Compliance August 8, 2013

SEC Charges BofA with Defrauding RMBS Investors

The SEC filed a complaint claiming Bank of America and two subsidiaries failed to disclose key risks and misrepresented facts about the underlying mortgages in an offering of residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS).
Reported by

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) charged Bank of America with violating Sections 5(b)(1), 17(a)(2) and 17(a)(3) of the Securities Act of 1933. The SEC claims Bank of America defrauded investors by neglecting to disclose that more than 70% of the mortgages that backed RMBS offering BOAMS 2008-A originated through the bank’s “wholesale” channel of mortgage brokers, unaffiliated with Bank of America entities. Such wholesale channel loans presented greater risks of severe delinquencies, early defaults, underwriting defects and prepayment. Bank of America never disclosed this material information to all investors and never filed it publicly as required under the federal securities laws.

Bank of America, Banc of America Securities LLC (now Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith) and Bank of America Mortgage Securities (BOAMS) conducted the $855 million RMBS offering in 2008. The RMBS offering was marketed and sold as a conservative securitization.

Never miss a story — sign up for PLANADVISER newsletters to keep up on the latest retirement plan adviser news.

According to the SEC’s complaint, BOAMS 2008-A suffered an 8.05% cumulative net loss rate through June 2013. This resulted in losses of nearly $70 million with anticipated future losses of approximately $50 million.

“This is one in a long line of RMBS-related enforcement actions brought by the SEC to hold entities accountable for wrongdoing connected to the financial crisis,” said George S. Canellos, co-director of the SEC’s Division of Enforcement.

The SEC’s complaint was filed in U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina.

The Department of Justice has also announced a parallel civil action against Bank of America for violations of the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1989 (FIRREA).

Compliance August 8, 2013

UBS Misled CDO Investors, SEC Claims

The SEC charged UBS for its failure to disclose that it retained upfront cash received when it acquired collateral for a collateralized debt obligation (CDO).
Reported by

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) found in its investigation that, in the process of acquiring credit default swaps (CDS), UBS Securities received $23.6 million in upfront payments. UBS retained those payments in full, as well as its disclosed fee of $10.8 million, instead of transferring the cash to the CDO when the collateral was transferred.  

“UBS kept $23.6 million that under the terms of the deal should have gone to the CDO for the benefit of its investors,” said George S. Canellos, co-director of the SEC’s Division of Enforcement.  “In doing so, UBS misrepresented the nature of the CDO’s collateral and rendered false the disclosures about how that collateral was acquired.”

For more stories like this, sign up for the PLANADVISERdash daily newsletter.

Charged with violating securities laws, UBS agreed to settle the SEC’s charges by paying disgorgement of the $23.6 million, the disclosed $10.8 million fee, prejudgment interest of approximately $9.7 million and a penalty of $5.7 million. UBS did not admit or deny the SEC’s findings, but consented to the entry of an order finding that it violated Sections 17(a)(2) and 17(a)(3) of the Securities Act of 1933, and negligently caused ACA to violate Section 206(2) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940.

According to the SEC’s order instituting settled administrative proceedings, UBS structured the CDO in mid-2007 with ACA Management as collateral manager. The CDO’s collateral consisted primarily of CDS on subprime residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS), the CDO received monthly premiums from that collateral, and those premiums were then used to make required payments to CDO bondholders. 

The SEC’s order stated that ACA solicited bids on the CDS collateral through a running spread—periodic interest payments—and upfront cash payments, which combined to equal the yield on the CDS. 

UBS did not make any reference to the cash payments when it marketed the deal, and instead inaccurately represented that the CDO had to acquire all collateral at either fair market value or the price it was acquired by UBS—UBS did not acquire the collateral at fair market value, and the CDO did not receive the $23.6 million.

 

 

«

You have reached your limit of two free articles

Visit Homepage | Login | Subscribe