Articles Posted in Financial Firms

UBS Settles for $8M SEC Charges Over the Inaccurate Recordkeeping of Short Sales

Published on: November 11, 2011 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Less than a month after UBS Securities, LLC agreed to pay $12M to settle Financial Industry Regulatory Authority claims of supervisory failures and violating regulation SHO in securities short sales, the broker-dealer has now consented to an $8M penalty to settle Securities and Exchange Commission charges over poor recordkeeping related to the short sales.

Under Regulation SHO, broker-dealers have to accurately record how it has given out locates. A locate is a determination of that broker-dealer’s representation that it has set up to borrow, already borrowed, or reasonably believes it is able to borrow the security to settle a short sale. The SEC contends that UBS employees regularly attached a lender’s employee name to such locates even though that person had never been contacted to confirm availability. Thousands of locates were sourced this way.

The Commission also claims that at least for the last four years, UBS’s “locate log” inaccurately showed which locates came from direct confirmation with lenders and which ones were based on electronic feeds. (Although broker-dealers employees usually can access the electronic availability feed that lenders send to broker-dealers, they can’t always depend on the feeds and need to get directly in touch with lenders to confirm the security’s actual availability.) The SEC’s probe found that UBS employed practices made it hard to determine whether it had reasonable grounds for granting locates.

While the Commission’s order did not find that the broker-dealer executed short sales without a reasonable grounds for thinking that it could borrow the stock to complete its settlement obligations, it did find that UBS violated sections of Regulation SHO and the Exchange Act. SEC Director George S. Canelllos noted that it is important that regulators be able to know that a firm’s records are accurate and can serve as evidence that the financial firm is complying with the law in addition to safeguarding “against illegal short selling.” With short sales, the security being sold doesn’t belong to the seller. The short seller must either buy or borrow the security to deliver it.

In addition to the $8M penalty, UBS greed to hire an independent consultant that will review the UBS Securities Lending Desk’s policies, practices, and procedures regarding locate requests. By settling, the broker-dealer is not denying or admitting to wrongdoing.

Regulation SHO
Under Regulation SHO, broker-dealers cannot accept short-sale orders in equity securities or a effect a short sale in one unless the dealer or broker has borrowed the security, become involved in an arrangement to borrow it, or has reasonable grounds to believe it can borrow the security to be delivered when due. Documented compliance must come with this requirement. A “locate” shows that the broker-dealer has fulfilled these requirements. It is fairly common for customers to ask for locates from broker-dealers.

With the FINRA case, the SRO contended that it was supervisory failures that allowed UBS’s employees to commit the Regulation SHO violations. Significant deficiencies with UBS aggregation units were also believed to be factors resulting in locate violations and order-marking.

SEC Charges UBS With Faulty Recordkeeping Related to Short Sales, SEC, November 10, 2011

FINRA Fines UBS Securities $12 Million for Regulation SHO Violations and Supervisory Failures, FINRA, October 25, 2011

More Blog Posts:
UBS Fined $12M for Supervisory Failures and Regulation SHO Violations in Securities Short Sales, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, October 25, 2011

UBS Financial Services Fined $2.5M and Ordered to Pay $8.25M Over Lehman Brothers-Issued 100% Principal-Protection Notes, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, April 12, 2011

UBS Trader Charged with Fraud Related to $2B Trading Loss, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, September 23, 2011

Citigroup’s $285M Mortgage-Related CDO Settlement with Raises Concerns About SEC’s Enforcement Practices for Judge Rakoff

Published on: November 9, 2011 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

In Federal District Court today, Judge Jed S. Rakoff expressed concerns about the $285M securities settlement that Citigroup had reached with the Securities Exchange Commission. The financial firm was accused selling $1B in high-risk mortgage-linked collateralized debt obligation that it allegedly knew were at risk of failing. A federal judge must approve the settlement.

Rakoff is the same judge that wouldn’t approve Bank of America’s $33M securities settlement with the SEC for allegedly misleading investors. He later approved a revised settlement of $150 million.

At today’s hearing over the Citigroup deal, Rakoff said the settlement raises issues of concerns about the SEC’s enforcement practices. Approving the agreement would close the case on regulators’ claims that the financial firm.

While Rakoff has not yet made a decision about whether he will approve the settlement, he did question whether the SEC had any genuine desire to find out exactly what happened rather than just settling up. The SEC allows parties to settle without denying or admitting to any wrongdoing. Rakoff also raised concerns about the banks often break the promise they make when settling that they won’t violate securities laws in the future. This is the fifth time that Citigroup has settled securities claims with the SEC over alleged civil fraud. Rakoff also raised questions about why the bank’s settlement involves just a $95 million penalty when investors’ are estimated to have lost $700 million on the CDO.

Even though Citigroup didn’t jump into subprime mortgage loan packaging, it got involved in the housing boom just as that was reaching its heights As the market collapsed, Citigroup sustained over $30 billion in losses, and the government had to bail the bank out twice.

Last year, the financial firm consented to pay $75 million over allegations that it intentionally didn’t notify investors that their investment in the subprime mortgage market were declining in value when the financial crisis hit. Citigroup has since reorganized its risk management function

Citigroup’s $285M Settlement
The SEC claims Citigroup misled clients over a $1 billion derivatives deal involving Class V Funding III, which is a collateralized debt obligation. Not only did the financial firm select the portfolio but it also bet against it. Investors were not told of Citigroup’s conflicting allegiances and they sustained huge losses. Meantime, Citigroup made $126 million from taking a short position against the CDO’s assets, as well as another $34 million in fees.

Judge in Citigroup Mortgage Settlement Criticizes S.E.C.’s Enforcement, NY Times, November 9, 2011

Judge Dredd may scotch $285M Citi settlement: Attorney, Investment News, November 8, 2011

More Blog Posts:
Citigroup to Pay $285M to Settle SEC Lawsuit Alleging Securities Fraud in $1B Derivatives Deal, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, October 20, 2011

FDIC Objects to Bank of America’s Proposed $8.5B Settlement Over Mortgage-Backed Securities, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, August 30, 2011

Bank of America and Countrywide Financial Sued by Allstate over $700M in Bad Mortgaged-Backed Securities, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, December 29, 2010

Dblaine Capital, LLC Faces SEC Securities Fraud Charges

Published on: October 31, 2011 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The SEC is charging Dblaine Capital, LLC and owner David B. Welliver with securities fraud. According to its complaint, Welliver and the investment advisory firm got $4m in loans as a result of a quid pro quo deal that was undisclosed, improper, and violated their responsibilities to the fund. In return, DBlaine Capital and Welliver allegedly agreed to put the funds ‘assets in specific “alternative investment” securities. By placing the fund’s assets in a private placement offering connected to the lender, this caused the fund to violate a number of policies and investment restrictions.

Per the Commission, Dblaine Capital and Welliver placed their own financial interests first and that the two of them also defrauded the Fund by giving an inaccurate valuation for the private placement holding. This caused the shares of the fund to be offered, sold, and redeemed at an inflated net asset value.

Upon discovering that that the private placement had no value, Welliver and DBlaine Capital allegedly kept this information from shareholders. They are also accused of making misleading and false statements in filings and reports submitted to the SEC, participating in prohibited affiliated transactions, and violating a number of policies and restrictions governing the Fund and its investments that were explicitly included in offering materials.

Per Fund polices, the private placement should have been at fair value, yet the Commission says that between December 2010 and July 2011, DBlaine Capital and Welliver did not attempt to figure out that was and chose to value the private placement at acquisition cost. Also, per the SEC, Welliver used $500,000 of the $4 million in loans that DBlaine Capital obtained to cover his personal expenses, including a motor vehicle, expensive purchases, his son’s college education, back taxes, home improvements, and a vacation.

The SEC wants disgorgement of ill-gotten gains, permanent injunction, prejudgment interest, and civil penalties. It is accusing both Dblaine Capital and Welliver of violating the:

• Securities Act of 1933 • Securities Exchange Act of 1934 • Investment Advisers Act of 1940 • Investment Company Act of 1940
Unfortunately, securities fraud committed by broker-dealers and investment advisers can cause investors, shareholders, and others to suffer financial losses. Not only can this be grounds for civil action by regulators, but also victims of this type of fraud may be able to file their own claim seeking to recover what they’ve lost.

Results show that retaining the services of an experienced securities fraud attorney rather than attempting to file your claim on your own increases your chances of recouping your losses. The securities arbitration system can be a complex area to navigate and there is no reason why you should have to do this alone.

SEC Charges IA Arrangement Illegal, BNA Securities Law Daily, October 27, 2011
SEC CHARGES DAVID B. WELLIVER AND DBLAINE CAPITAL, LLC, WITH FRAUD AND OTHER VIOLATIONS, SEC, October 18, 2011

More Blog Post:
EagleEye Asset Management LLC Sued by SEC and CFTC for Alleged Forex Trading Scam, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, September 28, 2011
California Insider Trading Charges Filed by SEC Against Ex-Investment Fund Associate Accused of Making 3000% Profit on Marvel Call Options in Disney Acquisition, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, August 23, 2011
Citigroup to Pay $285M to Settle SEC Lawsuit Alleging Securities Fraud in $1B Derivatives Deal, Institutional Investors Securities Blog, October 20, 2011 Continue Reading ›

MF Global Holdings Ltd. Files for Bankruptcy While Its Broker-Dealer Faces Liquidation and Securities Lawsuit by SIPC

Published on: October 31, 2011 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

In U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Manhattan, MF Global Holdings Ltd. has filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. The holding company for broker-dealer MF Global Inc., which faces liquidation, has listed assets of $41 billion and debt of $39.7 billion.

This is the fifth-largest financial industry public company bankruptcy when measured according to assets. Larger ones were those involving Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc., Conseco Inc., CIT Group Inc., and Washington Mutual Inc. Per BankruptcyData.com., of any public company, it is the eight largest bankruptcies by assets.

Meantime, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission and the Securities and Exchange Commission says that they were notified by MF Global Holdings Ltd. that there might be some deficiencies with certain customer accounts. The regulators are trying to determine whether approximately under $700 million has gone missing.

in U.S. District Court in Manhattan, Securities Investor Protection Corp. is suing MF Global. SIPC wants the united liquidated for the protection of customer assets. Because MF Global is a broker-dealer, it cannot seek bankruptcy protection and either has to liquidate or sell its assets. Sale negotiations have faltered. Potential buyers had included Jeffries & Company and Interactive Brokers. The latter was about to seal the deal but backed out after finding out about the missing monies.

Jon Corzine, who was the former co-chair of Goldman Sachs Group Inc. (GS), runs MF GLOBAL INC. . It owns $6.3 billion of Portuguese, Italian, Irish, Belgian, and Spanish debt. Worries that in light of Europe’s debt crisis it might lose money on the holdings, regulators urged it to raise capital, issue margin calls, make credit downgrades, and file for bankruptcy, which was ultimately determined to be the safest course of action for customers’ protection.

The CFTC reports that as of the end of August, MF Global had $7.2 billion of customer funds in segregated accounts. The broker dealer of equity, derivatives, commodities, and foreign exchange belongs to over 70 financial exchanges and was one of the main dealers allowed to trade US government securities with the New York Fed.

For now, Corzine and MF Global have not been accused of any wrongdoing. Regulators are still trying to determine whether sloppy internal systems caused the money from client accounts to become misallocated or if something more intentional was at play. While it isn’t rare for some funds to be MIA when a financial firm falters, the mount of money missing from the broker-dealer is disturbing.

Unsecured creditors for MF Global include JPMorgan ( less than $80 million of the debt), Headstrong Services LLC, ($3.9 million) , Sullivan & Cromwell LLP ($596,939), CNBC (845,397), Bloomberg Finance LP ($276,064), and Oracle Corp. (302,704).

Related Web Resources:
Regulators Investigating MF Global for Missing Money, NY Times, October 31, 2011

Corzine’s B-D could be liquidated, Investment News, November 1, 2011

More Blog Posts:
Shareholder Securities Lawsuit Against China North East Petroleum Holdings Ltd., is Dismissed by District Court, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, October 30, 2011

Money Laundering Charges Filed Against of Houston Criminal Defense Lawyer Accused of Defrauding Defendants of Over $1M, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, October 28, 2011

UBS Fined $12M for Supervisory Failures and Regulation SHO Violations in Securities Short Sales, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, October 25, 2011

Retirement Fund’s CDO Lawsuit Against Morgan Stanley is Dismissed by District Court

Published on: October 27, 2011 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

A district court judge has dismissed a securities fraud lawsuit filed by the Employees’ Retirement System of the Government of the Virgin Islands against Morgan Stanley (MS). The investor complaint, submitted in 2009, accused the financial firm of defrauding investors.

The pension fund had purchased the notes as part of a CDO that was marketed and set up by Morgan Stanley. The plaintiffs believe that the financial firm worked with Standard & Poor’s and Moody’s Investor Services to set up “false and misleading Triple-A credit ratings” for the notes. Because the high ratings, the plaintiffs bought the notes at a price that was inflated. The fund contends that the financial firm knew that in fact Morgan Stanley had insider information that the MBS underlying the notes were a lot riskier than they were led to believe and came from lenders that employed flawed underwriting standards. Many of notes were downgraded to junk by the end of 2007. The plaintiffs said the firm purposely got investors to get behind the CDO because it was taking a short position on underlying assets.

The portfolio, which was 92% residential mortgage-backed securities and was backed by $1.2 billion in assets, was exposed to $100 million from New Century Mortgage Corp. and over $130 million in loans from Option One Mortgage Corp. According to the retirement fund, the two homebuyers had poor credit scores. The Libertas collateralized debt obligation went into credit-default swaps, which referenced specific residential MBS.

Per U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, the Virgin Islands government pension fund did not adequately plead that Morgan Stanley misled it about the quality of the MBS that were underlying the Libertas CDO. Judge Barbara S. Jones, said the plaintiffs failed to state a fraud claim because its pleadings were not successful in alleging that Morgan Stanley made misstatements about the credit ratings of notes based on the underlying mortgage-backed securities. Also, the court noted that it wasn’t Morgan Stanley that issued the ratings or the statements in the CDO’s operating memorandum disclosures. Because of this, the court said that the plaintiff could not allege that Morgan Stanley had issued to it a materially false statement.

Shepherd Smith Edwards and Kantas founder and securities fraud attorney William Shepherd said, “Our law firm has been successful in maintaining similar cases in arbitration or state courts. I am curious as to just how and why this case was filed, or otherwise ended-up, in a federal court. Pleading requirements under federal securities laws are problematic, and there are a number of other hurdles one must overcome in federal court proceedings. There is no private right of action available under New York’s securities statute (The Martin Act). Other types of claims may be pursued under NY state law.”

Morgan Stanley Wins Dismissal of Virgin Islands Pension Fund’s CDO Lawsuit, Bloomberg, September 30, 2011

More Blog Posts:

Stifel, Nicolaus & Co. and Former Executive Faces SEC Charges Over Sale of CDOs to Five Wisconsin School Districts, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, August 10, 2011

Ex-Goldman Sachs Director Rajat Gupta Pleads Not Guilty to Insider Trading Charges

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

After surrendering to federal authorities today, Rajat Gupta has entered a not guilty plea to the criminal charges against him involving insider trading. Gupta, who was a former Proctor and Gamble and Goldman Sachs director, is accused of multiple counts of securities fraud and one count of conspiracy to commit securities fraud. He allegedly gave Galleon Group cofounder Raj Rajaratnam corporate secrets about Goldman. Our stockbroker fraud law firm has been following Rajaratnam’s criminal case on our blog site. (See below.) Earlier this month, he was sentenced to 11 years in prison over an insider trading scam that illegally garnered $63.8 million.

Gupta, who also once was a global head at McKinsey & Co., came under close scrutiny during Rajaratnam’s trial when he was brought up in testimony and phone conversations that were recorded in secret. He is also now facing civil charges with the Securities and Exchange Commission, which contends that he provided Rajaratnam with illegal tips about both Proctor and Gamble and Goldman Sachs’ quarterly earnings and an approximately $5 billion investment that Berkshire Hathaway was planning to make in the financial firm. Based on Gupta’s tips, Rajaratnam avoided losses of/made illegal profits of over $23 million. Rajaratnam made over 800,000 in illegal profits from the Berkshire Hathaway tip when, after first having Galleon funds buy over 215,000 Goldman shares, he ordered the liquidation of the Goldman holdings a day after the information and Goldman’s public equity offering became public.

Rajaratnam also made over $18.5 million in illegal profits for Galleon funds after Gupta allegedly told him that Goldman had positive 2008 second quarter financial results. Rajaratnam then had the hedge fund buy Goldman securities but liquidated them when Goldman made news of its earnings for that quarter public. Other charges stem from Gupta allegedly notifying Rajaratnam that fourth quarter results for that same year were negative. The Goldman holdings were sold off, allowing Rajaratnam to avoid over $3 million in losses. When Gupta allegedly tipped him about P & G’s 2008 4th quarter earnings, Rajaratnam had Galleon funds sell short about 180,000 P & G shares, generating over $570,000 in illicit profits.

According to the SEC, Gupta got his confidential information from board conversations while serving as director at both companies. At the time, Gupta had numerous business ties with Rajaratnam and was seeking to strengthen that relationship. Not only had Gupta invested in Rajaratnam’s hedge funds, but they also began a number of financial ventures together.

The SEC had recently dropped its previous administrative action against Gupta over the insider trading allegations. Following that move, he vowed to drop his lawsuit claiming that the regulatory proceeding had violated his constitutional rights.

Of the 56 people that the government has charged with its crackdown on insider trading, 51 either were convicted or pleaded guilty.

With Gupta’s Arrest, Insider Inquiry Goes Beyond Wall St., Dealbook, October 26, 2011
SEC Files Insider Trading Charges against Rajat Gupta, SEC, October 26, 2011
Rajat Gupta, SEC Agree to Drop Galleon-Related Suit, Administrative Action, Bloomberg, August 5, 2011

More Blog Posts:
Galleon Group LLC Co-Founder Raj Rajaratnam Sentenced to 11 Years in Prison Over Insider Trading Scam, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, October 13, 2011
Ex-Goldman Sachs Board Member Accused of Insider Trading with Galleon Group Co-Founder Seeks to Have SEC Administrative Case Against Him Dropped, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, April 19, 2011
Dallas Mavericks Owner Mark Cuban’s Allegations of Misconduct Against the SEC Enforcement Staff are Without Merit, Says Inspector General’s Report, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, October 18, 2011 Continue Reading ›

UBS Fined $12M for Supervisory Failures and Regulation SHO Violations in Securities Short Sales

Published on: October 25, 2011 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

UBS Securities has agreed to pay FINRA a $12 million fine over violations that led to millions of short sale orders of securities being mismarked or entered into the market even though there was no reasonable basis for thinking that they could be delivered or borrowed. FINRA says that UBS did not properly supervise the short sales and violated Regulation SHO. In settling, the financial firm is not denying or admitting to the charges. UBS has, however, agreed to an entry of FINRA’s findings.

Per Reg SHO, a broker must have reason to believe that a security can be delivered or borrowed before allowing a short sale order. Financial firms have to document this “locate information” prior to the sale happening so as to decrease the amount of potential failed deliveries. Broker-dealers also are supposed to designate an equity securities sale as either short or long.

Short sales involve sellers that don’t own the security that they are selling. To deliver the security, the short seller has to either borrow or buy it.

FINRA says that UBS had a flawed Reg SHO supervisory system when it came to locates and marking sale orders and that this resulted in supervisory failure, which played a role in serious regulation failures showing up throughout the investment bank’s equities trading business. In addition to putting into the marketplace millions of short order sales without locates (involving supervisory and trading systems, accounts, desks, strategies, the financial firm’s technology operations, and procedures), millions of sale orders were also mismarked—many of them as “long” —which led to more Reg SHO violations. FINRA also claims that “significant deficiencies” involving UBS’s aggregation units could have played a role in more locate violations and significant order-marking.

Because of UBS’s alleged supervisory failures, many of the violations weren’t fixed or detected until after the FINRA probe prompted the financial firm to evaluate its systems and procedures. UBS has since taken steps to upgrade these in an effort to have stricter Reg SHO controls.

Per FINRA Chief of Enforcement Brad Bennett, financial firms are responsible for making sure that they have the proper supervisory and trading systems so that naked short selling that is “potentially abusive” doesn’t happen. He noted that the violations committed by UBS could have hurt the market’s integrity.

Supervisory failures is a type of broker misconduct. It is a brokerage firm’s responsibility to create and execute written procedure that do the job of monitoring its employees’ activities so securities fraud and mistakes don’t happen that can cause investors to suffer losses and/or the market to go into chaos.

FINRA Fines UBS Securities $12 Million for Regulation SHO Violations and Supervisory Failures, FINRA, October 25, 2011

More Blog Posts:
UBS Trader Charged with Fraud Related to $2B Trading Loss, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, September 23, 2011

Citigroup Global Markets Inc. Sues Two Saudi Investors in an Attempt to Block Their FINRA Arbitration Claim Over $383M in Losses

Published on: October 22, 2011 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Citigroup Global Markets Inc. (C) is suing Abdullah and Ghazi Abbar. The Saudi investors have filed a FINRA arbitration claim against the Citigroup unit seeking to recover the $383 million that they say the bank lost their family’s money. The Abbars, who are father and son, are accusing Citigroup Global Markets of mismanaging their family’s savings.

Citigroup, which wants injunctive relief, says that the entities that took care of the the Abbars’ private-equity loan and leveraged option transactions are located abroad and therefore not under FINRA’s jurisdiction for arbitration. The financial firm also says that father, son, and their investment entities are not CGMI clients and their claims are not activities related it. The investment bank has noted that the Abbars chose to pursue it rather than the non-U.S. parties that they actually had agreements with that completed the transactions. The Abbars, however, say that those overseeing the Citigroup entities that took party in the daily management of their credit deal are personnel that are registered with FINRA.

Says Shepherd Smith Edwards and Kantas Founder and Stockbroker Fraud Lawyer William Shepherd, “The financial industry has created its own securities arbitration forum to resolve disputes and claims between and against its members. It is ironic when claims are filed that they often go to court to beg to get out of arbitration, their self-imposed fate. While courts in New York seem to operate to accommodate Wall Street’s wishes, the law for decades has held that decisions regarding the liability of securities firms are for the arbitrators, not the courts. If these investors have properly alleged any wrongdoing by the U.S. securities firm, the court has no business intervening. Such wrongdoing can be simply ‘control person liability,’ which is the failure to control or properly supervise the behavior or operations of a subordinate or subsidiary.”

CGMI placed $343 million of the Abbars money in hedge funds that were included in a leveraged option swap transaction. In their FINRA arbitration claim, the Abbars argue that leading CGMI officers, including ex- global wealth management chief Sallie Krawcheck and Chief Executive Officer Vikram Pandit, pursued them.

Father and son contend that because of alleged “gross misconduct” by CGMI, their wealth was lost. They say that the bank’s failure to monitor the investments properly led to their total collapse during the height of the economic collapse in 2008. The Abbars also believe that lendings related to the Citigroup investments played a role in the losses. The Abbars says that Citigroup, which then started managing the positions that remained in the portfolio while implementing a program to redeem it, will “unjustly benefit” by about $70 million from the redemption of these investments.

Citigroup Sues to Block Arbitration of Saudi Investors’ Claim, Bloomberg/Businessweek, October 6, 2011
Citigroup Aims to Stop Arbitration From Proceeding, OnWallStreet, October 7, 2011

More Blog Posts:
Citigroup Global Markets Fined $500,000 by FINRA for Inadequate Supervision of Broker Accused of Bilking Sick and Elderly Investors, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, August 16, 2011
Citigroup Ordered by FINRA to Pay $54.1M to Two Investors Over Municipal Bond Fund Losses, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, April 13, 2011
Citigroup to Pay $285M to Settle SEC Lawsuit Alleging SecuritiesFraud in $1B Derivatives Deal, Institutional Investors Securities Blog, October 20, 2011 Continue Reading ›

California Investigating Whether Bank of America & Countrywide Financial Used False Pretenses to Sell Mortgage-Backed Securities to Investors

Published on: October 22, 2011 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Not long after bowing out of talks over a possible $25 billion dollar settlement between state and federal officials and the country’s largest banks (including Bank of America Corp, Citigroup, and JP Morgan Chase & Co.) over alleged foreclosure abuses, California’s Attorney General’s office has subpoenaed BofA as part of its investigation into whether it and subsidiary Countrywide Financial employed false pretenses to get private and institutional investors to purchase risky mortgage-backed securities. By walking out of the negotiations on the grounds that the banks weren’t offering a big enough settlement, the state of California has given itself the option of arriving at a larger settlement.

California Attorney General Kamala D. Harris has called the proposed settlement “inadequate” for the homeowners in her state. She has also has set up a mortgage fraud strike force tasked with investigating all areas of mortgage fraud.

Countrywide is credited with playing a role in the housing boom and its later collapse because of subprime loans it gave clients with poor/no credit histories, mortgages that let borrowers pay such a small amount that their loan balances went up instead of down, and “liar” loans that were issued without assets and income being confirmed. Also, a lot of the most high-risk loans were bundled up to support private-label securities that became highly toxic for investors and banks.

Meantime, Federal and state officials are trying to get California to rejoin the larger talks. Just this week, they presented the possibility of helping troubled creditworthy owners refinance their loans. California’s involvement is key for any deal because the state so many borrowers that owe more than the value of their homes, are in foreclosure, or are running behind on mortgages.

New York, too, has backed out of the group—a move that proved to be another blow for negotiations, as well as for the Obama Administration. Officials from other states, such as Nevada, Delaware, Minnesota, Massachusetts, and Kentucky, have also expressed worry about the breadth of the settlement and whether all potential misconduct has been investigated.

With its acquisition of Countrywide in 2008, BofA has sustained high losses over settlements as a result of its subsidiary’s loans. According to the Los Angeles Times, these settlements include:

• A promise to forgive up to $3 billion in principal for Massachusetts Countrywide borrowers
• $600 million to former Countrywide shareholders
• Billions of dollars to Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae over buybacks of bad home loans
• $8.5 billion to institutional investors over the repurchase of Countrywide mortgage-backed bonds
• $5.5 billion reserved for mortgage bond investors with similar claims

California reportedly subpoenas BofA over toxic securities, Los Angeles Times, October 20, 2011

California Pulls Out of Foreclosure Talks, Wall Street Journal, October 1, 2011

More Blog Posts:
$63 Million Mortgage-Backed Securities Lawsuit Against Bank of America is Second One Filed by Western and Southern Life Insurance Co. Against the Financial Firm, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, August 29, 2011

Federal Home Loan Banks Say Countrywide Financial Corp Mortgage Bond Investors May Be Owed Way More than What $8.5B Securities Settlement with Bank of America Corp. is Offering, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, July 22, 2011

Bank of America and Countrywide Financial Sued by Allstate over $700M in Bad Mortgaged-Backed Securities, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, December 29, 2010

Citigroup to Pay $285M to Settle SEC Lawsuit Alleging Securities Fraud in $1B Derivatives Deal

Published on: October 20, 2011 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Citigroup has consented to pay $285 million to settle a Securities and Exchange Commission complaint accusing the bank of misleading investors in a $1 billion derivatives deal—a collateralized debt obligation called Class V Funding III. It was Citigroup that chose the assets for the portfolio that it then bet against. Investors were not told that Citigroup’s interests were contrary to theirs. The $285 million will go to the deal’s investors.

According to the SEC, Citigroup had significant influence over the $500 million of portfolio assets that were selected. It then took a short position against the assets, standing to profit if they dropped in value. All 15 investors were not made aware of any of this and practically all of their investments (in the hundreds of millions of dollars) were lost when the CDO defaulted in under 9 months after it closed on February 28, 2007. Credit ratings agencies had downgraded over 80% of the portfolio.

Financial instrument insurer Ambac, which was the deal’s biggest investor and had taken on the role of assuming the credit risk, was forced to pay those who bet against the bonds. In 2009, Ambac sought bankruptcy protection.

Meantime, Citigroup made about $126 million in profits from the short position and earned about $34 million in fees. S.E.C.’s division of enforcement director Robert Khuzami says that under the law, Citigroup was required to give these CDO investors “more care and candor.”

Per the SEC’s civil action, Citigroup employee Brian Stoker is the one that mainly put the deal together, while Credit Suisse portfolio manager Samir H. Bhatt was primarily in charge of the transaction. Credit Suisse was the CDO transaction’s collateral manager.

Stoker is fighting the SEC’s case against him. Meantime, Bhatt has settled the SEC’s charges by agreeing to pay $50,000. He has also been suspended from associating with any investment adviser for six months. Credit Suisse Group AG settled for $2.5 million.

As part of this settlement, Citigroup will pay a $95 million fine. It was just last year that the financial firm agreed to pay $75 million over federal claims that it purposely didn’t let investor know that their subprime mortgage investments were losing value during the financial crisis. Citigroup has said that since then, it has revamped its risk management function and gone back to banking basics.

Last year, Goldman Sachs Group Inc. agreed to settle for $550 million allegations that it did tell investors that the hedge fund that helped choose a CDO’s assets also was betting against it. JPMorgan Chase & Co. settled similar allegations earlier this year for $153.6 million.

Citigroup to Pay Millions to Close Fraud Complaint, NY Times, October 19, 2011

Related Blog Resources:
Goldman Sachs Settles SEC Subprime Mortgage-CDO Related Charges for $550 Million, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, July 30, 2010

JPMorgan Chase to Pay $211M to Settle Charges It Rigged Municipal Bond Transaction Bidding Competitions, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, July 9, 2011