Securities Fraud

Goldman Sachs & Co. Clearing Unit Must Pay Unsecured Creditors of Bayou Hedge Funds $20.5M FINRA Arbitration Award, Says District Court

Published on: December 14, 2010 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

A district court has rejected Goldman Sachs & Co.’s (GS ) challenge to a $20.5 million securities fraud award for unsecured creditors of the failed Bayou hedge funds. The unsecured creditors are blaming the investment bank of failing to look at certain red flags and, as a result, facilitating the massive scam. The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York said it was sustaining the award issued by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority arbitration panel.

The court said that contrary to Goldman’s argument, the FINRA panel “did not ‘manifestly disregard the law’ when reaching its conclusion. Also, the court noted that the panel had found that Goldman Sachs Execution and Clearing unit was not innocent of wrongdoing in that it failed to take part in a “diligent investigation” that could have uncovered the fraud.

The Bayou Hedge Funds group collapsed in 2005. According to regulators, investors lost over $450 million as a result of the false performance data and audit opinions that were issued. The Securities and Exchange Commission and the Justice Department sued the group’s founders, Daniel Marino and Samuel Israel III over the investors’ financial losses and the firm’s collapse. Both men have pleaded guilty to criminal charges and are behind bars.

The court not only disagreed with the Goldman Sachs clearing unit that the panel was not in manifest disregard of the law, but also, it found that as Goldman’s client agreements with the Bayou funds provided it with “broad discretion” over the use of securities and money in the funds’ accounts, it was not unusual for a “reasonable arbitrator” to find that Goldman’s rights in relation to the accounts provided it with “sufficient dominion and control to create transferee liability.”

Related Web Resources:

Court Rebuffs Goldman ChallengeTo $20.5M Bayou Arbitration Award, BNA, December 9, 2010

Goldman Sachs, Stockbroker Fraud Blog

SEC IG Investigating Whether Examiners Were Told by Regional Official to Ignore “Red Flags” Indicating Massive Fraud

Published on: December 11, 2010 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Securities and Exchange Commission Inspector General H. David Kotz says that his office is looking into a complaint that a regional official told examiners to not go after “red flags” that were found in an exam of an investment adviser where a “massive fraud” was discovered. The official in question reportedly played a significant part in an earlier exam of the investment firm, and although the securities fraud was going on then, it was not uncovered at the time.

The anonymous complaint also claims that the regional office had a hostile work environment because management failed to discipline the official even after an earlier OIG investigation found that the person had watched pornography on an SEC computer. In his semiannual report to Congress, Kotz says that the OIG is almost done with its probe and will present its findings.

The OIG also determined that Bank of America Inc.’s Troubled Asset Relief Program fund’s status played a role in the “favorable” $33 million settlement that SEC staffers had initially recommended to resolve charges that the investment bank issued misleading proxy disclosures related to its Merrill Lynch acquisition. U.S. District Judge Jed S. Rakoff, however, refused to approve that settlement, and Bank of America eventually settled the case for $150 million.

Kotz says that the OIG has probed into allegations from an ex-Enforcement attorney that the division was negligent in how it handled an insider trading probe. A report of its findings will be issued during the next semiannual reporting period.

Other pending OIG investigations involve:
• Allegations that attorneys at a regional office did not properly investigate a law firm for alleged obstruction of justice related to an SEC case. Improper preferential treatment may have been a factor.
• Allegations that an SEC official violated ethics rules while providing testimony to a congressional committee.
• Allegations that a staff member acted in an abusive and intimidating manner toward contract staff.
• Complaints that SEC staff leaked information about an investigation of an examination to the media.
• Allegations that at least one contractor worked at the SEC before a background probe had been completed.

Related Web Resources:

Bank of America To Settle SEC Charges Regarding Merrill Lynch Acquisition Proxy-Related Disclosures for $150 Million, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, February 15, 2010

Bank of America Agrees to settle SEC Charges of Merrill Lynch Bonuses for $33 Million But Judge Blocks Settlement, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, August 6, 2009

Actions of Former Ferris, Baker Watts, Inc. General Counsel Accused of Supervising Rogue Broker to be Reviewed by SEC

Published on: December 9, 2010 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The Securities and Exchange Commission will be taking a closer look at the actions of ex- Ferris, Baker Watts, Inc. General Counsel Theodore Urban. Urban has been accused of failing to reasonably supervise stockbroker Stephen Glantz, who was involved a stock market manipulating scam with Innotrac Corp. stock.

It is rare for the SEC to examine the actions of a general counsel. However, the agency says it is looking at the case because the proceedings bring up key “legal and policy issues,” such as whether Urban acted reasonably in the manner that he oversaw Glantz and chose to respond to signs of broker misconduct. The case also brings up the questions of whether securities professionals such as Urban should be made to “report up” and if his status as a lawyer and his role as “FWB’s general counsel affect is liability for supervisory failure.”

Earlier this year, Securities & Exchange Commission Administrative Law Judge Brenda Murray ruled that Urban did not inadequately supervise Glantz and that the proceedings against him be dropped. Murray said that per the 1934 Securities Exchange Act, a person cannot be held liable for supervisory deficiencies if appropriate procedures for detecting and stopping the violations were applied, She said that Urban had no reasonable grounds to think that procedures had not been followed.

However, Murray’s decision isn’t final until the SEC enters its final order, and on Tuesday the commission declined Urban’s motion requesting that the SEC affirm Murray’s ruling. Division lawyers have said that Murray’s decision was not consistent with previous SEC precedent, lowers the standards that supervisors at dealers, brokers, and investment advisers must meet, and did not protect the investing public by making Urban accountable to sanctions.

SEC to Review Actions of Bank General Counsel Who Supervised Rogue Broker, Law.com, December 9, 2010

Read the SEC order denying motion for summary affirmance (PDF)

Read the administrative law judge’s ruling (PDF)

Ex-Ferris, Baker Watts, Inc. General Counsel Did Not Fail to Properly Supervise Broker Fraudster, Says SEC Judge, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, September 30, 2010

Operation Broken Trust Investment Fraud Sweep Has Ended

Published on: December 7, 2010 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

According to the Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force, the largest investment fraud sweep ever conducted by the United States has ended. Called Operation Broken Trust, the probe involved 231 cases and over 120,000 fraud victims who sustained over $8 billion in investment losses.

Operation Broken Trust’s objective was to discover and expose large scale investment fraud schemes in the US and notify the public about bogus financial scams. The probe focused on schemes that directly targeted individual investors as opposed to long-term complex corporate fraud issues. In many case, the criminals involved were trusted members of the victims’ communities, such as a coworker or a fellow church attendee. A number of investors lost their homes and/or life savings as a result of the scams.

Victims were targeted by other individuals who were promoting “investment opportunities” that were either not structured the way they were promoted or totally bogus. Scams include Ponzi schemes, high-yield investment fraud schemes, foreign exchange fraud, commodities fraud, pump-and-dump scams, market manipulation, business opportunity fraud, real estate investment fraud, and affinity fraud.

The FBI says that Los Angeles, Dallas, New York, San Francisco, and Salt Lake City were the leading cities for Ponzi scams. More than 200 Ponzi cases have been opened since the beginning of 2009. Many of these schemes resulted in over $20 million in losses. The FBI says it has been able to shut down many of the scams and many of those responsible have been arrested.

Operation Broken Trust includes civil and criminal enforcement actions that took place between August 16 and December 1, 2010.

Related Web Resources:
Operation Broken Trust, FBI, December 6, 2010

Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force , US Department of Justice

Stockbroker Fraud Blog

Class Members of Charles Schwab Corporation Securities Litigation Can Still Opt Out to File Individual Securities Claim

Published on: December 6, 2010 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The US District Court has approved an amendment to the proposed Charles Schwab Corporation Securities Litigation settlement. The Supplemental Notice of Proposed Settlement of Class Action has been sent to the affected class members, which includes those who may have held Schwab YieldPlus Fund shares on September 1, 2006 and gotten more of them between May 31, 2006 and March 17, 2008. Shares may have been obtained through a dividend reinvestment in the Fund or through purchase. Affected class members cannot have been a resident of California on September 1, 2006.

The Supplemental Notice notes that there has been a clarification in the release claims’ scope that affected class members will be giving Schwab if they decide to take part in the settlement. More claims than those in the federal securities class litigation are now included in the amended release. Class members now have another chance opt out of the class action complaint.

Exclusion Deadline: Your notice of exclusion must be postmarked no later than January 14, 2011 and cannot be received after January 21, 2011.

Federal and State Securities Acts’ Anti-Waiver Provisions Did Not Bar International Forum Selection Clause’s Enforcement, Says Texas Court of Appeals

Published on: December 2, 2010 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The Court of Appeals of Texas has held that in a shareholder agreement regarding the purchase of company stock, the federal and state Securities Acts anti-waiver provisions did not bar the enforcement of an international forum selection clause. The parties had consented to the exclusive jurisdiction of courts in Ontario, Canada to adjudicate any disputes stemming from or related to the shareholder agreement or/and the purchase, sale or holding of company common shares. Securities laws were only impacted where parties exercised their rights to voluntarily take part in a contract mandating that lawsuits be brought in courts and under another country’s laws. Also, public policy was in strong favor of enforcing forum selection clauses.

Commenting upon the ruling, Shepherd Smith Edwards and Kantas Founder and Stockbroker Fraud Attorney William Shepherd noted: “The vast majority of securities loss claims filed in the past 20 years have been decided in arbitration. With international arbitration forums becoming more prevalent as economies globalize, this change was inevitable. It is very important for investors to hire attorneys with experience in securities arbitration to seek recovery of securities losses. Over the past 20 years, our firm has represented thousands of investors nationwide – and worldwide – in securities arbitration.”

Related Web Resources:
Young v. Vault.X Holdings, Inc.

Arbitration and Mediation, FINRA Continue Reading ›

Financial Firms File Securities Fraud Lawsuits Against Each Other Over 2008 Credit and Subprime Crisis

Published on: November 29, 2010 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

In what one investment banking official is calling a “second wave” of securities litigation stemming from the credit and subprime crisis of 2008, financial firms are now suing other financial institutions for damages. While speaking on a Practising Law Institute panel, Morgan Stanley managing director D. Scott Tucker noted that this “second wave” is the “exact opposite of the first wave,” which was primarily brought by smaller pension funds or states claiming violations of the 1933 Securities Act and the 1934 Securities Exchange Act.

Tucker said that with this new wave, most of the plaintiffs are financial institutions, including investment managers and hedge funds, that are asserting common law fraud and making other state law claims. Also, these latest lawsuits are primarily individual cases, rather than class actions. The securities at the center of this latest wave of litigation are complex structured products, such as credit default swaps, collateralized debt obligations, and mortgage-backed securities, as well as complaints involving private placements and derivatives or securities that don’t trade on liquid markets.

Our securities fraud lawyers at Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas LTD LLP represent institutional investors who suffered financial losses because of their dealings with investment companies. Unlike other law firms, our stockbroker fraud lawyers will never represent brokerage firms.

Class Action Securities Fraud Lawsuit Accuses SEC of Gross Negligence Related to Bernard Madoff Ponzi Scam

Published on: November 23, 2010 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Three individuals, Judith Welling, Robert Mick, and Charles Mederrick, have filed a purported securities class action against the Securities and Exchange Commission over financial losses related to investments they made in Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC. In their amended complaint, the plaintiffs are seeking damages sustained because of the “grossly negligent acts of the Defendant in connection with the SEC’s deficient review of complaints and information” that Madoff was running a Ponzi scheme. Mick, Welling, and Mederrick contend that their investments, which they made over a 16-year period, caused them to suffer “catastrophic” consequences.

In their complaint, the plaintiffs accuse the SEC of “repeatedly and grossly failing to adequately apprise itself” of the facts related to the Madoff Ponzi scam allegations despite the fact that for years there had been numerous complaints. Last year, the SEC’s Inspector General put out a 457-page report detailing the agency’s failure to detect Madoff’s fraud scheme despite the signs.

The class action lawsuit is on behalf of those who invested in Madoff Investment Securities between November 1992 and December 2008 and have filed administrative damage claims seeking to recover damages for the SEC’s alleged negligence. The class could be comprised of more than 100 victims. The plaintiffs’ securities fraud lawyer says that to his firm’s knowledge, this is the first class action filed against the SEC over its handling of Madoff.

Madoff’s $50 billion Ponzi scam defrauded many institutional and individual investors. Some of these investors lost everything.

Related Web Resources:
SEC Hit With Class Action Alleging Gross Negligence in Oversight of Madoff, BNA Securities Law Daily

Madoff Investors Sue SEC for Incompetence, Daily FInance, November 12, 2010

Bernie Madoff’s $50 Billion Ponzi Scheme, Forbes, December 12, 2008

SEC Proposes Antifraud Derivatives Rule Related to Securities-Based Swaps

Published on: November 22, 2010 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The Securities and Commission has agreed to propose an antifraud rule that deals with the issue of security-based swaps-related fraud, manipulation, and deception. The proposed Rule 9j-1 would bar fraud and manipulation in the offer, sale, and purchase of the swaps. Unlike regular securities transactions, securities-based swaps involve ongoing payments and deliveries between when they are bought and sold. The issues of payments, deliveries, and other rights and obligations are also tackled.

SEC Chairman Mary Schapiro says that the proposed rule would be an important way to make sure that the swap market is run with integrity while allowing the Commission the chance to target potential fraud or other misconduct through enforcement. The relevant change with this proposed rule from current antifraud provisions Section 17(a) of the 1933 Securities Act and Section 10(b) of the 1934 Act is that the proposed rule is applicable to ongoing rights and activities.

The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act has given oversight of security-based swaps to the SEC, while the Commodity Futures Trading Commission is charged with overseeing non-security-based swaps. The CFTC had already proposed its anti-manipulation rule amendments dealing with manipulative and fraudulent conduct of swaps under its jurisdiction.

The SEC has also agreed to propose rules to effect a whistleblower bounty program.

Related Web Resources:

Securities and Exchange Commission

Non-Customers of Wachovia Cannot Bring Stock Loan Related Claim to FINRA, Says Court

Published on: November 21, 2010 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California has ruled that a married couple and their investment vehicles are not Wachovia “customers” and, therefore, they are not entitled to bring their stock loan related claims against Wachovia Securities Financial Network LLC and financial adviser George Gordon III to Financial Industry Regulatory Authority arbitration. Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong granted Wachovia and Gordon’s request for a preliminary injunction.

Per the statement of claim submitted to FINRA, Gregory and Susan Raifman initiated arbitration as trustees of a family trust, as Gekko Holdings Inc. members, and as the beneficial owners and assignees in interest of Helicon Investments Ltd. The Raifmans accused Wachovia and Gordon of committing securities fraud, breach of fiduciary duties, and violations of the California Securities Act and the rules of both the New York Stock Exchange and National Association of Securities Dealers.

The Raifmans contended that Gekko and Helicon each went into three separate stock loan transactions that Derivium Capital LLC, a third party, had promoted so they could borrow up to 90% of their stock holdings’ value without triggering capital gain on the stock sale. After the three-year loan term ended, the Raifmans were to pay the loan balance and get back or surrender their collateral or renew their loan.

To execute their plan, the Raifmans opened a Wachovia account for the trust in 2003 and transferred nearly $3 million in ValueClick (VLCK) shares into an account owned by a Derivium affiliate. Almost 12 months later, Helicon placed 300,000 ValueClick shares into another Derivium affiliate’s Wachovia account under a 90 percent stock loan agreement. Gekko later deposited 200,000 ValueClick shares in the same account (and also under a 90 percent stock loan agreement).

It wasn’t until 2007 that the Raifmans found out that their Value Click shares had been sold as soon as they were placed in the Derivium affiliates’ accounts. They also had not known that the sales proceeds had been loaned back to them while Wachovia and Derivium kept 10 – 14% of the sales proceeds.

The Raifmans attempted to start the arbitration process in July but Gordon and Wachovia filed their complaint seeking enjoinment against the couple, Helicon, and Gekko. They also requested a stay of the arbitration proceedings. The financial firm and investment adviser contended that they did not have an agreement with the defendants, who were not their customers and therefore not entitled to FINRA arbitration. The district court agreed.

Related Web Resources:
Wachovia Securities LLC v. Raifman

Arbitration and Mediation, FINRA Continue Reading ›