Investor Lawyers Blog

Securities Fraud Lawsuit Against UBS AG Gets Added Steam with Employee Email Calling Collateralized Debt Obligations “Vomit”

Published on: September 16, 2009 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

UBS AG must post a $35.6 million bond, says Superior Court Judge John Blawie. Blawie says that hedge fund Pursuit Partners, LLC has sufficient evidence to pursue its securities fraud case claiming that the investment bank knew it was selling collateralized debt obligations that were toxic to institutional investors but did nothing to inform clients about the risks.

Blawie cited an e-mail written by a UBS employee that called the asset-backed securities “vomit.” Another e-mail noted that UBS was selling Pursuit CDOs that were “crap.”

The judge is letting the securities fraud complaint go forward without ruling on the case’s merits. Between July and October 2007, UBS sold the hedge fund CDOs valued at $40.5 million. Following the global credit crisis, there has been $1.7 trillion in losses and writedowns.

Morgan Keegan Hit with Large Penalty for Fouling Ex-NBA Star

Published on: September 14, 2009 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Following a dispute that was resolved in arbitration, broker-dealer Morgan Keegan & Co. must pay former NBA player Horace Grant $1.46 million. The amount is the largest arbitration loss for Morgan Keegan to date. Morgan Keegan is the securities brokerage firm of Regions Financial Corp.

The award, issued by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, is for damages that Grant incurred because he invested in Morgan Keegan’s risky mutual funds that were involved in collateralized debt obligations connected to residential mortgages. Grant had originally sought $1.5 million for the damages he sustained.

There are still several hundred investment fraud lawsuits pending against the brokerage firm over mutual funds involving subprime mortgages that declined because the US housing market fell apart and loans defaulted. Up to 95% of the funds’ value has dissolved since the middle of 2007.

Green used to play for the Chicago Bull, the Los Angeles Lakers, the Seattle Supersonics, and the Orlando Magic. In his arbitration case, the former NBA basketball player contended that Morgan Keegan misrepresented the level of risk that came with the bond funds that he purchased.

Already, Morgan Keegan has lost a number of cases in 2009. Seven of the cases have cost the broker-dealer $3 million. Other professional athletes who have filed lawsuits against Morgan Keegan for losses that they say they sustained from the bond funds are Jerome Woods, formerly of the Kansas City Chiefs, and former St. Louis Cardinals baseball player Tim McCarver. Woods won $950,000 against the brokerage firm while McCarver resolved his claim for $100,000.

Our stockbroker fraud law firm represents numerous investors who have sued Morgan Keegan for misrepresenting risky investments as safer kinds of investments.

Related Web Resources:
Ex-NBA star wins $1.45M arbitration claim against Morgan Keegan, Investment News, September 14, 2009
Morgan Keegan ordered to pay former NBA star $1.4M, Memphis Business Journal, September 14, 2009
NFL retiree gets $950,000 for Morgan Keegan mutual fund losses, Commercial Appeal, April 14, 2009
McCarver Awarded $100K in Morgan Keegan Claim, Memphis Daily, February 26, 2009 Continue Reading ›

Texas Securities Commissioner, Appointed New President of Nationwide Association of Regulators, Seeks Additional Investigations into Wall Street Fraud

Published on: September 12, 2009 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The incoming head of the North American Securities Administrators Association, Denise Voigt Crawford, is warning brokerage firms that more enforcement actions over Wall Street fraud are likely to follow. Crawford is also the Texas Securities Commissioner. She will formally assume her role as NASAA president on September 15.

In her new role, Crawford plans on playing a key role in the government’s plans for regulatory reform. She wants the states to have a more prominent position when it comes to regulatory oversight.

At this time, state regulators only supervise investment advisors that are managing assets of $25 million or below. She wants states to regulate investment advisors with assets as high as $100 million. Since most of these firms are located in regional areas, Crawford says it is easier for state regulators to oversee them.

SEC Warns Broker-Dealers to be Mindful of Their Recruiting Bonuses

Published on: September 10, 2009 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Securities and Exchange Commission Head Mary Shapiro is warning broker-dealers to be careful of the recruiting tactics they employ-especially those involving recruiting bonuses. She cautioned that attractive compensation packages can compel registered representatives to watch out for their own self-interests over the interests of investors, resulting in acts of securities fraud. For example, Shapiro cautioned that a broker who knows that she or he will be given a larger compensation for meeting certain commission goals might make unsuitable investment recommendations, churn customer accounts, or take part in other commission-revenue focused actions that aren’t necessarily in the clients’ benefit.

Shapiro is also asking broker-dealer heads to watch over big up-front bonuses. Brokerage firms continue to offer large recruiting bonuses to top registered representatives at rival investment banks. Recruiting packages at wirehouses Merrill Lynch, UBS, Morgan Stanley, and Wells Fargo Advisers are between 200-250% of trailing 12-month production. In many instances, an investment adviser who satisfies production targets and brings in a certain percentage of assets is frequently rewarded.

Shapiro’s letter to the firm’s CEOs reminded them that it is the broker-dealer’s responsibility to “police such conflicts” and supervise broker-dealer activities, especially those related to sales practices. She reminded the broker-dealers that when a sales group expands, it is the investment bank’s responsibility to not just supervise advisers but to make sure the compliance structure maintains the adequate capacity. She noted that investor interests must always be of prime importance when investment products, such as securities, are sold.

Unfortunately, there are brokers who choose to place their own financial gain over the interests of their clients. This can result in securities fraud losses for investors. A few examples of broker misconduct include churning, misrepresentation, negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, and unauthorized trading.

Related Web Resources:
Read Shapiro’s Letter (PDF)

Schapiro Message to B-D CEOs: Watch Your Recruiting Tactics, Research Mag, September 1, 2009
Chairman Mary Schapiro, SEC Continue Reading ›

$150 Million Settlement in Merrill Lynch Securities Fraud Lawsuit is Granted Preliminary Approval by District Court Judge

Published on: September 8, 2009 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

A district court judge issued his preliminary approval of a proposed $150 million settlement in the securities class action lawsuit against Merrill Lynch. The securities fraud lawsuit was filed for purchasers of specific Merrill Lynch preferred securities and bonds.

The plaintiffs of the Bond Action had invested in over $24 billion in preferred debt and securities that the broker-dealer had made available to the public between October 2006 and May 2008. The lead plaintiffs in the securities class action lawsuit were the Louisiana Municipal Police Employees’ Retirement System and the Louisiana Sheriffs’ Pension and Relief Fund. They pursued their claims under the Securities Acts’ Sections 11, 2, and 15.

In addition to Merrill Lynch, a number of the company’s officers and directors, as well as the offering underwriters, are named as defendants in the complaint.

The lawsuit claims that offering documents for certain securities offerings did not accurately reveal the “existence and the value of tens of billions of dollars of complex derivative securities linked to subprime mortgages” that were contained in Merrill’s balance sheet. Such exposures allegedly almost “wiped out” the broker-dealer by September 2008 and nearly caused Bank of America, Merrill’s acquirer, to “topple.” A federal bailout helped rescue the merger.

The parties had previous agreed to a $475 million settlement, in addition to a $75 million settlement for a related class action per ERISA.

The defendants went into the settlement even though the motions to dismiss the amended complaint were pending. A November 23 hearing for granting final approval is now scheduled.

Related Web Resources:
BofA to settle Merrill lawsuit for $150 million, Reuters, August 24, 2009

Louisiana Municipal Police Employees’ Retirement System

Louisiana Sheriffs’ Pension and Relief Fund
Continue Reading ›

Citigroup Global Markets Sales Assistant Accused of Stealing from Clients is Banned by FINRA from the Securities Industry

Published on: September 4, 2009 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Citigroup Inc. sales assistant Tamara Lanz Moon has been barred from the securities industry by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority. Moon is accused of stealing over $850,000 from at least 22 clients who were either sick, elderly, or unable to closely monitor their accounts for some other reason. Her father is reportedly one of her securities fraud victims.

Moon allegedly misappropriated $30,000 from him. She also is accused of taking tens of thousands of dollars from an 83-year-old widow and $55,000 from a US diplomat who works abroad. She allegedly transferred assets from one widow’s Citigroup account to her own account, as well as to accounts belonging to other clients to replace money she stole from those victims.

Moon is also accused of recordkeeping violations, falsifying account records, forging signatures on letters asking for unauthorized address changes, and taking part in unauthorized trades while employed with Citigroup Global Markets. She is accused of using the funds to pay for personal expenditures, such as the remodeling of her residence. She also allegedly used some of the stolen money to invest in real estate.

Citigroup has compensated the victims for their financial losses. Moon’s alleged misconduct reportedly took place over an 8-year period that concluded in March 2008 when she was let go from her job.

FINRA enforcement chief Susan L. Merrill has reiterated that broker-dealers and banks are responsible for supervising not just their brokers but also their sales assistants, who are able to access confidential client information.

Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas LTD LLP represents clients who have suffered financial losses because a member of the securities industry misappropriated funds, stole their money, engaged in some other form of securities fraud, or was negligent in other ways while mishandling the victims’ savings or investments. Unfortunately, the sick and elderly tend to be easy targets of securities fraud and financial theft.

Related Web Resources:
Finra Bars Citigroup Sales Assistant, The Wall Street Journal, August 25, 2009
FINRA Bars Citigroup Sales Assistant for Taking More Than $850,000 From Customers, Falsifying Records, Making Unauthorized Trades, FINRA, August 25, 2009 Continue Reading ›

SEC, NASD, FINRA & SIPC: New SEC Report Card on Madoff Catastrophy Further Reveals How Investor Protection Is Severely Flawed!

Published on: September 3, 2009 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

A new report by the Inspector General at the Securities Exchange Commission recounts 16-years of failures at the SEC which led to the financial crime of the century perpetrated by Bernard Madoff and his firm. The report states that the agency “never properly examined or investigated Madoff’s trading and never took the necessary, but basic, steps to determine if Madoff was operating a Ponzi scheme.”

The IG confirms that the SEC failed to heed direct warnings and warning signs as early as 1992 which “could have uncovered the Ponzi scheme well before Madoff confessed” to the $50 billion fraud, leading to his 150 year prison sentence.

Critics of cecurities regulators and the securities regulatory system have for years complained that the system is not only inept but perhaps corrupt. Accusations have included that regulators overlook wrongdoing by Wall Street insiders while “rounding up the usual suspects” to appear as if they are doing their jobs. Madoff may be the poster child for this theory.

Disgruntled Investors Continue to File Securities Fraud Litigation Against Merrill Lynch Even Eight Months After Its Acquisition by Bank of America Corp.

Published on: September 2, 2009 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The plaintiffs of some 166 of the 221 cases filed against Merrill Lynch & Co. since January 1, 2009 are alleging securities fraud-related violations. This means that Bank of America Corp, which acquired the broker-dealer at the beginning of the year, has assumed responsibility for the outcome of these civil cases. Some of these investor fraud claims were filed as late as last month.

Some cases discuss Merrill’s involvement in the marketing, underwriting, and selling of securitizations, or asset-backed securities. Other cases delve into Merrill’s dealings in the auction-rate securities market. A number of the securities fraud cases against Merrill are class action lawsuits. Merrill Lynch is the lead defendant in many of the cases and one of several financial firms named in the other complaints.

Some of the Securities Fraud Cases Against Merrill Lynch:

In Investment fraud Lawsuit Against Lehman Brothers, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley, Court Grants Class Certification

Published on: August 31, 2009 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

A District Court judge has granted class certification in the securities fraud lawsuit against Lehman Brothers, Morgan Stanley, and Goldman Sachs. The plaintiffs are accusing the broker-dealers of putting forth misleading analysts reports about RSL Communications Inc. for the purposes of maintaining or obtaining profitable financial and advisory work from RSL. Per Judge Shira Sheindlin, the class is to be made up of all parties that bought RSL Common stock between April 30, 1999 and December 29, 2000.

RSL investors, who are the plaintiffs, contend that the defendants artificially inflated the market price of RSL common stock, which injured them and other class members.

In July 2005, the court had certified a class that included anyone who had bought or acquired RSL equity shares between the dates noted above after determining that the plaintiffs had made “some showing” that Rule 23 requirements had been satisfied. The broker-dealer defendants appealed.

The US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit vacated the class certification order and remanded the action for reconsideration. It’s decision in e Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, 471 F.3d 24 had clarified class certification standards.

Two years later, pending the outcome In re Salomon Analyst Metromedia Litigation, the court issued a stay. Following its opinion, which held that market presumption includes securities fraud allegations against research analysts, the Court lifted the stay, allowing the plaintiffs to renew their motion for class certification. The court granted the motion and noted that the defendants have been unable to “rebut the fraud on the market presumption by the preponderance of the evidence on the basis that the analyst reports” are missing certain key pieces of information. Per their securities fraud claim, plaintiffs can therefore avail of the “fraud on the market presumption to establish transaction causation.”

The court said that the plaintiffs have succeeded in proving that loss causation can be proven on a “class-wide basis.”

Related Web Resources:
Court OKs Class Cert. In Fraud Suit Against Lehman, Law360, August 5, 2009
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (PDF)
Continue Reading ›

Monex Deposit Company Cannot Compel Investors to Resolve Consumer Investment Dispute in Arbitration, Says Appeals Court

Published on: August 27, 2009 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Yesterday, the California Court of Appeals reversed a trial court’s ruling that the plaintiffs who had filed an investment fraud lawsuit against Monex Deposit Company had to go through arbitration instead because of the mandatory arbitration provisions that were included in the investors’ contracts. Per Monex’s arbitration provisions, three arbitrators from JAMS were to participate in the proceedings. Also, the provisions prohibit the joinder or consolidation of claims.

While the trial court sided with Monex’s motion to compel arbitration, the appeals court said that the provisions were unconscionable and therefore could not be enforced. It found that the court-not the arbitrator-should decide whether arbitration provisions are enforceable. The court said that Monex’s arbitration provisions failed to “clearly and unmistakably” reserve to the arbitration panel the matter of whether the provisions are enforceable. It also noted that because arbitrators charge healthy fees for their services, there exists a conflict of interest whenever they are asked to make a decision about arbitrability.

The California appeals court called Monex’s arbitration provisions substantively and procedurally unconscionable-especially considering that calling for a panel of three JAM arbitrators would cost $9,600/day, with each party sharing in the cost.