Broker Fraud

Number of Federal Securities Fraud Cases Prosecuted Drop Significantly

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

A recent New York Times article reports that according to new data, federal officials are prosecuting far fewer cases involving fraudulent stock scams than they did in 2000 before the Bush Administration came into office. According to financial and legal experts, less strict enforcement polices, Securities and Exchange Commission staff cutbacks, and a greater focus on fighting terrorism have led to the federal government’s laxer policing efforts when it comes to pursuing securities fraud cases.

The new information, based on Justice Department information and put together by a Syracuse University research group, says that there haven’t been so few securities fraud prosecutions in a year since 1991. Also:

• During the first 11 months of the 2008 fiscal year, there were 133 securities fraud prosecutions-compare this to 2002 when there were 513 prosecutions, spurred by the WorldCom and Enron scandals, and 2000 when there were 437 prosecutions for this same time period.

Former Stanford Group Co. Financial Advisers Must Arbitrate Constructive Discharge Claims

Published on: December 29, 2008 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

This month, the Texas Court of Appeals concluded that two ex-Stanford Group Co financial advisers must arbitrate state labor law claims that their former employer constructively discharged them for complaining about its unethical business practices. The appeals court’s decision reverses a lower court’s ruling to not compel arbitration.

According to Chief Justice Hedges, former Stanford advisers Charles W. Rawl and D. Mark Tidwell signed U-4 registration applications that had arbitration provisions. The promissory notes they executed that were payable to Stanford also came with arbitration provisions.

While they worked for Stanford, the two men allegedly discovered that the company engaged in several unethical and illegal business practices, such as the deletion of certain electronic data in the wake of a Securities and Exchange Commission probe and the inflation of certain asset values in order to mislead potential customers. Tidwell and Rawl contend that they told management to investigate the alleged illegal activities, but their requests were ignored. The two advisers then resigned from the company because they thought they could be implicated for the alleged illegal activities.

After they left the firm, Stanford began FINRA arbitration proceedings against the two men to collect on promissory notes that allegedly were due to be paid as soon as they resigned. The former advisers responded by filing an employment discrimination lawsuit. They claim that their constructive discharge violates the Texas Labor Code because they refused to participate in Stanford’s alleged illegal acts. They also maintained that Stanford’s behavior was actionable under Sabine Pilot Services Inc. v. Houck, 687 S.W.2d 733 (Tex. 1985).

Stanford’s response was a motion to compel arbitration. The two men then said that under FINRA Rule 13201, their employment claims were excluded from arbitration.

The appeals court says that although the Texas labor code prohibits employment discrimination, the plaintiffs failed to note that their discrimination was based on any protected classes named in the statute. As a result, Judge Hedges said the trial court was in error when it did not compel arbitration.

According to Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas LTD LLP Cofounder and Securities Arbitration Attorney WIlliam Shepherd, “The key on this one is that registered securities representatives must go to securities arbitration and can not take employment cases to court despite language securities arbitration code concerning statutory labor claims in the Texas Labor Code. Our securities arbitration law firm often represents such persons against their employer or former employer.”

Related Web Resources:

3201. Statutory Employment Discrimination Claims, FINRA
Continue Reading ›

Senior Investor’s Claim Against Wells Fargo is Remanded on Fraud in Execution by California Court of Appeal

Published on: December 19, 2008 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The California Court of Appeal has remanded a lawsuit filed by an elderly woman accusing Wells Fargo of defrauding her and her husband. The case now goes back to the Los Angeles Superior Court, where a judge must determine whether Wells Fargo engaged in fraud when its employees executed its agreement with the couple.

Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Shook had previously concluded that the arbitration clause in the brokerage agreement between Ronnie and Ira Brown and Wells Fargo Bank, NA was unconscionable. However, he had decided that it was up to a jury to decide whether constructive fraud occurred. If Shook now decides that Wells Fargo did engage in the alleged fraud, the arbitration clause and any other portion of the agreement could then be determined unenforceable.

Sometime between 2003 and 2004, Wells Fargo assigned company vice president and trust administrator Lisa Jill Tepper to serve as Ira and Ronnie Brown’s “relationship manager.” Ira Brown, who was 93 at the time and suffering from health issues (he has passed away since), founded the Save-On Drug chain. His wife, Ira, was 81.

Tepper, who is now a defendant in this case, visited the Browns regularly to assist with their financial paperwork. She eventually began providing the couple with investment advice. At one point, she recommended that they open a Wells Fargo brokerage account because she believed that their other investments were inappropriate due to their advanced age. Through Tepper, the couple began working with Wells Fargo stockbroker Jack Harold Keleshian, who is now also a defendant in the case.

With Tepper and Keleshian’s help, the couple opened up a number of investment accounts, including a “Brown Family Trust.” An arbitration clause was included among the documents.

In 2006, Ronnie sued Wells Fargo. She claimed that when she was under duress while caring for her ailing husband, the bank pressured her into selling nearly 75,000 stock shares at $24.71. She says Keleshian told her that if she didn’t sell, the stock’s value would drop dramatically.

Instead, the stocks increased in value while Ronnie experienced an increase in capital gains taxes. Ronnie claims her damages were over $1 million (including Wells Fargo’s commission from the stock sale). Wells Fargo wants to resolve the dispute through arbitration.

Related Web Resources:

C.A. Orders Hearing on Claim Bank Defrauded Drug Chain Founder, MetNews.com, November 26, 2008
Brown v. Wells Fargo Bank N.A., Cal. Ct. App., No. B196258 (PDF)
Continue Reading ›

Madoff Investors Who Were Victims of “Ponzi” Scam Contact Securities Fraud Law Firm Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas LTD LLP to Explore Recovery Options

Published on: December 17, 2008 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Wall Street Icon Bernard Madoff’s $50 billion “Ponzi” scam may very well have bilked hundreds, even thousands, of investors of their money. Now, many of Madoff’s victims are contacting the securities fraud law firm of Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas LTD LLP to find out how they can recover their investments.

According to SSEK Founder and Stockbroker Fraud Attorney William Shepherd, “a number of recovery options” exist, including pursuit of:

• Securities Industry Protection Corp: SIPC has a $500,000 maximum guarantee limit per account. Its reserves are also limited and it needs government infusion to be able to cover losses in the billions of dollars. To be able to recover claims, legal action against SIPC is usually necessary. On Monday, a judge ruled that investors who were Madoff’s direct clients are covered under SIPC.

Former NEXT Financial Group Stockbroker’s Claim that He Was Fired for Refusing to Conceal Churning is Subject to Arbitration

Published on: December 16, 2008 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The Texas Supreme Court says that former NEXT Financial Group Inc. stockbroker Michael Clements’s claim that the brokerage firm fired him for refusing to cover up churning activity must be arbitrated. Clements was hired as a NEXT Financial regional supervisor in September 2006. Nearly a year later, the brokerage firm fired him because he allegedly failed to perform his required broker responsibilities related to an NASD audit.

Clements filed a lawsuit against the company, claiming he was terminated from his job because he refused to conceal the fact that a NEXT trader had violated federal securities laws by churning client accounts. NEXT pushed for arbitration, claiming that Clements had signed a Form U-4 when he was hired, which requires that he resolve any claims with the brokerage firm through arbitration-per the Federal Arbitration Act.

Clements has maintained that because his claim was based on at-will employment and wrongful termination, rather than a contract connected to a commercial transaction, his claim is exempt from the FAA’s arbitration requirement. He also asserted that his claim resulted from NEXT’s alleged illegal behavior, not its business dealings, and that a recent change in NASD code (following the National Association of Securities Dealers’s merger with the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority) indicated an intent to exclude disagreements involving employment matters from arbitration. Clements noted Sabine Pilot Services v. Hauck, (1 687 S.W.2d 733, 1985), a case where the Texas Supreme Court held that an employer had to pay an ex-employee damages because the worker was fired for refusing to perform an illegal act.

The Texas Supreme Court, however, upheld that the FAA was applicable in this case, NEXT could compel arbitration, and the NASD rule 13200 (a) did not exclude employment and termination-related claims. The court’s decision reverses the trial court’s ruling, which denied NEXT’s request, as did the court of appeals.

Related Web Resources:

Next Financial Group Inc.
Continue Reading ›

Stockbroker Fraud Law Firm Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas LTD LLP Investigate Securities Fraud Claims Involving Former World Group Securities Representatives David Olson and Edward Allen

Published on: December 9, 2008 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority says that former World Group Securities representative David Olson was named in a customer complaint filed in October 2008. The customer claims Olson persuaded him to buy real estate, which was leased back to the representative. The customer alleges that Olson agreed to pay the customer mortgage payments plus interest.

The customer says Olson defaulted on their deal and stopped making payments. The customer is also accusing the representative of soliciting three promissory notes for purchase and earmarking proceeds to buy other real estate properties.

It is considered improper for a FINRA registered representative to issue promissory notes, borrow money from clients, or engage in undisclosed, outside business.

Shepherd Smith and Edwards is investigating securities fraud claims involving David Olson and business partner Edward Allen, as well as their business entities WFG and A&O Companies. Allen also used to work for World Group Securities.

World Group Securities
World Group Securities brokers have been in the headlines recently following news that the US Securities and Exchange Commission was suing five of them due to allegations that they persuaded investors to use subprime mortgages to refinance their homes. The brokers allegedly were compensated for securities sales and mortgage refinancings.

Related Web Resources:

Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas LTD LLP Investigates Claims for Clients of David Olson, Edward Allen and World Group Securities, Inc., Marketwatch.com, December 3, 2008
Securities and Exchange Commission Sues Five World Group Securities Brokers For Persuading Clients to Refinance Homes With Subprime Mortgages, Stokbroker Fraud Blog, October 16, 2008 Continue Reading ›

Lazard Capital Markets Pays $2.8 Million to Settle SEC Charges Over Allegedly Improper Expenditures Made to Fidelity Investment Traders

Published on: November 7, 2008 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Lazard Capital Markets, LLC and a number of associated individuals have agreed to pay fines to settle Securities and Exchange Commission charges that over $600,000 was allegedly spent on entertaining Fidelity Investment traders to garner their business. While the SEC says the privately-held broker dealer failed to supervise the three employees that collectively spent money on the improper gifts, four of the company’s former employees were charged for their involvement in the securities laws violations made by the Fidelity traders.

The SEC has charged Fidelity and a number of current and past executives and employees, including ex-Fidelity equity trader Thomas Bruderman, with improperly accepting lavish gifts from brokers. The SEC accuses the former Lazard Capital Markets employees of supplying Bruderman with expensive entertainment and flying him internationally on private planes.

The commission says that David Tashjian, the Lazard Capital Markets’s former US sales and trading department head, and W. Daniel Williams and Robert Ward, two ex-Lazarus trading representatives, “facilitated” violations made by Bruderman. The SEC is also accusing Tashjian and Louis Gregory Rice, the former head of Lazard Capital Markets’s U.S. equity sales and trading desk, of failing to supervise Williams and Ward while they engaged in the alleged misconduct.

By agreeing to settle, Lazard Capital Markets and its four former employees are not admitting to or denying the SEC’s charges. Lazard Capital Markets has agreed to pay $1,817,629 in disgorgement plus $429,379.04 in prejudgment interest, as well as a $600,000 penalty. The broker-dealer has also agreed to be censured.

Tashjian, Williams, Ward, and Rice have agreed to separate suspensions and penalties.

Related Web Resources:

Lazard Capital Markets to Pay $2.8M for Gifts to Fidelity Traders, Financial-Planning.com, November 4, 2008
SEC Charges Lazard Capital Markets, Former Employees for Improper Gifts and Entertainment to Fidelity Employees, SEC, October 30, 2008
Continue Reading ›

Hedge Fund Manager Settles SEC Charges He Helped Defraud Investors of Nearly $20 Million

Published on: September 18, 2008 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

A hedge fund manager has settled Securities and Exchange Commission charges that he misrepresented Pinnacle West, LLC and Sunquest Development, LLC as sound investments and, as a result, defrauded investors of almost $20 million. Mark Joseph Peterson Boucher will pay a $100,000 civil fine and will be barred from giving investment advice for five years. He also agreed to a permanent injunction from antifraud violations in the future.

Per the SEC’s complaint, the San Francisco-based hedge fund manager told clients that the real estate development companies did not have much debt and owned viable real property when, in fact, one of the companies did not own any property and the other company owned one property and had debts that exceeded potential profits. Along with the companies’ owners, Boucher was accused of using the invested funds for personal purposes. He is not agreeing to or denying the allegations by settling.

The SEC says that even though Boucher was not a registered investment adviser, he charged a fee to give clients advice. He is the author of the book The Hedge Fund on investing and the SEC says that he recommended the companies to clients in a newsletter that he owns.

Gary Paul Johnson, who owns 20% of Sunquest Development stock, also settled antifraud allegations. As part of his agreement with the SEC, Johnson will pay a $120,000 civil penalty, disgorge over $1.8 million in ill-gotten gains and about $700,000 in pre-judgment interest. Defendant and primary Pinnacle West owner John Earl Brake has not yet reached a settlement with the SEC.

SEC Charges Bay Area Investment Adviser, Others in Real Estate Investment Scam, SEC, August 27, 2008
Read the SEC Complaint (PDF)
Continue Reading ›

2nd Circuit Reinstates TIAA-CREF Enterprises Inc. Faces Negligence and Breach of Fiduciary Duty Claims

Published on: August 28, 2008 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

TIAA-CREF Enterprises Inc. is once more facing claims of negligent misrepresentation and breach of fiduciary duty following the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit’s reinstatement of the claims. The appeals court, however, did affirm the District Court’s decision to dismiss the 1934 Securities Exchange Act Section 10(b) and New York fraud claims.

Per the court’s account, plaintiff Vera Muller-Paisner filed the lawsuit against TIAA-CREF Enterprises Inc. and other entities. Mueller-Paisner was the executrix of the estate belonging to a woman named Mary Engel, who had purchased a fixed annuity from the defendants for about $1.2 million. The annuity was to pay Engel $8,000 each month until her death.

Engel would have recovered the purchase price in 12 years, but she
died six months after buying the annuity and had only collected $48,000. Muller-Paisner discovered that most of Engel’s assets had been used to buy the annuity. This made it impossible for the executrix to dispose of the decedent’s estate, per Engel’s will.

While the district court had dismissed the entire lawsuit, this month, the appeals court affirmed part of that ruling and reversed it in part.

The 2nd circuit says it dismissed common law fraud and federal securities claims because the plaintiff did not sufficiently allege both a scienter and that there had been a materially misleading misstatement or omission. The appeals court, however, also ruled that Muller-Paisner’s allegations were enough to withstand any motions to dismiss the negligence and breach of fiduciary duty claims. It noted, among the plaintiff’s allegations, claims by the defendants that they have the resources and system in place to help customers buy the best options available to them that will maximize their income and allow them to support their post-retirement lives.

Related Web Resources:

US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Continue Reading ›

SEC Charges Former AG Edwards and Bank of America Broker With Misappropriating $1.3 Million from Customers

Published on: August 15, 2008 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The Securities and Exchange Commission has filed a complaint charging Brent S. Lemons, a former AG Edwards Inc. and Bank of America Investment Services Inc. stockbroker, with misappropriating over $1.3 million from at least three clients. He allegedly used the money to pay off his gambling debts.

The Commission is accusing Lemons of violating Section 10(b) of the Securities Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 there under. The SEC says that Lemons, who managed the financial affairs of certain customers, had clients sign brokerage and bank documents in blank. The former stockbroker allegedly then told them he would use the documents to liquidate securities in their accounts and reinvest any proceeds in instruments that were higher yielding.

The SEC is seeking a permanent injunction against Lemons, as well as disgorgement with prejudgment interest and a civil penalty. He also faces criminal charges related to his alleged misconduct.

Broker Misconduct
It is wrong for a stockbroker to misappropriate investor funds for personal use. If you have lost money because of broker misconduct, our stockbroker fraud lawyers can help you determine whether you have grounds to file a claim to get your money back.

Examples of common claims involving broker misconduct:

• Unsuitability • Misrepresentation • Overconcentration • Omissions • Churning • Failure to Supervise • Failure to Execute Trades • Breach of Fiduciary Conduct • Breach of Contract • Negligence • Breach of Promise • Margin Account Abuse • Unauthorized Trading • Registration Violations
Related Web Resources:

SEC Charges Brent Lemons, Former Registered Representative From Tyler, Texas, With Fraud, SEC.gov
Read the SEC Complaint (PDF)
Continue Reading ›