News & Commentary

Investors Beware: Falling Wall Street Pay Could Wind Up Hurting You!

by zamassoc on January 27th, 2012 at 4:12 am : Comments 000

Below is a recent article published by Securities Lawyer Jake Zamansky on Forbes.com - 01/26/12

Investment bankers and stock brokers are hurting. Bonuses for bankers have been slashed across Wall Street. As James Stewart noted over the weekend in The New York Times, the bankers and traders at Morgan Stanley were particularly stunned as the firm announced it was capping cash bonuses for 2011 at $125,000! That’s huge money for the 99%, but a pittance by today’s standards on the Street.

Stock brokers, meanwhile, the retail guys who sell stocks in offices across the country, are also hurting because the commissions they live on are down, way down, by most industry accounts. Last year’s volatility has scared the bejesus out of the Mom-and-Pop investor, and they are staying away from the stock market in droves, hurting brokers’ pay.

In fact, the lack of business for brokers is so bad, that many small and middle-tier firms have begun to wither on the vine and even shut their doors.

These developments lead us to ponder the mindset of the financially hurting banker and broker. We are led to one conclusion.

To make up for declining bonuses and commissions, bankers will be more inclined than ever to pump out dubious derivative products. We’re talking about products like those high-risk and inscrutable reverse convertibles, leveraged and inverse ETFs, reverse Chinese stock mergers and the like. The very ones that wiped out so many investors in 2008 and its aftermath.

Meanwhile, retail stock brokers, struggling to make the payments on the second or third home and kids’ private-school tuition, will be tempted to recommend unsuitable and expensive investment strategies for their clients. That means more calls by brokers on clients to trade on margin, to buy high-fee variable annuities, to make costly “switches” of the products and to load up on illiquid, dubiously priced and secretly dangerous non-traded REITs.

Over the next few years, investors will be particularly vulnerable to brokers touting complex, whiz-bang investments that promise high returns but often deliver heartache and sleepless nights.

Why? Well, historically low interest rates make it nearly impossible for investors, particularly retirees, to keep up with the ever-increasing cost of living.

With the announcement on Wednesday that the Federal Reserve will keep interest rates near zero at least until late 2014, the door opened wider to the unscrupulous of Wall Street.

The regulators, so slow to catch up to the crooks during the financial crisis, may now have been jolted out of their slumber to the dangers brewing in Wall Street’s toxic financial-engineering laboratories.

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority is attempting to turn up the heat on complicated investment products, as industry paper InvestmentNews noted last week.

In a recent regulatory notice, Finra outlined characteristics of what it calls “complex products,” which could include structure notes, inverse or leverage ETFs, hedge funds and securitized products such as asset-backed securities.

Finra identified duties that fall to individual brokers in understanding complicated products and explaining them to customers, according to InvestmentNews. The notice also said that stock brokers should consider whether less complex and cheaper products might achieve the same objectives.

Will such sound thinking enter the minds of Wall Street in the coming months, in light of dwindling bonuses and commissions?

Unlikely. For one thing is certain: many Wall Street bankers and brokers fiercely resist cutting back on their consumption. So rest easy, yacht and Ferrari dealers. But as the banks try to push more complex and expensive products on to their customers, investors may be the ones losing sleep.

Disclosure: Zamansky & Associates are securities attorneys representing investors in arbitration and federal and state litigation against financial institutions, including Morgan Stanley, in cases involving complex financial products including structured products, ETFs, mortgage-backed securities, variable annuities and hedge funds.

Read article by Securities Lawyer Jake Zamansky on Forbes.com

Filed under Forbes Articles, Wall Street

SEC Struggles with Investor-Protection Rules

by zamassoc on January 24th, 2012 at 8:22 pm : Comments 000

Below is a recent article published by Securities Attorney Jake Zamansky on Forbes.com

The Securities and Exchange Commission, after over a year of “study,” still cannot pull the trigger on new investor-protection rules it was tasked with implementing under the Dodd-Frank Act.

The proposed “fiduciary duty” rule would raise the standard of conduct for financial advisors in their dealings with investors. After plenty of wrangling, the securities industry and investor groups have finally blessed the new rule, but the SEC has failed to act. There is no more time to wait, and if a new Presidential administration were to take over, the rule could be scotched altogether.

Likewise, the SEC in December redefined how people calculate their net worth, altering the rules on who has access to glittering but dangerous private investments known as “private placements.”

But the SEC has failed to change the “accredited investor” rule in the most important ways. This is the rule governing which investors are allowed to purchase risky private placements—such as illiquid REITs and private partnerships. Under the current rule, if the investor has sufficient wealth ($200,000 annual income and over $1 million net worth), they can buy into these dangerous investments regardless of their financial sophistication.

In other words, Paris Hilton would qualify but an indebted Harvard MBA would not, as an attorney noted last weekend in the New York Times.

What is needed in a new rule is this: better “plain English” disclosure of risk; a limitation on the percentage of one’s net worth that can be allocated to such risky ventures, say 10% to 15%; and real-world, present-day financial requirements which have been updated rather than the current standard, which was set in the 1970s when a $1-million net worth was rare.

By now, the SEC was supposed to have made significant upgrades to protect investors. It simply hasn’t, claiming it needs more time to review the fiduciary issue and finagling with numbers on the other.

It’s 2012, nearly five years since the collapse of two Bear Stearns hedge funds ushered in the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. Wild market swings are now par for the course. Teetering economies in the European Union and a political stalemate at home have made “sovereign default” a household phrase. And unfathomable misconduct at firms like MF Global continues to surface. All of this spells anxiety and risk for retail investors.

The SEC has had plenty of time to implement “lessons learned” from the global financial crisis. While some positive steps have been taken, it needs to do much more. Implementing the “fiduciary duty” rule and revising the “accredited investor” rule would be meaningful moves in the right direction, and the time to make those moves was yesterday.

Zamansky & Associates are securities attorneys representing investors in arbitrations and state and federal civil actions against brokerage firms, banks and other financial institutions. Past and current representations have included actions related to the Bear Stearns hedge funds and the collapse of MF Global.

Read article by Securities Lawyer Jake Zamansky on Forbes.com

Filed under Forbes Articles, Jake Zamansky, SEC

The Investor’s Legal Forecast for 2012: The Weather Looks Good

by zamassoc on January 12th, 2012 at 4:58 pm : Comments 000

Below is a recent article published by Securities Attorney Jake Zamansky on Forbes.com:

Santa came early for investors this Christmas, and it looks like the gift he left may be a durable one.

The fat, jolly guy bedecked in red left a welcome present for clients wronged by Wall Street, in the form of a New York Court of Appeals decision. Issued December 20, the decision reversed decades of precedent handed down by state and federal courts that prevented clients from suing investment firms in New York state court.

The case involves the all-important Martin Act, a New York statute that Eliot Spitzer infamously used to wail on investment banks like Merrill Lynch almost a decade ago.

The Court says that the Martin Act does not eliminate investors’ common-law claims against securities firms.

But why was the issue even before the court? Because one of those investment banks, J.P. Morgan, had argued in a lawsuit that the Martin Act gives the attorney general exclusive authority over fraudulent securities and investment practices.

Prior to this ruling, numerous courts had dismissed investors’ lawsuits, deciding that the Martin Act prohibited them.

The decision, advocated by New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, paves the way for investors to sue banks and other financial institutions for fraud and misconduct under state law.

The client of J.P. Morgan Investment Management, Assured Guaranty (UK) Ltd., can go ahead with its lawsuit. It’s a little tricky to follow, but Assured claims a breach of fiduciary duty and gross negligence, alleging J.P. Morgan bought risky mortgage-backed securities while committing to a conservative investment policy for a reinsurance company whose obligations Assured guaranteed.

And beyond the Martin Act decision, recent developments in other cases should leave investors feeling good about 2012.

A number of courts have recently ruled that financial institutions may be held responsible for their role in facilitating or failing to detect Ponzi schemes that victimize their customers. This could herald the reversal of a recent trend insulating IRA custodians and banks from liability for their negligence and facilitation of these criminal schemes. The Second Circuit will hear oral argument this week on a $400-million case against Bank of America along these lines.

A New York federal court has upheld two massive class actions against Citigroup on behalf of shareholders and bondholders who were misled by Citigroup’s false statements concerning its exposure to toxic mortgage debt. This may well mean that banks will be held accountable to investors for their misconduct and, indirectly, for their role in triggering the global financial crisis.

New York federal Judge Rakoff in a highly publicized case recently rejected a proposed $285 million settlement between the SEC and Citigroup concerning the bank’s misdeeds in creating residential mortgage-backed securities, selling them to its customers, then betting against the securities for their own account. Judge Rakoff is holding both the SEC’s and Citigroup’s feet to the fire and set a trial date for the summer of 2012. If the case goes to trial, expect explosive evidence to see the light of day that would otherwise have been hidden from view. Such evidence could prove devastating to Citigroup’s defense of private litigations by small investors on these same subjects.

So there you have it, a pretty fair legal outlook after years of turmoil in the markets.

Disclosure: Zamansky & Associates are securities attorneys representing investors in arbitration and state and federal litigation against financial institutions, including Bank of America and Citigroup.

Read article by Securities Lawyer Jake Zamansky on Forbes.com

Filed under Forbes Articles, Martin Act, Wall Street
and

Hedge Fund Abuses Hurt All Investors

by zamassoc on December 16th, 2011 at 3:59 am : Comments 000

Below is a recent article published by Securities Attorney Jake Zamansky on Forbes.com:

The reputation of the opaque and rarefied world of Wall Street hedge funds has been severely tarnished of late. One has to look no further than the shocking fall from grace of former hedge fund honcho Raj Rajaratnam to find Exhibit A.

Rajaratnam, if you recall, is the founder of the Galleon Group, and was sentenced this October to 11 years in jail after being convicted on 14 counts of conspiracy and securities fraud.

The Justice Department moved aggressively against the Raj and his cohorts up and down the Street. Prosecutors leveled allegations of insider trading and spotlighted the ugly reality that many in the hedge fund business simply cheat and rely on their privileged access to inside information to make their millions…or billions.

Now we hear allegations that hedge fund managers have select, preferred customers who can move in and out of funds hassle-free while other investors remain stuck.

According to reports in this weekend’s Wall Street Journal (subscription required for full article) and The New York Times, the Securities and Exchange Commission is exploring whether Harbinger Capital Partners LLC agreed to allow some investors, including—drum roll please—the Goldman Sachs Group to cash out of their holdings while barring other clients from doing the same. Principals at Harbinger have been threatened with civil fraud charges, according to the reports.

Apparently at hedge funds like Harbinger it pays to be Goldman Sachs. You get in first, when the market and money is hot, then you get out first, just as the market is cool and turning cold. Other investors remain stuck, but who cares? You’ve turned a profit, even if it has nothing to do with investing acumen but rather rests entirely on your connections and muscle on the Street.

If the allegations are true, the gates on hedge funds apply to regular investors but not the privileged few, who hold a secret key and can slip out whenever they choose.

Why is this important?

Most “mom-and-pop” investors have no chance of amassing the necessary wealth—$1 million—to access the hedge fund space. Sure, it’s fun to read in the press about hedge fund kings and their political ambitions. And the gold-plated plumbing in their sailboats makes good gossip fodder. But most of us will never put money in a hedge fund.

But that doesn’t mean that what happens in hedge funds is irrelevant. First, the kind of conduct that is being reported here reflects a fraud on investors and epitomizes what’s wrong with the secret world of hedge funds.

And second, hedge funds are not so off-the-radar as one may think. Institutional investors of all stripes—including state retirement plans and college endowments—have increasingly sunk their assets into hedge funds in recent years. These institutional investors want to avoid the wild ride of the broad stock market and have recently begun looking to “alternative” investments like hedge funds for their returns.

Think about it: colleges and state workers’ retirement plans. That’s about as mainstream as it gets. Did Harbinger let Goldman Sachs cash out while an employee retirement fund had to eat its losses? Is this common practice on Wall Street, and, if so, how much has that cost investors who don’t receive special privileges?

That’s why investigating, exposing and punishing the abuses of hedge funds, including how they get secrets and give the big investors the best treatment, must continue to be a priority for watchdogs in Washington. As we all dig through the rubble of the financial crisis, it’s clearer than ever that when an investor like Goldman Sachs is given special treatment, another investor will get stuck holding the bag.

Read article by Securities Lawyer Jake Zamansky on Forbes.com

Filed under Hedge Funds
and

Misled on MF Global Fox News Interview with Greta Van Susteren

by zamassoc on December 9th, 2011 at 3:20 am : Comments 000

Jake Zamansky discussed the firm’s case on behalf of MF Global employees against Jon Corzine and others with Fox News legal expert and host of On The Record Greta Van Susteren.

*****
Watch video on Fox News

Filed under Jon Corzine, MF Global, MF Global Employees
and ,

Toothless Watchdogs Need More Bite

by zamassoc on December 6th, 2011 at 3:37 pm : Comments 000

Below is a recent article published by Securities Attorney Jake Zamansky on Forbes.com:

A refreshing-if improbable-turn of events in the upcoming Presidential campaign would be for candidates to weigh in on how they would actually strengthen the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. Only by giving them more firepower that we will see justice for what the big banks did over the past few years-and hopefully head off a repeat performance like we just saw with MF Global.

Fat chance. Talk about making government agencies stronger is not in vogue these days; indeed, it’s anathema to many on the right. The Republican field competes to one-up each other on how many agencies they would eliminate (even if they can’t always remember which ones they would put on the chopping block).

But if the two parties could only put aside their differences for a few moments and look at the damage done to investors since 2008, they would see the necessity of giving much sharper teeth to the government agencies that oversee the markets. Simply put, our regulators are not up to the job of investor protection. They’re like toothless watchdogs, all woof, snarl and howl, with little or no ability to bite.

Indeed, it’s the job of the President and Congress to give the regulators, namely the SEC and CFTC, the power, authority and resources-the snapping jaw-to meet their missions and keep market players honest.

As James Stewart noted in a column in the New York Times over the weekend, Wall Street’s giant firms-and their top executives-have so far dodged a day of legal reckoning from their roles in the collapse of the global economy.

Sure, everybody on the Street knew that creating crummy mortgage-backed securities for clients and then betting against them was immoral. Whether it was criminal is a different question and law enforcement has so far shied away from taking a hard line against the perps.

Goldman Sachs, in the person of ”Fabulous Fab” Tourré, last year had its day in the sun for putting together such a deal and then shorting it. The latest headline-grabbing case is the $1 billion package of mortgages that Citigroup sold to clients late in the boom. Citigroup traders then put a tidy $160 million profit in the company’s coffers by taking a short position on some of the mortgages, while clients lost $700 million.

After Citigroup and the SEC tried to settle fraud charges for $285 million, federal judge Jed Rakoff last week tossed out the agreement, saying the proposed settlement didn’t give him enough facts to evaluate the settlement and ordered the two sides to trial.

And here’s where the politicians can sharpen the teeth of our regulators.

A huge stumbling block for regulators is the watery semantics contained in the offering documents on deals that collapsed during the mortgage crisis, as well as the murky rules that govern what can and cannot be done by big banks pitching their clients on exotic products and then trading those same products for the banks’ own accounts.

President Obama has said as much. “One of the biggest problems with the collapse of Lehman the subsequent financial crisis and the whole subprime lending fiasco is that a lot of that stuff wasn’t necessarily illegal, it was just immoral or inappropriate or reckless,” he said at a press conference in October.

Last week, Mary Schapiro, the head of the SEC, formally asked Congress for stronger penalties to punish and deter securities law violations, to give the SEC sharper teeth.

Sounds reasonable and entirely necessary. We hope the Presidential candidates agree.

Disclosure: Zamansky & Associates are securities attorneys representing investors in arbitration and state and federal litigation against large financial institutions including Goldman Sachs and Citigroup.

Read article by Securities Lawyer Jake Zamansky on Forbes.com

Filed under SEC, Securities Arbitration, Securities Law News
and

Zamansky & Associates Files Federal Class Action Lawsuit on Behalf of MF Global Employees

by zamassoc on December 5th, 2011 at 10:28 pm : Comments 000

December 5, 2011 - Zamansky & Associates today filed a federal class action lawsuit on behalf of MF Global employees who purchased MF Global shares .

** View Class Action Complaint

The suit is brought against the firm’s former Chief Executive Jon Corzine, other senior executives and directors on behalf of current and former employees who acquired stock in the company while Corzine led the firm. The complaint alleges that the defendants provided false information regarding the company’s financial condition and made statements that artificially inflated the stock price.

Plaintiffs are seeking class action status for all employees who acquired MF Global shares between May 20, 2010 and Nov. 3, 2011 through company-supported plans. Describing the case theory, Jacob Zamansky said, “Jon Corzine and the board breached their fiduciary duty to their employees and destroyed their careers and retirement savings.” At the time of the company’s bankruptcy Oct. 31, the firm had close to 2,900 employees.

Zamansky & Associates is working with co-counsel Girard Gibbs LLP on this matter.

Read Wall Street Journal article about class action lawsuit

Filed under Class Action Lawsuits, Jon Corzine, MF Global, MF Global Employees
and

Rakoff Rejection of Citi / SEC Settlement Pierces Wall Street’s Alice-in-Wonderland Thinking

by zamassoc on November 29th, 2011 at 6:17 pm : Comments 000

Below is a recent article published by Securities Lawyer Jake Zamansky on Forbes.com:

It’s not every day that a federal judge issues a landmark decision, particularly one that could help investors wanting to sue giant financial institutions. But that’s what happened Monday, when U.S. District Judge Jed Rakoff rejected a proposed $285 million settlement between Citigroup and the Securities and Exchange Commission that would have allowed Citi to put the SEC’s mortgage-backed-securities case in the rear-view mirror.

The SEC claims that Citigroup misled investors in a $1-billion fund holding assets the bank had projected would lose money. And just as Citigroup was selling the fund to investors, it shorted many of the fund’s underlying assets for its own account.

Under the proposed settlement, Citigroup would have avoided admitting any wrongdoing. Instead, Judge Rakoff struck a blow for investors by employing a little common sense-he essentially ruled that if a court is going to sign off on a settlement, it has to understand the merits of the allegations.

Since 1972, the SEC has allowed defendants like Citigroup to settle cases and pay substantial fines without admitting liability. Why should a bank pay a huge fine without admitting wrongdoing? According to Bloomberg news, the SEC adopted that policy so defendants could later claim publicly-and in private litigation-that they really hadn’t done anything wrong.

Such is the Alice-in-Wonderland logic of Wall Street. In the case of Citigroup, the bank was apparently happy to write a check for $285 million, as long as it didn’t have to admit it had done anything wrong. That admission would make for bad publicity for banks like Citigroup and also hand a hammer to investors looking to sue the bank.

Judge Rakoff is telling us that these “no-fault” settlements make no sense. How can a judge sign off on such a settlement when he or she doesn’t have enough facts to fairly evaluate it?

His decision also means that the SEC should only start fights it can finish, and shouldn’t plan on “wrist-slap” settlements. “If the allegations of the complaint are true, this is a very good deal for Citigroup,” he wrote. “Even if they are untrue, it is a mild and modest cost of doing business.”

Rather than allow Citi-or really its shareholders-to just cut a check and move on, Rakoff scheduled a public trial regarding Citi’s misconduct for this coming July.

The four-years-and-counting Great Recession, caused in large part by Wall Street’s deceptive packaging subprime-mortgage junk products, has apparently had an impact on Judge Rakoff’s thinking. “In any case like this that touches on the transparency of financial markets whose gyrations have so depressed our economy and debilitated our lives, there is an overriding public interest in knowing the truth,” Judge Rakoff wrote. The proposed settlement is “neither fair, nor reasonable, nor adequate, nor in the public interest.”

Thank you, Judge Rakoff, for forcing Wall Street to finally face the music instead of allowing them to go on living in Wonderland.

Disclosure: Zamansky & Associates are securities attorneys representing investors in arbitrations and state and federal litigations against financial institutions, including Citigroup.

Read article by Securities Attorney Jake Zamansky on Forbes.com

Filed under Citigroup, SEC, Wall Street
and

The Search for MF Global’s Missing 1.2 Billion Video

by zamassoc on November 29th, 2011 at 4:58 pm : Comments 000

Zamansky & Associates LLC (“Zamansky”) is investigating MF Global Holdings Inc. (“MF Global”) for possible violation of the federal securities laws.

Below is a video from CNBC about the search for the missing MF Global money with Jake Zamansky talking about the class action lawsuits filed against MF Global.

**

Filed under MF Global, MF Global Employees, Zamansky Videos
and

MF Global: Where Did the Money Go?

by zamassoc on November 16th, 2011 at 4:18 am : Comments 000

Below is a recent article published by Securities Lawyer Jake Zamansky on Forbes.com:

When you’re a “Master of the Universe” like Jon Corzine, taking huge risks and betting billions of dollars on European government bonds is no problem-it’s fun! It’s what you do!

But when it comes to finding $600 million of missing client funds when your firm, MF Global, collapses into bankruptcy, that’s a different matter. Responsibly keeping track of client money, keeping accurate books and records-those are the basic skills that this Master of the Universe apparently lacks.

Indeed, acting prudently and putting your clients’ interests ahead of your own is kind of boring. And it is becoming painfully obvious that the Wall Street titans who ran MF Global can’t find $600 million.

As Rick Perry so memorably put it: Oops.

The drama of missing customer money that is unfolding from the wreckage of MF Global is enough to turn your stomach. Simply put, where on earth is the $600 million in MF Global customer funds?

According to a report in Tuesday’s Wall Street Journal [subscription required for full article], the hundreds of millions of dollars missing from MF Global accounts may have disappeared four days before the firm filed for bankruptcy at the end of October.

Regulators are trying to assess whether hundreds of millions of dollars in customer accounts were transferred in the week before the firm’s collapse. In a highly suspicious finding, regulators from the Commodity Futures Trading Commission say that those transfers were not recorded in MF Global’s general ledger.

“We’re still trying to assess how far back this goes,” said Thomas Smith, a CFTC official, according to the Journal. Mr. Smith made his comments on Monday before the Senate’s agricultural and banking committee.

The CFTC believes the missing money could still be somewhere inside MF Global, but admits that is a “remote possibility,” according to the Journal.

Here is the fundamental question: How, in late 2011, can we still have a system that allows this to happen?

The segregation of customer funds, a cardinal rule in our securities industry for the safety of investors, was of no importance at MF Global. And apparently, it had no real interest in keeping accurate books and records.

We have to ask: Is MF Global a possible re-run of Madoff, Stanford and the other scandals from the darkest days of 2008 and 2009? Let’s hope not, but as the days pile up with no answer to the mystery of the missing funds, the question has to be asked.

Read article by Securities Lawyer Jake Zamansky on Forbes.com

Filed under MF Global

About Jacob H. Zamansky

Jacob ZamanskyJacob ("Jake") H. Zamansky is one of the country’s foremost authorities on securities arbitration law, the legal recourse for investors claiming broker wrongdoing, or for brokers claiming wrongful termination or other misconduct by their employer. Zamansky & Associates, the New York-based law firm he founded, represents both individuals and institutions in complex securities, hedge fund, and employment arbitrations. more...

Cases We Are Investigating