Securities Attorney

Broker Parks Heard Brown Jr. recipient of multiple customer complaints

April 24, 2017 | by Staff Attorney

The investment attorneys of Gana Weinstein LLP are interested in speaking with clients of broker Parks Heard Brown Jr. (Brown). According to his BrokerCheck records kept by Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA), Brown has been the subject of at least four customer complaints. The customer complaints against Brown allege securities law violations that claim unsuitable investments, churning, unauthorized trading, breach of fiduciary duty, and negligence among other claims.

The most recent complaint was filed in October 2016, alleging that the broker while employed at VSR Financial Services Inc. made unsuitable investments based on the client’s liquidity needs. In March 2014, FINRA found that Brown violated FINRA rules 2090 and 2111 that require the use of reasonable diligence when recommending investment strategies. In addition, a customer alleged an unsuitable series of investments made in account between June 2012 and January 2014 resulting in damages of $245,750.00. The case settled for $71,500.00.

In another case filed in March 2004 a customer alleged that in June 2003 Brown misrepresented and failed to inform the account activity that caused $7,000.00

FINRA Bars Broker Dominic DeBruin Over Private Securities Activity

February 6, 2017 | by Staff Attorney

Our firm is investigating claims made by The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) against broker Dominic DeBruin (DeBruin), formerly associated with LPL Financial, LLC (LPL Financial). According to brokercheck, FINRA found that DeBruin refused to provide information and documents and to appear for on-the-record testimony as requested by FINRA concerning a member firm’s Form U5 reporting that he was under internal review for depositing client’s funds related to potential private securities transactions undisclosed to the firm into a bank account DeBruin controlled.

At this time it is unclear the total scope and extent of these outside business activities and private transactions. However, according to DeBruin’s disclosures he is affiliated with the following entities: 1) Capricorn Partners, LLC – DeBruin’s securities d/b/a; 2) Out of Order LLC – an entertainment boking agency; 3) Goodlife Financial Group – an investment d/b/a; 4) Top 5 Entertainment. The providing of loans or selling of notes and other investments outside of a brokerage firm constitutes impermissible private securities transactions – a practice known in the industry as “selling away”. Often times brokers who engage in this practice use outside businesses in order to market their securities.

DeBruin entered the securities industry in 1996. From October 2005 until October 2012 DeBruin was associated with Waddell & Reed, Inc. Finally, from October 2012 until October 2016 DeBruin was associated with LPL Financial out of the firm’s Mesa, Arizona office location.

Broker Barry Rumpel Terminated By Woodbury Financial Over Private Transaction

January 31, 2017 | by Staff Attorney

Our securities fraud attorneys are investigating customer complaints filed with The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) against Barry Rumpel (Rumpel) currently associated with IFS Securities alleging unsuitable investments among other claims. The majority of the complaints involve variable universal life insurance policies (VULs). According to brokercheck records Rumpel has been subject to four customer complaints, one employment separation for cause, and one criminal matter.

In May 2016 Woodbury Financial Services, Inc. (Woodbury Financial) alleged that Rumpel engaged in a personal financial transaction with a client and terminated Rumpel. The most recent customer complaint was filed in October 2016 and alleged that a VUL sold to the customer and his wife were not suitable and that wrong net worth was entered in application in 2011 and 2012. The claim was dismissed.

VULs are often unsuitable life insurance products for many investors due to their high costs compared to traditional life insurance policies. VULs can also lapse if policy premiums are not paid resulting in a complete loss of the investors capital without any life insurance benefit.

Broker Bryon Glime Barred From Financial Industry

January 29, 2017 | by Staff Attorney

Our securities fraud attorneys are investigating customer complaints filed with The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) against Bryon Glime (Glime) formerly associated with Capital Investment Group, Inc. (Capital Investment) alleging unsuitable investments and unauthorized trading among other claims. According to brokercheck records Glime has been subject to three customer complaints, one criminal matter, three judgments or liens, one employment termination for cause, and one regulator action.

In September 2015 Glime was terminated by Capital Investment after the firm alleged that Glime failed to timely report a criminal disclosure to the firm. The criminal disclosure disclosed includes allegations of theft, embezzlement, and misappropriation.

Brokers in the financial industry have the fundamental responsibility to treat investors fairly. This obligation includes making only suitable investments for their client. The suitable analysis has certain requirements that must be met before the recommendation is made. First, there must be reasonable basis for the recommendation for the investment based upon the broker’s and the firm’s investigation and due diligence. Common due diligence looks into the investment’s properties including its benefits, risks, tax consequences, the issuer, the likelihood of success or failure of the investment, and other relevant factors. Second, if there is a reasonable basis to recommend the product to investors the broker then must match the investment as being appropriate for the customer’s specific investment needs and objectives. These factors include the client’s age, investment experience, retirement status, long or short term goals, tax status, or any other relevant factor.

Broker Charles Sorensen Receives Customer Complaints Over Unsuitable Trades

January 27, 2017 | by Staff Attorney

Our securities fraud attorneys are investigating customer complaints filed with The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) against Charles Sorensen (Sorensen) currently associated with Allegis Investment Services, LLC (Allegis Investment), d/b/a Soresnsen Financial, Inc., alleging unsuitable investments, unauthorized trading, and misrepresentations among other claims. Some of the complaints involve securities including mutual funds and options. According to brokercheck records Sorensen has been subject to four customer complaints.

In August 2016 a customer brought a complaint against Sorensen alleging that Sorensen made transactions without authorization in or around August 2015. The complaint alleges $100,000 in damages. The complaint is currently pending.

In June 2016 another customer filed a complaint alleging that the options strategy in which the account was invested in August of 2015 was not suitable causing $94,133.36 in damages. The complaint is currently pending.

Centaurus Broker Donnie Ingram Has Complaints Over REIT and Alternative Investments

January 20, 2017 | by Staff Attorney

Our investment attorneys are investigating customer complaints filed with The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) against Donnie Ingram (Ingram) currently associated with Centaurus Financial, Inc. (Centaurus) alleging unsuitable investments among other claims. According to brokercheck records Ingram has been subject to eight customer complaints. Many of the complaints involve direct participation products (DPPs) such as non-traded real estate investment trusts (REITs) and other alternative investments.

Our firm has experience representing investment fraud victims with these investments against Centaurus as well as other brokerage firms. See Gana Weinstein LLP Wins Arbitration Award On Behalf of Client Against Centaurus Financial. In that case, the Claimant alleged that the broker involved invested over $2,000,000 in exclusively high cost products and 50% of those investments were in alternative investments such as private placements, oil and gas partnerships, and REITs. The other 50% was invested in variable and equity-indexed annuities. Award Can Be Found Here.

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 Complain About Broker Joseph Zastrow’s Annuity Practices

November 30, 2016 | by Staff Attorney

Our firm’s investment attorneys are investigating customer complaints filed with The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) against Joseph Zastrow (Zastrow) currently associated with Thrivent Investment Management Inc. (Thrivent) alleging unsuitable recommendations to invest in variable products such as variable annuities, equity indexed annuities, and variable life insurance. According to brokercheck records Zastrow has been subject to six customer complaints and one criminal matter.

In August 2016 a customer alleged that Zastrow failed to provide the customer with disclosures about the variable annuity contract or provide suitability information in July 2015. The customer also alleged that his signature was forged on documents dated May 2015. The customer claimed $2,956.67 in damages and was granted $2,861.98.

Variable annuities and equity indexed annuities are complex financial and insurance products. In fact, recently the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) released a publication entitled: Variable Annuities: What You Should Know encouraging investors to ask questions about the variable annuity before investing. Essentially, a variable annuity is a contract with an insurance company under which the insurer agrees to make periodic payments to you. The investor chooses the investments made in the annuity and value of your variable annuity will vary depending on the performance of the investment options chosen. The primary benefits of variable annuities are the death benefit and tax deferment of investment gains.

Customers File Complaints Against William Byrd Over Unsuitable Investments

October 21, 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 William Byrd (Byrd) alleging unsuitable investments, negligence, and breach of fiduciary duty among other claims. According to brokercheck records Byrd has been subject to three customer complaints.

A customer complaint filed in June 2016 alleging that the broker made unsuitable recommendations, misrepresented investments and breached his fiduciary duty causing damages in the amount of $65,000. The claim is currently pending.

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.

Investor Recovery Options for Merrill Lynch Strategic Return Notes

July 24, 2016 | by Staff Attorney

According to the Wall Street Journal, The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) is preparing an enforcement action against brokerage firm Merrill Lynch over an investment that collapsed losing investors as much as 95% of their initial investment. According to the financial advisors at the firm, the advertising and marketing for the product was called “borderline crooked.”

The SEC action involves a product called Strategic Return Notes that Merrill began selling in 2010 and raised about $150 million for. Market-Linked Notes to generate are structured product investments that create returns through the use of embedded derivatives designed to track the performance of a security, index, commodity or currency. Brokerage firms like Merrill Lynch have perverse incentives to market these proprietary products over safer and cheaper alternative investments. Structured Products like Market-Linked Notes often have substantial fees and/or commissions paid to affiliated companies for banking, underwriting, asset management, and ultimately broker commission.

The Strategic Return Notes in question are linked to a Merrill Lynch index tracking the volatility of the S&P 500 stock index. According to the Wall Street Journal, the five-year notes lost value rapidly as market volatility fell and the cost of buying the options that allow the note to track the index rose sharply. Because of the substantial costs of the options, volatility based investments tend to lose money over the long term no matter what the performance of the underlining index is. According to the article, roll costs for the options averaged an astounding 12% of the principal per quarter in the first half of 2011, before falling to less than 4% per quarter in the second half of the year. However, clients and brokers alike claim they were never told the costs could grow so large.

Customers Files Churning Complaints Against Broker John Prinzivalli

April 12, 2016 | by Staff Attorney

The securities fraud lawyers of Gana Weinstein LLP are investigating customer complaints filed with The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority’s (FINRA) against broker John Prinzivalli (Prinzivalli). According to BrokerCheck records Prinzivalli has been the subject of at least two customer complaints, three financial disclosures, and one judgement or lien. The customer complaints against Prinzivalli allege a number of securities law violations including that the broker made unsuitable investments, breach of fiduciary duty, and churning (excessive trading) among other claims.

One complaint filed in October 2014 alleged $130,000 in damages due to unsuitable recommendations, high pressure sales tactics, and churning. The complaint is currently pending. Another complaint was filed in November 2010 alleging churning and unsuitable investments claiming $250,000 in damages. The complaint was settled.

When brokers engage in excessive trading, sometimes referred to as churning, the broker will typical trade in and out of securities, sometimes even the same stock, many times over a short period of time. Often times the account will completely “turnover” every month with different securities. This type of investment trading activity in the client’s account serves no reasonable purpose for the investor and is engaged in only to profit the broker through the generation of commissions created by the trades. Churning is considered a species of securities fraud. The elements of the claim 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.