REITs

Broker Raymond Harrison Has Complaints Over Non-Traded REITs

November 30, 2016 | by Staff Attorney

Our investment attorneys are investigating customer complaints filed with The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) against Raymond Harrison (Harrison) currently associated with Cambridge Investment Research, Inc. (Cambridge) alleging unsuitable investments , lack of due diligence, lack of supervision, and omissions of material information among other claims. According to brokercheck records Harrison has been subject to six customer complaints and two financial disclosures. Many of the complaints involve direct participation products (DPPs) such as non-traded real estate investment trusts (REITs), equipment leasing funds – such as LEAF or ICON, and other alternative investments.

In October 2016 a customer filed a complaint alleging unsuitable investments for investment experience and risk tolerance, lack of adequate due diligence in regard to investments, a lack of supervision and the omission of material information. The customer claimed damages of $603,000. The claim is currently pending.

Our firm has represented many clients in illiquid alternative investments products. All of these investments come with high costs and have historically underperformed even safe benchmarks, like U.S. treasury bonds. For example, products like oil and gas partnerships, REITs, and other alternative investments are only appropriate for a narrow band of investors under certain conditions due to the high costs, illiquidity, and huge redemption charges of the products, if they can be redeemed at all. However, due to the high commissions brokers earn on these products they sell them to investors who cannot profit from them and have created a large market for a failed product. Further, investor often fail to understand that they have lost money in these illiquid investments until many years after investing. In sum, for all of their costs and risks, investors in these programs are in no way additionally compensated for the loss of liquidity, risks, or cost.

Customers File Complaints Against Kenneth Saunders Over Alternative Investments

November 26, 2016 | by Staff Attorney

Our investment attorneys are investigating customer complaints filed with The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) against Kenneth Saunders (Saunders) currently associated with National Planning Corporation (NPC) alleging unsuitable investments among other claims. According to brokercheck records Saunders has been subject to six customer complaints. Some of the complaints involve direct participation products (DPPs) such as non-traded real estate investment trusts (REITs) and other alternative investments.

Saunders has also disclosed a number outside business activities including his d/b/a Saunders Investment & Tax Advisory Group, Inc., Heron Bay Association, and Parke Place HOA. The most recent customer complaint was filed in March 2016 and alleged that Saunders recommended unsuitable alternative investments causing $150,000 in damages. The claim is currently pending.

Our firm has represented many clients wo have invested in Direct Participation Products and REITS. Many of these types of investments come with high costs and have historically underperformed various benchmarks. For example, according to FINRA, products like REITs, and DPPs are only appropriate for a narrow band of investors under certain conditions due to the high costs, illiquidity, and huge redemption charges of the products, if they can be redeemed at all. Further, investors often fail to understand that they have lost money in these illiquid investments until many years after investing.

Mark Wesley Terminated by Ameriprise After Unauthorized Trading in Customer Accounts

November 9, 2016 | by Staff Attorney

The securities lawyers of Gana Weinstein LLP are investigating customer complaints filed with The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) against Mark Wesley (Wesley) alleging unsuitable investments, negligence, and breach of fiduciary duty among other claims. According to brokercheck records Wesley has been subject to six customer complaints. Some of the complaints involve direct participation products (DPPs), oil and gas private placements, variable annuities, non-traded real estate investment trusts (REITs), and other alternative investments.

In June 2016, Ameriprise Financial Services, Inc. (Ameriprise) permitted Wesley to resign alleging that he was under suspension for compliance policy violations related to unauthorized trading, use of discretion in a non-discretionary account, supervision of staff and responding to supervision.

In addition, Wesley has been subject to five tax liens totaling millions of dollars. A broker’s inability to handle their personal finances has also been found to be relevant in helping investors determine if they should allow the broker to handle their finances.

Broker Craig Hayward Subject to Customer Complaints Over Non-Traded REITs and Alternative Investments

September 9, 2016 | by Staff Attorney

The securities lawyers of Gana Weinstein LLP are investigating a customer complaints filed with The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) against broker Craig Hayward (Hayward). According to BrokerCheck records Hayward has been subject to at least six customer complaints. The customer complaints against Hayward alleges securities law violations that including unsuitable investments and misrepresentations among other claims. Many of the complaints involve direct participation products (DPPs) and private placements including oil and gas partnerships, non-traded real estate investment trusts (REITs), and other alternative investments.

Our firm has represented many clients in these types of products. All of these investments come with high costs and historically have underperformed even safe benchmarks, like U.S. treasury bonds. For example, products like oil and gas partnerships, REITs, and other alternative investments are only appropriate for a narrow band of investors under certain conditions due to the high costs, illiquidity, and huge redemption charges of the products, if they can be redeemed. However, due to the high commissions brokers earn on these products they sell them to investors who cannot profit from them. Further, investor often fail to understand that they have lost money until many years after agreeing to the investment. In sum, for all of their costs and risks, investors in these programs are in no way additionally compensated for the loss of liquidity, risks, or cost.

Brokers have a responsibility treat investors fairly which includes obligations such as making only suitable investments for the client. In order to make a suitable recommendation the broker must meet certain requirements. First, there must be reasonable basis for the recommendation the product or security based upon the broker’s investigation and due diligence into the investment’s properties including its benefits, risks, tax consequences, and other relevant factors. Second, the broker then must match the investment as being appropriate for the customer’s specific investment needs and objectives such as the client’s retirement status, long or short term goals, age, disability, income needs, or any other relevant factor.

Former H. Beck Broker Richard Poston Under FINRA Investigation Over Sales Practices

September 8, 2016 | by Staff Attorney

The securities fraud lawyers of Gana Weinstein LLP are investigating customer complaints and regulatory actions filed with The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority’s (FINRA) against broker Richard Poston (Poston). According to BrokerCheck records, Poston has spent 20 years in the securities industry and was most recently registered with H. Beck, Inc. (H. Beck) in Plano, Texas. Poston is currently not licensed to act as a broker or an investment adviser. Over his career, Poston has been the subject of at least four customer complaints, one regulatory investigation, one employment separation for cause, and one bankruptcy.

The most recent regulatory investigation was filed in December 2015 by FINRA alleging potential violations of FINRA Rules 2010, 2150, 3240, and 8210. These rules revolve around standards of commercial honor and equitable principles of trade, improper use of customers’ securities or funds, the borrowing or lending money from or to any customer without written approval.

The most recent complaint was filed in March 2016 while employed at H. Beck alleging that Poston, from October 2007, until September 2015 made unsuitable concentrated and illiquid investments in non-traded REIT’s. The claim is currently pending.

Customers File Complaints Against VSR Financial Broker Robert Wamhoff

May 20, 2016 | by Staff Attorney

The securities lawyers of Gana Weinstein LLP are investigating customer complaints filed with The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) against broker Robert Wamhoff (Wamhoff). According to BrokerCheck records Van Patter has been subject to at least seven customer complaints. The customer complaints against Wamhoff allege securities law violations that including unsuitable investments and breach of fiduciary duty among other claims. Many of the complaints involve direct participation products (DPPs), variable annuities, non-traded real estate investment trusts (REITs), and other alternative investments.

Our firm has represented many clients in these types of products. All of these investments come with high costs and historically have underperformed even safe benchmarks, like U.S. treasury bonds. For example, products like oil and gas partnerships, REITs, and other alternative investments are only appropriate for a narrow band of investors under certain conditions due to the high costs, illiquidity, and huge redemption charges of the products, if they can be redeemed. However, due to the high commissions brokers earn on these products they sell them to investors who cannot profit from them. Further, investor often fail to understand that they have lost money until many years after agreeing to the investment. In sum, for all of their costs and risks, investors in these programs are in no way additionally compensated for the loss of liquidity, risks, or cost.

Brokers have a responsibility treat investors fairly which includes obligations such as making only suitable investments for the client. In order to make a suitable recommendation the broker must meet certain requirements. First, there must be reasonable basis for the recommendation the product or security based upon the broker’s investigation and due diligence into the investment’s properties including its benefits, risks, tax consequences, and other relevant factors. Second, the broker then must match the investment as being appropriate for the customer’s specific investment needs and objectives such as the client’s retirement status, long or short term goals, age, disability, income needs, or any other relevant factor.

Broker Investigation: Customer Complaints Against VSR Financial Broker Mickey Long

March 28, 2016 | by Staff Attorney

The securities lawyers of Gana Weinstein LLP are investigating customer complaints filed with The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) against broker Mickey Long (Long). According to BrokerCheck records Long is subject to nine customer complaints. The customer complaints against Long allege securities law violations that including unsuitable investments, misrepresentations, and breach of fiduciary duty among other claims. The claims appear to relate to allegations regard direct participation products and limited partnerships such as equipment leasing and non-traded real estate investment trusts (Non-Traded REITs). Other products complained of include oil and gas private placements.

Our firm has represented many clients in these types of products. All of these investments come with high costs and historically have under performed even safe benchmarks, like U.S. treasury bonds. For example, investors are destined to lose money in equipment leasing programs like LEAF Equipment Leasing Income Funds I-IV and ICON Leasing Funds Eleven and Twelve. The high costs and fees associated with these investments make significant returns virtual impossibility. Yet for all of their costs investors are in no way compensated for the additional risks of these products.

Brokers have a responsibility treat investors fairly which includes obligations such as making only suitable investments for the client. In order to make a suitable recommendation the broker must meet certain requirements. First, there must be reasonable basis for the recommendation the product or security based upon the broker’s investigation and due diligence into the investment’s properties including its benefits, risks, tax consequences, and other relevant factors. Second, the broker then must match the investment as being appropriate for the customer’s specific investment needs and objectives such as the client’s retirement status, long or short term goals, age, disability, income needs, or any other relevant factor.

Recovery Options for VFG Securities Clients Invested in Non-Traded REITs, Equipment Leasing, Oil & Gas, and Other Alternative Investments

March 20, 2016 | by Staff Attorney

The securities lawyers of Gana Weinstein LLP are investigating a complaint filed by The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) against brokerage firm VFG Securities, Inc. (VFG) and its CEO Jason Vanclef (Vanclef) (FINRA No. 2013038283001). The complaint alleges that approximately 95 percent of VFG’s revenue was obtained from the sale of non-traded direct participation products (DPPs) and non-traded REITs and other alternative investments such as equipment leasing programs and oil & gas private placements between approximately November 2010 and June 2012. Even though alternative investments are highly speculative and illiquid investments that have little to no place in the average investor’s portfolio, FINRA alleged that VFG failed to reasonably supervise the sale of illiquid alternative investments, including non-traded DPPs and non-traded REITs, to ensure that customers did not become overly concentrated in these products.

According to FINRA, VFG’s alternative investment strategy comes from a book distributed by the firm to customers and authored by Vanclef entitled Wealth Code: How the Rich Stay Rich in Good Times and Bad (The Wealth Code). FINRA found that Vanclef used The Wealth Code as sales literature to promote investments in non-traded DPPs and non-traded REITs, and to lure potential investors to VFG. FINRA claims that Vanclef repeatedly claimed in The Wealth Code that non-traded DPPs and non-traded REITs offer both high return and capital preservation among other claims. However, FINRA has found that the these claims are false, inaccurate, misleading, and contradicted information provided in the prospectuses of the products that Vanclef and VFG sold.

FINRA stated that non-traded DPPs and non-traded REITs are speculative investments that contain a high degree of risk, including the risk that an investor may lose a substantial portion or all of his or her initial investment. Yet, Vanclef claimed in The Wealth Code that by investing in “real” or “tangible” assets and other instruments that he recommended, investors could “reasonably achieve 8-12% results,” on their investments and “get consistent returns” that provided “piece [sic] of mind.”

Investors File Non-Traded REIT Complaints Against Broker Nancy Daoud

February 11, 2016 | by Staff Attorney

The securities lawyers of Gana Weinstein LLP are investigating customer complaints filed with The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) against broker Nancy Daoud (Daoud). According to BrokerCheck records Daoud is subject to 6 customer complaints. The customer complaints against Daoud allege securities law violations that including unsuitable investments and misrepresentations among other claims. Many of the most recent claims involve allegations concerning non traded real estate investment trusts (Non-Traded REITs) and business development companies (BDCs).

As a background since the mid-2000s Non-Traded REITs became one of Wall Street’s hottest products. However, the failure of Non-Traded REITs to perform as well as their publicly traded counterparts has called into question if Non-Traded REITs should be sold at all and if so should there be a limit on the amount a broker can recommend. See Controversy Over Non-Traded REITs: Should These Products Be Sold to Investors? Part I

Non-Traded REITs are securities that invest in different types of real estate assets such as commercial, residential, or other specialty niche real estate markets such as strip malls, hotels, storage, and other industries. Non-traded REITs are sold only through broker-dealers, are illiquid, have no or limited secondary market and redemption options, and can only be liquidated on terms dictated by the issuer, which may be changed at any time and without prior warning.

Recovery Options for United Development Funding Investors

January 25, 2016 | by Staff Attorney

The securities lawyers of Gana Weinstein LLP are investigating investors that were recommended to invest in non-traded real estate investment trusts (Non-Traded REITs) or publicly traded shares of United Development Funding (UDF) funds. Based upon the investor’s investment objectives and other information such investments may have been unsuitable for the investor. Recently, UDF IV, a publicly traded REIT, plummeted about 50% in value after allegations arose claiming that UDF runs its REIT programs like a Ponzi scheme.

As a background, according to UDF’s website the company was founded in 2003 and purports to provide investors with an opportunity to diversify their portfolios with “fundamentally sound investments in affordable residential real estate.”

However, allegations have been made that UDF IV made false or misleading statements and omissions about its business. It has been alleged that UDF IV failed to disclose that: (1) subsequent UDF REIT companies provide significant liquidity and capital to earlier UDF companies which allows those companies to repay earlier investors; (2) if funding from retail investors to the latest UDF company were halted the earlier UDF companies would not be capable of continuing operations; (3) UDF IV provided liquidity to UDF I, UMT and UDF III, as part of an investment scheme; (4) UDF IV was being operated in a manner similar to a Ponzi scheme where new capital is being used to pay prior investors; (5) UDF IV failed to disclose that the company was being investigated by the SEC for its practices; and (6) UDF IV’s business prospect representations were false and misleading.