Financial Firms

Securities News: UBS To Pay $33M to NCUA For Mortgage-Backed Securities, CFTC, FCA May File More Civil Charges Against Banks for Libor Rigging, Moody’s Waits for end of DOJ’s Subprime Mortgage Probe

Published on: February 26, 2016 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

UBS to Pay $33M to NCUA Related to MBS Sold to Credit Unions
UBS AG (UBS) will pay $33 million to resolve a lawsuit filed by the National Credit Union Administration accusing the bank of selling toxic mortgage-backed securities to credit unions. The case revolves around MBS that were underwritten and sold by UBS. The securities were purchased by Members United Corporate Federal Credit Union and Southwest Corporate Federal Credit Union for almost $432.4M from ’06 to ’07.

NCUA alleged that offering documents for the securities sold included untrue statements claiming that the loans were originated in a manner that abided by underwriting guidelines when, in fact, the loans’ originators had “systematically abandoned” said guidelines. The false statements made the securities riskier than what was represented to the credit unions. Eventually, the MBS failed, resulting in substantial losses.

To date, NUCA has recovered almost $2.46B from banks over MBS sales that occurred prior to the 2008 financial crisis.

US, UK Regulators May Pursue More Banks Over Libor
According to the The Wall Street Journal, the US Commodity Futures Trading Commission and the UK Financial Conduct Authority are working on pressing the last civil charges against a number of banks for alleged rigging of the London interbank offered rate. LIBOR is the benchmark that underpins interest rates on trillions of dollars of financial contracts around the globe.

Sources tell WSJ that the firms under scrutiny include Citigroup (C), J.P. Morgan Chase & Co (JPM)., and HSBC Holdings (HSBC)—although the FCA has already dismissed its probe into J.P. Morgan.

Raymond James Must Pay Investor $795K

Published on: February 24, 2016 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

In a Financial Industry Regulatory Authority arbitration case, Raymond James Financial Services Inc. (RJF) has been ordered to pay David B. Silipigno $593,540 plus 3 years and 9 months of interest. That’s an award of about $795,000. According to Silipigno’s attorney, the securities arbitration case involved an RIA who may not have not licensed with FINRA but worked out of the Raymond James independent contractor branch office.

The attorney said that such a work configuration may cause problems in that a non-registered adviser could effectively become a defacto employee of a brokerage firm. OnWallStreet.com names the broker involved as Karen Powell, who has been affiliated with Raymond James since 1999.

Silipingo, in his claim, asserted a number of causes of action, including common law fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, beach of contract, suitability, churning, failure to supervise, and violations of Rule 10b-5 of the Securities Exchange Act violation and The Florida Securities Investor Protection Act. Raymond James continues to deny the allegations. The arbitration panel denied the firm’s request to have Powell’s CRD expunged in this matter.
Continue Reading ›

London Whale Says He is Not Responsible for Over $6.2B in Losses Involving JPMorgan

Published on: February 24, 2016 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Bruno Iksil, the man dubbed the London Whale, has finally spoken out. Iksil, a former trader for JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPM), was blamed for up to $6.2B in losses—a massive sum, hence the nickname. Unlike others involved, however, Iksil has been able to avoid prosecution after reaching a deal in which he agreed to help U.S. authorities with their cases and testify against others involved.

In a letter to Bloomberg, Iskil said that managers in the London chief investment office “repeatedly” told him to execute the strategy that led to the losses. He noted that the nickname he was given, “London Whale,” implies that one person was responsible for the trades involved when, he contends, others were involved in the debacle. Iksil said that his responsibility was to execute a strategy that senior management had put forth, approved, supervised, and ordered.

He maintains that he told superiors that there was a risk of huge loss with a trading strategy that they wanted him to execute, in part to lower the unit’s risk-weighted assets. Despite his concerns, said Iksil, his supervisors continued to tell him to continue with the strategy.

The trades involved were credit-swap index tranches. Tranches let investors bet on different levels of risk among a number of companies. If a borrower doesn’t meet its obligation, then the credit swaps must pay the buyer at face value. If t debt is defaulted, then the value the buyer must be paid is less.

JPMorgan Says to Expect Losses on Energy Loans

Published on: February 23, 2016 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

JPMorgan Chase 7 Co. (JPM) reported a double-digit drop in investment banking revenues, along with a $500 increase in provisions set aside for losses expected on energy loans. The latter is a result of declining oil prices, market volatility, regulator pressure, low interest rates, and other issues. Crude oil dropping to about $32/barrel has not helped.

According to Forbes, previously, the bank had set aside $815M to cover lending losses in the energy sector. The firm also has exposures to the extent that JPMorgan has put aside $350M for credit losses related to mining. The bank also is involved in $4.1B of commercial real estate lending in areas that are energy sensitive and a $2.7B business banking book in the gas and oil industry.

The Business Recorder reports that the firm’s portfolio for oil and gas is $43 billion. Its latest projections are a departure from last month, when JPMorgan told investors that it expected to make incremental increases to loss reserves related to energy-related loans.

Ex-Deutsche Bank Analyst to Pay $100K Penalty To Resolve SEC Charges Related to Rate Stock Certification

Published on: February 19, 2016 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The Securities and Exchange Commission is accusing ex-Deutsche Bank (DB) research analyst Charles P. Grom of certifying a rating on a stock in a manner that was not in line with his personal view. According to the regulator, Grom certified that his research report on 3/29/12 about Big Lots was an accurate reflecting of what he honestly believed about the company and it securities even though in private communications with firm research and sales staff, he indicated that he decided not to downgrade the discount retailer from a “BUY” recommendation because he wanted to keep up his relationship with the company’s management. Now, Grom must pay a $100K penalty.

The SEC contends that Grom violated Regulation AC’s analyst certification requirement, which mandates that research analysts include a certification that the views expressed in a research report are an accurate reflection of what they believe about a company and its securities. The regulator said that Grom became worried about what he considered cautious comments by Big Lot executives when he and his firm hosted them during a non-deal roadshow the day before he certified the report at issue in March 2012.

UK Regulator Fines Ex-JPMorgan Executive $1.1 Over London Whale Debacle

Published on: February 9, 2016 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The UK’s Financial Conduct Authority is fining former JPMorgan Chase (JPM) executive Achilles Macris approximately $1.1M for failing to cooperate and communicate properly with regulators during the agency probe into the London Whale fiasco. Although Macris is now agreeing to settle the securities charges, he continues to defend himself. He insists that he stayed “above and beyond any reasonable” transparency standards and that he is only agreeing to resolve this case because the F.C.A. had accepted his contention that he did not mislead anyone on purpose. The FCA would not comment on Macris’ statements about the settlement.

The former JPMorgan executive was in charge of the firm’s chief investment office in London, which was supposed to invest funds for the bank and help offset possible losses. Unfortunately, a bad bet made by the unit on credit derivatives cost the bank $6.2B.

FINRA Cases: Firms To Pay $1.2M Over UIT Sales, Broker Charged for Lying to a Native American Tribe, and Morgan Stanley Ordered to Pay Clients $825K

Published on: February 6, 2016 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Brokerage Firms to Pay $1.2M for Not Applying UIT Discounts
The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority has charged Next Financial Group Inc., Stephens Inc., and Key Investment Services with failing to grant sales charge discounts when certain customers that were buying unit investment trusts were eligible for the reduced rates. The three broker-dealers are also face charges for inadequate supervision. The self-regulatory organization is ordering the three firms to pay $1.2M in restitution and fines. The FINRA settlements stated that Stephens did not give the discounts from 1/10 to 5/15 and the other two firms did not give them from 5/09 to 4/14.

Unit Investment Trusts
A UIT is a fund that combines a fixed portfolio of income-producing securities that are bought and held to maturity and an actively managed fund. These funds usually issue securities, also known as units that are redeemable-meaning that the UIT will repurchase the units from an investor at the approximate net asset value.

FINRA has been looking into whether firms are giving clients that are entitled to purchase discounts the reduced rates. Last year, the SRO ordered a number of firms to pay $6.7M in restitutions and fines for not giving discounts to clients when selling them UITs.

Broker Accused of Fraud, Targeting Native American Tribe
Broker Gopi Krishna Vungarala is facing FINRA charges for lying to a Native American Tribe about the $11M in commissions they paid him when he sold the tribe $190M of business development companies (BDCs) and nontraded REITS. The SRO said that from 6/11 to 1/15 Vungarala, who was the tribe’s treasury investment manager and registered representative, lied to the tribe about investments he recommended to them.
Continue Reading ›

Municipal Bond Violations: J.P. Turner to pay $140K to FINRA, SEC Fines Underwriters $4.58M Over False Statements

Published on: February 5, 2016 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority is sanctioning J.P. Turner & Co. for violating a rule mandating that brokers must make sure that municipal securities transactions between a customer’s account and the firm’s account occur at a price that is “fair and reasonable.” The SRO contends that the firm’s supervisory system did not provide the kind of supervision that could achieve compliance with securities regulations involving fair pricing

As part of the settlement, J.P. Turner will pay a $140K fine and over $76K plus interest in customer restitution.

The brokerage firm will also pay a $75k fine related to the ongoing use of a third-party telemarketer, which continued after it made the decision to stop using the marketing firm. Because the telemarketer stopped getting a do-not-call list from the firm, it continued to call people on the registry.

J.P. Turner agreed to settle both cases without denying or admitting to the charges.

In other news, the Securities and Exchange Commission is charging and fining 14 muni bond underwriting firms for issuing inaccurate information to investors. Collectively, the firms will pay about $4.58M for federal securities law violations that purportedly occurred between ’11 and ’14. The alleged violations involved the sale of municipal debt that used offering documents with materially false statements or omissions about borrower compliance as they pertain to disclosure duties. The SEC said that the firms did not perform proper due diligence to identify issues before selling the bonds.Barclays Capital Inc. (BARC), which will pay $500K, Wells Fargo Bank (WFC) N.A. Municipal Products Group, which will pay $440K, Jefferies LLC (JEF), which will pay $500K, and TD Securities USA LLC, which will pay $500K.

RMBS Cases and Institutional Fraud: Morgan Stanley to Pay $62.9M, Hedge Funds File Lawsuit Against TWC Asset Management, and Deutsche Bank Must Contend With Allegations Claiming Investor Losses of $3.1B

Published on: February 3, 2016 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Morgan Stanley Settles RMBS Case with FDIC
Morgan Stanley (MS) will pay $62.9M to resolve allegations that it misrepresented residential mortgage-backed securities prior to the 2008 financial crisis. The deal was reached with the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., which sued the investment bank on behalf of Colonial Bank in Alabama, Security Savings Bank in Nevada, and United Western Bank in Colorado. All three banks failed after or during the crisis. By settling, Morgan Stanley is not denying or admitting liability.

According to the FDIC, in offering documents Morgan Stanley misrepresented claims for 14 RMBS mortgage backed securities. This is not the first time the investment bank has reached a deal over RMBS with the FDIC. In 2015, the firm resolved similar claims brought on behalf of Franklin Bank in Texas for $24M.

Also last year, Morgan Stanley arrived at a deal for $2.6B to resolve a U.S. Department of Justice probe into mortgage bonds. The government accused the investment bank of misrepresenting the quality of home loans packed into bonds.

Assett Management Firm Must Face RMBS Lawsuit Brought by Hedge Funds
A New York Court refused to grant TCW Asset Management Company’s motion to dismiss RMBS fraud claims brought Basis Yield Alpha Fund and Basis Pac-Rim Opportunity Fund. The Cayman Island hedge funds claim that TWC Asset Management marketed a system for dealing with the RMBS market that it claimed could determine which were the good investments. The purported strategy involved the collateralized debt obligation Dutch Hill Funding II, Ltd., which took a net long position on high-risk RMBS.

The two hedge funds invested over $28.1M in Dutch Hill in May 2007. By July, their investment had become worthless. They sued TCW Asset Management Company in 2012, accusing the firm of fraudulent misrepresentations and a failure to choose Dutch Hill’s RMBS collateral in the ways that it promised. The Basis Funds contended that the defendant knew that the investment strategy couldn’t get the job done.

Citigroup to Pay $23M to Resolve Yen Libor and Euroyen Tibor Rigging Claims

Published on: February 2, 2016 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Citigroup (C) Inc. has agreed to pay $23M in an institutional investor fraud lawsuit accusing the bank of conspiring to manipulated the Euroyen Tibor and yen Libor benchmark interest rates and Euroyen Tibor futures contracts. Plaintiff investors included hedge fund Hayman Capital Management LP and the California State Teachers’ Retirement System. They contend that Citigroup and other banks benefited their trading positions from ‘06 through at least ’10 when they conspired to manipulate rates. As part of the settlement Citigroup said it would cooperate with the plaintiffs, whose lawsuits are still pending against other banks.

Also settling but without having to anything is broker-dealer RP Martin. Defendants that have yet to settle include Barclays Plc (BARC), JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPM), Deutsche Bank AG (DB), UBS AG (UBS), HSBCA Holdings Plc (HSBC), Sumitomo Mitsui Trust Holdings Inc., and Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group Inc.