Raymond James

Raymond James Financial to Buy Morgan Keegan from Regions Financial for $930 Million

Published on: January 14, 2012 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

This week, Regions Financial Corp. (NYSE: RF) issued a statement announcing that Raymond James Financial Inc. (RJF) will be paying it $930 million to purchase Morgan Keegan & Company, Inc. and related affiliates in a stock purchase agreement. (Regions Morgan Keegan Trust and Morgan Asset Management, however, are not part of the sale.) Prior to closing, Morgan Keegan will pay Regions $250 million. This agreement, of course, will have to receiver regulatory approvals and meet closing conditions.

Also per the agreement:
• For all litigation matters connected to pre-closing activities, Regions will protect Raymond James against these losses. Meantime, Regions will benefit from already existing reserves by Regions at Morgan Keegan.

• Raymond James’ Public Finance and Fixed Income businesses will be headquartered in Memphis, Tennessee, which is also Morgan Keegan’s main base.

• Raymond James and Regions will become involved in a number of business relationships that will benefit both parties.

Regions placed Morgan Keegan on the market last June.

The sale is expected to close during the first quarter of 2012. This stock purchase agreement would allow Raymond James to grow its retail brokerage network, turning it into one of the largest firms in the US.

According to Regions, the deal would give it additional revenue opportunities, as a result of its solid partnership with Raymond James, for loan referrals, processing relationships, and deposits. The sale would also help Regions pay the federal government back some of the $3.5 billion that it received during the height of the economic crisis in 2008. However, Regions also anticipates a $575 million to $745 million impairment charge from the deal.

The Wall Street Journal says that to keep some Morgan Keegan management and financial advisers from leaving in the wake of the sale, Raymond James intends to offer up to $215 million in retention payments (restricted stock units and cash) as part of the acquisition deal. Already, a number of key Morgan Keegan employees have placed their signatures to employment contracts with Raymond James. The deal ups Raymond James headcount of financial advisers to 6000—a 60% increase and a 1000 more than prior to the deal. This will rank it third behind Morgan Stanley Smith Barney and just under Bank of America Corp.’s (BAC) Merrill Lynch.

It’s Official: Raymond James Buys Morgan Keegan, for $930 Million, The Wall Street Journal, January 11, 2012

Raymond James Said to Near $930 Million Purchase of Broker Morgan Keegan, Bloomberg, January 11, 2012

More Blog Posts:
Raymond James Must Pay $925,000 Over Auction-Rate Securities Dispute, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, September 1, 2010

Morgan Keegan & Company Ordered by FINRA to Pay $555,400 in Texas Securities Case Involving Morgan Keegan Proprietary Funds, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, September 6, 2011

Claims Filed Against Morgan Keegan Division of Regions Financial Causes Shortage of Arbitrators, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, February 8, 2010

Texas Securities Fraud: Raymond James Financial Services Pays Elderly Senior Investor About $1.8M Following Loss of Appeal

Published on: December 2, 2011 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Raymond James Financial Services has paid the $1.79M Dallas securities arbitration award plus interest it owes to Hurshel Tyler and the estate of his wife Mildred. They filed their claim with the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority. Both were in their 80’s.

They contend that they were advised by an ex-Raymond James representative to take their $3.5M in bond funds and place them in variable life insurance and variable annuities. Unfortunately, the life insurance policy was tied to $2M in improper loans, interest obligations, and ongoing tax that made it difficult to return the financial product to the brokerage firm. Tyler and Mildred’s estate claim that the stockbroker, Daul Davis, made a recommendation to them that was unsuitable.

Davis not only advised the Tylers to liquidate their municipal bond portfolio and make the new investments, but also, unknown to the couple, he moved them from one variable annuity to another, which cost them a significant surrender fee and commission. The Tylers’ Texas stockbroker lawyer says that by making the couple’s son the new annuity’s annuitant, the financial firm and Davis earned over twice the commission than if Hurshel Tyler had been the annuitant. (Usually, the annuitant and annuity owner are the same person. However, the insurance company that was involved only offered a 3.25% commission for annuitants over 80 years of age, while the commission for someone younger than that was 7.5%)

A FINRA arbitration panel sided with Tylers. The couple had sought to recoup their money, but instead panel members instead awarded them with compensatory damages.

Raymond James went on to appeal that decision. The broker-dealer argued that the couple should have given the annuities back. They also contended that they shouldn’t have to pay the couple’s $250K in legal fees because Florida, which is where the financial firm is based, doesn’t allow for this type of award.

Although Raymond James has gone ahead and paid the arbitration award, the broker-dealer maintains that the payment is unjust. The financial firms claims that not only did the couple make over $800,000 while the accounts were under its watch, but also, any losses they sustained occurred after they moved the accounts to a different broker-dealer. Raymond James says that despite disagreeing with the FINRA panel’s ruling, it has gone ahead and paid what it considers an “erroneous award” because in the long run doing so now would be less costly than continuing to contest it.

This Texas securities arbitration award is the largest one that Raymond James has ever had to pay.

Raymond James Pays Highest Arbitration Award in History, LifeHealthPro, November 30, 2011
After appeal fails, RJ forks over $1.8M to 87-year-old client, Investment News, November 30, 2011

More Blog Posts:
Former Texan and First Capital Savings and Loan To Pay $4.5M for Alleged Foreign Currency Ponzi Scheme, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, November 11, 2011
Texas Securities Fraud: SEC Moves to Freeze Assets of Stewardship Fund LP, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, November 5, 2011
Houston Judge Overturns $9.2M Securities Fraud Ruling Against Morgan Keegan, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, October 11, 2011 Continue Reading ›

Raymond James Settles Auction-Rate Securities Case with Indiana Securities Division for $31M

Published on: August 27, 2011 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Raymond James has agreed to return $31,240,000 to Indiana investors to settle allegations that it misled them about the risks involved in the auction-rate securities market. In addition to repurchasing ARS that have been frozen since the market failed in 2008, the financial firm will also pay a $63,000 civil penalty.

When the ARS market froze, investors that had thought their investments were liquid like cash were left in the lurch because they were not able to retrieve their funds. The Indiana Securities Division has been at the helm of the efforts to investigated Raymond James and work out a settlement for all state securities regulators. Over the last few years, the states have worked hard to get all of the financial firms accused of not fully apprising investors about the ARS risks to buy back the securities.

Auction-Rate Securities
ARS are long-term investments with dividends or interest rates paid that are frequently reset through auctions that take place at specific intervals. The auctions are supposed to give a source of liquidity to investors wanting to sell their ARS.

Unfortunately, when the ARS market collapsed in early 2008, many of the auctions started to fail and investors could not get rid of their ARS holdings. This proved a problem for those that managed their ARS as a way to get easy access to cash.

While some ARS issuers did say they would redeem shares-usually at par value-some could not redeem all of their investors’ shares, which left the latter with holdings that could not be liquidated.

ARS and Hoosier Investors
The state of Indiana has also reached ARS settlements with other securities firms that allegedly misled Hoosier investors. In April of last year, 12 financial firms agreed to buyback over $370 million in ARS from these investors, while also consenting to pay over $3.5 million in fines. Financial firms that reached settlements then include:

• Goldman Sachs • Banc of America • Credit Suisse • Citigroup • JP Morgan • Deutsch Bank
• Morgan Stanley • Merrill Lynch • RBC • UBS • Stifel Nicolaus & Co.
• Wachovia
These financial firms have also reached settlements with other US states. However, millions of dollars in ARS remain frozen and there is still more to be done to help investors regain access to their frozen funds. Our stockbroker fraud law firm continues to work hard to help recoup our clients’ money from their ARS that turned illiquid.

Securities Fraud
Investors rely on brokers and investment advisers for advice on where they should place their money. When a financial adviser misleads a client, causing the latter to put their money in investments that are inappropriate, it is the investor who loses out and has to live with the consequences of a failed investment.

State Announces $31 Million Securities Settlement, Inside Indiana Business, August 24, 2011
State finalizes auction-rate securities settlements, Indianapolis Business Journal, April 29, 2010
Auction Rate Securities: What Happens When Auctions Fail, FINRA

More Blog Posts:
Auction-Rate Securities Investigations by SEC and NY Attorney General Are Ongoing, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, April 21, 2011
Class Auction-Rate Securities Lawsuit Against Raymond James Financial Survives Dismissal, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, September 27, 2010
Credit Suisse Ordered to Pay STMicroelectronics N.V. $404M Over Improper ARS Investment, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, June 15, 2011 Continue Reading ›

Class Auction-Rate Securities Lawsuit Against Raymond James Financial Survives Dismissal

Published on: September 27, 2010 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

In the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, U.S. District Judge Lewis A. Kaplan has allowed some of the investor claims in the class action auction-rate securities lawsuit against broker-dealer Raymond James Financial Inc. (RJF) and its broker-dealer subsidiary to proceed. This is the first ARS class action case filed since the auction rate securities market failed in 2008 to survive a dismissal motion. The case can now go to the discovery stage.

Kaplan, who had dismissed an earlier lawsuit in this case, let the plaintiffs move forward with their auction-rate securities case on the claim that Raymond James & Associates Inc. (RJA) violated antifraud provisions between November 2007 and February 13, 2008. A claim against RJF was allowed to proceed because of its “operational and management control” of RJA during this time. Other claims were dismissed.

Investors had filed the initial class action in April 2008 against RJA, RJF, and Raymond James Financial Services Inc. (RJFS), another Raymond James broker-dealer subsidiary. The plaintiffs contended that between April 8, 2003 and February 13, 2008, the two subsidiaries told financial advisers that ARS were extremely liquid, short-term investments that could work well for any investor with at least $25,000 and with as little as a week to invest. However, when the auction-rate securities market failed, over $300 million in ARS became illiquid. Per Kaplan, RJA sold $2.3 billion of ARS, underwrote $1.2 billion, and was the auction dealer for over $725 million.

Auction-rate securities cases filed by individual investors have been faring better than class-action ARS lawsuits. Of the class-action and group complaints filed against some 19 underwriters and broker-dealers since the ARS market failed, Bloomberg.com reports that Citigroup, Deutsche Bank AG, and at least six other financial firms have managed to get the lawsuits thrown out by judges ruling that the complaints failed to meet pleading requirements. Some plaintiffs were told to refile their lawsuits and provide more details.

Raymond James Auction Rate Class-Action Fraud Suit Is First to Be Upheld, Bloomberg, September 8, 2010
Court Clears Lawsuit Against Raymond James, FA-Mag.com, September 9, 2010 Continue Reading ›

Raymond James Loses Texas Auction Rate Securities Case and is Ordered by FINRA to Pay Couple $925K

Published on: September 4, 2010 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Raymond James and Associates Inc. and financial advisor Larry Milton must pay Rex and Sherese Glendenning $925,000, says a Financial Industry Regulatory Authority panel. The Texas securities case involved an auction-rate securities dispute. brokerage firm advisor Milton has been accused of misrepresenting that the ARS the couple invested in was extremely liquid.

The Glendennings opened their Raymond James (NYSE: RJF) account in 2008 right before the ARS market failed. They claim that Milton, who had invested $1.4 million of their funds in an ARS that consisted of sewer revenue bonds, did not tell them that there was an inherent possibility that the securities might fail. Instead, they allege, he lead them to believe that the ARS could be easily sold. You can imagine their dismay when Raymond James refused their request to repurchase the ARS at full value.

The Gleddenings are not the only ones that the broker-dealer has been ordered to compensate. In just the last two months, Raymond James has been ordered to buy back $3.5 million in ARS from investors. A FINRA panel ordered the brokerage firm to repurchase $2.5 million in ARS from investor Greg Merdinger, who claims that not only was he told that auction-rate securities were safe and very liquid (even more than market funds), but also he contends that no one apprised him that there was an illiquidity risk. Raymond James affiliates Raymond James & Associates Inc. and Raymond James Financial Services Inc. were ordered to make the ARS repurchase.

Related Web Stories:
FINRA: Raymond James must pay $925,000 to couple, Reuters, August 25, 2010
Raymond James faces $2.5 million payback ruling, Tampa Biz, July 26, 2010

Related Blog Posts:
Raymond James Ordered to Buy Back $2.5M in ARS by FINRA, https://www.stockbrokerfraudblog.com, July 28, 2010
Raymond James and RBC Capital Markets Fined $1.4 Million in Total Over Improper Stock Lending Activities, https://www.stockbrokerfraudblog.com, June 22, 2009 Continue Reading ›

Raymond James Must Pay $925,000 Over Auction-Rate Securities Dispute

Published on: September 1, 2010 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

A Financial Industry Regulatory Authority panel says that Raymond James and financial advisor Larry Milton must pay Sherese and Rex Glendenning $925,000 over an auction-rate securities dispute. This is the third time this summer that Raymond James Financial Inc. (NYSE: RFJ) subsidiaries have been involved in an ARS dispute that was decided in FINRA arbitration. Since July 1, independent broker-dealer Raymond James Financial Services Inc. and brokerage firm Raymond James & Associates have been ordered to repurchase $3.5 million in ARS from clients.

The Glendennings set up their account with Raymond James in January 2008 before the market meltdown. Milton placed the couple’s $1.4 million in an ARS that contained sewer revenue bonds while failing to tell them about the risk involved.

The couple contends that Milton’s behavior wrongly gave them the impression that their investment was highly liquid and could be easily sold. However, Raymond James turned down their request to buy the ARS back at full value.

According to the Glendennings’ securities fraud attorney, the timing of the purchase was key to winning the award. The securities that they bought came up for auction for the first time thirty five days after they made the purchase. The auction failed and the couple were never able “ to go to auction.”

At the time of the ARS market crash in February 2008, Raymond James Financial clients held $1.9 billion in auction rate debt—now down to $600 million. To date, none of the securities regulators have sued the firm over ARS sales. Other financial firms, including Oppenheimer & Co. Inc. and Charles Schwab & Co. haven’t been as lucky.

Related Web Resources:
Raymond James pays more auction rate claims, Investment News, August 26, 2010

FINRA rules against Raymond James in auction rate securities case, Tampa Bay Business Journal, August 26, 2010

Stockbroker-Fraud Blog

Raymond James Ordered to Buy Back $2.5M in ARS by FINRA

Published on: July 28, 2010 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

A Financial Industry Regulatory Authority arbitration panel is ordering Raymond James & Associates Inc. and Raymond James Financial Services Inc. to buy back $2.5M in auction-rate securities from an investor. Greg Merdinger has accused Raymond James Financial Inc. of failing to warn him about the risks associated with ARS. In 2009, he filed a claim accusing the broker-dealer of breach of both contract and fiduciary duty.

Merdinger claims that from October 2006 to February 2008, Raymond James & Associates Inc. recommended that he purchase the securities while claiming that they were more liquid than money market funds, which Merdinger wanted to invest in until he was persuaded otherwise. He contends that Raymond James never told him that the ARS could become illiquid and that even into February 2008, when the market froze, Raymond James continued to advise him to buy the securities. One more purchase was even made.

Raymond James Financial’s General Counsel, Paul Matecki, has been quick to note that the broker-dealer has provided evidence that it did not know that the ARS market was at risk of failing before February 2008 when it did collapse. He also claims that there is no evidence indicating that any of its employees knew that the securities would fail.

However, Merdinger’s securities lawyer says there are copies of emails showing that Raymond James Financial managers knew the ARS market was experiencing difficulties way before it collapsed. Early last year, Raymond James chief executive and chairman issued a letter, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, apologizing to clients for the role the investment bank played in their ARS buys.

In addition to the $2.5M ARS repurchase, Merdinger has been awarded 5% interest on the amount until Raymond James buys back the securities. He is also to receive an additional $86,000.

Related Web Resources:
Raymond James faces $2.5 million payback ruling, BizJournals, July 27, 2010
Raymond James Ordered To Buy Back $2.5M in Auction-Rates, WSJ, July 26, 2010
Tom James apologizes for auction rate security purchases, BizJournals, January 5, 20009 Continue Reading ›

Raymond James and RBC Capital Markets Fined $1.4 Million in Total Over Improper Stock Lending Activities

Published on: June 22, 2009 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority says that RBC Capital Markets Corp., Raymond James & Associates, Inc., and an RBCCMC head trader have settled charges over alleged broker misconduct connected to stock loan improprieties. RJF is to pay a $1 million fine, while RBC Capital Markets will pay $400,000.

Meantime, RBCCMC Stock Loan Department head trader Benedict Patrick Tommasino has agreed to a $30,000 fine, a 20-month suspension from working for a securities firm, and another two-month suspension from acting in a principal role.

According to FINRA, RJF allegedly executed payments that were improper and unjustified to finder firms even though the companies didn’t provide services to locate the securities and they weren’t involved in the stock loan transactions for which they were receiving payments. For example, in March and 2004, Raymond James paid two finder firms for 11 transactions even though they didn’t perform a service. A Raymond James loan trader’s son was employed at one of the finder firms.

FINRA is also accusing the two broker-dealers of allegedly letting Dennis Palmeri, Sr. perform stock loan functions. Only registered individuals are allowed to perform this role.

Palmeri is a non-registered person that had been barred from the securities industry. He was previously convicted of federal securities law violations in 1994. Following his conviction, the SEC barred him from working for an investment advisor, a broker dealer, or an investment company. While Palmeri can act as a non-registered finder, he cannot perform roles requiring that the individual be registered.

Susan Merrill, the FINRA enforcement chief, says the two firms exposed the market to an individual that was non-registered, unqualified, unsupervised, and was not allowed to work in the securities industry. FINRA also claims that the two broker-dealers failed to reasonably supervise their Stock Loan Departments. By agreeing to settle, Tommasino and the two broker-dealers are not denying or admitting misconduct.

Related Web Resources:
FINRA Fines Raymond James, RBC Capital Markets Corporation, Stock Loan Trader for Improper Stock Loan Practices, FINRA, June 17, 2009
FINRA fines Raymond James, RBC Capital Markets, Forbes, June 17, 2009 Continue Reading ›

Raymond James Financial Services Is Fined $2.75 million By NASD

Published on: February 22, 2007 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

NASD says that it is fining Raymond James Financial Services $2.75 million for not adequately supervising more than 1,000 producing sales managers across the U.S between 2002 to 2004. NASD also permanently barred one of RJFS’s branch managers, Donna Vogt, for making unsuitable recommendations to retirement age and elderly customers regarding variable annuity purchases and mutual funds. Some of these transactions were deemed unsuitable because of their over-concentration in aggressive growth funds. She is also accused of making misleading statements when corresponding with customers, treating them as if they belonged to the same group regardless of financial status, age, objectives, and investment experience.

NASD says the St. Petersburg firm neglected to notice sales practice abuses because of its deficient supervisory system. Producing branch managers had to be their own supervisors-opening and approving new accounts, approving their own sales transactions, and checking their correspondence. Because of this, RJFS’s system for supervision was not in compliance with securities regulations and rules.

NASD also claims that RJFS does not have a proper system set up to properly oversee variable annuity sales. Only three exception reports have been used to screen variable annuity purchases, and transactions were not screened for suitability based on yearly income, net worth of the customer, concentration of variable annuity holdings as part of net worth, or investment experience. As a result, unsuitable recommendations by Vogt went unnoticed.