Private Placements

Triad Advisor Darrin Cohn Has Alternative Investment Complaints

December 1, 2020 | by Staff Attorney

Advisor Darrin Cohn (Cohn), currently employed by Triad Advisors LLC (Triad Advisors) has been subject to at least two customer complaints during the course of his career. According to a BrokerCheck report these customer complaints appears to concern unsuitable investments in alternative investments. These allegations may also concern investments in GPB Capital Holdings (GPB Capital) related investments. Triad Advisors are known to have approved their brokers to sell GPB Capital to their clients.

GPB Capital is facing multiple accusations of being a Ponzi scheme, an ongoing U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and FBI investigations, and even GPB’s chief compliance officer being indicted for illegally obtaining information on the SEC’s investigation. Now even Volkswagen and Toyota are threatening to pull the plug on GPB Capital auto dealerships. While advisors have been telling investors to do absolutely nothing and just hang in there – this is nothing more than just additional poor advice. In November 2019 GPB Capital’s admitted that no financial audit would occur anytime in the near future. The firm has admitted that it has never been profitable and has merely returned investor capital in the past in order to fake a successful business model. In sum, investors now know there is nothing to hang onto. By the day, advisor recommendations to do nothing appear to be completely self-serving, out of the loop, and not in the interest of the investor.

In March 2020 a customer complained that Cohn violated the securities laws by alleging that Cohn engaged in sales practice violations related to unsuitable investments in alternative investments. The claim alleges $400,000 in damages and is currently pending.

In March 2020 a customer complained that Cohn violated the securities laws by alleging that Cohn engaged in sales practice violations related to unsuitable investments in multiple alternative investments. The claim alleges $200,000 in damages and is currently pending.

Mark Cline Subject to Customer Complaints Over Private Placement Sales

October 4, 2020 | by Staff Attorney

The attorneys at Gana Weinstein LLP are investigating BrokerCheck reports that financial advisor Mark Cline (Cline), currently employed by National Securities Corporation (National Securities) has been subject to at least 12 customer complaints and one criminal matter during the course of his career. According to records kept by The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA), Cline’s customer complaints involves the sale of private placements. The complaints allege that Cline recommended unsuitable investments in these private placements.

At Gana Weinstein LLP, we often hear from investors who were recommended by their advisors to purchase high risk private placement investments and suffered substantial – often crushing losses as a result. Our firm regularly represents these investors in disputes with the advisors and brokers who sold these products without adequate disclosure. Brokers have a responsibility to conduct due diligence on all private placement offerings. Due diligence includes an investigation into the investment’s properties including its benefits, risks, tax consequences, issuer, history, and other relevant factors.

Private placements are bond, equity, or other debt instruments issued in reliance on a statutory or rule-based exemption from the registration requirements administered by the (SEC). The private placement industry was created based upon the reasoning that exempting private placements from registration is appropriate where purchasers have the economic ability, sophistication, and the professional advice necessary to do without the regular protection afforded by the disclosures required through registration. According to sources, a total of $33.5 billion was raised in 647 transactions through the third quarter of 2018.

James Kirchner Has Complaints Over Private Placement Sales Practices

May 12, 2020 | by Staff Attorney

Former stockbroker James Kirchner (Kirchner), former employed by brokerage firms David A. Noyes & Company (David Noyes), IFS Securities, and Cabot Lodge Securities LLC (Cabot Lodge) has been subject to at least seven customer complaints and one employment terminations for cause during the course of his career. According to a BrokerCheck report some of the customer complaints concern private placements. The attorneys at Gana Weinstein LLP have represented hundreds of investors who suffered losses caused by these types of high risk products when they are not vetted appropriately by the firm selling them.

In March 2020 a customer complained that Kirchner violated the securities laws by alleging that Kirchner engaged in sales practice violations related recommending alternative investments that were not suitable. The claim alleges $175,000 in damages and was settled for $90,000.

In January 2020 a customer complained that Kirchner violated the securities laws by alleging that Kirchner engaged in sales practice violations related to recommending private placements during 2016 and 2017 that were not suitable. The claim alleged $300,000 in damages and was settled for $145,000.

In July 2019 a customer complained that Kirchner violated the securities laws by alleging that Kirchner engaged in sales practice violations related to recommending private placements during 2016 that was not suitable. The claim alleged $100,000 in damages and was settled for $50,000.

Gana Weinstein Represents Multiple Walton Land Fund Investors

March 23, 2020 | by Staff Attorney

The law offices of Gana Weinstein LLP continue to investigate broker sales of the Walton Land Fund companies (Walton Land). Walton Land has been solicited many brokers across the country as investments in real estate. Walton Land is a highly speculative private placement that invests on vacant undeveloped properties that do not generate income. The hope is that one day in the far future Walton Land can sell the properties for a profit to someone else to develop. The problem is that Walton Land needs to pay carrying costs on the properties while they do not generate income. In addition, newsources have exposed that Walton Land makes a profit on these properties by selling them to the funds at a huge mark up

As a recent Bloomberg article exposed a “markup of five times Walton’s own price wasn’t unusual across hundreds of properties. In one 2008 investment vehicle, Walton bought 304 acres northeast of Atlanta at a price of $13,600 an acre in U.S. dollars, and syndicated it to investors at about $68,000 an acre.” In other words, Walton is sure to profit on its own deals by selling properties it bought for way cheaper to ignorant retail investors for many times the properties’ actual value. In addition, broker’s are paid huge commissions to never reveal these facts to their clients and get their “cut” of the land fraud. “Walton also was paying sales commissions as high as 13.25% in some cases, even though 6% is more typical for speculative investments, securities experts say.”

Bio-Tech Company uBiome Raided By FBI – Investor Recovery Options

December 2, 2019 | by Staff Attorney

The investment fraud lawyers at Gana Weinstein LLP are investigating reports and accusations that health start-up uBiome routinely billed patients multiple times without consent and pressured doctors to approve tests. According to a CNBC report in May 2019, the FBI raided the company’s offices its co-CEOs and founders Jessica Richman and Zac Apte went on administrative leave. Our firm is analyzing private placement offerings by uBiome and believe that brokerage firms that sold this investment may have done so unsuitably and otherwise failed to conduct due diligence would have revealed problems with the company.

The company’s product, the SmartGut test, promised users to provide new insights into the bacterial makeup so that they can make improvements to their health. However, according to users and CNBC report when patients one one test uBiome sends multiple kits in the mail. uBiome then charges insurance companies for these tests which are reported to be up to $2,970 per test. According to CNBC’s investigation uBiome was routinely billing patients multiple times without their consent causing insurance plans to start rejecting claims. In addition, uBiome has been accused of pressuring doctors to approve tests with minimal oversight.

It is possible that uBiome sought to over bill in order to increase the valuation of the company to investors. uBiome was founded in 2012. The company raised more than $100 million in venture funding and was valued at about $300 million at its most recent round of financing last September. The company reported used used billable samples, rather than reimbursement rates, as the key growth metric for the company and routinely shared these figures with investors.

Joshua Stivers Has GPB Capital Investment Complaint

October 15, 2019 | by Staff Attorney

Our firm represents multiple clients who have been recommended GPB Capital Holdings (GPB Capital) related investments. GPB invests in a variety of businesses but primarily in auto dealerships and waste management businesses. However, over the past year controversy has embroiled GPB Capital in a saga including multiple regulatory investigations and even an FBI referral which has left investors clueless to the fate of their investments.

According to our investigation Kalos Capital, Inc. (Kalos Capital) and its brokers including Joshua Stivers (Stivers) have recommended GPB Capital private placements to investors.

As a background, financial advisers sold $1.5 billion of these high-risk private placements offered by GPB Capital Holdings. However, GPB Capital told investors in 2018 that virtually none of the firm’s financial reports could be trusted and that in fact the offering had no accurate financial information. Recently, GPB Capital released its own internal analysis and valuation of its funds without providing any evidence to support its findings. As reported by InvestmentNews, the two largest funds offered GPB Holdings II and GPB Automotive Portfolio have declines of 25.4% and 39%. However, some of the other funds, like Armada Waste, faired much worse declining to only 32% of their original value. Again these valuations are provided by GPB Capital and only after a year of accounting mishaps.

GPB Capital Investment Recovery Options – Free Consultation

October 13, 2019 | by Staff Attorney

Our firm represents multiple clients who have collectively lost millions in GPB Capital Holdings (GPB Capital) related investments. Recently, class action lawsuits have been filed against GPB Capital with the goal of recovering investor funds. However, it is our law firm’s belief that remedies against the sales agents who peddled GPB Capital offerings provide investors with potentially quicker and better recovery options. Further, investors in many cases do not lose out from the ability to still collect from a class action resolution if such an event occurs.

Our firm has analyzed the GPB Capital offerings and believe that brokerage firms did not review these offerings in any significant detail. Our firm’s investigation has found that brokerage firms failed to conduct due diligence and investigate multiple aspects of GPB Capital’s business including its senior management, fantastical business claims, and intra-fund lending practices. For instance, with respect to GPB Capital’s senior management the company was founded by David Gentile (Gentile). Had brokerage firms investigated GPB Capital’s senior manager it would have found that prior to founding GPB Capital, Gentile’s experience was as a CPA and company advisor with the accounting practice his family ran at Gentile Pismeny & Brengel, LLP (GP&B) in New York. Nonetheless, GPB’s PPMs claimed expertise in these areas. GPB Holdings II, LP, PPM, pg. 9 (Apr. 13, 2015) (“GPB’s senior management have a great deal of experience investing in the Automotive Retail, Managed IT Services and Life Sciences sectors.”).

Any investigation would have revealed that GPB Capital is merely the private equity investment arm of a plain vanilla accounting practice. There is no evidence that GPB Capital’s senior management had the knowledge, industry experience, or investment experience to run the operations of a $1.8 billion dollar mult-asset strategy private equity fund and should not have been entrusted with investor funds. Our investigation has also identified a number of business claims that any review would have revealed could not have possibly be substantiated.

Ross Sinclaire & Associates Sanctioned Over Private Placement Practices

September 21, 2019 | by Staff Attorney

According to BrokerCheck records Ross Sinclaire & Associates, LLC (Ross Sinclaire) has been subject to a regulatory action over, among other things, the firm’s sales practices with respect to several private placement offerings. According to records kept by The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) Ross Sinclaire has been accused by FINRA of failing to disclose material information to investors in relation to several offerings offerings.

FINRA alleged that in March and April 2014, Ross Sinclaire was the exclusive placement agent for a private placement of notes and was involved in the preparation and circulation of a Confidential Information Memorandum (CIM) to seven accredited investors for notes. The proceeds were to provide to a film production company for the advance funding of anticipated state tax credits. The CIM disclosed that in addition to a 2% commission, Ross Sinclaire would also earn a “certain percentage” of profits on the sale of tax credits but failed to disclose that it would earn half of those profits. FINRA found that this information was a material fact that would have been important to investors. FINRA also found that the CIM also failed to disclose that one of Ross Sinclaire’s registered representatives was Vice President or the issuer.

In another offering, FINRA alleged that between December 2015 and December 2016, Ross Sinclaire omitted material facts from the Private Placement Memorandum (PPM) for municipal bonds underwritten by the Firm to finance the construction of a community recreation center. FINRA found that Ross Sinclaire failed to disclose in the PPM: (i) that the issuer had threatened to default on an earlier series of bonds and bond anticipation notes (BANs); (ii) that a loan agreement existed between the issuer and Ross Sinclaire: and (iii) information about the finances of both the issuer and Ross Sinclaire. FINRA determined that this information should have been included in the PPM as it would have been material to investors in deciding whether to invest in the bonds.

Matthew Crafa Has GPB Capital Investment Complaint

July 2, 2019 | by Staff Attorney

Our firm represents multiple clients who have been recommended GPB Capital Holdings (GPB Capital) related investments. GPB invests in a variety of businesses but primarily in auto dealerships and waste management businesses. However, over the past year controversy has embroiled GPB Capital in a saga including multiple regulatory investigations and even an FBI referral which has left investors clueless to the fate of their investments.

According to our investigation Royal Alliance Associates, Inc. (Royal Alliance) and its brokers including Matthew Crafa (Crafa) have recommended GPB Capital private placements to investors.

As a background, financial advisers sold $1.5 billion of these high-risk private placements offered by GPB Capital Holdings. However, GPB Capital told investors in 2018 that virtually none of the firm’s financial reports could be trusted and that in fact the offering had no accurate financial information. Recently, GPB Capital released its own internal analysis and valuation of its funds without providing any evidence to support its findings. As reported by InvestmentNews, the two largest funds offered GPB Holdings II and GPB Automotive Portfolio have declines of 25.4% and 39%. However, some of the other funds, like Armada Waste, faired much worse declining to only 32% of their original value. Again these valuations are provided by GPB Capital and only after a year of accounting mishaps.

Our firm’s investigation has found that brokerage firms failed to conduct due diligence and investigate multiple aspects of GPB Capital’s business including its senior management, fantastical business claims, and intra-fund lending practices. For instance, with respect to GPB Capital’s senior management the company was founded by David Gentile (Gentile). Had brokerage firms investigated GPB Capital’s senior manager it would have found that prior to founding GPB Capital, Gentile’s experience was as a CPA and company advisor with the accounting practice his family ran at Gentile Pismeny & Brengel, LLP (GP&B) in New York. Nonetheless, GPB’s PPMs claimed expertise in these areas. See GPB Holdings II, LP, PPM, pg. 9 (Apr. 13, 2015) (“GPB’s senior management have a great deal of experience investing in the Automotive Retail, Managed IT Services and Life Sciences sectors.”). Any investigation would have revealed that GPB Capital is merely the private equity investment arm of a plain vanilla accounting practice. There is no evidence that GPB Capital’s senior management had the knowledge, industry experience, or investment experience to run the operations of a $1.8 billion dollar mult-asset strategy private equity fund and should not have been entrusted with investor funds.

Mariemont Capital Partners and William Kielczewski – Investor Recovery Options

June 24, 2019 | by Staff Attorney

The attorneys at Gana Weinstein LLP are currently investigating Mariemont Capital Partners, LP (Mariemont Capital Partners) and its principals William “Bill” Kielczewski (Kielczewski). If you have suffered investment losses with Mariemont Capital Partners our firm would be interested in speaking with you. According to a BrokerCheck report, through May 2017 Kielczewski was a broker with The Huntington Investment Company (Huntington Investment) out of the firm’s Toledo, Ohio office location. During this time Kielczewski is alleged to have sold $10 million in investments in Mariemont Capital Partners without disclosing this fact to Huntington Investment.

In May 2019 FINRA filed a complaint alleging that Kielczewski falsely and repeatedly represented to his member firm that he was merely a passive investor in Mariemont Capital Partners when, in fact, he was actively involved with the fund, promoting it to potential investors. Instead, FINRA found that Kielczewski helped to facilitate customer investments in the fund by assisting in the completion of wire transfers in order to fund their investments, reviewed and made revisions to the fund’s pitch book and quarterly portfolio reports, and occasionally suggested to a customer certain securities to purchase for the fund. When FINRA reviewed Kielczewski’s tax returns they showed that Kielczewski identified himself as a general partner of the investment manager of the fund and he declared ordinary business income losses and non-passive ordinary income. FINRA found that Kielczewski participated in multiple private securities transactions through which four firm customers invested over $10 million in the hedge fund without providing prior written notice to his firm.

Mariemont Capital Partners SEC private placement filing in 2014 states that the total offering amount was $250,000,000 of which $53,400,000 had been already sold. According to the fund’s website Kevin Taylor is the founder and Chief Investment Officer of Mariemont Capital and has 17 years of fixed income trading experience to identify value within the non-agency residential mortgage backed securities market.