Financial Firms

Financial Firms Update: Morgan Stanley Now Owns Smith Barney, Wells Fargo & JPMorgan Defeat Estimates, MLB All-Star Sues UBS for $7.6M, & Ray Lucia, His Firm Fined Over “Buckets of Money” Strategy

Published on: July 12, 2013 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Morgan Stanley Buys Smith Barney from Citigroup

Morgan Stanley (MS) now owns Smith Barney, which it just bought from Citigroup (C) for $9.4 billion. Smith Barney’s new name is Morgan Stanley Wealth Management. Based on its new number of financial advisers, the deal makes Morgan Stanley the largest Wall Street firm and comes in the wake of Federal Reserve approval.

Wells Fargo & JPMorgan Defeat Analysts’ Estimates

The 21st Century Glass-Steagall Act Seeks to Separate Investment and Commercial Banking Again

Published on: July 12, 2013 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Senators Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass) and John McCain (R-Ariz.) have joined forces to unveil the 21st Century Glass-Steagall Act, which aims to create a definite divide between speculative activities and traditional banking. This is a modern day revision of the original Glass-Steagall legislation from the 1930’s, which placed definite limits on the types of business that regulated banks were allowed to conduct. That act was repealed 14 years ago. Then, the mergers that would form the biggest banks existing today happened. Senators Angus King (I-Maine), and Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) also are co-sponsoring this bill.

Warren, who is spearheading the legislation, noted that the nation’s largest banks continue to take part in risky practices that could again jeopardize our economy. She said she is prepared for a tough fight, seeing as it may be hard to drum up enough support in Congress or get the Treasury Department or Federal Reserve to jump on board. If the 21st century version of Glass-Steagall becomes law, a lot of these banks might have to give up their trading operations.

Fond feelings for the 1993 Glass-Steagall Act could help build interest on this new version. The original act, unlike the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 was just 37 pages long and easy to implement. It also made sure that banks that use federal deposit insurance did not get involved in volatile activities on Wall Street, including certain kinds of trading. No crisis like the one that happened in 2008 occurred while the original Glass Steagall Act was in place—although some critics don’t believe that it would have stopped that economic meltdown from happening.

Securities Headlines: Court Says SLUSA Precludes JPMorgan Mutual Fund Practices, Provident Royalties Ex-Executives to Pay $2.3M, & Two Securities America Advisers Are Rehired

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

SLUSA Precludes JPMorgan Securities Allegations Involving Mutual Fund Sales

As preempted by the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois dismissed what would have been a would-be state law class action against JPMorgan Securities LLC (JPM) and related entities over mutual-fund sales practices that allegedly maximized defendants’ revenues at cost to fund investors. Per the securities lawsuit, financial advisers were pressured and given incentives to sell the defendants’ proprietary mutual funds rather than ones run by third parties, placing their own financial interests before those of clients. The would-be class includes advisory clients from 2008 through that paid management fees and had assets in the defendants’ proprietary funds.

The defendants sought to have the case dismissed, contending that the claims alleging fraud related to the buying and selling of securities are precluded by SLUSA. The district court concurred, with Judge John Darrah noting that although the complaint presented state law claims involving breaches of fiduciary duty and contract, the allegations’ substance describes a fraudulent scam to sell securities.

JPMorgan Received Asset Management Conflicts Warning from OCC in 2012

Published on: July 9, 2013 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

According to a source with direct knowledge about the Office of Comptroller of the Currency’s findings, the agency had already warned JPMorgan Chase (JPM) last year that the investment bank had erred when it directed clients toward its in-house investment products.

OCC examiners found that in late 2011 JPMorgan had not complied with restrictions placed on in-house financial products sales, as well as fulfill its duties to retirement plan investors under ERISA (the Employee Retirement Income Security Act). Following these discoveries, the agencies ordered JPMorgan to pay back fees to customers.

While the issues highlighted by the OCC more than likely won’t pose much of a problem to JPMorgan—typically the US Department Of Labor resolves such violations by ordering restitution and in a confidential manner—the alleged infractions do point to what could become a problem of regulatory tension between federal regulators and JPMorgan, as the former group seeks to put to rest criticism that its poor oversight played a role in allowing the financial crisis of 2008 to happen. Now, since Thomas Curry took over as Comptroller of the Currency, OCC appears to have made it a priority to monitor the growing risks that can arise via routine bank functions, as well as from activities that could lead to “operational risks.”

JPMorgan Chase’s assets under management that are found in its proprietary mutual funds reached $223 billion at the start of 2013, which a significant rise from $96 billion in 2009. All assets under the bank’s purview, including retirement plans, alternate assets, and funds, have been growing for 16 quarters in a row.

Also during 2013’s first quarter, a $31 billion gain allowed JPMorgan’s client assets to hit $2.1 trillion. Unlike other asset managers, the bank conducts securities underwriting, commercial banking, and money management on such a big scale and in such an interlinked fashion that, per guidelines in the OCC’s exam handbook, such actions merit more regulatory examination.

Regulators & ERISA Assets
Because ERISA assets are some of the most legally protected, there is a greater chance that regulators will pay attention to them. That said, Section 406(b) of ERISA obligates retirement fund fiduciaries to always place clients’ interest first.

As OCC doesn’t directly supervise ERISA, its perspective is via supervising banks’ winder duties to make sure operations are performed in a way that decreases operational risks, as well as reputational and legal harm. Although monitoring ERISA compliance has long been part of OCC’s examination wheelhouse, some observers are finding that the agency’s current concentration on both the Act and how banks sell proprietary investment instruments is an add-on previous monitoring practices.

The Securities and Exchange Commission is also looking at JPMorgan and its proprietary products sales. While it is not known at this time whether the agency’s inquiries will result in formal action, a number of ex-JPMorgan Chase financial advisers already have sued or filed arbitration claims accusing the bank of pressuring them to place client assets in in-house products. The financial firm denies the securities’ cases allegations.

Meantime, according to Reuters last year, the Labor Department too has been examining JPMorgan. The DOL is looking at the firm’s purchases for 401(k) plan stable value funds under its management of $1.7 million in mortgage debt that it underwrote before the real estate crisis. Already, investors have filed securities cases alleging wrongdoing that, once again, the bank denies.

Office of Comptroller of the Currency

More Blog Posts:
California AG Files Lawsuit Against JP Morgan Chase Alleging Debt Collection Abuse Over 100,000 Credit Card Cases, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, May 16, 2013

Texas Judge Throws Out Verizon Retirees’ Class Action Lawsuit Over $8.4B Pension Sales to Prudential, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, July 9, 2013

Securities Case Over Insuring The $160M in Disgorgement Paid to the SEC Goes Back to Trial Court

Published on: July 6, 2013 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

New York’s highest court has revived a declaratory judgment action against D & Liability insurers after finding that the Securities and Exchange Commission order mandating that Bear Stearns (BSC) pay $160M in disgorgement failed to establish in a conclusive manner that payment could not be insured. The securities lawsuit is J.P. Morgan Securities, Inc., et al. v. Vigilant Insurance Company, et al.

Claiming that Bear Stearns engaged in market timing mutual fund trades and illegal late trading and for certain clients over a four-year period, the SEC wanted $720M in sanctions from the firm. The financial firm, however, argued that the activities only caused it to make $16.9M in revenues. A settlement was reached ordering Bear Stearns to pay $160M in disgorgement and $90M in penalties, with the firm not having to deny or admit to the Commission’s claims.

A declaratory action followed with a plaintiff in the New York Supreme Court seeking to have D & O insurers pay for $150M of the $160M disgorgement. Citing New York law, the insurers argued that the case should be dismissed, noting that under state law disgorgement is not insurable. A lower court turned down these contentions, denying the motion.

Financial Firms in the Headlines: UBS Charges Financial Planning Fees, MF Global Customers Seek to Cap Ex-Leaders’ Legal Defense Expenses, Ex-Thompson REIT CFO is Suspended

Published on: July 2, 2013 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

UBS Wealth Management Customers Now Paying a Fee for Financial Plans

UBS (UBS) Wealth Management Americas is now charging a fee for the financial plans that advisers are customizing for the firm’s clients. According to the head of the wealth management advisor group head Jason Chandler, this new policy wasn’t implemented to up firm revenues, although it has. Rather, it was set up to increase the level of commitment clients have to their plan, which he say is what happens when they have to pay money for one.

To date this year, the company has made $3 million in financial plan fees, up from $1.4 million from last year. The average fee amount is $4,100. Advisers who design the financial plans are getting 50% of the fee that they charge, while 15% of the fees earned from the plans end up in expense accounts for them.

Sonoma County Files Securities Lawsuit Over Libor Banking Debacle

Published on: July 2, 2013 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Sonoma County, CA is suing Citigroup (C), JPMorgan (JPM), Bank of America (BAC), UBS (UBS), Barclays (BCS), and a number of other former and current LIBOR members over the infamous international-rate fixing scandal that it claims caused it to suffer substantial financial losses. The County’s securities lawsuit contends that the defendants made billions of dollars when they understated and overstated borrowing costs and artificially established interest rates.

Sonoma County is one of the latest municipalities in California to sue over what it claims was rate manipulation that led to lower interest payments on investments linked to the London Interbank Offered Rate. Also seeking financial recovery over the LIBOR banking scandal are the Regents of the University of California, San Mateo County, San Diego Association of Governments, East Bay Municipal Utility District, City of Richmond, City of Riverside, San Diego County, and others.

The County of Sonoma is alleging several causes of action, including unjust enrichment, fraud, and antitrust law violations involving transactions that occurred between 2007 and 2010, a timeframe during which Barclays already admitted to engaging in interest manipulation. The county invested $96 million in Libor-type investments in 2007 and $61 million in 2008. Jonathan Kadlec, the Assistant Treasurer at Sonoma County, says that an investigation is ongoing to determine how much of a financial hit was sustained. Kadlec supervises an investment pool that is valued at about $1.5 billion for the county. He said that LIBOR-type investments, which involve floating securities with interests that are index-based, make up a small portion of the pool.

SEC Tells Financial Firms That Settling Without Denying or Admitting to Wrongdoing is No Longer Allowed in Certain Securities Cases

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

Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman Mary Jo White recently announced that defendants in certain securities cases would no longer be allowed to accompany an agreement to settle with the statement that they are doing so but without admitting or denying wrongdoing. Speaking to a columnist with The New York Times, White said that in certain instances, admissions are necessary for there to be public accountability. However, White also did say that most SEC cases still would be settled under the “nether admit nor deny standard,” which provides the accused incentive to settle while compensation to victims sooner.

The new policy was announced to SEC enforcement staff last week in a memo from George Canellos and Andrew Ceresney, the regulator’s enforcement division co-leaders. They went on to say that in cases that warrant such an admission, if the accused were to refuse then a securities lawsuit might be the next step.

Securities cases that require admissions of wrongdoing will have to satisfy certain criteria, such as intentional misconduct that was egregious, wrongdoing that hurt a lot of investors or put them at risk of serious financial harm, or unlawful obstruction of the Commission’s investigation.

“This policy change is long overdue,” said SSEK Founder and Stockbroker Fraud Lawyer William Shepherd. “Over the past decade, the SEC has accommodated the targets it has been investigating far too often. Only rarely is there the requirement of admission of wrongdoing, and almost never for large financial firms and their management. When one is caught with a hand in the cookie jar, it’s time to say ‘I did it and I’m sorry, rather than “I neither admit nor deny it was my hand.”

The change policy comes in the wake of complaints that the SEC has been to lax with its enforcement, especially when it came to pursuing securities fraud cases against large financial institutions involved in the economic crisis, such as JPMorgan Chase (JPM), Bank of America (BAC) and Citigroup (C), which all settled cases against them without denying or admitting guilt. Having to admit wrongdoing potentially could hurt financial firms because plaintiffs in private securities cases and class action fraud litigation may then cite the acknowledgement of culpability, thereby strengthening their claims. This could force banks to have to pay out millions of dollars than if they hadn’t admitted to doing anything wrong.

S.E.C. Has a Message for Firms Not Used to Admitting Guilt, Stockbroker Fraud Law Firm, NY Times, June 22, 2013

Securities and Exchange Commission

More Blog Posts:
Controversial Democratic Appointee Pushes SEC for Less Talk About Investor and Securities Market Protections and More Action, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, April 28, 2013

Financial Firms Securities News: Bear Stearns Can Bid for $160M Insurance Coverage, Deloitte Pays NY $10M, Fraud Sentences Against Two Ex-Brokers Are Affirmed

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

Bear Stearns Allowed $160M Insurance Settlement Coverage Bid

The New York Court of Appeals said that JP Morgan Chase & Co’s (JPM), Bear Stearns & Co. (BSC) can go ahead with its attempt to obtain insurance coverage for the $160 million it disgorged in an SEC case over alleged wrongdoing involving mutual fund practices. Justice Victoria Graffeo says the evidence presented is not a decisive repudiation of Bear Stearn’s claim that the payment amount was largely determined by the profits of others and therefore the case cannot be dismissed at this time.

The SEC accused Bear Stearns of helping certain clients, mostly big hedge funds, take part in deceptive market timing and late trading, which let them reap profits of hundreds of millions of dollars at cost to mutual fund shareholders. The financial firm settled by consenting to pay $160 million in disgorgement and $90 million in civil penalties.

Cayman Islands LLC Must Replead CLO Securities Case Against Deutsche Bank

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

The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York says that Arco Capital Corp. a Cayman Islands LLC, has 20 days to replead its $37M collateralized loan obligation against Deutsche Bank AG (DB) that accuses the latter of alleged misconduct related to a 2006 CLO. According to Judge Robert Sweet, even though Arco Capital did an adequate job of alleging a domestic transaction within the Supreme Court’s decision in Morrison v. National Australia Bank, its claims are time-barred, per the two-year post-discovery deadline and five-year statute of repose.

Deutsche Bank had offered investors the chance to obtain debt securities linked to portfolio of merging markets investments and derivative transactions it originated. CRAFT EM CLO, which is a Cayman Islands company created by the bank, effected the transaction and gained synthetic exposure via credit default transactions. For interest payment on the notes, investors consented to risk the principal due on them according to the reference portfolio. However, if a reference obligation, which had to satisfy certain eligibly requirements, defaulted in a way that the CDS agreements government, Deutsche Bank would receive payment that would directly lower the principal due on the notes when maturity was reached.

Arco maintains that the assets that experienced credit events did not meet the criteria. It noted that Deutsche Bank wasn’t supposed to use the transaction as a repository for lending assets that were distressed, toxic, or “poorly underwritten.”