Articles Posted in Auction-Rate Securities

District Court in Texas Decides that Credit Suisse Securities Doesn’t Have to pay Additional $186,000 Arbitration Award to Luby’s Restaurant Over ARS

Published on: June 2, 2011 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas has ruled that Credit Suisse Securities shouldn’t have to pay Luby’s Restaurants another $186,000 as part of its arbitration to the investor. The case is Luby’s Restaurants LP v. Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC. Shepherd Smith Edwards and Kantas Founder and Texas Securities Fraud Attorney William Shepherd had this to say about the ruling: “Attorneys for each side have the opportunity to submit language to the arbitrators that it desires to be reflected in an award. In cases where the award sought is anything more than payment of a specific amount it is wise to submit such language.”

Luby’s Restaurants LP bought over $30 million in auction-rate securities from Credit Suisse. The investor bought the ARS based on the financial firm’s representation that the instruments were very liquid, safe, and a suitable investment.

Luby’s later filed its arbitration claim with FINRA for ARS losses. By then it had gotten back everything but $8.9 million in securities. Then, after initiating the proceedings-but prior to the arbitration hearing-Luby’s redeemed another one of its securities for less than par and lost $186,000.

The arbitration panel would go on to rule in favor of Luby’s. Credit Suisse was directed to buy back the ARS from Luby’s at par and with interest. While both parties sought to confirm the award, they were in dispute over whether the $186,000 that Luby’s lost after it filed its arbitration case should be included.

The court says that Credit Suisse does not have to pay that amount to Luby’s. The court noted that the Award doesn’t mention the additional damages that Luby’s sustained when it sold some of the securities under par during pendency of the arbitration but prior to the hearing.

Related Web Resources:
$186K Under Arbitration Award, BNA Securities Law Daily, May 31, 2011
Luby’s Restaurants LP v. Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC, Justia

More Blog Posts:
Credit Suisse Group AG Must Pay ST Microelectronics NV $431 Million Auction-Rate Securities Arbitration Award, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, April 5, 2010
Texas Securities Commissioner’s Emergency Cease and Decease Order Accuses Insignia Energy Group Inc. of Misleading Teachers, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, May 23, 2011
Goldman Sachs and Wells Fargo Investments Repurchase $26.9M in Auction-Rate Securities from New Jersey Investors, Institutional Investors Securities Blog, May 25, 2011 Continue Reading ›

Goldman Sachs and Wells Fargo Investments Repurchase $26.9M in Auction-Rate Securities from New Jersey Investors

Published on: May 25, 2011 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

According to the New Jersey Bureau of Securities, Wells Fargo Investments Inc. (WFC) and Goldman Sachs & Co. (GS) has repurchased $26.9 million in ARS tosettle securities allegations that they sold auction-rate securities to New Jersey investors without disclosing the risks involved. Goldman bought back $25.5 million in ARS (it will also pay a $959,794 civil penalty), while Wells Fargo Investments repurchased $1.37 million in ARS.

The Bureau says that Goldman Sachs did not properly supervise and train its salespeople to make sure that all of its clients knew of the mechanics involved in the auction market and that the ARS could become illiquid. The financial firm also is accused of failing to disclose to investors the risks involved in buying or owning ARS even as it was becoming aware that the market was in trouble. The Bureau also accused Wells Fargo Investments of not properly supervising or training its agents that marketed the securities.

The two Consent Orders against Goldman Sachs and Wells Fargo Investments are the 11th and 12th that the state’s Bureau of Securities has reached with financial firms over ARS that were sold to investors in New Jersey. As part of the settlements, several firms that sold and marketed ARS have offered to buy back $2.8 billion of these securities.

It was in 2008 that state offices started getting complaints from investors about problems related to ARS investments. New Jersey was one of the 12 states that became part of a task force that looked into whether financial firms misled investors that bought ARS, which were sold and marketed as liquid, safe, and like cash. When the ARS market did fail, many investors were unable to access their money as the securities became illiquid.

New Jersey Bureau of Securities

More Blog Posts:
Anschutz Corp.’s Securities Fraud Lawsuit Against Deutsche Bank and Credit Rating Agencies Over Their Alleged Mishandling of Auction-Rate Securities Can Proceed, Says District Court, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, April 21, 2011

Akamai Technologies Inc’s ARS Lawsuit Against Deutsche Bank Can Proceed, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, March 4, 2011

Auction-Rate Securities Investigations by SEC and NY Attorney General Are Ongoing, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, April 21, 2011

Auction-Rate Securities Investigations by SEC and NY Attorney General Are Ongoing

Published on: April 21, 2011 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The Securities and Exchange Commission and the New York Attorney General’s office are still investigating whether auction-rate securities market participants knew they were misleading investors about the complexity and liquidity of debt instruments leading up to the market collapse in 2008. Officials for both agencies told BNA about the ongoing probes last month.

It was these misrepresentations to investors that prompted the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority to issue a concept proposal that, should it become a rule, would hold research analysis and reports that analyze debt securities accountable to FINRA requirements. A federal regulator told BNA that the SRO is concerned about misrepresentations that may have been made to retail investors as early as in late 2007 when, even as institutional investors were buying less ARS-causing the market to lose liquidity-ARS sellers were being pushed by underwriters to get retail clients to buy the securities under the guise that the bonds were very liquid and like cash. Also, underwriters and others allegedly knew that the market conditions were headed toward illiquidity despite their claims that the instruments were highly liquid.

The New York Attorney General’s office reported that says that as of last month, financial institutions have agreed to repurchase $60 billion of the ARS. The financial firms have also agreed to pay about $597 million in fines. Among the investment banks that the SEC has reached settlement agreements with are Citigroup Inc. (C), Wachovia Securities LLC, Royal Bank of Canada subsidiary RBC Capital Markets Corp., UBS AG, Merrill Lynch & Co., TD Ameritrade Online Holding Corp. (AMTD, Bank of America Corp. (BAC), and Deutsche Bank AG.

Related Web Resources:
SEC, New York Continuing ARS Probes; Retail ARS Risk Behind FINRA Proposal, BNA, March 23, 2011
Auction Rate Securities, SEC

More Blog Posts:
Class Auction-Rate Securities Lawsuit Against Raymond James Financial Survives Dismissal, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, September 27, 2010
Securities Fraud Lawsuit Against Calamos Investments Filed on Behalf of Calamos Convertible Opportunities and Income Fund Shareholders, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, September 17, 2010
Raymond James Must Pay $925,000 Over Auction-Rate Securities Dispute, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, September 1, 2010 Continue Reading ›

Anschutz Corp.’s Securities Fraud Lawsuit Against Deutsche Bank and Credit Rating Agencies Over Their Alleged Mishandling of Auction-Rate Securities Can Proceed, Says District Court

Published on: April 21, 2011 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California says that the auction securities fraud lawsuit filed by Anschutz Corp. against Deutsche Bank Securities Inc. and a number of credit rating agencies can proceed. Anschutz bought DBSI ARS between July 206 and August 2007 through Credit Suisse. The plaintiff is seeking damages and other relief related to the ARS it bought that was underwritten by DBSI, which also served as its broker-dealer.

Anschutz contends that it bought the securities believing that they were liquid because of the DBSI’s deceptive and manipulative activities. The plaintiff claims that by serving as market maker, DBSI ensured that the auctions would be successful as long as it kept supporting the bids. To make the ARS appear liquid, DBSI also allegedly “manipulated the market” by putting in support bids for every auction that the securities were involved in as well as for other ARS for which it was the lead or sole broker-dealer. When DBSI stopped making bids in July 2007, the auctions failed the following month. Anschutz contends that not only did DBSI know this would happen, but also, by acting as the only broker-dealer that could take part in certain securities’ auctions, the financial firm made it seem as if there was enough third-party demand and was able to lower the auctions’ interest rates.

Regarding its claims against rating agencies, Anschutz says that the latter relaxed their rating system to get DBSI’s business. The plaintiff contends that the AAA ratings that the agencies issued were misleading and false but knew that was the way to get paid. Anschutz also says that the agencies should have known or knew that DBSI was creating an artificial market for the ARS.

More Blog Posts:
Akamai Technologies Inc’s ARS Lawsuit Against Deutsche Bank Can Proceed, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, March 4, 2011

Credit Suisse Broker Previously Convicted for Selling High Risk ARS is Barred from Future Securities Law Violations, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, February 12, 2011

NASAA Says Investors with Frozen Auction-Rate Securities Should Ask Investment Firms About Buyback Opportunities, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, November 19, 2008

Akamai Technologies Inc’s ARS Lawsuit Against Deutsche Bank Can Proceed

Published on: March 4, 2011 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts says that, under the 1934 Securities Exchange Act and the Massachusetts’ Uniform Securities Act, Akamai Technologies Inc.’s (AKAM) auction-rate securities lawsuit that seeks to hold Deutsche Bank AG liable for $200 million in losses can proceed. The judge ruled that the Internet content delivery firm had properly pleaded a material misrepresentation or omission in violation of Section 10(b) of the ’34 Securities Exchange Act, which is necessary for a control person claim under Section 20(a). The court also held that Akamai clearly pleaded Deutsche Bank’s control over Deutsche Bank Securities Inc., the subsidiary that allegedly advised the company to buy the toxic ARS.

Per the court, DBS was the broker and investment adviser for Akamai Securities Corp. and Akamai Technologies Inc. Akamai told the investment adviser that it wanted to put money in securities that were liquid and safe so it could access the funds when needed. DBS told Akamai that ARS were safe, liquid, and never failed even though the financial firm allegedly knew that they had done so before and, in fact, posed a higher level of risk than what it led Akamai to believe. Even in August 2007, when Deutsche Bank knew that the demand for ARS was going down and the risk of ARS auctions failing was rising, the investment adviser still allegedly did not notify Akamai that the market was changing.

When the ARS market did fall in 2008, Akamai was left with over $200 million in illiquid securities. Its securities fraud lawsuit also claims that even as DBS continued to claim that the securities were liquid and safe, resulting in Akamai increasing its ARS investments, the investment bank was decreasing its own exposure to the market.

Credit Suisse Broker Previously Convicted for Selling High Risk ARS is Barred from Future Securities Law Violations

Published on: February 12, 2011 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC (CS) broker Eric Butler is permanently barred from future violations of securities laws. The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York granted the Securities and Exchange Commission’s motion for the permanent injunction late last month.

Butler was convicted of criminal charges related to the unauthorized sale of more than $1 billion in subprime-related auction-rate securities to clients. A jury found him guilty of three counts of securities fraud and he was sentenced to five years in prison. Butler is appealing is sentence and conviction.

The SEC’s securities fraud‘s complaint in 2008 against Butler and co-defendant Credit Suisse broker Julian Tzolov accused the two men of engaging in a bait-and-switch approach that left unsuspecting foreign corporate customers with high-risk ARS, rather than the more conservative financial products they had given the defendants permission to buy. The collapse of the ARS market left clients with $800 million in illiquid products.

According to the court, the SEC made a motion for summary judgment against Butler on the grounds of collateral estoppel related to the criminal case against him. The commission also sought to permanently bar him from future violations. Meantime, Butler opposed the injunctive relief and summary judgment on the grounds that the criminal case did not “necessarily” decide the issues in this case, he was not given the fair and complete opportunity to litigate the criminal charges against him, and the SEC was not entitled to injunctive relief. The district court, however, determined that the criminal case did “actually” decide the issues the SEC wanted to establish by collateral estoppel and that given the circumstances “totality,” it was appropriate to permanently bar Butler from future SEC violations.

Related Web Resources:

Ex-Credit Suisse Broker Butler Gets Five-Year Prison Sentence, Bloomberg, January 23, 2011

Related Web Posts:
Judge Gives Lower Sentence to Former Credit Suisse Broker Convicted of Auction-Rate Securities Fraud, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, January 30, 2010

Will Two Former Credit Suisse Group AG Brokers Convicted of Securities Fraud Get More Lenient Sentences Because of Industry’s “Culture of Corruption?”, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, August 21, 2009

Ex-Credit Suisse Broker Who Pleaded Guilty to Securities Fraud for Role in Auction-Rate Securities Scam Knew in Late 2007 that Clients’ Funds Were in Trouble, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, July 29, 2009

Merrill Lynch Doesn’t Have to Arbitrate ARS Claims by LSED, Says Appeals Court

Published on: December 22, 2010 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit is affirming a district court’s ruling that Merrill Lynch & Co. Inc. does not need to arbitrate a disputes over auction-rate securities losses suffered by the state of Louisiana and the Louisiana Stadium and Exposition District (known collectively as LSED). The court noted that even assuming that LSED was entitled to arbitration, the district court reached the right conclusion when it found that LSED waived its right to arbitrate when it made known that it intended to resolve its ARS dispute through litigation and took numerous steps to make this happen.

Per the court, LSED, which owns the New Orleans Superdome, retained Merrill Lynch as the broker-dealer and underwriter to restructure its bond debt. After Hurricane Katrina damaged the Superdome, LSED also looked to Merrill about financing the repairs.

In 2006, LSED issued $240 million in municipal bonds as ARS. LSED’s auctions failed in 2008.

In 2009, LSED filed ARS lawsuits against three Merrill entities and bond insurer Financial Guaranty Insurance Co. One complaint was submitted to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, while another was filed in Louisiana state court. The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation would go on to centralize the cases, along with other ARS lawsuits, in the Southern District of New York. Meantime, the defendants sent a letter to LSED asserting that the plaintiff could not obtain relief on the basis of the factual allegations it submitted in its lawsuit.

Prior to filing its third amended complaint, LSED suggested that the case be resolved in arbitration. When the defendants did not respond, LSED moved to compel arbitration. It claimed that because Merrill subsidiary Merrill Lynch Pierce Fenner & Smith Inc. is a Financial Industry Regulatory Authority member, the broker-dealer is required to arbitrate customer disputes.

The district court denied LSED’s motion.

Louisiana Stadium and Exposition District

Citigroup Global Markets to Pay Back $95.5M Over ARS Sold to LandAmerica Exchange Fund

Published on: November 11, 2010 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

A federal bankruptcy judge has approved a settlement involving Citigroup Global Markets Inc. agreeing to repay $95.5 million to clients who sustained auction-rate securities related-losses. The ARS were told by Citigroup to LandAmerica 1031 Exchange Services Inc. before the latter folded in 2008. The ARS had been valued at about $120 million. The repurchase rate that clients are getting is reportedly better than what the ARS can be sold for now.

Under the approved securities settlement, these creditors should recover a little over 50% of their financial losses. The distribution of the money should begin taking place in December.

LandAmerica 1031 Exchange Services Inc. and parent company LandAmerica Financial Group Inc. filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in November 2008. Over 250 clients had placed proceeds from investment property sales in the exchange. Their intention was to defer capital gains taxes while searching for other properties to purchase.

Unfortunately, because the exchange company invested some of the funds in ARS, when the market froze and LandAmerica filed for bankruptcy, the investors became unable to access their money. At the time of the bankruptcy, Landmark held $201.7 million in ARS. $30 million of the securities had sold.

Meantime, the US Securities and Exchange Commission has received complaints claiming that Citigroup engaged in misrepresentation and securities fraud related to the credit worthiness and liquidity of the securities.

Related Web Resources:

Stockbroker Fraud Blog

UBS AG Motion to Dismiss Class Securities Case Test’s US Supreme Court’s Ruling Regarding Extraterritorial Transactions

Published on: October 13, 2010 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

UBS AG has filed a motion to dismiss a class securities case against it. The move is putting the US Supreme Court’s recent ruling in Morrison v. National Australia Bank Ltd. to the test.

In this securities fraud case, four institutional investors—three of them foreign—are charging UBS and a number of individual defendants with violating Section 10(b) of the 1934 Securities Exchange Act. This is based on misstatements that were allegedly made regarding its auction rate securities-related and mortgage-related activities. They are seeking relief for all purchasers of UBS stock on all worldwide exchanges. Most of the statements in question were issued from the bank’s headquarters in Switzerland.

In 2008, the defendants asked the court to dismiss the allegations due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction. They cited the decision made in Morrison by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which had dismissed the action.

Now that the US Supreme Court issued its ruling in Morrison, with the justices concluding that Section 10(b) only applies to securities transactions on domestic exchanges and in other securities, the defendants are attempting to also have the securities case against them dismissed per Morrison’s “bright-line, location-of-the transaction rule.”

The defendants say that the plaintiffs have advised them that they will use the Supreme Court’s use of the word “listed” to end-run Morrison. Per the justices’ decision, Section 10(b) applies to transactions involving securities that are “listed on an American stock exchange.” UBS shares can be found on the NYSE.

However, the defendants are contending that there isn’t any support in the “the test of Section 10(B), its legislative history, or Morrison” for this type of unprecedented interpretation. They say that the word “listed,” as it is used in Morrison is only applicable to two kinds of securities that can be purchased in the US—an unlisted security that trades over the counter in this country and a listed one that trades on a US exchange. The defendants claim that the plaintiffs are misreading the word “listed” in order to authorize international class action lawsuits based on securities purchases on a foreign market and that this “flies in the face of Morrison’s statements that Section 10 (b) doesn’t “regulate foreign securities exchanges.”

Related Web Resources:
Morrison v. National Australia Bank Ltd., Supreme Court (PDF)

1934 Securities Exchange Act

Jefferson County, Alabama Officials Want JP Morgan Chase & Other Wall Street Creditors to Accept Proposal that Would Eliminate Almost Half of Its $3.2 Billion Sewer Debt

Published on: September 28, 2010 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Jefferson County, Alabama officials have presented a proposed settlement to Wall Street creditors that could get rid of almost half of its $3.2 billion sewer debt, create a $30 million relief fund for ratepayers that have a hard time paying their sewer bills, and limit sewer rate increases to approximately 2.5% annually. The county wants to solve its sewer bet crisis before the current County Commission leaves in November.

A significant number of investors have to agree to the proposal. JPMorgan Chase and Co. owns most of the county warrants. However, the other banks, including State Street Bank of Boston, Lloyds Bank of Scotland, the Bank of Nova Scotia in Canada, and Societe Generale of Paris would also have to approve it. Getting all of them to agree could prove challenging. Not all creditors may end up with half of what is owed. Some creditors want the settlement discussions to slow down while efforts are made to determine if more money can be obtained from the county.

“Our firm is handling a number of multi-million dollar Jefferson County-related securities claims and other ARS claims, which included claims for ‘consequential damages,” says Stockbroker Fraud Lawyer William Shepherd. “In these cases damages have been incurred by businesses and others when they denied access to their funds for months or years. Meanwhile, they had been told that the funds were placed into ‘money market’ type investments and were readily available on short notice. Some business completely failed because their cash flow was interrupted when the funds were suddenly tied up in these illiquid investments.”

In 1994, the county started a sewer restoration and rehabilitation program after individuals and the Cahaba River Society won their lawsuit demonstrating that the county had polluted rivers and creaks with untreated waste. In a consent decree in 1996, the county agreed to fix the sewer system. Initially estimated to cost $1 billion, it became a $3.2 billion project.

In 2002, a number of financial advisers, including bankers from JP Morgan, convinced county officials to replace traditional fixed-rate bonds with notes that came with floating interest rates, such as ARS. Following the credit crisis in 2008, and as borrowing costs rose, the complex financing scheme that the county was using failed. The county has been trying to figure out how to pay back the money it borrowed and is attempting to restructure its debt. In 2009, JP Morgan settled SEC charges related to an illegal payment scam that enabled the broker dealer to obtain business (involving swap agreement transactions and municipal bond offerings) in Jefferson County for a $75 million penalty. JP Morgan also agreed to forfeit $647 million in swap termination fees.

“Our securities claims are not against Jefferson County, but against the securities firms that sold our clients these securities,” says Shepherd. “Thus, the amounts not recovered by investors in the settlement are losses we are also seeking for our clients based on misrepresentations and omissions in the sales process.”

Related Web Resources:
Jefferson County officials proposing that creditors accept half of $3.2 billion sewer debt, AL.com, September 26, 2010

Jefferson County, Alabama