Mutual Funds

UBS to Pay $3.5M Penalty To Settle Allegations that It Disadvantaged Retirement and Charity Accounts During Mutual Fund Transactions

Published on: November 6, 2017 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

UBS Financial Services Inc. (UBS) has agreed to settle US Securities and Exchange Commission charges accusing the brokerage firm of not ensuring that certain charitable brokerage accounts and retail retirement accounts received the sales charge waivers or reduced fee share classes to which they were entitled when they purchased certain mutual funds. However, despite settling, including agreeing to pay a $3.5M penalty, the firm did not admit to or deny the SEC’s findings.

The regulator’s order states that from at least 1/2010 through 6/2015, UBS did not confirm certain customers’ eligibility to purchase from a less costly mutual fund share class and instead recommended that they buy more expensive ones. The customers that were affected purportedly did not have enough information at their disposal to understand that UBS had a conflict of interest when recommending the costlier share classes, such as Class A shares that came with an upfront sales fee and Class B/C shares that charged contingent deferred sales fees at the back-end plus came with costlier ongoing expenses and fees. All of the customers affected had been eligible to buy either no-load Class R shares or load-waved Class A shares.

As a result, claims the Commission, 15,250 customer accounts paid more than $18.5M in excess fees and expenses, upfront sales fees, and “contingent deferred sales charges.” Also, by selling investors the more expensive share classes, UBS earned higher compensations. The brokerage firm is accused of not disclosing to these customers that buying the costlier share classes would hurt their investments’ returns.

Securities Cases: SunTrust Settles Improper Mutual Fund Fee Charges for $1.1M, Ex-Morgan Stanley Barred Over Client He Later Married, and Two RIAs Are Barred for Cherry Picking

Published on: September 14, 2017 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

SEC Charges SunTrust With Collecting Over $1.1M in Excess Mutual Fund Fees

The US Securities and Exchange Commission has filed charges accusing SunTrust Investment Services of collecting over $1.1M in unwarranted fees from mutual fund clients. The SunTrust Banks subsidiary will pay an over $1.1M penalty to resolve the regulator’s civil charges.

According to the regulator’s order, SunTrust Investment Services improperly recommended costlier mutual fund share classes to clients when less expensive shares of these funds were available. The SEC says this was a breach of the investment services firm’s fiduciary duty to take actions in the client’s best interests.

Five Cetera Broker-Dealers Settle With FINRA for $3.3M Overcharging Mutual Fund Sales Fees to Charitable Organizations and Retirement Plans

Published on: August 23, 2017 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

In a settlement with the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, a number of Cetera Financial Group brokerage firms have agreed to collectively pay $3.3M for not properly supervising whether mutual fund sales charge waivers were applied correctly clients at charitable organizations and in retirement plans. The firms that have settled include Cetera Financial Specialists, Cetera Investment Services, Summit Brokerage Services, First Allied Securities, and Girard Securities.

The $3.3M is how much these clients were excessively charged plus interest for the mutual funds that they bought from July 2009 to July 2017. According to the self-regulatory organization, the brokerage firms either: charged front-end sales charges to charitable organization and retirement plan customers that bought A shares in mutual funds even though they were eligible to have these fees waived or sold them class C/B shares while charging them back-end sales charges and “higher ongoing fees and expenses.”

FINRA accused the Cetera firms of not reasonably supervising the way the sales charges waivers were applied to the mutual fund sales and leaving it up to financial advisers to decide whether the waivers should be applied. The SRO also contends that the broker-dealers did not maintain written policies and procedures that were adequate enough to help financial advisers in making such determinations.

Securities Cases: Verto Capital Settles Life Settlement Charges, Couple File Broker Fraud Claim Against NY Life Securities, JCPenny to Settle Texas Class Action Lawsuit for $97.M, & Cetera Admits to Charging Investors More For Mutual Funds

Published on: May 8, 2017 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Financial Firm and Its CEO Settle Life Settlement Fraud Charges
The US Securities and Exchange Commission announced that Verto Capital Management and its CEO William Schantz III have settled civil charges accusing them of running a Ponzi-like scam involving life settlements. As part of the settlement, Verto Capital and Schantz will pay over $4M.

According to the regulator’s complaint, the two of them raised about $12.5M through promissory note sales that were supposed to pay for the firm’s purchase and sale of life settlements. The notes were sold mostly through insurance brokers in Texas.

Investors who were religious were the main target of the alleged fraud.They were allegedly told that that the securities were short-term investments that were at low risk of defaulting.

Securities News: SEC Orders Voya to Pay $3.1M For Not Disclosing Mutual Fund Sale-Related Payments, FINRA Bars Ex-Waddell & Reed Broker, and Alabama Pension Fund Loses Millions in Ponzi Scam

Published on: March 15, 2017 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Voya Accused of Not Disclosing Revenue Received for Mutual Fund Sales
The US Securities and Exchange Commission said that Voya Financial Advisors (VOYA) would pay approximately $3.1M to regulators and investors for not telling customers about revenue the firm was paid related to a mutual fund program that didn’t bill transaction fees. Voya’s clearing broker-dealer paid the firm a percentage of the money made from the mutual fund sales. This was information that should have been shared with investors.

Also, since 2014, Voya and the third-party brokerage firm were involved in a separate agreement under which Voya provided certain administrative services in return for a percentage of service fees involving certain mutual funds. The regulator said that these payments were a conflict because they gave Voya incentive to preference these funds over other investments, which could have impacted what the firm recommended to advisory clients. As part of the settlement, Voya will pay about $2.6M of disgorgement, approximately $175K of interest, and a $300K penalty. The firm is not, however, denying or admitting to the SEC’s findings.

Fired Waddell & Reed Broker is Barred from the Securities Industry
The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority has barred an ex-Waddell & Reed Inc. broker from the industry. Paul D. Stanley was fired from the firm last year for allegedly violating its policies regarding supervision, compensation, and conduct.

FINRA Orders Oppenheimer to Pay $3.4M Penalty For Alleged Reporting Failures and Not Giving Discounts to Mutual Fund Clients

Published on: November 21, 2016 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority says that Oppenheimer & Co. (OPY) must pay $3.4M in sanctions. According to the regulator, for eight years the firm was about four years late when submitting 365 filings about disciplinary actions that it brought against its brokers and in arbitration and litigation settlements. FINRA is also accusing Oppenheimer of not giving seven claimants the documentation they needed in their arbitration against Mark Hotton, an ex-registered representative, and of overcharging 825 customers more than $1M collectively for mutual fund shares over a six-year period.

The self-regulatory organization claims that the late filings to FINRA took place between 2008 and 2016 and that Oppenheimer failed to provide claimants the documentation related to the Mark Hotton allegations between 2010 and 2013. The failure to apply the appropriate fee waiver discount for mutual fund shares purportedly occurred between 2009 and 2015.

Already, Oppenheimer has paid over $6M to settle customer disputes alleging inadequate supervision of Hotton and another $1.25M to 22 customers who did not file arbitration cases but suffered losses, too. Oppenheimer also was ordered to pay a $2.5M fine to FINRA last year over the Hotton claims. The former broker, whom FINRA permanently barred from the securities industry three years ago, was sentenced sentenced to 11 years in prison for stealing client monies and excessively trading their brokerage accounts.

SEC Accuses Pennsylvania Broker of $3.2M Securities Fraud Involving 120 Investors

Published on: September 29, 2016 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission has put out an emergency asset freeze against Peter Kohli, a former broker. According to the regulator, the Pennsylvania resident bilked at least 120 investors when he fraudulently raised over $3.2M from them between 2012 and 2015. The regulator attributes the funds collapse to the ex-broker’s “extreme recklessness.”

At the time, Kohli was CEO and president of DMS Advisors, a dually-registered investment adviser and brokerage firm. He began the DMS Funds series, comprised of four emerging market mutual funds, in 2012. The SEC claims that he overstated the funds’ level of sophistication while disregarding the risk that he and DMS Advisors might not be able to cover certain expenses.

The Commission claims that Kohli stole money from investors as the funds became beleaguered and he committed three other frauds to keep his scam going. He also purportedly misappropriated money he solicited to invest in one of the funds and his accused of drawing in two kinds of investments in Marshad Capital Group, which was DMS advisors’ holding company.

UBS to Pay $250K For Not Waiving Mutual Fund Fees

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

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority said that a UBS Group AG (UBS) unit will pay $250K to resolve charges accusing it of not waiving certain fees for mutual fund customers that were eligible for the reduction. FINRA said that the broker-dealer overcharged customers $277,636 to invest in mutual funds. The failure to wave these fees purportedly took place from 9/09 to 6/13.

The self-regulatory organization cited alleged supervisory failures. According to the settlement notice, UBS depended largely on its registered representatives to identify when sales charge waivers were warranted and identifying them. These waivers were linked to the reinstatement rights that let investors get around having to pay front-end sales charges.

Under these rights, individual investors are generally allowed to reinvest money made from selling class A mutual fund shares in the same fund family or the same fund without having to pay fees at the front end. They are given 90-120 days to reinvest for the waiver to be applicable.

State Street to Pay $382M for Misleading Clients, Including Mutual Funds, Over Hidden Markups In Foreign Currency Exchange Trades

Published on: July 27, 2016 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The Securities and Exchange Commission has arrived at a global settlement with State Street Bank and Trust Company. According to the regulator, State Street misled custody clients, including mutual funds, about hidden markups that were added to foreign currency exchange trades. The firm will pay $382.4M, including $167M in penalties and disgorgement to the Commission, a $155M penalty to the U.S. Justice Department, and at least $60M to ERISA plan clients.

Among the other services it provides, State Street facilitates indirect foreign currency exchange trading for clients so that they can sell and purchase foreign currencies in transactions involving foreign securities. An SEC probe found that State Street made a substantial chunk of money in revenue when it misled some clients about Indirect FX, claimed that it offered the most competitive rates on trades, charged “market rates,” and provided “best execution.” The Commission contends that the company did not try to get the best prices for clients.

The SEC believes that State Street concealed markups so that custody clients would not notice. It also found that registered investment company custody clients were given monthly transaction reports and trade confirmations that were materially misleading because of misrepresentations about foreign currency exchange transaction pricing.

SEC News: Regulator Approves In-House Enforcement Reforms, Adopts Guidance For Security-Based Swap Transaction Reporting, and Will Audit Financial Advisers Over Mutual Fund Shares

Published on: July 14, 2016 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Securities and Exchange Commission to Audit RIAs Over Mutual Fund Share Classes
The SEC has announced that it will audit registered investment advisers so that it can examine the kinds of mutual fund share classes that they sell to clients. Share class recommendations and compliance are of particular interest to the regulator.

Because RIAs are fiduciaries, they have a duty to uphold their clients’ best interests. This includes selecting the lowest-cost share classes and 529 plan investments on a client’s behalf, depending on the latter’s investment goals. The Commission wants to see whether conflicts of interest exist, such as when an adviser is also the brokerage firm or is affiliated with a firm that garners fees from selling certain mutual fund share classes.

The SEC also wants to look at whether RIAs are disclosing if there is anyone getting paid compensation for the sale of either mutual fund share classes or other investment products. The fee might be a charge for the actual sale or a fee incurred according to the assets sold.

SEC Adopts Amendments to Regulation SBSR
The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission has adopted guidance and amendments for Regulation SBSR, which includes rules for the public dissemination and regulatory reporting of security-based swap transactions. The rules and guidance were created to enhance transparency in the market for security-based swaps. They were mandated under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act.