Articles Tagged with Failure to Supervise

shutterstock_161005307The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) sanctioned brokerage firm The Oak Ridge Financial Services Group, lnc. (Oak Ridge) in connection with allegations that Oak Ridge failed to establish and maintain a supervisory system regarding the sale of leveraged, inverse and inverse leveraged exchange-traded funds (Non-Traditional ETFs) that were reasonably designed to achieve compliance with the securities laws.

Oak Ridge became a FINRA member in 1997 and is headquartered in Golden Valley, Minnesota. Oak Ridge engages in a general securities business, employs 57 registered representatives, and operates out of a single office.

Non-Traditional ETFs contain drastically different characteristics, including risks, from traditional ETFs that 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. The leverage employed by Non-Traditional ETFs is designed not simply to mirror the index but to generate 2 to 3 times the return of the underlining asset class. Non-Traditional ETFs can also be used to return the inverse or the opposite result of the return of the benchmark.

shutterstock_95416924This post picks up on our first article on The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) sanctioning brokerage firm B. C. Ziegler and Company (B. C. Ziegler) and ordering the brokerage firm to pay $150,000 on allegations that the firm failed to implement a supervisory system reasonably designed to ensure that material economic information regarding Church Bonds was disclosed to the firm’s brokers, trading desk, and customers.

FINRA found that while the firm maintained a Credit Watch List to check for delinquent and missed Church Bond payments, this list was only produced periodically and not every time a Church Bond issuer fell five weeks behind on its sinking fund payments. Accordingly, FINRA found that B. C. Ziegler violated NASD Rule 3010 by failing to establish and maintain a supervisory system reasonably designed to ensure that material economic information, such as delinquent sinking fund payments, was disclosed to the firm’s brokers and customers who were sold Church Bonds in secondary market transactions.

FINRA found that prior to September 2010, B. C. Ziegler did not inform its brokers, trading desk, or customers when an issuer was more than 30 days behind on its sinking fund payments, an indicator of financial distress. Further, it was alleged that from September 2010, through at least May 2012, B. C. Ziegler’s registered representatives and trading desk were informed only periodically when a Church Bond issuer fell five weeks behind on its sinking fund payments through the Credit Watch List causing B.C. Ziegler’s supervisory system to not be reasonably designed to consider material economic information in the pricing of Church Bonds in secondary market transactions. The result, FINRA found, was that the firm had similar pricing for secondary market trades in Church Bonds that were current and delinquent with sinking fund payments.

shutterstock_85873471The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) sanctioned brokerage firm B. C. Ziegler and Company (B. C. Ziegler) and ordering the brokerage firm to pay $150,000 in connection with allegations that from January 1, 2009, through May 30, 2012 B. C. Ziegler failed to implement a supervisory system reasonably designed to ensure that material economic information regarding Church Bonds, including information concerning delinquent sinking fund payments, was disclosed to the firm’s brokers, trading desk, and customers, and was factored into the pricing of Church Bonds sold to customers in secondary market transactions. In addition, it was alleged that B. C. Ziegler used Church Bond sales material with customers that was not fair and balanced. The sales material prominently promoted the yields associated with Church Bonds without balancing the presentations by disclosing the risks. FINRA also alleged that B. C. Ziegler distributed unbalanced internal-use-only Church Bond sales material to its registered representatives, causing the firm to violate NASD Rule 2211(d)(1) and FINRA Rule 2010.

B. C. Ziegler has been a registered broker-dealer since 1948 and is a full service brokerage firm headquartered in Chicago, Illinois. A primary business of the firm is the underwriting and sale of fixed income products, including debt issued by religious institutions known as “Church Bonds” and senior living facilities (Senior Living Bonds). The firm has approximately 22 branch offices and 200 registered representatives.

According to FINRA, B. C. Ziegler specializes in underwriting and selling Church Bonds for religious institutions. Church Bonds are generally issued by nonprofit religious entities and as such are exempt from registration as a security with the SEC. While there is no established secondary market for Church Bonds, FINRA found that B. C. Ziegler frequently facilitated secondary trading among its customers for Church Bonds it underwrote. A Church Bond sinking fund is a pool of money funded with periodic payments by an issuer for the purpose of accumulating money to make annual or semi-annual coupon payments due to investors of Church Bonds. A Church Bond issuer behind on its sinking fund payments is not in strict compliance with its trust indenture and may be a sign of an issuer’s financial distress.

shutterstock_77335852The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) sanctioned brokerage firm 79 Capital Securities, LLC (79 Capital) and broker Michael Ward (Ward) concerning allegations around June and July 2012, 79 Capital and Ward posted on the website of a business networking organization sales material regarding GWG Renewable Secured Debentures (GWG Debentures), an illiquid and high-risk alternative private placement investment that omitted material information concerning the debentures. Additionally, FINRA alleged that the firm and Ward failed to record basic suitability information and create new account forms for customers involved in two transactions for the purchase of debentures. Finally, FINRA found that respondents also permitted an employee whose FINRA registration had not been approved, to sell the GWG Debentures and in doing so failed to enforce the firm’s written procedures requiring the creation of new account forms and prohibiting unregistered persons from effecting securities transactions.

According to our investigation, 79 Capital is the third brokerage firm or broker to be sanctioned by FINRA in the past year concerning the improper sale of GWG Debentures. See Broker Sanctioned Over Unsuitable Sales of Private Placement Securities (FINRA sanctioned Karen Geiger); FINRA Sanctions Michael Wurdinger and Anil Vazirani Over GWG Debenture Sales (FINRA sanctioned brokers associated with Center Street Securities, Inc.).

As a background, GWG Holdings, Inc. purchases life insurance policies on the secondary market at a discount to the face value of the policies. Once purchased, GWG pays the policy premiums until the insured dies and then GWG collects the face value of the insurance hoping to earn returns by collecting more upon the maturity of the policies than it has paid to purchase the policy and service the premiums. FINRA found that the company has a limited operating history and has yet to be profitable.

shutterstock_188383739The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) sanctioned brokerage firm optionsXpress, Inc. (optionsXpress) concerning allegations that: 1) between March 2007, and March 2012, optionsXpress contracted with a third party service provider referred to as (GBT) to provide options trading coaching services to the firm’s options customers; 2) the firm approved marketing scripts that were used by GBT to sell the coaching program to optionsXpress customers that failed to present a fair and balanced description of the risks and potential benefits of the coaching program; and 3) between April 2011, and July 2011, the firm operated a retail forex business without having first received approval from FINRA to do so.

optionsXpress has been a FINRA firm since August 2000. The firm is primarily an online broker-dealer that specializes in providing customers an online platform to trade options.

FINRA found that under the terms of the firm’s Agreement with GBT coaches were prohibited from advising clients in live trading situations. The agreement provided that GBT coaches are vigorously trained on the absolute prohibition of making buy/sell recommendations to students. However, FINRA found that in implementing the coaching program, GBT’s coaches did not uniformly adhere to this prohibition and in certain instances coaches discussed live trades, specific transactions, or strategies that the customer was considering executing. Even though coaching sessions were prefaced with the disclaimer that coaches were not permitted to make buy, sell, or hold recommendations, FINRA determined that in certain sessions, the “coaching” surpassed mere discussions of specific securities transactions, and rose to the level of buy, sell, or hold recommendations.

shutterstock_112362875The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) sanctioned brokerage firm NEXT Financial Group, Inc. (NEXT Financial) concerning allegations that: 1) between March 17, 2009, and August 26, 2011, NEXT Financial failed to timely and accurately amend registered representatives’ Forms U4 and U5 to disclose customer complaints, judgments and liens; 2) from January 1, 2010, through August 26, 2011, NEXT Financial permitted its former general counsel to directly supervise registered persons without a principal registration; and 3) from March 17, 2009, through August 10, 2012, NEXT Financial failed to establish and maintain a supervisory system that was reasonably designed to prevent and detect unsuitable sales of structured products to retail customers.

NEXT Financial is a general securities broker-dealer located in Houston, Texas and a member of FINRA since 1999. The firm currently has approximately 900 registered persons and 590 registered branch locations.

FINRA Rules require that every application for registration (Form U4) filed with FINRA shall be kept current at all times by supplementary amendments. Supplementary amendments must be filed within 30 days after learning of facts or circumstances that would require an amendment. FINRA also requires that a notice of termination (Form U5) be filed with FINRA within 30 days after an individual’s association with a member firm is terminated and the form must be kept current at all times by supplementary amendments.

shutterstock_173809013The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) sanctioned brokerage firm Great American Advisors, Inc. (Great American) concerning allegations that between December 2006, and December 2007, Great American failed to have an adequate supervisory system for the sale of variable annuities. FINRA alleged that two of the firm’s registered representatives recommended and effected 301 unsuitable variable annuity transactions involving 206 customers causing customers to pay $363,173 in unnecessary surrender fees and incur longer surrender periods.

Great American has been a registered firm with FINRA since 1994. From 1994 through August 2010, the Great American operated as a full service firm selling mutual funds and annuities, among other investment products. Since August 2010, the firm serves as a principal underwriter and distributor for annuity products and has 54 registered representatives.

As a background, a variable annuity is an investment and insurance product with significant risks and features the investor should be aware of before investing. Recently the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) released a publication entitled: Variable Annuities: What You Should Know. A variable annuity is a contract with an insurance company where the insurer agrees to make periodic payments to you based upon the chosen investments made in the annuity account. The investment options for a variable annuity are usually a selection of a group of mutual funds.

shutterstock_114128113Back in Decmeber 2013, the law offices of Gana Weinstein LLP reported that “Former Ryan Beck and Oppenheimer Financial Advisor William Bucci Barred From the Financial Industry” where we reported that The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) barred Bucci for allegedly accepting 19 personal loans totaling $635,000 from nine customers in violation of FINRA rules. FINRA also alleged that Bucci willfully failed to amend his Form U4 to disclose material facts relating to two judgments that were entered against him. In addition to these claims, several customers filed complaints alleging that Bucci sold illegal promissory notes.

Recently, a combined investigation by the IRS and the FBI led to the filing of a federal complaint in the Eastern District Court of Pennsylvania against Bucci in connection with the foregoing activities. The complaint alleged that Bucci willfully made Individual Income Tax Return, Form 1040, for the calendar years 2007, 2008, 2009, and 2010 that falsely understated his income.

In addition, a second superseding indictment was filed against Bucci on July 22, 2014, by the United States Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania alleging that Bucci was running an investment fraud scheme that deceived investors into turning over more than $3.2 million. According to a press release issued by the office, Bucci told his victims he was starting a wine and high end olive oil import business to import the goods from Italy. The release stated that Bucci was a licensed stockbroker and a non-lawyer elector on the Pennsylvania Court of Judicial Discipline who never had an olive oil and wine business. The release also alleged that Bucci also solicited individuals to loan money for the purchase of real estate. According to the indictment, Bucci used the funds to supplement his income and to support his lifestyle as well as to make payments to earlier victims.

shutterstock_157506896The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) has sanctioned Salomon Whitney, LLC (Salomon Whitney) concerning allegations from July 2008 through November 2009 the firm failed to establish and maintain a supervisory system reasonably designed to monitor transactions in leveraged, inverse, and inverse-leveraged Exchange-Traded Funds (Non-Traditional ETFs). Non-Traditional ETFs contained risks that increase over time and in volatile markets including risks of a daily reset, leverage, and compounding. FINRA found that Salomon Whitney failed to establish a reasonable supervisory system to monitor transactions in Non-Traditional ETFs, provide adequate formal training, and observe reasonable basis suitability guidelines by failing to perform reasonable due diligence to understand the risks and features associated with the products.

Salomon Whitney has been a FINRA broker-dealer since 2008 and the firm is headquartered in Farmingdale, New York where it conducts a general securities business. Salomon Whitney has approximately 19 brokers registered with the firm.

Non-Traditional ETFs use a combination of derivatives instruments and debt to multiply returns on an underlining asset, class of securities, or sector index. The leverage employed by Non-Traditional ETFs is designed to generate 2 to 3 times the return of the underlining asset class. Non-Traditional ETFs can also be used to return the inverse or the opposite result of the return of the benchmark.

shutterstock_178801082The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) sanctioned broker Robert Livingstone (Livingstone) concerning allegations that Livingstone failed to respond FINRA’s request for documents concerning claims that Livingstone deposited a customer’s money into a private company called Newland Strategies.

Livingstone first became registered with FINRA in 1992 as a General Securities Representative with Morgan Stanley DW, Inc. Thereafter, in 2001, Livingstone registered with BB&T Investment Services, Inc. (BB&T). Livingstone remained registered with BB&T until the firm filed a Form U5 that terminated his registration with on October 3, 2013. BB&T stated on Livingstone’s BrokerCheck that a “client alleged she thought she invested 200,000 with BBTIS through her BBTIS rep in February 2013. However, it was deposited into a private company called Newland Strategies by her rep and was told she lost $68,000.”

FINRA alleged that in October 2013, BB&T terminated Livingstone’s registration after the firm investigated a customer complaint against Livingstone alleging participation in a private securities transaction. On March 21, 2014, FINRA investigated the customer complaint against Livingstone and requested documents and information from Livingstone. FINRA stated that Livingstone did not produce the requested documents and information after several requests. It was alleged that on April 24, 2014, Livingstone informed FINRA that he would not comply with requests. As a result of Livingstone’s failure to provide documents and information as required by FINRA Rule 8210, FINRA found that Livingstone violated FINRA Rules 8210 and 2010 and imposed a bar from the financial industry.

Contact Information