Securities Fraud Blog | Find out if your broker is liable for your losses

TAG | FINRA arbitration

Feb/13

7

Tenant-In-Common (TIC) Investments

Comments off · Posted by admin in FINRA

Tenant-in-Common (TIC) investments, or 1031 exchanges, are a form of real estate ownership in which multiple investors own fractional interests in a property. Many brokers and brokerage firms sold billions of these products to investors across the country allegedly charging high fees, and doing little or no due diligence. They were investments with high risk and highly illiquid, often not suitable for certain investors’ portfolios. Due to the high interest or dividend offered by TICs, the retired investor is often more attracted to these products.  TICs are generally unsuitable for the retired or income seeking investors with conservative portfolios.  TICs are risky because they are dependent on the performance of the underlying real estate properties and the real estate market.

TICs generally pay a high commission – as much as 10%, which gives the stockbroker motivation in recommending the TICs to their investors.

Recently, a FINRA Arbitration Panel ordered LPL Financial to pay two investors $1.4 million for losses sustained in these two TIC exchanges: Heron Cove, LLC and Braintree Park, LLC. The sponsor of the two deals was Direct Invest, LLC. LPL was also held responsible for $35,700 in hearing session fees.

Securities Lawyer, Lars Soreide, points out that, “One of the errors investors make in TIC cases is to assume that the unit value of the investment equals the property value divided by the units.” When TIC cases are litigated, “many of these cases bog down in property valuation when in reality the issue in not the property value but the investment value, which is next to worthless even if the property has residual value. Think of this way, who would buy a unit in this investment given that the purchaser would have to take on 150% on additional debt, give up all property rights to become a tenant in common that is worthless as collateral and cannot be turned into cash? Given the structure of ownership with loans with covenants signed by the sponsor and cross collateralized usually, property value is secondary in these cases.” Often these investments are sold by a stock broker or financial adviser because a Tenant-in-Common Investment is a security. In a FINRA arbitration, “often Respondents/Defendants put on an appraiser to prove the property value, but there is an objection on relevance of this testimony because the appraiser does not opine on the market value of the security on the notional value of the unit which is usually not much at all if anything,” says Soreide. It is “critical to obtain the principal loan documents and assumption agreements to ascertain how encumbered and how much real estate you actually own.”

Soreide Law Group, PLLC,  represents investors nationwide in Tenant-In-Common (TIC) cases before the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority. For a free consultation on how to potentially recover your financial losses call: 888-760-6552. More information on TICs and FINRA Arbitrations can be found on http://www.securitieslawyer.com.

· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·

Jun/11

16

Robin Bush, Fined and Suspended by FINRA

Comments off · Posted by admin in FINRA

 Robin Fran Bush (CRD #1994431, Registered Principal, Coral Springs, Florida) submitted a Letter of Acceptance, Waiver and Consent in which she was fined $15,000 and suspended from association with any FINRA member in any principal capacity for six months. The fine must be paid either immediately upon Bush’s reassociation with a FINRA member firm following her suspension, or prior to the filing of any application or request for relief from any statutory disqualification, whichever is earlier. Without admitting or denying the findings, Bush consented to the described sanctions and to the entry of findings that, as her member firm’s CCO, she was responsible for creating, maintaining and updating her firm’s WSPs and for conducting due diligence for private offerings. The findings stated that Bush’s firm approved for sale, and sold, various private offerings and for one offering, Bush’s due diligence consisted of reviewing the PPM and investor subscription documents, but she did not seek or obtain financial documents or information from the issuer regarding the offering, did not obtain any due diligence report, did not visit the issuer’s facilities or meet with its key personnel. The findings also stated that Bush did not take steps to ensure, or otherwise verify, that other firm principals were conducting any due diligence of the offering’s issuer. FINRA found that the firm and Bush obtained a third-party due diligence report after firm customers had already invested in the offering. FINRA also found that for a third private offering her firm approved for sale and sold, Bush conducted due diligence after the product had been sold to customers; Bush’s due diligence consisted of obtaining investor subscription documents without obtaining PPMs for the offerings, did not obtain any due diligence report from an independent third party and did not meet with any executives to understand the nature of the offerings.

 

In addition, FINRA determined that Bush’s firm sold additional, different unregistered offering to customers, and Bush, acting in her capacity as CCO and the designed principal for private offerings, failed to conduct due diligence for each of these other offerings. Moreover, FINRA found that the firm’s supervisory system and the firm’s written procedures for private offerings Bush drafted and maintained were deficient; these procedures Bush drafted and maintained did not identify, in any detail,specific due diligence steps to be taken for private offerings or identify specific documents to be obtained for private offerings the firm was contemplating selling.

Furthermore, FINRA found that the firm’s written procedures for private offering due diligence were conclusory, non-specific and lacking in the requisite minimum detail regarding steps to be taken and firm personnel responsible for such steps. The suspension will be in effect from September 7, 2011, through March 6, 2012.

 (FINRA Case #2009016159402) 
 This information was obtained on FINRA’s website under “May, 2011, Disciplanary and Other Actions.”
 
 If you feel you have been a victim of the alleged fraudulent schemes of  Robin Fran Bush, call a Securities Arbitration Lawyer for a free consultation on how to recover your losses.  To speak with an attorney, call 888-760-6552, or visit www.stockmarketlawsuit.com.

Soreide Law Group, PLLC., representing investors nationwide before FINRA  the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority.

· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·

Jun/11

15

Pricing Gap Revealed in Apple REIT Eight

Comments off · Posted by admin in FINRA

David Kelly of InvestmentNews.com, June 15, 2011, writes that the price of one in a series of 10 nontraded REITs sold exclusively through David Lerner Associates Inc. took a hit yesterday when management from Apple REIT Eight Inc. said that its book value was $7.57 per share at the end of March, according to a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission. That’s in contrast to the $11-per-share price that Apple REIT Eight posted last week in a separate SEC filing and had consistently listed as an estimated share price on client account statements.

With about 370 registered reps, David Lerner Associates, has been on the hot seat over pricing of the Apple REITs since the end of May, when the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority Inc. filed a complaint against the firm in which it voiced concern over the fact that it had marketed shares in Apple REITS that hadn’t been re-priced in years. Finra said in the complaint that it was misleading to investors not to reflect the updated value of the REITs on the David Lerner Associates website, especially in those cases where the REITs were paying dividends with principal and borrowed funds instead of operating income. David Lerner Associates allegedly violated Finra suitability rules selling the Apple REITs, according to the complaint, and could face Finra fines and potentially pay restitution to clients.

David Lerner Associates has been the sole underwriter and distributor of the 10 REITs since 1992, most of them dubbed Apple REITs, that have issued $6.8 billion in securities, according to the Finra complaint. Investors have been attracted to the REITs’ steady dividends of 7% to 8%.

Apple REIT Eight took the step to restate its value in order to recommend to the owners of the REIT not to sell shares in response to a $3 tender offer by a series of pooled investment funds managed by Mackenzie Patterson Fuller LP, which buys illiquid real estate investments at deep discounts according to yesterday’s filing with the SEC.

“The board of directors believes that the offer price represents an opportunistic attempt by the bidders to purchase units at an unreasonably low price and as a result, deprive the stockholders who tender the units of the potential opportunity to realize the long-term value of their investment in the company,” the company said in the filing.

Kelly writes, adding to the confusion over the value of Apple REIT shares, David Lerner client account statements report an estimated value of $11 per share, said a plaintiff’s lawyer in New York. He said that he had spoken with about two dozen David Lerner investors, but had so far not filed any complaints against the firm.

An SEC filing on Apple REIT Ten Inc. yesterday stated that a member of the board of directors, Ronald Rosenfeld, resigned earlier this month. The board plans to fill his seat at a later date.

The InvestmentNew.com article goes on to say that accurate pricing of shares of the illiquid, long-term nontraded REITs has been an issue for almost two years. Before 2009, the common practice in the brokerage industry was to list the share price on client account statements at par value, or the amount at which the broker-dealer sold it, with the product typically priced at $10 or $11 a share.

Finra told broker-dealers that they needed to adjust the prices on the investments more frequently in 2009. In a notice to members, Finra said that it was prohibiting broker-dealers from using information that was more than 18 months old to estimate the value of a nontraded REIT.

If you or a family member have become a victim of the sale of Apple REITs by David Lerner Associates, Inc., call a Securities Arbitration Lawyer for a free consultation on how you could potentially recover your losses.  To speak with an attorney, call 888-760-6552, or visit www.stockmarketlawsuit.com.

Soreide Law Group, PLLC., representing investors nationwide before FINRA  the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority.

· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·

Jun/11

5

Was Joseph Louis Jacoby Your Broker?

Comments off · Posted by admin in FINRA

Joseph Louis Jacoby was employed by Legend Securities, Inc., since 2002. According to the information listed in Jacoby’s broker check report,  he has received 6 customer disputes.
According to “FINRA NOTICE to MEMBERS 03-49,”  in 2003, FINRA conducted a review of the CRD’s (Central Registration Depository -the central licensing and registration system for the U.S. securities industry and its regulators that FINRA operates) of all 663,000 registered representatives, only 2,751 (.41%) had been the subject of (3) or more customer complaints.
In other words Joseph Jacoby’s customer complaints rank him in the top one-hundredth percent of all registered representatives for customer complaints.
 
Soreide Law Group is currently investigating potential claims against Legend Securities Broker Joseph Jacoby.  If you or a family member have become  victims of the alleged fraudulent schemes of Joseph Louis Jacoby,  call a Securities Arbitration Lawyer for a free consultation on how you could potentially recover you losses.  To speak with an attorney, call 888-760-6552, or visit www.stockmarketlawsuit.com. Soreide Law Group, PLLC., representing investors nationwide before FINRA  the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority.

· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·

May/11

30

Puerto Rico and Global Income Targe Maturity Funds

Comments off · Posted by admin in FINRA

Puerto Rico and Global Income Target Maturity Fund, are two funds that are currently being investigated by Soreide Law Group, PLLC.

If you or a family member have purchased Puerto Rico and/or Global Income Target Maturity Funds, call Soreide Law Group, PLLC, for a free consultation about potentially recovering your investment losses.  To speak with an attorney, call 888-760-6552, or visit www.stockmarketlawsuit.com.

Soreide Law Group, PLLC., representing investors nationwide before FINRA  the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority.

· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·

May/11

30

Have you Purchased Church Bonds from Mainsail Asset Management, LLC?

Comments off · Posted by admin in FINRA

Soreide Law Group, PLLC, is currently investigating the purchase of church bonds from John Lovejoy or the Mainsail Asset Management, LLC, of Scottsboro, AL. 

If you or a family member have purchased church bonds from John Lovejoy or Mainsail Asset Mangement, LLC, call Soreide Law Group, PLLC, for a free consultation about potentially recovering your investment losses.  To speak with an attorney, call 888-760-6552, or visit www.stockmarketlawsuit.com.

Soreide Law Group, PLLC., representing investors nationwide before FINRA  the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority.

· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·

May/11

28

Multiple Chinese Companies Listed on U.S. Stock Exchanges Shut Down by SEC

Comments off · Posted by admin in FINRA

Throughout 2010, the Security and Exchange Commission (SEC) began an investigation into Chinese companies in the United States that became public through a process called “reverse mergers.”  The term, reverse merger, is also referred to as a reverse takeover or RTO. In an RTO, a Chinese company is acquired by an American “shell” company. An American shell company is a company which already has stock trading in the U.S., but the company does not operate a business or own assets. These Chinese companis merge into the shell. Through this process, the Chinese company can be brought public without the regulatory scrutiny of the Initial Public Offering (IPO) process in the United Sates.

On February 1, 2011, the SEC charged eight individuals and three RTO companies – China Digital, Global Peopleline and m-Wise – in a $33 million fraud. The SEC alleges that defendants engaged in schemes to pump up the price and trading volume  then dumped (sold) millions of shares of these securities into the market making millions of dollars in profits, leaving unsuspecting investors with shares worth next to nothing. Other such examples include China Energy Savings Technology, Fuwei Films, and China Water and Drinks.

The U.S. exchange trade officials have halted the trading of four Chinese companies brought public by WestPark Capital of California. WestPark brought the following four Chinese based companies public: NIVS IntelliMedia (NIV), China Intelligent Lighting and Electronics (CIL), China Century Dragon Media (CDM), and China Electric Motor (CELM). Allegedly to inflate their income statements and assets on their balance sheets.

If you or a family member have lost money in a Chinese company stock listed on a U.S. stock exchange call Soreide Law Group, PLLC, for a free consultation about potentially recovering your investment losses.  To speak with an attorney, call 888-760-6552, or visit www.stockmarketlawsuit.com. Soreide Law Group, PLLC., representing investors nationwide before FINRA  the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority.

· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·

May/11

26

Wells Fargo, BNY Mellon Corp., Sue Securities America, & other B-Ds over Medical Capital Holdings, Inc.

Comments off · Posted by admin in FINRA

In a May 26th., 2011, article from InvestmentNews.com, Bruce Kelly writes, that adding to the cascade of legal troubles for broker-dealers that sold private placements for Medical Capital Holdings Inc., two banks have now sued several independent B-Ds that hawked the failed offerings.

It was reported that the Bank of New York Mellon Corp. and Wells Fargo Bank NA, were trustees for Medical Capital. In fact, both were sued in a class action in 2009 in U.S. District Court for the Central District of California after the Securities and Exchange Commission charged Medical Capital with fraud. But Bank of New York Mellon and Wells Fargo want the broker-dealers to pay up money if they are found liable in those class actions.

On April 29, the two banks filed separate lawsuits against the broker-dealers, including struggling Securities America Inc., claiming that the broker-dealers “breached their obligation to MedCap investors” by selling the product to investors for whom it was not a suitable investment, and failing to make proper disclosure of the notes’ risks. Bank of New York Mellon has sued 13 broker-dealers, seven of which are no longer in business. Wells Fargo has sued six firms, as well as Ameriprise Financial Inc., which owns Securities America, the biggest seller of Medical Capital notes. Not all broker-dealers that sold the product were included in the suit. “We believe the banks’ actions are unwarranted and baseless,” said Janine Wertheim, a spokeswoman for Securities America. “The wrongdoing in this case lies with the principals of Medical Capital, who have been accused of fraud by the SEC.”

Kelly writes that the plaintiffs in the class action against the two banks claimed in a 2010 amended complaint that the two trustees signed off on a request by Medical Capital executives to take $325 million in fees — despite documents for the Medical Capital notes stating that fees were not supposed to come from investor funds. From 2003 to 2008, dozens of independent broker-dealers sold notes of Medical Capital, which raised $2.2. billion. Securities America sold about $700 million of the product and last month agreed to settle with investors who sued the firm in a class action. Investors have lost more than $1 billion in principal, and regulators and the Medical Capital bankruptcy trustees have said the operation was a Ponzi scheme.

The banks’ suits against the B-Ds is at least the third time in the past year that broker-dealers that sold failed private placements or real estate deals have been sued by outside parties such as a trustee or receiver. Last June, the trustee overseeing the receivership of another failed series of private placements, Provident Royalties LLC, sued almost 50 broker-dealers seeking to claw back $285 million, including commissions.

And in November, the bankruptcy trustee for DBSI Inc., which packaged real estate deals and went bust in 2008, sued almost 100 broker-dealers looking to get back about $49 million from the firms.

If you or a family member have become a victim of the alleged fraudulent sale of private placements for Medical Capital Holdings, Inc. by your broker-dealer, call a Securities Arbitration Lawyer for a free consultation on how you could potentially recover your losses.  To speak with an attorney, call 888-760-6552, or visit www.stockmarketlawsuit.com. Soreide Law Group, PLLC., representing investors nationwide before FINRA  the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority.

· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·

May/11

25

Nuveen Investments Fined $3 Million by FINRA for Use of Misleading Marketing Materials Concerning Auction Rate Securities

Comments off · Posted by admin in FINRA

WASHINGTON — On May 23, 2011, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) announced that it has fined Nuveen Investments, LLC, of Chicago, $3 million for creating misleading marketing materials used in sales of auction rate preferred securities (ARPS). The Nuveen Funds’ ARPS were a form of auction rate securities, which are long-term securities with interest rates or dividend yields that are reset periodically through an auction process. In contrast to other types of auction rate securities, the Nuveen ARPS were preferred shares issued by closed end mutual funds to raise money for the funds to use to invest.

It was reported on the FINRA website that by early 2008, over $15 billion of Nuveen Funds’ ARPS had been sold to retail customers by third-party broker-dealers. Nuveen did not sell the ARPS to customers, but in its role as distributor for Nuveen Funds, it created marketing brochures that were used by the broker-dealers who sold the ARPS to retail customers. The brochures were the primary sales and marketing material Nuveen created for the auction rate preferred securities. FINRA found that the brochures, also available on Nuveen’s website, failed to adequately disclose liquidity risks for ARPS. Nuveen neglected to include the risks that auctions for the ARPS could fail, investments could become illiquid and that customers might be unable to obtain access to funds invested in the ARPS for a period of time should the auctions fail. Instead, the brochures contained misleading statements which described the ARPS as safe and liquid investments. Also, FINRA found that Nuveen failed to maintain adequate supervisory procedures to ensure that the materials it used to market the auction rate preferred securities accurately described the features and risks of the securities.

 Brad Bennett, FINRA Executive Vice President and Chief of Enforcement, said, “Nuveen was aware of facts that raised significant red flags about the ability of investors to obtain liquidity for their Nuveen auction rate securities yet failed to revise their marketing brochures to disclose these risks. This failure deprived investors of important information.”

It was reported that Nuveen failed to revise disclosures in their brochures after a lead auction manager responsible for approximately $2.5 billion of the ARPS notified Nuveen in early January 2008 that it intended to stop managing Nuveen auctions. On January 22, 2008, the lead manager did not submit support bids in an auction for a series of Nuveen auction rate preferred stock and that auction failed. FINRA found that the auction failure and Nuveen’s inability to find a replacement for the lead manager raised serious questions for Nuveen about whether investors in Nuveen’s ARPS would be able to obtain liquidity for the securities in future auctions. Despite this, Nuveen failed to revise its marketing brochures to reflect these risks and, thus, the brochures were misleading. In February 2008, widespread auction failures occurred throughout the auction rate securities market, including auctions for Nuveen funds ARPS.

The Nuveen funds have redeemed approximately $14.2 billion of the $15.4 billion of the ARPS that were outstanding on February 12, 2008. As part of the settlement, Nuveen agreed to use its best efforts to effect redemptions of any remaining outstanding Nuveen funds ARPS. Nuveen neither admitted nor denied the charges, but consented to the entry of FINRA’s findings.

This information was obtained on FINRA’s website.

If you or a family member have become a victim of the alleged fraudulent schemes of Nuveen Investments, LLC, call a Securities Arbitration Lawyer for a free consultation on how you could potentially recover you losses.  To speak with an attorney, call 888-760-6552, or visit www.stockmarketlawsuit.com. Soreide Law Group, PLLC., representing investors nationwide before FINRA  the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority.

· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·

May/11

25

Lloyd V. Barriger, Monticello, New York Investment Adviser, Charged with Multi-Million Dollar Fraud by SEC

Comments off · Posted by admin in FINRA

On May 13, 2011, it was reported on the SEC’s website that the Securities and Exchange Commission filed a civil injunctive action charging Monticello, New York investment adviser Lloyd V. Barriger with fraud in connection with two upstate New York real estate funds he managed – the Gaffken & Barriger Fund, LLC (the G&B Fund or the Fund), and Campus Capital Corp. (Campus). According to the complaint, the G&B Fund raised approximately $20 million from January 1998 until March 2008, and Campus raised approximately $12 million from October 2001 until July 2008. The Commission charged Barriger with defrauding the funds and their investors and prospective investors to whom he offered and sold interests in these funds.

The SEC complaint alleges that Barriger defrauded the G&B Fund itself by (a) allocating the Preferred Return to investors when the Fund did not have sufficient income to justify the allocation; and (b) by, when the Fund lacked the income to support those allocations and payments causing the Fund to pay cash distributions of the Preferred Returns to those Fund investors who requested them, and to redeem investors at values reflecting the purported accrued 8% per year Preferred Return.

Also, the SEC’s complaint, filed in federal court in Manhattan, alleges that from at least July 2006 until March 5, 2008, when he froze the Fund and disclosed to investors its true financial condition, Barriger defrauded investors and prospective investors in the G&B Fund by misrepresenting that the Fund was a relatively safe and liquid investment that paid a minimum “Preferred Return” of 8% per year. The complaint further alleges that Barriger made these misrepresentations knowing, or recklessly disregarding, that the Fund’s actual performance did not justify these performance claims, and without disclosing information about the Fund’s true performance and financial condition – which rapidly deteriorated in 2007 and early 2008 as Barriger continued to raise money from new and existing investors.

Lastly, the complaint alleges that Barriger defrauded Campus and its prospective investors by causing Campus to inject a total of nearly $2.5 million into the G&B Fund between August 2007 and April 2008 at a time when the G&B Fund was in distress, and by raising money for Campus without disclosing to investors his use of Campus’s assets to prop up the ailing G&B Fund. The complaint also alleges that Barriger caused Campus to engage in other transactions that personally benefitted Barriger, none of which he disclosed to prospective Campus investors.

On the Securities and Exchange Commision’s (SEC) website, the complaint alleges that Barriger violated Sections 5(a), 5(c) and 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, and Sections 206(1) and 206(2) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940.

It was reported that in its complaint, the SEC seeks a final judgment permanently enjoining Barriger from future violations of the foregoing provisions and ordering him to pay civil penalties and disgorgement of ill-gotten gains with prejudgment interest.

This information was obtained from the SEC’s website.

If you or a family member have become a victim of the alleged fraudulent schemes of Lloyd V. Barriger, Gaffken & Barriger Fund, LLC, or Campus Capital Corp., call a Securities Arbitration Lawyer for a free consultation on how you could potentially recover you losses.  To speak with an attorney, call 888-760-6552, or visit www.stockmarketlawsuit.com. Soreide Law Group, PLLC., representing investors nationwide before FINRA  the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority.

· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·

Older posts >>

Find it!

Theme Design by devolux.nh2.me
To top