Credit Suisse

Nomura To Pay Over $3M to Settle RMBS Fraud Claims brought by NCUA for Credit Unions

Published on: November 2, 2016 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Nomura Home Equity Loan, Inc. and Nomura Asset Acceptance Corporation have agreed to jointly pay over $3M to settle allegations that they engaged in the sale of faulty residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS) to the Western Corporate Federal Credit Union and the U.S. Central Federal Credit Union. The National Credit Union Administration brought the RMBS fraud case on behalf of the two corporate credit unions.

It was in 2011 that the NCUA Board, while serving as liquidating agent for both financial institutions, brought the claims against the Nomura entities. The RMBS lawsuit was brought in federal district courts in Kansas and California.

The $3M settlement dismisses NCUA’s pending cases against the two firms. By settling, neither firm is denying or admitting to the alleged wrongdoing.

Credit Suisse Settles for $90M Allegations that It Misrepresented Performance Metric

Published on: October 5, 2016 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Credit Suisse Group AG (CS) has admitted wrongdoing and will pay a penalty of $90 M to the SEC settle civil claims accusing the firm of misrepresenting how much it brought into its wealth management business.

According to the regulator’s probe, Credit Suisse strayed from its methodology for figuring out NNA (net new assets), which it disclosed to the public. This is the metric that investors value to gauge a financial institution’s success in bringing in new business.

Although disclosures said that the bank was assessing assets individually according to each client’s goals and intentions, Credit Suisse would occasionally employ an undisclosed approach that was “results-driven” to determine NNA to satisfy specific targets that senior management had set. SEC Enforcement Division Director Andrew J. Ceresney said that the bank’s failure to reveal that it was employing a results-driven approach prevented investors from having the chance to properly judge Credit Suisse’ success in drawing in new money.

Aozora Bank Asks NY Appeals Court to Revive $1.5B CDO Fraud Case Against Credit Suisse

Published on: September 23, 2016 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Aozora Bank Ltd. has asked a New York appeals court to allow it to sue Credit Suisse (CS) again over losses that it claims it sustained from a $1.5B collateralized debt obligation. The Japanese lender claims that a lower court erred in dismissing the claims it had previously brought on the grounds that they were submitted too late.

It was last year that New York Supreme Court Judge Charles E. Ramos threw out the CDO fraud lawsuit on the grounds that the state’s statute of limitations had already passed. In New York, fraud claims can be brought within two years from when a plaintiff could have, with reasonable diligence, realized that it was defrauded or within six years of when a transaction had closed.

Aozora believes that Credit Suisse employed a “trash bin” for its assets that were toxic. The Japanese lender purchased the Jupiter High-Grade CDO V Ltd CDO notes for $40M on 5/11/07 but did not file it’s case until 6/26/13. Ramos said that Aozara failed to prove that there was no way it could have discovered the problems with the Jupiter V notes that it purchased from Credit Suisse before that filing date.

Continue Reading ›

Wells Fargo to Pay UBS $1M Over Broker Departure

Published on: May 17, 2016 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

A FINRA arbitration panel has ordered Wells Fargo Advisors LLC (WFC) to pay UBS Financial Services Inc. $1.1M to resolve a claim involving financial adviser David Kinnear who went to work for the Wells Fargo & Co. brokerage arm after leaving the UBS Group AG (UBS) unit. UBS claims that Kinnear stole thousands of client and business records, as well as proprietary information, after resigning from the firm.

The Wall Street Journal reports that according to a source, Kinnear downloaded the data and distributed it to clients. UBS contends that the compensation Kinnear received at Wells Fargo was related to his ability to successfully bring UBS clients with him. UBS also claims that Kinnear owes it promissory notes.

Wells Fargo denies UBS’s allegations. It submitted a counterclaim accusing the firm of unfair completion, including preventing clients from moving from UBS to Wells Forgo.

Under the Protocol for Broker Recruiting, brokers are only allowed to bring the names and contact information of clients that they serviced while having worked at a firm when moving to another brokerage firm.

Four Credit Suisse Bankers Accused of Unauthorized Trading in Rich Clients’ Accounts, Bank of America Settles Mortgage Case for $190M, and Goldman Sachs to Pay Illinois Pension Fund $272M

Published on: May 7, 2016 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Bank of America to Pay Federal Home Loan Bank of Seattle $190M
Bank of America Corp. will pay $190M to resolve mortgage-backed securities fraud charges brought by the Federal Home Loan Bank of Seattle. The SEC filing stated that the settlement was reached last month and that most of it was previously accrued. The lawsuit alleged misstatements and omissions during the issuance of MBSs.

It was just earlier this year that Bank of America’s Merrill Lynch and 10 other banks agreed to pay over $63M to resolve accusations that they misrepresented residential mortgage-backed securities to the Virginia Retirement System and the state of Virginia.

Judge Approves $270M Mortgage-Backed Securities Fraud Settlement Involving Goldman Sachs
A federal judge has approved the proposed settlement between Goldman Sachs (GS) and lead plaintiff NECA-IBEW Health & Welfare Fund, as well as 400 bondholders and another electrical union pension fund. The Illinois pension fund for electrical workers brought the case in 2008, accusing the firm of leaving out key information and making false statements about the mortgages it sold into 17 trusts the year before.

Bank of America, Citigroup, JPMorgan Chase, Credit Suisse, Deutsche Bank, and Other Banks Settle ISDAFix Rigging Case for $324 Million

Published on: May 4, 2016 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Seven big banks have resolved a U.S. lawsuit accusing them of rigging ISDAFix rates, which is the benchmark for appraising interest rate derivatives, structured debt securities, and commercial real estate mortgages, for $324M. The banks that have reached a settlement are:

· Barclays PLS (BCS) for $30M (In 2015, Barclays paid $115M to U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission to resolve charges of ISDAfix rigging.)
· Bank of America Corp. (BAC) for $50M
· Credit Suisse Group AG (CS) for $50M
· Citigroup Inc. (C) for $42M
· JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPM) for $52M
· Deutsche Bank AG (DB) for $50M
· Royal Bank of Scotland Group plc (RBS) for $50M

The deal must be approved by a Manhattan federal court. The defendants had sought to have the case dismissed, but US District Judge Jesse Furman in Manhattan refused their request. stating that the case raised “plausible allegations” that the defendants were involved in a conspiracy together.

Judge Refuses to Totally Dismiss $1B Mortgage Fraud Case Against Credit Suisse Unit

Published on: April 15, 2016 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

A judge has ruled that the $1B mortgage fraud case brought against Credit Suisse (CS) unit DLJ Mortgage Capital can be resubmitted. This ruling reiterated U.S. Bank National Association’s contention that a six-year statute of limitations did not bar its claims, which it brought as a trustee.

In 2015, New York Supreme Court Judge Marcy S. Friedman had dismissed the case because the trustee had not made a repurchase demand of Ameriquest, the loan’s originator, according to the pre-suit requirement. However, she rejected DLJ’s claim that because these conditions were not met prior to the statute of limitations they were time barred. Friedman said that if U.S. National were to refile the case, then the issue of the repurchase demand’s impact on the trustee’s ability to file litigation in this matter would be determined on a “fully developed record.”

U.S. National sued DLJ Mortgage Capital in 2013, accusing the securitizer of not complying with its duty to buyback loans that breached of a number of warranties and representations that DLJ made in a contract presiding over the sale of 4,534 residential mortgage loans. The loans, originated by Ameriquest Mortgage Co., were securitized by the trust, sold by DLJ to investors, and came with multiple assurances about their quality. Such guarantees were supposed to place any risks from faulty mortgages with the originator.

The plaintiff contends that rather than construct a loan pool with quality mortgages, Ameriquest, which is no longer in operation, used faulty loans. As a result, contends U.S. National, the trust lost $227M.

Credit Suisse Wants Appeals Court to Dismiss NY AG’s $11.2B Residential Mortgage-Backed Securities Fraud Lawsuit

Published on: April 8, 2016 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

A number of Credit Suisse Group (GS) units want a NY court to rule that the RMBS case brought by Attorney General Eric Schneiderman is time-barred in the wake of precedent from the state’s highest court. The AG, who brought the case under the Martin Act, is seeking more than $11.2B.

According to the complaint, in ’06 and ’07 Credit Suisse put together over 60 residential mortgage-backed securities with about 248,000 loans. 24% of the loans have since been liquidated and investors have lost $11.2B on initial balances of about $93.8B. The state claims that investor losses resulted because of the bank’ determination to raise the volume of mortgages it bought and the securities it generated. Credit Suisse employees purportedly paid a higher price for mortgages and didn’t address reports of problems identified by due diligence forms so as to preserve relationships with mortgage originators. The bank is accused of making false claims about due diligence when choosing which mortgages to bundle with the securities.

Mortgage Securities News: Supreme Court Rejects Banks’ FDIC Case, Credit Suisse to Pay NCUA $29M in MBS Case Involving Credit Unions, & Former Fannie Mae CEO Must Contend With SEC Fraud Claims

Published on: March 26, 2016 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

US Supreme Court Turns Down Banks’ Bid that It Examine FDIC Case
The U.S. Supreme Court has decided not to review the 2015 ruling made by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals that revived the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation’s (FDIC) securities case accusing Goldman Sachs (GS), Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS), and Deutsche Bank (DB) of misrepresenting the quality of securities it sold to Guaranty Bank, which later failed. The FDIC took the Texas bank into receivership in 2009 and sued the banks in 2014.

A judge in Austin, Tx. dismissed the case, citing a state law requiring that lawsuits be brought within five years of a mortgage-backed security’s sale. The complaint had been filed at least 9 years after the MBSs were sold.

Last August, the Fifth Circuit cited a 1989 federal law and revived the case. The appeals court said that the FDIC is allowed an extended time period to file complaints for institutions that it insures and have gone into receivership. Circuit Judge Carolyn Dineen King wrote that it was this federal law that made it possible for the FDIC to concentrate on dealing with bank failures rather than worrying about possible statutes and their limitations.

RBS, Goldman, and Deutsche then filed their petitioned with the U.S. Supreme Court. The banks pointed to a past holding by the highest court that barred other courts from preempting state law unless the U.S. Congress has made such a preemption clear.

Credit Suisse Resolves MBS Case for $29M
Credit Suisse (CS) must pay $29M to settle the National Credit Union Administration’s claim that it sold bad mortgage-backed-securities to credit unions. NCUA’s lawsuit revolves around MBSs that UBS (UBS) underwrote and sold to Members United Corporate Federal Credit Union and the Southwest Corporate Federal Credit Union for over $228M from ’06 to ’07. Both credit unions have since failed.

Credit Suisse and Barclays Settle Dark Pool Cases for $150M

Published on: January 30, 2016 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC (CS) and Barclays Capital Inc. (BARC) will settle their respective cases brought against them by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and the New York Attorney General. The firms are accused of violating federal securities laws will running dark pools. At issue is whether the banks disclosed enough information to clients about the trading that took place in their dark pools.

Barclays will pay $35M to the SEC and $70M to the NY AG. It has admitted wrongdoing in the Commission’s case. The bank had said that a Liquidity Profiling feature in its LX dark pool was going to “continuously police” the alternative trading system. The firm also stated that it would conduct weekly surveillance reports to look for order flow that was toxic.

Instead, contends the SEC, Barclays did not continuously regulate the dark pool with the tools it promised it would use nor did it conduct the surveillance runs. The firm also failed to properly disclose that it occasionally overrode the Liquidity Profiling feature when it transferred subscribers from categories that were the most aggressive to the ones that were the least aggressive. Because of this, said the regulator, subscribers that chose to block trading with subscribers that were aggressive ended up dealing with them anyways. Barclays is also accused of misrepresenting the kinds and amounts of market data feeds that it utilized to determine the Best Bid and Offer in the dark pool.

Meantime, Credit Suisse, which is not denying or admitting to the charges against it, will pay $84.3M I total—$24.3M to the SEC as disgorgement and prejudgment interest, along with a $30M penalty, and $30M to the NY AG.