Articles Posted in Morgan Stanley

Morgan Stanley Must Pay CFTC $200K for Supervisory Violations, Sued for Bias by Detroit Owners Over New Century Loans

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

The CFTC is ordering Morgan Stanley Smith Barney LLC (MS) to pay a civil monetary penalty of $200,000 for alleged supervisory failures related to customer account handling by employees, which is a violation of CFTC regulation 166.3. Its Order maintains that Morgan Stanley did not have adequate supervisory and internal controls in place that would have allowed it to successfully discourage and detect CFTC and CEA regulation violations.

Per the CFTC, the financial firm had a customer that acted as a futures commission merchant even though it wasn’t registered as one. (This is a Commodity Exchange Act violation.) The agency contends that by failing to look into suspect transactions that indicated this client was engaging in unlawful behavior, Morgan Stanley was committing a CFTC regulation 166.3 violation.

The CFTC says that even after Morgan Stanley discovered in January 2010that the client had been improperly carrying its proprietary futures trading account since 2006, it let the customer keep on in the role as a futures commission merchant through May 2010.

In other Morgan Stanley related news, five Detroit, Michigan homeowners are suing the financial firm for what they are claiming is racial bias over the way the firm finances and funds mortgage loans. They believe that this statistically increased African Americans’ exposure to foreclosure. The case, which is being presented as a class action lawsuit, could involve up to 6,000 plaintiffs.

The lead plaintiffs are alleging Michigan civil rights statute and federal anti-bias law violations in Morgan Stanley’s securitizing of mortgage loans that it was aware would expose borrowers to a higher foreclosure risk. Per their lawsuit, the investment bank’s sale and packaging of New Century loans to investors was closely linked to how it funded and financed New Century even before the loans were made.

Between 2004 and 2007, Morgan Stanley gave New Century billions of dollars in credit lines and issued procedures and policies that resulted in loans with high debt-to-income ratios, teaser rates that were low, hardly, if any, income verification, and other features. The plaintiffs believe that the financial firm dictated the kinds of loans that New Century issued, even requiring, as a condition of their profitable business relationship, that a huge percentage of the loans come with “dangerous” traits. Such obligations, they contend, negatively impacted African-American borrowers in the Detroit area who got their loans from New Century. In 2007, New Century sought bankruptcy protection.

According to the attorneys that filed the complaint, this is the first lawsuit to claim a connection between racial discrimination and securitization, as well as the first one involving homeowners accusing an investment bank, rather than the lender, of causing borrowers harm.

CFTC Orders Morgan Stanley Smith Barney LLC to Pay $200,000 for Supervision Violations, CFTC, October 22, 2012

Adkins, et al. vs. Morgan Stanley, ACLU, October 15, 2012

More Blog Posts:
Texas Securities Roundup: Morgan Stanley Smith Barney Sued Over Financial Adviser’s Ponzi Scam, Judge Dismisses Ex-GE Executive Whistleblower’s Lawsuit Over His Firing, & Ex-Stanford Financial Group CIO Pleads Guilty to Obstructing the SEC’s Probe, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, July 3, 2012

Why Were Two Former Morgan Stanley Smith Barney Brokers Not Named As Defendants in Securities Lawsuit by State Regulators Over $6M Now Missing From Wisconsin Funeral Trust?, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, September 27, 2012

Ex-Morgan Stanley Smith Barney Broker Settles with FINRA for Allegedly Failing to Notify Firm of Previous Arrest, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, June 16, 2012 Continue Reading ›

Why Were Two Former Morgan Stanley Smith Barney Brokers Not Named As Defendants in Securities Lawsuit by State Regulators Over $6M Now Missing From Wisconsin Funeral Trust?

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

Wisconsin regulators are suing Wisconsin Funeral Directors Association Inc. and Fiduciary Partners Inc. for allegedly improperly investing the money from a $48 million Wisconsin Funeral Trust. With a possible long-term deficit of $21 million, close to $6 million in investor money has already been lost. However, our stockbroker fraud law firm wants to know why two former Morgan Stanley Smith Barney brokers-brothers Michael Hull and Patrick Hull-are not defendants in this case. The two brothers managed the trust until earlier this month, when a circuit court judge assigned a receiver to take charge of liquidating the fund. They now run bluepoint Investment Council, LLC.

The trust is funded by about 10,500 prepaid contracts. According to state Department of Justice officials, customers who bought prepaid funeral policy plans because they were under the impression that their money would be placed in CDs, government bonds, and low risk investments and that they would get a guaranteed, modest return rate. Instead, the trust ended up losing millions in risky investments. (The Department of Financial Institutions is now ordering a securities enforcement action after it concluded that the funds, which were in the trust, were invested in a manner that violated state law.) Fiduciary Partners Trust, the trust’s trustee, has said that it was never involved in how the trust’s investments were managed or marketed and that this was the job of the Wisconsin Funeral Directors Association and the investment management firms.

“The information which has been reported leaves us with more questions than answers as to Morgan Stanley and its former brokers,” said stockbroker fraud lawyer William Shepherd. “In any event, any claims against the firm and/or brokers would likely be excluded from court action by the trust because of a mandatory FINRA arbitration agreement.”

Morgan Stanley May Have To Shut Down Brokerage Offices, Say Sources

Published on: August 8, 2012 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Reuters is reporting that sources aware of internal talks taking place at Morgan Stanley (MS) are saying that the financial firm is thinking about shutting down brokerage offices as part of its efforts to increase profit margins in its retail brokerage arm. It also is reportedly considering laying off support employees and making branch managers work as revenues to bring in more money.

Already, Morgan Stanley has consolidated regional manager ranks down from 19, and last week, it narrowed its regions from 16 to 12. More measures to reduce expenses are likely.

Also, last month, the financial firm announced more layoffs when it said that its payroll would likely shrink by another 1,000 employees in 2012 so that it could employ staff levels that were 7% lower than what they were in December 2011. The news came after its second–quarter earnings showed a step decline, while revenue in its asset management, wealth management, and investment banking business saw a large drop, with overall revenue declining 24% to $6.95 billion
The financial firm appears determined to cut spending in its brokerage division now that its close to 17,000 brokers were moved to a common technology platform. Offices from the Morgan Stanley and Smith Barney networks that are considered redundant will likely be the ones shut down, which could affect up to 100 offices. (As of the end of June 2012, Morgan Stanley Smith Barney had 740 offices. Consider that in the middle of 2009, it had over 950 branches in the US alone.) Its bond trading business performed the worst, dropping in revenue by 60% to $770 million-a significantly larger descent than other big banks on Wall Street.

The financial firm is trying, by December 2014, to reduce its risk weighted assets by 30% from the $346.79 billion levels where they were last September. As of June 30, Morgan Stanley had $319.19 billion in risk-weighted assets. It also is contending with its bond trading business declining because there had been the threat of a severe debt rating downgrade, as well as criticism over the way it handled the Facebook (FB) IPO. Fortunately for the financial firm, Moody’s Investors Service only downgraded the bank to “Baa1,” which is three steps over junk.

Morgan Stanley is not the only big bank to have to cut costs after quarterly results were reported. Goldman Sachs Group. Inc. (GS) (now with a $500 million cost-saving target), Deutsche Bank AG (DBK), and Bank of America Corp. (BAC) also made staff cuts in their underwriting and trading businesses. 2011 was the first time that banks didn’t give some employees bonuses.

With so much uncertainty, now, more than ever financial representatives must make sure that they invest their clients’ money wisely and refrain from any type of misconduct or poor decisions that could cause huge losses. At Shepherd Smith Edwards and Kantas, LTD, LLP, we are here to fight for our clients’ recovery from losses stemming from securities fraud.

Morgan Stanley Considers Shutting Offices, Cutting Staff: Sources, CNBC/Reuters, August 8, 2012

Morgan Stanley plans further staff cuts on weak outlook, Reuters, July 19, 2012

Deutsche Bank Said To Consider Staff Cuts At Investment Bank, Bloomberg, July 19, 2012

More Blog Posts:
Plaintiff Says Morgan Stanley Fired Him for Calling out Investment Adviser Who Was Churning Accounts and Bilking Investors, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, August 7, 2012

Morgan Stanley Smith Barney Ordered by FINRA Arbitration Panel to Pay $5M Over Allegedly False Promises Made To Brokers Recruited from UBS AG, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, June 22, 2012

Ex-Morgan Stanley Smith Barney Broker Settles with FINRA for Allegedly Failing to Notify Firm of Previous Arrest, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, June 16, 2012 Continue Reading ›

Plaintiff Says Morgan Stanley Fired Him for Calling out Investment Adviser Who Was Churning Accounts and Bilking Investors

Published on: August 7, 2012 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Clifford Jagodzinski has filed a lawsuit against Morgan Stanley & Co. (MS), Morgan Stanley Smith Barney, and Citigroup (C). He claims that he was fired from his job at Morgan Stanley as a complex risk officer because he reported that an investment adviser was churning accounts and earning tens of thousands of dollars while defrauding clients. Jagodzinski filed his case in federal court.

He contends that even though he always received excellent job evaluations during the six years he worked for Morgan Stanley, he was terminated as an employee 10 days after he told supervisors that unless the financial firm started reporting unauthorized trades it would be violating SEC regulations. Jagodzinski said that the financial firm told him to sign a confidentiality agreement with a non-disparagement clause and then proceeded to hurt his career by claiming that he was let go because of poor performance. He wants reinstatement and punitive and compensatory damages of over $1 million for whistleblower violations.

Jagodzinski believes that his trouble started after he told his supervisors, Ben Firestein and David Turetzky, that Harvey Kadden, one of the firm’s new wealth managers, was allegedly flipping preferred securities so that he could make tens of thousands of dollars in commissions, while causing his clients to sustain financial losses or make little gains as he exposed them to risks that could have been avoided. Jagodzinski said that while he was initially praised for identifying the alleged misconduct, his supervisors told him not to look into the matter further. He believes this is because Morgan Stanley had given Kadden a $25 million guarantee, and due to their high expectations of him, they didn’t want to hurt his book of business.

Jagodzinski said that he encountered similar resistance when he notified the financial firm of other violations, including those involving Bill Siegel, another financial adviser that he accused of making unauthorized trades. Once again, he says he was told not to investigate or report the alleged violations further-even though (he says) Siegel admitted to making 80 unauthorized trades for one client and other ones for other clients. Although Turetsky allegedly told him that this was because he didn’t want Siegel fired, Jagodzinski suspects that his supervisor was more concerned that the defendants would have to pay penalties and fines. He also said that when he reported his concerns that yet another financial adviser was not just engaging in improper treasury trades but also abusing drugs, his worries were again brushed aside.

An employee who gets fired for blowing the whistle on a company or a coworker can have grounds for filing a wrongful termination lawsuit. If the wronged employee is a whistleblower, he is entitled to certain protections, which include being shielded from retaliation on the job for stepping forward and doing what is right.

Worker Says He Caught Morgan Stanley in the Act, Courthouse News Service, August 3, 2012

Ex-Morgan Stanley Risk Officer Sues Bank Over Firing, Bloomberg, August 1, 2012

More Blog Posts:
Dodd-Frank Whistleblower Protection Amendment Must Be Applied Retroactively, Said District Court, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, July 21, 2012

SEC’s Office of the Whistleblower In Early Phase of Evaluating Reward Claims, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, March 23, 2012

District Court Denies UBS Summary Judgment in Sarbanes-Oxley Whistleblower Lawsuit, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, June 27, 2012 Continue Reading ›

Morgan Stanley Smith Barney Ordered by FINRA Arbitration Panel to Pay $5M Over Allegedly False Promises Made To Brokers Recruited from UBS AG

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

A Financial Industry Regulatory Authority arbitration panel is ordering Morgan Stanley Smith Barney to pay $5 million to Todd G. Vitale and John P. Paladino, two of the brokers that the financial firm had wooed from UBS AG (UBS) in 2008. The two brokers are alleging fraudulent misrepresentations, breach of written and oral contract, promissory fraud, negligent misrepresentation, fraudulent omission and/or concealment, intentional interference with existing and prospective economic advantage, negligent omission and/or concealment, California Labor Code violations, breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, promissory estoppel, constructive fraud, negligent supervision, and failure to supervise. They both still work for Morgan Stanley Smith Barney.

Both brokers were recruited a few months before Morgan Stanley merged with Citigroup Inc.’s (C) Smith Barney. Per the terms of their recruiting agreement, Vitale was promised that within six months of joining the financial firm he would become a salaried manager. Paladino would then inherit Vitale’s book, which would come with significant revenue.

After the merger occurred, however, a number of key management changes happened, and four years after they were hired, Vitale still hasn’t been promoted to manager while Paladino has yet to get his book. Also, Paladino’s monthly income has been reduced.

Ruling on the case, the FINRA arbitration panel awarded $2 million to Paladino and $2.6 million to Vitale. $355,000 in legal fees was also awarded to the two men.

This arbitration proceeding is one of numerous cases of late involving investment advisers claiming that financial firms had wooed them with promises that were never fulfilled. Brokerage firms often make verbal commitments when recruiting and they protect themselves by not including these agreements in the actual employment contract.

“Successful financial advisors and brokers can manage tens of millions or even hundreds of millions of dollars of their clients’ assets and securities firms are willing to pay, or promise to pay, them millions of dollars to bring their clients’ accounts to a new firm,” said Shepherd Smith Edwards and Kantas, LTD, LLP Partners and FINRA Arbitration Attorney William Shepherd. “Just as firms are not always honest with investors, these firms do not always keep their promises to advisors and brokers. Because licensed representatives and their firms are required to sign agreements to arbitrate disputes, cases of this type must be decided in securities arbitration. Our law firm has represented both investors and investment professionals in securities arbitration proceedings in their disputes with financial firms.”

Meantime, Morgan Stanley Smith Barney has issued a statement saying that the financial firm’s disagree with the panel’s decision and the facts support the ruling. However, there are internal firm memos documenting the recruiting deal.

Former Morgan Stanley Smith Barney Brokers Win $5M Employment Dispute Arbitration Award, Forbes, June 20, 2012

Panel Says MSSB Must Pay Recruited Brokers $5 Million, Wall Street Journal, June 20, 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
Investment Advisers and Brokers Should Be Able To Explain in One Page Why an Investment Would Benefit a Retail Client, Says FINRA CEO Richard Ketchum, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, June 14, 2012

Securities Law Roundup: Ex-Sentinel Management Group Execs Indicted Over Alleged $500M Fraud, Egan-Jones Rating Wants Court to Hear Bias Claim Against SEC, and Oppenheimer Funds Pays $35M Over Alleged Mutual Fund Misstatements, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, June 13, 2012 Continue Reading ›

Ex-Morgan Stanley Smith Barney Broker Settles with FINRA for Allegedly Failing to Notify Firm of Previous Arrest

Published on: June 16, 2012 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Broker Bruce Parish Hutson has turned in a Letter of Acceptance, Waver, and Consent to settle allegations of Financial Industry Regulatory Authority rule violations involving his alleged failure to advise Morgan Stanley Smith Barney (MS) of his arrest for retail theft at a store in Wisconsin. FINRA has accepted the AWC, which Hutson submitted without denying or admitting to the findings and without adjudicating any issue.

The Ex-Morgan Stanley Smith Barney broker (and before that he worked for predecessor company Citigroup Global Markets Inc. ((ASBXL)), had entered a “no contest” plea to the misdemeanor charge in February 2010. He received a jail sentence of nine months, which was reduced to 12 months probation. On August 16, 2010, Hutson, turned in a Form UT (Uniform Termination Notice for Securities Industry Registration) stating that he was voluntarily let go from Morgan Stanley Smith Barney because the financial firm accused him of not properly reporting the arrest.

Also, although Form U4 (Uniform Application for Securities Industry Registration or Transfer) doesn’t mandate the disclosure of a mere arrest but does contemplate a criminal charge (at least), many industry members obligate employees to disclose any arrests. Yet when it was time to update this form by March 18, 2010, FINRA says that Hutson did not report the misdemeanor theft plea. Then, when he filled out Morgan Stanley Smith Barney’s yearly compliance questionnaire on May 19, 2010, he again denied having been arrested or charged with a crime in the past year or that he was statutorily disqualified.

FINRA contends that Hutson willfully violated its Article V, Section 2 (C) by-laws by not disclosing the criminal charge. The SRO also says that his later “no contest” plea to the misdemeanor theft violated FINRA Rule 2010 (when he made the false statement that he hadn’t been charged with any crime in the 12 months leading up to his completion of the compliance questionnaire) and he again violated this same rule when it was time to fill out the questionnaire. Per the AWC terms, Hutson is suspended from associating with any FINRA member for five months and he must pay a $5,000 fine.

“A broker can have a dozen complaints by investors and lose a half-dozen claims of wrongdoing, in which arbitrators reimburse these investors only part of their millions in collective losses, yet the broker is neither fined nor suspended,” said Shepherd Smith Edwards and Kantas, LTD, LLP founder and Securities Attorney William Shepherd. “A shoplifting charge in one’s past – very bad. Repeated misrepresentations to investors – so what. Perhaps FINRA should get its priorities straight.”

Broker Bruce Parish Hutson, Forbes, June 27, 2012

More Blog Posts:
Investor Groups, Securities Lawyers, and Business Community Comment on the JOBS Act Reg D’s Investor Verification Process, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, June 24, 2012

SEC Wants Proposed Securities Settlements with Bear Stearns Executives to Get Court Approval, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, February 28, 2012

Accused Texas Ponzi Scammer May Have Defrauded Investors of $2M, Stockbroker Fraud, August 3, 2011

Securities Law Roundup: Ex-Morgan Stanley’s SEC Settlement Over Alleged FCPA Violations Gets Court Approval, Corruption Probe Into Wal-Mart’s Mexico Activities Continue, and Sentry Global Securities Principal Gets 20-Years for Pump-and-Dump Scam

Published on: May 24, 2012 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

A district court has approved ex-Morgan Stanley (MS) executive Garth Peterson’s civil settlement with the Securities and Exchange Commission over alleged Foreign Corrupt Practices Act violations. In SEC v. Garth Peterson, the plaintiff agreed to pay $241,589 in disgorgement and give up his interest in an apartment building in China. He is to work with an SEC-appointed receiver. Peterson has entered a guilty plea to related criminal charges.

According to the Commission, while working at Morgan Stanley’s real estate investment and fund advisory business, Peterson secretly obtained real estate investments worth millions of dollars from the financial firm’s funds not just for himself but also for others, including the ex-chairman of a Chinese state-owned entity that could influence Morgan Stanley’s real estate business in that country. Peterson, the official, and a Canadian lawyer are accused of acquiring a direct interest in the Jin Lin Tiandi Serviced Apartments. The Commission has said that Peterson violated the FCPA’s anti-bribery and internal control provisions, as well as aided and abetted violations of the 1940 Investment Advisers Act’s antifraud provisions.

In other allegations of Foreign Corrupt Practices Act violations, Wal-Mart (WMT) is accused of not just committing them but also of covering up its alleged misconduct. An investigation into the accusations was opened up in April.

Wal-Mart executives are accused of concealing possible corruption (including bribery) by company executives and officials in Mexico, where the retail chain has been working to build its presence. Now, House Energy and Commerce Committee ranking member Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) and House Oversight Committee ranking member Elijah Cummings (D-Md.) want the store’s CEO Michael Duke to let a former general counsel cooperate with their investigation.

In a letter to Duke, the two lawmakers said that there are several hundred internal documents that seem to confirm early reports of the scandal. At the time of the alleged cover up, then-Wal-Mart general counsel Maritza Munich had tried to get company’s board to expand its probe into the accusations and put into place a tough anticorruption policy. However, when she left Wal-Mart in 2006, Albert Mora, the person who replaced her, chose not to investigate further. Now, Waxman and Cummings want Wal-Mart to allow Munich to get involved in the current probe. They also are once more putting forward an earlier request that the retail giant give them a “substantive briefing” about the specific bribery allegations related to Mexico.

Meantime, Sentry Global Securities and Red Sea Management principal Jonathan Curshen has been sentenced to two decades behind bars for his conviction in a pump and dump stock manipulation scheme. He was found guilty of wire fraud, conspiracy to commit securities fraud, mail fraud, and conspiracy to commit international money laundering. He also has to forfeit about $7.3 million.

Curshen, stock promoter Nathan Montgomery, and their co-conspirators are accused in taking part in coordinated trades while with issuing false statements to the press. According to the US Department of Justice, the alleged misconduct, which is said to have occurred in 2007, was committed to raise the price of C02 Technologies stock. While co-conspirators “pumped,” Curshen and others “dumped” by selling the shares through his two Costa Rica brokerage companies. The shares then virtually lost all their value.

SEC v. Garth Peterson

Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, US DOJ
Read the letter to lawmakers’ Wal-Mart CEO Duke, BNA, (PDF)

CO2 Tech’s Curshen receives 20 years in jail, Stockwatch, May 14, 2012

More Blog Posts:
SEC Issues Alert for Broker-Dealers and Investors Over Municipal Bonds, Man Who Posed As Investment Adviser Pleads Guilty to Securities Fraud, and Citigroup Settles FINRA Claims of Excessive Markups/Markdowns, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, April 10, 2012

UBS Puerto Rico Settles SEC Action for $26M, Morgan Keegan’s Bid to Get $40K Award Over Marketing of RMK Advantage Income Fund Vacated is Denied, and SEC Settles with Attorney Involved in $1B Viaticals Scam, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, May 11, 2012

SEC Seeks Approval of Settlement with Ex-Bear Stearns Portfolio Managers, Credits Ex-AXA Rosenberg Executive for Help in Quantitative Investment Case; IOSCO Gets Ready for Global Hedge Fund Survey, Institutional Investor Fraud, March 29, 2012 Continue Reading ›

Morgan Stanley, Citigroup, Wells Fargo, and UBS to Pay $9.1M Over Leveraged and Inverse ETFs

Published on: May 3, 2012 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Wells Fargo & Co. (WFC), UBS AG (UBSN), Morgan Stanley (MS), and Citigroup Inc. (C) have consented to pay a combined $9.1 million to settle Financial Industry Regulatory Authority claims that they did not adequately supervise the sale of leveraged and inverse exchange-traded funds in 2008 and 2009. $7.3 million of this is fines. The remaining $1.8 million will go to affected customers. The SRO says that the four financial firms had no reasonable grounds for recommending these securities to the investors, yet they each sold billions of dollars of ETFs to clients. Some of these investors ended up holding them for extended periods while the markets were exhibiting volatility.

It was in June 2009 that FINRA cautioned brokers that long-term investors and leveraged and inverse ETFs were not a good match. While UBS suspended its sale of these ETFs after the SRO issued its warning, it eventually resumed selling them but doesn’t recommend them to clients anymore. Morgan Stanley also had announced that it would place restrictions on ETF sales. Meantime, Wells Fargo continues to sell leveraged and inverse ETF. However, a spokesperson for the financial firm says that it has implemented enhanced procedures and policies to ensure that it meets its regulatory responsibilities. Citigroup also has enhanced its policies, procedures, and training related to the sale of these ETFs. (FINRA began looking into how leveraged and inverse ETFs are being marketed to clients in March after one ETN, VelocityShares Daily 2x VIX Short-Term (TVIX), which is managed by Credit Suisse (CS), lost half its worth in two days.)

The Securities and Exchange Commission describes ETFs as (usually) registered investment companies with shares that represent an interest in a portfolio with securities that track an underlying index or benchmark. While leveraged ETFs look to deliver multiples of the performance of the benchmark or index they are tracking, inverse ETFs seek to do the opposite. Both types of ETFs seek to do this with the help of different investment strategies involving future contracts, swaps, and other derivative instruments. The majority of leveraged and inverse ETFs “reset” daily. How they perform over extend time periods can differ from how well their benchmark or underlying index does during the same duration. Per Bloomberg, leveraged and inverse ETFs hold $29.3 billion in the US.

“These highly leveraged investments were – and still are – being bought into the accounts of unsophisticated investors at these and other firms,” said Leveraged and Inverse ETF Attorney William Shepherd. “Although most firms do not allow margin investing in retirement accounts, many did not screen accounts to flag these leveraged investments which can operate on the same principle as margin accounts.”

For investors, it is important that they understand the risks involved in leveraged and inverse ETFs. Depending on what investment strategies the ETF employs, the risks may vary. Long-term investors should be especially careful about their decision to invest in leveraged and inverse ETFs.

Finra Sanctions Citi, Morgan Stanley, UBS, Wells Fargo $9.1M For Leveraged ETFs, The Wall Street Journal, May 1, 2012
Leveraged and Inverse ETFs: Specialized Products with Extra Risks for Buy-and-Hold Investors, SEC
FINRA investigating exchange-traded notes: spokesperson, Reuters, March 29, 2012

More Blog Posts:
SEC to Investigate Seesawing Credit Suisse TVIX Note, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, March 30, 2012

Principals of Global Arena Capital Corp. and Berthel, Fisher & Company Financial Services, Inc. Settle FINRA Securities Allegations, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, April 6, 2012

Goldman Sachs to Pay $22M For Alleged Lack of Proper Internal Controls That Allowed Analysts to Attend Trading Huddles and Tip Favored Clients, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, April 12, 2012 Continue Reading ›

Morgan Stanley Sued by MetLife for Securities Fraud Over $757 Million in Residential Mortgage-Backed Securities

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

Metlife (MET) is suing Morgan Stanley (MS) for securities fraud. According to Bloomberg, the insurance company bought over $757 million in residential mortgage-backed securities from the financial firm in 2006 and 2007. In the institutional investment fraud lawsuit, Morgan Stanley had vouched that the properties behind the loans were “accurately appraised” and that the loans met underwriting guidelines. The insurer, however, contends that the loans’ originators were actually some of the subprime lending industry’s “worst culprits.”

The RMBS lawsuit comes right after MetLife agreed to pay half a billion dollars to settle a probe by a number of states over its payment practices. The investigation involves the Social Security “Death Master” file, which includes a list of names of people who have recently passed away. Insurance companies are accused of using the list to stop issuing to dead clients their annuity payments and not using the list to confirm that life insurance policyholders had died.

MetLife announced on Thursday that it was leaving the reverse mortgage industry. Nationstar Mortgage LLC (NSM) will buy its portfolio. The move is a big change for the insurance company, which had been the market leader.

Meantime, Morgan Stanley has been battling other residential mortgage-backed securities lawsuits. Earlier this year, Sealink Funding Ltd. filed a case against it over more than $556 million in RMBS that it purchased. Sealink Funding, a European fund, was set up to manage Landesbank Sachsen AG’s most high-risk assets.

The fund bought the securities from Morgan Stanley after the financial firm said it had done its due diligence on the lenders of the investments and that the loans satisfied underwriting standards and merited their AAA ratings. Sealink called the loans’ originators among the subprime lending industry’s “worst culprits.”

Last year, Allstate Insurance Co. (ALL) filed its RMBS lawsuit against Morgan Stanley over more than $104 million in RMBS it bought in several offerings. The insurer’s contention over reassurances the financial firm made about the securities is similar to the allegations made by Sealink and Metlife. Allstate has also filed RMBS lawsuits against other financial firms, including Merrill Lynch (MER) units, Citigroup Inc. (C), and Bank of America Corp.’s (BAC) Countrywide.

As previously noted by SEC Enforcement director Robert Khuzami, mortgage products played a crucial role in the financial crisis that began a few years ago. Unprecedented losses resulted when mortgage-backed securities failed. Many institutional investors are still trying to recover. They claim they were misled about the risks involved and they want their money back.

MetLife Pays $500 Million To Settle Probe Into Unpaid Claims For Dead Policy Holders, Huffington Post, April 23, 2012

MetLife to pay $500 million in multi-state death benefits probe, Los Angeles Times, April 23, 2012

Morgan Stanley Sued by Allstate on Mortgage Claims, Bloomberg, August 18, 2011

More Blog Posts:
H & R Block Subsidiary Option One Mortgage Corporation to Pay $28.2M to Residential Mortgage-Backed Securities Investors, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, April 25, 2012

Bank of New York Mellon Corp. Must Contend with Pension Fund Claims Over Countrywide Mortgage-Backed Securities, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, April 10, 2012

Morgan Stanley to Compensate A Number of Texas Homeowners for Alleged Misconduct by Saxon Mortgage Services

Published on: April 12, 2012 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The Federal Reserve Board has ordered Morgan Stanley (MS) to retain an independent consultant to evaluate foreclosures initiated by former subsidiary Saxon Mortgage Services in 2009 and 2010. Saxon, which intends to shut down its processing center in Forth Worth, is accused of engaging in a “pattern of misconduct and negligence” related to residential mortgage servicing and foreclosure processing. The order mandates that Morgan Stanley compensate homeowners who were hurt financially because of certain deficiencies, including wrongful foreclosures.

Per the Fed, Saxon initiated at least 6,313 foreclosures against homeowners during the years cited above. Regarding certain actions, Saxon is accused of failing to confirm ownership and other information, not properly notarizing signatures, failing to implement proper controls and oversight, and neglecting to adequately staff and fund its operations to handle the increase in foreclosures.

Morgan Stanley had bought Saxon for $706 million during the housing bubble. Earlier this month, the financial firm completed its sale of the mortgage lender to Ocwen Financial of Florida. In the wake of the sale, Morgan Stanley is no longer involved in mortgage servicing. However, should the financial firm reenter this market while the Consent Order is still in effect, it will have to execute better risk-management, corporate governance, compliance, servicing, borrower communication, and foreclosure practices similar in quality to what mortgage servicers who had to abide by enforcement actions in 2011 had to implement.