Articles Posted in Collateralized Debt Obligations

Citigroup’s $285M Mortgage-Related CDO Settlement with Raises Concerns About SEC’s Enforcement Practices for Judge Rakoff

Published on: November 9, 2011 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

In Federal District Court today, Judge Jed S. Rakoff expressed concerns about the $285M securities settlement that Citigroup had reached with the Securities Exchange Commission. The financial firm was accused selling $1B in high-risk mortgage-linked collateralized debt obligation that it allegedly knew were at risk of failing. A federal judge must approve the settlement.

Rakoff is the same judge that wouldn’t approve Bank of America’s $33M securities settlement with the SEC for allegedly misleading investors. He later approved a revised settlement of $150 million.

At today’s hearing over the Citigroup deal, Rakoff said the settlement raises issues of concerns about the SEC’s enforcement practices. Approving the agreement would close the case on regulators’ claims that the financial firm.

While Rakoff has not yet made a decision about whether he will approve the settlement, he did question whether the SEC had any genuine desire to find out exactly what happened rather than just settling up. The SEC allows parties to settle without denying or admitting to any wrongdoing. Rakoff also raised concerns about the banks often break the promise they make when settling that they won’t violate securities laws in the future. This is the fifth time that Citigroup has settled securities claims with the SEC over alleged civil fraud. Rakoff also raised questions about why the bank’s settlement involves just a $95 million penalty when investors’ are estimated to have lost $700 million on the CDO.

Even though Citigroup didn’t jump into subprime mortgage loan packaging, it got involved in the housing boom just as that was reaching its heights As the market collapsed, Citigroup sustained over $30 billion in losses, and the government had to bail the bank out twice.

Last year, the financial firm consented to pay $75 million over allegations that it intentionally didn’t notify investors that their investment in the subprime mortgage market were declining in value when the financial crisis hit. Citigroup has since reorganized its risk management function

Citigroup’s $285M Settlement
The SEC claims Citigroup misled clients over a $1 billion derivatives deal involving Class V Funding III, which is a collateralized debt obligation. Not only did the financial firm select the portfolio but it also bet against it. Investors were not told of Citigroup’s conflicting allegiances and they sustained huge losses. Meantime, Citigroup made $126 million from taking a short position against the CDO’s assets, as well as another $34 million in fees.

Judge in Citigroup Mortgage Settlement Criticizes S.E.C.’s Enforcement, NY Times, November 9, 2011

Judge Dredd may scotch $285M Citi settlement: Attorney, Investment News, November 8, 2011

More Blog Posts:
Citigroup to Pay $285M to Settle SEC Lawsuit Alleging Securities Fraud in $1B Derivatives Deal, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, October 20, 2011

FDIC Objects to Bank of America’s Proposed $8.5B Settlement Over Mortgage-Backed Securities, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, August 30, 2011

Bank of America and Countrywide Financial Sued by Allstate over $700M in Bad Mortgaged-Backed Securities, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, December 29, 2010

Retirement Fund’s CDO Lawsuit Against Morgan Stanley is Dismissed by District Court

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

A district court judge has dismissed a securities fraud lawsuit filed by the Employees’ Retirement System of the Government of the Virgin Islands against Morgan Stanley (MS). The investor complaint, submitted in 2009, accused the financial firm of defrauding investors.

The pension fund had purchased the notes as part of a CDO that was marketed and set up by Morgan Stanley. The plaintiffs believe that the financial firm worked with Standard & Poor’s and Moody’s Investor Services to set up “false and misleading Triple-A credit ratings” for the notes. Because the high ratings, the plaintiffs bought the notes at a price that was inflated. The fund contends that the financial firm knew that in fact Morgan Stanley had insider information that the MBS underlying the notes were a lot riskier than they were led to believe and came from lenders that employed flawed underwriting standards. Many of notes were downgraded to junk by the end of 2007. The plaintiffs said the firm purposely got investors to get behind the CDO because it was taking a short position on underlying assets.

The portfolio, which was 92% residential mortgage-backed securities and was backed by $1.2 billion in assets, was exposed to $100 million from New Century Mortgage Corp. and over $130 million in loans from Option One Mortgage Corp. According to the retirement fund, the two homebuyers had poor credit scores. The Libertas collateralized debt obligation went into credit-default swaps, which referenced specific residential MBS.

Per U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, the Virgin Islands government pension fund did not adequately plead that Morgan Stanley misled it about the quality of the MBS that were underlying the Libertas CDO. Judge Barbara S. Jones, said the plaintiffs failed to state a fraud claim because its pleadings were not successful in alleging that Morgan Stanley made misstatements about the credit ratings of notes based on the underlying mortgage-backed securities. Also, the court noted that it wasn’t Morgan Stanley that issued the ratings or the statements in the CDO’s operating memorandum disclosures. Because of this, the court said that the plaintiff could not allege that Morgan Stanley had issued to it a materially false statement.

Shepherd Smith Edwards and Kantas founder and securities fraud attorney William Shepherd said, “Our law firm has been successful in maintaining similar cases in arbitration or state courts. I am curious as to just how and why this case was filed, or otherwise ended-up, in a federal court. Pleading requirements under federal securities laws are problematic, and there are a number of other hurdles one must overcome in federal court proceedings. There is no private right of action available under New York’s securities statute (The Martin Act). Other types of claims may be pursued under NY state law.”

Morgan Stanley Wins Dismissal of Virgin Islands Pension Fund’s CDO Lawsuit, Bloomberg, September 30, 2011

More Blog Posts:

Stifel, Nicolaus & Co. and Former Executive Faces SEC Charges Over Sale of CDOs to Five Wisconsin School Districts, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, August 10, 2011

Some of the SEC Charges Against Investment Adviser Over Alleged Involvement In J.P. Morgan Securities LLC Collateralized Debt Obligation Are Dismissed

Published on: September 24, 2011 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York has thrown out some of the Securities and Exchange Commission charges against GSCP (NJ) managing director Edward Steffelin for his alleged involvement in a JP Morgan Securities LLC collateralized debt obligation deal. GSCP (NJ) was the collateral manager for the CDO transaction.

While JP Morgan Securities settled for $153.6 million the SEC’s allegations that it misled investors about the CDO deal by agreeing to pay $153.6 million, Steffelin opted to fight the charges. He claimed that there was no reason for him to think that the CDO offering documents were problematic. He argued that nothing had been left out and nobody was “defrauded.”

In district court, Judge Miriam Goldman Cedarbaum granted Steffelin’s motion to dismiss the SEC’s 1933 Securities Act Section 17(a)(3) claims against him. Per the Act, any person involved in the sale or offer of securities is prevented from taking part in any transaction or practice that would deceive or be an act of fraud against the buyer. Cedarbaum said it would be a “big stretch” to conclude that Steffelin owed the investors that bought the CDO a fiduciary duty. However, she decided not to throw out the SEC’s securities claims related to the 1940 Investment Advisers Act, which has sections that make it unlawful to sell or offer securities to get property or money as a result of an omission or material misstatement. The act also prevents investment advisers from taking part in a transaction or practice that performs a deception or fraud on a client.

The SEC’s charges revolved around a JPM-structured CDO called Squared CDO 2007-1. It mainly included credit default swaps that referred to other CDOs linked to the housing market. Per the Squared CDO’s marketing collaterals, GSCP was noted as the one choosing the portfolio’s deals. What wasn’t included in the disclosure was the fact that Magnetar Capital LLC, a hedge fund, played a key part in choosing the CDOs and had a short position in over 50% of the assets. This meant that Magneta Capital stood to gain financially if the CDO portfolio failed.

JP Morgan Securities is JP Morgan Chase affiliate. Under the terms of its $153.6 million settlement, the financial firm agreed to fully pay back all monies that investors lost. By agreeing to settle, JP Morgan Securities did not admit to or deny wrongdoing. Other large financial firms that have settled SEC securities fraud cases related to CDOs in the last 16 months include Citigroup, which recently reached a $250 million settlement and Goldman Sachs, which settled its case with the SEC last year for $550 million.

More Blog Posts:
Citigroup’s $285M Mortgage-Related CDO Settlement with Raises Concerns About SEC’s Enforcement Practices for Judge Rackoff, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, November 9, 2011

Retirement Fund’s CDO Lawsuit Against Morgan Stanley is Dismissed by District Court, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, October 27, 2011

Stifel, Nicolaus & Co. and Former Executive Faces SEC Charges Over Sale of CDOs to Five Wisconsin School Districts, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, August 10, 2011

***This post has been backdated.

Stifel, Nicolaus & Co. and Former Executive Faces SEC Charges Over Sale of CDOs to Five Wisconsin School Districts

Published on: August 10, 2011 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The SEC is charging Stifel, Nicolaus & Co. and its former Senior Vice President David W. Noack with securities fraud over the sale of unsuitable, high-risk complex investments to 5 Wisconsin school districts. Stifel and Noack allegedly misrepresented the risks involved in investing $200 million in synthetic collateralized debt obligations (CDOs) and did not disclose certain material facts. The investments proved a “complete failure.”

The Five Wisconsin School Districts:
• Kimberly Area School District • Kenosha Unified School District No. 1 • School District of Waukesha • School District of Whitefish Bay • West Allis-West Milwaukee School District

All five school districts are suing Stifel and Royal Bank of Canada in civil court. Robert Kantas, partner of Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas LTD LLP, is one of the attorneys representing the school districts in their civil case against Stifel and RBC. Attorneys for the school districts issued the following statement:

“We believe that Stifel, Royal Bank of Canada and the other defendants defrauded the five Wisconsin school districts, along with trusts set up to make these investments. In 2006, these defendants devised, solicited and sold $200 million ‘synthetic collateralized debt obligations’ (CDOs), which were both volatile and complex, to these districts and trusts. While represented as safe investments, these were in fact very high risk securities, which were wholly unsuitable for the districts and trusts. In an attempt to protect taxpayers and residents, the districts hired attorneys and other professionals to investigate the investments and the potential for fraud. Then, with a goal of seeking full recovery of the monies lost in this scheme, a lawsuit was filed in Milwaukee County Circuit Court in 2008 to seek fully recovery of the losses and maintain and protect valuable credit ratings of these districts. To date, more than 3 million pages of documents have been obtained and examined by the attorneys for the districts. The districts also properly reported to the SEC the nature and extent of the wrongdoing uncovered. Over the past year, they have provided the SEC with volumes of documents and information to facilitate its investigation.”

In its complaint filed in federal court today, the SEC says that Stifel and Noack set up a proprietary program to assist the school districts in funding retiree benefits through the investments of notes linked to the performance of CDOs. The school districts invested $200 million with trusts they set up in 2006. $162.7 million was paid for with borrowed funds.

The SEC contends that Stifel and Noack, who both earned substantial fees even though the investments failed completely, took advantage of their relationships with the school districts and acted fraudulently when they sold financial products that were inappropriate for the latter. The brokerage firm and its executive also likely were aware that the school districts weren’t experienced or sophisticated enough to be able to evaluate the risks associated with investing in the CDOs. Both also likely knew that the school districts could not afford to suffer such catastrophic losses if their investments were to fail. Despite this, says the SEC, Noack and Stifel assured the school districts that for the investments to collapse there would have to be “15 Enrons.” They also allegedly failed to reveal certain material facts to the school districts, including that:

• The first transaction in the portfolio did poorly from the beginning.
• Within 36 days of closing, credit rating agencies had placed 10% of the portfolio on negative watch.
• There were CDO providers who said they wouldn’t participate in Stifel’s proprietary program because they were worried about the risks involved.

The SEC claims that Stifel and Noack violated the:

• Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Section (10b))
• The Securities Act of 1933 (Section 17(a))
• The Securities Act of 1934 (Section 15(c)(1)(A))

The Commission is seeking, permanent injunctions, disgorgement of ill-gotten gains, financial penalties, and prejudgment interest.

Related Web Resources:
SEC Charges Stifel, Nicolaus & Co. and Executive with Fraud in Sale of Investments to Wisconsin School District, SEC.gov, August 10, 2011
SEC Sues Stifel Over Wisconsin School Losses Tied to $200 Million of CDOs, Bloomberg, August 10, 2011
Read the SEC Complaint (PDF)

School Lawsuit Facts

More Blog Posts:
Wisconsin School Districts Sue Royal Bank of Canada and Stifel Nicolaus and Co. in Lawsuit Over Credit Default Swaps, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, October 7, 2008
SEC Inquiring About Wisconsin School Districts Failed $200 Million CDO Investments Made Through Stifel Nicolaus and Royal Bank of Canada Subsidiaries, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, June 11, 2010 Continue Reading ›

SEC Charges Filed Against Stifel, Nicolaus & Co. and Former Sr. VP David Noack Over CDO Sales to Wisconsin School Districts

Published on: August 10, 2011 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Three years after five Wisconsin school districts filed their securities fraud lawsuit against Stifel, Nicolaus & Company and the Royal Bank of Canada, the Securities and Exchange Commission has filed charges against the brokerage firm and former Stifel Senior Vice President David W. Noack over the same allegations. The charges stem from losses related to the sale of $200 million in high-risk synthetic collateralized debt obligations (CDOs) to the Wisconsin school districts of West Allis-West Milwaukee School District, the School District of Whitefish Bay, the Kimberly Area School District, the School District of Waukesha, and the Kenosha Unified School District No. 1.

The SEC says that not only were the CDOs inappropriate for the school districts that would not have been able to afford it if the investments failed, but also the brokerage firm did not disclose certain material facts or the risks involved. The school districts are pleased that the SEC has decided to file securities charges.

Robert Kantas, partner of Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas LTD LLP, is one of the attorneys representing the school districts in their civil case against Stifel and RBC. Attorneys for the school districts issued the following statement:

“It is our belief that the five Wisconsin school districts and the trusts established to make these investments were defrauded by Stifel, Royal Bank of Canada and the other defendants. Contrary to the way they were represented, the $200 million CDOs that were devised, solicited, and sold by the defendants to our clients in 2006 were volatile, complex, extremely high risk, and totally inappropriate for them. To protect residents and taxpayers, the districts later hired lawyers and others to investigate the investments and their fraud risk. Unfortunately, the failure of the investments did result in losses for the school districts, which in 2008 filed their Wisconsin securities fraud complaint in Milwaukee County Circuit Court. The school districts’ goal was to obtain full recovery of the monies lost in this scheme, while protecting and maintaining the districts’ valuable credit ratings. The districts’ lawyers have already examined three million pages of documents regarding in this matter. Meantime, the districts have taken the proper steps to report to the SEC the nature and extent of the wrongdoing uncovered. In the past year, the districts have given the SEC volumes of documents and information for its investigation.”

The school districts had invested the $200 million ($162.7 million was borrowed) in notes that were tied to the performance of synthetic CDOs. This was supposed to help them fund retiree benefits. According the SEC, however, Stifel and Noack set up a proprietary program to facilitate all of this even though they knew that they were selling products that were inappropriate for the school districts and their investment needs.

Stifel and Noack allegedly told the school districts it would take “15 Enrons” for the investments to fail, while misrepresenting that 30 of the 105 companies in the portfolio would have to default and that 100 of the world’s leading 800 companies would have to fail for the school districts to lose their principal. The SEC claims that the synthetic CDOs and the heavy use of leverage actually exposed the school districts to a high risk of catastrophic loss.

By 2010, the school districts’ second and third investments were totally lost and the lender took all of the trusts’ assets. In addition to losing everything they’d invested, the school districts experienced downgrades in their credit ratings because they didn’t put more money in the funds that they had set up. Meantime, despite the fact that the investments failed completely, Stifel and Noack still earned significant fees.

The SEC is alleging that Noack and Stifel violated the:
• The Securities Act of 1933 (Section 17(a))
• Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Section (10b))
• The Securities Act of 1934 (Section 15(c)(1)(A))

The Commission wishes to seek disgorgement of ill-gotten gains along with prejudgment interest, permanent injunctions, and financial penalties.

Related Web Resources:
SEC Charges Stifel, Nicolaus & Co. and Executive with Fraud in Sale of Investments to Wisconsin School Districts, SEC.gov, August 10, 2011

SEC Sues Stifel Over Wisconsin School Losses Tied to $200 Million of CDOs, Bloomberg, August 10, 2011

Read the SEC Complaint

School Lawsuit Facts

More Blog Posts:
Stifel, Nicolaus & Co. and Former Executive Faces SEC Charges Over Sale of CDOs to Five Wisconsin School Districts, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, August 10, 2011

JP Morgan Settles for $153.6M SEC Charges Over Its Marketing of Synthetic Collateralized Debt Obligation, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, June 18, 2011

Wells Fargo Settles SEC Securities Fraud Allegations Over Sale of Complex Mortgage-Backed Securities by Wachovia for $11.2, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, April 7, 2011

JP Morgan Settles for $153.6M SEC Charges Over Its Marketing of Synthetic Collateralized Debt Obligation

Published on: June 18, 2011 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

J.P. Morgan Securities LLC (JPM) has consented to pay $153.6 million to settle Securities and Exchange Commission charges that it misled investors in 2007 when it marketed a synthetic collateralized debt obligation that was linked to the US housing market. The financial firm also agreed to a permanent bar from future violations of the 1933 Securities Act and to bettering its business practices related to mortgage securities transactions. By agreeing to settle, JP Morgan is not denying or admitting to the allegations. The settlement, however, should allow investors to get a “full return” on their losses.

The SEC says that the brokerage firm mainly used credit default swaps that referenced other CDO securities tied to the housing market to structure the Squared CDO 2007-1. While the CDO’s marketing collateral said that GSCP, GSC Capital Corp.’s investment advisory arm, chose the deal’s investment portfolio, investors were not notified that hedge fund Magnetar Capital LLC played a key part in choosing the portfolio’s CDOs and or that it would benefit if the CDO assets defaulted.

The Commission also claims that when JP Morgan discovered in early 2007 that it could sustain huge losses because the housing market was in peril, it started marketing the deal to investors outside its regular client base. Less than a year later, the securities had lost the majority, if not all, of their value.

The SEC’s complaint accuses the investment bank of selling approximately $150 million of “mezzanine notes” of the Squared deal to over a dozen institutional investors who consequently lost their investments. Also, when the Squared deal was shut in May 2007, Magnetar’s short position was $600 million while its long position was $8.9 million.

J.P. Morgan to Pay $153.6 Million to Settle SEC Charges of Misleading Investors in CDO Tied to U.S. Housing Market, SEC, June 21, 2011

More Blog Posts:
Washington Mutual Bank Bondholders’ Securities Fraud Lawsuit Against J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. is Revived by Appeals Court, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, June 29, 2011

National Credit Union Administration Board Files $800M Mortgage-Backed Securities Fraud Lawsuits Against JP Morgan Securities, RBS Securities, and Other Financial Institutions, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, June 23, 2011

JP Morgan Chase Agrees to Pay $861M to Lehman Brothers Trustee, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, June 28, 2011

Wells Fargo Settles SEC Securities Fraud Allegations Over Sale of Complex Mortgage-Backed Securities by Wachovia for $11.2M

Published on: April 7, 2011 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

For a payment of $11.2 million, Wells Fargo & Co. will settle US Securities and Exchange Commission allegations that Wachovia Capital Markets LLC misled investors and improperly sold two collateralized debt obligations in 2007 and 2006. Wachovia was bought by Wells Fargo in 2008.

Wells Fargo Securities now manages Wachovia. By agreeing to settle, the investment bank is not admitting to or denying the findings.

According to the SEC, Wachovia Capital Markets LLC, now called Wells Fargo Securities, violated securities law anti-fraud provisions when it sold the complex mortgage-backed securities to investors despite the red flags indicating that there was trouble brewing with the US housing market.

The SEC says that Wachovia charged excessive markups in the sale of part of a $1.5 billion CDO called Grand Avenue II. Unable to sell the CDOs $5.5 million equity portion in October 2006, it kept the shares on the trading desk while dropping their value to 52.7 cents on the dollar. Wachovia later sold the shares for 90 and 95 cents on the dollar to an individual investor and the Zuni Indian tribe. Both did not know that they had purchased the shares at a price that was 70% above their accounting value. The transaction went into default in 2008.

The SEC claims that in 2007, Wachovia Capital Markets misrepresented to investors in Longshore 3, a $1.3 billion CDO, that assets had been acquired from Wachovia affiliates on an “arms’-length basis” when actually, 40 residential mortgage-backed securities were transferred at $4.6 million over market prices. The SEC contends that Wachovia was trying to avoid sustaining losses by transferring the assets at “stale” prices.

Related Web Resources:

Wells Fargo-Wachovia settles CDO claim with SEC for $11 million, Housing Wire, April 5, 2011

CDO News, New York Times

Mortgage-Backed Securities, SEC.gov

More Blog Posts:

Houston Man Indicted in Alleged $17M Texas Securities Fraud, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, December 23, 2010

Goldman Sachs COO Says Investment Firm Shorted 1% of CDOs Mortgage Bonds But Didn’t Bet Against Clients, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, July 14, 2010

Goldman Sachs Sued by ACA Financial Guaranty Over Failed Abacus Investment for $120M

Published on: January 10, 2011 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

ACA Financial Guaranty Corporation is seeking $90 million in punitive damages and $30 million in compensatory damages from Goldman Sachs over its failed Abacus investment. The insurer contends that the broker-dealer sold a mortgage-backed investment that was designed to fail, causing investors to lose $1 billion.

ACA says that not only did it spend $15 million insuring Abacus, but also that the investment caused it to lose $30 million. The insurer contends that Goldman deceived it into thinking that hedge fund manager John Paulson also had invested in Abacus, when allegedly, the point of the flawed investment was so that Paulson & Co. could make huge profits by shorting the portfolio and the broker-dealer would then earn large investment banking fees.

ACA says that the Abacus 2007-AC1 collateralized debt obligation investment was already “was worthless” when Goldman marketed it to the insurer. Not only did ACA insure the underlying portfolio’s super-senior parts for $909 million, but also it purchased Abacus notes worth millions of dollars. Goldman hired ACA asset-management unit ACA Management LLC as “portfolio selection agent” to choose the securities for the Abacus deal.

Goldman has already settled for $550 million the Securities and Exchange Commission’s securities case against it over the failed collateralized-debt obligation investment. SEC had accused the federal agency the investment bank and its employee Fabrice Tourre of failing to tell investors that Paulson was involved in choosing the securities for Abacus and wanted to bet against the portfolio. Goldman has since acknowledged that it had provided incomplete marketing materials and agreed to business practice reforms.

Related Web Resources:

UPDATE: ACA Financial Sues Goldman For Alleged Abacus-Related Fraud, Wall Street Journal/Dow Jones, January 6, 2011

Goldman Sach’s $550 Million Securities Fraud Settlement Not Tied to Financial Reform Bill, Says SEC IG, Institutional Investor Blog, October 27, 2010

$1 Billion Goldman Sachs Synthetic CDO Debacle a Reminder that Even Highly Sophisticated Investors Can Be Defrauded, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, April 30, 2010

Houston Man Indicted in Alleged $17M Texas Securities Fraud

Published on: December 23, 2010 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

A federal grand jury has indicted Adley Husni Abdulwahab on one count of conspiracy and five counts of Texas securities fraud in connection with an alleged $17 million investment scheme involving the sale of investments issued by W Financial Group. The Houston resident, who is also facing federal charges over an alleged $100 million life insurance scheme, is in custody in Virginia.

Abdulwahab is accused of conspiring with two other men, Michael Wallens, Sr., and Michael Wallens, Jr., to defraud investors in connection with the sales of Collateral Secured Debt Obligations (CSDOs). The three men reportedly received over $17 million from the sales of the promissory notes to over 180 investors.

The three men are accused of issuing a number of misstatements to investors, such as claiming that Republic Group and Lloyd’s of London had “reinsured” the CSDOs, which were not in fact insured. Offering materials made it appear as if the investors’ money were held in insured notes, cash, automotive receivables, or corporate or government AAA bonds, when the three men were actually spending the money. For example, investor money was used to buy Wallens Sr.’s used car dealership for over $300,000, invest in a power company and building company, buy residential lots, and compensate the three men. Wallens, Sr. And Wallens, Jr. have each pleaded guilty to one count of securities fraud.

Related Web Resources:
Houston-area man indicted in W. Financial Group securities fraud matter, Justice.gov, December 15, 2010
Texan indicted in alleged $17M securities fraud, Chron/AP, December 15, 2010
The Texas Securities Act

Securities Fraud Attorneys

Institutional Investors Securities Blogs
Continue Reading ›

Securities Fraud Lawsuit Against Citigroup Involving Mortgage-Related Risk Results in Mixed Ruling

Published on: November 30, 2010 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

According to a district court ruling, investors can proceed with certain securities fraud charges against Citigroup and a number of its directors over the alleged misrepresenting of the risks involved in mortgage-related investments (including auction-rate securities, collateralized debt obligations, Alt-A residential mortgage-backed securities, and structured investment vehicles). However, the majority of claims involving pleading inadequacies have been dismissed. The securities lawsuit seeks to represent persons that bought Citigroup common stock between January 2004 and January 15, 2009.

Current and ex-Citigroup shareholders have said that as a result of the securities fraud, which involved the misrepresentation of the risks involved via exposure to collateralized debt obligations, they ended up paying an inflated stock price. The plaintiffs are accusing several of the defendants of selling significant amounts of Citigroup stock during the class period. They also say that seven of the individual defendants certified the accuracy of certain Securities and Exchange Commission filings that were allegedly fraudulent. They plaintiffs are claiming that there were SEC filings that violated accounting rules because of the failure to report CDO exposure and value such holdings with accuracy.

The plaintiffs claim that the defendants intentionally hid the fact that billions of dollars in CDOs hadn’t been bought. They also said that defendants made misleading statements that did not properly make clear the subprime risks linked to the Citigroup CDO portfolio.

The defendants submitted a dismissal motion, which the court granted for the most part. Although the court is letting certain CDO-related claims to move forward, it agrees with the defense that because the plaintiffs failed to raise an inference of scienter before February 2007 (when the investment bank started buying insurance for its most high risk CDO holdings), the claims for that period cannot be maintained. The court also held that the plaintiffs failed to plead that seven of the individual defendants had been aware of Citigroup’s CDO operations. As a result, the court determined that there can be no finding of scienter in regards to the individuals.

The court, however, did that the plaintiffs adequately pleaded securities fraud claims against Citigroup, Gary Crittenden, Charles Prince, Thomas Maheras, Robert Druskin, David C. Bushnell, Michael Stuart Klein, and Robert Rubin for misstatements made about the bank’s CDO exposure between February and November 3, 2007. The plaintiffs also adequately pleaded securities fraud claims against Citigroup and Crittenden for Nov. 4, 2007, to April 2008 period.