Mortgage Backed Securities

Mortgage-Backed Securities Lawsuit Against Bank of America’s Merrill Lynch Now a Class Action Case

Published on: June 25, 2011 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Merrill Lynch, a unit of Bank of America Corp. (BAC) is now the defendant of a class action securities fraud lawsuit filed on behalf of at least 1,800 investors. A federal judge certified the class status, which involves all investors in mortgage-backed securities that were sold beginning February 2006 through September 2007.

The named plaintiffs of the MBS lawsuit are the Connecticut Carpenters Annuity Fund, the Wyoming state treasurer, Mississippi Public Employees’ Retirement System, the Connecticut Carpenters Pension Fund, and the Los Angeles County Employees Retirement Association. The investors are accusing Merrill of misleading them in the offering documents for $16.5 billion of certificates.

While including yourself as a class action plaintiff may seem like an easy way to recoup your losses, Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas LTD LLP founder and stockbroker fraud attorney William Shepherd says, “On average, victims with securities class action claims usually get back a net recovery of about 8% of their losses.” Such claims often face numerous obstacles. Also, only federal securities claims can be brought in class action cases, and these can be challenging to prove. “Some securities class action complaints end up settled but with the terms favoring the defendants and with large fees going to the investors’/victims’ attorneys,” notes Shepherd. Many consider the investor class the losers when such a case is concluded. ** It is important, however, to note that our securities fraud law firm has no information at this time to suggest that this is going to be the result in this matter.

One alternative you should explore is filing your own, individual claim. While many securities class action cases have very short “opt out” dates, if you “opt out” of the class in a timely manner, you can file an individual case ( claims under state law are often easier to prove). Our securities fraud law firm has represented many investors who have done both.

Merrill Must Face Class Action Over Mortgage Securities, Bloomberg, June 20, 2011

More Blog Posts:
Ambac Financial Group, Insurers, and Bank Underwriters to Pay $33M to Settle Securities Lawsuits Alleging Concealed Risks Related to its Bond-Insurance Business, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, May 18, 2011
Number of Securities Class Action Settlements Reached in 2010 Hit Lowest Level in a Decade, Says Report, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, March 31, 2011
Class Action Plaintiffs Dispute Bank of America’s $137M Settlement with State Attorney Generals Over Municipal Derivatives, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, December 31, 2010 Continue Reading ›

Ambac Financial Group, Insurers, and Bank Underwriters to Pay $33M to Settle Securities Lawsuits Alleging Concealed Risks Related to its Bond-Insurance Business

Published on: May 18, 2011 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Ambac Financial Group Inc. (ABKFQ), a number of its bank underwriters, and its insurers will pay $33 million to settle securities lawsuits accusing the bond insurer of concealing the risks it engaged in when it guaranteed risky mortgage debt. Ambac will pay $2.5 million, four insurance companies will pay $24.5 million, and the banks that will pay $5.9 million include Citigroup Inc. (C), Goldman Sachs Group Inc. (GS), UBS AG (UBS), J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. (JPM), Merrill Lynch Pierce Fenner & Smith Inc. (now part of Bank of America Corp. (BAC)), HSBC Holdings PLC (HBC), and the former Wachovia, (now part of Wells Fargo & Co. ( WFC)). A federal court has to approve the proposed settlement. The lead plaintiffs of the securities fraud case are The Public Employees’ Retirement System of Mississippi, the Public School Teachers’ Pension and Retirement Fund of Chicago, and the Arkansas Teachers Retirement System. The investors covered those that purchased Ambac stock and bonds between October 25, 2006 and April 22, 2008.

It was in 2008 that the housing market crisis revealed the trouble that Ambac, an insurer of instruments related to risky mortgages, was in. Investors had accused Ambac of both giving misleading information to the market to inflate the prices of its securities and concealing the full scope of its involvement in the subprime loan debacle. They claim that the bond insurer and its officials made it appear as if the company was only insuring the transactions that were “safest,” when it was actually looking to profit by guaranteeing billions in high risk collateralized debt obligations and residential mortgage debt, as well as writing credit default swaps to protect investors in the debt against default.

Documents filed in the US Bankruptcy Court in Manhattan reports that the holding company in bankruptcy has $1.6 billion in unresolved debts. Financial guarantee insurer Ambac Assurance Corp., which is its chief asset, has $300 billion in potential exposure.

Related Web Resources:
Ambac, banks settle investor suits for $33 mln, Reuters, May 6, 2011
Ambac Financial In $27.1M Deal To Settle Securities Lawsuits, Dow Jones, May 9, 2011
The Public Employees’ Retirement System of Mississippi

Public School Teachers’ Pension and Retirement Fund of Chicago

Arkansas Teachers Retirement System

More Blog Posts:
Insurer Claims that JP Morgan and Bear Stearns Bilked Clients Of Billions of Dollars with Handling of Mortgage Repurchases, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, February 3, 2011
SEC to Examine Muni Bond Market Issues During Hearings in Texas and Other States, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, February 9, 2011
SEC to Examine Muni Bond Market Issues During Hearings in Texas and Other States, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, February 9, 2011 Continue Reading ›

Morgan Keegan & Co. Inc. Must Pay $250K to Couple that Lost Investments in Hedge Fund with Ties to Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities

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

Financial Industry Regulatory Authority says that Morgan Keegan & Co, Inc. must pay over $250,000 in punitive and compensatory damages to Jeffrey and Marisel Lieberman. The couple suffered financial losses after investing in Greenwich Sentry LLP, a hedge fund whose assets were funneled to Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities. FINRA contends that the brokerage firm failed to due enough due diligence on the Madoff feeder fund, and was “grossly negligent.”

The Lieberman, who are accusing the Regions Financial unit of fraudulent misrepresentation, negligence breach of fiduciary duty, and violations of Florida and Tennessee statutes, claim that Morgan Keegan and Julio Almeyda, one of its registered representatives, invested $200,000 of their money with Greenwich Sentry. The fund ended up filing for bankruptcy last November.

Per Morgan Keegan’s internal compliance rules, investors should only be allowed to place money in hedge funds if “speculation” is one among their main objectives when opening an account. “Speculation” was the last objective on the couple’s list. FINRA says that not only must the broker-dealer repay the couple’s entire loss of $200,000, but also they must also give them 6% annual interest from when the investment was made, $50,000 in punitive damages, and $14,000 in expert witness fees.

Meantime, the FINRA panel cleared Almeyda of wrongdoing, finding that he did not know that Morgan Keegan had not provided sufficient due diligence nor was he aware that he had given the Lieberman’s false and misleading information about their investments’ risks.

Over the last year, Morgan Keegan has found itself dealing with hundreds of arbitration cases nvolving mutual fund investors alleging securities fraud related to the significant losses they sustained during the subprime mortgage crisis.

Related Web Resources:
Morgan Keegan Fined $250,000 Over Madoff Fund, Reuters, March 7, 2011

More Blog Posts:
Morgan Keegan to Pay $9.2M to Investors in Texas Securities Fraud Case Involving Risky Bond Funds, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, October 6, 2010
Morgan Keegan & Co., Inc., Morgan Asset Management, and Two Employees Face Subprime Mortgage Securities Fraud Charges by SEC, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, April 8, 2010
Morgan Keegan Ordered by FINRA Panel to Pay Investor $2.5 Million for Bond Fund Losses, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, February 23, 2010 Continue Reading ›

Bank of America and Countrywide Financial Sued by Allstate over $700M in Bad Mortgaged-Backed Securities

Published on: December 29, 2010 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Allstate has filed a securities fraud lawsuit against Bank of America (NYSE: BAC) and its subsidiary Countrywide Financial. The insurer claims that it purchased over $700 million in toxic mortgage-backed securities that quickly lost their value. Also targeted in the securities complaint are former Countrywide CEO Anthony Mozilo and other executives. Allstate is alleging negligent misrepresentation and securities violations.

The insurance company purchased its securities between March 2005 and June 2007. According to the federal lawsuit, as far back as 2003 Countrywide let go of its underwriting standards, concealed material facts from Allstate and other investors, and misrepresented key information about the underlying mortgage loans. The insurer contends that Countrywide was trying to boost its market share and sold fixed income securities backed by loans that were given to borrowers who were at risk of defaulting on payments. Because key information about the underlying loans was not made available, Allstate says the securities ended up appearing safer than they actually were. Allstate says that in 2008, it suffered $1.69 billion in losses due largely in part to investment losses.

It was just this October that bondholders BlackRock and Pimco and the Federal Reserve Bank of New York started pressing Band of America to buy back mortgages that its Countrywide unit had packaged into $47 billion of bonds. The bondholder group accused BofA, which acquired Countrywide in 2008, of failing to properly service the loans.

Meantime, BofA says it is looking at Allstate’s lawsuit, which it says for now appears to be a case of a “sophisticated investor” looking to blame someone for its investment losses and a poor economy.

Related Web Resources:
Countrywide Comes Between Allstate And BofA, Forbes, December 29, 2010
Allstate sues Bank of America over bad mortgage loans, Business Times, December 28, 2010 Continue Reading ›

Citigroup’s $75 Million Securities Fraud Settlement with the SEC Over Subprime Mortgage Debt Approved by Judge

Published on: October 23, 2010 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

A federal judge has approved the $75 million securities fraud settlement reached between Citigroup and the US Securities and Exchange Commission. The investment bank had been accused of misleading investors about billions of dollars in possible losses from their exposure to high-risk assets involving subprime mortgages. The SEC says that although holdings exceeded $50 billion, the broker-dealer had told clients that they were at $13 billion or lower.

US District Judge Ellen Segal Huvelle had initially refused to approve the settlement and questioned why only two Citigroup executives were being held accountable for the alleged misconduct. Last month, she said she would accept the agreement but only with certain conditions in place.

Under the approved accord, Citigroup must maintain an earnings committee and a disclosure committee for three years. A number of bank officials will also have to certify the accuracy of the earnings scripts and press releases. The revised settlement clarifies that the $75 million penalty is part of a Fair Fund pursuant to Section 308 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. The penalty will be distributed to investors that sustained financial losses because of Citigroup’s alleged misconduct.

Broker-dealers and their representatives can be held liable for misrepresenting or not presenting all material facts to an investor about his/her investment if that client ends up sustaining financial losses. By agreeing to settle, Citigroup is not denying or admitting to the allegations.

Related Web Resources:

Judge OKs Citigroup-SEC Accord on Mortgages, ABC News, October 19, 2010
Judge approves Citi’s $75M settlement with SEC, Bloomberg Businessweek, October 19, 2010
Read the SEC Complaint (PDF)

Citigroup Settles Subprime Mortgage Securities Fraud Claims for $75 Million, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, August 3, 2010 Continue Reading ›

Wall Street Knew 28% of the Loans Behind Mortgage Backed Securities (MBS) Failed to Meet Basic Underwriting Standards

Published on: September 29, 2010 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Testimony and documentation provided to the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission (FCIC) by Clayton Holdings, a due diligence company, revealed that as much as 28% of the loans failed to meet basic underwriting guidelines. According to the testimony given to the FCIC, only 54% of the loans met the lender’s underwriting guidelines and 28% were outright failures.

Unfortunately, about 40% of these bad loans went into securitized pools sold to investors. This information, provided to Wall Street banks, was ignored when they purchased these loans, then bundled into mortgage backed securities and sold to others. Furthermore, rating agencies Moody’s, Standard & Poor’s and Fitch, all charged with assessing the risks of securitized pools, ignored conclusive evidence that many of the loans failed to meet underwriting standards.

Loan originators profited, as did unscrupulous appraisers, then Wall Street firms and the rating agencies shared in the greed by packaging the overrated risky pools. The victims were unsuspecting investors, including individual investors, pension funds, municipalities and U.S. housing agencies, as well as overseas countries, banks and other foreign investors.

In the wake of this subprime mortgage fraud process and the collapse of the housing market, accusations of the chain of greed concerning mortgage backed securities (MBS) has now been confirmed: The toxic nature of the securities was known by Wall Street but simply ignored for the sake of profits.

In a related matter, Morgan Stanley accused of deceptive practices by the Massachusetts Attorney General by knowingly placing dubious mortgages into securitized pools. The facts in that case relied on Clayton reports of loan quality commissioned by Morgan Stanley. The firm settled for $102 million.

References:

Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, www.fcic.gov
Raters Ignored Proof of Unsafe Loans, New York Times, Gretchen Morgenson; September 26, 2010
New Proof Wall Street Knew Its Mortgage Securities Were Subpar, Huffington Post, September 25, 2010
Attorney General of Massachusetts, www.mass.gov Continue Reading ›

Charles Schwab & Co. Defendant in Class-Action Securities Fraud Lawsuit Filed on Behalf of Schwab Total Bond Market Fund Investors Over CMOs and Mortgage-Backed Securities

Published on: September 7, 2010 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

A class-action securities complaint has been filed against Charles Schwab & Co. on behalf of investors that own Schwab Total Bond Market Fund (Nasdaq: SWBLX) shares that were purchased after May 31, 2007. The securities fraud lawsuit accuses Charles Schwab of causing the fund to deviate from its fundamental business objective, which was to track the Lehman Brothers U.S. Aggregate Bond Index, and of violating the California Business & Professions Code.

According to the plaintiffs’ legal representation, the defendant caused investors to suffer financial losses when it started investing in high-risk mortgage backed securities without letting shareholders know. Per the fund’s prospectus, Charles Schwab is supposed to obtain shareholder approval through a vote.

The plaintiffs contend that by investing 25% of the fund’s portfolio assets in high-risk, non-agency collateralized mortgage obligations (CMO’s) and mortgage-backed securities that were not part of Lehman’s US Aggregate Bond Index, Charles Schwab failed to stay true to its stated fundamental investment objective. They claim that this deviation led to tens of millions of dollars in shareholder losses because of the decline in the non-agency mortgage-backed securities value. According to their lawyers, the investors ended up experiencing a negative 12.64% in differential in total return for the fund compared to the Lehman Bros. U.S. Aggregate Bond Index from August 31, 2007 to February 27, 2009.

The investor plaintiffs are seeking restitution for all class members and for the return of management and other associated fees collected after the fund’s alleged deviation from its fundamental business objective.

Related Web Resources:
Class Action Lawsuit Filed Against Charles Schwab & Co., Star Global Tribune, September 7, 2010
Plaintiffs charge Total Bond Market Fund deviated from stated investment strategy, Investment News, September 7, 2010

Related Blog Stories Resources:
Schwab Must Pay SSEK Client $604,094 Over California Yield Plus Fund Investments, Says FINRA Arbitration Panel, https://www.stockbrokerfraudblog.com, April 22, 2010
Securities Law Firm Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas LTD LLP Investigates Investor Claims Related to Short Term Bond Funds, https://www.stockbrokerfraudblog.com, August 9, 2008 Continue Reading ›

Goldman Sachs COO Says Investment Firm Shorted 1% of CDOs Mortgage Bonds But Didn’t Bet Against Clients

Published on: July 14, 2010 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

According to Goldman Sachs Group Inc. Chief Operating Operator and President Gary Cohn, the investment firm adamant that the bank did not bet against its own clients. He says that Goldman Sachs purchased protection against a decline in just 1% of mortgage-backed securities it underwrote since late 2006. Former clients, regulators, and members of Congress are accusing Goldman Sachs of designing mortgage-backed securities that would fail and then betting on their failure to purchase credit-default swaps, which pay out when a default occurs.

Cohn testified last month before the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission. He says that in the wake of the serious allegations, the investment firm has examined the $47 billion in residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS) and $14.5 billion in collateralized debt obligations (CDOs) that the firm underwrote since firm executives began to feel the need to treat the subprime mortgage market with caution in December 2006. He claims that by the end of June 2007, Goldman Sachs held $2.4 billion of bonds from CDOs and $2.4 billion of bonds from RMBS trusts. The investment bank had protection for approximately 1% of the total underwritten. Nearly 60% of the derivatives and bonds in the CDOs were from other institutions.

The hearing was called to probe the relationship between Goldman and American International Group Inc (AIG). The investment bank had purchased CDO protection from the insurer. Billions of dollars in federal funds had allowed AIG to stay in business even though it was facing bankruptcy and a number of the insurer’s counterparties, including Goldman, are believed to have benefited. Cohn has argued that all market participants benefited from the government’s assistance.

Related Web Resources:
Goldman Sachs Shorted 1% of its Mortgage Bonds, CDOs, Cohn Says, Business Week, June 30, 2010
Goldman’s Cohn: Firm Didn’t Drive Down Mortgage-Asset Marks, Bloomberg.com, June 30, 2010
Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission
Continue Reading ›

More on YieldPlus Mutual Fund: Charles Schwab Corp. Tries to Dissuade SEC From Filing Securities Claims

Published on: March 24, 2010 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Charles Schwab Corp. doesn’t want the Securities and Exchange Commission to file securities claims over the YieldPlus mutual fund. Schwab contends that it never misrepresented the fund when it compared it to money market funds. The brokerage firm also says that it did not mislead investors, give certain ones more information than others, or let other Schwab funds cause financial harm to Charles Schwab YieldPlus Funds investors.

While the SEC has yet to file YieldPlus-related claims against Schwab, it did send the brokerage firm a Wells notice last year notifying that it may sue. Schwab had switched about half of its assets in the YieldPlus fund into mortgage-backed securities without shareholder approval. Following the housing market collapse, what was once the largest short-term bond fund in the world fund, with $13.5 million in assets in 2007, lost 35% before dividends. As of February 28, Bloomberg data shows that the mutual fund had $184 million in assets.

Even though the Investment Company Act of 1940, Section 13(a) states that a shareholder vote must take place before a company can do other than what its policies allow when it comes to which industries investments can be concentrated in, Schwab says it didn’t need approval because although the fund changed how mortgage-backed securities were categorized, it did not change its fundamental concentration policy.

Carlyle Group Sued by Former Congressman Michael Huffington For Investment Loss of More than $20 Million

Published on: July 21, 2009 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Former Congressman Michael Huffington is suing Carlyle Group, a private equity firm, and affiliated companies for more than $20 million in investment losses. Huffington, the ex-husband of columnist Arianna Huffington, says he was misled about the safety of a fund that contained mortgage-backed securities. The closed-end fund, Carlyle Capital, was supposed to be a low-risk investment fund. Huffington says he invested $20 million in the fund.

Huffington, who was a member of the California House from 1993 to 1995, filed his investment fraud lawsuit against Carlyle and Carlyle Capital executives in Massachusetts Superior Court. Huffington is accusing David M. Rubenstein, Carlyle managing director and co-founder, of misrepresenting the funds’ risks during conversations.

Huffington also contends that in March 2007, John Stomber, the head of Carlyle Capital, told investors that the fund wasn’t exposed to high-risk investments. Huffington says that in August 2007, Stomber told investors that the fund was performing on target. A report in 2008 stated that the fund’s returns were in line with near-term targets. Yet two weeks later, Huffington contends that the equity of the shareholders was gone. In March 2008, Rubenstein contacted Huffington to let him know that the fund had defaulted on its debts and lenders were selling the collateral.

Carlyle Capital was supposed to borrow money to purchase the securities and then make money on the difference between what was earned on the interest paid on the bonds and the firm’s borrowing costs. The fund collapsed after lenders made repeated margin calls. The private equity firm and its investors lost $700 million.

Related Web Resources:
High-Profile Investor Sues Carlyle Group, Forbes.com, July 13, 2009
Carlyle Sued Over Fund’s Losses, Forbes.com, July 13, 2009 Continue Reading ›