SEC Category Archives — Page 24 of 24 — Investor Lawyers Blog Published By Investment Fraud Attorneys

SEC Allegations Against Broker Accused of Fraudulent Trading Scheme Involving Archer Alexander Securities Corp. Will Not Be Dismissed, Says Court

Published on: May 24, 2007 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

A Securities and Exchange Commission action against Jamie Solow, a former stockbroker who is accused of allegedly taking part in a fraudulent trading scheme involving unsuitable and risky securities, including collateralized mortgage obligations, will not be dismissed, says the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida.

According to the court, the SEC’s antifraud charges satisfied a “level of specificity” for this type of pleading’s particularity requirements. The complaint also gives Solow proper notice of the claims (and their basis) that he aided and abetted Archer Alexander Securities Corp. in their violation of securities laws.

The court has also said that Archer allegedly committed records and books violations and did not comply with FOCUS reporting requirements. The court says that since Solow knew that his conduct was improper, and because he was a registered Archer representative, the firm was obligated to maintain proper records.

Securities and Exchange Commission Looks At Arbitration

Published on: May 3, 2007 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The SEC is considering a new policy that could let companies resolve shareholder complaints via arbitration. If adopted, this policy could limit a shareholder’s ability to sue the company in court.

A move toward arbitration could shift the balance of power between corporate managements and shareholders during a time when the balance has been more and more in favor of shareholders. The change could also restrict shareholders’ ability to recover financial, as well as other kinds of compensation from corporations.

The SEC is also examining whether corporations should be allowed to change their bylaws to make room for arbitration. This type of amendment will, in some cases, require the approval of shareholders.

Court Rules That SEC Exceeded Authority With Decision Regarding IAA Exemption

Published on: April 4, 2007 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled last week that the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission went beyond its authority to promulgate a rule exempting broker-dealers that offer investment advice to clients with fee-based accounts from regulation under the 1940 Investment Advisers Act.

The SEC had adopted the Investment Adviser/Broker-Dealer Rule, IAA Rule 202(a)(11)-1 in 2005, but the ruling was subsequently challenged by the Financial Planning Association. The court ruled in the FPA’s favor, citing exemptions, such as the broad definition of the term “investment adviser.” The court also said that the rule failed to meet certain requirements for an exemption to be consistent with the IAA. In addition, Judge Judith Rogers noted that the U.S. Congress had already addressed this “precise issue at hand.”

This is the third time in less than 12 months that the court has ruled against the SEC. Merril Hirsch, the FPA’s chief attorney said the ruling was a significant victory for consumers. He also said that any uncertainty resulting from vacating the rule was nothing compared to the uncertainty created by the broker-dealer rule.

Recent Actions By The SEC Brings Up The Question: Is It On The Side of Individual Shareholders Or Does It Protect Accountants And Corporate Executives?

Published on: February 20, 2007 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Securities and Exchange Committee Chairman Christopher Cox could lose the confidence of investors, and quite possibly, Congress, if he and the other appointed commissioners continue to pursue their chosen path of action.

The SEC has taken steps to reduce the chances of lawsuits being filed against auditing firms, corporations, and their executives, says the New York Times. The commission filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court last week. In the brief, the SEC argued for an interpretation of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 that would make it more difficult for shareholder fraud suits to be successfully litigated.

While an appeals court has said that investors only have to show that “a reasonable person” could infer from the accusations (if proven true) that the executives named in a fraud suit acted with the intent to commit fraud, the SEC’s interpretation wants there to be evidence that there was a “high likelihood” of a defendant meaning to break the law.

American Association for Justice Asks SEC To Publicly Disclose Relationship To Merrill Lynch

Published on: January 23, 2007 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The AAJ (American Association for Justice) is asking Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman Chris Cox and General Counsel Brian Cartwright to address media reports that the SEC thought about supporting Merrill Lynch & Company during attempts by Enron shareholders to hold Enron banks accountable. The AAJ wants the SEC to publicly disclose the extent of its connections to Merrill Lynch.

On January 12, 2007, the AAJ turned in to the SEC a Freedom of Information Act request. The AAJ wants the SEC to disclose if, how, and when they communicated with Merrill Lynch regarding Enron and whether Counsel Cartwright and Chairman Cox have recused themselves from the Enron case because they had both once worked for the law firm (Latham and Watkins) representing Merrill Lynch. Also, the Center for Responsive Politics is reporting that Latham & Watkins was Chairman Cox’s largest contributor while he served in the U.S. Congress. The law firm reportedly contributed $124,594 on two separate occasions.

At least 30 states are supporting the Enron shareholders who have filed lawsuits against investment banks that are accused of taking part in accounting fraud because of the Enron scandal. Merrill Lynch is one of these banks.