Investor Lawyers Blog

HSBC Brokerage Ordered by NASD to Pay $250K to Settle Best Execution Charges

Published on: June 11, 2007 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

HSBC Brokerage, a New York firm which allegedly directed all government securities orders to an affiliated broker-dealer, agreed to pay $250,000 to settle NASD charges it failed to have adequate systems in place to ensure the best execution for its clients.

Allegedly the firm routed orders to affiliate, HSBC Securities (HSI), without taking adequate steps to ensure that its customers could not get better prices through other sources. The NASD said in a news release that “HBI’s inability to provide documentary evidence of its supervisory review for best execution of trades inhibited NASD’s ability to review transactions for best execution.” HBI settled this action without admitting or denying the charges.

Prior to a merger of the two related firms, HBI’s retail brokerage business was primarily located in HSBC bank branches, the NASD said. To support the retail business, HBI operated a trading desk to handle orders placed by brokers.

Janus Avoids Responsibility to Mutual Fund Shareholders for Alleged Role in Widespread Market Timing Scandal

Published on: June 11, 2007 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Shareholders of mutual funds Janus Capital Group may not pursue a class action claim that the company violated federal securities laws by permitting hedge funds to engage in market timing with the shares of mutual funds operated by Janus, the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland ruled.

In recent years, the U.S. Congress has been persuaded to limit class actions involving securities only to claims under federal securities laws. Meanwhile, federal securities claims are limited to misrepresentations and omissions in the purchase and sale of securities and do not, for example, include claims for actions which are simply fraudulent or negligent. Furthermore, courts have decided that no one can be held liable for assisting, or “aiding or abetting”, others in violating federal securities law. Such limitations enabled Janus avoid its responsibility and have the class action against it dismissed.

In their complaint, the plaintiffs, purchasers of Janus Group stock, alleged that the Janus Funds misstated in their fund prospectuses their policies regarding market timing and late trading.

Fees on 12 B-1 Mutual Funds (or “B Shares”) Under Renewed SEC Scrutiny

Published on: June 11, 2007 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

“B Share”, or “back-end load”, mutual fund issues are being reconsidered by The Securities and Exchange Commission. The “B share” nick-name is derived from Rule 12 b-1 of the Investment Company Act of 1949, amended a quarter century ago to allow for the creation of such shares.

To combat a huge growth in “no load” mutual funds in the 1980’s, commission based investment firms lobbied for the creation of a product to compete. In response, the U. S. Congress agreed to amend the Investment Company Act to provide for a new class of mutual funds. On such funds, mutual fund companies can, instead of charging the investor an up-front commission, pay commissions to investment firms and their brokers right away, then charge the investor fees over time to recoup those commissions.

Since that time regulators have been besieged with complaints regarding B Shares. Deception, omission and out-and-out misrepresentations have often been made to lure investors into believing such funds are “no load”. Most observers acknowledge the potential for such abuse, yet little has been done to address the issue.

AOL Time Warner Shareholders May be Able to File Late Fraud Claims if Class Certification is Denied.

Published on: June 11, 2007 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Following the 2001 merger of AOL and Time Warner the stock price of the combined company, AOLTW, went into a year-and-a-half decline, and numerous shareholder class action securities fraud suits were filed. The various class actions were consolidated in a federal court in New York.

If the case is soon dismissed AOL Time Warner Inc. shareholders may be able to bring otherwise expired individual securities fraud claims against the company, but they must first wait for a decision on class certification in a pending lawsuit, a federal court in New York ruled.

When a class action is on file, the statute of limitations for an investor to file an individual claim will be “tolled” (extended while the class action is pending) but such tolling can not be used until “class certification” is approved by the court. The “standby suit”–anticipating the denial of certification– was filed by the investor, but the court determined that, because the limitations periods had expired on the investor’s individual claims his case, and the class action was still pending, tolling during the class action could not be employed and the case was dismissed.

Securities America Fined $15 Million for Luring Retirees Using Exaggerated Promises

Published on: June 11, 2007 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The NASD fined Omaha, Neb.-based Securities America Inc. a total of over $15 million for luring 32 long-term employees of Exxon Corporation into early retirement using false promises of high returns. The NASD stated that supervisors at Securities America largely ignored such actions by its registered representative who has been charged with violating securities regulations.

The NASD is focusing much of its enforcement resources on brokers and investment firms specializing in retirement planning services. The NASD’s chief counsel of the New Orleans region said retirement-age workers are extremely vulnerable to retirement planning investment scams. In many cases, the workers have little financial sophistication, but huge portfolios of assets that must be invested for post-employment purposes.

Employees of large companies such as Exxon are tempting targets for unscrupulous brokers touting inflated predictions of earnings to generate huge fees for the brokers. The target employees are able to “rollover” their retirement accounts, sometimes worth over a million dollars, to banks or brokerage firms. Often these workers hive little or no experience in investing and must rely entirely upon an investment advisor. This problem will grow as the baby boom generation retires.

Credit Suisse Employee Arrested in Insider Trading Scheme

Published on: June 11, 2007 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

A employee of the Global Energy Group of Credit Suisse was arrested and charged for his role in an alleged scheme using material nonpublic information on nine merger transactions involving Credit Suisse clients to obtain over $7.5 million in profits. The Securities and Exchange Commission also brought charges against the country head of investment banking at the Pakistan-based Faysal Bank.

Prosecutors said the Faysal Bank agent traded on tips about forthcoming announcements on acquisitions of publicly traded companies Northwestern Corp., Energy Partners Ltd., Veritas DGC Inc., Jacuzzi Brands Inc., Trammell Crow Co., Hydril Co., Caremark Rx Inc., John H. Harland Co., and TXU Corp. Credit Suisse advised either the target company or the acquiring entity in transactions involving each of those companies, they said.

Based on tips from the Credit Suisse employee, the Pakistani banker allegedly purchased securities in advance of a public disclosure, then quickly sold the securities once the public disclosure of an acquisition was made. Through dozens of transactions, including trades in an offshore account, the alleged scheme netted more than $7.5 million in profits, prosecutors charge.

Barclays Bank and its Former Trader to Pay Over $11 Million To Settle SEC Insider Trading Claims

Published on: June 11, 2007 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Barclays Bank PLC and a former proprietary trader for Barclays’ U.S. Distressed Debt Desk agreed to pay a total of $11.69 million to settle Securities and Exchange Commission charges they traded on inside information received while on the creditors committees for six bankrupt companies. Neither admitted or denied the SEC’s claims.

The SEC filed an action in a U.S. District Court in New York claiming the bank and its former agent illegally traded millions of dollars of bond securities while aware of material nonpublic information received through six bankruptcy creditors committees. The six bankrupt debtors were Galey & Lord Inc., Pueblo Xtra International Inc., Desa International Inc., Archibald Candy Corp., Conseco Inc., and United Airlines.

The SEC charged that, for example, the defendants made 82 illegal trades in notes and other securities of United Airlines. In some instances “big boy letters” were issued, but neither Barclays nor its trader ever revealed the inside information to the counterparties, according to the SEC. (A “big boy letter” is an agreement in which the buyer of securities agrees not to sue the seller while acknowledging the seller may possess confidential information the buyer does not have.)

“High Yield” Investment Scam Costing Investors Over $50 Million Results in Conviction of Four

Published on: June 11, 2007 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

A federal jury in Denver found four participants guilty of securities fraud and other charges in connection with a “high-yield investment scheme” in which hundreds of investors lost $56 million.

Norman Schmidt, of Denver was found guilty of conspiracy to commit securities fraud, mail fraud, and wire fraud in addition to money laundering. Charles Lewis, of Littleton, Colo., was found guilty of conspiracy, mail fraud, wire fraud, securities fraud and money laundering. George Alan Weed, of Benton, Ill., was convicted of mail fraud, wire fraud, and securities fraud, and Michael Duane Smith, of Colbert, Wash., was convicted securities fraud. Schmidt is seeking appeal.

Two others have pleaded guilty in the scheme: Janice McClain Schmidt, of Denver, sentenced to nine years in prison, and George Beros of Shaker Heights, Ohio, who awaits sentencing. One other alleged participant in the fraud, Peter A. W. Moss, was indicted but is apparently in the United Kingdom. The U.S. Attorney’s Office is attempting to extradite him.

Should Brokerage Firms Continue to Vote Their Clients Shares Without Permission, Including for Corporate Directors?

Published on: June 11, 2007 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Few stockholders realize that when their shares of stock are held at a brokerage firm that firm can vote their shares without a “proxy”. Thus, if an investor owns 100 shares of XYZ stock held at ABC brokerage firm, without the investors permission, ABC firm can cast the investors vote in annual meetings of XYZ, including for XYZ’s directors.

At a recent meeting at the SEC on the long debated issue, Catherine R. Kinney, president and chief executive officer of the New York Stock Exchange, announced that the NYSE has agreed to amend its rules to eliminate broker discretionary voting, but only in the election of directors. There is no proposal to stop brokerage firms from voting their clients’ shares, without permission, on other matters.

A NYSE rule states that brokers may vote on “routine” proposals if the beneficial owner of the stock has not provided specific voting instructions to the broker 10 days before the voting date. “Routine” proposals have been interpreted to include such important votes as election of directors. The proposed change will consider election of directors as “non-routine.” The change was previously proposed but revised to exclude such voting by mutual funds.

California Can Not Require Higher Standards for NASD Arbitration

Published on: June 11, 2007 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The California Supreme Court and a U.S. Court of Appeals have both determined that securities arbitration standards do not violate the California Constitution. The courts have instead decided that The Federal Arbitration Act preempts (is superior to) California’s ability to govern securities arbitration.

Rapidly growing arbitration is forcing consumers to, often unknowingly, forego their right to go to court. To protect its citizens from injustices in arbitration the California legislature passed legislation in 2001 ordering the California court system to create ethical standards for commercial arbitrators. Comprehensive standards were then created regarding arbitrators, including disclosure and conflict-of-interest checks.

The NASD’s Arbitration Code is not consistent with these new standards and the NASD refused to make adjustments to comply with the California requirements. It instead sued members of the California court system in federal court seeking a ruling that California could not set standards regarding securities arbitration. In November 2002, the US Court dismissed the lawsuit holding the US Constitution barred the suit in federal court.