February 28, 2010

SEC Says It Has Jurisdiction to Go After Ex-JP Morgan Executives For Securities Fraud

The US Securities and Exchange Commission has countered the motion to dismiss its securities fraud case against two former JP Morgan Chase (JPM) executives. The SEC had charged defendants Douglas MacFaddin and Charles LeCroy with paying the friends of Jefferson County, Alabama commissioners $8.2 million to garner $5 billion in business for JP Morgan Chase. The two men filed motions to dismiss on the grounds that swap agreements are not “securities-based swap agreements,” which means they aren’t under the SEC’s jurisdiction and therefore not subject to its enforcement.

However, the SEC’s brief argues that the defendants’ challenge is based on the question of whether the Bond Market Association's Municipal Swap Index is an index of securities. The SEC argued that regardless of what you call the Municipal Swap Index, this “linguistic exercise” doesn’t make a difference to what the Index actually is, the manner in which it is calculated, and the connection between the bonds and interest rates that comprise the Index. The SEC notes that interest rates are securities.

The SEC asked the court to not dismiss the case over lack of subject matter jurisdiction and pointed to the ruling made in SEC v. Rorech. In that enforcement case, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York refused to decide during the pleading phase whether credit default swaps are security-based swap agreements.

Related Web Resources:
Read the SEC Complaint (PDF)

Swap Transactions, All Business

Continue reading "SEC Says It Has Jurisdiction to Go After Ex-JP Morgan Executives For Securities Fraud" »

February 26, 2010

Court Reinstates Texas Securities Arbitration Award

Claimant Leonard Claus was awarded $25,000 by a National Association of Securities Dealers' arbitration panel for his Texas securities arbitration claim. Claus had made a verbal agreement with Jerry Short, who worked for Institutional Capital Management Inc. over the sale and purchase of bonds.

Clause, who bought the bonds, was planning to sell them to Sterling Financial Investment Group Inc. The resale plan didn’t work out, and he sold them to another buyer at cost.

Clause then sued ICM and Sterling for breach of contract, violations of federal and state securities laws, and negligence.

In addition to the $25,000 compensatory damages award, NASD charged Clause $22,000 in arbitration fees. They awarded his lawyer $70,000 in legal fees.

ICM and Sterling asked that the Texas securities fraud award be vacated by the district court. A magistrate judge vacated, claiming that the NASD panel went beyond its authority when it violated Texas law and directly issued an award to Clause’s lawyer.

Clause and IMS appealed, claiming that the judge made a mistake when vacating the entire award on the basis of the awarded attorney’s fee. Meantime, Sterling and ICM contended that the attorney’s fee violated Texas law and that it conflicted with the contingency fee arrangement between clause and his attorney, which the NASD panel is not allowed to override. ICM and Sterling said the legal fee award was unreasonable.

Court of Appeals ruled that even though Texas statute must directly authorize any fee awards, the party that is told to pay the fee cannot challenge the payment’s propriety. The court called the award error harmless and “immaterial to the party” that is ordered to pay it. The court also noted that ICM/Sterling did not challenge the evidence that supported the fee award.

Related Web Resources:
Institutional Capital Management Inc. v. Claus

National Association Of Securities Dealers - NASD

Continue reading "Court Reinstates Texas Securities Arbitration Award " »

February 25, 2010

Ex-UBS AG Executive to Settle ARS Insider Trading Allegations Made by NY Attorney General Cuomo with $2.75 Million Penalty

As part of a deal to settle ARS insider trading allegations by New York Attorney General Attorney Cuomo, former UBS AG executive David Shulman has agreed to pay $2.75 million. Shulman is accused of finding out through nonpublic, material information that the investment bank’s student loan auction rate securities program was in trouble and that there was a possibility that future auctions involving the student ARS would fail. Yet he allegedly violated New York securities regulations when he proceeded to sell more ARS.

On December 13, 2007, two days after finding out about the ARS risks, Shulman, who supervised the ARS trading desk, sold $1.45 million in personal holdings of student loan ARS to the desk. He was suspended in July 2008.

Shulman has not denied or admitted to the document’s findings. However, as part of the agreement with Cuomo, he is subject to a retroactive 30-month suspension from working as a registered broker-dealer.

In the wake of the ARS market collapse in February 2008 that left so many investors, who were misled into believing their investments were as liquid as cash, with frozen securities, Cuomo remains committed to investigating broker-dealers’ auction-rate securities marketing and sales practices. Many of the investment firms that sold the ARS did so despite allegedly knowing that the securities were in danger of failing.

Since August 2008, Cuomo has gotten 12 financial service firms to agree to repurchase $61 billion of ARS at par. As part of their securities fraud settlements, the broker-dealers are paying $597.3 million in penalties.

Related Web Resources:
Former UBS Muni Chief Settles Probe for $2.75 Million, BusinessWeek, February 18, 2010

Attorney General Cuomo Announces $2.75 Million Insider Trading Settlement with Former UBS Top Executive David Shulman, Office of the NY Attorney General, February 18, 2010

Continue reading "Ex-UBS AG Executive to Settle ARS Insider Trading Allegations Made by NY Attorney General Cuomo with $2.75 Million Penalty" »

February 23, 2010

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

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

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

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

At least 80 of the securities cases have been heard, and claimants have so far been awarded $10.1 million. Morgan Keegan says that while it has settled a number of securities claims over the bond funds, claimants have dropped 114 other cases.

Stein and his two companies are pursuing a securities claim against Regions Financial and Morgan Asset Management, Inc. They are claiming fraudulent pricing and valuation of funds.

Our securities fraud law firm represents clients that sustained financial losses as a result of investing in Morgan Keegan bond funds. Please contact us for your free case evaluation.

Related Web Resources:
Morgan Keegan Must Pay Investor, Wall Street Journal, February 22, 2010

FINRA

February 20, 2010

Frontline Advisors LLC and Frontline Financial, Inc. Propose Texas Securities Fraud Settlement that Includes Permanent NFA Bar

The National Futures Association has accepted Frontline Advisors LLC and Frontline Financial, Inc.'s proposal to permanently remove themselves as a member of the group. The Texas-based Commodity Trading Advisors and Commodity Pool Operators offered the settlement after the NFA filed a complaint against them in 2009 accusing FFI and principal Charles G. Rice of failing to disclose key information to participants in a pool they were running. Among the material information withheld:

• In exchange for promissory notes, the pool would lend money to third parties
• When issuers of the promissory notes defaulted, the pool sustained losses
• Even after one note went into default, FFI charged a monthly management fee to participants
• FFI redeemed its interest in the pool
• FFI wrote off notes but did not give participants specifics about the write-offs

The NFA also accused FFI of not filing an annual financial statement, disclosure document, or exemption notice for the fund. Meantime, Rice has also agreed to a withdraw himself as an NFA member for five years. If he decides to reapply for membership, he has to pay a $10,000 fine.

Our Texas securities fraud lawyers represent clients with claims against investment advisors and stockbrokers. The most common reasons why an investor would file a securities claim or lawsuit are:

• Misrepresentations
• Omissions
• Unauthorized trading
• Overconcentration
• Registration violations
• Churning
• Margin account abuse
• Failure to execute trades
• Negligence
• Breach of fiduciary duty
• Failure to supervise
• Breach of contract
• Breach of promise

Your first consultation with our Dallas securities fraud law firm is free.

Related Web Resources:
Read the Complaint (PDF)

Read the Decision (PDF)

February 19, 2010

H & R Block Financial Adviser Claims: Securities Fraud Law Firm Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas LTD LLP Investigating Inadequately Supervised Reverse Convertible Notes for Investors

Our securities fraud lawyers are looking into claims by investors regarding their purchase of reverse convertible notes from H&R Block Financial Advisors. Just this week, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority imposed a $200,000 fine on the broker-dealer for failing to set up proper supervisory systems over RCN sales. H & R Block was also ordered to pay $75,000 to an elderly couple that sustained financial losses from their RCN investments.

FINRA found that not only did H & R Block fail to properly monitor customer accounts for possible RCN over-concentrations, but they also failed to detect and respond to these possible over-concentrations. This is FINRA's first enforcement action over RCN sales.

Reverse Convertible Notes
An RCN is usually an issuer’s high-yield short-term note that is a put option connected to the performance of an unrelated asset (such as an index or a common stock). Upon maturity of the RCN the investor should either get a predetermined amount of shares of the linked equity or the full principal investment. The higher the coupon rate, the greater the expected volatility and the chances that shares will be paid. Risks that accompany RCNs include inflation risk, issuer default, and the underlying asset risks. Most RCNs require an initial investment of $1,000/unit. The majority of maturity dates run from 3 -12 months.

FINRA has issued an Investor Alert called Reverse Convertibles - Complex Investment Vehicles to help consumers better understand RCNs. It also put out Regulatory Notice 10-09 to remind broker-dealers of their sales practice obligations when selling RCNs to retail investors.

Please contact our stockbroker fraud law firm to discuss your H & R RCN investments. Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas LTD LLP has successfully helped thousands of clients recover their investment losses.

Related Web Resources:
Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas LTD LLP Investigates Claims for Clients of H&R Block Financial Advisors in Light of Regulatory Fines for Inadequate Supervision of Reverse Convertible Notes, News Blaze, February 18, 2010

FINRA fines, suspends Andrew MacGill over sale of revertibles, Bizjournals, February 15, 2010

Reverse Convertibles—Complex Investment Vehicles, FINRA

February 17, 2010

FINRA Fines H & R Block Financial Advisors (Now Ameriprise Advisor Services) over Sales of Reverse Convertible Notes (RCN)

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) has fined H&R Block Financial Advisors (now Ameriprise Advisor Services) $200,000 for failing to put in place the proper system to supervise its reverse convertible notes (RCN) sales to retail clients. FINRA also suspended H & R broker Andrew MacGill for 15 days while ordering him to pay a $10,000 fine and $2,023 in disgorgement for making unsuitable RNC sales to a retired couple. MacGill recommended that they invest close to 40% of their total liquid net worth in RCNs. Meantime, H & R Block has been ordered to pay the couple $75,000 in restitution for their financial losses. Without denying or admitting to the charges, the brokerage firm and MacGill consented to the finding’s entry.

According to FINRA, between January 2004 and December 2007, H&R Block sold RCNs without a system of procedures in place to properly monitor whether possible over-concentrations in RCNs were taking place in customer accounts. FINRA says that the brokerage firm relied on an automated surveillance system to monitor client accounts and review securities transactions for unsuitability but that the system was not set up to monitor RCN placement in customer accounts or RCN transactions. This caused H & R Block to miss signs of when there were potentially unsuitable levels of RCN in client accounts. Furthermore, FINRA says that the firm failed to provide guidance to its supervisors regarding the assessment of suitability standards related to their agents' recommendation of RCNs to the firm’s clients.

This is FINRA’s first enforcement action over RCN sales.

Reverse Convertible Notes
Reverse convertible notes offer a high coupon in return for the risk of getting shares valued at under the initial principal. Richard Ketchum, FINRA chief executive and chairman, has noted that it is not recommended for a client to place a significant chunk of one’s life savings into these kind of high risk, complex investments.

FINRA has issued Notice to Members 10-09 cautioning the entire brokerage community about their sales practice obligations to the investing public when it comes to RCNs and other risky “Complex Investment Vehicles.”

If you think you might have sustained investment losses because of unsuitable reverse convertible notes, contact our securities fraud law firm immediately.

Related Web Resources:
Regulator fines H&R Block $200K for poor controls, MarketWatch, February 16, 2010

Regulatory Notice 10-09, FINRA

FINRA Fines H&R Block Financial Advisors $200,000 for Inadequate Supervision of Reverse Convertible Notes Sales, FINRA/Business Wire, February 16, 2010

February 15, 2010

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

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

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

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

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

Related Web Resources:
Bank of America Still Dealing With Fallout From Merrill Deal, Fox Business, February 5, 2010

Cuomo Sues Bank of America, Even as It Settles With S.E.C., NY Times, February 4, 2010

US judge has questions on $150 mln SEC-BofA accord, Reuters, February 16, 2010

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

February 13, 2010

Former Chelsey Capital Hedge Fund Manager Accused of Using Insider Tips From Former UBS Executive Pleads Guilty to Illegal Trading

David Slaine, a former manager for Chelsey Capital, has pleaded guilty to using UBS insider tips that allowed him to earn over $3 million for the hedge fund while he made more than $500,000 in illegal profits. The inside information was given to him by an ex-UBS Securities LLC executive.

According to the US Securities and Exchange Commission’s complaint, Slaine must still settle the SEC’s securities fraud allegations against him. The agency claims that Erik Franklin, a Chelsey Capital colleague, gave Slaine the tips. Franklin had received them from Mitchel S. Guttenberg, who worked in UBS’s equity research department as an executive editor.

The tips, which were UBS analysts’ equity securities recommendations, were supposed to be nonpublic. Slaine, however, used the information to trade in advance of the recommendations. In 2002, he made over 20 trades using that information.

SEC has settled related allegations against Guttenberg, Franklin, and five others. Guttenberg, who was convicted of insider trading, is serving 78 months in prison.

Slaine could be sentenced to up to 25 years behind bars. Although he pleaded guilty in December, this information was only made public this month. The former hedge fund manager has also been identified as a government cooperator in the Galleon hedge fund insider trading scheme.

Related Web Resources:
Ex-NY fund manager Slaine pleads guilty, Reuters, February 2, 2010

Ex-Galleon Trader Slaine Pleaded Guilty, Sued by SEC in Probe, BusinessWeek, February 3, 2010

Investor charged in Galleon insider trading case, TimesOnline, February 2, 2010

Continue reading "Former Chelsey Capital Hedge Fund Manager Accused of Using Insider Tips From Former UBS Executive Pleads Guilty to Illegal Trading" »

February 11, 2010

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

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

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

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

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

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

Related Web Resources:
Jury Convicts Former SEC Lawyer, The Wall Street Journal, January 28, 2010

Lawyer indicted in alleged pump-and-dump stock scheme, ITWorld, March 13, 2009

Continue reading "Dallas Securities Attorney and Former SEC Litigator Convicted of Fraud in Pump and Dump Stock Scam " »

February 9, 2010

FINRA to Assess Amerivet Securities Inc. Allegations that Certain SRO Executives Received Excessive Pay in 2008

At a closed-door meeting scheduled for February 10, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority board of governors will preside over a closed-door meeting to assess allegations made by Amerivet Securities Inc. that certain FINRA executives, including chief executive Mary Schapiro, received excessive pay. The brokerage firm submitted a letter to the board last year demanding that action be taken to recover this compensation, as well as the SRO’s unprecedented portfolio losses” in 2008.

A release, filed by Amerivet’s securities litigation lawyers, alleged that in 2008, under Shapiro’s leadership, FINRA failed to warn investors about auction-rate securities risks, paid senior FINRA executives close to $30 million, failed to discover that R. Allen Stanford and Bernard Madoff were engaged in Ponzi scams, and sustained close to $700 million in losses.

FINRA Executives' Pay
Schapiro was paid $3.3 million in bonuses and salaries in 2008. Per her accumulated retirement plan benefits, She also received approximately $7.2 million.

Another 12 current and ex-FINRA executives made over $1 million in 2008, including ex-chief administrative officer Michael D. Jones, who received $4.3 million in severance, compensation, and accumulated benefits after over 10 years at the SRO. Elisse Walters, now with the SEC, was paid $3.8 million ($2.4 million was supplemental retirement benefits), and Douglas Schulman, now with the IRS, was paid $2.7 million in salary, retirement benefits, and bonuses after over eight years of service.

FINRA has called Amerivet's statements “part of an ongoing publicity campaign” involving a counsel and a party who have been in “litigation with FINRA.”

Related Web Resources:
Finra execs overpaid? The board wants to know, Investment News, February 20, 2010

FINRA

FINRA Board of Governors

Continue reading "FINRA to Assess Amerivet Securities Inc. Allegations that Certain SRO Executives Received Excessive Pay in 2008" »

February 8, 2010

Claims Filed Against Morgan Keegan Division of Regions Financial Causes Shortage of Arbitrators

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority has had to bring in hundreds of additional arbitrators to deal with the approximately 400 securities fraud claims that investors have filed against Regions Financial Corp., the investment banking unit of Morgan Keegan & Co. Investors are seeking to recover $35 million after three of its mutual funds dropped in value by up to 82% when the housing market fell apart. The Region Financial Corp mutual funds contained subprime-related securities, including collateralized debt obligations, low-quality mortgages, and mortgage-backed securities.

Morgan Keegan claims that it notified investors of the risks associated with investing in the mutual funds. Regions says that to date, 79 arbitration cases have been heard. 39 of the cases were dismissed and 114 arbitration claims seeking $24 million were dropped before decisions were reached. The investment firm is putting up a tough fight against the complaints. So far, arbitrators have been awarded $7.6 million.

Because so many investors filed arbitration claims, FINRA has had to contact arbitrators in different parts of the US and ask them to come to the different cities where the hearings on the mutual funds are talking place. The average pool of arbitrators in each city is now approximately 721 persons. This is an increase from its previous average pool of 87 arbitrators.

Stockbroker fraud attorney William Shepherd says that his securities fraud law firm Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas LTD LLP is committed to helping investors recover their financial losses related to Regions Financial Corp mutual funds. “Our law firm is handling dozens of claims nationwide regarding these funds, each on an individual basis. Some law firms have grouped claims and are using other methods we believe do not properly serve victims. This has skewed results against investors.” SSEK offers prospective clients a free case evaluation.

Related Web Resources:
Arbitrator Out of Work? Call Finra, The Wall Street Journal, February 5, 2010

FINRA

February 6, 2010

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

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

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

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

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

Related Web Resources:
Ex-JPM Bankers Seek End to Swap Charges, Onwallstreet.com, January 21, 2010

Read the SEC Complaint (PDF)

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

February 5, 2010

Securities Claims Over Morgan Stanley Mutual Funds Dismissed by Appeals Court

Upholding a lower court’s decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed that investors’ securities claims in two Morgan Stanley (MS) mutual funds—the Morgan Stanley Technology Fund and the Morgan Stanley Information Fund—should be dismissed. The claimants had accused the investment firm of failing to disclose conflicts of interest between investment banking arms and its research analysts.

The court ruled that mutual fund offering statements are not necessary to disclose possible conflicts of interest that occur due to the dismantling of the “information barrier” between stock researchers and investment bankers. The appellate panel also found that there are two class actions against the open-ended mutual funds that fail to identify illegal omissions in the funds’ prospectuses or registration statements.

According to investors, they should have been notified that objectivity could be compromised because the managers of the mutual funds heavily depended on broker-dealers for their stock research. Citing the Securities Act of 1933, they filed a securities fraud lawsuit against Morgan Stanley. The plaintiffs contended that the brokerage firm’s offering documents omitted the possible conflict of interest. The plaintiffs claimed that these omissions cost them $500,000 and that the combined losses for the class were over $1 billion.

A federal judge dismissed their broker fraud complaints, citing a failure to prove that the law mandates disclosure of possible conflicts of interest. The second circuit affirmed the lower court’s ruling, saying it agreed with the SEC’s amicus curiae stating that both Form 1-A and the Securities Act do not require defendants to reveal that the information the plaintiffs’ claimed had been left out and that what the plaintiffs considered to be risks specific to the Morgan Stanley funds were in fact ones that every investor faces.

Among the defendants: Morgan Stanley, Morgan Stanley DW Inc. (MSDWI), MS & Co, the Technology Fund, the Information Fund, Morgan Stanley Investment Management Inc. (MSIM), Morgan Stanley Investment Advisors Inc. (MSIA), and Morgan Stanley Distributors Inc.

Related Web Resources:
Second Circuit Rules Morgan Stanley Mutual Funds Not Liable for Failing to Disclose Conflicts of Interest with Stock Analysts, Law.com, February 1, 2010

Court Nixes Class Actions Against Morgan Stanley, Courthouse News, January 29, 2010

Continue reading "Securities Claims Over Morgan Stanley Mutual Funds Dismissed by Appeals Court" »

February 3, 2010

SEC Warns that Disclosure of a “Possible Risk” is Misleading When the Event has Already Occurred

According to the US Securities and Exchange Commission, the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act's safe harbor as it applies to certain forward-looking statements isn’t triggered by cautionary remarks made by defendants over the impact of "potential deterioration in the high-yield sector" if, per the plaintiffs’ claim, the defendants knew the deterioration was taking place. The SEC made its comments in an amicus curiae brief to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

The case is Slayton v. American Express Co. The class securities fraud action alleges that the defendant engaged in faulty disclosures related to losses in its high-yield investment portfolio. A district court dismissed the complaint over failure to plead scienter. The plaintiffs appealed the case, and the Second Circuit heard oral argument lat October.

The SEC’s statements address the application of the statutory safe harbor to specific statements that Amex made in its May 2001 Form 10-Q’s Management's Discussion and Analysis section. Amex stated that the $182 million in high-yield losses was a reflection of it high-yield portfolio’s ongoing deterioration. Amex also stated that total investment losses for the rest of 2001 were expected to be significantly lower than losses sustained during the first quarter.

The parties disagreed about whether the cautionary language that Amex used was “meaningful” enough for the purposes of safe harbor.

According to the SEC, forward-looking statements in the MD & A, which isn’t part of a financial statement that abides by generally accepted accounting principals, doesn’t fall within the statutory exclusion for these kinds of statements. It also noted that Amex’s statement about the "potential deterioration in the high-yield sector" wasn’t enough for safe-harbor purposes because the defendants were warning about a possible deterioration that they knew was already happening. The SEC says that "It is misleading and therefore insufficient for a company to warn of a 
potentiality that it is aware currently exists.” Also, "If the speaker knows that any of the implied representations is false,
 then the speaker knows that the statement is misleading.”

Misstatements and omissions by an investment adviser, a broker, or an investment firm, can be grounds for a securities fraud claim or lawsuit if financial losses were sustained by others.

Related Web Resources:
Read the SEC'amicus curiae brief (PDF)

Private Securities Litigation Reform Act, Lectlaw

Continue reading "SEC Warns that Disclosure of a “Possible Risk” is Misleading When the Event has Already Occurred" »

February 2, 2010

Texas Class Action Securities Fraud Claim Against Cushing MLP Total Return Fund CEO and CFO Can Go Forward, Says District Court Judge

In Texas, a US district court judge has refused to dismiss a class action securities fraud claim against Cushing MLP Total Return Fund CEO Jerry V. Swank and CFO Mark Fordyce. The Texas securities fraud claim accuses the defendants of misrepresentations and omissions related to the fund’s deferred tax asset. Other claims, including a 1940 Investment Company Act Section 36(b) claim over tax advisory fees, were dismissed.

The defendants named in the Texas securities fraud claim are investment adviser Swank Energy Income Advisers LP, Swank Capital LLC, fund board chairman, trustee, president and CEO Jerry V. Swank, fund CFO and trustee Mark Fordyce, fund audit committee member and lead independent trustee Edward N. McMillan, fund trustee and audit committee chair Brian R Bruce, and fund trustee and committee head Ronald P. Trout.

Lead plaintiff Terri Morse Bachow says that between September 1 and December 19, 2008, individual investors bought Cushing MLP Total Return Fund stock. She says that most of the reported net assets in the fund (which were invested in the energy infrastructure sector) was an accounting accrual owing to time differences in tax payments.

Throughout the class period, the deferred tax asset increased and the possibility that the fund would make money that the deferred tax asset could be used against became practically nonexistent. When the class period was over, the accounting accrual was made up of over 50% of the fund’s stated net assets and the chance the accrual would lead to any benefit was all but nonexistent.

The plaintiff claims that fund shareholders lost tens of millions of dollars when this data was disclosed on December 19, 2008 and the fund’s shares market price went down from $7.40 to $3.81. Bachow then filed a Texas securities class action claim.

In the claim, Swank and Fordyce are accused of making statements that were materially misleading, making it sound as if the fund was likely going to use deferred tax in “fact sheets” distributed to shareholders and in two SEC filings. The fund CFO and CEO are accused of failing to correct these statements even after discovering that they were misleading or untrue.

The court refused to drop the 1934 Securities Exchange Act Section 10(b) claim against the two men, noting that the plaintiff demonstrated that this information was important to any reasonable investor who was deciding on what to invest in. The court, however, did drop the Section 20(a) control person claims since the securities fraud claim name the two men (and not Swank Advisers and the fund), which makes it impossible for the two defendants to be their own “control persons.” The claim as to Trout, Swank Capital, Bruce, and McMillan failed because there was no allegation that the “controlled person” committed securities fraud.

Related Web Resources:

Continue reading "Texas Class Action Securities Fraud Claim Against Cushing MLP Total Return Fund CEO and CFO Can Go Forward, Says District Court Judge " »