August 25, 2010

HSBC Securities to Pay $375K to Settle FINRA Allegations that It Recommended Unsuitable Collateralized Mortgage Obligations to Retail Clients

HSBC Securities has agreed to pay $375,000 to settle Financial Industry Regulatory Authority charges that it recommended the unsuitable sale of inverse floating rate collateralized mortgage obligation to retail clients. The SRO is also accusing the investment bank HSBC of inadequate supervision of the suitability of the CMO sales and failure to fully explain the risks involved in CMO investments to clients. The investment bank has already reimbursed clients $320,000.

Per FINRA, six HSBC brokers made 43 unsuitable inverse floater sales to “unsophisticated” retail clients. Even though HSBC requires that a supervisor approve all retail clients sales larger than $100,000, 25 of the sales were larger than this amount. 5 resulted in $320,000 in losses for clients. According to FINRA executive vice-president and acting enforcement chief James S. Shorris, the clients’ financial losses could have been prevented.

FINRA contends that HSBC brokers were not given enough training and guidance about the risks involved with CMOs. They also were not specifically told that inverse floaters were only suitable for investors with high-risk profiles.

FINRA also says that HSBC was not in incompliance with a rule requiring brokerage firms to offer specific educational collateral prior to a CMO sale to anyone that is not an institutional investor. FINRA says that not only did HSBC’s registered representatives not know that they were required to offer this material, but also the brochures that were offered did not meet content standards regarding required educational information.

By agreeing to settle, HSBC is not admitting or denying the allegations.
Related Web Resources:
FINRA Fines HSBC $375,000, On Wall Street, August 19, 2010

FINRA fines HSBC for unsuitable sales of CMOs, Banking Business Review, August 20, 2010

FINRA

Collateralized mortgage obligation, SEC

Continue reading "HSBC Securities to Pay $375K to Settle FINRA Allegations that It Recommended Unsuitable Collateralized Mortgage Obligations to Retail Clients " »

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

January 23, 2008

SEC & FINRA Examine CMO Sales and Marketing Practices

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) have each began their own investigations into the sales and marketing practices of certain collateralized mortgage obligations (CMOs),

FINRA sent more than 12 broker-dealers a sweeps letter requesting more information about: the sales of principals only, interest only, and inverse floater trenches of CMOs and details about actions taking place between June 30, 2006 and July 31, 2007.

FINRA specifically requested:

• Customer names
• Transaction dates
• Account numbers
• Prices per unit of sales
• Identification numbers of registered representatives
• CMO sales-related presentation, training, and marketing material
• A list of customer complaints

By requesting the information, FINRA noted that this did not mean that any federal securities laws had been violated by anyone. FINRA says its requests are common practice when new products are offered to investors. FINRA wants to know how products are marketed and sold to investors and how the firms decide who to offer the products to.

FINRA wants to make sure that investors not properly suited for CMOs are not offered the product. FINRA recommends that CMOs should be offered to “sophisticated investors.”

If you are an investor who has lost money because of the unsuitable recommendation of a broker-dealer, you should speak with one of our stockbroker fraud lawyers right away. You are entitled to recover your losses. Contact Shepherd Smith and Edwards today.


Related Web Resources:

Brokers Probed by Finra on Mortgage Security Sales, Person Says, Bloomberg.com, January 4, 2008

Collateralized Mortgage Obligations (CMOs), SEC.gov

Bookmark: Bookmark SEC%20%26%20FINRA%20Examine%20CMO%20Sales%20and%20Marketing%20Practices%20 at Google.com Bookmark SEC%20%26%20FINRA%20Examine%20CMO%20Sales%20and%20Marketing%20Practices%20 at del.icio.us Digg SEC%20%26%20FINRA%20Examine%20CMO%20Sales%20and%20Marketing%20Practices%20 at Digg.com Bookmark SEC%20%26%20FINRA%20Examine%20CMO%20Sales%20and%20Marketing%20Practices%20 at Spurl.net Bookmark SEC%20%26%20FINRA%20Examine%20CMO%20Sales%20and%20Marketing%20Practices%20 at Simpy.com Bookmark SEC%20%26%20FINRA%20Examine%20CMO%20Sales%20and%20Marketing%20Practices%20 at NewsVine Blink this SEC%20%26%20FINRA%20Examine%20CMO%20Sales%20and%20Marketing%20Practices%20 at blinklist.com Bookmark SEC%20%26%20FINRA%20Examine%20CMO%20Sales%20and%20Marketing%20Practices%20 at Furl.net Bookmark SEC%20%26%20FINRA%20Examine%20CMO%20Sales%20and%20Marketing%20Practices%20 at reddit.com Fark SEC%20%26%20FINRA%20Examine%20CMO%20Sales%20and%20Marketing%20Practices%20 at Fark.com Bookmark SEC%20%26%20FINRA%20Examine%20CMO%20Sales%20and%20Marketing%20Practices%20 at Yahoo! MyWeb