May 9, 2013

Merrill Lynch Settles New Jersey Securities Fraud Lawsuit over State’s Stock Purchase for $45 Million

Bank of America Corp's (BAC) Merrill Lynch & Co. (MER) will pay the state of New Jersey $45 million to settle securities charges that it committed misconduct related to a stock purchase that the latter made in 2008. The investment bank is accused of breaching a contract provision that determined how the state was to exchange Merrill Lynch preferred stock for common stock.

New Jersey’s Division of Investments had purchased $300 million in preferred Merrill Lynch stock (Merrill Series 1 9% Mandatory Convertible Preferred Shares) in 2008. In 2009, the state’s attorney general at that time filed a NJ securities case against the financial firm contending that it had given “better terms” to at least another investor over the conversion of shares and issued misleading information about its financial state. By settling, Merrill Lynch is not denying or admitting to committing any wrongdoing.

If you think you may have been the victim of securities fraud, contact our Shepherd Smith Edwards and Kantas, LTD, LLP right right away. SSEK represents both individuals and institutions with arbitration claims and lawsuits against financial firms, brokers, investment advisers, and others.

Division of Investment, New Jersey

Attorney General Chiesa: Merrill Lynch Will Pay $45 Million to Resolve State Lawsuit Over Pension Fund Investment Losses, NJ.gov, April 19, 2013

Merrill Lynch to pay N.J. $45 million over pension fund losses, New Jersey.com, April 19, 2013


More Blog Posts:
Former Merrill Lynch, Oppenheimer, Deutsche Bank Broker is Ordered by FINRA To Pay Investor $11M Over Alleged Securities Fraud, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, April 19, 2013

2nd Circuit Affirms Dismissal of $18.5M Auction-Rate Securities Lawsuit Against Merrill Lynch Filed by Anschutz Corp., Institutional Investor Securities Blog, August 23, 2012

Posted by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas LTD LLP | | Email This Post

Posted In: Financial Firms , Merrill Lynch

April 19, 2013

Former Merrill Lynch, Oppenheimer, Deutsche Bank Broker is Ordered by FINRA To Pay Investor $11M Over Alleged Securities Fraud

A FINRA arbitration panel is ordering ex-broker Karl Hahn, who previously worked with Bank of America Corp's (BAC) Merrill Lynch (MER), Oppenheimer & Co. (OPY), and Deutsche Bank AG’s (DB) Deutsche Bank Securities, to pay investor Chase Bailey $11 million because he sustained about $6 million in losses allegedly caused by securities fraud. Bailey contends that Hahn made excessive trades and misrepresented securities related to transactions involving a number of investments, including a variable annuity, approximately $2.3 million in fraudulent real estate financing involving East Coast properties, and covered calls.

In the filmmaker/Internet entrepreneur’s securities arbitration claim, Bailey named the three financial firms where Hahn previously worked. It is during this period that Bailey was allegedly defrauded. (He had moved his funds from one brokerage firm to the other each time Hahn was hired by that employer.) Bailey settled his case with Merrill for $700,000, while claims against Deutsche Bank and Oppenheimer were tossed out.

Per the FINRA arbitration ruling, Bailey is awarded $6.4 million in punitive damages and $4.1 million in compensatory damage. Ordering brokers to pay punitive damages is uncommon.

In February, Deutsche Bank & Hahn were ordered to pay $934,000 to Susan and Michael Myers. The couple, who had sued on their behalf and for a number of trusts, had claimed civil fraud, while contending that financial firm had negligently supervised Hahn, who worked in its private wealth management division between 2008 and 2009.

The Myerses had bought high-risk life insurance in which policyholders use loans usually tied to variable interest rates to finance premiums. Hahn, who advised the couple via Deutsche Bank, allegedly failed to tell them that his dad would get a “significant” commission from that life insurance policy. They said that this might have been the reason he recommended that they invest in the policy. (Brokers are not supposed to make investment recommendations that will benefit them or those that they know.) The Myerses claimed substantial losses.

Hahn has been involved in other securities cases. He was charged with wire fraud involving an alleged $1.1 million real estate scam in 2010. He also was involved in a $2.55 million federal court judgment that Deutsche Bank obtained in 2012. That lawsuit involved the unpaid balance of a $2.8 million bonus he got when he joined the financial firm.

Contact Our Securities Fraud Law Firm
If you believe that you too were the victim of securities fraud involving Mr. Hahn or another broker, please contact Shepherd Smith Edwards and Kantas, LTD LLP today to request your free case evaluation. You may have reason to file your own stockbroker fraud claim.

Ex-Merrill, Deutsche Bank Broker Ordered to Pay Client $11 Million, Fox, April 5, 2013

U.S. panel orders Deutsche Bank, ex-adviser to pay $934,000, Reuters, February 14, 2013


More Blog Posts:
Court Upholds Ex-NBA Star Horace Grant $1.46M FINRA Arbitration Award from Morgan Keegan & Co. Over Mortgage-Backed Bond Losses, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, October 30, 2012

UBS Loses Appeal to Have FHFA’s $6.4 Billion MBS Fraud Lawsuit Dismissed, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, April 18, 2013

Posted by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas LTD LLP | | Email This Post

Posted In: Arbitration , Deutsche Bank , FINRA , Financial Firms , Merrill Lynch , Oppenheimer , Securities Fraud

December 22, 2012

Dismissal of Double Derivative Delaware Securities Lawsuits Over The Bank of America-Merrill Lynch Merger is Affirmed by the Second Circuit

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has affirmed the dismissal of Lambrecht v. O'Neal and Sollins v. O'Neal, two double derivative actions that were brought under Delaware law for Bank of America Corp. (BAC) and its subsidiary Merrill Lynch & Co. The cases were brought by Merrill shareholders contending wrongdoing. (Because Bank of America acquired Merrill, following the stock-for-stock swap, these shareholders are now BofA shareholders.)

The actions were an attempt to make Bank of America board of directors mandate that Merrill sue some of the subsidiary’s officials over allegedly reckless investments that were made. Finding that the actions were a result of unprecedented losses experienced by Merrill because it had invested aggressively in mortgage-baked securities (including collateralized debt obligations) before it was acquired by Bank of America, the district law court dismissed both actions for different but related reasons under Delaware law. In Sollins, the court said that the plaintiff’s predecessor-in-interest submitted the action without making presuit demand on the board yet did not demand futility. As for the Lambrecht action, while that lawsuit made three demands on the Bank of America board, it did not demonstrate that the bank had wrongfully denied the request that claims be made against ex-Merrill officials.

The Second Circuit, in its unpublished summary order, said that it sees no error in the rulings made by the district court. The appeals court noted that while Sollins suggested that Bank of America was “complicit” in Merrill’s alleged pre-merger wrongdoing involving the subprime market by letting the latter issue bonuses at 2007 levels, consenting to indemnify Merrill directors over pre-merger wrongdoing, approving the merger without figuring out Merrill’s growing losses, sealing the deal despite serious misgivings about the firm’s financial state, and not doing a good enough job of notifying investors about losses, his arguments are not properly placed. The district court was therefore correct in stating that the plaintiff cannot “boostrap” his claims against Merrill related to the subprime market onto the merger-related allegations against Bank of America to get around the demand request.

The appeals court also noted that an exculpatory provision in Bank of America’s incorporation articles protects its directors. It also turned down Sollins’ demand futility argument related to Merrill giving out approximately $3.4 billion in employee bonuses in 2008.

As for the Lambrecht case, the appeals court said that a board deciding not to act on a demand by a shareholder is examined under the business judgment rule, which sets up a presumption that the directors of a corporation behave in food faith when making decisions. Overcoming this presumption would require that the plaintiff accomplish the task of demonstrating that not bringing the case was a decision done in bad faith or because of an unreasonable probe, which Lambrecht’s case fails to do, said the Second Circuit.

“This case demonstrates some of the difficulties in pursuing claims against corporations, their management and their directors under Delaware law,” said Shepherd Smith Edwards and Kantas, LLP founder and stockbroker fraud lawyer William Shepherd.

Lambrecht v. O'Neal (PDF)

Dismissal of Del. Law. Suits Over Merger of BofA, Merrill Affirmed, New York Law Journal, December 5, 2012


More Blog Posts:
SEC Intends to Examine 25% of Investment Advisers That Had To Register, Per Dodd-Frank Act, by End of 2014, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, December 26, 2012


SEC Clawback Lawsuit Against Two Former Arthrocare Corp. Executives Over Fraud Scheme Can Proceed, Says District Court in Texas, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, November 24, 2012

McGraw Hills, Moody’s, & Standard & Poor’s Can’t Be Held Liable by Ohio Pension Funds for Allegedly Flawed MBS Ratings, Affirms Sixth Circuit, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, December 20, 2012

Posted by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas LTD LLP | | Email This Post

Posted In: Bank of America , Financial Firms , Merrill Lynch

November 22, 2012

Securities Roundup: BP Settles for $525M SEC Lawsuit Over Deepwater Horizon Spill Disclosures, Ex-OIG Official Says He Was Fired for Exposing Misconduct, Ex-Merrill Lynch Advisor Accused of Defrauding Elderly Client, & Trader Pleads Guilty to $28M Fraud

BP Plc. has consented to settle for $525 million Securities and Exchange Commission allegations that it gave the agency and investors misleading information about the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill. If approved, this would be the third biggest penalty in SEC history.

According to the Commission, during the crisis the oil giant issued fraudulent statements about how much oil was flowing on a daily basis from the Deepwater Horizon rig into the Gulf of Mexico, including underestimating this rate by up to 5,000 oil barrels a day even though it allegedly had internal data noting that possible flow rates could be up to 146,000 barrels daily. Even after a government task force later determined that 52,700 to 62,200 oil barrels were flowing out a day, BP allegedly never modified the omissions or misrepresentations it made in SEC filings.

In other SEC news, David Weber, one of its ex-Office of Inspector General officials, is suing the agency and Chairman Mary Schapiro for allegedly getting back at him for disclosing misconduct that had been taking place at the Commission. Weber contends that SEC staff spoke about him to the media in a “malicious and defamatory” manner and leaked his personal information because he not only disclosed that ex-SEC Inspector General H. David Kotz had engaged in misconduct that placed several OIG investigations at peril, but also he revealed that there were cyber security breaches at the agency.

Weber claims that the disclosures he made are the reason he was first put on administrative leave and later fired. The Commission says that he intends to respond to the allegations through its court filing.

Meantime, an ex-Merrill Lynch (MER) financial advisor is facing Massachusetts criminal securities fraud charges for allegedly bilking an elderly client. According to prosecutors, Jane E. O’Brien told the woman to invest in thousands of AC Corp. shares but was actually taking the funds to pay for her mortgage and legal fees related to another disagreement involving another client.

In 2009, O’Brien allegedly persuaded the investor to sign a fake promissory note for $500,000 and payments the latter made for this included those in the amounts of $50,000 and $190,000. If convicted, O’Brien could have to pay back $240,000.

In a different criminal securities fraud case, New Jersey stock trader Mark Allen Lefkowitz is facing up to 25 years behind bars and a $250,000 fine for defrauding a company’s shareholders of over $28 million. Per court documents, Lefkowitz and the California-based company’s CEO manipulated the company share price and volume so that insiders would reap the financial rewards while the shareholders suffered. (The company and the CEO have not at this time been charged with committing a crime related to this case.)

Because of the securities fraud, the company issued over 9 billion shares of stock that it failed to register with the SEC. The shares diluted existing shares’ value, which dropped by up to $7 million. Also, contends the SEC, Lefkowitz obtained free-trading shares valued at over $28 million from the company. Prosecutors claim that Lefkowitz and the CEO exploited a provision in securities laws that lets companies put out these unregistered stock shares in order to settle “bona fide” debts.

On the Company’ s behalf, the CEO would get into “purported” loan agreements with different companies under Lefkowitz's ownership. However, the Company would allegedly intentionally default on the loan agreements and then at least one of Lefkowitz’s companies would file a fake lawsuit against it. The CEO and Lefkowitz would then put together a settlement deal where the Company’s debt would be settled with new, unregistered stock shares worth up to five times (or more) than what was actually owed. The shares were sold to investors who didn’t know that the Company A’s stock was being diluted. Part of the sale proceeds from the new shares would then be kick backed to a Lefkowitz owned-company.

SEC v. BP p.l.c. (PDF)

Weber v. SEC (PDF)

Former Merrill Lynch financial advisor faces securities fraud charge, Boston.com, November 20, 2012

Stock trader guilty of fraud involving San Diego firm, Fox5 San Diego, November 19, 2012


More Blog Posts:
MassMutual Settles for $1.625M SEC Charges Over Failure to Disclose Allegations Related to Complex Investments' "Cap," Stockbroker Fraud Blog, November 20, 2012

California Securities Lawsuit Claiming Negligent Misrepresentation Over Allegedly Flawed Bond Offering Documents May Proceed, Says District Court, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, November 13, 2012

FDIC Sues Pricewaterhouse Coopers & Crowe Horwath for Over $1B Over Alleged Failure to Detect Large Fraud That Led to Colonial Bank’s Collapse, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, November 20, 2012

Posted by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas LTD LLP | | Email This Post

Posted In: Financial Firms , Merrill Lynch , SEC Enforcement , Securities Fraud

October 17, 2012

FINRA Arbitration Panel Tells Merrill Lynch to Pay $1.34M to Florida Couple Over Allegedly Misrepresenting Fannie Mae Preferred Shares' Risks

A Financial Industry Regulatory Authority panel says that Merrill Lynch (MER) has to pay Michele and Robert Billings $1.34 million for allegedly misrepresenting the risks involved in preferred shares of Fannie Mae. The couple, who used to own a pest control business, placed $2.3 million in the shares in 2008 on the recommendation of their broker, Miles Pure.

The Billings claim that Pure told them them that their investment was “safe,” backed by the government, and came with an attractive yield, when, actually, contends the couple, at the time Fannie Mae’s exposure to the residential real estate market that was failing was causing Fannie Mae to lose billions of dollars. Even as the stock’s price went down, they say that Pure discouraged them from selling. They also claim that he didn’t let them know that the financial firm’s own research showed that Fannie Mae was becoming more beleaguered. Not long after, the Billings’ shares lost their value when Fannie Mae went into government conservatorship.

They filed their FINRA arbitration claim contending civil fraud, negligent supervision, and other alleged wrongdoing. The couple, who are now retired, sought $1 million from Merrill Lynch, in addition to other relief. The $1.34 million award includes punitive damages.

While a spokesman for Merrill says that the brokerage firm doesn’t agree with the panel’s ruling, the Billings’ securities attorney expressed approval of the outcome. Meantime, the FINRA panel has denied Pure’s request to have the disclosure about this arbitration taken out of public record. Although he was not involved in this case, per the securities industry, all securities brokers who are license must have their connection to any arbitration claim noted in their public records regardless of whether/not if he/she was party to it. (The panel, however, did remove the arbitration disclosure from the record of a brokerage manager who didn’t deal directly/daily with the Billings.)

Pure is now a Morgan Keegan broker. Morgan Keegan is a Raymond James Financial Inc. (RJF) unit. Merrill Lynch is a Bank of America (BAC) subsidiary.

This securities case is an example of some of the repercussions that are still happening for investors and brokers in the wake of the economic crisis. The Billings are just two of many investors that have sustained financial losses because a brokerage firm allegedly misrepresented the risks involved in an investment. Meantime, more arbitration claims over such losses are still pending.

Merrill Lynch ordered to pay couple $1.34 million over Fannie Mae Preferred Shares, Reuters/Chicago Tribune, October 16, 2012

Bank of America Merrill Lynch hit with $1.3 million arbitration order, Investment News, October 17, 2012


More Blog Posts:
Ex-Fannie Mae Executives Have to Defend Against SEC Lawsuit Over Their Alleged Involvement in Understating Mortgage Company’s Exposure Risk, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, August 25, 2012

Merrill Lynch Told to Pay $3.6M to Brazilian Heiress for Brother’s Alleged $389M in Unauthorized Trading, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, September 22, 2012

Freddie Mac and Fannie May Drop After They Delist Their Shares from New York Stock Exchange, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, June 25, 2010

Continue reading "FINRA Arbitration Panel Tells Merrill Lynch to Pay $1.34M to Florida Couple Over Allegedly Misrepresenting Fannie Mae Preferred Shares' Risks" »

Posted by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas LTD LLP | | Email This Post

Posted In: FINRA , Fannie Mae , Financial Firms , Merrill Lynch , Mortgage Firms

September 22, 2012

Merrill Lynch Told to Pay $3.6M to Brazilian Heiress for Brother’s Alleged $389M in Unauthorized Trading

A Financial Industry Regulatory Authority panel is ordering Merrill Lynch (MER), a Bank of America Corp. (BAC) unit, to pay $3.6 million to a Brazilian heiress who contends that she lost millions of dollars because of unauthorized trades that her brother made in her account. The securities arbitration case was submitted on behalf of Sophin Investments SA, which was established to manage Camelia Nasser de Kassin’s inheritance from a relative.

Sophin contended that Merrill allowed Camelia’s brother, Ezequiel Nasser, to make unauthorized trades worth $389 million using her accounts at two Merrill Lynch units. He allegedly invested in high risk securities, including naked puts in Lehman Brothers and Bear Stearns (BSC) that created a deficit of at least $8 million.

The plaintiff claimed inadequate supervision, civil fraud, unauthorized trading, and other alleged wrongdoings, and asked for compensatory damages of $21 million for the $9.5 million that had been placed in the accounts, $9.5 million as an investment return, and the rest for commissions that went to Merrill. The financial firm then submitted a counterclaim alleging that their contract together had been breached. It asked the FINRA panel for almost $2.5 million in damages for the deficit in Sophin’s retail account and close to $3 million for the swap account. Merrill also filed claims against Marc Bonnant, who is the lawyer who set up the accounts on Sophin’s behalf, as well as against Ezequiel.

The FINRA panel found both Sophin and Merrill liable. While it told Merrill to pay $6.1 million in compensatory damages to Sophin, the latter was told to pay the financial firm $2.5 million—hence the $3.6 million that Merrill was ultimately ordered to pay Sophin. Also, while the panel acknowledged that Bonnant paid less than adequate attention to his fiduciary duties to Sophin, it said that Merrill exhibited “lapses” in hits own supervising and record keeping.

The claims made against Ezequiel Nasser by Merrill were denied. The arbitration panel said Bonnant, who has been based in Europe, isn’t under its jurisdiction. (Merrill has accused him of authorizing the trades that it had made for Sophin and misrepresenting the client’s investment experience, financial state, and tolerance for risk.)

This case is just one aspect of the bigger dispute between Merrill Lynch and members of the Nasser banking family over alleged trading losses. For example, in 2008, the financial firm sued the Nassers for huge trading losses that result in a $99 million judgment. A New York appeals court upheld that ruling.

Unauthorized Trades
A broker or advisor has to get an investor’s permission to sell or buy securities for an investor. Otherwise, the trade is not authorized. When “trading authorization” is obtained to sell or buy in that client’s account, trades can be made without getting in touch with the client. However, this is a limited power of attorney.

Unfortunately, many investors suffer losses because of unauthorized trades.

Merrill Lynch must pay $3.6 million to Brazilian banking heiress, Merrill Lynch, Reuters, September 12, 2012

Merrill Lynch Ordered to Pay $3.6 Million to Brazilian Heiress, Wall Street Journal, September 12, 2012

Bonnant V. Merrill Lynch (PDF)


More Blog Posts:
Shepherd Smith Edwards and Kantas LLP Pursue Securities Fraud Cases Against Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner, & Smith, Purshe Kaplan Sterling Investments, and First Allied Securities, Inc., Stockbroker Fraud Blog, May 10, 2012

Merrill Lynch Agrees to Pay $40M Proposed Deferred Compensation Class Action Settlement to Ex-Brokers, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, August 27, 2012

Shepherd Smith Edwards and Kantas LLP Pursue Securities Fraud Cases Against Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner, & Smith, Purshe Kaplan Sterling Investments, and First Allied Securities, Inc., Stockbroker Fraud Blog, May 10, 2012

Continue reading "Merrill Lynch Told to Pay $3.6M to Brazilian Heiress for Brother’s Alleged $389M in Unauthorized Trading" »

Posted by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas LTD LLP | | Email This Post

Posted In: Bank of America , Financial Firms , Merrill Lynch , Securities Fraud

August 27, 2012

Merrill Lynch Agrees to Pay $40M Proposed Deferred Compensation Class Action Settlement to Ex-Brokers

Merrill Lynch (MER) has arrived at an “agreement in principle” to resolve the class action lawsuit filed by John Burnette and Scott Chambers over deferred compensation that they contend that the brokerage firm refused to pay them after it merged with Bank of America (BAC) in 2008 and they left its employ. About 1,400 brokers are part of this class. However, some 3,300 ex-Merrill brokers have submitted deferred compensation claims against the brokerage firm for the same reason.

Merrill had refused to give these employees their deferred compensation, which is what a broker usually gets paid for staying with a financial firm for a specific number of years, when they resigned after the merger. These brokers, however, cited “good reason” for their departure, which is another cause they can claim to receive this.

The class action settlement was presented to U.S. District Judge Alison Nathan at Manhattan federal court on Friday. She will decide whether to approve it, as well as certify the class according to the parties’ definition. However, it is not known at this time how many brokers will go for this settlement if it is approved.

It is not unusual for many to opt not to be part of a class action settlement and instead seek to obtain more money via an individual arbitration claim. Having an arbitration lawyer personally representing your case generally leads to bigger results. Already, over a thousand ex-Merrill brokers have filed their FINRA claims. Also, for an ex-Merrill broker whose deferred compensation was above six figures, they are likely to get much less by going the class action route. Meantime, ex-Merrill brokers with revenues that exceeded $500,000 during a certain timeframe before they left the financial firm cannot participate in a class action settlement. Neither can those that accepted bonuses and waived certain rights related to deferred compensation claims from Merrill after the deal with Bank of America.

That said, even the ex-Merrill brokers that decide to opt out of the class are likely to benefit from this settlement because it establishes a floor for payouts while serving as Merrill’s public acknowledgement that it had a financial duty to pay the former brokers upon their departure.

Under the class action settlement, the majority of advisers would get 40-60% of the value of their account. According to OnWallStreet.com, for a broker to receive 60%, advisors must have already made a request for reimbursement, whether via lawsuit, arbitration, or some other way and left the financial firm prior to January 30, 2010. To be eligible to receive 50%, these advisers too will have had to have made some type of legal action and resigned by June 30, 2010. If no action was taken, and the former broker still wants to opt in, they would turn in a form and seek 40% of compensation--dependent upon when they exited the firm. Other ex-advisors might also be able to receive 40 to 60% of payment depending on when they left Merrill, whether they had filed a deferred compensation claim, and in what compensation plans they were participants. Ex-dvisers that had an agreement with the Advisor Transition Program, however, would not be able to participate.)

Merrill to Make Good on Former Brokers' Deferred Comp, On Wall Street, August 24, 2012

Merrill to pay $40 mln in deferred compensation suit, Reuters, August 25, 2012

More Blog Posts:
Merrill Lynch to Pay Brokers Over $10M for Alleged Fraud Over Deferred Compensation Plans, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, April 5, 2012

Advanced Equities Ordered by FINRA Arbitration Panel to Pay $4.5M to Ex-Broker, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, June 12, 2012

Claims Continue over MasterShare - Prudential Securities’ Deferred Compensation Plan, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, August 13, 2008

Continue reading "Merrill Lynch Agrees to Pay $40M Proposed Deferred Compensation Class Action Settlement to Ex-Brokers " »

Posted by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas LTD LLP | | Email This Post

Posted In: Arbitration , Bank of America , Class Action Lawsuits , FINRA , Financial Firms , Merrill Lynch

June 28, 2012

Securities Law Roundup: Merrill Lynch Pays Customers $32M For Allegedly Overcharging Them with Unwarranted Fees, Brookstone Securities is Accused of $1.6M in Fraudulent CMO Sales to Elderly Retirees, and Planner Loses CFP Designation Following After Maine

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority says that it is fining Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. $2.8M in the wake of certain alleged supervisory failures that the SRO says led to the financial firm billing clients unwarranted fees. The financial firm paid back the $32M in remediation to affected clients, in addition to interest.

According to FINRA, from 4/03 to 12/11, Merrill Lynch lacked a satisfactory supervisory system that could ensure that certain investment advisory program clients were billed per the terms of their disclosure documents and contract. As a result, close to 95,000 client account fees were charged.

Also, due to programming mistakes, Merrill Lynch allegedly did not give certain clients timely trade confirmations. These errors caused them to not get confirmations for over 10.6 million trades in more than 230,000 customer accounts from 7/06 to 11/10. Additionally, FINRA contends that Merrill Lynch failed to properly identify when it played the role of principal or agent on account statements and trade confirmations involving at least 7.5 million mutual fund buy transactions. By settling, Merrill Lynch is not denying nor admitting to the charges. It is, however, agreeing to the entry of FINRA’s findings.

Also settling with FINRA are Brookstone Securities, firm CEO/owner Antony Turbeville, and firm broker Christopher Kline. They are accused of fraudulently selling collateralized mortgage obligations to unsophisticated retirees, who wanted to put their money in investments that were safer than equity investments. The financial firm must pay back affected clients $1.6M ($1,179,500 of this was imposed jointly and severally with Kline and the remaining balance was imposed jointly and severally with Turbeville). Brookstone also is responsible for paying a $1M fine over the alleged elder financial fraud.

According to a FINRA hearing panel, from 7/05 through 6/07, Turbeville and Kline purposely issued allegedly fraudulent misrepresentations and omissions to these elderly seniors about the risks involved in CMO investments. The two men are exploiting these clients “greatest fears,” including the worry that they would run out of money when they were older.

The panel found that even when interest rates were rising in 2005 and the two men could clearly see the negative impact this was having on CMOs, they still failed to explain this to clients and instead caused them to think that their investments were bonds that were guaranteed by the government, kept capital safe, and made returns of 10-15%. While clients lost over $1.6M,Brookstone earned $492,500 in commissions from the same CMO bond transactions.

In another securities case, this one a lawsuit that was settled of court, William B. Smith has lost his right to use the certified financial planner designation after he allegedly defrauded a client of $1.2M and took $25K from another client. This revocation, imposed by the CFP Board, is permanent.

Smith’s client, Catharine C. Lund of Maine, had accused him of committing financial fraud after working on a1031 exchange for her following the sale of two of her properties. She contends that Smith should not have advised her to invest $1.2M into the Grafton building where his office is situated.

Our securities lawyers at Shepherd Smith Edwards and Kantas, LTD, LLP represent individual and institutional investors.

Finra Fines Merrill Lynch $2.8 Million for Overcharging Customers, The Wall Street Journal, June 21, 2012

FINRA Hearing Panel Fines Brookstone Securities $1 Million for Fraudulent Sales of CMOs to Elderly, FINRA, June 4, 2012

CFP Board Disciplines Planner for Alleged Fraudulent Use of $1.2M, FInancial Planning, June 21, 2012


More Blog Posts:
Securities Law Roundup: Ex-Morgan Stanley’s SEC Settlement Over Alleged FCPA Violations Gets Court Approval, Corruption Probe Into Wal-Mart’s Mexico Activities Continue, and Sentry Global Securities Principal Gets 20-Years for Pump-and-Dump Scam, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, May 24, 2012

Securities Law Roundup: Ex-Sentinel Management Group Execs Indicted Over Alleged $500M Fraud, Egan-Jones Rating Wants Court to Hear Bias Claim Against SEC, and Oppenheimer Funds Pays $35M Over Alleged Mutual Fund Misstatements, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, June 13, 2012

Institutional Investor Securities Roundup: SEC Sues Investment Adviser Over $60M Ponzi Scam, Michigan Investment Club Manager Gets Prison Term for Defrauding Over 900 Investors, & IOSCO Seeks Comments on Report About Credit Raters’ Conflicts & Controls, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, June 7, 2012

Posted by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas LTD LLP | | Email This Post

Posted In: Collateralized Mortgage Obligations , FINRA , Financial Firms , Merrill Lynch , Securities Fraud , Senior Investors

May 10, 2012

Shepherd Smith Edwards and Kantas LLP Pursue Securities Fraud Cases Against Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner, & Smith, Purshe Kaplan Sterling Investments, and First Allied Securities, Inc.

Our securities fraud lawyers at Shepherd Smith Edwards and Kantas, LLP recently filed a number of securities fraud cases against three broker-dealers and their representatives on behalf of investors. If you are a client of Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner, & Smith, First Allied Securities, Inc., or Purshe Kaplan Sterling Investments and you feel that you too may have suffered losses because of broker misconduct, please contact our stockbroker law firm right away and ask for your free case evaluation.

Our securities fraud lawsuit against Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner, & Smith involve allegations of overconcentration against David Zeng. The broker allegedly over-concentrated client accounts to the point that they only held a few stocks that didn’t represent very many market sectors (precious metal mining, pharmaceuticals, casinos, and online media). Many were foreign stocks from Canada and China. Shares included Focus Media Holding Ltd. (FMCN), Goldcorp Inc. (GG), MGM Resorts International (MGM), Silver Wheaton Corp. (SLW), Delcath Systems, Inc. (DCTH), Teck Resources LTD (TCK), and Sina Corp. (SINA).

Our investment over-concentration lawyers believe that there are other Merrill Lynch investors that may have lost money on their investments because of Zeng.

Shepherd Smith Edwards and Kantas is also pursuing an elder financial fraud case against First Allied Securities, Inc. The investor, a 64-year-old retiree, lost his retirement, which he’d entrusted to the financial firm and investment advisor Sean Agahi. The client’s money was allegedly inappropriately invested in non-traditional securities that were way too risky for his age and the fact that he was retired.

Per the allegations, Agahi primarily chose to invest this retiree’s money primarily in placement Real Estate Investment Trusts (“REITs”) and limited partnerships that were not suitable for this client. (REITs pay higher commissions than bonds, stocks, and mutual funds)

Unfortunately, there are retirees and other elderly seniors in this country who continue to suffer losses on their investments because a broker allegedly decided not to make the investor’s best interests the priority. Our elder financial fraud lawyers would be happy to help you explore your legal options against First Allied Securities, Agahi, or another broker.

Our REIT fraud lawyers are also seeking financial recovery for more than 20 clients of Purshe Kaplan Sterling Investments and two of their brokers. The investors blame the defendants’ for the huge losses sustained by their retirement savings.

Per their securities fraud allegations, longtime clients of an investment advisory company were persuaded by William Leitch and Corey Casilio to go with them after they decided to leave the financial firm in 2011. The investors contend that misrepresentation occurred because they did not realize that this meant they would no longer be working with financial firm. Rather than availing of their original investment advisory company’s recommendations, the investors allegedly sustained huge losses because of the many unsuitable investment recommendations made by Casilio and Leitch.

For example, some of their money was placed in private placements in REITs,” which they claim were misrepresented as bond or fixed income equivalents. Many of these REITs failed to meet the clients’ investment goals, risk tolerance levels, or time horizons.

If you believe that your broker or investment advisor failed to meet their legal obligations to you—the investor—and that this may have caused you to sustain financial losses, please contact one of our securities fraud lawyers at Shepherd Smith Edwards and Kantas, LTD, LLP today.


More Blog Posts:
David Lerner & Associates Ignored Suitability of REITs When Recommending to Investors, Claims FINRA, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, June 8, 2011

KBS Cap Markets Non-Traded REITs May Be Too Risky for Some Retail Investors, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, January 29, 2012

SEC Changes to Enforcement Have Led to Enhanced Results, Says Khuzami, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, May 4, 2012

Posted by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas LTD LLP | | Email This Post

Posted In: Financial Firms , First Allied Securities , Merrill Lynch , Purshe Kaplan Sterling Investments , REITs , Senior Investors

Tags: Overconcentration

November 30, 2011

Securities Claims Accusing Merrill Lynch of Concealing Its Auction-Rate Securities Practices Are Dismissed by Appeals Court

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has affirmed a district court’s decision to dismiss securities fraud claims accusing Merrill Lynch & Co. of hiding its ARS practices to manipulate the market. The case had been filed by plaintiff Colin Wilson on behalf of all buyers between March 2003 and Feb. 13, 2008 that purchased ARS for which Merrill was the dealer.

Wilson contended that although until July 2007 Merrill Lynch did not allow its ARS auctions to fail, in the couple of months that followed the broker-dealer did not put in support bids during at least 34 auction-rate securities issuances. As a result, those auctions did fail. Wilson also claimed that because Merrill Lynch did not appropriately disclose the full scope of its ARS practices, the financial firm was sending out a false signal that the market was sustainable despite there being not enough of an investor demand for the instruments.

The district court threw out the Wilson’s ARS case after finding that Merrill’s disclosure did not mislead investors. Now, the appeals court is affirming. It found that if, as Wilson says, Merrill intended to put in support bids for every auction unless it decided to let certain ones fail or get out of the market in general, then the court believes that the broker-dealer gave fair disclosure of all this. The appeals court also didn’t agree with Wilson’s allegation that Merrill Lynch knew without a doubt that if it didn’t intervene an ARS auction was sure to fail.

This is the first appellate ruling involving securities class litigation over the demise of the ARS market. Upon the market's decline beginning 2007, Merrill Lynch and other large broker-dealers started letting auction-rate securities auctions fail. When they completely stopped their support, the market became illiquid. A number of investors have since filed ARS lawsuits seeking to recover their money.

Although Merrill appears to have won this case, Shepherd Smith Edwards and Kantas founder and stockbroker fraud attorney William Shepherd notes, “This is not the huge victory Merrill claims. The court did NOT find that Merrill did not engage in wrongdoing in the sale of auction rate securities (ARS) to its clients, most of whom were led to falsely believe that these ARS investments were similar to commercial paper or short-term treasury bills. This case is instead concerned with “market manipulation,” a type of securities fraud claim that is rarely brought and almost never successful. In order to win this case, among other hurdles the plaintiffs would have to demonstrate that Merrill’s practices were intentional and were intended to change the market value of the securities. Also, this decision is by the federal appeals court in New York, which mysteriously decides many cases in favor of Wall Street.”

2d Cir. Affirms Merrill Off the Hook In Investor Suit Over ARS Disclosures, BNA, November 16, 2011

Read the full opinion (PDF)


More Blog Posts:
SEC and SIFMA Divided Over Whether Merrill Lynch Can Be Held Liable for Alleged ARS Market Manipulation, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, July 29, 2011
Raymond James Settles Auction-Rate Securities Case with Indiana Securities Division for $31M, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, August 27, 2011

District Court in Texas Decides that Credit Suisse Securities Doesn’t Have to pay Additional $186,000 Arbitration Award to Luby’s Restaurant Over ARS, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, June 2, 2011

Continue reading "Securities Claims Accusing Merrill Lynch of Concealing Its Auction-Rate Securities Practices Are Dismissed by Appeals Court" »

Posted by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas LTD LLP | | Email This Post

Posted In: Auction-Rate Securities , Financial Firms , Merrill Lynch

October 10, 2011

Merrill Lynch Faces $1M FINRA Fine Over Texas Ponzi Scam by Former Registered Representative

Two years after San Antonio broker was sentenced to prison for Texas securities fraud, FINRA has fined Merrill Lynch $1M for not properly supervising its former employer. These failures allegedly allowed Bruce Hammonds to run a Ponzi scam that defrauded investors of $1.4M.

Hammonds persuaded 11 people to invest in the Texas Ponzi scam, which he operated under the name B&J Partnership. It was supervisors at Merrill Lynch that gave the green light for him to open an account for B & J. The supervisors also are accused of not monitoring the funds that moved between customers and Hammonds.

Rather than putting investors’ money in a Merrill Lynch fund, he put $1.4 million of their funds in his working capital account. He even gave clients charts showing how the B & J fund was performing even though the fund wasn’t real. Hammonds used the money to pay for his personal spending, including a supposed house-flipping business.

He later pleaded guilty to federal securities charges. In addition to five years behind bars and three year supervised release. Hammond has been barred from the securities industry. All investors have been paid back in full for their losses.

In deciding to fine Merrill Lynch, FINRA found that the financial firm did not have a supervisory system that did a satisfactory enough job of monitoring accounts of employees for signs of possible misconduct. The system was only able to immediately capture accounts opened by an employee if he/she used his/her social security number as the main tax identification number. The SRO also said that between 1/06 and 6/10 Merrill Lynch did not monitor another 40,000 employee/employee-interested accounts.

By agreeing to settle, Merrill is not denying or admitting to the charges.

Failure to Supervise
It is a brokerage firm’s responsibility to establish written procedures for how to properly supervise its employees' activities. These procedures must then be implemented to prevent broker fraud. When misconduct does arise and failure to supervise played a role in allowing the incident to happen, the financial firm can be held liable for securities fraud.

Brokerage companies have to supervise every broker that they license to work for them. Even if an accused broker is later found not liable, there is still a possibility that the brokerage firm or supervisor can be held liable for failure to supervise and be ordered to pay damages. For example, a broker may not have received the proper training or was given the wrong information by the financial firm, and this resulted in Texas securities fraud that caused an investor to suffer losses.

FINRA Fines Merrill Lynch $1 Million for Supervisory Failures That Allowed a Registered Representative to Operate a Ponzi Scheme, FINRA, October 4, 2011

Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas LTD LLP is Investigating Merrill Lynch in Light of Recent FINRA Fines Against the Firm for Failure to Supervise, MarketWatch, October 5, 2011

More Blog Posts:
Former Merrill Lynch Employee, Guilty of $1.4 Million Texas Securities Fraud Scheme, Receives Prison Term, Stock Broker Fraud Blog, October 5, 2009

Wedbush Securities Ordered by FINRA to Pay $2.8M in Senior Financial Fraud Case Over Variable Annuities, Stock Broker Fraud Blog, August 31, 2011

Actions of Former Ferris, Baker Watts, Inc. General Counsel Accused of Supervising Rogue Broker to be Reviewed by SEC, Institutional Investors Securities Blog, December 9, 2010

Continue reading "Merrill Lynch Faces $1M FINRA Fine Over Texas Ponzi Scam by Former Registered Representative" »

Posted by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas LTD LLP | | Email This Post

Posted In: FINRA , Financial Firms , Inadequate Supervision , Merrill Lynch , Ponzi Scams , Texas Securities Fraud

June 25, 2011

Mortgage-Backed Securities Lawsuit Against Bank of America’s Merrill Lynch Now a Class Action Case

Merrill Lynch, a unit of Bank of America Corp. (BAC) is now the defendant of a class action securities fraud lawsuit filed on behalf of at least 1,800 investors. A federal judge certified the class status, which involves all investors in mortgage-backed securities that were sold beginning February 2006 through September 2007.

The named plaintiffs of the MBS lawsuit are the Connecticut Carpenters Annuity Fund, the Wyoming state treasurer, Mississippi Public Employees’ Retirement System, the Connecticut Carpenters Pension Fund, and the Los Angeles County Employees Retirement Association. The investors are accusing Merrill of misleading them in the offering documents for $16.5 billion of certificates.

While including yourself as a class action plaintiff may seem like an easy way to recoup your losses, Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas LTD LLP founder and stockbroker fraud attorney William Shepherd says, “On average, victims with securities class action claims usually get back a net recovery of about 8% of their losses.” Such claims often face numerous obstacles. Also, only federal securities claims can be brought in class action cases, and these can be challenging to prove. “Some securities class action complaints end up settled but with the terms favoring the defendants and with large fees going to the investors’/victims’ attorneys,” notes Shepherd. Many consider the investor class the losers when such a case is concluded. ** It is important, however, to note that our securities fraud law firm has no information at this time to suggest that this is going to be the result in this matter.

One alternative you should explore is filing your own, individual claim. While many securities class action cases have very short “opt out” dates, if you “opt out" of the class in a timely manner, you can file an individual case ( claims under state law are often easier to prove). Our securities fraud law firm has represented many investors who have done both.

Merrill Must Face Class Action Over Mortgage Securities, Bloomberg, June 20, 2011


More Blog Posts:
Ambac Financial Group, Insurers, and Bank Underwriters to Pay $33M to Settle Securities Lawsuits Alleging Concealed Risks Related to its Bond-Insurance Business, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, May 18, 2011

Number of Securities Class Action Settlements Reached in 2010 Hit Lowest Level in a Decade, Says Report, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, March 31, 2011

Class Action Plaintiffs Dispute Bank of America’s $137M Settlement with State Attorney Generals Over Municipal Derivatives, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, December 31, 2010

Continue reading "Mortgage-Backed Securities Lawsuit Against Bank of America’s Merrill Lynch Now a Class Action Case" »

Posted by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas LTD LLP | | Email This Post

Posted In: Bank of America , Class Action Lawsuits , Financial Firms , Merrill Lynch , Mortgage Backed Securities

June 20, 2011

Morgan Stanley, Barclays, and Merrill Lynch Lose ‘Hot News’ Misappropriation Case Against Theflyonthewall.com Inc. in Appeals Court

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has reversed a lower court’s ruling and decided that under New York law, Theflyonthewall.com Inc., an online financial news service, may not be held liable for disseminating the equity research recommendations found in reports of plaintiffs Barclays Capital Inc., Morgan Stanley & Co. Inc., and Merrill Lynch Pierce Fenner & Smith Inc. The appeals court’s Judge Robert D. Sack concluded that federal copyright law preempts the ‘Hot News’ misappropriation claim.

The financial firms’ reports contain research about public companies, their securities and business prospects, and their respective industries. The reports summarize these findings, which often include recommendations about holding, selling, and buying the subjects’ securities. The firms give clients and prospective ones these reports before the US securities markets open daily as an “informational advantage.”

The plaintiffs accused Fly, which has managed to get a hold of these recommendations and issue them before the brokerage firms had given them to the public or before the exchanges that the securities are traded have opened, of copyright infringement. Concurring with the plaintiffs, a lower court then barred the news service from both infringing on the copyrighted aspects of the brokerage firms’ research reports and publishing their recommendations until after the New York Stock Exchange opened.

Now, however, the appeals court is saying that “a firm’s ability to make news… does not give rise to a right for it to control who breaks the news and how.” The court reversed and remanded the earlier claim and told the district court to dismiss the brokerage firms’ misappropriation claim under New York law.

Related Web Resources:
Theflyonthewall.com Inc.

Read the district court's opinion (PDF)

Brokerages Lose in Appeals Court On N.Y. ‘Hot News’ Misappropriation Claim, BNA Securities Law Daily, June 20, 2011


More Blog Posts:
Mortgage-Backed Securities Lawsuit Against Bank of America’s Merrill Lynch Now a Class Action Case, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, June 25, 2011

China-Based Hackers Broke into Morgan Stanley Network, Reports Bloomberg, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, February 28, 2011

Dismissal of Lone Star’s $60 Mortgage-Backed Securities Texas Fraud Action Against Barclays is Affirmed by Federal Appeals Court, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, January 17, 2010

Continue reading "Morgan Stanley, Barclays, and Merrill Lynch Lose ‘Hot News’ Misappropriation Case Against Theflyonthewall.com Inc. in Appeals Court" »

Posted by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas LTD LLP | | Email This Post

Posted In: Barclay's Bank , Financial Firms , Merrill Lynch , Morgan Stanley

April 7, 2011

Dow Corning Corp.’s $165M Securities Fraud Lawsuit Against Merrill Lynch & Co. Can Proceed, Says District Court Judge

The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York’s Chief Judge Loretta A. Preska says that Dow Corning Corp. can sue Merrill Lynch & Co. for securities fraud. Dow Corning is claiming $165 million in auction-rate securities losses. Dow Corning says that it still has not been able to sell its ARS. The company and two affiliates, its Devonshire Underwriters unit and Hemlock Semiconductor Corp., had filed their complaint against the Bank of America-owned Merrill for falsely misrepresenting the ARS, for which Merrill acted as managing broker and underwriter.

Preska denied Merrill’s motion to dismiss the complaint, noting that this securities fraud lawsuit is different from other ARS lawsuits, in which motions to the defendants' motions to dismiss were granted. Unlike other ARS cases, Dow Corning is challenging certain omissions and statements that Merrill allegedly made to reassure the company that the investments were safe even while knowing the ARS market was failing. The court says that for purposes of its ruling, it is taking the allegations to be true.

Dow Corning says Merrill’s actions violated the Michigan Uniform Securities Act, the 1934 Securities Exchange Act’s Section 10(b), and breached a number of common law duties. The contends that Merrill knew as far back as early 2007 that trouble was brewing with the ARS market yet the broker allegedly stepped up efforts to sell ARS to investors. Even though Dow Corning asked questions about possible issues with the market, the broker is accused of not revealing the information it had and, instead, making reassuring statements that were actually misleading misstatements. The court says Merrill was obligated to “speak truthfully.”

Related Web Resources:
Merrill Loses Bid to Throw Out Dow Corning Auction-Rate Lawsuit, Bloomberg, March 30, 2011

Dow Corning Suit Against Merrill Lynch Over ARS Losses Survives Motion to Dismiss, BNA Securities, April 4, 2011


More Blog Posts:
Akamai Technologies Inc’s ARS Lawsuit Against Deutsche Bank Can Proceed, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, March 4, 2011

Citigroup Global Markets to Pay Back $95.5M Over ARS Sold to LandAmerica Exchange Fund, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, November 11, 2010

Class Auction-Rate Securities Lawsuit Against Raymond James Financial Survives Dismissal, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, September 27, 2010

Continue reading "Dow Corning Corp.’s $165M Securities Fraud Lawsuit Against Merrill Lynch & Co. Can Proceed, Says District Court Judge" »

Posted by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas LTD LLP | | Email This Post

Posted In: Financial Firms , Merrill Lynch

February 23, 2011

FINRA Fines Bank of America Corp.'s Merrill Lynch $500,000 Over Alleged Oversight Failures of 529 Plans

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority is ordering Merrill Lynch, a Bank of America Corp. unit, to pay a $500,000 fine over alleged oversight failures involving 529 plans, a college-savings product. Merrill Lynch has also been censured by FINRA in a disciplinary action.

According to the SRO, Merrill Lynch lacked the adequate supervisory procedures necessary to make sure representatives were taking into account clients’ state income-tax benefits when determining whether they should invest in a 529 plan within their state of residence or in one outside the state. Merrill Lynch sold more than $3 billion in 529 plans between June 2002 and February 2007.

With 529 plans, which are considered municipal securities, money can be withdrawn to pay for college expenses without the imposition of federal taxes. Many states offer credits or state tax deductions for residents that invest in a 529 plans in the state. That said, depending on where the investor resides, investing in a plan outside the state can be more beneficial than the benefits received from a 529 plan in the investor’s home state.

However, FINRA contends that the only 529 plan that the financial firm offered and sold nationally was Maine's NextGen College Investing Plan. Merrill Lynch must now send letters to clients who lived in states that offered 529-related tax benefits but ended up opening accounts with Maine's NextGen College Investing Plan through Merrill Lynch. These customers will be given instructions on how to contact the financial firm. If they want to move their funds to a home-state 529 plan, Merrill Lynch has to help, as well as waive a number of fees.

By agreeing to settle with FINRA, Merrill Lynch is not denying or admitting to the SRO’s findings.

Related Web Resources:
Merrill fined $500,000 over college-savings plans, Bloomberg, January 19, 2011

FINRA Censures, Fines Merrill Over Colleges Saving Plans, OnWallStreet, January 19, 2011


More Blog Posts:
Bank of America Merrill Lynch to Settle UIT Sales-Related FINRA Charges for $2.5 Million, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, August 22, 2010

Bank of America To Settle SEC Charges Regarding Merrill Lynch Acquisition Proxy-Related Disclosures for $150 Million, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, February 15, 2010

SEC Submits Amended Complaint Against Bank of America Over Merrill Lynch Merger and Executive Bonuses, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, December 3, 2009

Continue reading "FINRA Fines Bank of America Corp.'s Merrill Lynch $500,000 Over Alleged Oversight Failures of 529 Plans " »

Posted by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas LTD LLP | | Email This Post

Posted In: Bank of America , Financial Firms , Inadequate Supervision , Merrill Lynch

January 20, 2011

Texas Securities Act Control Person Claims against Merrill Lynch Pierce Fenner & Smith Inc. is Revived by Appeals Court

The Texas Court of Appeals has reinstated the Texas Securities Act control person claims against Merrill Lynch Pierce Fenner & Smith Inc. related to its former broker Terry Christopher Bounds’s allegedly fraudulent outside sales transactions.
According to the appeals court, Bounds, who owned two “outside” direct-marketing corporations, solicited David Fernea, who is now the appellant of this Texas securities case, to buy shares in both businesses. The latter purchased 50% interest in each company.

Fernea claims that after he bought into the companies, Bounds refused to uphold his part of the agreement and concealed his actions with the delivery of a fake stock certificate. He also contends that the ex-Merrill Lynch broker had made misrepresentations and omissions to persuade him to buy the stock. Among the alleged omissions was failing to disclose that Bounds’s companies were involved in a consumer protection dispute with the Texas Attorney General and that the stocks that Fernea had purchased were not registered with the Texas State Securities Board. The appellant also claims that Bounds tried to secretly resell the corporations he had already bought from him to other parties.

Fernea is suing Merrill Lynch for Texas securities fraud because he says that that Bounds’s working relationship with the investment bank had played an important part in his decision to buy into the broker’s companies. He is accusing the broker-dealer of violations of its own internal polices regarding its employees’ outside transactions, violating the Texas Securities Act’s Section 33, negligent supervision of Bounds related to his outside transactions, “control person” liability under the Texas Securities Act, and violation of several NASD and NYSE internal rules.

While the appeals court initially remanded the control person claim to a lower court, it has now reinstated the claim. The court says that it is up to the plaintiff to bear the initial burden of proving control, including that the alleged control person actually had influence or power of the controlled person and that this power to influence or control the specific activity or transaction led to the violation in question. The court has found that there is evidence that Merrill Lynch’s policies gave it control or issue over the “transaction at issue.”

Related Web Resources:
Texas Securities Act

BNA Securities Daily Law

Fernea v. Merrill Lynch Pierce Fenner & Smith Inc.

Continue reading "Texas Securities Act Control Person Claims against Merrill Lynch Pierce Fenner & Smith Inc. is Revived by Appeals Court" »

Posted by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas LTD LLP | | Email This Post

Posted In: Financial Firms , Merrill Lynch , Texas Securities Fraud

September 9, 2010

Morgan Stanley, UBS, Wells Fargo, and Merrill Lynch Recruit Other Investment Firms’ Brokers

UBS AG unit UBS Wealth Management Americas recently recruited Bank of America Corp.'s Merrill Lynch financial adviser Nina Hakim to join its Westfield, New Jersey office. Hakim, who reportedly managed $300 million in client assets and generated $1.5 million in commissions and fees, will now report to UBS branch Manager Erik Gaucher.

Another new addition to the UBS team is Morgan Stanley Smith Barney adviser Raymond Schmidtke, who will be based in Seattle, Washington. According to regulatory records, Schmidtke, was employed by Citigroup Inc. for over two decades and stayed at the MS joint venture for a year. He reportedly had close to $100 million in assets under management and $1 million in annual production. He now reports to UBS branch manager Shawn MacFarlan.

In other investment adviser news, a team of now former Wells Fargo Advisors advisers has joined Morgan Stanley Smith Barney. Francis Schiavetti and Ben Dembin’s base will be the Boca Raton, Florida office. The team reportedly manages $107 million in client assets and produces approximately $1.2 million in commissions and annual fees. The two men both were employed by Wells Fargo and predecessor firm Wachovia Securities before joining the Morgan Stanley Smith Barney team.

In August, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority fined and censured Morgan Stanley $800,000 for not making public disclosures, which is required under the SRO’s rules that oversee research-analyst conflicts of interest. FINRA claims that the financial firm also did not comply with a key 2003 Research Analyst Settlement provision when it failed to disclose independent research availability in customer account statements. Every six months, for the next two years, Morgan Stanley must now review a sample of its research reports and certify that they are in compliance with FINRA’s rules.

Related Web Resources:
Hires Merrill Lynch, Morgan Stanley Brokers, Fox Business, August 24, 2010

Morgan Stanley Adds Team From Wells Fargo, Faces FINRA Fine, Investment Advisor, August 24, 2010

FINRA Fines Morgan Stanley $800,000 for Deficient Conflict of Interest Disclosures in Equity Research Reports and Public Appearances by Research Analysts, FINRA, August 10, 2010

Continue reading "Morgan Stanley, UBS, Wells Fargo, and Merrill Lynch Recruit Other Investment Firms’ Brokers" »

Posted by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas LTD LLP | | Email This Post

Posted In: Financial Firms , Merrill Lynch , Morgan Stanley , Smith Barney - Citigroup , UBS , Wells Fargo

August 22, 2010

Bank of America Merrill Lynch to Settle UIT Sales-Related FINRA Charges for $2.5 Million

Bank of America Merrill Lynch has agreed to settle for $2.5 million Financial Industry Regulatory Authority allegations that it did not provide "sales charge discounts" to clients with eligible unit investment trusts purchases. By agreeing to settle, the broker-dealer is not admitting to or denying the charges. Of the $2.5 million, $2 million is restitution and $500,000 is a fine.

UITs
A unit investment trust is an investment company that holds a fixed portfolio of securities while offering redeemable units from that portfolio. The units have a fixed date for termination. UIT sponsors usually offer sales charge discounts called “rollover and exchange discounts”—usually offered to investors that use redemption or termination proceeds from one unit to buy another—and “breakpoint discounts”—based on the purchase’s dollar amount—to investors.

Since March 2004, FINRA has made it clear that investment firms must have procedures in place to make sure that clients get their UIT discounts. The SRO contends, however, that until May 2008, Merrill Lynch did not provide brokers or their supervisors with such guidance and neglected to tell clients when they were eligible for a UIT discount. This went on between October 2006 and June 2008 and many clients were overcharged for their UIT purchases.

FINRA also accused Merrill Lynch of distributing client presentation that contained sales information about UITs that were “inaccurate and misleading,” causing clients to believe that they were only eligible for a UIT discount if UIT proceeds were used to buy a new UIT from the same sponsor.

Related Web Resources:
BofA Merrill Lynch to Pay $2.5 Million in FINRA Matter, ABC News, August 18, 2010

Merrill Lynch to pay $2.5M in sales charge case, Business Week, August 18, 2010


Other Merrill Lynch Stories on Our Web Site:
Bank of America To Settle SEC Charges Regarding Merrill Lynch Acquisition Proxy-Related Disclosures for $150 Million, StockbrokerFraudBlog, February 15, 2010

Merrill Lynch Must Pay $26 million to States to Resolve Charges of Failure to License Associates, StockbrokerFraudBlog, December 22, 2009

Continue reading "Bank of America Merrill Lynch to Settle UIT Sales-Related FINRA Charges for $2.5 Million " »

Posted by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas LTD LLP | | Email This Post

Posted In: Bank of America , FINRA , Financial Firms , Merrill Lynch , Unit Investment Trust

February 15, 2010

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Posted by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas LTD LLP | | Email This Post

Posted In: Bank of America , Financial Firms , Merrill Lynch , Securities Fraud

December 22, 2009

Merrill Lynch Must Pay $26 million to States to Resolve Charges of Failure to License Associates

As a result of a widespread multi-state investigation which began in May 2008, Merrill Lynch Pierce, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc. has agreed to pay more than $26 million to settle claims that certain client representatives were not properly licensed in states where sales efforts were undertaken. The investigation, coordinated by the North American Securities Administrators Association (NASAA), discovered that 60 percent of the firm’s “client associates” were registered only in their home state, or in only one additional state.

States require that persons at securities firms involved in sales to client or prospective clients must be licensed in the states in which the persons contacted reside – with some de minibus exceptions. Although the Merrill Lynch associates were assisting the firm’s financial advisors, they were undertaking duties which required state licenses.

While states issue licenses based on a single multi-state examination, each also charges an annual fee for each representative of a firm licensed in that state. A financial advisor with a brokerage firm may have clients or prospective clients in a number, or even dozens, of states. If an advisor’s assistant is communicating with those clients or prospects in a sales capacity, he or she must be licensed in and a fee must be paid to each state as well.

it was reported by a NASAA's working group that the $26 million will be paid by Merrill Lynch for fines, penalties and sanctions and will be shared by the 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. The firm has also agreed to implement a new internal system to ensure registration compliance in the future.

Merrill Lynch Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc. was acquired by the Bank of America last year and is now a wholly owned subsidiary of that Bank. Both firms had been provided with billions of dollars in federal “bail-out” funds, and the acquisition has since been the subject of news stories, litigation and Congressional inquiry.

Posted by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas LTD LLP | | Email This Post

Posted In: Bank of America , Merrill Lynch , NASAA

Call for a Free Consultation
(800) 259-9010

Contact Us

The code above is for the protection of your information.

Browse

  • Topics
  • By Date
  • Search
Topics
By Date
Search

Recent Entries

Legal Blogs