Investor Lawyers Blog

Loss on Enron, Worldcom, etc.? It May Not Be Too Late!

Published on: July 31, 2007 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Usually lawsuits must be filed within a few years after the wrongful acts, or when one knew or should have known of the wrongdoing. For example, federal and most state securities laws require lawsuits to be filed by 2 or 3 years after the problem is known or made public, but no later than 5 years in any event.

However, if a class action is filed on behalf of shareholders, this “tolls” the limit for filing a case for those the case seeks to represent. If, for example, if a shareholder decides to “opt out” of the class action, or it is later decided the class action can not be maintained, the “window” for such shareholders to file their own cases remains open. (Caution: The remaining time to file a case may then be quite short.)

WorldCom Inc. bondholders were in this position. A class action was filed, including a class of bondholders. Some of these bondholders decided to file their own case before the class was “certified” (when the court decides whether the class members have claims common to all of them, etc.) Using strange reasoning, the federal judge presiding over their case decided that, because these bondholders did not wait for the class to be certified, they could not use the tolling benefit of the class action. Because the case was otherwise filed too late, it was dismissed.

Three Letter Symbols for NASDAQ Stocks? Is Nothing Sacred on Wall Street?

Published on: July 27, 2007 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

For more almost forty years I could fell safe knowing that if a company’s stock symbol had three letters it was listed on the New York Stock Exchange or possibly the American Stock Exchange. If the symbol had four or five letters, it was listed on the NASDAQ.

Delta Financial Corp. (DFC) recently transferred its listing to from the Amex to Nasdaq and sought to use the same symbol. Despite numerous (well-founded, I hasten to add) objections, the SEC decided to approved a rule change to permit an issuer to keep its three-character ticker symbol if it transfers its listing to Nasdaq from another domestic listing market.

The SEC says it approved the change to avoid the anti-competitive effect of the prior ban. It added that there was little reason to impose the costly and disruptive burden involved in changing a company’s ticker symbol if it simply wants to list on another exchange.

Viaticals: Ghoulish Wall Street Even Seeks to Profit on the Dying

Published on: July 26, 2007 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

What do Bear Stearns, Deutsche Bank, Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch, UBS, Wachovia and Wells Fargo and other big securities firms have in common? No conscience. For decades we have thought that Wall Street will do anything for money. Now we are sure.

Two years ago, about 250 people attended an event in New York to discuss yet another exotic product to come out of Wall Street. This spring, as the subprime mortgage market was crumbling, nearly 600 representatives of most largest players in the finance industry met to talk about the product, one they could sell investors which had enough pricing difficulty that large mark-ups could easily be generated. That product is “death bonds.”

In brightly lit rooms with a festive atmosphere, the wizards of Wall Street discussed how they could profit off diseased and dying folks who happen to have life insurance. Death bonds are securitized products which, instead of mortgages, are backed by life insurance policies.

FSC Securities Unit of AIG – A ‘Cozy’ Place for Fraud?

Published on: July 26, 2007 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

FSC created “an extremely cozy environment for a man bent on defrauding his customers,” said three NASD Securities Arbitrators, “management ineptness was broad” and the firm ignored red flags that the broker had “selling away” issues (using one’s status at a firm to aid in the sale of investments not approved by the firm).

FSC Securities of Atlanta, part of the AIG Financial Group, had warning when it hired broker Scott Hollenbeck that he had problems during his past employment, said a panel of three arbitrators in their award to several investors. During his past employment, they say, he even embezzled money from a church organization.

Hollenbeck was based in Kernersville, N.C. where he was employed by FSC for over 5 years, ending in 2002, not counting a 20 month hiatus. Not named in the arbitration claim, Hollenbeck faces charges over an alleged Ponzi investment scheme which reportedly took place after he left FSC and included the use of billboards.

Industry Group Wants to “Reform” – Not End – Abuse Prone B-Shares

Published on: July 26, 2007 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The Independent Directors Council (IDC) recently provided the Securities and Exchange Commission with a list of “reforms” regarding 12b-1 mutual funds, including that mutual fund directors should oversee the fees. The group claims that the fees are used to pay for advice and shareholder servicing, when the true use is to pay high comissions that can be hidden or obfuscated from investors.

In 2006, the mutual fund industry collected $11.8 billion in 12b-1 fees. The SEC sponsored a roundtable discussion on B-shares in June to discuss whether to do away with such shares. Seeking compromise, The IDC now suggests “clarification” of 12b-1 plans, improved disclosures to investors and send-it-to-committee type delay tactics – all intended to avoid the proposed end to the issuance of such shares.

Three decades ago Wall Street sought to compete with “no-load” mutual funds being sold directly by mutual fund companies. In 1980, it got help from Washington to create “B shares,” so-called because these are authorized under section 12-b of the Investment Advisors Act. While no front end load is paid to buy such shares, sellers are paid up front to sell the shares. Buyers are then charged fees each year for 5 years and, if they try to get our earlier, are charged a penalty for early withdrawal.

Merrill Lynch Ordered to Pay $1.6M to Former Broker for Ethnic Bias – But Will This Survive Appeal?

Published on: July 25, 2007 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

A NASD arbitration panel ordered Merrill Lynch & Co. Inc. to pay an Iranian former employee $1.6 million, for claims that his boss set him up to be fired after discovering his ethnicity. Merrill is currently defending a suit filed in court by another Iranian who has also accused the firm of discrimination.

In an unusually lengthy decision, the securities arbitration panel awarded Fariborz Todd Zojaji $400,000 in compensatory damages and $1.2 million in punitive damages. The arbitrators explained that Merrill Lynch defamed Mr. Zojaji in a required exit disclosure form (Form U-5), which “destroyed claimant’s ability to become employed in the securities industry.”

This language may cause the award to be undone, since it was recently determined that brokerage firms have total immunity for statements made in such disclosures. Yet, the standard for vacating arbitration awards is quite high and a court could let the decision stand if it determines the arbitrators could have decided the case for any other reason. It is also possible the arbitrators heard evidence that the derogatory statements made in the U-5 were stated orally or in writing elsewhere, thus not be protected by the privilege.

Wall Street Wars VII: SEC Chairman to RIAs – “Greetings” – A Regulator on Steriods?

Published on: July 25, 2007 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

As a review: Instead of charging commissions to sell investments and products to their clients, as do brokerage firms, investment advisors charge a small percentage to advise clients how to invest their money. Wall Street decided this would be a lucrative addition to their business, but did not want to owe a fiduciary duty (of good faith) to their clients as required by the Investment Advisors Act of 1940. They therefore had their politically appointed friends at the SEC exempt them from registering as advisors. This was called the “Merrill Rule.”

Investment advisors then cried foul and their largest association filed suit against the SEC. A few months ago, they won! After brooding for a few weeks but realizing the SEC had no power to exempt anyone from the law, the SEC’s Chairman decided not to appeal. Instead, the Wall Street-friendly former Congressman began his retaliation.

The SEC Chairman first, without waiting for others at the SEC, personally asked Congress to investigate certain practices of investment advisors. The SEC then sprung a hasty investigation of some investment advisors and soon reported only one had properly disclosed facts in its performance claims.

Citigroup’s Smith Barney Unit Ordered to Pay $50 Million over Widespread Fraud Charges

Published on: July 24, 2007 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

In one of its final regulatory acts before being folded into the NASD, the New York Stock Exchange’s regulatory unit has censured and fined Smith Barney $50 million over illegal trades, failures to supervise and record-keeping violations. The firm agreed to the sanctions without admitting or denying the charges.

The Smith Barney unit of Citigroup Global Markets Inc. will pay a fine of $10 million to the NYSE, and a fine of $5 million to the State of New Jersey, related to a “separate regulatory matter arising out of the same conduct.” An additional $35 million will be paid into a restitution fund to compensate victims.

The NYSE regulators say Smith Barney agreed to these huge sanctions to resolve charges related to a variety of fraudulent trading activities, including excessive trading, improper trading in mutual fund shares, improper trading in variable annuity mutual fund sub-accounts, illegal market timing trades, plus the firm’s failures to supervise and to maintain adequate books and records.

Morgan Stanley Last Again in Customer Satisfaction

Published on: July 24, 2007 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Each year the research firm of J.D. Power ranks the largest brokerage firms based on customer satisfaction. This year’s survey polled 5,000 investors and asked them to rate factors such as the quality of their broker, account set-up, investment offerings, and investment performance. Similar polls are taken regarding airlines and other companies which serve the public.

For the second straight year, Morgan Stanley’s retail brokerage unit ranked 11th in customer satisfaction, which was last place in the poll. Highly publicized problems at Morgan Stanley, including a public uprising of high level executives, prompted the ousting of that firm’s CEO.

The management shake-up also included replacement of the head of Morgan Stanley’s retail unit, with James Gorman moving from Merrill Lynch to accept the position. Changes have been initiated by Gorman, including the release of almost 1,000 under-performing brokers and addition of several new products. While his efforts may be a work in progress, results so far have obviously been less than stellar.

As Wall Street Seeks to Lower the Bar, Investors Continue to Say They Value Ethics

Published on: July 21, 2007 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

It seems that Wall Street has convinced state and federal regulators, as well as Congress and Presidential candidates, that the regulatory bar must be lowered if we are to compete in the international securities market (or perhaps Wall Street’s donations have affected the judgment of these politicians). Yet, studies continue to show that most investors prize a company’s behavior over rich returns.

After the crash of 1929, and for over 70 years, our securities markets have been regulated by a network of federal and state securities laws. During that period, U.S. financial markets have thrived and becme the envy of the world. Conventional wisdom is that investors want to feel safe in investment waters – as shark free as possible. Yet, those on Wall Street, many of whom have proven themselves to be sharks, lobby regulators and lawmakers to attempt to win a “race to the bottom” in worldwide financial regulation.

Yet a recent study found, for example, that two-thirds of investors say they would sell their shares of a company that engages unethical but legal behavior-even if that behavior brought in higher returns. These results were found through poll research performed by Opinion Research Corp. for Pepperdine University’s Graziadio School of Business and Management.