Securities Lawyers Blog

Hugoton Royalty Trust (HGT) Investor Loss Recovery

March 14, 2016 | by Staff Attorney

The investment attorneys with Gana Weinstein LLP are investigating and representing investors who were inappropriately recommended oil and gas and commodities related investments. Investors may have potential legal remedies due to unsuitable recommendations by their broker to invest in this speculative and volatile area. One royalty trust that has suffered substantial declines is Hugoton Royalty Trust (Stock Symbol: HGT). Over the past year the trust has suffered a 77% loss in value.

Hugoton Royalty Trust was created in 1998 when XTO Energy Inc. conveyed 80% net profits interests in gas-producing properties located in Kansas, Oklahoma and Wyoming to the trust. The trust was created to distribute monthly net profits related to the 80% net profits interests.

Oil and gas royalty trusts, like master limited partnerships (MLPs), invest in the energy and commodities sector. However, unlike MLPs, royalty trusts generate income from the actual production of natural resources such as coal, oil, and natural gas and therefore the cash flows from royalty trusts are subject to swings in commodity prices and production levels causing them to be very inconsistent. Royalty trusts have no physical operations, no management, and no employees. Instead, royalty trusts are merely financing vehicles run by banks that trade like stocks. Another company actually mine the resources and pay the royalties to the trust.

FINRA Investigates Broker Bahram Mirhashemi for Unauthorized Trades and Churning

March 14, 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 Bahram Mirhashemi (Mirhashemi). According to BrokerCheck records Mirhashemi has been the subject of at least five customer complaints, one regulatory action, one regulatory investigation, two employment separations, four judgments or tax liens, and one financial disclosure. The customer complaints against McMahon allege a number of securities law violations including that the broker made unsuitable investments, unauthorized trading, negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, and churning (excessive trading) among other claims.

In December 2015, FINRA initiated an investigation that looked into claims of unauthorized trades, unsuitable mutual fund switching, churning of customer accounts, fraud, misleading communications with customers, using unapproved methods of communications, filing false forms with FINRA concerning tax liens, and engaging in unapproved outside business activities. Shortly thereafter, Mirhashemi’s firm terminated him stating the FINRA investigation as the reason for the termination.

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.

Broker Investigation: Customer Complaints Against Michael McMahon

March 14, 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 Michael McMahon (McMahon). According to BrokerCheck records McMahon has been the subject of at least nine customer complaints since November 2007. The customer complaints against McMahon allege a number of securities law violations including that the broker made unsuitable investments, unauthorized trading, negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, and churning (excessive trading) among other claims.

The most recent customer complaint filed in July 2015 and alleged breach of fiduciary duty, negligence, and misrepresentations claiming $1 million in damages. The claim is still pending. Also in July 2015, another client filed a complaint alleging McMahon made unsuitable investments among other claims claiming $442,000 in damages. The dispute is currently pending. In a third complaint filed in June 2015, an investor claimed that McMahon engaged in excessive trading and made unauthorized trades among other claims resulting in over $250,000 in damages. The claim is still pending.

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.

Gana LLP Files Complaint on Behalf of Investor Alleging Breach of Fiduciary Duty in the Sale of MLPs Against Wells Fargo

March 13, 2016 | by Staff Attorney

The investment attorneys of Gana Weinstein LLP have brought a claim on behalf of an investor who suffered a loss of nearly all of their assets due to investments made by their Wells Fargo Advisors, LLC (Wells Fargo) advisor, Andrew Kevlahan (Kevlahan), almost exclusively in master limited partnerships (MLPs), Business Development Corporations (BDC), commodities linked investments, and other private equity high yield funds. The investor is 79 years old and retired with her husband.

The complaint alleges that on or about May 2011, the couple had become completely retired and had a securities backed loan with Wells Fargo secured by their investment account. The complaint alleged that due to these major lifestyle and financial circumstance changes, which were disclosed and known to Kevlahan, the couple’s investment objectives, income needs, and risk tolerance had changed requiring suitable investments that would diversify and protect the couple’s savings.

Instead, the complaint alleges that Kevlahan failed to properly advise the investor and breached his fiduciary duty to his client by continually increasing the concentration of the account in risky high yielding investments. By May 2011, the complaint alleges that concentration of high yield investments and MLPs grew to more than 50% of all of the investor’s assets. Despite the change in life circumstances, the complaint alleges that Kevlahan used his discretionary authority in order to continually increase the amount of risk in the account and by August 2014, the investor had a concentration of 62% of the couple’s assets in MLPs and 18% in other high yield investments – a total of 80% of the couple’s assets were exposed to extreme risk.

Broker Investigation: George Merhoff Unsuitable Oil and Gas Investments

March 13, 2016 | by Staff Attorney

The investment attorneys of Gana Weinstein LLP are investigating investor claims of unsuitable investments in oil and gas related products. Our firm is currently representing a number of investors who lost substantial savings due to poor advice to concentrate holdings in speculative commodities investments like master limited partnerships (MLPs). According to Brokercheck records, George Merhoff (Merhoff) with Cetera Advisors LLC (Cetera) has recently received at least one customer complaint alleging overconcentrated positions in oil and gas equities.

One of the most popular energy related investments that have become increasingly popular in the brokerage industry in recent years are MLPs. MLPs are publicly traded partnerships. About 86% of the total MLP securities market, a $490 billion sector, can be attributed to energy and natural resource companies. There are about 130 MLPs trading on major exchanges that focus on energy related industries and natural resources.

Wall Street loves MLPs because they provide high yields to investors and require companies to pay Wall Street in order to continue to grow. In 2013 banks earned fees of $890.3 million from MLP issuance. Bloomberg quoted an analyst stating that “MLPs are Wall Street’s dream,” because “[t]hey’re fee machines.” Naturally, in order to entice investors to continue to invest in MLPs Wall Street pumps up MLPs every chance they get. According to Bloomberg, in May 2014 “[a]nalysts predict that 93 of the 114 MLPs in existence will rise in value in the next year…” Astonishingly, “all but five MLPs are recommended by the majority of the analysts who cover them.” At that time professionals without conflicts called MLPs “the next great investment debacle” and warned that “many MLP shareholders…may not understand what they’ve gotten into.”

Broker Investigation: William Berg Unsuitable Oil and Gas Investments

March 11, 2016 | by Staff Attorney

The investment attorneys of Gana Weinstein LLP are investigating investor claims of unsuitable investments in oil and gas related products. Our firm is currently representing a number of investors who lost substantial savings due to poor advice to concentrate holdings in speculative commodities investments like master limited partnerships (MLPs). According to Brokercheck records, William Berg (Berg) with Wells Fargo Advisors, LLC (Wells Fargo) has recently received a customer complaint alleging overconcentrated positions in oil and gas equities.

As a background, MLPs are publicly traded partnerships. About 86% of the total MLP securities market, a $490 billion sector, can be attributed to energy and natural resource companies. There are about 130 MLPs trading on major exchanges that focus on energy related industries and natural resources.

Wall Street loves MLPs because they provide high yields to investors and require companies to pay Wall Street in order to continue to grow. In 2013 banks earned fees of $890.3 million from MLP issuance. Bloomberg quoted an analyst stating that “MLPs are Wall Street’s dream,” because “[t]hey’re fee machines.” Naturally, in order to entice investors to continue to invest in MLPs Wall Street pumps up MLPs every chance they get. According to Bloomberg, in May 2014 “[a]nalysts predict that 93 of the 114 MLPs in existence will rise in value in the next year…” Astonishingly, “all but five MLPs are recommended by the majority of the analysts who cover them.” At that time professionals without conflicts called MLPs “the next great investment debacle” and warned that “many MLP shareholders…may not understand what they’ve gotten into.”

Pacific Coast Oil Trust (ROYT) Investor Loss Recovery

March 9, 2016 | by Staff Attorney

The investment attorneys with Gana Weinstein LLP are investigating and representing investors who were inappropriately recommended oil and gas and commodities related investments. Investors may have potential legal remedies due to unsuitable recommendations by their broker to invest in this speculative and volatile area. One royalty trust that has suffered substantial declines is Pacific Coast Oil Trust (Stock Symbol: ROYT). Since the trust’s inception in May 2012 it has suffered a 95% loss in value.

Pacific Coast Oil Trust is a Delaware statutory trust formed by Pacific Coast Energy Company LP (PCEC) containing interests in California onshore oil properties located in the Santa Maria and Los Angeles Basins. PCEC owns the underlying properties which consist of proved developed reserves and other development potential on the underlying properties most of which is oil and natural gas related production.

Oil and gas royalty trusts, like master limited partnerships (MLPs), invest in the energy and commodities sector. However, unlike MLPs, royalty trusts generate income from the actual production of natural resources such as coal, oil, and natural gas and therefore the cash flows from royalty trusts are subject to swings in commodity prices and production levels causing them to be very inconsistent. Royalty trusts have no physical operations, no management, and no employees. Instead, royalty trusts are merely financing vehicles run by banks that trade like stocks. Another company actually mine the resources and pay the royalties to the trust.

Whiting USA Trust II (WHZ) Investor Loss Recovery

March 9, 2016 | by Staff Attorney

The investment attorneys with Gana Weinstein LLP are investigating and representing investors who were inappropriately recommended oil and gas and commodities related investments. Investors may have potential legal remedies due to unsuitable recommendations by their broker to invest in this speculative and volatile area. One royalty trust that has suffered substantial declines is Whiting USA Trust II (Stock Symbol: WHZ). Over the past year the trust has suffered a 95% loss.

Whiting Oil Trust II was created in December of 2011 at the height of the oil market and has since suffered staggering losses as oil has tumbled. Recently, the price of the trust to drop below $1 per unit and was delisted.

Oil and gas royalty trusts, like master limited partnerships (MLPs), invest in the energy and commodities sector. However, unlike MLPs, royalty trusts generate income from the actual production of natural resources such as coal, oil, and natural gas and therefore the cash flows from royalty trusts are subject to swings in commodity prices and production levels causing them to be very inconsistent. Royalty trusts have no physical operations, no management, and no employees. Instead, royalty trusts are merely financing vehicles run by banks that trade like stocks. Another company actually mine the resources and pay the royalties to the trust.

FINRA Sanctions Broker Kevin Murphy Over Selling Away Allegations

March 9, 2016 | by Staff Attorney

The securities fraud lawyers of Gana Weinstein LLP are investigating a regulatory complaint (Disciplinary No. 2015043159501) filed with The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority’s (FINRA) against broker Kevin Murphy (Murphy). FINRA alleged that in or about November 2013, Murphy sold $1.2 million of shares and warrants in a private placement to four individuals and one limited partnership without his firm’s knowledge.

According to FINRA, in August and September, 2013, Murphy made a $1.2 million investment in a private placement for which TGP Securities, Inc. (TGP), Murphy’s brokerage firm, was providing brokerage services. In return for his investment, FINRA found that Murphy received two stock certificates totaling 600,000 Series F shares and two warrants exercisable for 300,000 common shares. On November 29, 2013, FINRA alleged that Murphy resold the Series F shares and the warrants to four individuals and one limited partnership for $1.2 million without the permission of TGP.

In the industry the term selling away refers to when a financial advisor solicits investments in companies, promissory notes, or other securities that are not pre-approved by the broker’s affiliated firm. However, even though when these incidents occur the brokerage firm claims ignorance of their advisor’s activities the firm is obligated under the FINRA rules to properly monitor and supervise its employees in order to detect and prevent brokers from offering investments in this fashion. In order to properly supervise their brokers each firm is required to have procedures in order to monitor the activities of each advisor’s activities and interaction with the public. Selling away misconduct often occurs where brokerage firms either fail to put in place a reasonable supervisory system or fail to actually implement that system. Supervisory failures allow brokers to engage in unsupervised misconduct that can include all manner improper conduct including selling away.

FINRA Files Complaint Against Ricky Moore Over Church Bonds Selling Away Allegations

March 9, 2016 | by Staff Attorney

The securities fraud lawyers of Gana Weinstein LLP are investigating a regulatory complaint (Disciplinary No. 2013038770901) filed with The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority’s (FINRA) against broker Ricky Moore (Moore). FINRA alleged that between March 2012 and April 2013, while he was registered with Commonwealth Financial Network (Commonwealth Financial) Moore failed to disclose to the firm his outside business activities, also referred to as “selling away”, involving the facilitation of a church bond offering for a church located in Brazoria, Texas. In addition, to the FINRA complaint Moore has been subject to three customer complaints.

FINRA alleged in the complaint that Moore failed to disclose to his member firm his outside business activities involving the facilitation of a church bond offering for a church. The complaint alleges that Moore acted as the president and director of the church and facilitated the church bond offering for the church. In addition, FINRA found that Moore made a false and misleading statement on his firm’s annual compliance questionnaire when asked whether he had participated in raising capital, equity, or debt for a public or private investment. Moore answered “No” and also falsely stated that he had no undisclosed outside business activities. Thereafter, Commonwealth Financial conducted an investigation and Moore was permitted to resign after the firm terminated Moore’s registration.

In the industry the term selling away refers to when a financial advisor solicits investments in companies, promissory notes, or other securities that are not pre-approved by the broker’s affiliated firm. However, even though when these incidents occur the brokerage firm claims ignorance of their advisor’s activities the firm is obligated under the FINRA rules to properly monitor and supervise its employees in order to detect and prevent brokers from offering investments in this fashion. In order to properly supervise their brokers each firm is required to have procedures in order to monitor the activities of each advisor’s activities and interaction with the public. Selling away misconduct often occurs where brokerage firms either fail to put in place a reasonable supervisory system or fail to actually implement that system. Supervisory failures allow brokers to engage in unsupervised misconduct that can include all manner improper conduct including selling away.