January 30, 2008

Former LFTC and LRAIC Broker Settles CFTC Charges that He Defrauded Investors

Leslie Weiner, a former broker for Liberty Financial Trading Corp. (LFTC) and Liberty Real Assets Investment Corp. (LRAIC), has agreed to pay $170,000 in penalty and restitution to settle charges made by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) that he defrauded investor clients.

The CFTC says that LRAIC, LFTC, and Weiner engaged in fraudulent soliciting practices to persuade investors to open accounts. The CFTC has accused Weiner of “false and misleading solicitations.” The CFTC had filed its complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida on September 21, 2004.

The consent order, issued on January 8, found that Weiner, when working for LFTC and then later LRAIC, made sales solicitations that misrepresented the risks involved in trading commodity options and did not disclose customer accounts’ actual performance records or the fact that both companies had poor track records when it came to trading commodity options.

As part of the settlement, Weiner also agreed to a permanent ban preventing him from taking part in any activities involving commodities, including soliciting funds, trading on any registered entities, and guiding or controlling any commodity interest accounts-related trades.

By settling the CFTC charges, Weiner is not admitting to or denying the allegations.

Please contact the stockbroker fraud law firm of Shepherd Smith and Edwards if you are an investor who lost money because a stockbroker or brokerage firm engaged in misconduct or fraud. Your first consultation is free.


Related Web Resources:

Former Employee of Pompano Beach Commodity Firm, Leslie Weiner, Settles Charges that He Defrauded Commodity Options Customers, CFTC.gov, January 9, 2008

Read the Order (PDF)

US Commodity Futures Trading Commission

January 28, 2008

Commodity Futures Trading Commission Charges Argentine Investment Adviser With Defrauding Investors in $43.8 Million International Scam

The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) is charging Diego Mariano Rolando, an Argentine investment adviser, for his role in a $43.8 scheme that defrauded some 400 investors in the United States, South America, and Europe. Earlier this month, the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut issued a restraining order to freeze his assets.

According to the CFTC, Rolando allegedly engaged in the following activities:

• Fraudulent trading of customer funds in options contracts and commodity futures.
• Provided investors with fraudulent account statements.
• Gave a U.S. clearing firm false customer contact information to prevent investors from discovering the scam.

The CFTC says that Rolando went online to solicit clients through Roclerman.com and IATrading.com. He told those he contacted that he could trade securities for them. The CFTC is charging Rolando with providing clients with materials about their investments that contained "misrepresentations and omissions of fact."

The CFTC says that Rolando solicited about $48.8 million through the scam. The commission is seeking a number of sanctions, including a permanent injunction, disgorgement of ill-gotten gains, restitution to investors, and a civil financial penalty.

If you are an investor that wishes to obtain financial restitution because of losses you incurred due to the fraudulent misconduct of a broker or an investment adviser, you should speak with a stockbroker fraud lawyer immediately. Shepherd Smith and Edwards dedicates its legal practice to helping professionals like you recover your financial losses. We represent stockbroker fraud clients in the U.S., as well as internationally. Contact Shepherd Smith and Edwards for your free consultation today.


Related Web Resources:

CFTC Charges Argentine Trader With Fraud, FIN Alternatives, January 17, 2008

Read the Court Order in the Case (PDF)

U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission

January 24, 2008

Deutsche Bank Trust Company, Goldman Sachs Group, and Bank of America Corporation are Among the 21 Lenders Named in Cleveland, Ohio Lawsuit

The city of Cleveland, Ohio is suing 21 financial institutions for hundreds of millions of dollars in damages caused by subprime lending and securitization. The defendants named in the lawsuit are:

• Deutsche Bank Trust Company
• Ameriquest Mortgage Company
• Bank of America Corporation
• The Bear Stearns Companies
• Citigroup, Inc.
• Countrywide Financial Corp.
• Credit Suisse (USA)
• Fremont General Corporation
• GMAC-RFC
• Goldman Sachs Group
• Greenwich Capital Markets, Inc.
• HSBC Holdings, PLC
• Indymac Bancorp., Inc.
• J.P. Morgan Chase Co.
• Lehman Brothers Holdings, Inc.
• Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc.
• Morgan Stanley
• Novastar Financial Inc.
• Option One Mortgage Corporation
• Washington Mutual Inc.
• Wells Fargo & Co.

The city of Cleveland says that the defendants issued loans to people who would never have been able to pay them back and that the foreclosures were inevitable. The lawsuit says that not only did the financial institutions issue loans to ill-qualified borrowers, but they securitized the loans and used the profits to fund more subprime mortgages, make more money, and secure more borrowers.

In the past two years, Cleveland has experienced over 7,000 foreclosures. Entire city blocks have been vacated and violent crime and arson incidents have increased. 1,000 abandoned homes have been torn down. Cleveland is calling the “propagation of subprime mortgages… and the corresponding foreclosures... a public nuisance as defined by Ohio common law.

As a result, the city of Cleveland’s population was 444,000 last year—way down from its nearly one million residents in 1950. The decrease in population size has negatively affected the city’s budget.

The stockbroker law firm of Shepherd Smith and Edwards represents investors who have lost money due to the misconduct or negligent actions of broker-dealers and other financial institutions. Contact Shepherd Smith and Edwards today and one of our stockbroker fraud lawyers will be happy to offer you a free consultation.

Related Web Resources:

Cleveland Sues 21 Lenders Over Subprime Mortgages, Herald-Tribune, January 12, 2008

Read the Complaint (PDF)

January 23, 2008

SEC & FINRA Examine CMO Sales and Marketing Practices

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) have each began their own investigations into the sales and marketing practices of certain collateralized mortgage obligations (CMOs),

FINRA sent more than 12 broker-dealers a sweeps letter requesting more information about: the sales of principals only, interest only, and inverse floater trenches of CMOs and details about actions taking place between June 30, 2006 and July 31, 2007.

FINRA specifically requested:

• Customer names
• Transaction dates
• Account numbers
• Prices per unit of sales
• Identification numbers of registered representatives
• CMO sales-related presentation, training, and marketing material
• A list of customer complaints

By requesting the information, FINRA noted that this did not mean that any federal securities laws had been violated by anyone. FINRA says its requests are common practice when new products are offered to investors. FINRA wants to know how products are marketed and sold to investors and how the firms decide who to offer the products to.

FINRA wants to make sure that investors not properly suited for CMOs are not offered the product. FINRA recommends that CMOs should be offered to “sophisticated investors.”

If you are an investor who has lost money because of the unsuitable recommendation of a broker-dealer, you should speak with one of our stockbroker fraud lawyers right away. You are entitled to recover your losses. Contact Shepherd Smith and Edwards today.


Related Web Resources:

Brokers Probed by Finra on Mortgage Security Sales, Person Says, Bloomberg.com, January 4, 2008

Collateralized Mortgage Obligations (CMOs), SEC.gov

January 21, 2008

K.W. Brown & Company, K.W. Brown Investments, & 21st Century Advisors Are Held Liable in $4.5 Million Cherry-Picking Scam

The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida has found K.W. Brown & Company, K.W. Brown Investments, 21st Century Advisors, the companies' owner Kenneth Brown, his spouse Wendy Brown, and representative Michael Cimilluca liable for their involvement in a cherry-picking scam that earned them $4.5 million and cost investors $9 million. The three of them were also found liable for violating federal securities laws.

According to the Florida Court, from September 2002 up until at least June 2006, Brown and his friends took part in a fraudulent cherry-picking scheme that helped him and his friends earn millions of dollars in illegal gains while clients lost money as a result.

Industry regulators had warned Brown that he needed to put in place procedures and policies that would prevent this type of illegal activity, yet the oversights persisted. A Securities and Exchange examination staff had discovered a number of violations in June 2003, including undisclosed conflicts of interest and breaches of fiduciary duty.

In 2005, the SEC filed a complaint against Brown and his three companies. The SEC says that Cimilluca, who day-traded in a proprietary account run by Brown Investments, pocketed 50% of the profits from the account as his compensation.

The SEC says that because Cimilluca was only paid 1% of commissions that he earned from executive trades, he was be more likely to move the more profitable trades to the Brown Trading Account while ignoring customer accounts. Because of this, investors lost profits valued at millions of dollars.

The defendants must now also pay $983,586 in pre-judgment interest on the $4.5 that the scheme earned them and $74,779 on the $296,147 in profits that had been diverted by Cimilluca, who is a registered representative for one of Brown’s firms.

Collectively, the three companies owned by Brown must pay a civil penalty of $4.5 million. Ken Brown and Cimilluca were also ordered to pay third-tier civil penalties of $250,000. Wendy Brown has been ordered to pay $100,000.

Losing money because of the misconduct of a broker or a broker-dealer can be a huge financial blow to an investor. The best chance you have of recovering your losses is retaining the services of an experienced stockbroker fraud law firm. Shepherd Smith and Edwards has helped thousands of people in the United States, as well as internationally, recover their investment losses. Contact Shepherd Smith and Edwards today and one of our stockbroker fraud lawyers would be happy to discuss your situation during your free consultation.

Related Web Resources:

Wins Case against Three in $4.5M Fraud, CCH Wall Street, January 14, 2008

SEC v. K.W. Brown and Company, et al., Civil Action No. 05-CV-80367-JOHNSON (S.D. Fla.), SEC.gov, January 8, 2008

January 17, 2008

Investors into Bear Stearns' "Mult-Strategy Fund Warrants" Lose over 99% on Their Investment

On Christmas Eve a Bear Stearns client received a present - a check for $1,000 - less some fees. While a check for $1,000 at Christmas time can come in handy, it was no gift since this was to close out an investment by the client in 2001 of almost $120,000!

Accoording to the paperwork provided to the investor, management chose to terminate early the Bear Stearns Multi-Stragegy Warants expiring March 31, 2009. The warrants, stated in the notice provided, were "linked to the performance of the Bear Stearns Multi-Strategy Fund, L.P." the value of the warrants at maturity was to be based upon the average of the six month-end "net asset value" of the fund. That maturity never occured because the warrants were ended abruptly more than a year early.

According to the notice "the underlying constituents of the Fund were: New Castle Millennium II, L.P., New Castle Market Neutral, L.P. and Bear Stearns Emerging Markets Macro Fund, L.P., Bear Stearns Institutional Leveraged Loan Fund, L.P. Bear Stearns ABS Partners, L.P. and Bear Stearns High-Grade Structured Credit Strageties Enhanced Leverage Fund, L.P., with approximatelly equal wieghting."

A securities warrant is similar to a securities option, but generally has a much longer holding period. These warrants, for example, were set to expire more than 7 years after their issuance.

Despite their names, the underlying funds upon which the warrants were valued, were reportely heavily invested into sub-prime mortgages and derivative securities. Representations were made to the investors at the time of the purchase regarding the safety of the investments, which maintained a relatively stable value for years, at least as reflected in the statments sent. (It is unknown at this time just who determined the value reported for such warrants.)

For example, having paid approximately $120,000 for each warrant, the value on the statement sent to the investors in May of 2007 was $115,000. Yet, in September, only five months later, the warrant holders were notified the underlying fund and would soon be terminated meaning their warrant investment was in jeaprody!

The notice to the investors stated "The Bear Stearns Multi Strategy Fund has decided to wind-down the Fund effective Septermer 30, 2007." The notice provided a "table" regarding the potential value of the warrants which is almost unintelligible to those reading the notice.

In any event, the value of each warrant was by December determined to be (exactly) $1,000. We have been provided with no explanation of how that amount was chosen. After a $5.00 service fee, and another small charge, the investor received just under $995. Seemingly lacking was a notation stating "Have a nice day!" (or perhaps "Merry Christmas")

The securities fraud speicialists at Shepherd Smith and Edwards law firm have represented thousands of investors in claims against hundreds of securities firms, including Bear Stearns and other major U.S. stock brokerage firms. If you or someone you know had lost on investments because of possible misconduct, contact Shepherd Smith and Edwards to arrange a free confidential consultation with one of our attorneys.

January 17, 2008

Class Action filed against Morgan Stanley on Behalf of Former Eastman Kodak Employees

Lawyers have filed a class action suit against Morgan Stanley for a group of former Eastman Kodak employees they say were persuaded to retire early and invest their retirement assets through Morgan Stanley.

According to the Dow Jones News Wire, the class action is seeking nearly a half billion dollars in damages from Morgan Stanley because its brokers advised the Kodak employees retire early with promises of financial security that never materialized. One of the attorneys estimates 1,000 investors or more are involved. If so, the claim seeks approximately $500,000 per former Kodak retiree.

Firms which report the results of class action cases estimate that recovery in securities class action cases is LESS THAN THREE PERCENT of the actual losses to investors! If one were to assume that 1,000 Kodak retirees lost, on average, $500,000, each may receive LESS THAN $15,000 according to this average.

Claims against brokerage firms for enticing employees to retire early in order to invest their retirement assets are not uncommon. In fact, such retirees’ claims are usually much more likely to be successful than those of other investors. A few have even resulted in awards of full recovery of losses, plus the retiree’s legal fees and costs. Securities attorneys report that brokerage firms are often likely to settle such individual claims for the majority of the losses.

As well, individual claims for investment fraud victims usually take much less time than lengthy class actions. For example, claim forms are now being sent to Enron investors based on their losses from 1997 to 2001. Eight to ten years is a long time to wait and, in fact, many Enron shareholders have likely misplaced or destroyed their records.

When class action claims are filed, class members can instead chose to hire their own attorney. By doing this, they often recover far more than victims who simply accept whatever outcome is obtained in the class action.

Class action cases for a few hundred or a few thousand dollars in losses by each victim can make sense. Even a small recovery is better than none. Yet, those with claims of $50,000 or more should instead discuss their options with an attorney skilled that area of the law and in representing victims in their own claims. Free consultations can be available to do this.

The securities fraud speicialists at Shepherd Smith and Edwards law firm have represented thousands of investors in securities arbitration against hundreds of securities firms, including Morgan Stanley and other major U.S. stock brokerage firms. Our experienced attorneys and staff assist retirees and other victims of wrongdoing of investment brokers, advisors or their firms. If you or someone you know might be a victim of such conduct, contact Shepherd Smith and Edwards for a free case evaluation by one of our attorneys.

January 17, 2008

SMH Capital and Two of Its Brokers to Settle FINRA Charges Over Oversight Failures

SMH Capital has agreed to pay $450,000 in fines to settle charges by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) over the broker dealer’s failure to have supervisory procedures and systems in place to handle its prime brokerage and soft dollar services to hedge funds. The oversight led to a hedge fund manager receiving improper payments in soft dollars worth $325,000.

FINRA says other failures by SMH included producing and giving out hedge fund sales materials that failed to properly “disclose material investment risks to potential hedge fund investors.” SRO is accusing SMH of engaging in an “improper compensation arrangement” with two brokers who supervised hedge funds.

The two SMH brokers, Michael Rosen and Jack Seibal, have agreed to $100,000 fines and a 20-day suspension. SRO says that agreements prohibited the two men from receiving a share of any commission that SMH earned for fund trades. A third unregistered SMH employee agreed to a 10-day suspension and a $15,000 penalty.

FINRA says that SMH had relationships with over 15 hedge funds. Hedge fund managers were offered “a platform of services,” including marketing support, office space, and introductory capital. The services were paid for via commissions on trades that were directed to SMH.

Due to what FINRA calls SMH’s failure to have policies and procedures to regulate soft dollars, one hedge fund manager received $325,000.

SMH issued the payment after the manager submitted an invoice asking for two checks. $75,000 was to be issued to someone else for consulting services and the second check, a little under $250,000, was to be issued to the manager as a reimbursement for research costs. A description of the consulting services was not provided with the invoice.

FINRA says the invoice should not have been paid and that SMH would have determined this also if they had looked into the matter.

Investors who have lost money because of the misconduct of a broker or broker-dealer have legal rights and are entitled to get their money back. Retaining a stockbroker fraud attorney to represent you can offer you the best chances for success. Contact Shepherd Smith and Edwards today.


Related Web Resources:

SMH Capital Fined $450,000 for Procedural Failures Regarding Soft Dollar Payments, Reuters, January 9, 2008

SMH Capital

FINRA

January 16, 2008

TV Judge’s Case Goes to U.S. Supreme Court

Some folks resolve their disputes by going on TV, where they also get paid and enjoy their 15 minutes of fame (or infamy). But what does a TV judge do to resolve disputes and, perhaps, gain notoriety? Take his case to the U.S. Supreme Court!

TV trials are really arbitrations. The parties sign an arbitration agreement to resolve their disputes on TV. The shows pay each party so, reportedly, no one is actually out any money. One participant or the other may walk away with more than the other, or even all the money. The loser gets rid of the claim and, more importantly, is a loser on national TV. (Hey, people agree to eat worms, get caught cheating on their mates or to getting “punked,” proving some people will do anything to get on TV.)

TV’s “Judge Alex” is a male version of “Judge Judy” (only prettier). Allegedly, Florida State Judge Alex Ferrer, gave up his real judge gig in 2002, to try his luck on TV, though the help of promoter Arnold Preston, who claims Judge Alex agreed to pay him 12% of his income. After Judge Alex made the big time he decided he did not have to pay Preston because Preston was not a registered talent agent under California law. Preston claims he is a manager, not an agent, and does not have to be registered.

As the battle began, Preston says an arbitration agreement in the contract between the two governs how disputes must be decided. Judge Alex claims a California Commission must first decide whether the contract is even legal.

The case may not be as scintillating as Judge Alex’s own cases, including episodes such as "Deli Defamation," "Pool Shark Blues" or "Mover's Smash Up," aired in 185 syndicated markets. However, legal scholars say the case is important enough for the Supreme Court to decide because the outcome affects whether the Federal Arbitration Act preempts (has more force) than the State of California’s laws regulating talent agents.

The Supreme Court Justices have not decided the case, but heard “oral arguments” this week. In reality, “oral arguments” are when the Justices grandstand as they grill the lawyers on their positions. Not much different than TV justice shows, really, except “The Supremes” do not allow cameras - or not yet.

The justices do not appear to be buying Judge Alex’s argument. "I used to teach contract law," Justice Antonin Scalia said, "and I am sure that when you say you'll arbitrate, it means you won't litigate." A postponement to let the California Commission decide "virtually destroys the value of arbitration," stated Justice David Souter, "They don't want to go to arbitration eight to 12 months later, they want to go now." Justices Ginsburg and Kennedy scoffed at Judge Alex’s attorney for contending it was "undisputed that Preston was an unlicensed agent.”

What’s really at stake? The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and various a trade associations have weighed in to oppose Judge Alex. They say a state court must not interfer with arbitration, which they consider a faster and cheaper alternative to litigation. Many believe that argument is just code for “we do not want plaintiffs to have their cases decided by a jury of their piers.”

Consumer advocates in Congress are now attempting to outlaw arbitration clauses in consumer contracts, including agreements with stockbrokerage firms. Yet, it appears the U.S. Supreme Court is not wavering in its almost universal support of arbitration agreements over the past 20 years. Meanwhile, it is odd that Judge Alex, who himself arbitrates disputes daily, would be the poster child for avoiding arbitration agreements.

The securities fraud speicialists at Shepherd Smith and Edwards law firm have represented thousands of investors in securities arbitration against hundreds of securities firms, including all major U.S. stock brokerage firms. Our experienced attorneys and staff assist investors who have lossed in securities and other investments based on the wrongdoing of investment brokers and advisors or their firms. If you or someone you know might be a victim of such conduct, contact Shepherd Smith and Edwards for a free case evaluation by one of our attorneys.

January 14, 2008

Bear, Stearns, Merrill Lynch, Deutsche Bank Securities and UBS Securities Among the 19 Broker-Dealers to Settle SRO Charges Of Overstated Ad Volumes

Last week, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) announced that 19 broker-dealers agreed to pay fines to settle SRO charges that they “substantially overstated their advertising trade volume to private sector providers.” By agreeing to pay the fines, none of the firms are admitting to or denying the charges.

FINRA says that after comparing each firm’s advertised trade volume in selected securities with executed trade volume for the same issuer, they noticed overstatements that were substantial in at least one of the securities examined.

Broker-dealers that agreed to be fined $200,000:
Lehman Brothers Inc.
Broadpoint Capital Inc.
Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc.
CIBC World Markets Corp.
UBS Securities LLC
Needham & Co. LLC
Thomas Weisel Partners LLC
Robert W. Baird & Co. Inc

Broker-dealers that agreed to be fined $150,000:
Pacific Crest Securities Inc.
Bear, Stearns & Co.
Leerink Swann & Co. Inc
Deutsche Bank Securities Inc.
BMO Capital Markets Corp.
RBC Capital Markets Corp.

Broker-dealers that agreed to settle for $50,000:
Jefferies & Co. Inc.
Pacific Crest Securities Inc
Friedman, Billings, Ramsey & Co. Inc.
JMP Securities LLC

Piper Jafray & Co. will pay a reduced, $100,000 fine because of its in-depth self-probe. All of the fines total $2.8 million.

SRO says that none of the firms before September 2006 had a proper supervisory system or procedures in place to convey trade volume to private service providers, who used the overstated information they were given to create reports. NASD’s Notice to Members 06-50, published in September 2006, is a reminder that accuracy when providing trading volume and interest is mandatory.

The stockbroker fraud law firm of Shepherd Smith and Edwards represents investors who have lost money because a member of the securities industry engaged in misconduct or deception. Please contact Shepherd Smith and Edwards today to request your free case evaluation with one of our stockbroker fraud lawyers.


Related Web Resource:

NASD Notice to Members 06-50 - September 2006, FINRA.org

January 12, 2008

Investors Complain about Mutual Funds Sold by Morgan Keegan

Some Investors have complained they were sold mutual funds by the securities firm of Morgan Keegan & Company, Inc. based on representations of safety which were unfounded. At this time such complaints are only allegations and no determination has been made that the firm and/or its representations engaged in any wrongdoing.

The funds in question include RMK High Income Fund (RMH), RMK Advantage Income Fund (RMA), and RMK Multi-Sector High Income Fund (RHY). Reportedly, these funds were heavily invested into collateralized debt obligations (CDO's) based on sub-prime mortgages and have therefore declined sharply in value.

Morgan Keegan is a Memphis, Tenessee based brokerage firm and is a division of Regions Financial Group. The firm's offices are located primarily in the South, including in the states of Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee and Virginia.

Persons who believe they were sold the above listed mutual funds, or other investments, based of false information or misrepresentations concering the safety of such investments can contact the law firm of Shepherd Smith & Edwards. Our law firm represents investors who have lost money as a result of worngdoing by members of the securities industry, including Morgan Keegan. Contact us today to arrange a free confidential consultation via telephone to discuss your situation with one of our experienced attorneys.

Additional information is available to you here regarding Morgan Keegan & Company and Regions Financial Group.

January 11, 2008

vFinance Investment Inc. is Slapped with SEC Charges for Failing to Retain E-Records

The Securities and Exchange Commisison is charging vFinance Investment Inc., its President Richard Campanella, and former New Jersey Branch Manager Nicholas Thompson for failing to keep records and show them to Commission staff. The SEC’s need for the e-records stemmed from possible securities fraud involving a company that vFinance is the market maker for.

The Securities and Exchange Commission is accusing Thompson of erasing documents, e-mails, and instant messages from his computer’s hard drive even though he knew that the records had been requested by the commission. By law and according to vFinance’s policies, e-mails and instant messaging communications with clients must be preserved.

The SEC says that vFinance Investment President Campanella should have made sure that the documents were being preserved. He was reportedly “on notice” that vFinance was not keeping Thompson’s business records.

The SEC says that Campanella should have made sure that the document requests were met. For more than 18 months, Campanella allegedly failed to search for and produce the requested documents.

The SEC will determine whether it will fine the brokerage firm, Campanella, and Thompson.

The stockbroker fraud law firm of Shepherd Smith and Edwards has helped thousands of victims of investor fraud recoup some—if not all—of their losses. Contact Shepherd Smith and Edwards for your free consultation today.


Related Web Resources:

Enforcement Proceedings, SEC.gov, January 3, 2008

vFinance Investments Inc.

January 10, 2008

Ex-Goldman Sachs Associate Will Serve Nearly Five Years in Prison for Insider Trading

Eugene M. Plotkin, a former Goldman Sachs associate, will serve 57 months in prison for his involvement in insider trading. Plotkin pleaded guilty to conspiracy and eight counts of insider trading for his role in a number of insider trading scams that generated over $6 million in illegal gains.

The former fixed-income research associate to will have to forfeit $6.7 million and pay a $10,000 fine. The forfeiture will come from money that the government has already frozen.

Plotkin, along with ex-Goldman analyst David Pajcin, was one of the key players accused of illegally trading stocks after consulting prepublished copies of BusinessWeek’s “Inside Wall Street” column. The scam also involved the use of information leaked by Jason Smith, a grand juror in the Bristol-Myers Squib Co. case and information provided by Stanislav Shpigelman, a former Merrill Lynch investment-banking analyst.

The men used info about Merrill Lynch’s upcoming acquisitions and mergers, including the Adidas acquisition of Reebok and the Proctor & Gamble acquisition of Gillette Co. to make illegal trades.

Plotkin and Pajcin also recruited two Wisconsin printing plant workers and had them steal the advance BusinessWeek copies so they could look up the names of stocks.

A number of the improper trades were made on behalf of Pajkin’s aunt, a retired Croatian seamstress.

Pajcin, Shpigelman, and the two ex-printing plant workers have also pleaded to criminal charges in this case.

If you are an investor who has lost money at the hands of analysts who engaged in insider trading, or anyone else who engaged in any other type of investment-related misconduct, please contact Shepherd Smith and Edwards today and ask for your free consultation. Our law firm is dedicated to helping people like you recover your losses.


Related Web Resources:

Ex-Goldman Analyst Gets Prison in Insider Trading Case, Reuters, January 4, 2008

Goldman Ex-Analyst Gets 4 Years in Insider Schemes, Wall Street Journal, January 4, 2008

Ex-Goldman associate sentenced to 57 months in insider case, Marketwatch.com, January 3, 2008

Insider Trading, SEC.gov

January 8, 2008

$600 Million Set Aside by State Street May Be Tip of Mortgage Litigation Iceburg

State Street Corp. announced it established a pre-tax reserve of $618 million billion "to address legal exposure and other costs associated with the under-performance of fixed-income strategies managed by the company's investment management arm," blaming exposure to subprime mortgages. The company referenced "customer concerns as to whether the execution of the strategies was consistent with the customers' investment intent" without identifying any specific litigation.

However, the New York Times published an article stating that State Street created the reserve "after five clients sued it, claiming they had lost tens of millions of dollars in State Street funds they were told would be invested in risk-free debt like Treasuries." The article added that State Street's reserve "highlight the legal challenges that lie ahead for financial firms."

The first of the five law suits referenced by the Times article was filed October 1, 2007, by Prudential Retirement Insurance and Annuity Co. The action "seeks, among other relief, restitution of certain losses attributable to certain investment funds" sold by State Street's investment management arm, and alleges State Street "failed to exercise prudent investment management," in violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA).

The complaint says the defendants "radically altered" the investment strategies of two bond funds, the Intermediate Bond Fund and the Government Credit Bond Fund and "took undisclosed, highly leveraged positions in mortgage-related financial derivatives" and thereby "exposed" the funds to "an inappropriate level of risk" that during the summer of 2007 "produced catastrophic results." The complaint further alleges that as these events unfolded the defendants provided "untimely, incomplete and misleading information" causing losses of "roughly $80 million" to assets held by about 165 retirement plans for which Prudential is responsible, affecting approximately 28,000 plan participants.

This and three other law suits against State Street which reportedly lead to the litigation reserve, allege ERISA violations were involved. One of these suits was filed October 17 by Unisystems and the trustee of the Unisystems Employees' Profit Sharing Plan. Another was brought on October 24 by the Composite Pension Trust of Nashua Corporation. The third was brought on October 31 by the plan administrator and the trustee of the Employees' Savings and Profit Sharing Plan of the Andover Companies.

A fifth lawsuit (not specifically iidentified by the New York Times article) alleging only state law claims, and not Federal ERISA violations, was filed on November 5 in a Harris County, Texas, District Court by Memorial Hermann Healthcare System. On December 3, the defendants removed the Memorial Hermann case to Federal Court in the Southern District of Texas. The petition alleges that the State Street defendants breached an "Agreement of Trust" to serve as trustee of nearly $91 million in the plaintiff's assets, claiming these assets were invested in the State Street Limited Duration Bond Fund which lost 37 percent of its value during three weeks in August 2007.

The State Street lawsuits are reported to be indicative of legal problems to be faced by various financial institutions over the “mortgage meltdown” which began last year, including not only originators and market-makers in mortgage instruments, but also those who purchased such investments for others and perhaps companies who issued strong ratings concerning those investments.

The law firm of Shepherd Smith and Edwards is dedicated to assisting investors who have sustained losses as a result of improper handling of their retirement or other assets. Please contact Shepherd Smith and Edwards to arrange a free confidential consultation with one of our attorneys do discuss whether you may have a viabile claim to recover your losses.

January 7, 2008

Morgan Keegan Settles Arbitration Claim Made By Indiana Children’s Wish Fund

Last month, brokerage firm Morgan Keegan made an undisclosed payment to the Indiana Children’s Wish Fund to settle an arbitration dispute. The wish granting organization had lost $48,000 in a mutual fund that was heavily invested in mortgage securities.

The Indiana Children’s Wish Fund has about $1 million in assets. The Wish Fund was founded by Richard Culley, a blind attorney, in 1984. The charity has granted some 1800 wishes to children who have been diagnosed with life-threatening illnesses. If the charity had not received its settlement sum, it would not have been able to realize the wishes of nine children.

Last June, a banker at Regions Bank in Indiana recommended that the Wish Fund invest money in a bond that Morgan Keegan offered. Regions Bank and Morgan Keegan are affiliated with one another. Terry Ceaser-Hudson, the Wish Fund’s executive director, says that the Morgan Keegan broker told her that the fund was very safe.

The Wish Fund placed nearly $223,000 into the fund on June 26. A little over two weeks later, Ceaser-Hudson received the Wish Fund’s first brokerage statement. The wish granting organization lost $5,000 within the first few days of making its investment. In September, Ceaser-Hudson sold the charity’s stake in the Morgan Keegan fund and received $174,000 back—a 22% loss over 3 months.

Ceaser-Hudson filed an arbitration claim against Morgan Keegan in November. She cited the unsuitable recommendation, saying the broker had breached his duty to the Wish Fund. By the end of December, the Morgan Keegan fund was down nearly 50% from its $1 billion in assets that it reported in March.

Overall, the mortgage securities market debacle has cost more than $100 billion in losses and write-offs, as well as eliminated billions of dollars in stock market value. Fortune 500 CEO’s have been fired over the crisis and some of the country’s leading credit rating agencies have lost their credibility. Many investors may still be unaware of the damage that the mortgage securities collapse has wreaked upon them—but all of this will eventually be revealed.

The stockbroker fraud law firm of Shepherd Smith and Edwards is dedicated to helping investors who have lost money because a broker was careless or engaged in broker misconduct and breached his or her duty to a client. Please contact Shepherd Smith and Edwards today and ask for your free consultation with one of our stockbroker fraud attorneys.


Related Web Resources:


The Debt Crisis, Where It’s Least Expected, New York Times, January 4, 2008

Indiana children's charity sues Morgan Keegan fund over alleged subprime investment, The Birmingham News, November 29, 2007

Indiana Children's Wish Fund

January 3, 2008

Senior Vice President of Questar Capital (now Allianz Insurance) Claims He's a Victim of Ponzi Scheme

Questar Capital Corp’s senior vice president of mergers and acquisitions claims he too was victim of a $250 million alleged Ponzi scheme that affected up to 1,200 investors—many senior citizens residing in Michigan, California, Illinois, New York, Florida, New Jersey, and Ohio.

The Securities and Exchange Commission charged Edward May and E-M Management Co. LLC with selling bogus investments which involved shares in fake Las Vegas casino and resort telecom transactions. “Investment seminars” were held to persuade investors to buy shares. The investors were told they would receive monthly returns for the next 12-14 years.

It turns out that there were never any telecom contracts with any Las Vegas resorts, hotels, and casinos. Some of the hotels and casinos that supposedly had contracts were Motel 6, Hilton, Tropicana, MGM Grand, and Sheraton.

Broker/manager Frank Bluestein, formerly with Questar, sold a substantial amount of the fake units before leaving that firm in 2005. A former director of marketing and partner in Questar reportedly bought two units of ATL Project One LLC for $57,000 in 2006. Allianz Life Insurance Company of North America acquired Questar in 2005 and the two companies merged in 2006. Bluestein continued to sell the fake investments after he left to join another firm in 2005, but there is no word of whether his former boss bought through him.

Investment fraud--especially fraud scams targeting elderly seniors is a growing problem in the United States. It is wrong to take advantage of someone's lack of knowledge, inexperience, or age and fraud victims can take action to recoup their lost investments. Yet, many victims fail to seek recovery because they are ashamed of being fooled. Take heart! If a senior VP of an investment firm can be a victim of a Ponzi scheme is anyone immune from investment fraud?

If you lost money because you purchased shares sold by Edward May and E-M Management, or if you were the victim of any other investor fraud scam, contact the stockbroker fraud law firm of Shepherd Smith and Edwards immediately. We have helped thousands of investors in the U.S. and abroad get their money back.


Related Web Resources:

B-D exec bought 'bogus' shares from May, Investment News, December 14, 2007

SEC v. Edward P. May and E-M Management Co. LLC, Civil Action No. 2-07-CV-14954, SEC, November 20, 2007

Senior Investment Fraud Increases as Population Ages, Consumer Affairs, July 18, 2006


January 2, 2008

Two Former Morgan Stanley Advisers are named in SEC Market Timing Lawsuit

The Securities and Exchange Commission is suing two ex-Morgan Stanley advisers for allegedly circumventing the market timing restrictions of 50 mutual fund companies, and, as a result, allegedly defrauding some 50 mutual fund companies.

Between January 2002 and August 2003, Former advisers Darryl Goldstein and Christopher O'Donnell earned about $1 million in fees and commissions because of their alleged misconduct. Attorneys for both men say their clients will fight the charges.

The SEC says that the two men, on more than one occasion, strategically engaged in several deceptive practices, including the opening of several brokerage accounts and trading in them, trading with variable annuity contracts, and using a number of financial advisor identification numbers while trading. The deceptive practices were meant to get around the restrictions that mutual funds had regarding market timing.

The two men allegedly were able to hide hedge funds trades valued at billions of dollars. The SEC says that they opened approximately 122 brokerage accounts.

Goldstein now works with Gilford Securities Inc., while O’Donnell is a Bear Stearns representative.

Morgan Stanley says it will pay $17 million in disgorgement, prejudgment interest, and a civil penalty for its alleged and related failure to prevent the alleged scam, which is against federal securities laws.

Another ex-Morgan Stanley adviser, Marc Plotkin, agreed to a one year ban from the industry and a 90,000 fine for his involvement while working with Goldstein. Plotkin and Morgan Stanley are not admitting to or denying the charges by agreeing to the penalties and fine.

Market timing can be very harmful to investors that end up suffering because an adviser tried to benefit financially by using prohibited practices.

Please contact Shepherd Smith and Edwards today if you have lost money because a member of the securities industry engaged in deceptive practices. You have every right to get your investment back and one of our securities fraud lawyers can help you.


Related Web Resources

SEC sues ex-Morgan Stanley financial advisers, Reuters, December 14, 2007


SEC Sues Two Former Morgan Stanley Financial Advisors for Deceptive Market Timing Activity; Morgan Stanley Consents to $17 Million Settlement in Related Administrative Proceeding, SEC.gov, December 14, 2007