Articles Posted in Mutual Funds

US Chamber of Commerce Wants Treasury Secretary to Let SEC Finish Study About Money Market Mutual Funds Before Pressing for Action

Published on: November 15, 2012 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has written a letter to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner asking him to rescind the request he made to the Financial Stability Oversight Council to press the Securities and Exchange Commission to take further action on money market mutual funds. Instead, they want the SEC to be allowed to first finish its study on the impact its 2010 reform steps have already had up to this point.

The Chamber implied that if FOSC were to invoke its powers, per the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act’s Section 120, to make the SEC act, this could place the financial markets in peril. It said that not only was invoking Section 120 premature, and at “cross-purposes” with the mandate the Commission has to “promote capital formation” but also this would subject money market mutual funds to what would be the equivalent of “joint oversight by the FSOC.”

Under Section 120, the FSOC is authorized to recommend that primary financial regulators implement “new or heightened standards and safeguards” after finding that a financial activity could create systemic risk. Such a recommendation has to be made available for public comment before it is formally adopted. (Following a final recommendation, the Commission would have 90 days to comply, implement a similar measure, or give reason for why it chose not to act.)

“Business owners are solicited to join the Chamber of Commerce and pay dues. But does the ‘Chamber’ even represent their interests?,” said Shepherd Smith Edwards and Kantas, LTD, LLP Founder and Money Market Mutual Fund Fraud Attorney William Shepherd. “This is an example of how the Chamber spends their dues. But I would say that the vast majority of those who own businesses are more interested in transparency and safety when they invest into money market funds than protecting those running these funds from regulations.”

Geithner, who is also FSOC chairman, had introduced a parallel strategy a couple of months ago that he said would assist in limiting systemic risk from money market funds. In addition to a letter to council members urging the FSOC to use Section 120 to make a formal recommendation of action by the SEC, he also put out groundwork for a number of measures by federal regulators should the Commission decide not to act.

The Treasury Secretary’s plan involves two initiatives that the SEC is considering: Requiring the funds to keep capital buffers or moving them to a floating net asset value. (SEC Chairman Mary Schapiro, who in August wasn’t able to garner enough commissioner support to move forward with proposed money market mutual fund measures, has expressed support for Geithner’s plan. She too believes that money market funds are a systemic risk.)

Addressing the 2010 rule changes by the SEC in 2010, Geithner, in his letter, said that they failed to tackle a couple of core money funds characteristics that place the funds at risk of “destabilizing runs”: a “first-mover advantage,” which can spur investors to redeem shares upon first signs of a possible threat to the liquidity or value of the fund, and the need for “explicit loss-absorption capacity” in the event of a decline in a portfolio security’s value.

US Chamber of Commerce

Financial Stability Oversight Council

More Blog Posts:
Securities Lawsuit Over Excessive AXA Mutual Fund Management Fees in Variable Annuity Program Can Proceed, Says NJ District Court, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, October 2, 2012

Securities Fraud: Mutual Funds Investment Adviser Cannot Be Sued Over Misstatement in Prospectuses, Says US Supreme Court, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, June 16, 2011

Securities Roundup: Study Recommends Against Additional Money Fund Reforms, Lawmakers Disagree on Whether Dodd-Frank Wiped Out “Too Big to Fail” & An SEC Committee Approves Recommendations to Proposed General Solicitation Ban

Published on: October 31, 2012 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Per a study released by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, it is “ill-advised” to regulate money market mutual funds further due to the effective reforms that the SEC already implemented two yeas ago, including revisions that made the funds more transparent and liquid and not as high risk. The study comes in the wake of debate between lawmakers, market participants, and regulators about more regulations to the industry. For example, SEC Chairman Mary Schapiro has been pushing for the additional reforms because she believes the money market mutual fund industry continues to be a threat to the financial system.

The authors of the study derived their findings from money fund investment data that had been filed with the Commission, as well as from information on commercial paper from the Federal Reserve. Among its conclusions is that the reforms in 2010 made the funds more liquid and better equipped to deal with significant redemption changes. Also, in the last two years, the funds have begun to shift “more dynamically” through geographies and asset classes in reaction to “evolving risks.”

Another area that has been up for debate is whether the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act has, in fact, ended “too big to fail” and outlawed bailouts. Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass) issued an analysis earlier this month that said that the law does. However, another report, by House Financial Services Committee Chairman Rep. Spencer Bachus (R-Ala), disagrees.

Securities Roundup: SLUSA Bars Investors’ State Securities Case Alleging Trust Account Management Negligence, Blocks Investors From Remanding Fraud Case to Puerto Rico & FINRA Enhances Proposed Rules’ Cost-Benefit Analysis, Looks at Non-Traded REIT Ads

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

According to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act bars state law breach of contract and negligence claims related to the way the plaintiffs’ trust accounts were managed. The appeals court’s ruling affirms the district court’s decision that the claims “amounted to allegations” that the defendants did not properly represent the way investments would be determined and left out a material fact about the latters’ conflicts of interest that let them invest in in-house funds.

SLUSA shuts a loophole in the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act that allows plaintiffs to sue in state court without having to deal with the latter’s more stringent pleading requirements. In Daniels v. Morgan Asset Management Inc., the plaintiffs sued Regions Trust, Morgan Asset Management, and affiliated entities and individuals in Tennessee state court. Per the court, Regions Trust, the record owner of shares in a number of Regions Morgan Keegan mutual funds, had entered into two advisory service agreements with Morgan Asset Management, with MAM agreeing to recommend investments to be sold or bought from clients’ trust accounts. The plaintiffs are claiming that MAM was therefore under obligation to continuously assess whether continued investing in the RMK fund, which were disproportionately invested in illiquid mortgage-backed securities that they say resulted in their losses, was appropriate.

The defendants were able to remove the action to federal district court, which, invoking SLUSA, threw out the lawsuit. The appeals court affirms this dismissal.

Securities Lawsuit Over Excessive AXA Mutual Fund Management Fees in Variable Annuity Program Can Proceed, Says NJ District Court

Published on: October 2, 2012 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

According to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, plaintiff Mary Ann Sovolella can sue AXA Equitable Life Insurance Co. on behalf of eight mutual funds that belong to a variable annuity program for excessive management fees. Per Judge Peter Sheridan, the economic realities and a broad interpretation the 1940 Investment Company Act Section 36(b) gives her standing. The defendants are AXA Equitable Funds Management Group LLC (collectively AXA) and AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company (AXA Equitable).

Sovolella is suing on behalf of the AXA Funds, EQ Advisors Trust and those that paid investment management fees. She alleges that charging the funds management fees that were excessive violates ICA’s Section 36(b). The defendants’ sought to have the securities lawsuit dismissed on the grounds of lack of statutory standing.

The plaintiff joined the EQUI-VEST Deferred Variable Annuity Program after the opportunity was offered to her by her employer, Newark School System (due to a group annuity contract involving AXA Equitable). The eight AXA Funds in the EQ Trust are part of the portfolios that were made available to Sovolella through the program. AXA charges the funds an investment management fee that is taken out of the fund balance, which lowers the “value of the Plaintiff’s investment.”

While ICA’s Section 36(b) includes the provision that investment advisers have a fiduciary obligation regarding the “receipt of compensation for services” that they give to mutual funds, there are limits as to who can pursue a claim. An action can only be brought by the Securities and Exchange Commission or a security holder for a mutual fund that is allegedly charging fees that are excessive. However, per the court, ICA doesn’t provide a definition for the term “security holder.” While the defendants argued that Sovolella is not a “security holder” the plaintiff, maintains that she is one as this pertains to the funds.

Denying the defendants’ motion to dismiss, the court said that while it doesn’t make “sense to limit standing” in in order to enforce Section 36(b) to AXA or any entity that didn’t pay the fees that were allegedly excessive, Sovolella and other investors that are similarly situated are accountable for and did pay all challenged fees while bearing the complete risk of “poor investment performance,” entitled to direct AXA on how to vote their shares, and when the plaintiff opts to take out her investment in the fund it will be her responsibility to pay the investment taxes. Plaintiff, therefore, possesses an “economic stake” in these transactions.

Sivolella v. AXA Equitable Life Insurance Co., Justia (PDF)

1940 Investment Company Act (PDF)

More Blog Posts:
Stockbroker Fraud News Roundup: 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

Securities Fraud: Mutual Funds Investment Adviser Cannot Be Sued Over Misstatement in Prospectuses, Says US Supreme Court, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, June 16, 2011

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 Continue Reading ›

Stockbroker Fraud News Roundup: 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

Published on: May 11, 2012 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

UBS Financial Services Inc. of Puerto Rico (UBS) has agreed to pay $26.6 million to settle the Securities and Exchange Commission administrative action accusing the financial firm of misleading investors about its control and liquidity over the secondary market for nearly two dozen proprietary closed-end mutual funds. By settling, UBS Puerto Rico is not denying or admitting to the allegations.

Per the SEC, not only did UBS Puerto Rico fail to disclose to clients that it was in control of the secondary market, but also when investor demand became less in 2008, the financial firm bought millions of dollars of the fund shares from shareholders that were exiting to make it appear as if the funds’ market was stable and liquid. The Commission also contends that when UBS Puerto Rico’s parent firm told it to lower the risks by reducing its closed-end fund inventory, the Latin America-based financial firm carried through with a strategy to liquidate its inventory at prices that undercut a number of customer sell orders that were pending. As a result, closed-end fund clients were allegedly denied the liquidity information and price that they are entitled to under the law. UBS Puerto Rico must now pay a $14 million penalty, $11.5 million in disgorgement, and $1.1 million in prejudgment interest.

The SEC has also filed an administrative action against Miguel A. Ferrer, the company’s ex-CEO and vice chairman, and Carlos Ortiz, the firm’s capital markets head. Ferrer allegedly made misrepresentations, did not disclose certain facts about the closed-end funds, and falsely represented the funds’ market price and trading premiums. The Commission is accusing Ortiz of falsely representing the basis of the fund share prices.

In other stockbroker fraud news, the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado has denied Morgan Keegan & Co. Inc.’s bid to vacate the over $40,000 arbitration award it has been ordered to pay over the way it marketed its RMK Advantage Income Fund (RMA). Judge Richard Matsch instead granted the investors’ motion to have the award confirmed, noting that there were “many factual allegations” in the statement of claim supporting the contention that the firm was liable.

Per the court, Morgan Keegan had argued that the arbitration panel wasn’t authorized to issue a ruling on the claimants’ bid for damages related to the marketing of the fund, which they had invested in through Fidelity Investment. Morgan Keegan contended that seeing as it had no business relationship with the claimants, it couldn’t be held liable for their losses, and therefore, the FINRA arbitration panel had disregarded applicable law and went outside its authority. The district court, however, disagreed with the financial firm.

In other stockbroker fraud news, the SEC has reached a settlement with a Florida attorney accused of being involved in a financial scam run by a viaticals company that defrauded investors of over $1 billion. The securities action, which restrains Michael McNerney from future securities violations, is SEC v. McNerney. He is the ex-outside counsel for now defunct Mutual Benefits Corp.

The MBC sales agent and the company’s marketing materials allegedly falsely claimed that viatical settlements were “secure” and “safe” investments as part of the strategy to get clients to invest. The viaticals company also is accused of improperly obtaining polices that couldn’t be sold or bought, improperly managing escrow premium funds in a Ponzi scam, and pressuring doctors to approve bogus false life expectancy figures.

McNerney, who was sentenced to time in prison for conspiracy to commit securities fraud, must pay $826 million in restitution (jointly and severally with other defendants convicted over the MBC offering fraud).

UBS Puerto Rico unit to pay $26.6 mln in SEC pact, Reuters, May 1, 2012

Morgan Keegan & Co. Inc. v. Pessel (PDF)

SEC Files Charges Against Former Attorney for Mutual Benefits, SEC, April 30, 2012

More Blog Posts:
Stockbroker Fraud Roundup: 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

Commodities/Futures Round Up: CFTC Cracks Down on Perpetrators of Securities Violations and Considers New Swap Market Definitions and Rules, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, April 20, 2012

Institutional Investor Fraud Roundup: 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 Securities Blog, March 29, 2012 Continue Reading ›

Investment Adviser Roundup: Two Firms Pay Over $47M For Alleged Failure to Properly Disclose Allegations, District Court Allows Claims Involving Excessive Mutual Fund Fees, and Conn. Firm to Settle CDO Misrepresentation Allegations for $1.62M

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

Investment Advisory Firms Settle SEC’s Failure to Disclose Mutual Fund Risk Allegations for Over $47M

Claymore Advisors LLC and Fiduciary Asset Management LLC have agreed to pay over $47 million to settle SEC proceedings related to the roles that they allegedly played in failing to properly disclose the risky derivative strategies of a closed-end mutual fund. The strategies are partially to be blame for the collapse of the

Fiduciary/Claymore Dynamic Equity Fund (HCE) during the economic crisis. The two firms are resolving the claims without denying or admitting to wrongdoing, and some of the money will go toward reimbursing shareholders.

Securities Fraud: Mutual Funds Investment Adviser Cannot Be Sued Over Misstatement in Prospectuses, Says US Supreme Court

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

In a 5-4 ruling, the US Supreme Court placed specific limits on securities fraud lawsuits this week when it ruled in Janus Capital Group v. First Derivative Traders, No. 09-525 that the mutual funds investment adviser could not be sued over misstatements in fund prospectuses. Justice Clarence Thomas, who wrote for the majority, said that only the fund could be held liable for violating an SEC rule that makes it unlawful for a person to make a directly or indirectly untrue statement of material fact related to the selling or buying of securities.

The fund and its adviser were closely connected. Janus Capital Group, which is a public company, created Janus Investment Fund, which then retained Janus Capital Management to deal with management, investment, and administrative services. However, in its appeal to the nation’s highest court, Janus argued that the funds are separate legal entities. He said that the parent company and subsidiary are not responsible for the prospectuses, and they therefore cannot be held liable. The investors filed their securities fraud lawsuit after the New York attorney general sued the adviser in 2003.

The plaintiffs claimed that the funds disclosure documents falsely indicated that the adviser would implement policies to curb strategies based on fund valuation delays. At issue was whether it could be said that the adviser issued misleading statements that the SEC rule addressed. Justice Thomas said no. He noted although the adviser wrote the words under dispute, the fund was the one that issued them. Meantime, Justice Stephen G. Breyer, who wrote the dissent, said that there is nothing in the English language stopping someone from saying that if several different parties that each played a part in producing a statement then they all played a role in making it.

Wells Fargo Advisors LLC Agrees to $1 Million FINRA Fine for Securities Charges Related to Mutual Fund Prospectus Delivery

Published on: May 12, 2011 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

FINRA is fining Wells Fargo Advisors LLC $1 million over the allegations that the financial firm did not deliver mutual fund prospectuses within the three days (as required by federal securities laws) and delays in the updating of material information about former and current representatives. Wells Fargo has agreed to the fine.

Per FINRA, about 934,000 clients who bought mutual funds two years ago were affected when Wells Fargo did not deliver prospectuses within three days of the transactions. Prospectuses were given to clients anywhere from one to 153 days late. The SRO contends that even after a 3rd provider notified the broker-dealer about the delay, Wells Fargo allegedly did not take corrective action to remedy the problem.

FINRA also says that the financial firm did not abide by the SRO’s rules when it wasn’t prompt in reporting required information about its representatives, both past and present. Securities firms must make sure that the information on their representatives’ applications for registration on Forms U4 are current in FINRA’s CRD (Central Registration Depository). Termination notices, known as Forms U5, must also be updated. Financial firms have 30 days from finding out about a “significant event” to update the forms. Examples of such events are customer complaints, formal investigations, or an arbitration claim against a representative. FINRA says that Wells Fargo did not update 7.6% of its Forms U5 and about 8% of its Forms U4 between 7/1/08 and 6/30/09. This resulted in almost 190 late amendments.

By agreeing to settle, Wells Fargo is not denying or admitting to the securities charges. The broker-dealer has, however, consented to the entry of FINRA’s findings.

Related Web Resources:
FINRA Fines Wells Fargo Advisors $1 Million for Delays in Delivering Prospectuses to More Than 900,000 Customers, FINRA, May 5, 2011
FINRA fines Wells Fargo $1M for prospectus delays, Forbes/AP, May 5, 2011
CRD, Financial Industry Regulatory Authority

More Blog Posts:
AG Edwards & Sons (Wells Fargo Advisors) to Settle Securities Charges it Sold Variable Annuities that Lacked Proper Documentation to Elderly Client, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, May 4, 2011
Wells Fargo Settles SEC Securities Fraud Allegations Over Sale of Complex Mortgage-Backed Securities by Wachovia for $11.2M, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, April 7, 2011
Wells Fargo to Pay $30M in Compensatory Damages to Four Nonprofits for Securities Fraud, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, June 30, 2010 Continue Reading ›

Ex-Portfolio Managers to Pay $700K to Settle SEC Charges that They Defrauded the Tax Free Fund for Utah

Published on: January 22, 2011 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

According to the US Securities and Exchange Commission, while working at Aquila Investment Management LLC, ex-portfolio managers Thomas Albright and Kimball Young allegedly defrauded the Tax Free Fund for Utah (TFFU)-a mutual fund that was heavily invested in municipal bonds. Now, the two men have settled the securities fraud charges for over $700,000. However, by agreeing to settle, Young and Albright are not admitting to or denying the allegations.

The SEC claims that without notifying the TFFU’s board of trustees or Aquila management, the two men started making municipal bond issuers pay “credit monitoring fees” on specific private placement and non-rated bond offerings. The fees, which were as high as 1% of each bond’s par value, were charged to supposedly compensate Albright and Young for additional, ongoing work that they say was required because the bonds were unrated. The SEC says that credit monitoring was actually part of the two men’s built-in job responsibilities and that although deal documents made it appears as if the fees (totaling $520,626 from 2003 to April 2009) had to be paid and would go to TFFU, they actually end up in a company that Young controlled and that Albright owned equal shares in.

The SEC says that after management at Aquila found out in 2009 that Young and Albright were charging these unnecessary fees, the financial firm suspended the two men right away and reported them to the agency. The agency says the two men violated their basic responsibilities as investment advisers of mutual funds when they failed to act in the fund’s best interests.

Related Web Resources:
The SEC Order Against Young (PDF)

The SEC Order Against Albright (PDF)

Tax Free Fund for Utah

Municipal Bonds, Stockbroker Fraud Blog Continue Reading ›

Investors Seek Recovery of Losses in Oppenheimer Champion Income Fund, Oppenheimer Rochester National Municipal Bond Fund and Nuveen High Yield Municipal Bond Fund

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

Oppenheimer Champion Income Fund (OPCHX; OCHBX; OCHCX; OCHNX; OCHYX) plummeted 82% overall making it the worst performing taxable high yield bond fund of 2008. The investors believed they were in a conservative high yield fund when in fact they were exposed to illiquid derivatives and high risk mortgage backed securities. The collapse eliminated approximately $2 billion over the course of 15 months.

Investors who purchased this fund were clients of UBS, Citigroup Smith Barney, Wachovia, Linsco Private Ledger LPL, Merrill Lynch, UBS, ING, and Stifel Nichols among others. Many investors who were sold conservative high yield bond funds were shocked to learn that they had losses of 40% to 80% of their principal. With slightly higher risk than a CD, this gave investors a one to two percent higher rate of return. Now, these conservative investors will need nearly 5 years of income just to recover. Meanwhile due to the inverse relationship between interest rates and bonds, high quality bonds have risen in value.

The Oppenheimer Rochester National Municipal Bond Fund (ORNAX; ORNBX; ORNCX) lost approximately 60% of its $4 billion in assets. The fund violated its investment ratio in illiquid securities and failed to disclose risk factors associated with the overconcentration of municipal bonds that could become illiquid quickly.

The Nuveen High Yield Municipal Bond (NHMAX; NHMBX; NHMCX; NHMRX) suffered losses of 40% in 2008. The fund invests around 80% in bonds rated BBB or below and was the reason for the decline.
Continue Reading ›