Financial Firms

UBS Faces Legal Battle Over Failing Puerto Rico Bond Funds with Local Investors

Published on: October 3, 2013 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

As the value of proprietary closed-end bond funds invested created by a UBS AG unit (UBS) in Puerto Rico continue to drop, the financial firm and its 132 financial advisers find themselves facing what is expected to be a protracted legal battle with local investors who want their money back. The value of the Puerto Rico bond funds sank after over $10 billion were sold to investors. UBS is also contending with allegations that a number of its brokers persuaded clients to purchase the bond funds and bonds on a credit line and margin.

The UBS Puerto Rico funds are comprised of 14 close-end funds that were sold through UBS Financial Services Inc. of Puerto Rico’s registered representatives and brokers. As tension over the broader municipal bond market hit the US commonwealth, the net asset value of the funds became eroded, falling from an initial price of $10 to roughly $3 for some of the funds.

Unlike closed-end municipal bond funds domiciled in the US—these are only allowed to have leverage as high as 30% of the assets in the fund—the Puerto Rico bond funds’ leverage can reach as high as 50% of total assets (55%, under certain conditions). Such leverages can only make any losses greater.

JPMorgan Considers $11B Mortgage-Backed Securities Settlement

Published on: September 26, 2013 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Now that US Attorney General Eric Holder has turned down JPMorgan Chase’s (JPM) offer to settle criminal and civil charges related a mortgage-backed securities probe, the financial firm is looking at a settlement of possibly $11 billion. The financial figure has gone up as talks have expanded to include additional cases with more regulators.

The MBS investigations are over residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS) that JPMorgan, Washington Mutual (WAMUQ), and Bear Stearns (BSC) issued between 2005 and 2007. Authorities have been looking into whether JPMorgan, which the other two firms acquired during the financial crisis, misled investors of the quality of the mortgages that were backing the securities. A lot of these RMBS failed as housing prices dropped. JPMorgan says that Washington Mutual and Bear Stearns issued about 70% of these RMBS.

One possible settlement could include $4 billion in relief to consumers and a $7 billion penalty. However, according to sources familiar with the settlement talks, the two sides have not come close to agreeing on the figure and the amount could change.

Massachusetts AG Investigates JPMorgan’s Debt-Collection Practices

Published on: September 24, 2013 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley is looking into JPMorgan Chase & Co.’s (JPM) debt collection practices over how the bank gets payments from borrowers that are delinquent. Coakley’s probe is separate from the one being conducted by a group of 13 states.

According to JPMorgan, the bank stopped suing over credit-card collection two years ago. In May, the state of California filed a credit card debt collection case against the bank for the “unlawful” and “fraudulent” tactics it purportedly employed to go after old debts from 100,000 borrowers. The case is still pending.

JPMorgan has come under fire from regulators about how it collects such debt. Last week, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency said it had had reached a $60 million settlement deal with the bank over the latter’s use of sworn documents in its lawsuits against borrowers to collect delinquent debt. According to the OCC, JP Morgan and its outside lawyers allegedly submitted documents that were not accurate to court, failed to correctly notarize documents, and made unverified statements about the bank’s accuracy. The regulator told the bank that they must now tell consumers when their debt is sold to a third party, correctly keep up account documents, and make sure that staff and other employees that are party to any litigation get the information that they need. Meantime, the JPMorgan says it will pay $20 million to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which has been probing possible abuses by those in the debt-collection industry and examined JPMorgan’s handling of credit card debt.

JPMorgan to Pay $920M to Settle London Whale Debacle & $80M Over Credit-Card Practice Allegations

Published on: September 19, 2013 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

JPMorgan Chase (JPM) has agreed to pay a $920 million fine to resolve securities fraud investigations conducted by the Federal Reserve, the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, and the Financial Conduct Authority in London. The probes were related to the multibillion-dollar trading losses the bank is blamed for in last year’s London Whale debacle.

The regulators cited JPMorgan for “deficiencies” related to controls assessments, risk oversight, and internal financial reporting. The bank’s senior management is getting the brunt of the blame for purportedly not citing concerns about the losses to the board. However, no charges have been filed in this case against any executive.

Also, the SEC was able to extract an acknowledgement from JPMorgan that it was in violation of federal securities laws over this matter. This comes in the wake of the regulator’s decision to reverse its policy that previously let banks settle without having to deny or admit to having done anything wrong.

FINRA Arbitration Panel Orders Citigroup to Pay Senior Investor Couple $3.1M for Alleged Broker Fraud Related to “Selling Away” Practice

Published on: September 17, 2013 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Citigroup Inc. (C) now has to pay Dr. Nasirdin Madhany and Zeenat Madhany $3.1 million over claims that the financial firm failed to properly supervise a broker, which caused the couple to sustain over $1 million losses. The broker is accused of directing them to invest in real estate developments that later went sour.

In 2010, the couple filed a FINRA arbitration case alleging fraud, negligence, and other wrongdoings related to over $1 million in real estate investments they made between ’04-and ’07. The Madhanys, who are senior investors, were customers of then-Citigroup worker Scott Andrew King, who referred them to politician Lawton “Bud” Chiles III. The latter was looking for investors for a number of real estate projects. King, who allegedly had a conflict of interest (that he did not disclose) from buying two condominiums from Chiles at a discount, is said to have connected the couple and the politician without Citigroup’s knowledge.

The Madhanys invested in two real estate projects, which began to have problems in 2007 when the US housing market failed and that is when the couple lost their money. Also, they, along with other investors, had signed personal loan guarantee related to a $12 million loan on one of the projects. When the loan defaulted in 2009, Wachovia sued all of them. Last year, a court submitted a $10 million judgment against the investors, with each person possibly liable for the whole amount.

JPMorgan Could Settle “London Whale” Fiasco for $800M

Published on: September 17, 2013 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

According to a source knowledgeable about negotiations, JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPM) could pay at $800 million in penalties in the investigations conducted by regulators over the “London Whale” trading scandal. The regulators are the Federal Reserve, the Securities and Exchange Commission, the British Financial Conduct Authority, and the US Office of the Comptroller Currency. The announcement of the settlement is expected shortly.

The trading fiasco involved JPMorgan trading in complex derivatives, which were amassed by a trader who was dubbed the London Whale. Traders are accused of betting on credit derivatives, which let them wager on the supposed health of certain companies. Authorities contend that when the positions began to go bad, the traders valued them in a way that was too positive. The trades would cost the financial firm over $600 billion.

Following the debacle, the bank said that it made changes to internal controls. JPMorgan maintains that it was the one that detected the traders’ questionable activities and notified the authorities.

VSR Financial Services Agrees to Pay FINRA $550,000 Fine Over Inadequate Supervision Allegations Involving Non-Conventional Investments

Published on: September 11, 2013 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority is fining VSR Financial Services Inc. $550,000 over claims that the firm did not set up, keep up, and enforce a supervisory system that was reasonable over its sale of non-conventional investments. The SRO says that the firm did not properly monitor concentrated client positions of alternative investments. Also fined was VSR owner Donald Joseph Beary, who also received a suspension from associating with other FINRA members for 45 days.

According to the SRO, the firm’s written supervisory procedures stipulated that just up to 40-50% of a client’s exclusive net worth could be cumulatively invested in alternative investments-that is, except for when there was a reason that justified going beyond the guidelines. VSR, through Beary, also set up procedures that gave a discount to certain instruments that were non-conventional, lowering the percentage of how much liquid net worth a customer had invested. It was Beary’s job to implement and oversee the discount program.

However, in a letter to the financial firm, the SEC said that it found that the SRO did not have proper written procedures for the program and that this same deficiency remained even two years after the regulator notified VSR about the problem. The Commission said that Beaury failed to take reasonable action to make sure the WSPs were implemented or to shut down the discount program if not.

Five Years After Lehman’s Bankruptcy, How is the US Financial System Doing Now?

Published on: September 10, 2013 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

It was nearly five years ago on September 15, 2008 when the public learned that Lehman Brothers had gone bankrupt, resulting in billions of dollars of losses on a financial system already struggling with a housing market that was failing, as well as a growing credit crisis. Also, Merrill Lynch (MER) would be forced to join with Bank of America (BAC), the US car industry was in trouble, and insurer AIG stood on the brink of collapse. Now, while there has the economy has somewhat recovered, many Americans can’t help but worry that such a financial meltdown could happen again.

Back then, Wachovia (WB) was also in peril of going down and Washington Mutual (WAMUQ) was failing miserably—to become the biggest US banking failure to date—and government and financial industry leaders scrambled to save what they could. Bailouts were issued and emergency measures taken including: a federal takeover of housing finance giants Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, which kept the housing market going by allaying worries that the two entities would default on bonds,the guaranteeing of money market mutual funds that the then-trillion dollar industry depended on for the business short-term funding as well as retirement, and the setting up of the Troubled Asset Relief Program (allowing the Treasury to help put back confidence in banks via the buying of equities of securities in many of these banks and recapitalizing the system.

In a USA Today article, ex-US senator Christopher Dodd said that he believes there will be another crisis; only this one could also involve China, Brazil, and India—not just the US and the European continent. Meantime, while US Chamber of Commerce’s Center for Capital Markets Competitiveness CEO and President David Hirschmann said that a crisis as big as the one in 2008 is not as likely, he predicts there will still be failures. He also said that it is unclear whether we’ve established a better system for identifying problems and risks.

Morgan Keegan to Pay $60,000 Fine Over Inadequate Supervision Over SBA Pools and Sales

Published on: September 7, 2013 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Morgan Keegan & Co. has agreed to pay the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority $60,000 over allegations that its Small Business Administration Desk bought small business loans guaranteed by the gov’t from regional banks in this country and then pooled together the loans with qualities that were similar, securitizing them into SBA pools and then selling them to institutional clients.

When the demand for these pools started to go down, the inventory at the Desk went up a lot and stayed over Morgan Keegan’s allowable levels so that they seemed lower than what was actual and therefore in compliance with what was allowed. As a result, the head trader went into fake pool trades totaling about $82 million.

Per FINRA’s findings, because of the fake trades, Morgan Keegan thought its SBA loan levels went down down by $75 million. Also, aside from allegedly making the false trades happen, the trader moved forward the dates of settlement on a repeated basis, continuing to move the date ahead whenever a settlement date was approaching. This gave him more time so he could sell the SBA pools, leading to the generation of correct and cancel tickets for trades that went on for several months. The head trader later admitted his wrongdoing and Morgan Keegan fired him.

The SRO found that Morgan Keegan’s supervisory system and written supervisory procedures (WSP) for government loans were not adequate enough that they were able to prevent the fictitious trading that the head trader engaged in. FINRA also said that the firm lacked a way to monitor SBA loans that were more than four months old, as well as aged SMA pools, nor did it have a system for comparing and confirming ex-clearing transactions or one to assess transactions that were modified or cancelled to determine if they were reasonable.

FINRA says that Morgan Keegan did not properly address the SBA Desk inventory positions’ marking because the firm’s WSPs mandated that SBA pools get marked monthly, rather than daily. The WSPs did not properly prevent the head trader from approving his own transactions without a supervisor overseeing his actions.

Even as it submitted its Letter of Acceptance, Waiver, and Consent to FINRA, accepting the fine and ensure and consenting to the sanctions described, Morgan Keegan did not deny or admit to any wrongdoing.

Financial Industry Regulatory Authority

More Blog Posts:
Previous Dissent by Arbitrator is Not Reason to Vacate Award Morgan Keegan Was Ordered to Pay Investors, Says District Court, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, April 8, 2013

Court Upholds Ex-NBA Star Horace Grant’s $1.46M FINRA Arbitration Award from Morgan Keegan & Co. Over Mortgage-Backed Bond Losses, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, October 30, 2012

Morgan Keegan Must Buy Back Auction-Rate Securities and Pay $110,500, Says District Judge, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, February 12, 2013

Securities America & Ameriprise Among Independent Broker-Dealers Charged $10.75M by Massachusetts for Non-traded REIT Sales

Published on: September 4, 2013 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Massachusetts Secretary of the Commonwealth William Galvin just announced that independent broker-dealers Ameriprise Financial Services (AMP), Securities America Inc., Commonwealth Financial Network, Lincoln Financial Advisors, and Royal Alliance Associates have consented to pay another $10.75 million in restitution over non-traded REITs that were sold to clients between 2005 and now. The added charge comes four months after the five independent brokerage firms consented to pay $6.1 million in restitution and $975,000 in fines. It was investors’ complaints that spurred the regulator’s investigation into the REITs.

Along with LPL Financial (LPLA) consenting to pay $4.8 million in restitution to clients for its sale of non-traded REITs, that’s a total of $21.6 million in restitution and fines of nearly $1.5 million from the six IBDs. In a statement, Galvin acknowledged the popularity of these risky investments. The regulator noted that the state’s probe discovered problems pertaining to firms adhering to their own policies and that this was a widespread matter. He also said that there appeared to be issues related to brokerage firms abiding by the state rule that investors cannot buy REITs that are over 10% of an individual’s liquid net worth.

Our REIT lawyers represent investors that have sustained huge losses because of the negligence of brokerage firms, investment advisors, and their representatives. Contact our securities fraud law firm today. We work with clients throughout the US, as well as investors based abroad with claims against firms based in the country.