Investor Lawyers Blog

Securities Fraud Class Action Lawsuit Against Hartford Financial Services Group Inc. is Reinstated in Appeals Court

Published on: November 25, 2008 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

This month, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued a decision granting class action plaintiffs another opportunity to make their securities fraud claims against Hartford Financial Services Group Inc. The district court had previously dismissed the class action lawsuit as untimely under the 1934 Securities Exchange Act.

That court had found that based on all media reports, regulatory filings, and information about several lawsuits available, the plaintiffs could have and should have filed their securities fraud lawsuit before the two-year statute of limitations had run out on July 25, 2001. Instead, the plaintiffs filed their complaint more than one year after the deadline had passed.

The securities fraud lawsuit, filed by Steve Staehr and a number of other plaintiffs who had acquired Hartford stock between August 6, 2003 and October 13, 2004, accuses the life and property/casualty insurer of acting fraudulently by concealing price manipulation and kickbacks involving insurers and commercial brokers. The plaintiffs also claim that because of the firm’s misrepresentations, omissions, and fraudulent concealments, they acquired Hartford stocks at artificially inflated prices. They filed their lawsuit soon after then-New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer filed a lawsuit against Marsh, Inc., a Hartford broker.

Second Circuit Judge Colleen McMahon reversed the district court’s decision saying the information the plaintiffs had was not enough to place them on notice by July 2001 that Hartford was likely going to be investigated for “contingent” commissions. The appeals court also noted that Spitzer’s lawsuit connected Hartford to Marsh’s activities and that in 2003, Hartford revealed it paid brokers $145 million in kickbacks.

Related Web Resources:

Securities Fraud Class Action Lawsuit Against Hartford Financial Services Group Inc. is Reinstated in Appeals Court, Reuters, November 17, 2008
N.Y. Attorney General Spitzer Sues Marsh Over Contingent Commissions, Insurance Journal, October 25, 2004 Continue Reading ›

The Financial Regulation Reform Act of 2008 Seeks to Regulate Investment-Bank Holding Companies and Credit Default Swaps

Published on: November 24, 2008 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

US Senator Susan Collins (R-Maine) has introduced a new bill to regulate investment-bank holding companies, credit default swaps, and other financial instruments that state and federal regulators have yet to regulate. Collins says the bill, called the Financial Regulation Reform Act of 2008, seeks to restore public faith in the US financial system in the wake of current credit difficulties-problems that have led to plunging home prices, a decrease in consumer sales, an increase in foreclosure rates, and significant losses in retirement savings.

Collins says the new legislation will get rid of any gaps in the government’s oversight of the financial markets and develop more reforms of the financial regulatory system.

The Bill Proposes Three Main Reforms:

• Giving the Federal Reserve supervisory authority over investment-bank holding companies.
• Creating a national commission on financial regulation reform to evaluate, make recommendations, and implement changes to the current regulatory structure.
• Create transparency and oversight in the credit default swaps market by requiring that the Commodity Futures Trading Commission be notified about CDS contracts and mandating that parties make trades using a federally approved clearing house.

Credit Default Swaps
CDS are insurance-like contracts involving one party promising to cover losses on certain securities if a default occurs. Sold by hedge funds, banks, and other entities, they usually apply to mortgage securities, municipal bonds, and corporate debt.

Many CDS’s are represented as safe investments, when in fact, their risks often far outweigh their benefits. It was the unregulated credit default swaps market, a trillion-dollar-market, that reportedly led to the collapse of Lehman Brothers and AIG.

Sen Collins Introduces Legislation to Strengthen Financial Regulation and Oversight, Collins.Senate.gov, November 18, 2008
Credit Default Swaps: The Next Crisis?, Time, March 17, 2008 Continue Reading ›

Massachusetts Top Securities Regulator Charges Oppenheimer & Co with Unethical Conduct and Fraud

Published on: November 20, 2008 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Massachusetts Secretary of State William Galvin is charging Oppenheimer & Co. with unethical conduct and fraud. The state’s top securities regulator is accusing the investment bank of continuing to market and sell auction rate securities to clients even as Oppenheimer executives were getting rid of their own ARS holdings, worth $3 million, before the collapse.

Galvin says that Oppenheimer Chairman and Chief Executive Albert Lowenthal and other firm executives kept clients and other firm employees “in the dark” about the collapsing ARS market. His office is seeking to revoke Lowenthal’s broker-dealer registration in Massachusetts because he says that the CEO and other Oppenheimer executives “betrayed” their clients’ trust. This is the first time that a state regulator has charged one of the smaller brokers for its alleged involvement in the sale of auction-rate securities while the market was failing.

Galvin says that Oppenheimer clients in Massachusetts are unable to access some $56 million because their ARS investments have been frozen since February. Also named in Galvin’s complaint are ARS Managing Director Greg White and Senior Managing Director Robert Lowenthal.

Oppenheimer and its firm executives are denying Galvin’s allegations. On Tuesday, the investment bank issued a statement claiming that its employees had no knowledge of the kinds of actions that their larger firm counterparts engaged in that contributed to the ARS market collapse. The investment bank also maintains that its executives personally bought and sold ARS during the period noted in Galvin’s complaint, and they continue to hold a number of these securities.

Oppenheimer says it is working with financing sources and regulators to help investors cash out of their ARS.

Related Web Resources:

Massachusetts sues Oppenheimer & Co over ARS sales, Reuters, November 18, 2008
Galvin blasts Oppenheimer & Co. over auction-rate securities, Boston Herald, November 18, 2008

Related Web Resources:

View the Exhibits (PDF)

Oppenheimer & Co.
Continue Reading ›

NASAA Says Investors with Frozen Auction-Rate Securities Should Ask Investment Firms About Buyback Opportunities

Published on: November 19, 2008 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The North American Securities Administrators Association is reminding investors to ask the investment firms that sold them any now-frozen auction-rate securities about repurchase opportunities. Following the ARS market collapse, securities regulators in 12 US states joined together to form a multi-state Task Force dedicated to finding out whether Wall Street investment firms had misled investors when persuading them to invest in the ARS market.

As part of their settlement agreements reached with the firms in question, 11 major Wall Street investment banks have said they will buy back over $51 billion in ARS from charities, retail investors, and small companies. However, these repurchase offers may not be available indefinitely.

NASAA President Fred Joseph says the best way to avail of any redemption offers is to contact the investment firms as soon as possible. So far, 11 firms have agreed in principle to buy back over $50 billion in ARS. NASAA says additional repurchase opportunities are expected to become available in the coming months.

Investment Firms with ARS Hotlines:

Bank of America 1-866-638-4183 Deutsche Bank 1-866-926-1437 Citi 1-866-720-4802 JP Morgan 1-866-450-8470 Goldman Sachs 1-888-350-2857 Merrill Lynch 1-888-706-1381 UBS 1-800-253-1974 Morgan Stanley 1-800-566-2273 Wachovia 1-866-283-794
Meantime, more investigations are under way into the sales practices of US firms that marketed and sold auction-rate securities to investors. Unfortunately, many investors who were told ARS were liquid investments are now dealing with frozen securities and cannot access their funds.

If you invested in the auction-rate securities industry and your ARS became frozen during the market’s collapse, you may be the victim of securities fraud.

Related Web Resources:
Small firms caught in ARS buyback vise, November 16, 2008 Continue Reading ›

Citigroup Global Markets Ordered to Pay FINRA Fine for Inadequate Supervision

Published on: November 17, 2008 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority Inc. says it is fining Citigroup Global Markets Inc. $300,000 for its failure to reasonably supervise the commissions that clients were charged for stock and options trades. Citigroup Global Markets is Citigroup Inc’s brokerage and securities arm.

FINRA says that between April 2002 and January 2006, then-Citigroup representative Juan Carlos Hernandez charged 27 clients unreasonable commissions that substantially exceeded the firm’s calculated rate for appropriate charges. One client was reportedly overcharged about $1.2 million.

Citigroup let Hernandez go in February 2006 and one month later, without admitting to or denying FINRA charges, he consented to the findings made against him and was barred by FINRA.

FINRA contends that Hernandez was able to overcharge clients because Citigroup neglected to properly supervise him. FINRA also found that it wasn’t until October 2007 that Citigroup told its brokers about its calculated commission rates or that they weren’t allowed to charge commissions higher than these rates. In the cases when commissions were greater than Citigroup’s calculated rates, FINRA says the firm lacked the proper procedures and policies for determining whether a commission was inappropriate.

By agreeing to settle, Citigroup is consenting to FINRA’s findings but is not admitting or denying the charges. The firm offered to reimburse customers who were affected.

Former UBS Executive Director Must Forfeit $15.81 Million in Illegal Profits and Serve 6 1/2 Year Prison Term for Insider Trading

Published on: November 13, 2008 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

In the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, former UBS Securities LLC Executive Director Mitchell Guttenberg was ordered to forfeit $15.81 million in alleged illegal profits, as well as serve 78 months in prison. Guttenberg is accused of taking part in an insider trading scheme that generated millions of dollars for its participants. Earlier this year, he pleaded guilty to six counts of securities fraud and conspiracy.

Guttenberg allegedly sold material nonpublic data provided by UBS stock analysts regarding upgrades and downgrades before the information became available to the public. Tips included ratings change information about numerous stocks, including Whole Foods Market Inc, Amgen Corp, Caterpillar Inc., and Union Pacific Corp.

Trader David Tavdy, hedge fund manager Erik Franklin, and others allegedly paid Guttenberg for the information, as well as a share of their profits. Tavdy and Franklin, who are codefendants in the insider trading scam case, are among those who then passed on the data to other individuals.

Hundreds of trades took place because of the nonpublic data provided by Guttenberg. The trades resulted in over $15 million in illegal profits for the former UBS executive director, while others made over $17.5 million.

Guttenberg and 12 other individuals, mostly former employees at Morgan Stanley, Bank of America Corp, and Bear Stearns Co., Inc., were criminally charged for their involvement in the insider trading ring. Investigators say the participants tried to conceal their illegal actions by conducting meetings at restaurants, using disposable cellular phones, and coming up with coded text messages. Continue Reading ›

District Court Confirms Merrill Lynch Arbitration Award in Investor Dispute

Published on: November 12, 2008 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. and a number of its workers have won an arbitration dispute filed by a couple that invested in a money market mutual fund. In U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, Judge George Daniels confirmed the award.

Konstantinos Karetsos and Greta Rothstein began their New York Stock Exchange arbitration in February 2006. The married couple accused Merrill Lynch and several of its employees of alleged deceit, fraud, conspiracy, deceptive practices, misrepresentation, obstruction of justice, material omissions, unauthorized transactions, unsuitable investments, gross negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, and account management related to their money market fund purchase.

Arbitration proceedings took place over a six-day period. On the 4th day, the arbitration panel dismissed claims against three Merrill Lynch employees with prejudice. At the end of the proceedings, more claims against Merrill Lynch and a fourth employee were dismissed with prejudice.

The arbitration panel also found that claims against one Merrill Lynch employee were obviously erroneous and that the couple had filed claims against another employee who did not take part in the “alleged investment-related sales practice violations.”

According to the district court, the opposition that was noted in the couple’s pro se pleadings appeared to be based on many of the arguments they made in arbitration. Judge Daniels also said that the couple’s “vague and conclusory” terms” impugned the arbitration panel’s “integrity and neutrality.”

Commenting on Merrill Lynch’s arbitration award, Securities Arbitration Attorney William Shepherd said, “Investors who do not hire a lawyer, or hire one without experience in securities arbitration, fare very poorly in claims against brokerage firms. While securities arbitration has less formalities than court cases, investors simply cannot alone understand how to properly present their claims to the arbitrators.”

Related Web Resources:

Rothstein et al v. Fung et al, Justia
Change in Arbitration Panels Will Allow Investors Only, NY Times, July 25, 2008 Continue Reading ›

Protestors in Asia Decrying Lehman Brothers “Mini-Bond” Collapse Could Be A Sign of More Lawsuits and Claims Against US Broker-Dealers

Published on: November 10, 2008 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Angry investors in Hong Kong and Singapore began protesting last month over losses they suffered due to the collapse of Lehman Brothers credit-linked notes. Also known as mini-bonds, their value is now at pennies on the dollar, and investors want banks to buy the credit-linked notes back from them.

Investors of Lehman mini-bonds have experienced devastating losses. Reports indicate that financial service firms told Asian investors that Lehman Brothers mini-bonds were a safe alternative to fixed deposits.

Over 30,000 Hong Kong investors suffered losses in Lehman Brothers mini-bonds. Close to 10,000 investors in Singapore could lose more than $338 million dollars as a result of the mini-bond collapse. Last month, 600 Singaporean investors attended a public meeting to ask banks why they sold them Lehman Brothers credit-linked notes. Now, investors in the US that also were influenced by similar marketing messages about Lehman Brothers bonds and other “safe” investments are contacting investment fraud attorneys about filing arbitration claims and lawsuits.

Some lawyers are asking how such an overconcentration of mini-bonds, as well as Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae shares, managed to end up in the portfolios of senior investor who cannot afford to take the kind of financial hits that have come with the market collapse. For example, since July, some Fannie Mae shares have dropped in price from $19.50 to $1.40.

While investor claims against broker-dealers had dropped steadily since 2003 (the lowest number of claims ever, at 3,228, was in 2007), FINRA has already received at at least 3,469 claims this year.

Related Web Resources:

Hong Kong Investors Grapple with Effects of Lehman Collapse

Financial Crisis Politically Awakens Singapore Investors, Reuters, November 7, 2008 Continue Reading ›

Lazard Capital Markets Pays $2.8 Million to Settle SEC Charges Over Allegedly Improper Expenditures Made to Fidelity Investment Traders

Published on: November 7, 2008 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Lazard Capital Markets, LLC and a number of associated individuals have agreed to pay fines to settle Securities and Exchange Commission charges that over $600,000 was allegedly spent on entertaining Fidelity Investment traders to garner their business. While the SEC says the privately-held broker dealer failed to supervise the three employees that collectively spent money on the improper gifts, four of the company’s former employees were charged for their involvement in the securities laws violations made by the Fidelity traders.

The SEC has charged Fidelity and a number of current and past executives and employees, including ex-Fidelity equity trader Thomas Bruderman, with improperly accepting lavish gifts from brokers. The SEC accuses the former Lazard Capital Markets employees of supplying Bruderman with expensive entertainment and flying him internationally on private planes.

The commission says that David Tashjian, the Lazard Capital Markets’s former US sales and trading department head, and W. Daniel Williams and Robert Ward, two ex-Lazarus trading representatives, “facilitated” violations made by Bruderman. The SEC is also accusing Tashjian and Louis Gregory Rice, the former head of Lazard Capital Markets’s U.S. equity sales and trading desk, of failing to supervise Williams and Ward while they engaged in the alleged misconduct.

By agreeing to settle, Lazard Capital Markets and its four former employees are not admitting to or denying the SEC’s charges. Lazard Capital Markets has agreed to pay $1,817,629 in disgorgement plus $429,379.04 in prejudgment interest, as well as a $600,000 penalty. The broker-dealer has also agreed to be censured.

Tashjian, Williams, Ward, and Rice have agreed to separate suspensions and penalties.

Related Web Resources:

Lazard Capital Markets to Pay $2.8M for Gifts to Fidelity Traders, Financial-Planning.com, November 4, 2008
SEC Charges Lazard Capital Markets, Former Employees for Improper Gifts and Entertainment to Fidelity Employees, SEC, October 30, 2008
Continue Reading ›

Moody’s, Standard & Poor’s, and Fitch’s Assignment of High Credit Ratings to Mortgage-Backed Securities Contributed to the Financial Meltdown

Published on: November 6, 2008 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

At a hearing presided over by the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee in Washington DC, the executives of Moody’s, Standard & Poor’s, and Fitch Ratings, the three top credit rating agencies in the country, were grilled about how their assignment of high ratings to mortgage-backed securities, while drastically underestimating their risks, contributed to the current financial crisis.

While the heads of the country’s three leading credit agencies-Standard and Poor’s Deven Sherman, Fitch Ratings’s Stephen W. Joynt, and Moody’s Raymond W. McDaniel-have called the mortgage-backed securities collapse “unprecedented” and “unanticipated and said that any errors the agencies’ made were unintentional, internal documents reveal that the credit rating agencies knew that the ratings they were giving the securities were overvalued. It wasn’t until this past year, when homeowners began defaulting on subprime mortgages, that the credit ratings agencies began downgrading thousands of the securities.

Lawmakers are trying to determine whether the firms’ business model contributed to the conflicts of interests. Issuers pay the credit ratings agencies for evaluating securities. While the credit ratings agencies were giving mortgage-backed securities high ratings, the heads of the three leading credit agencies were earning $80 million in compensation.

At the hearing, former Moody’s credit policy managing director Jerome S. Fons testified that the agencies’ business model prevents analysts from placing investor interests before the firms’ interests. In one confidential document obtained by investigators, Moody’s CEO McDaniels is quoted as saying that bankers, investors and creditors regularly “pitched” the credit ratings agency. According to Frank L. Raiter, the former head of residential mortgage-backed securities ratings at Standard and Poor’s, “Profits were running the show.”

Investors depend on the credit rating agencies for independent evaluations. According to Congressman Waxman, the ratings agencies “broke this bond of trust,” while federal regulators failed to heed the red flags and protect investors.

Related Web Resources:

Credit Rating Agency Heads Grilled by Lawmakers, New York Times, October 22, 2008
Oversight Committee Hearing on Credit Rating Agencies and the Financial Crisis, Polfeeds.com, October 22, 2008
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
Continue Reading ›