November 28, 2011

Citigroup’s $285M Settlement With the SEC Is Turned Down by Judge Rakoff

U.S. District Judge Jed S. Rakoff has turned down the proposed $285M settlement between the SEC and Citigroup Global Markets Inc. However, unlike with the SEC’s tentative $33M settlement with Bank of America that he rejected, eventually approving a $150 million settlement between both parties—this time, Rakoff is ordering the SEC and Citigroup to trial.

The SEC claimed Citigroup sold Class V Funding III right as the housing market fell apart in 2007 and then bet against the $1 billion mortgage-linked collateralized debt obligation. Meantime, the financial firm allegedly failed to tell clients about this conflict of interest. Investors would go on to lose nearly $700 million over the CDO, while Citigroup ended up making about $160 million.

To many observers, Rakoff’s decision doesn’t come as a surprise. He has expressed concern with the SEC’s handling of securities cases for some time. In his ruling today, Rakoff was very clear in stating that he didn’t believe the tentative agreement was “fair… reasonable… adequate, nor in the public interest.” He also called for the “underlying facts” and made it clear that the SEC’s typical boilerplate settlement, which usually involves the other party agreeing to the terms but not admitting to or denying wrongdoing, was not going to suffice.

Until now, the SEC’s settlement policy has allowed the Commission to declare a victory while letting defendants get away with not acknowledging any wrongdoing so that private plaintiffs cannot use such an outcome in litigation against them. Now, however, Rakoff wants the court and the public to actually learn whether or not Citigroup acted improperly.

Also in his opinion, Rakoff spoke about how the current settlement doesn’t do anything for the investors that Citigroup allegedly defrauded of hundreds of millions of dollars. Not only that but the SEC isn't promising to compensate the alleged securities fraud victims.

For now, the trial between Citigroup and the SEC is scheduled for July 2012. However, the Commission could decide to appeal Rakoff’s ruling and ask an appellate court to either make him accept the $285 million settlement or appoint a new judge to the case. According to the New York Times, however, this could prove challenging because a writ of mandamus would be required.

Our securities fraud law firm has had it with financial firms defrauding investors and then getting away with this type of misconduct. It is our job to help our clients recoup their losses whether via arbitration or in court.

Behind Rakoff’s Rejection of Citigroup Settlement, NY Times, November 28, 2011

Judge to SEC: Stop settling, start really suing, OC Register, November 28, 2011

Read Judge Rakoff's Opinion


More Blog Posts:
Citigroup’s $285M Mortgage-Related CDO Settlement with Raises Concerns About SEC’s Enforcement Practices for Judge Rakoff, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, November 9, 2011

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

Ex-Goldman Sachs Director Rajat Gupta Pleads Not Guilty to Insider Trading Charges, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, October 26, 2011

Continue reading "Citigroup’s $285M Settlement With the SEC Is Turned Down by Judge Rakoff" »

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

Posted In: Citigroup , Collateral Debt Obligation , Financial Firms , SEC

August 10, 2011

Stifel, Nicolaus & Co. and Former Executive Faces SEC Charges Over Sale of CDOs to Five Wisconsin School Districts

The SEC is charging Stifel, Nicolaus & Co. and its former Senior Vice President David W. Noack with securities fraud over the sale of unsuitable, high-risk complex investments to 5 Wisconsin school districts. Stifel and Noack allegedly misrepresented the risks involved in investing $200 million in synthetic collateralized debt obligations (CDOs) and did not disclose certain material facts. The investments proved a “complete failure.”

The Five Wisconsin School Districts:
• Kimberly Area School District
• Kenosha Unified School District No. 1
• School District of Waukesha
• School District of Whitefish Bay
• West Allis-West Milwaukee School District

All five school districts are suing Stifel and Royal Bank of Canada in civil court. Robert Kantas, partner of Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas LTD LLP, is one of the attorneys representing the school districts in their civil case against Stifel and RBC. Attorneys for the school districts issued the following statement:

“We believe that Stifel, Royal Bank of Canada and the other defendants defrauded the five Wisconsin school districts, along with trusts set up to make these investments. In 2006, these defendants devised, solicited and sold $200 million 'synthetic collateralized debt obligations' (CDOs), which were both volatile and complex, to these districts and trusts. While represented as safe investments, these were in fact very high risk securities, which were wholly unsuitable for the districts and trusts. In an attempt to protect taxpayers and residents, the districts hired attorneys and other professionals to investigate the investments and the potential for fraud. Then, with a goal of seeking full recovery of the monies lost in this scheme, a lawsuit was filed in Milwaukee County Circuit Court in 2008 to seek fully recovery of the losses and maintain and protect valuable credit ratings of these districts. To date, more than 3 million pages of documents have been obtained and examined by the attorneys for the districts. The districts also properly reported to the SEC the nature and extent of the wrongdoing uncovered. Over the past year, they have provided the SEC with volumes of documents and information to facilitate its investigation.”

In its complaint filed in federal court today, the SEC says that Stifel and Noack set up a proprietary program to assist the school districts in funding retiree benefits through the investments of notes linked to the performance of CDOs. The school districts invested $200 million with trusts they set up in 2006. $162.7 million was paid for with borrowed funds.

The SEC contends that Stifel and Noack, who both earned substantial fees even though the investments failed completely, took advantage of their relationships with the school districts and acted fraudulently when they sold financial products that were inappropriate for the latter. The brokerage firm and its executive also likely were aware that the school districts weren’t experienced or sophisticated enough to be able to evaluate the risks associated with investing in the CDOs. Both also likely knew that the school districts could not afford to suffer such catastrophic losses if their investments were to fail. Despite this, says the SEC, Noack and Stifel assured the school districts that for the investments to collapse there would have to be “15 Enrons.” They also allegedly failed to reveal certain material facts to the school districts, including that:

• The first transaction in the portfolio did poorly from the beginning.
• Within 36 days of closing, credit rating agencies had placed 10% of the portfolio on negative watch.
• There were CDO providers who said they wouldn’t participate in Stifel’s proprietary program because they were worried about the risks involved.

The SEC claims that Stifel and Noack violated the:

• Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Section (10b))
• The Securities Act of 1933 (Section 17(a))
• The Securities Act of 1934 (Section 15(c)(1)(A))

The Commission is seeking, permanent injunctions, disgorgement of ill-gotten gains, financial penalties, and prejudgment interest.

Related Web Resources:
SEC Charges Stifel, Nicolaus & Co. and Executive with Fraud in Sale of Investments to Wisconsin School District, SEC.gov, August 10, 2011

SEC Sues Stifel Over Wisconsin School Losses Tied to $200 Million of CDOs, Bloomberg, August 10, 2011

Read the SEC Complaint (PDF)

School Lawsuit Facts


More Blog Posts:
Wisconsin School Districts Sue Royal Bank of Canada and Stifel Nicolaus and Co. in Lawsuit Over Credit Default Swaps, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, October 7, 2008

SEC Inquiring About Wisconsin School Districts Failed $200 Million CDO Investments Made Through Stifel Nicolaus and Royal Bank of Canada Subsidiaries, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, June 11, 2010

Continue reading "Stifel, Nicolaus & Co. and Former Executive Faces SEC Charges Over Sale of CDOs to Five Wisconsin School Districts" »

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

Posted In: Collateral Debt Obligation , Financial Firms , SEC Enforcement , Securities Fraud , Stifel, Nicolaus, & Co. Inc.

December 23, 2010

Houston Man Indicted in Alleged $17M Texas Securities Fraud

A federal grand jury has indicted Adley Husni Abdulwahab on one count of conspiracy and five counts of Texas securities fraud in connection with an alleged $17 million investment scheme involving the sale of investments issued by W Financial Group. The Houston resident, who is also facing federal charges over an alleged $100 million life insurance scheme, is in custody in Virginia.

Abdulwahab is accused of conspiring with two other men, Michael Wallens, Sr., and Michael Wallens, Jr., to defraud investors in connection with the sales of Collateral Secured Debt Obligations (CSDOs). The three men reportedly received over $17 million from the sales of the promissory notes to over 180 investors.

The three men are accused of issuing a number of misstatements to investors, such as claiming that Republic Group and Lloyd’s of London had “reinsured” the CSDOs, which were not in fact insured. Offering materials made it appear as if the investors’ money were held in insured notes, cash, automotive receivables, or corporate or government AAA bonds, when the three men were actually spending the money. For example, investor money was used to buy Wallens Sr.’s used car dealership for over $300,000, invest in a power company and building company, buy residential lots, and compensate the three men. Wallens, Sr. And Wallens, Jr. have each pleaded guilty to one count of securities fraud.

Related Web Resources:
Houston-area man indicted in W. Financial Group securities fraud matter, Justice.gov, December 15, 2010

Texan indicted in alleged $17M securities fraud, Chron/AP, December 15, 2010

The Texas Securities Act

Securities Fraud Attorneys

Institutional Investors Securities Blogs

Continue reading "Houston Man Indicted in Alleged $17M Texas Securities Fraud " »

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

Posted In: Collateral Debt Obligation , Texas Securities Fraud

November 12, 2010

Goldman Sachs Ordered by FINRA to Pay $650K Fine For Not Disclosing that Broker Responsible for CDO ABACUS 2007-ACI Was Target of SEC Investigation

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority says it is fining Goldman Sachs $650,000 for failing to disclose that the government was investigating two of its brokers. One of the brokers was Goldman vice president Fabrice Tourre. FINRA says Goldman did not have the proper procedures in place to make sure that this disclosure was made.

The SEC had accused Tourre of being “principally responsible” for Abacus 2007-AC1, a synthetic collateralized debt obligation, and selling the bonds to investors, who ended up losing more than $1 billion while Goldman yielded profits and hedge fund manager John A. Paulson made money from bets he placed against specific mortgage bonds. The SEC contends that Goldman failed to notify investors that Paulson had taken a short position against Abacus 2007-AC1. This summer, Goldman settled for $550 million SEC charges that it misled investors about this CDO, just as the housing market was collapsing.

Regarding Goldman’s failure to disclose that the SEC was investigating two of its brokers, even though investment firms are required to file a Form U4 within 30 days of finding out that a representative has received a Wells notice about the probe, FINRA says that Tourre’s U4 wasn’t amended until May 3, 2010. This date is more than 7 months after Goldman learned about his Well Notice and after the SEC filed its complaint against the investment bank and Tourre. FINRA also says that Goldman’s “employee manual” for brokers does not even specifically mention Wells Notices or the need for disclosure after one is received.

By agreeing to settle with FINRA, Goldman is not admitting to or denying the charges.

Goldman Sachs to Pay $650,000 for Failing to Disclose Wells Notices, FINRA, November 9, 2010

Related Web Resources:
Goldman Fined $650,000 for Lack of Disclosure, New York Times, November 9, 2010

Goldman Sachs Settles SEC Subprime Mortgage-CDO Related Charges for $550 Million,
Stockbroker Fraud Blog, July 30, 2010

Goldman Sachs, Institutional Investor Securities Blog

Continue reading "Goldman Sachs Ordered by FINRA to Pay $650K Fine For Not Disclosing that Broker Responsible for CDO ABACUS 2007-ACI Was Target of SEC Investigation" »

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

Posted In: Collateral Debt Obligation , FINRA , Financial Firms , Goldman Sachs , Goldman Sachs

September 15, 2010

Whistleblower Sues Moody’s Investors Service for Defamation

Ilya Eric Kolchinsky, a former Moody’s Investors Service executive, is suing the credit ratings agency for defamation. This is one of the first lawsuits involving a Wall Street company and an ex-employer that blew the whistle on it. Kolchinsky is seeking $15 million in damages in addition to legal fees.

Kolchinsky claims that Moody’s tried to ruin his reputation after he publicly talked about problems with its ratings model. Kolchinsky, who supervised the ratings that were given to subprime mortgage collateralized debt obligations (many of these did not live up to their triple-A ratings), testified before Congressional panels about his concerns. He addressed the potential conflicts that can arise as a result of the issuer-pay ratings model, which lets banks and borrowers that sell debt securities pay for ratings. He alleged securities fraud and claimed that the ratings agency placed profits ahead of doing their job. He also claimed that Moody’s lacked the resources to enforce its rules.

Kolchinsky contends that Moody’s began attacking him through the media and that the statements that the credit ratings firm issued have caused him to become “blacklisted by the private sector financial industry.” Moody’s suspended him last year. In his civil suit, Kolchinsky notes that he was attacked by the credit ratings agency even though it went on to adopt some of his recommendations.

The recently passed financial reform bill provides greater protections for whistleblowers while offering financial rewards for those brave enough to tell regulators about their concerns. However, it is unclear whether Kolchinsky’s complaint will benefit from the new law because his case involves alleged actions that occurred prior to the bill's passing.

Related Web Resources:
Former Moody’s Executive Files Suit, New York Times, September 13, 2010

Exec who blew whistle on Moody’s ratings sues for defamation, Central Valley Business TImes, September 14, 2010

Wall Street Whistleblowers May Be Eligible to Collect 10 – 30% of Money that the Government Recovers, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, July 29, 2010

Continue reading "Whistleblower Sues Moody’s Investors Service for Defamation " »

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

Posted In: Collateral Debt Obligation , Collateralized Mortgage Obligations , Credit Ratings , Credit Ratings Agencies , Moody's , Subprime Mortgage , Whistleblower Lawsuits

September 11, 2010

Goldman Sachs Permanently Exempted from Company Act Disqualification Provision, Says SEC

The Securities and Exchange Commission has decided to permanently exempt Goldman & Sachs Co. from a 1940 Investment Company Act provision that would have disqualified the financial firm from serving as a principal underwrite. Goldman and several of its affiliates applied for exemption from ICA Section 9(a) after settling for $550 million SEC securities fraud charges that it made material misrepresentations related to the 2007 structuring and sale of derivative product connected to subprime mortgages.

Under the provision, a person cannot act as a principal underwriter or investment adviser for an investment firm if, due to misconduct, the party in question is enjoined from taking part in any practice or conduct related to the purchase or sale of any security. Goldman, in its application, noted that since the district court had barred it and its affiliates from violating federal securities laws moving forward, the provision would apply to disqualify them from giving advisory services to investment companies.

After granting the broker-dealer a temporary exemption in July, the SEC issued Goldman a permanent one. The SEC noted that the applicants’ behavior did not make it against the “public interest or protection of investors” to grant the permanent exemption.

Regarding the $550 million securities fraud settlement, which is the largest penalty that the SEC has ordered a financial firm to pay, Goldman was accused of misleading investors about a synthetic collateralized debt obligation as the housing market was collapsing. Investors suffered more than $1 billion in financial losses. The brokerage firm admitted that it provided incomplete marketing information for the product and has agreed to reform its business practices.

Related Web Resources:
Investment Company Act of 1940

Goldman Sachs, SEC Reach $550 Million Settlement, PBS News, July 15, 2010


Continue reading "Goldman Sachs Permanently Exempted from Company Act Disqualification Provision, Says SEC" »

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

Posted In: Collateral Debt Obligation , Financial Firms , Goldman Sachs , Securities Fraud , Subprime Mortgage

July 14, 2010

Goldman Sachs COO Says Investment Firm Shorted 1% of CDOs Mortgage Bonds But Didn’t Bet Against Clients

According to Goldman Sachs Group Inc. Chief Operating Operator and President Gary Cohn, the investment firm adamant that the bank did not bet against its own clients. He says that Goldman Sachs purchased protection against a decline in just 1% of mortgage-backed securities it underwrote since late 2006. Former clients, regulators, and members of Congress are accusing Goldman Sachs of designing mortgage-backed securities that would fail and then betting on their failure to purchase credit-default swaps, which pay out when a default occurs.

Cohn testified last month before the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission. He says that in the wake of the serious allegations, the investment firm has examined the $47 billion in residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS) and $14.5 billion in collateralized debt obligations (CDOs) that the firm underwrote since firm executives began to feel the need to treat the subprime mortgage market with caution in December 2006. He claims that by the end of June 2007, Goldman Sachs held $2.4 billion of bonds from CDOs and $2.4 billion of bonds from RMBS trusts. The investment bank had protection for approximately 1% of the total underwritten. Nearly 60% of the derivatives and bonds in the CDOs were from other institutions.

The hearing was called to probe the relationship between Goldman and American International Group Inc (AIG). The investment bank had purchased CDO protection from the insurer. Billions of dollars in federal funds had allowed AIG to stay in business even though it was facing bankruptcy and a number of the insurer’s counterparties, including Goldman, are believed to have benefited. Cohn has argued that all market participants benefited from the government’s assistance.

Related Web Resources:
Goldman Sachs Shorted 1% of its Mortgage Bonds, CDOs, Cohn Says, Business Week, June 30, 2010

Goldman's Cohn: Firm Didn't Drive Down Mortgage-Asset Marks, Bloomberg.com, June 30, 2010

Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission

Continue reading "Goldman Sachs COO Says Investment Firm Shorted 1% of CDOs Mortgage Bonds But Didn’t Bet Against Clients" »

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

Posted In: Collateral Debt Obligation , Credit Default Swaps (CDS) , Financial Firms , Goldman Sachs , Mortgage Backed Securities

September 16, 2009

Securities Fraud Lawsuit Against UBS AG Gets Added Steam with Employee Email Calling Collateralized Debt Obligations “Vomit”

UBS AG must post a $35.6 million bond, says Superior Court Judge John Blawie. Blawie says that hedge fund Pursuit Partners, LLC has sufficient evidence to pursue its securities fraud case claiming that the investment bank knew it was selling collateralized debt obligations that were toxic to institutional investors but did nothing to inform clients about the risks.

Blawie cited an e-mail written by a UBS employee that called the asset-backed securities “vomit.” Another e-mail noted that UBS was selling Pursuit CDOs that were “crap.”

The judge is letting the securities fraud complaint go forward without ruling on the case’s merits. Between July and October 2007, UBS sold the hedge fund CDOs valued at $40.5 million. Following the global credit crisis, there has been $1.7 trillion in losses and writedowns.

UBS employees marketed the CDOs to Pursuit while they were communicating with Moody’s Investors Services Inc. The credit-rating agency was tasked with reviewing UBS’s CDO investment grade ratings. Blawie says that the UBS employees found out after meeting with Moody’s that the CDOs would become “financial toxic waste.”

The securities fraud lawsuit claims that UBS new that Moody’s was going to change its rater’s methodology but that the investment bank continued to promote the CDOs as if the changes were not going to happen. When Moody’s tchanged its market-based formula to focus on where prices were going instead of current prices, the CDOs value immediately fell.

Pursuit contends that it suffered a $35.6 million loss as a result of UBS concealing the non-public data it had about the CDOs investment grade rating dropping. It also says that because UBS took two sides of a derivatives contract, the investment bank was able to liquidate the CDOs and did not sustain losses.

UBS denies the allegations and argues that Pursuit knew the risks that came with buying the CDOs. The investment bank claims that the hedge fund made the purchases at hugely discounted rates as high as 96%. UBS spokesperson said that one e-mail from Pursuit called the CDOs “sh__.”

Moody’s is also a defendant in the securities fraud lawsuit.

Related Web Resources:
Lawsuit Against UBS Resurfaces to Threaten Wall Street Itself, Seeking Alpha, September 15, 2009

UBS Hit by Another Lawsuit, Business Week, March 6, 2008

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

Posted In: Collateral Debt Obligation , Credit Ratings Agencies , Financial Firms , Moody's , Securities Fraud , UBS

September 14, 2009

Morgan Keegan Hit with Large Penalty for Fouling Ex-NBA Star

Following a dispute that was resolved in arbitration, broker-dealer Morgan Keegan & Co. must pay former NBA player Horace Grant $1.46 million. The amount is the largest arbitration loss for Morgan Keegan to date. Morgan Keegan is the securities brokerage firm of Regions Financial Corp.

The award, issued by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, is for damages that Grant incurred because he invested in Morgan Keegan’s risky mutual funds that were involved in collateralized debt obligations connected to residential mortgages. Grant had originally sought $1.5 million for the damages he sustained.

There are still several hundred investment fraud lawsuits pending against the brokerage firm over mutual funds involving subprime mortgages that declined because the US housing market fell apart and loans defaulted. Up to 95% of the funds’ value has dissolved since the middle of 2007.

Green used to play for the Chicago Bull, the Los Angeles Lakers, the Seattle Supersonics, and the Orlando Magic. In his arbitration case, the former NBA basketball player contended that Morgan Keegan misrepresented the level of risk that came with the bond funds that he purchased.

Already, Morgan Keegan has lost a number of cases in 2009. Seven of the cases have cost the broker-dealer $3 million. Other professional athletes who have filed lawsuits against Morgan Keegan for losses that they say they sustained from the bond funds are Jerome Woods, formerly of the Kansas City Chiefs, and former St. Louis Cardinals baseball player Tim McCarver. Woods won $950,000 against the brokerage firm while McCarver resolved his claim for $100,000.

Our stockbroker fraud law firm represents numerous investors who have sued Morgan Keegan for misrepresenting risky investments as safer kinds of investments.


Related Web Resources:
Ex-NBA star wins $1.45M arbitration claim against Morgan Keegan, Investment News, September 14, 2009

Morgan Keegan ordered to pay former NBA star $1.4M, Memphis Business Journal, September 14, 2009

NFL retiree gets $950,000 for Morgan Keegan mutual fund losses, Commercial Appeal, April 14, 2009

McCarver Awarded $100K in Morgan Keegan Claim, Memphis Daily, February 26, 2009

Continue reading "Morgan Keegan Hit with Large Penalty for Fouling Ex-NBA Star" »

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

Posted In: Arbitration , Collateral Debt Obligation , Financial Firms , Morgan Keegan

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 & Kantas LTD 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 LTD LLP | | Email This Post

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

January 14, 2009

$865 billion in state pension fund losses are resulting in reduced benefits for new hires

Because state governments have accrued about $865.1 billion in state pension fund losses, new hires are ending up with reduced benefits. The losses not only exceed the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program that Congress approved last year, but they are accompanied by $42 billion in state budget deficits. In a letter to US Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, the mayors of Atlanta, Philadelphia, and Phoenix asked for help for their financially beleaguered cities and noted growing pension costs and investment deficits.

According to the Center for Retirement Research at Boston College, 109 state funds’ assets dropped 37% to $1.46 billion between October 2007 and December 2008. A 41% decline during this time period also occurred on the Standard & Poor’s 500 index of stocks.

For the 109 funds to be restored to their 2007 actuarial funding levels by 2010, the Boston College Center says the funds would require yearly returns of 52% on assets. These estimated projections could occur if there was a 5.7% increase in yearly liabilities and a $50 billion growth in assets from contributions beyond yearly payouts. While state funds do have enough money to pay for benefits for the foreseeable future, taxpayers will still have to make up this one-time loss—a proposition that is a hard sell.

A number of states are creating two-tiered systems that offer less benefits to new employees in order to reduce pension costs. For example, As of June 30, 2008, the largest fund in Kentucky for state workers had just 52% of the assets required to pay 117,000 members their present and future benefits. Now, Kentucky officials have established age 57 as the state’s minimum retirement age for workers hired after September 1. In order to receive full benefits, 30 years of service (rather than 27) are required. In New York, Governor David Patterson wants to increase the retirement age from 55 to 62 and decrease new workers’ benefits.

The stock market decline has also resulted in pension funds' asset losses. Marsh & McLennan pension consulting unit Mercer LLC says that defined benefit funds dropped from $1.3 trillion in September 2008 to $1.1 trillion the following month. There are also state retirement systems that have experienced derivatives losses. Public data put together by Bloomberg in 2007 shows that public pension funds purchased over $500 million in so-called equity trenches of collateralized debt obligations.

Related Web Resources:
State Pensions’ $865 Billion Loss Affects New Workers, Bloomberg.com, January 13, 2009

Philadelphia Takes Hit In Pension Fund Struggle, The Bulletin, January 14, 2009

Continue reading "$865 billion in state pension fund losses are resulting in reduced benefits for new hires" »

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

Posted In: Collateral Debt Obligation

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 LTD LLP | | Email This Post

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

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