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

December 11, 2009

Edward Jones and Merrill Lynch Brokers Like Where They Work, While UBS Representatives are the Least Happy

According to Registered Rep magazine’s latest Broker Report Card, 98% of Edward Jones brokers say their securities firm is the best place to work. 78% of Merrill Lynch brokers ranked their investment firm as the number the one workplace.

Findings were compiled from Internet surveys taken by 898 captive brokers last October. Other results:

• 73% of Morgan Stanley Smith Barney representatives gave their firm the top spot.
• 53% of Wells Fargo Advisors (includes Wachovia Securities and AG Edwards) brokers said their place of work was #1.
• UBS received the least accolades from its workers, with just 1/3rd of its brokers ranking it as the best securities firm workplace.

However, UBS brokers were at the top of the heap for self-reported metrics. According to UBS advisers, they claim an average $101.2 million for assets under management and gross production of $696,032. Other firms:

• Merrill Lynch representatives: $655,250 average gross production; $97.1 million under management
• Morgan Stanley Smith Barney brokers: $84.9 million under management ; $619,961 in production
• Wells Fargo representatives: $80.2 million in client assets; $542,350 in production
• Edward Jones representatives: $364,258 in average production; $58.6 million in assets under management

Yet, as Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP founder and stockbroker fraud lawyer William Shepherd points out, “securities brokers at large firms with average production receive about 30% of their gross production in pay. Brokers at Edward Jones receive about half. Thus, the take home pay for the brokers is not as different as is indicated. In any event, it is notable that the average stockbroker earns about $200,000 per year, a college degree is not required to gain a license, and the training takes only 4 months.”

Related Web Resources:
UBS Reps Least Happy Among Big-Firm Brokers, Wall Street Journal

Registered Rep

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

Posted In: Edward D. Jones , Financial Firms , Merrill Lynch , Miscellaneous , Morgan Stanley , UBS , Wells Fargo

December 3, 2009

SEC Submits Amended Complaint Against Bank of America Over Merrill Lynch Merger and Executive Bonuses

The US Securities and Exchange Commission’s amended complaint regarding the acquisition of Merrill Lynch by Bank of America Corp. last January includes one new assertion. In addition to the SEC’s original allegations against Bank of America, the agency now says that the investment bank was in violation of proxy regulations when it did not provide a merger agreement schedule, as well as a list identifying what would have been included in the schedule.

At the center of the SEC lawsuit is Bank of America’s proxy disclosure to shareholders that it wouldn’t pay year-end bonuses to Merrill executives. Yet, even as Merrill posted a record $27.8 billion loss last year, its executives were paid $3.6 billion.

BofA and the SEC initially attempted to settle the allegations for $33 million. Federal Judge Rakoff, however, wouldn’t sign off on what he considered both a swift resolution to an embarrassing situation for the bank and an attempt to make it appear as if the SEC was engaged in enforcement.

Rakoff accused SEC of not being hard enough on Bank of America, which it is supposed to regulate, even as shareholders suffered. He also accused the defendant of neglecting to take responsibility for its actions, which forced taxpayers to bail out the investment bank. A trial is scheduled to begin on March 1.

The US Congress and New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo are also investigating the merger between Bank of America and Merrill Lynch.

Throughout the US, our securities fraud law firm represents investors who have suffered financial losses because of broker-dealer misconduct.

Related Web Resources:
SEC's Amended BofA Complaint: New Claims, but No New Defendants, Law.com, October 23, 2009

Judge Rejects Settlement Over Merrill Bonuses, NY Times, September 15, 2009

SEC Fines Bank Of America $33 Million Over Bonuses, Consumer Affairs, August 3, 2009


Continue reading "SEC Submits Amended Complaint Against Bank of America Over Merrill Lynch Merger and Executive Bonuses" »

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

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

October 5, 2009

Former Merrill Lynch Employee, Guilty of $1.4 Million Texas Securities Fraud Scheme, Receives Prison Term

A judge has ordered a former Merrill Lynch employee, San Antonio stockbroker Bruce E. Hammonds, to serve almost five years in prison and three years supervised release for Texas securities fraud. Bruce E. Hammonds also must pay $1.1 million in restitution to the Merrill Lynch investors he defrauded and almost $60,000 to two clients that he continued to defraud after the broker-dealer fired him in June 2008.

Hammonds reportedly did not deny the alleged fraud when Merrill Lynch confronted him about his activities. The broker-dealer has paid the investment fraud victims back in full.

According to the criminal complaint affidavit, Hammonds opened a working capital account under the name B & J Partnership.He was supposed to register the account in an internal monitoring system, which he never did. Instead of placing investors’ funds in a Merrill Lynch fund, he deposited $1.4 million of their money in his working capital account. He provided clients with charts demonstrating the performance of the B&J Partnership investment fund even though no such fund existed.

Hammonds pleaded guilty to federal securities fraud charges earlier this year after an investigation found that between August 2006 and October 2008, Hammonds didn’t invest clients’ funds in stocks and hedge funds. Instead, he used the money for personal purposes, including an alleged house-flipping business. He gave back $486,000 to clients so it would appear as if they had made money off their investments.

Related Web Resources:
Judge sends ex-stockbroker to jail for bilking investors, Business Journal, October 2, 2009

Stockbroker sent to prison for $1.4 million scheme, My San Antonio, October 3, 2009

Continue reading "Former Merrill Lynch Employee, Guilty of $1.4 Million Texas Securities Fraud Scheme, Receives Prison Term" »

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

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

September 22, 2009

Bank of America’s Merrill Lynch unit agrees to $26.5 million national settlement stemming from Texas securities fraud claim

Following a Texas securities fraud claim that Bank of America's Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc. allowed unregistered sales persons to sell securities, the Bank of America unit has agreed to pay $26.5 million as part of a national settlement over the allegations. The state of Texas’s portion of the settlement is $1.6 million. The other states that were part of the task force, led by the Texas State Securities Board, are Arizona, Colorado, Vermont, Missouri, Delaware, and New Hampshire.

Client associates who accept trade orders must be registered not just in their own state but also in the client’s state. Per the probe, the task force determined that Merrill did not have a supervisory system that was designed in a manner that made sure that associates were in compliance with registration requirements. The task force was investigating a tip, provided in May 2008 by a Merrill Lynch employee, that the company saved money on registration fees by allowing client associates to register only in their home state and in a neighboring state.

Last week, Merrill Lynch agreed to pay the state of Texas another $12.7 million over a Texas securities fraud cause involving auction-rate securities. The settlement ends the state’s probe into the broker-dealer’s handling of ARS and clients’ funds even as the market was collapsing.

The board determined that not only did Merrill Lynch not tell investors that the market could very well collapse, but also that the broker-dealer offered financial associates sales incentives to sell ARS despite knowing that the auction process could fail.

September has been a rough month for Bank of America and Merrill Lynch. On the same day that the Texas securities commissioner announced the $26.5 million settlement, New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo accused high-level Bank of America Corp. executives of failing to reveal key information about its Merrill Lynch & Co. takeover. Cuomo is threatening to press charges. Bank of America, however, is calling Cuomo’s allegations “spurious.”

BofA's Merrill to pay US$26.5M in settlement on unregistered salespeople, AP/Yahoo, September 8, 2009

Bank of America Calls Cuomo’s Merrill Allegations ‘Spurious,' Bloomberg.com, September 10, 2009

Merrill Lynch pays $12.7M to settle Texas auction rate securities case, Taragana.com, September 14, 2009

Continue reading "Bank of America’s Merrill Lynch unit agrees to $26.5 million national settlement stemming from Texas securities fraud claim " »

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

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

September 8, 2009

$150 Million Settlement in Merrill Lynch Securities Class Action Lawsuit is Granted Preliminary Approval by District Court Judge

A district court judge issued his preliminary approval of a proposed $150 million settlement in the securities class action lawsuit against Merrill Lynch. The securities fraud lawsuit was filed for purchasers of specific Merrill Lynch preferred securities and bonds.

The plaintiffs of the Bond Action had invested in over $24 billion in preferred debt and securities that the broker-dealer had made available to the public between October 2006 and May 2008. The lead plaintiffs in the securities class action lawsuit were the Louisiana Municipal Police Employees’ Retirement System and the Louisiana Sheriffs' Pension and Relief Fund. They pursued their claims under the Securities Acts’ Sections 11, 2, and 15.

In addition to Merrill Lynch, a number of the company’s officers and directors, as well as the offering underwriters, are named as defendants in the complaint.

The lawsuit claims that offering documents for certain securities offerings did not accurately reveal the “existence and the value of tens of billions of dollars of complex derivative securities linked to subprime mortgages” that were contained in Merrill’s balance sheet. Such exposures allegedly almost “wiped out” the broker dealer by September 2008 and nearly caused Bank of America, Merrill’s acquirer, to “topple.” A federal bailout helped rescue the merger.

The parties had previous agreed to a $475 million settlement, in addition to a $75 million settlement for a related class action per ERISA.

The defendants went into the settlement even though the motions to dismiss the amended complaint were pending. A November 23 hearing for granting final approval is now scheduled.

Related Web Resources:
BofA to settle Merrill lawsuit for $150 million, Reuters, August 24, 2009

Court Preliminarily Approves $150 Million Subprime-Related Merrill Lynch Bond Action Settlement, The D & O Diary, August 27, 2009

Louisiana Municipal Police Employees’ Retirement System

Louisiana Sheriffs' Pension and Relief Fund

Continue reading "$150 Million Settlement in Merrill Lynch Securities Class Action Lawsuit is Granted Preliminary Approval by District Court Judge" »

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

Posted In: Financial Firms , Merrill Lynch

September 2, 2009

Disgruntled Investors Continue to File Securities Fraud Litigation Against Merrill Lynch Even Eight Months After Its Acquisition by Bank of America Corp.

The plaintiffs of some 166 of the 221 cases filed against Merrill Lynch & Co. since January 1, 2009 are alleging securities fraud-related violations. This means that Bank of America Corp, which acquired the broker-dealer at the beginning of the year, has assumed responsibility for the outcome of these civil cases. Some of these investor fraud claims were filed as late as last month.

Some cases discuss Merrill’s involvement in the marketing, underwriting, and selling of securitizations, or asset-backed securities. Other cases delve into Merrill’s dealings in the auction-rate securities market. A number of the securities fraud cases against Merrill are class action lawsuits. Merrill Lynch is the lead defendant in many of the cases and one of several financial firms named in the other complaints.

Some of the Securities Fraud Cases Against Merrill Lynch:
Gordon v. Royal Bank of Scotland Group plc.: Merrill Lynch and several other financial firms are accused of misrepresenting or omitting key information in offering documents when participating in securitization underwriting.

Public Employees Retirement System of Mississippi v. Merrill Lynch & Co. Inc.: Merrill is accused of violated specific sections of the 1933 Securities Act when it allegedly made bogus statements in registering and offering documents connected to asset-backed securities.

Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. v. Merrill Lynch & Co. Inc.: The pharmaceutical company plaintiff contends that it lost $5 million when investing in ARS that the broker-dealer structured and sold.

Ginsberg v. Merrill Lynch & Co. Inc.: This class action claim accuses Merrill of failing to tell shareholders that the firm was significantly exposed to collateralized debt obligations and other high-risk financial products. The plaintiffs claim that senior management at Merrill Lynch let bogus information go out during conference calls and in registration statements and news releases.

If you are a former Merrill Lynch investor and you believe you were the victim of securities fraud, our stockbroker fraud law firm would be happy to offer you a free case evaluation.


Related Web Resources:
Gordon v. Royal Bank of Scotland Group plc, S.D.N.Y., 09-cv-00704, 1/28/09

In re: Merrill Lynch & Co. Inc., Auction Rate Securities (ARS) Marketing Litigation, Justia Docket

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

Posted In: Auction-Rate Securities , Bank of America , Broker Fraud , Class Action Lawsuits , Collateralized Mortgage Obligations , Financial Firms , Merrill Lynch

August 12, 2009

UBS AG and Merrill Lynch Collectively Fined $250,000 by FINRA for Closed-End Fund Actions

UBS Financial Services Inc. has agreed to be fined $100,000 and Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc. has consented to a $150,000 fine, says the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, for alleged supervisory failures that resulted in the inappropriate short-term sales of closed-end funds that were bought at initial public offerings for the funds. By agreeing to settle, the broker-dealers are not deny or admitting to the FINRA charges. They are, however, consenting to the findings.

FINRA also announced that it was suspending five Merrill Lynch brokers for 15 days. Each of them must pay a $10,000 fine for allegedly making fund recommendations that were unsuitable for investors.

Merrill Lynch brokers that FINRA has sanction include:

• Kenneth C. Iwelumo (his clients lost about $563,000)
• Joseph Miller (approximately $130,000 in client losses)
• Ronald Kemp (about $411,000 in customer losses)
• Michael Kizman (about $210,000 in losses)
• John Ong (about $350,000 in client losses)

The investigation into the activities of a number of former UBS brokers is ongoing.

Closed-End Funds
Closed-End Funds are investment companies that sell a fixed number of shares during an initial public offering. These sales come with built-in sales charges. The CEF’s at issue came with a 4.5% sales charges and a 30-90 day penalty bid period after the IPO. If a client sold the CEF that had been purchased at the IPO during this time period, the broker would lose the commission.

FINRA says that both broker-dealers knew that CEF’s bought at IPO’s are more appropriate for long-term investments and that because of the sales charges that come with their purchases, it is inappropriate to engage in the short-term trading of CEF’s. FINRA claims that Merrill Lynch and UBS did not have the proper supervisory procedures and systems in place so that brokers couldn’t and/or wouldn't make such unsuitable CEF sales.

FINRA also says that both broker-dealers failed to warn supervisors about the potential issues that could result from such activity and did not properly train registered individuals. Due to this improper supervision, brokers for Merrill and UBS recommended that certain clients engage in short-term sales of CEF’s bought at IPOs without fully understanding the financial ramifications these recommendations would have on their clients’ finances.

FINRA is concerned about brokers who convince customers to buy CEF’s during their IPO’s and then wait until after the penalty bid period is over to recommend that clients sell the CEF’s—usually at a loss. These brokers then recommend that clients use the proceeds from the sale to purchase more CEF’s at initial public offerings.

FINRA Fines Merrill Lynch, UBS for Supervisory Failures in Sales of Closed-End Funds; Customers Get More Than $5 Million in Remediation, FINRA, July 28, 2009

Merrill, UBS Are Fined in Closed-End-Fund Case, The Wall Street Journal, July 29, 2009

Continue reading "UBS AG and Merrill Lynch Collectively Fined $250,000 by FINRA for Closed-End Fund Actions" »

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

Posted In: Broker Fraud , Broker-Dealers , Financial Firms , Merrill Lynch , UBS

August 7, 2009

Merrill Lynch & Co. Sued Over Auction-Rate Securities by Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. and Seneca Gaming Corp.

On Wednesday, Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. sued Merrill Lynch & Co., a Bank of America Corp. unit. The pharmaceutical company’s securities fraud lawsuit accuses the brokerage firm of making misrepresentations that resulted in its purchase of $273 million in ARS. Merrill Lynch underwrote the securities that Teva bought. A day later, Seneca Gaming Corp. filed its own lawsuit against Merrill Lynch. The complaint is over a $5 million tranche of ARS backed by mortgages that the company had purchased.

While the agreements that brokerage firms have reached with regulators generally require that the former buy back auction-rate securities from small companies, individual investors, and nonprofits, the broker-dealers are only required to work with bigger investors or try their best to help them deal with their illiquidity issues. As a result, some large investors are taking matters into their own hands by filing securities fraud claims and lawsuits. These investors include Bankruptcy Management Solutions Inc., Braintree Laboratories, Ocwen Financial Corp. Ashland Inc., and Texas Instruments. Other large companies will likely follow suit.

For the large investors that are undecided on what action to take regarding their frozen ARS, it is important from them to realize that more financial losses are likely.
Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas LTD LLP founder and securities fraud attorney William Shepherd notes, “Our law firm is handling a number of substantial ARS claims for large investors with funds that have been frozen for more than a year. Some have suffered consequential damages as a result. Other clients have sold and sustained large losses or will face such losses if and when they do sell. Many investors simply seek to unlock their funds as soon as possible. Our legal fee arrangements differ depending upon these circumstances.”

Related Web Resources:
Merrill Lynch Sued By Teva, Seneca Gaming Over ARS Sales, CNN, August 6, 2009

Will Their Be An Onslaught of ARS Litigation?", Law 360

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

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

August 6, 2009

Bank of America Agrees to settle SEC Charges of Merrill Lynch Bonuses for $33 Million But Judge Blocks Settlement

Although Bank of America has agreed to settle charges by the Securities and Exchange Commission that the broker-dealer misled investors about Merrill Lynch bonuses worth billions of dollars, a federal judge is withholding approval for the $33 million penalty. The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York Judge Jed S. Rakoff has scheduled a hearing for Monday to discuss the matter.

Without denying or admitting to the charges, Bank of America had consented to pay the amount. The SEC has accused Bank of America of failing to notify investors about plans to pay top Merrill executives $5.8 billion in bonuses for the 2008 fiscal year. Regulators say that instead, the brokerage firm told investors that year-end performance bonuses were not going to be given out.

It wasn’t until February when New York State Attorney Attorney General Andrew Cuomo accused Merrill Lynch of secretly issuing the rewards to its executives before its merger with Bank of America that news of the bonuses was revealed. Investigators also found out Merrill had bumped up the date of its end-of-year bonus payments and that Bank of America had let Merrill pay the bonuses to its executives.

Scott Silvestri, a Bank of America spokesperson, says the settlement is a “constructive conclusion” to the dispute. The SEC’s charges against Bank of America is the first case that the federal government has brought against a financial firm that has been closely linked to the ongoing financial crisis.

There are, however, critics who are not satisified with the settlement. The Washington Post quotes Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich (D-Ohio) of criticizing the settlement amount. The head of the House Oversight and Government Reform subcommittee noted that it pays in America to commit a corporate crime. Former SEC chief accountant Lynn Turner expressed disappointment that no executives were charged with any wrongdoing.

Bank of America has complained that federal regulators pressured the broker-dealer to make the deal with Merrill, which was in financial trouble at the time.

Related Web Resources:
Judge Blocks BoA Settlement, Washington Post, August 6, 2009

Judge raps $33m bank bonus fine, BBC, August 6, 2009

Bank of America Pays $33 Million to Settle Merrill Bonus Charges, Washington Post, August 4, 2009

Continue reading "Bank of America Agrees to settle SEC Charges of Merrill Lynch Bonuses for $33 Million But Judge Blocks Settlement" »

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

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

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