Bank of America

Bank of America to Pay $137M Over Alleged Investment Scam To Pay Municipalities Low Interest Rates on Investments and $9M Over Alleged Bid-Rigging Scheme to Nonprofits

Published on: December 16, 2010 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Bank of America has agreed to pay $137 million to settle charges that it was involved in a financial scheme that allowed it to pay cities, states, and school districts low interest rates on their investments. The financial firm allegedly conspired with rivals to share municipalities’ investment business without having to pay market rates. As a result, government bodies in “virtually every state, district, and territory” in this country were paid artificially suppressed yields or rates on municipal bond offerings’ invested proceeds.

Bank of America has agreed to pay $36 million to the Securities and Exchange Commission and $101 million to federal and state agencies. The Los Angeles Times is reporting that $67 million will go to 20 US states. BofA will also make payments to the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and the Internal Revenue Service. The SEC contends that from 1998 to 2002 the investment bank broke the law in 88 separate deals.

In its Formal Agreement with the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Bank of America agreed to strengthen its procedures, policies, and internal controls over competitive bidding in the department where the alleged illegal conduct took place, as well as take action to make sure that sufficient procedures, policies, and controls exist related to competitive bidding on an enterprise wide basis. The OCC is accusing the investment bank of taking part in a bid-ridding scheme involving the sale and marketing of financial products to non-profit organizations, including municipalities.

Per their Formal Agreement, the bank must pay profits and prejudgment interest from 38 collateralized certificate of deposit transactions to the non-profits that suffered financial harm in the scam. Total payment is $9,217,218.

Related Web Resources:

Bank of America to Pay $137 Million in Muni Cases, Bloomberg, December 7, 2010

OCC, Bank of America Enter Agreement Requiring Payment of Profits Plus Interest to Municipalities Harmed by Bid-Rigging on Financial Products, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, December 7, 2010

Ex-Employee Accuses Bank of America of Securities Fraud Involving Complex Derivatives Products

Published on: October 29, 2010 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

A former Bank of America employee is accusing the investment bank of aggressively recommending complex derivatives products to investors while at the same time failing to tell them of the risks involved. In a letter to Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman Mary Schapiro, the whistleblower said that the sales of these structured notes were so important to the BofA’s brokerage unit during the economic collapse that workers were threatened with termination if they warned clients against investing in the products or did not meet their quotas.

The ex-employee writes that another employee’s job was threatened after he told clients to liquidate their notes because of the possibility that BofA might become “nationalized,” which would make the notes worthless. The whistleblower claims to have been notified that aggressive sale of the notes was the only way the brokerage unit could fulfill its revenue goals at that time.

Bill Halldin, a Bank of America spokesperson, says that the investment firm has not heard about any such complaint regarding these allegations. He maintains that the investment bank has a policy abiding by “applicable laws and industry practices” when conducting business.

Broker Misconduct
Broker-dealers are obligated to notify investors of risks involved in an investment. They must also make sure that any investment that they recommend is appropriate for a client. Failure to fulfill these duties of care can be grounds for a securities fraud case.

Structured Notes
These derivative-like contracts allow investors to bet on bonds, stocks, or other securities. While some notes are “guaranteed” and promise a return on principal upon expiration, there are still those, such has Lehman Brothers’ notes, that fail to meet that guarantee. This can leave the holders to deal with the financial consequences. Banks may also stop trading the notes at any time.

Related Web Resources:
Informer: BofA hawked risky deals to customers, NY Post, October 29, 2010
Informer: Bofa Hawked Risky Deals to Customers, iStockAnalyst
Bank of America Blog Posts, Stockbroker Fraud Blog
Whistleblower Lawsuits, Stockbroker Fraud Blog Continue Reading ›

Former Bank of America CEO Denies Allegations of Securities Fraud During Merrill Lynch Acquisition

Published on: August 31, 2010 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Kenneth D. Lewis, Bank of America‘s former chief executive, says that New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo’s securities fraud allegations in connection with the bank’s merger with Merrill Lynch are without merit. Lewis is accused of purposely withholding information from the shareholders who approved Bank of America’s acquisition of Merrill.

In his filing with the state supreme court, Lewis claims that Cuomo’s securities lawsuit places blame “where it does not belong.” Lewis contends that all decisions he made regarding the acquisition were done in “good faith” and with the shareholders’ best interests in mind.

Cuomo’s securities fraud complaint charged BofA, Lewis, and ex-CFO Joe Price of concealing from shareholders the fact that Merrill brought with it billions of dollars in debt. The NY Attorney General contends that the information was withheld so that the shareholders would approve the merger between the two financial institutions. He also has accused the defendants of exaggerating the degree of Merrill’s losses so that federal help would be provided through the Troubled Asset Relief Program.

Bank of America Merrill Lynch to Settle UIT Sales-Related FINRA Charges for $2.5 Million

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

Bank of America Merrill Lynch has agreed to settle for $2.5 million Financial Industry Regulatory Authority allegations that it did not provide “sales charge discounts” to clients with eligible unit investment trusts purchases. By agreeing to settle, the broker-dealer is not admitting to or denying the charges. Of the $2.5 million, $2 million is restitution and $500,000 is a fine.

UITs
A unit investment trust is an investment company that holds a fixed portfolio of securities while offering redeemable units from that portfolio. The units have a fixed date for termination. UIT sponsors usually offer sales charge discounts called “rollover and exchange discounts”-usually offered to investors that use redemption or termination proceeds from one unit to buy another-and “breakpoint discounts”-based on the purchase’s dollar amount-to investors.

Since March 2004, FINRA has made it clear that investment firms must have procedures in place to make sure that clients get their UIT discounts. The SRO contends, however, that until May 2008, Merrill Lynch did not provide brokers or their supervisors with such guidance and neglected to tell clients when they were eligible for a UIT discount. This went on between October 2006 and June 2008 and many clients were overcharged for their UIT purchases.

FINRA also accused Merrill Lynch of distributing client presentation that contained sales information about UITs that were “inaccurate and misleading,” causing clients to believe that they were only eligible for a UIT discount if UIT proceeds were used to buy a new UIT from the same sponsor.

Related Web Resources:
BofA Merrill Lynch to Pay $2.5 Million in FINRA Matter, ABC News, August 18, 2010
Merrill Lynch to pay $2.5M in sales charge case, Business Week, August 18, 2010

Other Merrill Lynch Stories on Our Web Site:
Bank of America To Settle SEC Charges Regarding Merrill Lynch Acquisition Proxy-Related Disclosures for $150 Million, StockbrokerFraudBlog, February 15, 2010
Merrill Lynch Must Pay $26 million to States to Resolve Charges of Failure to License Associates, StockbrokerFraudBlog, December 22, 2009 Continue Reading ›

UBS, JP Morgan, Lehman, Bank of America, and Other Banks Included on List of Co-Conspirators in CDR Bid-Rigging Scam

Published on: March 31, 2010 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Over two dozen bankers at Wall Street investment firms have been listed as co-conspirators in a bid-rigging scheme to pay lower than market interest rates to the federal and state governments over guaranteed investment contracts. The banks named as co-conspirators include JP Morgan Chase & Co, UBS AG, Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc., Bear Stearns Cos., Bank of America Corp, Societe General, Wachovia Corp (bought by Wells Fargo), former Citigroup Inc. unit Salomon Smith Barney, and two General Electric financial businesses.

The investment banks were named in papers filed by the lawyers of a former CDR Financial Products Inc. employee. The attorneys for the advisory firm say that they “inadvertedly” included the list of bankers and individuals and asked the court to strike the exhibit that contains the list. The firms and individuals on the co-conspirators list are not charged with any wrongdoing. However, over a dozen financial firms are contending with securities fraud complaints filed by municipalities claiming conspiracy was involved.

The government says that CDR, a local-government adviser, ran auctions that were scams. This let banks pay lower interests to the local governments. In October, CDR, and executives David Rubin, Evan Zarefsky, and Zevi Wolmark were indicted. They denied any wrongdoing. This year, three other former DCR employees pleaded guilty.

While the original indictments didn’t identify any investment contract sellers that took part in the alleged conspiracy, Providers A and B were accused of paying kickbacks to CDR after winning investment deals that the firm had brokered. The firms were able to do this by allegedly paying sham fees connected to financial transactions involving other companies.

Per the court documents filed in March, the kickbacks were paid out of fees that came out of transactions entered into with Royal Bank of Canada and UBS. The US Justice Department says the kickbacks ranged from $4,500 to $475,000. Financial Security Assurance Holdings Ltd divisions and GE units created the investment contracts that were involved.

Approximately $400 billion in municipal bonds are issued annually. Schools, cities, and states use money they get from the sale of these bonds to buy guaranteed investment contracts. Localities use the contracts to earn a return on some of the funds until they are needed for certain projects. The IRS, which sometimes makes money on the investments, requires that they are awarded on the basis of competitive bidding to make sure that the government gets a fair return.

Related Web Resources:
JPMorgan, Lehman, UBS Named in Bid-Rigging Conspiracy, Business Week, March 26, 2010
U.S. Probe Lays Out Bid Fixing, Bond Buyer, March 29, 2010
Read the letter to District Judge Marrero (PDF)
Continue Reading ›

Bank of America To Settle SEC Charges Regarding Merrill Lynch Acquisition Proxy-Related Disclosures for $150 Million

Published on: February 15, 2010 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Bank of America Corp. (BAC) has agreed to pay $150 million, in addition to $1 million in disgorgement, to settle the Securities and Exchange Commission’s charges over the investment bank’s proxy-related disclosures regarding the Merrill Lynch acquisition. U.S. District Judge Jed S. Rakoff said he hopes to decide by February 19 on whether to approve the settlement. He also said he has more questions regarding the deal.

If approved, the settlement would conclude two SEC securities lawsuits against Bank of America over the Merrill Lynch merger. One complaint involves the investment bank’s alleged failure to reveal, prior to a 2008 shareholder meeting to vote on the acquisition, that financial losses were in the billions and rising at Merrill. The second lawsuit is over what the bank did and did not disclose about the billions of dollars in bonuses paid to Merrill Lynch employees right before the $50 billion merger was completed.

Under the proposed SEC settlement, the $150 million would go to Bank of America shareholders who suffered financial losses because of the investment bank’s alleged disclosure violations. Also, for three years BofA would have to maintain and implement a number of remedial measures, including hiring an independent auditor to look at its internal disclosure controls, hiring a disclosure counsel to work on bank disclosures, making sure that BofA’s chief financial officers and chief executive certify yearly and merger proxy statements, and allowing shareholders to have an advisory say-on-pay vote regarding executive compensation.

Earlier this month, New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo filed a separate securities fraud lawsuit against Kenneth D. Lewis, who formerly served as BofA’s chief executive, Joe Price, the bank’s former chief financial officer, and Bank of America for allegedly concealing Merrill Lynch’s losses. The complaint alleges that BofA general counsel Timothy Mayopoulos was let go because he wanted to disclose the losses at Merrill Lynch before the deal was finalized.

Related Web Resources:
Bank of America Still Dealing With Fallout From Merrill Deal, Fox Business, February 5, 2010
Cuomo Sues Bank of America, Even as It Settles With S.E.C., NY Times, February 4, 2010
US judge has questions on $150 mln SEC-BofA accord, Reuters, February 16, 2010 Continue Reading ›

Merrill Lynch Must Pay $26 million to States to Resolve Charges of Failure to License Associates

Published on: December 22, 2009 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

As a result of a widespread multi-state investigation which began in May 2008, Merrill Lynch Pierce, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc. has agreed to pay more than $26 million to settle claims that certain client representatives were not properly licensed in states where sales efforts were undertaken. The investigation, coordinated by the North American Securities Administrators Association (NASAA), discovered that 60 percent of the firm’s “client associates” were registered only in their home state, or in only one additional state.

States require that persons at securities firms involved in sales to client or prospective clients must be licensed in the states in which the persons contacted reside – with some de minibus exceptions. Although the Merrill Lynch associates were assisting the firm’s financial advisors, they were undertaking duties which required state licenses.

While states issue licenses based on a single multi-state examination, each also charges an annual fee for each representative of a firm licensed in that state. A financial advisor with a brokerage firm may have clients or prospective clients in a number, or even dozens, of states. If an advisor’s assistant is communicating with those clients or prospects in a sales capacity, he or she must be licensed in and a fee must be paid to each state as well.

SEC Submits Amended Complaint Against Bank of America Over Merrill Lynch Merger and Executive Bonuses

Published on: December 3, 2009 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The US Securities and Exchange Commission’s amended complaint regarding the acquisition of Merrill Lynch by Bank of America Corp. last January includes one new assertion. In addition to the SEC’s original allegations against Bank of America, the agency now says that the investment bank was in violation of proxy regulations when it did not provide a merger agreement schedule, as well as a list identifying what would have been included in the schedule.

At the center of the SEC lawsuit is Bank of America’s proxy disclosure to shareholders that it wouldn’t pay year-end bonuses to Merrill executives. Yet, even as Merrill posted a record $27.8 billion loss last year, its executives were paid $3.6 billion.

BofA and the SEC initially attempted to settle the allegations for $33 million. Federal Judge Rakoff, however, wouldn’t sign off on what he considered both a swift resolution to an embarrassing situation for the bank and an attempt to make it appear as if the SEC was engaged in enforcement.

Rakoff accused SEC of not being hard enough on Bank of America, which it is supposed to regulate, even as shareholders suffered. He also accused the defendant of neglecting to take responsibility for its actions, which forced taxpayers to bail out the investment bank. A trial is scheduled to begin on March 1.

The US Congress and New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo are also investigating the merger between Bank of America and Merrill Lynch.

Throughout the US, our securities fraud law firm represents investors who have suffered financial losses because of broker-dealer misconduct.

Related Web Resources:
SEC’s Amended BofA Complaint: New Claims, but No New Defendants, Law.com, October 23, 2009
Judge Rejects Settlement Over Merrill Bonuses, NY Times, September 15, 2009
SEC Fines Bank Of America $33 Million Over Bonuses, Consumer Affairs, August 3, 2009 Continue Reading ›

Bank of America’s Merrill Lynch unit agrees to $26.5 million national settlement stemming from Texas securities fraud claim

Published on: September 22, 2009 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Following a Texas securities fraud claim that Bank of America‘s Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc. allowed unregistered sales persons to sell securities, the Bank of America unit has agreed to pay $26.5 million as part of a national settlement over the allegations. The state of Texas’s portion of the settlement is $1.6 million. The other states that were part of the task force, led by the Texas State Securities Board, are Arizona, Colorado, Vermont, Missouri, Delaware, and New Hampshire.

Client associates who accept trade orders must be registered not just in their own state but also in the client’s state. Per the probe, the task force determined that Merrill did not have a supervisory system that was designed in a manner that made sure that associates were in compliance with registration requirements. The task force was investigating a tip, provided in May 2008 by a Merrill Lynch employee, that the company saved money on registration fees by allowing client associates to register only in their home state and in a neighboring state.

Last week, Merrill Lynch agreed to pay the state of Texas another $12.7 million over a Texas securities fraud cause involving auction-rate securities. The settlement ends the state’s probe into the broker-dealer’s handling of ARS and clients’ funds even as the market was collapsing.

The board determined that not only did Merrill Lynch not tell investors that the market could very well collapse, but also that the broker-dealer offered financial associates sales incentives to sell ARS despite knowing that the auction process could fail.

September has been a rough month for Bank of America and Merrill Lynch. On the same day that the Texas securities commissioner announced the $26.5 million settlement, New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo accused high-level Bank of America Corp. executives of failing to reveal key information about its Merrill Lynch & Co. takeover. Cuomo is threatening to press charges. Bank of America, however, is calling Cuomo’s allegations “spurious.”

BofA’s Merrill to pay US$26.5M in settlement on unregistered salespeople, AP/Yahoo, September 8, 2009
Bank of America Calls Cuomo’s Merrill Allegations ‘Spurious,’ Bloomberg.com, September 10, 2009
Merrill Lynch pays $12.7M to settle Texas auction rate securities case, Taragana.com, September 14, 2009 Continue Reading ›

Disgruntled Investors Continue to File Securities Fraud Litigation Against Merrill Lynch Even Eight Months After Its Acquisition by Bank of America Corp.

Published on: September 2, 2009 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The plaintiffs of some 166 of the 221 cases filed against Merrill Lynch & Co. since January 1, 2009 are alleging securities fraud-related violations. This means that Bank of America Corp, which acquired the broker-dealer at the beginning of the year, has assumed responsibility for the outcome of these civil cases. Some of these investor fraud claims were filed as late as last month.

Some cases discuss Merrill’s involvement in the marketing, underwriting, and selling of securitizations, or asset-backed securities. Other cases delve into Merrill’s dealings in the auction-rate securities market. A number of the securities fraud cases against Merrill are class action lawsuits. Merrill Lynch is the lead defendant in many of the cases and one of several financial firms named in the other complaints.

Some of the Securities Fraud Cases Against Merrill Lynch: