Merrill Lynch

HSBC Securities, Citigroup Global Markets Inc., UBS Securities LLC, Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc., and Interactive Brokers LLC Among Firms Disciplined by NYSER

Published on: October 21, 2007 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The New York Stock Exchange Regulation Inc. is disciplining nine companies and eight people for numerous violation. The firms disciplined include:

Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith: Fined $100,000 for violating rule 123c about 480 times when it cancelled or submitted securities orders after the mandatory cutoff period.

Citigroup Global markets Inc: Find $300,000-half of this to be payed to NASDAQ; the other half to be paid to NYSE. The firm made inaccurate reports about short interest positions in securities that were listed on the NYSE.

Merrill Lynch, Morgan Stanley and Bear Stearns Suffer Losses as Ratings Agencies Are Grilled over Sub-prime’s

Published on: October 11, 2007 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Merrill Lynch will soon report third quarter earnings which analysts have revised downward. An analyst at competitor Goldman Sachs says that Merrill’s earnings for the third quarter will be about $1.80 per share, down from $1.95 and lowered Merrill’s stock price target to $94 from $108. The Goldman analyst predicted that Merrill will have $4 billion in write-downs, primarily from the fixed income division, resulting in a net loss of $1.5 billion for the quarter.

Other analysts’ expectations were even even lower: Fox Pitt Kelton’s analyst lowered earnings per share estimate for Merrill to $1.20, from a previous estimate of $1.91, “while noting that forecasting confidence is low in periods such as these.” He also expected the firm to experience $3.5 billion “in gross negative marks and realized losses” on leveraged loans, CDOs, and mortgages resulting in $2.2 billion in net losses and attributes the more positive net loss estimate to “$700 million in hedging gains; $500 million in loan fees; and $100 million in gains on liability marks.”

Morgan Stanley reported last week that it suffered a 17 percent drop in profit compared to the third quarter last year, earning $1.44, about ten cents below analysts’ estimates, with loan losses of $1 billion the culprit.

Merrill Manager at Center of Harassment Claim Now at Southwest Securities – But Claims and Counterclaims Continue

Published on: July 31, 2007 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Former Merrill Lynch employee Hydie Sumner sued that firm saying she was sexually harassed. She was represented by lawyer Linda Freidman. In 2004, a panel of three NASD arbitrators decided Hydie was right and awarded her $2.2 million. They also forced Merrill to reinstate her.

Meanwhile, an email was allegedly sent to Merill Lynch by Ms. Sumner’s attorney Linda Freidman, reportedly at Sumner’s direction, questioning Merrill’s ethics for employing “a man like [Blas] Catalani,” Sumner’s Merrill Lynch manager. According to Catalini, this defamed him and caused him to be fired, his clients were then distributed to other brokers at Merrill and he found it “extremely difficult” to become re-employed in the securities industry.

Catalini, therefore, filed a lawsuit against Sumner and her lawyer, claiming defamation. Not to be outdone, Hydie Sumner then filed a counterclaim against Catalini claiming that he damaged her reputation by reporting that she was the reason he was terminated by Merrill Lynch.

Loss on Enron, Worldcom, etc.? It May Not Be Too Late!

Published on: July 31, 2007 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Usually lawsuits must be filed within a few years after the wrongful acts, or when one knew or should have known of the wrongdoing. For example, federal and most state securities laws require lawsuits to be filed by 2 or 3 years after the problem is known or made public, but no later than 5 years in any event.

However, if a class action is filed on behalf of shareholders, this “tolls” the limit for filing a case for those the case seeks to represent. If, for example, if a shareholder decides to “opt out” of the class action, or it is later decided the class action can not be maintained, the “window” for such shareholders to file their own cases remains open. (Caution: The remaining time to file a case may then be quite short.)

WorldCom Inc. bondholders were in this position. A class action was filed, including a class of bondholders. Some of these bondholders decided to file their own case before the class was “certified” (when the court decides whether the class members have claims common to all of them, etc.) Using strange reasoning, the federal judge presiding over their case decided that, because these bondholders did not wait for the class to be certified, they could not use the tolling benefit of the class action. Because the case was otherwise filed too late, it was dismissed.

Merrill Lynch Ordered to Pay $1.6M to Former Broker for Ethnic Bias – But Will This Survive Appeal?

Published on: July 25, 2007 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

A NASD arbitration panel ordered Merrill Lynch & Co. Inc. to pay an Iranian former employee $1.6 million, for claims that his boss set him up to be fired after discovering his ethnicity. Merrill is currently defending a suit filed in court by another Iranian who has also accused the firm of discrimination.

In an unusually lengthy decision, the securities arbitration panel awarded Fariborz Todd Zojaji $400,000 in compensatory damages and $1.2 million in punitive damages. The arbitrators explained that Merrill Lynch defamed Mr. Zojaji in a required exit disclosure form (Form U-5), which “destroyed claimant’s ability to become employed in the securities industry.”

This language may cause the award to be undone, since it was recently determined that brokerage firms have total immunity for statements made in such disclosures. Yet, the standard for vacating arbitration awards is quite high and a court could let the decision stand if it determines the arbitrators could have decided the case for any other reason. It is also possible the arbitrators heard evidence that the derogatory statements made in the U-5 were stated orally or in writing elsewhere, thus not be protected by the privilege.

Do Wall Street Powerhouses Earn Billions Through Fraudulent Fund Sweeps?

Published on: June 24, 2007 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Merrill Lynch, Morgan Stanley, Smith Barney and Charles Schwab are being sued for claims they improperly directed their clients’s funds into lower paying deposit accounts at affiliate banks, enabling those banks to reap billions in extra profits. Attorneys for investors seek permission to add Wachovia, based on “sweep” accounts it will receive from AG Edwards in an impending merger.

Details of the suit, filed in January but amended last month, had not previously been reported. Bank deposit sweep programs “put the broker in a very conflicted position” said an attorney for the investors recently, adding “this is not what they should be doing as financial advisers.”

The claim states that the firms are positioning themselves as objective financial advisers, but send their customers’ funds into bank deposits paying far less than market rates, adding that the firms disclose to clients that more profitable accounts are available, but bury the disclosures in documents while failing to mention the magnitude of their profits.

Citigroup, Merrill Lynch and Lehman Ex-Brokers Face Retrial in Eavesdropping Case

Published on: May 27, 2007 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Three former brokers of Citigroup, Merrill Lynch and Lehman Brothers face a second trial on charges they conspired to commit fraud by allowing day traders to eavesdrop on orders being discussed on investment firms’ internal “squawk boxes.” Four current and former executives at the day trading firm A. B. Watley Group will also be retried for their alleged roles in the scheme.

After a seven-week trail seven defendants including these former brokers were acquitted of securities fraud and other charges, but the jury deadlocked on the conspiracy charges opening the door to a retrial.

Prosecutors assert the brokers conspired to give Watley traders access to large orders broadcast over intercoms, or “squawk boxes”, in exchange for cash and commissions. The traders bought or sold stock ahead of the orders in anticipation of share-price swings, prosecutors say.

Enron Litigation Continues With Actions by Stockholders and Regulators of Accounts.

Published on: March 28, 2007 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

As class actions against investment firms face dismissal, attorneys for investors plan to go forward with claims for individual shareholders against those same firms. After the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit decided that cases in Houston against Merrill Lynch and other investment banking firms could not go forward as class actions, the door was left open for victims of Enron stock fraud to file their own claims in court or arbitration against these investment firms.

The class actions stopped the clock for filing individual claims against the defendants until appeals are completed. Also, through the class actions substantial information was learned regarding the role of these investment firms in the Enron debacle.

Meanwhile, that same Court of Appeals affirmed a district court’s order allowing Texas accounting regulators to gain access to confidential discovery material in the Enron Corp. shareholder litigation (Newby v. Enron Corp., 5th Cir., No. 05-20462, 3/16/06). The massive amounts of discovery material related to the Enron litigation led to a stipulation by parties that discovery be housed on a Web site. The district court overseeing the litigation issued a confidentiality order covering the deposition transcripts and other material, barring disclosure except to parties, their counsel, witnesses, a depository administrator, a court-appointed mediator, and a few others.

Appeals Court Shoots Down Enron Stock Victims, But Leaves Door Open to Law Suits and Arbitration Claims.

Published on: March 20, 2007 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

A Houston Federal Court was set to begin tiral on class actions filed on behalf of investors against several fiancial firms that allegedly assisted Enron to defraud shareholders. However, a Federal Court of Appeals, with most of its judges selected by the Bush-Cheney administration, stepped in to overturn the class action status of these Enron shareholders.

Several cases had been filed for Enron shareholders against Merrill Lynch, Credit Suisse, Royal Bank of Canada, Toronto-Dominion Bank, Barclays and the Royal Bank based upon the involovement of those fiancial institutions in actions by Enron management which misled investors about the finances at Enron and ultimately led to that firm’s demise.

Attorneys for the Enron victims say they will request the U. S. Supreme Court reverse this decision, but observers point out that the balance of power in the High Court has also been altered by Bush-Cheney appointees. Observers also remind the public that, prior to Enron’s demise, officials of that firm were involved in establishing energy policy for the Bush-Cheney administration. Notes of such discussions have never been produced to Congress.

Few Brokerages Disclose “Shelf Space” Agreement Details

Published on: February 23, 2007 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The SEC is considering whether to change a rule that could require brokers to reveal whether they have “shelf-space” programs, which treats certain fund companies preferentially in exchange for payment by the fund. Its first point-of-sale disclosure rule had pushed for brokerage firms to reveal the actual amount that they received from fund companies that take part in shelf-space programs. Most brokerage firms, however, are still not abiding by this standard, usually only disclosing the amount that they receive from an agreement without naming the fund company involved.

Even though many brokerage firms are informing investors about any “shelf space” agreements they have with specific mutual funds, most of them are still not disclosing the terms of these agreements. Although brokers are not directly paid by the agreement, a shelf space deal can indirectly influence the sale. For example, according to Merrill Lynch & Co. Inc., funds that do “not enter into [shelf space] arrangements … are generally not offered to clients.”

Shelf space agreements can vary, although most of the bigger firms receive anywhere from 0.05% to 0.25% of sales or assets. Brokerage firms claim this money supports education, sales, and technology.