The collateral for the CDO was managed by ACA Management and reportedly was primarily consisted of CDS on subprime RMBS, or residential mortgage-backed securities. According to securities arbitration lawyers, the CDO — as the “insurer” — received premiums from the CDS collateral on a monthly basis. Then the premiums were used for CDO bondholder payments. According to the SEC, ACA and UBS agreed that the collateral manager would seek bids for yield that contained both a fixed running spread and upfront cash in the form of “points.”

According to the SEC’s findings, UBS collected upfront payments totaling $23.6 million while acquiring collateral and, instead of transferring the upfront fees at the same time as the collateral, UBS kept the upfront payments and chose not to disclose this information. In addition to retaining the undisclosed $23.6 million, it also retained a disclosed fee of $10.8 million. Investment fraud lawyers say the decision not to disclose the retention of the upfront points was inconsistent with prior UBS deals and the industry standard. Allegedly, UBS’ head of the U.S. CDO group stated, “Let’s see how much money we can draw out of the deal.”

“UBS kept $23.6 million that under the terms of the deal should have gone to the CDO for the benefit of its investors,” says George S. Canellos, co-director of the SEC’s Division of Enforcement. “In doing so, UBS misrepresented the nature of the CDO’s collateral and rendered false the disclosures about how the collateral was acquired.”

The $50 million settlement includes disgorgement of the upfront payments amounting to $23.6 million and the $10.8 million disclosed fee, $9.7 million in interest and a $5.7 million penalty. If you invested in the CDO ACA ABS 2007-2, find out more about your legal rights and options by contacting a securities arbitration lawyer at Law Office of Christopher J. Gray, P.C. at (866) 966-9598 for a no-cost, confidential consultation.

David Lerner Associates is the sole distributor of Apple REITs, including the $2 billion Apple REIT Ten. According to the press release, David Lerner Associates “solicited thousands of customers, targeting unsophisticated investors and the elderly, selling the illiquid REIT without performing adequate due diligence to determine whether it was suitable for investors.” According to securities arbitration lawyers, selling non-traded REITs to customers for whom the investment is unsuitable is one of the biggest problems with non-traded REITs. Furthermore, misleading marketing materials were used in order to sell the REIT. These materials presented performance results but did not disclose that the REIT’s income was insufficient for supporting owners’ distributions.

In addition to the $12 million in restitution, David Lerner Associates was fined over $2.3 million for supervisory violations and charging unfair prices on collateralized mortgage obligations (CMOs) and municipal bonds. These unfair prices occurred over a 30-month period. According to investment fraud lawyers, victims of CMO and municipal bond fraud can also recover their losses through FINRA arbitration.

David Lerner, president, CEO and founder of David Lerner Associates, and William Mason, Head Trader for David Lerner Associates, were also fined and suspended from the securities industry.

If you purchased shares of an Apple REIT from David Lerner Associates, and the investment was recommended to you despite its unsuitability given your age, investment objectives and risk tolerance, you may be able to recover your losses through securities arbitration. To find out more about your legal rights and options, contact a securities arbitration lawyer at The Law Office of Christopher J. Gray at (866) 966-9598 for a no-cost, confidential consultation.

According to the complaint filed by the SEC, Mizuho Securities made around $10 million in marketing and structuring fees through the deal. The firm has agreed to settle the SEC’s charges by paying $127.5 million. The SEC’s allegations state that Mizuho marketed and structured a CDO, Delphinus CDO 2007-1, which was backed by subprime bonds, when signs of severe distress were being exhibited by the housing market. Allegedly, when Mizuho employees realized the CDO would not be able to satisfy a rating agency’s criteria meant to protect investors of CDOs from rating downgrade uncertainties, they submitted a portfolio which contained dummy assets amounting to millions of dollars. This portfolio inaccurately reflected the CDO’s collateral. Once this inaccurate portfolio was rated, the transaction was closed and Mizuho sold the notes to investors. The CDO defaulted in 2008 and was liquidated in 2010.

“This case demonstrates once again that bankers and market participants who embrace a ‘get the deal done at all costs’ strategy will be identified, charged and punished,” says the director of the SEC’s Division of Enforcement, Robert Khuzami.

The chief of the SEC’s Enforcement Division’s Structured and New Products Unit, Kenneth Lench, added that “Mizuho and its employees undermined the integrity of the rating process by furnishing inaccurate information about the Delphinus portfolio. Investors expect and are entitled to receive legitimate ratings in order to help them assess their investments.”

Securities arbitration lawyers say that the Mizuho employees named in the SEC’s proceedings were Alexander Rekeda, Xavier Capdepon and Gwen Snorteland. Rekeda was head of the group that structured the CDO, Capdepon modeled the rating agencies’ transaction and Snorteland was the transaction manager who structured and closed the CDO.

According to stock fraud lawyers and records documenting the proceedings, all SEC charges have been settled. Mizuho agreed to pay disgorgement amounting to $10 million, prejudgment interest amounting to $2.5 million, and a penalty of $115 million.

Investors who purchased CDOs from Mizuho Securities USA, and suffered significant losses as a result, could recover losses through securities arbitration. To find out more about your legal rights and options, contact a securities arbitration lawyer at The Law Office of Christopher J. Gray at (866) 966-9598 for a no-cost, confidential consultation.

According to the panel’s findings, from July 2005 through July 2007, Kline and Tuberville made intentional fraudulent misrepresentations and omissions regarding the risks associated with CMOs. The affected customers were all retired investors seeking an alternative to equity investments that was safer. Despite the fact that the negative effects that increasing interest rates were having on the CMOs by 2005 were evident to Kline and Tuberville, they failed to explain these conditions to their customers. The clients were instead led to believe that the CMOs were “government-guaranteed bonds” that would generate 10 to 15 percent returns and preserve capital.

For a long time, investment fraud lawyers have been warning investors that retired and elderly investors are often the targets for investment fraud, and this was certainly the case here. Of the seven customers named in the original complaint, all were retired, elderly and/or unsophisticated investors. Furthermore, two were elderly widows who were convinced to put their retirement savings in the risky CMOs and then told that because they were “government-guaranteed bonds,” their money could not be lost. However, in total, the seven investors lost $1,620,100 while Brookstone racked up $492,500 in commissions.

This FINRA ruling concludes charges that were brought in December 2009.

According to investment fraud lawyers, the CMO investments were clearly unsuitable for Kline’s clients. If this case sounds like something that has happened to you, find out more about your legal rights and options by contacting a securities arbitration lawyer at The Law Office of Christopher J. Gray at (866) 966-9598 for a no-cost, confidential consultation.

From January 2005 through January 2007, David Lerner charged excessive markups which resulted in “unfairly high prices” and lower yields being incurred by customers, according to a release issued by FINRA. The FINRA panel stated that David Lerner’s trades “reflected a pattern of intentional excessive markups” for investments that could be obtained at “significantly lower prices.” These types of sales practices have gotten the attention of stock fraud lawyers, whose job it is to help investors who have been wronged by their broker or firm.

These unfair pricing practices apparently continued despite a letter of caution on the topic that followed a 2004 exam and Wells notices on the issue, which were received by David Lerner Associates in July 2009. This, combined with the fact that the firm “has not taken any corrective measures to improve their fixed income markups policies and practices” was taken into consideration by the panel when the sanctions were set.

The charges were originally brought by FINRA in May of 2010. FINRA’s decision includes a $2.3 million fine. Securities fraud attorneys say that $1.4 million, plus interest, of the total $3.7 million ordered is dedicated to paying restitution to customers affected by the firm’s sales practices, but other customers could have claims against David Lerner.

Investors who would like to discuss their transactions with David Lerner can contact a stock fraud lawyer at The Law Office of Christopher J. Gray at (866) 966-9598 for a no-cost, confidential consultation.

Securities that are backed by underlying pools of loans or bonds are CDOs, or collateralized debt obligations. While these investments are inherently risky, they are relatively common among “qualified investors.” Currently, stock fraud lawyers are also investigating if Merrill Lynch properly disclosed the CDO risks to investors in the sale of Mars CDO I. Furthermore, the value of Mars CDO I may have been inflated and over-stated by Merrill Lynch. Many investment attorneys believe that Merrill Lynch either knew or should have known the 2007 CDO deals were bad in the existing mortgage market conditions, given the poor performance of the CDOs.

On January 31, 2012, a Financial Industry Regulatory Authority Arbitration Panel awarded $1.38 million to Bobby Hayes, an investor who purchased Collateralized Debt Obligations from Merrill Lynch in 2007. For more on this case, see the previous blog post, “After Securities Arbitration, Merrill Lynch Must Pay $1.4 Million to Investor Over CDO Loss.”

Numerous securities arbitrations have already been filed on behalf of CDO investors who suffered significant losses. If you believe you may have a valid claim, find out more about your legal rights and options by contacting an investment attorney at The Law Office of Christopher J. Gray at (866) 966-9598 for a no-cost, confidential consultation.

Bank of America held commercial loans from small banks amounting to around $400 million in 2006. In 2007, securities packages were put together from these loans and then sold to investors. The subpoena arrives only one day after Bank of America, JP Morgan Chase & Co., Wells Fargo & Co., Citigroup Inc. and Ally Financial Inc. settled allegations of engaging in abusive mortgage practices. These abusive practices included engaging in deceptive practices in the offering of loan modifications, a failure to offer other options before closing on borrowers with federally insured mortgages, submitting improper documents to the bankruptcy court and robo-signing foreclosure documents without proper review of the paperwork.

The settlement amounted to $25 billion and involved federal agencies plus authorities in 49 states. This settlement is designed to give $2,000 to around 750 borrowers whose homes were foreclosed upon after the home values dropped 33 percent from their 2006 worth, and to provide mortgage relief. In addition, all five banks will pay $766.5 million in penalties to the Federal Reserve. This is considered to be the biggest federal-state settlement ever. Bank of America will also pay $1 billion to settle allegations that it, together with its Countrywide Financial unit, engaged in fraudulent and wrongful conduct.

Needless to say, between the recent settlement, the subpoena regarding two of its CLOs, and numerous potential securities arbitration claims related to its CDOs, Bank of America is not off to a good start in 2012. If suspicions about the Bank of America CLOs turn out to be correct, investors who suffered losses as a result may have a valid securities arbitration claim. Investors are advised to stay informed on this issue as it holds potential for loss recovery.

Securities that are backed by underlying pools of loans or bonds are CDOs, or collateralized debt obligations. While these investments are inherently risky, they are relatively common among “qualified investors.” Currently, stock fraud lawyers are also investigating if Merrill Lynch properly disclosed the CDO risks to investors in the sale of Bernoulli High Grade CDO-II. Furthermore, the value of Bernoulli High Grade CDO-II may have been inflated and overstated by Merrill Lynch. Many investment attorneys believe that Merrill Lynch either knew or should have known the 2007 CDO deals were bad in the existing mortgage market conditions, given the poor performance of the CDOs.

On January 31, 2012, a Financial Industry Regulatory Authority Arbitration Panel awarded $1.38 million to Bobby Hayes, an investor who purchased Collateralized Debt Obligations from Merrill Lynch in 2007. For more on this case, see the previous blog post, “After Securities Arbitration, Merrill Lynch Must Pay $1.4 Million to Investor Over CDO Loss.”

Numerous securities arbitrations have already been filed on behalf of CDO investors who suffered significant losses. If you believe you have a valid claim, find out more about your legal rights and options by contacting an investment attorney at The Law Office of Christopher J. Gray at (866) 966-9598 for a no-cost, confidential consultation.

Securities that are backed by underlying pools of loans or bonds are called CDOs, or collateralized debt obligations. While these investments are inherently risky, they are relatively common among “qualified investors.” Currently, stock fraud lawyers are also investigating if Merrill Lynch properly disclosed the CDO risks to investors in the sale of Lexington Capital. Furthermore, the value of Lexington Capital may have been inflated and over-stated by Merrill Lynch. Many investment attorneys believe that Merrill Lynch either knew or should have known the 2007 CDO deals were bad in the existing mortgage market conditions, given the poor performance of the CDOs.

On January 31, 2012, a Financial Industry Regulatory Authority Arbitration Panel awarded $1.38 million to Bobby Hayes, an investor who purchased Collateralized Debt Obligations from Merrill Lynch in 2007. For more on this case, see the previous blog post, “After Securities Arbitration, Merrill Lynch Must Pay $1.4 Million to Investor Over CDO Loss.”

Numerous securities arbitrations have already been filed on behalf of CDO investors who suffered significant losses. If you believe you have a valid claim, find out more about your legal rights and options by contacting an investment attorney at The Law Office of Christopher J. Gray at (866) 966-9598 for a no-cost, confidential consultation.

A Financial Industry Regulatory Authority Arbitration Panel last week awarded $1.38 million to a Lyon Capital CLO investor. The award includes attorney’s fees, hearing session fees, interest and the entirety of the claimant’s investment losses. Allegations heard by the panel stated that Lyon Capital was worthless at the time of purchase. Only one month after closing the allegedly worthless deal, the disclosures about potential losses in similar loan pools was changed by Banc of America. August 2007’s prospectus stated that, because of the declining market values of loans, it was likely that “on the closing date [the value of the portfolio] will be substantially less than the principal amount.” The claimant further alleged that the investment was sold as a low-risk investment and Lyon Capital CLO was, in actuality, artificially inflated at the time of closing.

In light of the conduct of Banc of America in the sales of Lyon Capital and the recent related FINRA award, investment attorneys believe there may be other Lyon Capital investors who can seek to recover losses through securities arbitration. To find out more about your legal rights and options, contact an investment attorney at The Law Office of Christopher J. Gray at (866) 966-9598 for a no-cost, confidential consultation.