Colling, Gilbert, Wright & Carter Securites Fraud
Keep up on the latest Securities Fraud news and litigation by following our blog.
Friday, January 22, 2010
Report Shows Individual Securities Case Filings Rose Sharply in 2009
According to Advisen Ltd. Report Securities class action filings were flat, but regulator suits rose sharply.
The press release appears below:
Economic turmoil drove a surge in securities lawsuit filings in 2009, according to a new report from Advisen Ltd. The year saw securities lawsuit filings grow at a robust 13 percent rate to 910 suits, eclipsing an already-elevated 2008 at 804 suits. The number of securities class action suits filed was essentially unchanged, with 234 suits filed in 2009 compared to 239 the prior year, while the number of securities fraud suits filed by regulators grew sharply, with a 22 percent increase over 2008.
³Litigators and regulators stayed busy in 2009,² noted John W. Molka III, the author of the report. ³The first half of the year was dominated by credit crisis- and Madoff-related lawsuits. Those types of suits fell off sharply in the second half, but plaintiffs¹ attorneys had a backlog of other cases waiting to be filed.² Although securities class action filings were essentially flat as compared to 2008, they decreased as a percentage of all securities suit filed, coming in at about a quarter of the total. That represents a continuation of a downward trend that began in 2005, when securities class action suits represented about half of all securities suits filed.
³Securities class action suits filed in federal courts account for many of the largest settlements, but every year they represent a smaller percentage of the total number of securities suits filed,² explained Dave Bradford, Advisen¹s executive vice president. ³A growing threat to companies and their directors is escalating enforcement actions and lawsuits by regulators.
Also, breach of fiduciary duty suits and other securities suits filed in state courts are on the rise. ² Advisen¹s report, Securities Suits Abound in a Harsh 2009, also reviews trends in awards and settlements, and analyzes the factors likely to influence settlement values in the coming years. Sharply higher losses to shareholders in securities class action suits, as measured by Advisen¹s Market Cap Impact Metric , suggest that settlements may be larger for suits filed in 2009, but it is likely that a higher than average percentage of 2009 suits will be dismissed.
Click here for the full report.
A number of banks and brokerage firms have been targets of regulatory inquiries in cluding Regions Bank for their marketing and sale of the RMK Bond Funds; UBS for the sale of their proprietary Principal Protected Notes (PPNs), Partially Principal Protected Notes (PPPNs), Return Optimation Notes (RONs); OppenheimerFunds for the marketing and sale of the Champion Income Fund; Wachovia Bank for the sale of the Evergreen High Income Fund; and Regional firms for the sale of DBSI Notes and direct Investments and the subequent bankruptcy filings.
IF you have lost money related to these or any other security that is the subject of regulatory inquiry, please contact our office for a free case evaluation. Thank you.
The press release appears below:
Economic turmoil drove a surge in securities lawsuit filings in 2009, according to a new report from Advisen Ltd. The year saw securities lawsuit filings grow at a robust 13 percent rate to 910 suits, eclipsing an already-elevated 2008 at 804 suits. The number of securities class action suits filed was essentially unchanged, with 234 suits filed in 2009 compared to 239 the prior year, while the number of securities fraud suits filed by regulators grew sharply, with a 22 percent increase over 2008.
³Litigators and regulators stayed busy in 2009,² noted John W. Molka III, the author of the report. ³The first half of the year was dominated by credit crisis- and Madoff-related lawsuits. Those types of suits fell off sharply in the second half, but plaintiffs¹ attorneys had a backlog of other cases waiting to be filed.² Although securities class action filings were essentially flat as compared to 2008, they decreased as a percentage of all securities suit filed, coming in at about a quarter of the total. That represents a continuation of a downward trend that began in 2005, when securities class action suits represented about half of all securities suits filed.
³Securities class action suits filed in federal courts account for many of the largest settlements, but every year they represent a smaller percentage of the total number of securities suits filed,² explained Dave Bradford, Advisen¹s executive vice president. ³A growing threat to companies and their directors is escalating enforcement actions and lawsuits by regulators.
Also, breach of fiduciary duty suits and other securities suits filed in state courts are on the rise. ² Advisen¹s report, Securities Suits Abound in a Harsh 2009, also reviews trends in awards and settlements, and analyzes the factors likely to influence settlement values in the coming years. Sharply higher losses to shareholders in securities class action suits, as measured by Advisen¹s Market Cap Impact Metric , suggest that settlements may be larger for suits filed in 2009, but it is likely that a higher than average percentage of 2009 suits will be dismissed.
Click here for the full report.
A number of banks and brokerage firms have been targets of regulatory inquiries in cluding Regions Bank for their marketing and sale of the RMK Bond Funds; UBS for the sale of their proprietary Principal Protected Notes (PPNs), Partially Principal Protected Notes (PPPNs), Return Optimation Notes (RONs); OppenheimerFunds for the marketing and sale of the Champion Income Fund; Wachovia Bank for the sale of the Evergreen High Income Fund; and Regional firms for the sale of DBSI Notes and direct Investments and the subequent bankruptcy filings.
IF you have lost money related to these or any other security that is the subject of regulatory inquiry, please contact our office for a free case evaluation. Thank you.
posted by
William B. Young Jr. Esq.
at
8:23 AM
Tuesday, January 5, 2010
SunTrust Securities Slapped with $4.1 Million Dollar Damage Award
A FINRA arbitration panel found Suntrust Securities (now known as SunTrust Robinson Humphry), the securities brokerage arm of SunTrust Banks, Inc., guilty of defaming one of its former brokers. The award included $1.2 million dollars in compensatory damages, $2.5 million in punitive damages plus attorney's fees and cost. Punitive damages are typically used to punish the wrong doer and dissuade similar conduct in the future. The punitive damage award was the arbitration Panel way of sending a message that such conduct will not be tolerated. The full Wall Street journal article appears below.
A Financial Industry Regulatory Authority arbitration panel has ordered SunTrust Robinson Humphrey, Inc. to pay a
total of $4.1 million to a former institutional salesman who alleged the
company defamed him in a regulatory filing.
Lance B. Beck, a former broker in the Atlanta branch of Suntrust
Robinson Humphrey, the corporate and investment banking services arm of
SunTrust Banks, Inc. (STI), was awarded $1.2 million in compensatory
damages, an additional $2.5 million in punitive damages and $419,000 in
attorney's fees, according to an arbitration order dated Dec. 29.
A statement of claim filed in the case by Beck accused the firm of
including a "devastating" disclosure on his Form U5, which brokerages
must file with regulators when a broker leaves, related to a $2.9
million auction-rate securities transaction. The Finra panel recommended
the language, which included the designation "permitted to resign" as a
reason for Beck's termination and the phrase "failure to follow firm
sales-practice policy," be expunged.
A spokesman for SunTrust Banks didn't immediately return a call
requesting comment.
The attorneys at Colling, Gilbert, Wright and Carter represent brokers and financial advisers in employment related disputes.
A Financial Industry Regulatory Authority arbitration panel has ordered SunTrust Robinson Humphrey, Inc. to pay a
total of $4.1 million to a former institutional salesman who alleged the
company defamed him in a regulatory filing.
Lance B. Beck, a former broker in the Atlanta branch of Suntrust
Robinson Humphrey, the corporate and investment banking services arm of
SunTrust Banks, Inc. (STI), was awarded $1.2 million in compensatory
damages, an additional $2.5 million in punitive damages and $419,000 in
attorney's fees, according to an arbitration order dated Dec. 29.
A statement of claim filed in the case by Beck accused the firm of
including a "devastating" disclosure on his Form U5, which brokerages
must file with regulators when a broker leaves, related to a $2.9
million auction-rate securities transaction. The Finra panel recommended
the language, which included the designation "permitted to resign" as a
reason for Beck's termination and the phrase "failure to follow firm
sales-practice policy," be expunged.
A spokesman for SunTrust Banks didn't immediately return a call
requesting comment.
The attorneys at Colling, Gilbert, Wright and Carter represent brokers and financial advisers in employment related disputes.
posted by
William B. Young Jr. Esq.
at
1:37 PM
Elderly Investor Receives $1.6 Million Including Treble Damages from FINRA Arbitration Panel
In what is believed to be one of the first rulings of its kind, a 95-year old California man received $1.6 million dollar award from a Financial Industry Regulatory Authority arbitration Panel against an on-line brokerage firm finding, among the offenses, elder abuse. The California elder abuse statue, like many similar state statutes (including Florida), allows for treble damages in instances where there is a finding of elder abuse. However, the courts have normally applied this statute in the caretaker relationship wherein a caregiver takes advantage of an elderly and doe not apply in the financial investor/investment advisor relationship. This ruling could send chills throughout the brokerage community as so many claims of negligence and fraud stem from losses suffered by elders and retirees.
Excerpts from the January 5, 2010 Investment News article appear below:
In a rarity, an arbitrator last month cited elder abuse in tripling the damages a discount securities firm must pay a 95-year-old client.
A Financial Industry Regulatory Authority panel awarded the elderly investor, David Wolfson, $1.6 million in a case involving StockCross Financial Services Inc. of Beverley Hills, Calif. Mr. Wolfson accused StockCross, along with two of its brokers, of misconduct and self dealing. He claimed the brokers recommended and solicited unsuitable and overly risky investments that were actively traded on margin.
The claim, which was filed in March, also alleged that StockCross and the two brokers, Thomas B. Cooper and Peter L. Boorn, put Mr. Wolfson's home at risk. According to the complaint, they “encouraged and invited Mr. Wolfson to leverage the equity in his home with a reverse-mortgage transaction to utilize as investment capital.”
While many arbitration claims charge elder abuse, it is extremely rare for Finra panel to cite such abuse in an award, said David Liebrader, an attorney that represents both investors and brokers against securities firm. Under California law, elder abuse entitles plaintiffs triple the damages.
According to the complaint, Mr. Wolfson was a client of Mr. Cooper for almost 20 years, when Mr. Cooper dropped the account in 2008.
A footnote to the lawsuit alleged that Mr. Cooper “quit because he had bilked nearly all of Mr. Wolfson's assets—including the equity in his home, all his cash reserves, all his emergency/medical cash reserves and even the insurance money Mr. Wolfson received to replace his automobile—and there was nothing left to churn.”
The arbitrators awarded Mr. Wolfson $320,000 in compensatory damages and $960,000 in damages for elder abuse. They also awarded the 95-year-old $234,000 in legal fees, expert witness fees of $62,000, various costs of $21,000 and $10,000 as sanctions for failing to follow discovery orders.
StockCross and the brokers will fight the decision and file a motion to vacate, said Martin H. Kaplan, the attorney filing the motion. Such motions to vacate are essentially court appeals of Finra arbitration awards, which are very difficult to overturn.
The attorneys at Colling, Gilbert, Wright & Carter are currently representing numerous retirees in actions against their former brokerage firms and insurance providers and have recovered losses for elders and retirees throughout the United States. If you believe you or someone you know has been taken advantage of by their investment advisor, please contact our firm for a free consultation.
Excerpts from the January 5, 2010 Investment News article appear below:
In a rarity, an arbitrator last month cited elder abuse in tripling the damages a discount securities firm must pay a 95-year-old client.
A Financial Industry Regulatory Authority panel awarded the elderly investor, David Wolfson, $1.6 million in a case involving StockCross Financial Services Inc. of Beverley Hills, Calif. Mr. Wolfson accused StockCross, along with two of its brokers, of misconduct and self dealing. He claimed the brokers recommended and solicited unsuitable and overly risky investments that were actively traded on margin.
The claim, which was filed in March, also alleged that StockCross and the two brokers, Thomas B. Cooper and Peter L. Boorn, put Mr. Wolfson's home at risk. According to the complaint, they “encouraged and invited Mr. Wolfson to leverage the equity in his home with a reverse-mortgage transaction to utilize as investment capital.”
While many arbitration claims charge elder abuse, it is extremely rare for Finra panel to cite such abuse in an award, said David Liebrader, an attorney that represents both investors and brokers against securities firm. Under California law, elder abuse entitles plaintiffs triple the damages.
According to the complaint, Mr. Wolfson was a client of Mr. Cooper for almost 20 years, when Mr. Cooper dropped the account in 2008.
A footnote to the lawsuit alleged that Mr. Cooper “quit because he had bilked nearly all of Mr. Wolfson's assets—including the equity in his home, all his cash reserves, all his emergency/medical cash reserves and even the insurance money Mr. Wolfson received to replace his automobile—and there was nothing left to churn.”
The arbitrators awarded Mr. Wolfson $320,000 in compensatory damages and $960,000 in damages for elder abuse. They also awarded the 95-year-old $234,000 in legal fees, expert witness fees of $62,000, various costs of $21,000 and $10,000 as sanctions for failing to follow discovery orders.
StockCross and the brokers will fight the decision and file a motion to vacate, said Martin H. Kaplan, the attorney filing the motion. Such motions to vacate are essentially court appeals of Finra arbitration awards, which are very difficult to overturn.
The attorneys at Colling, Gilbert, Wright & Carter are currently representing numerous retirees in actions against their former brokerage firms and insurance providers and have recovered losses for elders and retirees throughout the United States. If you believe you or someone you know has been taken advantage of by their investment advisor, please contact our firm for a free consultation.
posted by
William B. Young Jr. Esq.
at
12:07 PM
Wednesday, December 9, 2009
Investor Awarded Damages against UBS in Lehman Structured Note Arbitration Case
In late 2007 and early 2008, UBS packaged and underwrote nearly 2 billion dollars in Lehman Brother backe Principal Protected Notes (PPNs), Partially Principal Protected Notes (PPPNs) and Return Optimization Notes (RONs).
Although the products were allegedly presented to UBS retail clients as conservative, income producing investments suitable for almost any client, in reality, the clients were buying senior unsecured Lehman debt. Worse, the debt was sold at a time when Lehman Brothers was in severe financial difficulty and finding it hard to obtain conventional financing from Wall Street at a reasonable cost.
Thousands of investors were sold these supposedly safe notes only to find them to be nearly worthless after Lehman declared bankruptcy on September 15, 2008. Hundreds of FINRA arbitration cases have been filed on behalf of UBS customers hoping to recoup their losses and these cases are just beginning to be heard by arbitration panels. An excerpt of the Wall Street Journal article appears below and documents one of the first such cases being brought and the award obtained by the investor who filed it.
In what will likely be a closely studied ruling, a small investor was awarded $200,000 after an arbitration panel decided her UBS AG broker inappropriately sold her risky Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. principal-protected notes.
The case is one of the first involving the Lehman notes to be heard by a Financial Industry Regulation Authority arbitration panel. While the arbitration ruling won't set a precedent, it could indicate how rulings on similar cases will play out.
As in most arbitration awards, the three-person arbitration panel didn't give reasons for its findings. Other panels don't have to follow precedent, so they could rule in different ways on nearly identical cases. Still, the case will likely be cited by other plaintiff lawyers.
The case, submitted for arbitration a year ago, was brought against UBS Financial Services, a unit of UBS, which also is being investigated by numerous regulators for alleged issues around its selling of these notes. The client was seeking $300,000 in compensatory damages because the broker recommended structured products. The attorney for the Claimant argued that the notes were "speculative derivative securities" and were "unsuitable" for unsophisticated investors, according to the Finra claim statement.
The broker bought two notes for his client: a $225,000 guaranteed principal protection note and a $75,000 return optimization note. The panel ruled the client should be compensated $150,000 plus interest and attorney fees on the principal protected note; there was no compensation for the $75,000 note.
UBS said it "is disappointed the arbitration panel in this case awarded the claimant any damages, even if it was only half the compensatory losses she was seeking. UBS maintains that any client losses were the direct result of the unexpected and unprecedented failure of Lehman Brothers, which affected all Lehman bondholders."
The attorneys at Colling Gilbert Wright & Carter are currently representing clients in arbitration claims against UBS for losses stemming from the sale of Lehman Brothers Structure Notes. If you have experienced losses from the purchase of a Lehman backed structured product, please contact our office for a free case evaluation. Thank you.
Although the products were allegedly presented to UBS retail clients as conservative, income producing investments suitable for almost any client, in reality, the clients were buying senior unsecured Lehman debt. Worse, the debt was sold at a time when Lehman Brothers was in severe financial difficulty and finding it hard to obtain conventional financing from Wall Street at a reasonable cost.
Thousands of investors were sold these supposedly safe notes only to find them to be nearly worthless after Lehman declared bankruptcy on September 15, 2008. Hundreds of FINRA arbitration cases have been filed on behalf of UBS customers hoping to recoup their losses and these cases are just beginning to be heard by arbitration panels. An excerpt of the Wall Street Journal article appears below and documents one of the first such cases being brought and the award obtained by the investor who filed it.
In what will likely be a closely studied ruling, a small investor was awarded $200,000 after an arbitration panel decided her UBS AG broker inappropriately sold her risky Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. principal-protected notes.
The case is one of the first involving the Lehman notes to be heard by a Financial Industry Regulation Authority arbitration panel. While the arbitration ruling won't set a precedent, it could indicate how rulings on similar cases will play out.
As in most arbitration awards, the three-person arbitration panel didn't give reasons for its findings. Other panels don't have to follow precedent, so they could rule in different ways on nearly identical cases. Still, the case will likely be cited by other plaintiff lawyers.
The case, submitted for arbitration a year ago, was brought against UBS Financial Services, a unit of UBS, which also is being investigated by numerous regulators for alleged issues around its selling of these notes. The client was seeking $300,000 in compensatory damages because the broker recommended structured products. The attorney for the Claimant argued that the notes were "speculative derivative securities" and were "unsuitable" for unsophisticated investors, according to the Finra claim statement.
The broker bought two notes for his client: a $225,000 guaranteed principal protection note and a $75,000 return optimization note. The panel ruled the client should be compensated $150,000 plus interest and attorney fees on the principal protected note; there was no compensation for the $75,000 note.
UBS said it "is disappointed the arbitration panel in this case awarded the claimant any damages, even if it was only half the compensatory losses she was seeking. UBS maintains that any client losses were the direct result of the unexpected and unprecedented failure of Lehman Brothers, which affected all Lehman bondholders."
The attorneys at Colling Gilbert Wright & Carter are currently representing clients in arbitration claims against UBS for losses stemming from the sale of Lehman Brothers Structure Notes. If you have experienced losses from the purchase of a Lehman backed structured product, please contact our office for a free case evaluation. Thank you.
posted by
William B. Young Jr. Esq.
at
11:34 AM
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
CA Attorney General Recovers $1.4 Billion from Wells Fargo for ARS Investors
Thousand of investors were sold auction rate securities (ARS) with the promise the investments were like cash and liquid in a day or two notice. When the auctions failed last year, investors learned these creations of Wall Street were anything but leading to consequential damages as a result of investors not having access to needed funds.
Many state have already entered into settlements with the issuing firms, requiring the securities to be redeemed within a specified period. In the latest such action, the California Attorney General announced a settlement with Wells Fargo Bank. The full text of the November 18, 2009 press release appears below:
San Francisco- Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr. today announced a landmark $1.4 billion settlement with three Wells Fargo affiliates to pay back investors, charities and small businesses that purchased auction-rate securities based on "misleading advice."
"Wells Fargo convinced thousands of investors to purchase auction-rate securities with promises of robust returns and liquidity, but when the market collapsed, investors were left out in the cold," Brown said. "Based on misleading advice, investors bought these risky securities. Now, retail investors and small businesses are finally getting their money back."
Under today's settlement, Wells Fargo will buy back $1.4 billion in non-liquid auction-rate securities from thousands of retail customers, charities, and small businesses nationwide, including about $700 million to California investors. Wells Fargo will also pay legal costs and future monitoring expenses incurred by Brown's office.
In February 2008, nationwide auction markets froze, and investors have been unable to sell their securities.
Earlier this year, Brown filed the suit against three Wells Fargo affiliates-Wells Fargo Investments, LLC; Wells Fargo Brokerage Services, LLC; and Wells Fargo Institutional Securities, LLC-for violating California's Securities Law. Brown's suit contended that Wells Fargo routinely misrepresented, marketed and sold auction-rate securities as safe, liquid and cash-like investments, omitting material facts. The company was also charged with failing to supervise and train its sales agents and selling unsuitable investments.
The lawsuit contended that Wells Fargo ignored clear industry and internal warnings about risk and previous auction failure. In March 2005, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), the "Big 4" accounting firms, and the Financial Accounting Standards Board all determined that auction-rate securities should not be considered "cash equivalents."
Despite these warnings, Wells Fargo continued to aggressively sell and falsely market auction-rate securities as safe, liquid, cash-like investments until the nationwide auction markets froze in early 2008.
In marketing and selling these investments, Wells Fargo failed to inform investors about how auction-rate securities or the auction process worked, as well as the risks and consequences of auction failure.
If you have purchased a auction rate security and have suffered consequential damages or still have money frozen, please contact us for a free case evaluation. Thank you.
Many state have already entered into settlements with the issuing firms, requiring the securities to be redeemed within a specified period. In the latest such action, the California Attorney General announced a settlement with Wells Fargo Bank. The full text of the November 18, 2009 press release appears below:
San Francisco- Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr. today announced a landmark $1.4 billion settlement with three Wells Fargo affiliates to pay back investors, charities and small businesses that purchased auction-rate securities based on "misleading advice."
"Wells Fargo convinced thousands of investors to purchase auction-rate securities with promises of robust returns and liquidity, but when the market collapsed, investors were left out in the cold," Brown said. "Based on misleading advice, investors bought these risky securities. Now, retail investors and small businesses are finally getting their money back."
Under today's settlement, Wells Fargo will buy back $1.4 billion in non-liquid auction-rate securities from thousands of retail customers, charities, and small businesses nationwide, including about $700 million to California investors. Wells Fargo will also pay legal costs and future monitoring expenses incurred by Brown's office.
In February 2008, nationwide auction markets froze, and investors have been unable to sell their securities.
Earlier this year, Brown filed the suit against three Wells Fargo affiliates-Wells Fargo Investments, LLC; Wells Fargo Brokerage Services, LLC; and Wells Fargo Institutional Securities, LLC-for violating California's Securities Law. Brown's suit contended that Wells Fargo routinely misrepresented, marketed and sold auction-rate securities as safe, liquid and cash-like investments, omitting material facts. The company was also charged with failing to supervise and train its sales agents and selling unsuitable investments.
The lawsuit contended that Wells Fargo ignored clear industry and internal warnings about risk and previous auction failure. In March 2005, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), the "Big 4" accounting firms, and the Financial Accounting Standards Board all determined that auction-rate securities should not be considered "cash equivalents."
Despite these warnings, Wells Fargo continued to aggressively sell and falsely market auction-rate securities as safe, liquid, cash-like investments until the nationwide auction markets froze in early 2008.
In marketing and selling these investments, Wells Fargo failed to inform investors about how auction-rate securities or the auction process worked, as well as the risks and consequences of auction failure.
If you have purchased a auction rate security and have suffered consequential damages or still have money frozen, please contact us for a free case evaluation. Thank you.
posted by
William B. Young Jr. Esq.
at
10:22 AM
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
Two Bear Stearns Hedge Fund Managers Acquitted
According to recent Associated Press article, the two Bear Stearns executives who ran hedge funds that crashed in 2007 during the subprime mortgage meltdown and almost toppled the financial markets were acquitted on Tuesday of lying to investors about the looming crisis on Wall Street. The full text of the article appears below:
Jurors found Ralph Cioffi and Matthew Tannin not guilty of conspiracy
and other charges in an alleged fraud that cost 300 investors about $1.6
billion and nearly caused the demise of Bear Stearns itself. The firm barely
avoided bankruptcy in a rescue buyout by JPMorgan Chase & Co. The jury
began deliberating on Monday.
Both men had been charged with three counts of securities fraud and two counts of wire fraud. Cioffi was also charged with insider trading. Tannin left the courtroom without comment.
The Bear Stearns hedge fund collapse, in March 2008, ushered in a waive of investment firm and bank failures, bankruptcies and a near collapse of the entire financial system. Among the failures were Washington Mutual and Lehman Brothers Holdings. Among the near failures were Merrill Lynch, Citigroup, Wachovia, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
If you have lost money in investments issued or sold by any of these institutions, please contact our office for a free case evaluation. Thank you.
Jurors found Ralph Cioffi and Matthew Tannin not guilty of conspiracy
and other charges in an alleged fraud that cost 300 investors about $1.6
billion and nearly caused the demise of Bear Stearns itself. The firm barely
avoided bankruptcy in a rescue buyout by JPMorgan Chase & Co. The jury
began deliberating on Monday.
Both men had been charged with three counts of securities fraud and two counts of wire fraud. Cioffi was also charged with insider trading. Tannin left the courtroom without comment.
The Bear Stearns hedge fund collapse, in March 2008, ushered in a waive of investment firm and bank failures, bankruptcies and a near collapse of the entire financial system. Among the failures were Washington Mutual and Lehman Brothers Holdings. Among the near failures were Merrill Lynch, Citigroup, Wachovia, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
If you have lost money in investments issued or sold by any of these institutions, please contact our office for a free case evaluation. Thank you.
posted by
William B. Young Jr. Esq.
at
5:54 AM
Monday, November 9, 2009
More Information Releaed on Morgan Keegan RMK Bond Fund Probe
Additional information was released last week regarding the SEC's probe of the Morgan Keegan RMK bond funds. Apparently, state regulators are now getting into the game. The investigation results will determine if and how many securities related charges will ultimately be filed against Morgan Keegan for its sale and management of the funds. The article appears below:
Regions Financial Corp., the Birmingham, Ala.-based parent company of Memphis-based Morgan Keegan & Co. Inc., disclosed in a regulatory filing this week more information about the multiple regulatory probes into Morgan Keegan and the group of toxic mutual funds the firm once sold.
In addition to investigations from staff of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Regions said state securities regulators also are in the mix.
“A joint state task force has indicated that it is considering charges against Morgan Keegan, related entities and certain of their officers in connection with sales of the funds,” the disclosure reads. “Discussions are ongoing with the state securities commissioners in the task force about the proposed charges and possible resolutions.”
In the Sept. 24, 2008, issue of The Memphis News, sister publication of The Daily News, more details of the state probe into the Morgan Keegan mutual funds were reported. At that time, eight state securities regulators were investigating the issue.
If you have lost money related to the Regions Morgan Keegan RMK bond funds, please contact this office for a complimentary case evaluation. Thank you.
Regions Financial Corp., the Birmingham, Ala.-based parent company of Memphis-based Morgan Keegan & Co. Inc., disclosed in a regulatory filing this week more information about the multiple regulatory probes into Morgan Keegan and the group of toxic mutual funds the firm once sold.
In addition to investigations from staff of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Regions said state securities regulators also are in the mix.
“A joint state task force has indicated that it is considering charges against Morgan Keegan, related entities and certain of their officers in connection with sales of the funds,” the disclosure reads. “Discussions are ongoing with the state securities commissioners in the task force about the proposed charges and possible resolutions.”
In the Sept. 24, 2008, issue of The Memphis News, sister publication of The Daily News, more details of the state probe into the Morgan Keegan mutual funds were reported. At that time, eight state securities regulators were investigating the issue.
If you have lost money related to the Regions Morgan Keegan RMK bond funds, please contact this office for a complimentary case evaluation. Thank you.
posted by
William B. Young Jr. Esq.
at
6:31 AM
Have you been
a victim of fraud?
We Can Help
Previous Posts
- Report Shows Individual Securities Case Filings Ro...
- SunTrust Securities Slapped with $4.1 Million Doll...
- Elderly Investor Receives $1.6 Million Including T...
- Investor Awarded Damages against UBS in Lehman Str...
- CA Attorney General Recovers $1.4 Billion from Wel...
- Two Bear Stearns Hedge Fund Managers Acquitted
- More Information Releaed on Morgan Keegan RMK Bond...
- SEC Taps "Wizz Kid" to Head Up Enforcement Divisio...
- Citigroup Fined for Failure to Supervise Stock Tra...
- FINRA Extending Public Arbitrator Pilot Program
Archives
- May 2008
- June 2008
- July 2008
- August 2008
- September 2008
- October 2008
- November 2008
- December 2008
- January 2009
- February 2009
- March 2009
- April 2009
- May 2009
- June 2009
- July 2009
- August 2009
- September 2009
- October 2009
- November 2009
- December 2009
- January 2010
