Articles Posted in Financial Firms

Stifel, Nicolaus & Co. and Former Executive Faces SEC Charges Over Sale of CDOs to Five Wisconsin School Districts

Published on: August 10, 2011 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The SEC is charging Stifel, Nicolaus & Co. and its former Senior Vice President David W. Noack with securities fraud over the sale of unsuitable, high-risk complex investments to 5 Wisconsin school districts. Stifel and Noack allegedly misrepresented the risks involved in investing $200 million in synthetic collateralized debt obligations (CDOs) and did not disclose certain material facts. The investments proved a “complete failure.”

The Five Wisconsin School Districts:
• Kimberly Area School District • Kenosha Unified School District No. 1 • School District of Waukesha • School District of Whitefish Bay • West Allis-West Milwaukee School District

All five school districts are suing Stifel and Royal Bank of Canada in civil court. Robert Kantas, partner of Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas LTD LLP, is one of the attorneys representing the school districts in their civil case against Stifel and RBC. Attorneys for the school districts issued the following statement:

“We believe that Stifel, Royal Bank of Canada and the other defendants defrauded the five Wisconsin school districts, along with trusts set up to make these investments. In 2006, these defendants devised, solicited and sold $200 million ‘synthetic collateralized debt obligations’ (CDOs), which were both volatile and complex, to these districts and trusts. While represented as safe investments, these were in fact very high risk securities, which were wholly unsuitable for the districts and trusts. In an attempt to protect taxpayers and residents, the districts hired attorneys and other professionals to investigate the investments and the potential for fraud. Then, with a goal of seeking full recovery of the monies lost in this scheme, a lawsuit was filed in Milwaukee County Circuit Court in 2008 to seek fully recovery of the losses and maintain and protect valuable credit ratings of these districts. To date, more than 3 million pages of documents have been obtained and examined by the attorneys for the districts. The districts also properly reported to the SEC the nature and extent of the wrongdoing uncovered. Over the past year, they have provided the SEC with volumes of documents and information to facilitate its investigation.”

In its complaint filed in federal court today, the SEC says that Stifel and Noack set up a proprietary program to assist the school districts in funding retiree benefits through the investments of notes linked to the performance of CDOs. The school districts invested $200 million with trusts they set up in 2006. $162.7 million was paid for with borrowed funds.

The SEC contends that Stifel and Noack, who both earned substantial fees even though the investments failed completely, took advantage of their relationships with the school districts and acted fraudulently when they sold financial products that were inappropriate for the latter. The brokerage firm and its executive also likely were aware that the school districts weren’t experienced or sophisticated enough to be able to evaluate the risks associated with investing in the CDOs. Both also likely knew that the school districts could not afford to suffer such catastrophic losses if their investments were to fail. Despite this, says the SEC, Noack and Stifel assured the school districts that for the investments to collapse there would have to be “15 Enrons.” They also allegedly failed to reveal certain material facts to the school districts, including that:

• The first transaction in the portfolio did poorly from the beginning.
• Within 36 days of closing, credit rating agencies had placed 10% of the portfolio on negative watch.
• There were CDO providers who said they wouldn’t participate in Stifel’s proprietary program because they were worried about the risks involved.

The SEC claims that Stifel and Noack violated the:

• Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Section (10b))
• The Securities Act of 1933 (Section 17(a))
• The Securities Act of 1934 (Section 15(c)(1)(A))

The Commission is seeking, permanent injunctions, disgorgement of ill-gotten gains, financial penalties, and prejudgment interest.

Related Web Resources:
SEC Charges Stifel, Nicolaus & Co. and Executive with Fraud in Sale of Investments to Wisconsin School District, SEC.gov, August 10, 2011
SEC Sues Stifel Over Wisconsin School Losses Tied to $200 Million of CDOs, Bloomberg, August 10, 2011
Read the SEC Complaint (PDF)

School Lawsuit Facts

More Blog Posts:
Wisconsin School Districts Sue Royal Bank of Canada and Stifel Nicolaus and Co. in Lawsuit Over Credit Default Swaps, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, October 7, 2008
SEC Inquiring About Wisconsin School Districts Failed $200 Million CDO Investments Made Through Stifel Nicolaus and Royal Bank of Canada Subsidiaries, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, June 11, 2010 Continue Reading ›

SEC Charges Filed Against Stifel, Nicolaus & Co. and Former Sr. VP David Noack Over CDO Sales to Wisconsin School Districts

Published on: August 10, 2011 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Three years after five Wisconsin school districts filed their securities fraud lawsuit against Stifel, Nicolaus & Company and the Royal Bank of Canada, the Securities and Exchange Commission has filed charges against the brokerage firm and former Stifel Senior Vice President David W. Noack over the same allegations. The charges stem from losses related to the sale of $200 million in high-risk synthetic collateralized debt obligations (CDOs) to the Wisconsin school districts of West Allis-West Milwaukee School District, the School District of Whitefish Bay, the Kimberly Area School District, the School District of Waukesha, and the Kenosha Unified School District No. 1.

The SEC says that not only were the CDOs inappropriate for the school districts that would not have been able to afford it if the investments failed, but also the brokerage firm did not disclose certain material facts or the risks involved. The school districts are pleased that the SEC has decided to file securities charges.

Robert Kantas, partner of Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas LTD LLP, is one of the attorneys representing the school districts in their civil case against Stifel and RBC. Attorneys for the school districts issued the following statement:

“It is our belief that the five Wisconsin school districts and the trusts established to make these investments were defrauded by Stifel, Royal Bank of Canada and the other defendants. Contrary to the way they were represented, the $200 million CDOs that were devised, solicited, and sold by the defendants to our clients in 2006 were volatile, complex, extremely high risk, and totally inappropriate for them. To protect residents and taxpayers, the districts later hired lawyers and others to investigate the investments and their fraud risk. Unfortunately, the failure of the investments did result in losses for the school districts, which in 2008 filed their Wisconsin securities fraud complaint in Milwaukee County Circuit Court. The school districts’ goal was to obtain full recovery of the monies lost in this scheme, while protecting and maintaining the districts’ valuable credit ratings. The districts’ lawyers have already examined three million pages of documents regarding in this matter. Meantime, the districts have taken the proper steps to report to the SEC the nature and extent of the wrongdoing uncovered. In the past year, the districts have given the SEC volumes of documents and information for its investigation.”

The school districts had invested the $200 million ($162.7 million was borrowed) in notes that were tied to the performance of synthetic CDOs. This was supposed to help them fund retiree benefits. According the SEC, however, Stifel and Noack set up a proprietary program to facilitate all of this even though they knew that they were selling products that were inappropriate for the school districts and their investment needs.

Stifel and Noack allegedly told the school districts it would take “15 Enrons” for the investments to fail, while misrepresenting that 30 of the 105 companies in the portfolio would have to default and that 100 of the world’s leading 800 companies would have to fail for the school districts to lose their principal. The SEC claims that the synthetic CDOs and the heavy use of leverage actually exposed the school districts to a high risk of catastrophic loss.

By 2010, the school districts’ second and third investments were totally lost and the lender took all of the trusts’ assets. In addition to losing everything they’d invested, the school districts experienced downgrades in their credit ratings because they didn’t put more money in the funds that they had set up. Meantime, despite the fact that the investments failed completely, Stifel and Noack still earned significant fees.

The SEC is alleging that Noack and Stifel violated the:
• The Securities Act of 1933 (Section 17(a))
• Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Section (10b))
• The Securities Act of 1934 (Section 15(c)(1)(A))

The Commission wishes to seek disgorgement of ill-gotten gains along with prejudgment interest, permanent injunctions, and financial penalties.

Related Web Resources:
SEC Charges Stifel, Nicolaus & Co. and Executive with Fraud in Sale of Investments to Wisconsin School Districts, SEC.gov, August 10, 2011

SEC Sues Stifel Over Wisconsin School Losses Tied to $200 Million of CDOs, Bloomberg, August 10, 2011

Read the SEC Complaint

School Lawsuit Facts

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

JP Morgan Settles for $153.6M SEC Charges Over Its Marketing of Synthetic Collateralized Debt Obligation, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, June 18, 2011

Wells Fargo Settles SEC Securities Fraud Allegations Over Sale of Complex Mortgage-Backed Securities by Wachovia for $11.2, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, April 7, 2011

SEC and SIFMA Divided Over Whether Merrill Lynch Can Be Held Liable for Alleged ARS Market Manipulation

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

In Wilson v. Merrill Lynch & Co. Inc., the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association and the Securities and Exchange Commission have submitted separate amicus curiae briefs to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit that differ on whether Merrill Lynch can be held liable for allegedly manipulating the auction-rate securities market. While SIFMA argued that an SEC order from 2006 that settled ARS charges against 15 broker-dealers affirmed the legality of the auction practices when they are properly disclosed, the SEC said that Merrill did not provide sufficient disclosures about its conduct in the ARS market and therefore what they did reveal was not enough to “preclude the plaintiff from pleading market manipulation.”

It was last year that the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed an investor claim that Merrill Lynch, which was acting as underwriter, manipulated the ARS market to attract investment. The court said that the claimant “failed to plead manipulative activity” and agreed with the brokerage firm that adequate disclosures were made. After appealing to the Second Circuit, the investor requested that the SEC provide its thoughts on five court-posed questions about the adequacy of the financial firm’s disclosures and how they impacted allegations of reliance and market manipulation.

The SEC said that the plaintiff’s claim that Merrill manipulated ARS auctions don’t preclude him from pleading, for fraud-on-the-market reliance purposes, an efficient market. SIMFA, however, said the plaintiff was precluded from claiming “manipulative acts” because investors have been made aware through “ubiquitous industry-wide disclosures about auction practices” that broker-dealers’ involvement in ARS actions is impacted by the “natural interplay” of demand and supply.

Related Web Resources:
Auction-Rate Securities UPDATE: SEC Brief May Help ARS Investors, Business Insider, July 26, 2011

More Blog Posts:

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

$629M Mortgage-Backed Securities Lawsuit Blames RBS Securities and Other Financial Firms For Bankruptcy of Western Corporate Federal Credit Union in 2009

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

The National Credit Union Administration has filed a $629 million securities fraud lawsuit against RBS Securities, Wachovia Mortgage Loan Trust LLC, Nomura Home Equity Loan Inc., Greenwich Capital Acceptance Inc., Lares Asset Securitization Inc., IndyMac MBS Inc., and American Home Mortgage Assets LLC. The NCUA is accusing the financial firms of underwriting and selling subpar mortgage-backed securities, which caused Western Corporate Federal Credit Union to file for bankruptcy, as well as of allegedly violating state and federal securities laws.

The defendants are accused of misrepresenting the nature of the bonds and causing WesCorp to think the risks involved were low, which was not the case at all. NCUA says that the originators of the securities “systematically disregarded” the Offering Documents’ underwriting standards. The agency blames broker-dealers and securities firms for the demise of five large corporate credit union: WesCorp, US Central, Members United Corporate, Southwest Corporate, and Constitution Corporate.

Last month, NCUA filed separate complaints against JPMorgan Chase Securities and RBS Securities. The union believes that those it considers responsible for the issues plaguing wholesale credit unions should cover the losses that retail credit unions are having to cover. NCUA says it may file up to 10 mortgage-backed securities complaints seeking to recover billions of dollars in damages. As of now, it is seeking to recover $1.5 billion.

NCUA acts as the “liquidating agent” for failed credit unions. Wholesale credit unions provide electronic payments, check clearing, investments and other services to retail credit unions, which actively work with borrowers.

NCUA sues JPMorgan and RBS to recover losses from failed institutions, Housing Wire, June 20, 2011

NCUA seeks $629M in damages from RBS Securities, Credit Union National Association, July 19, 2011

Feds Sue Bankers Over Fall in Bonds, The Wall Street Journal, June 21, 2011

$75K FINRA Arbitration Award Against Wells Fargo Advisors LLC For Defaming an Ex-Employee in Form U-5 is Confirmed by District Court

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

In district court, Judge Samuel Conti has confirmed a Financial Industry Regulatory Authority panel’s $75,000 arbitration award to Kenneth Schaffer against Wells Fargo Advisors, LLC. It was the financial firm that began proceedings against its former employer last year.

Schaffer accused Wells Fargo of “ending” his career when on a Form U5, which is a Uniform Termination Notice for Securities Industry Registration, the firm provided descriptions of alleged infractions that he said were misleading and had prevented him from being offered another job. He claimed that the reasons given for his firing were pretextual and that he was actually let go over health issues. Schaffer also disputed Wells Fargo’s claim that he owed them money for a promissory note. While he said that the financial firm had represented the note as a “sales bonus,” Wells Fargo said that after terminating Schaffer’s employment was terminated on October 1, 2009, it should receive the entire $74,617.76 that was owed on a promissory note.

The FINRA arbitration panel, however, agreed with Schaffer and found the promissory notice “unconscionable.” It said that Wells Fargo therefore could not recover on it. The panel also said that because the Form U5 Termination Explanation was of a “defamatory nature,” the financial firm was liable to Schaffer for compensatory damages. The court confirmed the arbitration award, while denying Wells Fargo’s motion to vacate, and entitled Schaffer to recover legal fees.

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

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

According to six Federal Home Loan Banks, the investors of Countrywide Financial Corp.’s mortgage bonds may be entitled to three or more times more than what the proposed $8.5 billion securities settlement reached with Bank of America Corp (BAC) is offering. Bank of America acquired Countrywide in 2008.

Under the current settlement, which was reached with Bank of New York Mellon (the trustee of 22 institutional investors), Bank of America is supposed to pay those who placed money in the 530 residential mortgage securitization trusts that Countrywide had set up. Now, however, the Federal Home Loan Banks of Chicago, Boston, Pittsburgh, Indianapolis, Seattle, and San Francisco have filed a court filing seeking more information about the deal. The home loan banks claim that they also invested over $8.5 billion in the mortgage-backed securities. While the current proposal requires that Bank of America repurchase just 40% of MBS that defaulted, the FHLBs believe there may be grounds for upping the proposed settlement amount to at least $22 billion and they may want to join the case.

The six FHLBanks are not the only ones to object to BofA’s proposed settlement. Walnut Place LLC I-XI, which represents another group of Countrywide MBS investors, also has filed a court petition. They claim that Bank of New York Mellon was only attempting to arrive at an agreement for its 22 institutional investors that the rest of the investors would just have to abide by. Walnut Place LLC I-XI wants to block the current settlement and be excluded from any agreement that is finalized between BofA and Bank of New York Mellon.

Mortgage-Backed Securities
If you or your company suffered financial losses from investing in mortgage-backed securities, an experienced securities fraud attorney may be able to determine whether you have grounds for an institutional investment fraud claim.

Related Web Resources:

Mortgage Investors May Be Owed Three Times More in BofA Deal, Bloomberg, July 21, 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 Investors 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 29, 2010

Countrywide Financial, Merrill Lynch, and Citigroup Executives Defend Their Hefty Compensations Following Subprime Mortgage Crisis, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, March 12, 2008

Janney Montgomery Scott LLC to Pay $850K to Settle Securities Charges Over Alleged Failure to Prevent Inside Trading

Published on: July 21, 2011 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Janney Montgomery Scott LLC has consented to pay $850,000 to resolve Securities and Exchange Commission charges that it failed to set up and enforce policies to prevent possible insider trading. The financial services firm also agreed to cease from further violations of laws that prevent the misuse of material, nonpublic information that could be used for insider trading. Even with the securities settlement, however, Janney is not admitting wrongdoing.

According to regulators, between January 2005 and July 2009, there were occasions when Janney’s Equity Capital Markets division did not enforce policies. Some of these failures, which created the risk that certain information could be used for insider trading, included:

• Failure to comply with written procedures.
• Not properly monitoring trading in securities belonging to companies that Janney’s investment bankers were advising.
• Not requiring that investment bankers obtain clearance for personal trades prior to making them.
• Failing to get yearly questionnaires identifying employees who had brokerage counts at other financial firms.
• Not reviewing these employees’ activities at these other firms.

Also per the settlement, Janney will retain an independent compliance consultant who will make recommendations about how to comply with laws pertaining to material, nonpublic information.

Insider Trading and Securities Fraud Enforcement Act of 1988
Under this act, firms must implement policies and procedures to prevent insider trading from happening and ensure that employees are aware of these immediately upon hiring. These policies and procedures have to be formal.

It is a firm’s responsibility to ensure that these policies are followed. They must conduct reviews of employees and proprietary trading, while monitoring employee trading that doesn’t involve the firm. If a firm suspects possible insider trading, it must immediately investigate the allegations.

Related Web Resources:
Janney Montgomery Scott To Pay $850K To Settle SEC Charges, RTT News, January 11, 2011
Janney Montgomery Scott settles SEC charges, Bloomberg/Business Week/AP, July 11, 2011
SEC Charges Janney Montgomery Scott Failed to Maintain and Enforce Policies to Prevent Misuse of Material, Nonpublic Information, SEC, July 11, 2011

More Blog Posts:
“Poohster” Consultant Found Guilty of Insider Trading, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, June 23, 2011
3 Hedge Funds Raided by FBI in Insider Trading Case, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, November 23, 2010
Ex-Goldman Sachs Board Member Accused of Insider Trading with Galleon Group Co-Founder Seeks to Have SEC Administrative Case Against Him Dropped, Institutional Investors Securities Blog, April 19, 2011 Continue Reading ›

Ex-Morgan Stanley Trader’s $25k Settlement Over Alleged Concealment of Proprietary Trades is Inadequate, Says SEC Commissioner Aguilar

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

Jennifer Kim, an ex-Morgan Stanley (MS) trader, has consented to a $25,000 settlement to resolve SEC allegations that she hid proprietary trades that that went above and beyond the financial firm’s risk limits. The alleged misconduct resulted in approximately $24.5m in losses for Morgan Stanley. SEC Commissioner Luis Aguilar, however, is calling the terms of her settlement “inadequate.” In his written dissent, he said that Kim also should have been charged with committing antifraud provisions violations.

Kim and Larry Feinblum, who was her supervisor, are accused of employing “fake” swap orders a minimum of 32 times to conceal their risks. The swap orders they entered into were ones that they intended to cancel soon after. This let them trick the monitoring systems, which recorded lower net risk positions. This alleged maneuvering allowed them to employ a trading strategy that would let them profit from the difference in prices between foreign and US markets.

In December 2009, Feinblum, who lost $7m in a day, told his supervisor about how he and Kim had concealed their positions and went above risk limits. Feinblum, who no longer works for Morgan Stanley, has settled the related securities claims against him for $150,000.

As part of her settlement, Kim agreed to a minimum three-year bar from the brokerage industry. She also consented to cease and desist from future records and books violations.

Even in settling, Feinblum and Kim are not denying or admitting wrongdoing.

Ex-Morgan Stanley Trader Settles SEC Claims Over Hiding Risk, Bloomberg, July 12, 2011
Ex-Broker to Pay $25K Over Risky Trades; Aguilar Objects to Penalty as ‘Inadequate’, BNA Securities Law Daily, July 14, 2011
SEC Order Against Kim (PDF)

SEC Commissioner Aguilar’s Dissent (PDF)

More Blog Posts:
Ex-Morgan Stanley Trader to Settle SEC Unauthorized Swaps Trading Claims for $150,000, Stockbrroker Fraud Blog, June 13, 2011
Morgan Stanley to Pay $500,000 to Resolve SEC Charges that it Recommended Unapproved Money Managers to Clients, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, July 27, 2009
Broker Settles SEC Charges He Defrauded Elderly Nuns, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, January 13, 2011 Continue Reading ›

Wells Fargo Settles Mortgage-Backed Securities Class Action Case for $125M

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

Wells Fargo & Co. (WFC) has consented to pay $125 million to settle allegations that it misled investors about the risks involved in mortgage-backed securities. The plaintiffs in the class action securities lawsuit include a number of public pensions, including the New Orleans Employees’ Retirement System, Government of Guam Retirement Fund, Alameda County Employees’ Retirement Association, the General Retirement System of Detroit and the Louisiana Sheriffs’ Pension and Relief Fund. Wells Fargo is the biggest home lender in the country.

The securities in question were backed by mortgage loans that Wells Fargo or its affiliates had bought or originated, which were issued through Wells Fargo Asset Securities Corp. in July and October 2005 and September 2006. Per the investors’ securities fraud lawsuit, the bank misrepresented the quality of the loans in 28 offerings (they were accompanied by inflated appraisals), which resulted in artificially high ratings for the securities. Wells Fargo also allegedly neglected to disclose that it did not follow the proper underwriting standards. As a result, the true risks of investing in these mortgage-backed securities were not disclosed.

A judge must still approve the proposed MBS settlement. However, by agreeing to settle, Wells Fargo and the underwriters have been quick to emphasize that this is not an admission of wrongdoing.

Meantime, Wells Fargo must still deal with MBS lawsuits filed by federal home loan banks and individual investors in Illinois, California, and Indiana. The investment bank was one of several that were sued in 2009 over alleged securities violations related to the sale of $36 billion in mortgage pass-through certificates. It was just last month that Bank of America consented to pay investors $8.5 billion for their mortgage back-securities-related losses that the investment bank assumed after its acquisition of Countrywide Financial.

Wells Fargo settles MBS investors claims for $125 million, Housing Wire, July 8, 2011

Wells Fargo to Pay $125 Million to Settle Mortgage-Backed Securities Case, Bloomberg, July 7, 2011

More Blog Posts:
Bank of America Cop. (BAC)’s Merrill Lynch a Defendant of Class-Action Mortgage-Backed Securities Lawsuit Against at Least 1,800 Investors, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, June 25, 2011

National Credit Union Administration Board Files $800M Mortgage-Backed Securities Fraud Lawsuits Against JP Morgan Securities, RBS Securities, and Other Financial Institutions, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, June 23, 2011

Wedbush Ordered By FINRA Panel To Pay $3.5M to Trader Over Withheld Compensation

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

A Financial Industry Regulator Authority Panel has ordered WedBush Securities Inc. to pay one of its traders over $3.5 million for refusing to properly compensate him. According to claimant Stephen Kelleher, he worked for the financial firm for years without consistently getting the incentive-base compensation that he was promised as a municipal sales trader. Kelleher started working for Wedbush in 2007 until right before the arbitration ruling was made.

Kelleher claims that Wedbush withheld nearly $5 million from him. While he regularly received his base salary, the bulk of his income, which was incentive-based compensation, was unevenly distributed and issued to him in May 2008, October 2009, and April 2010. Even then Kelleher contends that he did not receive everything he was owed.

In his FINRA arbitration claim, Kelleher alleged violation and failure to pay per labor laws, breach of contract, unfair business practices, and fraud. He sought over $6.1 million, including $4.17 million in compensation owed, close to $878,000 in interest, and penalties of $1 million and $2,100 over labor code violations. He also sought damages for civil code law violations, as well as punitive damages.

During the FINRA hearing, witnesses testified that it was Wedbush president and founder Edward W. Wedbush who made decisions about paying and withholding incentive compensation. Another Wedbush employee said that there were two years when he too didn’t get the incentive-based compensation that he was owed. The FINRA panel blamed Wedbush’s “corporate management structure” that required that Edward Wedbush, as majority shareholder, approve bonus pay at his discretion.

In addition to the $3.5 million, the FINRA panel also told Wedbush it has to give Kelleher the vested option to purchase 3,750 Wedbush shares at $20/share and another $375 shares at $26/share. Wedbush also must pay the Claimant for the $200 part of the FINRA filing fee that is non-refundable.

Wedbush intends to appeal the securities arbitration ruling.

Related Web Resources:
Wedbush ordered to pay $3.5M for ‘morally reprehensible failure’, Investment News, July 11, 2011

More Blog Posts:
FINRA Panel Orders Merrill Lynch Professional Clearing Corporation to Pay $64M Over Losses Sustained by Rosen Capital Institutional LP and Rosen Capital Partners LP, Institutional Investors Securities Blog, July 14, 2011