The Law Planet Blog

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.

Earlier 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.

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

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.

After all of the grief that Stanford caused to investors he swindled $7 billion from, can you believe he is complaining about intolerable conditions in jail. His $500,000 bail was revoked because he was considered a flight risk by the Judge.

The WSJ shared his Stanford's complaint to the Judge asking for a transfer in the article "Allen Stanford on His Life in Jail: ‘Conditions Are Intolerable". Jail is not supposed to be a walk in the park or a country club experience.

Texas Billionaire Allen Stanford shared the following through his Attorney, Dick DeGuerin:

1. For at least a week, during the hottest part of the summer, with outside temperatures of 100 [degrees] or more, the place where Allen Stanford is being held as a pretrial detainee has had no air conditioning and for part of that time was without power altogether.

2. Allen Stanford is housed in a single cell with between eight to ten other men. For part of the time last week, they were in total darkness and so far (this motion is prepared on Sunday, July 26) the cell has been without air conditioning for at least a week. There are no windows for light or ventilation and the conditions are intolerable.

3. Allen Stanford urgently asks the Court to transfer him to the Federal Detention Center in downtown Houston run by the Bureau of Prisons and renews his request for transfer, both because of the oppressive conditions under which he is suffering, as well as the impossible conditions for preparing for his complex trial.

4. Regarding the inability of Allen Stanford to consult with his lawyers, the discovery in this case is by electronic means and none of the visiting conditions at the Joe Corley Detention Facility allow the use of electronics. Allen Stanford will be denied his constitutional right to review the evidence in his case if he is detained pretrial at the Joe Corley Detention Facility.

5. Counsel for Allen Stanford has tried to address the conditions with the Marshal’s Service and the Joe Corley Detention Facility, but thus far to no avail. See Exhibit A, a letter to United States Acting Marshal Saenz.

Respectfully Submitted,
Dick DeGuerin

He should not get preferential treatment. Let us know what you think of Stanford's current conditions. Is this fair or cruel and unusual treatment?

The trial for USA v Tzolov and Butler 08-370 started this week in New York's U.S. District Court for the Eastern District.

The case involves two former Wall Street brokers that worked for Credit Suisse Group AG, Eric Butler and Julian Tzolov. They were charged with fraudulently dealing in subprime mortgage-backed auction rate securities (ARS) for corporate clients who specifically requested much safer investments.

The trial seems to be a pass the blame for the defense. The prosecution's argument is that the brokers mislead clients about auction rate securities deals, because of greed in trying to earn millions of dollars in commissions for risky investments instead of much safer investments such as government-guaranteed student loans. The defense cites an entirely different argument, they attribute the losses of the investments to the collapse of the real estate market instead of GREED.

It is important to note that one of the brokers, Tzolov, saw the writing on the wall and recently struck a deal with the prosecution. Eric Butler, pleaded not guilty, and decided to try his luck with a jury. His former partner in crime, Tzolov, struck a deal after pleading guilty, and will be a witness for the prosecution. His testimony should really be interesting.

According to a recent article published by Reuters

"The defendant and his partner promised something better, a better opportunity," U.S. prosecutor Greg Andres said in opening arguments to the jury.

"They did not honor that promise. They invested in securities the clients didn't ask for and didn't want."

This is an important trial to watch regarding investment fraud. The defense is trying to blame the market for the loss of the investors, instead of what seems to plague many Wall Street brokers and others accused of Securities and Investment fraud: GREED.

This makes me think of a statement from the famous fictional villain, Gordon Gekko, in the Oliver Stone movie Wall Street, "Greed is Good". I imagine that people such as Bernie Madoff, Michael Milken, Robert Allen Stanford, Arthur Nadel would all agree that "Greed carries a high price tag".

What will happen in the USA v Tzolov and Butler 08-370 case and the fate of former broker Eric Butler's fate? Time will tell...

Stay tuned...