Collateralized Debt Obligations

Financial Firms File Securities Fraud Lawsuits Against Each Other Over 2008 Credit and Subprime Crisis

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

In what one investment banking official is calling a “second wave” of securities litigation stemming from the credit and subprime crisis of 2008, financial firms are now suing other financial institutions for damages. While speaking on a Practising Law Institute panel, Morgan Stanley managing director D. Scott Tucker noted that this “second wave” is the “exact opposite of the first wave,” which was primarily brought by smaller pension funds or states claiming violations of the 1933 Securities Act and the 1934 Securities Exchange Act.

Tucker said that with this new wave, most of the plaintiffs are financial institutions, including investment managers and hedge funds, that are asserting common law fraud and making other state law claims. Also, these latest lawsuits are primarily individual cases, rather than class actions. The securities at the center of this latest wave of litigation are complex structured products, such as credit default swaps, collateralized debt obligations, and mortgage-backed securities, as well as complaints involving private placements and derivatives or securities that don’t trade on liquid markets.

Our securities fraud lawyers at Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas LTD LLP represent institutional investors who suffered financial losses because of their dealings with investment companies. Unlike other law firms, our stockbroker fraud lawyers will never represent brokerage firms.

Goldman Sachs Ordered by FINRA to Pay $650K Fine For Not Disclosing that Broker Responsible for CDO ABACUS 2007-ACI Was Target of SEC Investigation

Published on: November 12, 2010 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority says it is fining Goldman Sachs $650,000 for failing to disclose that the government was investigating two of its brokers. One of the brokers was Goldman vice president Fabrice Tourre. FINRA says Goldman did not have the proper procedures in place to make sure that this disclosure was made.

The SEC had accused Tourre of being “principally responsible” for Abacus 2007-AC1, a synthetic collateralized debt obligation, and selling the bonds to investors, who ended up losing more than $1 billion while Goldman yielded profits and hedge fund manager John A. Paulson made money from bets he placed against specific mortgage bonds. The SEC contends that Goldman failed to notify investors that Paulson had taken a short position against Abacus 2007-AC1. This summer, Goldman settled for $550 million SEC charges that it misled investors about this CDO, just as the housing market was collapsing.

Regarding Goldman’s failure to disclose that the SEC was investigating two of its brokers, even though investment firms are required to file a Form U4 within 30 days of finding out that a representative has received a Wells notice about the probe, FINRA says that Tourre’s U4 wasn’t amended until May 3, 2010. This date is more than 7 months after Goldman learned about his Well Notice and after the SEC filed its complaint against the investment bank and Tourre. FINRA also says that Goldman’s “employee manual” for brokers does not even specifically mention Wells Notices or the need for disclosure after one is received.

By agreeing to settle with FINRA, Goldman is not admitting to or denying the charges.

Goldman Sachs to Pay $650,000 for Failing to Disclose Wells Notices, FINRA, November 9, 2010
Related Web Resources:
Goldman Fined $650,000 for Lack of Disclosure, New York Times, November 9, 2010
Goldman Sachs Settles SEC Subprime Mortgage-CDO Related Charges for $550 Million,
Stockbroker Fraud Blog, July 30, 2010
Goldman Sachs, Institutional Investor Securities Blog Continue Reading ›

Goldman Sach’s $550 Million Securities Fraud Settlement Not Tied to Financial Reform Bill, Says SEC IG

Published on: October 27, 2010 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

According Securities and Exchange Commission Inspector General H. David Kotz, there is no evidence that the SEC’s enforcement action against Goldman Sachs or the $550 million securities fraud settlement that resulted are tied to the financial services reform bill. Kotz also noted that it does not appear that any agency person leaked any information about the ongoing investigation to the press before the case was filed last April. The SEC says that the IG’s report reaffirms that the complaint against Goldman was based only on the merits.

That said, Kotz did find that SEC staff failed to fully comply with the administrative requirement that they do everything possible to make sure that defendants not find out about any action against them through the media. Kotz notes that this, along with the failure to notify NYSE Reg[ulation] before filing the action and the fact that the action was filed during market hours caused the securities market to become more volatile that day. Goldman had settled the SEC’s charges related to its marketing of synthetic collateralized debt obligation connected to certain subprime mortgage-backed securities in 2007 on the same day that the Senate approved the financial reform bill.

Last April, several Republican congressman insinuated that politics may have been involved because the announcement of the case came at the same time that Democrats were pressing for financial regulatory reform. SEC Chairman Mary Schapiro denied the allegation.

Earlier this month, Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) wrote Schapiro asking to see an unredacted copy of the internal investigative report by the IG. Issa is the one who had pressed Kotz to examine the decision-making process behind the Goldman settlement. Issa’s spokesperson says the lawmaker is concerned that the SEC can redact parts of its IG reports before the public and Congress can see them. However, at a Senate Banking Committee last month, Kotz, said that the SEC redacts information because the data could impact the capital markets.

Related Web Resources:

Goldman Settles With S.E.C. for $550 Million, The New York Times, July 15, 2010

SEC’s Inspector General to Investigate Timing of Suit Against Goldman Sachs, Fox News, April 25, 2010

General H. David Kotz, SEC

Goldman Sachs International Fined $27M by UK’s FSA for Not Reporting SEC Investigation into Abacus 2007-AC1 Synthetic Collateralized Debt Obligation

Published on: October 7, 2010 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Goldman Sachs International has been ordered by the United Kingdom’s Financial Services Authority to pay $27 million. The FSA says that Goldman failed to notify it about the US Securities and Exchange Commission’s probe into the investment bank’s marketing of the Abacus 2007-AC1 synthetic collateralized debt obligation, a derivative product tied to subprime mortgages.

Goldman Sachs and Co. has settled the SEC’s case for a record $550 million dollars. However, even though Goldman knew for months in advance that SEC charges were likely, the investment bank did not notify regulators, shareholders, or clients.

FSA’s Enforcement and Financial Crime Managing Director Margaret Cole says that while GSI didn’t intentionally hide the information, it became obvious that the investment firm’s reporting systems and controls were defective and that this was why its ability to communicate with FSA was well below the level of communication expected. Cole says that large institutions need to remember that their reporting obligations to the FSA must stay a priority.

FSA contends that Goldman was in breach of FSA Principle 2, which says that a firm has to “conduct its business with due skill, care, and diligence,” FSA Principle 3, which talks about a firm’s responsibility to “organize and control its affairs responsibly and effectively, with adequate risk management systems,” and FSA Principle 11, which stresses a firm’s responsibility to disclose to the FSA that “of which it would reasonably expect notice.”

For example, Fabrice Tourre, a Goldman vice president that worked on the Abacus team and who became an FSA-approved person after he was transferred to GSI in London, was later slapped with SEC civil charges. Along with Goldman, the SEC accused Tourre of alleged misrepresentations and material omissions in the way the derivatives product was marketed and structured.

Cole notes that FSA was disappointed that even though senior members of GSI in London were aware that Tourre had received a Wells Notice that SEC charges were likely, they did not take into account the regulatory implications that this could have for the investment firm. Because of the failure to notify, Tourre ended up staying in the UK and continued to perform at a “controlled function for several months without further enquiry or challenge.”

Because FSA did not find that GSI purposely withheld information, the investment bank received a discount on the fine, reducing it from $38.5 million to the current amount.

Securities fraud lawsuits and investigations have followed in the wake of the SEC’s case against Goldman.

Related Web Resources:
FSA fines Goldman Sachs £17.5 million, Reuters, September 9, 2010

Goldman Sachs Settles SEC Subprime Mortgage-CDO Related Charges for $550 Million, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, July 30, 2010

Whistleblower Sues Moody’s Investors Service for Defamation

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

Ilya Eric Kolchinsky, a former Moody’s Investors Service executive, is suing the credit ratings agency for defamation. This is one of the first lawsuits involving a Wall Street company and an ex-employer that blew the whistle on it. Kolchinsky is seeking $15 million in damages in addition to legal fees.

Kolchinsky claims that Moody’s tried to ruin his reputation after he publicly talked about problems with its ratings model. Kolchinsky, who supervised the ratings that were given to subprime mortgage collateralized debt obligations (many of these did not live up to their triple-A ratings), testified before Congressional panels about his concerns. He addressed the potential conflicts that can arise as a result of the issuer-pay ratings model, which lets banks and borrowers that sell debt securities pay for ratings. He alleged securities fraud and claimed that the ratings agency placed profits ahead of doing their job. He also claimed that Moody’s lacked the resources to enforce its rules.

Kolchinsky contends that Moody’s began attacking him through the media and that the statements that the credit ratings firm issued have caused him to become “blacklisted by the private sector financial industry.” Moody’s suspended him last year. In his civil suit, Kolchinsky notes that he was attacked by the credit ratings agency even though it went on to adopt some of his recommendations.

The recently passed financial reform bill provides greater protections for whistleblowers while offering financial rewards for those brave enough to tell regulators about their concerns. However, it is unclear whether Kolchinsky’s complaint will benefit from the new law because his case involves alleged actions that occurred prior to the bill’s passing.

Related Web Resources:
Former Moody’s Executive Files Suit, New York Times, September 13, 2010
Exec who blew whistle on Moody’s ratings sues for defamation, Central Valley Business TImes, September 14, 2010
Wall Street Whistleblowers May Be Eligible to Collect 10 – 30% of Money that the Government Recovers, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, July 29, 2010 Continue Reading ›

Allegations Against Goldman Sachs in $56M Securities Fraud Lawsuit Meet Morrison Standard, Says Australian Hedge Fund

Published on: September 14, 2010 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Basis Yield Alpha Fund says that its $56 million securities fraud lawsuit against Goldman Sachs Group Inc. should go to trial. The Australian hedge fund contends that its securities complaint, which accuses the investment bank of inflating certain collateralized debt obligations’ value, meet the standard recently articulated by the US Supreme Court in Morrison v. National Australia Bank. Goldman, however, contends that the transactions and securities under dispute do not meet the Morrison standard.

In the Supreme Court’s ruling, The judges limited Section 10(b) of the 1934 Securities Exchange Act’s extraterritorial reach by determining that the law was applicable only to transactions involving securities that took place in the United States or were listed on US exchanges. Following the decision, a district court ordered Goldman and Basis to use Morrison for determining whether there is grounds to drop the case. Goldman submitted its motion to dismiss and noted that the securities in the CDOs were not included on any US exchange list and that the underlying agreements were subject to English law and executed in Australia.

Meantime, Basis is arguing that its case is a “quintessential” securities fraud case involving a US sales transaction. The Australian hedge fund, which invested $42 million in “Timberwolf,” an AAA-rated tranche, and $36 million in an AA-rated tranche of CDOs, maintains that the CDO assembled mortgage-backed securities in Timberwolf came from the subprime real estate market in the US and was a New York sales transaction from beginning to end. The hedge fund was forced into insolvency when after investing in Timberwolf the CDOs value dropped dramatically and the fund sustained over $50 million in losses.

Basis contends that Goldman’s effort to make the transaction an Australian one that is not subject to federal securities laws has no legal or factual basis. It argues that adopting Goldman’s theory would nullify US securities law whenever a US seller committed securities fraud when effecting the sale of a security to a foreign buyer.

Related Web Resources:
Basis Yield Alpha Fund v Goldman Sachs Complaint, Scribd

Timberwolf Lawsuit: Goldman Sachs Sued By Australian Hedge Fund Over ‘Sh–ty Deal, Huffington Post, June 9, 2009

Read the Supreme Court Ruling (PDF)

Goldman Sachs Permanently Exempted from Company Act Disqualification Provision, Says SEC

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

The Securities and Exchange Commission has decided to permanently exempt Goldman & Sachs Co. from a 1940 Investment Company Act provision that would have disqualified the financial firm from serving as a principal underwrite. Goldman and several of its affiliates applied for exemption from ICA Section 9(a) after settling for $550 million SEC securities fraud charges that it made material misrepresentations related to the 2007 structuring and sale of derivative product connected to subprime mortgages.

Under the provision, a person cannot act as a principal underwriter or investment adviser for an investment firm if, due to misconduct, the party in question is enjoined from taking part in any practice or conduct related to the purchase or sale of any security. Goldman, in its application, noted that since the district court had barred it and its affiliates from violating federal securities laws moving forward, the provision would apply to disqualify them from giving advisory services to investment companies.

After granting the broker-dealer a temporary exemption in July, the SEC issued Goldman a permanent one. The SEC noted that the applicants’ behavior did not make it against the “public interest or protection of investors” to grant the permanent exemption.

Regarding the $550 million securities fraud settlement, which is the largest penalty that the SEC has ordered a financial firm to pay, Goldman was accused of misleading investors about a synthetic collateralized debt obligation as the housing market was collapsing. Investors suffered more than $1 billion in financial losses. The brokerage firm admitted that it provided incomplete marketing information for the product and has agreed to reform its business practices.

Related Web Resources:
Investment Company Act of 1940

Goldman Sachs, SEC Reach $550 Million Settlement, PBS News, July 15, 2010 Continue Reading ›

Goldman Sachs COO Says Investment Firm Shorted 1% of CDOs Mortgage Bonds But Didn’t Bet Against Clients

Published on: July 14, 2010 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

According to Goldman Sachs Group Inc. Chief Operating Operator and President Gary Cohn, the investment firm adamant that the bank did not bet against its own clients. He says that Goldman Sachs purchased protection against a decline in just 1% of mortgage-backed securities it underwrote since late 2006. Former clients, regulators, and members of Congress are accusing Goldman Sachs of designing mortgage-backed securities that would fail and then betting on their failure to purchase credit-default swaps, which pay out when a default occurs.

Cohn testified last month before the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission. He says that in the wake of the serious allegations, the investment firm has examined the $47 billion in residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS) and $14.5 billion in collateralized debt obligations (CDOs) that the firm underwrote since firm executives began to feel the need to treat the subprime mortgage market with caution in December 2006. He claims that by the end of June 2007, Goldman Sachs held $2.4 billion of bonds from CDOs and $2.4 billion of bonds from RMBS trusts. The investment bank had protection for approximately 1% of the total underwritten. Nearly 60% of the derivatives and bonds in the CDOs were from other institutions.

The hearing was called to probe the relationship between Goldman and American International Group Inc (AIG). The investment bank had purchased CDO protection from the insurer. Billions of dollars in federal funds had allowed AIG to stay in business even though it was facing bankruptcy and a number of the insurer’s counterparties, including Goldman, are believed to have benefited. Cohn has argued that all market participants benefited from the government’s assistance.

Related Web Resources:
Goldman Sachs Shorted 1% of its Mortgage Bonds, CDOs, Cohn Says, Business Week, June 30, 2010
Goldman’s Cohn: Firm Didn’t Drive Down Mortgage-Asset Marks, Bloomberg.com, June 30, 2010
Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission
Continue Reading ›

Securities Fraud Lawsuit Against UBS AG Gets Added Steam with Employee Email Calling Collateralized Debt Obligations “Vomit”

Published on: September 16, 2009 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

UBS AG must post a $35.6 million bond, says Superior Court Judge John Blawie. Blawie says that hedge fund Pursuit Partners, LLC has sufficient evidence to pursue its securities fraud case claiming that the investment bank knew it was selling collateralized debt obligations that were toxic to institutional investors but did nothing to inform clients about the risks.

Blawie cited an e-mail written by a UBS employee that called the asset-backed securities “vomit.” Another e-mail noted that UBS was selling Pursuit CDOs that were “crap.”

The judge is letting the securities fraud complaint go forward without ruling on the case’s merits. Between July and October 2007, UBS sold the hedge fund CDOs valued at $40.5 million. Following the global credit crisis, there has been $1.7 trillion in losses and writedowns.

Morgan Keegan Hit with Large Penalty for Fouling Ex-NBA Star

Published on: September 14, 2009 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Following a dispute that was resolved in arbitration, broker-dealer Morgan Keegan & Co. must pay former NBA player Horace Grant $1.46 million. The amount is the largest arbitration loss for Morgan Keegan to date. Morgan Keegan is the securities brokerage firm of Regions Financial Corp.

The award, issued by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, is for damages that Grant incurred because he invested in Morgan Keegan’s risky mutual funds that were involved in collateralized debt obligations connected to residential mortgages. Grant had originally sought $1.5 million for the damages he sustained.

There are still several hundred investment fraud lawsuits pending against the brokerage firm over mutual funds involving subprime mortgages that declined because the US housing market fell apart and loans defaulted. Up to 95% of the funds’ value has dissolved since the middle of 2007.

Green used to play for the Chicago Bull, the Los Angeles Lakers, the Seattle Supersonics, and the Orlando Magic. In his arbitration case, the former NBA basketball player contended that Morgan Keegan misrepresented the level of risk that came with the bond funds that he purchased.

Already, Morgan Keegan has lost a number of cases in 2009. Seven of the cases have cost the broker-dealer $3 million. Other professional athletes who have filed lawsuits against Morgan Keegan for losses that they say they sustained from the bond funds are Jerome Woods, formerly of the Kansas City Chiefs, and former St. Louis Cardinals baseball player Tim McCarver. Woods won $950,000 against the brokerage firm while McCarver resolved his claim for $100,000.

Our stockbroker fraud law firm represents numerous investors who have sued Morgan Keegan for misrepresenting risky investments as safer kinds of investments.

Related Web Resources:
Ex-NBA star wins $1.45M arbitration claim against Morgan Keegan, Investment News, September 14, 2009
Morgan Keegan ordered to pay former NBA star $1.4M, Memphis Business Journal, September 14, 2009
NFL retiree gets $950,000 for Morgan Keegan mutual fund losses, Commercial Appeal, April 14, 2009
McCarver Awarded $100K in Morgan Keegan Claim, Memphis Daily, February 26, 2009 Continue Reading ›