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

TAG | finra securities 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.

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

Feb/12

6

Key Biscayne Rep Barred by FINRA

Comments off · Posted by admin in FINRA

The following information appeared on FINRA’s website:
 
Ricardo Blanco (CRD #1793188, Registered Representative, Key Biscayne, Florida)
 
submitted a Letter of Acceptance, Waiver and Consent in which he was barred from association with any FINRA member in any capacity. Without admitting or denying the findings, Blanco consented to the described sanction and to the entry of findings that he sent documents that contained false and inflated account values to a customer and also sent the customer a false account statement, which indicated that the account’s value was approximately $3 million when, in fact, it was worth less than a dollar. The findings stated that Blanco sent a false account statement with an inflated value to another customer; the false statement indicated that the value of the account was approximately $2 million when the account had, in fact, been closed. The findings also stated that Blanco failed to respond to FINRA requests to provide certain documents and access to other documents.
(FINRA Case #2011027098601)
 
The above information was obtained on FINRA’s website under ‘Disciplinary Actions’ January, 2012, and at this point, has ended.
 
Securities Attorney, Lars Soreide, of Soreide Law Group, PLLC, has represented clients nationwide. If you or a family member have sustained investment losses due to Ricardo Blanco of Key Biscayne, FL, or to your stock broker or financial advisor’s recommendations, call for a free consultation on how to potentially recover your losses. To speak with an attorney call 888-760-6552, or visit our website at: www.stockmarketlawsuit.com.
 
Soreide Law Group, PLLC., representing investors nationwide before FINRA the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority.
 

· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·

Jun/11

28

Did You Experience Significant Losses with Morgan Keegan?

Comments off · Posted by admin in FINRA

Morgan Keegan Fund Losses*
Ticker Bond Fund 2007 2008
RMH RMK High Income Fund (-)58.0% (-)39.0%
RHY RMK Multi-Sector High Income Fund (-)60.6% (-)44.5%
RMA RMK Advantage Income Fund (-)56.9% (-)39.1%
RSF RMK Strategic Income Fund (-)58.1% (-)42.0%
RHICX RMK Select High Income-C (-)59.9% (-)45.9%
MKHIX RMK Select High Income-A (-)59.7% (-)46.1%
RHIIX RMK Select High Income-I (-)59.6% (-)46.0%
RIBCX RMK Select Intermediate Bond Fund-C (-)50.6% (-)66.6%
MKIBX RMK Select Intermediate Bond Fund-A (-)50.3% (-)66.5%
RIBIX RMK Select Intermediate Bond Fund-I (-)50.1% (-)66.5%
*Information accurate as of July 1, 2008 (4:25 CST) c/o Morningstar.

Soreide Law Group, PLLC, is currently investigating, for several clients, Morgan Keegan fund losses.

Morgan Keegan allegedly marketed the funds as safe investments that were suitable for low-risk investors. When the housing market crashed in 2007, the funds fell in value. Investors meanwhile experienced huge financial losses.

Many lawsuits and arbitration claims have been filed against Morgan Keegan, as well as against several of the company’s top executives. Evidence has continued to back up investors’ claims that the Memphis-based brokerage allegedly misled clients when it marketed and sold the bond funds.

Additional charges came in April, 2010, when the Securities and Exchange Commission, (SEC) state regulators and FINRA charged Morgan Keegan and two employees – James Kelsoe and Joe Weller – with fraud for inflating the value of the risky securities held by the bond funds.

If you or a loved one have lost money in an RMK bond fund, call Soreide Law Group, PLLC at (888) 760-6552 and speak to a FINRA Arbitration Lawyer free of charge to discuss how you could potentially recover your losses, or visit http://www.stockmarketlawsuit.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

FINRA Expels Firm and Brokers Sanctioned

Comments off · Posted by admin in FINRA

 Brewer Financial Services, LLC (CRD® #132558, Chicago, Illinois), Adam GaryErickson (CRD #3081286, Registered Principal, Chicago, Illinois) and Steven

John Brewer (CRD #2214515, Associated Person, Chicago, Illinois)

 submitted a Letter of Acceptance Waiver and Consent in which the firm was expelled from FINRA membership and Erickson and Brewer were barred from association with any FINRA member in any capacity. Without admitting or denying the findings, the firm, Erickson and Brewer consented to the described sanctions and to the entry of findings that the firm, acting through Erickson and Brewer, sold the private placement offerings of a company formed exclusively to acquire and provide growth to its parent company and a limited liability company for which Brewer was a director, without disclosing to the investors material facts that the parent company had defaulted on a $2.5 million loan, had reported an operating loss of $1,622,912 for one calendar year and an approximate operating loss of $4.5 million for another calendar year, and had defaulted on interest payments to note-holders. The findings stated that the firm, acting through Erickson and Brewer, continued to sell the limited liability company’s private placement offering to new investors, knowing that it had defaulted on its interest payments to existing investors and without disclosing that material fact to new investors. The findings also stated that the firm sold the private placement offerings to non-accredited investors without providing them with the financial statements required under Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Rule 506. The findings also included that the failure to comply with the requirements of Rule 506 resulted in the loss of exemption from the registration requirements of Section 5 of the Securities Act of 1933; given no registration statement was in effect for the offerings and the registration exemption was ineffective, the firm sold these securities in contravention of Section 5 of the Securities Act of 1933.

 

 

FINRA found that the firm, acting through Erickson, conducted inadequate due diligence related to its sale of the offerings in that it failed to ensure the issuers had retained a custodian to handle certain investors’ qualified funds prior to accepting investment of Individual Retirement Account (IRA) funds into the offerings. FINRA also found that the firm, acting through Erickson and Brewer, offered to sell and sold the company’s private placement offering by distributing to the public a private placement memorandum (PPM) containing unbalanced, unjustified, unwarranted or otherwise misleading statements; among other things, the PPM implied that the parent company was not experiencing financial difficulty and failed to disclose that it reported a significant loss one year.

In addition, FINRA determined that investors in the company’s notes were not provided with financial statements for either the company or the parent company. Moreover, FINRA found that the PPM was misleading in that it failed to state clearly how offering proceeds would be used, lacked clarity regarding the relationship between the issuer and its affiliates, and failed to provide the basis for claims made regarding the performance expectations of the issuer or its affiliates. Furthermore, FINRA found that the firm failed to establish adequate written supervisory procedures related to its sales of private placement offerings, in that the firm’s procedures failed to require that financial statements be provided to investors when private placement offerings are sold to non-accredited investors, pursuant to SEC Rule 506.TM) reports.  

The findings also stated that the firm allowed Brewer to be actively engaged in managing the firm’s securities business without being registered as a principal and a representative although Brewer signed and submitted an attestation to FINRA stating he would not be actively engaged in the management of the firm’s securities business until he completed registration as a representative and principal. The findings also included that, among other things, Brewer reviewed and revised the firm’s recruitment brochure, approved offer letters to prospective firm registered representatives, dictated the structure of new representatives’ compensation, including the level of commissions and loan repayment terms, and instructed firm personnel to send private placement offering documents to prospective investors.

FINRA found that the firm maintained the registrations for individuals who were not active in the firm’s investment banking or securities business or were no longer functioning as registered representatives. FINRA also found that the firm conducted a securities business on a number of days even though it had negative net capital on each of those dates. In addition, FINRA determined that the firm’s net capital deficiencies were caused by its failure to classify contributions from the parent company as liabilities after the firm returned the contributions to the parent company within a one-year period of having received them, and improperly treating its assets as allowable even though all of its assets had been encumbered as security for a loan agreement the parent company executed.

Moreover, FINRA found that the firm had inaccurate general ledgers, trial balances and net capital computations, and filed inaccurate Financial and Operational Uniform Single (FOCUS

(FINRA Case #2010023252701)

 This information was obtained on FINRA’s website in the May, 2011, Disciplanary Reports.

If you feel you have been an alleged victim of Brewer Financial Services, LLC, Steven Brewer, or Adam Erickson, or other broker-dealers and were sold private placements, call a Securities Arbitration Lawyer for a free consultation on how to 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

14

INVESTMENT ADVISER, FUND MANAGER, AND TWO INDIVIDUALS WITH CHARGED BY SEC WITH SECURITIES FRAUD INVOLVING CLIENT FUNDS

Comments off · Posted by admin in FINRA

Recently on the US Securities and Exchange Commission’s website, they announced the filing of a civil injunctive action in U.S. District Court in Los Angeles, California against MAM Wealth Management, LLC (MAM), MAMW Real Estate General Partner, LLC (MAMW), Alex Martinez and Ralph Sanchez, alleging fraud in connection with client investments in a $10.3 million risky real estate venture.

According to the Commission’s complaint, from July 2007 through March 2009, Martinez, a MAM and MAMW principal, and Ralph Sanchez, a MAM registered representative and MAMW principal, had 50 of their advisory clients invest in MAM Wealth Management Real Estate Fund, LLC (Fund). The complaint alleges that Martinez and Sanchez misrepresented to some clients that the Fund was a safe, relatively liquid investment, was earning 9% per year, and would show profits in three years. The complaint alleges that they used their discretionary authority over other clients’ funds to invest them in the Fund, even though it was unsuitable for their conservative investment goals. The complaint alleges that many accounts were retirement accounts and that the Fund was an unsuitable investment for clients who did not have the ability and willingness to accept the risks of losing their entire investment. The complaint further alleges that the defendants caused the Fund to use client funds to make risky mortgage loans.

On the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission’s website they write that there was a complaint alleging that the defendants have violated the antifraud provisions of the federal securities laws, including violations of Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder by MAM, MAMW, Martinez and Sanchez and Sections 206(1) and 206(2) of the Investment Advisers Act by MAM and Martinez and aiding and abetting violations of Sections 206(1) and 206(2) of the Investment Advisers Act by Sanchez. The SEC seeks permanent injunctions, disgorgement of ill-gotten gains plus prejudgment interest, and monetary penalties.

If you feel you or a family member has become an alleged victim of  MAM, MAMW, Alex Martinez, Ralph Sanchez or any of their brokers, or a similar situation, call a Securities Arbitration Lawyer for a free consultation on how to recover 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.

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

Jun/11

8

Northern Trust Securities Fined by FINRA for Lack of Supervision

Comments off · Posted by admin in FINRA

WASHINGTON — In a June 2, 2011 article on FINRA’s website it stated that the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) announced  it has fined Northern Trust Securities $600,000 for deficiencies in supervising sales of collateralized mortgage obligations (CMOs) and failure to have adequate systems in place to monitor certain high-volume securities trades.

It was written in the FINRA article that FINRA found, from October 2006 through October 2009, Northern Trust failed to monitor customer accounts for potentially unsuitable levels of concentration in CMOs, in large part because it used an exception reporting system that failed to capture or analyze substantial portions of the firm’s business, including all CMO transactions, certain trades of 10,000 equity shares or more, and certain trades of 250 or more of fixed-income bonds. FINRA found that from January 2007 to June 2008, 43.5 percent of the firm’s business was excluded from review.

Also, FINRA found that the absence of systems to monitor equity trades of over 10,000 shares or fixed income trades of over 250 bonds also resulted in a failure to review these trades for suitability, concentration, excessive trading, excessive mark-ups or commissions, or for trading in restricted stocks.

 Brad Bennett, FINRA Executive Vice President and Chief of Enforcement, said, “Northern Trust’s deficient systems and procedures allowed more than 40 percent of its transactions to proceed without review, which in turn left vulnerable investors exposed to the risk of losing all or a substantial portion of their principal through potential over-concentration in CMOs.”

According to FINRA, in concluding this settlement,  orthern Trust neither admitted nor denied the charges, but consented to the entry of FINRA’s findings.

This article was obtained on FINRA’s website.

If you or a family member have invested with Northern Trust and feel your account was not properly supervised, 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

6

Broker-Dealers Often Keep Insurance Licenses After Being Fired

Comments off · Posted by admin in FINRA

In an article from InvestmentNews.com, May 29, 2011, Bruce Kelly writes that Neal Smalbach was fired by a broker-dealer in 2008 for selling securities while he was unregistered, an infraction that got him suspended by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority Inc. (FINRA) for six months, according to the organization’s BrokerCheck system. It was the second time that a securities firm had let him go. Though he no longer had a securities license, Mr. Smalbach still had a license to sell insurance, and made good use of it — at least for himself, authorities said.

Kelly writes that on April 29, Mr. Smalbach was arrested in Florida by the Pinellas County sheriff and charged with one count of insurance fraud and one count of organized fraud. Each count carries a maximum of five years in prison, along with a potential $5,000 fine. The charges of insurance fraud against Mr. Smalbach, who also has 37 pending customer disputes from his time as a broker, according to BrokerCheck, highlight a persistent problem in the investment advice business:

Registered representatives who permanently or temporarily lose their license to sell stocks, bonds and mutual funds often retain a license to sell insurance.

Although state agencies that regulate insurance agents and securities brokers try to work together to keep an eye on brokers who get fired from either side of the industry, regulators are sometimes limited in their authority because of a lack of information sharing about reps and agents, observers said.

A common criticism among registered reps is that insurance agents who lose a license to sell securities products often sell equity-indexed annuities, an insurance product that is nonetheless marketed as an investment that can compete with a mutual fund or variable annuity.

“It’s been an issue, and still is, among states,” said Joseph Borg, director of the Alabama Securities Commission. “If you’ve been kicked out of one end of the financial markets, you probably don’t need to be in another.”

According to the InvestmentNews.com article, Mr. Smalbach, 48, was selling mortgage insurance policies that promise to pay the balance of a policyholder’s mortgage in the event that he or she dies, according to Jeremy Powers, an assistant state attorney in Florida’s Fifth Judicial Circuit. But instead of mortgage insurance, Mr. Smalbach’s clients were, in fact, sold whole-life policies that were worth no more than $20,000.

“Somebody who’s had the level of problems that [Mr.] Smalbach appears to have had would create a risk for consumers,” Mr. Powers said. “The activities alleged in this case are pretty serious and had the potential to create multiple hundreds of thousands of dollars in victim losses.”

 Smalbach, whose sales practices were profiled last month by the St. Petersburg (Fla.) Times, serve as a backdrop to efforts by lawmakers in Washington and regulators across the country to create a single fiduciary standard for investment advisers, registered reps and insurance agents. This year, a law went into effect in Florida that gives the state’s Department of Financial Services the power to revoke an insurance agent’s license immediately if the agent has his or her securities license revoked.

“Fraud is fraud,” said Nina Ashley, a department spokeswoman.

Kelly reminds us that when confronted with a broker whose securities license had been pulled — but who maintained an insurance license — regulators’ hands are, at times, tied. To take actions against a broker’s insurance license, Ms. Ashley said a specific insurance violation has to be found. “That didn’t always exist,” she said.

Florida already has used the new law to revoke the insurance license of a broker who misrepresented information when selling securities to a senior citizen, Ms. Ashley said. In February, the Florida Office of Financial Regulation permanently barred Jeffrey Donner on charges that he failed to disclose to clients that their accounts would automatically be billed advisory fees of 30% annualized, according to a statement from the agency. Approximately $40,000 in management fees were deducted from clients’ accounts. While Mr. Donner neither admitted nor denied the findings, Florida regulators revoked his insurance license this month according to the InvestmentNews.com article.

THEY ARE FINDING LOOPHOLES

We’ve learned that Mr. Smalbach, however, still has a license to sell insurance products such as life and health policies, and variable annuities, according to the Florida Department of Financial Services’ website.

The broker in question exploited another loophole in the law when he sold stock in a firm called Transfer Technology International Corp., whose shares are currently listed at less than a penny a share. At least a dozen elderly investors, some in their 80s and 90s, bought nearly $1 million of the stock from Mr. Smalbach, according to the St. Petersburg Times. Although he didn’t have a securities license, Mr. Smalbach was an employee of Transfer Technology and could sell shares in the company to accredited investors legally, the newspaper reported.

THEY ARE SMOOTH OPERATORS

Bruce Kelly writes that one longtime client of Mr. Smalbach who invested in the Wesley Chapel, Fla.-based company was Bob Fox, 78, of Sebring, Fla. A client of Mr. Smalbach’s for over a decade, Mr. Fox said he has lost $100,000 in his Transfer Technology investment.

“He was a really smooth talker,” Mr. Fox said, adding that Mr. Smalbach often hurried him through paperwork when buying an investment.

Mr. Smalbach’s former accountant, Robert Ferreira, corroborated Mr. Fox’s statement said the ex-broker often rushed clients through the process of buying investment products, including variable annuities.

“His method was to say, “Sign here, fill in this and that — I’m in a hurry and will fill in the rest at the office,’” Mr. Ferreira said.

If you or a family member have purchased policies through Neal Smalbach or other brokers and experienced a similar situation, contact an insurance fraud attorney for a free consultation on how to potentially recover your investment losses.  To speak with an attorney, call 888-760-6552, or visit stockmarketlawsuit.com. 

We stand up and fight for the rights of consumers. Soreide Law Group, PLLC, representing Insurance Fraud Victims in Federal Court, State Court and before the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”).

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

Jun/11

5

Finra files complaint against David Lerner Associates For REIT Sales to Elderly

Comments off · Posted by admin in FINRA

In a June, 2011, article from Bloomberg News, it was written that David Lerner Associates Inc. has been accused of targeting unsophisticated and elderly customers while selling real estate investment trust (REITs) shares without considering whether the illiquid security was suitable for its clients.

David Lerner Associates is based in Syosset, New York, and known for its “Take a tip from Poppy” advertising slogan, misled investors who bought more than $300 million of shares in the $2 billion Apple REIT Ten offering this year, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority(FINRA) said in a disciplinary complaint on its website. The firm denies the allegations, according to a statement.

It was reported in the Bloomberg News article that David Lerner Associates solicited customers for Apple REIT Ten, it provided misleading information about distribution rates for a series of predecessor securities that are now closed to investors, Finra said. The figures failed to show that distributions far exceeded income and were funded by debt that increased leverage in the REITs, which invest in extended-stay hotels, the regulator said.  David Lerner Associates has sold almost $6.8 billion of Apple REIT shares to more than 122,000 customers since 1992, according to the Finra complaint, the industry-funded regulator for U.S. brokerages. Those sales have generated more than $600 million, accounting for more than 60 percent of the firm’s business since 1996, Finra said.

This complaint is the first step in a formal proceeding, Finra said. It isn’t filed in court, and the firm can request a hearing before a disciplinary panel, the regulator said in its statement.

“The firm conducted thorough due diligence of Apple REIT Ten’s offering documents and audited financial statements,” DLA said in its statement. “DLA will vigorously defend these claims. It looks forward to the opportunity to set the record straight and expects to be completely vindicated.”

Also, in the Bloomberg News article it was stated that in September, DLA paid a $255,000 fine for failing to provide required information in connection with the replacement of variable life insurance policies and annuity contracts from November 1998 through February 2004, according to the New York State Insurance Department. A year ago this month, DLA was accused by Finra of overcharging customers on sales of municipal bonds and mortgage securities. That case is still pending, according to Finra’s brokerage records.

If you or a family member have become a victim of the alleged fraudulent schemes of David Lerner Associates, Inc., 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.

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

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.

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

Older posts >>

Find it!

Theme Design by devolux.nh2.me
To top