Articles Posted in Financial Firms

SEC Examining Whether Goldman Sachs Violated Bribery Laws When Dealing with Libya’s Sovereign-Wealth Fund

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

According to the Wall Street Journal, the SEC is trying to figure out whether Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and a number of other financial firms were in violation of bribery laws because of the way they handled Libya’s sovereign-wealth fund. SEC enforcement lawyers are now looking at documents detailing these relationships. Several other companies have had significant interactions with the Libyan Investment Authority, including Och-Ziff Capital Management Group, JP Morgan Chase, and Carlyle Group.

The Journal says that Goldman invested over $1.33 billion from Libya’s fund in a number of trades in 2008. The investment lost over 98% of its value.

US regulators want to know about a $50M and transaction fees that Goldman Sachs said it would pay the fund in exchange for a release of liability and winding down the trades. Although the money reportedly was never handed over before violence flared up last year in Libya, this doesn’t mean that the financial firm is exempt from the federal Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, which does not let US companies offer (or pay) bribes to state-owned company employees or foreign government officials. The money would have gone to an outside advisory firm that was at the time run by the son-in-law of the Libyan national company.

Goldman spokesman Lucas van Praag has said that the financial firm is “confident” that it didn’t do anything that violated any regulation or rule. He noted that the company worked with outside counsel to make sure that it was in compliance with all rules.

Related Web Resources:
SEC Examining If Goldman-Libya Connection Violated Bribery Laws, Huffington Post, June 9, 2010

SEC Looks At Goldman, Others’ Dealing With Libyan Sovereign Fund, The Wall Street Journal, June 9, 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

David Lerner & Associates Ignored Suitability of REITs When Recommending to Investors, Claims FINRA

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

FINRA has filed securities charges against David Lerner & Associates, Inc. accusing the broker-dealer of not taking into account suitability when soliciting vulnerable investors-in particular, elderly clients, to buy shares in the non-traded, $2B Apple REIT Ten offering. The SRO is also accusing the broker-dealer of posting misleading information online about distributions.

DLA has been Apple REITs only underwriters for nearly two decades. The broker-dealer has sold almost $6.8B of the securities into about 122,600 customer accounts. The series has made $600M in fees and other earnings for the broker-dealer, making up 60 to 70% of the firm’s yearly business. Since January, DLA also has been sole underwriter for Apple REIT Ten, which has sold over $300M of a $2B offering of shares. DLA associates earn numerous fees, including 10% of all offerings.

The SRO says that for at least seven years, the closed Apple REITs have “unreasonably valued” their shares at $11 (notwithstanding performance declines, market fluctuations, and increased leverage). The REITs, which were launched from 2004 and 2008 and were used mainly used to buy extended hotel stays, have managed to keep up “outsized” distributions of 7-8% through leveraged borrowing and returning of capital to investors. The SRO contends, however, that DLA did not disclose on its website that the income from real estate was not enough to support these. FINRA also claims that DLA provides “misleading” distribution rates on its website for all past Apple REITs.

DLA is denying the allegations.

Finra Sues David Lerner Firm, Wall Street Journal, June 1, 2011
FINRA Charges Firm With Ignoring Suitability, Providing Bad Data on REITs, BNA, June 1, 2011
REITs

More Blog Posts:
Ameriprise Must Pay $17 Million for REIT Fraud, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, July 12, 2009
W.P. Carey & Co Settles SEC Charges Over Payments of Undisclosed REIT Compensation, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, March 25, 2008
UBS Financial Services Fined $2.5M and Ordered to Pay $8.25M Over Lehman Brothers-Issued 100% Principal-Protection Notes, Institutional Investors Securities Blog, April 12, 2011 Continue Reading ›

Northern Trust Securities Agrees to $600,000 FINRA Fine Over Charges It Failed to Properly Monitor High-Volume Securities Trades and CMO Sales

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

Northern Trust Securities has consented to pay a $600,000 Financial Industry Regulatory Authority fine over securities charges accusing it of failing to supervise collateralized mortgage obligation sales and lacking the systems set up to properly monitor certain high-volume securities trades. FINRA contends that the alleged actions by the broker-dealer exposed investors to the risk of losing if not all then a significant part of their principal through potential over concentration in CMOs. By agreeing to settle, however, Northern Trust is not admitting to or denying the charges.

According to FINRA, from 10/06 and 10/09, Northern Trust failed to to watch out for unsuitable levels of concentration” in CMOs in customer accounts and this occurred in significant part because Northern Trust employed an exception reporting system that did not analyze or capture significant parts of its business, such as:

• Certain trades of 10,000 equity shares or more
• Certain trades of 250 or more of fixed-income bonds
• All CMO transactions

The SRO contends that from 1/07 to 6/08, 43.5% of the Northern Trust’s business was not included in the review. The SRO claims that not having the proper systems to properly monitor the fixed income trades of over 250 bonds and equity trades of more than 10,000 shares led to a failure on the financial firm’s part to look at the trades for concentration, excessive mark-ups, excessive suitability, trading, or commissions, or for trading in restricted stocks.

Northern Trust reportedly wasn’t aware of this problem until an elderly investor filed an arbitration claim related to the concentration in her Countrywide Financial Corp. CMO account.

Related Web Resources:

FINRA Fines Northern Trust Securities, Inc. $600,000 for Inadequate Supervision of Sales of Collateralized Mortgage Obligations and Certain High-Volume Securities Trades, FINRA, June 2, 2011

More Blog Posts:
Charles Schwab & Co. Defendant in Class-Action Securities Fraud Lawsuit Filed on Behalf of Schwab Total Bond Market Fund Investors Over CMOs and Mortgage-Backed Securities, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, September 7, 2010

HSBC Securities to Pay $375K to Settle FINRA Allegations that It Recommended Unsuitable Collateralized Mortgage Obligations to Retail Clients, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, August 25, 2010

SEC & FINRA Examine CMO Sales and Marketing Practices, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, January 23, 2008

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

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

The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas has ruled that Credit Suisse Securities shouldn’t have to pay Luby’s Restaurants another $186,000 as part of its arbitration to the investor. The case is Luby’s Restaurants LP v. Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC. Shepherd Smith Edwards and Kantas Founder and Texas Securities Fraud Attorney William Shepherd had this to say about the ruling: “Attorneys for each side have the opportunity to submit language to the arbitrators that it desires to be reflected in an award. In cases where the award sought is anything more than payment of a specific amount it is wise to submit such language.”

Luby’s Restaurants LP bought over $30 million in auction-rate securities from Credit Suisse. The investor bought the ARS based on the financial firm’s representation that the instruments were very liquid, safe, and a suitable investment.

Luby’s later filed its arbitration claim with FINRA for ARS losses. By then it had gotten back everything but $8.9 million in securities. Then, after initiating the proceedings-but prior to the arbitration hearing-Luby’s redeemed another one of its securities for less than par and lost $186,000.

The arbitration panel would go on to rule in favor of Luby’s. Credit Suisse was directed to buy back the ARS from Luby’s at par and with interest. While both parties sought to confirm the award, they were in dispute over whether the $186,000 that Luby’s lost after it filed its arbitration case should be included.

The court says that Credit Suisse does not have to pay that amount to Luby’s. The court noted that the Award doesn’t mention the additional damages that Luby’s sustained when it sold some of the securities under par during pendency of the arbitration but prior to the hearing.

Related Web Resources:
$186K Under Arbitration Award, BNA Securities Law Daily, May 31, 2011
Luby’s Restaurants LP v. Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC, Justia

More Blog Posts:
Credit Suisse Group AG Must Pay ST Microelectronics NV $431 Million Auction-Rate Securities Arbitration Award, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, April 5, 2010
Texas Securities Commissioner’s Emergency Cease and Decease Order Accuses Insignia Energy Group Inc. of Misleading Teachers, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, May 23, 2011
Goldman Sachs and Wells Fargo Investments Repurchase $26.9M in Auction-Rate Securities from New Jersey Investors, Institutional Investors Securities Blog, May 25, 2011 Continue Reading ›

District Court Wants to Know Why FINRA Arbitration Panel Denied Freecharm Ltd.’s Securities Fraud Claim Against One Atlas Financial Group LLC

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

Judge Marcia G. Cooke of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida is asking why a Financial Industry Regulatory Authority arbitration panel denied Freecharm Ltd.’s breach of fiduciary duty and fraud claims against Atlas One Financial Group LLC. Cooke wants to know about the panel’s reasoning so it can make a ruling regarding the parties’ conflicting motions to modify, confirm, or vacate the award.

The court says that, Freecharm Ltd. began arbitration proceedings against associated entity Atlas One Financial Group LLC and three individuals in 2009. Freecharm accused Atlas of committing Florida statutory violations, breach of fiduciary, fraud, negligence, and other wrongdoings linked to the alleged excessive and/or unauthorized trading in a number of securities accounts.

After the FINRA panel entered an award denying Freecharm’s claims “in their entirety,” Freecharm then submitted a motion to modify or vacate, while Atlas put forward its own motion to have the award confirmed.

Freecharm is claiming that the panel went beyond its powers, exhibited partiality, ignored the law and the facts, and was prejudiced in refusing to see that Atlas allegedly concealed discovery documents. Freecharm is also challenging the credibility of certain witness testimony and discovery documents.

Although the district court has acknowledged that the FINRA panel’s decision deserves “considerable deference,” it also has found that in this instance the award does not “expressly state” the reason Freecharm’s claims were entirely denied. The court says that it needs more information so it can identify the possible evidence for the panel’s logic, as well as determine what principal of law the arbitrators allegedly disregarded. District courts are authorized to remand a case to an arbitration panel for the purpose of getting clarification about the panel’s intent when “in making an award evidences a manifest disregard of the law.”

Related Web Resources:
In Weighing Motion to Confirm, Court Asks Arbitrators to Clarify Basis of Award, Alacra Store, May 25, 2011 Atlas One Financial Group, LLC et al v. Freecharm Limited, Justia Dockets

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
SEC Approves FINRA’s Proposal to Give Investors an All-Public Arbitration Panel Option, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, February 12, 2011
Raymond James Must Pay $925,000 Over Auction-Rate Securities Dispute, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, September 1, 2010 Continue Reading ›

Goldman Sachs Subpoenaed Over Financial Crisis

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

Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus R. Vance Jr. has subpoenaed Goldman Sachs. The New York Times says that someone familiar with this matter told the newspaper that the prosecutor is seeking information related to the financial crisis. The District Attorney’s request comes following the Senate investigators’ report last April accusing the financial firm of abusive conduct.

The Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations produced the report, which claims that Goldman Sachs contributed to the financial crisis when it developed mortgage-linked investments that allowed it to make money even as its clients sustained financial losses. Per the NY Times, this subpoena, which comes nearly three years after the height of the crisis, is a clear indicator that officials are continuing to probe the role that Wall Street might have played.

It was last year that Goldman Sachs consented to settle for $550 million the Securities and Exchange Commission charges accusing it of misleading investors about an investment package linked to subprime mortgages. Even as it bet against the package, the financial firm neglected to disclose that Paulson & Co. helped choose the loans. While investors in the Abacus 2007-AC1 collateralized debt obligation (CDO) lost over $1 billion, Paulson made approximately $1 billion.

The report is also alleging a wider scope of abusive conduct by Goldman. For example, when the mortgage market was failing in 2007, the financial firm allegedly sold mortgage-related investments to buyers but neglected to tell them that it was betting against the subprime market and would make money if some of these securities lost value. Goldman also allegedly minted CDOs with assets that it thought might “lose money,” while selling them at prices higher than what they thought they were worth.

Per the report, these arrangements resulted in a number of conflicts of interests and allegedly allowed Goldman to put its interests before its clients. One example involves Goldman choosing assets for the Hudson 1, which is a $2 billion CDO. The report says that the financial firm neglected to reveal that it’s $2 billion short position far outweighed the $6 million investment it made on the same side as the buyers of the CDO.

Goldman has said that it disagrees with many of the report’s findings.

Goldman Sachs subpoenaed, Washington Post, June 2, 2011

Wall Street and the Financial Crisis: The Role of Investment Banks, Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations

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

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

Securities Practices of JPMorgan Chase & Goldman Sachs Under Investigation by Federal Investigators, Institutional Investors Securities Blog, May 19, 2011

Goldman Sachs and Wells Fargo Investments Repurchase $26.9M in Auction-Rate Securities from New Jersey Investors

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

According to the New Jersey Bureau of Securities, Wells Fargo Investments Inc. (WFC) and Goldman Sachs & Co. (GS) has repurchased $26.9 million in ARS tosettle securities allegations that they sold auction-rate securities to New Jersey investors without disclosing the risks involved. Goldman bought back $25.5 million in ARS (it will also pay a $959,794 civil penalty), while Wells Fargo Investments repurchased $1.37 million in ARS.

The Bureau says that Goldman Sachs did not properly supervise and train its salespeople to make sure that all of its clients knew of the mechanics involved in the auction market and that the ARS could become illiquid. The financial firm also is accused of failing to disclose to investors the risks involved in buying or owning ARS even as it was becoming aware that the market was in trouble. The Bureau also accused Wells Fargo Investments of not properly supervising or training its agents that marketed the securities.

The two Consent Orders against Goldman Sachs and Wells Fargo Investments are the 11th and 12th that the state’s Bureau of Securities has reached with financial firms over ARS that were sold to investors in New Jersey. As part of the settlements, several firms that sold and marketed ARS have offered to buy back $2.8 billion of these securities.

It was in 2008 that state offices started getting complaints from investors about problems related to ARS investments. New Jersey was one of the 12 states that became part of a task force that looked into whether financial firms misled investors that bought ARS, which were sold and marketed as liquid, safe, and like cash. When the ARS market did fail, many investors were unable to access their money as the securities became illiquid.

New Jersey Bureau of Securities

More Blog Posts:
Anschutz Corp.’s Securities Fraud Lawsuit Against Deutsche Bank and Credit Rating Agencies Over Their Alleged Mishandling of Auction-Rate Securities Can Proceed, Says District Court, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, April 21, 2011

Akamai Technologies Inc’s ARS Lawsuit Against Deutsche Bank Can Proceed, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, March 4, 2011

Auction-Rate Securities Investigations by SEC and NY Attorney General Are Ongoing, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, April 21, 2011

Securities Practices of JPMorgan Chase & Goldman Sachs Under Investigation by Federal Investigators

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

Federal investigators are taking an even closer took at the securities-related practices of JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPM) and Goldman Sachs Group Inc. (GS ). In a May 6 Filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission, JPMorgan reported that an investigation into its municipal derivatives securities practices is being conducted by the SEC, the US Justice Department, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the Internal Revenue Service, and a number of state attorneys general. The investment bank and Bear Stearns are under investigation for possible tax, antitrust, and securities-related violations related to “the sale or bidding of guaranteed investment contracts and derivatives to municipal issuers.” The SEC’s Philadelphia office is recommending that the commission file civil charges against JPMorgan.

Meantime, in its May 9 filing to the SEC Goldman Sachs revealed that the Commodity Futures Trading Commission is looking at the clearing-services practices that Goldman subsidiary Goldman Sachs Execution and Clearing LP provided to a broker-dealer. Goldman is also being investigated by the Justice Department over matters “similar” to a European Commission probe into anti-competitive practices involving credit default swap transactions.

Goldman’s filing notes that CFTC staffers verbally notified GSEC that it will recommend that the commission bring charges related to supervision, aiding and abetting, and civil fraud over the financial firm providing a broker-dealer client with clearing services. The charges are being recommended because of allegations that GSEC knew or should have known that subaccounts belonged to the broker-dealer’s customers and were not the client’s “proprietary accounts.”

Related Web Resources:

Wall Street inquiry expands beyond Goldman Sachs, Los Angeles Times, May 14, 2011

Office of the Comptroller of the Currency

Commodity Futures Trading Commission

More Blog Posts:

Motion for Class Certification in Lawsuit Against J.P. Morgan Securities Inc. Over Alleged Market Manipulation Scam Granted in Part by Court, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, July 23, 2010

Ambac Financial Group, Insurers, and Bank Underwriters to Pay $33M to Settle Securities Lawsuits Alleging Concealed Risks Related to its Bond-Insurance Business

Published on: May 18, 2011 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Ambac Financial Group Inc. (ABKFQ), a number of its bank underwriters, and its insurers will pay $33 million to settle securities lawsuits accusing the bond insurer of concealing the risks it engaged in when it guaranteed risky mortgage debt. Ambac will pay $2.5 million, four insurance companies will pay $24.5 million, and the banks that will pay $5.9 million include Citigroup Inc. (C), Goldman Sachs Group Inc. (GS), UBS AG (UBS), J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. (JPM), Merrill Lynch Pierce Fenner & Smith Inc. (now part of Bank of America Corp. (BAC)), HSBC Holdings PLC (HBC), and the former Wachovia, (now part of Wells Fargo & Co. ( WFC)). A federal court has to approve the proposed settlement. The lead plaintiffs of the securities fraud case are The Public Employees’ Retirement System of Mississippi, the Public School Teachers’ Pension and Retirement Fund of Chicago, and the Arkansas Teachers Retirement System. The investors covered those that purchased Ambac stock and bonds between October 25, 2006 and April 22, 2008.

It was in 2008 that the housing market crisis revealed the trouble that Ambac, an insurer of instruments related to risky mortgages, was in. Investors had accused Ambac of both giving misleading information to the market to inflate the prices of its securities and concealing the full scope of its involvement in the subprime loan debacle. They claim that the bond insurer and its officials made it appear as if the company was only insuring the transactions that were “safest,” when it was actually looking to profit by guaranteeing billions in high risk collateralized debt obligations and residential mortgage debt, as well as writing credit default swaps to protect investors in the debt against default.

Documents filed in the US Bankruptcy Court in Manhattan reports that the holding company in bankruptcy has $1.6 billion in unresolved debts. Financial guarantee insurer Ambac Assurance Corp., which is its chief asset, has $300 billion in potential exposure.

Related Web Resources:
Ambac, banks settle investor suits for $33 mln, Reuters, May 6, 2011
Ambac Financial In $27.1M Deal To Settle Securities Lawsuits, Dow Jones, May 9, 2011
The Public Employees’ Retirement System of Mississippi

Public School Teachers’ Pension and Retirement Fund of Chicago

Arkansas Teachers Retirement System

More Blog Posts:
Insurer Claims that JP Morgan and Bear Stearns Bilked Clients Of Billions of Dollars with Handling of Mortgage Repurchases, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, February 3, 2011
SEC to Examine Muni Bond Market Issues During Hearings in Texas and Other States, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, February 9, 2011
SEC to Examine Muni Bond Market Issues During Hearings in Texas and Other States, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, February 9, 2011 Continue Reading ›

UBS Financial Reaches $160M Settlement with the SEC and Justice Department Over Securities Fraud, Antitrust, and Other Charges Related to Municipal Bond Market

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

UBS Financial Services Inc. has consented to a $160 million settlement over charges that it took part in anticompetitive practices in the municipal bond market. The Securities and Exchange Commission and the US Justice Department announced the settlement together. 25 state attorneys generals and 3 federal agencies had accused the financial firm of rigging a minimum of 100 reinvestment transactions in 36 states, which placed the tax-exempt status of over $16.5 billion in municipal bonds at peril. Justice officials say that the unlawful conduct at issue, which involved former UBS officials, took place between June 2001 and June 2006.

According to SEC municipal securities and public pensions enforcement unit chief Elaine Greenberg, ex-UBS officials engaged in “secret arrangements,” played various roles, and took part in “illegal courtesy bids, last looks for favored bidders, and money to bidding engagements” in the guise of “swap payments” to “defraud municipalities” and “win business.” The SEC contends that between October 2000 until at least November 2004, the financial firm rigged a minimum of 12 transactions while serving as bidding agents for contract providers, won at least 22 muni reinvestment instruments, entered at least 64 “courtesy” bids for contracts, and paid undisclosed kickbacks to bidding agents at least seven times. The SEC says that UBS indirectly deceived municipalities and their agents with their fraudulent misrepresentations and omissions and rigged bids to make them appear as if they were competitive when they actually weren’t.

UBS, which left the municipal bond market in 2008, says that the “underlying transactions” involved were in a business that is no longer a part of the financial firm and that the employees who were involved don’t work there anymore. Of the $160 million settlement, $47.2 million will go to the SEC, which in turn will give the money to the 100 muni issuers as restitution, about $91 million will go to the states, and $22.3 million will go to the IRS.

Related Web Resources:

United States Justice Department

Internal Revenue Service

Securities and Exchange Commission

More Blog Posts:
UBS Financial Services Fined $2.5M and Ordered to Pay $8.25M Over Lehman Brothers-Issued 100% Principal-Protection Notes, Institutional Investors Securities Blog, April 12, 2011

Securities Fraud Lawsuit Against UBS Securities LLC by Detroit Pension Funds Won’t Be Remanded to State Court, Says District Court, Institutional Investors Securities Blog, January 17, 2011

UBS to Pay $2.2M to CNA Financial Head for Lehman Brothers Structured Product Losses, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, January 4, 2011