Financial Firms

Puerto Rico Bond Fraud Cases Name Former Morgan Stanley Broker Angel Aquino-Velez

Published on: October 2, 2017 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

According to InvestmentNews, there are six pending FINRA arbitration claims against Morgan Stanley (MS) and its former broker Angel Aquino-Velez (Aquino-Velez) concerning his selling Puerto Rico investments. The claimants are alleging misrepresentation and unsuitability regarding the sale of Puerto Rico closed-end funds and bonds they purchased through Aquino-Velez, who is based in Miami, and the brokerage firm.

InvestmentNews also reports that according to FINRA’s BrokerCheck database, Morgan Stanley has already resolved four FINRA arbitration claims valued at $2.4 million related to Aquino-Velez and Puerto Rico municipal bond investments. Aquino-Velez, who left Morgan Stanley a few months ago, was recently selling Puerto Rico COFINA bonds, which are securities backed by the U.S. territory’s sales tax revenue. Prior to working at Morgan Stanley, Aquino-Velez was with UBS Financial Services (UBS) and Merrill Lynch (BAC).

Puerto Rico Bond Fraud Losses
At Shepherd Smith Edwards and Kantas, LTD LLP, our Puerto Rico bond fraud lawyers have been working hard these past four years to help investors who sustained serious losses when the island’s municipal bonds began to fall in value in 2013. For many of our clients, their portfolios should not have been so heavily concentrated in Puerto Rico bond funds and bonds, if at all, except that they were given bad investment advice. Many investors lost everything.
Continue Reading ›

Securities Fraud: Ex-LPL Rep is Indicted in Colorado, 15 Convictions in Indiana Securities Case, North Carolina Analyst Faces Criminal Charges, and ex-Illinois Investment Banker is Accused of Insider Trading

Published on: September 29, 2017 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Former LPL Broker Indicted for $850K Securities Fraud and Theft
Sonya Camarco, an ex-LPL (LPLA) financial broker, has been indicted in Colorado on seven counts of theft and six counts of securities fraud. She is accused of taking over $850K in client funds for her own use between 1/2013 and 5/2017.

Camarco was fired by LPL last month. Her BrokerCheck record on the FINRA database indicate that she was let go for depositing third-party checks for clients into an account she controlled. Camarco is accused of failing to disclose to clients, including one elderly investor who had dementia, that she was depositing the funds in this manner. If this is true then not only is this a matter of financial fraud but also this would be a case of senior financial fraud.

Securities Fraud Involving Earth Energy Exploration Bilks Investors of $3M
In Indiana, fifteen people were convicted and ordered to prison in a securities fraud case involving Earth Energy Exploration Inc. Investors in Texas and other states lost $3M.

Appeals Court Upholds $839M MBS Fraud Judgment Against Royal Bank of Scotland Group & Nomura

Published on: September 28, 2017 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

In a unanimous ruling, a U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit panel has turned down an appeal by Royal Bank of Scotland Group Plc (RBS) and Nomura Holdings Inc. (NMR) to overturn an order mandating that they pay $839M for the false statements, including misrepresentations, that they are accused of making while selling mortgage-backed securities to Freddie Mac (FMCC) and Fannie Mae (FNMA). The MBS fraud award was issued against the two banks in the Federal Housing Finance Agency’s securities lawsuit. FHFA has been the conservator for Fannie and Freddie ever since the US government took them over after the housing market failed in 2008.

Nomura sponsored $2B of securities that were sold to the mortgage companies. RBS was the underwriter on four of the deals. In a filing submitted to US securities regulators last month, RBS said it is looking to be indemnified by Nomura for the losses.

Morgan Stanley to Pay $13M Over Improper Supervision of Unit Investment Trust Sales

Published on: September 25, 2017 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

FINRA is ordering Morgan Stanley Smith Barney LLC (MS) to pay about $9.8M in restitution to and a $3.25M fine for purportedly not properly supervising hundreds of financial representatives who sold short-term trades of UITs. The firm settled without denying or admitting to the regulator’s charges.

According to the self-regulatory organization, from 2/2012 through 6/2015, the brokerage firm’s representatives effected short-term UIT rollovers, including a number of them more than 100 days prior to maturity, in customer accounts. FINRA said that the firm did not properly supervise these reps, when they engaged in the UIT sales, nor did it properly train them regarding the investments. It also purportedly failed to give supervisors adequate guidance about how to study transactions for signs of unsuitable short-term trading. Morgan Stanley is accused of failing to put into effect a system “adequate” enough to identify short-term UIT rollovers and of not providing supervisory assessment for UIT rollovers before execution.

UITs
Unit investment trusts are investment companies that offer units in a securities of a portfolio. They are subject to termination on a certain maturity date, usually after 15 months or 24 months. They typically come with certain fees, including a creation fee and a deferred sales charge. According to FINRA, when a new UIT compels a customer to be pay higher sales charges over time, this could be a red flag indicating suitability issues.

Former UBS Precious Metals Trader is Accused of Market Rigging

Published on: September 20, 2017 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

In the US, federal prosecutors have filed a complaint against ex-UBS (UBS) trader Andre Flotron, charging him with commodities fraud, wire fraud, conspiracy, and spoofing. The latter is what they claim that he engaged in to rig the precious metal futures market. Spoofing involves issuing bids or offers that are deceptive to manipulate a market.

According to the criminal complaint, Flotron and co-conspirators engaged in the alleged spoofing scam from at least 7/2008 through at least 11/2013. He would submit a small sell order or buy order for a certain futures contract, which would be close in price to the current market price. Flotron would then put in an order at least 10 times bigger on the market’s opposite side before cancelling the bigger order seconds after at least part of the order he made originally was put through.

Flotron also is accused of teaching a young trader how to spoof. The trader, who spoofed on numerous occasions, struck a nonprosecution deal in which he agreed to share information about the alleged spoofing.

US Sues Ex-Head Deutsche Bank Trader for Subprime Mortgage Fraud

Published on: September 11, 2017 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The U.S. Justice Department has filed a civil securities fraud case against Paul Mangione, a former senior Deutsche Bank (DB) trader. According to the government, Mangione, who headed up the bank’s subprime trading, took part in a fraudulent scam that involved misrepresenting the loans backing two residential mortgage-backed securities that the bank was selling, resulting in investors losing hundreds of millions of dollars.

The DOJ’s RMBS fraud complaint contends that Mangione committed fraud when selling the ACE 2007-HE5 and ACE 2007-HE4, which were $400M and $1B securities, respectively. He allegedly did this by misleading investors about the loans backing the investments and the originating practices of DB Home Lending, which is a Deutsche Bank subsidiary and was the primary loan originator.

According to the US government, the former Deutsche Bank head trader “fraudulently induced” different investors, including financial institutions, pension plans, government-sponsored editions, and religious organizations, to invest almost $1.5B in the two RMBSs, resulting in “extraordinary losses” for them. Mangione allegedly provided offering documents for the HE5 and HE4 that he knew included misrepresentations about compliance lending guidelines, loan characteristics, appraisal accuracy, and other matters. The documents made it appear as if DB Home had put into place underwriting guidelines that “generated quality loans,” as well as processes to properly oversee loan production.

Ex-Morgan Stanley Broker Pleads Not Guilty to Insider Trading

Published on: September 5, 2017 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Michael Siva, a former Morgan Stanley broker (MS), has pleaded not guilty to criminal charges accusing him of insider trading. Siva is one of several people charged over their alleged participation in a group of “tipping chains” and trading on tips about upcoming acquisitions and mergers. The information was provided by Bank of America (BAC) consultant Daniel Rivas. Siva is said to have gotten the tips from the James Moodhe, who is the father of Rivas’ girlfriend.

Rivas and Moodhe have both pleaded guilty to the criminal charges accusing them of insider trading. They are cooperating with the government’s probe.

Moodhe is said to have shared Rivas’s tips with Siva from at least 2015 up through earlier this year. Siva allegedly used the information so he could make successful trades for clients as well as for himself. Moodhe and Siva allegedly met at eating places outside NYC during which time the former would read details about upcoming deals to Siva, including the value of the deals and when news about them was expected to go public. The two men allegedly made over $3M trading prior to and after the announcement of the deals.
Continue Reading ›

UBS Fights Insurers’ $20 Million Lawsuit Over Puerto Rico Bond Claims

Published on: August 31, 2017 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

In an effort to fight a $20 million coverage lawsuit brought by insurance carriers over Puerto Rico bond fraud cases, UBS Financial Services, Inc. (UBS) argued in court that the exclusions at issue cannot be applied to these investors’ claims. The plaintiffs in the case include XL Specialty Insurance Co., Hartford Fire, and Axis.

According to Law360, a Securities and Exchange Commission filing notes that as of last year UBS is contending with $1.9 billion in claims – including civil, arbitration, and regulatory cases – over its Puerto Rico closed-end bond funds, and to date has already paid $740 million to resolve some of those claims. The bank has come under fire for the way it handled $10 billion of these closed-end bond funds, including claims that they pushed the securities onto investors who could not handle the risks involved and, in some cases, encouraged them to borrow funds to buy even more.

The bank wants coverage under new subsidiary policies that the insurers agreed to even though it includes a specific exclusion for claims that involve the closed-end fund debacle in any way. In its opposite brief, submitted to Puerto Rico federal court, UBS argued that the plaintiffs have not made much of an effort to argue how the exclusion could preclude every related claim, of which there are more than 1600. UBS noted in its brief that insurance law in the U.S. territory mandates that an insurance company defend the whole action even if just one claim is potentially covered.
Continue Reading ›

FDIC’s Libor Rigging Lawsuit Against Deutsche Bank, UBS, Royal Bank of Scotland, and Others in the UK Accuses Defendant Banks of Lowballing Benchmark Interest Rate Figures

Published on: August 31, 2017 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

In the UK, the US government is suing several banks over Libor rigging allegations in High Court. The defendants in the London Interbank Offered Rate (Libor) manipulation lawsuit include Deutsche Bank (DB), Barclays (BARC), Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS), Lloyds Banking Group, UBS (UBS), Rabobank (RABO), and several other banks, in addition to the British Bankers Association.

According to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation’s claim, the banks would engage in lowballing by turning in estimates that were artificially low when participating in the daily process to set the Libor rate. The US agency said that it is suing for 39 US banks, which were once collectively valued at over $400M, that failed after they depended on the US dollar denominated-Libor variant for derivative and other transactions. FDIC contends that the inaccurate figures submitted by the European banks caused the US banks to sustain massive losses.

It believes that if the Libor rate had been set honestly, the benchmark’s rate would would have been higher and these banks would have achieved higher prices and larger returns on different mortgages, loans, options, swaps, and other Libor-tied agreements. Instead, the plaintiffs allegedly colluded together to keep borrowing rates down to make it appear as if the banks were in more robust financial health than what was actual. The FDIC argued that the joint efforts of the banks and the British Bankers Association resulted in the “sustained and material suppression of Libor” from August 2007 through at least 2009.

Securities Cases: FINRA Fines and Suspends Ex-Morgan Stanley Broker For Trying to Settle Without Firm Authorization, SEC Accuses Connecticut Financial Representative of Elder Financial Fraud and Freezes Assets of Ex-Colorado Broker for Allegedly Stealing Investor Funds

Published on: August 30, 2017 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

FINRA Fines Ex-Morgan Stanley Broker, Issues 15-Day Suspension

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority has fined an ex-Morgan Stanley (MS) broker $10K and ordered him to serve a 15-day suspension after he allegedly tried to resolve a client’s complaint without the firm’s consent. The regulator is charging Lewis H. Robinson, who now works with BB & T Securities in Florida, with violating Rule 2010. The rule mandates that brokers satisfy “high standards” as they pertain to commercial honor and principles of trade.

According to FINRA, Robinson wrote $12,203 in checks to resolve three complaints made by the client. Advisor Hub reports that Robinson said that he notified Morgan Stanley as soon as the client noticed that the account was overcharged a higher commission rate than what had been agreed upon but that the firm refused to give a refund because the allegedly mistaken excess fee was charged too long ago.