Page 4 of 11

Re: Civil or Criminal Actions against companies or regulator

PostPosted: Sat Dec 01, 2012 4:35 pm
by admin
Screen Shot 2012-12-01 at 4.29.01 PM.png

JPMorgan sued over pushing in-house funds on clients

JPMorgan Chase & Co
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 ... 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


Re: Civil or Criminal Actions against companies or regulator

PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2012 9:36 am
by admin
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. ... f=business

Re: Civil or Criminal Actions against companies or regulator

PostPosted: Fri Jul 20, 2012 12:09 pm
by admin
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. ... 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

GET YOUR MONEY BACK viewtopic.php?f=1&t=173

Re: Civil or Criminal Actions against companies or regulator

PostPosted: Tue Jul 17, 2012 1:43 pm
by admin
Reasons behind using privately filed charges (laying an information) for securities commission breach of trust or for fraudulent investment sellers:

1. RCMP do not have the time, the budget or the will to prosecute even one percent of highest level criminality in Canada. (see )

2. Privately filed criminal charges may be the ONLY legal mechanism financially available to an average citizen.

3. It could form part of a multi-step process of obtaining justice, compensation or redress.

4. It may have to be undertaken by dozens of individuals in order to "break through" the hesitancy of the court to undertake or support such bold steps.

5. It would be a new enough approach to perhaps break through the media bias/fear surrounding many of the aspects of white collar criminality.

6. It appears from todays Financial Post article that even the best class actions in the country are being dismissed by the courts on mere technicalities, leaving civil action AND police action as almost impossibilities. ("CIBC Class action dismissed" by Barry Critchley, National Post) ... -lawsuits/

If you have been victimized by another person, and you can place your victimization into a category within the Canadian Criminal Code, then you have every right to write it up as such and prosecute it through the courts.

It does not guarantee success, nor even acceptance by the court, but I can say this with confidence: "IF 10 citizens do this the odds get better. If 100 citizens do this, they increase again. Eventually, there will be some positive change to the practice of letting financial interests freely abuse or violate citizens."

I await the day when the right set of victims, step to the plate, with the right bit of help and advice, and prosecute the right people criminally. It has not happened to my knowledge yet. Most newspapers report that not a SINGLE high level prosecution has taken place in the USA, and I find none as well in Canada. Financial crime is the highest paying, lowest risk game in North America.

some info, links re private criminal charges: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=189&p=3373&hilit=laying+an+information#p3373
Screen Shot 2013-02-03 at 7.46.13 PM.png

Re: Civil or Criminal Actions against companies or regulator

PostPosted: Fri Jul 06, 2012 9:39 am
by admin
Screen shot 2012-07-06 at 10.33.53 AM.png
Dan Solin Author of the Smartest series of books

'Puffery' Can Blow Away Your Retirement Goals
Posted: 07/03/2012 7:23 pm

In any area of commerce other than the securities industry, words like "honesty", "integrity" and "fair dealing" leave no room for confusion. Nor do representations that "our clients interest always come first". Or "we are dedicated to complying fully with the letter and spirit of the laws, rules and ethical principles that govern us." When we hear or read those words, we take comfort in the high, impeccable standards of those in whom we are asked to trust.

According to a shareholders class action lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (In re Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. Securities Litigation: Master File No. 1:10-cv-03461), Goldman Sachs made those representations and others. It did so in response to the fallout from large transactions in synthetic CDO's. The complaint alleges that Goldman's annual reports repeatedly touted "The Goldman Sachs Business Principles," which included the following statements:

1. "Our clients' interests always come first. Our experience shows that if we serve our clients well, our own success will follow."
2. "We are dedicated to complying fully with the letter and spirit of the laws, rules and ethical principles that govern us. Our continued success depends upon unswerving adherence to this standard."
3. "Integrity and honesty are at the heart of our business."

The complaint alleged that Goldman Sachs' conduct in certain CDO transactions made these statements materially false and misleading.

Goldman sought to have the complaint dismissed on various legal grounds. Of particular interest to me was its position concerning the statements about its core values of honesty and integrity. Here's the view expressed by its lawyers, in their memorandum urging the Court to dismiss these claims:

"Further, the vast majority of the supposed "misstatements" alleged in the Complaint -- e.g., regarding the firm's "integrity" and "honesty" -- are nothing more than classic "puffery" or statements of opinion that, under well-settled law, cannot give rise to a securities fraud claim."
For those not well-versed in legal-speak, "puffery" has been described by one legal scholar as vague statements of corporate optimism that is often characterized as "so obviously unimportant to a reasonable investor that reasonable minds could not differ."

So, does Goldman's legal position mean that investors should not rely on statements concerning its core values? Not according to U.S. District Judge Paul A. Crotty, who rejected these claims in an opinion filed June 21, 2012. Judge Crotty can hardly be accused of being an activist judge with liberal credentials. He was appointed to the bench by George W. Bush and began active service on April 15, 2005.

Judge Crotty characterized Goldman's legal position as "Orwellian." In a particularly scathing note, he observed "[I]f Goldman's claim of "honesty" and "integrity" are simply puffery, the world of finance may be in more trouble than we recognize."

That is precisely the issue.

Investors need to understand they are in "more trouble" than they realize. Many brokers and advisors show little constraint in making statements they cannot possibly support. The daily grist of these "financial experts" is that they can help you secure your retirement by finding fund managers with investment skill who can "beat the markets." They don't disclose the compelling, peer-reviewed data indicating that evidence of this "skill" is exceedingly rare. In those few who appear to have it, after management fees and trading costs, even they are unlikely to beat their benchmark. The nail in the coffin is that this elusive skill does not persist, and relatively few top performing fund managers are able to repeat their outperformance in the following year, much less over the long term.

I guess it's all just "puffery."

Dan Solin is a senior vice president of Index Funds Advisors. He is the New York Times bestselling author of The Smartest Investment Book You'll Ever Read, The Smartest 401(k) Book You'll Ever Read, The Smartest Retirement Book You'll Ever Read, and The Smartest Portfolio You'll Ever Own. His new book is The Smartest Money Book You'll Ever Read. The views set forth in this blog are the opinions of the author alone and may not represent the views of any firm or entity with whom he is affiliated. The data, information, and content on this blog are for information, education, and non-commercial purposes only. Returns from index funds do not represent the performance of any investment advisory firm. The information on this blog does not involve the rendering of personalized investment advice and is limited to the dissemination of opinions on investing. No reader should construe these opinions as an offer of advisory services. Readers who require investment advice should retain the services of a competent investment professional. The information on this blog is not an offer to buy or sell, or a solicitation of any offer to buy or sell any securities or class of securities mentioned herein. Furthermore, the information on this blog should not be construed as an offer of advisory services. Please note that the author does not recommend specific securities nor is he responsible for comments made by persons posting on this blog.
(advocate suggests the GET YOUR MONEY BACK topic on this flogg, for those victims of professional abuse and "puffery".)

goldman ripoff april 2100.jpg ... 40245.html

Re: Civil or Criminal Actions against companies or regulator

PostPosted: Mon Jun 04, 2012 9:16 am
by admin
Screen shot 2012-06-04 at 10.11.43 AM.png
Moulton & Arney, LLP Accepting Cases for Elderly Investors Victimized by Securities

Photo: PRWeb / HC

Investment fraud attorney Cindy Moulton of Moulton & Arney, LLP, helps elderly investors recoup investment losses due to broker misconduct.

(PRWEB) May 31, 2012

Over the past several months, Moulton & Arney, LLP has filed a number of cases on behalf of elderly investors who have suffered substantial losses in their retirement and other investment accounts due to investment fraud or other misconduct by their investment advisors. Several of these cases involve recommendations of inappropriate investments, including investments the elderly investor could not or did not understand or that were overly risky. Often the claims involve unsuitable investments that are inappropriate for elderly investors who live on fixed incomes and may not be able to earn income to replace lost investment dollars.

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA), which regulates financial advisors and securities firms requires that a financial advisor have a reasonable basis to believe a recommended investment or investment strategy is suitable for the investor. On July 9, 2012, NASD Rule 2310 will be replaced by FINRA Rule 2111 (Suitability), which requires reasonable diligence on the part of the financial advisor to determine the customer’s investment profile, including “the customer’s age” in making a suitability determination. Other factors include the investor’s:

Other investments
Financial situation and needs
Tax status
Investment objectives
Investment experience
Investment time horizon
Risk tolerance
Liquidity needs
Only after considering these factors and any other relevant investor information should a broker recommend a particular investment product or investment strategy. An asset allocation that is overly weighted in higher risk investments or investments with a long time horizon may be inappropriate for elderly investors.

The following investment products are also potentially unsuitable for elderly investors:

Hedge funds
Return optimization securities
Auction Rate Securities
Equity-indexed annuities
Structured products
Leveraged and inverse exchange –traded funds
Principal protected notes
Reverse convertibles and commodity futures-linked securities
Asset back securities
Unlisted Real Estate Investment Trusts or “REITs”
Visit for more information.

It has become an alarming trend for elderly investors to fall victim to unsuitable investments and Securities fraud. According to 2008 Census data, by the year 2020, nearly 55 million Americans will be age 65 or older. The Securities Exchange Commission (“SEC”), FINRA and the North American Securities Administrators Association (“NASAA”) are working together to protect the aging population from securities fraud. For more information, please see the Moulton & Arney, LLP Newsletter.

Investors should be particularly wary of unsolicited offers to invest, investment opportunities requiring up-front payments, promises of unrealistically high returns and little risk, high pressure tactics to act quickly or buy now, and internet or direct mail offerings.

About Moulton & Arney, LLP
Moulton & Arney is a Houston, Texas, based boutique litigation and FINRA arbitration law firm representing investors nationwide in claims to recover investment losses. The investment fraud attorneys at Moulton & Arney, LLP have extensive experience representing individual investors, in nearly all 50 states, in securities litigation and arbitration. Moulton & Arney has successfully represented thousands of individual investors in securities fraud lawsuits and arbitrations, with combined claims of hundreds of millions of dollars.

Attorney Cynthia R. Levin Moulton, the firm’s founder, has a proven track record in investment fraud claims involving an array of complex investment products. She has been named a Texas Super Lawyer, is rated 5 out of 5 by, and is rated a 10.0 by To find out more about potential securities fraud claims, please visit

For the original version on PRWeb visit: ... 493611.htm


The article is good news and is welcome. I wish to emphasize one point, however, which the media (and many legal firms) seem to miss in this type of conversation. Namely, that while discussing the messy details of "suitability", or best interests or how many investment angels can dance on the head of a pin......the point might be missed.......the point in my view is this.......most investment sellers mislead, withold, or misinform most customers to believe they are indeed acting for the customer, in their best interest, and acting as a trusted professional. There never is a before-the-fact discussion of "only" using the vague standard of "suitability". Then this "secret" of suitability can be abused in several ways by the sellers who posses the secret.**

Soooo, without dwelling on this much further, there is a fraud involved in what promises are made to get the customer's money, and what goods or services are then delivered when the money is gotten. Or as was so aptly put to an SEC committee a while back, ""Anything else is fraud, because the seller is delivering a service different from what the consumer thinks he or she is buying. " Edward Waitzer, Financial Post · Tuesday, Feb. 15, 2011

source at ... n_US&pli=1


** re "suitability" abuse. Customer walks in the door wanting to buy a truck. Salesman sells customer a used, three ton, pig hauling farm truck, which will not pass inspection. Impossible you say. Yes. No one would buy it. But in the world of investing, where 100% of the info is usually held by the seller, and possibly 100% trust is placed (misplaced) in the seller, it happens each day in the investing world. An the kicker is, the investing world is then able to say, "the man wanted a truck, and this truck is "suitable". We win, you lose. Everytime. (they will even use your ill gotten monies to hire enough lawyers to beat you out of getting your money is that for suitable?)

Re: Civil or Criminal Actions against companies or regulator

PostPosted: Mon May 21, 2012 1:43 pm
by admin
a-snake-oil-1-218x300.jpg (39.81 KiB) Viewed 14555 times


(original link here ... iaries.PDF

A summary and report by Frank Palmay and Assunta Di Lorenzo of McMillan LLP

I hope that victims of financial abuse study this document. It should be a great help to those seeking a better understanding of what has happened to them and what they might be able to do about it. Do not accept the simple story about "markets down, you knew the risk". I suggest that the greatest risk facing investors today is that the financial intermediary (read salesperson) will defraud them using misconduct that the industry is willfully blind to.

This report as it stands it does not understand many of the "systemic" sleights of hand which make simple application of the law nearly impossible, but it is a very good (perhaps the best) starting place with which to begin revealing those sleights of hand.

(advocate comments below by no means meant to diminish a great report, but rather to broaden the perspective, and open the discussion wider)

1. One limitation to the report seems to me to be a view that fraud is mostly done by "bad apples" in the system, and it may not recognize, or be willing to discuss that some systems are designed to be "bad" for the public, and good for those who operate the system. My experience is that "systemic" fraud and professional misconduct is thousands of times more damaging to our country and our economic well being than a few simple bad apples in the system. For examples and numbers of the damages from overlooking this view see video presentation at

2. On page one, bottom paragraph, are some comments about the efforts of the various securities commissions. From the comments and the tone it is apparent that the writers of this report are not versed in the inner workings of the securities regulators in Canada. I cannot claim to be myself, but having come from the inner workings of the largest banks in Canada, of over two decades within, I aware that securities regulators in Canada are bought and fully paid for (100% of salaries) by the financial industry they claim to regulate. The smartest money in Canada knows well that the game is rigged, with the help of captured regulators, almost entirely for the benefit of the industry. Again, this report is of tremendous value, except for the fact that none of it applies to crimes above $100 million. The law is great and all, but at higher systemic levels it simply has found nobody in the country with the will or the courage to apply it. Canada has no Elliot Spitzer or fighting attorney general. (see video above for lack of police budgets for higher value economic crime)

3. On page three, mid page, are comments about Bill C21, (Standing up For Victims of White Collar Crime Act). It discusses the importance of the two year minimum sentence creation for fraud over $1 million. What it misses is that the base legislation appears to have been written by banks, or by lawyers working for the banks, as the entire section 380 (2) as it covers "public markets" fraud was cleverly and craftily removed by those who drafted this legislation. Nice work if you have the ability to write your entire industry out of that aspect of the criminal code. (I was in parliamentary committee in Ottawa when this fact was brought up, and the young government lawyers who appeared to have had this act handed to them to sell already written, spoke a mile a or two without saying anything much to the question. They felt that the million dollar threshold would capture "any" public markets fraud. I personally can see a bank defrauding one million people of $1000 each, and arguing in front of a friendly judge that this act does not apply to them, as none of the frauds exceeded $1 million..............believe me, I have seen far worse. (see topic post at viewtopic.php?f=1&t=188&p=3072&hilit=c21#p3071 for a better view of section 380 Fraud, as it applies in C21 to "the rest of us, just not bankers".

4. On page three the final line on the page speaks about those "found to have violated the standards of regulatory authorities", and missed in this scenario is the that all salaries are paid to financial regulators by those they regulate. It thus causes me to bring up another comment on the and of the third of fourth paragraph of that page, the term "willful blindness". It applies not to the fraud and misconduct of financial intermediaries, but to Canadian regulators. But don't take my word for a US newspaper, and see if regulators were willfully blind in their markets. No, Canadians are NOT morally superior to the Americans? For salaries over $700,000. We simply have less of a media to disclose misconduct.

5. Page four second paragraph speaks well to the issue of "deceit". It caused me to scribble notes about the deceit practiced against all Canadian retail investors, namely leading them to believe they are dealing with trusted, trained, professional, or licensed financial "advisors", when in fact I have not found that to be the case. see topics at this forum on "advisor fraud" or topic "Fiduciary or not" on the bait and switch involved and the widespread deceit that these same regulators act willfully blind to.

6. Page 5, first paragraph jumped out at me when discussing the "broker client relationship to be a "spectrum" - on one end it was a relationship of full trust and advice, and on the other end, the broker does not provide any advice and acts as an "order taker" for the client. This is so wrong that words almost fail. When, in the history of selling investments has a salesman ever informed the public that they were nothing more than an "order taker", owing them no duty of care, and no fiduciary duty. Answer? Never. Pick up a magazine, newspaper, or look at a financial intermediary advertisement on your local bus shelter. None are suggesting anything but the highest end of the spectrum, trust, professionalism, codes of conduct, advice tailored to the needs of the client......every time. This is example of the "bait and switch" or fraud of lending the public to believe a relationship with a trusted professional, and then delivering something entirely different. Did I mention the word fraud?

7. Page six, middle of page has some rather incorrect information saying "although the tendency of the courts has been to find that the relationship between client and financial intermediary is a fiduciary one.......". I have seen many cases of large brokerage firms being called into court by abused clients, and I have seen more arguments won by the firms pulling out "discretionary" vs "non discretionary" account definition out of the woodwork, unbeknownst to the poor customer, this little trick had never before been explained to them, or disclosed. Just held up for the judge as proof that investment firms owe no duty of care to the client. End of case most times. (see court cases section at for some examples of trusting, vulnerable, elderly, dependent customers getting "beaten" with this bank and legal trickery)

8. Same page sic, last paragraph, "It has long been the case that when a person with special skills undertakes to give advice which he knows will be relied upon, he is under an obligation to do so with care". Ouch! That one really hurts it is so far out of touch with financial intermediaries. First, the line sounds good, but when viewed from the perspective of a financial giant, here is how we prefer to see it spun and presented......" the customer retained all decision making authority with the account and was thus the author of his own misfortune........further, investment markets inherently present a degree of risk, so we cannot be held accountable for downturns........etc". They can pull this little gem out, EVEN when they have knowingly sold a load of garbage, to the vulnerable client. Even when they have clearly taken advantage of the imbalance of knowledge, sophistication etc of the relationship and abused the client's interests.......they still can spin it in this way and usually get away with it.

People, and courts, still have not clearly differentiated between "he knew he was taking a risk......", and premeditated fraud and misconduct against the customer by the financial intermediary. The difference is huge.

Finally, for the ultimate insult, they can point out that they have "changed" the "client interest must come first" rule, and now it simply says the investments must be "suitable". Suitability is subjective, and is usually judged by the guy selling the investment........."ya, so what,...... the client wanted transportation and I sold him a is suitable to ride a cow". (see ... and-switch for a look at how the "customer first" oath has been sold out by financial intermediaries and regulators without informing the most important stakeholder......the public)

client sellout.jpg
click to enlarge image and to zoom in

This is what the rules used to say: (year 2000, source Canadian Securities Institute Conduct and Practices Handbook)

CLIENT FIRST 2000-1.jpg
click to enlarge image and to zoom in

Re: Civil or Criminal Actions against companies or regulator

PostPosted: Sat May 05, 2012 2:29 pm
by admin
images.jpeg (10.97 KiB) Viewed 14617 times
In a previous post, a while ago, (GET YOUR MONEY BACK!
by admin » Sat Mar 10, 2012 5:30 pm) I mentioned a case of people who are suing a person who called themselves an investment "advisor", and then screwed the client over by acting out the role of a commission salesperson. A classic "bait and switch" game played a hundred thousand times each day in Canada to help steal the retirements of every Canadian who buys into the scam. (ain't self regulation great?)

Anyway, here is one of the responses giving to these clients, by the investment people who lied and misled: ""If the claimants did suffer any damage, such loss was caused or contributed to by the negligence of the claimants".

At the web site there is no end of such statements in such cases. I refer to it and post my thoughts and responses to such self serving arguments below, in the hopes that some may use them to avoid being similarly lied to , misled, and financially abused.

(my comments to the folks doing the suing, and getting this response........."If the claimants did suffer any damage, such loss was caused or contributed to by the negligence of the claimants".)

funny.......smiling at my end.........not laughing at you..........

This is an attempt to divert attention blame, and distract from the underlying promise...........remember what the promise was......something to the effect of a promise of trust and integrity and investment advice and so on and so on, etc, blah, blah blah

1. If the defendants were willing to lie, misrepresent and operate without proper or actual license for what they posed as.............and if the defendants were willing to earn the trust of the clients posing as trusted professionals, then it is a bit contradictory to now claim that the strategies were in fact the fault of the claimants.

2. I could easier buy this argument, IF they told you up front of their exact license category...........they did not. They hid it instead.

3. I could easier buy this argument IF they told you up front that they were acting as "commission salespersons", and their entire compensation depended upon getting the client to "act" on their advice. They hid it instead.

4. I could easier buy this argument IF they told you up front that they "reserved the right" to give you investment "advice" which was not the best advice they had in their possession, but instead the best which maximized the commission payable to themselves, despite the resulting harm to your investment performance. They hid it instead.

5. I could easier buy this argument if they actually had made every professionally available step to choose the most suitable, most appropriate, AND most advantageous investment choice that was available to them, which they did not, instead choosing the investment choice which paid them the most money. They hid it instead.

6. I could easier buy this argument if they had told you up front of the various differences between a "discretionary" account, and an account that is non discretionary, including informing you of the differing duties of care owed to the client, and the legal outcomes or obligations resulting from knowing these differences. They hid it instead. (they are now using often used investment industry trick to try and weasel their way out of responsibility)

7. They are also trying to magnify the harm done by a borrowing strategy, claiming it was "your idea" of course.......while distracting the case away from their promise of being your "planner" or "advisor", and also distracting away from the many intentional harms they did to you with their choices to maximize their own commissions. (They "fooled" or "duped" you into the false belief they they were professionals at financial advice, and then they took advantage of this false trust to their own advantage, and your disadvantage. Pretty easy stuff from my angle. (my angle being a former CFP, CIM, FCSI, Associate Portfolio Manager, retired) They are now trying to hide this sleight of hand from the judge.

I could go on I suppose, but I will stop there for ease of understanding.

Do not buy the story and do not let it get to you. It is not personal. Do not take it personally. Stand back and smile at the immaturity of fully grown, fully adult looking men, acting like children. What they are doing is again, the verbal equivalent of a two year old child INSISTING that they DID NOT POOP IN THEIR PANTS!! (They hid it instead.:)

Understand it for that. Smile at it. Calmly point out that they were acting and promising a duty of professional care to you.......and you relied totally upon that care and advice. Again. go and re-read the judges comments in the case Markarian v CIBC. ... _index.htm

In fact read as many of the cases at this site as you can........and make sure you pass one or two of the better comments to your judge as part of your case materials. That will really piss off your defendants. There are a few really, really great judgements out there that you could use to stand upon.

Re, the comment, ""If the claimants did suffer any damage, caused by any fault of the firm, such loss was caused or contributed to by the negligence of the claimants", I would just ask that they show exactly where you were negligent. Was it when you believed them in any of the points listed 1-6 above? Or was it something else that they had in mind? I look forward to seeing the negligent act you performed......#7?.....

49 Globe Mutual Special_046.jpg

Re: Civil or Criminal Actions against companies or regulator

PostPosted: Mon Apr 23, 2012 9:35 am
by admin
Screen shot 2012-04-23 at 10.34.36 AM.png
January 19, 2011
Norbourg investors declare 'a victory for us'
From Thursday's Globe and Mail
Victims of the financial fraud, Quebec's largest ever, reach a $55-million settlement

Wilhelm Pellemans says he never lost faith justice would be done and that he and the thousands of victims of the Norbourg financial fraud - one of the biggest in Canadian history - would ultimately be compensated for their losses.

The 70-year-old plastic surgeon said Wednesday he's more than satisfied with the $55-million settlement that will - subject to approval by a Quebec Superior Court judge - allow the 9,200 Norbourg victims to recover nearly all the money they lost in the massive scam.

"I am happy for myself and for the 9,200 others," Mr. Pellemans said at a news conference to announce an agreement in principle reached in a class-action suit against Quebec's securities regulator as well as Northern Trust Co. Canada, Concentra Trust, accountant Rémi Deschambault and accounting firms KPMG LLP and Beaulieu Deschambault.

The settlement, which involves no admission of liability, comes just days before the class action alleging negligence was to go to trial.

The fraud and embezzlement scheme, the largest ever in Quebec, was a key development leading to changes at the Autorité des marchés financiers (AMF) that included a near-tripling of its enforcement team. The provincial securities regulator, which has already paid $31-million to Norbourg Asset Management Inc. investors, will pay $20-million of the settlement.

Mr. Pellemans said that, while he never wavered in his belief that Norbourg investors would be compensated, ups and downs over the years led him to wonder if there would be full recovery for the victims. Many of them lost their life savings in the scam orchestrated by Vincent Lacroix, Norbourg Asset Management Inc.'s president.

Mr. Pellemans and co-lead plaintiff, investor Michel Vézina, alleged in the suit that the provincial regulator and firms that provided accounting or trust services to Montreal-based Norbourg didn't act soon enough to put a stop to the swindle at the mutual fund company.

"What we achieved today is a victory for us," he said.

Indeed, full recovery of money lost in big corporate fraud schemes is unusual, says Toronto forensic accountant Mark Rosen.

"It's very rare in Canada that you see that type of recovery," he said.

While the settlement is not a precedent, victims of convicted fraudster Earl Jones in Quebec are hoping it will strengthen their class-action suit against Royal Bank of Canada, which they allege should have known the Montreal investment adviser was stealing from his clients.

The Norbourg settlement means that all other ongoing legal action in the case will cease - including a move to win class-action approval against the Caisse dépôt et placement du Québec for allegedly not conducting proper financial checks when it sold an investment fund to Norbourg in 2003.

A spokesman for the regulator said it made sense to settle to avoid a long and costly court case. "We have learned lessons from Norbourg," he said, pointing to the beefing up of the AMF's enforcement team, to 120 staffers from 45, several years ago.

In addition to the $55-million that is expected to start being disbursed in about three months, about 925 Norbourg investors received $31-million in indemnities from the AMF compensation fund in 2007. Another $26-million has come from the sale of assets and tax refunds.

Mr. Lacroix was arrested in 2005, after the collapse of Norbourg.

He was convicted of securities act violations in 2007 and pleaded guilty in 2009 to nearly 200 criminal charges of fraud, conspiracy to defraud, money laundering and other illegal acts. He received a 13-year prison sentence, the longest for white-collar crime in Canada, but the term was later reduced. He has a parole hearing later this month and could be released to a halfway house soon after. ... le1875418/

Re: Civil or Criminal Actions against companies or regulator

PostPosted: Sun Feb 26, 2012 9:32 pm
by admin
Screen shot 2012-02-26 at 9.30.01 PM.png

Courts stepping up for aggrieved investors
BARRIE MCKENNA | Columnist profile | E-mail
OTTAWA— From Monday's Globe and Mail
Published Sunday, Feb. 26, 2012 7:00PM EST

Douglas Melville is an essential cog in the regime that shields millions of Canadian investors from abuse by financial institutions.

The Ombudsman for Banking Services and Investments can secure compensation if you lose money due to bad advice, mistakes or unfair treatment.

But the process falls short of “access to justice” for aggrieved investors, as Ontario Superior Court Justice Bryan Shaughnessy pointed out in a recent decision.

The industry-funded ombudsman can’t enforce payments or even compel member financial institutions to co-operate. And his recommendations are limited to claims of $350,000. Mr. Melville’s biggest stick is to publish the names of firms that don’t pay up – a “rather anemic remedy,” Judge Shaughnessy suggested.

“A truly impartial and independent body would have control over its process,” he declared bluntly.

And so the judge cleared the way for a class-action lawsuit against Industrial Alliance’s mutual fund subsidiary, Investia Financial Services Inc., along with Money Concepts (Barrie) and other affiliated companies and individuals.

The case centres on allegations that financial advisers systematically pushed clients of modest means to borrow large sums of money to buy mutual funds. The defendants deny the allegations, which haven’t been proven in court.

But the case highlights something much more important: that the patchwork of federal, provincial and self-regulation in the massive financial advice industry isn’t working.

Faced with regulatory lapses, the courts are stepping up. Already this year Ontario judges have given the green light to three major class-action lawsuits targeting financial industry sales practices.

“The three cases all show the courts are prepared to let clients proceed in a class action where either the firm or the regulator has not done an adequate job,” said Ottawa lawyer John Hollander of Doucet McBride LLP, who represents investors in the Investia case.

Earlier this month, another Ontario Superior Court judge gave the go-ahead to a class action against BMO Nesbitt Burns involving allegations of hidden fees on foreign exchange transactions in registered accounts, such as Registered Retirement Savings Plans. And an Ontario Court of Appeal judge has also cleared the way for a class-action suit against Investors Group subsidiary IG Investment Management Ltd. over losses suffered by investors due to alleged “market timing” of mutual funds.

The investor-adviser relationship is likewise attracting the attention of the Ontario Securities Commission. The OSC is exploring whether to impose a “fiduciary duty” requiring advisers to put their clients’ interests first – a standard similar to what lawyers, accountants and other professionals face.

Naturally, the financial services industry wants less regulation, not more. Some major institutions already deem the ombudsman’s moral suasion too onerous. Royal Bank of Canada and Toronto-Dominion Bank have pulled out of the banking complaints process entirely (although its brokerage subsidiaries remain in). In more than a dozen cases, firms have balked at paying settlements. TD’s pullout last year forced a cut in OBSI’s 2012 budget.

That prompted OBSI chair Peggy-Anne Brown to warn ominously last week that the ombudsman’s survival is threatened by a “power struggle” between the interests of consumers and “large and powerful financial firms.”

As Wednesday’s annual RRSP deadline nears, Canadians are increasingly masters of their own financial destiny. But they’re masters of a universe that’s fraught with market risk and imperfect regulation.

Canadians are getting squeezed by a volatile stock market, meagre returns on savings products and a financial services maze that too many don’t fully understand.

Many investors assume brokers and advisers have a duty to act in their best interests. But that’s not the legal obligation, and the line is unclear when advisers are compensated through unseen fees charged by the producers of those financial products.

“There is no government-enforced standard or mandatory professional oversight for competent, ethical and professional behaviour,” acknowledged the Financial Planning Standards Council, a not-for-profit group that oversees the Certified Financial Planner designation.

This matters now, more than ever, because policy decisions are shifting financial responsibility to individuals.

Workplace pensions are no longer the norm in the private sector as companies continue to scrap predictable defined benefit plans. Ottawa is essentially pushing an aging population into the arms of the financial services industry. RRSPs, tax-free savings accounts, registered education savings plans and the newly created pooled registered pension plans (for employees of small businesses) all encourage private savings, typically managed by financial advisers.

Shifting financial responsibility to individuals is a reasonable policy goal. But it doesn’t absolve governments of the obligation to shield Canadians from harm.

The courts are sending a pointed message. ... le2350409/

Re: Civil or Criminal Actions against companies or regulator

PostPosted: Fri Feb 24, 2012 4:30 pm
by admin
294628_10150877012590246_880255245_21209521_2031217038_n.jpg (24.67 KiB) Viewed 15970 times
old, but interesting.........

For further information, please contact:

Paul C. Bourque Senior Vice-President, Member Regulation (416) 865-3038 or
IDA welcomes court decision

April 8, 2004 (Toronto, Ontario) -- The Investment Dealers Association of Canada (IDA) responded to today’s Supreme Court ruling regarding the request by Mr. Christopher Morgis to amend his lawsuit to include the IDA as a defendant.
“Today’s court ruling affirms the IDA’s position in this matter. Regulators must be free to regulate fairly and effectively in the public interest without fear or concern that they will be subjected to legal action,” said Senior Vice-President, Member Regulation Paul Bourque.

Today’s decision follows a recent decision by the Ontario Court of Appeals confirming that while regulators have an obligation to act in the broader public interest, they do not have a duty of care to individual clients of the organizations that are regulated. Consequently, individuals do not have grounds for action against regulators who have acted in good faith and in the public interest.
The Investment Dealers Association of Canada is the national self-regulatory organization and representative of the securities industry. The Association’s mission is to protect investors and enhance the efficiency and competitiveness of the Canadian capital markets.
- 30 -

(advocate comments....the legal games that "self regulators" play amount to decriminalization of far too many abusive activities they practice or allow.........the portion in red above gives me the greatest hope imaginable, in that proving these self regulatory types act contrary to the public interest, on a regular basis, is in my opinion, just a matter of printing up the record) I look forward to the action where this aspect is brought forth. See also postings at GET YOUR MONEY BACK and HOW MANY RULES BROKEN at viewtopic.php?f=1&t=188 For a sample of how easy it could be to show regulator gross negligence. (not just negligence, but gross negligence, bordering on conscious wrongdoing)

Re: Civil or Criminal Actions against companies or regulator

PostPosted: Thu Feb 16, 2012 11:01 am
by admin
Screen shot 2012-02-16 at 11.01.14 AM.png
Feb 16, 2012 – 6:59 AM ET | Last Updated: Feb 15, 2012 6:21 PM ET
BMO class action gets OK

Aaron Lynett/National Post

A BMO flag flies in front of First Canadian Place, the headquarters for BMO Bank of Montreal in Toronto.

Barry Critchley
Five and a half years on, a group of plaintiffs can do a little celebrating given that a class action lawsuit they brought against various entities of the Bank of Montreal has just been certified.
The next stage is for the bank to file a statement of defence (assuming it doesn’t appeal) in the matter that was started in August 2006 by James MacDonald, a former investment advisor at BMO Nesbitt Burns and which focuses on registered accounts held at the bank, the conversion of foreign currency in those accounts and the fees charged.
“This case is important because it brings to the court the practices of a significant financial institution on how they deal with registered accounts when doing foreign exchange transactions. We are hoping to prove our case and bring better transparency to the process and hopefully better pricing to the consumer,” said Kenneth Rosenberg, a partner at the law firm Paliare Roland Rosenberg Rothstein.
Along with Jeffrey Larry, Rosenberg, acted for the four plaintiffs MacDonald, John Zoppas, Lynn Zoppas and Tamas Varga in the matter that was put on hold for about four years to allow a similar action (but one that dealt with non-registered accounts) by other parties to proceed. About 15 months back work on the matter renewed and two weeks ago Justice Carolyn Horkins of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice made a 41-page ruling.
In her opinion the matter can proceed as a class action – with an estimated value of around $100-million – and will cover the period June 2001 to September 2011.
The dates are significant: prior to June 2001, Canadians could not hold foreign currency in registered accounts and in September 2011, BMO started offering registered accounts in foreign currency. Between those dates, the plaintiffs allege that when the currency conversions were made, “the defendants charged the account holder an exchange rate more favorable to the defendants than the rate at which the defendants purchased the currency,” wrote Justice Corkins.
Corkins wrote that “the plaintiffs allege that the foreign exchange fees were not disclosed to the account holder and were unnecessary and unauthorized.” Because of that, the plaintiffs argue the defendants breached their contracts, fiduciary duties, duties as trustees and have been “unjustly enriched.”
Accordingly, instead of acting as agent and trying to secure the best deal for the customer, the allegation is that the bank acted as principal by “selling you their own foreign exchange without declaring to you that they were doing it,” said Rosenberg.
The claim for damages follows because, Rosenberg alleges, the bank “could have done it cheaper,” making reference to a number of transactions where fees were paid.
Some of those were transactions done by MacDonald, who, after finding out that foreign currency could be held in a registered account, wrote to senior management asking why conversion was still occurring “without his authorization.” MacDonald didn’t receive a reply but wrote again and duly received a response on a “without prejudice” basis.
Rosenberg added while “people understand that money is made on this, we say that there has to be proper disclosure and transparency and you are entitled to know how much they are charging.”
Justice Corkins spends considerable time on the gaps between what BMO disclosed and what it practiced.
“There are no fees listed that deal with the conversion of foreign currency,” she wrote in a section titled “What did Nesbitt Burns disclose”?
Calls to BMO seeking a comment weren’t returned.

BMO NB RRSP FX Certification Decision Dated: January 31, 2012

@ ... 013112.pdf

Re: Civil or Criminal Actions against companies or regulator

PostPosted: Wed Feb 01, 2012 4:49 pm
by admin
Screen shot 2012-02-01 at 4.48.26 PM.png
Decision Dated: January 31, 2012 ... 013112.pdf

BMO RRSP Class Action Update

This website has been developed to provide general information to potential class members on a number of class actions that have been commenced by Paliare Roland Rosenberg Rothstein LLP.
The site is not designed to answer questions about your individual situation or entitlement. Do not rely upon the information provided on this website as legal advice in respect of your individual situation nor use it as a substitute for individual legal advice.
The information collected about potential class members will assist counsel in prosecuting the class action and assessing what damages were suffered by the class as a whole. Providing the information requested does not make you the client of Paliare Roland Rosenberg Rothstein LLP. The court will ultimately decide who will be included as a class member.
This action has now been certified as a class proceeding.
On January 31, 2012, Justice Horkins released her Reasons for Decision certifying this action as a class proceeding. Her Reasons can be viewedhere.
It is expected that the defendants will seek leave to appeal from this decision. Further updates will be posted as the case develops.
The Claim
In 2006, a class action was commenced on behalf of a proposed class of individuals with registered accounts administered by BMO Nesbitt Burns Inc., BMO Trust Company, BMO Bank of Montreal and BMO InvestorLine Inc. in respect of foreign exchange transactions in RRSP, RRIF and RESP accounts (the “MacDonald Action”). The claim alleges, in general, that the defendants are not authorized to carry on the practice of automatically converting foreign currency in registered accounts after June 2001 changes to the Income Tax Act.
The Class
The Class has been defined as:
All current and former clients of BMO InvestorLine Inc. (“InvestorLine”) and BMO Nesbitt Burns Inc. (“BMO NB”) resident in Canada, who held one or more registered accounts administered by BMO Trust, BMO NB and/or InvestorLine Inc. (the “Trust Accounts”) and purchased or sold investments denominated in foreign currency in their Trust Accounts or were paid dividends or interest in a foreign currency in their Trust Account(s), or otherwise received foreign currency into their Trust Account(s) which was then converted to Canadian dollars by the defendants during the period between:
i. June 14, 2001 and September 5, 2011 for:

a. all clients and former clients of InvestorLine;

b. the 14 clients of BMO NB who opted out of the class proceeding entitled Skopit v. BMO Nesbitt Burns Inc., either entirely or with respect to the overlap period with this action; and

ii. October 1, 2002 and September 5, 2011 for all other clients of BMO NB.

If you fall within the definition, you are part of the class. Formal notices of certification will be published once any appeals have been resolved.
If you have any questions, please contact class counsel at:
Toll Free: 1-888-569-4526
Decision Dated: January 31, 2012 ... 013112.pdf

Re: Civil or Criminal Actions against companies or regulator

PostPosted: Tue Jan 31, 2012 9:31 pm
by admin
Screen shot 2012-01-31 at 9.31.03 PM.png
Know the Law
Class-action ruling shocks Bay Street
Julius Melnitzer Jan 31, 2012 – 2:19 PM ET

Getty Images
Comments Email Twitter
The Ontario Court of Appeal has shocked Bay Street by ruling that capital-markets participants who settle complaints with the Ontario Securities Commission for less than the full value of investors’ damages remain liable to class-action lawsuits.

The Court’s decision in the case of Fischer v. IG Investment Management Ltd. confirmed the certification of a class action against alleged wrongdoing by five defendant mutual fund managers in the mutual fund market-timing debacle in 2004.

“This decision provides long-awaited crisp guidance to judges, lawyers and corporations as to the critical role class actions play in providing for access to justice in the context of securities cases,” says Joel Rochon of Toronto’s Rochon Genova LLP, who, with colleagues Peter Jervis and Sakie Tambakous, represented the class.

The ruling means the lawsuit against CI Mutual Funds Inc. and AIC Ltd. can proceed to trial. The other defendants, IG Investment Management Ltd., Franklin Templeton Investments Corp. and AGF Funds Inc. were not involved in the appeal as they chose to settle the class-action suits.

The ruling puts considerable pressure on the remaining defendants to settle to avoid the cost of a lengthy and complex trial.

“CI and AIC will probably settle, too, now because they don’t seem to have much of a defence left,” says Kirk Baert of Toronto’s Koskie Minsky LLP, who regularly represents plaintiffs in class actions.

The ruling has wide repercussions. It means a class action can’t be blocked simply because there is regulatory remedy for some alleged wrongdoing.

“Ontario’s Class Proceedings Act requires that a class action be the preferable procedure for resolving a dispute before it can be certified,” says Benjamin Zarnett of Toronto’s Goodmans LLP, who, with colleagues Jessica Kimmel and Melanie Ouanounou, represented CI. “So arguably Fischer could apply in any case where companies are holding up an alternative process, whether it’s regulatory or voluntary, as a preferable alternative to a class action.”

The Fischer case arose in the wake of the market-timing scandal. The OSC commenced proceedings against the five defendant funds. It claimed they failed to act in the public interest in relation to the market-timing activity in their funds.

The regulatory proceedings ended when the funds agreed to pay $205-million to aggrieved investors. The settlement agreements specified that they were without prejudice to the rights of investors to bring civil suits against the mutual-fund managers with respect to the same subject matter.

Dennis Fischer and other representative plaintiffs initiated the class action after the OSC proceedings ended. The investor plaintiffs sought to recover the difference between the OSC settlement and the hundreds of millions of additional dollars they maintained were required for full compensation.

In January 2010, Mr. Justice Paul Perell of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice refused to certify the case, but the Divisional Court reversed his ruling. The Court of Appeal upheld the Divisional Court result, but for different reasons.

The last word on the subject, however, may not yet have been heard.

“CI is looking very carefully at the feasibility of bringing a leave to appeal application to the Supreme Court of Canada,” Mr. Zarnett says. “It’s a very important issue involving matters of principle, to which each of the three courts that pronounced on it in this case have taken a very different approach.” ... ay-street/

Re: Civil or Criminal Actions against companies or regulator

PostPosted: Tue Jan 17, 2012 3:03 pm
by admin
Screen shot 2012-01-17 at 3.02.06 PM.png

Supreme Court smacks down B-D's suit against Finra
Plaintiff argued that proxy soliciting member approval for NYSE combo was fraudulent

By Dan Jamieson
January 17, 2012 2:51 pm ET

(Photo: Dan Macy)

The U.S. Supreme Court today declined to hear an appeal of a lawsuit filed in 2007 by a broker-dealer against NASD.


Related to this story

SIFMA, Finra clash over deadbeat brokers
One case shouldn't stand in the way of an ERISA fiduciary standard
Buzz: Finra names names in Reg D crackdown
Finra goes public with private-placement crackdown
Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA)
The firm, Standard Investment Chartered Inc., sued the NASD over its merger with the regulatory unit of the New York Stock Exchange, claiming the proxy used by the NASD in soliciting member approval for the merger was fraudulent.

The NASD since has been renamed the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority Inc.

In 2010 a New York federal court dismissed the claim, and last year, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld that decision.

“We are pleased that the Supreme Court determined not to take the case,” Finra spokeswoman Nancy Condon said in a statement.

“We believed the 2nd Circuit Court's opinion was consistent with rulings of other courts that have addressed the issue of immunity for SROs.”

“Members of Finra will never have their day in federal court to prove that Wall Street's regulators themselves committed a significant financial fraud,” William Anderson, one of Standard's attorneys at Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca LLP, wrote in an email.

Jack Norberg, chairman of the firm, was not immediately available for comment.

NASD was able to get the merger approved by member firms with the help of a $35,000 payment. Standard claimed that the self-regulator and its officials lied in the proxy and other communications when they claimed $35,000 was the most that could be paid under Internal Revenue Service rules.

Government entities, including private organizations with government-delegated authority, generally enjoy absolute legal immunity in performing official duties. Court cases have granted protection specifically to securities self-regulatory organizations.

Standard argued that the merger was not a legally protected regulatory function of Finra.

The brokerage firm wanted the Supreme Court justices to hear that case because it claims that lower courts have issued conflicting opinions on immunity for SROs and other state actors.

The Standard suit already had been thrown out twice by courts — in 2010 by a New York U.S. District Court judge and again last year by the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

SEC Chairman Mary Schapiro, former head of NASD, was one of the officials named in the lawsuit.

A number of outside organizations filed friend-of-the-court briefs for Standard, urging the Supreme Court to take up the case and address the limits of legal immunity for SROs.

In dismissing the case, lower courts found that NASD's proxy and merger were part of its regulatory activities and thus legally protected. ... e=20120117