Articles Posted in Securities Fraud

$18.7M Securities Fraud Case Involving Former Linkbrokers Derivatives Brokers is A Prime Example of How Trade Markups Involving Pennies Can Eventually Cost Investors Millions

Published on: October 10, 2012 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Two former Linkbrokers Derivatives brokers have been arrested on criminal charges of securities fraud, wire fraud, and conspiracy to commit securities fraud. Benjamin Chouchane and Marek Leszczynski, along with others, are accused of taking part in a securities scam that cost customers $18.7 million. It involved the brokers secretly raising the price of trades, in some instances by just pennies, or lowering them, and then concealing the actual cost from clients. The Securities and Exchange Commission, which is also filing civil charges against the two men, as well as against brokers Henry Condron and Gregory Reyftmann, says that they executed over 36,000 trades with these types of price discrepancies between 2005 and 2009. Condron has already pleaded guilty to criminal charges of conspiracy and securities fraud.

The alleged manipulations usually occurred when the market was more volatile and the prices were more likely to fluctuate, which made it easier for the mispricings to go undetected. While profits may have been minimal-for example, in one trade Leszczynski allegedly marked up 20,000 shares’ buying price by 1.2 cents/share, resulting in a $240 profit-pennies do add up. As SEC Division of Enforcement Director Robert Khuzami noted, by overcharging clients for stock trades, the brokers ultimately bilked customers of millions of dollars.

Linkbrokers executes high-volume trades for institutional clients. It is an interdealer broker firm that usually executes these large trades for low commissions. However, institutional investors are not the only ones to be impacted by such scams.

CFTC Securities Fraud Roundup: Commissioner Bart Chilton Wants Financial System to Adopt Risk-Based Compensation System, Agency Nets $3M in Four Speculative Limits Cases, & Two Registered Futures Entities Pay $539K Over Inadequate Supervision Allegations

Published on: October 9, 2012 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

According to Commodity Futures Trading Commission Bart Chilton, the financial system needs to undergo a “cultural shift” that should include employing a risk-based compensation structure instead of one that is “purely profit-based.” Speaking at the Hard Assets Investment Conference last month, Chilton said that bonus systems and incentives create a “poisonous” system in “our financial corporate culture,” compelling individuals to make earning as money as they can as quickly as they can their main priority.

Chilton also talked about how the system inadequately, if at all, uses “puny penalties” to deal with “bad behaviors” and that short-term profiteering is rewarded. He blames both results on the current compensation system employed by many financial firms. Risk management comes second under profit motive, with inducements generated to increase high risk trading, leverage, and the exploitation of funds. Chilton is recommending the implementation of a compensation system based on risk tolerance, with additional compensation and bonuses to be rewarded gradually. He believes that this will lead to longer-term strategies and actions, as well as “longer-serving employees.” He said that while the government may not be able to obligate financial firms to practice morality, it can takes steps to discourage misconduct by creating rules and laws that mandate good behavior.

In other CFTC news, the agency recently settled four separate speculative limits violation cases for $3 million. On September 21, Citigroup Inc. (C) and affiliate Citigroup Global Markets Ltd. consented to pay $525K to settle allegations that on the Chicago Board of Trade they went beyond the speculative position limits in wheat futures contracts. Four days later, Sheenson Investments Ltd., which is located in China, and its owner Weidong Ge consented to pay $1.5 million over allegations that they violated speculative limits in soybean and cotton futures.

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.

Wells Fargo and Wachovia Sued by LBBW Luxemburg Over Alleged $1.5B Securities Fraud

Published on: October 6, 2012 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

LBBW Luxemburg SA has filed a securities fraud lawsuit against Wells Fargo & Co. (WFC) and its unit Wachovia Corp. over an alleged $1.5 billion securities fraud scam. The case involves transaction in 2006 involving Wells Fargo selling what they allegedly touted as securities with high ratings to LBBW and other customers. LBBW, a Landesbank Baden-Wurttemberg subsidiary, bought $40 million of these residential mortgage-backed securities.

Now, the European bank is contending that the underlying mortgages were riskier than represented and not worth their buying price. Within a year, the securities had defaulted. LBBW is alleging common law fraud, breach of contract, constructive fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and breach of fiduciary duty.

Per the plaintiff’s attorneys, the alleged financial fraud was discovered after the SEC investigated a $5.5 million investment that the Zuni Indian Tribe’s employee pension fund made. The Securities and Exchange Commission had accused Wachovia of selling overpriced equity in Grant Avenue II, a collateralized debt obligation, to the tribe and another investor. The Commission contended that after marking down some of the equity to 52.7 cents on the dollar, Wachovia charged 90 cents and 95 cents on the dollar. The bank was also accused of misleading investors in Longshore 3, another CDO, by saying that assets had been acquired from affiliates at prices that were fair market when, actually, claims the regulator, 40 securities had been moved at prices that were above market and Wachovia moved assets at prices that were stale so it wouldn’t have to report the losses.

The SEC said that while it did not consider Wachovia to have acted improperly in the way it structured the CDOs, the bank violated investment protection rules by using stale prices, even as buyers were being told the prices were fair market value, and charging excessive markups in secret. The Commission found that the Zuni Indians and other investors suffered financial losses as a result. Last year, Wachovia agreed to pay $11 million to settle charges accusing it of violating federal securities laws in its sale of MBS leading up to the collapse of the housing market.

European Bank LBBW Sues Wells Fargo Over Alleged $1.5 Billion Securities Fraud, The Sacramento Bee, October 1, 2012

German bank sues Wells Fargo alleging $1.5 billion securities fraud, San Francisco Business Times, October 2, 2012

Wells Fargo Settles Case Originating At Wachovia, The New York Times, April 5, 2012

More Blog Posts:
Lehman Brothers Australia Found Liable in CDO Losses of 72 Councils, Charities, and Churches, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, September 25, 2012

REIT Retail Properties of America’s $8 Public Offering Results in Major Losses for Fund Investors, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, April 17, 2012

Texas Securities Fraud: Investor Sues Behringer Harvard REIT I, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, September 26, 2012

Institutional Investment Fraud Roundup: Ex-Hedge Fund Managers’ Guilty Plea Over Bilking Investors of Almost $1M Get 3-Year Prison Term, SEC Sues Investment Adviser Over Alleged $37M Ponzi, and SEC Files Lawsuit Over Purported “Fund of Funds” Scam

Published on: September 26, 2012 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Ex-hedge fund managers Christopher Fardella and Michael Katz have been sentenced to three years in prison after they pleaded securities fraud and conspiracy charges for defrauding investors of nearly $1 million. Per court documents, between April 2005 and November 2006, the two men, along with two co-conspirators, were partners in KMFG International LLC, which is a hedge fund.

They cold called investors throughout the US and provided them with misleading information about the fund, its principals, and financial performance even though KMFG actually lacked a track record and never generated any profit for investors. The defendants and co-conspirators lost and spent $981,000 of the $1,031,086 that was given to them by investors.

Meantime, another hedge fund manager, Oregon-based investment advisor Yusaf Jawad, is being sued by the Securities and Exchange Commission over an alleged $37 million Ponzi scam. The securities lawsuit against him and attorney Robert Custis was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon.

Merrill Lynch Told to Pay $3.6M to Brazilian Heiress for Brother’s Alleged $389M in Unauthorized Trading

Published on: September 22, 2012 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

A Financial Industry Regulatory Authority panel is ordering Merrill Lynch (MER), a Bank of America Corp. (BAC) unit, to pay $3.6 million to a Brazilian heiress who contends that she lost millions of dollars because of unauthorized trades that her brother made in her account. The securities arbitration case was submitted on behalf of Sophin Investments SA, which was established to manage Camelia Nasser de Kassin’s inheritance from a relative.

Sophin contended that Merrill allowed Camelia’s brother, Ezequiel Nasser, to make unauthorized trades worth $389 million using her accounts at two Merrill Lynch units. He allegedly invested in high risk securities, including naked puts in Lehman Brothers and Bear Stearns (BSC) that created a deficit of at least $8 million.

The plaintiff claimed inadequate supervision, civil fraud, unauthorized trading, and other alleged wrongdoings, and asked for compensatory damages of $21 million for the $9.5 million that had been placed in the accounts, $9.5 million as an investment return, and the rest for commissions that went to Merrill. The financial firm then submitted a counterclaim alleging that their contract together had been breached. It asked the FINRA panel for almost $2.5 million in damages for the deficit in Sophin’s retail account and close to $3 million for the swap account. Merrill also filed claims against Marc Bonnant, who is the lawyer who set up the accounts on Sophin’s behalf, as well as against Ezequiel.

The FINRA panel found both Sophin and Merrill liable. While it told Merrill to pay $6.1 million in compensatory damages to Sophin, the latter was told to pay the financial firm $2.5 million-hence the $3.6 million that Merrill was ultimately ordered to pay Sophin. Also, while the panel acknowledged that Bonnant paid less than adequate attention to his fiduciary duties to Sophin, it said that Merrill exhibited “lapses” in hits own supervising and record keeping.

The claims made against Ezequiel Nasser by Merrill were denied. The arbitration panel said Bonnant, who has been based in Europe, isn’t under its jurisdiction. (Merrill has accused him of authorizing the trades that it had made for Sophin and misrepresenting the client’s investment experience, financial state, and tolerance for risk.)

This case is just one aspect of the bigger dispute between Merrill Lynch and members of the Nasser banking family over alleged trading losses. For example, in 2008, the financial firm sued the Nassers for huge trading losses that result in a $99 million judgment. A New York appeals court upheld that ruling.

Unauthorized Trades
A broker or advisor has to get an investor’s permission to sell or buy securities for an investor. Otherwise, the trade is not authorized. When “trading authorization” is obtained to sell or buy in that client’s account, trades can be made without getting in touch with the client. However, this is a limited power of attorney.

Unfortunately, many investors suffer losses because of unauthorized trades.

Merrill Lynch must pay $3.6 million to Brazilian banking heiress, Merrill Lynch, Reuters, September 12, 2012

Merrill Lynch Ordered to Pay $3.6 Million to Brazilian Heiress, Wall Street Journal, September 12, 2012

Bonnant V. Merrill Lynch (PDF)

More Blog Posts:
Shepherd Smith Edwards and Kantas LLP Pursue Securities Fraud Cases Against Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner, & Smith, Purshe Kaplan Sterling Investments, and First Allied Securities, Inc., Stockbroker Fraud Blog, May 10, 2012

Merrill Lynch Agrees to Pay $40M Proposed Deferred Compensation Class Action Settlement to Ex-Brokers, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, August 27, 2012

Shepherd Smith Edwards and Kantas LLP Pursue Securities Fraud Cases Against Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner, & Smith, Purshe Kaplan Sterling Investments, and First Allied Securities, Inc., Stockbroker Fraud Blog, May 10, 2012 Continue Reading ›

Securities Roundup: FINRA Fines Rodman & Renshaw $315K, Convictions Reached in $1B High Yield Fraud Scam Involving FBI, SEC Sues Wwebnet over $2.1M Fraud, and Ex-Hedge Fund Manager Settles Unsuitable Investment Recommendation Allegations for Over $421K

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

To settle Financial Industry Regulatory Authority allegations that it committed numerous violations involving dealings between investment banking and research functions, Rodman & Renshaw LLC has agreed to pay a $315,000 fine. According to the SRO, from January 2008 to March 2012, the financial firm did not have an adequate supervisory system in place to properly monitor these interactions. Rodman & Renshaw also allegedly did not keep research analysts from soliciting investment banking business, compensated one analyst for such contributions, and did not stop Rodman’s CEO (he was on its Research Analyst Compensation Committee while taking part investment banking activities) from having control or influence over research analyst evaluations and compensation.

Also fined over this matter are ex-Rodman & Renshaw CCO William A. Iommi Sr., who must pay $15,000, is suspended from serving in a principal capacity for 90 days, and has to requalify as a general securities principal, research analyst Lewis B. Fan, who must pay $10,000 fine and is suspended for 30 business days for allegedly trying to solicit investment banking business from public companies, and research analyst Alka Singh, who must pay $10,000 and is suspended for six months for allegedly trying to set up a concealed fee from a public company that she provided with research coverage. Although all of the parties have consented to an entry of FINRA’s findings, they have not denied or admitted to the securities charges.

In an unrelated securities case, a California jury has found ex-Rodman & Renshaw broker and investment adviser William Ferry and former real estate investment manager Dennis Clinton guilty of conspiracy, wire fraud, and mail fraud in a high-yield investment fraud scam that involved efforts to bilk a rich investor of $1 billion. The investor was actually someone who was working undercover for the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

Investors Can Proceed with Nevada Securities Lawsuit Over Reverse Stock Split That Made Company CEO the Only Shareholder

Published on: August 30, 2012 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York has ruled that plaintiffs can go ahead with their Nevada breach of fiduciary duty claims involving a reverse stock split that left Major Automotive Companies Inc.’s chief executive officer as the concern’s only shareholder. The case is Gardner v. Major Automotive Companies Inc.

The plaintiffs, Dorsey R. Gardner 2002 Trust trustees John Francis O’Brien and Dorsey Gardner, are accusing Bruce Bendell of abusing is fiduciary duty so he could get and approve a share price that was unfairly low. The trust had owned stock in Major during the relevant period in question.

Until 2006, when a going private deal was approved, Major’s stock was publicly traded, and CEO, acting CFO, and chairman Bendell owned 50.3% of the company’s outstanding common stock. According to the court, in December 2010, Major sent out a notice that there would be a special stockholders meeting to consider a 1 for 3 million reverse stock split that would make him the only shareholder. Meantime, the other shareholders would get $0.44 per pre-split share.

The district court dismissed the trustees claims that Major and Bendell issued false statements about the transaction’s fairness in the proxy system, which would have been a violation of the 1934 Securities Exchange Act’s Section 14(a). It noted that the section is only applicable to registered securities. The court also rejected the plaintiffs’ contention that claims should be allowed under that section because at the time their shares were bought Major’s common stock was held and the defendants should therefore be held liable as if the stock was never deregistered. The court said its own research and the plaintiff’s brief did not bring up any law that supported this interpretation of section 14 (a).

However, the district court did say that the Nevada breach of duty claim can go forward, noting that the allegations given as grounds for the lawsuit are “are more than adequate.” The court said that even though Bendell had “plain personal interest” in the transaction, the company failed to create a committee made up of disinterested members to assess the fairness factor. It also pointed out that the proxy statement did not disclose that Bendell was not only the chairman of the board but also its only member/dominated it, especially as it was the board that “unanimously determined” that the transaction was a fair one and in the best interests of not just the company but also its stockholders. The court also said that even though the plaintiffs did not invoke their rights under Nevada’s dissenters’ rights statute, this isn’t grounds for throwing out the case. It determined that the claim is viable because plaintiffs aren’t just challenging the share price but also the way Bendell exercised his fiduciary obligations.

Read the Memorandum and Order (PDF)

Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Legal Information Institute

More Blog Posts:
Merrill Lynch Agrees to Pay $40M Proposed Deferred Compensation Class Action Settlement to Ex-Brokers, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, August 27, 2012

Texas Appeals Court Says Letter of Intent for Sale of Fiduciary Financial Services of Southwest Stock to Corilant Financial is Not an Enforceable Contract, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, August 17, 2012

Ex-Fannie Mae Executives Have to Defend Against SEC Lawsuit Over Their Alleged Involvement in Understating Mortgage Company’s Exposure Risk, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, August 25, 2012 Continue Reading ›

Institutional Investment Roundup: Madoff Ponzi Victims to Get 2nd Payout, Insurer’s MBS Lawsuit Against UBS Can Proceed, SEC Charges 2 in $10M Penny Stock Scam, & Hedge Fund Manager Found Guilty in $900K Insider Trading Scheme

Published on: August 29, 2012 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District has issued an order giving Irving Picard, the Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC liquidation trustee, permission to issue a second interim distribution to the victims of the Madoff Ponzi scam. Picard had asked to add $5.5 billion to the customer fund and issue a second payout of $1.5 billion to $2.4 billion to the investors that were harmed.

According to Bloomberg Businessweek, a $2.4 billion payout would be seven times more than what the bilked investors have been able to get back since Madoff, who is serving a 150-year prison term for his crimes, defrauded them. A huge part of the customer fund is on reserve because there are investors who have filed securities lawsuits contending they should be getting more.

Meantime, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York has decided that the mortgage-backed securities lawsuit filed by insurance company Assured Guaranty Municipal Corp. against UBS Real Estate Securities Inc. can proceed. The plaintiff contends that UBS misrepresented the quality of the loans that were underlying the MBS it insured in 2006 and 2007.

Securities Lawsuit Against Options Clearing Corporation and Chicago Board Options Exchange Can Proceed Says Illinois Appellate Court

Published on: August 24, 2012 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

In a divided 2-1 ruling, the Illinois Appellate Court has decided that Platinum Partners Value Arbitrage Fund LP can sue the Chicago Board Options Exchange and the Options Clearing Corporation for allegedly telling certain traders about a downward adjustment made to the price of certain mutual fund options. The ruling reverses a lawyer court’s decision and concludes that the two SROs did not act in a regulatory capacity when they privately revealed this information to certain John Doe defendants before the news was made public.

Platinum Partners Value Arbitrage Fund, which is a hedge fund, contends that in late 2010, it bought 50,000 India Fund Inc. (IFN) options from the John Does. Soon after, Options Clearing Corporation and Chicago Board Options Exchange decided to downgrade the India Fund’s series option contracts strike price by $3.78. An employee at one of the SRO’s allegedly told certain market participants about this adjustment before the public was notified.

The hedge fund then proceeded to file a securities fraud lawsuit against Chicago Board Options Exchange and Options Clearing Corp. accusing them of Illinois statutory and common law violations, while contending that they caused it to suffer harm because it bought the IFN options right before the price adjustment was publicly disclosed. The two organizations countered that as SROs, they were immune from such lawsuits. The lower court agreed with their claim of immunity.

The appellate court, however, disagrees. In his majority opinion, Circuit Judge Robert E. Gordon stressed that SROs are not completely immune from lawsuits and that absolute immunity only stands when the alleged conduct in question is one that is a disciplinary, regulatory, or quasi-governmental prosecutorial function. The court noted that while the plaintiff acknowledged that the decision to change IFN’s strike price was a regulatory one, how the change was disclosed-early and in in private to the John Doe defendants-wasn’t and didn’t serve a purpose that was governmental or regulatory. Seeing as SROs, in addition to fulfilling quasi-governmental duties also have a for-profit business that is private, the court found that when the private disclosure was made to the John Doe defendants, Chicago Board Options Exchange and Options Clearing Corp. were behaving in a “private capacity and for their own corporate benefit.” As a result, the non-public notification to the John Doe defendants cannot be considered conduct under the 1934 Securities Exchange Act’s delegated authority and therefore “cannot be protected by the doctrine of regulatory immunity.”

Judge Gordon also determined that Platinum Partners did a sufficient job of stating a claim, under the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act, that disclosing the price adjustment in private was a “material omission and a deceptive act” by the two SROs. The hedge fund claimed that the two organizations meant for the rest of the market to depend on the fact that the information hadn’t been already privately disclosed to anyone. The judge said that the deception occurred during commerce and trade and was the proximate cause of damage to the plaintiff.

Platinum Partners Value Arbitrage Fund LP v. Chicago Board Options Exchange, Ill. App (PDF)

Chicago Board Options Exchange

More Blog Posts:
Goldman Sachs Ordered by FINRA to Pay $650K Fine For Not Disclosing that Broker Responsible for CDO ABACUS 2007-ACI Was Target of SEC Investigation, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, November 12, 2010
Harbinger Capital Partners LLC and Hedge Fund Adviser Philip A. Falcone Face SEC Securities Charges Over Client Asset Misappropriation and Market Manipulation Allegations, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, June 29, 2012

Montford Associates to Pay $650,000 in Securities and Exchange Commission Penalties Over Failure to Disclose Payments from Hedge Fund, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, May 1, 2008 Continue Reading ›