Investor Lawyers Blog

Stockbroker Fraud?: Extent of Main Street Natural Gas Bonds’ Tie to Lehman Brothers May Not Have Been Disclosed to Investors

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

Investors of Main Street Natural Gas Bonds are claiming that not only did brokers fail to disclose the risks associated with investing in them, but they also failed to inform their clients that the bonds could be affected by the financial health of Lehman Brothers. Wall Street firms had marketed and sold Main Street Natural Gas Bonds as conservative, safe municipal bonds when, in fact, they were Lehman Brothers-backed complex derivative securities. As a result, when the investment bank filed for bankruptcy in 2008 the bonds’ trading value dropped.

If you were an investor who lost money because you invested in Main Street Natural Gas Bonds that you were told were safe, conservative investments, please contact our stockbroker fraud lawyers immediately to request your free case evaluation. You may have grounds for a securities fraud claim.

Main Street Natural Gas

Morgan Keegan & Co., Inc., Morgan Asset Management, and Two Employees Face Subprime Mortgage Securities Fraud Charges by SEC

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

The Securities and Exchange Commission has filed claims against Morgan Keegan & Co, Morgan Asset Management and employees James C. Kelsoe, Jr. and Joseph Thomas Weller for securities fraud that allegedly involved inflating the value of subprime mortgage-backed securities.

According to investors and a number of state regulators, RMK Funds (RMK Advantage Income Fund, RMK High Income Fund, RMK Multi-Sector High Income Fund, RMK Select High Income Fund, RMK Strategic Income Fund, and the RMK Select Intermediate Fund) were marketed and recommended as funds that would provide a consistent income level while the actual risks involved were misrepresented and the funds’ net asset value pricing was manipulated.

The SEC’s enforcement division is accusing Morgan Keegan of failing to put into place reasonable procedures to internally price the portfolio securities in five funds, and as a result, being unable to accurately calculate the funds’ “net asset values.” These inaccurate daily NAVs were published while investors bought shares at inflated prices.

The enforcement division is also accusing fund portfolio manager Kelsoe of acting arbitrarily when he told Morgan Keegan’s Fund Accounting department to adjust prices in a manner that would make certain portfolio securities’ fair value go up. He had his assistant send about 262 “price adjustments” to Fund Accounting between at least January and July 2007.

On numerous occasions, adjustments were arbitrary, disregarded lower values that other dealers had quoted for the same securities, and neglected to reflect fair value. They were entered into a spreadsheet to determine the funds’ NAVs-even though there were no supporting documents. Kelsoe also is accused of regularly telling Fund Accounting to disregard broker-dealers’ month-end quotes that should have been used to validate the prices Morgan Keegan had assigned to the securities in the funds, as well as manipulated pricing quotes he received from at least one broker-dealer.

The Division of Enforcement is accusing Weller, a CPA who belonged to the Valuation Committee and served as the Fund Accounting Department head, of failing to fix the deficiencies in the valuation procedures, as well as not ensuring that fair-valued securities were accurately priced or that NAVs were correctly calculated.

Related Web Resources:
SEC Charges Morgan Keegan and Two Employees With Fraud Related to Subprime Mortgages, SEC.gov, April 7, 2010
SEC Order (PDF)

Morgan Keegan, 2 Employees Face SEC Fraud Charges, The Wall Street Journal, April 7, 2010 Continue Reading ›

US Supreme Court Won’t Review Texas Securities Fraud Case of Investment Adviser Barred from Industry by SEC

Published on: April 6, 2010 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The US Supreme Court says it will not review the decision by a federal appeals court affirming the US Securities and Exchange Commission’s decision to bar investment adviser David Disraeli from the securities industry. The SEC accused the Texan of a number of violations, including broker misconduct (such as the making of material misrepresentations when selling and offering securities).

The SEC had concluded that David Henry Disraeli and his company Lifeplan Associates Inc. violated federal securities law antifraud proscriptions when they omitted and misrepresented material facts related to a private offering by Lifeplan, which the investment adviser then presented and sold to numerous clients.

The agency also found that Disraeli did not maintain appropriate and accurate records and books. The SEC says that when he registered as an investment advisor he was not qualified for the position and he included material misrepresentations in his applications.

In light of the Texas securities fraud case, the SEC has taken away Disraeli’s investment adviser registration, barred him from the securities industry, and told him to pay a civil money penalty of $85,000, plus a disgorgement of $84,300 and prejudgment interest.

The Texas investment adviser filed a certiorari petition last year. Disraeli claimed that the agency did not come up with “compelling reasons for the issuance of the death penalty,” as well as for why other sanctions weren’t sufficient. He also said that if the case was allowed to stand, the circuit court would have lowered the bar for what is required to prevent him from belonging in the securities industry and deprive him of his livelihood.

Disraeli says that the appeals court should have taken into consideration his lengthy relationships with his shareholders and the fact that he had accomplished his business plan’s “main objectives.”

Related Web Resources:
Adviser Fails to Gain High Court Review Of Ruling Affirming SEC Industry Bar Order, BNA Securities Law, March 23, 2010
Read the Appeals Court Decision (PDF)
Continue Reading ›

Credit Suisse Group AG Must Pay ST Microelectronics NV $431 Million Auction-Rate Securities Arbitration Award

Published on: April 5, 2010 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

U.S. District Judge Deborah Batts says that Credit Suisse Group AG must pay STMicroelectronics NV the rest of the $431 million arbitration award owed for unauthorized auction-rate securities-related investments. FINRA had issued the securities fraud award last year.

STMicroelectronics NV says that Credit Suisse invested in high risk securities, including ARS with collateralized debt obligations, for the company when the investment bank was only supposed to invest in student loans backed by the US government. The European-based semiconductor maker sued Credit Suisse when the ARS’ value dropped. STMicro accused the broker-dealer of securities fraud, unjust enrichment, breach of contract, failure to supervise, and breach of fiduciary duty.

A FINRA panel ruled in favor of STMicro, awarding the company $400 million in compensatory damages, $3 million in expert witness and legal fees, and $1.5 million in financing fees, while directing Credit Suisse to pay 4.64% on the illiquid ARS in STMicro’s account until the fees and damages were paid.

Credit Suisse sought to vacate the FINRA award and argued that a panel arbitrator had been prejudicial toward the investment bank. The broker-dealer also accused the panel of disregarding the law. The court, however, decided that Credit Suisse’s claims were meritless. The remaining balance owed to STMicroelectronics is approximately $354 million, including $23 million in interest.

Earlier this year, Credit Suisse broker Eric Butler received a 5-year prison sentence for selling subprime securities to investors. His fraudulent actions cost them over $1.1 billion.

Since the ARS market meltdown in February 2008, at least 19 broker-dealers and underwriters have been sued. Regulators forced some of them to repurchase billions of dollars worth of auction-rate securities.

Our Shepherd Smith Edwards and Kantas founder and Stockbroker fraud lawyer William Shepherd says, “One issue which investors face when they are required to arbitrate is that they have little hope of appealing the arbitrators’ award if he/she lose. However, this works both ways: It is also very difficult for the brokerage firm to appeal as well, and few even try. Thus, an investor can finish a case, win, and get paid in about a year. In court, the process can drag out for 5 years or more.”

STMicroelectronics Sues Credit Suisse Over Securities, NY Times, August 7, 2008
FINRA Awards STMicroelectronics $406 Million Against Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC, STMicroelectronics, February 16, 2009 Continue Reading ›

Texas Securities Fraud: SEC Sues Two Individuals For Allegedly Running Multi-Million Dollar Scheme Involving Viaticals

Published on: April 2, 2010 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

In the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, the US Securities and Exchange Commission is suing Kelly Gipson and Charles Jordan for allegedly orchestrating a multi-million dollar viaticals scam (in the secondary market for life insurance). On March 22, the agency said the court had granted its request for a temporary order to freeze the defendants’ assets.

Also, a receiver has been appointed to take charge of their business, American Settlements Association LLC, and their assets. The SEC is seeking preliminary and permanent injunctions, civil penalties, disgorgement plus prejudgment interest.

Per the agency’s complaint, Gipson and Jordan made at least $2.3 million from March to December 2007 by selling interests in a life insurance policy to over 50 investors in 10 states. They told them they would spend the funds on future premium payments so that the policy wouldn’t lapse. Instead, Gipson and Jordan mixed investors’ money with their funds and diverted it toward their personal spending, including travel, jewelry, entertainment, and casinos.

UBS, JP Morgan, Lehman, Bank of America, and Other Banks Included on List of Co-Conspirators in CDR Bid-Rigging Scam

Published on: March 31, 2010 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Over two dozen bankers at Wall Street investment firms have been listed as co-conspirators in a bid-rigging scheme to pay lower than market interest rates to the federal and state governments over guaranteed investment contracts. The banks named as co-conspirators include JP Morgan Chase & Co, UBS AG, Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc., Bear Stearns Cos., Bank of America Corp, Societe General, Wachovia Corp (bought by Wells Fargo), former Citigroup Inc. unit Salomon Smith Barney, and two General Electric financial businesses.

The investment banks were named in papers filed by the lawyers of a former CDR Financial Products Inc. employee. The attorneys for the advisory firm say that they “inadvertedly” included the list of bankers and individuals and asked the court to strike the exhibit that contains the list. The firms and individuals on the co-conspirators list are not charged with any wrongdoing. However, over a dozen financial firms are contending with securities fraud complaints filed by municipalities claiming conspiracy was involved.

The government says that CDR, a local-government adviser, ran auctions that were scams. This let banks pay lower interests to the local governments. In October, CDR, and executives David Rubin, Evan Zarefsky, and Zevi Wolmark were indicted. They denied any wrongdoing. This year, three other former DCR employees pleaded guilty.

While the original indictments didn’t identify any investment contract sellers that took part in the alleged conspiracy, Providers A and B were accused of paying kickbacks to CDR after winning investment deals that the firm had brokered. The firms were able to do this by allegedly paying sham fees connected to financial transactions involving other companies.

Per the court documents filed in March, the kickbacks were paid out of fees that came out of transactions entered into with Royal Bank of Canada and UBS. The US Justice Department says the kickbacks ranged from $4,500 to $475,000. Financial Security Assurance Holdings Ltd divisions and GE units created the investment contracts that were involved.

Approximately $400 billion in municipal bonds are issued annually. Schools, cities, and states use money they get from the sale of these bonds to buy guaranteed investment contracts. Localities use the contracts to earn a return on some of the funds until they are needed for certain projects. The IRS, which sometimes makes money on the investments, requires that they are awarded on the basis of competitive bidding to make sure that the government gets a fair return.

Related Web Resources:
JPMorgan, Lehman, UBS Named in Bid-Rigging Conspiracy, Business Week, March 26, 2010
U.S. Probe Lays Out Bid Fixing, Bond Buyer, March 29, 2010
Read the letter to District Judge Marrero (PDF)
Continue Reading ›

Most Bloomberg National Poll Participants Think the US Government Should Punish Bankers that Caused Recent Market Collapse

Published on: March 29, 2010 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

According to the Bloomberg National Poll, most of the people who were interviewed don’t like banks, Wall Street, and insurance companies. They also wish that the government would punish those responsible for the financial meltdown. 1,002 US adults took part in the March 2010 poll, which has a margin of error of approximately 3.1%.

Per the poll:

• 57% of Americans have a negative view of Wall Street.
• 67% of poll participants don’t think highly of Congress.
• 56% support the government in either limiting the compensation paid to the parties that helped cause the economic clause or completely banning them from the industry.
• 58% think that big financial companies are more committed to making themselves richer even if it means that regular people end up suffering.
• 40% of pollsters think that financial companies are key to fostering economic growth.
• Over 40% of participants think the government has exceeded its role with actions it has taken to repair the financial industry.
• 37% think the government can do more.
• Nearly 60% think Wall Street should do more to protect itself in the event of future financial disasters.

70% of those surveyed favor current banking regulation over President Obama’s proposal that an independent agency be established for consumer protection.
Americans seem wary of the setting up of a new federal agency that would be in charge of making consumer protection rules for credit cards and mortgages. Instead, they would rather increase the powers of our current regulators.

However, President Barack Obama is determined to keep pushing for a Consumer Financial Protection Agency that he says “will finally set and enforce clear rules… across the financial marketplace.” According to New York Times Columnist Bob Herbert, Obama’s efforts are not making the financial industry and big-money interests very happy.

Regardless of what type of regulatory system oversees the financial markets, our stockbroker fraud law firm is determine to make sure that victims of securities fraud recoup their losses.

Related Web Resources:
Wall Street Despised, Most Want Oversight, Poll Shows (Update1), Bloomberg/Business Week, March 24, 2010
Derailing Help for Consumers, The New York Times, March 26, 2010
Consumer Financial Protection Agency, Los Angeles Times, August 2, 2009 Continue Reading ›

More on YieldPlus Mutual Fund: Charles Schwab Corp. Tries to Dissuade SEC From Filing Securities Claims

Published on: March 24, 2010 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Charles Schwab Corp. doesn’t want the Securities and Exchange Commission to file securities claims over the YieldPlus mutual fund. Schwab contends that it never misrepresented the fund when it compared it to money market funds. The brokerage firm also says that it did not mislead investors, give certain ones more information than others, or let other Schwab funds cause financial harm to Charles Schwab YieldPlus Funds investors.

While the SEC has yet to file YieldPlus-related claims against Schwab, it did send the brokerage firm a Wells notice last year notifying that it may sue. Schwab had switched about half of its assets in the YieldPlus fund into mortgage-backed securities without shareholder approval. Following the housing market collapse, what was once the largest short-term bond fund in the world fund, with $13.5 million in assets in 2007, lost 35% before dividends. As of February 28, Bloomberg data shows that the mutual fund had $184 million in assets.

Even though the Investment Company Act of 1940, Section 13(a) states that a shareholder vote must take place before a company can do other than what its policies allow when it comes to which industries investments can be concentrated in, Schwab says it didn’t need approval because although the fund changed how mortgage-backed securities were categorized, it did not change its fundamental concentration policy.

Senate Bill 1551 Allows Securities Fraud Lawsuits Against Those Accused of Aiding and Abetting Primary Violators

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

Our stockbroker fraud law firm is hoping that Senate Bill 1551, introduced last July by Senator Arlen Specter, will resurface in the upcoming regulatory reform bill. If passed into law, the “Liability for Aiding and Abetting Securities Violations Act of 2009” would allow secondary actors that aided and abetted the primary violators of securities laws to also be sued for securities fraud.

The bill is trying to overturn the US Supreme Court rulings Stoneridge Investment Partners v. Scientific-Atlanta and Central Bank of Denver v. First Interstate Bank. Both decisions held that a private plaintiff cannot file a securities fraud claim against secondary actors. Under current law, only the US Congress has the sole authority to bring such claims with the US Securities and Exchange Commission.

With Senate Bill 1551, the Securities Exchange Act of 1934’s Section 20 would be amended so that anyone that recklessly or knowingly gave substantial help to a party that violated securities law could be held liable through a civil lawsuit to the same extent as the primary actor. Accountants, securities analysts, investment banks, law firms, credit rating agencies, and private companies are some of the possible secondary actors that could be sued as securities fraud defendants.

Related Web Resources:
Liability for Aiding and Abetting Securities Violations Act of 2009, Govtrack.us
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (PDF)

Stoneridge Investment Partners v. Scientific-Atlanta, Oyez.org
Central Bank of Denver v. First Interstate Bank
Continue Reading ›

Claims for Losses at Lehman Brothers and in Investments into Lehman Brothers Financial Instruments Gain New Life as Court Uncovers Stunning New Evidence

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

Lehman Brothers filed for bankruptcy protection in 2008. Now, a report by a court-appointed examiner provides 2,200 pages of details on the investment firms demise, as well as more leads into further inquiries that may need to be made. (The US Justice Department assigns examiners to bankruptcy cases to probe allegations of misconduct and wrongdoing. The examiners are there to help determine whether creditors can recover more funds and if additional regulatory action needs to occur.) Already, a number of top Lehman officials have been named defendants in securities fraud lawsuits over their alleged misconduct.

For example, examiner Anton R. Valukas appears to have found evidence of “actionable balance sheet manipulation, including use of Repo 105, an aggressive accounting practice that allowed Lehman to conceal the full extent of its financial problems. While no US law firm would sign off on this practice, Linklaters, a British law firm, did.

According to Valukas, as long as the repos took place in London through the bank’s European arm and the firm did what was necessary to make the transactions look as if they were sales, then regulatory disapproval was unlikely. Also, even after a whistleblower warned that accounting improprieties were occurring at at Lehman, Valukas says that Ernst & Young continued to certify Lehman’s financial statements.

If your account at Lehman Brothers was mismanaged or if you invested into Lehman Brothers stocks, hedge funds, notes, or other Lehman financial products that were sold by other firms, please contact our stockbroker fraud law firm immediately. Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP is committed to helping investment fraud victims throughout the US recoup their financial losses.

Related Web Resources:
Findings on Lehman Take Even Experts by Surprise, NY Times, March 10, 2010
Read the Examiner Report (PDF)
Continue Reading ›