JP Morgan Chase

JPMorgan Received Asset Management Conflicts Warning from OCC in 2012

Published on: July 9, 2013 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

According to a source with direct knowledge about the Office of Comptroller of the Currency’s findings, the agency had already warned JPMorgan Chase (JPM) last year that the investment bank had erred when it directed clients toward its in-house investment products.

OCC examiners found that in late 2011 JPMorgan had not complied with restrictions placed on in-house financial products sales, as well as fulfill its duties to retirement plan investors under ERISA (the Employee Retirement Income Security Act). Following these discoveries, the agencies ordered JPMorgan to pay back fees to customers.

While the issues highlighted by the OCC more than likely won’t pose much of a problem to JPMorgan—typically the US Department Of Labor resolves such violations by ordering restitution and in a confidential manner—the alleged infractions do point to what could become a problem of regulatory tension between federal regulators and JPMorgan, as the former group seeks to put to rest criticism that its poor oversight played a role in allowing the financial crisis of 2008 to happen. Now, since Thomas Curry took over as Comptroller of the Currency, OCC appears to have made it a priority to monitor the growing risks that can arise via routine bank functions, as well as from activities that could lead to “operational risks.”

JPMorgan Chase’s assets under management that are found in its proprietary mutual funds reached $223 billion at the start of 2013, which a significant rise from $96 billion in 2009. All assets under the bank’s purview, including retirement plans, alternate assets, and funds, have been growing for 16 quarters in a row.

Also during 2013’s first quarter, a $31 billion gain allowed JPMorgan’s client assets to hit $2.1 trillion. Unlike other asset managers, the bank conducts securities underwriting, commercial banking, and money management on such a big scale and in such an interlinked fashion that, per guidelines in the OCC’s exam handbook, such actions merit more regulatory examination.

Regulators & ERISA Assets
Because ERISA assets are some of the most legally protected, there is a greater chance that regulators will pay attention to them. That said, Section 406(b) of ERISA obligates retirement fund fiduciaries to always place clients’ interest first.

As OCC doesn’t directly supervise ERISA, its perspective is via supervising banks’ winder duties to make sure operations are performed in a way that decreases operational risks, as well as reputational and legal harm. Although monitoring ERISA compliance has long been part of OCC’s examination wheelhouse, some observers are finding that the agency’s current concentration on both the Act and how banks sell proprietary investment instruments is an add-on previous monitoring practices.

The Securities and Exchange Commission is also looking at JPMorgan and its proprietary products sales. While it is not known at this time whether the agency’s inquiries will result in formal action, a number of ex-JPMorgan Chase financial advisers already have sued or filed arbitration claims accusing the bank of pressuring them to place client assets in in-house products. The financial firm denies the securities’ cases allegations.

Meantime, according to Reuters last year, the Labor Department too has been examining JPMorgan. The DOL is looking at the firm’s purchases for 401(k) plan stable value funds under its management of $1.7 million in mortgage debt that it underwrote before the real estate crisis. Already, investors have filed securities cases alleging wrongdoing that, once again, the bank denies.

Office of Comptroller of the Currency

More Blog Posts:
California AG Files Lawsuit Against JP Morgan Chase Alleging Debt Collection Abuse Over 100,000 Credit Card Cases, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, May 16, 2013

Texas Judge Throws Out Verizon Retirees’ Class Action Lawsuit Over $8.4B Pension Sales to Prudential, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, July 9, 2013

Sonoma County Files Securities Lawsuit Over Libor Banking Debacle

Published on: July 2, 2013 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Sonoma County, CA is suing Citigroup (C), JPMorgan (JPM), Bank of America (BAC), UBS (UBS), Barclays (BCS), and a number of other former and current LIBOR members over the infamous international-rate fixing scandal that it claims caused it to suffer substantial financial losses. The County’s securities lawsuit contends that the defendants made billions of dollars when they understated and overstated borrowing costs and artificially established interest rates.

Sonoma County is one of the latest municipalities in California to sue over what it claims was rate manipulation that led to lower interest payments on investments linked to the London Interbank Offered Rate. Also seeking financial recovery over the LIBOR banking scandal are the Regents of the University of California, San Mateo County, San Diego Association of Governments, East Bay Municipal Utility District, City of Richmond, City of Riverside, San Diego County, and others.

The County of Sonoma is alleging several causes of action, including unjust enrichment, fraud, and antitrust law violations involving transactions that occurred between 2007 and 2010, a timeframe during which Barclays already admitted to engaging in interest manipulation. The county invested $96 million in Libor-type investments in 2007 and $61 million in 2008. Jonathan Kadlec, the Assistant Treasurer at Sonoma County, says that an investigation is ongoing to determine how much of a financial hit was sustained. Kadlec supervises an investment pool that is valued at about $1.5 billion for the county. He said that LIBOR-type investments, which involve floating securities with interests that are index-based, make up a small portion of the pool.

Financial Firm Roundup: Citigroup Settles $3.5B MBS Lawsuit with FHFA, JPMorgan Unit Fined $4.64M, Court Won’t Dismiss USB Whistleblower’s Action, & Ex-Goldman Sachs Executive to Pay $100K Over Pay-To-Play Scam

Published on: June 8, 2013 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Citigroup (C) Settle $3.5B securities lawsuit Over MBS Sold to Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae

Citigroup has settled the $3.5 billion mortgage-backed securities filed with the Federal Housing Finance Agency. The MBS were sold to Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae and both sustained resulting losses. This is the second of 18 securities fraud cases involving FHFA suing banks last year over more than $200B in MBS losses by Fannie and Freddie. The lawsuit is FHFA v. Citigroup.

J.P. Morgan International Bank Ltd. Slapped with $4.64M Fine by UK Regulator

Police Retirement System of St. Louis Also Suing JPMorgan Chase Executives Over “London Whale” Scandal

Published on: April 25, 2013 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The Police Retirement System of St. Louis is suing JPMorgan Chase (JPM) CEO Jamie Dimon and several other senior bank officers over the “London Whale” scandal. The pension fund, which owns 39,000 of the investment bank, is one of numerous investors seeking compensation. Dimon and the other JPMorgan executives are accused of disregarding the red flags indicating that the London-based operation was engaged in taking large scale risks that ultimately resulted in close to $6 billion in losses last year.

In its derivatives lawsuit, the Police Retirement System of St. Louis contends that the defendants “eviscerated” the risk controls of JPMorgan’s London unit to up profits. Even after the media reported that one of the bank’s traders in London was making big bets (that trader was eventually dubbed the “London Whale”), Dimon downplayed the news to investors. The pension fund contends that the executives and others breached their duties to shareholders by not stopping the risky trades.

In March, US lawmakers sought to understand the multimillion-dollar trading loss. At a hearing before Congress, they questioned past and current JPMorgan executives about the financial scandal. Their interrogation came a day after the release of a damning 300-page Congressional report that blamed the bank’s lax culture while also criticizing the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency for also failing to follow up on warning signs.

The executives tried to defend themselves, saying their attempts to lower risks were countered by traders that purposely undervalued bets to conceal an increase in losses. Among the executives that gave testimony was ex-JPMorgan chief investment office head Ina Drew, whose group was in the middle of the debacle. She too blamed lower-level traders and others, while contending that she had been given inaccurate information. Drew said she didn’t know that traders were upping their bets.

Withering Questions at Senate Hearing on JPMorgan Loss, New York Times, March 15, 2013

JPMorgan hit with new investor lawsuit over “Whale” losses, Reuters, April 15, 2013

More Blog Posts:
JP Morgan Sued by Dexia in $1.7B MBS Lawsuit, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, February 11, 2013

JPMorgan, Goldman Sachs, Bank of New York Mellon, Charles Schwab Disclose Market-Based NAVs of Money Market Mutual Funds, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, February 7, 2013

CtW Investment Group Wants JPMorgan Chase Shareholders To Vote Against Re-Electing Four Board of Directors

Published on: April 15, 2013 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

CtW Investment Group has announced plans to file a document with the Securities and Exchange Commission that would press shareholders to vote against reelecting four JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPM) board of directors: James Crown, Ellen Futter, Laban Jackson, and David Cote. The group, which represents pension funds that together hold approximately 6 million of the financial firm’s shares and is labor organization Change to Win’s advisory arm, also intends to make its request in writing to the shareholders.

CtW believes that these directors can no longer be depended on to deal with oversight failures and blames most of them for poor risk management oversight that they say allowed the trading fiasco to happen. Meantime, JPMorgan is seeking support among its biggest shareholders. It claims that the board isn’t to be blamed for the “London Whale,” which involved its operation in England making risky bets and losing nearly $6 billion in losses.

Meantime, in a report on the global investment banking industry, JPMorgan’s analysts pointed to Goldman Sachs (GS) and Deutsche Bank (DB) as examples of Tier 1 investment banks to stay away from. It described this tier of banks as “un-investable, with their viability in doubt.

JP Morgan Sued by Dexia in $1.7B MBS Lawsuit

Published on: February 11, 2013 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Dexia SA (DEXB) is suing JP Morgan Chase & Co. (JPM ) for over $1.7 billion. In its mortgage-backed securities lawsuit, the Belgian-French bank contends that the loans underlying the securities that the US bank sold it were riskier than what they were represented to be.

JP Morgan and its companies, Washington Mutual (WM) and Bear Stearns Co., are accused of “egregious” fraud for allegedly making and selling mortgage bonds backed by loans that they knew were “exceptionally bad.” Dexia claims it sustained substantial losses.

According to The New York Times, there are a slew of employee interviews and internal e-mails related to this MBS lawsuit that talk about how the three firms disregarded quality controls and problems—perhaps even concealing the latter—in order to make a profit from these mortgages that were packaged into complex securities. They are accused of seeking to avail of the mortgage-backed securities demand during the housing boom even as doubts began to arise about whether or not these investments were good quality. Court filings report that JPMorgan would get mortgages from lenders that didn’t have stellar records, assigning Washington Mutual and American Home Mortgage a “poor” grade on its “internal ‘due diligence scorecard.’” The loans were then swiftly sold off to investors.

JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon Blames Regulators for Problems in the Wake of Economic Crisis

Published on: January 23, 2013 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Speaking at a panel at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Jamie Dimon, the chief executive officer of JPMorgan Chase (JPM), said that one reason many of the issues from the 2008 financial crisis have yet to be fixed is because new regulations have made things more complex. Dimon said that not only is too much being attempted too quickly, but also he believed that regulators have become too overwhelmed by the rules.

Dimon said that rather improving the system, during the last five years there has been a great deal of placing blame and exchanging misinformation. He did, however, praise the Federal Reserve, which he said saved “the system” by coming to the rescue after Lehman Brothers failed.

“It’s unbelievable that Mr. Jamie Diamond would be complaining so loudly about regulations,” said Institutional Investment Fraud Lawyer William Shepherd. “Among other gambling woes, his company just took a $6 billion loss on one of his traders bets! Look where deregulation of the financial markets got us 5 years ago! After the 1929 debacle, laws were passed to regulate these markets. One outlawed banks and securities firms being under the same umbrella. In fact, this is how Morgan Stanley (MS) was formed, as a forced spinoff of JP Morgan Bank. Lawmakers had decided that banks insured by FDIC, thus the taxpayers, should not gamble in the securities markets. Unfortunately, that law was repealed, and less than 10 years later our financial system collapsed again. Congress should have simply reinstituted the ban on such combined firms but has instead voted out far less protection. Stop your wining Jamie!

JPMorgan Chase Ordered to Remedy Risk Management Breakdowns Involving “London Whale” Trades

Published on: January 17, 2013 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and The Federal Reserve is ordering JPMorgan Chase (JPM) to fix the breakdown that occurred in its risk management that resulted in the “London Whale” trades. These were outsized credit derivatives bets made by a group of traders in the UK that resulted in over $6 billion in losses for the investment bank. Due to the extremity of the some of the positions, prices in the markets became distorted. The “London Whale” is the nickname of one of the traders involved.

According to the newly issued enforcement actions, the internal controls of the bank did not succeed in spotting and preventing specific trading involving credited derivatives that Chief Investment Office Ina Drew conducted and this led to the losses. The OCC says that per investigations that were conducted, there had been certain deficiencies, such as poor risk management procedures and processes, insufficient governance and oversight for proper material risk protection, inadequate control of trade valuation, models that were not properly developed or implemented, and insufficient internal audit processes. Meantime, the Fed pointed to deficiencies of senior management letting the board of directors know about certain issues.

While JPMorgan Chase doesn’t have to pay a fine, there are steps it is going to have to take to enhance its risk management and improve its anti-money laundering procedures. The OCC says that the financial firm’s controls for anti-money laundering have key deficiencies related to the reporting of suspicious activity, the monitoring of transactions, risk assessment, customer due diligence, independent testing, and the proper placement of adequate internal control systems.

Barclays LIBOR Manipulation Scam Places Citigroup, Credit Suisse, Deutsche Bank, JP Morgan Chase, and UBS Under The Investigation Microscope

Published on: July 16, 2012 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The London Inter-Bank Offer Rate (LIBOR) manipulation scandal involving Barclays Bank (BCS-P) has now opened up a global probe, as investigators from the United States, Europe, Canada, and Asia try to figure out exactly what happened. While Barclays may have the settled the allegations for $450 million with the UK’s Financial Services Authority, the US Department of Justice, and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, now a number of other financial firms are under investigation including UBS AG (UBS), JPMorgan Chase (JPM), Deutsche Bank AG, Credit Suisse Group (CS), Citigroup Inc., Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi UFJ, HSBC Holdings PLC (HBC-PA), Lloyds Banking Group PLC (LYG), Rabobank Groep NV, Mizuho Financial Group Inc. (MFG), Societe Generale SA, RP Martin Holdings Ltd., Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corp., and Royal Bank of Scotland PLC (RBS).

In the last few weeks, the accuracy of LIBOR, which is the average borrowing cost when banks in Britain loan money to each other, has come into question in the wake of allegations that Barclays and other big banks have been rigging it by submitting artificially low borrowing estimates. Considering that LIBOR is a benchmark interest rates that affects hundreds of trillions of dollars in financial contracts, including floating-rate mortgages, interest-rate swaps, and corporate loans globally, the fact that this type of financial fudging may be happening on a wide scale basis is disturbing.

“It’s my understanding the total financial paper effected by LIBOR is close to $500 trillion dollars. This is a half-quadrillion dollars if you are wondering about the next step up,” said Shepherd Smith Edwards and Kantas, LTD, LLP Founder and Institutional Investment Fraud Attorney William Shepherd.

Senate Democrats Want Volcker Rule’s “JP Morgan Loophole” Allowing Portfolio Hedging Blocked

Published on: May 22, 2012 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

In a letter to the Federal Reserve Board, the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency Administrator of National Banks, and the Federal Deposit Insurance Commission, Senators Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) and Carl Levin (D-Mich.) spoke out against what they are calling the current draft of the Volcker rule’s “JPMorgan loophole,” which they say allows for the kinds of trading activities that resulted in the investment bank’s recent massive trading loss. Merkley and Levin want the regulators to make sure that the language in October’s draft version is more stringent so that “clear bright lines” exist between legitimate activities and proprietary trading activities that should be banned (including risk-mitigating hedging and market-making).

According to Levin and Merkley, who are both principal co-sponsors of the Volcker rule and its restrictions on proprietary trading, the regulation’s latest draft disregarded “clear legislative language and clear statement of Congressional intent” and left room for “portfolio hedging.” Under the law, risk-mitigating hedge activities are allowed as long as they aim to lower the “specific risks” to a financial firm’s holdings, including contracts or positions. This is supposed to let banks lower their risks by letting them to take part in actual, specific hedges. However, the senators are contending that because the language that was necessary to enforce wasn’t included in the last draft, hence the “JPMorgan loophole” (among others) that will allow proprietary trading to occur even after the law goes into effect. They blame pressure from Wall Street lobbyists for these gaps.

The senators are pressing the regulators to get rid of such loopholes and put into effect a solid Volcker Rule, with stricter language, and without further delays. They noted that despite getting trillions of dollars in public bailout money, a lot of large financial firms continue to fight against the “most basic… reforms,” which is what they believe that Wall Street has been doing with its resistance to the Volcker rule. (Also in their letter, Levin and Merkley reminded the regulators that it was proprietary trading positions that resulted in billions of dollars lost during the recent economic crisis.)

SSEK Talking to Investors About JPMorgan Trading Losses
JPMorgan Chase‘s (JPM) over $2 billion loss was on a series of complex derivative trades that it claims were made to hedge economic risks. Now, according to a number of people who work at trading desks that specialize in the kind of derivatives that the financial firm used when making its trades, the financial firm’s loss has likely grown to closer than $6 billion to $7 billion.

Volcker Rule Resource Center, SIFMA

More Blog Posts:

JPMorgan Chase Shareholders File Securities Lawsuits Over $2B Trading Loss, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, May 17, 2012

SEC Chairman Mary Schapiro Stands By Agency’s 2011 Enforcement Record https://www.investorlawyers.com/our-staff.html, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, March 15, 2012