Articles Posted in J P Morgan – Chase

New York’s Attorney General Sues JP Morgan Chase & Co. Over Alleged MBS Financial Fraud by Its Bear Stearns Unit

Published on: October 4, 2012 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

NY Attorney General Eric Schneiderman is suing J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. (JPM) over MBS fraud that was allegedly committed by its Bear Stearns unit. This is the first securities lawsuit to be brought under the sponsorship of the Residential Mortgage-Backed Securities Working Group, which is made up of prosecutors and regulators and was formed by President Barack Obama. The action is seeking damages that were either a direct or an indirect result of “fraudulent and deceptive acts.”

The group is contending that investors sustained $22.5 billion in losses involving Bear Stearns Cos.-issued securities before the investment bank almost failed in 2008 and JP Morgan ended up taking it over. Mortgage securitizations involving subprime and Alt A mortgages from between 2005 and 2007 are at the center of the case.

According to the MBS fraud lawsuit, Bear Stearns committed financial fraud against investors when it packaged and sold mortgages that it knew (or should have known) had a good chance of defaulting. The lawsuit even quotes messages and emails supposedly sent internally at Bear Stearns showing that bank employees knew the investments they were selling were of poor quality. Schneiderman is alleging that the mortgage unit “systematically failed” when assessing loans, disregarded defects that were found, and failed to inform investors about review procedures or problems involving the loans.

Rather than focusing on a single transaction, the New York securities fraud lawsuit is claiming financial fraud across the firm. It also is applying New York State’s Martin Act, which doesn’t mandate that in order to win the case prosecutors must prove that a financial firm meant to commit the alleged fraud. The task force intends to use this case to bring other claims on a firm-wide basis. Schneiderman said that the group is “looking at tens of billions of dollars” in damages and not just by one financial firm.

Federal and state regulators have been working hard since 2008 to find out whether banks just made poor decisions or actually broke securities laws related to the mortgage securities that failed in the economic crisis. Recent victories against large firms include Bank of America Corp. (BAC) consenting to pay $2.43 billion to settle class action securities allegations accusing it of misleading investors about the Merrill Lynch & Co. (MER) acquisition. However, the bank settled without admitting or denying wrongdoing.

Regarding this New York MBS case against JP Morgan Chase, a spokesperson for the financial firm said it was “disappointed” with the civil action while making it clear that the alleged activities in question occurred before it bought Bear Stearns.

JP Morgan Sued on Mortgage Bonds, The Wall Street Journal, October 1, 2012

NY Attorney General Says More Suits Will Follow JPMorgan, Bloomberg, October 2, 2012

Residential Mortgage-Backed Securities Working Group Members Announce First Legal Action, Justice.gov, October 2, 2012

Residential Mortgage Backed Securities Fraud Working Group

Martin Act (PDF)

More Blog Posts:
Morgan Keegan Settles Subprime Mortgage-Backed Securities Charges for $200M, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, June 29, 2011

Morgan Keegan to Pay $9.2M to Investors in Texas Securities Fraud Case Involving Risky Bond Funds, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, October 6, 2010
Class Action MBS Securities Lawsuit Against Goldman Sachs is Reinstated by 2nd Circuit, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, September 14, 2012 Continue Reading ›

JPMorgan Chase Brokers Say the Financial Firm Prioritized Sales Over Investors’ Needs

Published on: July 5, 2012 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

According to a number of its current and former brokers, as JPMorgan Chase (JPM) was growing into one of the largest mutual fund managers in the country, it was placing a greater emphasis on sales than it was on the needs of its clients. These financial advisors say that JPMorgan encouraged them on occasion to promote its products over competitors even when what the others were offering was less expensive or had been performing better.

The New York Times, which wrote a news report about the brokers’ claims, says that if these allegations are true then the benefit to JPMorgan is obvious. The more money investors put into the investment bank’s funds the greater the fees it collects for managing the funds. One ex-JPMorgan employee, Geoffrey Tomas said he frequently would sell JPMorgan funds with poor performance records for the sole purpose of making the financial firm more money. Thomas now works with Urso Investment Management.

JPMorgan is one of a number of investment banks that turned to retail investors in the wake of the economic crisis. UBS (UBS) and Morgan Stanley (MS) have also attempted to target mom and pop investors. The Times says that JPMorgan’s approach is to concentrate on selling funds of its own creation. This is a practice that many companies, who don’t want to be thought of as having conflicts of interest, have decided to abandon.

SEC and CFTC Say They Found Out About JPMorgan’s $2B Trading Loss Through Media

Published on: May 31, 2012 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

According to Commodity Futures Trading Commission Chairman Gary Gensler and Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman Mary Schapiro, the two federal agencies didn’t know that JPMorgan & Chase (JPM) had sustained $2 billion in trading losses until they heard about it through the press in April. Schapiro and Gensler testified in front of the Senate Banking Committee on May 22. Both agency heads noted that trading activities aren’t within the purview of the CFTC and the SEC. They also pointed out that the risky derivatives trading did not happen through JPMorgan’s futures commission merchant arm or broker-dealer arm.

The SEC has no authority over the credit default index derivatives that were involved in the trades, and although, per the 2010 Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, the CFTC will eventually regulate the swap dealing activities of banks, the rules to make this authority law have not yet been written.

Now, the CFTC is probing JPMorgan’s trading transactions. It recently issued subpoenas asking for the firm’s internal documents related to the financial firm’s massive loss. The probe is being run by the agency’s enforcement division and, according to Reuters, will revolve around what JPMorgan traders told internal management staff and their supervisors as the bets began to sour. (However, per the Wall Street Journal, the inquiry is in the beginning phases and not limited to what traders said or didn’t say. It also doesn’t necessarily mean that JPMorgan or certain individuals will be subject to any civil enforcement action.)

Meantime, Schapiro has said that the SEC is also looking into whether JPMorgan’s financial reporting and public disclosure were accurate in regards to what the financial firm knew and when it had this knowledge. She told Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) that it was too early to tell whether JPMorgan’s activity would have violated the Volcker rule, which calls for banks to have their proprietary trading activity limited to risk-mitigation hedging. While JPMorgan has said that its transactions were hedges, experts are divided over this assessment. (The Volcker rule, which is part of Dodd-Frank, has not yet been implemented and there are critics fighting its current incarnation.) Menendez, in turn, said that Schapiro should look to JPMorgan’s trading loss as a reason for constructing strong verbiage when implementing the rule. However, Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), who was also at the hearing, wondered whether employing this approach might backfire-initially causing the legislation to “look good,” while ultimately creating a situation where highly complex institutions would be placed situations to “not appropriately hedge their activity.”

IMPLEMENTING DERIVATIVES REFORM: REDUCING SYSTEMIC RISK AND IMPROVING MARKET OVERSIGHT, Banking.Senate.gov, May 22, 2012

Regulators Say They Learned Of J.P. Morgan Losses from news reports, Los Angeles Times, May 22, 2012

CFTC subpoenas JPMorgan over trading loss: WSJ, The Republic, May 31, 2012

More Blog Posts:
Senate Democrats Want Volcker Rule’s “JP Morgan Loophole” Allowing Portfolio Hedging Blocked, Institutional Investor Securities Fraud, May 22, 2012

JPMorgan Chase Had No Treasurer When Chief Investment Office Made Trades Resulting In More than $2B Loss, Reports WSJ, Institutional Investor Securities Fraud, May 19, 2012

JP Morgan Chase To Pay $150M to Settle Securities Lawsuit Over Lending Program Losses of Union Pension Funds, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, March 26, 2012 Continue Reading ›

JP Morgan Chase To Pay $150M to Settle Securities Lawsuit Over Lending Program Losses of Union Pension Funds

Published on: March 26, 2012 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

To settle a securities lending lawsuit filed by the AFTRA Retirement Fund, the Investment Committee of the Manhattan and Bronx Surface Transit Operating System, and the Imperial County Employees’ Retirement System, JPMorgan Chase & Co. will pay $150 million. The union pension funds are blaming the financial firm for losses that they sustained through its securities lending program. A district court will have to approve the settlement.

JPMorgan had invested their money in Sigma Finance Corp. medium term notes, which is a financial instrument that has since failed. However, billions of dollars of repurchase financing was extended to Sigma in the process.

The securities claims accused JPMorgan of violating the Employee Retirement Income Security Act and its state-imposed fiduciary obligations when it invested in Sigma. The plaintiffs contend that financial firm should have known that the investment was a poor one.

Per the union pension funds’ contracts with JPMorgan, the investment bank is only supposed to put their money in investment vehicles that are low-risk and conservative. They believe that the Sigma vehicle did not meet that standard.

The consolidated class action alleges that JPMorgan foresaw Sigma’s impending failure, took part in predatory repo arrangements with significant discounts in order to pick the best of Sigma’s assets in its portfolio, and reduced the quality and quantity of these assets by taking title to assets in an amount that was nearly a billion dollars more than the financing it gave.

The Board of Trustees of the American Federation of Television and Radio Artists (AFTRA) Retirement Fund, which initially brought the class action case, contended that JPMorgan made close to $2 billion profit, even as the notes were left with almost no value. Last year, a year after the court certified the class action case, a judge gave partial summary judgment to the financial firm.

The plaintiffs believe that the securities lawsuit brought up a number of key factual and legal matters under New York common law and ERISA and that this made the case very hard to litigate. They say the $150 million proposed settlement is a representation of 30 – 100% of the potential provable losses if liability were to be set up for a certain breach date. Therefore, seeing as a trial could have led to a wide range of potential damage results, the settlement figure represents an appropriate range of recovery

JPMorgan Agrees to Pay $150M To Settle Securities Lending Lawsuit, Bomberg, March 20, 2012

JPMorgan to pay $150 million over failed Sigma SIV, Reuters, March 20, 2012

More Blog Posts:
JPMorgan Chase to Pay $211M to Settle Charges It Rigged Municipal Bond Transaction Bidding Competitions, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, July 9, 2011

JP Morgan Chase Agrees to Pay $861M to Lehman Brothers Trustee, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, June 28, 2011

Investors Want JP Morgan Chase & Co. To Explain Over $95B of Mortgage-Backed Securities, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, December 17, 2011 Continue Reading ›

JPMorgan Chase to Pay $211M to Settle Charges It Rigged Municipal Bond Transaction Bidding Competitions

Published on: July 9, 2011 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

JPMorgan Chase & Co. will pay $211 million to settle charges that its JP Morgan Securities LLC Division rigged dozens of bidding competitions for reinvesting the proceeds from municipal bond transactions to win business from local and state governments. The settlement is for complaints that the US Securities and Exchange Commission, the Justice Department, the Internal Revenue Service, 25 state attorneys general, and bank regulators had filed against the investment bank. JPMorgan has also agreed to give back approximately $129.7 million to the municipalities that were harm.

JP Morgan Securities is accused of making at least 93 secret deals with companies that take care of the bidding processes in 31 states. The arrangement let the investment bank see competitors’ offers.

According to regulators, between 1997 and 2005, members of JPMorgan’s municipal derivatives desk made misrepresentations and omissions in the secret deals, which impacted the prices the governments ended up paying while jeopardizing the tax-exempt position of billions of dollars worth of securities in the billions. This alleged misconduct also undermined JP Morgan’s competitors, who, along with the financial firm, are supposed to offer cities and states the opportunity to bid for competitive interest rates when they invest their tax-exempt proceeds from municipal bonds in municipal reinvestment products. JPMorgan is accused of also sometimes turning in nonwinning bids on purpose to meet tax requirements.

While The New York Time reports that by agreeing to settle JPMorgan Chase is not denying or admitting to wrongdoing, Yahoo reports that the financial firm has admitted to the illegal conduct and agreed to cooperate with the Justice Department’s probe as long as it wasn’t prosecuted. JPMorgan, however, did blame the illegal activity on ex-employees at a division that is no longer in operation.

To settle, JPMorgan will pay $51.2 million to the SEC, $35 million to the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, $50 million to the IRS, and $75 million to a number of state attorneys general. It also reached a settlement with the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.

Related Web Resources:
JPMorgan Settles Bond Bid-Rigging Case for $211 Million, NY Times, July 7, 2011
JPMorgan pays $211M to settle bid-rigging charges, Yahoo, July 7, 2011

More Blog Posts:
JP Morgan Chase Agrees to Pay $861M to Lehman Brothers Trustee, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, June 28, 2011
Citigroup Ordered by FINRA to Pay $54.1M to Two Investors Over Municipal Bond Fund Losses, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, April 13, 2011
UBS Financial Reaches $160M Settlement with the SEC and Justice Department Over Securities Fraud, Antitrust, and Other Charges Related to Municipal Bond Market, May 16, 2011 Continue Reading ›

JP Morgan Chase Agrees to Pay $861M to Lehman Brothers Trustee

Published on: June 28, 2011 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

A bankruptcy settlement has been reached between JP Morgan Chase & Co. and the trustee of Lehman Brothers. Per the agreement, JP Morgan will pay $106 million in securities and $755 million in cash-that’s $861 million. This will go to the customers of the now defunct Lehman Brothers Holding. The settlement comes after a two-year probe by trustee James Giddens in the Securities Investor Protection Act liquidation proceedings.

Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc., which is Lehman Brothers Inc.’s parent company, filed for bankruptcy in 2008. JP Morgan served as its clearing bank. Some 125,000 customers have filed claims worth about $180 billion total, of which about $130 billion are resolved. The claims that are left include those involving Lehman Brothers Holdings, Lehman Brothers International, and a number of hedge funds. JP Morgan and Lehman Brothers Holdings are still involved in two multibillion-dollar lawsuits.

Per court papers, the majority of the trustee’s claims against JP Morgan come from securities that the bank held but failed to liquidate following the collapse of Lehman brothers. While JP Morgan did not agree with all of the trustee’s findings, they consented to turning over the majority of the funds to resolve the dispute.

Lehman Brothers Holdings claims that JP Morgan Chase abused its role as a clearing house firm when it forced the former to surrender $8.6 billion in cash collateral. Lehman believes that if it could have held on to the funds, it wouldn’t have needed to file for bankruptcy and that even if it still had to shut down, it could have done so in a more orderly fashion.

Judge Clears $861 Million J.P. Morgan-Lehman Settlement, Wall Street Journal, June 23, 2011
JP Morgan to Pay Lehman Brokerage $861 Million in Bankruptcy Court Settlement, FNN, June 23, 2011
Securities Investor Protection Act , US Courts

More Blog Posts:
UBS Financial Services Fined $2.5M and Ordered to Pay $8.25M Over Lehman Brothers-Issued 100% Principal-Protection Notes, Institutional Investors Securities Blog, April 12, 2011
UBS to Pay $2.2M to CNA Financial Head for Lehman Brothers Structured Product Losses, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, January 4, 2011
Lehman Brothers Lawsuit Claims Its Bankruptcy Was In Part Due to JP Morgan Chase’s Seizure of $8.6 Billion in Cash Reserves, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, June 14, 2011 Continue Reading ›

Motion for Class Certification in Lawsuit Against J.P. Morgan Securities Inc. Over Alleged Market Manipulation Scam Granted in Part by Court

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

A district court has granted in part the motion for class certification in the securities fraud lawsuit against J.P. Morgan Clearing Corp. and J.P. Morgan Securities Inc. involving an alleged investment scam with Sterling Foster & Co. The alleged scheme involves the manipulation of the the market for ML Direct Inc. securities during and after an IPO. The JPM entities are named in their capacity as Bear Stearns & Co. Inc. and Bear Stearns Securities Corp. successors.

The court says that one day after the IPO’s start, ML Direct stock’s price more than doubled because Sterling Foster had bought most of it. The firm then sold over 3.375 million ML Direct at about $14 to $15 a share. Because only 1.1 million shares in the IPO were for sale, the court says that Sterling Foster sold 2.3 million more shares than it owned. The other available ML Direct shares were held by insiders, who had a lock-up agreement barring them from selling their shares within the first year of the IPO unless they obtained underwriter Patterson Travis Inc.’s consent.

Sterling Foster and the insiders allegedly became involved in an undisclosed agreement that allowed the brokerage firm to buy the insiders’ stock at the $3.25/share offering. Sterling Foster then bought their securities, which were delivered to Bear Stearns. The court says that as a result, the brokerage firm made a $24 million profit.

The plaintiffs are saying that the offering documents misled the investing public into thinking that significantly less ML Direct shares were being offered and that the market had set the $13 to $15/share price when Sterling Foster had artificially created it and then bought shares from insiders at the lower share price. The plaintiffs claim that Bear Stearns, as Sterling Foster’s clearing house, knowingly took part in the investment scam.

The plaintiffs moved to certify a class so they could pursue their Section 10(b) and Section 20(a) claims. The court granted the motion as to the Section 10(b) antifraud claims but denied the latter, which involves claims for control person liability.

Related Web Resource:
Levitt v. JP Morgan Securities Inc, Law.com Continue Reading ›

Lehman Brothers Lawsuit Claims Its Bankruptcy Was In Part Due to JP Morgan Chase’s Seizure of $8.6 Billion in Cash Reserves

Published on: June 14, 2010 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The estate of Lehman Brothers Holdings is claiming that JP Morgan Chase abused its position as a clearing firm when it forced Lehman to give up $8.6 billion in cash reserve as collateral. In its securities fraud lawsuit, Lehman contends that if it hadn’t had to give up the money, it could have stayed afloat, or, at the very least, shut down its operations in an orderly manner. Instead, Lehman filed for bankruptcy in September 2008.

JP Morgan was the intermediary between Lehman and its trading partners. Per Lehman’s investment fraud lawsuit, JP Morgan used its insider information to obtain billions of dollars from Lehman through a number of “one sided agreements.” The complaint contends that JP Morgan threatened to stop serving as Lehman’s clearing house unless it offered up more collateral as protection. Lehman says it had to put up the cash because clearing services were the “lifeblood” of its “broker-dealer business.”

JP Morgan’s responsibilities, in relation to Lehman, included providing unsecured and secured intra-day credit advances for the broker-dealer’s clearing activities, acting as Lehman’s primary depositary bank for deposit accounts, and serving in the role of administrative agent and lead arranger of LBHI’s $2 billion unsecured revolving credit facility.

J.P.Morgan Securities Ltd. Ordered by UK’s Financial Services Authority to Pay $48.7 M for Breaching Client Money Rules

Published on: June 9, 2010 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Upon issuing its largest fine ever, the United Kingdom’s Financial Services Authority says it is ordering J.P.Morgan Securities Ltd. to pay $48.7 million for breaching Client Money Rules that are there to make sure that financial organizations properly protect clients’ funds. FSA claims that between November 1, 2002 and July 8, 2009, JPMSL failed to segregate billions of dollars-between $1.96 billion and $23 billion-that belonged to its clients.

PER FSA’s Final Notice on May 25, JPMSL, one of the largest holders of client money in the UK, held its futures and options business’s client in a JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A. unsegregated account. The mistake was a breach of the financial service regulator’s Principle 10 and the Client Money Rules. The rules require that client funds be held in a segregated account overnight.

FSA says that JPMSL’s error would have placed clients at “significant risk” if the investment bank were to ever become insolvent. During the insolvency process, the clients would not have been able to claim from a “pool of protected client money” because they would have been “classed as general unsecured creditors.

FSA says that when determining JMPSL’s penalty, the facts that JMPSL’s misconduct wasn’t intentional and that no clients sustained any financial losses because of the mistake were factored into account.

Related Web Resources:
FSA levies largest ever fine of £33.32m on J.P.Morgan Securities Ltd for client money breaches, FSA.Gov.UK, June 3, 2010
F.S.A. Clamps Down on Client Money Rules, New York Times, June 8, 2010 Continue Reading ›

JP Morgan Chase & Co. Accused of Securities Violations Involving Guaranteed Investment Contracts and Derivatives

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

In a May 10 Securities and Exchange Commission filing, JP Morgan Chase & Co. says that an SEC regional office intends to recommend that the agency file charges against the investment bank for securities violations involving the selling or bidding of derivatives and guaranteed investment contracts (GICs). JP Morgan says the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and a group of state attorneys general are looking into the allegations. The investment bank is cooperating with investigators.

JP Morgan’s Form 10-Q details the bank’s activities during the first quarter of 2010. The investment bank says that Bear Stearns is also under investigation for possible securities and antirust violations involving the sale or bidding of GICs and derivatives. JP Morgan acquired Bear Stearns in 2008.

Guaranteed Investment Contract
GICs are sold by insurance companies. Other names for GIC include stable value fund, capital-preservation fund, fixed-income fund, and guaranteed fund. GICs are considered safe investments with a value that remains stable. They usually pay interest from one to five years and when a GIC term ends, it can be renewed at current interest rates.

Related Web Resources:
US Securities and Exchange Commission

Guaranteed Investment Contracts, Financial Web Continue Reading ›