Financial Firms

Stanford Ponzi Scam Investors File Class Action Lawsuit Suing The Securities and Exchange Commission

Published on: July 25, 2012 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Accusing The SEC of negligent supervision and failure to act, a number of Stanford investors have filed a putative class action seeking damages from the Commission. In Anderson v. United States, the plaintiffs submitted an amended complaint to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana earlier this month. They are bringing their securities case under the Federal Tort Claims Act.

They contend that the losses they sustained in Stanford’s $7 billion Ponzi scam occurred because the SEC was negligent in supervising Spencer Barasch, who is the former enforcement director of the SEC’s Forth Worth Regional Office. They also are arguing that there was enough information available about R. Allen Stanford for the SEC to merit bringing an enforcement action or a referral to other agencies. The investors believe that an alleged failure to act by Barasch and the SEC let Stanford’s Ponzi scheme go undetected for years. They especially blame Barasch.

According to an April 2010 report by the Commission’s Office of the Inspector General, although the SEC’s Dallas office was aware as far back as 1997 that Stanford was running a Ponzi scam, it was unable to persuade the SEC’s Enforcement Division to investigate the scheme. The report also concluded that Barasch played a key part in a number of decisions to squelch the possible probes against Stanford.

After Barasch left the SEC, he represented Stanford on more than one occasion until 2006 when the SEC Office of Ethics told him that this was not appropriate. Earlier this year, he settled US Department of Justice civil charges over this alleged conflict of interest restrictions violation by paying a $50,000 penalty and consenting to a yearlong ban from SEC practice. (He did not, however, admit or deny wrongdoing.)

Now, the investor plaintiffs want the government to compensate them for their losses: Reuel Anderson is seeking $1,295,481.37, Timothy Ricketts wants $353,216.31, and Gary Greene is asking for his $443,302.09. The plaintiffs believe their class action securities complaint represents approximately 2,000 members.

This class action case comes more than a year after another group of plaintiff investors brought a similar securities lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas. In Robert Juan Dartez LLC v. United States the plaintiffs sought to hold the government liable for losses they sustained in Stanford’s Ponzi scam. The district court, however, dismissed the case without prejudice due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction in that it found that the plaintiffs’ claims landed in the discretionary function exception of the Federal Tort Claims Act.

Approximately 30,000 investors bought fraudulent CD’s from Stanford International Bank in Antigua. That’s a lot of customers getting hurt financially by one scam.

Stanford Investors Sue SEC Over Losses, Citing Negligent Supervision, Failure to Act, Bloomberg BNA, July 16, 2012

Anderson v. United States (PDF)

Robert Juan Dartez LLC v. United States

More Blog Posts:
Texas Financier Allen Stanford’s Ponzi Scam: SIPC Asks District Court to Toss Out SEC Lawsuit Seeking to Reimburse Fraud Victims, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, March 5, 2012

Texas Securities: SEC’s Bid To Get Stanford Ponzi Scam Victims SIPC Coverage is Denied by District Court, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, July 9, 2012
Goldman Sachs Execution and Clearing Must Pay $20.5M Arbitration Award in Bayou Ponzi Scam, Upholds 2nd Circuit, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, July 14, 2012 Continue Reading ›

Ex-Stanford Group Compliance Officer, Now MGL Consulting CEO, Says SEC’s Delay Over Whether to Charge Him in Ponzi Scam is Denying Him Right to Due Process

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

According to Reuters, Bernerd Young, a former compliance officer for the Texas-based Stanford Group. Co., contends that the Securities and Exchange Commission’s lack of decision over whether to charge him in R. Allen Stanford’s $7 billion Ponzi scam is not only a denial of his right to due process but also has hurt his professional life. Young, who is now the CEO of MGL Consulting, also used to work as a regulator with the National Association of Securities Dealers in Dallas. NASD is now the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority.

While Stanford has already been sentenced to 110 years in prison over his use of bogus CDs from his Stanford International Bank in Antigua to defraud his victims, the SEC has been constructing cases against a number of executives and financial advisers that worked for Stanford Group. However, legal disagreements and recusals between SEC officials and commissioners have reportedly caused delays to these probes that have left not just the bilked investors but also certain possible defendants waiting for resolution one way or another.

Young maintains that he didn’t know about the Ponzi scam. He says that the SEC came after him in Houston about one year after he was told by other Stanford executives that the Antigua bank’s portfolio was comprised of at least $1.6 billion in personal loans to Stanford himself. The Commission contended that it had evidence linking his actions to investors who were wrongly led believe that their CD’s were insured. Young received a Wells notice in June 2010 notifying him that the SEC intended to recommend that charges be filed against him.

Although the 2010 Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act gives the Commission six months to decide on a Wells notice, SEC lawyers are allowed to file extensions, which they have done in their potential case against Young. The Commission’s current extension of 180-days on the case will expire in September.

Meantime, Young believes that MLG Consulting losing 20% of its clients, regulators terminating the firms’ plans to expand, and its need to file for bankruptcy is a result of the stigma associated with the Stanford Ponzi scam probe. As for the investors who were victimized by the fraud and who have expressed dismay at the SEC’s delay in deciding whether/not to charge certain ex-Stanford employees, their worry is that these same individuals could go on to defraud other investors in the meantime.

These Investors have also had to deal with a federal district judge’s recent decision to reject the SEC’s request that the Securities Investor Protection Corporation start liquidation proceedings to compensate Stanford’s victims, some of whom sustained millions of dollars in losses. SIPC had argued that it only protects customers against losses involving missing securities or cash that had been in the in custody of insolvent or failing brokerage firms members of the protection corporation. While Stanford Group was a SIPC member, Stanford International Bank in Antigua was not.

Former Stanford executive says in limbo as SEC case drags, Reuters, July 22, 2012

More Blog Posts:
CFTC Files Texas Securities Fraud Against TC Credit Services and its Houston Owner Over $1.4M Commodity Pool Scam, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, July 17, 2012

Texas Securities: SEC’s Bid To Get Stanford Ponzi Scam Victims SIPC Coverage is Denied by District Court, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, July 9, 2012

Barclays LIBOR Manipulation Scam Places Citigroup, Credit Suisse, Deutsche Bank, JP Morgan Chase, and UBS Under The Investigation Microscope, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, July 16, 2012 Continue Reading ›

Institutional Investor Roundup: Ex-IndyMac Executives Class Action Securities Case for $6.5M, New York Fed Sells $828M of Mortgage Debt Securities from AIG Bailout, and Survey Says That 25% of Wall Street Employees Believe Cheating is Necessary to Succeed

Published on: July 18, 2012 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The former executives of IndyMac Banccorp have consented to settle class-action securities lawsuit related to bank holding company’s collapse when the housing bubble burst. Per the settlement terms, the financial firm’s insurer will pay investors $6.5 million in cash.

IndyMac shareholders had gone after ex-CEO Michael Perry and ex-finance officer Scott Keys in 2008, contending that they had misled investors about the mortgage lender’s poor financial condition. A month later, federal bank regulators closed down IndyMac Bank. Although the two of them are settling, they were not required to admit to any wrongdoing.

“Again, no jail time for anyone,” commented Shepherd Smith Edwards and Kantas, LTD, LLP Founder and Stockbroker Fraud Lawyer William Shepherd.

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.

Goldman Sachs Execution and Clearing Must Pay $20.5M Arbitration Award in Bayou Ponzi Scam, Upholds 2nd Circuit

Published on: July 14, 2012 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit is allowing a $20.5M award issued by a Financial Industry Regulatory Authority arbitration panel against Goldman Sachs Execution & Clearing LP to stand. The court turned down Goldman’s claim that the award should be vacated because it was issued in “manifest disregard of the law” and said that the clearing arm must pay this amount to the unsecured creditors of the now failed Bayou hedge fund group known as the Bayou Funds, which proved to be a large scale Ponzi scam.

Goldman was the prime broker and only clearing broker for the funds. After the scheme collapsed in 2005, the Bayou Funds sought bankruptcy protection the following year. Regulators would go on to sue the fund’s funders over the Ponzi scam and the losses sustained by investors. Meantime, an Official Unsecured Creditors’ Committee of Bayou Group was appointed to represent the debtors’ unsecured debtors. Blaming Goldman for not noticing the red flags that a Ponzi fraud was in the works, the committee proceeded to bring its arbitration claims against the clearing firm through FINRA. In 2010, the FINRA arbitration panel awarded the committee $20.58M against Goldman.

In affirming the arbitration award, the 2nd Circuit said that in this case, Goldman did not satisfy the manifest disregard standard. As an example, the court pointed to the $6.7M that was moved into the Bayou Funds from outside accounts in June 2005 and June 2004. While the committee had contended during arbitration that these deposits were “fraudulent transfers” and could be recovered from Goldman because they were an “initial transferee” under 11 U.S.C. §550(a), Goldman did not counter that the deposits weren’t fraudulent or that it was on inquiry notice of fraud. Instead, it claimed the deposits were not an “initial transferee” under 11 U.S.C. §550 and the panel had ignored the law by finding that it was.

Institutional Investor Roundup: Evergreen Ultra Short Investor Lawsuit Settled for $25M, FINRA Launches Pilot Program for Huge Claims, Ex-AmeriFirst Funding Manager’s Conviction Appeal is Rejected, & EU Regulator Examines Credit Raters’ Bank Downgrade

Published on: July 12, 2012 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Evergreen Investment Management Co. LLC and related entities have consented to pay $25 million to settle a class action securities settlement involving plaintiff investors who contend that the Evergreen Ultra Short Opportunities Fund was improperly marketed and sold to them. The plaintiffs, which include five institutional investors, claim that between 2005 and 2008 the defendants presented the fund as “stable” and providing income in line with “preservation of capital and low principal fluctuation” when actually it was invested in highly risky, volatile, and speculative securities, including mortgage-backed securities. Evergreen is Wachovia’s investment management business and part of Wells Fargo (WFC).

The plaintiffs claim that even after the MBS market started to fail, the Ultra Short Fund continued to invest in these securities, while hiding the portfolio’s decreasing value by artificially inflating the individual securities’ asset value in its portfolio. They say that they sustained significant losses when Evergreen liquidated the Ultra Short Fund four years ago after the defendants’ alleged scam collapsed. By settling, however, no one is agreeing to or denying any wrongdoing.

Meantime, seeking to generally move investors’ claims forward faster, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority has launched a pilot arbitration program that will specifically deal with securities cases of $10 million and greater. The program was created because of the growing number of very big cases.

CFTC Accuses Peregrine Financial Group of Securities Fraud Related to $200M Customer Funds Shortfall

Published on: July 10, 2012 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The CFTC is accusing Peregrine Financial Group and its owner Russell R. Wasendorf, Sr. of misappropriating client monies, including statements that were untrue in financial statements submitted to the CFTC, and violating customer fund segregation laws. The Commission filed its securities fraud complaint against the registered futures commission merchant in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

Per the CFTC’s complaint, during an audit by the National Futures Association, Peregrine misrepresented that it was holding more than $200M of client funds when it only held about $5.1M. The regulator says that the whereabouts of this at least $200 million in customer fund shortfall are not known at this time. In the wake of the allegations, Peregrine has told its clients that it was being investigated for “accounting irregularities.”

The Commission contends that beginning at least 2/2010 until now, Peregrine and Wasendorf did not meet CFTC Regulations and the Commodity Exchange Act by not maintaining enough client money in accounts that were segregated. The brokerage and its owner also are accused of making false statements about the funds that were being segregated for clients that were trading on US Exchanges in required filings.

Wasendorf, who reportedly tried to kill himself on Monday is now in a coma. The NFA just recently was given information that he may have been responsible for a number of falsified bank records.

The CFTC wants a restraining order to preserve records, freeze assets,, and establish a receiver. It is seeking disgorgement, restitution, financial penalties, and other appropriate financial relief.

Yesterday, Peregrine’s clearing broker Jefferies Group Inc. said that it had started unloading positions held for the futures brokerage’s clients after a margin call was not met. Jeffries Group doesn’t expect to sustain losses.

Meantime, the NFA and “other officials, have frozen all customer funds and Peregrine is not allowed to accept or solicit new client funds or accounts or make trades for customers unless it involves liquidating positions or distributing their money. Also looking into this financial matter is the US Federal Bureau of Investigation.

It was just this year that a court-appointed receiver in Minnesota sued Peregrine over allegedly disregarding warning signs that the futures brokerage’s client Trevor Cook was running a Ponzi scam. According to the securities lawsuit, investments by Cook and others with Peregrine that were supposedly profitable sustained over $30 million in losses as the allegedly culpable participants moved about $48 million from clients to Peregrine accounts.

According to Fox Business, the fallout from these latest allegations against Peregrine could be bigger than the MF Global collapse as traders blame regulators for not doing enough and industry members fight to recapture investor confidence.

CFTC Files Complaint Against Peregrine Financial Group, Inc. and Russell R. Wasendorf, Sr. Alleging Fraud, Misappropriation of Customer Funds, Violation of Customer Fund Segregation Laws, and Making False Statements, CFTC, July 10, 2012

Peregrine Financial Allegedly Has $200 Million Shortfall, Bloomberg, July 10, 2012

PFG Scandal Deepens as CFTC Files Claim, Fox Business News/Reuters, July 10, 2012

More Blog Posts:
ABA Presses for Self-Funding for SEC and CFTC, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, May 31, 2012

CFTC and SEC May Need to Work Out Key Differences Related to Over-the-Counter Derivatives Rulemaking, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, January 31, 2012

SEC and CFTC Say They Found Out About JPMorgan’s $2B Trading Loss Through Media, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, May 31, 2012

JPMorgan Chase Brokers Say the Financial Firm Prioritized Sales Over Investors’ Needs

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

According to a number of its current and former brokers, as JPMorgan Chase (JPM) was growing into one of the largest mutual fund managers in the country, it was placing a greater emphasis on sales than it was on the needs of its clients. These financial advisors say that JPMorgan encouraged them on occasion to promote its products over competitors even when what the others were offering was less expensive or had been performing better.

The New York Times, which wrote a news report about the brokers’ claims, says that if these allegations are true then the benefit to JPMorgan is obvious. The more money investors put into the investment bank’s funds the greater the fees it collects for managing the funds. One ex-JPMorgan employee, Geoffrey Tomas said he frequently would sell JPMorgan funds with poor performance records for the sole purpose of making the financial firm more money. Thomas now works with Urso Investment Management.

JPMorgan is one of a number of investment banks that turned to retail investors in the wake of the economic crisis. UBS (UBS) and Morgan Stanley (MS) have also attempted to target mom and pop investors. The Times says that JPMorgan’s approach is to concentrate on selling funds of its own creation. This is a practice that many companies, who don’t want to be thought of as having conflicts of interest, have decided to abandon.

Texas Securities Roundup: Morgan Stanley Smith Barney Sued Over Financial Adviser’s Ponzi Scam, Judge Dismisses Ex-GE Executive Whistleblower’s Lawsuit Over His Firing, & Ex-Stanford Financial Group CIO Pleads Guilty to Obstructing the SEC’s Probe

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

In Dallas County Court, 11 investors are suing Morgan Stanley Smith Barney and its financial adviser Delsa Thomas for bilking them in an alleged Texas Ponzi scam. They say that Thomas “took advantage of their trust in her when she suggested that they invest in Tejas Eagle Financial LLC. (She gave them the choice of investing $250,000 or $125,000.) They invested hundreds of thousand dollars of their retirement money and savings.

The plaintiffs contend that the financial firm breached its duty of care to them by allowing Thomas to give them unsuitable financial advice that “would destroy their investments.” They are seeking damages for negligent misrepresentation, fraud, negligent supervision, and vicarious liability.

In other Texas securities news, ex-Stanford Financial group chief investment officer Laura Pendergest Holt has pled guilty to charges that she obstructed the SEC’s probe into Stanford International Bank, which was owned by Ponzi scammer Robert Allen Stanford. Holt, who testified before the Commission about SIB’s investment portfolio, now admits that she did so as a “stall tactic” to impede the agencies efforts to get key information. Stanford is behind bars for running a $7 billion Ponzi scam.

Securities Law Roundup: Merrill Lynch Pays Customers $32M For Allegedly Overcharging Them with Unwarranted Fees, Brookstone Securities is Accused of $1.6M in Fraudulent CMO Sales to Elderly Retirees, and Planner Loses CFP Designation Following After Maine

Published on: June 28, 2012 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority says that it is fining Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. $2.8M in the wake of certain alleged supervisory failures that the SRO says led to the financial firm billing clients unwarranted fees. The financial firm paid back the $32M in remediation to affected clients, in addition to interest.

According to FINRA, from 4/03 to 12/11, Merrill Lynch lacked a satisfactory supervisory system that could ensure that certain investment advisory program clients were billed per the terms of their disclosure documents and contract. As a result, close to 95,000 client account fees were charged.

Also, due to programming mistakes, Merrill Lynch allegedly did not give certain clients timely trade confirmations. These errors caused them to not get confirmations for over 10.6 million trades in more than 230,000 customer accounts from 7/06 to 11/10. Additionally, FINRA contends that Merrill Lynch failed to properly identify when it played the role of principal or agent on account statements and trade confirmations involving at least 7.5 million mutual fund buy transactions. By settling, Merrill Lynch is not denying nor admitting to the charges. It is, however, agreeing to the entry of FINRA’s findings.