Kathrein on Investor Fraud

Unless Congress Acts -- The Courts Will Belong to Wall Street, Not Main Street

WeI have staked out our position on the Supreme Court's continued chipping away at the ability of the investor to get redress for wrongs committed by corporate American. Let's just realize that our Supreme Court has been co-opted to protect corporations over individuals. Shutting the door on the ability to pursue aiders and abettors, now loosely defined to be over-inclusive by the Supreme Court, is just one of the area's Senator Spector seeks to remedy. See my post below. But Senator Spector has also introduced a bill to remedy an newer evil----forcing the wronged to plead more than ever before required, just to get access to the court system.

Senate Bill 1504, would reverse the Supreme Courts decision this year which gives a federal judge the ability to throw out a lawsuit, before discovery, if he does not think it is "plausible". That's a lot of discretion without any guidance, and keeping the case away from a jury based upon personal biases.  

Senate Bill 1504 is designed to return the standard to what it was prior to 2007, when the Court handed down its ruling in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly. That case and another — Ashcroft v. Iqbal from the most recent term — have raised the standard that pleaders must meet to avoid having their cases quickly tossed. Specter, in remarks prepared for the Senate floor, accused the Court’s majorities of making an end run around precedent with the two recent cases.

“The effect of the Court’s actions will no doubt be to deny many plaintiffs with meritorious claims access to the federal courts and, with it, any legal redress for their injuries,” Specter said. “I think that is an especially unwelcome development at a time when, with the litigating resources of our executive-branch and administrative agencies stretched thin, the enforcement of federal antitrust, consumer protection, civil rights and other laws that benefit the public will fall increasingly to private litigants.”

At issue is how specific a pleading must be under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 8 requires that a complaint include “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,” while Rule 12 allows for the dismissal of complaints that are vague or that fail to state a claim. Under Iqbal, a 5-4 decision written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, many courts are now requiring more-specific facts that aren’t often available until discovery.

The Iqbal -Twombly debate arrived on Capitol Hill when  the House Committee on the Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Civil Liberties held hearings on October 27, 2009. The hearing was entitled "Access to Justice Denied – Ashcroft v. Iqbal." The Committee’s page about the hearing, including links to the witnesses’ testimony can be found here. From Arthur Miller's written comments  here:

 

Not only has plausibility pleading undone the simplicity and legal basis of the Rule 8 pleading regime and the limited function of the motion to dismiss, but it also grants virtually unbridled discretion to district judges. Under the new standard, the Court has vested trial judges with the authority to evaluate the strength of the factual “showing” of each claim for relief and thus determine whether or not it should proceed.

In conducting this analysis, judges are first to distinguish factual allegations from legal conclusions, since only the former need be accepted as true. Some post-Iqbal decisions suggest that the conclusion category is being applied quite expansively, embracing allegations that one might well consider to be factual and therefore historically jury triable.

By transforming factual allegations into legal conclusions and drawing inferences from them, judges are performing functions previously left to juries at trial, and doing so based only on the complaint.

Once trial judges have identified the factual allegations, they then must decide whether a plausible claim for relief has been shown by relying on their “judicial experience and common sense,” highly subjective concepts largely devoid of accepted—let alone universal—meaning.

Further, the plausibility of factual allegations appears to depend on the judge’s opinion of the relative likelihood of wrongdoing as measured against a hypothesized innocent explanation. As is true of the division between fact and legal conclusion, the Court has provided little direction on how to measure the palpably nebulous factors of “judicial experience,” “common sense,” and
“more likely” alternative explanation it has inserted into the threshold Rule 12(b)(6) dynamic.

Once again, a citizen’s due process right to a day in court before a jury of his or her peers is threatened.

The subjectivity at the heart of Twombly-Iqbal raises the concern that rulings on motions to dismiss may turn on individual ideology regarding the underlying substantive law, attitudes toward private enforcement of federal statutes, and resort to extra-pleading matters hitherto far beyond the scope of a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. As a result, inconsistent rulings on virtually identical complaints may well be based on judges’ disparate subjective views of what allegations are plausible.

Courts already have differed on issues that were once settled. For instance, the Third Circuit has ruled that the 2002 Supreme Court decision in Swierkiewicz v. Sorema, N.A.,which upheld notice pleading in employment discrimination actions, no longer was valid law after Twombly-Iqbal.27 Courts in other circuits disagree.

Twombly and Iqbal have swung the pendulum away from the prior emphasis on access for potentially meritorious claims; it probably will affect litigants bringing complex claims the hardest. Those cases -- many involving Constitutional and statutory rights that seek the enforcement of important national policies and often affecting large numbers of people -- include claims in which factual sufficiency is most difficult to achieve at the pleading stage and tend to be resource consumptive.

Already, recent decisions suggest that complex cases, such as those involving claims of discrimination, conspiracy, and antitrust violations, have been treated as if they were disfavored actions. Perhaps the propensity to dismiss these claims should come as no surprise: Twombly and Iqbal arose in two such contexts, and lower courts may find it easier to apply the Supreme Court’s reasoning to complaints with seemingly similar facts. Yet ambiguity abounds. Where is the plausibility line and what must be pled to survive a motion to dismiss? How will each judge’s personal experience and common sense affect his or her determination of plausibility? As a result of these and other uncertainties, the value of prior case law and predictability are obscured, and plaintiffs will be left guessing as to what each individual judge will consider sufficient. Throughout, the defendant basically gets a pass.

Moreover, how can plaintiffs with potentially meritorious claims plead with factual sufficiency without discovery, especially when they are limited in terms of time, lack resources for pre-institution investigations, and critical information is held by the defendants? 

Moreover, how can plaintiffs with potentially meritorious claims plead with factual sufficiency without discovery, especially when they are limited in terms of time, lack resources for pre-institution investigations, and critical information is held by the defendants?

Contact your Senators and Congresspersons and ask them to support these bills, before you find that you too have no access to the courts.

It's Time To Reinstate Aiding and Abetting Liability Against Those Who Help Securities Fraud

Now is the time, if ever, for Congress to pass legislation that would reinstate aiding and abetting liability for accountants, lawyers, and others who help corporate executives commit securities fraud that harm investors. The public is outraged from watching all those who assisted in the market meltdown walk away with their huge bonuses.

Senator Arlen Specter, introduced Senate Bill 1551 on July 30, 2009, seeking to do just that. The Bill called the"Liability for Aiding and Abetting Securities Violations Act of 2009," is currently co-sponsored by Edward Kaufman [D-DE], John Reed [D-RI] and Sheldon Whitehouse [D-RI]. The Bill seeks to amend the SEC Act of 1934 subject to liability in a private civil action any person that knowingly or recklessly provides substantial assistance to another person (aids and abets) in violation of that act. The Senator's goal is to restore the ability to sue third parties in securities fraud lawsuits as freely as you could before the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Stoneridge v. Scientific Atlanta (Supreme Court docket).

The main provision of the Bill states:

For purposes of any private civil action implied under this title, any person that knowingly or recklessly provides substantial assistance to another person in violation of this title, or of any rule or regulation issued under this title, shall be deemed to be in violation of this title to the same extent as the person to whom such assistance is provided.’.

Senator Spector"s floor speech follows: 

 Mr. President. I have sought recognition to urge support for the legislation I just introduced, the Liability for Aiding and Abetting Securities Violations Act of 2009. My legislation would overturn two errant decisions of the Supreme Court--Central Bank of Denver v. First Interstate Bank of Denver, 511 U.S. 164, 1994, and Stoneridge Investment Partners, LLC v. Scientific-Atlanta, Inc., 522 U.S. 148, 2008, by amending the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to authorize a private right of action for aiding-and-abetting liability.

 Act's main anti-fraud provision, §10(b), makes it "unlawful for any person, directly or indirectly," to commit acts of fraud "in connection with the purchase or sale of any security." Nearly fifty years ago the Court implied a private right of action under §10(b). The result was that investors could recover financial losses caused by violations of 10(b) and the companion regulation issued by the SEC commonly known as "Rule 10b-5."

Until Central Bank, every circuit of the Federal Court of Appeals had concluded that §10(b)'s private right of action allowed recovery not only against the person who directly undertook a fraudulent act--the so-called primary violator--but also anyone who aided and abetted him. A five-Justice majority in Central Bank, intent on narrowing §10(b)'s scope, held that its private right of action extended only to primary violators.

When Congress debated the legislation that became the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, PSLRA, then-SEC chairman Arthur Levitt and others urged Congress to overturn Central Bank. Congress declined to do so. The PSLRA authorized only the Securities and Exchange Commission, SEC, to bring aiding-and- abetting enforcement litigation.

It is time for us to revisit that judgment. The massive frauds involving Enron, Refco, Tyco, Worldcom, and countless other lesser-known companies during the last decade have taught us that a stock issuer's auditors, bankers, business affiliates, and lawyers--sometimes called "secondary actors"--all too often actively participate in and enable the issuer's fraud. Federal Judge Gerald Lynch recently observed in a decision calling on Congress to reexamine Central Bank that secondary actors are sometimes "deeply and indispensably implicated in wrongful conduct." In re Refco, Inc. Sec. Litig., 609 F. Supp. 2d. 304, 318 n.15, S.D.N.Y. 2009. Professor John Coffee of Columbia Law School, a renowned expert on the regulation of the securities markets, has even laid much of the blame for the major corporate frauds of this [sic].

The immunity from suit that Central Bank confers on secondary actors has removed much-needed incentives for them to avoid complicity in and even help prevent securities fraud, and all too often left the victims of fraud uncompensated for their losses. Enforcement actions by the SEC have proved to be no substitute for suits by private plaintiffs. The SEC's litigating resources are too limited for the SEC to bring suit except in a small number of cases, and even when the SEC does bring suit, it cannot recover damages for the victims of fraud.

Last year's decision in Stoneridge made matters still worse for defrauded investors. Central Bank had at least held open the possibility that secondary actors who themselves undertake fraudulent activities prescribed by §10(b) could be "held liable as ..... primary violator[s]." Stoneridge has largely foreclosed that possibility. A divided Court held that §10(b)'s private right of action did not "reach" two vendors of a cable company that entered into sham transactions with the company knowing that it would publicly report the transactions in order to inflate its stock price. The Court conceded that the suppliers engaged in fraudulent conduct prescribed by §10(b), but held that they were not liable in a private action because only the issuer, not they, communicated the transaction to the public. That remarkable conclusion put the Court at odds with even the Republican Chairman of the SEC.

My legislative response would take the limited, but important, step amending of the Exchange Act to authorize a private right of action under §10(b) (and other, less commonly invoked, provisions of the Act) against a secondary actor who provides "substantial assistance" to a person who violates §10(b). Any suit brought under my proposed amendment would, of course, be subject to the heightened pleading standards, discovery-stay procedures, and other defendant-protective features of the PSLRA.

On Thursday, September 17, the Senate Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on Crime and Drugs held a hearing consider the Bill, entitled  "Evaluating S. 1551: The Liability for Aiding and Abetting Securities Violations Act of 2009." S. 1551.  Sen. Arlen Specter's chaired the hearing. The witnesses were John C. Coffee, Columbia University School of Law; Patrick J Szymanski, General Counsel, Change to Win (a group of labor unions); Tanya Solov, Director, Illinois Securities Department, of behalf of the North American Securities Administrators Association; Robert J. Giuffra, Jr., a partner in Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, NYC; and Adam C. Pritchard, University of Michigan Law School. Coffee, Szymanski and Solov testified in favor of the Bill. Their can be found here:

John Coffee

Patrick Szymanski

Tanya Solov

 

Messrs. Giuffa and Pritchard both testified against the Bill, asking for lesser enforcement of the securities laws, and arguing that private law suits cost millions to those who are sued (forgetting about the billions lost in the recent market crash), and pointing to the evil plaintiffs lawyers who actually make money enforcing these laws ( while conveniently ignoring the millions made by the attorenys now shielded from liability when they help their clients commit fraud). Rather, they prefer that the inept SEC retain sole jurisdiction to go after aiders and abettors. Professor Pritchard wants to do away with actual damages and substitute only the amounts gained by the wrongdoers...effectively making damages so small that no attorney could afford to bring a case. Their testimony can be found here:

Robert Giuffra

Adam Pritchard

 

Senator Patrick Leahy's statement in favor of the Bill can be found here:

 

The Honorable Patrick Leahy

 

 

 

Market Manipulation Cases Can Never Be Certified, So Says Ninth Circuit?

In what will hopefully be a short-lived opinion, a panel of the Ninth Circuit issued a per curiam opinion which appears to state that plaintiffs can never certify a class action for market manipulation....only for outright misrepresentations or ommissions---a curious if not frightening holding at a time when Wall Street has proven itself to be ....hmmm...shall we say less than ethical.

The issue: Whether stock purchasers are entitled to utilize a lesser variant of the "fraud on the market" doctrine, called the  "integrity of the market" doctine, to create a rebuttable presumption of reliance, when a stock is maniplutated in a non-verbal way.

In Desai v. Deutsche Bank Securities (9th Cir. - July 29, 2009), a Ninth Circuit panel held that the lower court was correct in refusing to certify a class action based on market manipulation of the stock of GenesisIntermedia, Inc. by various bad actors, including various entities of Deutsche Bank, and one of its Canadian employees. The market manipulation scheme was complex,  the Court accepted that "the scheme had driven GENI's Stock price from $12 per share to over $52 per share." It now trades for pennies. Plaintiffs sued and sought to certify a class of those who purchased the stock during the market manipulation.

Judge Wilson, in the Central District of California, refused to certify the class because each individual member of the class would have to prove its own personal reliance, presumably, the lack of market manipulation, and therefore individual questions of fact predominated. The appellate panel, consisting of Judge John T. Noonan, who wrote the per curiam opinion, and Justices Diermuid F. OScannlain, and Susan P. Graber, agreed.

Justices Noonan and Graber believed that they could reverse the lower court only for a clear abuse of discretion. Plaintiffs had conceded that they needed to prove reliance. ( I'm not sure I would have conceded reliance in a market manipulation case, though I would have conceded lack of knowledge is required). Justice Noonan then drew the battle lines:

Reliance can be presumed in two situations. In omission cases, courts can presume reliance when the information withheld is material pursuant to Affiliated Ute Citizens v. United States, 406 U.S. 128, 153-54 (1972). Reliance can also be presumed in certain circumstances under the so-called “fraud on the market theory.” Basic INc. V Levinson, 485 U.S. 224, 241-49 (1988), Precisely to which cases this presumption applies—that is, to misrepresentation, to omission, to manipulation cases, or to some combination of the three—is an issue the parties contest on appeal. The two presumptions are conceptually distinct.

As explained by the Court, the fraud on the market theory is “based on the hypothesis that, in an open and developed securities market, the price of a company’s stock is determined by the available material information regarding the company and its business.” Basic v. Levinson, 485 U.S. at 241 (internal quotation marks omitted).

So far so good!

But then , Justice Noonan loses his way by picking and choosing verbage from cases that state that the fraud on the market presumtion is available "only" when a plaintiff alleges a material misrepresentation or omission realting to a stock sold in an efficient market. On examination, however, it appear these cases are not market manipulation cases, probably because, up until now, they have been so rare or well hidden.

But plaintiffs had conceded that they could not prove an efficient market. (An efficient market quickly digests new information...from almost any source...causing the stock price to quickly adjusts to incorporate that new information. A thinly traded stock might not absorb the information quickly and therefore any news may not create a price reaction for weeks. In such a case, the disparity between individual investors knowledge becomes an issue. ) Having so conceded, they could not utilize the traditional definition of the fraud on the market presumption.

As for the Affiliated Ute presumption,the lower court rejected the theory that a manipulation was, in essence or fact, an omission. ( A holding with which I strongly disagree).

Applying a "clear abuse of discretion" standard, Judge Noonan agreed. The  Affiliated Ute presumption has only been applied to cases of omission when there exists a duty to speak.  The Court refused to extend the presumption to  manipulative conduct which  "has always been distinct " from omissions., for example, in Rule 10b-5. The Court then claims to "follow" the 10th Circuit in  Joseph v. Wiles, 223 F.3d 1155 (10th Cir. 2000) which is not a market manipulation case. In fact the word "manipulation"only appears once in the lengthy opinion. For those who remember the 1989 Miniscribe class action, Wiles is a related individual case based upon a fraud whereby Miniscribe cooked its books by shipping bricks instead of product to warehouses, thereby overstating revenues and earnings....one of the good ol' frauds).

Regardless, to the extent that an omission might have existed, the plaintiffs failed to allege a duty. And the Court refuses to even attempt to discuss any duty of market participants to the market.

Next plaintiffs argued for a modification of the  fraud on the market theory to fit such a situation, and claimed a rebuttable presumption based upon investors reliance upon the "integrity of the market." The lower court rejected this too.

Judge Noonan first concedes that investors rely on the integrity of the market, citing Basic :

[T]he theory presumes first that “[a]n investor who buys or sells stock at the price set by the market does so in reliance on the integrity of that price.” Id. at 247. Second, “[b]ecause most publicly available information is reflected in market price, an investor’s reliance on any public material misrepresentations . . . may be presumed for purposes of a Rule 10b-5 action.” Id.

He notes plaintiffs argument that investors "typically rely on the 'integrity of the market,' that is, that no one has destroyed its efficiency by manipulation [and] when manipulation allegedly destroys the efficiency of the market, and with it the reliability of the market’s price." And he does not disagree. But when asked to find, that as a matter of law, plaintiffs are entitle to such a presumption, Judge Noonan can only summon the argument, "We are chary."

The Court argues, no authority compelled the lower court to adopt this new theory and that the Supreme Court has evidenced a "restrictive view" of private suits, and to not extend 10b-5 beyond its present boundaries, citing Stoneridge, 128 S. Ct. at 773.

The Court unfortunately pulls the Stoneridge quote out of context. In Stoneridge, the issue was framed as creating a private cause of action for aiders and abettors...a cause of action rejected more long ago in Central Bank. Hence the full quote is:

Concerns with the judicial creation of a private cause of action caution against its expansion. The decision to extend the cause of action is for Congress, not for us. Though it remains the law, the §10(b) private right should not be extended beyond its present boundaries. See Virginia Bankshares, supra, at 1102 (“[T]he breadth of the [private right of action] once recognized should not, as a general matter, grow beyond the scope congressionally intended”); see also Central Bank, supra, at 173 (determining that the scope of conduct prohibited is limited by the text of §10(b)).

Plaintiffs were not seeking to extend 10b-5 or create a private cause of action. The law clearly forbids market manipulation and private causes of action have existed under this law for decades.

Justice Noonan, thus, avoids any analytical examination of the requested presumption. Instead he concludes merely "that the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to adopt the integrity of the market presumption." In other words...he punts on what the law is or should be.

O'Scannlain, on the other hand, goes after his colleagues for dodging the legal issue, making out a good argument for en banc review:

Unfortunately, however, we are left to conclude abruptly with a declaration of the result, for we cannot agree on the correct approach. I believe that, because the validity of a presumption of reliance in securities class actions is a matter of law and because errors of law are per se abuses of discretion, we must explicitly decide whether Investors are entitled to this novel presumption as a matter of law. I write separately to explain my view.

Even so, O'Scannlain goes on to find the presumption legally unsupportable and logically inadvisable. On the legal side, he can only summon citations to  non-market manipulation cases that have no application to these facts. On the logic side, he actually makes plaintiffs case. He starts by admitting:

Most investors do, I think it fair to say, assume that the markets are not corrupt. Cf. Basic, 485 U.S. at 246-47 (“It has been noted that ‘it is hard to imagine that there ever is a buyer or seller who does not rely on market integrity. Who would knowingly roll the dice in a crooked crap game?’ ” (quoting Schlanger v. Four-Phase Sys. Inc., 555 F. Supp. 535, 538 (S.D.N.Y. 1982))).

But then he concludes, in logic that escapes rigor, that if the presumption were adopted, then no plaintiff would ever have to prove reliance. In so concluding, he simply forgets that plaintffs seek only to apply this presumption  to market manipulation cases....which the Court has just found to be distinct from misrepresentation and omission cases, legally.

Similarly he argues that the theory "would permit a presumption of reliance no matter how unlikely it is that the market price in question would actually reflect the alleged manipulation." Again, how is it that  the presumption of reliance would not still require the plaintiffs to prove that the price during the entire class period was inflated by the manipulation, and by how much? O'Scannlain does not say.

Revealingly, O'Scannlain seems to back track and recognize the problems with his concurring opinion in his concluding. This footnote accurately captures the entire issue...and best statement for l an en banc court to tackle:

I recognize the possibility that certain allegations of manipulative conduct might change the application of the fraud on the market theory. This is because the plaintiff in manipulation cases often alleges that a defendant directly manipulated the price. Certainly, a plaintiff must still show that the market in question could absorb into the price the misinformation communicated by the alleged manipulation. But need a plaintiff show the same type of proof of an efficient market in a manipulation case as is required in a misrepresentation case? Although I note the doctrinal wrinkle, this is a question I would agree we actually do not need to reach, because Investors forsook the fraud on the market theory.

Justice Graber, in her concurring opinion, defends Justice Noonan's contention that the Court need not reach the legal question:

All we have to decide is whether the district court had to recognize that new theory. If so, then the court made a mistake of law (and hence abused its discretion, see Koon v. United States, 518 U.S. 81, 100 (1996) (“A district court by definition abuses its discretion when it makes an error of law.”)).

I agree with O'Scannlain that the Court should have addressed, as a full panel, a broader application of the fraud on the market theory in market manipulation cases. An efficient market should not and, indeed, cannot be a requirement where there are no statements to be absorbed by the market participants in making their decisions. The Court should not have said that a lower Court has no duty to find the right law for the right circumstances, even if it is a new application of a principle. How else does law evolve. It has to start in the lower Courts. Justices Noonan and Graber, shirked their duty.

But in the end, it may not matter that much to the plaintiffs bar. The reason why there is no authority on the subject is, as O'Scannlain states, simply reflects "the relative rarity of" manipulative conduct cases. So the impact will be minimal on securities fraud cases.....except now that the fear of a lawsuit is gone, maybe the fraudsters will start crawling through the cracks.

Shaun Martin's Blog California Appellate Report, has a very good discussion and first analysis of the case at Desai v. Deutsche Bank Securities (9th Cir. - July 29, 2009).

A Fraudster's Mia Culpa: Marc S. Dreier---I Just Wanted Respect

        If you have seen my posts on Madoff, you can tell that I am curious about the criminal mind. With normal securities fraud I have always subscribed to the thought that people simply get caught up in little lies, which get bigger, and then out of control. It mostly happens as a series of events, gets covered up, until bad economic situations cause the fraud to be revealed. But rarely have I seen the two lives these people live as we have seen with such highly regarded individuals as Madoff, and now Marc Drier.

        In a recent letter, Dreier wrote to convince the Judge who is going to sentence him, we see another amazing sad story of refusing to fail at all costs...and perhaps a true lack of self esteem. While Madoff never appeared to lack self-esteem, he did grow up on the wrong side of the tracks...so to speak...for the social circles he wanted to accept him so badly. Dreier just outright confesses to this desire. His letter is reprinted below in its near entirety. If you are unfamiliar with the crime...just read on. Dreier lays it our for you. Read it for what it reveals...and skip the excuses:

Marc S. Dreier

c/o Law Offices of Gerald Shargel

570 Lexington Ave., 45 th Fl.

New York, NY 10022

 

July 7, 2009

 

Dear Judge Rakoff,

 

Please consider this letter in connection with my sentencing on July 13, 2009.

 

I know of course that no words can diminish the harm I have caused to so many people. Those who were victimized by my bogus loans lost millions of dollars. Clients of my law firm lost escrow funds they entrusted to me. The attorneys and staff at my firm who put their faith in me lost their jobs. My friends and colleagues have been tainted by their association with me. And the families of all these people have no doubt shared in the suffering — as has my own family. My children have lost the father they knew, as well as their good name and the  happiness they deserve. I have betrayed the people I care about most, and I suffer every day from the shame and self-loathing and regret with which I will always have to live.

 

My crimes are inexcusable. I expect and deserve a significant prison sentence.

 

Nevertheless, I am writing to give some context to what I did — certainly not to minimize my crimes but to try to explain how a person with my background and advantages came to do the unconscionable. Perhaps in learning how I made these terrible decisions which have ruined my life, others may avoid such mistakes. I have requested that my attorneys file this as an open letter, available in the public record, in the hope that it may do some good as a warning to others not to follow in my path.

 

I was raised in New York by a loving family. in a comfortable home. I always succeeded

in school. I attended Yale College and Harvard Law School. After law school I spent 20 years in several prominent law firms, first as an associate, then as a partner. I performed well, but I was achieving less satisfaction and recognition than I expected. Colleagues of mine and certainly clients of mine were doing much better financially and seemingly enjoying more status. By my mid-forties I felt crushed by a sense of underachievement.

 

So I started my own firm in 1996. My intention was to try to attract lawyers who, like myself, were dissatisfied with large firms and were looking for a more gratifying way to have a sophisticated practice. I had virtually no cash and very few clients. but I was able to grow the firm modestly over the next few years by investing my life in it.

 

I had planned poorly. however, for the expenses. I couldn't get bank loans without better credit or collateral, so I was funding the firm partially with advances from some clients but primarily through "factors" who charged exorbitant fees and interest and were highly intrusive in monitoring the firm's accounts. By 2001 I was deeply in debt.

 

In January 2002, my wife sued for divorce. I had been married for 15 years. We have two children. We entered into a settlement agreement under which I took on financial obligations to her and our children which were actually far more than I could afford. I believed that my fledgling law firm could not survive a contested divorce.

 

All of this left me feeling overwhelmed — by my debt, by a disappointing career, by a failed marriage. And so, incomprehensibly, in 2002 I started stealing. First, I invaded some settlement proceeds due a client. Then I arranged a few bogus investments with some individuals. And soon I stumbled upon the brazen idea of arranging fictitious loans from hedge funds, ostensibly to my principal client (the real estate developer referenced in the Indictment), and diverting the loan proceeds to myself.

 

As I sit here today, I can't remember or imagine why I didn't stop myself. It all seems so obviously deplorable now. I recall only that I was desperate for some measure of the success that I felt had eluded me. I felt that my law firm was my last chance to make a mark for myself, and I was fearful of seeing it fail. I know of course that this amounted to nothing more than self pity, but this was my state of mind when I became a criminal. I gave in to being overwhelmed by the anxieties of life that we are all expected to cope with every day, and most people do, but I just could not manage to do so. I had no one close to me with whom I could talk. I had isolated myself, both personally and professionally. I lost my perspective and my moral grounding, and really, in a sense, I just lost my mind.

 

At the beginning, I spent most of the money on growing the law firm. Much of the money also went to servicing the "debt" itself. But, as time went on, I was more and more self-indulgent.I bought extravagant things — a beach house, an apartment, a boat, expensive art. Obviously, other men suffer through divorce and "mid-life crisis" and manage not to steal. And, other people grow their business without resorting to crime. I just wasn't in control of myself.

 

It is hard to explain how my crimes in 2002 reached the level that they did by 2008. Certainly I never intended when this began to steal on the scale I eventually did. I took the first money thinking that I could and would repay it shortly with revenue derived from the law firm. Soon, however, I exhausted the money, and it was evident not only that I would be unable to repay the initial "loans" but that I would need more. I had stepped in a quicksand of spending. By 2008 I had hired over 250 lawyers and opened additional offices in Los Angeles. Pittsburgh and Connecticut. The expenses were more and more uncontrollable, and the "loans" became more and more expensive. As the credit markets worsened, hedge funds were demanding much higher interest rates and, in many cases. substantial discounts to principal. In some cases, when I desperately needed new money to pay back loans becoming due, I was selling loans for 60-65 cents on the dollar, meaning that I was paying back far more principal than the hedge funds were actually paying me, which obviously was dramatically deepening the hole I was in.

 

In this way, without ever actually planning to. I found myself running a massive Ponzi scheme with no apparent way out. No doubt as is typical in Penn schemes, there was always the unrealistic expectation, or at least the hope, that I could use the "borrowed" money to eventually make it all work out. Obviously, and predictably, I was unable to do so.

 

When I was no longer able to pay off old "loans" to the real estate developer by creating

new ones, I placed a few other fictitious loans, in much the same manner, by using instead as the purported borrower a Toronto pension fund that I had once represented. Finally, when there were no loans I could invent, I began to pull money again from a few of the firm's escrow accounts, knowing of course that it was terribly wrong but still thinking that I could somehow restore the funds in short order. Typically, I did restore this money, but in early December 2008 I was unable to restore about $40 million to one such client account as the due date for its disposition was nearing. As a result, I engaged in the most desperate and irrational act yet - impersonating an attorney from the pension fund in Toronto in order to "close" a loan from a hedge fund which would have given me the funds to return the escrow money. I knew very well that this time I would most likely be caught. I was caught, and that escrow money was not restored.

 

In some sense, being caught was a relief. I had been living a self-inflicted nightmare,

scrambling every day to sustain the charade. I had three "full time" jobs: First, I was managing a large active law firm, with all the daily challenges that come with such responsibility. Second, I was head of the firm's litigation department, with a very heavy active practice and caseload of my own. Finally, I was managing a huge portfolio of fraudulent loans, which required me to constantly prepare and update bogus financial statements and loan documents, field inquiries from lenders and prospective lenders, arrange payments of principal and interest on existing loans, obtain new loans as old ones matured, and do all that was necessary to keep the scam a secret. At the same time, I was trying to spend as much time as possible caring for my son, who lived with me full-time, and my daughter, who lived about half the time with each parent. It was all I could do to get through each day, and each day it got harder. It was a frantic life which I had created for myself, and it left me exhausted and impaired.

 

Your Honor has rightfully observed that as a lawyer I have dishonored the legal profession, and I am very painfully ashamed of that. My whole ambition in life was to be a lawyer who would distinguish himself and honor the profession. Over the course of 33 years of practice, I represented many clients well and devotedly. I made my work as a lawyer the center of my life.

 

Obviously, I then strayed very far from those goals. I lost myself to my ambition and

sacrificed everything else.

Recently, I have had the opportunity to read the letters sent to the Court by the victims of

my offense. I am shamed by these letters. During the time I was committing my fraud. I tried to convince myself that I was hurting only "institutions' . and not "individuals - (as if that were less contemptible), because I was borrowing almost entirely from hedge funds. I knew of course then and I know now that this was all nonsense - my fraud devastated "real people" in a very real way. The letters from these individual victims show their suffering first-hand. I will only add that I believed these individuals would not be harmed. because I always made certain that there were sufficient funds still available to repay them when their money came due. At the time of my arrest, there were in fact sufficient funds in the firm's account (over $10 million) to repay all f these individuals. After my arrest, while I was jailed in Toronto, I instructed the controller of the firm to transfer $10 million to a separate non-law firm account, believing that by doing so I could shield the money owed to these individuals from any competing claims until I returned to New York. As I understand it now, however, several individuals remain unpaid in the wake of the firm's collapse, and these individuals who trusted the firm I controlled have been terribly harmed. I never intended for them to lose their money, but obviously I am responsible for even he unintended consequences of my wrongdoing.

 

Since my arrest, I have done whatever little I can to start to make amends for my crimes.

From the outset I acknowledged my guilt. I never considered putting my victims through the burden of a trial. I have also cooperated fully with the Receiver and Trustees appointed by the ourt. In numerous meetings and discussions I have tried to help them identify and recover funds and other assets to start to compensate those who are owed money.

 

More than that, I can only explain to the people I betrayed how I came to make these mistakes and express my profound remorse. In the brief time I may have to speak at my sentencing, I hope to express my remorse to those I have hurt. Perhaps at least they will feel some degree of my shame, which I will have to live with for the rest of my life.

 

For rne, the punishment that I receive from this Court will only be part of my sentence. I have already been disgraced beyond anything I could ever have imagined. Despite whatever good I once accomplished in my life, and what I had hoped to accomplish, I will always be remembered as a thief. I have lost all my friends. I have lost my law firm, my law license and all that I ever owned. 1 have seen my family suffer the unimaginable. I have lost my past and y future. I have lost everything a man can lose. And now I will lose my freedom as well, and rightly so.

 

All that I have left in my life is the prospect of still sharing in my children's lives, both while I am in prison and, I pray, for some time thereafter. My son is 19; my (laughter is 17. We are very close. I have devastated their lives, and unfortunately nothing I do now can diminish that. I can only try to be there for them to whatever extent I can.

 

I don't know what gives some men the strength of character to lead virtuous lives for all of their lives, and what causes others, such as myself, to lose their way. There is no excuse

whatsoever for what I have done. I have explained it the best I can. 1 will try to learn from this, and hopefully others will as well.

 

Respectfully yours.

Marc S. Dreier

Did Matrixx ( MTXX ) Commit Securities Fraud By Withholding Adverse Reaction Reports From the FDA?

Matrixx Initiatives, Inc. (Nasdaq: MTXX), the makers of Zicam products, looks like it may have come close to violating the securities fraud statutes when it failed to provide the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) with more than 800 reports relating to the loss of sense of smell associated with the Zicam Cold Remedy intranasal products.

According to the FDA, as of Dec. 2007, Matrixx was required to provide reports of adverse reactions to the agency per the Dietary Supplement and Nonprescription Drug Consumer Protection Act, which President Bush signed into law Dec. 22, 2006. The Act requires manufacturers, packers, or distributors whose name appears on a nonprescription drug or dietary supplement product label to notify FDA of any serious adverse event report associated with the product's use within 15 business days of receipt of such information. The industry was given a one-year grace period to begin to comply with the law.

In a warning letter to Matrixx, dated June 16, 2007, the FDA informed Matrixx that it concluded that certain Zicam products may pose serious risks to consumers who use them, and that Matrixx marketing practices violate several laws relating to the products.

The FDA letter also stated that the "agency is aware that Matrixx appears to have more than 800 reports related to loss of sense of smell associated with Zicam Cold Remedy intranasal products" and directed Matrixx "to arrange ubmission of all reports related to loss of sense of smell associated with Zicam Cold Remedy intranasal products" and to "indicate which of these reports have been previously submitted to the FDA."

Upon release of this letter by the FDA, Matrixx stock plummeted from approximately $19 per share to less than $7 per share. From the FDA transcript:

Lisa Stark: Thank you. Actually most of my questions have been
asked. But let me ask you one thing. You mentioned that I think it was
after December 2007 the companies had to provide adverse event reports
to the FDA. They didn't have to do so prior to that. Did this company
since that time provide any adverse event reports to you based visa vie
these products?

Deb Autor(FDA): As Dr. Lee said, the reports that we have are
from consumers and healthcare providers. And in the warning letter we
have asked Matrixx to provide to us the more than 800 reports that we
know that they have relating to the lose of sense of smell associated
with the Zicam Cold Remedy intranasal products.Those have not been
provided to the agency at this time.

Lisa Stark: Should they have been under the current regulations?
Should you have received those reports?

Deb Autor: I can't address that question today.

On July 23, 2009, Matrixx acknowledged the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) is launching an informal inquiry. Since December 2007, insiders, including the Executive VP and CFO, the VP of Sales and the VP of Research and Development, have sold more than $2.7 million worth of Matrixx shares.

According to new reports, the COO said Matrixx first learned during the FDA's on-site inspection last month that the federal agency wanted all such "adverse events" reports immediately after consumers filed them with the company. Matrixx claims that, acting on its legal advice, it thought the company merely had to make such reports available to FDA inspectors during on-site visits."We have complaints here, clearly, but we weren't required to send them; at least we didn't believe we were required to
send them," he said.

The Hagens Berman press release regarding their investigation of this matter can be found here.

Yes, Institutional Investors Can Make A Difference In Securities Fraud Litigation

Institutional investors do in fact make a difference as lead plaintiffs in reaching larger settlements and improving corporate governance.

A forthcoming paper to be published in the Journal of Financial Economics, entitled Institutional Monitoring through Shareholder Litigation,concludes that relative to securities fraud class actions with an individual lead plaintiff, lawsuits with an institutional lead plaintiff are less likely to be dismissed, have significantly larger settlements and are associated with more board independence after the lawsuit.The paper, which can be found here, is written by professors from four different universities: C.S. Agnes Cheng of Louisiana State University, Henry Huang of Prairie View A&M University, Yinghua Li of Purdue University, and Gerald J. Lobo of the University of Houston. As stated by the authors in a Harvard blog, here, the paper was motivated by the lack of evidence on the effectiveness of institutional investors exercising their monitoring power through litigation:

Such evidence is much needed because the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PSLRA) established a preference of granting lead plaintiff status to plaintiffs with the largest financial stake in the class action, thus providing institutions an opportunity to critically affect the litigation by serving as the lead plaintiffs. Given the costs of serving as a lead plaintiff and the free rider problem, institutional investors may not want to lead class action lawsuits even if they hold the largest financial stake in the defendant firm. Consequently, it is important to provide empirical evidence on the effectiveness of institutional monitoring through class action litigation. In addition to documenting the implications of the lead plaintiff provision in the PSLRA Act, our findings also underscore the important monitoring role of institutions, from both an immediate disciplining of management as well as a long-term corporate governance perspective.

The authors hypothesized that generally an institutional investor will be a "free-rider" and take the benefits of class actions led by other individual plaintiffs, unless the potential benefits to them outweighed their agency costs. The study, as described by the authors, used a sample of 1,811 securities class actions filed between 1996 and 2005, and confirmed that hypothesis.Thus the study found that:

1. when the likelihood of winning is high, the potential damage is large, and the defendant firm is important to the institutional owners, institutional owners are more likely to step forward to serve as the lead plaintiff.
2. institutional investors are more likely to serve as the lead plaintiff when the lawsuit:
   • involves an accounting-related allegation,
   • has an accounting firm as the co-defendant,
   • has a longer class period, has a larger negative market reaction to the revelation event, and
   • has a larger potential investor loss.
3. the probability of having an institutional lead plaintiff is also higher when the defendant firm has a larger market capitalization, has a higher level of institutional holdings, and is operating in a high-tech industry.

The authors then sought to control forthese determinants to find our whether, even then, their was a difference in litigation outcomes when institutions became involved. Using multivariate regression analysis to control for these determinants of when institutions are likely to get involved, the authors concluded:

1. that relative to lawsuits with an individual lead plaintiff, lawsuits with an institutional lead plaintiff are less likely to be dismissed and have significantly larger settlements;
2. all types of institutions show significantly better litigation outcomes with public pension funds generating the largest settlement amount;
3. within three years of filing the lawsuit, defendant firms with institutional lead plaintiffs experience greater improvement in board independence than defendant firms with individual lead plaintiffs.

These findings should be reason enough for institutional investors to step forward and serve as lead plaintiffs. So institutions, get involved!

Fixing the Regulatory System: Geithner and Schapiro Ignore the Need for Mutual Fund Reform

Fixing the Financial Regulatory System: Geithner and Schapiro Ignore the Need for Mutual Fund Reform  I waited for March 26, 2009, in great anticipation that we might see meaningful change in protecting investors. I pray that my retirement years are not stolen from me as they have been from those who we represent - those who trusted Charles Schwab, OppenheimerFunds, MassMutual and Madoff. However, March 26 came and went with little recognition of why and how this happened by those our new President entrusted to help steer these changes. Both Timothy Geithner (Secretary of Treasury) and Mary L. Schapiro (SEC Chair) testified today on improving our financial regulatory system. Geithner spoke to Barney Frank and his House Committee on Financial Services, and Schapiro spoke to Christopher Dodd's Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs. Geithner's testimony can be found here, and Schapiro's here.

Before I start in on my criticism, let me say that I understand that both Geithner and Schapiro are long time industry/regulatory insiders. Change comes slow to those who have been part of the system and failed to step forward early. Certainly, it is better to talk about "failures" than to admit that they were asleep at the switch. It is better to talk in the abstract with little criticism that might incite a lynch mob.

Reading both testimonies, I am dumbfounded at how little attention is paid to the mutual fund industry that took investors' money and started pouring it into any asset available regardless of its objectives.

Geithner gives a strong statement recognizing the need for investor protection:

"[W]eaknesses in our consumer and investor protections harm individuals, undermine trust in our financial system, and can contribute to systemic crises that shake the very foundations of our financial system."

 Hear hear! Geithner then swiftly moves on to talk about mortgage lending, not investor protection. Try to sort out the following statement:

"Innovation and complexity overwhelmed the checks and balances in the system. Compensation practices rewarded short-term profits over long-term return. We saw huge gains in increased access to credit for large parts of the American economy, but those gains were overshadowed by pervasive failures in consumer protection, leaving many Americans with obligations they did not understand and could not sustain. The huge apparent returns to financial activity attracted fraud on a dramatic scale. Large amounts of leverage and risk were created both within and outside the regulated part of the financial system."

It's almost like the financial services industry wrote his words: "Tim, throw in words that make it look like 'things' caused us to commit fraud, and then put the blame on the 'many Americans with obligations they did not understand...'"

Let's pretend our mess was caused by poor consumers who did not know what they were buying, instead of the greed; greed of financiers who "created" packages of garbage loans, and dumped them on retirees for huge fees, profits and commissions. This slight of hand makes my blood boil.

Geithner completely leaves out the crimes of our mutual fund industry. Instead, he focuses on Money Market Funds that broke the buck. Big deal. This cost the American people a tad of what was lost in mutual funds by companies that sold "conservative," "stable" investments to retirees following the models that touted moving to bonds in your retirement years to preserve capital and earn income. The Reserves money market fund, when all is said and done, lost about three percent. Oppenheimer's Champion Income Fund lost 79 percent. Schwab's Ultra Short Term Bond Fund lost more than 50 percent.

Schapiro jumps on the fraud bandwagon too. She deplores penny stock frauds and insider selling, she touts the SEC's recent (mostly pre-Schapiro) enforcement activity, but she appears oblivious to reality, and the following statement is laughable:

"Our capital requirements go a long way to ensuring that customer funds entrusted with a broker-dealer are safe in the event the broker-dealer gets in financial trouble. Again, our focus is not to insulate broker-dealers from competition and the risks of failure, but to protect investors in the event that failures do occur. We conduct examinations of these firms to assess their compliance with laws and regulations. And when we find violations or deficiencies, we direct that corrective action be taken."

Think Bernie Madoff Investment Service (a broker dealer regulated by the SEC). Ahhhhh! Capital requirements? Protect? Examinations? Compliance? Of course note the disclaimer; "And WHEN we find..."

Schapiro does however have a solution for making sure Madoff's don't occur:

"I expect the staff to recommend that the Commission consider requiring a senior officer from each firm to attest to the sufficiency of the controls they have in place to protect client assets. The list of certifying firms would be publicly available on the SEC's Web site so that investors can check on their own financial intermediary. In addition, the name of any auditor of the firm would be listed, which would provide both investors and regulators with information to then evaluate the auditors."

"As part of this effort, I expect to come to you in the near term with a request for authority to compensate whistleblowers who bring us well-documented evidence of fraudulent activity."

 Ok. Let me get this straight...

1. Madoff would be required to sign a certification - big help.
2. The auditors name would be public - oh, this helped the Oppenheimer Tremont Rye fund investors who received audit reports from KPMG and Ernst & Young who believe that they are isolated from liability because they can rely on certifications by Madoff's audit or shoeshine man.
3. The SEC could now pay whistleblowers who present "well documented evidence...because when Madoff's whistleblower Harry Markopolos came to the SEC for free the SEC could not believe that anyone would blow the whistle for free!

As for mutual funds: NADA, Nothing, Zip! Certainly, Schapiro recognizes the importance of mutual funds:

"Ultimately, capital comes from investors - people who invest directly in companies; people who invest in financial institutions that lend capital; people who invest in mutual funds and other pooled vehicles that in turn invest in America's businesses; people who buy municipal securities to help fund the operations of state and local governments; and people who look to the capital markets to save, put away money for their kids' education, and prepare for retirement. Markets that attract this capital are critical to America's economic future."

But Schaprio talks only about the past enforcement efforts and current regulations. As for future change, she talks only about money market funds. She apparently does not recognize that current regulations do not work for mutual funds.

The Courts have recently thrown out the private rights of action under the Investment Company  Act, which regulates the fund industry. Because of the structure of the funds, purported independent trustees ( who often sit on the boards of 10, 20 and even 40 funds offered by the same investment adviser), and trust agreements, even state law claims are impossible to bring. That leaves the paltry resources of the SEC to enforce those laws for an industry with more than $9 trillion in assets.

Mutual Funds are sold primairly over the phone or with glossy web pages and/or brochures containing smiley faces, impressive graphics and a sales pitch. To the extent that disclosures can be found, they  are impossible to read, dispursed in a staggering array of documents with indecipherable names, never actually delivered until after the purchase, and even then rarely. The funds' advisers retain near unlimited power to change their focus overnight...if it brings in more profits. The industry is driven by a need to do what it takes to attract capital, not the interests of the investor.

Neither Geithner nor Schapiro seem to recognize these issues, nor seem to care.

Dear, dear. The more things change the more they stay the same.

Famous Madoff Qoutes: "I Suppose You Could Program a Computer To Violate A Regulation, But We Haven't Gotten There Yet"

 

Famous Madoff Quotes: "I Suppose You Could Program a Computer To Violate A Regulation, But We Haven't Gotten There Yet", 60 million people retire next ten years? "Good Luck " and "I'm very close to the Regulators...my niece married one."

And More

 

As we proceed to work our way through the Madoff litigation, we tend to focus on those cases where we believe we can best find a source of recovery for our clients. To date that has been principally the Tremont Rye Funds which were controlled by Oppenheimer and Massachusetts Mutual, audited by two of  the Big Four accounting firms, KPMG and Ernst & Young, and supposedly had a custodial bank, Bank of New York Mellon. We have focused also on the feeder funds to the Tremont Rye Funds, such as Spectrum, Future Select, Austin and Meridian. Others crop up every day. Nevertheless, these stories, at this point, are rather dry and our minds still drift over to how  Madoff pulled this off. A video of Bernie Madoff discussing his business has surfaced on the internet, and helps lead us there.

 

When I watched this video of Bernie Madoff ( and his computer guru, Josh Stampfli) participating in a round table discussion, on the future of the stock market, I expected to find a hint of irrationality or slick behavior. The link to the video, audio and transcripts can be found here. Instead we hear a very rational human being, thoughtfully discussing fraud, human behavior and profits. Download Madoff TranscriptBut we also see tremendous irony in Bernie's statements. I highly recommend anyone impacted by this scandal to watch, especially around the the 43 minute mark. An index to Bernie's more ironic statements are as follows:

 

At minute 26 Bernie Madoff states:

 

"Now, no one is going to run a benefit for Wall Street, so whenever I go down to Washington and meet with the SEC and complain to them that the industry is either over-regulated or the burdens are too great, they all start to roll their eyes, just like all of our children do whenever we talk about the good old days."

 

At minute 28 Bernie Madoff states:

 

Today, basically the big money on Wall Street is made by taking risks. Firms were driven into that business, including us, because you couldn’t make money charging commissions, primarily because the rates were lowered and because of the regulatory infrastructure you had to have dealing with clients.

 

At minute 30 Bernie says:

 

"There are so-called Chinese Walls that are required to be established at every brokerage firm. They’re called Information Barriers—a term most people would understand—to sort of wall off a brokerage firm from taking advantage of information that he has as to what clients are basically going to trade or not going to trade. There are separate divisions within the firms and it is very carefully enforced and surveilled. It doesn’t mean there are not abuses, for sure, but by and large in today’s regulatory environment, it’s virtually impossible to violate rules. This is something that the public really doesn’t understand. If you read things in the newspaper and you see somebody violate a rule, you say well, they’re always doing this. But it’s impossible for a violation to go undetected, certainly not for a considerable period of time.  And when you consider the volumes of trading, the trillions of dollars of trading that go on today in Wall Street—I mean, our firm, for example, we trade an excess of $1 trillion dollars a year and that’s one firm—and you look at what we would consider to be the infractions, they’re relatively small, primarily because of all the regulation. Most firms do try to comply with that."

 

At minute 43 Bernie states:

 

So we determined that the best thing for us to do was basically to take the human being out of the equation. That had two advantages in our industry. Number one, when you take the human being out of the equation, you solve your regulatory problems because the nature of any human being, certainly anyone on Wall Street, is the better deal you give the customer, the worse deal it is for you. You’re on the other side of the transaction. It’s like going into any store—the store sells you a television at a higher price, they’re going to make more money. They sell you the lower price, their profit goes down accordingly. As honest as you try and get people to be, there’s this normal, natural pole that you have to deal with. By taking the human being out of the equation to a great extent and turning it over to a computer to make your decision—I guess you could also program the computer to violate the regulations, but we haven’t gotten there yet.

 

At minute 69 Bernie states:

 

"The future is silence. I don’t see a lot changing in the marketplaces. It’s hard to of course say that because everything always changes, but I cannot imagine what else we’d do, from an automation standpoint..."

 

At minute 71 Bernie's states:

 

"You know, this is a psychoanalytical group, I guess, right?... I’m sort of curious—maybe because no one got a chance to ask any questions about it yet—what are human beings contributing to the marketplace?  Is there any change in their actions?

At minute 111: Bernie states:

 

"This is SEC’s concern today because they call us all the time and ask us: should we be concerned about the fact that certain firms have left certain areas of the industry and are not serving the public, or not serving even other parts of the industry itself? The answer is it’s too late, because you’ve done it. So there’s always this friction that goes on between the regulation side of the industry and the practitioners that say okay, where do you draw the line? I’m very close with the regulators so I’m not trying to say that what they do is bad. As a matter of fact, my niece just married one.  (Speaker:  My condolences) (Speaker; Did the SEC approve?) Madoff:  He’s an attorney. (Speaker:  Okay.)

Madoff:  The issue is, the way they tend to look at the industry if you’re making a profit there’s something wrong, even though intellectually they know that shouldn’t be.

 

At minute 118, Bernie states:

 

"You know, my theory—and I’ve always said this even though we were one of the ones that started all this automated algorithmic trading—was that I never wanted to get into a cockpit of a plane and see there wasn’t a pilot sitting there...But more importantly, in our firm—and I don’t know that we’re unique, but I know there are other firms that do not operate this way—we  have a group of traders that are watching the systems work and the results of the systems to make sure that from their sense of trading things look right. With all due respect to Josh and a lot of other people that we have with similar backgrounds, programmers—not that he’s a programmer—but people of his ilk can tend to believe too much in the math and in the model. They fall in love with it sometimes. Not so much Josh, which is why he’s with us, but we have a lot of people like Josh that we employ and deal with. They’re different. The thing that separates somebody that is a good algorithmic trader from somebody that is dangerous is somebody that just always believes the machine is right. There are people like that. It goes back to what Bob said about the joke of the dog. It’s supposed to make sure that nobody touches the machine. You always want to have the human factor involved in the process because that makes it better. At least that’s been our experience.

 

And most disturbing at minute 125:

 

Audience:  "My question is a little basic. It’s open for the whole audience. How do you feel that the baby-boomers retiring, starting this year, will affect the future of the stock market, considering there were probably about 60 million people who are going to retire in the next ten years?"

 

Madoff:  "Good luck."

What is the take from this...its hard to tell. Here we have a man who created the NASDAQ, and took the human element out of the trading, and yet clearly likes to spend time with people. Maybe he was bored and needed the human touch. By playing the big man on campus, and spreading largess, he was the center of attention. As he states in minute 69...."The reason why is it’s quiet. When you went up to our firm you said, “Well, I’m surprised at how quiet it is.” I find it difficult to get used to that because I’m used to a lot of noise and screaming."

 

Clearly worst punishment for Bernie Madoff will be silence.

 

Bernie Madoff...We Trusted You So Long

One of the best movies of the year is a french movie, starring Kristen Scott Thomas, entitled, "I Loved You So Long." It is a sad and tragic movie, about a love so deep for a child...and how that love, and the mother's assisting her son die peacefully from cancer, haunts her upon her release from prison. Why it reminds me of Bernard L. Madoff is hard to say...but clearly their are parallels. The investors who have approached us have told us of decades old trust...a love so long...and now they are facing a death of their own...and they too are haunted, and some may be for the rest of their lives. And of course there is prison....

Often times securities fraud class actions felt like aiding a gambler who got cheated at the pool table. No tears were felt, but their were rules to be enforced and money returned. Today....it is not the same...in the Madoff matter and others. Today those who fled the tough and tumble of the public markets, and sought safety and security...investing in money market funds, cash, and trusted advisors, are telling us of having lost their entire savings and in too many cases, the funds needed to pay their medical bills and retirement. It is hard not to want to cry.

One of our clients had invested with a partnership pool almost 40 years ago, and that is where his money stayed and grew. Today he got the call where the caller revealed the "worst nightmare" ...all of the money had been invested with Madoff. 75% or his retirement gone! Shock does not describe his feelings...if any are left.

The SEC has now shut down Madoff's operations, including Bernard L Maddoff Investment Securities LLC, or BMIS. The freeze order can be found here. The SEC's complaint used to obtain the order can be found here.

But who else was involved, and where will investors be able to seek recovery?

Our investigation...in its early stages...leads use to believe that many were involved...and many knew or suspected. The investors we know invested in partnerships who invested with partnerships... who invested with Bernie M. And Bernie M. and some of the General Partners of these partnerships seem to have close relationships. We are trying to learn more about those partnerships and relationships...many of the partnerships seem to have less of a real presence than the 3 auditors of Bernie M's fund. At least they had a 12 by 18 foot office and showed up for 15 minutes a day in their tie dye T-shirts. We know that there was a group of funds or partnerships funneling money to Bernie M. But the pciture needs paint.

You can help us with our investigation. Help us define the web that allowed this Ponzi scheme to hurt so many. A description of our investigation is available here.

SEC Settlements Compared to Settlements in Private Shareholder Class Actions

 

 

NERA Economic Consulting has just published a report on SEC Civil Enforcement Settlements over the past few years. The study, SEC Settlements: A New Era Post-SOX, provides an overview of trends NERA has identified in the number of settlements and settlement values in the six years since the enactment of SOX. The data stems from a database of litigation releases and administrative proceedings  published from 31 July 2002 through 30 September 2008.

 

Of interest is a comparison of some of the SEC settlements with those achieved by private securities fraud class actions. While the comparison is not made in the report, NERA also published a report entitled   2008 Trends: Subprime and Auction-Rate Cases Continue to Drive Filings, and Large Settlements Keep Averages High .

 

Each report contains a chart of top 10 settlements, which is set out below. The first is a chart of  the top 10 settlements for SEC settlements for the period of July 2002 - September 2008. The second  is for the top ten private class action settlements. Interestingly, the lowest of the  top ten settlements in private shareholder class actions covers starts out higher than the highest SEC settlement ($895 million versus $800 million).

 

The settling companies are not the same either, except for a few. For example, the SEC disgorged no funds for investors in Worldcom. While it accessed a $750 million civil penalty, civil penalties do not necessarily go to investors. Since enactment of  the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, penalties may be added to disgorgement funds for the benefit of investors. Section 308 of Sarbanes-Oxley (the Fair Funds provision) allows the Commission to take penalties paid by individuals and entities in enforcement actions and add them to disgorgement funds for the benefit of victims. Penalty moneys no longer always go to the Treasury, but there is no hard and fast rule. By way of contrast, the private shareholder class action against Worldcom recovered over $6 billion for investors, not including institutional investors who opt-outed out of the securities fraud class action and received their own substantial recoveries.

 

Similarly, the SEC accessed penalties of $300 million from Time Warner, and received no disgorgement for investors. By way of contrast, the private shareholder class action against AOL Time Warner recovered over $2.6 billion for investors. This recovery does not include the recoveries of institutions that opted-out of the class action and pursued their own suits.

 

The SEC Settlement report also states that the number of SEC enforcement actions  with recoveries relating to misrepresentation claims for the 6 - year period totals 197 settlements. The Private Shareholder Class Action report, by way of contrast reveals that over 200 class actions are filed per year with a 60% settlement rate---or over 1200 suits with 720 settlements.

 

Our comparisons, here, are rough. Hopefully, NERA will do a more in depth statistical and case by case comparison that would stand up to expert review. But even based on this rough comparison, what do we conclude?

 

• Private class actions remain the most important vehicle for investor recovery, and dollar-wise provide the biggest deterrent to securities fraud in the area of public company misstatements or omissions. 
• The SEC report, however, remains the primary watch dog for actions involving boiler room operations, pump. and dump schemes, Ponzi schemes, financial services (brokers) misappropriation fo funds and misrepresentations to clients, and insider selling, and recoveries against individuals. NERA's report has statistics covering each of these area too. 

This first chart is from the SEC Settlements: A New Era Post-SOX :

 

 

The following is a list of top settlements in Private Securities Class Actions from the NERA Shareholder Class Action Report: