Investor Lawyers Blog

Edward Jones Issues Settlement Checks To Customers as Ordered by SEC for Kickback Scheme

Published on: May 2, 2007 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Edward Jones is now sending checks and making electronic payments to its current and former customers as part of its settlement of revenue sharing claims. The Securities and Exchange Commission announced the distribution of $79 million from the “Fair Fund” (also known as the “Edward Jones & Co., L.P. Qualified Settlement Fund”) as compensation to victims of Edward Jones’ practices according to the settlement reached. These payments do not compensate Jones’ clients for any losses caused by any other unfair sales practices.

According to the SEC, Edward Jones failed to adequately disclose kickbacks the firm received from various mutual fund companies, known as the “Preferred Fund Families.” The Preferred Families mutual funds are American Funds; Federated Investors; Goldman Sachs Group; Hartford Mutual Funds; Lord Abbott Funds; Putnam Investments; and Van Kampen Investments. The SEC’s order is available on the SEC website.

Edward Jones’ kickback scheme impacted approximately 2.1 million of its customers who purchased shares of the Preferred Fund Families between January 1, 1999 and December 31, 2004. The firm told the public and its customers it was promoting the sale of the Preferred Families’ mutual funds because of the funds’ long-term investment objectives and performance. However, Edward Jones failed to disclose that it received tens of millions of dollars of undisclosed revenue sharing payments from the Preferred Families each year for selling their mutual funds.

Examining SEC Chairman Christopher Cox’s Leadership

Published on: April 30, 2007 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Christopher Cox brought a sense of calm to the Securities and Exchange Commission after he became chairman. Rather than the split, partisan votes that had become the standard under the previous chairman, Mr. Cox has appeared to look for the widest support possible. Under Mr. Cox, every vote made on a proposed rule has led to a 5-0 decision.

Now, however, critics say that they are frustrated with Cox’s approach. They say that because Mr. Cox is constantly working toward consensus, the SEC may be progressing too slowly on certain key issues and that investors and Wall Street have ended up having no guidance on these topics.

This debate regarding Mr. Cox touches the core of some big questions regarding the role of an SEC chairman. A large question to consider is whether Mr. Cox should aim for changes that are contentious, even though they put off interest groups and colleagues, or whether he should generate less decisions that are unanimous but lasting.

Study by NASD Foundation Looks At Why Elderly Are Vulnerable To Investment Fraud

Published on: April 26, 2007 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

A study released by the NASD Investor Education Foundation, in cooperation with AARP Foundation and WISE Senior Services, looks at why certain senior investors are more likely to become victims of investment fraud. The report is called “Off the Hook Again: Understanding Why the Elderly Are Victimized by Economic Fraud Crimes.”

Among the key findings:

*Investment fraud victims tend to be more financially literate than non-victims.

All Sides Want SEC Support In Case Involving Liability Of Second Parties

Published on: April 25, 2007 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

William S. Lerach, a prominent plaintiffs’ attorney, met with SEC staff members last week to try to convince the agency to support investor lawsuits filed against banks accused of helping corporate executives engage in fraud.

Recently, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear a case that will look at the liability of secondary parties, including lawyers, bankers, and accountants, who did not say anything even though they knew that corporate officials were misleading shareholders. The case involves Charter Communications, a cable television provider, and is said to be the most important securities law case to reach the Supreme Court in twenty years. The decision could have major consequences and will affect investors’ ability to recover losses from companies that have engaged in fraud.

Trade groups that want to limit banks’ liability and consumer advocates that want to expand it are working to garner support for their sides. Both sides are also courting federal and state regulators.

The 10 Leading SEC Enforcement Developments Of 2006 (Part II)

Published on: April 24, 2007 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

6. The Continuation of Market Timing Cases

Market timing cases involving the SEC affected both sides of the trading desks. Those in charge of approving or facilitating market timing trades and as persons directly involved in market timing trades were singled out by the SEC, and significant monetary penalties were sometimes involved.

A. Bear, Stearns & Co, Inc. and Bear, Stearns, Securities Corp.

The 10 Leading SEC Enforcement Developments Of 2006 (Part I)

Published on: April 20, 2007 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

1. Stop Options Backdating

More than 100 companies were investigated by the Department of Justice and the SEC because of an article published in the Wall Street Journal in March 2006. The newspapers had asked a finance professor to give it a list of companies that made stock option grants that led to large stock market gains. The Journal studied several of the companies on the list and found that several of the option grant patterns found could not have happened without backdating. The article resulted in one of the largest securities investigations ever. The DOJ and the SEC only filed a few backdating cases, including cases against Comverse Technology, Inc. and Brocade Communication Systems, Inc.

2. Corporate Civil Penalties Guidance

Registered Limited Liability Partnerships Interests Investment Contracts Are Within Federal Securities Laws’ Meaning, Says U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit

Published on: April 19, 2007 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Interests involving registered limited liability partnerships (RLLPs) are contracts within the federal securities laws’ meaning, according to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit. The court reversed a ruling made against the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) for its enforcement action against two promoters and their company, Merchant Capital LLC.

According to the appeals court, the SEC filed an enforcement action against Merchant Capital LLC, Steven Wyer, and Kurt Beasley. The commission had alleged violations of the federal securities laws’ registration and antifraud provisions. Beasley and Wyre had established Merchant to take part in buying, reselling, and collecting charged-off consumer debt from financial institutions.

Merchant started raising money in 2001 by soliciting individuals to become partners in Colorado RLLPs that were eventually sold as freestanding entities. Although Merchant had organized 28 RLLPs with 485 partners, it did not reveal that the different partnerships existed. Its RLLPs ended up with more than $26 million in total capitalization.

SEC Commissioner Says Simplified Disclosure Document Will Help Retirees Make Investment Decisions

Published on: April 18, 2007 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Roel Campos, the Securities and Exchange Commissioner says that he is working on a campaign to create a simplified, prospectus-like disclosure document that would give investors clear, concise information about the performance and cost of their retirement plan assets.

Campos said it was a “given” that retirees would be on their own when managing their retirement funds because Corporate America was continuing to move away from defined benefit funds. Because of this, Campos said that retirees needed to obtain performance information so they could effectively manage their accounts. In order to do a good job managing their own investment funds, however, retirees need information about costs they are paying based on their investment decisions.

The retirement plans are subject to ERISA, and because of this, the SEC will be working with the Labor Department, which is in charge of administering the 1974 Employee Retirement Income Security Act, to implement the commission’s initiative.

NASD Hearing Panel Sanctions Former Knight Securities Executives for Supervisory Failures

Published on: April 13, 2007 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

An NASD Hearing Panel issued $100,000 in fines against Kenneth Pasternak, former CEO of Knight Securities, L.P. (now known as Knight Equity Markets, L.P.), and John Leighton, former head of the firm’s Institutional Sales Desk, for supervisory violations in connection with fraudulent sales to institutional customers in 1999 and 2000.

In addition, Pasternak was suspended in all supervisory capacities for two years, while Leighton was barred in all supervisory capacities.

In March 2005, NASD’s Department of Market Regulation charged Pasternak and Leighton with failure to supervise the firm’s leading institutional sales trader, Joseph Leighton, who is John Leighton’s brother. The NASD complaint also charged Pasternak with failing to establish and enforce a supervisory system designed to ensure compliance with federal securities laws and NASD rules.

Enron Shareholders Want The U.S. Supreme Court to Review 5th Circuit Certification Decision

Published on: April 12, 2007 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The Enron Corp. shareholders that are suing three big investment banks for their alleged roles in helping Enron hide its failing financial position have petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to look at a ruling made by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit that reverses the certification of a single plaintiff case. The court had ruled on March 19 that while Enron had a duty to its shareholders, banks do not.

The appeals court concluded that the plaintiffs did not have a right to a presumption of reliance on the banks’ failure to reveal their alleged participation in the Enron controversy. It also ruled that the plaintiffs do not have a right to the presumption of reliance afforded by the “fraud-on-the-market” concept.

In their certiorari petition, filed by the University of California Regents on behalf of Enron shareholders, the plaintiffs say that the Supreme Court needs to review the case to resolve a “clear conflict” in the circuits and lower courts about the meaning of so-called “scheme liability.” They also said that the appeals court decision was not correct.