Investor Lawyers Blog

NJ Settles Municipal Bond Offering Fraud Charges with SEC

Published on: September 30, 2010 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The state of New Jersey has settled Securities and Exchange Commission charges involving the alleged fraudulent marketing of municipal bonds. This is the first time that the SEC has filed charges against a US state for allegedly violating federal securities law.

The charges, brought by the SEC’s Municipal Securities and Public Pensions Unit, involved $26 billion in approximately 79 bond offerings that were offered between August 2001 and April 2007. The SEC accused New Jersey of concealing from bond investors the fact that the state didn’t have the money to fulfill its obligations under two of its largest pension plans for state employees and teachers. New Jersey also allegedly using accounting tricks to avoid increasing taxes to fund a 2001 benefits increase for both plans and hid this information from investors. As a result, the SEC contends that losses totaling approximately $2.4 billion were covered up.

The SEC says that New Jersey did not have written procedures on how to review bond documents and failed to train employees about its disclosure obligations. A training program regarding disclosures is now in place.

By agreeing to settle, New Jersey is not admitting to or denying the charges. It has, however, agreed to cease and desist from future violations. The SEC did not order a monetary fine or penalty as part of the settlement.

SEC Charges State of New Jersey for Fraudulent Municipal Bond Offerings, SEC.gov, AUgust 18, 2010

Wall Street Knew 28% of the Loans Behind Mortgage Backed Securities (MBS) Failed to Meet Basic Underwriting Standards

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

Testimony and documentation provided to the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission (FCIC) by Clayton Holdings, a due diligence company, revealed that as much as 28% of the loans failed to meet basic underwriting guidelines. According to the testimony given to the FCIC, only 54% of the loans met the lender’s underwriting guidelines and 28% were outright failures.

Unfortunately, about 40% of these bad loans went into securitized pools sold to investors. This information, provided to Wall Street banks, was ignored when they purchased these loans, then bundled into mortgage backed securities and sold to others. Furthermore, rating agencies Moody’s, Standard & Poor’s and Fitch, all charged with assessing the risks of securitized pools, ignored conclusive evidence that many of the loans failed to meet underwriting standards.

Loan originators profited, as did unscrupulous appraisers, then Wall Street firms and the rating agencies shared in the greed by packaging the overrated risky pools. The victims were unsuspecting investors, including individual investors, pension funds, municipalities and U.S. housing agencies, as well as overseas countries, banks and other foreign investors.

In the wake of this subprime mortgage fraud process and the collapse of the housing market, accusations of the chain of greed concerning mortgage backed securities (MBS) has now been confirmed: The toxic nature of the securities was known by Wall Street but simply ignored for the sake of profits.

In a related matter, Morgan Stanley accused of deceptive practices by the Massachusetts Attorney General by knowingly placing dubious mortgages into securitized pools. The facts in that case relied on Clayton reports of loan quality commissioned by Morgan Stanley. The firm settled for $102 million.

References:

Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, www.fcic.gov
Raters Ignored Proof of Unsafe Loans, New York Times, Gretchen Morgenson; September 26, 2010
New Proof Wall Street Knew Its Mortgage Securities Were Subpar, Huffington Post, September 25, 2010
Attorney General of Massachusetts, www.mass.gov Continue Reading ›

Federal Judge to Approve Citigroup’s $75M Securities Settlement with SEC Over Bank’s Subprime Mortgage Debt Reporting to Investors

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

Judge Ellen Segal Huvelle says she will approve the $75 securities settlement between Citigroup and the SEC once the agreement includes changes that the bank has already made to its disclosure policy in the agreement. The federal judge says she wants the changes added to the settlement terms so that executives can’t revise them. She also wants the $75 million used to compensate shareholders who lost money because of Citigroup’s misstatements.

Last month, Huvelle had refused to approve the settlement over Citibank’s alleged failure to fully disclosure its exposure to subprime assets by almost $40 billion. The SEC accused the investment bank of misleading investors and telling them that its exposure was only $13 billion. When questioning the agreement, Huvelle asked why Citigroup shareholders should have to pay for the bank executives’ alleged misconducts. She also wanted to know why only two individuals were pursued.

The SEC had also filed cases against former CFO Gary Crittenden and ex-investor relations head Arthur Tildesley Jr. Both men have settled the cases against them without denying or admitting wrongdoing.

Despite giving conditional approval of the settlement, Huvelle noted that she didn’t think the $75 million would “deter anyone” unless Citibank abided by the changes to the disclosure policy. She also noted that the bank was “doing a disservice to the public” because other Citigroup executives were not held accountable for their alleged involvement.

The Wall Street Journal reports that lawmakers and others have becoming extremely frustrated at the considerably small number of senior executives that have been charged in connection with the financial debacle that has impacted Wall Street. The SEC has said that it can only file charges when there is sufficient evidence. Meantime, defense attorneys have argued that the multibillion dollar losses by investment firms were a result of bad business calls and not intentional fraud.

Related Web Resources:
Citigroup’s $75 Million Settlement With SEC Gets Green Light — Almost, Law.com, September 28, 2010

US court approves SEC settlement with Citi, Financial Times, September 24, 2010

Judge Won’t Approve Citi-SEC Pact, Wall Street Journal, August 17, 2010

SEC Examining Whether Investment Advisers of Alternative Investment Funds Have Sufficient Due Diligence Processes in Place

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

The SEC’s Office of Compliance Inspections and Examinations is checking the due diligence processes at investment advisers of private pools of capital. In a letter sent this month to the chief compliance officers of registered investment advisers that have alternative investment options in their portfolios, OCIE asked the CCOs to provide copies of the investment firm’s trade blotter, due diligence policies and procedures, compliance policies and procedures, the names of the staff that take part in the due diligence process, and the names of third parties that provide due diligence services.

OCIE also requested all marketing materials that are offered to existing and potential clients, as well as current financial records. The SEC wants to know how fund managers are managing any conflicts of interest while performing due diligence.

The probe comes nearly two years after Bernard Madoff’s Ponzi scam was discovered. Many of his investors became indirectly involved with the scheme through advisors that had invested in his funds.

In securities fraud lawsuits filed by some of the investors against their advisers, the plaintiffs contend that proper due diligence would have allowed the scam to be uncovered sooner. The SEC has also come under fire for failing to detect the scheme despite examining and investigating Bernard Madoff’s company on several occasions.

During this review, OCIE staff will visit the investment firms. They also want to meet with personnel knowledgeable about the due diligence process and with the firm’s investment committee head.

Related Web Resources:
SEC Scrutinizing Due Diligence Processes at Advisers of Alternative Investment Funds, US Law Watch, September 15, 2010
Office of Compliance Inspections and Examinations, SEC Continue Reading ›

Jefferson County, Alabama Officials Want JP Morgan Chase & Other Wall Street Creditors to Accept Proposal that Would Eliminate Almost Half of Its $3.2 Billion Sewer Debt

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

Jefferson County, Alabama officials have presented a proposed settlement to Wall Street creditors that could get rid of almost half of its $3.2 billion sewer debt, create a $30 million relief fund for ratepayers that have a hard time paying their sewer bills, and limit sewer rate increases to approximately 2.5% annually. The county wants to solve its sewer bet crisis before the current County Commission leaves in November.

A significant number of investors have to agree to the proposal. JPMorgan Chase and Co. owns most of the county warrants. However, the other banks, including State Street Bank of Boston, Lloyds Bank of Scotland, the Bank of Nova Scotia in Canada, and Societe Generale of Paris would also have to approve it. Getting all of them to agree could prove challenging. Not all creditors may end up with half of what is owed. Some creditors want the settlement discussions to slow down while efforts are made to determine if more money can be obtained from the county.

“Our firm is handling a number of multi-million dollar Jefferson County-related securities claims and other ARS claims, which included claims for ‘consequential damages,” says Stockbroker Fraud Lawyer William Shepherd. “In these cases damages have been incurred by businesses and others when they denied access to their funds for months or years. Meanwhile, they had been told that the funds were placed into ‘money market’ type investments and were readily available on short notice. Some business completely failed because their cash flow was interrupted when the funds were suddenly tied up in these illiquid investments.”

In 1994, the county started a sewer restoration and rehabilitation program after individuals and the Cahaba River Society won their lawsuit demonstrating that the county had polluted rivers and creaks with untreated waste. In a consent decree in 1996, the county agreed to fix the sewer system. Initially estimated to cost $1 billion, it became a $3.2 billion project.

In 2002, a number of financial advisers, including bankers from JP Morgan, convinced county officials to replace traditional fixed-rate bonds with notes that came with floating interest rates, such as ARS. Following the credit crisis in 2008, and as borrowing costs rose, the complex financing scheme that the county was using failed. The county has been trying to figure out how to pay back the money it borrowed and is attempting to restructure its debt. In 2009, JP Morgan settled SEC charges related to an illegal payment scam that enabled the broker dealer to obtain business (involving swap agreement transactions and municipal bond offerings) in Jefferson County for a $75 million penalty. JP Morgan also agreed to forfeit $647 million in swap termination fees.

“Our securities claims are not against Jefferson County, but against the securities firms that sold our clients these securities,” says Shepherd. “Thus, the amounts not recovered by investors in the settlement are losses we are also seeking for our clients based on misrepresentations and omissions in the sales process.”

Related Web Resources:
Jefferson County officials proposing that creditors accept half of $3.2 billion sewer debt, AL.com, September 26, 2010

Jefferson County, Alabama

Class Auction-Rate Securities Lawsuit Against Raymond James Financial Survives Dismissal

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

In the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, U.S. District Judge Lewis A. Kaplan has allowed some of the investor claims in the class action auction-rate securities lawsuit against broker-dealer Raymond James Financial Inc. (RJF) and its broker-dealer subsidiary to proceed. This is the first ARS class action case filed since the auction rate securities market failed in 2008 to survive a dismissal motion. The case can now go to the discovery stage.

Kaplan, who had dismissed an earlier lawsuit in this case, let the plaintiffs move forward with their auction-rate securities case on the claim that Raymond James & Associates Inc. (RJA) violated antifraud provisions between November 2007 and February 13, 2008. A claim against RJF was allowed to proceed because of its “operational and management control” of RJA during this time. Other claims were dismissed.

Investors had filed the initial class action in April 2008 against RJA, RJF, and Raymond James Financial Services Inc. (RJFS), another Raymond James broker-dealer subsidiary. The plaintiffs contended that between April 8, 2003 and February 13, 2008, the two subsidiaries told financial advisers that ARS were extremely liquid, short-term investments that could work well for any investor with at least $25,000 and with as little as a week to invest. However, when the auction-rate securities market failed, over $300 million in ARS became illiquid. Per Kaplan, RJA sold $2.3 billion of ARS, underwrote $1.2 billion, and was the auction dealer for over $725 million.

Auction-rate securities cases filed by individual investors have been faring better than class-action ARS lawsuits. Of the class-action and group complaints filed against some 19 underwriters and broker-dealers since the ARS market failed, Bloomberg.com reports that Citigroup, Deutsche Bank AG, and at least six other financial firms have managed to get the lawsuits thrown out by judges ruling that the complaints failed to meet pleading requirements. Some plaintiffs were told to refile their lawsuits and provide more details.

Raymond James Auction Rate Class-Action Fraud Suit Is First to Be Upheld, Bloomberg, September 8, 2010
Court Clears Lawsuit Against Raymond James, FA-Mag.com, September 9, 2010 Continue Reading ›

Increase of Structured Notes with Derivatives Sales Seduces Retirees, Reports Bloomberg

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

According to Bloomberg, the sale of structured notes (also known as principal protected notes, or PPN) that come with derivatives to thousands of individual investors has driven up their sale by 58% to $31.9 billion through August. Unfortunately, investors are often lured into making such purchases without fully comprehending the risks, and this can result in significant losses. This year, the US Securities and Exchange Commission’s enforcement division began a group concentrated on investigating structured products.

Banks create structured notes products by bundling privately negotiated over-the-counter derivatives with bonds. Because the Commodity Futures Modernization Act excludes most trades between institutions from oversight, banks can sell OTC derivatives to individuals as long as they are put together with bonds into hybrid securities. Individual investors, even though they lack the background and knowledge to fully understand the risks involved, are targeted for these notes to increase banks’ profit margins. Also, because structured notes aren’t standardized, brokers are paid more to sell structured notes than they are for selling some of the other financial products.

Structured notes have grown in popularity since the Federal Reserve has maintained its target rate for overnight loans between banks at 0% to .25%. With US interest rates close to 0%, investors are buying up the bonds. Reverse convertible notes has paid 13% interest on average in 2010.

Granted, investors can obtain higher returns if their bets work out, and principal-protected notes and some of the other products are not as risky as stocks because sellers guarantee that investors won’t suffer losses if the market falls. However, because there are variables outside the scope of interest rate movements, investors can lose money. Institutional Risk Analytics Managing Director Christopher Whalen has said that structured notes will likely become the next investment bubble.

Retirees Duped by Derivatives With Structured Notes Sale Surge, Bloomberg, September 22, 2010
Structured Notes Becoming New “Investment Bubble” on Wall Street, says Institutional Risk Analytics Director, https://www.stockbrokerfraudblog.com, August 12, 2010
Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas LTD LLP Investigates Claims for Purchasers of Structured Notes, GlobalNewswire, August 11, 2010 Continue Reading ›

10th Circuit Issues Split Decision on Fees to Gemstar-TV Guide International Inc.

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

In a split decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit decided that while Gemstar-TV Guide International Inc. can collect fees spent in its defense of the Oklahom securities fraud complaint filed against the company and two ex-officers by a former executive, it cannot collect legal fees it incurred from its counterclaim against the plaintiff. The court said that while a separation agreement executed by the two parties does not allow the former executive to sue the company it also does not allow for fees to be awarded for counterclaims.

Ex-Gemstar-TV Guide executive Pamela McKissick had sued the company, its former chief financial officer Elsie M. Leung, and its former chief executive Henry C. Yuen in 2004. McKissick claimed that the defendants issued false and misleading statements that overstated company revenues and that this resulted in an artificially inflated stock price. McKissick says that because of this misconduct and other acts, her stock options became worthless. However, prior to exiting Gemstar in 2003, McKissick had consented to a Separation Agreement and Release that included a “no actions” provision that had her releasing all claims against the company unless a claim involved the enforcement of the SAR.

Gemstar submitted a motion for summary judgment claiming that the SAR prevented McKissick from filing the securities fraud lawsuit. Gemstar then counterclaimed saying that it should receive legal fees because her lawsuit violated the terms of the SAR.

The judgment was upheld on appeal in 2008, which was the same year that criminal charges were filed against Yuen for alleged securities fraud. Yuen had also been ordered by the US Securities and Exchange Commission to pay $22.3M in penalties, disgorgement, and interest to settle allegations that he played a role in Gemstar significantly overstating its revenues.

Summary judgment was awarded by the district court to Gemstar for both McKissick’s securities fraud case and the company’s counterclaim. McKissick appealed. Yuen and Leung filed a motion for legal fees. After the district court granted their fee request, McKissick added the issue to her appeal.

Related Web Resources:
McKissick v. Yuen, United States Court of Appeals, 10th Circuit Continue Reading ›

Paper Offers Defenses Against Proxy Access Challenges

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

Assistant Professor J.W. Verret of George Mason University’s School of Law has issued a research paper that suggests a number of unique strategies that boards can use to defend against proxy access challenges. The paper is called “Defending Against Shareholder Proxy Access: Delaware’s Future Reviewing Company Defenses in the Era of Dodd-Frank.”

It was just this August that a divided US Securities and Exchange Commission approved rule changes that put in place an access regime that lets shareholders include their director nominees in proxy materials as long as they meet eligibility requirements. In his paper, Verret notes that even with the new regime, Delaware law still allows for the “limiting or expanding of the reach of proxy access.” He says that corporate boards that want to defend themselves against such challenges should refer to corporate governance arrangements with a “secondary effect on the shareholder franchise and the shareholder nomination process” as seen by the “SEC’s proxy access rule.”

Verret has said that the federal mandate for proxy access will negatively affect retail shareholders in the long run. His defense tactic recommendations include:

• Defenses related to board characteristics
• Defenses that up insurgents’ costs
• Structured shareholder-voting related defenses

Verret’s paper argues that rule amendments by the SEC likely cannot preempt all state laws, which the boards can then use. He believes that federal pre-emption is not a high risk to the defenses that he is suggesting.

Related Web Resources:

Defending Against Shareholder Proxy Access: Delaware’s Future Reviewing Company Defenses in the Era of Dodd-Frank, Social Science Research Network

Plan by FINRA and CHX to Re-Allocate Regulatory Tasks Approved by SEC

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

The Securities and Exchange Commission has approved the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority and Chicago Stock Exchange Inc. proposed agreement to re-allocate certain regulatory duties that deal with firms that belong to the two self-regulatory organizations.

Under the plan, FINRA is to assume specific enforcement and examination functions for common members when the applicable CHX rules and FINRA rules involved are “substantially similar.” Also, with respect to certain federal securities laws and rules and regulations and as specified by the agreement, FINRA is to take regulatory responsibility for common members.

The SEC says the plan will cut down “unnecessary regulatory duplication” when common members are involved. While FINRA will take charge of certain responsibilities that the two SROs would otherwise have both performed, CHX will remain in charge of examination, surveillance, investigation, and enforcement when it comes to trading practices and activities in its marketplace. The latest agreement supercedes the one from 1977. It has no impact on CHX’s operations or its market oversight functions.

However, according to Securities Fraud Attorney William Shepherd, “Considering the abysmal job that these self-regulatory organizations (SRO’S) have done in regulating, for example, the lack of regulation of the Madoff securities firm, perhaps a little duplication would be perfectly acceptable!”

Related Web Resources:
SEC Approves Plan by FINRA, CHX To Re-Allocate Certain Regulatory Duties, BNA Securities Law Daily, September 13, 2010
FINRA

Chicago Stock Exchange

SEC
Continue Reading ›