IBJNews

Teachers trust fund broker reaches settlement

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

David Karandos, a broker who advised the Indiana State Teachers Association Insurance Trust before it collapsed in 2009, has reached a settlement over a 13-count complaint filed by the Indiana Secretary of State’s Securities Division.

Karandos agreed to a 75-day suspension from working in the securities industry and may pay up to $50,000 in restitution as part of the agreement, the secretary of state’s office announced Tuesday. Karandos also admitted to facilitating sales of alternative products in excess of ISTA Insurance Trust’s investment policy.

The complaint, filed in 2010, alleged that Karandos advised the ISTA to invest its trust fund reserves in alternatives such as hedge funds and private equity funds—illiquid investment products that come with long-term obligations, but offered large up-front commissions for Karandos.

The ISTA Insurance Trust was responsible for the issuance of medical and long-term disability plans endorsed and provided by ISTA. The medical plan offered a feature that allowed school corporations to set aside their excess balances in order to earn investment returns to be used to offset future costs. Karandos, a former investment adviser at Morgan Stanley and UBS, was responsible for advising the trust on how to invest and calculate a rate of return for these dollars.

The trust was sued by the secretary of state’s office in 2009 after an investigation found the value of the trust’s investments had plunged 55 percent in the previous 20 months, leaving it $67 million short of its liabilities.

The suit said ISTA officials acted as investment advisers without the proper licenses and accused them of co-mingling money meant for health benefits with other funds, including payments to a long-term disability plan.

The suit alleged the co-mingling led ISTA officials to lose track of $23 million.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. Liberals do not understand that marriage is not about a law or a right ... it is a rite of religous faith. Liberals want "legal" recognition of their homosexual relationship ... which is OK by me ... but it will never be classified as a marriage because marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman. You can gain / obtain legal recognition / status ... but most people will not acknowledge that 2 people of the same sex are married. It's not really possible as long as marriage is defined as one man and one woman.

  2. That second phrase, "...nor make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunitites of citizens..." is the one. If you can't understand that you lack a fundamental understanding of the Constitution and I can't help you. You're blind with prejudice.

  3. Why do you conservatives always go to the marrying father/daughter, man/animal thing? And why should I keep my sexuality to myself? I see straights kissy facing in public all the time.

  4. I just read the XIV Amendment ... I read where no State shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property ... nor make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunitites of citizens ... I didn't see anything in it regarding the re-definition of marriage.

  5. I worked for Community Health Network and the reason that senior leadership left is because they were not in agreement with the way the hospital was being ran, how employees were being treated, and most of all how the focus on patient care was nothing more than a poster to stand behind. Hiring these analyst to come out and tell people who have done the job for years that it is all being done wrong now...hint, hint, get rid of employees by calling it "restructuring" is a cheap and easy way out of taking ownership. Indiana is an "at-will" state, so there doesn't have to be a "reason" for dismissal of employment. I have seen former employees that went through this process lose their homes, cars, faith...it is very disturbing. The patient's as well have seen less than disireable care. It all comes full circle.

ADVERTISEMENT