November 20, 2009

Former Chairman found guilty on securities fraud charges for $8.6 billion fraud

Former McKesson executive, Charles McCall can now join the Bernie Madoff Club. Yesterday he was found guilty of investment fraud that cost investors $8.6 billion. McCall is a former Chairman of the McKesson Corp.

A San Francisco jury found him guilty of securities fraud and violating accounting rules. On a positive note he was acquitted on falsifying records. His sentencing will take place next March.

Read the Bloomberg article to learn more on the Securities charges against Mr. McCall and his former colleagues.

Bookmark and Share

November 20, 2009

ormer Chairman found guilty in $8.6 billion fraud

Former McKesson executive, Charles McCall can now join the Bernie Madoff Club for Investment fraud. Yesterday he was found guilty of fraud that cost investors $8.6 billion. McCall is a former Chairman of the McKesson Corp.

A San Francisco jury found him guilty of securities fraud and violating accounting rules. On a positive note he was acquitted on falsifying records. His sentencing will take place next March.

Read the Bloomberg article to learn more on the Securities charges against Mr. McCall and his former colleagues.

Bookmark and Share

November 20, 2009

Financial Services Divsion - Investment Fraud Seminar a Success

I am pleased to announce that yesterday our Investment Fraud Seminar in West Palm Beach was a huge success. It was held in the beautiful Phillips Point Club. The beautiful intracoastal was a great backdrop for this well attended Seminar.

The 4 hour seminar, Investing in a Post Madoff Environment: Financial Fraud: How it's accomplished, how to detect it, and how to recover from it was attended by over 100 people from South Florida. The attendees included, CPAs, Attorneys, Bankers, Financial Representatives and a host of other professionals. The Seminar was sponsored by the Financial Services Divsion of LaBovick & LaBovick, P.A.

Attorney Marc Dobin, Director of the Financial Services Division, led the discussions on how industry professionals can help prevent investment fraud.

Speakers at the Seminar included:

William Nortman, Esq., Akerman Senterfitt

Richard A. White, Turris Consulting, LLC

Moderator: Jeffrey S. Grubman, Esq, Jeffrey S. Grubman, P.A.

Topics coverd at the Seminar included areas such as: Investment fraud, Ponzi schemes, FINRA, Churning, Florida Investor Protection Act, Churning, and much more.

We look forward to sharing more information on our next educational seminar on investment and financial fraud.

If you would like to have a transcript of the seminar or more information on investment fraud, let us know.

Our vendor partner for this program, the Daily Business Review, will be publishing a printed version of the transcript in 3 - 4 weeks in their paper as a supplement.

Stay tuned...

November 18, 2009

Investing in a Post Madoff Environment: Financial Fraud Seminar for Industry Professionals

In an effort to educate industry professionals on how to fight financial fraud, The Financial Services Division of LaBovick & LaBovick, P.A. is holding a Financial Fraud Seminar in conjunction with the Daily Business Review on the very relevant subject:

Investing in a Post Madoff Environment: Financial Fraud: How it's accomplished, how to detect it, and how to recover from it.

The Seminar will be held on November 19, 2009 - 8am at Phillips Point Club in West Palm Beach.

Marc S. Dobin, Esq., Director of the Financial Services Division at LaBovick & LaBovick, P.A., will be a featured speaker along with other leading Securities Industry professionals.

Featured Speakers for the Financial Fraud Seminar: Investing in a Post Madoff Environment include:

William Nortman, Esq., Akerman Senterfitt

Richard A. White, Turris Consulting, LLC

Moderator: Jeffrey S. Grubman, Esq, Jeffrey S. Grubman, P.A.

This seminar is approved by the Florida Bar for 4.0 CLE Credits and 3 CPE Credits for Accounting and Financial Professionals.

Seminar Description:
Just over one year after Lehman Brothers disappeared, how does a professional help clients navigate the ever-changing financial industry landscape? Is the "great deal" your client brought to you the next Microsoft or the next Madoff? This Financial Fraud Seminar will feature speakers with an average of 20 years of securities industry and regulatory experience. They will discuss investment fraud techniques, discovery, prevention and what to do if you have a client who is a victim.

Bookmark and Share

November 18, 2009

Florida Investor Protection Act takes center stage against Securities Fraud

Not a minute too soon, Florida Governor Charlie Crist, signed the Florida Investor Protection Plan, Florida House Bill 483, into law, effective July 1, 2009. As we mentioned in a previous post on The Law Planet Blog, this was a new day for Florida investors. In the wake of fraudulent Ponzi Schemes such as, the Bernie Madoff Ponzi Scheme and the new Scott Rothstein Ponzi Scheme, investors need extra protections against investor fraud.

Yesterday, the law blawg, LawUpdates.com, wrote an excellent commentary on the Florida Investor Protection Act

The post gives background on "blue sky laws" and how states regulate securities transactons within their state. The authors provide a clear and concise analysis of Florida's Investor Protection Act that sheds light on how in Florida, the AG and government agencies have more authority to fight investor fraud.

The following excerpt from LawUpdates.com sheds llight on new authority under the new Investor Protection Act:

Specifically, the IPA authorizes the Attorney General, with permission from the state’s Office of Financial Regulation (the “OFR”), to investigate and bring securities fraud actions – criminal and/or civil—against anyone violating the anti-fraud provision under the Florida Securities and Investor Protection Act (“SIPA”). The AG has the ability to seek restitution for victims and obtain other civil penalties. The Florida Department of Law Enforcement has the ability to pay rewards for original information in money laundering investigations under the new law.

As the authors of the LawUpdates.com further point out:

Florida’s IPA has yet to be tested in court. It’s possible that a firm or broker-dealer offering securities in Florida and impacted under this new law will file a court action claiming that federal laws preempt the state’s efforts against it.

All eyes are on Florida once again, for taking Center Stage, on such a significant issue. Time will tell how the new Investor Protection Act will stand up against preemption. We will keep the faith that JUSTICE WILL PREVAIL.

Kudo's to our lawmakers for taking a bold step and passing the Florida Investor Protection Act.

Bookmark and Share

November 3, 2009

If your gold is rusting, you’ve got a problem

gold-bars%20white%20glove.jpg

As readers of this blog know, my sister is a bankruptcy lawyer. She was recently appointed the trustee of a bankrupt jeweler who appears to have been selling gold bars to customers. Or at least they thought they were buying gold bars.

She had a conversation with a customer of the jeweler who told her how glad he was that he was not ripped off. After all, he had his gold bars at his home. He then proceeded to ask her if it was normal for gold to show rust. When I heard that question, I could not contain myself.

I’ve said this before, folks, there’s no magic bullet. If the events of the past 2 years have demonstrated anything, it’s that the so-called “experts” couldn’t find their butts with two hands and a road map. Ponzi schemers take advantage of every investor’s dream – the next Microsoft or Google is out there waiting to be discovered. Or that the next genius has found an undiscovered investing technique.

Ultimately, the wheels come off and the investors find themselves hoping that the gaudy baubles purchased by the crook can be sold for ten cents on the dollar. That’s what’s happening to the Madoff investors right now.

Bottom line – if you think your gold will rust, don’t buy it. If you’re told that the gold is “special,” you’re being lied to.

Bookmark and Share

October 30, 2009

Wamu Investment fraud case moves forward

WaMu.jpgEarlier this week, Seattle Federal District Court Judge Marsha Pechman, ruled that the case against several former Washington Mutual executives and Deloitte & Touche could move forward. She dismissed some of the claims, however, denied defense requests to dismiss any defendants.

In May 2009, Judge Pechman, dismissed the initial 388 page plaintiff complaint as “verbose” and “disorganized”. In her earlier decision, she wrote the following: “The Court remains mystified at counsel’s failure to allege cohesive claims, submit helpful briefing, or prepare a response to the court's inquiry in advance of oral argument. Plaintiffs' counsel cannot expect the court to engage in the necessary analysis when counsel is not prepared to do so."

In the revised 267 page complaint, submitted by the plaintiff’s counsel, Judge Pechman, finds that it is cogent and concise”. The heart of the case involves Washington Mutual’s residential lending practices and alleges that greed to raise the bank’s stock price is a major factor in why proper standards were ignored to meet consumer demand.

This case is on behalf of individuals who purchased securities issued by Wamu or its subsidiaries from October 19, 2005 to July 23, 2008 (the “Class Period”).

After reading the complaint, one can see that there are several issues on who should be held accountable for protecting Wamu investors from fraud. Many lawyers are involved in this legal battle that can last for several years.

Fraudsters Beware: Investors will hold you accountable for your actions and justice will be served.

Bookmark and Share

October 2, 2009

SEC Enforcement Division needs to make massive changes according to Office of Inspector General Report

sec%20logo.jpg According to a recent report issued by the Office of the Inspector General (OIG), the Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC) enforcement division needs to improve its processes and procedures for investigating and managing the fight against securities fraud. The main example cited in the report was the most current and most blatant example of the SEC’s failure to properly investigate securities fraud complaints - Bernard Madoff’s multi-billion-dollar Ponzi scheme. The report issued by the OIG stated that complaints about Mr. Madoff’s possible involvement in securities fraud were received by the SEC as long ago as 1999. Even though complaints of alleged fraud were made to the SEC in regard to Mr. Madoff, SEC staff failed to recommend that the SEC take action on these complaints.

The purpose of the OIG’s report was to determine the SEC enforcement department’s shortcomings and to identify those areas in which the department needs to make improvements to better fight securites fraud. The goal of the report was to bolster SEC enforcement measures in an effort to prevent another securities fraud case with such far-reaching implications and consequences as the Madoff case. It is the SEC’s job to protect investors from securities fraud. When the department fails to properly carry out its job duties the ramifications can spell disaster for investors.

The following systemic problems within the SEC’s enforcement department were identified in the OIG’s report: staff’s failure to thoroughly review complaints; due diligence was not exercised regarding complaints; inexperienced staff conducted unsupervised investigations; complaints were not sufficiently reviewed; staff failed to seek assistance from other departments and divisions; staff did not verify information with independent third-party representatives; administrative tasks were not completed in a timely manner. According to the OIG report, additional areas in which staff felt changes needed to be made and information clarified included: case handling procedure, program priorities, and working relationships.

The report issued by the OIG offered 21 recommendations to the department in order to create a more effective program. These recommendations focused on management control, establishment of formal guidelines, and a review of existing policy and procedures. The Director of Enforcement at the SEC stated that these measures would be implemented.

To read more on the this of OIG Recommendations view the following: Office of Inspector General (OIG) Audit on SEC - Program Improvements Needed within the SEC's Enforcement Division, Housingwire.com

Bookmark and Share

September 29, 2009

Lowes Home Improvement settles overtime class action suit for nearly $30 million

lowes.jpg

The world's second largest home improvement retailer, Lowes Home Improvement, will see “off the clock” in an entirely new light, after the recent, class action lawsuit settlement of $29.5 million. It is important to note that Lowes Home Improvement does not does not admit to any wrongdoing and believes it is in compliance with all laws and regulations.

It is hard to believe that a retailer so large would think that they could get away with all of the allegations brought against them. Some of the Plaintiff’s claims against Lowe’s Home Improvements include: making the Plaintiff’s work “off the clock” when not clocked in and requiring them to work after they clocked out, locking plaintiff's in the Lowe’s Home Improvement stores at the end of their shifts and not giving uninterrupted rest breaks and/or meal breaks as required by law. After all of these allegations, it is not hard to believe that the defendant did not pay the plaintiff’s the required overtime.

Continue reading "Lowes Home Improvement settles overtime class action suit for nearly $30 million" »

Bookmark and Share

September 15, 2009

Judge rejects SEC and BofA Settlement of $33 million for Merrill takeover

Unfortunately, yesterday was not a great day for the SEC and the Bank of America legal team. Their $33 million agreed upon settlement regarding the BofA taking over Merrill Lynch was rejected by Southern District of New York Judge Jed S. Rakoff

Judge Rakoff entered strong words towards the SEC and Bank of America settelement in his 12-page order, in Securities and Exchange Commission v. Bank of America Corp., 09 Civ. 6829. The judge stated the following: "Overall, indeed, the parties' submissions, when carefully read, leave the distinct impression that the proposed Consent Judgment was a contrivance designed to provide the SEC with the façade of enforcement and the management of the Bank with a quick resolution of an embarrassing inquiry -- all at the expense of the sole alleged victims, the shareholders."

He continues to further scold the SEC with additional statements:

"When a federal agency such as the SEC seeks to prospectively invoke the Court's own contempt power by having the court impose injunctive prohibitions against the defendant, the resolution has aspects of a judicial decree and the Court is therefore obligated to review the proposal a little more closely, to ascertain whether it is within the bounds of fairness, reasonableness, and adequacy -- and, in some certain circumstances, whether it serves the public interest."

Judge Rakoff deems the settlement "neither fair, nor reasonable, nor adequate."

Click here to read more on the SEC and BofA settlement from the New York Law Journal.

Bookmark and Share

August 26, 2009

FINRA Arbitration against Ameriprise Financial Services

LaBovick & LaBovick, PA filed a FINRA arbitration against Ameriprise Financial Services, (NYSE: AMP), formerly known as American Express Financial Advisors (AEFA) for stockbroker misconduct and negligence. The claim alleges that Deborah Amilowski, Financial Advisor for Ameriprise Financial Services, failed to properly advise a Senior investor on risks associated with unsuitable products for a person of that age, at the time of the initial investment and negligence in properly identifying the beneficiary resulting in additional loss to the trust.

The FINRA Statement of Claim, filed on August 13, 2009, stated that Ms. Amilowski, recommended a RiverSource variable annuity as an initial investment to a 77 year old investor at the time of purchase, thus ineligible for a guaranteed death benefit. This investment was too risky for someone of this age.

"Ameriprise Financial had the perfect opportunity to fix the problem, but compounded the error through their negligence and failure to act in the best interest of the client. Brokerage firms and their advisors must act with their client's best interest first. It is not acceptable for a firm to take advantage of Senior investors for profit," stated Marc S. Dobin, Esq., Director of Financial Services, LaBovick & LaBovick, PA.

Click on the following link to learn more on the FINRA Arbitration claim against Ameriprise Financial.

Bookmark and Share

August 26, 2009

I love Dilbert

64749.strip.gif

Bookmark and Share