Articles Posted in SEC Settlements

Goldman Sachs to Pay $22M For Alleged Lack of Proper Internal Controls That Allowed Analysts to Attend Trading Huddles and Tip Favored Clients

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

Accused of not putting in place policies to prevent analyst huddles, Goldman Sachs Group Inc. (GS) will settle for $22 million the allegations made against it by US regulators. According to the Securities and Exchange Commission and FINRA, due to the nature of the financial firm’s internal control system research analysts were able to share non-public information with select clients and traders.

To settle the securities case, Goldman will pay $11 million each to FINRA and the SEC. It also consented to refrain from committing future violations and it will reevaluate and modify its written policies and procedures so that compliance won’t be a problem in the future. The financial firm has agreed to have the SEC censure it. By settling Goldman is not denying or admitting to the allegations.

Meantime, FINRA claimed that Goldman neglected to identify and adequately investigate the increase in trading in the financial firm’s propriety account before changes were made to analysis and research that were published. The SRO says that certain transactions should have been reviewed.

This is not the first time that Goldman has gotten in trouble about its allegedly inadequate control systems. Last year, it agreed to pay $10 million to the Massachusetts Securities Division over ASI and the huddles. In 2003, the financial firm paid $9.3 million over allegations that its policies and controls were not adequate enough to stop privileged information about certain US Treasury bonds from being misused.

The latest securities actions are related to two programs that the financial firm created that allegedly encouraged analysts to share non-public, valued information with select clients. The SEC says that during weekly “huddles” between 2006 and 2011, Goldman analysts would share their perspectives on “market color” and short-term trading with company traders. Sales employees were also sometimes present, and until 2009, employees from the financial firm’s Franchise Risk Management Group who were allowed to set up large, long-term positions for Goldman also participated in the huddles.

Also in 2007, the financial firm established the Asymmetric Service Initiative. This program let analysts share ideas and information that they acquired at the huddles with a favored group made up of approximately 180 investment management and hedge fund clients.

The SEC contends that ASI and the huddles occurred so that Goldman’s traders’ performances would improve and there would be more revenue in the form of commissions. The financial firm even let analysts know that it would be monitoring whether ideas discussed at the huddles succeeded and that this would be a factor in performance evaluations. The Commission said that the two programs created a serious risk, especially considering that a lot of ASI clients were traders who did so often and in high volume.

Meantime, FINRA claimed that before changes were made to published analysis and research, Goldman would neglect to identify and adequately investigate the increase in trading in the financial firm’s proprietary account. The SRO says that there were certain transactions that should have been reviewed.

This is not the first time that Goldman has gotten in trouble over its allegedly inadequate control systems. Last year, it agreed to pay $10 million to the Massachusetts Securities Division over ASI and the huddles. In 2003, the financial firm paid $9.3 million over allegations that its policies and controls were not adequate enough to stop privileged information about certain US Treasury bonds from being misused.

Goldman Sachs to Pay $22 Million Over Analyst Huddle Claims, Bloomberg, April 12, 2012

More Blog Posts:
Ex-Goldman Sachs Director Rajat Gupta Pleads Not Guilty to Insider Trading Charges, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, October 26, 2011

SharesPost, its CEO, and Fund Manager Settle with the SEC

Published on: March 17, 2012 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The Securities and Exchange Commission says that it has reached a securities settlement in its administrative proceeding against SharesPost. Along with its Chief Executive Officer Greg Brogger, the online platform that serves as a secondary market for pre-IPO shares will pay $100,000 in penalties.

According to the SEC, SharesPost was matching up the sellers of private company stock and buyers even though it wasn’t a registered broker-dealer. Also, the online service allegedly let other broker-dealers’ registered representatives present themselves as SharesPost employees and make commissions on securities transactions, allowed one of its affiliates to manage pooled investment vehicles that were supposed to buy stock in single private firms and interests in funds that Sharespost made available, and published on the website third-party information about issuers’ financial metrics, research reports, and a valuation index that it created.

The SEC noted that although it is open to innovation in capital markets, products and new platforms have to abide by the rules, including making sure that basic disclosure and fairness occur. The Commission said that that broker-dealer registration is key in helping protect customers—especially considering that there are risks involved in the secondary marketplace for pre-IPO stocks for even the most sophisticated investors.

The Commission also settled its securities case against FB Financial Group and its fund manager Laurence Albukerk. The fund manager is accused of providing offering materials that did not let investors know he was making extra fees because he was buying Facebook shares using an entity that his wife controlled. Albukerk and his financial firm have agreed to pay pre-judgment interest plus disgorgement of $210,499 and $100,000 fine. Sharespost, Brogger, Albukerk, and FB Financial Group agreed to settle without denying or admitting to any wrongdoing.

Meantime, in a related securities fraud lawsuit filed in civil court, the SEC accused Frank Mazzola and his financial firms Facie Libre Management Associates, LLC and Felix Investments of making secret commissions and taking part in improper self-dealing. Mazzola and the firms allegedly made a number of false statements to investors about offerings in Zynga, Facebook, and Twitter while not revealing that certain prices were raised as a result of commissions.

Facie Libre also allegedly sold Facebook interests even though it didn’t own some of these shares. Both of the firms and Mazzola are accused of misleading an investor into thinking they had acquired Zynga stock, as well as of making misrepresentations about Twitter revenue. This case is still open. Felix Investments and Mazzola have, however, settled a related but separate action with the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority with the firm consenting to pay a $250,000 fine and Mazzola a $30,000 fine.

In the wake of electronic markets and Wall Street banks all rushing to present investors with an opportunity to trade stakes in popular technology companies prior to them going public, regulators and lawmakers have been more closely scrutinizing private share trading over the last year. That said, alternative online investment platforms, which are called “shadow markets,” can be very risky.

“The real shock is the lack of problems the SEC finds with such trading in pre-public shares,” says Shepherd Smith Edwards and Kantas, LTD LLP Founder and stockbroker fraud lawyer William Shepherd. “The penalties levied are only for firms not being licensed to sell securities engaging in such practices and/or for ‘self-dealing.’ Meanwhile, this entire practice flies in the face of both the letter and intent of securities laws that have been on the books since the 1930’s. Wall Street screams about new regulations while it ignores current ones. In driving terms, think of this as the police watching as drag races are being held in your neighborhood, ignoring red lights and stop signs on every corner, and being only concerned with whether the drivers are licensed.”

SEC charges SharesPost, Felix over pre-IPO trading, Reuters, March 14, 2012

More Blog Posts:

Securities and Exchange Commission Charges Investment Adviser with Committing Securities Fraud on Linked In, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, January 6, 2012

SEC Looks Likely to Win Appeal in $285M Securities Settlement that Judge Rakoff Rejected

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

In a primarily procedural decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has ruled that the Securities and Exchange Commission’s case against Citigroup, which resulted in a proposed $285M securities fred settlement, be stayed pending a joint appeal of U.S. Senior District Judge Jed Rakoff’s ruling that the civil lawsuit proceed to trial. Rakoff had rejected the settlement on the grounds that he didn’t believe that it was “adequate.” He also questioned the Commission’s practice of letting parties settle securities causes without having to admit or deny wrongdoing. The trial in SEC v. Citigroup Global Markets, Inc. had been scheduled for July 2012.

In December, the SEC filed a Notice of Appeal to the 2nd Circuit contending that the district court judge made a legal mistake in declaring an unprecedented standard that the Commission believes hurts investors by not allowing them to avail of “benefits that were immediate, substantial, and definite.” The notice also stated that it considered it incorrect for the district court to require an admission of facts or a trial as terms of condition for approving a proposed consent judgment—especially because the SEC provided Rakoff with information demonstrating the “reasoned basis” for its findings.

The 2nd circuit’s ruling deals a blow to Rakoff’s decision, which other federal judges have cited when asking if the public’s interest is being served when federal agencies propose settlements. The three-judge panel’s appellate ruling, which was a per curiam (unsigned) decision, found that the SEC and Citi would likely win their contention that Rakoff was in error when he turned down the securities settlement. The appeals court justices said that they had to defer to an executive agency’s evaluation of what is best for the public and that there was no grounds to question the SEC’s claim that the $285M securities settlement with Citigroup is in that interest.

The 2nd circuit said that Rakoff “misinterpreted” precedent related to his discretion to determine public interest and went beyond his judicial authority. Also, per the appellate panel, while district court judges should not merely rubber stamp on behalf of federal agencies it is not their job to define the latter’s policies.

It is important to note, however, that the 2nd circuit’s ruling only tackles the preliminary issue of whether the securities case should be stayed pending the completion of the appeal. The panel said it would be up to the justices that hear the appeal to resolve all matters and that this ruling should not have any “preclusive” impact. Counsel would also be appointed to argue Rakoff’s side during the appeal.

Ruling Gives Edge to U.S. in Its Appeal of Citi Case, NY Times, March 15, 2012

Second Circuit: Rakoff, Mind, Wall Street Journal, March 15, 2012

More Blog Posts:
Citigroup’s $285M Settlement With the SEC Is Turned Down by Judge Rakoff, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, November 28, 2011

Citigroup’s $285M Mortgage-Related CDO Settlement with Raises Concerns About SEC’s Enforcement Practices for Judge Rakoff, Institutional investor Securities Blog, November 9, 2011

Citigroup’s $75 Million Securities Fraud Settlement with the SEC Over Subprime Mortgage Debt Approved by Judge, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, October 23, 2010

SEC Chairwoman Defends ‘No Wrongdoing’ Settlements

Published on: February 27, 2012 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Securities and Exchange Commission Chairwoman Mary L. Schapiro said that the agency’s practice of reaching settlements with financial firms without them having to admit wrongdoing has “deterrent value” despite the fact that some of these firms have been charged more than once for violating the same securities laws. Schapiro noted that the commission ends up bringing a lot of the same kinds of securities cases so that people don’t forget their obligations or that they are being watched by an entity that will hold them responsible.

The SEC will often settle securities fraud cases with a financial firm my having the latter pay a fine and not denying (or admit) that any wrongdoing was done. Expensive court costs are avoided and a resolution is reached.

The SEC has said that financial firms won’t settle if they have to acknowledge wrongdoing because this could make them liable in civil cases filed against them over the same matters. Schapiro says the SEC only settles when the amount it is to receive by settling is about the same as it would likely get if the commission were to win the lawsuit in court.

UBS Global Asset Management to Pay $300,000 to Settle SEC Charges Related to Alleged Mutual Fund Price Violations

Published on: January 19, 2012 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The Securities and Exchange Commission says that UBS Global Asset Management will pay $300,000 to resolve charges that it did not give securities in three mutual fund portfolios the proper price. This alleged failure caused investors to receive a misstatement regarding the funds’ net asset values. By agreeing to settle the charges, UBSGAM is not admitting to or denying the findings.

The SEC start investigating UBSGAM after SEC examiners conducted a routine check of the financial firm. According to its order, in 2008 UBSGAM bought about 54-complex fixed-income securities of $22 million, which was an aggregate purchase price. The majority of the securities were part of subordinated tranches of nonagency MBS with underlying collateral, which were were mortgages that weren’t in compliance with requirements to be part of MBS-guaranteed or to have been issued by Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, or Ginnie Mae. CDO’s and asset-backed securities were among these securities.

After the securities were bought, 48 of them were priced substantially over the transaction price. This is because the pricing sources that provided the valuations to UBSGAM didn’t appear to factor in the price that the funds paid for the securities. Some quotations were not priced on a daily basis, while others were formulated using ending price from the last month. It wasn’t until over 2 weeks after UBSGAM started getting price-tolerant reports pointing out such discrepancies that it’s Global Valuation Committee finally met.

By using the prices that the 3rd party pricing service or a broker-dealer provided, the SEC contends that the mutual funds did not abide by their own valuation procedures, which mandate that the securities use the transaction price value until the financial firm makes a fair value determination or gets a response to a price challenge based on the discrepancy noted in the price tolerance report. The transaction price can be used for 5 business days, when a decision would have to be made on the fair value. The SEC concluded that by not making sure that these procedures were being followed, the financial firm caused the mutual funds to violate the Investment Company Act’s Rule 38a-1.

The SEC also determined that due to the securities not being timely or properly priced at fair value for a number of days in 2008, the funds were misstated (up to 10 cents in some cases) and they were then purchased, sold, or redeemed based on NAVs that were not accurate and higher than they should have been.

Read the SEC’s Order Against UBS (PDF)

More Blog Posts:
SIFMA Wants FINRA to Take Tougher Actions Against Brokers that Don’t Repay Promissory Notes, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, January 17, 2012

Raymond James Financial to Buy Morgan Keegan from Regions Financial for $930 Million, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, January 14, 2012

$78M Insider Trading Scam: “Operation Perfect Hedge” Leads to Criminal Charges for Seven Financial Industry Professionals, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, January 18, 2012

Citigroup’s $285M Mortgage-Related CDO Settlement with Raises Concerns About SEC’s Enforcement Practices for Judge Rakoff

Published on: November 9, 2011 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

In Federal District Court today, Judge Jed S. Rakoff expressed concerns about the $285M securities settlement that Citigroup had reached with the Securities Exchange Commission. The financial firm was accused selling $1B in high-risk mortgage-linked collateralized debt obligation that it allegedly knew were at risk of failing. A federal judge must approve the settlement.

Rakoff is the same judge that wouldn’t approve Bank of America’s $33M securities settlement with the SEC for allegedly misleading investors. He later approved a revised settlement of $150 million.

At today’s hearing over the Citigroup deal, Rakoff said the settlement raises issues of concerns about the SEC’s enforcement practices. Approving the agreement would close the case on regulators’ claims that the financial firm.

While Rakoff has not yet made a decision about whether he will approve the settlement, he did question whether the SEC had any genuine desire to find out exactly what happened rather than just settling up. The SEC allows parties to settle without denying or admitting to any wrongdoing. Rakoff also raised concerns about the banks often break the promise they make when settling that they won’t violate securities laws in the future. This is the fifth time that Citigroup has settled securities claims with the SEC over alleged civil fraud. Rakoff also raised questions about why the bank’s settlement involves just a $95 million penalty when investors’ are estimated to have lost $700 million on the CDO.

Even though Citigroup didn’t jump into subprime mortgage loan packaging, it got involved in the housing boom just as that was reaching its heights As the market collapsed, Citigroup sustained over $30 billion in losses, and the government had to bail the bank out twice.

Last year, the financial firm consented to pay $75 million over allegations that it intentionally didn’t notify investors that their investment in the subprime mortgage market were declining in value when the financial crisis hit. Citigroup has since reorganized its risk management function

Citigroup’s $285M Settlement
The SEC claims Citigroup misled clients over a $1 billion derivatives deal involving Class V Funding III, which is a collateralized debt obligation. Not only did the financial firm select the portfolio but it also bet against it. Investors were not told of Citigroup’s conflicting allegiances and they sustained huge losses. Meantime, Citigroup made $126 million from taking a short position against the CDO’s assets, as well as another $34 million in fees.

Judge in Citigroup Mortgage Settlement Criticizes S.E.C.’s Enforcement, NY Times, November 9, 2011

Judge Dredd may scotch $285M Citi settlement: Attorney, Investment News, November 8, 2011

More Blog Posts:
Citigroup to Pay $285M to Settle SEC Lawsuit Alleging Securities Fraud in $1B Derivatives Deal, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, October 20, 2011

FDIC Objects to Bank of America’s Proposed $8.5B Settlement Over Mortgage-Backed Securities, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, August 30, 2011

Bank of America and Countrywide Financial Sued by Allstate over $700M in Bad Mortgaged-Backed Securities, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, December 29, 2010

Banco Espirito Santo S.A. Settles for $7M SEC Charges Alleging Violations of Investment Adviser, Broker-Dealer, and Securities Transaction Registration Requirements

Published on: November 5, 2011 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Without denying or admitting to wrongdoing, Banco Espirito Santo S.A. a banking conglomerate based in Portugal, has consented to pay nearly $7M in disgorgement, prejudgment interest, and civil penalties to settle Securities and Exchange Commission allegations that it violated securities transaction, investment adviser, and broker-dealer registration requirements. The bank has also agreed to a bar from future violations, as well as an undertaking that it pay a minimum interest rate to US clients on securities bought through BES.

According to the SEC, between 2004 and 2009 and while not registered as an investment adviser or broker-dealer in the US, BES offered investment advice and brokerage services to about 3,800 US resident clients and customers. Most of them were immigrants from Portugal. Also, allegedly the securities transactions were not registered even though they did not qualify for a registration exemption.

The SEC says that by acting as an unregistered investment adviser and broker-dealer BES violated sections of the Exchange Act and the Advisers Act. The bank violated the Securities Act when it allegedly sold and offered securities in this country without registration or the exemption.

The SEC says BES used its Department of Marketing, Communications, and Customer Research in Portugal to send out marketing materials to clients outside the country. Customers in the US ended up getting materials not specifically designed for US residents. BES also worked with a customer service call center to service its US customers. Via phone, these clients were offered securities and other financial products. The representatives were not registered as SEC broker-dealers and had no US securities licenses even though they serviced US clients. US Customers were also offered brokerage services through ESCLINC, which is a money transmitter service in Rhode Island, Connecticut, and New Jersey. ESCLINC acted as a contact point for the investment and banking activities of BES’s US clients.

Registration Provisions
The SEC has set registration provisions in place to help preserve the securities markets’ integrity as well as that of the financial institutions that serve as “gatekeepers,” said SEC New York regional office director George S. Canellos. He accused BES of “brazenly” disregarding these provisions.

State securities laws and US mandate that investment advisers, brokers, and their financial firms be registered or licensed. You should definitely check to make sure that whoever you are investing with or seeking investment advice from his properly registered. It is also important for you to know that doing business with a financial firm or a securities broker that is not registered can make it hard for you to recover your losses if that entity were to go out of business and even if the case is decided in your favor (whether in arbitration or through the courts.)

More Blog Posts:

EagleEye Asset Management LLC Sued by SEC and CFTC for Alleged Forex Trading Scam, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, September 28, 2011

Citigroup to Pay $285M to Settle SEC Lawsuit Alleging Securities Fraud in $1B Derivatives Deal

Published on: October 20, 2011 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Citigroup has consented to pay $285 million to settle a Securities and Exchange Commission complaint accusing the bank of misleading investors in a $1 billion derivatives deal—a collateralized debt obligation called Class V Funding III. It was Citigroup that chose the assets for the portfolio that it then bet against. Investors were not told that Citigroup’s interests were contrary to theirs. The $285 million will go to the deal’s investors.

According to the SEC, Citigroup had significant influence over the $500 million of portfolio assets that were selected. It then took a short position against the assets, standing to profit if they dropped in value. All 15 investors were not made aware of any of this and practically all of their investments (in the hundreds of millions of dollars) were lost when the CDO defaulted in under 9 months after it closed on February 28, 2007. Credit ratings agencies had downgraded over 80% of the portfolio.

Financial instrument insurer Ambac, which was the deal’s biggest investor and had taken on the role of assuming the credit risk, was forced to pay those who bet against the bonds. In 2009, Ambac sought bankruptcy protection.

Meantime, Citigroup made about $126 million in profits from the short position and earned about $34 million in fees. S.E.C.’s division of enforcement director Robert Khuzami says that under the law, Citigroup was required to give these CDO investors “more care and candor.”

Per the SEC’s civil action, Citigroup employee Brian Stoker is the one that mainly put the deal together, while Credit Suisse portfolio manager Samir H. Bhatt was primarily in charge of the transaction. Credit Suisse was the CDO transaction’s collateral manager.

Stoker is fighting the SEC’s case against him. Meantime, Bhatt has settled the SEC’s charges by agreeing to pay $50,000. He has also been suspended from associating with any investment adviser for six months. Credit Suisse Group AG settled for $2.5 million.

As part of this settlement, Citigroup will pay a $95 million fine. It was just last year that the financial firm agreed to pay $75 million over federal claims that it purposely didn’t let investor know that their subprime mortgage investments were losing value during the financial crisis. Citigroup has said that since then, it has revamped its risk management function and gone back to banking basics.

Last year, Goldman Sachs Group Inc. agreed to settle for $550 million allegations that it did tell investors that the hedge fund that helped choose a CDO’s assets also was betting against it. JPMorgan Chase & Co. settled similar allegations earlier this year for $153.6 million.

Citigroup to Pay Millions to Close Fraud Complaint, NY Times, October 19, 2011

Related Blog Resources:
Goldman Sachs Settles SEC Subprime Mortgage-CDO Related Charges for $550 Million, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, July 30, 2010

JPMorgan Chase to Pay $211M to Settle Charges It Rigged Municipal Bond Transaction Bidding Competitions, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, July 9, 2011

UBS Financial Reaches $160M Settlement with the SEC and Justice Department Over Securities Fraud, Antitrust, and Other Charges Related to Municipal Bond Market

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

UBS Financial Services Inc. has consented to a $160 million settlement over charges that it took part in anticompetitive practices in the municipal bond market. The Securities and Exchange Commission and the US Justice Department announced the settlement together. 25 state attorneys generals and 3 federal agencies had accused the financial firm of rigging a minimum of 100 reinvestment transactions in 36 states, which placed the tax-exempt status of over $16.5 billion in municipal bonds at peril. Justice officials say that the unlawful conduct at issue, which involved former UBS officials, took place between June 2001 and June 2006.

According to SEC municipal securities and public pensions enforcement unit chief Elaine Greenberg, ex-UBS officials engaged in “secret arrangements,” played various roles, and took part in “illegal courtesy bids, last looks for favored bidders, and money to bidding engagements” in the guise of “swap payments” to “defraud municipalities” and “win business.” The SEC contends that between October 2000 until at least November 2004, the financial firm rigged a minimum of 12 transactions while serving as bidding agents for contract providers, won at least 22 muni reinvestment instruments, entered at least 64 “courtesy” bids for contracts, and paid undisclosed kickbacks to bidding agents at least seven times. The SEC says that UBS indirectly deceived municipalities and their agents with their fraudulent misrepresentations and omissions and rigged bids to make them appear as if they were competitive when they actually weren’t.

UBS, which left the municipal bond market in 2008, says that the “underlying transactions” involved were in a business that is no longer a part of the financial firm and that the employees who were involved don’t work there anymore. Of the $160 million settlement, $47.2 million will go to the SEC, which in turn will give the money to the 100 muni issuers as restitution, about $91 million will go to the states, and $22.3 million will go to the IRS.

Related Web Resources:

United States Justice Department

Internal Revenue Service

Securities and Exchange Commission

More Blog Posts:
UBS Financial Services Fined $2.5M and Ordered to Pay $8.25M Over Lehman Brothers-Issued 100% Principal-Protection Notes, Institutional Investors Securities Blog, April 12, 2011

Securities Fraud Lawsuit Against UBS Securities LLC by Detroit Pension Funds Won’t Be Remanded to State Court, Says District Court, Institutional Investors Securities Blog, January 17, 2011

UBS to Pay $2.2M to CNA Financial Head for Lehman Brothers Structured Product Losses, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, January 4, 2011

Bank of America to Pay $137M Over Alleged Investment Scam To Pay Municipalities Low Interest Rates on Investments and $9M Over Alleged Bid-Rigging Scheme to Nonprofits

Published on: December 16, 2010 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Bank of America has agreed to pay $137 million to settle charges that it was involved in a financial scheme that allowed it to pay cities, states, and school districts low interest rates on their investments. The financial firm allegedly conspired with rivals to share municipalities’ investment business without having to pay market rates. As a result, government bodies in “virtually every state, district, and territory” in this country were paid artificially suppressed yields or rates on municipal bond offerings’ invested proceeds.

Bank of America has agreed to pay $36 million to the Securities and Exchange Commission and $101 million to federal and state agencies. The Los Angeles Times is reporting that $67 million will go to 20 US states. BofA will also make payments to the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and the Internal Revenue Service. The SEC contends that from 1998 to 2002 the investment bank broke the law in 88 separate deals.

In its Formal Agreement with the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Bank of America agreed to strengthen its procedures, policies, and internal controls over competitive bidding in the department where the alleged illegal conduct took place, as well as take action to make sure that sufficient procedures, policies, and controls exist related to competitive bidding on an enterprise wide basis. The OCC is accusing the investment bank of taking part in a bid-ridding scheme involving the sale and marketing of financial products to non-profit organizations, including municipalities.

Per their Formal Agreement, the bank must pay profits and prejudgment interest from 38 collateralized certificate of deposit transactions to the non-profits that suffered financial harm in the scam. Total payment is $9,217,218.

Related Web Resources:

Bank of America to Pay $137 Million in Muni Cases, Bloomberg, December 7, 2010

OCC, Bank of America Enter Agreement Requiring Payment of Profits Plus Interest to Municipalities Harmed by Bid-Rigging on Financial Products, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, December 7, 2010