SEC Enforcement

SEC, Federal Reserve, HUD Approve Laxer Mortgage-Lending Rule

Published on: October 22, 2014 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Federal Reserve, the Federal Housing Finance Agency, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency have jointly approved a new rule for mortgage-backed securities and collateralized loan obligations. The regulation completes what had been a delayed provision of the 2010 Dodd Frank Act.

The rules are supposed to enhance the quality of loans by providing banks with a financial impetus to make sure the mortgages can be repaid. An earlier version of the proposed rule had obligated banks to retain either 5% of the risks of mortgages sold and packaged to investors or require a 20% borrower down payment.

Regulators, however, were concerned that these stipulations could hurt the housing market and they have since rescinded that 20% down payment requirement. The 5% of the risk on banks’ books when securitizing loans, however, still stands. And banks can get around the 5% risk retention requirement as long as they confirm the borrower’s ability to repay the loan and remain in compliance with other requirements, including debt payments that aren’t above 43% of income.

SEC Approves Regulations Involving REIT Prices and Arbitration Fraud Intervention

Published on: October 18, 2014 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission has approved a Financial Industry Regulatory Authority-proposed rule that would create greater transparency of Nontraded real estate investment trusts. Under the new rule, investors will have to be provided with more information about the costs involved in buying shares of nontraded REITs.

With the existing practice, brokerage firms can list nontraded REITS as having $10/share price. The new rule would obligate broker broker-dealers to include a per share estimated value for an REIT or unlisted direct participation program on customer statements and make other disclosures.

Firms would calculate an REIT or DPP per share estimated value by either using the appraised value methodology or the net investment methodology. The appraised value method involves using the liabilities and assets of the REIT or DPP to determine the valuation upon which the share value would be based. The valuations would have to be conducted at least once a year by a third-party valuation expert. The net investment method involves brokerage firms articulating in customer statements that a portion of return of capital is included in a distribution and that this return lowers the estimated per share value listed on the statement.

SEC Wants to Bar Ex-Broker for Allegedly Misappropriating $2M

Published on: October 17, 2014 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission has taken action to bar Paul Marshall, an ex-investment adviser and broker from the industry. Marshall is accused of misappropriating $2M in client assets.

Last year, the SEC charged him and his related investment advisers, Bridge Securities and Bridge Equity Inc., with fraud. The regulator contends that Marshall took client assets to cover his own spending, including child support, alimony, expensive vacations, and tuition for his kids. He purportedly diverted the money into accounts under his control, set up misleading account statements, and raised cash for FOGFuels Inc., a private placement he controlled.

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority Inc. has already barred Marshall from associating with all brokerage member firms. Last month, the SEC ordered him to pay $15 million in disgorgement because of the money he made from the alleged securities scam.

Former Axa Advisors Broker Faces SEC Charges Over Alleged $1.5M Ponzi Scam

Published on: September 30, 2014 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The SEC is charging Dennis Wright, an ex-Axa Advisors broker, with operating a Ponzi scam for 14 years and bilking customers of $1.5 million. According to the regulator, from 1998 and into 2012, Wright allegedly persuaded at least 28 customers to take money out of Axa variable annuity accounts under the guise that he would move the money to mutual fund accounts that had higher returns and also were run by the brokerage firm.

The Commission claims that rather than invest clients’ money, what ended up happening is that Wright put the money into a bank account under his control and used the funds to pay other investors. The SEC says that Wright purposely manipulated Axa Advisor clients so he could steal their savings. Alleged victims included members of Wright’s community, including childhood friends, and unsophisticated investors.

Axa Advisors let Wright go in 2012 after the firm found out about the alleged fraud. Axa has since paid back the customers whose funds were misappropriated.

Shareholder’s $40B Class Action Securities Lawsuit Over AIG Bailout Goes to Trial

Published on: September 29, 2014 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The trial over whether the U.S. government unlawfully seized a majority stake in American International Group Inc. (AIG) during the bailout has started. The securities case was brought by Starr International Co., which is the charitable and investment firm helmed by former AIG CEO Maurice R. Greenberg. Starr was the insurer’s biggest shareholder when the company became a ward of the government at the height of the economic crisis.

The lawsuit, now a class action case, claims that government violated the rights of shareholders to receive fair compensation under the U.S. Constitution. Some 300,000 AIG stockholders from 2008 and 2009, including AIG employees, large mutual fund companies, and retirees, would be entitled to any award issued to Starr. Greenberg wants about $40 billion in compensation over the government takeover and the high interest rates the U.S. charged for the loans. AIG is not one of the plaintiffs.

The insurance giant got into financial trouble in the wake of the financial crisis mostly because of sales of an insurance of the unregulated variety to banks and others, which was intended to mitigate debt exposure risks. The government loaned AIG $85 billion in 2008 to keep it from falling into bankruptcy. In opening statements, Kenneth Dintzer, a lawyer for the U.S., noted that the insurance company’ shareholders hugely benefitted from the efforts made to stabilize AIG. The government maintains that it had to bailout AIG to keep the world economy from collapsing.

Barclays to Pay $15M SEC Settlement Over Compliance Failures Following Lehman Brothers Acquisition, Pays $61.7M Fine to U.K.’s FCA Over Client Asset Issues

Published on: September 24, 2014 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Barclays Capital Inc. (BARC) has consented to pay $15 million to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission to resolve civil charges claiming that it did not make sure the financial institution was in proper compliance with securities laws and its own rules after acquiring Lehman Brothers’ advisory division. According to the regulator, the firm did not adopt and execute written procedures and policies or keep up the needed records and books to stop certain violations.

For example, says the SEC, Barclays executed over 1,500 principal transactions with advisory client accounts but did not seek the necessary written disclosures and get the requisite customer consent. It also made money and charged fees and commissions that were not consistent with disclosures for 2,785 advisory client accounts, underreported assets under management by $754 million when amending its Form ADV a few years ago, and violated the Advisers Act’s custody provisions.

The violations caused clients to lose about $472,000 and pay more than they should have, while Barclays made additional revenue that was greater than $3.1 million. Barclays has since paid back or credited $3.8 million plus interest to customers who were affected. It also consented to remedial action and will retain a compliance consultant to perform an internal review.

SEC News: Regulator Grants $30M Whistleblower Award and Charges Washington Investment Advisory Firm $600K for Undisclosed Principal Transaction, False Advertising

Published on: September 23, 2014 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Whistleblower to Get Over $30M Award in SEC Case

In its largest whistleblower award yet, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission will pay a bounty of over $30 million to an informant. Seeing that a whistleblower may be entitled to 10-30% of the amount recovered under the Dodd-Frank program, if the quality, unique information the person provided led to an enforcement action resulting in sanctions of over $1 million, a huge sum was obviously recovered.

In this particular case, the whistleblower resides abroad. Andrew Ceresney, SEC Enforcement Division Director, said that the individual brought the agency information about a fraud that otherwise would have been very hard to detect. He stated that whistleblowers anywhere in the world should see this latest award as incentive to report possible violations involving U.S. securities fraud.

T.J. Malone’s Lincolnshire Management Settles with SEC for $2.3M Over Purportedly Improper Allocations That Cost Its Funds

Published on: September 23, 2014 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Lincolnshire Management has consented to pay $2.3 million to the Securities and Exchange Commission to settle charges alleging improper expense allocations involving two of its funds’ investments in the same company. The New York-based private equity firm, which is run by businessman T.J. Maloney, claims to oversee $1.7 billion.

Lincolnshire acquired PCS Inc. via its debut fund. Several years later it acquired Computer Technology Solutions with the intention of merging the two. However, reports Forbes.com, the first fund ran out of money, so Lincolnshire used its second fund to pay for the acquisition.

Commingling investments can be precarious, especially as each fund had a slightly different investor base. Because of this, the firm created expense allocation policies that were paid directly to it. This meant that each company’s allocation would be determined by the percentage of respective contributions to the total revenue of the overall revenue. However, the policies were never put in writing, which sometimes led to misallocations.

Man to Pay $40.4M for Texas Securities Fraud Involving Bitcoin Ponzi Scam

Published on: September 20, 2014 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Trendon T. Shavers, who is accused of operating a Texas Ponzi scam involving a Bitcoin scheme he operated from his residence must pay more than $40.4 million. The SEC filed a securities fraud case against him and his company Bitcoin Savings & Trust last year and sought disgorgement.

According to the regulator, Shavers, a Texas resident, raised more than 700,000 bitcoins while promising investors interest as high as 7% weekly. The allegedly fraudulent activities lasted from November 2011 through August 2012 when the Ponzi scam collapsed.

In a promo that he posted on online, Shavers solicited lenders, offering 1% interest daily for loans involving at least 50 bitcoins. He also published posts touting nearly zero risk, claiming that the business was doing exceptionally well. When his Texas securities scam failed, Shavers showed preference to longtime investors and friends when giving out redemptions.

SEC Charges Immigration Attorneys with Securities Fraud Involving EB-5 Immigration investor Program

Published on: September 4, 2014 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The SEC is charging a Los Angeles-based immigration lawyer, his wife, and his law firm partner with securities fraud that targeted investors who wanted to gain U.S. residency through the EB-5 Immigration investor program. The program lets immigrants apply for U.S. residency if they invest in a project that helps create jobs for workers in this country.

According to the Commission, Justin, his spouse Rebecca Lee, and Thomas Kent raised close to $11.5 million from more than twenty investors that wanted to join the program. They told investors that they would qualify to join if they invested in an ethanol plant that was going to be constructed in Kansas.

The three of them are accused of taking the money and misappropriating it for other uses. Meantime, the plant was never constructed and no jobs were created. Yet Justin, Rebecca, and Thomas allegedly continued to deceive investors so that they kept believing that the construction project was in the works.