Articles Posted in Securities Fraud

The US Securities and Exchange Commission and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission are accusing Houston attorney and accountant Daniel Petroski and Texas A & M Professor Robert Watson of using forged bank records to engage in investor fraud. On May 21, the US District Court for the Southern District of Texas froze the assets of the two men and of two firms associated with the alleged misconduct.

According to the two agencies, Petroski and Watson raised over $19 million from about 65 investors, while claiming they would use a foreign-currency trading software, “Alpha One,” that they said belonged to their company, Private FX Global One Ltd. Watson’s “deal clearing company, “36 Holdings,” was also to participate in the investing.

The SEC and the CFTC contend that the two men engaged in misrepresentation when they made it appear as if their foreign exchange trading business never had a losing month, achieved a yearly return of over 23%, and that their venture had millions of dollars in Swiss and US bank accounts. The two agencies are also accusing the two men of generating bogus records for investigators, including records indicating that 36 Holdings had an account with Deutsche Bank where Global One earned over $2 million this year by trading foreign currencies. In fact, 36 Holdings does not have a Deutsche Bank account.

In addition, the SEC’s complaint accuses the two men of putting, at maximum, 33% of their proceeds in a Swiss bank before transferring some $5 million to a Houston bank-even though they told investors that the amount of foreign currency and other assets was closer to 80%. The defendants are also accused of giving their own employees bogus Swiss bank statements and making false claims that 36 Holdings had nearly $70 million deposited there.

The SEC accuses the defendants of violating the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934’s Section 10(b), Rule 10b-5 thereunder, and the Securities and Exchange Commission Act of 1933’s Section 17(a). The CFTC and the SEC are seeking a preliminary injunction, final judgment from permanent enjoinment of future violations, disgorgement with interest, and fines.

Related Web Resources:
SEC OBTAINS ASSET FREEZE AND TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AGAINST ROBERT D. WATSON, DANIEL J. PETROSKI, PRIVATEFX GLOBAL ONE LTD., SA AND 36 HOLDINGS, LTD., SEC.gov, May 26, 2009
Read the SEC Complaint (PDF)
Continue Reading ›

VSR Financial Services, an investment firm, has agreed to pay $10.3 million to settle a FINRA claim that it failed to properly supervise two ex-brokers accused of improperly selling risky investments to 249 customers. The agreement ends the litigation brought by the investors, many of them retirees, against VSR and its two ex-brokers, Rebecca Engle and Brian Schuster.

Although a number of securities fraud lawsuits have been filed against Schuster, Engle, and VSR, most of the investment fraud victims opted to pursue their cases through arbitration because the terms of their investment agreements prevented them from filing lawsuits. The claimants have accused the former VSR brokers of selling them investments that were inappropriate and high-risk.

The majority of investors who were defrauded say that because they were already either retired or about to retire, they had wanted to place their money in investments that were conservative and low risk. Instead, they claim that Schuster and Engle made high-risk investments for them, selling them securities in Royal Palm Capital Group and American Capital Corp while failing to explain the risks involved. Schuster and Engle allegedly promoted these investments as “mini Berkshire Hathaways” and “can’t miss” opportunities when the companies were actually startups that had limited operating histories. According to criminal complaints and court documents, the investment fraud victims lost at least $20 million.

Engle and Schuster have been charged with eight felony counts of securities fraud. They worked together a number of times between 2000 and 2007 and have also been affiliated with Wachovia Securities LLC and Capital Growth Financial LLC. More arbitration claims against the other companies they’ve been associated with are pending.

Employer to pay $10M, CayCompass.com, May 24, 2009
VSR Financial Services settles securities claims, Kansas City, May 20, 2009 Continue Reading ›

Six people have been convicted for conspiracy to commit securities fraud in a scheme involving the abuse of “squawk boxes.” The defendants convicted include former Citigroup/Smith Barney and Merrill Lynch broker Kenneth Mahaffy, former Lehman Brothers employee David Ghysels Jr., former Merrill broker Timothy O’Connell, former AB Watley Group Inc. president and vice chairman Robert F. Malin, and former AB Watley employees Keevin H. Leonard and Linus Nwaigwe.

During the trial, the government established that O’Connell, Mahaffy, and Ghysels regularly gave confidential data regarding customer orders to day traders at Ab Watley, E*Trade Professional Trading, and Millennium Brokerage. They did this using “squawk boxes” at Citigroup, Merrill, and Lehman.

The broker defendants are accused of leaving their phones off the hook and placing them next to squawk boxes so that the day traders could hear the client orders as they were called out. In return for the data, the day traders paid the defendants commissions from “wash trades” that came through brokerage accounts that the day traders had set up with the defendants. The day traders made money by before the large orders that were announced on the squawk boxes were executed. The day traders also would sell short a particular security after a large sell order for that same stock was announced on the squawk box.

The defendants are facing up to 25 years in prison, a fine, five years’ supervised release, and restitution. All of the men are free on bail until their July 31 sentencing hearing and they’ve been asked to give up their passports.

This is the second trial against the defendants. All of them were acquitted of 20 securities fraud charges during a previous trial in 2007. The jury had deadlocked on a number of the charges. For this second trial, federal prosecutors decided to charge the six defendants solely with conspiracy to commit securities fraud.

Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas LTD LLP and stockbroker fraud attorney William Shepherd has this to say: “Note that only the little guys on Wall Street go to jail while the fat-cats get big bonuses.”

Related Web Resources:
‘Squawk Box’ Jury Finds Brokers Guilty of Conspiracy, Bloomberg.com, April 22, 2009
Six Convicted In Squawk Box Illegal Trading, NorthCountryGazette.com, April 23, 2009
Squawk Box, Investopedia Continue Reading ›

Last week, Oregon’s Attorney General sued OppenheimerFunds Inc. for allegedly mismanaging the state’s 529 College Savings Plan when it recommended a bond that took risks that were not in alignment with the Plan’s conservative investment objectives. The 529 College Savings Plan allows investors to avail of tax benefits while they save for their children’s college education.

According to the $36 million securities fraud lawsuit, the defendants had signed a contract agreeing to recommend only funds that were consistent with the Oregon 529 College Savings Board’s investment policy and would let the board know about any fund changes. Also, as an investment adviser, OppenheimerFunds had fiduciary duties it owed the board.

The complaint contends that the defendants breached their fiduciary and contractual duties by continuing to recommend the Oppenheimer Core Bond Fund even after it took part in risky leverage and speculative bets with derivatives.

According to the lawsuit, the Oregon College Savings Plan Trust retained the services of OppenheimerFunds to put together, manage, and make recommendations for its portfolios. All recommendations had to be compatible with each portfolio’s objectives.

When OppenheimerFunds initially recommended the Core Bond Fund, the bond was a “straightforward” bond fund that was primarily invested in high-quality corporate bonds. That is, until sometime between 2007 and 2008 when fund managers allegedly began taking part in credit default swaps and total return swaps. This, says the lawsuit, dramatically changed the risk profile of the fund.

Yet OppenheimerFunds failed to let the board know about this change until January 22. The fund lost more than 35% of its value in 2008 and another 10% during the first three months of 2009. The complaint says that rather than moderate the degree of risk, OppenheimerFunds increased the risks.

OppenheimerFunds maintains that significant losses occurred as a result of market volatility and not due to dramatic changes in investment strategies and that the Board was notified of all changes. The investment adviser says it is extremely disappointed with the lawsuit and expressed concern that an outside lawyer, and not the state, conducted the probe into the case.

However, Keith S. Dubanevich, the special counsel in the Oregon attorney general’s office, says it is their common practice to retain outside help when dealing with certain areas of law, including securities fraud, and that Oregon’s Justice Department did lead the investigation.

Related Web Resources:
Oregon Sues Over Risks Taken In Its ‘529’ Fund, The Wall Street Journal, April 14, 2009
Oregon 529 College Savings Network

Oregon Attorney Continue Reading ›

About 7,500 General Motors workers have agreed to a buyout of early retirement incentives and leave, the company reported today. Chrysler has also agreed to extend its offers bo buy-out workers beyond tomorrow. This follows tens of thousands of other autoworkers workers who were in recent years persuaded to retire and retire early and receive large sums of money.

Unfortunately, many retiring persons have little if any experience in investing. Enter droves of salespersons hawking financial plans. In the past, strict laws and regulations were enforced regarding investors’ funds, especially retirement funds. As we have recently witnessed, securities regulators are apparently overwhelmed or incompetent. This has resulted in tragic results recently as retirees have not only lost their careers but also their only safety net.

For decades, Wall Street has blamed abuse of investors on a few “rogue” brokers. Now many believe it is Wall Street itself that is rotten to the core. In fact, the majority of financial advisors sincerely and diligently seek to serve their clients. Yet, many products they are told to sell are inappropriate, riddled with costs or just plain fraudulent. As well, too many of the worst of advisors attract unwary investors with false promises.

Victims of financial abuse are also often unaware they can recover undue investment losses according to the law. They must understand, however, that regulators “police” the industry, and write tickets when they catch the bad guys. In order to recover, victims almost always have to hire an attorney to represent them in court or securities arbitration.

Our law firm has represented thousands of investors, most who lost retirement funds, and many who are former autoworkers. If you or someone you know has lost retirement funds you feel were invested improperly, contact us today for a free consultation.
Continue Reading ›

In the US District Court for the Southern District of New York, UBS AG was named as a defendant in a class action lawsuit alleging that the company engaged in a tax scam designed to help rich US investor avoid federal taxes. The plaintiff in the case is the New Orleans Employees Retirement System, which includes purchasers that publicly traded UBS securities between May 4, 2004 and January 26, 2009.

The 120-page complaint says that UBS would encourage analysts and investors to consider “new net money” that came to the investment bank during each reporting period as a major indicator of the company’s performance and future prospect. The securities fraud class action lawsuit, however, contends that UBS employed a fraudulent scam to lure a material amount of this “new net money.” This scheme also helped extremely rich US investors avoid federal taxes by placing billions of their dollars in undeclared Swiss bank accounts.

The New Orleans Employees’ Retirement System claims the investment bank’s Swiss bankers acted improperly and violated Securities and Exchange Commission regulations when they sold securities in the United States even though they lacked the necessary licensing. The plaintiff contends that UBS’s fraudulent actions led to the firm generating fees worth hundreds of millions of dollars each year and that these funds were used to create more loans through fractional lending.

The lawsuit also accuses UBS of taking action to conceal the tax scam from investors, the Internal Revenue Service, and the Department of Justice while purposely making it appear that the firm’s Wealth Management division was growing at an unprecedented pace.

The plaintiff says UBS’s claims that it had “robust internal controls” and “state of the art risk management tactics” were misleading and false because while UBS was providing these reassurances to investors, it was in fact engaged in its tax evasion scam.

In addition to UBS, defendants in the class action case include Marcel Ospel, Phillip Lofts, Peter Wuffli, Mark Branson, Peter Kurer, Martin Liechti, Peter Kurer, and Raoul Weil.

The putative Class is seeking billions of dollars in damages.

Related Web Resources:
UBS AG

New Orleans Employees’ Retirement System v. UBS AG, Justia Docket Continue Reading ›

The civil lawsuits that will be brought by the victims of Bernard Madoff’s $50 billion fraud scam are expected to be numerous and massive. Not only will they likely target Madoff and his firm, Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC., but a number of his family members who work for the firm could also be named as defendants.

The company’s chief compliance officer and senior managing director is Madoff’s brother Peter. Madoff’s sons, Mark and Andrew, also are employed by the firm, as is Shana Madoff, Peter’s daughter. While Madoff has maintained that no family members were involved in the Ponzi scheme and that he acted alone, actual knowledge doesn’t have to be involved when there is a fiduciary relationship or if recklessness or negligence is a factor for someone to be held liable.

According to Securities and Exchange Commission staff attorney Peter J. Henning, two main types of litigation are expected from the Madoff scheme. One type of securities fraud litigation will target Madoff, his company, and his family members. Another kind of investor fraud lawsuit will target third parties, such as investment advisers, feeder funds connected to Madoff’s company, and other parties that sent investors Madoff’s way.

Complications are expected. Determining the liability of people who acted in an agent role but did not receive compensation when they referred investors to Madoff, differentiating between claimants that invested in feeder funds and those who directly invested with Madoff, and determining whether money can be gotten back from investors who redeemed their funds earlier, are just some of the difficulties that are likely to arise.

Already, a number of investors have filed class action and group lawsuits against the 70-year-old financial adviser, who remains under house arrest. In October, Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC., was the 23rd biggest market maker on Nasdaq.

Related Web Resources:
Suits From Madoff Fraud Will Be Massive, Will Involve Family Members, Attorneys Say, BNA, December 22, 2008
Bernie Madoff Victim List, Huffington Post, December 15, 2008
Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC
Continue Reading ›

A recent New York Times article reports that according to new data, federal officials are prosecuting far fewer cases involving fraudulent stock scams than they did in 2000 before the Bush Administration came into office. According to financial and legal experts, less strict enforcement polices, Securities and Exchange Commission staff cutbacks, and a greater focus on fighting terrorism have led to the federal government’s laxer policing efforts when it comes to pursuing securities fraud cases.

The new information, based on Justice Department information and put together by a Syracuse University research group, says that there haven’t been so few securities fraud prosecutions in a year since 1991. Also:

• During the first 11 months of the 2008 fiscal year, there were 133 securities fraud prosecutions-compare this to 2002 when there were 513 prosecutions, spurred by the WorldCom and Enron scandals, and 2000 when there were 437 prosecutions for this same time period.

Wall Street Icon Bernard Madoff’s $50 billion “Ponzi” scam may very well have bilked hundreds, even thousands, of investors of their money. Now, many of Madoff’s victims are contacting the securities fraud law firm of Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas LTD LLP to find out how they can recover their investments.

According to SSEK Founder and Stockbroker Fraud Attorney William Shepherd, “a number of recovery options” exist, including pursuit of:

• Securities Industry Protection Corp: SIPC has a $500,000 maximum guarantee limit per account. Its reserves are also limited and it needs government infusion to be able to cover losses in the billions of dollars. To be able to recover claims, legal action against SIPC is usually necessary. On Monday, a judge ruled that investors who were Madoff’s direct clients are covered under SIPC.

This month, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued a decision granting class action plaintiffs another opportunity to make their securities fraud claims against Hartford Financial Services Group Inc. The district court had previously dismissed the class action lawsuit as untimely under the 1934 Securities Exchange Act.

That court had found that based on all media reports, regulatory filings, and information about several lawsuits available, the plaintiffs could have and should have filed their securities fraud lawsuit before the two-year statute of limitations had run out on July 25, 2001. Instead, the plaintiffs filed their complaint more than one year after the deadline had passed.

The securities fraud lawsuit, filed by Steve Staehr and a number of other plaintiffs who had acquired Hartford stock between August 6, 2003 and October 13, 2004, accuses the life and property/casualty insurer of acting fraudulently by concealing price manipulation and kickbacks involving insurers and commercial brokers. The plaintiffs also claim that because of the firm’s misrepresentations, omissions, and fraudulent concealments, they acquired Hartford stocks at artificially inflated prices. They filed their lawsuit soon after then-New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer filed a lawsuit against Marsh, Inc., a Hartford broker.

Second Circuit Judge Colleen McMahon reversed the district court’s decision saying the information the plaintiffs had was not enough to place them on notice by July 2001 that Hartford was likely going to be investigated for “contingent” commissions. The appeals court also noted that Spitzer’s lawsuit connected Hartford to Marsh’s activities and that in 2003, Hartford revealed it paid brokers $145 million in kickbacks.

Related Web Resources:

Securities Fraud Class Action Lawsuit Against Hartford Financial Services Group Inc. is Reinstated in Appeals Court, Reuters, November 17, 2008
N.Y. Attorney General Spitzer Sues Marsh Over Contingent Commissions, Insurance Journal, October 25, 2004 Continue Reading ›

Contact Information