Posts

Instagram Change in Legal Rights Results in Class Action Lawsuit

Fort Lauderdale area residents who are busy posting their holiday photos to Instagram should be aware of pending changes in subscribers’ legal rights as defined in the Terms of Use.

Instagram, the photo-sharing service owned by Facebook, is the subject of a class action lawsuit filed in California federal court late last week. The lead plaintiff alleges breach of contract, among other claims, for proposed changes to photo usage terms and a planned move to mandatory arbitration.

South Florida Instagram users may want to review their account to determine if these pending changes in legal terms will alter their plans to use the Instagram service.

Proposed Usage Right Changes for Photos Posted on Instagram

Following is an excerpt from the proposed Instagram Terms of Use scheduled to take effect on January 19, 2013:

Instagram does not claim ownership of any Content that you post on or through the Service. Instead, you hereby grant to Instagram a non-exclusive, fully paid and royalty-free, transferable, sub-licensable, worldwide license to use the Content that you post on or through the Service, subject to the Service’s Privacy Policy …

Instagram Arbitration Provision Draws Controversy

Consumers also responded negatively to a proposed new language (below) in users’ legal rights. As of January 19, 2013, Instagram wants to subject all user disputes to arbitration rather than litigation.

Except if you opt-out or for disputes relating to: (1) your or Instagram’s intellectual property … ; (2) violations of the API Terms; or (3) violations of … Basic Terms … you agree that all disputes between you and Instagram … will be resolved by binding, individual arbitration under the American Arbitration Association’s rules for arbitration of consumer-related disputes and you and Instagram hereby expressly waive trial by jury.

The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, is Lucy Funes et. al. vs. Instagram Inc., 12-cv-6482.

Click on the link for Instagram proposed Terms of Use, scheduled to take effect January 19, 2013.

Click on the link to read the current Instagram Terms of Use.

Fort Lauderdale Securities Litigation and Arbitration Attorney

Contact Fort Lauderdale securities litigation and arbitration attorney Howard N. Kahn, Esq. if you or someone you know has a securities or broker dispute. He is an experienced securities litigation and arbitration attorney, and is available to assist individual investors, brokers, and brokerage firms involved in securities matters. You can reach him at 954-321-0176 or online.

UBS to Pay $1.5 Billion in Fines for LIBOR Manipulation

UBS AG recently announced settlements with the U.S. Department of Justice and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission in connection with charges that UBS manipulated LIBOR benchmark interest rates.

LIBOR, short for the London Interbank Offered Rate, is an international daily reference rate intended to reflect interest rates at which banks borrow unsecured funds. LIBOR is based on interest rates self-reported by leading London banks, and is published as an average of the numbers after some adjustments.

Hundreds of trillions of dollars in mortgages, student loans, credit card debt, financial derivatives, and other financial products worldwide are tied to LIBOR, which serves as the premier benchmark for short-term interest rates.

As part of a proposed agreement, UBS Securities Japan Co. Ltd. has agreed to enter a plea to one count of wire fraud relating to the manipulation of certain benchmark interest rates, including Yen LIBOR.

Two former UBS traders, Tom Alexander William Hayes and Roger Darin, were charged in a criminal complaint with conspiracy to manipulate LIBOR. Hayes has also been charged with wire fraud and an antitrust violation. Emails between UBS traders, made public as part of the investigation, provide evidence of market manipulation.

UBS conduct described in the settlements includes the following:

  • Certain UBS personnel engaged in efforts to manipulate submissions for certain benchmark rates to benefit trading positions;
  • Certain employees at the bank colluded with employees at other banks and cash brokers to influence certain benchmark rates to benefit their trading positions; and
  • Certain personnel gave inappropriate directions to UBS submitters that were in part motivated by a desire to avoid unfair and negative market and media perceptions during the financial crisis.

The conduct encompassed by the settlements includes Yen LIBOR, GBP LIBOR, CHF LIBOR, Euro LIBOR, USD LIBOR, Euribor and Euroyen TIBOR, although the nature and extent of the conduct in question varied significantly from one currency to another.

Fort Lauderdale Securities Litigation and Arbitration Attorney

Contact Fort Lauderdale securities litigation and arbitration attorney Howard N. Kahn, Esq. if you or someone you know has a securities or broker dispute. He is an experienced securities litigation and arbitration attorney, and is available to assist individual investors, brokers, and brokerage firms involved in securities matters. You can reach him at 954-321-0176 or online.

New York Stock Exchange Being Acquired by ICE

In major Wall Street news, NYSE Eurotext today announced a definitive agreement to be acquired by IntercontinentalExchange (“ICE”), a leading operator of global markets and clearing houses, in a stock-and-cash transaction.

The acquisition combines two leading exchange groups to create a global exchange operator diversified across markets including agricultural and energy commodities, credit derivatives, equities and equity derivatives, foreign exchange and interest rates. The combined company, with leading clearing capabilities, anticipates being well positioned to deliver efficiencies while serving customer demand for clearing and risk management globally.

Under the terms of the agreement, which was unanimously approved by the Boards of both companies, the transaction is currently valued at $33.12 per NYSE Euronext share, or a total of approximately $8.2 billion, based on the closing price of ICE’s stock on December 19, 2012.

NYSE Euronext shareholders will have the option to elect to receive consideration per NYSE Euronext share of (i) $33.12 in cash, (ii) 0.2581 IntercontinentalExchange common shares or (iii) a mix of $11.27 in cash plus 0.1703 ICE common shares, subject to a maximum cash consideration of approximately $2.7 billion and a maximum aggregate number of ICE common shares of approximately 42.5 million.

The overall mix of the $8.2 billion of merger consideration being paid by ICE is approximately 67% shares and 33% cash. The transaction value of $33.12 represents a 37.7% premium over NYSE Euronext’s closing share price on December 19, 2012.

Read the full press release about the NYSE Euronext / ICE merger.

Fort Lauderdale Securities Litigation and Arbitration Attorney

Contact Fort Lauderdale securities litigation and arbitration attorney Howard N. Kahn, Esq. if you or someone you know has a securities or broker dispute. He is an experienced securities litigation and arbitration attorney, and is available to assist individual investors, brokers, and brokerage firms involved in securities matters. You can reach him at 954-321-0176 or online.

Day Trading Firm Biremis Corp. Loses Broker-Dealer License over Layering

Biremis Corp., a now defunct Toronto-based brokerage firm, and co-founders Peter Beck and Charles Kim, failed to supervise overseas day traders who used the firm’s order management system to engage repeatedly in a manipulative trading practice known as layering, according to SEC charges.

In layering, a trader places orders with no intention of having them executed but rather to trick others into buying or selling a stock at an artificial price driven by the orders, which the trader later cancels.

The SEC’s investigation found that Biremis – whose worldwide day trading business enabled up to 5,000 traders on as many 200 trading floors in 30 countries to gain access to U.S. markets – failed to address repeated instances of layering by many of the overseas day traders using its system.

The firm’s co-founders Peter Beck and Charles Kim ignored repeated red flags indicating that overseas traders were engaging in layering manipulations. Biremis served as the broker-dealer for an affiliated Canadian day trading firm, Swift Trade Inc.

Biremis and the two executives agreed to a settlement in which the firm’s registration as a U.S. broker-dealer is revoked and permanent industry bars are imposed on Beck and Kim, who also will pay a combined half-million dollars to settle the SEC’s charges.

“Engaged and forceful supervisors are the first line of defense against individual misconduct in financial services companies,” said Robert Khuzami, Director of the SEC’s Division of Enforcement. “Beck and Kim were neither, as they saw obvious red flags of market manipulation by their firm’s traders but failed to respond or take any steps to prevent the manipulation. They have learned the painful lesson that supervisors who fail to heed repeated red flags of misconduct will no longer have any place in the securities industry.”

According to the SEC’s order instituting settled administrative proceedings, Biremis, Beck, and Kim exercised substantial control over the overseas day traders. They backed the traders’ trading with capital from Biremis, determined the amount of Biremis capital available to each individual trader to purchase stocks, and set and enforced daily loss limits on each trader. They also wielded authority to reprimand, restrict, suspend, or terminate traders.

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) imposed penalties against Biremis earlier this year.

The SEC’s order found that many of the Biremis-affiliated overseas day traders engaged in repeated instances of layering from January 2007 to mid-2010. Beck and Kim learned from numerous sources – including three U.S. broker-dealers and a Biremis employee – that layering was occurring, yet they failed to take any steps to prevent it.

For example, in spring 2008, representatives of one U.S. broker-dealer warned Beck and Kim that certain overseas traders were “gaming” U.S. stocks by altering those stocks’ bid and offer prices in order to buy or sell the stock at the altered price. Beck and Kim failed to act on this information.

According to the SEC’s order, Biremis also failed to retain virtually all of its instant messages related to its broker-dealer business, and failed to file any suspicious activity reports (SARs) related to the manipulative trading.

“Broker-dealers must recognize that their supervisory responsibilities over their associated persons don’t end at the U.S. border,” said Antonia Chion, Associate Director of the SEC’s Division of Enforcement. “Broker-dealers face severe consequences if they fail to supervise their traders who engage in manipulative trading, whether those traders are located in the U.S. or abroad.”

The SEC’s order finds that Biremis, Beck, and Kim failed reasonably to supervise the firm’s associated persons (the overseas day traders) with a view to preventing and detecting their layering manipulations. The order also finds that Biremis willfully violated Exchange Act Section 17(a) and Rule 17a-8 by failing to file SARs and Section 17(a) and Rule 17a-4(b)(4) by failing to retain instant messages.

The SEC’s order revokes Biremis’ registration as a broker-dealer and requires the firm to cease and desist from committing or causing violations of Exchange Act Section 17(a) and Rules 17a-4(b)(4) and 17a-8. The SEC imposed permanent industry bars on Beck and Kim, who each agreed to pay penalties of $250,000. Biremis, Beck, and Kim neither admitted nor denied the findings contained in the SEC’s order.

Fort Lauderdale Securities Litigation and Arbitration Attorney

Contact Fort Lauderdale securities litigation and arbitration attorney Howard N. Kahn, Esq. if you or someone you know has a securities or broker dispute. He is an experienced securities litigation and arbitration attorney, and is available to assist individual investors, brokers, and brokerage firms involved in securities matters. You can reach him at 954-321-0176 or online.

Money to Burn and a Boca Raton Home Part of Insider Trading Scheme

Virginia attorney Matthew Kluger and New York stock trader Garrett D. Bauer were sentenced to 12 years and 9 years, respectively, for a 17-year insider trading scheme. Working together, the two netted $37 million in profits by trading ahead of more than 30 different corporate transactions based on confidential insider trading information that Kluger stole from multiple law firm employers.

Bauer spent more than $7 million of his share of the proceeds to purchase two properties – approximately $6.65 million for an Upper East Side condominium in New York and approximately $875,000 for a home in Boca Raton, Florida. The properties will now be forfeited as part of the settlement.

As law enforcement investigations intensified, Bauer instructed another co-conspirator to burn approximately $175,000 in cash that Bauer had paid him out of concern his fingerprints would be found on the money.

Both Kluger and Bauer had previously pleaded guilty to charges of conspiracy to commit securities fraud, securities fraud, conspiracy to commit money laundering and obstruction of justice.

“The severe sentences imposed today are a warning to anyone trying to game the financial markets for their own enrichment,” U.S. Attorney Fishman said. “Garrett Bauer and Matthew Kluger participated in one of the longest-running insider trading schemes ever prosecuted. Bauer traded on confidential information that Kluger obtained from his position of trust at major law firms and parlayed it into tens of millions of dollars in illicit profits. Today, both of them reap the punishment their conduct deserves.”

“Millions of investors have entrusted their life savings to the integrity of financial markets and the belief of a level playing field,” said Michael B. Ward, Special Agent In Charge of the Newark Division of the FBI. “Insider trading corrupts the process and tilts the playing field in favor of those privileged few with access to information not available to the public, and at the expense of unsuspecting and unknowing investors. It is important that those who manipulate that trust be held accountable in strictest accordance with the law.”

According to documents filed in this case and statements made in court:

Bauer and two co-conspirators – Kluger and Kenneth Robinson, 45, of Long Beach, N.Y. – engaged in an insider trading scheme that began in 1994 and relied on Kluger, a lawyer, to steal information from his employers and their clients.

Bauer admitted that as part of the scheme he traded ahead of more than 30 different corporate transactions based on inside information provided by Kluger.

Over time, Kluger worked at four of the nation’s premier mergers and acquisitions law firms. From 1994 to 1997, he worked first as a summer associate and later as a corporate associate at Cravath Swaine & Moore in New York. From 1998 to 2001, he worked at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom in New York and Palo Alto, Calif., as an associate in their corporate department. From 2001 to 2002, Kluger worked as a corporate associate at Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson LLP in New York. From Dec. 5, 2005, to March 11, 2011, Kluger worked at Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati (“Wilson Sonsini”) as a senior associate in the Mergers & Acquisitions department of the firm’s Washington office.

While at the firms, Kluger regularly stole and disclosed to Robinson material, nonpublic information regarding anticipated corporate mergers and acquisitions on which his firms were working. Early in the scheme, Kluger disclosed information relating to deals on which he personally worked. As the scheme developed, and in an effort to avoid law enforcement detection, Kluger took information which he found primarily by viewing documents on his firms’ computer systems.

Once Kluger provided the inside information to Robinson, Robinson passed it to Bauer, who then purchased shares for himself, Kluger, and Robinson in Bauer’s trading accounts. He sold the shares once the relevant deal was publicly announced and the stock price rose. Bauer gave Robinson and Kluger their shares of the illicit profits in cash – often tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars – that Bauer withdrew in multiple transactions from ATMs.

Bauer admitted that after Kluger joined Wilson Sonsini, the three conspirators took greater efforts to prevent detection of their insider trading scheme. Among other techniques, they used pay phones and prepaid cellular phones that they referred to as “throwaway phones” to discuss the scheme.

Bauer also admitted that after Robinson told him that the FBI and IRS had searched Robinson’s house and had asked questions about the illicit scheme, Bauer destroyed a prepaid phone, discarding the pieces in two separate trash cans at a New York McDonald’s restaurant.

In addition to the prison term, Bauer and Kluger were both sentenced to three years supervised release. As part of his guilty plea, Bauer also agreed to forfeit the contents of numerous trading and bank accounts he used to facilitate the scheme, as well as homes that he purchased with the proceeds. In total, the value of the property Bauer is required to forfeit is $21 million. Kluger agreed to forfeit $415,000.

Robinson pleaded guilty on April 11, 2011, to an Information charging him with one count of conspiracy to commit securities fraud and two counts of securities fraud.

Fort Lauderdale Securities Litigation and Arbitration Attorney

Contact Fort Lauderdale securities litigation and arbitration attorney Howard N. Kahn, Esq. if you or someone you know has a securities or broker dispute. He is an experienced securities litigation and arbitration attorney, and is available to assist individual investors, brokers, and brokerage firms involved in securities matters. You can reach him at 954-321-0176 or online.

SEC and FINRA Issue Year End Investment Alert

The “fiscal cliff” may be of concern to individual investors as the end of 2012 rapidly approaches, according to a new investor alert. If not resolved, the fiscal cliff could result in increased capital gains and dividend income tax rates. Potential changes in these tax rates could result in year-end sell-offs as some investors may seek to take advantage of current capital gains and dividend income tax rates.

The SEC’s Office of Investor Education and Advocacy and the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) have issued a new Investor Alert called Year-End Investment Considerations for Individual Investors to help investors navigate the fiscal cliff and other end-of-year planning considerations. This new alert provides individual investors with a few suggestions for year-end investment planning as the year draws to a close.

“The end of the year is a great time to take stock of your financial situation and make sure your investment plan is meeting your needs,” said Gerri Walsh, FINRA’s Vice President for Investor Education. “Taking some time to carefully manage your investment portfolio can pay dividends in the coming year.”

Year-End Investment Considerations outlines five key areas investors should focus on when making investment decisions:

Asset Allocation. The end of the year is a reasonable time to review your overall investment portfolio and evaluate your existing asset allocation.

Consider Rebalancing. Some of your investments will grow faster than others. Rebalancing allows you to adjust your investment portfolio so as not to overemphasize one or more asset categories.

Tax Considerations. Investors who are interested in learning what impact tax rates, including potential changes in the tax laws, may have on their investments under different financial scenarios should consult their tax adviser or visit the IRS website for more information.

Check Out Your Investment Professional. Many investors do not realize that they can check the background of a broker or investment adviser by using FINRA Broker Check or the Investment Adviser Public Disclosure (IAPD) website.

Locate Your Financial Records. Consider preparing a list identifying your financial records, including a list of financial accounts and all user names and passwords.

Fort Lauderdale Securities Litigation and Arbitration Attorney

Contact Fort Lauderdale securities litigation and arbitration attorney Howard N. Kahn, Esq. if you or someone you know has a securities or broker dispute. He is an experienced securities litigation and arbitration attorney, and is available to assist individual investors, brokers, and brokerage firms involved in securities matters. You can reach him at 954-321-0176 or online.

Brazilian Igor Cornelsen to Pay $5.1 Million for Burger King Insider Trading

Brazilian ex-banker Igor Cornelsen and his firm through which he made trades – Bainbridge Group – reaped illicit profits of more than $1.68 million by trading Burger King options based on confidential information ahead of the company’s September 2010 announcement that it was being acquired by a New York private equity firm, according to the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”).

Cornelsen is now a resident of the Bahamas with a home in South Florida after holding high-ranking positions at several banks in Brazil before his retirement. He sought inside information from his broker Waldyr Da Silva Prado Neto by sending him e-mails with such masked references as, “Is the sandwich deal going to happen?” Prado was stealing the inside information from another Wells Fargo brokerage customer involved in the Burger King deal.

Cornelsen and Bainbridge Group agreed to pay more than $5.1 million to settle the SEC’s charges. The settlement is subject to court approval. The litigation continues against Prado, whose assets have been frozen by the court.

“Cornelsen shamelessly prodded Prado for details on ‘the sandwich deal’ and Prado happily obliged to satisfy his customer’s appetite for inside information,” said Daniel M. Hawke, Chief of the SEC Enforcement Division’s Market Abuse Unit and Director of the Philadelphia Regional Office.

Sanjay Wadhwa, Deputy Chief of the Market Abuse Unit and Associate Director of the New York Regional Office, added, “Foreign investors who access the U.S. capital markets must play by the rules and not rig the market in their favor, otherwise they face getting caught by the SEC and paying a hefty price as Cornelsen is here.”

According to the SEC’s complaint filed last week in federal court in Manhattan, Cornelsen became Prado’s customer in 2008. On May 17, 2010, Prado sent Cornelsen an e-mail written in Portuguese that translates to, “Igor, if you are around call me at the hotel … I have some info … You have to hear this.”

Cornelsen called Prado at his hotel and they had a 10-minute conversation. Earlier that same day, Prado told a friend that he had knowledge of the impending Burger King deal. After talking with Prado, Cornelsen began trading out-of-the-money Burger King call options the very next day. Cornelsen had never previously traded Burger King securities.

The SEC alleges that Cornelsen continued trading Burger King options over that summer despite losing money in some instances. In August, Cornelsen sent Prado e-mails seeking assurances that ‘the sandwich deal’ was going to happen, and Prado responded with such statements as “Yes it’s going to happen” and “Everything is 100% under control.” Cornelsen then purchased additional Burger King call options.

Cornelsen took steps to minimize his connection to Prado by purchasing the Burger King call options in accounts held at brokerage firms other than where Prado worked.

The SEC alleges that after the public announcement of the Burger King deal, Cornelsen e-mailed Prado to inquire about the acquisition price. Upon learning the new per share price that would yield him substantial illegal profits, Cornelsen e-mailed back, “Wow! What a day!”

The SEC’s complaint charges Cornelsen and Bainbridge Group with violations of Sections 10(b) and 14(e) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rules 10b-5 and 14e-3. The proposed final judgment orders them to jointly and severally pay $1,681,090 in disgorgement and $136,620.96 in prejudgment interest. Cornelsen is ordered to pay a $3,362,180 penalty. They neither admit nor deny the SEC charges. The proposed final judgment also enjoins them from future violations of these provisions of the federal securities laws.

Fort Lauderdale Securities Litigation and Arbitration Attorney

Contact Fort Lauderdale securities litigation and arbitration attorney Howard N. Kahn, Esq. if you or someone you know has a securities or broker dispute. He is an experienced securities litigation and arbitration attorney, and is available to assist individual investors, brokers, and brokerage firms involved in securities matters. You can reach him at 954-321-0176 or online.

SEC Fiduciary Standard for Brokers Faces Delay

The SEC recommended a uniform fiduciary standard of conduct for broker-dealers and investment advisers in January 2011. Investment advisers and broker-dealers are regulated extensively under different regulatory regimes, but many retail investors do not understand this and are confused by the roles played by investment advisers and broker-dealers.

SEC Chairman Mary Schapiro’s pending departure in December will further delay finalization of these investor protections. She raised concerns as early as 2009, in a letter to broker-dealer CEOs stating that some enhanced compensation arrangements could induce brokers to engage in conduct that is not in investors’ best interest. She reminded CEOs that they have an obligation to police for such conflicts. Click on the link for the full SEC letter to broker-dealer CEOs.

According to a recent Reuters article, “… at issue are the varied rules that apply to different types of financial advisers. Financial advisers who register with the SEC must act as fiduciaries, or in their clients’ best interests. But brokerage firm advisers, who register with the industry’s private regulator, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, only have to suggest investments that are “suitable,” based on factors such as a client’s age and risk tolerance.” Click on the link to read the full article titled, “Schapiro’s exit leaves broker fiduciary plan up in air.”

The agency’s goal is to achieve no less stringent requirements for broker-dealers than currently apply to investment advisers under the Advisers Act when those financial professionals provide personalized investment advice about securities to retail investors.

The SEC’s 2011 study on the topic “recommends that the Commission . . . adopt and implement, with appropriate guidance, the uniform fiduciary standard of conduct for broker-dealers and investment advisers when providing personalized investment advice about securities to retail customers.” The standard, according to the study, should be “no less stringent than currently applied to investment advisers under [the] Advisers Act.”

Click on the link to read the January 2011 SEC Study on Investment Advisers and Broker-Dealers.

Fort Lauderdale Securities Litigation and Arbitration Attorney

Contact Fort Lauderdale securities litigation and arbitration attorney Howard N. Kahn, Esq. if you or someone you know has a securities or broker dispute. He is an experienced securities litigation and arbitration attorney, and is available to assist individual investors, brokers, and brokerage firms involved in securities matters. You can reach him at 954-321-0176 or online.

SEC Chairman Schapiro to Step Down

SEC Chairman Mary L. Schapiro today announced that she will step down on Dec. 14, 2012. The move was widely expected.

Chairman Schapiro took office in the wake of the financial crisis in January 2009. She focused on a more rigorous enforcement and examination program, and shaped new rules for Wall Street.

The SEC is now “more adept at pursing tips and complaints provided by outsiders, better able to identify wrongdoers through vastly upgraded market intelligence capabilities, and more strategic, innovative and risk-focused in the way it inspects financial firms,” according to an agency release.

In each of the past two years, the agency has brought more enforcement actions than ever before, including 735 enforcement actions in fiscal year 2011 and 734 actions in FY 2012.

In addition, the SEC engaged in one of the busiest rulemaking periods in decades. Due to new rules now in place, investors can get clear information about the advisers they invest with, vote on the executive compensation packages at companies they invest in, benefit from additional safeguards that protect their assets held by investment advisers, and get access to more meaningful information about company boards and municipal securities.

President Obama announced that he intends to designate Elisse Walter, a current SEC Commissioner, as Chair upon Ms. Schapiro’s departure next month. Prior to her appointment as an SEC Commissioner in 2008, Ms. Walter served as Senior Executive Vice President, Regulatory Policy & Programs, for FINRA. She held the same position at NASD before its 2007 consolidation with NYSE Member Regulation.

Fort Lauderdale Securities Litigation and Arbitration Attorney

Contact Fort Lauderdale securities litigation and arbitration attorney Howard N. Kahn, Esq. if you or someone you know has a securities or broker dispute. He is an experienced securities litigation and arbitration attorney, and is available to assist individual investors, brokers, and brokerage firms involved in securities matters. You can reach him at 954-321-0176 or online.

J.P. Morgan and Credit Suisse Pay to Settle SEC Charges

J.P. Morgan Securities LLC and Credit Suisse Securities (USA) agreed to pay more than $400 million combined to settle charges that the firms misled investors in offerings of residential mortgage-backed securities (“RMBS”).

The charges were filed recently by the Securities and Exchange Commission in coordination with the federal-state Residential Mortgage-Backed Securities Working Group. The SEC plans to distribute the money to harmed investors.

The SEC alleges that J.P. Morgan misstated information about the delinquency status of mortgage loans that provided collateral for an RMBS offering in which it was the underwriter. J.P. Morgan received fees of more than $2.7 million, and investors sustained losses of at least $37 million on undisclosed delinquent loans. J.P. Morgan also is charged for Bear Stearns’ failure to disclose its practice of obtaining and keeping cash settlements from mortgage loan originators on problem loans that Bear Stearns had sold into RMBS trusts. The proceeds from this bulk settlement practice were at least $137.8 million.

J.P. Morgan has agreed to pay $296.9 million to settle the SEC’s charges.

According to the SEC’s order against Credit Suisse, the firm similarly failed to accurately disclose its practice of retaining cash for itself from the settlement of claims against mortgage loan originators for problems with loans that Credit Suisse had sold into RMBS trusts and no longer owned. Credit Suisse also made misstatements in SEC filings about when it would repurchase mortgage loans from trusts if borrowers missed the first payment due. The firm made $55.7 million in profits and losses avoided from its bulk settlement practice, and its investors lost more than $10 million due to Credit Suisse’s practices concerning first payment defaults.

Credit Suisse has agreed to pay $120 million to settle the SEC’s charges.

According to the SEC’s complaint against J.P. Morgan filed in federal court in Washington D.C., federal regulations under the securities laws require the disclosure of delinquency information related to assets that provide collateral for an asset-backed securities offering. Information about the delinquency status of mortgage loans in an RMBS transaction is important to investors because those loans are the primary source of funds by which investors can earn interest and obtain repayment of their principal.

The SEC alleges that in the prospectus supplement for the $1.8 billion RMBS offering that occurred in December 2006, J.P. Morgan made materially false and misleading statements about the loans that provided collateral for the transaction. The firm represented that only four loans (.04 percent of the total loans collateralizing the transaction) were delinquent by 30 to 59 days, and that those four were the only loans that had had an instance of delinquency of 30 or more days in the 12 months prior to the “cut-off date” for the transaction. However, at the time J.P. Morgan made these representations, the firm actually had information showing that more than 620 loans (above 7 percent of the total loans collateralizing the transaction) were, and had been, 30 to 59 days delinquent, and the four loans represented as being 30 to 59 days delinquent were in fact 60 to 89 days delinquent.

The SEC’s complaint also alleges that Bear Stearns’ bulk settlements covered loans collateralizing 156 different RMBS transactions issued from 2005 to 2007. Loan originators were usually required by contract to buy back loans that suffered early payment defaults or had other defects. However, Bear Stearns frequently negotiated discounted cash settlements with these loan originators in lieu of a buy-back on loans that were owned by the RMBS trusts. The firm – both before and after the merger with J.P. Morgan – then kept most of the bulk settlement proceeds. The firm failed to disclose the practice to investors who owned the loans. Bear Stearns repurchased only about 13 percent of these defective bulk settlement loans from the trusts, compared to a nearly 100 percent repurchase rate when loan originators agreed to buy back the defective loans. For most loans covered by bulk settlements, the firm collected money from originators without paying anything to the trusts.

J.P. Morgan settled the SEC’s charges by consenting to pay $50.5 million in disgorgement and prejudgment interest and a $24 million penalty for the delinquency misstatements, which the SEC will seek to distribute to harmed investors in the transaction through a Fair Fund. J.P. Morgan agreed to pay $162,065,536 in disgorgement and prejudgment interest and a $60.35 million penalty for the bulk settlement practice misconduct, and the SEC will seek to distribute these funds to harmed investors through a separate Fair Fund. J.P. Morgan consented, without admitting or denying the allegations, to the entry of a final judgment permanently enjoining them from violating Section 17(a)(2) and (3) of the Securities Act of 1933. The settlement is subject to court approval.

According to the SEC’s order instituting a settled administrative proceeding against Credit Suisse, the firm and its affiliated entities misled investors in 75 different RMBS transactions through the bulk settlement practice. From 2005 to 2010, Credit Suisse frequently negotiated bulk settlements with loan originators in lieu of a buy-back of loans that were owned by the RMBS trusts. Credit Suisse kept the bulk settlement proceeds for itself and failed to disclose the practice to investors who owned the loans. In nine of the 75 RMBS trusts, Credit Suisse failed to comply with offering document provisions that required it to repurchase certain early defaulting loans. Credit Suisse also applied different quality review procedures for loans that it sought to put back to originators, instituted a practice of not repurchasing such loans from trusts unless the originators had agreed to repurchase them, and failed to disclose the bulk settlement practice when answering investor questions about early payment defaults.

The SEC’s order also found that Credit Suisse made misleading statements about a key investor protection known as the First Payment Default (FPD) provision in two RMBS offerings. The FPD provision required the mortgage loan originator to repurchase or substitute loans that missed payments shortly before or after they were securitized. Credit Suisse misled investors by falsely claiming that “all First Payment Default Risk” was removed from its RMBS, and at the same time limiting the number of FPD loans that were put back to the originator.

Credit Suisse settled the SEC’s charges by consenting to pay $68,747,769 in disgorgement and prejudgment interest and a $33 million penalty, which the SEC will seek to distribute through a Fair Fund to harmed investors in the 75 RMBS transactions affected by the bulk settlement practice. Credit Suisse agreed to pay $12,256,561 in disgorgement and prejudgment interest and a $6 million penalty, which the SEC will seek to distribute through a separate Fair Fund to harmed investors in the two transactions affected by the FPD misstatements. Credit Suisse agreed to an order, without admitting or denying the allegations, requiring them to cease and desist from violations of Section 17(a)(2) and (3) of the Securities Act and Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Fort Lauderdale Securities Litigation and Arbitration Attorney

Contact Fort Lauderdale securities litigation and arbitration attorney Howard N. Kahn, Esq. if you or someone you know has a securities or broker dispute. He is an experienced securities litigation and arbitration attorney, and is available to assist individual investors, brokers, and brokerage firms involved in securities matters. You can reach him at 954-321-0176 or online.