Financial Firms

FINRA NEWS: Goldman Sachs Appeals Vacating of Securities Award, Non-Customers of Brokerage Firm Can’t Compel Arbitration, & Three Governors Named To FINRA Board

Published on: August 21, 2013 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Goldman Sachs Wants Third Circuit To Look at Vacated Arbitration Award

Goldman Sachs (GS) wants the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit to look at a decision by a lower court to vacate a FINRA securities award issued by a panel member that included arbitrator Demetrio Timban, who was indicted on criminal matters and suspended. The securities case is Goldman Sachs & Co. v. Athena Venture Partners LP and involves an investor accusing the firm of making misrepresentations. The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania remanded the award, which favored the financial firm.

The district court said FINRA didn’t give the parties three arbitrators who were qualified and said the respondent’s rights were prejudiced. Judge J. Curtis Joyner said that therefore, a “final and definite award” was not issued. Following the scandal involving Timban, FINRA said it now would perform yearly background checks of arbitrators and other reviews before they are given a case.

LPL Financial Places Independent Reps Under Supervision

Published on: August 20, 2013 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

LPL Financial Inc. (LPLA) is no longer allowing independent representatives to supervise themselves and will impose a fee increase on some 2,200 one-person shops. These changes are among the firm’s steps to restructure oversight and compliance. With over 13,000 registered investment advisers and financial representatives, LPL is the biggest independent-contractor brokerage firm.

The reps that opt to have LPL Financial home office supervise them will pay a fee hike of $4,800 in 2015. Reps with one-adviser shops can also choose to have an existing office of supervisory jurisdiction (OSJ) that is qualified to supervise them, which cost them another 5% on production. They would pay 4% – 30% of gross fees and commissions. Those that pay the most would get more service.

These changes come right before the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority will enact its consolidated supervision rule 3110 that will mandate that firms provide an on-site supervisory structure for single-person OSJs that would employ designated senior principals. Generally, industry regulators have been wary of these solo OSJs because of insufficient oversight over the investment product recommendations that representatives make to clients. LPL spokesperson Betsy Weinberger says these modifications are the latest in the broker-dealer’s efforts to enact better compliance oversight and ensure company success and growth.

SEC and DOJ Sue Bank of America Over Alleged $850M RMBS Fraud

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

Bank of America (BAC) and two subsidiaries are now facing SEC charges for allegedly bilking investors in an residential mortgage-backed securities offering that led to close to $70M in losses and about $50 million in anticipated losses in the future. The US Department of Justice also has filed its securities lawsuit over the same allegations.

In its securities lawsuit, submitted in U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, the Securities and Exchange Commission contends that the bank, Bank of America Mortgage Securities (BOAMS) and Banc of America Securities LLC, which is now known as Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, conducted the RMBS offering, referred to as the the BOAMS 2008-A and valued at $855 million, in 2008. The securities was sold and offered as “prime securitization suitable for the majority of conservative RMBS investors.

However, according to the regulator, Bank of America misled investors about the risks and the mortgages’ underwriting quality while misrepresenting that the mortgage loans backing the RMBS were underwritten in a manner that conformed with the bank’s guidelines. In truth, claims the SEC, the loans included income statements that were not supported, appraisals that were not eligible, owner occupancy-related misrepresentations, and evidence that mortgage fraud was involved. Also, says the regulator, the ratio for original-combined-loan-to-value and debt-to-income was not calculated properly on a regular basis and, even though materially inaccurate, it was provided to the public.

Two Investors’ Securities Fraud Lawsuit Against SEC Over Stanford Ponzi Scam is Dismissed

Published on: August 16, 2013 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

A federal judge has dismissed the securities fraud lawsuit filed by two investors against the Securities and Exchange Commission for failing to report that Allen Stanford was running a $7.2 billion Ponzi scam. According to U.S. District Judge Robert Scola, a Federal Tort Claims Act exemption that does not allow claims from deceit or misrepresentation shields the SEC from such a claim.

The plaintiffs are George Glantz and Carlos Zelaya. They contend that they collectively lost $1.6 million because of Stanford and they wanted class action securities status for investors that the latter bilked.

They argued that following four exams between 1997 and 2004 the regulator considered Stanford’s business a fraud yet did not notify the Securities Investor Protection Corp., which provides compensation to those victimized by brokerages that fail. The SEC did not sue Stanford until 2009. While Scola previously had allowed this securities fraud case against the Commission to move forward, finding that the regulator breached its duty to report Stanford’s wrongdoing, now, he says that the FTCA exemption does not give him jurisdiction over this.

Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase Among Banks Sued by Danish Pension Funds in Credit Default Swaps Lawsuit

Published on: August 15, 2013 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

In U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Danish pension funds (and their investment manager) Unipension Fondsmaeglerselskab, MP Pension-Pensionskassen for Magistre & Psykologer, Arkitekternes Pensionskasse, and Pensionskassen for Jordbrugsakademikere & Dyrlaeger are suing 12 banks accusing them of conspiring to take charge of access and pricing in the credit derivatives markets. They are claiming antitrust violations while contending that the defendants acted unreasonably to hold back competitors in the credit default swaps market.

The funds believe that the harm suffered by investors as a result was “tens of billions of dollars” worth. They want monetary damages and injunctive relief.

According to the Danish pension funds’ credit default swaps case, the defendants inflated profits by taking control of intellectual property rights in the CDS market, blocking would-be exchanges’ entry, and limiting client access to credit-default-swaps prices, and

US Will Likely Arrest Two Ex-JPMorgan Chase Employees Over Trading Losses Related to the London Whale Debacle

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

The United States Government is expected to announce criminal charges against two ex-JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPM) employees over allegations that they tried to cover up trading losses last year related to the London Whale fiasco. The ex-employees are Javier Martin-Artajo, the executive who was in charge of supervising the trading strategy, and Julien Grout, a trader that worked under him. Prosecutors also may impose penalties on the investment bank over this matter.

The securities fraud allegations stem from a probe into whether JPMorgan employees at its London offices tried to inflate certain trades’ values on the banks’ books, and charges could be filed over the falsification of documents and the mismarking of books. The criminal probe also has looked at whether the firm’s London traders engaged in the type of market manipulation that let them inflate their own positions’ value.

JPMorgan first revealed the losses at the London office May 2012. The trades were made by Bruno Iksil, dubbed the London Whale because of the vastness of his holdings. The bank would go on to lose over $6.2 billion when the trades failed. Other traders also were purportedly involved. They used derivatives to bet on the health of huge corporations.

Citigroup Must Pay $11M Claimant for Royal Bank of Scotland Investment Losses, Says FINRA Arbitration Panel

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

A FINRA arbitration panel has decided that Citigroup (C) and Edward J. Mulcahy, one of the firm’s ex-branch managers, has to pay $11 million to investor John Fiorilla. Fiorilla is a legal adviser to the Holy See who went to Citigroup because he wanted to de-risk a $16 million stock position in Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS).

According to the claimant, he asked Citigroup to employ derivatives to assist in hedging his position against losses but the firm did not fulfill the request. When the market failed in 2008 his account suffered over $15 million in losses.

Fiorilla is claiming breach of contract, failure to control and supervise, breach of fiduciary duty, gross negligence, negligence, and other violations. His claim against Mulcahy is over an alleged failure to supervise.

Oppenheimer & Co. to Pay $1.4M to FINRA For Allegedly Unregistered Penny Stock Sale & Anti-Money Laundering Violations

Published on: August 5, 2013 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority says that Oppenheimer & Co. (OPY) will pay a $1,425,000 fine for the purported sale of penny stock shares that were unregistered and for not having an anti-money laundering (AML) compliance program that was adequate enough to identify and report suspect transactions. The financial firm also must get an independent consultant to perform a comprehensive review of its AML procedures, systems, and policies and its penny stock.

According to the SRO, from 8/18/08 to 9/20/10, Oppenheimer sold over a billion shares of twenty penny stock that were low-priced and very speculative but were not registered or lacked an exemption that was applicable. Soon after opening accounts, customers deposited huge blocks of penny stock and then liquidated them, moving proceeds out of the accounts.

FINRA contends that each sale came with “red flags” that should have spurred the firm to additional review to find out whether or not these were registered sales but that adequate supervisory assessment did not happen.The regulator also believes that Oppenheimer’s procedures and systems over penny stock transactions were not adequate and that because its AML program wasn’t focused on securities transactions it was unable to detect patterns of suspect activity linked to penny stock trades.

Morgan Stanley to Pay New Jersey Regulators $100K for Selling Exotic ETFs to Investors, Including Seniors

Published on: July 30, 2013 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Morgan Stanley will pay $100,000 to the New Jersey Bureau of Securities for allegedly selling exotic exchange-traded funds to investors. The state’s regulators say that the firm’s financial advisers were not properly trained and sold inverse and leveraged ETFs to senior investors that wanted to earn additional income. These clients instead would go on to sustain losses. A state official contends that the financial firm did not properly supervise staff that was dealing with ETF transactions.

Commenting on the securities settlement, Morgan Stanley said it was “pleased’ to have arrived at a resolution and that since the period in question-1/07 to 6/09, the brokerage firm has overhauled its process involving these products. The amount includes $65K in civil penalties, $25K to pay the state back for its investigative expenses, and $10,000 toward investor education. Already, the broker-dealer has paid $96,940 in restitution to investor in New Jersey.

Last year, Morgan Stanley consented to pay close to $2.4 million to settle Financial Industry Regulatory allegations over the firm’s handling of ETFs. According to the SRO, from 1/08 to 1/0, the firm did not set up or maintain a supervisory system and written procedures to ensure compliance with FINRA and NASD rules related to the sale of inverse, leveraged, and inverse leveraged ETFs.

Both Sides Rest in Ex-Goldman Sachs Bond Trader Fabrice Tourre’s Trial For Alleged Mortgage-Backed Securities Fraud

Published on: July 29, 2013 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

In federal court, both the Securities and Exchange Commission and former Goldman Sachs Group (GS) vice president Fabrice Tourre have both rested their case in the civil trial against the bond trader. Tourre is accused of MBS fraud for his alleged involvement in a failed $1 billion investment connected to the collapse of the housing market. After the SEC finished presenting its evidence, U.S. District Judge Katherine Forrest turned down Tourre’s bid to have the securities case against him thrown out. He denies wrongdoing and says that his career is in now in shambles.

According to the regulator, Tourre purposely misled participants in the Abacus 2007-AC about the involvement of John Paulson’s hedge fund Paulson and Co. The Commission contends that Tourre concealed that Paulson helped select the portfolio of the subprime MBS underlying Abacus—a $2 billion offering linked to synthetic collateralized debt obligations. The latter then shorted the deal by betting it would fail.

The SEC’s complaint points to Tourre as primarily responsible for the CDO, which it says says he devised and prepped marketing collateral for and was in direct contact with investors. The regulator believes that by failing to disclose Paulson’s role, Tourre broke the law. They also contend that instead the bond trader instead told customers that as an Abacus investor, Paulson’s hedge fund expected the securities to go up.