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

TAG | stock loss

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.

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

Jan/12

26

Doug Mirabelli, Ex-Red Sox backstop, Wins $1.2M in Damages from Merrill

Comments off · Posted by admin in FINRA

In a January 25th., 2012, article from InvestmentNews.com, the staff writes that Former Boston Red Sox catcher and two-time World Series winner Doug Mirabelli, who made a nice career of being the preferred backstop to knuckleballer Tim Wakefield, finally saw a pitch even he couldn’t handle.

In March 2008, the same month he was released by the Red Sox, Mirabelli and his wife invested $880,219 with Bank of America Merrill Lynch adviser Phil Scott and took out loans that brought their account value to $1.8 million, according to an article in The New York Times. Scott put the money into the Merrill Lynch Phil Scott Team Income Portfolios, a bundle of 33 dividend-paying growth stocks. The loans were made on the condition that the account not dip below $1 million.

The InvestmentNews.com article goes on to say that by November, the Mirabellis’ account had dropped below that level, and they liquidated it to cover the loans. The Mirabellis argued in arbitration that Scott had put his client’s money into unsuitable, all-growth-stock investments and improperly briefed the couple on the loans and their requirements.

This arbitration panel ruled in favor of the Mirabellis and awarded them $1.2 million to cover their initial investment, plus all legal fees and arbitration costs. This was the second defeat for Scott in the last 12 months, according to The New York Times article. Merrill has moved to vacate the previous award and it’s unclear if they will do the same with Mirabelli’s.

“We disagree with the panel’s decision given the facts presented in this case,” said Bill Halldin, a spokesman for Merrill. “This account was handled properly during a very difficult time when there was extreme market volatility.”

Doug Mirabelli, 41, earned roughly $7 million over a dozen seasons. He now works as a real estate agent in Michigan.

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 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

Christian Genitrini Fined and Suspended by FINRA

Comments off · Posted by admin in FINRA

 

Christian Genitrini (CRD #3277581, Registered Representative, New York, New York)

submitted a Letter of Acceptance, Waiver and Consent in which he was fined $15,000,

suspended from association with any FINRA member in any capacity for two years, and

required to requalify by exam for Series 7 and Series 63 before becoming re-associated

with a member firm after the expiration of the suspension term. The fine shall be paid in

installments beginning 90 days after Genitrini’s reassociation with a FINRA member firm

following his 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, Genitrini consented to the described sanctions and to the entry of findings that

he advertised guaranteed returns on investments of up to 20 percent per year on a website

belonging to a company he wholly owned; Genitrini claimed that his company was a fullservice

investment firm and would, among other claims, provide high-yield investment

opportunities. The findings stated that the website declared that the company invested

nationwide and all industries were considered, but did not disclose the nature of the

investment product or the risks of investment. The findings also stated that Genitrini’s ads

appeared on other websites guaranteeing returns, and his company’s contemplated private

placement documents provided no assurance that by following its current investment

strategy, it would be successful or profitable; the subscription agreement also stated that

the investments the company carried might be volatile and present operational risks.

The findings also included that Genitrini’s Internet ads constituted communications with

the public; were not based on principles of fair dealing and good faith; were not fair and

balanced; did not disclose risks associated with the investment; guaranteed promising

returns that were exaggerated, unwarranted or misleading; and the predictions of

performance were also exaggerated or unwarranted.

FINRA found that Genitrini’s private offering of securities, which involved promissory

notes his company issued according to the private placement memorandum, was not

made pursuant to an effective registration statement filed with the SEC; the offering

was intended to be made pursuant to the exemption from registration in Section 4(2)

of Rule 506 of Regulation D of the Securities Act of 1933, which prohibits offers or sales

of securities by any form of general solicitation or general advertising. FINRA also found

that Genitrini’s use of the Internet and his company’s website violated Section 5 of the

Securities Act of 1933, and guaranteeing returns in the offer of securities over the Internet

violated Section 17(a)(1) of the Securities Act of 1933. In addition, FINRA determined

that Genitrini falsely described his work with his company on his member firm’s outside

business activity disclosure form and also failed to disclose that he maintained a website

for the company; Genitrini told his firm, in writing, that his business and website were for

tax-planning services.

The suspension is in effect from April 4, 2011, through April 3, 2013.

 

(FINRA Case #2010022859701)

 This information was obtained on FINRA’s website under the May disciplanary actions.

 

If you feel you have been a victim of the alleged fraudulent schemes of Christian Genitrini, 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

12

FINRA Fines Northern Trust Securities $600,000 for Failure to Supervise Accounts

Comments off · Posted by admin in FINRA

FINRA, the Financial Industry Regulatory Industry, has found that during an 18 month period, Northern Trust Securities, failed in their supervision and monitoring of 43.5% of their total business.

FINRA also stated that “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”.  

These FINRA findings raise questions and doubts about broker-dealer reporting systems in general.  The failure of this supervision and exception reporting is not a question of software or technology.  Almost every failure of an automated exception reporting system relates to very human error in the design and implementation of the exception reporting rules and criteria.   These rules and criteria are established by the individual broker-dealer that implements an automated exception reporting system.  The software provider is providing the means and opportunity to generate the exception reporting.  The broker-dealer is defining the rules and establishing analysis standards.  FINRA reported that almost 50% of Northern Trust Securities business went without analysis, including all of the trading in CMO’s.   The potential risk to investors of over-concentration in CMO’s during the period in question, October 2006 to October 2009, would dwarf the amount of the FINRA fine.

It should not have gone unnoticed by Northern Trust that such a large percentage of their overall business was “escaping” surveillance.  Having such a large percentage of a broker-dealer’s business pass without analysis may be dramatic but, then again, what percentage is acceptable?  Implementation of an automated exception reporting system by a broker-dealer is only the beginning of a compliance and surveillance process.  An automated exception reporting system requires constant monitoring and audit.  In the absence of that, the broker-dealer exposes their business to severe potential failures of supervision and exception reporting. 

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

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

8

Did You Invest in Merrill Lynch “Accelerated Return Notes” Structured Product?

Comments off · Posted by admin in FINRA

Currently Soreide Law Group, PLLC, is investigating, Merrill Lynch “Accelerated Return Notes” Structured Product. 

We have found on certain broker-dealer websites that these notes are touted as offering  “investors the opportunity to earn three times the upside appreciation potential of the underlying security, index or basket of securities, up to a specific cap, while only risking one for one on the downside.”

If in your experience as an investor, you have found this not to be true, or if you feel you have lost your investment with Merrill Lynch “Accelerated Return Notes” Structured Product, 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

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.

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

Jun/11

8

Did You Invest In Simply Fit Beverage Company’s Private Placement?

Comments off · Posted by admin in FINRA

Soreide Law Group, PLLC,  is currently investigating the Simply Fit Beverage Company’s private placement offered by Rockwell Global Capital.

Simply Fit Beverage Company was located in South Florida and raised capital through Rockwell Global Capital. If you or a family member invested in Simply Fit through Rockwell Global Capital, 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

7

David Lerner & Associates Charged By FINRA With Soliciting Investors to Purchase REITs Without Fully Investigating Suitability

Comments off · Posted by admin in FINRA

WASHINGTON — On FINRA’s website, The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) announced May31,2011, that it has filed a complaint against David Lerner & Associates, Inc. (DLA), of Syosset, NY, charging the firm with soliciting investors to purchase shares in Apple REIT Ten, a non-traded $2 billion Real Estate Investment Trust (REIT), without conducting a reasonable investigation to determine whether it was suitable for investors, and with providing misleading information on its website regarding Apple REIT Ten distributions. DLA has sold and continues to sell Apple REIT Ten targeting unsophisticated and elderly customers with unsuitable sales of the illiquid security.

FINRA’s complaint goes on to say that since January 2011, as sole underwriter for Apple REIT Ten, DLA has sold over $300 million of an open $2 billion offering of the REIT’s shares. Apple REIT Ten invests in the same extended stay hotel properties as a series of other Apple REITs closed to investors. Apple REIT Ten and the closed Apple REITs were founded by the same individual, and are all under common management. DLA has been the sole underwriter for Apple REITs since 1992, selling nearly $6.8 billion of the securities into approximately 122,600 DLA customer accounts. DLA earns 10 percent of all offerings of Apple REIT securities as well as other fees. Apple REIT sales have generated $600 million for DLA, accounting for 60 to 70 percent of DLA’s business annually since 1996.

 This complaint against David Lerner & Associates (DLA) alleges that since at least 2004, the closed Apple REITs have unreasonably valued their shares at a constant price of $11 notwithstanding market fluctuations, performance declines and increased leverage, while maintaining outsized distributions of 7 to 8 percent by leveraging the REITs through borrowings and returning capital to investors. As sole distributor, DLA did not question the Apple REITs’ unchanging valuations despite the economic downturn for commercial real estate.

 The FINRA article goes on to say that in its solicitation of customers to purchase Apple REIT Ten, DLA’s website provided distribution rates for all of the previous Apple REITs. These distribution figures were misleading and omitted material information because they did not disclose recent distribution rate reductions or that distributions far exceeded income from operations and were funded by debt that further leveraged the REITs.

 FINRA alleges that DLA failed to sufficiently investigate the valuation and distribution irregularities of the closed Apple REITs prior to selling Apple REIT Ten. As the sole underwriter of all of the Apple REITs, DLA was aware of the Apple REITs’ valuation and distribution practices. Rather than conduct due diligence into those valuations and distribution irregularities to determine that they were reasonable and that the Apple REITs were suitable, DLA accepted the valuations and continued to record them on customer account statements.

 This issuance of a disciplinary complaint represents the initiation of a formal proceeding by FINRA in which findings as to the allegations in the complaint have not been made, and does not represent a decision as to any of the allegations contained in the complaint. Under FINRA rules, a firm or individual named in a complaint can file a response and request a hearing before a FINRA disciplinary panel. Possible remedies include a fine, censure, suspension or bar from the securities industry, disgorgement of gains associated with the violations and payment of restitution.

This article was obtained on FINRA’s website.

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.

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

Older posts >>

Find it!

Theme Design by devolux.nh2.me
To top