Miscellaneous

Impartiality of SEC Report by Boston Consulting Group Questioned by Key House Republicans

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

Rep. Randy Neugebauer (R-Texas), who is the Financial Services Oversight Subcommittee chairman, and Rep. Spencer Bachus (R-Ala.), the House Financial Services Committee chairman, have sent a letter to US Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman Mary Schapiro asking her about Boston Consulting Group Inc.’s recent report on the recent report on SEC reform. Even though BCG is an independent consultant, the two GOP members are questioning the report’s impartiality.

In their letter, they asked Schapiro to disclose what (if any) editorial input the SEC provided on the content of the BCG report. They also want to see any earlier drafts that BCG may have sent the SEC Chairman. Neugebauer and Bachus said that given the regulatory failures from the 2008 economic collapse, it was important that BCG was allowed compete independence to do its job and that the report did not undergo any editorial deletions, review, or insertions by the SEC.

Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act’s Section 967 had directed the SEC to retain the services of an independent consultant to analyze the agency’s structure and operation, as well as suggest reforms. BCG issued its report on March 10. Among its recommendations: for the SEC:

• Hire staff with “high-priority” skills
• Invest in key technology systems,
• Improve oversight over SROs (self-regulatory organizations)
• If Congress determines that the SEC cannot fulfill expectations by further optimizing its resources, the lawmaking body should “relax” funding constraints

BCG has said that it stands by the report’s “integrity and independence.” Meantime, Schapiro has said that the report confirms her own worries that the SEC lacks the resources to do all that it is expected to accomplish.

Our institutional investment fraud lawyers have successfully represented clients throughout the US.

Related Web Resources:
Integrity of report on SEC questioned, Washington Post, March 18, 2011

Statement From Chairman Schapiro on Independent Consultant Report of SEC Organization and Operations, SEC, March 10, 2011

Read the BCG Report (PDF)

SEC Needs to Keep a Closer Eye on FINRA, Says Report, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, March 15, 2011

SEC Securities Settlements Often Don’t Come with Admission of Wrongdoing

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

As Bloomberg News columnist Ann Woolner points out, in most US Securities and Exchange Commission where a settlement is reached, the defendant usually ends up not having to admit to doing anything wrong. Instead, the securities fraud agreement is accompanied by the boilerplate caveat that says that by settling, the plaintiff is doing so without “without admitting or denying” wrongdoing.

Granted, there are certain cases where a conviction or guilty plea in a related criminal case makes it clear that a wrongful action did take place. One might also say that by agreeing to settle and pay a huge financial sum, the plaintiff is admitting to the wrongdoing without actually admitting to doing anything wrong. However, as Woolner points, not all defendants of US Securities and Exchange Commission cases are also charged in criminal court over the alleged securities fraud. Even when a settlement is reached, without an admission, the exact nature of the fraud is often left unclear.

SEC spokesperson John Nestor says that of the over 600 securities lawsuits filed every year, only about 20 of them ever go to trial. Nestor notes that the SEC’s primary objective in any civil case is to secure the proper sanctions against wrongdoers and not making them admit wrongdoing is a way to get this done. Many violators will give up a great deal to avoid being held liable in civil court. They also have little incentive to confess because this could help the securities fraud lawsuits of plaintiffs.

U.S. District Judge Jed Rakoff says that letting securities defendants get away with not admitting what they have done is a “disservice to the public.” Meantime, SEC commissioner also says that he wants defendants to “take accountability” and “issue mea culpas.” He also wants companies to stop putting out press releases suggesting that the SEC overreacted.

Related Web Resources:
Uncle Sam Wants Your Cash, Not Confession: Ann Woolner, Bloomberg, March 24, 2011

US Securities and Exchange Commission

More Blog Posts:
Bank of America to Pay $137M Over Alleged Investment Scam To Pay Municipalities Low Interest Rates on Investments and $9M Over Alleged Bid-Rigging Scheme to Nonprofits, Institutional Investors Securities Blog, December 16, 2010

NJ Settles Municipal Bond Offering Fraud Charges with SEC, Institutional Investors Securities Blog, September 30, 2010

Federal Judge to Approve Citigroup’s $75M Securities Settlement with SEC Over Bank’s Subprime Mortgage Debt Reporting to Investors, Institutional Investors Securities Blog, September 29, 2010

FINRA Wants Amerivet Securities Inc.’s Lawsuit Seeking to Inspect the SRO’s Records Dismissed

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

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority wants the District of Columbia Court of Appeals to reverse the D.C. Superior Court’s decision to not dismiss Amerivet Securities Inc.’s lawsuit against the SRO. The broker-dealer wants to inspect FINRA’s records and books.

Amerivet Securities filed its complaint in August 2009 under the Delaware General Corporation Law’s Section 220, which lets a shareholder examine a company’s records and books for “any proper purpose.” The broker-dealer says it needs to inspect FINRA’s books and documents in order to expose the corporate wrongdoing related to the SRO’s 2008 investment losses and and allegedly inflated executive pay practices.

When our securities fraud attorneys covered this case more than a year ago, we noted that Amerivet had accused FINRA of failing to supervise and regulate a number of its larger member firms, including Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch, Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities Inc., Bear Stearns and Co, and Stanford Financial Group. The broker-dealer also claimed that FINRA recklessly pursued high-risk investment strategies that were not appropriate for preserving capital. (Read our previous Stockbroker Fraud Blog post to find out more.) Last month, Judge John Mott ruled in favor of Amerivet and noted that pursuant to Section 220, the broker-dealer had asserted a proper purpose for wanting to make its inspection.

Reductions to SEC’s Budget Will Cause Staff Furloughs, Says Schapiro

Published on: March 24, 2011 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman Schapiro says reducing the agency’s budget to where it was at in 2008 would result in “significant’ staff furloughs. Other likely consequences would be the curtailment of crucial travel, including visits to registered entities, the cessation of technology infrastructure initiatives, and the curtailing of the SEC’s Dodd-Frank enforcement capabilities. House Republicans are the ones pushing for the budget reductions. Schapiro made her case earlier this month while testifying before the Senate Banking Committee’s Securities subcommittee. Our securities fraud law firm will continue to monitor the developments regarding this matter.

Schapiro says that the continuing resolution, which would find the agency at fiscal year 2010 levels, already makes it tough to close deals with top-rank industry experts she has recruited. She also says any steep cuts would impede the SEC’s ability to oversee broker-dealers, mutual funds, investment advisers, and other participants in the retail investing market in “anything but the most cursory way.” Schapiro also expressed concern that credit rating agencies would be able to evade serious examination if the SEC’s budget was tightened.

Sen. Michael Crapo (R-Idaho.), a ranking subcommittee member, noted that while underfunding the SEC can make it hard for the agency it to do its job “aggressively” and “effectively,” he believes that in the wake of the financial crisis, it is now more than ever necessary for all levels of government to perform with greater efficiency. Crapo is calling for an “agency-wide examination” of where the SEC’s resources are going and an assessment of whether they can be “better utilized.” For example, is there technology that can compensate for a reduced staff? What about sharing technology costs over Dodd-Frank oversight needs with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission?

Schapiro also said that the SEC has been effectively implementing a 60-day comment period for most Dodd-Frank rulemaking, rather than just 30 days, to allow time for thoughtful feedback. Current SEC rules are also being examined to determine whether any of them are no longer applicable.

Related Web Resources:
Cuts will stifle, SEC chief warns, The Boston Globe, March 11, 2011
Schapiro Says SEC Will Have to Furlough Staff If House Republican Cuts Are Enacted, BNA Securities Daily, March 11, 2011 Continue Reading ›

SEC Files Securities Charges Against DHB Industries and Three Ex-Board Members

Published on: March 15, 2011 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The Securities and Exchange Commission has filed and settled securities charges against DHB Industries Inc. without the US defense contractor receiving any penalty. The maker of bulletproof vests for US law enforcement and military agencies, now called Point Blank Solutions, has consented to not committing the alleged violations in the future. SEC charges, however, are still pending against ex-DHB Industries board members Gary Nadelman, Cary Chasin, and Jerome Krantz.

The SEC claims that between 2003 and 2005, the three men let senior managers overstate data in financial reports. The federal agency also contends that as a result of the ex-board members’ “willful blindness,” ex-DHB Industries CEO David Brooks was able to take $10 million from the company and move the funds into another company under his control. Brooks, who is also accused of using another $4.7 million for personal expenses, and ex-DHB Industries COO Sandra Hatfield, were convicted of securities fraud and other charges in criminal court last year.

The SEC wants restitution and civil fines from Krantz, Chasin, and Nadelman. According to the New York Times, it is surprising that the federal regulator has actually filed civil charges against the three men. Save for perhaps a tarnished reputation, corporate directors tend to remain unscathed in cases of securities fraud. For example, no financial firms’ outside directors were named as defendants in SEC cases related to the credit crisis.

While some are expressing hope that the SEC is charting a new course with this case, it is difficult to discern at this point whether this is a one-time deal or the start of a new trend. For a while, there were concerns that the independent director post, assigned specific duties under the Sarbanes-Oxley law in 2002, might be harder to fill because of fear of liability. However, the SEC has only filed cases against them in incidents of alleged severe recklessness. Also, in an attempt to bring in good directors, companies have been offering better pay.

Are board directors held to too low of a standard that allows them to get away with too much?

Related Web Resources:

SEC charges defense contractor, 3 ex-directors, Bloomberg, February 28, 2011

For Directors at DHB Securities, SEC Keeps the Bar Low, New York Times, March 3, 2011

More Blog Posts:
Former DHB Industries CEO and COO Found Guilty of Nearly $200M Securities Fraud Scam, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, September 16, 2010

SROs Immune from Broker-Dealer’s Lawsuit Over Bylaw Changes Related to Creation of FINRA, Says Appeals Court

Published on: March 7, 2011 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Recently, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit dismissed Standard Investment Chartered Inc.’s lawsuit against the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, New York Stock Exchange Group Inc., and NASD over alleged misstatements in a proxy to obtain member approval for bylaw changes that ultimately resulted in the creation of FINRA. In a per curiam decision, the court held that self-regulatory organizations and their officers are immune from lawsuits over bylaw amendments because these are “inextricable” from the SRO’s regulatory roles.

The plaintiff, broker-dealer and former NASD member Standard Investment Chartered Inc., claims that NASD and certain officials issued material misrepresentations in the proxy statement that solicited approval of bylaw amendments so that the merger between NASD and parts of NYSE Regulation Inc. that became FINRA would take place. The broker-dealer contends that the proxy statement misrepresented that $35,000 was the most that the Internal Revenue Service had authorized NASD to pay members over the union.

Last March, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed Standard Investment Chartered Inc.’s lawsuit, as well as a similar claim submitted by NASD member Benchmark Financial Services Inc. The court said that the union between the SROs was “entitled to absolute immunity” because it was part of their delegated regulatory functions. Standard Investment Chartered appealed the ruling.

Now, the Second Circuit has affirmed the district court’s ruling. The court also noted that NASD can’t change its bylaws without Securities and Exchange Commission approval.

Other defendants in the lawsuit include Securities and Exchange Commission chairman Mary Schapiro, who was NASD’s CEO when the regulatory body merged with NYSE, Pershing LLC Chairman Richard Brueckner, and FINRA senior vice president Howard Schloss.

Related Web Resources:
Appeals Court Upholds Lower Court Ruling on Finra Damage Suits, Bloomberg, February 23, 2011
Court Finds SROs Immune From Lawsuit Over Bylaw Changes to Effect FINRA Creation, BNA – Securities Law Daily, February 23, 2011
Continue Reading ›

Goldman Sachs Reports $3.4 Billion in “Reasonably Possible” Losses from Legal Claims

Published on: March 2, 2011 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

In its latest 10-K filing with the US Securities and Exchange Commission, Goldman Sachs Group Inc. says that its “reasonably possible” losses from legal claims may be as high as $3.4 billion. The investment bank’s admission comes after the SEC told corporate finance chiefs that the should disclose losses “when there is at least a reasonable possibility” they may be incurred regardless of whether the risk is so low that reserves are not required.

Goldman admits that it hasn’t put side a “significant” amount of funds against such possible losses and its estimate doesn’t factor in possible losses for cases that are in their beginning stages. The $3.4 billion figure comes from a calculation of three categories of possible liability. Also factored in were the number of securities sold in cases where purchasers of a deal underwritten by Goldman Sachs are now suing the financial firm and cases involving parties calling for Goldman Sachs to repurchase securities.

Between 2009 and 2010, the financial firm reported a 38% decline in net income from $13.4 billion to $8.35 billion. Trading revenue dropped while non-compensation expenses, which were affected by regulatory proceedings and litigation, went up 14%. It was just last year that the investment bank paid $550 million to settle SEC charges that it misled investors when selling a mortgage-linked investment in 2007. Goldman Sachs is still contending with state and federal securities complaints alleging improper disclosure related to mortgage-related products. As of the end of 2010, estimated plaintiffs’ aggregate cumulative losses in active cases against Goldman Sachs was at approximately $457 million.

Related Web Resources:
Goldman Sachs Puts ‘Possible’ Legal Losses at $3.4 Billion, Bloomberg Businessweek, March 1, 2011

Form 10-K, SEC

Goldman Sachs Settles SEC Subprime Mortgage-CDO Related Charges for $550 Million, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, July 30, 2010

China-Based Hackers Broke into Morgan Stanley Network, Reports Bloomberg

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

According to Bloomberg, Morgan’s Stanley‘s network experienced a cyber break-in. The culprits were hackers based in China that broke into Google Inc.’s computers over a year ago. The break-in is documented in e-mails stolen from HBGary Inc, a cyber-security company that works for the investment bank.

Known as the Operation Aurora attacks, the break-ins took place in June 2009 and lasted for about six months. More than 20 companies were hit.

The HBGary emails don’t detail what data might have been stolen from Morgan Stanley or which of its multinational operations were hit. The broker-dealer reportedly considers the details of the cyber attacks confidential. Hacker activist group Anonymous stole the emails.

Morgan Stanley hired HBGary last year because of suspected hacker-linked network breaches that resulted in break-ins into the financial firm’s Internet security system. These attacks were not related to Operation Aurora. Per HBGary emails, the hackers that made those breaches were able to implant software for stealing confidential files and communications.

According to FBI Deputy Assistant Director Steven Chabinsky, hackers have stepped up efforts to obtain information involving mergers and acquisitions. The China-based hacker attacks did not help the growing tensions between China and the United States. Calls were even made for Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to look at Google’s claims about the raids and make her findings available to the public.

Following the cyber attacks, Google stopped censoring search results from Google.cn, its Chinese search engine. Google started shuttering its site following lengthy negotiations with officials in China.

Related Web Resources:
Morgan Stanley Attacked by China-Based Hackers Who Hit Google, Bloomberg, February 28, 2011
Operation Aurora, Techie Buzz, January 15, 2010
HBGary

More Blog Posts:
Morgan Stanley Failed to Disclose Financial Adviser’s Felony Charge to FINRA, Claims Car Accident Victim’s Attorney, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, January 10, 2011
Wall Street Knew 28% of the Loans Behind Mortgage Backed Securities (MBS) Failed to Meet Basic Underwriting Standards, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, January 10, 2011 Continue Reading ›

The 2008 Financial Crisis was Avoidable, Says FCIC

Published on: February 7, 2011 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

According to the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, the 2008 financial crisis could have been avoided, but, instead it was caused by Wall Street’s thoughtless risk-taking, corporate mismanagement, and government regulation-related failures. The New York Times says that the FCIC blames the Federal Reserve, two administrations, and other regulators for allowing the excessive packaging and sale of loans, poor mortgage lending, and risky bets on securities backed by loans. The FCIC reached its conclusions after 19 days of interviews and hearings. Over 700 witnesses were involved. The findings can be found in a 576-page book and transcripts and raw material are to be placed online.

However, not all 10 commission members are endorsing the final report. The three Republican members have put together their dissent that concentrates on a narrower set of causes. A fourth Republican panel member, Peter J. Wallison, has his own reason for dissent. The six Democrat members have endorsed the report.

The majority report places some blame on former Fed chair Alan Greenspan and his successor Ben S. Bernanke. While Greenspan was in charge of the central bank when the housing bubble was expanding, Bernanke was instrumental in responding to the financial crisis when it happened. The report describes the Bush Administration’s response as “inconsistent,” such as when it let Lehman Brothers collapse even after bailing out Bear Stearns. The decision by the Clinton Administration to shield over-the-counter derivates from regulation in 2000 is considered a “key turning point” leading to the economic collapse.

Also receiving some of the blame is current Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner, who once served as Federal Reserve Bank of New York head. The report says that the New York Fed failed to detect signs that there were problems at Lehman and Citigroup. Regulators were blamed for not having the “political will” to scrutinize and hold responsible the institutions they were tasked with overseeing. Meantime, the FCIC says that the Securities and Exchange Commission failed to stop risky practices and make banks hold greater capital so that there would be a cushion for possible losses. It also accuses the Office of Thrift Supervision and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency of stopping states from curtailing abuses.

Related Web Resources:
Financial Crisis Was Avoidable, Inquiry Finds, The New York Times, January 25, 2011

The FCIC Report

FCIC Report Misses Central Issue: Why Was There Demand for Bad Mortgage Loans?, Huffington Post, January 31, 2011

SEC Staff Wants an SRO to Oversee Investment Advisers

Published on: January 31, 2011 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Earlier this month, the members of the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Division of Investment Management recommended that Congress either set up at least one self-regulatory organization that oversees investment advisers, impose “user fees” to fund examinations by the Office of Compliance Inspections and Examinations, or make investment adviser oversight the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority’s responsibility. Under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act’s Section 914, the SEC is supposed to assess itself and make recommendations for improvement.

Per the SEC’s report, there is at this time inadequate resources for examining the over 11,000 registered investment advisers-a number that will likely go down by 3,350 in July when Dodd Frank’s Section 410 goes into effect and advisers with assets under management valued at $100 million or less will have to register with the state where their main place of business is located. That said, the growth in the industry is such that by fiscal year 2021 there may be up to 13,908 registered advisors with a collective worth greater than $70 trillion.

However, while industry groups will likely endorse a more influential FINRA or a new SRO, investment advisers believe that self-regulation’s rules-based nature is not compatible with their business model and government oversight and regulation would be better for them. FINRA believes that an SRO will be able to “augment” government oversight. In the past, FINRA has expressed willingness to take on this role.