Investor Lawyers Blog

Fiduciary Standard in Securities Industry Doesn’t Need New Definition

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

Financial Industry Regulatory Authority Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Richard Ketchum says that there should be just one flexible, fiduciary standard for investment advisers and broker-dealers who offer personalized investment advice. Ketchum spoke at a conference earlier this month.

Ketchum noted that seeing as investment advisers and broker-dealers essentially work in the same business, it “doesn’t make sense” to act as if they work in different ones. He supports a flexible fiduciary standard that comes with a “few basic, simple rules.”

As to whether FINRA could play a part in supervising the imposition of a future fiduciary standard on broker-dealers, Ketchum said that if FINRA were to play this role it would do so with a discreet board that would include a minority of investment adviser professionals, as well as members of the public. While investment advisers currently have to comply with a fiduciary standard and are regulated under the 1940 Investment Advisers Act, broker-dealers must be in compliance with other standards, including an obligation to make sure that their recommendations to clients are “suitable” ones.

Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman Mary L. Schapiro has also shown a preference for a uniform fiduciary standard between the two groups. Under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, the SEC has until January 21, 2011 to turn in a report to the House Financial Services Committee about this matter. After completing its study, the SEC can write rules to establish a uniform standard of conduct for professionals who give retail clients personalized investment advice. However, the rule cannot be “less stringent” than current investment adviser standards.

Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas LTD LLP Founder and Stockbroker Fraud Attorney William Shepherd had this to say about a fiduciary duty: “There is no need for disagreement over what kind of language should be use to define fiduciary duty in the securities industry. The term ‘fiduciary’ comes from the Latin word fides, which means faith, and fiducia, which means trust. English Common law, upon which our legal system was founded, long ago defined a fiduciary duty as a duty of loyalty and care, in which the fiduciary must put the interest of his client before that of himself. Courts all across our nation today recognize this same duty in a variety of relationships. The meaning of ‘fiduciary duty’ has been established for hundreds of years, so why would Wall Street need to have its own special definition? If it ain’t broke, why fix it?”

Related Web Resources:
Fiduciary Standard, More Adviser Oversight Likely -Finra Chief, The Wall Street Journal, November 16, 2010
Investment Advisers Act of 1940
Continue Reading ›

3 Hedge Funds Raided by FBI in Insider Trading Case

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

As part of its growing investigation into possible inside trading in the $1.7 trillion hedge fund industry, the FBI has raided hedge funds Diamondback Capital Management LLC, Level Global Investors LP, and Loch Capital Management LLC, which has a close link to a witness who pleaded guilty in the insider trading probe involving hedge fund Galleon Group. (That investigation is one that prosecutors are calling the largest U.S. hedge fund insider trading case to date. Of the 23 people charged in civil or criminal court, 14 people, including ex- hedge fund S2 Capital LLC manager Steven Fortuna have pleaded guilty). Level Global Investors and Diamondback Capital Management are owned by ex-managers of Steven Cohen’s SAC Capital Advisors, which is also a hedge fund. Per public filings, Diamondback manages about $4.71 billion while Level Global manages about $3.09 billion.

The raids come just as federal prosecutors are getting ready to reveal a number of insider trading cases against hedge fund traders, Wall Street bankers, and consultants. In addition to trying to determine whether investment bankers and other parties let traders know about pharmaceutical company buyouts (companies have allegedly earned tens of millions of dollars in illegal profits because of secret information about mergers), officials are also looking at “expert network” firms that garner big fees from hedge funds for matching them with industry specialists.

Meantime, shares of Goldman Sachs Group Inc. dropped by 3.4% after The Wall Street Journal reported that the Justice Department is looking into possible leaks by Goldman employees about mergers.

Related Web Resources:
FBI raids 3 hedge funds in insider trading case, Reuters/Yahoo, November 22, 2010
Feds turn up heat on Wall St., raid 3 hedge funds, AP/Google, November 23, 2010 Continue Reading ›

Class Action Securities Fraud Lawsuit Accuses SEC of Gross Negligence Related to Bernard Madoff Ponzi Scam

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

Three individuals, Judith Welling, Robert Mick, and Charles Mederrick, have filed a purported securities class action against the Securities and Exchange Commission over financial losses related to investments they made in Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC. In their amended complaint, the plaintiffs are seeking damages sustained because of the “grossly negligent acts of the Defendant in connection with the SEC’s deficient review of complaints and information” that Madoff was running a Ponzi scheme. Mick, Welling, and Mederrick contend that their investments, which they made over a 16-year period, caused them to suffer “catastrophic” consequences.

In their complaint, the plaintiffs accuse the SEC of “repeatedly and grossly failing to adequately apprise itself” of the facts related to the Madoff Ponzi scam allegations despite the fact that for years there had been numerous complaints. Last year, the SEC’s Inspector General put out a 457-page report detailing the agency’s failure to detect Madoff’s fraud scheme despite the signs.

The class action lawsuit is on behalf of those who invested in Madoff Investment Securities between November 1992 and December 2008 and have filed administrative damage claims seeking to recover damages for the SEC’s alleged negligence. The class could be comprised of more than 100 victims. The plaintiffs’ securities fraud lawyer says that to his firm’s knowledge, this is the first class action filed against the SEC over its handling of Madoff.

Madoff’s $50 billion Ponzi scam defrauded many institutional and individual investors. Some of these investors lost everything.

Related Web Resources:
SEC Hit With Class Action Alleging Gross Negligence in Oversight of Madoff, BNA Securities Law Daily

Madoff Investors Sue SEC for Incompetence, Daily FInance, November 12, 2010

Bernie Madoff’s $50 Billion Ponzi Scheme, Forbes, December 12, 2008

Texas Securities Fraud: National Futures Association Takes Emergency Enforcement Action Against International Commodity Advisors and Its Principals

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

The National Futures Association says it has taken an emergency enforcement action against International Commodity Advisors and its principals Gustave O. Woehr and Gregory W. Seitz. ICA, a Commodity Trading Advisor, has offices in Dallas, Texas and Marietta, Georgia.

NFA claims that ICA is soliciting or operating funds as a Commodity Pool Operator even though the CTA isn’t registered as a CPO. Because ICA and its principals have been unable to produce records, books, and other required information, NFA says that it is not able to identify the pool’s participants or determine the investments’ value or assets’ location.

The Associate Responsibility Action (ARA) and the Member Responsibility Action (MRA) prohibit ICA and its two principals from accepting or soliciting funds from customers, pools, or investors. The three parties are also not allowed to transfer or disburse the funds of pools, customers, or investors without the approval of the NFA. Also, ICA and its principals must either show that CPO registration is not required or register as one with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission and give NFA an approved disclosure document.

The ARA and MRA will stay in effect until ICA and its principals show to the NFA’s satisfaction that they are in full compliance with all NFA Requirements. NFA members that have accounts that are controlled by ICA, Woehr, Seitz, or any entity or person acting for any of them and who receive notice of the MRA and ARA are not allowed to transfer or disburse funds to ICA and the two principals or any entity controlled by any of them without NFA approval.

NFA takes emergency enforcement action against International Commodity Advisors and its principals, NFA, November 17, 2010
Commodity Pool Operator
Continue Reading ›

SEC Proposes Antifraud Derivatives Rule Related to Securities-Based Swaps

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

The Securities and Commission has agreed to propose an antifraud rule that deals with the issue of security-based swaps-related fraud, manipulation, and deception. The proposed Rule 9j-1 would bar fraud and manipulation in the offer, sale, and purchase of the swaps. Unlike regular securities transactions, securities-based swaps involve ongoing payments and deliveries between when they are bought and sold. The issues of payments, deliveries, and other rights and obligations are also tackled.

SEC Chairman Mary Schapiro says that the proposed rule would be an important way to make sure that the swap market is run with integrity while allowing the Commission the chance to target potential fraud or other misconduct through enforcement. The relevant change with this proposed rule from current antifraud provisions Section 17(a) of the 1933 Securities Act and Section 10(b) of the 1934 Act is that the proposed rule is applicable to ongoing rights and activities.

The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act has given oversight of security-based swaps to the SEC, while the Commodity Futures Trading Commission is charged with overseeing non-security-based swaps. The CFTC had already proposed its anti-manipulation rule amendments dealing with manipulative and fraudulent conduct of swaps under its jurisdiction.

The SEC has also agreed to propose rules to effect a whistleblower bounty program.

Related Web Resources:

Securities and Exchange Commission

Non-Customers of Wachovia Cannot Bring Stock Loan Related Claim to FINRA, Says Court

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

The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California has ruled that a married couple and their investment vehicles are not Wachovia “customers” and, therefore, they are not entitled to bring their stock loan related claims against Wachovia Securities Financial Network LLC and financial adviser George Gordon III to Financial Industry Regulatory Authority arbitration. Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong granted Wachovia and Gordon’s request for a preliminary injunction.

Per the statement of claim submitted to FINRA, Gregory and Susan Raifman initiated arbitration as trustees of a family trust, as Gekko Holdings Inc. members, and as the beneficial owners and assignees in interest of Helicon Investments Ltd. The Raifmans accused Wachovia and Gordon of committing securities fraud, breach of fiduciary duties, and violations of the California Securities Act and the rules of both the New York Stock Exchange and National Association of Securities Dealers.

The Raifmans contended that Gekko and Helicon each went into three separate stock loan transactions that Derivium Capital LLC, a third party, had promoted so they could borrow up to 90% of their stock holdings’ value without triggering capital gain on the stock sale. After the three-year loan term ended, the Raifmans were to pay the loan balance and get back or surrender their collateral or renew their loan.

To execute their plan, the Raifmans opened a Wachovia account for the trust in 2003 and transferred nearly $3 million in ValueClick (VLCK) shares into an account owned by a Derivium affiliate. Almost 12 months later, Helicon placed 300,000 ValueClick shares into another Derivium affiliate’s Wachovia account under a 90 percent stock loan agreement. Gekko later deposited 200,000 ValueClick shares in the same account (and also under a 90 percent stock loan agreement).

It wasn’t until 2007 that the Raifmans found out that their Value Click shares had been sold as soon as they were placed in the Derivium affiliates’ accounts. They also had not known that the sales proceeds had been loaned back to them while Wachovia and Derivium kept 10 – 14% of the sales proceeds.

The Raifmans attempted to start the arbitration process in July but Gordon and Wachovia filed their complaint seeking enjoinment against the couple, Helicon, and Gekko. They also requested a stay of the arbitration proceedings. The financial firm and investment adviser contended that they did not have an agreement with the defendants, who were not their customers and therefore not entitled to FINRA arbitration. The district court agreed.

Related Web Resources:
Wachovia Securities LLC v. Raifman

Arbitration and Mediation, FINRA Continue Reading ›

SEC Adopts Direct Access Rule Prohibiting “Naked” Access to ATSs or Exchanges

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

The Securities and Commission has adopted a rule that prohibits brokers from having “naked” access to alternative trading systems (ATS) or exchanges while requiring brokers with market access to put into place supervisory procedures and risk management controls to prevent market errors and other problems. Under the 1934 Securities Exchange Act’s new Rule 15c3-5, both broker-dealers that belong to an ATS or an exchange and ATS broker-dealer operators that allow direct trading by persons who aren’t dealers or brokers must put into place certain supervisory procedures and controls to effectively get rid of “naked” access arrangements (also known as “unfiltered” access arrangement) that have allowed customers to bypass broker-dealers and their risk management controls completely while giving them direct electronic access to an ATS or an exchange.

Also per the new rule, new risk management controls must be put into place to stop orders that exceed capital thresholds or pre-set credit, do not comply with regulatory requirements, or appear erroneous in another way. Brokers-dealers also must implement certain controls before the orders are sent to ATSs or exchanges, set up, document, and maintain procedures to regularly evaluate the risk management controls, and tackle any problems as soon as possible.

The SEC believes that to put into place these new systems will initially cost broker-dealers some $100 million. Maintenance of the systems is expected to cost about $100 million a year.

Related Web Resources:
SEC Adopts New Rule Preventing Unfiltered Market Access, SEC.gov, November 3, 2010

SEC rule to clamp down on ‘naked access,’ Financial Times, November 4, 2010

LPL Financial Management and Private Equity Backers TPG and Hellman & Friedman Could Make Over $450M from IPO

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

Investors are jumping on LPL Financial Management’s initial public offering debut. At midafternoon on Wednesday, shares were up 8% at $32 plus change. (This, compared this to the 6% increase in GM’s IPO.) According to CNN, the Boston-based brokerage service and private equity backers TPG and Helllman & Friedman may make than $450 million from the deal.

LPL provides research, technology, and financial services to 12,000 independent financial advisers in small and medium-sized shops. This allows them to provide services, including financial advice that is supposed to be free from conflict or bias, to retail investors. Seeing as there have been so many alleged incidents recently reported of bankers trying to earn fees by pressing clients to take part in certain deals, LPL says in its IPO prospectus that it make sense that today more investors are drawn to independent advisers. The brokerage service company also says that over the last decade, as rich individuals and brokers have started to question the benefits of dealing with the larger banks, its broker clientele as gone up at a 13% compound annual rate.

That said, the investment adviser system-whether involving independent advisers or those with ties to investment banks-is far from perfect. As Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas LTD LLP founder and securities fraud lawyer William Shepherd points out, “We have seen a number of complaints regarding LPL which seemed to stem from failure to supervise. Perhaps this is because LPL has so many advisor/agents in one or two person offices having somewhat detached contact with their supervisor(s). It was recently reported that LPL may have sought to hire another firm to handle its supervisory duties.”

LPL CEO Mark Casady and President COO Esther Stearns are expected to make millions from the IPO-almost $58 million for Casady and $35.1 million for Stearns. LPL executive William Dwyer could make $8.24 million, while the shares that General Counsel Stephanie Brown plans to sell could make her $3.77 million.

Related Web Resources:
LPL Financial IPO outpaces GM, CNN Money, November 18, 2010
LPL Executives Likely To Reap Millions In Public Offering, The Wall Street Journal, November 18, 2010
LPL Investment IPO Faces Struggle, The Street, November 15, 2010 Continue Reading ›

Final Regulation for Disclosure in Participant-Directed Individual Account Plans Issued by US Department of Labor

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

The US Department of Labor has put out a final regulation that establishes the fiduciary requirements for disclosure in 401 (k)’s and other participant-directed individual account plans. The final regulation was issued under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. The DOL guidance also comes with a final amendment to the regulation that already exists under ERISA § 404(c), 29 C.F.R. § 2550.404c-1.

The disclosure requirements answer a number of questions, including:
• Who is responsible for disclosing information to beneficiaries and participants in individual account plans that are participant-directed?
What information must be disclosed?
• What are the rules when dealing with target date funds, fixed-return investments, annuities, and employer securities?
• What type of disclosure is required?
• When should disclosure of information be made to participants and beneficiaries?
• Who should disclose the information?

Under the final regulation, the plan administrator of an individual account plan must make sure that beneficiaries and participants are made aware of their responsibilities and rights in regards to their investments. They also must receive enough information about the plan, investment alternatives, and fees and expenses so that they can make informed decisions.

Under the final regulation, participants and beneficiaries of “covered individual account plans” must receive disclosure in four categories of information, including:
• General Operational and Identification Information
• General Plan Administrative Expenses
• Individual Expenses
• Investment-Related Information

Plan administrators also have to automatically disclose certain performance benchmarks and data, including the average annual return of the investment over 1, 5, and 10 calendar year periods, as well as provide a statement noting that past performance does not guarantee that the results in the future will be the same. Designated investment alternatives that have a stated or fixed return for the term of the investment must come with a disclosure that includes the term of the investment and the fixed or stated annual return rate.

For more details, contact Shepherd Smith Edwards and Kantas founder and securities fraud attorney William Shepherd.

Employee Retirement Income Security Act — ERISA, US Department of Labor

Stockbroker Fraud Blog

Business Man Pleads Guilty Plea in Florida Microcap Market Fraud Case

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

Federal officials say that Jean “Richard” Charbit has pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit securities fraud in connection with a South Florida stock scam involving the microcap market that was under investigation by an undercover FBI sting. Charbit is facing a maximum 5 years in prison.

He and defendant Tzemach David Netzer Korem are accused of trying to pay kickbacks to a stockbroker so they could use client accounts to buy shares from the defendants’ company. This made it look as if there was a demand for the instruments, which allowed the defendants to dump their holdings at inflated prices.

Charbit and Korem controlled or owned about 5.6 million shares of ZNext Mining Corp. (ZNXT). Charbit offered the “broker,” who was actually an FBI agent, $100,000 to misappropriate $300,000 from discretionary accounts to purchase common stock in ZNXT. Per the criminal complaint, the goal was to raise the individual common share price from 4 cents to 50 cents.

Eight other microcap stock promoters and market insiders have been charged with securities fraud related to this scheme. Some also are facing criminal charges. One of the persons charged in the microcap market fraud case is Larry Wilcox, the former star of the TV show “CHiPs.” As part of his plea agreement, he admitted to conspiring to defraud a pension plan of $40,000.

Related Web Resources:
SEC v. Jean R. Charbit and Tzemach David Netzer Korem, Civil Action No. 1:10-cv-23604-CMA (U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida), SEC.gov
Stock scammer pleads guilty, South Florida Business Journal, November 1, 2010
Institutional Investor Securities Blog
Continue Reading ›