Investor Lawyers Blog

Imperia Invest IBC’s Assets are Frozen Following SEC Allegations of British Viatical Settlements Scam That Targeted Deaf Investors

Published on: October 28, 2010 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

A district court issued an emergency order this month to freeze the assets of Imperia Invest IBC. The order came after the Securities and Exchange Commission accused the internet-based investment company of operating a securities scam involving the British version of viatical settlements.

According to the SEC, Imperia Invest IBC had raised over $7 million from more than 14,000 investors located in different parts of the world with the promise that they would earn returns of just above 1% a day. More than half of the money raised came from deaf investors in the US. The agency is seeking disgorgement of fraudulent gains, penalties, an injunction from future violations, and emergency relief for investors.

The SEC claims that the investment company solicited investors through its Web site, which stated that returns could only be accessed through a Visa credit card and purchased from Imperia for a few hundreds dollars. The company, however, did not have a business tie with the credit card company. Imperia also listed bogus addresses in Vanuatu and the Bahamas.

Morgan Stanley’s Motion to Bar Ex-Hedge Fund Promoter Conrad Seghers from Pursuing FINRA Arbitration in Texas Securities Case is Granted by District Court

Published on: October 27, 2010 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

A district court has granted plaintiff Morgan Stanley’s motion that Conrad Seghers, a former hedge fund promoter, be preliminarily barred from pursuing Financial Industry Regulatory Authority arbitration proceeding against the broker-dealer over the way over his accounts were allegedly mishandled. Judge Denise L. Cote said that Seghers waved the right to arbitrate by proceeding with his Texas securities lawsuit when he litigated with earlier action. The dispute between the investment bank and Seghers has been going on for nearly a decade.

According to the court, a number of hedge funds and related entities run by Seghers and his associates opened accounts with Morgan Stanley in 1999. In 2001, Seghers and his partners accused the broker-dealer of serious errors that allegedly caused the funds’ value to sustain huge financial hits. A major investor in a Segher hedge fund would go on to file a Texas securities fraud complaint against the fund promoter, the funds, and his partners.

The following year, a number of the funds sued Morgan Stanley in court. The Texas securities dispute went to NASD (now FINRA) arbitration and the case was eventually settled.

When Seghers sued Morgan Stanley for $35 million in federal court over the investment bank’s allegedly fraudulent misstatements that led to the funds to drop in value, the lawsuit was dismissed as untimely under the Texas limitations period of four years. Seghers chose not to appeal the ruling.

However, not long after, one of the funds founded by Seghers that had traded assets through the Morgan Stanley accounts filed NASD arbitration proceedings accusing the investment bank of breach of contract and fraud related to the same alleged misconduct as the federal district court action. A court in New York dismissed the case as untimely.

This April, Seghers commenced a FINRA arbitration against Morgan Stanley. In July, the investment bank filed a complaint seeking declaratory judgment that the hedge fund promoter waived his right to arbitrate because of his earlier lawsuit, as well as due to the fact that the Texas arbitration was time-barred. The court granted Morgan Stanley’s motion.

Related Web Resources:
Arbitration and Mediation, FINRA Continue Reading ›

Goldman Sach’s $550 Million Securities Fraud Settlement Not Tied to Financial Reform Bill, Says SEC IG

Published on: October 27, 2010 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

According Securities and Exchange Commission Inspector General H. David Kotz, there is no evidence that the SEC’s enforcement action against Goldman Sachs or the $550 million securities fraud settlement that resulted are tied to the financial services reform bill. Kotz also noted that it does not appear that any agency person leaked any information about the ongoing investigation to the press before the case was filed last April. The SEC says that the IG’s report reaffirms that the complaint against Goldman was based only on the merits.

That said, Kotz did find that SEC staff failed to fully comply with the administrative requirement that they do everything possible to make sure that defendants not find out about any action against them through the media. Kotz notes that this, along with the failure to notify NYSE Reg[ulation] before filing the action and the fact that the action was filed during market hours caused the securities market to become more volatile that day. Goldman had settled the SEC’s charges related to its marketing of synthetic collateralized debt obligation connected to certain subprime mortgage-backed securities in 2007 on the same day that the Senate approved the financial reform bill.

Last April, several Republican congressman insinuated that politics may have been involved because the announcement of the case came at the same time that Democrats were pressing for financial regulatory reform. SEC Chairman Mary Schapiro denied the allegation.

Earlier this month, Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) wrote Schapiro asking to see an unredacted copy of the internal investigative report by the IG. Issa is the one who had pressed Kotz to examine the decision-making process behind the Goldman settlement. Issa’s spokesperson says the lawmaker is concerned that the SEC can redact parts of its IG reports before the public and Congress can see them. However, at a Senate Banking Committee last month, Kotz, said that the SEC redacts information because the data could impact the capital markets.

Related Web Resources:

Goldman Settles With S.E.C. for $550 Million, The New York Times, July 15, 2010

SEC’s Inspector General to Investigate Timing of Suit Against Goldman Sachs, Fox News, April 25, 2010

General H. David Kotz, SEC

NASAA Recommends Best Practices After Finding Brokers Deficient in Five Areas

Published on: October 26, 2010 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The North American Securities Administrators Association says that broker-dealer compliance programs throughout the country tend to exhibit deficiencies in several key areas:

• Registration and licensing • Sales practices • Operations • Supervisions • Books and records
Failure to follow written procedures and policy for supervision, variable product suitability, and advertising sales literature are considered the three most commonly noted problem areas.

NASAA issued its findings based on the 567 deficiencies in these five areas that were discovered by regulators in 30 states during 290 examinations that took place between January 1 and June 30. NASAA president and North Carolina deputy securities administrator David Massey says that the organization is flagging the deficiencies to assist brokers in reducing the risk of regulatory violations.

To remedy the deficiencies, NASAA is offering 10 best practices, including those that involve broker-dealers:

• Updating and enforcing written supervisory procedures.
• Developing standards and criteria that can effectively determine which investments are suitable for each client.
• Documenting “red flags” and resolving these promptly.
• Establishing a “meaningful” audit plan that includes unannounced visits and a follow-up plan.
• Obtaining regulatory approval of sales literature and ads before using them • Setting up procedures that can prevent and detect unauthorized private securitization transactions.
• Ensuring that registered representatives’ outside business activities are reviewed before they take place.
• Effective monitoring of both hard copy and electronic correspondence.
• Acknowledging receipt of complaints and updating of a registered representative’s Form U-4.
• Conducting a thorough investigation of the allegations.

Investors that have lost money because of securities fraud or broker mistakes may be able to recoup their losses with the help of an experienced stockbroker fraud law firm.

Related Web Resources:
State Securities Regulators Offer Series of Compliance Best Practices, NASAA, October 12, 2010
Securities and Exchange Commission
Continue Reading ›

SEC Commissioner Luis Aguilar Encourages Agency Not to Refrain From Exercising Enforcement Powers from Dodd-Frank to Protect Investors

Published on: October 25, 2010 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

SEC Commissioner says the Securities and Exchange Commission should go back to employing a “muscular approach” and use its new enforcement powers bestowed under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. The financial reform legislation gives the SEC more authority and enforcement tools in the areas of extraterritorial reach, subpoenas, aiding and abetting liability, and whistleblowing. The SEC also now has oversight over hedge and private equity funds and over-the-counter derivatives.

Aguilar spoke on October 15 at the University of California at Berkeley’s Center for Law, Business and the Economy. He says that his views are his own.

Aguilar says that Americans must feel as if the SEC will use whatever tools and powers at its disposal to protect investors from. He notes that action, not rhetoric, is now required. Aguilar cites areas that the SEC has been slow to deal with in terms of enforcement action. For example, there is the area of clawbacks. Aguilar noted that even though the 2002 Sarbanes-Oxley Act lets the commission bring an enforcement action against CFO’s and CEO’s to recover incentive pay and bonuses related to a financial restatement because of misconduct, the SEC waited five years to exercise this authority when it brought action against ex- CSK Auto Corp. (CAO) CEO Maynard Jenkins. Aguilar says that if the law had been enforced earlier, less investors might have been harmed.

The SEC commissioner wants the SEC to “resist” the trend toward an entrenched two-tier market where different investors are overseen and protected differently. He says that recent SEC cases involving pension funds and auction-rate securities are clear indicators that institutional investors also need protections.

Our securities fraud law firm works with institutional investors throughout the US. We have helped many clients recoup their financial losses.

Related Web Resources:
Speech by SEC Commissioner: An Insider’s View of the SEC: Principles to Guide Reform, SEC.gov, October 15, 2010

SEC Commissioner Luis Aguilar

Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (PDF)

Citigroup’s $75 Million Securities Fraud Settlement with the SEC Over Subprime Mortgage Debt Approved by Judge

Published on: October 23, 2010 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

A federal judge has approved the $75 million securities fraud settlement reached between Citigroup and the US Securities and Exchange Commission. The investment bank had been accused of misleading investors about billions of dollars in possible losses from their exposure to high-risk assets involving subprime mortgages. The SEC says that although holdings exceeded $50 billion, the broker-dealer had told clients that they were at $13 billion or lower.

US District Judge Ellen Segal Huvelle had initially refused to approve the settlement and questioned why only two Citigroup executives were being held accountable for the alleged misconduct. Last month, she said she would accept the agreement but only with certain conditions in place.

Under the approved accord, Citigroup must maintain an earnings committee and a disclosure committee for three years. A number of bank officials will also have to certify the accuracy of the earnings scripts and press releases. The revised settlement clarifies that the $75 million penalty is part of a Fair Fund pursuant to Section 308 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. The penalty will be distributed to investors that sustained financial losses because of Citigroup’s alleged misconduct.

Broker-dealers and their representatives can be held liable for misrepresenting or not presenting all material facts to an investor about his/her investment if that client ends up sustaining financial losses. By agreeing to settle, Citigroup is not denying or admitting to the allegations.

Related Web Resources:

Judge OKs Citigroup-SEC Accord on Mortgages, ABC News, October 19, 2010
Judge approves Citi’s $75M settlement with SEC, Bloomberg Businessweek, October 19, 2010
Read the SEC Complaint (PDF)

Citigroup Settles Subprime Mortgage Securities Fraud Claims for $75 Million, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, August 3, 2010 Continue Reading ›

RBC Wealth Management Unit Ferris Baker Watts to Pay Investors Restitution Over Reverse Convertible Notes Allegations, Says FINRA

Published on: October 23, 2010 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority and the RBC Wealth Management-acquired Ferris, Baker Watts LLC have agreed to settle charges that the latter engaged in the unsuitable sales of reverse convertibles to elderly clients in the 85 and over group, well as in the inadequate supervision of such notes to retail customers. By agreeing to settle, the investment firm is not agreeing with or denying the allegations.

The alleged misconduct took place prior to RBC acquiring Ferris, Baker Watts. As part of the settlement, the brokerage firm will pay close to $190,000 in restitution to 57 account holders for financial losses related to their purchase of reverse convertibles.

FINRA says that between January 2006 and July 2008, Ferris, Baker Watts allegedly sold reverse convertible notes to about 2,000 retail investors while failing to properly supervise and guide its supervising managers and brokers on how to determine whether their recommendations of the notes were suitable for clients. The investment firm is also accused of not having a system in place that could effectively monitor, detect, and handle possible reverse convertible over-concentrations.

In its release announcing the settlement, FINRA cites one example involving Ferris, Baker Watts selling five reverse convertibles in the amount of $10,000 each to an 86-year-old retired social worker. These notes represented between 15% to 25% of her investment portfolio at different times. FINRA says that for another client, the investment firm sold five notes to a 20-year-old who was making under $25,000 a year. This investment was 51% of the client’s retirement account.

Related Web Resources:
FINRA Orders Ferris, Baker Watts to Pay Nearly $700,000 for Inappropriate Sales of Reverse Convertible Notes, FINRA, October 20, 2010

Finra fines RBC Wealth unit over brokers’ sales of ‘unsuitable’ investments, Investment News, October 20, 2010 Continue Reading ›

Amendments to Russian Securities Law Aim to Enhance Transparency and Corporate Disclosure

Published on: October 23, 2010 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

This month, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev signed into law amendments to his country’s securities legislation. He signed the Federal Law No. 264-FZ to amend provisions of Federal Law No. 39-FZ “On Securities Market.” The State Duma, the Parliament’s lower house, and the Federation Council have all adopted the new amendments, which went into effect on October 7. However, the new amendments, however, are not applicable to non-publicly traded companies that have less than 500 shareholders.

The amendments are geared towards improving corporate disclosure and transparency. The list of who can receive relevant information and those that must disclose data are specified. For example, Russian securities issuers must now disclose financial reports, including those filed in accordance with International Financial Reporting Standard, as well as accounting reports. They must also reveal the identities of primary beneficiaries of controlled entities and controlling shareholders’ identities. Signs of insolvency should be included in disclosed information about beneficiaries and shareholders. Companies must also provide information about board meetings and not just annual general meetings.

Securities Fraud and Institutional Investors
Our stockbroker fraud lawyers work with institutional investors throughout the US to recoup their financial losses sustained because of broker-misconduct, investment adviser errors, or securities fraud. We also represent clients outside the US with securities fraud claims against companies that are based in this country.

BP Oil Spill Payouts Recipients May Be Targeted by Investment Scam Fraudsters, Says SEC

Published on: October 22, 2010 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The Securities and Exchange Commission is warning small businesses and individuals to watch out for fraudsters out there that may be targeting the recipients of BP oil spill payments with investment opportunities that promise high returns at little or no risk or involve complex or secretive strategies. Because of their tendency to share information with each other and the high level of trust that exists among its members, professional organizations, ethnic communities, religious groups, and other close-knit affinity groups may be likely targets.

The SEC says that one way to avoid becoming involved in this type of investment fraud is to ask lots of questions and then double check the with the agency or an unbiased source. Also. it is important to make sure that the investment is registered and the seller is licensed.

According to SEC Chairman Mary Schapiro, “We are on the lookout for any securities scams in the Gulf area.” Following Hurricane Katrina, the SEC discovered a number of scams targeting individuals that were compensated by their insurance companies. Fraud schemes included promoters claiming that their companies were taking part in clean-up efforts, trading programs that made false promises of high returns, and Ponzi scams.

SEC Warns of Potential Investment Scams Targeting Recipients of BP Oil Spill Payouts, SEC, October 13, 2010
Investor Alert – BP Payout Recipients: Be on the Lookout for Investment Scams
Continue Reading ›

CFTC Judge Says Colleague Biased Against Investors with Complaints

Published on: October 21, 2010 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

According to Commodities Future Trading Commission Judge George H. Painter, his colleague, Judge Bruce Levine, is biased against investors that file complaints. Painter, 83, claims that Levine has a secret deal with former CFTC Chairwoman Wendy Gramm that he would never issue a ruling that favored a complainant.

Painter made these allegations as he was preparing to retire. He is one of two administrative law judges that preside over investor complaints at the CFTC. He requested that his pending cases not be assigned to Levine.

Painter says that Levine makes pro se complainants endure a “hostile procedural gauntlet” until eventually, they are willing to withdraw their case or “settle for a pittance.” Levine has not commented on the allegations. However, according to a Wall Street Journal story that was published 10 years ago, Levine has never ruled in favor of an investor.

Painter is recommending that the CFTC bring in another administrative judge. He has six cases pending before him. Their total claims exceed $1 million.

Stockbroker Fraud Lawyer William Shepherd said, “We have been suspect of commodities reparations proceedings for some time, but WOW!” Shepherd noted. “Other avenues are available, including commodities arbitration and court in Chicago. Some cases may also be decided in securities arbitration when the participants are dually licensed. It is essential that an aggrieved investor hire a law firm with experience, including the knowledge of how to choose the most appropriate forum.”

Meantime, the WSJ is reporting that Painter issued rulings at the CFTC while his wife was battling alcoholism and mental illness and that he did so as recently as February. In August, a psychiatrist wrote that the judge was suffering from a “profound” disability that has rendered him unable to make responsible decisions. His wife, CFTC lawyer Elizabeth Ritter, is seeking guardianship over him. The couple are in the middle of a divorce. The judge’s attorney denies that his client is suffering from Alzheimer’s.

Case Sheds Light on Judge, The Wall Street Journal, October 21, 2010
Commodity Futures Trading Commission judge says colleague biased against complainants, The Washington Post, October 19, 2010
Commodities Future Trading Commission
Continue Reading ›