Financial Firms

UBS AG Under Criminal Investigation Over Puerto Rico Bond Fund Sales

Published on: June 21, 2014 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Authorities in the United States are reportedly investigating UBS AG (UBSN) for its actions in Puerto Rico. The criminal fraud investigation comes in the wake of allegations that an ex-UBS broker in Puerto Rico told clients to improperly borrow money to purchase local mutual funds that later sank.

The investigation is centered around non-purpose loans that came from UBS Bank USA of Utah. The former UBS broker, Jose Ramirez, organized the loans for clients. The bank has since let him go.

Under internal guidelines, such loans are not allowed to be used for the purchase of securities since those very securities will be the collateral for the loans. Now, however, investors are saying that Ramirez was utilizing these loans to purchase more shares in the bond funds for them. Some are even saying that he gave them paperwork that made it appear as if customers were borrowing from the UBS bank in Puerto Rico and not the one in Utah. More than 100 investors may have been affected.

Bank of America Must Face SEC and Department of Justice RMBS Fraud Lawsuits, Seeks Meeting with US Attorney General

Published on: June 21, 2014 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

In North Carolina, U.S. District Judge Max O. Cogburn Jr. said that Bank of America Corp. (BAC) would have to face government two residential mortgage-backed securities lawsuits. The Securities and Exchange Commission and the Department of Justice contend that the bank misled investors about the quality of loans tied to $850 million in RMBS.

Bank of America wanted the cases dismissed. It argued that the investors, both financial institutions, never sued the bank.

Judge Cogburn, however, found that the SEC’s lawsuit properly laid out that the bank lied about the mortgages’ projected health in its RMBS fraud case. With the DOJ’s case, he gave the department 30 days to revise its securities lawsuit. He found that the Justice Department did not properly state its argument, which was that bank documents included false statements while leaving out key facts.

DOJ Investigates Foreign-Exchange Industry Over Sales Markups

Published on: June 19, 2014 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

According to Bloomberg News, the U.S. Department of Justice is expanding its probe of the foreign-exchange industry by talking to the salespersons at the biggest banks in the world. They want to know about current sales practices, including how much customers are charged to exchange currency.

Over a dozen ex- and current traders and salespersons that were interviewed said that it is common to charge a hard markup, which factors in a slight margin for the services of a salesperson. Clients who don’t make currency deals too often or just in small quantities often don’t pay much attention to the rate they receive. Now, the DOJ wants to know if banks are committing fraud when they don’t properly disclose this practice to customers.

The Justice Department is just one of over a dozen authorities in the world that are probing the currency Now, banks are also conducting their own investigations in an attempt to negotiate for leniency just in case any disciplinary actions result.

Morgan Stanley Must Pay Connecticut Regulators $5M for Supervisory Violations

Published on: June 18, 2014 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Morgan Stanley (MS) must pay banking regulators in Connecticut $5 million over allegations that the broker-dealer did not properly oversee the communications of its brokers. According to The Connecticut Department of banking, there were a number of issues with the firm’s supervisory procedures. The firm is settling without denying or admitting to the securities allegations.

The state regulators say that Morgan Stanley, which has wealth management branch offices in Connecticut, gave them information about their supervisory procedures that either was “obsolete” or nonexistent. Connecticut Securities Division director Eric Wilder also said that the firm had not updated its written supervisory procedures or compliance manuals for a number of years.

Morgan Stanley is accused of depending on an unqualified third-party provider in India to review all email communications. According to Connecticut regulators, the brokerage firm neglected to make sure that whoever was overseeing the India provider had the proper license and was following the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority’s most current procedures. (Wilder said that the minimum criteria that someone in that country needed to fulfill the compliance function was the ability to speak English-Morgan Stanley has specifically denied this allegation.)

FINRA Orders Merrill Lynch to Repay $89M in Restitution, $8M Fine for Excessive Mutual Fund Fees for Charities, Retirement Accounts

Published on: June 17, 2014 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

FINRA says Bank of America (BAC) Merrill Lynch failed to waive mutual fund sales charges for a number of retirement accounts and charities. Now the wirehouse must pay as restitution $89 million and a fine of $8 million. The firm settled without denying or admitting to the findings.

The majority of mutual funds with the firm’s retail platform are supposed waive specific fees for charities and retirement plans that qualify for this consideration. However, Merrill Lynch neglected to ensure that its advisers were correctly implementing these waivers. This impacted 41,000 accounts.

The SRO says that from about ’06 – ’11, firm advisers put tens of thousands of accounts into certain funds, including Class A mutual fund shares, and promised to waive specific sales charges for charities and retirement accounts. It then did not act to ensure that all of the fees were actually waived.

Broker Headlines: Former Wells Fargo Broker Must Pay Back Firm $1.2M, Morgan Stanley CEO Wants to Lower Broker Compensation, & Representatives Oppose Best Interest Rules

Published on: June 13, 2014 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Ex-Wells Fargo Advisors Broker Must Pay Back Firm $1.2M

A Financial Industry Regulatory Authority panel says that Philip DuAmarel, a former Wells Fargo Advisor (WFC), must pay his former employer back almost $1.3 million. The panel denied his claim that the firm oversold its corporate stock plan services during his recruitment. They told him to pay back the unvested part of an upfront loan he received when he became part of Wells Fargo.

DuAmarel worked for the firm for less than three years when he left in 2010 for Bank of America (BAC) Merrill Lynch. He contended that when the firm was recruiting him he was misled about Wells Fargo’s ability to serve corporate stock plans and also regarding how much he could make for helping executives with their company’s stock trades. DuMarel’s attorney said that the broker left when it became obvious he wouldn’t be able to work with clients they way he did when he was at Citigroup (C) Global Market’s Smith Barney.

JPMorgan Investment Management’s Shareholders Claim The Firm Charged Excessive Mutual Fund Fees

Published on: June 13, 2014 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

In the US Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, JP Morgan (JPM) Investment Management shareholders are claiming that the firm charged them excessive fees in three of its funds:

• JP Morgan Core Bond Fund

• JP Morgan Short Duration Bond Fund

FINRA Headlines: SRO Fines Goldman Sachs, Merrill Lynch, and Barclays Capital $1M Each & Makes Dark Pool Data Available

Published on: June 7, 2014 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

FINRA Fines Merrill Lynch, Goldman, and Barclays Capital $1M Each Over Blue Sheet Data

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority has issued a censure that fines Goldman Sachs & Co. (GS), Merrill Lynch, Pierce Fenner & Smith Inc., and Barclays Capital Inc. $1 million each. The firms are accused of not submitting accurate and complete data about trades conducted by them and their customers to the SRO and other regulators. This information is known as “blue sheet” data. Firms are legally required to give regulators this information upon request.

Blue sheets give regulators specific information about trades, including the name of a security, the price, the day it was traded, who was involved, and the size of transaction. This information is helpful to identify anomalies in trading and look into possible market manipulations.

Bank of America Could Settle Mortgage Probes for $12B

Published on: June 7, 2014 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

According to The Wall Street Journal, Bank of America Corp. (BAC) is in negotiations to settle the mortgage probes by the U.S. Department of Justice and several states for at least $12 billion. The bank has been under investigation over the sale, underwriting and securitization of residential mortgage bonds from prior to the 2008 financial crisis.

At least $5 billion would go to consumer relief as help for homeowners to lower their principals, as well as pay blight removal in certain neighborhoods. Already, BofA has agreed to pay $6 billion to settle with the Federal House Finance Agency related to residential mortgage backed securities that were purchased by Freddie Mac (FMCC) and Fannie Mae (FNMA) between 2005 and 2007. That case also involved allegations made against the bank’s Merrill Lynch and Countrywide Financial Group.

However, government negotiators are pressing BofA to pay billions of dollars more than $12B in this case. If a deal isn’t struck, the US Department of Justice may opt to file a civil lawsuit against the bank.

SEC Sues Wedbush Securities and Dark Pool Operator Liquidnet Over Regulatory Violations

Published on: June 6, 2014 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The Securities and Exchange Commission has filed a civil case against Wedbush Securities Inc. and two of its officials. The regulator claims they violated a rule that mandates that firms have proper risk controls in place before giving customers market access.

According to the SEC order, between 2011 through 2013 Wedbush allowed most of its market access customers to send orders straight to U.S. Trading venues and did not keep up direct and sole control over trading platform settings. Customers used these platforms to transmit orders to the markets.

The Commission contends that Wedbush should have had the mandated pre-trade controls in place. It claims that the firm failed to perform a yearly review of its risk management controls related to market access and did not limit trading access to people that the firm had authorized and pre-approved. As a result, overseas traders who were never approved and may not have been in compliance with U.S. laws ended up having market access.