Articles Posted in Financial Firms

Bank of America’s Merrill Lynch Settles for $315 million Class Action Lawsuit Over Mortgage-Backed Securities

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

Bank of America, Corp. has agreed to pay investors $315 million to settle their class action claim accusing Merrill Lynch of misleading them about the risks involved in investing in mortgage-backed securities. If approved, the proposed settlement would be one of the largest reached over MBS that caused investors major losses when the housing market collapsed. The lead plaintiff in this securities case is the Public Employees’ Retirement System of Mississippi pension fund.

The class action lawsuit accused Merrill of misleading investors about $16.5 billion of MBS in 18 offerings that were made between 2006 and 2007. They are claiming possible losses in the billions of dollars. (The offerings occurred before Bank of America bought Merrill.)

The plaintiffs contend that Merrill’s offering documents were misleading. They also believe that the original investment-grade ratings for the securities, which had been backed by loans from Countrywide, IndyMac Bancorp Inc., First Franklin Financial unit, and New Century Financial Corp. were unmerited. Most of these investments were later downgraded to “junk” status.

By agreeing to settle, Bank of America is not admitting to or denying wrongdoing.

This settlement must be approved by US District Judge Jed Rakoff, who just last week rejected the proposed $285M securities settlement between Citigroup Global Markets Inc. and the Securities and Exchange Commission. He ordered that the case be resolved through trial. Rakoff was also the one who refused to approve another proposed Bank of America securities settlement—the one in 2009 with the SEC—for $33 million over misstatements that were allegedly made regarding the purchase of Merrill. Rakoff would later go on to approve the revised settlement of $150 million.

Rakoff has criticized a system that allows financial firms to settle securities fraud allegations against them without having to admit or deny wrongdoing. He also has expressed frustration at the “low” settlements some investment banks have been ordered to pay considering the amount of financial losses suffered by investors.

Our securities fraud lawyers represent individual and institutional clients that sustained losses related to non-traded REITs, private placements, principal protected notes, auction-rate securities, collateralized debt obligations, mortgage-backed securities, reverse convertible bonds, high yield-notes and other financial instruments that were mishandled by broker-dealers, investment advisers, or their representatives. We also work with victims of Ponzi scams, affinity scams, elder financial fraud and other financial schemes.

BofA Merrill unit in $315 mln mortgage settlement, Reuters, December 6, 2011

Public Employees’ Retirement System of Mississippi

More Blog Posts:
Citigroup’s $285M Settlement With the SEC Is Turned Down by Judge Rakoff, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, November 28, 2011

Citigroup’s $285M Mortgage-Related CDO Settlement with Raises Concerns About SEC’s Enforcement Practices for Judge Rakoff, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, November 9, 2011

Ex-Lehman Brothers Holdings Chief Executive Defends Request that Insurance Fund Pay Legal Bills, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, October 19, 2011

Texas Securities Fraud: Raymond James Financial Services Pays Elderly Senior Investor About $1.8M Following Loss of Appeal

Published on: December 2, 2011 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Raymond James Financial Services has paid the $1.79M Dallas securities arbitration award plus interest it owes to Hurshel Tyler and the estate of his wife Mildred. They filed their claim with the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority. Both were in their 80’s.

They contend that they were advised by an ex-Raymond James representative to take their $3.5M in bond funds and place them in variable life insurance and variable annuities. Unfortunately, the life insurance policy was tied to $2M in improper loans, interest obligations, and ongoing tax that made it difficult to return the financial product to the brokerage firm. Tyler and Mildred’s estate claim that the stockbroker, Daul Davis, made a recommendation to them that was unsuitable.

Davis not only advised the Tylers to liquidate their municipal bond portfolio and make the new investments, but also, unknown to the couple, he moved them from one variable annuity to another, which cost them a significant surrender fee and commission. The Tylers’ Texas stockbroker lawyer says that by making the couple’s son the new annuity’s annuitant, the financial firm and Davis earned over twice the commission than if Hurshel Tyler had been the annuitant. (Usually, the annuitant and annuity owner are the same person. However, the insurance company that was involved only offered a 3.25% commission for annuitants over 80 years of age, while the commission for someone younger than that was 7.5%)

A FINRA arbitration panel sided with Tylers. The couple had sought to recoup their money, but instead panel members instead awarded them with compensatory damages.

Raymond James went on to appeal that decision. The broker-dealer argued that the couple should have given the annuities back. They also contended that they shouldn’t have to pay the couple’s $250K in legal fees because Florida, which is where the financial firm is based, doesn’t allow for this type of award.

Although Raymond James has gone ahead and paid the arbitration award, the broker-dealer maintains that the payment is unjust. The financial firms claims that not only did the couple make over $800,000 while the accounts were under its watch, but also, any losses they sustained occurred after they moved the accounts to a different broker-dealer. Raymond James says that despite disagreeing with the FINRA panel’s ruling, it has gone ahead and paid what it considers an “erroneous award” because in the long run doing so now would be less costly than continuing to contest it.

This Texas securities arbitration award is the largest one that Raymond James has ever had to pay.

Raymond James Pays Highest Arbitration Award in History, LifeHealthPro, November 30, 2011
After appeal fails, RJ forks over $1.8M to 87-year-old client, Investment News, November 30, 2011

More Blog Posts:
Former Texan and First Capital Savings and Loan To Pay $4.5M for Alleged Foreign Currency Ponzi Scheme, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, November 11, 2011
Texas Securities Fraud: SEC Moves to Freeze Assets of Stewardship Fund LP, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, November 5, 2011
Houston Judge Overturns $9.2M Securities Fraud Ruling Against Morgan Keegan, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, October 11, 2011 Continue Reading ›

Securities Claims Accusing Merrill Lynch of Concealing Its Auction-Rate Securities Practices Are Dismissed by Appeals Court

Published on: November 30, 2011 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has affirmed a district court’s decision to dismiss securities fraud claims accusing Merrill Lynch & Co. of hiding its ARS practices to manipulate the market. The case had been filed by plaintiff Colin Wilson on behalf of all buyers between March 2003 and Feb. 13, 2008 that purchased ARS for which Merrill was the dealer.

Wilson contended that although until July 2007 Merrill Lynch did not allow its ARS auctions to fail, in the couple of months that followed the broker-dealer did not put in support bids during at least 34 auction-rate securities issuances. As a result, those auctions did fail. Wilson also claimed that because Merrill Lynch did not appropriately disclose the full scope of its ARS practices, the financial firm was sending out a false signal that the market was sustainable despite there being not enough of an investor demand for the instruments.

The district court threw out the Wilson’s ARS case after finding that Merrill’s disclosure did not mislead investors. Now, the appeals court is affirming. It found that if, as Wilson says, Merrill intended to put in support bids for every auction unless it decided to let certain ones fail or get out of the market in general, then the court believes that the broker-dealer gave fair disclosure of all this. The appeals court also didn’t agree with Wilson’s allegation that Merrill Lynch knew without a doubt that if it didn’t intervene an ARS auction was sure to fail.

This is the first appellate ruling involving securities class litigation over the demise of the ARS market. Upon the market’s decline beginning 2007, Merrill Lynch and other large broker-dealers started letting auction-rate securities auctions fail. When they completely stopped their support, the market became illiquid. A number of investors have since filed ARS lawsuits seeking to recover their money.

Although Merrill appears to have won this case, Shepherd Smith Edwards and Kantas founder and stockbroker fraud attorney William Shepherd notes, “This is not the huge victory Merrill claims. The court did NOT find that Merrill did not engage in wrongdoing in the sale of auction rate securities (ARS) to its clients, most of whom were led to falsely believe that these ARS investments were similar to commercial paper or short-term treasury bills. This case is instead concerned with “market manipulation,” a type of securities fraud claim that is rarely brought and almost never successful. In order to win this case, among other hurdles the plaintiffs would have to demonstrate that Merrill’s practices were intentional and were intended to change the market value of the securities. Also, this decision is by the federal appeals court in New York, which mysteriously decides many cases in favor of Wall Street.”

2d Cir. Affirms Merrill Off the Hook In Investor Suit Over ARS Disclosures, BNA, November 16, 2011
Read the full opinion (PDF)

More Blog Posts:
SEC and SIFMA Divided Over Whether Merrill Lynch Can Be Held Liable for Alleged ARS Market Manipulation, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, July 29, 2011 Raymond James Settles Auction-Rate Securities Case with Indiana Securities Division for $31M, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, August 27, 2011
District Court in Texas Decides that Credit Suisse Securities Doesn’t Have to pay Additional $186,000 Arbitration Award to Luby’s Restaurant Over ARS, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, June 2, 2011 Continue Reading ›

LPL Financial Ordered to Pay $100K for Lack of Adequate Oversight that Resulted in Unsuitable Investments for Clients

Published on: November 29, 2011 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

LPL Financial must pay $100K for its improper supervision of a broker. The Oregon Division of Financial and Corporate Securities, which fined the financial firm, reports that LPL Financial has put in place better oversight procedures since the violation was discovered. LPL Financial is a LPL Investment Holdings Inc. division.

According to the state’s securities division, Jack Kleck, an LPL Financial branch manager, sold risky gas and oil partnership-related investments to almost 36 residents. A lot of these clients were elderly seniors for whom these investments were unsuitable (considering their investment goals and age). Some even lacked the mental capacity to make such investment choices.

LPL Financial is accused of committing securities law violations, including not making sure that company procedures and policy were enforced and inadequately supervising Kleck, whose securities license was taken away in 2007. He was ordered to pay a $30,000 fine.

Citigroup’s $285M Settlement With the SEC Is Turned Down by Judge Rakoff

Published on: November 28, 2011 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

U.S. District Judge Jed S. Rakoff has turned down the proposed $285M settlement between the SEC and Citigroup Global Markets Inc. However, unlike with the SEC’s tentative $33M settlement with Bank of America that he rejected, eventually approving a $150 million settlement between both parties-this time, Rakoff is ordering the SEC and Citigroup to trial.

The SEC claimed Citigroup sold Class V Funding III right as the housing market fell apart in 2007 and then bet against the $1 billion mortgage-linked collateralized debt obligation. Meantime, the financial firm allegedly failed to tell clients about this conflict of interest. Investors would go on to lose nearly $700 million over the CDO, while Citigroup ended up making about $160 million.

To many observers, Rakoff’s decision doesn’t come as a surprise. He has expressed concern with the SEC’s handling of securities cases for some time. In his ruling today, Rakoff was very clear in stating that he didn’t believe the tentative agreement was “fair… reasonable… adequate, nor in the public interest.” He also called for the “underlying facts” and made it clear that the SEC’s typical boilerplate settlement, which usually involves the other party agreeing to the terms but not admitting to or denying wrongdoing, was not going to suffice.

Until now, the SEC’s settlement policy has allowed the Commission to declare a victory while letting defendants get away with not acknowledging any wrongdoing so that private plaintiffs cannot use such an outcome in litigation against them. Now, however, Rakoff wants the court and the public to actually learn whether or not Citigroup acted improperly.

Also in his opinion, Rakoff spoke about how the current settlement doesn’t do anything for the investors that Citigroup allegedly defrauded of hundreds of millions of dollars. Not only that but the SEC isn’t promising to compensate the alleged securities fraud victims.

For now, the trial between Citigroup and the SEC is scheduled for July 2012. However, the Commission could decide to appeal Rakoff’s ruling and ask an appellate court to either make him accept the $285 million settlement or appoint a new judge to the case. According to the New York Times, however, this could prove challenging because a writ of mandamus would be required.

Our securities fraud law firm has had it with financial firms defrauding investors and then getting away with this type of misconduct. It is our job to help our clients recoup their losses whether via arbitration or in court.

Behind Rakoff’s Rejection of Citigroup Settlement, NY Times, November 28, 2011
Judge to SEC: Stop settling, start really suing, OC Register, November 28, 2011
Read Judge Rakoff’s Opinion

More Blog Posts:
Citigroup’s $285M Mortgage-Related CDO Settlement with Raises Concerns About SEC’s Enforcement Practices for Judge Rakoff, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, November 9, 2011
Bank of America To Settle SEC Charges Regarding Merrill Lynch Acquisition Proxy-Related Disclosures for $150 Million, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, February 15, 2010
Ex-Goldman Sachs Director Rajat Gupta Pleads Not Guilty to Insider Trading Charges, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, October 26, 2011 Continue Reading ›

MF Global Shortfall May Be More than $1.2B, Says Trustee

Published on: November 26, 2011 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

According to trustee James Giddens, MF Global Inc. may have a greater than $1.2B shortfall in US segregated customer accounts. Giddens has been tasked with overseeing the failed company’s liquidation.

Previously, the estimated shortfall had been $593 million. Now, however, that estimate has likely changed. Giddens says that it will take $1.3 billion to $1.6 billion dollars to distribute 60% of what should have been found in the accounts of customers. He has noted that how much of the assets he can access is not the same as the shortfall amount. Giddens is reportedly close to exhausting the money that he does control.

$5.45 billion in money from customer accounts were frozen on the last day of October, one day after an MF Global unit reported that client funds (Commodity Futures Trading Commission rules say these should have been segregated) had experienced a material shortfall. Parent company MF Global Holdings Inc. then sought bankruptcy protection.

Oppenheimer Funds Investors Can Proceed with Their Securities Fraud Lawsuit

Published on: November 19, 2011 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

A federal court has decided that Oppenheimer municipal bond fund holders can go ahead with their securities fraud complaint against Oppenheimer Funds. The plaintiffs of In re Oppenheimer Rochester Funds Group Securities Litigation are alleging federal securities law violations. Funds involved included:

• AMT-Free Municipals Fund • Rochester National Municipals Fund • AMT-Free New York Municipals Fund • Rochester Fund Municipals • California Municipal Fund • Pennsylvania Municipal Fund • New Jersey Municipal Fund
The shareholders of seven municipal bonds had their securities fraud lawsuits consolidated into one case in two years ago. They are claiming that the Oppenheimer Funds neglected to reveal in their registration and prospectus statements that risks were being taken that weren’t in line with their declared strategy and investment goals. The investors argued that even as the funds explicitly said that preserving capital was a clear investment goal, the true objective was one of “high-risk, high-return.” Seeing as certain market conditions were foreseeable, the shareholders believe this placed their capital at great, undisclosed risk, which did come to fruition during the credit crisis of 2007-2008. This is when the Funds’ holding in highly leveraged, complex securities set off cash reserve and payment duties that required for the assets be sold under conditions that most likely were not to the funds’ advantage. The plaintiffs say that because of this, the funds underperformed compared to other municipal bond funds.

They are also claiming that the significant drop in the Funds’ shares’ values can be linked to the deviations between the stated and actual objectives. After investors were notified in October and November 2008 via prospectus supplements of what the Funds’ investments true liquidity risks were, share prices then went crashing. The net asset value of the 7 funds dropped by about 30-50% that year while similar municipal bonds only went down by 10-15%.

The defendants moved to dismiss the consolidate case, claiming that the investors’ losses were triggered by the credit crisis and not because of what was written (or not included) in the funds’ prospectuses. They also argued that they were making a forward-looking statement when they made the “preservation of capital” a goal and had adequately disclosed the risks involved.

In the U.S. District Court, District of Colorado, the federal judge turned down the Defendants’ motion to toss out the consolidated lawsuits. Judge John L. Kane, Jr. also rejected their claim that federal securities laws exempts mutual funds from liability because drops in those funds’ value are a result of corresponding downturns in the funds’ investments’ value and not of statements (whether true or false) in their prospectuses.

Oppenheimer Rochester Funds Lose Dismissal Bid, Face Trial, Bloomberg/Business Week, October 25, 2011
Oppenheimer Muni Bond Investors May Sue Over Alleged Misstatements in Prospectuses, BNA Securities Law Daily, October 26, 2011

More Blog Posts:
8/31/11 is Deadline for Opting Out of $100M Oppenheimer Mutual Funds Class Action Settlement, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, August 17, 2011
Oppenheimer Champion Income Fund Resulted In Significant Financial Losses for Investors from Citigroup, UBS, Merrill Lynch, and Other Large Financial Firms, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, August 16, 2010
Chase Investment Services Corporation Ordered by FINRA to Pay Back $1.9M for Unsuitable Sales of Floating-Rate Loan Funds and UITs, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, November 19, 2011 Continue Reading ›

Chase Investment Services Corporation Ordered by FINRA to Pay Back $1.9M for Unsuitable Sales of Floating-Rate Loan Funds and UITs.

Published on: November 19, 2011 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

FINRA says that Chase Investment Services Corporation will pay back investors for losses sustained from the unsuitable recommendation made that they buy floating rate loan funds and unit investment trusts. In addition to paying back clients $1.9M, Chase must also pay a $1.7M fine.

According to FINRA, brokers with Chase recommended these financial instruments to clients even though the investments were not suitable for them—either because they had hardly any investment experience or only wanted to take conservative risks. The SRO also says that the Chase brokers had no reasonable grounds to think the financial products would be a right fit for these investors.

FINRA believes that Chase failed to properly train its brokers or give them guidance about the suitability of floating-rate loan funds and UITs, as well as the risks involved. For example, there were UITs that contained a significant portion of assets in closed-end funds with high-yield or junk bonds. Yet, despite the risks involved, brokers from Chase made about 260 recommendations that were not suitable for clients who had little (if any) investment experience or were averse to high-risk investments. These investors ended up losing about $1.4 million.

Also subject to substantial credit risk and illiquidity were the floating-rate loan funds. Despite the fact that concentrated positions in the fund were unsuitable for specific clients, FINRA says that Chase brokers still recommended these to clients who wanted low risk, very liquid investments or preferred to preserve principal. Because of these allegedly unsuitable recommendations, investors lost almost $500K.

FINRA says that WaMu, Investments Inc., also recommended that customers by floating-rate loan funds, even though these were not appropriate for the investors. The financial firm, which had merged with Chase in 2009, is also accused of not properly training or supervising its employees that sold the investments.

More About UITs
Unit investment trusts involve diversified securities baskets that may contain high-yield bonds. While junk bonds can make greater returns for investors than investment-grade bonds, they also come with a high degree of risk.

More About Floating-Rate Loan Funds
These mutual funds are invested in short-term bank loans for companies with a below investment grade crediting rating. What investors earn will fluctuate depending on what interest rates the banks happen to be charging on the loans.

In the wake of the allegations against Chase, FINRA Executive Vice President and Chief of Enforcement Brad Bennett said that it was key that financial firms provide the proper guidance and training to brokers about product sales while supervising sales practices.

JPMorgan unit fined $1.7M over investment sales, Bloomberg Business Week/AP, November 15, 2011

FINRA Orders Chase to Reimburse Customers $1.9 Million for Unsuitable Sales of UITs and Floating-Rate Loan Funds, FINRA, November 15, 2011

More Blog Posts:
Morgan Stanley Faces $1M FINRA Fine for Excessive Markups and Markdowns on Corporate and Municipal Bond Transactions, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, September 17, 2011

Wedbush Ordered By FINRA Panel To Pay $3.5M to Trader Over Withheld Compensation, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, July 16, 2011

Bank of America Merrill Lynch to Settle UIT Sales-Related FINRA Charges for $2.5 Million, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, August 22, 2010

Morgan Stanley Investment Management Settles SEC Charges Over Allegedly Inappropriate Fee Deal for Over $3.3M

Published on: November 17, 2011 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The Securities and Exchange Commission says Morgan Stanley Investment Management (MSIM) set up a fee arrangement that charged a fund (as well as its investors) for services that they weren’t actually getting from another party. MSIM has agreed to pay over $3.3M to settle the charges that it violated securities laws.

As the main investment adviser to The Malaysia Fund, MSIM told the fund’s board of directors and investors that a sub-adviser, an AM Bank Group subsidiary, had been contracted to provide research, advice, and support even though according to the SEC, the sub-adviser did not actually provide these services. Rather, AMMB issued just two monthly reports stemming from information that was available to the public. MSIM did not ask for the reports nor did it use the data provided to manage the fund. Still, the fund’s board renewed the contract with this sub-adviser each year from 1996 to 2007 and this cost investors $1.845 million.

The SEC contends that MSIM failed in its obligation to let board members know information that could help them properly assess the terms of the fund’s contract with the sub-adviser. The Commission also says that MSIM’s involvement and oversight with AMMB was inappropriate. Not only did the investment adviser lack the written procedures to properly oversee its sub-advisers, but also, it lacked the procedures to review the work that AMMB did.

The SEC also claims that since no advisory services were actually provided by AMMB, MSIM ended up submitting false information in its semi-yearly and yearly reports. Per the Commission’s order, MSIM violated sections of the Investment Company Act and Investment Advisers Act of 1940 and Rule 206(4)-7 thereunder.

By agreeing to settle, MSIM isn’t denying or agreeing to the SEC’s findings. It has, however, agreed to a cease and desist from future violations of both acts and Rule 206(4)-7 thereunder. Of the $3.3 million settlement, $1.5 million is a penalty.

Background:
The Malaysia Fund is a closed-end company belonging to Morgan Stanley’s funds complex. MSIM and the Fund entered into a written advisory agreement in 1987. MSIM gives the Fund investment management services, as well as serves as Fund administrator.

Per Section 15(a) of the Investment Company Act, no person can act as a registered investment company’s investment adviser without a written contract that meets certain requirements and has been approved by most voting securities. The original contract can continue to be renewed as long as the Board or most of the outstanding voting securities approves it.

SEC Charges Morgan Stanley Investment Management for Improper Fee Arrangement, SEC, November 16, 2011

More Blog Posts:
Retirement Fund’s CDO Lawsuit Against Morgan Stanley is Dismissed by District Court, Institutional Investor Securities Fraud, October 27, 2011

Morgan Stanley Faces $1M FINRA Fine for Excessive Markups and Markdowns on Corporate and Municipal Bond Transactions, Institutional Investor Securities Fraud, September 17, 2011

Morgan Stanley Smith Barney Employee Fined and Suspended by FINRA Over Unauthorized Signatures, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, September 19, 2011

MF Global Holdings Clients Unable to Access Their Money Following Chapter 11 Bankruptcy

Published on: November 16, 2011 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The Wall Street Journal reports that in the wake of MF Global Holdings Ltd. filing for bankruptcy protection, about 33,000 of the securities firm’s clients are finding that they can’t access their cash until trustee James Giddens gives them permission. Giddens is the trustee overseeing the liquidation of MF Global Holdings’ broker-dealer unit, MF Global Inc.

Giddens had asked court permission to move about 60% of the $869 million that has been frozen-that’s about $520 million. He is hoping that if the court says, then the distributions would soon follow. However, a spokesman for Giddens has warned that because of MF Global’s financial woes, customers might not be able to get all of their money back.

MF Global Holdings sought Chapter 11 protection last month after a number of credit downgrades and a steep drop in its stock price. Some $600 million also appears to have gone missing. While this bankruptcy is not considered as big a debacle as that of Lehman Brothers Holdings, for traders, investors, and brokers that sold and bought derivatives via MF Global, the repercussions have been devastating.