Securities Lawyers Blog

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.

FINRA Sanctions Broker James Nixon Over Promissory Note Sales

March 7, 2016 | by Staff Attorney

The securities fraud lawyers of Gana Weinstein LLP are investigating a regulatory complaint (Disciplinary No. 1013038289101) filed with The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority’s (FINRA) against broker James Nixon (Nixon). FINRA alleged that Nixon failed to provide prior written notice to Bridge Capital Associates, Inc. (Bridge Capital), his then employing brokerage firm, before selling $600,000 of convertible promissory notes – practice referred to as “selling away” in the industry. FINRA found that Nixon provided detailed written notice to Bridge Capital only after he had already disseminated investor presentations to approximately 40 potential investors and completed sales to three accredited investor. In addition, FINRA alleged that Nixon provided investor presentations that contained exaggerated and misleading statements about the issuer of the promissory notes, by the initials BRT, and failed to include a meaningful risk disclosure.

Nixon entered the securities industry in 1987. Nixon was registered with Bridge Capital Associates since December 2007 until September 2013, when Bridge Capital discharged Nixon in connection with the conduct concerning FINRA’s allegations. Shortly after Bridge Capital terminated his registrations Nixon became registered with a different firm, Source Capital Group, Inc. out of the firm’s Westport, Connecticut office location.

FINRA found that the promissory notes were offered without a PPM and that instead the notes were offered through an investor PowerPoint presentation that Nixon prepared in conjunction with the issuer. FINRA found that the investor presentation was devoid of any cautionary language specific to the promissory notes and that the prospects for notes were presented in very optimistic terms and stated financial projections at aggressive multiples without sources or support for such representations. FINRA found these representations to violate its communications rules.

FINRA Sanctions Broker Carlos Benavidez Jr Over Unauthorized Trades in 80 Customer Accounts

March 7, 2016 | by Staff Attorney

The securities fraud lawyers of Gana Weinstein LLP are investigating the regulatory action filed (Disciplinary Action No. 2014043025701) by The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority’s (FINRA) against broker Carlos Benavidez Jr (Benavidez). According to the allegations, between January 2013 and January 2015, Benavidez exercised discretion in 80 customer accounts without obtaining prior written authorization from the customers while with brokerage firm Waddell & Reed.

FINRA found that beginning in or about December 2009, Benavidez and two other representatives registered with Waddell & Reed, formed RBR Group and shared a customer base for their securities business. Between January 2013 and January 2015, FINRA found that Benavidez exercised discretion in effecting hundreds of securities transactions in approximately 80 customer accounts without obtaining written authorization from his customers or Waddell & Reed’s approval.

Also according to FINRA, Benavidez tried to hide the evidence of unauthorized trading by falsifying documents. FINRA found that on or about September 9, 2014, Benavidez and another individual with the firm backdated approximately 26 customer notes that had been created in the firm’s computer program in order to falsely reflect that Benavidez or another member of the RBR Group had conversed with those customers on before the trades were effected when, in fact, it was not until six days later when Benavidez or another individual talked with the 26 customers about the trades that had been effected in their accounts.

EnLink Midstream Partners, LP (ENLK) Investor Recovery Options

March 7, 2016 | by Staff Attorney

The investment attorneys with Gana Weinstein LLP continue to report on investor related losses in 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.

Among the MLPs that have suffered significant declines is EnLink Midstream Partners, LP (NYSE:ENLK). EnLink Midstream Partners has plummeted in value by about 71% in value over the last year. According to the company’s website, EnLink Midstream Partners has expansive gathering, processing, fractionation, transportation, and logistics assets located in the Barnett, Permian Basin, the Gulf Coast, Eagle Ford, Haynesville, Cana-Woodford, Arkoma-Woodford, Utica, and the Marcellus areas. The company has more than 9,200 miles of gathering and transportation pipelines, 17 processing plants with 3.6 billion cubic feet of net processing capacity, and seven fractionators with 280 million barrels per day of net fractionation capacity. Since the company’s formation in 2014, it has executed approximately $4.3 billion of acquisitions and growth projects.

As a background, The MLP sector had totaled $600 billion in assets at its peak before collapsing to about $300 billion now. According to the Associated Press, investors have lost an astonishing $8 of every $10 they had invested since 2014. The research does not include losses from $37 billion of bonds sold by the partnerships in the five years since 2010 or losses from private placement partnerships. However, banks like Citigroup, Barclays, and Wells Fargo made an estimated $1.1 billion in fees for selling these products to investors.

Mesabi Trust (MSB) Investor Loss Recovery

March 7, 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 Mesabi Trust (Stock Symbol: MSB). Over the past year the trust has suffered a 76% loss.

According to the company’s website, Mesabi Trust is a royalty trust organized in 1961 and derives income from an iron mine from the Peter Mitchell Mine located near Babbitt, Minnesota, at the eastern end of the Mesabi Iron Range. The mine is operated by Northshore Mining Company, a subsidiary of Cleveland-Cliffs Inc.

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.

Broker Investigation: Customer Complaints Against Advisor Paul Blum

March 7, 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 Paul Blum (Blum). According to BrokerCheck records Blum has been the subject of at least eight customer complaints three of which have been filed since 2015. The customer complaints against Blum allege a number of securities law violations including that the broker made unsuitable investments, and excessive trading among other claims.

The most recent customer complaint filed in December 2015 and alleged negligence in recommending the purchase of bonds that defaulted from February 2009 until April 2014 claiming $450,000 in damages. The claim is still pending. In November 2015, another client filed a complaint alleging Blum invested in high yield bonds without consultation between May 2013 and May 2014 resulting in $133,000 in damages. The dispute is currently pending. In a third complaint filed in November 2015, an investor claimed that Blum invested in appropriate bonds from 2005 through 2015 causing $140,000 in damages. The claim was settled.

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.

Gana LLP Investigates Raymond James Oil and Gas MLP Recommendations to Clients

March 7, 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. Raymond James in one brokerage firm that has served as an underwriter for many master limited partnerships (MLPs) deals and whose analysts have previously given high ratings to these investments.

Jeff Saut, chief investment strategist, at Raymond James stated that his favorite MLP plays included Yorkville High Income LLP ETF (YMLP) and Yorkville High Income Infrastructure MLP ETF (YMLI). These two funds have plummeted significantly since the recommendation.

Among the individual MLPs that have suffered significant declines and now is in jeopardy of bankruptcy that was promoted by Raymond James analysts is Linn Energy (LINE) and LinnCo (LNCO). Both stocks have plummeted in value by about 98% in value over the last year. For years Raymond James analyst Keven Smith kept a “Strong Buy” rating on Linn Energy. Finally, when the stock had plummeted 50% in value with no sign of recovery Smith downgraded LinnCo to “Outperform” from “Strong Buy” and the price target to $9 from $15. Only in February 2016 when Linn Energy was on the verge of bankruptcy did Raymond James analysts drop the stock to “Underperform.”