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

TAG | morgan keegan lawsuits

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.

 

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

May/11

19

Couple Awarded $265K in Maddoff Losses by FINRA

Comments off · Posted by admin in FINRA

Jeffrey and Marisel Lieberman invested $200,000 in 2007, with Morgan Keegan, in what they allegedly felt was a safe and conservative investment. All of their money was deposited into the Fairfield Greenwich Group hedge fund, which was a conduit to Bernie Madoff’s Ponzi scheme.
Recently they were awarded a $265,000 arbitration settlement against Morgan Keegan by FINRA.  Besides the $200,000.00 restitution, Morgan Keegan was also ordered to pay the Liebermans $65,000 in damages and court costs.
The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) arbitration panel called Morgan Keegan “grossly negligent” in its ruling. FINRA stated that “there is clear and convincing evidence that Morgan Keegan was grossly negligent in not performing substantial due diligence and as a result it fraudulently misrepresented the risk of this investment.” The FINRA panel also found Morgan Keegan liable for failing to conduct “substantial due diligence” as required by Morgan Keegan’s own internal procedures. It should be noted that the FINRA arbitration panel also mentioned in their ruling, that not only do Morgan Keegan’s internal procedures require them to perform due diligence, but this obligation extends to all brokerage firms that recommend these types of investments to their customers.
Soreide Law Group, PLLC, is currently investigating potential claims on behalf of investors who lost money through the purchase of hedge funds recommended by  brokers/brokerages. If you invested in these “feeder hedge funds,” such as Greenwich, 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.

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

Apr/10

6

Guidance to Parties in Cases Involving Morgan Keegan and the RMK Bond Funds

Comments off · Posted by admin in FINRA

During the past two years, a large number of cases have been filed against Morgan Keegan in the Southeast region of the country involving the same products—the RMK bond funds. Because the cases are sited in just a few hearing locations that normally do not have many cases, the arbitrator rosters in those areas were relatively small. To bolster the rosters in these locations, FINRA reached out to arbitrators across the country to serve in these cases in the Southeast locations, increasing these rosters tenfold. The process of increasing the rosters by addition of arbitrators from other parts of the country continues.

On February 25, 2010, a Tennessee Chancery court vacated a FINRA arbitration award against Morgan Keegan. In its order, the court adopted all of petitioner Morgan Keegan’s reasons for vacating the award. One reason cited was that two of the arbitrators had served on other Morgan Keegan cases involving the same products in dispute. The arbitration claimants have noticed an appeal from the court’s order to vacate the award. On March 2, 2010, a different judge in the same court denied a motion to vacate by Morgan Keegan in another arbitration in which an award was entered against the firm. That court has not yet issued a written order.

FINRA will Follow its Current Practices

FINRA does not believe that serving on multiple cases involving the same firm automatically disqualifies an arbitrator from serving on additional cases or requires removal for bias. However, FINRA has in the past honored timely challenges based on special circumstances, such as where the arbitrator is serving on multiple cases involving the same firm and the same product. We will continue to accept timely challenges on that basis. A timely challenge is one made promptly after the appointment of the arbitrator, either from the original list or from an extended list, and before the commencement of the next hearing session.

The concentration of Morgan Keegan RMK bond fund cases has resulted in the listing of numerous arbitrators who were assigned to other Morgan Keegan cases involving RMK bond funds. If a party knew or should have known that an arbitrator was assigned to other Morgan Keegan RMK fund matters but did not make a timely challenge to the arbitrator, that challenge will not be accepted later in the case.

Additional Measures to Address Extraordinary Circumstances

FINRA understands that these Tennessee court decisions have created uncertainty concerning the finality of arbitration awards in Morgan Keegan cases in which arbitrators are serving or have served on other Morgan Keegan cases involving the same bond funds. Rule 12412 of the Code of Arbitration Procedure provides that the Director may exercise discretionary authority and make any decision that is consistent with the purposes of the Code to facilitate the appointment of arbitrators and the resolution of arbitrations. Therefore, FINRA advises parties in claims against Morgan Keegan involving the RMK bond funds as follows:

  • To ensure that parties have current information about the arbitrators on their cases, FINRA will send the parties a letter outlining the number of each arbitrator’s closed or pending Morgan Keegan customer cases. Parties that receive this information may request from the arbitrators further disclosures about the cases, including information about the products involved.
  • Consistent with current practice, FINRA will honor the written agreement of all the parties in a case to remove one or more of the arbitrators from that case.
  • If the parties do not agree on removal, any party may request that arbitrators withdraw from a case pursuant to Rule 12409. The arbitrator who is the subject of the request decides the request for recusal.
  • If the information provided by FINRA is the first indication for a party that an arbitrator served on or was appointed to other Morgan Keegan cases involving the RMK bond funds, that party will have ten calendar days from the date of the letter providing this information in which to file a challenge.
    • FINRA will assume that Morgan Keegan, as a party in each of these matters, was aware of all other appointments of arbitrators to RMK bond fund cases. Therefore, these disclosures are primarily to inform the investors involved in these matters.
    • If a party with previous knowledge of the arbitrator’s appointment or service on other Morgan Keegan RMK bond fund cases did not challenge the arbitrator and now seeks to challenge the arbitrator because of disclosure about additional RMK bond fund cases, FINRA will not grant such challenges.
    • After the ten-calendar day period, those investors will not be able to challenge the arbitrator on the basis of service on other cases involving the RMK bond funds; a later challenge will be considered untimely.
  • FINRA reminds the parties that they can agree to postpone their case until the appellate courts provide clarity to the Chancery court decisions. FINRA will waive all postponement fees in those cases.
  • FINRA reminds the parties that they may agree to mediate their case.

 

Parties may direct any questions about this matter to Todd Saltzman, Deputy Director of Case Administration, at (212) 858-4273

If you lost money in an RMK bond fund call (888) 760-6552 or visit http://www.stockmarketlawsuit.com to speak to a FINRA arbitration lawyer.

· · · · · · · · · ·

Find it!

Theme Design by devolux.nh2.me
To top