Posts Tagged ‘fraud’

Colorado Division of Securities Charges Stifel Nicolaus with Fraudulent Sales of Auction Rate Securities

Written on October 3rd, 2009 by Jason M. Kueserno shouts

On October 1, 2009, Colorado Securities Commissioner Fred Joseph announced that the Securities Division had filed a complaint against Stifel, Nicolaus & Company. According to the Division’s news release, the complaint alleges:

Stifel Nicolaus falsely represented auction rate securities as liquid, short-term investments to Colorado investors without discussing the risks. These representations gave investors a false sense of security that the investments would always be liquid when auction rate securities, in fact, faced significant, inherent liquidity risks.

A copy of the Notice of Charges is available in pdf format here.

Auction rate securities, which are also referred to as auction rate preferred shares, ARS, ARPS, and MARS, to name a few, have been at the epicenter of regulatory investigations across the country. Auction rate securities are long-term (or perpetual) investments that traded in periodic “auctions.” They are designed to allow companies, mutual funds, municipalities, and other organizations to borrow money for a long-term period while paying short-term rates of interest, which were reset during the periodic auctions. It was in these auctions that investors who held the securities could also sell their holdings if they needed to have access to cash. Because these auctions occurred on a relatively frequent basis (i.e., weekly, bi-weekly, or monthly), investors had the ability to sell their positions and obtain cash in a relatively short period of time.

For years, Wall Street firms sold auction rate securities as short-term, cash equivalent investments that paid marginally higher rates of interest as compared to other short-term investments. What these firms did not tell their customers was that the liquidity of the auction rate securities markets was entirely dependent on the ability and willingness of these same firms to participate in the auctions — in other words, these firms had to be willing and able to purchase the securities that were not purchased by the other auction market participants. In most cases, these firms were purchasing more securities than the other market participants. The firms (and their representatives) did not disclose these critical facts, but rather, only disclosed that the interest rates paid on the securities was reset at the auctions. In addition, these firms generally failed to inform investors that they would not be able to access their invested capital if the auctions froze.

In 2007, these Wall Street firms came under massive liquidity problems. As a result, these firms made a decision to cease participation in the auction rate markets, leaving investors across the country with illiquid investments that typically paid short-term rates of interest. In some cases, the auction rate securities paid no interest for months at a time. Therefore, investors were left holding a bag of illiquid long-term securities that paid little, if any interest.

Several class actions have been filed across the country on behalf of auction rate securities investors. In addition, numerous securities arbitration claims have been filed by investors. Some of these cases, as well as action by state regulators, has resulted in redemption of some investors’ auction rate securities. However, many investors remain stuck with these illiquid investments.

If you own auction rate securities that have not been redeemed, you may want to contact an attorney to discuss your rights. The Kueser Law Firm is a boutique legal practice that focuses its practice on protecting the rights of investors and recovering investment losses for companies and individuals. You may contact us by completing the form to the right, or by visiting our website.

Technorati : , , , , ,
Del.icio.us : , , , , ,
Zooomr : , , , , ,

Share

What Guidance Will SCOTUS Give on the Statute of Limitations in Securities Cases?

Written on June 12th, 2009 by Jason M. Kueserno shouts

In a recent article published on Law.com, Sarah S. Gold and Richard L. Spinogatti conduct a thorough analysis of the issues in In re Merck & Co. Secs. Deriv. & ERISA Litig.., a Third Circuit Court of Appeals case. The Supreme Court granted certiorari in In re Merck to resolve when an investor is on inquiry notice of a potential fraud claim for purposes of determining when the statute of limitaions begins to run..

The authors note that in In re Merck, the Third Circuit held that “an investor is not on inquiry notice of a potential fraud claim until the investor has knowledge of a possible fraud, including scienter.” The authors also note that the Ninth Circuit recently came to a similar conclusion in Betz v. Trainer Wortham & Co., for which a certiorari petition is currently pending.

The article is a good read for anyone interested in securities fraud litigation.

Share

Where to Turn for Financial Advice?

Written on June 12th, 2009 by Jason M. Kueserno shouts

It seems that each day there is another story about allegations that an investment adviser has stolen money from their clients. Yesterday, the SEC filed a complaint alleging that a New York investment adviser had bilked his clients, many of whom were terminally ill or mentally impaired, out of $6 million.

Where do you turn? The New York Times published an interesting article on June 5, 2009, discussing this issue. The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority has a publicly available repository of information related to securities professionals (BrokerCheck) and the SEC maintains the IAPD, which is a database containing information related to investment advisers. While these are valuable sources in checking the background of investment professionals, they are often inadequate. The New York Times also published an article about financial planners in their “need to know” series that is worth reading.

Unfortunately, investors do not learn that their adviser has taken advantage of them until after they have suffered devastating financial losses. The Kueser Law Firm represents investors that have been the victims of securities fraud, investment fraud, as well as other forms of stockbroker and financial adviser misconduct. In addition, the firm represents consumers that have been defrauded. If you would like to contact the firm for a free consultation, please call 816.374.5865 or visit our website, www.jmkesquire.com, for more information.

Share
Filed under Uncategorized Tags:, , , ,