The Law Planet Blog

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) is taking proactive measures to increase investor protection through strengthening regulatory requirements. This rule new change is expected to significantly increase the governing structure of money market funds, thus adding substantial protection to investors. The newly adopted rules will become effective 60 days after their publication in the Federal Register.

A full-scale review of the regulatory regime of money market funds by the SEC was precipitated by large-scale factors, including the ongoing financial crisis. The SEC’s review was also triggered by the Reserve Primary Fund’s so-called “breaking the buck” weakness, which causes a money market fund’s net asset value to fall below $1.00 per share. When this happens, investors lose money.

According to the SEC, the new rules are designed to increase the resilience of money market funds to stresses (such as economic pressure), and lessen the risks of runs on the funds. The agency hopes to achieve these ends by tightening the maturity and credit standards of quality as well as implementing new requirements for liquidity.

According to SEC Chairman Mary L. Schapiro,

"These new rules will have substantial benefits for investors and are an important first step in our efforts to strengthen the money market regime. These rules will help reduce risks associated with money market funds, so that investor assets are better protected and money market funds can better withstand market crises.”

• Improving liquidity
• Placing limits on lower quality securities
• Shortening maturity limits
• Using “Know Your Investor” procedures
• Performing periodic stress tests
• Using Nationally Recognized Statistical Rating Organizations (NRSROs)
• Strengthening repurchase agreements

For more information about this reform and other important investor information, visit the SEC’s Web site at: http://www.sec.gov

David Brooks, a founder and ex-chief executive officer of DHB Industries (DHB), a contracting company for the U.S. military and other agencies, is accused of looting the company of $185 million. According to a federal prosecutor, Mr. Brooks allegedly used the looted money to fund “lavish” personal expenditures.

Along with Sandra Hatfield, DHB’s former chief operating officer, Mr. Brooks is accused of securities fraud, insider trading, manipulating financial records, and a bevy of additional charges. Brooks and Hatfield reportedly used deceitful techniques to increase the company’s reported earnings and profits substantially.

According to federal prosecutors, Brooks and Hatfield reportedly inflated the value of DHB’s stock by lying about the inventory of supposedly shipped combat vests to the U.S. military. As a result, the duo defrauded the company for a combined $190,000 million, reportedly $185 million for Brooks, and $5 million for Hatfield. Both have pleaded not guilty to the charges
.
“This is a case about the naked greed of two people, Sandra Hatfield and David Brooks, and the lies and the fraud that they used to satisfy that greed,” Richard Lunger, Assistant U.S. Attorney told jurors in his opening statement. “In the end they lied in order to push up the price of the company’s stock, then [they] sold their stock for $190 million.”

In July 2006, shares of DHB stock were removed from American Stock Exchange listings. Although still headquartered in Pompano Beach, Florida, DHB has since been renamed Point Blank Solutions, Inc. According to the company’s Web site, Point Blank is an industry leader in ballistic technologies, including its Point Blank Body Armor and other protective apparel, for the military and other authorities.

For more information about the case, click on the following Bloomberg Business Week article on the DHB Fraud of Ex-CEO

To learn more about this and other financial fraud cases, visit the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission’s Web site www.SEC.GOV

The case is U.S. v. David Brooks, 06-CR-550, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of New York (Central Islip).

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.

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...

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

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.

6 years ago, I handled a case against Securities America (Now Ameriprise) where the broker used a stolen identity. In fact, he used two stolen identities. The second one was a law school classmate of his, who then spent years straightening out the mess.

Fast forward to today. A broker, using the name Joseph Bonnano, in Ohio entered a guilty plea related to the falsehoods one must tell in order to propagate a stolen identity, in this case Timothy Hyde. In the prior case that I handled, much money was missing and lost. Investment News reports - that, at least for now, no money was lost.

When I handled the Securities America case, they tried to say that the broker, even though he used a phony name, was properly registered. He wasn’t of course, since he did not use his real name.

The Ohio broker’s clients may have the right to rescission – to pick the trades they don’t like and ask for their money back. So if you’re a client of Joseph Bonnano, also known as Timothy Hyde, you may be able to get second chance.

The one interesting thing we learned from the earlier case is that FINRA collects fingerprints but does not run each set of prints through a database like you see on CSI (even though there’s poetic license there as well). Instead, they just compare names and social security numbers to see if anything pops up on the national criminal database. That’s how an identity thief gets registered as a stockbroker.

Barry Kaye, who allegedly made his fortune in the life settlement market is facing more bad news. First, he was forced to reduce his contribution to Florida Atlantic University to $5,000,000 from his planned $16,000,000. Now Investment News is reporting, that the Ohio Department of Insurance is investigating his life settlement sales in that state. The article reports that he has been sued by an 81 year-old life settlement investor for a failed transaction.

A life settlement begins with the purchase of a high value life insurance policy by an investor. The investor can either pay with their own cash or borrow the cash from a willing borrower, usually a financial institution. So, either using their own, or someone else’s, cash the investor pays the premiums for two years, to avoid the contestability period. At that point, the policy becomes a free asset and can be sold. It was commonly believed that policies had higher values in the resale market than their cash value.

The problem, not surprisingly, is that the entire transaction was based on the availability of willing buyers. Like many great ideas of 2001-2007, these ideas don’t look so good in 2008 and 2009. The new owner of the policy has to pay the premiums, a significant sum in many cases. So the original investor ends up with no buyer, a policy they didn’t need but were convinced that they did, and possibly a significant loan that they don’t want, can’t afford and expected to be able to repay upon sale of the insurance policy. Oops.

No free lunches people. This was too good to be true and it was a sham to begin with. But the sellers of these schemes should have known better and made better disclosures.

The FBI has announced that former key executive for Morgan Stanley, Darin Demizio, will serve 38 months imprisonment and three years of supervised release for conspiring to commit securities fraud and wire fraud and lying to the FBI. The trial took place in March before United States District Judge John Gleeson. United States Attorney for the Eastern District of New York, Benton J. Campbell announced the sentence.

Mr. Demizio routinely directed business from Morgan Stanley’s securities lending division to smaller brokerage firms for kickbacks that were paid to his father and Craig DeMizio, his brother. The amount of the kickbacks was over $1.6 million from 2000 – 2004. His brother was sentenced to 21 months after pleading guilty to commit securities fraud and wire fraud.

Investors can be assured that the FBI is taking bribery and kickbacks seriously in the securities business. The Demizio conviction is the 29th conviction stemming from an ongoing industry-wide investigation.

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...

As prior readers of The Law Planet Blog know, I have a strong dislike for Equity Index Annuities. I think they are lousy products and, to the extent they are sold, should be sold by someone who has proven at least a modicum of securities knowledge. Insurance salesman, without a Series 6 or 7 license, have not proven this knowledge. Yet they were allowed to sell complicated, market-based products.

I cheered last year when the SEC announced Rule 151A which would bring these products under their purview. It would also require licensing of salespeople and registration with a broker-dealer. All of these are good things. The Insurance and Annuity industry did not agree with me. It was nothing personal, I’m sure.

The industry took their case to court, in the case American Equity Investment Life Insurance Company v. Securities and Exchange Commission (July 21, 2009-6) on Petitions to argue that the Rule should not be enforced. The industry won, and lost.

There should be no joy in Mudville here. The District of Columbia Court of Appeals has told the SEC what it did wrong and what it needs to do right. On the other hand, the Court told the insurance industry that these products can be regulated as securities. For me, that’s the important part.

The court wrote “In this case, the SEC has adopted an interpretation that is based in reason. By their nature, FIAs ‘appeal to the purchaser not on the usual insurance basis of stability and security but on the prospect of ‘growth’ through sound investment management.’” This is what I’ve been saying all along. This is a market-based product. It is a security. It should be sold by qualified securities salespeople. Now it’s up to the SEC to make the requisite findings regarding its rulemaking and give it another try.

Stay tuned…

The Public Investors Arbitration Bar Association has proposed a rule directly to the SEC that would effectively eliminate the “industry” arbitrator from the arbitration panel. The paranoia exhibited by this organization, without any true empirical basis, knows no bounds.

As a lawyer who represents both industry and investor clients, I have a unique position to assess this proposal (although I am not alone in representing both types of parties.) PIABA remains critical of the presence of a person experienced in the industry on an arbitration panel. Personally, having experienced arbitrations where the industry panelist was marginally affiliated and the public arbitrators knew next to nothing about securities, I suggest that we should all be afraid of PIABA’s proposal.

PIABA continually refers to the industry panelist as an advocate for the industry. There is no basis for this. The organization cites flawed research that states that claimants in arbitration win less than they “should.” But how does PIABA know that these cases would have fared better either in court or with an all-public arbitration panel? It doesn’t. I have stated before and I will say it again, that cases that go to hearing tend to be self-selecting. Those cases which can’t settle because the Claimant wants too much or the Respondent won’t pay enough are the ones that go to hearing. Therefore, these are the more difficult, or bad, cases depending on one’s point of view.

I have been involved in a number of cases where it was obvious that the industry panelist did not agree with the Respondent’s position. There is no evidence that the industry panelist serves as a patsy for the brokerage firms. Just because a flawed analysis finds that the “win rate” is down, does not mean that the system is bad. In arbitration, each case stands on its own. Two cases cannot be compared as every person’s situation is different.

PIABA has come up with some good ideas in the past. This is not one of them.

Rule Change Petition presented to the SEC from the Public Investors Arbitration Bar Association

As part of FINRA’s ongoing effort to consolidate and reconcile the former NASD and NYSE manuals, changes are in the works. FINRA recently filed a proposed rule change that is going to make changes to FINRA suitability rules, as we have known them, noticeably different.

FINRA’s proposed rules governing Suitability and Know Your Customer Obligations will expand the obligations of registered representatives when recommending securities or investment strategies­ to customers. This is interesting because it looks like FINRA is moving towards codifying a fiduciary standard, or at least a modified fiduciary standard.

In the past, a fiduciary duty in a non-discretionary account related to only the execution of trades and custody of assets. Now, if an investment strategy encompasses assets away from the firm, that strategy falls within the proposed rule. For instance, the recommendation to retain stocks in an account at another brokerage firm may be considered recommending an investment strategy as may the recommendation to hold, and not sell, a particular stock.

This represents a significant change in the relationship a broker has with his/her client and will broaden the areas of responsibility when making suitability determinations.

It's a new dawn. It's a new day and investors in Florida should be feeling good. Florida Governor Charlie Crist signed House Bill 483 into law on Monday, which adds protections for Securities investors today, designed to protect securities investors from Bernie Madoff type ponzi schemes.

The Bill's sponsor, State Representative Tom Grady (R- Naples) is quoted as saying the following in a recent interview:

“Our economy will grow stronger if investors have confidence in our financial markets. By increasing the tools available to the state to prosecute violators of our securities laws, we protect investors and foster needed trust in the system."

House Bill 483 gives additional power to the Office of Financial Regulation for prosecution of violations of the Florida Securities and Investor Protection Act. Whistleblowers will also be compensated with rewards for orginal information regarding money laundering investigations.

Governor Crist issued the following statement on House Bill 483 :

“Investors play a critical role in the success of Florida’s economy, and this legislation helps ensure their hard-earned money is protected. I am committed to maintaining the integrity of our markets. Enhancing protection measures and oversight is the best way to crack down on fraudulent activity and increase consumer confidence.”

Expands jurisdiction of Office of Statewide Prosecution to investigate & prosecute specified additional offenses; revises various provisions of law relating to viatical settlements; exempts specified transactions in viatical settlement investments from specified registration requirements; revises registration requirements; excludes post judgment interest from payments from fund; expands class of persons related to or associated with applicant or registrant for which specified violations may result in adverse actions taken against registrations; requires Financial Services Commission to adopt rules relating to disciplinary guidelines & temporary disqualification; authorizes OFR to apply to court for specified orders; specifies additional investigation & enforcement authority of AG; authorizes AG to recover costs & attorney fees; authorizes OFR use of such information in prosecution actions; increases amount of specified administrative fines; authorizes OFR to bar specified persons from submitting applications or notifications for license or registration under specified circumstances; revises criteria for prohibited practices relating to commodities; authorizes FDLE to enter into agreements to pay rewards for specified information; expands subject matter jurisdiction of statewide grand jury to include specified additional offenses.

Today, I came across an interesting article from Bloomberg News on the Arbitration debate over financial investments. It was a Commentary written by Bloomberg News Columnist Susan Antilla entitled "Obama Fails to End Kangaroo Courts for Investors".

In the article, Susan highlights the following statement from President Obama:

The Securities and Exchange Commission “should study the use of mandatory arbitration clauses in investor contracts,” and then pursue legislation if appropriate,

At the end of the Commentary, she adds:

That argument is more bogus today than ever, because cases increasingly involve the mass-marketing of financial products by multiple brokerage firms.

“The concern is that the industry arbitrator could be on a panel telling others that ‘everybody does it,’” says Brian Smiley, the president of Piaba.

And in a closed justice system where nobody can come to court and watch, who would ever know?

The Arbitration Commentary gives food for thought and highlights the key issues, but it is hard to argue over, which side Susan is on in the Arbitration argument. She makes her point very clear on the issue.

It is safe to say that after losing a loved one, a widow has a lot on their plate, However, this loss does not mean that Financial Advisors can ignore them or mismanage their account. A recent study by Allianz Life found that

About 44% of widows are inclined to obtain financial advice in new ways, and that 70% of those using financial advisers considered firing their advisers in the first three years after their husbands' deaths.

This tragic loss does not give Financial Advisors the right to prey upon Widows with risky financial investments, mismanagement of funds or simply ignoring the widow alltogether.

Five simple steps that a widow can use for Financial Guidance and respect from Financial Advisors include:

Step one: Deal with your emotional needs first after the death of your spouse. Having a clear mind and perspective is key before making major decisions,

Step two: Organize your finances and make a budget. Looking at your entire financial picture allows you to see what you need financially to live on.

Step three: Calculate your net worth. Take a look at all of your assets, investments, stocks, home, bank accounts, bonds, and everything that is of value. Ask your Financial Advisor to give you a report of what your portfolio is worth, present value and a comparison of what it was worth when your husband was alive. Give them a specific timeframe of when you expect this data.

Step four: Identify a few key Financial Advisors and Interview them for your business. Compare the Financial Advisor that was working with your spouse to the new ones that are recommended by reliable sources. Make a checklist of things that are important to you in an advisor. Rate each Advisor with a score for each of your checklist items and come up with a ranking system for comparison. Try to be objective and compare each advisor on the same benchmarks.

Step five: Sit down with your Chosen Financial Advisor and develop a long-term financial plan for your investments. Share with the selected Financial Advisor that they were selected after a careful screening process. This will allow them to see that you are serious about service and expect excellent Customer Service. Set aside a specific timeframe for a review, that you are comfortable with, i.e., monthly, bi-monthly, quarterly, semi annually. Make sure that the Financial Advisor agrees to this timeframe to go over your portfolio and hold them to it. If they fail to service your account properly, go back to your list and replace them with someone that will treat you the way that you expect to be treated.

Read the book, On Your Own: A Widow's Passage to Emotional & Financial Well-being,by Alexandra Armstrong and Mary R. Donahue for more information on how a Widow can take charge of their life and finances without being taken advantage of by a Financial Advisor. The book retails for under $20 on Amazon and other online retailers.

If you are a Widow, please note that you are not alone, According to an article on the subject from Investment News, nearly 800,000 women become widows each year. There is much comfort in numbers. Join a support group for women that are recent widows. You may find that sharing your experiences present, past and future can help you cope with your loss.

To learn more on other ways for Widows to protect themselves against Investor fraud, view some of the following Financial Services pages on Stockbroker fraud, Securities Issues, or dispute resolutions.

A Florida Judge orderered former Pinnacle Business Management, Inc Chairman, Jeffrey G. Turrino to pay $9.95 Million and permanently banned him from Penny Stock Offerings.

The Securities and Exchange Commission announced that, Judge Elizabeth A. Kovachevich, United States District Judge for the Middle District of Florida, entered an order of civil contempt against defendant Jeffrey G. Turino.

In her ruling, Judge Kovachevich found that Turino acted in flagrant and repeated contempt of the penny stock bar back from December 2003. This was in connection with a previous Commission enforcement action stemming back from May 2002. In that action, the Commission alleged that Turino, one of his associates, and the penny stock company they operated, Pinnacle Business Management, Inc., had committed securities fraud by making materially false and misleading statements about Pinnacle’s business operations. This action was settled by Turino with a civil penalty of $60,000, consent to a permanent fraud injunction, and a penny stock bar for five years.

Financial Services Director, Attorney Marc Dobin made the following comments regarding this case:

This demonstrates two things: Some leopards don't change their spots (or pay attention to what the judges say) and that no matter how many times you tell the investing public to be careful with their money, they will still listen to a good story from a con man and give them their hard-earned money.

To learn more on the case, click on the following link from the SEC website regarding: Securities and Exchange Commission v. Pinnacle Business Management.

Allen Stanford, Chairman of Stanford Group holdings, surrendered to authorities yesterday, will be officially charged by SEC today in Court. He is accused of stealing over $8 billion from investors.

According to Bloomberg News and The Washington Post,

The SEC lawsuit indicates in its compmplaint that Stanford International Bank misled investors by touting "improbable, if not impossible" returns for investments.

The SEC alleges that the Stanford Group Co. sold $8 billion of certificates of deposit in Stanford International Bank. The financial advisors of the company misled clients to believe that their money would be placed primarily in easily sold financial instruments monitored by over 20 analysts and closely audited by Antiguan regulators.

Instead Stanford and the company's chief financial officer managed most of the portfolio and invested a substantial amount of it in real estate and private equity.

Today, marks a milestone in the life of The Law Planet Blog. This is our 100th Post our Blog covering Securities, Stock Fraud and Employment/LaBor Law issues.

It is also a great day for Senior Investors. A series of Grasssroots campaigns will be launched in Florida, Colorado, Vermont, North Carolina, and Washington state to protect seniors from investment fraud. The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) outlined new initiatives aimed at protecting and educating investors. The initiatives include a national advertising campaign and a 60-minute video, "Tricks of the Trade: Outsmarting Investment Fraud."

The video is part of the FINRA Foundation's new "fraud-fighting" education series for investors, which also includes in-person workshops and events in five states across the country this year: Colorado, Florida, North Carolina, Vermont and Washington state. These state-wide campaigns, which will be expanded to five additional states next year, are being presented in partnership with AARP, state securities regulators and other fraud-fighting organizations to help senior citizens identify and steer clear of investment fraud. A central feature of these campaigns is the presentation of an educational curriculum that has been tested and shown to reduce seniors' susceptibility to investment fraud by over 50 percent among participants.

To order a copy of the DVD Click on the FINRA link Fraud Fighting.

Stay tuned for more information on Investor protections to fight against fraud for Seniors.

The SEC announced today that it, along with Alabama Securities Commission has charged Aura Financial Services with “rampant” churning of customer accounts, “widespread” supervisory failures and other securities violations. This is stunning. It is rare that an entire firm is charged with churning. Usually it is an individual broker or office. For a firm to be charged must be pretty bad.

What do you do if you’re a client of Aura and can’t figure out what happened to your account? Contact a qualified securities arbitration attorney to look at your account statements and determine the best route to follow.

This gets back to the basics of investing. If you don’t understand what’s going on, don’t do it. If your Broker is doing things you don’t like, get another Broker. When you think you’ve been mistreated, ask a professional for a second opinion.

To learn more on this Aurora Financial Fraud case, read the SEC Press Release and Investment News article "SEC charges Birmingham B-D with churning"

The truth will always come out. This is a hard lesson that Fund Manager, Matthew D. Weitzman, just recently learned. He has been charged with investment adviser fraud, securities fraud, and wire fraud. If convicted he faces up to a maximum of 15 years imprisonment and over $5 million in fines.

Mr. Weitzman was co-founder of AFW, financial planning and investment management firm. AFW managed more than $190 million in assets at the end of 2008. According to reports in the North Country Gazette,, Mr. Weitzman converted investor money for his own use.

The Golden Goose is no more for Mr. Weitzman. His misdeeds caught up with him and now he must face the music for his crimes. Hopefully, the Investors in AFW will seek legal counsel to discuss how they can get their stolen funds back.

Countrywide executives must face the music for deception and fraud as the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has brought charges against the former Chief Executive Officer (CEO) Angelo Mozilo and two executives for allegedly hiding financial difficulties which led to the company's collapse from the subprime mortgage crisis. In 2007, Countrywide Financial was the United States' largest mortgage lender. When it collapsed in 2008, the Bank of America acquired Countrywide for more than $4 billion. This case is important as the public attempts to assign blame for the subprime mortgage collapse.

Many corporate executives use a common defense against financial malfeasance, that their subordinate employees hid important information. The SEC has collected top Countrywide executive e-mails (sent while the housing market was starting to decline) that portray a rosy public picture, with negative private ruminations concerning an impending collapse. These executives described the mortgage loans as "toxic" in private conversations. Ex-CEO Mozilo used terms like "flying blind" to describe his inability to assess the viability of these subprime loans.

Actions, such as ex-CEO Mozilo's sale of $260 million worth of stock, have led to insider trading charges that these executives failed to disclose important information publicly. Evidence is growing that ex-CEO Mozilo was quite engaged in all of the intricate details of homeowner loans. The Bloomberg News Service has reported extensively on these SEC lawsuits.

Still, ex-CEO Mozilo and his co-defendants are adamant in defending themselves, denying the SEC's claims that they deceived investors. These defendants argue that "no one could have predicted the severity and force of the housing market downturn." The Countrywide executives claim that regulators "cherry-picked" quotes which have been taken out-of-context.

Continue reading "Countrywide Executives must face the music for deception and fraud " »

Should brokers be able to keep profits from the alleged $8billion investment Ponzi scheme ran by Texan billionaire Sir Allen Stanford?

If the Court appointed Receiver, Ralph Janvey, has anything to do with it, this will not be the case. Janvey is seeking the return of the large commissions, bonuses, and other compensation paid by Sir Allen’s company for the sell of certificates of deposit, to 66 Financial advisers.

According to a lawsuit filed by Janvey, the unsuspecting customers that purchased CDs from the Brokers should be entitled to compensation. The Brokers involved, should not be entitled to compensation from the "elaborate and sophisticated” incentive program, since the services they were being compensated for, were not legitimate.

If Janvey prevails in this lawsuit, this will be a huge step in the right direction for investors involved in Stanford ponzi scheme and others around the country.

Read more on the Stanford Ponzi Scheme, by clicking on the following link to the article in the Financial Times, "Official seeks return of Stanford paid commissions" by Joanna Chung.

By now anyone who has any interest in investing knows about Bernie Madoff. Mr. Madoff has admitted his guilt in a Ponzi scheme of gargantuan proportions. But I think this is just the beginning.

Mr. Madoff has stated, through others, that no other person knew about his fraud. I find that impossible, not just difficult, to believe. I think he is pleading guilty to protect others.

What can a Madoff investor do? I have spoken with some of them and the stories are heartbreaking. People's lives have been ruined and will never be fixed. Securities arbitration and litigation is one recourse. But the Madoff entities are in receivership. So the feeder funds and moneyraisers are the next targets. But those cases will not be easy. A lawyer familiar with securities arbitration and litigation should have an opinion on this.

In my opinion, the investigation is not over. The SEC, which has been raked over the coals recently, will likely dig deeper. They will find out who else knew about the fraud, or ignored it, and when they found out. They will look at the feeder funds and the moneyraisers. And others will suffer consequences.

It's a shame that the public trust was violated in such a manner. This remains a black eye for the investment industry. It will take a long time to restore this confidence.

That's the view from The Law Planet - Jupiter, Florida.

Jupiter, Florida">is a long way from Wall Street. Yet the financial explosions that have rocked that bastion of investment have had repercussions in Palm Beach County. Lessons, some new, some old, can be learned and repeated.

First, and I've said this before, your mother was right. If it's too good to be true, you should avoid it. Like a diet that says "eat all you want and lose weight" an investment product that has consistently high returns through all markets is likely a fraud. Nobody is that good.

Second, just because it's called a CD, doesn't make it FDIC insured. The Stanford investment product was called a CD, but the bank (in Antigua, of all places) was not FDIC insured. And it was not in the business of lending money at a higher rate. It was investing the money in whatever it felt like. That makes these CDs much more like shares in a mutual fund or investment partnership than a CD. And there was absolutely no FDIC insurance.

Third, another tribute to your mother. Don't put all of your eggs in one basket. There was a recent report of a professional athlete whose entire liquid net worth was frozen by the SEC's action against Stanford. At one point he was quoted as saying that all he had was the $13 in his wallet. Don't let this happen to you.

Finally, trust but verify. In my opinion, part of what made these alleged scams so successful, was the beautiful public face they put on. Who would believe that Madoff, a now-former scion of the securities business, was engaging in the wrongdoing he has admitted? Stanford spent millions building its brand in the arts and sports. But no one bothered to check on how the books were kept or who the auditors were. It turned out the auditors may have been ill-equipped, or fraught with conflict, when it came to these large clients. The SEC said that the Stanford Bank's auditors in Antigua didn't even answer the phone.

Diversify, examine and think. This will provide you with most of the tools to protect yourself from scammers.

That's the view from The Law Planet -- Jupiter, Florida.

I have mentioned in the past that my distaste for Equity Indexed Annuities runs deep. I wondered aloud how a market-based product could be sold by someone with a securities registration. I would like to think that the SEC cares what I think, but I would be wrong. However, SEC Rule 151a went into effect in December and the Index Annuity folks are hopping mad.

They have a website, SEC151a.com, to plead their case. But what struck me most when reading their materials is the first page, which encourages its members to not get registered with either a Series 6 or Series 7. The authors of this site are discouraging people from the additional oversight that having a supervising broker/dealer would bring. Of course, that would likely mean another layer of overrides and reduction in income.

In my view, it would also lead to fewer inappropriate EIA sales. When I last blogged on this topic, I received an email from an annuity marketer taking me to task for blasting this "wonderful" product. It was all I could do to prevent myself from laughing (actually I did laugh). It's real simple in my mind. If you're selling something that relies on the stock market's performance to determine the performance of the underlying investment, you should be registered to sell securities.

Start sharpening your pencils, folks, and please bubble inside the circle only.

That's the view from The Law Planet, Jupiter, Florida.

This is an outrage. Did anyone at Merrill Lynch have a clue about fiscal responsibility? I have discussed the bonuses paid to the prior chief at ML before, Mr. $160 Million. Now, we find out that John Thain spent $1.3 million on himself.

The Daily Beast reports that Thain spent foolish amounts of money on ego-stroking items like "relamping wall sconces" for $3,000 and a rug for $87,000. I wonder how many people had to be laid off so that Mr. Thain could have a professional decorator make him feel better about himself.

Give me a break. No surprise that ML will disappear with the boneheads and egomaniacs that appear to have been in charge. We're bullish on America. Remember that slogan? How about we're bullsh__ing America? That's more like it.

That's the angry view from The Law Planet - Jupiter, Florida.

President-Elect Barack Obama has chosen Mary Schapiro to head an agency that is sure to be under scrutiny, the Securities and Exchange Commission. With the Bernard Madoff Ponzi scheme fresh in everyone's minds, people are looking at the SEC and wondering where that agency was through all of this. I don't know the answer to that.

But what I do know is that Ms. Schapiro is a graduate of my alma mater, Franklin & Marshall College in Lancaster, Pa. The college, which is over 220 years old, is home to the "Diplomats." In these days of (GO!) Gators, Razorbacks, Hurricanes and Bulldogs, the mighty Diplomat seems a bit, shall we say, timid. But nevertheless, a number of Diplomats have gone on to fame and fortune, or at least they graduated without getting arrested.

Congratulations to Ms. Schapiro. Do the Blue and White proud.

That's the "diplomatic" view from The Law Planet - Jupiter, Florida.

OK folks, wake up! If someone tells you that they can make 8% in up markets and down markets, year in and year out - they are lying!!!. It's as simple as that.

Bernard Madoff, a formerly well-respected Wall Streeter with homes in New York and Palm Beach (and why not?) gave up his lengthy charade and announced that his investment fund was "one big lie." No kidding!

In our local paper, The Palm Beach Post, it was reported that some investors actually thought about their investment before making it. They actually hired someone to look at this unregulated investment scheme and one conclusion was that it was a Ponzi scheme. This occurred several years ago.

I've said this before and I'll say it again "If it looks to good to be true, it isn't true." It's that simple. If the allegations against him are true (and he has supposedly admitted them), Madoff was nothing more than a well-connected thief. He has hurt a lot of people while living the high life.

Another black eye for the financial world.

That's the view from The Law Planet - Jupiter, Florida.

I have always been a big Dilbert fan. Scott Adams has the corporate mindset nailed.

I discovered some animated Dilbert shorts on MSN that are mildly amusing. (not Bermuda shorts with cartoon characters.).

This one's about the brokerage industry.
Dogbert's Discount Brokerage

Enjoy.

Marc

A friend of mine sent me this picture claiming that it was a protest of Lehman Brothers employees outside their office.

I think he's pulling my leg.

The folks at FINRA are SOOO predictable. Some arbitration haters come out with a "study" about arbitration and conclude it's not fair. The securities industry releases its own study and says that arbitration is fair. So what does FINRA do? A "pilot" program. See the press release here.

What is the hubbub all about? The eggheads and some members of the plaintiffs' bar believe that the presence of an industry panelist creates a bias against the public claimant. Apparently, these people haven't sat in hearings where I've been. Typically, in cases that I've handled, the industry panelist is the one who is toughest on the securities industry. In a case where my firm represented a public customer, it was the industry arbitrator who was toughest on the opposition's expert.

So does this mean that panels will be free of bias? No. In fact, there is nothing in this program that prevents lawyers who typically represent customers from being on a panel. They are generally qualified as "public" arbitrators. But the program leaves someone like me, who represents brokerage firms and investors, from being on a panel. So now a panel can be dominated by a died-in-the-wool plaintiffs' lawyer with no counterpoint.

This, in my humble opinion, is a mistake. This is another example of addressing a "problem" that does not exist. The bigger problem is arbitrator competence. I once had a case where the chair was an interior designer! She had no business being the chair, but there were no lawyers on the panel, so she got the job. It was ridiculous. The new rules, which require a "qualified" chair, do much to address this situation. But a panel with no industry member? Talk about a stacked deck.

Remember, the industry member is only one of three. If the other two arbitrators are too weak to make up their minds, and the industry member is believed to drive the panel, then that is a problem with the arbitrator pool, not the process. I have always said give me three smart arbitrators and I will get a fair result 99% of the time. On the other hand, if you start tinkering with the process, and remove the industry panelist, I think that this will demonstrate only that FINRA has succumbed to undue political pressure.

That's the view from The Law Planet, Jupiter, Florida.

I recently wrote about FINRA's policy on expungements. Of course, FINRA has no control over what any individual state securities commissioner might do. In what appears to be a case of first impression, a state securities regulator has stepped in to try and stop a bargained-for expungement.

Melanie Lubin, the securities commissioner for Maryland, intervened in what is usually a milk-run expungement matter. In an attempt to keep the complaint on broker's record, Ms. Lubin objected to the expungement. At the trial court level she was denied the opportunity to intervene. The DC Appeals court ruled that she could intervene and sent the case back to the trial court.

Get ready boys and girls. Not only will this change the whole expungement atmosphere, it will change the wording of releases. If an expungement is a material part of the settlement, then what will happen if the state regulator intervenes and shouts "STOP!" More litigation, that's what. And for those of us that do litigation, that's good news. For those of you who pay the bills for litigation, this is not a good day.

This is going to become an even more sensitive issue as "product failures", such as Auction Rate Securities, are disclosed on a broker's CRD. Many brokers are already stating that they were just a conduit for the information (or misinformation) given to them by their firms. Does a state securities commissioner really want to stick his or her nose in that one? What a mess.

That's the view from The Law Planet - Jupiter, Florida.

I have recently received several inquiries regarding expungements of U-4 and U-5 information. I have said this more than once, but "in the old days" an expungement was a piece of cake. The parties agreed to it, whether it was a customer or industry dispute, and it was done.

Of course FINRA got wise to this and started slowly tightening the noose around expungements. I have done research on this issue before but wanted to share this one link I found which you, my 3 loyal readers, may find helpful. This page contains the be-all and end-all from FINRA regarding expungements.

There are two classes of expungements - customer and non-customer. Expungements of customer complaints require specific findings. If a U-4 or U-5 disclosure is not customer-related, then a different set of rules applies and the only finding that an arbitration panel needs to make is that the disclosure was defamatory.

There is also a procedural difference once the successful litigant has obtained an expungement Order. If it is customer-related, a court needs to sign off on the change to the U-4/U-5 and FINRA needs to be made a party to the action. If the expunged information is not customer-related, a simple finding of defamation is sufficient for FINRA to remove the information from the CRD system.

Now you're informed. That's the view from The Law Planet - Jupiter, Florida.

The securities industry, no doubt, has been waiting for the decision in this case for a while. The Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") filed an action against NEXT Financial, Inc., an independent broker-dealer firm. The SEC was rightfully unhappy about NEXT's broker transition practices. I've commented on this before, but when you don't work for a brokerage firm and you're accessing that firm's records to enable that firm's broker to transition to your firm, you're doing something wrong. Apparently a few people skipped that class.

An old adage is that "bad cases make bad law." This was a bad case. NEXT had people who would access competitors' computer systems. NEXT had people accessing mutual fund systems using the recruits' user information. And NEXT did nothing to safeguard the information of non-customers on its computer system. The SEC was shooting fish in a barrel.

The Administrative Judge found that NEXT did what the SEC alleged. You can view a copy of the opinion here. It's ugly. Even the proposed changes to Regulation S-P, relating to customer information protection, couldn't help. And now the securities industry is going to have to live with this decision brought about by the overreaching of one of its members.

The lesson here, folks, is don't access other firm's computer systems. Don't take more than you need. And take steps to protect the information you do bring to your new firm.

That's the view from The Law Planet, Jupiter, Florida.

We've all seen them - the books and magazines that look like they feature a financial salesperson. In fact, NBC's Dateline program did an expose on annity sales practices. Several of the agents the show targeted had phony ghostwritten articles.

In FINRA Notice to Members 08-27, the regulators stated that using ghostwritten materials could violate a number of rules, including NASD Rules 2110, 2120 and 2210 and Incorporated NYSE Rule 472. Frankly, the use of the word "could" is fairly silly. How about "does" unless, in a conspicuous place, the financial representative discloses that the only connection he had to the article was possession of a credit card and a digital picture?

This is one of those common sense kind of moments. Others call it the "Wall Street Journal" test. Do you want your behavior displayed on the front page of the "Wall Street Journal"? Generally, no.

FINRA's Notice to Members addresses a recent theme, aggressive sales tactics used in connection with seniors. FINRA has issued pronouncements regarding "free" lunch seminars, the use of certifications that are nothing more than mail order multiple question tests and, now, the use of phony news articles. All of these are good steps to protect those who can least afford to make financial mistakes.

That's the view from The Law Planet - Jupiter, Florida.

In another installment of the incompetent/malevolent broker/dealer guidebook, Barclays Capital partially prevailed on a Motion to Vacate Arbitration Award filed against one of its former employees. In Barclays Capital Inc. vs. Elizabeth Bing Shen, 2008 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2327, a NY Supreme Court judge (the lowest level trial court, interestingly enough) found that the ruling in Rosenberg v. MetLife barred recovery of punitive damages.

Rosenberg, as those who have been following this issue will recall, held that incorrect statements on a U-5 Termination Notice were absolutely privileged. In my opinion, regardless of whether you represent a firm or the broker, this is a wrong-headed decision that was decided by judges who ignored the impact on a broker's life a U-5 can have. There has been some discussion by commentators that there are ways "around" Rosenberg. Certainly, one of them is to avoid New York law in contracts. There are others as well, but if I shared them I'd have to shoot you.

Back to Ms. Shen. She was apparently owed a bonus and her U-5 was found to be erroneous by the arbitrators. By the description in the court's opinion, she does not qualify for "Employee of the Year" status by any means, but the arbitrators clearly felt that she didn't deserve the disclosure she received. They awarded her punitive damages.

The court found that the punitive damages could only have been for the U-5 defamation claim and, therefore, vacated that part of the award. We are currently representing brokers whose U-5s, we believe, are defamatory. We are not concerned about the New York choice of law provision because we feel that there are valid arguments against it when the the broker is in Florida. Nevertheless, this creates more stress and anxiety and creates a "free defamation zone" for broker-dealers, honorable and not.

That's the view from The Law Planet - Jupiter, Florida.

Since just about the beginning of time, FINRA (formerly NASD) fines were viewed as a mere nuisance by out-of-business firms and former registered persons. FINRA has been criticized in the past for not collecting regulatory fines or fees from arbitration proceedings. At least in one case, this seems to have changed.

FINRA filed, and won, an enforcement action against John Fiero and Fiero Brothers, the broker-dealer he controlled, obtaining an award for over $1,000,000 in fines and costs. In the past, this would have been a pyrrhic victory for FINRA as it was well-known that they would not pursue collection if the firm was out of business. Well, it looks like this is no longer the case. FINRA filed a lawsuit in New York state court to collect the award.

FINRA was successful in the lower court and the appellate level. There were various defenses raised by Fiero and his company -- all of which were nice attempts but hard to fathom. Their success, perhaps temporary, came at the Court of Appeals, New York's highest court. For the first time in this matter, it appears, a court addressed the issue of jurisdiction over the action. The Court of Appeals found that Section 27 of the Exchange Act of 1934 specifically provides for "exclusive jurisdiction" in Federal Court. Boom, like that, FINRA was foiled.

Probably not for long. And this will be a lesson for those of us who practice in this area. We can no longer advise clients that, out of the business means that FINRA won't come after you. Maybe it's based on dollar level, but we'll see.

That's the view from The Law Planet -- Jupiter, Florida.

Since time immemorial, brokers who left their prior firms have taken copies of customer information. In the "old days", brokers copied their holding pages, new account forms and last monthly statements of their customers. With the advances made in the industry, a broker only needs a customer name, address, account number and phone number to accomplish the transfer. Sure, there's plenty of other data, but it's not needed to effect the transfer. This has been going on since I started as a paralegal in the Prudential-Bache Securities law department in 1983.

The SEC sounds like it wants to change all that. Last month, an administrative law judge held a hearing in a case brought by the SEC against NEXT Financial, a brokerage firm from Texas using the independent contractor model. In that case, the SEC's lawyers maintained that all information is confidential and cannot be transferred without the customer's permission. It is unclear whether this includes names and addresses.

In 2007, we successfully defended two cases brought by major wirehouses against their smaller competitors. In both cases, the firms complained about the transfer of "confidential" information. In both cases, we pointed out the hypocrisy of the argument as those same firms use the same "confidential" information when they recruit from other firms. As I said, this has been going on since time immemorial. The arbitrators in both cases, recognizing that this is the custom and practice in the industry, awarded nominal damages to the wirehouses, not the hundreds of thousands or millions that were sought.

The brokerage industry has been able to deal with this issue, on its own, for years and years. The problem, of course, is that NEXT's alleged conduct was wrong and the firm did not own up to its failings. As we sometimes say in the practice "Bad cases make bad law." From what the SEC alleged, this was a "bad case" and the industry may find itself suffering from its impact.

That's the view from The Law Planet - Jupiter, Florida

Is it me? The CEO of Merrill Lynch steps way out of line, while presiding over a disastrous business strategy, and he gets $160 MILLION dollars when he's shown the door. In very recent news, the now-former chairman, president and CEO of H&R Block will receive a package worth $2.55 Million, including his health benefits. This kind of corporate gifting to inept CEOs is outrageous.

In our labor and employment practice, we regularly represent individuals who have been terminated for no reason. Under Florida law, absent other circumstances, an employee can be fired "at-will." No $162 Million severance packages to cushion the fall. Sometimes our clients are living paycheck to paycheck when their boss decides that our client is no longer useful. Other times, clients come to us because the boss decided to not pay overtime or their last paycheck. The disparity in treatment is offensive.

What, exactly, did Mr. O'Neal do to deserve the $162 Million? Was it Merrill's expensive failure in the subprime market? Perhaps it was the disastrous purchase of Advest? No, according to press reports, it was neither. He spoke to executives at Wachovia about a possible business combination without the approval of the Board of Directors. I sincerely hope that I can get fired and be paid $162 Million for speaking without permission. It used to simply result in dirty looks from my parents.

And Mr. Ernst from H&R Block, what was his offense? Subprime mortgages, too. He must feel like a piker, only getting 1.5% of the deal that Mr. O'Neal received. My goodness, how will he be able to raise his head in pride at the club?

It was also just announced that Mitchell H. Caplan, the former chief executive of E*Trade Financial Corp., will receive $10.9 million in severance pay. And the cherry on top of his cake is that he is receiving $10,000 to reimburse him for legal fees to negotiate his severance from the firm. And a good thing, too. Otherwise, his severance would have only netted him $10.89 million. That extra $10K could mean the difference between 19" and 20" wheels on his next BMW.

When the pundits say that Wall Street is out of touch with Main Street, they need only look at the obscene severance packages paid to the bigwigs. While foreclosures in this country are trending alarmingly upward, it is unlikely that deposed Wall Street honchos will have that worry. But if you ask the folks that were working in their respective mortgage divisions who are now without jobs, the answer is quite different.

That's the outraged view from The Law Planet, Jupiter, Florida.

FINRA, the securities regulatory agency governing all stockbrokers, has announced its approval of a new expungement rule in a press release dated December 14, 2007. This is further evidence of regulatory scrutiny of a long-standing practice of obtaining expungements in the settlement of customer claims.

Many moons ago, when my hair was more plentiful and darker, the warring parties in a securities arbitration could simply agree to have the customer complaint removed from the broker's record, get the arbitrators to sign off on it and the deal was done. NASD got wise to this practice and enacted a series of ever-tightening rules regarding expungements. First time around, the arbitrators had to grant the expungement and the award was required to be confirmed by a court, unless the defamatory U-5 filing was the subject of the arbitration, in which case no court confirmation was necessary.

The NASD then enacted standards that must be met regarding the expungement of customer complaint information. Arbitrators were to apply certain standards in granting expungements. Additionally, NASD was to be notified when a broker sought a court confirmation of an expungement order. It appears that these standards and practices were not enough. Much settlement money changed hands and arbitrators were still granting expungements.

This new rule, as proposed, tightens the noose further. An evidentiary hearing is required and the terms of the settlement with the customer must be disclosed. This raises an interesting question. If the brokerage firm pays the money and the customer gives a separate release to the broker, which release is relevant to the arbitrators' inquiry?

FINRA's concern about expungements is understandable. As the custodian for CRD, which is relied upon customers and regulators as the broker's record, expungements can skew a broker's history. At the same time, a broker should have a right to have frivolous items removed.

That's the view from The Law Planet - Jupiter, Florida. Happy holidays to one and all.

As a securities litigation lawyer, I often wonder what is the next "big thing" going to be. It's never a matter of "if", but only a matter of "when." We have now been handed the "what" which is the subprime credit markets. An article in Investment News reported that Bank of America is closing its Strategic Cash Fund after its assets dropped from $40 billion to $12 billion. While not specifically mentioned in the article, it is common knowledge that the uneasiness in the corporate credit markets stems from the so-called "Subprime Crisis."

What is this "Subprime Crisis" anyway? Subprime borrowers were high risk - paying higher interest rates than standard risk borrowers. These are the "junk bonds" for the new era. Suddenly, people are surprised that these high risk borrowers, some of whom were speculating, others of whom were simply over-extended, could not afford to pay. And suddenly basic economics takes over.

Houses go on sale for lower prices because of the supply. The questionable buyers can't step up and buy these houses, so there are fewer qualified buyers in a market filled with lightly used houses. Of course, most these qualified buyers have houses of their own, so they may not even be interested in moving. And, ultimately, the market finds a new level. Which economics genius thought that housing prices were going to continue skyward?

All of these defaults, of course, brought down the value of the securities issued to finance the borrowing. And that caused the subprime market to swirl around the bowl for a while, finding its own level, but taking a number of purportedly sophisticated players with it. And now we have the average, and not-so-average, retail investor who put there money in these subprime instruments claiming that they were unsuitable. Maybe they were, maybe they weren't. One thing's for sure. It looks like we found the next "big thing."

That's the view from The Law Planet - Jupiter, Florida.

The Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association (SIFMA), the securities industry's trade group, has been remarkably silent in the arbitration abolition wars. First, the distorted report from Daniel Solin and Edward O'Neal came out which said arbitration was unfair, simply based upon won/loss rates. Then the Feingold-Johnson bill is proposed - to ban all "consumer" arbitrations. Even PIABA, the trade group for securities claimants' lawyers, came out against arbitration and, separately, proposed removing the industry panelist from all arbitration panels.

In a recent article from The Investment News, SIFMA is described as fighting back. Of course, the naysayers will portray SIFMA's study as self-interested, but noone seemed to accuse Mr. Solin or PIABA of the same self-interest. But I digress.

A review of the SIFMA study shows that a lot of thought went into debunking the horse-droppings that were left behind by the Solin study. SIFMA correctly points out the number of garbage cases that were filed by people who were incapable of accepting that the market simply went down. This is not to say that every case was garbage, but my own experience was that there were a lot of people who wanted to take the risk and that ultimately led to their financial distress.

Read the report. It provides the other side of a coin that was not previously turned over. Now, I'm sure, the battle heads for Congress. Long live arbitration!

That's the view from The Law Planet - Jupiter, Florida.

It has been 20 years since the stock market crash of 1987. Many were predicting that this was the end of the world as we know it (Insert REM music here). Others saw the crash as a buying opportunity. It turns out that the buyers were probably right.

If we look at a chart of the major market indices such as the Dow Jones Industrial Average, the Standard and Poors 500 and the Russell 1000 have done quite nicely over the last 20 years. In fact, the "crash" shows barely a blip on a historical chart.

The 1987 crash brought an onslaught of arbitration claims. It wiped out billions of dollars of net worth and pointed out weaknesses in various systems. Daily trading volume on the NYSE was over 600 million shares during the crash period -- and the system was strained. Now, daily trading volume regularly tops 1 billion shares without a hitch.

This year marks the 215th anniversary of the execution of the Buttonwood Agreement, which marked the formation of the NYSE. Much has changed, including the fact that the exchange is now publicly held instead of owned just by its members. But the basics remain the same. Buy good stocks and remember the reason they were purchased during market downturns.

That's the view from The Law Planet - Jupiter, Florida.

Every stockbroker is required to register with the state in which he or she does business and with, at a minimum, FINRA (formerly known as NASD). A broker's background, as maintained by FINRA, can be found here. Every customer of a broker should look at the broker's background before trusting their life savings to a stranger.

And every broker is a stranger. No matter how much you know about your broker, you will certainly not hear of arbitration awards or regulatory sanctions. The new BrokerCheck generates a very user-friendly report in pdf format which can be saved for future reference. It contains the broker's employment history, registration history, any outside business affiliations and, if applicable, and regulatory/litigation history.

Most brokers have clean records or records with minor dings on them. Other brokers have plenty of dings but they may be due to a product failure, such as Limited Partnerships or firm research stocks. But a consistent history of such magic terms as "unauthorized trading" or "unsuitability" should give you reason to look elsewhere. It may mean that the broker you're speaking with has a difficult time complying with the rules. With over 50,000 registered brokers, you should be able to find one that suits your needs.

That's the view from The Law Planet - Jupiter, Florida.

The newly-minted securities regulator, FINRA just fined Morgan Stanley $12.5 million for failing to produce emails in its possession. To make this even more heinous, Morgan Stanley hid behind the 9/11 tragedy as the reason for its failure to produce. As it turns out, this representation was just wrong and Morgan Stanley knew it.

This problem came to light in a very public way when Morgan Stanley tripped over itself, numerous times, in Palm Beach County Circuit Court litigation with Ron Perelman. Mr. Perelman's lawyers pressed and pressed the firm for emails. And, magically, emails started popping up all over. Eventually, the judge decided that Morgan Stanley couldn't be trusted and shifted the burden of proof to Morgan Stanley to prove that it wasn't liable to Perelman.

We have litigated against Morgan Stanley. In all cases but one, the company fought production of obvious items, produced incomplete documents and stated that documents didn't exist, and then produced the documents when forced. In one case, we were told no documents existed and a witness showed up at a hearing to testify with a big stack of paper that was in a file outside his office.

Litigation is a battle. But there are rules and expectations of lawyers and clients to abide by those rules. Morgan Stanley was fined for more than an oversight and it was deserved. Perhaps this will serve as a warning to other firms who play games in discovery.

That's the view from The Law Planet, Jupiter, Florida.

The Securities and Exchange Commission has issued an Order Instituting Administrative Proceedings against Next Financial regarding Next's transition practices. The SEC has alleged a violation of Regulation S-P regarding customer privacy. It is strange to see the SEC get involved in recruiting matters, but there's a twist here that should have been obvious, but apparently wasn't.

According to the SEC, Next has a "transition team" whose responsibility it was to help new brokers join the firm. No problem there. Next's team had a spreadsheet which the incoming brokers were supposed to fill out. The spreadsheet asked for more information than is necessary to facilitate a transfer, but still no big deal.

So why is the SEC involved? According to the filing, Next employees would access the "losing" firm's computer system and access their customer records. How did they accomplish this? Using the usernames and passwords of the incoming brokers, that's how. Did anyone at Next think this was appropriate? Of course it wasn't. A monkey living in a tree would know that this was inappropriate.

There are areas in the recruiting venue where the SEC has been the equivalent of the piano player in a bordello "You mean this is a house of ill-repute?" Customer information has moved between firms for years and years. This is the way business has been done. Next, as far as getting this information from its recruits in anticipation of their arrival, was doing nothing out of the ordinary.

Accessing another firm's computer system is a whole different story. There are legal implications that are far greater than just a Regulation S-P violation, such as legislation, Federal and State, protecting firms against unauthorized use of their computers by outsiders or hackers. In law school we were taught that bad cases make bad law. This could be a bad case and the fallout could affect the entire securities industry.

That's the view from The Law Planet - Jupiter, Florida.

Senator Russell Feingold (D-Wis.) has sponsored a bill in the Senate to eliminate consumer arbitration, including securities arbitration. This knee-jerk reaction to some "Chicken Littles" claiming that big chunks of sky have landed on their heads is misguided. Consumer arbitration, including securities arbitration, has deep roots in American commerce. I am disappointed that, once again, our government is sticking its nose where it need not do so.

Here is why arbitration is good. It is fast. It is less expensive (not cheap, by any means). And a resolution is generally final. The persons hearing the case want to be there and are generally somewhat familiar with the issues presented. They may not be geniuses, but they have some knowledge, at a minimum. In securities arbitration, there is at least one member of a three member panel who is classified as being a "non-public" arbitrator because of securities industry ties. I am classified as a "non-public" arbitrator because my firm represents brokerage firms like A.G. Edwards & Sons, Stifel, Nicolaus & Co. and Legend Equities Corporation for more than 20% of its revenues.

Here is why arbitration is bad. The panel's knowledge and prejudices are the luck of the draw. Sometimes you get a well-educated panel with no biases. Other times, you get a panel that "hates" whichever side you happen to be representing that day. And it's very difficult to overcome the biases. Further, the rights of appeal are very limited. This is usually a good thing, but sometimes an arbitration panel just blows it. They focus on the wrong points, misinterpret some facts, and come up with the wrong result. It happens. And when it does, the appeal rights are virtually non-existent.

In court there are depositions. These cost, just for the court reporter, over $1,000 per day. In court, the days tend to be shorter so less is done. There is motion practice, which means more attorneys running to court to cool their heels to argue some esoteric point of law that is part of the judicial procedural jousting. There is jury selection. And then there are the appeals. They cost money, delay the result and possibly change the result. And the expenses attendant to keeping the matter open, through appeal, would be astonishing.

Here's an example of a case we have in our office. Our client has sued a Registered Investment Advisor. The lawsuit was filed in February of this year -- almost 6 months ago. We have now been through two motions to dismiss and have served our second amended complaint. We haven't even seen an Answer from the defendant yet.

In arbitration, we would already have a hearing date and discovery would be underway. Our client is elderly and we tried to get her trial expedited. The court denied the motion. Is this the result that Senator Feingold wants? Doubtful. Be careful what you wish for, folks.

That's the view from The Law Planet - Jupiter, Florida.

A recent article in the Sarasota Herald-Tribune described a FINRA (formerly NASD) arbitration award to a retiree in Venice, Florida. I'm not particularly upset about the award, I don't know enough of the facts based upon the article.

From what I can tell, there were at least two registered representatives and one unregistered person who were somehow involved in the sale of an unapproved product to the retiree. This is a violation of FINRA rules and I am certain that it violated Sterne Agee's internal procedures. Frankly, if this occurred as described, the brokers should have known better.

What troubled me most was the mention of the "hedge fund" promoter at the end of the article. Guy Della Penna is a former stockbroker who was found by an arbitration panel to have violated State and Federal Securities laws in 2002. He fought the award and, ultimately, the Fifth District Court of Appeals confirmed it. I have not kept up on the case, but last I heard the award was still outstanding. With this information, who in their right mind would give this guy parking meter change let alone over $100,000?

This information was, and is, publicly available and should have been disclosed by either the selling brokers, registered or not, and Della Penna himself. I don't know if this was done. This is the problem with the world of unregistered investment vehicles. The disclosures are weak, if any. The oversight is lax and the only time an investor finds out something is wrong is when the investment vehicle itself is pushing up daisies. It wouldn't have been easy, but the successful arbitration litigant in this case should have been able to find out about Mr. Della Penna and taken his money elsewhere.

Remember, your mother was right. If it sounds too good to be true, it is. And there is no such thing as a secure investment that pays higher than CD returns but is as safe as a CD. IT DOES NOT EXIST! If it did, would I be writing this blog?

That's the view from The Law Planet - Jupiter, Florida.

OK, I try to limit the posts to once a week, so I can actually do some billable work, but I read an article about this video on YouTube and I couldn't resist.

Enjoy.

That's the twisted view from The Law Planet - Jupiter, Florida

Bear Stearns announced bankruptcy petitions for two of its hedge funds. The term "hedge fund" has been used to describe a variety of investment vehicles. Generally, these funds are designed for high net worth investors with significant investable assets. The investors in these funds have virtually no say in how the funds are invested and, generally, they pay significant management fees to the fund manager. They are usually organized as partnerships.

According to this article in Forbes magazine, these funds invested heavily in subprime mortgage instruments. This is the domestic equivalent of Third World debt. These are instruments backed by loans made to borrowers with low quality credit.

To make matters worse, at least one of these funds appears to have been using leverage to purchase these instruments. Leverage is a buzzword for borrowing money. So the leveraged fund is borrowing money to buy investments that loaned money to people with bad credit. When it is explained this way, instead of buried in some dense disclosure document, would anyone place any significant amount of money in this investment?

Subprime lending survived because of the real estate boom in most parts of the country. Now that the gloss is off of the real estate market, the subprime market has come crashing down, taking those that were profiting from the higher interest rates of subprime loans with it. Bear Stearns, as manager of the funds, had no monetary risk unless it had some of its own money in the funds, which I doubt.

The hedge fund "industry" is an area that desperately needs regulation. I'm guessing that some of the "high net worth" investors in these funds are going to be people who had no business being in the investment. Only time will tell -- and the sob stories on 60 Minutes

That's the view from The Law Planet, Jupiter, Florida.

The National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc. recently fomalized the merger of its regulatory arm with that of the NYSE and changed its name to "FINRA." The original proposed name of the combined securities regulatory authority was to be "SIRA". The original choice could apparently be construed as offensive to Muslims. It seems that noone considered this when the name was first concocted.

It got me to thinking about other ill-fated names over the years. (Warning: this is going to go a little off-topic). In the securities industry, my former employer Prudential Securities, then-known as Prudential-Bache Securities, came out with a mutual fund whose stock symbol was PBARF. Ick.

Chevrolet, every now and again, resurrects the "Nova" nameplate. Unfortunately, for Spanish-speaking customers, Nova could be pronounced "No va" meaning that it "doesn't go."

Let's not forget "With a name like Smucker's it has to be good!" I still repeat the Saturday Night Live spoof "With a name like Painful Rectal Itch, it's got to be good" with a smile on my face.

And then there's Coca-Cola. Remember "Coke adds life"? Well, as I recall, there were news stories that translating that advertising slogan into certain Chinese dialects resulted in the literal translation of "Coke brings back your ancestors from the dead." Now, doesn't that sound thirst-quenching?

What does that have to do with The Law Planet? Very little other than to say that it is important to anticipate the unintended consequences of your actions -- and get a good translator.

That's the view from The Law Planet, Jupiter, Florida.

Every day, a stockbroker is asked to sign an amendment to NASD Form U-4, the securities industry's Uniform Application for Securities Registration. A brokerage firm is required to amend the Form U-4 upon the occurrence of certain specified events as described in the form. In particular, customer complaints and arbitrations which allege damages over the dollar thresholds must be disclosed.

Unfortunately for the brokers, truthful allegations are given the same weight as untruthful ones. A customer can allege unauthorized trading, for example. The firm is required to repeat that allegation on the Form U-4. The firm is not permitted, however, to pass judgment on whether or not the allegations are truthful. For a broker with no particular experience with amendments to the form U-4, signing a form with such heinous allegations is especially distasteful. What's a broker to do in this situation?

Box 28 is the answer. A little-publicized fact is that the broker has the right to provide his/her rebuttal to the disclosure in Box 28. The instructions say that this rebuttal should be written "in the space provided." In many instances, Box 28, when printed, has no space at all. But there is space available for the asking.

What should go in Box 28? A broker should write a brief, truthful, factual rebuttal to the allegations that the firm has disclosed. For instance, in the case of unauthorized trading, if the broker is 100% certain that all trades were discussed with the client prior to entry, a broker could write this fact. In the case of a client who makes allegations of losses in a portfolio, a broker could write that the client's account was profitable for the period the broker handled the account. Again, the Box 28 text must be truthful and, I suggest, should not be opinion, only fact.

In the case of a manager named for "Failure to Supervise," the manager could write in Box 28, if truthful, that the manager was not the manager during the time of the allegations.

Why fill in Box 28? When a customer or prospective employer requests a full CRD printout, Box 28 language will print out along with the customer's allegations. CRD reports are sometimes introduced into evidence at arbitration hearings. Having Box 28 completed with factual, objective, rebuttal language will take some, but not all, of the sting out of disclosing the complaint in the first place.

A lawyer is not required to complete the language for box 28. However, an experienced securities attorney can assist the broker in crafting the rebuttal in a light most favorable to the broker. This entire process, barring any unforeseen glitches, shouldn't take very long and will give the broker some peace of mind and feeling of involvement in the process.

That's the view from The Law Planet, Jupiter, Florida.

The NASD has levied fines against four brokerage firms for mutual fund violations related to B shares. See the NASD press release here. There is a certain amount of hypocrisy involved in these fines.

I remember when B shares were first released. They were marketed as a means to eliminate the broker's self-interest in the mutual fund transaction. This was done with the full knowledge of the SEC and NASD. A broker is supposed to "know the customer." A broker violates that rule when a recommendation is made because a broker would receive a higher or lower commission depending upon the selection of mutual fund family.

B shares, which charge a declining redemption fee based upon years held, charged no upfront fee. A customer was encouraged to buy B shares because "all your money goes to work immediately." That was the sales pitch. In exchange, the brokerage firm received a commission which was financed by the mutual fund sponsor and amortized over the redemption period. This was viewed as a good thing.

But then, one day, someone woke up and said "we're paying these higher fees over the life of the investment, not just during the redemption period." This resulted in a change where B share purchases became A shares, which were eligible for lower ongoing expenses and whose purchasers paid a sales charge upon initial investment. In my experience, the crossover period, where it is a better investment to be an A share purchaser instead of a B share purchaser, is about 7 years.

The regulators have been examining this situation for a number of years. One thing they are looking for is large purchases in a fund family (a group of mutual funds administered by the same company) that would be eligible for a breakpoint (a commission discount). Some funds have breakpoints as low as $100,000. Most funds allow an investment without commission at $1,000,000.

If you are an investor in mutual funds, ask your broker for the most cost-effective way to buy the funds, including using purchases among your household accounts. If you are a broker, it is your job to get the client the best deal.

That's the view from The Law Planet, Jupiter, Florida.