Articles Posted in Financial Firms

SEC Proposes Restricting Financial Firms From Betting Against Financial Products Sold to Investors

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

The SEC has taken steps to prevent financial firms from betting against their packaged financial products that they sell to investors. Its proposal, introduced this week, also seeks to prevent the types of conflict witnessed in last year’s civil lawsuit against Goldman Sachs through a ban on third parties being able to set up an asset-backed pool allowing them to make money from losses sustained by investors.

The proposal comes following a report by US Senate investigators accusing Goldman of setting itself up to make money from investor losses sustained from complex securities that the financial firm packaged and sold. It would place into effect a provision from the Dodd-Frank Wall Reform Consumer and Protection Act, which requires that the commission ban for one year placement agents, underwriters, sponsors, and initial buyers of an asset-backed security from shorting the pool’s assets and establishing material conflict. Restrictions, however, wouldn’t apply when a firm is playing the role of market-maker or engaged in risk hedging. The SEC also wants the industry to examine how the proposal would work along with the “Volcker rule,” which would place restrictions on proprietary trading at banks and other affiliates.

SEC’s Securities Case Against Goldman
The SEC accused Goldman of creating and marketing the ABACUS 2007-AC1, a collateralized debt obligation, without letting clients know that Paulson & Co. helped pick the underlying securities that the latter then went on to bet against. Last year, Goldman settled the securities case with the SEC for $550 million.

In settlement papers, Goldman admitted that it did issue marketing materials that lacked full information for its ABACUS 2007-AC1. The financial firm said it made a mistake when it stated that ACA Management LLC “selected” the reference portfolio and did not note the role that Paulson & Co. played or that the latter’s “economic interests” were not in line with that of investors. The $550 million fine was the largest penalty that the SEC has ever imposed on a financial services firm. $250 million of the fine was designated to go to a Fair Fund distribution to pay back investors.

Volcker Rule
Named after former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker, the proposed rule is designed to limit the kinds of high-risk investments that helped contribute to the recent financial crisis. It would also restrict the financial firms’ use of their own money to trade. Bloomberg.com reports that overseas firms with businesses in the US may also be subject to these limits on proprietary trading. Per Dodd-Frank, October 18 is the deadline to establish rules to execute the provision.

Volcker Rule May Be Extended to Overseas Banks With Operations in the U.S., Bloomberg, September 16, 2011

SEC moves to limit firms’ bets against clients, Reuters, September 19, 2011

Volcker Rule Delay Is Likely, Wall Street Journal, September 12, 2011

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

Morgan Stanley Smith Barney Employee Fined and Suspended by FINRA Over Unauthorized Signatures

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

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority has imposed a 60-day suspension on Carmela L. Knieriem, a former Morgan Stanley Smith Barney female employee over allegations that while employed by the financial firm, she signed other employees’ signatures without obtaining the required approvals and authorizations. FINRA is also fining Knierem $5,000. While she has submitted a Letter of Acceptance, Waiver and Consent to settle the charges, Knierem is not denying or admitting to the findings.

According to Forbes.com, Between November 2009 and October 14, 2010, Knieriem was associated with the financial firm’s Rancho Bernardo Branch, where she was tasked with providing branch managers, financial advisers, and other employees with administrative support. Part of her job was to prepare specific internal administrative forms related to the processing and documenting of verbal requests, known as “Verbal Forms,” that were made by customers.

FINRA says that when Knieriem made the unauthorized signatures when preparing these Verbal Forms she violated FINRA Rule 2010 10 times. The SRO contends that in six instances, at the request of the financial advisor EP, she prepared an instruction form documenting a client’s verbal request for journal funds between the client’s accounts, the transfer of money from a client’s account, the release of account statements to a third party, and the issuance of a $75,397.22 check from the customer’s account. Knieriem also is said to have followed a financial advisor GT’s request to prepare an instruction form for a client’s verbal request that a stop payment be placed on one of his checks. She also followed the request of a financial adviser CL, who asked her to prepare an instruction form to issue a $95.62 for a client. Also, FINRA says that branch manager RL asked her to prepare an instruction form to journal funds between accounts.

Broker-Dealer Pacific West Securities Closes Shop

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

Broker-dealer Pacific West Securities is going out of business next year. The independent broker-dealer, which has about 290 affiliated advisers and reps, decided to close its doors because staying in operation is costing too much and margins are too thin.

The broker-dealer made $46 million in commission and fees in 2010 and its gross revenue for this year is expected to be $54 million. Pacific West has struck a deal with Cetera Financial Group over the transfer of many of its representatives and advisers to the latter’s subsidiary, Multi-Financial Securities Corp. The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, however, must still approve this arrangement.

Unfortunately, dozens of independent brokers that are thinly capitalized have had to close shop or be put up for sale in the last few years. Many took huge hits in the wake of securities fraud lawsuits related to the sale of Provident Royalties LLC preferred stock, Medical Capital Holdings Inc. notes, and DBSI Inc. real estate deals. Although Pacific West didn’t sell any of these financial instruments, it has had to contend with Securities arbitration claims, including losses of nearly $1 million in FINRA arbitration awards over the last 24 months.

Investment News reported not too long ago that at least 2,500 reps have been displaced because of broker-dealers that shut down their operations. It became clear trouble was starting to brew in the industry in 2010, when Jesup & Lamont Securities Corp. and GunnAllen Financial Inc., which both have hundreds of reps, shut their doors after violating SEC rules dealing with capital. By the end of last year, there were 142 less broker-dealers than in 2009.

In February, QA3 Financial Corp. followed their lead. The broker-dealer, which worked with about 400 reps, couldn’t deal with securities lawsuits costs over the sale of allegedly fraudulent private placements.

The following month, Investors Capital Holdings Inc.’s owner Theodore E. “Ted” Charles submitted an SEC filing giving notice that he was going to sell his stake in the broker-dealer. More brokerage firms have since shuttered. FINRA says that if the broker-dealer you are working announces that it is going out of business, you should contact its offices right away to find out about next steps for you.

Our stockbroker fraud law firm represents clients that suffered losses because of broker misconduct and other formers of broker-fraud. Please contact our securities fraud lawyers and ask for your free consultation today.

B-D with 290 reps to shutter, Investment News, December 6, 2011
Broker-Dealer Pacific West to Close Its Doors, Adviser One, December 6, 2011
If a Brokerage Firm Closes Its Doors, FINRA

More Blog Posts:
Broker-Dealers are Making Reverse Convertible Sales That are Harming Investors, Says SEC, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, July 28, 2011
Holding Brokers to Investment Adviser Accountability Standards is a Bad Idea, Say Some Wall Street Executives, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, July 16, 2011
Tribune Bondholders Can Sue Shareholders for Over $8.2B, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, April 30, 2011 Continue Reading ›

Morgan Stanley Faces $1M FINRA Fine for Excessive Markups and Markdowns on Corporate and Municipal Bond Transactions

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

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority has fined Morgan Stanley Smith Barney LLC and Morgan Stanley & Co. Inc. $1 million for charging excessive markdowns and markups to corporate and municipal bond transactions clients. The SRO has also ordered that the financial firm pay $371,000 plus interest in restitution to these investors. By agreeing to settle, Morgan Stanley has not denied or admitted to the securities charges.

According to FINRA, the markdowns and markups that Morgan Stanley charged ranged from under 5% to 13.8%. Considering how much it costs to execute transactions, market conditions, and the services valued, these charge were too much.

The SRO also determined that the financial firm had an inadequate supervisory system for overseeing markups and markdowns of corporate and municipal bonds. Morgan Stanley must now modify its written supervisory procedures dealing with markups and markdowns involving fixed income transactions.

FINRA Market Regulation Executive Vice President Thomas Gira has said that Morgan Stanley violated fair pricing standards. He noted is important for financial firms that sell and purchase securities to make sure that clients are given reasonable and fair prices whether/not a markdown or markup exceeds or is lower than 5%.

A Markup is what is charged above market value. It is usually charged on principal transactions involving NASDAQ and other OTC equity securities. Markups on principal transactions usually factor in the type of security, its availability, price, order size, disclosure before the transaction is effected, the type of business involved, and the general markups pattern at a firm.

A markup on an equities security that is over 5% is seldom considered reasonable or fair. Regulators have rules in place for how much registered representatives can charge customers for services rendered. Not only do the charges have to be reasonable, but also they must be fair and not show particular preferences to any clients.

The 5% policy also applies to agency transactions. Commissions for such transactions also must be “fair and reasonable.” Commissions that go above that must be justified and are often closely examined by regulators.
While most securities professionals are committed to doing their jobs fairly and ethically, there are those determined to take advantage of the system to defraud investors. There are also honest mistakes that can occur that also can result in investor losses.

Financial firms and their representatives are responsible for protecting investors and their money from unnecessary losses resulting from securities fraud or other negligence.

Morgan Stanley Fined $1M Over Muni-Bond Markups, Bloomberg, November 10, 2011

More Blog Posts:
Whistleblower Claims SEC is Illegally Destroying Records of Closed Enforcement Cases, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, August 31, 2011

Ex-Bank of America Employee Pleads Guilty to Mortgage Fraud Scam Using Stolen Identities to Buy Homes Not For Sale, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, August 30, 2011

Securities Lawsuits Expected to Reach Record High in ’11, Says Advisen Ltd. Report, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, April 23, 2011

**This blog has been backdated.

Claimant Not Only $100K Loses Securities Arbitration Case Against Citigroup Global Markets But Gets Stuck with Financial Firm’s $50K in Legal Bills

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

Alphonse M. Lucchese, a CitiSmith Barney customer, has not only lost his $100,000 securities claim against the financial firm in Financial Industry Regulatory Authority arbitration, but he also now must pay for Citigroup‘s $49,985 in attorney fees. The case is Alphonse M. Lucchese, Claimant, v. Citi Smith Barney, Citigroup Global Markets, Inc., Robert Joseph Malenfant, and Alfred George Weaver, Respondents.

Lucchese had originally filed a securities fraud lawsuit in Middlesex Superior Court of Massachusetts. The case was later dismissed and sent to arbitration.

Lucchese claims Smith Barney stockbroker Weaver, who is a Respondent, recommended that he buy 4,000 shares of Lehman preferred. Despite his reservations-including concerns about the stock and how they compared with other companies’ shares-Lucchese “reluctantly agreed” and at $25/share spent $100,000.

The stock initially dropped 20%-a $20,000 drop in value. The Claimant says that Weaver told him to hold on to his stock. When the financial markets collapsed, Lucchese’s stocks’ worth then dropped by 63%. He says that when he told Weaver to sell the position even though it meant losing $63,000, the broker recommended that the Claimant still hold on to his shares and that Lehman was not going to fail… only it did. Lucchese’s shares then became worthless when Lehman filed for bankruptcy.

While Weaver acknowledged making a mistake by not selling Lucchese’s stock, the Respondent claims that the Claimant never ordered him to sell. Lucchese disputes this account.

The arbitrator, when ruling on the case, decided that there was lack of credible evidence supporting Lucchese’s claim. He also found that Weaver acted on “good faith” when he advised Lucchese not to sell prior to Lehman filing for bankruptcy and that the broker would have no way of knowing that this would happen.

Lucchese’s claims of securities fraud, including breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, negligence, failure to supervise, violations of federal and state securities laws, and other violations were denied in their entirety. In addition, the arbitrator determined that the Claimant should be responsible for Citigroup’s legal fees of $49,985, $3,150 in arbitration forum fees, and $400 for the explained decision.

Most securities cases must be resolved in arbitration and you want to make sure you are represented by experienced stockbroker fraud lawyers to increase your chances of recouping your losses. A securities claim is not the type of case you want to handle on your own.

Citi Smith Barney Customer Sues Over 2008 Failure to Sell Lehman Shares, Forbes, December 18, 2011

More Blog Posts:
Citigroup Global Markets Inc. Sues Two Saudi Investors in an Attempt to Block Their FINRA Arbitration Claim Over $383M in Losses, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, October 22, 2011
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 to Pay $285M to Settle SEC Lawsuit Alleging SecuritiesFraud in $1B Derivatives Deal, October 20, 2011
**This post has been backdated for publication.
Continue Reading ›

Nevada Attorney General Goes After Bank of America for Allegedly Violating Countrywide Fraud Settlement

Published on: September 8, 2011 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Nevada Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto is accusing Bank of America of violating its fraud settlement regarding Countrywide Financial Corp. She is asking the court to “terminate our consent judgment” because she says the violation is “such a material breach.”

Masto claims that instead of honoring the terms of their agreement, Bank of America has:

• Continued to take part in fraudulent activities that allow contracts to stay in place
• Gone back on its promise to lower interest rates when revising the loans of buyers in trouble and instead has raised them.
• Failed to give qualified homeowners the promised loan modifications
• Proceeded with foreclosures even though modification requests by borrowers were still pending
• Not met the 60-day requirement to grant new loan terms

Masto says that numerous complaints have been submitted to her office over modified mortgages that come with new contracts that are more expensive than what was originally stated. Ending Nevada’s participation in the settlement agreement would let the state file a securities lawsuit against the bank over its allegedly questionably practices.

Countrywide, which was acquire by Bank of America, settled lawsuits with a number of states, including Nevada over what they contend was predatory lending practices. To settle the complaints, the bank promised to designate $8.4 billion as direct loan relief, waive tens of millions of dollars in prepayment penalties and late fees, put aside money to help people in foreclosure, help 400,000 borrowers with financial relief, and suspend foreclosure on borrowers that were delinquent and had the most high risk loans.

Unfortunately, in Nevada, where 262,622 Countrywide loans were originated, foreclosure issues piled up, as did complaints about the bank’s loan service practices. Nevada’s new complaint also accuses Bank of America of:

• Telling credit report agencies that consumers who weren’t in default were in default.
• Deceiving borrowers about the reason their requests for loan modifications were turned down.
• Incorrectly claiming that borrowers that had made payments on trial loan modifications hadn’t paid.
• Falsely claiming that loan owners wouldn’t allow changes to mortgages.
• Misleading borrowers with loan modification offers that came with one set of terms but then returning with a different deal.
• Limiting the amount of time employees could help troubled borrowers with their loan-related issues and punishing those that violated these restrictions.
• Not providing the required loan documentation when it packaged mortgage securities and sold them to investors.
• Failing to endorse a mortgage note, per the typical pool and servicing agreements made between investors and Countrywide, and not delivering it to the trustee in charge of the pool.

Nevada says that Such paperwork failures should have prevented the bank from being able to foreclose on borrowers.

Masto’s request to get out of the Countrywide settlement could impact other negotiations by other state attorneys general related to allegedly improper foreclosure practices against Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup, and Wells Fargo. These banks are being asked to put out approximately $20 billion toward loan modifications. Discussions here have been delayed because there is disagreement over whether a settlement would let state regulators sue the banks over questionable practices in the future.

Related Web Resources:
Nevada Says Bank Broke Mortgage Settlement, NY Times, August 30, 2011

Nevada’s Attorney General pursues BofA, UPI, September 19, 2011

More Blog Posts:

Countrywide Finance. Corp, UBS Securities LLC, and JPMorgan Securities LLC Settle Mortgage-Backed Securities Lawsuit Filed by New Mexico Institutional Investors for $162M, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, March 10, 2011

Bank of America and Countrywide Financial Sued by Allstate over $700M in Bad Mortgaged-Backed Securities, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, December 28, 2010

Morgan Keegan & Company Ordered by FINRA to Pay $555,400 in Texas Securities Case Involving Morgan Keegan Proprietary Funds

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

A FINRA panel in Houston has ordered Morgan Keegan & Company to pay the Claimants of a Texas securities fraud $555,400 in compensatory damages. The Claimants had accused the financial firm of misrepresentation, negligence, vicarious liability, failure to supervise and violating the Texas Securities Act, the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act, and NASD Rules.

The securities claim is related to the sale and recommendation of a number of Regions Morgan Keegan proprietary mutual funds that were allegedly touted as diversified, conservative, and low risk despite a supposed higher rate of return:

• Regions Morgan Keegan High Income Fund • Regions Morgan Keegan Advantage Income Fund • Regions Morgan Keegan Multi-Sector High Income Fund • Regions Morgan Keegan Strategic Income Fund
The funds were actually high-risk mortgage-backed securities that were not appropriate for the Claimants.

After a 5-day hearing, the panel found Morgan Keegan liable in the Texas securities case and ordered the financial firm to pay damages to the WCR Family Limited Partnership, as well as a 4% per annum interest on the $550,400 for the period of July 29, 2011 until payment is made in full. The panel did dismiss all claims brought by the Wilhelmina R. Smith Estate.

Morgan Keegan Securities Fraud Cases
For the past couple of years, our Texas stockbroker fraud law firm has been diligently pursuing claims against Morgan Keegan related to their Regions Morgan Funds. The cases came following claims by investors that the financial firm defrauded them by misrepresenting the risk involved in the investments. Investors sustained many of the losses when the subprime mortgage market collapsed.

Over 400 securities claims have been filed over Morgan Keegan’s RMK funds. Already tens of millions of dollars have been awarded to claimants.

Other RMK funds named in the claims include the:

• RMK Select Intermediate Bond Fund • RMK Select High Income Fund
Earlier this summer, Regions Financial Corp. agreed to pay $210 million to settle more securities allegations that it fraudulently marketed mutual funds with subprime mortgages while artificially raising the prices of the funds. FINRA, SEC, and regulators from Kentucky, Alabama, South Carolina, and Mississippi agreed to the settlement.

Examples of FINRA arbitration settlements that Morgan Keegan has been ordered to pay over the RMK Funds:

• $881,000 to several investors. The claimants said their actions were over SEC and FINRA violations, breach of fiduciary duty, negligence, failure to supervise, vicarious liability, negligence, and breach of contract.

• $2.5 million to investor Andrew Stein and his companies. Panel members held Morgan Keegan liable for negligence, failure to supervise, and the sale of unsuitable investments.

Related Web Resources:
Regions Settles S.E.C. Case Over Former Morgan Keegan Funds, NY Times, June 22, 2011
Regions settles fraud case, may sell Morgan Keegan, Reuters, June 22, 2011
Texas Securities Act

More Blog Posts:
Morgan Keegan Settles Subprime Mortgage-Backed Securities Charges for $200M, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, June 29, 2011
Morgan Keegan Ordered by FINRA to Pay RMK Fund Investors $881,000, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, April 24, 2011
Morgan Keegan Ordered by FINRA Panel to Pay Investor $2.5 Million for Bond Fund Losses, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, February 23, 2010

Wedbush Securities Ordered by FINRA to Pay $2.8M in Senior Financial Fraud Case Over Variable Annuities

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

A FINRA arbitration panel has fined Wedbush Securities Incorporated, founder Edward Wedbush, and broker Debbie Michelle Saleh to pay $2,865,885 in damages. The victim of this securities case was Rick Cooper, an elderly investor. His securities claim alleged breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, negligent misrepresentation, failure to supervise, intentional misrepresentation and omissions, unauthorized transaction, unsuitable transactions, emotional abuse, elder abuse, and churning related to transactions of unspecified variable annuities.

Cooper’s securities fraud lawyers claim that Saleh sent him bogus monthly account statements, forged his signature, and conducted transactions that he hadn’t authorized, including the buying and selling of annuities and other financial products that were not suitable for him.

While Cooper’s account balances went down to one-third of $1.86 million, Saleh is accused of making money from fees and commissions that she charged him. The FINRA panel found that Saleh purposely misrepresented information about Cooper’s investments and she did make unauthorized transactions. The panel believes that Saleh of acting intentionally to defraud her clients. They said her actions either bordered on or actually were acts of “criminal misconduct.”

Of the $2.9 million, Saleh must pay $500,000 plus $1 million in punitive damages. Wedbush and its founder have to pay $500,000. Saleh, Wedbush, and Edward Wedbush also have to pay 10% annual interest on the damages, Cooper’s legal fees, and his other costs. Wedbush has to pay 100% of the arbitration forum fees, which is about $33,300. Two years ago, Saleh, who is no longer with Wedbush, has been permanently barred from the securities by FINRA.

Cooper is not the only person to file a securities claim against Saleh accusing her of misconduct. She is at the center of 4 investigations and 10 client complaints.

Wedbush has been named in at least 53 regulatory events and 52 arbitrations. Failure to supervise was a common complaint.

Failure to Supervise
Our securities fraud lawyers cannot stress how important it is for broker-dealers and investment advisers to properly supervise their brokers, advisers, other employees, and independent contractors. Not only must appropriate supervision take place, but also procedures of supervision have to be designed, implemented, and executed. Also, an employee assigned a supervisory role must complete specialized training to receiver a supervisor license from the National Association of Securities Dealers (NASD).

In the event that the broker engages in any type of misconduct or other wrongdoing, his/her supervisor and the financial firm can be held liable for allowing the alleged acts to take place-even if the employee that actually engaged in the wrongdoing isn’t found liable. You will want to work with a securities fraud law firm that knows how to prove that failure to supervise occurred.

FINRA Panel Orders Wedbush, Former Broker to Pay Investor $2.9M, OnWallStreet.com, August 31, 2011
FINRA Arbitrators Award Millions in Elder Abuse Case, Forbes, September 1, 2011

More Blog Posts:
FINRA Panel Orders Wedbush Securities to Pay $233,000 in Securities Fraud Damages, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, March 28, 2011
Wedbush Ordered By FINRA Panel To Pay $3.5M to Trader Over Withheld Compensation, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, July 16, 2011
SEC Charges Filed in $22M Ponzi Scam that Targeted Florida Teachers and Retirees, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, August 29, 2011 Continue Reading ›

FDIC Objects to Bank of America’s Proposed $8.5B Settlement Over Mortgage-Backed Securities

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

In the State Supreme Court of New York, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. has fled an objection to Bank of America proposed $8.5 billion mortgage-backed securities settlement. The FDIC, which is the receiver for failed banks and owns the securities that the settlement is supposed to cover, says it doesn’t have sufficient information to assess the settlement.

Per the agreement, Bank of America would pay to resolve claims brought by investors of mortgage bonds from Countrywide Financial Corp., which the investment bank acquired in 2008 for $4 billion. Already, the claims related to the Countrywide MBS has cost Bank of America over $30 billion.

The $8.5 billion securities settlement with Bank of America is over $424 billion in mortgages from Countrywide and was reached with 22 institutional investors, including:

$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

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

Once again, Western and Southern Life Insurance Co. is suing Bank of America Corporation for the alleged misrepresentation of mortgage-backed securities that the financial firm sold to the insurer. This time, the plaintiff is seeking $63 million. Western and Southern Life’s first MBS lawsuit against BofA sought $225 million in losses over securities it bought through Countrywide Financial Corp. (Bank of America acquired Countrywide in 2008.)

In this latest ARS lawsuit, Western and Southern Life says that it purchased $134 million in MBS from Bank of America between 2006 and 2008. The company contends that the securities would go on to lose 47% of their value. Western and Southern Life claims that the financial firm disregarded its own underwriting procedures and that a lot of the loans, which had AAA-ratings when they were purchased, have since foreclosed or defaulted. The insurer is also accusing Bank of America of failing to properly examine documents pertaining to the loans, which it says were based on erroneous information (including inflated appraisals, overstated incomes, and false employment verifications).

It was just last month that Western and Southern Life filed two other MBS lawsuits. In its securities case against Morgan Stanley & Co., the insurer is seeking $68.1 million for losses it claims it sustained because the financial firm allegedly misrepresented the MBS. The insurer says that in 2006 and 2007 it bought $179 million in mortgage-backed securities from Morgan Stanley.

Also in July, Western and Southern Life sued Credit Suisse Securities over the alleged loss of $107 million in MBS that the financial firm underwrote and one of its units sold. As with its securities cases against Bank of America, Western and Southern Life claims that Credit Suisse and Morgan Stanley disregarded their standards when accepting the loans. The insurer says that between 2005 and 2008 it bought $276 million in MBS from Credit Suisse.

Although Bank of America’s agreement to settle mortgage-back securities claims by 22 private investors that purchased 530 MBS valued at $424 billion covers Countrywide loans, Western and Southern Life was not part of this arrangement. Among the institutional investors to benefit from the settlement are BlackRock, Inc., PIMCO, Metlife, Inc., the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, and Goldman Sachs.

Per that settlement, Bank of America will give $8.5 billion to Bank of New York Mellon, which, as bondholder trustee, will distribute the funds to investors. However, if the court approves this settlement, investors will still be at a disadvantage because only some 2 or 3 centers on the dollar would be represented for those that suffered financial losses.

Bank of America agrees to $8.5B Countrywide settlement, Biz Journals, June 29, 2011

Western & Southern sues over investments, Business Courier, July 29, 2011