- ARS Investors Can Seek Consequential Damages Recovery Through Special Arbitration Procedure Introduced by FINRA
This month, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority introduced a special arbitration procedure that auction-rate securities investors can avail of to recover consequential damages. This procedure can be used by customers who are allowed to file for such damages under the ARS-related settlements that have been concluded with the Securities and Exchange Commission or with FINRA.
Under the special procedure, investment firms cannot contest liability related to ARS product sales or the illiquidity of ARS holdings. The companies also cannot use as its defense an investor’s choice not to borrow money from the firm (if it offered the ARS holder a loan option) or his or her decision not to sell ARS holdings prior to the settlement date.
Investors have the option to seek their recovery through this procedure or in other applicable forums, including through standard arbitration rules. FINRA Dispute Resolution President Linda Fienenberg says the special procedure offers a quicker, more affordable resolution for clients claiming consequential damages. Any fees related to the special arbitration procedure will be paid for by the firms.
A single public arbitrator will hear consequential damage claims under $1 million. If the amount is larger, the parties have the option, by mutual consent, to have their claim heard by a three-person arbitration panel.
Consequential Damages
These damages are the financial harm that was experienced by ARS investors because the market collapsed. This may include losses incurred by investors whose ARS assets are frozen, as well as opportunity costs.
As of the end of last month, 275 ARS arbitration claims had been filed under FINRA’s standard arbitration procedure. Investors that limit claims to consequential damages can opt to have their case heard under the special arbitration procedure.
In the wake of the ARS market’s downfall last February, FINRA has been working with the SEC and state regulators to provide investors recovery options. FINRA is also investigating some two dozen firms for alleged misconduct involving their handling of ARS.
FirstSouthwest Co and WaMu Investments have reached final settlement agreements with FINRA. Agreement in principles have been reached with City National Securities, Mellon Capital Markets, SunTrust Investment Services, Comerica Securities, SunTrust Robinson Humphrey, Harris Investor Services, and NatCity Investment, Inc.
Related Web Resources:
FINRA Provides Details on Special Arbitration Procedure for ARS Consequential Damages, MarketWatch, December 16, 2008
WaMu, First Southwest To Buy Back ARS Under Finra Settlements, CNN, December 16, 2008
Special Arbitration Procedures for Investors Involved in Auction Rate Securities Regulatory Settlements, FINRA
FINRA
- UBS and Citigroup to Pay Nearly $30 Billion to Tens of Thousands of ARS Investors
UBS Financial Services, Inc., UBS Securities, LLC, and Citigroup have reached finalized settlements with the Securities and Exchange Commission to pay tens of thousands of ARS investors almost $30 billion. The settlements will resolve SEC charges that the companies misled investors about the risks involved with auction rate securities.
The SEC’s complaint accused UBS and Citigroup of misleading customers by telling them ARS were liquid, safe investments and failing to warn them of the growing dangers when the market started to fail. When the ARS market froze in February, the SEC says both firms left tens of thousands of clients holding billions of dollars in illiquid ARS.
These finalized settlements will restore about $22.7 billion in liquidity to UBS clients who invested in ARS and some $7 billion to Citigroup investors. SEC Chairman Christopher Cox says investors will get back “100 cents on the dollar on their ARS investments.” Both firms will buy ARS from affected customers at PAR. Customers that sold their ARS under the par difference will be paid between par and the ARS sale price. This is the largest settlement in SEC history.
UBS and Citigroup are not admitting to or denying the SEC’s allegations by agreeing to settle. Both investment firms, however, have agreed to enjoinment from future violations.
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York still needs to approve the settlements, and additional SEC penalties could still arise for UBS and Citi. The SEC is also waiting to finalize the settlements-in-principle it reached with Merrill Lynch, Bank of America, Wachovia, and RBC Capital Markets.
Related Web Resources:
SEC Finalizes ARS Settlements With Citigroup And UBS, Providing Nearly $30 Billion in Liquidity to Investors, SEC, December 11, 2008
SEC Complaint Against UBS (PDF)
SEC Complaint Against Citigroup (PDF)
- Senior Investor’s Claim Against Wells Fargo is Remanded on Fraud in Execution by California Court of Appeal
The California Court of Appeal has remanded a lawsuit filed by an elderly woman accusing Wells Fargo of defrauding her and her husband. The case now goes back to the Los Angeles Superior Court, where a judge must determine whether Wells Fargo engaged in fraud when its employees executed its agreement with the couple.
Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Shook had previously concluded that the arbitration clause in the brokerage agreement between Ronnie and Ira Brown and Wells Fargo Bank, NA was unconscionable. However, he had decided that it was up to a jury to decide whether constructive fraud occurred. If Shook now decides that Wells Fargo did engage in the alleged fraud, the arbitration clause and any other portion of the agreement could then be determined unenforceable.
Sometime between 2003 and 2004, Wells Fargo assigned company vice president and trust administrator Lisa Jill Tepper to serve as Ira and Ronnie Brown's “relationship manager.” Ira Brown, who was 93 at the time and suffering from health issues (he has passed away since), founded the Save-On Drug chain. His wife, Ira, was 81.
Tepper, who is now a defendant in this case, visited the Browns regularly to assist with their financial paperwork. She eventually began providing the couple with investment advice. At one point, she recommended that they open a Wells Fargo brokerage account because she believed that their other investments were inappropriate due to their advanced age. Through Tepper, the couple began working with Wells Fargo stockbroker Jack Harold Keleshian, who is now also a defendant in the case.
With Tepper and Keleshian’s help, the couple opened up a number of investment accounts, including a “Brown Family Trust.” An arbitration clause was included among the documents.
In 2006, Ronnie sued Wells Fargo. She claimed that when she was under duress while caring for her ailing husband, the bank pressured her into selling nearly 75,000 stock shares at $24.71. She says Keleshian told her that if she didn’t sell, the stock’s value would drop dramatically.
Instead, the stocks increased in value while Ronnie experienced an increase in capital gains taxes. Ronnie
