Articles Posted in Merrill Lynch

Securities Roundup: Venecredit Fined $25K for Working with Foreign Finders, Ex-Merrill Lynch/LPL Financial Rep. Faces Fraud Charges, & BrokersXpress Broker is Suspended Over Private Placement-Related Misconduct

Published on: March 5, 2013 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Venecredit Fined $25K for Working with Foreign Finders to Generate Retail Investor Business

According to the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Venecredit Securities must pay a $25,000 fine for allegedly using foreign finders to get new retail investor business. The financial firm has now been censured for two years.

The SRO says that the foreign finders served as the primary contacts between Venecredit and the clients and had access to account information via the clearing firm’s platform. These finders worked for a foreign brokerage firm that shares directors and officers with Venecredit and its wholly owned entity. FINRA contends that not only did Venecredit fail to create and put into effect proper supervisory measures that would have allowed it to look at customer complaints about the employees at the foreign brokerage firm, but also it failed to keep electronic correspondence from both the foreign traders and the personal email accounts of its registered representatives.

Dismissal of Double Derivative Delaware Securities Lawsuits Over The Bank of America-Merrill Lynch Merger is Affirmed by the Second Circuit

Published on: December 22, 2012 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has affirmed the dismissal of Lambrecht v. O’Neal and Sollins v. O’Neal, two double derivative actions that were brought under Delaware law for Bank of America Corp. (BAC) and its subsidiary Merrill Lynch & Co. The cases were brought by Merrill shareholders contending wrongdoing. (Because Bank of America acquired Merrill, following the stock-for-stock swap, these shareholders are now BofA shareholders.)

The actions were an attempt to make Bank of America board of directors mandate that Merrill sue some of the subsidiary’s officials over allegedly reckless investments that were made. Finding that the actions were a result of unprecedented losses experienced by Merrill because it had invested aggressively in mortgage-baked securities (including collateralized debt obligations) before it was acquired by Bank of America, the district law court dismissed both actions for different but related reasons under Delaware law. In Sollins, the court said that the plaintiff’s predecessor-in-interest submitted the action without making presuit demand on the board yet did not demand futility. As for the Lambrecht action, while that lawsuit made three demands on the Bank of America board, it did not demonstrate that the bank had wrongfully denied the request that claims be made against ex-Merrill officials.

The Second Circuit, in its unpublished summary order, said that it sees no error in the rulings made by the district court. The appeals court noted that while Sollins suggested that Bank of America was “complicit” in Merrill’s alleged pre-merger wrongdoing involving the subprime market by letting the latter issue bonuses at 2007 levels, consenting to indemnify Merrill directors over pre-merger wrongdoing, approving the merger without figuring out Merrill’s growing losses, sealing the deal despite serious misgivings about the firm’s financial state, and not doing a good enough job of notifying investors about losses, his arguments are not properly placed. The district court was therefore correct in stating that the plaintiff cannot “boostrap” his claims against Merrill related to the subprime market onto the merger-related allegations against Bank of America to get around the demand request.

Securities Roundup: BP Settles for $525M SEC Lawsuit Over Deepwater Horizon Spill Disclosures, Ex-OIG Official Says He Was Fired for Exposing Misconduct, Ex-Merrill Lynch Advisor Accused of Defrauding Elderly Client, & Trader Pleads Guilty to $28M Fraud

Published on: November 22, 2012 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

BP Plc. has consented to settle for $525 million Securities and Exchange Commission allegations that it gave the agency and investors misleading information about the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill. If approved, this would be the third biggest penalty in SEC history.

According to the Commission, during the crisis the oil giant issued fraudulent statements about how much oil was flowing on a daily basis from the Deepwater Horizon rig into the Gulf of Mexico, including underestimating this rate by up to 5,000 oil barrels a day even though it allegedly had internal data noting that possible flow rates could be up to 146,000 barrels daily. Even after a government task force later determined that 52,700 to 62,200 oil barrels were flowing out a day, BP allegedly never modified the omissions or misrepresentations it made in SEC filings.

In other SEC news, David Weber, one of its ex-Office of Inspector General officials, is suing the agency and Chairman Mary Schapiro for allegedly getting back at him for disclosing misconduct that had been taking place at the Commission. Weber contends that SEC staff spoke about him to the media in a “malicious and defamatory” manner and leaked his personal information because he not only disclosed that ex-SEC Inspector General H. David Kotz had engaged in misconduct that placed several OIG investigations at peril, but also he revealed that there were cyber security breaches at the agency.

FINRA Arbitration Panel Tells Merrill Lynch to Pay $1.34M to Florida Couple Over Allegedly Misrepresenting Fannie Mae Preferred Shares’ Risks

Published on: October 17, 2012 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

A Financial Industry Regulatory Authority panel says that Merrill Lynch (MER) has to pay Michele and Robert Billings $1.34 million for allegedly misrepresenting the risks involved in preferred shares of Fannie Mae. The couple, who used to own a pest control business, placed $2.3 million in the shares in 2008 on the recommendation of their broker, Miles Pure.

The Billings claim that Pure told them them that their investment was “safe,” backed by the government, and came with an attractive yield, when, actually, contends the couple, at the time Fannie Mae’s exposure to the residential real estate market that was failing was causing Fannie Mae to lose billions of dollars. Even as the stock’s price went down, they say that Pure discouraged them from selling. They also claim that he didn’t let them know that the financial firm’s own research showed that Fannie Mae was becoming more beleaguered. Not long after, the Billings’ shares lost their value when Fannie Mae went into government conservatorship.

They filed their FINRA arbitration claim contending civil fraud, negligent supervision, and other alleged wrongdoing. The couple, who are now retired, sought $1 million from Merrill Lynch, in addition to other relief. The $1.34 million award includes punitive damages.

While a spokesman for Merrill says that the brokerage firm doesn’t agree with the panel’s ruling, the Billings’ securities attorney expressed approval of the outcome. Meantime, the FINRA panel has denied Pure’s request to have the disclosure about this arbitration taken out of public record. Although he was not involved in this case, per the securities industry, all securities brokers who are license must have their connection to any arbitration claim noted in their public records regardless of whether/not if he/she was party to it. (The panel, however, did remove the arbitration disclosure from the record of a brokerage manager who didn’t deal directly/daily with the Billings.)

Pure is now a Morgan Keegan broker. Morgan Keegan is a Raymond James Financial Inc. (RJF) unit. Merrill Lynch is a Bank of America (BAC) subsidiary.

This securities case is an example of some of the repercussions that are still happening for investors and brokers in the wake of the economic crisis. The Billings are just two of many investors that have sustained financial losses because a brokerage firm allegedly misrepresented the risks involved in an investment. Meantime, more arbitration claims over such losses are still pending.

Merrill Lynch ordered to pay couple $1.34 million over Fannie Mae Preferred Shares, Reuters/Chicago Tribune, October 16, 2012

Bank of America Merrill Lynch hit with $1.3 million arbitration order, Investment News, October 17, 2012

More Blog Posts:
Ex-Fannie Mae Executives Have to Defend Against SEC Lawsuit Over Their Alleged Involvement in Understating Mortgage Company’s Exposure Risk, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, August 25, 2012

Merrill Lynch Told to Pay $3.6M to Brazilian Heiress for Brother’s Alleged $389M in Unauthorized Trading, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, September 22, 2012

Freddie Mac and Fannie May Drop After They Delist Their Shares from New York Stock Exchange, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, June 25, 2010 Continue Reading ›

Merrill Lynch Told to Pay $3.6M to Brazilian Heiress for Brother’s Alleged $389M in Unauthorized Trading

Published on: September 22, 2012 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

A Financial Industry Regulatory Authority panel is ordering Merrill Lynch (MER), a Bank of America Corp. (BAC) unit, to pay $3.6 million to a Brazilian heiress who contends that she lost millions of dollars because of unauthorized trades that her brother made in her account. The securities arbitration case was submitted on behalf of Sophin Investments SA, which was established to manage Camelia Nasser de Kassin’s inheritance from a relative.

Sophin contended that Merrill allowed Camelia’s brother, Ezequiel Nasser, to make unauthorized trades worth $389 million using her accounts at two Merrill Lynch units. He allegedly invested in high risk securities, including naked puts in Lehman Brothers and Bear Stearns (BSC) that created a deficit of at least $8 million.

The plaintiff claimed inadequate supervision, civil fraud, unauthorized trading, and other alleged wrongdoings, and asked for compensatory damages of $21 million for the $9.5 million that had been placed in the accounts, $9.5 million as an investment return, and the rest for commissions that went to Merrill. The financial firm then submitted a counterclaim alleging that their contract together had been breached. It asked the FINRA panel for almost $2.5 million in damages for the deficit in Sophin’s retail account and close to $3 million for the swap account. Merrill also filed claims against Marc Bonnant, who is the lawyer who set up the accounts on Sophin’s behalf, as well as against Ezequiel.

The FINRA panel found both Sophin and Merrill liable. While it told Merrill to pay $6.1 million in compensatory damages to Sophin, the latter was told to pay the financial firm $2.5 million-hence the $3.6 million that Merrill was ultimately ordered to pay Sophin. Also, while the panel acknowledged that Bonnant paid less than adequate attention to his fiduciary duties to Sophin, it said that Merrill exhibited “lapses” in hits own supervising and record keeping.

The claims made against Ezequiel Nasser by Merrill were denied. The arbitration panel said Bonnant, who has been based in Europe, isn’t under its jurisdiction. (Merrill has accused him of authorizing the trades that it had made for Sophin and misrepresenting the client’s investment experience, financial state, and tolerance for risk.)

This case is just one aspect of the bigger dispute between Merrill Lynch and members of the Nasser banking family over alleged trading losses. For example, in 2008, the financial firm sued the Nassers for huge trading losses that result in a $99 million judgment. A New York appeals court upheld that ruling.

Unauthorized Trades
A broker or advisor has to get an investor’s permission to sell or buy securities for an investor. Otherwise, the trade is not authorized. When “trading authorization” is obtained to sell or buy in that client’s account, trades can be made without getting in touch with the client. However, this is a limited power of attorney.

Unfortunately, many investors suffer losses because of unauthorized trades.

Merrill Lynch must pay $3.6 million to Brazilian banking heiress, Merrill Lynch, Reuters, September 12, 2012

Merrill Lynch Ordered to Pay $3.6 Million to Brazilian Heiress, Wall Street Journal, September 12, 2012

Bonnant V. Merrill Lynch (PDF)

More Blog Posts:
Shepherd Smith Edwards and Kantas LLP Pursue Securities Fraud Cases Against Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner, & Smith, Purshe Kaplan Sterling Investments, and First Allied Securities, Inc., Stockbroker Fraud Blog, May 10, 2012

Merrill Lynch Agrees to Pay $40M Proposed Deferred Compensation Class Action Settlement to Ex-Brokers, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, August 27, 2012

Shepherd Smith Edwards and Kantas LLP Pursue Securities Fraud Cases Against Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner, & Smith, Purshe Kaplan Sterling Investments, and First Allied Securities, Inc., Stockbroker Fraud Blog, May 10, 2012 Continue Reading ›

Merrill Lynch Agrees to Pay $40M Proposed Deferred Compensation Class Action Settlement to Ex-Brokers

Published on: August 27, 2012 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Merrill Lynch (MER) has arrived at an “agreement in principle” to resolve the class action lawsuit filed by John Burnette and Scott Chambers over deferred compensation that they contend that the brokerage firm refused to pay them after it merged with Bank of America (BAC) in 2008 and they left its employ. About 1,400 brokers are part of this class. However, some 3,300 ex-Merrill brokers have submitted deferred compensation claims against the brokerage firm for the same reason.

Merrill had refused to give these employees their deferred compensation, which is what a broker usually gets paid for staying with a financial firm for a specific number of years, when they resigned after the merger. These brokers, however, cited “good reason” for their departure, which is another cause they can claim to receive this.

The class action settlement was presented to U.S. District Judge Alison Nathan at Manhattan federal court on Friday. She will decide whether to approve it, as well as certify the class according to the parties’ definition. However, it is not known at this time how many brokers will go for this settlement if it is approved.

It is not unusual for many to opt not to be part of a class action settlement and instead seek to obtain more money via an individual arbitration claim. Having an arbitration lawyer personally representing your case generally leads to bigger results. Already, over a thousand ex-Merrill brokers have filed their FINRA claims. Also, for an ex-Merrill broker whose deferred compensation was above six figures, they are likely to get much less by going the class action route. Meantime, ex-Merrill brokers with revenues that exceeded $500,000 during a certain timeframe before they left the financial firm cannot participate in a class action settlement. Neither can those that accepted bonuses and waived certain rights related to deferred compensation claims from Merrill after the deal with Bank of America.

That said, even the ex-Merrill brokers that decide to opt out of the class are likely to benefit from this settlement because it establishes a floor for payouts while serving as Merrill’s public acknowledgement that it had a financial duty to pay the former brokers upon their departure.

Under the class action settlement, the majority of advisers would get 40-60% of the value of their account. According to OnWallStreet.com, for a broker to receive 60%, advisors must have already made a request for reimbursement, whether via lawsuit, arbitration, or some other way and left the financial firm prior to January 30, 2010. To be eligible to receive 50%, these advisers too will have had to have made some type of legal action and resigned by June 30, 2010. If no action was taken, and the former broker still wants to opt in, they would turn in a form and seek 40% of compensation–dependent upon when they exited the firm. Other ex-advisors might also be able to receive 40 to 60% of payment depending on when they left Merrill, whether they had filed a deferred compensation claim, and in what compensation plans they were participants. Ex-dvisers that had an agreement with the Advisor Transition Program, however, would not be able to participate.)

Merrill to Make Good on Former Brokers’ Deferred Comp, On Wall Street, August 24, 2012
Merrill to pay $40 mln in deferred compensation suit, Reuters, August 25, 2012

More Blog Posts:
Merrill Lynch to Pay Brokers Over $10M for Alleged Fraud Over Deferred Compensation Plans, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, April 5, 2012

Advanced Equities Ordered by FINRA Arbitration Panel to Pay $4.5M to Ex-Broker, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, June 12, 2012

Claims Continue over MasterShare – Prudential Securities’ Deferred Compensation Plan, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, August 13, 2008 Continue Reading ›

2nd Circuit Affirms Dismissal of $18.5M Auction-Rate Securities Lawsuit Against Merrill Lynch Filed by Anschutz Corp.

Published on: August 23, 2012 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has affirmed a lower court’s ruling to dismiss the ARS lawsuit filed against Merrill Lynch (MER), Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner, and Smith Inc. ( MLPF&S), Moody’s Investor Services (MCO), and the McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. (MHP). Pursuant to state and federal law, plaintiff Anschutz Corp., which was left with $18.95 million of illiquid auction-rate securities when the market failed, had brought claims alleging market manipulation, negligent misrepresentation, and control person liability. The case is Anschutz Corp. v. Merrill Lynch & Co. Inc.

According to the court, Merrill Lynch underwrote a number of the Anchorage Finance ARS and Dutch Harbor ARS offerings in which Anschutz Corp. invested. To keep auction failures from happening, Merrill was also involved as a seller and buyer in the ARS auctions and had its own account. Placing these support bids in both ARS auctions allowed Merrill to make sure that they would clear regardless of the orders placed by others. The financial firm is said to have been aware that the ARS demand was not enough to “feed the auctions” unless it too made bids and that its clients did not know of the full extent of these practices.

Per its securities complaint, Anschutz contends that the description of Merrill’s ARS practices, which were published on the financial firm’s website beginning in 2006, were misleading, untrue, and “inadequate.” The plaintiff accused the credit rating agency defendants of giving the ARS offerings ratings that also were misleading and false and should have been lowered (at the latest) in early 2007 when Merrill knew or should have known that the ratings they did receive were unwarranted.

Securities Law Roundup: Merrill Lynch Pays Customers $32M For Allegedly Overcharging Them with Unwarranted Fees, Brookstone Securities is Accused of $1.6M in Fraudulent CMO Sales to Elderly Retirees, and Planner Loses CFP Designation Following After Maine

Published on: June 28, 2012 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority says that it is fining Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. $2.8M in the wake of certain alleged supervisory failures that the SRO says led to the financial firm billing clients unwarranted fees. The financial firm paid back the $32M in remediation to affected clients, in addition to interest.

According to FINRA, from 4/03 to 12/11, Merrill Lynch lacked a satisfactory supervisory system that could ensure that certain investment advisory program clients were billed per the terms of their disclosure documents and contract. As a result, close to 95,000 client account fees were charged.

Also, due to programming mistakes, Merrill Lynch allegedly did not give certain clients timely trade confirmations. These errors caused them to not get confirmations for over 10.6 million trades in more than 230,000 customer accounts from 7/06 to 11/10. Additionally, FINRA contends that Merrill Lynch failed to properly identify when it played the role of principal or agent on account statements and trade confirmations involving at least 7.5 million mutual fund buy transactions. By settling, Merrill Lynch is not denying nor admitting to the charges. It is, however, agreeing to the entry of FINRA’s findings.

Wirehouses Struggle to Retain Their Share of the High-Net-Worth-Market

Published on: April 6, 2012 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

With their share of the high-net-worth-market expected to drop down to 42% in 2014 from the 56% peak it reached five years ago, wirehouses are looking to regain their grip. According to Cerulli Associates, Bank of America Merrill Lynch (BAC), Wells Fargo (WFC), Morgan Stanley Smith Barney (MS), and UBS (UBS)—essentially, the largest financial firms—will see their portion of the high-net-worth market continue to get smaller. Meantime, because private client groups can now be called the largest high-net-worth services provider, they can expect their hold to continue as they likely accumulate about $2.8 trillion in high-net-worth assets in two years—a 49% market share.

The Cerulli report says that the wirehouses’ reduced share of the market can be attributed to a number of factors, including the fact that high-net-worth investors are allocating their wealth to several advisors at a time. Also, during the economic crisis of 2008, many investors transferred some assets out of the wirehouses. There were also the wirehouse advisers that chose to go independent or enter another channel. In many cases, these advisors’ clients ended up going with them.

The private client groups are the ones that have benefited from this shift away from wirehouses. A main reason for this is that they are considered safer for both advisors that wanted a change and investors who were seeking lower risks.

Also, per the report, there has been healthy growth in the independent advisor industry. The registered investment advisor/multi-family offices grew their assets under management by 18% two years ago. Meantime, during this same time period, wirehouses assets only grew by 2%.

In other wirehouse-related news, beginning summer, ERISA Section 408(b)(2) ‘s new point-of-sale fee disclosure rules will make it harder for these firms to up the fees they charge investors. According to AdvisorOne, as a result, these firms are raising the fees that they charge mutual fund companies instead.

Wirehouses and mutual fund companies usually have a revenue sharing agreement. In exchange for investing their clients’ money in a mutual fund, a wirehouse charges the mutual fund company a fee (this is usually a percentage of every dollar that the client invests). However, in the wake of the upcoming disclosure changes, financial firms have started raising that fee.

For example, according to The Wall Street Journal, at the start of the year, UBS approximately doubled the rate that mutual funds must now pay. The financial firm is seeking up to $15 for every new $10,000 that a clients invests in a mutual fund. Moving forward, this will go up to $20 annually. Morgan Stanley’s new raised rate is $16 a year. It used to charge $13 for stock funds and $10 for bond funds.

Wirehouses are saying that since its the brokerage firms and not the individual financial adviser who gets the separate payment streams, the rate won’t impact the judgment of an adviser when it comes to selecting funds. Such fees paid by mutual funds can impact a financial firm’s bottom line. For example, last year, almost a third of Edward Jones’s $481.8 million in profits came from mutual fund company fees.

Wirehouses Battle to Keep Market Share, On Wall Street, March 28, 2012

FINRA Bars Registered Representatives Accused of Securities Misconduct and Negligence, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, April 5, 2012

Merrill Lynch to Pay Brokers Over $10M for Alleged Fraud Over Deferred Compensation Plans

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

A Financial Industry Arbitration panel has ordered Merrill Lynch (BAC) to pay over $10 million to two brokers who claim the financial firm wrongly denied their deferred compensation plans to vest. Per the FINRA arbitration panel, senior management at Merrill purposely engaged in a scam that was “systematic and systemic” to prevent its former brokers, Tamara Smolchek and Meri Ramazio, from getting numerous benefits, including the ones that they were entitled to under the financial firm’s deferred-compensation programs, so that it wouldn’t be liable after the acquisition. The panel accused Merrill of taking part in “delay tactics” and “discovery abuses.”

Some 3,000 brokers left Merrill after Bank of America Corp. (BAC) acquired it in 2008. A lot of these former employees are now claiming that they were improperly denied compensation.

Smolchek and Ramazio alleged a number claims related to their deferred compensation plans’ disposition. Causes of action against Merrill included breach of duty of good faith and fair dealing, breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, constructive trust, conversion, defamation, unfair competition, tortious interference with advantageous business relations, violating FINRA Rule 2010, fraud, and negligence.

Broker employment contracts usually mandate that an employee stay with a financial firm for several years before they are entitled to vest the money they are earning in their tax-deferred accounts. However, several of Merrill’s deferred compensation programs allow brokers that have left the firm for “good reason” to have their money vest.

The FINRA panel expressed shock that after the departure of 3,000 Merrill advisers following the Bank of America acquisition, the firm did not approve a single claim for vesting that cited a “good reason” under the deferred compensation programs. Per Merrill’s own analysis, had it approved the vesting requests, the financial firm might have paid anywhere from the hundreds of millions to billions of dollars in possible liability.

Per the compensation ruling, Merrill has to pay Ramazio $875,000 and Smolchek $4.3 million in compensatory damages for unpaid deferred compensation, unpaid wages, lost wages, lost book, lost reputation, and value of business. The FINRA panel also awarded $1.5 million in punitive damages to Ramazo and $3.5 million to Smolchek.

The same day that the decision was issued, Merrill filed an appeal. The financial firm wants the ruling overturned, claiming that it never received a fair hearing and that panel chairwoman Bonnie Pearce was biased. Merrill contends that Pearce did not disclose that her husband is a plaintiff’s lawyer who sued the financial firm for customers and brokers in at least five lawsuits. Merrill is accusing Pearce of “overt hostility.”

Merrill Lynch Loses $10 Million Compensation Ruling, The Wall Street Journal, April 4, 2012

Merrill Lynch Savaged by FINRA Arbitrators in Historic Employee Dispute, Forbes, April 4, 2012

More Blog Posts:
Securities Claims Accusing Merrill Lynch of Concealing Its Auction-Rate Securities Practices Are Dismissed by Appeals Court, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, November 30, 2011

Merrill Lynch Faces $1M FINRA Fine Over Texas Ponzi Scam by Former Registered Representative, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, October 10, 2011

Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Ordered to Pay $1M FINRA Fine for Not Arbitrating Employee Disputes Over Retention Bonuses, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, January 26, 2012