Securities Fraud

Former Delphi Executive’s Motion for Summary Judgment in SEC Securities Fraud Case is Denied

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

A district court judge has denied James Blahnik’s motion for summary judgment in the United States Securities and Exchange Commission’s securities fraud cause against Delphi Corporation, a number of its senior officers, other employees, and an individual who worked for a third party.

The SEC had accused the defendants of misstating its operating results and financial condition in its offering documents and SEC filings. A number of the defendants have already settled with the SEC, leaving Blahnik, Paul Free, Paul Free, Catherine Rozanski, and Milan Belans to request summary judgment.

During a February 3 hearing, Blahnik’s lawyer said his client, who formerly served as a Delphi Treasurer before being promoted to Vice President of Treasury, Mergers and Acquisitions, intended to depend on the argument that he could not be held primarily liable for violating § 10(b) of the Securities and Exchange Act or Rule 10b-5 because he did not directly issue false statements to the investing public. The Court told Blahnik to make his case in a letter. Yet even after letters were exchanged Blahnik and the SEC, his motion for summary judgment was denied.

The SEC has accused the former Delphi executive of being involved in the following schemes: European Factoring, the PGM Transaction with Bank One, and the Cores and Batteries Transaction with BBK. The SEC contends that a number of Blahnik’s activities resulted in false statements made in the company’s 2001 and 2003 offering documents, 2000 Form 10-K, 2002-2004 Forms 8-K, and the incorporation of the 2000 Form 10K.

The Court noted that Blahnik, in his letters, failed to persuade that he can’t be held primarily liable under the law for the theory put forth by the SEC. The matter must therefore be resolved during trial.

Linsco Private Ledger Clients File FINRA Arbitration Claims Accusing Former Financial Adviser Raymond Londo of Running Multi-Million Dollar Ponzi Scam

Published on: April 13, 2010 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

A number of FINRA arbitration claims have been filed accusing former Linsco Private Ledger (LPL) financial advisor Raymond Londo of running a multi-million dollar Ponzi scheme to defraud investors. The claims allege fraud, conversion, misrepresentation and omissions, and negligence. LPL is accused of failing to supervise, discover, and stop the investment fraud scheme within a reasonable amount of time even though there were numerous signs, such as red flags and customer complaints, to indicate that Londo should have been more closely supervised or even fired.

Per the FINRA statement of claim, for nearly 10 years Londo accepted funds from LPL clients. He told them that he was investing their money in an LPL account where he could help them avail of exclusive investment opportunities. The former LPL financial adviser would then take the money he was supposed to invest and used it to support his lavish lifestyle and gambling addiction.

Linsco finally fired Londo in March 2008, but by then funds belonging to 95% of the victims had been stolen. Londo’s victims, located in different parts of the US, included his own neighbours, family members, and fellow country club members.

Soon after the Ponzi scam was discovered, Londo died.

LPL is one of the largest brokerage firms in the US. The alleged Ponzi scam surrounding Londo is not the first time the broker-dealer has been linked to securities fraud allegedly committed by one of its employees. In 2002, FINRA awarded more than $500,000 to an investor who claimed investment losses because LPL did not properly supervise one of its independent brokers.

In 2008, LPL Financial and Michael McClellan, one of its ex-brokers, lost a $1.8 million arbitration claim accusing them of securities fraud, violation of securities laws, unauthorized tradings, breach of fiduciary duties, and other violations.

Morgan Keegan & Co., Inc., Morgan Asset Management, and Two Employees Face Subprime Mortgage Securities Fraud Charges by SEC

Published on: April 8, 2010 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The Securities and Exchange Commission has filed claims against Morgan Keegan & Co, Morgan Asset Management and employees James C. Kelsoe, Jr. and Joseph Thomas Weller for securities fraud that allegedly involved inflating the value of subprime mortgage-backed securities.

According to investors and a number of state regulators, RMK Funds (RMK Advantage Income Fund, RMK High Income Fund, RMK Multi-Sector High Income Fund, RMK Select High Income Fund, RMK Strategic Income Fund, and the RMK Select Intermediate Fund) were marketed and recommended as funds that would provide a consistent income level while the actual risks involved were misrepresented and the funds’ net asset value pricing was manipulated.

The SEC’s enforcement division is accusing Morgan Keegan of failing to put into place reasonable procedures to internally price the portfolio securities in five funds, and as a result, being unable to accurately calculate the funds’ “net asset values.” These inaccurate daily NAVs were published while investors bought shares at inflated prices.

The enforcement division is also accusing fund portfolio manager Kelsoe of acting arbitrarily when he told Morgan Keegan’s Fund Accounting department to adjust prices in a manner that would make certain portfolio securities’ fair value go up. He had his assistant send about 262 “price adjustments” to Fund Accounting between at least January and July 2007.

On numerous occasions, adjustments were arbitrary, disregarded lower values that other dealers had quoted for the same securities, and neglected to reflect fair value. They were entered into a spreadsheet to determine the funds’ NAVs-even though there were no supporting documents. Kelsoe also is accused of regularly telling Fund Accounting to disregard broker-dealers’ month-end quotes that should have been used to validate the prices Morgan Keegan had assigned to the securities in the funds, as well as manipulated pricing quotes he received from at least one broker-dealer.

The Division of Enforcement is accusing Weller, a CPA who belonged to the Valuation Committee and served as the Fund Accounting Department head, of failing to fix the deficiencies in the valuation procedures, as well as not ensuring that fair-valued securities were accurately priced or that NAVs were correctly calculated.

Related Web Resources:
SEC Charges Morgan Keegan and Two Employees With Fraud Related to Subprime Mortgages, SEC.gov, April 7, 2010
SEC Order (PDF)

Morgan Keegan, 2 Employees Face SEC Fraud Charges, The Wall Street Journal, April 7, 2010 Continue Reading ›

Senate Bill 1551 Allows Securities Fraud Lawsuits Against Those Accused of Aiding and Abetting Primary Violators

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

Our stockbroker fraud law firm is hoping that Senate Bill 1551, introduced last July by Senator Arlen Specter, will resurface in the upcoming regulatory reform bill. If passed into law, the “Liability for Aiding and Abetting Securities Violations Act of 2009” would allow secondary actors that aided and abetted the primary violators of securities laws to also be sued for securities fraud.

The bill is trying to overturn the US Supreme Court rulings Stoneridge Investment Partners v. Scientific-Atlanta and Central Bank of Denver v. First Interstate Bank. Both decisions held that a private plaintiff cannot file a securities fraud claim against secondary actors. Under current law, only the US Congress has the sole authority to bring such claims with the US Securities and Exchange Commission.

With Senate Bill 1551, the Securities Exchange Act of 1934’s Section 20 would be amended so that anyone that recklessly or knowingly gave substantial help to a party that violated securities law could be held liable through a civil lawsuit to the same extent as the primary actor. Accountants, securities analysts, investment banks, law firms, credit rating agencies, and private companies are some of the possible secondary actors that could be sued as securities fraud defendants.

Related Web Resources:
Liability for Aiding and Abetting Securities Violations Act of 2009, Govtrack.us
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (PDF)

Stoneridge Investment Partners v. Scientific-Atlanta, Oyez.org
Central Bank of Denver v. First Interstate Bank
Continue Reading ›

LC Wegard Clients that Purchased Relevant Securities May Be Entitled to Distribution from Litigation Estate

Published on: March 18, 2010 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

If you are a LC Wegard & Co, Inc. customer who bought any of the securities listed below from the firm between October 1, 1991 and September 30, 1994, you may be entitled to distribution from the Litigation Estate.

Relevant Securities (includes Common Stock, Zero Coupon Subordinated Debentures, Warrants, Subordinated Pay in Kind Debentures, Subordinated Convertible Debentures):

• Chefs International Inc.
• AGP & Co.
• Diamond Entertainment Corp.
• Consolidated Technology Group, Ltd.
• Futurebiotics, Inc.
• Great American Recreation, Inc.
• Gates/FA Distributing Inc.
• Gentner Communications Corp.
• Immunotherapies Corp.
• Linkon Corp.
• Lafayette Industries Inc.
• Metalclad Corp.
• Primedex Health Systems Inc.
• Nacoma Cosolidated Industries, Inc.
• Officeland Inc.
• Non-Invasive Monitoring Systems Inc.
• PDK Lambs, Inc.
• Process Equipment, Inc.
• US Transportation Systems, Inc.
• Sanyo Industries, Inc.
• Site Holdings, Inc.

All LC Wegard clients that bought any of these securities during the Relevant Period have to submit the original, signed proof of claim and any supporting or accompanying documents to:

Claims Administration C/O Donald F. Conway Receiver PO Box 8329 Princeton, New Jersey 08543-8329
Deadline: The Claims administration must receive your claim by 5pm EST on May 4, 2010. Failure to meet this deadline will result in a perpetual bar from receiving any distribution.

Our stockbroker fraud attorneys represent investment fraud victims throughout the US.

Related Web Resource:
Proof of Claim Form (PDF)
Continue Reading ›

Citigroup Ordered to Defend Against Securities Fraud Allegations by Terra Securities of Norway and Several Norwegian Municipalities

Published on: March 3, 2010 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

A district court judge has denied Citigroup‘s motion that the securities fraud lawsuit filed against it by Terra Securities of Norway and seven Norwegian municipalities be dismissed. The plaintiffs claim that Citi misrepresented the risk involved in the $115 million in securities they bought in May and June 2007. They are seeking over $200 million in compensatory damages.

Judge Victor Morrero rejected Citibank’s claim that the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York lacked jurisdiction over the case because the financial losses happened in Norway. The plaintiffs had argued that their securities fraud claims are a result of Citigroup’s conduct in New York.

In their securities fraud complaint, the plaintiffs are claiming that Citigroup sold fund-linked securities as if they were conservative, safe investments. In fact, the notes, which were tied to the Citi Tender Option Bond Fund, are very high risk.
The municipalities bought the derivatives through Terra.

In the months following their purchase, the notes would go on to significantly drop in value. Terra went bankrupt and the municipalities had to reduce funding that was intended for hospitals, libraries, schools, and social services. One of the plaintiffs, the municipality of Narvik, was forced to turn off street and road lights at night. This is an area experiences limited daylight hours during the winter. The other municipalities that are plaintiffs of this securities fraud lawsuit are Bremanger, Hemnes, Hattfjelldal, Rana, Kvinesdal, and Vik.

The plaintiffs’ securities fraud lawyer says that the judge’s ruling affirms foreign plaintiffs’ right to sue Citigroup for alleged fraud that occurred in NY over notes that were marketed abroad. Citigroup, which had pushed to have the case heard in Norway or England, denies any wrongdoing. The investment bank says it will vigorously defend against the charges.

Related Web Resources:
Citigroup Must Defend Norwegians’ Lawsuit Over Notes, BusinessWeek, February 17, 2010

Citigroup Must Defend Suit Over Derivatives Sales In Norway, Wall Street Journal, February 17, 2010 Continue Reading ›

Morgan Keegan Ordered by FINRA Panel to Pay Investor $2.5 Million for Bond Fund Losses

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

A Financial Industry Regulatory Authority panel has ordered Morgan Keegan & Co. to pay investor Andrew Stein $2.5 million because the bond funds that he invested in had bet poorly on mortgage-related holdings. Panel members found Morgan Keegan liable for failure to supervise, negligence, and for selling investments that were unsuitable for Stein and his companies. The claimants, who sustained financial losses, had initially sought $12 million.

Stein’s arbitration claim is just one of over 400 securities claims that have been filed against Morgan Keegan over its bond funds that had invested in subprime-related securities, such as CDO’s (collateralized debt obligations). When the US housing market collapsed, the funds went down in value by up to 82%.

Stein contends that Morgan Keegan did not reveal the kinds of risks involved in investing in the bond funds. He and his companies claim that Morgan Keegan artificially increased the fund assets’ value so that the funds would appear more stable and investors wouldn’t be able to see the actual risks involved.

Bank of America To Settle SEC Charges Regarding Merrill Lynch Acquisition Proxy-Related Disclosures for $150 Million

Published on: February 15, 2010 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Bank of America Corp. (BAC) has agreed to pay $150 million, in addition to $1 million in disgorgement, to settle the Securities and Exchange Commission’s charges over the investment bank’s proxy-related disclosures regarding the Merrill Lynch acquisition. U.S. District Judge Jed S. Rakoff said he hopes to decide by February 19 on whether to approve the settlement. He also said he has more questions regarding the deal.

If approved, the settlement would conclude two SEC securities lawsuits against Bank of America over the Merrill Lynch merger. One complaint involves the investment bank’s alleged failure to reveal, prior to a 2008 shareholder meeting to vote on the acquisition, that financial losses were in the billions and rising at Merrill. The second lawsuit is over what the bank did and did not disclose about the billions of dollars in bonuses paid to Merrill Lynch employees right before the $50 billion merger was completed.

Under the proposed SEC settlement, the $150 million would go to Bank of America shareholders who suffered financial losses because of the investment bank’s alleged disclosure violations. Also, for three years BofA would have to maintain and implement a number of remedial measures, including hiring an independent auditor to look at its internal disclosure controls, hiring a disclosure counsel to work on bank disclosures, making sure that BofA’s chief financial officers and chief executive certify yearly and merger proxy statements, and allowing shareholders to have an advisory say-on-pay vote regarding executive compensation.

Earlier this month, New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo filed a separate securities fraud lawsuit against Kenneth D. Lewis, who formerly served as BofA’s chief executive, Joe Price, the bank’s former chief financial officer, and Bank of America for allegedly concealing Merrill Lynch’s losses. The complaint alleges that BofA general counsel Timothy Mayopoulos was let go because he wanted to disclose the losses at Merrill Lynch before the deal was finalized.

Related Web Resources:
Bank of America Still Dealing With Fallout From Merrill Deal, Fox Business, February 5, 2010
Cuomo Sues Bank of America, Even as It Settles With S.E.C., NY Times, February 4, 2010
US judge has questions on $150 mln SEC-BofA accord, Reuters, February 16, 2010 Continue Reading ›

Dallas Securities Attorney and Former SEC Litigator Convicted of Fraud in Pump and Dump Stock Scam

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

A jury has convicted Phillip Windom Offill Jr. of Texas securities fraud. The Dallas lawyer and former SEC trial attorney was found guilty of nine counts of wire fraud and one count of conspiracy for his involvement in a “pump and dump” scam that sold nine companies’ unregistered securities to investors in order to make a profit.

Court filings had accused the Texas securities attorney of using bogus press releases and “blast” emails to get investors to buy certain companies’ shares. When stock prices would go up, those involved in the scam would dump stock to make money. 10 other defendants have pleaded guilty for their part in the securities fraud scheme.

The SEC’s civil complaint against Offill accused him of conspiring with others to create bogus investment firms that obtained an offering of millions of unregistered AVL shares. Offill was one of the people who allegedly would transfer the shares to the company’s founder and associates, who would then promote the company’s potential as stock was being dumped.

According to U.S. Attorney Neil H. MacBride, Offill purposely broke the law, so that he and others could make millions off of innocent investors who ended up with worthless stock.

Prosecutors want $15 million in forfeiture. Offill’s sentencing is scheduled for April. He faces up to 20 years in prison for each wire fraud conviction and a maximum of five years in prison for conspiracy.

Related Web Resources:
Jury Convicts Former SEC Lawyer, The Wall Street Journal, January 28, 2010
Lawyer indicted in alleged pump-and-dump stock scheme, ITWorld, March 13, 2009 Continue Reading ›

Former JPMorgan Bankers Sued by SEC Over Swap Transactions Want Judge to Dismiss Securities Fraud Charges

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

Two ex- JPMorgan Chase & Co. bankers that the Securities and Exchange Commission is suing over their alleged involvement in certain swap transactions are asking the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama to throw out most of the securities fraud charges that the regulator agency has filed against them. According to the SEC, Douglas MacFaddin and Charles LeCroy paid close friends of county commissions and broker-dealers over $8 million in undisclosed payments to make sure that JPMorgan would be chosen as the bond offerings underwriter and its affiliated bank would be selected as swap provider so that both entities could make $5 billion in underwriting and interest rate swap agreement business.

The swaps involve three Jefferson County bond transactions that took place in 2002 and 2003 and are at least partly linked to the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association’s municipal swap index. The SEC says this index is securities-based because it is derived from variable-rate demand notes. MacFaddin and LeCroy’s lawyers, however, say that the SIFMA swap index is a rate index, which therefall places the swaps outside the agency’s antifraud jurisdiction. The defendants want the case dismissed.

The ex-JPMorgan bankers’ lawyers claim the undisclosed fees were connected to the swap transactions and that the investment bank was not obligated to disclose them. The defendants’ motions argue that the SEC’s failure to cite an instance in which the two men committed securities fraud is another reason the charges should be thrown out.

To resolve SEC administrative charges over its alleged part in the alleged securities scam, J.P. Morgan Securities Inc. consented to pay $75 M and forfeit $647 M in termination fees.

Related Web Resources:
Ex-JPM Bankers Seek End to Swap Charges, Onwallstreet.com, January 21, 2010
Read the SEC Complaint (PDF)
Continue Reading ›