SEC Tag Archives — Page 3 of 4 — Securities Lawyers Blog

SEC Charges A Subsidiary of Royal Bank of Scotland with Misleading Investors in Subprime RMBS Offering

November 14, 2013 | by Staff Attorney

On November 7, 2013, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) today charged RBS Securities Inc., a subsidiary of the Royal Bank of Scotland plc, with misleading investors in a 2007 subprime residential mortgage-backed security (RMBS) offering. RBS agreed to settle the matter and pay more than $150 million, which the SEC will use to compensate investors for harm suffered as a result of RBS’s conduct.

According to the SEC, RBS told investors that the loans backing the offering “generally” met the lender’s underwriting guidelines even though more than 25% did not comport with the stated guidelines and should have been entirely excluded form the offering. RBS, then known as Greenwich Capital Markets, quickly reviewed a very small portion of the loans and was paid approximately $4.4 million for its work as the lead underwriter on the transaction, the SEC said in a complaint filed in federal court in Connecticut.

“In its rush to meet a deadline set by the seller of these loans, RBS cut corners and failed to complete adequate due diligence, with predictable results,” said George S. Canellos, co-director of the SEC’s Division of Enforcement. “Today’s action punishes that misconduct and secures more than $150 million in relief for those harmed by this shoddy securitization.”

Do I Have a Securities or Investment Claim?

October 29, 2013 | by Staff Attorney

This is the most common question a potential client asks during an initial interview. This article is directed to those investors who are wondering if they have a claim but have not yet sought a consultation. Hopefully, this article will provide some insight into what a securities fraud attorney looks at when reviewing a potential client’s claim. However, I would stress that all evaluations are individual in nature and while this article is meant to provide generally instructive insight, only a full one-on-one consultation with an attorney can provide a full review of your claim and provide individual guidance.

In my analysis of a potential client’s securities claim I look at two primary factors: 1) the strength of the liability case; and 2) the ability to collect from the defendant. The answer to these two factors weigh heavily in moving forward with the potential client’s claim. The strength of the liability of the claim is the initial assessment of how likely a judge or arbitration panel would likely find the defendant liable for misconduct. The ability to collect factor looks at what potential defendants could be liable for the misconduct the client is alleging and the ability of those defendants to compensate the client’s losses. In many cases, the second factor will not need to be seriously investigated.

What factors influence the strength of the liability of the case? This is a hard question to answer because each case is different and liability is premised on different factors given the type of claims being made. In cases of fraud or misrepresentation the strength of the case often lies in the ability to prove the false statements made to the client. Written communications, emails, advertisements, and other documents that can be proven false or misleading tend to make stronger cases. If a securities regulator has also found the defendant’s conduct to be fraudulent or misleading or has disciplined the same or another brokerage firm for similar conduct such evidence helps to strengthen the case.

SEC Announces a $14 million Whistleblower Award

October 15, 2013 | by Staff Attorney

On October 1, 2013, the Securities and Exchange Commission announced that it had awarded over $14 million to an unnamed whistleblower who voluntarily came forward with information that led to a successful enforcement action and the recovery of a substantial amount of investor funds. In the official order setting forth the award determination, the Commission indicated that the award reflected the whistleblower’s level of cooperation, the significance of the information provided, and the Commission’s strong interest in deterring illegal conduct through the use of whistleblower awards.

The more than $14 million award is the largest handed out by the Commission since the inception of the Office of the Whistleblower in 2011. SEC Chair Mary Jo White stated that the Commission “hope[s] an award like this encourages more individuals with information to come forward.” Such insider cooperation and self-reporting has helped uncover fraudulent schemes at earlier stages, thereby lessening investor harm and allowing the Commission to conduct more efficient investigations. In this particular instance, it took less than six months from the receipt of the whistleblower’s tip for the Commission to initiate its enforcement action. Previous whistleblower payments have included a $50,000 award in August 2012 and a $125,000 award earlier this year.

The Office of the Whistleblower was established as part of the post-financial crisis regulatory reforms contained in the Dodd-Frank Act and continues to be heavily advertised on the Commission’s website. Whistleblowers can submit tips to the Office through a Form-TCR by fax, mail, or the online questionnaire portal. The award program was designed to centralize the intake of tips in order to ensure that important information reaches investigators and to incentivize insiders to come forward with valuable information. The identities of informants are protected by law to ensure confidentiality throughout the process. A whistleblower who provides information leading to a successful enforcement action in which at least $1 million in sanctions is imposed may receive an award ranging between ten percent and thirty percent of the money collected by the Commission. In the 2012 fiscal year, the Office reported that it received more than 3000 tips originating from all fifty states.

FINRA Sanctions Broker Over Unsuitable Concentrations in Private Placement Securities

October 14, 2013 | by Staff Attorney

FINRA has barred broker Daniel P. Deighan (Deighan) for seven months and fined him $27,500 over allegations that he recommended private placements to customers that were not suitable given the customers’ net worth, annual income, and the concentration of the private placements in their accounts.

Private placements are securities that do not trade on stock exchanges and are exempt from the regular filing requirements. Private placements are issued under Regulation D under the Securities Act of 1933. Regulation D contains three rules (Rules 504, 505, and 506) that provide the rules required to be followed in order to qualify for the exemptions from the more rigorous Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) registration requirements.

The three rules primarily govern the size of the offering and the number of participants that can invest in the private placement. However, under all three rules, with certain limited exceptions, investors must meet the “accredited investor” standard under Rule 501. Rule 501 defines “accredited investor” as any person who has a net worth in excess of $1,000,000, (excluding residence) or annual income in excess of $200,000 (or $300,000 jointly with a spouse) in the two most recent years. While the size of the private placement market is unknown, according to 2008 estimates, companies issued approximately $609 billion of securities through Regulation D offerings.

Retired Auto Executive Sues UBS for $30 Million for Investment Fraud Related to Puerto Rican Bonds

October 3, 2013 | by Staff Attorney

On October 1, 2013, Victor Gómez, Jr. a retired auto executive filed an action against UBS for investment fraud related to Puerto Rican bonds. According to the Caribbean News, this is the first of many legal actions expected to be filed in FINRA against UBS Financial Services, Inc. Mr. Gómez and his family are seeking $30 million in restitution for their investment losses, attorneys’ fees, punitive damages, and other costs. Gómez and his family claim that UBS designed an unsuitable investment strategy, never properly disclosed the risks, and implemented an “illicit and fraudulent scheme perpetrated to generate exorbitant profits… in utter disregard of the best interests of claimants, public interest and applicable laws and regulations.”

According to the Caribbean News, the statement of claim names: “UBS Financial Services Inc.; UBS Bank USA; UBS financial consultants and investment executives José M. Ramirez and Carlos Freire Borges; UBS senior officer Doel García; UBS Puerto Rico CEO Carlos Ubiñas; and other unidentified UBS officials.”

According to sources, the funds at issue were:

Robert Gist Fined $5.4 Million by the SEC and Barred From the Financial Industry

September 29, 2013 | by Staff Attorney

Robert Gist (Gist) was recently fined $5.4 million by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and barred from association with any broker-dealer by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA). Gist has been accused by both regulators of converting the funds of at least 30 customers in order to pay personal expenses and to fund the operations of a company controlled by Gist.

Gist resides in Atlanta, Georgia and is the president of Gist, Kennedy & Associates, Inc., (Gist Kennedy) a law firm specializing in estate planning and investments. Gist is licensed to practice law in Georgia and has represented professional athletes as a sports agent. From approximately 2002 through early 2013, Gist was CEO and president ENCAP Technologies, LLC (ENCAP), a company with its principal place of business in Roswell, Georgia. ENCAP is in the business of developing industrial coatings for metal surfaces to prevent corrosion. Gist has been associated or registered with numerous brokerage firms since the 1980s. Most recently, Gist was registered with Resource Horizons Group LLC from March 2001 until his December 2011.

On May 31, 2013, the SEC charged Gist and Gist Kennedy with defrauding at least 32 customers out of at least $5.4 million while acting as an unregistered broker from approximately 2003 to the present. According to the SEC’s complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Gist told customers that he would invest their funds conservatively on their behalves in corporate bonds and other securities. However, according to the SEC Gist invested none of the customer funds, but, instead, used the funds for his personal expenses.

How To Guide: Tips on Avoiding Investment Scams

September 28, 2013 | by Staff Attorney

You read about investment scams, but you never think it can happen to someone like you.

We have all read about the Bernie Madoffs and Allen Stanfords of the world. Unsuspecting investors duped into some of the largest ponzi schemes in the world. You think to yourself that it can never happen to you or anyone you know – that you are too smart. You may be right, but a lot of victims are smart and sophisticated investors. The lure of safe investments with high returns is appealing to everyone. Don’t get caught chasing returns in investments you do not understand.

High Yield and No Risk

Private Placements – FINRA Warns Evaluate the Risks Before Investing

September 21, 2013 | by Staff Attorney

Every year, companies across the United States raise hundreds of billions of dollars selling securities in non-public offerings that are exempt from registration under the federal securities laws. These offerings, known as private placements, can be a tremendous source of capital for both small and large business. However, according to FINRA, investors should be aware that private placements can be illiquid and are very risky with the potential to lose most or all of your investment.

Fraud and Sales Practices Abuses

For over three years, FINRA has been investigating private placements and has uncovered fraud and sales practice abuses related to private placements that resulted in sanctions of individual brokers and financial institutions for providing investors inaccurate information relating to private placements. In addition, some materials omitted information necessary for investors to make informed investment decisions. Finally some firms failed to conduct adequate investigations into whether the private placements were suitable for customers.

SEC Approves Advertising for Private Placements

September 20, 2013 | by Staff Attorney

In a 4-1 vote, the Securities Exchange Commission (SEC) approved a rule that would now allow broker-dealers, hedge funds, and private equity firms to advertise to the general public for private placement securities offerings. Firms are still limited to sales to accredited investors. Accredited investors are defined as those who have a net worth of $1 million, excluding the value of the investors primary residence, or earning at least $200,000 annually. According to Investment News, there are 9 million homes in the United States that meet this standard.

The SEC’s new rule will require that private-placement issuers take reasonable and appropriate steps to assess an investor’s qualifications and ability to meet the accredited investor standard. According to the SEC, the broker may have to independently verify that the client meets the appropriate standards.

The new rule will give funds the ability to publicly solicit private investments. The SEC’s rule is an implementation of the Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act enacted by Congress in April 2012. Will the law help entrepreneurs raise capital or will investors lose another level of protection? Only time will tell.

SEC Issues Concerns Over Private Oil and Gas Offerings

September 7, 2013 | by Staff Attorney

Private securities offerings of oil and gas ventures pose a substantial danger for investor fraud. According to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), there has been an increase in the number of civil fraud cases related to oil and gas private placements. Investing in private placement offerings carries unique risks and private oil and gas offerings have additional risks for investors to be aware of and to consider.

The SEC’s Investor Alert listed common red flag sales pitches that fraudulent oil and gas investments often make to investors including:

Sales pitches referring to high oil and gas prices;