Morgan Stanley

Morgan Stanley Charged by Massachusetts for Running Allegedly Unethical Sales Contests

Published on: October 3, 2016 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Massachusetts claims that Morgan Stanley Smith Barney (MS) ran a high-pressure sales contest to give its financial advisers incentive to get clients to borrow funds against their brokerage accounts. Massachusetts Secretary of the Commonwealth William Galvin filed the complaint against the firm.

According to the state, from 1/14 through 4/15, Morgan Stanley conducted two contests in Rhode Island and Massachusetts that involved 30 advisers. The object of the contests were to convince customers to take out loans that were securities-based. It involved them borrowing against the value of securities found in their portfolio. The securities were to be collateral.

Galvin’s office said that the contests urged Morgan Stanley advisers to cross-sell loans that were backed by investment accounts in order to enhance lending business, as well as banking, and stay competitive with other firms. Galvin claims that advisers were told to get clients to establish credit lines even if they had no plans of using them. The state’s complaint said that clients would be targeted after they’d mention certain key “catalysts” including graduations, weddings, and tax liabilities.

Morgan Stanley and Edward Jones Are Sued in Separate 401(K) Lawsuits

Published on: August 22, 2016 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

An ex-participant in Morgan Stanley’s (MS) 401(k) plan is suing the financial firm. The plaintiff is alleging self-dealing and excessive retirement plan fees. Robert Patterson contends that the firm enriched itself at cost to employees. The case is Patterson v. Morgan Stanley et al. He is alleging breaching of fiduciary duty under ERISA. Patterson believes that plan participants sustained millions of dollars in losses in retirement funds from 1/11 through 4/14 because of the alleged breaches.

He is seeking class action status for case over the losses sustained and he wants the firm to pay $150M. The Morgan Stanley 401(k) Plan includes several Morgan Stanley mutual funds. According to the complaint these funds suffered “high relative fees” and/or “poor relative performance.” Although there were a number of non-proprietary investments included in the retirement plan, Patterson claims that they also performed poorly.

Meantime, Edwards Jones is also now a defendant in a 401(k) lawsuit. The plaintiff is a plan participant who claims that the firm caused employees to pay excessively high fees for record keeping and investment management services that purportedly resulted in the loss of millions of dollars in retirement savings. The proposed class-action lawsuit is McDonald v. Edward D. Jones & Co. L.P. et al.

Financial Firm News: Deutsche Bank Ordered to Face Part of Subprime Mortgage Fraud Lawsuit & Morgan Stanley & Bank of America Must Contend with MBS Case

Published on: August 1, 2016 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

A U. S. district court judge said that Deutsche Bank AG (DB) must face part of a mortgage fraud case accusing the German bank of bilking investors who purchased over $5.4M of preferred securities. The plaintiffs, led by two individuals and Belmont Holdings Corp., claim that Deutsche Bank hid its exposure to the subprime mortgage market.

Judge Doborah Batts turned down the bank’s bid to throw out claims related to about $2.55B of securities sold in 11/07 and 2/08. She did, however, dismiss claims involving $2.9B of securities sold in 5/07, 7/07, and 5/08. Investors claim that Deutsche Bank should have notified them in offering documents that it had significant exposure to subprime markets via collateralized debt obligations and residential mortgage-backed securities. They believe that early notification could have prevented them from purchasing the preferred securities before their values dropped, resulting in billions of dollars of losses.

Ex-NBA and NFL Players Win $819K Arbitration Award in FINRA Arbitration Case Against Morgan Stanley Smith Barney

Published on: June 13, 2016 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

A Financial Industry Regulatory Authority arbitration panel has awarded former NBA basketball player Keyon Dooling and ex-NFL athlete John St. Clair $819,000 in damages in their securities case against Morgan Stanley (MS). The two men accused the firm of negligent supervision of a former broker whom they blame for their investment losses.

The rogue broker, Aaron Parthemer, has since been barred from the securities industry. It was Parthemer who recommended that the former professional athletes put money into two businesses. Dooling invested $700K in apparel company Global Village Concerns and Miami Beach night spot Club Play. St. Clair invested $200,000 in Global Village Concerns. According to the ex-pro athletes’ securities fraud lawyers, the two investments proved worthless.

Now, the FINRA arbitration panel says that Morgan Stanley must pay Dooling and his spouse over $608K while St. Clair and his wife are to get over $200K. Meantime, Morgan Stanley disagrees with the panel’s ruling, contending that that it was Parthemer who failed to let the firm know that he was engaged in external investment activities. This was the alleged reason that FINRA barred him from the industry.

For instance, Parthemer is accused of lending $400K to three clients without getting his firm’s consent, giving former employers Wells Fargo (WFC) and Morgan Stanley, as well as FINRA, false information, presenting private securities transactions that went undisclosed and involved clients that invested over $3M, running a nightclub, operating a marketing firm, and winning a contract to promote a tequila brand.

Morgan Stanley and E*Trade Securities Face Penalties for Inadequate Customer Information Protection

Published on: June 8, 2016 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The Securities and Exchange Commission says that Morgan Stanley Smith Barney LLC (MS) will pay a $1M penalty to resolve charges involving its purported failure to protect customer data. Some of this information was hacked and violators attempted to sell the data online.

According to the regulator, the firm did not put into place written policies and procedures that were designed in a manner reasonable enough to protect customer information. Because of this, said the SEC, from ’11 to ’14, former Morgan Stanley employee Galen J. Marsh was able to access without permission information regarding approximately 730,000 accounts and move them to his own server. This made it possible for third parties to access and hack the information from there.

The Commission said that Morgan Stanley had two internal portals that made it possible for employees such as Marsh to access confidential customer account information and it was for these internal applications that the firm lacked the needed authorization modules that would have restricted which employees could see this information. This deficiency existed for over a decade.

It was just last week that the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority said that it was censuring and fining E*Trade Securities LLC for supervisory violations related to customer order information protection and for not performing sufficient review of the quality of customer order executions. As a firm that offers online services for securities investing and trading to retail customers, E*Trade is supposed to evaluate the competing markets that it routes customer orders to, including exchange and non-exchange market centers. Firms such as E*Trade are also supposed to conduct periodic and stringent reviews of the quality of customer order executions to see if there are any differences among the markets, which is why the firm set up a Best Execution Committee to do this job.

Bank of America, Citigroup, JPMorgan Chase, Credit Suisse, Deutsche Bank, and Other Banks Settle ISDAFix Rigging Case for $324 Million

Published on: May 4, 2016 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Seven big banks have resolved a U.S. lawsuit accusing them of rigging ISDAFix rates, which is the benchmark for appraising interest rate derivatives, structured debt securities, and commercial real estate mortgages, for $324M. The banks that have reached a settlement are:

· Barclays PLS (BCS) for $30M (In 2015, Barclays paid $115M to U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission to resolve charges of ISDAfix rigging.)
· Bank of America Corp. (BAC) for $50M
· Credit Suisse Group AG (CS) for $50M
· Citigroup Inc. (C) for $42M
· JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPM) for $52M
· Deutsche Bank AG (DB) for $50M
· Royal Bank of Scotland Group plc (RBS) for $50M

The deal must be approved by a Manhattan federal court. The defendants had sought to have the case dismissed, but US District Judge Jesse Furman in Manhattan refused their request. stating that the case raised “plausible allegations” that the defendants were involved in a conspiracy together.

Morgan Stanley Still Embroiled in $147M RMBS Lawsuit Brought by IKB Deutsche Industriebank

Published on: April 10, 2016 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

More than three years after IKB Deutsche Industriebank AG sued Morgan Stanley (MS) for over $147.1M in residential mortgage-backed securities, the brokerage firm is asking the New York appeals court to dismiss the case. Morgan Stanley claims that it was the German lender that did not conduct the necessary due diligence.

IKB claims the Morgan Stanley provided offering documents that left out or did not properly characterize different underwriting standards involving the loans that were underlying the securities. The bank claims there were misrepresentations and omissions regarding loan-to value ratios.

The lender says it received inaccurate information about the underlying loans related to how much homeowners had borrowed, the securities’ credit ratings, and the percentage of properties that were occupied by the owners. IKB cited purportedly incorrect statements made about trusts, loans, and mortgages. It accused Morgan Stanley of taking the loans from different originators and bundling them together to package the securities despite knowing there were issues that could make the RMBS problematic.

California Sues Morgan Stanley for Purportedly Selling Bad Investments

Published on: March 31, 2016 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The State of California is suing Morgan Stanley (MS) for allegedly selling bad residential mortgaged backed securities. According to lawmakers, the firm sold residential mortgage-backed securities as risky loans to subprime lenders while downplaying or hiding the risks and at times encouraging credit raters to bestow the securities with high ratings that were not warranted. Because of these RMBS sales, contends the state, the California Public Employees’ Retirement System (CALPERS) and California State Teachers Retirement System (CalSTRS) sustained devastating losses.

California claims that the firm violated the state’s False Claims Act and securities laws. A significant part of the case challenges Morgan Stanley’s behavior when marketing the Cheyne SIV, which was a structured investment vehicle that failed nine years ago. State Attorney General Kamala Harris is seeking $700M from the firm, as well as over $600M in damages.

Meantime, Morgan Stanley has argued that the case is meritless. It contends that the RMBSs were sold and marketed to institutional investors who were sophisticated enough to understand the investments. They claim that the RBMBs performed in a manner that was in line with the sector to which it belonged.

It was just recently that Moody’s Corp. reached an agreement with CalPERS to pay the California pension fund $130M to resolve allegations that the credit rating agency may have acted negligently by giving high ratings to toxic investments. CalPERS contended that its purchase of the investments cost it hundreds of millions of dollars.

Elder Investors: Morgan Stanley Must Pay Home Shopping Network’s Estate Over $34M, Broker Accused of Making Over $1.7M From Churning at Craig Scott Capital, and $10M Ponzi Scam Involving Jamaican Businesses Targets Older Investors

Published on: March 24, 2016 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

FINRA Panel Awards Estate Over $34M from Morgan Stanley in the Wake of Churning Allegations
A Financial Industry Regulatory Authority arbitration panel awarded the estate of Home Shopping Network Roy M. Speer over $34M in its case against Morgan Stanley (MS). The panel ruled that the firm, branch manager Terry McCoy, and broker Ami Forte were jointly liable for breach of fiduciary duty, negligence, unauthorized trading, constructive fraud, unjust enrichment, and negligent supervision. The alleged negligence would have occurred from 1/09 to 6/12 and involved investments in the financial services and banking sectors.

According to Mrs. Speer’s lawyer, in six of Mr. Speer’s accounts, about 12,000 transactions took place, most of them involving municipal bond trading and corporate trading. Many of these trades were unauthorized.

The arbitrators awarded $32.8M in compensatory damages to Speer’s widow, Lynnda Speer, and $1.5M for the costs involved in the arbitration process. The panel said that Morgan Stanley violated a law in Florida that prohibits the exploitation of vulnerable adults. Mr. Speer had dementia. Forte, who was his broker, is said to have been in a relationship with him.

Former Craig Scott Capital Broker Accused of Elder Financial Fraud
FINRA is accusing broker Edward Beyn of making over $1.7M in commissions and fees by engaging in excessive trading in client accounts while he was a registered representative at Craig Scott Capital. He is now with Rothschild Liberman. Beyn is accused of churning nine accounts of six customers, all of them over the age of 60, from 3/12 through 5/15. They all sustained losses.

North Carolina Retiree Couple Files FINRA Arbitration Case Against Morgan Stanley Over Energy Investment

Published on: March 8, 2016 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Two North Carolina investors have filed an arbitration claim with FINRA against Morgan Stanley (MS) over unsuitable investments involving the financial firm’s Cushing MLP High Income Exchange Traded Note. The married couple, who are retirees in their sixties, are accusing the brokerage firm of:

· Common law fraud

· Negligence

· Breach of fiduciary duty

· Negligent supervision

· Failure to adequately disclose the risks

In a phone interview with InvestmentNews, the claimants said that they have lost over $100K. According to the couple, a Morgan Stanley broker invested about $150,000 of their money in the Morgan Stanley Cushing MLP High Income ETN, which is an exchange traded note connected to master limited partnerships with shipping and energy assets. Their legal team said that the couple did not understand the extent of the risks involved in that they could potentially lose their principal. This was a loss they could not afford. Instead, the claimants were purportedly told that their investment would make them money.

The Cushing MLP High Income Exchange Traded Note seeks to give investors cash upon maturity or early repurchase, as well as variable coupon payments every quarter (depending on how the underlying index, performs). The claimants’ broker fraud lawyers believe that Morgan Stanley recommended the exchange traded note to investors who were seeking to make money but may not have understood or been fully apprised of all the risks.