Posts tagged “ubs ag”

Hedge Fund Hotel Heartbreak: UBS Settles for $100K

November 22nd, 2010

The “Hedge Fund Hotel” wasn’t a four-star luxury palace where fund managers went to be pampered and spoiled, though we are sure such places do exist. Rather, it’s the term used for an arrangement conferring office space, technology and other services to hedge funds by a certain prime broker.  Now, Massachusetts has fined UBS Securities LLC $100,000 to settle a complaint the prime broker didn’t fully disclose its arrangements with hedge fund advisers.

UBS Securities, a unit of UBS AG. settled the allegations without admitting or denying wrongdoing, a spokesman for Massachusetts Secretary of the Commonwealth William F. Galvin said Thursday. UBS spokeswoman Allison Chin-Leong said, “we’re pleased to have resolved the matter.”

The case dates back to a 2002 inquiry into ABN Amro Securities LLC, a prime broker that offered an arrangement known as a “hedge-fund hotel.” UBS acquired ABN Amro’s prime brokerage business in 2003 for $250 million. Massachusetts’ Galvin said UBS didn’t enforce a requirement that its hedge-fund hotel clients disclose their arrangements with the bank to investors.

Prime brokers profit off spreads they charge hedge funds to finance trades as well as fees for clearing and other services. In a hedge-fund hotel, a prime broker provides start-up hedge funds equipment and other services to help incubate their business. But the arrangement can create conflicts unknown to the endowments, pensions, or other investors in the funds.

In a 2007 administrative complaint against UBS, Massachusetts’ Galvin accused the firm’s prime brokerage division of maintaining a quid pro quo with hedge-fund advisers, requiring them to meet benchmarks of profitability for UBS or ensure they don’t use other prime brokers.

In one instance, the 2007 complaint alleged, a hedge-fund adviser who refused to alter his trading strategy to meet UBS’ demand for greater revenue was no longer welcomed in UBS’ office space.

Galvin didn’t allege any investors were damaged by the practice.

The hedge-fund advisers are supposed to disclose their arrangements with prime brokers to investors, but Galvin contends UBS failed to enforce these disclosures even though it had a policy to do so. In settling the allegations, UBS agreed to retain an independent consultant to review its disclosure policy and monitor it for three years.

Source

Another Day, Another CDO Lawsuit

July 1st, 2010

Yesterday we reported on Goldman Sachs’ lawsuit against hedge fund Paulson & Co. over the latter’s alleged fraudulent pricing of collateralized debt obligations (CDOs). Not to be outdone,  UBS AG has launched a $686 million lawsuit against Highland Capital Management LP accusing the hedge fund of duping it into restructuring an $86 million debt securities agreement, then stripping away assets and making payment to the bank impossible.

The Swiss bank’s partially redacted complaint, lodged Monday in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, also seeks punitive damages on top of the $686 million. UBS Prime Brokerage is a subsidiary of UBS AG.

A CDO is a structured security backed by an asset, in this case mostly mortgage-backed bonds. CDOs are sold in a series of different tranches, each with its own unique risk characteristics.  The 2008 market crises was in part blamed on credit rating agencies improperly evaluating the risks of CDOs and other asset-backed securities, which tended to exacerbate risk to market participants.

According to the complaint, once Highland Capital succeeded in misleading UBS into restructuring an original debt securities transaction, the Dallas-based fund then used fraudulent conveyances to siphon assets away from its Highland Special Opportunities Holding Co. and Highland CDO Opportunity Master Fund LP affiliates, which were the UBS counterparties.

“When UBS finally terminated the restructured transaction and demanded payment … it was owed in excess of $686 million that the fund counterparties could not pay,” the suit said.

UBS noted in its complaint that there was a parallel action in the same court against several Highland Capital-controlled defendants and that a motion to consolidate the lawsuits was pending.

In a statement issued Tuesday night Highland Capital called both lawsuits baseless.

“We are dismayed UBS continues to pursue this wasteful suit despite our attempts to work cooperatively with them to resolve the matter,” Highland Capital said.

The dispute relates to collateralized loan obligation and collateralized debt obligation securities, which UBS says it agreed in spring 2007 to “warehouse” for the hedge fund. According to UBS’ lawsuit, however, by August 2007 the agreement was terminated and, as a result, Highland Capital owed the bank $86 million.

At that point, however, the hedge fund, which currently manages some $25 billion worth of assets, provided UBS with false and misleading information, causing UBS to forgo recovery in favor of a restructuring agreement, the suit says.

Given UBS’ prior dealings with Highland Capital, as well the fund’s size and market presence, UBS had no reason to think it would be duped, the suit says.

Almost immediately after the restructuring, UBS claims, the hedge fund began to move money out of the bank’s potential reach. For example, UBS claims, in May 2008 the hedge fund misappropriated some $100 million in cash it held after selling a long position, draining the resources despite its increasing obligations.

The suit seeks a judgment that the fund committed fraud and breached its duty of good faith and fair dealing. It seeks interest on top of damages.

Source

Bottom Logo Wall Bottom Logo Reuters Bottom Logo Forbes Bottom Logo Fortune Bottom Logo Cnn Bottom Logo Cnbc Bottom Logo Fox Bottom Logo Comunity