investment advisor fraud

FINRA Bars Broker Marat (a/k/a Matt) Zeltser

February 1, 2016 | by Staff Attorney

The securities lawyers of Gana Weinstein LLP are investigating customer complaints filed with The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority’s (FINRA) against broker Marat (a/k/a Matt) Zeltser (Zeltser). According to BrokerCheck records there are at least one customer complaint, one regulatory, one investigation, and one employment separation that have been filed against Zeltser. The customer complaints against Zeltser alleges a number of securities law violations including that the broker invested money in triple leveraged ETFs over long periods of time among other claims. The claim is currently pending.

FINRA terminated Zeltser after the broker failed to respond to a letter request for information in August 2015. Prior to that time, in January 2015, FINRA opened an investigation into Zeltser alleging potential willful violations of securities fraud laws and FINRA rules. Prior to that, Zeltser was discharged from Pointe Capital, Inc. for violating the firm’s advertising policy and the use of unapproved communications.

Brokers have a responsibility treat investors fairly which includes obligations such as making only suitable investments for the client. In order to make a suitable recommendation the broker must meet certain requirements. First, there must be reasonable basis for the recommendation the product or security based upon the broker’s investigation and due diligence into the investment’s properties including its benefits, risks, tax consequences, and other relevant factors. Second, the broker then must match the investment as being appropriate for the customer’s specific investment needs and objectives such as the client’s retirement status, long or short term goals, age, disability, income needs, or any other relevant factor.

Broker Spotlight: Customer Complaints Against Independent Financial Broker Brian Zimmerman

January 30, 2016 | by Staff Attorney

The securities lawyers of Gana Weinstein LLP are investigating customer complaints filed with The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority’s (FINRA) against broker Brian Zimmerman (Zimmerman). According to BrokerCheck records there are at least 5 customer complaints that have been filed against Zimmerman. The customer complaints against Zimmerman allege a number of securities law violations including that the broker made unsuitable investments, misrepresentations, failure to supervise, and churning (excessive trading) among other claims. The most recent customer complaint against Zimmerman filed in July 2014 alleges that Zimmerman breached his fiduciary duty, negligence, and misrepresentations in the handling of the customer’s account leading to $128,405 in damages. The claim is currently pending.

Brokers have a responsibility treat investors fairly which includes obligations such as making only suitable investments for the client. In order to make a suitable recommendation the broker must meet certain requirements. First, there must be reasonable basis for the recommendation the product or security based upon the broker’s investigation and due diligence into the investment’s properties including its benefits, risks, tax consequences, and other relevant factors. Second, the broker then must match the investment as being appropriate for the customer’s specific investment needs and objectives such as the client’s retirement status, long or short term goals, age, disability, income needs, or any other relevant factor.

The number of customer complaints against Zimmerman is high relative to his peers. According to InvestmentNews, only about 12% of financial advisors have any type of disclosure event on their records. Brokers must publicly disclose certain types of reportable events on their CRD including but not limited to customer complaints. In addition to disclosing client disputes brokers must divulge IRS tax liens, judgments, and criminal matters. However, FINRA’s records are not always complete according to a Wall Street Journal story that checked with 26 state regulators and found that at least 38,400 brokers had regulatory or financial red flags such as a personal bankruptcy that showed up in state records but not on BrokerCheck. More disturbing is the fact that 19,000 out of those 38,400 brokers had spotless BrokerCheck records.

Broker Spotlight: Customer Complaints Against PHX Financial Broker Johnathan McHale

January 28, 2016 | by Staff Attorney

The securities lawyers of Gana Weinstein LLP are investigating customer complaints filed with The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority’s (FINRA) against broker Johnathan McHale (McHale). According to BrokerCheck records there are at least 6 customer complaints, one employment separation for cause, and 6 judgments or liens that have been filed against McHale. The most recent customer complaint against McHale filed in April 2014 alleges that McHale breached his fiduciary duty, negligence, and misrepresentations in the handling of the customer’s account leading to $108,000 in damages. The claim was settled for $14,995. In August 2012, another client alleged that McHale engaged in unsuitable investments leading to $43,000 in damages. The claim was denied.

In May 2014, National Securities Corporation terminated McHale alleging that he violated the firm’s policy by using his personal email address for business correspondence. In addition, McHale has 6 judgements. One tax lien filed in March 2011 for $34,598. Substantial judgements and liens on a broker’s record can reveal a financial incentive for the broker to recommend high commission products or services. 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 have a responsibility treat investors fairly which includes obligations such as making only suitable investments for the client. In order to make a suitable recommendation the broker must meet certain requirements. First, there must be reasonable basis for the recommendation the product or security based upon the broker’s investigation and due diligence into the investment’s properties including its benefits, risks, tax consequences, and other relevant factors. Second, the broker then must match the investment as being appropriate for the customer’s specific investment needs and objectives such as the client’s retirement status, long or short term goals, age, disability, income needs, or any other relevant factor.

Recovery Options for United Development Funding Investors

January 25, 2016 | by Staff Attorney

The securities lawyers of Gana Weinstein LLP are investigating investors that were recommended to invest in non-traded real estate investment trusts (Non-Traded REITs) or publicly traded shares of United Development Funding (UDF) funds. Based upon the investor’s investment objectives and other information such investments may have been unsuitable for the investor. Recently, UDF IV, a publicly traded REIT, plummeted about 50% in value after allegations arose claiming that UDF runs its REIT programs like a Ponzi scheme.

As a background, according to UDF’s website the company was founded in 2003 and purports to provide investors with an opportunity to diversify their portfolios with “fundamentally sound investments in affordable residential real estate.”

However, allegations have been made that UDF IV made false or misleading statements and omissions about its business. It has been alleged that UDF IV failed to disclose that: (1) subsequent UDF REIT companies provide significant liquidity and capital to earlier UDF companies which allows those companies to repay earlier investors; (2) if funding from retail investors to the latest UDF company were halted the earlier UDF companies would not be capable of continuing operations; (3) UDF IV provided liquidity to UDF I, UMT and UDF III, as part of an investment scheme; (4) UDF IV was being operated in a manner similar to a Ponzi scheme where new capital is being used to pay prior investors; (5) UDF IV failed to disclose that the company was being investigated by the SEC for its practices; and (6) UDF IV’s business prospect representations were false and misleading.

Broker Investigation: Churning Claims Against National Securities Corporation Broker Shaun Stein

January 23, 2016 | by Staff Attorney

The securities fraud lawyers of Gana Weinstein LLP are investigating customer complaints filed with The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority’s (FINRA) against broker Shaun Stein (Stein). According to BrokerCheck records there are at least 3 customer complaints against Stein. The customer complaints against Stein allege a number of securities law violations including that the broker made unsuitable investments, misrepresentations, breach of fiduciary duty, and churning (excessive trading) among other claims. The most recent customer complaint filed in July 2015 alleged churning and mishandling of the account claiming $60,000 in damages. The claim is still pending. In June 2014, another client filed a complaint alleging unsuitable investments, fraud, unfair trade practices and other claims claiming damages of $75,000. The claim has been closed.

As a background, when brokers engage in excessive trading, sometimes referred to as churning, the broker will typical trade in and out of securities, sometimes even the same stock, many times over a short period of time. Often times the account will completely “turnover” every month with different securities. This type of investment trading activity in the client’s account serves no reasonable purpose for the investor and is engaged in only to profit the broker through the generation of commissions created by the trades. Churning is considered a species of securities fraud. The elements of the claim are excessive transactions of securities, broker control over the account, and intent to defraud the investor by obtaining unlawful commissions. A similar claim, excessive trading, under FINRA’s suitability rule involves just the first two elements. Certain commonly used measures and ratios used to determine churning help evaluate a churning claim. These ratios look at how frequently the account is turned over plus whether or not the expenses incurred in the account made it unreasonable that the investor could reasonably profit from the activity.

The number of customer complaints against Stein is high relative to his peers. According to InvestmentNews, only about 12% of financial advisors have any type of disclosure event on their records. Brokers must publicly disclose certain types of reportable events on their CRD including but not limited to customer complaints. In addition to disclosing client disputes brokers must divulge IRS tax liens, judgments, and criminal matters. However, FINRA’s records are not always complete according to a Wall Street Journal story that checked with 26 state regulators and found that at least 38,400 brokers had regulatory or financial red flags such as a personal bankruptcy that showed up in state records but not on BrokerCheck. More disturbing is the fact that 19,000 out of those 38,400 brokers had spotless BrokerCheck records.

Broker Investigation: Churning Claims Against Aegis Broker Michael Venturino

January 22, 2016 | by Staff Attorney

The securities fraud lawyers of Gana Weinstein LLP are investigating customer complaints filed with The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority’s (FINRA) against broker Michael Venturino (Venturino). According to BrokerCheck records there are at least 2 customer complaints against Venturino. The customer complaints against Venturino allege a number of securities law violations including that the broker made unsuitable investments, misrepresentations, negligence, and churning (excessive trading) among other claims. The most recent customer complaint filed in June 2014 alleged excessive mark-ups or commissions claiming $125,000 in damages. The claim is still pending. In March 2014, another client filed a complaint alleging unsuitable investments, unauthorized trading, and churning among other claims claiming damages of $140,368. The claim is still pending.

As a background, when brokers engage in excessive trading, sometimes referred to as churning, the broker will typical trade in and out of securities, sometimes even the same stock, many times over a short period of time. Often times the account will completely “turnover” every month with different securities. This type of investment trading activity in the client’s account serves no reasonable purpose for the investor and is engaged in only to profit the broker through the generation of commissions created by the trades. Churning is considered a species of securities fraud. The elements of the claim are excessive transactions of securities, broker control over the account, and intent to defraud the investor by obtaining unlawful commissions. A similar claim, excessive trading, under FINRA’s suitability rule involves just the first two elements. Certain commonly used measures and ratios used to determine churning help evaluate a churning claim. These ratios look at how frequently the account is turned over plus whether or not the expenses incurred in the account made it unreasonable that the investor could reasonably profit from the activity.

The number of customer complaints against Venturino is high relative to his peers. According to InvestmentNews, only about 12% of financial advisors have any type of disclosure event on their records. Brokers must publicly disclose certain types of reportable events on their CRD including but not limited to customer complaints. In addition to disclosing client disputes brokers must divulge IRS tax liens, judgments, and criminal matters. However, FINRA’s records are not always complete according to a Wall Street Journal story that checked with 26 state regulators and found that at least 38,400 brokers had regulatory or financial red flags such as a personal bankruptcy that showed up in state records but not on BrokerCheck. More disturbing is the fact that 19,000 out of those 38,400 brokers had spotless BrokerCheck records.

Broker Spotlight: Customer Complaints Against Merrill Lynch Broker John Boukamp

January 22, 2016 | by Staff Attorney

The securities lawyers of Gana Weinstein LLP are investigating customer complaints filed with The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority’s (FINRA) against broker John Boukamp (Boukamp). According to BrokerCheck records there are at least 10 customer complaints that have been filed against Boukamp. The most recent customer complaint against Boukamp filed in November 2013 alleges that Boukamp, from December 2011 until September 2013 engaged in excessive trading, sometimes referred to as churning, and made unsuitable investments. This complaint was denied. In October 2013, another customer complained and alleged unsuitable investment recommendations and unauthorized trading from June 2012 to September 2012 resulting in a loss of $522,000. The case was resolved with the customer receiving $275,000.

Brokers have a responsibility treat investors fairly which includes obligations such as making only suitable investments for the client. In order to make a suitable recommendation the broker must meet certain requirements. First, there must be reasonable basis for the recommendation the product or security based upon the broker’s investigation and due diligence into the investment’s properties including its benefits, risks, tax consequences, and other relevant factors. Second, the broker then must match the investment as being appropriate for the customer’s specific investment needs and objectives such as the client’s retirement status, long or short term goals, age, disability, income needs, or any other relevant factor.

The number of customer complaints against Boukamp is high relative to his peers. According to InvestmentNews, only about 12% of financial advisors have any type of disclosure event on their records. Brokers must publicly disclose certain types of reportable events on their CRD including but not limited to customer complaints. In addition to disclosing client disputes brokers must divulge IRS tax liens, judgments, and criminal matters. However, FINRA’s records are not always complete according to a Wall Street Journal story that checked with 26 state regulators and found that at least 38,400 brokers had regulatory or financial red flags such as a personal bankruptcy that showed up in state records but not on BrokerCheck. More disturbing is the fact that 19,000 out of those 38,400 brokers had spotless BrokerCheck records.

FINRA Sanctions The Investment Center Broker Leon Vaccarelli Over Unauthorized Trades

January 19, 2016 | by Staff Attorney

The securities lawyers of Gana Weinstein LLP are investigating customer complaints against broker Leon Vaccarelli (Vaccarelli). The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) brought an enforcement action (FINRA No. 2014042302001) against Vaccarelli. In addition, there are at least two customer complaints against Vaccarelli and two judgements or liens. The customer complaints against Vaccarelli allege a number of securities law violations including that the broker misrepresented investments and mismanaged the account among other claims.

In a FINRA regulatory action against Vaccarelli, the agency alleged that between 2011 through 2015 Vaccarelli exercised discretion in four customers’ accounts. FINRA found that Vaccarelli exercised discretion even though he did not have written authorization from the customers to place discretionary trades. In addition, Vaccarelli’s brokerage firm had not approved and accepted the accounts as discretionary. FINRA also found that on four annual compliance questionnaires between 2011 and 2014, Vaccarelli falsely certified that he did not handle any customer accounts on a discretionary basis.

Advisors are not allowed to engage in unauthorized trading. Such trading occurs when a broker sells securities without the prior authority from the investor. All brokers are under an obligation to first discuss trades with the investor before executing them under NYSE Rule 408(a) and FINRA Rules 2510(b). These rules explicitly prohibit brokers from making discretionary trades in a customers’ non-discretionary accounts. The SEC has also found that unauthorized trading to be fraudulent nature because no disclosure could be more important to an investor than to be made aware that a trade will take place.

SEC Claims Advisory Firm Atlantic Asset Management Hid Conflicts of Interests From Clients

January 16, 2016 | by Staff Attorney

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) announced fraud charges against a Stamford, Connecticut based investment advisory firm Atlantic Asset Management LLC (AAM) and accused the firm of investing clients in certain Native American tribal corporation bonds with a hidden financial benefit to a broker-dealer affiliated with the firm. The SEC alleged that AAM invested more than $43 million of client funds in the illiquid bonds without disclosing the conflict of interest that the bond sales generated a private placement fee for the broker-dealer.

According to the SEC, AAM committed securities fraud in August 2014 and in April 2015 by investing client funds in debt securities without telling its clients that the investments would benefit individuals affiliated with one of AAM’s owners, BFG Socially Responsible Investments Ltd. (BFG), which holds a significant ownership interest in AAM’s parent holding company due to an undisclosed investment in AAM. AAM never disclosed BFG’s capital contribution to and indirect ownership in AAM to its clients or in its filings with the SEC in violation of the federal securities laws. The SEC stated that these dicsloures were not made even after BFG’s principal representative was charged by the SEC and criminally in an unrelated securities fraud.

The SEC alleged that BFG has used its undisclosed ownership interest in AAM to dictate AAM’s investment of its clients’ funds in ways that benefited BFG and its principals and affiliates. The SEC alleged that clients’ funds were invested in dubious, illiquid bonds issued by a Native American tribal corporation at the behest of individuals associated with BFG.

Broker Garland Benton Terminated For Private Securities Transactions

January 14, 2016 | by Staff Attorney

The investment lawyers of Gana Weinstein LLP are investigating customer complaints against broker Garland Benton (Benton). There are at least 3 customer complaints against Benton, one of which appears to be filed in connection with the solicitation of private securities transactions. In addition, there is one employment separations disclosed. One customer complaint alleges that Benton caused $946,670 in damages by failing to conduct due diligence on an investment while the firm has responded that the Benton was not a representative of the customer. In April 2015, Reef Securities Inc. (Reef) terminated Benton stating that the broker was permitted to resign after allegations were made that Benton failed to follow firm policies and procedures regarding private securities transactions from 2008. The conduct allegedly engaged in by Benton is also referred to as “selling away” in the industry.

Benton entered the securities industry in 2002. Between October 2002 and April 2015, Benton was associated with Reef.

In the industry the term selling away refers to when a financial advisor solicits investments in companies, promissory notes, or other securities that are not pre-approved by the broker’s affiliated firm. However, even though when these incidents occur the brokerage firm claims ignorance of their advisor’s activities the firm is obligated under the FINRA rules to properly monitor and supervise its employees in order to detect and prevent brokers from offering investments in this fashion. In order to properly supervise their brokers each firm is required to have procedures in order to monitor the activities of each advisor’s activities and interaction with the public. Selling away misconduct often occurs where brokerage firms either fail to put in place a reasonable supervisory system or fail to actually implement that system. Supervisory failures allow brokers to engage in unsupervised misconduct that can include all manner improper conduct including selling away.