Fiduciary Duties

Broker John Galinsky Suspended For Failing to Pay Arbitration Award

November 17, 2015 | by Staff Attorney

According to the BrokerCheck records kept by Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) broker John Galinsky (Galinsky) has been the subject of at least 4 customer complaints, 2 regulatory actions, 2 employment separations for cause, and two criminal matters. In the most recent action, eleven claimants brought claims against Matrix Capital Group, Inc., John W. Eugster, Fintegra LLC, and Galinsky, alleging numerous securities law violations including breach of fiduciary duty, unsuitable investments, and misrepresentations relating to the sale of MiaSole Investments II LLC.

At an arbitration hearing, the arbitrators found that Galinsky and Fintegra were liable and asked them to buy back the investor’s securities in MiaSole totaling over $1.19 million in compensatory damages, and awarding $308,000 in attorneys’ fees and over $35,000 in costs. Since the award, Fintegra filed for bankruptcy.

Subsequently, Galinsky failed to pay the arbitration award. On August 7, 2015, FINRA suspended Galinsky’s broker license for failing to comply with the arbitration award and failing to provide FINRA information concerning status of compliance with the award.

FINRA Alleges National Securities Corporation Misled Customers On Fees

June 18, 2015 | by Staff Attorney

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) entered into an agreement whereby the regulatory fined National Securities Corporation (NSC) while alleging that in 2013, NSC acted as the exclusive placement agent for two private placements of its parent company, National Holdings Corporation (National Holdings). The FINRA rules require that offerings of unregistered securities issued by a control entity of a member firm disclose to investors the selling compensation to be paid to the member in connection with the offering. FINRA found that while NSC generally disclosed to investors that it would receive compensation in connection with the sale of both private placements the firm failed to disclose in writing to investors the amount of selling compensation it would receive.

NSC has been registered with FINRA as a since 1947 and engages in a number of businesses, including retail brokerage, investment banking, and investment advisory. NSC has 760 registered representatives in 140 branch offices. Our law offices have been tracking a number of regulatory and customer complaints involving NSC and its brokers including:

National Securities Broker Vito Balsamo Under FINRA Investigation Over V.W. Industries Sales

Why the Investing Public Falsely Believes Advisors Are Fiduciaries

May 13, 2015 | by Staff Attorney

The investor advocacy bar association PIABA (the Public Investors Arbitration Bar Association) has recently issued a report called “Major Investor Losses Due to Conflicted Advice: Brokerage Industry Advertising Creates the Illusion of Fiduciary Duty.” The PIABA report argues that the brokerage industry uses false advertising to convey to investors that the firms have a fiduciary duty to their clients only then to do a 180 turn when sued to claim that no such duty exists.

According to the report, some of the largest firms in the United States are falsely advertise in this fashion including Merrill Lynch, Wells Fargo, Morgan Stanley, UBS, Fidelity, Ameriprise, Allstate Financial, Berthel Fisher, and Charles Schwab. The report claimed that all of these firms “advertise in a fashion that is designed to lull investors into the belief that they are being offered the services of a fiduciary.”

In the wake of the financial crisis of 2008, the Dodd-Frank legislation authorized the Securities Exchange Commission (SEC) to pass a fiduciary duty rule that would apply to brokers, as opposed to only financial advisors. Most investors do not realize and are usually shocked to learn that there broker only has an obligation to recommend “suitable” investments, and not to work in their client’s best interests. Currently, the fiduciary duty rule only applies to financial advisors (and brokers under certain circumstances).

Tapes Show That UBS Executives Forced UBS Brokers to Sell High Risk Bond Funds

March 13, 2015 | by Staff Attorney

As our firm has written about on numerous occasions, our firm is currently representing investors who purchased the UBS Puerto Rico closed-end-bond funds and other Puerto Rico municipal debt. The allegations our firm has brought on behalf of clients focuses on UBS’ sales tactics and recommendations to its customers to invest in 23 proprietary closed-end funds. The UBS Puerto Rico bond funds contained substantial risks that allegedly were downplayed by the firm’s advisors in order to generate sales. The funds’ risks included excessive amount of leverage, conflicts of interests, and omission of material information concerning the risky nature of certain of the funds’ holdings.

Many of our clients tell very similar tales about how they were recommended to invest as much as 100% of their portfolios in the UBS Puerto Rico closed-end funds, some through additional margin or bank loans. Now, thanks to an article published by Reuters, Puerto Rico bond fund investors are starting to learn why.

According to the article, a group of brokers came up with a list of 22 reasons why they wanted to stop selling the funds including the facts that the funds suffered from low liquidity, excessive leverage, oversupply and instability, and contained debt underwritten by UBS, a conflict of interests.

Wedbush Securities Regulatory Actions Explored Part III

January 21, 2015 | by Staff Attorney

This post continues our examination of the numerous regulatory actions against Wedbush Securities, Inc. (Wedbush) for its failure to supervise the activities of its employees and the recent National Adjudicatory Council (NAC) decision affirming the FINRA hearing decision.

What were the failures to report that were claimed by FINRA? In one instance, a client faxed a letter to Wedbush alleging that his broker had committed unauthorized trades but Wedbush did not report the complaint until January 2010, 275 days later. At hearing Wedbush conceded that the complaint was not timely reported but disputed their responsibility for the late reporting because a firm office manager failed to forward the letter to the business conduct department after concluding that the letter wasn’t a customer complaint. FINRA found though that the office manager’s failure does not excuse the late filing or the firm’s responsibility for the late filing.

In addition, the firm had argued that Mr. Wedbush was not liable for failure to supervise because he was more of a manager than a supervisory. Again, FINRA disagreed stating that as president he was ultimately responsible for the misconduct.

Why Wall Street Fights Against the Fiduciary Standard

October 30, 2014 | by Staff Attorney

In the wake of the financial crisis of 2008, the Dodd-Frank legislation authorized the Securities Exchange Commission (SEC) to pass a fiduciary duty rule that would apply to brokers, as opposed to only financial advisors. Most investors do not realize and are usually shocked to learn that there broker only has an obligation to recommend “suitable” investments, and not to work in their client’s best interests. Currently, the fiduciary duty rule only applies to financial advisors (and brokers under certain circumstances) – more commonly recognized by the public as advisors who charge a flat fee for their services as opposed to commissions.

The fact that the investing public has absolutely no clue how crucial the fiduciary duty is to protecting their retirement futures and holding Wall Street accountable for mishaps has prevented any serious public debate to combat the millions of dollars the industry has and will spend to kill this part of the law. True to form, recently the House of Representatives passed a budget that would prevent the SEC from imposing a fiduciary standard on brokers during the upcoming federal fiscal year beginning in October.

What’s the big deal you may ask? Why is the fiduciary standard important to me? Well there are many reasons but maybe one story will highlight how the brokerage industry is currently allowed to operate to put their interests ahead of their clients. As recently reported in Bloomberg and InvestmentNews, an undercover U.S. Labor Department economist exposed how brokerage firms sought out federal workers to roll over their 401(k)’s with the government to IRAs with the brokerage firm even though the result could increase the client’s annual costs by as much as 50 times!

Choosing the Right Securities Arbitration Attorney

September 29, 2014 | by Staff Attorney

When to Call a Securities Arbitration Attorney

Securities arbitration attorneys, sometimes referred to as investment attorneys, FINRA attorneys, or securities attorneys, should be contacted whenever an investor believes he or she has been a victim of broker misconduct. An investor may have cause to retain a securities fraud attorney to file a lawsuit or arbitration claim if his or her broker failed to create a suitable investment strategy. An investor may also want to contact an attorney case if a broker made false or misleading statements about a security or omitted negative information about the risk of a security in order to persuade the investor to invest.

An investor may also want to seek legal counsel the investor’s broker bought or sold securities without prior consent (unauthorized trading) or excessively traded securities for the purpose generating commissions (churning).

SEC Staff Issues Risk Alert on Alternative Investments Due Diligence

February 15, 2014 | by Staff Attorney

The Office of Compliance Inspections and Examinations (OCIE), in coordination with other Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) staff released guidance and observations concerning investment advisers due diligence process for selecting alternative investments. The OCIE has observed that investment advisers are increasingly recommending alternative investments to their clients in lieu of other investment options. Investment advisers are fiduciaries and must act in their clients’ best interests. Since an investment adviser exercises discretion to purchase alternative investments on behalf of clients the adviser must determine whether the investments: (i) meet the clients’ investment objectives; and (ii) are consistent with the investment principles and strategies that were disclosed to the client by the manager to the adviser.

Alternative investments include a variety of non-traditional investments including hedge funds, private equity, venture capital, real estate, and funds of private funds. The commonality amongst alternative investments is that they employ unique investment strategies and assets that are not necessarily correlated to traditional stock and bond indexes.

The OCIE staff examined the due diligence process processes of advisers to pension plans and funds of private funds in order to evaluate how advisers performed due diligence, identify, disclose, and mitigate conflicts of interest, and evaluate complex investment strategies and fund structures. The OCIE noted indicators that led advisers to conduct additional due diligence analysis, request the manager to make appropriate changes, or to reject the manager or the alternative investment.

Fidelity In Lawsuit Over Its Employees’ 401(k) Plan

October 24, 2013 | by Staff Attorney

On March 19, 2013, a former employee of Fidelity Investments filed suit in the U.S. District Court in Boston, Massachusetts against her former employer alleging self-dealing with respect to the management of the FMR LLC Profit Sharing Plan, Fidelity’s 401(k) plan. In September, twenty-six additional current and former Fidelity employees joined a proposed class action lawsuit against Fidelity. The complaint captioned, Bilewicz v. Fidelity Investments, alleges that the FMR LLC Profit Sharing Plain offered expensive Fidelity mutual funds despite the availability of lower-fee mutual funds within Fidelity’s own investment offerings and the offerings of outside providers.

Fidelity’s 401(k) plan holds approximately $8.5 billion in assets for more than 50,000 of its employees. Fidelity generally makes annual profit sharing contributions to the plan in addition to matching up to 7% of its employees’ salary contributions.

The Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) creates a fiduciary duty for 401(k) plans, meaning Fidelity, and any other 401(k) plan provider, must act in the best interest of its employee investors. The complaint in this case alleges that Fidelity and some of its officers failed to uphold thier fiduciary duty with respect to selecting, evaluating, monitoring, and removing investment options from the Fidelity 401(k) Plan. The complaint alleges that Fidelity and certain officers selected high-fee Fidelity mutual fund products that financially benefited Fidelity instead of acting in the best interest of their employees.

FINRA Arbitration Panel Awards Investors $3.1 Million Against Citigroup Due to Failure to Supervise Selling Away Activities

September 18, 2013 | by Staff Attorney

A Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) arbitration panel ruled that Citigroup Inc. (Citigroup) must pay $3.1 million to a Florida couple who alleged that their financial advisor, Scott King (King), solicited them to invest in real estate developments. The case was filed by Dr. Nasirdin Madhany and his wife, Zeenat Madhany, alleging negligent supervision, breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, and breach of contract. The panel’s decision represents an important win for consumers and refutation of common arguments employed by the industry to avoid responsibility for their employee’s wrongful conduct.

The case involved a typical, and all too common, “selling away” scenario. Selling away occurs where a broker sells securities to customers that are not approved by the brokerage firm. Selling away investments represent a substantial risk to the investing public because brokerage firms do not record the transactions on their books and records and do not supervise the activity to ensure that the investment is appropriate for the customer.

Brokerage firms usually defend selling away cases by arguing that they were not aware of the securities transactions and therefore cannot be found liable. Firms also argue that they do not know the broker’s customer because in many cases the investor does not have a brokerage account with the firm. Therefore, the firm argues that it cannot be responsible for investment losses occurring to investors they do not know and away from the firm.