Securities Attorney

Broker Spotlight: Claims Against Broker John Lopinto

October 31, 2015 | by Staff Attorney

According to the BrokerCheck records kept by Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) broker John Lopinto (Lopinto) has been the subject of at least two customer complaints. The customer complaints against Lopinto allege securities law violations that claim churning and excessive trading, unsuitable investments, excessive commissions, breach of fiduciary duty, and fraud among other claims. One complaint alleged that Lopinto caused $4,000,000 in damages. In another claim filed the customer alleged $1,000,000 in damages as a result of high risk private placements and account churning.

Lopinto entered the securities industry in 2002. From January 2007 until January 2009, Lopinto was associated with Pointe Capital, Inc. From January 2009 until February 2010, Lopinto was associated with National Securities Corporation. Thereafter, from February 2010, until August 2011, Lopinto was associated with J.P. Turner & Company, L.L.C. Finally, since August 2011 onward Lopinto has been associated with Legend Securities, Inc. out of the firm’s New York, New York office location.

Churning is investment trading activity in the client’s account that serves no reasonable purpose for the investor and is transacted solely to profit the broker. The elements to establish a churning claim, which is considered a species of securities fraud, 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.

Regulators Sanction Broker Edward Segur Over False Statements

October 30, 2015 | by Staff Attorney

According to the BrokerCheck records kept by Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) broker Edward Segur (Segur) has been the subject of at least 2 customer complaints, 3 judgements or liens, 1 criminal matter, and 2 regulatory actions. Customers have filed complaints against Segur alleging securities law violations including excessive commissions and unauthorized trades among other claims. In addition, Segur has had difficulty managing his own finances and had a tax lien of $125,687 imposed in February 2015. Tax liens and judgements are often a sign that the broker cannot manage their own personal finances and may be tempted to recommend high commission products or strategies to clients in order to satisfy debts.

Finally, two state regulators have brought actions against Segur. The state of Arkansas alleged that in January 2013, Segur cold called a resident of the state to recommend the purchase of Sandridge Energy, Inc. (Sandridge). At that time Sandridge was trading at about $7 per share and that Segur stated that he had information that the stock would rise to $12 in less than three months because a new chief executive officer would take over Sandridge causing the stock price to increase. The state of Arkansas found that such statements were unjustified and violated the state’s securities laws. In addition, the state of New Hampshire alleged that Segur cold called one of its residents even though the resident was on the state’s do not call list.

Segur entered the securities industry in 1998. An examination of Segur’s employment history reveals that Segur 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 Segur’s 16 year career he has switched firms 22 times even returning to several firms on different occasions. Many of the firms have been expelled by FINRA including John Thomas Financial which was run by Anastasios “Tommy” Belesis who recently agreed to be banned from the securities industry when the SEC accused him of defrauding investors in two hedge funds. In addition, John Thomas faced allegations of penny-stock fraud by FINRA after the firm reaped more than $100 million in commissions over its six-year history before it closed in July. According to new sources trainees at the firm earned as little as $300 a week to pitch stocks with memorized scripts.

Gana LLP Investigates Investor Losses in Patriot Coal Corp (PCX)

July 2, 2015 | by Staff Attorney

The law offices of Gana Weinstein LLP are currently investigating investors who have suffered losses in in now bankrupt coal company, Patriot Coal Corp (Stock Symbols: PCX) (Patriot Coal). Patriot Coal is the third largest coal producer in the eastern US. Patriot Coal has operations in the eastern US in Central Appalachia, Northern Appalachia, and the Illinois Basin.

According to Reuters, Patriot Coal filed for bankruptcy protection on in May 2015, just 18 months after emerging from its previous Chapter 11. The bankruptcy filing has been prompted by low energy prices. In order to support its mining and marketing operations during bankruptcy, the company has secured up to $100 million in financing. Patriot Coal has listed assets and liabilities of more than $1 billion in its bankruptcy petition. Patriot Coal also has 1.4 billion tons of proven and probable coal reserves. In the prior bankruptcy, Patriot received an agreement with its former parent Peabody Energy to provide $400 million to cover health care benefits for retired mine workers.

Patriot Coal is only one of several energy related companies our firm has been tracking through bankruptcy including Xinergy Ltd, Dune Energy Inc, BPZ Energy Inc, RAAM Global, Sabine Oil & Gas Corp., and Quicksilver Resources Inc. In addition, Walter Energy Inc, another coal produce, has skipped an April interest payment on its debt

The Worst Performing Funds of Q1 2015

June 10, 2015 | by Staff Attorney

Gana Weinstein LLP has recently reviewed the worst performing Mutual Funds of 2014. The question is whether these funds will continue to perform badly and if there are systemic issues with these funds or whether the performance is merely an aberration.

Regularly the best way to achieve great returns is not by picking the best securities but by avoiding the bad securities.

Warren Buffet once said: “Rule No. 1: Never lose money. Rule No. 2: Never forget rule No. 1.

Gana LLP Investigation Spotlight: Source Capital Group and Donald Saccomano

February 10, 2015 | by Staff Attorney

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) recently brought a complaint against Source Capital Group, Inc. (Source Capital) broker Donald Saccomano (Saccomano) alleging misconduct in connection with suitability, false representation, and failure to supervise claims relating to Direct Participation Products, limited partnerships, and municipal debt securities. FINRA has not released detailed information concerning the pending complaint but this is only one of several recent actions FINRA has taken against Source Capital and its financial advisors in recent years.

As we recently reported, FINRA filed a complaint against former Source Capital broker Joseph Hooper (Hooper) alleging that Hooper was working for a company called the iPractice Group, Inc. (iPractice) in a capacity that included solicited and participating in the sale of iPractice stock to customers. In that complaint FINRA alleged that Hooper was compensated for his activities. FINRA alleged that Hooper participated in 53 private securities transactions involving 41 investors or investor groups and a total of $3,400,648 worth of iPractice stock. In return, FINRA alleged that Hooper received $425,081 and more than 21,000 shares of iPractice stock as compensation for his activities.

Previously, our firm wrote about supervisory and disclosure issues at Source Capital, including FINRA’s action against Source Capital and certain principals concerning the failure of the firm’s brokers to adequately disclose material facts and the transaction of sales through misstatements. The allegations in FINRA’s action concerned certain oil and gas partnership interests in Blue Ridge Securities (Blue Ridge) and Argyle Securities. (Argyle) offered by Source Capital.

FINRA Sanctions WFG Investments $700,000 for Supervisory Failures Part I

February 6, 2015 | by Staff Attorney

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) recently sanctioned brokerage firm WFG Investments, Inc. (WFG) alleging a host of supervisory failures from March 2007, through January 2014. FINRA alleged that WFG failed to commit the necessary time, attention, and resources to critical regulatory obligations in supervising registered representatives including: (1) failure to conduct appropriate due diligence on a private placement offering that was sold by a broker away from the firm; (2) failure to supervise the private securities transactions of one of its brokers that were executed through the representative’s investment advisory firm; (3) failure to maintain a supervisory system to ensure customer transactions were suitable; (4) failure to enforce its written supervisory procedures regarding the sale of alternative investments; (5) failure to supervise statements made by one broker on his weekly radio broadcast; and (6) failure to timely report customer complaints and update the Forms U4 and U5 of its brokers.

WFG has been a FINRA member since 1988, conducts a general securities business, and is headquartered in Dallas, Texas. WFG currently has about 280 brokers operating out of 102 branch offices.

FINRA alleged that in 2007, a WFG broker by the initials “SGD” provided notice to the firm that he intended to sell a private placement offering FINRA called “ATMA” to his customers. ATMA was designed to offer an income stream to investors based revenues form automated teller machines (ATMs). In evaluating a selling agreement with SGD, FINRA alleged that WFG assigned its compliance officer known by the initials “TS” to conduct due diligence on ATMA. TS owned a 5% interest in ATMA and SGD was the 90% owner and the operator of ATMA, had no prior experience in structuring and offering private placement investments. FINRA found that the entity that was to provide the ATM machines to ATMA was engaged in fraudulent business practices and most of the ATMs were fictional. FINRA found that WFG declined to enter into a selling agreement with SGD, but permitted him SGD to sell interests in ATMA as private securities transactions.

An Examination of LPL Financial’s Recent Regulatory Woes

October 7, 2014 | by Staff Attorney

LPL Financial, LLC (LPL) is one of the largest independent brokerage firms in the United States employing approximately 13,840 registered reps and advisers. However, the firm’s growth has come with a host of regulatory actions focusing on the firm’s alleged supervisory failures.

Recently, InvestmentNews reported that the firm was hit with a $2 million fine, and ordered to pay $820,000 in restitution, for failing to maintain adequate books and records documenting variable annuity exchanges. The mounting firm fines have led to flat second quarter earnings at LPL. The firm has stated that the company is instituting enhanced procedures with a view to ensuring that surrender charges incurred in connection with variable annuity exchange transactions are accurately reflected in the firm’s books and records as well as in any disclosures given to clients. The firm is also purportedly taking steps to make sure that its advisers are adequately documenting the basis for their variable annuity recommendations.

LPL has been on the radar of FINRA and several state regulators that have focused on the firm’s supervisory and other record systems as well as examining sales of investment products, including non-traded real estate investment trusts (REITs). In February 2013, LPL settled with the Commonwealth of Massachusetts to pay at least $2 million in restitution and $500,000 in fines concerning the firm’s non-traded REIT practices. In addition, in the last year, FINRA has fined LPL Financial $7.5 million for significant e-mail system failures. Moreover, we have reported on numerous LPL registered representatives who have been fined over the past year for a variety of misconduct ranging from misappropriation of funds, sales of alternative investments, selling away activities, and private placements.

Gana LLP is Investigating LPL Financial broker, Kenneth W. Schulz for Improper Conduct

September 30, 2014 | by Staff Attorney

On September 11, 2014, FINRA, permanently barred Kenneth W. Schulz, a former broker of LPL Financial from associating with any FINRA member. According to the Letter of Acceptance, Waiver and Consent, in June 2013, Kenneth W. Schulz directed a registered assistant to impersonate six of Schulz’s former customers in phone calls to his prior firm requesting that the customers’ accounts be liquidated so that they could invest through Schulz at his new firm Commonwealth Financial network.

Schulz informed each of his customers that their securities holdings could be transferred “in kind” to accounts with Commonwealth. The customers agreed to transfer their securities to Commonwealth and authorized Schulz to initiate the transfers.

After the customers agreed to transfer the securities, Schulz learned that the customers’ securities could not be transferred in kind because the managed funds were proprietary to LPL Financial. Rather than inform his customers that the securities had to be liquidated before their funds could be transferred, Schulz had his assistant pretend to be the customers and had the accounts liquidated without customer consent.

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).

Oak Ridge Financial Services Sanctioned Over Non-Traditional ETF Sales Practices

September 15, 2014 | by Staff Attorney

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) sanctioned brokerage firm The Oak Ridge Financial Services Group, lnc. (Oak Ridge) in connection with allegations that Oak Ridge failed to establish and maintain a supervisory system regarding the sale of leveraged, inverse and inverse leveraged exchange-traded funds (Non-Traditional ETFs) that were reasonably designed to achieve compliance with the securities laws.

Oak Ridge became a FINRA member in 1997 and is headquartered in Golden Valley, Minnesota. Oak Ridge engages in a general securities business, employs 57 registered representatives, and operates out of a single office.

Non-Traditional ETFs contain drastically different characteristics, including risks, from traditional ETFs that simply seek to mirror an index or benchmark. Non-Traditional ETFs use a combination of derivatives instruments and debt to multiply returns on underlining assets. The leverage employed by Non-Traditional ETFs is designed not simply to mirror the index but to generate 2 to 3 times the return of the underlining asset class. Non-Traditional ETFs can also be used to return the inverse or the opposite result of the return of the benchmark.