Suitability

Gana LLP Brings Claim on Behalf of its Client Against Fidelity Brokerage Services

February 2, 2015 | by Staff Attorney

Recently, the law office of Gana Weinstein LLP filed a claim (Complaint) on behalf of its client against Fidelity Brokerage Services (Fidelity) alleging that Fidelity was negligent when one of its registered representatives made an unsuitable recommendation to the client. The client purchased a stock in the company Lakeland Industries (Ticker Symbol: LAKE) believing that the stock was overvalued and initiated a short position to attempt to profit from the stock’s decline.

A short position allows an investor to sell an investment that the investor does not actually possess. Instead, the investor receives the cash proceeds from the sale and then is obligated, at a future date, to buy back the shares borrowed. If the value of the stock declines over time then the investor can buy back the stock at a cheaper price than what the investor sold the stock for, making a profit on the difference. Conversely, if the stock’s value increases the investor will have to buy back the stock at a higher value and would lose money.

From October 1, 2014, through October 10, 2014, the client sold short 10,100 shares of LAKE in his Fidelity account. Over the next few days the shares of LAKE increased causing margin calls in the client’s account. The client alleged that he had already added funds to his account to cover previous margin calls. The client wanted to hold the LAKE position and made it clear to Fidelity that he would continue to add funds to cover any margin calls to avoid having his LAKE position liquidated by Fidelity.

Overconcentrated in Oil and Gas Investments?

January 22, 2015 | by Staff Attorney

A strengthening dollar and increased global supply of oil has sent crude oil prices tumbling in the second half of 2014. Recently, crude futures for delivery in February 2015 fell to $52.69 a barrel, the lowest finish since April 2009. Some experts are saying that if production volume continues to be as high as it currently is and demand growth weak that the return to $100 a barrel is years away.

As a result, in recent months investors have contacted our firm about being concentrated in various oil and gas exposed investments including private placements, stocks, and ETFs. On the private placement side alone the Securities Exchange Commission (SEC), has stated that since 2008, approximately 4,000 oil and gas private placements have sought to raise nearly $122 billion in investor capital. However, these oil and gas private placements suffer from enormous risks that often outweigh any potential benefits including securities fraud, conflicts of interests, high transaction / sales costs, and investment risk.

In addition, investor accounts may be overconcentrated in oil and gas stocks or ETFs. Some of these ETFs may be leveraged or non-traditional ETFs. These leveraged ETFs seek to increase the return on the oil and gas index by using leverage to amplify returns exposing the investor to greater volatility during an already volatile period in the oil market. Below are some of oil and gas related ETFs.

FINRA Fines Popular Securities Over Concentrated Customer Accounts in Puerto Rico Municipal Bonds and Bond Funds

January 15, 2015 | by Staff Attorney

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) recently sanctioned Popular Securities, Inc. (Popular Securities) alleging between July 1, 2011, and June 30, 2013, Popular failed to establish and enforce a supervisory system and procedures designed to identify and review concentrated securities purchases in Puerto Rico municipal bonds and Puerto Rico closed-end funds.

Popular has been a FINRA member since 1980, is headquartered in San Juan, Puerto Rico and engages in a general securities business, including customer purchases and sales of Puerto Rico municipal securities and open and closed-end mutual funds. The Firm has approximately 120 registered representatives located in its 9 branch offices.

Puerto Rico Bond Funds were sold as providing Puerto Rico residents with various tax benefits including exemption from US. estate and gift taxes. In addition, the Puerto Rico Bond Funds offered a triple tax benefit to investors. However, in December 2012, Puerto Rico general obligation and related bonds ratings were downgraded. Then, six months later in June 2013, the Puerto Rico Power Authority (PREPA) revenue bonds ratings were also downgraded.

Broker Spotlight: Calton & Associates Broker Kenneth Popek

January 11, 2015 | by Staff Attorney

Broker Kenneth Popek (Popek) has had four customer complaints filed against him over his career as a financial advisor. That many claims are rare. According to InvestmentNews, only about 12% of financial advisors have any type of disclosure event on their records. These disclosures do not necessarily have to include customer complaints but can include IRS tax liens, judgments, and even criminal matters. In Popek’s case the broker has four customer complaints and one bankruptcy.

Popek was registered with Ameriprise Financial Services, Inc. from December 2006 until May 2008. Thereafter, Popek was registered and still is registered with Calton & Associates, Inc.

One of Popek’s complaints went to hearing where a panel awarded the customers $342,956 concerning allegations of suitability, misrepresentations, churning, and breach of fiduciary duty. According to the award the causes of action involved, in part, investments in General Motors, Lehman Brothers, and Washington Mutual stocks that all went bust.

Former Cambridge Investment Broker Steven Walstad Suspended Over Unsuitable Investment Sales

January 9, 2015 | by Staff Attorney

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) recently suspended former Cambridge Investment Research, Inc. (Cambridge) broker Steven Walstad (Walstad) alleging that Walstad recommended and effected numerous unsuitable Class A share mutual fund purchases and sales involving six customer accounts. In addition, FINRA alleged that Walstad exercised discretion in one customer’s account without the customer’s prior written authorization.

Walstad first became registered with a FINRA firm in 1996 and was associated with Cambridge from April 18, 2008, through November 30, 2012. FINRA alleged that Walstad recommended and executed 78 purchases of Class A share mutual funds in six customer accounts without a reasonable basis to believe were suitable for the customers. All financial advisors, as part of their suitability obligations, must have a reasonable basis for the investments that they recommend to customers. The reason that FINRA found that Walstad’s trades were without a reasonable basis is that the customers were charged front-end sales loads in connection with the Class A share purchases but Walstad mistakenly believed that these front-end sales loads had been waived.

Purchase of Class A shares, as opposed to purchasing Class B or C shares, is advantageous to the customers only if they held the mutual funds on a long-term basis. However, FINRA found that these customers held the Class A shares for less than thirteen months and therefore Walstad lacked a reasonable basis to believe that his recommendations to purchase Class A shares were suitable for these six customers.

Gana LLP Brings Claim on Behalf of Client Against Rockwell Global Capital

January 8, 2015 | by Staff Attorney

The law offices of Gana Weinstein LLP recently filed a complaint on behalf of an investor against Rockwell Global Capital, LLC (Rockwell), accusing the firm of making unsuitable recommendations and failing to properly supervise one of its financial advisers. In or around July 2013, the client alleged that he received a cold call from Rockwell financial adviser, Patrick Lofaro. A cold call is when someone solicits and individual who was not anticipating such an interaction. Cold calling is a technique used by a salesperson to contact individuals who have not previously expressed an interest in the products or services that are being offered.

It was alleged that Mr. Lofaro aggressively pursued the client’s investment related business and that Mr. Lofaro convinced him that he could build a diversified portfolio with minimal risk to the client. In reliance upon Mr. Lofaro’s assurances, the Claimant alleged that he opened an account with Rockwell in or around August 2013. Over a seven-month period, the Claimant invested a substantial sum with Rockwell which represented close to 50% of his liquid net worth. The complaint alleges that Mr. Lofaro, rather than create a suitable portfolio, implemented a high-leverage, excessive trading strategy that generated a high amount of commissions without providing any material benefit to the Claimant.

According to the complaint, over the course of just over a year, Mr. Lofaro executed nearly one-hundred-forty (140) trades into and out of thirty-five (35) different stocks, including seventeen (17) small caps, two (2) initial public offerings (IPO’s), eight (8) penny stocks, and fifteen (15) different stocks that were more than twice as volatile as the S&P 500. The complaint alleges that Mr. Lofaro created a portfolio laden with risk while providing no material benefit to the Claimant. Mr. Lofaro’s investment strategy ultimately cost the Claimant an estimated $837,131, while Mr. Lofaro received over $261,080 in commissions.

Broker Spotlight: John J. Quintero Subject to Several Customer Complaints

January 2, 2015 | by Staff Attorney

The attorneys of the law offices of Gana Weinstein LLP are investigating a series of recently filed complaints against broker John Quintero (Quintero) who is currently a registered representative with Transamerica Financial Advisors. In January 2014, an investor filed a complaint alleging that Quintero misrepresented the premiums paid on a variable universal life insurance policy (VUL). Specifically, the customer claimed that Quintero stated that the premiums paid would be a tax differed investments and that further the sub-account investments were unsuitable.

VULs are complex insurance and investment products that investors must fully understand prior to investing. One feature of a VUL policy is that the investor can allocate a portion of his premium payments to a separate sub-account to invest and grow through mostly mutual fund investments. Monthly charges are assessed for the life insurance policy including a cost of insurance charge and administrative fees all of which are deducted from the policy’s cash value. The investor can suffer losses are receive gains based upon the performance of the sub-account investments. However, the VUL policy can terminate or lapses if at any time the net cash surrender value is insufficient to pay the monthly cost deductions. Upon termination of the policy, the remaining cash value becomes worthless.

Given the costs and premiums involved in purchasing VULs, brokers must be careful to ensure that the recommendation to invest in VULs is suitable for the client. In some cases, investors do not realize the huge expense of these policies and have no way to continue to cover the premiums. When this happens the policy could lapse over time.

Center Street Securities Broker Jason Lamb Sanctioned Over GWG Renewable Secured Debentures

December 30, 2014 | by Staff Attorney

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) in an acceptance, waiver, and consent action (AWC) and barring former Center Street Securities, Inc. (Center Street) broker Jason Lamb (Lamb) concerning allegations that between March 2012, to February 2013, Lamb was a registered principal and Chief Compliance Officer (CCO) at Center Street’s headquarters in Nashville, Tennessee. FINRA found that Lamb failed to adequately supervise certain sales of GWG Renewable Secured Debentures, an illiquid and high-risk alternative investment.

Center Street Securities is headquartered in Nashville, Tennessee, has been a FINRA member since 1991, has approximately 67 branch offices and approximately 84 registered representatives. This is not the first time that FINRA has brought regulatory action concerning the actions of Center Street representatives. See Center Street Securities Broker David Escarcega Investigated Over GWG Debenture Sales; FINRA Sanctions Michael Wurdinger and Anil Vazirani Over GWG Debenture Sales (FINRA sanctioned brokers associated with Center Street Securities, Inc.); FINRA Sanctions Center Street Securities Over Sales of GWG Renewable Secured Debentures Part I (Center Street fined by FINRA).

The notes at issue are part of offerings by GWG Holdings, Inc. (GWG) which purchases life insurance policies on the secondary market at a discount to their face value. GWG pays the policy premiums until the insured dies and GWG then collects the insurance benefit making a profit by collecting more on the payout at maturity than the payment of the premiums on the policy. The Debentures have varying maturity terms and interest rates ranging from six-month at an annual interest rate 4.75% to seven years at 9.50%. The prospectus for GWG stated that the investments were speculative and involve a high degree of risk, including the possibility of risk of loss of the entire investment. An investment in the GWG Debentures, as a private placement, is illiquid and investors will not have access to their principal prior to maturity.

FINRA Alleges SWS Financial Services Failed to Supervise Variable Annuity Transactions

December 19, 2014 | by Staff Attorney

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) filed a complaint against brokerage firm SWS Financial Services, Inc. (SWS Financial) over allegations that from September 2009, to May 2011, SWS Financial had inadequate supervisory systems procedures to supervise its variable annuity (VA) securities business. Specifically, FINRA alleged that SWS Financial: (1) failed to establish and maintain supervisory systems to supervise its VA securities business in violation of NASD and FINRA Rules; (2) failed to implement rules requiring a registered principal review and approval prior to transmission of a VA application to the issuing insurance company for processing and that a registered principal only approve VA transactions that he or she has determined that there is a reasonable basis to believe that the transaction is suitable for the customer; (3) failed to implement surveillance procedures to monitor a broker’s recommended exchanges of VAs to identify inappropriate exchanges; (4) failed to have policies and procedures to implement corrective measures to address inappropriate VA exchanges; and (5) failed to develop and document specific training policies or programs to ensure that principals supervisors who reviewed VA transactions had sufficient knowledge to monitor the transactions.

SWS Financial is a registered broker/dealer since 1986 and is headquartered in Dallas, Texas. The firm employs 313 registered personnel. From September 2009, to May 2011, SWS Financial derived the majority of its income from its business lines selling equities, mutual funds, variable life insurance or annuities, and municipal securities.

FINRA alleged that from September 2009, to May 2011, SWS Financial derived 16% to 20% of its total revenues from sales of VAs to customers. However, despite this fact, FINRA alleged that SWS Financial failed to establish and implement adequate supervisory systems for this aspect of its securities business. FINRA alleged that the firm’s brokers sold VAs both in branch offices where a registered branch manager was onsite as well as in offices where there was no onsite supervisor. FINRA alleged that the firms procedures required that VA transactions initiated by representatives in branch offices with a branch manager were reviewed and approved by the banch manager and then forwarded to SWS Financial’s home office for final review and approval employees at an affiliated insurance company, Southwest Insurance Agency (Insurance Agency).

Broker Spotlight – Mark Johanson’s Sale of Tenants-in-Common (TIC)

November 13, 2014 | by Staff Attorney

According to the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority’s BrokerCheck system, there have been four customer complaints filed against former Sigma Financial Corporation (Sigma) and current Charles Schwab broker, Mark Johanson (Johanson) stemming from unsuitable Tenants-in-Common (TIC) investments.

Sales of TICs exploded during the early 2000s from approximately $150 million in 2001 to approximately $2 billion by 2004. TICs are private placements that have no secondary trading market and are therefore illiquid investments. These products were promoted as appropriate section 1031 exchanges in which an investor obtains an undivided fractional interest in real property. In a typical TIC, the profits are generated mostly through the efforts of the sponsor and the management company that manages and leases the property. The sponsor typically structures the TIC investment with up-front fees and expenses charged to the TIC and negotiates the sale price and loan for the acquired property.

TIC investments entail significant risks. A TIC investor runs the risk of holding the property for a significant amount of time and that subsequent sales of the property may occur at a discount to the value of the real property interest. FINRA has also warned that the fees and expenses associated with TICs, including sponsor costs, can outweigh the any potential tax benefits associated with a Section 1031 Exchange. That is, the TIC product itself may be a defective product because its costs outweigh any potential investment value for a customer. FINRA also instructed members that they have an obligation to comply with all applicable conduct rules when selling TICs by ensuring that promotional materials used are fair, accurate, and balanced.