Failure to Supervise

Customers File Complaints Against Interactive Brokers for Flawed Margin Liquidations

November 6, 2015 | by Staff Attorney

The law offices of Gana Weinstein LLP are tracking a number of cases that have been filed against brokerage firm Interactive Brokers LLC (Interactive Brokers). These cases generally allege that due to market events affecting the customer’s accounts Interactive Brokers executed forced margin calls selling the customer’s securities. However, according to the customers Interactive Brokers did not provide investors fair pricing for the securities during the liquidations violating the “National Best Bid/Best Offer,” rule that is required in processing auto liquidations. By failing to offer fair prices for the stocks these customer their accounts were subject to additional margin calls, which results in a death spiral situation where the forced selling causes additional investment losses that causes more selling.

In one case that went to an arbitration hearing (FINRA No. 12-02766) the Claimant asserted claims of breach of contract; promissory estoppel; violation of state securities statutes; claims under common law; and vicarious liability. The Claimant alleged that Interactive Brokers’ flawed, inefficient and fraudulent margin auto-liquidation system caused auto-liquidation of the customers’ portfolios at prices inferior to the National Best Bid/Best Offer. The panel awarded the Claimant $175,000 for auto-liquidations that occurred on January 12, 2011, plus $57,200 in interest, $285,000 for auto-liquidations that occurred on August 5, 2011, and $77,000 in interest, and $72,418 for expert witness fees and other costs involved in the arbitration.

Trading on margin is a practice where the investor borrows funds from the brokerage firm and agrees to keep a maintenance margin balance or a minimum account balance. If the account value falls below the maintenance margin or the brokerage firm believes the securities are at risk at falling below that balance the firm can require investors to either deposit additional funds to bring the account back into balance or make a margin call that sells stocks in order to raise capital to pay down the loan.

Hedge Fund Canarsie Capital Losses 99.7% of Client’s Money Leading to SEC Investigation

October 10, 2015 | by Staff Attorney

According to news sources, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) are investigating how the hedge fund Canarsie Capital lost nearly all of the $60 million capital in just three weeks of trading. The fund was run by Owen Li (Li), and Ken deRegt (deRegt). Canarsie Capital was named for the Brooklyn neighborhood where Li grew up and was launched in January 2013 and had offices in midtown Manhattan, New York. Li previously worked for Raj Rajaratnam’s (Rajaratnam) Galleon Group. Rajaratnam is currently serving an 11 year sentence following his May 2011 conviction on nine counts of securities fraud and five counts of conspiracy. The claims against him relate to $63.8 million in illicit profit from 2003 to 2009 by trading in stocks such as eBay Inc, Goldman Sachs Group Inc and Google Inc. Li cofounded the Canarsie Capital with his former Stanford University roommate, Eric deRegt and Eric’s father who ran Morgan Stanley’s fixed-income business.

According to filings the minimum investment accepted from an outside investor in the fund was $1 million. At its peak, Canarsie Capital had managed around $98 million in assets and had some well-known contributors. Goldman Sachs was the fund’s prime broker and clears and settles trades for the hedge fund starting in the fall of 2014. The Goldman Sachs switch came after the fund was dropped in March 2014, by Morgan Stanley’s prime brokerage over concerns with the fund’s risk practices.

On January 20, 2015, Li, wrote an apology letter to investors telling them that he “engaged in a series of aggressive transactions” during the first three weeks of 2015 that resulted in losing all but $200,000 of the fund’s capital, a 99.7% loss. According to the letter, Li engaged in aggressive trading in an attempt to recuperate prior losses the fund suffered in the fund in December 2014. At this time it’s unclear what the trading strategy was that Li engaged in January of this year. The only details in the letter concerning the securities themselves are that they included “options with strike prices pegged to the broader market increasing in value” and “some direct positions.”

FINRA Bars Former Merrill Lynch Broker Michael Highfill Over Outside Business Activities

September 28, 2015 | by Staff Attorney

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) brought and enforcement action against broker Michael Highfill (Highfill) (FINRA No. 2015045652501) resulting in a bar from the securities industry alleging that Highfill failed to provide FINRA staff with information and documents requested. The failure to provide those documents and information to FINRA resulted in an automatic bar from the industry. FINRA’s document requests related to the regulators investigation into claims the Highfill solicited and accepted a loan from an elderly customer and that he also failed to disclose an outside business activity to his member firm.

FINRA’s investigation appears to stem from Highfill’s termination from Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated (Merrill Lynch) in May 2015. At that time Merrill Lynch filed a Form U5 termination notice with FINRA stating in part that the firm discharged Highfill under circumstances where there was allegations that Highfill solicited a loan from a client and failed to disclose outside business activities. It is unclear the nature of the outside business activities from publicly available information at this time.

Highfill entered the securities industry in 1999. From August 2005 until August 2008, Highfill was associated with Morgan Stanley & Co. Incorporated. Thereafter, from July, 2008, until May 2015, Highfill was associated as a registered representative with Merrill Lynch out of the firm’s Ridgeland, Mississippi office.

Cape Securities, Inc. Fined $125,000 for Failure to Supervise

September 18, 2015 | by Staff Attorney

On May 5, 2015, the brokerage firm Cape Securities, Inc. (“Cape”) was fined $125,000 by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) for failing to supervise its personnel, in effect allowing its brokers to recommend unsuitable investments and churn customer accounts.

According to the Letter of Acceptance, Waiver and Consent (AWC), for a sixteen-month period, spanning October 2011 through February 2013, Cape’s supervisory system and written supervisory procedures, pertaining to the review of actively traded accounts, failed to adequately address and identify numerous items. According to FINRA, Cape’s supervisory policies and procedures failed to address (1) the process by which transactions are reviewed, (2) risks in customer accounts, and (3) methods by which Cape conducted its suitability analysis. According to the AWC, Cape never made use of clearing firm exception reports in their review of actively traded accounts and had no written supervisory procedures relating to the monitoring of complex trading strategies.

In addition, during the period of October 2011 through September 2012, registered representatives in Cape’s Manhattan branch conducted trades in several leveraged exchange traded funds (“ETFs”) and sold covered calls to customers. This trading activity caused customer accounts to have excessive turnover ratios, which indicates churning of customer accounts. According to FINRA, Cape did not inquire into the suitability of this trading activity despite all the indications of excessive trading and its awareness of the strategies being recommended.

BestVest Investments Sanctioned Over Non-Traditional ETF Sales

September 15, 2015 | by Staff Attorney

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) sanctioned (Case No. 2014038906201) brokerage firm BestVest Investments, Ltd. (BestVest) concerning allegations that from January 2012, through August 2014, BestVest failed to establish and maintain a supervisory system reasonably designed to monitor transactions in leveraged, inverse, and inverse leveraged exchange traded funds (Non-Traditional ETFs).

As a background, Non-Traditional ETFs behave drastically different and have different risk qualities from traditional ETFs. While traditional ETFs seek to mirror an index or benchmark, Non-Traditional ETFs use a combination of derivatives instruments and debt to multiply returns on underlining assets, often attempting to generate 2 to 3 times the return of the underlining asset class. Non-Traditional ETFs are also used to earn the inverse result of the return of the benchmark.

However, the risks of holding Non-Traditional ETFs go beyond merely multiplying the return on the index. Instead, Non-Traditional ETFs are generally designed to be used only for short term trading as opposed to traditional ETFs. The use of leverage employed by these funds causes their long-term values to be dramatically different than the underlying benchmark over long periods of time. For example, between December 1, 2008, and April 30, 2009, the Dow Jones U.S. Oil & Gas Index gained two percent while the ProShares Ultra Oil and Gas, a fund seeking to deliver twice the index’s daily return fell six percent. In another example, the ProShares UltraShort Oil and Gas, seeks to deliver twice the inverse of the index’s daily return fell by 26 percent over the same period.

FINRA Bars Former LPL Financial Broker Thomas Caniford From the Industry

September 4, 2015 | by Staff Attorney

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) barred former LPL Financial LLC (LPL) broker Thomas Caniford (Caniford) after the broker failed to respond to a letter from the regulator requesting information. While BrokerCheck records kept by FINRA do not disclose the nature of the regulatory inquiry, in February 2015, Caniford was terminated by LPL for cause stating that the broker was terminated for 1) having custody and control of client funds in a bank account in violation of firm policy; and 2) failure to provide bank records requested by the firm.

In addition, Caniford has been the subject of at least two customer complaints and four financial liens all tax related. The customer complaints against Caniford allege a number of securities law violations including that the broker made investments in products not approved by LPL, also referred to as “selling away”, and direct theft and misappropriation of funds.

Caniford entered the securities industry in 1982. From March 2004, until March 2008, Caniford was associated with M Holdings Securities, Inc. Thereafter, from March 2008, until his termination in March 2015, Caniford was associated with LPL.

JHS Capital Advisors Broker Mark Weindling Barred Over Forging Signatures in Deceased Customer’s Account

June 19, 2015 | by Staff Attorney

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) recently barred broker Mark Weindling (Weindling) concerning allegations that Weindling failed to respond to the regulator’s requests to provide information and documents concerning the an investigation into claims that Weindling effected transactions within the account of a deceased customer.

Weindling entered the securities industry in 1982. From October 2007 until April 2012, Weindling was associated with Paulson Investment Company, Inc. Thereafter, in April 2012, Weindling became registered with JHS Capital Advisors, LLC (JHS). On May 16, 2014, JHS filed a Form U5 that terminated Weindling’s registration with JHS.

On the form, JHS reported that Weindling effected transactions within the account of a deceased customer and that he was aware of journal requests containing the forged signature of the deceased customer. Thereafter, FINRA sought to investigate JHS’s statements by sending Weindling requests for information. On January 27, 2015, FINRA sent a letter to Weindling’s counsel requesting that Weindling provide documents and information. Despite, multiple requests for information, Weindling acknowledged receipt of FINRA’s requests but confirmed that he did not intend to provide the requested documents and information.

LPL Financial Fined $11.7 Million Over Securities Practices

June 15, 2015 | by Staff Attorney

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) entered into an agreement whereby the regulatory fined LPL Financial LLC (LPL) and fined it $10 million for broad supervisory failures in a number of key areas, including the sales of non-traditional exchange-traded funds (Non-Traditional ETFs), certain variable annuity contracts, non-traded real estate investment trusts (Non-Traded REITs) and other complex products, as well as its failure to monitor and report trades and deliver to customers more than 14 million trade confirmations. As part of the fine FINRA ordered LPL to pay approximately $1.7 million in restitution to customers who purchased non-traditional ETFs.

In a press release Brad Bennett, FINRA Executive Vice President and Chief of Enforcement, stated that “LPL’s supervisory breakdowns resulted from a sustained failure to devote sufficient resources to compliance programs integral to numerous aspects of its business. With today’s action, FINRA reaffirms that there is little room in the industry for lax supervision and that it will not hesitate to order firms to review and correct substandard supervisory systems and controls, and pay restitution to affected customers.”

This action is only one of many regulatory actions that our firm has tracked concerning LPL and its brokers including the following:

Regulators File Complaints Against Christopher Veale Concerning His Securities Practices

June 8, 2015 | by Staff Attorney

According to the BrokerCheck records kept by Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) broker Christopher Veale (Veale) has been the subject of at least 12 customer complaints, six judgment and lien of over $1,000,000 and five separate regulatory actions, two investigations by state regulators and one criminal matter involving a felony over the course of his career. Customers have filed complaints against Veale alleging a litany of securities law violations including that the broker made unsuitable investments, unauthorized trades, breach of fiduciary duty, misrepresentations and false statements, churning, and fraud, among other claims. Many of the claims involve recommendations in penny stocks and other speculative securities.

An examination of Veale’s employment history reveals that Veale moves from troubled firm to troubled firm. The pattern of brokers moving in this way is sometimes called “cockroaching” within the industry. See More Than 5,000 Stockbrokers From Expelled Firms Still Selling Securities, The Wall Street Journal, (Oct. 4, 2013). In Veale’s 18 year career he has worked at 18 different firms.

Since 2008 Veale has been registered with Maximum Financial Investment Group, Franklin Christopher Investment Bankers, Inc., Brookville Capital Partners, Blackwall Capital Markets, Inc., Meyers Associates, L.P., John Thomas Financial, and Legend Securities, Inc., until February 2015.

OneAmerica Securities Sanctioned By FINRA Over Failure to Supervise

May 26, 2015 | by Staff Attorney

As we previously reported, The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) sanctioned and barred financial advisor Matthew Davis (Davis) concerning allegations of misconduct in several customer accounts. Davis was associated with Beneficial Investment Services, Inc. from November 2008, through April 2010. Thereafter, Davis was associated with OneAmerica Securities, Inc. (OneAmerica) from April 2010, through July 2013. The allegations of misconduct included claims of conversion, misrepresentation of customer holdings and account value, forgery, discretionary unauthorized trading, attempts to settle a customer complaint without the firm’s knowledge, and unsuitable investment recommendations.

In a new regulatory action, FINRA alleged that OneAmerica failed to supervise Davis and ignored numerous red flags of misconduct concerning his activities. For instance, FINRA alleged that two customers opened a OneAmerica account with Davis identifying the husband as a 65 years-old and earning between $50,001-75,000 per year. His wife was a “Homemaker” and the couple’s stated Net Worth, excluding their residence, was “$250,001-500,000″ and they had only two years of investment experience limited to stocks, bonds, and mutual funds.

Only three weeks later the couple signed an Option Agreement and were approved to trade options. FINRA found that Davis rapidly traded the options account executing 55 options transactions in May 2012; 52 options transactions in June 2012; and 53 options transactions in July 2012. This activity, according to FINRA, caused a rapid loss of account equity. FINRA found that there were multiple red flags that should have alerted the OneAmerica’s compliance department that Davis’ recommendations were unsuitable. For example, FINRA found that the couple’s account agreement reported minimal investing experience but their options agreement identified purported options (and commodities) trading experience. Also the couple’s new account agreement reported their Investment Objective as Long Term Growth but whereas their options agreement stated their objectives included speculation and hedging. Finally, FINRA alleged that the couple’s new account agreement reported their net worth was $250,000-500,000, whereas the options agreement stated their Net Worth was $640,000.