Investor Lawyers Blog

Securities Fraud Lawsuit Against Calamos Investments Filed on Behalf of Calamos Convertible Opportunities and Income Fund Shareholders

Published on: September 17, 2010 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Calamos Asset Management, Inc., the Calamos Convertible Opportunities and Income Fund (NYSE: CHI), Calamos Advisors LLC, current trustees, and one former Fund trustee are now the defendants of a putative class action securities complaint purportedly submitted on behalf of a class of common fund shareholders. The securities fraud lawsuit is alleging breach of fiduciary duty, the aiding and abetting of that breach, and unjust enrichment related to the redemption of auction rate preferred securities (ARPS) after the ARS market collapsed in 2008.

In the securities fraud lawsuit filed by Christopher Brown, Calamos Holdings LLC founder John Calamos Sr. is accused of allowing the investment firm and its management team to benefit from investors’ losses. Brown’s complaint is a refiling of a lawsuit filed in federal court last July. That complaint was withdrawn earlier this month and the claims resubmitted in state court.

Brown contends that Calamos and others were aware they were breaching their fiduciary duty when they let fund advisers benefit while investors sustained financial losses in the “multiple millions of dollars.” Brown wants all losses restored.

He claims that even as the ARS market failed, a burden was not placed on the Calamos Convertible Opportunities and Income Fund, which held auction market preferred shares. However, in June and August, Calamos managers allegedly redeemed some of the funds’ holdings, which were replaced with debt financing that was “less favorable.” Brown says that because this advanced the interests of the managers, the funds’ investment advisors and affiliates but not the interests of common shareholders, it was a breach of fiduciary duty.

Brown is seeking class-action status for any investors in the fund since March 19, 2008. He wants a judge to prevent Calamos trustees from earning fees from the fund or acting as advisers.

Related Web Resources:
Calamos Investments Statement on ARPS Lawsuit for Convertible Opportunities and Income Fund, Centredaily.com, September 15, 2010
Calamos founder sued by investor who claims bad fund management, Chicago Business, September 14, 2010 Continue Reading ›

Former DHB Industries CEO and COO Found Guilty of Nearly $200M Securities Fraud Scam

Published on: September 16, 2010 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

After two months of deliberation, a jury has found Ex-DHB Industries CEO David Brooks and Ex-DHB Industries COO Sandra Hatfield guilty of committing securities fraud, insider trading, and obstruction of justice. The two defendants allegedly made close to $200 million as a result of their scam. The jury also found Brooks guilty of lying to auditors.

Prosecutors claimed that Brooks and Hatfield manipulated financial records to increase company earnings and profit margins. This resulted in the inflation of stock prices. The defendants are also accused of committing insider trading from when they sold over $72 million of their DHB stock in November 2004 and then another (approximately) $118 million of their shares the following month. The sales occurred as DHB’s stock price went up to over $20/share. Hatfield made over $5 million while Brooks realized over $180 million from the scheme.

Also, Hatfield and Brooks allegedly took part in a scheme to cover up the related party status of Tactical Armor Products, which Brooks’ wife was supposed to be running separate from DHB. In fact, Brooks wholly controlled TAP. According to the Federal of Bureau of Investigation’s New York Division Web site, profits from related party transactions were used to pay for over $16 million in Brooks’ personal expenses. He reportedly doctored internal DHB documents and created fraudulent multi-million dollar transactions to cover up the scheme and fool investors and auditors. Personal expenditures included plastic surgery for his wife, luxury vehicles, pills for his 100 racing horses, his family’s use of the company jet, and other charges.

The two defendants are each facing up to 25 years in prison.

Standard and Poor’s Ratings Lawsuit to Go Forward, Says Judge

Published on: September 16, 2010 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

A superior court judge has turned down Standard & Poor’s motion to dismiss Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal’s lawsuit against it. Blumenthal, who filed companion complaints against Moody’s Corp, and Fitch Inc., is accusing the credit rating agency of issuing artificially low ratings to municipalities. He claims that this ended up costing taxpayers millions of dollars in unnecessary bond insurance and high interest rates.

S & P’s parent company McGraw-Hills Cos. had moved to dismiss for improper venue by claiming that a mandatory exclusive forum provision in the S&P Terms and Conditions barred the case from being filed in Connecticut. McGraw-Hills argued that the internal laws of the State of New York are supposed to govern the agreement and that the courts there are to serve as the exclusive forums for any disputes stemming from the agreement.

Superior Court Judge Robert Shapiro, however, denied the motion to dismiss. He said that under the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act, the state has a number of sovereign powers and that one of them lets the commission of consumer protection request that the state’s attorney general enforce CUTPA in state superior court.

Blumenthal called Shapiro’s decision a victory, while saying that credit rating agencies will likely continue to avoid being held accountable for misconduct. Meantime, a spokesperson for S & P told BNA last month that the lawsuit against the credit ratings agency has no factual merit.

The ratings lawsuits against Moody’s, S & P, and Fitch will now go forward in state court.

Related Web Resources:
Ratings case against S&P to proceed, MarketWatch, August 21, 2010

Richard Blumenthal, CT AG, Sues Moody’s, S&P, Says They Knowingly Falsified Debt Ratings, Huffington Post, March 10, 2010

Whistleblower Sues Moody’s Investors Service for Defamation

Published on: September 15, 2010 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Ilya Eric Kolchinsky, a former Moody’s Investors Service executive, is suing the credit ratings agency for defamation. This is one of the first lawsuits involving a Wall Street company and an ex-employer that blew the whistle on it. Kolchinsky is seeking $15 million in damages in addition to legal fees.

Kolchinsky claims that Moody’s tried to ruin his reputation after he publicly talked about problems with its ratings model. Kolchinsky, who supervised the ratings that were given to subprime mortgage collateralized debt obligations (many of these did not live up to their triple-A ratings), testified before Congressional panels about his concerns. He addressed the potential conflicts that can arise as a result of the issuer-pay ratings model, which lets banks and borrowers that sell debt securities pay for ratings. He alleged securities fraud and claimed that the ratings agency placed profits ahead of doing their job. He also claimed that Moody’s lacked the resources to enforce its rules.

Kolchinsky contends that Moody’s began attacking him through the media and that the statements that the credit ratings firm issued have caused him to become “blacklisted by the private sector financial industry.” Moody’s suspended him last year. In his civil suit, Kolchinsky notes that he was attacked by the credit ratings agency even though it went on to adopt some of his recommendations.

The recently passed financial reform bill provides greater protections for whistleblowers while offering financial rewards for those brave enough to tell regulators about their concerns. However, it is unclear whether Kolchinsky’s complaint will benefit from the new law because his case involves alleged actions that occurred prior to the bill’s passing.

Related Web Resources:
Former Moody’s Executive Files Suit, New York Times, September 13, 2010
Exec who blew whistle on Moody’s ratings sues for defamation, Central Valley Business TImes, September 14, 2010
Wall Street Whistleblowers May Be Eligible to Collect 10 – 30% of Money that the Government Recovers, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, July 29, 2010 Continue Reading ›

Allegations Against Goldman Sachs in $56M Securities Fraud Lawsuit Meet Morrison Standard, Says Australian Hedge Fund

Published on: September 14, 2010 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Basis Yield Alpha Fund says that its $56 million securities fraud lawsuit against Goldman Sachs Group Inc. should go to trial. The Australian hedge fund contends that its securities complaint, which accuses the investment bank of inflating certain collateralized debt obligations’ value, meet the standard recently articulated by the US Supreme Court in Morrison v. National Australia Bank. Goldman, however, contends that the transactions and securities under dispute do not meet the Morrison standard.

In the Supreme Court’s ruling, The judges limited Section 10(b) of the 1934 Securities Exchange Act’s extraterritorial reach by determining that the law was applicable only to transactions involving securities that took place in the United States or were listed on US exchanges. Following the decision, a district court ordered Goldman and Basis to use Morrison for determining whether there is grounds to drop the case. Goldman submitted its motion to dismiss and noted that the securities in the CDOs were not included on any US exchange list and that the underlying agreements were subject to English law and executed in Australia.

Meantime, Basis is arguing that its case is a “quintessential” securities fraud case involving a US sales transaction. The Australian hedge fund, which invested $42 million in “Timberwolf,” an AAA-rated tranche, and $36 million in an AA-rated tranche of CDOs, maintains that the CDO assembled mortgage-backed securities in Timberwolf came from the subprime real estate market in the US and was a New York sales transaction from beginning to end. The hedge fund was forced into insolvency when after investing in Timberwolf the CDOs value dropped dramatically and the fund sustained over $50 million in losses.

Basis contends that Goldman’s effort to make the transaction an Australian one that is not subject to federal securities laws has no legal or factual basis. It argues that adopting Goldman’s theory would nullify US securities law whenever a US seller committed securities fraud when effecting the sale of a security to a foreign buyer.

Related Web Resources:
Basis Yield Alpha Fund v Goldman Sachs Complaint, Scribd

Timberwolf Lawsuit: Goldman Sachs Sued By Australian Hedge Fund Over ‘Sh–ty Deal, Huffington Post, June 9, 2009

Read the Supreme Court Ruling (PDF)

Goldman Sachs Permanently Exempted from Company Act Disqualification Provision, Says SEC

Published on: September 11, 2010 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The Securities and Exchange Commission has decided to permanently exempt Goldman & Sachs Co. from a 1940 Investment Company Act provision that would have disqualified the financial firm from serving as a principal underwrite. Goldman and several of its affiliates applied for exemption from ICA Section 9(a) after settling for $550 million SEC securities fraud charges that it made material misrepresentations related to the 2007 structuring and sale of derivative product connected to subprime mortgages.

Under the provision, a person cannot act as a principal underwriter or investment adviser for an investment firm if, due to misconduct, the party in question is enjoined from taking part in any practice or conduct related to the purchase or sale of any security. Goldman, in its application, noted that since the district court had barred it and its affiliates from violating federal securities laws moving forward, the provision would apply to disqualify them from giving advisory services to investment companies.

After granting the broker-dealer a temporary exemption in July, the SEC issued Goldman a permanent one. The SEC noted that the applicants’ behavior did not make it against the “public interest or protection of investors” to grant the permanent exemption.

Regarding the $550 million securities fraud settlement, which is the largest penalty that the SEC has ordered a financial firm to pay, Goldman was accused of misleading investors about a synthetic collateralized debt obligation as the housing market was collapsing. Investors suffered more than $1 billion in financial losses. The brokerage firm admitted that it provided incomplete marketing information for the product and has agreed to reform its business practices.

Related Web Resources:
Investment Company Act of 1940

Goldman Sachs, SEC Reach $550 Million Settlement, PBS News, July 15, 2010 Continue Reading ›

Three Houston Men Accused of $103 Million Texas Securities Fraud Involving Life Insurance Scam that Victimized at Least 800 Investors

Published on: September 10, 2010 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

In an indictment unsealed in federal court, Adley H. Abdulwahab, Christian M. Allmendinger, and David C. White were charged with running a life insurance scam and stealing $103 million from at least 800 investors in the United States and Canada. Their Texas securities scheme allegedly involved the sale of “bonded life settlements” that guaranteed 10-20% returns. All three men are principals of A&O Resource Management Ltd., which is based in Houston.

In the US, A & O is accused of using funds from investors in 37 states to purchase the investments. A life insurance policy is bought by a third party, while the policy owner receives a cash payout. Meantime, the buyer pays the premiums and when the insured passes away, is supposed to collect on the death benefits. However, the Texas State Securities Board does not believe that the bonds purchased by A & O gave investors the returns that they were promised.

According to US Attorney Neil H. MacBride, the defendants defrauded investors for personal gain. The three men are accused of making misrepresentations regarding A & O’s previous successes, office locations, and number of employees, its investment offerings’ risks, and its use and safekeeping of investor money. Abdulwahab and his co-conspirators allegedly made up sham transactions involving A & O selling to two shell corporations once state regulators started examining investor funds.

The three defendants are charged with conspiracy, securities fraud, mail fraud, and money laundering. The Justice Department is seeking the forfeiture of about $103 million from the men.

Morgan Stanley, UBS, Wells Fargo, and Merrill Lynch Recruit Other Investment Firms’ Brokers

Published on: September 9, 2010 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

UBS AG unit UBS Wealth Management Americas recently recruited Bank of America Corp.’s Merrill Lynch financial adviser Nina Hakim to join its Westfield, New Jersey office. Hakim, who reportedly managed $300 million in client assets and generated $1.5 million in commissions and fees, will now report to UBS branch Manager Erik Gaucher.

Another new addition to the UBS team is Morgan Stanley Smith Barney adviser Raymond Schmidtke, who will be based in Seattle, Washington. According to regulatory records, Schmidtke, was employed by Citigroup Inc. for over two decades and stayed at the MS joint venture for a year. He reportedly had close to $100 million in assets under management and $1 million in annual production. He now reports to UBS branch manager Shawn MacFarlan.

In other investment adviser news, a team of now former Wells Fargo Advisors advisers has joined Morgan Stanley Smith Barney. Francis Schiavetti and Ben Dembin’s base will be the Boca Raton, Florida office. The team reportedly manages $107 million in client assets and produces approximately $1.2 million in commissions and annual fees. The two men both were employed by Wells Fargo and predecessor firm Wachovia Securities before joining the Morgan Stanley Smith Barney team.

In August, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority fined and censured Morgan Stanley $800,000 for not making public disclosures, which is required under the SRO’s rules that oversee research-analyst conflicts of interest. FINRA claims that the financial firm also did not comply with a key 2003 Research Analyst Settlement provision when it failed to disclose independent research availability in customer account statements. Every six months, for the next two years, Morgan Stanley must now review a sample of its research reports and certify that they are in compliance with FINRA’s rules.

Related Web Resources:
Hires Merrill Lynch, Morgan Stanley Brokers, Fox Business, August 24, 2010
Morgan Stanley Adds Team From Wells Fargo, Faces FINRA Fine, Investment Advisor, August 24, 2010
FINRA Fines Morgan Stanley $800,000 for Deficient Conflict of Interest Disclosures in Equity Research Reports and Public Appearances by Research Analysts, FINRA, August 10, 2010 Continue Reading ›

US Closed-End Funds Continue to Hold $26.4 Billion in Auction-Rate Preferred Shares, Says Fitch Ratings

Published on: September 9, 2010 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Even though it’s been awhile the auction-rate securities market froze in 2008, credit-ratings firm Fitch Ratings’s new report says that US closed-end funds still hold $26.4 billion in auction-rate preferred shares (ARPS). Researchers say that even though this figure is a 57% drop from the $61.8 billion that was trapped in ARS in January 2008 they are still surprised by the current amount.

While ARPS holders have obtained liquidity through many redemptions, there is still a significant amount that is outstanding. Fitch says that 61% (250) of closed-end funds continue to be leveraged with auction-rate preferred shares. This is down from the 347 in January 2008. Fitch’s report is based on a review of 437 US closed-end funds’ publicly available financial statements.

Since the ARS market collapse in February 2008, closed-end funds have redeemed shares at par value via refinancing or by lowering the funds’ leverage. Still others have offered to purchase the shares at below par value. 22% of the funds that Fitch reviewed has fully redeemed about $22.9 billion in ARPS, while 50% undertook partial redemptions of shares totaling $12.7 billion.

Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board Can Expand Public Information on Municipal Variable Rate Demand Obligations and Auction Rate Securities, Says SEC

Published on: September 8, 2010 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The US Securities and Exchange Commission has approved the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board’s proposal to expand publicly available information about auction rate securities and municipal variable rate demand obligations. The SEC also approved letting the MSRB require that municipal securities dealers provide more information about these securities while allowing them to make this data available through its Electronic Municipal Market Access website. The disclosures will hopefully enhance transparency for investors that want to assess key information regarding the degree of dealer support, auction liquidity, and variable rate securities resales.

Once the approval is implemented, which could take nine months, the MSRB will gather liquidity facility documents for variable rate demand obligations from municipal securities dealers. Documents may include stand-by purchase agreements, letters of credit, and identifying information related to the provider of the liquidity facility that was available at the time of the interest rate. Dealers will have to report ARS bidding data and documents defining auction procedures and interest rate setting mechanisms to the MSRB. All documents and information from the dealers will be made accessible through the EMMA Web site. EMMA currently offers free public access to interest rate information for ARS and VRDOs.

MSRB regulates banks and securities firms that trade, underwrite, and sell municipal securities. It also gathers and gives out market information and is committed to ensuring the key municipal market data is available and free to the public. This data allows retail investors to evaluate the risks and benefits. MSRB is a self-regulatory organization subject to Securities and Exchange Commission oversight.

Related Web Resources:
MSRB Receives SEC Approval to Create Additional Transparency for Variable Rate Securities, MSRB, August 26, 2010

Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board

Electronic Municipal Market Access

Stockbroker-fraud.com