Financial Firms

UBS Must Pay Couple $530,000 for Lehman Brothers-Backed Structured Notes

Published on: November 5, 2010 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

A Financial Industry Regulatory Authority arbitration panel has ordered UBS AG to pay two clients $529,688 over their purchase of Lehman Brothers Holdings notes. The investors, Steven and Ellen Edelson, were told that they were buying “structured products, some of which were “principal protected.”

Between 2006 and 2008, the Edelsons, who used to own a plumbing supply company, purchased some $3.5 million in structured products—$529,688 of which came from Lehman. They even purchased the Lehman notes as late as August 2008, just a month before the bank failed.

Some of the Lehman notes that they bought were called “Return Optimization Securities with Partial Protection,” and “100% Principal Protection Notes” (PPN). According to the couple’s securities fraud lawyer, the Lehman notes are now valued at pennies on the dollar). Their attorney contends that by calling the notes “principal protected,” UBS misrepresented the risks involved in investing in the structured notes.

According to Forbes.com, Lehman’s structured notes were supposed to perform like an S&P 500 index or a basket of securities. However, the PPN should be different from either in that the investments—in return for the financial security—would be capped. Unfortunately, as investors found out in September 2008, there were “principal protected” investments that did not live up to their name because they lacked that inferred protection.

UBS maintains that it followed “regulatory requirements” when it sold Lehman notes and that it could not have foreseen the latter’s financial collapse. Meantime, FINRA has ordered the investment bank to repurchase the notes from the retired couple.

Securities Fraud Against UBS Over Lehman Products
UBS has reportedly sold $1 billion of Lehman products to US investors. In six of the seven cases alleging securities fraud that were decided through FINRA, UBS must now repay some or all of the losses sustained by the investors.

Related Web Resources:

UBS Having Hard Time With Lehman Structured Products Arbitration, Forbes, April 26, 2010

UBS Loses Lehman Arbitration Note Claim by Small Investor, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, December 9, 2010

Brokers Renew Push for Investors to Buy Structured Products, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, June 12, 2009

Securities Claims Against Goldman Sachs Over Mortgage-Backed Certificates are Partially Dismissed by Court Due to Lack of Injury

Published on: October 30, 2010 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York has ruled that without an injury, a mortgage-backed certificates holder cannot maintain a securities claim against MBS underwriter Goldman Sachs & Co. (GS) and related entities for allegedly misstating the risks involved in the certificates in their registration statement. Judge Miriam Goldman Cedarbaum says that plaintiff NECA-IBEW Health & Welfare Fund knew that the investment it made could be illiquid and, therefore, cannot allege injury based on the certificates hypothetical price on the secondary market at the time of the complaint. The court, however, did deny Goldman’s motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s claims brought under the 1933 Securities Act’s Section 12(a)(2) and Section 15.

The Fund had purchased from Goldman a series of MBS certificates with a face value of $390,000 in the initial public offering on Oct. 15, 2007. The fund then bought another series of MBS certificates with a $49,827.56 face value from Goldman, which served as underwriter, creator of the mortgage loan pools, sponsor of the offerings, and issuer of the certificates after securitizing the loans and placing them in trusts.

Per the 1933 Act’s Section 11, the Fund alleged that in the resale market the certificates were valued at somewhere between “‘between 35 and 45 cents on the dollar.” However, instead of alleging that it did not get the distributions it was entitled to, the plaintiff contended that it was exposed to a significantly higher risk than what the Offering Documents represented. The court said that NECA failed to state any allegation of an injury in fact. The court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss.

Following the court’s decision, Shepherd Smith Edwards and Kantas Founder and Securities Fraud Attorney William Shepherd said, “It is sad that large and small investors have little clout in the processes of selecting judges. Thus, Wall Street continues to gain advantages in court—especially federal court.”

Related Web Resources:

NECA-IBEW

Ex-Employee Accuses Bank of America of Securities Fraud Involving Complex Derivatives Products

Published on: October 29, 2010 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

A former Bank of America employee is accusing the investment bank of aggressively recommending complex derivatives products to investors while at the same time failing to tell them of the risks involved. In a letter to Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman Mary Schapiro, the whistleblower said that the sales of these structured notes were so important to the BofA’s brokerage unit during the economic collapse that workers were threatened with termination if they warned clients against investing in the products or did not meet their quotas.

The ex-employee writes that another employee’s job was threatened after he told clients to liquidate their notes because of the possibility that BofA might become “nationalized,” which would make the notes worthless. The whistleblower claims to have been notified that aggressive sale of the notes was the only way the brokerage unit could fulfill its revenue goals at that time.

Bill Halldin, a Bank of America spokesperson, says that the investment firm has not heard about any such complaint regarding these allegations. He maintains that the investment bank has a policy abiding by “applicable laws and industry practices” when conducting business.

Broker Misconduct
Broker-dealers are obligated to notify investors of risks involved in an investment. They must also make sure that any investment that they recommend is appropriate for a client. Failure to fulfill these duties of care can be grounds for a securities fraud case.

Structured Notes
These derivative-like contracts allow investors to bet on bonds, stocks, or other securities. While some notes are “guaranteed” and promise a return on principal upon expiration, there are still those, such has Lehman Brothers’ notes, that fail to meet that guarantee. This can leave the holders to deal with the financial consequences. Banks may also stop trading the notes at any time.

Related Web Resources:
Informer: BofA hawked risky deals to customers, NY Post, October 29, 2010
Informer: Bofa Hawked Risky Deals to Customers, iStockAnalyst
Bank of America Blog Posts, Stockbroker Fraud Blog
Whistleblower Lawsuits, Stockbroker Fraud Blog Continue Reading ›

Goldman Sach’s $550 Million Securities Fraud Settlement Not Tied to Financial Reform Bill, Says SEC IG

Published on: October 27, 2010 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

According Securities and Exchange Commission Inspector General H. David Kotz, there is no evidence that the SEC’s enforcement action against Goldman Sachs or the $550 million securities fraud settlement that resulted are tied to the financial services reform bill. Kotz also noted that it does not appear that any agency person leaked any information about the ongoing investigation to the press before the case was filed last April. The SEC says that the IG’s report reaffirms that the complaint against Goldman was based only on the merits.

That said, Kotz did find that SEC staff failed to fully comply with the administrative requirement that they do everything possible to make sure that defendants not find out about any action against them through the media. Kotz notes that this, along with the failure to notify NYSE Reg[ulation] before filing the action and the fact that the action was filed during market hours caused the securities market to become more volatile that day. Goldman had settled the SEC’s charges related to its marketing of synthetic collateralized debt obligation connected to certain subprime mortgage-backed securities in 2007 on the same day that the Senate approved the financial reform bill.

Last April, several Republican congressman insinuated that politics may have been involved because the announcement of the case came at the same time that Democrats were pressing for financial regulatory reform. SEC Chairman Mary Schapiro denied the allegation.

Earlier this month, Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) wrote Schapiro asking to see an unredacted copy of the internal investigative report by the IG. Issa is the one who had pressed Kotz to examine the decision-making process behind the Goldman settlement. Issa’s spokesperson says the lawmaker is concerned that the SEC can redact parts of its IG reports before the public and Congress can see them. However, at a Senate Banking Committee last month, Kotz, said that the SEC redacts information because the data could impact the capital markets.

Related Web Resources:

Goldman Settles With S.E.C. for $550 Million, The New York Times, July 15, 2010

SEC’s Inspector General to Investigate Timing of Suit Against Goldman Sachs, Fox News, April 25, 2010

General H. David Kotz, SEC

Citigroup’s $75 Million Securities Fraud Settlement with the SEC Over Subprime Mortgage Debt Approved by Judge

Published on: October 23, 2010 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

A federal judge has approved the $75 million securities fraud settlement reached between Citigroup and the US Securities and Exchange Commission. The investment bank had been accused of misleading investors about billions of dollars in possible losses from their exposure to high-risk assets involving subprime mortgages. The SEC says that although holdings exceeded $50 billion, the broker-dealer had told clients that they were at $13 billion or lower.

US District Judge Ellen Segal Huvelle had initially refused to approve the settlement and questioned why only two Citigroup executives were being held accountable for the alleged misconduct. Last month, she said she would accept the agreement but only with certain conditions in place.

Under the approved accord, Citigroup must maintain an earnings committee and a disclosure committee for three years. A number of bank officials will also have to certify the accuracy of the earnings scripts and press releases. The revised settlement clarifies that the $75 million penalty is part of a Fair Fund pursuant to Section 308 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. The penalty will be distributed to investors that sustained financial losses because of Citigroup’s alleged misconduct.

Broker-dealers and their representatives can be held liable for misrepresenting or not presenting all material facts to an investor about his/her investment if that client ends up sustaining financial losses. By agreeing to settle, Citigroup is not denying or admitting to the allegations.

Related Web Resources:

Judge OKs Citigroup-SEC Accord on Mortgages, ABC News, October 19, 2010
Judge approves Citi’s $75M settlement with SEC, Bloomberg Businessweek, October 19, 2010
Read the SEC Complaint (PDF)

Citigroup Settles Subprime Mortgage Securities Fraud Claims for $75 Million, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, August 3, 2010 Continue Reading ›

RBC Wealth Management Unit Ferris Baker Watts to Pay Investors Restitution Over Reverse Convertible Notes Allegations, Says FINRA

Published on: October 23, 2010 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority and the RBC Wealth Management-acquired Ferris, Baker Watts LLC have agreed to settle charges that the latter engaged in the unsuitable sales of reverse convertibles to elderly clients in the 85 and over group, well as in the inadequate supervision of such notes to retail customers. By agreeing to settle, the investment firm is not agreeing with or denying the allegations.

The alleged misconduct took place prior to RBC acquiring Ferris, Baker Watts. As part of the settlement, the brokerage firm will pay close to $190,000 in restitution to 57 account holders for financial losses related to their purchase of reverse convertibles.

FINRA says that between January 2006 and July 2008, Ferris, Baker Watts allegedly sold reverse convertible notes to about 2,000 retail investors while failing to properly supervise and guide its supervising managers and brokers on how to determine whether their recommendations of the notes were suitable for clients. The investment firm is also accused of not having a system in place that could effectively monitor, detect, and handle possible reverse convertible over-concentrations.

In its release announcing the settlement, FINRA cites one example involving Ferris, Baker Watts selling five reverse convertibles in the amount of $10,000 each to an 86-year-old retired social worker. These notes represented between 15% to 25% of her investment portfolio at different times. FINRA says that for another client, the investment firm sold five notes to a 20-year-old who was making under $25,000 a year. This investment was 51% of the client’s retirement account.

Related Web Resources:
FINRA Orders Ferris, Baker Watts to Pay Nearly $700,000 for Inappropriate Sales of Reverse Convertible Notes, FINRA, October 20, 2010

Finra fines RBC Wealth unit over brokers’ sales of ‘unsuitable’ investments, Investment News, October 20, 2010 Continue Reading ›

UBS AG Motion to Dismiss Class Securities Case Test’s US Supreme Court’s Ruling Regarding Extraterritorial Transactions

Published on: October 13, 2010 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

UBS AG has filed a motion to dismiss a class securities case against it. The move is putting the US Supreme Court’s recent ruling in Morrison v. National Australia Bank Ltd. to the test.

In this securities fraud case, four institutional investors—three of them foreign—are charging UBS and a number of individual defendants with violating Section 10(b) of the 1934 Securities Exchange Act. This is based on misstatements that were allegedly made regarding its auction rate securities-related and mortgage-related activities. They are seeking relief for all purchasers of UBS stock on all worldwide exchanges. Most of the statements in question were issued from the bank’s headquarters in Switzerland.

In 2008, the defendants asked the court to dismiss the allegations due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction. They cited the decision made in Morrison by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which had dismissed the action.

Now that the US Supreme Court issued its ruling in Morrison, with the justices concluding that Section 10(b) only applies to securities transactions on domestic exchanges and in other securities, the defendants are attempting to also have the securities case against them dismissed per Morrison’s “bright-line, location-of-the transaction rule.”

The defendants say that the plaintiffs have advised them that they will use the Supreme Court’s use of the word “listed” to end-run Morrison. Per the justices’ decision, Section 10(b) applies to transactions involving securities that are “listed on an American stock exchange.” UBS shares can be found on the NYSE.

However, the defendants are contending that there isn’t any support in the “the test of Section 10(B), its legislative history, or Morrison” for this type of unprecedented interpretation. They say that the word “listed,” as it is used in Morrison is only applicable to two kinds of securities that can be purchased in the US—an unlisted security that trades over the counter in this country and a listed one that trades on a US exchange. The defendants claim that the plaintiffs are misreading the word “listed” in order to authorize international class action lawsuits based on securities purchases on a foreign market and that this “flies in the face of Morrison’s statements that Section 10 (b) doesn’t “regulate foreign securities exchanges.”

Related Web Resources:
Morrison v. National Australia Bank Ltd., Supreme Court (PDF)

1934 Securities Exchange Act

Lincoln Financial Advisors Corp. Ordered by FINRA to Pay $4.43M Over Alleged “Selling Away” Scheme to Investors

Published on: October 8, 2010 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

A Financial Industry Regulatory Authority panel has ordered Lincoln Financial Advisors Corp. to pay $4.43 million in damages and interest to about 22 investors that had accused brokerage manager Scott B. Gordon of “selling away.” The panel wrote in its decision that the brokerage firm was “negligent” in failing to prevent Gordon from using an outside business to raise money from investors. The alleged misconduct took place for almost a year.

“Selling away” involves a broker soliciting clients to purchase securities not offered by his/her broker-dealer and without the brokerage firm’s approval. Regulators consider “selling away” to be a violation of securities laws.

Gordon became software-development company Healthright Inc.’s chief executive in 2005 and ran the company from his Lincoln Financial office. Two Healthright investors sent a written complaint to Lincoln the following year.

A request by Gordon to the brokerage firm that he be able to conduct outside business activity was not approved or denied. In 2006, Grant Gifford, who is a Healthright investor and a claimant in the securities fraud case, discovered alleged misstatements and omissions that Gordon had made. In 2008, FINRA barred Gordon from the securities industry.

Except for Gifford, who lent money to Healthright in his personal capacity, all the other investors in the securities case against Lincoln were part of Healthright Partners, LP.

Related Web Resources:
Finra Panel Orders Lincoln to Pay $4.3 Million to Investors, The Wall Street Journal, October 7, 2010
Lincoln Financial hit with hefty arbitration award over selling away, Investment News, October 5, 2010
Activity Away From Associated Person’s Member Firm, FINRA Continue Reading ›

Goldman Sachs International Fined $27M by UK’s FSA for Not Reporting SEC Investigation into Abacus 2007-AC1 Synthetic Collateralized Debt Obligation

Published on: October 7, 2010 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Goldman Sachs International has been ordered by the United Kingdom’s Financial Services Authority to pay $27 million. The FSA says that Goldman failed to notify it about the US Securities and Exchange Commission’s probe into the investment bank’s marketing of the Abacus 2007-AC1 synthetic collateralized debt obligation, a derivative product tied to subprime mortgages.

Goldman Sachs and Co. has settled the SEC’s case for a record $550 million dollars. However, even though Goldman knew for months in advance that SEC charges were likely, the investment bank did not notify regulators, shareholders, or clients.

FSA’s Enforcement and Financial Crime Managing Director Margaret Cole says that while GSI didn’t intentionally hide the information, it became obvious that the investment firm’s reporting systems and controls were defective and that this was why its ability to communicate with FSA was well below the level of communication expected. Cole says that large institutions need to remember that their reporting obligations to the FSA must stay a priority.

FSA contends that Goldman was in breach of FSA Principle 2, which says that a firm has to “conduct its business with due skill, care, and diligence,” FSA Principle 3, which talks about a firm’s responsibility to “organize and control its affairs responsibly and effectively, with adequate risk management systems,” and FSA Principle 11, which stresses a firm’s responsibility to disclose to the FSA that “of which it would reasonably expect notice.”

For example, Fabrice Tourre, a Goldman vice president that worked on the Abacus team and who became an FSA-approved person after he was transferred to GSI in London, was later slapped with SEC civil charges. Along with Goldman, the SEC accused Tourre of alleged misrepresentations and material omissions in the way the derivatives product was marketed and structured.

Cole notes that FSA was disappointed that even though senior members of GSI in London were aware that Tourre had received a Wells Notice that SEC charges were likely, they did not take into account the regulatory implications that this could have for the investment firm. Because of the failure to notify, Tourre ended up staying in the UK and continued to perform at a “controlled function for several months without further enquiry or challenge.”

Because FSA did not find that GSI purposely withheld information, the investment bank received a discount on the fine, reducing it from $38.5 million to the current amount.

Securities fraud lawsuits and investigations have followed in the wake of the SEC’s case against Goldman.

Related Web Resources:
FSA fines Goldman Sachs £17.5 million, Reuters, September 9, 2010

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

Morgan Keegan to Pay $9.2M to Investors in Texas Securities Fraud Case Involving Risky Bond Funds

Published on: October 6, 2010 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

In a Texas securities case, FINRA arbitration panel has ordered Morgan Keegan & Co., a Regions Financial Corp., to pay 18 investors $9.2M for losses related to risky bond funds. The investors contend that the investment firm committed securities fraud when it convinced them to invest in certain funds that included high-risk “subprime” mortgage assets. Clients also claimed that they were persuaded to automatically reinvest dividends in the funds.

This is the biggest award that an arbitration panel has awarded in a Morgan Keegan case involving six bond funds that were heavily involved in mortgage-related holdings. The funds dropped in value significantly in 2007 and 2008. Hundreds of securities claims against the brokerage firm followed. Last July, Regions Financial announced that Morgan Keegan had recorded a $200M charge for probable costs of the bond fund lawsuits.

Arbitrators in Houston made the ruling in the Texas securities case. Included in the total sum was $1.1M in legal fees that, per state law, will be paid to investors. All of the investors involved were clients of Russell W. Stein, a Morgan Keegan broker. Stein is no longer with the broker-dealer. Regulatory filings indicate that he is currently employed with Raymond James Financial Inc. unit Raymond James & Associates Inc.

Stein and his wife were original claimants in this Texas securities fraud case. They too had invested in the bond funds. Their claims are now part of another case involving a group of other investors. Morgan Keegan is considering appealing the FINRA arbitration panel’s decision.

Related Web Resources:
Morgan Keegan to pay bond fund investors $9.2 mln, Reuters, October 6, 2010
Morgan Keegan Must Pay $9.2Mln To Investors – Panel, Wall Street Journal, October 6, 2010
Morgan Keegan Ordered by FINRA Panel to Pay Investor $2.5 Million for Bond Fund Losses, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, February 23, 2010
Morgan Keegan Again Ordered by Arbitrators to Pay Bond Fund Losses to Investors, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, October 27, 2009
Financial Industry Regulatory Authority
Continue Reading ›