FINRA

Goldman Sachs Ordered by FINRA to Pay $650K Fine For Not Disclosing that Broker Responsible for CDO ABACUS 2007-ACI Was Target of SEC Investigation

Published on: November 12, 2010 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority says it is fining Goldman Sachs $650,000 for failing to disclose that the government was investigating two of its brokers. One of the brokers was Goldman vice president Fabrice Tourre. FINRA says Goldman did not have the proper procedures in place to make sure that this disclosure was made.

The SEC had accused Tourre of being “principally responsible” for Abacus 2007-AC1, a synthetic collateralized debt obligation, and selling the bonds to investors, who ended up losing more than $1 billion while Goldman yielded profits and hedge fund manager John A. Paulson made money from bets he placed against specific mortgage bonds. The SEC contends that Goldman failed to notify investors that Paulson had taken a short position against Abacus 2007-AC1. This summer, Goldman settled for $550 million SEC charges that it misled investors about this CDO, just as the housing market was collapsing.

Regarding Goldman’s failure to disclose that the SEC was investigating two of its brokers, even though investment firms are required to file a Form U4 within 30 days of finding out that a representative has received a Wells notice about the probe, FINRA says that Tourre’s U4 wasn’t amended until May 3, 2010. This date is more than 7 months after Goldman learned about his Well Notice and after the SEC filed its complaint against the investment bank and Tourre. FINRA also says that Goldman’s “employee manual” for brokers does not even specifically mention Wells Notices or the need for disclosure after one is received.

By agreeing to settle with FINRA, Goldman is not admitting to or denying the charges.

Goldman Sachs to Pay $650,000 for Failing to Disclose Wells Notices, FINRA, November 9, 2010
Related Web Resources:
Goldman Fined $650,000 for Lack of Disclosure, New York Times, November 9, 2010
Goldman Sachs Settles SEC Subprime Mortgage-CDO Related Charges for $550 Million,
Stockbroker Fraud Blog, July 30, 2010
Goldman Sachs, Institutional Investor Securities Blog Continue Reading ›

Morgan Stanley’s Motion to Bar Ex-Hedge Fund Promoter Conrad Seghers from Pursuing FINRA Arbitration in Texas Securities Case is Granted by District Court

Published on: October 27, 2010 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

A district court has granted plaintiff Morgan Stanley’s motion that Conrad Seghers, a former hedge fund promoter, be preliminarily barred from pursuing Financial Industry Regulatory Authority arbitration proceeding against the broker-dealer over the way over his accounts were allegedly mishandled. Judge Denise L. Cote said that Seghers waved the right to arbitrate by proceeding with his Texas securities lawsuit when he litigated with earlier action. The dispute between the investment bank and Seghers has been going on for nearly a decade.

According to the court, a number of hedge funds and related entities run by Seghers and his associates opened accounts with Morgan Stanley in 1999. In 2001, Seghers and his partners accused the broker-dealer of serious errors that allegedly caused the funds’ value to sustain huge financial hits. A major investor in a Segher hedge fund would go on to file a Texas securities fraud complaint against the fund promoter, the funds, and his partners.

The following year, a number of the funds sued Morgan Stanley in court. The Texas securities dispute went to NASD (now FINRA) arbitration and the case was eventually settled.

When Seghers sued Morgan Stanley for $35 million in federal court over the investment bank’s allegedly fraudulent misstatements that led to the funds to drop in value, the lawsuit was dismissed as untimely under the Texas limitations period of four years. Seghers chose not to appeal the ruling.

However, not long after, one of the funds founded by Seghers that had traded assets through the Morgan Stanley accounts filed NASD arbitration proceedings accusing the investment bank of breach of contract and fraud related to the same alleged misconduct as the federal district court action. A court in New York dismissed the case as untimely.

This April, Seghers commenced a FINRA arbitration against Morgan Stanley. In July, the investment bank filed a complaint seeking declaratory judgment that the hedge fund promoter waived his right to arbitrate because of his earlier lawsuit, as well as due to the fact that the Texas arbitration was time-barred. The court granted Morgan Stanley’s motion.

Related Web Resources:
Arbitration and Mediation, FINRA Continue Reading ›

RBC Wealth Management Unit Ferris Baker Watts to Pay Investors Restitution Over Reverse Convertible Notes Allegations, Says FINRA

Published on: October 23, 2010 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority and the RBC Wealth Management-acquired Ferris, Baker Watts LLC have agreed to settle charges that the latter engaged in the unsuitable sales of reverse convertibles to elderly clients in the 85 and over group, well as in the inadequate supervision of such notes to retail customers. By agreeing to settle, the investment firm is not agreeing with or denying the allegations.

The alleged misconduct took place prior to RBC acquiring Ferris, Baker Watts. As part of the settlement, the brokerage firm will pay close to $190,000 in restitution to 57 account holders for financial losses related to their purchase of reverse convertibles.

FINRA says that between January 2006 and July 2008, Ferris, Baker Watts allegedly sold reverse convertible notes to about 2,000 retail investors while failing to properly supervise and guide its supervising managers and brokers on how to determine whether their recommendations of the notes were suitable for clients. The investment firm is also accused of not having a system in place that could effectively monitor, detect, and handle possible reverse convertible over-concentrations.

In its release announcing the settlement, FINRA cites one example involving Ferris, Baker Watts selling five reverse convertibles in the amount of $10,000 each to an 86-year-old retired social worker. These notes represented between 15% to 25% of her investment portfolio at different times. FINRA says that for another client, the investment firm sold five notes to a 20-year-old who was making under $25,000 a year. This investment was 51% of the client’s retirement account.

Related Web Resources:
FINRA Orders Ferris, Baker Watts to Pay Nearly $700,000 for Inappropriate Sales of Reverse Convertible Notes, FINRA, October 20, 2010

Finra fines RBC Wealth unit over brokers’ sales of ‘unsuitable’ investments, Investment News, October 20, 2010 Continue Reading ›

FINRA Wants to Make All-Public Arbitration Panel for Investors Permanent

Published on: October 7, 2010 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority says it wants investors with securities claims against broker-dealers to have the right to an arbitration panel that doesn’t include industry representatives. FINRA will file its proposal with the Securities and Exchange Commission for approval.

Under the new rule, investors would have the option of choosing between a panel comprised of one industry arbitrator and two public arbitrators and a panel made up of three public arbitrators. FINRA is hoping this will create a greater perception of fairness in the mandatory arbitration system, which it oversees.

During the last two years, FINRA has run a pilot program that gave investors the option between the two types of panels. The program was created to test whether all-public panels gave investors a fairer shake in their disputes with broker-dealers. 14 investment firms took part in the program. According to FINRA, investors chose to have their securities case heard by an all-public panel 60% of the time. 50% of the time they chose the panel that included one industry member. The pilot has been extended for another year. As of September 28, nearly 560 cases have been part of this program.

Now that the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act has been enacted, the SEC can limit or ban mandatory arbitration clauses, which can be found in contracts between broker-dealers and their clients. Investor advocates are hoping for this.

Related Web Resources:
Finra asks SEC to OK all-public panels for arbitration disputes, Investment News, September 28, 2010
FINRA Proposes to Permanently Give Investors the Option of All-Public Arbitration Panels, September 28, 2010
Number of FINRA Arbitration Claims Rose in 2009 Following Market Crisis, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, January 13, 2010 Continue Reading ›

Plan by FINRA and CHX to Re-Allocate Regulatory Tasks Approved by SEC

Published on: September 23, 2010 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The Securities and Exchange Commission has approved the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority and Chicago Stock Exchange Inc. proposed agreement to re-allocate certain regulatory duties that deal with firms that belong to the two self-regulatory organizations.

Under the plan, FINRA is to assume specific enforcement and examination functions for common members when the applicable CHX rules and FINRA rules involved are “substantially similar.” Also, with respect to certain federal securities laws and rules and regulations and as specified by the agreement, FINRA is to take regulatory responsibility for common members.

The SEC says the plan will cut down “unnecessary regulatory duplication” when common members are involved. While FINRA will take charge of certain responsibilities that the two SROs would otherwise have both performed, CHX will remain in charge of examination, surveillance, investigation, and enforcement when it comes to trading practices and activities in its marketplace. The latest agreement supercedes the one from 1977. It has no impact on CHX’s operations or its market oversight functions.

However, according to Securities Fraud Attorney William Shepherd, “Considering the abysmal job that these self-regulatory organizations (SRO’S) have done in regulating, for example, the lack of regulation of the Madoff securities firm, perhaps a little duplication would be perfectly acceptable!”

Related Web Resources:
SEC Approves Plan by FINRA, CHX To Re-Allocate Certain Regulatory Duties, BNA Securities Law Daily, September 13, 2010
FINRA

Chicago Stock Exchange

SEC
Continue Reading ›

Illegal High Frequency Trading: Trillium Brokerage Services LLC and 11 individuals agree to settle FINRA Charges for $2.27M

Published on: September 22, 2010 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority says that it is fining and censuring Trillium Brokerages LLC and 11 individuals $2.27 million for their involvement in an illegal high frequency trading strategy and supervisory failures. It is the first enforcement action to target this type of improper trading behavior.

FINRA claims that through the traders, Trillium entered a number of layered, non-bona fide market moving orders in more than 46,000 instances to purposely make it appear that there was substantial selling and buying in NASDAQ and NYSE Arca stocks. Because of the high frequency trading, others in the industry submitted orders to execute against those that the Trillium traders had placed. However, after the Trillium traders submitted their orders they would immediately cancel them.

FINRA Market Regulation Executive Vice President Thomas Gira says that Trillium purposely and “improperly baited unsuspecting market participants” into making trades at illegitimate prices and to the advantage of Trillium’s traders. Gira says that FINRA will continue to “aggressively pursue disciplinary action” against those involve in illegal high frequency trading activity that undermines legitimate trades, abusive momentum ignition strategies, and other illegal conduct.

Regarding the FINRA fines, the New York-based broker-dealer has agreed to pay $1 million for using a trading technique involving the placement of a number of nonauthentic orders to make it falsely appear as if there was market activity for specific NASDAQ and NYSE Arca stocks. Trillium also must disgorge $173,000 in illegal profits.

Nine Trillium traders, the brokerage company’s chief compliance officer, and its trading director have agreed to pay a total of $805,500. They have been told to disgorge $292,000. The individuals are temporarily suspended from the securities industry or as principals.

The SEC also is looking into high frequency trading- and “quote stuffing,” which involves the placement and then immediate cancellation of bulk stock orders. The SEC wants to see whether such practices have allowed for improper or fraudulent conduct.

Related Web Resources:
FINRA Investigating Whether Broker-Dealers Providing Adequate Risk Controls to High-Frequency Traders, Institutionalinvestorsecuritiesblog.com, September 19, 2010

FINRA Sanctions Trillium Brokerage Services, LLC, Director of Trading, Chief Compliance Officer, and Nine Traders $2.26 Million for Illicit Equities Trading Strategy, FINRA, September 13, 2010

Trillium Fined by Finra for Illegal Trading Strategy, BusinessWeek, September 13, 2010

FINRA Investigating Whether Broker-Dealers Providing Adequate Risk Controls to High-Frequency Traders

Published on: September 19, 2010 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

A Financial Industry Regulatory Authority says the SRO is investigating whether broker-dealers failed to put adequate risk-management controls in place for high-frequency traders with access to an exchange or alternative trading system. The probe comes following the flash crash last May that involved the stock markets dropping almost 1,000 points in a matter of minutes before rebounding just as quickly. While lawmakers said that high-frequency trading was to blame, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission and Securities and Exchange Commission disagree.

FINRA says that Chief Executive Officer Richard Ketchum’s concern is whether brokers had full comprehension of how the traders were using algorithms and whether the latter understood the possible consequences during times of serious volatility. Ketchum vowed that if serious cases of brokers failing to “even try to exercise their obligations to run checks on the firms” prior to giving them access are uncovered, then enforcement actions will be taken.

Meantime, the Securities and Exchange Commission is considering a pending rule proposal on unfiltered or naked access arrangements that would allow high-frequency traders to completely bypass risk management controls set up by broker-dealers.

High-Frequency Trading
High-frequency trading depends on computer algorithms (rather than human action) to execute transactions at super fast speed. High-frequency traders are usually institutional investors, such as pension funds or mutual funds. Through broker-dealers, these traders are able to gain direct electronic access to an exchange or ATS. According to recent data, high-frequency trading now makes up over 70% of market volume.

Related Web Resources:
High Frequency Trading and the Roiling Markets, Newsweek, June 1, 2010

High-frequency traders in the cross hairs after stock market’s wild day, LA TImes, May 6, 2010

FINRA

Raymond James Loses Texas Auction Rate Securities Case and is Ordered by FINRA to Pay Couple $925K

Published on: September 4, 2010 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Raymond James and Associates Inc. and financial advisor Larry Milton must pay Rex and Sherese Glendenning $925,000, says a Financial Industry Regulatory Authority panel. The Texas securities case involved an auction-rate securities dispute. brokerage firm advisor Milton has been accused of misrepresenting that the ARS the couple invested in was extremely liquid.

The Glendennings opened their Raymond James (NYSE: RJF) account in 2008 right before the ARS market failed. They claim that Milton, who had invested $1.4 million of their funds in an ARS that consisted of sewer revenue bonds, did not tell them that there was an inherent possibility that the securities might fail. Instead, they allege, he lead them to believe that the ARS could be easily sold. You can imagine their dismay when Raymond James refused their request to repurchase the ARS at full value.

The Gleddenings are not the only ones that the broker-dealer has been ordered to compensate. In just the last two months, Raymond James has been ordered to buy back $3.5 million in ARS from investors. A FINRA panel ordered the brokerage firm to repurchase $2.5 million in ARS from investor Greg Merdinger, who claims that not only was he told that auction-rate securities were safe and very liquid (even more than market funds), but also he contends that no one apprised him that there was an illiquidity risk. Raymond James affiliates Raymond James & Associates Inc. and Raymond James Financial Services Inc. were ordered to make the ARS repurchase.

Related Web Stories:
FINRA: Raymond James must pay $925,000 to couple, Reuters, August 25, 2010
Raymond James faces $2.5 million payback ruling, Tampa Biz, July 26, 2010

Related Blog Posts:
Raymond James Ordered to Buy Back $2.5M in ARS by FINRA, https://www.stockbrokerfraudblog.com, July 28, 2010
Raymond James and RBC Capital Markets Fined $1.4 Million in Total Over Improper Stock Lending Activities, https://www.stockbrokerfraudblog.com, June 22, 2009 Continue Reading ›

Raymond James Must Pay $925,000 Over Auction-Rate Securities Dispute

Published on: September 1, 2010 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

A Financial Industry Regulatory Authority panel says that Raymond James and financial advisor Larry Milton must pay Sherese and Rex Glendenning $925,000 over an auction-rate securities dispute. This is the third time this summer that Raymond James Financial Inc. (NYSE: RFJ) subsidiaries have been involved in an ARS dispute that was decided in FINRA arbitration. Since July 1, independent broker-dealer Raymond James Financial Services Inc. and brokerage firm Raymond James & Associates have been ordered to repurchase $3.5 million in ARS from clients.

The Glendennings set up their account with Raymond James in January 2008 before the market meltdown. Milton placed the couple’s $1.4 million in an ARS that contained sewer revenue bonds while failing to tell them about the risk involved.

The couple contends that Milton’s behavior wrongly gave them the impression that their investment was highly liquid and could be easily sold. However, Raymond James turned down their request to buy the ARS back at full value.

According to the Glendennings’ securities fraud attorney, the timing of the purchase was key to winning the award. The securities that they bought came up for auction for the first time thirty five days after they made the purchase. The auction failed and the couple were never able “ to go to auction.”

At the time of the ARS market crash in February 2008, Raymond James Financial clients held $1.9 billion in auction rate debt—now down to $600 million. To date, none of the securities regulators have sued the firm over ARS sales. Other financial firms, including Oppenheimer & Co. Inc. and Charles Schwab & Co. haven’t been as lucky.

Related Web Resources:
Raymond James pays more auction rate claims, Investment News, August 26, 2010

FINRA rules against Raymond James in auction rate securities case, Tampa Bay Business Journal, August 26, 2010

Stockbroker-Fraud Blog

Zions Direct Inc. to Pay $225K for FINRA Securities Fraud Charges Related to CD Auctions

Published on: August 30, 2010 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority has ordered Zions Direct Inc., Zions Bancorp’s (ZION) brokerage unit, to pay $225,000 to settle securities fraud allegations that it failed to disclose conflicts of interest in online certificate-of-deposits auctions. According to the SRO, from February 2007 to November 2008, the Utah broker-dealer failed to make public in its online CD auctions that Liquid Asset Management took part in auctions to retail investors.

FINRA contends that if LAM hadn’t been involved some bidders could have had higher yields in some auctions. Instead, they may have received lower yields.

Zions Direct began “generally” disclosing LAM’s involvement in November 2008 but still failed to mention the relationship between Zions-affiliated banks and the customers that took part in the auctions and any potential conflicts of interest. Issuing banks may have benefited from LAM’s involvement because they otherwise might have ended up paying higher yields on the CDs bought through the auctions.

FINRA also contends that the brokerage firm sent “exaggerated” and “misleading” ads to current and potential customers that promised CD yields that were not realistic and published market clearing yields on its Web site without adequately disclosing that the figures did not typically reflect the closing yields of auctions. According to FINRA acting enforcement chief and executive vice president James Shorris, investment firms have to tell prospective clients and customers about material information related to their services and products.

By agreeing to settle the securities fraud case, Zions Direct is not admitting to or denying the charges. It has, however, agreed to an entry of FINRA’s findings.

Related Web Resources:
Zions Fined $225,000 For Insufficient Disclosure In CD Auctions, Wall Street Journal, August 25, 2010
FINRA Fines Zions Direct $225,000 for Failure to Disclose Potential Conflict of Interest in its Online CD Auctions, FINRA, August 25, 2010 Continue Reading ›