Morgan Stanley :: Stock Broker Fraud Blog

Home > Morgan Stanley

February 5, 2010

Securities Claims Over Morgan Stanley Mutual Funds Dismissed by Appeals Court

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Posted by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Financial Advisers , Morgan Stanley , Mutual Funds

Bookmark:

December 18, 2009

Citigroup, J.P Morgan Chase, Morgan Stanley and Other Firms Added to Investigation of Goldman Sachs over "Front-Running" of Research

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority ( FINRA) has launched an investigation into improper trading in advance of stock research and ratings at Citigroup, J.P. Morgan Chase, Morgan Stanley and ten other financial firms, it was reported today by the Wall Street Journal and Reuters News Service.

FINRA - formerly the National Association of Securities Dealers (NASD) – has since August examined weekly meetings at Goldman Sachs where research analysts offer tips to traders and then to big clients. According to the Wall Street Journal, this examination has now been expanded to include ten other firms and FINRA is now seeking information concerning any meetings where unpublished research opinions or trading ideas were disclosed to non-research employees or clients.

"FINRA does not reveal names of firms that have received sweep letters," said its spokesman Herb Perone to Reuters. Citigroup, JPMorgan and Morgan Stanley could reportedly not be reached immediately for comment.

Continue reading "Citigroup, J.P Morgan Chase, Morgan Stanley and Other Firms Added to Investigation of Goldman Sachs over "Front-Running" of Research" »

Posted by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Citigroup , Goldman Sachs , J P Morgan - Chase , Morgan Stanley

Bookmark:

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 | Permalink | Email This Post

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

Bookmark:

August 31, 2009

In Investment fraud Lawsuit Against Lehman Brothers, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley, Court Grants Class Certification

A District Court judge has granted class certification in the securities fraud lawsuit against Lehman Brothers, Morgan Stanley, and Goldman Sachs. The plaintiffs are accusing the broker-dealers of putting forth misleading analysts reports about RSL Communications Inc. for the purposes of maintaining or obtaining profitable financial and advisory work from RSL. Per Judge Shira Sheindlin, the class is to be made up of all parties that bought RSL Common stock between April 30, 1999 and December 29, 2000.

RSL investors, who are the plaintiffs, contend that the defendants artificially inflated the market price of RSL common stock, which injured them and other class members.

In July 2005, the court had certified a class that included anyone who had bought or acquired RSL equity shares between the dates noted above after determining that the plaintiffs had made “some showing” that Rule 23 requirements had been satisfied. The broker-dealer defendants appealed.

The US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit vacated the class certification order and remanded the action for reconsideration. It’s decision in e Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, 471 F.3d 24 had clarified class certification standards.

Two years later, pending the outcome In re Salomon Analyst Metromedia Litigation, the court issued a stay. Following its opinion, which held that market presumption includes securities fraud allegations against research analysts, the Court lifted the stay, allowing the plaintiffs to renew their motion for class certification. The court granted the motion and noted that the defendants have been unable to “rebut the fraud on the market presumption by the preponderance of the evidence on the basis that the analyst reports” are missing certain key pieces of information. Per their securities fraud claim, plaintiffs can therefore avail of the “fraud on the market presumption to establish transaction causation.”

The court said that the plaintiffs have succeeded in proving that loss causation can be proven on a “class-wide basis."

Related Web Resources:
Court OKs Class Cert. In Fraud Suit Against Lehman, Law360, August 5, 2009

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (PDF)

Continue reading "In Investment fraud Lawsuit Against Lehman Brothers, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley, Court Grants Class Certification" »

Posted by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Broker Fraud , Goldman Sachs , Lehman Brothers , Morgan Stanley

Bookmark:

July 27, 2009

Morgan Stanley to Pay $500,000 to Resolve SEC Charges that it Recommended Unapproved Money Managers to Clients

Morgan Stanley & Co. Inc. has consented to pay half a million dollars to settle Securities and Exchange Commission charges that it recommended unapproved money managers to clients. The SEC claims the broker-dealer breached its fiduciary duty to Nashville advisory clients when it made material misstatements about a program designed to help clients choose money managers who were “properly vetted,” as well as assist them in developing investment goals.

Instead, the SEC claims that Morgan Stanley suggested money managers who were not approved to take part in the broker-dealer’s advisory programs and did not undergo the firm’s due diligence process. The SEC says that it was specifically William Phillips, a former Morgan Stanley broker based in Tennessee, who guided clients to three managers who were “unapproved.”

The clients were not told that the managers gave Morgan Stanley and Phillips significant fees or commissions of at least $3.3 million. The alleged incidents took place from 2000 to through early 2006.

Meantime, Phillips is contesting the charges against him and Is denying that he engaged in any impropriety. Phillips’s attorney claims the SEC is not alleging antifraud violations and that the allegations did not stem from any client complaints.

By agreeing to settle, Morgan Stanley is not admitting to or denying the allegations. The broker-dealer, however, did agree to cease and desist from violations in the future.

Scott Friestad, the SEC’s Associate Enforcement Director, recently noted that it is the job of investment advisers to put investors’ interests before their own and to give clients accurate and complete information at all times.

Related Web Resources:
Morgan Stanley paying $500,000 to settle SEC charges of misleading clients in Nashville, Newser.com, July 27, 2009

SEC Charges Morgan Stanley and Former Adviser with Misleading Clients, SEC, July 20, 2009

Related Web Resources:
Read the SEC's Order against Morgan Stanley (PDF)

Read the SEC's Order Against Phillips (PDF)

Continue reading "Morgan Stanley to Pay $500,000 to Resolve SEC Charges that it Recommended Unapproved Money Managers to Clients" »

Posted by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Broker Fraud , Financial Firms , Morgan Stanley

Bookmark:

July 10, 2009

Morgan Stanley Plan to Repackage Low-Grade Debt Obligations Then Sell These as Low-risk AAA Bonds is "Preposturous," Says Stockbroker Fraud Lawyer Bill Shepherd

Morgan Stanley is taking low grade collateralized debt obligations, repackaging these in into new pooled securities and obtaining questionable AAA ratings. The broker-dealer plans to sell $130 million CDO’s this way in a manner similar to the way banks have been dealing with commercial mortgage-backed securities. The repackaged CDO is to a great expent a copy of a CDO put together by Goldman Sachs Group in 2007 using bonds from Greywolf CLO I Ltd.

$87.1 million of securities are expected to receive the AAA rating—the offering is 89 cents on the dollar—the second portion is $42.9 million of securities that Moody's Investors Service have rated Baa2.

According to Sylvain Raynes, an R&R Consulting principal, many insurers and banks can only buy AAA. She says that by making AAA out of not AAA, people with AAA “on their forehead” can purchase.

Morgan Stanley is mirroring re-REMICs. This financing structure bundles mortgage securities into bonds that give investors another layer of collateral (or protection) from downgrades. Banks use Re-REMICs as protection against losses on residential mortgage securities.

Already, some $27 billion in home-loan bond re-REMICs have been issued this year—an increase from the $17 billion for all of 2008. Even Goldman Sachs has plans to sell $216.9 million of repackaged commercial mortgage debt. Re-REMIC will come from bonds sold in 2006.

After learning about Morgan Stanley’s plan to repackage CDO’s, Shepherd Smith Edwards and Kantas, LLP Founder and Stockbroker Fraud Attorney Bill Shepherd said, “Apparently there have been no lessons learned by Wall Street about packaging and selling questionable loans by attaching misleading AAA ratings to these in order to subvert prudent investment goals. Our securities fraud law firm is pursuing many claims for institutional and individual clients who have been burned by such investments. Any defense by investment firms that they did not know these investments were risky was then—as is now—simply preposterous!”

Related Web Resources:
Morgan Stanley Plans to Turn Downgraded Loan CDO Into AAA Bonds, Bloomberg.com, July 8, 2009

Morgan Stanley To Sell $130M Repackaged CDO - Sources, Wall Street Journal, July 8, 2009

Posted by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Collateral Debt Obligation , Financial Firms , Morgan Stanley

Bookmark:

March 5, 2009

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

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

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

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

Related Web Resources:
Read the Complaint

The Boilermakers National Funds

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

Posted by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Bank of America , Broker Fraud , Citigroup , Credit Ratings Agencies , Credit Suisse , Deutsche Bank , Financial Firms , Fitch , J P Morgan - Chase , Moody's , Morgan Stanley

Bookmark:

February 27, 2009

Morgan Stanley Court Case Demonstrates Why Securities Arbitration is Often a Better Forum

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Morgan Stanley

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

Posted by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Arbitration , Class Action Lawsuits , Financial Firms , Morgan Stanley

Bookmark:

November 19, 2008

NASAA Says Investors with Frozen Auction-Rate Securities Should Ask Investment Firms About Buyback Opportunities

The North American Securities Administrators Association is reminding investors to ask the investment firms that sold them any now-frozen auction-rate securities about repurchase opportunities. Following the ARS market collapse, securities regulators in 12 US states joined together to form a multi-state Task Force dedicated to finding out whether Wall Street investment firms had misled investors when persuading them to invest in the ARS market.

As part of their settlement agreements reached with the firms in question, 11 major Wall Street investment banks have said they will buy back over $51 billion in ARS from charities, retail investors, and small companies. However, these repurchase offers may not be available indefinitely.

NASAA President Fred Joseph says the best way to avail of any redemption offers is to contact the investment firms as soon as possible. So far, 11 firms have agreed in principle to buy back over $50 billion in ARS. NASAA says additional repurchase opportunities are expected to become available in the coming months.

Investment Firms with ARS Hotlines:

Bank of America 1-866-638-4183
Deutsche Bank 1-866-926-1437
Citi 1-866-720-4802
JP Morgan 1-866-450-8470
Goldman Sachs 1-888-350-2857
Merrill Lynch 1-888-706-1381
UBS 1-800-253-1974
Morgan Stanley 1-800-566-2273
Wachovia 1-866-283-794

Meantime, more investigations are under way into the sales practices of US firms that marketed and sold auction-rate securities to investors. Unfortunately, many investors who were told ARS were liquid investments are now dealing with frozen securities and cannot access their funds.

If you invested in the auction-rate securities industry and your ARS became frozen during the market’s collapse, you may be the victim of securities fraud.

Related Web Resources:
State Securities Regulators Remind Auction Rate Securities Investors to Contact Firms About Buyback Offers, NASAA, November 17, 2008

Small firms caught in ARS buyback vise, November 16, 2008

Continue reading "NASAA Says Investors with Frozen Auction-Rate Securities Should Ask Investment Firms About Buyback Opportunities" »

Posted by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Auction-Rate Securities , Bank of America , Citigroup , Deutsche Bank , Financial Firms , Goldman Sachs , J P Morgan - Chase , Merrill Lynch , Morgan Stanley , NASAA , UBS , Wachovia

Bookmark:

March 19, 2008

Wachovia Securities Analyst Comments on Bear Stearns’ Sale and Calls Merrill Lynch the “Riskiest” Investment Bank

In a note to investors, Wachovia Securities Analyst Doug Sipkin commented on the state of the leading Wall Street securities firms in light of the worsening global credit crisis.

Sipkin blamed the “The failure of Bear Stearns” on a “management issue” rather than a “market issue.” JP Morgan Chase & Co. recently purchased Bear Stearns, the fifth largest securities company, for $236 million—that’s $2/share—a 90% market drop in just two days. The securities firm ran out of money after clients took away funds.

Sipkin, however, reassured investors that the action taken by the Federal Reserve to reduce emergency lending rates will keep the other four big securities firms in business.

The Wachovia analyst says that worries about Lehman Brothers are misguided and that the bank has sufficient liquidity to keep business running. Sipkin cited Lehman’s “superior management” and “superior business.”

Lehman and Goldman Sachs are expected to garner new business from the Bear sale. Sipkin said Goldman will likely benefit from “migrating prime brokerage balances,” while Lehman would likely pick up “material market share" in mortgages.

Morgan Stanley, said Sipkin, seems to be weathering the crisis because it has its asset management and brokerage businesses.

Sipkin pointed to Merrill Lynch as appearing to be the weakest of the top Wall Street firms—but said that it would also likely stay afloat, considering that its balance sheet had the highest leverage.

Related Web Resources:

Ahead of the Bell: Investment Banks, Chron.com/AP, March 18, 2008

US stock market drops as Bear Stearns sold for $2/share, Reuters, March 17, 2008

JP Morgan Shares to Acquire Bear Stearns, Bear Stearns

If you have been the victim of investor fraud, you are entitled to the recovery of your lost investment. Contact Shepherd Smith and Edwards today to schedule your free consultation with one of our stockbroker fraud lawyers.

Posted by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Bear Stearns , Goldman Sachs , J P Morgan - Chase , Lehman Brothers , Merrill Lynch , Morgan Stanley

Bookmark:

March 12, 2008

Countrywide Financial, Merrill Lynch, and Citigroup Executives Defend Their Hefty Compensations Following Subprime Mortgage Crisis

Appearing before the U.S. Congress last week, Countrywide Financial CEO and founder Angelo Mozilo, Ex-Citigroup CEO Charles Prince, and Ex-Merrill Lynch Chairman and CEO Stanley O’Neil gave their testimonies to the House Committee on Government and Oversight Reform.

The three men say that reports about their compensation are “grossly exaggerated” and that they too have lost millions of dollars from the mortgage debacle. On Thursday, the Congressional issued a report stating that the three men earned $460 million between 2002 and 2006.

All three men say their income from the firms are tied to the profits that the companies made in the years prior to the mortgage crisis and that their company stock has dropped dramatically since then.

Mozilo reportedly stood to earn $115 after Countrywide’s pending sale to Bank of America is completed. He now has agreed to forfeit $37.5 million.

O’Neal received $161 million after stepping down from Merrill Lynch. Prince left Citigroup last November with about $68 million.

Other Wall Street CEO’s that have generated media buzz for their generous compensations:

-Last year, Goldman Sachs Chairman and CEO Lloyd Blankenfein received $68 million—the largest bonus ever for an industry head.

-Robert Nardelli, Chrysler Chairman and CEO, took away $210 million in stock options, money, and retirement benefits after being asked to leave Home Depot.

In 2006, 386 Fortune 500 firm chiefs received $10.8 million in compensation.

Shepherd Smith and Edwards represents stockbroker fraud clients that have lost money because of the negligence or misconduct of a member of a securities industry. One of our securities fraud lawyers can discuss your case during a free consultation.

Related Web Resources:

Mortgage mess CEOs defend pay, CNN Money.com, March 7, 2008

Congress quizzes financial execs on CEO pay 'lottery', USA Today, March 7, 2008

Committee Holds Hearing on CEO Pay and the Mortgage Crisis, House Committee on Government and Oversight Reform

Posted by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Citigroup , Countrywide Financial , Morgan Stanley , Subprime Mortgage

Bookmark:

February 11, 2008

Pondering the SEC’s Role in the Subprime Mortgage Crisis

What was the role of the Securities and Exchange Commission in the collapse of the subprime mortgage bubble? Although mortgage brokers, investment banks, and ratings agencies are frequently held responsible for the demise, little is said about the roles of the Financial Industry Regulatory Industry (FINRA) and the SEC—both watchdog agencies that are responsible for monitoring complex credit derivatives and their suitability requirements for investors.

Yet where was the SEC when it was time to oversee investment banks and determine whether they had sufficient capital for their balance sheets, trading positions, and the appropriate risk management systems so that major losses could be avoided?

One notable problem is that there is not enough clear data available about the credit derivatives market. Structured finance products, including collateralized debt obligations (CDOs) are traded over-the-counter in the United States. This means that price information for these products is not easily accessible.

It wasn’t until 2007 that the SEC, the Commodities Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), and other members of the President’s Working Group recommended that stricter oversight of the over-the-counter market be implemented.

While regulators are now examining the way banks structured, priced, and sold mortgage-laden securities, some industry insiders feel that these steps were taken too late. Should the SEC have noticed the warning signs?

In 2006, Merrill Lynch senior executive Jeff Kronthal was fired when he responded reluctantly to former Chief Executive Stanley O’Neal’s mandate that firms be more aggressive about taking risks with mortgage securities. Morgan Stanley’s new Chief Executive John Thain rehired Kronthal last December.

In 2005, Bear Stearns reported in its 2005 financial disclosure that it was threatened by a possible civil enforcement action related to pricing, analysis, and valuation of $63 billion in CDOs. Bear Stearns also reported that then-New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer had contacted the firm about $16 billion in CDOs it had sold to an undisclosed client.

Former SEC attorney Gary Aguirre says that while aggressively pursuing Pequote Capital and its alleged involvement in an insider trading case in 2005, he was fired when he tried to interview Morgan Stanley Chief Executive John Mack. Aguirre claims that the SEC is too closely associated with the industry it regulates.

Earlier this month, securities regulators in Massachusetts filed a civil fraud lawsuit against Merrill Lynch over $14 million in CDOs that the firm sold to the town of Springfield. Regulators say they were unsuitable for and sold without the town’s permission. Merrill has admitted to the town’s lack of consent and paid its investment back in full—although it now has little value.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation says it is conducting criminal investigations into 14 firms regarding their involvement in mortgage securitization activities.

Morgan Stanley, Merrill Lynch, Bear Stearns, and Goldman Sachs all admit that different regulators have asked them about their handling of subprime mortgage securities.

If you are an investor who has lost money because of the misconduct or negligence of someone in the securities industry, please contact Shepherd Smith and Edwards today. Your first consultation with one of our stockbroker fraud lawyers is free.

Related Web Resources:

SEC

Collateralized Debt Obligation (CDO), Investopedia

Subprime Mortgage, Investopedia

Posted by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Bear Stearns , Collateral Debt Obligation , Goldman Sachs , Morgan Stanley , SEC , Subprime Mortgage

Bookmark:

January 24, 2008

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Related Web Resources:

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

Read the Complaint (PDF)

Posted by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Ameriprise - Securities America , Bank of America , Credit Suisse , Deutsche Bank , Financial Firms , J P Morgan - Chase , Lehman Brothers , Merrill Lynch , Morgan Stanley , Wells Fargo

Bookmark:

January 17, 2008

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Posted by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Class Action Lawsuits , Morgan Stanley , Retirement Funds

Bookmark:

January 2, 2008

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Related Web Resources

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

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

Posted by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Market Timing , Morgan Stanley

Bookmark:

December 4, 2007

Morgan Stanley and WestLB Lose Cases Because of E-Mail Evidence—or Lack Thereof

Brokerage firms involved in legal disputes are finding that they are being forced to hand over relevant electronic conversations that are resulting in large jury verdicts, regulatory fines, and the possibility that investors might re-open arbitration cases where e-mail conversations had been suppressed.

Here are a few cases where e-mail records played a key role that was generally not in the favor of the brokerage firm:

Morgan Stanley may have to pay several thousand investors anywhere from $3,000 to $20,000 after settling a case with FINRA, who says the brokerage firm did not in fact lose millions of e-mails because of the September 11 terrorist attacks. Investors had said these e-mails could have helped prove their arbitration cases against Morgan Stanley. FINRA says that millions of these e-mails had been restored to the firm’s system and Morgan Stanley tried to withhold this fact.

As part of its settlement with FINRA, Morgan Stanley paid a $3 million fine to the industry self-regulator and set up a $9.5 million fund from which it will pay investors that were affected by the omission.

Last month, a jury ordered WestLB AG to pay Claudia Quinby, a former sales employee, $2.54 million because it retaliated after she complained of sexual harassment. The e-mail records helped proved the case in Quinby’s favor.

Brokerage firms, like all businesses, are legally obligated to hang onto all evidence, including e-mails, when they are placed on notice that they are involved in a lawsuit. Federal securities laws mandate that securities firms have to keep records for a minimum of three years.

In 2005, a jury ordered UBS AG to pay $29.3 million in damages to Laura Zubulake. UBS threw away key e-mails that it should have kept after Zubulake filed a claim with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

If you are an investor who has lost money because of the misconduct of a member of the securities industry , you have the right to get your investment back. Contact the law firm of Shepherd Smith and Edwards today and ask for your free consultation.

Related Web Resources:

Morgan Stanley, UBS No Longer Can Keep Secrets: Susan Antilla, Bloomberg.com, November 27

Morgan Stanley Must Pay Millions For Withholding E-Mails, Information Week, September 28, 2007

UBS Ordered to Pay $29 Million in Sex Bias Lawsuit, New York Times, April 27, 2005

Posted by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Morgan Stanley , UBS

Bookmark:

October 16, 2007

Morgan Stanley Former Associate and Husband Sentenced in Insider Trading Scheme

The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York has sentenced former Morgan Stanley Associate Randi Collotta and her husband, an attorney, to home confinement and ordered them to pay more than $10,000 in fines, plus a forfeiture, for their alleged roles in a large insider trading scheme which apparently resulted in at least $15 million of illicit profits.

At all relevant times, Randi Collotta was an associate in Morgan Stanley & Co. Inc.'s global compliance division, the indictment said. Her husband practiced law at a firm in Long Island at the time of his arrest, a source knowledgeable with the case said. The SEC charged the Collottas and 12 others with insider trading violations for using information stolen from UBS Securities LLC and Morgan Stanley.

The indictment detailed trades the Collottas allegedly made with insider information gained by Collotta at Morgan Stanley. She passed the information to her husband, who passed it to a co-conspirator, who then made trades based on the information and passed the information to a second co-conspirator, who traded on the information as well.

Mrs. Collotta was sentenced to four years' probation and her husband was sentenced to three years’ probation. Each was required to spend the first six months in home confinement. (One might wonder whether six months confinement at home with a spouse is to easy or too harsh.) Ms. Colotta must also spend 60 days in prison during the course of her probationary period.

Shepherd Smith and Edwards represents investors nationwide in claims against securities firms. We have represented investors in more than 1,000 securities cases, including many against Morgan Stanley. To learn whether we might assist you with a claim contact us to arrange a free consultation with one of our attorneys.

Posted by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Morgan Stanley , Securities Fraud

Bookmark:

October 12, 2007

Oppenheimer, Morgan Stanley, Nomura Securities, and A.G. Edwards Traders Face SEC Charges of Stealing Stock Loan Kickbacks Worth $12 Million Plus

38 stock loan traders from A.G. Edwards, Morgan Stanley, Oppenheimer, and Nomura Securities are accused of stealing over $12 Million in stock loan kickbacks from their Wall Street firms. The Securities and Exchange Commission has charged the employees with the more than $12 million theft.

The SEC says that from 1998-2006, the traders worked with fake stock loan finders to skim profits from their employers through finder fees as well as cash kickbacks from finders. The stock loan traders conducted actual, legal stock loans but logged that the transactions involved finders, so there would be finder’s fees.

The finders were usually friends or relatives of the traders who were in charge of illegitimate “shell companies” that were not even a part of the stock loan business. The “finder” would then pay traders with kickbacks. The more sophisticated scams involved traders using their kickbacks to pay the other traders who had pushed through the loan transactions.

21 stock shell companies/stock loan finders (including a perfume salesman, a mailman, a dental receptionist, and a pharmacist) and 17 former and current stock loan traders now face SEC charges. The SEC says a few of these illegal operations took place in bars and restaurants throughout New York City where participants passed around payments worth thousands of dollars. The money was wrapped in newspapers or in envelopes.

In one case, two stock loan traders from Morgan Stanley are accused of stealing $1 million in undisclosed kickbacks from a shell company run by one of the trader’s relatives.

Federal prosecutors have filed charges of criminal fraud and conspiracy against 5 of the stock loan traders. 10 people have pled guilty in the case.

If you are an investor that has lost money because a member of the securities industry engaged in illegal activities, you should contact Shepherd Smith and Edwards today. We have helped thousands of people recover their financial losses. One of our experienced securities litigation attorneys would be happy to speak with you.

Related Web Resources:

US SEC charges 38 traders in stock loan scheme, Reuters, September 20, 2007

SEC Charges 38 Defendants in Multi-Million Dollar Stock Loan Scams, SEC.gov, September 20, 2007

Posted by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: AIG SunAmerica , Morgan Stanley , Nomura Securities , Oppenheimer , SEC Enforcement

Bookmark:

October 11, 2007

Merrill Lynch, Morgan Stanley and Bear Stearns Suffer Losses as Ratings Agencies Are Grilled over Sub-prime's

Merrill Lynch will soon report third quarter earnings which analysts have revised downward. An analyst at competitor Goldman Sachs says that Merrill’s earnings for the third quarter will be about $1.80 per share, down from $1.95 and lowered Merrill's stock price target to $94 from $108. The Goldman analyst predicted that Merrill will have $4 billion in write-downs, primarily from the fixed income division, resulting in a net loss of $1.5 billion for the quarter.

Other analysts' expectations were even even lower: Fox Pitt Kelton's analyst lowered earnings per share estimate for Merrill to $1.20, from a previous estimate of $1.91, “while noting that forecasting confidence is low in periods such as these.” He also expected the firm to experience $3.5 billion “in gross negative marks and realized losses” on leveraged loans, CDOs, and mortgages resulting in $2.2 billion in net losses and attributes the more positive net loss estimate to “$700 million in hedging gains; $500 million in loan fees; and $100 million in gains on liability marks.”

Morgan Stanley reported last week that it suffered a 17 percent drop in profit compared to the third quarter last year, earning $1.44, about ten cents below analysts’ estimates, with loan losses of $1 billion the culprit.

Bear Stearns has been center stage in mortgage related investment problems which have hit the investment community. That firm reported last week that it experienced a 61 percent drop in profits compared to the third quarter last year. This was mostly caused by multi-million dollar losses in mortgage focused hedge funds.

Meanwhile, Goldman Sachs, beat all analyst’s earnings per share predictions by more than $1.50, with $6.13 earnings per share in the third quarter, claiming that credit hedging had mitigated the firms loss. Lehman Brothers reported better than expected earnings of $1.54 per share despite $700 million in losses related to the credit crunch.

In the wake of the mortgage backed securities meltdown, Congress is investigating credit rating agencies over how and why ratings on such securities failed to reflect the danger. The SEC Chairman testified that the SEC is examining whether agencies including Moodys Investors Service and Standard & Poors were “unduly influenced” by issuers and underwriters that paid for the credit ratings. A union pension fund is suing the Moody’s credit rating agency over its “excessively high ratings” of bonds backed by subprime mortgages.

Shepherd Smith and Edwards represents investors nationwide in claims against securities firms. We have represented investors in more than 1,000 securities cases, including against Merrill Lynch, Morgan Stanley and Bear Stearns. To learn whether might assist you with a claim contact us to arrange a free consultation with one of our attorneys.

Posted by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Bear Stearns , Credit Ratings Agencies , Merrill Lynch , Morgan Stanley

Bookmark:

October 10, 2007

Morgan Stanley Fined $7.5 Million by SEC for Trade Confirmation Violations

The Securities and Exchange Commission has filed Morgan Stanley $7.5 million to settle charges that it provided insufficient written trade confirmations to its customers for municipal securities and bonds.

Morgan Stanley Dean Witter, Inc, a subsidiary of Morgan Stanley, furnished customers with trade confirmations that had missing or incorrect information relating to yield, call dates and/or prices and other features of the bonds, the SEC said.

This sanction by the SEC against Morgan Stanley Dean Witter comes on the heals of $10.4 million in fines against 14 other broker-dealer firms by the New York Stock Exchange over similar charges. Morgan Stanley agreed to pay the settlement without admitting or denying the commission's findings in its investigation.

Shepherd Smith and Edwards represents investors nationwide in claims against securities firms. We have represented investors in more than 1,000 securities cases, including dozens against Morgan Stanley Dean Witter. To learn whether we may be able to assist you with a claim contact us to arrange a free consultation with one of our attorneys.

Morgan Stanley to pay $7.5 mil., Reuters, October 10, 2007

Posted by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Morgan Stanley , SEC Enforcement

Bookmark:

Stock Broker Fraud Blog

Published by Houston Securities Fraud Lawyers Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas

Securities Claims Over Morgan Stanley Mutual Funds Dismissed by Appeals Court

Citigroup, J.P Morgan Chase, Morgan Stanley and Other Firms Added to Investigation of Goldman Sachs over "Front-Running" of Research

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

In Investment fraud Lawsuit Against Lehman Brothers, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley, Court Grants Class Certification

Morgan Stanley to Pay $500,000 to Resolve SEC Charges that it Recommended Unapproved Money Managers to Clients

Morgan Stanley Plan to Repackage Low-Grade Debt Obligations Then Sell These as Low-risk AAA Bonds is "Preposturous," Says Stockbroker Fraud Lawyer Bill Shepherd

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

Morgan Stanley Court Case Demonstrates Why Securities Arbitration is Often a Better Forum

NASAA Says Investors with Frozen Auction-Rate Securities Should Ask Investment Firms About Buyback Opportunities

Wachovia Securities Analyst Comments on Bear Stearns’ Sale and Calls Merrill Lynch the “Riskiest” Investment Bank

Countrywide Financial, Merrill Lynch, and Citigroup Executives Defend Their Hefty Compensations Following Subprime Mortgage Crisis

Pondering the SEC’s Role in the Subprime Mortgage Crisis

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

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

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

Morgan Stanley and WestLB Lose Cases Because of E-Mail Evidence—or Lack Thereof

Morgan Stanley Former Associate and Husband Sentenced in Insider Trading Scheme

Oppenheimer, Morgan Stanley, Nomura Securities, and A.G. Edwards Traders Face SEC Charges of Stealing Stock Loan Kickbacks Worth $12 Million Plus

Merrill Lynch, Morgan Stanley and Bear Stearns Suffer Losses as Ratings Agencies Are Grilled over Sub-prime's

Morgan Stanley Fined $7.5 Million by SEC for Trade Confirmation Violations

Contact Us

Browse

Topics

By Date

Search

Recent Entries

Legal Blogs

Browse

Topics

By Date

Search

Subscribe

By RSS

By Email

Recent Entries

Legal Blogs