Securities Fraud Lawyers Blog

Chapter 7 Bankruptcy – Benefits and Drawbacks

Published on: March 22, 2021 | by Savage Villoch Law, PLLC

Once your Chapter 7 eligibility has been determined, it’s important to consider whether the unique benefits and drawbacks of bankruptcy make filing an optimal path forward for you. Savage Villoch Law can work with you directly to understand your specific circumstances and balance these factors to help determine whether you should file.

First and foremost, Chapter 7 can grant you quick and complete relief from your unsecured debts – it’s the fastest and most common form of bankruptcy, and the vast majority of those who file will get relief. Any of your financial obligations that are not backed by collateral can be discharged – think your credit card debt, medical bills, and personal loans. In a typical Chapter 7 case, these debts will be discharged within three to six months of filing, and your creditors must stop attempting to collect as soon as your petition is filed.

Forcing your creditors to stop calling you is really a two-fold benefit of bankruptcy. First, you can rest easy knowing that collectors won’t be calling you or otherwise bother you while the bankruptcy court is considering your case since collections are paused until the court determines whether you’ll receive Chapter 7 relief. Second, the quick turnaround for Chapter 7 cases offers you a jump start on rebuilding your financial future, especially when compared with the years-long repayment plans generally used in a Chapter 13 reorganization bankruptcy.

Chapter 7 Bankruptcy: Can I file Chapter 7?

Published on: March 15, 2021 | by Savage Villoch Law, PLLC

Chapter 7 bankruptcy can ease some of your financial burdens if you’ve fallen behind on monthly bills, but how do you know if you are eligible to file in the first place?

At a high level, to be eligible under chapter 7 you must be able to show that you do not have the means to pay your monthly expenses and debts given your current income.

Any individual with an income below their state’s median for their household size is automatically eligible to file under chapter 7. However, you may still be eligible even if your income falls above the median, you will just need to pass the chapter 7 means test first.

Chapter 7 Bankruptcy: An Overview

Published on: March 8, 2021 | by Savage Villoch Law, PLLC

If you are dealing with debt that has become unmanageable despite your best efforts at repayment, Chapter 7 bankruptcy may be an avenue to consider. Although Chapter 7 bankruptcy comes with its own set of drawbacks to keep in mind, it also has the potential to help you begin rebuilding toward a healthier financial future.

Chapter 7 bankruptcy is often referred to as “liquidation bankruptcy” because it allows individuals to completely discharge some portions of their debt, but only after certain assets have been liquidated. It is both the fastest and most common type of bankruptcy, and often allows debt to be discharged within three to five months of filing. However, before filing, there are some important factors to consider.

First, you should consider your current financial situation to determine eligibility. When filing for Chapter 7 bankruptcy, a variety of financial documents will be disclosed, including schedules of assets, liabilities, income, and expenditures, transcripts of tax returns, and a list of all owned property, among other information. As with any form of bankruptcy, individuals must also undergo credit counseling and provide a record of completion before filing.[1]

Can the SEC Help Protect Investors Against Climate Risk?

Published on: February 22, 2021 | by Savage Villoch Law, PLLC

This week’s unprecedented winter storm in Texas this is the latest reminder of intensifying weather events across the globe, and the damage left in its wake opens up important questions about whether our financial systems are prepared to withstand the impacts of climate change. One of the most important functions of regulatory bodies like the SEC is to protect the market from systemic risks, and there is a widening consensus that climate change is one systemic risk for which the SEC must prepare.

As defined by SEC Commissioner Allison Lee during her keynote speech at the PLI’s Annual Institute on Securities Regulation in November 2020, a systemic risk is “characterized by the following features: (1) ‘shock amplification’ or the notion that a given shock to the financial system may be magnified by certain forces and propagate widely throughout; (2) that propagation causes an impairment to all or major parts of the financial system; and (3) that impairment in turn causes spillover affects to the real economy.” [1]

Put more simply, a systemic risk is one with the potential to result in the downturn, or even collapse, of an entire market system. The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic is one recent example of such a risk, as we continue to see its economic impacts across every sector of the market. During her speech, Lee noted that although the SEC is not in a position to regulate and slow the actual drivers of climate change, it can – and should – address climate risks through standardization of the environmental, social, and governance (ESG) disclosures that financial institutions make.

Thoughts on the Risk of Fraud in Cryptocurrency Investments

Published on: February 9, 2021 | by Savage Villoch Law, PLLC

As they begin to move into the mainstream, it has become clear that cryptocurrencies pose a unique set of regulatory and legal challenges for investors and regulation agencies alike. In the past week alone, two high-profile securities fraud cases tied to cryptocurrency have come to light, and the total number of enforcement actions by the SEC on similar schemes has risen sharply over the past five years. In 2016, the SEC filed only one “Digital Assets/Initial Coin Offerings” enforcement action – in 2020, they filed 23.

The first cryptocurrency, Bitcoin, was introduced in 2009, and it has since been joined by over 1,900 competitors. Cryptocurrencies operate in a decentralized, purely digital block-chain network. Within the network, a supply cap on “coins” exists, and coin production is left in the hands of collective members of the system through a process known as “mining.” In Bitcoin’s case, there can only ever be 21 million coins mined, of which over 18 million have been mined thus far. Cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin derive their value largely from their limited supply, overall market demand, the cost to produce a bitcoin via mining, and competition from other cryptocurrencies.

Recently, Bitcoin’s price has been on the rise, stirring up a good deal of interest from prospective investors. As of February 6, 2021, one bitcoin is worth $39,255.90 –up about 300% year over year, and 34% year to date. But an investment in Bitcoin, or other cryptocurrencies like it, is unique in its risks. Experts caution that because cryptocurrency is a relatively new technology, and is not yet well understood by the public, prospective investors are at an increased risk of falling victim to fraudulent schemes.

GameStop Short Squeeze: Legal and Regulatory Implications?

Published on: February 1, 2021 | by Savage Villoch Law, PLLC

It has been a tumultuous week in the investment world, with rallies among a gaggle of unlikely stocks, spurred on by a group of even more unlikely investors – retail investors who have banded together on the popular social media site, Reddit.

As has been widely reported this week, when Reddit retail investors discovered that hedge fund managers were widely shorting GameStop, AMC, and others, they urged fellow users to begin buying up these stocks. This frenzy of investment activity resulted in a short squeeze, sending GameStop’s stock price soaring, causing hedge funds to incur huge losses on their short positions, and placing popular online trading platforms in a precarious financial situation. GameStop shares closed the week of January 25, 2021 up 400% in spite of market volatility and restrictions, and without any material change to the prospects of company.

But how did we get here?

Proposal to Let Hedge Funds Hide Their Holdings Likely Going Down in Flames

Published on: October 23, 2020 | by Savage Villoch Law, PLLC

In July 2020, the Securities and Exchange Commission made a proposal to vastly change the reporting requirements of hedge funds. The Securities and Exchange Commission’s proposal would permit hedge funds with less than $3.5 billion in assets to stop reporting their holdings in quarterly reports to the Securities and Exchange Commission. At this time, the Securities and Exchange Commission requires quarterly disclosure of stock positions held by hedge funds that have more than $100 million in assets under management.

According to the Financial Times, during the ‘consultation period’ when the Securities and Exchange Commission considers comments made about their proposed changes, 2.262 letters were submitted to the Securities and Exchange Commission regarding the proposed change to the disclosure rules. Of these 2,262 comment letters, 99% were against the proposed rule, according to Financial Times. The result of such a large number of letters opposing the rule change is that the Securities and Exchange Commission is expected to withdraw its proposal and keep the current disclosure threshold of $100 million.

The $100 million threshold has been in place since 1975 and it requires hedge funds to file a “13-F” report each quarter to disclose their holdings. The Securities and Exchange Commission looked at the fact that the US equity market capitalization has grown from $1 trillion to an $35 trillion and decided that it was time to raise the disclosure limit. The Securities and Exchange commission also claimed that the disclosure requirements at $100 million were a burden to the smaller hedge funds. This reasoning leaves out the impact that its actions would have on the transparency of the markets. The Financial Times reports that hedge fund managers were skeptical of the Securities and Exchange Commission’s reasoning. The smaller hedge fund managers and even the CFA Institute noted that the costs to file the 13F are negligible and the process was mostly automated by today’s portfolio accounting software programs.

Financial Advisers Fail (Again) In Protecting Individual Investors.

Published on: September 1, 2020 | by Savage Villoch Law, PLLC

The Wall Street Journal published an article by Jason Zweig and Andrea Fuller on August 31, 2020 explaining their analysis of how financial advisers fell short in meeting their obligations to disclose important information to individual investors like you.[1] The Wall Street Journal analyzed the filings made by investment advisers on the SEC Form CRS. The article and analysis revealed what seems to be disturbing lack of candor by investment advisers.

It is fundamental to full and fair disclosure that if an individual investor wants to know whether their financial adviser, or a financial adviser they want to hire, has any legal or regulatory problems, that this information is easy for an investor to obtain. To that end, the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) sought to simplify the process by which an individual investor can access this information. The result of the SEC’s efforts was the “Form CRS.” “CRS” stands for customer (or client) relationship summary.

This information has been available. However, for the average “Main Street” individual investor, the information was not easy to find. And when the customer complaint and regulatory history was found, the disclosures were difficult to understand. The Form CRS[2] was intended to address this complexity and difficulty through simplification. Thus, the SEC created what SEC Chairman Jay Clayton said in November 2018 would be a “clear and concise” document. I think they succeeded. Wall Street, however, failed.

Fourth Circuit Slaps Down Bad Arguments Regarding Arbitration and Account Contracts

Published on: August 21, 2020 | by Savage Villoch Law, PLLC

In Interactive Brokers, LLC v. Saroop, the United States Federal Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit made it clear that a broker’s contract that incorporates FINRA rules supports a breach of contract claim when the broker violates FINRA. Further, this case reinforces the public policy of using arbitration to lower costs and create an efficient resolution forum for disputes.

Interactive Brokers that Saroop and two others (collectively, the “Investors”) opened accounts with Interactive Brokers where they were required to sign the contracts that provided that all transactions were subject to “rules and policies of relevant market and clearinghouses, and applicable laws and regulations.” Interactive Brokers hired a third-party to trade the Investors’ accounts (the “Manager”). Using the Investors’ margin accounts, the Manager invested in short-term futures, with a symbol of VXX. The Manager sold naked call options for VXX, meaning that the Investors had the right to buy VVX at a set price until the option expired. This works great if the market price increases but is a serious problem if the value decreases. To make matters worse, the Manager traded using the Investors’ margin accounts. A margin account is when you borrow money to purchase stock. This means that you can lose more money than you invested.

The high risk associated with margin trading prompted FINRA to prohibit purchases of VXX using margin.

Market Manipulation and Tax Fraud Go Hand in Hand in New Jersey – Joseph Taub edition

Published on: August 7, 2020 | by Savage Villoch Law, PLLC

Joseph Taub, who was indicted by a grand jury in New Jersey based on allegations of tax fraud and operating a scheme to manipulate stock prices entered a plea deal where he admitted to orchestrating a market manipulation scheme and defrauding the government of taxes.

According to case documents and statements, between 2014 and 2016 Taub, with co-conspirators, set up dozens of brokerage accounts in order to manipulate the prices of publicly traded companies. These dozens of brokerage accounts were controlled by Taub because he funded the accounts and directed the trading in the accounts. The brokerage accounts controlled by Taub but in the name of someone other than Taub, is a type of account known as ‘straw accounts.’ Straw accounts were used to hide trading activity and market manipulation schemes since these accounts were not in Taub’s name. Taub wrongly believed that the government would not notice his nefarious actions.

According to the indictment, Taub used multiple accounts to carry out his market manipulation scheme. He would use one account to purchase a large number of shares of a particular publicly traded company whose share price he wanted to manipulate. In coordination with co-conspirators whose names were on various other ‘straw’ brokerage accounts, Taub would direct the placement of numerous smaller buy orders in those straw accounts. The multiple small buy orders caused upward pressure on the stock price. After the stock price had increased, Taub would sell the large number of shares he had purchased in his account, taking a profit. Next, Taub would direct that the shares in the straw accounts be sold, or, if an order had not been executed, to cancel the order. According to the indictment, the co-conspirators expected to lose on their trades in the expectation that the losses would be made up on the large trade made by Taub.