$8M Merrill Lynch Settlement Over American Depositary Receipts Puts Focus on Foreign Investment Compliance
The SEC concluded that the bank had "failed to establish and implement policies and procedures that would be reasonably expected to detect” the inappropriate handling of pre-release American Depositary Receipts.
March 25, 2019 at 02:30 PM
4 minute read
Merrill Lynch has reached a more than $8 million settlement with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, adding to a growing list of recent enforcement actions over alleged improper American Depositary Receipts trades and underscoring the importance of having robust compliance programs.
The SEC alleged Merrill's securities lending desk mishandled more than 40,000 pre-released American Depositary Receipts in trades that occurred between June 2012 and November 2014. The New York-based bank generated about $4.4 million in net revenues through the improper transactions, according to the SEC.
The Merrill case marks the ninth SEC enforcement action against a bank or broker related to the trade practices in question. So far, the SEC's ongoing efforts have spurred more than $370 million in settlements.
“Our action conveys the message that an entity like Merrill may not avoid liability by using another broker to obtain fraudulently issued ADRs on its behalf,” Sanjay Wadhwa, senior associate director of the SEC's New York Regional Office, said in a prepared statement
Merrill, which did not admit or deny the SEC's findings, agreed to pay more than $4.4 million in disgorgement of “ill-gotten gains” along with about $724,000 in prejudgment interest and a $2.89 million penalty.
A spokesman for Bank of America, which acquired Merrill in 2008, noted in an email that the bank voluntarily stopped trading pre-release American Depositary Receipts more than four years ago. He declined to comment further.
U.S. residents can use American Depositary Receipts to invest in foreign companies. In a traditional transaction, a depositary bank issues the receipts, which represent a portion of an ordinary share of a foreign company and can be traded on U.S. stock exchanges or over the counter, to brokers who contemporaneously deliver the corresponding number of foreign securities to the depositary's foreign custodian.
But in a pre-release transaction, which is supposed to smooth out inter-jurisdictional settlement timing disparities, the broker can obtain newly issued receipts from the depositary before delivering ordinary shares to a custodian a short time later.
The broker must “beneficially own” the ordinary shares that the receipts represent and assign all beneficial rights, title and interest in those shares to the depositary while the pre-release transaction is underway.
But the brokers that Merrill worked with were acting as middlemen who obtained pre-released receipts from depositaries without owning the shares required to support those receipts, according to the SEC.
“Such practices resulted in inflating the total number of a foreign issuer's tradeable securities, which resulted in abusive practices like inappropriate short selling and dividend arbitrage that should not have been occurring,” the SEC alleged.
The agency found that “Merrill did not have any supervisory policies and procedures in place governing the firm's potential indirect borrowing of pre-released ADRs from pre-release brokers.”
The SEC also concluded that the bank had “failed to establish and implement policies and procedures that would be reasonably expected to detect” the inappropriate handling of pre-release American Depositary Receipts.
The SEC reached similar conclusions in December, when it accepted a $135 million settlement offer from JPMorgan Chase Bank, which also stopped offering pre-release receipts several years ago.
Other recent related actions have cost Bank of New York Mellon more than $54 million, Deutsche Bank nearly $75 million settlement and Citibank more than $38 million.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllHow Amy Harris Leverages Diversity to Give UMB Financial a Competitive Edge
5 minute readDog Gone It, Target: Provider of Retailer's Mascot Dog Sues Over Contract Cancellation
4 minute readLululemon Faces Legal Fire Over Its DEI Program After Bias Complaints Surface
3 minute readGC Conference Takeaways: Picking AI Vendors 'a Bit of a Crap Shoot,' Beware of Internal Investigation 'Scope Creep'
8 minute readTrending Stories
- 1'A Mockery' of Deposition Rules: Walgreens Wins Sanctions Dispute Over Corporate Witness Allegedly Unfamiliar With Company
- 2Call for Nominations: TLI's Pennsylvania Legal Awards 2025
- 3Florida-Based Law Firms Start to Lag, As New York Takes a Bigger Piece of Deals
- 4Supreme Court Drops Facebook's Appeal in Securities Case as 'Improvidently Granted'
- 5Newsmakers: Scott Bailey Joins Jones Day’s Corporate Practice in Dallas
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250