Articles Posted in Miscellaneous

FINRA May Surrender Proprietary BrokerCheck Lock

Published on: February 29, 2012 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority Inc. is thinking of giving up its proprietary lock on BrokerCheck information. This would allow for greater examination of a broker’s disciplinary data, including regulatory and arbitration actions, as well as customer complaints. The SRO is currently seeking public comment on this matter through April 6.

Opening up access to BrokerCheck data would allow commercial users to make the reports, known for being pretty dense, friendlier for users. (Some people have said that the information available is “convoluted” and uses language that can be hard for an investor to comprehend.) This could help investors more easily find information about a broker. Also, vendors might be able to establish comparison data and some complaint data on the firm-level could become accessible.

Up until this point, FINRA has been protective about keeping its disciplinary information confidential. Not only has it prevented the automatic downloading of the BrokerCheck database, but also, this information has only been available through one-off data requests by individuals.

Critics of FINRA’s closed door policy have said these limitations protect the financial industry by keeping embarrassing information about firms and brokers private. While this has allowed financial advisers with numerous complaints against them to keep such secrets quiet, invaluable information, such as whether one broker has received more complaints than another, ends up not becoming known. The SRO, however, maintains that it hasn’t been shielding the industry with its BrokerCheck restrictions.

One reason that FINRA is considering making its BrokerCheck data more easily accessible is because it has been under pressure to merge the database’s search results with the Investment Adviser Public Disclosure database. IAPD data is pubic information and can be downloaded automatically. (Last year, FINRA considered putting the two systems together into one database to be made public but now says it is more practical to keep them separate.)

It wasn’t until recently that FINRA was the only regulator to have an online tool that let investors look into the backgrounds of members of the financial services industry. It was in 2010 that the Securities and Exchange Commission widened the IAPD database to include not just investment advisor firm information, but also data about IA representatives.

Last year, as mandated by Dodd-Frank’s Section 919B, the Commission put out a study and recommendations on how to better investor access to information related to broker-dealer and investment adviser registration. AdvisorOne reports that to improve how investors can better access this type of data, the SEC is recommending that search findings for it and the IAPD databases be unified, zip code and other location indicator-related searches be implemented, and educational content to help investors navigate any unfamiliar term definitions or links be included. Dodd-Frank wants these recommendations implemented soon, and FINRA plans to have this completed by the July deadline.

FINRA to Restructure BrokerCheck, Giving Investors More Power, AdvisorOne, March 2, 2012

Finra may give up lock on BrokerCheck, InvestmentNews, March 1, 2012

More Blog Posts:
Appeals Court affirm SEC Finding that Broker Acted “Willfully” When Keeping IRS Lien Information from FINRA, February 24, 2012

FINRA Says Charles Schwab Corp. is Making Customers Waive Right to Pursue Class Action Lawsuits, February 8, 2012

Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Ordered to Pay $1M FINRA Fine for Not Arbitrating Employee Disputes Over Retention Bonuses, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, January 6, 2012 Continue Reading ›

Pressure from Regulators and Investors Prompts Carlyle Group to Drop Arbitration Clause from its IPO Filing

Published on: February 9, 2012 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Carlyle Group will no longer be including a controversial arbitration clause initial public offering filing. The private equity giant had filed its IPO documents last year but has since been pressed by regulators and investors to drop the clause, which would have prevented company shareholders from submitting class action lawsuits and instead require that they go through a confidential arbitration process.

There had been concern from the Securities and Exchange Commission, lawmakers, and investors that the clause would prevent shareholders from bringing claims against the Carlyle Group in the event of wrongdoing. Earlier this month, the private equity group’s spokesperson Christopher W. Ullman said that after talking with the SEC and its investors, the Carlyle Group was withdrawing the proposed provision. Ullman was also quick to clarify that the original intent of the clause was to make the process for potential claims more cost-effective for everyone involved.

However, there is also the possibility that if the company had chosen not to withdraw the arbitration clause, the SEC may not have allowed the IPO to go forward. Senators Robert Menendez (D-NJ), Al Franken (D-Minn.), and Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) had even recently written to SEC chairwoman Mary L. Schapiro asking the SEC to block the IPO offering if the clause, which they believed would take away investors’ rights, wasn’t removed.

In their letter, the senators reminded the SEC that private securities litigation remains an “indispensable tool” that allows defrauded investors to get back their losses without needing to depend on the government. They cited the Exchange Act’s Section 10(b), which establishes an investor’s private right of action to file a lawsuit against an insurer for deceitful/fraudulent statements and actions allegedly committed when selling securities. The senators also said that making individuals only be able to go through the confidential arbitration process for shareholder claims would limit their ability to enforce their rights under the Exchange Act’s Section (10b), which would then violate the Act’s Section 29(a)’s statutory language.

The Senators wrote about how they believed that private arbitration significantly limits or doesn’t allow for pretrial discovery, which can then make complex securities claims impossible to prove. They also said that the private arbitration system generally favors the companies that retained their services as opposed to the individual shareholder with a claim. (Ullman said the Carlyle Group decided to take the arbitration clause out even before the senators had sent their letter to Schapiro.)

The Carlyle Group is shooting for its IPO to happen during the first half of the year. Last year, the firm revealed that about 36% of its assets are in private equity funds. Approximately 21% are in the areas of energy and real estate, while approximately 29% are in funds of funds. Carlyle Group has over 1,400 hundred investors in more than 73 nations. Its executives have gotten up to 60% of their compensation based on how the funds they focus on perform—the remaining amount is based on the performance of the firm. The filing says that once Carlyle becomes a public company, it executives will obtain about 45% of their compensation from their own funds’ returns, which is more in line with the industry average.

Our institutional investment fraud attorneys represent clients throughout the US. We also have clients abroad with securities fraud claims and lawsuits against financial firms in the US.

Carlyle Drops Arbitration Clause From I.P.O. Plans, New York Times, February 3, 2012

Carlyle Drops Forced Arbitration Clause In IPO, The Wall Street Journal, February 3, 2012

Private equity giant Carlyle files for IPO, Reuters, September 6, 2011

More Blog Posts:
Senate Passes Bill Banning Congressional Insider Trading, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, February 8, 2012

With Confirmation of Richard Cordray as Its Director, The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Can Finally Get to Work, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, January 4, 2012

SEC and SIPC Go to Court to Over Whether SIPA Protects Stanford Ponzi Fraud Investors, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, February 6, 2012

With Confirmation of Richard Cordray as Its Director, The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Can Finally Get to Work

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

US President Barack Obama overrode a Republican blockade in the Senate today when he appointed Richard Cordray as director of The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. The new agency, which was designated the key regulator and protector of the average citizen over the Wall Street wealthy when financial regulations were overhauled 18 months ago, has, until now, been crippled by its lack of leadership.

Consumer advocates are applauding Mr. Obama’s appointment. Senate Republicans, however, expressed anger at the President’s move, which they are calling an unprecedented end run that has let him circumnavigate the confirmation process. House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) expressed concern that Obama’s “cavalier action” could damage the Constitution’s established system of checks and balances.

However, (the Los Angeles Times reports that) not only will this appointment likely be challenged in court, but also, it could raise doubts about how much influence it will really have as a government watchdog for consumers in the financial marketplace—especially if Cordray’s appointment is later found to be unconstitutional.

In the meantime, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau can now really get to work. Among its numerous powers are the ability to act against financial firms that sell products or take part in practices that are considered deceptive, unfair, or abusive (involving instruments such as prepaid charge cards and private education loans) and the ability to create new regulations for credit cards, mortgages, and other banking products.

Obama nominated Cordray, who was formerly Ohio attorney general and had taken aggressive action when investigating the mortgage and banking industries, in July. While 53 senators voted to confirm him, Cordray was 60 votes short of what he needed to beat a Republican filibuster.

The US Constitution gives our nation’s president the authority to fill temporary vacancies when the Senate isn’t in session. This power has allowed past presidents to use temporary appointments to overcome Senate opposition to nominees. However, with recess appointments, unless they are later confirmed, appointees can only serve for two years.

Following his appointment today, Cordray vowed to make supervising nonbank financial institutions a primary priority. Until now, these companies have had little oversight. In a blog post published on the bureau’s Web site, Cordray spoke about the CFPB now being able to help the banking and nonbanking markets run “fairly, transparently, and competitively.” He also spoke about how the lack of “regular federal oversight” leading up to the financial crisis resulted in community banks, credit unions, and other businesses ignoring responsibility even as consumers were harmed.

Shepherd Smith Edwards and Kantas, LTD LLP is a stockbroker fraud law firm that represents victims of securities fraud.

Appointment Clears the Way for Consumer Agency to Act, NY Times, January 4, 2011

Richard Cordray appointment ‘turns lights on’ at consumer bureau, Los Angeles Times, January 4, 2011

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau

More Blog Posts:
Former US Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson Told Hedge Funds About Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Bailouts in Advance, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, November 30, 2011

Bonds Defeat Stocks For the First Time Since Prior to the Civil War, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, November 26, 2011

Long Island Rail Road Disability Fraud Leads to 11 People Charged, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, October 29, 2011

Former US Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson Told Hedge Funds About Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Bailouts in Advance

Published on: November 30, 2011 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

According to Bloomberg.com, former US Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson told a number of Wall Street executives in advance that the government was planning on Taking Control of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. This information, reportedly delivered to them at the Eton Park Capital Management LP offices on July 21, 2008 when Paulson was still in office, came just one day after he told the New York Times that the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and the Federal Reserve were inspecting both mortgage giants’ books and that he expected that this would give the markets a sign of confidence.

There were about a dozen people present at the Eton Park gathering, including the hedge fund’s founder Eric Mindich, at least five former Goldman Sachs Group Inc. alumni, Lone Pine Capital LLC founder Stephen Mandel, Och-Ziff Capital Management Group LLC’s Daniel Och, TPG-Axon Capital Management LP’s Dinakar Singh, Kynikos Associates Ltd.’s James Chanos, GSO Capital Partners LP co-founder Bennett Goodman, Evercore Partners Inc.’s Roger Altman, and Quadrangle Group LLC co-founder Steven Rattner.

Paulson reportedly spoke about placing Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae into “conservatorship,” which would then allow the firms to stay in business. He said that the two government-sponsored enterprises’ stock, as well as numerous classes of preferred stock, would be eliminated. One fund manager who was there that day said he was surprised at Paulson’s wiliness to reveal such details.

Paulson did not do anything illegal when he gave out this insider information. However, any of the executives who were there today could have traded on this inside information. Whether anyone did is a mystery, seeing as firm-specific short stock sales cannot be tracked with public documents.

The US government seized Frannie and Freddie a couple of weeks after the Eton Park gathering and control of the firms was handed over to the Federal Housing Finance Agency.

At the time, Paulson said that the failure of Freddie and Fannie was not an option—considering that over $5 trillion in mortgage-backed securities and debt that the two of them had issued belonged to central banks and other investors throughout the world.

Last year, the Los Angeles Times reported that taxpayer loss from the government takeover could go as high as almost $400 billion. The FHFA said it was looking to offset some of this by getting billions of dollars back from banks that sold Fannie and Freddie bad loans. By September of 2010—two years after the seizure—the cost of the bailouts had already hit $148.2 million and concerns arose when the Obama Administration announced that it was raising the $400 billion cap on the government’s commitment to the two mortgage giants through 2012.

Our securities fraud lawyers represent clients though sustained severe losses when the housing market collapsed. Unfortunately, broker misconduct contributed to a number of these losses.

How Paulson Gave Hedge Funds Advance Word of Fannie Mae Rescue, Bloomberg.com, November 29, 2011

Losses from Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac seizures may near $400 billion, Los Angeles Times, September 16, 2011

U.S. Seizes Mortgage Giants, Wall Street Journal, September 8, 2008

Related Web Resources:
MF Global Shortfall May Be More than $1.2B, Says Trustee, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, November 26, 2011

Bonds Defeat Stocks For the First Time Since Prior to the Civil War, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, November 26, 2011

Wells Investment Securities Agrees to $300,000 Fine by FINRA for Alleged Use of Misleading Marketing Materials for REIT Offerings, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, November 23, 2011

Bonds Defeat Stocks For the First Time Since Prior to the Civil War

Published on: November 26, 2011 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

According to Bloomberg.com, the largest gains in bonds in nearly 10 years have overtaken returns on stocks over the last 3 decades. This is the first time that this has occurred since before the American Civil War. Bonds reportedly have become assets to buy because the US inflation rate had a 1.5% average this year and the Federal Reserve made the decision to keep target interest rates for overnight loans between banks at close to 0 through 2013.

Bianco Research reports that long-term government bonds have added 11% annually on average over the last thirty years—defeating the S & P 500’s 10.8% rise. Prior to this last 30-year period, stocks had been outperforming bonds over every 3-decade period since 1861.

More 2011 facts as reported by Bloomberg:

Ex-AIG CEO Sues Government For $25B Over 2008 Takeover of Insurance Giant

Published on: November 21, 2011 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Maurice R. “Hank” Greenberg, the former CEO of American International Group Inc., is suing the federal government for taking over the insurance giant in 2008. Greenberg is seeking $25 billion.

Greenberg’s Star International, which was AIG’s largest stakeholder when the government rescue took place, filed his lawsuit in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. He contends that the government bailout and takeover of AIG was unconstitutional. The amount of damages he is seeking was arrived at from the value of the 80% AIG stake that the government got for its $182 billion bailout.

The money let AIG pay off Goldman Sachs and other counterparties, as well as compensate its executives with $182 million in bonuses. The public, however, was outraged when AIG executives were still awarded excessive compensation packages—especially considering that AIG lost $61.7 during the fourth quarter of 2008 alone. The insurer had to sell off some assets to repay the government, and Greenberg’s stake in the company suffered as a result.

Now, he is claiming that the federal government used AIG to get money to the insurance company’s trading partners. He contends that by obtaining an almost 80% stake in the insurer for bailing it out, the government took valuable property from AIG shareholders and that this violates the Fifth Amendment, which prevents the taking of private property for public use without appropriate compensation.

Greenberg’s opposition to the government bailout comes as no surprise. Earlier this year, he wrote in the Wall Street Journal that the government overstepped when it took preferred stock with the option to change these into common stock. Such transactions were performed without the approval of shareholders, which he believes violates Delaware law. AIG was incorporated there.

Last year, the Treasury Department upped its stake in AIG to 92.1% when it turned preferred shares into common shares. However, it sold some of its shares to investors in May so its ownership percentage in AIG is now at 77%. It is still trying to recover over $41 billion from the sale of the rest of its stake.

AIG Bailout
The government seized control of AIG not long after it became clear that Lehman Brothers Inc. was going to have to shut down. Per the terms of the agreement, the Fed said it would lend AIG $85 billion, and the government was given the substantial equity stake. The takeover came on the heels of the government also seized Freddie Mac and Freddie Mae as they stood on the brink of collapse. Merrill Lynch & Co, which was also in trouble, agreed to let Bank of America Corp. buy it.

U.S. to Take Over AIG in $85 Billion Bailout; Central Banks Inject Cash as Credit Dries Up, The Wall Street Journal, September 16, 2008

Long Island Rail Road Disability Fraud Leads to 11 People Charged

Published on: October 29, 2011 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

This week, at least 11 people were charged over a fraud scam that allowed hundreds of Long Island Rail Road workers to falsely claim that they had disabling injuries in order to collect annual pensions. The scam could cost a federal pension agency over $1 billion. Among the defendants are seven ex- railroad workers (including an ex-federal railroad pension agency employee and a former union president) two doctors, and an office manager.

According to prosecutors, employees that took part in the Long Island Rail Road disability fraud claimed they were disabled when in fact they were still able to play golf, ride a bike, or engage in aerobics. The doctors reportedly filed the false claims so they could receive an extra benefit from the Railroad Retirement Board. Per the criminal complaint, Dr. Peter Ajemian recommended that at least 734 employees of LIRR be approved for disability. Dr. Peter Lesniewski recommended that 222 LIRR workers receive disability benefits. A third doctor is believed to have also been involved in the scam but he recently passed away. The doctors allegedly created false illness narratives and medical assessments for hundreds of retirees, receiving $800 – $1200 for each one, in addition to fees for false medical records to support the claims of disability. They also were paid millions in health insurance payments for treatments that were not actually needed.

Approximately $121 million was paid out to LIRR workers, whose disabilities were exaggerated or made up. For example, according to the New York Times, 62-year-old defendant Gregory Noone gets $105,000 in disability and pension payments annually and supposedly is in a lot of pain when he crouches, bends, or grips objects. Yet he manages to play golf and tennis frequently. 55-year-old Steven Gagliano, whose yearly payments are $75,000, took part in a 400-mile bike tour even though he claims to experience back pain that is so severe it is disabling.

The federal government started investigating the scam after the New York Times published a number of articles about LIRR employees abusing federal Railroad Retirement Board pensions in 2008. Per the newspaper, almost all of the railroad company’s career employees were seeking and getting disability payments-that’s three to four times the disability rate of the average railroad company. Also, said the Times, the federal Railroad Retirement Board appears to have been poorly run, with inadequate tests to determine whether disability claims is legitimate. Some railroad officials had even complained that disability benefits were frequently awarded for medical conditions even if a worker’s ability to work hadn’t been impaired. Few claims were turned down.

11 Charged in L.I.R.R. Disability Fraud Plot, NY Times, October 27, 2011
Local Docs Charged in $1B LIRR Disability Scam, Rockville Center, October 27, 2011
US Railroad Retirement Board

More Blog Posts:
“Investor’s Guide to Loss Recovery” Offers Key Information on How to Use Conflict Resolution to Get Your Assets Back, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, September 7, 2011
SEC’s Proxy Access Rule is Rejected by Appeals Court, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, August 5, 2011
No Need for New SRO Overseeing Investment Advisers, Says NASAA Official to Congress, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, April 10, 2011 Continue Reading ›

European Leaders Work to Get a Grip on Debt Crisis

Published on: October 19, 2011 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Leaders from all over Europe will meet this Sunday with the intention of coming up with a plan to overcome the sovereign debt crisis. 17 nations, who all share the euro currency, are trying to reach a deal to strengthen its EFSF (European Financial Stability Facility) fund (which has already assisted in bailing out Ireland and Portugal), present a strategy to bolster European banks, and agree on a new aid package for Greece, which is in financial trouble.

This is not the first time euro zone leaders have gathered in the last year and a half to try to solve the debt problem. During their last effort in July, they reached a deal to give Greece about 110 billion euros and aid while the nation’s private creditors were to sustain an approximately 20% loss on their bond holdings. That deal, however, has since fallen apart, which is why there is a summit in Brussels this Sunday. Meantime, in an attempt to make the Sunday gathering a success, Euro-area leaders are meeting in Frankfurt meeting now to try to resolve certain disagreements in advance.

According to the Washington Post, the specter of the Lehman Brothers bankruptcy has been hanging over European leaders, who are committed to not making the same mistakes made by the Federal Reserve and the Bush Administration that led to the US’s economic crisis in 2008. Although that was a domestic emergency here, the ripples were felt globally and the Europeans don’t want that to happen again this time around. Per the Post, when European Central Bank President Jean-Claude Trichet warned US officials against letting Lehman file for bankruptcy, he’d cautioned that doing so would be “something…exceptionally grave.”

Reverberations soon followed. For example, after one market mutual fund’s shares dropped to under $1 because it had invested heavily in short-term loans to Lehman, others then pulled their investments out of money market funds. Because no one knew what other banks might be at risk of failing, lending between them stopped. Global markets then went into upheaval.

US leaders have learned much from the 2008 economic crisis. The Washington Post says that now it is the Obama Administration’s that is pressing Europe to take aggressive action to solve its debt crisis. If Greece fails, Portugal, Ireland, Spain, and France may follow. Who knows what would happen next.

Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas LTD LLP founder and Stockbroker Fraud Attorney William Shepherd offers this analysis:

After the financial crash of 1929, U.S. legislation was passed, including securities laws and regulations and the Glass Steagall Act (banks, brokerage and insurance companies were separated). Barriers were enforced to prevent unfair trade acts and policies. For the next seven decades the U.S. economy boomed and our financial system became the envy of the world.

Those changes made in the 1930’s were implemented despite cries that such legislation, regulation and protection for our economy would doom capitalism. Generation after generation of so-called “free-traders” and “free marketers” continued their drones to return to yesteryear – an era in which globalists could do as they pleased in their race to the bottom for the sake of profit for the few at the expense of the rest of us.

By the 1990’s, billions financed a lopsided body of “thought” that a return to the 1920’s would cure world problems and lead us into a new and better future. Wise folks screamed that a return to “deregulation” of the financial system and instantly forcing Western World workers into competition with near-slave labor in third-world nations would lead to dire consequences. But true wisdom was overwhelmed by the bought-and-paid-for-voices that occupied major political parties.

Reversal to the 1920’s … fait accompli. The result was both predictable and predicted. Welcome back the 1930’s … except, where is an “FDR” who can reverse the insanity of the last decade?

Ghost of Lehman Brothers haunts European politicians and bankers, Washington Post, October 18, 2011

Europe’s leaders take another swing at debt crisis, Reuters, October 19, 2011

More Blog Posts:
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, 2010

Claims for Losses at Lehman Brothers and in Investments into Lehman Brothers Financial Instruments Gain New Life as Court Uncovers Stunning New Evidence, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, March 21, 2010

SIFMA Offers Up Best Practices for How Financial Firms Can Interact with Expert Networks

Published on: October 16, 2011 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association is recommending a number of best practices for financial firms that work with Expert Networks and their Consultants.
According to SIFMA, expert networks are entities that receive a fee to refer industry professionals, known as consultants, to third parties. Although the acknowledges how helpful these networks can be in helping broker-dealers implement and design investment strategies while offering advice, information, market expertise, analysis, or other expertise in making investment decisions, SIFMA General Counsel Ira Hammerman said in a release that these best practices should help with compliance while helping avoid what could like “impropriety.” The government has recently targeted them when investigating insider trading.

Among the recommendations:
1) Establishing policies and procedures for how to use Expert Networks and Consultants. SIFMA is recommending a risk-based approach for figuring out what controls should be put in place.

2) Providing training for associated persons that deal with Expert Networks and Consultants on matters such as insider training, information barriers, confidential information, conflicts of interest, or material, non-public information (MNPI).

3) Ensuring that supervisory oversight is integrated into a financial firm’s use of Expert Networks and associated consultants.

4) Setting up policies and procedure that mandate that financial firms act quickly on “red flags” that may indicate there is a possibility of disclosure of confidential information of conflicts of interest or MNPI.

5) Establishing written agreements with Expert Networks over arrangements that are substantial or repeating in nature, such as those involving making sure that Consultants are checked for securities law violations, preventing Consultants from revealing MNPI or Confidential Information, requiring that Consultants undergo periodic training or communication about certain restrictions, and requiring that Consultants are periodically certified as to the adherence of these limits.

6) Setting up procedures on how to advice Expert Networks-affiliated Consultants about Confidential Information and MNPI.

7) Establishing procedures for getting non-confidential, relevant information from an Expert Network or one of its Consultants about employment and arrangements where a Consultant may have access to Confidential Information or MNPI, as well as setting up appropriate controls for assessing risks of dealing with Consultants that work with Expert Networks that have Confidential Information or MNPI.

In providing these best practices, however, SIFMA wants to make clear that these are only intended as guidance and are not mandates for how financial firms must work with Expert Networks and Consultants.

If you are an investor that has suffered losses you believe were caused by broker misconduct, you should talk to a securities fraud attorney right away.

SEC Chairman Criticized For Allowing Ex-Commission Official that Benefited from the Bernard Madoff Ponzi Scam to Help Craft Policy Regarding Victims’ Compensation

Published on: September 23, 2011 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman Mary Schapiro has been taking some heat because the agency allowed David Becker, a former SEC general counsel, to help develop policy regarding compensation for the victims of the Bernard Madoff Ponzi scam should be compensated even though Becker was someone who benefited from the scheme. SEC Inspector General H. David Kotz has asked the Justice Department to look into whether Becker violated any laws as a result and whether criminal charges should be filed.

At a House hearing this week, Becker testified that SEC ethics officials told him that there was no conflict of interest preventing him from taking on this task. Attendees at the hearing criticized Schapiro for letting Becker participate in establishing compensation policy even though he had inherited his own Madoff account. Schapiro has already admitted that she was wrong in allowing him to stay involved.

Some lawmakers believe that Becker’s participation in this type of policy planning is just one more incident that has caused the public to lose faith in the SEC, which didn’t even realize for almost 20 years that Madoff had been running a multibillion-dollar scam. They are now raising questions about leadership within the agency, the ability of SEC senior management to make decisions, and possible flaws in the Commissions procedures and policies as they apply to ethical matters.

On Tuesday, Kotz issued a report stating that Becker took part “personally and substantially” in matters in which he had a financial interest. Also per his report, Kotz said that the ex-General Counsel had recommended to commissioners that they put into place a policy that would value Madoff clients’ claims in a manner that would have restricted the court-appointed trustee’s power to sue Ponzi scheme beneficiaries to get back fictitious profits. Becker is one of those beneficiaries.

Earlier this year, the trustee, Irving Pickard, filed a lawsuit against Becker and his siblings contending that about $1.5 million of the money in their mom’s account was a bogus profit that should go tot the fund designated to pay back victims of Madoff’s Ponzi scam. Becker, who maintains that he never considered there to be a conflict of interest (he says that on two occasions, the ethics committee even advised him that this was correct) said that if he knew then that the trustee would sue him later he would have recused himself from working on the compensation policy.

According to Reuters, while some lawmakers don’t believe that Becker broke any laws, many are wondering why he didn’t decide on his own to not get involved in Madoff-related SEC matters.

Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC’s multibillion-dollar Ponzi Scam, which cost investors billions, wasn’t discovered until the end of 2008. Madoff has been sentenced to 150 years behind bars.

Some lawmakers doubt ex-SEC lawyer broke the law, Reuters, September 22, 2011

More Blog Posts:

Texas Congressmen Seek Answers from SEC Chairwoman Regarding Conflict of Interest Related to Madoff Debacle, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, March 8, 2011

Madoff Investors Who Were Victims of “Ponzi” Scam Contact Securities Fraud Law Firm Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas LTD LLP to Explore Recovery Options, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, December 17, 2008