Securities Lawyers Blog

FINRA Fines RBC $1.4 Million Over Unsuitable Reverse Convertibles

June 16, 2015 | by Staff Attorney

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) ordered RBC Capital Markets (RBC) to pay a $1 million fine and approximately $434,000 in restitution to customers for alleged supervisory failures resulting in sales of unsuitable reverse convertibles.

As a background, a reverse convertible is an interest-bearing note where repayment of the principal is tied to the performance of an underlying asset, such as a stock or basket of stocks. Investor risk of loss comes from changes in the value of the underlying asset. If the asset falls below a certain level at maturity or during the term of the reverse convertible the investor can suffer losses. In February 2010, FINRA issued a regulatory notice on reverse convertibles emphasizing the need for firms to perform a suitability analysis in connection with sales of reverse convertible because they are complex product.

FINRA and the SEC have both expressed alarm at the growing popularity of complex products. Complex securities include, but are not limited to equity-indexed annuities, leveraged and inverse-leveraged exchange traded funds, reverse convertibles, alternative mutual funds, exchange traded products, and structured notes. A 2012 SEC study on investor financial literacy found that retail investors, and particularly the elderly and minorities, lack basic financial literacy skills. Combining a general lack of financial literacy with an investment product landscape that increasingly focuses on ever more complex product offerings and investors are more reliant on their advisers than ever. Accordingly, retail investors do not always fully appreciate the risks involved with these.

First Allied Securities Broker Daniel Grieco Sanctioned Over Non-Traditional ETF Sales

June 15, 2015 | by Staff Attorney

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) sanctioned broker Daniel Grieco (Grieco) concerning allegations that Grieco made recommendations of non-traditional exchange-traded funds (Non-Traditional ETFs) to various customers without having reasonable grounds to believe his recommendations were suitable.

Non-Traditional ETFs are behave drastically different and have different risk qualities from traditional ETFs. While traditional ETFs simply seek to mirror an index or benchmark, Non-Traditional ETFs use a combination of derivatives instruments and debt to multiply returns on underlining assets, often attempting to generate 2 to 3 times the return of the underlining asset class. Non-Traditional ETFs are also used to earn the inverse result of the return of the benchmark.

In addition, regular ETFs can be held for long term trading, but Non-Traditional ETFs are generally designed to be used only for short term trading. The use of leverage employed by these funds causes their long-term values to be dramatically different than the underlying benchmark over long periods of time. For example, between December 1, 2008, and April 30, 2009, the Dow Jones U.S. Oil & Gas Index gained two percent while the ProShares Ultra Oil and Gas, a fund seeking to deliver twice the index’s daily return fell six percent. In another example, the ProShares UltraShort Oil and Gas, seeks to deliver twice the inverse of the index’s daily return fell by 26 percent over the same period.

LPL Financial Fined $11.7 Million Over Securities Practices

June 15, 2015 | by Staff Attorney

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) entered into an agreement whereby the regulatory fined LPL Financial LLC (LPL) and fined it $10 million for broad supervisory failures in a number of key areas, including the sales of non-traditional exchange-traded funds (Non-Traditional ETFs), certain variable annuity contracts, non-traded real estate investment trusts (Non-Traded REITs) and other complex products, as well as its failure to monitor and report trades and deliver to customers more than 14 million trade confirmations. As part of the fine FINRA ordered LPL to pay approximately $1.7 million in restitution to customers who purchased non-traditional ETFs.

In a press release Brad Bennett, FINRA Executive Vice President and Chief of Enforcement, stated that “LPL’s supervisory breakdowns resulted from a sustained failure to devote sufficient resources to compliance programs integral to numerous aspects of its business. With today’s action, FINRA reaffirms that there is little room in the industry for lax supervision and that it will not hesitate to order firms to review and correct substandard supervisory systems and controls, and pay restitution to affected customers.”

This action is only one of many regulatory actions that our firm has tracked concerning LPL and its brokers including the following:

Broker Adamson Wright Alleged to Mismarked Options Trades

June 10, 2015 | by Staff Attorney

According to broker Adamson Wright’s (Wright) Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) BrokerCheck records the representative was recently sanctioned concerning allegations that from May 2010 through February 2011, he effected approximately 249 mismarked order tickets as being “unsolicited” orders when the trades were “solicited” causing the firm to maintain inaccurate books and records.

Respondent Wright entered the securities industry in 1995 with UBS Financial Services Inc. until January 2010. In January 2010, Wright became registered with Ameriprise Financial Services, Inc. (Ameriprise) and then was terminated from Ameriprise in June 2011. In July 2011, Wright became registered with InterCarolina Financial Services Inc.

In addition, at least five customer complaints have been filed against Wright alleging unsuitable investments and unauthorized discretionary trading. These complaints include allegations involving unsuitable options trading. Two clients alleged an unsuitable purchase of China Agritech (CAGC). The number of complaints made by investors against Wright is relatively large by industry standards. According to InvestmentNews, only about 12% of financial advisors have any type of disclosure event on their records. Far fewer brokers have multiple customer complaints approaching the number of complaints made against Wright. Brokers must disclose different types of events, not necessarily all of which are customer complaints. These disclosures can include IRS tax liens, judgments, and even criminal matters.

The Worst Performing Funds of Q1 2015

June 10, 2015 | by Staff Attorney

Gana Weinstein LLP has recently reviewed the worst performing Mutual Funds of 2014. The question is whether these funds will continue to perform badly and if there are systemic issues with these funds or whether the performance is merely an aberration.

Regularly the best way to achieve great returns is not by picking the best securities but by avoiding the bad securities.

Warren Buffet once said: “Rule No. 1: Never lose money. Rule No. 2: Never forget rule No. 1.

Global Arena Capital Broker Nick Morrisey Suspended By FINRA

June 9, 2015 | by Staff Attorney

According the BrokerCheck records kept by The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) the agency suspended former Global Arena Capital Corp (Global Arena) broker Niaz Elmazi a/k/a Nick Morrisey (Morrisey) concerning allegations that Morrisey failed to respond to FINRA’s requests for information.

Morrisey has a history of regulatory complaints and also has one customer complaint on his record. In 2013, the state of Arkansas brought action against Morrisey alleging that in July 2012, Morrisey contacted an Arkansas resident via a cold call in order to recommend the purchase of a corporate bond issued by Verso Paper Corp (Verso). However, Morrisey was unaware that the Arkansas resident was actually employed as a senior securities examiner with the Arkansas securities department and that he had contacted the examiner on an office phone during business hours. During the conversation it was alleged by Arkansas that Morrisey made untrue and false statements when recommending the Verso bond. In addition, Arkansas alleged that Morrisey had no reasonable grounds for believing that the recommendation was suitable for the investor prior to making the recommendation.

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.

Morgan Stanley and Broker Ami Forte Subject to $400 Million Investor Complaint

June 8, 2015 | by Staff Attorney

According to InvestmentNews, the widow of Roy M. Speer, co-founder of the Home Shopping Network, has filed a complaint with The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) against Morgan Stanley Wealth Management along with an adviser Ami Forte (Forte) and branch manager Terry McCoy (McCoy) for $400 million. Morgan Stanley acknowledged the arbitration claim in a disclosure in the brokerage’s publicly filed annual financial report but only indicated the amount in controversy was for more than $170 million.

Mr. Speer’s widow is claiming that Morgan Stanley and their adviser engaged in excessive trading – also referred to as churning, unauthorized use of discretion, and abused their fiduciary duty. According to the complaint, Mr. Speer suffered from diminished capacity during the last five years of his life. During this time his adviser and others at the firm made approximately 12,000 unauthorized trades generating an eye popping $40 million in commissions.

Unfortunately, cases such as these are becoming increasingly common. Our firm has handled a number of cases where a wealthy investor has been taken advantage of due to diminished capacity. In other cases a spouse who inherits or assumes management over an affluent estate has very little financial experience and places their trust in their brokerage firm and financial advisor only to be charged millions in fees and high commission products. Often times these financial strategies are completely unreasonable and unjustifiable. Wealthy investors often have financial needs that do not exceed even a tiny fraction of their overall net worth. Yet, there have been cases where brokers place sizable portions of their client’s massive estates at jeopardy in order to generate millions in fees while providing absolutely no benefit for their client.

Regulators File Complaints Against Christopher Veale Concerning His Securities Practices

June 8, 2015 | by Staff Attorney

According to the BrokerCheck records kept by Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) broker Christopher Veale (Veale) has been the subject of at least 12 customer complaints, six judgment and lien of over $1,000,000 and five separate regulatory actions, two investigations by state regulators and one criminal matter involving a felony over the course of his career. Customers have filed complaints against Veale alleging a litany of securities law violations including that the broker made unsuitable investments, unauthorized trades, breach of fiduciary duty, misrepresentations and false statements, churning, and fraud, among other claims. Many of the claims involve recommendations in penny stocks and other speculative securities.

An examination of Veale’s employment history reveals that Veale moves from troubled firm to troubled firm. The pattern of brokers moving in this way is sometimes called “cockroaching” within the industry. See More Than 5,000 Stockbrokers From Expelled Firms Still Selling Securities, The Wall Street Journal, (Oct. 4, 2013). In Veale’s 18 year career he has worked at 18 different firms.

Since 2008 Veale has been registered with Maximum Financial Investment Group, Franklin Christopher Investment Bankers, Inc., Brookville Capital Partners, Blackwall Capital Markets, Inc., Meyers Associates, L.P., John Thomas Financial, and Legend Securities, Inc., until February 2015.

SEC Complaint Alleges Veros Partners, Matthew Haab Jeffery Risinger, and Tobin Senefeld Engaged in a Farm Loan Ponzi Scheme

June 7, 2015 | by Staff Attorney

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) brought charges against Veros Partners, Inc. (Veros), an Indianapolis investment adviser, Matthew Haab (Haab), and two associates, attorney Jeffrey Risinger (Risinger) and Tobin Senefeld (Senefeld), fraudulently raised at least $15 million from at least 80 investors, most of whom were Veros advisory clients for the purposes of engaging in two fraudulent farm loan offerings. The SEC alleged the defendants made ponzi scheme payments to investors in other offerings and paid themselves hundreds of thousands of dollars in undisclosed fees. The SEC obtained a temporary restraining order and an asset freeze in order to put a stop to the scheme.

According to the complaint in each offering the investors purchased securities issued in 2013, by Veros Farm Loan Holding LLC (VFLH) and in 2014, by FarmGrowCap LLC (FarmGrowCap). VFLH and FarmGrowCap are controlled and operated by Haab and two associates, Risinger and Senefeld. The investors in the two offerings were informed, orally and in writing by Haab, and in the written offering documents, that investor funds would be used to make short-term operating loans to farmers for the 2013 and 2014 growing seasons. However, the SEC found that contrary to these representations significant portions of the loan proceeds were not used for current farming operations but were used to cover the farms’ prior unpaid debt.

In addition, the SEC alleged that Haab, Risinger, and Senefeld used money from the offerings to make at least $7 million in payments to investors in other offerings and to pay themselves over $800,000 in undisclosed “success” and “interest rate spread” fees. The SEC also has complained that the defendants repeatedly misled investors about the risks, nature, and performance of the investments and underlying farm loans.

Broker Complaint Investigation: David Persaud’s Sales Practices

June 6, 2015 | by Staff Attorney

According to the BrokerCheck records kept by Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) broker David Persaud (Persaud) a/k/a Dwarka Persaud has been the subject of at least 5 customer complaints and one regulatory action over the course of his career. Customers have filed complaints against Persaud alleging a litany of securities law violations including that the broker made unsuitable investments, unauthorized trades, breach of fiduciary duty, and churning among other claims. Two of these customer complaints were filed recently.

An examination of Persaud’s employment history reveals that Persaud moves from troubled firm to troubled firm. The pattern of brokers moving in this way is sometimes called “cockroaching” within the industry. See More Than 5,000 Stockbrokers From Expelled Firms Still Selling Securities, The Wall Street Journal, (Oct. 4, 2013). In Persaud’s 28 year career he has worked at 21 different firms.

Since 2008 Persaud has been registered with The Concord Equity Group, LLC, Andrew Garrett Inc., Garden State Securities, Inc., and since May 2015, Buckman, Buckman & Reid, Inc.