Investor Lawyers Blog

Deutsche Bank Securities & National Financial Services Fined $925,000 for Regulation SHO Short Sale Restrictions & Supervisory Violations

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

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority says that Deutsche Bank Securities and National Financial Services LLC have consented to be fined $925,000 in total for supervisory violations, as well as Regulation SHO short sale restrictions violations. By agreeing to settle, the broker-dealers are not denying or admitting to the charges.

FINRA claims that the two investment firms used Direct Market Access order sytems to facilitate client execution of short sales and that they violated the Reg SHO “locate” requirement, which the Securities and Exchange Commission adopted in 2004 to discourage “naked” short selling. FINRA says that while the two broker-dealers put into effect DMA trading systems that were supposed to block short sale order executions unless a locate was documented, the two investment banks submitted short sale orders that lacked evidence of these locates.

FINRA says that during the occasional outages in Deutsche Bank’s systems, short sale orders were automatically rejected even though a valid documented locate had been obtained. This is when the the investment bank would disable the automatic block in its system, which allowed client short sales to automatically go through without first confirming that there were associated locates.

As for NFS, FINRA contends that the investment bank set up a separate locate request and approval process for 12 prime clients that preferred to get locates in multiple securities prior to the start of trading day. With this separate system, the requests and approvals for the numerous locates did not have to be submitted through the firm’s stock loan system at approval time. Instead, the clients could enter and execute orders through automated platforms that lacked the capacity to automatically block short sale order executions that didn’t have proper, documented locates.

JP Morgan Chase & Co. Accused of Securities Violations Involving Guaranteed Investment Contracts and Derivatives

Published on: May 19, 2010 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

In a May 10 Securities and Exchange Commission filing, JP Morgan Chase & Co. says that an SEC regional office intends to recommend that the agency file charges against the investment bank for securities violations involving the selling or bidding of derivatives and guaranteed investment contracts (GICs). JP Morgan says the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and a group of state attorneys general are looking into the allegations. The investment bank is cooperating with investigators.

JP Morgan’s Form 10-Q details the bank’s activities during the first quarter of 2010. The investment bank says that Bear Stearns is also under investigation for possible securities and antirust violations involving the sale or bidding of GICs and derivatives. JP Morgan acquired Bear Stearns in 2008.

Guaranteed Investment Contract
GICs are sold by insurance companies. Other names for GIC include stable value fund, capital-preservation fund, fixed-income fund, and guaranteed fund. GICs are considered safe investments with a value that remains stable. They usually pay interest from one to five years and when a GIC term ends, it can be renewed at current interest rates.

Related Web Resources:
US Securities and Exchange Commission

Guaranteed Investment Contracts, Financial Web Continue Reading ›

State of Connecticut Retirement and Trust Funds to Get Back $795,000 Lost in Securities Fraud Carried by Former Connecticut State Senate Fresident

Published on: May 18, 2010 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The Securities and Exchange Commission says that the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut has approved a Fair Fund distribution that will give back $795,000 to the State of Connecticut Retirement and Trust Funds, which suffered financial losses because of an investment scam involving William A. DiBella, the former president of the Connecticut State Senate. The SEC’s 2004 complaint had accused DiBella and his consulting firm North Cove of taking part in an investment scheme with former Treasurer of the State of Connecticut Paul Silvester, who had invested $75 million in state pension funds with private equity firm Thayer Capital Partners.

The SEC claims that Silvester arranged for DiBella to receive a percentage of the investment from Thayer. Silvester is also accused of increasing the pension fund’s investment with Thayer by at least $25 million so that DiBella could receive a larger fee. In total, Thayer paid $374,500 to DiBella through North Cove.

A jury found DiBella liable for abetting and aiding in the securities fraud, and the trial court ordered him to pay $374,500 in disgorgement, $307,127 in prejudgment interest, and $110,000 in penalties. The SEC had to instigate contempt proceedings with the federal court because of DiBella’s continued nonpayment. He finally completed payment of over $795,000 in March 2010, and the SEC fair fund was then set up.

SEC’s Division of Investment Management to Make 12b-1 Fee and Form ADV Recommendations Soon

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

According to the director of the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Division of Investment Management Andrew Donohue, its staff is close to recommending that the SEC adopt a proposed rule mandating that mutual funds give clients better information about the uses of Rule 12b-1 distribution fees and their amounts. The fees are automatically taken out of investor mutual fund balances and used as compensation for financial professionals’ expenses, including broker commissions, promotions, and distributions. More than $13 billion in Rule 12b-1 fees were collected in 2008.

Reform of Rule 12b-1 is likely to steer up a lot of controversy between industry participants and consumer interest groups. Adopted under the 1940 Investment Company Act in 1980, 12-b 1 fees’ use has changed significantly since then. At an American Bar Association function last month, Donohue said that the division hopes to recommend a reform proposal that is more investor-oriented, allows clients to have additional knowledge about how much the fees are and how they will be used, and better reflects today’s market environment.

The division is also close to recommending to the SEC that it adopt revisions to Part 2 of Form ADV, which is the main disclosure document that clients get from investment advisors. Under the proposal, registered investment advisers would have to give current and prospective clients a brochure written in plain English that provides important information about the services they are getting and who is representing them.

Donohue noted that the division is also working on a proposal regarding summary prospectus for variable annuities that would also give investors key information in English that is easy to understand, as well access to more information via the Internet. He also noted that because of the increased use of “derivatives (including collateralized debt obligations and credit default swaps) and sophisticated financial products” and the ability of a fund’s manager to put together a portfolio in so many different ways that are not necessary related to how much has been invested or the kinds of instruments in the fund, the division is compelled to examine investment companies derivative activities and what they mean for the “regulatory framework.”

Private Equity Firm Onyx Capital Advisors LLC Charged with Securities Fraud by SEC

Published on: May 13, 2010 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The SEC has filed securities fraud charges against the private equity firm, Onyx Capital Advisors LLC, its founder Roy Dixon Jr., and his friend Michael Farr. The agency is accusing the defendants of stealing over $3 million from three area public pension funds.

According to the SEC, Onyx Capital Advisors and Dixon raised $23.8 million from the pension funds for a start-up private equity fund that was to invest in private companies. Dixon and Farr, who controlled three of the companies that the Onyx fund had invested in, then illegally took out money that the pension funds had invested and used the cash to cover their own expenses.

While Onyx Capital and Dixon allegedly took more than $2.06 million under the guise of management fees, Farr allegedly helped divert approximately $1.05 million through the companies under his control. He is also accused of diverting part of the over $15 million that Onyx capital invested in SCM Credit LLC, Second Chance Motors, and SCM Finance LLC to 1097 Sea Jay LLC, which is another company that he controls. Farr then allegedly took money from Sea Jay, gave most of it to Dixon, and kept some for himself.

The SEC is accusing Onyx Capital and Dixon of making misleading and false statements to pension fund clients about the private equity fund and the investments they were making. The agency claims that the private equity firm and its founder violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Rule 10b-5 thereunder, Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, and Sections 206(1), 206(2) and 206(4) of the Investment Advisers Act, and Rule 206(4)-8 thereunder. The SEC claims that Farr aided and abetted in the other two defendants’ violations of Sections 206(1) and 206(2) of the Investment Advisers Act.

Related Web Resources:
SEC charges private equity firm and money manager for defrauding Detroit-area public pension funds, SEC, April 23, 2010
Read the SEC Complaint, SEC (PDF)
Continue Reading ›

Supreme Court Nominee Elana Kagan Took Investors Side on Two Significant Securities Cases

Published on: May 12, 2010 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The Wall Street Journal reports that as Solicitor General of the United States, US Supreme Court nominee Elana Kagan has sided with investor interests in two high profile lawsuits. In one securities fraud complaint that looked at when shareholders can sue mutual–fund mangers that had allegedly charged fees that were excessive, her office submitted a legal brief supporting investors. Kagan contended that a lower-court ruling make sure that there was enough of a check on potentially exorbitant fees. In another securities case, the Solicitor General’s office argued that Merck & Co. Inc. shareholders did not wait too long to file lawsuits accusing the pharmaceutical company of misrepresenting the safety of VIoxx. This spring, the US Supreme Court unanimously agreed with Kagan’s position in both cases.

However, The solicitor general’s office is siding with the business side in another investor lawsuit that awaiting resolution by the Supreme Court. She is contending that foreign investors shouldn’t be able to file a US securities lawsuit against National Australia Bank Ltd, which is a foreign company.

The Wall Street Journal says that by choosing Kagan as the latest Supreme Court nominee, the Obama administration is taking “a friendlier approach” when it comes to investor cases.

Related Web Resources:
Kagan Sided With Investors in Two Notable Securities Cases, The Wall Street Journal, May 10, 2010
Does Elena Kagan Support Shareholder Rights?, The Big Money, May 11, 2010
A Climb Marked by Confidence and Canniness, NY TImes, May 10, 2010
Office of the Solicitor General
Continue Reading ›

New Braunfels Firm Accused of Texas Securities Fraud In Sales of Viatical (Insurance) Investments

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

State District Court Judge Stephen Yelenosky has frozen the assets of Retirement Value LLC and appointed a receiver to take control of the New Braunfels company, which faces allegations of Texas securities fraud related to the sale of investments linked to death benefits from life insurance policies. The Texas State Securities Board, which has been conducting an undercover investigation into the company, requested the court order against the investment firm.

Retirement Value, its President Richard “Dick” Gray, and Chief Operating Officer Bruce Collins are defendants in the court action. According to the securities board, between April 2009 and February 2010 the company allegedly collected $65 million from more than 800 investors. The securities board also claims that investment firm told investors that the expected rate of return would be 16.5% payable upon maturity.

The claim contends that from the $65 million that the Retirement Value received from investors, $9.3 million was paid in commissions to unregistered sales agents. Meantime, Retirement Value, Gray and other principals in the company retained $8.4 million. Only $20.2 million was used to acquire the interests in the life insurance policies, while another third was set aside to acquire additional policies.

SEC’s Handling of Credit Rating Agencies Oversight and Failure to Detect Madoff and Stanford Ponzi Scams Questioned at Senate Appropriations Financial Services Subcommittee

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

At a recent hearing, US Senator Richard Durbin (D-Ill), who is chairman of the Senate Appropriations Financial Services subcommittee, told Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman Mary Schapiro that he was “puzzled” by the SEC’s request for funds to start aggressive oversight of credit ratings agencies in 2011. Earlier this year, the White House asked Congress to fund the SEC $1.234 billion for FY 2011-that’s $123 million more than the actual funding received by SEC during the previous year. Noting that over the past two years Congress had already given the SEC $143 million more than what the White House had recommended, Durbin wanted to know why, if the SEC considers overseeing credit rating agencies such a “huge priority,” the agency hadn’t already devoted some of that extra money to CRA oversight.

Schapiro responded by saying that not only is the SEC extremely committed to “aggressive” CRA oversight (and wants to examine all such agencies regularly) but that the agency had already begun this process. However, Securities Fraud Lawyer William Shepherd considers Shapiro’s statement “strange,” especially as it was “made by someone who, prior to taking over at the SEC, was in charge of the National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc (now called the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority). Under Ms. Shapiro, the NASD had the duty to regulate registered financial firms and was on the front line to govern the actions at the Madoff securities firm, as well as Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, and, for that matter, Goldman Sachs.” Mr. Shepherd is the founder of Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas LTD LLP, a stockbroker fraud law firm.

Durbin and Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) also questioned Schapiro about oversights that took place during the investigations into ponzi masterminds Allen Stanford and Bernard Madoff illegal activities, the status of its whistleblower program, the role of the SEC’s new chief compliance officer, and the fates of the staffers who were caught watching porn while on the job.

Schapiro said that 15 of the 20 SEC staffers that were implicated in an inspector general’s report for failing catch Madoff’s ponzi scam are no longer with the agency. The remaining five will be subject to “fair” and “appropriate” disciplinary responses. She also provided details on new efforts that the SEC is implementing to make sure that illegal activities such as those that Stanford and Madoff practiced will most certainly be detected in the future. Schapiro also talked about new, “across the board” leadership and a committee that lets staffers submit tips if it appears that certain colleagues have failed to take specific actions.

Related Web Resources:
Senators Say No to SEC Self-Funding, The Wall Street Journal, April 28, 2010
S.E.C. Employees’ Porn Problem, CBS, April 23, 2010
Senate Appropriations Financial Services subcommittee

US Securities and Exchange Commission
Continue Reading ›

RBC Capital Markets, Olympus Securities, and Three Other Broker-Dealers Settle FINRA Accusations of Selling “Unregistered” Penny Stock

Published on: May 7, 2010 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

RBC Capital Markets Corp., Equity Station Inc., Fagenson & Co. Inc., Olympic Securities LLC, and Alpine Securities Corp. have consented to pay $385,000 to settle Financial Industry Regulatory Authority that they sold collectively over 7.5 billion in “unregistered” penny stock in Universal Express Inc. shares and made about $8.4 million as a result. By settling, the broker-dealers are not agreeing to or denying the securities fraud accusations.

FINRA says that “in each instance” the investment firm’s clients deposited certificates that consisted of huge blocks of thinly traded securities and then liquidated the positions right away. The firms conducted the sales even after a 2004 Securities and Exchange Commission complaint accused Universal Express of illegally issuing over 500 M shares in unregistered stock to be distributed to the public. The SEC claimed the company’s leaders put out bogus press releases and false and misleading statements to promote the sale of the unregistered stock.

According to FINRA:

• RBC Capital Markets reported making $68,000 in commissions from the unregistered stock sale. The broker-dealer has consented to a $135,000 fine.

• Equity Station made $13,575 in commissions. The investment firm is fined $25,000.

• Fagenson & Co. has agreed to a $165,000 fine and made $44,000 in commissions.

• Olympic Securities is fined $20,000 after making $5,200 in commissions.

• Alpine Securities is fined $40,000 for earning $13,575 in commissions.

FINRA says that even with numerous red flags, all five firms did not take the necessary actions to find out whether selling the securities would violate violating federal registration requirements. FINRA contends that when the five broker-dealers conducted the majority of the illegal unregistered stock sales the SEC had either began or won its case against Universal Express, which was eventually sanctioned almost $22 million.

Related Web Resources:
FINRA Fines Five Firms $385,000 for Sale of Unregistered Securities, Other Violations Relating to Penny Stocks, FINRA, April 27, 2010
Regulatory Notice 09-05, FINRA
SEC wins case against Universal Express, CEO, Business Journal, March 2, 2007 Continue Reading ›

Goldman Sachs Fined $450,000 by NYSE Regulation for Short Sale Rule Violations. Are they being persecuted?

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

It was announced by Reuters News today that regulators at the New York Stock Exchange have fined Goldman Sachs Execution & Clearing Corp. $450,000 in connection with roughly 385 orders to “short” equity securities for clients that resulted in “fail-to-deliver” positions without first borrowing or arranging to borrow the securities as collateral. The nearly 400 infractions occurred in a seven-week period in December 2008 – January 2009.

So that timely delivery of the shares sold can be made to buyers, a rule has existed for decades that says investors cannot sell securities short unless arrangements have been made to borrow such securities. Stock shares can be made available to lend by anyone who owns those shares. For example, when margin agreements are signed at a brokerage firm by investors, the agreement contains language which allows their securities to be rented to those seeking to sell the shares short, (The rent charged is almost always kept by the firm.) This can happen at the same brokerage firm or arrangements can be made by one firm to lend available securities to another firm to transact short sales for itself or its clients.

There have been many examples of “short squeezes”, some undoubtedly intentional, in which shares are either not available to meet borrowing demand, or shares previously lent are reclaimed. This caused short sellers to have to scramble to find shares or be “bought in” on the open market. In some situations in the past, the law of supply and demand for shares has caused the price of the stock to rise to two or three times its pre-squeeze price, wiping out the short sellers. Thus, rampant short selling had its own unique deterrent.

It is up to the brokerage community to police the borrowing rule. Through computers, availability of shares can be very easily learned before a short sale is executed. In the “heydays” of day trading firms during the 1990s, day traders would seek to “block up” shares in advance of a short sale to avoid the delay of locating shares when the desired price was reached. (There were some tricks used to try to accomplish this while not telegraphing to professional traders and specialists that short sales were imminent, but we will not attempt a full explanation of these at this time.)

As part of the deregulation which occurred prior to the market crash of 2008-2009, while short sale regulations remained in place, the hard rule of making certain that shares are available at the time the short sale is executed was modified to allow firms to simply act in “good faith” to attempt to locate the shares. As wild flections were occurring in the stock markets during the crash, professional traders often reaped huge profits on short sales. The “good faith” crack in the door for those selling short grew to an open door policy of simply not enforcing this and other short sale rules. While the term “naked shorts” became a part of the culture, this was nevertheless simply deregulation by non-enforcement of the borrowing rule.

There has been no information revealed as to whether the Goldman Sachs’ admission of some 400 borrowing rule violations over a 7 week period is indicative of thousands of such violations by Wall Street during the years regulators were looking the other way. However I – for one – would not be shocked to learn that this is a mere “drop in the bucket” of the total borrowing violations which actually occurred. If Goldman Sachs claims it is being singled out on this one, that is likely the truth. However, I quickly learned as a teenager that the defense of “everyone else is doing it” was not going to work with my regulators.
Continue Reading ›