August 30, 2011

FDIC Objects to Bank of America’s Proposed $8.5B Settlement Over Mortgage-Backed Securities

In the State Supreme Court of New York, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. has fled an objection to Bank of America proposed $8.5 billion mortgage-backed securities settlement. The FDIC, which is the receiver for failed banks and owns the securities that the settlement is supposed to cover, says it doesn’t have sufficient information to assess the settlement.

Per the agreement, Bank of America would pay to resolve claims brought by investors of mortgage bonds from Countrywide Financial Corp., which the investment bank acquired in 2008 for $4 billion. Already, the claims related to the Countrywide MBS has cost Bank of America over $30 billion.

The $8.5 billion securities settlement with Bank of America is over $424 billion in mortgages from Countrywide and was reached with 22 institutional investors, including:

• BlackRock Inc.
• Pacific Investment Management Co. LLC
• Federal Reserve bank of New York
• MetLife Inc.

If approved, the terms of the MBS settlement will apply to other investors that weren’t part of the original deal. However, not all of these “other” investors are satisfied with the terms.

Walnut Place LLC I-XI, another party that represents other investors, recently submitted its petition accusing trustee Bank of New York Mellon of reaching an agreement that was really only on behalf of the 22 institutional investors. Also opposing the Bank of America MBS settlement is the Federal Housing Financing Agency, which is the overseer of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. The federal agency submitted its “conditional objection.”

Recently, six Federal Home Loan Banks (of Indianapolis, Boston, Pittsburgh, Chicago, Seattle, and San Francisco) also noted their opposition of the securities settlement. They believe that investors could be owed at least three times more than what the $8.5billion agreement is offering (under the proposed agreement, Bank of America would have to buyback 40% of the securities that defaulted.)

New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, who also doesn’t want the $8.5 billion settlement to go through, is accusing Bank of New York Mellon of securities fraud. He claims that not only did the trustee fail to act in the best interest of investors, but also it did not ensure that the MBS were set up in compliance with state law.

Also, in an unrelated claim, a US Bancorp unit requested that a court make Countrywide Financial buyback over 4,000 loans in a $1.75 billion mortgage pool to remedy breaches of contract over improper underwriting. In its securities fraud lawsuit, the unit claims that in 2005 when Countrywide sold the pool, it agreed to buyback all loans within 90 days of notification that there had been a material breach.

Our stockbroker fraud lawyers represent investors that have lost money because of broker misconduct and other acts of securities fraud.

Bank of America Settlement Faces Growing Challenges, New York Times, August 30, 2011

FDIC Objection Throws A Wrench Into Bank Of America's $8.5 Billion Settlement, Forbes, August 29, 2011

Bank of America Settlement Faces Growing Challenges, NY Times, August 30, 2011

FDIC Petition (PDF)

Federal Deposition Insurance Corporation

New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman


More Blog Posts:

Federal Home Loan Banks Say Countrywide Financial Corp Mortgage Bond Investors May Be Owed Way More than What $8.5B Securities Settlement with Bank of America Corp. is Offering, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, July 22, 2011

$63 Million Mortgage-Backed Securities Lawsuit Against Bank of America is Second One Filed by Western and Southern Life Insurance Co. Against the Financial Firm, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, August 29, 2011

Bank of America and Countrywide Financial Sued by Allstate over $700M in Bad Mortgaged-Backed Securities, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, December 29, 2010

August 17, 2011

8/31/11 is Deadline for Opting Out of $100M Oppenheimer Mutual Funds Class Action Settlement

Our securities fraud lawyers would like to remind you that if you want to opt out of the $100M class action settlement with Oppenheimer Mutual Funds you have to do so by August 31, 2011. OppenheimerFunds Inc. agreed to pay that amount over accusations that it mismanaged its Oppenheimer Champion Fund (OCHBX, OPCHX and OCHCX) and its Oppenheimer Core Bond Fund (OPIGX). The class action was filed by investors accusing OppenheimerFunds of misrepresenting in its offering documents the degree of risk involved in complex securitized instruments, including mortgage-backed securities and credit default swaps.

Under the class action agreement, Champion Fund investors are to be paid $52.5 million. Core Bond investors are to receive $47.5 million. While this amount may seem like a lot, with thousands of class action claimants, Core Bund Fund investors will likely receive approximately 12 cents on the dollar, while Champion Fund investors will receive about 3 cents on the dollar.

This is not a lot of money for your losses, which is why you may want to seriously consider opting out of the class action and pursuing your own securities lawsuit or arbitration claim. Please contact our stockbroker fraud law firm today and ask for your free case evaluation.

You have until August 31, 2011 to send a written exclusion to the class counsel. Your letter cannot be postmarked after the deadline. Failure to opt out will prevent you from filing your own case at a later today. You should, however, get your share of the settlement.

OppenheimerFunds is a Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Company subsidiary. Defendants of the class action were charged with violating the Investment Company Act of 1940 and the Securities Act of 1933.

The Oppenheimer Core Bond Fund lost at least 33% of its value in 2008. During the first three months of 2009 it lost another 10%. The bond was promoted as appropriate for and offered by a number of 529 college savings plans, a number of annuities, and retirement plans. The Champion Fund lost about 80% of its value in 2008.

While staying part of a class action in a securities case may appear to be the easy way to recover your investment losses, this is truly not the case. Why should you get back so much left when you’ve lost so much?

By retaining the services of an experienced securities fraud law firm, you increase your chances of recovering the maximum amount possible. We know how devastating it can be to lose money that you have worked so hard for and saved.

OppenheimerFunds Settles Mismanagement Case for $100 Million, Bloomberg Businessweek, July 26, 2011

OppenheimerFunds to pay $100 million to settle mismanagement case, Denver Post, July 27, 2011

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

Class Members of Charles Schwab Corporation Securities Litigation Can Still Opt Out to File Individual Securities Claim, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, December 6, 2010

Wells Fargo Settles Mortgage-Backed Securities Class Action Case for $125M, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, July 19, 2011

Continue reading "8/31/11 is Deadline for Opting Out of $100M Oppenheimer Mutual Funds Class Action Settlement " »

June 29, 2011

Morgan Keegan Settles Subprime Mortgage-Backed Securities Charges for $200M

According to the SEC, FINRA, and state regulators, Morgan Keegan & Company and Morgan Asset Management have consented to pay $200 million to settle subprime mortgage-backed securities-related charges. Also agreeing to pay penalties over their alleged misconduct are Morgan Keegan comptroller Joseph Thompson Weller and ex- portfolio manager James C. Kelsoe Jr.

The two men were accused of causing the false valuation of subprime mortgage backed securities in five Morgan Asset Management-related funds. Per the SEC’s administrative order, Kelsoe directed the fund accounting department to arbitrarily execute price adjustments to the fair values of certain portfolio securities. These adjustments disregarded the lower values for the same securities that outside broker-dealers provided as part of the pricing process. Kelsoe’s directives and the actions that were taken as a result would sometimes cause Morgan Keegan to not price the bonds at current, fair value.

The SEC also says that Kelsoe screened and affected at least one broker-dealer’s price confirmations. That broker-dealer had to provide interim price confirmations that were below the value that the funds were valuing certain bonds at but greater than the initial confirmations that the broker-dealer meant to provide. The interim price confirmations allowed the funds to not mark down the securities’ value to reflect current fair value. Kelsoe is also accused of getting the broker-dealer to withhold price confirmations in certain instances where they would have been significantly lower than the funds’ current valuations of the relevant bonds. The SEC says that Kelsoe fraudulently kept the Navs of funds from being reduced when they should have gone down when the subprime securities market deteriorated in 2007.

Of the $200 million, Morgan Keegan must pay a $75 million penalty to the SEC, $25 million in disgorgement, and $100 million to a state fund that would then pay investors.

Morgan Keegan to Pay $200 Million to Settle Fraud Charges Related to Subprime Mortgage-Backed Securities, SEC, June 22, 2011

Morgan Keegan Entities to Pay $200M In Settlement Over Subprime MBS Valuations, Law 360, June 22, 2011


More Blog Posts:
Morgan Keegan Ordered by FINRA to Pay RMK Fund Investors $881,000, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, April 24, 2011

Morgan Keegan & Co. Inc. Must Pay $250K to Couple that Lost Investments in Hedge Fund with Ties to Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, March 16, 2011

Morgan Keegan to Pay $9.2M to Investors in Texas Securities Fraud Case Involving Risky Bond Fund, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, October 6, 2010

Continue reading "Morgan Keegan Settles Subprime Mortgage-Backed Securities Charges for $200M" »

June 25, 2011

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

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

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

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

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

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


More Blog Posts:

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

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

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

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

May 18, 2011

Ambac Financial Group, Insurers, and Bank Underwriters to Pay $33M to Settle Securities Lawsuits Alleging Concealed Risks Related to its Bond-Insurance Business

Ambac Financial Group Inc. (ABKFQ), a number of its bank underwriters, and its insurers will pay $33 million to settle securities lawsuits accusing the bond insurer of concealing the risks it engaged in when it guaranteed risky mortgage debt. Ambac will pay $2.5 million, four insurance companies will pay $24.5 million, and the banks that will pay $5.9 million include Citigroup Inc. (C), Goldman Sachs Group Inc. (GS), UBS AG (UBS), J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. (JPM), Merrill Lynch Pierce Fenner & Smith Inc. (now part of Bank of America Corp. (BAC)), HSBC Holdings PLC (HBC), and the former Wachovia, (now part of Wells Fargo & Co. ( WFC)). A federal court has to approve the proposed settlement. The lead plaintiffs of the securities fraud case are The Public Employees' Retirement System of Mississippi, the Public School Teachers' Pension and Retirement Fund of Chicago, and the Arkansas Teachers Retirement System. The investors covered those that purchased Ambac stock and bonds between October 25, 2006 and April 22, 2008.

It was in 2008 that the housing market crisis revealed the trouble that Ambac, an insurer of instruments related to risky mortgages, was in. Investors had accused Ambac of both giving misleading information to the market to inflate the prices of its securities and concealing the full scope of its involvement in the subprime loan debacle. They claim that the bond insurer and its officials made it appear as if the company was only insuring the transactions that were “safest,” when it was actually looking to profit by guaranteeing billions in high risk collateralized debt obligations and residential mortgage debt, as well as writing credit default swaps to protect investors in the debt against default.

Documents filed in the US Bankruptcy Court in Manhattan reports that the holding company in bankruptcy has $1.6 billion in unresolved debts. Financial guarantee insurer Ambac Assurance Corp., which is its chief asset, has $300 billion in potential exposure.


Related Web Resources:
Ambac, banks settle investor suits for $33 mln, Reuters, May 6, 2011

Ambac Financial In $27.1M Deal To Settle Securities Lawsuits, Dow Jones, May 9, 2011

The Public Employees' Retirement System of Mississippi

Public School Teachers' Pension and Retirement Fund of Chicago

Arkansas Teachers Retirement System


More Blog Posts:

Insurer Claims that JP Morgan and Bear Stearns Bilked Clients Of Billions of Dollars with Handling of Mortgage Repurchases, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, February 3, 2011

SEC to Examine Muni Bond Market Issues During Hearings in Texas and Other States, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, February 9, 2011

SEC to Examine Muni Bond Market Issues During Hearings in Texas and Other States, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, February 9, 2011


Continue reading "Ambac Financial Group, Insurers, and Bank Underwriters to Pay $33M to Settle Securities Lawsuits Alleging Concealed Risks Related to its Bond-Insurance Business" »

March 16, 2011

Morgan Keegan & Co. Inc. Must Pay $250K to Couple that Lost Investments in Hedge Fund with Ties to Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities

Financial Industry Regulatory Authority says that Morgan Keegan & Co, Inc. must pay over $250,000 in punitive and compensatory damages to Jeffrey and Marisel Lieberman. The couple suffered financial losses after investing in Greenwich Sentry LLP, a hedge fund whose assets were funneled to Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities. FINRA contends that the brokerage firm failed to due enough due diligence on the Madoff feeder fund, and was “grossly negligent.”

The Lieberman, who are accusing the Regions Financial unit of fraudulent misrepresentation, negligence breach of fiduciary duty, and violations of Florida and Tennessee statutes, claim that Morgan Keegan and Julio Almeyda, one of its registered representatives, invested $200,000 of their money with Greenwich Sentry. The fund ended up filing for bankruptcy last November.

Per Morgan Keegan’s internal compliance rules, investors should only be allowed to place money in hedge funds if “speculation” is one among their main objectives when opening an account. “Speculation” was the last objective on the couple’s list. FINRA says that not only must the broker-dealer repay the couple’s entire loss of $200,000, but also they must also give them 6% annual interest from when the investment was made, $50,000 in punitive damages, and $14,000 in expert witness fees.

Meantime, the FINRA panel cleared Almeyda of wrongdoing, finding that he did not know that Morgan Keegan had not provided sufficient due diligence nor was he aware that he had given the Lieberman’s false and misleading information about their investments' risks.

Over the last year, Morgan Keegan has found itself dealing with hundreds of arbitration cases nvolving mutual fund investors alleging securities fraud related to the significant losses they sustained during the subprime mortgage crisis.


Related Web Resources:
Morgan Keegan Fined $250,000 Over Madoff Fund, Money News, March 7, 2011

Investors Succeed in Due Diligence Case Against Brokerage Over Madoff-Related Losses, BNA Securities, March 9, 2011


More Blog Posts:
Morgan Keegan to Pay $9.2M to Investors in Texas Securities Fraud Case Involving Risky Bond Funds, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, October 6, 2010

Morgan Keegan & Co., Inc., Morgan Asset Management, and Two Employees Face Subprime Mortgage Securities Fraud Charges by SEC, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, April 8, 2010

Morgan Keegan Ordered by FINRA Panel to Pay Investor $2.5 Million for Bond Fund Losses, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, February 23, 2010


Continue reading "Morgan Keegan & Co. Inc. Must Pay $250K to Couple that Lost Investments in Hedge Fund with Ties to Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities" »

December 29, 2010

Bank of America and Countrywide Financial Sued by Allstate over $700M in Bad Mortgaged-Backed Securities

Allstate has filed a securities fraud lawsuit against Bank of America (NYSE: BAC) and its subsidiary Countrywide Financial. The insurer claims that it purchased over $700 million in toxic mortgage-backed securities that quickly lost their value. Also targeted in the securities complaint are former Countrywide CEO Anthony Mozilo and other executives. Allstate is alleging negligent misrepresentation and securities violations.

The insurance company purchased its securities between March 2005 and June 2007. According to the federal lawsuit, as far back as 2003 Countrywide let go of its underwriting standards, concealed material facts from Allstate and other investors, and misrepresented key information about the underlying mortgage loans. The insurer contends that Countrywide was trying to boost its market share and sold fixed income securities backed by loans that were given to borrowers who were at risk of defaulting on payments. Because key information about the underlying loans was not made available, Allstate says the securities ended up appearing safer than they actually were. Allstate says that in 2008, it suffered $1.69 billion in losses due largely in part to investment losses.

It was just this October that bondholders BlackRock and Pimco and the Federal Reserve Bank of New York started pressing Band of America to buy back mortgages that its Countrywide unit had packaged into $47 billion of bonds. The bondholder group accused BofA, which acquired Countrywide in 2008, of failing to properly service the loans.

Meantime, BofA says it is looking at Allstate’s lawsuit, which it says for now appears to be a case of a “sophisticated investor” looking to blame someone for its investment losses and a poor economy.

Related Web Resources:
Countrywide Comes Between Allstate And BofA, Forbes, December 29, 2010

Allstate sues Bank of America over bad mortgage loans, Business Times, December 28, 2010

Continue reading "Bank of America and Countrywide Financial Sued by Allstate over $700M in Bad Mortgaged-Backed Securities" »

October 23, 2010

Citigroup’s $75 Million Securities Fraud Settlement with the SEC Over Subprime Mortgage Debt Approved by Judge

A federal judge has approved the $75 million securities fraud settlement reached between Citigroup and the US Securities and Exchange Commission. The investment bank had been accused of misleading investors about billions of dollars in possible losses from their exposure to high risk assets involving subprime mortgages. The SEC says that although holdings exceeded $50 billion, the broker-dealer had told clients that they were at $13 billion or lower.

US District Judge Ellen Segal Huvelle had initially refused to approve the settlement and questioned why only two Citigroup executives were being held accountable for the alleged misconduct. Last month, she said she would accept the agreement but only with certain conditions in place.

Under the approved accord, Citigroup must maintain an earnings committee and a disclosure committee for three years. A number of bank officials will also have to certify the accuracy of the earnings scripts and press releases. The revised settlement clarifies that the $75 million penalty is part of a Fair Fund pursuant to Section 308 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. The penalty will be distributed to investors that sustained financial losses because of Citigroup’s alleged misconduct.

Broker-dealers and their representatives can be held liable for misrepresenting or not presenting all material facts to an investor about his/her investment if that client ends up sustaining financial losses. By agreeing to settle, Citigroup is not denying or admitting to the allegations.

Related Web Resources:
Judge OKs Citigroup-SEC Accord on Mortgages, ABC News, October 19, 2010

Judge approves Citi's $75M settlement with SEC, Bloomberg Businessweek, October 19, 2010

Read the SEC Complaint (PDF)

Citigroup Settles Subprime Mortgage Securities Fraud Claims for $75 Million, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, August 3, 2010

Continue reading "Citigroup’s $75 Million Securities Fraud Settlement with the SEC Over Subprime Mortgage Debt Approved by Judge" »

September 29, 2010

Wall Street Knew 28% of the Loans Behind Mortgage Backed Securities (MBS) Failed to Meet Basic Underwriting Standards

Testimony and documentation provided to the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission (FCIC) by Clayton Holdings, a due diligence company, revealed that as much as 28% of the loans failed to meet basic underwriting guidelines. According to the testimony given to the FCIC, only 54% of the loans met the lender’s underwriting guidelines and 28% were outright failures.

Unfortunately, about 40% of these bad loans went into securitized pools sold to investors. This information, provided to Wall Street banks, was ignored when they purchased these loans, then bundled into mortgage backed securities and sold to others. Furthermore, rating agencies Moody’s, Standard & Poor’s and Fitch, all charged with assessing the risks of securitized pools, ignored conclusive evidence that many of the loans failed to meet underwriting standards.

Loan originators profited, as did unscrupulous appraisers, then Wall Street firms and the rating agencies shared in the greed by packaging the overrated risky pools. The victims were unsuspecting investors, including individual investors, pension funds, municipalities and U.S. housing agencies, as well as overseas countries, banks and other foreign investors.

In the wake of this subprime mortgage fraud process and the collapse of the housing market, accusations of the chain of greed concerning mortgage backed securities (MBS) has now been confirmed: The toxic nature of the securities was known by Wall Street but simply ignored for the sake of profits.

In a related matter, Morgan Stanley accused of deceptive practices by the Massachusetts Attorney General by knowingly placing dubious mortgages into securitized pools. The facts in that case relied on Clayton reports of loan quality commissioned by Morgan Stanley. The firm settled for $102 million.

References:

Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, www.fcic.gov

Raters Ignored Proof of Unsafe Loans, New York Times, Gretchen Morgenson; September 26, 2010

New Proof Wall Street Knew Its Mortgage Securities Were Subpar, Huffington Post, September 25, 2010

Attorney General of Massachusetts, www.mass.gov

Continue reading "Wall Street Knew 28% of the Loans Behind Mortgage Backed Securities (MBS) Failed to Meet Basic Underwriting Standards" »

September 7, 2010

Charles Schwab & Co. Defendant in Class-Action Securities Fraud Lawsuit Filed on Behalf of Schwab Total Bond Market Fund Investors Over CMOs and Mortgage-Backed Securities

A class-action securities complaint has been filed against Charles Schwab & Co. on behalf of investors that own Schwab Total Bond Market Fund (Nasdaq: SWBLX) shares that were purchased after May 31, 2007. The securities fraud lawsuit accuses Charles Schwab of causing the fund to deviate from its fundamental business objective, which was to track the Lehman Brothers U.S. Aggregate Bond Index, and of violating the California Business & Professions Code.

According to the plaintiffs’ legal representation, the defendant caused investors to suffer financial losses when it started investing in high-risk mortgage backed securities without letting shareholders know. Per the fund’s prospectus, Charles Schwab is supposed to obtain shareholder approval through a vote.

The plaintiffs contend that by investing 25% of the fund’s portfolio assets in high-risk, non-agency collateralized mortgage obligations (CMO’s) and mortgage-backed securities that were not part of Lehman’s US Aggregate Bond Index, Charles Schwab failed to stay true to its stated fundamental investment objective. They claim that this deviation led to tens of millions of dollars in shareholder losses because of the decline in the non-agency mortgage-backed securities value. According to their lawyers, the investors ended up experiencing a negative 12.64% in differential in total return for the fund compared to the Lehman Bros. U.S. Aggregate Bond Index from August 31, 2007 to February 27, 2009.

The investor plaintiffs are seeking restitution for all class members and for the return of management and other associated fees collected after the fund’s alleged deviation from its fundamental business objective.

Related Web Resources:
Class Action Lawsuit Filed Against Charles Schwab & Co., Star Global Tribune, September 7, 2010

Plaintiffs charge Total Bond Market Fund deviated from stated investment strategy, Investment News, September 7, 2010


Related Blog Stories Resources:
Schwab Must Pay SSEK Client $604,094 Over California Yield Plus Fund Investments, Says FINRA Arbitration Panel, Stockbrokerfraudblog.com, April 22, 2010

Securities Law Firm Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas LTD LLP Investigates Investor Claims Related to Short Term Bond Funds, Stockbrokerfraudblog.com, August 9, 2008

Continue reading "Charles Schwab & Co. Defendant in Class-Action Securities Fraud Lawsuit Filed on Behalf of Schwab Total Bond Market Fund Investors Over CMOs and Mortgage-Backed Securities" »

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" »

March 24, 2010

More on YieldPlus Mutual Fund: Charles Schwab Corp. Tries to Dissuade SEC From Filing Securities Claims

Charles Schwab Corp. doesn’t want the Securities and Exchange Commission to file securities claims over the YieldPlus mutual fund. Schwab contends that it never misrepresented the fund when it compared it to money market funds. The brokerage firm also says that it did not mislead investors, give certain ones more information than others, or let other Schwab funds cause financial harm to Charles Schwab YieldPlus Funds investors.

While the SEC has yet to file YieldPlus-related claims against Schwab, it did send the brokerage firm a Wells notice last year notifying that it may sue. Schwab had switched about half of its assets in the YieldPlus fund into mortgage-backed securities without shareholder approval. Following the housing market collapse, what was once the largest short-term bond fund in the world fund, with $13.5 million in assets in 2007, lost 35% before dividends. As of February 28, Bloomberg data shows that the mutual fund had $184 million in assets.

Even though the Investment Company Act of 1940, Section 13(a) states that a shareholder vote must take place before a company can do other than what its policies allow when it comes to which industries investments can be concentrated in, Schwab says it didn’t need approval because although the fund changed how mortgage-backed securities were categorized, it did not change its fundamental concentration policy.

However, in a March 19 court filing, the SEC said Schwab’s decision in 2006 that mortgage-backed securities without federal insurance aren’t subject to the fund’s 25% cap on “industry” investments and that these securities are not an industry was not just an act of “rejiggering.” Schwab invested almost 50% of the YieldPlus funds assets in these securities—despite the fact that its 1999 registration statement says that the fund will not concentrate investments in one industry. The SEC says that shareholder approval should have taken place not because the fund revised its classification about mortgage-backed securities as an industry but because 25% of the fund’s assets were invested in mortgage-backed securities.

In their securities fraud lawsuits, shareholders have accused Schwab of misleading them when describing the fund as “marginally riskier” than cash.

Related Web Resources:
Schwab Seeks to Fend Off SEC Lawsuit Over YieldPlus, Bloomberg/Business Week, March 23, 2010

The Charles Schwab Corporation : Schwab YieldPlus Funds Investor Shares or Schwab YieldPlus Funds Select Shares, Securities.Stanford.Edu

Securities and Exchange Commission

July 21, 2009

Carlyle Group Sued by Former Congressman Michael Huffington For Investment Loss of More than $20 Million

Former Congressman Michael Huffington is suing Carlyle Group, a private equity firm, and affiliated companies for more than $20 million in investment losses. Huffington, the ex-husband of columnist Arianna Huffington, says he was misled about the safety of a fund that contained mortgage-backed securities. The closed-end fund, Carlyle Capital, was supposed to be a low-risk investment fund. Huffington says he invested $20 million in the fund.

Huffington, who was a member of the California House from 1993 to 1995, filed his investment fraud lawsuit against Carlyle and Carlyle Capital executives in Massachusetts Superior Court. Huffington is accusing David M. Rubenstein, Carlyle managing director and co-founder, of misrepresenting the funds’ risks during conversations.

Huffington also contends that in March 2007, John Stomber, the head of Carlyle Capital, told investors that the fund wasn’t exposed to high-risk investments. Huffington says that in August 2007, Stomber told investors that the fund was performing on target. A report in 2008 stated that the fund’s returns were in line with near-term targets. Yet two weeks later, Huffington contends that the equity of the shareholders was gone. In March 2008, Rubenstein contacted Huffington to let him know that the fund had defaulted on its debts and lenders were selling the collateral.

Carlyle Capital was supposed to borrow money to purchase the securities and then make money on the difference between what was earned on the interest paid on the bonds and the firm’s borrowing costs. The fund collapsed after lenders made repeated margin calls. The private equity firm and its investors lost $700 million.

Related Web Resources:
High-Profile Investor Sues Carlyle Group, Forbes.com, July 13, 2009

Carlyle Sued Over Fund's Losses, Forbes.com, July 13, 2009

Continue reading "Carlyle Group Sued by Former Congressman Michael Huffington For Investment Loss of More than $20 Million" »

July 1, 2009

SEC May Sue State Street Corp Over Investor Losses Related to Mortgage-Backed Securities

The Securities and Exchange Commission is considering whether to file civil charges against State Street Corp. over possible securities violations related to subprime mortgages. The Boston-based firm is the largest asset manager for institutions in the world.

In its regulatory filing that it submitted on Monday, State Street noted that the SEC had sent State Street Bank and Trust Co. a “Wells” notice related to a probe into disclosures and management of the bank’s fixed-income investments before 2008. The asset manager is cooperating with the SEC, as well as with Massachusetts’s attorney general. Massachusetts’s lead securities regulator, Secretary of the Commonwealth William F. Galvin, is looking at allegations that State Street misled pension funds over how much risk was involved in the investments.

Just before the housing market fell in 2007, State Street’s fixed-income investment unit began to increase its investments in bonds and securities related to subprime mortgages. Customers with poor credit records were even given loans. When the market collapsed and defaults on mortgages went sky high, the investments’ values dropped significantly, leading to investor losses.

Already, a number of investors have filed securities fraud lawsuits against State Street for allegedly investing in home mortgages that were too high risk. In October 2007, Prudential Financial Inc. sued State Street for $80 million on behalf of 200 retirement plans. The financial figure they are seeking is how much was lost in two bond funds. Some 28,000 retirement accounts were affected. In its complaint, filed under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, the life insurer accused State Street of changing the funds’ investment strategies and making “highly leveraged investments in mortgage-related” assets without disclosing these investments.

In the 4th quarter of 2007, State Street put aside at least $618 million to settle claims related to subprime home loan-related losses. As of the end of March, the asset manager had $207 million left in its reserve fund.

Our investment fraud lawyers at the stockbroker fraud law firm of Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP has been handling a number of these claims and lawsuits against State Street.

Related Web Resources:
State Street Says SEC May Sue Over Bond Investments, Bloomberg.com, June 29, 2009

SEC tells State Street it could face civil charges, AP/Google, June 30, 2009

March 14, 2009

Morgan Keegan Settlement with Children’s Wish Fund Shows the Impact Recouping Investment Losses Can Have On The Little People

In 2007, Morgan Keegan settled an arbitration claim with the Indiana Children’s Wish Fund for an undisclosed amount. The charity had reported losing $48,000 in a mutual fund it had invested in with the brokerage firm.

The Wish Fund became involved in mortgage securities after a local banker persuaded the charity’s executive director, Terry Ceaser-Hudson, to invest money in a bond fund through Morgan Keegan. Ceaser-Hudson was put in touch with broker Christopher Herrmann. When she asked him about the risks of investing in the fund, she says he assured her that investing it would be as safe as investing in a CD or a money market account.

In June 2007, the Wish Fund invested nearly $223,000 in the fund. That week, two Bear Stearns funds collapsed.

Less than three weeks after investing the charity’s money in the Morgan Keegan fund, Ceaser-Hudson says she was surprised to see a $5,000 loss. As the bond fund’s net asset value fell in September, she ordered the sale of the stakes to be sold. She got back about $174,000 of the $223,000 she had invested on behalf of the Wish Fund—that’s a 22% loss in just three months. Ceaser-Hudson filed an arbitration claim against Morgan Keegan and accused Herrmann of breach of duty when he making an unsuitable recommendation to the Wish Fund.

It appears as if the Regions Morgan Keegan mutual fund board members, like many investment professionals, did not properly assess the risks that came with investing in mortgage securities. Most of the brokerage firm’s directors do not own shares in the bond funds that were devastated, which means that the majority of them were not impacted by their decline.

For a charity like the Children’s Wish Fund, however, the losses it incurred had been preventing nine sick children from having their wishes granted.

Related Web Resources:
The Debt Crisis, Where It’s Least Expected, New York Times, December 30, 2007

The Indiana Children's Wish Fund

Continue reading "Morgan Keegan Settlement with Children’s Wish Fund Shows the Impact Recouping Investment Losses Can Have On The Little People" »

January 29, 2009

Wall Street Did Not Know Mortgage Backed Securities were Junk. Baloney!

Investment firms pretend that they did not know until a year ago that mortgage backed securities were not safe and secure. Yet, many experts were sounding warnings that many of the mortgages, which made up these investments, were ‘toxic waste.’ Thus, Wall Street firms cannot use the “stupidity” defense” to insulate themselves from investor fraud claims that they deceived investors into mortgage-backed securities.

This week it was revealed that even the FBI, which is not the primary watchdog of Wall Street, knew as early as 2002 of wholesale problems with mortgages—the majority of which were packaged into mortgage-backed securities and sold to investors. In an article published on SeattlePI.com, two retired FBI officials say that the bureau knew for years that fraud involving mortgage-fraud scams, insider scams, and corrupt appraisers was a growing problem in the mortgage industry but failed to take action to stop it.

One reason no action was taken, the retired officials say, is that after September 11, 2001, most of the FBI’s manpower was focused on fighting terrorism. Some 2,400 agents were reportedly reassigned to counterterrorism after the terrorist attacks in New York.

The retired officials claim that the FBI never got the necessary tips from the banking regulatory agencies. They also say that the Bush Administration was fully briefed about the mortgage fraud crisis and its potential financial implications but that government officials decided not to give back to the FBI the agents they needed to deal with the fraud problems. According to one of the retired officials, certified public accountants with the bureau were either assigned to HealthSouth, Enron, or terrorist financing.

Another problem that reportedly prevented the seriousness of the situation from being fully understood, or those responsible from being prosecuted, is that mortgage lenders and banks were generating so much money that the fraud that was occurring did not appear to be costly enough to warrant more attention. One of the retired officials says the Securities and Exchange Commission showed no interest in working with the FBI on the fraud problem until after the economy fell apart.

FBI Assistant Director Ken Kaiser, however, disputes the implication that the FBI could have done more to prevent the mortgage-backed securities crisis. He says the FBI’s criminal division has made 1,000 arrests and “targeted 180 criminal enterprises since 2004.” Kaiser says the agency pursued buyers and lenders involved in multiple fraud or cases involving drugs or organized crime.


Related Web Resources:
FBI saw mortgage fraud early, SeattlePI.com, January 28, 2009

Mortgage Fraud, FBI

Continue reading "Wall Street Did Not Know Mortgage Backed Securities were Junk. Baloney!" »

August 20, 2008

State Street Sued Over Allegations of Misrepresentation Related to Mortgage-Backed Securities

Massachusetts plumbing and air conditioning supply company F.W. Webb Company is suing State Street Bank and Trust Company, State Street Global Advisors (SSgA), and CitiStreet. F.W. Webb is accusing the defendants of misrepresenting a bond fund as a low risk 401k-investment option, when in fact, the SSgA Yield Plus Fund was invested in mortgage-based securities.

FW Webb says the investment option had been represented on more than one occasion as being similar to a money market portfolio but with better returns. FW Webb alleges that beginning in 1996, State Street changed its investment strategy for the Yield Plus account so that there was an emphasis on lower-quality securities that were accompanied by greater risks.

The lawsuit contends that the Yield Plus Fund create a level of risk that was inappropriate and not in line with the stated investment goals of the Massachusetts company's 401K Plan or the objectives of a traditional money market fund. The complaint contends that the fund dropped dramatically in mid-2007 because of its overexposure to low-quality assets and securities that were high in risk.

CitiStreet, which has provided FW Webb with investment management and recordkeeping and administrative functions since 2000, is also a defendant in the suit. FW Webb say that any instability related to the Yield Plus Fund was never an issue that CitiStreet or State Street brought to its attention, which gave the plumbing and air conditioning supply company no reason to question whether the fund should be included in its 401K Plan.

The lawsuit also noted that the decision to move the Yield Plus Fund into mortgage-backed investments during 2005-2007 occurred during a time when defaults of the subprime mortgages had skyrocketed and subprime lenders were dealing with insolvency. The SSgA Yield Plus Fund’s Board of Directors decided to liquidate the fund as of May 31, 2008.

Related Web Resources:

F.W. Webb sues State Street and CitiStreet over alleged misrepresentation, PatriotLedger.com, August 20, 2008

FW Webb Company

State Street Corporation

CitiStreet

Continue reading "State Street Sued Over Allegations of Misrepresentation Related to Mortgage-Backed Securities" »

January 12, 2008

Investors Complain about Mutual Funds Sold by Morgan Keegan

Some Investors have complained they were sold mutual funds by the securities firm of Morgan Keegan & Company, Inc. based on representations of safety which were unfounded. At this time such complaints are only allegations and no determination has been made that the firm and/or its representations engaged in any wrongdoing.

The funds in question include RMK High Income Fund (RMH), RMK Advantage Income Fund (RMA), and RMK Multi-Sector High Income Fund (RHY). Reportedly, these funds were heavily invested into collateralized debt obligations (CDO's) based on sub-prime mortgages and have therefore declined sharply in value.

Morgan Keegan is a Memphis, Tenessee based brokerage firm and is a division of Regions Financial Group. The firm's offices are located primarily in the South, including in the states of Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee and Virginia.

Persons who believe they were sold the above listed mutual funds, or other investments, based of false information or misrepresentations concering the safety of such investments can contact the law firm of Shepherd Smith & Edwards. Our law firm represents investors who have lost money as a result of worngdoing by members of the securities industry, including Morgan Keegan. Contact us today to arrange a free confidential consultation via telephone to discuss your situation with one of our experienced attorneys.

Additional information is available to you here regarding Morgan Keegan & Company and Regions Financial Group.

January 7, 2008

Morgan Keegan Settles Arbitration Claim Made By Indiana Children’s Wish Fund

Last month, brokerage firm Morgan Keegan made an undisclosed payment to the Indiana Children’s Wish Fund to settle an arbitration dispute. The wish granting organization had lost $48,000 in a mutual fund that was heavily invested in mortgage securities.

The Indiana Children’s Wish Fund has about $1 million in assets. The Wish Fund was founded by Richard Culley, a blind attorney, in 1984. The charity has granted some 1800 wishes to children who have been diagnosed with life-threatening illnesses. If the charity had not received its settlement sum, it would not have been able to realize the wishes of nine children.

Last June, a banker at Regions Bank in Indiana recommended that the Wish Fund invest money in a bond that Morgan Keegan offered. Regions Bank and Morgan Keegan are affiliated with one another. Terry Ceaser-Hudson, the Wish Fund’s executive director, says that the Morgan Keegan broker told her that the fund was very safe.

The Wish Fund placed nearly $223,000 into the fund on June 26. A little over two weeks later, Ceaser-Hudson received the Wish Fund’s first brokerage statement. The wish granting organization lost $5,000 within the first few days of making its investment. In September, Ceaser-Hudson sold the charity’s stake in the Morgan Keegan fund and received $174,000 back—a 22% loss over 3 months.

Ceaser-Hudson filed an arbitration claim against Morgan Keegan in November. She cited the unsuitable recommendation, saying the broker had breached his duty to the Wish Fund. By the end of December, the Morgan Keegan fund was down nearly 50% from its $1 billion in assets that it reported in March.

Overall, the mortgage securities market debacle has cost more than $100 billion in losses and write-offs, as well as eliminated billions of dollars in stock market value. Fortune 500 CEO’s have been fired over the crisis and some of the country’s leading credit rating agencies have lost their credibility. Many investors may still be unaware of the damage that the mortgage securities collapse has wreaked upon them—but all of this will eventually be revealed.

The stockbroker fraud law firm of Shepherd Smith and Edwards is dedicated to helping investors who have lost money because a broker was careless or engaged in broker misconduct and breached his or her duty to a client. Please contact Shepherd Smith and Edwards today and ask for your free consultation with one of our stockbroker fraud attorneys.


Related Web Resources:


The Debt Crisis, Where It’s Least Expected, New York Times, January 4, 2008

Indiana children's charity sues Morgan Keegan fund over alleged subprime investment, The Birmingham News, November 29, 2007

Indiana Children's Wish Fund

December 2, 2007

Citadel’s $2.5 Million Investment into E-Trade Raises New Questions About Mortgage-Backed Securities

Citadel Investment Group is investing $2.5 million into E*Trade Financial Corp, which has been negatively affected by shaky mortgage investments. The “bailout” will increase the hedge fund’s stake in E*Trade from 2.5% to 18%. Citadel will pay $800 million for E*Trade’s $3 billion in asset-backed securities. This will allow E-Trade to take off the riskiest assets from its balance sheet.

Citadel says the investment is a good business opportunity. The hedge fund cited E*Trade ’s online brokerage platform as a big reason for making the large investment.

The investment deal is an indicator of how much hedge funds have become involved in both sides of the mortgage crisis, sometimes as a victim and at other times as a rescuer. It also shows the growing influence that hedge funds have in the financial arena.

E*Trade met with 40 potential financial and strategic buyers before making the deal with Citadel. E*Trade says that out of all potential buyers, Citadel offered the “most comprehensive solution” to the company’s problems.

The Citadel-E*Trade deal has some people wondering whether a long-awaited price can now be placed on mortgage-backed securities. People familiar with the details of the E*Trade deal, however, say that the portfolio being talked about includes collateralized debt obligations and a number of securities that make a uniform price seem unlikely.

Citadel will nominate a representative on E*Trade s board of directors. E*Trade CEO Mitchell Caplan resigned last week.

This is not the first time that Citadel has searched for and bought assets in distress. In June, Citadel paid $180 million for assets of ResMae Mortgage Corp. at a bankruptcy auction. It also recently acquired assets of Sowood Capital Management LP.


The law firm of Shepherd Smith and Edwards represents investors who have lost money because of the misconduct of members of the securities industry. Please contact Shepherd Smith and Edwards and ask for your free consultation. We have helped thousands of investors get their money back.

Related Web Resources:

Citadel boosts E*Trade stake with $2.5 billion investment, Chicago Tribune, November 30, 2007

What the E*Trade Bailout Says About “Marking to Market”, The Wall Street Journal, November 29, 2007

E*Trade Financial