Securities Lawyers Blog

Broker Spotlight: Customer Complaints Against Advisor Kenneth Bolton

November 22, 2015 | by Staff Attorney

The attorneys at Gana Weinstein LLP are interested in speaking with investors of broker Kenneth Bolton. According to the BrokerCheck records kept by Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) Kenneth Bolton (Bolton) has been the subject of at least 10 customer complaints, and 1 regulatory action, and one employment separation for cause. The customer complaints against Bolton allege securities law violations that including unsuitable investments, fraud, misrepresentations, failure to perform due diligence, violation of federal and state securities laws, and breach of fiduciary duty among other claims.

The most recent complaint was filed in January 2015, and alleged $413,000 in losses due to an unsuitable investment strategy. Another investor in May 2014, claimed $2,700,000 in damages. Some of the customer complaints appear to be in connection with in connection with the sales of tenants-in-common (TICs).

Bolton entered the securities industry in 1983. From March 1995, until August 2007, Bolton was associated with First Montauk Securities Corp. From August 2007, until December 2009, Bolton was associated with National Securities Corporation. Presently, Bolton is associated with Sandlapper Securities, LLC out of the firm’s Greenville, South Carolina branch office location.

FINRA Bars Broker Tracy Wengert Over Trading Customer Accounts Outside His Brokerage Firm

November 20, 2015 | by Staff Attorney

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) brought and enforcement action against broker Tracy Wengert (Wengert) (FINRA No. 2015044289201) resulting in a bar from the securities industry alleging that Wengert failed to provide FINRA staff with information and documents requested. The failure to provide those documents and information to FINRA resulted in an automatic bar from the industry. FINRA’s document requests related to the regulators investigation into claims in February 2015, FINRA enforcement began investigating allegations of misconduct by Wengert in that he opened brokerage accounts outside of the Transamerica Financial Advisors, Inc. (Transamerica) on behalf of customers and placed unsuitable trades in these accounts.

FINRA’s investigation appears to stem from Wengert’s termination from Transamerica in January 2015. At that time Transamerica filed a Form U5 termination notice with FINRA stating in part that the firm discharged Wengert under circumstances where there was allegations that Wengert was alleged to have managed a client account on a discretionary basis without approval or oversight through the firm.

Wengert entered the securities industry in 1999. From April 2002 until January 2012, Wengert was associated with World Group Securities, Inc. Thereafter, from January 2012 until February 2015, Wengert was associated as a registered representative with Transamerica.

Broker Investigation: Laidlaw & Company Advisor Robert Yasnis

November 20, 2015 | by Staff Attorney

According to the BrokerCheck records kept by Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) broker Robert Yasnis (Yasnis) has been the subject of 3 customer complaints, and 3 regulatory actions. The customer complaints against Yasnis allege securities law violations that claim unauthorized trading among other claims. The most recent complaint was filed in June 2015, and alleged $34,350 in losses due to unauthorized trading in May 2011.

The most recent regulatory action was taken by the state of Florida in 2013, when the state alleged that a material false statement was made on an application for registration resulting in a denial of registration. In 1997, the state of Virginia alleged that Yasnis offered unregistered securities in the state and received a fine. Finally in 1994, the state of Texas revoked Yasnis’ securities license in the state due to allegations that he misled the state concerning the status of registration within the state.

Yasnis entered the securities industry in 1993. From February 2007, until July 2009, Yasnis was associated with Hallmark Investments, Inc. From November 2009, until April 2010, Yasnis was associated with Stephen A. Kohn & Associates, Ltd. Thereafter, from April 2010, until October 2012, Yasnis was associated with Buckman, Buckman & Reid, Inc. From October 2012, until January 2014, Yasnis was associated with Meyers Associates, L.P. Presently, Yasnis is associated with Laidlaw & Company (UK) Ltd. out of the firm’s New York, New York branch office location.

Broker Investigation: Laidlaw & Company Advisor Joseph Fedorko

November 19, 2015 | by Staff Attorney

According to the BrokerCheck records kept by Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) broker Joseph Fedorko (Fedorko) has been the subject of an astonishing 16 customer complaints. The customer complaints against Fedorko allege securities law violations that claim churning and excessive trading, unsuitable investments, unauthorized trading, fraud, misrepresentations, and breach of fiduciary duty among other claims. The most recent complaint was filed in March 2014, and alleged $292,771 in losses due to an unsuitable investment strategy from 2011 until 2013. The case settled for $120,000. Another complaint filed in November 2012, alleged $400,000 in damages stemming from trading that began in 2011. Other complaints against Fedorko when combined allege millions in investor losses.

Fedorko entered the securities industry in 1989. From January 2002, until May 2009, Fedorko was associated with with Oppenheimer & Co. Inc. Presently, Fedorko is associated with Laidlaw & Company (UK) Ltd. out of the firm’s Stamford, Connecticut branch office location.

All advisers have a fundamental responsibility to deal fairly with investors including making suitable investment recommendations. In order to make suitable recommendations the broker must have a reasonable basis for recommending the product or security based upon the broker’s investigation of the investments properties including its benefits, risks, tax consequences, and other relevant factors. In addition, the broker must also understand the customer’s specific investment objectives to determine whether or not the specific product or security being recommended is appropriate for the customer based upon their needs.

Broker Investigation: Feltl & Company Advisor Timothy Wynne

November 19, 2015 | by Staff Attorney

According to the BrokerCheck records kept by Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) broker Timothy Wynne (Wynne) has been the subject of at least 5 customer complaints. The customer complaints against Wynne allege securities law violations that claim churning and excessive trading, unsuitable investments, unauthorized trading, fraud, misrepresentations, and discretionary trading among other claims. The most recent complaint was filed in October 2014, and alleged $500,000 in losses due to churning and excessive commission charges from February 2012 through October 2014. Another complaint filed in July 2014, alleged over $3.3 million in damages caused by unsuitable discretionary trading. Another complaint also filed in July 2014 alleged unsuitable investments in Monticello MN Telecommunication municipal bonds.

Wynne entered the securities industry in 1986. From January 2002, until February 2012, Wynne was associated with with Oppenheimer & Co. Inc. Presently, Wynne is associated with Feltl & Company out of the firm’s Minneapolis, Minnesota branch office location.

Churning is investment trading activity in the client’s account that serves no reasonable purpose for the investor and is transacted solely to profit the broker. The elements to establish a churning claim, which is considered a species of securities fraud, 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 Investigates Investor Losses In Oil-Linked Structured Notes

November 18, 2015 | by Staff Attorney

The law offices of Gana Weinstein LLP are announcing their investigation into potential securities claims against brokerage firms over sales practices related to the recommendation of structured notes linked to oil & gas. These structured products are issued by Barclays (NYSE:BCS), Morgan Stanley (NYSE:MS), Deutsche Bank (NYSE:DB), UBS (NYSE:UBS), Citigroup (NYSE:C), Bank of America Merrill Lynch (NYSE:BAC), JPMorgan Chase (NYSE:JPM), Credit Suisse (NYSE:CS), and BNP Paribas among others firms. The structured notes are issued under the names Principal Protected Notes, Principal Protected Booster Notes, Buffered Bullish Notes, Accelerated Return Notes, Strategic Return Notes, Capped Leverage Return Notes, Target Term Securities, Market Linked Notes, E-Tracs, Return Optimization Notes, Auto-Callable Securities, Performance Leveraged Upside Securities (PLUS), and Equity Linked Securities (ELKs).

Brokers often pitch structured products as providing “downside protection” against losses to a related index while allowing modest up side gain potential. However, today investors are waking up to the fact that structured products linked to the oil market are offering no protection. According to Bloomberg, retail structured notes meant to protect against a drop in crude failed to do so. Of the $437.1 million in oil related structured products that have matured this year, 44 percent, or $194.3 million of principal has been lost. The largest deal in the oil space is a $104.6 million Barclays issuance in April 2014 that has lost 42 percent of its value.

Indeed, Bloomberg found that all but three of the 39 notes examined protected against a certain percentage of losses, typically in the range of 10 percent to 20 percent. These notes quickly breached these loss limits as crude oil prices have declined more than 60 percent. Once the securities breached the “soft barriers” investors became exposed to the full loss at maturity and the value of the notes became wholly dependent on the change in oil prices.

Broker Investigation: Oppenheimer Advisor Matthew Giannone

November 18, 2015 | by Staff Attorney

According to the BrokerCheck records kept by Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) broker Matthew Giannone (Giannone) has been the subject of at least 6 customer complaints. The customer complaints against Giannone allege securities law violations that claim churning and excessive trading, unsuitable investments, unauthorized trading, fraud, misrepresentations, and inappropriate loans among other claims. The most recent claim filed against Giannone claims $1,200,000 in damages due to churning and an inappropriate loan. The complaint was denied and closed.

Giannone entered the securities industry in 1997. From June 1997, until June 2005, Giannone was associated with Citigroup Global Markets Inc. From May 2005, until March 2013, Giannone was associated with Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated. Finally, since May 2013, Giannone has been registered with Oppenheimer & Co. Inc. out of the firm’s New York, New York branch office location.

Churning is investment trading activity in the client’s account that serves no reasonable purpose for the investor and is transacted solely to profit the broker. The elements to establish a churning claim, which is considered a species of securities fraud, 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 John Galinsky Suspended For Failing to Pay Arbitration Award

November 17, 2015 | by Staff Attorney

According to the BrokerCheck records kept by Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) broker John Galinsky (Galinsky) has been the subject of at least 4 customer complaints, 2 regulatory actions, 2 employment separations for cause, and two criminal matters. In the most recent action, eleven claimants brought claims against Matrix Capital Group, Inc., John W. Eugster, Fintegra LLC, and Galinsky, alleging numerous securities law violations including breach of fiduciary duty, unsuitable investments, and misrepresentations relating to the sale of MiaSole Investments II LLC.

At an arbitration hearing, the arbitrators found that Galinsky and Fintegra were liable and asked them to buy back the investor’s securities in MiaSole totaling over $1.19 million in compensatory damages, and awarding $308,000 in attorneys’ fees and over $35,000 in costs. Since the award, Fintegra filed for bankruptcy.

Subsequently, Galinsky failed to pay the arbitration award. On August 7, 2015, FINRA suspended Galinsky’s broker license for failing to comply with the arbitration award and failing to provide FINRA information concerning status of compliance with the award.

Spruce Alpha Hedge Fund Investors Suffer Massive Losses

November 17, 2015 | by Staff Attorney

According to the New York Times, the Spruce Alpha hedge fund was pitched to investors as providing large returns in periods of market turbulence through the implementation of a complex trading strategy. According to the Spruce Alpha fund, during the 2008 financial crisis investors should have had made gains of more than 600 percent. But what Wall Street pitches in theory almost always goes wrong in practice. Thus when markets turned volatile in August 2015, Spruce Alpha, which had only just started up in April 2014, did not turn the volatility into gains for investors. Instead, the fund turned in one of the worst performances losing 48 percent of their money.

The fund’s holdings at the time were under $100 million and was managed by the $1.5 billion Spruce Investment Advisors. Spruce Investment specializes in managing money for the wealthy and institutional investors. According to the New York Times, half of Spruce Investment’s assets under management come from three family offices, a corporation, and a pension plan. The Spruce Alpha fund was the asset management firm’s first direct hedge fund trading fund that was intended to raise a $500 million portfolio.

After the collapse the Spruce Alpha moved its positions into cash and told investors that they can redeem what remains of their money. The Spruce Alpha tale is only the latest example of how managers market hedge funds and complex investment products to investors that often turn out to be too good to be true. Using back-tested results in hedge fund marketing materials are fantasy recreations with all the benefits of hindsight knowledge that are then advertised as likely future performance. However, back-tested results are derived assuming optimum trading conditions, not what the fund will encounter in real life.

SEC Brings Fraud Charges Against Broker Lee Weiss Over FEP Fund I and Catamaran Fund Investments

November 16, 2015 | by Staff Attorney

The Securities and Exchange Commission announced fraud charges against a registered investment adviser and its owner on allegations of self-dealing and failing to disclose material facts to clients including conflicts of interest, use of investor funds, and the risks of the investments they recommended. The complaint filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, alleges that Lee D. Weiss (Weiss) and Family Endowment Partners, L.P. (FEP) and relief defendants MIP Global, Inc. (MIP Global), Mosaic Enterprises, Inc. (Mosaic Enterprises), Mosaic Investment Partners, Inc. (Mosaic), and Weiss Capital Real Estate Group, LLC (Weiss Capital) recommended their clients invest $40 million in illiquid securities issued by hedge fund FEP Fund I, LP (FEP Fund I) and the Catamaran Holding Fund, Ltd. (Catamaran Fund) without disclosing that Weiss had an ownership interest in the parent company of these entities and received payments from these entities.

The SEC’s complaint further alleges that FEP and Weiss recommended that their clients invest in entities that Weiss owned without disclosing that the investments would be used primarily to benefit FEP. The SEC also alleges that FEP and Weiss advised clients to invest in a consumer loan portfolio while concealing that Weiss would receive half of the clients’ profits from these investments.

Between 2010 and 2012, the SEC alleges that FEP and Weiss advised 11 FEP and caused two FEP affiliated hedge funds to invest more than $40 million in securities issued by subsidiaries of a French company that purportedly had designed methods to reduce the harmful effects of tobacco smoking. According to the SEC, FEP and Weiss had a financial interest in the French company and that Weiss and entities received more than $600,000 in payments from that company shortly after the FEP clients and hedge funds invested in it. However, the SEC stated that Weiss failed to disclose these conflicts of interest to investors.