April 24, 2024

DealBook: S.E.C. Weighs Suing Aletheia Manager

Peter J. Eichler Jr., chief executive of Aletheia Research and Management.Business News NetworkPeter J. Eichler Jr., chief executive of Aletheia Research and Management.

Federal regulators are preparing a civil fraud case against a prominent Los Angeles money manager, a government lawyer said at a court hearing on Wednesday.

The manager, Peter J. Eichler Jr., chief executive of Aletheia Research and Management, has received a so-called Wells notice from the Securities and Exchange Commission, an indication that the agency is considering an enforcement action.

Gary Leung, an S.E.C. staff lawyer, disclosed the potential lawsuit during a hearing in United States Bankruptcy Court in Los Angeles. Aletheia filed for bankruptcy protection on Nov. 11, and owes as much as $50 million.

A bankruptcy lawyer for Aletheia, Brian Davidoff, said that his client disputed the S.E.C.’s possible claims. A Wells notice typically gives the recipient a chance to dissuade the S.E.C. from proceeding with its case.

Regulators are said to be looking into accusations of improper trading, including whether client accounts were manipulated through the late allocation of trades. It is also examining whether money-losing trades were shifted from client accounts into Aletheia’s accounts, said a person briefed on the case who spoke on condition of anonymity.

The Justice Department has also taken an interest in Aletheia’s bankruptcy case. On Monday, prosecutors in the tax division of the United States attorney’s office in Los Angeles made a request with the bankruptcy court that it be notified of all pleadings filed in the case.

The S.E.C.’s warning is the latest setback for Mr. Eichler, who until recently was a highly regarded money manager. At its peak, Aletheia managed nearly $10 billion in assets and had a superior long-term investment track record that handily outperformed the Standard Poor’s 500-stock index. The firm’s flagship growth strategy attracted business from Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley, which both invested their clients’ money in Aletheia funds. Both banks have terminated their relationships with Aletheia.

Aletheia also drew attention for its involvement in several prominent shareholder fights, including when it teamed up with the billionaire investor Ronald Burkle to wage a proxy battle with the bookseller Barnes Noble.

Named after the Greek word for “truth and disclosure,” Aletheia was started in 1997 by Mr. Eichler, a former executive at Bear Stearns. He operated the firm out of wood-paneled headquarters at 100 Wilshire Boulevard in Santa Monica, a prestigious office building with commanding views of the Pacific Ocean.

But Mr. Eichler and Aletheia have been under a cloud since 2010, when a senior executive at the firm, Roger B. Peikin, filed an explosive wrongful-termination lawsuit. He depicted Mr. Eichler as a tyrannical boss who ruled Aletheia “with an iron fist” and operated the firm as his “personal fiefdom.” The complaint also accused Mr. Eichler of misconduct related to “general disregard for regulatory controls, wanton expenditure of corporate assets for Eichler’s personal benefit, and overall neglect of the business side of Aletheia’s operations.”

Aletheia has had mounting legal problems in recent years. It already had a dispute with the S.E.C. when, in 2011, it paid the agency $400,000 to settle civil charges related to deficient record-keeping.

The firm is also engaged in a legal fight with Proctor Investment Managers, a private equity firm based in New York, over the terms of a deal in which Proctor took a 10 percent stake in Aletheia.

Despite its legal woes and tepid performance across its funds, Aletheia still managed about $1.4 billion as of Sept. 30, according to securities filings.

A version of this article appeared in print on 11/22/2012, on page B5 of the NewYork edition with the headline: S.E.C. Weighs Suing Aletheia Manager.

Article source: http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2012/11/21/s-e-c-weighs-suing-aletheia-manager/?partner=rss&emc=rss

DealBook: Trial to Begin for Former UBS Trader Accused of Hiding Huge Loss

Kweku Adoboli, a former UBS trader, is charged with fraud and false accounting in connection with a $2.3 billion loss.Simon Dawson/Bloomberg NewsKweku M. Adoboli, a former UBS trader, is charged with fraud and false accounting in connection with a $2.3 billion loss.

LONDON — UBS will face the harsh glare of the spotlight again on Friday, as opening arguments begin in the trial of a former trader accused of hiding a multibillion-dollar loss at the investment bank.

Kweku M. Adoboli, 32, the former trader, faces charges of false accounting and fraud in connection with a $2.3 billion loss at the bank. He has pleaded not guilty.

“As uncomfortable as the entire trial will be for UBS, it will show us what the consequences are when misconduct occurs or when individuals do not take their responsibilities seriously,” the bank’s chief executive, Sergio P. Ermotti, said in an internal memo made public by the firm.

UBS, which has struggled to regain its footing since the financial crisis, has been plagued by a number of scandals in recent years.

In 2009, the investment bank, based in Switzerland, agreed to pay $780 million to settle a tax fraud case with American authorities. Three former UBS executives were convicted earlier this year for rigging bids in the municipal bond market.

The bank has also been ensnared by a global investigation into rate manipulation. UBS, which is one of more than a dozen institutions under investigation, struck an immunity deal with authorities.

The case against Mr. Adoboli has only added to the questions about the bank’s oversight and risk management.

After the financial crisis, UBS, which had been hobbled by bad real estate bets, vowed to overhaul its internal controls. But the bank disclosed two years later that it had “discovered unauthorized speculative trading,” and Mr. Adoboli was arrested. According to the charges, his activities spanned more than three years, starting in 2008.

UBS subsequently conducted an internal investigation into the loss. The review showed that the firm’s risk controls had raised red flags about unusual trading activity, but that managers had failed to adequately follow up. “We have to be straight with ourselves,” Mr. Ermotti, the chief executive, said in 2011. “In no circumstances should something like this ever occur.”

The UBS trading scandal echoes past cases.

In 2010, Jérôme Kerviel, a trader at the Paris-based bank Société Générale, was convicted of generating more than $6 billion in losses. He is appealing the matter. Another trader, Nicholas W. Leeson of Barings Bank, racked up $1 billion in losses, prompting the failure of the British institution in 1995. Mr. Leeson pleaded guilty and served four years in prison.

Mr. Adoboli started his finance career at UBS. He joined the bank as an investment adviser trainee in London shortly after graduating from Nottingham University in 2003, and eventually worked his way up to the Delta One desk, a plain-vanilla version of derivatives trading. Traders in this group create investments that track specific financial assets like a basket of company stocks.

Mr. Adoboli fired his lawyers at Kingsley Napley, the firm that had previously represented Mr. Leeson. Mr. Adoboli is now represented by Bark Company, another law firm in London.

If convicted, he could face up to 10 years in prison. The trial is expected to last up to eight weeks. Both current and former UBS employees could be called as witnesses, though the firm has not been accused of any wrongdoing.

Legal restrictions in Britain limit the information that can be reported about the case to avoid biasing the proceedings. UBS and a lawyer for Mr. Adoboli declined to comment.

When the trading scandal erupted last year, it reverberated through the upper ranks of UBS. The chief executive, Oswald J. Grübel, whom UBS had recruited to oversee its turnaround, promptly resigned. The co-chiefs of global equities, the division where the loss occurred, also left the firm.

The firm’s profit also suffered. After disclosing the trading losses, UBS reported that quarterly earnings dropped 39 percent to $1.2 billion.

The blowup has worsened the bank’s financial woes. Like other European banks, UBS is dealing with the sluggish economy and the sovereign debt crisis in Europe.

With investment banking operations slumping, institutions have moved swiftly to lay off staff and revamp their strategies. UBS has announced 3,500 job cuts, with about half expected in the investment banking division. It has also shifted its focus toward wealth management.

“The banks are slowly realizing there are parts of their businesses that just don’t make money,” said Pete Hahn, a fellow at Cass Business School in London. “A fundamental rethink is under way.”

Article source: http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2012/09/13/trial-to-begin-for-former-ubs-trader-accused-of-hiding-huge-loss/?partner=rss&emc=rss

CDR and David Rubin Plead Guilty in Fraud Case

Opinion »

Latitude: Harper Save the Queen

The Canadian prime minister rediscovered his enthusiasm for the British monarchy just to irk Quebec.

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=76e6417410c286d21c75e1cbfca6e84d

Bits Blog: Best Buy Cancels Some Online Orders

Mark Humphrey/Associated Press

This year’s Black Friday was so overwhelming that even Best Buy couldn’t handle its own sales.

A number of online shoppers this week complained that some of their BestBuy.com orders placed in November or December were being canceled, just days before Christmas.

The electronics retail giant has apologized for the cancellations. Best Buy cited overwhelming demand of hot product offerings, which led to some orders’ being canceled.

“We are very sorry for the inconvenience this has caused and we have notified the affected customers,” Best Buy said in a statement to Fox 9 in Minneapolis-St. Paul.

Customers expressed their frustration in Best Buy’s online forums, with some parents asserting that the retailer had ruined Christmas for their children.

Some customers in the forum accused Best Buy of committing fraud, as the retailer’s cancellations could be seen as a deliberate bait-and-switch tactic designed to lure customers into its store with false promises of hot sales, depriving them of the ability to buy the items from a rival store.

Such an action would constitute fraud, for example, under Section 17200 of the California business and professions code, which states, “unfair competition shall mean and include any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice and unfair, deceptive, untrue or misleading advertising.”

However, it’s unlikely consumers would have much of a fraud case against Best Buy, said Andra Greene, a class-action defense lawyer with Irell Manella L.L.P.

Ms. Greene explained that it would be difficult to prove that Best Buy deliberately put items up for sale that it did not intend to sell. She added that it was unclear how Best Buy would benefit from canceling Black Friday items retroactively, because it could instead hurt itself by losing customers.

“Based on just the facts as I know them, this would be a tough row to hoe,” Ms. Greene said.

Best Buy’s public relations team did not respond to multiple requests for comment.

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=8a95c4c7cd387661b2e2d96e7ebc643b

S.E.C. Files Suit to Recoup Losses in Stanford Fraud Case

The S.E.C. and SIPC have been sparring in recent months over whether Stanford customers are eligible for protection under its rules. SIPC backs customer accounts at brokerage firms against failure much like the F.D.I.C. insures bank deposits.

Unlike the F.D.I.C., however, SIPC does not regulate brokerage firms or conduct examinations of their businesses and accounts. The investor protection corporation is an industry-backed group financed by assessments on brokerage firms.

Stanford Financial, owned and operated by R. Allen Stanford, managed more than $7 billion of customer money that was supposed to be invested in safe, high-yielding certificates of deposit. In 2009, federal authorities seized the bank, and the S.E.C. described the company in a court filing as a “massive Ponzi scheme” in which Mr. Stanford used the proceeds from 21,500 customers in part to finance a lavish lifestyle.

SIPC has said that because the investments were certificates of deposit that were sold by a bank, they were not eligible for its coverage, which is restricted to accounts at brokerage firms. The S.E.C. has argued that Stanford Financial included a brokerage firm, and that many customers opened brokerage accounts in order to buy the C.D.’s. They were given papers upon purchase of their certificates that indicated that the transaction was covered by SIPC, the commission said.

In a filing in Federal District Court in Washington, the S.E.C. asked for a court order compelling the investor protection corporation to begin a liquidation of the Stanford Group, the brokerage firm.

Though there are thought to be few if any assets at the firm, the liquidation filing is a necessary step to allow customers to begin the quest to recover their losses. Investors are covered for losses of up to $500,000 if a brokerage firm fails.

“Stanford’s financial advisers used the apparent legitimacy offered by U.S. regulation of Stanford’s U.S. brokerage subsidiary in order to generate sales” of the certificates of deposit, the S.E.C. said in its filing.

The Stanford scheme began coming apart when redemptions increased in 2008 and early 2009, in part because of the financial crisis, to the point where incoming funds were no longer sufficient to meet investor withdrawals.

Mr. Stanford is in jail awaiting trial on 14 criminal counts related to the investment business. The S.E.C. also has filed a civil suit against him.

SIPC officials could not be reached for comment Monday evening. In 2009, SIPC said that Stanford customers were not entitled to coverage under its policies. In June, the S.E.C. said it had decided that investors should be covered by the insurance; the investor protection corporation said it would issue a decision on whether to heed that ruling by mid-September.

Since then, the two sides have been in negotiations, but they were unable to reach a deal. The S.E.C. has been under pressure from several members of Congress to get SIPC to disburse funds to harmed customers.

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=4f102ee8c86a384b8ba85462719d6407

Former Chief of Drugstore Is Sentenced in Fraud Case

Opinion »

Stanley Fish: Looking for Gas in All the Wrong Places

At a village meeting about the hot issue of hydraulic fracturing, cool heads and clear thinking prevail.

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=ba845431e9d27e6974264f31eb886030