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

TAG | Securities and Exchange Commission

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

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

14

FRAUD CHARGES BROUGHT BY SEC IN SILICON VALLEY REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT SCHEME

Comments off · Posted by admin in FINRA

On the U. S. Securities and Exchange Commission’s website, it was announced that the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) charged Mountain View, Calif.-based JSW Financial Inc. and five officers for defrauding investors in two real estate funds, alleging that the firm used investor funds to prop up the officers’ own failing real estate development projects while concealing the loss of $17 million of investors’ money.

In the article it says that the SEC alleges that from 2002 to 2008, JSW and its predecessor, Jim Ward & Associates (JWA), created two real estate investment funds – Blue Chip Realty Fund and Shoreline Investment Fund – and told investors that their money would be used to make loans secured by residential real estate. In reality, according to the SEC, the firms’ officers used most of the money to make unsecured and undocumented loans to entities that the officers themselves controlled, which were suffering mounting losses and protracted delays on Silicon Valley real estate development projects. Meanwhile, as the enterprise collapsed, investors continued receiving monthly statements showing steady growth in the value of their portfolios.

In the SEC’s complaint, filed in federal district court in San Francisco, names as defendants founder James S. Ward and Edward G. Locker (both of Ohio) and David S. Lee, Richard F. Tipton and David C. Lin (all Silicon Valley residents). The complaint alleges that JSW and JWA, through these individual officers, breached their fiduciary duties by misusing investors’ money to benefit the officers rather than the funds. The SEC also alleges that the officers concealed millions of dollars in losses from Blue Chip and Shoreline investors by sending fraudulent account statements claiming that the Funds were earning more than 10% in annual profits, until the scheme collapsed in November 2008 and the officers finally revealed to investors that nearly all of the Blue Chip and Shoreline loans were unsecured. The SEC also alleges that Ward and Locker together took $900,000 of investor money to purchase homes for themselves.

On the SEC’s website it was announced that the SEC’s complaint charges JSW, Ward, Lee, Locker, Tipton and Lin with violating Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. The complaint also charges JSW with violating Sections 206(1), 206(2) and 206(4) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (Advisers Act) and Rule 206(4)-8 thereunder, and charges Ward, Lee, Locker, Tipton and Lin with aiding and abetting violations of Sections 206(1), 206(2) and 206(4) of the Advisers Act and Rule 206(4)-8 thereunder. The SEC seeks injunctive relief and disgorgement of ill-gotten gains against JSW, Ward, Lee, Locker, Tipton and Lin, as well as monetary penalties against the five officers. The complaint also seeks disgorgement of ill-gotten gains and appointment of a receiver over Blue Chip and Shoreline as relief defendants.

If you feel you or a family member has become an alleged victim of  JSW Financial Inc., Jim Ward & Associates, James Ward, Edward Locker, David Lee, Richard Tipton , David Lin, 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

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

Provident Private Placement Paper Trail Lands on Fidelity’s Doorstep

Comments off · Posted by admin in FINRA

In an article from InvestmentNews.com, June 7, 2011, Bruce Kelly writes that the litigation stemming from a series of oil and gas private placements that failed two years ago have now ensnared a giant in the clearing and custody business, National Financial Services LLC, a unit of Fidelity Investments.

The trustee overseeing the liquidation of assets of Provident Royalties LLC, which the Securities and Exchange Commission charged with fraud in 2009, last month requested that a federal judge in Dallas issue a subpoena to National Financial. In the court filing, the trustee wants access to retirement account documents of clients of four broker-dealers that sold preferred stock of Provident and used National Financial as a clearing firm.

Bruce Kelly writes that dozens of broker-dealers sold the Provident offerings from September 2006 to January 2009, raising $485 million. Regarding National Financial records, the trustee wants documents of 579 clients who bought $39.1 million of Provident from four firms: J.P. Turner & Co. LLC, Milkie/Ferguson Investments Inc.,National Securities Corp. and Securities America, Inc.

A spokesman for National Financial, said the firm typically does not comment on matters involving its correspondent clearing, broker-dealer clients. Clearing firms do not sell securities but rather hold them for broker-dealers and their clients.

The InvestmentNews.com article goes on to say that calling Provident a “massive Ponzi scheme,” the trustee claimed that the “trustee is entitled to information concerning the relationship between the broker-dealers and their respective clearing houses, and how those funds were transferred, paid for and accounted for by the clearing houses,” the court filing stated.

“As custodial fiduciary, [National Financial] should have agreements with the various broker-dealers they did business with and records for every dollar that went through their controlled account,” according to the filing.

Last year the trustee sued dozens of broker-dealers to claw back revenue and commissions from the sale of Provident.

If you feel you have been an alleged victim of these or other broker-dealers and were sold Provident Royalties 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.

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

May/11

30

Have you Invested in Outrageous ETFs?

Comments off · Posted by admin in FINRA

In an article from Forbes.com, May 27, 2011, Zack O’Malley Greenburg writes that a little over a year ago, fund provider Direxion launched an ETF (Exhange Traded Fund) called the Daily Semiconductor Bull 3x Shares. Its aim was to triple the performance of the PHLX Semiconductor Sector Index. Not as simple a task as it seems, apparently: Over the next seven months the index rose 5%, while the Direxion fund returned -6.25%.

Maybe investors should have heeded Direxion’s own disclaimer: “There is no guarantee the fund will meet its stated investment objective.”

This is the way of things in the world of ETFs, writes Greenburg, where offerings have exploded in recent years. Nearly 900 ETFs have been launched over the past five years, leading to a preponderance of funds that straddle the line from obscure to downright bizarre. Among them are leveraged ETFs like the aforementioned semiconductor fund that seek to double or triple the performance of sectors–and don’t always succeed. Examples range from the ProShares Ultra KBW Regional Banking ETF, to the Direxion Daily Agribusiness Bear 3x Shares ETF, which trades under ticker symbol COWS. There is also a smattering of international offerings, which comprised half of all new S&P-based index funds launched last year. Market Vectors parent Van Eck recently announced plans to launch a Mongolia ETF.

Forbes.com writes that there are a few ETFs so outrageous that they’ve already been shut down–for example, the HealthShares Dermatology and Wound Care ETF, shuttered in 2008 due to lack of demand. Others, like the PowerShares Dynamic Brand Name Products Portfolio and the PowerShares Autonomic Allocation Research Affiliates Portfolio, never even made it past the planning stages.

We are reminded that many obscure ETFs like Direxion’s leveraged semiconductor fund can be hazardous to investors who aren’t careful. These leveraged funds are designed for day-traders and backed by derivatives. Though providers warn that these funds are not meant to be held as long-term assets, many investors miss the fine print.

The Forbes.com article says that the SEC launched a review of all funds last March, deferring applications for “actively managed and leveraged ETFs that particularly rely on swaps and other derivative instruments to achieve their investment objectives” in the meantime. There has been a lot of concern generally about derivatives in the last few years, and specifically in our division about the use of derivatives by investment companies, including ETFs,” says Elizabeth Osterman, head of the exemptive applications office of SEC’s Division of Investment Management. “Our decision to defer the review of exemptive applications for derivatives-based ETFs reflects concerns about whether granting exemptive relief for those funds would be consistent with required regulatory standards in light of those concerns.”

Greenburg goes on to say that the SEC hasn’t yet resumed allowing providers to launch new leveraged ETFs, but it hasn’t banned existing products or disallowed existing issuers from creating new ones. The three leading providers of such funds–Direxion, Rydex and ProShares–now have something of a lock on leveraged ETFs. And no matter how outlandish their products may sound, they continue to be popular.

If you have invested in an ETFs and lost your investment, you may have valuable legal rights to be compensated for your losses. Call a Securities Arbitration Lawyer at Soreide Law Group 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.

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

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

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.

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

May/11

23

Chinese Stock Losses

Comments off · Posted by admin in FINRA

Did your broker or financial advisor recommend Chinese stock? The past two months have brought a spate of de-listings and trading halts for these Chinese based companies — at least 24 according to the SEC. Forbes’ Walter Pavlo recently detailed a smattering of them:
  • China Electric Motor – Shareholders lawsuit filed claiming underwriters violated federal securities laws by issuing materially false and misleading information.
  • China Natural Gas – Class action lawsuit alleges directors and officers issued materially false and misleading statements. CFO of company resigned in late 2010.
  • Duoyuan Printing - SEC investigating company for fraud, NYSE delisted April 4, 2011
  • China MediaExpress Holdings, Inc. – Deloitte quit as auditor because “no longer able to rely on the representations of management”. CFO resigned. Stock trading halted March 11
  • China Agritech – Shareholder lawsuit pending. Dismissed its auditor Ernst & Young.
  • China Sky One Medical – Under investigation by SEC.
  • Orient Paper, Inc. – Reauditing previous financials due to license issues with previous auditor (Davis Accounting Group)
If your broker of financial advisor recommended the purchase of more than $100,000 of any of these or other “Chinese Corporations” contact Soreide Law Group, PLLC, at 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.

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

Older posts >>

Find it!

Theme Design by devolux.nh2.me
To top