Arbitration

UBS Loses Lehman Arbitration Note Claim by Small Investor

Published on: December 9, 2009 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

In an arbitration case that could affect numerous cases that are still pending, a Financial Industry Regulation Authority panel awarded a small investor $200,000 after finding that a UBS Financial Services broker acted inappropriately when he sold high-risk Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. principal-protected notes to the claimant.

The case involving Lehman notes is one of the first to be decided by a FINRA panel. While the ruling won’t establish a precedent, it could be an indication of how similar rulings may go in the future. “There are many cases pending against UBS and other firms that sold Lehman notes shortly before Lehman failed,” said stockbroker fraud attorney William Shepherd, whose firm, securities fraud firm Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas LTD LLP, is handling a number of such cases. “These cases often involve misrepresentations and omissions as well as unsuitability, since the investments were sold to clients who sought safety and income,” he added.

The claimant filed the arbitration claim accusing UBS of recommending structured products that are not suitable for “unsophisticated investors.” The broker purchased for the client a $75,000 return optimization note and a $225,000 guaranteed principal protection note. The FINRA panel determined that the claimant should be compensated for the principal protected note, in addition to legal fees and interest.

Although the amount awarded is less than what the investor hoped to recover, a UBS spokesman said the securities firm was disappointed that the claimant was awarded any damages and maintains the investor’s financial losses were a result of the collapse of Lehman Brothers.

Investor Wins Lehman Note Arbitration, Wall Street Journal, December 5, 2009
FINRA awards US investor in Lehman notes $200,000, Reuters, December 5, 2009 Continue Reading ›

Morgan Keegan Again Ordered by Arbitrators to Pay Bond Fund Losses to Investors

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

Morgan Keegan & Co. has been ordered to pay $51,000 to Larry and Diane Papasan. Larry Papasan is Memphis Light, Gas and Water Division’s former president.

The Papasans filed their arbitration claim against Morgan Keegan last year after they lost about $80,000 in the account they had with the investment firm. The Papasans’ claim is one of many arbitration cases and securities fraud lawsuits filed by Morgan Keegan investors who sustained RMK fund losses. The general accusation is that the broker-dealer misrepresented the volatility of the bond funds, which they allegedly were not managing conservatively.

Larry Papasan, who is retired, opened his account because he knew John Wilfong, a former Morgan Keegan financial adviser. Wilfong felt so confident about the bond funds that he even sold them to his mother, Joyce Wilfong, who also went on to suffer financial losses from her investment. Her friend Maxine Street also suffered bond fund losses.

The two women filed a joint arbitration claim against Morgan Keegan. Joyce was awarded $68,000, while Street settled for an undisclosed sum.

According to the Papasans, John Wilfong spoke with Jim Kelsoe, the RMK funds’ manager, prior to leaving Morgan Keegan for UBS. Kelsoe allegedly told Wilfong not to liquidate because the funds were safe. The Morgan Keegan fund manager is named in other cases for allegedly failing to disclose the risks associated with the mutual fund investments.

Related Web Resources:
Latest RMK Award Goes to Ex- MLGW Head, Memphis Daily News, October 27, 2009
Two Morgan Keegan Funds Crash and Burn, Kiplinger, December 2007 Continue Reading ›

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 ›

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.

Stockbroker Fraud Law Firm Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas LTD LLP Files Claims Against Morgan Keegan Following SEC Wells Notice

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

Last week, the Staff of the Atlanta Regional Office of the US Securities and Exchange Commission sent Morgan Keegan & Co, Inc., Morgan Asset Management, Inc., and three employees a “Wells” notice. The notice stated the Staff’s intention to recommend that the Commission bring enforcement actions over possible federal securities laws violations. Morgan Keegan, is a subsidiary of Regions Financial Corporation.

The Staff had been investigating a number of mutual funds that Morgan Asset Management had previously managed. In light of the Wells notice, the securities fraud law firm of Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas LTD LLP is continuing to file arbitration claims against Morgan Keegan for covering up the risks associated with their bond funds.

Our investor clients are accusing Morgan Keegan of selling specific funds that it promoted as relatively conservative investments when in fact, the funds were exposed to subprime mortgage securities, collateral debt obligations, and other high risk debt instruments. Investors are alleging that Morgan Keegan took part in a scam that defrauded investors of certain bond funds while misrepresenting their degree of involvement in more high risk investments. As a result, our investor clients suffered major financial losses after the subprime mortgage market collapsed.

FINRA Says Number of Stockbroker Fraud Arbitration Claims by Plaintiffs is Rising

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

According to the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, the amount of investor fraud claims alleging securities fraud and other violations has grown. From January to May 2009, investors filed 3,163 stockbroker fraud claims-an 85% increase from the 1,711 stockbroker fraud arbitration claims that were filed for the same period in 2008.

More investors have filed arbitration complaints since the demise of the sub-prime mortgage market in 2007. About 7,000 investment fraud claims are expected to be filed in 2009-compare this figure to the 4,982 arbitration claims in 2007 and the 2,238 securities fraud arbitration claims in 2007. In 1,718 of the arbitration cases filed through May 2009, breach of fiduciary was the most common complaint.

Also, more investors with arbitration claims are emerging victorious. This may be in part due to new rules by the Securities and Exchange Commission that limits a defendant’s ability to file a dismissal motion. For the first five months of this year, arbitration panels issued rulings in favor of investors in 47% of arbitration claims-compared to 42% of the time during the same time period in 2008.

However, Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas LTD LLP founder and Stockbroker Fraud Attorney William Shepherd says, “Considering there are about 60 million investors in the U.S., it is actually surprising that so few seek recovery. Approximately 1 in 10,000 investors file claims, but I believe at least 1 in 1,000 investors is cheated. Thus, 90% of valid claims are never filed. Claims involving money lost gambling in the market or over honest but bad advice do not succeed. Valid claims include those for fraud, misrepresentation, unsuitable investments, failure to disclose risks, or even for negligence.”

Related Web Resources:
Investor Arbitration Claims Sharply Up, Law.com
FINRA
Continue Reading ›

Customer Who Filed Motion to Vacate Arbitration Award is Ordered to Pay Sanctions for Frivolous Arguments

Published on: May 5, 2009 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

An Illinois federal court has ruled in line with the Seventh Circuit and says it will impose sanctions on a party that tried to get an arbitration award vacated because he only put forth frivolous arguments. The case is Halim v. Great Gatsby’s Auction Gallery, Inc.

Cameel A. Halim purchased items via an auction that Great Gatsby’s Auction Gallery had put together. Halim eventually sued the gallery. He claims that the items he bought were not as they had been described in the catalog. Per their agreement, the parties went into arbitration.

The arbitrator had told the parties to cooperate in good faith when discovery disputes were first brought before him. The arbitrator would go on to refer the parties to the earlier order as the disputes ensued.

Magistrate Judge Tells Texas Court that Citigroup Global Markets Holding Inc. Should Not Be Denied Arbitration Award for Unpaid Promissory Note

Published on: April 17, 2009 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The US District Court for the Western District of Texas should confirm an arbitration award for brokerage firm Citigroup Global Markets Holding Inc. against a former employee who failed to pay his promissory note-so says magistrate judge Nancy Stein Nowak.

Nowak argued before the Texas court that even if “equitable reasons” exist for why stockbroker Ernest Elam shouldn’t pay the brokerage firm the money he owes for the note, the arbitrator’s decision must still be upheld because the former Citigroup broker failed to provide a reason for why he shouldn’t pay that falls under the Federal Arbitration Act.

Last July, the arbitration panel found in favor of Smith Barney and Elam was told to pay the investment firm $193,484.28, $15,768.70 in legal fees, and 5% interest per annum for any balance that is not paid. In turn, Elam asked for the award to be vacated because he claims that:

• The promissory note was a forgivable lone.
• He was misled about repayment requirements.
• Smith Barney sought repayment because the broker’s departure caused the branch manager’s end of the year bonus to go down.
• Smith Barney benefits financially from commissions through Elam’s previous clients.

According to Nowak, Citigroup Global Markets Holdings Inc. and Citigroup Global Markets Inc. (as Smith Barney) had asked for confirmation of the award against Elam for the 2004 note he defaulted on in the original principal amount of $270,878. The magistrate judge says that according to the FAA, an arbitration award can only be vacated if:

• The award was obtained through fraud, corruption, or undue measures.
• The arbitrators were at least partially corrupt or engaged in misconduct or went beyond the scope of their powers.

Therefore, Novak contends that the district court cannot vacate the award and should grant Smith Barney’s motion.
Continue Reading ›

Morgan Keegan Ordered by FINRA to Pay Investors $267,711 Plus Interest for Losses in RMK Bond Funds

Published on: April 7, 2009 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Separate Financial Industry Regulatory Authority arbitration panels have issued awards to investors who suffered financial losses in Regions Morgan Keegan mutual funds. Last week, a FINRA panel awarded two California residents $267,711 plus interest for their losses-the largest bund fund arbitration award that Morgan Keegan has been ordered to pay to date.

In two arbitration cases last month, investors were also awarded six-figure sums, with one award amount larger than the damages claimed by investors. To date, FINRA panels have awarded over $871,000 to investors for their Morgan Keegan-related claims.

All of the arbitration claims accuse Morgan Keegan of concealing the actual risks associated with their bond funds. The investors have accused Morgan Keegan of selling certain funds as relatively conservative investments when they were actually exposed to a number of high risk debt instruments, including collateral debt obligations and subprime mortgage securities. They say Morgan Keegan engaged in a scheme to defraud investors of certain bond funds and misrepresented the extent of their holdings in riskier investments.

Morgan Stanley Court Case Demonstrates Why Securities Arbitration is Often a Better Forum

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

Many lawyers and investors complain about securities arbitration. According to Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas LTD LLP Founder and Stockbroker Fraud Attorney William Shephard, however, the following Morgan Stanley case is “one of many cases filed in court which would have likely not been dismissed in securities arbitration.”

Earlier this month, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York tossed out a securities class action lawsuit filed against Morgan Stanley, Morgan Stanley DW Inc. (MSDWI), Morgan Stanley & Co. Inc. (MS&Co.), the Technology Fund, the Information Fund, Morgan Stanley Investment Management Inc., Morgan Stanley Investment Advisors Inc. (MSIA), and Morgan Stanley Distributors Inc. The class action case is on behalf of investors in the Morgan Stanley Information Fund and Morgan Stanley Technology Fund over alleged improprieties in initial public offering shares allocations, as well as alleged conflicts of interest between Morgan Stanley’s research and investment banking departments.

According to the court, the investors claim they lost millions of dollars in the purchase of the funds as a result of violations of the 1933 Securities Act. The plaintiffs are also claiming that Morgan Stanley, MSDWI, and MS&Co. publicly said that they kept a “Chinese Wall” between their research and investment banking departments so there wouldn’t be any conflicts of interest when, in fact, this wall had fallen and MS & Co. was acting to benefit its investment banking departments. They also claim they were told that analyst recommendations and research were not influenced by the interests of Morgan Stanley or its affiliates.

Among the conflicts of interest, the investors are alleging that the defendants engaged in at least one of the a number of roles involving companies that with shares included among the funds’ portfolio securities for the class periods, including:

• As underwriters for certain securities.
• As investment bankers for certain companies with securities in the funds’ portfolios.
• Preparing and sending out research reports and recommendations about companies that had shares in the funds’ portfolios.
• Trying to get first-time or more underwriting and additional business from the companies that had shares in the portfolios.

The plaintiffs contend that MS & Co. factored in how much investment bank business research analysts were able to secure when determining their total compensation. This resulted in MS & Co.’s promotion of Morgan Stanley shares or those of potential clients, which then would lead to the price inflation of the companies’ shares. They also claimed that the portfolio funds had a substantial amount of Morgan-Stanley sponsored-stocks and that Morgan Stanley took part in “laddering,” which involved rewarding customers with “hot” IPO shares when they went after research tie-ins that artificially inflated an IPO stock’s aftermarket share price.

The court, however, dismissed the lawsuit saying that the plaintiffs failed to plead material omissions that Morgan Stanley should have disclosed. Continue Reading ›