Civil or Criminal Actions against companies or regulators

Index of forum topics, talk to us.

Re: Civil or Criminal Actions against companies or regulator

Postby admin » Fri Apr 05, 2013 8:41 pm

Screen Shot 2013-04-05 at 9.39.41 PM.png



Half-billion dollar lawsuit launched by investors

Thursday, April 4, 2013
By Jason van Rassel, Calgary Herald



“Most of these people are in the nature of mom-and-pop retail investors,” lawyer Blair Yorke-Slader of Bennett Jones LLP in Calgary said in an interview.

Photographed by:
Gavin Young, Calgary Herald
Investors have launched a class-action lawsuit seeking to recover $500 million they put into a series of beleaguered real estate companies and related ventures promoted by a former Lethbridge pastor.

A statement of claim filed in Court of Queen’s Bench on Wednesday alleges hundreds of people invested their savings in a scheme that improperly siphoned millions of dollars to Ronald James Aitkens and seven other people named in the suit.

“Most of these people are in the nature of mom-and-pop retail investors,” lawyer Blair Yorke-Slader of Bennett Jones LLP in Calgary said in an interview.

The suit alleges Aitkens created a series of entities called the Harvest Group of Companies, which raised $500 million for 16 ventures in real estate development, resource development and financial investment since 2001.

However, the suit claims none of the projects were viable; it alleges they were bait used to solicit money from investors that wound up in the pockets of Aitken and other Harvest Group principals.

“Each (project) was merely a shell, sham or captive company formed and/or incorporated with the purpose of obscuring this common purpose and organization,” reads the statement of claim.

“Although ostensibly in the business of providing legitimate real estate investments and developments, the Harvest Group of Companies was really in the business of improperly enriching the personal defendants.”

Aitken’s lawyer couldn’t be reached for comment on the lawsuit’s claims, which haven’t been proven in court.

The statement of claim names 11 plaintiffs who have stepped forward on behalf of hundreds of investors allegedly victimized by the defendants.

The precise number of investors eligible to join the suit isn’t yet known.

The suit said Harvest raised its money with a network of agents who sold shares and bonds in its ventures, often through word-of-mouth and free seminars.

The agents themselves were misled into providing false information to investors by the defendants, the suit alleges.

Although the plaintiffs don’t claim to know the exact role each of the seven defendants allegedly played, the suit describes Aitkens as the “directing or controlling mind” of the companies involved.

“Aitkens personally moved the scheme forward, made misrepresentations as described above to the investors and received benefit from investors’ funds. Aitkens was the ‘face’ of the Harvest Group of Companies and of the investment scheme,” the statement of claim said.

The suit claims the defendants enriched themselves mainly through “nonsensical management fees” and by transferring investors’ money out of the projects and into separate, but related, companies they also controlled.

In the case of a proposed industrial park in the town of Millet, south of Edmonton, the defendants raised $35 million from investors.

The suit alleges $22.7 million was used to buy the land “at an inflated and improvident value” from another Harvest Group company.

The defendants “improperly paid themselves” $9.1 million in management fees and made $2 million in payments to “affiliated entities and unknown parties,” according to the statement of claim.

Yet despite raising $35 million in capital, “few if any development activities have taken place with respect to the Railside Industrial Park project,” the claim said.

Some of the other projects Harvest raised money for include an office complex in downtown Calgary, as well as residential developments in southwest Calgary, Airdrie and Rocky View County.

The suit alleges not only have the projects never been built, investors’ bonds were never redeemed either.

Investors also put money into a Harvest Group company, Foundation Mortgage, that claimed to offer financing to other real estate development companies.

The suit alleges the money was used instead to make improper loans to other Harvest Group ventures.

“By either fraudulent design or extraordinary incompetence, the defendants, or certain of them, thereby ensured that bondholders would never be repaid,” the claim says.

Initially, some Foundation bondholders did receive a return on their investment — but the suit claims they were paid with money improperly taken from elsewhere.

“In truth, (Foundation) paid investors with money from other investors, sometimes even from other projects, in a Ponzi-like fashion,” the suit says.

The suit must be certified by a judge before it can proceed.

In addition to $500 million restitution, the suit also seeks unspecified damages for breach of contract, misrepresentation, breach of trust, breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment and other alleged torts.

The suit also seeks a freeze on the defendants’ assets, as well as the appointment of a receiver or supervisor to oversee the sale of the real estate held by the Harvest companies with any proceeds going to the plaintiffs.

The case is scheduled to be heard in Calgary.

jvanrassel@calgaryherald.com

Twitter: JasonvanRassel

http://www.calgaryherald.com/mobile/new ... story.html
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3014
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 9:05 am
Location: Canada

Re: Civil or Criminal Actions against companies or regulator

Postby admin » Sun Mar 17, 2013 6:13 pm

Screen Shot 2013-03-17 at 7.13.25 PM.png


General

The relationship between the private citizen, as prosecutor, and the Attorney General, who has exclusive authority to represent the public in court, has been described as follows:
The right of a private citizen to lay an Information (file charge), and the right and duty of the Attorney General to supervise criminal prosecutions are both fundamental parts of our criminal justice system.

The right of a citizen to institute a prosecution for a breach of the law has been called a valuable constitutional safeguard against inertia or partiality on the part of authority.

The Owen Report (Discretion to Prosecute Inquiry) states that the major importance of private prosecution “is that it places into public view the decision-making process. If charges are to be stayed or withdrawn, then this will be done in public.” Consistent with this policy, the Owen Report also recommended (Recommendation #2):
That the prosecution of an indictable offence should not be left in private hands. Where a private prosecution has been initiated, the Crown should intervene to take over the conduct of it. The Crown should then apply its standard charge approval criteria and process to determine whether the prosecution should be stayed or continued. This is necessary to ensure that a single standard of charge approval is applied and that prosecutorial power is exercised only in the public interest.

http://www.ag.gov.bc.ca/prosecution-ser ... ov2005.pdf

http://www.ag.gov.bc.ca/prosecution-ser ... /index.htm

Search keywords: layinformation
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3014
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 9:05 am
Location: Canada

Re: Civil or Criminal Actions against companies or regulator

Postby admin » Tue Mar 05, 2013 2:16 pm

Court of Appeal reiterates the importance for investors to conduct due diligence
Heenan Blaikie LLP
Canada
February 22 2013

The Court of Appeal of Quebec has rendered an important decision on the liability of securities dealers and investment advisors. In Mazzarolo v. BMO Nesbitt Burns ltée, 2013 QCCA 245, the Court of Appeal, in accordance with its precedents, reaffirmed the respective duties of investors, investment advisors and dealers, while reiterating the importance of differentiating the mandate of an investment advisor from that of a portfolio manager.
Facts
Mr. Mazzarolo, a wealthy businessman, sued, on his own behalf and on behalf of his companies, his investment advisors Messrs. Lazarus and Albert, as well as the dealer BMO Nesbitt Burns, for over 4 million dollars. The case was dismissed at trial by the Honourable Joël A. Silcoff, J.S.C. Mr. Mazzarolo brought the matter before the Court of Appeal.
Mr. Mazzarolo claimed to have limited to a maximum of $250,000 the capital gains arising from the redemption of certain mutual funds in two of his accounts. Mr. Mazzarolo was also dissatisfied with the performance of one of his accounts, arguing that his investment advisors acted in fact as portfolio managers and that they had ventured beyond the investment proposal which Mr. Mazzarolo claimed to have accepted.
Issues
The Court of Appeal had to determine whether the trial judge had erred in his assessment of the evidence as to the existence of the $250,000 ceiling for capital gains that had allegedly been set for Mr. Mazzorolo’s two accounts, as well as the evidence on the resulting damages. The Court also had to consider whether the trial judge erred in characterizing the mandate accepted by Mr. Mazzarolo’s investment advisors.
Court of Appeal Decision
The Court of Appeal analyzed evidence presented at trial, having regard to the principle that it must exercise restraint with respect to findings of fact made by the trial judge. Further to its analysis, the Court of Appeal corroborated the findings of the trial judge.
The evidence revealed that Mr. Mazzarolo was a successful businessman, experienced in various types of investments and able to withstand a high level of risk. The Court of Appeal thus found no error in the decision of the trial judge to dismiss the allegations as to the existence of a ceiling of $250,000 for capital gains. The Court of Appeal did not overturn the trial judge’s finding that it was the client’s responsibility to calculate its capital gains.
As for the existence of a discretionary de factoportfolio management mandate, the Court of Appeal noted that this argument is based on a misconception of the mandate of investment advisors. A discretionary de facto portfolio management mandate is not created solely because multiple transactions were solicited or recommended by investment advisors, particularly if, as in this case, the client is not vulnerable. This is not a distinctive feature of discretionary portfolio management.
The Court of Appeal also considered the argument of the ratification of the disputed transactions. Mr. Mazzarolo had never disputed the transactions that were alleged to have been made without his consent. Furthermore, it was found that his assistant prepared monthly reports for him in which the disputed transactions were detailed.
The authorities cited by the Court of Appeal emphasize that the securities regulatory framework requires sending confirmations and account statements to clients. When a client fails to question or challenge the transactions within a reasonable time following the receipt of such confirmations or account statements, one may conclude in the ratification of the effected transactions.
The Court of Appeal noted that an investor cannot remain passive in such a context, much less when he holds a non-discretionary account with advice rather than a discretionary account. A judge is then entitled to make a rebuttable presumption of ratification by the investor. Recalling the principles established in Immeubles Jacques Robitaille inc. v. Financière Banque Nationale, 2011 QCCA 1952, the Court reiterated that investors are bound to a certain duty of due diligence in the management of their portfolio.
The Court of Appeal specified, however, that the analysis of whether a transaction had been ratified may be different when the disputed transaction does not match the client’s investment objectives, which was not the case of Mr. Mazzarolo.
Impact of the Decision
It should be noted that there are particular facts in this case. The Court of Appeal should not, in principle, intervene in the findings of fact made by the trial judge. The Court’s ability to intervene is limited where the majority of matters under appeal concern the assessment of the evidence presented at trial.
Nevertheless, it is interesting to note that the Court of Appeal upheld the findings of its recent decisions, noting that investors, even neophytes, have obligations in the relationship with their advisor. The Court’s analysis with respect to the ratification of the transactions is particularly interesting insofar as it condemns passivity and disinterest on the part of the investor.
In addition, after several years of ambiguity following the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in Laflamme v. Prudential-Bache Commodities Canada Ltd., [2000] 1 S.C.R. 638, we have witnessed over the last few years a better qualification of the respective obligations of investment advisors in relation to those of portfolio managers. Finally, we note an increase in the use by courts of IIROC rules to evaluate the conduct of advisors and dealers, making it possible to adapt the civil law rules on mandate to the particularities of the securities context.
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3014
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 9:05 am
Location: Canada

Re: Civil or Criminal Actions against companies or regulator

Postby admin » Sun Mar 03, 2013 11:27 pm

Screen Shot 2013-03-03 at 11.25.08 PM.png


By Pam Martens: February 28, 2013


In several respects, Occupy Wall Street reminds me of the feminist movement. Corporate funded media has declared the women’s rights movement dead ad nauseam for four decades — and yet it thrives and reinvents itself. Similarly, corporate funded media has eulogized Occupy Wall Street from almost the moment of its nascent birth in the Fall of 2011.

If there is a common thread connecting these movements and the dire media prognostications of their demise, it is likely that when either one advances, entrenched power — and its iron grip on the wealth of a nation — loses.

Now, similar to the early court battles for women’s rights, Occupy Wall Street has tossed aside its encampments and bullhorns and donned its legal garb and pro hac vices. Occupy Wall Street’s brain trust, Occupy the SEC, just filed a Federal lawsuit that encapsulates the crony capitalist state that passes today for democracy.

The organization is suing every Federal regulator that resides in the pocket of Wall Street – which means they are suing every Federal regulator of Wall Street. And, spunky group that they are, they’re naming individuals too. Here’s the rundown: Ben Bernanke, Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Martin Gruenberg, Chairman of the FDIC, Elisse Walter, Chair of the SEC, Gary Gensler, Chair of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Thomas Curry, Comptroller of the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Mary Miller, Under Secretary for Domestic Finance at the Treasury, Neal Wolin, Acting Secretary of the Treasury.

Occupy the SEC is serving a valiant public service in bringing this lawsuit. It explains to the court that one of the most critical components of the 2010 Dodd-Frank Act that was supposed to reform Wall Street has yet to be enacted by the regulators and this is in violation of law. The key component is the Volcker Rule, named after former Fed Chairman Paul Volcker, that would prohibit most forms of trading for the house on Wall Street, known officially as proprietary trading.

The lawsuit informs the court that Dodd-Frank required that regulators adopt rules relating to this section “within nine months after the completion of a study by FSOC [Financial Stabilization Oversight Council] relating to the Volcker Rule. The FSOC completed that study in January 2011.” The complaint proceeds to explain that the legislative language “is unequivocal in setting this mandatory deadline, which the Defendants and the agencies under their control have missed.”

To bring a lawsuit of this nature, plaintiffs who have a legitimate stake in the outcome must be named on the suit. Occupy the SEC has wisely selected two individuals, Eric Taylor and Kristine Ekman, who live in Brooklyn and hold insured deposit accounts with two major Wall Street firms. That’s highly relevant because the Brooklyn residences allow this case to be filed in the Federal District Court for the Eastern District of New York rather than the Southern District that covers the Wall Street area and lower Manhattan. Wall Street has been getting extremely sweet deals in that District Court for the past two decades, raising concerns as to whether the 99 percent can ever obtain justice there.

The complaint explains to the Court that “this delay puts Plaintiffs’ deposited money at risk, because banks can continue to speculate with it as long as the Volcker Rule has not been implemented.” The recent example of the implosion of insured deposits at JPMorgan Chase is cited:

“For instance, in April of 2012 it was reported that the Chief Investment Office (CIO) at the London office of JPMorgan Chase bank had utilized deposited funds, like those of Plaintiffs, to invest in extremely risky, speculative credit default swap indices (derivatives of derivatives). Further, it has recently been reported that other traders at JPMorgan actually bet against the CIO office, virtually guaranteeing that some division within the bank would suffer losses. The latest estimates reveal that the bank suffered approximately $6 billion in trading losses from the CIO debacle.”

The lawsuit was filed by attorney, Akshat Tewary, who has been active in Occupy the SEC since its inception. (Read the full lawsuit here.)

Proprietary trading is, at its core, benign sounding jargon for an essential cog in Wall Street’s institutionalized wealth transfer mechanism. Wall Street banks take in insured deposits on which they pay a tiny amount of interest, then use those depositor funds to speculate for the house after leveraging up the bets to obscene ratios. Frequently, they use their insider information to make sure the house wins.

If the bets blow up the institution, the taxpayer steps in with bailouts because the institution is deemed too big to fail. If the bets win, the executive suite reward themselves with obscene pay packages and retirement perks. It’s heads they win, tails you lose and it continues unimpeded despite the President’s lofty promises for change. The fact that his administration is not bringing this lawsuit to prevent the delay of the enactment of the Volcker Rule but the job is left to a group of concerned citizens, crystallizes the fact that Wall Street is still running things in Washington. If you need further proof, read our next story on what transpired on the Senate floor yesterday with the confirmation vote for Obama’s pick for Treasury Secretary, Jack Lew.


http://wallstreetonparade.com/2013/02/o ... ll-street/
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3014
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 9:05 am
Location: Canada

Re: Civil or Criminal Actions against companies or regulator

Postby admin » Thu Feb 28, 2013 4:21 pm

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/02/ ... MZ20130227

citizens group in the USA sues regulators......and so it begins.....accountability at last?
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3014
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 9:05 am
Location: Canada

Re: Civil or Criminal Actions against companies or regulator

Postby admin » Wed Feb 20, 2013 3:29 pm

To the attention of Patrick -

It was good to speak with you a few minutes ago. I notice that FSNA is a member of the Common Front for Retirement Security. I am hopeful that a position statement may be worked on by the member agencies of CFRS to correct the current dysfunctional and derelict policy that exists in the practice of oversight of investment dealing in Canada.

As I said on the phone, the Criminal Code of Canada is being systematically dis-regarded. Oversight agencies such as OBSI, IIROC, BC Securities Commission, Insurance Council of BC and many other organizations have a policy of saying: "We are not allowed to look at the Criminal Code" when they are given a complaint about a broker practicing deception against a client. This is a completely inadequate policy, and it must be assessed for what it is: aiding and abetting crime. It is particularly egregious, in that it is a prevalent form of elder abuse, that must be stopped.

The police have a work load that prevents them from having the time to start from scratch on uncovering all the evidence and details that are needed in order to prosecute violations of the laws that require honest, good faith dealing in securities. A proposal must be put together that will make possible the enforcement of the laws in this area, as described in the Martin's Criminal Code attachment to this message.

Required Policy Change by Investment Regulators and Oversight Agencies

If a competent model of practice was to be put in place governing the actions of all organizations that have any responsibilities in the governance of investment industry practitioners, the following would be essential duties:

1) Clear understanding must be established on where mediation is appropriate, i.e., where honest misinterpretations or miscalculations of figures has occurred. These are errors that are amenable to mediation, and they are completely distinct from acts of malice, such as: making false records, trading against instructions from the client, misstating risks, churning accounts purely for commissions to the broker, and putting savings of clients in long term DSC accounts without the knowledge of the client. These are violations of the criminal law, and need to be acknowledged as not being appropriate for mediation. The whole judicial system must be given clear direction by Justice ministries that settlement conferences need to be governed by comprehension of where negotiation is reasonable and where it would be providing reward to the perpetration of fraud. Negotiation, when applied to criminal acts, is in fact the creation of moral hazard, and serves to undermine one of the primary reasons why the law exists: to prevent future abuses.

2) A duty to the community must be developed that will make the function of investment governance agencies serve the public interest. This is in keeping with the G20 High Level Agreement on Consumer Protection, that Minister James Flaherty got the Finance Ministers of the G20 to agree to in 2011. This will require corporations to put the best interests of their clients ahead of their own short term profit interests. This is one of the most progressive and confidence-restoring measures that has been proposed by any government official. It demonstrates that Minister Flaherty really understands that the economy is totally dependent on its trustworthiness, and that fidelity in contracts is the main factor in building commercial wealth. It is incumbent on other members of the Government and all parliamentarians and provincial officials to acknowledge this essential contribution that Minister Flaherty has initiated.

3) The process that would be required of all staff of investment oversight agencies, in accordance with the goal stated in (2) of this letter, would include: when a complaint is made by a client of an investment firm, that the evidence must be looked at in light of the Criminal Code rules, by the contact person at the agency, that the client has reached for help. That contact person must be required to look at the evidence and find a way to get the errant broker to respond to the complaint, and to respond to the question as to their knowledge of the laws governing the sale of securities under 361-363 of the Criminal Code, and all other relevant areas of the criminal law.

4) When the contact person described in (3) of this letter has assessed the response of the broker, a formal report must be produced that will be given to law enforcement that indicates what areas of the law have been breached and the statements of the broker in question in response to presentation of facts to the broker. This will provide the police with a starting point from which to proceed. At present these oversight agencies are in fact demonstrating a lack of a community standard, by their abdicating of responsibility to enunciate what the requirements of the law are, to those who deal in the investment industry.

If such a proposed change in policy were to be put in effect, dishonest practices would likely diminish considerably, and the willingness of people to put their savings in the hands of investment companies would rise substantially. This would benefit the cause of retirement security and would also be greatly helpful to the future of the economy.

Thank you for reading this, and I hope to discuss this idea with you and or the staff person dealing with pensions, in the near future.

Best regards,

Alan
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3014
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 9:05 am
Location: Canada

Re: Civil or Criminal Actions against companies or regulator

Postby admin » Fri Feb 15, 2013 6:47 pm

Screen Shot 2013-02-15 at 6.41.06 PM.png


" The police have no particular power to lay a charge, but rather the same power as any other individual. "

The power to lay an information (i.e. a charge) is found in the Criminal Code of Canada. The police have no particular power to lay a charge, but rather the same power as any other individual. Most charges in Alberta are, however, laid by the police and few matters are laid by ordinary citizens. All matters are reviewed by Crown prosecutors before they proceed.

It is common practice for the police to approach a Crown prosecutor for legal advice during the course of an investigation with respect to drafting a charge, obtaining wiretaps or search warrants, and other pre-charge issues. While police and other enforcement agencies investigate wrongdoing, it is ultimately the Crown prosecutor who decides what charges will be prosecuted in court and who conducts the prosecution. In deciding what charges will proceed, the Crown prosecutor must consider whether or not, based on the evidence, there is a reasonable likelihood of conviction, and whether or not prosecution is in the public interest.

The prosecutor is not the lawyer for the police or for victims or complainants. The prosecutor is the representative of the "state".


criminal charges form.png


http://justice.alberta.ca/programs_serv ... wyers.aspx

Search keywords: layinformation
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3014
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 9:05 am
Location: Canada

Re: Civil or Criminal Actions against companies or regulator

Postby admin » Thu Feb 14, 2013 10:42 pm

Screen Shot 2013-02-14 at 10.40.16 PM.png
NERA reports there were nine new securities class actions filed in Canada last year, down from a record 15 in 2011

By James Langton | February 14, 2013 12:00

With a fading of claims related to the financial crisis, the number of Canadian securities class action suits dropped in 2012, according to a new report from NERA Economic Consulting.

The firm reports that there were nine new securities class actions filed in Canada during 2012, down from a record 15 filings in 2011, and below the annual average of 12 cases per year since 2008.

According to the report, all of the new filings for 2012 were shareholder class actions. And, unlike previous years, none of the filings involved claims relating to the credit crisis, suits against North American-listed Chinese companies, or allegations of Ponzi schemes. "The abatement of these recent trends in filings was consistent with the experience in the United States during 2012," it notes.

Eight of the new filings were made under the secondary market civil liability provisions of the provincial securities acts, it reports. Also, six of the nine cases were brought against companies in the resource sector. None of the 2012 cases involved financial firms.

Additionally, NERA notes that six class action filings were made against Canadian-based companies in U.S. courts.
The report says that, with nine new securities class actions filed, and five cases being resolved during the year (three settlements and two dismissals), there were 51 active securities class actions as of Dec. 31, which is nearly double the number of active cases four years ago.

The median settlement for all Canadian securities class action settlements (excluding partial settlements) is $13 million, the firm says.

"Perhaps the most notable development during 2012 was the agreement by Ernst & Young to pay $117 million to settle claims in relation to its role as auditor of the TSX-listed Chinese company Sino-Forest. Although this represents only a partial settlement of that case (claims against other defendants are still pending), and is still subject to court approval, it is the largest total settlement in any [secondary civil market liability] case to date," it adds.
Looking ahead, NERA says it "seems reasonable to expect to see these cases generally move at a more rapid pace"; and, more cases, and a more rapid pace, may also mean more settlements in 2013, it says.

http://www.investmentexecutive.com/-/ca ... ol_count=4
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3014
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 9:05 am
Location: Canada

Re: Civil or Criminal Actions against companies or regulator

Postby admin » Fri Feb 08, 2013 12:17 am

This post is related to legal actions against securities commissions:


Eric Groody of Code Hunter thought that his work here was precedent setting, accomplishing arguments which overcome the protections from civil prosecution for government employees where it can be shown their actions were beyond simple negligence.


http://www.canlii.org/eliisa/highlight. ... qb194.html

[29] Several other arguments were raised by counsel for the defendant which I do not find persuasive. First, he submitted that to apply the law of trusts in this situation would open the floodgates to ratepayer actions potentially contesting every aspect of municipal decision making and discretion. This is a proposition offered with no supporting evidence. Where those individuals who have control over municipal funds have acted improperly and caused a loss to the municipality, there is no good reason to immunize those individuals for their actions. Second, he submitted that because the plaintiff has failed to plead breach of trust in his statement of claim, Rule 115 of the Alberta Rules of Court precludes him from raising any issue of trust or breach of trust. This submission would be a valid one if this action were based on a breach of trust. However, as sections 535(2) and (3) of the MGA provide for liability only where there has been gross negligence, dishonesty, or wilful misconduct, the action has been brought on that basis. The existence of a trust relationship has a bearing only with respect to the issue of standing and thus, the plaintiffs are not precluded from raising the issue in that context.


IV. DISPOSITION

[84] By virtue of Hall’s gross negligence, he has lost the protection of section 535(2) of the MGA and is therefore responsible for the loss flowing from the impugned investments. As such, he is liable to pay damages in the amount of $2,354,432 plus interest. This award shall be impressed with a trust in favour of the Municipal District of Bighorn No. 8, net of the cost of securing judgment. Costs may be spoken to.

DATED at Calgary, Alberta this 30th day of March, 2000.

===============

And another case on the public record: (also posted here with images viewtopic.php?f=1&t=105#p3484


https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BzE_LMP ... JDemM/edit

Re: Securities Commissions assist predatory behaviours
by admin » 07 Dec 2012 05:45 pm

https://docs.google.com/open?id=0BzE_LM ... lVlM1JDemM

A statement of claim for an action against the NB Securities Commission, by investors who lost money and claim the securities commission failed to protect them from harm.

Another web site for Albertans is http://www.albertafraud.com

A facebook group for abused and victimized investors is called "albertafraud" and is found here https://www.facebook.com/groups/albertafraud/

Investors sue securities commission for $5.6M
CBC News Posted: May 11, 2011 7:38 AM AT Last Updated: May 11, 2011 9:28 AM AT

Alleged ponzi scheme probed by N.B. Securities Commission

A group of 54 investors are suing the New Brunswick Securities Commission for $5.6 million, claiming it failed to protect them from an alleged ponzi scheme.

The investors from across the province filed the lawsuit on Monday at the Court of Queen's Bench in Edmundston.

The lawsuit targets the New Brunswick Securities Commission and four of its employees, including Rick Hancox, the commission's executive director.

Peter Mockler, a Fredericton lawyer who is representing the investors, said his clients are every-day folks who were counting on the commission to protect them.

Screen Shot 2013-02-27 at 5.42.43 PM.png


http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/story/2011/05/11/nb-securities-commission-ponzi-lawsuit-538.html

"They invested a lot of money with CITC in Quebec and they lost it," Mockler said.Pete Mockler, a Fredericton lawyer, said the New Brunswick Securities Commission did not do enough to protect investors from an alleged ponzi scheme. (CBC)

"The securities commission were aware for a long time of the potential for this loss and failed to notify them or indeed to even take action against CITC until it became too late to do so."

The lawsuit centres around an alleged ponzi scheme that dates back to 2006 and involves two Quebec companies.

Three New Brunswick men have been accused of selling shares to investors, then using that money to pay other, prior investors. These alleged actions were being done while the company was properly registered with the securities commission.

The lawsuit claims the securities commission investigated, but failed to find any wrongdoing.

Quebec agency found problems in 2007
Even in 2007, when their counterpart in Quebec found the companies had violated the law in that province, the New Brunswick Securities Commission didn't tell the investors in New Brunswick and it didn't freeze the company's funds before it went bankrupt.


Screen Shot 2012-12-07 at 5.44.19 PM.png (82.56 KiB) Viewed 321 times


Michelle Robichaud, a spokesperson for the New Brunswick Securities Commission, said it's not unusual for investigations to take several years.Rick Hancox, the executive director of the New Brunswick Securities Commission, is named in a lawsuit filed by 54 investors over the commission's handling of an alleged ponzi scheme. (YouTube)

And Robichaud said the CITC case was a complex, inter-provincial investigation.

But the commission's spokesperson wouldn't comment on the allegations in the lawsuit.

"I think once again it's important to note that we just received those allegations and we need to ensure we do take the time to review and evaluate and make sure we're able to respond," Robichaud said.

The plaintiffs are seeking $5.6 million, plus interest dating back to 2007, as well as costs associated with the lawsuit.

Meanwhile, the commission's case against the three men allegedly involved in the ponzi scheme still hasn't been dealt with.

There was a hearing Tuesday morning, dealing with some preliminary matters but that's been adjourned. Robichaud said it won't likely be dealt with until later this summer.

The lawsuit alleges the securities commission concluded CTIC was conducting a ponzi scheme in 2008 but took no action to correct it.

"By the time action was taken by the [securities commission] to stop it, the total investments were estimated to be in excess of $14 million of which $6.4 million comprised the investments of the investors," the lawsuit alleges.

The lawsuit also says the securities commission "knew or should have known" about the problems with CITC by July 2007 and they had a duty to warn investors and "they deliberately and negligently refrained from advising them of the danger to their investment and potential for loss."

None of the allegations have been proven in court.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-bruns ... t-538.html
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3014
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 9:05 am
Location: Canada

Re: Civil or Criminal Actions against companies or regulator

Postby admin » Sun Feb 03, 2013 8:19 pm

Screen Shot 2013-02-03 at 8.16.34 PM.png

click to enlarge image

Generally, allegations of criminal activity are reported to the police. After the police investigate, they may lay criminal charges. However, anyone who has reasonable grounds to believe that a person has committed an offence may lay an information in writing and under oath before a Justice of the Peace.

When the information is presented to the court by a private citizen, it is then referred to either a provincial court judge or a designated justice of the peace, who holds a special hearing. The purpose of the hearing is to determine whether a summons or warrant should be issued to compel the person to attend court and answer to the charge.

This hearing, held under s. 507.1 of the Criminal Code, takes place in private, without notice to the accused person. At the hearing, the judge or justice of the peace must hear and consider all of the allegations and available evidence.

The Crown must also receive a copy of the information, get notice of the hearing, and have an opportunity to attend. The Crown may attend at the hearing without being deemed to intervene in the proceedings.

If the judge or justice of the peace decides not to issue a summons or a warrant, then the information is deemed never to have been laid.

If the judge or justice of the peace issues a summons, the person will be served with a copy of the summons, which notifies them of the charge and compels them to attend court. If the judge or justice of the peace issues a warrant, the person will be arrested and brought before a justice.

To avoid any abuse of the private prosecution process, the Criminal Code and the Crown Attorneys Act authorize Crown Counsel to supervise privately laid charges to ensure that such prosecutions are in the best interest of the administration of justice. If a summons or warrant is issued and the case involves an indictable offence, the Crown is required to take over the prosecution. So, a private citizen's right to swear an information is always subject to the Crown's right to intervene and take over the prosecution.

If the Crown intervenes, the Crown will review the matter, as it does in every other criminal case, to determine whether there is a reasonable prospect of conviction and whether a prosecution is in the public interest. If so, the Crown will proceed with the prosecution. If not, the Crown is duty-bound to withdraw the charge.

http://www.attorneygeneral.jus.gov.on.c ... cution.asp

Below is an image of the form obtained at the Provincial Court. I will post further details (or an image) about how simply it can be filled out. I think the major hurdle or obstacle is gathering the evidence of wrongdoing, so that a judge (and perhaps the Crown) can be satisfied that your case is presented well enough for them to proceed. Without this it is more likely they will dismiss.

criminal information.jpg

click to enlarge, click again to zoom in,
document available at any courthouse
PDF of this document available to view here https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BzE_LMPDi9UOb1JpV3huYXFDVlU/edit?usp=sharing

PDF example of a completed charge for here https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BzE_LMPDi9UObUNaVkk2aDQ0cWs/edit?usp=sharing

Screen Shot 2013-02-15 at 7.51.05 PM.png

click to enlarge

Search keywords: layinformation
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3014
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 9:05 am
Location: Canada

Re: Civil or Criminal Actions against companies or regulator

Postby admin » Sun Feb 03, 2013 8:15 pm

Screen Shot 2013-02-03 at 8.11.18 PM.png

click to enlarge image

Information, Summons and Warrant

In what cases justice may receive information

504. Any one who, on reasonable grounds, believes that a person has committed an indictable offence may lay an information in writing and under oath before a justice, and the justice shall receive the information, where it is alleged

(a) that the person has committed, anywhere, an indictable offence that may be tried in the province in which the justice resides, and that the person

(i) is or is believed to be, or

(ii) resides or is believed to reside,

within the territorial jurisdiction of the justice;

(b) that the person, wherever he may be, has committed an indictable offence within the territorial jurisdiction of the justice;

(c) that the person has, anywhere, unlawfully received property that was unlawfully obtained within the territorial jurisdiction of the justice; or

(d) that the person has in his possession stolen property within the territorial jurisdiction of the justice.

R.S., c. C-34, s. 455; R.S., c. 2(2nd Supp.), s. 5.
Time within which information to be laid in certain cases

505. Where

(a) an appearance notice has been issued to an accused under section 496, or

(b) an accused has been released from custody under section 497 or 498,

an information relating to the offence alleged to have been committed by the accused or relating to an included or other offence alleged to have been committed by him shall be laid before a justice as soon as practicable thereafter and in any event before the time stated in the appearance notice, promise to appear or recognizance issued to or given or entered into by the accused for his attendance in court.

R.S., c. 2(2nd Supp.), s. 5.
Form

506. An information laid under section 504 or 505 may be in Form 2.

R.S., c. 2(2nd Supp.), s. 5.
Justice to hear informant and witnesses — public prosecutions

507. (1) Subject to subsection 523(1.1), a justice who receives an information laid under section 504 by a peace officer, a public officer, the Attorney General or the Attorney General’s agent, other than an information laid before the justice under section 505, shall, except if an accused has already been arrested with or without a warrant,

(a) hear and consider, ex parte,

(i) the allegations of the informant, and

(ii) the evidence of witnesses, where he considers it desirable or necessary to do so; and

(b) where he considers that a case for so doing is made out, issue, in accordance with this section, either a summons or a warrant for the arrest of the accused to compel the accused to attend before him or some other justice for the same territorial division to answer to a charge of an offence.

Process compulsory

(2) No justice shall refuse to issue a summons or warrant by reason only that the alleged offence is one for which a person may be arrested without warrant.

Procedure when witnesses attend

(3) A justice who hears the evidence of a witness pursuant to subsection (1) shall

(a) take the evidence on oath; and

(b) cause the evidence to be taken in accordance with section 540 in so far as that section is capable of being applied.

Summons to be issued except in certain cases

(4) Where a justice considers that a case is made out for compelling an accused to attend before him to answer to a charge of an offence, he shall issue a summons to the accused unless the allegations of the informant or the evidence of any witness or witnesses taken in accordance with subsection (3) discloses reasonable grounds to believe that it is necessary in the public interest to issue a warrant for the arrest of the accused.

No process in blank

(5) A justice shall not sign a summons or warrant in blank.

Endorsement of warrant by justice

(6) A justice who issues a warrant under this section or section 508 or 512 may, unless the offence is one mentioned in section 522, authorize the release of the accused pursuant to section 499 by making an endorsement on the warrant in Form 29.

Promise to appear or recognizance deemed to have been confirmed

(7) Where, pursuant to subsection (6), a justice authorizes the release of an accused pursuant to section 499, a promise to appear given by the accused or a recognizance entered into by the accused pursuant to that section shall be deemed, for the purposes of subsection 145(5), to have been confirmed by a justice under section 508.

Issue of summons or warrant

(8) Where, on an appeal from or review of any decision or matter of jurisdiction, a new trial or hearing or a continuance or renewal of a trial or hearing is ordered, a justice may issue either a summons or a warrant for the arrest of the accused in order to compel the accused to attend at the new or continued or renewed trial or hearing.

R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 507; R.S., 1985, c. 27 (1st Supp.), s. 78; 1994, c. 44, s. 43; 2002, c. 13, s. 21.
Referral when private prosecution

507.1 (1) A justice who receives an information laid under section 504, other than an information referred to in subsection 507(1), shall refer it to a provincial court judge or, in Quebec, a judge of the Court of Quebec, or to a designated justice, to consider whether to compel the appearance of the accused on the information.

Summons or warrant

(2) A judge or designated justice to whom an information is referred under subsection (1) and who considers that a case for doing so is made out shall issue either a summons or warrant for the arrest of the accused to compel him or her to attend before a justice to answer to a charge of the offence charged in the information.

Conditions for issuance

(3) The judge or designated justice may issue a summons or warrant only if he or she

(a) has heard and considered the allegations of the informant and the evidence of witnesses;

(b) is satisfied that the Attorney General has received a copy of the information;

(c) is satisfied that the Attorney General has received reasonable notice of the hearing under paragraph (a); and

(d) has given the Attorney General an opportunity to attend the hearing under paragraph (a) and to cross-examine and call witnesses and to present any relevant evidence at the hearing.

Appearance of Attorney General

(4) The Attorney General may appear at the hearing held under paragraph (3)(a) without being deemed to intervene in the proceeding.

Information deemed not to have been laid

(5) If the judge or designated justice does not issue a summons or warrant under subsection (2), he or she shall endorse the information with a statement to that effect. Unless the informant, not later than six months after the endorsement, commences proceedings to compel the judge or designated justice to issue a summons or warrant, the information is deemed never to have been laid.

Information deemed not to have been laid — proceedings commenced

(6) If proceedings are commenced under subsection (5) and a summons or warrant is not issued as a result of those proceedings, the information is deemed never to have been laid.

New evidence required for new hearing

(7) If a hearing in respect of an offence has been held under paragraph (3)(a) and the judge or designated justice has not issued a summons or a warrant, no other hearings may be held under that paragraph with respect to the offence or an included offence unless there is new evidence in support of the allegation in respect of which the hearing is sought to be held.

Subsections 507(2) to (8) to apply

(8) Subsections 507(2) to (8) apply to proceedings under this section.

Non-application — informations laid under sections 810 and 810.1

(9) Subsections (1) to (8) do not apply in respect of an information laid under section 810 or 810.1.

Definition of “designated justice”

(10) In this section, “designated justice” means a justice designated for the purpose by the chief judge of the provincial court having jurisdiction in the matter or, in Quebec, a justice designated by the chief judge of the Court of Quebec.

Meaning of “Attorney General”
(11) In this section, “Attorney General” includes the Attorney General of Canada and his or her lawful deputy in respect of proceedings that could have been commenced at the instance of the Government of Canada and conducted by or on behalf of that Government.

2002, c. 13, s. 22; 2008, c. 18, s. 16.
Justice to hear informant and witnesses

508. (1) A justice who receives an information laid before him under section 505 shall

(a) hear and consider, ex parte,

(i) the allegations of the informant, and

(ii) the evidence of witnesses, where he considers it desirable or necessary to do so;

(b) where he considers that a case for so doing is made out, whether the information relates to the offence alleged in the appearance notice, promise to appear or recognizance or to an included or other offence,

(i) confirm the appearance notice, promise to appear or recognizance, as the case may be, and endorse the information accordingly, or

(ii) cancel the appearance notice, promise to appear or recognizance, as the case may be, and issue, in accordance with section 507, either a summons or a warrant for the arrest of the accused to compel the accused to attend before him or some other justice for the same territorial division to answer to a charge of an offence and endorse on the summons or warrant that the appearance notice, promise to appear or recognizance, as the case may be, has been cancelled; and

(c) where he considers that a case is not made out for the purposes of paragraph (b), cancel the appearance notice, promise to appear or recognizance, as the case may be, and cause the accused to be notified forthwith of the cancellation.

Procedure when witnesses attend

(2) A justice who hears the evidence of a witness pursuant to subsection (1) shall

(a) take the evidence on oath; and

(b) cause the evidence to be taken in accordance with section 540 in so far as that section is capable of being applied.

R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 508; R.S., 1985, c. 27 (1st Supp.), s. 79.
Information laid otherwise than in person

508.1 (1) For the purposes of sections 504 to 508, a peace officer may lay an information by any means of telecommunication that produces a writing.

Alternative to oath

(2) A peace officer who uses a means of telecommunication referred to in subsection (1) shall, instead of swearing an oath, make a statement in writing stating that all matters contained in the information are true to the officer’s knowledge and belief, and such a statement is deemed to be a statement made under oath.

1997, c. 18, s. 56.
Summons

509. (1) A summons issued under this Part shall

(a) be directed to the accused;

(b) set out briefly the offence in respect of which the accused is charged; and

(c) require the accused to attend court at a time and place to be stated therein and to attend thereafter as required by the court in order to be dealt with according to law.

Service on individual

(2) A summons shall be served by a peace officer who shall deliver it personally to the person to whom it is directed or, if that person cannot conveniently be found, shall leave it for him at his latest or usual place of abode with an inmate thereof who appears to be at least sixteen years of age.

(3) [Repealed, 2008, c. 18, s. 17]

Content of summons

(4) There shall be set out in every summons the text of subsection 145(4) and section 510.

Attendance for purposes of Identification of Criminals Act

(5) A summons may require the accused to appear at a time and place stated in it for the purposes of the Identification of Criminals Act, where the accused is alleged to have committed an indictable offence and, in the case of an offence designated as a contravention under the Contraventions Act, the Attorney General, within the meaning of that Act, has not made an election under section 50 of that Act.

R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 509; R.S., 1985, c. 27 (1st Supp.), s. 80; 1992, c. 47, s. 71; 1996, c. 7, s. 38; 2008, c. 18, s. 17.
Failure to appear

510. Where an accused who is required by a summons to appear at a time and place stated in it for the purposes of the Identification of Criminals Act does not appear at that time and place and, in the case of an offence designated as a contravention under the Contraventions Act, the Attorney General, within the meaning of that Act, has not made an election under section 50 of that Act, a justice may issue a warrant for the arrest of the accused for the offence with which the accused is charged.

R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 510; 1992, c. 47, s. 72; 1996, c. 7, s. 38.
Contents of warrant to arrest

511. (1) A warrant issued under this Part shall

(a) name or describe the accused;

(b) set out briefly the offence in respect of which the accused is charged; and

(c) order that the accused be forthwith arrested and brought before the judge or justice who issued the warrant or before some other judge or justice having jurisdiction in the same territorial division, to be dealt with according to law.

No return day

(2) A warrant issued under this Part remains in force until it is executed and need not be made returnable at any particular time.

Discretion to postpone execution

(3) Notwithstanding paragraph (1)(c), a judge or justice who issues a warrant may specify in the warrant the period before which the warrant shall not be executed, to allow the accused to appear voluntarily before a judge or justice having jurisdiction in the territorial division in which the warrant was issued.

Deemed execution of warrant

(4) Where the accused appears voluntarily for the offence in respect of which the accused is charged, the warrant is deemed to be executed.

R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 511; R.S., 1985, c. 27 (1st Supp.), s. 81; 1997, c. 18, s. 57.
Certain actions not to preclude issue of warrant

512. (1) A justice may, where the justice has reasonable and probable grounds to believe that it is necessary in the public interest to issue a summons or a warrant for the arrest of the accused, issue a summons or warrant, notwithstanding that

(a) an appearance notice or a promise to appear or a recognizance entered into before an officer in charge or another peace officer has been confirmed or cancelled under subsection 508(1);

(b) a summons has previously been issued under subsection 507(4); or

(c) the accused has been released unconditionally or with the intention of compelling his appearance by way of summons.

Warrant in default of appearance

(2) Where

(a) service of a summons is proved and the accused fails to attend court in accordance with the summons,

(b) an appearance notice or a promise to appear or a recognizance entered into before an officer in charge or another peace officer has been confirmed under subsection 508(1) and the accused fails to attend court in accordance therewith in order to be dealt with according to law, or

(c) it appears that a summons cannot be served because the accused is evading service,

a justice may issue a warrant for the arrest of the accused.

R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 512; R.S., 1985, c. 27 (1st Supp.), s. 82; 1997, c. 18, s. 58.
Formalities of warrant

513. A warrant in accordance with this Part shall be directed to the peace officers within the territorial jurisdiction of the justice, judge or court by whom or by which it is issued.

R.S., c. 2(2nd Supp.), s. 5.
Execution of warrant

514. (1) A warrant in accordance with this Part may be executed by arresting the accused

(a) wherever he is found within the territorial jurisdiction of the justice, judge or court by whom or by which the warrant was issued; or

(b) wherever he is found in Canada, in the case of fresh pursuit.

By whom warrant may be executed

(2) A warrant in accordance with this Part may be executed by a person who is one of the peace officers to whom it is directed, whether or not the place in which the warrant is to be executed is within the territory for which the person is a peace officer.

R.S., c. 2(2nd Supp.), s. 5.

http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/laws/stat/r ... tml#sec504

Search keywords: layinformation
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3014
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 9:05 am
Location: Canada

Re: Civil or Criminal Actions against companies or regulator

Postby admin » Thu Dec 13, 2012 10:33 pm

Screen Shot 2012-12-13 at 10.31.34 PM.png

http://www.canlii.org/eliisa/highlight.do?text=alberta+securities+commission&language=en&searchTitle=Search+all+CanLII+Databases&path=/en/ab/abqb/doc/1985/1985canlii1156/1985canlii1156.html

Edmonton man suing ASC

Kresic v. Alberta (Securities Commission), 1985 CanLII 1156 (AB QB)

[21]                       It is a necessary implication of s. 193(1) that the commission is a suable entity. In effect, the section says that there is a cause of action for a negligent act not done in good faith and covers both the commission and Lemay, the latter being a servant, agent or officer of the former.

Search keywords:
AIP
ASC
Suable entity
lawsuit
civil
claim
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3014
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 9:05 am
Location: Canada

Re: Civil or Criminal Actions against companies or regulator

Postby admin » Sat Dec 01, 2012 4:35 pm

Screen Shot 2012-12-01 at 4.29.01 PM.png


JPMorgan sued over pushing in-house funds on clients

JPMorgan Chase & Co
JPM.N
$41.08
-0.14-0.34%
11/30/2012
Tue Jul 17, 2012
* NY lawsuit says funds overpriced, underperforming

* Says brokers got incentives to sell JPM funds

* Case seeks class action status, damages

By Karen Freifeld

NEW YORK, July 16 (Reuters) - A former brokerage client has sued JPMorgan Chase & Co for allegedly steering him and other investors to overpriced, underperforming funds to boost the bank's fees and profits.

JPMorgan falsely represented its financial advisers were operating under fiduciary duty to clients, while its bonuses encouraged the sale of proprietary funds, according to the lawsuit, which seeks class action status.

Jennifer Zuccarelli, a spokeswoman for New York-based JPMorgan Chase, did not immediately return a call seeking comment.

The lawsuit, filed in New York state Supreme Court in Manhattan, follows a report about JPMorgan's practices published on July 2 by the New York Times.

According to the lawsuit, JPMorgan's marketing materials highlighted "inflated, hypothetical returns," while suppressing a "much less rosy" picture of performance.

JPMorgan, the largest U.S. bank, turned to proprietary funds and investments to make up for declining profits after the housing boom burst, according to the lawsuit. The strategy allowed JPMorgan to collect double fees for management and sales, it said.

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, Financial Industry Regulatory Authority and Manhattan District Attorney are among those investigating JPMorgan's sales practices, according to the lawsuit.

"We're looking at it," FINRA spokeswoman Nancy Condon said in an interview.

SEC spokeswoman Judith Burns declined to comment, as did Joan Vollero, a spokeswoman for the Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance.

The case is Alan H. Tralins v. JPMorgan Chase & Co, New York state Supreme Court, No. 652448/2012, New York County.

REGULATORY NEWS

http://in.reuters.com/article/2012/07/1 ... 5R20120716


hmmmm, and in Canada 91% of mutual funds sold in this year (2007) were in wrap accounts, high fee fund of funds, or house brand accounts: Source IFIC

Picture%204.png
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3014
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 9:05 am
Location: Canada

Re: Civil or Criminal Actions against companies or regulator

Postby admin » Wed Oct 10, 2012 9:36 am

Screen Shot 2012-10-10 at 10.35.08 AM.png


Oct 10 (Reuters) - JPMorgan Chase & Co must pay more than $18 million to a trust in a suit stemming from its improper recommendation of a type of complex security that was unsuitable for the trust and benefited the bank, a U.S. state court judge has ruled.

The bank engaged in misconduct and breached its duties of care to the trust in recommending so-called "variable prepaid forward contracts," wrote Judge Linda Morrissey of the District Court for Tulsa County, Oklahoma, in an opinion late Tuesday. That caused financial harm to the trust beneficiaries.

JP Morgan and the trust entered into numerous variable prepaid forward contracts between 2000 and 2005. A court, in 2007, ordered the transfer of the trust's assets to another bank. The investment contracts between the trust and JP Morgan, by that time, had been settled.

The court, in an unusual move, also ordered JPMorgan to pay punitive damages, to be determined at a later date, along with the trust's legal fees.

Investors who buy variable prepaid forward contracts typically agree to give a certain number of stock shares to the brokerage at a future date but receive a significant percentage of the value of those shares at the time of the agreement. While the arrangements can have tax benefits and help insulate investors from certain losses, they can also involve hefty fees.

The 32-page court decision illustrates the extent to which certain investment fees and conflicts of interest can damage a portfolio. JPMorgan, for example, breached its fiduciary duty to the trust - which required the bank to act in the trust's best interests - by investing proceeds from the contracts in its own investment products. It then charged investment fees for those transactions in addition to corporate trustee fees, Judge Morrissey wrote. That "amounted to double dipping that was inherently unreasonable," she wrote.

Punitive damages against JPMorgan are appropriate in the case because the bank "has been guilty of reckless disregard for the rights of others," the judge wrote.

A JPMorgan spokesman declined to immediately comment.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/1 ... f=business
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3014
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 9:05 am
Location: Canada

Re: Civil or Criminal Actions against companies or regulator

Postby admin » Fri Jul 20, 2012 12:09 pm

Screen shot 2012-07-20 at 1.03.00 PM.png

JPMorgan sued over pushing in-house funds on clients
Tue, Jul 17 2012

* NY lawsuit says funds overpriced, underperforming

* Says brokers got incentives to sell JPM funds

* Case seeks class action status, damages

By Karen Freifeld

NEW YORK, July 16 (Reuters) - A former brokerage client has sued JPMorgan Chase & Co for allegedly steering him and other investors to overpriced, underperforming funds to boost the bank's fees and profits. 1

JPMorgan falsely represented its financial advisers were operating under fiduciary duty to clients, while its bonuses encouraged the sale of proprietary funds, according to the lawsuit, which seeks class action status. 2

Jennifer Zuccarelli, a spokeswoman for New York-based JPMorgan Chase, did not immediately return a call seeking comment.

The lawsuit, filed in New York state Supreme Court in Manhattan, follows a report about JPMorgan's practices published on July 2 by the New York Times.

According to the lawsuit, JPMorgan's marketing materials highlighted "inflated, hypothetical returns," while suppressing a "much less rosy" picture of performance.

JPMorgan, the largest U.S. bank, turned to proprietary funds and investments to make up for declining profits after the housing boom burst, according to the lawsuit. The strategy allowed JPMorgan to collect double fees for management and sales, it said.

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, Financial Industry Regulatory Authority and Manhattan District Attorney are among those investigating JPMorgan's sales practices, according to the lawsuit.

"We're looking at it," FINRA spokeswoman Nancy Condon said in an interview.

SEC spokeswoman Judith Burns declined to comment, as did Joan Vollero, a spokeswoman for the Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance.

The case is Alan H. Tralins v. JPMorgan Chase & Co, New York state Supreme Court, No. 652448/2012, New York County.

http://in.reuters.com/article/2012/07/1 ... 5R20120716

Picture 4.png

click to enlarge image

1. "In Canada, the bread and butter of an investment product salesperson is selling the house brand fund"

2. see topic "Advisor Fraud" at viewtopic.php?f=1&t=10

3. Canadian examples of broker fraud at http://www.examiner.com/crime-in-calgary/larry-elford

GET YOUR MONEY BACK viewtopic.php?f=1&t=173
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3014
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 9:05 am
Location: Canada

PreviousNext

Return to Click here to view forums

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron