Securities Lawyers Blog

Broker Raymond Harrison Has Complaints Over Non-Traded REITs

November 30, 2016 | by Staff Attorney

Our investment attorneys are investigating customer complaints filed with The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) against Raymond Harrison (Harrison) currently associated with Cambridge Investment Research, Inc. (Cambridge) alleging unsuitable investments , lack of due diligence, lack of supervision, and omissions of material information among other claims. According to brokercheck records Harrison has been subject to six customer complaints and two financial disclosures. Many of the complaints involve direct participation products (DPPs) such as non-traded real estate investment trusts (REITs), equipment leasing funds – such as LEAF or ICON, and other alternative investments.

In October 2016 a customer filed a complaint alleging unsuitable investments for investment experience and risk tolerance, lack of adequate due diligence in regard to investments, a lack of supervision and the omission of material information. The customer claimed damages of $603,000. The claim is currently pending.

Our firm has represented many clients in illiquid alternative investments products. All of these investments come with high costs and have historically underperformed even safe benchmarks, like U.S. treasury bonds. For example, products like oil and gas partnerships, REITs, and other alternative investments are only appropriate for a narrow band of investors under certain conditions due to the high costs, illiquidity, and huge redemption charges of the products, if they can be redeemed at all. However, due to the high commissions brokers earn on these products they sell them to investors who cannot profit from them and have created a large market for a failed product. Further, investor often fail to understand that they have lost money in these illiquid investments until many years after investing. In sum, for all of their costs and risks, investors in these programs are in no way additionally compensated for the loss of liquidity, risks, or cost.

Customers Complain About Broker Joseph Zastrow’s Annuity Practices

November 30, 2016 | by Staff Attorney

Our firm’s investment attorneys are investigating customer complaints filed with The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) against Joseph Zastrow (Zastrow) currently associated with Thrivent Investment Management Inc. (Thrivent) alleging unsuitable recommendations to invest in variable products such as variable annuities, equity indexed annuities, and variable life insurance. According to brokercheck records Zastrow has been subject to six customer complaints and one criminal matter.

In August 2016 a customer alleged that Zastrow failed to provide the customer with disclosures about the variable annuity contract or provide suitability information in July 2015. The customer also alleged that his signature was forged on documents dated May 2015. The customer claimed $2,956.67 in damages and was granted $2,861.98.

Variable annuities and equity indexed annuities are complex financial and insurance products. In fact, recently the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) released a publication entitled: Variable Annuities: What You Should Know encouraging investors to ask questions about the variable annuity before investing. Essentially, a variable annuity is a contract with an insurance company under which the insurer agrees to make periodic payments to you. The investor chooses the investments made in the annuity and value of your variable annuity will vary depending on the performance of the investment options chosen. The primary benefits of variable annuities are the death benefit and tax deferment of investment gains.

Oil Linked Investments Loss Recovery – iPath S&P GSCI Crude Oil Total Return Index ETN (OIL) and VelocityShares 3x Long Crude Oil ETN (UWTI)

November 29, 2016 | by Staff Attorney

Our firm is investigating potential securities claims against brokerage firms for sales practice violations related to the recommendations of oil & gas and commodities products such as exchange traded notes (ETNs), structured notes, private placements, master limited partnerships (MLPs), leveraged ETFs, mutual funds, and individual stocks.

One investment that advisors may be recommending to clients in order to gain exposure to oil is the iPath S&P GSCI Crude Oil Total Return Index ETN (Symbol: OIL). OIL is a speculative ETN that attempts to “reflect[] the returns that are potentially available through an unleveraged investment in the West Texas Intermediate (WTI) crude oil futures contract.” Brokers may be recommending OIL for long-term holding when, in fact, OIL is a risky ETN that is only appropriate for short-term investment speculation on the price direction of oil.

As Morningstar has written, “Due to the extremely specialized exposure of the fund, investors should only consider it for a small position in the satellite portion of a broadly diversified portfolio.” MorningStar also explained how the futures invested in the fund make the investment inappropriate for long-term holdings and how the price of the fund is not related to the price of oil. “For example, in 2013 OIL increased 5.6%, close to WTI’s spot price gain of 6.9% for the year. However, over the trailing five-year period OIL lost 1% annualized, compared with an annualized gain of more than 20% for spot WTI over the same period.”

Massachusetts Files Complaint Against Morgan Stanley Alleging Unfair Sales Contests to Sell Securities Backed Loans

November 29, 2016 | by Staff Attorney

Our firm has previously reported on the growing trend of brokerage firms recommending non-purpose loans secured by their brokerage accounts to clients. See Investors Risk Big Losses with Loans Secured by Securities Collateral Accounts. Recently, the state of Massachusetts charged Morgan Stanley with conducting unethical – high-pressure – sales contests among its financial advisers to encourage clients to take out loans. According to newsources, from January 2014 until April 2015, the firm ran two different contests involving 30 advisers in Massachusetts and Rhode Island with the express goal of persuading customers to take out securities-based loans (SBLOCs) with their securities accounts serving as collateral. Advisers were promised bonuses of $1,000 for 10 loans, $3,000 for 20 loans and $5,000 for 30 loans. The contest was alleged to have generated $24 million in new loans and was run despite an internal Morgan Stanley prohibition on such initiatives.

As a background, these lines of credit allow investors to borrow money using securities held in the investment accounts as collateral and allow the investor to continue to trade securities in the pledged accounts. An SBLOC typically requires monthly interest-only payments until repaid. Thus, when an investor losses a significant amount of their portfolio the investor has made very little progress in repaying the loan and may have few to no options to pay the loan back. Recently FINRA issued an “Investor Alert” entitled “Securities-Backed Lines of Credit – It May Pay to See Beyond the Pitch” recognizing the conflicts between brokerage firms incentivized by “SBLOCs [that] can be a key revenue source for securities firms” and those same firms “placing your financial future at greater risk.”

According to Fortune, firms such as UBS, Bank of America, Merrill Lynch, Morgan Stanley, Wells Fargo, and JP Morgan are recommending that their high net worth investors take out loans against their brokerage accounts at an alarming rate. The Wall Street Journal reported that securities based loans increased by 28% at UBS between 2011 and 2013. According to Fortune, a Wells Fargo advisor told the writer that the loans are so lucrative for the brokers that they refer to the money they make as their 13th production month. Another contact with Morgan Stanley reported that a regional manager would like to automatically send paperwork for loans with every single new account form.

Customers File Complaints Against Kenneth Saunders Over Alternative Investments

November 26, 2016 | by Staff Attorney

Our investment attorneys are investigating customer complaints filed with The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) against Kenneth Saunders (Saunders) currently associated with National Planning Corporation (NPC) alleging unsuitable investments among other claims. According to brokercheck records Saunders has been subject to six customer complaints. Some of the complaints involve direct participation products (DPPs) such as non-traded real estate investment trusts (REITs) and other alternative investments.

Saunders has also disclosed a number outside business activities including his d/b/a Saunders Investment & Tax Advisory Group, Inc., Heron Bay Association, and Parke Place HOA. The most recent customer complaint was filed in March 2016 and alleged that Saunders recommended unsuitable alternative investments causing $150,000 in damages. The claim is currently pending.

Our firm has represented many clients wo have invested in Direct Participation Products and REITS. Many of these types of investments come with high costs and have historically underperformed various benchmarks. For example, according to FINRA, products like REITs, and DPPs are only appropriate for a narrow band of investors under certain conditions due to the high costs, illiquidity, and huge redemption charges of the products, if they can be redeemed at all. Further, investors often fail to understand that they have lost money in these illiquid investments until many years after investing.

Centaurus Financial Broker David White Has Complaints Over Alternative Investments

November 26, 2016 | by Staff Attorney

Our investment attorneys are investigating customer complaints filed with The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) against David White (White) currently associated with Centaurus Financial, Inc. (Centaurus) alleging unsuitable investments and breach of fiduciary duty among other claims. According to brokercheck records White has been subject to eleven customer complaints. Many of the complaints involve direct participation products (DPPs) such as non-traded real estate investment trusts (REITs) and other alternative investments.

Our firm has experience representing investment fraud victims with these investments against Centaurus. See Gana Weinstein LLP Wins Arbitration Award On Behalf of Client Against Centaurus Financial. In that case, the Claimant alleged that the broker involved invested over $2,000,000 in exclusively high cost products and 50% of those investments were in alternative investments such as private placements, oil and gas partnerships, and REITs. The other 50% was invested in variable and equity-indexed annuities. The panel found that “the investments Hashemian recommended while at Centaurus were not suitable and in [Claimant’s] best interests. [Claimant] also provided sufficient evidence to meet her burden of proof to support her allegations in her Statement of Claim that the actions by Hashemian, for which Centaurus is responsible, constitute fraudulent and negligently made material misrepresentations and omitted material information in the sale of the investments to [Claimant].” Award Can Be Found Here.

Our firm has represented many clients in illiquid alternative investments products. All of these investments come with high costs and have historically underperformed even safe benchmarks, like U.S. treasury bonds. For example, products like oil and gas partnerships, REITs, and other alternative investments are only appropriate for a narrow band of investors under certain conditions due to the high costs, illiquidity, and huge redemption charges of the products, if they can be redeemed at all. However, due to the high commissions brokers earn on these products they sell them to investors who cannot profit from them and have created a large market for a failed product. Further, investor often fail to understand that they have lost money in these illiquid investments until many years after investing. In sum, for all of their costs and risks, investors in these programs are in no way additionally compensated for the loss of liquidity, risks, or cost.

Broker Investigation: Independent Financial Group Supervisor Michael DiGaetano

November 23, 2016 | by Staff Attorney

Our investment attorneys are investigating customer complaints filed with The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) against Michael DiGaetano (DiGaetano) currently associated with Independent Financial Group, LLC (Independent Financial) alleging unsuitable investments, misrepresentations, fraud, negligence, breach of contract, and breach of fiduciary duty among other claims. According to brokercheck records DiGaetano has been subject to three customer complaints and one regulatory sanction.

In May 2012 FINRA sanctioned DiGaetano alleging that as a supervisor he failed in responsibilities by not taking reasonable action to prevent another broker from committing securities fraud. (FINRA No. 2009019209202) As part of the claim, FINRA alleged that DiGaetano failed to even contact customers who were subject to fraudulent mutual fund switches and never questioned the broker involved even though the trades were marked as unsolicited.

Brokers in the financial industry have the fundamental responsibility to treat investors fairly. This obligation includes making only suitable investments for their client. The suitable analysis has certain requirements that must be met before the recommendation is made. First, there must be reasonable basis for the recommendation for the investment based upon the broker’s and the firm’s investigation and due diligence. Common due diligence looks into the investment’s properties including its benefits, risks, tax consequences, the issuer, the likelihood of success or failure of the investment, and other relevant factors. Second, if there is a reasonable basis to recommend the product to investors the broker then must match the investment as being appropriate for the customer’s specific investment needs and objectives. These factors include the client’s age, investment experience, retirement status, long or short term goals, tax status, or any other relevant factor.

Customers Complain About Broker Alan Thomilson’s Annuity Practices

November 23, 2016 | by Staff Attorney

Our firm’s investment attorneys are investigating customer complaints filed with The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) against Alan Thomilson (Thomilson) currently associated with Lincoln Financial Securities Corporation (Lincoln Financial) alleging unsuitable recommendations to invest in variable products such as variable annuities, equity indexed annuities, and variable life insurance. According to brokercheck records Thomilson has been subject to six customer complaints and one criminal matter.

In March 2015 a customer alleged that Thomilson misrepresented a recommendation to replace an existing variable annuity with an equity indexed annuity and that the recommendation was not suitable causing $125,000 in damages. The claim is currently pending.

Variable annuities and equity indexed annuities are complex financial and insurance products. In fact, recently the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) released a publication entitled: Variable Annuities: What You Should Know encouraging investors to ask questions about the variable annuity before investing. Essentially, a variable annuity is a contract with an insurance company under which the insurer agrees to make periodic payments to you. The investor chooses the investments made in the annuity and value of your variable annuity will vary depending on the performance of the investment options chosen. The primary benefits of variable annuities are the death benefit and tax deferment of investment gains.

Arkansas Sanctions Financial Advisors Raymond Adcock and Charles Ferrill Over Talon Securities Sales

November 22, 2016 | by Staff Attorney

Our firm is investigating claims made by Arkansas Securities Commissioner against brokers Raymond Adcock (Adcock) and Charles Bailey Ferrill, Jr. (Ferrill) concerning their raising of funds for a business plan to operate a hedge fund through two companies – Talon LLC created in February 2011 and Talon LP created in February 2012 (Talon Entities). (See In re Raymond Dickie Adcock, Case No. S-14-0008). Both brokers were registered with The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) at the time.

Both Ferrill and Adcock were most recently registered with broker-dealer Regal Securities, Inc. (Regal), an Arkansas registered broker-dealer firm based in Glenview, Illinois. According to the State of Arkansas, while employed by Regal, Ferrill worked in the Regal office supervised by Adcock.

According to the consent order, Talon LLC served as the general partner and investment manager of Talon LP and no individuals other than Adcock and Ferrill had control over the Talon Entities at any point in time. Further, Ferrill managed the Talon Entities out of Regal’s branch location and used the same telephone and facsimile numbers as the Regal branch office to conduct Talon business. However, the Talon entities never registered with the State of Arkansas.

Broker Investigation: Network 1 Financial Securities Advisor David Lerner

November 22, 2016 | by Staff Attorney

Investment attorneys at Gana Weinstein LLP are investigating customer complaints filed with The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) against David Lerner (Lerner) currently associated with Network 1 Financial Securities Inc. (Network 1) alleging unsuitable investments and failure to follow instructions among other claims. According to brokercheck records Lerner has been subject to 10 customer complaints, one regulatory sanction, one employment separation for cause, and three judgments/liens.

In July 2015, Lerner received a tax lien in the amount of $16,388. Earlier in April 2015 Lerner was subject to another tax lien of $81,986. A broker’s inability to handle their personal finances has also been found to be relevant in helping investors determine if they should allow the broker to handle their finances.

Brokers in the financial industry have the fundamental responsibility to treat investors fairly. This obligation includes making only suitable investments for their client. The suitable analysis has certain requirements that must be met before the recommendation is made. First, there must be reasonable basis for the recommendation for the investment based upon the broker’s and the firm’s investigation and due diligence. Common due diligence looks into the investment’s properties including its benefits, risks, tax consequences, the issuer, the likelihood of success or failure of the investment, and other relevant factors. Second, if there is a reasonable basis to recommend the product to investors the broker then must match the investment as being appropriate for the customer’s specific investment needs and objectives. These factors include the client’s age, investment experience, retirement status, long or short term goals, tax status, or any other relevant factor.