Failure to Supervise

LaSalle St. Securities Sanctioned Over Private Placements Part II

December 10, 2014 | by Staff Attorney

This article continues the examination of the findings by The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA), in an acceptance, waiver, and consent action (AWC), concerning LaSalle St. Securities, LLC (LaSalle) private placement deficiencies. FINRA also found that LaSalle served as the placement agent for a 2009 private placement offering by Revitalight Operators, LLC. The private placement memorandum (PPM) stated investors would be entitled to a 9% “preferred return” on their outstanding investments prior but that this preferred return was not guaranteed and might never be paid. FINRA found that LaSalle was responsible for the PPM’s contents. The PPM contained a summary of financial projections which FINRA found contained assumptions that the total net return over six years would be $2.050 million and that investors’ capital contributions would be returned in the fiftieth month. The PPM stated that investors could receive a 27.13% annual return on investment. However, FINRA determined that the projected annual return were calculated using a flawed methodology.

Finally, FINRA alleged that member firms that using consolidated reports are communications with the public and must be clear, accurate, and not misleading. Firms should have systems in place to ensure that valuations provided regarding customer assets held at the firm are consistent with the firm’s official account statement distributed to the customer. The firm should also take reasonable steps to accurately reflect information regarding outside accounts and assets. If a firm is unable to adequately supervise the use of the reports then the firm must prohibit dissemination of the reports.

FINRA found that LaSalle had procedures in place governing consolidated reports. The procedures provided that the CCO or specifically designated principals, will review the consolidated reports to ensure adherence to all applicable rules. Despite the procedures, FINRA found that LaSalle had an inadequate system in place because the firm did not ensure that all representatives actually followed the proscribed procedures. FINRA determined that LaSalle’s training was limited to blast emails to brokers advising them that consolidated statements needed to be submitted to the home office for review as correspondence.

LaSalle St. Securities Fined Over Private Placement Sale Related Misconduct Part I

December 9, 2014 | by Staff Attorney

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA), in an acceptance, waiver, and consent action (AWC), sanctioned brokerage firm LaSalle St. Securities, LLC (LaSalle) over allegations that staff found certain deficiencies with respect to: 1) a private placement offering involving Seat Exchange Corporation where LaSalle failed to exercise adequate due diligence before allowing a broker to recommend the offering to four investors; 2) a private offering by Revitalight Operators, LLC, LaSalle distributed a private placement memorandum to potential investors that did not include material facts and used a flawed methodology for projecting return on investment; 3) an offering of Platinum Wealth Partners, Inc. (PWP) by one of its brokers the firm failed to supervise; and 4) the fact that LaSalle allowed its representatives to send consolidated reports to its customers but failed to adequately supervise those reports.

LaSalle has been registered with FINRA as a broker-dealer since 1976, has 232 registered representatives, 107 branch offices, and its principal place of business is in Chicago, Illinois. LaSalle has various business lines.

FINRA alleged that in April 2010, a broker with the initials “PL” sought the firm’s approval to recommend the purchase of shares in Seat Exchange Corporation, a Regulation D private placement to four customers. Seat Exchange had only one director, who also owned 21.5% of the company and the placement agent for offering was Chicago Investment Group (CIG). CIG was also an affiliated with Seat Exchange. According to FINRA, LaSalle had supervisory procedures requiring that all appropriate due diligence efforts on behalf of any private placement offering are undertaken and documented or that we obtain sufficient documentation from a third party that they have undertaken sufficient due diligence.

FINRA Sanctions Essex Securities for Failing to Supervise Mutual Fund Switching

December 4, 2014 | by Staff Attorney

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA), in an acceptance, waiver, and consent action (AWC), sanctioned brokerage firm Essex Securities, LLC (Essex Securities) alleging that from February 2010, through March 2011, Essex Securities through one of its brokers violated industry rules by engaging in a pattern of unsuitable mutual fund switching, a form of churning, in the accounts of seven customers. Further, FINRA found that Essex Securities violated FINRA’ supervisory rules by failing to establish and maintain a supervisory system reasonably designed to prevent unsuitable mutual fund switching.

Essex has been a FINRA member broker-dealer since 1998, is headquartered in Topsfield, MA, and conducts a general securities business with approximately 50 brokers out of 26 branch offices.

FINRA alleged that an Essex Securities broker engaged in a pattern of unsuitable mutual fund switching in seven customer accounts by not having reasonable grounds for believing that such transactions were suitable for those customers due to the frequency of the transactions and the transaction costs incurred. Part of the suitability rule requires brokers to take into consideration the cost consequences of the transactions and ensure that there is a reasonable basis for the incurring of such costs. In this case, FINRA found that on at least 29 occasions, the broker recommended that customers sell mutual funds within only one to thirteen months after purchasing them. Essex Securities was found to have earned commissions of approximately $60,000 on these switch transactions and broker himself was paid approximately $54,000.

Broker Eric Johnson Terminated for Allegedly Stealing Over $1,000,000 From Investors

November 24, 2014 | by Staff Attorney

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) in an acceptance, waiver, and consent action (AWC) barred broker Eric Johnson (Johnson) concerning allegations that Johnson misappropriated more than $1,000,000 from at least six firm customers’ brokerage accounts. FINRA also alleged that Johnson falsified the signatures of two firm employees and notarized seals on firm documents. Finally, Johnson failed to provide documents, information, and on-the-record testimony during FINRA’s investigation of this matter.

Johnson first became registered with FINRA in 1991. In March 1999, Johnson became registered with RedRidge Securities, Inc. (RedRidge). Johnson operates out of his DBA business called HD Brent & Company (HD Brent). RedRidge terminated Johnson’s registration on September 24, 2014, in connection with the firm’s investigation concerning the alleged theft of customer funds. RedRidge may have only become aware of the misappropriation of funds when the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) contacted the firm concerning their investigation of Johnson.

FINRA alleged that from approximately December 2006, through September 2014, Johnson misappropriated more than $1,000,000 in customer funds. FINRA determined that Johnson made at least 60 wire transfers from at least six firm customers’ brokerage accounts to his own personal bank accounts. The wire transfers required the signature of a firm principal and the signature and seal of the firm’s notary public that FINRA alleged Johnson falsified in order to effectuate the transfers. Given that Johnson’s activities took place over the course of eight years it is astonishing that RedRidge did not supervise and detect Johnson’s activities sooner.

Massachusetts Fines LPL Financial Over Variable Annuity Sales Practices to Seniors

November 23, 2014 | by Staff Attorney

According to InvestmentNews, LPL Financial, LLC (LPL Financial) was recently fined by Massachusetts securities regulators fined for sales practices concerning variable annuities and agreed to reimburse senior citizens $541,000 for surrender charges they paid when they switched variable annuities. LPL Financial and its brokers have been on the defensive from securities regulators many times in recent years concerning a variety of alleged sales practice and supervisory short comings as shown below.

Broker Spotlight – Mark Johanson’s Sale of Tenants-in-Common (TIC)

November 13, 2014 | by Staff Attorney

According to the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority’s BrokerCheck system, there have been four customer complaints filed against former Sigma Financial Corporation (Sigma) and current Charles Schwab broker, Mark Johanson (Johanson) stemming from unsuitable Tenants-in-Common (TIC) investments.

Sales of TICs exploded during the early 2000s from approximately $150 million in 2001 to approximately $2 billion by 2004. TICs are private placements that have no secondary trading market and are therefore illiquid investments. These products were promoted as appropriate section 1031 exchanges in which an investor obtains an undivided fractional interest in real property. In a typical TIC, the profits are generated mostly through the efforts of the sponsor and the management company that manages and leases the property. The sponsor typically structures the TIC investment with up-front fees and expenses charged to the TIC and negotiates the sale price and loan for the acquired property.

TIC investments entail significant risks. A TIC investor runs the risk of holding the property for a significant amount of time and that subsequent sales of the property may occur at a discount to the value of the real property interest. FINRA has also warned that the fees and expenses associated with TICs, including sponsor costs, can outweigh the any potential tax benefits associated with a Section 1031 Exchange. That is, the TIC product itself may be a defective product because its costs outweigh any potential investment value for a customer. FINRA also instructed members that they have an obligation to comply with all applicable conduct rules when selling TICs by ensuring that promotional materials used are fair, accurate, and balanced.

FINRA Declines Rule Requiring Brokerage Firms To Carry Insurance

November 5, 2014 | by Staff Attorney

According to a recent report, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) has decided it cannot force firms to carry insurance for payment of awards granted by arbitration panels on behalf of investors who have lost money.

As a background, every investor who opens a brokerage account with an investment firm agrees to arbitrate their dispute before the FINRA. Even if an investor did not open an account with a brokerage firm the claim can still be arbitrated under the industries rules. FINRA is the investment industries self-regulatory organization for all brokerage firms operating in the United States, overseeing approximately 4,700 brokerage firms and 635,000 registered representatives. FINRA both enforces its own rules through regulatory actions and administers an arbitration forum for securities disputes.

Our firm has noticed a recent trend where small and even mid-sized firms fail to keep sufficient funds on hand to pay investors due to misconduct at the firm. These smaller firms sometimes fail to enact proper supervisory procedures and regulatory controls to prevent their brokers from engaging in wrongful conduct. Sometimes these firms simply do not have the resources to properly engage in the securities business lines they attempt to engage in. As a result investors are harmed and due to their small size, cannot be compensated. In 2012, brokerage firms failed to pay $50 million in awards to customers. In 2011, the number of unpaid awards totaled $51 million.

FINRA Bars Broker Joseph Pappalardo Over Allegations of Sales of Coast-2-Coast Properties Securities to Customers

October 24, 2014 | by Staff Attorney

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) barred broker Joseph Pappalardo (Pappalardo) concerning allegations that between August 2008, and August 2012, Pappalardo, while associated with Financial Network Investment Corporation (n/k/a Cetera Advisor Network LLC), made fraudulent and misleading misrepresentations to a customer in the sale of private securities, converted customer funds for his personal use, engaged in private securities transactions (a/k/a “selling away”), failed to disclose several outside business activities, and failed to amend his U4.

Pappalardo joined Financial Network Investment Corporation in 2008 and was required to complete a several questionnaires including disclosures of outside business activities. In 2008, FINRA alleged that Pappalardo disclosed on the questionnaire that he had previously been involved with a real estate company he formed in 2003 called Coast-2-Coast Properties (C2C) that was in the business of buying, renovating, and selling houses but that the company was no longer in business. FINRA alleged that Pappalardo’s statement was false. In fact, FINRA found that Pappalardo was involved in several outside business activities that he failed to disclose to Cetera including ongoing involvement in C2C and its marketing arm Prosperity Financial Estate Planning and Insurance Services (Prosperity Financial).

Thereafter, FINRA found that Pappalardo solicited customers to invest in these businesses. In one instance, FINRA found that Pappalardo solicited the sale of a $100,000 investment in Prosperity Financial which Pappalardo converted for his personal use. In total, FINRA found that Pappalardo solicited C2C to at least 6 customers and purported to offer investors 12% interest returns on profits generated by the business. FINRA found that the investors did not actually own any portion of the real estate properties held by C2C but instead were to receive interest returns on profits from Pappalardo and the business. FINRA found that by engaging in the C2C private securities Pappalardo violated the FINRA rules.

FINRA Alleges that Former Waddell & Reed Employee, Jeffrey Meyer, Engaged in 37 Private Placement Transactions without Proper Notice

September 24, 2014 | by Staff Attorney

On August 21, 2014, Richard A. March, Senior Regional Counsel of FINRA’s Department of Enforcement filed a complaint against Jeffrey Meyer, a financial advisor in Lake in the Hills Illinois who was formerly associated with Waddell & Reed, Inc. The complaint alleges that while employed at Waddell & Reed and WRP Investments, Inc. Mr. Meyer acted outside the scope of his employment with those firms by participating in 37 private securities transactions totaling more than $1.5 million, without providing prior written notice to the firms of his proposed roles in the transactions. FINRA alleges that as a result of the foregoing, Mr. Meyer violated FINRA Rule 2010. FINRA Rule 2010 states that “A member, in the conduct of its business, shall observe high standards of commercial honor and just and equitable principles of trade.”

Mr. Meyer entered the securities industry in January 2000 as an investment company products and variable contracts representative with Franklin Financial Services, Corp. In February 2001 he became a general securities representative with Focused Investments, LCC. According to FINRA, United Private Capital, Inc. was a corporate entity that was established as an investment vehicle for FOREX currency trading. Between November 2008 and September 2009, United Capital sold corporate guarantees totaling $1 million to 20 investors and Mr. Meyer participated in each of the private securities transactions. Mr. Meyer, in some instances collected checks from customers and assisted them in preparing documents to effectuate the transactions. Furthermore, on at least one occasion, Mr. Meyer presented sales material to an individual who subsequently invested at United Private Capital.

In addition, according to FINRA, Mr. Meyer participated in private securities transactions related to commercial loans through Strategic Lending Solutions, LLC as well. Those promissory notes totaled approximately $300,000 with 13 investors. Mr. Meyer received a 2% payment based on the amount of the promissory note.

Broker Ismail Elmas Terminated Over Outside Business Activities

September 22, 2014 | by Staff Attorney

According to broker Ismail Elmas’ (Elmas) Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) BrokerCheck records the representative was recently discharged from CUSO Financial Services, LP (CUSO Financial) concerning allegations that the broker “converted client funds for personal use as well as participated in an unauthorized outside business activity involving investments without the firm approval…” Previously Elmas was associated with CUNA Brokerage Services, Inc.

Shortly thereafter, a customer filed a complaint against Elmas alleging that the broker took the client’s variable annuity contract, surrendered it, and sent the proceeds to a third-party – which the client says was unauthorized activity. In addition, since Elmas was terminated from CUSO Financial authorities have been unable to locate the broker. In articles, officials say that Elmas, 49, has been missing since July 29^th and have warned that Elmas may be armed and should not be approached. According to reports Elmas was last seen leaving his home in his gray 2008 Toyota Prius.

The allegations against Elmas are consistent with a “selling away” securities violation. Selling away occurs when a financial advisor solicits investments in companies or promissory notes that were not approved by the broker’s affiliated firm. Under the FINRA rules, a brokerage firm owes a duty to properly monitor and supervise its employees. In order to properly supervise their brokers each firm is required to establish and maintain a system to supervise the activities of each registered representative to achieve compliance with the securities laws. Selling away often occurs in environments where the brokerage firms either fails to put in place a reasonable supervisory system or fails to actually implement that system and meet supervisory requirements.