New York Securities Lawyer BlogLax & Neville LLP is investigating claims on behalf of investors regarding possible misconduct in connection with Merrill Lynch’s sale of a collaterized loan obligation investment known as Lyon Capital Management VII.
Articles Posted in Uncategorized
Published on:
Westminster Securities Corp. v. Petrocom Energy Limited, Petrocom Limited and Howard Au – 11-607
Lax & Neville successfully defends appeal of a significant American Arbitration Association (“AAA”) award against Petrocom Limited and Petrocom Energy Limited (“Petrocom”) (中港印能源集团有限公司(“中港印”). Lax & Neville represented Westminster Securities Corporation (“Westminster”) before the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, which has affirmed the ruling of Judge Cote in the Southern District Court of New York confirming the AAA arbitration award against Petrocom, a Chinese coal blending company. In the underlying arbitration, the Tribunal determined that Petrocom wrongfully failed to pay fees and issue warrants when Westminster successfully raised over $55 million for Petrocom and its Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Mr. Howard Au (区可). Specifically, the Tribunal awarded Westminster approximately $2,250,000 in damages, which included placement agent compensation, attorneys’ fees and costs and a $50,000 sanction against Petrocom for its “flouting” of the Tribunal’s Order to have John P. O’Shea appointed to the Board of Directors of Petrocom, plus a total of 4,080,000 in Warrants. Based upon shareholder reports from Petrocom a reasonable valuation for these warrants is believed to be $2.00 per warrant (at a minimum), the total damages awarded to Westminster exceeded $10 million. The Second Circuit Panel held that the Tribunal’s Award should be affirmed since the Tribunal provided a colorable justification when denying Petrocom’s argument that the tail provision only applied when the placement agreement was terminated, and not when it expired. The Second Circuit Panel reasoned that the placement agreement’s survival clause extended the tail provision in the event of termination or expiration, and therefore, Westminster was owed fees by Petrocom. The Second Circuit Panel also held that contrary to Petrocom’s argument, Westminster’s unjust enrichment clause was encompassed in the parties’ agreement to arbitrate since the parties’ arbitration agreement was worded broadly. Since Petrocom was enriched by Westminster’s efforts to introduce several potential investors, the Second Circuit held that Westminster’s unjust enrichment claim clearly related to the parties’ placement agreements, and therefore the claim was governed by the arbitration clause.
Published on:
Clients of the Merrill Lynch Phil Scott Team Win $1.2 million FINRA Arbitration Award Against Merrill, including, their Entire Net Out-of-pocket Losses, Interest, Costs and Attorneys’ Fees
This is the SECOND time in the past 6 months where Lax & Neville LLP has won a significant FINRA arbitration award against Merrill Lynch for purported sales practice abuses concerning the Merrill Lynch Phil Scott Team and the Merrill Lynch Phil Scott Team Income Portfolios. In the most recent arbitration, the Merrill Lynch Phil Scott Team recommended that 100% of Claimants’ investible assets be invested in the Merrill Lynch Phil Scott Team Income Portfolios, which consisted of 100% equities. This concentration of equities was patently unsuitable for the Claimants for many reasons, not the least of which, was the fact the approximately 60% of the portfolio was pledged to three different Merrill Lynch loans. Claimants argued that the initial and continued recommendations by the Merrill Lynch Phil Scott Team to invest in the Income Portfolios were made without knowledge and understanding of the collateral requirements of the three Merrill Lynch loans. During the arbitration process, Claimants focused on the Merrill Lynch Phil Scott Team’s blatant disregard of industry and regulatory obligations, and Claimants’ risk tolerances and investment objectives. The FINRA arbitration award against Merrill Lynch consisted of $800,219 in compensatory damages which represented Claimants’ entire net out-of-pocket losses and interest at the rate of 6% per annum from July 26, 2010 through the date the award is paid in full. In addition to the $800,219 award in compensatory damages, the Panel awarded Claimants all attorneys’ fees requested in the amount of $391,474, along with their costs in the amount of $47,339.91. All hearing session fees were also assessed against Merrill Lynch.
Published on:
Important Notice to Investment Advisory Clients of James Tagliaferri and TAG Virgin Islands
We are currently representing investment advisory clients of James Tagliaferri and TAG Virgin Islands (“TAG”), who sued Tagliagerri, TAG, and other Defendants, in New York Supreme Court to recover their substantial investment losses incurred as a result of fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and other causes of action. The Complaint alleges that TAG and Tagliaferri concocted a scheme to defraud our clients by transferring their funds to various TAG affiliated companies under the pretense of convertible note instruments, which for all intents and purposes were worthless. Our clients never received the return of the principal or interest payments from these notes when held to maturity. Moreover, TAG and Tagliaferri converted many of these notes into common stock in certain TAG affiliated companies that are also essentially worthless. Furthermore, TAG and Tagliaferri never disclosed to our clients the additional commissions they earned on these transactions. Upon information and belief, the TAG affiliated companies which TAG transferred our clients’ money to included, but not necessarily limited to, the following entities: IEAH Corporation, IEAH Stables, Inc., IEAH, Crossing at Fleming, Fleming, JTS Corporation, 1920 Bel Air, LLC, Conversion Services International, Inc., Equities Media Acquisition Corp., Fund.com Inc., Gerova Financial Group Ltd., National Digital Medical Archive, Inc., Rineon Group, Inc., and Stanwich Absolute Return Ltd.
Published on:
Register Representatives in Transition Need to Hire Counsel
According to data tracked by InvestmentNews, a large number of registered representative teams have recently changed firms, and it is important for registered representatives to know that they should hire transition counsel to help them in their move. Our firm has acted as transition counsel for hundreds of registered representatives and is able to add value by negotiating a registered representative’s contract with his/her new firm, negotiating any outstanding promissory note balances, discussing potential Protocol issues, representing registered representatives in FINRA arbitrations and Temporary Restraining Orders, and ensuring that the transition is as smooth as possible. If you are a registered representative who is considering transitioning to a new firm, it is in your best interests to contact us in order to better understand the important services we can provide to you.
Published on:
URGENT: Adversary Proceeding Responses Due December 14, 2011
The deadline to respond to complaints filed in Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities, Inc. (“BLMIS”) adversary proceedings is quickly approaching on December 14, 2011. We understand that counsel for the Trustee will not provide any additional extensions of the response due date unless the defendant named in the adversary proceedings filed a motion to withdraw the reference. Lax & Neville, LLP has filed motions to withdraw the reference in approximately 50 adversary proceedings on behalf of hundreds of BLMIS customers. If your response due date is approaching, and you would like to have your case removed to federal district court by filing a motion to withdraw the reference, please contact our office.
Published on:
Important Notice to MF Global Account Holders
On October 31, 2011, the Securities Investor Protection Corporation (“SIPC”) filed a complaint against MF Global Inc., in the District Court for the Southern District of New York. See 11-cv-7750 (PAE). The SIPC complaint stated, “SIPC has determined that “MF Global Inc.,” has failed or is [in] danger of failing to meet its obligations to its customers within the meaning of SIPC Section 78eee(a)(3)(A), and that there exists one or more of the conditions specified in SIPA Section 78eee(b)(1). Specifically, MF Global Inc. is unable to meet its obligations as they mature.” See 11-cv-7750 (PAE) pg. 2. The Honorable Paul Engelmayer immediately appointed James W. Giddens as the SIPC Trustee tasked with affording MF Global Inc. customers the protection afforded by the Securities Investor Protection Act of 1970. Also on October 31, 2011, MF Global Holdings Ltd. and MF Global Finance USA Inc. (collectively “MF Global”) filed voluntary petitions for relief under Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code (the “Chapter 11 Bankruptcy”) in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York (the “Bankruptcy Court”). The Bankruptcy matters have been assigned to the Honorable Martin Glenn. Many customer and account holders of MF Global have questions. Lax & Neville has substantial experience in SIPC liquidations. If you hold an account at MF Global, please contact Lax & Neville, LLP to discuss the ramifications of the Bankruptcy matter and the potential filing of SIPC Claims on your behalf.
Published on:
A FINRA Arbitration Panel Found in Favor of a Customer of Deutsche Bank who Invested in the Aravali Fund
A large FINRA arbitration award was recently rendered against Deutsche Bank Securities, LLC (“Deutsche Bank”) for sales practice abuses concerning Deutsche Bank’s selling and marketing of the Aravali Fund, LP (“Aravali Fund”). The Aravali Fund was sold to investors who were seeking income and safety of principal as an alternative to a municipal bond portfolio. In reality, the Aravali Fund was a very risky interest arbitrage scheme comprised of a significant short position in treasury bonds, interest rate swaps and a highly levered pool of relatively illiquid municipal bonds. Not long after inception, the Aravali Fund plummeted in excess of 90% in value, and was liquidated. Based on these claims, our firm has filed numerous arbitrations against Deutsche Bank on behalf customers of Deutsche Bank who invested in the Aravali Fund.
Published on:
UBS loses Motion to Dismiss in Lehman Brothers Securities and ERISA Litigation
On July 27, 2011, Judge Lewis A. Kaplan of the Southern District Court of New York denied UBS Financial Service Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss a class action complaint filed by investors of Lehman Brothers “Principal Protection Notes” (“Lehman Note”). See In re: Lehman Brothers Securities and ERISA Litigation, Index No. 09-MD-2017 (LAK), document no. 263. UBS attempted to dismiss the class action complaint by asserting that despite UBS broker’s representations to Lehman Note investors that the Lehman Notes were a safe and conservative investment, with no risk of loss of principal, those investors were warned of the inherent risks of the Lehman Notes through written disclosures contained in pricing supplements and offering materials. The Court rejected this argument since statements in the Lehman Note offering materials regarding the risks associated with investing in the Lehman Notes were offset by more prominently and frequently cited statements regarding principal protection. Specifically the Court held, “the Court can not conclude as a matter of law that the repeated and emphasized statements about principal protection were offset sufficiently, as a matter of by, by the inconspicuous and scattered warnings . . . about Lehman’s solvency.” See In re: Lehman Brothers Securities and ERISA Litigation, Index No. 09-MD-2017 (LAK), document no. 263, p.98.
Published on:
USDJ Denise L. Cote confirmed a $10 million AAA Arbitration Award in the matter of Westminster Securities Corporation v. Petrocom Energy Limited and Petrocom Limited
Judge Cote has confirmed an American Arbitration Association Award against Petrocom Limited and Petrocom Energy Limited (“Petrocom”), a Chinese coal blending company that was recently highlighted in a New York Times article. The esteemed Tribunal of top international arbitrators determined that Petrocom failed to pay placement agent fees and issue warrants when Westminster Securities Corporation (“Westminster”) raised over $35 million for Petrocom and its Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Mr. Howard Au. Specifically, the Tribunal awarded Westminster approximately $2,250,000 in damages, which included placement agent compensation, attorneys’ fees and costs and a $50,000 sanction against Petrocom for its “flouting” of the Tribunal’s Order, plus a total of 4,080,000 in Warrants. Considering that these warrants are believed to be valued at $2.00 per warrant (at a minimum), the total damages awarded to Westminster exceeded $10 million.