used UBS Tips in $1M Healthcare Insider Trading Scheme

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

Registered investment adviser Alexei Koval has pleaded guilty to three counts of securities fraud and one count of conspiracy to commit securities fraud over his role in a $1 million insider trading scheme. Koval, a registered investment adviser, allegedly acted on tips about provided by his friend Igor Poteroba, an ex-UBS Securities LLC investment banker, about the healthcare industry.

Koval admitted to U.S. District Judge Paul Crotty that he and Poteroba engaged in securities fraud between 2005 and February 2009. The two of them used coded email messages to communicate. Poteroba also provided the tips to a third person, Alexander Vorobiev.

Koval, who used to work for Citigroup Asset Management (C.N), Northern Trust Bank (NTRS.O), and Legg Mason Inc. (LM.N) subsidiary Western Asset Management, says he paid money for the insider information about upcoming announcements regarding acquisitions or mergers involving Molecular Devices Corp, Guilford Pharmaceuticals Inc, Via Cell Inc, PharmaNet Development Group Inc, Indevus Pharmaceuticals Inc., and Millennium Pharmaceuticals Inc.

As part of Koval’s plea deal, he will forfeit at least $1,414,290 in illegal proceeds. He is facing fines in the millions of dollars and up to 65 years in prison. Koval is also facing civil securities fraud charges with the US Securities and Exchange Commission.

Illegal Insider Trading
The SEC describes this type of illegal trading usually refers to the selling or buying of a security that involves a breach of fiduciary trust or duty while in possession of nonpublic, material information about the security. It can involve the “tipping” of such information to others, actual trading by the person who was “tipped,” and trading by those who were in possession of the insider information.

Related Web Resources:
UBS Banker Poteroba’s Co-Defendant Koval Pleads Guilty, Business Week, January 7, 2011
Securities and Exchange Commission v. Igor Poteroba, Aleksey Koval, Alexander Vorobiev, and Relief Defendants Tatiana Vorobieva and Anjali Walter, Civil Action No. 10-civ-2667 (AKH), SEC, November 4, 2011
Insider Trading, SEC Continue Reading ›

Do Brokers Owe a Fiduciary Duty to Clients?

Published on: January 27, 2011 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

An article published this week in Slate talks about how despite what many might think, brokers in fact do not owe clients a fiduciary duty to give them the best advice possible. This could very well explain why some brokers don’t believe they are really crossing the line-or, at the very least, that they can get away with it-when giving advice that isn’t necessarily bad but doesn’t take into account a client’s best interests.

In the olden days, giving a broker this much leeway made more sense. Brokers were there to sell or buy bonds and stocks and it was the investment adviser whose job it was (and still is) to give advice about financial goals and investment strategy. The latter is already upheld to a fiduciary standard requiring that he/she act in a customer’s best interests without regard to personal interest.

Now, however, the distinction between investment advisers and brokers has gotten blurrier. Brokers also now give advice and investment advisers also buy for clients the securities that they’ve recommended.

The Securities and Exchange Commission is now recommend a common fiduciary standard that would apply to both brokers and investment advisers. The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act gave the SEC the power to set up a uniform fiduciary standard, which would hold brokers much more accountable than the current “suitability standard” that they must meet. Under the suitability standard, a broker can meet the standard just by recommending a suitable financial product to the investor even if it isn’t the best one for that client.

With the current lack of a fiduciary standard for brokers, it is the investor who suffers when sustaining losses because of investing in a product that was recommended but not necessarily the most suitable. This lack of standard can also negatively impact how much a broker fraud victim can recover in arbitration or in court. For many investors, not being able to recoup their losses can mean the loss of their life savings, no early retirement, a decreased standard of living, and other consequences.

Related Web Resources:
Does Your Broker Love You?, Slate, Monday, January 24, 2011
SEC Recommends Common Standard for Brokers, Advisers, BusinessWeek, January 22, 2011
Study on Investment Advisers and Broker Dealers, SEC, January 11, 2011 (PDF)

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

SEC Proposes New Rule to Verify Swap Transactions

Published on: January 27, 2011 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Under Rule 15Fi-1, the Securities and Exchange Commission’s proposed rule under the 1934 Securities Exchange Act, certain security-based swap participants and security-based swap dealers would provide counterparties with an electronic “trade acknowledgement” to acknowledge and verify specific security-based swap transactions. The SEC’s proposal comes under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act’s mandate that the commission set up standards for the documentation and confirmation of SBS transactions.

Per the proposal, an SBC entity would have to fulfill the following requirements:
• Depending on how the transaction is executed, give trade acknowledgement within 15 minutes, 30 minutes, or 24 hours of execution.

• Electronic processing of security-based transactions for SBS entities that have the capability.

• Written policies and procedures designed to get verification of the terms delineated in the trade acknowledgement.

The proposed rule would specify which SBC entity has to provide trade acknowledgement, let an SBS entity fulfill the requirements of the rule through the processing of the transaction through a registered clearing house, identify which details must be contained in the trade acknowledgement, and for SBS Entities that are also brokers, give limited exemption from the requirements of Rule 10b-10 under the Exchange Act.

Other recent SBS-related rules that the SEC has proposed under the Dodd-Frank Act deal with the mandatory clearing of security-based swap, the defining of security-based swap terms, security-based swap reporting and repositories, security-based swap fraud, and security-based swap conflicts.

Related Web Resources:
SEC Proposes Rule for the Timely Acknowledgment and Verification of Security-Based Swap Transactions, SEC.gov, January 14, 2011

Proposed Rule, SEC (PDF)

Even as Ponzi Schemers Serve Time Behind Bars, Investors Are Left Coping with Millions in Financial Losses

Published on: January 25, 2011 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

While the multi-billion dollar Stanford and Madoff Ponzi scams are among the larger fraud schemes that have dominated the news headlines, “smaller” Ponzi scams resulting in losses in the millions have cropped up throughout the US. Some of these fraudsters have been convicted and are paying for their crimes behind bars. Unfortunately, the many investors who have not recovered their lost investments are still paying a price, too.

Ponzi scammer Jeremy Hart is now sentenced 9 years in prison after pleading guilty to one count of felony securities and one count of felony theft. Hart and Richard Novaria ran a Ponzi scam between July 2006 and May 2008 that defrauded investors of $3.4 million. Many of the investors were clients of Hart Financial Inc. and they had placed their money in Dreamweaver Foundation, which was run by Novaria. Although they were promised returns of 7 to 14%, no money was made and Hart used investors’ funds to pay for personal expenses.

Also recently pleading guilty to fraud, including money laundering and mail fraud, is ex-Park Capital Management Group manager Donna Jones. She served as the assistant of Brentwood financial adviser Michael J. Park. Jones has admitted to running a Ponzi scam with Park that bilked investors of PCMG funds of over $10 million. The money was supposed to have been invested in marketable securities.

More than 10 investors invested more than $10 million in the bogus PCMG investment accounts. Only $4 million has been recovered. Park has already been sentenced to 8 years in prison. Jones hasn’t received her sentence yet.

Also now behind bars is Keith Epstein of Epstein and Rich Investment Firm. He is accused of defrauding elderly members and their families of millions. Investors wrote Epstein personal checks for investments that he was supposed to make on their behalf. Instead, he deposited the funds in his personal account.

Related Web Resources:
Fort Collins man sentenced to 9 years for Ponzi scheme, Coloradoan, January 21, 2011
Assistant pleads guilty in Brentwood Ponzi scheme, Tennessean, January 21, 2011
Victims Of Ponzi Scheme Hope Others Come Forward, WNEM, January 21, 2011
Number of Ponzi Scam Collapses Increased Significantly Last Year, January 4, 2011 Continue Reading ›

44% of Insider Traders Convicted of Insider Trading in New York Manage to Get Out of Jail Before Even Serving Time

Published on: January 25, 2011 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Nearly Half of Those Committed Of Insider Trading Crimes Avoid Prison

According to Bloomberg News, nearly half of the defendants sentenced for insider trading crimes Manhattan federal court since 2003 have managed to avoid prison because they cooperated with prosecutors. That’s 19 out of the 43 people. The average defendant received a prison sentence of 18.4 months.

How are these insider traders managing to get such light sentences or getting away with not serving any time at all? Cooperating with prosecutors and pleading guilty to insider trading helps. So does suffering from an illness or having to take care of a sick family member.

US sentencing guidelines factor in how much of a profit an offender actually made, as well as the defendant’s scope of involvement in the crime. The US Sentencing Commission reports that in 7,617 fraud cases in fiscal 2009, the average sentence was 21.8 months. 94.9% of the cases ended with guilty pleas. 5.1% went to trial.

Sentences for Insider Traders Include Probation or Home Confinement

Bloomberg reports that per a review of government statements put out by the Manhattan U.S. Attorney’s Office since 2003, sentences for many of the insider traders convicted included home confinement or probation. Payment of restitution and fines also were usually required.

Insider traders who pleaded guilty generally received sentences of about 14.6 months—although if the case received a lot of media attention, lengthier prison sentences can result.

Of the four insider trading cases since 2003 that did go before a Manhattan jury, one case was thrown out right before sentencing. That said, persons convicted of insider trading generally are sentenced to longer prison terms (on average, the three defendants convicted in court of insider trading received 68 months sentences) than the ones received by those who pleaded guilty.

For example, Ex-Credit Suisse Group AG banker Hafiz Muhammad Zubair Naseem was sentenced to 10 years behind bars after a jury convicted him of leading a $7.8 million insider trading scam. Last December, ex-Jefferies Paragon Fund manager Joseph Contorinis was ordered to serve six years in prison for making over $7 million through insider trading.

Related Web Resources:
Insider Defendants Avoid Prison in 44% of N.Y. Cases, Bloomberg, January 19, 2011

Insider Trading, SEC

US Sentencing Commission

Ex-Portfolio Managers to Pay $700K to Settle SEC Charges that They Defrauded the Tax Free Fund for Utah

Published on: January 22, 2011 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

According to the US Securities and Exchange Commission, while working at Aquila Investment Management LLC, ex-portfolio managers Thomas Albright and Kimball Young allegedly defrauded the Tax Free Fund for Utah (TFFU)-a mutual fund that was heavily invested in municipal bonds. Now, the two men have settled the securities fraud charges for over $700,000. However, by agreeing to settle, Young and Albright are not admitting to or denying the allegations.

The SEC claims that without notifying the TFFU’s board of trustees or Aquila management, the two men started making municipal bond issuers pay “credit monitoring fees” on specific private placement and non-rated bond offerings. The fees, which were as high as 1% of each bond’s par value, were charged to supposedly compensate Albright and Young for additional, ongoing work that they say was required because the bonds were unrated. The SEC says that credit monitoring was actually part of the two men’s built-in job responsibilities and that although deal documents made it appears as if the fees (totaling $520,626 from 2003 to April 2009) had to be paid and would go to TFFU, they actually end up in a company that Young controlled and that Albright owned equal shares in.

The SEC says that after management at Aquila found out in 2009 that Young and Albright were charging these unnecessary fees, the financial firm suspended the two men right away and reported them to the agency. The agency says the two men violated their basic responsibilities as investment advisers of mutual funds when they failed to act in the fund’s best interests.

Related Web Resources:
The SEC Order Against Young (PDF)

The SEC Order Against Albright (PDF)

Tax Free Fund for Utah

Municipal Bonds, Stockbroker Fraud Blog Continue Reading ›

Bank of America Settles for $4.25M New York Securities Fraud Allegations that Merrill Lynch & Co. Inc. Hid Subprime Mortgage Risks from Investors

Published on: January 22, 2011 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Bank of America Corp. (BAC) and the New York State Common Retirement Fund have settled the latter’s securities fraud lawsuit accusing Merrill Lynch & Co. Inc. of concealing the risks involved in investing in the subprime mortgage market. Under the terms of the settlement, Bank of America, which owns Merrill Lynch, will pay $4.25 million.

The comptroller’s office is keeping the terms of the securities settlement confidential. State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli did announce last July that the New York pension fund wanted to recover losses sustained by investors from Merrill’s alleged “fraud and deception” that “artificially inflated” the value of Merrill stock, which rapidly declined when the extent of exposure was revealed.

By opting out of a similar class action complaint involving other funds, the state pension fund has a chance of recovering more from the investment bank. Another securities lawsuit that has yet to be resolved seeks to recover losses related to Bank of America’s proxy disclosure when acquiring Merrill.

The demise of the subprime mortgage market a few years ago contributed to the crisis in the housing market and the economic collapse that has affected millions in the US and the rest of the world. Investors have since stepped forward and filed securities claims and lawsuits against investment banks, brokers, and others in the financial industry for misrepresenting the risks involved with subprime mortgages that have resulted in losses in the billions.

DiNapoli, BOA/Merrill Lynch settle for $4.25 million, Capitol Confidential, January 13, 2011

The Subprime Mortgage Market Collapse: A Primer on the Causes and Possible Solutions, The Heritage Foundation

NY comptroller settles Merrill Lynch fraud suit, BusinessWeek, January 13, 2011

New York State Common Retirement Fund

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.