UBS Category Archives — Page 7 of 20 — Investor Lawyers Blog Published By Investment Fraud Attorneys

Former UBS Trader is Helping Prosecutors Pursue Forex Rigging Cases Against Individuals

Published on: May 19, 2016 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Bloomberg reports that according to sources, Matt Gardiner, a former UBS Group AG (UBS) trader who was part of the instant-messaging group the federal government identified when obtaining guilty pleas from Barclays PLC (BARC), Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS), UBS, Citigroup (C), and JPMorgan Chase & Co.(JPM) over currency-rate manipulation, is working with prosecutors to pursue certain individuals over the rigging allegations. The Cartel chat room to which Gardiner belonged existed from at least 12/07 through 1/013.

According to prosecutors, traders who were part of the chat room communicated in code to share information about orders made by clients and to coordinate euro-dollar trades so that they could make more money. Having someone like Gardiner working with the government could help prosecutors understand what the traders were doing together. It’s unknown at this time whether his cooperation is part of a prosecution deal he may have reached.

His former firm, UBS, was granted immunity from antitrust charges because it was the first financial institution to report the market misconduct. Meantime, the banks whose traders were in the Cartel have turned over chat transcripts to the U.S. Department of Justice and foreign authorities. A lot of the chats occurred right before daily fixes, which is the short period of time when data providers are able to get a picture of trading in order to establish daily rates.

Wells Fargo to Pay UBS $1M Over Broker Departure

Published on: May 17, 2016 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

A FINRA arbitration panel has ordered Wells Fargo Advisors LLC (WFC) to pay UBS Financial Services Inc. $1.1M to resolve a claim involving financial adviser David Kinnear who went to work for the Wells Fargo & Co. brokerage arm after leaving the UBS Group AG (UBS) unit. UBS claims that Kinnear stole thousands of client and business records, as well as proprietary information, after resigning from the firm.

The Wall Street Journal reports that according to a source, Kinnear downloaded the data and distributed it to clients. UBS contends that the compensation Kinnear received at Wells Fargo was related to his ability to successfully bring UBS clients with him. UBS also claims that Kinnear owes it promissory notes.

Wells Fargo denies UBS’s allegations. It submitted a counterclaim accusing the firm of unfair completion, including preventing clients from moving from UBS to Wells Forgo.

Under the Protocol for Broker Recruiting, brokers are only allowed to bring the names and contact information of clients that they serviced while having worked at a firm when moving to another brokerage firm.

Bank of America, Citigroup, JPMorgan Chase, Credit Suisse, Deutsche Bank, and Other Banks Settle ISDAFix Rigging Case for $324 Million

Published on: May 4, 2016 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Seven big banks have resolved a U.S. lawsuit accusing them of rigging ISDAFix rates, which is the benchmark for appraising interest rate derivatives, structured debt securities, and commercial real estate mortgages, for $324M. The banks that have reached a settlement are:

· Barclays PLS (BCS) for $30M (In 2015, Barclays paid $115M to U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission to resolve charges of ISDAfix rigging.)
· Bank of America Corp. (BAC) for $50M
· Credit Suisse Group AG (CS) for $50M
· Citigroup Inc. (C) for $42M
· JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPM) for $52M
· Deutsche Bank AG (DB) for $50M
· Royal Bank of Scotland Group plc (RBS) for $50M

The deal must be approved by a Manhattan federal court. The defendants had sought to have the case dismissed, but US District Judge Jesse Furman in Manhattan refused their request. stating that the case raised “plausible allegations” that the defendants were involved in a conspiracy together.

Puerto Rico Misses Most of Its $422M Debt Payment

Published on: May 3, 2016 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Puerto Rico Governor Alejandro García Padilla announced this week that the U.S. territory would not be paying most of the $422 million in debt that was due on Monday. However, it did pay $23 million in interest. As the Puerto Rican government had swapped $33 million of debt for new debt that matured at a later date, the principal it missed on its Government Development Bank-issued bonds was $367 million.

This was a significant development in the stand-off between the Commonwealth and Washington DC, as well as investors in Puerto Rican debt. Moreover, there are much more significant sums due this summer and, if this week’s failure to pay is an indication, investors could be in trouble.

Puerto Rico currently owes more than $70 billion to bond holders. Over $2 billion in bond payments are due this summer, including $805 million in Puerto Rico general obligation bonds. In the wake of this latest default there is growing concern that there will be more defaults in the future.

One significant Puerto Rico bond issuer, the Puerto Rico Government Development Bank (“GDB”), says it has arrived at a tentative deal with a group of hedge funds holding $900 million of the bank’s debt in which the funds would agree to a possible reduction on the dollar of their original securities’ face value. This group of institutional investors, which is being called the “Ad Hoc Group of bondholders,” include Claren Road Asset Management, Avenue Capital Management, Fir Tree Partners, Brigade Capital Management, Solus Alternative Asset Management, and Fore Research Management. The GDB arrived at a similar deal with credit unions that are holding about $33 million in debt. Regardless, according to Bloomberg, analysts at Moody’s Investors Service said that even if creditors agree to a non-payment, it would still be a default.

Mutual funds, bond insurers, hedge funds, and individual investors are among those still holding the Commonwealth’s debt. Many of them got involved with Puerto Rico closed-end bond funds because of the high yields and tax benefits. When the securities plunged in value a few years ago, thousands of investors lost a significant portion of their savings. Retail investors, retirees, and small business owners were hit especially hard.

Oppenheimer Still Has Substantial Funds in Puerto Rico Municipal Bond Debt

Published on: April 30, 2016 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

According to InvestmentNews, even with Puerto Rico heading toward default on its $72 billion in municipal debt, there are a number of funds that continue to hold the U.S. Territory’s bonds in their portfolios, such as the:

· U.S. Oppenheimer Rochester Maryland Municipal (ORMDX)—Morningstar said that as of the conclusion of February the fund had 48.2% of assets in Puerto Rican debt.

· Oppenheimer’s (OPY) Virginia municipal bond fund (ORVAX) reportedly had 40.8% of its assets in the U.S. territory.

· Eaton Vance Oregon Municipal Income (ETORX) had 9.31% of its portfolio in Puerto Rico bonds.

· MainStay Tax-Free Bond (MKINX) had 8.8%.

InvestmentNews also reports that during a conference call on April 7, management for Oppenheimer Rochester said that about half of its funds’ holdings were in COFINA bonds or general obligation bonds, both from Puerto Rico.

Bancorp-UBS Trial over $2.1B of Mortgage-Backed Securities Begins

Published on: April 18, 2016 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

UBS (UBS) is on trial in Manhattan federal court. According to Reuters, the civil case was brought by UBS Bancorp (USB) for three trusts. The trusts claim that in their contract with the Swiss banking giant, UBS agreed that the mortgages backing the securities would satisfy certain standards. However, they contend, when it became clear the mortgages were faulty, UBS would not repurchase them. Now, the trusts want back the $2.1B that they lost.

UBS’s legal defense team argued that the lawyers of the trust are assessing the loans from the perspective of “hindsight bias.” They want U.S. District Judge Kevin Catel to evaluate whether when the loans were considered defective at the time that they were issued in 2006 and 2007.

According to the mortgage-backed securities lawsuit, over 17,000 loans were pooled into three trusts, which issued securities granting investors the right to borrower-made payments. The problem was, contend the plaintiffs, over 9,600 of the loans were defective, primarily because of borrower fraud or because they did not meet underwriting requirements. The trusts believe that UBS did not properly vet the loans, which it obtained through shady lenders that would go on to fail.

Judge Refuses to Totally Dismiss $1B Mortgage Fraud Case Against Credit Suisse Unit

Published on: April 15, 2016 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

A judge has ruled that the $1B mortgage fraud case brought against Credit Suisse (CS) unit DLJ Mortgage Capital can be resubmitted. This ruling reiterated U.S. Bank National Association’s contention that a six-year statute of limitations did not bar its claims, which it brought as a trustee.

In 2015, New York Supreme Court Judge Marcy S. Friedman had dismissed the case because the trustee had not made a repurchase demand of Ameriquest, the loan’s originator, according to the pre-suit requirement. However, she rejected DLJ’s claim that because these conditions were not met prior to the statute of limitations they were time barred. Friedman said that if U.S. National were to refile the case, then the issue of the repurchase demand’s impact on the trustee’s ability to file litigation in this matter would be determined on a “fully developed record.”

U.S. National sued DLJ Mortgage Capital in 2013, accusing the securitizer of not complying with its duty to buyback loans that breached of a number of warranties and representations that DLJ made in a contract presiding over the sale of 4,534 residential mortgage loans. The loans, originated by Ameriquest Mortgage Co., were securitized by the trust, sold by DLJ to investors, and came with multiple assurances about their quality. Such guarantees were supposed to place any risks from faulty mortgages with the originator.

The plaintiff contends that rather than construct a loan pool with quality mortgages, Ameriquest, which is no longer in operation, used faulty loans. As a result, contends U.S. National, the trust lost $227M.

UBS Ordered to Pay Investors Over $47K in Puerto Rico Bond Fraud Case

Published on: March 28, 2016 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

UBS Group AG (UBS) must pay Obdulio Melendez Ramos, Carlos L. Merced, and Ramon Velez Garcia over $470K for losses they sustained from investing in Puerto Rico bonds/bond funds that lost value. The three men filed their case with the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority. They contend their accounts were over-concentrated in risky Puerto Rico bonds/bond funds. Ramos, Garcia, and Merced had alleged negligent supervision and fraud.

Addressing the panel’s ruling, a spokesperson for UBS called the decision “disappointing” and said that he disagreed with the outcome. In an emailed statement, Gregg Rosenberg contended that that there were specific circumstances involved with this case and its outcome was not a indicative of how other arbitrators might rule in similar cases. However, according to a recent supplement for the firm’s fourth quarter earnings results, since August 2013 drops in Puerto Rico municipal bond prices, as well as in the prices of related proprietary funds UBS manages and distributes, have led to customer complaints, regulatory inquiries, and arbitrations filed against the firm.

Claimed damages against UBS are estimated to total $1.5B. The vast majority of those claims are still outstanding.

Many investors have accused UBS Puerto Rico of inappropriately persuading them to invest in the island’s municipal bonds even though these investments were not appropriate for them. UBS brokers even purportedly encouraged some investors to borrow so that they could become more heavily invested in the bonds. When Puerto Rico bond prices plunged, it was the investors, many of whom were retirees, that suffered.

Mortgage Securities News: Supreme Court Rejects Banks’ FDIC Case, Credit Suisse to Pay NCUA $29M in MBS Case Involving Credit Unions, & Former Fannie Mae CEO Must Contend With SEC Fraud Claims

Published on: March 26, 2016 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

US Supreme Court Turns Down Banks’ Bid that It Examine FDIC Case
The U.S. Supreme Court has decided not to review the 2015 ruling made by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals that revived the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation’s (FDIC) securities case accusing Goldman Sachs (GS), Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS), and Deutsche Bank (DB) of misrepresenting the quality of securities it sold to Guaranty Bank, which later failed. The FDIC took the Texas bank into receivership in 2009 and sued the banks in 2014.

A judge in Austin, Tx. dismissed the case, citing a state law requiring that lawsuits be brought within five years of a mortgage-backed security’s sale. The complaint had been filed at least 9 years after the MBSs were sold.

Last August, the Fifth Circuit cited a 1989 federal law and revived the case. The appeals court said that the FDIC is allowed an extended time period to file complaints for institutions that it insures and have gone into receivership. Circuit Judge Carolyn Dineen King wrote that it was this federal law that made it possible for the FDIC to concentrate on dealing with bank failures rather than worrying about possible statutes and their limitations.

RBS, Goldman, and Deutsche then filed their petitioned with the U.S. Supreme Court. The banks pointed to a past holding by the highest court that barred other courts from preempting state law unless the U.S. Congress has made such a preemption clear.

Credit Suisse Resolves MBS Case for $29M
Credit Suisse (CS) must pay $29M to settle the National Credit Union Administration’s claim that it sold bad mortgage-backed-securities to credit unions. NCUA’s lawsuit revolves around MBSs that UBS (UBS) underwrote and sold to Members United Corporate Federal Credit Union and the Southwest Corporate Federal Credit Union for over $228M from ’06 to ’07. Both credit unions have since failed.

Securities News: UBS To Pay $33M to NCUA For Mortgage-Backed Securities, CFTC, FCA May File More Civil Charges Against Banks for Libor Rigging, Moody’s Waits for end of DOJ’s Subprime Mortgage Probe

Published on: February 26, 2016 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

UBS to Pay $33M to NCUA Related to MBS Sold to Credit Unions
UBS AG (UBS) will pay $33 million to resolve a lawsuit filed by the National Credit Union Administration accusing the bank of selling toxic mortgage-backed securities to credit unions. The case revolves around MBS that were underwritten and sold by UBS. The securities were purchased by Members United Corporate Federal Credit Union and Southwest Corporate Federal Credit Union for almost $432.4M from ’06 to ’07.

NCUA alleged that offering documents for the securities sold included untrue statements claiming that the loans were originated in a manner that abided by underwriting guidelines when, in fact, the loans’ originators had “systematically abandoned” said guidelines. The false statements made the securities riskier than what was represented to the credit unions. Eventually, the MBS failed, resulting in substantial losses.

To date, NUCA has recovered almost $2.46B from banks over MBS sales that occurred prior to the 2008 financial crisis.

US, UK Regulators May Pursue More Banks Over Libor
According to the The Wall Street Journal, the US Commodity Futures Trading Commission and the UK Financial Conduct Authority are working on pressing the last civil charges against a number of banks for alleged rigging of the London interbank offered rate. LIBOR is the benchmark that underpins interest rates on trillions of dollars of financial contracts around the globe.

Sources tell WSJ that the firms under scrutiny include Citigroup (C), J.P. Morgan Chase & Co (JPM)., and HSBC Holdings (HSBC)—although the FCA has already dismissed its probe into J.P. Morgan.