Stock Broker Fraud Blog

FINRA is fining Wachovia Securities, LLC $1.4 million for its alleged failure to provide customers with product descriptions and prospectuses between July 2003 and December 2004, as well as for related supervisory failures. A probe conducted by the SRO determined that the broker-dealer did not provide the prospectuses to clients in 6,000 of about 22,000 transactions during this time period. These 6,000 transactions’ market value was about $256 million.

Per FINRA rules and by law, broker-dealers are required to give potential clients hard copy prospectuses. The SRO, however, discovered a number of deficiencies related to prospectus delivery by Wachovia Securities related to:

• Collateral mortgage obligations
• Exchange-traded funds
• Preferred stocks
• Secondary purchases of equity non-syndicate initial public offerings
• Corporate debt securities
• Mutual funds
• Equity syndicate initial public offerings
• Alternative investment securities
• Auction market preferred securities

According to FINRA Enforcement Chief and Executive Vice President Susan L. Merrill, failure to provide the investing public with prospectuses and other offering documents deprives customers of valuable data that they need to make “informed investment decisions.”

Per FINRA, reasons Wachovia Securities did not give prospective customers the required prospectuses included:

• Business units’ failure to report to the proper department that prospectus delivery was required
• Coding errors
• Failure to supervise and monitor outside vendors under contract to deliver prospectuses
• Inadequate supervisory systems, procedures, and polices

When the activity allegedly at issue occurred, Wachovia Securities, LLC was a non-bank affiliate and subsidiary of Wachovia Corporation. This year, the latter merged with Wells Fargo & Co..

By agreeing to settle, Wachovia Securities is not admitting to or denying the allegations. The broker-dealer, however, has agreed to an entry of the SRO’s findings.

Related Web Resources:
FINRA Fines Wachovia Securities $1.4 Million for Prospectus Delivery Failures, Related Supervisory Violations, FINRA, June 25, 2009

Wachovia Fined $1.4 Million By Finra For Not Sending Prospectuses, June 30, 2009

Continue reading "Wachovia Securities Agrees to $1.4 Million FINRA Fine for Failure to Deliver Prospectuses to Customers " »

The Securities and Exchange Commission is considering whether to file civil charges against State Street Corp. over possible securities violations related to subprime mortgages. The Boston-based firm is the largest asset manager for institutions in the world.

In its regulatory filing that it submitted on Monday, State Street noted that the SEC had sent State Street Bank and Trust Co. a “Wells” notice related to a probe into disclosures and management of the bank’s fixed-income investments before 2008. The asset manager is cooperating with the SEC, as well as with Massachusetts’s attorney general. Massachusetts’s lead securities regulator, Secretary of the Commonwealth William F. Galvin, is looking at allegations that State Street misled pension funds over how much risk was involved in the investments.

Just before the housing market fell in 2007, State Street’s fixed-income investment unit began to increase its investments in bonds and securities related to subprime mortgages. Customers with poor credit records were even given loans. When the market collapsed and defaults on mortgages went sky high, the investments’ values dropped significantly, leading to investor losses.

Already, a number of investors have filed securities fraud lawsuits against State Street for allegedly investing in home mortgages that were too high risk. In October 2007, Prudential Financial Inc. sued State Street for $80 million on behalf of 200 retirement plans. The financial figure they are seeking is how much was lost in two bond funds. Some 28,000 retirement accounts were affected. In its complaint, filed under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, the life insurer accused State Street of changing the funds’ investment strategies and making “highly leveraged investments in mortgage-related” assets without disclosing these investments.

In the 4th quarter of 2007, State Street put aside at least $618 million to settle claims related to subprime home loan-related losses. As of the end of March, the asset manager had $207 million left in its reserve fund.

Our investment fraud lawyers at the stockbroker fraud law firm of Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP has been handling a number of these claims and lawsuits against State Street.

Related Web Resources:
State Street Says SEC May Sue Over Bond Investments, Bloomberg.com, June 29, 2009

SEC tells State Street it could face civil charges, AP/Google, June 30, 2009

Evergreen Investment Management Co., which distributes Evergreen mutual funds and related entities, has settled Securities and Exchange Commission charges that the Ultra Short Opportunities Fund was overvalued and that the problem was only disclosed (in a selective manner) to certain shareholders.

To settle the allegations, the distributor will pay over $40 million.The SEC says the settlement amount is a reflection of the respondents cooperation and “remedial acts.” $33 million will compensate fund shareholders, $3 million is for the disgorgement of ill-gotten gains, and $4 million is for penalties.

Also, Evergreen Investment Services, a broker-dealer and distributor, and Evergreen Investment Management Co. LLC, an investment adviser, say they will pay $1 million to settle similar charges made by the Massachusetts Securities Division. The state of Massachusetts is mandating that the firms hire an independent compliance consultant to evaluate internal procedures for valuing portfolio securities and preventing the misuse of nonpublic, material data. The consultant will present these findings to the Massachusetts Securities Division and the Evergreen funds’ board of trustees. William Galvin, who is the Massachusetts Secretary of the Commonwealth, says the orders should remind the mutual fund industry that proper fund supervision is necessary.

For 2007 and 2008, Ultra Short Fun was regularly regarded as a high performer among its peers. The defendants are accused of inflating the fund’s value by up to 17%, in part due to a failure to factor in information about MBS. The fund’s portfolio management team is also accused of holding back negative data from the Evergreen committee in charge of the valuations. The SEC says the fund would have fallen closer to the bottom if it had been ranked correctly.

In an attempt to deal with the valuation issues, the respondents repriced certain holdings and told only certain shareholders about the repricings and of the possibility that more were likely to come. This gave the parties that were informed of the repricings an advantage over the shareholders that did not know there was an issue. The shareholders that were given this information were able to redeem their investments to avoid more losses. This was "to the detriment" of those that were uninformed of the repricings and stayed invested. Also, new purchasers ended up paying more than the shares actual value.

After the repricings occurred, the fund experienced significant redemptions and closed in June 2008.

Related Web Resources:
SEC Charges Evergreen for Overvaluing Holdings in Mortgage-Backed Securities and Making Selective Disclosures to Investors, SEC.gov, June 8, 2009

Regulators: Fund firm hid losses, Boston.com, June 9, 2009

Continue reading "Evergreen to Pay Over $40 Million to Settle SEC and Massachusetts Securities Division Charges that Funds were Overvalued" »

A former stockbroker that used to work for A.G. Edwards and Stifel Nicolaus has pleaded guilty to mail fraud. Neil R. Harrison, could spend up to 27 months behind bars—although his agreement to repay $85,739, cooperate with police, and lack of a criminal record could help him receive less than the 21-month minimum sentence. Harrison is accused of defrauding clients at two Illinois firms. He solicited investors to place their money in commodities futures and the gold market but instead used their funds for gambling. The mail fraud charge is based on a wire transfer confirmation mailed to a Stifel client.

While this may be Harrison’s first official brush with the law, he was let go from A.G. Edwards in 2005 for failing to cooperate with a probe regarding his efforts to get a loan from a client. A.G. Edwards filed the necessary securities documents regarding his firing. Even though Stifel Nicolaus was aware of Harrison’s background, the broker-dealer still hired him—with a special supervised agreement—just 10 days after A.G. Edwards terminated him.

Stifel would eventually fire the stockbroker in 2008 for “unethical and professional misconduct.” The broker-dealer accused Harrison of soliciting and getting money and personal loans from clients for fraudulent investments.

Per Harrison’s plea agreement: The ex-stockbroker persuaded clients to sign paperwork to open margin accounts without making sure that they had a good understanding of what these accounts were or the interest rates associated with them. He would then direct his broker-dealer to issue wire transfers to the investors’ checking accounts to replace money that was issued to him for the bogus investments. He also made material misrepresentations to clients and prospective investors. He told them they could make a lot of money but they would have to go outside the traditional brokerage account for diversity when making investments.

At least five investors were defrauded.

Related Web Resources:
Ex-stockbroker pleads guilty to mail fraud, The Telegraph, June 23, 2009

Former broker accused of mail fraud, The Telegraph, May 21, 2009

Illinois Securities Department

Continue reading "Former Stifel Nicolaus and A.G. Edwards Stockbroker Pleads Guilty to Mail Fraud" »

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority says that RBC Capital Markets Corp., Raymond James & Associates, Inc., and an RBCCMC head trader have settled charges over alleged broker misconduct connected to stock loan improprieties. RJF is to pay a $1 million fine, while RBC Capital Markets will pay $400,000.

Meantime, RBCCMC Stock Loan Department head trader Benedict Patrick Tommasino has agreed to a $30,000 fine, a 20-month suspension from working for a securities firm, and another two-month suspension from acting in a principal role.

According to FINRA, RJF allegedly executed payments that were improper and unjustified to finder firms even though the companies didn’t provide services to locate the securities and they weren’t involved in the stock loan transactions for which they were receiving payments. For example, in March and 2004, Raymond James paid two finder firms for 11 transactions even though they didn’t perform a service. A Raymond James loan trader’s son was employed at one of the finder firms.

FINRA is also accusing the two broker-dealers of allegedly letting Dennis Palmeri, Sr. perform stock loan functions. Only registered individuals are allowed to perform this role.

Palmeri is a non-registered person that had been barred from the securities industry. He was previously convicted of federal securities law violations in 1994. Following his conviction, the SEC barred him from working for an investment advisor, a broker dealer, or an investment company. While Palmeri can act as a non-registered finder, he cannot perform roles requiring that the individual be registered.

Susan Merrill, the FINRA enforcement chief, says the two firms exposed the market to an individual that was non-registered, unqualified, unsupervised, and was not allowed to work in the securities industry. FINRA also claims that the two broker-dealers failed to reasonably supervise their Stock Loan Departments. By agreeing to settle, Tommasino and the two broker-dealers are not denying or admitting misconduct.

Related Web Resources:
FINRA Fines Raymond James, RBC Capital Markets Corporation, Stock Loan Trader for Improper Stock Loan Practices, FINRA, June 17, 2009

FINRA fines Raymond James, RBC Capital Markets, Forbes, June 17, 2009

Continue reading "Raymond James and RBC Capital Markets Fined $1.4 Million in Total Over Improper Stock Lending Activities" »

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority is accusing Park Financial Group Inc., JP Turner & Co., and Legent Clearing LLC of inadequate anti-money laundering procedures. The broker-dealers and four persons connected to them have consented to pay more than $1.25 million for failing to detect and report suspect penny-stock transactions.

JP Turner & Co. will pay $525,000, Park Financial will pay $400,000, and Legent Clearing will pay $350,000. By agreeing to pay the fines, the broker-dealers are not admitting or denying wrongdoing. Also:

• Park Financial equity trader David Farber received a $30,000 fine and a 30-day suspension.
• JP Turner’s ex-AML compliance officer S. Cheryl Bauman received a $30,000 fine and a suspension barring her for 18 months from acting as a securities firm principal.
• Former JP Turner branch manager Robert Meyer received a 1-month suspension from acting as a principal. He also must pay a $5,000 fine.
• JP Turner equity trader John McFarland and former Park Financial CEO and AML compliance officer Gordon Charles Cantley have agreed to be permanently barred from the industry.

According to Susan Merrill, FINRA’s enforcement chief, the firms allowed suspicious trades to be processed even though there were notable red flags. Suspect trades included the liquidations and deposits of penny stocks connected to parties with histories of stock manipulation or securities fraud.

FINRA claims the broker-dealers neglected to set up and put into action proper procedures to identify and report suspect trading involving low-priced securities and that this failure resulted in the risk that the securities could be used by “unscrupulous” parties,” including those involved in securities fraud, money laundering, or market manipulation.

For example, FINRA says although Park Financial had clients with histories of securities-related violations, the broker-dealer failed to note the “red flags” that might indicate the customers could be involved in risky activities, including depositing millions of low-priced securities shares and making millions of dollars by liquidating the shares and sending the proceeds to bank accounts in the US and offshore.

FINRA is accusing JP Turner of neglecting to identify, probe, and file Suspicious Activity Reports over a number of possibly suspect transactions, such as those involving numerous accounts under one name or clients using multiple names for no business-related reason. FINRA contends that Legent Clearing has an AML program that doesn’t consider the company’s business risks and fails to properly consider money laundering risks presented by some of its correspondent firms that had extensive disciplinary histories and were engaged in penny stock liquidations and other high-risk business activities.

Related Web Resources:
FINRA Fines Three Firms Over $1.25 Million for Failing to Detect, Investigate and Report Suspicious Transactions in Penny Stocks, FINRA, June 4, 2009

Penny Stocks, SOS.Mos.gov

Continue reading "JP Turner & Co., Legent Clearing, LLC, Park Financial Group Inc. & Four Individuals to Pay More than $1.25 Million in FINRA Fines for Alleged Penny Stock Violations" »

Brokers are once again getting behind structured products, hoping that investors will bite. While sales of structured products during 2008’s 4th quarter—at $5.8 billion—was down 75% from the year’s 1st quarter, sales are starting to go up. One reason for this is that certain structured products, such as return-enhanced notes and principal protected notes, are considered safer than reverse convertibles, which led to some of the worst losses for investor.

Ideally, structured products are supposed to provide sturdy profits, while limiting losses, and brokers like them because the commissions are high. However, representatives must still account for why these products haven’t delivered the way investors were told they would. Many investors that bought structured products from Lehman Brothers, such as the Lehman principal-protected notes, incurred some large losses. Some of these notes were bought through a UBS Financial Services office in Houston, Texas.

Until the bear market struck, structured products did incredibly well, and sales almost doubled to $105 billion in 2007 before dropping to $70 billion last year when structured products, collateralized debt loans, and credit default swaps played a huge role in the global financial collapse.

Reverse convertibles are considered the most high-risk structured product—short-term bonds with a large interest that can seriously hurt investors if the underlying stock drops dramatically. Investors can end up with shares with a value far below the principal. For example, 78-year-old Dominic Annino says he invested $300,000 in IndyMac shares and JetBlue shares and lost money after the stocks fell. He filed an arbitration complaint with FINRA and claims that the broker that sold him the Wells Fargo reverse convertibles never fully explained to him what he was getting himself into. Still, brokers are hoping that last year’s stock market fiasco won’t discourage investors from trying structured products again.

Twice Shy On Structured Products? Wall Street Journal Online, May 28, 2009

Understanding Structured Products, Investopedia

Continue reading "Brokers Renew Push for Investors to Buy Structured Products" »

Evergreen Investment Management Company, a Wells Fargo unit, has agreed to a $40 million settlement with federal and state regulators over allegations that it misrepresented securities in short-term bond funds. The settlement could be a sign that other fund providers, including Morgan Keegan, Charles Schwab Corp., and Fidelity Investments, may face similar lawsuits. Already bond providers are facing securities fraud lawsuits and arbitration claims from clients that experienced heavy losses from investing in debts that were either high risk or became illiquid.

The Massachusetts Securities Division and the Securities and Exchange Commission had accused Evergreen and one of its affiliates of inflating the value of its Ultra Short Opportunities Fund by up to 17%. The SEC says that this inflated value allowed the fund in 2007 and 2008 to be ranked high compared to other peer funds, when its true value should have placed it closer to the bottom of its class. At the time of the alleged violations, Evergreen was a Wachovia Corp. subsidiary.

With the housing crisis getting worse, Evergreen is accused of not using the information it had access to about mortgage-backed securities when engaging in the valuation process. Evergreen dealt with the fund by adjusting the prices on specific holdings, but only notified a select number of investors about the reasons for the re-pricings, as well as the possibility of adjustments in the future.

The investors that were given this information managed to leave the fund before their shares’ value went down even more. However, the other shareholders that did not receive the preferential information were left at a disadvantage. In June 2008, Evergreen closed the Ultra Short Fund, which, at the time, had $403 million in assets.

By agreeing to settle, Evergreen is not admitting to or disagreeing with the SEC’s findings. As part of the agreement, the Wells Fargo unit will pay $33 million to fund shareholders, $3 million in disgorgement of ill-gotten gains, a $4 million SEC penalty, and $1 million to Massachusetts.

Evergreen settles state, US charges for $40 mln, Reuters, June 8, 2009

Settlement in Mutual Fund Case, NY Times, June 8, 2009

Continue reading "Morgan Keegan, Charles Schwab and Others Fight as Wells Fargo Unit Settles Claims of Misrepresented Securities in Short Term Bond Funds " »

According to New Hampshire securities regulators, UBS Financial Services Inc., a unit of UBS AG, misled investors regarding complex securities that were issued by Lehman Brothers before the latter filed for bankruptcy protection in 2008. The Bureau of Securities Regulation says investors were misled when the representatives for the UBS unit told them that the securities were safe, while failing to let them know that Lehman Brothers was in trouble. The state regulators are also accusing UBS of failing to properly supervise the employees that sold the structured products and of engaging in improper sales practices.

Some 42 New Hampshire investors could lose more than $2.5 million from securities underwritten by Lehman Brothers. State regulators have filed a cease-and-desist order against UBS and they are seeking an unspecified sum from the financial firm.

UBS disputes the Bureau of Securities Regulation's allegations. The investment bank claims it didn’t do anything improper when it sold the Lehman products to UBS clients and that its employees engaged in the proper sales practices, followed all regulatory guidelines, abided by client disclosure guidelines, as well as followed firm procedures and industry regulations. The investment bank contends that any losses experienced by investors occurred because Lehman Brothers failed unexpectedly. UBS vows to combat the New Hampshire regulators' allegations.

Already, a number of investors have filed claims against Lehman Brothers. Last year, with $613 billion in debt, Lehman filed the largest bankruptcy in US history. Globally, the collapse of Lehman Brothers resulted in investor losses worth billions of dollars. Many clients have blamed lenders for failing to warn them that Lehman was in trouble.

Meantime, Credit Suisse has offered to pay $140.7 million to compensate more than 3,700 of its retail clients for their Lehman financial products that now have no value.

Securities Fraud Attorney Sam Edwards, partner of the law firm of Shepherd, Smith, Edwards & Kantas says: "While many smaller investors into Auction Rate Securities have now been paid, our firm is representing a number of larger investors, many of whom have millions of dollars that have been frozen for more than a year. Many of these are business which have been crippled by the loss of liquidity of these funds and are seeking resulting business losses."

Related Web Resources:
UBS says will fight New Hampshire Lehman case, Reuters, June 4, 2009

UBS Sold Unsuitable Lehman Securities, New Hampshire Alleges, Bloomberg.com, June 4, 2009

Bureau of Securities Regulation

Continue reading "UBS Financial Services Misled Investors about Lehman Brothers Securities, Says New Hampshire Regulators" »

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority says that RD Capital Group, based in Puerto Rico, and its president Ramon Luis Dominguez have agreed to pay $950,000 in restitution plus interest to three clients over fraudulent and excessive markups involving the sale of U.S. Treasury Separate Trading of Registered Interest and Principal Securities, also known as STRIPS. The firm and Dominguez are also to pay a $50,000 fine, while the latter was suspended for 30 days as a principal and in every capacity for 5 business days.

According to FINRA, RD Capital and Dominguez sold more than $34 million in US treasury STRIPS to three clients between August and August 2005. They made the sale while charging $1,289,727 in total markups. However, FINRA says that Dominguez neglected to tell the clients how much of a markup they got—from 3.5 – 6.2%—and that these markups were fraudulent and too much because they were more than what the market conditions warranted.

STRIPS are zero-coupon securities created from U.S. Treasury bonds by "stripping" the future interest payment oblitations from the final principle payment obligation on those bonds, then selling each of these separately at a discount. FINRA mandates that firms make sure customers are fairly charged for STRIPS transactions, with the cost for effectuating the sale, profit by the dealer or broker and the expertise provided, the total cost of the transaction, the financial product’s availability, the instrument’s yield or price, and other factors taken into consideration.

By agreeing to the terms of the settlement agreement, RD Capital Group and Dominguez are not admitting to or denying wrongdoing.

More about STRIPS:

• STRIPS can be bought or held via government securities dealers and brokers.
• STRIPS cannot be sold or issued directly to an investor.
• An investor receives payment from STRIPS upon maturity.

Related Web Resources:
RD Capital Group and Firm President Ordered to Pay $1 Million in Fines, Restitution for Fraudulent Markups of U.S. Treasury STRIPS, FINRA, May 11, 2009

TreasuryDirect.gov

Continue reading "FINRA Orders RD Capital Group and Its President to Pay $1 Million for Fraudulent STRIPS Markups" »

Another state has filed an individual enforcement against brokerage and investment banking firm Stifel, Nicolaus, & Co. Inc. On May 7, Virginia’s State Corporation Commission's 's Division of Securities and Retail Franchising filed its civil lawsuit accusing the broker-dealer of making misrepresentations and false statements related to the sale of auction-rate securities, as well as failing to properly supervise its sales representatives that sold ARS to Virginia residents.

Just this March, Missouri Secretary of State Robin Carnahan had sued Stifel, Nicolaus, accusing the investment firm of making misrepresentations to over 100 ARS clients that were told that the securities were liquid, conservative investments. In May, Carnahan reached an agreement with two Bank of America Corp subsidiaries. Under the agreement, the bank would pay a $1.37 million fine and provide relief to numerous Missouri entities that bought $400 million in ARS.

Meantime, state officials are looking into whether TD Ameritrade Holding Corp., Charles Schwab Corp., and E*Trade Financial Corp also engaged in ARS-related violations. Broker-dealers that have reached preliminary settlements with federal and state regulators over their misrepresentation of ARS to clients include Citigroup Inc., Deutsche Bank AG, Credit Suisse Group, JP Morgan Chase & Co, Goldman Sachs Group Inc., Merrill Lynch & Co. Inc., Royal Bank of Canada, Morgan Stanley, Wachovia Corp, and UBS AG.

Per the agreements, settlement parties would repurchase up to $56 billion in illiquid ARS at par from charities, retail investors, and mid-sized and small businesses, as well as pay $522 million in penalties. The agreements with Bank of America, Wachovia, and Citigroup have been finalized.

Last month, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority announced final settlements reached with NatCity Investments Inc. of Cleveland (a $300,000 fine), M & T Securities Inc. of Buffalo (a $200,000 fine), M & I Financial Advisors Inc. of Milwaukee (a $150,000 fine), and Janney Montgomery Scott LLC of Philadelphia (a $200,00 fine). FINRA also announced that SunTrust Investment Services Inc. and SunTrust Robinson Humphrey Inc. decided not to finalize their preliminary settlements. FINRA is still investigating both firms’ activities pertaining to ARS.

Related Web Resources:
Virginia sues Stifel, Nicolaus & Co. over auction rate securities, St Louis Business Journal, May 15, 2009

FINRA Announces Agreements with Four Additional Firms to Settle Auction Rate Securities Violations, FINRA, May 7, 2009

Carnahan Finalizes $400 Million Bank of America Auction Rate Securities Settlement, Missouri Secretary of State, May 14, 2009

Carnahan sues Stifel Nicolaus over auction rate securities, St Louis Business Journal, March 12, 2009

Continue reading "Auction-Rate Securities Probes Lead to More Enforcement Actions and Final Settlements with Investment Firms" »

Merrill Lynch Life Agency Inc. will pay $18 million to the Illinois Division of Insurance to settle the state’s investigation into the investment firm’s involvement with a trust fund overseen by the Illinois Funeral Directors Association. The trust was supposed to cover funeral costs for about 49,000 consumers that had prepaid for funeral contracts. The $18 million will be placed in a special fund and will be used to offset losses by association members when delivering on their funeral contract commitments to consumers.

Merrill Lynch & Co. Inc, between 1986 and 1999, had marketed and sold tax-exempt variable universal life insurance policies as investments within the pre-need trust. Unfortunately, in 2007, the trust imploded, and its value dropped from over $300 million to approximately $250 million.

The Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation then conducted a probe into the trust and discovered that the funds’ trustees had used the policies as investments within the trust. Also state comptroller Dan Hynes is asking the association to account for $10 million that trustees allegedly obtained from the trust as excess management fees.

According to state regulators, Merrill Lynch Life registered representative Edward L. Schainker, who served as the association’s investment advisor, recommended and sold over 300 policies to its members. The policies were to offer tax-exempt investment returns. Merrill Lynch’s life insurance division put forth 120 policies and received over $32 million in premiums that were invested in bonds and stocks that over the years have dropped in value and placed the trust’s solvency at risk.

Schainker is accused of violating Illinois insurable-interest laws and of failing to determine whether his investment plan could provide the needed revenue to cover trust liabilities. The Illinois secretary of state’s office has suspended his broker’s license and the state’s insurance division is seeking to revoke Schainker’s insurance license. He also has been ordered to pay civil penalties of $100,000.

By settling, Merrill Lynch Life is not admitting to the allegations made by the state of Illinois.

Related Web Resources:
Merrill Lynch to pay $18 million to halt state probe into funeral trust fund, Chicago Tribune, May 20, 2009

Illinois slams Merrill Lynch Life to the tune of $18M for funeral trust scam, Investment News, May 21, 2009

Illinois Funeral Directors Association

Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation

Continue reading "Merrill Lynch Life Agency to Pay Illinois Division Of Insurance $18 Million Over Funeral Trust Scam Allegations" »

California Attorney General Edmund G Brown, Jr. is suing Wells Fargo Investments LLC, Wells Fargo Institutional Securities, and Wells Fargo Brokerage Services for $1.5 billion. Brown is accusing the Wells Fargo affiliates of violating state securities laws and misleading California investors with false statements about auction-rate securities.

According to the California Attorney General’s securities fraud lawsuit, the Wells units engaged in fraud and deception to sell the securities, neglected to properly train and supervise the agents that sold the ARS, marketed the securities to investors that shouldn’t have been investing in them, and regularly misrepresented the securities when marketing them.

Brown says that nearly 40% of the ARS that the Wells defendants sold are owned by Californians. ARS investors included individuals, non-profits, small businesses, and others that were never fully informed about the risks of investing in theses securities.

ARS sales pitches by Wells Fargo representatives reportedly continued even though there were warnings as early as 2005 from the Financial Accounting Standards Board and others that auction-rate securities should not be considered cash-like equivalents. In November 2007, a Wells Fargo Bank's Trust Department reportedly sent a memo warning against buying ARS.

Following the collapse of the $330 billion ARS market in February 2008, some 2,400 Californians, who were told that their ARS were liquid like cash, were unable to access their investments that ranged in worth from $25,000 to millions.

Brown says he is suing the Wells units because unlike Citigroup, UBS, Wachovia, and Merrill Lynch, the affiliates have not been able restore the securities’ cash value. The California Attorney General wants Wells Fargo to restore the securities’ value, disgorge any associated profits, and pay civil penalties at $25,000/violation.

Wells Fargo Chief Executive Officer Charles W. Daggs says the investment bank is disputing the claims made in the California Attorney General’s lawsuit. He also noted that Wells was among the first in the investment bank industry to voluntarily give clients with frozen securities significant liquidity. Daggs says that since April 2008, these clients have been able to access 90% of their ARP holdings’ par value via non-recourse loans with favorable rates.

Related Web Resources:
Calif. AG sues Wells Fargo for $1.5 billion, News Daily, April 23, 2009

Read the Attorney General's Complaint Against Wells Fargo (PDF)

Continue reading "Wells Fargo Sued Over ARS Sales by California Attorney General for $1.5 Billion" »

Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley has announced a $60 million settlement with Goldman Sachs over the alleged role the investment bank played in the subprime mortgage crisis. While Goldman did not originate the loans, it played a role in their securitization. Coakley has been conducting a nationwide probe targeting investment banks that knew certain loans were high risk but still opted to write them, as well as underwrite securities from these loans. Coakley says that state courts are in agreement that a number of these loans were destined to fail from the start.

Massachusetts will use $50 million of the settlement to help 714 Massachusetts homeowners with mortgages that are either delinquent or still performing. The money, however, won’t go toward helping homeowners whose homes have already foreclosed. The other $10 million will go to the state.

Among the terms of the settlement:

• Goldman has consented to principal write-downs of 25% to 30% for first mortgages and upward of 50% for second mortgages if owners want to sell or refinance their homes.

• A homeowner who is significantly delinquent will have to make manageable payments toward mortgages until they are able to sell or refinance.

• If a homeowner cannot sell his or her home, Goldman will help qualified borrowers to refinance and provide other solutions so that they don’t have to foreclose.

• Homeowners that have loans with Goldman entities and those that Litton Loan Servicing LP has serviced will receive immediate help.

By agreeing to the settlement, Goldman is not admitting to or denying wrongdoing. This is the first settlement, however, where an investment bank has been held to task for its role in the subprime lending crisis. Up until this point, prosecutors were only targeting the sources of the subprime loans and not the parties that put together the loans and presented them to investors.

Related Web Resources:
Massachusetts settles with Goldman Sachs, UPI, May 11, 2009

Goldman Sachs, Massachusetts reach settlement on mortgage securities, LA Times, May 12, 2009

Attorney General Martha Coakley

Continue reading "Goldman Sachs Reaches $60 Million Settlement with Massachusetts Over Subprime-Mortgage Loans" »

A senior couple has filed a $1.2 million arbitration claim against Fisher Investments for allegedly neglecting to fulfill its fiduciary duty to them. According to Georgia residents Michelle and Brent Murphy, the investment advisory firm invested too much of their $2.5 million portfolio into stocks last year—nearly 100% in equities—even when it knew the market was failing.

Fisher Investments started handling the couple’s investments in 2007. The Murphy’s securities arbitration lawyer says that Fisher Investments neglected to properly diversify his clients’ portfolio, which should have been done considering that the two of them are retired and need fixed-income investments. He says that he will be filing more claims against Fisher Investments.

Responding to the claim, Fisher Investments chief executive Ken Fisher called it “nonsense,” says his firm acted appropriately, and he vowed to teach the couple’s attorney an unforgettable lesson.

Fisher Investments is one of the biggest US investment advisory firms. It has 37,648 accounts and $28 billion in client assets.

When hearing about Fisher’s response to the Murphys' arbitration claim, Shepherd Smith Edwards and Kantas, LLP founder and securities fraud lawyer William Shepherd responded, “The attitude of a claim as 'nonsense' is typical for financial firms. Sadly, regulators reinforce this attitude with inaction and occasional slaps on the wrist. The only route to justice for investors is to hire an experienced securities law firm and file an arbitration claim. Our firm has represented thousands of investors nationwide in arbitration including against the most powerful financial firms. It will be my pleasure to teach Mr. Fisher a lesson he will not forget!”

Related Web Resources:
Couple slaps a feisty Ken Fisher with $1.2M arbitration claim, Investment News, May 12, 2009

Senior Investment Fraud News & Alerts, North American Securities Administrators Association

Continue reading "Fisher Investments Hit with $1.2 Million Arbitration Claim by Senior Investors Alleging Breach of Fiduciary Duty" »

Regions Financial Corp, a Morgan Keegan & Co brokerage unit, says the US Securities and Exchange Commission may file a civil proceeding against it over charges that the firm allegedly engaged in the improper sale of auction-rate securities. The regulator filed a “Wells Notice” against Morgan Keegan in March. The notice means that a civil proceeding could be next. It also gives Morgan Keegan the opportunity to prepare a defense.

The SEC is examining the degree to which Morgan Keegan revealed to its clients the risks associated with investing in the auction-rate market and whether the firm sold a huge amount of that debt even when its ability to support the auction had declined.

Morgan Keegan is purchasing back the ARS it sold to clients. According to Morgan Keegan spokesperson Kathy Ridley, the investment firm has already gotten back $28 million in ARS.

Our securities fraud lawyers at Shepherd Smith Edwards and Kantas, LLP are working with numerous clients on claims against Morgan Keegan and Regions Financial over failed auction-rate securities investments, as well as investor claims involving these Morgan Keegan Bond Funds:

• RMK Strategic Income Fund (RSF)

• RMK Advantage Income Fund (RMA)

• RMK Multi-Sector-High Income Fund (RHY)

• RMK High Income Fund (RHM)

• RMK Select High Income Funds: C (RHICX), I (RHIIX), and A (MKHIX)

• RMK Select Intermediate Bond Funds: A (MKIBX), C (RIBCX), I (RIBIX)

The collapse of the $330 billion auction-rate securities market left many investors unable to sell auction-rate debt that they were told were safe to invest in and that were the liquid equivalent of cash. Since then, many investors have come forward complaining that they were misled about the risks tied to investing in the market.

Regions Financial unit may face SEC charges, Reuters, May 11, 2009

Regions Financial says Morgan Keegan unit received 'Wells notice', The Birmingham News, May 12, 2009

Continue reading "Morgan Keegan & Co’s Regions Financial May Face SEC Charges Over Improper Auction-Rate Securities Sales" »

Last week, the Securities and Exchange Commission charged six people, including ex-Citigroup Global Markets’ investment banker Maher Kara and his brother Michael Kara, with taking part in a multimillion-dollar insider trading investment scam that involved tipping others about upcoming merger deals. The Karas were indicted in a California district court. Other defendants include Zahi Haddad, Emile Jilwan, Karim Bayyouk, and Bassam Salman. Except for Salman, all of them allegedly made between $82,000 to $2.3 million, with Maher Kara making over $1.5 million. The SEC wants to the defendants to pay fines, disgorgement, and other relief.

The SEC says that from at least April 2004 to April 2007, Maher Kara told his brother on numerous occasions about deals that were pending involving Citigroup clients in the health care industry. Michael Cara would then buy options and stock in at least 20 companies involved in the Citigroup deals and would give the information to relatives and friends in Illinois and California who would also trade before the deals occurred.

Scam participants reportedly made the most money from trading in Biosite right before an announcement was made in March 2007 that the medical testing company was being acquired. Following the public disclosure, stock price in Biosite increased by more than 50% and Michael Kara and six tippees allegedly made over $5 million in illegal profits.

Two other tippees have agreed to disgorge their illegal profits to settle the SEC allegations. Nasser Mardini disgorged $291,000, while Joseph Azar disgorged $118,000 and will pay a fine. Both are not denying or admitting wrongdoing by settling.

Related Web Resources:
SEC charges former Citi banker with insider trading, Reuters, April 30, 2009

SEC Charges Wall Street Investment Banker and Seven Others in Widespread Insider Trading Scheme, SEC.gov, April 30, 2009

Continue reading "Ex-Citigroup Banker Among Six Defendants the SEC is Charging with $6 Million Insider Trading Scam" »

The Securities and Exchange Commission is suing Morgan Peabody Inc. owner and chief executive officer Davis Williams for allegedly misappropriating investor funds that were raised in three public offerings. Also named in the complaint were Williams Financial Group, Sherwood, and WFG Holdings. The defendants are accused of violating federal securities laws, including Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, and Rule 10b-5 thereunder.

The SEC says that from January 2007 – September 2008, Williams notified Morgan Peabody registered representatives that they should sell and offer LLC promissory notes and debentures from WFG Holdings Inc. and Sherwood Secured Income Fund. He then allegedly used millions of dollars (he’d raised $9 million from investors) for personal purposes, including rent at his residence that cost almost $50,000 a month, at least $175,000 in personal travel, and over $200,000 in entertainment and food.

The SEC claims that WFG Holdings investors thought that their money was being invested in Morgan Peabody. Meantime, Sherwood investors were notified that most of their money would go into real estate. Instead, the SEC contends that Williams moved the investors’ money into bank accounts that he oversaw and used the money for personal purposes.

More than 100 investors in nine states purchased the securities. The SEC is seeking disgorgement, injunctive relief, and civil penalties.

Obtaining Financial Recovery from Securities Fraud
Investors that are the victims of securities fraud may be entitled to financial recovery. An experienced stockbroker fraud law firmcan help you successfully get through arbitration or court proceedings so that you recover your lost funds.

Related Web Resources:
SEC sues L.A. broker for fraud, Dailybreeze.com, April 21, 2009

SEC Charges Owner of California Broker-Dealer with Misappropriating Millions in Investor Funds, TradingMarkets.com, April 21, 2009

Continue reading "SEC Sues Broker-Dealer Morgan Peabody Inc Owner For Investment Fraud" »

Wachovia Capital Markets LLC and Citigroup Global Markets Inc. will settle allegations by the Michigan Office of Financial and Insurance Regulation that the firms misled investors who bought auction rate securities by paying a combined $880.3 million—$717 million for Citigroup and $159 million for Wachovia—to reimburse clients. The OFIR says the firms misled clients into thinking ARS were liquid like cash and were surprised when the market collapsed, freezing their assets. OFIR claims the securities were sold and marketed as if they were conservative investment and that the firms did not give investors information about the risks involved.

Both firms will also pay $2.3 million to Michigan to resolve the ARS charges. Citigroup will pay $1.72 million per an administrative consent order and Wachovia will pay $654,000. According to OFIR, 90% of the funds will be placed in a general fund for the state, while the rest will go to the Michigan Investor Protection Trust for consumer education about a number of issues, including investment fraud.

Just this March, Wachovia and Citigroup said they would pay back California investors over $4.7 billion after the investment firms were accused of misleading investors about investing in ARS. Also last month, the North American Securities Administrators Association set up a Web site so investors could find out how to file arbitration claims for damages stemming from ARS losses.

Citigroup, Wachovia in $876M Mich. ARS Buyback, The Bond Buyer, April 17, 2009

Michigan regulators detail settlement with Citigroup, Wachovia over auction rate securities, Associated Press, April 16, 2009

Related Web Resources:
North American Securities Administrators Association

Michigan Office of Financial and Insurance Regulation

Continue reading "Wachovia and Citigroup Settle Michigan ARS Case for $880 Million" »

Another securities fraud lawsuit has been filed against UBS International, which is a division of UBS. This latest claim brings forth allegations similar to those filed earlier in the year against UBSI. Both claims revolve around the use of loans to buy securities, such as stocks, and UBS created products. Shepherd, Smith, Edwards, and Kantas, LLP is the stockbroker fraud law firm to file this latest case.

According to the securities fraud claim, a UBSI broker working out of the Coral Cables office recommended specific loans along with a portfolio that mostly was comprised of equities to a certain Latin American client. Because of this, “margin calls” were made on the UBSI accounts.

When the client couldn’t come up with additional funds, the assets already in the account were sold off, resulting in losses worth hundreds of thousands of dollars. The complaint contends that the transactions made within the UBSI accounts were unsuitable and inappropriate and placed most (if not all) of the investor’s funds at risk.

It is unclear whether the satellite office in Florida had supervisors or compliance officers charged with overseeing the broker. There is evidence, however, that UBSI sent client statements to the broker’s other office in Guatemala rather than directly to the clients. This could have resulted in the client not being able to avail of certain safeguards. The broker also used Americorp Trust, an offshore entity located in the Netherlands Antilles, to deal with this specific client’s assets.

Shepherd, Smith, Edwards, and Kantas, LLP specializes in securities fraud cases requiring litigation or arbitration, as well as cases involving broker misconduct.

Related Web Resource:
SEC Center for Complaints and Enforcement Tips, SEC.gov

Continue reading "Another Securities Fraud Lawsuit Filed Against UBS International" »

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

According to the $36 million securities fraud lawsuit, the defendants had signed a contract agreeing to recommend only funds that were consistent with the Oregon 529 College Savings Board's investment policy and would let the board know about any fund changes. Also, as an investment adviser, OppenheimerFunds had fiduciary duties it owed the board. The complaint contends that the defendants breached their fiduciary and contractual duties by continuing to recommend the Oppenheimer Core Bond Fund even after it took part in risky leverage and speculative bets with derivatives.

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

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

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

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

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

Related Web Resources:
Oregon Sues Over Risks Taken In Its '529' Fund, The Wall Street Journal, April 14, 2009

Oregon 529 College Savings Network

Oregon Attorney

Continue reading "Oregon’s Attorney General Files $36 Million Lawsuit Against OppenheimerFunds" »

A motion by Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc. to stop two former financial advisers from using customer information they received while working at the investment firm has been denied. In the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah, Judge Dale Kimball says Merrill neglected to show that it would suffer irreparable harm if that relief wasn’t granted or that public interest/ the balance of that harm is in its favor.

Per the court, Paul Aiman started working for Merrill as a financial adviser in 1989 and Rex Baxter was hired to do the same in 1997. Both men resigned from the firm on April 3 to work for Ameriprise Financial Services. Merrill countered by trying to obtain a temporary restraining order preventing the former employees from using customer data the two now ex-advisers allegedly misappropriated.

Merrill asked the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah to enjoin the two men from soliciting its clients and making them give back or “purge” all documents and data that they had allegedly illegally misappropriated, such as client contact information, financial statements, account figures, assets, investment goals, net worth, investment histories, and other financial data.

The court, however, said that to receive preliminary injunctive relief or a TRO, the moving party must show that:

• There was a good chance of succeeding on the merits.
• The possibility of injury surpasses the harm that the opposing party might experience.
• Relief is in the public interest.
• Irreparable harm will occur unless relief is granted.

In regards to irreparable harm, the court said that Merrill’s argument that because the two men worked with 180 clients with millions of dollars in assets it was not possible to determine damages if relief is not granted is “outdated” since all transactions are electronically monitored. The court also said that there is no clear evidence that the defendants even possess any of the clients’ financial information and that any customer information they might have could easily be accessed through regular sources, such as telephone directories. The court noted that it is not unusual for brokers to move to a different brokerage firm, bringing their client lists with them, and that preventing the two men from using these lists could hamper their careers—causing them great harm.

Also, the “diminished public interest” in Merrill’s enforcement of non-solicitation agreements—considering that many brokerage firms opt not to enforce such agreements—and the public interest in a client being able to keep working with their chosen financial adviser do not indicate that the “public interest” factor weighs in Merrill's favor.

The parties will now take their case before an arbitration panel.

Continue reading "Merrill Lynch Cannot Prevent Former Brokers From Using Customer Information and Soliciting Clients, Says District Court" »

The US District Court for the Western District of Texas should confirm an arbitration award for brokerage firm Citigroup Global Markets Holding Inc. against a former employee who failed to pay his promissory note—so says magistrate judge Nancy Stein Nowak.

Nowak argued before the Texas court that even if “equitable reasons” exist for why stockbroker Ernest Elam shouldn’t pay the brokerage firm the money he owes for the note, the arbitrator's decision must still be upheld because the former Citigroup broker failed to provide a reason for why he shouldn't pay that falls under the Federal Arbitration Act.

Last July, the arbitration panel found in favor of Smith Barney and Elam was told to pay the investment firm $193,484.28, $15,768.70 in legal fees, and 5% interest per annum for any balance that is not paid. In turn, Elam asked for the award to be vacated because he claims that:

• The promissory note was a forgivable lone.
• He was misled about repayment requirements.
• Smith Barney sought repayment because the broker’s departure caused the branch manager’s end of the year bonus to go down.
• Smith Barney benefits financially from commissions through Elam’s previous clients.

According to Nowak, Citigroup Global Markets Holdings Inc. and Citigroup Global Markets Inc. (as Smith Barney) had asked for confirmation of the award against Elam for the 2004 note he defaulted on in the original principal amount of $270,878. The magistrate judge says that according to the FAA, an arbitration award can only be vacated if:

• The award was obtained through fraud, corruption, or undue measures.
• The arbitrators were at least partially corrupt or engaged in misconduct or went beyond the scope of their powers.

Therefore, Novak contends that the district court cannot vacate the award and should grant Smith Barney’s motion.

Continue reading "Magistrate Judge Tells Texas Court that Citigroup Global Markets Holding Inc. Should Not Be Denied Arbitration Award for Unpaid Promissory Note" »

US lawmakers are asking government regulators some tough questions about executive compensation at investment banks. Last week, Rep Dennis Kucinich, who heads the House Oversight Committee's Domestic Policy Subcommittee, asked the Securities and Exchange Commission to determine whether Bank of America Corp. violated federal securities laws when it did not tell shareholders that Merrill Lynch was going to pay executives $3.62 billion in bonuses. Kucinich noted that these bonuses were 22 times larger than what AIG executives were offered—equivalent to 36.2% of the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) funds that Merrill received.

A March filing by New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo (whose office is also pursuing this matter) claims that even though the firm had already made the decision to accelerate bonus payments, Merrill told Cuomo and the House Oversight Committee that it planned to make incentive compensation decisions at the end of the year. Cuomo claims that Bank of America neglected to tell shareholders that Merrill was going to offer executives big bonuses before the BofA merger was final.

When BofA was questioned about Cuomo’s claims, the bank said it revealed everything it was required to before the shareholders voted on the merger. Kucinich says that this makes him wonder about the SEC’s interpretation of fiduciary duty when it comes to revealing all “material” data to shareholders when asking for shareholder action and what is considers “material” information for proxy rules meant to protect investors under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

He asked the SEC whether it thinks that B of A’s omission is a material one and, if so, what it would do to redress it. The House Oversight Committee is trying to determine whether officials from Bank of America and Merrill misled Congress about the executive bonuses and their timing.

Meantime, Rep. Edolphus Towns, who oversees the House Committee and Oversight Reform, told Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner that he was worried about media reports that the Treasury Department was trying to “circumvent” statutory restrictions regarding executive pay for companies availing of TARP funds. Towns wants Geithner to respond to news reports that the Treasury Department established special entities to receive federal bailout funds that could then be channeled toward corporate recipients so as to avoid executive pay restrictions and requirements that the US get an ownership interest in the bailout firms. Towns cautioned that it would not be wise for the Treasury Department to allow excessive pay practices to continue at firms that taxpayers had bailed out.

Kucinich Asks If Merrill Bonuses Broke Laws, NY Times, April 7, 2009

Read Representative Towns' Letter to Treasury Secretary Geithner (PDF)

Continue reading "US Lawmakers Want SEC and Treasury Department to Answer Questions About Merrill Lynch Executive Bonuses and TARP Funds" »

The Tennessee city of Lewisburg got an unpleasant surprise this January when they discovered that their annual interest rates on a bond was now $1 million. Officials had gotten themselves involved in risky municipal bonds after speaking with investment firm Morgan Keegan & Co. at a state-sponsored seminar five years ago. Not only did Morgan Keegan offer them advice about these complex financial transactions, but their representatives made the deal.

Unfortunately, Lewisburg is just one of the hundreds of US cities and counties feeling the financial fallout because high-risk municipal bond derivates have gone sour. For example, officials in Tennessee’s Claiborne County were told by Morgan Keegan bankers that they would have to pay $3 million (an amount they can’t afford) to remove themselves from municipal bond derivatives. And in Mount Juliet, city leaders discovered that payment of their bonds had gone up 500% to $478,000.

Morgan Keegan has been able to dominate the lightly regulated municipal bond marketplace. Based in Tennessee, the investment company has sold $2 billion in municipal bond derivates to 38 cities and counties since 2001. Morgan Keegan reps say they’ve managed to save counties and cities money by providing lower interest rates. They also maintained that it is not their fault that the economic crisis has created turmoil in the bond market.

Now, however, federal regulators are trying to figure out how to restrict municipal bond derivative use. They also want to determine whether it makes sense for big investment banks to convince small counties and cities to take part in transactions that decrease interest rates but come with higher risks.

Morgan Keegan’s managing director Joseph K Ayres says that the investment firm is being unfairly blamed for the economic slump and that there was no conflict of interest when it advised municipalities and underwrote bonds. He says that the state of Tennessee had requested and approved the seminar and that the firm did not offer unbiased descriptions of municipal bond options or market any products during the session. Lewisville officials, however, say that Morgan Keegan failed to provide them with proper advice and did not fully explain the risks of their investment to them.

Investment banks make more in yearly income and fees from derivatives than from fixed-income bonds. In Tennessee alone, Morgan Keegan has made millions of dollars in fees. Unfortunately, it’s the municipalities and other investors who stand to lose a great deal.

Shepherd Smith Edwards and Kantas LLP Founder and Stockbroker Fraud Attorney Bill Shepherd has this to say: “As a former advisor to municipalities I can tell you that those who manage public funds depend heavily on their financial advisors to be not only truthful but candid about investment risks. It is disgraceful when unscrupulous “experts” abuse the trust placed in them to mine public funds for their own greed. Our firm currently represents a number of municipalities, credit unions, etc., which have lost hundreds of millions of dollars.”

Firm Acted as Tutor as It Sold Risky Deals to Towns, NY TImes, April 7, 2009

Continue reading "Did Morgan Keegan Tutor Towns to Invest into Their Own Risky Deals?" »

A number of Fidelity Brokerage Services LLC representatives who left the company last year say that they were obligated to acquire certified financial planner certification but were also barred from revealing that part of their bonuses were affected by whether they sold certain proprietary products. About half of Fidelity brokers’ compensation is salary and the remainder is in bonuses. The ex-brokers say they were pressured into selling Fidelity’s life insurance products and Portfolio Advisory Services.

One ex-broker said that he had to meet 80% of his sales target in PAS in order to qualify for the investment portion of the manager bonus and not receive an employment warning. Other brokers say that they were monitored weekly and comparisons were made between them and other representatives to spur productivity. Still another ex-broker said they were warned that representatives who didn’t get the CFP by mid-2009 would be let go.

The Fidelity Investments brokerage unit removed the CFP mandate this January, the same month that that the Certified Financial Planner Board of Standards Inc. instituted a new code of ethics and professional responsibility that obligates certified planners to notify clients about any conflicts of interest. A number of ex-Fidelity brokers says that Fidelity Brokerage withdrew the requirement because approximately 18% of the more than 275 account executives with its Private Client Group resigned last year.

Fidelity disputes the former brokers’ accounts and says that attrition isn’t unusual, broker compensation doesn’t conflict with clients’ best interests, and bonuses are not affected by proprietary products’ sales. A company spokesperson also says that the CFP requirement was withdrawn so that qualified candidates wouldn’t be discouraged from joining the private-client unit and the decision had no connection to service offering. Fidelity says it still encourages representatives to get the CFP.

Related Web Resources:
Ex-Fidelity reps claim sales pressure, Investment News, April 5, 2009

Certified Financial Planner Board of Standards Inc.

Continue reading "Former Fidelity Brokerage Reps Says They Were Pressured to Make Sales That Conflicted With CFP Ethic Codes" »

Separate Financial Industry Regulatory Authority arbitration panels have issued awards to investors who suffered financial losses in Regions Morgan Keegan mutual funds. Last week, a FINRA panel awarded two California residents $267,711 plus interest for their losses—the largest bund fund arbitration award that Morgan Keegan has been ordered to pay to date.

In two arbitration cases last month, investors were also awarded six-figure sums, with one award amount larger than the damages claimed by investors. To date, FINRA panels have awarded over $871,000 to investors for their Morgan Keegan-related claims.

All of the arbitration claims accuse Morgan Keegan of concealing the actual risks associated with their bond funds. The investors have accused Morgan Keegan of selling certain funds as relatively conservative investments when they were actually exposed to a number of high risk debt instruments, including collateral debt obligations and subprime mortgage securities. They say Morgan Keegan engaged in a scheme to defraud investors of certain bond funds and misrepresented the extent of their holdings in riskier investments.

Morgan Keegan investors sustained substantial financial losses after the subprime mortgage market declined. RMK funds named in the allegations against Morgan Keegan, include:

RMK Select Intermediate Bond Fund
RMK Strategic Income Fund
RMK Advantage Income Fund
RMK High Income Fund
RMK Select High Income Fund
RMK Multi-Sector High Income Fund

Stockbroker fraud law firm Shepherd Smith Edwards and Kantas LLP is investigating claims by investors who say they sustained financial losses with Morgan Keegan, and our securities fraud attorneys are filing investment fraud claims on their behalf.

Related Web Resources:
The Law Firm of Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas Continues to File Cases Against Morgan Keegan Bond Fund Investments in Light of Recent Arbitration Awards -- RSF, RMA, RHY, RMH, RHICX, MKHIX, RHIIX, RIBCX, MKIBX, RIBIX, Globe Newswire, April 2, 2009

Morgan Keegan must pay investor $267,000, regulator says, Birmingham News, April 2, 2009

Arbitration and Mediation, FINRA

Merrill Lynch & Co. must pay an investor $39.8 million in compensatory damages because of negligence on the part of one a subsidiary broker-dealer. A Financial Industry Regulatory Authority arbitration panel issued the award to Trustees of the Masonic Hall & Asylum Fund, which is an endowment for an Utica health-care facility. This is one of the largest awards against a Wall Street firm.

The fund’s arbitration claim had accused Merrill Lynch and subsidiary Advest Inc. of misrepresentation, negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, and breach of contract. The claim had also accused Advest Inc. of encouraging it to buy into Sphinx Managed Futures Index Fund LP, which was owned by Refco Inc. However, Refco Inc. collapsed in 2005 after giving notice that its chief executive had concealed bad debts valued at about $430 million from firm auditors. The fund says it lost money because of Advest Inc.’s poor recommendation.

The FINRA panel awarded the fund $30.6 million plus $9.2 in interest from as far back as November 2005. Merrill Lynch announced that it was not pleased with the ruling and says that the case stemmed from investments that occurred before the Wall Street firm acquired Advest.

The FINRA panel said Merrill Lynch can seek damages in bankruptcy proceedings for the Refco unit in charge of the Sphinx fund, and the broker-dealer says it will do so.

One way for investors who have lost money because of securities fraud to recover their investments is to go through the arbitration process.

Related Web Resources
Merrill to Pay $40 Million in Refco Case, Wall Street Journal, March 30, 2009

Merrill socked with historic arbitration ruling, Crain's New York Business, March 31, 2009

Continue reading "Merrill Lynch & Co Ordered to Pay FINRA Arbitration Panel $39.8 Million" »

First New York Securities LLC and four of its ex-traders have reached a settlement with the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority over allegations that they improperly covered short positions involving secondary offering shares, as well as engaged in associated oversight failures.

Per the FINRA settlement, First New York Securities LLC will pay $170,000 and disgorge $171,000. The former First Securities New York traders are to pay: $7,500 from Kevin Williams, $50,000 from Joseph Edelman, $30,000 from Michael Cho, and $30,000 from Larry Chachkes. By agreeing to settle with FINRA, the firm and its former brokers are not admitting to or denying the allegations.

FINRA says the trading addressed by the short selling case took place during a specific restricted period (usually five business days) when the Securities and Exchange Commission doesn’t allow for short sales to be covered with securities from secondary offerings and before the secondary offering is priced. This matter is addressed in Rule 105 of Regulation M.

The self-regulatory organization says that a 2005 probe found that the investment bank violated the rule related to five public offerings. The SRO says First New York Securities and its traders engaged in short selling during the period when they weren’t allowed to and covered short positions using shares from the offering. FINRA says that as a result, the firm and its four traders earned $171,504 and effectively got rid of their market risk.

FINRA also accuses the investment firm of neglecting to properly supervise its traders, as well as neglecting to establish proper supervisory procedures or to enforce such a system. The SRO also accuses First New York Securities of failing to maintain the proper books and records connected to the transactions that are being addressed.

Continue reading "First New York Securities LLC and Four Ex-Traders to Pay $435,000 in FINRA Sanctions Over Short Selling" »

Merrill Lynch will pay $7 million to settle Securities and Exchange Commission administrative charges that the investment bank neglected to protect customers whose orders were transmitted over “squawk boxes.” The penalty is the second highest fine that the SEC has imposed for cases involving Section 15(f) of the 1934 Securities Exchange Act and Section 204A of the 1940 Investment Advisers Act violations. These statutes mandate that investment advisers and broker dealers implement procedures and policies that would keep employees from misusing nonpublic, material data.

The SEC says that from 2002 to 2004, a number of Merrill Lynch brokers at three branch offices let day traders, who did not work for the company, hear customers’ unexecuted orders as they were being broadcast over the internal intercom systems. The traders used the information to trade before Merrill’s institutional clients' orders were placed.

The SEC says Merrill did not have the procedures or polices to prevent employees from accessing the squawk boxes or to supervise them to make sure that they did not misuse customer order data. In addition to paying the penalty, Merrill Lynch says it will implement a number of measures to ensure that customer order data is protected any time it is sent over squawk boxes or other technologies used for their transmission.

U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of New York had filed criminal charges related to the squawk box front-running activities against a number of Merrill employees, A.B. Watley Group Inc., and several individuals. While seven defendants were acquitted of nearly all the charges, they must go back to trial for a single count of conspiracy to commit securities fraud. Former Merrill stockbroker Timothy O'Connell was found guilty of witness tampering and issuing false statements.

Related Web Resources:
SEC Charges Merrill Lynch For Failure to Protect Customer Order Information on "Squawk Boxes", SEC, March 11, 2009

SEC Administrative Proceedings Against Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner, & Smith Inc., (PDF)

Continue reading "Merrill Settles SEC Charges Over ‘Squawk Box’ Misuse for $7 Million" »

The Texas State Securities Board has fined Wachovia Securities $4 million for misleading investors about auction-rate securities. The Wells Fargo & Co unit must also have completed buying back ARS from investor clients in Texas by June 30.

This is the final step in the auction-rate securities case against Wachovia in which a tentative settlement agreement was reached last year when Wachovia Securities agreed to pay back over $8.5 billion in ARS from investors throughout the US.

It is also part of Texas’s efforts to deal with problems related to securities. The nearly $4 million is Texas’s share of the $50 million penalty Wachovia said it would pay. Last December, the Texas State Securities Board issued a final order mandating that Citigroup pay the state $3.6 million for making misrepresentations to investors about the auction-rate securities.

According to the Texas order, Wachovia Securities created misconception when it told investors that ARS were like cash and could be retrieved at nearly any time. The order accused Wachovia and its registered securities agents of knowing that the ARS market was in trouble yet neglecting to provide investors with this information. Wachovia Securities is one of the registered securities dealers in Texas.

UBS Financial Services, Merrill Lynch, and Citigroup are among the large investment firms that reached similar billion-dollar settlements with state regulators and the Securities and Exchange Commission. The collapse of the auction-rate securities market in February 2008 left many investors with frozen ARS that they thought were going to remain liquid and safe.

Wachovia Securities Ordered To Pay Texas $4 Million In ARS Probe, CNNMoney.com, March 17, 2009

Texas State Securities Board

Continue reading "Wachovia Securities Must Pay Texas $4 Million for Auction-Rate Securities" »

According to a TD Ameritrade Institutional survey, most investment advisers continue to tell their clients that now is a great time to invest in the financial market rather than encouraging them to cash out their investments in the wake of the financial crisis:

• 93% of investment advisers are not telling clients to cash out investments.

• Over 50% of these registered advisers believe now is the time to invest in equities.

• 43% of them are telling clients to increase their fixed income allocations.

• 53% are having clients increase cash allocations.

• 41% have dramatically increased their communications with clients so they can offer them reassurance.s

506 registered investment advisers participated in the survey. TD Ameritrade Institutional managing director of advisor advocacy and industry affairs Brian Stimpfl says that the results demonstrate how most advisors are staying committed to sticking with their clients’ investment strategies despite volatility in the financial market.

Shepherd Smith Edwards and Kantas LLP Founder and Stockbroker Fraud Lawyer William Shepherd, however, had this to say: "When markets fell 20% or so by early September, brokers and financial advisors should have been listening to their clients carefully to learn the true nature of their risk-tolerances. When any investor expresses strong feelings about losses in an account the investment advisor must act to revise the client’s objectives. Several of our clients told their advisors they were losing sleep over their investments. Yet, instead of revising the clients’ investment objectives – and their investments – as required, the advisors adamantly told their clients not to sell. Now that these investors’ nightmares have come true, the advisors want to hide behind objectives marked on the old forms without taking responsibility for their reckless inaction.”

Related Web Resource:
FA Magazine
TD Ameritrade Institutional

Continue reading "Despite Financial Market Volatility, Most Investment Advisors Are Telling Clients To Stick With Their Investment Plans" »

In Europe, the Luxembourg Commission de Surveillance du Secteur Financier (CSSF) has censured UBS’s Luxembourg-based branch for failing to execute due diligence and, as a result, allegedly allowing for the massive losses investors have incurred from the Bernard Madoff's $50 billion Ponzi scam. The Luxembourg financial service regulator is accusing Switzerland’s biggest bank of a “serious failure” in the way it managed a feeder fund that funneled assets to Madoff-related investments. Luxembourg’s CSSF is giving UBS three months to remedy the problems.

UBS, however, is disputing the CSSF’s claim that it violated its contractual obligation to clients. The investment bank says the Luxalpha fund was set up at the request of wealthy clients that wanted a tailor-made fund that would let them invest their assets with Bernard Madoff. UBS says these clients knew that it was not responsible for their assets' security.

Following news of the Madoff scheme and revelations that some French investors had allegedly lost billions of dollars because their investments were channeled to Madoff through Luxembourg-based mutual funds, the European Commission announced it would start investigating the way EU member states use the EU mutual fund regulatory regime (UCITS, which refers to Undertakings for Collective Investment in Transferable Securities).The EU also said that approval of a new regulatory regime will more than likely be delayed so more changes can be considered to ensure that investors are protected in the future from losses such as the ones that occurred with Madoff.

The French government accused UBS of lax supervision of mutual funds. French officials have also accused Luxembourg of being lax when it comes to EU mutual fund regulations. They've called on the EU to come up with stricter rules. Luxembourg, which has one of the EU’s mutual fund financial service sectors, disagrees with France’s accusations.

Madoff's scheme has resulted in massive losses for individual investors, institutions, world financial markets, politicians, charities, and many others.

Luxembourg regulator censures UBS over Bernard Madoff, Times Online, February 26, 2009

French investors to take legal action against banks over Madoff feeder funds, Times Online, January 14, 2009

Related Web Resources:
Feds say Bernard Madoff's $50 billion Ponzi scheme was worst ever, Daily News, December 13, 2008

Luxembourg's Commission de Surveillance du Secteur Financier

Continue reading "UBS Sanctioned For Madoff-Related Losses by Luxembourg Financial Services Regulator" »

The Boilermaker-Blacksmith National Pension Trust is suing a number of investment banks, credit rating agencies, and underwriters, including Wells Fargo, WFASC, Morgan Stanley & Co., Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC, Barclays Capital Inc., Bear Stearns & Co., Countrywide Securities Corp., Deutsche Bank Securities Inc., JPMorgan Chase Inc., Bank of America Corp., Citigroup Global Markets Inc., McGraw-Hill Cos., Moody's Investor Services Inc., and Fitch Ratings Inc., over allegations that they made false statements in the prospectus and registration statement for certificates that were collateralized by Wells Fargo Bank, NA. The lawsuit, filed on behalf of thousands of investors that bought the certificates from Wells Fargo Asset Securities Corp., accuses the defendants of violating the 1933 Securities Act by engaging in these alleged actions.

According to the securities fraud lawsuit, the defendants concealed from investors that Wells Fargo revised its underwriting practices in 2005 and became involved in high risk subprime mortgage lending. The complaint contends that WFASC and a number of defendants submitted to the Securities and Exchange Commision prospectus and registration statements representing that the mortgages were backed by certificates that were subject to specific underwriting guidelines for evaluating a borrower's creditworthiness. The plaintiffs contend that these prospectuses and registration statements were false because they neglected to reveal that the Wells Fargo-originated certificates were not in accordance with the credit, underwriting, and appraisal standards that Wells Fargo, per the companies, had supposedly used to approve mortgages.

The lawsuit also claims that because Wells Fargo decided to enter the subprime mortgage mortgage market in 2005, the investment bank had to take significant write-downs in 2008 because of its massive exposure to the subprime market and the WFASC certificates that these mortgages backed dropped significantly in value. The Boiler-Blaksmith fund reports that it lost about $5 million, which is more than half of what it invested.

Related Web Resources:
Read the Complaint

The Boilermakers National Funds

Continue reading "Wells Fargo, Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan Chase, Citigroup, UBS Securities, Bank of America, Moody’s Investment Services, and Fitch Ratings are Among Defendants Sued On Behalf of Wells Fargo Certificate Investors for Alleged Securities Fraud Violations" »

The Securities and Exchange Commission is accusing money managers Stephen Walsh and Paul Greenwood, along with their affiliated entities Westridge Capital Management, WG TRADING Company, LP, and WG Investors, LP, of orchestrating an investment fraud scam that has resulted in the misappropriation of some $554 million in investor assets.

According to the SEC, Greenwood and Walsh told investors that their money was going to be placed in a stock index arbitrage strategy, but instead, they used the funds to buy luxury cars, multi-million dollar residences, a horse farm and horses, rare collectibles, as well as pay for other personal expenses. The SEC has obtained an asset freeze against the two money managers and their affiliated entities.

The SEC’s complaint accuses Walsh and Greenwood, through their three affiliated entities, of violating the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the Securities Act of 1933, and the Investment Advisers Act of 1940. The SEC is seeking a permanent enjoinment of the defendants from committing future violations of the federal securities laws and wants them to pay penalties, disgorgement of ill-gotten gains, and prejudgment interest.

Meantime, the US Commodity Futures Trading Commission filed charges against Walsh, Greenwood, and their affiliated entities, while the US Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York filed criminal charges against the two money managers, who have both been arrested.

Because a number of prominent consulting firms recommended the money managers and their affiliated entities to pension and endowment groups, these investors now stand to loose millions. Wilshire Associates, Mercer, and Cambridge Associates are three of the consulting firms that made such recommendations.

For example, the Sacramento County Employees' Retirement System made its multi-million dollar investment after Mercer highly recommended WG Trading and Westridge. Kern County Employees' Retirement Association in California and the Iowa Public Employees' Retirement System invested their money after Wilshire recommended Westridge.

Consulting firms play a huge role in the investment business. One reason is that they give advice to hundreds of institutional investors on where to place their money. The money managers they recommend can end up making millions of dollars, while the clients pay consulting firms either a small percentage of the assets invested or a flat fee for a contract lasting a number of years.

Related Web Resources:
Consultants Touted Firm Accused in Fraud, The Wall Street Journal, February 27, 2009

SEC Charges Two New York Residents For Misappropriating More Than $500 Million in Investment Scheme, SEC, February 25, 2009

Read the SEC Complaint (PDF)

Continue reading "SEC Freezes Assets of Westridge Capital Management, WG Investors, LP, WG Trading Company, LP, and Money Managers Stephen Walsh and Paul Greenwood Over Alleged Misappropriation of Up to $554 Million in Investor Funds" »

Many lawyers and investors complain about securities arbitration. According to Shepherd Smith Edwards and Kantas, LLP Founder and Stockbroker Fraud Attorney William Shephard, however, the following Morgan Stanley case is “one of many cases filed in court which would have likely not been dismissed in securities arbitration.”

Earlier this month, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York tossed out a securities class action lawsuit filed against Morgan Stanley, Morgan Stanley DW Inc. (MSDWI), Morgan Stanley & Co. Inc. (MS&Co.), the Technology Fund, the Information Fund, Morgan Stanley Investment Management Inc., Morgan Stanley Investment Advisors Inc. (MSIA), and Morgan Stanley Distributors Inc. The class action case is on behalf of investors in the Morgan Stanley Information Fund and Morgan Stanley Technology Fund over alleged improprieties in initial public offering shares allocations, as well as alleged conflicts of interest between Morgan Stanley’s research and investment banking departments.

According to the court, the investors claim they lost millions of dollars in the purchase of the funds as a result of violations of the 1933 Securities Act. The plaintiffs are also claiming that Morgan Stanley, MSDWI, and MS&Co. publicly said that they kept a “Chinese Wall” between their research and investment banking departments so there wouldn’t be any conflicts of interest when, in fact, this wall had fallen and MS & Co. was acting to benefit its investment banking departments. They also claim they were told that analyst recommendations and research were not influenced by the interests of Morgan Stanley or its affiliates.

Among the conflicts of interest, the investors are alleging that the defendants engaged in at least one of the a number of roles involving companies that with shares included among the funds’ portfolio securities for the class periods, including:

• As underwriters for certain securities.
• As investment bankers for certain companies with securities in the funds’ portfolios.
• Preparing and sending out research reports and recommendations about companies that had shares in the funds’ portfolios.
• Trying to get first-time or more underwriting and additional business from the companies that had shares in the portfolios.

The plaintiffs contend that MS & Co. factored in how much investment bank business research analysts were able to secure when determining their total compensation. This resulted in MS & Co.'s promotion of Morgan Stanley shares or those of potential clients, which then would lead to the price inflation of the companies’ shares. They also claimed that the portfolio funds had a substantial amount of Morgan-Stanley sponsored-stocks and that Morgan Stanley took part in “laddering,” which involved rewarding customers with “hot” IPO shares when they went after research tie-ins that artificially inflated an IPO stock’s aftermarket share price.

The court, however, dismissed the lawsuit saying that the plaintiffs failed to plead material omissions that Morgan Stanley should have disclosed.

Related Web Resources:
Morgan Stanley Suits Over Conflicts Tossed, Law360.com, February 4, 2009

Morgan Stanley

Continue reading "Morgan Stanley Court Case Demonstrates Why Securities Arbitration is Often a Better Forum" »

Earlier this month, the chief executives of the eight biggest banks in the United States, including Citigroup, Bank of America, Wells Fargo, and Goldman Sachs addressed the House Financial Services Committee in an attempt to persuade US lawmakers that billions of dollars in bailout funds were used as intended—to increase consumer and business lending and improve balance sheets. The banking heads also admitted to certain mistakes and promised that compensation in the future would be commensurate with performance.

Under the Capital Purchase Program, the federal government gave the banks $125 billion in cash infusions in November. Bank of America and Citigroup also received $20 billion each in Treasury investments.

At the session, some of the bank executives gave testimony regarding activities performed since they received the government’s financial assistance. For example, Kenneth Lewis, Bank of America’s chief executive, says that during 2008’s fourth quarter, the bank committed to $115 billion in new loans.

Vikram Pandit, Citigroup’s chief executive, said his bank had provided $75 billion in new loans for the fourth quarter. He also said that Citigroup had used $36.5 billion to expand personal loans, mortgages, and credit lines for businesses, families, and individuals, as well as to create secondary market liquidity. He said Citigroup had cancelled an order for a $50 million jet.

While the executives were contrite, Committee Chairman Barney Frank criticized them for giving executives bonuses, in addition to salaries. Lawmakers also asked the banks’ executives to stop home foreclosures until the Obama Administration can executive a $50 billion plan on mortgage modifications and other assistance for borrowers that are experiencing problems.

John Stumpf, Wells Fargo's chief executive, said that his bank could hold off on foreclosing on loans in which it is the investor or owner. Pandit said Citigroup could support a moratorium for borrowers that live on properties facing foreclosure. Lewis said Bank of America could place a moratorium on home foreclosure for two or three weeks.

Related Web Resources:
Foreclosures halt by Bank of America, Citigroup, JPMorgan, Wells Fargo, UB-News.com, February 14, 2009

Fed Urges Banks to Put Bailout Funds Into Loans, Not Dividends, Bloomberg.com, February 24, 2009

Continue reading "Bank of America, Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, and Wells Fargo Chief Executives Among Those Defending Bailout Fund Use" »

A Financial Industry Regulatory Authority Panel says Credit Suisse Securities must pay STMicroelectronics $406 million. The award, issued in favor of the semiconductor manufacturer, is over Credit Suisse Securities's sale of unauthorized auction rate securities. Consequential damages and legal fees are also part of the FINRA award. STMicroelectronics also gets to keep some $25 million in interest award.

STMicroelectronics N.V. had filed for arbitration because Credit Suisse had made unauthorized purchases of credit link notes and collateralized debt obligations when it should have bought student loan securities that were Federally guaranteed, which was what the semiconductor company had mandated and authorized. STMicroelectronics N.V. says Credit Suisse Group engaged in fraud because of its actions.

Also, in STMicroelectronics's securities fraud lawsuit against Credit Suisse Group, which was filed last year, the semiconductor company alleged that Credit Suisse purposely set out to defraud the company. It also claims that transferring clients’ accounts into auction-rate securities was part of a plan to receive higher fees for the service it was providing.

FINRA Arbitration
FINRA provides a dispute resolution forum for business disputes between investors, individual registered representatives, and securities firms. Recent FINRA dispute resolution statistics through January 2009:

• 525 cases filed through January 2009
• 267 cases were closed

FINRA Dispute Resolution has the biggest securities dispute resolution forum in the world. FINRA oversees nearly all such mediations and arbitrations in the United States.

STMicroelectronics Sues Credit Suisse Over Securities, The New York Times, August 7, 2008

FINRA Awards STMicroelectronics $406 Million Against Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC, PRNewswire.com, February 16, 2009

Related Web Resources:
STMicroeiectronics N.V. (Claimant) vs. Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC
(Respondent), Case Number: 08-00512, FINRA

Credit Suisse

Continue reading "Credit Suisse Securities Ordered by FINRA Panel to Pay $406 Million for Improper ARS Sale to Semiconductor Manufacturer STMicroelectronics NV" »

Two Wachovia units have agreed to fines totaling over $4.5 million for violations related to the sales of unit investment trusts and mutual funds. The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority announced the fines last week. By agreeing to settle, Wachovia, which is now owned by Wells Fargo Bank, is not admitting to or denying wrongdoing.

Wachovia Securities is being fined $4.4 million for failing to give investors sales-charge discounts for eligible unit-investment-trust-transactions, for not making sure investors were given the benefit of net-asset-value transfer programs whenever they were applicable in mutual fund purchases, and for unsuitability violations involving Class B and Class C mutual fund shares.

FINRA also says Wachovia Securities neglected to provide breakpoint and rollover discounts connected to over 20,000 unit-investment-trust purchases. As a result, customers ended up paying excess sales charges worth about $2.7 million.

When a customer pays a sales charge, NAV transfer programs let clients redeem fund shares and use these proceeds to purchase shares in a different mutual fund without having to pay another sales charge. FINRA cites Wachovia’s failure to ensure that investors availed of these kinds of programs as the reason customers ended up paying front-end charges they shouldn’t have or purchasing share classes that were accompanied by higher fees. Also, Wachovia Securities Financial Network must pay a $150,000 fine for the improper sale of Class B shares. Both firms were cited for inadequate supervisory procedures connected to the transactions.

According to FINRA enforcement chief Susan Merrill, failing to recommend an appropriate share class or present existing discounts creates additional costs to investors. She cautioned that regulated firms should take into account all applicable factors when making recommendations to clients.

Wachovia says that its units have returned over $5.4 million to customers affected by the violations.

Related Web Resources:
FINRA Fines 2 Wachovia Units Over $4.5 Million For Sales Violations

Financial Industry Regulatory Authority

Wachovia Securities

Wachovia Securities Financial Network

Continue reading "Wachovia Fined More than $4.5 Million by FINRA for Sales Violations Involving Mutual Funds and Trusts" »

The Securities and Exchange Commission is charging Robert Allen Stanford and three of his companies for their alleged involvement in a multibillion dollar investment fraud scheme. His companies that are named in the complaint include Stanford International Bank (SIB), Stanford Group Company (SGC), which is a Houston-based investment adviser and broker dealer, and Stanford Capital Management, which is based in Antigua. The SEC is asking for emergency relief for the investors that have been victimized by the alleged scheme.

The SEC complaint, filed in Dallas, Texas accuses Stanford and friends and family that he works with of orchestrating the investor scam. The SEC claims that SIB used SGC financial advisers to sell some $8 billion worth of “certificates of deposit” to investors with the promise they would receive high interest rates that were, in fact, unsubstantiated and improbable. The SEC says the defendants misrepresented these CD’s when they told investors that they were safe.

The SEC complaint also contends that another scam involving $1.2 billion in sales of Stanford Allocation Strategy (SAS), which is a proprietary mutual fund wrap program, involved the use of materially bogus historical performance information that helped SGC to grow the SAS program from under $10 million in 2004 to over $1 billion. In 2007 and 2008 , SGC earned fees of about $25 million as a result. The program’s bogus performance was used to bring in registered investment advisers with substantial books of business. These advisers were then provided with substantial incentives to transfer client assets to SIB’s CD program.

Following the SEC's request for relief, a US district court judge frozen the assets of the defendants, issued a temporary restraining order, and named a receiver to take charge of the assets.

Robert Allen Stanford is from Texas. His businesses have attracted a wide range of investors, including young businessmen, middle-class Americans, and retirees wanting to place their money in short-term CD’s in exchange for higher returns.

In Houston, Stanford investors are reacting to news of the alleged investment scam and hundreds of them have been reaching out to Stanford investment advisers to find out how to get their money back. “Many people automatically thought Stanford CD’s were insured,” says Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP Founder and Stockbroker Fraud Attorney William Shepherd. Now, however, there are reports this may not have been the case. The Texas securities fraud lawyer and his partners are being contacted by many Stanford investors who are worried about their money.

Shepherd Smith Edwards and Kantas, LLP is one of the largest securities fraud law firms in the United States that represents investors who wish to recover their investment losses. Over the last two decades, we have handled over a thousand cases against financial firms for our investors. We are currently at “ground zero” with this case.

SSEK Investment Fraud Attorney Shepherd says, "Class action cases seeking losses in investments have historically resulted in recovery of less than 10% of what the investor's lost." Our securities fraud law firm will handle each Stanford investor’s claim individually.

Related Web Resources:
SEC Charges R. Allen Stanford, Stanford International Bank for Multi-Billion Dollar Investment Scheme, SEC.gov, February 17, 2009

Read the SEC Complaint (PDF)

Stanford International Bank

Stanford Group Company

Stanford Capital Management

Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc has reached a $1 million settlement agreement with the Securities and Exchange Commission over charges that the broker-dealer misled its pension consulting clients by neglecting to disclose conflicts of interest. By agreeing to settle, Merrill Lynch is not denying or admitting wrongdoing. The investment firm will, however, cease and desist from committing future violations.

According to the SEC, Merrill Lynch recommended that clients pay hard dollar fees using directed brokerage. The firm's investment advisers, however, failed to mention that choosing this option—which would direct trades to be executed through Merrill—could allow the company and its investment adviser representatives to receive substantially higher revenues. The SEC also accused Merrill Lynch of neglecting to reveal a similar conflict of interest when it recommended to clients that they utilize the firm’s transition management desk and of making misleading statements about the firm’s process for identifying new money managers.

SEC charges against Merrill Lynch include anti-fraud provision violations, failure to maintain specific records, and failure to supervise its investment advisers in the Ponte Vedra South office in Florida.

Also cited by the SEC for misleading pension consulting clients about the way Merrill identified new money managers is Jeffrey Swanson. The former Merrill adviser agreed to case and desist from violating the 1940 Investment Advisers Act in the future. By agreeing to the censure, however, Swanson is not admitting to or denying wrongdoing.

The SEC also censured former Merrill Lynch adviser Michael Callaway for breach of fiduciary duty when he made misrepresentations about the manager identification process and his compensation related to transition management services. The SEC says Callaway should have made sure that any conflicts of interest should have been revealed to clients. Both Callaway and Swanson were from the Florida office.

The SEC says that the outcome of this case should remind investment adviser representatives that they must disclose all conflicts of interest when offering advice to clients.

Related Web Resources:
SEC Charges Merrill Lynch With Misleading Pension Consulting Clients, SEC, January 30, 2009

Read the SEC Administrative Proceeding Against Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., January 30, 2009 (PDF)

Continue reading "Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc To Settle SEC Charges of Pension Consulting Business-Related Violations for $1 Million " »

Wachovia Securities, LLC and the Securities and Exchange Commission have reached a finalized settlement to resolve charges that the company mislead investors when selling billions of dollars worth of auction-rate securities. Under the terms of the agreement, Wachovia would purchase ARS from non-profit organizations, individuals, and clients with accounts worth up to $10 million. This phase ended on November 28, 2008 and Wachovia has bought back over $6.2 billion in ARS from clients as of that date.

During a second buyback phase running from June 10 – 30, 2009, Wachovia will repurchase ARS it sold to its other clients. Fulfillment of the terms of the settlement will give thousands of investors over $7 billion in liquidity.

The terms of Wachovia’s agreement with the SEC are similar to the ones it reached with the North American Securities Administrators Association and New York Attorney General Andrew M Cuomo’s office, which mandated that Wachovia pay a $50 million fine and buy back the ARS it sold to investors. Following completion of this latest settlement's terms, the SEC will determine whether Wachovia needs to pay a fine. By agreeing to settle, Wachovia is not admitting to or denying wrongdoing.

The SEC, the North American Securities Administrators Association, and Cuomo have alleged that sales representatives purposely misled investors about ARS liquidity in 2008 (even though they knew as early as late 2007 that the ARS market was beginning to collapse) when they claimed the securities were equivalent in liquid to cash. The market fell on February 14, 2008 when Wachovia and other broker-dealers stopped supporting the auctions, causing segments of the ARS market to freeze and leaving thousands of clients without any means of recovering their funds.

Just recently, Cuomo’s office concluded its probe into Wachovia’s ARS activities and issued an Assurance of Discontinuance.

Related Web Resources:
SEC Finalizes ARS Settlement to Provide $7 Billion in Liquidity to Wachovia Investors, SEC.gov

Read the SEC Complaint

NY State Attorney General Andrew Cuomo's Office

Continue reading "Wachovia and SEC’s Finalized Auction-Rate Securities Settlement Will Provide Over $7 Billion in Liquidity to Investors" »

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

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

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

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

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

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

The putative Class is seeking billions of dollars in damages.

Related Web Resources:
The New Orleans Employees' Retirement System, Through Its Counsel Labaton Sucharow LLP, Files Class Action Lawsuit Against UBS AG in Connection With Tax Haven Scheme -- UBS, Trading Markets, January 30, 2009

UBS AG

New Orleans Employees' Retirement System v. UBS AG, Justia Docket

Continue reading "UBS Sued by New Orleans Employees’ Retirement System for Alleged Tax Scam that Helped the Rich While Causing Investor Losses " »

In the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, Judge Shira Scheindlin said that TGS- GS-NOPEC Geophysical Co failed to convince the court that the institutional investor would suffer irreparable harm if Merrill Lynch Pierce Fenner & Smith Inc. continues redeeming clients’ ARS under the investment firm’s current procedures. The judge refused to stop the redemptions and said that the geographical exploration company has admitted that any harm caused by an improper redemption procedure can later be remedied.

Following the collapse of the auction-rate securities market, Merrill Lynch devised a redemption plan to help restore some liquidity to investors, whose ARS were now frozen. The scheme allows the investment bank to redeem partial liquidity to its clients. Anytime an issuer declared a partial redemption, Merrill would note a $25,000 share from each client account before giving out the remaining shares through a proportionate lottery.

Since October 2008, GS-NOPEC Geophysical Co held some $64.5 million in ARS accounts with Merrill. The company claims that Merrill's redemption scheme is not in its favor.

TGS began FINRA arbitration proceedings against Merrill in November. The company wants to repurchase its ARS with interest, recession purchases, or the actual damages of its holdings’ par value. TGS later filed for injunction pending arbitration and asked the court to mandate that Merrill Lynch allocate prior and future partial redemptions solely in proportion to holdings.

The court refused. The judge said that any harm that TGS incurs can be remedied financially, which is what the company is seeking via arbitration.

TGS-NOPEC Geophysical Company v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., Federal District Court Filings and Dockets, Justia

Related Web Resources:
TGS-NOPEC Geophysic

Merrill Lynch Pierce Fenner & Smith Inc.

Continue reading "Merrill Lynch Pierce Fenner & Smith Does Not Have to Halt Redemption of ARS Clients, Says Court" »

In Texas, a Houston judge has ruled that a would-be class securities lawsuit filed against JP Morgan Securities, Inc., Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner and Smith and a number of other defendants can move forward. The plaintiffs were investors in Superior Offshore International Inc., a company that collapsed following a failed initial public offering. The four other defendants are former Superior company executives.

In the US District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Judge Nancy Atlas found that the plaintiffs met their burden when pleading material misrepresentations and omissions in Superior's registration statement. She denied the defendants’ request to dismiss the complaint.

Superior Offshore International Inc. had provided commercial diving services and subsea construction to the natural gas and crude oil industry in the Gulf of Mexico. The company began IPO proceedings of about 10.2 million commercial shares at $15/share in April 2007. Merrill Lynch and JP Morgan acted as the primary underwriters. It was after this that Superior experienced major losses and its price dropped until it reached $1.08/share in April 2008. Soon after, Superior announced that it was shutting down operations.

In their consolidated class action, the plaintiffs claimed that while the registration statement revealed that the Superior board chairperson’s two sons were receiving salaries of $48,000 and $120,000, it failed to note that the two men weren't doing any significant tasks for their respective incomes. The plaintiffs also questioned Superior’s claims that there was a high demand for its services and that certain hurricane-related projects were expected to continue for a number of years when, in fact, that work had declined significantly. They challenged Superior’s claim that it had multiple customers and maintained that the company had provided materially misleading data about its management team.

The defendants had tried dismissing the complaint by citing a failure to state a claim. They said they could not be held liable for events that transpired after the IPO. While the Texas court said it recognized that Superior’s registration statement included warnings about possible risks that could arise, it determined that the plaintiffs were not questioning the accuracy of the potential risks that were noted. Rather, the court said they were challenging the completeness and accuracy of the information Superior had provided about its current state at the time of the IPO.

Related Web Resources:

Superior Offshore International, Inc., Securities Class Action Clearing House, Stanford Law School

Superior Offshore International Confirms Plan of Liquidation, Stockhouse.com, January 30, 2009

Continue reading "Merrill Lynch, J.P. Morgan and Others fail to Obtain Dismissal of IPO Case by Houston Judge" »

Last month, Merrill Lynch & Co. reached a $550 million settlement with investors and employees over losses related to investments in subprime mortgage-backed assets. A court must approve the proposed settlements.

In the securities class action case, the plaintiffs have accused Merrill Lynch of using statements on collateralized debt obligations and other assets to inflate the market price of its own shares. As a result, the plaintiffs contend, investors lost money.

The Ohio State Teachers Retirement System is the lead plaintiff in the class action lawsuit, which represents investors who bought preferred shares between October 17, 2007 and December 31, 2008. The agreed upon settlement is $475 million in cash.

Plaintiffs of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act class action have agreed to settle for $75 million in cash. Participants in the ERISA lawsuit are Merrill Lynch employees with Merrill Lynch stock in specific retirement plans. The plaintiffs have accused Merrill of failing to adequately reveal subprime-related losses that impacted its retirement accumulation plan, its savings and investment plan, and its employee stock ownership plan.

By agreeing to settle, Merrill Lynch says it is not admitting to any wrongdoing.

Fallout from the Subprime Mortgage Crisis
The subprime mortgage crisis has resulted in millions of dollars in losses for investors. If you believe that you were a victim of investor fraud or broker dealer misrepresentation and that these inappropriate actions caused you to sustain investor losses, you may be entitled to the recovery of those losses.

Related Web Resources:
Merrill Lynch settles subprime lawsuit, Business Insurance, January 20, 2009

Merrill settles employee class action for $75M, Investment News, January 19, 2009

Ohio announces $475M Merrill Lynch settlement, Forbes.com, January 16, 2009

Continue reading "Merrill Lynch Ends Investor and Employee Class Action Lawsuits with $550 Million Settlement" »

Carolinas Healthcare System (CHS) is suing Wachovia Corp for alleged bad investments that resulted in losses valued at over $19 million. CHS is also accusing the bank of “directly misleading” it, misrepresenting the risks associated with the investments, and failing to follow the hospital system's orders that it be withdrawn from the securities-lending program. Wachovia spokesperson Mary Eshet says that the company disagrees about the allegations, was always in compliance, and only made appropriate investments for CHS.

In 2003, according to the investment fraud lawsuit, Wachovia recommended that CHS take part in a securities-lending program. As a participant, a third party would borrow securities from CHS's portfolio in return for collateral that would be invested by Wachovia until the securities were returned. This would also hopefully result in additional returns.

Per the agreement, Wachovia was only supposed to invest in safe, liquid, quality securities. Any time CHS opted to withdraw from the program, the hospital system was supposed to get all of its investments back within five business days. Also, Wachovia would be allowed to keep 40% of the profits on one account and 35% on the other account.

Last summer, CHS determined that the securities-lending program was proving too risky, especially with the markets collapsing. In September, CHS notified Wachovia to return all borrowed securities right away.

Wachovia couldn’t return all of the securities immediately. Wachovia had invested for CHS $14.9 million in Sigma Finance Corp-issued floating rate notes (now worth $750,000) and $5 million in Pricoa Global Funding floating-rate notes (now worth $4.95 million).

The lawsuit contends that Wachovia never notified Carolinas HealthCare System that the investments were not appropriate until CHS decided to end its participation in the securities-leading program. 5 days after Sigma went into receivership last October, Wachovia told the hospital system for the first time that its investment was, at that time, worth just $1.8 million. CHS says there is now no market for the Pricoa-related securities.

CHS contends that Wachovia gained 40% of the profits but did not suffer any of the losses. The hospital system is solely responsible for returning the lost collateral to its borrowers.

CHS sues Wachovia over investment advice, Charlotte Observer, January 15, 2009

CHS files suit vs. Wachovia over losses on investments, Charlotte Business Journal, January 9, 2009

Related Web Resources:
Carolinas HealthCare System

Wachovia Corp

Continue reading "Wachovia Corp Sued by Carolinas Health Care System for More than $19 Million in “Bad” Investments" »

UBS Financial Services, Inc., UBS Securities, LLC, and Citigroup have reached finalized settlements with the Securities and Exchange Commission to pay tens of thousands of ARS investors almost $30 billion. The settlements will resolve SEC charges that the companies misled investors about the risks involved with auction rate securities.

The SEC’s complaint accused UBS and Citigroup of misleading customers by telling them ARS were liquid, safe investments and failing to warn them of the growing dangers when the market started to fail. When the ARS market froze in February, the SEC says both firms left tens of thousands of clients holding billions of dollars in illiquid ARS.

These finalized settlements will restore about $22.7 billion in liquidity to UBS clients who invested in ARS and some $7 billion to Citigroup investors. SEC Chairman Christopher Cox says investors will get back “100 cents on the dollar on their ARS investments.” Both firms will buy ARS from affected customers at PAR. Customers that sold their ARS under the par difference will be paid between par and the ARS sale price. This is the largest settlement in SEC history.

UBS and Citigroup are not admitting to or denying the SEC’s allegations by agreeing to settle. Both investment firms, however, have agreed to enjoinment from future violations.

The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York still needs to approve the settlements, and additional SEC penalties could still arise for UBS and Citi. The SEC is also waiting to finalize the settlements-in-principle it reached with Merrill Lynch, Bank of America, Wachovia, and RBC Capital Markets.

Related Web Resources:
SEC Finalizes ARS Settlements With Citigroup And UBS, Providing Nearly $30 Billion in Liquidity to Investors, SEC, December 11, 2008

SEC Complaint Against UBS (PDF)

SEC Complaint Against Citigroup (PDF)

Continue reading "UBS and Citigroup to Pay Nearly $30 Billion to Tens of Thousands of ARS Investors" »

The California Court of Appeal has remanded a lawsuit filed by an elderly woman accusing Wells Fargo of defrauding her and her husband. The case now goes back to the Los Angeles Superior Court, where a judge must determine whether Wells Fargo engaged in fraud when its employees executed its agreement with the couple.

Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Shook had previously concluded that the arbitration clause in the brokerage agreement between Ronnie and Ira Brown and Wells Fargo Bank, NA was unconscionable. However, he had decided that it was up to a jury to decide whether constructive fraud occurred. If Shook now decides that Wells Fargo did engage in the alleged fraud, the arbitration clause and any other portion of the agreement could then be determined unenforceable.

Sometime between 2003 and 2004, Wells Fargo assigned company vice president and trust administrator Lisa Jill Tepper to serve as Ira and Ronnie Brown's “relationship manager.” Ira Brown, who was 93 at the time and suffering from health issues (he has passed away since), founded the Save-On Drug chain. His wife, Ira, was 81.

Tepper, who is now a defendant in this case, visited the Browns regularly to assist with their financial paperwork. She eventually began providing the couple with investment advice. At one point, she recommended that they open a Wells Fargo brokerage account because she believed that their other investments were inappropriate due to their advanced age. Through Tepper, the couple began working with Wells Fargo stockbroker Jack Harold Keleshian, who is now also a defendant in the case.

With Tepper and Keleshian’s help, the couple opened up a number of investment accounts, including a “Brown Family Trust.” An arbitration clause was included among the documents.

In 2006, Ronnie sued Wells Fargo. She claimed that when she was under duress while caring for her ailing husband, the bank pressured her into selling nearly 75,000 stock shares at $24.71. She says Keleshian told her that if she didn’t sell, the stock’s value would drop dramatically.

Instead, the stocks increased in value while Ronnie experienced an increase in capital gains taxes. Ronnie claims her damages were over $1 million (including Wells Fargo’s commission from the stock sale). Wells Fargo wants to resolve the dispute through arbitration.

Related Web Resources:

C.A. Orders Hearing on Claim Bank Defrauded Drug Chain Founder, MetNews.com, November 26, 2008

Brown v. Wells Fargo Bank N.A., Cal. Ct. App., No. B196258 (PDF)

Continue reading "Senior Investor’s Claim Against Wells Fargo is Remanded on Fraud in Execution by California Court of Appeal " »

The Texas Supreme Court says that former NEXT Financial Group Inc. stockbroker Michael Clements’s claim that the brokerage firm fired him for refusing to cover up churning activity must be arbitrated. Clements was hired as a NEXT Financial regional supervisor in September 2006. Nearly a year later, the brokerage firm fired him because he allegedly failed to perform his required broker responsibilities related to an NASD audit.

Clements filed a lawsuit against the company, claiming he was terminated from his job because he refused to conceal the fact that a NEXT trader had violated federal securities laws by churning client accounts. NEXT pushed for arbitration, claiming that Clements had signed a Form U-4 when he was hired, which requires that he resolve any claims with the brokerage firm through arbitration—per the Federal Arbitration Act.

Clements has maintained that because his claim was based on at-will employment and wrongful termination, rather than a contract connected to a commercial transaction, his claim is exempt from the FAA’s arbitration requirement. He also asserted that his claim resulted from NEXT’s alleged illegal behavior, not its business dealings, and that a recent change in NASD code (following the National Association of Securities Dealers’s merger with the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority) indicated an intent to exclude disagreements involving employment matters from arbitration. Clements noted Sabine Pilot Services v. Hauck, (1 687 S.W.2d 733, 1985), a case where the Texas Supreme Court held that an employer had to pay an ex-employee damages because the worker was fired for refusing to perform an illegal act.

The Texas Supreme Court, however, upheld that the FAA was applicable in this case, NEXT could compel arbitration, and the NASD rule 13200 (a) did not exclude employment and termination-related claims. The court’s decision reverses the trial court’s ruling, which denied NEXT’s request, as did the court of appeals.

Related Web Resources:

Orders and Opinions, Texas Supreme Court

Read Next Financial's Petition for Writ of Mandamus (PDF)

Next Financial Group Inc.

Continue reading "Former NEXT Financial Group Stockbroker’s Claim that He Was Fired for Refusing to Conceal Churning is Subject to Arbitration" »