Goldman Sachs

Goldman Sachs Must Pay National Australia Bank $100M in Mortgage Fraud Case

Published on: May 13, 2015 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

A Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”) arbitration panel recently ordered Goldman Sachs Inc. (“Goldman”) to pay $80 million in compensatory damages plus millions more in interest to National Australia Bank Ltd. (“NAB”), resulting in an award likely to cost Goldman (GS) more than $100 million. According to the award and NAB’s complaint, Goldman sold NAB several collateralized debt obligations (“CDOs”), including the Hudson Mezzanine Funding 2006-1 Ltd.

In particular, NAB paid $80 million for its stake in Hudson Mezzanine Funding, a Goldman-backed product, shortly before the financial crisis began. The investments failed when the market for CDOs and other asset backed securities fell apart in 2007 and 2008. In 2011, a U.S. senate report disclosed that while pitching Hudson Mezzanine Funding, Goldman did not tell investors such as NAB that it was betting against the assets supporting Hudson and other CDOs. As a result, according to NAB’s attorneys, when the economic crisis ensued, Goldman profited from the Hudson CDO while NAB and other investors lost all of their investment.

In its complaint, NAB contended that the mortgage-related deal posed a substantial conflict of interest between Goldman and its clients, and, therefore, Goldman was required under FINRA rules to disclose the conflict. Goldman argued it had no such disclosure obligation and, in fact, filed a counterclaim against NAB.

Citigroup, Wells Fargo, JPMorgan Chase, And 27 Other Big Banks Pass Fed Stress Tests’ Phase One

Published on: March 6, 2015 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The 31 biggest banks in the U.S. all passed the first phase of the Federal Reserve’s stress test. This is the first time since the tests have been conducted on banks with over $50 billion in assets that all of them stayed above capital requirements.

Banks have been building their capital reserves, based on tougher Fed requirements, to protect against any losses. Included among the firms that did well are Wells Fargo (WFC), Citigroup (C), JPMorgan Chase (JPM), and Goldman Sachs (GS).

Based on the results thus far, the Federal Reserve said the big U.S. banks are healthy enough to keep lending if there were to be a serious recession, even if corporate debt markets failed, housing and stock prices dropped, and unemployment were to reach 10%.

Citigroup, Credit Suisse, Deutsche Bank, Merrill Lynch, & Other Firms Ordered by FINRA to Pay $43.5M Over Activities Related to Toys “R” Us IPO

Published on: December 11, 2014 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority is fining 10 firms $43.5 million in total for letting their equity research analysts solicit investment business and offering favorable research coverage related to the the planned Toys “R” Us initial public offering. The firms were fined: $2.5 million for Needham & Co. LLC; $4 million for Wells Fargo Securities, LLC (WFC), Deutsche Bank Securities Inc. (DB), Morgan Stanley & Co., LLC (MS), and Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc. respectively; and $5 million each for JP Morgan Securities LLC (JPM), Barclays Capital Inc. (BARC), Goldman Sachs & Co. (GS), Citigroup Global Markets Inc. (C), and Credit Suisse Securities USA LLC (CS). FINRA rules state that firms are not allowed to use research analysts or promise favorable research to garner investment banking business.

In 2010, Toys “R” Us and its private equity owners asked the ten firms to compete for involvement in an initial public offering. The self-regulatory organization said that all of the institutions used equity research analysts when soliciting for this role.

The company asked the analysts to create presentations to determine what their views were on certain issues and if they matched up with the perspectives of the firms’ investment bankers. The firms knew that how well their analysts did with this would impact whether or not they would be given the underwriting role in the IPO.

Goldman Sachs Must Pay $7.6M to Two Brokers for Wrongful Termination

Published on: December 8, 2014 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

A Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) arbitration panel says that Goldman Sachs Group Inc. (GS) has to pay two brokers $7.6 million because they were wrongfully terminated. Luis Sampedro and Christopher Barra, who are now with UBS (UBS), claim that the Goldman made them forfeit deferred commissions after letting them go.

The two of them were a team at the financial firm until 2007. They filed their arbitration claim in 2010.

The withholding happened after the financial firm modified its compensation plan, requiring that a percentage of the brokers’ commission be retained as restricted stock units to vest. Goldman, however, fired the two men before their stock vested.

Goldman Sachs, HSBC Sued For Manipulating Precious Metal Prices

Published on: November 26, 2014 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

A class action securities case is accusing Goldman Sachs Group (GS), HSBC Holdings Plc (HSBC), BASF SE (BAS), and Standard Bank Group Ltd. of manipulating prices for palladium and platinum. According to lead plaintiff Modern Settings LLC, the companies used insider information about sales orders and client purchases to make money from price movements for the precious metals, which are used in jewelry, cars, and other products.

The lawsuit, filed in Manhattan federal court, is the first of its kind in the United States. Similar complaints have been filed in New York accusing banks of rigging gold’s benchmark price.

According to this securities case, the defendants took part in daily conferences to establish the global price benchmarks for palladium and platinum. They said that this impacted derivative products based on the metals, while giving the four companies the ability to make trades in the metals prior to the movements. This purportedly resulted in in “substantial profits” for the banks, while harming those not in the know. Class action members are said to have lost value in tens of thousands of transaction.

Pension Fund Securities Lawsuits: JPMorgan to Face MBS Case, PERSM Files Class Action Case, & Institutional Clients Can Sue BP

Published on: October 17, 2014 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

JPMorgan Ordered to Face $10B Mortgage-Backed Securities Case

A federal judge said that JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPM) must face a class action securities fraud lawsuit filed by investors accusing the bank of misleading them about the risks involved in $10B of mortgage-backed securities that they purchased from the firm prior to the financial crisis.

U.S. District Judge Paul Oetken certified a class action as to the bank’s liability but not for damages. He said it wasn’t clear how investors were able to value the certificates they purchased considering that the market hadn’t been especially liquid. He did, however, say that the plaintiffs could attempt again to seek class certification on class damages.

Credit Suisse, Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan, and 16 Other Banks Agree to Swaps Contract Modifications to Assist Failed Firms

Published on: October 11, 2014 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPM), HSBC Holdings Plc (HSBA), Goldman Sachs Group Inc. (GS), Credit Suisse (CS), and fourteen other big banks have agreed to changes that will be made to swaps contracts. The modifications are designed to assist in the unwinding of firms that have failed.

Under the plan, which was announced by the International Swaps and Derivatives Association, banks’ counterparties that are in resolution proceedings will postpone contract termination rights and collateral demands. According to ISDA CEO Scott O’Malia, the industry initiative seeks to deal with the too-big-to-fail issue while lowing systemic risks.

Regulators have pressed for a pause in swaps collateral collection. They believe this could allow banks the time they need to recapitalize and prevent the panic that ensued after Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. failed in 2008. Regulators can then move the assets of a failing firm, as well as its other obligations, into a “bridge” company so that derivatives contracts won’t need to be unwound and asset sales won’t have to be conducted when the company is in trouble. Delaying when firms can terminate swaps after a company gets into trouble prevents assets from disappearing and payments from being sent out in disorderly, too swift fashion as a bank is dismantled.

Virginia Files $1.15B Securities Lawsuit Against Citigroup, Credit Suisse, JPMorgan Chase, and Other Big Banks

Published on: September 27, 2014 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The state of Virginia is suing 13 of the biggest banks in the U.S. for $1.15 billion. The state’s Attorney General Mark R. Herring claims that they misled the Virginia Retirement System about the quality of bonds in residential mortgages. The retirement fund bought the mortgage bonds between 2004 and 2010.

The defendants include Citigroup (C), JPMorgan Chase (JPM), Credit Suisse AG (CS), Bank of America Corp. (BAC), Goldman Sachs Group Inc. (GS), Morgan Stanley (MS), Deutsche Bank (DB), RBS Securities (RBS), HSBC Holdings Inc. (HSBC), Barclays Group (BARC), Countrywide Securities, Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc., and WAMU Capital (WAMUQ). According to Herring, nearly 40% of the 785,000 mortgages backing the 220 securities that the retirement fund bought were misrepresented as at lower risk of default than they actually were. When the Virginia Retirement System ended up having to sell the securities, it lost $383 million.

The mortgage bond fraud claims are based on allegations from Integra REC, which is a financial modeling firm and the identified whistleblower in this fraud case. Herring’s office wants each bank to pay $5,000 or greater per violation. As a whistleblower, Integra could get 15-25% of any recovery for its whistleblower claims.

Securities Lawsuit Accuses Deutsche Bank, JPMorgan Chase, Credit Suisse, and Other Banks of Manipulating ISDAfix

Published on: September 4, 2014 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The Alaska Electrical Pension Fund is suing several banks for allegedly conspiring to manipulate ISDAfix, which is the benchmark for establishing the rates for interest rate derivatives and other financial instruments in the $710 trillion derivatives market. The pension fund contends that the banks worked together to set the benchmark at artificial levels so that they could manipulate investor payments in the derivative. The Alaska fund says that this impacted financial instruments valued at trillions of dollars.

The defendants are:

• Bank of America Corp. (BAC)

Goldman to Buy Back $3.15B in RMBS to Resolve FHFA Claims

Published on: August 26, 2014 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Goldman Sachs Group Inc. (GS) will pay $3.15 billion to buy back residential mortgage-backed securities related to bonds that were sold to Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. The repurchase represents an approximately $1. 2billion premium and makes the mortgage companies whole on the securities. The RMBS case was brought by the Federal Housing Finance Agency.

It was in 2011 that FHFA sued 18 firms to get back taxpayer money from when the U.S. took control of Freddie and Fannie after the economy tanked in 2008. Goldman is the fifteenth bank to settle.

The firm will pay Fannie May $1 billion and $2.15 billion to Freddie Mac for the securities. The two had purchased $11.1 billion from Goldman Sachs. A few of the other banks that have settled with the FHFA include Morgan Stanley (MS), JPMorgan Chase (JPM), and Bank of America Corp. (BAC). The agency’s remaining RMBS fraud cases still pending are those against RBS Securities Inc. (RBS), HSBC North America Holdings Inc., (HSBC), and Nomura Holding America Inc. (NMR).