Securities Attorney

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.

optionsXpress, Inc. Sanctioned Over Allegations of Unlicensed Securities Sales

September 5, 2014 | by Staff Attorney

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) sanctioned brokerage firm optionsXpress, Inc. (optionsXpress) concerning allegations that: 1) between March 2007, and March 2012, optionsXpress contracted with a third party service provider referred to as (GBT) to provide options trading coaching services to the firm’s options customers; 2) the firm approved marketing scripts that were used by GBT to sell the coaching program to optionsXpress customers that failed to present a fair and balanced description of the risks and potential benefits of the coaching program; and 3) between April 2011, and July 2011, the firm operated a retail forex business without having first received approval from FINRA to do so.

optionsXpress has been a FINRA firm since August 2000. The firm is primarily an online broker-dealer that specializes in providing customers an online platform to trade options.

FINRA found that under the terms of the firm’s Agreement with GBT coaches were prohibited from advising clients in live trading situations. The agreement provided that GBT coaches are vigorously trained on the absolute prohibition of making buy/sell recommendations to students. However, FINRA found that in implementing the coaching program, GBT’s coaches did not uniformly adhere to this prohibition and in certain instances coaches discussed live trades, specific transactions, or strategies that the customer was considering executing. Even though coaching sessions were prefaced with the disclaimer that coaches were not permitted to make buy, sell, or hold recommendations, FINRA determined that in certain sessions, the “coaching” surpassed mere discussions of specific securities transactions, and rose to the level of buy, sell, or hold recommendations.

James Bracey Barred Over Allegations of Taking Loans from Customers

July 29, 2014 | by Staff Attorney

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) barred from the financial industry broker James Bracey (Bracey) concerning allegations that in or about February 2008, Bracey, received a $175,000 loan from a customer without notifying Multi-Financial, now known as Cetera Advisor Network LLC. FINRA alleged that on multiple occasions between 2009 and 2011, Bracey renegotiated the interest payments on the customer’s loan. FINRA also found that in December 2009, while associated with Multi-Financial, Bracey falsified a customer’s written wire transfer instructions in order to execute an unauthorized fund transfer from a customer’s brokerage account to that customer’s personal bank account outside of Multi-Financial. FINRA determined that Bracey caused the creation and maintenance of inaccurate books and records through the falsifying the customer’s wire transfer.

FINRA also alleged that between October 31, 2001 and April 30, 2012, Bracey failed to timely notify Multi-Financial, and later LPL Financial LLC, of two separate outside business activities. FINRA also found that in October 2004, after soliciting 17 investors to purchase securities away from Multi-Financial, Bracey failed to provide written notice to or firm approval to engage in private securities transactions in violation of NASD Rules 3040 and 2110. FINRA’s allegations are consistent with a “selling away” violation in which a broker solicits investors to invest in unapproved investments. Finally, FINRA found that between 2004 and 2012, Bracey willfully failed to timely disclose material information to Multi-Financial and LPL Financial in order to update his Form U4 concerning two liens and two creditor compromises.

In addition to the slew of violations alleged by FINRA, Bracey has been the subject of at least three customer complaints and terminated by three brokerage firms. The customer complaints against Bracey concern private placements (direct participation programs), equipment leasing investments, unsuitable investments, non-traded real estate investment trusts (REITs), and misrepresentations in the sale of securities.

Unsuitable Variable Annuity Sales A Continuing Concern for Regulators

July 18, 2014 | by Staff Attorney

As reported by InvestmentNews, A Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) official recently expressed concern over the sale of variable annuities as the products continue to evolve and become more complex. Carlo di Florio, chief risk officer and head of strategy at FINRA was quoted as stating that variable annuities are now taking on features that resemble complex structured products. Structured products typically have features such as caps that limit returns during market rallies and floors that limit losses during market slumps. Now these features are appearing in variable annuity products. Variable annuities are already extremely complex products that are not suitable for all investors. Adding yet an additional level of complexity only heightens concerns that investors must understand what they are buying when they are recommended these vehicles.

As a background variable annuities are complex financial and insurance products. Recently the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) released a publication entitled: Variable Annuities: What You Should Know. The SEC encouraged investors considering a purchase of a variable annuity to “ask your insurance agent, broker, financial planner, or other financial professional lots of questions about whether a variable annuity is right for you.”

A variable annuity is a contract an investor makes with an insurance company where the insurer agrees to make periodic payments to you. A variable annuity may be purchased either in a single payment or a series of payments over time. In the annuity account the investor chooses investments and the value of the annuity “varies” over time depending on the performance of the investments chosen. The investment options for variable annuities are generally mutual funds.

Broker Douglas Cmelik Sanctioned by FINRA Over Soliciting Penny Stock Purchases

July 10, 2014 | by Staff Attorney

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) has sanctioned broker Douglas Cmelik(Cmelik) concerning allegations that Cmelik improperly marked order tickets for penny stock purchases as “unsolicited” when the purchases were solicited. Cmelik’s conduct allegedly violated NASD Conduct Rule 3110 and FINRA Rule 2010.

Penny stocks are securities that carry significant investment risks. A “penny stock” is defined by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) as a security issued by a company with less than $100 million in market capitalization. Penny stocks are also often called “low-priced securities” because they typically trade at less than $5 per share. Many penny stocks are very thinly traded and consequently liquidity for the stock can vary day-to-day.

Penny stocks are typically not suitable for many retail investors and consequently many firms prohibit their advisors from soliciting investments in these issuers. First, penny stocks may trade infrequently or very thinly making it difficult to liquidate a penny stock holding. Consequently, penny stocks often fluctuate wildly day-to-day. Penny stocks are often the target of unscrupulous individuals for fraudulent purposes. One scheme employed is the “pump and dump” scheme. In a pump and dump scheme, an unfounded hype for a penny stock the pumper already owns is created to boost the stock price temporarily. The penny stock pumper then sells their shares for a profit causing intense downward pressure on the penny stock and the security quickly loses value. The defrauded investors suffer huge losses as a result of the scheme.

FINRA Sanctions Polar Investment Over Penny Stock Transactions

July 4, 2014 | by Staff Attorney

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) has sanctioned Polar Investment Counsel, Inc. (Polar Investment) concerning allegations from 2011 and 2012, a firm advisor of Polar recommended various low-priced securities (penny stocks) received a total of 14 purchase orders for those securities. FINRA alleged that the representative marked eight of the orders as “unsolicited,” meaning that the customer instructed the advisor to purchase the security without any prompting from the advisor. FINRA found that the unsolicited marking was incorrect given that the advisor had brought the securities to the customers’ attention. FINRA found that the mismarked orders caused the firm’s books and records to be inaccurate. In addition, FINRA determined that Polar Investments did not permit brokers to recommend penny stock transactions and mistakenly assumed that all 14 transactions were unsolicited and did not conduct a sufficient supervisory review of those transactions.

Polar Investment has been registered with FINRA since 1997, its main office is in Thief River Falls, Minnesota, and is also registered as an investment advisor with the SEC. Polar Investment has 18 registered representatives operating out of 12 branch locations.

FINRA alleged that throughout 2011 and 2012, Polar Investment’s written supervisory procedures prohibited representatives from recommending penny stocks to the firm’s customers. As a consequence, Polar Investments presumed that all penny stock transactions were unsolicited and the firm did not subject advisors to adequate supervisory review. Instead, FINRA found that the firm had the customer sign a penny-stock disclosure form. FINRA found that between June 2011 and April 2012, a Polar Investment advisor by the initials “MV” brought various penny stocks to the attention of some of his customers. The advisor’s actions, according to FINRA, resulted in at least 14 orders to buy those securities.