Posts Tagged ‘Class action’

High Frequency Trading Securities Fraud Class Action Filed Against “Flash Boys” Exchanges and Major Brokerages

May 22nd, 2014
English: A view from the Member's Gallery insi...

English: A view from the Member’s Gallery inside the NYSE (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Many large brokerages, high speed trading firms, and U.S. stock exchanges were named as defendants in a securities fraud class action lawsuit filed by Providence, Rhode Island on April 18, 2014.  The Defendants in the high frequency trading securities fraud class action are accused of various types of conduct, including insider trading and manipulating trading within the U.S. securities markets.  The manipulation is alleged to have been achieved via high frequency trading based upon access to market information not available to the general investing public and other illegal conduct.

A few of the defendants targeted in the lawsuit include NASDAQ Stock Market, LLC, New York Stock Exchange LLC, Chicago Board Options Exchange Inc., BATS Global Markets, Inc. stock exchanges, a number of large brokerage firms, including Citigroup, Inc., Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC and a number of high speed trading firms or “Flash Trading” firms.

Investors who purchased stock in the United States are being represented in a securities fraud class action.  The transactions at issue in the class complaint occurred from April of 2009 forward.  The complaint alleges the Defendants’ actions resulted in billions of dollars in damages to the investor class.  The securities fraud misconduct alleged against the class defendants includes:  contemporaneous trading, front-running, spoofing, and rebate arbitrage.  The lawsuit further explains that using certain devices and manipulations, the defendants were able to pursue false schemes and fraudulent courses of business that were intended to defraud investors who were trading securities.

Securities regulators, including the S.E.C., Justice Department and Commodities Exchange Commission are reviewing the high frequency trading industry independently of the Providence Class action filing last month.

The Providence high frequency trading class action and the ongoing regulator investigations into the high frequency trading industries potential for fraud and market manipulation will hopefully further uncover and bring to light trading and market practices by large market players that at best involve questionable conduct.  Securities regulators should act quickly to investigate and protect the general investing public from any questionable or illegal conduct by the trading and investment industry.

With billions of dollars in losses alleged and allegations of billions of dollars in gains by the Defendants, can a Hollywood movie be far off?   Stay tuned.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Securities Fraud | Comments (0)

Principal Protected Notes, Lehman Brothers and UBS Financial Services Arbitrations

June 14th, 2011
Head office of Lehman Brothers in Frankfurt, G...

Image via Wikipedia

A recent class action suit against Lehman Brothers as well as an enforcement proceeding against UBS Financial Services by New Hampshire has encouraged investors to hire investment recovery litigators and pursue claims against firms selling Lehman Brothers principal protected notes in an attempt to recoup their financial losses. According to New Hampshire’s claim, UBS engaged in broker malpractice by failing to disclose the risky nature of principal protected notes (PPNs). As a result, New Hampshire investors lost 2.5 million.
Principal Protected Notes
Principal protected notes (PPNs) are structured investments that have been around for years. Like all structured investments, PPNs connect CDs and fixed income notes to the performance of currencies, commodities, equities and/or other assets. Structures investment products are legitimate investments, and principal protected notes are a legitimate form of them.
Structured investments may have partial or full principal protection. Some pay a variable sum at their maturity. Others pay by coupons that are connected to a particular index or security. Given their risk and return reports, structured investments in general are appropriate for the portfolios of many investors.
In short, they are unsecured promissory notes connect to referenced securities, and as such they are not without risks. Unfortunately, according to claimants, investment firms committed broker malpractice by marketing these products to customers as safe investment alternatives.
Marketing of PPNs to Retail Investors
Beginning in 2005, PPNs became a particularly popular type of structured investment for retail customers. Noting their increased sales to non-institutional customers, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) expressed concern that brokers were committing a breach of fiduciary duty by marketing principal protected notes to retail customers as “conservative” investments with “predictable current income.” In fact, the agency issued a notice to brokerage firms in September of 2005 that clear guidance regarding the risks involved in these financial products should be given to retail customers.
PPNs, Lehman Brothers & Bankruptcy
When PPNs mature, investors typically receive a return on the principal from the borrower. In this case, the borrower was Lehman Brothers. Unfortunately for investors, when Lehman Brothers filed for bankruptcy, even the principal on these notes became unprotected. Lehman’s PPN obligations on the notes were unsecured–and behind secured notes in the creditor bankruptcy line up.
The Case Against Lehman Brothers
Unsurprisingly, investors are now seeking to recover their financial losses. Although the specific allegations of claimants vary, all assert that Lehman Brothers, selling brokerages like UBS Financial Services and others, committed broker malpractice by falsely marketing PPNs as conservative investment product alternatives.
Specifically, claimants allege, these PPN products were depicted as 100 percent principal protected if investors held them to maturity.
Brokers also presented the PPNs as principal protected if the indices underlying them held their value. Furthermore, firms and brokers did not warn customers of the risks involved in investing in PPNs, nor did they warn them about what would happen if the underlying backer of the notes, Lehman Brothers, defaulted. Customers were also not made aware of the Lehman Brothers’ decline and that its fall could affect their investment’s value, making it in effect worthless.
It’s also been alleged that firms continued to push PPNs after Bear Stearns collapse, a failure which should have been a clear indicator or “red flag” of the risks involved in investing in banks that hold large numbers of subprime mortgages. It’s also been alleged that firms pushed PPNs on retail customers at a time when they themselves were reducing their PPN holdings. The accuracy or falsity of these claims has yet to be determined. But if firms did indeed recommend PPNs while reducing their own holdings, litigators are likely to claim broker fraud rather than simply failure to disclose.
Did your financial advisor mislead you into investing in PPNs, causing you to suffer financial loss as a result? If so, you need the advice of an investment recovery counsel. Contact Carlson Law in San Diego at 619-544-9300 today for a free consultation.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Broker Fraud, Fiduciary Duty Breach, Investment Fraud, Negligent Misrepresentation, Securities Arbitration, Securities Fraud, Securities Law, Securities Litigation, Stock Fraud, Stock Loss | Comments (2)

Halliburton Class Action for Securities Fraud, Case Reinstated – a Victory for Claimants

June 9th, 2011
Supreme Court of the United States Seal

Image by DonkeyHotey via Flickr

According to a June 6, 2011 article by James Vicini for Reuters (“Halliburton securities fraud lawsuit reinstated”) the U.S. Supreme Court has reinstated a securities fraud class-action lawsuit filed against Halliburton in 2001 by pension and mutual fund investors on behalf of all buyers of Halliburton stock between June 1999 and December 2001.
Claimants in the case charge that Halliburton fraudulently overstated its engineering and construction revenues as well as the positive impact its merger with Dresser Industries would have on the company. At the same time, claimants allege, Halliburton misled investors regarding the company’s liabilities due to asbestos.
Because of these misrepresentations, claimants argue, Halliburton stock was artificially inflated and, when the company revealed the true state of its affairs, its stock fell dramatically, causing financial loss to investors.
The lawsuit had formerly been thrown out of court by a Texas federal judge who ruled that evidence of loss causation, a link between the claimants’ losses and the company’s actions, was insufficient. And an appeals court upheld that decision.
Their rulings created confusion among appeals courts regarding the necessity of claimants to prove loss causation early in the litigation process.
The Supreme Court disagreed with the judge and the appeals court, ruling that stock fraud plaintiffs do not have to prove loss causation simply in order to pursue a class-action lawsuit. That’s good news not only for claimants in the Erica P. John Fund v. Halliburton case, but also for injured investors throughout the nation who’ve had their suits quickly dismissed due to insufficient initial proof of loss causation.

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Fiduciary Duty Breach, Investment Fraud, Negligent Misrepresentation, Securities Fraud, Securities Law, Securities Litigation, Stock Loss | Comments (1)

Ameriprise Puts Securities America Up for Sale

May 6th, 2011

After filing its first quarter financials, the parent company of Securities America, Ameriprise, announced plans to sell the embattled firm. Securities America, which is in the process of negotiating settlement of a class action suit filed against it for investment fraud, allegedly sold clients hundreds of millions of fraudulent Medical Capital and Provident Royalties securities.

An April 25, 2011, article in Investment News (“Ameriprise Shopping Securities America”) describes Securities America as financially strong. A follow-up article on the 26th, however, puts that somewhat into question as it announced a whopping $115 million first quarter loss. Nevertheless, Ameriprise asserts that Securities America can operate without disruption thanks to its parent company’s sound financial backing.

Can Ameriprise find a buyer for Securities America? According to Ameriprise management, it’s in the process of “identifying” one now. The sale, it claims, would let the company “focus on growth opportunities” while Ameriprise focuses on “Ameriprise branded-advisor business.” The company also claims that the sale would not affect settlement of the current securities lawsuit.

Tags: , , , , , ,
Posted in Broker Fraud, Fiduciary Duty Breach, Investment Fraud, Negligent Misrepresentation, Securities Arbitration, Securities Fraud, Securities Law, Securities Litigation, Stock Loss | Comments (0)

MEDICAL CAPITAL INVESTOR AWARDED $400,000 BY FINRA ARBITRATOR

April 29th, 2011
Seal of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commi...

Image via Wikipedia

In 2010 Peak Securities, a brokerage house that promoted and sold Medical Capital securities, was found guilty of fraud, negligence, breach of contract, and breach of fiduciary duty by a Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) mediator. In this award against brokers selling fraudulent Medical Capital investments, an investor who experienced financial loss due to Medical Capital securities received a $400,000.00 award.

 

Hundreds of investors who bought fraudulent Medical Capital notes through brokerage firms have filed arbitration claims against those firms.  And in our opinion, this judgment for a Medical Capital investor will be the first of many.

The SEC exposes Medical Capital fraud.

The heart of a 2010 Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) complaint concerning investment fraud focused on Medical Capital.

Medical Capital professed to supply financial backing to providers of healthcare. According to company execs, they bought the accounts receivables of these providers and made loans to them. The accounts receivables were supposedly sold as notes to investors via private placements, also known as Regulation D offerings.

But it appears to have been a Ponzi scheme.

Medical Capital spent millions of investor dollars on administrative costs. Executives also spent millions on a Hollywood film, a yacht, and other extravagant items. And they failed to make interest and principal payments in a timely manner. They even pretended that no previous notes had been defaulted on.

But that’s not all.

According to the SEC receiver, hundreds of millions in medical receivables that had been packaged as Regulation D offerings were either overvalued or fictional. That’s right! Some had never even existed.

It’s been estimated that 20,000 investors bought $2.2 billion worth of Medical Capital notes, approximately $1 billion of which are in default. And that means massive losses for investors.

Comparable cases are pending.

In early 2010, another brokerage firm dealing in Medical Capital notes was sued, this time by the Massachusetts Securities Division of the Office of the Secretary of the Commonwealth. According to the lawsuit, Securities America, Inc. committed wide scale fraud–hundreds of millions of dollars worth of it—by marketing Medical Capital notes. The state alleges that the firm not only failed to perform with due diligence, but it also failed to disclose obvious risks to its investors, despite the urgings of its own president and a third party.

At Carlson Law, we believe that the arbitration award against Peak Securities foreshadows future arbitration awards against Securities America and the other brokerage firms that sold Medical Capital as well as other fraudulent and/or high-risk private placements such as Provident and DBSI.  For further questions and information, contact our securities fraud attorney in San Diego today.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Broker Fraud, Investment Fraud, Securities Arbitration, Securities Fraud, Securities Law, Securities Litigation, Stock Fraud | Comments (15)