Financial Firms

Many Investors Find that Securities Arbitration Can Be Better than Court

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

The dismissal of an Apple REIT class action lawsuit against David Lerner Associates Inc. in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York should have little effect on the Apple REIT arbitration cases that are being resolved through Financial Industry Regulatory Authority arbitration. In fact, most investors are likely to recoup their losses via this avenue.

Per Bloomberg, Investors are contending that they were defrauded in the underwriting and sale of more than $6.8 billion Apple Real Estate Investment Trusts (REITs), which were marketed as suitable for conservative investors. Meantime, Lerner Associates earned over $600 million in commissions and fees as five Apple REITs made above $6 billion.

Last year alone, FINRA told David Lerner to pay $12 million in Apple REIT Ten restitution to investors. The financial firm allegedly targeted elderly investors, misleading them while failing to properly disclose the risks involved in the securities.

Previous Dissent by Arbitrator is Not Reason to Vacate Award Morgan Keegan Was Ordered to Pay Investors, Says District Court

Published on: April 8, 2013 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida is holding that an arbitration award granted to investors cannot be vacated under the Federal Arbitration Act just because an arbitrator exhibited obvious partiality when failing to reveal that he wrote a dissent in an unrelated arbitration that allegedly showed he had prejudged issues of law. The securities case is Antietam Industries Inc. v. Morgan Keegan & Co.

Petitioners Antietam Industries Inc., Janice Warfel, and William Warfel contend they sustained financial losses over their RMK fund investments. In 2011, they filed a Financial Industry Regulatory Authority arbitration case claiming that their money was lost because Morgan Keegan had made misrepresentations while failing to disclose how risky the funds were.

Last year, the panel awarded the petitioners $100,000 in compensatory damages and $100,000 in punitive damages, plus fees and interest, for negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, and other claims. When they sought to confirm the award, Morgan Keegan submitted a motion to vacate, pointing to FAA and contending that arbitrator Christopher Mass allegedly showed partiality and “misbehavior” with his failure to disclose his previous dissent. The court, however, rejected Morgan Keegan’s argument, saying it was not convinced that Mass was predisposed or had prejudged.

RMBS Lawsuit Against Deutsche Bank Can Proceed, Says District Court

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

The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York is refusing to throw out the shareholder securities fraud lawsuit filed against Deutsche Bank (DB) and three individuals over their alleged role in marketing residential mortgage-backed securities and mortgage-backed securities before the economic crisis. The court found that the plaintiffs, led by Building Trades United Pension Fund, the Steward International Enhanced Index Fund, and the Steward Global Equity Income Fund, provided clear allegations that omissions and misstatements were made and there had been a scam with intent to defraud.

The RMBS lawsuit accuses Deutsche Bank of putting out misleading and false statements regarding its financial health prior to the financial crisis. The plaintiffs contend that the financial firm created and sold MBS it was aware were toxic, while overstating how well it could handle risk, and did not write down fast enough the securities that had dropped in value. Because of this, claim the shareholders, the investment bank’s stock dropped 87% in under 24 months.

U.S. District Judge Katherine Forrest said that the plaintiffs did an adequate job of alleging that even as Deutsche Bank talked in public about its low risk lending standards, senior employees at the firm were given information showing the opposite. She said that there are allegations of recklessness that are “plausible.” The district court also found that the complaint adequately alleged control person and antifraud violations involving defendants Chief Executive Officer Josef Ackermann, Chief Financial Officer Anthony Di Iorio, and Chief Risk Officer Hugo Banziger, who are accused of making material misstatements about the risks involved in investing in CDOS and RMBS while knowing they were less conservative than what investors might think. Claims against defendant ex-Supervisory Board Chairman Clemens Borsig, however, were thrown out due to the plaintiffs’ failure to allege that he made an actual misstatement.

Deutsche Bank Settles Massachusetts CDO Case for $17.5 Million

Published on: April 1, 2013 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Deutsche Bank Securities Inc. has consented to pay $17.5 million to the state of Massachusetts to settle allegations by that it did not disclose conflicts of interest involving collateralized debt obligation-related activities leading up to the financial crisis. Secretary of the Commonwealth William Galvin also is accusing the firm of inadequately supervising employees that knew about the conflicts but did not disclose them. DBSI, a Deutsche Bank AG (DB) subsidiary, has agreed to cease and desist from violating state securities law in the future.

In particular, the subsidiary allegedly kept secret its relationship with Magnetar Capital LLC. Galvin claims that DBSI proposed, structured, and invested in a $1.6 billion CDO with the Illinois hedge fund, which was shorting some of the securities’ assets. In total, Deutsche Bank Securities and Magnetar are said to have invested in several CDOs worth approximately $10 million combined.

The state of Massachusetts’s case focused on Carina CDO Ltd., of which Magnetar was the sponsor that invested in the security’s equity and shorted the assets that were BBB-rated. Ratings agencies would go on to downgrade the collateralized debt obligation to junk. Galvin contends that it was Deutsche Bank’s job to tell investors what Magnetar was doing rather than keeping this information secret.

Barclays Capital, Interactive Brokers, Lebenthal & Co., and Advisors Asset Management Pay $105,000 in FINRA Fines Related to Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board Violations

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

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority is ordering four financial firms to pay $105,000 in fines for Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board violations related to political contribution, pricing, supervision, and other rules. The SRO noted the fines in its monthly disciplinary report.

One firm, Interactive Brokers LLC, must pay $7,500 for trade reporting violations related to Rule G-14’s requirements. The financial firm is accused of not reporting 60 sale and purchase transactions to the Real Time Transaction Reporting System within 15 minutes of their execution during 2010’s third quarter.

A second firm, Barclays Capital Inc, has to pay $15,000 for violating rules G-14, G-8, and G-27. The firm purportedly did not report 40 transactions to the RTRS, also within 15 minutes of their execution during 2011’s second quarter. It is accused of not reporting the correct trade time of 66 transactions.

Investors are Not Raymond James Financial Customers for FINRA Arbitration Purposes, Rules 4th Circuit

Published on: March 28, 2013 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed that, for purposes of Financial Industry Regulatory Authority arbitration, investors who lost the investment they made on stock they purchased from a lawyer connected to a Raymond James Financial Services (RJF) Inc. broker are not the brokerage firm’s client. The appeals court said that the investors dealings with the broker-dealer were “too remote.”

Tax lawyer David Affeldt had been recruited by an Inofin Inc. executive to recommend to investors that they buy securities from the company. That employee happened to be the college roommate of then-Morgan Stanley (MS) representative Kevin Keough, who also informally acted in a sales capacity for Inofin.

Because of his employment with the financial firm at the time, Keough had Inofin pay his compensation for the referrals to his wife instead of to him. He and Affeldt, however, agreed to equally share these referral fees-an agreement that continued even after Keough went to work with Raymond James.

2nd Circuit Eases MBS Lawsuits by Reinstating Pension Fund’s Case Against Wells Fargo, Royal Bank of Scotland, Wachovia, & Others

Published on: March 28, 2013 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has reinstated New Jersey Carpenters Health Fund v. Royal Bank of Scotland Group PLC (RBS), which also includes defendants Wells Fargo Advisors (WFC), McGraw-Hill (MHP), and a number of others. The decision will ease class action mortgage-backed securities lawsuits by investors.

Holding that the plaintiff did not satisfy pleading requirements under the Securities Act of 1933 for lawsuits, a district court had thrown out the case, which was filed by the New Jersey pension fund. The 2nd circuit, however, reversed the ruling, finding that the allegations made (that an unusually high number of mortgages involving a security had defaulted, credit rater agencies downgraded the ratings of the security after modifying how they account for inadequate underwriting, and ex-employees of the relevant underwriter vouched that underwriting standards were being systematically ignored) make a plausible claim that the security’s offering documents incorrectly stated the applicable writing standards. This would be a Securities Act of 1933 violation.

Expected to benefit from the ruling are federal credit union regulators, including the National Credit Union Administration, which has submitted a number of MBS lawsuits against financial firms and banks. Last year, NCUA filed a $3.6 billion action against JP Morgan Chase (JPM) accusing the latter’s Bear Stearns & Co. unit of employing misleading documents to sell mortgage-backed securities to four corporate credit unions that went on to fail. The credit union agency contends that the mortgage in the pools collateralizing the RMBS (residential mortgage-backed securities) did not primarily adhere to underwriting standards noted in the offering statements and the securities were much riskier than what they were represented to be. NCUA has also sued a few of the defendants that the New Jersey Carpenters Health Fund is suing, as well as Goldman Sachs Group (GS) and Barclays.

Citigroup Will Pay $730M in Bond Lawsuit Alleging It Misled Debt Investors

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

Pending court approval, Citigroup Inc. (C) will $730 million to resolve claims that it misled debt investors regarding its financial state during the economic crisis. The plaintiffs had purchased Citi preferred stock and bonds from 5/06 through 11/8. They are accusing Citigroup of misleading the buyers of 48 issues of its corporate bonds. Included among the plaintiffs of this bond lawsuit are the City of Philadelphia Board of Pensions and Retirement, the Louisiana Sheriffs’ Pension and Relief Fund, and the Minneapolis Firefighters’ Relief Association.

The bonds’ declined as the US mortgage market collapsed and the losses grew. According to Bloomberg.com, at one point, Citigroup’s $4 billion of 10-year notes declined to 79.7 cents on the dollar. It went on to lose over $29 billion in ‘08 and ’09.

Struggling from losses involving subprime mortgages, Citigroup ended up having to take a $45 million bailout in 2008, which it has since repaid. However, it is one of the Wall Street firms still coping with the aftermath of the financial crisis. Just last year, Citi consented to pay $590 million over a securities case filed by investors of stock contending that they too had been misled.

Stakeholders With $55M Securities Fraud Case Against Government Over AIG Bailout Get Class Action Certification

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

The plaintiffs who are suing the US Government over losses they claim they sustained during its bailout of American International Group (AIG) have been granted class certification. Seeking $55 million, they are contending that the government behaved unconstitutionally when it rescued the company in 2008 during the economic crisis.

In their securities case, investment firm Starr International Co. is claiming that the federal government violated the Fifth Amendment via two transactions that resulted in the delivery of $182 billion in loans backed by US taxpayers and other financial facilities to the beleaguered insurance giant. Starr once was the largest shareholder of AIG, possessing a 12% stake. Judge Thomas C. Wheeler of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims certified two classes related to the two transactions.

One class is comprised of AIG shareholders from September 22, 2008, when a credit agreement granting the government a 79.9% stake in AIG went into effect. The second class is made up of shareholders from the beginning of June 30, 2009 that were not given the chance to vote on a reverse stock split that the government allegedly initiated. The plaintiffs say that both actions were an illegal taking that violated the US Constitution.

Two Oppenheimer Investment Advisers Settle for Over $2.8M SEC Fraud Charges Over Private Equity Fund

Published on: March 14, 2013 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The SEC is charging Oppenheimer Alternative Investment Management and Oppenheimer Asset Management, which are two Oppenheimer & Co. investment advisers, with misleading customers about the valuation policies and performance of a private equity fund under their management. To settle the allegations, Oppenheimer will pay over $2.8M. It has also resolved the related action that was filed by Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley.

According to the SEC, from 10/09 to 6/10, the two Oppenheimer investment advisers put out marketing collaterals and quarterly reports that were misleading and claimed that Oppenheimer Global Resource Private Equity Fund I L.P.’s holdings in private equity funds had values that were determined according to the estimated values of the underlying manager. In truth, contends the regulator, Oppenheimer’s portfolio manager actually valued the largest investment of the fund, Cartesian Investors-A LLC, at a markup that was considerable to the underlying manager’s estimated value. This discrepancy made it appear as if the fund’s performance was much better, per its internal rate of return. For example, at the conclusion of the quarter ending on June 30, 2009, the markup of the investment upped the internal return rate from 3.8% to 38.3%

Among the alleged misrepresentations made by ex-OAM employees to potential investors were: