Financial Firms

US Courts & Securities Roundup: Arbitration Award in Citi’s Favor is Approved & Investors’ Claims Against An Oppenheimer Private Equity Fund Are Dismissed

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

District Court Approves Citigroup’s Arbitration Award in Securities Case Against the Abu Dhabi Investment Authority

A judge held that a tribunal did not behave in manifest disregard of the law and that its refusal to provide two documents that the Abu Dhabi Investment Authority had asked for did not make the proceedings “fundamentally unfair.” The court confirmed an award issued in Citigroup Inc.’s (C) favor, which found that the ADIA did not succeed in showing that the arbitration panel’s New York choice of law decision and evidentiary rulings warranted that the award be vacated.

The securities case is Abu Dhabi Investment Authority v. Citigroup Inc.

Ameriprise Fined $750,000 for Inadequate Supervision of Wire Transfer Requests

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

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority has fined Ameriprise Financial Services Inc. and American Enterprise Investment Services Inc. $750,000 for failing to properly supervise wire-transfer requests and customer fund transmissions to third parties. Also, the SRO has barred Jennifer Guelinas, an ex-Ameriprise broker, for allegedly forging the signatures of two clients on wire-transfer requests and moving about $790,000 to her bank accounts. Ameriprise is an American Financial Inc. (AMP) unit.

FINRA said that Ameriprise had gone on to pay full restitution to its clients and that it was the latter’s affiliate clearing firm, American Enterprise Investment Services, that failed to put in supervisory systems for monitoring funds when they were transferred from client accounts to third parties. The SRO contends, however, that it was Ameriprise that did not detect that Guelinas wrongful actions even though there were a number of red flags. For example, she turned in three requests to send funds from a client’s account to bank account that appeared to belong to her. Amerirpise went ahead and put through the forged requests and moved the funds without asking questions. A third wire-transfer request by Guelinas also went through, says FINRA, but this time Ameriprise caught the wrongdoing before she could get to the money.

Amerirpise says that the since these incidents, which occurred several years ago, the financial firm has improved its related procedures, policies, and technology. By settling, Ameriprise and American Enterprise Investment Services are not admitting to or denying the securities allegations.

New York Fed Bailed Out Bank of America Over Mortgage-Backed Securities Sold to AIG

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

Recently, a secret deal came to light involving the Federal Reserve Bank of New York bailing out Bank of America (BAC) that released the latter from all legal claims involving mortgage-backed securities losses that the former obtained when the government rescued American International Group (AIG) in 2008. Some believe that the bank was allowed to abscond responsibility even as AIG sought to recover $7 billion that was loss on these same MBSs.

According to The New York Times, as part of its settlement with BofA, the New York Fed obtained $43 million in a securities dispute involving two of the mortgage securities. For no compensation, the bank was released from all other legal claims.

The roots of this settlement can be traced back to 2008 when the government intervened to rescue AIG . Part of that aid involved AIG selling mortgage securities to Maiden Lane II, which the New York Fed oversees. At the time, the insurer was losing money from toxic mortgages, many of which came from BofA. AIG obtained $20.8 billion for securities valued at $39.2 billion.

UBS Fails in Bid to Block $125M ARS Arbitration Case by Allina Health System

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

A district court judge in Minnesota has ordered a $125 million auction-rate securities arbitration case filed by Allina Health System against UBS (UBS) to proceed.

U.S. District Judge Michael Davis found that claimant Allina is indeed a UBS client even though the financial firm had argued that under Financial Industry Regulatory Authority rules ARS issuers are not underwriter customers. The Minnesota non-profit healthcare system had filed its securities claim over ARS it issued in October 2007 that were part of a $475 million bond issuance to finance renovations and remodeling, as well as refinance debt. UBS was its underwriter.

Allina contends that the market collapsed in 2008 because UBS and other financial firms stopped putting in support bids to keep auctions from failing. The healthcare group says that because of this, it had to pay a great deal of money to refinance the securities and make higher bound payments after losing its bond insurance. Allina claims that UBS did not properly represent the ARS market risks, breached its fiduciary duties, and violated state and federal securities laws.

Morgan Keegan Must Buy Back Auction-Rate Securities and Pay $110,500, Says District Judge

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

A US District judge is ordering Morgan Keegan & Co. to repurchase auction-rate securities and make a payment of $110,500 in an ARS lawsuit filed by the SEC that accuses the financial firm of misleading investors about these investments’ risks. The SEC contends that the $2.2B in securities that the firm sold left clients with frozen funds when the market failed in 2008.

Even after the financial firm started buying back ARS—it has since repurchased $2B in ARS of its own accord—the SEC decided to proceed with its securities case. The Commission contends that even as the ARS market failed, Morgan Keegan told clients that the securities being sold came with “zero risk” and were short-term investments that were liquid.

Now, Judge William Duffey Jr. has found that although Morgan Keegan’s brokers did not act fraudulently, some of them acted negligently when they left out key information and made misrepresentations when selling the securities. This including not apprising investors about the risk of failure, liquidity loss, or that interest rates might vary.

Duffey is the same judge who dismissed this very case in 2011. However, last May, the US Court of Appeals in Atlanta overturned his decision after determining that he wrongly found that verbal comments made to certain customers were not material because of disclosures that could be found on the financial firm’s web site.

Morgan Keegan Trial Judge to Decide SEC Case He Dismissed, Bloomberg.com, November 26, 2012

More Blog Posts:
Morgan Keegan Founder Faces SEC Charges Over Mortgage-Backed Securities Asset Pricing in Mutual Funds, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, December 17, 2012

Judge that Dismissed Regulators’ Claims Against Morgan Keegan to Rule on ARS Lawsuit Again After His Ruling Was Reversed on Appeal, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, November 27, 2012

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

JP Morgan Sued by Dexia in $1.7B MBS Lawsuit

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

Dexia SA (DEXB) is suing JP Morgan Chase & Co. (JPM ) for over $1.7 billion. In its mortgage-backed securities lawsuit, the Belgian-French bank contends that the loans underlying the securities that the US bank sold it were riskier than what they were represented to be.

JP Morgan and its companies, Washington Mutual (WM) and Bear Stearns Co., are accused of “egregious” fraud for allegedly making and selling mortgage bonds backed by loans that they knew were “exceptionally bad.” Dexia claims it sustained substantial losses.

According to The New York Times, there are a slew of employee interviews and internal e-mails related to this MBS lawsuit that talk about how the three firms disregarded quality controls and problems—perhaps even concealing the latter—in order to make a profit from these mortgages that were packaged into complex securities. They are accused of seeking to avail of the mortgage-backed securities demand during the housing boom even as doubts began to arise about whether or not these investments were good quality. Court filings report that JPMorgan would get mortgages from lenders that didn’t have stellar records, assigning Washington Mutual and American Home Mortgage a “poor” grade on its “internal ‘due diligence scorecard.’” The loans were then swiftly sold off to investors.

Oppenheimer Must Pay $30M to US Airways Group Over ARS Losses

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

A Financial Industry Regulatory Authority arbitration panel says that Oppenheimer & Co. has to pay US Airways Group Inc. (LCCC) $30 million for losses that the latter sustained in auction-rate securities. The securities arbitration case is related to the airline group’s contention that the financial firm and one of its former brokers misrepresented certain ARS that were structured and private placement.

US Airways had initially sought $110M in compensatory damages and $26 million in interest and legal fees. The FINRA panel, however, decided that Oppenheimer and its ex-broker, Victor Woo, owed $30 million—Woo’s part will not be greater than what he made in commissions. Oppenheimer is now thinking about whether to submit a motion to vacate the arbitration panel’s order.

The financial firm is, however, going to go ahead with the arbitration it had filed against Deutsche Bank (DB) to get back the award money and associated costs from this case. Oppenheimer’s claim against Deutsche Bank is linked to the US Airways case but became a separate proceeding in 2010.

JPMorgan, Goldman Sachs, Bank of New York Mellon, Charles Schwab Disclose Market-Based NAVs of Money Market Mutual Funds

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

While regulators continue pondering whether to impose more regulations on money market mutual funds, a number of financial institutions, including Goldman Sachs Group Inc. (GS), JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPM), Fidelity Investments, BlackRock Inc. (BLK), Bank of New York Mellon Corp. (BK), Federated Investors Inc. (FII), and Charles Schwab Corp.,(SCHW), started disclosing the market-based net asset values of these funds last month. Reasons given for these disclosures included offering greater transparency and giving investors more information about the market. However, some believe there are firms are issuing these disclosures because that is what their competitors are doing.

Currently, money market funds have a $1/share stable net asset value for all investor transactions. The underlying assets of the funds, which are debt securities with high ratings, however, can undergo periodic, small value changes that may slightly affect a fund’s per share market value. This is also called the shadow price, which are reasonable estimates/fair valuations of the price that an instrument could be sold at in a current trade.

A few years ago, the Securities and Exchange Commission approved modifications to its Rule 2a-7 and other rules about money market funds mandating that managers of the funds reveal changes to portfolio holdings and give the regulator the market-based net asset values of the funds. Fund information for each month has to be given to the SEC at a succeeding month. The Commission then makes the information available to the public 60 days after the month to which the data pertains has concluded. These Daily disclosures would make the data more immediate (and relevant) for investors.

Goldman Sachs Cleared in Securities Fraud Case Against Dragon Systems for Losses Related to $250M Loss in Sale to Lernout & Haspie

Published on: January 31, 2013 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

In US District Court in Boston, a federal jury has decided that Goldman Sachs (GS) isn’t at fault for the $250M sustained by the owners of Dragon Systems Inc. after they sold their speech recognition company to Lernout & Hauspie Speech Products for $580M. Goldman had served as adviser to Dragon over the deal.

L & H, which is based in Belgium, went bankrupt after the acquisition amidst reports that it was inflating its sales figures and revenue and fabricating customers. The company’s top executives went to jail.

Plaintiffs Janet and James Baker, who own Dragon, had accused Goldman of negligence for failing to detect the fraud that was taking place L & H. Their lawyer claims that the financial firm took the job despite lacking the experience needed to properly sell this type of technology company. Dragon paid Goldman $5 million for its services. (The Bakers have already settled other cases related to the L & H acquisition of Dragon for $70M.

UBS & Citi Do Have to Arbitrate Auction-Rate Securities Case Filed by Health Care Nonprofit Carilion Clinic

Published on: January 31, 2013 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

According to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, a district court was right when it decided not to stop Carilion Clinic’s arbitration proceeding against Citigroup Global Markets (C) and UBS Financial Services (UBS) for an ARS issuance that proved unsuccessful. The financial firms had served the healthcare nonprofit in a number of capacities, including providing underwriting services.

Carilion had retained UBS and Citi in 2005 to raise over $308M so that it could redo its medical facilities. They are accused of recommending that Carilion put out over $72M of bonds in the form of variable demand rate obligations and $234 million in ARS.

When the auction-rate securities market took a huge dive in February 2008, Citi and UBS ended their policy of supporting the market and the auctions started to fail. As a result, result, Carilion allegedly was forced to refinance what it owed to avoid higher interest rates and it sustained losses in the millions of dollars. The nonprofit later began auction-rate securities arbitration proceedings with FINRA against both firms.