Fiduciary Duties

John Spach Barred Over Securities Laws Violations

April 25, 2019 | by Staff Attorney

According to BrokerCheck records financial advisor John Spach (Spach), formerly employed by Kestra Investment Services, LLC (Kestra) has been subject to at least one customer complaint, one regulatory action, and one employment termination for cause. According to records kept by The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA), Spach’s customer complaint alleges that Spach introduced a client of his independent advisory firm to an outside investor. The client allegedly invested $475,000 and received a promissory note that defaulted.

Thereafter, in July 2018 NFP Retirement Inc. (NFP) discharged Spach claiming violations of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 including co-mingling client assets with his own personal assets, breach of fiduciary duty, unsuitable investment advice, material misstatements, failure to disclose material conflicts of interest, circumvention of compliance policies and procedures, and affirmative misrepresentations to the firm.

Finally, in February 2019 FINRA sanctioned Spach alleging Spach consented to the sanction and findings that he refused to produce documents and information requested by FINRA in connection with its investigation into potential violations relating to a customer complaint. FINRA found that his former firm disclosed that he had been permitted to resign while under internal review relating to the potential violation of various firm policies while attempting to settle a customer complaint with a client of his registered investment advisor.

Former Raymond James Advisor Steven Reznik Has Over A Dozen Investment Complaints

February 3, 2019 | by Staff Attorney

According to BrokerCheck records financial advisor Steven Reznik (Reznik), formerly employed by Raymond James Financial Services, Inc. (Raymond James) has been subject to at least 15 customer complaints. According to records kept by The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA), most of Reznik’s customer complaints allege that Reznik made unsuitable recommendations by concentrating investors in a particular sector, possibly energy.

In January 2019 a customer brought a complaint against Reznik alleging the broker violated the securities laws by recommending an unsuitable overconcentration in investments, unauthorized trading, and constructive fraud from March 2012 until August 2018. The claim is currently pending.

In November 2018 a customer brought a complaint against Reznik alleging the broker violated the securities laws by recommending an unsuitable overconcentration in investments, unauthorized trading, and breach of fiduciary duty from September 2016 until October 2018. The claim alleged $125,000 in damages and is currently pending.

In October 2018 a customer brought a complaint against Reznik alleging the broker violated the securities laws by recommending an unsuitable investments, fraud, and breach of fiduciary duty from February 1996 until September 2018. The claim is currently pending.

Network 1 Financial Advisor Wesley Clinton Subject to Several Unsuitable Investment Complaints

January 3, 2019 | by Staff Attorney

According to BrokerCheck records financial advisor Wesley Clinton (Clinton), currently employed by Network 1 Financial Securities Inc. (Network 1 Financial) has been subject to eight customer complaints during his career. According to records kept by The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA), the complaints against Clinton concern allegations of unsuitable investments among other allegations.

In August 2018 a customer complained that Clinton recommended investments that violated the securities laws including unsuitable investments and failure to supervise. The customer alleged $145,000 in damages. The claim is currently pending.

In January 2017 a customer complained that Clinton recommended unsuitable investments leading to $50,000 in damages. The claim is currently pending.

In June 2015 a customer complained that Clinton recommended unsuitable investments and engaged in fraud and churning leading to $250,000 in damages. The claim settled for $30,000.

Westminster Financial Broker Peter Bittermann Subject to Regulatory Complaint

December 28, 2018 | by Staff Attorney

According to BrokerCheck records financial advisor Peter Bittermann (Bittermann), currently employed by Westminster Financial Securities, Inc. (Westminster Financial) has been subject to three customer complaints, one employment termination for cause, and one regulatory action. According to records kept by The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA), most of Bittermann’s customer complaints allege that Bittermann made unsuitable recommendations.

In July 2018 the Wisconsin Division of Securities alleged that Bittermann was delinquent on certain taxes causing his registration to be revoked.

In February 2011 RBC Capital Markets Corporation, LLC (RBC) terminated Bittermann over allegations that he sold a security without prior verbal knowledge and consent by the client.

In August 2009 a client complained that Bittermann misrepresented the risks of an investment and it was unsuitable causing $1,619,634 in damages. The claim was settled for $750,000.

Westpark Capital Advisor Marc Steinberg Subject to Suitability Complaints

December 3, 2018 | by Staff Attorney

According to BrokerCheck records financial advisor Marc Steinberg (Steinberg), currently employed by Westpark Capital, Inc. (Westpark Capital) has been subject to five customer complaints in his career. According to records kept by The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA), many of the complaints against Steinberg concern allegations of unsuitable investments.

In April 2018, a customer complained that Steinberg engaged in unsuitable investments causing $39,796 in damages. The claim was denied by the firm.

In November 2016, a customer complained that Steinberg engaged in unsuitable investments from December 2012 until February 2015 causing $16,833 in damages. The claim was denied by the firm.

Financial Advisor Edward Klug Subject to Multiple Tax Liens

August 3, 2018 | by Staff Attorney

According to BrokerCheck records kept by The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) former Newbridge Securities Corporation (Newbridge Securities) broker Edward Klug (Klug) left the securities industry in May 2018 after disclosing several large tax liens in the prior years. Klug has made seven financial related disclosures and lists four customer complaints. The customer complaints against Klug allege churning or excessive trading.

In March 2018 Klug disclosed a $141,711 tax lien against him. In May 2017, Klug disclosed a $482,714 tax lien against him. Prior to that, in April 2016 Klug disclosed a $44,229 tax lien against him. Such disclosures on a broker’s record can reveal a financial incentive for the broker to recommend high commission products or services. FINRA discloses information concerning a broker’s financial condition because a broker’s inability to handle their own personal finances has also been found to be material information in helping investors determine if they should allow the broker to handle their finances.

When brokers engage in excessive trading, sometimes referred to as churning, the broker will typical trade in and out of securities, sometimes even the same stock, many times over a short period of time. Often times the account will completely “turnover” every month with different securities. This type of investment trading activity in the client’s account serves no reasonable purpose for the investor and is engaged in only to profit the broker through the generation of commissions created by the trades. Churning is considered a species of securities fraud. The elements of the claim are excessive transactions of securities, broker control over the account, and intent to defraud the investor by obtaining unlawful commissions. A similar claim, excessive trading, under FINRA’s suitability rule involves just the first two elements. Certain commonly used measures and ratios used to determine churning help evaluate a churning claim. These ratios look at how frequently the account is turned over plus whether or not the expenses incurred in the account made it unreasonable that the investor could reasonably profit from the activity.

SII Investments Terminates Frank Cuenca Over Variable Annuity Practices

August 3, 2018 | by Staff Attorney

The securities attorneys at Gana Weinstein LLP are currently investigating former International Assets Advisory, LLC (International Assets) broker Frank Cuenca. According to BrokerCheck records, in December 2017, Cuenca was terminated by SII Investments, Inc. (SII investments) for failing to follow his firm’s procedures regarding submitting variable annuity transactions. He also failed to submit a customer complaint and unapproved email in a timely manner. In addition, Cuenca has been subject to five customer disputes, the majority alleging failure to follow customer instructions.

In March 2009, a customer alleged that in 2008, Cuenca failed to follow customer instructions to liquidate the account and to move $12,000 back into the market. The customer requested $12,000 in damages.

In December 2008, a customer alleged that Cuenca liquidated the customer account without the customer knowledge or permission. The customer requested $5,000 in damages.

Samuel Rankin Subject to Two Pending Customer Disputes for Mismanaging Funds

July 12, 2018 | by Staff Attorney

The securities attorneys at Gana Weinstein LLP are investigating claims against UBS Financial Services Inc. (UBS Financial) broker Samuel Rankin (Rankin). According to BrokerCheck records, Rankin has been subject to eight customer complaints, two of which are still pending. The majority of these complaints concern the misallocation of customers’ funds into unsuitable investments.

Most recently, in September 2017, a customer alleged that from 2015 to 2016, Rankin misallocated funds into highly risky investments which were unsuitable to the customer’s needs. The customer is requesting $849,221 for damages. This dispute is still pending.

In August 2017, a customer alleged that from 2009 to 2017, Rankin misallocated retirement funds into aggressive investments that were unsuitable to the customers’ needs and violated their written agreement to placement in only moderate-risk investments. This dispute is still pending.

Sandeep Varma Sanctioned by FINRA for Providing Misleading Claims on CRT Stategy

July 12, 2018 | by Staff Attorney

Recently, Sandeep Varma’s (Varma) attorney reached out to our firm to inform us that our post on Varma was inaccurate. The post detailed that Varma had been subject to five customer and that the majority of these complaints involved the recommendation of unsuitable and misrepresented variable investments including CRTs and life insurance policies.

The post also detailed how in January 2018, FINRA found that Varma misrepresented a real-estate planning strategy involving Charitable Remainder Trusts (CRTs) to 70 potential customers by providing misleading claims about the nature of deferred capital gains taxes, risks, and rewards that are involved in CRTs. In addition, Varma recommended that the sale of appreciated assets should be invested into variable annuities and into premiums for an insurance policy. While recommending these investments, Varma failed to disclose that the premium payments for the life insurance policy were dependent on performance of investments in the CRT and that this yielded risk for lapse in the insurance policy. FINRA found that Varma’s positive projection of the performance of investments in the CRT and life insurance policy was exaggerated in a promissory manner because it didn’t disclose the reasonable possibility of negative investment performance. In February 2018, Varma was suspended for 10 days and fined $15,000. Without admitting or denying the findings, Varma consented to the sanctions and to the entry of findings.

Varma’s attorney has brought it to our attention that Varma has succeeded in using FINRA’s flawed expungement process system to remove two complaints from his BrokerCheck record that resulted in settlements totaling $1.2 million. As shown in Varma’s expungement “award”, Varma sued his own employer, LPL Financial LLC (LPL Financial) for damages of $1.00 due to the placement on his record of two customer complaints. The “hearing” that took place appears to have been perfunctory at best. The hearing concerning two customer complaints took only one hearing session to complete. Usually there are two hearing sessions a day – meaning in this case two cases were probably decided in time for the arbitrator to catch lunch. The total cost to Varma by FINRA to expunge two customer complaints from his record was $100 – excluding any fees he privately paid his counsel.

Advisor Herbert Voss Barred By Financial Regulator Over Unauthorized Trading

July 12, 2018 | by Staff Attorney

According to BrokerCheck records financial advisor Herbert Voss (Voss), formerly associated with Stockcross Financial Services, Inc. (Stockcross Financial), has been subject to eight customer complaints, one FINRA action, and one employment termination. According to records kept by The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) Voss was barred from the financial industry in May 2018 when Voss consented to the sanction and to the entry of findings that he refused to appear for FINRA testimony concerning a customer complaint alleging that Voss had engaged in unauthorized trading in the customer’s account. The refusal to cooperate draws an automatic bar from the industry.

In December 2017, a customer filed a complaint alleging that Voss’ investments caused poor performance and $550,000 in damages. The claim is currently pending. Prior to that, in February 2017 a client accused Voss of causing $900,000 in damages due to unsuitable investments.

Advisors are not allowed to engage in unauthorized trading. Such trading occurs when a broker sells securities without the prior authority from the investor. All brokers are under an obligation to first discuss trades with the investor before executing them under NYSE Rule 408(a) and FINRA Rules 2510(b). These rules explicitly prohibit brokers from making discretionary trades in a customers’ non-discretionary accounts. The SEC has also found that unauthorized trading to be fraudulent nature because no disclosure could be more important to an investor than to be made aware that a trade will take place. Often times, brokers engage in unauthorized trading as part of an attempt to churn or excessively trade a client’s account.