Articles Posted in Financial Firms

Houston-Based Receiver Files $1.8B Class Action Filed Against Law Firms Accused of Helping R. Allen Stanford Carry Out His $7B Ponzi Scam

Published on: December 5, 2012 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Ralph Janvey, the Stanford receiver based in Houston, has filed a putative class action lawsuit against Hunton & Williams LLP and Greenberg Traurig LLP, two law firms accused of playing roles that allowed R. Allen Stanford to execute his $7B Ponzi scam. The securities complaint, which was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, is seeking $1.8 billion in damages and $10 million that it claims Stanford gave to the law firms during their years of working together. The plaintiffs are contending Texas Securities Act violations, aiding and abetting participation in a fraud scam, aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, and conspiracy.

Also named as a defendant is Yolanda Suarez, who was not only a former Greenberg Traurig associate but also she served as Stanford Financial Group’s general counsel and later as chief of staff. Janvey says that Stanford could not have kept his scam going for over 20 years without these parties’ help.

Per the Texas securities case, Carlos Loumiet, an ex-Greenberg Traurig partner who later went to work for Hunton & Williams (he is now a DLA Piper partner and is not a defendant in this lawsuit), had a “very close personal relationship” with Stanford and played a part in helping the now convicted fraudster run his global scam. This included helping him establish sales and marketing offices in the US. Loumiet and Greenberg Traurig also allegedly helped Stanford set up the transactions that would allow the Ponzi mastermind to use the money he took from Stanford International Bank Ltd. in Antigua and invest them in “speculative venture capital” deals and property in the Caribbean. The law firm is also accused of giving Stanford securities law counsel and advice on a regularly basis.

Goldman Sachs Ordered to Arbitrate Underwriting Dispute Involving $210M in Auction-Rate Securities

Published on: December 4, 2012 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada has rejected Goldman Sachs & Co.’s (GS) bid to arbitrate its dispute with the city of Reno, Nevada. The financial firm had sought to stop a Financial Industry Regulatory Authority proceeding over its underwriting of $210 million in ARS. Per Judge Robert Jones, even though there was no arbitration agreement, that the city paid Goldman to facilitate the securities’ auctions makes Reno a customer of a FINRA firm member for the purposes of arbitration. The case is Goldman Sachs & Co. v. City of Reno.

Recounts the court, Reno had issued about $210 million in auction-rate securities to fund a number of projects in 2005 and 2006. Pursuant to their underwriter and broker-dealer agreements together, Goldman was to underwrite and broker the ARS. While the broker-dealer arrangement included a forum selection clause allowing for any lawsuits stemming from the agreement to be heard in Nevada district court, it did not (nor did the underwriter agreement), come with an arbitration provision.

Reno began FINRA arbitration proceedings against the brokerage firm in early 2012 claiming that Goldman had committed wrongdoing under the terms of the agreements. Goldman countered with this case, requesting that the court find that the FINRA forum was inappropriate for resolving this dispute, per the forum selection clause, and because there was no arbitration clause between the two parties. Goldman also sought preliminary injunction against the proceedings.

The district court said no to the request for relief, observing that a party that wants injunctive relief has to show that success on the merits was likely, which it said Goldman did not do. It also said that, according to FINRA arbitration code, parties have to arbitrate any dispute between a member and its customer that involves the member’s business activities. As for the forum selection clauses found in the broker-dealer agreement, the court said that although these don’t directly address the matter of arbitration, they also don’t disallow for arbitration if that is what is needed.

The court disagreed with Goldman’s contention that FINRA rules don’t apply because the ARS are municipal securities and therefore influenced by Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board rules, which don’t include muni issuers under the customer definition. It pointed out that, according to the SEC, MSRB members are also subject to FINRA arbitration just like FINRA members. Also, Goldman is both an MSRB member and a FINRA member.

Judge Jones noted that even if FINRA finds that Reno’s claims have more to do with the brokerage firm’s underwriting than its auction facilitation services, the issue of arbitrability is for the arbitrator and not the court.

Goldman Sachs & Co. v. City of Reno, D. Nev, Dockets, Justia

Goldman Must Arbitrate Dispute With City of Reno Over ARS Underwriting, Bloomberg BNA, November 30, 2012

More Blog Posts:
Class Action MBS Securities Lawsuit Against Goldman Sachs is Reinstated by 2nd Circuit, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, September 14, 2012

Amerigroup Shareholders Claim Goldman Sachs Advisers’ Had Conflicts of Interest That Influenced $4.5B Sale of Company to WellPoint, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, August 21, 2012

Texas Securities Fraud: BNY Mellon Capital Markets LLC Settles Allegations of Rigged Bond Bidding for $1.3M, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, January 24, 2012 Continue Reading ›

SEC’s Antifraud Claim Against Goldman Sachs Executive Fabrice Tourre Won’t Be Reinstated, Says District Court

Published on: December 3, 2012 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York has refused the Securities and Exchange Commission’s request to reinstate its antifraud claim against Goldman Sachs & Co. (GS) executive Fabrice Tourre for alleged misstatements related to a collateralized debt obligation connected to subprime mortgages. Judge Katherine Forrest said that the facts did not offer enough domestic nexus to support applying 1934 Securities Exchange Act Section 10(b). To do so otherwise would allow a 10(b) claim to be made whenever a foreign fraudulent transaction had even the smallest link to a legal securities transaction based in the US, she said, and that this is “not the law.” The case is SEC v. Tourre.

The SEC had sued the Goldman and its VP, Tourre, over alleged omissions and misstatements connected with the ABACUS 2007-AC1’s sale and structuring. This 2007 CDO was linked to subprime residential mortgage-backed securities and their performance. The Commission claimed Goldman had misrepresented the part that Paulson & Co., a hedge fund, had played in choosing the RMBS that went into the portfolio underlying the CDO and that Tourre was primarily responsible for the CDO deal’s marketing and structuring.

In 2010, Goldman settled the SEC’s claims by consenting to pay $550M, which left Tourre as the sole defendant of this case. Last year, the court dismissed one of the Section 10(B) claims predicated on $150 million note purchases made by IKB, a German bank, because of Morrison v. National Australia Bank Ltd. In that case, the US Supreme Court had found that this section is applicable only to transactions in securities found on US exchanges or securities transactions that happen in this country. The court, however, did let the regulator move forward under Section 10(b) in regards to other ABACUS transactions, and also the 1933 Securities Act’s Section 17(a).

However, following Absolute Activist Value Master Fund Ltd. v. Facet in which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit earlier this year found that ““irrevocable liability is incurred or title passes” within the US securities transaction may be considered domestic even if trading did not occur on a US exchange, the SEC requested that the court revive the Section 10(b) claim. Although IKB was the one that had recommended the CDO to clients, including Loreley Financing, it was Goldman that obtained the title to $150 million of the notes through the Depository Trust Co. in New York. Goldman then sent the notes to the CDO trustee in Chicago before the notes were moved from the DTC to Goldman’s Euroclear account to Loreley’s account. The Commission said that, therefore, transaction that the claim was based on had closed here.

Noting in its holding that Section 10(b) places liability on any person that employs deception or manipulation related to the selling or buying of a security, the court said that the Commission was trying to premise the domestic move of the notes’ title from the CDO trustee to Goldman at the closing in New York as a “hook” to show liability under this section. The court pointed out that while the title of the transfer that took place in New York was legal and it wasn’t until later that the alleged fraud happened. The “fraud was perpetuated upon IKB/Loreley, not Goldman” so “no fraudulent US-based” title transfer related to the note purchase is “sufficient to sustain a Section 10(b) and rule 10b-5 claim against Tourre” for the transaction.

More Blog Posts:
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, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, November 12, 2010

Goldman Sachs Settles SEC Subprime Mortgage-CDO Related Charges for $550 Million, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, November 12, 2010

Judge that Dismissed Regulators’ Claims Against Morgan Keegan to Rule on ARS Lawsuit Again After His Ruling Was Reversed on Appeal

Published on: November 27, 2012 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Almost a year and a half after US District Judge William Duffey Jr. dismissed the SEC’s lawsuit accusing Morgan Keegan & Co. of misleading thousands of auction-rate securities investors about the risks involved with these investments, he must now rule on the same case again. This latest trial in federal court comes after the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Montgomery, Alabama dismissed Duffey’s decision on the grounds that he erred when he concluded that the verbal comments made by brokers to four clients were immaterial because of disclosures that were on the retail brokerage firm’s website. Morgan Keegan is a Raymond James Financial (RJF.N) unit.

In SEC v. Morgan Keegan & Company Inc., regulators are claiming that the brokerage firm told its clients that over $2B securities came with no risk, even as the ARS market was failing, and that the investments were short-term and liquid. The commission filed its ARS fraud lawsuit against the broker-dealer in 2009.

During opening statements at this latest trial, prosecutors again contended that the brokers did not tell the investors that their cash could become frozen indefinitely. Reports Bloomberg News, orange grower John Tilis, who is a witness in this case, said that he decided to invest $400K in ARS in 2007 because he thought they were a safe place to keep his money until he had to pay taxes in April the next year. Tilis claims that the firm’s broker had informed him that he would be easily able to get his funds when he needed them. Yet when Tilis attempted to do so, he said that all the broker would tell him is that the ARS couldn’t be sold. (Morgan Keegan later refunded his principal.)

The SEC is arguing that Morgan Keegan found out about a number of failed auctions in November of 2007. In March 2008, one month after even more auctions had begun failing, the brokerage company started mandating that customers that wanted to buy ARS sign statements noting that they were aware that it might be some time before the investments became liquid again.

Meanwhile, Morgan Keegan is maintaining that it did not fail to inform clients about the risks involved in auction-rate securities, which had a history of being very “safe and liquid.” The firm contends that not being able to predict the future is not the same as securities fraud (Duffey noted this same logic when he dismissed the SEC lawsuit last year), and that even prior to the SEC lawsuit, it bought back $2B in ARS from clients. Morgan Keegan says that those who took part in the buyback program did not lose any money.

Morgan Keegan Trial Judge to Decide SEC Case He Dismissed, Bloomberg, November 26, 2012

More Blog Posts:

Court Upholds Ex-NBA Star Horace Grant $1.46M FINRA Arbitration Award from Morgan Keegan & Co. Over Mortgage-Backed Bond Losses, Stockbroker fraud Blog, October 30, 2012

Morgan Keegan & Company Ordered by FINRA to Pay $555,400 in Texas Securities Case Involving Morgan Keegan Proprietary Funds, Stockbroker fraud Blog, September 6, 2011

Securities Roundup: BP Settles for $525M SEC Lawsuit Over Deepwater Horizon Spill Disclosures, Ex-OIG Official Says He Was Fired for Exposing Misconduct, Ex-Merrill Lynch Advisor Accused of Defrauding Elderly Client, & Trader Pleads Guilty to $28M Fraud

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

BP Plc. has consented to settle for $525 million Securities and Exchange Commission allegations that it gave the agency and investors misleading information about the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill. If approved, this would be the third biggest penalty in SEC history.

According to the Commission, during the crisis the oil giant issued fraudulent statements about how much oil was flowing on a daily basis from the Deepwater Horizon rig into the Gulf of Mexico, including underestimating this rate by up to 5,000 oil barrels a day even though it allegedly had internal data noting that possible flow rates could be up to 146,000 barrels daily. Even after a government task force later determined that 52,700 to 62,200 oil barrels were flowing out a day, BP allegedly never modified the omissions or misrepresentations it made in SEC filings.

In other SEC news, David Weber, one of its ex-Office of Inspector General officials, is suing the agency and Chairman Mary Schapiro for allegedly getting back at him for disclosing misconduct that had been taking place at the Commission. Weber contends that SEC staff spoke about him to the media in a “malicious and defamatory” manner and leaked his personal information because he not only disclosed that ex-SEC Inspector General H. David Kotz had engaged in misconduct that placed several OIG investigations at peril, but also he revealed that there were cyber security breaches at the agency.

UBS ‘Rogue Trader’ Convicted of Fraud that Caused $2.3B Loss

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

Kweku Adoboli, an ex-UBS (UBS) trader, has been convicted of fraud over bad deals he made at the Swiss Bank that resulted in $2.2 billion in losses. He has been sentenced to 7 years behind bars.

Adoboli, who had pled not guilty to the criminal charges, is accused of booking bogus hedges and storing profits in a secret account to hide the risks related to his trades and dealings involving exchange-traded funds, commodities, bonds, and complex financial products that track stocks. Not only did he go beyond his trading limits but also he did not cover his losses.

Meantime, the ex-UBS trader had argued in his defence that the trading losses happened not because of fraudulent or dishonest conduct on his part but because he and other traders were asked to accomplish too much without sufficient resources and in a very volatile market.

Regulators Also At Fault in MF Global Debacle, Says House Report

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

According to a report from Republican oversight panel members of the House Financial Services Committee, as MF Global teetered on the brink of failure, regulators were confused about how to deal with the crisis. The findings come from a number of Congressional hearings with MF Global executive and other officials during a yearlong probe, including interviews with numerous ex-MF Global employees and over 240,000 documents. The Republicans released the report without the backing of House Democrats.

E-mails that went back and forth between the regulators in the hours leading up to the financial derivatives broker’s bankruptcy exhibited what the Republicans describe as a “disorganized and haphazard” approach to oversight, as well as communication issues.
Some of the Republicans behind this 100-page report believe that regulators gave former MF Global chief executive John S. Corzine a lot of leeway. Meantime, Democrats have said that the report is a way for Republicans to embarrass Obama administrative watchdogs.

Representative Randy Neugebauer, who is the oversight panel’s chairman and led the investigation, commented that it wasn’t that more regulation was necessary in the handling of the MF Global crisis but that the regulators needed to actually do their job and work together better. For example, per the report, after the Commodity Futures Trading Commission had instructed MF Global to transfer $220M to stop up a hole in customer accounts, which the firm agreed to do, the Securities and Exchange Commission and other regulators complained that the order was given without first consulting them. The report also cites other incidents of missed communications and frustration among the different agencies toward each other.

Some Republicans are suggesting that SEC and CFTC would better serve investors and customers if they streamlined themselves or merged into one agency. However, this is not the first time that lawmakers have tried to combine the two regulators. Such efforts in the past have always hit a wall of opposition.

The report on MF Global is the most significant attempt by the government to address errors made by the broker and the bulk of the blame continues to be pointed toward Corzine, who fought back against attempts to limit his authority over European trades, including the demands of auditor PriceWaterhouseCoopers (PWC) that MF Global account for sovereign debt holdings in a manner that would have lowered profitability. However, authorities continue to remain wary of filing criminal charges against MF Global’s top executives because they believe that loose controls and chaos and not criminal actions, are why over a billion dollars in customer money disappeared. (The report also names the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, contending that it should have been more careful when deciding to approve MF Global’s application to sell securities on the New York Fed’s behalf.)

House Report Faults MF Global Regulators, New York Times, November 15, 2012

Financial Services Subcommittee Report Finds Decisions by Corzine, Lack of Communication Between Regulators Led to MF Global Bankruptcy and Loss of Customer Funds, Financial Services, November 15, 2012
Read the Report (PDF)

More Blog Posts:
$1.2 Billion of MF Global Inc.’s Clients Money Still Missing, Stockbroker fraud Blog, December 10, 2011

MF Global Holdings Ltd. Files for Bankruptcy While Its Broker Faces Liquidation and Securities Lawsuit by SIPC, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, October 31, 2011
Ex-MF Global CEO John Corzine Says Bankruptcy Trustee’s Bid to Join Investors’ Class Action Securities Litigation is Hurting His Defense, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, September 5, 2012 Continue Reading ›

Citigroup to Pay $2M Massachusetts Over Allegedly Improper Disclosure About Facebook Before IPO & SEC Wants Additional Comments on Nasdaq’s Proposed $62M Fund For Those that Experienced Technical Glitches After Trading Began

Published on: November 7, 2012 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Citigroup Global markets Inc. (C) has consented to pay $2M to settle claims by the state of Massachusetts that a research analyst improperly disclosed information about Facebook (FB) before the company’s initial public offering. According to Secretary of the Commonwealth William F. Galvin, the financial firm neglected to supervise this person, who allegedly gave research information to a media technology site. Galvin says that this disclosure violated state securities laws, a nondisclosure arrangement between Facebook and Citigroup, and FINRA and NASD rules. While Citigroup has admitted to the statement of facts, it has not denied or admitted violating SRO rules and securities laws.

Per the allegations In re Citigroup Global Markets Inc., Mass. Sec. Div., the junior analyst emailed the information to AOL Inc.-owned media site TechCrunch. The data contained projections by a senior analyst about the IPO. Citigroup is accused of not detecting or preventing the disclosure until responded to a subpoena issued by Massachusetts. Also implicated in the order was a senior Citigroup analyst accused of giving data about YouTube Inc. revenue estimates to a French magazine without getting the communication approved first.

The Facebook IPO in May has attracted a lot of attention from regulators and lawmakers. One reason for this is allegations that analysts gave certain investors select data about the offering. There was also the problem of technical glitches that arose when trading began. Securities lawsuits and congressional and regulatory probes ensued.

To compensate investors that suffered losses from the technical snafus, Nasdaq Stock Market LLC is proposing a $62 million reimbursement fund. Now, the Securities and Exchange Commission is asking for more comment about this proposed fund. As of October 26, most of the 11 letters it had received had voiced objections. For example, some took issue with the $40.527 benchmark price that was used to figure out how much members are owed, while others didn’t like how only a limited number/kinds of orders are eligible for compensation: sells that were priced at $42 or under that failed to execute, sales in this price range that were executed at a lower price, purchases priced at $42 that went through but weren’t confirmed right away, and purchases at the same price that not only went through and weren’t confirmed but also efforts were made to cancel them. Qualified market participants wanting to take part in the compensation program would have to relinquish other related claims that might also be valid.

Citi fined $2 million over Facebook IPO, fires two analysts, Reuters, October 26, 2012

Read the Consent Order resolving the proceedings between Massachusetts and Citigroup(PDF)

More Blog Posts:
Citigroup Inc. CEO Vikram Pandit Resigns, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, October 16, 2012

Citigroup Inc.’s $590M CDO Putative Class Action Settlement Gets Preliminary Approval from District Court, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, September 13, 2012

Massachusetts Commonwealth Secretary William Galvin Sues UBS for Fraud, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, June 30, 2012 Continue Reading ›

Court Upholds Ex-NBA Star Horace Grant’s $1.46M FINRA Arbitration Award from Morgan Keegan & Co. Over Mortgage-Backed Bond Losses

Published on: October 30, 2012 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Three years after the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority awarded former Chicago Bulls forward Horace Grant a $1.46 million arbitration award in his securities claim against Morgan Keegan & Co., the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has upheld that ruling. Grant, who had suffered mortgage-backed bond losses, accused the brokerage firm of not disclosing to him that his investments were not suitable for him, withholding information about the actual risks involved, and failing to supervise the fund manager. Morgan Keegan is now part of Raymond James Financial Inc. (RJF).

Grant bought the majority of the funds through his account with Morgan Keegan in 2004 when the brokerage firm owned the sports agency that represented him. The mortgage-backed bond funds were among a group of investment products that took huge losses in value in 2007 and 2008 when the subprime market failed.

Hundreds of investors proceeded to file similar mortgage-backed bond losses claims against Morgan Keegan, which finally agreed to settle with regulators for $200 million the allegations that it had inflated the value of the high-risk subprime securities that the funds held. James Kelsoe, a fund manager who is accused of purposely inflating the subprime securities’ value, would later to agree to an industry bar by the SEC and consent to pay a $500,000 penalty.

Bank of America Corp. Sued for Over $1B By US Government For Mortgage Fraud Against Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae

Published on: October 24, 2012 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The United States is suing Bank of America Corporation (BAC) for more than $1 billion over alleged mortgage fraud involving the sale of defective loans to Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. The federal government contends that Countrywide, and then later Bank of America, following its acquisition of the former, executed the “Hustle,” a loan origination process intended to swiftly process loans without the use of quality checkpoints.

This allegedly resulted in thousands of defective and fraudulent residential mortgage loans, which were sold to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, that later defaulted, leading to innumerable foreclosures and over $1 billion in losses.

The US claims that between 2007 and 2009, mortgage company Countrywide Financial Corp. got rid of checks and quality control on loans, including opting not to use underwriters, giving unqualified personnel incentives to cut corners, and hiding defects, and then proceeded to falsely keep claiming that these loans were qualified to be insured by Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. The result, says U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York Preet Bharara, was that taxpayers were left to foot the bill from these “disastrously bad loans.”