Showing posts with label ALLEGED MISLEADING STATEMENTS. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ALLEGED MISLEADING STATEMENTS. Show all posts

Thursday, June 7, 2012

OPPENHEIMER FUNDS INC., CHARGED BY SEC WITH MAKING MISLEADING STATEMENTS

Photo:  NYSE.  Credit:  U.S. Government.
FROM:  U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C., June 6, 2012 – The Securities and Exchange Commission today charged investment management company OppenheimerFunds Inc. and its sales and distribution arm with making misleading statements about two of its mutual funds struggling in the midst of the credit crisis in late 2008.

The SEC’s investigation found that Oppenheimer used derivative instruments known as total return swaps (TRS contracts) to add substantial commercial mortgage-backed securities (CMBS) exposure in a high-yield bond fund called the Oppenheimer Champion Income Fund and an intermediate-term, investment-grade fund called the Oppenheimer Core Bond Fund. The 2008 prospectus for the Champion fund didn’t adequately disclose the fund’s practice of assuming substantial leverage in using derivative instruments. And when declines in the CMBS market triggered large cash liabilities on the TRS contracts in both funds and forced Oppenheimer to reduce CMBS exposure, Oppenheimer disseminated misleading statements about the funds’ losses and their recovery prospects.

Oppenheimer agreed to pay more than $35 million to settle the SEC’s charges.

“Mutual fund providers have an obligation to clearly and accurately convey the strategies and risks of the products they sell,” said Robert Khuzami, Director of the SEC’s Division of Enforcement. “Candor, not wishful thinking, should drive communications with investors, particularly during times of market stress.”

Julie Lutz, Associate Director of the SEC’s Denver Regional Office, added, “These Oppenheimer funds had to sell bonds at the worst possible time to raise cash for TRS contract payments and cut their CMBS exposure to limit future losses. Yet, the message that Oppenheimer conveyed to investors was that the funds were maintaining their positions and the losses were recoverable.”

According to the SEC’s order instituting settled administrative proceedings against OppenheimerFunds and OppenheimerFunds Distributor Inc., the TRS contracts allowed the two funds to gain substantial exposure to commercial mortgages without purchasing actual bonds. But they also created large amounts of leverage in the funds. Beginning in mid-September 2008, steep CMBS market declines drove down the net asset values (NAVs) of both funds. These losses forced Oppenheimer to raise cash for month-end TRS contract payments by selling securities into an increasingly illiquid market.

According to the SEC’s order, the funds’ portfolio managers under instruction from senior management began executing a plan in mid-November to reduce CMBS exposure. Just as they began to do so, however, the CMBS market collapse accelerated, creating staggering cash liabilities for the funds and driving their NAVs even lower.

The SEC’s order found that continued CMBS declines forced the funds to sell more portfolio securities in order to raise cash for anticipated TRS contract payments. This task became increasingly difficult for the Champion fund, ultimately prompting Oppenheimer to make a $150 million cash infusion into the fund on November 21. Over the next two weeks, the funds continued to reduce their CMBS exposure to avoid further losses.
According to the SEC’s order, Oppenheimer advanced several misleading messages when responding to questions in the midst of these events. For instance, Oppenheimer
communicated to financial advisers (whose clients were invested in the funds) and fund shareholders directly that the funds had only suffered paper losses and their holdings and strategies remained intact. Oppenheimer also stressed that absent actual defaults, the funds would continue collecting payments on the funds’ bonds as they waited for markets to recover. These communications were materially misleading because the funds were committed to substantially reducing their CMBS exposure, which dampened their prospects for recovering CMBS-induced losses. Moreover, the funds had been forced to sell significant portions of their bond holdings to raise cash for anticipated TRS contract payments, resulting in realized investment losses and lost future income from the bonds.
The SEC’s investigation found that the Champion fund’s 2008 prospectus was materially misleading in describing the fund’s “main” investments in high-yield bonds without adequately disclosing the fund’s practice of assuming substantial leverage on top of those investments. While the prospectus disclosed that the fund “invested” in “swaps” and other derivatives “to try to enhance income or to try to manage investment risk,” it did not adequately disclose that the fund could use derivatives to such an extent that the fund’s total investment exposure could far exceed the value of its portfolio securities and, therefore, that its investment returns could depend primarily upon the performance of bonds that it did not own.

The SEC’s order finds that OppenheimerFunds violated Section 34(b) of the Investment Company Act of 1940, Sections 17(a)(2) and 17(a)(3) of the Securities Act of 1933 (Securities Act), and Section 206(4) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 and Rule 205(4)-8 promulgated thereunder. The order finds that OppenheimerFunds Distributor violated Sections 17(a)(2) and 17(a)(3) of the Securities Act.

Without admitting or denying the SEC’s findings, OppenheimerFunds agreed to pay a penalty of $24 million, disgorgement of $9,879,706, and prejudgment interest of $1,487,190. This money will be deposited into a fund for the benefit of investors. OppenheimerFunds and OppenheimerFunds Distributor also agreed to provisions in the order censuring them and directing them to cease and desist from committing or causing any violations or future violations of these statutes and rules.

The SEC’s investigation was conducted by Coates Lear, Jeffrey E. Oraker, Hugh C. Beck, Patricia E. Foley, and Mary S. Brady in the Denver Regional Office. The related examination of Oppenheimer was conducted by Francesco Spinella, Tracy O’Sullivan, C. Michael Hooper, Kathleen A. Raimondi, and Paula S. Weisz under the supervision of branch chief Kenneth O’Connor and assistant director Dawn Blankenship in the New York Regional Office.

Saturday, May 5, 2012

SEC CHARGES UBS PUERTO RICO AND TWO EXECUTIVES WITH DEFRAUDING FUND CUSTOMERS


FROM:  SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
SEC Charges UBS Puerto Rico and Two Executives with Defrauding Fund Customers
Washington, D.C., May 1, 2012 — The Securities and Exchange Commission today charged UBS Financial Services Inc. of Puerto Rico and two executives with making misleading statements to investors, concealing a liquidity crisis, and masking its control of the secondary market for 23 proprietary closed-end mutual funds.

UBS Puerto Rico agreed to settle the SEC’s charges by paying $26.6 million that will be placed into a fund for harmed investors.
According to the SEC’s order instituting settled administrative proceedings against UBS Puerto Rico, the firm knew about a significant “supply and demand imbalance” and discussed the “weak secondary market” internally. However, UBS Puerto Rico misled investors and failed to disclose that it controlled the secondary market, where investors sought to sell their shares in the funds. UBS Puerto Rico significantly increased its inventory holdings in the closed-end funds in order to prop up market prices, bolster liquidity, and promote the appearance of a stable market. However, UBS Puerto Rico later withdrew its market price and liquidity support in order to sell 75 percent of its closed-end fund inventory to unsuspecting investors.

The SEC instituted contested administrative proceedings against UBS Puerto Rico’s vice chairman and former CEO Miguel A. Ferrer and its head of capital markets Carlos J. Ortiz.

“UBS Puerto Rico denied its closed-end fund customers what they were entitled to under the law – accurate price and liquidity information, and a trading desk that did not advantage UBS’s trades over those of its customers,” said Robert Khuzami, Director of the SEC’s Division of Enforcement.

Eric I. Bustillo, Director of the SEC’s Miami Regional Office, added, “We will aggressively prosecute firms that use conflicts of interest for their own financial gain.”
According to the SEC’s order, starting in 2008, UBS Puerto Rico solicited thousands of retail investors by promoting the closed-end funds’ market performance and continuously high premiums to net asset value (up to 45 percent) as the result of supply and demand in a competitive and liquid secondary market. When investor demand began to decline, UBS Puerto Rico sought to maintain the illusion of a liquid market by buying shares into its own inventory from customers who wished to exit the market. Despite a falling market, UBS Puerto Rico continued to sell shares by conducting primary offerings in order to grow its closed-end fund business. Throughout this period, UBS Puerto Rico failed to disclose the true state of the market to investors.

According to the SEC’s order, UBS Puerto Rico’s parent firm determined in the spring of 2009 that UBS Puerto Rico’s growing closed-end fund inventory represented a financial risk, and directed the firm to reduce its inventory by 75 percent to reduce that risk and “promote more rational pricing and more clarity to clients . . . [so] prices transparently develop based on supply and demand.” To accomplish the reduction, UBS Puerto Rico executed a plan dubbed “Objective: Soft Landing” in one document, which included:
Undercutting numerous marketable customer sell orders to “eliminate” those orders and liquidate UBS Puerto Rico’s inventory first, preventing customers from selling their shares.

Not disclosing that UBS Puerto Rico was drastically reducing its inventory purchases.
Soliciting customers to sell recently purchased primary offering shares back to the closed-end fund companies, so UBS Puerto Rico could then sell closed-end funds to those customers from its highest inventory positions.

UBS Puerto Rico also increased solicitation efforts to further reduce its inventory while making misrepresentations and failing to disclose UBS Puerto Rico’s withdrawal of secondary market support.

According to the SEC’s order against Ferrer, he made misrepresentations and did not disclose numerous material facts about the closed-end funds. For example, although Ferrer was well aware of the supply and demand imbalance and privately discussed UBS Puerto Rico’s growing inventory and support of the market, he caused UBS Puerto Rico to conduct new primary closed-end fund offerings while directing financial advisors to represent to customers that the market was experiencing “low volatility” and providing “superior returns.” Ferrer also repeatedly made misleading statements about closed-end fund market prices and touted that the funds would always trade at high premiums to net asset value, even while UBS Puerto Rico was substantially reducing its inventory and causing huge investor losses.

According to the SEC’s order against Ortiz, he falsely represented that closed-end fund shares were priced based on supply and demand while in reality he and the firm concealed the inventory increases and rarely changed prices, allowing UBS Puerto Rico to promote the façade of a liquid, stable market. As UBS Puerto Rico was reducing its inventory in 2009, Ortiz touted increased closed-end fund secondary market liquidity and superior price performance to investors at a UBS investor conference. At the same time, Ortiz was executing UBS Puerto Rico’s inventory reduction scheme that involved “eliminat[ing]” marketable customer sell orders to dump UBS Puerto Rico’s inventory first, putting UBS Puerto Rico’s interests ahead of their customers’ orders.

UBS Puerto Rico agreed to settle the SEC’s charges, without admitting or denying the findings, that it violated Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, Sections 10(b) and 15(c) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. The order requires UBS Puerto Rico to pay $11.5 million in disgorgement, $1.1 million in prejudgment interest, and a penalty of $14 million. In addition to the monetary relief, the SEC’s order censures UBS Puerto Rico, directs it to cease-and-desist from committing or causing any further violations of the provisions charged, and orders the firm to comply with its undertaking to retain an independent consultant at UBS Puerto Rico’s expense.
Among other things, the independent consultant will review the adequacy of UBS Puerto Rico’s closed-end fund disclosures and trading and pricing policies, procedures, and practices. UBS Puerto Rico shall abide by the determinations of the consultant and adopt and implement all recommendations.

This case was investigated by Jason R. Berkowitz and Sean M. O’Neill of the SEC’s Miami Regional Office following an examination conducted by Carlos A. Gutierrez and Brian H. Dyer under the supervision of Nicholas A. Monaco and John C. Mattimore of the Miami office. Robert K. Levenson, Regional Trial Counsel, and Edward D. McCutcheon, Senior Trial Counsel, will lead the SEC’s litigation.
The SEC acknowledges the assistance and cooperation of the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA).

Search This Blog

Translate

White House.gov Press Office Feed