Lehman Brothers

UBS Financial Services Fined $2.5M and Ordered to Pay $8.25M Over Lehman Brothers-Issued 100% Principal-Protection Notes

Published on: April 12, 2011 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority is fining UBS Financial Services, Inc. $2.5 million and ordering it to pay $8.25 million in restitution for allegedly misleading investors about the “principal protection” feature of 100% Principal-Protection Notes. Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. issued the PPNs Holdings Inc. before it filed for bankruptcy in 2008.

FINRA contends that even as the credit crisis was getting worse, between March and June 2008 UBS advertised and described the notes as investments that were principal-protected while failing to make sure clients knew that they PPNs were unsecured obligations of Lehman and that the principal protection feature was subject to issuer credit risk. UBS also allegedly failed to:

• Properly notify its financial advisers of the impact the widening of credit default swaps was having on Lehman’s financial strength
• Sufficiently analyze how appropriate the Lehman-issued PPNs were for certain clients
• Set up a proper supervisory system for the sale of the Lehman-issued PPNs
• Provide proper training or appropriate written supervisory procedures and policies
• Provide adequate suitability procedures for determining who should invest

FINRA also says that UBS developed and used advertising collateral about the PPNs that misled certain clients, such as the suggestion that a return of principal was certain as long as clients held the product until it matured. FINRA claims that the reason that some UBS financial advisers gave incorrect information to customers was because they themselves didn’t fully understand the product.

FINRA says that because UBS’s suitability procedures were inadequate and certain PPN’s lacked risk profile requirements, the product was sold to investors who were not willing or shouldn’t have been allowed to take on the risks involved. More often than not it was these investors who were likely to depend on the Lehman PPNs’ “100% principal protection” feature that were “risk averse.”

By agreeing to settle, UBS is not denying or admitting to the charges.

UBS to shell out $10.75M to settle Lehman-related row, Investment News, April 11, 2011

More Blog Posts:
UBS to Pay $2.2M to CNA Financial Head for Lehman Brothers Structured Product Losses, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, January 4, 2011

UBS Must Pay Couple $530,000 for Lehman Brothers-Backed Structured Notes, Institutional Investors Securities Blog, November 5, 2010

Lehman Brothers’ “Structured Products” Investigated by Stockbroker Fraud Law Firm Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas LTD LLP, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, September 30, 2008

CalPERS Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit Against Lehman Brothers

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

The California Public Employees’ Retirement System is suing Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc., its ex-executives, and a number of bond underwriters for fraud and of making materially false statements about mortgage-backed securities losses. CalPERS, a $229 billion public pension fund, owned about $700 million Lehman bonds and 3.9 million shares of Lehman bonds when Lehman filed for bankruptcy in September 2008. Because of the economic crisis, CalPERS funds lost $100 billion in value from September 2008 and March 2009.

In its securities fraud complaint, CalPERS accused Lehman of “dramatically” borrowing to fund its real estate investments from 2004 to 2007—high-risk activity that investors were not told about. Other defendants include ex-Lehman Chief Executive Richard S. Fuld Jr., ex-Lehman Chief Financial Officers Erin Callan and Christopher O’Meara, 9 Lehman directors, and 33 others firms, including Wells Fargo Securities, Citigroup Global Markets Inc., and Mellon Financial Markets. The defendants allegedly failed to disclose not just Lehman’s exposure to Alt-A lending and subprime, but also its mortgage-related assets’ true value.

This securities complaint is CalPERS second action against members of Wall Street that sold mortgage-backed securities. In July 2009, CAlPERS sued Standard & Poor’s, Moody’s Investors Services Inc., and Fitch Inc. The complaint accused the financial rating companies of giving top grades to bonds that ended up sustaining huge financial losses when the subprime mortgage securities market collapsed.

Also, CalPERS has a shareholder lawsuit against Bank of America Corp. (BAC) over its Merrill Lynch acquisition. The pension fund also has a case against BofA’s Countrywide Financial.

Related Web Resources:

CalPERS suit accuses Lehman Bros. of fraud, Los Angeles Times, February 9, 2011

CalPERS

School Districts Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit San Mateo County Over Lehman Brothers-Related Investment Losses

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

12 San Mateo County school districts have filed a $20 million securities fraud lawsuit against the county and its former treasure Lee Buffington. The securities complaint says that the plaintiffs lost approximately that amount in school district funds when Lehman Brothers filed for bankruptcy in 2008. The school districts contend that Buffington should have made smarter investments to protect their money. Instead, they claim that San Mateo County put too much of its pulled investment funds in the Lehman Holdings. The county lost approximately $155 million in the funds.

According to county schools Superintendent Anne Campbell, who is also a plaintiff of the securities case, the intention is to recover the $20 million, which has exacerbated the districts’ financial problems, and make the county change its investment policy so that it gets “specific” about the terms of the portfolio’s diversification. The plaintiffs are accusing Buffington and other county investment managers of negligent management and breach of fiduciary duty.

Meantime, Stuart Gasner, the county’s attorney, has called his client a “victim of Lehman Brothers’ nondisclosures.” He contends that the county did not do anything wrong. Also, not only is he accusing the school districts of failing to follow proper procedures when filing their securities complaint, but he also says that the complaint is not beneficial to taxpayers because it won’t “bring in any new money” while costing funds for the county’s defense.

School districts who are plaintiffs of the securities lawsuit against San Mateo County include Woodside Elementary School District, Belmont-Redwood Shores Elementary School District, San Mateo Union High School District, Burlingame Elementary School District, San Carlos Elementary School District, Cabrillo Unified School District, San Bruno Park Elementary School District, Jefferson Elementary School District, Ravenswood City Elementary School District, Las Lomitas Elementary School District, Portola Valley Elementary School District, and Menlo Park City Elementary School District.

UBS to Pay $2.2M to CNA Financial Head for Lehman Brothers Structured Product Losses

Published on: January 4, 2011 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

A Financial Industry Regulatory Authority arbitration panel says that UBS Financial Services Inc. must pay $2.2 million to CNA Financial Corp. Chief Executive and Chairman Thomas F. Motamed for losses that he and his wife Christine B. Motamed sustained from investing in Lehman Brothers structured products. The Motameds, who filed their claim against the UBS AG (UBS, UBSN.VX) unit and ex-UBS brokers Judith Sierko and Robert Ashley early in 2009, are alleging misrepresentation, breach of fiduciary duty, and other charges.

This is the largest award involving UBS-sold Lehman structured products. However, the Motameds’ securities fraud case is just one of many against UBS over its sale of about $1 billion in Lehman-related structured investment products to US clients. Many of the claimants contend that the broker-dealer failed to properly represent the investments. As part of this arbitration case, UBS must also pay 6% yearly interest on the $2.2 million to the Motameds from April 4, 2008 until payment of the award is complete. The ruling is supposed to represent rescission of the Motameds’ structured products purchase.

UBS reportedly has not won even one case over the Lehman structured products where the claimant had legal representation. Just a few months ago, UBS AG was ordered to pay $529,688 to another couple over their Lehman structured notes purchase. Steven and Ellen Edelson bought the notes while under the impression that they were “principal protected” when in fact the securities did not have such protection.

The award is the largest involving Lehman structured products purchased through UBS, which has expressed disappointment over the panel’s ruling. The broker-dealer maintains that the losses sustained by the Motameds are a result of Lehman Brothers’s failure and not UBS’s handling of the products.

To Pay $2.2 Mln To CNA Chief for Lehman-Related Losses, The Wall Street Journal, December 23, 2010
UBS Must Pay Couple $530,000 for Lehman Brothers-Backed Structured Notes, Institutional Investors Securities Blog, November 5, 2010 Continue Reading ›

Lehman Brothers Lawsuit Claims Its Bankruptcy Was In Part Due to JP Morgan Chase’s Seizure of $8.6 Billion in Cash Reserves

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

The estate of Lehman Brothers Holdings is claiming that JP Morgan Chase abused its position as a clearing firm when it forced Lehman to give up $8.6 billion in cash reserve as collateral. In its securities fraud lawsuit, Lehman contends that if it hadn’t had to give up the money, it could have stayed afloat, or, at the very least, shut down its operations in an orderly manner. Instead, Lehman filed for bankruptcy in September 2008.

JP Morgan was the intermediary between Lehman and its trading partners. Per Lehman’s investment fraud lawsuit, JP Morgan used its insider information to obtain billions of dollars from Lehman through a number of “one sided agreements.” The complaint contends that JP Morgan threatened to stop serving as Lehman’s clearing house unless it offered up more collateral as protection. Lehman says it had to put up the cash because clearing services were the “lifeblood” of its “broker-dealer business.”

JP Morgan’s responsibilities, in relation to Lehman, included providing unsecured and secured intra-day credit advances for the broker-dealer’s clearing activities, acting as Lehman’s primary depositary bank for deposit accounts, and serving in the role of administrative agent and lead arranger of LBHI’s $2 billion unsecured revolving credit facility.

Stockbroker Fraud?: Extent of Main Street Natural Gas Bonds’ Tie to Lehman Brothers May Not Have Been Disclosed to Investors

Published on: April 10, 2010 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Investors of Main Street Natural Gas Bonds are claiming that not only did brokers fail to disclose the risks associated with investing in them, but they also failed to inform their clients that the bonds could be affected by the financial health of Lehman Brothers. Wall Street firms had marketed and sold Main Street Natural Gas Bonds as conservative, safe municipal bonds when, in fact, they were Lehman Brothers-backed complex derivative securities. As a result, when the investment bank filed for bankruptcy in 2008 the bonds’ trading value dropped.

If you were an investor who lost money because you invested in Main Street Natural Gas Bonds that you were told were safe, conservative investments, please contact our stockbroker fraud lawyers immediately to request your free case evaluation. You may have grounds for a securities fraud claim.

Main Street Natural Gas

UBS, JP Morgan, Lehman, Bank of America, and Other Banks Included on List of Co-Conspirators in CDR Bid-Rigging Scam

Published on: March 31, 2010 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Over two dozen bankers at Wall Street investment firms have been listed as co-conspirators in a bid-rigging scheme to pay lower than market interest rates to the federal and state governments over guaranteed investment contracts. The banks named as co-conspirators include JP Morgan Chase & Co, UBS AG, Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc., Bear Stearns Cos., Bank of America Corp, Societe General, Wachovia Corp (bought by Wells Fargo), former Citigroup Inc. unit Salomon Smith Barney, and two General Electric financial businesses.

The investment banks were named in papers filed by the lawyers of a former CDR Financial Products Inc. employee. The attorneys for the advisory firm say that they “inadvertedly” included the list of bankers and individuals and asked the court to strike the exhibit that contains the list. The firms and individuals on the co-conspirators list are not charged with any wrongdoing. However, over a dozen financial firms are contending with securities fraud complaints filed by municipalities claiming conspiracy was involved.

The government says that CDR, a local-government adviser, ran auctions that were scams. This let banks pay lower interests to the local governments. In October, CDR, and executives David Rubin, Evan Zarefsky, and Zevi Wolmark were indicted. They denied any wrongdoing. This year, three other former DCR employees pleaded guilty.

While the original indictments didn’t identify any investment contract sellers that took part in the alleged conspiracy, Providers A and B were accused of paying kickbacks to CDR after winning investment deals that the firm had brokered. The firms were able to do this by allegedly paying sham fees connected to financial transactions involving other companies.

Per the court documents filed in March, the kickbacks were paid out of fees that came out of transactions entered into with Royal Bank of Canada and UBS. The US Justice Department says the kickbacks ranged from $4,500 to $475,000. Financial Security Assurance Holdings Ltd divisions and GE units created the investment contracts that were involved.

Approximately $400 billion in municipal bonds are issued annually. Schools, cities, and states use money they get from the sale of these bonds to buy guaranteed investment contracts. Localities use the contracts to earn a return on some of the funds until they are needed for certain projects. The IRS, which sometimes makes money on the investments, requires that they are awarded on the basis of competitive bidding to make sure that the government gets a fair return.

Related Web Resources:
JPMorgan, Lehman, UBS Named in Bid-Rigging Conspiracy, Business Week, March 26, 2010
U.S. Probe Lays Out Bid Fixing, Bond Buyer, March 29, 2010
Read the letter to District Judge Marrero (PDF)
Continue Reading ›

Claims for Losses at Lehman Brothers and in Investments into Lehman Brothers Financial Instruments Gain New Life as Court Uncovers Stunning New Evidence

Published on: March 21, 2010 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Lehman Brothers filed for bankruptcy protection in 2008. Now, a report by a court-appointed examiner provides 2,200 pages of details on the investment firms demise, as well as more leads into further inquiries that may need to be made. (The US Justice Department assigns examiners to bankruptcy cases to probe allegations of misconduct and wrongdoing. The examiners are there to help determine whether creditors can recover more funds and if additional regulatory action needs to occur.) Already, a number of top Lehman officials have been named defendants in securities fraud lawsuits over their alleged misconduct.

For example, examiner Anton R. Valukas appears to have found evidence of “actionable balance sheet manipulation, including use of Repo 105, an aggressive accounting practice that allowed Lehman to conceal the full extent of its financial problems. While no US law firm would sign off on this practice, Linklaters, a British law firm, did.

According to Valukas, as long as the repos took place in London through the bank’s European arm and the firm did what was necessary to make the transactions look as if they were sales, then regulatory disapproval was unlikely. Also, even after a whistleblower warned that accounting improprieties were occurring at at Lehman, Valukas says that Ernst & Young continued to certify Lehman’s financial statements.

If your account at Lehman Brothers was mismanaged or if you invested into Lehman Brothers stocks, hedge funds, notes, or other Lehman financial products that were sold by other firms, please contact our stockbroker fraud law firm immediately. Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP is committed to helping investment fraud victims throughout the US recoup their financial losses.

Related Web Resources:
Findings on Lehman Take Even Experts by Surprise, NY Times, March 10, 2010
Read the Examiner Report (PDF)
Continue Reading ›

Lehman Brothers Sues Barclays for Billions Over Windfall Profit From Asset Sale Transaction

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

Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. has filed an adversary complaint against Barclays Capital Inc. requesting the return of billions of dollars in extra profit that it says the latter made when buying Lehman’s North American brokerage business last year. Lehman says that Barclays failed to disclose that it received an illegal payment of at least $5 billion as part of the asset sale transaction. Barclays says that the asset sale terms were delineated in documents that Lehman executives signed.

Lehman is alleging breach of contract, aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, and several violations of the US bankruptcy code. Lehman is seeking punitive damages, compensatory damages, post-judgment interest, return of excess assets, avoidance of excess asset transfers, disgorgement of ill-gotten gains, and, pursuant to Bankruptcy Code Section 502(d), disallowance of Barclays claims against Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc.

According to the adversary complaint, Lehman and Barclays executives made an agreement that Barclays would buy Lehman’s US brokerage business, key real estate pieces, and related support systems. A bankruptcy court approved the deal.

Now, however, Lehman claims that the Sale Transaction were secretly put together in a manner that gave Barclays a huge, immediate windfall profit: Specifically, an undisclosed $5 billion off the book value of assets that were moved to Barclays and later, the undisclosed transfers of billions of dollars in ‘additional value.’

Barclays, however, says that the $5 billion “discount” is in fact the difference between the $45 billion it paid and the $49.7 billion nominal value of Lehman collateral that Barclays assumed and paid for the Lehman assets.

Related Web Resource:
Read the Lehman Brothers Lawsuit
Continue Reading ›

UBS Loses Lehman Arbitration Note Claim by Small Investor

Published on: December 9, 2009 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

In an arbitration case that could affect numerous cases that are still pending, a Financial Industry Regulation Authority panel awarded a small investor $200,000 after finding that a UBS Financial Services broker acted inappropriately when he sold high-risk Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. principal-protected notes to the claimant.

The case involving Lehman notes is one of the first to be decided by a FINRA panel. While the ruling won’t establish a precedent, it could be an indication of how similar rulings may go in the future. “There are many cases pending against UBS and other firms that sold Lehman notes shortly before Lehman failed,” said stockbroker fraud attorney William Shepherd, whose firm, securities fraud firm Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas LTD LLP, is handling a number of such cases. “These cases often involve misrepresentations and omissions as well as unsuitability, since the investments were sold to clients who sought safety and income,” he added.

The claimant filed the arbitration claim accusing UBS of recommending structured products that are not suitable for “unsophisticated investors.” The broker purchased for the client a $75,000 return optimization note and a $225,000 guaranteed principal protection note. The FINRA panel determined that the claimant should be compensated for the principal protected note, in addition to legal fees and interest.

Although the amount awarded is less than what the investor hoped to recover, a UBS spokesman said the securities firm was disappointed that the claimant was awarded any damages and maintains the investor’s financial losses were a result of the collapse of Lehman Brothers.

Investor Wins Lehman Note Arbitration, Wall Street Journal, December 5, 2009
FINRA awards US investor in Lehman notes $200,000, Reuters, December 5, 2009 Continue Reading ›