Class Action Lawsuits

Merrill Lynch Agrees to Pay $40M Proposed Deferred Compensation Class Action Settlement to Ex-Brokers

Published on: August 27, 2012 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Merrill Lynch (MER) has arrived at an “agreement in principle” to resolve the class action lawsuit filed by John Burnette and Scott Chambers over deferred compensation that they contend that the brokerage firm refused to pay them after it merged with Bank of America (BAC) in 2008 and they left its employ. About 1,400 brokers are part of this class. However, some 3,300 ex-Merrill brokers have submitted deferred compensation claims against the brokerage firm for the same reason.

Merrill had refused to give these employees their deferred compensation, which is what a broker usually gets paid for staying with a financial firm for a specific number of years, when they resigned after the merger. These brokers, however, cited “good reason” for their departure, which is another cause they can claim to receive this.

The class action settlement was presented to U.S. District Judge Alison Nathan at Manhattan federal court on Friday. She will decide whether to approve it, as well as certify the class according to the parties’ definition. However, it is not known at this time how many brokers will go for this settlement if it is approved.

It is not unusual for many to opt not to be part of a class action settlement and instead seek to obtain more money via an individual arbitration claim. Having an arbitration lawyer personally representing your case generally leads to bigger results. Already, over a thousand ex-Merrill brokers have filed their FINRA claims. Also, for an ex-Merrill broker whose deferred compensation was above six figures, they are likely to get much less by going the class action route. Meantime, ex-Merrill brokers with revenues that exceeded $500,000 during a certain timeframe before they left the financial firm cannot participate in a class action settlement. Neither can those that accepted bonuses and waived certain rights related to deferred compensation claims from Merrill after the deal with Bank of America.

That said, even the ex-Merrill brokers that decide to opt out of the class are likely to benefit from this settlement because it establishes a floor for payouts while serving as Merrill’s public acknowledgement that it had a financial duty to pay the former brokers upon their departure.

Under the class action settlement, the majority of advisers would get 40-60% of the value of their account. According to OnWallStreet.com, for a broker to receive 60%, advisors must have already made a request for reimbursement, whether via lawsuit, arbitration, or some other way and left the financial firm prior to January 30, 2010. To be eligible to receive 50%, these advisers too will have had to have made some type of legal action and resigned by June 30, 2010. If no action was taken, and the former broker still wants to opt in, they would turn in a form and seek 40% of compensation–dependent upon when they exited the firm. Other ex-advisors might also be able to receive 40 to 60% of payment depending on when they left Merrill, whether they had filed a deferred compensation claim, and in what compensation plans they were participants. Ex-dvisers that had an agreement with the Advisor Transition Program, however, would not be able to participate.)

Merrill to Make Good on Former Brokers’ Deferred Comp, On Wall Street, August 24, 2012
Merrill to pay $40 mln in deferred compensation suit, Reuters, August 25, 2012

More Blog Posts:
Merrill Lynch to Pay Brokers Over $10M for Alleged Fraud Over Deferred Compensation Plans, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, April 5, 2012

Advanced Equities Ordered by FINRA Arbitration Panel to Pay $4.5M to Ex-Broker, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, June 12, 2012

Claims Continue over MasterShare – Prudential Securities’ Deferred Compensation Plan, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, August 13, 2008 Continue Reading ›

Institutional Investor Roundup: Ex-IndyMac Executives Class Action Securities Case for $6.5M, New York Fed Sells $828M of Mortgage Debt Securities from AIG Bailout, and Survey Says That 25% of Wall Street Employees Believe Cheating is Necessary to Succeed

Published on: July 18, 2012 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The former executives of IndyMac Banccorp have consented to settle class-action securities lawsuit related to bank holding company’s collapse when the housing bubble burst. Per the settlement terms, the financial firm’s insurer will pay investors $6.5 million in cash.

IndyMac shareholders had gone after ex-CEO Michael Perry and ex-finance officer Scott Keys in 2008, contending that they had misled investors about the mortgage lender’s poor financial condition. A month later, federal bank regulators closed down IndyMac Bank. Although the two of them are settling, they were not required to admit to any wrongdoing.

“Again, no jail time for anyone,” commented Shepherd Smith Edwards and Kantas, LTD, LLP Founder and Stockbroker Fraud Lawyer William Shepherd.

Institutional Investor Roundup: Evergreen Ultra Short Investor Lawsuit Settled for $25M, FINRA Launches Pilot Program for Huge Claims, Ex-AmeriFirst Funding Manager’s Conviction Appeal is Rejected, & EU Regulator Examines Credit Raters’ Bank Downgrade

Published on: July 12, 2012 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Evergreen Investment Management Co. LLC and related entities have consented to pay $25 million to settle a class action securities settlement involving plaintiff investors who contend that the Evergreen Ultra Short Opportunities Fund was improperly marketed and sold to them. The plaintiffs, which include five institutional investors, claim that between 2005 and 2008 the defendants presented the fund as “stable” and providing income in line with “preservation of capital and low principal fluctuation” when actually it was invested in highly risky, volatile, and speculative securities, including mortgage-backed securities. Evergreen is Wachovia’s investment management business and part of Wells Fargo (WFC).

The plaintiffs claim that even after the MBS market started to fail, the Ultra Short Fund continued to invest in these securities, while hiding the portfolio’s decreasing value by artificially inflating the individual securities’ asset value in its portfolio. They say that they sustained significant losses when Evergreen liquidated the Ultra Short Fund four years ago after the defendants’ alleged scam collapsed. By settling, however, no one is agreeing to or denying any wrongdoing.

Meantime, seeking to generally move investors’ claims forward faster, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority has launched a pilot arbitration program that will specifically deal with securities cases of $10 million and greater. The program was created because of the growing number of very big cases.

Netherlands Offers Jurisdiction To Class Actions Securities Cases for US Citizens and Others Who Cannot Obtain Redress Domestically

Published on: April 3, 2012 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Ever since the US Supreme Court ruled in Morrison et al v National Australia Bank Ltd et al that claimants not residing in the United States or American citizens who purchased shares on a foreign exchange can’t settle or litigate their case in the US, these parties have been seeking other jurisdictions to get their claims resolved. Recently, the Netherlands has stepped in to provide this needed alternative.

It was earlier this year that the Amsterdam Court of Appeal accepted jurisdiction to preside over a class action securities settlement involving Zurich Financial Services (ZFS) subsidiary Converium Holding shares. The involvement of Dutch shareholders’ association VEB and Stichting Converium Securities Compensation Foundation was enough for court jurisdiction to be granted even though not a lot of the class members reside in the Netherlands. (The appeals court used the Dutch Act on the Collective Settlement of Mass Claims to grant jurisdiction). As a result, about 10,000 institutional and individual investors who sustained financial losses when they invested in Converium stock outside the US were able to share $58.4 million, minus legal fees.

There was a class action settlement that was declared in the US that awarded $84.6 million to a smaller group of class members. However, only US persons and those that bought their Converium securities on any exchange were allowed to participate in the class, which was certified by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.

Texas Securities Fraud: State Law Class Action in R. Allen Stanford’s Ponzi Scam Not Barred by SLUSA

Published on: March 28, 2012 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

In a reversal of a district court’s decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled that the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act does not bar the investor state law class action lawsuit that was filed by victims of R. Allen Stanford’s Ponzi scheme. The case is Roland v. Green.

The appeals court said that the state court securities lawsuits, which are claiming common law and statutory violations, could go forward because the alleged fraud is only tangentially related to the buying and selling of covered securities under SLUSA. Four complaints are on appeal. In each case, investors submitted state court actions that charged a number of defendants with misleading them into using their individual retirement accounts to invest in Stanford International Bank-issued certificate of deposits that have since proved worthless. Investors have lost $7 billion in Stanford’s Ponzi scam.

The defendants had the lawsuits moved to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, which found that SLUSA precluded the claims because of their connection to a covered security. Under SLUSA, state class actions claiming fraud related to the sale or purchase of a covered security are barred. The district court judge in Dallas had dismissed the cases because Stanford marketed the CDs as regulated and securities-backed and because certain investors had sold securities to finance their purchase of the CDs, this, placed the CD-related suits under SLUSA.

Institutional Investor Fraud Roundup: Decline in Securities Class Action Settlements, ESMA Recognizes US Credit Rating Agency Framework, and Court Dismisses Securities Lawsuit Against Mecox Lane

Published on: March 24, 2012 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

According to a report published by Cornerstone Research, there has been a decline not just in the number of securities class action settlements that the courts have approved, but also in the value of the settlements. There were 65 approved class action settlements for $1.4 billion in 2011, which, per the report, is the lowest number of settlements (and corresponding dollars) reached. That’s 25% less than in 2010 and over 35% under the average for the 10 years prior. The report analyzed agreed-upon settlement amounts, as well as disclosed the values of noncash components. (Attorneys’ fees, additional related derivative payments, SEC/other regulatory settlements, and contingency settlements were not part of this examination.)

The average reported settlement went down from $36.3 million in 2010 to $21 million last year. The declines are being attributed to a decrease in “mega” settlements of $100 million or greater. There was also a reported 40% drop in media “estimated damages,” which is the leading factor in figuring out settlement amounts. Also, according to the report, over 20% of the cases that were settled last year did not involve claims made under the 1934 Securities Exchange Act Rule 10b-5, which tends to settle for higher figures than securities claims made under Sections 11 or 12(a)(2).

Our securities fraud law firm represents institutional investors with individual claims against broker-dealers, investment advisors, and others. Filing your own securities arbitration claim/lawsuit and working with an experienced stockbroker fraud lawyer gives you, the claimant, a better chance of recovering more than if you had filed with a class.

Prospective Securities Class Action Lawsuit Accuses David Lerner Associates Inc. Accused of Recycling Investor Capital and Using a Credit Line to Meet Dividend Payout

Published on: September 30, 2011 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

According to Investment News, the amended complaint of a prospective securities class action case is claiming that the nontraded REITs sold by David Lerner Associates Inc. used investor distributions and borrowed from a credit line to fulfill the targeted dividend payout. The broker-dealer is accused by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority of giving out performance figures for its APPLE REITs while implying that investments in the future would likely render similar result. FINRA is suing financial firm for securities fraud and marketing unsuitable products to investors. The investors filed their securities fraud complaints soon after. They are now waiting for their class action status to be approved.

Per the amended complaint, David Lerner brokers told clients that Apple REITs were low risk investments that would shield their savings from any stock market turbulence. Also, not only was the amount of distribution that investors were paid not equal the income earned from the Apple REITs, which had mostly invested in Hilton and Marriott hotels that offered extended stays, but also, clients were allegedly promised consistent yearly returns of 7-8%.

Although David Lerner had represented that cash flow would be the basis for distributions, offering documents said that distributions from other sources could only occur on occasion and in “certain circumstances.” The complaint accuses the broker-dealer and other defendants of issuing distributions without taking profitability into account while obtaining properties at prices that could not be justified considering the distributions that were being paid.

David Lerner Associates denies the plaintiffs’ allegations. The broker-dealer and its brokers earned $341.5 million in commissions and Apple REITs sales. They also earned a 2.5% marketing expense.

Investors had filed two class actions against David Lerner this summer. They had purchased $5.7 billion in Apple REIT offerings from the financial firm’s brokers. Plaintiffs are accusing the broker-dealer of targeting inexperienced and elderly investors, leaving out key information about how the trusts were run, misrepresenting the REITs value, and failing to reveal the risks involved.

Nontraded REITs
Nontraded real-estate investment trusts gather cash from investors to purchase property. They pay the rental income as a regular dividend. Last year alone, they took in approximately $8.3 billion in investments.

Earlier this month, FINRA put out a warning to investors that they carefully consider the risks involved in investing in nontraded REITs. The SRO cautioned that some risks are not immediately obvious and may not properly explained by financial firms.

The Apple REITs were sold and written by David Lerner, which has opened and sold over 120,000 accounts involving these.

Read the Complaint (PDF)

Lerner resorted to tricks to plump up Apple distributions: Suit, Investment News, October 14, 2011
Apple REIT investors could trade bad for worse, MarketWatch, July 21, 2011
Finra Sues David Lerner Firm, The Wall Street Journal, June 1, 2011
Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas LTD LLP Investigates Claims Concerning David Lerner Associates’ Sale of Apple REITs, Globnewswire, August 3, 2011

More Blog Posts:
David Lerner & Associates Ignored Suitability of REITs When Recommending to Investors, Claims FINRA, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, June 8, 2011
Ameriprise Must Pay $17 Million for REIT Fraud, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, July 12, 2009
W.P. Carey & Co Settles SEC Charges Over Payments of Undisclosed REIT Compensation, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, March 25, 2008 Continue Reading ›

Class Action Securities Case Accusing SunTrust Banks of Faulty Financial Disclosures Can Proceed

Published on: September 27, 2011 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

A district court has ruled that Belmont Holdings Corp. v. SunTrust Banks Inc., a putative class securities action claiming that a 2008 SunTrust (STI) securities’ offerings documents contained faulty financial disclosures, can proceed. According to Judge William Duffey Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, investors’ claims made against SunTrust and affiliates, and a number of underwriters, and Sections 11 and 12(a)(2) of the 1933 Securities Act are enough for moving forward with the case. The statutory provisions place liability on specific participants in a securities offering where these documents have material omissions and misstatements.

Per the court, SunTrust put out securities that were pursuant to a registration statement. This was done as amended by a prospectus supplement, which incorporates by reference SunTrust’s 2007 Form 10-K. In their initial securities lawsuit, the plaintiffs argued that when the offering was made three years ago, the US housing market was in chaos. To raise funds, SunTrust allegedly put out the securities and a prospectus supplement that included misleading and false information about is reserves, capital, and ability to manage risk.

As a result, investors were misled about the degree of risky loans that SunTrust was exposed to in the housing market. An amended complaint was submitted by the plaintiff pushing forward similar claims that were made in the first lawsuit. However, clarifying allegations supporting the claim that the prospectus supplement was misleading because it failed to adequately disclose SunTrust’s ALLL and because the financial firm’s loss reserves were not enough to cover its loan losses were also included with this lawsuit.

The plaintiff contends that SunTrust knew that it used flaw financial information that would lead to misleading information being added to its prospectus supplement. This flawed information was allegedly used to determine loan loss reserves, ALLL, and loan loss.

Because the court determined that there is sufficient grounds to allege that SunTrust defendants “did not truly believe” the Provision and ALLL that were disclosed, the plaintiff was able to sufficiently allege plausible claims. The court said that claims against the underwriter defendants can also proceed. Except for a few exceptions, claims against outsider auditor Ernst & Young can also move forward.

If you have been the victim of securities fraud, you may be able to recover your losses from the negligent party. The best way to do this is to work with an experienced securities fraud attorney. Your case may be able to be resolved in arbitration or in court.

More Blog Posts:
Investor May Proceed With Suit Alleging Faulty Financial Disclosures by SunTrust, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, August 6, 2011

Wells Fargo Settles Mortgage-Backed Securities Class Action Case for $125M, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, July 19, 2011

8/31/11 is Deadline for Opting Out of $100M Oppenheimer Mutual Funds Class Action Settlement, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, August 17, 2011

8/31/11 is Deadline for Opting Out of $100M Oppenheimer Mutual Funds Class Action Settlement

Published on: August 17, 2011 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Our securities fraud lawyers would like to remind you that if you want to opt out of the $100M class action settlement with Oppenheimer Mutual Funds you have to do so by August 31, 2011. OppenheimerFunds Inc. agreed to pay that amount over accusations that it mismanaged its Oppenheimer Champion Fund (OCHBX, OPCHX and OCHCX) and its Oppenheimer Core Bond Fund (OPIGX). The class action was filed by investors accusing OppenheimerFunds of misrepresenting in its offering documents the degree of risk involved in complex securitized instruments, including mortgage-backed securities and credit default swaps.

Under the class action agreement, Champion Fund investors are to be paid $52.5 million. Core Bond investors are to receive $47.5 million. While this amount may seem like a lot, with thousands of class action claimants, Core Bund Fund investors will likely receive approximately 12 cents on the dollar, while Champion Fund investors will receive about 3 cents on the dollar.

This is not a lot of money for your losses, which is why you may want to seriously consider opting out of the class action and pursuing your own securities lawsuit or arbitration claim. Please contact our stockbroker fraud law firm today and ask for your free case evaluation.

You have until August 31, 2011 to send a written exclusion to the class counsel. Your letter cannot be postmarked after the deadline. Failure to opt out will prevent you from filing your own case at a later today. You should, however, get your share of the settlement.

OppenheimerFunds is a Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Company subsidiary. Defendants of the class action were charged with violating the Investment Company Act of 1940 and the Securities Act of 1933.

The Oppenheimer Core Bond Fund lost at least 33% of its value in 2008. During the first three months of 2009 it lost another 10%. The bond was promoted as appropriate for and offered by a number of 529 college savings plans, a number of annuities, and retirement plans. The Champion Fund lost about 80% of its value in 2008.

While staying part of a class action in a securities case may appear to be the easy way to recover your investment losses, this is truly not the case. Why should you get back so much left when you’ve lost so much?

By retaining the services of an experienced securities fraud law firm, you increase your chances of recovering the maximum amount possible. We know how devastating it can be to lose money that you have worked so hard for and saved.

OppenheimerFunds Settles Mismanagement Case for $100 Million, Bloomberg Businessweek, July 26, 2011
OppenheimerFunds to pay $100 million to settle mismanagement case, Denver Post, July 27, 2011
More Blog Posts:
Mortgage-Backed Securities Lawsuit Against Bank of America’s Merrill Lynch Now a Class Action Case, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, June 25, 2011
Class Members of Charles Schwab Corporation Securities Litigation Can Still Opt Out to File Individual Securities Claim, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, December 6, 2010
Wells Fargo Settles Mortgage-Backed Securities Class Action Case for $125M, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, July 19, 2011 Continue Reading ›

Investors in Oppenheimer Mutual Funds Considering Opting Out of $100M Class Action Settlement Have Until August 31

Published on: August 6, 2011 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Recently, our stockbroker fraud law firm reported on the $100 million class action settlement that Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Co.’s OppenheimerFunds Inc. has agreed to pay to settle allegations that it did not properly manage its Oppenheimer Core Bond Fund (OPIGX) and Oppenheimer Champion Fund (OCHBX, OPCHX and OCHCX). The securities case was brought by investors who claimed that the offering documents and sales pitches misrepresented the risks involved in credit default swaps (CDS), mortgage-backed securities (MBS), and other complex securitized financial instruments. Instead, they contend that the funds were marketed and sold as high yielding, diversified, and conservative investments.

The Champion Fund would go on to lose about 80% of its value in 2008. (55% was lost just in November of that year.) The Core Bond Fund lost 33%. (Compare that to the rest of its peer group, which lost 5%.) As a result, Champion Fund investors sustained extremely significant financial losses and Core Bond investors also suffered.

The class action settlement distributes the $100 million between the two groups of mutual fund investors. While Core Bond investors will get $47.5 million, Champion investors are slated to receive $52.5 million. The Boards of Trustees for the funds have already given their approval. However, even in settling, OppenheimerFunds is not admitting to any wrongdoing. Its spokesperson has said that the proposed settlement is in the best interests of its Funds’ shareholders.