Failure to Supervise

JP Turner Sanctioned Again By Financial Regulator

June 27, 2014 | by Staff Attorney

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) sanctioned broker-dealer J.P. Turner & Company, L.L.C. (JP Turner) concerning allegations JP Turner failed to establish and enforce reasonable supervisory procedures to monitor the outside brokerage accounts of its registered representatives. In addition, FINRA alleged that JP Turner failed to establish an escrow account on one contingency offering and broke the escrow without raising the required minimum in bona fide investments.

This isn’t the first time that FINRA has come down on JP Turner’s practices and that our firm has written about the conduct of JP Turner brokers. Those articles can be accessed here (JP Turner Sanctioned By FINRA Over Non-Traditional ETF Sales and Mutual Fund Switches), here (JP Turner Supervisor Sanctioned Over Failure to Supervise Mutual Fund Switches), and here (SEC Finds that Former JP Turner Broker Ralph Calabro Churned A Client’s Account).

JP Turner has been FINRA firm since 1997. JP Turner engages in a wide range of securities transactions including the sale of municipal and corporate debt securities, equities, mutual funds, options, oil and gas interests, private placements, variable annuities, and other direct participation programs. JP Turner employs approximately 422 financial advisors and operates out of 185 branch offices with principal offices in Atlanta, Georgia.

Carolina Financial Fined by FINRA Over Private Placement Due Diligence

June 26, 2014 | by Staff Attorney

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) recently sanctioned brokerage firm Carolina Financial Securities, LLC (Carolina Financial) concerning allegations that the firm failed to conduct proper due diligence on private placements sold by the firm.

Carolina Financial has been FINRA member since 1997 and operates out of Brevard, North Carolina. The firm has 12 registered representatives and derives generates revenues through the sale of private placements. The firm has two other prior disciplinary actions including a FINRA action in July 2010, concerning allegations that Carolina Financial failed to ensure that an escrow account was established for a contingent offering.

NASD Rule 3010 requires brokerage firms to establish, maintain, and enforce a supervisory system reasonably designed to comply with the securities laws and the FINRA rules. As part of a brokerage firm’s responsibility includes conducting due diligence on its securities products in order for the firm to understand the risks of these products and to have a reasonable basis to believe these products are suitable for at least some customers. FINRA stated in its complaint that due diligence is especially important for alternative investments such as private placement offerings under Regulation D where there is no registration of the securities with the SEC.

Ameriprise Slammed With $1.17 Million Decision Concerning Tenants-in-Common (TIC) Investments

June 17, 2014 | by Staff Attorney

A Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) arbitration panel recently ordered Ameriprise Financial Services Inc. (Ameriprise) to pay two elderly California investors $1.17 for recommending the investments in Tenants-in-Common (TIC), real estate related investments that eventually failed.

Brokerage firms, such as Ameriprise, having increasingly turned to alternative investment products such as TICs in recent years. The sales of TIC interests grew from approximately $150 million in 2001 to approximately $2 billion by 2004. FINRA has warned brokerage firms to put investors on notice of the risks of these illiquid investment for which no secondary market exists. In addition, subsequent sales of TIC property may occur at a discount to the value of the real property interest causing the investor substantial losses. FINRA has also warned that the fces and expenses charged by the TIC sponsor can outweigh the potential tax benefits associated with the IRS Section 1031 Exchange. FINRA requires that all member brokerage firms have an obligation to comply with all applicable conduct rules when selling TICs. These rules include the obligation to conduct proper due diligence and to ensure that promotional materials used are fair, accurate, and balanced.

In a recent InvestmentNews article, it was reported that in May, a FINRA arbitration panel in San Francisco ruled that Ameriprise had inappropriately advised two retired schoolteachers to invest a total of $1.03 million into three TICs in office complexes and hotels in early 2008. One of the TICs has subsequently failed and the two others have suffered declines in value. According to the investors, the couple lost most of their life savings. The couple invested in TICs known as ARI-Onyx Office Plaza Tenant In Common; Moody Springhill Suites Pittsburgh Tenant in Common; and Moody Marriott TownePlace Suites Portland Scarborough Tenant in Common.

Morgan Stanley Fined $5,000,000 For Failure To Supervise Sales of IPO’s

June 16, 2014 | by Staff Attorney

On May 6, 2014, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) announced that it had fined Morgan Stanley Smith Barney LLC $5,000,000 for failure to properly supervise the solicitation of retail clients to invest in initial public offerings (IPOs). According to FINRA, Morgan Stanley sold shares to its retail customers in eighty-three different IPO’s between February 16, 2012 and May 1, 2013, with insufficient procedures and employee education. Some of the more commonly sold IPOs included Facebook and Yelp among other Internet favorites.

When broker dealers sell IPOs, there is a process in place for soliciting customer interest. Prior to the effective date of the registration statement, firms may only obtain an “indication of interest” from customers. An “indication of interest” is not a purchase. In order for an “indication of interest” to result in a purchase the investor must reconfirm their interest after the IPO registration statement becomes effective. Broker dealers may also solicit what is known as “conditional offers to buy.” This differs from an “indication of interest” in that the investor does not have to reconfirm. It may bind the customer after the registration statement becomes effective if the investor simply takes no action to revoke the conditional offer before the brokerage firm accepts it. According to FINRA, Morgan Stanley Smith Barney failed to institute adequate procedures and properly train its employees to ensure that its staff clearly differentiated an “indication of interest” from a “conditional offer” in their solicitation of potential investors.

Morgan Stanley Smith Barney actually adopted a policy related to the solicitation of IPO’s. In adopting this policy back on February 16, 2012, however, the firm used the terms “indication of interest” and “conditional offer” interchangeably, which implicitly disregarded the need for customer reconfirmation prior to trade execution. According to FINRA, Morgan Stanley never provided its sales teams and financial advisers any education or materials explaining the differences in terminology. As a consequence there was a strong possibility that neither the Morgan Stanley staff nor its customers properly understood the type of order that was being solicited. In addition, FINRA found that Morgan Stanley’s inadequate policies failed to comply with the federal securities laws and other FINRA rules.

Gana LLP Investigates Broker Patricia Miller’s Ponzi Scheme

June 6, 2014 | by Staff Attorney

The law offices of Gana Weinstein LLP are currently investigating an alleged Ponzi scheme run by financial advisor Patricia S. Miller (Miller) of McMurray, Pennsylvania. According to allegations made against Miller by investors, she convinced customers to invest in purportedly safe mix of securities including corporate and municipal bonds. However, it is becoming increasingly clear that these investments may not exist at all.

Miller was a registered broker with several brokerage firms including Janney Montgomery Scott LLC and Investors Capital Corp. (Investors Capital). According to Miller’s BrokerCheck, on May 19, 2014, Investors Capital received a complaint alleging that an investor provided Miller with $80,000 that had been misappropriated by Miller. Two days later Investors Capital discharged Miller alleging that the broker has been accused of misappropriating funds, borrowing money from customers, fraudulent investment activity, and creating false documents.

According to investor complaints, Miller may have used various entities, including KS Investments, KS Investment Partnership, K Squared Development, K Squared Investments, Buck Harbor Investments, Buck Harbor Investment Club, and Buck Harbor Investment Partnership in order to carry out her scheme. Investors in these vehicles may have received false statements listing securities holdings and values of securities that may not truly exist. For instance some investors may have been misled into believing that they owned bonds issued by companies like General Electric, McDonald’s Corporation, Ford Motor Company, and other municipal bonds.

Mislead into Investing in Tenants-in-Common (TIC) Property?

May 22, 2014 | by Staff Attorney

The sales of Tenants-in-Common (TIC) interests grew significantly during the early 2000s from approximately $150 million in 2001 to approximately $2 billion by 2004. The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) has noted that TICs are illiquid investments for which no secondary market exists 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 risk that the fces and expenses charged by the TIC sponsor can outweigh the potential tax benefits associated with a Section 1031 Exchange. 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.

According to FINRA former brokerage firm CapWest Securities, Inc., (CapWest) violated industry content standards in communications with the public. FINRA found that the communications: (1) were not fair and balanced and failed to provide a sound basis for evaluating TIC investments being promoted; (2) used exaggerated and or misleading statements; (3) used prohibited statements by projecting the results of the products being promoted; and (4) used customer testimonials without proper disclosures. FINRA also found that CapWest violated supervisory standards by failing to implement effective supervisory procedures. FINRA found that all of these violations and conduct were inconsistent with just and equitable principles of trade.

FINRA’s investigation involved CapWest’s promotion and sales of Section 1031 Exchanges and TIC investments that started being sold in the early 2000s. CapWest made public communications to promote tax-deferred exchanges of real property under Section 1031 of the Internal Revenue Code (IRC) as well as TIC investments. The IRC permits an investor to defer paying capital gains tax on the sale of real estate held for use for investment by exchanging the investment for “like-kind” property of equal or greater value.

Colorado Financial Service Fined By FINRA Over Private Placement Supervisory Failures

April 28, 2014 | by Staff Attorney

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) recently fined Colorado Financial Service Corporation (Colorado Financial) concerning allegations that the firm violated NASD Rule 3010, and FINRA Rule 2010, among other violations, by failing to establish, maintain, and enforce supervisory procedures reasonably designed to ensure compliance with the securities rules pertaining to the supervision of electronic communications and due diligence review of new private placement offerings.

Colorado Financial is based in Centennial and became a FINRA member in 2000. Currently, there are approximately 82 persons registered with Colorado Financial in thirty six branches. The firm’s primary lines of business include investment banking, private placements, mutual funds, and variable life insurance or annuities.

FINRA alleged that Colorado Financial did not establish, maintain, and enforce adequate procedures to supervise and review electronic communications for the period of February 2009 to September 2012. According to FINRA, Colorado Financial only manually reviewed between .1% and 1.5% out of approximately 325,900 archived e-mails during the period of January 2012 to September 2012. FINRA found that Colorado Financial’s written supervisory procedures relating to electronic communications did not indicate who at the firm was responsible for the supervisory review, how the review would be conducted and documented, or establish protocols for escalating regulatory issues in e-mails.

LPL Financial Fined by FINRA for Failing to Supervise Sales of Alternative Investments

April 25, 2014 | by Staff Attorney

On March 24, 2014, LPL Financial LLC, the fourth largest broker dealer, measured by number of salespersons, was fined $950,000 by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) for failing to supervise the way that its brokers marketed and sold nontraditional investments. The fine is one of many that have recently been imposed on LPL and other “independent broker-dealers,” firms that provide products, marketing, and regulatory services to independent brokers who are not their full-time employees.

LPL Financial was alleged to have deficient supervision as it related to the sales of alternative investment products, including non-traded real estate investment trusts (REITs), oil and gas partnerships, business development companies (BDC’s), hedge funds, managed futures, and other illiquid pass through investments. FINRA found that from January 1, 2008, to July 1, 2012, LPL failed to adequately supervise the sales of theses alternative investments that violated concentration limits.

Investors often rely on professional advisors like LPL Financial, which help them to diversify their portfolio while minimizing risk. LPL, like many states, has limits in place, on the portion of a client’s portfolio that can be concentrated in these riskier, alternative investments. According to FINRA, however, LPL failed to ensure adherence to these limits. FINRA explained that between 2008 and 2012, LPL utilized a manual process that relied on outdated data to conduct suitability reviews. FINRA further stated that once LPL transitioned to a new automated review system, its database was built with faulty programming.

FINRA Fines Triad Advisors and Securities America for Failure to Supervise Issuance of Consolidated Reports

April 24, 2014 | by Staff Attorney

On March 12, 2014, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) announced that it sanctioned and fined Triad Advisors and Securities America, $650,000 and $625,000, respectively, for failing to supervise the use of consolidated reporting systems, after brokers from the firms inaccurately represented the value of some customer holdings, often inflating their overall worth.

Triad Advisors and Securities America, both registered broker dealers, had internal systems designed to generate consolidated reports—documents intended to combine most, if not all, of a customer’s financial holdings, regardless of where those assets or accounts are held. These reports do not replace account statements, but rather supplement the more traditional document. These two broker dealers, however, maintained consolidated report systems that allowed their respective brokers and representatives to manually create, rather than automatically generate, consolidated reports. In doing so, representatives from Triad and Securities America were able to customize the reports by manually inputting the data, entering asset values for accounts held away from the firm before providing the reports to customers.

According to FINRA, over the last few years, both firms regularly permitted their advisors to use these highly customizable reporting software systems, but in doing so, failed to maintain the proper supervisions. The lack of supervision, says FINRA, led to clients inadvertently, or in some cases intentionally, receiving inaccurate and misleading account information.

Meyers Associates: Black Marks and Red Flags

April 15, 2014 | by Staff Attorney

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) maintains a public database, called BrokerCheck, which acts as a free tool for investors looking to research the backgrounds of FINRA registered personnel. BrokerCheck covers brokerage firms, brokers, investment adviser firms and representatives. Searches allow investors to draw upon filings by firms, regulators, and other investment professionals, to reveal licensing status and history, employment history, and any reported regulatory infraction, customer dispute, criminal actions, financial issues, and other related matters.

These black mark events, revealed by BrokerCheck, are known as “disclosure events” and are often viewed as red flags by investors and the industry. Advisers and brokers who have marred records with multiple events carry inherent regulatory risk. As a consequence, most of the elite broker dealers and advisory firms will shy away from hiring representatives with such backgrounds.

Enter Meyers Associates, L.P.